"’J.#“ ,F‘_ . ,
.a.- 9. ..,‘ . _‘
v...- .C“-OaQ-QH'~.”. . ...

’ ‘ - .. :¢o
""*H"V‘OQQMco-”qo.»...
""“"‘-' ‘-4.-- .-...-,,

.A
1“.

THE MEASUREMENT AND DETERMINANTS
OF INTE'RPERSONAL SENS‘IT 1V”?!

Thesis fan Hue Degree 0‘ ..M. A._.— .
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY- '
_ _}Burton A. Grossman

1963

MEI/M“. 8 WOWR'oq

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE MEASUREMENT AND DETERMINANTS OF
INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY

by Burton A. Grossman

The purposes of the present study were twofold:

(l) to develop a test of interpersonal sensitivity free
from the influence of stereotype judgments: and (2) to test
specific hypotheses concerning the determinants of the
ability.

Interpersonal sensitivity was defined as the ability.
of a judge to differentiate between individuals in terms of
their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes, and, to use this
knowledge in making predictions about the individuals.

The study was divided into two phases. The first
phase consisted of the development of a test of inter-
personal sensitivity which included second and third person
predictions, and which was free from the effects of stereo-
type accuracy. In the second phase, the test was adminis—
tered to the subjects, and the hypotheses derived from

previous findings were tested. The measure of interpersonal

Burton A. Grossman

sensitivity was the number of correct predictions made by
the judge.

The Cline films were used to present the persons to
be judged to the judges. The films consist of five—minute
sound color interviews with six different persons. They
permit the presentation of a standardized stimulus situation
to large groups of people.

The final form of the test consisted of 120 items
including second and third person predictions, and items
for both men and women interviewees. The reliability of the
test was .59, which is not as high as expected.

The following hypotheses were supported by the data:

1. Interpersonal sensitivity is a general ability.

2. The more observant a judge, the greater his inter-
personal sensitivity.

3. The more open-minded the judge, the greater his
interpersonal sensitivity.

Four hypotheses were partially supported by the data,
and these may be restated as follows:

4. The more sensitive judge has greater verbal
comprehension.
5. For male judges, social aloofness leads to greater

sensitivity.

Burton A. Grossman

6. Amount and type of college courses are not related

to sensitivity, but level of performance in courses

 

is positively related to interpersonal sensitivity.
7. Second and third person sensitivity have different
determinants for certain variables.

It was concluded that the data did not support five
of the hypotheses tested. No significant relationship was
found between interpersonal sensitivity and emotional
stability, awareness of the judge, and social confidence.
Also, no differences were found between male and female
judges in their judging ability, and between same—sex

and opposite sex sensitivity.

Approved C—Q-o... @

Comm-k; ee C a rman

Date %~_§ H). ‘OIGB

 

 

THE MEASUREMENT AND DETERMINANTS OF

INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY

BY

Burton A. Grossman

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my appreciation to
Dr. Henry C. Smith for the ideas and guidance he gave

in helping me to complete this thesis.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Development of the Concept of Interpersonal
Sensitivity 2
The Measurement of Interpersonal Sensitivity 6
Measurement Problems 10
Determinants of Interpersonal Sensitivity ll
PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Subjects ‘ 21
Development of the Test of Interpersonal
Sensitivity 22
The Dependent Variables 25
General Procedures 33
Method of Data Analysis 35
RESULT837
Hypothesis 1 37
Hypothesis 2 38
Hypothesis 3 39
Hypothesis 4 4O
Hypothesis 5 41
Hypothesis 6 42
Hypothesis 7 43
Hypothesis 8 44
Hypothesis 9 44
Hypothesis 10 45
Hypothesis ll 46
Hypothesis 12 47
Item Analysis of Personality Scales 48

iii

Page

DISCUSSION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Agreement with Previous Findings 51
Inconsistencies with the Literature 55

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

iv

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Judges in principal part of study . . . . . . .
Norms for the Interpersonal Sensitivity test . .

Reliabilities of the test of Interpersonal
Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability of non-personality measures . . . .

Correlations between suppression scale and
other personality scales . . . . . . . . . .

Reliabilities of the personality scales . . . .

Generality of the test of Interpersonal
Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Differences between men and women judges on the
Interpersonal Sensitivity test . . . . . .

Comparison of opposite-sex and same—sex
senSitj-Vity . O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0

Correlation between observational accuracy and
Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .

Correlation between intelligence and Inter-
personal Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation between social aloofness and
Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .

Correlation between emotional stability and
Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .

Correlation between awareness and Interpersonal
Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

Page
22

24

25

28

33

34

38

39

4O

41

42

43

43

44

Table

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

Correlation between amount, type, and per—

formance in college courses and
Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . . .

Correlation between social confidence and
Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . .

Correlation between open-mindedness and
Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . .

Differences between 2nd and 3rd person
sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of evidence for hypotheses .

vi

Page

45

46

47

48

50

IN TRODUCTI ON

The development of the ability to understand indi-
viduals and to make accurate predictions about their behavior
and experience is one of the often stated aims in the teaching
of psychology, in the training of clinical psychologists,
and in the human relations training of business leaders
by industrial psychologists. Unfortunately, evaluation of
the effectiveness of these training efforts suggests that
they do little to improve the ability (Wakeley, 1961).

In spite of the central role of the ability, few
concentrated efforts have been made to measure it, and still
fewer to explore its determinants. It was the assumption
of the present study that better measures of the ability and
further exploration of its determinants might lead to improved
training procedures. The purposes of the study, therefore,
were to: (1) develop an improved measure of the ability:
and (2) to test specific hypotheses concerning the deter-

minants of the ability.

HI STORY

The development of concepts related to the ability
to understand individuals, various methodological attempts
to measure the ability, and investigations into the deter-
minants of the ability constitute much of the history of
the problem. The following discussion, therefore, is pre-
sented under these headings.

The Development of the Concept
of Interpersonal Sensitivity

The concepts of Empathy, Differential Accuracy, and
Interpersonal Sensitivity provide the framework for the
following discussion. Each has played a role in sharpen—

ing the conception of the ability to understand people.

3mm

Empathy was one of the first concepts to be used in
connection with the ability. Empathy was defined by Titchener
(1915) as "the name given to that process of humanizing
objects, of reading or feeling ourselves into them." The
idea originated with the German word Einfuhling, the process
of becoming aware of (perceiving) the thoughts, motives,

2

and feelings of another person (Lindzey, 1954). Since then
it has been used to denote one's understanding of another's
thoughts and feelings, and also as the name of the theory
of how this understanding comes about.

Psychologists adopted the assumption that a person
Who was "empathic" could perceive what another person was
like and was thus enabled to predict his behavior in a
variety of situations. Cottrell and Dymond (1949) and Dymond
(1950) pointed out the importance of the concept, noted the
lack of research, and carried out investigations of the
various aspects of the ability. Their main interest was
in the generality of the ability, and in the personality
traits of good judges. A number of studies which criticized
empathy research (Hastorf and Bender, 1952; Bender and
Hastorf, 1953; Lindgren and Robinson, 1953), strongly sug-
gested that the empathy score, supposedly a measure of
"the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking,
feeling, and acting of another? (Dymond, 1950), was seriously
affected by a number of variables such as projection,
assumed similarity, and various rating errors. The
apparent measures of empathy were, in other words,
heavily influenced by factors that had little or nothing

to do with "feeling oneself" into others.

The Differential Accuracy Component

 

In 1955, Cronbach published his study showing that
so—called "empathy" scores were actually determined by four
components:

1. Elevation: the way in which the judge uses the

 

response scale:

2. Differential Elevation: the judge's ability to
judge deviations of the individual's elevation from
the average:

3. Stereotype Accuracy: the judge's ability to predict
the norm for the Objects (persons) he is judging;

4. Differential Accuracy: the judge's ability to pre—

 

dict differences between Objects on any item.

He pointed out that previous research had dealt
mainly with simple and operationally defined measures. His
new analysis showed that any such measures may combine and
thereby conceal important variables, or may depend heavily
on unwanted components. The analysis explained many of the
contradictory findings of the empathy research.

Among Cronbach's components, Differential Accuracy
comes closest to the original concept of empathy and defines
it with operational precision. It is, however, more a

statistical than a psychological concept. Furthermore, it

has the practical inconvenience of only being measurable

by partialing it out of a more global score.

Interpersonal Sensitivity

Bronfenbrenner _t _1 (1958) presented an analysis of
the ability to understand individuals based upon Cronbach's
work but using terms that were both free of the ambiguities
surrounding the term empathy as well as being more psycho-
logical than his terms. He proposes two types of social
perception: Sensitivity 52 the Generalized Other - an aware-
ness of the social norm or typical response of a large

class or group (similar to Cronbach's Stereotype Accuracy

component); and Interpersonal Sensitivity - recognition of

 

the ways in which one person may differ from another (or
from the 'average') in his behavior, feelings, or motives
(similar to Cronbach's Differential Accuracy component).
Bronfenbrenner suggests that these two types of social
skill are independent abilities. He explains the impli-
cations of the suggestion by using these two new concepts
in discussing Lindgren and Robinson's (1953) criticism

of a study of empathy by Dymond (1950). They said:
."this raises the question of whether the test (Dymond's

Empathy Test) measures the tendency of individuals to respond

to an interpersonal situation in terms of cultural norms
rather than empathic promptings." Bronfenbrenner suggests
that both types of social skill are operating, and that since
the two abilities are independent, this confounding may
contribute to the contradictory character of research

results in the area. He notes that the accuracy score is
probably affected by the presence of the component called

Sensitivity to the Generalized Other and then says: we
must devise a measure of Interpersonal Sensitivity which,
unlike the conventional accuracy score, is independent

of the judge's awareness of the group norm." Thus he has
brought the concept of Interpersonal Sensitivity into

focus as a social skill, an independent ability which should

be measured as an independent concept, and which is free

from any strict statistical definition.

The Measurement of Interpersonal Sensitivity

The discussion follows the same outline as the pre-
ceding section, attempting to bring into focus the measurement
problems involved in using the concepts of Empathy, Differential

Accuracy, and Interpersonal Sensitivity.

Empathy Inspired Measures

Most empathy research has been based on a procedure
developed by Dymond (1949): A's empathic ability is measured
by calculating how closely A's predictions of B's ratings
correspond with B's actual ratings on some scale. Although
used extensively, the procedure has many faults as has been
pointed out by Bender and Hastorf (1953), Lindgren and Robinson
(1953), and Gage and Cronbach (1955). It is subject to
variations due to Elevation and Differential Elevation.
Furthermore, the effects of projection and assumed similarity
have been shown to be artifactual components of the accuracy
score (Gage and Cronbach, 1955). Lindgren and Robinson

1 (1958) have pointed out that

(1953) and Bronfenbrenner gt
the empathy scores have often confounded Stereotype Accuracy
and Interpersonal Sensitivity so that a person with knowledge
of the norms of a particular group may get a spuriously

high "empathy" score.

Differential Accuracy Inspired Measures

Cronbach's 1955 study proposed a statistical analysis
with which one could partial out the four components of the
total accuracy score. Now that researchers were aware of

how these artifactual components affected their measures,

they could develop techniques to separate the effects of
Elevation, Differential Elevation, and Stereotype Accruacy
from Differential Accuracy.

Crow and Hammond (1959) used a nonparametric technique
the Random Comparison Method, which is similar to Cronbach's
analysis of variance technique, in a study of the generality
of the Differential Accuracy component. They obtained a
fairly pure measure of this component.

One of the first researchers to use sound, color
motion pictures was Cline (1955; Cline and Richards, 1960).
He filmed interviews with six different persons and asked
his judges to predict how each interviewee responded to a
number of rating scales. Analysis of the accuracy scores
showed, however, that much more of the variance in them was
due to variance in Stereotype Accuracy, Elevation, and
Differential Elevation, rather than Differential Accuracy
(Cline and Richards, 1960).

Using Cline's filmed interviews and criterion data,
Pieper (1960) eliminated the influences of Elevation and
Differential Elevation on accuracy. He accomplished this
end by using a matching method rather than a rating method.
That is, he showed the films three at a time and then had

the judges indicate which of the three persons judged had

said or done a particular thing. Since Elevation and Dif-
ferential Elevation variances can only occur where ratings
are made, the matching method effectively eliminated these
determinants. The technique, however, does not, of itself,

reduce or eliminate variances due to Stereotype Accuracy.

Interpersonal Sensitivity Measures

 

Bronfenbrenner §£._l (1958) was one of the first to
treat the ability as a social skill, and to measure it
independently. He called his concept Interpersonal Sensitivity.
He used "the method of differential comparison" in which a
member of a face—to-face group was forced to discriminate
individual differences among the other group members in
their responses to the same rating scale. Both the criterion
ratings for evaluating the accuracy of predictions, and the
predictions themselves were expressed as deviations from the
respective means for all the members of the group, thus
making the measure independent of the judge's similarity and
sensitivity to the generalized other. Thus Bronfenbrenner
obtained a "pure" measure of Interpersonal Sensitivity, free
from the influence of Stereotype Accuracy.

For the purposes of this study, Interpersonal

Sensitivity is defined as: a measure of the ability of a

lO

judge to differentiate between individuals in terms of their
thoughts, feelings, and attitudes, from which the influence

of stereotyped judgments has been eliminated.

Measurement Problems

The history of the various attempts to measure the
ability has brought into focus two main problems which are

noted below. The desirability of independent measurement.

 

Previous attempts have measured Interpersonal Sensitivity
by partialing it out of a more global score. More direct
measures of the judge's Interpersonal Sensitivity would be
preferable. Also, the effect of all artifactual components
such as Elevation, Differential Elevation, and Stereotype
Accuracy, should be eliminated from any measure of Inter-
personal Sensitivity. This permits a "pure" measure free
from the influence of any extraneous factors. The desir—

ability of different kinds ofypredictions. In many

 

cases judges have been asked to make only one or two types
of predictions of behavior. Bronfenbrenner §__§l (1958)
feel that a thorough analysis demands different kinds of
predictions, and suggests inclusion of lst person (A's

awareness of what B thinks of him) 2nd person, (A's aware-

ness of what B thinks of himself) 3rd person, (A's awareness

ll

of what C, a third person, thinks of B), and non-personal,
(A's awareness of how B feels about physical objects and
abstract ideas which have no reference to particular groups
or individuals) types of predictions.? He also suggested

obtaining separate measures of predictions for male and

female Objects being judged.

Determinants of Interpersonal Sensitivity

Since a purpose of the present study was to test
hypotheses concerned with Interpersonal Sensitivity, the
following history has been summarized under hypotheses sug-
gested by the literature.

1. Interpersonal sensitivity i§.a general ability.

 

Support for this hypothesis has been presented by a
number of investigators. Cline and Richards (1960) said
"the results of this study indicate that there is a general
ability to perceive others accurately." Taft (1955) re-
viewed the literature and concluded that there is sufficient
generality in this ability to justify describing some judges
as "good" or "poor." HOwever, Crow and Hammond (1959)
pointed out that the assumption of generality is untenable,
and that the comparability of measurement techniques used

should always be empirically demonstrated.

12

2. Women, as compared to men, have greater interpersonal

 

 

sensitivity.

 

The superior judging ability of women has been found
in studies by Allport (1937), Dymond (1950), Trumbo (1955),
Witryol and Kaess (1957) and Bronfenbrenner §t_al (1958).
Results contradictory to these were reported by Taft (1955)
who said that until further evidence suggests a changed
view, it would be wise to conclude that there are no sex
differences. Some investigators have noted that female
superiority varies from task to task.

3. Interpersonal sensitivity to the same sex is greater

 

 

than that £9 the gpposite sex.

 

 

This is a more specific statement of the general
hypothesis that the greater the degree of similarity between
the judged and the judge, the higher the degree of inter-
personal sensitivity. Allport (1937) stressed the importance
of similarity, and Bruner and Taguiri (1954) say that the
degree of similarity between judge and judged tends to in—
crease the accuracy of judgments. Bronfenbrenner gt _1
(1958) found that mean scores for same-sex sensitivity
(.173) were greater than those for opposite—sex sensitivity

(.136) but that the difference was not statistically signifi—

cant.

l3

4. The more observant g judge, the greater his inter-

 

 

 

personal sensitivity.

 

Bronfenbrenner gt a1 (1958) theorized that part of
the ability to judge accurately includes the ability to per—
ceive the objective stimulus field in a social situation.
Adams (1927) found that his accurate judges were rated as
good observers by their friends. .Harris (1962) developed a

measure of Observational Accuracy and found a positive

 

correlation (r = .39) significant at the .01 level between

his test and a test of Inferential Accuracy.

 

5. The more intelligent the judge, the greater his inter—

personal sensitivity.

 

Cline and Richards (1960), Taft (1950; 1955), and
Allport (1937) found positive correlations between the ability
to judge others and intelligence, but some investigators
(Bruner and Taguiri, 1954; Trumbo, 1955) say this relation—
ship is somewhat ambiguous, and that the effect of intelli—
gence is minimal.

6. The more socially aloof the judge, the greater his

 

interpersonal sensitivity.
This hypothesis is based on various findings in the
literature. Adams (1927) characterized his good judges as

being antisocial, socially indifferent, and lacking interest

14

in persons. Introversion was found to be more common than
extroversion among the best judges of others (Bruner and
Taguiri, 1954). Taft (1955) and Allport (1937) state that
social detachment is a necessary prerequisite for making
accurate judgments of others. Trumbo (1955) compared the
mean scores of high and low scorers on a test of social
detachment and founding difference in judging ability.

7. The less emotionally stable the judge, the higher his

 

 

interpersonal sensitivity.

 

Adams (1927) found that his good judges lacked
emotional control. He says: "there is however some evidence
for the existence of two somewhat different types who are
able to judge others with relative accuracy . . . the emotional
type who is emotionalized by his observations and who, by a

method of Einfuhling or pseudo-empathy, is presented with a

 

series of passive estimates." Dymond (1950) also described
her good judges as emotional people. Subjects who were
accurate judges were found to be more anxious as measured by
an anxiety scale (Trumbo, 1955).

8. The greater the judge's awareness 2f himself and his

 

environment, the greater his interpersonal sensitivity.
A factor analysis of the personality scales used in

the present study (Hershey, 1958) found a general awareness

15

factor which included Liberalism, Religious Values, Conform-
ity, and Sensory Awareness. The above hypothesis attempts

to clarify the relationship of this factor to judging ability.
People who show insight into their own status with respect

to their peers on specific traits also tend to rate their
peers accurately on those traits (Taft, 1955). Allport

(1937) felt that the factors of complexity, esthetic attitude,
and experience, all concerning an individual's self-aware—
ness or his awareness of his environment, were some of the
most important qualities of a good judge.

9. Amount, type, and level 9; performance in college

 

 

 

courses are not correlated with the degree 9: inter-

 

 

personal sensitivity.

 

Subjects who had taken one psychology course were
compared with those who had taken five courses, and no dif-
ference in judging ability was found between the beginning
and advanced students (Trumbo, 1955). In 1938, Estes found
psychologists to be worse than musicians, painters, actors,
and personnel managers, in matching personality sketches with
silent movies. Taft (1955) noted that training in psychology
showed a fairly consistent lack of correlation with the
ability to judge others. Kelly and Fiske (1951) found no

difference in the ability to predict professional success

16

between professional psychologists and clinical trainees.
10. The higher the judge's interpersonal sensitivity,

the greater his social confidence.

"Interpersonal competence is a function of the degree
to which an individual is aware of his impact upon others and
they upon him, as well as the ability to solve problems in
such a way that they remain solved" (Argyris, 1962). From
this definition it seems that this awareness of one's impact
is closely related to interpersonal sensitivity. Various
findings support the general concept. Accurate judges of
others have been found to be capable, honest, reliable,
realistic, and sincere (Taft, 1950). Trumbo (1955) suggests
that a good judge of people is one who is genuinely interested
in understanding rather than using people. Social intelligence
and measures of social skill such as leadership, salesman-
ship, and popularity show consistent positive relationships
with the ability to predict others (Taft, 1955). Cottrell
and Dymond (1949) found that their most empathic judges
were expressive, outgoing, optimistic, and warm.

11. The more open—minded the judge, the greater his
interpersonal sensitivity.

For the purposes of this study, the term open-minded

is meant to include the variables Liberalism, Conformity, and

17

Religious Values as found by Hershey (1958). In a study of
the effectiveness of sensitivity training, Miles (1960)
notes that persons high in ego strength and flexibility were
more likely to show improvements in sensitivity, which he
defines as the ability to perceive what is actually going
on in a social situation (including behavioral events and
the inferred feelings of other persons). Cline (1955)
found that for his male judges freedom from prejudice, bias,
and authoritarian attitudes, were among the most important
correlates of the ability to judge accurately.

12. Second and third person sensitivity will have some

different determinants.

 

The concepts of third person and second person
sensitivity were introduced by Bronfenbrenner gt_§l (1958).
He posed the problem of whether or not there were different
personality and behavioral correlates of the different
forms of sensitivity. The data gathered in the present study

lends itself to the analysis of the above problem and,

therefore, the above hypothesis was developed.

PROBLEM

The aims of the research were twofold: (l) to develop
a measure of Interpersonal Sensitivity which is as "pure"
as possible, i.e., free from the influence of any unwanted
components; and (2) to test specific hypotheses concerning
the determinants of the ability.
The test development, based on Cline's films and
criterion data, involved developing appropriate items for
the men and women in the interviews (including 2nd and 3rd
person predictions), and administering the initial form of
the test to determine the discrimination value of the items.
Discrimination values were also obtained for a test of
stereotype accuracy (Johnson, 1963). Using both of these
values, items were chosen for the final form of the test
which were free from the influence of stereotype accuracy.
It was planned to test these hypotheses having at
least some support in the literature:
1. Interpersonal sensitivity is); general ability.
2. WOmen,.§§ compared t9 men, have gteater intetpersonal

sensitivity.

 

18

l9

3. Interpersonal sensitivity t9 the same sex ig greater

than that tg the opposite sex.

 

4. The more observant g judge, the greater his inter—

 

personal sensitivity.

5. The more intelligent the judge, the greater his
interpersonal sensitivity.

6. The more socially aloof the judge, the greater his
interpersonal sensitivity.

7. The less emotionally stable the judge, the higher
his interpersonal sensitivity.

8. The greater the judge's awareness gt himself and his
environment, the greater his interpersonal sensitivity.

9. Amount, typg, and level gf_pgrformance ip college
courses are not correlated with the degree pf inter-

personal sensitivity.

 

10. The higher the judge's interpersonal sensitivity, the
greater his social confidence.

11. The more gpen-minded the judge, the greater his inter—
personal sensitivity.

12. Second and third person sensitivity will have some

different determinants.

 

Considering the complexity of the ability, and the

confusion over its nature and its determinants, it was planned

20

to make a broad survey of as many variables as feasible that
might have some bearing. Among the variables utilized were:
age, curriculum, socio-economic status, grade point average,

psychology credits, course grade, class, et cetera.

METHOD

The first phase of the research was concerned with
the development of a test of Interpersonal Sensitivity that
was free from the influence of the Elevation, Differential
Elevation, and Stereotype Accuracy components, and that in-
cluded both second and third person predictions. The second
phase involved the testing of the specific hypotheses formu-

lated.

Subjects

The subjects in the first phase were Michigan State
University students enrolled in the Fall 1962 class of
Industrial Psychology (N = 111), and the Winter 1963 class
of Introductory Psychology (N = 94).

The subjects in the principal part of the study were
MSU students enrolled in the Winter 1963 class of Industrial
Psychology. Table 1 presents a breakdown of these subjects

by age and sex.

21

22

Table 1. Judges in principal part of study.

 

 

 

 

Age Male Female Total
Under 20 15 8 23
20 — 24 79 ll 90
25 and over 16 l 17

Total 110 20 130

 

Development of the Test of Interpersonal Sensitivity

The stimulus persons (Objects Judged) were presented
by means of six five minute sound—color filmed interviews
developed by Cline. In each film the person interviewed
is asked questions concerning the following areas: personal
values, personality strengths and weaknesses, reaction to
the interview, hobbies and activities, self-conception, and
temper. On the basis of data gathered from the interviewees
and their friends and relatives, Cline constructed five
judging instruments: the BehavioralIPostdictionTest, the
Trait Rating Scale, the Opinion Prediction Test, the Adjective
Check List, and the Values—Belief Questionnaire. The criterion
data gathered on Cline's subjects were used to develop
the items for the present test.

To reduce the effects of stereotype accuracy, the

23

films were divided into two groups consisting of three men
and three women. This prevented the judges from using judg—
ments based on differential cues which would exist if the
films were grouped with members of both sexes in one group,
as Peiper (1960) did.

Using Cline's criterion data, 240 items were developed,
120 for men and 120 for women. Following a suggestion by
Bronfenbrenner gt _i (1958) two types of items were used:
those requiring second and third person predictions. The
items were put into a matching format (see Appendix A)
which eliminated the influence of the rating errors,
Elevation and Differential Elevation.

The responses of the subjects in the first phase of
the study were item analyzed, choosing those items with the
greatest discriminability for the Interpersonal Sensitivity
test. Then, using a test of Group Sensitivity (stereotype
accuracy) developed by Johnson (1963) which the same subjects
also filled out, a second item analysis was made choosing
those items which were nondiscriminating (discrimination
values close to zero or negative) in regards to Group
Sensitivity. For the final fonn of the test, items were
chosen which were both highly discriminating for Interpersonal

Sensitivity and nondiscriminating for Group Sensitivity.

24

The general procedure was intended to eliminate the influence
of stereotype accuracy (as measured by the Group Sensitivity
test) from the Interpersonal Sensitivity test. This aim

was realized: the correlation between the final form of the
Interpersonal Sensitivity test and the Group Sensitivity

test was .12, which is not significant. The final form of the
test thus consisted of 120 items: thirty 2nd person items

and thirty 3rd person items for both the men and women film
groups (the Objects Judged).

The norms obtained for the test are given in Table 2
below. The theoretical range for the men, women, and total
Objects Judged is 0—60, 0-60, and 0-120 respectively. The
actual range obtained for these groups, in the same order,
are 16-44, 15—38, and 34—71.

Table 2. Norms for the Interpersonal Sensitivity test.
N = 130

 

 

Objects Percentiles
Judged '_Q 10 20 30 49 ‘59 .§9 70 O 0 1 0

 

Men 16 26 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 38 44
Women 15 20 22 23 25 26 27 28 30 32 38

Total 34 48 51 54 55 57 6O 62 64 66 71

 

25

The reliability of the final form of the test was
computed from the odd—even formula using Pearson product-
moment correlations. The reliabilities of the different
parts of the test are presented in Table 3. Separate
reliabilities are reported for the men and women Objects
Judged, and for total second and third person predictions.
The reliabilities were corrected by the Spearman-Brown
formula.

Table 3. Reliabilities of the test of Interpersonal
Sensitivity. N = 130

 

 

 

Objects 2nd Person 3rd Person Total
Judged r r r

Men -— -- .50
Women -- -- .36
Total .55 , .40 .59

 

The Dependent Variables

Other variables employed in the study are described
in the following order: (1) variables for which no relia-
bilities are available; (2) all non-personality variables
for which reliabilities are available; (3) the personality

variables.

26
Variables Without Reliabilities

The following data was obtained for each subject in
the Winter 1963 class of Industrial Psychology.
.Agg: The age of each subject was obtained.
§gx: Each subject recorded his (or her) sex on the answer
sheet.
giggg: The class in college was obtained for each subject.

Curriculum: A five point scale was developed (see Appendix

 

B) for classifying each subject's major area of
study based on amount of scientific training.

American Council pp Education Psychological Examination for

 

Collegngreshmen (ACE): This is a measure of scholastic

 

aptitude.

Grade Point Average: Based on subject's over—all academic

 

record.

Psychology Credits: The total number of credits obtained in

 

psychology courses — used as a measure of
psychological training.

Course Grade: The final grade in the Industrial Psychology

 

course, based on a total of 190 multiple-
choice questions.

Socio-economic status: Measured by ratings by students on a

 

five point scale of the educational

level of their mother and father.

27

Psychological Distance: A measure of the similarity of the
judges attitudes and feelings to
those of the interviewees. Each
judge rated each of the men inter-
viewees on a five—point scale in terms
of whether he was very like (5) to

very unlike (l).

Non:personality Measures

These tests were administered to the subjects in the
principal phase of the study along with the Interpersonal
Sensitivity test.

Level and Spread. A test developed by Ackerman (1963) in
which a judge is presented ambiguous sketches about fictional
persons, and then is asked to rate these persons on a number
of traits, and to predict how they would respond to a number
of statements by rating them (see Appendix C). The Level
score is a measure of the judge's mean level of ratings; the
Spread score is a measure of the average deviation of a
judge's ratings from the mean ratings for all judges.
Stereotype Accuracy. The Stereotype Accuracy scales were
developed by Zavala (1960) and revised by Silkiner (1962).

The present revision by Johnson (1963) measures the subject's

28

Group Sensitivity (see Appendix D).' The judge's task is to
distinguish between the typical response of two specified
populations; the criterion is the actual responses of people
in these groups. The test consists of four subtests of thirty
items each:
Men-Women Stereotype: the subject chooses whether men
or women prefer particular items:
YoungeOld Stereotype: the subject chooses whether 15
year olds or 55 year olds prefer
certain items;
Executive—Unskilled Stereotypg: the subject chooses
whether executives or unskilled
workers would prefer the items:
Psychologist-Non-psychologist Stereotype: the subject
chooses whether psychologists or
non-psychologists prefer certain

items.

Observational Accuracy. The present test is a revision by
Bruni (1963) based on Harris' (1962) procedure (see Appendix
E). The test measures the judge's accuracy in observing the
interviewees in the Cline films. Two types of items are
included: (1) Appearance — the judge's accuracy in observ-

ing physical characteristics of the stimulus situation,

29

e.g., what the interviewee wore, looked like, or did:
(2) Conversation — accuracy in observing what the interviewee
said.

Empathic Drive. A measure developed by Mullin (1962) which

 

indicates the degree to which a judge responds to another
person in terms of internal psychological states (feelings,
thoughts, etc.).

Consideration: A subscale of the Dore Leadership Questionnaire

 

(Dore, 1960). It is a thirty item scale which measures the
degree to which the subject thinks that a leader should take
a personal interest in the worker.

Initiation pf Structure. A subscale of the Dore Leadership

 

 

Questionnaire which measures the degree to which the subject
thinks that a leader should perform functions different from

the worker.

Table 4. Reliability of non—personality measures.

 

 

 

N = 130
Measure r (corr. by Spearman-Brown)
Stereotype Accuracy .63
Observational Accuracy .74
Empathic Drive .86
Consideration .76
Initiation of Structure .81
Level .90

Spread .57

 

Personality Variables

30

One of the purposes of the study was to clarify some

contradictory findings reported in the literature (Taft,

1955: Bruner and Taguiri, 1954) concerning the relationship

between certain personality traits and Interpersonal Sensi-

tivity. Therefore, twenty—two 30 item true-false-scales were

administered to the subjects.

A brief description of these

measures, described in detail by Hershey (1958), is given

below.

1.

Economic Values

Artistic Values

Scientific Values

Religious Values

Liberalism

Whether the individual is pri-
marily interested in what is
useful; interest in affairs of
the business world.

Measure of interest.in form
and harmony, beauty, and
aesthetic activities.

Relative degree of interest in
scientific endeavors and
scientific method.

Intensity and confidence of
an individual's belief in God,
in the supernatural, and in
divine intervention.

Degree of liberalism and con-
servatism the individual dis-
plays in relation to a number
of issues.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

1.5.

Ambition

Orderliness

Emotional Control

Gregariousness

Warmth

Dominance

Conformity

Activity

Sexuality

Sensory Awareness

31

Whether the individual desires
to do things as rapidly and as
well as possible; whether he
makes intense, prolonged, and
repeated efforts to accomplish
difficult things; whether he
enjoys competition.

Attempts to measure some aspects
of Cattell's "Positive vs.
Immature Dependent Character,"
e.g., Consistently Ordered

vs. Relaxed: Conscientious

vs. Undependable, etc.

The individual's reactions to
emotional emergencies and to
frustrating situations.

A measure of need for affiliation.

The degree to which an individual
likes, accepts, approves, feels
close to, and wants to help
others.

Measures degree of dominance
through items related to domi-
nance feelings, behavior and
leadership.

Attempts to differentiate con—
formists from nonconformists.

An attempt to determine the
general activity level of the
individual.

Interest in members of the
opposite sex and activities
pertaining thereto.

The degree to which an indi-
vidual is aware of his surrounds
via his sense organs.

16. Emotionality

l7. Optimism

18. Expressiveness

l9. Extroversion—
Introversion

20. Breadth of
Interest

21. Self—Confidence

The 22nd scale,

32

The degree to which an indi-
vidual becomes emotionally
involved in situations and
with others.

The general pattern of responses
to situations; is it pessimistic
or optimistic?

The relative amount of freedom
or restraint the individual
displays in expressing emotion.

The degree to which an indivi-
dual is inward or outward
oriented in his perception of
the environment.

A measure of an individual's
self extension by determining
the number of likes in such
areas as occupation,school
subjects, amusements, and types
of people.

How the individual evaluates
his own worth, adequacy, and
competence.

Suppression, is an unpublished scale

that measures the extent to which a person will admit

unfavorable or unpleasant thoughts and actions. Items are

similar to the MMPI L (lie) scale (see Appendix F). Since

this was one of the first times it has been used, it was

:Eelt that the relationships between Suppression and the other

E>€Ersonality scales might be of interest. The following

Cc>rrelations between the scales are significant beyond the

'01 level .

33

Table 5. Correlations between suppression scale and other
personality scales. N = 130

 

 

 

Scale r
Emotional Control .56
Self-Confidence .55
Calmness .44
Warmth .40
Optimism .34
Orderliness .31
Sexuality —.30
Sensory Awareness —.30

 

The reliabilities of all twenty—two personality
scales, corrected by the Spearman—Brown formula, are pre-

sented in Table 6 on the following page.

General Procedures

 

The data gathered in the Winter 1963 class of
Industrial Psychology included a total of eight hours of
testing out of thirty hours of class. To increase interest
and maintain a high level of motivation, the results of all
'tests were returned to the class in the form of two profiles,

Cunce in the middle and again near the end of the semester.
Thus students were required to write term papers using these
FHTCDfiles as a basis for their discussion. The papers were

gr‘éaded, and the scores added into the course grade.

34

Table 6. Reliabilities of the personality scales.

N

130

 

 

Scale

Corrected r

 

Economic Values
Artistic Values
Scientific Values
Religious Values”
Liberalism
Ambition
Orderliness
Emotional Control
Gregariousness
Warmth

Dominance
Conformity
Activity
Sexuality

Sensory Awareness
Emotionality
Optimism
Expressiveness
Extroversion-Introversion
Breadth of Interest
Self-Confidence

Suppression

.81
.92
.86
.90
.75
.77
.91
.87
.87
.71
.87
.77
.77
.80
.63
.90
.81
.86
.80
.82
.87
.75

 

35

Method of Data Analysis

 

The various measures and variables obtained in the
research were intercorrelated on the Michigan State Integral
Computer (MISTIC). The table of intercorrelations appears
in Appendix G. Separate analyses were made for male and

female judges.

Item Anaiysis of the Personality Scales

 

In addition to the correlation of the personality
scale scores with scores of Interpersonal Sensitivity, 750
items in the scales were item analyzed using high and low
scores on the Interpersonal Sensitivity test as the criterion.
This method is based on the premise that, even though a test
may have a low correlation with a criterion, there may be
some particular items of the test which differentiate on the
basis of the criterion. Thus some of the items may be better
than others in discriminating between those who score high
on the Interpersonal Sensitivity test, and those who score
low.

An estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation
was used as a measure of discriminability. This permitted
the establishment of significance levels for the items

chosen. A total of ninety items were thus culled from the

36

personality scales and arranged in order of decreasing
significance (see Results section and Appendix H). Since
there*were750 items and only ninety discriminated, any single
one of the differences could not be considered significant.
However, they do provide a pool of potentially discriminating
items as well as suggestive clues relevant to the hypotheses

tested in the study.

RESULTS

The first results to be reported are those concerning
the specific hypotheses derived from previous research
findings. Then the results of the item analysis of the
personality scales will be presented.

For all of the tables in this section the sample
sizes are as follows: (1) male judges, N = 110; (2) female

judges, N = 20; (3) total judges, N = 130.

Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal sensitivity i§.§ general ability.

In Table 7 two types of generality are tested:
generality between second and third person predictions; and
generality between the judgment of men Objects Judged and women
Objects Judged. The figures reported in parentheses are the
correlations corrected for attenuation, and they can only
be considered as indicative of the relationship that would
exist if the reliabilities of both tests were 1.00.

For male and female judges combined, the correlations
reported are significant and the hypothesis of generality
across persons and across sexes is supported. A judge who
makes accurate second person predictions will also make

37

38

accurate third person predictions. The findings regarding
generality across sexes show that the sex of the judge is an
important factor. Male judges accurate in judging men will
also judge women accurately, but female judges who judge
women accurately do not also judge men accurately. In
general, the low but significant correlations may well be
due to the unreliability of the measures as the correlations

for attentuation suggest.

Table 7. Generality of the test of Interpersonal Sensitivity.

 

 

 

Generality across Generality across
Judges
persons sexes
Male .28** (.60) .23* (.55)
Female .29 (.62) .03 (.07)
Total .28** (.60) .20* (.48)

 

*r significant at .05 level.
**r significant at .01 level.

Hypothesis 2: Women, pg compared tg_men, have_greater

 

interpersonal sensitivity.
The mean scores for male and female judges on the
Interpersonal Sensitivity test are compared in Table 8.
The only significant difference is that for third person

predictions. For over-all judgments, women are not superior

39

in Interpersonal Sensitivity, but for third person predictions
they are slightly superior. Furthermore, the twenty female
subjects are not comparable to the men in respects that are
liable to be influential. On the whole, we cannot conclude
that the present evidence provides any support for the hypo—
thesis.

Table 8. Differences between men and women judges on the
Interpersonal Sensitivity test.

 

 

Type of Prediction Male Judges Female Judges Diff CR

 

Second person 29.70 30.95 1.25 1.07
Third person 27.12 27.80 0.68 2.17*
Total 56.81 58.75 1.94 1.12

 

*t for 128 d.f. at .05 level = 1.98

Hypothesis 3. Interpersonal sensitivity tg the same sex ig

 

greater than that tg the opposite sex.

The mean in Table 9 compare male and female judges
in their sensitivity to men and women Objects Judged
(interviewees). None of the differences obtained are
significant, and the hypothesis therefore is not supported.
Sensitivity to one's own sex, for both male and female
judges, is no greater than one's sensitivity to the

opposite sex.

40

Table 9. Comparison of opposite—sex and same-sex sensitivity.

 

 

Objects Judged

 

Judges Men Women Diff. CR
Male 31.32 25.50 5.82 0.89
Female 32.25 26.50 5.75 0.89
Difference 0.93 1.00
Critical Ratio 0.86 0.86

 

t at .05 level, male judges = 1.98;fema1e judges = 2.10

Hypothesis 4: The more observant g judge, the greater his

 

interpersonal sensitivity.

In Table 10 the correlations between Observational
Accuracy and Interpersonal Sensitivity for the men and
women Objects Judged are reported. The correlations for
both men and women combined and for the men Objects alone
are significant at the .05 and .01 levels of confidence
respectively. The hypothesis therefore is supported. Ac-
curate observation of men leads to greater sensitivity to
men; accurate observation of women, however, does not

lead to greater sensitivity to women.

41

Table 10. Correlation between observational accuracy and
Interpersonal Sensitivity.

 

 

Objects Judged

 

 

Judges Men WOmen Total
Male .24** .16 .22*
Female .14 .04 .10
Total .23** .16 .21*

 

*r significant at .05 level.

**r significant at .01 level.

Hypothesis 5: The more intelligent the judge, the greater

 

his interpersonal sensitivity.

Table 11 summarizes the results regarding the relation-
ship between intelligence (as measured by the Quantitative,
Language, and total scores for the ACE) and the test of
Interpersonal Sensitivity. For the ACE scores, only the
Language subscale correlated significantly at the .05 level
of confidence. Hypothesis 5 is partially supported by these
findings. From Table 11 it may be concluded that the person
high in Interpersonal Sensitivity has greater verbal

comprehension.

42

Table 11. Correlation between intelligence and Interpersonal

 

 

 

Sensitivity.
ACE
Judges Quantitative Language Total
Male .11 .16 .14
Female .05 .34 .30
Total .07 .20* .16

 

*significant at .05 level.

Hypothesis 6: The more socialiy aloof the judge; the greater

 

his interpersonal sensitivity.

The relationship between social aloofness, as measured
by the variables Warmth, Gregariousness, and Psychological
Distance, and Interpersonal Sensitivity are reported in
Table 12. The only significant correlation is with
Psychological Distance. The other correlations are not
significant, but are in the expected direction. Thus, the
hypothesis is partially supported; social aloofness contri-
butes slightly to greater Interpersonal Sensitivity. How—
ever, this relationship apparently does not hold true for
women judges as evidenced by the low correlations for

women .

43

Table 12. Correlation between social aloofness and
Interpersonal Sensitivity.

 

 

r

 

Judges Gregariousness Warmth Psych. Distance
Male —.13 -.20* -.23*
Female -.27 .04 .19
Total —.15 -.15 —.17*

 

*r significant at the .05 level.

Hypothesis 7: The less emotionally stable the judge, the

higher his interpersonal sensitivity.

Table 13 presents the correlatiOns between Inter—
personal Sensitivity and emotional stability as measured by
Calmness, Optimism, Emotional Control, and Total Stability
(a composite of the first three variables). None of these
is significant, although all of the relationships are in the
expected direction. The hypothesis is not supported; the
less emotionally stable judge did not have greater Inter-
personal Sensitivity.

Table 13. Correlation between emotional stability and
Interpersonal Sensitivity.

 

 

 

Judges Calmness Optim. Emot. Cont. Tot. Stab.
Male -.06 -.09 -.03 -.07
Female ,-.36 -.04 —.12 —.27

Total -.12 -.09 -.04 -.ll

 

44

Hypothesis 8: The greater the judge's awareness gt himself
and his environment, the greater his inter-

personal sensitivity.

 

The results in Table 14 suggest that there is no
relationship between the judge's awareness and greater Inter-
personal Sensitivity. None of the correlations in the table
are significant. Again, however, all but one of the relation-
ships are in the expected direction. Greater awareness did
not lead to increased sensitivity.

Table 14. Correlation between awareness and Interpersonal
Sensitivity.

 

 

Judges Sens. Awr. Aesth. Introv. Brd. Int. Tot. Awr.

 

Male .08 .06 .06 .03 .08
Female —.34 .18 .37 .39 .38
Total .05 .10 .12 .08 .14

 

 

Hypothesis 9: Amount, type, and level gt performance ip college
courses are not correlated with the degree.gr

interpersonal sensitivity.

From Table 15 it may be concluded that there is no
relationship between the amount (year in college) and type

(Psychology credits, and Curriculum-amount of scientific

45

training) of college courses and Interpersonal Sensitivity.
The correlations are not significant as was expected, and

this part of the hypothesis is supported. The results indi—
cate that a greater amount of psychological training did not
increase a judge's sensitivity. It is clear, however, that
the level of performance in both psychology and non-psychology
courses is related to greater sensitivity.

Table 15. Correlation between amount, type, and performance
in college courses and Interpersonal Sensitivity.

 

 

 

J d 3 Year in Psych. Curricu- Course All Coll.
u ge College Cred. lum Grade Gr. Point
Male .02” .12 .10 .25** .23*
Female —.12 -.05 -.02 .30 .61**
Total —.01 .10 .08 .26** .30**

 

*r significant at .05 level.
**r significant at .01 level.

Hypothesis 10: The higher the judge's interpersonal sensitivity,

the greater his social confidence.

The correlations between social confidence and Inter-
personal Sensitivity are shown in Table 16. The lack of any
significant correlations indicates no demonstrable relation-
ship between these variables. The hypothesis is not supported:

the—more socially confident judge is no higher in Interpersonal

46

Sensitivity than the less confident judge.

Table 16. Correlation between social confidence and Inter-
personal Sensitivity.

 

 

Judges Expr. Self Conf. Domin. Sex. Activ. _ Tot. Bold

 

Male .07 -.07 —.06 .13 -.08 .00
Female .26 .10 .26 .26 —.09 .24
Total .11 -.06 —.03 .09 -.09 .02

 

Hypothesis 11: The more gpen-minded the judge, the greater

his interpersonal sensitivity.

The results concerning the relationship between open-
mindedness (as defined in the History section) and Inter-
personal Sensitivity are summarized in Table 17. Three of the
four variables are significantly correlated, and the fourth
approaches significance (r = .17 at the .05 level of confidence).
The results suggest that those who are open-minded have
greater sensitivity, and that this is probably true of male

judges more than female judges.

47

Table 17. Correlation between open-mindedness and Inter-
personal Sensitivity.

 

 

 

Judges Relig. Scept. Liberal. Nonconf. Tot. Liberal.
Male .25** .26** .18 .29**
Female .01 .25 -.03 .07

Total .20* .26** .15 .25**

 

*r significant at .05 level.
**r significant at .01 level.

Hypothesis 12: Second and third person sensitivity will have

some different determinants.

By looking over the results concerning previous
hypotheses, and comparing second and third person predictions,
some support was found for the present hypothesis. For
example, female judges were superior to male judges in making
3rd person predictions about men interviewees (t - 3.06,
significant beyond the .01 level). Female judges were
also superior to male judges in making 2nd person predictions
about women interviewees (t = 4.00, significant beyond the
.01 level).

In comparing second and third person predictions for
earlier hypotheses, nine out of a total of thirty—three
correlations were found to be significantly correlated for

one type of prediction and not for the other (see Table 18).

48

Table 18. Differences between 2nd and 3rd person sensitivity.

t
T

 

Variable 2nd person r 3rd person r
Observ. Acc'cy for Men .26** .10
Total Observ. Acc'cy .20* .13
ACE - Language .13 .19*
ACE - Total .07 .19*
Warmth -.07 -.l9*
Psychol. Distance -.19* -.07
Course Grade .31** .10
Grade Point Average .32** .14
Sexuality —.03 .19

 

*r significant at the .05 level.
**r significant at the .01 level.

Item Analysis of Personality Scales

As noted in the Method section, an item analysis of
the 750 items from the twenty-two personality scales was
made using as a criterion the high and low scorers on the
Interpersonal Sensitivity test. An estimate of the Pearson
product-moment correlation was used as the measure of dis-
criminability, and this permitted the establishment of
significance levels for the correlations obtained.

The item analysis yielded fifteen items signifi-
cant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence (r = .40),

which are listed below. One must remember that these are

49

only suggestive, and that further validation is needed before

any conclusive statements can be made.

r Ans.
-.53 F l. I enjoy being a leader of people.
.51 T 2. I occasionally act contrary to custom.
—.49 F 3. I am sometimes influenced in minor de-
cisions by how I happen to be feeling at
the moment.

.48 T 4. The notion of divine inspiration may be
mistaken.

.47 T 5. It is possible that there is no such thing
as divine inspiration.

-.46 F 6. I think it is more important for a person
to be reverent than to be sympathetic.

—.45 F 7. No individual, no matter what the circum-
stances is justified in committing suicide.

—.45 F 8. I genuinely like everyone I get to know.

—.44 F 9. The thought of God gives me an absolutely
complete sense of security.

.43 T 10. I have occasionally felt contempt for the
opinions of others.

.40 T 11. I would rather read an article about a
famous musician than about a famous HI,-
financier.

.40 T 12. The idea of divine inspiration may be a
form of wish fulfillment arising from
suggestibility.

.40 T ' 13. I would rather grow inwardly than be a
success in practical affairs.

.40 T 14. I like continually changing activities.

-.40 F 15. I was known as a quiet child.

DISCUSSION

Table 19 presents a summary of the results concerning

the hypotheses tested.

Table 19. Summary of evidence for hypotheses.*

 

 

Hypothesis Evidence

 

oomqmmbwww

[—J

F‘ H
N +4

Interpersonal sensitivity is a general ability
Superiority of female judges

Same-sex greater than opposite—sex sensitivity
The accurate observer has greater sensitivity.
The intelligent judge is more sensitive

The socially aloof judge has greater sensitivity
Low emotional stability is related to sensitivity
Greater awareness leads to greater sensitivity
Amt., type, perf. in courses not related to sens.
Greater sensitivity leads to social confidence
The open-minded judge has greater sensitivity

2nd & 3rd person sens. have diff't determinants

 

*Key: + = strong support: + = partial support:

+
0 no support.

.As can be seen from Table 19, three of the hypotheses

(#1, #4, and #11) were supported by the findings. Four of the

hypotheses were partially supported, and may be restated as

50

51

follows: (5) The more sensitive judge has greater verbal
comprehension: (6) For male judges, social aloofness leads

to greater sensitivity: (9) Amount and type of college courses
are not related to sensitivity, but level of performance in
courses is positiveiy related to interpersonal sensitivity:
(12) second and third person sensitivity have different
determinants for certain variables.

The data did not support five of the hypotheses
tested. No significant relationship was found between
Interpersonal Sensitivity and emotional stability, awareness
of the judge, and social confidence. Also, no difference
was found between male and female judges in judging ability,

and between same—sex and opposite-sex sensitivity.

Agreement with Previous Findings

 

The results concerning generality are consistent
with earlier research in the area. Both Taft (1955) and
Cline and Richards (1960) concluded that there was a general
ability to judge others accurately. Also, as Bronfenbrenner
gt _i (1958) pointed out, men who are accurate judges of
men are also accurate judges of women (r = .23, significant
at the .01 level), but women who are accurate judges of women

are not accurate judges of men (r = .07, not significant).

52

The effect of Observational Accuracy on Interpersonal
Sensitivity has also been noted by other investigators (Adams,
1927; Bronfenbrenner gt gi, 1958). Harris (1962) obtained
a correlation of .39 between his test of Observational
Accuracy and a test of inferential accuracy, which compares
favorably with the present correlation of .21 (r = .22 for
the .01 level of confidence).

Miles (1960) and Cline (1955) found that the flexible
person, one free from the effects of bias, prejudice, and
authoritarian attitudes, has greater sensitivity. This
agrees with the hypothesis of open-mindedness, which is
supported by the data as seen in Table 19. The results of
the present study show the same relationship, also finding
as Cline did, that the relationship held only for male judges.
The male judges' correlation were significant beyond the .01
level while the correlations for the female judges were close
to zero.

As seen in Table 19, Hypothesis 6 was partially
supported. Only one of the variables correlated signifi—
cantly, but the other two approached significance. Other
researchers (Allport, 1937: Bruner and Taguiri, 1954) have
also found that social detachment aids in making accurate

judgments of others.

53

A number of investigators have found a positive
relationship between intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity
(Cline, 1960; Taft, 1950, 1955: Allport, 1927). The present
results indicate that possibly the greatest contributing
factor is a high degree of verbal comprehension. Unfortunately,
previous studies often neglected to specify what the components
of their intelligence measures were, and thus no direct
comparisons can be made. But it seems likely that verbal
scores would be more important than quantitative ability in
relation to interpersonal situations.

The findings regarding the lack of a relationship
between amount and type of college courses and interpersonal
Sensitivity are consistent with those found by Trumbo (1955),
Estes (1938), and Kelly and Fiske (1951). Many inVestigators
have pointed out that amount of psychological training is
not correlated with the ability to judge others (Wakeley,

1961) and this is supported by the results of this study.

This study was one of the few to concern itself with
the differences between second and third person sensitivity.
There are no studies besides Bronfenbrenner et a1 (1958)
that discuss these variables, or utilize them as measures
of judging ability. The correlations reported in Table 18

show some interesting relationships. For instance, accurate

54

observation is related to second person sensitivity, indi-
cating a more direct knowledge of what the person observed
is like. Other relationships are not as clear, such as that
between ACE scores and third person sensitivity. It seems
that further investigation of these variables is needed in
order to clarify the determinants of the ability.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported as noted in Table 19.
Taft (1955) states that the weight of evidence is in favor of
no sex difference in ability to judge, or perhaps a slightly
superior ability in women. Perhaps the measurement technique
used in the present study was such that it negated this
slight superiority; some investigators have noticed that the
degree of superiority varies from task to task.

The third hypothesis regarding same-sex and opposite-
sex sensitivity is in agreement with the results of
Bronfenbrenner g_nal (1958). They found, as in the present
investigation, that the mean scores for same-sex sensitivity
were greater than those for opposite-sex sensitivity, but
the difference between the means was not statistically
significant. As noted in the History section, it was felt
that this hypothesis needed clarification; it seems that
Bronfenbrenner's findings were correct, at least in terms

of obtaining comparable results, and that there is no

55

difference between the two types of sensitivity.

Inconsistencies with the Literature

The hypothesis concerning the correlation between

emotional stability and Interpersonal Sensitivity was not
supported by the data. However, all the correlations in
Table 12 are in the hypothesized direction, indicating a ten-
dency for the sensitive judge to be less emotionally stable.

No relationship was found between the judge's aware-
ness and his Interpersonal Sensitivity. The lack of signi-
ficant correlations provides no support for the hypothesis.
One of the problems here is the measurement of awareness
and self—awareness which has been noted by Bruner and
Taguiri (1954). A reliable and valid measure of this
variable would aid future researchers.

As can be seen in Table 19, Hypothesis 10 was not
supported by the results. It seems that a sensitive judge
has no more social confidence than a person low in sensitivity.
This fact may reflect the social detachment of the sensitive
judge, and his lack of interest in other persons. If he
maintains the position of social aloofness, he has no need

to develop any social confidence.

56

Some possible explanations of these contradictory
findings may lie in the measures used. The present test of
Interpersonal Sensitivity is one of the first to eliminate
the influence of stereotype accuracy, whereas previous measures
of the ability often confounded this component into their
accuracy score. Thus, certain variables previously found to
correlate with the ability may have had the relationship
reduced because of this added factor. The significant
correlations may have been directly related to the stereo-
type accuracy component, and removing the component from
.the accuracy score reduced the correlations to insignificance.

Another possible reason for the inconsistencies
present in the results is the type of personality scales
used. The scales are reliable (see Table 6) and fairly
valid, so no problem is seen here. But various researchers
have used a number of different instruments to measure
personality traits, and the assumption of generality across
instruments may be untenable.

In some cases significant findings for the male judges
were nullified by the lack of significance for female
judges, or by correlations in the opposite direction. The
small size of the female sample makes possible the biasing

of results by extreme cases. Also, as Bronfenbrenner gt. 1

57

pointed out (1958) the females who are in an almost exclusive-
ly male class (see Table 1) may tend to put their relation-
ships on a competitive basis, and implicit in this fact is

the idea that they may thus have a somewhat different person-
ality makeup than the "average" female.

.It would be meaningful now to collate the various
findings and try to set up a tentative description of the good
judge.

The person high in interpersonal sensitivity is an
observant, verbal, and well informed individual. From the
point of personality, he is above all, open-minded, i.e.,
liberal, independent, nonconforming. He is open to change,
and receptive to new situations and ideas. He is an
accurate observer of the social scene, but does not himself
become involved in it. Rather he remains somewhat distant
and is socially aloof. In general, he is a quiet, self-
assured individual who, although inner—directed, is still
aware of his impact upon others, and their impact upon him.

The person low in interpersonal sensitivity, on the
other hand, is a person who is calmer and more optimistic
and thus, more emotionally stable. He is not as aware of
his environment, although he is outward-oriented, indicating

a sort of superficiality. He is more active than the good

58

judge, but tends to confine his interests to a few areas,
including a somewhat materialistic outlook on life. Although
being dominant and self-confident, he has difficulty expressing
his emotions in certain situations.

The picture of the person who is sensitive to both
groups and individuals is one of an intelligent, optimistic,
open-minded individual. He perceives the interactions in
interpersonal situations clearly, yet this does not help
him to be socially confident. In addition, he is therefore,
somewhat cool, socially aloof, and emotionally independent.

The results point out that interpersonal sensitivity
is general, measurable, and significant enough to be a
significant focus of training and education programs. The
present study supports many earlier ones in showing that
present training programs are of little or no effect in
increasing the ability. The major significant finding, the
relation between open-mindedness and interpersonal sensitivity,
adds a more specific dimension to the long time goal of
liberal education, which is to make students more open—
minded and independent. Thus training and education seem
no more effective in developing this attitude than they are
in developing interpersonal sensitivity. Thus, the results

here stress the importance of new and imaginative approaches

to the field of training in interpersonal sensitivity.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purposes of the present study were twofold:

(l) to develop a test of interpersonal sensitivity free from
the influence of stereotype judgments; and (2) to test
specific hypotheses concerning the determinants of the
ability.

Interpersonal sensitivity was defined as the ability
of a judge to differentiate between individuals in terms of
their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes, and to use this
knowledge in making predictions about.the individual.

The study was divided into two phases. The first
phase consisted of the development of a test of interpersonal
sensitivity which included second and third person predictions,
and which was free from the effects of stereotype accuracy.

In the second phase, the test was administered to the subjects,
and the hypotheses derived from previous findings were tested.
The measure of interpersonal sensitivity was the number of
correct predictions made by the judge.

The Cline films were used to present the persons to
be judged to the judges. The films consist of five-minute
sound color interviews with six different persons. They

59

60

permit the presentation of a standardized stimulus situation
to large groups of people.

The final form of the test consisted of 120 items
including second and third person predictions, and items for
both men and women interviewees. The reliability of the
test was .59, which is not as high as expected.

The following hypotheses were supported by the data:

1. Interpersonal sensitivity is a general ability.

2. The more observant a judge, the greater his inter-
personal sensitivity.

3. The more open-minded the judge, the greater his inter-
personal sensitivity.

Four hypotheses were partially supported by the data,
and these may be restated as follows:

4. The more sensitive judge has greater verbal compre—
hension.

5. For male judges, social aloofness leads to greater
sensitivity.

6. Amount and type of college courses are not related
to sensitivity, but level of performance in courses
is positively related to interpersonal sensitivity.

7. Second and third person sensitivity have different

determinants for certain variables.

61

It was concluded that the data did not support
five of the hypotheses tested. No significant relation-
ship was found between interpersonal sensitivity and emotional
stability, awareness of the judge, and social confidence.
Also, no differences were found between male and female
judges in their judging ability, and between same—sex and

opposite-sex sensitivity.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, J. A study of the Level and Spread of ratings.
Unpublished research project, Michigan State University,
1963.

Adams, H. F. The good.judge of personality. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1927, 22, 172—181.

 

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

Argyris, C. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational
Effectiveness. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1962.

Bender, I. E. and Hastorf, A. H. On measuring generalized
empathic ability (social sensitivity). J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1953, 48, 503-506.

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,
1958.

Bruner, J. S. and Taguiri, R. The perception of people.
In Lindzey, G. (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology,
Vol. 2, Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954,
634—654.

Bruni, E. Correlates of a filmed test of accuracy in
observing people. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1963.

Cline, V. B. Ability to judge personality assessed with a
stress interview and sound film technique. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1955, 50, 183-187.

 

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

 

62

63

Cline, V. B. and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal
perception——a general trait? J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1960, 60, 1-7.

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

 

Cronbach, L. J. Processes affecting scores on "understanding
of others" and "assumed similarity." Psychol. Bull.,
1955, 52, 177—193.

Crow, W. J. and Hammond, K. R. The generality of accuracy
and response sets in interpersonal perception. lg.
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 384-390.

Dore, R. The development and validation of forced—choice
scales measuring attitudes toward leadership
methods. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1960.

Dymond, R. F. A scale for measurement of empathic ability.
J. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 127-133.

 

Dymond, R. F. Personality and empathy. J. consult. Psychol.,
1950, 14, 343-350.

Estes, S. G. Judging personality from expressive behavior.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1938, 33, 217-236.

Gage, N. L. and Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodological
problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev.,
1955, 62, 411-422.

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

,Hastorf, A. H. and Bender, I. E. A caution respecting the
measurement of empathic ability. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1952, 47, 574-576. '

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

64

Jacob, P. E. Changing Values in College: an exploratory
study of the impact of college teaching. New York:
Harper, 1957.

Johnson, R. L. Correlates of a test of group sensitivity.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University,
1963.

,4"

Kelly, E. L. and Fiske, D. W. The Prediction of Performance
in Clinical Psychology. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1951.

Lindgren, H. C. and Robinson, J. An evaluation of Dymond's
test of insight and empathy. J. consult. Psychol.,
1953, 17, 172—176.

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

 

Miles, M. B. Human relations training: processes and out- //
comes. J. counsel. Psychol., 1960, 7, 301-306.

 

Mullin, J. J. Reliability and validity of a projective
film test of empathy. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1962. -

Pieper, W. J. Study on and revision of a test on accuracy
in judging people. Unpublished research project, /
Michigan State University, 1960.

Silkiner, D. S. A cross-cultural study of the measurement,
determinants, and effects of stereotype accuracy.

Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State ’I
University, 1962.
Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull., /,

 

1955, 52, 1-23.

Taft, R. Some correlates of the ability to make accurate
social judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, 1950.

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

65

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

Wakeley, J. H. The effects of special training on accuracy
in judging others. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, /,
Michigan State University, 1961.

Witryol, S. L. and Kaess, W. A. “Sex differences in social
memory tasks. J. abnorm. Psychol., 1957, 54, 343-346.

Zavala, A. A test of stereotype accuracy. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1960. /

APPENDIX A

.4-
PART 2
INFERENCE ACCURACY

INSTRUCTIONS:

(D

All the men in the film filled out a series of attitude and personality scales.
Their friends rated them on a series of traits and also gave sketches of them.
The statements below are based on the answers that the men and their friends
gave. ‘When you answer the questions. use only spaces 1, 2, and 3, on the IBM
sheets. The numbers correspond to the order in which the interviews appeared.
That is. Mr. G. is (1), Hr. W. is (2), and Mr. 2. is (3). In other words,

if you think the answer to a particular question is:

Mr. G. mark "1"
MT. we Wk ”2"
Mr. Z. mark "3”

The correct answers are known from the attitude scales and other tests that

the interviewed men filled out. Also, the correct answers are equally dis-
tributed among the three men. '

Religious Beliefs
Mr. 0., (2) Mr.‘W}, and (3) Mr. 2.. filled out a rating scale about their re-

ligious beliefs. 'Which one answered in the following manner?

Z 61. Agreed that."IIar1unab1e to accept the idea of 'life after death' at least

not until we have some definite evidence there is such a thing."

3 62. Agreed that "God will punish those who disobey his commandments and re-

ward those who obey Him (either in this life or a future life)."

2.63. Disagreed that "There exists an evil intelligence, personnage, or spirit

in the universe often referred to as Satan or the Devil."

Adjective Check List

The three men were each given pairs of adjectives and were asked to choose the one
which they thought was a better description of themselves. In each of the pairs
below only one of the men checked the adjective underlined. Mark "1" if you think
it was Mr. 0., "2" if you think it was Mr.‘W., or "3" if you think it was Mr. Z.

~u—UN-U-—"W”N

6h. Arrogant - apathetic
65. Progressive - outgoing
66. q§hy - assertive

.67. Steady - spunky

68. Tolerant - ingenious

69. Stable - robust

70. Practical - charming

71. Contented - quick

72. 'Warm - forcer1

73. Mederate - artistic

74. Restless - unemotional

75. Sincere - original

76.. Good-natured - painstaking
77. Kind - insightful (over)
78. C sable - tense

.5 79.
.3 80.
I 81.

(1) Mr. 6.,

loyal - clever

gonsiderate - sharp-witted‘
Foolish - cynical

Personality_Inventory Items

(2) Mr. W., and (3) Mr. Z. were given a series of true-false items.

Which one of the three answered false to these items?

.3 82.
.5 83.
2 8“.

I like to be the center of attention.
It is easy for me to talk to strangers.
At times I think I am.no good .at all.,

Which one of the three answered true to these items?

2 85.
86.

Z 87

5 88.
5 89.
I 90.

Friends of (1) Mr. G...

or them.

2 :91.
2 92.
:5 93.
2 9h.
3 95.
3 96.
.3 97.
| 98.
I 99.
I 100.
2 101.
\ 102.
. 5 103.
:5 104.
I .105.
. 3 106.
z 107.

Z 108.

I easily become impatient with people.

I take a pretty easy-going and lighthearted attitude toward life.
My hardest battles are with.myself.

Policemen are usually honest.

I seldom have quarrels with the members of my family.

I do not always tell the truth.

Thumbnail Sketches by Friends

(2) Mr. W}, AND~(3) Mr. Z. also gave thumbnail descriptions
'Uhich one was described as follows?

"Is in a state of rebellion against all religions."
"Enjoys almost all good art and music." a

"Does quite poorly in speaking to groups."

"Rather fussy about what he eats and how it is prepared."
"Is shy and reserved at parties.“

.“Prefers going steady with one person."

"Rather easy-going with no great ambition."

"Is fairly easy-going with his children."

”Raises voice a little but maintains control in family arguments. "

"Is about in regards to ambition."

"Somewhat insecure and highstrung.”

"Is easy to get along with."

"Is a rather quiet and humble person."

"Loyal. honest, and kind.”

"Enjoys himself at parties, out is not much noticed."

"very reliable and hard working."

"Avoids emotional scenes with peeple because they make him feel most'unp-
comfortable” 0

"Tends to 'stew ' about things, changes his mind back and forthflbefore
making final decisions." .

Ratiggs by Friends

(1) Mr. G., (2) Mr. W.. (3) Mr. 2.. were rated by their friends on a series of pere-

sonality traits.

2 109.
2. 110.
z 111.
z 112.
3 113.
3 111,.
n 115.
:5 116.

Which one was rated as follows?

least affectionate ‘2_ll7. least confident
most rebellious 2.118. most egotistical
least shy l 119. least rebellious
least friendly I 120.

least careful
least egotistical . -
most careful
least ambitious
least realistic

2-11.63 ht

-3"-
PART 2
INFERENCE ACCURACY

INSTRUCTIONS:

All the women in the film filled out a series of attitude and
personality scales. Their friends rated them on a series of
traits and also gave sketches of them. The statements below
are based on the answers that the men and their friends gave.
When you answer the questions, use only spaces 1, 2, and 3. on
the IBM.sheets. The numbers correspond to the order.in which
the interviews appeared. That is, Hrs. D. is (1). Mrs. N. is
(2), and Mrs. P. is (3). In other words, if you think the
answer to a particular question is:

Mrs. D. mark "1"
Mrs. N. mark "2"
Mrs. P. mark "3"

The correct answers are known from the attitude scales and
other tests that the interviewed women filled out. Also,
the correct answers are equally distributed among the three
women.

Religious Beliefs

(1) Mrs. D.. (2) Mrs. N.. (3) Mrs. P., filled out a rating scale about their re-

ligious beliefs and values.

Which one of the three would have made the following

statements?

1 l. Agreed that "While God may exist, it is quite difficult for me to accept such
a fact without some definite proof."

\ 2. Most strongly agreed that "Pe0ple don't necessarily have to believe in God
in order to lead good lives and have a high.system of ethics and morals."

Z 3. Most strongly agreed that "God will punish those who disobey his commandments
and reward those who obey Him.(either in this life or a future life)."

2 1». Most strongly agreed that "When in doubt. I have usually found it best to

5.

stop and ask God for guidance."
Agreed least that "I have sometimes been very conscious of the presence
of God." ‘

 

2 6. Most strongly agreed that "No one who has experienced God like I have could
doubt his existence." . .
2 7h Mbst strongly agreed that "I have sometimes been very conscious of the
presence of God."
Adjective Check list
(1) Mrs. D.. (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P. filled out a form which contained a number

of pairs of adjectives.

They were asked to check the adjective in the pair which

most closely fit themselves. Which one checked the underlined adjective in the
following pairs? '

:2 8.
i 9.
l 10.
it 11.
I 12.

I 13.
I 11]..

Conservative - excitable
Talkative - boastful
Curious - pleasure seeking
Reliable - feminine
Interests wide - efficient
Impulsive - forgetful

firiainnl _ nnqat (over)

I 15.
| 16.
Z 17-
2. 18.
‘3 19.
2 20.
5 21.
z 22.
I 23.
3 21,,
9. 25.
3.26.
2 27.
2 28.
3 29.
3 30.

(1) hrs. D..

Spontaneous - attractive
Unconventional - unassuming
Understanding - timid
Fairminded - sharpswitted
Unselfish - cool

Moderate - silent
Healthy - tough
Contented - progressive
Changeable - submissive
Sympathetic - charming
Sincere - warm
Courageous - rational
Practical - wholesome
Friendly - humorous
Poised - moderate

Capable - obliging

Thumbnail Sketches

(2) Mrs. N., (3)Mrs. P., were described by their friends. 'Which one

was described as follows?

I 31.
I 32-

.?§

§0(D:QCh\n

)otbtfl (flrobi-rotw)0
§§ésgg .\n\n\n\n\»

5
O

(1) Mrs. D..
personality traits.

0:"
O

-‘*)0rOU¢--hs-—-—Lurobi-'
saeaarsaaasasa

WEmotionally possessed of considerable mood swings (happy or very unhappy)."
"Is very friendly to everybody at social gatherings and enjoys herself very
much."

"Always on time."

'Maintains quite firm and strict discipline with her children."

"very conscientious and responsible."

"likes to be with people who like her when she feels blue."

"A very generous and warm.hearted person."

"Handles and budgets money extremely well."

"Is exceptionally sound and stable with regard to her emotional and mental
health."

‘"An exceptionally hard working and energetic person."

"A very stable. well balanced woman."

"weighs things quite carefully before making a decision."
"Resents her husband's criticism and gets upset."

"Is open and warm in showing affection to people.‘I

Ratings g1 Friends

(3) Mrs. P. were rated by their friends on a series of
‘Which one was rated as follows?

(2) Mrs. No .

least cooperative
least confident
most careful
least unrealistic
most stubborn
least friendly
least ambitious
most affectionate
least affectionate
most shy

least egotistical
least rebellious
least stubborn

most unrealistic
Inset careful

2-20-63 ht

APPENDIX B

CURRICULUM.SCALE

Based on amount of scientific training, with those

majors in Group 1 having the least amount, and those majors in

Group 5 having the greatest amount of training.

Group 1

Business Services
English ‘
Comparative Literature
Foreign Languages
Humanities

Arts and Letters

Group 3

Economics

Geography

Pers., Prod., Administ.
Nursing

Social Work

Group 4
Social Sciences

Psychology
Sociology
Anthropology
Political Science

72

Group 2

TV and Radio

Industrial Arts

No Preference

Urban Planning and Landscape
Architecture

Heme Economics

Police Administration

Advertising and GCA

Hotel, Rest., Instit. Mang'mt.

Health, Phys. Ed., Recreation

History

Agricultural Business

Forestry

Group 5
Engineering (all branches)

General Science

Biological Science
Physical Science
Biochemistry

Mathematics and Statistics

APPENDIX C

-EHPID!EE RATING SCALE -

' D :TMsisastudyofhatpeOplerateotherpeople. Iouare
given a brief sketch of- three employees: George Drake.- Harry Maynard, and Jim
Nelson. On the basis of this sketch rate them on the personality traits , give
your evaluation of their worth as employees. and answer the inventory state-
ments as you think they did. Answer the numbered statements on the separate
answer sheet. I

y I. George Drake - Electrical Appliance Inspector

George Drake works as an inspector on the assembly line in a company man
ufacturing electrical appliances. He likes his work fa: rly well and has been
promoted regularly. George is the kind of fellow who likes to study things.
At one tine he had wanted to study to be an engineer. This was impossible
because at that time he had to support his mother. This doesn't seem to have
affected him. however, except that he sometimes- feels a little uncomfortable
around college-trained men. George has lots of friends both at work and away
from work.

Personality Ratings ‘

On the basis of the information given, do you tan George has the following
qualities? Mark each one as follows:

1)Quite unlike his.

_ 2)A little unlike him.
' 3)A little like him.
“)381’331' like hills,

SIQmiteiruuaruhu

151. Arbitious
152. Careful
153. Flexible

Evaluation

Assume that you are George's supervisor and must give him a merit rating on the
following qualities. Mark each quality as follows:

l)Poor
2)Fair
3)Average
”Good
5)Superiar

1 . Safety
155. Dependability
. Initiative
158. Suggestiveness
159. Industriousness- ' - ~ ~ .
160. Enthusiasm ~‘ " ’

(over)

.6.

II. Harry Maynard - Accountant

Harryhaynardisascnioraccotmtantforalargcpapcrcm. Rois

1&2 years old. mrried. and has two children of school age. His favorite recre-
ation is fishing.
.; Harrystartcdasansssengcr.lcarncdacco\mungontnsom.andworkcd

‘ his way up. He has only a high school education. althmgh most of the other

. accountants are college traimd. Nevertheless, he gets along with the others
vorywellandhciswelllikedbytham. Harryisagoodaccotmtantandbo

likes his work very much. , _ ,

Pers Ra s

Onthcbasisofthoinformationgiven. doyouthircharryhasthcfollowing
~qualitics? Markeachonsas follows:

DQuitc unlike him.
2)A little unlike hill.
' BM little like Ml. .
“)Rathcr like his.
flout. 11k. him.

161. Friendly
162. Homst
163. Stable
16“.:- Flexible
165. Practical

..

.A—

Evaluatig

Aswan thatyouarcflarry's Supervisor and-net givehi-a-nsrit rating anth-
following two qualities. lurk each quality as follows: -

”Poor .
2)Fair

”Moran

10600:!

5)Superior

166. Safety

Barryfilledoutanannomnous personality inventorywhcnhewas hired. Herc-
sponded to each of the statements below by marking then:

1)Strong1y Disagree

3)Neithcr Agree nor Disagree

“Mares

”Strongly Agree
Anmr the following statements as you think Harry answered them.

168. I a guided in m conduct by firm principles. I
169. I assert melt with energy on cry occasion.
170. I never neglect serious things in order to have a good time.

III. Jim Nelson :- Foreman

For the last ten years Jim Nelson has been the foreman in the shipping
department of an automobile parts manufacturing company. When Jim was appointed
foreman, several others with more seniority were also considered for the Job.
Jim got the job because he had had more education than the others. Some of the
men resented this and made Jim's task‘as supervisor a pretty tough one at first.
However, this has been forgotten now and Jim gets along with the men very well.
Jim's greatest handicap as a supervisor is the fact that he is somewhat shy.
Also, he occasionally has difficulty expressing himself. His strongest quality
is his sincere interest in his job.

Personality Ratings

0n the basis of the information given, do you think Jim has the following
qualities? Mark each one as follows:

1)Quitve unlike hime
2M little unlike him.
3M little like him.
’4')th like him.
5)Q\Iite like Me

171. Realistic
172. Ambitious
173 e Mble

171+. Practical

Evaluation

Assume that you are Jim's supervisor and must give him a merit rating on the
following qualities. Mark each quality as follows:

1) Poor
2)Fair
3)Average
h)Good
5)Superior

175. Initiative
176. Potentiality
177. Industriousness

Inventory

Jim filled out an annoymous personality inventory when he was hired. He re-
sponded to each of the statements below by marking them:

l)Strongly Disagree
2)Disagree

3)Neither Agree nor Disagree
LL)Agree

5)Strong1y Agree
Answer the following three statements as you think Jim answered them.

178. I like reading about business trends.
179. I am systematic in caring for my personal prOperty.
180. I never neglect serious things in order to have a good time. 2-15-63 ht

APPENDIX D

ELI/HOS
- January, 1963
THE JUDGMENT OF INTERESTS

gyms DIRECTIONS:

The following four tests investigate your knowledge of the different interests of
men and women, young and old.men, executives and unskilled workers, psychologists
and.men-in-genera1. For each test, large groups were asked to check whether they
"liked? or "disliked” various occupations, school subjects, activities, etc. The
correct answers are based on what they reported.

PART I
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN

Directions-éMark "1" if you think more meg than women like the interest;
"2" if you think more women than men like the interest.

1. Athletic director
2. Operating machinery
3. Emotional people
h. Entertaining others
5. Laboratory technician
6. People who have made a fortune in business
7. Fbreigners
8. Opening a conversation with a stranger
9. Have mechanical ingenuity (inventive)
10. .Actor
ll. Musician
l2. Dramatics
13. Mechanical drawing
1h. Calculus
15. Physiology

16. Treasurer of a society

17. Interpreter

18. Buyer of merchandise

19. Sculptor

20. Activity which produces tangible returns
21. Sociology'

23. Ancient languages

2h. People who are natural leaders
2S. Carelessly dressed.people

26. People who have done you favors
27. Occasionally'make bets

28. Tell jokes well

29. Art galleries

30. Literature

PART II
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUNG AND OLD MEN

Directionsw-I-Iark "1" if you think more 1.5 year olds than 55 mar olds like the
interest; mark "2" if you think more 2; year olds like the interest.

31. Floorwalker

32. Handling horses

33. Auto repairman

3’4. Ship's officer

35. Specialty salesman
36. Clergyman

37. Marine engineer
38. Sociology

39. Operating machinery
’40. Locomotive engineer
’41. Teaching adults

’42. Economics

’43. Educational movies
,J-Se Fishing

’46. Travel movies
1.7. Spendthrifts
’48. Thrifty people
’49. Saving money
50. Definite salary (as opposed
to commission on what is
done)
51. Thomas A. Edison
52. Enter into situations and
enthusiastically carry
out programs
53. Show firmness without being
easy
5’4. Usually ignore the feelings
of others
55. Am quite sure of myself
56. Carelessly dressed people
57. Interest the public in a
machine
58. People who get "rattled"
easy
59. Tell jokes well
60. Win friends easily

Directions:

.PART III

"DEFFERENCES BETWEEN EXECUTIVES AND UNSKILLED WORKERS

 

Mark "1" if you think more unSkilled workers than professional and
moutive workers like_ the interest; 'EEFE-WI" if you think more
‘professional and executive workers like the interest.
61. Physics 10h. J. J. Pershing, soldier
62. History 105. John Whnamaker, merchant
63. Boxing
61“ Physical training

88.

89.
90.

91.
92.
93.
9h.
95.
97.
98.

100.
101.
102.
103.

Detective stories
Mathematics
Climbing along edge of
precipice

Golf

Agriculture
Musical comedy
"New'Republic"
Typist

Office clerk
Lawyer, criminal
Lawyer, corporation

Secret service men
Manufacturer

Sales manager

Scientific research worker
Electrical engineer
Advertiser

Draftsman

Repairing a clock

‘Magazine writer

Editor

Repairing electrical

wiring

Definite salary

Opportunity to understand
just how one's superior
eXpects work to be done
work for yourself

Freedom in working out one's
own methods of doing the work

Great variety of work

Giving "first aid“ assistance
Adjusting difficulties of others
People who always agree with_you
People who chew gum
Thrifty'people

Ubrvous people:

Conservative people

People who talk very slowly
People with gold teeth
Energetic people

President of a club

Pet monkeys

(Gate ohm MI an.‘

(over)

PART IV

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGISTS AND MEN-IN-GENERAL

 

Directions: Mark "I” if you.think more‘pgychologists than mannin-general like the
‘522....

interest; mark "2" if’you think fewergmgg

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
12h.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.

131.
132.
133.
13h.
135.

136.

Doing research work
Teachinguadults
Rancher
Statistician.
Regular.hours of work
Athletic director
Actor

writing reports
Orchestra conductor
Office manager
Artist

thlesaler

Poet

Sculptor

Editor

Corporation lawyer
Manufacturer

Astronomer

Cashier in bank

Physician

Developing business systems
Magazine writer
Conservative people
Carelessly dressed people
People who make fortunes in
business

Thrifty'people
Absent-minded people
Solving mechanical puzzles
My advice is sought by'many
My feelings are easily hurt

Independents in politics
Put drive into the organization
Have more—thangmy*sharo of.
novel ideas

Saving money’

Fishing

Chess

Geometry

Physical activity
Physiology

Sporting pages

Hunting
Algebra
Literature

Symphony concerts
Physical training

6 like the interest.

APPENDIX E

EB. BG/Hs
February, 1963

THE JUNMENT OF MEN

GENERAL DIRECTIONS:

This is a test of your ability to judge men. You are going to see five-
minute filmed interviews with three men: Mr. G, Mr. W., and Mr. Z. Mien
the film is over you will be asked to answer questions about what they
looked like and said and also to answer questions about how they rated
themselves and what their friends think of them. That is, the test is
divided into two parts:

Part I . Observational Accuracy

Part II. Inference Accuracy

Instructions For Part _I_

 

This part of the test is concerned with the appearance, actions, and
conversation of the three men. The statements in the test are of the
following kinds:
He had a red hat
He smiled frequently
He said he liked to play chess
Answer the questions by using spaces 1, 2, 3, and h on the separate
answer sheet!
Mark "1" if you think the correct answer is Mr. G. (the man in
the first interview)
Mark "2" if you think the correct answer is Mr. W. (the man in
the second interview)
Mark "3" if you think the correct answer is Mr. Z. (the man in
the third interview)
Mark "h" if you think the statement applies to none of the three
men.

Do all the items and try not to leave any blank.

II) NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE FILM IS FINISHED
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART 2 FOLLOW PART I

PART I

OBSERVATIONAL ACCURACY

Appearance and.Actions

The first thirty statements refer to the appearance and actions of the men.
REMEMBER to use "1" for Mr. 6., "2" for Mr; EL, "3" for Mr. 2., and "h9_for
statements that refer to none of the men. ' . '

22.

28.

30.

He
He

He
He
He
He
He
He
He
He
He

smiled frequently.
kept wringing his hands.

His shirt and jacket were the same color. _

leit quidkly.

shook the interviewer's hand when he entered.
wore a knit white pullover shirt.

wore a wedding ring.

sat far back fromethe table.

gave a quick smile upon-leaving.

put his left hand to his chin.

had a rather high forehead.

did not change his facial expression.

His eyes appeared to be red.

He

had.a nervous stutter.

His elbows were on the table.

He
He
He

folded a piece of paper.
had a very soft voice.
moved his chair forward

His hands were in his lap most of the time.

He
He

sat sideways to the interviewer.
was wearing a shiny belt.

There was a birthmark on his upper lip.
He—wore a tan sport jacket.

He
He

needed to shave.
covered his mouth.

There was a pen or pencil in his hand.

He

had a pen clipped.to his shirt.

His hair was parted on the right.

He

wore a turtle-neck sweater.

He did.not shift his body at all during the interview.

(over)

-3...

Conversation

The following statements refer to what the interviewees said. Remember to use "1"

for Mr. G,

"2" for Mr. W, "3" for Mr. Z.and and"#" for none —of them.

He said that:

31.
32.
33.
31+.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
1&0.
hi.
#2.
ha.

1&5.

#6.
#7.
1&8.
1+9.
50.
51.
52.
53-
51+.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.

He did not want to talk about himself.

He would sometimes go to a person who lied about him.
Being in movies makes him.nervcus.

He is not very athletic.

People don't need religion.

He has been in home movies.

He keeps his emotions in check.

He never attends church.

He likes dancing.

He likes being married.

Mbral teachings are important to most people.
He would get "sore" if someone lied about hhm.
People need a basic belief.

It is good to get along with people.

He likes music.

He is an average person.

He likes to "play around.“

He wouldn't like it if his brother took his car.
Religion is not a major issue to him.

He said that people have a big conscience.
Religion keeps himrfrom things he feels like doing.
He never goes to parties.

He has few friends. *

only a mean or big thing makes him lose his temper.
He gets along well with intimate friends.

Religion is important to him.

He said that he doesn't mind being in movies.

It is important to have a hobby.

He likes summer sports.

He is disturbed at the way people get after parties.

EB. BG/HS
February , 1963

THE JUDGMENT OF WOMEN

GENERAL DIRECTIONS:

This is a test of your ability to judge women. Ybu are going to see
five-minute filmed interviews with three women: Mrs. D.. Mrs. N..
and Mrs. P. ‘When the film is over you will be asked to answer
questions about what they looked like and said and also to answer
questions about how they rated themselves and what their friends
think of them. That is, the test is divided into two parts:

Part I. Observational.Accuracy

Part II. Inference Accuracy

Instructions £23 Part I.

This part of the test is concerned with the appearance, actions,
and conversation_of the three women. The statements in the test
are of the following kinds:

She had a red hat

She smiled frequently

She said she liked to play tennis
Answer the questions by using spaces 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the
separate answer sheet:

Mark "1" if you think the correct answer is Mrs. D.

(the woman in the first interview)

Mark "2" if you think the correct answer is Mrs. N.

(the woman in the second interview)

Mark "3" if you think the correct answer is Mrs. P.

(the woman in the third interview)

Mark "4" if you think the statement applies to none

of the three women.
Please answer all the statements, leaving none blank.

DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE FILM IS FINISHED

Instructions for Part II follow Part I

I PART I .
OBSERVI‘TIONAL ACCURACY

Appearance and Actions
The first sixty statements refer to the appearance and actions of the women.
REMEMBER to use "1" for Mrs. D.. "2" for Mrs. N., "3" for Mrs. P. and "4" for
statements that refer to none of the women.

1. She were short sleeves.

2. She wore a necklace

3. She faced the camera directly.
4. Her hair was messy and uncombed.
5. She wore a ring on her right hand.
6. She smiled very infrequently.

7. Her hands were below the table.

8. She clenched her fingers.

9. She had very thin eyebrows.
10. She straightened her glasses.

11. She leaned back in her chair.
12. Her hair was turned under on the ends.
13. She had a long thin neck.

1#. She had to clear her throat.

15. She spoke slowly and softly.

16. Her coat had a button undone.

17. She looked down as she left.

18. She nervously tugged at her collar.
19. She wore shiny silver earrings.

20. Her ring had a dark colored stone.
21. Her watch had a gold strap on it.
22. She wore no lipstick.

23. She had waves in her hair.

2“. She used no hand gestures at all.
25. She took something from.the table as she left.
26. She gestured with both hands. 4

27. She carried no purse.

28. She were no earrings.

29. She put her gloves on the table.

30. She sat sideways to the interviewer.

(over)

The remaining statements refer to what the interviewees said.
D.. "2" for Mrs.h ., "3" for Mrs. P., and "4" for none of them.

for Mrs.

b2-

Conversation

SHE SAID THAT:

31.
32-
33.
34.
35-
36.
37.
38.
39.
[+00
#1.
“20
#3.
#4.
45.

#6.
#7.
48.
49.
50.
51-
52.
53.
5k.
55.
56.
57-
580
59.
60.

She wished she had more patience.

She reads a great deal.

She expects people to be inconsiderate.

She has few friends.

Religion makes pecple better. .

In her spare time she works in her home.

It is a problem for her to put up with 10 other employees.
Religion is something to cling to and depend on.

She loses her temper when she's tired and nervous.
She thinks religious persons don't lose their temper.
Religion should be the greatest thing in the home.
She has no time for hobbies.

She would give money for mentally disturbed people.
She never gets finished.with housework.

She thinks she is quite a hard worker.

She loses her temper often.
She would laugh off a lie told about her.
Religion should be "over 50% of one' 8 life."

One of her handicaps is lack of time to do What she wants to do.

She thinks there is good in everyone.

She tends to control her temper too much.

Her work is in the field of religion. .
Remembering names is her greatest problem.
She can't control her temper.

The inconsiderateness of people makes her lose her temper.
A lie would make her mad.

Her greatest problem is neglecting her family.
She likes to do things that are creative.

She agreed that she is "very busy." '
Religion is important in her home.

Remember to use "1"

APPENDIX F

l.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

l4.

SUPPRESSION SCALE
I have sometimes gotten so angry that I felt like throwing
and breaking things.

I sometimes take the remarks of others in a too personal
way.

I have sometimes felt like getting revenge when someone
has insulted me.

I have never been jealous of other people's successes.

I have occasionally felt contempt for the opinions of
others.

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

I like to know important people because it makes me
feel important.

If it were not for my fear of disapproval. I believe I
would violate certain social conventions.

I am not affected by flattery.
I have never thought of things too bad to talk about.

There are almost no things about myself on which I am
touchy.

I think about myself rather often.

My parents never made me do anything that I thought was
unreasonable.

I never enjoy it when I persuade someone to do what I
want.

90

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

91

I was afraid of the dark during one period of my childhood.
I have had dreams that I refused to talk about.

My table manners are as good at home as when I am out
with company.

I have never really disliked any teacher.
Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the
opposite of what they request, even though I know they

are right.

I find it easy to laugh at even serious mistakes that I
make.

I almost always do about as well as I expected in
competitions.

People have never criticized me in what I thought was
an unfair way.

As a child, I was never really angry with my parents.
Personal criticism never bothers me.
I have almost never been disturbed about sexual matters.

I am practically always tolerant even in dealing with
people that I don't like.

I like people that are like me.
I have sometimes felt like swearing.

My sense of humor is probably no better than that of
most people.

As a child, I was honest chiefly through fear of getting
caught.

APPENDIX G

Variable

Men-Obs-App
Men-Obs—Con
Men-Obs-TTL
Men—Inf-an
Men-Inf-Brd
Men—Inf—TTL
Wom-Obs-App
Wom-Obs-Con
Wom-Obs-TTL
Wom-Inf—2nd
Wom—Inf—Brd
Wom-Inf—TTL
TTL—Obs—App
TTL-Obs-Con
TTL—OBS-ACC
TTL-Inf-an
.TTL-Inf—Brd
TTL-INF—ACC
Stereo M—W
Y-Old

E-Uns
P—Non

TOTAL

TTL SA & IS
Empathy-Psy
-Phys

-Socl

Level Rtng
Spread Rtng
PrecFlex—EF
-Space
-NeRev
—TOTAL

Age

Class
Curriculum
Psy Credits

MALE JUDGES

 

 

 

 

Men Judged Women Judged Total Judged
mum 2nd3rd Tot M11329:
17 -Ol 12 13 10 l4 19 O7 l7
18 15 22 13 —03 O6 20 O7 17
25 14 27 22 —O3 12 30 O7 24
-- 18 82 27 00 17 80 ll 61
18 -- 71 20 10 19 24 68 55
82 71 —- 31 O6 23 71 47 75
-09 —Ol -07 O3 O3 O3 —O4 02 —02
21 24 29 17 03 12 23 17 26
O9 16 15 12 O4 10 13 12 16
27 20 31 -- 28 80 79 33 73
OO 10 O6 28 -- 80 18 80 57
17 19 23 80 80 -— 61 71 81
O4 —01 02 09 08 11 08 05 O9
22 25 3O 17 -00 ll 25 15 25
18 17 22 17 O4 13 22 13 22
8O 24 71 79 18 61 -- 28 84
11 68 47 33 80 71 28 -- 76
61 55 75 73 57 81 84 76 --
—10 -O4 —09 —02 03 01 -07 -OO -05
09 —12 -Ol 12 02 O9 13 —06 05
10 -05 O4 01 O6 05 07 02 O6
20 -08 10 O7 16 15 17 08 16
16 -10 O6 08 ll 12 15 02 ll
58 42 66 62 51 7O 75 63 87
13 02 10 07 Ol 05 12 02 10
—13 —O9 -14 —08 -04 —O7 —13 —08 -14
08 16 15 06 06 08 09 l4 14
O4 02 04 ll -12 —00 10 -08 02
—13 —04 -11 05 19 15 -05 12 03
O6 -09 -01 07 17 15 08 07 O9
00 -O7 -04 -01 -07 ~05 -OO -09 -O6
04 -OO O3 l4 17 20 ll 13 15
04 -07 -Ol 08 11 12 O7 O4 O7
-10 -10 —13 -02 18 10 -08 07 -Ol
08 -02 -O7 09 06 10 01 O4 02
OO —04 —02 10 l7 17 O6 10 10
24 -13 10 07 09 10 19 —Ol 12

93

Variable

Gr Pt Avge
ACE-Quant
ACE — Lang
ACE — TOTAL
Socio—Econ
Sex

Psych Dist
CourseGrade
Pulse Rate
Consideratn
Init Struct
Activity
Sexuality
Expressive
Self-Confid
Dominance
TOTAL BOLD
Calmness
Optimism
EmotControl
TTL STABIL
Relig Scept
Liberalism
Nonconform
TTL LIBERAL
Sens Aware
Introversn
Breadth Int
Artist Val
TTL AWARE
Ambition
Orderliness
TTL AMBITN
Econom Val
Gregarious
TTL TH-PEOP
Suppression
Scient'Val
Warmth

TTL LEADER

94

MALE JUDGES Continued.

 

Men Judged
229 .§£Q .22:
22 03 18
—04 19 08
09 —03 05
06 07 08
05 ~06 00
—ll -17 —18
28 —06 16
10 —00 -07
17 —12 05
01 06 03
06 05 07
-07 05 -03
10 12 14
—12 06 -05
—04 -01 -03
-01 10 05
—01 -05 —04
—05 -06 —07
05 05 07
—00 -02 -02
'18 18 24
19 09 19
14 14 18
22 19 26
15 10 16
19 —03 12
~07 06 -02
09 01 07
10 05 10
07 -07 01
-07 —13 -12
—01 -12 —08
-26 —ll -25
-06 -07 -08
—19 -ll -20
-05 03 -02
08 -01 05
-02 —11 -07
11 -04 06

 

Women Judged

 

Total Judged

 

 

2nd 3rd Tot
19 10 18
06 07 08
09 22 19
04 l8 14
07 —06 01
-28 -02 -18
22 14 23
05 10 09
04 —03 01
04 11 10
-17 -ll -18
04 30 21
02 —04 -01
—07 —02 -06
-07 -02 —05
—07 01 -04
—01 -08 -06
—10 -01 -07
-10 -07 -10
-08 -07 -09
16 08 16
18 16 22
12 06 ll
19 12 19
-03 —02 -03
01 —04 —02
—03 13 06
-00 06 04
-02 07 03
02 —10 —05
-12 —07 -12
-07 -09 -10
-11 -00 -07
—ll —08 -ll
-14 -06 -12
-09 -14 -14
02 —06 -02
—09 -27 —22
07 08 08

2nd 3rd Tot
26 09 23
02 16 11
11 15 16
06 17 14
07 —08 oo
-24 —12 -23
31 07 25
—03 07 02
13 -09 04
02 12 08
-07 -05 -08
-02 25 13
08 04 08
—12 02 -07
-07 ~02 -06
—05 07 oo
-01 -09 -06
—09 -04 —09
-03 ~02 -03
-05 -06 -07
22 17 25
23 18 26
16 13 18
26 20 29
08 05 08
' 13 -04 06
-07 13 03
06 05 07
05 08 08
06 -11 -03
-12 —13 :16
-05 —14 -11
-23 -07 —2o
‘11 -1o -13
—21 —11 -2o
-08 -09 -11
07 —05 02
-07 -27 -2o
11 02 .09

Variable

Men-ObsyApp
Men-0bs-Con
Men-Obs—TTL
Men-Inf—2nd
Men-Inf-3rd
Men-Inf-TTL
Wom-Obs-App
WOm-Obs-Con
Wom-Obs-TTL
Wom-Inf-2nd
Wom-Inf—3rd
Wom-Inf-TTL
TTL-Obs-App
TTL-0bs-Con
TTL-OBS-ACC
TTL-Inf—2nd
TTL-Inf—3rd
TTL—INF-ACC
Stereo M~W
Y—Old

E—Uns

P-Non

TOTAL

TTL SA & IS
Empathy-Psy
~Phys

~Soc1

Level Rtng
Spread Rtng
PercFlex—EF
~Space
-NeRev
~TOTAL

Age

Class
Curriculum
Psy Credits
Gr Pt Avge
ACE - Quant

95

FEMALE JUDGES

 

Women Judged

 

 

Men Judged
2nd 3rd Tot
~30 ~11 ~25

08 49 33
~17 21 02
~- 43 86
43 -~ 84
86 84 ~-
~04 25 12
~20 14 ~04
~13 23 05
12 10 13
~13 ~01 ~09
~00 06 03
~22 11 ~07
~08 35 15
~18 26 04
79 37 69
24 75 58
66 68 79
08 03 06
~20 11 ~06
08 28 21
~08 ~06 ~09
~15 ~03 ~11
41 49 54
~00 ~09 ~05
ll 09 11
~24 ~10 ~20
33 43 .45
26 04 18
32 24 33
~23 ~10 ~20
'04 l9 14
04 17 12
~12 07 ~03
~04 02 ~01
~01 ~11 ~06
~25 ~19 ~26
-46 37 49
-17 ~11 ~16

Total Judged

 

 

2nd 3rd Tot
~18 07 ~07
47 14 40
17 16 21
12 ~13 ~00'
10 ~01 06
13 ~09' 03
31 ~29 02
20 ~24 ~02
30 ~31 00
~~ 17 78
18 ~~ 76
78 76 -~
10 16 ~03
38 ~08 20
29 ~13 11
70 02 48
19 65 54
57 39 63
25 00 17
12 30 27
52 ~10 28
18 22 26
37 19 37
63 41 68
01 33 22
03 ~23 ~13
~10 07 ~02
12 19 20
14 ~15 00
08 O7 10
~36 01 ~23
~33 ~05 ~26
~35 ~01 ~24
'~OO ~12 ~07
00 ~29 ~19
~12 19 O4
11 26 24
46 11 38
23 20 28

2nd 3rd Tot
~33 ~04 ~23
34 46 50
~02 26 14
79 24 66
37 75 68
69 58 79
,16 ~00 10
~02 ~05 ~04
09 ~03 04
70 19 57
02 65 39
48 54 63
~10 ~03 ~08
17 21 24
05 ll 10
~- 29 83
29 -~ 83
83 78 ~-
21 02 15
~07 28 12
38 15 33
05 10 09
12 ll 14
69 65 83
01 15 09
09 ~08 01
~23 ~03 ~17
31 45 47 /
27 ~07 .14
28 23 32
~38 ~07 ~30
~17 11 ~05
~18 12 ~05
~08 ~03 ~07
~03 ~18 ~12
~08 05 ~02
~11 03 ~05
61 35 61V
02 05 05

Variable

ACE ~ Lang
ACE - TOTAL
Socio—Econ
Sex

Psych Dist
CourseGrade

 

Pulse Rate‘

Consideratn
Init Struct
Activity
Sexuality
Expressive
Self—Confid
Dominance
TOTAL BOLD
Calmness
Optimism
EmotControl
TTL STABIL
Relig Scept
Liberalism
Nonconform
TTL LIBERAL
Sens Aware
Introversn
Breadth Int
Artist Val
TTL AWARE
Ambition
Orderliness
TTL AMBITN
Econom Val
Gregarious
TTL TH—PEOP
Suppression
Scient Val
Warmth

TTL LEADER

96

FEMALE JUDGES ~ Continued.

 

 

Men Judged
2nd 3rd Tot
04 27 18
~08 07 ~01
10 ~31 ~12
27 44 42
~12 11 ~01
~33 ~29 ~36
~18 19 ~00
45 41 51
28 ~26 02
49 23 43
28 15 26
22 07 17
31 07 23
45 08 32
~32 ~12 ~26
~05 ~02 ~04
~27 09 -ll
~31 ~04 ~21
~18 ~20 ~22
16 ~11 04
01 ~35 ~19
~05 ~27 ~19
~42 ~40 ~49
18 13 18
42 20 37
07 ~03 03
’26 07 20
35 42 46
~22 21 ~01
05 39 25
18 24 25
11 ~30 ~10
19 ~20 00
~38 07 ~19
48 28 45
~22 ~05 ~16
08 46 31

 

Women Judged

 

Total Judged

 

 

_2nd 3rd Tot
20 29 32
36 42 51
01 ~21 ~13

~22 ~11 ~22
49 28 51
10 ~13 ~02
19 44 41

~10 ~05 ~10‘
~30 04 ~17
~30 11 ~13
08 08 11
~15 08 ~05
31 ~11 13
~09 06 ~02
~34 ~06 ~26
~36 36 ~01
~02 ~06 ~05
~33 08 ~17
08 38 30
12 45 37

~04 36 20
06 48 35
08 01 06
21 37 37
19 08 17
43 ~04 26
39 18 38
14 12 17
22 ~27 ~03
23 ~12 08

~21 ~01 ~15

~19 ~28 ~31
~28 ~29 ~37
06 l7 14
03 14 11

~00 41 26

09 50 38

 

2nd 3rd Tot
16 4o 34 V
16 34 30 V
07 -37 -17
06 26 19
22 27 3o
—18 -3o -29
-01 44 25
26 28 .34
02 —17 -09
17 25 26
25 17 26
06 11 10
41 -02 26
27 10 24
-44 -13 ~36
~26 22 -04
-21 03 -12
—43 03 -27
~08 11 01
19 22 25
-02 -03 -03
oo 11 07
—25 -29 -34
25 35 37
42 20 39
31 —05 18 .
42 17 38v’
33 4o 45»’
-02 -03 -03
18 21 24
-oo 18 10
-04 -42 -27
—04 -34 -23
-24 16 ~06
~ 36 30 42s/
~16 24 04
11 68 471/

Variable

Men-Obs-App
Men-Obs—Con
Men—Obs-TTL
Men-Inf-an
Men-Inf-3rd
Men—Inf-TTL
Wom-ObS-App
Wom-Obs—Con
Wom—Obs-TTL
Wom-Inf-an
Wom-Inf—3rd
Wom—Inf-TTL
TTL-Obs-App
TTL-Obs-Con
TTL-OBS—ACC
TTL-Inf—an
TTL—Inf—3rd
TTL-INF-ACC
Stereo M~W
Y-Old
E—Uns
P—Non
~TOTAL
TTL SA & IS
Empathy—Psy
~Phys
~Socl
Level Rtng
Spread Rtng
PercFlex-EF
~Space
~NeRev
~TOTAL
Age
Class
Curriculum
Psy Credits
Gr Pt Avge
ACE-Quant
ACE ~ Lang

AND FEMALE JUDGES COMBINED

 

97

Women Judged

 

 

MALE
Men Judged
2nd 3rd Tot
08 ~04 04
17 21 24
20 16 23
~- 23 83
23 ~~ 74
83 74 ~-
~08 ~06 ~02
15 23 24
05 19 14
25 19 29
~02 08 04
15 17 20
~00 02 01
18 27 28
12 19 20
80 27 71
13 69 49
62 57 76
~07 ~02 ~06
07 ~09 ~00
10 01 07
15 ~08 06
11 ~08 03
56 43 64
11 ~00 08
~10 ~05 ~10
04 12 10
09 10 12
~07 ~04 ~07
08 ~06 02
~04 ~09 ~08
04 06 06
04 ~04 00
~11 ~09 ~13
~08 ~02 ~07
00 06 ~03
14 ~12 03
27 ll 25
~06 ll 02
09 04 08

Total Judged

 

 

13.,

2nd 3rd Tot
07 09 1o
18 -02 1o
22 -oo 13
25 -02 15
19 08 17
29 04 20
09 -02 04
18 -oo 11
17 -01 1o
-— 27 80
27 -- _79
80 79 ‘-—
1o 04 09
21 -09 13
20 02 14
79 16 59
32 78 69
71 55 79
03 03 03
13 04 11
09 04 08
08 17 16
12 12 15
62 50 7o
05 04 06
~06 ~06 -07
04 06 06
13 ~08 04
04 14 12
.05 15
~08 ~06 ~08
05 12 11
01 1o 07
-04 15 06
06 01 05
07 17 15
09 12 13
24 1o 21
06 08 09
12 22 22

 

2nd 3rd Tot
10 04 09
22 12 22
26 10 23
80 13 62
27 69 57
71 49 76
01 02 02
21 15 23
14 ll 16
79 32 71
16 78 55
59 69 79
06 04 07
25 16 26
20 13 21
-~ 28 84
28 ~~ 76
84 76 -~
~03 01 ~01
12 ~03 07
12 04 10
14 07 14
15 04 12
74 63 86
10 03 09
~10 ~08 ~11
05 12 10
14 01 10
~02 08 04
08 08 10
~07 ~10 ~11
06 13 ll
03 05 05
~10 05 ~04
~01 ~01 ~01
04 09 08
15 01 10
32 14 30
~00 13 07
13 19 20

 

98

FEMALE JUDGES COMBINED — Continued.

 

Women Judged

 

Total Judged

 

 

 

MALE AND

Men Judggd
Variable 2nd 3rd Tot
ACE ~ TOTAL 04 O7 O7
Socio-Econ 06 ~08 ~00
Sex 04 08 07
Psych Dist ~06 ~07 ~08
CourseGrade 22 ~03 l4
Pulse Rate ~15 ~08 ~15
Consideratn 11 ~05 05
Init Struct 06 11 10
Activity 09 ~02 05
Sexuality 01 04 03
Expressive 13 13 17
Self-Confid ~08 05 ~03
Dominance 01 ~01 00
TOTAL BOLD 06 08 08
Calmness ~06 ~08 ~09
Optimism -05 ~06 ~07
EmotControl 01 05 04
TTL STABIL ~04 ~04 ~05
Relig Scept 12 10 14
Liberalism 19 06 17
Nonconform 12 05 11
TTL LIBERAL 17 10 18
Sens Aware 08 05 09
Introversn 19 02 14
Breadth Int 00 08 05
Artist Val 10 03 08
TTL AWARE 13 07 13
Ambition 11 02 09
Orderliness ~09 ~08 ~11
TL AMBITION ~01 ~04 ~03
Econom Val ~22 ~10 ~21
Gregarious ~03 ~11 ~08
TL TH-PEOPL ~15 ~14 ~18
Suppression ~09 04 ~04
Scient Val 11 01 09
Warmth ~04 ~09 ~08
TTL LEADER 11 02 09

2nd 3rd Tot
07 21 18
08 ~07 01
ll 01 07
~24 ~03 ~17
26 16 27
05 05 06
07 05 07
01 09 06
~20 ~09 ~18
~07 23 10
05 ~03 01
~09 ~01 ~07
~03 ~04 ~04
~10 02 ~05
~07 ~08 ~10
~14 . 03 ~07
~09 ~07 ~10
~12 ~05 ~11
l4 13 17
18 20 23
09 10 12
l7 17 21
01 ~01 ~00
06 02 05
~01 12 07
08 05 08
05 09 09
02 ~07 ~03
~08 ~09 ~ll
~05 ~09 ~09
~15 ~01 ~10
~12 ~11 ~14
~17 ~08 ~16
~06 ~10 ~10
01 ~04 ~02
~07 ~19 ~16
05 ll 10

 

2nd 3rd Tot
07 19 16
09 ~10 01
09 06 09
~19 ~07 ~17
31 10 26
~06 ~01 ~05
11 00 08
04 13 10
06 ~08 ~09
~03 19 09
11 07 11
~11 02 ~06
~02 ~03 ~03
~02 06 02
~09 ~11 ~12
~12 ~01 ~09
~05 ~02 ~04
~10 ~06 ~11
l6 16 20
23 18 26
13 10 15
21 19 25
06 02 05
16 03 12
~00 14 08
11 05 10
11 11 14
08 ~04 03
~11 ~12 ~14
~03 ~10 ~08
~23 ~07 ~20
~09 ~15 ~15
~20 ~15 ~22
~09 ~05 ~09
08 ~02 04
~07 ~19 ~15
10 10 12

APPENDIX H

The first fifteen items obtained from the item analysis

are included in the Results section. The remaining forty-

five items are listed below.

The percentages listed are

the percents of people in the high and low groups who answered

the particular item as "true."

 

 

HIGH LOW r
% %
36 72 ~.37
28 64 ~.37
92 68 .37
84 52 .37
60 88 ~.36
96 80 .36
20 52 ~.35
20 52 ~.35

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Religion should be a set of
practices concerning our relation
to the supernatural

I am guided in all my conduct by
firm principles.

I believe that the individualist
is the man who is most likely to
discover the best road to a new
future.

The idea of God is not absolutely
necessary for the development of
good human beings.

I like tennis.

It is not absolutely necessary
to believe in the existence of
God in order to lead a good life.

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

I always feel even the minor
interests of others as if they
were my own.

100

 

HIGH LOW r Ans.
% %

52 20 .35 T
80 48 .35 T
80 48 .35 T
24 56 ~ 34 F
44 76 -.34 F
76 44 .35 T
56 84 ~.33 F
36 68 ~.33 F
84 56 .33 T
44 16 .33 T
12 36 ~.32 F
92 72 .32 T
92 72 .32 T
36 12 .32 T

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

101

I generally talk very quietly.

I am quick to discard the old and
accept the new: new fashions,
new methods, new ideas.

I get annoyed when people take
up my time for no purpose.

I take pains not to incur the
disapproval of others.

I always play every game very hard.

I can become so absorbed in solving
a problem that I forget everything.

I like to keep all my letters and
other papers neatly arranged and
filed.

I have never been seasidk, plane
sick, or carsick.

There may be better ways of
explaining the working of the
world than to assume a God.

I like to associate with emotional
people.

I never argue with older people
whom I respect.

I like to participate in dis-
cussions about sex and sexual
activities.

I occasionally spend time thinking
about sexual matters.

I usually enjoy spending an even-
ing alone.

 

HIGH LOW r Ans.
% ‘%

28 8 .32 T
92 72 .32 T
88 64 .32 T
48 20 .31 T
4 16 ~.30 F
16 40 ~.30 F
4 l6 ~.3O F
52 24 .30 T
16 4 .30 T
32 60 ~.29 F
36 64 ~.29 F
44 72 ~.29 F
36 64 ~.29 F

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

102

I don't particularly like reading
about business trends.

Divine inspiration is certainly
not the most important source of
truth.

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

I like to perform laboratory
experiments.

Cat meat is out of the question
for the human diet under any
circumstances.

I seldom do anything for which
anyone could reproach me.

I am not ticklish at all.

Some of my tastes change rather
rapidly.

I rather dislike directing the
activities of people.

The average person needs more
caution than daring.

Before I do something I am apt to
consider whether my friends will
blame me for it.

It doesn't bother me to work in
noisy surroundings.

I always prefer to spend my social
evenings with members of the
opposite sex rather than my own
sex.

 

 

 

HIGH LOW r Ans.
% %
40 68 ~.29 F
28 56 ~.29 F
72 44 .29 T
60 32 .29 T
60 32 .29 T
12 32 ~.28 F
76 92 ~.28 F
76 92 ~.28 F
92 76 .28 T
32 12 .28 T
20 44 ~.27 F
20 44 ~.27 F
44 20 .27 T

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61."

62.

63.

103

I generally prefer to keep my
opinions and feelings to myself.

People have never criticized me
in what [thought was an unfair
way.

I have occasionally doubted the
reality of God.

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

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

Professors should not put forth
their own radical views in the
classroom.

I like advertising as an occupation.

I like the occupation of being a
Secret Service Man.

Sometimes I rather enjoy doing
things I'm not supposed to do.

I would like being a sculptor,
even if I were not particularly
good.

I believe that everyone's in—
tentions are good.

I have never been jealous of
other people's successes.

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

104

 

HIGH LOW r Ans.
% %

80 56 .27 T 64. Racial agitators should be allowed
to speak publicly in certain parks
and streets.

48 72 ~.26 F 65. I like long periods of physical
exertion.

84 64 .26 T 66. I have occasionally eaten things

that upset my stomach.

64 84 ~.26 F 67. I am considered extremely "steady"

by my friends rather than "excitable."
72 48 .26 T 68. I would rather go out with

attractive persons of the opposite

sex than do almost anything else.

52 28 .26 T 69. Sometimes I become so emotional
that I find it a little hard to
get to sleep.

84 64 .26 T 70. I enjoy helping people with their
personal problems.

28 52 ~.26 F 71. I like everyone I meet, even those
with different interests and
goals from mine.

24 48 ~.26 F 72. It is of little importance to me
whether people agree with my ideas
or not.

84 64 .26 T 73. I would like being a Consul.

52 28 .26 T 74. I sometimes lack self-confidence
when I have to compete against
people who are at least as good
as I am.

16 36 ~.26 F 75. A man who works in business for
his living all the week can best
spend Sunday in hearing a sermon.

 

 

 

HIGH LOW r Ans.
% %
52 76 .26 F
64 40 .25 T
64 40 .25 T
60 36 .25 T
68 44 .25 T
56 32 .25 T
64 40 .25 T
32 56 .25 F
36 60 .25 F
36 60 .25 F
44 68 .25 F
60 80 .24 F
12 28 .24 F

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

105

I have extremely strong loyalties
toward my ideals of beauty.

I sometimes tell people frankly
what I think of them.

I like Vaudeville.

The supernatural idea ought to
play only a minor part in religious
thought.

I am sometimes so discouraged
about my activities that I cannot
do my best.

I see life as a constant series
of problems which must be solved.

I am not particularly methodical
in my daily life.

My sense of humor is probably no
better than that of most people.

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

I am inclined to agree with the
poet who said that "Beauty is
truth."

I have never read a book on
modern art that interested me.

I control my emotions in practi—
cally all situations.

I am never aware of my heart
beating.

 

HIGH LOW
An .
% % S
40 20 .24 T
12 28 ~.24 F

89.

90.

106

I only work for tangible and
clearly-defined results.

I spend very little time thinking
about money matters.

' .g . ’. n Y.
._ I'- ‘I‘ :, Dy. 2‘}.

l

:J'
.' Wm)”:

 

«ow-_m‘

. g :14

‘1

2';

a":

.— I .‘e "t
O
'1 'y r.
V
l
V' I z
. l
6- .‘~ _ “ _

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

| llli Ill llllllll ll
9

312 3103259176