THE DEVELQFERASERT AND ANALYSIS OF A €RETER!ON OF THE ABILETY TO UNDERSTANB PEOPLE Thesis for Hm Deer“ of M. A. MECHIGAN STATE UNWEESETY Arthur Dale Shears 1967 ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF A CRITERION OF THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE by Arthur Dale Shears The purpose of this study was to develOp an improved criterion of the ability to understand pe0ple. Understanding was defined as the ability to predict what an individual will feel. say. and do about himself and others. The final form of 137 items was comprised of two sub- tests: a measure of Individual Accuracy that used transcripts of interviews to present material to judges, and a more gen- eral predictive measure that employed a case-sketch presenta- tion. The first subtest is a measure of Individual Accuracy. the ability to differentiate between individuals when group cues are reduced to a minimum. The new form is shorter. and has a higher coefficient of reliability than the form orig- inally deveIOped by Grossman (1963). The second subtest was developed originally by Trumbo (1955) and was expanded by l Arthur Dale Shears Silkiner (1962). The revised test preserves the brevity and reliability of the earlier form while expanding its general- ity. Total criterion reliability (.72) compares favorably with the reliabilities reported by other sensitivity measures. Several aspects relevant to the development and vali- dation of the criterion were explored: (l) The Individual Accuracy component was adminis- tered to 186 students in two forms. to test its success at reducing group membership cues. The predictive accuracy of judges using only a simple age-marital status-sex stereotype was extremely inferior to that of students using the stero- type plus written information. Results contraindicated a response—set explanation of the predictive success of judges using minimal stereotypes. (2) A second group of 126 students was given filmed interviews in addition to the written material. The presence or absence of auditory and visual cues made no significant difference in the predictive accuracy of the two groups. (3) Correlational analysis indicated that a) the criterion subtests were related. but assessed somewhat dif- ferent components of sensitivity; b) class performance was 2 Arthur Dale Shears related to the ability to understand people; and c) boldness was inversely related to scores on the case- sketch subtest and to total criterion scores. Suggestions were made for the interpretation and use of the criterion for the selection and training of people who understand people. The establishment of test norms was suggested as an objective of further research. THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF A CRITERION OF THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE BY Arthur Dale Shears A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1967 Gc+iai;* 2-) “,1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Henry Clay Smith for his generosity with time and advice. and for his continuing encouragement. Appreciation is extended to Drs. Dozier W. Thornton and James L. Phillips for their helpful criti- cisms and suggestions. My thanks also to my wife. Margie. for all the patience and coffee. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES INTRODUCTION . HISTORY. . . . The Concept of Interpersonal Sensitivity . TABLE OF CONTENTS The Measurement of Interpersonal Sensitivity The Effect of Stereotyping on Prediction The Effect of Observation on Prediction. Personality Correlates of Sensitivity. PROBLEM. . . . METHOD . . . . Subjects . Procedure. Written vs. Stereotypic Presentations. Correlational Analysis . . . Data Analysis. Written vs. RESULTS. . . . Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis othH Filmed Presentations iii Page ii vi l9 19 20 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 Table of Contents/cont. Page DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Criterion Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Criterion Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Stereotype With and Without Typescript . . . . . 36 Interpretation of Correlational Study. . . . . . 37 Typescript With and Without Film . . . . . . . . 39 Directions for Training and Research . . . . . . 40 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Page Reliabilities of sensitivity criterion instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Sex of subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Kuder-Richardson Formula #20 reliabilities for the composite sensitivity criterion. . . . . 27 Predictions of the behavior of three men in a "pure" test of Individual Accuracy . . . . . 28 Predictions of the behavior of three men in a test of Individual Accuracy. with and with- out filmed observational cues. . . . . . . . 3O Correlations between boldness and criterion components 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 31 Correlations between class performance and sensitivity measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. TEST OF THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE. . . 48 B. CORRELATIONS OF SENSITIVITY CRITERION COMPONENTS WITH OTHER VARIABLES. . . . . . . 73 vi INTRODUCTION The present study attempts to develop a better cri- terion of the ability to understand people. The ability may be defined operationally in terms of predictive accuracy about people's feelings. attitudes. and behavior. The cri— terion problem is a focal concern of research and training in interpersonal sensitivity: research is no more accurate than its "yardstick." and measurement is the sine qua non of effective training. Predictive accuracy is influenced by many components. Sensitivity to individual differences. or Individual Accuracy. represents a relatively "pure" measure of interpersonal sen- sitivity. However. Stereotypes are also used in making judgments about people. The effect of group membership cues. therefore. requires and receives assessment in this study. Observation. or the use of auditory and visual cues. is another component related to predictive accuracy (Harris. 1962). The present study assesses the consequences of omitting observational cues. Some personality correlates of these components are also investigated. 1 HISTORY The following discussion considers the develOpment of the concept of sensitivity and reviews attempts to es- tablish criteria for its measurement. Stereotypic accur- acy. observation. and personality variables related to sensitivity are also examined. The Concept of Interpersonal Sensitivity The "ability to understand people” has a long de- velopmental history. An early term for it was "empathy." defined by Dymond (1949. 1950) as "the imaginative trans- posing of oneself into the thinking. feeling. and acting of another." This process of tranSposition made the pre- diction of another person's behavior possible. The assump- tion was generally made that sensitivity was a single dim- ension. Cronbach (1955) pr0posed a statistical breakdown of empathy scores. He felt that the use of component scores was essential to the study of accuracy in interper- sonal perception. and that global accuracy measures combined 2 all sorts of independent sources of variation in an unin— terpretable way. Cronbach isolated. defined. and measured five components of predictive accuracy: accuracy of ele- vation (tendency of rater to rate high or low). accuracy of differential elevation (tendency of rater to Spread his ratings). accuracy of assumed similarity (to rater). accur— acy of stereotypes (between groups). and differential ac- curacy (between individuals). Cronbach's analysis served as a basis for further methodological develOpments. Differential Accuracy seemed to be the key concept in the ability to predict the behavior of individuals. Attempts were made (Cline. 1955; Crow and Hammond. 1957; Cline and Richards. 1960) to measure this component through modification of Cronbach's analytic model. Pieper (1960) eliminated the influence of elevation and dif- ferential elevation on differential accuracy by using a matching rather than a rating method. Bronfenbrenner §£_§l, (1958) prOposed that the ability to understand people be treated as a social skill. involving two types of social perceptions: Sensitivity to the Generalized Other (an awareness of the social norm as the typical response of a large class or group). and Inter- personal Sensitivity (recognition of the ways in which one 4 person may differ from another. or from the average in his behavior). Bronfenbrenner further suggested that an analy- sis be made of different kinds of predictions of behavior. and that both second person sensitivity (A's predicting what B thinks or does) and third person sensitivity (A's predicting what some C thinks of B) be studied. Smith (1966). building on the work of Cronbach and Bronfenbrenner. prOposed that the ability to understand people was composed of a number of relatively independent components: Level. Spread. Empathy. Observation. Differen- tiation Between Groups (Stereotype Accuracy). and Differen- tiation Between Individuals (Individual Accuracy). Lgygl and Spread were characteristics of the per- ceiver. or judge. Empathy and Observation were defined as characteristics of the interaction between perceiver and perceived. and did not represent "the accuracy of inferences based on perceptions. but the accuracy of the perceptions themselves" (Smith. 1966). Stereotype Accuracy involved the prediction of differences between groups. not norms within groups. as prOposed by Bronfenbrenner and Cronbach. Individual Accuracy. measured independently of the other five components. was the ability to differentiate between individuals when group membership cues were reduced to a minimum. Individual Accuracy represents a relatively "pure" measure of sensitivity. free from the influence of less essential factors such as level. Spread. and stereotype accuracy effects. The Measurement of7;nterpersona1 Sensitivity Many early attempts to develop adequate measures of sensitivity failed to take account of the components in- volved. Often. investigators trying to measure sensitivity were actually measuring level (Dymond. 1949; Gage. 1958) or leadership competence. Instruments for measuring predictive accuracy have generally demonstrated low reliabilities (see Table 1). Also. they have usually asked judges to predict only a few behaviors of a few people. and have thus been open to criti- cisms of low generality. Kelly and Fiske (1951) reported a criterion measure. developed by W. F. Soskin. that asked VA trainees in clin- ical psychology to predict the behavior of two patients. Inter—case reliability was low. and there was a zero corre- lation between scores on this diagnostic prediction test and trainee-ratings of diagnostic competence. Table l.--Reliabilities of sensitivity criterion instruments. Soskin (1951)* .23 Trumbo (1955) .77 Cline (1959) .71 Grossman (1963) .59 Grossman (1967) .57 *From Kelly and Fiske (1951) Trumbo (1955) developed a criterion with better re- liability and greater generality. He presented judges with eight case-sketches derived from actual case study material; judges then answered 120 true-false statements based on be- havioral data about the individuals. Trumbo pointed out that a test measuring predictions of behavior should contain a large number of items concerned with a wide variety of be- haviors. since this type of test design would provide higher reliability and would give the criterion greater face valid- ity as a measure of the general ability to judge peOple. Cline and Richards (1959) used a series of filmed interviews to develOp a battery of judging instruments meas— uring the ability to predict such diverse behaviors as MMPI responses. sentence completions. and personality trait ratings. Judges observed a film and filled out the judging instruments; the procedure was then repeated for each film in the series. Predictive ability was both reliable and general over different measures and diverse persons to be judged. The criterion develOped in this study had one shortcoming: difficulty of administration. due to the use of filmed presentations. Grossman (1963) develOped an instrument for the measurement of Individual Accuracy based on the color-sound films produced by Cline (1960). To lessen the effects of Stereotype Accuracy upon test scores. he grouped the films by sex (one sub-test used three men; the other. three women). and selected test items with high discrimination for inter- personal sensitivity and no discrimination for group sensi- tivity. Grossman (1967) refined his earlier instrument. changing from a visual presentation (film) to a written presentation (typescripts of the original interviews). Only the "men" test was used. because of its higher relia- bility. The new mode of presentation (1) provided for ease of administration to a larger group of subjects; (2) helped control extraneous variables affecting predictive accuracy such as memory. and differences in hearing and vision. and (3) reduced the effect of stereotyping by eliminating phys- ical appearance cues. The final form of the criterion con- sisted of typescripts of interviews with the three men. followed by a sixty-item test. 30 items measuring second person accuracy and 30 items measuring third person accuracy. The Effect of Stereotyping_on Prediction Judges also make use of stereotypes. or generaliza- tions from group membership. in their predictions of people's behavior. A body of research indicates that they often pre— dict better when they stick to their stereotypes than when they use more Specific information on which to base predic- tions. Meehl (1954) reviewed twenty studies comparing the accuracy of predictions based on an actuarial stereotype and the accuracy of predictions based on the judgments of clinicians. counselors. and social workers. In nineteen of these cases it was found that judgments based on the actu- arial method were equal to or superior to those made indi— vidually. Stone. Leavitt. and Gage (1957) asked a group of judges to fill out an interest inventory as they thought a series of students had filled it out. knowing only a gen— eral stereotype for each student: undergraduate male educa- tion major. graduate female art student. etc. Next. the judges observed each student as he entered the room and en- gaged in several expressive acts: then they filled out the inventory again. Judges made more accurate predictions on the basis of their stereotypes alone than on the basis of their stereotypes plus their personal observations. It has generally been found (Zavala. 1960; Silkiner. 1962) that stereotype accuracy is not a general trait. but an ability relatively Specific to the group membership of the person being judged. Johnson (1963) found that accur- ate judges of sex differences were not necessarily accurate judges of age differences. of differences between psycholo- gists and nonpsycholOgists. or of differences between un- skilled and professional workers. Results suggested that stereotype accuracy was not. therefore. a factor of the general ability to understand people--a point of importance in the selection of content for a criterion measure of un- derstanding. Stelmachers and McHugh (1964) prOposed a slightly different View of stereotype accuracy. They had judges 10 predict the MMPI responses of four persons. on the basis of varying amounts of information about them. Judges given only a simple “differentiating stereotype" (well adjusted normal. delinquent. etc.) were more accurate than judges who were given personal descriptions of the subjects writ- ten by their friends. or judges given the five traits that friends thought were most descriptive of the subjects. Stelmachers and McHugh concluded that predictive accuracy depended little on the type and amount of information pro- vided: "It is not the information contained in the stereo- typed input which leads to good prediction scores. but rather the very absence of it! That is. not having enough information on which to base his predictions. the judge would be forced to rely more heavily on his built-in re- Sponse sets. with their demonstrated capacity to lead to accurate prediction scores." Stereotypes served the func- tion of preventing errors of judgment due to a tendency to "overpredict." The Effect of_Observation on Prediction Observational accuracy is the accurate noting and recalling of Specific. empirically verifiable elements of the appearance. actions. and content of speech of the 11 observed person. It is not the accuracy of inferences based on perceptions. but the accuracy of the perceptions themselves. Harris (1962) made the first effort to develOp a standard test for measuring accuracy in observing people. He used brief filmed interviews. each followed by selected true-false statements about the interviewee. Harris showed that observation was a general ability. and that the extent to which an observer remembered details of appearance. ac- tions. and content of conversation with others was related to his ability to understand others. Bruni (1963). using the same filmed interviews. verified Harris' conclusion that observation was a general ability related to the ability to judge people accurately. Better observers were better judges of both individuals and groups. Kepes (1965) demonstrated that. aside from being a basic component of sensitivity. observation was also the easiest on which to show dramatic improvement with training. He found. in fact. that bgth his experimental training group and a control group made very large improvements in observa- tional accuracy. The motivation and knowledge provided by feedback on scores seemed to be sufficient to bring about im- provement. 12 There is evidence. however (Borke and Fiske. 1957; Kepes. 1965). that mode of presentation of material has no significant effect upon judges' predictive accuracy. Giedt (1955. 1958) found that experts were able to predict the be- havior of four patients as accurately from seeing a trans- cript of an interview as from seeing a film of the interview. Auditory and visual cues were not such a critical component of total prediction that their omission seriously affected performance on a criterion. Giedt's findings have practical significance for the problem of criterion development. Since it is generally much easier and cheaper to use written records. Personality Correlates of Sensitivity Who is sensitive. and what are his traits? Cline (1955) found that the sensitive person had high social responsibility and was antifascist. tolerant. liberal. and intelligent. Chance and Meaders (1960) re- ported that high affiliation. independence. and low hostil- ity were related to understanding. Grossman (1963) listed considerate and constructive leadership attitudes. readiness for change. humanitarian religious views. high verbal intel- ligence. and good college grades as further correlates. 13 Of course. a great many personality traits are ca— pable of conception and measurement. Allport and Odbert (1936) pointed out that there were almost twenty thousand possible trait names in the dictionary. Smith (1966). re- viewing studies of traits related to sensitivity. concluded: "In sum. the most sensitive person is the one best equipped to learn about people. He is curious about and deeply in- volved with others but is neither gregarious nor undiscrim- inating. He is open to people and nondefensive in his rela— tions with them. He is frank about himself and bold. but not hostile. in his dealings with others. He is an intelli- gent user of complex concepts." Intelligence is one of the most certain correlates of sensitivity. Among intelligence measures reported to be related to sensitivity are scores on the Henmon-Nelson gen- eral intelligence test. scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. grades in college. and scores on the MMPI scale meas- uring intellectual efficiency (Cline. 1955; Chance and Meaders. 1960; Grossman. 1963). Smith (1966) summarized research on the relationship: "Of 20 studies relating in- telligence to sensitivity published between 1915 and 1963. all were positive. the median being .30." In the present 14 study. performance scores in the subjects' Psychology of Personality class were taken as an indirect intelligence measure. Linden (1965) factor-analyzed 25 traits isolated by Hershey (1958) from a study of traits measured by other personality inventories. The five trait-dimensions that emerged were (1) Impulsive-Controlled. (2) Rationalistic- Empirical. (3) Introverted-Extroverted. (4) Cautious-Bold. and (5) Emotional-Calm. From this analysis. Linden devel- oped the 200—item Protebob Personality Inventory. A modi- fication of this inventory was used in the exploration of traits related to sensitivity as measured by the criterion under development in the present study. Particularly rele- vant in this connection was Boldness. Both Kelly and Fiske (1951) and Cline (1955) found that the most sensitive individuals had high scores on the MMPI Capacity for Status Scale (”ambitious. active. force- ful. insightful. resourceful. ascendant. and self-seeking"). Chance and Meaders (1960) also found the sensitive individ- uals to be more independent and dominating. Hershey (1960) tested the training gains of five discussion groups that had been ranked on the basis of so— cial boldness scores. The bold groups improved more than 15 the cautious groups. Grossman (1967) found boldness related to improvement in Individual Accuracy for male students. Boldness. then. has been thought to be related to the ability to understand people. The present study serves a replicative function. and attempts to validate the boldness- sensitivity relationship for this criterion measure. PROBLEM The preceding discussion brings into clearer focus some of the problems involved in developing an improved criterion of the ability to understand people. The present study used two approaches to the measurement of understand- ing. A revised test of Individual Accuracy. developed through successive item analyses from an earlier instrument by Grossman (1963). serves as a relatively "pure" measure of sensitivity; a case-sketch section lends generality to the overall measure. During the course of the develOpment of the criter- ion. prediction scores of judges using different amounts of information on which to base their predictions were com- pared. The Individual Accuracy section was tested for its success at minimizing group membership cues. and for the effects of Shifting to a written mode of presentation. Hypotheses: l. Judgments of individuals based upon simple stereotype information are more accurate than judgments based upon individualized information plus stereotype. 16 17 Several studies (Meehl. 1954; Stone. Leavitt. and Gage. 1957; Stelmachers and McHugh. 1964) have reported that the use of simple stereotypes can facilitate high pre- dictive accuracy. 2. Judgments of individuals based upon written material are more accurate than judgments based on written material plus sound films. Some studies have shown typescripts more effective than sound films (Giedt. 1955; 1958). The present study. however. compares written material alone with the combined method. and provides a more direct test of the effect of observational cues by holding constant the variable of memory. Protebob trait-dimensions and a class performance measure were correlated with the sections of the criterion. Two exploratory hypotheses were formulated: 3. Bolderppersons are more accurate in theirpre- dictions of behavior than cautious persons. This test serves a replicative function and attempts to validate. for this criterion measure. a relationship re- ported in many studies (243.. Kelly and Fiske. 1951; Cline. 1955; Chance and Meaders. 1960; Hershey. 1960; Grossman. 1967). 18 4. The higher a person's class_performance score. the more accurate are his predictions of behavior. Numerous studies (géq.. Cline. 1955; Chance and Meaders. 1960; Grossman. 1963) have reported intelligence to be related to sensitivity. The present study takes per- formance scores in one undergraduate class as an indirect measure of intelligence. METHOD The study was carried out in two phases. The first dealt with the effect of group membership cues on Individual Accuracy scores. and collected the data for a correlational study. The second dealt with the effect of observational cues on Individual Accuracy scores. Subjects Subjects for the first phase were 186 students in a Psychology of Personality class at Michigan State University during the Fall of 1966. All subjects had previously taken at least one psychology course. For the second phase. sub- jects were 126 students from a Psychology of Business and Personnel class. at a level approximately equivalent to that of the first group. For both groups. tests were administered during class time. earlier in the term than graded examinations. Motivation to participate was partially contingent on moti- vation for grades. A breakdown of the two groups by sex is tabulated on the following page. 19 20 Table 2.—-Sex of Subjects. Conditions Males Females Total Psychology of Personality Students: I. Using stereotype alone 53 48 101 II. Using stereotype + written material 41 44 85 III. Completing correlational measures 35 37 72 Psych010gy of Business and Personnel Students: IV. Using written material + film 99 27 126 Procedure In the first phase of this study. a new instrument for the measurement of Individual Accuracy was developed. based on an earlier test by Grossman (1963) develOped from color-sound films produced by Cline (1960). The revised test. like Grossman's. minimized the effects of group mem- bership cues. and served as a relatively stereotype-free measure of Individual Accuracy. It provided judges with typescripts of interviews with three men. and included a simple age-marital status-sex stereotype of each. This re- vised test of Individual Accuracy was one of a battery of 21 measures administered to the Psychology of Personality class. Another measure employed was the Test of the Abil- ity to Understand PeOple. a case—sketch sensitivity criter- ion develOped by Trumbo (1955) and expanded by Silkiner (1962). Subjects taking the Individual Accuracy test were divided into two groups. Both groups answered the same test questions. but for one the written material was omitted and predictions had to be made on the basis of the stereotype alone. The groups were then compared for predictive accur- acy. In the second phase of the study. the final revision of the Individual Accuracy test was administered to the Psy- chology of Business and Personnel class. This time. the subjects were given films of the interviews to aid their predictions. in addition to the regular stereotype-plus- typescript information. The predictive success of this group was compared with that of the group using stereotype and typescript. These comparisons. and the correlational study. were used to evaluate the Individual Accuracy component of the criterion under develOpment. and to explore its relation to the case—sketch component. 22 Written vs. Stereotypic Presentations Grossman's test of Individual Accuracy was given a trial administration in the Fall of 1966. Through an item analysis. questions which failed to differentiate between good and poor judges were eliminated. The quartile of high- est scorers and the quartile of lowest scorers were separated for an item count to determine the percentage of subjects in each group that correctly answered each item. The difference between these percentages was an index of item discriminabil- ity. and the most discriminating items were retained. In keeping with studies (Kepes. 1965; Grossman. 1967) indicat- ing that third person predictions of Individual Accuracy ("How do you predict B would describe A2") are more diffi- cult. less direct. and do not improve with sensitivity training. items measuring third-person predictive accuracy were also eliminated. The revised test. shortened from 126 to 71 items. was administered in December. 1966. to a class of Psychology of Personality students. Two forms of the test were run. One form (PredictionsfiAbout-geOple) included the typescript; the other form (Stereotypes About geOple) did not. Randomiza- tion was attempted by placing the test forms in two separate piles. each to the front of one of two entrances to the 23 large testing room. No mention was made that the two piles contained separate forms of the test. As students entered the room. they took test forms from one or the other of the piles. then went to their seats. Eighty-five students took PAP forms; one hundred and one took SAP forms. Kuder-Richardson Formula #20 reliabilities were .65 for the PAP and .61 for the SAP forms. an increase over the reliability of .57 reported by Grossman. although the revised test was shorter by 55 items. Prediction scores of the two groups were compared using a standard t-test of significance. Further investi- gation of the SAP results through item analysis was contra- indicated because of the extremely poor predictive perform- ance of this group. The results of the PAP group. however. were used as the basis for a second item analysis. Ten more items which failed to discriminate between good and poor judges were omitted. The final form of the Individual Ac- curacy component appears as the second section of the over- all criterion reported in Appendix A. Correlational Analysis Of the 85 students who finished the PAP form of the Individual Accuracy test. 72 also completed a battery of 24 other measures. Student numbers were recorded to facili- tate future investigation with the scores. An outline of variables follows: Test of the Ability to Understand People. This 76- item sensitivity criterion had been developed by Trumbo in 1955. A more general measure of sensitivity. it employed a case-sketch presentation. Revised by Silkiner in 1962 and by Smith in 1966. its final form had a reliability of .67. It appears as the first section of the criterion re- ported in Appendix A. Personality Trait:2imensions. These measures were taken with Linden's Protebob Personality Inventory. a test composed of 200 items with 40 items measuring each of five basic traits: Cautious-Bold. Emotional—Calm. Impulsive- Controlled. Rational-Empirical. and Acquiescence. Class Performance. Each student's scores on examin— ations in the PsycholOgy of Personality class were obtained. and the total taken as a measure of performance. Data Analysis Intercorrelations were carried out on Michigan State University's Control Data 3600 computer. Intercorrelations were carried out for the combined N of 72. rather than 25 separately for male and female subjects. A comparison of the data for men and women on the variable of primary con- cern (Individual Accuracy) found insignificant sex differ- ences. For both sexes. the frequency distribution of scores was similar; ranges were identical (21-47 items correct); and mean scores were 34.2 and 34.3 for men and women. re- spectively. Written vs. Filmed Presentations The Individual Accuracy test was reduced from 71 to 61 items following a second item analysis. It was then com- bined with the case-sketch measure to form the final. compos- ite criterion of the ability to understand people. This cri- terion was administered to 126 students in a Psychology of Business and Personnel class. Test administration for the 137-item measure required two class periods. One period was devoted to the Individual Accuracy component. and one to the case—sketch component. During the administration of the Individual Accuracy component. judges were given the original sound-films of the interviews to help them with their predictions. Then. data sheets for the 85 students who had earlier taken the test were rescored for the 61 items of the final form. Accuracy 26 Scores of the two groups were compared with a standard t- test of significance. to assess the effects of observational cues. Results of this comparison. and of the other com- parisons made in this study. are reported in the following section. RESULTS A statement of reliabilities is important to the assessment of the sensitivity criterion develOped in this study. A measure of high reliability may or may not be valid. but a measure of low reliability cannot be valid. Table 3.--Kuder-Richardson Formula #20 reliabilities for the composite sensitivity criterion. (N = 126) Components Reliabilities Part I (76 items). case sketches) .69 Part II (61 items. individual accuracy) .61 Composite Criterion .72 The criterion was administered a second time in the Fall of 1967. to 208 Psychology of Personality students. Composite criterion reliability was not available for report in the present study; reliabilities for Part I and Part II were .74 and .60. respectively. The correlation between the two parts of the criter- ion was .27. Which was significant at the .02 level in a two-tailed t-test. 27 28 An evaluation of the data relevant to each hypothesis is tabulated and reported in detail below. Hypothesis 1. Judgments of individuals pased upon simple stereotype information are more accurate than judg- ments based upon individualized informationpplus stereotype. The hypothesis states. in effect. that having less information upon which to base predictions is more conducive to successful prediction--a recurrent phenomenon in research (Meehl. 1954; Stone pp a1.. 1957). sometimes said to be due to the very $225.0f information that stereotypes provide (Stelmachers and McHugh. 1964). The hypothesis was tested by allowing two groups to predict the behavior of three men. Both groups were given a Simple age-marital status—sex stereotype. while only one had access to a transcribed interview with each subject. Scores of the two groups are presented in Table 4. Table 4.--Predictions of the behavior of three men in a ”pure" test of Individual Accuracy. (Total no. of test items = 71) Experimental Conditions N 'i' Var t Typescript (PAP) Group 85 34.48 38.79 4.84*** Stereotype (SAP) Group 101 18.07 29.11 ***Significant at .001 level. 29 Results were highly significant. and do not support the hypothesis. Clearly. the inclusion of typescript mater— ial did result in a large increment in predictive accuracy. In fact. judges predicting the behavior of the three men knowing only the simple stereotype averaged only 18.07 cor- rect responses out of 71 problems. As each item on the test offered only three possible choices. the average performance in this group was less than the 71/3. or 23.7. that would have been maximally likely if questions had been answered randomly. Results indicate that the inverse of the original hypothesis is true. at least for this criterion measure. Generalizations beyond this specific instance are hazardous. for the test was designed to minimize the effects of group membership cues. It is clear. however. that under certain conditions judgments based on information about Specific individuals are far superior to judgments based on stereo— types. Hyppthesis 2. Judgments of individuals based upon written material are more accurate than judgments based on written materialplusgound films. This hypothesis states. in effect. that when judges stick to the stated facts in the interviews. and do nottry 30 to interpret them in the light of visual cues. they will make better predictions. They hypothesis was tested by comparing the scores of two groups on 61 questions of the Individual Accuracy test. Both groups used typescripts of the interviews. but only one was alowed to observe the films from which the typescripts had originally been made. Re- sults are presented in Table 5. Table 5.--Predictions of the behavior of three men in a test of Individual Accuracy. with and without filmed observational cues. (Total no. of test items = 61) Experimental Conditions N i. Var t Typescript Group 81 29.69 42.39 .56 N.S. Sound-Film Group 126 34.48 29.71 N.S. = Not significant. The group permitted to observe films had higher mean predictive accuracy on the test. although the difference was not significant. The findings. however. are not in the di- rection predicted by the hypothesis. A difference of this size in the means could have occurred about one in five times by the random process alone. While they may have aided predictions. observational cues effected no signifi- cant difference in accuracy scores. 31 Hypothesis 3. Bolder persons are more accurate in their’predictions of behavior than cautious_persons. This hypothesis was tested within the framework of a correlational analysis. Correlations were obtained among scores on the two components of the sensitivity criterion. scores for the five trait-dimensions of the Personality In— ventory. and a class performance score. The relationship between boldness and sensitivity. as measured by the cri- terion develOped in this study. is tabulated below. Table 6.—-Correlations between boldness and criterion com- ponents. (N = 72) A—i 1—1 Test Correlation with Boldness Case-sketch section -.21* Individual Accuracy section -.14 Composite Criterion -.21* *Significant at .05 level. None of the other personality traits were as strongly correlated with sensitivity as cautiousness. and name of the other correlations were significant. Intercorrela- tions are reported in full in Appendix B. 32 Hypothesis 4. The higher a person's class perform- ance score. the more accurate are his predictions of behavior. A measure of class performance was taken. using the total score on three tests in the PsycholOgy of Personality class in which the subjects were enrolled. The relationship between this performance measure and sensitivity is tabulated below. Table 7.--Corre1ations between class performance and sensi- tivity measures. (N = 72) T L Test Correlation with Performance ’Case-sketch section .44** Individual Accuracy section .33** Composite Criterion .48** **Significant at .01 level. The class performance variable was more strongly correlated with accuracy scores than were any of the person- ality variables. and the correlations were significant. This relationship. along with the other findings. will be dis- cussed in the following section of this study. DISCUSSION An evaluation of the composite sensitivity criterion develOped in the present study must concern itself with the issues of reliability and validity. Criterion Reliability Table 3 indicates the success of the effort to im- prove the reliability of the measure. Composite criterion reliability was .72. which compares favorably with the re- liabilities of earlier measures reported in Table 1. Only Trumbo (1955) has reported a higher reliability. and the case-sketch section of the composite criterion was a re- vised form of Trumbo's test. reconstructed for greater generality and validity at some expense to its reliability. The Individual Accuracy section. twice item-analyzed and revised in this study. attained a reliability of .61. This was higher than the .57 reported for its earlier form by Grossman (1963). although the revision was shorter by 65 items. Reliability is. however. not the only indicator of probable validity. 33 34 Criterion Validity Trumbo (1955) pointed out that a test measuring predictions of behavior should contain a large number of items. concerned with a wide variety of behaviors. Trumbo's test contained 120 items. but asked questions about only eight cases. The case-sketch section of the composite cri- terion has only 76 items (which may help to account for its lower reliability). but considers 13 cases. Dealing with a wider variety of behaviors. it has greater generality. hence more face validity as a measure of the general ability to predict peOple's behavior. Researchers since Cronbach (1955) have stressed the multiple determination of sensitivity. That is. the ability has been felt to be made up of several independent components. A composite criterion. which would either measure or control several of the factors related to sensitivity. would have more logical validity than sensitivity measures adapted to a single factor. It has been demonstrated (Cline. 1962) that statisti- cal prediction is superior to clinical prediction with re- gard to stereotype accuracy. and that only in interpersonal (individual) accuracy are clinical predictions superior. A criterion which reduces stereotype accuracy effects and 35 focuses more upon measuring Individual Accuracy would there— fore provide a more valid criterion for measuring clinical predictive accuracy. and for evaluating the effectiveness of training programs aimed at increasing the ability to understand and predict individual behaviors. The poor predictive performance of judges using simple stereotype information indicates that the Individual Accuracy section of the criterion is relatively free from the effects of group membership cues. This produces some evidence for the validity of this section. It is measuring what it is intended to measure: individual. not stereotype. accuracy. In the case-sketch section. stereotype effects are unknown. Since. on the whole. stereotype accuracy is group- Specific (Zavala. 1960; Silkiner. 1962; Johnson. 1963; Smith. 1966). it is not a characteristic of the perceiver. and could hardly be a factor of the general ability to un- derstand peOple. The reduction of group membership cues increases criterion validity by minimizing the effect of this confounding variable. 36 Stereotype With and Without Typescript In addition to its relevance in the assessment of criterion validity. the stereotype—vs.-typescript experiment conducted in the first phase of this study has some relevance for interpreting the phenomenon of successful prediction with minimal information (Meehl. 1954; Stone. Leavitt. and Gage. 1957; Stelmachers and McHugh. 1964). The experimental com— parison was not between modes of presentation. since both groups used the age-marital status-sex stereotype; rather. it tested the effects of providing judges with different amounts of information on which to base their predictions. Stelmachers and McHugh (1964) advanced a "response set" hypothesis to explain the accuracy of predictions based on stereotypes. The core of the idea is that stereotypes work well because they don't provide much information on which to base predictions. Judges then presumably fall back on powerful reSponse sets "which are more erroneously than correctly modified with additional or more individual- ized information." The extremely poor predictive accuracy of judges in the present study who used a simple stereotype indicates that a lgpk_of information is not reSponsible for the phe- nomenon. Results indicate that a sensitivity test can be 37 "purified" to eliminate the effects of group membership cues. so that judgments based upon individualized informa- tion are far superior to judgments based on simple stereo- types. Inteppretation of Correlational Study The,correlational analysis carried out in the first phase of the present study revealed several relationships. Their interpretation aids in the evaluation of criterion construction and in the study of traits related to the abil- ity to understand peOple.. The correlation between the two subtests of the cri- terion (Individual Accuracy and case-sketch sections) was .27. While significant at the .02 level. this correlation is not large. This may indicate that the criterion sub- tests are partially independent in what they measure. and assess somewhat different aspects of sensitivity. This in- terpretation would seem to support the value of the two- component approach to criterion construction. Each compon- ent serves to measure something the other misses. and the two together "cover" the measurement of the general ability to understand peOple better than either would separately. 38 Boldness scores on the Protobob Personality Inven- tory were inversely related to scores on the case-sketch section and to total criterion scores. but were not related to scores on the Individual Accuracy section (see Table 6). This unexpected result did not agree with the previously reported relationship between boldness and predictive ac- curacy (epq.. Cline. 1955; Hershey. 1960; Grossman. 1967). Results of the present study indicate that cautious- ness. not boldness. is linked to predictive accuracy. The diSparity with previous research may be due in part to the fact that other studies have correlated boldness measures to gains scores with sensitivity training. If cautious persons are more sensitive. a "ceiling" effect might be expected to make their training gains smaller. The rela- tionship between cautiousness and sensitivity is. in any case. a minor one. A high correlation. significant at the .01 level. was found between the ability to understand peOple and class performance. as measured by scores on tests in the subjects' Psychology of Personality class. The exact nature of this relationship is not clearly indicated. The correlation may reflect the influence of a third variable--that of ippglli; gence. It has been amply demonstrated (e.g.. Cline. 1955; 39 Chance and Meaders. 1960; Grossman. 1963) that intelligence is related to the ability to understand others. The sensi- tive person is an intelligent user of complex concepts. and it is possible that this facility reflects itself in class performance. This is. however. by no means the only plaus- ible explanation of the results. An alternative explanation might be that more highly motivated subjects do better on pa- per and pencil tests. whether they deal with class material or information relevant to predicting a person's behavior. Typescript With and Without Film The present study did not follow the pattern of pre- vious studies (Giedt. 1955; 1958). which compared written and audio-visual modes of presentation. Instead. in this analysis both groups of judges were allowed to use written material on which to base their predictions. This design controlled the important variable of recall. and provided a more direct assessment of the effects of observational cues in Individual Accuracy. Results confirm previous research findings (Borke and Fiske. 1957; Kepes. 1965) indicating that mode of pre- sentation of material does not have a Significant effect on predictive accuracy. The presence or absence of observational 4O cues does not make a Significant difference in accuracy scores. This finding has relevance for an evaluation of the Individual Accuracy component of the criterion. It seems likely that the small decrement in test validity in- curred by the shift to a written mode of presentation is offset by an important practical matter: it is generally much easier and cheaper to obtain and make use of a written criterion than to arrange to show films. In practical sit- uations calling for an assessment of sensitivity. therefore. it is probably more useful to employ a written presentation of material. Directions for Training and Research The major develOpment of this study is the improved criterion of sensitivity. It provides a convenient. reli- able. and general measure of the ability to understand people that may be of value in sensitivity research. as well as in the assessment of the effects of sensitivity training prOgrams. The interpretation of criterion scores should take both subtest scores into account. as well as overall cri- terion score. The low (.27) correlation between the two 41 subtests. and their differential relation to boldness. in- dicates that the subtests measure overlapping. but somewhat different components of sensitivity. Further research should examine the nature of this difference. Although an improvement in some ways. the present criterion is far from perfect. The reliability could be higher. and the generalfiqrgreater. eSpecially in the Indi- vidual Accuracy section. The relation of scores on the cri- terion to everyday and long-range indicators of understanding needs exploration and validation. From a practical stand- point. a slight shortening of the criterion might make pos- sible its administration in a single session. The establish- ment of norms for the criterion is also indicated. Norms for both sexes. founded upon a large N. would make possible a more accurate assessment of programs aimed at evaluating and training the ability to understand people. SUMMARY A test of the ability to understand people was de- velOped from revisions of two earlier instruments. The final form of 137 items has two subtests. The first sub- test is an improvement on a test for Individual Accuracy develOped by Grossman (1963). The revision is shorter. requires less time. and has a higher reliability. The second subtest is an expansion of a test. employing a case-sketch presentation. develOped by Trumbo (1955). and revised for greater generality by Silkiner (1962) and H. C. Smith. Final criterion reliability is .72. which compares favorably with the reliabilities reported by earlier sensitivity measures. Two experimental comparisons and a correlational analysis were carried out during the course of the criter- ion's development. and four exploratory hypotheses were generated to aid in an assessment of the criterion: (1) Predictions based on stereotypes will be more accurate than predictions based on more complete written information. (2) Predictions based on written material will be more accurate 42 43 than predictions based on written material plus observa- tional cues from sound films. (3) Bolder persons make more accurate predictions. and (4) The higher a person's class performance score. the more accurate are his predictions. The first hypothesis was not supported. Results strongly indicated that the inverse of the hypothesis was true. This was interpreted as a demonstration that the Individual Accuracy subtest successfully met its intended design. and minimized group membership cues. Results strongly contraindicated a "reSponse-set" explanation of the predictive success of judges using minimal information. The second hypothesis was also not supported. The differences in mean Individual Accuracy scores for groups using written and written-plus-sound-filmed material was insignificant. Results indicated that the criterion's omission of observational cues attained the important prac- tical advantages of a written mode of presentation without sacrificing (with the observational cues) a vital component of overall predictive accuracy. To test hypotheses three and four. the correlations between boldness scores on a personality inventory. class performance scores. and prediction scores on the criterion were calculated and tested for significance. Boldness was 44 inversely related to scores on the case-sketch component and to total criterion scores. but was not significantly related to scores on the Individual Accuracy component of the criterion. Class performance scores were signifi- cantly related to both components of the criterion. A significant but low (.27) correlation between criterion subtests indicated that they assess overlapping but somewhat different components of sensitivity. Suggestions were made for the improvement of the criterion developed in this study. and for its interpre- tation and use in research and training prOgrams concerned with the ability to understand peOple. The establishment of test norms was suggested as an immediate objective of further research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport. G. W.. and Odbert. H. S. Trait-names: a psycho- lexical study. Psychol. Monog.. 1936. 211. Borke. Helen. and Fiske. D. W; Factors influencing the prediction of behavior from a diagnostic interview. J. consult. P5ychol.. 1957. 21, 78-80. Bronfenbrenner. V.. Harding. J.. and Gallwey. M. The mea- surement of skill in social perception. In McClel- land. D. C. (ed.). Talent and Society. New YOrk: Van Nostrand. 1958. 29-108. Bruni. E. A film test of accuracy in observing people and its correlates. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1963. Chance. June E.. and Meaders. W. Needs and interpersonal perception. J, Pers.. 1960. 28, 200-210. Cline. V. B. Ability to judge personality assessed with a stress interview and sound film technique. IQ. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1955. 59, 183-187. Cline. V. B.. and Richards. J. M. Variables related to accuracy in interpersonal perception. Second annual report. Office of Naval Research. Contract NE 171-146: UniverSity Of Utah: 1959. Cline. V. B.. and Richards. J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal perception: A general trait? J. abnormal. soc. Psychol.. 1960. 99. 1-7. Cline. V. B.. and Richards. J. M. Components of accuracy of interpersonal and perception scores and the clinical and statistical prediction controversy. PSYChQLL Rec.. 1962: A2} (4): 373-379. 45 46 Crew. W. J.. and Hammond. K. R. The generality of accuracy and reSponse sets in interpersonal perception. g, abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957. 54. 384-390. Dymond. R. F. A scale for measurement of empathic ability. J. consult. Psychol.. 1949. 13. 127-133.’ Dymond. R. F. Personality and empathy. J. consult. Psychol.. 1950. 14, 343—350. Gage. N. L. Explorations in teachers' perceptions of pupils. J. Teacher Educ.. 1958. 2, 97-101. Giedt. F. H. Comparison of visual. content. and auditory cues in interviewing. J. consult. Psychol.. 1955. 12, 407-416. Giedt. F. H. Cues associated with accurate and inaccurate interview impressions. Psychiatry. 1958. 21, 405-409. Grossman. B. A. The measurement and determinants of interper- sonal sensitivity. Unpublished Master's thesis. Mich- igan State University. 1963. Grossman. B. A. Evaluation of a training program to improve the ability to differentiate between peOple. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1967. Harris. W. A. The relation of observational to inferential accuracy in judging people. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1962. Hershey. G. L. College grades in relation to inventory measures of personality. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1958. Hershey. G. L. The relative effectiveness of discussion groups with dominant and submissive members. Unpublished re- search report. 1960. Johnson. R. L. Correlates of a test of group sensitivity. Un- published Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1963. 47 Kelly. E. L.. and Fiske. D. W. The prediction ofyperform- ance in clinical psychology. Ann Arbor: Univer- sity of Michigan Press. 1951. Kepes. S. Y. Experimental evaluations of sensitivity training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Linden. J. The self-centered orientation in interpersonal relationships. Unpublished Master's thesis. Mich- igan State University. 1965. Meehl. P. E. Clinical versus statistical prediction. Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1954. Pieper. W. J. Study on and revision of a test on accuracy in judging people. Unpublished research project. Michigan State University. 1960. Silkiner. D. S. A cross-cultural study of the measurement. determinants. and effects of stereotype accuracy. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State Univer- sity. 1962. Smith. H. C. Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw- Hill. 1966. Stelmachers. Z. T.. and McHugh. R. B. Contribution of stereotyped and individualized information to pre- dictive accuracy. J; consult. Psychol.. 1964. 28, 234-242. Stone. G. C.. Leavitt. G. S.. and Gage. N. L. Two kinds of accuracy in predicting another's responses. J. soc. Psychol. 1957. 45. 245-254. Trumbo. D. A. The development and analysis of a test of the ability to predict behavior. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1955. Zavala. A. A test of stereotype accuracy. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1960. APPENDIX A H.C. Smith Sept., 1966 TEST OF THE.ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE Directions: How well can you predict the feelings and behavior of people? In each of the following actual cases some information is given about a person. Study the facts then pick the answer to each statement that you think is correct. Mark ”1" on the answer sheet if you think the statement is true; “2" if you think it is false. The correct answers are known from more complete information about the individuals. Amos Amos is the traffic manager for a Milwaukee Brewery. He was promoted from the driver ranks and possesses a fourth grade educational background. He is very loyal to the company and has high moral standards. When working in the ranks, he gained the reputation of being the hardest working driver. He is a big man and says that, "Hard work never hurt anyone". ;2_ F 1. He works 10 to 12 hours a day and 6 to 7 days a week. _E; F 2. He believes his employees should be paid on a commission basis. T _E_ 3. He feels that the union' 3 seniority rule is as good a basis as any for promoting helpers to drivers. . _I_ F 4. He tries to promote his product at all times, even to the point of losing friends. Betty Betty is the tall and slender receptionist of a university dean. Thirty-nine years old, she has top seniority among the seven girls in the office. The job requires that she meet the large number of students who have been asked to see the dean or who come to him for advice. She refers to students as "dumbbells", Openly blames them for their errors, and swears when she is angry, which she often is. T .E_ 5 She consults the other girls about the regulation of the heat and ventilation in the Office. T _F_ 6 She compliments the other girls when they do a good job. _2_ F 7 She was an only child. I? £;_8 She is dependable about passing along phone messages she receives for the other girls. Christopher Christopher's parents live in a small western town where his father teaches school and his mother is librarian. Both parents are shy and quiet, fond of read- ing and natural history. His brother, 5 years older, is now a lawyer. ChristOpher has always been thin and frail but seldom ill. He began to talk early, but did not walk early. He seldom cried and required little discipline as a child. His in- telligence test scores are considerably above those of the average college student. (over) -2- T _E_ 9. Christopher seldom daydreamed. T _E_ 10. He enjoyed his school gang. JL_F 11. He feels that he is not a true participant in life. 1L.F‘ 12. While in college he went to many movies. 1L.F 13. He creates imaginary friends. T F 1h. He enjoyed high school activities. F 15. Occasionally, when excited, he loses his voice. F 16. His college grades are lower than the grades of other students of his intelligence. Dorian When he first came to Harvard Dorian was a tall, narrow-shouldered 2h year cl: graduate student in engineering. He was born on a farm in Wisconsin, the;youngesc of a large family. He received most of his education at country schools until.he entered engineering college. Recalling his family and childhood Dorian said: "My earliest impressions of life that I can remember now, were to a large extent miserable. As a baby I was constantly ailing, apparently having one childhood. disease after another, starting off with measles at the age of six weeks. bMJther was an intelligent, gentle, loving woman, and was much thought of by friends and neighbors. My father was at times a brutal man and inclined, when drinking, to be unpleasant to me. At such times he would make fun of me, call me all sorts of unpleasant names and say that I probably wouldn‘t live the year out, and that it would be better if I didn't...My father had become an invalid, I forgot to:mention before, shortly after mother died. He was in acute need of a job for he had no money, and was living on what he could borrow from a brother. He was earning his meals by working in a restaurant." Dorian was one of 50 college students hired for an intensive study of personality at Harvard in the 1930's. F 17. In an experiment involving a mild electric shock, Dorian was unusually disturbed. F 18. He had some difficulty in recalling the names and ages of his brother and sisters. T _E_ 19. Dorian was a good conversationalist. la IS F 20. He had recently become a Christian Scientist. L.. Edgar Edgar is 16 years old. A bit slight for his age, he is a medium-brown negro boy, the oldest of 4 children in a middle-class New Orleans family. His mother is a physically powerful woman, religious, dominant, and thrifty. She has been the head of the family since the father deserted seven years ago. She insists on well- mannered and obedient children. Edgar's father was a semi-skilled worker. Before he deserted the family the mother had decided that Edgar would be a doctor. Now she works to keep up appearances and to keep the children in school. Edgar was not to bring '1ower class" children home or to play with them. He had to stay in the yard after h p.m. His mother frequently used beatings in disciplining her childre; -3-, In spite of money problems his mother arranged for Edgar to attend a private negro prep school. He was above average intelligence and maintained good academic and athletic records throughout school. 21. He is severely punished by his mother when he exhibited curiosity about _2_ F sex. T .E_ 22. He shows few signs of anxiety or worry. ;T_ F 23. He saves his money to buy good clothes. T .E_ 2”. He feels strongly that lower Class negroes are unfairly pelsecuted. T F 25- He says: "I' m.as good as anybody in the world. " "II F 26. He is boastful. ' :2: F 27. He is verbally but not physically aggressive. T ‘F__28. He is proud of his mother. . Frank Frank entered Dartmouth College from a private school and graduated as an economics major. He was of slight build, average height, good health, a very superior intelligence. An observer who had known him and his family for a long time commented: "The only child of very admiring and doting parents. During his pre- college life, he was brought up to be a perfect gentlemen; so much so, in fact, that he failed to reveal the usual boyish traits as completely as he should have. As he grew older,'he veered from the exemplary behavior and developed a reputation of being a great ladies' man, a somewhat reckless driver and indifferent to the serious aspects of living. At times, his appearance is very smooth, and then again he is quite neglectful and looks extremely seedly. The mother has been a semi-invalid during all of the boy' 3 life and has dominated him, and I believe imposed upon him beyond reason. . T F 29. When asked what super-politeness expressed,-he replied: "contempt!" 2::F‘ 30. Fellow students think of him as a."snob" T _F_ 31. Frank received high grades in college. T _F_ 32. Frank has few artistic interests. Mas George was the second son of Irish immigrant parents who had grade school educations. His father's earnings were meager at first, but improved when encour- aged by his wife. He invested a small inheritance in a flower shop. George's mother felt that education was less important than religion, but necesSary for get- ting ahead socially. She was very affectionate, but dominating. George‘s" arents decided he should be a doctor. His father was rather passive, but capable of out- bursts. Punishment of the children was severe. It included shaming, denying of affection, spanking, and denying of pleasure. As a child George was his parents' favorite, and was often the center of attraction. He was good looking, and was considerably above average intelligence. Later, however, he lost favor when his brothers made more social progress. (over) -4- ;§_ 33. He found it easy to make decisions. i F 34. He had very strong guilt feelings about masturbation. 1 F 35. He acted childish in high School. i F 36. He was a "show off" in kindergarten. ‘ F 37. He bragged about his sexual conquests. i F 38. He bragged about being so young in high school. _E_ 39. He was very studious. ’ _£; 40. He found it much easier to get along with boys than girls. i Harri-3.22s Margaret Harrison is the owner and manager of an independent woman's ready- to-wear shop in a suburb of Cleveland. She also does all the buying which means leaving the shop in charge of a saleswoman twice a year while she is in New York. She is married to a man who is lame. Because of this he has refused tO‘WOtk for quite some time. He does odd jobs around the store and gives orders to the employees. He drinks heavily. Mrs. Harrison is about 55 years old. She is large, sturdy, and extremely intelligent. She has had a great deal of experience in the retail field. She is in the upper middle class. She is industrious and ambitious but has a quick temper and never admits a mistake. There are S saleswomen, 2 maids, and 10 alteration women working for her. They receive excellent pay and work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. with an hour off for lunch. The merchandise in the shop is extremely high—priced and consequently the customers are very wealthy, high-society people. T _E_ 41. Mrs. Harrison is liked by her employees. _I_ F 42. She is constantly enlarging her shop. T F 43. _1; F 44. She doesn't hesitate to state her opinion if she disagrees with a She let her employees take a ten minute break in the afternoon. i customer's taste in clothes. ‘ \ John John at 15, was 5'4" tall and weighed 105 pounds. He had a childhood record of ill health. John was usually reserved but sometimes expressed himself forcefulh. He was not at home in social gatherings, though he often attended. He enjoyed talking about books,zart, politics, and movie stars. He got good marks in Litera- ture and Language, but poor ones in.Math. John grew up in a middle class suburban area. His father provides a modest income as a plumber. He is patient and friendh with John. John's mother, the dominant figure in the household, is often appre- hensive about his safety and demands much of his time. T F 45. John is unusually fearful of his emotional impulses. -T" F 46. John stated: "I wish my mother could be happier." -T- F 47. John saw himself as seldom worrying about "things which he had done, -_' but never told to anyone." T _F_ 48. John felt that radical agitators should not be allowed to make public Speeches. Karl Karl, a Dartmouth student, was a cheery, sociable, and conventional young man of average intelligence who was earnest and diligent in his college work. He graduated, however\ in the lowest tenth of his class. He had considerable feelings of inferiority and has a fear of making independent judgments. His completions of incomplete sentences ("artificial as the ice cream in a soda fountain window", -5- "exciting as a battle between a mongoose and a cobra", "idealistic as the life of a nun", etc.) indicated that Karl had a creative capacity that had not been used in his academic work. Both of his parents were talented musicians but he i could not carry a tune or play an instrument. _T_F 49. _T__F so. _T__F 51. TF52. In his autobiography he wrote that he was "the most even-tempered cuss that has ever walked on two feet." About the same number of friends described him as described him as "quick-tempered". Karl was unable to organize and present ideas clearly. He clearly distinguished between what he thought from what others expected him to think. ' "even-tempered" as The Lawrences William Lawrence, 24 and Laura, 23, have been married for a year and a half. Both his and her parents had approved of their marriage. Their parents were foreign-born, similar in social and economic backgrounds, and lived in the same community. ment since his graduation from high school. At the time of their marriage, William had had only irregular employ- William is proud of his dead mother. She had run her husband's affairs, planned her seven children's vocational and social activities, and faced death with an unsagging spirit. The youngest of his three sisters, all of whom were much like their mother, took care of him.when their ' mother died. Laura, although she wanted to teach kindergarten, had worked as a store clerk for two years before her marriage and continued to work at the same job afterward. an interest in gambling and had given up several good positions impulsively. often gave Laura and her mother tongue-lashings. suffering. .;T F 53. ;;E F 54. __T_ F 55. T _E_ 56. _T. F 57. T l 58. _1_ F 59. T _E_ 60. However, he develOped He Her mother was patient and long "The Lawrences had few friends and belonged to no social organizations. Her father had been a successful merchant. William expected his wife to do many things for him. His mother was also named Laura. . He feels that his childhood was happy. He knows that he wants to depend on his wife as he used to depend upon his mOther and sisters. William commenting on getting married, said: I forced myself to go to the courthouse and say, 'I want a license Laura continued to respect her father even after he had ceased to support the family. William considers his marriage a mistake. William still greatly admires his wife's appearance and personality. "With superhuman effort I" The Medford Twins ‘Earl and Frank, identical twins, were born in a midwestern city, of uneducated and unmarried parents. to their mother's sister. advertised their wish to board a baby. When the boys were six months old, they were turned over She kept Frank but placed Earl with a family who had This family soon assumed full responsibility for Earl and took him to a city in the northwest without consulting the aunt of the two boys. salesman; Frank's a streetcar conductor. attended high school only six months, though later he attended night school. Earl's foster father was a college graduate and a successful Earl graduated from college; Frank Earl was raised in comfort; Frank was brought up by his fond aunt with little economic security in the neighborhood where he Was'born. Both twins had happy homes with only moderate discipline. (over) .-6-- .They were both interviewed and tested by psychologists in 1941 when they'were 37 years old. The twins were remarkably similar in many respects: same height, same color hair, same fingerprints, same good health, same poor spelling, same ratings on many personality traits, very similar vocational interest scores, etc.“ In some respects, however, they were different. cate the name of the twin to whom you think the statement applies. For each of the statements indi— EEQJLJLEL_£2£ Earl and "2" for Frank. NNIN'N O‘O‘O‘O‘ wav—I .0 HIt—I'H t—I II—I‘o-I H H PNNIN O‘C‘GO‘ \J 0 Was less pompous and affected. Said that what he wished for most was the happiness of his family; Was more eager to impress peOple. Said that what he wanted most in life was a good business with men working for him. ~ Was more emotional. Was more timid and self-conscious. Was more disturbed by his failure to achieve his ambitions. Was more friendly in his personal relations. The Nelson Twins Fred and John, identical twins, had very similar backgrounds and personality. Their father, an unsuccessful and alcoholic son of a well-to-do father, had gone to Cuba to make his fortune. Florida where the family had moved when the boys were 4. to New England to live with the twins' grandmother. industrious and long-suffering. He failed there as a farmer and also failed in He eventually returned The mother of the twins was Though she was, for the most part, responsible for rearing the children, their father was sporadically a demanding and cruel disciplinarian. the same factory on semi-skilled jobs. They have the same eye and hair color, and look very much alike. and RH positive blood. The twins left school after the eighth grade and went to work in They are working at identical jobs today. Both have type 0 Both are shy, dependent, passive, and anxious. The twins came to the attention of physicians at the age of 46 because John had develOped a severe duodenal ulcer while Fred remained in good health. For each of the statements below indicate the name of the twin to whom you think the statement applies. _1___2 69. 1 2 70. 'i"__g_ 71. _1__2 72. 1_g.__ 73. 1_g_ 74. _1___2 75. 1.2 76. HCS:dmd Mark "1" for Fred and "2" for John. Had better understanding of himself and of other people. Was more optomistic. Showed greater hatred of his father. Described his wife as a good cook and mother. While the level of gastric secretion was much higher than normal in both twins, his level was higher than his brother's. Was more resentful that their mother had not given them.more from the $100,000 she inherited about ten years ago. Was a warmer and more tender person. Was readier to accept blame. 10-4-66 L-_;, sf -7- PART II: TEST OF THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PFOPLE DIRECTIONS: This is a test of your ability to make accurate predictions about people. You will be given information about Mr. George, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Allen. Your task is to use this information to make judgements about them; that is, to predict their behavior. Correct answers have been obtained from attitude and personality scales filled out by each man, and from ratings and sketches made on each man by his friends and relatives. The test is di- vided into two sections: Section 1: Individuals Section 2: Comparisons *** SECTION 1: This part consists of brief interviews With three men followed by questions about their behavior. Follow the directions given at the beginning of each case. The interviews are given in the order: (1) Mr. George (2) Mr. Walter (3) Mr. Allen THE CASE OF MR. GEORGE: Your task is to make accurate predictions about Mr. George. Mr. George is a middle-aged, married man with one child. As part of a research project on understanding people, he was given a brief interview. A typescript is given below. Psychologist: "What sort of person are you?" Mr. George: "Just an average person. I like the normal things most people do. I like sports, I like to dance and play around that way. Of course, I don't run around, I'd say I was getting into a stable class. I'm over the younger fling." Psychologist: "What would you consider your greatest personality handicap?" Mr. George: "Well, maybe too reserved." Psychologist: "In what way?" Mr. George: "Well, especially in business. I think I take too much of what the boss says, and do it. And, though maybe I can do it better, I do it the way he says to avoid trouble. In other words, I try to get along with people, which is good. But maybe sometimes I should say more about it to maybe help me and the others." Psychologist: "Assert yourself a little more?" EEn George: "Yes." Psychologist: "Do you ever lose your temper?" Mr. George: ”Well, very seldom with the person. I may become upset. I try my best not to let them know it." Psychologist: ”What would you do if someone told a lie about you?" Mr. Georgg: ”Well, what kind of a lie--that I did something I didn't?” Psychologist: "Yes, A lie that perhaps would be damaging to your character." Mr. George: "Well, I don't know, but I imagine I'd try and find out why the person said it. Maybe, as far as he knew, he was telling the truth." -3- Psychologist: "Would you go to him and talk to him about it?" Idr. George: "If it was of importance, otherwise I would forget it." Aggychologist: ”What sort of hobbies do you particularly enjoy?" IHr. George: "Well, I like to make things. Woodwork and hunting are the main things." Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these times?” rh:. Geogge: ”I don't go in for religion too much. I believe that it is necessary for everybody to have a basic belief. As far as the religious part goes, in my own living I don't place that as a major issue. IPsychologist: ”Then religion is not too important to you personally?” Mr . George: "No. " _ Psyghologist: ”But you do feel that people should have some sort of basic faith?” IMr. George: ”Yes, they have to have a code to live by, and that's the best one I can think of." The Case of Mr. George DIRECTIONS: Mr. George has checked one alternative on each of the statements below to describe himself. You are to check thg alternative you think he checked. Use spaces 77-80. 77. When my conscience begins to bother me. (1) I'm ashamed (2) I analyze myself Q I try to do the right thing 78. I could hate a person who . (1) is a hypocrite and two-faced (2) is cruel and ridicules others _£;l . . . I don't hate anybody 79. When they offered me help I . (l) was somewhat embarrassed (2) thanked them but refused .111 accepted 80. I boiled up when . (l) I was criticized unjustly .LZL I saw people hurting others (3) I was cheated *** THE CASE OF MR. WALTER: Your task is to make accurate predictions about Mr. Walter. Mr. Walter is a young married man with two children. As part of a research project on under- standing people, he was given a brief interview. A typescript follows. Psychologist: "What sort of a person are you?" Mr. Walter: "That's hard to determine. I'm one person to myself and another type of person to society. I'd have to give two definitions to answer that correctly ---how I am to myself, and how I am to people who know me." Psychologist: "What sort of person are you to yourself?" Mr. Walter: "Well, I think I'm a person of probably over-average intelligence, with ambitions to be able to better myself and my society." Psychologis : "What sort of person do you feel you are to other people?" -9- Idr. Walter: ”Well, I hope I'm pretty nearly the same kind of person to other people as I am to myself. I get along well with most people, I don't have a great many friends; I have a few intimate friends, and with these people I'm quite close. I get along well with these people. And, I can be pretty compatible with most people." Psyghologist: ”What do you feel is your greatest personality handicap?" iMr. Walter: "The fact that I try too hard to do things, I believe. This hinders me from being able to do things-~by being under certain tensions.” Psychologist: ”Do you ever lose your temper?” Mr. Walter: "Rarely." Psychologist: ”What sort of thing would cause you to lose your temper.” MI. Walteg: "Well, never having lost my temper completely--I've always been able to hold my emotions pretty well in check--it would have to be a fairly devasta- ting thing, I think, to make me lose it, or to become completely out of control of myself?" Psychologist: "What sort of hobbies do you particularly enjoy?” Mr. Walter: ”Golf, music, spectator sports--I am not too athletic--tennis, things such as this." Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these times?” Mr. Walter: "That's a pretty deep subject. Not being a deeply religious man myself, it isn't too important to me. The moral teachings of religion help man be able to live better with himself, and with other people in society. I think today it's quite important for most people--not for the supernatural aspects of it, but for the moral teachings." Psychologist: ”You don't feel that it's necessary for you?” Mr. Walter: "Not necessary, no." The Case of Mr. Walter DIRECTIONS: Mr. Walter has checked one alternative on each of the statements below to describe himself. You are to check the a1ternative_you think be checked. Use spaces 81-85. 81. I would go mad if . (1) somebody nagged me all the time 2) I had nothing to do (3 I thought there were no purpose in life 82. At the party, I was . . (1) a little shy and reserved (2) the life of the party 121_quite smooth and polished 83. My philosophy of life is . . Lll_"Whatever you do, do well.” (2) ”Enjoy today, think of tomorrow." (3) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 84. I enjoy . . jll_great music (2) being with people (3) sports 85. When I meet people, I generally feel 11)_indifferent (2) uneasy and self-conscious (3) at ease and genial -10- THE CASE OF MR. ALLEN: Your task is to make accurate predictions about Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen is a young, single man. As part of a research project, he was given a brief inter- view. A typescript follows: Psychologist: "Just what sort of a person are you?" Mr. Allgn: ”Well, I guess an easy-going one. I'm easy to get along with." Pay 010 'st: "What else can you tell me about yourself?” MI, Allen: ”Well, I guess that's about all. I have some tanper--not much." Esyghglggigg: ”What would you consider your greatest personality handicap?" ME;_A11§Q: ”Well, I guess just paying attention when there are people talking to me. Just paying attention to them." Psychologist: ”Do you have difficulty paying attention when people talk to you?" Mk, Allen: ”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?" Mr. Allen: "No, no, I don't find no difficulty making friends." Psychologist: "After you once get to know them, then. But to begin with, you feel a little reserved, is that it?” Mr. Allen: "Yuh." Psychologist: "Well, do you ever lose you temper? .What about?” Mr. Allen: ”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?" Mr. Allen: "Yuh." Psychologist: "What would you do if someone told a lie about you?” Mr. Allen: "I guess that would make me a little sore too, if it wasn't true.” Psycholggist: ”What would you do, go to the person and talk to him about it?" Mr. Allen: "I wouldn't do nothing. Just sort of keep it to myself;" Psychologist: "What sort of things do you do in your spare time?” Mr. Allen: "Oh, usually drive around; I like to drive around quite a bit." Psychologist: "Do you participate actively in sports, or are you a spectator?” 'Mr. Allen: "No, I participate in it. Basketball, for instance." Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these times? How is it important to you?” Mr. Allen: "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. ." Psyghologist: "And you think that religion would affect that sort of thing?" Mr. Allen: "I think so, because of conscience-~pe0ple have a conscience, and that would be on it. Psychologist: "In what way is religion important to you?" Mr. Allen: "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?" Mr. Allen: "Uh-huh." The Case of Mr. Allen DIRECTIONS: Mr. Allen has checked one alternative on each of the statements below to describe himself. You are to check the alternativegyou think he checked. Use spaces 86-90. -11.. 86. When I make a mistake, I . (1) don't give a damn (2) am embarassed (3)—laugh it off 87. I feel "down in the dumps” when . (1) . . . I don't (2)_I say the wrong thing (3) I don't succeed 88. When they told me what to do . (l) I did just the opposite (2) I listened politely but did nothing (3) I did it 89. At the party, I was . (Ll_a little shy and reserved (2) the life of the party (3) quite smooth and polished 90. Religion seems to me (1) unnecessary (2) a problem (3) necessary and important ' *** SECTION 2: INFERENCE ACCURACY INSTRUCTIONS : All the men in Section 1 filled out a series of attitude and personality scales. lflieir friends rated them on a series of traits and also gave sketches of them. Tflie statements below are based on the answers that the men and their friends gave. Vfluen you answer the questions, use only Spaces 1, 2, and 3 on the IBM sheets. The ruambers correspond to the order in which the interviews appeared. Mr. George is (1), Bit. Walter is (2), and Mr. Allen is (3). If you think the answer to a particular question is: Mr. George mark "1" Mr. Walter mark "2" Mr. Allen mark "3" You may go back and reread the interviews if you wish to; in any given subsec- tion, an individual may be used more than once. Religious Beliefs (1) Mr. George, (2) Mt. Walter, and (3) Mr. Allen filled out a rating scale about their religious beliefs. Which one answered in the following manner? (9) 91. Agreed that "I am unable to accept the idea of 'life after death' ‘ at least not until we have some definite evidence there is such a thing." (s) 92. Agreed that "God will punish those who disobey his commandments and ’ reward those who obey Him (either in this life or a future life)." -12- (2) 93. Disagreed that "There exists an evil intelligence, personnage, or spirit in the universe often referred to as Satan or the Devil." Adjective Check List The three men were each given pairs of adjectives and were asked to choose the one which they thought was a better description of themselves. In each of the pairs below, only one of the men checked the adjective underlined. Mark "1" if you think it was Mr. George, "2" if you think it was Mr. Walter, or ”3" if you think it was Mr. Allen: 94. Arrogant --- apathetic 95. Progressive --- outgoing 96. Shy --- assertive 97. Steady --- spunky 98. Tolerant --- igenious 99. Stable --- robust 100. Contented ~-- quick 101. Warm --- forceful 102. Moderate --- artistic 103. Restless --- unemotional 104. Sincere --- original 105. Good-natured --- painstaking 106. Kind --- insightful 107. Changeable --- tense 108. Loyal --- clever 109. Foolish --- cynical “\N “W -‘ \N N *4 “\N -‘ "‘ “b! N N Personality Inventory Items (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr. Walter, and (3) Mr. Allen were given a series of true-false items. Which one of the three answered false to these items? 110. I like to be the center of attention. / 111. It is easy for me to talk to strangers. 2 112. At times I think I am no good at all. EJhich one of the three answered true to these items? 2 113. I easily become impatient with people. 1 114. I take a pretty easy-going and lighthearted attitude toward life. 3, 115. Policemen are usually honest. Thumbnail Sketches by Friends Friends of (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr. Walter, and (3) Mr. Allen also gave thumbnail descriptions of them. Which one was described as follows? 116. "Is in a state of rebellion against all religions." 117. "Enjoys almost all good art and music." 118. "Does quite poorly in speaking to groups." 119. "Rather fussy about what he eats and how it is prepared.” 120. "Is shy and reserved at parties." 121. "Prefers going steady with one person." 122. "Is fairly easy-going with children.” 123. "Raises voice a little but maintains control in family arguments." —‘ "“le N \N N N -13- 124. "Is about average in regards to ambition " 125. "Somewhat insecure and highstrung." 126. "Is easy to get along with.". 127. "Is a rather quiet and humble person." 128. "Loyal, honest, and kind." 129. "Tends to 'stew' about things, changes his mind back and forth before making final decisions." N U: \ng -: N .1 Ratings by Friends (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr. Walter, and (3) Mr. Allen were rated by their friends on a series of personality traits. Which one was rated as follows? 130. least affectionate 131. most rebellious 132. least shy 133. least egotistical 134. most careful 135. least ambitious 136. most egotistical 137. least careful AN—‘KNUJNNN .jhs 2-16-67 APPENDIX B 73 Amv mocmommHDWU¢ oo. va EHMUIHMQOHuoEm mm. mm.1 Ahv maomlmooaosoo mo.l 00. mo.1 Amv HMUHHHQEHIHMGOHumm Hm. mH.| NH. mo.l Amv moaaoupcoolm>flmaomEH mo. mm.| om.l MA. 00. Adv mocmEHOmem mmmau Ho.| HH.| Hm.| ma. nH.I mo. Amy coHHoUHHU Hmuoe oo. NH.I oH.I ma. mo.l mm. mm. Amy ucmcomEOU humusoum HMSUH>HUGH mo.» 00.: Hm.u wa. om.u we. mm. mm. AHV newcomsoo suumxmnmmmo 5 as E a: E :l E E a mafia“? ammamsmm em .mmamz mm “mm u zv magmaama> mmmeo seas mezmzomzoo onmmeHmo weH>HeHmzmm mo moneaqmmmoo m NHQZHmm¢ MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRARIES "HI 1 5 1 ll" |1|1||||11||||1|||||||l 1111111111 3129310343