.INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATTONS AND
THE SELECTION OF SENSITIVE PEOPLE

TM: for the Degree of M. L. I. R.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

JACK L. SHOOK
1971

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII?-

I l'

.. me & sans I“
II anon smumv me. If
‘ LIBRARY BINDERS +_
‘Lgsmnyumusg E.

Q

   

“V

‘5' "R
BINDING BY

  
     

 
  

 
 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATIONS
AND THE SELECTION OF SENSITIVE PEOPLE

By

Jack L. Shook

Sensitivity to people was defined as the ability to predict
another person or group's feelings, thoughts, and behavior. This
ability was conceptualized as being composed of four independent com-
ponents, Observational Sensitivity, Nomothetic Sensitivity, Idiographic
Sensitivity, and Theoretical Sensitivity. Instruments were selected
to measure the first three components. Correlates of sensitivity were
identified and the following hypotheses advanced:

l. The higher the belief in consideration, the more sensitive.

2. The higher the belief in initiation of structure, the more

sensitive.

3. The more other-oriented, the more sensitive.

4. The more objective the orientation, the more sensitive.

5. The more intelligent, the more sensitive.

6. Traits of personality are related to sensitivity.

All but hypothesis four were partially confirmed. The problem
of the selection of sensitive people was discussed and some examples

were cited. Areas for future research were indicated.

INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATIONS
AND THE SELECTION OF SENSITIVE PEOPLE

By

IJ
Jack L? Shook

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
School of Labor and Industrial Relations

1971

To Peggy and Douglas

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest appreciation is expressed to Dr. Henry Clay Smith,
committee chairman, for his guidance, support, and an occasional kick.
My thanks also to Drs. Thomas Patten and Michael Moore for their help-
ful criticisms and suggestions.

A special thanks is extended to my wife and son for just being

there.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Components of Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . .
Observational Sensitivity. . . . . . . . .
Nomothetic Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . .
Idiographic Sensitivity. . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Sensitivity. . . . . . . . . . .

Correlates of Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .
Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leadership Attitude Scales . . . . . . .
Subjectivity versus Objectivity. . . . . . .
Self versus Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Personality Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PROBLEM C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mmOD C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measurements of Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of the Instructor (SMITH) . . .

Knowledge of Men and Women . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Zolton . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intercorrelations of the Measures of Sensitivity.
Reliabilities of the Measures of Sensitivity. . .

Measurements of Interpersonal Orientation to People

Leadership Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self versus Other Orientation. . . . . . . .
Subjectivity versus Objectivity. . . . . . .

Intercorrelations of the Measures of Interpersonal

Orientations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reliabilities of the Orientation Scales . . . . .

iv

Page
iii
vi

vii

13
l4

l4
14
15
15
l6
16
18
18
18
19
19

20
20

Measures of Intellectual Achievement.
Measurements of Personality .

RESULTS. . .

DISCUSSION .

The Problem of Selection.
Future Research

SUMMARY. . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

APPENDICES

20
22

26

3O

3O
32

34

35

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Intercorrelations among the measures of
senSitiVity. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 0 l7

2. Reliabilities of the measures of
senSItiVity. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 l7

3. Intercorrelations among the orientation
to people scales 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 21

4. Reliabilities of the orientation scales . . . . . . . . . . 21

5. Intercorrelations among the measures of
intellectual achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

6. Reliabilities of the intellectual
achievement measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

7. Protebob personality inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

8. Reliabilities of the Protebob person—
ality inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

9. Intercorrelations among the personality
scales I I O O O O I C O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 25

IO. Correlations among the measures of sensi—
tivity and other available measures. . . . . . . . . . . 27

ll. Correlations among the orientation to
people scales and the measures of
intellectual achievement and person—
ality scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

vi

Appendix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Case of the instructor
Knowledge of men and women
Case of Zolton
Orientations to people

The Protebob personality inventory

vii

INTRODUCTION

The concern with understanding people has increased considerably
in the past two decades. This can be evidenced in the rise of sensi-
tivity training groups such as T-groups and in the popularity of the
social sciences among college students. The ability to understand
people has been named empathy, social perception, ability to judge
people, etc. In this study, it is referred to as sensitivity to people.

The purpose of this study was two-fold. The first was to identify
and measure several components of sensitivity and their correlates.

The second was to present a method of selecting a sensitive person. As
used in this study, sensitivity refers to the ability to predict an-

other person or group's feelings, thoughts, and behavior (Smith, 1966).

HISTORY

A sensitive person and his ability to understand people has been
given several names. Dymond (1950) used the term "empathy" to describe
this ability. For Dymond, empathy was the "imaginative transposing of
oneself into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another." The accu-
racy score for empathic ability was the sum of all errors made in pre—
dicting the behavior of several persons. Dymond saw empathy or sensi-
tivity to people as a unidimensional ability.

Later conceptualizations of sensitivity mathematically dissected
the score one received into error components. (Cronbach, 1955;
Bronfenbrenner, ggngl, 1958; Cline, 1960; Smith, 1966) Cronbach felt
that the total score may be misinterpreted due to error tendencies
within the judge. He statistically isolated five main components which
may affect one's score. Elevation (E) was conceived as the way the
rater used the response scale, i.e. whether he tended to rate others
high or low. Differential Elevation (DE) was the tendency to spread
the ratings among those rated. Stereotype Accuracy (SA) was the ability
to predict the norms of a group of persons. Differential Accuracy (DA)
was the ability to predict differences between the persons rated.
Assumed Similarity (AS) was considered the rater's tendency to project
his feelings, thoughts, or behavior into the person being rated.

Although all of these were components of the sensitivity score,
later studies recognized the components of Stereotype Accuracy and
Differential Accuracy as being "types" of sensitivity. The other

2

dimensions were to be reckoned with by techniques of test construction.
(Cline and Richards, 1960; Grossman, 1963; Johnson, 1963; Shears,
1967). Bronfenbrenner,_g£ a; (1958) referred to his two types of
"social perception ability" as sensitivity to the generalized other
and interpersonal sensitivity. In addition, he conceptualized four
types of prediction: first person--the judge (A) predicts what the
person being rated (B) thinks of him (A); second person--(A) predicts
what (B) thinks of himself; third person-- (A) predicts how (B) feels
towards another person (C); and non-personal--(A) predicts (B's) feel-
ings about other objects and concepts which do not refer to particular
individuals or groups. Finally Bronfenbrenner added a time dimension
to sensitivity. He believed that a sensitive person not only is aware
of differences among people or groups but also of variation within a
person or group through time. This addition of the time axis has the
effect of putting all of the indices of sensitivity into three dimen-
sional space.

Smith (1966) divided the concepts of Cronbach and Bronfenbrenner
into the perceiver and the perceived. Level and spread were viewed as
habits of the perceived. Stereotype Accuracy and Differential Accuracy
were knowledge of the person judged. An interaction variable was added
to the schema. It consisted of empathy, previously called projection
or assumed similarity and observation.

An even finer breakdown of sensitivity was presented by Warr and
Knapper (1968). They chose to view "person perception" in terms of
cognitive elements and processes. Although they attempt to theorize
the whole perceptual process, many of their conceptualizations are not

currently measurable and will not be considered here.

4

It is evident that when we speak of a sensitive person we are not
referring to a unidimensional process. A sensitive person can be accu-
rate in his stereotypes, his observations, his "individual" perceptions,
etc. It has been generally recognized that these components are inde-
pendent. (Cline and Richards, 1960) Therefore, he can be accurate in
one component but not in another.

As mentioned earlier, some of the components are considered errors
in sensitivity rather than components differentiating types of sensitive
people. Included among the errors in sensitivity are level, spread,
and empathy. What remains is the components of sensitivity recognized
in this study as important to identifying and selecting sensitive peo-
ple, i.e. stereotype accuracy and individual accuracy. Both are modi-
fied by the time axis of Bronfenbrenner presenting a third component.
Sensitivity based on these components is guided mainly by the implicit
personality theories which the person uses to predict behavior. (Smith,
1966) To improve sensitivity, Smith (1968) suggested that training pro-
grams stress the use of explicit theories which could be tested and
improved through direct feedback. The use of explicit personality
theories in correctly predicting behavior is the last component of sen-
sitivity. We thus have four components which are postulated to be
relatively independent measures of sensitivity to people. In a forth—
coming book, Smith refers to them as Observational, Nomothetic, Idio-
graphic, and Theoretical sensitivity. Each of these components will be

considered separately below.

Components of Sensitivity

Observational Sensitivitye—"the ability to look at and listen to
another person and remember what he looked like and said," has had few
studies concerning sensitivity directed toward it, although it is an
important concept. Gestalt psychologists have shown that what is obser-
vable in objects is not always perceived. That is, we tend to see the
unified whole rather than the specifics in a situation. Smith (1968)
referred to this unified whole as the expressive quality in a person.
That is, when we observe people, we have a tendency to perceive their
goodness or badness and then evaluate them based on our perceptions.

Body and facial cues have been related to judgements of people
(e.g. Thornton, 1944; Secord, 1958; Argyle and Dean, 1965). Ekman
(1957, 1964, 1965a, 1965b) has studied judgemental accuracy based on
observations of head and body cues.

Harris (1962) and Bruni (1963) developed a test of observational
accuracy. In their studies they used color and sound motion pictures
developed by Cline (1960). The subjects were asked to view a film of
several persons being interviewed. After viewing the film, they were
presented with a questionnaire which tested their knowledge of the
interviewee's appearance, actions, and content of conversation, and also
how he believed the interviewees answered a series of questions (sensi-
tivity). They found that sensitivity was related to accurate observa-
tion.

As a component of sensitivity, observation is especially important

to situations in which the perceiver has low acquaintance with the
individual perceived. That is, he has little knowledge of the person's
background, group membership, etc. It is in this context that we use
the term Observation Accuracy in this study—-the ability to correctly

predict the behavior of others in low acquaintance situations.

Nomothetic Sensitivity is "the ability to learn about the typical
member of a group and to use this knowledge in making more accurate
predictions about individuals in that group." For years stereotypes
have been considered inaccurate and a hinderance to the problem of
social perception (Harding,1968). However, several studies have shown
stereotypes provide at times more accurate judgements of individuals when
known than in their absence (Tagiuri, 1968). Some studies have even
found that judges were more accurate when only the stereotype informa-
tion was known rather than when additional information about the per-
ceived individual was provided (Stelmachers and MCHugh, 1964).

Stereotypes pervade all of our perceptions of people. Several
studies have shown that by altering information such as race and ethnic
group membership inferences made about people can be changed (Warr and
Knapper, 1968). Sappenfield (1969) found that even personal acquaint-
ances are perceived stereotypically.

In recognition of the importance of stereotypes, Zavala (1960),
Silkner (1962), and Johnson (1963) have developed tests to measure
stereotype accuracy concerning groups. Their scales were derived from
information about a particular group ascertained by the Strong Voca-
tional Interest Blank. Their scales tested one's knowledge of several
groups: men, women, young, old, executives, unskilled labor, etc. One

<3f the important conclusions that arose out of their studies was that

stereotype accuracy is not a generalizable ability as others (Traverse,
1941) had believed. That is, one may be very accurate in perceiving
men in general but not psychologists. A later study by Spier (1969)
has also confirmed this finding. In addition, Spier found that train-
ing and improvement in one stereotype did not generalize to other

stereotypes.

Idiographic Sensitivity—-"The ability to use increasing exposure
to and information about a person in making increasingly accurate pre-
dictions about him." This component of sensitivity has been studied
very little. One of the main reasons is that it is highly impractical
for most researchers to have subjects interact for great lengths of
time. Most of the past studies have had interactions of less than an
hour. In the case of the Cline films, observations only last five min—
utes. There have been a few studies, however, that have measured parts
of this component. For instance, Dymond (1954) measured sensitivity in
married couples. Gage (1958) correlated teacher effectiveness and
"understanding" of pupils. The importance in the understanding of this
component may be most realized in studies such as the present one, i.e.
selection of sensitive people. As an example, clinical psychologists
need to be proficient in idiographic sensitivity. Whether this ability
can be taught is under conjecture. Several studies cited by Smith
(1966) have shown that psychologists who are supposedly trained in this
art do no better, and sometimes worse, than the untrained in accurately
perceiving others. Therefore, selection of those with high idiographic
sensitivity may be necessary before entering graduate training in clin-
ical psychology. Since time and money would prevent a lengthy acquaint-

Ennce period between the perceiver and the perceived, other selection

scales which correlate with idiographic sensitivity and yet are easy to

administer would be more practical.

Theoretical Sensitivity is "the ability to select and use theories

 

to make more accurate predictions about others." As mentioned above,
we tend to use implicit personality theories when we judge others. The
foremost problem with these theories is that we use them unconsciously,
and therefore they are unverifiable. Smith (1966) suggested that sensi-
tivity can be improved by selecting an explicit theory, thereby provid—
ing feedback as to our theoretical accuracy. Francher (1966), in a
study using Harvard undergraduates who had taken a course in personality,
found that those who use an explicit personality theory (in this case a
trait approach) were more accurate predictors. Grossman (1967) tried to
improve the sensitivity of a group of undergraduates by instructing
them on the use of a five trait theory of personality. In this case,
the theory accounted for little improvement. However, this result may
have been due to difficulties in getting people to accept and use a new
theory as in previous studies, and general difficulty in improving sen-
sitivity with any kind of training.

This component, because of its stress on training, will not be con-

sidered further in this present study.

Correlates of Sensitivity

In the foregoing sections, we were concerned with defining the
term sensitivity as it was used in this study. In considering the
further problem of the selection of sensitive people, we were concerned
with two aspects of the problem. The first was to ascertain the qual-
ities and interpersonal orientations that are recognizable or measurable
in a sensitive person. The second was to develop instruments which are
relatively easy to administer, making it practically feasible to select
sensitive people from large samples at different times. In this section,
the correlates of sensitivity are discussed. The methods section will

deal with the selection instruments.

Intelligence

Smith (1966), in reviewing twenty studies occurring between 1915
and 1965, concluded that "intelligence is the most certain correlate of
sensitivity," having a median r of .30. Although other measures of
intelligence have been positively related to sensitivity (course grade,
GPA, quantitative, etc.), verbal ability has received by far the most

support. (Dymond, 1950; Johnson, 1963; Grossman, 1963, Bruni, 1963).

_L§adership Attitude Scales

Fleishman (1953), in constructing a test to measure differential
leadership styles, isolated two major factors. "Consideration" was
"the extent to which the leader was considerate of his workers feelings"

éind reflected a human relations aspect of leadership. "Initiation of

10

Structure" was "the extent to which the leader defined or facilitated
group interactions toward good attainment" (planning, scheduling,
criticizing, etc.). In a review of past studies, Korman (1966) found
no consistent trends in the interaction of the two dimensions, i.e.
they are independent. He suggested that situational variables are act-
ing as moderators. Greenwood (1969) comes to a similar conclusion but
also adds that both are independent of intelligence.

Dore (1960) constructed a leadership attitude scale based on four
attitudes isloated by the Survey Research Center of the University of
Michigan. The sub—scales were measurements of Employee—Orientation (E0),
Delegation of Authority (DA), Differentiated Role (DR), and Creates
Teamwork (CT). Based on the intercorrelations of the scales, he con-
cluded that the scales measure two independent attitudes, one involving
E0, DA, and CT, and the other, DR. It was concluded that these were
similar to the Fleishman factors. He also found some evidence that the
scales were related to the stereotype accuracy between men and women.
Johnson (1963) found a significant relation with the same scales. Gross-
man (1963) found a positive relationship between the leadership scales
and the ability to judge people. However, in all of the above cases,
erratic relationships occurred among leadership attitudes and the cri-
terion scales. It is believed that this may be due to the unreliability
of some of the measures. The correlation of the leadership scales with
sensitivity makes some intuitive sense. For to believe in the delega-
tion of authority and to be employee oriented indicates confidence in
interpersonal abilities. In assuming a differentiated role, the leader
318 socially perceptive to his special role in the group which demands
EUJ understanding of the group. It must be remembered that the scales ask

“flhat one prefers to do, not what the situation commands.

ll

Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Based on a previous study by Wolin (1954), Mullin (1962) conducted
an investigation of what he termed Empathic Drive (subjectivity) and
its relationship to sensitivity. Empathic Drive was the tendency to
respond to a person's internal psychological states. The test that he
developed to measure Empathic Drive required the subjects to watch a
series of silent films depicting a person being interviewed (Cline,
1960). After the film stopped, the subjects were asked to fill out a
questionnaire, picking a statement in each item that was most like their
impression of the interviewee. Each item contained one statement re—
flecting a psychological state, e.g. is satisfied with life and three
others reflecting the physical, actional, or characterological aspect
of the person. He found that people vary consistently in their saliency
of Empathic Drive. He also found a low but negative correlation between
stereotype accuracy (mendwomen) and interpersonal accuracy. In a later
study, Meitus (1969) also found these low but again negative relation-
ships, which indicates that objectivity or the tendency to notive veri-
fiable facts may be related to sensitivity. Mullin found that Empathic
Drive was not related to the personality variables measured or to intel-
ligence. He also found a positive relation between Empathic Drive and

Employee Orientation (consideration).

Self versus Other

Bronfenbrenner (1958) and Jones and Thibaut (1955) have defined
the ways in which people orient themselves to others. Linden (1965)
developed a test to measure these orientations and studied how they are
related to sensitivity. The orientations thus defined were: first per-

son, "What can he do for me?"; second person, "What does he think of

12

himself?"; third person, "What do his friends think of him?"; and non-
personal, "How much does he weigh?" The test consisted of fifty-two
multiple choice questions concerning the way the subject feels the per-
son in a hypothetical situation responded. Each alternative represented
one of the four orientations.

Linden found that people were either first person oriented with a
high reliability, or they were split among the other orientations caus—
ing low reliabilities. No significant relation was found between the
orientations and sensitivity. However, it was suggested that given im-
proved reliabilities, the relationship of self (eog involvement) versus
other orientation may be similar to that of subjectivity versus objec—

tivity.

Personality Traits

Several studies have indicated a relationship between personality
indices and sensitivity. All results are not comparable due to diff-
erent measures of sensitivity and personality. Smith (1966) cited some
studies that are comparable and came up with this profile: sensitive
people are "more intelligent, more tolerant, and above all, more inde-
pendent but responsible and considerate in their relations with others."
Shears (1967) in attempting to verify the personality correlates using
the Protebob Personality Inventory (Linden, 1965) found virtually no
relationship. Continued research needs to be done in this area using

similar criteria and measurement to get meaningful interpretations.

PROBLEM

This study had two objectives: one, to identify and measure the

components of sensitivity and their correlates; and two, investigate

the problem of selecting a sensitive person.

Hypotheses Tested

The hypotheses presented below are based on the correlates of sen-

sitivity previously discussed.

1.

2.

The higher the belief in consideration, the more sensitive.

The higher the belief in initiation of structure,_the more

sensitive.

The more other-oriented, the more sensitive.
The more objective the orientation, the more sensitive.
The more intelligent, the more sensitive.

Traits of personality are related to sensitivi_y.

l3

METHOD

This study proceeded in two phases. The first phase concentrated
on the selection and improvement by item analysis of the various instru-
ments to be used in the second phase. The revised tests were then ad—
ministered to a group of college students to test the foregoing hypo-

theses.

Subjects

The subjects for both phases of the study consisted of undergrad—
uate students in Psychology of Personality classes at Michigan State
University during the terms Fall, 1970 and Winter, 1971. The Fall, 1970
class consisted of 250 students, 100 males and 150 females. The Winter,
1971 class had an enrollment of 200. However, as an indication of moti-
vation to do well, only those students who took all of the tests were
included in this study. The number of subjects used in the second phase

was thus reduced to 67, 26 males and 41 females.

The Measurements of Sensitivity

A component approach to sensitivity consisting of four relatively
independent parts was postulated. However, this study only proposed to

measure three of them, Idiographic, Nomothetic, and Observational.

l4

15

The Case of the Instructor (SMITH)

To measure idiographic sensitivity, it was necessary to select a
person who was known to all of the subjects for a relatively long period
of time. The one person who best fit the requirements was the instruc-
tor.

All of the subjects were exposed to the instructor approximately
25 hours before taking the test. It is conceded that this was not a
long time for an intimate acquaintance and interaction. However, it is
a considerably longer acquaintance than that afforded by most sensiti-
vity studies.

The test was developed by having the instructor answer a series of
questions dealing with his likes or dislikes of various subjects, inter-
ests, and occupations. In addition, the instructor took a personality
test which will be described later. His scores (percentiles) on the
various personality scales were also included. The subjects were to
predict how the instructor answered the questions. This test and all of
the others were scored by adding the correct responses. The test and

the correct answers are provided in Appendix A.

Knowledge of Men and Women

 

To measure nomothetic sensitivity, it was decided to use a group
that all of the subjects were equally familiar with, in this case men
and women. In other situations, different tests may be selected. For
instance, if we were selecting inner city police officers, a test of the
typical juvenile delinquent would perhaps be more appropriate. (See
Appendix B) The test used in this study was originally developed by
Zavala (1960) and refined by Silkner (1962). It consists of items taken

from the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. The subjects were asked to

l6

respond to each item as they thought over 50% of men and women in gen-

eral did. See Appendix B for the test.

The Case of Zolton

As mentioned earlier, observational sensitivity includes the
ability to accurately predict another's feelings, thoughts, or actions
after only being exposed to him for a short time.

The difficulty in measuring this aspect of sensitivity is that of
providing a constant amount of cues for all observers. Cline and
Richards (1960) minimized this by developing a set of sound color films
of interviews with various persons. The interviews were not rehearsed.
However, the interviewer intentionally probed the following areas:
personal values, personality strengths and weaknesses, reaction to the
interview, hobbies and activities, self conception, and temper.

Each interviewee was studied in depth after the interview, includ—
ing several paper and pencil personality tests and an intensive inter-
view on his past history and personal habits. Five judging instruments
were then derived. This present study used items from several of these
instruments, adjective checklist, sentence completion test, behavior

post—diction, and opinion prediction. (See Appendix C)

Intercorrelations of the Measures of Sensitivity

If the measures of sensitivity are properly related to the compon-
ent theory, they should be relatively independent. A brief look at
Table 1 will confirm this.

We therefore, have three independent measures of sensitivity which

when combined will, in addition, indicate one's general sensitivity.

17

TABLE 1

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE MEASURES OF SENSITIVITY

 

 

 

SMITH ZOLTON STEREOTYPE SZS—TOTAL
SMITH __-

ZOLTON .11 __-

STEREOTYPE —.16 .18 _—_

SZS—TOTALl .3o* .40** .38** —--

 

Correlation of part with remainder.

* P<< .05
** P< .01

TABLE 2

RELIABILITIES OF THE MEASURES OF SENSITIVITY

 

 

 

Internal Internal

Consistency Consistency

Fall 1970 WINTER 1971
SMITH .56 .59
ZOLTON .54 .53

STEREOTYPE (MEN & WOMEN) .63 .71

 

18

Reliabilities of the Measures of Sensitivity

Table 2 indicates the reliabilities of the instruments for both
phases of this study. The reliabilities are internal consistency
measures based on the Kuder-Richardson Formula #20. As mentioned earl—
ier, the tests were originally presented in Fall, 1970 and then item
analyzed. According to Nunnally (1967), item analysis requires a mini-
mum of five subjects per item. Our study falls short of the minimum,

which may explain the lack of improvement between the two phases.

The Measurements of Interpersonal Orientation To People

The interpersonal orientation scales consist of five separate tests
that were combined into a battery to be given at one time. The battery
includes measures of consideration, initiation of structure, self versus
other orientation, subjective versus objective orientation, each of

which will be discussed separately below.

LeadershipgAttitudes

 

The leadership attitude scales of consideration and initiating
structure were developed by Dore (1960). They consist of pairs of
statements expressing the leadership method to be measured and the
other statement of the opposite view. The original test was given in
the Fall of 1970, consisting of 64 items, 32 for each leadership atti-
tude. After an item analysis, each test was shortened to 16 items.

This was done so the battery could easily be administered at one sitting.

(See Appendix D)

19

Self Versus Other Orientation

This test was originally developed by Linden (1965) and consisted
of 52 multiple choice items. The subjects are presented with various
hypothetical cases and are asked to pick one of four alternatives which
most nearly expressed how he thought the hypothetical person would be-
have in the ambiguous situation. The four alternatives represented
different ways of orienting oneself to a situation. Linden referred to
these as self-orientation, i.e. "What does this person think of me?";
other-orientation, "Why does this person behave as he does?"; social
orientation, "What do others think of him?"; and non-personal—orienta—
tion, or factual orientation.

Linden's study showed that the self-orientation is mutually exclu—
sive of the other types. The present study, therefore, paired the self—
orientation with one of the remaining three orientations which were re-
named as the other orientation. The pairing was based on the most dis-
criminating items, based on an item analysis. In addition, the test

was shortened to 28 items. (See Appendix D)

Subjectivity Versus Objectivity

This test first appeared in Mullin (1962). It was developed using
the Cline films. The subjects are asked to view two silent films. Each
film showed a person being interviewed. After each film, the subjects
are asked to pick a statement which is most like their impression of
the person being interviewed. The original test had three choices, one
representing internal psychological states and the other two represent-
ing external appearance, actions, and impact upon others.

The present study reduced the choices to two, internal and exter—

nal. The test was scored in the direction of objectivity. The total

20

score thus indicates whether a person tends to form immediate impres-
sions of people based on internal and non—verifiable constructs or ex-
ternal and objective facts. Again this test was shortened from Phase 1

to Phase 2. (See Appendix D)

Intercorrelations of the Measures of Interpersonal Orientations

Although it was not postulated that the different orientations are
independent, the intercorrelations among the orientation scales (Table
3) indicates that they, for the most part, are independent. The only
significant relationship was between consideration and initiating
structure.

The independence of these measures is especially helpful when we
combine them and obtain a total score and later when relating them to

the measure of sensitivity.

The Reliabilities of the Orientation Scales

The reliabilities were again computed using the Kuder-Richardson
Formula #20. It can be seen (Table 4) that although the tests were
shortened from Phase 1 to Phase 2, the internal consistency was not ad—

versely affected. Only the objectivity test showed a considerable loss.

Measures of Intellectual Achievement

Although the subjects were not given an intelligence test, various
measures were available which do indicate intellectual achievement.
The easiest to obtain in this study was the course grade. The other
measures included were scores on tests that all incoming freshmen are

required to take, which include verbal comprehension, arithmetic

TABLE 3

21

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE ORIENTATION TO PEOPLE SCALES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSID INIT-STRUC OTHER OBJECT ORIENT-TOT
CONSID ———
INIT STRUC -.30** ---
OTHER .25 -.16 ---
OBJECTIVE .12 -.05 .21 ---
ORIENT-TOTALl .20 .11 .11 .36** ---
Correlations of part with remainder.
* P <5.05
** P <1.01
TABLE 4
RELIABILITIES OF THE ORIENTATION SCALES
Internal Internal
Consistency Consistency
Fall 1970 Winter 1971
CONSIDERATION .85 .74
INITIATION OF STRUCTURE .70 .75
OTHER ORIENTED .78 .79
OBJECTIVITY .86 .70
ORIENT-TOTAL -—— .73

 

22

proficiency, and math (algebra) proficiency. The intercorrelations for
the measures are reported in Table 5. As expected, they were all highly
intercorrelated (P<f.01). The internal consistencies, which are moder-

ate to high, are shown in Table 6.

Measurements of Personality

The personality variables, which were hypothesized as being related
to sensitivity, were taken from the Protebob Personality Inventory
(Linden, 1965; Grossman, 1967). This test is composed of 200 items,
measuring five separate traits. The five traits were derived from a
factor analysis of stable traits found in several personality question-
naires, including Edward's Personal Preference Schedule, 1954, Cattel's
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, 1956, and Gough's California
Psychological Inventory, 1954. The factors and their highest factor
loadings are listed in Table 7. Table 8 presents the reliabilities ori-
ginally found (Linden, 1965) and also the internal consistency measured
in this study. The five factors are considered as being relatively in-
dependent personality traits. The intercorrelations found in this

study generally confirm that assertion. (Table 9) (See Appendix E)

23

TABLE 5

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE MEASURES OF INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
1. COURSE GRADE --—
2. READING .57** _-_
3. ARITHMETIC .41** .64** ——_
4. MATH .49** .49** .63** -——
** <:.01
TABLE 6

RELIABILITIES OF THE INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT MEASURES

 

 

INTERNAL CONSISTENCIES

 

COURSE GRADE
Midterm Exam .70
Final Exam .88
READING .82
ARITHMETIC .75

MATH .78

 

24

TABLE 7

PROTEBOB PERSONALITY INVENTORY*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic Traits and Related Traits Loading
1. The Cautious vs. The Bold

Submissive Dominant .79

Low activity level High activity level .71

Low self-confidence Self-confident .63

Pessimism Optimistic .62
2. The Emotional vs. The Calm

Emotional Calm .79

Critical Amiable .74

High sensory awareness Low sensory awareness .55

Cold Warm .34

Expressive Inhibited .32
3. The Introverted vs. The Extroverted

High artistic values Low artistic values .72

Low economic values High economic values .68

Introverted thinking Extroverted thinking .64

Low manifest sexuality High manifest sexuality .55
4. The Impulsive vs. The Controlled

Unambitious Ambitious .82

Unorganized Organized .77

Low emotional control High emotional control .50

Gregarious Aloof .37
5. The Rationalistic vs. The Empirical

Resistance to change Readiness for change .67

(conservative) (liberal)

Religious believer Religious sceptic .66

Social conformist Nonconformist .59

Nonscientific Scientific .49

 

* Grossman, 1967; Linden, 1965

25

TABLE 8

RELIABILITIES OF THE PROTEBOB PERSONALITY‘INVENTORY

 

fi .fi— fi v W

 

 

 

Internal Stability Internal

Con31stency (1965) ConSistency
fl (1965) - (1971)
CAUTIOUS-BOLD .88 .83 .87
CALM—EMOTIONAL .88 .81 .90
INTROVERTED-EXTROVERTED .90 .92 .87
IMPULSIVE—CONTROLLED .80 .80 .82
RATIONAL-EMPIRICAL .90 .94 .86

TABLE 9

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE PERSONALITY SCALES

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 s
IMPULSIVE-CONTROLLED —--
RATIONAL—EMPIRI CAL —- . 21 mm
INTROVERTED—EXTROVERTED .41* —.12 ———
CAUTIOUS—BOLD .02 .08 —.02 -——
CALM—EMOTIONAL -.23 -.15 —.35* .01 --—

 

RESULTS

The general results are presented in Table 10. The tests are
grouped according to their respective categories, i.e. orientations to

people, intellectual achievement, and personality scales.

Hypothesis 1: The more considerate,gthe more sensitive.
Consideration is significantly correlated to the test of idiogra—
phic sensitivity (Smith) and is not related to the other components of

sensitivity. Therefore, this hypothesis is confirmed.

Hypothesis 2: The higher the belief in initiation of structure,gthe
more sensitive.
Initiation of structure only approaches significance (.25 = P‘<.05)
in Observational Sensitivity (Zolton). However, the correlation is in
the proper direction considering its negative relationship to other

orientations. Therefore, the hypothesis is tentatively supported.

Hypothesis 3: The more other—oriented, the more sensitive.
Other—oriented is significantly correlated to nomothetic sensiti—

vity (Stereotype) and tentatively related to observational sensitivity.

'Hypothesis 4: The more objective theforientation, the more sensitive.

This hypothesis was not confirmed.

26

27

TABLE 10

CORRELATIONS AMONG THE MEASURES OF SENSITIVITY
AND OTHER AVAILABLE MEASURES

 

 

 

 

SMITH ZOLTON STEREOTYPE SZS-TOTAL

CONSID .33** -.13 .03 .13
INIT STRUC -.14 .23 .16 .14
OTHER .11 -.23 .32* .09
OBJECTIVE .01 .13 .12 .14
ORIENT-TOTAL .22 .05 .28* .30**
COURSE GRADE .29* .18 .15 .35**
READING .30* .24* .26* .45**
ARITHMETIC .15 .45** .21 .46**
MATH .ll .19 .13 ,25*
IMPULSIVE-

CONTROL —.12 .08 -.10 -.07
RATIONAL—

EMPIRICAL .39** —.O4 .14 .28*
INTROVERTED—

EXTROVERTED -.13 -.05 .02 -.09
CAUTIOUS—

BOLD .07 .OO .01 .05
CALM—

EMOTIONAL —.22 .10 _.23 —.19

* P <f.05

** P <f.01

28

Hypothesis 5: Intelligence is_ppsitively correlated with sensitivity.
With nine out of fifteen significant correlations, this hypothesis

was strongly supported.

Hypothesis 6: Traits of personality are related to sensitivigy.

There were only two significant correlations between the person-
ality scales and sensitivity. The significant correlation between
Empirical and SZS—total is an artifact of the high correlation between
Empirical and the Smith test. Therefore, it must be concluded that in

general the personality scales are not related to sensitivity.

Correlations Among the Other Scales

In consideration of the second problem presented in this study, i.e.
the selection of a sensitive person, it is necessary to present the
correlations among the selection instruments. Table 11 clearly indicates
that intelligence and personality are unrelated to the orientation scores.
And further that judging by this study, personality is probably unrelated

to intelligence.

mo.Vm 1..

 

29

Ho. HN. No. mH.- oH.- oH.- mo.- oH.- oH. Haonaozm
- 2H<o

oo. Ho. no.- mo.- HN.- oo. oo.- mm. Ho. oHom
- mooHHo<o

No.- mH.- mH.- oH.- mo.- oH. oH.- HH. Am.- Hom>omexm
- Hmm>omezH

om. No.- AH. Rmm. HH. oo. oH. mH.- oH. H<onHmzm
- H<onH<m

mo. HH.- m~.- mo.- Ao. om. Ao.- mm. 1o~.- Homezoo
- EHmHoeHH
-- -- -- -- oH. mo. No. Ho. NH. osaz
-- -- -- -- mo. mo.- No.- oH. so. oHHmzmHHm<
-- -- -- -- NH. no.- mo.- mo.- oH. ozHo<mm
-- -- -- -- No. No.- Ho. Ho.- AH. moamo ammooo

 

mH<Z mHHm< OZHQ<mm mn<mu HOHIHZMHMO HUMhmo MmmHo ODMHmIHHzH QHmZOU

 

 

mm4<ow MHHA<zommmm nz< Hzmzm>MHmU< A<DHUMAAMHZH ho mMMDm<mz MdH
Qz< mmq<om mamomm OH ZOHH<HZMHMO mmH OZQE< mZOHH<AMMMOU

Ha mqm<H

DISCUSSION

Since the sensitivity components were found to be independent, as
were the orientation scores, it is not surprising that the correlations
were not consistent over all of the variables. The only consistent
correlations over the components were the reading achievement scores,
which corresponds to the findings of Smith (1966) that sensitivity is

most related to verbal intelligence.

The Problem of Selection

The selection of sensitive people is becoming an increasingly im-
portant task. For instance, university graduate schools in Psychology
are rapidly being forced to be more and more selective in accepting
applicants. But what are the criteria used? In the past, it has been
intelligence scores, such as GPA and Graduate Record Exams. However due
to the restriction in range of these indices among those entering grad-
uate programs, these indices probably little differentiate good from bad
psychologists. As mentioned above, there is no evidence that sensiti-
vity is increased through training in psychology. (Smith, 1966) There—
fore, if sensitive clinical psychologists are needed, then they need to
be selected at the beginning on the basis of idiographic sensitivity.

The selection problem is also manifested in business. For instance,
campus recruiters rarely spend over a half an hour interviewing a per-
son for a job. Yet in this short time, the recruiter must screen appli-

cants for further consideration of employment. His decisions can be

30

31

costly to the company both in the selection of poor applicants and the
lack of good ones. Webster (1964) summarized several years of research
by himself and his students concerning the employment interview. Two
major findings are of interest to this study. The first is that inter-
viewers use stereotypes to evaluate applicants. That is, the interviewer
bases part of his decision on his stereotypes of successful people in the
occupation for which he is recruiting. Secondly, that the interviewers
form early impressions of the applicant and then tend to emphasize parts
of the information available to them that confirm their impression. In
selecting a recruiter, therefore, it may be useful to select them on the
basis of nomothetic and observational sensitivity.

The technique of multiple regressions suggests how selection instru-
ments can most effectively be combined (Thorndike, 1962). Using this
method, we want instruments which are highly correlated with the crit-
erion, yet uncorrelated among themselves. Thus according to the present
findings, if we were interested in selecting a person with idiographic
sensitivity, we would use the tests of consideration, reading achievement,
and the empirically minded. All of them correlate highly with our mea-
sure of idiographic sensitivity (.33, .30, .39), yet are correlated very
little themselves (.19, .18, .17). In a similar manner, each component
of sensitivity could be related to a battery of tests.

The selection battery is especially important when there are great
numbers to be screened. Simple paper and pencil tests are easy to
handle and are flexible in their use. Direct idiographic sensitivity
measurement would be virtually impossible in most instances.

One of the most significant findings, both statistically and

scientifically of this study, was that the total orientation score is

32

positively related to the measurement of general sensitivity. As a
summary of the results of this study, we therefore combined those
instruments which were significantly correlated with the measure of
general sensitivity, i.e. total orientation, intelligence, and empiri-
cally minded. A multiple correlation of .54 was computed, which is

significant at the .001 level.

Future Research

It is quite evident that the reliabilities of the criterion scores
need improvement. The moderate reliabilities obtained may be the cause
of the generally low correlations. It is interesting to note that the
orientation score with the lowest reliability also has the lowest cor-
relations.

Better measures of idiographic sensitivity need to be explored.

The definition used stresses a growth in perceptual accuracy as acquain-
tance increases. Our present criterion, although representing sensiti-
vity after some acquaintance, is still fixed in time. A third dimension
measurement needs to be developed, sensitive enough to detect small
changes in sensitivity. One suggestion would be to use new freshmen
roommates as subjects in such a study.

This brings us to what we shall call differential selection pro-
cesses, which are simply the adjusting of the selection techniques and
instruments to the situation at hand. The results that we obtained may
be situation specific, i.e. reflecting the structure of a classroom and
the observing of the instructor with little interaction, and in the case
of Zolton, with no overt interaction. It is the method by which they
were obtained that is important. Thus, instruments should be selected

based on their past abilities to discriminate sensitive people. They

33

should be as independent of each other as possible. And they should be
easy to administer.
Finally, it is up to future studies to confirm the relationships

found in this study and to improve the multiple R herein established.

SUMMARY

Sensitivity to people was defined as the ability to predict another
person or group's feelings, thoughts, and behavior. This ability was
conceptualized as being composed of four independent components, Obser-
vational Sensitivity, Nomothetic Sensitivity, Idiographic Sensitivity,
and Theoretical Sensitivity. Instruments were selected to measure the
first three components. Correlates of sensitivity were identified and
the following hypotheses advanced:

1. The higher the belief in consideration, the more sensitive.

2. The higher the belief in initiation of structure, the more

sensitive.

3. The more other-oriented, the more sensitive.

4. The more objective the orientation, the more sensitive.

5. The more intelligent, the more sensitive.

6. Traits of personality are related to sensitivity.

All but hypothesis four were partially confirmed. The problem of
the selection of sensitive people was discussed and some examples were

cited. Areas for future research were indicated.

34

10.

11.

12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyle, M., and Dean, J., Eye-Contact, Distance, and Affiliation,
Sociometry, 28, 289-304.

Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J., and Gallway, M., The Measurement
of Skill in Social Perception. In McClelland, D. (Ed.), Talent
and Society, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1958.

Bruni, Ernest, A Film Test of Accuracy in Observing People and Its
Correlates. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1963.

Cline, Victor B., and Richards, James M., Accuracy of Interpersonal
Perception—-A General Trait? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
ChOlogi , 1969, V01. 60’ N00 1, 1-70

Cronbach, L. J., Processes Affecting Scores on 'Understanding of
Others' and 'Assumed Similarity', Psychological Bulletin, 1955,
52, 177-193.

Dore, Russell, The Development and Validation of Forced-Choice
Scales Measuring Attitudes Toward Leadership Methods. Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1960.

Dymond, Rosalind F., Personality and Empathy, Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1950, Vol. 14, 343-350.

Dymond, Rosalind F., Interpersonal Perception and Marital Happiness.
In Toch, H., and Smith, H. C. (Eds.), Social Perception, New Jer-
sey: D. Van Nostrand, 1968, 227-234.

Ekman, P., A Methodological Discussion of Non-Verbal Behavior,
Journal of Psychology, 1957, 43, 141-149.

Ekman P., Body Position, Facial Expression, and Verbal Behavior Dur-
ing Interviews, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964,
68, 295-301.

Ekman, P., Differential Communication of Affect by Head and Body
Cues, Spurnal ongersonality and Social Psychology, 1965a, 2,
726-735.

Ekman, P., Communication Through Non-Verbal Behavior: A Source of
Information About an Interpersonal Relationship. In S. S. Tomkins
and C. I. Izard (Eds.). Affect, Cognition and Personality,
Springer, New York, 1965b.

35

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

36

Fleishman, E. A., The Description of Supervisory Behavior, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1953, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1—6.

Fancher, R. E., Explicit Personality Theories and Accuracy in Per-
son Perception, Journal of Personality, 1966, 34, 252-261.

Gage, N. L., Explorations in Teachers' Perceptions of Pupils. In
Toch, H., and Smith, H. C., (Ed.). Social Perception, New Jersey:
D. Van Nostrand, 1968, 219-226.

Greenwood, J. M., and McNamara, W. J., Leadership Styles of Struc-
ture and Consideration and Managerial Effectiveness, Personnel
Psychology, 1969, 22(2), 141-142.

Grossman, B. A., The Measurement and Determinants of Interpersonal
Sensitivity. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1963.

Grossman, Burton A., Evaluation of a Training Program To Improve
the Ability to Differentiate Between People. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Harding, J., Stereotypes. In David L. Sills (Ed.). International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York: MacMillan and Free
Press, 1968, 15, 259-262.

Harris, W. A., The Relation of Observational to Inferential Accur-
acy in Judging People. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1962.

Johnson, R. L., Correlates of a Test of Group Sensitivity. Unpub-
lished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1963.

Jones, E. E., and Thibaut, J. W., Interaction Goals as Bases of
Inference in Interpersonal Perception. In Tagiuri, R., and Pet-
rullo, L., Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, Stan—
ford, California: Stanford University Press, 1955.

Korman, A. K., Consideration, Initiating Structure and Organiza-
tional Criteria--A Review, Personnel Ps cholo , 1966, 19, 349-
361.

Linden, J. I., The Self-Centered Orientation in Interpersonal Rela—
tionships. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State Univer—
sity, 1965.

Meehl, P. E., Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

‘Mietus, John R., Evaluation of a Sensitivity Training Program With
a Component Criterion. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1969.

37

Mullin, J. J., Empathic Drive and its Influence on Accuracy in
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State

27.
Judging People.
University, 1962.

28. Nunnally, J. C., Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

 

29. Sappenfield, B. R., Stereotypical Perception of a Personality Trait
in Fraternity Members, Perceptua1_§_Motor Skills, 1969, 29(2),

460-462.

Secord, P. F., Facial Features and Inference Processes in Interper-

In R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo (Ed.), Person

300
Stanford Univer-

sonal Perception.
Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, Stanford:

sity Press, 1958.

31. Shears, A. D., The Development and Analysis of a Criterion of the
Ability to Understand People. Unpublished Master's Thesis,

Michigan State University, 1967.
32. Silkiner, D. S., A Cross-Cultural Study of the Measurement, Deter-
minants, and Effects of Stereotype Accuracy. Unpublished Master's

Thesis, Michigan State University, 1962.
McGraw-Hill Book Com—

 

Smith, H. C., Sensitivity to People, New York:

 

33.
pany, 1966.

34. Smith, H. C., Personality Develppment, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1968.

35. Spier, M. 8., Improving Interpersonal Sensitivity: An Evaluation
of a Stereotype Accuracy Training Program. Unpublished Ph.D.

Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969.

36. Stelmachers, Z. T., and MCHugh R. B., Contribution of Stereotyped
and Individualized Information to Predictive Accuracy, Journal
of ConsultingiPsychology, 1964, 28, 234-242.
In David L. Skills (Ed.). Inter-
MacMillan

37. Tagiuri, R., Person Perception.
aational Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York:

and Free Press, 1968, 11, 560-567.
John Wiley & Sons,

Thorndike, R. L, Personnel Selection, New York:
Inc., 1962.

39. Thornton, G. R., The Effect of Wearing Glasses Upon Judgements of
Personality Traits of Persons Seen Briefly, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1944, 28, 203-207.

Travers, R. M., A Study in Judging the Opinions of Groups, Archives

38.

 

 

40.
of Psychology, 1941, 266, 1—73.
41. Warr, P. B., and Knapper, C., The Perception of People and Events,
John Wiley & Sons, 1968.

New York:

38

42. Wolin, L. R., An Analysis of the Content of Interpersonal Percep-
tion. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University,
University Microfilms, 1955.

43. Zavala, A., A Test of Stereotype Accuracy. Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University, 1960.

44. Webster, Edward C., Decision Makingiin the Employment Interview,
Montreal: The Eagle Publishing Co., Ltd., 1964.

APPENDIX.A

CASE OF THE INSTRUCTOR

CASE OF THE INSTRUCTOR

You have now seen and heard the instructor for hours and read what he
has written. How well do you now understand how he sees himself?

He completed the same personality inventory as you did. How do you think
his scores compare with those of the men in this class? Mark:

(1) LOW. 25th percentile or less.
(2) AVERAGE. 26th percentile to the 75th percentile.
(3) HIGH. 76th percentile or higher.

Ans.

'(37 l. Cautious vs BOLD

(l) 2. Unemotional vs EMOTIONAL

(1) 3. Artistic VS PRACTICAL

(3) 4. Present—minded vs FUTURE-MINDED

(3) 5. Rationalistic vs EMPIRICAL

(5) 6. On which of these traits do you think he is furthest from the

50th percentile (that is, closest to the 0 or the 99th percen-
tile)? (1) bold; (2) emotional; (3) practical; (4) future-
minded; (5) empirical.

How do you think he answered the following statements from the trait in-
ventory? Mark "1" if you think he answered "true"; "2", if you think he
answered "false". ‘

(2) 7. I am cautious about undertaking anything that may lead to hum-
iliating experiences.
(2) 8. I am always taking on added social responsibilities.

(1) 9. I never complain about my sufferings and hardships.
(2) 10. Quite a few things make me emotional.

(2) 11. I have never tried to collect pictures of paintings I have liked.
(l) 12. I prefer friends who have well developed artistic tastes.

(2) 13. I believe in getting as much fun as I can out of life.
(2) 14. I find it rather hard to keep to a rigid routine.

(1) 15. Compared to your own self-respect, the respect of others means
little.
(1) 16. I think cremation is the best method of burial.

(4) 17. Which of the following men has he admired and studied the most?
(1) H. Ibsen; (2) E. Shackleton; (3) S. Freud; (4) H. Thoreau;
(5) J. P. Morgan.

His answers to the following statements were the same answers as those
given by more than two-thirds of college men. Answer as you think both
he and the typical college man would answer them.

(2) 18. I have occasional difficulty getting the temperature of my
bath the way I like it.

(2) 19. I prefer quiet games to extremely active ones.

(1) 20. I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation.

(2) 21. I always finish one task before taking on others.

(1) 22. Radical agitators should be allowed to make public speeches.

(2) 23. I believe that what a person does about a thing is more impor-
tant than what he feels about it.

(2) 24. The thought of God gives me a complete sense of security.

His answers to the following statements were the opposite of those given
by more than two-thirds of college men. Answer as you think ha did.

(2) 25. I believe that competitiveness is a necessary and desirable
part of our economic life.

(1) 26. I think I would like to decorate a room with flowers.

(1) 27. If I had the ability, I would enjoy teaching poetry at a Uni-
versity.

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

He filled out the Strong Vocatiopal Interest Blaak by checking whether
he would "like" or "dislike" a variety of occupations, school subjects,
entertainments, and other activities. Answer "1" for those that you
think he checked he would like; "2", for those that you think he checked
he would dislike.

(l) 29. Actor

(2) 30. Advertiser

(1) 31. Architect

(1) 32. Artist

(2) 33. Certified Public Accountant
(2) 34. Clergyman

(1) 35. Musician

(1) 36. Poet

(2) 37. Cashier in a bank

(2) 38. Hunting

(2) 39. Raising money for charity
(1) 40. Tennis

In scoring the Strong test, each person's interest patterns are compared
to those of successful men in a variety of occupations. Mark "1" those

occupations in which the instructor's interests were very similar to men
in that occupation; mark "2" that_were not at all similar.

(1) 41. Physician
(2) 42. Mortician
(1) 43. Engineer
(2) 44. Banker

(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)

The
the

(3)
(3)

(4)
(5)
(l)
(1)

(1)
(4)

45. Accountant

46. Architect

47. Carpenter

48. Chemist

following items concern observational and biographical facts about
instructor.

49. He weighs: (1) 145 pounds; (2) 155; (3) 165; (4) 175; (5) 185.

50. His height is: (1) five feet seven inches; (2) 5' 8"; (3)

5' 9"; (4) 5' 10"; (5) 5' ll".

51. His age is: (1) 40-44; (2) 45-49; (3) 50—54; (4) 55-59; (5)
60-64.

52. He was born, raised, and educated in: (1) Germany; (2) Eng-
land; (3) Canada; (4) California; (5) Maryland.

53. His father was: (1) a skilled laborer; (2) cashier; (3) eng-
ineer; (4) executive; (5) psychologist.

54. In his high school graduating class, he ranked in the: (1)
upper 5%; (2) upper 10%; (3) upper 25%; (4) upper 50%; (5)
upper 75%.

55. In his college graduating class, he ranked in the (1) upper
5%; (2) upper 10%; (3) upper 25%; (4) upper 50%; (5) upper 75%.

56. He: (1) neither smokes nor drinks; (2) smokes but does not

drink; (3) drinks but does not smoke; (4) smokes and drinks.

APPENDIX B

KNOWLEDGE OF MEN AND WOMEN

KNOWLEDGE OF MEN AND WOMEN

This is a test of your knowledge of the likes, dislikes, and self-
ratings of the typical man (Part I) and the typical woman (Part II).
The correct answers are based on the analysis of replies to the Strong
Vocational Interest Blank. In taking this test the respondent is asked
to "disregard considerations of salary, social standing, future advance-
ment, etc...consider only whether or not you would enjoy the interest
regardless of any necessary skills, abilities, or training which you may
or may not possess."

Part I. Understanding7Men

The correct answers are the actual replies of thousands of American
men, primarily those in business and professional occupations. They
checked whether they would "like," or "dislike" many different occupa-
tions, amusements, activities, and kinds of people. They also answered
statements about what kind of persons they thought they were.

Likes

Three interests are listed opposite each question below. Only one
of the three was liked by more than half of the men. Mark on the se -
arate answer sheet the one that you think more than 50 per cent of the
men, said they would "like."

EXAMPLE:
(1) travel movies (2) chasier in a bank (3) people who borrow things

80% of the men said they liked "travel movies"; 20%, "cashier"; and
2% "people who borrow things." Therefore, "travel movies" is the correct
answer.

(1) pet monkeys (2) geography (3) military drill.

(1) civil service employee (2) carpenter (3) psychology.

(1) literature (2) botany (3) shop work.

(1) agriculture (2) typewriting (3) chemistry.

(1) performing sleight-of—hand tricks (2) educational movies (3) full—

dress affairs.

(1) bargaining (swapping) (2) taking responsibility (3) drilling

soldiers.

7. (1) being pitted against another as in a political or athletic race
(2) meetingyand directing_people (3) teaching children.

8. (l) spendthrifts (2) cripples (3) conservativeopeople.

9. (l) J.J. Pershing, soldier (2) opportunity to make use of all one's
knowloaga and experience (3) secretary of a social club.

10. (1) head waiter (2) lighthouse tender (3) emphasis on quality of work.

U'I-bLAJNH
000..

Ch

Dislikes

‘aore
said

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Self

Only one interest in each group below was actively disliked by
than half of the men. Mark the one that you think that most men
they disliked.

(l) factory manager (2) undertaker (3) geometry.

(1) physician (2) life insurance salesmen (3) economics.

(1) thrifty people (2) history (3) music teacher.

(1) magazine writer (2) chemist (3) auctioneer.

(1) school teacher (2) watchmaker (3) governor of a state.

(1) floorwalker (2) stock broker (3) reporter, general.

(1) editor (2) railway conductor (3) surgeon.

(1) author (2) store manager (3) pharmacist.

(1) auto salesman (2) interior decorator (3) scientific research
worker.

(1) printer (2) wholesaler (3) astronomer.

(1) making a radio set (2) petymonkeys (3) "Atlantic Monthly."

(1) repairing a clock (2) acting,as,a_yell leader (3) giving first
aid.

(1) interviewing men for a job (2) opening conversation with a
stranger (3) lookiogyat a collection of rare laces.

(1) doing research work (2) climbingyalongyedge of a precipice (3)
looking at shop windows.

(1) sick people (2) irreligious people (3) side show freaks.

(1) very old people (2) people who don't believe in evolution (3)
men who use perfume.

(1) paople easily led (2) people who assume leadership (3) deaf
mutes.

(1) people who get rattled easi1y_(2) people with protruding jaws
(3) people with hooked noses.

(1) fashionably dressed people (2) nervous people (3) emotional
people.

(1) interest the public in a machine through public addresses (2)
steadiness and permanence of work (3) chairman, program committee.

 

 

 

Ratinga
The men also answered statements about what kind of persons they

thought they were. Mark the one statement in each group below that you
think was answered "yes" by more than half of the men.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

(1) practically never make excuses (2) get "rattled" easily (3)
fallow uposubordinates effectively.

(1) am approachable (2) lose my temper at times (3) usually ignore
the feelings of others.

(I) worry very little (2) win confidence_and loyal£y_(3) when caught
in a mistake usually make excuses.

(1) tell jokes well (2) discuss my ideal with others (3) best-liked
friends are superior to me in ability.

(1) get "rattled" easily (2) worry considerably about mistakes (3)
can correct others without giving offense.

(1) am always on time with myywork (2) loan money to acquaintances
(3) have mechanical ingenuity (inventiveness).

(l) stimulate the ambition of my associates (2) have mechanical in-
genuity (inventiveness) (3) best-liked friends are superior to me
in ability.

38. (1) loan money to acquaintances (2) loan only to certain people
(3) rarelyyloan money.

39. (1) usually ignore the feelings of others (2) consider them some-
times (3) carefully consider them.

40. (1) when caught in a mistake usually make excuses (2) seldom make
excuses (3) practically never make excuses.

Part II. Understanding Women

Over four thousand women, many in professional positions, checked
whether they would "like" or "dislike" different occupations, amusements,
activities, and kinds of people.

Likes

Three interests are listed opposite each question below. Only one
of the three was liked by more than half of the women. Mark the one that
you think more than 50 per cent of the women said they would "like."

EXAMPLE:
(1) interior decorator (2) mechanical engineer (3) cheer leader.

Sinde 65% of the women said they would like being an "interior
decorator" this is the correct answer.

41. (1) wife (2) office manager (3) music composer.

42. (l) probations officer (2) dancing teacher (3) vocational counselor.

43. (l) confectioner (2) bpyer of merchandise (3) postmistress.

44. (l) solving mechanical puzzles (2) plays (3) cashier.

45. (1) "Reader's Digest" (2) conventions (3) poker.

46. (l) interviewing clients (2) decoratipg a room with flowers (3) open
conversation with a stranger.

47. (l) organizing a play (2) arguments (3) looking at shop windows.

48. (l) discussing politics (2) entertaining others (3) buying at an
auction sale.

49. (l) attending church (2) doing research work (3) making a speech.

50. (l) negroes (2) emotional people (3) people who areypatural leaders.

51. (1) self—conscious people (2) irreligious people (3) optimists.

52. (1) methodical people (2) thrifty people (3) very old people.

53. (l) opportunity to understand just how one's superior expects work
to be done (2) opportunity_to make use of all one's knowledge and
experience (3) opportunity for promotion.

54. (1) activities of a conservative nature (2) travel with someone who
will make the necessary preparations for you (3) boyaarried.

55. (1) be married with small income (2) going to ayplay (3) order
others.

56. (l) psychology (2) chemistry (3) bible study.

57. (1) geography (2) bookkeeping (3) calculus.

 

Dislikes

Only one interest in each group below was disliked by more than half
of the women. Mark the ppa_that you think more than 50 per cent of the
women said they would "dislike."

58. (1) factory worker (2) athletic director (3) physician.

59. (l) milliner (2) life insurance salesman (3) judge.

60. (1) manufacturer (2) traveling saleswoman (3) illustrator.

61. (l) manager, women's style shop (2) naturalist (3) dentist.

62. (l) laboratory technician (2) telephone operator (3) social worker.

63. (1) public health nurse (2) criminal lawyer (3) opera singer.

64. (1) Y.W.C.A. secretary (2) tea room proprietor (3) bookkeeper.

65. (1) author of a novel (2) accountant (3) graduate general nurse.

66. (l) illustrator (2) typist (3) interpreter.

67. (l) statistician (2) secret service woman (3) social worker.

68. (1) stage actress (2) mechanical engineer (3) editor.

69. (l) dean of women (2) proof reader (3) kindergarten teacher.

70. (1) "Good Housekeeping" magazine (2) afternoon teas (3) "True Story"
magazine.

71. (l) mannish women (2) negroes (3)methodica1 people.

72. (1) absent-minded people (2) fashionably dressed people (3) people
who assume leadership.

73. (1) writing personal letters (2) looking at a collection of rare
laces (3) interest the public in buildiogytheir own homes through
ppblic addresses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self Ratings

The women also answered statements about what kind of persons they
thought they were. Mark the paa_statement in each group below that you
think more than half of the women answered "yes."

 

74. (1) can discriminate between more or less important matters (2)
remember faces and incidents better than the average person (3) can
correct others without giving offense.

75. (1) usually liven up the group on a dull day (2) loan money to ac-
quaintances (3)win confidence and loyalty.

76. (l) borrow frequently (2) borrow occasionally (3) practically never
borrow.

77. (l) worry considerably about mistakes (2) worry very little (3) do
not worry.

78. (l) feelings easily hurt (2) feelings hurt sometimes (3) feelings
rarely hurt.

79. (l) have mechanical ingenuity (2) can write a well-organized report
(3) able to meet emergencies quickly and effectivoly.

80. (1) tell jokes well (2) smooth out tapgles and disagreements between
people (3) feelings easily hurt.

APPENDIX C

CASE OF ZOLTON

CASE OF ZOLTON

Below is a typescript of a filmed interview with Zolton, an unmarried
man of twenty-one. After seeing the interview, mark how you think Zol-
ton described himself and how he was described by his friends.

Psychologist: "Just what sort of person are you?"

Zolton: "Well, I guess an easy-going one. I'm easy to get along with."

Psychologist: "Well, what else can you tell me about yourself?"

Zolton: "Well, I guess that's about all. I have some temper - not
much."

Psychologist: "What would you consider to be your greatest personality
handicap?"

Zolton: "Well, I guess just paying attention when there are people talk—
ing to me. Just paying attention to them."

Psychologist: "Do you have difficulty paying attention to people?"

Zolton: "No, no, I don't have no difficulty, it's just that whenever I
walk into a place, I just don't speak, I'm quiet."

Psychologist: "Do you have difficulty making friends?"

Zolton: "No, no, I don't find no difficulty making friends."

Psychologist: "But to begin with, you feel a little reserved about it,
is that it?"

Zolton: "Yuh."

Psychologist: "What sort of thing would cause you to lose your temper?"

Zolton: "Once in a great while. It has to be something pretty mean, I
guess, or something pretty big. One I guess is just - I don't know -
couldn't tell you that until I lost my temper. Well, for instance, my
little brother taking off with my car."

Psychologist: "That would make you unhappy?"

Zolton: "Yuh."

Psychologist: "What would you do if someone told a lie about you?"

Zolton: "I guess that would make me a little sore too, if it wasn't
true."

Psychologist: "Would you go to the person and talk to him about it?"

Zolton: "I wouldn't do nothing. Just sort of keep it to myself."

Psychologist: "Well, how would you feel, and what would you do if some-
one gave you a million dollars?"

Zolton: "I'd be pretty happy, I guess. I guess I've never thought about
what I'd do with it. I'd spend it I guess."

Psychologist: "What sort of things do you do in your spare time?"

Zolton: "Oh, usually drive around; I like to drive around quite a bit."

Psychologist: "Do you participate actively in any sports, or are you a
spectator?"

Zolton: "No, I participate in it. Basketball, for instance."

Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these
times?"

 

Zolton: "Yes, I really do think that religion is important. I don't
know, I guess just being good, people go out, and that ain't so bad,
just going out and partying, but after that, the way they gather--."

Psychologist: "And you think that religion would affect that sort of
thing?"

Zolton: "I think so, because of conscience — people have a conscience,
and that would be on it."

Psychologist: "In what way is religion important to you?"

Zolton: "I don't know, well, sometimes when you go out partying, you
feel like doing something else, and yet you don't."

Psychologist: "Because of your religion, is that it?"

Zolton: "Uh-huh."

Zolton checked those adjectives that he considered self-descriptive. In
each of the following groups Zolton checked gas of the adjectives but
did not check the other two. Mark the number of the adjective that you
think he checked.

 

 

 

l. (l) alert (2) inventive (3) deceitful

2. (l) aloof (2) apathetic (3) ambitious

3. (l) irresponsible (2) opportunistic (3) Confident

4. (l) cautious (2) outgoing (3) inhibited

5. (l) wholesome (2) considerate (3) conscientious
6. (l) obliging (2) natural (3) coopegative
7. (1) courageous (2) charming (3) commonplace
8. (l) unassuming (2) stable (3) forgiving

9. (1) evasive (2) stubborn (3) shallow
lO. (1) fault-finding (2) hard-headed (3) rattlebrained
11. (l) coarse (2) arrogant (3) hostile
12. (l) modest (2) formal (3) inhibited
13. (1) stable (2) sincere (3) unaffected
l4. (1) awkward (2) impatient (3) moody
15. (l) guarrelsome (2) cynical (3) deceitful
16. (l) conscientious (2) individualistic (3) understanding

 

Zolton responded to each of the statements below by checking: (1) Dis-
agree; (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree; (3) Agree. Mark the way in which
you think he responded.

(3) 17. God will punish those who disobey his commandments and reward
those who obey Him.

(2) 18. No one who has experienced God like I have could doubt His
existence.

(1) 19. People don't necessarily need to believe in God in order to live
good lives.

(1) 20. I am unable to accept the idea of "Life after death".

(3) 21. I have sometimes been very conscious of the presence of God.

(3) 22. God does marvelous things which are called miracles by some.

(1) 23. While God may exist, it is hard for me to accept with a fact
without some proof.

(1) 24. If there is a "God", it is only an impersonal force in the uni—
verse.

Friends of Zolton marked each of the adjectives below as like him or
UNlike him. In each of the following groups, only gas of the adjec-
tives was marked as being UNLIKE him. Mark which one you think the
UNLIKE adjective was.

 

 

25. (l) sgotistical (2) cooperative (3) confident
26. (l) friendly (2) stubborn (3) shy

27. (l) affectionate (2) ambitious (3) rebellious
28. (l) careful (2) unrealistic (3) considerate

 

One of the completions to each of the sentences below is the way that
friends described how Zolton behaved in social situations. Mark the one
thatsyou think how his friends described him.

 

29. At a party he tends to be: (1) shy and reserved; (2) somewhat loud
and boisterous; (3) at ease and comfortable.

30. On the job he is regarded as: (l) a "goof off" who always does less
than his share; (2) very reliable and hardworking; (3) the guy who
occasionally stirs up trouble.

31. When it comes to speaking before a small group of people: (1) he
does rather well; (2) he is about average; (3) he does quite poorly.

32. His friends say that he is: (l) somewhat ambitious; (2) rather
easyegoing with nojgreat ambition; (3) rather confused and "mixed
up".

Zolton checked one of the statements below to describe himself, Mark the
alternative you think he checked.

33. If I can't get what I want, I... (1) wait; (2) get it in another way;
(3) usually get along without it.

34. I feel "down in the dumps" when... (l) I don't; (2) I say the wrong
thing; (3) I don't succeed.

35. When I make a mistake I... (1) am ambarrassed; (2) laugh it off;
(3) don't "give a damn".

36. When they told me what to do... (1) I did just the opposite; (2).;
did it; (3) I listened politely but did nothing.

37. At the party, I was... (1) the life of the party; (2) a little shy
and reserved; (3) quite smooth and polished.

38. I boiled up when... (l) I was cheated; (2) I was criticized unjustly;
(3) I saw people hurting others.

39. Religion seems to me... (1) unnecessary; (2) a problem; (3) neces-
sary and important.

40. I enjoy... (1) great music; (2) being with people; (3) sports.

 

APPENDIX D

ORIENTATIONS T0 PEOPLE

ORIENTATIONS TO PEOPLE

This is a study of orientations in forming impressions of people. It

has three parts. Part I, Orientations to Leaders, concerns your impres-
sions of what makes a good leader. Part II, Orientations of Others,
concerns your opinion of the interpersonal orientations of people in
different social situations. Part III, Orientations in First Impressions,
concerns the impressions that a woman and a man who will be shown in
silent filmed interviews, make upon you.

 

Please put your answers on the separate answer sheet. Be sure to mark
your student number and name, for the results will be returned to you
later. Work rapidly, but be sure that you answer every question.

I. Orientations to Leaders
Directions:

In each question are two statements of things that a leader can do.
Choose the one you feel it is more important for him to do. If you feel
that both alternatives are poor, choose the one you think is less poor.

It is more important for a leader:

1. (1) To make decisions independently of the group.
(2) To really be a part of his work_gpoup.
2. (1) To let workers take time out from the monotony when they wish.
(2) To allow workers to make decisions only when given explicit
authority by the leader.
3. (1) To take an interest in the worker as a person.
(2) To maintain definite standards of performance.
4. (1) To haye his workers do their work the way they think is best.
(2) To rule with a firm hand.
5. (1) To decide in detail how the work shall be done by the workers.
(2) To let workers make decisions whenever they feel competent.
6. (1) To make it clear that he is the leader of the group.
(2) To have workers settlejpy themselves most of their job problems.
7. (1) To have the workers settle by themselves most problems.
(2) To have scheduled rest periods.
8. (1) To hays his workers do their work the way they think is best.
(2) To assign specific responsibilities and duties daily.
9. (1) To do the important jobs himself.
(2) To have workers take their'estjperiods when they wish.
10. (1) To feel he belongs in his group.
(2) To reward the good worker.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

(l)
(2)
(l)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(l)
(2)
(l)
(2)
(l)
(2)

(l)
(2)
(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(l)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(l)

(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)

To haye histworkets do the work the way they thinkois_bsst.

To have the worker depend upon him to make decisions.

To get the work done on time.

To be friendly toward his workers.

To act as he thinks best, regardless of the views of his workers.
To be proud of his work gronp.

To give the workers the power to act independently of him.

 

To assign workers to particular tasks.

To do the important jobs himself.

To let the workers decide how to do each task.

To leave it_pp to each worker to get his share of the work done.
To set up most projects himself.

To call the gropp_together to discuss the work.

To work right alongside the workers.

To pitch right in with the workers.

Tojplan the work carefully.

To explain carefully each worker's duties to him.

To spend some of his time helping get the work done.

To work hard himself.

To schedule the work of the men carefully.

To be an authority in the type of work the group does.

To tell poor workers when their work isn't measuring up to what
it should be.

To do the same work as his men whenever time allows.

Tooplan how his men will do the jcb.

To call thejgroup together to discuss the work.

To attempt to make his work not too different from the work of
his men.

To be respected as a man of high technical skill in his field.
To spend over half his time in supervisory activities such as
planning and scheduling.

 

To let his workers know how they are doing on their jobs.

To spend some of his time helping get the work done.

Tojpass along_to his workers information from higher management.
To help get the work done.

To be known as a man of great technical skill in the field.
Tossehedule the work to be done.

To meet with the workers to considersproposed changes.

 

To pitch right in with the workers to help make changes.
To explain the duties of each worketlsjjob to him until he
really understands them.

To pitch right in with the workers.

To perform the same work as the workers whenever possible.
To plan his dayfs activities in considerable detail.

To be knownjas a skillful trainer.

 

To set an example by working hard himself.
To work right along side his workers.
To try oat new ideas on the work group.

II. Orientations to Others

This is a scale measuring opinions about how people react in different
situations. In many cases it may be difficult to choose an answer,
but please mark a choice for each one.

The Case of Hans: The place: Munich, Germany. The time: 1922. Hans
Meyerhoff, a poor shopkeeper, has been invited to a secret meeting of a
small organization headed by Adolf Hitler. Hans is bewildered through-
out the meeting.

33. Hans becomes enthralled with Hitler and tries to convince one of
his customers, Rudolph, to join the Party. Why is Rudolph hesitant?
1. Hana, himself, doesn't know what he is joining.
2. I wonder why Hans wants me to join the Party.

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

1. He did it to embarrass me before the world.
2. He did it to show the others he wasn't a coward like they said.

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

35. What was Tommy thinking during the interview?
1. I hope he thinks I'm going a good job.
2. I wonder if he knows how admired he is.

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

36. The social worker decides to recommend the adoption. What might
she be thinking during her conference with her supervisor?
1. He seems to respect my views.
2. His experience makes him a keen judge of adoption cases.

37. Her supervisor's thoughts?
1. She's done a goodjjob of analysis.
2. She knows she has to convince me.

38. Martha is adopted by the couple. What is the social worker think-
ing after her twelfth and final monthly visit?
1. They all seemed terribly greatful to me.
2. Her parents and friends have grown to love her.

39. Two years later Martha falls in love with a college senior named
Bill. What do her parents think about this?
1. Bill seems to love her too; he treats her like a gneen.
2. She doesn't need us like she used to.

40. Martha talks to her social worker for advice about leaving her par—
ents so soon. Martha's thoughts?
1. I hope she doesn't think I let her down.
2. A social worker would be ajgood person to talk to now.

41. The social worker talks with Martha's parents. Their thoughts?
1. She will be good to talk to now.
2. She probably thinks we let her down as parents.

42. Martha and Bill decide to get married. Her parents' thoughts now?
1. They make a great couplejand have happy days ahead.
2. Hope she still loves us.

43. What is Bill thinking now?
1. Her parents still love her and understand her.
2. I hope she loves me as much as I love her.

The Case of Lou: Lou is the father of three college-age children. He
has been acting rather cold toward his wife as of late. His wife is
worried. They had always gotten along well in their 26 years of marr-
iage, and were able to discuss their problems with each other.

44. What might Sally be thinking? She is his favorite child.
1. He must be depressed because I left for college.
2. I guess adults have periods of depression just like us kids.

The Case of Albert: Little Albert is a schoolboy in Germany. He is
doing below average work in math and sees his teacher for help.

45. What is Albert thinking during the conference?
1. He is one of my_best teachers.
2. I wonder if he's interested in helping me.

46. Poor Albert failed his math course. How did his teacher feel?
1. I hope he doesn't feel resentful toward me for failing him.
2. I hope this doesn't hurt his self-confidence too much.

47. How did his teacher feel a fe years later when his former student
formulated an equation e = mc , changing world history?
1. Einstein will go down as one of the great thinkers.
2. I wonder if he thinks I was a poor teacher.

The Case of Samuel Reshevsky: Mr. Reshevsky is a world champion chess
player. He recently played 50 players simultaneously.

48. What were his opponents thinking as they sat down to play him?
1. He is trulysone of the world'sjgreat_players.
2. Does he really think that I'm a challenge?

49. One of the players, a 15 year old boy, beats the Master. His name
is Bobby Fisher, current U.S. chess champion. As they played the
second time, what was Reshevsky thinking?

1. I don't think success has gone to Bobby's head.
2. He seems to look at me differently than he did the last time.

50. What did Bobby think after he defeated the Master again?
1. His one mistake at the end cost him the game.
2. He must think I'm his equal now.

The Case of Cathy: Cathy and her roommate are sophomores at a large
university. They just had a fight about keeping the room neat, Cathy
claiming her roommate is not neat enough.

51. What did Cathy think after talking to her housemother about it?
1. I can see whngirls think she is so understanding.
2. I wonder what she thought of me and my side of the argument.

The Case of Bob: Bob is a senior majoring in math and plans to go to
graduate school next year. His math teacher, Mr. Lewis, is retiring.

52. His wife's thoughts about the news of her husband's retirement?
1. He has a feeling of real satisfaction after these 304years.
2. Maybe he will need me more now that he is not working.

53. Mr. Lewis is replaced by a young Ph.D. She is bright, good-looking
and single. What is Bob thinking as she walks into class?
1. I hope she likes my work
2. Thisjshould be an interesting course.

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

55. Bob sets straightened out and ends up with an A in the course.
What are his thoughts now?
1. She thinks I really know the material now.
2. This wasiatyery beneficial course.

The Case of Leon: Leon Winters is captain of his bowling team. His team
loses its first three matches and he resigns as captain. Under his suc-
cessor, Al, the team wins its next 4 games.

56. What are Al's thoughts now?
1. His bowling has;improved lately, as has the teams'.
2. He resents me for taking over his job.

The Case of Jan: Jan is a high school dropout. He gets a job on a con-
struction project.

 

57. His foreman's thoughts at first:
1. This boy needs tosgain some self-confidence.
2. He'll be depending on me to help get him started.

58. Jan gets in a fight with another worker. The foreman then thought:
1. Jan will probably worry what I'll do to him about the fight.
2. These things happen on any job.

 

The Case of Mr. Moore: Alan Moore is in the market for a new car. He
is deciding between a Lincoln and a Cadillac.

59. What might he be thinking as he is talking to one of the salesmen?
l. I wonder if he thinks I'm an easy customer to sell.
2. I've heard he's a well-respected salesman.

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

60. How does Ellen feel?
1. I hope he still likes me even though we're not dating.
2. It's best for both of us because we're too young to get serious.

III. Orientations in First Impressions
Directions:

You will see two people in silent movies: Try to form as life-like an
impression of each as you can. The first will be of Mrs. P.: and the
second of Mr. W. As each film is finished the camera will be stopped.
Then, in each of the pairs of statements numbered below pick the one
tpat is more like your impression of thejperson on the separate answer
sheet.

 

THE CASE OF MRS. P.

61. (1) is sincere (2) wearing a coat.

62. (l) is about 40 years old (2) self-satisfied.

63. (1) did most of the talking (2) is one who makes a good impression.
64. (l) moistens her lips (2) experienced with small groups.

65. (1) considers the interview serious (2) shows signs of amtsoment.
66. (1) issa_modest dresser (2) uncertain of her answers.

67. (l) enjoys her family (2) has dark features.

68. (l) is amusing (2) a modest dresser.

69. (l) wants to make an impression on interviewer (2) has good posture.
70. (l) feels self conscious (2) dressed in red.

71. (1) is verbal (2) feeling under pressure.

72. (1) laughing often (2) indecisive.

 

THE CASE OF MR. W.

73. (l) is unsure of himself (2) is wearing a striped sweater.
74. (l) is wearing glasses (2) somewhat perplexed.

75. (1) often grasps his chin (2) is on guard most of the time.
76. (1) leaves smiling (2) is uncertain of the future.

77. (1) does not trust the interviewer (2) smiles little.

78. (1) is confident in his opinions (2) of medium heigat.

79. (l) was eager to leave (2) left quickly.

80. (l) hopes he has put his story over (2) has black hair.

 

 

 

 

81. (1) has curly hair (2) is earnestly interested in the situation.
82. (1) knows what's going on (2) needs a shave.

83. (l) feels a bit insecure (2) is in his early 20's.

84. (1) is self-concerned (2) changes his facial expression little.

 

APPENDIX E

THE PROTEBOB PERSONALITY INVENTORY

THE PROTEBOB PERSONALITY INVENTORY

Directions: There are no right or wrong answers to the following state—

Ans.

(l)

(l)
(2)
(.2)
(l)

(.1)
(l)
(2)
(2)

(l)

(1)
(2)
(2)

(1)
(l)

(2)
(1)

(1)
(l)
(2)

p..-

UT-l-‘LDN

©mNO\

10.

11.
12.
l3.

14.
15.

16.
17.

18.
19.
20.

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

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

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

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

I like to make a very careful plan before starting in to do any-
thing.

I am guided in all my conduct by firm principles.

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

I like to be with people who don't take life too seriously.
Whenever I have to undertake a job I make out a careful plan of
procedure.

I never lose my head.

I set very difficult goals for myself.

I am not particularly methodical in my daily life.

I generally go from one thing to another in my daily life with—
out a great deal of planning.

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

I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation.
Most of my spare money is used for pleasure.

I occasionally neglect serious things in order to have a good
time.

I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property.
I always finish one task before taking on others.

I find it difficult to keep my mind on one detail for very long.
I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in plans.

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

I am extremely ambitious.

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

(l)
(2)

(1)
(2)

(2)

(l)
(1)

(l)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)

(2)

(2)
(2)

(.1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)

(2)

(.1)
(2)
(l)

(.2)
(2)

21.
22.

23.
24.

25.

26.
27.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.

35.

36.

37.

38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
440

45.

46.
47.
48.

49.
50.

I enjoy work more than play.

I feel that friendship is more important in life than anything
else.

I really don't like to drink alcoholic beverages.

I find that my minor likes and dislikes change rather fre-
quently.

I frequently obey whatever impulse is strongest.

I am considered extremely "steady" by my friends.

I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside
for eating.

I keep my workplace very neat and orderly.

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

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

generally seek whatever makes me happy here and now.

would rather see a musical comedy than a documentary film.
live more for the future than for the present.

I believe that what a person does about a thing is more impor-
tant than what he feels about it.

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

HHH

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

I am much more interested in activities which I can enjoy for
their own sake than in activities which are of long range
benefit.

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

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

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

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

I am temperamentally more a sceptic than a believer.

I am more interested in general ideas than in specific facts.
No individual, no matter what the circumstances, is justified
in committing suicide.

The idea of God must remain absolutely central to the whole
plan of human purpose.

It is possible that there is no such thing as divine inspir-
ation.

My faith in God is complete for "though he slay me, yet will

I trust him."

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

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

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

(l)
(2)

(2)
( 1)
(2)
(2)
(l)
(2)

(2)
(2)

(2)
(1)

(2)
(2)
(l)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(l)

(l)
(1)

(1)
(l)
(l)
(l)
(2)
(2)

(2)
(l)

51.
52.

53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

59.
60.

61.
62.

63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.

71.
72.

73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.

79.
80.

I have occasionally doubted the reality of God.

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

A person should develop his greatest loyalty toward his reli-
gious faith.

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

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

I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others.

Some of my friends think my ideas are a bit wild and imprac—
tical.

I control my sexual impulses by instituting prohibitions and
restrictions.

I have always been unalterably convinced of the reality of God.
I would rather be a salesman than a scientific research worker.

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

The European attitude toward mistresses is more sensible than
ours.

I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong.

In matters of conduct I conform very closely to custom.

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

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

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

I think that cremation is the best method of burial.

In the long run, science provides the best hope for solving the
world's problems.

I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines.

Radical agitators should be allowed to make public speeches.
Women should have as much right to propose dates to men as men
to women.

I believe we should have less censorship of speech and press
than we do now.

I often act contrary to custom.

Science should have as much to say about moral values as reli-
gion does.

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

I think that I have a more rigorous standard of right and
wrong than most people.

It is necessary to retain the belief that God exists as a per—
sonal being.

Divine inspriation is an infallible source of truth.

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

(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)

(l)
(2)
(1)

(l)
(2)

(l)
(2)
(2)

(l)
(l)

(2)

(1)
(2)

(2)
(2)

(2)
(1)
(2)
(l)

(l)

(l)
(1)
(l)
(2)
(1)

(2)
( 1)
(1)
(2)
(.1)

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

86.
87.
88.

89.
90.

91.
92.
93.

94.
95.

96.

97.
98.

99.
100.

101.
102.
103.
104.

105.

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.

111.
112.
113.
114.
115.

I enjoy going to art galleries very much.

I would like to hear a popular lecture on contemporary painters.
I can deal much better with actual situations than with ideas.

I like to discuss abstract questions with my friends.

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

I have seldom really enjoyed an art course.

I like to visit exhibits of famous paintings.

Sports generally interest me somewhat more than very intellec-
tual affairs.

I am mainly interested in ideas that are very practical.

I like abstract paintings.

I am an extremely practical person.

I like ballet performances.

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

I only work for concrete and clearly-defined results.

I would rather be a salesman than an artist.

If I had the ability, I would enjoy teaching poetry at a Uni-
versity.

Magazines such as Artsrand Decorations bore me.

I get an intense pleasure from just looking at a beautiful
building.

I like to read poetry.

Artistic experiences are of great importance in my life.

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

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

I spend a lot of time philosophizing with myself.

I tend to judge people in terms of their concrete accomplish-
ments.

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

I always keep my feet solidly on the ground.

I think there are few more important things in life than money.
I am really only interested in what is useful.

I prefer friends who have well developed artistic tastes.

In a discussion, I tend to lose interest if we talk about ser-
ious literature.

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

I have never tried to collect pictures of paintings I like.
I would rather see a movie than read a book.

My head is always full of imaginative ideas.

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

(2)
(2)
(.1)
(1)
(2)

(l)
(1)
(l)
(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)
(2)

(1)
(1)

(l)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)

(2)
(2)

(1)
(2)
(l)

(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)

(1)

(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

(1)
(1)
(2)

116.
117.
118.
119.
120.

121.
122.
123.
124.
125.

126.
127.
128.

129.
130.

131.
132.
133.
134.
135.

136.
137.

138.
139.
140.

141.
142.
143.
144.

145.

146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

151.
152.
153.

I would rather read an article about a famous musician than

a financier.

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

I would particularly enjoy meeting people who had made a suc—
cess in business.

I prefer the friends of my own sex to be very efficient, and

of a practical turn of mind.

Daydreams are an important part of my life.

I am generally regarded by others as a leader.

I am very self-confident.

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

I generally talk very quietly.

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

I am quite often lacking in self-confidence.

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

I enjoy speaking in public.

There are few things I enjoy more than being a leader of peo-
ple.

I have frequently assumed the leadership of groups.

I am a rather carefree person.

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

When I meet a stranger, I sometimes think he is a better per-
son than I am.

I am somewhat more shy than the average person.

I generally feel self—conscious in the presence of important
superiors.

I always like to be with people rather than be alone.

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

I spend myself freely as I have plenty of energy.

I would rather listen to a story than tell one.

I prefer quiet games to extremely active ones.

I frequently become involved in too many activities.

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

I am very optimistic.

I am a very adventurous person.

I have quite a few fears about my future.

I am at least as much of a pessimist as an optimist.

I sometimes become melancholy without very good reasons.
I have some feelings of inferiority.

I am almost never embarrassed.
I always prefer to work with others.
I dislike it when I am with people constantly.

(l)
(.1)

(l)
(’2)
(l)
(2)

(2)

(l)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

(l)
(l)

(l)
(l)
(2)

(2)
(2)
(2)
(l)
(2)

(2)
(l)
(2)

(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)
(l)

(.1)
(2)

(l)
(2)
(1)

154.

155.

156.
157.
158.
159.

160.

161.
162.
163.
164.
165.

166.
167.

168.
169.
170.

171.
172.
173.
174.
175.

176.
177.
178.

179.
180.

181.
182.

183.
184.
185.

186.
187.

188.
189.
190.

I enjoy taking the full responsibility for introducing peo—
ple at a party.
I am always taking on added social responsibility.

I am generally leader of the people I know.

I am seldom the center of attention in a group.

I am often called upon to settle arguments between people.

I sometimes find it hard to lead people and maintain them in
order.

I generally keep in the background at social functions.

I am rather easily stirred up.

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

My emotional life is marked by great moderation.

I believe I am less emotional than most people.

I rather frequently find myself getting emotional about some-
thing.

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

I become emotional fairly easily.

I have sometimes actually screamed with joy.

I am seldom disturbed about sexual matters.

usually prefer to keep my feelings to myself.

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

am easily moved to laughter or tears.

think much and speak little.

HHHHH

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

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

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

My feelings and emotions are very easily aroused.

I almost never notice minor physical injuries.

I am considered rather emotional by my friends.

I find that my life moves along at an even tenor without many
ups and downs.

I have occasionally had to make an effort not to cry.

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

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

I am rather spontaneous in speech and action.

I usually express myself objectively, with considerable cau-
tion and restraint.

I am a fairly impulsive person.

I never complain about my sufferings and hardships.

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

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

I have very strong likes and dislikes.

Quite a few things make me emotional.

I am moderate in my tastes and sentiments.

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

I am almost never extremely excited or thrilled.

I experience rather frequent pleasant and unpleasant moods.
I like to discuss my emotions with others.

I sometimes speak on the spur of the moment without stopping

I can stand pain better than the average person.

 

Impulsive - Controlled
Rational - Empirical
Introverted - Extroverted
Cautious - Bold

(l) 191.
(l) 192.
(l) 193.
(2) 194.
(2) 195.
excited.
(2) 196.
(l) 197.
(l) 198.
(1) 199.
to think.
(2) 200.
l - 40
111-80
81 - 120
121 - 160
161 — 200

Calm — Emotional

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
I

'1‘.
M

 

- {III IIII‘II-‘IfilWll-I INN/III IN! .1
3

1293103433144