THE SELF-CENTERED ORIENTATION IN
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Thesls Ior II'Ic Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

James 1. Linden
1965

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE ' DATE DUE DATE DUE

. JAN 2 5 ZUUJL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

;

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
WNW-i

I..." me? 1010 ”rm-a" ’..'.‘jgv‘ , x "
. . ‘ .535 IF". .“H-J. ‘ “1..

, ’ - —‘.- ' 3“
I? (i). " n u“. -2
7.? 3“. n my

 

ABSTRACT

THE SELF-CENTERED ORIENTATION IN
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

by James L Linden

Although the concept of orientation to others has been
theoretically defined and discussed (Jones and Thibaut, 1955; Bron-
fenbrenner, 1958) , no one has ever empirically investigated whether
people do differ reliably and consistently in the ways they orient them-
selves to others, The present research was designed to explore the

following hypothe s e s:

1. People have consistent and reliable differences in their
orientations toward other people;

2. Differences in these orientations are significnatly related
to traits of personality;

3. Differences in these orientations are significantly related
to the ability to make accurate predictions about others.

To test these hypotheses, a projective test of orientation
was developed (The Human Relations Scale) . Its theoretical basis
was Bronfenbrenner's delineation of orientation into first person,
second person, third person and non-personal types. Scores on this

test were then correlated with inventory measures of personality and

Jame s 1. Linden

with measures of interpersonal sensitivity. Results of the first
hypothesis revealed that the first person orientation was by far
the most consistent of the four (r = . 77), and that people who
were first person oriented were least likely to have tendencies
to the other three. (Correlation with second person orientation
equalled -. 51; with third person orientation equalled -. 29; with
non-personal orientation equalled -. 76). This result was ex-
plained within the psychoanalytic theory positing self-orientation
to be the most primitive of the four ways of looking at people, and
thus the most likely to exist in the purest form. Either the first
person oriented individual has never progressed past the self-
oriented stage of development, or he has regressed back to that
stage in the face of conflict.

Relationships between personality variables and orien-
tation were also explained within the psychoanalytic concept of re-
gression. First person oriented people were found to be more
impulsive and emotional than others and it is these types of people
who are most susceptible to escaping from frustration via defense
mechanisms such as regression.

Non-personally oriented individuals were found to be
calm, just the opposite of the emotional first person orientation.
This relationship was explained from both an intuitive and a statisti-

cal point of View.

Jame s I . Linden

A relationship was also found between second person
orientation and achievement motivation. Since the tests were given in
a classroom situation and since the second person alternatives were
the most altruistic, grade-conscious students seemed to express their
motivation by marking the "best" answers in each case.

The only finding relevant to the third hypothesis was a
trend (r = .43) in the first study between third person orientation and
second person sensitivity. If this relationship is validated with a more
refined test of orientation it would mean that sensitivity training
programs should attempt to change traineesi orientations to third
person; i.e. , we will be better able to make predictions of what a
person thinks of himself if we look at him through other people's eyes .

Although the findings of this study were essentially negative,
the possibility of significant relationships between orientation to others
and the ability to understand people remains, and its potential implica-
tions are so important that further refinement of the Human Relations
Scale may be helpful in clarifying the presently uncertain relationship

between orientation and sensitivity to people.

 

THE SELF-CENTERED ORIENTATION IN

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

BY

Jame s I. Linden

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Ps ychology

1965

To my parents ,

Samuel and Evelyn Linden,
who taught their children

the meaning of sensitivity;

and to my brother,

Russ,

who learned his lesson well.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr.
Henry Clay Smith. His patience, understanding and stimulating
ideas were of immeasurable importance in the execution of this
thesis .

My thanks are also extended to Dr. Joseph Reyher
and Dr. John H. Wakeley for their helpful suggestions and

criticisims .

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................iii
INTRODUCTION....................1

HISTORYOFTHEPROBLEM . . . . . . . ... . . . . .

Types Of orientation 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Orientation and Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orientation and Sensitivity to People . . . . . . . . .

NU‘IN N

HY.POTHESES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 13

METHOD 0 O I O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 14

The Human Relations Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Inventory Measures of Personality , , , ., , , , , , , 18
The Measures of Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

RESULTS 0 e o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 24
HypOtheSiS 1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 24
HypotheSiS 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 26
HYPOtheSiS '3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 29

DISCUSSION 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 30

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

REFERENCES.................... 41

iv

LIST OF TAB LES

Table Page

1. Factor loadings and reliabilities of the five per-

sonality scales, the Protebob Intentory . . . . . 20
2. Internal consistency reliabilities of the four types

Of orientation 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 24
3. Internal consistency reliabilities of the final

administration of the Human Relations Scale . . . 25
4. Intercorrelations between the four types of orien-

tations . O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 26
5. Correlations between first person orientation

and emotionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Correlations between first person orientation

and impulsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Correlation between non-personal orientation

and calmness o o o o 'o o o o o o o o o o o 28

Appendix
A

B

LIST OF APPENDICES

The Human Relations Scale . . . . .
The Protebob Personality Inventory . .
Test of ability to judge people . . , ,

The Human Relations Scale in final form

vi

Page
45
54
58

67

INTRODUCTION

The literature of social sensitivity reveals little research
on how individuals orient themselves to others . While the concept of
orientation has been discussed and defined (Jones and Thibaut, 1955;
Bronfenbrenner, 1958) , no one has investigated the crucial question,
"Do people have enough consistency and stability in their orientations
to justify the use of such a concept?"

The present study was therefore based on the following
assumptions: 1) People have consistent differences in the ways they
orient themselves to others; 2) differences in peoples' orientations
are related to traits of personality; and 3) these differences are re-
lated to the ability to understand others . To test these assumptions,
a projective test of orientation was developed, and scores on it were
related to inventory measures of personality and to tests of the abil-

ity to understand others .

HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM

In this section, a discussion of orientation to others is

followed by a review of the relationship of these orientations to per-
sonality and to sensitivity-—the ability to make accurate predictions

about others' behavior.

Types of Orientations

 

We assume that each person has a frame of reference
from within which he observes and evaluates others in terms of their
behavior. their feelings and their attitudes. We have called this frame
of reference, or set, "orientation. " The following review is based on
Bronfenbrenner's classification of interpersonal sensitivity into four
types—-first person, second person, third person and non-personal,
and on Jones and Thibaut's division of orientation into the first,

second and third person types .

First person orientation

 

First person orientation refers to a set or frame of ref-
erence adopted in interpersonal relationships in which the perceiver
interacts with others on the basis of what the others think of him.

This is analogous to what Bronfenbrenner calls first person sensitivity,

or A's ability to predict what others think of A. Jones and Thibaut's

conception of first person orientation is based on a motivational factor
causing the individual to perceive another from a ”What can he do for
me?" frame of reference. The interaction will continue as long as
the person is seen to be able to offer the perceiver material or psy-
chological comfort. Jones and Thibaut divide this set into four cate-
gories on the basis of the type of motivation responsible for the first
person orientation. 1) The greater our need to learn about our
environment, the more positively a person will be regarded if he is
reliably informative. 2) The more insecure we feel about our values
and opinions, the more attracted we will be to those who agree with
our way of thinking. 3) The more we are motivated to control others,
the more we will be attracted to those who play the submissive role in
their interpersonal interactions. 4) Finally, the stronger our need
to achieve a goal, the more we will like those who can facilitate its
attainment. In all of these situations, the questions implicitly asked
by the perceiver are, "What does this person think of me ?" and "What

can he do for me ?, " the essence of the first person orientation.

Second person orientation

 

Second person orientation has been conceptualized in this
research as a frame of reference or predisposition in an interpersonal
interaction based on a motivation to understand the determinants of
another's behavior unrelated to his association with the observer.

The observer asks himself, "What does this person think of himself?

Why does he behave the way he does ?" This orientation is derived

from Bronfenbrenner's concept of second person sensitivity, or A's
ability to predict what B thinks of himself. Jones and Thibaut call
this type of inferential set the "causal—genetic set“ in which the ob-
server views others from a deterministic point of view. The person
is not seen as controlling his behavior completely, as there are many
parts of his overt behavior which seem logically unrelated to each
other. These "missing links" are supplied by the observer accord-
ing to his own implicit theory of personality. Chance and Meaders'
(1960) concept of psychological-mindedness is similar to second
person orientation; i.e., "Why does this person behave the way he

does?“

Third person orientation

 

A person is said to have a predominantly third person
orientation when he evaluates another on the basis of what the other
person's friends think of him. "How does he fit into his social milieu?
Is he well-liked by his associates ?" are some of the questions this
observer might be thinking. Jones and Thibaut call this the ”situa-
tion-matching set, " an inferential set based on a tendency to judge
people in terms of how they fit into the situations or social patterns
in which they live. This type of orientation is based on Bronfenbrenner's
concept of third person sensitivity; however, where third person

sensitivity refers to A's ability to predict how B feels about others,

third person orientation derives from A's motivation to evaluate B

on the basis of what B's friends think of B.

Non -per sonal orientation

 

Non-personal orientation is a frame of reference adopted
in interpersonal interactions based primarily on observing the objec-
tive facts of the situation with little interest or motivation to determine
what the person thinks of himself, what he thinks of the observer, or
what his friends think of him. The non~personally oriented individual
sees others in an objective, impersonal light, devoid of his relation-
ships with others. This type of orientation is analogous to Bronfen-
brenner's concept of non-personal sensitivity, or the ability to make
objectively validated predictions about another unrelated to his person-
to-person interacts. Questions the non-personally oriented individual
asks himself might be, “How much does he weigh? Does he have a
college degree ? Is he creative ?"

To summarize, the four ways individuals orient themselves
to others in their social interactions are based on four different moti-
vational factors: "What does this person think of me ?" (first-person) ,
“What does he think of himself?" (second person), "What do his
friends think of him?" (third person), and "What are the objective,
unbiased facts about this individual? " (non-personal orientation) .

We have assumed that the motivational orientation a person adopts in
his social interactions is a relevant variable in the individual's per-

sonality and in his ability to understand others .

Orientation and Pe r sonality

 

Below is a summary of work done concerning the ways
people orient themselves to others as related to various personality
characteristics .

According to most psychologists (especially psychoanaly-
tically oriented ones), the newborn child is completely narcissistic.
He is concerned with satisfying his drives, naive of the existence of
other pe0ple in the not-self world. Even when he learns that there
are objects which are not self, he is concerned primarily with self-
satisfaction, and evaluates others (mother, breast) in terms of
their ability to satisfy his instinctual drives (Sullivan, 1945) . Thus,
according to psychoanalysis, the new-born child views others from a
narcissistic, self-oriented point of view, and it is only later by
achieving meaningful object relations and a sense of reality that other
ways of evaluating people develop (Fenichel, 1941) .

Dymond .( 1949) found people who assume little similarity
with others (i.e. of low empathy) to be first person oriented and
emotionally immature, further evidence for the relationship between
first person orientation and primitive modes of behavior.

In a study conducted by Chance and Meaders ( 1960) it
was found that people of high empathic orientation (i.e. , those who
tend to see themselves as being quite similar to others) were non-

conforming and socially aloof. Further, they established a significant

negative relationship between l'psychological mindedness" (second

person orientation) and empathy. People oriented in their social inter-
actions toward putting themselves in the other‘s place were less
accurate in the amount of similarity they assumed than the less psy-
chologically minded. Mullin ( 1962) confirmed this finding by con-
cluding that empathic drive or psychological-mindedness was negatively
related to accuracy of assumed similarity: the more we try to
empathize with others, the less we actually succeed.

It seems plausible to assume that since third person
oriented individuals judge other people on the basis of what others
think of them, people of this orientation would have a low self-concept
and have little confidence in their own abilities. Since low self-esteem
is often caused by destructive parental attitudes (Sullivan's "reflected
appraisals, " 1945), attitudes of both peers and adults might well be
major determinants of third person orientation.

We have conceived the non-personally oriented individual
to be the calm, even-tempered member of the group, a person who
interacts with others from within an objective, impersonal frame of

reference regardless of their relationships with other people.

Orientation and Sensitivity to People

 

The greatest potential significance of differentiating and

categorizing interpersonal orientations is that if they do indeed exist

as we have postulated, one or more of them may profoundly influence
our observations of others and our ability to understand their behavior.
Ifthis is so, if orientation is a relevant variable in understanding
others, it may have profound implications on the goals and methods

of training in interpersonal sensitivity.

The Components of Sensitivity

 

Sensitivity to people may be operationally defined as the
ability to predict accurately another's thoughts, feelings or actions
in a given situation (Smith, 1966) . Before Cronbach's study in 1955
investigators of social sensitivity had implicitly assumed that the
trait they were studying was a unidimensional one. That this was not
the case was established by Cronbach. Below is a summary of the
components of sensitivity, and of relationships which may exist or
have been found to be present between types of orientation and the
ability to understand others .

A person's le_ve_l in judging others is his general tendency
to rate others high or low on an'evaluative rating scale. _I:EV_€1
accuracy refers to the degree to which a person's level corresponds
to the actual level of the person judged, as measured by ratings he
gives himself on the same traits.

Spread refers to the amount of the rating scale a judge
uses in his judgments of others. The degree to which his rating de-

viations correspond to those of the self-rating is a measure of spread

accuracy.

The concept of empathy has been theoretically discussed

and defined numerous times in the literature (Titchener, 1915;
Lindzey, 1954', Newcomb, 1957; Kuenzli, 1959; Silkiner, 1962;
Mullin, 1962; Broxton, 1963) . However, the first person to opera-
tionalize the definition was Dymond in 1948. Her tests of empathy
attempted to measure the amount of similarity people assumed with
members of the same and opposite sex. The amount of assumed

similarity was called empathy. Empathic accuracy was the accuracy

 

of assumed similarity--the degree to which assumed similarity
corresponded to actual similarity. Dymond found high empathizers
to be introverted, emotionally immature, self-centered (first person
oriented) , and to have had unsatisfactory early family relationships.

Group sensitivity (called stereotype accuracy by Cron-

,‘O
I

 

bach) is a person's ability to predict the typical attitudes, interests
and behavior of a particular group (Johnson, 1963) . Johnson found
this ability to be related to leadership, linguistic talent, liberalism,
non-conformity, observational accuracy and the ability to profit from
experience. Bronfenbrenner showed group sensitivity and inter-
personal sensitivity to be virtually unrelated (r = .05) .

Interpersonal sensitivity was defined by Grossman as

 

"the ability to differentiate between individuals in terms of their
thoughts, feelings, and attitudes, and, to use this knowledge in

making predictions about the individual" (1930) . Grossman found

10

the ability to be generalized over sexes and to be associated with

observational perceptiveness and open mindedness. Bruni (1963)
confirmed the relationship between observational perceptiveness
and the ability to make predictions about an individual.

Bronfenbrenner's theoretical and empirical study on the
methodological considerations involved in measuring sensitivity
divided interpersonal sensitivity into four categories; first, second,
third and non-personal. Since our conceptualization of the four types
of orientation is based on Bronfenbrenner's four types of sensitivity,
relationships between orientation and the ability to understand others
will be discussed here .

The more first person orientated we are, the less will
be our ability to understand and empathize with other people. If
we concern ourselves with others only to the extent that they can be
of use to us or think highly of us, how can we be observant enough
(Bruni, 1958) , empathic enough (Mullin, 1962; Dymond, 1954) ,
sensitive enough (Grossman, 1963; Johnson, 1963) or interested
enough in others to understand them and make valid judgments about
them apart from their relationships with us ? If this degree of first
person orientation existed, sensitivity would be non-existent and
ego-centrism would rule. A major goal of sensitivity training pro-
grams (Wechsler, 1962) is to reduce the degree to which people are

first person oriented, enabling them to see others in a light uncolored

11

by the others' relationship to them. Classical Psychoanalysts strive

to "remove themselves from the situation" and look at the patient
from as non-ego-involved a frame of reference as possible. The
reason that they undergo analysis themselves is to be able to recog-
nize when their judgments are being colored by an ego-involvement
on their part (countertransference; Wolstein, I964) .

Second person sensitivity (the ability to predict what
another thinks of himself) is similar to Golden's E2 (Empathy 2) , or
the ability to judge another‘s judgments of himself. In other words,
how closely do my predictions of X‘s self-rating scale correspond to
his actual scale (Golden, 1953) ? While this ability might seem to be
a direct function of second person orientation, many studies have
shown that empathic. drive is unrelated to ability in this area (Mullin;
Chance and Meaders) . In fact, numerous studies have shown that
clinical psychologists, who are most definitely "psychologically
minded, " are no better at predicting certain kinds of behavior than
are non-psychologistsx (Estes, 1938; Luft, 1950; Weiss, 1963) .
Clinicians would argue that all of these studies were concerned with
predictions of present or past behavior and that none pertained to
predicting how an individual will behave in the future under stress
or anxiety-producing situations, an essential‘component of sensitivity

to clinicians .

12

Golden defines E1 as "the ability to judge others' judg-
ments of others, “ an ability which would seem to be related to third
person orientation, or the motivation to determine what A's friends
think of A. As mentioned, this differed slightly from Bronfenbrenner's
idea of third person sensitivity (see page 4).

Non-personal sensitivity as defined by Bronfenbrenner
refers to "A's recognition of B's feelings about certain physical
objects or abstract ideas which have no reference to particular
individuals or groups. “ This ability would seem to be related to
non-personal orientation, in which the observer is concerned with

impersonally evaluating an individual's behavior and predicting his

general feelings about life.

HYPOTHESES

The preceding review of the literature on orientation and
its relationship to personality and sensitivity suggests a myriad of
potential hypotheses relating the three variables. The present research,
however, was designed primarily to investigate the nature of the ways
people orient themselves to others, and how these orientations are
influenced by personality and affect our ability to understand others .
Therefore, the following general hypotheses were explored:

1. People have consistent and reliable differences in their
orientations toward other people;

2. Differences in these orientations are significantly related to
traits of personality;

3. Differences in these orientations are significantly related to

differences in the ability to make accurate predictions of
others.

13

METHOD

To test these hypotheses, the major task was to construct

a projective test (The Human Relations Scale) in order to differentiate
and measure the four types of orientation to others. The measures of
orientation were then correlated with scores on a five-factor personality
inventory (The Protebob Personality Inventory) developed by Grossman.
To test the relationships between orientation and sensitivity, measures
of the latter were obtained from various sensitivity tests described

below.

The Human Relations Scale

 

The Human Relations Scale measuring orientation to
people is a projective test consisting of fifty-two multiple choice ques-
tions based on hypothetical situations involving various kinds of inter-
personal interactions. The subjects are asked to pick the alternative
which most closely approximates the way they think the hypothetical
person would behave in each situation. Each alternative in every item
represents one of the four types of orientation to others; therefore by
adding the number of items a person answers from each orientation
we can determine to what extent each orientation is present in his
personality. Following is the method used in developing the final form

of the Human Relations Scale.

14

15

The first Human Relations Scale consisted of eighty-nine

 

items constructed on the basis of trichotomizing the concept of orien-
tation into what we now call first, second, and third person orienta-
tions. At this point in the research, non-personal orientation was not
included in the test. Furthermore, the conceptualization of first,
second and third person orientations was not the same as it became
later, the three types being called self, other and social orientations,
respectively. A person with a "self orientation" was said to interact
with others on the basis of "What kind of friend would this person be ? "
This is similar to first person orientation, which is based on answer-
ing the question "What does this person think of me?" An "other
orientation" was based on a desire to understand the reasons for the
other person's behavior: "Why does this person behave as he does ?"
This is virtually the same as our present second person orientation.
Finally, the "social orientation" was one in which, the person asks,
"How does this individual function in his social milieu?, " similar to
third person orientation, which is based on the question, "What do
others think of him?" The eighty-nine items used in the first H-R
Scale were constructed and refined with special emphasis on equating
the social desirability of each alternative. That is, the items were
reworded and modified to attempt to have each choice on each item

be answered by approximately one —third of the subjects .

16

The second H-R Scale had two major revisions. First,

 

the addition of the non-personal orientation alternative to each item;-
second, a process of reducing the total number of items from the
original eighty-nine down to fifty-six by the final administration of
the form. It was with the second form of the H-R Scale that the
current names of the four types of orientation came into being. The
test was constructed so that each item (or interpersonal contact
situation) had four alternatives corresponding to each of the four
possible orientations. Each subject was again asked to pick the al-
ternative which most nearly expressed how he thought the hypotheti-
cal person would behave in the ambiguous situation. A sample question
follows:

The Case of Albert: Little Albert is a schoolboy in Germany.

He is doing below average work in math and sees his teacher
for help. What is Albert thinking during the conference ?

 

1. "He is one of my best teachers." (N)
2. "I wonder if he's interested in helping me. " (1)
3. "I wonder what kind of teacher he thinks he is . " (2)
4. "I wonder if his colleagues respect him for seeing
students like me . " I 3)

In the above example, if a person answered number one he would be

said to have had a non-personal orientation in this situation. It is an
objective statement about the person, unrelated to his feelings about
or relationships with others. Number two is obviously a first person

alternative, revealing a preoccupation with the person's feelings

17

toward "me. " Number three asks, "What does this person think of
himself?, " our definition of second person orientation; and number
four is an attitude based on the teacher's reputation with others, or
third person orientation.

The statistical refinement and shortening of the test
was done by a series of administrations to various classes at Michi-
gan State University during the Winter Term, 1965. After each
administration a social desirability test was done to attempt to even
the proportion of subjects answering each alternative. In addition,
item analyses were performed after each administration to improve
those alternatives which proved to be negatively discriminating.
That is, if the twenty—seven per cent who scored the highest on
first person orientation answered a particular item from a first
person orientation less often than the lowest twenty seven per cent,
this item was "negatively discriminating" and either dropped from
the test or radically modified before being used in the next from of
the scale. The item analysis was applied until the test was shortened
to fifty—six items, consisting of the most discriminating of the original
items in the scale.

The third H-R Scale was a further refinement of the fifty-

 

six item scale used in the Winter, 1965. study. It consisted of the
fifty-two most discriminating items from the above test, plus some

rewording of certain items to improve their social desirability.

18

A copy of the H-R Scale is found in Appendix A. The sample question

on page 16 illustrates the structure of the instrument.

A final statistical refinement of the Human Relations
Scale consisted of scoring only those items which proved to be posi-
tively discriminating by at least twenty per cent. It consisted of
forty-two items of two, three, or four alternatives each, with each
type of orientation appearing about thirty times. The final form of

the Scale is shown in Appendix D.

The Inventory Measures of Personality

 

To test the hypothesis that different types of orientation
are associated with traits of personality, measures of the latter were
obtained from a five -factor personality inventory. Development of
the five personality factors used in this study began with Hershey‘s
( 1958) condensation of numerous items from various personality
scales (MMPI, etc.) into twenty-two separate scales, each measur-
ing a particular factor. Using these twenty-two variables, Grossman
( 1963) again factor analyzed and isolated five virtually independent
personality traits. These traits were measured by scales of sixty
items each in the Fall of 1964 and Winter of 1965. In the Spring of
1965 Grossman again item analyzed the sixty items down to forty on
each of the five scales, using the forty items which showed the

highest correlations with each over-all scale. (See Appendix B for

19

the final form of the Protebob Personality Scale.) Table 1 shows

the four or five highest factor loadings for each of the five basic
personality traits used in the final form of the scale, along with
each scale's repeat reliability, and internal consistency.

Other personality variables correlated with orientation
were: (1) each subject's overall grade-point average at Michigan
State University; (2) each subject's scores on the College Qualifi-
cation Test, taken by all entering freshmen, and (3) scores on
class quizzes and examinations taken by the students as a part of

the regular course work.

The Measures of Sensitivity

 

To test the hypothesis that orientation is a relevant
variable in the process of understanding others, measures of sensi-
tivity were correlated with scores on the Human Relations Scale.
Measures of social sensitivity were obtained from the Cline Film
Tests and from Silkiner's Test of Ability to Judge People. The
components of social sensitivity measured by these scales were
observational and inference accuracy.

Observational accuracy is an important component of

 

sensitivity. People who are observant tend to be able to predict
the behavior of groups (group sensitivity) and differences between

individuals (interpersonal sensitivity) better than non-observant

20

pm . .3014. msoimweuO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om . Douucoo Hacofioge swam DOE—sou 1803056 304
E. . woudcmwuo peuwamwuocb
Nw . mSOwfiflgdw mSOHfin—ENGD
em. em. 8:95.80 2:. e. guesses 23. .e
mm . >uSmsxem umeficmfi nmfim .Sfimsxom 30$.de Bod
we . msgfifi popue>sbxm muggy: pounce/055
we . mood; 3.59800 swam mood; 389806 30.4
N a. 83? 33:3 2.3 $3? Queues swam
mm . om . pouno>mHuxm 9.3. P... peuuo>ouu£ 63H. .m
N... . 3:935 ezmmfiexm
Tm . 5.8.3 300
mm . mmeCenm3m>u0mcem .504 mmecoumsvm >H0mcem awwm
3. . 03.9.54 133:0
on . EEO Hmcofioem
Hm. mm. 922m 93. m> 33min: 2.3. .N
a... . 3:39.08 $68.35..
No . ofimdgfimo 89.83me
mo . acepflcooufiem oocopucooufiom 304
I. . $5.3 >fi>30m Awfim doc/0H >fi>fium 301m
*3. . “.52:an omeEsan
mm. mm. 30m 9:. m> mdofidmO 9:. .H

 

twufiwnmum knocoumdmcoO HmchuGH

 

mfimum. pegged bum. mfimuH 05mm oFH.
meudmmoz mo >fiZn—mfiom

 

 

ESSEX/CH nopopofw 6L“ .mmamom >3~dd0muem mag 05 mo mosaic—~30.“ was mwfipmoa notch-.. .H 3an

21

 

.mumwuogfi. no .3030... 033 .0 m0 030?. H003
10.30033 £315 030.3 3003 05. mo 03.335950 gm“: 03$ 3 3.6305 mo 035350 30.2.93. 0:0 Hofimpfim>

 

.mu0fluo 03.3 no m0noum 0» «00903.23 tnfimzunfr 0nd 0300 0:0 do m0n000 05. can 35. on— ow;
«33 0.20 0033.39.03 31:00“ 00.23.0008 33 mo 00G0pc0m0p5 0:» can 1323.330 05. 03.3.H0u0p
On 3303 OH u0uwm 3:06.30 0800 033 Cu p0u0uwfifiap00n C003 0>m£ 03.000 03.3. “Coimbmwfiapmgm

 

.nofiumw 04.3 3.33.? :p0umudu00: 3. $0.3 «04.3 >Z>00A
30: 03030 21. . $305306 30.: 33.3 3.0.00. 0:... H025 550$...“ 383305300 0AM. .0303 p0u50008
>H0udumm0m mm no m0uoom mo 30.3090 ngomm 0A» .3. p0c¢0p 0.5 35.3 3.000. 03m 03:. "3.0.3050 Houomh

 

. 2m . 0» ow . V
fiwws 0am 030:0”.3380 H9303: 33 .zuc0dw0mcoO £03.30 £0.00 0» @330." 130030 0am. 0180
0 5:33 0830”; 03.? mo £0.00 Go mu0BmG0 udfi Om p0N>H0Gm E03. C003 0>0£ 03.000 3:“. "03.93.05... 803

 

: .033: 3.0: H0330 05. can :053: 0803. 03.3 mo :43 p0u030cm 0>m£ 3 >ummm0o0c ma 3.
03.000 0:» Ho >cm no 0.800 um0£wwn no “0033 05. 3.330 0H. ”mn03050 :033: was : 05.3: WENSMSUH

 

£03090 03.0.3030 “003 0a”— .H0Bmdou >053 bag? 0» 0.0 50”:
>u0>0 so c3033 H336 03.30350 ”:23 Om @03300 can @330? G003 03m: 0803 "0803 m5u£dnfi90z

 

.H

$H8G0>GH bongounm 33 mo ac0EmoH0>0Q 03.3 E mm0um

 

.0303 @0030.“ 03.3 mo mwcwpdofi HOHUMh *

 

 

ow . 3.333.0m 3.3330982
mm . umhguomsoocoz umwauofluou fimwoom
be . 330v? mdowmfigm 99/0309 mzofiwflmwm
:0u0f: A0>Sm>u0mcoov
no . 0mnmno no“ mm0§bmom 09:30 on. 00:33.00m
4o . om . mumwoflfimfim 05H. 9.. mumfimcofimm 03:...

.m

22

people (Johnson, 1963; Grossman, 1963). Measures of observa-
tional accuracy were obtained by using Cline's (1955) film tests of
three men and three women, each lasting five minutes. The test
used to determine subjects' accuracy was originally developed by
Harris (1962) and subsequently modified by Bruni (1963) and Gross-
man for use in this study. Two measures of observation were obtained:
Appearance-~the judge's accuracy in observing the physical character-
istics of the six people in the films; and Conversation--accuracy in
observing what the interviewee said during the five minute interview.
The Cline films were used in both the first and second studies (Fall
and Winter, 1964-65) . There was no measure of observational ac-
curacy in the Spring study.

Inference accuracy is synonomous with social sensitivity,

 

referring to aperson's ability to make inferences about others'
behavior in given situations. Again the Cline films were used in the
Fall and Winter studies with modifications of the six separate instru-
ments (one for each interviewee) used by Cline (1960) in conjunction
with the same filmed interviews. Each instrument consisted of thirty
true-false items concerning inferences about the interviewee that
might be made from observing him in the film. These were then
compared with what the interviewee actually said of himself on the
same items concerning his personality characteristics, beliefs,

family relations and future actions. Measures of second person

23

inference (what the interviewee thinks of himself--the same as
second person sensitivity) and third person inference (what others
say about him--third person sensitivity) were obtained from these
thirty item instruments.

The measure of inference accuracy used in the Spring
study was Silkiner's unpublished (1960) expansion and revision of a
test developed by Trumbo (1955) . Silkiner's final form had an odd-
even reliability of . 77 and a test-retest reliability of . 59, both higher
than Trumbo's original test. Silkiner's test of Ability to Judge People
consists of 145 true -false questions about a number of actual case
histories. It contains a combination of second, third and non-personal
inferences so that direct comparison with the Cline test was not pos-
sible. Therefore, the obtained measurements are an indication of
the subjects' overall inference accuracy (or sensitivity) regardless
of the second, third or non-personal sub-groups. A copy of this
test is found in Appendix C.

Because of practical difficulties in obtaining measures of

first person sensitivity, there were no measures of this type obtained

in the present study.

RESULTS

The first hypothesis, that people have consistent dif-

 

ferences in their orientations, was only partially confirmed. "Con-
sistency"of orientations was measured by each scale's internal
consistency reliability (using Kuder-Richardson‘s formula No. 20) .
The only sub—scale which showed significant reliability was that
measuring first person orientation.

Table 2. --lnternal consistency reliabilities of the four
types of orientation (N = 50)

 

 

 

Orientation Reliability (K-R No. 20)
First person .77
Second person .45
Third person . 26
Non-personal .47

 

Item analysis of the test revealed that some items had
alternatives with discriminations of less than twenty per cent. The
test was therefore readministered using only those alternatives with
a minimum of two alternatives with a discrimination of more than
twenty per cent. The final administration consisted of forty two items

of two, three or four alternatives apiece, each orientation being

24

25

present approximately thirty times. Results are shown in Table 3.
On both administrations, the third person scale had the lowest reli-
ability; since the large discrepancy in reliabilities was statistically
suspicious, a comparison of the variances of the four scales was made.
It showed the third person scale to have significantly lower variances

than the rest. Statistically, this explained the poor reliabilities of the

third person scale .

Table 3. ~t-Internal consistency reliabilities of the final
administration of the Human Relations Scale (N = 50)

 

 

 

Orientation Reliability (K-R No. 20)
First person .72
Second person . 46
Third person . 06
Non-personal '. 61

 

Of much interest in determining the nature and differences
in orientations was the degree of independence between the four
measures of orientation. From Table 4 it may be concluded that
people who were first person oriented had the fewest tendencies to

the other three types. That is, this orientation was the least indepen-

dent of the four.

26

Table 4. --Intercorrelations between the four types of orientations

 

 

 

(N = 50)
Orientation First Second Third Non-personal
First person 1.00 -. 51** —.29* -.76**
Second person . . 1.00 -.29* .02
Third person . . . . 1.00 .08
Non-personal . . . . . . 1.00

 

* Significant at .05 level
=”Significant at . 001 level
To summarize these results, first person orientation was found
to be the most consistent and mutually exclusive of the four types.
People who adopt this orientation are most definitely first person
oriented and least likely to be anything else.

Hypothesis two, concerning the relationship between orientation

 

and personality traits, revealed the following trends:

1. In the first study (conducted in the Winter, 1965), first
person oriented individuals tended to be more emotional than others.
This trend was not confirmed in the second study in the Spring, 1965:
Males showed a slight trend in that direction, but females showed no

relationship whatsoeve r .

27

Table 5. --Correlations between first person orientation and emotionality

 

 

 

Winter Study Spring Study
Group (N = 100) (N = 50)
Males .48** (N243) .16 (N=27)
Females .30* (N=57) -.03 (N=23)
Combined . 43** . 09

 

*Significant beyond .05 level
**Significant beyond .01 level
2. First person oriented individuals were more impulsive
or feeling-centered than others. As shown in Table 6, there was a

definite trend in this direction in both studies:

 

 

 

Table 6. --Correlations between first person orientation and impul-
siveness
Winter Study Spring Study
Group (N = 100) (N = 50)
Males . 27 (N243) .19 (N=27)
Females .40*>§< (N=57) . 22 (N=23)
Combined . 33** . 20*

 

*Significant beyond . 05 level
**Significant beyond .01 level

3. A relationship was found in a preliminary study in the
Fall, 1964, and in the Winter study between second person orientation

and achievement motivation. This trend was not confirmed in the

28

Spring study, possibly due the the low reliability of the second person
orientation sub-scale. Achievement motivation was inferred from
the students' overall grade-point averages at Michigan State University,
from the College Qualification Tests, and from quizzes taken in the
course from which the sample was taken (Industrial Psychology 255) .
In the F311. a .47 correlation was found between grade point average
and second person orientation, in the Winter study this correlation
was . 24. The correlation between class quizzes and second person
orientation was .44 in the Fall; between second person orientation
and the College Qualification Tests it was . 16. All were significant
beyond the .05 level except the last.

4. Non-personally oriented individuals were found to be
less emotional than others. This relationship, however, was due in
the Winter study to the male group (r = . 38) and in the Spring study
to the female group (r = .44) .

Table 8. --Correlation between non-personal orientation and lack of
emotionality (calmness)

 

 

 

Winter Study Spring Study
Group (N = 100) (N = 50)
Male . 38*“:< (N=43) .08 (N=27)
Female .00 (N=57) .44*>1< (N=43)
Combined . 26** . 21>:<

 

*Significant beyond . 05 level
**Significant beyond .01 level

29

Suggested trends between types of orientation and per-

sonality may be summarized as follows: First person oriented indi-
viduals tend to be highly emotional, impulsive, feeling-centered and
irritable. Second person oriented individuals (in the classroom
situation) were more achievement motivated than others. Non-person-
ally oriented people were shown to be calm, bland and even-tempered.
There were no significant relationships between third person orienta-
tion and any personality variables .

The third hypothesis postulating a relationship between

 

differences in orientation and sensitivity to people revealed a trend
in an unexpected direction. Third person oriented individuals scored
significantly higher on the second person inference scale (second
person sensitivity) than others (r = .43, significant beyond the .01
level) . However, this result of the Winter study was not confirmed
in the Spring. The extremely low reliability of the third person sub-
scale (r = .26 and .06) necessarily biased these results.

There was no relationship between second person orienta-
tion and second person sensitivity. This lack of relationship parallels
both Mullin's (1962) and Chance and Meaders' (1960) findings; i.e. ,
empathic drive, psychological mindedness and other-orientation are
unrelated to the ability to understand and predict what others actually
think of themselves. There was likewise no relationship between

third person orientation and third person sensitivity.

DISC USSION

Since this study was essentially of an exploratory nature,
the results obtained and the conclusions inferred from them must be
considered only as potential trends which might be confirmed by
future research. Any more definite conclusions at this point would
be premature. Even the highest reliability of the Human Relations
Scale was barely satisfactory; whether this means that our four con-
ceptualizations of orientation are not consistent within individuals,
or that the scale itself needs further refining is a moot point. What
is important to keep in mind when interpreting the results is the bare
fact that, for whatever reason, the reliabilities are low and the trends
suggested are only tentative until the problem of orientation has been
explored further.

The most significant finding suggested in this study con-
cerns the relatively consistent and internally stable nature of the
first person orientation. People who are first person oriented are
most consistently first person oriented (r = . 77 on the first adminis-
tration; r = . 72 on the second), and have little tendency to the other
three types (correlation with second person orientation, “5 51; with

third person orientation,'-. 29; and with non-personal orientation, ‘-. 76) .

3O

31

One explanation for the large discrepancy in the reliabili-

ties of the four sub -—scales might lie in the possible uniqueness of the
first person orientation. As mentioned before, this orientation is
associated with the most primitive stages of development and is
therefore the only one which ever completely dominates the personality.
It is from this self-oriented world that the child emerges as he
matures. Sullivan's personifications of the "good vs. bad mother"
are based on the child's perception of the mother or the breast as it
is related to satisfying his own needs (1945) . If the mother is seen
as giver of all, unconditionally accepting, and an object of non--
frustration, she is judged by the child as good; if she is rejecting

of his demands she is bad. No other criteria are used by the young
child except those which directly pertain to her relationship with
him. This is the essence of first person orientation.

It might be more understandable now why first person
oriented people are more definitely first person oriented than second
person oriented people are second person oriented, etc. We begin
life in the primitive self-orientation and as we mature we learn to
judge others by criteria other than those related to ourselves. That
these criteria often change from one to another is inevitable; that is
what contributes to the low internal consistency of the other three
sub-scales ., When a person is self-centered in his interactions with

others, it is a sign either that he never progressed beyond the early

32

form of orientation or that he regressed back to the time when he
was the center of the world and everyone did cater to his wishes.
Psychoanalysis would explain this with the theory of mental economics:
everyone has a fixed quantity of psychic energy; if we are using some
of it at one point of fixation (the first stage of orientation) , there is
that much less to be used at the other stages. When there is no
fixation or regression, the person) is able to use his psychic energy
(more diffusely) for the other three more mature types of orientation
to others.

The extremely low reliability of third person orientation
(r = . 26, and .06 on the last administration) deserves comment.
Third person oriented individuals, since they rely heavily on other
people's opinions of others, might well have low self-concepts and
would be likely to vascillate between one type of thinking and another.
This assumption is supported by the low internal reliabilities of the
third person scales. Whereas first person oriented individuals are
relatively stable in their orientation, third person oriented individuals
change from situation to situation, depending on the nature of the
interaction.

Relationships between differences in orientation and
personality traits could also be interpreted within the psychoanalytic
framework suggested above. The tendency for self-centered or

first person oriented people to be more emotional and impulsive

33

than others fits neatly in the theory. As opposed to the rational,

organized, problem—centered individuals who can handle their prob-
lems more realistically and maturely, emotional and impulsive
people tend to be less organized and therefore more prone to escapism
and defenses in the face of conflict. One of these defenses is re-
gression and its psychic counterpart, first person orientation. An
individual is confronted with a conflict; he is not able to solve it
immediately and becomes frustrated. Frustration leads to expres—
sions of emotionality and irritability, which accompany the regres-
sion-induced self-centered orientation.

It is also possible that the person has never gotten past
the primitive stage of first person orientation, in which case regres-
sion could not be the explanation for the relationship to emotionality and
impulsiveness. In this case we might postulate that the immature
adult who clings to the primitive form of orientation might have other
traits characteristic of little children; i.e., lack of emotional control,
impulsiveness and little ability to empathize with others (Dymond, 1950) .

The relationship found between non-personal orientation
and calmness, although it was due to the males in the Winter (r = . 38)
and the females in the Spring (r = .44) , makes sense from both an
intuitive and a statistical point of view. Non-personally oriented in-
dividuals are supposed to be coolly rational and objective, unaffected

by a person‘s relationship with others . The bland, according to the

34

analysis of the personality inventory, are calm, have a high degree
of suppression, and low sensory awareness. Further, since first
person and non-personal orientation correlated -. 76, we would
expect anything which was positively related to one to be negatively
related to the other; first person oriented individuals were calm
(low emotional control), the non-personally oriented were just the
opposite.

Finally, the correlations between second person orienta—
tion and achievement motivation may be due partially to the class-
room situation in which the tests were taken. Since the H-R Scale
was given only in connection with college courses, the students most
concerned with getting high grades probably were motivated to
"do well" on this test, even though they were assured there were no
right or wrong answers. The second person oriented alternatives
on the test were almost always the most altruistic or “other-oriented";
the motivated student was concerned with making a good impression
on the teacher, who in this case valued highly altruism and concern
for others.

The greatest potential significance of this research lay
in the third hypothesis--investigating possible relationships between
differences in the ways individuals orient themselves to others and

the ability to understand people. If there are such relationships,

35

and if they are consistent and stable over time, sensitivity training

programs might focus more attention on the problem of changing
orientations to others in order to improve trainees' sensitivity to
people.

From Bronfenbrenner's delineation of the four types of
interpersonal sensitivity (pages 2—5) associations between second
person orientation and second person sensitivity, and third person
orientation and third person sensitivity were investigated. (Due to
the practical difficulties involved in measuring first person sensitivity,
no measure of this was obtained.) Neither of these associations was
significant in either study. Either, (1) the relationships, in fact,
do not exist, or (2) they do exist, but the measures of orientation
were not reliable enough to show them. If the former explanation is
correct, it would be in line with most previous findings in this area
(Mullin, 1962; Chance and Meaders, 1960) which have shown that
psychological mindedness and empathic drive are unrelated or even
negatively related to empathy. If the reason for the lack of relation-
ship, however, is due to low reliabilities of the instruments, this
seems an important enough problem to warrant further refinement
of the H-R Scale to retest the hypothesis.

However, the present research did reveal one trend in
this area between third person orientation and second person sensi-

tivity. Individuals who viewed others through a third person's eyes

36

were better at predicting what the others thought of themselves.
This .43 correlation obtained in the Winter was not confirmed in the
Spring study, again possibly because of the low reliability of the
third person sub-scale. Whatever the reason, the .43 correlation
seems to warrant further study. If it is eventually shown that third
person orientation does in fact have a positive effect on the ability
to understand what others think of themselves, it would have impor-
tant implications on the structure and purpose of sensitivity training
programs.

Although the exploratory nature of this study precluded
drawing any significant conclusions, the trends discussed above sug-
gest many avenues for continued research. Improvement of the in-
ternal consistency reliabilities of the Human Relations Scale is a
prerequisite for any continued work with the instrument in its present
form. In addition, the repeat reliability should be obtained to deter-
mine how stable over time the four conceptualized orientations are.
If, after further refinement of the scale, one or more of the four
repeat or internal consistency reliabilities is below .80, our assump-
tion that there are four distinct ways of orienting to others would be

se rious ly que stioned .

Evidence in this study points to a dichotomy of orienta-
tions, i.e., self and not—self. This trend should be further explored
and possibly validated by external criteria of self-cente redness. Since

many of the significant trends in this study were related to the first

37

person orientation, investigation of the self-centereduother~centered
dichotomy as the two general orientations might well reveal signifi-
cant differences in personality correlates and in the ability to under-
stand others.

The importance of understanding the nature of the self-
centered orientation in interpersonal relationships lies in the
detrimental effect first person orientation has on the process of
understanding others. Sensitivity training programs are most
concerned with reducing the degree to which people are ego involved
in their interpersonal relationships (Wechsler, 1962) . A scale
which could reliably determine how self-oriented a person is in his
social interactions and relate this trait to personality characteristics
would have far-reaching diagnostic value in training people to be

more sensitive to others.

SUMMARY AND CONC LUSION

Although the concept of orientation to others has been
theoretically defined and discussed (Jones and Thibaut, 1955; Bron-
fenbrenner, 1958) , no one has ever empirically investigated whether
people do differ reliably and consistently in the ways they orient
themselves to others. The present research was designed to explore
the following hypotheses:

1. People have consistent and reliable differences in their
orientations toward other people;

2. Differences in these orientations are significantly related
to traits of personality;

3. Differences in these orientations are significantly related
to the ability to make accurate predictions about others.
To test these hypotheses, a projective test of orientation
Twas developed (The Human Relations Scale) . Its theoretical basis
was Bronfenbrenner's delineation of orientation into first person,
second person, third person and non-personal types. Scores on this
test were then correlated with inventory measures of personality and
With measures of interpersonal sensitivity. Results of the first hypo-
thesis revealed that the first person orientation was by far the most
consistent of the four (r = . 77) , and that people who were first person

oriented were least likely to have tendencies to the other three.

38

39

(Correlation with second person orientation equalled -. 51; with third
person orientation equalled -. 29; with non-personal orientation
equalled -. 76) . This result was explained within the psychoanalytic
theory positing self-orientation to be the most primitive of the four
ways of looking at people. and thus the most likely to exist in the
purest form. Either the first person oriented individual has never
progressed past the self-oriented stage of development, or he has
regressed back to that stage in the face of conflict.

Relationships between personality variables and orien-
tation were also explained within the psychoanalytic concept of
regression. First person oriented people were found to be more
impulsive and emotional than others and it is these types of people
who are most susceptible to escaping from frustration via defense
mechanisms such as regression.

Non-personally oriented individuals were found to be
calm, just the opposite of the emotional first person orientation.
This relationship was explained from both an intuitive and a statis-
tical point of view.

A relationship was also found between second person
orientation and achievement motivation. Since the tests were given
in a classroom situation and since the second person alternatives
were the most altruistic, grade-conscious students seemed to ex-

press their motivation by marking the "best" answer in each case.

40

The only finding relevant to the third hypothesis was a
trend (r = .43) in the first study between third person orientation
and second person sensitivity. If this relationship is validated with
a more refined test of orientation it would mean that sensitivity
training programs should attempt to change trainees' orientations
to third person; i.e. , we will be better able to make predictions of
what a person thinks of himself if we look at him through other
people's eyes.

Although the findings of this study were essentially
negative, the possibility of significant relationships between orien-
tation to others and the ability to understand people remains, and
its potential implications are so important that further refinement
of the Human Relations Scale may be helpful in clarifying the
presently uncertain relationship between orientation and sensitivity

to people .

REFERENC ES

Allport, G. W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New
York: Holt, 1937.

Ashcroft, C. W. “The relationship between conceptions of human
nature and judgments of specific persons. " Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1963.

\ Bronfenbrenner, U.. Harding, J., and Gallwey, M. The measure-
ment of skill in social perception. In McClelland, D. C.
(ed. ). Talent and Society. New York: Van Nostrand,

 

\Broxton, J. A. A test of interpersonal attraction predictions de-
rived from balance theory. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,

1963, 6_6, 394-397.

 

_ Bruni, E. “Correlations of a film test of accuracy in judging
individuals. “ Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1963.

‘Chance, J. and Meaders, W. Needs and interpersonal perception.
J. Pers., 1960, _2_8, 200-210.

Cline, V. B. Ability to judge personality assessed with a stress
interview and sound film technique. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1955, 52, 183-187.

 

and Richards, J. M. Variables related to accuracy
of interpersonal perception. Second Annual Report,
Office of Naval Research, Contract NR 171-146, Uni-
versity of Utah, 1959.

 

 

 

. and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal per-
ception—-a general trait? J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1960, 62, 1-7.

 

 

’ Cottrell, L. S. and Dymond, R. F. The empathic responses:
a neglected field for research. Psychiatry, 1949, 12;
355—359.

 

41

42

\ Cronbach, L. J. Processes affecting scores on "understanding

of others" and "assumed similarity. " Psychol. Bull. ,
1955, _5_2_, 177-193.

 

Crow, W. J. and Hammond, K. R. The generality of accuracy

and response sets in interpersonal perception. i
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 384-390.

 

,Dymond, R. F. A preliminary investigation of the relationship

 

 

of insight and empathy. J. consult. Psychol., 1948,
124 228-233.

 

A scale for measurement of empathic ability.
J. consult. Psychol., 1949, 132 127-133.

Personality and empathy. J. consult. Psychol., 1950,
_1__¢_1_z 343-350.

 

— Estes, S. G. Judging personality from expressive behavior.

J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1938, 33, 217-236.

 

" Fenichel, O. The Psychoanaljftic Theory of Neurosis. New York:

Norton, 1945 .

Gage, N. L. and Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodological

' Golden; L.

problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev.,
1955, 65 411-422.

 

M. “An inquiry into empathy and a consideration of the
relationships to insight, adjustment and autonomy. "
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York Univ.,

1962.

Goldstein, L. "Empathy and its relationship to personality

- Gros sman,

Harris, W.

factors and personality organization. " Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York Univ., 1962.

B. "The measurement and determinants of inter-
personal sensitivity. " Unpublished Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1963.

”The relation of observational to inferential accuracy
in judging people. " Unpublished Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1962.

4 3

Hershey, G. L. "College grades in relation to inventory measures
of personality. 1‘ Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1958.

~ Johnson, R. L. "Correlates of a test of group sensitivity." Un-
published Master's thesis, Michigan State University,
1963.

-Jones, E. E., and Thibaut, J. W. Interaction goals as bases of
inference in interpersonal perception. In Tagiuri, R.
and Petrullo, L. , Person Perception and Interpersonal
Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford University
Press, 1955.

 

—- Kuenzli, A. E. (ed.) . The Phenomenological Problem, New York:
Harper $Brothers, 1959.

 

\ Lindgren, H. C. The Art of Human Relations. New York: Hermi-
tage House, 1953.

 

and Robinson, J. An evaluation of Dymond's test of
insight and empathy. J. consult. Psychol., 1953, 1_7_,
172-176.

 

 

.. Lindzey, G. (ed.) . Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

 

Luchins, E. A variational approach to emapthy. In Kuenzli, A.
E. (ed.) . The Phenomenological Problem. New York:
Harper fiBrothers, 1959.

 

_ Luft, J. Differences in prediction based on hearing vs. reading
verbatim clinical interviews. J. consult. Psychol.,
1951, 12 115-119.

—Mu11in, J. ”Empathic drive: its relationship to accuracy in judging
individuals. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1962.

Rogers, C. The organization of personality. In Kuenzli, A. E.,
(ed.) . The Phenomenolgical Problem. New York:
Harper $Brothers, 1959.

Scott, S. S. "Interpersonal orientation as a function of belief
content and structures. " Unpublished doctoral dis ser-
tation, UCLA, 1963.

44

Silkiner, D. S. “The development of a test of the ability to judge
people. “ Unpublished paper, Michigan State University,
1961.

Smith, H. C. Psychology of Industrial Behavior. New York:
Macmillan, 1964.

 

Sensitivity to People: A Component Approach. New
York: Macmillan, 1966.

 

Strayer, F. K. “Empathy and social perception." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1960.

Sternberg, D. S. “Growth of empathy: an investigation of the
relationship between sensitivity to the self-perception
of others as a function of interpersonal contact and
certain selected personality variables. “ Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1962.

xTitchener, E. B. A Textbook of Psychology. New York:
Macmillan, 1915.

 

Trumbo, D. ”The development and analysis of a test of the
ability to predict behavior. " Unpublished Master's
thesis, Michigan State University, 1955.

" Wechsler, I. R. and Reisel, B. Inside a Sensitivity Training
Group. Los Angeles: Institute of Industrial Rela-
tions, UCLA, 1959.

 

~~ . and Schein E. H. Five issues in human training,
Selected Readings Series. Washington, D. C.,- 1962.

 

 

‘ Weiss, G. Effect of professional training and amounts and
accuracy of information on behavioral prediction.
J. consult. Psychol., 1963, 27, 257-262.

 

APPENDIX A

The Human Relations Scale

HUMAN RTLATIONS SCALE

This is a scale moas uring beliefs about how peeple react
in different situations. There are no right or wrong answers.
In many cases it may be difficult to choose an answer, but
please mark a choice for each one.

The Case of Hans: The place: hunich, Germany. The time: 1922.
Hans Leyerhoff, a poor shepkeeper, has been invited to a secret
meeting of a small organization headed by Adolf Hitler. Hans is
bewildered throu5‘;iout the meeting.

 

1. That is he thinking at the end of the meeting?
1. "I wonder what that man thinks I can do for him."
2. "This man believes more in himself than any man I've met."
3. ”The others seem to think he had some great ideas."
h. "He is an impressive speaker.”
2. I-sis becomes enthralled with Hitler and tries to convince one

of his customers Rudolph, to join the Party. Jhy is he hesitant?

l. ”The other members view Hans as a tool in their machine."
2. ”hans, himself, doesn't know what he is joining
3. ”"ans and the rest will soon outgrow this craze.'

F.—
-‘

l

O

”I wonder why Hans wants me to join the? Barty."

3. In time, however, Han's friend, Rudolph Hess, joins the Party
and becomes one of Hitler's most trusted aides. For some
reason, in the middle of World War II, Rudolph.Hess flew alone
right over London only to be shot down. What were Hitler's
thou3hts about this?

1. ‘He did it to embarrass me before the world."

2. "Jo did it to show the others he wasn't a coward like they
said. . »

3. "He di.d it to prove to himself he is brave."

h. ”He did it in a moment of insanity."

h. Hans, however, remained far down the party power. what does his

w1fo think about the situation?
1. ”I Ie.ns is meek and Icind, he does not fit in well with men
111:0 .1 tler."
2. ”He Must 10131 inac1crtuate not to have been promoted any higher.”
3. 'I. wonder if he thinks I'm partly responsible.”
h. 'The other members don't respect him at all."

5. fians' only dau;hter, IIilda, falls in love with one of the few
Jews left in Lunich. Mans 01 course is opposed to the romance.
That does her lover, Lax, think about Iians?

1. ”"ans is so weak that even his friends in the party don't
respect him.”

2. ”He j_s only a poor, fri htened shopkeeper.”

3. ”He thinlts his prejudices are based on truth."

h. ”I thiifl {he genuinely hates me."

e. IIilda and Lax slope, as a friendly 5uard lets them through a
check-point. .hat was the 5uard thinking as he let them through?
l. ”They will have few friends in all of Germany."

2. ”They will al rays be grateful to me for letting them out.

3. “Th y will not get far before they are caught."
H 1 ' v o
h. 'Thcy kn w not what they do, only of the1r mutual love."

7. Alas, hilda is ki.Lled when the:ir auto crashes after being chased
by the police Lax' s thoughts‘.

1 She died. lovin5 me.I

2. ”To her friends she w ll remain forever a symbol of "courage."
3. ”If she had to die, she would have chosen this way."

A. ”We both knew it x.'ouldn't worln we just had to do it."

The see of Casdinal Vincenzi: Cardinal Vincenzi is attending the
ecumenical Council in Rome. There is a question on the floor about
which he has stron5 feelin 933, diametrically opposed to those of the
Pope. The Cardinal is in the process of composing a speech to
defend his point of view.

 

8. .hat is the Cardinal thi king as he is writing his speech?
1. M’ie Pepe has a high re5ard for his opinion; I must respect it."
2. ”The Pope is the most important person here."
3. ”The other Cardinals have a high re5ard for the Pepe; my
speech must take txis into account.”
h. ”I must be careful not to arouse the Pope' s ire a; ;ainst me.
9. Th Pope's r actions to Vincenzi' 3 speech?
1. ”The audience was impressed with Vincenzi' 3 point of view.’
2. ”He reapected.me even thou5h our opinions differed."
3. ”He thinks his views are valid, yet recognizes the virtues

of humility.
h. ”Vincenzi is a persuasive speaker."

The Case of Babe: Besides being one of baseball's 5reat heroes,
Babe Ruth had a sincere interest in children. He once had an
int erview with Tommy Smith, reporter for his high school paper.

 

lO. Uha t was lemmy thinking during the interview?

1. ”I 11epe he thinks I m doing a 500d job.""

2. “I wonder if he knows how admired he is.‘

3. ”leople think he 5 really great to give of his time like this."
h. Iith his muscles it's no wonder he 0hits so many home runsl"

The Case of Martha: Lartha is an orphan. She is fifteen years old
and is being considered for adoption through a social work agency.
The interested couple is talking with a social worker.

 

ll. The social worker is thinkinv:
1"“ 0 0 U. o
l. 1 wonder if this couple is grateful to me for help1ng
them get a child." "
2. ”They h vs favorable recommendations from.respectable people.
3. ”it seems like they would make 500d parents."
h. ”They seem to think they could handle the situation."

12. The couple's thoughts?
I. “I wonder if Martha would like to leave the orphanage?"
2. "She seems to like us fairly well."
3. "She is a very pretty 5irl and seems intelligent."

b ”She seems to be well liked by her friends."

c-.
I

1h.

I

15.

17.

lb.

20.

_3-

The social worker decides to recommend the adeption. What
m15ht the social worker think during her conference with the
su31ervis or?

1. ”I Is seems to respect my views.

2. .”Cis experience malces him a keen jud5e of adoption cases."

3. ”Io has a lot of con1idence because of his social work
experience.”

5..-
o;—
0

He is respected by most of the staff because of his
professional abilit 7 ”

I 1

0
"5

supervi or's thou5hts?

”she's Uo1e a 5ood job 01 analysis.

”She kLOWS she has to convince me.’

I've heard she is a very capable worker.”
JAG really thinks she's got a 500d case."

the!
o o 0
Q m

431-) ro H

:3
*3

tha is adopted by the cou.ple. At the end of a year the
is l wo11ker 5ives fine I approval for permanent adoption.
vt 1.'as the wo11ker th1nlcin5 as she said her last goodbye?"
”- a11t11a realizes that she has never been happier."

”Ier parents and friends have 5rown to like her."

In a mLple o1 yea1s we should know if it will work out."

Hm-

1noy Call seemed terribly 5ratefu1 to me.'

.J

'0 F'
. . . If" 0
$3 0

to re H 1?

ru
0"-
.

”we years later Martha falls in love with a colle5e senior
maed Bill. 'hat do her pa rents think about this?

I. ”A‘t ei5htoen we snould expect a 5irl to fall in love."

2. ”Bill seems to love he11too; he treats her like a queen."

3. She doesn't need us as she used to."

11. ”She thinks she has found 1103.1 love."

Iew do her parents feel about Bill?
+1.

1. ”Ce inks1e can 111:1]:0 l-iartha happy."

1. ”I me e he takes a likin5 to us."

3. ”Iantlla says he's well- liked and makes friends easily."
h. ”He seeras like a nice leveluheaded boy."

.hy does Martha feel 5uilty about leaving her parents so soon?

1. “I hope they don't think themselves failures."

2. I hope they don't resent my leaving after all the help they
1 ave me.‘

3. “Anyr parents would feel rejected in this situation."

h. ”Peeple rai5ht think that they weren't 5ood enough parents."

hartha talks to her social worker for advice. Martha's thoughts?

1. ”I hope she doesn‘t think I let her down."

2. ”I wonder if she thinks she made a mistake."

3. ”A social worker would be a 5eod person to talk to new."
h. ”I'm glad she's held in such hi5h esteem by the staff; she

must be a 500d social worker."

And the social worker's thou5hts . n
1. ”Eartha thinks I can 5ive he r some good advice."

2. ”She is a stable person and .Iill make the right decision."

3. ”I hepe her parents don't resent her for leaving them so soon.
h. ”She knows she needs advice."

-u-

21. The social worker ta lks with her parents. Her parents' thoughts?
1. ”The social sorker thinks she‘ll be able to advise us well."
2. ”ha1etha seems to think a lot of 'her."
3. “She will be good to talk to n " ."
h. ”She probably thinks we let her down as parents."

22. ha the and Bill decide to get married. How do her parents feel
noxz?

l. ”l'hey make a reat cor ple and they have happy days ahead."

2. ”Thej're the kind of couple that will have many friends."
”They know the ey raade the ri ght decision."

A. ”Hope she still loves us'"

23. fihat is Bill thinking now?
1. ”Her parents still love and understand her."
2. "Eartha seems happier with herself than ever before."

3. ”Vur lives are just beginning."
1. ”I hope she loves me as much as I love her."

The Case of Lou: Lou is the father of tree college-age children.

ie has been acting rather cold toward his wife as of late. His

1 's worried. 10y had always gotten along well in their 26 years
ria“e, and whenever either had a problem, they were able to

s it together.

 

2h. fihat do you think his wife is thinning?
l. ”I wonder if he is angry I-.ith me.l
2. ”"e thinlm there is someth n3 wrong with himself."
3. "he might be upset by eritici em from his boss."
h. n has never acted like this before."

Lou‘s boss thinking about his change of mood?
u knO"s h:Ls work is not as good as it should be."
IOHGCP if he thi'ks I am too demanding a boss."
. ”Tis pee: work is affecting the office's output."
" e other workers are becoming impatient with him."

25. jhat is Lou's closest 1r:3end thinking?
1. ”I wonder if his other friends have noticed his change."
2. ”I wonder what 110 thinks his problems are.l
Q 11'." g” c1 1., ,. ,x 1,, l 0 c3 bl ll
3. he s a stiong p) 1 on and shou d get over h1u pro ems soon.
b. ”7 sender if he thinks I can help him."

5 mirht Sally, his favorite child, be thinking when she

r :ds 1-r moth ' letter telling of her father' 3 problems?

1. ”He must be depressed because I left for college."

2. ”I figuess adults have periods of depression gust like us kids.
,. ”I wonder if he knoxm :hat's troubling him.

b. ”I hepe he can talk it out with his friends."

D)
-\1
o
I
a)
:1 9)

y .3
J
1)
0
+5 x
O)

The ‘ase of Albert: Li ‘mtl .‘lbert is a schoolboy in Germany. He
is doing below avera: ;e “or: in me th and sees his teacher for help.

 

 

2Q. . hat is Albert thinkin: during the conference?
1. “He is oneqof my best teachers."

-5-

'1

2. ”I wonder if he‘s interested in helping me.”
3. ”I "endor what kind of teacher he thinks he is."

 

h. ”Iis colleagues respect him for seeing students like me."

29. Poor Albert failed hi math course. How did his teacher feel?
1. ”I hope this doesn' t hurt his self-confidence too much."

2. ”I hope his friends aren t too hard on him."
3. ”I hope he doesn't feel resentful toward me for failing him."
h. ”10 ju doesn't have the ability to do math."

30. How did his teacher feel a few years later when his former
student foit1ulated an equation e=mc¢, changing the course of
world h:Lstory‘f
l. "31aste1a will 50 down as one of the great thinkers of all

{41.7100
2. "I wonder if he t15.nks I was a poor teacher.”
3. ”Io is being ailed H11 all as our HPOatest physicist."
I. “he is too mble a man to let fame spoil his character."

The Case of Samuel feshevsgy: hr. Rcs1evs ky is a world champion chess

play~r. On a recent tour he played filty players simultaneously.

3l. Lhat were his Opponents thinking when they sat down to play him?
1. ”He is tru ly one of the world's gre atest players.”

2. ”2e must hno. he‘s pretty good to play so many people at once."
3. “Does he think I‘m a ehallendc?" _
h. ”Everyone seems to hold him in the very hi5hest regard." a

32. One of the players, a fifteen year old boy, defeats the Master.
What is the oe;r t aixfl mi115 as he is con5ratulated by Reshevsky?

l. “Hes hevshy see11s to 5cnuinely respect me new.
2. “The audience seems to admire him for his gracious behavior."
3. ”I13 playing is superior to anyone I've ever plaHred.
h. “Te knows he could boa t me nine out of ten times, but that
everyone loses once in a waile." 1
I

33. The boy is Bobby Fis her, current U.S. chess champion. As they
played for the second time last year what was Reshevsky thinking?
1. ”I don't think success has gone to Bobby' 3 head."

2. "I never would have suessedb he ‘d be playing for the
chmnpi on ship . ”
3. ”To seems to look at me dil ferently than he did the last time."
h. “the audience seems to really like him, maybe for his youth."
3h. “hat did Bobby th.ink after he defeated the old master again?
1. "his one mistak at the end cost him the game."
2. ”L‘1e chess world probably still views Reshevsky as the
0113;131:1011. "
3. ”I0 mast think I' m his equal now.‘
h. ”I sender i1 he still thinks he's the champion."

~

-4. .-
‘._4

 

 

The Case of Cathy: Cathy and her roommate are both sophomores at
a lar5e univers’ty. They just had a fifiht about keeping the room
neat, ath3 claimi-n5 her reomnate is not neat enough.
35. Ihat is Cathy thinking after the i5ht?

l. "the t11inks all I think of is neatness."

2. ”Ot11er girls thixk she is '00 sloppy, too."

3. ”She thinks her standards are the most practi.cal."

h. ”I r standards are obv:iously much lower than mine.‘

36. Uhat was Cathy thinking as she finished talking to her house-
mother, Mrs. Ellis, about the pro oblem?
l. ”.3110 really understands the problem."
2 "A1= housemother would have trouble handling this kind of
problem,”
”I can see why the mirls think Hrs. Ellis is so understanding."
”I wonder what she th;u5ht of me and my side of the
argU; ax1t.”

'1':- U)
o

\,)
" O
o

3
f.)
rt

‘1
'-J
\

e Q-ts a he: roem1‘1te; her thouihts upon meeting her werez~
l. “I AC9: she‘s more w:ll -li1:ed than my old roommate."

2. "1 gender if sh thizks I'm tee neat."

3. ”Anything will be better than the old situation."

r...

.r-
O
i...)

think she‘ll try hard > get along."

7“

-n --. g
‘..e Cezse of Joe:

 

. sob is a s'enior majoring in math and plans to 50
to 5r1duate school next 30a His math teacher, Mr. Lewis, is retiring.
33.

How does Job feel about this bit of no IS?

1. "T1 .. teach er thinks he can't convey the material as well mm."
2. ”hr. Lewis thinks I have a lot of ability in math.

3. ”It's'best for all that he retire now.

A. ”Students.

will be hap>y to hear this; they thought him
too hard.‘

39. low dees the principal feel about this?
1. ”I hope Lewis doesn't hold a grudge against me for suggesting
1 v- ' I!
he retire.

2. ”The staff seems to really respect him for his teaching
abilh-ty.”
3. ”10's ac ortin” the chan5e very well."

h. ”He was a 5ood tee cher; I hope we can get someone as good
to take his place.”

hO. His wife's tloufhts about this news?
”-

l. 1 am very proud of all the praise he's getting from.his
eollea5ue° ”
HT" 1

2. he n s a felling of re eal satisfaction after these 30 years."

3. "Theso next 3,rears m35ht be a 5ood change for him-H

1. "la3l be he 1.‘ill need me more now that ho is not 1-.orking

hl. Ir. Lew's is re laced by a young PhD. She is bri5ht, good-looking
"‘ is sob thinking as he walks into class?

. . 1 1 be cal :h1ter estuiwj course.‘

2. i wonaer what the staff t1i1k of this new addi tion."‘

- ~ J s11e ieols in t11§.s new situation."
h. ”I hope she like es my work.”

-7...

h2. She is a hard marker and Bob fails his first exam. His thoughts
new?
1. ”She's trying to show to the class who' s boss."
2. “She's the hardest t e1aeher in the department.
3. ”I wonder what she thinks of me. -

h. 'I wonder how the rest of the class feels about her marking."

h3. Bob 5oes to her aeout11.is work. Her thoughts?
l. ‘113 other teachers mus t have thou5ht 0he had more ability."
2. “me seems upset at me for ma1kln hard."
3. ”It's 500d *11at he's come to talk to me about his work."
h. “He seems genuinely int e1este d in improving his work.‘I
uh. BCb finally 5ets sftraighte ned out and winds up with an A for
the course. Bob's t110151ts about t11is?
1. ”She thinks I ree lly know the material now."
2. ”I w'onder if she knows how good a teacher she is."
3. ”The class e11ded up respecting her and liking her a lot."
A. ”This was a very beneficial course."

The Case of Leon: Leon Winters is captain of his bowling team.

 

h . Leon' s tear loses its Hi st three matches. What is going

tIrorra the tea1‘s m: ndf

l. “The rest of the 5uys are really losing confidence in Leon."
2. ”Leon thinks re not bowling like we should."

3. ”He thinks it 's his fault that we're not winning."

a. ”The team isn't performing well at all under Leon."

_ signs as captain and under his successor, Al, the team
wins its n- xt four games. that are Al's thoughts now?

Leon must re lize he's more of an asset to the team as a
member than as a captain."

2. “Iiis bowling has improved lately, as has the team's."
3. ”The guys still think he' s a good bowler, if not the best
le .1der."

A. ”He resents me for taking over his job."

_1e a.- : Jan is a high School dropout. he is seeing an
adviser from the Poverty Program to try and get a job.

 

h7. .hat is the adviser thinking as he talks to Jan?

I. ”I wonder what his friends think of him trying to get a job."
2. ”He realizes he needs help."

3. ”E- seems to think I can help him."

h. ”This program was designed to help this kind of boy."

he. Jan gets a job and be5ins as a laborer on a construction job.
Ihen Jan walked up, d1e first day, the foreman thought:

1. "This boy needs to gain some self-confidence."

2. ‘He's big enough to do work around here."

3. ”" e'll be depending on me to get him started."

h. ”He should be able to get along well with the other laborers."

r1.
-U-

hQ. One day, Jan had a fi5ht wit11 another laborer, Bret, a man
about fifty. Jan thinks afterwards: '
l. "I wonder if the other wor1;ers thou5ht Bret was right."
2. ”It was silly to fi5ht; it should pass over quickly."

3. ”He thou.5ht he was completely right."
h. ”He probably thinks I'm imma cure to have foug 1t with him."
,1
50. The foreman's thou5hte ,
l. VJan will probably worry what I'll do to him about the fight.",
2. ”I wonder if Jan thought it was wrong to have fought with
Bret." '
3. ”I wonder that the workers think of him. “
h. “These th i1 shappen on any job ."

1he Case of Ir. Ioere: Alan Hoore is in the market for a new car.
3 decidin5 between a Lincoln and a Cadillac.

51. Khat might he be thin_in5 as he is talking to one of the salesmen?

l. ”I wonder if he thinks I'm an easy cuustemer to sell."
2. ”Is thinks he's a pretty good salesman.

3. z'IZe is thoroughl familiar with his product.”

h. ”I've he rd he' s a well- -respected salesman."

The Cas~ of Tllen: Ellen has been dating a boy steadily for three
months. They are both freshmen and.have decided to stop seeing each

other for a while.

52. How does Ellen feel?

1. ”It's ee st for both of us because we're too young to get
serious."

2. ”I hope he still likes me as much even though we're not
datin5."

3. “I wonder if his friends think he was the one hurt."
h. ”I wonder how he feels about it."

APPENDIX B

The Protebob Personality Inventory

BG/HS. 5/65

The Prutebob Personality Inventory

Directions: There are no right or wrong answers-to the following statements. They

11.

13.
14.
15.

16.
17.

18.
19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.‘

32.
33.
34.

35.

represent experiences, preferences, ways of doing things, or beliefs
that are true of some people but are not true of others.

Read each statement and decide whether or not it is true with respect to
yourself. Indicate your answers on the separate answer sheet.

Mark "1" if it is true or more true than false of yourself.

Mark "2" if it is false or more false than true of yourself.

I like to make a very careful plan before starting in to do anything.

I am guided in all 'my conduct by firm principles.

I find it rather hard to keep to a rigid routine.

I like to be with people who don't take life too seriously. '

Whenever I have to undertake a job I make out a careful plan of procedure.

I never lose my head.

I set very difficult goals for myself.

I am not particularly methodical in.my daily life.

I generally go from one thing to another in my daily life without a great dcdbf planning
I like to keep all my letters and other papers neatly arranged and filed.

I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation.

Most of my spare money is used for pleasure.

I occasionally neglect serious things in order to have a good time.
I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property.

I always finish one task before taking on others.

I find it difficult to keep my mind on one detail for very long.

I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and without much change
in plans.

I can always do a good job even when I am very excited.

I am extremely ambitious.

I'm occasionally disorganized if I am.called on suddenly to make a few remarks.

enjoy work more than play.

feel that friendship is more important in life than anything else.
really don' t like to drink alcoholic beverages.

find that my minor likes and dislikes change rather frequently.
frequently obey whateVer impulse is strongest.

HHHHH

am considered extremely "steady" by my friends.

like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside for eating.
keep my workplace very neat and orderly.

believe in getting as much fun as I can out of life.

believe that I have the disposition of a pleasure-seeker.

HHHHH

generally seek whatever makes me happy here and now.

would rather see a musical comedy than a documentary film.

live more for the future than for the present.

believe that what a person does about a thing is more important than what he
feels about it.

I like to be with people who are not preoccupied wiflithe future.

HHHH

(over)

36.
37.

38.
39.
40.

41.
42.
43.
44.

45.

46.
47.
48.

49.
50.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.

66.

67.
68.
69.
70.

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.

-2-

I am greatly influenced in minor decisions by how I happen to be feeling at the
moment.

I am much more interested in activities which I can enjoy for their own sake

than in activities which are of long range benefit. ‘ l

I spend a good deal of time thinking about my plans for the future.

I accept my feelings as the best guide for my actions.

I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one thing for a long time.

I am more interested in what I see and hear than in abstract principles.

I am.temperamenta11y more a sceptic than a believer.

I am more interested in general ideas than in specific facts.

No individual, no matter what the circumstances, is justified in committing
suicide.

‘The idea of God must remain absolutely central to the whole plan of human pur-

pose.

It is possible that there is no such thing as divine inspriation.

My faith in God is complete for "though he slay me, yet will I trust him."

I believe that everybody would be happier if both men and women had more
sexual freedom.

I carry a very strict conscience about with me wherever I go.

I consider the close observance of social customs and manners as an essential
aspect of life.

I have occasionally doubted the reality of God.

It is absolutely vital to assume that there is a God behind the Universe.

A person should develop his greatest loyalty toward his religious faith.

The world might benefit from having a new kind of religion.

I think that it is much more important to learn to control sexual impulses than
to express them.

I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others.

Some of my friends think my ideas are a bit wild and impractical.

I control my sexual impulses by instituting prohibitions and restrictions.
I have always been unalterably convinced of the reality of God.

I would rather be a salesman than a scientific research worker.

The thought of God gives me a complete sense of security.

The European attitude toward mistresses is more sensible than ours.
I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong.

In matters of conduct I conform very closely to custom.

I haven't yet reached any final opinion about the nature of God.

It is as important for a person to be reverent as it is for him to be
sympathetic.

The idea of God means more to me than any other idea.

I think that cremation is the best method of burial.

In the long run, science provides the best hOpe for solving the world's problems.
I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines.

Radical agitators should be allowed to make public speeches.

Women should have as much right to propose dates to men as men to women.

I believe we should have less censorship of speech and press than we do now.
I often act contrary to custom. .

Science should have as much to say about moral values as religion does.

r—‘r—‘r—‘r—‘ou HHHHA—J

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.

91.
92.
93.

94.
95.

96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

101.
102.
103.
104.
105.

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.

111.
112.
113.
114.
115.

116.
117.
118.
119.

120.

-3-

I would enjoy the kind of work that a scientific research worker does.

I think that I have a more rigorous standard of right and wrong than most people.
It is necessary to retain the belief that God exists as a personal being.

Divine inspiration is an infallible source of truth.

Compared to your own self-respect, the respect of others means little.

I enjoy going to art galleries very much.

I would like to hear a popular lecture on contemporary painters.

I can deal much better with actual situations than.with ideas.

I like to discuss abstract questions with my friends.

If I had unlimited leisure and money, I would enjoy making a collection offine
sculptures or paintings.

I have seldom really enjoyed an art course.
I like to visit exhibits of famous paintings.
Sports generally interest me somewhat more than Very intellectual affairs.

.1 am mainly interested in ideas that are very practical.

I like abstract paintings. _

I am an extremely practical person.

I like ballet performances.

I sometimes think more about my ideas than about the routine demands of daily
life.

I only work for concrete and'clearly-defined results.

I would rather be a salesman than an artist.

If I had the ability, I would enjoy teaching poetry at a University.
Magazines such as Arts and Decorations bore me. .
I get an intense pleasure from just looking at a beautiful building.
I like to read poetry.

Artistic experiences are of great importance in my life.

I would like to take a course in the modern novel.

I.would rather read "Business Week" than "Atlantic monthly".

I spend a lot of time philosophizing with myself. ‘

I tend to judge people in terms of their Concrete accomplishments.

I tend to accept the world as it is and not worry about how it might be.

I always keep my feet solidly on the ground. .

I think there are few more important things in life than money.

I am really only interested in what is useful.

I prefer friends who have well developed artistic tastes.

In a discussion, I tend to lose interest if we talk about serious literature.

I think I would like to decorate a room with flowers. ‘

I have never tried to collect pictures of paintings I like._

I would rather see a movie than read a book. '

My head is always full of imaginative ideas.

I believe that competitiveness is a necessary and<ksirable part of our economic
life.

I would rather read an article about a famous musician than a financier.

I often think for a long time about an idea that has occurred to me.

I would particularly enjoy meeting people who had made a success in business.

I prefer the friends of my own sex to be very efficient, and of a practical turn
of mind.

Daydreams are an important part of my life. (over)

121.
122.
123.
124.
125.

126.
127.
128.

129.
130.

212.
132.
133.
134.
135.

136.
137.
138.
139.
140.

141.
142.
143.
144.
145.

146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

151.
152.
153.
154.
155.

156.
157.
158.
159.
160.

161.
162.
163.
164.
165.

-4-

I am.generally regarded by others as a lender.

I am very self-confident.

I like to have people around me practically all the time.
I am.generally active in my everyday life.

I generally talk very quietly.

Host of the time, I am extremely carefree and relaxed.

I am quite often lacking in self-confidence.

I am cautious about undertaking anything which may lead to humilhting.
experiences.

I enjoy speaking in public.

There are few things I enjoy more than being a leader of people

-I have frequently assumed the leadership of groups.

I am a rather carefree person.

I feel somewhat inferior as a person to a few of my friends.
I am frequently discouraged by my own inadequacies.

When I meet a stranger, I sometimes think he is a better person than I am.
I am somewhat more shy than the average person.

I generally feel self-conscious in the presence of important superiors.
I always like to be with people rather than be alone.

I am inclined to limit my friends to a few people.

I spend myself freely as I have plenty of energy.

I would rather listen to a story than tell one.

I prefer quiet games to extremely active ones.

I frequently become involved in too many activities.

Some people I know can look forward to a happier life than I can.
I am very optimistic.

am a very adventurous person.

have quite a few fears about my future.

am.st least as much of a pessimist as an optimist.
sometimes become melancholy without very good reasons.
have some feelings of inferiority.

hihihihihi

am almost never embarrassed.

always prefer to work with others.

dislike it when I am with people constantly.

enjoy taking the full responsibility for introducing people at a party.
am always taking on added social responsifllity. ‘

HHHHH

am generally leader of the people I know.

am.se1dom the center of attention in a group.

am.cften called upon to settle arguments between people.
sometimes find it hard to lead people and maintain them in order.
generally keep in the background at social functions.

HHHHH

I am rather easily stirred up.

I have never been seasick, plane sick, or car sick.
It takes a great deal to make me emotional.

My emotional life is marked by great moderation.

I believe I am less emotional than most people.

166.
167.
168.
169.
170.

171.
172.
173.
174.
175.

176.
177.

178.
179.
180.

181.
182.
183.
184.
185.

186.
187.
188.
189.
190.

191.

192.
193.
194.
195.

196.
197.
198.
199.
200.

-5-

I rather frequently find myself getting emotional about something.

Sometimes I become so emotional that I find it a little hard to get to sleep.
I become emotional fairly easily.

I have sometimes actually screamed with joy.

I am seldom disturbed about sexual matters.

I usually prefer to keep my feelings to myself.

I almost always do about as well as I expected in competitions.
I suppress my emotions more often than I express them.

I am easily moved to laughter or tears.

I think much and speak little.

I consider most.matters from every standpoint before I form an opinion.

I have sometimes gotten so angry that I felt like throwing and breaking

things.

I am practically always tolerant even in dealing with people that I don't like.
my feelings and emotions are very easily aroused.

I almost never notice minor physical injuries.

am considered rather emotional by my friends.

find that my life moves along at an even tenor without many ups and downs.
have occasionally had to make an effort not to cry.

am a rather objective and matter-of-fact person.

like having someone with whom I can talk about my emotional problems.

hihihihihi

I am rather spontaneous in speech and action.

I usually express myself objectively, with considerable caution and restraint.
I am.a fairly impulsive person.

I never complain about my sufferings and hardships.

I have sometimes corrected others, not because they were wrorg, but only
because they irritated me.

I have occasional difficulty getting the temperature of my bath the way I
like it.

I have very strong likes and dislikes.

Quite a few things make me emotional.

I am moderate in my taste and sentiments.

I usually do things in a leisurely sort of way, seldom getting excited.

I am almost never extremely excited or thrilled.

experience rather frequent pleasant and unpleasant moods.

like to discuss my emotions with others.

sometimes speak on the spur of the moment without stopping to think.
can stand pain better than the average person.

HHHH

5-24-65 sk

APPENDIX C

Test of Ability to Judge People

November, 1960
H.5 o/D .5.

Test of Ability to Judge People

Directions: In each of the following actual cases some informtion is given
about a person. Study the information until you know the facts, then judge the
correctness of the statements that follow the information. In most of the cases,
you will judge whether you think the statement is True or False. Mark "1" on
the separate answer sheet if you think the statement is True, and "2" if you
think it is False.

About half of the answers for each case are known from the record to be true and
about half are known to be false. Answer all of the statements even if you are
in doubt and complete all of the cases.

The Case of Bill the Traffic Manager

Bill is $10,000 a year traffic manager for a Milwaukee Brewery. He was promoted
from the driver ranks and possesses a fom‘th grade educational background. Bill
is very loyal to the company and has high moral standards. When working in the
ranks, he gained the reputation of being the hardest working driver. He is a
big man and maintains that, "Hard work never hirt anyone".

1. He works 10 to 12 hours a day and 6 to 7 days a week.

2. He, like other members of management, drinks scotch when out with his friends.

3. He knowa that he has proven himself, so he has no fear of losing his Job.

h. He tries to promote his product at all times, even to the point of losing
friends.

5. He feels that the union's senia'ity rule is as good a basis as any for promot-
ing helpers to drivers.

6. He believes that his employees should be paid on a commission basis.

7. He likes to play golf.

8. He associates socially with other members of the company management.

SARAH

 

Sarah is the tall and slender receptionist of the university dean. Thirty-nine
years old, she has top seniority among the seven girls in the office. The job
requires that she meet the large number of snidents who have been asked to see the
dean or who come to him for advice. She refers to students as "dmnbbells",
openly blames them for their errors, and swears when she is angry, which she often
18.

9. She is conscientious about passing along phone messages to the other girls.
10. She is careful about the routine details of her work.
11. She consults the other girls about the regulation of the heat and ventilation
in the office.
12. She says she is happy in her Job.
13. She was an only child.
11;. She conpliments the other girls when they do a good job.

.. 2 .-
The Case of Christopher

Christopher's parents live in a small western town where his father teaches school
and his mother is librarian. Both parents are shy and quiet, fond of reading and
natural history. His brother, 5 years older, is now a lawyer.

Christopher has always been thin and frail, but seldom 111. He began to talk early,
but did not walk equally early. He seldom cried and required little discipline as
a child. He is very intelligent, being above average college level of intelligence.

15. He creates imaginary friends.

16. He enjoyed his school gang.

17. Christopher seldom day dreamed.

18. Occasionally, when excited, he loses his voice.
19. He does well in oral classwork.

20. His marks were below his ability.

21. He enjoyed high school activities.

22. While in college he went to many movies.

23. He feels that he is not a true participant in life.

EARNST

 

When he first came to Harvard Earnst was a tall, narrowed shouldered 2h year old
graduate student in engineering. He was born on a farm in Wisconsin, the youngest
of a large family. He received most of his education at country schools until he
entered engineering college. Recalling his family and childhood Earnst said:
"1hr earliest impressions of life that I can remember now, were to a large
extent miserable. As a baby I was constantly ailing, apparently having one
childhood disease after another, starting off with measles at the age of six
weeks...Mother was an intelligent, gentle, loving woman, and was much thought
of by friends and neighbors...My father was at times a brutal man aid inclined,
when drinking, to be unpleasant to us. At such times he would mks fun of no,
call me all sorts of unpleasant names and say that I probably wouldn't live
the year out, and that it would be better if I didn'toulhr father had become
an invalid, I forgot to mention before, shortly after motrsr died. He was
in acute need of a job for he had no money, and was living on what he could
borrow from a brother. He was earning his male by working in a restaurant."

Earnst was one of 50 college students hired for an intensive study of personality
at Harvard in the 19305.

214. He had lately become a Christian Scientist.

25. He had some difficulty in recalling the names and ages of his brother and
sisters.

26. Earnst was a good conversationalist.

27. In various experiments, his aspirations were always well ahead of his
performance.

28. He was self-confidant.

29. In an experiment involving a mild electric shock, Earnst was unusually
disturbed.

30. He was lacking in ambition.

a3-
HARTLEY

As a Harvard senior, Hartley was of average height and weight, but had broad
shoulders, narrow hips, and strong arms and legs. Although he was good in many
sports, he was outstanding in none. He described himself as a "very impatient
sort of fellow" who always liked action of some kind. He was very intellige: t.
Commenting on life in general he said: "I like the world the way it is. For as
it is, it offers competition and insecurity, and it's the battle to overcome each
of these that makes life worthwhile."

His father had been a schoolteacher, but was now the energetic manager of a mid-
western wholesale business. His mother was a meticulous housekeeper. Of his

family Hartley said: "Mother is interested in art, music, and books; Dad, in nearly
everything."

31. He had a great many pets when he was a child.

32. He became a proficient fighter during his early school years.

33. He had an unhappy time during his high school years.

31;. He had his first date when he was sixteen.

35. He enjoyed being the stage manager of high school dramatic productions.
. During his college career he was something of a "lone wolf".

37. He lacked self-confidence.

38. (he of his ideals was to be an easy and gifted speaker.

39. He was in favor of socialized medicine.

ho. He had little interest in science.

’41. At the age of thirty he was almost a stranger to fatigue.

The Case of Greater

Chester is 16 years old. He is a bit slight for his age. He is a medium-brown
' negro boy, the oldest of h children in a middle-class New Orleans family. His
mother is a physically powerful woman, religious, dominant, and thrifty. She has
been the head of the family sime the father deserted 7 years ago. She insists on
well-mannered and obedient children. Chester's father was a semi-skilled worker.
Before he deserted the family the mother had decided that Chester would be a
doctor. Now she works to keep up appearances and to keep the children in school.
Chester was not to bring "lower class" children home or to play with them. He
had to stay in the yard after h P.M. His mother frequently employed physical
punishment in disciplining her children.

In spite of the financial difficulties his mother arranged for Chester to attend
a private negro prep school. He was of above average intelligence and maintained
good academic and athletic records throughout school.

142. He feels "clothes makes the difference".

’43. He says the majority of negroes are of the worse kind.

141;. He is proud of his mother.

h5. He is boastful.

’46. He is severely punished by his mother when he exhibited curiosity about sex.
’47. He is rather aggressive, verbally.

h8. He feels lower class negroes are persecuted.

1:9. He says: "I'm as good as anybody in the world."

50. He shows few signs of anxiety or worry.

51. He saves his money to buy clothes,

52. He invites his friends to his home.

.. h -
DORIAN TYLER

Dorian entered Dartmouth College from a private school and graduated as an econom-
ics major. He was of sleight build, average height, good health, and very superior
intelligence. An observer who had known him and his family for a long time
commented:
" The only child of very admiring and doting parents. During his pre-college
life, he was brought up to be a perfect gentleman; so much so, in fact, that
he failed to reveal the usual boyish traits as completely as he should have.
As he grew older, he veered from the exemplary behavicr and developed a
reputation of being a great ladies' man, a somewhat reckless driver and
indifferent to the serious aspects of living. At tines, his appearance is
very smooth, and then again he is quite neglectful at times and looks
extremely seedy. The mother has been a semi-invalid during all of the boy's
life and has dominated him, and, I believe imposed upon him beyond reason."

53. Dorian received high grades in college.

514. Fellow students think of him as a "snob" and an "egotist".

55. His instructors described him as "responsible, disciplimd, and nature".

56. He reports that he was often tired as a child.

57. Dorian has few artistic interests.

58. When he meets a girl he likes, he doesn't care about her social class and
background.

59. When asked what super-politeness expressed, he replied: “contempt!"

60. He is more comfortable with men than womn.

61. He received an "A" in an English course entitled: "Types of Babel Thought".

62. His grade point average improved steadily through colb gs.

The Case of Joe Figg

Joe was the second son of Irish immigrant parents who had grade school educations.
His father's earnings were meager at first, but improved when encouraged by his
wife; he invested a small inheritance in a flower shop. With Joe 's mother, educa-
tion was less important than religion, but still necessary for getting ahead
socially. His mother was very affectionate, but dominating. Joe 's parents de-
cided he should be a doctor. His father was rather passive, but capable of 011'.-
bursts. Punishment of the children was severe. It included shaming, daiying of
affection, spanking, and denying of pleasure.

As a child Joe was his parents' favorite, and was often the center of attraction.
He was good looking, and was considerably above average intelligence. Later, how-
ever, he lost favor when his brothers seemed to make more social progress.

63. He was a "show off" in Kindergarten.

61;. He found it easier to become accepted by boys than by girls.
65. He acted childish in high school.

66. He had very strong guilt feelings about nasturbation.

67. He was not very concerned about losing my: school frimds.
68. He was quite irdependent.

69. He was changeable and disorganized.

70. He was quite studious.

71. He bragged about his sexual conquests.

72. He bragged about being so young in high school.

73. He found it easy to make decisions.

71:. He was quite jealous of "his girl'f, as a high school senior.
75. He enjoyed a position of leadership given him in the Amy.

- S -
The Case of;_ the Johnson Dress Shop

Margaret Johnson is the owner and manager of an irdependelt women's ready-to-wear
shop in a suburb of Cleveland. She also does all the buying, which means leaving
the shop in charge of a saleswomen twice a year while she is in New York.

She is nerried to a man who is lame. Because of this he has refused to work for
quite some time. He does odd jobs around the store and gives orders to the em-
ployees. He drinks heavily.

Mrs. Johnson is about 55 years old. She is large, sturdy, and extremely intelli-
gent. She has had a great deal of experience in the retail field. She is in the
upper middle class. She is industrious and anbitious, but has a quick temper and
never admits a mistake.

There are 5 saleswomen, 2 maids, and 10 alteration women working for her. They
receive excellent pay and work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. with an hair off fa-
lunch. The merchandise in the shop is extremely high-priced and consequently the
customers are very wealthy, high-society people.

76. Mrs. Johnson is liked by her employees.

77. She is constantly enlarging her shop.

78. When a saleswomen nakes a mistake, Mrs. Johnson waits until the customr
leaves before she corrects her.

79. She has little trouble keeping her employees.

80. She has the reputation of being a hard person to work for.

81. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson quarrel constantly in the shop in front of employees.

82. The employees are very loyal to their enployer.

83. She will not allow the saleswomen to sit down during the day.

814. She will lecture her cmtomers if she disagrees with their taste in clothes.

85. She knows how to get the maximum amount of work out of her employees.

86. She lets her employees take a ten minute break in the afternoon.

The Case of John Sanders

John at 15, was 5%" tall. and weighed 105 pounds. He had a childhood record of
ill health. Emotionally John was rather reserved, but sometimes expressed himself
vigorously. He was not at home in social gatherings, though he often attended. He
enjoyed talking about books, art, politics, and movie stars though. He was in the
upper 11* in intelligence and got good marks in Literature and Language, but low in
Math. John reported that if he had one wish he would like to be (1) movie star,
(2) detective, (3) king.

John grew up in a middle class suburban area. His father provides a modest but
irratic income as a plumber. He is patient and "conradoly" with John. John's
mother, the dominant figure in the household, was often aprr ehensive about his
safety and demanded much of his time.

87. At age 15 John filled out a personal-social inventory and stated: “I wish ny
mother could be happier."

88. At the same time on a self-rating form, John saw himself as a weakling.

89. John also saw himself as seldom worrying about "things which he had done , but
never told to anyone."

90. At age 17 John reported he would like to improve the beauty of a machine.

91. At age 17 John held a conservative attitude regarding Me speech and academic
freedom.

92. He also found irreligious peeple more interesting.

93. Various personality tests showed that John had little drive to accomplish

Phi-r1380

.. 6 -
AGNES

 

Agnes, an unmarried professor in her early fifties, teaches art in a small mid-
western rmiversity, attends many concerts, and lists interior decoration as her
favorite hobby. As a child, she often hid in order to read books rather than do

housework.
town and raised his eight children in a house owned by the company.

Her father, a European immigrant, became an iron miner in a company
Her parents

were strict disciplinarians and encouraged their children to quit school and go

to work.

95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

John, a Dartmouth student, was a cheery,

Agnes is the only one of the children who went to college.

Her
She
She
She
She
Her

family are now proud of her accomplishments.

is unconcerned about what other people think of her.
enjoys taking care of her house.

is a relaxed and informal hostess.

likes her sisters-in~law.

sisters ask her advice about clothes.

JOHN TOWNIEY

sociable,unaggressive, and conventional

young man of average intelligence who was earnest and diligent in his college work.

He graduated, however, in the lowest tenth of his class.

There was evidence that

his feelings of inferiority and his fears of irxiependent juigment constituted handi-

caps. Responses to projective tests ("artificial as the ice cream in a soda fountain
window", "exciting as a battle between a mongoose and a cobra", "idealistic as the

life of a nun", etc) indicated that John had a creative capacity that had been

largely repressed in his academic work.

Both of his parents were talented musicians

but he could neither carry a tune or play an instrument.

101.
102 .
103 .

101:.
105.

106.
107.

108.
109.

110.
111.

His parents were warm and indulgent.

John's autobiography was short but well organized.

In his autobiography he wrote that he was "the most even-tempered cues that
has ever walked on two feet."

He stated that he had had "quite a few love experiences".

Some of his friends described him as "even-tempered" and some described him
as "quick tempered and irritable".

John gained little pleasure from the activities of everyday life.

When he tried seriously to do a good piece of work he forgot his fears and
doubts.

His autobiography was repetitious and full of contradictions.

He clearly distinguished between what he thoth and what others exp cted
him to think.

John seemed unable to organise and present ideas.

John's ambition was to succeed in some kind of artistic vocation.

WILLIAMAND IAURA

William, 21;, and Iaura, 23, have been married for a year and a half. Both his and
her parents, who had approved of their marriage, were foreign-born, similar in

social and economic backgrounds, and residents of the same community.

At tl’B tins

of their narriage, William had had only irregular enployment since his graduation
from high school. William is proud of his dead mother who had run her husband's
affairs, planned her seven children's vocational and social activities, and faced

death with an unsagging spirit.

The youngest of his three sisters, all of whom

were much like their mother, took care of him when their mother died.

William and Laur_a (cont'd)

Laura, although she wanted to teach kindergarten, had worked as a store clerk for

twa years before her marriage and continued to work at the sane job afterward.

Her

father had been a successful merchant but had developed an interest in gambling

and had given up good positions for trivial reasons.
gave Iaura and her mother tongue-la shines.

Both he and his son often
Her motter was patient and long-

suffering. William and Lalra had few friends ani belonged to no social organiza-

tions.

112. Williams mother was also named Laura.

113. William now feels that his wife was a strong source of security.

1114. Laura complained that William was too aggressive in his semal advances.

115. Laura contained to respect her father even after he had ceased to support
the family.

ll6. William considers his marriage was a mistake.

117. William feels that his childhood was very happy.

118. William still admires his wife's appearance and personality.

119. Williams father objected when his daughters tried to put him in an old
people's home.

120. William often wishes he had a hone to go back to.

121. William is very irritated when his wife cores hone tired from work.

122. William recognises that he wants to depend on his wife as he used to depend
on his mother and sisters.

123. William commenting on getting nnarried, said: "With superhuman effort I forced
myself to go to the courthouse and say, 'I want a license”.

121;. William makes many demands of his wife.

EARLANDFRANK

Earl and Frank, identical twins, were born in a midwestern city, of uneducated and

unmarried parents.
mother's sister.
their wish to board a baby.

When the boys were six months old,they were turned over to their
She loept Frank but placed Earl with a family who had advertised
This family soon assuned full responsibility for Earl

and took him to a city in the northwest without consulting the aunt of the boys.
Earl's foster father was a college graduate and a successful salesman; Frank's a
streetcar conductor. Earl graduated from college; Frank attended high school only

six months, though later he attended night school.

Eml was raised in comfort;

Frank was brought up with little economic security in the neighborhood where he

was born by his fond aunt.

Both twins had happy homes with only moderate discipline.

They were both interviewed and tested by psychologists in 19th when they were 37

years old.

The twins were remarkably similar in neny respects: sane Insight, same

color hair, sane fingerprints, same good health, same pocr spelling, same ratings

on many personality traits, very similar vocational interest scores, etc...
some respects, however, they were different.
the nave of the twin to whom you think the statement applies.

In
For each of the statements indicate
Use "1" for Earl

and "2" for Frank.

125.
126.
127.
128.

12 9.
130.
131.

132.

Was warmer in his personal relations.

Spoke of his brother with an air of superiority.

Was less pompous and affected.

Was bothered by the gap between his aspirations and his ability to achieve
them.

Was more stable emotionally.

Was more self-conscious.

Said that what he wanted most in life was a good business with men working
for him.

Said that what he wished for most this the happiness of his family.

-8-
FREDANDJOHN

Fred and John, identical twins, had very similar backgrounds and personality.
Their father, an unsuccessful and alcoholic son of a well-to-do New England
manufacturer, had gone to Cuba to make his forlnne. He failed there as a farmer,
and also failed in Florida wlere the family had neved when the boys were in. He
eventually returned to New England to live with the twins' grandmother. The mother
of the twins was industrious and long-suffering. Though she was, for the most
part, responsible for rearing the children, their father was sporadically a
demanding and cruel disciplinarian. The twins left school after the eighth grade
and went to work in the same factory on semi-skilb d jobs. They are working at
identical jobs today. They have the same eye and hair color, and look very much '
alike. Both have type 0 arnd Rh positive blood. Both are shy, dependent, passive,
and anxious.

The twins cane to the attention of physicians at the age of 16 because John had
developed a severe duodenal ulcer while Fred remained in good health. For each
of the statements below indicate the name of the twin to whom you think the state-
ment applies. Use "1" for Fred and “2" fcr John.

1314. Had better understanding of himself and of other people.

135. Was a warmer and more tender person.

136. Worked harder to keep a brighter view of himself and others.

137. Showed greater hatred of his father.

138. Was readier to accept blame.

139. Was more resentful that their mother had not given them more from the
$100,000 she inherited about ten years ago.

1140. Described his wife as a good cook and mother.

1141. He showed more competitiveness in his relationships with his brother.

11.2. Was more optimistic.

1h3. While the level of gastric secretion was much higher than normal in both
twins, his level was higher than his brother's.

lhh. One of his son's has a scholarship at an ivy league university.

1’45. learned that his wife had been carryirg on an affair with an older man.

11-21-60 ms

APPENDIX D

The Human Relations Scale in Final Form

HUmAN RELATIONS DCALE

This is a scale measuring beliefs about how peeple react in
different situations. There are no right or song answers. In
many cases it may be diificult to choose an answer, but please
mark a choice for each one.

The Case of Hans: The place: Eunich, Germany. The time: 1922.

Hans meyerhoff, a poor shapkeeper, has been invited to a secret
meeting of a small organization headed by Adolf Hitler. Hans is
bewildered throughout the meeting. ‘

 

1. what is he thinking at the end of the meeting?
1. "This man believes more in himself than any man I've met."
2. "The others think he had some great ideas."
3. "He is an ihpressive speaker.”

2. Hans becomes enthralled with Hitler and tries to convince one
of his customers, Rudolph, to join the Party. Why is Rudolph
hesitant?

1. "Hana, himself, doesn't know what he is joinging."
2. "Hans and the rest will soon outgrow this craze."
3. "I wonder why Hans wants me to join the Party."

3. In time, however, Hans's friend, Ruddph Hess, joins the Party
and becomes one of Hitler‘s most trusted aides. For some reason
in the middle of World war II. Rudolph Hess flew alone right
over London only to be shot down. What were Hitler's thoughts
about this?

1. "He did it to embarrass me before the world."

2. "He did it to show the others he wasn't a coward like they said:
3. "He did it to prove to himself he is brave."
4. "He did it in a moment of insanity."

4. Hana, however, remained far down the line in Barty power. What
does his wife think about this?
1. "He must feel inadequate not to have been promoted any higher."
2. "I wonder if he thinks I'm partly responsible."
3. The other members don't respect him at all.”

5. Hans's only daughter, hilda, falls in love with one of the few
Jews left in Munich. Hans of course is Opposed to the romance.
What does her lover, Max, think about Hans?

l. "Hans is weak; even his friends in the Party don't respect hin.*
2. "He is only a poor, frightened shepkteper."
l. "I think he genuinely hates me."

'.

T he

hilda and max elope, as a friendly guard lets them through a
checkpoint. ”hat was the guard thinking as they went through?
1. "They will have few friends in all of Germany."

2. "They will always be grateful to me for letting them out."
3. "They know not what they do, only of their mutual love."

Case of Cardinal Vlfl“““”1. Cardinal Vineenzi is attending the

 

The

 

hcumenical Council in name. There is a question on the floor
about which he has strong feelings, diametrically apposed to
the Pope. He is in the proce s of preparing his argument.

"hat is he thinking as he writes his speech?
1. "The other Coridnals have a high regard for the Pope."
2. I must be careful not to arrouse the Pope's ir againi me."

Case 31' the l°b°‘ Besid 5 being one of baseballs great heroes.

 

Bebe

View

8.

The
and
The

9.

10.

ll.

12.

huth had a sincere interest in children. He once had an inter»
.ith Tom.y Umlth, reporter for his high school paper.

What Was Tommy thinking during the interview?

1. "I hope he thinks I'm doing a good job."

2. "I wonder if he knows how admired he is."

3. "Peophe think he°s really great to L,ive of his tine like this ”

__§ase of Karthg; Eartha is an orphan. She is fifteen years old

is being considered for adoption through a social work agency.
interested couple is talking with a social worker.

what might the social worker be tlinking?
1. "They have favorable recommendations fnom respected people."
2. "It seems that they would make good parents.”

The social worker decides to recommend the adoption. What might
she be thinking during her conference with her supervisor?

1. "He seems to respect my views."

2. "His experience makes him a keen judge of adeption cases."

3. "he has a lot of confidence becuase of his wide experience."

.Her supervisors thoughts?

1. "fihe's done a good job sf analysis."

2. "She knows she has to convhne me."
3. "I've heard sheis a very capable worker."

Eartha is adopted by the couple. What is the social worker
thinking after her twelfth and final monthly visit?

1. "kartha realizes she has never been happier."

2. "Her parents and friends have grown to love her."

3. "They all seemed terribly grateful tome."

fioo years later martha falls in love with a college senior
named Bill. What do her parents think aboutthie?

1. "At eighteen we should expect a girl to fall in love."

2. "Bill seems to love her too; he treats her like a queen."
3. "She doesn't need us like she used to."

l4. martha talks to her social worker for advice about leaving her
parents so soon. kartha's thoughts?
I. "I hepe she doesn3t think she made a mistake with me."
2. "I hope she doesn't think I let her down."
3. "A social worker would be a good 9: son to talk to now."

4. "she is respected by her colleagues; she must be a good wr;--

l5. What is the social workier thinking?
1. ""hartha thinks I can give her some good advice."
2. "She knows she needs advice."

16. The social worker tlaks with Martha's parents. Their though
1. "kartha seemeto think a lot ofher now."
2. "Shw will be good to talk to now."
3. "She probably thinks we let her down as parents."

17. martha and dill decide to wet married. Her parents'thoughts r
1. "They make a great couple and have happy days ahead."
2. "They know they made the right decision."
3. "Hope she still loves us!"

18. what is fill thinking now?
1. "her parents still love her and understand her."
2. "Our lives are Just beginning."
3. "I hope she loves me as much as I love her."

Ehe Cass of_§gu; Lou is the father of three collegeeage childre;
he has been acting rather cold toward his wife as of late. His 7
is worried. They had always gotten along well in their 26 years r‘
marriage,and were able to discuss their problems with each other

 

13. "hat is Lou's boss thinking about his problem?
1. "Lou knows his work is not as good as it co.dd be."

V 0

2. "The other workers are becoming impatient with him."

20. What might Sally be thinking? She is his favorite child.
1. "he must be depressed because I left for college."
2. "I guess adults have periods of depression just like us k'
3. "I hope he can talk it out with his friends."

The Case of alggrt: Little Albert is a schoolboy in Germany. H’

m-..»

is doing Below averare work in math and sees his teacher for he 3

21. what is Albert thin ing during the conference?
1. "He is one of my best teachers."
2. "I wonder if he's interested in helping me."
3. "I wonder what kind ff teacher he thinks he is."

22 Poor Albert failed his math course. How did his teacher feel?
1. "I hope this doesn't hurt his selfrconfidence too much."
2. "I hope he doesn't feel resentful toward me for failing h.
3. "He Just doesn't have the ability tedo mih."

23. How did his teacher feel a few year? later when his former

student formulated an equation as e changing wirld history?
1. "Einstein will go down as one of the great thinkers."

2. "I wonder if he thinks I was a poor teacher."
3. "he is being hailed by all as our greatest physicist "

l. . . -' , A {4“ (“luv 1 C _"‘ Q .N ‘L" ' I f \7 ‘1; a ' ’_‘ n. _.‘
. o. .lnusl a? ngw;.y: hr. desneVsky 18 a world champion

A ~- ~-

 

-.u “t..-

chess player. hereeently played 50 r,layers simultaneously.

 

. - ---
. ...- nan—an-»

24. what were his Opponents thiniing as they sat down to play him?
1. "he is truly one of the worldfs great players."
2. "he must know he's pretty goon to play so many at once."
3. ”Does he really think that 10m a challenge?"

25. One of the players, a 15 year old boy, beats the heater. His
name is Bobby hisher, current U.o. chess champion» AS they
played the second time, what was Reshetsk thinkins?"
l. "I don't think success has gone to Eofiby's head."
2. "He seems to look a t me dif.erently than he did the last ti:‘
3. "The audience seems really to like him, maybe for his ynuth.”

26. What di Bobby think after he defeated the master again?
1. "His one mistake at the end cost him the game."
2. "He must think I’m his equal now."

The Caggmof Cathy: Cath and her rommmate are sophemres at a large

uniVErsitylquhey just had a fight about kdeping the rocm neat. Cathy
claiiing her roommate is not neat enough.

27. What is Oathy thinking after the fight?
1. "Other girhw think she is too sloppy. too."
2. "She thi.ks hei standards are the meet practical."

28. What did Cathy think after talking to her housemother about it?
1. "She really understands the problem."
2. Any housemother would have trouble handling this kind of pro-V
3. "I can see why girhs think she is so understanding.”
4. "I wonder what she thought of me and my side of the argument."

29° Cathy gets a new roommate; her thoughts upon meeting her?
1. "I hope she's more welleliked than my old roommate."
2. "Anything will be better than the old situation."
3. "I hope she realizes that her way wi i not always be the has:

ghe “ass of Bob: Bob is a senior majoring in math and plans to go
to graduate school next year. His math teacher9 Mr. Lewis. is retir:

 

30. How does Bcb feel about this bit of news?
1. "Lewis thinks he can't convey the material as well now."
2. "It's best for all that he reitre now."

3]. His wife's thoughts about the news of her husband’s reitroment?
l. "I'. proud of all the praise he's getting from his colleagues

. "He has a feeling of real satisfaction after these 30 years.

. "These next years might be a good change for him."

"Maybe he will need me more new that he is not warning "

«rd-KAN.

32. Mr. Lewis is replaced by a young PhD. She is bright. good-
looking and single. what is bob thinning as she walks into class?
1. "This should be an interesting course."
2. I wonder what th- staff thin s of this new addition."
3. "I hope she likes my work."

33. one is a hard marker and Deb fails the first exam. His thoughts r
1. "She's trying to show the cause who's boss."
2. "She's the hardest marker in the department."
3. "I wonder what the rest of the class thinks of her standards."

34. Bob goes to talk to her about his work. Her thoughts?
1. "He seems upset at me for marking so hard."
2. "He seems genuinely interested in imprOVing his work."

35. Bob gets straightened out and ends up with an A in the course.
What are his thoughts now?
1. "She thinks I really know the material now."
2. "The class endcd up respec ing her and liking here let."
3. "This was a very beneficial course."

The Cass of Leon: Leon hinters is captain of his howling team. His
team loses its first three matches and he resigns as captian. Unds=
his successor. Al, the team wins its next 4 games.

 

36. What are sl's thoughts now?
1. Leon must realize he's more of an asset to the team as a memo<
than as captian."
2. His bowling has iiprovcd lately, as has the team's."
3. "he resent me for taking over hishiob."

Ehe Case of Jan : Jan is a high school dropout. He is seeing an ad
visor from the Poverty Pregram to try to get a job.

 

37. What is the adviser thinking as he talks to Jan?
l."He realizes he needs help."
2. "He seems to think I can help him."
3. Ifiis program was design d to help this kind of boy."

38. Jan gets a job on a construction job. his foreman's thoughts at i
1. "This boy needs to gain some self-confidence."
2. He'll be depending on me to help get him started."

39. One day, Jan had a fight with another laborer. Bret. a man abcv‘
fifty. Jan thinks afterwards:
l. "I wonder if the other workers thought Bret was right."
2. "It war silly to fight; it should pa s over quickly."

«h

{7“-

40. The foreman's thoughts?
1. "Jan will probably worry what I°ll doto h.m about the fight.”
2. "I wonder if Jan thought it was wrong to have fought with Bret.‘
3. "I wonder what the workers think of Jan."
4. "These things happen on any job."

The Cage of Hr. Mporqi Alan Moore is in the market for a new car.
he is deciding between 3 Lincoln and a Cadillac.

41. what might he be thinking as he is talking to one of the salesmen?
l. "I wonder if he thinks I'm an easy customer to sell."
2. "I've heard he's a well-repected sale ma ."

The Case of Ellep; Ellen has been dating a boy steadily for three
months. They are both freshmen and h,ve decided to stop seeing
each other for a while.

42. How does hllen feel?
1. "It's best for both of us because we're too yOung to get
serious."
2. "I he e he still likes me even though we're not dating."
3. "I wonder how he feels about it."

   

 
            

‘32 m u. >02 m

'
q
\

       

(Q , .
.va R v. 2