EVALUATION OF A SENSITIVITY TRAINING
PROGRAM WITH A COMPONENT CRITERION

Thesis for the Degree of 'M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN R. MIETUS
1969

3 129

Michigan State
University

III III" II II IIIIIIIIIIIQIIIIIIILHIIIILIIIIIIILIIII L LIBRARY ,

 

 

 

 

 

. -
t \
"’(.Jw Jy.’ '— A‘L“ A) 6' ?
f'J'fi" ..'.' 1' — r'? /Ja

Q70 APR2 22005
- 0411

08

 

 

 

 

X'

 

ABSTRACT

EVALUATION OF A SENSITIVITY TRAINING PROGRAM
WITH A COMPONENT CRITERION

BY

John R. Mietus

The purposes of this study were threefold: (1) to
construct a component criterion of sensitivity to a single
person, (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of a sensitivity
training program which gave diagnostic feedback of predic-
tive errors, and (3) to investigate specific individual
differences in the impact of training.

Sensitivity was defined as the ability of an indi-
vidual to predict what another person said, felt, and did
about himself and others. The components of sensitivity
were postulated to be Stereotype, Level and Empathic Ac—
curacy.

The criterion instrument was a paper and pencil di-
agnostic test of accuracy in judging one individual. It
consisted of a written description of the individual and
seventy-two MMPI statements which the individual answered.
The judge's task was to predict how the criterion individual

answered these statements.

John R. Mietus

The training program utilized feedback, diagnosis
of errors, and practice on specific principles. It con-
sisted of training sessions, administered to a Fall 1968
sophomore level personality theory class, interpOlated be-
tween a pre- and a post-test on the criterion. No control
group was used. A correlational analysis and matched t-
tests were used to study training effectiveness.

The major results were as follows:

Training involving diagnostic feedback in judging
persons will increase the sensitivity of trainees to a
person not used in the practice sessions. Trainees who
were initially low in sensitivity made the greatest gains
as a result of training. Observant individuals made great-
er gains in stereotype accuracy. The trainee's course
grades, scores on a sensitivity to persons measure, moti-
vation to understand others, and sex were not related to
training gains.

Suggestions for the improvement of the criterion,
as well as the training materials and procedures were made.
It was further suggested that the long range effects of
training and the use of smaller training groups be investi-

gated.

  

Approved*

EVALUATION OF A SENSITIVITY TRAINING PROGRAM
WITH A COMPONENT CRITERION

BY

John R: Mietus

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1969

4992/0
4-2 9—47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr.
Henry Clay Smith for his guidance and patience.
I also wish to thank Drs. James S. Karslake and

John H. Wakeley for their suggestions and criticisms.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
LIST OF TABLES . .
LIST OF APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION . . .

HISTORY . . . . .

Sensitivity and
The Training Problem

The Centrality of Feedback

The Insufficiency of Feedback
Individual Differences in the Impact

of Training
PROBLEM . . . . .

METHOD . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Its Components

The Development of the Criterion
The EXperimental Design
Measures of Individual Differences

Measure
Measure
Measure
Measure
Measure
Measure

of
of
of
of
of
of

Scholastic Ability
Sensitivity to People
Self-centered Orientation
Psychological—mindedness
Level of Aspiration
Observational Accuracy

Training Methods and Materials

RESULTS 0 O O O 0

Effectiveness of Training
Individual Differences in the Impact

of Training

iii

Page

ii

vii

10

12

24

Page

Differences in Scholastic Ability
Personality Differences
Motivational Differences
Differences in Observation

Sex Differences

DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O 35
Individual Differences

Differences in Scholastic Ability
Differences in Personality Sensitivity
Motivational Differences

Observational Differences

Sex Differences

Who Can Best be Trained?

Comments About Principles of Training
Training Materials

The Criterion Instrument

The Experimental Design

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 47
APPENDICES O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 5 1

iv

Table
1.

10.

LI ST OF TABLES

KR-20 reliabilities of the criterion on
the pretest (N=101) . . . . . . . . . .

Intercorrelation of the scores on the
criterion for the pretest (N=l45) . . .

Intercorrelation of the scores on the
criterion for the post-test (N=l45) . .

Sample sizes and sex of trainees . . . . .

Gains on five criteria of predictive ac-
curacy (N=l45) o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Analysis of gains (post-test minus
pretest) by pretest scores . . . . . .

T-tests of differences in training gains
of a high scholastic ability group
minus the gains of a low ability group
when matched on pretest criterion '
scores (N=61 pairs) . . . . . . . . . .

T-tests of differences in training gains
of a high scoring group minus the gains
of a low scoring group on the leader-
ship and personality scale when matched
on pretest criterion scores (N=61
pairs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T-tests of differences in training gains
of a high self-centered orientation
group minus the gains of a low self-
centered orientation group when
matched on pretest criterion scores
(N=58 pairs) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations of level of aspiration
with pretest scores and gains in
scores as a result of training
(N=l45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

15

16

16
18

25

26

28

29

31

32

Table

11.

12.

13.

Page

T-tests of differences in training

gains of a high aspiration group

minus the gains of a low aspiration

group when matched on pretest cri-

terion scores (N=56 pairs) . . . . . . . 32

T-tests of differences in training

gains of a high observation accuracy

group minus the gains of a low ob-

servation accuracy group when matched

on pretest criterion scores (N=44

pairs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary of evidence for hypotheses . . . . 36

vi

Appendix

A.

B.

C.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page
The Criterion Instrument . . . . . . . . . 51
Measures of Individual Differences . . . . 54
The STOP Scale
The Human Relations Test
The First Impressions Test
Some Training Instruments . . . . . . . . 61

The Case of Naomi Warren

The Ruth Case

The Self Image of the College Man

The Case of the Young Psychologist,
Morgan Johnson

vii

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, many have tried to train per-
sons to become more sensitive, i.e., to better "predict
what an individual will feel, say and do about you, himself,
and others" (Smith, 1966). Few of these efforts have been
objectively evaluated; those that have been evaluated, have
generally produced negative results. The purpose of this
study was to develop a sensitivity training program that
stressed immediate feedback and diagnosis and to develop an
evaluation criterion that would permit a component analysis
of the effects of training. It also has had the aim of ex-
ploring variables related to individual differences in the

impact of the training.

HISTORY

After defining sensitivity the following discussion
considers (l) the results of previous evaluations, (2) the
importance of feedback in training, the absence of feedback
in most situations, the insufficiency of feedback and what
further principles of training are needed, and (3) individ-

ual differences influencing the impact of training.

Sensitivity and Its Components

Sensitivity, as defined above, has three components:
Stereotype Accuracy, Level Accuracy, and Empathic Accuracy
(Smith, 1968).

Stereotype Accuracy refers to the predictive accu-
racy of the responses of most members of the group in which
the person judged is placed. There is some evidence that
individuals can more accurately predict the responses of
the person judged on the basis of the group to which he be-
longs than on fuller information about the person judged
himself (Stelmachers and McHugh, 1964).

The second component is Level Accuracy, the specific
tendency of an individual to rate the person judged as good

or had, high, low, or medium.

A third component is Empathic Accuracy, the tend-
ency of the individual to correctly assume that the judged
person's thoughts, actions, and feelings are similar to his
own.

These components interact: people evaluate more
positively those to whom they assume more similarity (Byrne
and Clore, 1967): stereotype groups may have high or low
evaluations: and people pay more attention to those to whom

they feel similar.

The Training Problem

 

The outcomes of general training programs have
varied almost as much as the training programs themselves.
In general, results have been inconclusive or negative
(Crow, 1957, Taft, 1955). Literature reviews have shown
that training, when equated with amount of course work in
psychology or psychological experience, has not led to im-
provement in predictive ability (Grossman, 1967; Smith,
1966).

Specifically designed training programs have not
fared much better. Methodological problems in evaluating
training effects and constructing valid criteria are numer-
ous (Anderson, 1963; Carron, 1964; Miles, 1960). Some
training programs have resulted in decrements in predictive

accuracy after training (Crow, 1957; Taft, 1955).

The Centrality of Feedback

Recently a number of studies have exhibited posi-
tive training gains. A common factor in these programs is
feedback to the trainees of their predictive accuracies.

Murray and Deabler (1958) had fifteen psychologists
match figure drawings with five diagnostic labels. After
each judging, the judge was given information on the cor-
rect diagnosis and allowed time to study the material. Re-
sults indicated learning progress.

Oskamp (1962) compared inexperienced undergraduates
with experienced clinicians on a task of predicting, on the
basis of an MMPI profile, whether a patient was hospitalized
for psychiatric or non-psychiatric reasons. He was able to
train the undergraduates, who were initially inferior to
the experienced clinicians, to attain a level of accuracy
equal to that of the clinicians. He felt that the use of
objective predictive tasks accompanied by immediate feed-
back and specific training was responsible for the gains.

Newton (1965) used a different type of feedback to
obtain increased accuracy in a multiple-cue inference task.
The judges were told the cue validities and their own one
utilization coefficients. Accuracy increased in spite of a
three week interval between task and feedback.

Kepes (1965) conducted eight one-hour training ses-

sions designed to increase Individual Accuracy. The

training stressed knowledge of results, practice, and par-
ticipation. He found the individuals who score low on the
pretest improved. It was suggested that these persons make
larger errors in their implicit personality theories, in
stereotyping, and in assuming similarity.

Grossman (1967) conducted a somewhat similar train-
ing program. He ran five one-hour training sessions inter-
polated between a pre- and post-test on a training criteri-
on. His program stressed feedback, practice, participation,
systematizing the prediction process, and using an explicit
empirical personality theory. When compared to a control
group, the trainees demonstrated a significant improvement
in Individual Accuracy, the ability to differentiate between
individuals when group membership cues are reduced to a
minimum.

Sechrest, et. a1. (1967) gave undergraduates the
task of interpreting short sentence completion protocols.
Those students who received feedback performed better than
those who did not. The authors questioned whether the dif-
ference was not due to the feedback's increasing the stu-
dent's motivation, rather than being due to the additional
informational cues present.

Watley (1968) studied the effect of providing imme-
diate feedback training to educational counselors who were
found in a previous study (Watley, 1966) to predict educa-

tional criteria (freshman and overall college grades) at

high, moderate, and low levels of accuracy. The counselors
were divided into an immediate feedback group and a no-
training group. Compared to the no-training group, the im-
mediate feedback had no observable effect on the initially
high and moderate forecasting accuracy groups. However,
the low accuracy group increased its predictive accuracy to
a level comparable to the counselors who initially predicted
at the highest level of accuracy. Watley felt that the in-
itially high judges may have been already predicting at the
limits of currently possible accuracy. His 1966 study
showed that the superior judges were better able to under-
stand and deal with abstract concepts and were possibly
more compulsive. Intelligence may also have accounted for
the difference.

Spier (1969) studied the effect of the initial ac-
curacy of judges on stereotype accuracy training improve-
ment. He found the high initial accuracy group decreased
slightly on a post-test, the moderate pretest accuracy group
increased slightly, and the low initial accuracy group in—
creased substantially on the post-test. He hypothesized
that ceiling effects or regression to the mean might be the
most plausible explanation for the phenomenon.

Feedback, then, is important for increasing sensi-
tivity. However, as to why and when it is effective, and
what kinds of feedback are most effective in certain situ-
ations, there is some dispute (Ammons, 1956; Miles, 1960;

Todd and Hammond, 1965). Feedback may decrease sensitivity

in situations when things appear to be correlated when in
fact they are not (Chapman and Chapman, 1967; Chapman, 1967).
Feedback in addition to providing one information also may
focus the trainee's attention on the person he is attempt-
ing to understand. It also may increase the trainee's mo-
tivation and acceptance of attitude change through the de-
velopment of game-playing attitudes and self-competition
(Sechrest, 1967: Smith, 1966).

However, many situations in which it is important
for one to understand others and make predictions do not
allow the individual knowledge of his performance. The
classroom teacher finds it difficult to profit from experi-
ence. He almost never learns of his long range effects up-
on his students, and he finds it difficult to trace his
short term effects to the practices from which they presum-
ably arose (Skinner, 1968).

The clinician and the personnel interviewer find it
difficult to improve their predictive accuracy. According
to Goldberg (1968), "for learning to occur, some systematic
feedback regarding the accuracy of the judgmental response
must be linked to the particular cue configuration which
led the clinician to make that judgment." But in clinical
practice, feedback is infrequent, and if it occurs at all,
it does so after a long time interval, thus making it hard
to associate the initial one configuration with the feed-

back.

The Insufficiency of Feedback

 

While the application of the feedback principle is
necessary, it may be insufficient. The application of
other principles also seems necessary for learning to take
place. It is quite important that the trainee diagnose his
errors on each of the components (Grossman, 1967; Kepes,
1965; Smith, 1966). The student should be given explicit
guidelines for change (Kepes, 1965). His training should
be structured so that resistance to change is decreased.
Practice materials should move from the less stressful to
the more stressful (Smith, 1966). The training should
combine theoretical principles with practice in applying
them (Grossman, 1967). And the training should attend to

whole persons, not to components of a person.

Individual Differences in the Impact
of Training

 

 

Persons differ in their ability to understand
others and to profit from training in sensitivity. The
more intelligent the person is, the better he understands
others (Smith, 1966).

Motivation to understand others is a factor in sen-
sitivity. Orientation towards others can be divided into

first-, second-, third-person, and non-personal types

(Bronfenbrenner, 1958). The less oriented a person is to-
wards others and away from himself, the less mature he is
(Linden, 1965). He should not be as capable of making
gains as a result of training as the more other-oriented
person.

The person who tends to perceive others in terms of
their internal psychological state, that is, their thoughts,
feelings, desires, etc., has been found in a past study to
be no more sensitive in Stereotype Accuracy than persons
who are oriented towards another's physical appearance, his
social stimulus value, or his actions (Mullin, 1962).

Bronfenbrenner (1958) suggested that the ability to
accurately perceive the stimulus field in a social setting
influences sensitivity. Significant positive correlations
between sensitivity and observational accuracy have been
found by Harris (1962) and Grossman (1963).

Past studies suggest there is no sex difference in
interpersonal sensitivity, or at best a slightly superior

ability in women (Grossman, 1963, 1967; Taft, 1955).

PROBLEM

The study was designed to determine whether feed-
back and diagnosis of errors in the trainee's predictions
about individuals and groups would produce improvements
that would generalize to other individuals and groups not
included in the training.

In addition to giving the trainees feedback and di-
agnosis of errors, other principles of training were used.
The trainees were taught to increase their motivation for a
high level of accuracy in understanding others. Trait, dee
velopmental, and interpersonal theories of personality were
presented to the trainees, and they were told to judge in-
dividuals with these in mind. They were taught to note em-
pathic differences and to compensate for emphathic biases.
They learned to discount in judging a person whether they
like or dislike him. Finally they were taught that in
judging an individual, they should apply not only the typi-
cal man's theory of himself, but should also apply the
judged individual's theory of himself.

The following is hypothesized:

l.- Training involving diagnostic feedback in judging

 

'persons will increase the sensitivity of trainees
to.a_person not used in the practice sessions.

10

11

In addition to investigating the above hypothesis,

the study also had the aim of exploring variables related

to individual differences in the impact of training.

Therefore, the following are hypothesized:

2.

The lower the initial sensitivity of the trainee,

 

the greater his gains.

 

The higher the scholastic ability of the trainee,

 

theggreater his gains.

 

The more sensitive the personality of the trainee,

 

the greater his gains.

 

The next three hypotheses refer to the relationship

between motivation to understand others and the effects of

training.

5.

The stronger the self-centered orientation of the

 

trainee, the less his gains.

 

The more psychologically-minded the trainee, the

 

greater his gains.

 

The higher the trainee's level of aspiration, the

 

greater his gains.

 

The more observant the trainee in a natural set-

 

ting, the greater his gains.

 

Females make greater gains than males.

 

METHOD

The research was divided into phases as follows:
(1) development and testing of the training criterion; (2)
selection and development of instruments for measuring in—
dividual differences in scholastic ability, personality,
motivation, and observation; (3) development of the sensi-
tivity training sessions within the design. All subjects

used in these phases were undergraduates in a personality

course .

The Development of the Criterion

As previously indicated, the components of sensi-
tivity are postulated to be stereotype, level, and empathic
accuracy. Whereas instruments have been constructed to
measure these components individually (Grossman, 1963,
1967: Johnson, 1963; Lynch, 1968; Price, 1969), none have
attempted to measure total sensitivity to a single person
using all these components. This was the goal for the con-
struction of this criterion. Furthermore, as the training
aims were to increase stereotype, level and empathic accu-
racy to diverse individuals, the criterion provided a test
of generalization of training.

12

13

The initial form of the instrument was constructed
during the first months of 1968. It consisted of a written
description of an actual person and three scales measuring
stereotype, level, and empathic predictions respectively.
The instrument had multiple choice responses and the scales
were derived from items of the Minnesota Multiphasic Per-

sonality Inventory. The-individual, hereafter referred to

 

as the person judged, took the MMPI twice, and twenty-three
items to which he answered in the same direction as at least
two-thirds of a norm group of men (Rorer, 1963: Goldberg,
1963), as well as twenty-three items to which he answered

in the opposite direction as the norm group, were selected
to comprise the stereotype scale. The level scale consisted
of fifty-six items each of which was made up of a pair of
statements, one statement being more desirable than the
other based on a study by Messick and Jackson (1962). The
judge's task was to predict to which of the two statements
the person judged answered "true." Finally, the empathy
scale consisted of fifty-six neutral items to which the
judge was to predict the person judged's response and also
to indicate his own response. Total accuracy scores were
obtained by summing the scale accuracy scores.

The instrument was administered to 71 members of a
sensitivity training class. A point-biserial item-total
correlation, and item difficulty and discrimination analy-
see were conducted. The stereotype and level scales were

reduced to forty items each, and the empathy scale was

14

dropped from the test. Empathy is now measured by the
stereotype and level scales, with the judge reSponding to
each of the items as in the original instrument, but also
indicating his own response to the statement. This form
was administered to a group of fifty-eight persons. A fur-
ther item analysis was conducted and the instrument revised
and shortened to seventy-two items (see Appendix A).-
The following scores were computed for the criterion:

1. Total Accuracy: the total number of correct respon-
ses that a trainee makes.

2. Stereotype Accuracy: the number of correct re-
sponses on the Stereotype subscale that a trainee makes.

3. Level Accuracy: the number of correct responses on
the level subscale that a trainee makes.. I

4. Assumed Similarity: the number of times the trainee-
makes the same response as he indicated the person judged
made.

5. Actual Similarity: the number of times the trainee
makes the same response-as the person judged actually made.

6. Errors in Assuming Similarity: the difference be-
tween a trainee's Assumed Similarity and Actual Similarity
scores.

7. Errors in Level: the total number of incorrect un-
desirable responses a trainee makes. As stated earlier,
the level section of the instrument contains items each of

which is made up of a pair of statements, one statement

15

being more socially desirable than the other. If the
trainee incorrectly indicates that the person judged made
an undesirable response to the item, this is considered to
be an error in level.

The reliability of the instrument was computed by
Kuder—Richardson formula 20. Table 1 shows the reliability

of the subscales.

Table l.--KR-20 reliabilities of the criterion on the pre-
test (N=101)

 

 

_
Scale Reliability
Stereotype Accuracy .47
Level Accuracy .63
Total Accuracy .65
Errors in Assuming Similarity .65
Errors in Level .46

 

Reliabilities of this size are marginally adequate
for measuring group gains.

Tables 2 and 3 indicate the intercorrelations of
the scores of the instrument on the pretest and on the post-
test for the total sample.

The tables show Stereotype Accuracy to be relative-

ly independent of Level Accuracy, especially on the pretest.

16

Table 2.--Intercorrelation of the scores on the criterion
for the pretest (N=l45)

 

Stereotype Level Total Errors in .Errors
Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Assuming in
Similarity Level

 

Stereotype
Accuracy 1.00

Level
Accuracy + .27 1.00

Total
Accuracy + .79 + .81 1.00

Errors in
Assuming
Similarity - .26 - .17 - .28 1.00

Errors in
Level - .10 - .82 - .59 - .10 1.00

 

Table 3.--Intercorrelation of the scores on the criterion
for the post-test (N=145)

 

Stereotype Level Total Errors in Errors
Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Assuming in
Similarity Level

 

Stereotype
Accuracy 1.00

Level
Accuracy + .42 1.00

Total
Accuracy + .82 + .85 1.00

Errors in
Assuming
Similarity - .35 — .18 - .31 1.00

Errors in
Level - .40 - .83 - .72 + .23 1.00

17

Both Stereotype and Level Accuracy scores are highly corre-
lated with Total Accuracy: this is reasonable, as the Total
Accuracy score is the sum of the Stereotype and Level Accu-
racy scores. Level Accuracy has high negative correlations
with Errors in Level, which suggests that both scores are
measuring somewhat the same thing. Errors in Level is in-
versely related to Total Accuracy. The Errors in Assuming
Similarity score shows a small negative correlation with all

three accuracy scores.

The Experimental Design

The design of the study consisted of the adminis-
tration of a pretest and post-test on the criterion with
controlled intervention in the form of training sessions
between testings. Training sessions were conducted by the
course instructor, and were 50 minutes in length. No con-
trol group was used.

The trainees in the study were Michigan State Uni-
versity students enrolled in a Fall 1968 Psychology of Per—
sonality class. Table 4 presents the sex and sample size
breakdown of the group.

An initial analysis of all the variables was done
by a simple correlational analysis run on the Michigan
State University Control Data Corporation 3600 data proces-

sing equipment. An analysis of difference scores was done

18

Table 4.--Sample sizes and sex of trainees

 

 

Subjects N
Male 78
Female 67
Total 145

 

by matched t-tests. Because of the suspected relationship
between pretest scores and gains, the sample was divided
into high, medium, and low initial score groups for the

tests of hypotheses.

Measures of Individual Differences

Measure of Scholastic Ability

The course grade in the Psychology of Personality
class was chosen as the measure of scholastic ability. It
was based on the total points an individual obtained on two

multiple-choice tests.

Measure of Sensitivity to

People

 

The Personality and Leadership Scale is a paper and
pencil test consisting of selected items from a test of
leadership attitudes and a personality inventory. The

measure was developed by Smith and Mietus. The Protebob

19

Personality Inventory and a measure of consideration and
responsibility (Dore, 1960) were administered to students
in aHWinter 1968 Psychology of Personality Class. From this
sample were picked the tests of students who scored consist-
ently high on a battery of prediction tests and the tests
of a low scoring group of students. These students were
matched for sex and grade point average. The items in the
leadership scale and the personality inventory were item
analyzed. The discriminating items formed the November
1968 Personality and Leadership Scale. This scale was giv-
en in the Fall of 1968 to the trainees in this study. The
KR-ZO reliability of this form is .56.

Subsequent to this study, prediction tests used
during that quarter were employed to select a high group
which was matched with a low group of similar sex and
course grade. Another item analysis was conducted and for-
ty-eight items were selected for inclusion in the STOP
scale. These items were chosen for both their discrimina-
tion values and their internal consistencies, and were ar-
ranged in order of their discrimination values. Students
in the Winter 1969 personality class took the STOP scale.
Groups scoring high and low in the Bill Wilkins, Diagnostic
Test of Empathy, and Mr. W tests were separated and matched
for sex but not for grade point average. These student's

tests were item analyzed. The twenty-four items included

20

in the REVISED STOP scale are those that stood up under
this analysis and are arranged in order (Appendix B).

The next three measures relate to a trainee's mo-
tivation to learn about others. Motivation here was not
thought to be only one's level of aspiration. It was also
considered to be a function of how much satisfaction an in-
dividual obtains in human relations, his level of maturity,
his interest in the psychological states of others, and
whether he relates to other persons in terms of himself or
the other person.

Measure of Self-centered
Orientation

 

The Human Relations Scale (Appendix B) was a meas-
ure of self-centered orientation developed by Linden (1965).
It measured whether an individual's social orientation was
first-person oriented or other-oriented. The instrument
used in this study is a 35 item revision of the original.
Its KR-20 reliability coefficient is .82 based on this
sample.

Measure of Psychological-
mindedness

 

 

Mullin (1962) developed a measure of psychological-
mindedness which he called the First Impressions test (Ap-
pendix B). It measured an individual's tendency to respond
about.another person's internal psychological states, that

is, his desires, feelings, or thoughts, rather than his

21

social stimulus value, his actions, or his physical appear-
ance. The-present shortened test form has a KR-20 relia-

bility of .82 based on the trainee's scores.

Measure of Level of Aspiration

 

Level of aspiration was measured by the difference
score between each trainee's initial Total Accuracy score
on the criterion and the goal he set for the post-test.

For example, a trainee scored 44 on the criterion pretest,
prior to taking the post-test he indicated he would attempt
to reach a score of 55 on the post-test. Plus eleven is

his level of aspiration.

Measure of Observational

Accuracy

The measure, termed Observations of Mrs. D., Mrs.

 

N., and Mrs. P., presents the trainees with filmed inter-
views of three persons. While viewing the films the
trainees are instructed to note their similarity to the in-
terviewees. They are not informed that they will be tested
afterwards on their ability to observe physical character-
istics and events accurately. After filling out a short
form containing questions about similarity, the trainees
are given another test booklet consisting of forty-eight

objective questions about what they saw during the films.

22

Training Methods and Materials

 

The training sessions used the case study method.
The study of a whole person allows the student the fullest
knowledge of the interaction effects in his judging. Accu-
racy in the judging process seems to be dependent upon in-
teractions between the components of sensitivity, stereo-
type, level, and empathic accuracies, and interactions be-
tween the person judged, the judge, and the judging situa-
tion (Smith, 1966). In the case study method, the princi-
ples of feedback, diagnosis of errors and practice were
used.

In a typical training session, the trainees are
given a specific principle to apply. They are presented
with training materials (Appendix C), and given information
about the case study. They take a pretest, get practice
and feedback in.a practice section of the materials, take a
post-test, and receive feedback on the post-test. In this
manner they practice applying principles, get feedback and
learn what errors they are making.

Further elaboration and examples of the training
materials used in these sessions can be found in the works
of Price (1969) and Spier (1969).

Other training is directed wholly to giving the
trainee information pertaining to his leveling errors,

empathic errors, or stereotyping errors. Materials used in

23

these training sessions are diagnostic in nature, and pro—

vide feedback of a general kind to the trainee.

RESULTS

The results of this study will be presented in two
sections. The first deals with the overall effectiveness
of the training program and presents results concerning
the principal hypothesis: Training involving diagnostic
feedback in judging persons will increase the sensitivity
of trainees to a person not used in the practice sessions.
The second section deals with individual differences
in the impact of training. It presents results concerning
variability in training gains as a result of initial accu-
racy. It also gives data pertaining to hypotheses about the
effects of training upon intellectual efficiency, personal-

ity sensitivity, motivation, observant behavior, and sex.
Effectiveness of Training

Hypothesis 1. Training involving diagnostic feedback in
judging persons will increase the sensitiv-
ity of trainees to a person not used in the
practice sessions.

Table 5 presents an analysis of training gains on

five criteria of predictive accuracy. T-tests of the

24

25

Table 5.—-Gains on five criteria of predictive accuracy (N=

 

 

 

145)
ar— _ ' 4 —_—==
Criterion Post-test Pretest Difference t
Stereotype Accuracy 23.5 22.0 +1.5 3.1**
Level Accuracy 20.7 20.1 +0.6 1.2
Total Accuracy 44.1 42.0 +2.1 2.6**
Errors of Level 7.7 8.4 -0.7 2.3**

Errors in Assuming
Similarity +5.8 +6.8 -l.0 1.0

 

** = significant at the .01 level of significance
(one-sided test)

differences between scores on the pretest and the post-test
are significant for the Total Accuracy score and the Stereo-
type Accuracy score, but not for the Level Accuracy score.

Also there is a significant decrease in the Errors of Level

score.

Individual Differences in the Impact
of Training

 

 

Hypothesis 2. The lower the initial sensitivity of the

 

trainee, the greater his gains.

 

Table 6 gives a training gains analysis for each of
the criterion scores: the analysis divides the training

sample into thirds based on each criterion score. A gain

26

'Table 6.--Analysis of gains (poet-test minus pretest) by
pretest scores

 

 

Criterion Lower 3rd Middle 3rd Upper 3rd Total
Stereotype Accuracy +4.0** +1.3* -0.7 +1.5**
Level Accuracy +3.1** -0.3 -l.0 +0.6
Total Accuracy +5.4** +2.6** -0.9 +2.1**
Errors of Level +0.7* 0.0 -2.7** -0.7**
Errors in Assuming

Similarity -3.3** -1.0 +4.0** -l.0

 

* = significant at the .05 level of significance
(one-sided test)

** = significant at the .01 level of significance
(one-sided test)

score was obtained by subtracting each trainee's pretest
score from his post-test score. The scores reported are
the mean gain scores. The N's for each of the scores ex-
cluding the Errors in Assuming Similarity are: lower 3rd=
41, middle 3rd=53, upper 3rd=51, and Total Samp1e=l45. For
the Errors in Assuming Similarity score, the N's are: low-
er 3rd=48, middle 3rd=49, upper 3rd=48, and Total Samp1e=
145. The lower third of the sample exhibited significant
gains in accuracy, but made more errors in assuming simi-
larity to the criterion individual. The middle group in-
creased its Total Accuracy through a gain in Stereotype

Accuracy. Finally the upper third showed slight decreases

27

in predictive accuracy, a significant reduction of its Er-
rors in Assuming Similarity, and an equally significant re-
duction in its Errors of Level. An interpretation of these

results is found in the Discussion section.

Differences in Scholastic
Ability
Hypothesis 3. The higher the scholastic ability of the

 

traineeyythe greater his gains.

All pretest criterion scores are significantly cor-
related with course grades. The course grade correlates
+.26 with Stereotype Accuracy, +.28 with Level Accuracy,
+.34 with Total Accuracy, -.17 with Errors of Level, and
-.15 with Errors in Assuming Similarity. Regarding gain
scores, only the Gains in Errors of Level score correlated
significantly with course grades.

An analysis to determine the effect of course grade
upon training gains was made in the following manner: A
trainee with a high course grade and a trainee with a low
course grade were paired on the basis of their having es—
sentially the same pretest Total Accuracy criterion score.
This matching was done throughout the range of pretest
Total Accuracy scores. These paired individuals were then
grouped into high, middle, and lovaretest Total Accuracy
score groups. T-tests of the differences in training gains

between the high and low course grade trainees for each of

the criterion scores and for the upper, middle, lower, and

28

total groups were then performed. Results for the total

group are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.--T-tests of differences in training gains of a
high scholastic ability group minus the gains of
a low ability group when matched on pretest cri-
terion scores (N=61 pairs)

 

 

 

Criterion Criterion Criterion

Score §td. Deviation Mean

High Low High Low Difference t

Stereotype

Accuracy 4.1 5.0 +1.6 +1.0 +0.6 0.7
Level

Accuracy 3.6 5.3 +1.0 -0.3 +1.3 1.6
Total

Accuracy 5.8 8.9 +2.9 +0.6 +2.3 1.6

Errors of

Level 2.5 3.1 -0.8 -0.1 +0.7 1.3
Errors in
Assuming

Similarity 6.3 9.7 +0.4 -0.2 +0.6 0.4

 

Only the results for the total groups are reported
in the tables for the following hypotheses. Those gains for
the upper, middle, and lower pretest score groups which are
significant will be noted in the text.'

The upper third of the sample exhibited a signifi—
cant difference between the high and low scholastic ability

groups in Total Accuracy (t=+2.1, significant at .05 level).

29

The table shows no significant differences, although the t's

of the Level and Total Accuracy scores approach significance

Personality Differences

 

Hypothesis 4. The more sensitive the personality of the

trainee, the_greater his gains.

 

Neither pretest nor gain scores, with the exception
of the Stereotype Accuracy gain score, which correlation is
-.18, is significantly correlated with the scores from the

test of a sensitive personality. Table 8 shows that there

Table 8.—-T-tests of differences in training gains of a high
scoring group minus the gains of a low scoring
group on the leadership and personality scale when
matched on pretest criterion scores (N=61 pairs)

 

 

 

 

- _—=
Criterion Criterion Criterion
Score Std. Deviation Mean
High Low High Low Difference t

Stereotype

Accuracy 4.7 4.5 +1.7 +1.5 +0.2 0.2
Level

Accuracy 4.5 4.7 +0.5 +0.8 -0.3 0.4
Total

Accuracy 7.3 6.7 +2.1 +2.1 0.0 0.0

Errors of
Level 2.7 2.7 -0.4 -0.8 +0.4 0.7

Errors in
Assuming
Similari-
ty 8.7 7.6 +0.2 +0.8 -0.6 0.4

 

30

are no significant differences between trainees who score
high and those who score low on the scale, when matched for
pretest Total Accuracy score in the manner previously des-

cribed.

Motivational Differences

 

Hypothesis 5. The stronger the selffigentered orientation
of the individual, the less his gains.
Self-centered orientation is not related to pretest
Accuracy scores, but is significantly correlated with pre-
test Errors in Assuming Similarity (-.24) and with pretest
Errors of Level scores (-.l6). Self-centered orientation
correlates with the Errors in Assuming Similarity gains
score (-.18), but not significantly with any other training
gains score. Table 9 shows there were no significant dif-
ferences between the gains of a high and a low self-centered
orientation group when matched for pretest Total Accuracy

scores 0

Hypothesis 6. The more psychologically-minded the trainee,

the greater his gains.

 

No relationship was found between psychological-
mindedness and gain scores. A barely significant relation-
ship was found between psychological-mindedness and pretest
Level Accuracy (-.l6), and pretest Errors of Level (+.l6).
Because of the lack of relationship indicated, no further

analysis was attempted.

31

Table 9.--T-tests of differences in training gains of a high
self-centered orientation group minus the gains of
a low self-centered orientation group when matched
on pretest criterion scores (N=58 pairs)

 

 

 

 

Criterion Criterion Criterion
Score Std. Deviation Meant;
High Low High Low Difference t

Stereotype

Accuracy 4.4 4.6 +1.5 +1.5 0.0 0.0
Level

Accuracy 4.0 4.4 +0.3 +1.1 -0.8 1.0
Total

Accuracy 6.2 7.0 +1.8 +2.5 -0.7 0.6

------------—--—---------_---------------------------------

Errors of

Level 2.6 2.8 -0.3 -0.9 +0.6 1.0
Errors in

Assuming

Similarity 8.2 8.2 +1.1 +1.6 -0.5 0.9

 

Hypothesis 7. The higher the trainee's level of aspiration,

 

the greater his gains.

 

Pretest Accuracy scores are negatively correlated
with level of aspiration; the error scores are positively
correlated (Table 10).

Table 11 shows the difference in the gains of high
and low level of aspiration trainees when matched for pre-
test Total Accuracy scores. The only significant differ-
ence in gains was in the Level Accuracy score of the upper

third of the sample (t=+2.3, .05 level of significance).

32

Table lO.--Correlations of level of aspiration with pretest
scores and gains in scores as a result of train-

 

 

ing (N=145)
Stereotype Level Total Errors Errors in
Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Of Assuming
Level Similarity
Pre-test -.31** -.4o** -.44** +.3o** +.l8*
Gains +.10 +.07 +.l4 .00 -.15

 

»
II

significant at the .05 level of significance.

** = significant at the .01 level of significance.

Table 11.--T-tests of differences in training gains of a
high aspiration group minus the gains of a low
aspiration group when matched on pretest crite-
rion scores (N=56 pairs)

 

 

 

 

Criterion Criterion Criterion
Score Std. Deviation Mean
High Low High Low Difference t

Stereotype-

Accuracy 4.7 4.3 +2.1 +1.3 +0.8 0.8
Level

Accuracy 4.2 4.9 +1.1 -0.1 +1.2 1.3
Total

Accuracy 6.8 8.0 +2.6 +1.3 +1.3 0.9

Errors of
Level 2.7 2.7 -0.9 -0.5 -0.4 0.8

Errorssin
Assuming
Similarity: 9.1 8.4 -0.6 +1.0 -1.6 1.0

 

33

Differences in Observation
Hypothesis 8. The more observant the trainee in.a natural
setting, the greater his_gains.

Gains in Stereotype Accuracy are significantly cor-
related with scores on the test of observation (+.21).
Table 12 indicates the differences in the gains of high and
low observation accuracy trainees when matched on pretest
Total Accuracy scores. The high observation accuracy group
gained significantly more than the low group in Stereotype

Accuracy.

Table 12.-—T-tests of differences in training gains of.a
high observation accuracy group minus the gains
of a low observation accuracy group when matched
on pretest criterion scores (N=44 pairs)

 

 

 

 

Criterion Criterion Criterion
Score Std. Deviation Mean Difference t
High Low High Low

Stereotype

Accuracy 4.3 3.5 +2.2 +0.2 +2.0 2.3*
Level

Accuracy 4.0 4.6 +0.5 +0.9 —0.4 0.5
Total

Accuracy 5.3 5.9 +2.6 +0.8 +1.8 1.5

Errors of

Level 2.3 2.7 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0
Errorsvin

Assuming

Similarity 7.7 8.3 -l.6 +1.2 -2.8 1.6

 

*significant at the .05 level of significance (one-
sided test)

34

Sex Differences

 

Hypothesis 9. Females make greater gains than males.

 

No significant sex differences were found on any of

the criterion gain scores.

DISCUSSION

Table 13 presents a summary of the results concern-
ing the hypotheses tested.

As indicated in Table 13, the hypothesis regarding
the effectiveness of the training was strongly supported..
Three of the hypotheses regarding individual differences in
the impact of the training were supported. The data did not
support five of the hypotheses tested. No strong relation-
ships were found between gains as a result of training and
the sensitivity of the personality of the trainee, and the
sex of the trainee. .

The findings of the study in regard to training ef-
fectiveness are consistent with previous studies ofya simi-
lar nature. The training results indicate that training
which stresses feedback, diagnosis of errors in judging,
and practice on specific principles does generalize to other
individuals not included in the training materials. The
studies of Kepes (1965) and Grossman (1967) are most rele-
vant to the present one. Both found some training gains in
second person sensitivity. The principles of training used
in each study were feedback, participation, and practice on

specific principles.

35

36

Table 13.--Summary of evidence for hypotheses

W

Hypotheses Evidence

 

1‘?

1. Training involving diagnostic feedback in
judging persons will increase the sensi-'
tivity of trainees to a person not used
in the practice sessions. ++

2. The lower the initial sensitivity of the
trainee, the greater his gains. ++

3. The higher the scholastic ability of the
trainee, the greater his gains. ?

4. The more sensitive the personality of the
trainee, the greater his gains. 0

5. The stronger the self-centered orientation
of the individual, the less his gains. 0

6. The more psychologically-minded the trainee,
the greater his gains. 0

7. The higher the trainee's level of aspiration,
the greater his gains. 0

8. The more observant the trainee in a natural

 

setting, the greater his gains. ?
9. Females make greater gains than males. 0
++ = statistically significant support.
? = inconsistent or insignificant support.
0 = no support.

The size of the training effect is difficult to
measure with the present experimental design. The lack of
a control group precludes dividing the gains into those due

to actual training and those due to practice effects.-

37

Furthermore, as the reliability of each of the subscales of
the criterion is marginal, random error could be expected

to play its part in confounding the results.

Individual Differences

 

Gains and Initial Sensitivity

 

In explaining the training gains, individual varia-
bility based upon initial sensitivity must be considered.
The third of the sample which scored lowest on the pretest
criterion made substantial gains in the two accuracy com-
ponents, while the upper third of the sample actually suf-
fered a slight and insignificant loss in accuracy on the
post-test. Why this is so may have a variety of explana-
tions.

The most probable factor involved is regression to
the mean. Without a control group, the amount of variance
due to regression cannot be measured. However, in examining
Table 6, it can be seen that the Total Accuracy gains of
the lower third of the sample were quite large (mean gain
of +5.4), those of the middle third of the sample were still
large (mean gain of +2.6), and those losses of the upper
third were insignificant (mean gain of -0.9). The total
sample exhibited a statistically significant mean gain of
+2.1 (t=2.6). The gains of the low and middle group far

exceed the losses of the upper initial accuracy group.

38

The slight losses of the upper group might be due
to an interaction of three factors. Ceiling effects might
be operating to prevent this superior group from making
further gains. The tendency for the scores of this group
to regress to the mean may be nullified by the effects of
practice on the criterion.

The large gains of the initial low and moderate ac—
curacy groups might be accounted for in a similar manner.
Regression to the mean, practice effects, and training ef-
fects all might act to increase the trainee's scores. Pos-
sibly knowledge of the pretest criterion score indicated to
the members of the low group that they had to make rela-
tively many changes in their responses on the post-test.
They might be more open to changing their perception of the
criterion individual and more motivated to use the knowledge
gained in the training sessions. Grossman (1967) thought
that the low scorers made relatively large errors in stereo-
typing, in assuming similarity, in their level accuracy, and
in their implicit personality theories. Possibly the train-
ing's major impact lies in helping the low scorers to cor-
rect their gross errors.

There are many possible explanations for the varia-
bility in gains as a function of initial accuracy. Which
ones are operating and to what extent are not known from

the data of this study.

39

Differences in Scholastic
Ability

It was found that course grade is correlated with

 

pretest criterion score, but not with gains in training.
Intellectual ability, as measured by course grade, is a
significant factor in sensitivity. The more intellectually
able trainees are already scoring high on the criterion
pretest, and not likely to exhibit post-test gains. The
nature of the sample must be considered. The range of in-
telligence is restricted, as all trainee were college
students. Perhaps with a more random sample of intellectu-
al ability the relationship of gains with scholastic abil-
ity would be more rigorously tested.

Differences in Personality
Sensitivity

 

 

No relationship of training gains to scores on a
test of a sensitive personality was found. That the scale
is an untried instrument must be considered foremost in
evaluating this finding. Given a more reliable and valid
instrument, further investigations into the nature of this

possible relationship should be made.

Motivational Differences

 

The degree of self-centered orientation of a
trainee is not related to his ability to profit from train-
ing designed to increase second-person predictive accuracy.

The hypothesis regarding the relationship between

40

psychological-mindedness and gains in predictive accuracy
as a result of training is not supported. This is consist-
ent with previous findings of Mullin (1962). The hypothe-
sis concerning the relationship between level of aSpira-
tion and gains in training is not supported, although the
results indicate a trend in the hypothesized direction.
Further investigation of this relationship with more re-
fined instruments is recommended.

In general, level of motivation as measured by
self-centered-orientation, psychological-mindedness, and
level of aspiration to increase post-test criterion per-
formance was not found to be substantially related to

gains as a result of training.

Observational Differences

 

This hypothesis is partially supported. Trainees
scoring high on a test of observation made greater gains
in Stereotype Accuracy than low scorers. This is somewhat
consistent with the literature. Harris (1962) found ob-
servational accuracy to be related to some types of stereo-
type accuracy. Grossman (1963) found a significant corre-
lation between observational accuracy and interpersonal

sensitivity free of stereotype judgements.

Sex Differences

 

No sex differences in training gains were found.

Past studies suggest there is no sex difference in

41

interpersonal sensitivity ability, or at best a slightly
superior ability in women (Grossman, 1963, 1967; Taft,

1955).

Who Can Best be Trained?

The data of this study suggests that there are no
major limitations upon who can be trained. There remains
some question about how much the already sensitive person
can profit from training. The level of self-centered-ori-
entation of‘a trainee, the psychological-mindedness, the as-
piration, the personality characteristics, and sex do not
influence his trainability. To a certain extent, the_more
observant trainee will make greater training gains. And
the more intelligent trainee will enter the training situ-
ation at a higher level of sensitivity and reach the limits
of sensitivity that present training methods can help him

attain sooner than the less intelligent trainee.

Comments About Principles of Training

The principles used in the sessions are effective.
Giving trainees knowledge of their performance and showing
them where they made incorrect predictions on practice ma-
terials has increased their sensitivity to at least the

criterion individual.

42

The duration between making the prediction and the
feedback should be made as short as possible. In this
program, the intervals ranged from very short, on the
training materials, to rather long, a week or two, on the
diagnostic materials. Ideally, diagnosis of errors would
be made shortly after the prediction process, when the ma—
terial is still fresh in the trainee's mind.

The present study used one very large training
group. It is thought that more efficient training could
be done using small training groups, where individual prob-

lems could be spotted and corrected.

Training Materials

A simplification of the scoring procedure on the
training materials should be made. At present, the trainee
has to invest quite a bit of energy in understanding and
maintaining response methods.

The present training materials are quite diverse
in methods of presenting subjects and methods of measuring
sensitivity. The trainee's reactions to types of training
materials and methods of presentation should be further
examined, as should the effectiveness of these various

types of presentation.

43

The Criterion Instrument

At present, the criterion instrument requires the
judge to make predictions about one individual. It seems
that the presentation of more than one individual would be
beneficial, if the individuals were clearly differentiated.

Reliability of the instrument is marginal. A fur-
ther refinement should be made. Predictive validity of
the instrument is unknown. This should be researched.
Attempts at establishing construct validity should be con-
tinued.

As on the training materials, the scoring procedure

is somewhat confusing; a simplification would be in order.

The Experimental Desigp

 

As indicated in the preceding discussion, the ex-
perimental design lacked the ability to isolate variance
due to practice effects, regression to the mean, and the
marginal reliability of the instruments. Future studies
should include a control group receiving no training. The
realistic problem is to obtain comparable training and
control groups.

The long-range effectiveness of the training should

be studied. Perhaps a small representative sample of the

44

training group could be re-tested on the criterion instru-

ment at a future time.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purposes of the present study were threefold:
(l) to construct a component criterion of sensitivity to a
single person, (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of a sen-
sitivity training program which gives feedback and diagno-
sis of errors, and (3) to investigate specific individual
differences in the impact of training.

Sensitivity in this study is the ability of an in-
dividual to predict what another person said, felt, and
did about himself and others. The components of sensitiv-
ity are postulated to be Stereotype, Level, and Empathic
Accuracy.

The criterion instrument is a paper and pencil di-
agnostic test of accuracy in judging one individual. It
consists of a written description of the individual and
seventy-two MMPI statements which the individual answered.
The judge's task is to predict how the criterion individual
answered these statements.

The training program utilized feedback, diagnosis
of errors, and practice on specific principles. It con-
sisted of training sessions, administered to a Fall 1968

Psychology of Personality class, interpolated between a

45

46

pre- and a post-test on the criterion. No control group
was used. A correlational analysis and matched t-tests
were used to study training effectiveness.

On the basis of the data reported, the following
conclusions can be made:

Training involving diagnostic feedback in judging
persons will increase the sensitivity of trainees to a per-
son not used in the practice sessions. I

Trainees who are initially low in sensitivity will
make the greatest gains after training. It is suggested
that the cause of this lies primarily in regression and
ceiling effects.

The more observant trainee makes greater gains in
Stereotype Accuracy.

The trainee's course grades, sensitivity of his
personality, motivation to understand others, and sex are
not related to training gains.

It is recommended that refinements be made in the
instruments used in this study, that more immediate feed-
back be given on predictive errors, and that control groups
be used in further studies. It is further suggested that
the long range effects of training and the use of smaller

training groups be investigated.‘

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ammons, R. B. Effects of knowledge of performance: A
survey and tentative theoretical formulations. J.
Gener. Psychol. 1956, 54, 279-299.

Anderson, W. How effective is human relations training
for the first line supervisor? Personnel, 1963,
40' 62-650

 

Bronfenbrenner, V., Harding, J., and Gallwey, M. The
measurement of skill in social perception. In
McClelland, D.C. (ed.). Talent and Society. New
York: Van Nostrand, 1958, pp. 29-108.

 

Byrne, D.-and Clore, G. L., Jr. Effectance Arousal and at-
traction. J. Person..Soc. Psychol., 1967, g, (4
whole No. 638).

Carron, R. J. Human relations training and attitude
change: A vector analysis. Personnel Psychol.,

 

Chapman, L. J. Illusory correlation in observational re-
port. J. Verbal Lrng. & Verbal Behav., 1967, g,

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P., Genesis of popular but
erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. J. Ab-
norm. Psychol., 1967, 12, 193-204.

Crow, W. J., The effect of training upon accuracy and var-
iability in interpersonal perception. J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psychol., 1957, 55, 355-359.

 

Dailey, C. A. An experimental method for improving inter-
personal understanding. Psychol. Reports, 1963,
13, 240.

 

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

47

48

Goldberg, L. R. A model of item ambiguity in personality
assessment. J. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 1963, 23.

Goldberg, L. R. Simple models or simple processes? Some
research on clinical judgements. American Psychol-

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

Grossman, B. A. Evaluation of a training program to im-
prove the ability to differentiate between people.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1967.

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

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

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.

Lynch, P. Development and evaluation of an empathy train-
ing program. Unfinished Master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1968.

Mager, R. F.‘ On the sequencing of instructional content.
Psychol. Rpts., 1961, 9, 405-413.

 

Messick, S. & Jackson, D. N. Desirability Scale values and
dispersions for MMPI items. Psych. Rpts., 1961,
8, 409-414.

Miles, M. B. Human relations training: processes and
outcomes. J. counsel. Psychol., 1960,.1, 301-306.

Mullin, J. A., Empathic drive and its influence on accura—
cy in judging people. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1962.

49

Murray, D. C. & Deabler, H. L. Drawings, diagnoses, and
the clinician's learning curve.‘ J. project. tech-
niques, 1958, 22, 415-420.

 

Newton, J. R. Judgement and feedback in a quasi-clinical
situation. J. person. soc. Psychol., 1965, 1,
336-342.

 

Oskamp, S. The relationship of clinical experience and
training methods to several criteria of clinical
prediction. Psychol. Monogr., 1962, 76, No. 28
(Whole No. 547). -

 

Price, K. Is the favorableness of interpersonal evalua-
tions a general trait? Unfinished Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1969.

Rorer, L. G. The function of item content in MMPI re-
sponses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, 1963.

Sechrest, L., Gallimore, R., & Hersch, P. D. Feedback and
accuracy of clinical predictions. J. Consult.
Psychol., 1967, 31, 1-11.

 

Skinner, B. F., The technology of teaching, New York: Ap-
pleton-Century—Crofts, 1968.

 

Smith, H. C. Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1966.

 

Smith, H. C. Bill Wilkins as a model for sensitivity
training. Paper delivered at the 76th American
Psychological Association Convention, San Fran-
cisco, California, 1968.

Spier, M. Evaluation of a stereotype accuracy training
program. Unfinished doctoral dissertation, Mich-
igan State University, 1969.

Stelmachers, Z. T. & McHugh, R. B. Contribution of stereo-
typed and individualized information to predictive
accuracy. J. Consult. Psychol., 1964, 28, 234-242.

 

Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull.,
1955, 52, 1-23.

Todd, F. J. & Hammond, K. R. Differential feedback in two
multiple-cue probability learning tasks. Behav-
ioral Science, 1965, 19, 429-435.

 

 

50

Watley, D. J. Counselor variability in making accurate

predictions. J. Counsel. Psychol., 1966, 13, 53-
62.

Watley, D. J. Feedback training and the improvement of

clinical forecasting. J. Counsel. Psychol., 1968,
1.2, 167-171.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

JM/HCS June 1968
Michigan State University
THE CASE OF BILL HILKINS

Bill is a 25 year old graduate student in.psychology who answered the statements in
a long personality inventory on two different occasions. The items in this test
are those which he answered in the same way on both occasions. This is a test of
your ability to predict his responses.

Thumbnail sketch of Bill:

Bill is from a midwestern upper-middle class family. He is married, and has one
child. Bill attended Catholic schools until he came to graduate school. He admires
his father for his success and level- headedness. His parents stress achievement,
and Bill is very ambitious.

Bill attained high status in his college organizations, and in the service was in

a responsible position. He joined ROTC in college partly because of patriotism,
partly because being an officer would improve his status. He takes little time off
for recreation. However, he does enjoy mixing with people. Bill's health is good,
although he does have allergies and frequent tension headaches. During unfavorable
service assignments, Bill often felt vaguely ill and went to the dispensary. He
considered a number of other professions before deciding on psychology.

He is materialistic, yet moralistic. He has masculine interests, is restrained and
controlled. Bill appreciates artistic subjects. He has sometimes alienated peeple
who thought he was too self-confident. He enjoys hearing about shrewd deals, is
not above manipulating individuals to achieve his ends, but doubts he would do
anything he considers immoral in this respect. He is happy. He philos0phizes

with himself quite a bit, and is not very interested in current events. Bill is
interested in what other people think and do, but does not care to change them; he
considers peOple basically honest, good-natured, but not above little wrong doings.

Part A: 41,039" ‘1‘ 2L
séb‘w
Bill's responses to the following statements are the same as the responses of men-
in- general. A large number of men took the same personality inventory Bill did,-
For each of the statements below at least two- thirds of the men answered in the
same way that he did. Your task is to predict how Bill responded to the state-
ments and also to indicate hOW'ZQE would respond.
Mark "1" if you think Bill answered true to the statement and you think the state-
ment is true or more true than false of yourself. (TT)
Mark "2" if you think Bill answered false to the statement and you think the state-
ment is false or more false than true of yourself. (FF)
Mark "3" if you think Bill answered false to the statement and if you think the
statement is true or more true than false of yourself. (FT)
Mark "4" if you think Bill answered true to the statement and if you think the state
statement is false or more false than true of yourself. (TF)

 

. I have had very peculiar and strange experiences.

. I do not always tell the truth.

. I am troubled by discomfort in the pit of my stomach every few days or
oftener.

. I have often wished I were a girl. (Or if you are a girl, I have often
wished I were a boy.)

F 5. I am easily downed in an argument.

114‘“
UNI-4

V
4.x

(over)

\.
0"

12.
13.

Ar

14.
15.

“‘1\

k 17.

- 2 -

My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in
company.

I would like to be a florist.

Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. -

Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else.

I used to keep a diary.

I have been inspired to a program of life based on duty which I have
since carefully followed.

What others think of me bothers me.

When someone says silly or ignorant things about something I know
about, I do not try to set him right.

I am not very religious (less than most people).

A person should try to understand his dreams and be guided by or take
warning from them.

I can be friendly with pe0p1e who dorthings which I consider wrong.
I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it.

Part B: \: -- -' ' I
“’3 ‘ ‘ a. " "r.
" .f 1‘ '\ 't 1'

Bill's responses to the following statements are the OPPOSITE of those of men-

in-general.

That is, if Bill answered "true”, at least two-thirds of the men

would answer "false" and viceversa. Your task is to predict how Bill responded
to the statements and also to indicate how you would respond.
Mark this section in the same manner as you did in Part A "1" (TT), "2" (FF),

 

713.
T319.
7'20.
F 21.
F 22.

f‘23.
7.24.
F'ZS.
F’26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.

33.
34.
35.
36.

*AW\*\T) I'I'

4u3n (TF), "4" (FT).

I do not try to correct people who express an ignorant belief.

I have spells of hay fever or asthma.

Children should not be taught all the main facts of sex.

I enjoy the excitement of a crowd. ,

I usually "lay my cards on the table" with people that I am trying to
correct or improve.

I like to let people know where I stand on things.

I am afraid of fire.

I strongly defend my own opinions as a rule.

During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery.
I seldom find it necessary to stand up for what I think is right.

At times my mind seems to work more slowly than usual.

I pray several times a week.

Any man who is willing and able to work hard has a good chance of

succeeding.

I am entirely self-confident.

I tend to be interested in several different hobbies rather than
stick to one of them for a long time.

When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement.

I like or have liked fishing very much.

I try to remember good stories to pass them on to other people.
When I leave home I worry about whether the door is locked and the
windows closed.

- 3’-

Part g C 1 a" . '
':1...-'=-- fi-r

Bill responded "true" to one of the statements in each of the following pairs
and "false" to the other. Consider both statements in each pair, and then

Mark "1"
Mark "2"
Mark "3"

Mark "4"

if you think Bill answered tEue to the FIRST statement (1) of the pair
and if you think the first statement (1) is true or more true than
false of yourself. (TT)

if you think Bill answered false to the FIRST statement of the pair and
if you think the first statement is false or more false than true of
yourself. (FF) '

if you think Bill answered false to the FIRST statement of the pair and
if you think the first statement is true or more true than false of
yourself. (FT)

if you think Bill answered true to the FIRST statement of the pair and
if you think the first statement is false or more false than true of
yourself. (TF) ‘ ‘

.F 31. (1) People often disappoint me.
(2) I wake up fresh and rested most mornings.
f: 38. (l) I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over

something that really did not matter.

(2) Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little.

7' 39. (l) I would like to hunt lions in Africa.
(2) I find it hard to make talk when I meet people.
F. 40. (l) I wish I were not so shy.
(2) I seldom ask people for advice.
F 41. (l) I have had periods in which I lost sleep over worry.
(2) I am neither gaining nor losing weight.
F‘ 42. (l) I liked "Alice in Wonderland."
(2) I do not mind seeing women smoke. .
7 43. (1) I prefer work which requires close attention, to work which allows me
to be careless.
(2) During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in thievery.
f’ 44. (1) In school I found it very hard to talk before the class.

(2) I practically never blush.

r 45. (l) I would like to be a singer.
_ (2) I do not like to be with a crowd which plays jokes on one another.
? 46. (1) When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things

to talk about.

(2) Something exciting will almost always pull me out of it when I am

feeling low.

1’ 47. (l) I think nearly everyone would tell a lie to keep out of trouble.
(2) Sometimes I get so excited I find it hard to go to sleep.

‘A

48. (l) I would not like to belong to several clubs or lodges.

. (2) Some of my family have quick tempers.
F: 49. (1) The man who provides temptation by leaving valuable property

unprotected is about as much to blame for its theft as the one who
steals it.

(2) I can read a long time without tiring my eyes.

50. (1) At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone.
(2) I like to flirt. ‘

51. (1) I have never felt better in my life than I do now.
(2) Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about.

(1) It does not bother me that I am not better looking.

(2) I like to poke fun at people.

(over)

 

‘I

53. (1)

(2)
754. (1)
(2)

55. (1)
(2)

F 56. (1)
(2)

7' 57. (1)
(2)
~r' 58. (1)

(2)
59. (1)

(2)

60. (l)

(2)
/ 61. (1)

(2)

f 62. (1)
(2)

7 63. (1)
(2)
’T 64. (1)

(2)

T 65. (1)

(2)
66. (1)

(2)
F 67. (1)

- (2)
r 68. (1)

(2)
F 69. (1)

~\

‘I

jI

~\

(2)
7 70.. (1)

(2)
'7 71. (1)
(2)
T 72. (1)
(2)

31 6/7/68

- 4 -

I have very few fears compared to my friends.

I frequently find myself worrying about something.

I have not had to be rough with people who were rude or annoying.

I am often inclined to go out of my way to win a point with someone
who has opposed me.

I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special
reason.

Sometimes when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me
greatly.

Several times I have been the last to give up trying to do a thing.
It is unusual for me to express strong approval or disapproval of
the actions of others.

I daydream very little.

I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something.
There are certain people whom I dislike so much that I am inwardly
pleased when they are catching it for something they have done.

I very seldom have spells of blues.

I do not think I feel more intensely than most people do.

My mother or father often made me obey even when I thought it was
unreasonable.

It is always a good thing to be frank.

At times I have worn myself out by undertaking too much.

I very much like hunting.

I don't blame anyone for trying to grab everything he can get in
this world. . .

If'I were an artist, I would not like to draw flowers.

If I were in trouble with several friends who were equally to blame,
I would rather take the whole blame than to give them away.

I like to talk about sex. .

I have often felt that strangers were looking at me critically.
When I was a child I didn't care to be a member of a crowd or gang.
When I was a child, I belonged to a crowd or gang that tried to
stick together trough thick and thin.

I do not have a great fear of snakes.

I have difficulty in starting to do things.

I am not apt to hide my feelings to the point that people may hurt
me without knowing it.

I am always disgusted with the law when a criminal is freed through
the arguments of a smart lawyer.

It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when
others are doing the same sort of things.

I like to cook.

At times I have very much wanted to leave home.

I have never been in trouble with the law.

Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I
feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world."

I dream frequently.

It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends even though I
cannot return the favor.

I have never had any breaking out on my skin that has worried me.
I like tall women.

I am very careful about my manner of dress.

Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me.
A large number of people are guilty of bad sexual conduct.

APPENDIX B

STUDENT NUMBER

H. C. Smith

 

January, 1969

FTHE STOP SCALE

This training session is designed to increase your understanding of a group that

will be described later.
THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET.

When

First, however, ANSWER EACH OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW ON

Mark "1” if you think the statement is "true" or more true than false
as far as you are concerned.

Mark ”2” if you think the statement is "false" or more false than true
as far as you are concerned.

the group is identified, circle the statements as follows:

TT true for you and true for the group.
FF false for you and false for the group.
TF true for you but false for the group.
FT false for you but true for the group.

Return the materials at the end of the exercise.

 

 

 

 

 

SCORES Exer A Exer B Exer C IMPROVEMENT
Assumed similarity(TT+FF)
Actual "(X'd TT+FF) ' .
DIFFERENCE Empathy(A-C)
ACCURACY Total (C-A)
EXERCISE A
F'TT FF TF FT 1. Some people I know can look forward to a happier life
than I can.
F7 TT FF TF FT 2. I really don't like to drink alcoholic beverages.
7’TT FF TF FT 3. I am not particularly methodical in my everyday life.
F TT FF TF FT 4. It is as important for a person to be reverent as it
is for him to be sympathetic. '
7’TT FF TF FT 5. I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation.
F‘TT FF TF FT 6. I am somewhat more shy than the average person.
FTTT FF TF FT 7. I am seldom extremely eXcited or thrilled.
7’TT FF TF FT 8. I am more interested in general ideas than specific
_ . facts.
7‘TT FF TF FT 9. Compared to your own self-respect, the respect of others
means little. -
FITT FF TF FT 10. In a discussion, I tend to lose interest if we talk
. about serious literature
F7TT FF TF FT 11. I have sometimes corrected others, not because they
. were wrong, but only because they irritated me.
7'TT FF TF FT 12. I am a fairly impulsive person.

After you have answered the questions above and on the other side for yourself

and after the group is identified and you have circled the answers above,

cal-

culate the following scores and put in the table:

ASSUMED SIMILARITY.
ACTUAL SIMILARITY.
DIFFERENCE.
ACCURACY.

Total number of TT and FF responses circled.

Total number of X's in the TT and FF columns.

Assumed similarity score minus actual similarity score.
Total number of X's inside circles.

(over)

FTT

7—TT
F'TT

7'TT
fTTT
FTTT
F7TT

7'TT

7‘TT
7‘TT
FTTT
7'TT

FF

FF.

FF

FF
FF
FF
FF

FF

FF
FF
FF
FF

TF
TF

TF
TF
TF
TF

TF

TF
TF
TF
TF

FT-

FT
FT

FT
FT
FT
FT

FT

FT
FT
FT
FT

l3.
14.
15.

16.
wl7.
18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

EXERCISE B
I have quite a few fears about my future.
Artistic experiences are of great importance in my life.
I consider most matters very carefully before I form an
opinion.
I almost never lose my head.

.I dislike it when I am with people a great deal.

I like to visit exhibits of famous paintings.

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

Radical agitators should be encouraged to make public
speeches.

I am extremely active in my everyday life.

I am always taking on added social reSponsibility.

I generally keep in the background at social functions.
I am quite self-confident.

EXERCISE C

In each question below are two statements of things that a work leader can do.
Choose the one you feel it is more important for him to do.

Mark ”1” if you think alternative (1) is more important.

Mark ”2" if you think alternative (2) is more important.

It is more important for a leader:

/11

.211
.211

«211

/11

)11

/11

/11

Ill

/11

/11

0111

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

HCS:Ceb 12-12-68

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

(1) To take an interest in the worker as a person.

(2) To maintain sensible standards of performance.

(1) To set up most projects himself.

(2) To let his workers make all routine daily decisions.

(1) To give instructions on just the way to do each job.

(2) To let workers take time out from the monotony.

(1) To see that the group produces.

(2) To let the workers generally decide how to do their
work.

(1) To teach his workers new things.

(2) To work along with his men as much as possible.

(1) To explain carefully each worker's duties to him.

(2) To spend some of his time helping to get the work
done.

‘(1) To meet with the workers to consider proposed changes.

(2) To pitch right in with the workers to help make
changes.

(1) To explain the duties of each worker's job to him
until he really understands them.

(2) To pitch right in with the workers.

(1) To be a skill trainer.

(2) To set a good example by working hard himself.

(1) To make it clear that he is the leader of the group.

(2) To have workers settle by themselves problems they
meet on the job.

(1) To be respected for his knowledge of the work that
the group does.

(2) To pass along to his workers information from higher
management.

(1) To realize that a worker generally knows when he is
doing poor work without being told.

(2) To explain in detail to each worker the duties of
his job.

HUMAN RBLNTIONS SCALE

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

The Case of Hans: The place: 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 throughout the meeting.

1. Hans becomes enthralled with Hitler and tries to convince one of his customers,
Rudolph, to join the Party. Why is Rudolph hesitant?
1. Hans, himself, doesn‘t know what.he is joining.
2. Hans and the rest will 000“ outgrow this craze.
CE? I wonder why Hans wants me to join the Party..

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

(I). He did it to embarrass me before the world.

2. He did it to show the others he wasn' t a coward like they said.
3. He did it to prove to himself he is brave.

4. He did it in a moment of insanity.

3. Hans, however, remained far down the line in Party power. What does his wife
think about this?
1. He must feel inadequate not to have been promoted any higher.
(:2. I wonder if he thinks I' m.part1y responsible.
3. The other members don't respect him at all.

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

1. Hans is weak; even his friends in the Party don' t respect him.
2. He is only a poor, frightened shopkeeper.
(g: I think he genuinely hates me.

U1

Hilda and max elope, as a friendly guard lets them through a checkpoint. What
was the guard thinking as they went through?

1. They will have few friends in allof Germany.

(2: They will always be grateful to me for letting them out.

3. They know not what they do, only.of their mutual-love.

The Case of Cardinal Vincengi: Cardinal Vincenzi is attending the Ecumenical
Council in Rome. There is a question on the floor about which he has strong feel-
ings, diametrically Opposed to the Pope. He is,in the process of preparing his
argument. .

6. What is he thinking as he writes his speech? .
l. The other Cardinals have a high regard for the Pope.
(g: I must be careful not to arrouse the Pope's ire against me.

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.

7. What was Tommy thinking during the interview?
($2 I hope he thinks I'm.doing a good job.
2. I wonder if he knows how admired he is.

O ”--_1- bkl_‘- LA.“ -A‘11-0 fi-A.. CIA fi‘tln n; his: f‘m- 1‘h. fh‘g-

 

-2-

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

8.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

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

L14 He seems to respect my views.

2. His experience makes him a keen judge of adoption cases.

3. He has a lot of confidence because of his wide experience.

Her supervisor's thoughts?

1. She's done a good job of analysis.

L21 She knows she has to convince me.

3. I've heard she is a very capable worker.

Martha is adopted by the couple. What is the social worker thinking after her
twelfth and final monthly visit? '
1. Martha realizes she has never been happier.
2. Her parents and friends have grown to love her.
(3. They all seemed terribly grateful to me.

Two years later Martha falls in love with a college senior named Bill. What do
her parents think about this?

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

2. Bill seems to love her too; he treats her like a queen.

53a She doesn't need us like she used to.

Martha talks to her social worker for advice about leaving her parents so soon.
Martha's thoughts? '

l. I hope she doesn't think she made a mistake with me.

.21 I hope she doesn't think I let her down.

3. A social worker would be a good person to talk to now.

4. She is respected by her colleagues; she must be a good worker.

What is the social worker thinking?
{I} Martha thinks I can give her some good advice.
2. She knows she needs advice.

The social worker talks with Martha's parents. Their thoughts?
1. Martha seems to think a lot of her now.

2. She will be good to talk to now.

Ci. She probably thinks we let her down as parents.

Martha and Bill decide to get married. Her parents' thoughts now?
1. They make a great couple and have happy days ahead.

2. They know they made the right decision.

{3. HOpe she still loves us.

What is Bill thinking now?
1. Her parents still love her and understand her.
2. Our lives are just beginning.

. g; 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 gbtten
along well in their 26 years of marriage, and were able to discuss their problems with
each other.

-3.-

17. What might Sally be thinking? She is his favOrite childL'
. & must be depressed because I left for college. '
2. I guess adults have periods of depression just like us kids.
3. I hope he can talk it out with his friends.
The Case of Albert: Little Albert is a schoOlboy in Germany. ‘Hé’is doing below aver-
age work in math and sees his teacher for help.
18. What is Albert thinking during the conference?
1. He is one of my best teachers.
. I wonder if he's interested in helping me.
3. I wonder what kind of teacher he thinks he is.

19. Poor Albert failed his math course. How did his teacher feel?
1. I hope this doesn't hurt his self-confidence too much.
(21 I hope he doesn't feel resentful toward me for failing him.
3. He just doesn't have the ability to do math.

20. How did his teacher feel a few years later when his former student formulated an
equation e - mcz, changing world history?
1. Einstein will go down as one of the great thinkers.
CD. I wonder if he thinks I was a poor‘teaoher.
3. He is being hailed by all as our greatest physicist.

The Case of Samuel Reshevsky: Mr. Reshevsky is a world champion chess player. He
recently played 50 players simultaneously. . .1

21. What were his opponents thinking as they sat down to play him?
1. He is truly one of the world's great players.
2. He must know he's pretty good to play so many at once.
CT. Does he really think that I'm.a challenge?

Jfi. One of the players, a 15 year old boy, beats the Mhster.’ His name is Bobby

’ Fisher, current U. S. chess champion. As they played the second time, what was
Reshevsky thinking? '"- .p 4

1.1 don' t think success has gone to Bobby's head.
C2} He seems to look at me differently than he did the last time.
3. The audience seems really to like him, maybe for his youth.

23. What did Bobby think after he defeated the Master again?"
1. His one mistake at the end cost him the game.
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.

24. What did Cathy think after talking to her housemother about it?
1. She really understands the problem.=
2. Any housemother would have trouble handling this kind of problem.
3. I can see why girls think she is so understanding.
C3: I wonder what she thought of me and my side of the argument.
25. Cathy gets a new roommate; her thoughts upon meeting her?
.3 1.1 hope she's more well- liked than my old roommate.
fi’2. Anything will be better than the old situation.
1.3. I hope she realizes that her way will not always be the best.

 

-4-

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.

26. His wife's thoughts about the news of her husband's retirement?
1. I'm proud of all the praise he's getting from.his colleagues.
2. He has a feeling of real satisfaction after these 30 years.
3. These next years might be a good change for him.
’4. Maybe he will need me more now the t. he is not working.

27. Mr. Lewis is replaced by a young Ph..D. fiShe is bright, good-looking and single.
What is Bob thinking as she walks into class?
1. This should be an interesting course.
2. I wonder what the staff thinks of this new addition.
ci. I hope she likes my work.

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

29. Bob gets straightened out and ends up with an A in the course.' What are his
thoughts now?
L She thinks I really know the material.now.
(2% The class ended up respecting her and liking her a lot.
3. This was a very 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 captian. Under his successor, Al, the team wins
its next 4 games.

30. What are Al's thoughts now?
1. Leon must realize he's more of an asset to the team as a member than as captain
2. His bowling has improved lately, as has the teams'.
(33. Heresents me for taking over his job.

The Case of Jan: Jan is a high school dropout. He is seeing an advisor from the
Poverty Program to try to get a job.

31. What is the advisor thinking as he talks to Jan?
1. He realizes he needs help.
Q. He seems to think I can help him.
3. This program was designed to help this kind of boy.

32. _1Jan gets a job on a construction job. His foreman' s thoughts at first.
‘&fl?. This boy needs to gain some self- confidence.
(21 He'll be depending on me to help get him started.

33. The foreman' s thoughts?
6 Jan will probably worry what I'll do to him about the fight.
2. I wonder if Jan thought it was wrong to have fought with Bret.
3. I wonder what the workers think of Jan.
4. These things happen on any job.

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

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

-5-

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

35. How does Ellen feel?
1. It's best for both of us because we're too young to get serious.
CZ: I hope he still likes me even though we're not dating.
3. I wonder how he feels about it.

jhs 1-23-67

They are

 

he ¥*\N‘-

FIRST IMPRESSIONS
H. C. Smith
Fall, 1968

Directions:

 

This is a study of the impressions people make on others. You will
see three people in silent movies. Trygto form as life-like an impression
of each as you can.

 

The first will be of Mrs. P.: the second of Mr. W.: And the third of
Mrs. N. As each film is finished the camera will be stopped. Then, in
each of the groups of statementSIEmbered below pick the one that is
like your impression of the person. Mark the nimber of this statement
on the separate answer sheet.

Work as rapidly as you can!

THE CASE OF MRS. P.

l. (1) is sincere (2) wearing a coat (3) fairly attractive.

2. (1) is about 40 years old (2) talkative (3) self-satisfied.

3. (1) did most of the talking (2) felt the inerview had been successful
(3) is one who makes a good impression.

4. (l) moistens her lips (2) is glad to leave (3) experienced with small
groups.

5. (l) feels inadequate (2) is facially expressive (3) average looking.

6. (l) is an anxious person (2) a pleasing person (3) a conservative dresser.

7. (1) considers the interview serious (2) is gregarious (3) shows signs
of amusement.

8. (l) is a typical housewife (2) has family problems (3) is intelligent

9. (l) is seeking employment (2) responding quickly (3) an average dresser.

510. (l) is a modest dresser (2) active in the community (3) uncertain of

her answers.

111. (1) gave short answers at first (2) enjoys her family (3) has dark

"features.

312. (l) is amusing (2) a modest dresser (3) feels inadequate.
’13. (1) wants to make an impression on interviewer (2) is from a laboring

class (3) has good posture.

114. (l) is one who would go to a neighborhood bar (2) feels self conscious

(3) dressed in red.

315. (l) is verbal (2) a housewife (3) feeling under pressure.
216. (l) is using too much makeup (2) worries a lot (3) gabby.
217. (l) sat on edge of chair (2) became self confident as interview

progressed (3) is a good listener.

.18. (l) is worrying (2) moving her head (3) wearing a coat.
319. (1) is chatty (2) a good housekeeper (3) not sure of herself
320. (l) is a neat dresser (2) laughing often (3) indecisive.

(over)

I 27.
I 28.

129.
J 30.

2 31.

332.

3 33.

I 34.
2 35.

I 36.
I37.
1_38.

239.
3 40.

3141.
I 42.
I 43.
5 44.
5 45.

1'46.

THE CASE OF MR. W.

(l) is unsure of himself (2) looks like a ”beat" (3) is wearing a
striped sweater.

(l) is thinking the questions through (2) wearing a sweater

(3) talking fast.

(1) is wearing glasses (2) somewhat perplexed (3) holding his chin.

(l) is unmarriéd(2) often grasps his chin (3) is on guard most of the
time.

(1) is a "lost youth” (2) has little money (3) has little patience with
his intellectual inferiors.

(1) leaves smiling (2) is an attentive young man (3) is uncertain of
the future.

(1) does not trust the interviewer (2) could be a delinquent (3) smiles
little

(1) is confident in his opinions (2) of medium height (3) does not have

much money.

(1) was eager to leave (2) left quickly (3) is reliable. o

(1) has been turned down by several fraternities (2) hopes he has put

his story over (3) has black hair.

(1) did most of the talking (2) felt under stress (3) smiled when smiled

at.

(1) is wearing a sweater (2) unable to project his personality

(3) considers himself well informed.

(l) rocked back and forth (2) has curly hair
in the situation.

(1) knows what's going on (2)needs a shave (3) is fluent in Speaking.
(1) raises eyebrows (2) remains tense throughout interview (3) talks
with vigor.

(l) feels confused (2) raises eybrows when Speaking (3) had on a loud
sweater.

(1) feels a bit insecure (2) uses his hands in expression (3) is in'“
his early‘20's.

(l) dresses poorly (2) feels he is being treated unjustly (3) is dark
complected.

(1) has a closed smile (2) thinks before answering (3) needs a haircut.
(1) gives no details in his answers (2) changes his facial expression
little (3) is self—concerned.

(3) is earnestly interested

THE CASE OF MRS. N.

(1) has a low skilled job (2) is concerned with giving the right
answers (3) wearing glasses.

(1) feels she is religious (2) is in her sixties (3) left with an empty
smile.

(1) thinks out the answer to each question (2) has her hair combed back
(3) is friendly.

(1) wears a black coat (2) is well mannered (3) concerned with what

is happening.

(1) is a typical grandmother (2) is well mannered (3) interested in
others.

(1) puckers her lips (2) doubts future employment (3) gives answers of
moderate length.

147.
3 48.

1 49.

a 51.
352.

153.
l 54.

[55.
356.
57.
258.
‘359.

260.

(1) could be a retired school teacher (2) felt she told everything
necessary (3) facially expressive.

(1) has her hair in a net (2) has a dry manner (3) does not care about
wealth.

(1) has animated hands (2) feels lonesome at times. (3) has a quiet
nature.

(1) is content with life (2) has a sense of humor (3) is dressed suf-
ficiently well.

(1) feels anxious (2) is elderly (3) smug.

(1) visits her grandchildren from time to time (2) wonders what she'll
do when she stops working (3) is in good health.

(1) is wearing glasses (2) proud of her past (3) 50-60 years old.

(1) is the easy going type (2) is wearing a coat (3) enjoys discussing
her grandchildren.

(1) didn't get much out of the situation (2) wears glasses (3) has a
closed smile.

(1) is a good homemaker (2) a neat dresser (3) is a satisfied person.
(1) is elderly (2) unmoved by the situation (3) lower middle class.
(1) could be a sales clerk (2) feels emotionally stable (3) is the
resourceful type.

(1) her hands became nervous (2) is the grandmother type (3) thought
deeply on most questions.

(1) clenched her hands (2) is not used to city life (3) is a stabilizing
influence.

HCS:ta:10-17-68

APPENDIX C

 

THE CASE OF NAOME WARREN

October, 1968

"Empathy", assuming similarity between ourselves and others, is the basic
method we use in trying to understand other people. Consequently, under-‘
standhxgis determined by empathic accuracy, the accuracy of the assumptions

of similarity or difference that we make.

improve this kind of accuracy.

Stugyfithe sketch of Naomi Warren.
-She is a forty year old wife of a social science professor and the
mother of three children who are now in college. Naomi is the eldest of
four sisters all of whom like to write. Naomi has published several
children's books, another sister has published a novel, another sister
is a newspaper reporter, and the other sister writes poetry. Naomi's
daughter is planning, also, to be a writer. Naomi plays tennis, skates,
skiis, and generally enjoys the outdoors. She enjoys cooking but is

casual about her housekeeping.

The aim of the exercise is to

She is a member of several civic groups

but dislikes speaking before a group.

Answer the following statements for yourself and Naomi.
So that you can know whether the training has benefited you, answer the
At the end of the session, you will be

BEFORE PRACTICE
Similar Dissim

five statements below now.

given time to answer them again.
Circle your answers as follows:

If you think the statement is true for you and you think Naomi
answered true for herself.

be read by the instructor.

TT.

FF.

TF.

FT.

Finally, the correct answers will

If you think the statement is false for you and you think Naomi
also answered falSe.

If you think the statement is true for you but you think Naomi
answered false for herself.

If you think the statement is false for you but you think Naomi
answered true for herself.

 

F TT FF
F rr FF
i3 TT FF
F TT FF
TTT FF-

CORRECT

TF

TF

TF

AFTER PRACTICE
Similar Dissim

 

FT TT
FT TT
‘ FT TT
FT . .TT
FT TT;

ACTUAL SIMILARITY

ASSUMED SIMILARITY

FF TF
FF TF
FF TF
FF TF
FF TF
BEFORE

 

1

FT 1.
FT 2.
FT 3.
FT 4.

FT 5.

AFTER

 

Most of the time I am extremely
carefree and relaxed.

I like to discuss my emotions with
others.

I am really only interested in what
is useful.

I like to make a very careful plan
before starting in to do anything.
Women should have as much right to
propose dates to men as men to women.

GAIN

(over)

Sensitivity Training Exercises

Exercise A._

 

giggle your answers and what you think Naomi's answers were to the following
three statements. ”X” the correct answer when it is read by the instructor.
Record at the bottom of the page the number of your correct respOnses, the
number that you assumed similarity on, and the number in which you were

actually similar.

F'TT FF TF FT 1. I have frequently assumed the leadership of
groups.
F TT FF TF FT 2. I like to have people aroumlme practically
, all of the time.
{TTT 'FF TF ' FT 3. There are few things I enjoy more than being

a leader of people.

Excercise B.

 

After completing Exerecise A, answer the following statements and record
your answers in the same way.

F'TT FF TF FT 4. It is as important for a person to be reverent
as it is for him to be sympathetic.

FTTT FF TF FT . 5. I trust in God to support the right and condemn
the'wrong

F'TT FF TF FT 6. The idea of God means more to me than any other
idea.

7‘TT FF TF FT 7. I think that cremation is the best method of
burial.

7FTT FF. TF FT 8. In the long run science provides the best hope
for solving the world's problems.

T'TT FF TF FT 9. Radical agitators should be allowed to make

public speeches.
szxsi§s_fl.

After completing Exercise B, continue with this exercise in the same way.

F7TT FF ‘TF FT 10. I never complain about my sufferings and
hardships.
7'TT FF TF FT 11. I am moderate in my tastes and sentiments.
PITT FF TF FT 12. I Spend a lot cf time philosophizing with myself.
F3TT FF TF FT 13. I tend to judge people in terms of their
corcrete accomplishments.
7'TT FF TF FT 14. I like to be with people who don't take life
toc seriously.
I TT FF TF FT 15. I always.keep control of myself in an emergency
situation.
SL??¥4V?; A (3) B (6) C (6)
CCRTLCF

ASSUME) SIMILARITY
ACTUAL SIMILARITY

*— _ h
“ fl *
_ * *

HCS:ta:lO-8-68

HOS/KP
THE RUTH CASE October, 1968

This exercise is designed to improve your understanding of Ruth, of
values of college students, and of similarities between your values and
theirs. During the exercise you will read what Ruth said about herself,
take a pretest, get practice, and take the endtest, and finally, find out
how much you improved. You should complete the steps in order.

FIRST, read the interview. It is Ruth's half-hour interview of herself.
She answered a series of written questions covering her education, family,
etc. She answered the questions by speaking into the microphone of a tape
recorder while alone. A psychologist talked to Ruth after her self-inter-
view to find out how she had felt and behaved in a variety of situations.
Two of her friends were later interviewed to check on the accuracy of her
report. The correct answer to each question is based upon information
given by Ruth and her friends.

The Interview
1. Educational and Vocational Goals.

My educational goal is to receive a B.A. degree in liberal arts in ele-
mentary education. I like teaching very much and if I don't get married
then I'd like to make this my life's career. And,--sigh--I guess I'm
progressing fairly well.

2. Family.

I have two brothers, one older, one younger, and my mother and father.

My mother and father have always encouraged me to go to school but this'
year I haven't had as close a relationship to my mother and father as I
have in previous years. My older brother is married and has one little
boy and my younger brother is still in high school. I have a very fond,
good relationship with my younger brother at home. And I've always been
very very close to my older brother. I don't feel as close to him now

as I did before since he is married, and I guess I desire a family of my
own probably I'm a little bit jealous.

3. Interpersonal Relationships

I think I get along fairly well with most people. I enjoy being around
them. Nothing seems to shock me very much although I don't approve of-of
people who talk vulgarly or--pause--or tell dirty stories and things like
that although I don't show this when I'm around them. I've been associating
with all kinds of different people in my work in a restaurant.

4. Relationships with Opposite Sex.
Long pause--I think that my emotional and physical relationships with
the oppoSite sex are probably just as normal as most people's (laugh) although

I have been told that I'm very prudish in my--pause--uh, sexual relationships
with others, but I guess I have very high standards, moral standards,

(over)

 

religious standards that I can't quite do away with even though I am older then
-.-than most girls here at the college probably.

5. Financial Situation.

Well,--sigh--right now (pause) I'm totally independent. I have no other
income except what I make myself. I have good credit rating at my bank at
home so I'm not too worried about that although I always have to plan care-

fully where my money's coming from and so on.

6. Religious Views.

 

I'm basically a pretty religious person although I don't attend church
every Sunday; IiulProtestant and I'm taking a course in Catholicism. I'm
going with a Catholic fellow and have been for the past four years and have
thought about changing to the Catholic religion. I think most religions
are alike--God plays an important part in my life. My folks have always
taught me to be honest and truthful.

7. Abilities and Skills.

Well, I have abilities along several different lines. I've had many
many different jobs and I've always done well on these jobs. I'm somewhat
of a perfectionist. I have experience to be a secretary and I've been a
waitress and I've taught school. I like a job where I have some responsi-
bility and--am free to make up my own mind about things and I've never
had a problem about getting a job.

8. Personal Weaknesses.

Pause--sighe-long pause-~I have a quick temper sometimes but I get over
it easily. I have a tendency to blame other people sometimes for things
that aren't their fault. And I am jealous of other people sometimes which
I think is an undesirable trait. I'm a perfectionist which is annoying to
other people sometimes. Sometimes I get angry with people and I won't speak
to them. I'm just very quiet until I've thought it all over and decided
it's alright. I like to be alone when I'm angry. I cry quite often.

It's my outlet for my anger.

9. Personal Strengths.

I always tell the truth. Uhm,--pause--I'm clean very clean person in
mind and physically and I uh, I like people. I have ability to talk with
most people and I'm-I'm.very dependable. If I'm.given a job to do I work
ahead until it's finished no matter how long it takes me or to what extent
it works a hardship to me.

10. Other Important Agpects of Life.

I had a very happy early childhood. We were a very close family, did
things together, we played lots of games together and we never had much
money but we always had lots of fun and we always had a very good Christmas
or special occasions. v

PRETEST AND END TEST

In each of the situations below, one of the two alternatives was "true"
for Ruth and the other one was "false”. Circle in the pretest column
the alternative that you think was correct. ' ‘

PRE-
TEST

END
TEST

 

A. Ruth characterizes herself as:
19(1; A person who likes to be "on the run" with activities.
,( 2. A person without much real ambition.

B. Ruth characterizes her years in Junior High School as
the ”roughest times". One of the primary reasons for this
, she feels is:
W (1; She was less mature physically than the other girls.
0 2. She was more mature.

C. Ruth, along with a few other teachers, decided not to
join the National Educational Association because it was
expensive. Many of the older teachers were very bitter
about this since they had always had 100% membership.
When pressure was exerted on her, Ruth:

‘( l. Unhappily joined NEA but only after a long verbal
battle with the older teachers.
3 C2. Still refused to join NEA but felt guilty about it.

D. Ruth reports she:
‘q l. Feels she sometimes talks too much.
p (2} Would rather listen than talk.

E. The first thing Ruth mentioned that she wanted in a husband
was:

& 1. One that loved children.

a (21 One that could provide for her.

GAIN (Number correct on post-test minus number correct on

pretest).

(over)

EXERCISE A

Our evaluations of the likelihood of a person engaging in desirable

behavior heavily influences the accuracy of our judgments of him. The a
accuracy of our stereopypes about‘what others will consiler desirable and
the accuracy of our empathy also influence our evaluations and

their accuracy. The purpose of this exercise is to analyze these influences
on our judgments and to show how they interact with each other.

For each of the five statements below answer questions (1), (2), and (3).

(1) Do you think the first of the alternatives would have been less
or more desirable for Ruth? Circle "L" for less and "M” for more.
(2) Agroup of MSU undergraduates checked which alternative they
thought was more desirable. Would you assume that your judgment
‘would agree with the judgment of the majority of this group?
Circle ”Y" for yes and "N" for no in column-(2).

(3) What do you think Ruth actually felt, said, or did? Put a circle
in the space before your answer in column (3).

YOUR ASSM STUD ACT ACT
JUDM SIM? JUDG ‘ SIM? UAL
(1) (2) (3) .
F. Ruth lived on a farm for some time after

she was born. According to a friend,
the thing she hated about it was:

L M. Y N Y N ____ Lila There was always too much work to do.

19 (2‘. She always had dirty feet.

G. Ruth thilks it would be fun to:
L M Y N r N pg}. Travel around the U.S. working just
enough to pay expenses.
(4 2. Go to Africa to work temporarily.

H. When Ruth encounters discipline problem
in school her initial reaction is to:
L M Y N Y N Cilia Blame herself.
H 2. Blame no one but try to deny the
existence of the problem.

I. Ruth feels she was in most of the high
school organizations because of her
artistic talents. She sees this as:

L M Y N Y N b d’. A compliment.
£1 2. Something which gave her an "in".

J. Ruth feels she chose second grade to
teach because:
L M Y N Y N W l. The children accept more readily
what the teacher has to say.
____ £12k When Ruth was in grade school she
enjoyed the second grade most.

TOTAL TOTAL

Write "L" or "M" in the column headed ”stud judg" when the instructor '
reads the desirability judgments of the typical student. Write "x" in
column (5) as he reads the answers for the ”actual" behavior of Ruth. Then
count the following scores to analyze possible reasons for your error.

EVALUATION ACCURACY. Write the number correct in (5). If you had
errors, they may be due to the fact that you consistently judged
that Ruth behaved in a less or a more desirable way than she did.
Tb find out, count the number of times that your answer in column
(5) corresponded to what you thought was the more desirable answer
and the number of times to the less desirable (l).

EMPATHIC ACCURACY. Compare your judgment in column (1) with the
"stud judg" column. If your judgments agree, circle "Y" in the
actual similarity column; "N” if your judgments disagreed.

Then count the number of "Y"'s in (2) that agreed with Y's in the
actual similiarity column. This is your empathic accuracy score,
i.e., the correctness of your assumptions of similiarity. If it
was low, it may be that you consistently assumed too much or too
little empathy. Add the number of "Y”'s in column (2) and in the
"stud judg"’oolumn and compare.

STEREOTYPE ACCURACY. This is the accuracy of knowledge of the
typical values of undergraduates. Count the ngmber of times that
your "Y” or "N" agreed with the Y or N in the actual similiarity
column.

(over) .

EXERCISE B

This exercise follows exactly the same pattern. If you are in doubt about

how to proceed, refer back to the steps in Exercise A. Try to apply what

you learned about your judgments of Ruth. Remember, however, that even though
she is the same person these are different situations.

YOUR ASSM STUD ACT. ACT
JUDG SIM? JUDG SIM? UAL

(1) (2) (5)

K. Ruth is reluctant to talk much about
herself as a person.

L M Y N Y N «40). She is afraid people will not like her.
672. She grew up in a family that is very
reserved.

L. Ruth feels her most successful year of
teaching was her first. She feels it was
because:

L M Y N TN d a She was more strict with the children.

a 2. She had a warmer relationship with
her fellow teachers.

M. Ruth sees premarital sexual relations as:
L M Y N . Y N £21. All right for others but is unsure
for herself.
LIQD Not so bad if you have a definite plan
of getting married.

N. Ruth sometimes feels:
L M Y N Y N (4CD. The only way she will get married is
to become pregnant.
0 2. That her only real goal in life is to
find a satisfactory husband.

0. There was a lot of talk at the restaurant
where Ruth works about something she had
done. The incident involved:

L M Y N Y N w dl Ruth's necking with a Negro at an
employee party.
(I 2. Ruth's arguing with the manager.

TOTAL TOTAL

The instructor will read both the judgments of students and Ruth's actual
answers as in the first exercise. Record and analyze your scores as in the
first exercise.

EVALUATION ACCURACY.

EMPATHIC ACCURACY.

STEREOTYPE ACCURACY.

END TEST: When you have completed the analysis of your errors, return to the
pretest end test page. Answer the same questions in the end test
column again, recording your answers even if they are the same. Do
you feel that you understand Ruth better and are more confident about
your answers? If so, is the confidence reflected in greater ac-
curacy? If.not, Why not?

HCS:'ta

THE SELF-IMAGE OF THE COLLEGE MAN

H. C. Smith
October, 1968

To understand a person or a group, we need to be able to predict accurately

what they think of themselves.

The accuracy of our predictions depends, in

part, upon how accurately we can judge how much the person or group's image of

themselves is like our image of ourselves.

The purpose of this exercise is

to increase both your understanding of what the typical college man thinks
of himself (stereotype accuracy) and you ability to predict the degree of
simialrity between yourself and him (empathic accuracy).

Pretest and End Test

Each of several hundred college mencmmpared himself to other college men on
On each of the traits, the typical student rated

himself as LOW (lower than three fourths ofccfllege men), as AVERAGE (in the
middle half ofccllege men), or as HIGH (in the upper fourth of college men).

the traits listed below.

In the pretest column, first circle the "you” that corresponds to your rating
of yourself (under the LOW column, if you would rate yourself in the bottom
25%, AVERAGE column, if you would rate yourself in the middle 50%, or in the

HIGH column, if you would rate yourself in the upper 25%).

Then circle the

'Snfinasyou think the typical student actually rated himseif. When the exercises

are completed on the revers

 

ent again.
PRETEST
Low Average High
You You You
(Stud‘ Stud Stud
You You You
(Stud Stud Stud
You You You
(SEW Stud Stud
You You You
Stud (ngd? Stud
You You You
Stud ”Sty Stud
You You You
Stud <fifl§§9 Stud
You You You
Stud Stud 6193
You You You
Stud Stud Stud)
You You You
Stud Stud Qua)
SCORES

Pretest End test

 

 

 

END TEST
L93 Average
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud
You You
Stud Stud

Gain

High
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud
You
Stud

ASSUMED SIMILARITY.
judged that you and the typical student would
have the same rating.

ACTUAL SIMILARITY.

STEREOTYPE ACCURACY.
answers.

1.

e side, you will rate yourself and the typical stu-

TRAITS

Timid
Unpredictable
Unrealistic
Egotistical
Talkative
Aggressive
Cooperative
Friendly

Cooperative

The number of times that you

When the instructor reads the
correct answers, put an ”X". Count the number of
times that yourcircle for yourself is in the

same column as the "X".

EMPATHIC ACCURACY.
assumed and actual similarity.
is "ON.

The difference between

A perfect score

The number of correct

(over)

PRACTICE EXERCISES
Exercise A

Complete the following five ratings exactly as you did in the pretest as
soon as you have finished it. The better you understand why you made the
rating you did for college men and why you were wrong, if you were, the more
accurate your image of the college man is likely to be. As an aid in under-
standing the "why", jot down the reasons-for your answers before getting
feedback. If your answer is wrong, jot down the explanation. that you think
accounts for the rating that the typical student actually made. Also,
calculate your assumed and the actual similarity scores to determine whether
you are assuming too much or too little similarity.

EXPLANATION OF ANSWERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW AVERAGE HIGH TRAIT Beforerfeedback After Feeback
You You You 10. Rebellious --
gggd) Stud Stud

You You You ll. Impractical

_Sgud Stud Stud

u You You 12. Irresponsible

:Stud» Stud Stud

(You , You You 13. Easily upset

.StuHE Stud Stud
gl‘0u You You 14. Socially poised

QSEUd‘ Stud Stud

 

 

ASSUMED SIMILARITY
ACTUAL SIMILARITY
DIFFERENCE
STEREOTYPE ACCURACY

Exercise B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW AVERAGE HIGH

You You You 15. Stubborn
Stud (Stud‘ Stud

You You You 16. Shy

Stud ”StUd Stud

You cu You 17. Affectionate
Stud (Stud‘ Stud

You You You 18. Serious
Stud Ségdl Stud

You You You 19. Imaginative
Stud Stud Stud

 

 

 

ASSUMED SIMILARITY
ACTUAL SIMILARITY
DIFFERENCE
STEREOTYPE ACCURACY

Exercise C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW - .AVERAGE HIGH

You You You 20. Adaptable
Stud Stud (Stud .
You You You 21. Wide range of
Stud Stud fitudW interests
You You You” 22. 'Liberal‘
Stud Stud (Stud

You You You 23. Adventurous
Stud Stud Stud . ‘ '
You 'You \Ybu_ 24. Trustful
Stud ' Stud (Stud ’ ‘

 

ASSUMED SIMILARITY

SEHSEFSEEMRHY

----STEREOTYPE ACCURACY

 

 

H. C. Smith
October, 1968

THE CASE OF THE YOUNG PSYCHOLOGIST, MORGAN JOHNSON

The accuracy of our understanding of a man depends upon our understanding
of the typical man (stereotype accuracy). It also, however, depends upon
our understanding of the differences between groups of men (differential
stereotype accuracy). In addition, of course, it depends upon skill in
applying our knowledge to a particular man. This exercise is designed to
improve your understanding of the interests of the typical man and the
differences between his interests and the typical psychologist's, as well
as your ability to apply this understanding in judging the interests of
Morgan Johnson. '

Pretest and End Test

 

The Interests of the Typical Man. The replies of several thousand business
and professional men to the hundreds of items on the Strong Vocational
Interest Blank were analyzed. To some of the interests, the majority of men
said they liked the interest and to others the majority said they did not
like the interest. In the pretest column (on the back page) headed

”most men” circle "Yes" if you think most men said they would like the
interest and "No" if you think most men said they would 223 like the
interest.

The Different Interests of Psychologists. The replies of several hundred
male psychologists were compared with the replies of men-in-general. To
many of the interests, the replies of the psychologists were the same as
those of the typical man. To some of the interests, however, more
psychologists said they would like it. In the pretest column headed
"more psychologists" circle "Yes” if you think more psychologists than
men-in-general said they would like it and ”No" if you think fewer would.

The Interests of Morgan Johnson. Morgan, a 23 year old graduate student

in psychology, also completed the Strong Test. After reading the following
sketch, answer "Yes" in the Morgan column if you think he said he would
like the interest and ”No” if you think he said he would not like the
interest.

Morgan‘s parents died when he was four, and he and his younger
brother were raised by permissive grandparents in Brooklyn. Of
his childhood, Morgan said: "As I grew up, I always had the
feeling that I was inferior to everybody else because I had no
parents. In grade school, I was very loud and bOisterous and

made persistent attempts to dominate my peers and to excel in
everything I did.‘l Today he places stress on being a ”well-rounded
scholar.” About his values, he now says:

"I do not believe there are any determining forces in the
universe that make us what we are; everybody rules his own
destiny. I can think of nothing more important than being
a good friend or having good friends, but I don’t think it
is possible to have more than a few really close ones. I
place little value on material things: cars, clothes, etc."

- 2 -

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRETEST END TEST

Most More Morgan? Most More Morgan?
Men? Psych? Men? Psych? '

eslm: GEEQNO {ES/No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Meeting new situations
’ejJNo Yes(:§)'YesGE: 'Yes No Yes No Yes No 2. Thirty peOple

eSJNo es No Yes Jo; Yes No Yes No Yes No 3. Algebra

esJNo eS No Yes ‘ Yes No Yes No Yes No A. Economics

eS,No Yes(N5‘ Yes No Yes No Yes No 5. Saving money
Yes(N3; Yes(N§§ Yes No Yes No Yes No 6. Drilling in a company
Yes 'I'g§§EPk> Yes No Yes No Yes No 7. Politician
Yes ‘ e ’No Yes No Yes No Yes No 8. Poet
Yes . Yes Nd? Yes No Yes No Yes No 9. Auto Racer
Yes io' Yes Io Yes No Yes No Yes No 10. Auctioneer
Accuracy Score Pretest End Test Gain
Men-in-general
Psychologists

Morgan Johnson

EXERCISE A
This exercise concerns the differences between the typical man and
psychologist. Circle "Yes" if you think more psychologists and "No"
if you think fewer psychologists than men-in- general said they would
like the interest.

 

es‘No ll. Carelessly dressed peeple
es No 12. Absent-minded people
es No 13. Orchestra conductor

1A. People who make fortunes in business
15. Regular hours of work
16. Golf

 

EXERCISE B
This exercise concerns the answers of Morgan. Circle "Yes" if you think
he said he would like and "No" if you think he would not like the interest.
"Psy" in ( ) indicates that more psychologists than men-in-general liked
the interest. "Non” in ( ) indicates that more non-psychologists liked
the interest. The figure is the percent of men-in-general who said they
would like the interest.

17. Ph losophy (57% Psy.)

18. Literature (57% Psy.)

_ 19. Sick people (20% Psy.)

'YesCEéZ 20. Auto repairman (19% Non.)
YesCNgi 21. Regular hours of work (58% Non.)
Yes<ޤ> 22. Progressive people (85% Non.)

 

fi\‘

Yes 0) 23. Quick-tempered peOple (7% Pay.)
Yes Jo, 2h. Pet monkeys (8% Psy.)
Yes& 25. Physics (58% Psy.)
@es No 26. Driving an Automobile (77% Non.)
No 27. Sporting pages (50% Non.)
es'No 28. Fortune tellers (5% Non.)

HICH G B A

JIM/I?“

(Milkilfliiifl!