"

 

CORRELATES OF A TEST OF GROUP SENSITIVITY

ThoshforthobogmofMA.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Ronald Leon Johnson
1963
_ __ ___-_._ ._;__ rfi-, - WW;

 

CORRELATES OF A TEST OF GROUP SENSITIVITY

Ronald Leon Johnson

TA THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

AI

Approved*§-I

ABSTRACT
CORRELATES OF A TEST OF GROUP SENSITIVITYV
by Ronald Leon Johnson

The purpose of the present sutdy had three aspects:
(1) The development of a generalized test of group sensi—
tivity that would eliminate the rating scale problem of
level and spread, and reduce the influence of the respond-
ent's group memberships, so that his score would indicate the
general level of his group sensitivity. (2) The deriving of
specific hypotheses to be tested. (3) The exploration of a
wide range of additional variables in order to generate ad—
ditional testable hypotheses regarding group sensitivity.

The criterion for the generalized group sensitivity
scale was drawn from the Strong Vacational Interest Blank.
Four sub—scales were used: Men—Women, Young—Old, Executive—
Unskilled, and Psychologists—Non—Psychologists. The corrected
reliability for the total scale was .63.

Seventy—two other measures were correlated with the
sub—scales, using an N of 110 males and 20 females in indus—
trial Psychology course number 255. Analysis of the resulting

correlation coefficients suggested that the male judges

Ronald Leon Johnson

accurate in group sensitivity were high in leadership atti—
tudes, linguistically talented, able to profit from experi—
ence, a liberal, non—conformist, and a good observer of the
people around him. They were not self-confident or socially
bold. The small size of the female sample and the lack of
significant correlations enabled only a very limited under-
standing of their correlates. The accurate female judge in
group sensitivity was ambitious and perceptually inflexible.

A refined personality scale, designed to measure
group sensitivity correlates, was developed with the hope
that in the future the correlates can be measured in one
short session. The subjects would not need to know for what
they were being tested. The refined personality scale

remains to be verified in future studies.

CORRELATES OF A TEST OF GROUP SENSITIVITY

BY

Ronald Leon Johnson

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

‘31-; E:

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Dr. Henry Clay Smith, my
advisor, without whose patience, help, and understanding,

this work would never have been completed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Development of Group Sensitivity and the
Judgment of Others . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Measurements of the Ability to Judge Others . . 5
Problems in Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Variables Related to Group Sensitivity . . . . . ll
PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7
METh OD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Measurement of Group Sensitivity . . . . . . . . 19
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Scale Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Reliabilities of the Generalized Sensitivity
Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Personality Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Educational and Experience Measures . . . . . . 30
Measures of Observational Accuracy . . . . . . . 31
Measures of Inferential Accuracy . . . . . . . . 31
Measures of Empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Other Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Method of Analysis . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Specific Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Exploration of Other Measures . . . . . . . . . 42

iii

Page

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Reliabilities of the Measures used . . . . . . . 46
Summary of the Hypotheses tested and of

Other Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

iv

Table

\I

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

The Reliabilities Obtained by Past Investi-
gators on Group Sensitivity . .

Intercorrelations of the Group Sensitivity
Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Correlations of Total Group Sensitivity
Score with Measures of Level and Spread

Norms of the Group Sensitivity Scales

Corrected Reliabilities of the Group
Sensitivity Scales . . . . . . . . .

Corrected Reliabilities of the Personality
Inventory Items . . . . . . . . . . .

Corrected Reliabilities of the Non—
Personality Measures . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
with Measures of Leadership Attitude . . .

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
with Measures of Intelligence and Academic
Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
with the Measure of Age . . . . . . . .

Correlation of the Group Sensitivity Scale—-
Psychologists—Men in General with Number
of Psychology credits . . . . . . . . .

Correlation of the Executive—Unskilled Group
Sensitivity Scale with the Measure of
Socio—Economic Status . . . . . .

Page

22

23

24

25

29

3'4

36

36

37

38

Table

13.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
with Measures of the Open-Mind . . . . . .

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
with Measures of Ambition . . . . .

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
with Measures of Social Forcefulness .

Correlation of Total Group Sensitivity Score
for Other Measures Ranked High to Low . .

Summary of Total Group Sensitivity Score with

the Hypotheses Tested and the Significant
Relationships of Other Measures . . . . .

vi

Page

40

41

42

43

48

INTRODUCT I ON

The ability to understand individuals has long been
acknowledged as an essential attribute of the good clinician,
the successful leader, and people in human relation occu—
pations in general. Recent work indicates that the accuracy
of predictions about individuals is heavily dependent upon
the accuracy of predictions about the social groups to which
the individuals belong. The ability to understand groups
has been called stereotype accuracy, understanding of the
generalized other, and group sensitivity. The purpose of
the present study was to develop an estimate of general
group sensitivity, to test specific hypotheses about dif-
ferences in group sensitivity based on previous research,
and to explore a broad field of sociological and psycho—
logical variables for other determinants and consequences

of this ability.

HISTORY

Group sensitivity, as used in this study is the
ability to predict accurately the typical attitudes, inter-
ests, and behaviors of a specific group. Defined in this
manner, it is essentially the same as stereotype accuracy as
defined by Cronbach (1955): "a judge's ability to predict
the norm for others", and as defined by Bronfenbrenner gt
_l.(1958): "an awareness of the social norm or the typical
response of a large class or group”. The present study con—
siders the development of group sensitivity in determining
judgments of others, the methods that have been used in its
measurement, problems of its measurement, and specific

hypotheses about the nature of group sensitivity as gathered

from previous research.

Development of Group Sensitivity
and the Judgment of Others

 

 

Dymond (1948, 1949, 1950) and Kerr (1951) were among
the leaders who modernized the concept to judge people.
They each had a different view of this ability, in that
their tests measured different aspects of the same problem.

Dymond was measuring a form of individual sensitivity, while

Kerr was measuring group sensitivity. In comparing and
cross validating the findings of Dymond and Kerr, other
investigators have found conflicting results.

Bronfenbrenner et a1. (1958) and Cronbach (1955), in
attempting to clarify the contradictory results, differen—
tiated the factors of group understanding from individual
understanding. Bronfenbrenner reported a correlation of
.05 between accuracy in judging the group norm and accuracy
in judging the individual. Cronbach divided the ability to
judge people into four components: elevation, differential
elevation, stereotype accuracy, and differential accuracy.
Elevation is the average of the judge's predictions over all
items and all subjects, thus reflecting the use of the re-
sponse scale. Differential elevation reflects how closely
the judge's average prediction for a subject corresponds to
that subject's central tendency of response. It reports the
judge's ability to access deviations of the individual's
elevation from average. Stereotype accuracy is the ability
of the judge to predict differences between subjects on any
item and is averaged over items. Differential accuracy re—
flects the judge's ability to predict differences between

individuals.

Cline and Richards (1960) checked Cronbach's com—
ponents; and, since the correlations between the tests used
in their study did not approach the limits set by the
reliabilities of the various instruments, they concluded
that the ability to judge people was factorially complex.
The stereotype accuracy component accounted for a large
portion of this ability.

Zavala (1960) and Silkiner (1962) have measured
still another component of group sensitivity——differential
group sensitivity. It is defined as the ability to differ—
entiate between likes and dislikes of particular groups,
e.g. the likes of psychologists as compared to those of non—
psychologists.

Meehl (1954), in ascertaining the value of group
sensitivity, reviewed twenty studies comparing the accuracy
of predictions based on the actuarial method of group sensi—
tivity and the accuracy of predictions based on the judg-
ments of clinicians. In all but one case the actuarial
method was equal to or superior to those judgments made

individually.

Measurements of the Ability to Judge Others

 

There have been many attempts to measure the ability
to judge others. One of the major methods has been through
the development of tests claiming to measure individual
sensitivity, when actually they were measuring group

sensitivity.

Individual Measurements:

 

Dymond (1948, 1949) developed a test designed to
measure individual sensitivity. Her judges filled out a
rating scale for themselves and also predicted the rating
responses of six to seven classmates on a series of person—
ality traits, using a five point scale. An accuracy score
was computed for each judge using the sum of the absolute
differences between his predictions and the actual responses
of his classmates. A low score was made by the accurate
judge, while a poor judge obtained a high score.
Bronfenbrenner et a1. (1958) criticized Dymond's test with
the following passage: ”Over-all accuracy was determined
primarily by the judge's ability to predict the modal pattern
of response for the group rather than by his sensitivity to
individual differences". In short, Dymond, while measuring

individual sensitivity, was also measuring group sensitivity.

Cline and Richards (1960) have approached the problem
of the ability to judge people by using filmed interviews
composed of six subjects——three men and three women. Five
tests have been developed: (1) the behavioral post—diction
test, where the judge is required to describe how the inter—
viewee behaves in everyday life, (2) the personality word
card, which presents a list of adjectives, and the judge
chooses which ones the subject checks as describing himself,
(3) a multiple—choice sentence completion test, where the
judge attempts to predict the sentence completion responses
of each interviewee, (4) a trait rating scale, where the
judge rates the interviewees on twenty—five personality
traits, using a Likert scale of five categories, and (5) an
opinion prediction scale of twenty MMPI items for each
interviewee, where the judge checks whether the interviewee
answers each true or false. In reviewing the results of
their study, Cline and Richards concluded that group sensi—
tivity accounted for a large portion of the ability to judge
others. Like Dymond, they had started to measure individual
sensitivity, but found that, at the same time, they were

measuring group sensitivity.

Group Measurement:

 

Many tests such as the Empathy Test developed by
Kerr (1951) were designed from the beginning to measure
group sensitivity. The test was composed of three parts.
Part one consisted of various types of music such as polka
and classical; the judge was required to rank these types
in order of their popularity among non—office, factory
workers in the United States. Part two contained fifteen of
what was then current, well-known magazines; they were also
ranked in order of popularity for the forementioned group.
In part three, the judge ranked a group of common annoying
experiences from the most to the least annoying.

Travers (1941) used another approach in the devel—
opment of tests to measure group sensitivity. Two—hundred
post graduate teachers enrolled at a teachers' college were
asked to express the percentage of their group that agreed
with thirty-three popular social issues of that time. The
most accurate judges would be the ones who were closest to
assessing the correct group percentage that agreed with the
items. Accuracy was a deviation score, a low score indi—
cated the good judge. Travers also tested another group of
fifty six undergraduates for whom he had additional measures

such as I. Q. and personality. He correlated these measures

8
with the ability to judge accurately. Bronfenbrenner et a1.
(1958) using Cornell students and Hites and Cambell (1950),
using Ohio State fraternity members, have also employed
this method of estimation of group percentage with apparent
success.

Silkiner (1962) and Zavala (1960), along with the
present study, have measured group sensitivity using the
Strong Vocational Interest Blank as criterion for the correct
responses. Zavala employed four scales of group sensitivity:
College Man, Knowledge of Women, Men-Women, and Young—old.
Silkiner also used the Men-Women, Young-Old, and Knowledge
of Women scale, along with two new ones he developed:

Executive—Unskilled and Psychologists-Men in General.

Problems in Measurement

 

There are at least four problems in the measurement
of group sensitivity: reliability, generality, group member-

ship, and level and spread.

Reliability:

 

The reliabilities of the scales are of great impor—
tance, as without it, the generalizations made from the
results are weak. In table 1, on the next page, is the
listing of reliabilities obtained by previous investigators

on the concept of group sensitivity.

TABLE 1

THE RELIABILITIES OBTAINED BY PAST INVESTIGATORS
ON GROUP SENSITIVITY

 

 

 

 

Investigator Scale Reliability
‘ *
Bronfenbrenner (1958) Total Accuracy Score .85
i? **
Zavala (1960) College Man .51‘ .60
# **
Zavala Knowledge of Women .16 .44
# *‘k
Zavala Men-Women .42 .46
# **
Zavala Young—Old .58 .37
# **
Zavala Total Score .30 .56
*
Silkiner (1962) Executive-Unskilled .69
7|:
Silkiner Knowledge of Women .44
*
Silkiner Men-Women .46
it
Silkiner Young-Old .37
Silkiner Psychologists—Men in *
General .56
*
Silkiner Total Score .73
*

Corrected odd-even reliability
* * u o I
Test—retest reliability

Kuder—Richardson reliability

The total score reliabilities with the exception of
the one obtained by Zavala using the Kuder—Richardson formula

are very presentable. Silkiner (1962) obtained a corrected

10

odd—even total score reliability of .88 for foreign students
at Michigan State University. This reliability coefficient

is comparable to that obtained by Bronfenbrenner.

Generality:

 

Generality is the problem of whether the accurate
judge on one scale of group sensitivity is accurate on an-
other scale of group sensitivity. Research in this area has
produced conflicting results. Zavala (1960) reported that
group sensitivity is highly specific, whereas, Travers (1941)

concluded that group sensitivity is general.

GroupiMembership:

 

The problem of group membership has been present to
perplex the investigators of group sensitivity from the be-
ginning of their interest in studying the accurate judgment
of people. For example, professional workers would be able
to predict the group norms for their own kind more readily
than blue collar workers, just by projecting their own likes.
The reverse would be true if the likes of blue collar workers
were being predicted. Bender and Hastorf (1953) using
Dymond's test have shown that projection affects the ac-
curacy score. Thus there is the necessity of using some de—

vice to control for projection, such as, refined empathy in

11

which the projection score is subtracted from the total ac—
curacy score. The use of differential group sensitivity
batteries is another possible solution in that the judge
must be able to separate two or more stereotypes from each

other. Thus, in the latter case, projection is curbed.

Level and Spread:

 

Bronfenbrenner et a1. (1958) has defined "level" as
the mean value of responses a subject uses in rating group
characteristics, and "spread” as the variance of the judges
ratings. Judges approach rating scales with individual
habits in its use. These rating habits may be different from
those of the majority of the people whose behavior the judges
are predicting. If that is the case, the judge would re-
ceive an inaccurate score, not on the basis of his knowledge

of other groups, but on the basis of his rating scale habits.

Variables Related to Group Sensitivity

 

A review of the literature has established some of
the variables related to group sensitivity. The following
are specific hypotheses based on previous researches con-

cerning the accurate judge of group sensitivity.

12
1. The higher a subject's group sensitivity, the more ef—
fective are his leadership attitudes.

There have been many investigations of the relation-
ship between the ability to judge people and leadership
position. Van Zelst (1953) administered the Kerr Empathy
Test to members of the five A. F. of L. Building Trade Unions
in Chicago. They were then ranked as to the success at
their present leadership level and probable success at a
higher level. Five more criteria were also employed:

(1) the number of total votes the leaders received in the

last election, (2) the score on the Remmers How to Supervise
Scale (measures supervisory knowledge and insight), (3) the
recruitment of new members, (4) the ability to settle

grievances and disputes, and (5) the enforcement of rules
and regulations. The union leaders' scores on the Empathy
Test correlated .67, .38, .55, .60, .64, and .44 with each
of the criterion respectively. A multiple correlation co-
efficient of .76 was obtained. All these coefficients are
significant at the .01 level.

Foa (1958), also in an industrial setting, obtained
similar results using 490 Israeli factory workers, and 51
Israeli foremen, in that the foremen obtained the better em—

pathy scores. While these findings are typical of studies

l3

involving the investigation of the leadership variable, a
few studies such as the one by Hites and Campbell (1950)
with fraternity members as subjects have shown no difference
in group sensitivity between leaders and non—leaders.

It was the purpose of the present study to extend
the relationship of group sensitivity and leadership to in—
clude favorable leadership attitudes using the measures de-
veloped by Dore (1960). He constructed a forced—choice
scale battery for four leadership attitudes: (1) Employee-
orientation—-the degree to which the leader takes a personal
interest in the work and considers the worker as an indi—
vidual and not merely as an instrument to get out production.
(2) Delegation of authority——the degree to which the leader
sets up general conditions for the workers, and lets them
decide how the details of the work will be handled. (3)
Differential role——the degree to which the leader performs
the same functions as the workers. (4) Creates teamwork--
the degree to which the leader takes pride in his group and
creates a spirit of teamwork. Differential role has been
grouped under the heading of initiation of structure, while
the remaining three attitudes of leadership were grouped

under the heading of consideration. The final form of the

14

test battery contained 120 items, 30 for each of the four

scales.

2. The higher the judge's intelligence, the greater his

 

group sensitivity.

 

Dymond (1950), using her test of individual sensiti-
vity which was actually measuring group sensitivity, investi-
gated the relationship of high scores on the Wechsler
Bellevue Adult Intelligence test and scores on her test.

She found that the mean I. Q. for the high group on the
ability to judge people was 132.1, while for the low group
it was 126.4. There was a large difference on their verbal
performance scores, with the mean score for the high group
being 130.5 and for the low group 116.5. It seems very
reasonable that the more intelligent judges would be more

accurate in their judgments.

 

3. The more experience a judge has with a group, the higher

his group sensitivity.

 

The subject must be old enough to have had time to
learn the stereotypes. Dymond (1952) said that older child-
ren were more accurate in their stereotypes than the younger
children. In adults, the age factor had no bearing Taft,

(1955). Silkiner, (1962) compared the mean accuracy of

15

stereotypes of foreign college students and native American
college students; in all cases, the American college student

was significantly more accurate in his judgments.

4. The more open—minded the judge, the higher hisygroup

sensitivity.

 

Cline (1955), using his films which measured both
individual and group sensitivity, correlated the California
Public Opinion scales of facism and ethnocentrism with the
ability to judge people. The facism scale correlated —.46
and the ethnocentric scale -.32 leading to the conclusion
that the absence of ethnocentric and authoritarian, attitudes
are important characteristics of the good judge of people.
The open-minded judge would be ready to change his stereo—
types when he discovered that they were not correct, while
the closed minded judge would not change his beliefs so
readily. Silkiner (1962) found disagreement with the above
train of thought in that the personality variable of con—
formity correlated positively with the ability to judge

people.

5. The less ambitious thepjudge, the higher his group

 

sensitivipy.

 

Silkiner (1962) found a significant negative cor—

relation of ambition with the ability to judge people. The

l6

implication of the relationship was that the unambitious
judge of people learns stereotypes so that they would have

to be in a new setting each time they met a new individual.

6. The more sociallygtimid the judge, the higher his group

sensitivity.

 

Silkiner (1962) found insignificant and negative cor-
relations for the high subjects in group sensitivity and the
personality traits of self-confidence, and practically a
zero correlation of .02 for emotional control. Bronfenbrenner
et a1. (1958) obtained different results with a positive re—
lationship for self—confidence, social extrovert, and lack

of inhibition for the accurate judge of people.

PROBLEM

The problem undertaken by the present study had
three aspects. The first aspect was the development of a
generalized test of group sensitivity that would eliminate
the rating scale problem of level and spread, and reduce the
influence of the respondent's group memberships, so that the
scores would indicate the general level of his group sensi—
tivity. The second aspect was the deriving of the following
hypotheses to be tested:
1. The higher a subject's group sensitivity, the more
effective his leadership attitudes.
2. The higher the judge's intelligence, the greater his
group sensitivity.
3. The more experience a judge has with a group, the
higher his group sensitivity.
4. The more open—minded the judge, the higher his group
sensitivity.
5. The less ambitious the judge, the higher his group
sensitivity.
6. The more socially timid the judge, the higher his

group sensitivity.

17

18

The third aspect was the exploration of a wide range of ad-
ditional variables in order to generate additional testable

hypotheses regarding group sensitivity.

METHOD

It is hoped that some pertinent answers in the over-
all investigation of the ability to judge people will have
been found at the conclusion of the present study. The
scales used to measure group sensitivity are discussed first,
followed by the subjects, procedure, norms and reliabilities
of the scales, the personality and non—personality measures
available, along with their reliabilities, and then the

method of analysis.

Measurement of Group Sensitivity:

 

Four scales were used to measure the concept of group
sensitivity: Men—Women, Young—Old, Executive—Unskilled, and
Psychologists—Men in General. The total score of each sub—
ject on these scales were added to form the Total Group
Sensitivity Score. The Men—Women and Young—Old scales first
appeared in Zavala's 1960 thesis and later in Silkiner's
1962 thesis along with the Executive—Unskilled and the
Psychologists—Men in General scales. Silkiner simplified
the Young-Old scale to it's present form by reducing the
choices from three to two by omitting the 25 year old cate—

gory used by Zavala. The instructions for each scale were

19

20

to choose which of the two groups measured were more favor—
ably inclined toward the items, i.e. for scale one, men or
women, for scale two, 15 year old males or 55 year old males,
etc. The correct answers to the above test items were listed

by Strong as having the highest preference.

Subjects:

Two groups of subjects were used, both of whom were
students at Michigan State University enrolled in the fall
and winter quarters in Industrial Psychology course number
255. The fall quarter was used for the refinement of the
four subscales, and there was an N of 110 students of both
sex. The refined form was given to 110 males and 20 females

in the winter quarter.

Procedure:

 

The four scales of group sensitivity were each ex-
panded to sixty items and administered to the fall class.
The high and low twenty—five scorers were selected and their
answer sheets item analyzed for discrimability using a method
described by Lawshe (1948). The Men—Women scale was reduced
to thirty items as was the Young-Old scale. The Executive—
Unskilled and the Psychologist—Men in General scales were

each reduced to forty-five items. A total possible group

21

sensitivity score was one-hundred—and—fifty. In using only
those items which gave the greatest discrimination between
the high and low judges in group sensitivity, a test battery
was developed which was a measure of general group sensitiv-
ity. In table 2 the intercorrelations from the four scales
and the total score are given for the males, females, and
males and females combined.

The four scales were constructed with the hope of
minimizing the effects of level and spread upon the accuracy
score in group sensitivity. Table 3 contains the correlation
of the measures with the total scores of group sensitivity
for men, women, and men and women combined. From the lack
of significant correlation coefficients it appears that the
goal of separation was achieved.

Personality scales developed by Hershey (1958) in
his M.A. thesis were administered to the winter group. The
highest and lowest twenty—five scorers on the refined
generalized sensitivity scales were selected, and their
answer sheets for the personality inventory item—analized.
Only the males were used, while in the item analysis for re-
finement of the generalized sensitivity scales, both sexes
were used. The difference scores for the high and the low

groups were converted into correlations, with the

22

Hm>mn Ho. ago um ucmofloucaumiw

Hm>wfi mo. man om ucmoflwficmumi

 

¥¥®h kkwm k¥mm ##NO *Nm kkmo *¥N® *mm ¥%O© *kmv ¥¥O® kkov .Um .Cwm
.muo .nos
II II II «*Om ma *kvM *NN mm kmm 0H ska? ma .COO

CH cmzl.%mm
II II II vm mm akom OH mo Ha .mCDI.xm

II II II *ON ma kma GHOIWCSOW

in II II cmEOZIcoZ

 

oman omnz OHHHZ Omanz omnz oaanz OMHHZ Omnz OHHHZ Omanz omuz OHHHZ
B 3 z E 3 z B 3 2 B 3 2 mamum
.xmmncozl.>mm .mcD|.xm oaolmcoow coEOZICmZ

 

 

AQMBBHZO .Bm ddEHUmQV mmq<um >8H>HBHmzmm mDOMO MES m0 mZOHdemmmoummBZH

N mqmflfi

TABLE 3

THE CORRELATIONS OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH MEASURES OF LEVEL AND SPREAD

 

.—

 

 

 

Measure Men-N—llO Women-N—20 Men and Women—N—l30
Level .06 —.09 .04
Spread —.02 .32 .04

 

coefficients significant to the level of .10 retained. In
this way, it is hoped that the personality traits of group
sensitivity can be measured by the use of a short, refined
personality scale. The original and refined group sensiti—
vity scales can be found in Appendix A, and the refined

personality scale in Appendix C.

Scale Norms:

 

For future reference, the test norms of the four
group sensitivity scales and of the Total Group Sensitivity

Score are presented in table 4.

24

TABLE 4

GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES NORMS BASED ON
130 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

 

 

Percentile

 

Scale 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Men-Women 17 19 19.5 20 21 21.5 22 23 24 28
Young-Old 18 19 20 21 22 23 23.5 24 25 28
Executive—

Unskilled 32 33 34 35 35.5 36 37 38 39 42

Psych.-Men

in Gen. 24 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 37 40
Tot. Grp.

Sensitivity

Sc. 97 100 103 107 108 111 114 117 »119 126

 

Reliabilities of the Generalized
Sensitivity Scales:

The reliabilities of the scales were computed by
the odd—even correlation procedure, and they were corrected
by the Spearman—Brown formula for a scale twice as long as

the one used. The corrected reliabilities are found in

table 5.

25

TABLE 5

CORRECTED RELIABILITIES OF THE SCALES
FOR GROUP SENSITIVITY (N213O)

 

 

 

Scale r
Men-Women .31
Young-Old .29
Executive—Unskilled -.01
Psychologists-Men in General .70
Tot. Grp. Sensitivity Score .63

 

Personality Measures:

 

Twenty-eight personality measures developed by
Hershey (1958) under the guide of H. C. Smith, professor of
psychology at Michigan State University, were used. This
scale is called the Smith Inventory. A partial use of these
measures have been employed by Hershey, Mullin (1962), and
Silkiner (1962), but for the present study, the complete
scale was used. Each of the scales consisted of 30 true—
false items, except the Breadth of Interest scale which had
60 items. Hershey explained the development of these scales,

so only a brief description of each item will be given.

1. Activity A measure of a subjects ac-
Inactive—Active tivity level.

10.

11.

12.

Sexuality
Low-High

Expressiveness
Inhibited—Expressive

Self-Confidence
Low—High

Dominance
Submissive-Dominant

Total Boldness

Calm
Uncalm—Calm

Optimism
Optimism-Pessimism

Emotional Control
Uncontrolled—Controlled

Total Stability
Religious Skepticism

Low-High

Liberalism
Conservative—Liberal

26

The degree of interest shown
in members of the opposite
sex.

The degree of freedom the
individual exhibits in ex-
pressing emotion.

The self—evaluation of own's
worth, adequacy, and compet—
ence.

Measures the degree of domin-
ance through items related

to dominant feelings, be—
havior and leadership.

The sum of the scores from
variables 1—5.

Emotionality score obtained
by subtracting thirty (num—
ber of questions in the
scale). A high score indi—
cates the subject is calm,
while a low score indicates
the subject is excitable.

The outlook of the subject
to situations.

Reaction to emotional emer—
gencies and to frustration.

The sum of the scores from
variables 7—9.

The degree to which the sub—
ject accepts religious teach—
ing obtained by subtracting
30 from the scale as in
variable #7.

The degree of liberalism and
conservatism shown in re—
lation to a number of issues.

l3. Non-Conformity The degree to Which the sub—
Conforming—Non— ject conforms to norms ob-
Conforming tained by subtracting 30 from
the scale as in variables #7
and ll.
14. Total liberalism The total of the scores from

variables 11—13.

15. Introversion Thinking scales with a low
Extroversion— score showing introversion
Introversion and a high score showing ex-

troversion. It is obtained

by subtracting as in vari—
ables #7, 11 and 13.

16. Breadth of Interest A measure of an individual's
Narrow—Broad self extension by determin—
ing the number of interests.

17. Sensory Awareness The degree to which a sub—
Unaware—Aware ject is aware of his en—
vironment through his sense
organs.
l8. Artistic Values The measurement of interests
Low—High in forms, harmony, beauty,

and aesthetic activities.

19. Total Awareness The sum of the scores from
the variables 15—18.

20. Ambition A measure of the subj
Unambitious—Ambitious desire to do things a
rapidly and as well as pos—

sible, his efforts to com-
plete difficult things, and

the amount he enjoys compe—

ects
s

tition.
21. Organization Measures some aspects of
Unorganized-Organized Cattell's "Positive vs.

Immature Dependent Character”
e.g. Consistently ordered vs.

Relaxed; Conscientious vs.
Undependable, etc.

28

22. Total Ambition The sum of variables 20—21.
23. Economic Values The measurement of the sub-
Low—High ject's interest in what is

useful, and his preoccupation
with affairs of the business

world.
24. Gregariousness A measure of the need for
Unsociable-Sociable affiliation.
25. Total Thing—People The sum of variables 23—24.
26. Suppression The measure of the willing—

ness of a subject to give
unfavorable self—criticism.

27. Scientific Values The degree of interest in
Low-High scientific endeavors and the
scientific method.
28. Warmth The degree to which an indi—
Cold-Warm vidual likes, accepts, ap—
proves, feels close to and
wants to help others.
The corrected reliabilities for these personality measures
are found in table 6. They were computed by the odd—even

correlation procedure, and corrected by the Spearman Brown

formula for a scale twice as long as the one used.

29

TABLE 6

CORRECTED RELIABILITIES OF THE PERSONALITY
INVENTORY ITEMS N=13O

 

 

 

Personality Scale r
Activity .77
Sexuality .80
Expressiveness .86
Self-Confidence .87
Dominance .87
Calm .90
Optimism .81
Emotional Control .87
Religious Skepticism .90
Liberalism .75
Non-Conformity _ .77
Sensory Awareness .63
Introversion .80
Breadth of Interest .82
Artistic Values .92
Ambition .77
Organization .91
Economic Values .81
Gregariousness .87
Suppression .75
Scientific Values .86

Warmth .71

 

30

Educational and Experience Measures:

 

Class 2 A classification of the level of education
obtained by the subject: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, or
Senior in college.

Curriculum = A classification on a five point scale
of all majors in the winter sample based on the amount of
scientific training, with one being the least and five the
most scientific.

Number of Psychology Credits = A classification of
the number of credits earned in psychology classes. The
more credits the more psychology classes the subject has
taken.

Grade Point Average = The mean average grade obtained
by the subject on all his college courses with the grade A
worth four points down to the grade D worth one point.

American College Entrance Examination = Three scores
were available: the quantitative scale, the linguistic
scale, and the total of the linguistic and quantitative
scales.

Socio—Economic Status = The amount of education of
the parents.

Final Grade = The course grade for Industrial

Psychology class 255.

31

Measures of Observational Accuragy:

 

Bruni (1963) using the Cline film, has developed two
tests of observational accuracy; one scale has as it's basis
the personal appearance of the interviewee, while the other
scale used the recorded donversation between the interviewee
and interviewer. The two scales were farther divided on the
basis of sex, since there were three women and three men
interviewed in the film. Each of the four sub-scales con—

tained 60 matching items.

Measures of Inferential Accuracy:

 

Grossman (1963), also using the Cline film, developed
two scales on differential accuracy, one for the second
person, and one for the third person. Like Bruni, he also
made the sex division, thus obtaining four sub-scales with

60 items for each part.

Measures of Empathy:

 

Mullin (1962) has defined empathy as the tendency to
make statements about another person's internal psychological
status such as their thoughts and desires. Three measures
of empathy were available for this study: Psychological,

Physical, and Social.

32

Other Measures:

 

There were nine other measures which were available
for the study of the 130 winter term Industrial Psychology
students, and these are described below.

Perceptual Flexibility = Four measures used to de—
termine the perceptual flexibility of the subjects: (1) Em—
bedded Figures, (2) Spacial, (3) Nelson Reversal, and

(4) the total of the above three variables.

Age 2 The age of the subjects used in the present
study.

Sex = The sex of the subjects in this study.

Psychological Distance = The degree relationship of

likes and dislikes of the interviewees on the Cline film and
the subjects in the study.

Leadership Attitudes = (1) Consideration——The extent
to which the subject thinks a leader should consider the
worker as an individual rather than as an instrument to get
production. (2) Initiation of Structure 2 Differentiated
Role-—the degree to which the subject thinks the duties of
the leader and worker should differ. (3) Total of the above
two variables. These measures come from the scales developed
by Dore (1960) in his M. A. thesis at Michigan State

University.

The reliabilities for all of the non—personality
variables that were possible to calculate are found in table
7 on the next page. They were computed by the odd—even
correlation procedure, and corrected by the Spearman—Brown

formula for a measure twice as long as the one used.

Method of Analysis:

All of the correlational computations were performed
by the Michigan State Integral Computer——MISTIC. The inter—
correlations of the 77 measures were obtained for the male
judges——N2110, the female judges——N=20, and the male and
female judges combined--N=l30. The measures pertinent to
the specific hypothesis, that were set forth in the history,
were examined for significance and for trends. The means
and standard deviations for the measures are in Appendix B
along with the pertinent correlations. In order to generate
new testable hypothesis, the correlation coefficients for
the male and female judges combined were arranged in de—
cending order of magnitude and examined. A short, refined
personality scale designed to measure the personality traits
of the subjects accurate in group sensitivity, was developed
by item analysis of the original personality scales. The

refined measurement appears in Appendix C.

34

TABLE 7

CORRECTED RELIABILITIES OF THE
NON-PERSONALITY MEASURES N=13O

 

 

 

Measure r
Men-Observation .68
Men—Inference .50
Men-Total Score .64
Women—Observation .57
Women-Inference .36
Women-Total Score .61
Total Observation-Appearance .49
Total Observation—Conversation .73
Total Observation—Total Score .74
Total Inference 2nd Person .55
Total Inference 3rd Person .40
Total Inference Total Score .59
Empathy-Psychological .86
Empathy-Physical .88
Empathy-Social .57
Level of Rating .90
Spread of Rating .57
Perceptual Flexibility-Embedded Figures .86
Perceptual Flexibility—Space .96
Perceptual Flexibility-Nelson Reversal 97
Perceptual Flexibility-Total Score .97
Consideration .76
Initiation of Structure .81

 

RESULTS
The results are divided into two sections: the ex—
amination of the original hypotheses and the exploration of
other measures that were found to be related to group

sensitivity.

Results of Specific Hypotheses Tested
1. The higher a subject's group sensitivity, the more ef—
fective his Leadership attitudes.

Table 8 contains the correlations of the Total Group
Sensitivity Score with measures of leadership attitudes for
male, female, and male and female judges combined. In table
8 and all the tables to follow, the N for the male judges is
110, for the remale judges—~20, and for the male and female
judges combined——l30. The size of the correlation coeffi—
cients needed for significance at the .05 level for the males
is .19, at the .01 level .25, while for the females, .44 and
.56 is needed, and for the combined group .17 and .23.

Strong support for the hypothesis was obtained for
the male judges. The hypothesis was not supported by the
twenty female judges, as only a low positive correlation was

obtained for consideration, and a low negative correlation

35

was obtained for initiation of structure and total leader—

ship attitude.

TABLE 8

CORRELATION OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH MEASURES OF LEADERSHIP ATTITUDE

 

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
Consideration .21* .09 .19*
Initiation of Structure .28** —.20 .20*

Tot. Leadership Attitude .37** —.10 .31**

 

*Significant at the .05 level

**Significant at the .01 level

2. The higher the judges intelligence, the gpeater his

group sensitivity.

 

Table 9 contains the correlations of the measures of

intelligence and the total group sensitivity score.

TABLE 9

CORRELATION OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE
AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
A.C.E.—Q Scale —.08 —.19 —.10
A.C.E.-L Scale .23* .06 .21*
A.C.E.-Total .16 .06 .14

 

*Significant at the .05 level

37
The hypothesis is partly supported, in that there
were significant coefficients for the males and combined
males and females, for the A.C.E.—L Scale. There was no re—
lationship for the female judges when considered by them-

selves.

3. The more experience ayjudge has with a group, the higher

his group sensitivity.

 

Four tables are presented for the purpose of estab—
lishing the relationship between group sensitivity and ex-
perience. Table 10 shows the relationship between the Total
Group Sensitivity Score and age for males, females,and males

and females combined.

TABLE 10

CORRELATION OF THE TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH THE MEASURE OF AGE

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women

 

Age .16 .37 .17

 

There were no significant relationships, although the
correlations for the males, and males and females almost
reached significance at the .05 level, thus establishing a

trend in the direction of the hypothesis.

38

Table 11 shows the correlation of the Psychologists—
Men in General group sensitivity scale with the number of
psychology credits, and the course grade achieved in Indus-

trial Psychology course 225.

TABLE 11

CORRELATION OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALE-PSYCHOLOGISTS——
MEN IN GENERAL WITH NUMBER OF PSYCHOLOGY CREDITS
AND FINAL COURSE GRADE

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
Psy—Non Psy Psy-Non Psy Psy—Non Psy

 

Number of
Psych Credits .03 .08 .04

Final Course Grade .26** .11 .22*

 

*Significant at the .05 level

**Significant at the .01 level

It was expected that the number of credits and the
amount of knowledge obtained in the industrial psychology
course would correlate positively with the judges knowledge
of psychologists. There were no significant relationships
between number of psychology credits and knowledge of psy—
chologists. Part of the hypothesis was supported, as the
final course grade was significantly correlated with the
sub—scale for the males. When the females are considered

alone, there was no significant relationship.

Table 12 contains the correlations of the Executive—
Unskilled sub—scale of group sensitivity with socio—Economic

status of the judge.

TABLE 12

CORRELATION OF THE EXECUTIVE—UNSKILLED
GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALE WITH THE
MEASURE OF SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS

 

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
Ex—Uns Ex—Uns Ex-Uns
Socio-Economic Status .22* .02 .18*

 

*Significant at the .05 level

It was expected that the male college student should
have had a higher correlation with socio-economic status,
because the students from an upper socio—economic status
should have had experience with both skilled and unskilled
workers, while the female lives in a more home centered en—
vironment and would not have had the experience with the un—
skilled workers. As seen in table 12, the results supported
the expectation. In general, the hypothesis has received

support.

40

4. The more open—minded the judge,

sensitivity.

 

the higher his group

Table 13 below contains the correlations of the

Total Group Sensitivity with the measures of open—mindedness.

TABLE 13

CORRELATIONS OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH MEASURES OF THE OPEN—MIND

 

 

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
Religious Skepticism —.01 .27 .04
Liberalism .29** .00 .25**
Non—Conformity —.10 .37 —.03
Total Liberalism .06 .29 .10

**Significant at the .01 level

The measure of liberalism supported the hypothesis

for the male
There was no

separately.

5. The less ambitious the judge,

sensitivity.

 

judges and the male and female judges combined.
correlation for the females when considered

The hypothesis received only limited support.

the higher his group

Table 14 contains the correlations of the Total

Group Sensitivity with measures of ambition.

41

TABLE 14

CORRELATIONS OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH MEASURES OF AMBITION

 

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
Ambition -.01 .41 .06
Organization -.06 .34 .00
Total Ambition -.04 .48* .03

 

*Significant at the .05 level

The only significant correlation is the total
ambition of females with the Total Group Sensitivity Score,
and it is in the opposite direction of the hypothesis. The
other correlation coefficients are too small to show a trend
either in support or rejection of the hypothesis. It can be
concluded that the hypothesis was not supported, and for the

females, the good judge is ambitious.

6. The more socially timid the judge, the higher his group

 

sensitivity.

 

Table 15 contains the correlations of the Total
Group Sensitivity Scores for the males, females, and males
and females combined.

The hypothesis received limited support by the male
judges. The measure of self—confidence was significantly

correlated with group sensitivity for males, and with the

42

TABLE 15

CORRELATION OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
WITH MEASURES OF SOCIAL FORCEFULNESS

 

 

 

Measure Men Women Men and Women
Self—Confidence —.21* .12 -.16
Expressiveness -.09 .09 -.06
Sexuality .02 -.12 -.02
Dominance -.06 .05 -.05
Activity -.05 .10 —.03
Total Boldness -.14 .07 -.ll

 

*Significant at the .05 level

exception of the low positive correlation of sexuality, the
other measures employed were also in the direction hypothe-
sized. The females, with the exception of the sexuality
measure have positive correlations with group sensitivity,

but they are too small to draw any trends.

Exploration of Other Measures

The remaining measures were explored to determine
any existing relationships. The correlation of these
measures with the Total Group Sensitivity Score for males,
females, and males and females combined appear on the next

page in table 16.

43

TABLE 16

CORRELATION OF TOTAL GROUP SENSITIVITY SCORE
FOR OTHER MEASURES RANKED HIGH TO LOW

 

 

 

Men Women Men and Women

Measure r Measure r Measure r
Men—Obs—App .29** Pe Fl—Ef -.52* Tot—Obs—Con .23**
Tot-Obs-Acc .24* Pe Fl-Tot -.51* Men—Obs—Con .22*
Women-Obs-App .22* Tot Awr .45* Tot-Obs—Acc .22*
Tot-Obs—Con .22* Artist .40 Men-Obs—Tot .2l*
Men—Obs—App .22* Fe Fl—NRev —.38 Women-Obs—Con .2l*
GPA .17 Women—Inf-an .38 Class .18*
Men-Inf—2nd .16 Women—Inf—Tot .37 Artist .16
Puls Rt .16 Tot T—P -.34 Men—Obs—Con .16
Class .15 Men—Obs—Con .33 Women-Inf—Tot .15
Tot-Obs-App .15 Brd Int .33 Tot—Inf—2nd .15
Tot—Inf—an .15 Emp-Phy .33 Emp—Phy .14
Women—Obs—Tot .14 Emp—Soc -.32 GPA .14
Men—Obs—Con .14 Class .31 Emp—Psy —.13
Artist .13 Emp—Psy -.30 Women—Obs—Tot .12
Women-Inf-Tot .12 Econ —.28 Tot—Obs—App .12
Tot-Inf—Acc .ll Tot—Obs—Con .26 Women—Inf-3rd .12
Emp—Phy .11 Calm -.26 Tot—Inf-Acc ‘.l2
Women—Inf—3rd .11 Supper .24 Women—Inf—an .12
Emp-Psy -.11 Intro .23 Emp—Soc —.12
Men-Inf-3rd —.10 Greg —.22 Men—Inf—an .ll
Suppr -.10 Men-Obs—Tot .20 Pulse Rt .11
Calm .09 Women—Inf-3rd .19 Tot T—P —.ll
Emp—Soc -.08 Wrm .19 Greg —.09

Tot T—P —.08 Pe Fl—Spac —.l7 Tot Awr .09

l fl II: I

44
TABLE 16--Continued

 

 

 

 

 

Men Women Men and Women
Measure r Measure r Measure r
Women—Inf—an .08 Supper -.16 Intro .09
Brd Int —.08 Men—Inf—an —.15 Men-Inf-3rd —.08
Greg -.07 Curric —.l4 Pe Fl-Tot —.08
Intro .06 Tot-Obs-Acc .14 Pe Fl-Ef —.07
Pe Fl-NRev .06 Women—Obs—Con .14 Pe Fl-Spac —.O6
Econ —.05 Opt —.13 Suppr —.05
Sen Awr -.05 Tot-Inf-2nd .12 Pe Fl—NRev -.05
Pe Fl-Spac —.04 Tot—Inf—3rd .11 Sen Aw —.04
Tot Stb .04 Age —.11 Tot-Inf—3rd .04
Opt .03 Em Cnt .08 Men—Inf—Tot .03
Psy Dis —.03 Women—Obs—Tot .06 Curric -.03
Em Cnt —.03 Psy Dis .04 Calm .03
Tot Awr .03 Scien .04 Scien —.03
Scien -.03 Tot—Obs—App —.03 Women—Obs-App—.02
Wrm —.03 Men—Inf-3rd —.03 Em Cont -.02
Women-Obs—App -.02 'Men-Obs—App -.02 Soc Econ —.01
Tot-Inf—3rd .02 Women-Obs—App —.02 Opt .01
Curric —.01 Puls Rt -.02 Psy Dis .01
Pe Fl-Tot .01 Sen Aw -.01 Wrm .01
Pe Fl-Ef .00 GPA —.01 Brd Int —.00
*Significant at the .05 level
**Significant at the .01 level
The observation of table 16 yields two more rela-
tionships. The females who were accurate in group sensiti—

vity were not perceptually flexible. The relationship did

45

not hold for the males. The second relationship was be—
tween observational accuracy and group sensitivity for the
male judges. The relationship held for both observation of
male and female interviewees in the Cline film, with the
exception of the female observation appearance scale which
correlated -.02 with the Total Group Sensitivity Score. The
males were more accurate with the male interviewees. While
there were no significant relationships among the female
judges, they also tended to be more accurate with the male

interviewees.

DISCUSSION

The discussion first considers first the reliabili-
ties of the measures used in testing group sensitivity.
Then the results of the hypothesis tested and the associ—
ations found by the examination of the other measures are
summarized in two tables and discussed. Future research

possibilities are also considered.

Reliabilities of the Measures Used

The odd-even reliability of .63 for the Total Group
Sensitivity Score was the highest yet obtained with the use
of these scales. Zavala (1960) reported two total score
reliabilities: .56 for the test—retest procedure and .30
using the Kuder—Richardson formula. Silkiner (1962) re—
ported a .60 odd-even reliability for his total test. With
these facts in mind, the reliability of —.01 for the
Executive—Unskilled sub-scale will be discussed. The
Executive—Unskilled sub-scale is not independent of the test
battery as all the test intercorrelations with the sub—scale
were significant with the exception of the .10 correlation
coefficient obtained with the Men—Women sub-scale. The

reason for the apparent lack of reliability in the

46

47

restricted range of scores on the Executive—Unskilled sub—
scale. Guilford (1956) said that the narrower the range,
the smaller the reliability. The sub-scale Psychologists—
Men in General, with a reliability of .70, is directly
comparable with the Executive-Unskilled sub—scale, because
they were developed the same way, and contained the same
number of variables. The range for the Executive-Unskilled
sub—scale was 42-26, while for the Psychologists-Men in
General, it was 40—9 which is almost twice as large. The
variance followed a simular trend——9.18 for the Executive—
Unskilled and 28.62 for the Psychologists-Men in General sub-
scale. The 28.62 variance is over three times the size of
the 9.18 variance. In View of the total scale reliability,
the Executive—Unskilled sub—scale reliability is not of

crucial importance.

Summary of the Hypotheses Tested
and of Other Relationships

 

The results of the hypotheses tested and other re—
lationships found through the examination of the measures
not specifically called for by the tested hypotheses will
now be discussed. Table 17 contains a summary of the hy—

potheses tested.

All] I

48

TABLE 17

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE HYPOTHESES TESTED
AND THE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS
OF OTHER MEASURES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypotheses Tested Results
1. Leadership ++
2. Intelligence +
3. Experience +
4. Open-Minded +
5. Ambition 0
6. Socially Timid 0

 

 

Other Measures

 

a. Perceptual Flexibility +

b. Observation +

 

 

The results suggest the following sketch of the accurate
stereotypes. The male judge accurate in group sensitivity is
high in leadership attitudes, linguistically talented, able
to profit from experience, a liberal, non-conformist, and a
good observer of the people around him. He is not self-
confident or socially bold. The small size of the female
sample and the lack of significant correlations enables only
a very limited description. The accurate female judge in

group sensitivity is ambitious and perceptually inflexible.

49

The above description was in fair agreement with the
findings of previous investigators. Van Zelst (1953) and
Foa (1958) concluded that the accurate judge of people was
successful in leadership positions, and now the relationship
was extended to include the possession of leadership atti—
tudes. Dymond (1950) found, as did this study, that the
accurate judge in group sensitivity scored high on verbal
intelligence scales. Silkiner (1962) said that the judge
needed experience with the groups before he could be accurate
in group sensitivity. The present study agreed with them
that experience was an important variable in group sensi—
tivity. The female judges did not agree with his statement
that the accurate judge was unambitious, and no relationship
was found for the male judges. Limited agreement was ob—
tained with Cline (1955) who said that the accurate judge was
not ethnocentric or authoritarian in his attitudes.
Bronfenbrenner et a1. (1958) said that the accurate judge in
group sensitivity was self—confident, socially extroverted,
and lacked inhibition. Silkiner found a different trend with
negative correlations for self—confidence and dominance, and
this study found the same trend.

The major source of disagreement with previous

studies was with the measure of gregariousness and warmth.

I) III I‘ll..." III 'II 1| I ' III I. I I I l I I I. III I I. ll

50

Dymond (1948, 1949) found consistent evidence that the ac—
curate judge was warm and gregarious. No relationship was

found in these measures for either the male or female judges.

Future Research

The refined personality scale in Appendix C needs to
be administered to a group of subjects along with the group
sensitivity test battery. In this way it can be determined
if the personality scales truly measure group sensitivity
correlates. If it is successful, a short administration
period is all that would be needed in the future to test for
group sensitivity, and the subjects would not need to know
for what they were being tested. In the light of the re-
sults of the present study, such a short scale would be par—
ticularly useful in selecting applicants for a position de—
manding leadership attitudes and ability.

In future studies of the kind performed here, a
larger group of females is needed. With a larger group,
more and stronger conclusions can be drawn regarding females

and group sensitivity.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A generalized group sensitivity scale was develOped
using the data from the StrOQJVocational Interest Blank as
criterion for the correct responses. Four sub—scales were
used: Men-Women, Young—Old, Executive—Unskilled, and
Psychologists-Non—Psychologists. The corrected reliability
of the total scale was .63. In examining the data, it was
concluded that the scale measured a generalized ability, and
that it was free from the effects of level and spread.

Seventy—seven measures were available from which six
hypothesis were tested, and they are listed below with the

conclusions regarding them.

1. The higher a subject's group sensitivity, the more ef—

 

fective his leadership attitudes.

 

The male judges strongly supported the hypothesis,
while the correlation coefficients for the females were low

and not in support of the expectation.

2. The higher the judge's intelligence, the greater his

pgroup sensitivity.

 

The hypothesis was supported by the male judges, on

51

52

the verbal measure. No relationship was found for the

female judges.

3. The more experience a judge has with a group, the higher

 

his group sensitivity.

 

In general, the hypothesis received support from the

data tested.

4. The more open—minded the judge, the higher his group

 

sensitivity.

 

The hypothesis received limited support by the male

subjects and no support by the female subjects.

5. The less ambitious the judge, the higher his group

 

sensitivity.

 

The data for female judges rejected the hypothesis,
in that the higher the ambition of the female judge, the
more accurate her group sensitivity. The male subjects
produced such low correlations that no conclusions could be

made.

6. The more socially timid the judge, the higher his group

sensitivity.

 

The hypothesis was supported by the male judges.
The correlations obtained for the female judges were too low

to draw any trends.

53

Other measures not required by the above hypothesis,

were explored, and two more relationships were found.
(1) The female judge who is accurate in group sensitivity
not perceptually flexible. (2) The male judge who is ac—
curate in group sensitivity, is accurate in observation.
A refined personality scale: designed to measure
group sensitivity correlates, was developed with the hope
that in the future the correlates can be measured in one
short session, without the subjects knowing for what they
were being tested. The refined personality scale remains

be verified in future studies.

is

to

REFERENCES

Bender, I. E. and Hastorf, A. H. 0n measuring generalized
empathic ability (social sensitivity). J. Abnorm.
Psychol., 1953, 48, 503-506.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J., and Gallway, M. The
measurement of social perception. In Mc Clelland,
D. C. Talent and Society N. Y.: Van Nostrand
(1958).

 

Bruni, E. Correlated of a filmed test of accuracy in ob—
serving people.' Unpublished master's thesis,
M.S.U., 1963.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dore, R. The development and validation of force—choice
scales measuring attitudes toward leadership methods.
Unpublished master's thesis, M.S.U., 1960.

Dymond, R. F. A preliminary investigation of the relations
of insight and empathy. J. Consult. Psychol., 1948,
12, 228—233.

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

 

54

55

Dymond, R. F. Personality and empathy. J. Consult.
Psychol., 1950, 14, 343—350.

 

Dymond, R. F., Hughes, A., and Raabe, V. Measurable changes
in empathy with age. J. Consult. Psychol., 1952, 16,
202—206. -

 

Foa, U. G. Empathy or behavior transparency. J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 62—66.

 

 

Grossman, B. A test of interpersonal sensitivity and its
correlates. Unpublished master's thesis, M.S.U.,
1963.

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology ang
education. Third Edition; N. Y.: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1956.

 

 

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

 

Hawkes, G. R. and Egbert, R. L. Personal values and the
empathy response: their inter—relationship. J. Ed.
Psychol., 1954, 45, 469—476.

Hershey, G. L. College grades in relation to inventory
measures of personality. Unpublished master's
thesis, M.S.U., 1958.

Hites, R. W. and Campbell, D. T. A test of the ability of
fraternity leaders to estimate group opinion.
J. Soc. Psychol., 1950, 32, 95—100.

 

Kerr, M. A. and Speroff, B. C. The empathy test. Chicago,
Ill.: Psychometric Affiliates, 1951.

 

Lawshe, C. H. Principles of personal testing. First
Edition; N. Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1948.

 

Luft, J. Implicit hypotheses and clinical predictions.
J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1950, 45, 756—759.

 

Meehl, P. Clinical versus statisticalpprediction.
Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1954.

i 1:11.]! Ilia-ll. I '1: i l I ll 3 .l I I l 1" l I II III I

 

56

Mullin, J. Empathic drive: it's relationship to accuracy
in judging individuals. Unpublished master's thesis,
M.S.U., 1962.

Silkiner, D. S. A cross—cultural study of the measurement,
determinants, and effects of stereotype accuracy.
Unpublished master's thesis, M.S.U., 1962.

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

 

Travers, R. M. A study in judging the opinions of groups.
Arch. Psychol., 1941, 266, 1-73.

 

Van Zelst, R. H. Empathy test scores of union leaders.
J. Applied Psychol., 1953, 36, 293—295.

 

Zavala, A. A test of stereotype accuracy. Unpublished
master's thesis, M.S.U., 1960.

APPENDIX A

 

.ll. 1" ii ' 1.... I l I l l .l I o l ‘ ill { ll

58

THE JUDGi-LENT 'OF INERESTS
GENERAL DIRECTIONS:

The following four tests investigate your knowledge of the different interests of
men and women, young and old men, executives and unskilled workers, psychologists
and men-in—general. For each test, large groups*were questioned about their intere
sets and activities. - ‘

PART I
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN

Directions - Mark "1" if you think more men than women like the interest; "2" if you
think more women than men filike the interest.
MTS‘JER .fL: S . .1JR
31. Botany
32. Self—conscious
33. Buyer of merchandise

1. "Atlantic Monthly"
2. Actor (stage)
3. Contributing to charities

4. Dramatics 34. Calculus
5. Magazine writer 35. Treasurer of a society
6. .Author of a novel 36. Retailer

7. Art _

8. Entertaining others'

9. Buyer of merchandise

10. Teacher, high school

11. Emotional peeple

12. Tell jckes well , _

13. People who have done you favors
14. Giving "first-aid" assistance
15. Play ground director .

16. Have mechanical ingenuity (inventiv

37. People who are natural leaders
38. Carelessly dressed people
39. Writing personal letters
’40. SCUlptor
41. Interpreter
#2. Athletic director
“'30 Art galleries
an. Operating machinery"
45. Very old people
)1 46. Sociology

A—‘NNQ [UNAAI‘JF‘JNIONIDI‘ONI‘OI‘OI’UL
APO1UN-‘IU-‘I‘JI’UI‘OI‘O—‘IO-’-—".'UIUI\)

17. Religious people 47. Music
18. Ancient languages 48. Physics
19. Occasionally make bets ”9. Opening a_conversation with a
20. Am quite sure of myself stranger ' 2'
21. Activity which.produces tangible ' 50. Office clerk 2
“ . returns 1 51. Musical comedy 2
22. Organizing a.play 2 52. English composition 2
23. literature 2 53. Entertaining others 2
24. Psychology 2 54. Mechanical drawing 1
25. iMusician 2 55. Picnics 2'
26. People who have made a fortune in 56. Foreigners 2 ‘
business 1 57. Bookkeeping 2'
27. Tell jokes well ' 1 58. Chairman, entertainment 2
28. Physiology ” 2 committee 2
29. Foreign correspondent 2 59. Spelling 2
30. laboratory technician 2 60. Medern languages 2

. I.

. (over)

59

.2.-

PART II
of

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUNG AND OLD MEN

Directions: Mark "1" if you think more{;§’z§ar_ olds than.55-year .

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.

67.

68.
.69.
7o.
71.
72.
73.
74.

75.
76.

77.
78.
79.
80.

81.
. 82.

83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.

'olds like the interest; Mark "2" if you think more‘jj ygar rolds like

' the interest.
1:3TPR
Marine engineer 1 91.
Pessimists 1
Statistician 2 92-
Economics 2 93-
Follow up subordinates effectively 2 '94.
Ship's officer 2 95.
Usually liven up the group on a 96.
dull day 2
Tell jokes well 1 97.
Win friends easily 1
Prepare advertising for machine 2 99.
Interviewing clients 2 100.
Do not get "rattled" easily 2 101.
Can correct others without giving '.
offence. 2 102.
Manual training ‘ 1 -
Definite salary (as opposed to com.-
mission on what is done) 1 133.
People who get "rattled" easy' 1
Electrical engineer 2
Athletic director 1 105.
Can carry out plans assigned‘hy 106.
other people 2 107.
Auto repairman 1 108.

«hen caught in a mistake practically ‘109.

never make excuses 110.
Locomotive engineer 1 111.
Interest the public in a machine 2 112.

Hunting 1 113.
Usually ignore the feelings of others1114.

Specialty salesman 2

Politician 2 1l5.
Thrifty people 2 116.
Travel movies 2 117.

'118.
119.
120.

'meokers

. AITS
Definite salary (as opposed to
commission on what is done)
Floorwalker

Put drive into the organization
Carelessly dressed people
Operating machinery

Stimulate the ambition of

my associates

'4—‘1‘31‘04

[\J P0

People who talk about
themselves

Spendthrifts

Sociology .
Usually start activities of -
My group.

Enter into situations and
enthusiastically carry out
programs

Chauffer (as opposed to chef)
Show firmness

without being easy

"National Geographic" magazine
Saving money

Clergyman' .

Life insurance salesman
Auctioneer -

Handling horses

Am quite sure of mself.‘
Educational movies.

My advice sought by many
Practically never borrow
money for personal use
‘Thomas A. Edison

Teaching adults

Musical comedy

Machinist

Physical training ,
Quick-tempered people

I‘D-*4

{‘J

-* f0

FONfO-‘PJFJFOPJ-‘f‘o

{’Lllé -.

,Joéémmwam

-3...

PART III
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN mmwas AND UNSKILIED {dome
Directions: Mark "1" if» you think more unskilled w_o_____rkers than professional and

executive wbrkers nice-— the interest; Mark "2 " if you think m__c_>__re 2.132-
fessional Egg executive workers like the interest.

2 1.3. 1;. 1‘... ”3 LIB
121. Typist 151. People who chew gum 1
122. Bank teller ' 152. Socialists 1
123. Civil service employee 153. Energetic people 2
124. Interior decorator 154. Optimists 2
125 . Sales manager 135 . People who assume leadership 2
126. Secret service man 156. People who talk very slowly 1
127 . Office clerk 157. People with gold teeth 1 -
128. Scientific research worker 158. Nervous people 1
129. Draftsman 159. People who always agree
130 . Electrical engineer with you 1
131. Editor 160. Thrifty people 2
132 . Marine engineer 161. Religious people 2
133. Magazine writer 162. Prepare the advertising for
134. Advertiser a new machine 2

,‘fQI‘J-‘AI‘O-é-‘FO—‘PQ N—‘I‘QPJ—‘FJ PO I'd-*DJ—t—VI‘O—t-‘M—‘A-‘A

135 . lawyer. corporation 163 . Courteous treatment from
136. Lawyer, criminal superiors - 1
137. Manufacturer 164. Opportunity to make use of all
138. Physics one's lmowledge and experience 2
139. Physical training 165. J. J. Pershing, soldier 1
140. Ma‘l’hema‘l‘AOS 166. William H. Taft, jurist 2
141. History 167. John Wanamaker. merchant 2
142. Agriculture 168. President of a club 2
143. Golf 169. Do a job yourself 2
144. Hunting 170. Definite salary 1
145. Boxing 171. Work for yourself 2
146. Hisical comedy 172. Great variety of work 2
147 . Pet monkeys 173. Emphasis on quality of work 2
148. Detective stories ”174. Opportunity to understand
149. "New Republic" . just how * one's superior
150. Conservative people expects work to be done 1
175. Freedom in working out one's
‘ own methods of doing the work 2
176. Repairing a clock 1
177. Repairing electrical wiring 1
178. Giving "first aid" assistance 1
179. Adjusting difficulties of
others 2
180.1 Climbing along edge of

precipice

(over)

 

61

‘4‘ . -
PART IV
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGISTS AND MEN-IN-GENERAL
Directions: Mark "1* if you think more psychologists than men-in-general liked the ..

interest; Mark "2" if you think fewer psychologists than menpinpgeneral
like the interest.

.“273 TJR - ' “73”“?

181. Actor 1 211. Chess , 1
182. Artist 1 212. Solving mechanical puzzles ' 1
183. Astronomer 1 '213. Travel.movies 2
184. Corporation lawyer ‘ 2 .214. Fishing 2
185. Manufacturer» .- 2 .215. Making a speech 1
186. Athletic director 2 ,216. Teaching adults 1
187. Chemist 1 ‘217. Taking responsibility 2
188. Cashier in'bmdk 2 _218. Doing research work 1
189. Editor 1 219. ‘Writing reports 1
190. Foreign correspondent 1 220. Regular hours of work 2
191. Inventor 1 221. Developing business systems 2
192. Magazine writer 1 '222. Saving money 2
193. Office manager -2 . 223. Conservative people 2
194. Orchestra conductor 1 224. Energetic people 2
195. Physician 1 , 225. People who are natural leaders ‘2
196. Poet 1 226. Peeple who make fortunes in
197. Rancher 2, _ business 2
198. Sculptor 1 227. Thrifty people 2
199. Statistician 1 228. Religious people 2
201. ‘Wholesaler 2 w230. Independents in politics 1
202. Geometry 1 "231. People who talk about them-
203. Algebra 1 ' selves ~ 1
204. Physical training 2 232. Carelessly dressed people 1
205. Physiology 1 .233. Absent-minded people 1
206. Literature 1 , 234. Outside work 2
207. Hunting 2 235. Physical activity 2
208. Symphony concerts 1 236. Usually drive myself steadily 1
209. Sporting pages 2 237. Have more than my share of_
210. Golf ,2 novel ideas 1

238. My feelings are easily hurt 2

239. My advice is sought by many 1

240. Put drive into the organization

62

REFINED TEST
RIJ/HCS
January, 1963
THE JUDGMENT OF INTERESTS
GENERAL DIRECTIONS:

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

PART I
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN.AND WOMEN

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

1. Athletic director

2. Operating‘machinery

3. Emotional people

h. Entertaining others

5. Laboratory technician

6. People who have made a fortune in business
7. Foreigners

8. Opening a conversation with a stranger

9. Have mechanical ingenuity (inventive)
10. ‘Actor
ll. MUSiCian
12. Dramatics
13. Mechanical drawing
1h. Calculus

15. Physiology

16. Treasurer of a society

17. Interpreter

18. Buyer of merchandise

19 Q SClflptOr

20. Activity which produces tangible returns
21. Sociology

22. Botany'

23. Ancient languages

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

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

28. Tell jokes well

29. Art galleries

30. Literature

m—x—smmw—smm—‘mmm-t—s

[UN AéémANPON-‘RDNIU"

63

PERT II
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUNG AND OLD MEN

Directions-AMark "1" if you think more lg year olds than 55 year olds like the

interest; mark "2" if you think more 25 year olds like the interest.
A: .o 3,4 JR I

31. Floorwalker

32. Handling horses

33. Auto repairman

3h. Ship's officer

35. Specialty salesman

36. Clergyman

37. Marine engineer

38. Sociology

39. Operating machinery

ho. Locomotive engineer

hl. Teaching adults

h2. Economics

h3. Educational movies

hh. Manual training

FO-‘I‘Q f‘JN—‘Am 410R) ‘44-‘1‘0

D5. Fishing
h6. Travel movies 2
1.7. Spendthrifts 1
h8. Thrifty people 2
h9. Saving money 2
SO. Definite salary (as opposed 1
to commission on what is
done)
51. Thomas A. Edison 1
52. Enter into situations and 2
enthusiastically carry
out programs

53. Show firmness without being 2

easy
5h. Usually ignore the feelings

of others
55. Am quite sure of’myself p
56. Oarelessly dressed people f
57. Interest the public in a 9

machine I
58. People who get "rattled” 1

easy

59. Tell jokes well 1
60. Win friends easily 1

Directions:

61.
62.
63.
6h.
65.
66.
67.

68.
69.
70.
71.
72 .
73 .
7h.
75.

76.
77.
78.
79.
81.
82.
83.
8h.
85.
86.

87.
88.

89.
90.

91.
92.
93.
9h.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.

64

PART III

mmRENCES BETWEEN EXECUTIVES AND UNSHILLED mRKERS

Physics

History

Boxing

Physical training
Detective stories
Mathematics
Climbing along edge of
precipice

Golf

.Agriculture

Musical comedy
"New'Republic"
Typist

Office clerk
Lawyer, criminal
Lawyer, corporation

Secret service man
Manufacturer

Sales manager

Scientific research worker
Electrical engineer
Advertiser

Draftsman

Repairing a clock
IMagazine writer

Editor

Repairing electrical
wiring

Definite salary
Opportunity to understand
just how one's superior
expects work to be done
work for yourself

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

Great variety of work

Giving "first aid" assistance
Adjusting difficulties of others
People who always agree with you

People Who chew gum
Thrifty people
fervous people:
Conservative people

People who talk very slowly

People with gold teeth
Energetic people
President of a club
Pet monkeys

(Coo above on right}

Mark "1" if you think more
executive workers like the
_professional SEQ executive

   

AMA-44mm

DJ—‘AQNI‘Q-IDPQ

AmMAAmAmmma

Amm‘A—‘N—‘PO-l'él‘o—sm

unskilled.workers than professional and
interest; mark "2" if you think more
workers like the interest.

7 ‘. LLB ANSWER

10h. J. J. Pershing, soldier 1
105. John Wanamaker, merchant 2

(over)

65
PART IV
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGISTS AND MEN-IN—GENERAL

Directions: Mark "1" if you think more psychologists than men-in-general like the
interest; mark "2" if you think fewer men-inegeneral like the interest.
""IT£I3““ET

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
11h.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
12h.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.

131.
132.
133.
Ian.
135.

136.
137.
138.

Doing research work
Teaching adults
Rancher
Statistician
Regular hours of work
Athletic director
Actor

writing reports
Orchestra conductor
Office manager
Artist

Wholesaler

Poet

Sculptor

Editor

Corporation lawyer
Manufacturer

Astronomer

Cashier in bank

Physician

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

Thrifty‘people
Absentqminded_peop1e
Solving mechanical puzzles
My advice is sought by many
My feelings are easily hurt

Independents in politics
Put drive into the organization
Have-morc-than.my share of.
novel ideas

Saving money

Fishing

Chess

Geometry

Physical activity
Physiology

Sporting pages

Hunting

Algebra

Literature

Symphony concerts

Physical training

_.s_.b_l.1\)_510 _‘A—meéf‘J—L—L;
.‘

'OFJ

A
i

I‘d-‘I‘O-‘m —5-i,'\)

r0 _a_n_s no

APO-4

Nddémméwdémm

APPENDIX B

67

 

 

 

CORRELATIONS OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES
FOR MEN (N2110)

Measure M—W Y—Old E-Uns P—Non TOTAL
Men—Obs-App .038 .146 .197 .297 .284
Men—Obs—Con —.118 .160 .211 .034 .135
Men-Obs—TTL -.083 .180 .240 .152 .215
Men-Inf—an —.098 .088 .100 .203 .162
Men—Inf-3rd -.O38 —.122 -.051 —.077 -.097
Men-Inf-TTl —.O93 —.007 .043 .101 .060
Women-Obs-App .074 -.036 —.006 -.053 —.024
Women—Obs-Con .121 .119 .108 .173 .223
Women-Obs—TTL .126 .060 .070 .086 .136
Women—Inf-an —.019 .117 .011 .069 .076
Women-Inf—Brd .030 .020 .063 .164 .108
Women—Inf—TTL .007 .086 .064 .146 .115
TTL—Obs-App .072 .062 .113 .141 .152
TTL—Obs-Con .010 .174 .190 .125 .219
TTL—Obs—Acc .046 .155 .194 .164 .236
TTL—Inf-an —.074 .128 .070 .171 .150
TTL—Inf—3rd —.001 -.059 .016 .075 .022
TTL-Inf-Acc -.051 .054 .057 .159 .114
Ster Mew —-- .190 .111 .125 .460
Ster Y-Old .190 ——— .258 .231 .604
Ster E—Uns .111 .258 -—— .336 .645
Ster P-Non .125 .231 .336 ——— .783
Ster TOTAL .460 .604 .645 .783 —--
TL SA&DA .197 .349 .362 .507 .586
Emp—Psy -.192 -.l44 -.117 .078 —.107
Emp-Phy .148 .155 115 -.053 .111
Emp—Soc —.020 -.101 —.077 —.023 —.082
Lev Rtng —.073 .192 —.047 .050 .061
Spr Rtng .016 -.123 .001 .040 —.015
Pe Fl-EF .054 —.061 -.043 .029 —.002
Pe Fl-Spac .000 —.015 .040 -.085 —.039
Pe Fl-NRev -.O45 —.O32 .018 .129 .056
Pe Fl-TTL .007 —.O47 .004 .025 .003
Age .044 .027 .144 .156 .161
Class .013 —.005 .169 .189 .153
Curric —.012 —.O40 .002 —.009 —.006
Psy Cr -.020 .053 .046 .033 .052
GPA —.012 .046 .236 .135 .169

68

CORRELATIONS OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES
FOR MEN (N=llO)

 

 

 

Measure M—W Y-Old E—Uns P-Non TOTAL
ACE—Q Scale .037 —.241 .117 -.066 -.080
ACE—L Scale .036 .158 .273 .168 .233
ACE-TTL .100 .017 .256 .093 .156
Soc Econ .023 .171 .221 .002 .140
Sex .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Psy Dis .009 .022 .050 —.111 —.032
Final Gr .014 .219 .317 .255 .334
Puls Rt .118 .114 -.001 .144 .157
Consid .105 .074 .086 .224 .214
In Str .013 .173 .277 .223 .279
TTL—Leadership .086 .186 .275 .333 .369
Act .094 —.018 .001 -.134 —.052
Sex .072 -.034 —.033 .040 .018
Expr .056 -.069 -.126 -.086 -.092
Slf Cnf —.106 -.126 —.068 -.194 -.205
Dom .070 —.017 -.027 —.121 -.064
TTL BLD .053 -.089 -.095 —.176 —.144
Calm —.O93 .102 .034 .096 .085
Opt —.O38 —.018 .089 .023 .034
Em Cnt —.O68 .038 .026 -.059 —.030
TTL STE -.085 .056 .059 .026 .037
Rel Sc -.l42 —.022 .067 .024 —.010
Lib —.011 .138 .293 .241 .285
Noncnf -.162 —.086 .061 -.088 —.100
TTL LIB —.139 .005 .172 .056 .057
Sen Aw -.057 -.024 —.109 .028 —.048
Intro —.140 .058 .095 .072 .058
Brd Int —.204 .008 —.073 .002 -.O66
Artist —.127 .229 .104 .077 .131
TTL AWR —.213 .113 .012 .063 .030
Amb —.124 .079 -.015 -.002 -.006
Org -.O9l .033 —.118 .009 —.055
TTL AMB —.117 .059 —.084 .005 —.039
Econ .184 .034 .020 -.l87 -.053
Greg .104 —.003 —.214 —.034 —.066
TTL T—P .177 .017 -.142 —.128 -.077
Suppr -.114 .051 —.034 —.144 —.097
Scien —.086 .102 -.150 .067 -.030

Wrm .019 .143 -.O62 —.O65 —.026

 

69

CORRELATIONS OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES
FOR WOMEN (N220)

 

 

Measure M—W Y—Old E—Uns P-Non TOTAL
Men-Obs-App .058 —.O98 —.023 —.O61 —.023
Men—Obs—Con .349 .067 .304 .172 .329
Men-Obs~TTL .263 —.014 .175 .070 .198
Men—Inf—an .075 -.196 .077 —.081 —.l46
Men-Inf-3rd .026 .113 .276 —.062 —.028
Men—Inf-TTL .060 —.055 .205 -.085 -.105
Women—Obs-App .118 -.093 .074 —.043 —.023
Women-Obs-Con -.079 .089 .048 .118 .137
Women—Obs—TTL .030 -.009 .072 .038 .060
Women—Inf-an .250 .120 .520 .177 .367
Women—Inf—3rd .000 .297 -.097 .218 .192
Women-Inf-TTL .167 .270 .284 .257 .367
TTL—Obs—App .120 .128 .037 —.069 —.032
TTL—Obs—Con .135 .093 .193 .168 .264
TTL-Obs-Acc .152 -.013 .136 .060 .140
TTL-Inf—an .208 —.067 .375 .050 .121
TTL-Inf-3rd .019 .282 .144 .097 .107
TTL—Inf—Acc .148 .122 .332 .090 .142
Ster M—W --- .188 .084 .487 .601
Ster Y—Old .188 --— .218 .392 .525
Ster E-Uns .084 .218 -—- .153 .516
Ster P—Non .487 .392 .153 ——— .857
Ster TOTAL .601 .525 .516 .857 -——
TL SA&DA .455 .384 .529 .554 .669
Emp-Psy -.104 .094 -.441 —.264 -.289
Emp-Phy .152 —.019 .366 .311 .325
Emp—Soc —.l97 -.069 —.221 —.327 -.321
Lev Rtng -.046 .157 —.112 —.009 -.087
Spr Rtng .398 .004 .218 .197 .321
Pe Fl—EF —.197 —.384 —.334 —.373 —.518
Pe Fl-Spac .035 —.235 -.247 -.102 -.165
Pe Fl—NRev —.168 .061 -.628 -.l91 -.381
Pe Fl—TTL -.l67 -.201 -.640 -.307 -.512
Age .289 —.009 .452 .204 .369
Class .320 —.062 .305 .225 .311
Curric -.116 —.245 -.290 -.069 -.l44
Psy Cr .078 —.206 -.156 .083 .029
GPA .263 —.175 .238 —.l35 -.006
ACE-Q Scale —.262 .129 —.151 —.l70 —.189

70

CORRELATIONS OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES
FOR WOMEN (N220)

 

 

 

Measure M—W Y—Old E-Uns P—Non TOTAL
ACE-L Scale .227 —.119 .145 —.028 .059
ACE-TTL .154 .014 .083 -.020 .056
Soc Econ -.396 —.227 .017 .012 —.041
Sex .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Psy Dis —.399 —.065 .389 .011 .041
Final Gr .135 .106 .186 .112 .193
Puls Rt .146 -.326 .049 -.046 -.017
Consid —.018 .249 .214 —.006 .092
In Str —.215 —.087 .049 -.156 -.202
TTL—Leadership —.250 .179 .272 —.269 —.098
Act —.222 .131 .153 .010 .104
Sex -.238 -.241 .007 -.088 -.121
Exp -.150 -.079 .328 -.096 .094
Slf Cnf -.032 .369 .210 —.052 .118
Dom —.069 .129 .305 —.172 .045
TTL BLD -.208 .073 .298 -.116 .070
Calm .156 -.059 —.382 —.177 —.260
Opt -.407 .257 .071 -.205 -.129
Em Cnt .147 .426 .081 -.l36 .079
TTL STE —.004 .249 —.150 —.235 -.158
Rel Sc .303 —.123 —.O69 .254 .271
Lib —.o30 -.210 —.088 .055 -.002
Noncnf —.095 .246 .192 .302 .373
TTL LIB .120 -.033 .011 .272 .292
Sen Aw —.279 -.136 —.054 .056 -.008
Intro -.123 .033 .235 .073 .226
:Brd Int .093 .328 .466 .197 .328
Ar1;ist .128 .247 .272 .352 .400
Tin; AWR -.006 .280 .473 .303 .447
Ami) .612 .181 .228 .252 .414
Org- .175 .325 .458. .136 .344
TTI. AMB .474 .329 .449 .240 .477
Eccni -.093 .222 —.255 -.129 -.276
Greg; —.304 -.O78 .005 -.279 -.221
TTI. T—P -.344 .017 —.105 -.335 -.340
Surupr .286 .339 .147 .117 .242
SCjJEn .145 -.273 .030 .173 .037
Wrnl .205 .142 .009 .162 .189

\

CORRELATIONS OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES
FOR MEN AND WOMEN (N213O)

 

 

 

Measure M—W Y—Old E-Uns P—Non TOTAL
Men—Obs-App .029 .109 .152 .220 .224
Men-Obs-Con —.058 .164 .218 .047 .160
Men—Obs TTL —.037 .169 .228 .132 .213
Men—Inf—an —.070 .070 .095 .145 .114
Men—Inf—3rd —.016 -.086 .013 —.079 -.082
Men—Inf—TTL -.058 —.009 .074 .055 .032
Women—Obs-App .101 —.019 .008 -.060 -.020
Women-Obs—Con .118 .130 .094 .151 .211
Women-Obs—TTL .138 .073 .066 .063 .124
Women—Inf—an .025 .128 .088 .079 .119
Women-Inf—3rd .028 .038 .038 .170 .120
Women—Inf-TTL .034 .105 .080 .156 .150
TTL—Obs—App .087 .053 .097 .092 .121
TTL-ObS—Con .043 .181 .185 .120 .226
TTL—Obs-Acc .078 .153 .180 .133 .221
TTL—Inf—an -.029 .124 .116 .142 .147
TTL-Inf-3rd .010 -.024 .036 .074 .036
TTL-Inf-Acc —.014 .069 .099 .138 .119
Ster M—W -—- .204 .102 .163 .472
Ster Y-Old .204 ——— .241 .223 .580
Ster E-Uns .102 .241 ——— .297 .621
Ster P—Non .163 .223 .297 -—— .791
Ster TOTAL .472 .580 .621 .791 ——-
TL SA&DA .235 .352 .385 .503 .597
Emp-Psy —.l95 -.l40 -.153 .036 —.128
Emp—Phy .157 .149 .153 .005 .143
Emp-Soc —.O39 -.O97 -.100 —.075 —.117
Lev Rtng —.O40 .204 -.059 .027 .042
Spr Rtng .041 —.125 .042 .078 .037
Pe Fl—EF .005 —.097 -.O81 -.024 -.072
Pe Fl-Spac -.026 -.054 —.006 -.073 -.062
Pe Fl—NRev -.049 —.008 —.149 .033 —.045
Pe Fl-TTL -.O31 -.071 —.103 —.028 —.079
Age .027 —.002 .172 .166 .169
Class .029 —.028 .195 .203 .176
Curric —.025 —.056 —.056 —.022 —.030
Psy Cr .021 .045 4.004 .035 .049
GPA .041 .043 .233 .071 .141

.099

ACE—Q Scale -.033 —.234 .074 —.067

72

CORRELATIONS OF THE GROUP SENSITIVITY SCALES
FOR MEN AND WOMEN (N=130)

 

 

 

Measure Mew Y—Old E—Uns P—Non TOTAL
ACE-L Scale .089 .165 .241 .115 .208
ACE-TTL .103 .015 .228 .074 .142
Soc Econ .014 .165 .175 —.012 .113
Sex .147 .123 —.014 —.062 .021
Psy Dis .005 .042 .089 -.102 —.019
Final Grade .038 .216 .293 .222 .314
Puls Rt .108 .052 .012 .095 .114
Consid .099 .095 .110 .167 .192
In Str —.036 .129 .236 .156 .196
TTL—Leadership .043 .174 .272 .240 .306
Act .033 —.018 .033 —.094 —.025
Sex -.046 -.102 —.015 .038 —.018
Expr .051 -.050 —.049 —.094 —.059
Slf Cnf -.123 -.116 -.026 —.155 -.l64
Dom .028 —.026 .031 —.118 —.050
TTL BLD -.Ol6. -.O98 —.014 —.145 -.108
Calm -.089 .064 -.034 .055 .027
Opt -.084 —.010 ..086 —.009 .010
Em Cnt —.052 _ .056 .034 —.O67 —.017
TTL STE -.095 .050 .029 —.007 .009
Rel Sc —.095 -.040 .042 .076 .037
Lib -.011 .114 .233 .206 .245
Noncnf -.156 -.064 .084 -.011 —.025
TTL LIB -.112 .004 .143 .103 .096
Sen Aw —.041 .000 -.101 .017 -.037
Intro -.O99 .081 .113 .057 .088
Brd Int —.l69 .028 .020 .040 —.003
Artist -.054 .253 .117 .095 .163
TTL AWR —.148 .147 .074 .083 .088
Amb -.051 .066 .032 .057 .062
Org —.066 .047 -.023 .033 .003
TTL AMB -.068 .063 .000 .050 .032
Econ .089 —.013 -.001 -.l33 -.075
Greg .060 -.006 —.l77 -.080 —.089
TTL T—P .095 -.012 —.l29 —.135 —.108
Suppr —.057 .078 —.007 —.102 —.046
Scien —.082 —.021 —.126 .082 —.025

Wrm .055 .062 -.052 -.031 .008

 

73

 

 

 

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEASURES
FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND MEN AND WOMEN
Men Women Men and Women

Measure Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.
Men-Obs—App 18.38 2.77 17.90 3.42 18.31 2.87
Men-Obs-Con 20.64 3.60 21.65 2.74 20.79 3.50
Men—Obs-TTL 38.84 5.02 39.60 4.53 38.95 4.93
Men—Inf-an 14.62 3.10 14.95 3.11 14.67 3.10
Men—Inf—3rd 16.70 2.49 17.30 2.92 16.79 2.57
Men—Inf-TTL 31.32 4.32 32.25 5.10 31.46 4.44
Women-Obs—

App 15.42 3.12 16.80 3.83 15.63 3.27
Women-Obs-

Con 19.02 3.58 20.35 3.34 19.22 3.57
Women-Obs—

TTL 34.44 5.29 37.15 6.11 34.85 5.52
Women-Inf-

2nd 15.08 3.05 16.00 2.67 15.22 3.01
Women—Inf—

3rd 10.42 3.05 10.50 2.56 10.43 2.98
Women-Inf—

TTL 25.50 4.88 26.50 4.01 25.65 4.78
TTL—Obs—App 33.80 4.67 34.70 5.37 33.39 4.79
TTL—Obs-Con 39.75 5.96 42.00 5.15 40.09 5.90
TTL-Obs-Acc 73.55 8.55 76.75 9.04 74.04 8.70
TTL-Inf—an 29.70 4.90 30.95 4.33 29.89 4.82
TTL—Inf-Brd 27.12 4.12 27.80 3.86 27.21 4.07
TTL-Inf—Acc 56.82 7.22 58.75 6.58 57.12 7.16
Ster M—W 20.64 2.55 21.70 1.87 20.79 2.48
Ster Y—Old 21.84 2.88 22.80 1.25 21.99 2.72
Ster E-Uns 35.43 2.95 35.30 3.42 35.40 3.03
Ster P-Non 30.80 5.08 29.85 6.58 30.65 5.35
Ster TOTAL 108.61 8.88 109.65 9.19 108.69 8.93
TL SA&DA 98.55 13.42 101.90 12.57 99.06 13.35
Emp—Psy 29.10 9.97 26.95 6.71 28.77 9.57
Emp-Phy 39.96 12.14 42.45 10.85 40.33 11.99
Emp-Soc 20.74 5.39 20.65 4.88 20.72 5.31
Lev Rtng 116.18 10.76 121.55 10.24 117.01 10.86
Spr Rtng 23.99 12.88 19.30 13.39 23.27 13.07
Pe Fl—EF 50.23 9.34 46.25 7.51 49.62 9.19
Fe Fl—Spac 50.77 8.96 45.95 8.91 50.03 9.12

MEANS AND ST

NDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEASURES

74

 

 

 

FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND MEN AND WOMEN
Men Women Men and Women

Measure Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.
Pe Fl-NRev 49.44 7.73 51.55 12.86 49.78 8.76
Pe Fl—TTL 150.46 20.41 143.75 19.88 149.43 20.47
Age 21.16 2.99 19.90 1.70 21.34 2.89
Class 2.97 .82 2.65 .91 2.92 .85
Curric 2.58 1.07 2.60 1.24 2.59 1.10
Psy Cr 10.75 6.44 13.90 9.39 11.23 7.07
GPA 2.38 .47 2.54 .51 2.41 .48
ACE-Q Scale 32.04 8.46 26.50 8.05 31.19 8.63
ACE-L Scale 47.34 11.77 55.10 9.60 48.53 11.80
ACE-TTL 130.44 20.89 130.00 17.45 130.37 20.40
Soc Econ 4.63 2.00 6.10 2.05 4.85 2.08
Sex 1.00 .00 2.00 .00 1.15 .38
Psy Dis 11.73 1.57 12.55 1.12 11.85 1.54
Final Grade 100.88 11.72 103.25 10.55 101.25 11.58
Puls Rt 75.32 10.53 73.60 16.77 75.05 11.72
Consid 18.29 4.98 19.50 5.95 18.48 5.16
In Str 19.91 5.22 17.85 5.33 19.59 5.29
TTL Leader-

ship 38.21 6.82 36.90 5.29 38.01 6.62
Act 19.17 4.57 17.80 5.55 18.96 4.76
Sex 19.38 4.33 13.05 5.45 18.41 5.07
Expr 15.71 6.78 18.15 6.77 16.09 6.83
Slf Cnf 14.99 6.38 12.00 4.99 14.53 6.28
Dom 19.70 5.69 17.25 5.58 19.32 6.28
TTL BLD 88.86 16.89 78.25 19.69 87.23 17.78
Calm 14.72 7.24 11.15 7.02 14.17 7.32
Opt 19.55 5.88 18.45 4.80 19.39 5.74
Em Cnt 14.42 7.06 13.90 5.50 14.34 6.84
TTL STB 48.69 16.13 43.50 12.68 48.06 15.81
Rel Sc 20.46 6.89 18.85 7.67 20.22 7.04
Lib 19.71 4.76 19.90 4.07 19.74 4.66
Noncnf 16.56 5.36 16.10 5.44 16.49 5.38
TTL LIB 56.65 12.94 54.85 14.04 56.29 13.11
Sen Aw 17.30 4.06 19.80 3.17 17.68 4.03
Intro 15.57 5.43 18.90 5.56 16.09 5.58
Brd Int 36.81 8.26 36.35 8.34 36.81 8.28
Artist 12.60 7.05 18.25 5.51 13.47 7.13

75

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEASURES
FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND MEN AND WOMEN

 

 

 

Men Women Men and Women

Measure Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.
TTL AWR 82.28 16.79 93.30 3.77 83.98 16.84
Amb 14.79 4.86 12.95 5.27 14.51 4.97
Org 13.19 6.83 12.55 6.31 13.09 6.76
TTL AMB 27.98 10.45 25.50 9.12 27.60 10.29
Econ 17.80 4.99 12.15 2.63 16.93 5.13
Greg 15.14 6.42 15.50 6.14 15.19 6.38
TTL T—P 32.94 8.95 27.65 6.13 32.12 8.78
Suppr 11.86 4.81 12.90 4.32 12.02 4.75
Scien 12.52 6.16 11.10 3.60 12.30 5.86
Wrm 14.16 5.23 15.70 4.72 14.40 5.18

 

APPENDIX C

p.
LO
:34

40

O4

84

OO

36

80

O4
O4

100
00

OO
24

O4
28

72

4O

12

20

52

Low

00

52

100

16

88

100

40
4o

84
12

12
68

28
O4

96

8O

48

6O

16

.62

.56

.55

.55

.54
.54

.51
.46

.46
.45

.44
.44

.44

.43

.43

.42

.40

Personality Inventory

Item

Our courts should probably be in the
hands of sociologists rather than
lawyers.

The proposal to change the present
calender to one having 13 months of
28 days is completely unsound.

I am primarily interested in what is

useful.

Criminals retard our moral progress

as much as all other people combined.
I would rather see a musical comedy
than a documentary film.

I am very intense about the things
which interest me.

Personal criticism never bothers me.

A leader should be the most technical-
ly skilled member of the work group
rather than explain the reasons for
changes.

I like to become sexually excited.

I become sexually excited a little
less than the average person of my
sex.

I seldom become sexually excited.

A leader should be an authority in

the type of work the group does,
rather than explain in detail the
reasons for changes.

Criticism never bothers me.

I rarely feel anything that could be
called an emotional thrill.

The idea of personal immortality some—
times leads to disillusionment.

I don't think I would enjoy teaching
poetry at a University. .

My skin is insensitive to the sun.

A leader should act as he thinks best,
regardless of the views of his workers
rather than be proud of his work group.
I only work for tangible and clearly—
defined results.

High

O4
100

16
OO
16
44

12

O4

32

68
68
16

52

80

40

6O

96

Low

24
92

52
08
52
80

44

24

68

32

92

48

84

96

12

88

80

.40
.40

.40
.40
.40
.39

.39

.38

.37

.37

.37

.37

.37

.36

.36

.36

.36

Ans

78

Item

I am not affected by flattery.

A leader should study new procedures
that might apply to his job, rather
than make his job similar to the jobs
of his workers.

I prefer friends who have a well de—
veloped artistic taste.

Conservative people are more intel—
ligent than radical people.

It is unlikely that wood will ever be
converted into humanly edible food.

I don't like to read poetry.

It is of little importance to me
whether people agree with my ideas or
not.

A leader should be a respected author-
ity in the type of work the group
does, rather than pass along to his
workers information from higher
management.

A leader should be known as a man of‘
great technical skill in the field,
rather than schedule the work to be
done.

I adopt an extremely matter—of-fact
attitude towards life.

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

I would rather see a musical comedy
than a documentary film.

I have often been much more hopeful
about my chances than the facts
warranted.

I believe that our modern industrial
age has attained a much greater de—
gree of culture than that ever at—
tained by any previous civilization.
I think the public schools should
give more thought to promoting the
study and performance of drama.

I am guided in most of my decisions
by strong ambitions.

My desires are occasionally at war
with one another.

High

20

80
12

2O

24

24

68

32

16

36

08

28

64

72
20

20

4O
76

48

Low

04

96
4O

52

56

56

36

64

44

12

28

08

88

92
48

48

16
48

76

.36
.36

.35

.34

.34

.33

.33

.33

.32

.32

.32

.32

.32
.31

.31

.30
.30

.30

Ans

T

Item

I hesitate to tell other people how

to do a job even when I am sure I
could be of some help.

I like people that are like me.

A leader should be known as a man of
great technical skill in the field,
rather than schedule the work to be
done.

If I start working on a puzzle, I al—
ways stick to it until it is solved.

I believe that the most successful
person in life is one who knows what
he wants in a material way and sets
out to get it.

I would like to be a worker in Y.M.C.
A., K. of C., etc.

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

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

I think it is more important for a
person to be reverent than to be
sympathetic.

I am over weight.

I very rarely tell jokes in which sex
plays a major part.

I can't say that I have ever been

very amazed at anything.

When I think out a problem, I keep
very close to the facts that I have
seen and observed.

I like entertaining others.

A leader should spend a great deal of
time in scheduling the work of the
group, rather than make prompt, firm
decisions.

Once I have decided something is wrong,
I always resist the temptation to do
it.

I enjoy taking examinations.

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

I assert myself with energy on almost
any occasion.

High

04
84

16

24

48
48

6O
52

16

48
48

24

96

44
72

68
56

32

Low

16

96

4O

52

76

76

84
24

4O

76
76

52

88

72
44

40
28

6O

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30
.30

.30

.30
.30

.30

.30

.29
.29

.29
.29

.29

Ans

80

Item

Cat meat is out of the question for
the human diet under any circumstances.
The theory of evolution should be
taught in our schools.

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

A man who works in business for his
living all the week can best spend
Sunday in hearing a sermon.

I almost always feel that people ap-
prove of me.

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

I like amusement parks.

I am disturbed when people severely
criticize my way of life.

I feel that I have a tremendous
amount to contribute to other peOple.
I like looking at shop windows.

A leader should do the important jobs
himself, rather than have workers
take their rest periods when they
wish.

A leader should set up all projects
himself, rather than leave it up to
each worker to take his share of work
and get it done.

A leader should let his workers know
how they are doing on their jobs,
rather than spend some of his time
helping get the work done.

I like animal zoos.

I occasionally feel self-conscious in
the presence of very important
superiors.

I am inclined to trust almost everyone.
I believe few things in life are more
than increasing our scientific infor—
mation.

The scientific approach needs to re-
main central in our efforts to solve
national problems.

High Low
68 40
40 68
36 64
36 64
08 24
88 68
08 24
32 12
32 12
44 20
84 60
20 44
52 76
52 76
36 16
76 52
52 76
24 48
24 48
28 52
48 72
OO 04

.29

.28

.28
.28

.27

.27

.26

.26

.26
.26

.26
—.26

81

Item

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

Whenever I have to undertake a job I
make out a careful plan of procedure.
I am very insistent on having all my
written work extremely neat and well
organized.

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

Radical foreigners who wish to visit
the United States should not be
admitted.

The idea of divine inspiration may be

-a form of wish fulfillment arising

from suggestibility.

I am never aware of my heart beating.
I am a rather adventurous person.

I have had dreams that I refust to
talk about.

I accept the world as it is and do
not try to imagine how it might be.

I like continually changing activities.
I am considered rather emotional by
my friends.

I keep my workplace extremely neat
and very orderly.

I am extremely systematic in caring
for my personal property.

I like nothing better than parties
and dances.

I think that the pollution of streams
by factories is becoming a major
social problem.

I am extremely particular about the
members of the opposite sex with whom
I associate. .

My hearing is somewhat above average.
I am careful of the way I spend my
physical energy.

I would rather be a good listener
than a good talker.

I am a rather carefree person.

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

Higli

16
56
4O

4O
64
44

44
32

44

36

6O

32

64

56

36

68

8O

80

20

8O

60

Low
36
32
64

64
4O
68

68
56

68

6O

36

56

4O

32

6O

44

6O

6O

6O

4O

6O

80

r

.25

.25
.25
.25

.25
.25

.25

.25

.25

.25

.24

.24

.24

-.24

Ans

F

82

Item

I have never really disliked any
teacher.

I like literature.

I'm always eager to take a chance
alone in a situation of doubtful
outcome.

I enjoy speaking in public.

I sometimes like to just sit.

I am physically more active than most
of the people I know.

I have had considerable sex experience.
I never complain about my sufferings
and hardships.

I believe that one should develop his
chief loyalties toward his business
organization and it's associates.

In a discussion, I tend to lost inter-
est if we talk about serious literature.
Divorce by mutual consent would be a
better system than our present one.

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

The metric system of weights and
measures should be substituted for

our present system.

I think I can lead a full life with-
out knowing much about science.

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

Most of my spare money is used for
pleasure.

I generally criticize my acquaintances
when I disapprove of their behavior.
We owe our progress to radicals more
than to "middle of the road" people.
Women should have as much right to
propose dates to men as men to women.
It is bad for a married man to take
another man's wife to the movies under
any circumstances.

I sometimes make useless moves as I go
about my work.

I always prefer to work with others.

High

08

8O

96

44

76

Low

20
92

84

24

56

.23

.23

.22

.22

Ans

Item

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

A leader should teach his workers new
things, rather than work along with
the men as much as possible.

A leader should pass along to his
workers information from higher
management, rather than help to get
the work done.

A leader should give the workers the
power to act independently of him,
rather than assign workers to par—
ticular tasks.

I am occasionally lacking in self—
confidence.

0’ ‘ , ‘
i“ ‘ Ill ‘ L; s I
. 7 ~ , . > i I

 

 

"1111111 1111