. , 7?. w .2,” Ira {A3 .13 «i .v as... %, .\.3\|i I15: 2»? . l 2.. 4.1.4. $3.11.. .2; Rita? nufltffrw 3.1 . . 35.... X1 1. .~ is 13.53%. E aiiimnmmfiu x! i. .y 1.6.. 4.51)... kfihhhag Via, ‘Satwnu. 4!. t1: Ng‘ r, .VL . .fPuat. LIBRARY Michigan Sm: Unimity This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Raters‘ Perceptions of Nonverbal and Verbal Behaviors Occurring in Same and Different Sex Interactions presented by Kenneth L. Fischer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Psychology /~:« wise/w Major professor Date 8/13/76 0-7 639 "3938' :1 ill L 33W” 3 A 3 l 'l H m3 0 l l l H Ell l n" ll AH3 l lllllllllllll ABSTRACT A MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING ANALYSIS OF RATERS' PERCEPTIONS OF NONVERBAL AND VERBAL BEHAVIORS OCCURRING IN SAME AND DIFFERENT SEX INTERACTIONS BY Kenneth L. Fischer A diversity of variables have been researched to weigh their relative importance to person perception. The more traditional, experimentally—controlled studies typically have focused upon only one variable at a time and have used photographs or pictures of people as stimulus material. Using the INDSCAL multidimensional scaling method, this present study, exploratory in nature, examined possible sex differences in person perception, as well as the feasi— bility that perceptions made along masculinevfeminine lines and dominant—submissive lines might be similar. Undergraduate, volunteer, psychology students (male N=90, female N=90) were administered the Trait Evaluation Index as a measure of masculinity and femininity, and the A Scale of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey as a measure of dominance and submissiveness. Four categories were made: high masculine—low feminine (hmlf), low masculine-high feminine (lmhf), high dominant (hd), and low Kenneth L. Fischer dominant (1d). Eight males and 8 females, two from each category, were used as target persons (TPs). Twenty-four males and 24 females, two from each category assigned to each of three conditions, were used as raters (Rs). The 2 interactors (Is), one male and one female, were psychol- ogy students earning research credits. Each TP interacted once with a male I and once with a female I. During each twoeminute interaction, only the TP was video taped. The Rs looked at two videotapes. Tape 1 showed one- minute segments of each of the 8 male TPs interacting with a male I (although the male I was not seen or heard); this was followed by ten—second segments of the first male TP presented before each of the other male TPs, until the first male TP had been presented contiguously with all others. Each male was presented contiguously with all others. Similarly, each female TP was presented in con— tiguity with all others. Tape 2 was also set up for paired— comparisons; except on this tape, TPs were interacting with a person of the other sex. Rs assigned to the n condition were instructed to rate the paired—comparisons stimuli simply on the basis of how similar they were; Rs assigned to the mf condition were instructed to rate on the basis of similarity on masculinity- femininity; Rs assigned to the ds condition rated the paired- comparisons on dominance-submissiveness. Kenneth L. Fischer Four judges (Js) sought to ascertain the dimensions presumably used by Rs in making statements of similarity. They viewed tapes and consulted the rank orderings of the TPs provided by the INDSCAL scaling analysis. The judges were able to agree upon dimensions of per— sonality presumably underlying the rankings and upon the nonverbal and/or verbal behaviors to which Rs attended. Inspections of the Js' dimensions of relevance for all groupings and combinations of Rs and TPs showed that: 1) Female and male Rs differed in perceptual judgments; 2) Each category of Rs perceived the TPs differently; 3) Voice quality was the behavior of the TPs most often attended to; 4) Varying the sex of the I interacting with the TP did make a difference in perception. However, Rs made more wrong than right guesses about the sex of the I; overall, female Rs were the superior guessers; both sexes made more correct guesses when I and TP were not of the same sex, especially, the female TP and male I combination; 5) Ratings of TPs made by Rs on a masculinity—femininity dimension were not similar to those made by Rs rating on dominance-submissiveness; rather, both sets of Rs were more comparable to Rs given neutral instructions for rating Sbmilarity. The subjectivity of the methodology utilized was dis— cussed, with particular attention given to subjectivity in Kenneth L. Fischer the judges' determining and naming dimensions of personality and behaviors attended to. The experimenter suggested several ways by which the accuracy of this study's subjec— tive findings might be checked. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING ANALYSIS OF RATERS' PERCEPTIONS OF NONVERBAL AND VERBAL BEHAVIORS OCCURRING IN SAME AND DIFFERENT SEX INTERACTIONS BY our “end.- Kenneth L. Fischer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1976 To Nanc, Who, more than anyone, Helped me "hang in there" and To Myself, For doing the "hanging" ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Elaine Donelson, my chairperson, who took me on, stayed with.me, and expertly guided me towards excellence, my highest and warmest regard. To Dave wessel, Jeanne Gullahorn, and Larry Messé, the other members of my committee, for their incisive comments and facilitating suggestions, my sincerest appreciation. To Pam Burgess, Ken Goldman, and Mike Schwartz, the ‘three psychology students, who became more than my assis— -tants, my deepest respect and admiration for a job well done. Thanks to the psychology students, who volunteered to participate as subjects. Thanks also to the clinical psychology department for thee use of their video-taping equipment and space. Finally, a personal note of affection and gratitude to bkuucy, my Love, who worked many long and arduous hours, earning money to pay the bills, so that I might be free to do what I now have accomplished. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Vi LIST OF FIGURESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... Vii INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOO000.000000000000000000000000... 1 Appearance...................................... 2 Mannerisms...................................... 3 Voice Quality.........2......................... 12 Visual, Nonverbal Vocal, Verbal................. 19 This Present Study.............................. 32 Expectations.................................... 33 INDSCAL Multidimensional Scaling Method......... 35 METHODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 38 Subjects........................................ 38 Tests Used...................................... 38 Selection of Target Persons (TPs)............... 41 Stimulus Material............................... 43 Selection of Raters (Rs)........................ 45 Rating Procedure................................ 45 Analysis Procedure.............................. 50 ESULTSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 54 Dimensions of Personality....................... 54 Aspects of TPs Attended To...................... 106 Guessing the Sex of the Interactor (I).......... 109 Summary of the Results.......................... 112 Sex Differences in Rater's Perceptual Judgments............................. 112 Sex Differences in Dimensions of Personal— ity Considered Most or Least Salient.. 112 Saliency of Dimensions for N, MF, and DS Raters................................ 114 Aspects of a Person Attended To............ 116 The Sex of the Interactor.................. 117 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS-~continued Page DISCUSSIONOOOOO0.0.0.0...0...0.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 118 Data ReprOduCibilitYOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0.0.0.0... 118 Expectations and Methodological Comments....... 119 Sex Differences in Raters...................... 122 Type Differences in Raters..................... 124 Type Differences in Target Persons............. 125 Stereotypic Inconsistency...................... 126 M’F and D‘s conditions comparedoooooooooooooooo 128 Guessing the Sex of the Interactor............. 130 Additional Ideas for Future Research........... 132 smarYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00... 133 REFERENCESOOOOOOO0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 134 APPENDIXOO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00... 139 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Range and Mean of M and F Scores on TEI and Range and Mean of (A) Scores, for Males and FemaleSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.....00...OOOOOOOOOOOOO Sex of I as Guessed by Rs for Same and Differ— ent Sex Interactions........................... Sex Differences in Raters' Perceptual Judgments Sex Differences in Dimensions of Personality Considered Most or Least Salient............... Saliency of Dimensions for N, MF, and DS Raters Number of Times Aspects of TPs Attended To by RSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOC0.0.0.....OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO Number of Correct Guesses by Rs for TP—I Combi— nationSOOOOOOOOOOCCOOOOOOIOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO vi Page 42 110 112 113 114 116 117 FIGURE 1. (a) (b) (C) 2. (a) (b) (C) 3. (a) db) (C) 4. (a) (b) (C) LIST OF FIGURES TPs: R(A11)TP(MM) — I=Reticent II=Gesticuw lative..................................... TPs: R(A11)TP(MM) - II=Gesticu1ative III=Other—Oriented......................... TPs: R(A11)TP(MM) - I=Reticent III=Other- Oriented................................... TPs: R(A11)TP(MF) - I=Soft II=Assertive.. TPs: RCA11)TP(MF) - II=Assertive III=Submissive............................. TPs: R(A11)TP(MF) - I=Soft III=Submissive TPs: R(A11)TP(FF) - I=Soft—Spoken II=Sloppy.................................. TPs: R(A11)TP(FF) - II=Sloppy III=Unsophisticated........................ TPs: R(A11)TP(FF) — I=Soft-Spoken III=Unsophisticated........................ TPs: R(A11)TP(FM) = I=Submissive II=Stereotypically-Feminine................ TPs: R(A11)TP(FM) — II=Stereotypically— Feminine III=Sex-Appea1ing....... ...... .. TPs: R(A11)TP(FM) — I=Submissive III-Sex— Appealing.................................. vii Page 60 60 61 62 62 63 65 65 66 67 67 68 INTRODUCTION What does a woman mean when she says, “Now there‘s a real man"? What does a man mean when he says, “Now there's a real woman“? Why does another man “look" masculine to a woman but not to me? Why does another woman “look“ feminine to me but not to a woman? Notwithstanding our respective ego problems, could it be that because I am a man and she is a woman, we perceive people differently? Furthermore, might what we commonly refer to as "masculine" or “feminine" be just as appropriately labeled "dominant" or “submissive"? This present study, exploratory in nature, investigates possible sex differences in person perception, as well as the feasibility that perceptions made along masculine— feminine lines and dominant—submissive lines might be similar. A diversity of variables have been researched to weigh their relative importance to person perception. The more traditional, experimentally-controlled studies typically have focused upon only one variable at a time and have used photographs or pictures of people as stimulus material (a practice that seems a far cry from the natural way people perceive each other in everyday life). Appearance Dress . . . Hamid (1968) found very marked stereotypes when subjects rated photographs of females in different modes of dress. Later, he (Hamid, 1969) studied the extent to which variance in the perception of others is a function of the clothes worn by trying to determine whether such variance was a function of the sex of the perceiver, the sex of the perceived person, or an interaction of these two. (This is an improvement in methodology since he introduces the additional variable of sex and considers both the per- ceiver and the perceived.) An analysis of variance showed extreme responding in rating the other sex, but the major proportion of variance was attributable to this effect in interaction with dress condition. Gibbins (1969) showed pictures of six costumes selected from women‘s magazines (all six were of indoor clothes; the photographs were carefully cut out to remove background effects; the heads of the models were also removed to con- trol for attractiveness or facial expression) to fifty 15—16—year—old girls who, on the basis of the outfits, made perceptual judgments about the wearers' age, occupational level, personality, dating pattern, sexual morals, smoking and drinking, hobbies, occasions on which the outfit is ‘worn and, to a lesser extent, educational level. His most important finding was that for this sample of subjects at least, the major dimension of the meaning of clothes is their fashionability. Again using photographs selected from magazines, Foster (1970) investigated the influence of the underclothed and/or unclothed body of the stimulus person on ascribed personality characteristics. Separate sub—groups of male and female subjects rated either the face only or the whole torso of underclothed and unclothed stimulus persons on semantic differential scales. The female respondents, who saw the whole torso, rated the unclothed female stimulus persons higher on activity and potency and lower on evalua— tion. Mannerisms Eyes . . . The effects of eye position on person per— ception were demonstrated by Tankard (1970). Stimulus photographs were prepared of models in 3 conditions, looking straight into the camera, looking downward, and looking sideways. Subjects changed the position of the iris of their eyes about 2 mm. Despite this fairly small change, the experiment showed a greater number of significant differ— ences in ratings for straight and downward comparisons than for straight and sideways comparisons. Subjects looking downward were perceived as less alert, more weak, more afraid, more ashamed, less receptive, more insecure, more passive, less attentive, less interested, more sad, and earning lower salaries than subjects looking straight ahead. Subjects looking sideways were perceived as more pleasant and more afraid than subjects looking straight ahead. Gitter, Mostofsky, and Guichard (1972) had their stimu- lus persons looking at another stimulus person (instead of a camera, of. Tankard‘s study), a much better way of investigating the social effects of visual interaction. Unfortunately, again, photographs were used for stimulus material. For the 10 photographs, (a) the eyes of the first stimulus person (1P) were pointing in the same direction as the orientation of the head, (b) both 1P and the second stimulus person (2P) were looking at points along the hori— zontal plane (not looking "upward" or "downward"), (c) the faces of both 1P and 2P were relatively blank and emotion- less. A second set of prints was made from the 10 photo- graphs for use with a second treatment group (1P) in which the 1P stimuli alone were shown. Each subject was presented with only one photograph at a time and asked to evaluate the 1P's (a) direction of gaze, (b) focus of gaze, and (c) type of emotion expressed. Subjects for the 2P treatment group were asked in addition if 2P was looking at 1P. Subjects in the 1P treatment group were shown a photograph of a girl in which the head was oriented and they were asked to indicate the corresponding direction of her eyes. The instructions given the subjects in the 2P treatment group were slightly different inasmuch as the photograph depicted both a 1P and a 2P model. The photographs in the 1P treatment group were identical to those of the 2P treatment group with the exception of the presence or absence of 2P. The overall results show the social effects of visual interaction. First, the presence of 2P affected the percep— tion of 1P, inasmuch as lP's eyes were perceived to look more toward 2P, and as 1P was perceived to express more emotion. Second, when 2P was perceived as looking at 1P, 1P was perceived as expressing less emotion than when 2P was not perceived as looking at 1P. (The authors state that the finding that when 2P was perceived as not looking at 1P, 1P was perceived as expressing more emotion, need not neces— sarily be considered paradoxical. Not looking may be in— terpreted as looking away from; and not looking thereby constitutes an example of another mode of social interaction. If 2P was seen as ignoring or purposely avoiding 1?, subjects may have indeed "read into" lP's expression some emotive content.) Third, in presence of 2P, 1P was perceived as focusing the gaze more than when 2P was absent. Finally, ‘whether 2P was present or not, women perceived more emotion on lP's face than did men. Hands . . . Manual expression was the subject of Gitin‘s (1970) study. She hypothesized that (a) Activation or Intensity would emerge as the most important factor or dimension of the semantic space for manual expression; (b) there would be at least three dimensions needed to define the semantic space for manual expression. For her stimuli, an actor was seated behind a suspended black cloth screen. Six—inch slits were cut, through which he extended his arms to a point halfway between his shoulders and elbows. Generally, the method of eliciting emotional expression that was used, was, the actor was instructed to try to experience and act out a specific emotional situation. Although she used a 16~millimeter motion picture camera to film the stimulus person‘s hands, her subjects saw only single frames (36) rather than film clips. Gitin conceded the limitation that still photographs may not necessarily represent emotional expression unless, as Ekman and Friesen (1967) stated, they happen to "coincide with some point during the period of maximum activity rather than with the beginning or end point of an act" thereby conveying "at least some impression of movement and perhaps by infer- ence some of the relevant sequential cues." (To this ex- perimenter's mind, at least, this is stretching things a bit.) She performed a three-mode (scales, concepts, subjects) factor analysis of 78 subjects' ratings of these 36 photo— «graphs of manual expression on 40 semantic differential-type scales. Four scale factors were identified: 1) Activation, 2) Evaluation, 3) Dynamism, and 4) Control. Similarly, four concept factors were found: 1) Grip, 2) Droop, 3) Cup, and 4) Push. One major subject factor was found. It was dis- covered that Scale Factor 1 intercorrelated most highly with Concept Factor 1, Scale Factor 2 with Concept Factor 2, Scale Factor 3 with Concept Factor 3, and Scale Factor 4 with Concept Factor 4. The magnitude of the intercorrela— tions diminished according to the respective decrease in importance of the factor for describing the verbal and visual spaces. Facial Expression . . . Most studies have used static stimuli, which are most frequently obtained by instructing or otherwise inducing the stimulus person to express differ— ent emotions and then photographing the result. In real life, however, it is apparent that emotional expressions have temporal properties that cannot be included in a photo- graph or a drawing. Further, the use of a set of photo- graphs obtained from a single stimulus person calls into question the generality of the obtained results. While most investigators have included a number of subjects in their studies, similar sampling of stimulus persons has not occurred. Many investigators have been aware of these prob- lems, and a number have expressed the need for a method of judging emotions "live" in the laboratory (e.g., Thompson and Meltzer, 1964). Miller, Banks, and Ogawa (1962) conducted an experiment in which a monkey received a conditioned stimulus (CS) followed by shock, but had no means of avoiding the shock. A second monkey, who did not receive the CS, was able to learn to avoid the shock by responding appropriately to the first monkey's anxiety in the presence of the CS. Whether the second monkey could identify the emotion of the first monkey is, of course, questionable; he could, however, use that emotion as a discriminative stimulus. Gubar's (1966) study is an attempt to adopt the Miller et a1. (1962) technique to the study of the recognition of facial expressions of emotion in humans. This was done by confronting both the subject and the observer with a dis— crimination task involving both reward and punishment, each correlated with a different stimulus. The subject could perceive the stimuli, but had no means of responding so as to receive the reward or avoid the punishment. The ob— server, in contrast, could respond so as to receive reward and avoid punishment (both for himself and for the subjects), but could not perceive the stimuli. Rather, the observer could perceive the expressions of the subject's face. Given these circumstances, better than chance performance on the part of the observer would imply that the observer could recognize, or at least discriminate between, the subject's facial expression in the presence of a reward stimulus and the subject's facial expression in the presence of a punishment stimulus. Gubar's results showed that: (a) Facial expressions can be evoked and judged "live" in a laboratory; (b) Actual experience with evoking situations was associated with better recognition of expressions than verbal knowledge of the same situation, and this better recognition was true for both expressions anticipating reward and for those anticipating shock. In a study of communication of affect through spontane- ous facial expressions (Buck et a1., 1972), emotional responses were produced through the presentation of emotion— ally loaded visual stimuli. Color slides with varied emo- tional content were presented to a human sender, while an observer watching the sender's face on closed—circuit telee vision attempted to (a) judge what kind of slide the sender was watching and to (b) rate the sender's emotional reac- tion. The experiment was designed to investigate whether significant nonverbal communication of affect could be demonstrated in this kind of experimental situation. It also explored the physiological concomitants of the communi- cation process: whether the physiological responses of an observer were influenced by the reception of accurate emo- tional information from a sender, and whether "physiologic covariation" between the physiological responses of the 10 sender and observer occurred and were related to the accur- acy of communication (of. Kaplan, Burch, and Bloom, 1964). Finally, the experiment explored the relationships of sex of subject, personality variables, and physiological re- sponding, with the ability to send and receive emotional information through facial expression. Results revealed significant communication of affect, particularly among female pairs. There was a negative relationship between the sender's skin conductance responsitivity and communica- tion accuracy. The findings of a later study (Buck, Miller, and Caul, 1974) suggest that the superior communication found among female pairs was due to the greater facial responsiveness of the female senders. Female senders were judged more accurately than male senders, but female observers were not reliably more accurate than male observers. Also, the experimenter rated females as being more facially expres- sive than males. This experiment replicated the finding of a negative correlation between facial communication and the skin conductance response to the slides. The tendency of males to be internalizers and females to be externalizers noted in the previous study was repeated in this experiment. (Jones, 1935, 1960, characterizes “internalizers“ as those who show little overt affect but evidence large electro- dermal activity, and "externalizers" as those who display 11 affect overtly but have minimal changes in skin potential.) Internalizers were found to be higher in introversion and sensitization, and more impersonal in their verbal descrip- tions of their emotions, than externalizers; externalizers were higher in self—esteem. Facial and Body Cues . . . Judge agreement regarding a detail of behavior has little meaning unless the judgment affects more molar judgments. Thus, moving pictures of foot movement might elicit high agreement regarding expres- sor anxiety when judges are shown foot cues alone. Foot cues might be totally ignored, however, in a real face—to- face situation. Foot cues do not "communicate" anxiety if they are not responded to. The issue of the true communica- tive nature of cues is being begged if cues are forced on what are labeled "naive" judges. This is the contention of Shapiro (1972) who analyzed the ratings of whole, head, or body sections of still photographs of five male counselors to answer: 1) Does high agreement between judges for a particular cue suggest that this cue is used when it is com- bined with other cues? 2) Are judgments of intensity of emotion particularly affected by body cues? The results of his analysis suggest that judges rating still photographs (on scales measuring empathy, activity, genuineness, potency, warmth, evaluation, and helpfulness) reach higher agreement rating bodies alone than faces alone. They do not use these 12 body cues, however, when given the opportunity to rate the whole person. Similarly, naive judges do not use body cues (to a significant level) in rating "activity" or "potency." Voice Quality Nonverbal vocal behavior is still another very impor— tant variable attended to in person perception. Nash (1971) designed a study to describe the ability of hospital staff and patients to perceive the emotional communication of others from tone of voice, independent of manifest content, and to determine the extent to which this skill in patients was influenced by two different types of hospital treatment. The study investigated the level of ability in four groups selected from the wards of a general hospital for acute illnesses: 51 psychiatric and 46 general medical patient— care and treatment personnel, and 56 psychiatric and 78 general medical inpatients. It also evaluated the effects of psychiatric and medical—surgical treatment on samples of 37 psychiatric and 29 medical-surgical inpatients. Level of ability was determined from subject responses to the Conn- Edwards Measure of Emotion Perception, a tape recording of content—standard vocal expressions which presents ten com- mon emotions spoken by male and female speakers. To aid interpretation of her findings and further test the stabil- ity of the experimental instrument, Nash investigated level 13 of skill for a sample of 82, and test-retest changes for a sample of 37 non-hospitalized healthy adults. Results supported the hypothesis of significant staff superiority to patients, but provided no evidence that psychiatric staff was more skilled than medical staff. Both categories of patients were equally poor and had signifi- cantly less skill than either staff or non-hospitalized healthy adults. The study failed to provide evidence that psychiatric treatment improved patient skill. Nash inter— prets these results as suggesting that on discharge from hospital as well as on admission, patients (independently of diagnostic classification) suffer a depressed responsiveness to emotional stimuli. Further, customary devices for mak— ing one‘s meaning clear, nuances of voice tone, etc., which are adequate for ordinary social situations, are inadequate for effective communication with patients. The Speaking Voice and Personality Diagnosis . . . The possibilities of exploiting speaking voice for a personality diagnosis were examined by Bortz (1971), who studied the relations between the following groups of variables: (a) Measures of acoustic structure of voice; (b) Measures of phenomenological characteristics of voice; (0) Personal— ity diagnoses on the basis of voice; (d) Variables of measur— ing personality with the help of tests and questionnaires. The results obtained from his analyses were that extraverted 14 speakers possess a higher ability of vocal expression than introverted speakers. Neurotic characteristics of a speaker are associated with a more favorable evaluation of his voice. Speakers judged to be intelligent, versatile, and well-balanced on the basis of their voice, possess a high flexibility of vocal expression. The physical vari- ables of acoustic structure of voice covaried insignificant- ly with the personality of the speaker. No voice variable showed any significant relation with verbal intelligence of the speaker. Voice Pitch, Tone, Rate . . . Phillis (1970) used 120 males and females in the fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth grades to rate two male speakers of each of six voice types (high pitch, low pitch, high loud- ness, low loudness, high tempo and low tempo) on three evaluative scales and three dynamism scales. She predicted that high pitch and high tempo speakers would be rated as more positively valued than high loudness speakers, and that high loudness and high tempo speakers would be rated as more dynamic than high pitch speakers. The latter pre— diction was confirmed by the data while the former was not. Differences between voices of the same type led to the con— clusion that voice qualities, other than pitch, loudness and tempo, affected the ratings, especially those made on the evaluative scales. 15 In general, men who spoke loudly, or with high pitched voices, were rated as valued while those who spoke softly were not; men who spoke loudly or quickly were seen as more dynamic than speakers who spoke slowly or softly or with high—pitched voices. The sex-of—judge affected both the evaluative and dynamism ratings of the voices. In the evaluative analysis, the sex differences were attributed to the extreme ratings of the females, especially of the high loudness and low loud- ness voices. The sex differences in the dynamism ratings were attributed to the sharper discrimination made by the males between the high pitch and low pitch voices. The females, on the other hand, discriminated more between high loudneSs and low loudness and high tempo and low tempo voices than did the males. Age differences were also found in both the evaluative and dynamism ratings. There was a consistent developmental trend in the ratings of the voices on the evaluative scales. (Unfortunately, the nature and direction of the trend is not spelled out in the dissertation abstract.) With regard to the ratings of the voices on the dynamism.scales, it was concluded that the youngest age group was the most accurate. Voice Quality Profile and Loudness and Tempo . . . The Voice Quality Profile is based on the voice qualities of pitch, loudness and tempo. A previous study found a l6 relationship between Voice Quality Profile and MMPI pro- files (Markel, 1969). Markel et al. (1972) extended the study of the relationship between voice quality and person- ality traits to a sample of normal adults, and examined the usefulness of a Voice Quality Profile based only on loud- ness and tempo. He obtained speech samples and 16 PF scores from 104 male college students. The speech samples were rated for loudness and tempo and four voice quality profile types were identified: loud-fast; loud-slow; soft—fast; soft—slow. Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference between the four groups on the 16 PF. On the basis of this study and a previous study using the MMPI, actuarial descriptions of the specific personality traits associated with each voice quality profile type were pro— vided. Loud—Fast - People with this Voice Quality Profile type tend to rely on personal resources to deal with stress. They tend to expect the worst from people and situations and to be intrapunitive when they encounter difficulties. Loud—Slow - People with this Voice Quality Profile type are likely to be confident, competent, and competitive in most situations. They are rebellious, perhaps more for rebellion's sake than for philosophical reasons. They are probably not very introspective and may respond to stressful situations with hypochondriacal symptoms and concern with bodily function. Soft-Fast - People with this Voice Quality Profile type are optimistic about the future and actively seek unique experiences. Because they do not conform blindly, their behavior is likely to be seen as rebellious but probably reflects their independence of thought and action. They are likely to be carefree much of the time and have the inner 17 resources and stamina to retain their composure even in stressful situations. Soft-Slow — People with this Voice Quality Profile type are likely to be reckless and carefree in relatively con- trolled situations. However, when they encounter stress, they are likely to withdraw and become introspective. In such situations they may develop obsessional apprehensions and thus impose many internal constraints on their own behavior. Molecular Approaches to Voice Quality . . . Duffy (1970) made a phonellescopic investigation of the pitch characteristics of ll-, 13-, and 15-year-old females. He presented data descriptive of the incidence, extent, and upper and lower limits of phenomena known as frequency breaks (FB's)-("voice breaks" of earlier studies). He dis- cussed and compared his data with similar data from other studies of males and females of various ages. His results support the conclusion that the previously presumed rela— tionship between FB's and perceived pitch breaks does not hold. FB's are not the physical correlates of the "cracking“ of pitch which has been observed to accompany adolescent voice change. Data from a second phase of his study indicated that FB's are not perceived as a pitch phenomenon as has been assumed, but may be associated with the perception of "rough" vocal quality. Beasley, Zemlin, and Silverman (1972) studied listen— ers' judgments of frequency shifted—time expanded (FD) and frequency shifted-time restored (TR) speech signals from a Iman and a woman. The stimulus items were 11 vowels embedded 18 in an /h-vowel-d/ context. These items were spoken by two normal male and two normal female adult speakers. The spoken items were then processed through five conditions (20% through 60% in 10% increments) of FD and TR, using an electromechanical time compressor. Twenty—nine normally hearing young adult listeners were required to rate the stimuli on semantic differential-type scales of Masculine— Feminine, Like-Dislike, and Intelligible—Unintelligible. The results, similar for both conditions, showed that the female speech sounded increasingly more masculine from 20% through 60%. This effect was most pronounced for the frequency—shifted-time—restored condition. The results for the Like-Dislike scale suggested that the female speaker was preferred over the male. However, this preference was probably not unrelated to the results on the Intelligible—Unintelligible scale, on which the female was rated more intelligible. Thus, these data support the contention that listeners subjected to frequency—shifted speech signals will choose to listen to a phonemically more intelligible Speaker, in spite of possible phonetic quality distortions - i.e., the female speaker was rated more "male-like" (and hence the Possibility of phonetic quality distortions) as the per- Centage of frequency shifting increased, yet she was also rated more intelligible (phonemically more intelligible) l9 and more likeable (related to more intelligible) than the male speaker. All of which underscores the contention that intelligibility is critical in a listener‘s preference for frequency-shifted speech. Visual, Nonverbal Vocal, Verbal More relevant for this experimenter are the studies which have sought to weigh the relative importance of each of the three channels through which human communicative behavior can be viewed as functioning: the visual, none verbal vocal, and verbal, for person perception. Visual Versus Non—Visual . . . Rinella, Ferguson, and Sager (1970) studied the effects of an interview in which all visual cues were blocked. In 2-person simulated employ— ment interviews, blindfolded interviewers (N—ll9) perceived interviewees in general in the same ways as did seeing interviewers (N=256), when given in advance the set wagm. or 991d, The one exception was on the trait "good—looking." Blindfolded interviewers were more apt to describe inter- viewees as good-looking (72%) than were interviewers who saw their interviewees (60%). Relative Effectiveness of Visual and Nonverbal Vocal Assessed . . . Burns and Beier (1973) assessed the relative effectiveness of the nonverbal vocal and visual channels in influencing observers' judgment of communicative stimuli. Observers were asked to judge various portrayals of feeling 20 state on film, from which certain cue components had been systematically removed. Judgments from visual cues were found to be more accurate as measured against the (audio visual) criterion than were judgments from vocal cues. Accuracy was measured by scoring the responses of the exper- imental groups as to their agreement with those of a criterion group which had rated from audio visual input. Removal of cue components tended to depress accuracy, particularly the removal of visual cues. The interactions across various mood states suggest that channels differ with regard to the amount of informa- tion they convey in the various mood states. Of particular interest is the category anxious, because it illustrates a reversal of prime influence from the visual to the vocal channel. These data seem consistent with the observation that people can be recognized as being anxious in many ways; for example, while a person may look "composed," anxiety is inferred from subtle variations of the voice. Accuracy scores for the category "seductive" also differ from the majority of moods and indicated equal effectiveness of the audio and visual modes. The data for the latter suggest that bggh_cue categories were necessary for accurate com— munication of the mood state. An important limitation of this study is the fact that the portrayals of emotions used were acted expressions. 21 They carried their meaning accurately in the sense that they were recognized with a high degree of reliability by the criterion group. The question remains: How do acted mood expressions compare with genuine mood expressions? Facial Expressions Versus Voice Tone . . . Encoding and decoding nonverbal cues of emotion was the object of Zuckerman et al. (1975) investigation. Subjects (“senders“) encoded six emotions twice, first via facial expressions and second via tone of voice. These expressions were re— corded and presented for decoding to the senders and an additional group of judges. Results were as follows: (a) the ability (over all emotions) to encode and the abil— ity to decode both visual and auditory cues were signifi— cantly related; (b) the relationship between encoding and decoding cues of the same emotion appeared low or negative; (c) the ability to decode visual cues was significantly related to the ability to decode auditory cues, but the correlations among encoding (and decoding) scores on dif- ferent emotions were low; (d) females were slightly better encoders, and significantly better decoders, than males; (e) acquaintance between sender and judge improved decoding scores among males but not among females; (f) auditory < IE X>< X>< >< X>< x> u!>- 0 new» ow> OW> ow> ow> OUU> ow> ow.» ow> OWCP OW> Educated Honorable Warm-hearted Friendly Trustworthy Considerate Eloquent Easy-going Proper Obliging Caufious Analytical Capable Sportsmanlike Respectable Cool-headed Impartial Courageous Opportunistic Frank Systematic Ethical Conversable Self-assured Self-reliant Reasonable Verbally-expressive Alert Conscientious Motivated Truthful Tolerant Well-mannered Tidy Joyous Obedient Friendly Trustworthy Considerate Tender-hearted Unswerving Unconventional 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. OW> ow> OW> 00579 nw> ow> ow> ow> ow> ow> OUd> ow> ow> can» Competent Approachable Achieving Unbiased Flexible Insightful Relentless Charitable Jovial Pofished Exact Compliant Responsive Patient Hopeful Tasteful Reputable Straightforward Likeable Honest Accurate Learned Willing Hard-working Willing Active Unprejudiced Natural Punctual Happy Forthright Good-natured Inquiring Careful Talented Self-directing Persevering Bright Courteous Ambitious Honest Happy 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. .41. 42. ow> ow> own» ow> own» CUU> ow> ow> OUULP ocuz> ow> OWLP ow> cw> Polished Exact Compliant ' Untiring Obliging Smooth-spoken Helpful Earnest Communicative Versatile Willing Kind Wholesome Prompt-acting Inquisitive Jubflant Brilliant Unconforming Conversational Sane Genuine Articulate ' Pleasant Agreeable Intellectual Self-sufficient Spirited Cordial Merry Success-seeking Witty Satisfied Methodical Resourceful Teachable Compassionate Outgoing Determined Fair-minded Open-minded Self-reliant Verbally-expressive 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. "50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. OW> ow> ow> OW> OUJ> 005:9 ow.» GUS} Otd> ow> OW> Ott> ow> OW> Adaptable Polite Dependable Intelligent Stable Sincere Jubilant Brilliant Unconforming Independent Good-humored Companionable Eager Benevolent Dafing Even-tempered Competitive Individualistic Fluent Sharp-witted Studious Evaluative Accomplished Self-controlled Sensible Ambitious Quick Lively Cultivated Optimistic Assertive Refined ‘Bold Reliable Mature Good-natu red Precise Orderly lncorruptible Conscientious Sociable Reasonable 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. ow> OUU> OUU> OUU> OUU> OUd> ow?» ow> ow> ow> ow> ow> OW> OUU> Candid Alterable Scrutinizing Wel l-organized Insightful Unafraid Meditative Shrewd Talkative Persistent Plain-spoken Changeable Evaluative Accomplished Self-controlled Just Open-minded Enterprising Self-trusting Receptive Wise Correct Neat Humane Soft-hea rted Meticu lous Sedate Genial Smart Rational Sympathetic Able Bright Versatile Pleasant Self-coordinating Self-regulated Tolerant Wise Soft-hearted Self-i nterested Fortune-seeking 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. '76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. OU5> 05529 Responsible Friendly Polite Agreeable Sane Confident Unfaltering B C ow.» CRISP OW> OUfi> DOU> Otd> OU5> Otd> OW> CW?» 055?» Proper Studious Witty Compliant Methodical Shrewd Meditative Tender-hearted Likeable Wa rm-hea rted Motivated Genial Smart Rational Learned Neat U nafra id Self-trusting Honest Unbiased Mature Stable Reliable Trustworthy Adaptable Good-natu red Contented Calm Energetic Smooth-spoken Obliging Unswerving Enterprising Honorable Accurate 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. Obd> OUU> ow> Otfi§> Obit? 005:9 005:9 Obj?» OW?» Otfi> Obd> Obd> OW> OWSP Respectable Rafional Persevering Self-reliant Punctual Courteous Conversational Receptive Hopeful Easy-going Reflective lncorruptible Inquiring Correct Intellectual Independent Earnest Self-assured CooLheaded Driving Firm-minded Calm Orderly Satisfied Contented Calm Energetic Cultivated Wholesome Self-directing Self-sufficient Careful Inquisitive Proper Impartial Precise Fair-minded Cheerful Ethical Sociable Poised Decent 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. DUI?» ow> 005:? OUJZP Otfi> ow> OWZIP ow> Obi} 0w> Dw> Ow} OW} OUU> Determined Patient Well-organized Relentless Systematic Frank Individualistic Willing . Reputable Eloquent Exact PoHshed Self-sufficient Lively Cordial Alterable Watchful Eager Enthusiastic Respectful Courageous Sportsmanlike Quick Self-reliant Obliging Caufious Persistent Competent Decent Poised Sociable Poised Decent Individualistic Wholesome Careful Accomplished Articulate Well-mannered Fluent Energetic Tidy 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. ow> OW} ow> our» ocu> CRISP ow> OUU> ow> OUUI> OW> OW> OW> Straightforward Kind Willing Respectful Reflective Enthusiastic Well-behaved Humane Unprejudiced Moral Responsive Agreeable Just Alert Resourceful Watchful F irm-minded Driving Composed Aspiring Moral Cheerful Perceptive Confident Communicative Smart Approachable Agreeable Level-headed Well-behaved Outgoing Level-headed Flexible Active Good-natu red Tasteful Respectful Reflective Enthusiastic 143 WHAT ARE YOU LIKE? Answer the following statements either true or false. Answer as honestly as you can. In other words, answer as it really is for you rather than how you think it should be. Use + for true and 0 for false. ds 1. In being thrown by chance with a stranger, you wait for him to introduce himself. ds 2. You are satisfied to let someone else take the lead in group activities. 3. You hesitate to tell people to mind their own business. ds 4. You feel self-conscious in the presence of important people. ds 5. You like to sell things (that is, to act as a salesman). 6. You are so shy it bothers you. 7. You are often the life of the party. ds 8. You seek to avoid all trouble with other people. 9. You are unhappy unless things in an organization go pretty much as you want them to. ds 10. When you are attracted to a person whom you have not met, you make an active attempt to get acquainted even though it may be difficult. '__ ds 11. You have more than once taken the lead in organiz- ing a project or a group of some kind. 12. You would like to be a host or hostess for parties at a club. ds 13. You would like to take on important responsibili— ties such as organizing a new business. 14. You are happiest when you get involved in a project that calls for rapid action. ds 15. When a person does not play fair you hesitate to say anything about it to him. 144 ds 16. At the scene of an accident you take an active part in helping out. ds 17. You find it somewhat difficult to say "no" to a salesman who tries to sell you something you do not really want. 18. You would rather apply for a job by writing a letter than by going through with a personal interview. 19. You would rather stop and think things over before speaking up. ds 20. You avoid arguing over a price with a clerk or salesman. ds 21. You would rather work for a good boss than for yourself. 22. It pays to "turn the other cheek“ rather than to start a fight. ds 23. The thought of making a speech frightens you. 24. You can express yourself more readily in speech than in writing. ds 25. If someone you know has been spreading untrue and bad stories about you, you see him as soon as possible and have a talk about it. 26. You have often found it necessary to fight for what you believe to be right. ds 27. When you were a child, many of your playmates naturally expected you to be the leader. 28. In group undertakings you almost always feel that your own plans are best. 29. It bothers you to see someone else bungling a job that you know perfectly well how to manage. ds 30. You enjoy applying for a job in person. 31. You have hesitated to make or accept dates because of shyness. 32. If anyone steps ahead of you in line, he is likely to hear from you about it. 145 33. You sometimes avoid social contacts for fear of doing or saying something wrong. 34. When you resent the actions of someone you promptly tell him so. 35. You are a listener rather than a talker in social situations. ds 36. When you find that something you have bought is defective, you hesitate to demand a refund. ds 37. You hesitate to walk into a meeting when you know that everyone's eyes will be upon you. ds 38. When you are served stale or inferior food in a restaurant, you say nothing about it. 39. You very often seek the advice of other people. ds 40. You are rather good at bluffing when you find your— self in difficulty. ds 41. You can think of a good excuse when you need one. 42. If you want a thing done right you must do it yourself. ds 43. You speak out in meetings to oppose those you feel sure are wrong. ds 44. You like to speak in public. 45. You see to it that people do not take advantage of you. ds 46. If you hold an opinion that is radically different from that expressed by a lecturer, you are likely to tell him about it either during or after the lecture. 47. You would rather plan an activity than take part in it. ds 48. When a clerk in a store waits on others who should come after you, you call his attention to the fact. ds 49. When you see someone in a public place you think you recognizerou ask him whether you have met before. 146 50. Shyness keeps you from being as popular as you should be. ds 51. You take the lead in putting life into a dull party. 52. You would rather spend an evening reading at home than to attend a large party. ds 53. You find it difficult to get rid of a salesman to whom you do not care to listen or give your time. 54. It bothers you to have other people tell you what you should do. ds 55. You find it difficult to ask people for money or other donations even for a cause in which you are interw ested. 147 Sample of Instruction Cards and Rs' TP Rating Card: How similar are each of these pairs? 1 = most similar, 9 = least similar In regard to masculinity-femininity, how similar are each of these pairs? 1 = most similar, 9 = least similar In regard to dominance—submissiveness, how similar are each of these pairs? 1 = most similar, 9 = least similar TP 1 as standard & 2 F1 r4 IA F‘ es la F1 m u: (n) (mf ) (d8) Rating Card "IllilillilllIIIliIIiII