1 1“" ‘I""- ‘ "' ”riff" 't'I' . a" " a ' '.‘:I" . .3'I3,3,‘,3_>‘i333"l333' . M64...“ """".. I." 3.31.33 V4! "3'5" QM, 7' 1:333 ""‘fl'Q‘: my 9.38.? .33-3333 \I\" ":1 I,r'.1fy"‘ .35 '33'1 3 33'I-'.I'q ""8" '\{I I)“ .. ."J.:‘... U‘ I 'I‘l.\3“3' \I h“: W1 I...¢Mm:v‘._ 33'? :9 gm», .'."I.',I 3,.: ‘t' .33? '~'M¥.‘- '4'), .13.; \' .‘ .". ".": 'Iul3 3‘II.I.".I‘.;3 t {film . H, J "'I|‘ “ ' "' "'3. ' .U "7"“. $741,?” . .« . ,.. 3 .3 ago» 3. 33 3‘ I: I'. 33'43'3-3I3.33‘ J. 1 . "“II "' ' "~..« ’ -'.' v 'I;t:" 1“" K V'fibfifi'fi'" "" ‘ . I "':‘:;‘| '333133 "1.3". .-"k. 33.3 3 1933"": ,I D. "1' H,I3-33,3\I3.333.333. .3\ "‘ 3" "(3213' .I no ‘0 "I I '. )3: (ml ,3: , 3. 3. w I ,3 Ju' . 3-‘ . I .. -" '1'.” II? 3 I . “Jr. .: 9'... .. :V'i'm'u'flK‘ 3'3331131"'31:I"3' :33 I ”.3 ’.. , b3 3 "\\"""""3" 3' 333333.31: '-"' " '-""'-‘ " 2023 1' ""'"".’ "'~""" ' I51" "I" .‘ I'd NI' I """l' I3: - , -'| I 3, 3.3 I 'I 3 .3'. \"I‘.yg\'v"..'."' 3:1".' 1.".5': 1'1 4 I'l.'r ' ' ' ' "':""':""("'.;"'"I" I'J'I‘u II33.. . . '. ' ., \‘~‘-”"""':h"",333 .. . K4» ""'. .II"" "" "W ' 3 33.3,3 3|33. I 'DIL3' J:‘3.:':‘.,' II3' 3:3 3 “33 I 3 3.1331113 3}“:3..:|33"3"3 3',- .I.. , I \. 1'"I 3:3‘3.” ;);,'3 I III 335 1.. .3 :'\'|' ""'"'| ""\.I')"i 1'II3 |\' 3.,33333...3,33,3 ‘11:"; 1 - . (3:: .-:._‘ :\ .'I . "\I"' -' .- 33353. ,3? .35 «133 III "'"'",'§\'\§ 3'13(_:33,|‘II3 I. I I . I"\1""' '1‘?“ \ "'.3.|3'l 'I‘ I'I'3o'3o'3I- I,"'I"", 2".“ " 1" "1' -', ,||‘ 1.14:. 333%. {Wis 3333\3‘3413'3 Mu"??? .. $3113.32, “' II, 3.0 ,‘.I..'-'- .1 ‘A-‘ug‘; :A'“' . Q? - .9 n,‘ A 1"" I I ob. n g, e; 1‘9 '.‘.. . 'Kq'3- ':33 ' . I I" $33.. 3,33 ."'."":, 13,343,? ' 333,», v -. 3\ \ Iu'r'mh. 5”}; *1. \II I R35: ‘1"' 5:3: .‘I 1‘31-_' 1' - I... .. .v.’ . .- ' ' ‘. " ' . 'r'-; "'1' '."""":"' 3 .,33 .‘. 3 1'3' 3. 3 ,3. 3:333 33' 33 333: 3 3'3 ., 3 “333133.”. 3333*ng 3 V1'3‘."""'.k| '," ,3' '."3 I333 ' 'II "'%,'II‘ 'I' ' ' ' ' 5' ' ' ' ' I .1'33 3 ;I3- ‘v . I . o '_ V :3.“ - .- 14. . - -.v.’ .1... w%{s~r9:_~3_3 . ."w I "I' ' ".' J: "-. 2;"'|I.". 3 I . :3 H l,3.",3 a 3,1: 333 33 . 7' ‘ 1' 53.3.1 ' ' -‘.-'."":II .:..-. .1 w}. 333,1”,2'1'3‘933 ;:;'H:.v""‘ .I' ,3, 3333 ' ' 1 3, 3 -3 I." -I;33 ‘ - 3 J .03“: l h 3 ~ ',:".""" 3 .3‘ l' " '{j' 3%,," 'IIV'C‘.‘ 'fi'f ',3|I3II, 34,3“ 3 ‘I " ' 3,3""||' LII". 'i '4‘ fi' '3'! 3 ' '-' ' "H 11"” 'Ip'; __ ""1 1,. ',,' . ,' “If '..","""',;J'_.13",'.J|'1VL' .3'131'33'3'3 Ur '.. " .' ..' .' “In. 1'. 1" It .. ‘ ‘ 1 ' I , 3 3,\ , ..‘ ' 1 ‘ ' I I' I I ' ', " LL: """""l.'.ri'l"1-"'1é§ rI', ' ‘ " "'J3'H 7'" l '1»: 1 a ‘ . ..J.,' 5,? I... "£71“? 4". ’i'r‘i This is to certify that the thesis entitled 77"; Whiz/MP W mom/W 5?} FWCEIW Md 11m @M'JM- % AgiA Md 60w 3121M Fwy»: presented by A w Assor has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M a A degree in Palm/urge” g; Major professfi g Date / / 73 l r THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION OF PERCEIVERS AND THEIR EVALUATIONS OF HIGH AND LOW STATUS PERSONS BY Avi Assor A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1978 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION OF PERCEIVERS AND THEIR EVALUATIONS OF HIGH AND LOW STATUS PERSONS BY Avi Assor This study attempted to clarifythe relationship between the motivation of the perceivers and the degree of favorability in their evaluations of others. Two-hundred fifty male and female undergraduates completed the Dominance Scale (Cough, 1969), the Succorance, Deference and Autonomy Scales (Edwards, 1959) and the Sentence Completion Test (Aronoff, 1971). They watched a video-tape of two college students, who were introduced as a high and a low status persons and rated them on semantic differential scales of bipolar traits. As predicted, succorance, deference and sense of personal incompetence were associated with a tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low, whereas dominance, antagonistic-esteem and autonomy needs were negatively related to that tendency. It was also found that gratification of the basic needs for esteem and safety was associated with positive evaluation of both stimulus persons. To my dear parents for your encouragement throughout the years ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people deserve thanks for their assistance in the pre— paration of the thesis. First, I wish to thank Dr. Joel Aronoff for his support and enthusiasm throughout the work. Joel showed a sincere and persistent interest in my professional deve10pment, and strongly kindled my interest in psychological research. I enjoyed our theore- tical discussions both for their challenging intellectual content and for their open and equalitarian atmosphere. I especially learned to appreciate Joel's emphasis on the substantive rather than the technical aspects of the question. I would like to thank Dr. Larry Messé for his extensive help with the quantitative analysis. In addition, Larry's ability to cut through irrelevant details and focus on the main issue helped me to restrain my "natural" attraction to complexities. Thanks are also due to Dr. Gary Stollak for introducing me to the research on perceptual style which served as the starting point of this study. Gary's originality and his witty and colorful language were always refreshing and enjoyable. Much deserved thanks go to my undergraduate research assistants: Mark, a responsible and pleasant experimenter and coder; the coders-— David, Tricia, Barbara, Ellen, Marti, Yolanda, Ava, Donna, Gary and Rob. I deeply appreciate their high quality work and their persistence iii in the performance of tasks which were often difficult and time consuming. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my wife, Tirtza, for many hours of illuminating conversations about the theore- tical and technical aspects of the study, for much organizational and technical help, for her warmth and moral support in difficult times and for the pleasure of sharing success with her. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Research Question . . . . . . . 1 Theory and Research on the Relationship Between Personality and Evaluation . . . . . . 3 The Motive- Directed Impression Formation Approach: Defensive and Expressive Functions of the Evaluative Process . . . . . . S The Personality Constructs Chosen for the Study . . . . 12 The Motivational Characteristics of the Personality Constructs Chosen for the Study and Their Stimuli- Dependent Cross-Situational Effects on Evaluation . . 14 Personal Motives and Their Stimuli- Independent, Mood- Related Enduring Effects on Evaluation . . . . 23 Personal Motives and Their Temporary Stimuli- -Dependent Effects on Evaluation . . . . . . . 24 The Motive Related Use of the Subdimensions of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Motivation and Delayed Evaluation . . . . . 33 Empirical Research on the Relationship Between the Motives Chosen for the Study and Evaluation . . . . . 34 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Overview of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O Personality Measures . . . . . . . . 40 The Video- -Tape Presentation of the Stimulus Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Manipulation of Status . . . . . 56 Subjects' Involvement and the Induced Accuracy Set . . 56 Instructions Related to Stimulus Evaluation in the Second Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S7 Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter III. Procedure . Design RESULTS . Manipulation Check . Hypothesis I: Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate the High Status Person More Favorably than the Low Hypothesis II: Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate Both Stimulus Persons Favorably . Motivation and the Separate Evaluation of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons . The Relationship Between Dominance, Antagonistic- -Esteem, and Evaluation of the High and Low Status Person Hypothesis III: The Relationship Between the Competence and Sociability Subdimensions of Evaluation . . Hypothesis IV: The High Status Person Would Not Be Described More Positively than the Low on All Three Subdimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis V and VI: The Motive Related Use of the Subdimensions of Evaluations . . . . . . Additional Results . . . . . . . Sense of Personal Competence, Control, and Worth, and Evaluation of Others . The Sociability and Competence Factors Underlying Subjects' Evaluations of the High and Low Status Persons . Correlations Between the Competence and Sociability Measures Within and Between the High and Low Status Persons . IV. DISCUSSION Hypothesis I: Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate the High Status Person More Favorably than the Low Hypothesis II: Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate Both Stimulus Persons Favorably . . Sense of Personal Competence, Control and Worth, Gratification of Basic Needs, and Evaluation The Evaluative Strategies of Dominance and Antagonistic- Esteem Oriented Subjects . The Usefulness of the Subdimensions of Evaluation . Hypotheses III to VI: Factors Influencing Subjects‘ Use of the Subdimensions of Evaluation . Conceptualization of the Personality Variables in the Study . . . . . . . . Implications and Suggestions for Further Research . vi Page 65 66 68 68 68 72 75 80 82 82 87 87 90 94 96 97 102 104 109 110 111 114 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDICES Appendix A. Questionnaires . B. Intercorrelations and Factor Analyses for the Personality Measures C. The Main Hypotheses Tested on Measures Based on the Adjective Checklist D. Factor Analyses of the Subjects Ratings of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons . . . . . . . . E. Analyses of Variance With and Without Sex of Perceiver as a Factor vii Page 124 164 170 172 175 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Mean Interjudge Correlation Coefficients for the S.C.T. Categories and Subcategories . The Traits Composing the Sociability, Competence, and Interesting-Charming Measures Correlations Between Subjects' Motive Scores and Differences in Their Evaluations of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons in Immediate and Delayed Evaluation . Correlations Between Subjects' Motive Scores and Their Combined Positive Evaluation of Both Stimulus Persons in Immediate and Delayed Evaluation Correlations Between Male Subjects' Motive Scores and Their Evaluation of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons in Immediate and Delayed Evaluation Correlations Between Female Subjects' Motive Scores and Their Evaluation of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons in Immediate and Delayed Evaluation Correlations Between Male Subjects' Scores on Antagonistic-Esteem and Dominance, and Their Evaluation of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons . . . Correlations Between the Sociability and Competence Factors Derived from the Factor Analyses (Oblique Rotation) of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons . . . . . . Correlations Between the Subdimensions of Evaluation for the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons . Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Sociability viii Page 55 70 73 76 79 81 83 8S Table 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 8-1. B-3. 8-4. 8-5. 8-6. C-1. C-2. Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Competence . Mean Sociability Scores Given to the High and Low Status Persons by Dependency, Dominance, and Neutral Subjects . . . Correlations Between Subjects' Scores on Measures of Personal Sense of Competence, Control or Self-Worth, and Their Combined Positive Evaluation of Both Stimulus Persons in Immediate and Delayed Evaluation . The Sociability and Competence Factors Derived from the Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of the Ratings of the High Status Person . The Sociability and Competence Factors Derived from the Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of the Ratings of the Low Status Person Intercorrelations Between the Personality Variables Included in the Initial Phase of the Study for Male Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations Between the Personality Variables Included in the Initial Phase of the Study for Female Subjects . Intercorrelations Between the Personality Variables Included in the Initial Phase of the Study for the Total Sample . Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of Personality Measures for Male Subjects . Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of Personality Measures for Female Subjects . Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of Personality Measures for the Total Sample . . . . Correlations Between Subjects' Motive Scores and Differences in Their Evaluations of the High and the Low Status Stimulus Persons . . . . . . Correlations Between Subjects Scores on Measures of Personal Sense of Competence, Control, or Worth, and Their Combined Evaluation of Both Stimulus Persons ix Page 86 86 88 91 92 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 Table Page D-l. Factor Analysis (Oblique Rotation) of Subjects' Ratings of the High Status Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 D-2. Factor Analysis (Oblique Rotation) of Subjects' Ratings of the Low Status Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 D-3. Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of Subjects' Ratings of Both Stimulus Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 E-l. Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Interesting-Charming . . 175 E-2. Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Sex of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Sociability . 176 E-3. Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Sex of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 E-4. Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Sex of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Interesting-Charming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. General Model of the Motive Directed Evaluative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Correlations Between the Competence and the Sociability Scores Given to the High and Low Status Persons . . . . 95 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Research Question It seems a very long time ago that a group of psychologists (e.g., Postman, Brunner and McGinnies, 1948) proposed that the in- dividual's internal structures selected, modified and distorted their perception of external events. Reviews of the field of person percep- tion (e.g., Schneider, 1973; Shrauger and Altrocchi, 1964; Tagiuri, 1969), surveying the massive literature of replications and non-repli- cations that has been amassed since then, conclude that this process still lacks sufficient empirical support. However, examination of much of the research seems to indicate that the failure to establish clear relationship between personality and impression formation might have stemmed from inadequate treatment of several theoretical and methodological issues. In general terms, one recurrent deficiency was the lack of satisfactory analysis of the motives and personality constructs involved. Another important problem was that the choice of the dimension of person perception to be studied was not guided by sufficient analysis of the motivational significance and relevance of that dimension. The last problem stemmed from the fact that predictions about the relationship between motivation and impression formation were not based on a theoretical analysis of the process by which motivation of the perceiver influences his/her impressions of others. The current study attempted to demonstrate that when enough attention is devoted to theoretical and methodological issues, it is possible to find a clear relationship between motivation and impression formation. The Phenomena of Evaluative Style The aspect of impression-formation chosen for this study was "favorability of evaluation of others." The process of evaluating others seems to be a rather intuitive and self-evident phenomena. Other people's evaluations seem to be an important determinant of one's current level of self-esteem and mood (Sullivan, 1948; Erikson, 1950; Gould, 1972). Perhaps the most important feature of the concept of evaluation is that different evaluations can be arranged on a general favorability dimension ranging from the most positive to the most negative. This assertion is convincingly supported by Osgood et al.‘s (1957) analysis of the dimensions of meaning, Anderson's (1968) lik- ability ratings of 555 traits, and Messé, Stollak and their colleagues' studies on perceptual style (Messé and Stollak, 1976). In spite of the apparent importance of the variable of ”favor- ability of evaluation of other," little research was undertaken to discover its behavioral correlates. Even less was done in order to find the possible motives and personal dynamics behind it. In a series of investigations, Messé and Stollak (1976), Larson (1975), Michaels (1977) and Green (1975) demonstrated that sub- jects' evaluations of a stimulus person, (categorized into positive, negative and balanced), were accompanied by clear behavioral patterns. In those studies it was found that people who tended to perceive mostly the positive behaviors of the stimulus person (positively biased style) were less able to handle situations of interpersonal conflict effectively, were more inclined to help the children they played with and to be submissive with them. In addition, they were more liked by the children and were more likely to recommend compliance with the child's demands as a disciplinary technique. People who tended to perceive mostly the negative behaviors of the stimulus person (nega- tively biased perceptual style) adapted to the conflict situation well, but spent most of the time in disagreement. They showed much sarcasm and in their play with the child they manifested the largest amount of domination and structuring. These peOple were most extreme in their endorsement of shaming and ridiculing as a behavior control technique and recommended assertion of power and little compliance with the child's demand. The balanced perceivers, who perceived an about equal number of positive and negative behaviors, handled the conflict most effectively, were most liked by the confederates, and emitted less structuring acts than the two other groups during their play with the child. The overall pattern revealed in those studies, in addition to the general phenomena of "evaluating others," raised the question: Are there identifiable motives and intra-psychic dynamics that lie behind people's evaluative style? The current study attempts to provide part of the answer for this question. Theory and Research on the Relationship Between Personality and Evaluation Most personality theorists assumed that personality char- acteristics are major determinants of the way in which we perceive and evaluate others. However, of the theorists to be mentioned here, only Horney (1945) directly specified the relationship between personality and favorability of perceptions of others. Horney assumed that the moving-towards tendency would be associated with a positive evaluative style, and the moving-against tendency would tend to be associated with a negative evaluative style. In the work of other theorists, the existence of relationship between personality and favorability of evaluation is implicit in their general discussion of personality and perception. Thus, Freud's (1924) description of projection implies that the perceiver's negative evaluation of the other person is a result of his own attempts to repress anxiety provoking ideas. In trans- ference, the perceiver's positive or negative evaluation of the other person may depend on the extent to which affects, ideas and images, related to the perceiver's relationship with his/her parents, are activated in the current relationship between the perceiver and the other person. Sullivan (1948) postulated the process of paratoxic distortion and selective inattention to the anxiety provoking attributes of others. For example, a dominance-oriented individual may produce a less favorable evaluation of the competence of a high status person because he may not attend to the most spectacular achievements of that person. Finally, the first characteristic which Maslow (1970) ascribed to the self—actualized, healthy individual was the ability to perceive the world "fresh," undistorted by the perceiver's needs. A direct implication of that assumption is that the perceiver's evaluations of others would not be distorted by his/her needs. Despite the strong consensus among personality theorists, empirical research provided only equivocal support for the assumption that the personality of the perceiver influences his/her perception and evaluation of others. Thus, Tagiuri in his chapter on person perception in the Handbook of Social Psychology stated: There is a large number of studies on the relationship between person perception and the personality of the judge . . . how- ever, this line of empirical work has failed so far to identify the personality variables that seem to be consistently related to how we perceive others (1969, p. 430). The Motive-Directed Impression Formation Approach: Defensive and Expressive Functions of the Evaluative Process The current research was undertaken in an attempt to demonstrate that predictions derived from personality theory will receive empirical support if those predictions would be based on a careful theoretical analysis of the process by which motives influence impression formation. The following analysis is closely related to Freud's (1958) conception of ego-defenses and Tomkins' (1962) notion of emotion as the primary motivator of human behavior. In this section I will suggest a general model of the process by which motivation influences impression forma- tion. It is important to note that the present study will only try to establish the existence of the relationship between motivation and evaluation but will not test the many propositions suggested by the model to explain those relationship. The motive directed impression formation model proposes that there are basically two ways by which motives influence evaluation of others. One process involves motive related affect arousal and reduc- tion, and the other process involves the operation of motive related cognitive schemas which induce evaluative bias also when no emotional arousal has occurred. It is assumed that the two processes can operate together and that under different conditions each process may become a more important determinant of evaluative bias. The general model of motive directed evaluative processes is presented in Figure l. The model describes the hypothesized Operation of three evaluative processes. Two of them are affect mediated and one is cognitively mediated. In the following sections I will first discuss the affect mediated evaluative processes and then the cogni- tively mediated processes. Affect Mediated Evaluative Processes It is prOposed that the affect mediated evaluative process consists of two phases. 1. Motive Related Affect Arousal The first phase is defined as affect-arousal and assumes that the perceivers' motives would influence their evaluations of others gply_if motive—related affect arousal had occurred. Such an arousal can occur in several ways: a. The perceivers detect certain attributes in the stimulus person which lead them to anticipate frustration or gratifi- cation of their predominant motives. The anticipation of frustration evokes anxiety whereas the anticipation of gratifi- cation evokes excitement. b. The perceivers experience positive or negative affect due to the actual gratification or frustration of their predominant needs by the stimulus person. c. The perceivers experience positive or negative affect due to the actual gratification or frustration of their predominant needs by other people and events unrelated to the stimulusrmnson. Motive directed cognitive schemas Gratification, kl’f’ frustration or arousal of predominant motive ::\\g / Changes in expectancies regarding the stimulus person 1 Other cognitive schemas l Initial cognitive-perceptual construction of the stimulus l Matching with affect releasing motive related, cognitive representations l '9 Affect arousal ii Behavioral expression of .. .. _. evaluative bias Changes in affect towards the stimulus person Changes in behavior towards the stimulus person Reduction and expression of aroused affect l l Stimulus [ l l person : Effects on self-concept Stimuli dependent, affect mediated evaluative process Stimuli independent, affect mediated evaluative process Cognitively mediated evaluative process Figure 1. General Model of the Motive Directed Evaluative Process. 2. Affect Reduction and Expression through the Use of Evaluation The second phase is defined as affect reduction and assumes that the evaluative process is used to reduce the aroused affect. This reduction is obtained in several hypothesized ways: a. The evaluation process may decrease the perceiver's anxiety by leading them to believe that frustration is less likely to occur. b. The evaluative process may decrease the aroused negative affect by facilitating the actual gratification of the frustrated need. c. Evaluation may be used to express the affect aroused by the stimulus person or by any other factor. The suggested model proposes two kinds of affect mediated evaluative processes, stimuli dependent and stimuli independent. Although both processes assume affect arousal and reduction, they differ with regard to the ways by which the perceivers' affects are aroused and reduced. Following is a discussion of the characteristics of each process. Stimuli Dependent Evaluative Process As indicated in Figure 1, in the stimuli dependent process the perceivers experience affect-arousal only when their initial cognitive- perceptual constructions of the stimulus person include attributes which are affect laden and therefore lead to affect arousal. An attribute or more precisely, the internal cognitive representation of that attribute, functions as a releaser of emotional reaction because it is associated with potential or actual gratification or frustration of the perceivers' predominant needs. The process is called stimuli dependent because the affect experienced by the perceivers is induced by and depends on the direct cognitive-perceptual constructions of the stimulus person, and the favorability of the evaluation is determined by the gratification value of the stimulus person. The stimuli dependent evaluative bias not only allows the direct expression and reduction of affect but also acts as a defensive or an adaptive device. As demonstrated in Figure I, the evaluative bias helps to reduce negative feelings through changing the expectations with regard to the stimulus person. The evaluative bias may help to create changes in affect towards the stimulus person, and therefore facilitate the achievement and maintenance of the desired behavior with regard to this person. The evaluative bias may also enable the subjects to maintain that aspect of their self-concept which refers to how they usually evaluate and react to other peOple. Depending on the perceiver, the stimuli-dependent evaluative bias can vary from being highly temporary and situation-specific to being a relatively enduring and cross-situational personality disposition. In cross-situational evaluative bias, the perceivers' enduring motivation is assumed to be accompanied by enduring cognitive and perceptual schemas which guide (or misguide) the construction of the initial perceptions of the stimulus person so that most other peOple are seen as possessing certain frustrating or gratifying attributes. As a result, the perceivers tend to respond with some affect arousal and certain evaluative bias to most peOple that they perceive. 10 In other words, the perceivers bring with them to the situation preconceived ideas and expectancies about the nature and intentions of other peOple and those ideas influence their actual perceptions of other people. In the situation specific evaluative bias, the perceivers' motive directed, cognitive perceptual schemas are not developed and exert very little (if any) influence on the initial perception of the stimulus person. As a result, the initial cognitive-perceptual construction of the stimulus person is more likely to be accurate. Affect arousal occurs as a result of the matching of the accurate perception of a specific gratifying or frustrating attribute of the stimulus person with internal cognitive representations (verbal codes and/or imagery codes), which are motive directed and therefore, function as activators of affect. Thus, the favorability of the evaluation may change from situation to situation, and from person to person, and would depend on the impact of the Specific characteristics of the stimulus on the perceivers' predominant motives. Stimuli Independent Evaluative Bias The stimuli-independent evaluative process differs from the stimuli dependent process in that the evaluative bias is not determined by the perceived gratification value of the stimulus person. The affect experienced does not depend on the direct internal cognitive construc- tion of the stimulus person but is already aroused due to other factors which are unrelated to the stimulus person. In the stimuli—independent bias, the function of the evaluative process is merely the expression of affect, whereas in the stimuli-dependent process the evaluation is often a more complex, defensive, or goal-directed adaptive attempt. 11 The stimuli independent evaluative bias can vary from being highly temporary and situation—specific to being more stable for extended periods of time and across different situations. Thus, the perceivers may experience temporary and situation—specific changes in their mood or go through more extended periods in which several affective states are consistently more pronounced than others. In both cases the mood states are viewed as related to basic need grati- fication and are expected to result in an evaluative bias whose favor— ability corresponds to the pleasantness of the mood. Cognitively Mediated Evaluative Bias The model presented in Figure l proposes that evaluative bias can sometimes be caused only by the Operation of motive related cognitive schemas. These schemas guide the trait inference process in such a way that a certain evaluative bias is produced. It is assumed that this evaluative bias and the schemas responsible for it were initially developed in order to reduce negative affect and to enhance positive affect, related to basic need gratification. However, these schemas then continued to Operate as independent, adaptive and preven- tive measures also in cases in which no affect arousal and no basic need frustration or gratification have occurred. Although this process does not assume the activation of anxiety as the cause for every defensive evaluative activity, it is still consistent with the classical psychoanalytic approach to the question of defense. According to Freud (1915), repression is often 12 activated before the individual is able to consciously detect the anxiety it is aimed to prevent. The notion of motive related cognitive structure was proposed by other theorists and researchers such as Klein (1967) and Adorno et a1. (1950). As with the affect mediated processes, the cognitively mediated evaluative bias can vary from being highly situation-specific to being more cross-situational. For example, a dependency oriented person may tend to ascribe the attributes Of competence and socia- ability to any grown-up female, but may also tend to ascribe those attributes only to females of a certain nationality and appearance. Finally, it is assumed that extreme evaluative biases, especially negative ones, are most likely to be produced by motive related affect arousal in addition to motive related cognitive schemas. The Personality Constructs Chosen for the Study In this section I will present the personality variables chosen for the study. The key question in selecting the motives was: What motives are most likely to be behind the evaluative biases described by Stollak, Messe and their colleagues (Messe and Stollak, 1976)? In my attempt to identify those motives I relied heavily on Horney's (1937, I945) clinical observations as well as on Aronoff and Wilson's extension of Maslow's (1970) need theory. Horney provided a rather rich source of clinical observations pertaining to the relationship between three personal dispositions and evaluation of others. Thus, her work was 13 very useful in making many of the specific predictions Of the study. Aronoff and Wilson helped to specify the relationship between another three personality variables and evaluation. After we chose the personality variables to be included in the study, we turned to a careful theoretical analysis of the motivational characteristics of each construct. This analysis enabled us to deter- mine what attributes and behaviors of the stimulus person constitute a gratification or frustration for people highly concerned with each personality variable. A The discussion of the motivational characteristic of each con- struct was based on Maslow's (1970) theory of basic needs and on Aronoff and Wilson's suggestion that lack of sufficient gratification Of a basic need, at a period in which the need was most important, may lead to the development of a peripheral motive which would be aimed at the gratification of the frustrated basic need. Thus, Aronoff and Wilson's extension of Maslow's need theory, provided the broader theoretical framework for the understanding of all the personality con- structs employed in the study, including those suggested by Horney. The six personality constructs chosen for the study are: 1. Dependency need. 2. Sense of personal incompetence. 3. Autonomy need. 4. Antagonistic esteem need. 5. Dominance need. 6. State of gratified esteem needs. In the following sections I will discuss the motivational characteristics of each construct and analyze the expected effect of 14 motivation on evaluation in light of the motive directed impression formation approach. The specific hypotheses of the study will be presented (and underlined) in the course of the discussion and will be summarized at the end of the introduction. The Motivational Characteristics of the Personality Constructs Chosen for the Study and Their Stimuli-Dependent Cross-Situational Effects on Evaluation All six constructs chosen for study were expected to create enduring, stimuli-dependent evaluative biases. For each construct we will first discuss its motivational characteristics and then explain the predicted effect. 1. Dependency Need Using Aronoff and Wilson's extension of Maslow's theory, I viewed dependency as peripheral motive of the more basic (core) need for safety (Maslow, 1970). The aim of the need for safety is seen as the avoidance of anxiety through the achievement and maintenance of positive expectations for the gratification of everyday bodily-survival needs. The following conditions are seen as essential for the grati- fication of one's safety needs: minimal gratification of bodily needs in the past and present, minimal level of stability, sameness, regularity, and predictability in the environment, availability of minimal amount of social support and resposivity. According to Aronoff and Wilson, if a person's need for safety was not gratified she/he may develop a peripheral motive for dependency. In dependency, the submissive reliance on the supposedly strong protective other is expected to provide the missing sense of control, predictability, stability and social-support which the person was not able to Obtain on his own. 15 In spite of the difference in terminology, Aronoff and Wilson's conception of dependency seems rather similar to Horney's (1945) description of the "moving-towards" tendency. Horney described three basic attitudes towards others: Moving-against, Moving-towards and Moving-away. All three attitudes are assumed to arouse from the ex- perience of basic anxiety, an early childhood experience in which one felt "helpless and alone in a hostile world” (Horney, 1937, p. 89). This frustrating experience also creates a large amount Of hostility towards others. In order to overcome their anxiety and insecurity the people who experience basic anxiety are believed to adopt one of the three interpersonal strategies listed above. The moving-towards peOple are trying to get other people's affection and protection. They try to decrease their anxiety and isolation by increasing their ties with others. Horney suggested that the need to receive affection and support from almost everyone would lead to a positively biased evalu- ative style. She described the moving-towards type in the following way: He becomes compliant, overconsiderate . . . overappreciative, overgrateful, generous . . . he persuades himself that he likes everyone, that they are all "nice" and trustworthy (Horney, 1945, p. 52). Horney also assumed that the experience of basic anxiety aroused strong feelings of anger and those feelings were increased by the necessity of being continuously "nice" towards others. "However, feelings or experiences of hostility would endanger the person's need to like others and tO be liked by them” (Horney, 1945, p. 56). In order to restrain the aggressive tendencies the person would further increase his positivity bias. 16 And the more destructive the aggressive trends, the more stringent the necessity to exclude them. The individual will lean over backward, never to appear to want anything for himself, never to refuse a request, always to like everyone, always to keep in the background, and so on. In other words, the compliant appeasing trends are reinforced; they become more compulsive and less discriminate (Horney, 1945, p. 57). Although Maslow did not specify any connection between dependency and evaluative style other than to imply that non gratified needs affect perception, it seems reasonable to assume that the dependency-oriented individuals sense of helplessness and vulnerability and their desire for support would lead them to adopt the same positive evaluative approach described by Horney. Horney's predictions seemed to receive some preliminary behavioral confirmation from the results Of the studies by Messé, Stollak and their colleagues (1976). From the point of view of the motive directed impression forma- tion approach, since the dependency-oriented individuals are constantly and indiscriminantly interested in gaining support and avoiding attacks by other people, almost any individual with apparent competence would be initially perceived by them as a potential source of gratification (i.e., support), as well as a potential source of frustration (i.e., attack). This "double" perception is based on the fact that the others are perceived as more competent than the perceivers. The others' greater competence allows them (in the eyes of the perceivers) to be a more serious source of harm or support. Once the stimulus person was perceived in this way, the perceiver experience anxiety and will use their evaluations to reduce the anxiety. The positive evaluations decrease the perceivers' anxiety since they lead them to believe that the stimulus person is a "nice" guy and therefore is less likely to 17 behave in a rude way. Similarly, perceiving the other as competent may serve to assure the perceiver that the other can be a reliable source of support. Having a positive perception of others also helps the perceivers to maintain the comforting perception of themselves as nice guys who always view Others favorably. The positive evalu- ations may also lead the perceivers to produce positive feelings towards the others and those feelings may facilitate positive behavior towards the stimulus persons. As a result, the others are more likely to be more pleasant and supportive of the perceivers. In this way, the evaluative process may facilitate the actual gratification of the perceivers' needs. Another reason for the dependency oriented subjects to increase their positivity bias is to overcome their aggressive tendencies. By creating a highly positive perceptions of Others they "force" themselves to develop more positive feelings towards others. In summary, the hypotheses derived from Horney's theory and Messé, Stollak, and their colleagues' findings, when analyzed in light Of the motive directed impression formation approach, suggest that dependency strivings would be associated with a relatively enduring positive evaluative bias. 2. Sense of Personal-Incompetence A sense Of personal incompetence, like dependency, is viewed as a safety related construct. Therefore, both its motivational characteristics and the process responsible for its effect on evaluation are similar to those discussed with regard to dependency. The in- dividual who shows this kind of an orientation feels helpless and incompetent in mastering his/her own life and environment. However, 18 unlike the dependency-oriented person, she/he did not develop a peripheral motive that allows him/her to Obtain partial gratification for his/her safety needs. This person will see most Others as poten- tially frustrating Objects but not as gratifying objects (i.e., capable Of providing support). Since this person does not search for others' support and liking, she/he would feel free to express his hostility. Therefore, a sense Of personal incompetence would be associated with a relatively enduring negative evaluative bias. 3. Autonomy (Moving-Away) Need Autonomy as defined in this study refers to the moving-away tendency described by Horney (1945). According to Horney the moving-away people overcome their basic anxiety by putting an emotional distance between themselves and others. They try to become self sufficient so they would not be frustrated by Others. In terms of the peripheral motives approach, the moving-away tendency is viewed (by me) as a peripheral motive of ungratified needs for love and belonging- ness. These individuals were able to obtain a basic sense of safety and control but were not able to obtain enough love and sense of belongingness. Attempts to obtain love and belongingness resulted only in a greater frustration. In order to avoid frustrations, those in- dividuals chose to detach themselves from the frustrating others. As they see it, paradoxically enough, their needs for love and belonging- ness were less frustrated when they were alone and less involved with others. The moving-away person rejects not only close relationship with others but any deep involvement with societal goals since this 19 may force him/her to get too involved with and too dependent on other people. Unfortunately, Horney's position with regard to the relationship between "moving-away" and evaluation does not provide us with clear predictions. She stated: There is a general tendency to suppress all feeling, even to deny its existence . . . the rejection of feeling pertains pri- marily to feelings toward other people and applies to both love and hate (1945, p. 82). However, even though the moving away type is not expected to show passionate hostility it is reasonable to expect him/her to give slightly negative evaluations of othergpeople, so that she/he can continue to feel remote, unattracted and uninvolved with other people. Thus, other people are potentially frustrating objects either because they may want to get emotionally too close to the moving-away person or because they threaten his/her independence by domination or advice. The stimulus person may also be associated with peOple who caused the moving away type his/her initial experience of basic anxiety. 4. Antagonistic Esteem (Moving Against) Need Using the concept of peripheral motive suggested by Aronoff and Wilson, I viewed the motive in question as a peripheral motive of the ungratified needs for love and esteem. While the individual was able to obtain a basic sense of safety and control, she/he was never able to obtain enough love, acceptance and esteem from the significant others. Being hurt by others but still possessing sufficient amount of a sense of personal competence, the individual reduced his/her need to be accepted and loved by others in favor of the desire to be respected 20 and superior to them. Although such individuals are still hostile and afraid of others, the feat is not that others will deprive them of their material benefits or confuse them, rather it is that they would hurt their weak sense of worth, competence and superiority. A similar pic- ture is described by Adler (1927) in his inferiority, compensation and drive for superiority notions. In Horney's terms, the above description corresponds closely to the moving-against tendency. According to Horney, the moving against people try to decrease their anxiety by fortifying themselves, gaining full control of others and constantly making sure that others are inferior to them in position as well as in abilities. As with the moving-away people, the relationship with evaluative style are not very clear. Horney states: Just as the compliant type clings to the belief that peOple are "nice" and is continuously baffled by evidence to the contrary, so the aggressive is hostile, and refuses to admit that they are not (1945, p. 63). However, later on Horney suggested that quite Often the hostile tenden- cies are "covered over with a veneer of suave politeness, fair minded- ness and good fellowship" (1945, p. 63). In spite of the possible attenuating influence of that "front," it is still reasonable to expect the motive-against tendency to be associated with a negative evaluative bias. This assumption seems to receive preliminary behavioral confir- mation from the results of the studies on perceptual style (Messé and Stollak, 1976). In terms of the motive directed impression formation approach, the others are seen by the moving-against type as potentially or actually frustrating objects. As explained before, others are perceived 21 as potential sources of harm to one's fragile sense of competence, esteem and superiority. Moreover, positive evaluation of Others may threaten the perceiver's evaluation of himself/herself since this evaluation is largely based on a comparison with others. As a result the perceiver experiences anxiety and possibly also anger. Describing others as incompetent and "bad" insures him/her of his/her own rela- tive worth and also serves as an outlet for the expression of anger. Thus, the perceiver's evaluative activity may not only help him/her to express his/her affeCt but may also help to facilitate the actual gratification of his/her needs and therefore to reduce the negative affects connected with the frustration. 5. Dominance Need In terms of Aronoff's and Wilson's expansion of Maslow's theory, the dominance construct as used in this study could be con- ceived as a peripheral motive for a somewhat ungratified need for esteem. The dominance oriented individual has a firm sense of personal competence and self-worth but also a strong wish to maximize the occurrence of social situations in which she/he is the leader and in which she/he gains more recognition and control than any other person in the situation. She/he differs from the moving-against type in that she/he can accept some of his/her deficiencies, an acceptance which indicates a stronger sense of worth and competence than that of the moving against type. Thus, while both types are viewed as possessing ungratified esteem needs, the moving against person seems to suffer from a much greater deprivation of his/her esteem needs. Another important difference is that the dominance oriented individual does 22 not harbor as much negative affect and beliefs towards others as does the moving-against type. In terms of the motive directed impression formation approach, the dominance oriented person would be inclined to perceive others as potentially neutral or somewhat gratifying objects. This is because others did not consistently hurt one in the past, are usually not perceived as a serious threat to one's need for dominance, and often are potential sources of esteem and allow the perceiver to exercise control and dominate them. Therefore, it is expected that dominance would be associated with neutral or slightly positive enduring evaluative bias. 6. State of Gratified Esteem Needs The "esteem-gratified” construct is directly related to Maslow's theory. It assumes that the individual's safety, love and belongingness, and esteem needs are mostly gratified. Therefore, the individual's behavior is no longer dominated by those deficiency needs. In general, she/he is more healthy, less neurotic and less defensive than people whose esteem needs were not adequately gratified. Maslow (1970) assumed that the first distinctive characteristics of self-actualized people is their ability to perceive the world (inclu- ding other people) "fresh" rather than based on their needs. Since, according to Maslow's theory, the esteem gratified peOple are the closest to the level of self-actualization, they can be expected to be most inclined to evaluate others accurately. Since they do not have powerful ungratified needs they do not need others to gratify them and are also not as Open to the threat of frustration by others. According to the motive-directed impression formation approach, other people are 23 neither strong gratifiers nor strong frustrators of their needs. However, since the esteem-gratified persons' needs for safety, love, and esteem were gratified by significant others in their past, they most likely will continue to perceive others as potential gratifiers, al- though they no longer need those gratifications so "desperately." Therefore, the perception of others, (who behave in a pleasant manner and show adequate task—competence), will evoke positive affect and thi§_ will lead to positive evaluations of others, as a way to express that positive affect. Personal Motives and their Stimuli-Independent, Mood—Related, Enduring Effects on Evaluation The second process hypothesized to be responsible for enduring evaluative bias was described as stimulus-independent and was expected to occur when, due to continuous gratification or frustration of the individual's predominant needs, this person would continually experience positive or negative affects or mood. Those affects would dictate his/her evaluations of others. That affect and mood influence evaluation is a notion supported by much research in social psychology. Thus, subjects who were exposed to a wide variety of good-mood inducing experiences reported greater liking for a stranger (Clore, 1975; Clore and Byrne, 1974; Gouaux, 1971; Veitch and Griffitt, 1976). What I suggest is that the person's mood can often be a result of the degree to which his/her predominant motives and basic needs are satisfied at a certain period in his/her life. The specific predictions derived from the stimuli-independent, mood related, process are the following: A sense of personal incompetence and antagonistic esteem need involve considerable lack of gratification of basic needs. Therefore, 24 they will be accompanied by continuous negative feelings that will result in negative evaluations of others. Autonomy and dependency needs are assumed to be associated with a less strong sense of frustration and therefore will result in only a mild negative evaluative bias. Dominance is assumed to be accompanied by frequent gratifications of the needs for love and esteem and therefore with good mood. As a result, it is expected to be associated with mild positive evaluation. Esteem gratified people are expected to experience positive feelings most often than any other group in our study. Therefore, they are expected to produce relatively large posi- tive evaluations, when the peOple being evaluated behave in a pleasant way and demonstrate adequate task competence. The predictions based on the stimuli-dependent and stimuli-independent processes are similar for all motives except for dependency. In that case it was decided to prefer the defensive hypothesis suggested by Horney since it provided more definite predictions and was based on a more articulate and elaborated theoretical analysis. Thus, dependency was hypothesized to be positively related to positive evaluative bias. Personal Motives and Their Temporary Stimuli-Dependent Effects on Evaluation One of the most interesting implications of the suggested approach to impression formation, is that it permits a more complex set of predictions to be made with regard to person by situation interactions. The basic principle is that in determining evaluation, motivation of the perceiver will often interact with the gratifying or frustrating attributes of the stimulus person. The effects of moti- vation on evaluation should be predicted on the basis of the expected 25 effect of the stimulus' attributes on the perceiver's predominant needs (i.e., actual or potential gratification or frustration). Thus, the fact that the same motive produced different evaluations for different stimulus-persons (with different attributes) is not an evi— dence against the importance of personality variables. In this case, the opposite is true, the situational variables can be successfully used to predict evaluation only_when analyzed on the basis of the perceiver's need structure. In line with my approach, it was hypothesized that the status of the stimulus person, seen in terms of his/her relative rank, power and ability would be the external attribute that would interact with most of the motives in question. It was assumed that attributes indicating high status and power would constitute an actual and poten- tial frustration to those individuals most oriented towards dominance, antagonistic—esteem and autonomy. The perception of the high status person is assumed to result in an immediate (more or less conscious) comparison to the "self." The unfavorable results of that comparison will make it more difficult for the perceiver to maintain as high a level of self esteem as she/he would like to maintain. The perceiver's self-concept as a highly dominant, capable and esteemed individual will also be threatened. As a result the perceiver should desire to decrease the value of the high status person as a way of increasing his/her own value. One way to accomplish this is to use a comparison between a high and low status persons in order to derogate the high. Thus, the perceiver may be inclined to minimize the perceived differences in favor of the high status person as compared to the low status person. 26 For autonomy oriented people, it is assumed that the threat will be mainly to their sense of self-sufficiency and the possibility of their autonomy being endangered by a powerful authority. The threat and the negative affect it causes are hypothesized to be reduced in the manner previously described. The negative feelings created by the perception of the high status person can often evoke anger and hostility towards him/her. A derogative evaluative process like the one pre- viously described may be activated in order to express this anger. The perception of attributes of low status and power may lead to a sense of actual or potential gratification of the perceiver's needs for dominance, esteem, power and autonomy. Therefore, the people most concerned with those motives will experience positive affect towards the low status stimulus person. Minimizing the differences in favor of the high status person may be a useful way for the perceivers to express their positive affect towards the low status person since it will result in an improved evaluation for the low status person (relative to the high status). The hypothesized impact of both types of stimulusjpersons on the dominance, antagonistic- esteem and autonomy oriented subjects, suggests that those motives would be negatively related to the tendency to evaluate the high_ status person more favorably than the low. The predictions for motives based on the core need of safety are in the opposite directions. It was assumed that attributes indicating high status and power would constitute a source of both, potential gratification and frustration for those individuals strongly concerned with dependency or those who experience a strong sense of 27 personal incompetence. As a result the perceivers would experience anxiety and show a greater tendency to evaluate the high status people more positively than they would the low status peOple. The large difference in evaluation would help the perceivers to maintain more comforting expectations as to the high status person's attitude to others in general and themselves in particular, and possibly also as to the high status person's general ability to protect and support. The more positive evaluation of the high as compared to the low status person may also facilitate the development of a more positive affect, and eventually behavior, towards the high status person, which may help to win this person's actual support. The attributes of low status and power may be perceived as a source of possible frustration for the dependency oriented person. This is because individuals with low status and power are much less likely to serve as a reliable source of support and protection. As a result, the perceiver would experience negative affect towards the low status person and would express this affect through increasing the difference in evaluation in favor of the high status person. This tendency would be manifested also by the individuals with a sense of personal incompetence but to a lesser degree since their need for support is not as strong. The analysis of the hypothesized impact of both stimulus persons on the perceivers' needs, suggests that dependency and a sense of personal incompetence would be both_positively related to the tendency to evaluate the high status_person more posi- tively than the low status person. 28 The esteem-gratified people are believed not to be highly concerned with any of the motives mentioned above. Since their basic needs are mostly gratified, neither the high status person nor the low status person constitute an important gratifier or a serious threat to them. Therefore, they are not expected to evaluate one type of stimulus person more positively than the other. It is important to note that this discussion deals with the joint evaluation of the high and low status persons rather than with the separate evaluation of each stimulus person. This is because status seems to be a comparative attribute-~either between the perceiver and the stimulus person or between different types of people in the world. In addition, the primary interest of the study was not how perceivers with different motives react to high and low status persons but rather, how do they react to the phenomena of status-differences. That is, to what extent they like to see large status differences in favor of a high status person. The Motive Related Use of the Subdimensions of Evaluation In light of the findings by Rosenberg et al. (1968), Friendly and Glucksberg (1970), and Zana and Hamilton (1972), we expected that at least two distinct subdimensions of evaluation would underly the sub- jects' ratings of the stimulus persons. Thus, we expected to find a sociability subdimension and a competence-intelligence subdimension. In addition, simply on rational grounds we expected to find a third subdimension which would underly the ratings of one's ability to interest, charm, attract and entertain others. It was thought possible that this third subdimension might allow us to examine the relationship 29 between motivation and cognitive-evaluative aspects related to affi- liative activities and issues of interpersonal attractiveness. Since the third subdimension was not found in previous studies, the predic- tions of the study will involve mainly the two others more known sub- dimensions Of evaluation. A direct implication of the suggested approach to impression formation is that the different dimensions of evaluation should also be analyzed for their relevance for the predominant needs of the perceivers, and the possible ways by which those dimensions can be used by the perceivers to reduce their negative affect, facilitate the gratification of their needs and express their affects. Thus, for example, the competence dimension might have different relevance and would be utilized differently than the sociability dimension by a dominance motivated person as opposed to dependency motivated person. This differential use of the different evaluative dimensions seems to be inconsistent with Heider's principles of balance. Heider states: We want to attain orderly and stable evaluations, we want to find the good and the bad distributed in a simple and consistent fashion. The codification in terms of positive and negative value is simpler when the positive features are grouped into one unit and the negative ones in another unit (1958, p. 25). While Heider's principle seems to hold in many cases (see Tagiuri, 1968; Toch et al., 1962), our model suggests that Heider's principles may be only a special case of the general rules of motive directed impression formation. According to the hypothesized model, the per- ceiver's predominant needs determine the kind of principle that govern his/her use of the different evaluative subdimensions. Thus, the 30 balance principles are most useful in facilitating the gratification of the need for order, stability and congruity. However, those prin- ciples might not be so useful in facilitating the gratification of other needs such as dominance and dependency. Therefore, if those other needs are more prominent than the need for congruity and if a differen— tial use of the different dimensions is more useful in gratifying those other needs, the perceiver will violate the balance principles in favor of an unbalanced, more complex but potentially more functional principle. Several hypotheses were formulated with regard to the use of the different subdimensions of evaluation. One prediction was somewhat inconsistent with Heider's principles and suggested that the competence and sociability dimensions of evaluation would be unrelated in the ratings of both stimulus persons by all the subjects. This prediction simply follows Rosenberg et al. (1968), Friendly and Glucksberg (1970), and Zana and Hamilton (1972). The second prediction was somewhat more inconsistent with the "Heiderian" principles and stated that the high_ status person would not be evaluated more positively than the low on all three subdimensions of evaluation. This prediction is derived from the previous prediction, assuming orthogonality between the sociability and competence subdimensions. If the two subdimensions are unrelated, it is not likely that the majority of the subjects, due to chance alone, will evaluate the high status person more positively than the low status person on all the three subdimensions of evaluation. The prediction is inconsistent with Heider's approach because it predicts that one stimulus person may be evaluated as more positive 31 than the second stimulus person on sociability, but as more negative on competence. A third hypothesis was formulated in which a prediction derived from the motive directed impression formation approach to the use of subdimensions of evaluations was contrasted with a prediction derived from Heider's principles. As was explained before, dominance, antagonistic-esteem, and autonomy oriented subjects were expected to be interested in evaluating the high status person more negatively than the low status person. However, it is assumed that if, due to certain situational factors, those people would not be able to use the competence subdimension to evaluate the high status person less posi- tively than the low, they would utilize the sociability subdimension for that purpose. Thus, if an authoritative person described one stimulus person as a high status person and another stimulus person as a low status person and they both showed adequate task-competence, the subjects' freedom in attributing competence to the stimulus persons would be largely reduced and they would be "forced” to evaluate the high status person more positively than the low on competence. As was hypothesized before, under this situation, dominance, antagonistic- esteem and autonomy oriented subjects are expected to use the soci- ability subdimension to obtain a derogation effect similar to the one that they were not able to obtain on the competence subdimension. As a result, they would evaluate the high status person less positively than the low on sociability in spite of the fact that they evaluated the high status more favorably than the low on competence. This pre- diction stands in sharp contrast to Heider's balance principles since 32 it assumes that in order to gratify their need for dominance, esteem, or autonomy, subjects would violate the balance principles in favor of an unbalanced and more complex principle. Thus, dominance, antagonistic- esteem and autonomy oriented subjects were expected to create evalu- ations in which the good and the bad would ppp be distributed in a simple and consistent fashion. The positive features of high soci- ability and high competence would not be grouped in one stimulus person and the negative features of low sociability and competence would not be grouped in a second stimulus person. 0n the contrary, each stimulus person would be perceived as having both positive and negative features. This is because more than the subjects want to attain orderly and stable evaluations they want to gratify their needs for esteem, dominance and autonomy. The dependency and personal incompetence oriented subjects were expected to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low on both dimensions. This effect is predicted by both the motive directed impression formation approach and by the balance principles. However, unlike the balance principles, our approach suggests that only the dependency and personal-incompetence oriented subjects would evaluate the high status more favorably than the low on sociability. Other subjects who are not high on any of the five motives mentioned so far would evaluate the two stimulus persons about the same on sociability. Therefore, the overall prediction is the following: Pepple highly concerned with dominance, antagonistic esteem and autonomy_would evaluate the high status person less favorably than the low status person on sociability and the reverse would be true for subjects highly concerned with dependency or personal incompetence. 33 Supjects who are not high on any of the five motives mentioned above would not show a difference in their evaluations of the two stimulus persons on sociability. All subjects were expected to evaluate the high status more positively than the low on competence. A more general hypothesis implied in the previous analysis of the motive related use of the different subdimensions is that the interaction between motive of_perceiver and status of stimulus person would occur only on the sociability but not on the competence sub- dimension. If confirmed, this hypothesis will support our assumption that in order to trace the effects of motivation on evaluation it is most useful to look at subdimensions of evaluations in addition to global evaluations. Motivation and Delayed Evaluation An important assumption underlying this study was that, although the intensity of people's predominant motives may change from time to time, those motives continue to be key factors in peOple's lives for an extended period of time (i.e., months and years) and across many dif— ferent situations. In line with that assumption, it was hypothesized that the effects of motivation on evaluation would not be limited to an immediate-evaluation situation, in which the perceiver directly observes the stimulus person before the evaluation. Thus, it was assumed that those effects could be obtained also in a delayed-evaluation situation, in which the perceiver evaluates the stimulus person from memory. It was also assumed that since in the delayed evaluation the subjects have less information about the stimulus persons, their motivation would be able to influence their evaluations to a greater degree. 34 Empirical Research on the Relationship Between the Motives Chosen for the Study and Evaluation Out of the six personality constructs used in the study, only dominance and dependency have been studied previously with regard to evaluation. The research findings with regard to dominance are equi— vocal. Naboisek (1953) and Leary (1957) reported that autocratic, exploitive, and dominant peOple described others as weaker than they were described by most other people. Smelser (1961) using the Domi- nance Scale of the California Psychological Inventory, found that the degree of dominance ascribed to the partner relative to the subject's own dominance was a function of the subject's personal dominance. However, Altrocchi (1959) pointed out that the positive results Ob- tained by Naboisek, Leary and Smelser might be due to the fact that their subjects interacted with each other before the evaluation and therefore it is possible that the dominant subjects caused the other subjects to become more submissive. Thus, the dominant's perceptions in those studies might have been realistic and not due to evaluative bias or perceptual distortion. Altrocchi (1959), in one of the more controlled experiments in the field, found that subjects who were more concerned with dominance (as measured by the C.P.I) did not evaluate others as less dominant. He also did not find any evidence for an interaction between the perceivers' dominance and the degree of dominance exhibited by the stimulus person. When viewed in light of the motive directed impression formation approach, the lack of significant main effect in Altrocchi's research does not convincingly indicate that dominance is not related to 35 evaluative bias. The lack of significant interaction between dominance of perceiver and dominance of stimulus person is, however, much more serious and seems totally contradictory to the predictions derived from the suggested approach to impression-formation. According to this approach, the perceivers' dominance needs and the potentially or actually gratifying or frustrating attributes of the stimulus person, should interact to determine the evaluation of the stimulus person on the competence and/or the sociability subdimensions. One way to explain this contradiction is to assume that the stimulus persons in Altrocchi's research did not constitute neither a serious threat (or frustration), nor a serious gratification, for the perceivers' dominance needs. Thus, while the subjects did rate one stimulus person as somewhat more dominant than the other, it is our belief that this difference in dominance was not threatening and frustrating enough to activate a significant evaluative bias. It seems that in order to threaten the subjects' dominance needs a more radical threat is necessary. Such threats can be strong acts of domi- nation, leadership, and achievement by the stimulus person, or a description of the stimulus person as occupying a high status position and possessing much power and ability. Another possible reason why the dominance-oriented subjects did not experience a real threat, might be that the evaluation instrument, Leary's (1957) Interpersonal Checklist, did not have clear positive and negative evaluative connotations. As a result. the perceiver's esteem needs were not aroused, and the hypothesized process of social comparison with the stimulus person was not activated. 36 Another problem in Altrocchi's experiment is that his subjects evaluated the stimulus persons only on dominance but not on sociability. This study assumes that subjects highly concerned with dominance may not distort their perceptions with regard to the dominance of the threaten- ing person, but will use the sociability subdimension to express their negative affect toward this person. The subjects may also try to increase their lowered level of self-esteem by derogating the threaten- ing person on sociability. A minor problem in Altrocchi's experiment was that although he controlled for likability, the unique appearance and personality of the stimulus persons were confounded with the degree of dominance they exhibited. A way to overcome this confounding is to present the same person once as high on the threatening attribute and once as low on that attribute. In planning the present study we took into consideration the different problems in Altrocchi's experiment. In order to insure that the stimulus persons really threatened, frustrated or gratified the dominance needs of the perceiver, we presented them either as high on status, power, and ability or as low on those attributes. The evalu- ation scales had strong evaluative connotations and included traits from the sociability subdimension as well as from the competence sub- dimension. The same stimulus person was presented once as high on the threatening attribute and once as low on that attribute. It was assumed that after these problems were dealt with it would be possible to demonstrate a significant interaction between the perceivers dominance needs and the stimulus person's dominance-related attributes. 37 As for dependency, Centers (1971) found that subjects who scored high on the Succorance and Deference Scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Scale tended to evaluate their partners more positively than themselves to a greater degree than subjects low on Deference and Succorance. However, those results might be produced by the effect of differential influence of the perceiver on his partner, as a result of extended period of interaction, and not due to evaluative bias. An important conclusion from the studies reviewed is that in order to examine the direct effects of motivation on evaluation it is necessary to insure that the subjects would not interact before they evaluate each other (or to institute a careful control on the interpersonal interaction effect). Hypotheses Hypothesis Ia Concern for dependency and sense of personal incompetence will be both positively related to the tendency to evaluate a high status person more favorably than a low status person in immediate evalu- ation, whereas dominance, antagonistic-esteem, and autonomy needs will be negatively related to that tendency. State of gratified esteem needs is not expected to be significantly related to the above tendency. Hypothesis Ib The relationship suggested in hypothesis Ia between different motives and evaluative tendency will be of similar direction but of 38 greater magnitude in delayed-evaluation as compared to immediate- evaluation. Hypothesis Ila Concern for dependency, state of gratified esteem needs, and dominance will be positively related to the tendency to evaluate both stimulus persons favorably, whereas personal-incompetence, antagonistic- esteem and autonomy needs will be negatively related to that tendency. Hypothesis IIb The relationship suggested in Hypothesis Ila between different motives and evaluative tendency will be of similar direction but of greater magnitude in delayed evaluation as compared to immediate evaluation. Hypothesis III The competence and sociability subdimensions derived from the ratings of both stimulus persons will be unrelated. Hypothesis IV The high status person will not be described more positively than the low status person on all three subdimensions. Hypothesis V Motivation of perceiver will interact with status of the stimulus person on the sociability subdimension but not on the competence subdimension. 39 Hypothesis VI PeOple highly concerned with dominance, antagonistic—esteem and autonomy will evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low on competence but less favorably on sociability. People highly concerned with dependency or personal incompetence will evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low on both competence and sociability. People not highly concerned with any of the five motives mentioned above, will not show a significant difference in their evaluations of the two stimulus persons on sociability but will evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low on competence. CHAPTER II METHOD Overview of the Experiment Male and female undergraduates participated in two experimental sessions. In the first session they completed a number of personality measures and watched and evaluated a video-tape of male and female college students working together at three tasks. In the second session they took a few more personality measures and evaluated from memory the two persons that they saw on the video-tape in the previous session. Personality Measures In this section I will present the instruments selected to measure the theoretical personality constructs discussed in the intro- duction. The meaning and validity of each measure will be discussed thoroughly since it is my firm belief that much of the failure in per- sonality research stems from lack of satisfactory correspondence between the name of the instrument and the group of traits, motives or tendencies it actually measures, (for example, see the scale for the Dependency (Navran, 1954), which really seems to measure anxiety and helplessness (Wilson, 1971)). A more basic problem is that the consensus among psychologists as to the meaning of constructs bearing the same name also is not satisfactory. For example, compare Veroff's (1957, 1971), Uleman's (1972), McClelland's (1975) and Winter's (1973) 40 41 interpretation of the power concept. Thus, it is important to clarify what kind of test items constitute the measure of our personality con- structs and with what other instruments and behaviors they correlate. Avoidance of such clarification through the usage of a short label may lead to an illusion of quick communication, but is also likely to result in as many interpretations for that label as the number of peOple reading it. Selecting the Personality Instruments The next task after selecting the six theoretical personality constructs for the study was to find adequate measures for them. The constructs chosen were dependency need, sense of personal incompetence, antagonistic-esteem need, dominance need, autonomy need and state of gratified esteem needs. In view of the lack of satisfactory measures for some of the personality constructs in question, it was decided to measure those constructs through several instruments, if available, and to use a multi-trait multi-method approach, in addition to previous research evidence, as the basis for the decision about the validity of those instruments. Thus, on an a-priori basis, several instruments were assigned to measure each construct. Then, all the measures were entered into a correlation matrix (Appendix 1, Tables 1-3) and a factor analysis was performed on them (Appendix 1, Tables 4-6). The results of those analyses, in addition to previous evidence, were used to determine whether the instruments of previously questionable or unknown validity would be included in the study. Following is the list of instruments assigned on a a-priori basis to measure each personality construct: 42 Dependency Need: a. Succorance Scale (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Edwards, 1959) b. Deference Scale (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Edwards, 1959) c. Dependency Scale (Sentence Completion Test, Aronoff, 1971) d. Need for Approval Scale (Marlow-Crowne, 1964) A Sense of Personal Incompetence: a. Personal-Incompetence Subcategory (Sentence Completion Test, Aronoff, 1971) b. Personal Control Factor (Multidimensional I-E Scale, Gurin, 1969) Autonomy Need: a. Autonomy Scale (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Edwards, 1959) Dominance Need: a. Dominance Scale (California Psychological Inventory, Gough, 1969) b. Status Scale (Personal Values Scales, Scott, 1965) c. Academic Achievement Scale (Personal Values Scales, Scott, 1965) Antagonistic-Esteem Needs: a. Need for Esteem Gratification Subcategory (Sentence Completion Test, Aronoff, 1971) b. n Power (TAT measure, Winter 1973) 43 6. A State of Gratified Esteem Needs: a. Gratified Esteem Subcategory (Sentence Completion Test, Aronoff, 1971) b. Faith in People Scale (Rosenberg, 1957) Due to unsatisfactory previous behavioral validation and unsup- portive correlational patterns with other measures in the sample (see Appendix 1, Tables 1-3) several instruments were discarded from the main part of the study. Those discarded instruments were: The I-E personal control measure (Gurin, 1969), the 1B subcategory of the SCT designed to measure dependency (Aronoff, 1971), the need Approval scale (Marlow 6 Crowne, 1964), the Status and Academic Achievement scales from the Personal Values Scales (Scott, 1965), the n power TAT measure (Winter, 1973) and the Faith in People scale (Rosenberg, 1957). The other instruments, listed below, were accepted as appro- priate operationalizations of our constructs and their validity and meaning are surveyed in the following section. I. Dependency Need: a. Succorance Scale (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Edwards, 1959) b. Deference Scale (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Edwards, 1959) A survey of the literature (Buros, 1975; Navran, 1954) showed that very few reliable self-report scales designed to measure dependency had sufficient validity. Only one scale seemed to have minimal face-validity and some behavioral validation as well. Bernardin and Jessor (1957) used two of the Edwards Personal Perference Schedule (Edwards, 1959) subscales; Difference and Anatonomy 44 classify S's for high and low Dependency. A subject who had a high score on Deference (and low score on Autonomy) was classified as high Dependency, whereas low scores on Deference and high on Autonomy was defined as low Dependency. The Deference scale seems to have satis- factory face validity as a measure of some aspects of the dependency construct. It includes behaviors like getting suggestions from others, following instructions, letting others make the decisions, accepting the leadership of others and praising them. While it is reasonable to assume (as did Bernardin and Jessor, 1957) that autonomy is negatively related to dependency, this relationship is too indirect to allow us to consider autonomy as measure of dependency. Bernardin and Jessor found that highly dependent (as determined by their pro- cedure) S's took longer to do a simple maze learning task and made slower improvements than did low dependent S's, under conditions of negative verbal reinforcement. High dependent S's also asked more often for help and corroboration of their solutions when required to solve a difficult block puzzle. No differences were found in an Asch type conformity experiment. Cairnes and Lewis (1962), using the same dependency measure, found that male S's who were high on dependency evaluated reinforcement more positively, conditioned better and asked for help more quickly in a puzzle solution task than did low dependent S's. Further validational evidence for the autonomy and deference scales is cited in the EPPS manual (1959). In those studies college students were given the EPPS and some weeks later the Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the K 45 scale (social desirability) of the MMPI. The Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory provides measures on three variables: cooperativeness, agreeableness and objectivity. Cooperativeness was defined as Opposed to faultfinding or overcriticalness of people and things. Agreeableness was defined as opposed to belligerence or a dominating disposition and overreadiness to fight over trifles. Objectivity was defined as opposed to personal reference or a tendency to take things personally. Deference correlated with cooperativeness and agreeableness. The correlations of deference with manifest anxiety and objectivity were not significant. In our sample, deference tended to have stronger relationship with dominance (CPI) and safety (SCT) in males than in females. That pattern may indicate that the deference measure is a more valid instrument for males than for females. The research reviewed suggests that the deference scale does cover some important aspects of dependency as a peripheral motive of the need for safety and an equivalent of the moving towards tendency. Those aspects are: avoidance of conflict, asking for guidance, obedience, conformity and social approval. However, this scale does not measure the basic anxiety described by Horney or the helplessness and lack of control postulated by Maslow. In order to cover the helplessness and the anxiety aspects of the dependency construct, we included in our study twelve items of the succorance scale (EPPS), which seemed to tap those missing aspects most closely. The complete Succorance Scale includes twenty-eight items in which the same nine basic statements related to succorance are repeatedly contrasted with other statements reflecting different 46 needs. The scale's items emphasize the need to receive sympathy, affection, understanding and help from others. The Succorance Scale is the only scale of the fifteen EPPS scales which correlates signi- ficantly positively with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and signi- ficantly negatively with Objectivity. It also correlates positively with the Personal Incompetence subcategory of Aronoff's Sentence Completion Test. The scale is negatively related to agreeableness and is the only EPPS scale which has a significant negative correlation with the Edwards Social Desirability scale. It is also negatively related to the MMPI social desirability scale (Edwards, 1959) and to the Marlow-Crowne Social-Desirability Scale in our sample. The above correlational pattern, as well as the content of the test's items, suggest that the highly succorant person is an anxious individual who is very preoccupied with his safety and would constantly like others to support him/her. In his/her desire to insure his/her safety and support he could be very unagreeable and even demanding. She/he also tends to present himself/herself in a socially-undesirable light, perhaps as another way of eliciting help and protection. In our sample, succorance tended to have stronger negative relationship with the need for approval, autonomy and dominance in females than in males. This may suggest that succorance is a somewhat more valid instrument for females. Another intriguing result was the trend towards low negative correlation between succorance and deference, found in both males and females. In summary, of the two EPPS measures, the scale that seemed to be most valid as a measure of dependency was the shortened Succorance (EPPS) Scale. The Deference 47 Scale does have some behavioral validation but does not measure directly neither the need for help and affection nor the anxiety and helplessness aspects of dependency. Therefore it will be viewed as a secondary measure of dependency. 2. A Sense of Personal Incompetence: Personal Incompetence Subcategory (Sentence Completion Test, Subcategory 1c Aronoff, 1971): Examination of the content of the 1C scoring system seems to support Aronoff's suggestion that ”this is basically the indication of failure without a desire to do or be better" (Aronoff, 1971, p. 13). There is a strong sense of personal incompetence, lethargy, pessimism and perhaps also a tendency towards depression. There is no indication of predominant dependency strivings. Examination of the correlational pattern of Personal- Incompetence with other personality measures (see Table 1-3, Appendix A) strongly supports its interpretation as a measure of feelings of personal inadequacy. The lc category had a very high correlation with the safety category and shows similar (though somewhat stronger) correlational pattern with other variables. In the factor analysis (Table 6, Appendix A) 1c loaded most highly on the factor on which both gratified-esteem (SCT/3a) and dominance (CPI) also had their highest loadings. This factor was viewed as the "health- competence-ascendence" factor and, as one would expect, 1c loaded negatively on it while the other two measures loaded positively on it. When the total sample was broken down by sex, it was found that personal incompetence mostly showed a similar correlational pattern for 48 both sexes. However, in females, unlike in males, personal incompetence was not significantly negatively related to internality, need for approval,academic achievement and affiliation. This difference may suggest that SCT/1c is a somewhat more valid instrument for males than for females. Thus, both construct and face validity considerations suggest lc as a valid measure of a sense of personal-incompetence. 3. Autonomy Need: Autonomy Scale (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Edwards, 1959) The autonomy scale includes items emphasizing avoidance of con— ventional and conforming behavior, doing and saying what one wants, criticizing people in positions of authority and avoidance of respon- sibility. Edwards (1959) found that the Autonomy Scale was negatively related to the Cooperativeness and Agreeableness Scales of the Guilford- Martin Personal Inventory, the MMPI scale of Social Desirability and the Affiliation and Nurturance Scales of the EPPS. In our sample, autonomy, appreciation for status and appreciation for academic achievement (Personal Values Scales, Scott, 1965) all loaded on the same factor in a factor analysis performed on the total sample (autonomy had a negative loading and the other two had a positive loading). This factor was viewed as reflecting a tendency to work within the system, to adopt the goals, means and norms suggested by society. Thus, status and academic achievement are certainly widely accepted life-goals. The autonomy score might reflect the tendency to "move away" and not parti- cipate in the socially determined game. When the total sample was broken down by sex, the above factor emerged again for males but not for females. However, also in females, autonomy was negatively related 49 to appreciation for academic-achievement and affiliation (SCT). This may indicate that autonomy is a somewhat more valid instrument for males but is still an adequate measure also for females. Overall, both the content of the items and the scale's correlational pattern suggest that the autonomy scale might be an adequate measure of the moving-away construct suggested by Horney. 4. Antagonistic Esteem Needs: Need for esteem gratification subcategory (Sentence Completion Test, subcategory 3b Aronoff, 1971) Examination of the content of the 3b subcategory scoring system seems to indicate that this is a rather broad conceptual cate- gory. In general, the quality that characterizes the sentences scored for that category is ”the sense that a sufficient degree of self-worth is not yet attained" (Aronoff, 1971, p. 24). Aronoff (1971) points out three kinds of expressions of the need for esteem gratification. Unfortunately, only the first type is clearly antagonistic: Responses of this type show that the individual achieves a sense of worth through creating a hierarchy between himself and another and demonstrating his superior position by the use of power, influence control or derision of others (p. 24). Since considerable part of the subject's score on the 3b category may not be produced by the first type (Dominance and Derision), the corre- lations of that instrument with other personality variables (i.e., construct and concurrent validity) should be carefully examined before accepting it as a valid measure of antagonistic esteem needs. Examination of the correlational pattern of 3b seems to indi- cate that indeed this is a measure of the construct of 50 antagonistic-esteem needs as viewed by this study. The measure was positively related to n Power (Winter, 1973), Dominance (CPI) and appreciation for status and academic achievement (Scott, 1965). It was highly correlated with the esteem category of the SCT (of which it is a part). It was negatively related to the SCT category of affi- liation. It tended to be negatively related to succorance (EPPS) and faith in people (Rosenberg, 1957), (see Appendix A, Tables 1-3). In a factor analysis 38 loaded most highly (negatively) on a factor including the highest loading of n Power (negative loading), the Affiliation Category of the SCT (positive loading) and Rosenberg's Faith in People Scale (positive loading). I interpreted that factor as Forceful-Antagonism vs. Love and Trust factor. When the total sample was broken by sex, it was found that in female subjects, SCT/3b had significant positive correlation only with appreciation for status whereas in males it correlated significantly positively also with dominance, n Power, internality and appreciation for academic achieve- ment. Those results seem to indicate that the SCT/3b is a valid measure for males but not for females. Those findings, together with the content of the SCT/3b scoring system, seem to suggest that 3b really does measure antagonistic-esteem needs in males. 5. Dominance Need: Dominance Scale (California Psychological Inventory, Gough, 1969) The task of finding appropriate measures for the dominance construct was relatively easier. The Dominance (Do) Scale seemed to constitute a satisfactory operationalization of our theoretical con- struct. The scale was originally derived in connection with a 51 project on political participation (Gough, McClosky and Meehl, 1951) to identify strongly dominant, influential and ascendant in— dividuals who are able to take the initiative and exercise leadership. The items included in the test were those items which best differen— tiated students who were described by peers as high on dominance from students who were described as low on dominance. Following is a description of the nature of the items of the scale taken from Megargee Handbook of the CPI: Many of the Do scale items deal with poise and confidence. People who are high in dominance describe themselves as take charge people who are willing to be leaders, and characteristically endorse the following items in the manner indicated here: "I think I would enjoy having authority over other people"--True. They indicate they are verbally fluent and persuasive: "I am a better talker than listener"--T; "I have a natural talent for influencing people"--T. There is also an element of dogged persistence and a sense of duty: "I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose patience with me"--T; people should not have to pay taxes for the schools if they do not have children-~F. In addition, there is a tendency in them to face reality even if it is distasteful: "There are times when I act like a coward"--T (1972, p. 40). In his handbook Megargee presents the dominance scale as one of the better validated CPI scales. Several studies have shown that student leaders had significantly higher Do scores than non leaders (see Megargee, 1972). Rawls and Rawls (1968) reported that Do signi- ficantly differentiated the thirty most successful from the thirty least successful of the 150 executives employed by a medium sized utilities firm. Mahoney, Lerdee and Nash (1961) found that the Do scores of managerial personnel who were ranked by their supervisors as being in the top third in managerial effectiveness were significantly higher than the Do scores of the managerial personnel who were ranked as being in the bottom third. In his review, Megargee (1972) cites 52 two studies (Megargee, Bogart and Anderson, 1966) in which it was shown that subjects' scores on Do predicted their leadership in a dyad only when the importance of leadership was stressed and when dominance was thus made salient. More validational research on the Do scale is reviewed in Megargee (1972). Overall, the Do scale seems to have satisfactory validity. Thus, Butt and Fiske (1968) in their broad comparison of dominance scales from a variety of personality inven- tories, concluded that the CPI Do scale was the most apprOpriate for assessing leadership and peer ratings. In my sample, dominance consistently tended to have the highest correlations with other personality measures (and almost always in the predicted direction). This might indicate that the dominance measure has a greater reliability and construct validity than most other measures in our study. This fact, in addition to the strong behavioral validation behind the Dominance Scale, suggests that the results obtained for the Dominance Scale might be more reliable and valid than results based on most other measures employed in this study. When the sample was broken by sex, it was found that in both males and females dominance manifested a similar correlational pattern. Both the content of the dominance scale items and the research reviewed indicated that, in Maslow's terms, the individual who scores high on the Do Scale would most likely be functioning on the esteem level and differs from the moving-against type in the way described in the introduction. The last statement is supported by the fact that dominance loaded on the Health-Competence—Ascendence factor whereas antagonistic esteem (SCT/3b) loaded on the Forceful—Antagonism factor in our total sample. 53 6. A State of Gratified Esteem Needs: Gratified Esteem Needs Subcategory (Sentence Completion Test, Subcategory 3a, Aronoff, 1971) Examination of the scoring system for this subcategory indicates that the responses scored under it reflect a sense of personal compe- tence, self acceptance, self assurance, and pride in self. There is no sense of extraordinary ambitions originating from ungratified need for esteem. In Maslow's terms, peOple who score high on that category are motivated by growth needs more than by deficiency needs. The correlational pattern of the SCT/3a in the total sample seems to support its interpretation as a measure of esteem gratification. Especially instructive were the high negative correlations with personal incompetence (SCT/1c) and the fact that for the total sample, both faith in people (Rosenberg, 1957) and mistrust and withdrawal (SCT/la) had their highest correlations with SCT/3a (positive and negative, respectively, as expected). 3a had a very high correlation with the Esteem Category of the SCT of which it is a part. The results of the factor analysis also supported out interpretation of the 3a subcategory. 3a loaded most highly on a factor on which both personal incompetence (negative) and dominance (positive) loaded most highly. I am inclined to interpret this factor as a Competence, Ascendence and Health dimension. When the total sample was broken by sex, it appeared that the 3a measure might be a more valid instrument for males than for females. Thus, while it was significantly related to faith in peOple and tended to be related to affiliation and internality in the male sample, it did not show such relationship in 54 females. 3a was positively related to dominance in both males and females. In summary, both face validity and construct validity con- siderations suggest that the 3a category of the SCT is a good measure of a state of gratified esteem needs in males and perhaps a less valid measure of that construct in females. Interjudge Reliability of the Sentence Completion Test The Sentence Completion Test (S.C.T., Aronoff, 1971) was scored by three highly trained scorers. The mean interjudge correlation coefficients for each of the S.C.T. categories and subcategories are presented in Table 1. Large disagreements between the scorers on the Esteem or Safety Categories were later resolved by a third judge who was the author of the test. Low Self Esteem (3c), Dependency (lb), Affiliation, and Esteem were not used in the main part of the study. The Video-Tape Presentation of the Stimulus Persons1 An eighteen minute video-tape was made of a male and a female college students, who appeared to be about twenty years old, per- forming three interactive tasks in the following order: etch-a-sketch, finding as many possible uses for four different objects, and a third task in which they were asked to rank order several objects according to their importance for survival in the desert. The tape was used in this experiment because the two individuals handled the task equally 1The video-tape was made by Messe, Stollak and their assistants for use in their project on perceptual-style. It was re-edited and shortened to suit the purpose of the present study. 55 ov. me. we. mm. mm. No. 33 SE :5 3: 2...: Eooumm mHom :oflumoflwfiumpo Eooumm oocouomsoocH mnfiv Hmzmnpguwz w 304 ammumm How pooz pewmwumhu HmCOmuom xocowcomoo umswumwz moflhomoumoeom on. No. me. Eooumm COMHmeHmm< d xuommm moflhomoumu lllll- III.I.I1IJII Illlillll.Il .11 1 fl .il. x‘lllillrit .lii‘...iul.i|i ill .111 .1 1‘1 I III III»!!! .mofiaomoumonsm can moflcomoumu .F.U.m ecu pom mu:@wowmmoou :OMOMHogHOU ownsmpoucH cmozus.H manwh 56 well, spoke an equal length of time, proposed an equal number of solu- tions and had an equal number of solutions accepted by the other. Both had a pleasant appearance, their dressing and grooming was congruent with their sex roles, they behaved towards each other in a pleasant manner and demonstrated adequate task competence. The Manipulation of Status A brief description of each of the stimulus persons was given before the video-tape was shown. For all subjects, one of the stimulus persons was introduced as a high status person and the other as a low status person. In half of the groups to whom the tape was shown the male was described as the high and the female as the low status, while their respective statuses were reversed for the remaining groups. The high status person, either male or female, was introduced as an advanced graduate student at the University of Michigan who has had a very successful career and currently holds an important job as head of a research laboratory. The low status person was introduced as an assistant to the secretary (for the female) or as an aide (for the male) in the physical plant department at Michigan State University, who primarily performs routine work while taking evening classes as a part- time student at Lansing Community College. The high status person was always described before the low status person since this seeems to be one of the characteristics which define high status. Subjects' Involvement and the Induced Accuracy Set In order to enhance their involvement the subjects were told before watching the video-tape: "The following task will give you an 57 opportunity to show and to find out how perceptive and how observant you are of other people's behavior and personality. After the tape will be over you will be asked to describe the peOple that you have seen on the tape. Therefore, it will be to your advantage if you observe them closely." These instructions might have increased the influence of observable behaviors and decreased the influence of personality variables on trait inference. Thus, if any such influence of personality occurred, it would be under rather unfavorable conditions. Instructions Related to Stimulus Evaluation in the Second Session As was mentioned in the procedure, in the second session the subjects were asked to evaluate the stimulus persons from memory in two different ways. Before the first evaluation, the experimenter explained that ”the reason that we ask you to describe those people again is that not only are we interested in how people form impressions but also in how impressions last over time." Then, the experimenter proceeded to remind the subjects that there were two persons in the video-tape, an advanced graduate student in Physics at the University of Michigan and an assistant to the secretary (or an aide) in the Physical Plant Department in Michigan State University. He also reminded the subjects that the persons were engaged in three tasks, etch-a-sketch, creativity, and the survival in the desert task. Finally, the instructions designed to enhance subjects' involvement were repeated briefly. Before the second evaluation, the experimenter explained that the subjects were asked to describe the persons again since we were interested in how peOple can express their impressions on different 58 description instruments. No other instructions were provided before the adjective checklist was administered. Dependent Measures Instruments The main dependent measure was the Semantic Differential Scales. A second instrument, Adjective Checklist, was included in an attempt to explore alternative measurement techniques for evaluative bias. Although the checklist measure seemed to be useful and produced similar results to the semantic differential scales used in the second session, we could not use it in this study because it was administered only in the second session.2 1. Semantic Differential Scales This instrument included thirty semantic differential scales using thirty bipolar traits (see Appendix A). The traits were chosen from Anderson's likability ratings of 555 traits (Anderson, 1968). Each trait had either a positive or a negative value. The bipolar traits were chosen, on an a-priori rational basis, to form three subdimensions: a. Competence (10 traits) b. Sociability (15 traits) c. Interesting-Charming (5 traits) 2The main hypotheses of the study were tested also on measures based on the Adjective Checklist and are presented in Tables 1-2 in Appendix C. 59 2. Adjective Checklist This instrument consists of a list of thirty-six traits from which the subject was asked to select twelve which gave the best description of the stimulus person (see Appendix A). There are eighteen negative and eighteen positive adjectives in this instrument which were chosen on an a-priori basis to form the same three sub- dimensions as in the semantic differential scales. Construction of the Dependent Measures On the basis of my a-priori theoretical assumptions, I expected the subjects' responses to the semantic differential scales to cluster into two factors: Sociability and Competence-Intelligence. Those factors were expected to be orthogonal or only slightly related. I was less certain about the third factor, Interesting-Charming and speculated that if it would emerge it would be highly correlated with both other factors. Since I expected some of the subdimensions of evaluation to be related to each other, I chose to factor analyze the subjects' ratings of the high and low status persons through an oblique rotation (see Tables 1-2, Appendix D). The results of the factor analyses generaly confirmed my expectations. However, due to the different statuses attributed to the stimulus persons there were some differences in the results of the factor analyses of the two stimulus persons. For the high status person there were two positively related sociability factors and two positively related competence factors. For the low status, there was one global sociability factor and one global competence factor. For both statuses there was an attractiveness factor. In order to create dependent measures comparable 60 for the ratings of the high and low status stimulus persons, and in order to determine which traits would constitute the composite measures common to the two stimulus-persons, I combined the ratings of the two stimulus-persons and factor-analyzed them, using a varimax rotation. The analysis produced results more similar to those obtained for the high status person; two social factors, two competence factors but no interesting-charming factor (see Table 3, Appendix D). The following considerations convinced me to collapse the two social factors and the two competence factors into one social factor and one competence factor: 1. For the high status person, the two social factors were con- siderably positively correlated and both had low correlations with the two competence factors. The correlation between the two competence factors was also positive and of a considerable size (see Table 7). 2. The factor analysis of the low status person produced only one social and one competence factors. 3. There was no a-priori theoretical rationale for the maintenance of the fine differentiation within the social and competence dimensions. As was anticipated, the interesting-charming subdimension, unlike the social and competence subdimensions, did not emerge consistently as a 3The main hypotheses of the study were tested also on two dependent measures based on the two competence factors and on another two measures based on the two sociability factors. The results were very similar to those obtained with only two dependent measures, one for competence and one for sociability. 61 separate subdimension. Despite this problem, it was decided to use this subdimension as a basis for a third dependent measure. However, this measure was considered an exploratory one and was not used to test the main hypotheses of the study, which were tested on the competence and sociability subdimensions. The reasons for the inclusion of the attractivenes subdimension as a third (exploratory) dependent measure are the following: (a) A factor easily interpretable as an Interesting- Charming factor did emerge from the separate factor analyses (oblique- rotation) of the high and low status persons. Three of the five traits, included in the "interesting-charming" subdimension on an a-priori basis, had the highest loading on that factor on the analysis of the high status person and were among the four traits with the highest loading on the analysis of the low status person. Those three traits were: Interesting, Charming and Humorous. (b) The interesting-charming subdimension was interesting from a theoretical standpoint since it allowed us to examine the relationship between motivation and cognitive— evaluative aspects related to affiliative activities and issues of interpersonal attractiveness. Criteria for Inclusion in the Composite Measures As was previously mentioned, we planned to construct composite measures on the basis of the results of the factor analysis. Each composite measure was to reflect one factor (that is, subdimension) of evaluation. The following criteria were used for inclusion of traits in the composite measures. Sociability: Every trait with a loading of more than .40 on the two social factors that emerged from the factor analysis of the two stimulus 62 persons together was included. Traits belonging to the Interesting- Charming subdimension were excluded. The trait "happy" was excluded since on the two separate factor analyses for both high and low statuses (using oblique rotation) happy always loaded on a separate factor, the "happiness" factor. The trait "energetic" was excluded since in the separate factor analyses (Oblique rotation), for both high and low status persons, it never loaded most highly on the sociability factors. In addition, the two traits were not assigned to the soci— ability subdimension on an a-priori basis and their semantic related- ness to that subdimension seems somewhat less clear than all the other traits that loaded on that subdimension.4 Competence: This scale was constructed by including every trait with a loading of more than .40 on the two competence factors that emerged from the factor-analysis of the two stimulus persons together. Interesting-Charming: This scale was constructed by including every trait with a loading of more than .50 on the Interesting-Charming factors of both the high and the low status persons. The traits which were included in each composite measure are presented in Table 2. In order to compute the subjects' score on a composite measure the subject's response on each trait received a weight of 4The main hypotheses of the study were also tested on a somewhat different composite measure of sociability. That measure included epy_ trait with a loading of more than .40 and therefore included also the traits "charming," "energetic," "humorous," and "happy." (The trait interesting was not included since it loaded equally on both the social and the competence factors.) The results of that analysis were very similar to those obtained for ths sociability measure used in this study. 63 Table 2.--The Traits Composing the Sociability, Competence and Interesting-Charming Measures. Sociability Competence Interesting-Charming Warm Competent Interesting Friendly Intelligent Charming Tolerant Outstanding Humorous Unselfish Strong Sincere Decisive Not Pompous Self-Reliant Tactful Confident Likable Convincing Not Too Critical Purposeful Modest Sensitive Not Snobbish one and all his/her responses to the traits constituting the composite measure were totaled. The Overall Evaluation Scale In order to assess the subjects' overall evaluation of each stimulus person, an overall evaluation scale was constructed by summing across the different subdimensions of evaluation (giving each sub- dimension a weight of one). Thus, four separate measures were used to test the hypotheses: Sociability, Competence, Interesting-Charming and Overall evaluation. The Combined Evaluation Measure In order to measure enduring evaluative bias, subjects' separate evaluation scores for the two stimulus persons were combined. 64 Thus, a higher score was most likely to result from a more positive evaluation of both stimulus persons. Combined evaluation scores were computed for each of the four domains of evaluation. The Difference in Evaluation Of the Two Statuses Score In order to measure subjects' tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low (that is, to see a larger difference in favor of the high status person), the low status person's separate evaluation score was subtracted from the high status person's evaluation score. Thus, the greater the positive difference between the two scores, the stronger the subject's tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low. This assertion can always be examined by looking at the analysis based on the separate evaluation measures. Dependent Measures for the Delayed Evaluation As was previously mentioned, two evaluation instruments were administered in the second session. Therefore, two sets of evaluation measure were constructed, one set for each instrument. The traits constituting the composite measures of the delayed evaluation were the same as those constituting the composite measures of the immediate evaluation. The instruments administered in the second session were not factor-analyzed because the measures constructed from them, on the basis of the factor analysis of the immmediate evaluation instrument, correlated very highly with the measures of the immediate evaluation. Also, this was a simple way to create a common measure for the immediate and delayed evaluation. 65 Subjects One hundred five males and one hundred seventy five females from an introductory course in Psychology participated in the experi- ment. The subjects received course credits for their participation. Procedure The experimental sessions: Each subject was expected to participate in two experimental sessions. Subjects were notified in advance that they would have to participate in two sessions in order to receive their credits. Each session lasted 1.5 - 2 hours. The second session took place 7-10 days after the first session. The average number of sub— jects in a session was 10-15 people. Out of 280 subjects who attended the first session, 250 returned to the second session. There were two experimenters and both were males. First Session After the experimenter introduced himself, he administered the instruments in the following order: 1. A booklet which contained the Autonomy, Deference and the shortened Succorance Scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the 5 items of the personal-control factor from the Multidimensional I-E Scale. 2. Need for Approval Scale. 3. Presentation of a video-tape depicting the two stimulus persons to be evaluated. Before showing the video-tape the experimenter gave a short description of each of the stimulus-persons. The status of the stimulus persons was manipulated through the description. 66 Semantic Differential Scales. After watching the video-tape the subjects evaluated the two stimulus persons on the Semantic Differential. Four T.A.T. pictures (used by McClelland (1975) and Winter (1973) to measure n Power) were projected and the subjects wrote a story for each picture. Faith in people scale. Second Session After the experimenter welcomed the subjects, he administered the instruments in the following order: 1. 2. Design Sentence Completion Test Dominance Scale Semantic Differential Scales. The subjects were asked to describe from memory the stimulus persons that they saw in the first session. The experimenter "helped" the subjects to refresh their mind by briefly summarizing the activities and the status—related characteristics of the stimulus persons. Four T.A.T. pictures (chosen to elicit dependency and achievement strivings). Adjective Checklist. The subjects were asked to describe each of the two stimulus persons on an Adjective Checklist. The Status and Academic Achievement Scales from the Personal Value Scales. There were five independent variables in the study: (1) Motivation of perceiver, three levels: high, medium, and low; (2) Sex 67 of perceiver, two levels; (3) Status of the stimulus person, two levels: high and low; (4) Sex of the stimulus person, two levels; (5) Experimental condition. There were two experimental conditions which permitted separation of the effects of the status attributed to the stimulus person from his/her sex or unique personality and appearance. In one condition the male stimulus was described as the high and the female stimulus as the low status person, while in the second condition their respective statuses were reversed. The dependent measures were all surveyed in detail in the previous section. CHAPTER III RESULTS Manipulation Check The effect of the instructional manipulation was examined by an ANOVA performed on the composite competence scale based on the subjects' immediate evaluation (see Table 3, Appendix E). The effect was signi— ficant at the p < .0001 level. For all subjects, irrespective of sex of the stimulus person, the person who was presented as high status was seen as more competent than the person perceived as low status. Hypothesis I: Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate the High Status Person More Favorably than the Low. Immediate Evaluation: Hypothesis Ia deals with the central question of the study since it is most directly derived from the proposition that the perceiver's predominant motives will interact with the grati- fying or frustrating attributes of the stimulus person. Thus, it is this hypothesis that serves as the major test of the usefulness of the person by situation approach for the understanding of the phenomena covered in this study. The hypothesis was tested by computing the correlations between subjects' motive scores and differences in their evaluations of the high and low status stimulus persons. A large positive difference score indicates a large difference in evaluation in favor of the high 68 69 as compared to the low status person. In other words, it indicates a large tendency of the perceiver to evaluate the high status person more positively than the low. Inspection of Table 3 reveals that, overall, our predictions with regard to hypothesis la were confirmed. For 6 personality measures across 4 measures of evaluation (24 correlation coefficients) there was only one correlation not in the predicted direction for males, and only 2 such correlations for females. None of those unpredicted correlations was significant. The males and female subjects' results are generally similar with regard to the 4 self-report measures (EPPS and CPI) but corre- lations in the male sample were higher. For both males and females, the tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low on the overall-evaluation was negatively related to dominance and positively related to succorance. For males this was true for Sociability and the Interesting-Charming subdimensions also. The strength of the relationship between the personality of the perceivers and their tendency to evaluate the high status person more positively than the low was assessed through the multiple correlations calculated between the personality variables and the difference scores. In males, the multiple correlation with overall-evaluation was .45 and was produced by the inclusion of only 3 personality measures: succorance, deference and antagonistic-esteem. The multiple correlation of .34 in the female sample was produced by only 2 personality measures: personal incompetence and succorance. In order for a variable to be included in the regression equation the probability that it c:_ n :o_un:_a>o uoxe_o= to» m n__ n comuc:_e>o Ouzwvossw do» m 70 I L me n :c_u::_c>o wean—o: ecu c cc u :o_ue:_=>o Ou:_1OEEL Lou we .cc. v a xxx _c. v L xx as. v ._ x E. v ._ + . .. .4. . . . . c a opuo O he : xcm xxwi xxsr xcm xxem xxxm xo_ emu _ u n .u_ 2 m:.- nc.- mo.- 22.- me. _C. no.. ac.- acmv EOOum: Owummcoumuc< -.- a..- c_.- e_.- c:.. m_.- c..- c..- oocmcmso: x x + + 8. +2.- 2. 8.- me. - xii cc. 2... .3232 . l . . . J. . 4 . . U L c H0 xcm xxxcm xx. ch xxve xxvm mc N. Ao_v o amuo EOO¢— ~w Om a cc. cc. ~_. me. No. we. no. No.- mucouomo: c~.- xxwm. xn_.- as. c:.. +m_. oc.n xc_. ooceuoooaw cmwoo~s:w1mm=so; yxom. xxxmv. 4mm. xxxm. z_m. xxOm. xxmm. xxmm. :o_uc_owcou o_adu_:2 x_m.- x~m.- c..- a..- m:.. n:.- n~.- m~.- Acmv Eocem: omummcoueuc< + x x xxcm.- xxcm.- c..- xxm~.- xmn.- xc.- . xn~.- xxa~.- oocacmsoo E..- 2.. +2.- 2.. 3.- E..- .85 3.- .3853 x_m. Ac. ~_. cc. m_. v_.- in_. xcm. AO_V oo:o»o;EoO:~-—m:0maoa +a~. x_~. m.. m_. no. m~. ch. c_. oucououoa xmm. xxxmm. 4x_. +c_. xmm. xmm. v~. xwm. oocauoooaw i :v.«OO_.;:v. 0:..2 toxc_o: Ouc_coss_ coxe_o: anmsose_ pose—o: Oue_coas_ coax—o: Oummcoss_ o>wuoz zo_h<:;<>x g4c cz_Hm:z;+z_ muzuhgazcu >h_g_m<~uom u r.... . h L t A. v. h.h 0 I . u .0 u v I I .10.: . 0 v . h I h , u u 0. t. h n : h I I fl! .. V c v u. h hllvihA" :- «10.0... .h.‘ :0“ .0 .0 ".1“ P u: "1.0.. n. hxhl..." W n “I“; .LI. ”It. I fihihkhtn IEEHL fil"§u.t v-1"lhlnblhrl‘ti0lulaluvfih. .comua:_m>: 10xm_o: use Oue_cOEE_ :« m:OmuO;-m:_:Emum mzumom so; can cu“: ozu mo m:o_un:_c>; amoch cm moocoaoum_: can makeom o>_uoz .muuoanzw coozuom mcomum_ouuou-u.n o~neh 71 added to the explained variance due to chance only had to be less than .10 (F to enter or remove in the SPSS regression program). The size of the multiple correlations obtained in our study (especially in the male sample) convincingly demonstrated that the personality of perceivers is an important predictor of their tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low. Delayed Evaluation: Inspection of Table 3 indicates that hypothesis 1b was only partially confirmed. In general, the direction of the rela- tionship between the personality measure and evaluation did hold in males and, to a some extent, also in females. For males, all the 24 correlations between personality measures and evaluation were in the predicted direction. For females only 16 out of the 24 correlations were in the predicted direction. (Seven of the eight unpredicted correlations were for succorance and autonomy.) However, there was no evidence of sharpening, that is, of an increased relationship between motivation and differences in evaluation. As with the immediate evaluation, stronger relationships were found in the male sample than in the female sample. For males, the relationship between motivation and differences in overall evaluation were significant in both the immediate and the delayed evaluation for succorance and dominance and tended to be significant with deference. For females, this was true only for personal incompetence and tended to be so with dominance. Summary of Hypothesis 1: Overall, hypothesis 1 was confirmed with regard to the direction of the relationship between motives and evaluation in both immediate and delayed evaluation. More convincing support for the hypothesis was found in male subjects than in female 72 subjects. Thus, only_one non-significant correlation out of the 48 correlation coefficients predicted for the male subjects was in the unpredicted direction. For females, 10 out of the 48 predicted correlations were in the unpredicted direction. The most consistent relationships were found between dominance (CPI) and the differences in evaluation score. The predicted effects were found to be significant in both sexes in immediate evaluation. In delayed evaluation the effects were significant in males, and in females there was a trend in the predicted direction. Hyppthesis II : Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate Both Stimulus Persons Favorably Immediate Evaluation: Hypothesis II was tested by computing the correlations between subjects' motive scores and their combined evaluation of both stimulus persons. The higher the combined evalu- ation score, the greater the degree of positivity in the subjects' evaluations. Inspection of Table 4 reveals that the predictions with regard to the sum scores were only partially confirmed for males and not confirmed for females. For males, as predicted, esteem gratification and, to a lesser degree, dominance, were often associated with positivity and antagonistic-esteem (SCT/3b) and personal-incompetence (SCT/1c) consistently tended to be associated with negativity. However, succorance and deference did not show any positivity bias at all. In females, almost none of the predicted relationships was found. For both males and females there was often a tendency for autonomy to 73 Cl O__ i I; GO u :9. _oc. v L xxx _c. v L .3. m:. V L x c_. v c + mc. mc.- Ac.- mc.- _c.- nc. ~c.- _c.- Ann. cocoa; co_c_occu cc. cc. ~c.- cc. cc.- cc. ec.- Nc. Acmc Eocene ucomccoucuc< cc. mc.- Nc.- Nc. .c_.- _c. _c. «c. ooccccecc tea. cc.- x_~.- xc_.- c..- Nc. c_.- Ac.- seocooc< No. mc.- Nc.- n:.. we. wc. _c. cc.- Ao_v oo=o~6L50o:_ _mcomuoc cc. _c. No. _c.- mc. Ac. ~.. cc. oucocococ cc. cc.- I; m:.. cc. _c.- ~c. cc.- .m..- oocccouozm .lslii ,- . $9.3 we... «lu-i|u:.- ii-qqt-:1-- .a x_~. x_~. xxcm. xxcm. 4.. xmn. .c_. cc. Acmc seesaw co_c_uato m_. .c..- cc.- m_.- Ac.- c_. xc~.- m_.- ficmc scoomu ocumccouccc< .c_. 4.. xxcn. c_. .n_. m_. c_. cc. oocccmscc +c_. cc.- xmm.- xm~.- xum - Ac. cc.- ~_. Asccccz< m_. xm~.- xm~.- .m... .c..- +_~. mc.- +c~.- Ao_c concuocsooc_-_ecemcoc Nc. cc.- mc. Nc. mc. cc. mc. cc.- oocotococ nc. cc.- _c.- mc.- ~c.- m_. cc. _c.- oocctccozm v -- ,II I _.. whammmzw. aim: ilul- I-_o.,.|o..w..cu_.u._ IE 0 a c _ _CEc: cowl—”Hm. .1 |.- .MMLDMMEH'IIIflNwAtW—MH P o a: _ _CEc: cox... _ o: H o a... _ .555— .illllllltlil-n .tttlaalltiaul-tivuuliuunv1urziqllt- - O>muoz zc_c<:c<>c cco :2_exccc_2_ cOchcczcc >c_c_c<_uom -- .-- ...... .-. ...... . . .- -- . -.;_ -.- . ---. ..--...-.. L ....vniaiuv.v.l.u.uii.nat.-;ivi¢:...ll.....lv...vuvi.ls.. .:O_~m=_c>u eoxe_o: pee Oumcposs_ c_ m:Omaoc m:_:E_cm ace: co :c_~::_=>; o>_~_mcc coc_;ecu u_o;h tow mp;Oom o>muc2 .muoomnzw :oozuom mco-n_05ucu--.v o~nmh 74 correlate negatively with positive evaluation. This relationship was significant for both sexes in both immediate and delayed evaluation on the interesting-charming subdimension, a phenomenon that seems to indicate that this is a real and stable effect. The multiple correlations were not included in Table 4 since it focuses on the relationship between specific personality variables and positivity. The multiple correlations appear in Table 13 in which a variety of personality variables is presented and examined as a whole and viewed as reflecting one central aspect of the personality (i.e., degree of basic needs' gratification). Delayed Evaluation: This hypothesis was only partially confirmed. For both sexes the direction of the relationship was generally the same in delayed as in immediate evaluation. However, except for a certain trend with autonomy, there was no evidence for sharpening. For males, the negative relationship between antagonistic-esteem, personal incompetence, autonomy, and positive evaluation, and the positive rela- tionship between esteem gratification, dominance and positive evaluation, tended to persist in the delayed evaluation. The other variables tended to show no relationship, as was the case in immediate evaluation. Summary of Hypothesis II: Overall, hypothesis II was confirmed only with regard to the direction of the relationships between antagonistic-esteem, personal incompetence, dominance, and gratified-esteem for males in both immediate and delayed evaluation. The predictions with regard to auto- nomy were significantly supported in both sexes, in immediate and delayed evaluation only on the Interesting-charming subdimension. 75 Motivation and the Separate Evaluation of the High and Low Status Stimulus Persons The separate evaluations of the high and low status persons were examined in an attempt to find their relationship to the different motives chosen for the study. This examination allowed us to detect the contribution of the two separate evaluations to the joint difference or sum scores. It also served as an additional check that the combined evaluation (sum) scores really reflected a tendency to positively evaluate both stimulus persons. Immediate Evaluation: Inspection of Tables 5 and 6 reveals that for males, succorance and deference were associated or tended to be asso- ciated, with negative evaluation of the low status person and positive evaluation of the high status person. In general, the relationship with negative evaluations tended to be stronger than the relationship with the positive evaluations. A similar, but less strong, pattern was revealed in the female sample with regard to succorance. For deference, the magnitude of the correlations in females were too small to allow for meaningful conclusions. Personal incompetence (SCT/1c) was often associated with negative evaluation in males but not in females. In males, personal incompetence was associated with negative evaluation of the low status person and often tended to be associated also with a negative evaluation of the high status person. In females, personal incompetence was associated with negative evaluation of the low status person and positive evaluations of the high. This pattern may suggest that for females personal incompetence is more related to dependency. Esteem gratification in males was associated with positive evaluation 76 u coccc:~c>o voxmgop co» m cc .-. cosmic; 3.2.125; com we zo_._.<:._<>.n_ 4._<~_m.>c cz_.rmm_~_m:.z_ ”_uz..._._..n_..=‘CU >%_;_m<_uow Nut. MP. 0 “II. n H I‘Lrhhln ”In-“I11” n mc ~o. v u xx mO. V A— X c_. v a + a. In. a. J- — a xxcw- - axe» xyev -z- - ..xvm,ec _ cocop_ocucu o_ccmwcz mzccum so; co comcc:_c>u . .mxmm. xx_v. xxmv. x_m. comes—ocuou o_nwu_:z mzuauw zu_: mo cedum:_w>u .cm. .a_. xch. xme. xNN. ac. mc. __. Ramc sooomc cocccuecu cc. cc. mc. we.. we.- no.- me. me. Remy smegma Omumwcomeuc< xxon. xwa. xxmm. xxmw. xmm. N~. xmm. me. oocmcmsoo __.- mc. +A_.- .A..- c_.- _c. Nc. N“. xeocou=< xm~.- x-.- xxn~.- xn~.- +m_.- No. +w_.- xxom.- Ao_v museuoasoocn me:Omuoa v~.- +a_.- no.- nc.- vc.- v~.- . x m.- m_.- ou:o~ouoo m~.- xxa~.- m:.- e~.- v_.- xm~.- no.- xo~.- ouceuouosw wonueh mzueum-zoc co wmmmwmm_c>u c_. +x_. xNN. xmm. cc.- xmm. m_. vc.- ”new EOOumu pewuwuwco m~.- xxcn.- ac.- x-.- mo.- v~.- xxvm.- xxm~.- Anny smegma Owummcowwuc< c..- _~.- N~. mc.- N..- cc. N—.- +w_.- Oocecmsoa +x_.- c_.- xxmm.- va.- m_.- c..- c..- we. AEO:Ou:< we. -.- c..- v_.- No. x_~.- co. co. Au.“ oocouoasooc_ ~a=Omuoc __. o_. Ac. ac. no. cc. o_. Ac. oucououoa .m_. mm. «u. no. +m_. m_. m_. __. oocuuouosm uoucnb m:~cum-;u_: we mcocun:_c>; come—o: H Ouc_poes_ coke—o: — occ_1cEE_ toss—c: 4- OucccoEE_ co>m_oz fl Oucmcoss_ rt ilIIr-5-I--#.-IIIIII!ItO-:-l- O>wuoz i..llpaik-I'LrlII-IVFF‘FIH-lll".'7i‘lr c.:om.m:~c>: coxc_o: cc: Ouc_1oss_ cm mnempoc m:_:E_~m-m:uccm 3c; pzc -;u_: ecu do :o_uc:_e>; acoch vac mouoom O>_uo: .muoomcsm o_ez coozuom mcomuc_ouuou-.m v.5eh coxm.oc mou.m n.. u co.um:.a>o euc.coEE. you an 77 cc. u co.ua:.w>o _c. v R xx mc. v .— x 0.. v n+ '1 xxx.m. xch. xmm. xxAN. co.oc.occoo o.c.o.=: -- . may—Nam .50.— ...C Comun..—R>w_ K.N. xc~. x.N. co.oc.o.coo o.c.o:g. mzueum :u.: .0 :O.ua:.m>u .c. xc.. .o. +m.. no. xc.. Ac. we. .un. seeemw ce.m.uauc .c. we. co. co. cc.- .o.- me. o.. .nm. secumm umummcouau=< . . . . .- . . . coca: we 4v. we. +N. no mo mo +v. .soa N..- Nc. xxa~.- c..- cc. c.. N..- ~c.- aaocoua< N..- xch. +m..- xxv~.- +v..- xa..- no.- we..- .O.. oocouoneouc. .~:Omuoc No. No. no.- No.- .c. c..- we. no. oueoueuoa mo. xxcw. ... vc.- mo. oc.- co. xxn~.- oucwuooo=w aouueh mzumum-zo. .o mnemum:.e>; -1- -I- J-- . me. me. me. mo.- nc.- +m..- we. no. .mn. Bonumm pewumuauo cc.- Nc. mc.- mc. cc.- .c. cc.- ec.- .cm. seesaw u.um.couau:< .9..- ... m..- we.- w... x0..- no.- mo.- oo=a=.2oa 9 .9 cc.- .e.. vc.- N..- m..- m..- .c.- ac.- xeocoua< + 9 .9 xn.. ... ... mo. xxmw. xn.. we. no. .u.. museuoceou:.-.e:0muoc ... no. ac. .c. we. .c. o.. co. mucououoc ac.- me. .c..- we. o..- ... co.- co. oocmuoOosw eunuch magnum-za.: mo aco.uc:.m>; ill - .;-i:. - iti- . _ voxn.o: _ o~e.sOEE. H voxa.o: fl Ouc.coss. F voxe.o: ~ 0.5.2056. voxe.o: filo.a.vo&§. . o>.uoz z:.w<=.<>u aac _ :z.em.:;cz. — authr=fixc >h...¢<.uom . _ .co.um:.m>= woxa.o: ace Oue.1OEE_ :. mnemuoc m:.:s.um msueum-zo; can -;u_: ecu .o :o.ua:.e>m p.c;h ecu mouoom o>.uoz .muo0mpam o.asou eoozuom mco.uc.ouuou-.c o.cah 78 of both stimulus persons, a finding which supports the results ob- tained on the basis of the sum scores. For females, that was true only for the evaluation of the low status person. In males, autonomy was associated or tended to be associated with negative evaluation of the high status person. In females, autonomy tended to have stronger association with negative evaluation of the low status person. Antagonistic-esteem and dominance will be discussed later. Delayed Evaluation: Inspection of Tables 5 and 6 indicated that no sharpening effect had occurred but that the direction of the correla- tions in delayed evaluation was similar to that of the immediate evaluation. As with other findings this similarity was more apparent in the males. The Relationship Between Dominance, Antagonistic-Esteem and Evaluation of the High and Low Status Person The results with regard to the correlations of dominance and antagonistic-esteem need with the separate evaluations of the high and low status persons were not expected. However, since they demonstrated a rather interesting pattern, they are presented separately. In order to facilitate the inspection of the regularities in the results, the subdimensions in Table 7 were presented in a somewhat different order than in other tables. Inspection of Table 7 indicates that for males in immediate evaluation, dominance was associated with positive evaluation of the low status person on overall-evaluation, sociability and the interesting-charming subdimensions. Antagonistic-esteem need was associated with negative evaluation of the high status person on the ,79 ll cl “- mc c 00 H CM .00. v u xxx .o. v Q xx mc. v c x c.. v c + 4 cc. Xmm.- mc. cc.- cc. xxcm.- cc.- cc.- M .cmc accomm o.om.cocmoc< xxcm. c..- xxcm. N.. xNN. N..- xmmm- .s-.w.flw, M--.,. ,---:;--zwwwwmmmmm acofium=.m>m poxw.oo m 4 . cc. 8ncm: cc.- xNN.- mc. xxcm.- mc.- c..- . .cmc acoomm uecm.=owcoc< xxcm. ...- xxcm. mc.- xmm. +c..- N.. cc. cucmccaoc l. . I. -l-.-. t0 -.-I'II‘II. . -:i !-?.-i. --.3. .ll lilE§-?léllll;-Illriillélllil- wcofium:.m>m eyewcoes. msumum woumum soc cc.z mspmum msumum mdpmum mspmum msumum mfiumum 304 sec: 304 cm.: 304 cccc :ofium3.m>o-..mgo>o o>fiuoz mcflum090pc. xuw.flcmwoom mucouomEou _ . . ill-nil: III-0.".- lnI-l‘l I. .-Illl:‘. All I. I.-. ‘10; ‘0 .mcomnoc mOHOEfium magnum 304 can :wfl: oz» mo cofiue:.m>m hfiocb pcc .oocmcfieoo can EOOOmm-Owumwcommu:< :O monoom .muoohnsm o.mz :oozuom chMOm.onwou-.n 0.3mh 80 same subdimensions. Dominance was not significantly associated with negative evaluation of the high status person whereas antagonistic esteem need was not related to positive evaluation of the low status person. The delayed evaluation results generally showed a similar pattern. Hypothesis III: The Relationship Between the Competence and Sociability Subdimensions of Evaluation. Hypothesis III stated that the sociability and the competence factors derived from the subjects' ratings of the high and the low status persons would be unrelated or only slightly related. The hypo- thesis was tested primarily through calculating the correlations between the sociability and competence factors derived from the factor analyses of the high and the low status person, using oblique rotations. As described before, in the section presenting the construction of the dependent measures, two social and two competence factors were derived from the ratings of the high status person and only one social and competence factor was derived from the ratings of the low status person. The correlations between the social and competence factors were always low, in spite of the fact that they were derived from an oblique rather than varimax rotation. Thus, the results do not support Heider's contention that positive features are grouped into one unit and negative ones are grouped into a second unit. A subsidiary test of Hypothesis III was made through the examination of the correlations between the composite measures, con- structed on the basis of the factor analysis. 81 :I owm n m 00cmAOHOH cw. xuflHMmeuom x4..flnmwoom mo.- m.. 00:0pomeou N..- mucouOQEOU c..- we. hm. ho3om xufi.wnmfloom oucoww..0u:. oocmho.OH Ap..wnm.00m oocoww..ou:. Ho3om mucouomeou .wgocoo oocouomsou .mnococ xufi..nmfloom oocouomeou common mzumum 304 one m0 mwcwpmm Echm 00>«Hoo mpouomm compo; msucum 4w“: ecu m0 mmcflumm Eopm co>fipoo mxouomm I... III..- I III-ll 10.10 ll cmcomHOQ m:.:E.um moumum 304 use saw: 049 mo .:0wumu0m 0:34.40. momx.m:< wouomu ecu EOpm 00>«hoo muouowm mucouomeou 0:0 xufi.wnmwoom ecu :oo3uom mcofium.ouhou-.w 0.40% The results reported in Table 9 again did not support Heider's hypothesis. The social and competence scores were unrelated in both stimulus persons. The correlation tended to be even lower than those Obtained in the factor analysis, possibly due to the construction of the third measure, Interesting-charming, which might have served as a mediator variable between the sociability and the competence measures. Hypothesis IV: The High Status Person Would Not be Described More Positively than the Low on All Three Subdimensions. Hypothesis IV was tested through an ANOVA performed on the total sample (Tables 2-4, Appendix E). The results indicated that on the competence measure the high status person was evaluated more positively than the low (p < .0001), but on the interesting-charming measure she/he was evaluated less positively (p < .05). These results confirm our hypothesis and are inconsistent with the strict "Heiderian" prediction. Hypotheses V and VI: The Motive Related Use of the Subdimensions of Evaluation. Hypotheses V and VI were examined only with regard to dominance and dependency since those constructs were most meaningful theoretically and also had the best empirical validation. ANOVA's were performed on each of the three subdimensions of evaluation. The ANOVA's were per- formed on the total sample and sex of perceiver was not included as an independent factor since it did not interact with motive of perceiver and status of stimulus person in the first ANOVA performed (see Tables 2-4, Appendix E). Thus, each ANOVA had 4 independent factors: €33 ..muooaczm uc.mm.s m0 =0.uo.oc om.3c.mc. cvw - xmm n ma .cc. v u xxx .0. v ... xx mo. v n. x C—. v ..— + . . . . . .- . we. mono : . xxxnc xxxmm xxxmn x.. xxxcw .o xxc. .u u . . . . . .- .. . mzucum . no we xm. xc. xxxmm xxm. vacuuoasou . . ... .- . xux . «.0 304 . xxxcn xxxmm xxxrm x0. +mo ...4 . ow . mc. xxa.. +o.. xxn.. ..m>m ..muo>o . xxxmv. xxxmm. xxxn. m:.umou0u:. . . 95.3% we xxxvc museuoceou . . cc... . xxxca x....cc.uom . ..a>c ..cco>o u:.umou0uc. 00:0uoaeou x4...cc.00m :0.uc:.c>u uc_cu0e0uc. 00=0uczsou xu_..cm.oom :0.uw:.c>m ..eco>o ..mco>o :Omcoc wzueuw 304 :Omhoc mzucum :u.: ....v...0m..oc v5.2.2.5 £25m 30.. .05.. 5...: o... c0. :0_cc:.c>; .0 m:0.m:05.02:m ozu coozuom m:0.uc.0apou-.m 0.4ch 84 Motivation of perceiver, (three levels: high dominance, high dependency, and subjects not high on both motives), status of stimulus person (two levels: high and low), sex of stimulus person and experimental condi- tion (two levels: male presented as high status and female as low, and the reverse). Subjects classified as high dominance were those who were in the tOp third on dominance, and not on the top third on succorance. Sub- jects classified as high on dependency were those who were in the top third on succorance and not in the top third on dominance. Subjects not high on both motives were classified as middles (the few subjects who were high on both motives were excluded from the analysis). Hypothesis V was tested through the interaction between motive of perceiver and status of stimulus person. Inspection of Table 10 indicates that, as predicted, the inter- action between motive of perceiver and status of stimulus person was significant on sociability (p < .0005) but not on competence. The simple effects tests showed that on sociability, as predicted by Hypothesis VI, dominance oriented subjects evaluated the low status person more favorably than the high status person (p < .05). The dependency oriented subjects tended to evaluate the high status more favorably than the low (p < .10) and subjects not high on any of the two motives did not show a difference in their evaluations of the high and low status stimulus persons. 0n competence, the motive by status interaction was not significant and therefore, the status main effect was examined. Since this was, in fact, the manipulation main effect, the high status person was evaluated as more competent than the low status (p < .0001). 85 Table 10.--Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Sociability. Source df MS F Motive of Perceiver (A) 2 .62 .48 Experimental Condition (B) l 1.54 1.20 A x B l 1.17 .91 Subjects within/AB 210 1.28 Male Stimulus vs. Female Stimulus (C) 1 2.98 2.09 A x C 2 2.46 1.72 B x C (Status of Stimulus)A 1 .86 .60 A x B x C (Motive by Status)B 2 18.09 12.68xxx C x Subjects Within/AB 210 1.43 xxx p < .001 AThe B x C interaction really reflected the status of stimulus person main effect which, due some experimental limitations, was not included directly in the design but was inferred from the B x C interaction. BNote that the B x C interaction really reflects the status of stimulus person main effect. 86 Table ll.--Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Competence. Source df MS F Motive of Perceiver (A) 2 .06 .04 Experimental Condition (B) l 1.59 1.01 A x B 2 .42 .27 Subjects within/AB 210 1.58 Male Stimulus vs. Female Stimulus (C) 1 3.62 1.74 A x C 2 1.04 .50 B x c (Status of Stimulus) 1 37.02 17.78XXXX A x B x C (Motive by Status) 2 .61 .29 C x Subjects Within/AB 210 2.08 xxxx p < .0001 Table 12.-—Mean Sociability Scores Given to the High and Low Status Persons by Dependency, Dominance and Neutral Subjects. _T Status of Mot1ve of Percelver Stimulus Person Dependency Dominance Neutral High Status 5.12 4.74 4.90 Low Status 4.69 5.19 5.05 87 Thus, the major predictions of Hypothesis V were supported, in line with the motive-directed impression-formation approach, and contrary to Heider's approach. Additional Results Sense of Personal Competence, Control and Worth, and Evaluation of Others Although our experiment was not originally designed to assess the relationship between subjects' sense of personal competence, control and worth and the degree of positivity in their perception of others (when the others behave in a pleasant manner and demonstrate adequate task-competence), it seemed like the data we have allowed us to do such an analysis. This post-hoe analysis is presented in Table 13, which includes the correlations between subjects' scores on measures of sense of personal competence, control or worth, and their combined evaluations scores of both stimulus persons. Tables 13 and 4 are somewhat over- lapping. However, while some of the results presented in both tables are the same, the questions for which they are examined are different. Table 4 focuses on the relationship originally hypothesized to exist between Specific motives and evaluation. Table 13 was constructed in order to enable the post-hoe examination of the relationship between a whole grppp_of personality variables, reflecting subjects' sense of personal control, competence or worth, and evaluation. As was done before, degree of positivity was measured by the combined evaluation scores of the two stimulus persons. The measure- ment of the subjects' sense of personal competence, worth and control was a more difficult issue. In order to avoid the possible confounding 88 c.. u so a c v0 5 .x.».=E easy :. mo.cc.uc> cacao omega .0 :0.~e:.c£00 ucoc.. e we) a. 00:.m vauzczoO no: =0.~e.ocuco O.c.u.:e ecu :0.:: co m.m:c oz. :0 x.cuee :o.ue.ouuoo ecu Ouc. convene we: we: OLOom xuouum 0:.d .cc. v u xxx .c. v c xx n m:. VQK 0—. v L o . a a . . a - u L—. xvm oNN xmm .c. cc.ur.0Lhcu 0. ...:2 mc. Nc. cc. .c.- .c.- cc. cc. cc. _ «.cum. Acaccm mc.- cc. ~c.- cc. cc.- cc. cc.- ~c. .cmc soccmc c..m.cocc.:< cc.- cc.- cc.- .c..- ...- cc.- cc. cc. .c.. .uxauccc.z c um2t.m.: Nc. mc.- ~c.- ~c.- mc. ~c.- .c. cc.- .0.c vacuuocsooc. .u:0mcoc vc.- cc.- mc.- cc. .c.- ~c.- cc.- «N..- oucmuooozw cc.- mc.- ~c.- Nc. +v..- ...- .c. mc. oo:n:.floc xa.. xc.. xx.. .c.. .c.. .c.. K.... .c.. x...ccao»=. mc.- . «c.- n:.- mc.- .c.- m:.- ~c.- .c.- .em. secum. cc.c.uccc omcooqnzm o.csec . 4. . . . .. 4. . xxcm xxx» fi- xxcc xx~c Kc» xNM co..c.cttoc o.c...=: m..- x..- xxmc.- x.~.- .c..- x-.- ~c.- mc. «.ccm. xuoccm m..- c..- ec.- n..- c:.- c..- xv~.- m..- .cmc Evoumm o.um.:ouau:< n..- vc.- xx.n.- xc~.- m..- .c..- .c.- .c.. .e.c .nxauccu.x e umsccm.z m..- me.- xm~.- c..- c..- .N.- cc.- c~.- .o.c oucOuocsooc. .m:¢muoc O O O Q ~c. cc.- .c.- mc.- m:.- m..- cc. .c.- Oucehooosm .c.. v.. xxxN. c.. .c.. m.. c.. cc. m oocec.scc cc. cc. .c.. .c. ... .c.- .c. cc. ” xa..acteoc. x.~. x.~. xxcm. xxc». c.. xNN. .c.. cc. . .cm. soocmu $0.».uaco F- -:I!Lrl!.-. . cmuoomc:u o.cz coxe.o: ou=.cOEE. W coxc.c: Ouu.=OEE. ccx=.o: H. O~:.coEE. coxm.oc -1H Oun.coEE. m -.--l -Ia::I.--- -p - -- -ss--I- i-os- ,i- --I. I- o>.c0: :0..e:.a>m ..eu03c a c=.cmocouc. Ooccvocscu x~...ce.oom .::.~=:.=>. coxc_o: cc: o.c.cees_ :. vzcmcoc m:.:E_cm 4.0: .0 :0_uc:.c>: o>.~.m0c po:.ceou c.04h tee cuter-c.0m Lo .cccccu eocococecu cc ovcem .ncevcoc be voccucez :0 «escom .mu00mc:m cooxuoc mco.u¢.ouuou-.m. v.9ch 89 of a sense of personal competence, worth and control with adjustment to socially sanctioned goals, standards, and norms, we included in the correlations only personality measures in which the determination of personal-competence was done on the basis of the individual's subjective feelings and standards rather than by comparison to widely accepted social standards. The autonomy and deference measures were not included since their relationship to subjects' sense of competence, control or worth were not entirely clear. The internality (Gurin, 1969), mistrust and withdrawal, and safety (S.C.T., Aronoff, 1971) variables were included because they were viewed as good indicators of subjects' sense of control and competence. Thus, the first three personality variables appearing in Table 13: gratified esteem needs, internality, and dominance were viewed as related to a positive sense of competence, control or worth. The other 5 variables were viewed as related to negative sense of competence, control or worth. Inspection of Table 13 reveals that for males there were positive relationship between their sense of competence and self—worth and their positive evaluations of others, both in immediate and delayed recall. In short, a more positive perception of self was associated with a more positive perception of others. Those rela- tionships were especially strong on the interesting—charming dependent measure. Thus, on that subdimension, multiple correlations of .42 and .48 were obtained between a sense of personal competence, worth and control, and evaluation of others. These correlations, convincingly 90 demonstrate that the personality of the perceivers is an important predictor of the degree of positivity in their evaluations of others. It is interesting to note that the strongest relationships were mani- fested by the sentence completion measures and especially by the gratified—esteem measure. For females, the picture was less clear. In general, only the internality measure showed the expected relationship. Thus, one's sense of her ability to control events in her life was related to a more positive view of the two stimulus persons. The correlations of personal-incompetence, mistrust and withdrawal, and succorance were generally in the same direction as in males but not significant and of a rather small magnitude. The correlational pattern of dominance, antagonistic-esteem and safety was unclear. Esteem-gratification tended to show very weak and rather insignificant association with negative evaluation of others. The Sociability and Competence Factors Underlying Subjects' Evaluations of the Higp_and Low Status Persons. The factor analyses of both high and low status persons were expected to result in one competence-intelligence and one sociability factor. However, inspection of the results indicated that under both oblique and varimax rotations, the factor analyses of the high status person yielded two social and two competence factors. The factor analyses of the low status person yielded only one sociability and one competence factor. Although unexpected, the results seemed to be theoretically meaningful and were therefore included in the study. Tables 14 and 15 present the results of the factor analyses (varimax rotation) of the high and low status stimulus persons. The 91 :I cwm n w.c cm. n.v cc. youumc 40mm x4 90m coucsooo< oocmwum> m0 ucoowoc .m. cm. .c. c.. ccoeom cm. wc. cc.- cc.- acmfi.om-m.om cc. mm. cc.- cc. ucocflmcou Nc. mm. wc.- wc.- o>flmwooc c.. mm. m.. mm. wcflumoxouc. cm. wc. mc.- cc. acouoceou .N. we. mc.- c.. mcflccmumuzo mm. mm. cc. ... acomw..ou:. mc.- .c. mm. .c. :mflccocm uoz c..- mc.- mm. wc. .cofluflhu 00c uoz vc. mc. mc. mm. ucmuo.0h mc. m.. c.. mm. opoocflm cc.- c.. c.. ac. x.cco.wc mc.- Nc. mm. en. Eye: Houomc “ovum; nouomc pouowu no30c oocowfl..ou:. oo:wuo.0c xufi.w4cwoom .mhococ mpwchc oucouoceou .chococ oucoumceou 1 1.11 1-1 . i1-1- 1 - 1111111 .1111- .111 xo...cc.uom 1 11 1 1 1111 11! 1 1‘ .ccomwoc mcumom cm.: ecu co mcccocc ecu co .cocumuoc xcEwwm>c m.mx.m:< Houocc ozu Eocm co>whoc whouomm oocouoceou can xafl.wcmwoom o:H-.v. 0.40% 92 Table 15.--The Sociability and Competence Factors Derived from the Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of the Ratings of the Low Status Persona. Traits Sociability Competence-Intelligence Factor Factor Not Snobbish .68 .00 Tolerant .67 .07 Warm .62 .01 Unselfish .60 -.01 Friendly .56 .02 Likeable .51 .15 Sincere .50 .15 Strong -.01 .70 Convincing .00 .62 Confident -.06 .61 Competent .06 .60 Decisive -.12 .60 Intelligent .09 .59 Self-Reliant .05 .56 Purposeful .00 .54 Percent of Variance 53.5 27.2 a 2.: 280 93 varimax rotation was preferred because it assumes orthogonality of the factors. This way it was insured that the factors found were really independent enough to be regarded as distinct factors. In order for a trait to be included in Tables 14 or 15 it had to have a leading of more than .50 on at least one of the factors in the table. The results obtained in the varimax rotations are similar to those obtained in the oblique rotations (see Tables 1-2, Appendix D). Table 8 indicates that the two social factors derived from the factor analysis of the high status person (oblique rotation) were considerably positively correlated and both had low correlations with the two competence factors. The correlation between the two competence factors was also of a considerable size. Taken together, those results indicated that the subjects evaluated the high status person along two related social dimensions and two related competence dimensions. Within the sociability domain, one factor was seen as a general social factor (since it explained a much larger percentage of the variance) and the other as a specific tolerance factor. Within the competence domain, one factor was viewed as a general competence-intelligence factor (because it explained a larger percentage of the variance) and the other as a more Specific power factor. Subjects used only one sociability and one competence factor in evaluating the low status person. Thus, subjects were less differentiating and used a more simple evaluative process when describing the low Status person as compared to the high. 94 Correlations Between the Competence and Sociability Measures Within and Between the High and Low Status Persons You may recall that the competence and sociability measures were found to be unrelated within the ratings of the same stimulus person. However, interestingly enough, they were significantly related across the ratings of the high and the low status stimulus persons, in the total sample as well as in the male and female samples. In order to find the effects of the two experimental condi- tions on the Observed relationship, the correlations for the two experimental conditions were also examined for both males and females. Inspection of Figure 2 indicates that for male subjects, the competence of the male was viewed as related to the sociability of the female irrespective of the statuses attributed to them. For females in both experimental conditions, the competence of the high status person and the sociability of the low status person were related, and the sociability of the high status person and the competence of the low were also related. These results suggest that in addition to the motive and status factors, the perceivers evaluations were also influenced by the fact that they had to evaluate one stimulus person in conjunction to the other. 95 Male Subjects Female Subjects High Status Low Status High Status Low Status - Person Person Person Person competence —.09 competence competence -.14x -—————— competence .08 .08 .02 .06 sociability~——--.07 sociability sociability ociability Condition 1 Condition 1 H. Status Male L. Status Female H. Status Male L. Status Female competence -.21 competence competence -.23x -———-—- competence .08 .09 -.07 .02 sociability-——--.12 ociability sociability -.16 sociability Condition 2 Condition 2 H. Status Female L. Status Male H. Status Female L. Status Male competence .01 competence competence -.08 -—————— competence .12 .3 l .10 .09 .08 .17 sociability... -.06 sociability sociability-———— -.03 ‘ sociability Figure 2. Correlations Between the Competence and the Sociability Scores Given to the High and Low Status Persons. x p < .05 xx p < 01 xxx p < .001 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The results of this study clearly demonstrated that the motiva- tion of perceivers is significantly related to their evaluations of others. Close association was found between subjects' motivation and the degree of positivity in their evaluations of the two people they saw. The nature of subjects' evaluative response to a status difference between the two persons they observed was successfully predicted from our knowledge of their motives. Subjects' responses on the social and competence subdimensions of evaluation seemed to be guided more by their predominant personal motives than by the more general need for order and congruity suggested by Heider. In the first part of the discussion we will discuss the Specific results of the study. Next we will discuss the motive directed impression formation approach and the conceptualization of the per— sonality variables in the study. We will end with suggestions for further research, based on the findings and ideas of the current study. 96 97 Hypothesis 1: Motivation and the Tendeney to Evaluate the High Status Person More Favorably than the Low5 The predictions were strongly confirmed in males and, to a lesser degree, in females. The most consistent results were found for dominance. That variable was, as predicted, negatively related to the tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low. Since dominance was viewed as the most reliable and valid of our personality instruments those results are especially important. The positive and stable results obtained for dominance stand in sharp contradiction to the negative results obtained by Altrocchi (1959). These results suggest that our criticism of Altrocchi's experiment was generally correct. For males, antagonistic-esteem and autonomy were often nega- tively associated with the tendency to evaluate the high status person 5Consistent with much of the research on personality variables (e.g., McGuire, 1968; Winter, 1973) the results of this study were generally stronger for males than for females. The lack of strong results for females perhaps may be explained by the fact that many of the instruments seemed to be less valid for females as compared with males. Thus, earlier in this work, it was found that the antagonistic esteem needs measure had low validity for females. It was also suggested that the esteem gratified, personal incompetence and the autonomy instruments were less valid for females than for males. Other reasons that may be responsible for the weaker results in females may involve the operation of sex-role factors. In any event, detailed analysis of the possible reasons for the weaker effects in the female sample will not be attempted since this is not the main purpose of the study and not enough data is available to adequately answer this question. As a result, our discussion will focus primarily on the effects obtained in the male sample. 98 more favorably than the low. Although this experiment was not designed to test the possible internal processes that account for the observed phenomena, it seems likely that, in line with the motive directed impression formation approach, the status difference was seen by the perceiver as a threat to his/her esteem, dominance or autonomy needs and that the evaluations were used both as a defensive and as expressive tools. For males, succorance and deference were positively related to the tendency to evaluate the high status person more positively than the low on both, immediate and delayed evaluations. The general model of motive directed evaluation suggests several processes that can account for that finding. In the introduction and in the initial phases of the study, the explanation preferred emphasized affect mediated (stimuli dependent) evaluative processes. According to the defensive-adaptive version of the affect mediated processes, the perceivers tended to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low because they wanted to believe that the high status person would behave "nicely" to them and be capable of supporting them. It was also assumed that they wanted to develop positive affect and behavior towards the high status stimulus person. According to the expressive version, the high status person was evaluated more favorably than the low, simply because she/he was perceived as potentially a more gratifying object and therefOre evoked a more positive affect and evaluation. However, further thinking suggested that the emphasis on affect mediated evaluative processes was perhaps too strong. Since the perceivers did not expect to interact with the stimulus persons, 99 it is not reasonable to assume that they worried about the effects of their expressed feelings and behavior on the stimulus person. It is also unlikely that they were seriously concerned with the stimulus- person's attitude and behavior towards them or his/her capability to support them. In short, since the perceivers did not expect to meet the stimulus person, it is difficult to believe that they saw him/her as an object capable of seriously gratifying or frustrating their dependency needs. Therefore, it is also very unlikely that they experienced considerable affect-arousal. Yet, the predicted evaluative tendencies did emerge. A more plausible explanation seems to be possible if a greater role is assigned to motive related cognitive schemas and a smaller role to motive related affect arousal and reduction. The revised explanation suggests that the dependency-oriented subjects, in the course of the years, developed a cognitive schema which linked the attributes of high status and power with high competence and soci- ability. Low status and power were linked with low competence and sociability. I assume that the reason that this cognitive linkage deveIOped is that, quite Often in the past, the high and low Status persons were experienced as significant sources of gratification and frustration and therefore of affect arousal. In those cases, evalu- ative processes were activated, which really fulfilled the defensive and expressive functions previously described. The repetition of those evaluative processes and patterns finally led to the development of cognitive schemas in which high status was linked to high competence and sociability and low status to low competence and sociability. The persistence of those schemas is not only a result of mechanical 100 repetition and high frequency of occurence, but is also of an adaptive defensive value. The existence of such cognitive schema enables the dependency—oriented people to quickly and spontaneously produce evalu- ations which can often help and almost never hurt them. Several other studies in the literature can be viewed as supporting the notion of cognitive schemas typical to dependency and safety-oriented people. Hastings (1952) found that subjects' level of insecurity was highly correlated with a tendency to perceive objects as closer to them. Chance and Meaders (1960) found that judges who assumed a high degree of similarity between self and each of two dissimilar targets obtained higher scores on succorance and deference and lower scores on dominance and autonomy than did judges who assumed low similarity. It is reasonable to assume that in those two studies, like in ours, the safety-oriented subjects manifested distinct cognitive- perceptual behavior without perceiving the other people or objects as highly frustrating or gratifying and therefore without being emo- tionally aroused. Those behaviors are likely to be caused by functional cognitive schemas which were developed since they help the safety oriented individual to see others as closer to him physically and psy- chologically. Since this schema becomes part of the cognitive apparatus of the person, it is activated and influences the individual's percep- tions even when neither their safety need nor their affect is aroused. Another cognitive factor that might have influenced the evalu- ations of the safety-oriented subjects in this study, is an inclination for intolerance of ambiguity. This factor could not produce the 101 tendency to evaluate the high status person more favorably than the low, but once this tendency was determined by other factors, it might be sharpened by the subjects' intolerance for ambiguity. An entirely different explanation of the observed phenomena may be that dependency and safety-oriented subjects, by the nature of their motivational structure, were more influenced by the experimenter's description of the stimulus person. However, this explanation was not supported by the pattern of the results. The interaction of motive of perceiver with status of target on the competence dimension was insig- nificant. In addition, research on the relationship between the EPPS and CPI measures used in our study and yielding to influence repeatedly failed to discover any stable relationship (see Appley and Moeller, 1963). A most important finding of the study was the relatively high multiple correlation of .45 between three personality measures and the difference in evaluation score for males, in immediate evaluation. The use of multiple correlation in this study is not merely a stati— stical device to increase the strength of the relationship but rather is meaningful and justified on the basis of theoretical considerations. If we are interested in the relationship between personality and evalu— ation it is much more reasonable to assume that one's personality is being assessed more accurately by his/her responses to several tests utilizing different reSponse methods and given in different times, than by his/her responses to one test utilizing one method and given only once. Moreover, most people have more than one important concern or typical characteristic. Since the person's evaluation may be 102 influenced by several of those concerns and characteristics at once, it is most plausible to take them all into account when predicting the person's evaluations of others. In our case, the personality tests included in the prediction equation were all related to dependency, submission and safety orientations or to dominance, autonomy, and esteem orientations. Therefore, the composite personality score is easily interpretable from a theoretical or rational point of view, and is not merely an ad-hoc combination of variables that can best predict the criterion variable. Thus, the multiple correlation between per- sonality variables and evaluation for both males and females, strongly supported our hypotheses that the personality of the perceiver is an important determinant of evaluation when the stimulus possesses attributes that may potentially or actually gratify or frustrate the perceiver's needs. Hypothesis II: Motivation and the Tendency to Evaluate Both Stimulus Persons Favorably The results showed that, for males, the predictions with regard to esteem gratification, dominance, antagonistic-esteem, and personal incompetence were mostly confirmed, although they were not for depen- dency. For females, our predictions were mostly not confirmed. The fact that the dependency measures did not produce positivity bias suggests that Horney's hypothesis was not correct. The results with other variables such as externality and personal incompetence, which theoretically are viewed as related to the moving-towards tendency, were also not supportive of Horney's hypothesis. In fact, those variables were often associated with negativity rather than with 103 positivity bias. One possible reason why dependency was not related to positivity may be due to the fact that the subjects did not expect to meet the stimulus persons and therefore affect-arousal did not occur and the defensive process was not triggered off. However, from Horney's description, it seems like the positivity bias, as a fre- quently repeated defensive process, is likely to become an enduring cognitive schema. As such, it should appear in the absence of affect- arousal, very much like the tendency to evaluate the high status person more positively than the low. A plausible explanation of the failure to confirm Horney's hypothesis is that the defensive positivity bias is activated only with regard to the high status person but not toward the low status person. In spite of their dependency strivings, the individuals concerned with those needs are capable of assessing the relevance of different people and environments to the gratification of their needs. As a result, defensive positivity bias is activated only when the stimulus person is viewed as possessing high gratifica- tion value. Thus, the failure of Horney's hypothesis exemplifies the inadequacy of predictions made without enough consideration for person by situation interactions. As for the other predictions, it is not possible to determine whether the negativity or positivity biases observed are due to pre- conceived assumptions about the stimulus person or due to stimuli- independent affective state. At this point it is important that an association between positivity and motivation is found. Further research will have to determine what internal processes are responsible for the effects observed. 104 Another interesting aspect of the findings were the results with regard to the moving-away tendency. For both, males and females there was often a tendency for autonomy to correlate negatively with positive evaluation. This relationship was significant for both sexes in both immediate and delayed evaluations on the interesting-charming subdimension only. This result is highly consistent with Horney's characterization of the moving-away tendency. Since the main preoccu- pation of the moving-away people is to remain emotionally detached and uninvolved with people, it is reasonable to expect that they will evaluate the two stimulus persons eSpecially negatively on the interesting-charming subdimension. Seeing others as less interesting, charming and humorous makes it easier to remain removed and uninvolved. Sense of Personal Competence, Control and Worth, Gratification of Basic Needs, and Evaluation As was indicated in the results section, our experiment was not originally designed to assess the relationship between subjects' sense of personal competence, control and worth, and evaluation, or between basic needs' gratification and evaluation. However, the number and nature of the personality variables employed in the study allowed us to do such an analysis. The findings will be discussed from three theoretical view points. We will begin with constructs which are closer to the data and are less inferential. We will end with constructs which are more inferential and speculative but also have greater expla- natory power. The first two formulations refer to the nature of the personality variables and the last analysis to the process by which they influence evaluation. The first two constructs are not viewed as alternative explanations but rather as different levels of 105 conceptualization of the same observed phenomena. The personality variables chosen for this part of the study appear in Table 13 and the rationale for their selection appears in the additional results section. On the first level of analysis, the personality variables included in this part of the study were seen as reflecting the sub- jects' sense of personal competence, control or worth and, in general, the degree of positivity in subjects' perceptions of themselves. Thus, it has been suggested often in psychology that self-love is related to love for others (Fromm, 1939) or that self-acceptance is associated with acceptance of others (Rogers, 1951). These notions were generally supported by empirical research (see Shrauger and Altrocchi, 1964). However, Shrauger and Altrocchi also suggested that: "Some of these findings, however, may readily be interpreted in terms of a response set specific to a certain measurement instrument" (1964, p. 294). The current Study has several characteristics which make it less susceptible to criticism such as the one suggested by Shrauger and Altrocchi. Thus, it employed eight personality variables, three of which were self reports and five were based on a sentence completion test. The large number of the personality variables, the variety of the measurement techniques, the fact that the variables were measured at two different times and that the subjects' task was not presented as a comparison between themselves and others, all suggest that our experiment provided a rather valid and non-artificial test for the hypothesis that more positive perceptions of one's competence, worth and control would be related to more positive evaluation of others, when the others behave in a pleasant manner and demonstrate adequate task-competence. It is important to note that our hypothesis is 106 broader than Fromm's notion of self-love or Rogers' notion of self- acceptance. Thus, one may hold a very positive view of himself (as compared to his view of others), but still be deeply unsatisfied with himself since he fails to meet his own exceptionally high standards. Rogers' and Fromm's notions may be tested through the esteem gratifi- cation measure which was designed to assess subjects' sense of self- acceptance and competence. Inspection of Table 13 reveals that, for males, measures of sense of personal competence, control or worth were often related to positive evaluation of the two stimulus persons, especially on the interesting-charming dimension. Thus, the multiple correlations with evaluation on the interesting-charming subdimension were .42 in imme- diate recall and .48 in delayed evaluation. Since this subdimension was viewed as reflecting interest in and attraction to others, the results on it are especially meaningful. They indicate that, indeed, a more positive view of the self (i.e., seeing yourself as more attractive) is related to seeing others as more attractive. The posi- tive relationship, in males, between esteem-gratification and evalu- ation were supportive of both Rogers' and Fromm's hypotheses about self— acceptance and self-love. Thus, esteem gratification, in males, had the highest positive correlation with the combined evaluation of the two stimulus persons. On the second level of analysis, the personality variables employed in the study were all seen as indicators of the level of gratification of the basic needs for safety or esteem. According to this view, subjects' sense of personal competence, worth and control 107 were all manifestations, by-products, or derivatives of the level of gratification of their basic needs for safety or esteem. Since the basic needs approach is the preferred theoretical framework of the study, most of the personality variables included in this part of the study were already analyzed, conceptually and empiri- cally, for their relationship totfluebasic needs suggested by Maslow. 0f the five measures based on Aronoff's (1971) Sentence Completion Test, only two were not discussed before. Subcategory la was designed to measure the insecurity, withdrawal and mistrust aspects of the need for safety. Category 1 was designed to measure the basic need for safety and was constructed from the withdrawal and mistrust subcategory, the personal-incompetence subcategory and the dependency subcategory. Both measures seem to possess both face and construct validity (see Tables 1-3, Appendix B). 0f the three self report measures, only internality was not discussed before. However, conceptually, and empirically (see Tables 1-3, Appendix B) it was viewed as negatively related to the need for safety. Thus, esteem-gratification and dominance were viewed as indi- cating relative gratification of the basic need for esteem. Antago- nistic-esteem was viewed as indicating relative deprivation of the basic need for esteem. Internality was viewed as a correlate of relative gratification of the need for safety and personal incompetence, mistrust and withdrawal, succorance, and safety were viewed as indi- cating relative deprivation of the need for safety. As expected, personality variables associated with greater basic need gratification (safety or esteem) were Often associated with more 108 positive evaluation of the two stimulus persons. It is important to note that those results tended to be stronger with the sentence comple- tion measures which were directly designed to measure basic needs' gratification. No matter how we conceptualize the personality variables in question, we still have to explain their relationship to evaluation. Such an explanation can be based on the stimuli-independent evaluative process suggested in the introduction. There, it was reported that good mood was found to be related to greater liking for a stranger. It was also suggested that subjects' mood can often be a result of the degree to which their predominant motives and basic needs were satis- fied at that period in their life. Therefore, it was hypothesized that ungratified basic needs were likely to result in bad mood (negative affective state) and the negative mood would result in more negative evaluation of others. Thus, in trying to explain the relationship between the personality variables measured and evaluation, the basic needs' conceptualization seems to possess greater explanatory power than the first, less speculative, conceptualization. In summary, subjects' sense of competence, control and worth may be viewed as resulting from the degree to which their basic needs were gratified. If this is so, then the relationship between the subjects' basic needs' gratification and evaluations of others may be seen as affect or mood mediated and be understood in terms of the stimuli-independent evaluative process. 109 The Evaluative Strategies of Dominance and Antagonistic-Esteem Oriented Subjects The results with regard to the correlations of dominance and antagonistic—esteem with the separate evaluations of the high and low status persons were not expected. However, the regularity they demon- strated suggests a rather tempting explanation. As was previously explained, we assumed that the perception of a considerable status difference between the two stimulus persons, threatened and aggravated those subjects who were highly concerned with dominance and or antagonistic-esteem. In order to reduce the threat, and perhaps also to express their anger, both groups in their evaluations tended to increase the differences in favor of the low status person as compared to the high. However, inspection of Table 7 seems to indicate that the two motivational groups obtained that effect by resorting to different defensive strategies. Interestingly enough, the defensive strategy used by each group was highly consistent with the other char- acteristics previously found for each group. Recall that the dominance oriented subjects were characterized as possessing a more gratified esteem need than the antagonistic-esteem subjects and as being much less hostile towards others. In line with their general orientation, subjects highly concerned with dominance increased the difference in evaluation mainly by producing positive evaluations of the low status person, whereas the antagonistic-esteem oriented subjects increased the difference mainly by derogating the high status person. While the first group chose to raise up the low status person, the second group chose to put down the high status person. In order to achieve the goal of derogating the high status 110 person, dominance-oriented subjects used the most pleasant strategy available: They avoided the direct derogation of the high status by using an indirect "derogation by comparison" mechanism (i.e., producing a less favorable evaluation of a person by describing him in conjunction to another person who is described in more favorable terms.) The antagonistic-esteem oriented subjects, however, used the less pleasant, direct derogation method. The different evaluative strategies were not demonstrated on the competence measure most likely because for both motives the tendency to decrease the differences in favor of the high status tended to be less strong on the subdimension due to the experimental manipulation. The Usefulness of the Subdimensions of Evaluation In a first glance, it seems like the division of the overall evaluation to subdimensions was not very useful, for the overall evaluation often produced stronger results than any of the subdimensions. However, further examination indicated that for both high and low status persons, the overall evaluation dimension consisted of two almost unrelated subdimensions of sociability and competence. While in many cases the subjects evaluative tendencies effected all the three sub- dimensions in a similar way, this was not always the case. (For example, see the correlation of dominance and antagonistic-esteem with the difference scores for males, Tables 3 and 7). Additionally, the division of overall evaluation into subdimensions also enabled us to contrast "Heiderian" predictions with "motive related" predictions about the use of the subdimensions of evaluation. 111 The construction of the interesting-charming subdimension proved highly useful. Thus, it was this subdimension that correlated most highly with subjects' sense of competence, control or worth (or basic need gratification). Also, interesting—charming was the only measure of combined evaluation of the two stimulus-persons to correlate with autonomy. Those results suggested several possible theoretical interpretations and the information contained in them would not have been obtained had we not separated the overall evaluation into three subdimensions. Hypothesis III to V1: Factors Influencing Subjects' Use of the Subdimensions of Evaluation. The question of how subjects use the subdimensions of evaluations is not the central theme of this study. However, in order to make better predictions with regard to the relationship of motivation to evaluation, we assumed that the subjects would use the subdimensions of evaluation in a way that would be inconsistent with Heider's approach. The results confirmed our hypotheses. The competence and sociability measures were unrelated and, in contrast to Heider's assumption, the fact that one person was evaluated as more competent than the other on one subdimension did not imply that she/he would be evaluated more positively also on the other two subdimensions. The results concerning Hypothesis VI indicated that, indeed, the dominance oriented subjects use of the sociability subdimension was dictated by their predominant motive rather than by the balance principles. However, the results also indicated that the use of the subdi- mensions of evaluation is determined by factors other than the 112 perceiver need for congruity and order (the balance principles) or the perceiver's predominant needs. In line with the person by situation approach, the other factors were situational and included the status of the stimulus person and the fact that she/he was evaluated in conjunction with another person. The comparison of the results of the factor analyses of the high and low status stimulus persons suggests that the subjects were more differentiating and less global in their evaluations of the high status person. Thus, when they evaluated a low status person, subjects only differentiated between this person sociability and his/her compe- tence. However, when judging a high status person, subjects began to make more subtle differentiations within the competence and sociability subdimensions. Specifically, they differentiated on sociability between a general social dimension and a more specific tolerance dimen- sion. In a similar way, the subjects differentiated between the general intelligence-competence dimension and the more specific power dimension which was viewed as related to one's potential for dominance and achievement. These Specific factors can be seen as aspects of the general factors which were heightened and made more relevant due to the additional information that the observed person occupied a high status position. Unexpectedly, the fact that the two stimulus persons were evaluated in conjunction to each other, was found to be an important determinant of the way perceivers used the sociability and competence subdimensions. Inspection of Figure 2 indicates that although the social and competence subdimensions were not correlated within the ratings of the 113 same stimulus person, those subdimensions were related across the two stimulus persons. For males, those relationship seem to be a function of the sex of the stimulus person. Thus, the competence of the male was related to the sociability of the female irrespective of the statuses attributed to them. This correlational pattern seems to reflect a rather tradi- tional view of role differentiation and role complementarity between men and women. For females, the picture was much more complicated. In both experimental conditions, the competence of the high status person and the sociability of the low status person were related, and the soci- ability of the high status person and the competence of the low were also related. Those correlations were highly significant. One possible explanation for these results is that the observed relationship (for female subjects) are a result of an attempt by the females to be both positive and simple in their evaluations. Thus, it is a well replicated finding that females produce a more positive evaluation of others than males do (Wan G Knapper, 1968; Kohn 8 Fiedley, 1961). Therefore, females would be especially concerned to be "nice" (i.e., give positive evaluation) to both stimulus persons. However, females, as well as males, would also want to simplify their perceptions of other people. One way to achieve both goals (positivity and simplicity) is to describe one person as sociable and the other as competent. In this way, the perceiver can say nice things about each of the two stimulus persons and in the same time also identify each one of them with a very distinct category or label. 114 In summary, the current Study demonstrated that the balance principles are not always major determinants of how people use the different subdimensions of evaluation. The results also supported our suggestion that the balance principles, and the need for order and congruity underlying them, are only a special case of the general principles of the motive directed evaluative process. As predicted, perceivers used unbalanced and complex principles when those principles were more functional in facilitating the gratification of their pre- dominant motives. Among the situational determinants of how subjects used the different subdimensions were the status of the stimulus person, its impact on the perceiver's predominant needs and the fact that the stimulus person was viewed in conjunction to another person. Conceptualization of the Personalipy Variables in the Study The personality variables chosen for this study were viewed as motive related constructs. In line with Aronoff and Wilson, the motives were seen as derivatives of the more basic needs postulated by Maslow. The peripheral motives are a narrower category than the basic needs and as such they are assumed to be accompanied by more concrete and specific cognitive goal-representations and other Specific defensive devices and cognitive schemas. However, even at this level, the peripheral motives are too abstract and not idiographic enough to allow accurate predictions. I believe that in order to achieve more accurate descriptions of people's peripheral motives it is necessary to leave the abstract level of general definitions and find what specific wishes and scripts are connected to those motives. Thus, it is useful to know from what 115 'people, in what Situations, and by what means the subject expects to gratify his/her motives. The use of general abstract personality categories has never been accepted in psychoanalytic theory and practice. The most illumi- nating analyses were always cast in terms of specific wishes and defenses. The emphasis was not on the basic instincts and aims but on the particular objects unconsciously chosen to gratify the basic instincts. The view that the most important aspect of a motive is its concrete and specific cognitive representations is now shared by a variety of psychologists of different theoretical orientations. An extreme position is taken by Maddi (1976), who suggested that the con- cept of motive Should be reserved only to concrete and specific personal goals and instrumental strategies related to those goals. McClelland (1953) defined the need for achievement as a specific and tangible kind of goal (i.e., successful competition against standards of excellence). It is probably due to the specificity and preciseness of the scoring criteria that the need for achievement proved to be one of the most useful personality variables ever employed in research. In the area of attitude formation, Abelson (1976) recently suggested the following explanation for what he described as the failure of attitude measures to correlate with overt behavior: ”I think that the problem lies in supposing the reality of generalized abstract predispositions to respond to objects, especially objects not encountered in ordinary experience" (1976, p. 41). Abelson suggested the concept of a cognitive script as a basic variable of 116 individual differences and defined it as a ”coherent sequence of events expected by the individual involving him either as a participant or as an observer" (1976, p. 33). In a way, what is suggested here is a person by situation approach, within the realm of personality itself. Unlike Maddi and Abelson, I do believe that people have underlying (often unconscious) general predispositions. But, unfortunately for the poor researcher, those predispositions go through so many transformations that they are no more good predictors of specific behaviors in specific situations. The problems originating from the general and abstract nature of the conceptualization of personality variables are compounded by the inadequate measurement techniques and the tendency to measure only one trait at a time. A more useful approach should utilize a multi-method multi-trait method in which every personality variable is measured by several instruments and, perhaps more important, the criterion behavior is predicted on a basis of many personality traits. Implications and Suggestions for Further Research The present research suggests a number of studies for further investigation. One of the limitations of the current study was that it employed only two stimulus persons. In order to establish the generalizability of our findings, it is necessary to replicate it with more than one pair of stimulus persons. In order to insure greater involvement, it might be useful to tell the observers that they will later interact with the stimulus persons. In order to find out whether the patterns demonstrated in this study persist after the subjects have known the stimulus persons for a while, it might be useful to ask the 117 subjects to describe several high and low status persons that they know. Asking the subjects to describe several peOple that they know and/or several other stimulus persons, may also serve to establish the generalizability of the relationship found between basic need gratifi- cation and favorability of evaluation. The current research did not demonstrate that motivation is a cause of evaluative bias.- In order to do so it is necessary to mani- pulate the level of motivational arousal (i.e., gratify or frustrate the motive in question) and then measure the effects on evaluation. The manipulation of motivational arousal can be accomplished in several ways. One possibility is the activation of childhood memories related to the motive in question, through an interview. Another possibility is subliminal stimulation including words or pictures which are asso- ciated with gratification or frustration of the motives in question (see Silverman, 1972). Throughout the introduction and the discussion sections we presented a rather elaborate model of the motive directed impression formation process. The current study only confirmed the basic asso- ciation between motivation and impression formation but did not allow us to test the model itself. Several studies can be now performed to accomplish this testing. One interesting question is whether the perception of the high status person really evokes anxiety in dominance-oriented individuals and whether this anxiety is reduced through the evaluative process. In other words, the question is whether the evaluative bias observed is really defensive in the classical sense of defense against anxiety. 118 This question can be answered by measuring the subjects heart rate and G.S.R. responses as they view and evaluate the Stimulus persons. The techniques to be used can be similar to those employed by Lazarus and his colleagues in their research on subjects' reactions to stressful films (Lazarus et al., 1962). A related question is whether the perception of the high status person evokes anger in power and dominance-oriented individuals, and whether this anger is reduced through the evaluative process in line with the cathartic principle suggested by Feshbach (1955). In the introduction we suggested that the perception of the high status person by peOple highly concerned with dominance or antagonistic esteem results in immediate (more or less conscious) comparison to the "self." Certain priming and matching techniques (Rosch, 1975), now available in cognitive psychology, may allow us to detect such a comparison if it indeed happened. In the original matching paradigm (Posner and Mitchel, 1967), subjects were required to decide as rapidly as possible whether two simultaneously presented visual letters were the same or different. Under some conditions "same" was defined as physical identity (e.g., AA) and under others as possession of the same name (e.g., Aa). Bellar (1971) primed subjects with a letter (the letter was presented two seconds in advance of the pair) and found that the matching of physically identical as well as same name pairs.was faster. Rosch (1975) sug- gested that the fact that the prime effected reaction times (i.e., faster matching) indicates that the internal representation generated by the prime contained some of the information used by subjects in the perceptual encoding of the stimuli to be matched. 119 Following Rosch's reasoning, we can assume that the evaluation process activated the mental representation of oneself in conjunction with the high status person. Therefore, the matching of the word "I" with another stimulus (for example, "him") should be faster for dominance oriented subjects than for other subjects. Thus, the comparison between ”I" and the high status person should serve as a "natural" prime for the later matching of "I" with another person. The effects of dependency on evaluation were seen as mediated by cognitive schema as well as by affect-arousal. This schema included a close link between high status and other positive attributes. The existence of such linkage can be tested by a variety of cognitive- experimental techniques. The relationship between basic need gratification and evaluation were assumed to be mediated by mood or affect changes. A more direct test of this notion can be based on an examination of the relationship between different measures of mood and measures of basic need gratifi- cation. To the variety of measures of basic need gratification employed in this study it might be useful to add a few more self report measures of anxiety, self-esteem and self-acceptance. One of the conclusions of the present study was that basic need gratification and sense of personal control, competence and worth are related to a more positive view of others, when the others behave in a pleasant manner and Show adequate task-competence. However, it is assumed that when others behave in an unpleasant manner or Show definite incompetence, the perceiver with gratified esteem needs is able to detect those negative aspects and produce accurate evaluations even if the person being evaluated holds a high status position. This is 120 because the positivity bias of the perceiver with gratified esteem needs is assumed to be based on positive mood rather than on defensive interests. On the contrary, dependency oriented people are expected to distort their evaluations in favor of the high status person, also when she/he does not "deserve" a positive evaluation. Those assumptions can be tested in an experiment in which both the task-competence and the sociability of the high and low status persons will be varied. Dependency oriented subjects are expected to produce positive evaluations for the high status person and negative evaluations for the low status person under all conditions. The evalu- ations of the esteem-gratified subjects are expected to vary from condi- tion to condition and to correspond to the amount of competence and sociability exhibited by the stimulus persons irrespective of their status . One limitation of the current study is that it does not demon- strate convincingly the existence of a relationship between motivation and distortion or accuracy of perception. This is because the evalu- ation was based on traits attributed by the perceiver to the stimulus person. Traits are not observable characteristics of the Stimulus person and their attribution is an inferential and somewhat subjective issue. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to establish what traits characterize a stimulus person "in reality," and use this as a criteria for the determination of distortion or inaccuracy. The determination of accuracy is possible if the perceivers describe or recall the behaviors of the stimulus person, his/her physical characteristics, and things that she/he said. The video tape, 121 the written description or the overheard message can be Structured so as to include both positive and negative aspects. The predictions concerning the relationship between motivation of perceivers and favorability of the behaviors described by them are expected to be similar to those found with regard to favorability of evaluation. For example, dominance-oriented subjects are expected to recall more nega- tive behaviors of the high status person than will dependency—oriented subjects. The model suggested throughout my work did not Specify the exact process by which differential evaluation is formed. The two alternative processes are differential sensory registration or differen- tial weighting of the same sensory information. Obviously, different combinations of the two also seem possible. Measures of looking behavior (Laborsky et al., 1965), selective listening in dichotic tasks, and recall of behaviors and observable characteristics of the stimulus person may be employed to determine whether differential sensory registration has occurred. The question of differential weighting may be examined through an Anderson type trait weighting paradigm. Subjects will receive a list of traits of a high or low status person and will be asked to produce a summary judgement. It is expected that motivation of the perceiver will interact with status of stimulus person to determine the weighting formula. In addition to evaluation, other aspects of the impression formation process are expected to be related to the perceiver's motives. One interesting aspect may be the attribution process. It is expected that dominance-oriented perceivers will attribute the success of the high status person to situational factors whereas dependency-oriented 122 individuals will attribute the success of the high Status person to dispositional factors. The reverse will occur with regard to failure of the high status person. The dominance—oriented S's will attribute it to dispositional factors and the dependency-oriented S's to situational factors. If both groups of subjects were to meet an angry looking experimenter it is expected that dependency, more than dominance oriented subjects, would attribute the anger and bad mood of the experimenter to their own behavior. In summary, in contrast to the conclusions of different reviews of the field of person-perception (Schneider, 1973; Tagiuri, 1969), the present study provided much evidence in support of the notion that the perceivers' motivation and personality are related to their evaluation of others. We believe that the positive results obtained in this study can be attributed to several factors. The first factor involves the extensive analysis of the motivational characteristics of the per- sonality variables included in the study. The secpnd factor is the careful analysis of the possible impact of different attributes of the stimulus person on the perceiver's predominant motives. The last factor involves the consideration of the motivational significance and relevance of the different subdimensions of evaluation. In order to explain the observed relationship between motivation and evaluation, a model of motive directed impression formation was deveIOped. According to the model, the processes underlying the 123 relationship between motivation and evaluation have both defensive and expressive characteristics. Further research is necessary in order to test the hypotheses derived from the model. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelson, R. P. Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In C. S. Carrol 8 J. W. Payne (Ed.), Cognition and Social Behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erbaum Associates, 1976. Adler, A. Theypractice and theory of individual psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1927. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., G Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Altrocchi, J. Dominance as a factor in interpersonal choice and perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, §93 303-308. Anderson, N. H. Likableness ratings of 555 personality trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) 1968, 9) 272-279. Appley, M. H., G Moeller, G. Conforming behavior and personality variables in college women. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyehology, 1963, 993 284-290. Aronoff, J. A test and scoring manual for the measurement of safety, love and belongingness, and esteem needs. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, 1971. Aronoff, J., 8 Wilson, J. P. Personality in the social process. Manuscript in preparation, n.d. Bellar, H. K. Priming: Effects of advance information on matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology) 1971, g]! 176-182. Bernardin, A. C., G Jessor, R. A construct validation of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule with respect to dependency. Journal of Consulting Peychology, 1957, 31(1), 63-68. Buros, 0. K., (Ed.). Personality Tests and Reviews 11. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1975. Butt, D. S., G Fiske, D. W. Comparison of strategies in developing scales for dominance. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 29) 505-519. 124 125 Cairnes, R. B., & Lewis, M. Dependency and the reinforcement value of a verbal stimulus. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 39, 1-8. Centers, R. Evaluating the loved one: The motivational congruency factor. Journal of Personality, 1971, 393 303-318. Chance, E. C., 8 Meaders, W. Needs and interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality, 1960, 2g, 200-210. Clore, G. L. Interpersonal attraction: An overview. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1975i Clore, G. L., 8 Byrne, D. A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Edwards, A. L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1959. Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: Norton, 1950. Feshbach, S. The drive reducing function of fantasy behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 59, 3-11. Freud, S. The dynamics of transference. In, Collected papers. Vol 2. London : Hogarth, 1924. Freud, S. The Unconscious, 1915. In, S. Freud, General Psychological Theory, papers on metapsychology. New York: Collier Books, 1974. Freud, S. A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Perma Books, 1958. Friendly, M. L., G Glucksberg, S. On the description of subcultural lexicons: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholpgy, 1970, 112 55-65. Fromm, E. Selfishness and Self love. Psychiatry, 1939, g) 507-523. Gouaux, C. Induced affective states and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 287-298. Cough, H. G. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1969. Gough, H. G., McClosky, H., 8 Meehl, P. E. A personality scale for dominance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 393 360-366. 126 Gould, R. Child studies thropgh fantasy. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972. Green, R. Child-rearing attitudes and perceptions of children's behavior across two generations in families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., and Beattie, M. Internal-external control in the motivational dynamics of Negro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 2§3 29-53. Hastings. A relationship between visual perception and level of personal security. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, £23 552- Heider, F. Perceiving the other person. In, Tagiuri 8 Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. Horney, K. The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton, 1937. Horney, K. Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945. Klein, G. S. Peremptory ideation: Structure and force in motivated ideas. In, Psychological Issues, #18/19. New York: International Universities Press, 1967. Kohn, A. R., 8 Fiedler, F. E. Age and sex differences in the perception of persons. Sociometry, 1961, 233 157-164. Laborsky, L., Blinder, B., 6 Schimek, J. Looking, Recalling and GSR as a function of defense. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 293 270-80. Larson, R. W. The effects of variations in perceptions of behavior on dyadic interpersonal behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Mordkoff, A. M., G Davison, L. A. A laboratory Study of psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. Psychological Monographs, 1962, ZS) (34). Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1957. Maddi, S. R. Personality theories: A comparative analysis. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1976. Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. A., G Nash, A. N. The identification of management potential: A research approach to management development. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown, 1961. 127 Maslow, A. H. Motivation Gypersonality. New York: Harper 8 Brothers, 1970. McClelland, D. C. Power the inner eyperience. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 1975. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., 6 Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1953. McGuire, W. J. Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In, E. F. Borgatta 8 W. W. Lambert (Ed.). Handbook of per- sonality theory and research. Chicago: Rand 8 McNally 8 Company, 1968. Megargee, E. I. The California_psychologica1 inventory handbook. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1972. Megargee, E. I., Bogart, P., 8 Anderson, D. J. The prediction of leadership in a simulated industrial task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, £93 292-295. Messe, L. A., G Stollak, G. E. Adult perceptions and child behavior dysfunctions. Interim progress report. NIMH Grant #24250-01, 1976. Michaels, G. Y. Predicting children's social behavior from parental person perception_processes. Unpublished master thesis. Michigan State University, 1977. Naboisek, H. Validation of a method for_predicting_role expectations in gropp therapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1953. Navran, L. A rationally derived MMPI scale to measure dependence. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 192-197. Osgood, C., Suci, G. J., G Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Posner, M. I., 8 Mitchell, R. F. Chronometric analysis of classifi- cation. Psychological Review, 1967, 232 392-409. Postman, L., Bruner, P. S., & McGinnies, E. Personal values as selective factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 533 142-154. Rogers, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. Rosenberg, M. Faith in people scale. In, M. Rosenberg, Occupation and values. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957, pp. 25-35. 128 Rosenberg, 8., Nelson, C., G Virekananthan, P. S. A multidimensional approach to the Structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 193 619-626. Rosch, E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Eyperimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104(3), 192-233. Schneider, D. J. Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 19, 294-309. Scott, W. Values and organizations: a study of fraternities and sororities. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Shrauger, S., 8 Altrocchi, J. The personality of the perceiver as a factor in person perception. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 932 289-308. Silverman, L. H., Klinger, H., Lustbader, L., Farrel, J., 8 Martin, A. The effect of subliminal drive stimulation on the speech of stutterers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1972, 122: 14-21. Smelser, W. T. Dominance as a factor in achievement and perception in cooperative problem solving interactions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 932 535-542. Sullivan, H. S. Conceptions of modern psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation, 1948. Tagiuri, R. Person perception. In G. Lindzey G E. Aronson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Toch, H. H., Rabin, A. I., 8 Wilkins, D.Fl Factors entering in ethnic identifications: An experimental study. Sociometry, 1962, 322 297-312. Tomkins, S. S. Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. I. New York: Springer, 1962. Uleman, J. S. The need for influence: development and validation of a measure, and comparison with the need for power. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 1972, 853 157-214. Veitch, R., 8 Griffitt, W. Good news--bad news: Affective and inter- personal effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976, 93 69-75. Veroff, J. Development and validation of a projective measure of power motivation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 1-8. 129 Veroff, J., 8 Veroff, J. Reconsideration of a measure of power moti- vation. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 183 279-291. Warr, P. B., G Knapper, C. The perception of people and events. New York: Wiley, 1968. Wilson, J. P. The effects of subdimensions of safety and esteem needs on role differentiation in small groups. Unpublished master thesis. Michigan State University, 1971. Winter, D. G. The power motive. New York: Free Press, 1973. Zana, M. P. 8 Hamilton, D. I. Attribute dimensions and patterns of trait inferences. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 21) 353-354. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES 130 PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE Directions This schedule consists of a number of pairs of statements (items) about things that you may or may not like, about ways in which you may or may not feel. Look at the example below. 1. I like to talk about myself to others. 2. I like to work toward some goal that I have set for myself. Which of these two statements is more characteristic of what you like? If you like ”talking about yourself to others" more than you like ”working toward some goal that you have set for yourself," then you should choose 1 over 2. If you like "working toward some goal that you have set for yourself” more than you like "talking about yourself to others," then you should choose 2 over 1. You may like both 1 and 2. In this case, you would have to choose between the two and you Should choose the one that you like better. If you dislike both 1 and 2, then you should choose the one that you dislike less. Some of the pairs of statements in the schedule have to do with your likes, such as l and 2 above. Other pairs of statements have to do with how you feel. Look at the example below. 1. I feel depressed when I fail at something. 2. I feel nervous when giving a talk before a group. Which of these two statements is more characteristic of how you feel? If "being depressed when you fail at something” is more characteristic of you than ”being nervous when giving a talk before a group,“ then you should choose 1 over 2. If 2 is more characteristic of you than 1, then you should choose 2 over 1. If both statements describe how you feel, then you should choose the one which you think is more characteristic. If neither statement accurately describes how you feel, then you should choose the one which you consider to be less inaccurate. Your choice, in each instance, should be in terms of what you like and how you feel at the present time, and not in terms of what you think you should like or how you think you should feel. This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Your choices should be a description of your own personal likes and feelings. Make a choice for every pair of statements; do not skip any. The pairs of statements on the following pages are similar to the examples given above. Read each pair of statements and pick out the one statement that better describes what you like or how you feel. Make no marks in the booklet. On the separate red answer sheet are numbers corresponding to the numbers of the items (pairs of statements). To the right of the item number there are five spaces. Only spaces one and two represent the two statements of the item. 131 Spaces 3, 4, and 5 should be ignored. Please mark the number of the statement that is more characteristic of you. Check to be sure you are marking for the same item and statement number as the item and statement you are reading in the booklet. 1) 2) 3) A) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) l. 1. 2. I like to find out what great men have thought about various problems in which I am interested. I would like to accomplish something of great significance. I like to be able to come and go as I want to. 1 like to be able to say that I have done a difficult job well. I like to solve puzzles and problems that other people have difficulty with. I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected of me. I like to plan and organize the details of any work that I have to under- take. I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected of me. I like people to notice and comment upon my appearance when I am out in public. I like to read about lives of great men. I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in a conven- tional way. I like to read about the lives of great men. I like to experiment and to try new things. I like my friends to be sympathetic and understanding when I have problems. I like to criticize people who are in a position of authority. I like to use words which other people often do not know the meaning of. I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that people I respect might consider convential. I like to talk about my achievements. I like to be independent of others in deciding what I want to do. I like to keep my things neat and orderly on my desk or workplace. I like to find out what great men have thought about various problems in which I am interested. If I have to take a trip, I like to have things planned in advance. I like to praise someone I admire. I like to feel free to do what I want to do. 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) l. 2. l. 132 I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected of me. I like to have strong attachments with my friends. I like to accomplish tasks that others recognize as requiring skill and effort. I like my friends to encourage me when I meet with a failure. I like to feel free to do what I want to do. I like to observe how another individual feels in a given situation. I like to accept the leadership of people I admire. I like to understand how my friends feel about various problems they have to face. I like to be able to come and go as I want to. I like to share things with my friends. When planning something, I like to get suggestions from other people whose opinion I respect. I like my friends to treat me kindly. I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in a con- ventional way. I like my friends to sympathize with me and to cheer me up when I am depressed. When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of someone else in deciding what the group is going to do. I like to supervise and to direct the actions of other people whenever I can. I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations. I like to be called upon to settle arguments and disputes between others. I like to read about the lives of great men. I feel that I should confess the things that I have done that I regard as wrong. I like to criticize people who are in a position of authority. I feel timid in the presence of other people I regard as my superiors. I like to find out what great men have thought about various problems in which I am interested. I like to be generous with my friends. I like to say what I think about things. I like to forgive my friends who may sometimes hurt me. I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that people I respect might consider unconventional. I like to participate in new fads and fashions. 33) 37) I like I like I like I like I like when I I like I like I like I like I like sex. I like think. I like When I 133 to keep working at a puzzle or problem until it is solved. my friends to treat me kindly. to be independent of others in deciding what I want to do. to do new and different things. to tell my superiors that they have done a good job on something think they have. to complete a single job or task at a time before taking on others. to do things that other peOple regard as unconventional. to put in long hours of work without being distracted. to praise someone I admire. to be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite to do things in my own way and without regard to what others may to read books and plays in which sex plays a major part. am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of someone else in deciding what the group is going to do. I feel I like I feel I like like critftizing someone publicly if he deserves it. to avoid responsibilities and obligations. like making fun of peOple who do things that I regard as stupid. to do things for my friends. When planning something, I like to get suggestions from other people whose opinions I respect. I like sex. I like I like to be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite my friends to show a great deal of affection toward me. to put myself in someone else's place and to imagine how I would feel in the same situation. I like when I I like like 1-0 I like I like to tell my superiors that they have done a good job on something, think they have. to sympathize with my friends when they are hurt or sick. to say what I think about things. my friends to be sympathetic and understanding when I have problems. to accept the leadership of people I admire. When serving on a committee, I like to be appointed or elected chairman. When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of someone else in deciding what the group is going to do. 43) 4A) 45) 46) 49) 50) 52) 53) 54) ..a NH H NH NH 2. l. 2. 134 I like to eat in new and strange restaurants. I like to do things that other people regard as unconventional. If I do something that is wrong, I feel that I should be punished for it. I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that people I respect might consider unconventional. I I I I like like like like think. I I I I I I feel like to complete a single job or task at a time before taking on others. to feel free to do what I want to do. to participate in discussions about sex and sexual activities. to do things in my own way without regard to what others may like critisizing someone publicly if he deserves it. my friends to make a fuss over me when I am hurt or sick. get so angry that I feel like throwing and breaking things. like like like like lems. I like to meet new people. to avoid responsibilities and obligations. to study and to analyze the behavior of others. to do things that other people regard as unconventional. my friends to be sympathetic and understanding when I have prob- I like to do small favors for my friends. When planning something, I like to get suggestions from other people whose opinions I respect. I like my friends to feel sorry for me when I am sick. I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in a con- ventional way. I I I I like like like like when I I like can. I like I like I like to form new friendships. my friends to help me when I am in trouble. to experience novelty and change in my daily routine. to tell my superiors that they have done a good job on something, think they have. to supervise and to direct the actions of other people whenever I to do things in my own way without regard to what others may think. to stay up late working in order to get a job done. to praise someone I admire. 55) 56) S7) 58) 59) 60) 62) 63) 135 I feel that I am inferior to others in most respects. I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations. I like to become sexually excited. I like to accept the leadership of people I admire. I like my friends to do many small favors for me cheerfully. I like to stay up late working in order to get a job done. I feel like getting revenge when someone has insulted me. When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of someone else in deciding what the group is going to do. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a deci- sion to take a definite course of action. What happens to me is my own doing. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck play an important role in my life. 136 Personal Reaction Inventorv Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. Make no marks on the booklet. On the separate green answer sheet are numbers corresponding to the numbers of the Inventory items. To the right of each item number there are five letters: A B C D and E. If the statement is true, please mark the letter A. If the statement is Falsg, please mark the letter B. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. I have never intensely disliked anyone. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. I am always careful about my manner of dress. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, would probably do it. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. I like to gossip at times. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. No matter who I‘m talking to, I'm always a good listener. 1." I can remember "playing sick to get out of something. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. 7 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 137 I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. I always try to practice what I preach. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget. When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrong- doings. I never resent being asked to return a favor. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. 138 DESCRIPTION SCALES The following scales will help you to describe the observed persons on a number of characteristics. On one side of the scale there is one characteristic and on the other side is its opposite. The scale is divided into 7 units. Each unit represents the degree to which the observed person possesses the characteristics in question. Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Quick. J 1 i I ] l J Slow I 1 i ..JL - For example: If you think that the observed person was very slow then put a check- mark (/) as shown below: Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Quick. 1 I j 1 z : J 1 Slow W I i T 3 I 1 If you think that the observed person was somewhat quick then put a checkmark as shown below: Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Quick. 1 ./ n 1 1 1 A; . Slow | l l T T I "T r—W If you think that the observed person was slightly slow put a checkmark as shown below: Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very QUiCk} 1 y / i l jSlow 1 id 4,7 .1 139 2 If you think that the observed person was neither quick nor slow or if you are undecided put a checkmark as shown: Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Quick / Slow For each scale please put a checkmark (/) on the unit of the scale that will best represent the observed person with regard to the two character- istics in question. Remember: Feel free to use whatever part of the scale that seems most appropriate. However, don't put more than one checkmark on any scale. Be sure to check every item. Do not spend more than a few seconds on marking each scale. Your first impression is what we would like to learn about. 140 DESCRIPTION OF THE GRADUATE STUDENT Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Humorous I I I I_ I I IHumorless I I I I I I I OutatandingI I I I I II IMediocre I Competent I I I I I Incompetent Arrogant I I I I I Modest I I I I Friendly I I I I I I Hostile Cold I I I I I I Warm I I I F I I Inaincere I I I I I ISincere I I I I I I Tireoome I I gI I I I IEnergetic I I I I I I Sensitive I I Agj I Insansitive 141 Very hat ‘ Somew lightly htly Neither S t Slig Somewha Very Strong * I I I I {If Not Snobbial I I L leak IL T L I I I I I Unconfident J I J Snobbish I I J I I I I IBoring I i I Confident I JI I I I I I] I Rough n erecting I I I I t I I I I Self Reliant l I a l Gentle I I J47 I I I I I Unselfish I I l Dependent I I I I I a I I I I I Not pompou I Selfish I I I I 1 in l I I IUnappeal I I I L I ous I Pomp j I I l Intelligent I I J I Charming I I I I I I I A I I Unintelli- I gent Entrust- worthy Not too Critical Happy Purposeful Unethical Tidy Indecicive Intolerant Convincing 142 Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very l, I I J I I, Trustworthy *I I I I I I I I I I I L Imm- T I I I I T loritical ~I I I I I I lumppy I I I I I I I I I I, IPurpooeleaa I I I I _J I I I [Ethical T I 7 I I I I Inn: idy J I I I Decisive I I I 1 I ij I I Tolerant I I I I Unconvincing 143 Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Unlikeeble I I, I I IJ I ILikeable I I I I 7 I I Tactful I I I I _I I I Rude 144 DESCRIPTION OF THE SECRETARIAL ASSISTANT Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very Humorous I I I Humorlesa I I Outetending I I I I I Iflediocre I I I r I ' Competent I I I I I I Incompetent Arrogant I I I I I I Modest I I I I I Friendly | I J I I I Hostile I j I I I Cold I J I I I I Warm I r I I I Insincere #I I I I__ I Sincere I I I I I Tireeome I I IEnergetic Sensitive I I I I I Ineenaitive I r j I 7 leak jg Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very 14S I Snobbish I Confident I Interesting Gentle I Dependent I Selfish I Pompous I Charming I Unintelli- I gent I I I I I I I I I .c.—— ...-J»— .fip_ I I I I Strong Not Snobbisl Unconfident Boring Rough Self Reliant Unselfish Not pompous IUnappealing Intelligent Untruat- worthy Not too Critical HRPPY Purposeful Unethical Tidy Indeciaive Intolerant Convincing 146 Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very I I I I I II Trustworthy I I | I I I II I I I I I IUltra- I I I I I I ICritical _I I I IUnha I I I I m I I I I I I ur ose ess I I I I I I P P 1 I II I I I I IEthical I II I I I I __I I I I I II Untidy I I I I I I I I I I I I Decisive I II I I I I I__ 4_I I I I I, ITolarant I I I I I I I I I I I II I Unconvincing I I I I II I 147 Very Somewhat Slightly Neither Slightly Somewhat Very J I_ I I I I Likeable I I I I I I Unlikeahle Tactful I I I I I IRude ”LI—n- _L_ 148 EXERCISE OF IMAGINATION Name Date Last rirst PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY An important personal asset is imagination. This test gives 7°“ an opportunity to use your imagination, to show how you can create ideas and situations by yourself. In other words, instead of presenting you with answers already made up. from which you have to pick one, it gives you the chance to show how you can think things on your own- On the following pages, you are to make up and write out a brief, imaginative story for each of the four pictures to be shown on the screen. There is one page for each story. On the following pages, you are to make up and write out a brief, imaginative story for each of the four pictures. You will have about five minutes for each story. There is one page for each story (in any case, please do not write more than about 150 words per story.) To help you cover all the elements of a story plot in the time allowed, you will find these questions repeated on each page: 1. What is happening? Who are the people? 2. What has led up to this situation? That is. what has happened in the past? 3. What is being thought: What is wanted? By whom? 4. What will happen? What will be done? Please remember that the questions are only guides for your thinking. That is, your story should be continuous and not just a set of answers to these questions. There are no "right" or "wrong" stories. In fact, any kind of story is quite all right. You have a chance to show how quickly you can imagine and write a story on your own. Try to make your stories interesting and dramatic. Show that you have an understanding of people and can make up stories about human situations. Don't Just describe the pictures, but write stories about them. Each picture will be shown for 15 seconds only. Look at the picture briefly, then turn to page number and write the story suggested to you by the picture. Don't take more than 5 minutes. The second picture will be shown 5 minutes after the first picture. Again, look at the picture briefly, turn to page 2, write out the story it suggests and 80 on through the last picture. Total time for the four stories: 20 minutes PLEASE PRINT YOUR STORIES 149 Picture number 1: What is happening? Who are the pe0p1e? What has led to this situation? That is, what has happened in the past? What is being thought: What is wanted? By whom? What will happen? What will be done? 150 Picture number 2: What is happening? Who are the peOple? What has led to this situation? That is, what has happened in the past? What is being thought: what is wanted? By whom? What will happen? What will be done? 151 Picture number 3: What is happening? Who are the people? What has led to this sitution? That is, what happened in the past? What is being thought: what is wanted? By whom? What will happen? What will be done? 152 Eicture number 4: What is happening? Who are the people? What has led to this situation? That is, what has happened in the past? What is being thought: what is wanted? By whom? What will happen? What will be done? 153 Value Scale INSTRUCTIONS: Please read over the following statements carefully. For each one indicate (by marking the appropriate space in the answer sheet) whether it is something that you: 1 2 3 4 5 strongly somewhat depends somewhat strongly admire admire on the dislike in dislike in in other people in other people situation other people other people Please make no marks on the booklet. 0n the Brown answer sheet are numbers corresponding to the numbers of the Value Scale statements. To the right of each statement number, there are five numbered spaces. For each statement, please mark the number that most represents your attitude towards this statement. 1. Being respected by people who are themselves worthwhile. 2. Making fun of academic grinds. 3. Studying hard to get good grades in school. 4. Acting beneath one's dignity. 5. Working hard to achieve academic honors. 6. Gaining recognition for one's achievements. 7. Being in a position to direct and mold other lives. 8. Being content with a "gentlemanly C" grade. 9. Not being able to do anything better than other people. 10. Trying hard to understand difficult lectures and textbooks. 11. Not being recognized for one's true worth. 12. Being satisfied with poor grades. 13. Making sure that one is respected. l4. Doing what one is told. 15. Priding oneself on being able to get by in school with little work. 154 strongly somezhat depznds on somzwhat stringly admire admire the situation dislike dislike 16. Being in a subordinate position. 17. Striving to get the top grade-point average in the group. 18. Having little effect on other people's actions. 19. Not doing well in coursework. 20. Studying constantly in order to become a well educated person. 21. Not letting studies interfere with one's college life. 22. Being in a position to command respect from others. 23. Being studious. 24. Being unable to exert any influence on things around one. 25. Doing one's best to avoid working hard in a course. 26. Having all the respect that one is entitled to. 27. Getting the top grade on a test. 28. Failing to develope contacts that could improve one's position. 29. Being proud of poor grades. 30. Being dignified in bearing and manner. 31. Treating one's studies as the most important thing in college life. 32. Being content with an inferior position all one's life. 33. Paying no attention to lectures and textbooks that are difficult. 34. Being looked up to by others. 35. Taking snap courses that don't require any work. 36. Enjoying great prestige in the community. 37. Doing well in school. 38. Associating with worthless people. 39. Priding oneself on good grades. 40. Not taking pride in one's achievements. 155 Date: Name: Below are forty incomplete sentences. Read and complete each one. If the suggested word occurs in the middle of the line, place it wherever you wish. 1. I should like to 2. Most important 3. My appearance 4. good mood 5. When I am not treated right, I 6. If I cou1d only 7. My head 8. The people who work for me 9. The main driving force in my life is 10. Other people are 156 11. If I could change anything, I 12. For sure 13. last 14. The more involved one gets 15. For me, the best 16. As a child, I 17. A friend 18. I will fight when 19. care 20. It‘s fun to daydream about 21. valuable possession 22. A stranger 157 - 3 - 23. When told to keep my place, I 24. Dormitory living 25. When an animal is wild, 26. If I were in charge 27. Being 28. People think I am 29. I don't like 30. What bothers me most 31. continually 32. To me, people 33. If I am put under pressure 34. I am happy when 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 158 broke , then I want The future The people I like best When I can't do something, I Tests like this 159 California Psychological Inventory Directions: This booklet contains a series of statements. Read each one, decide how you feel about it and then mark your answer on the purple answer sheet. If you agree with a statement, or feel that it is true about you, answer TRUE. If you disagree with a statement. or feel that it is not true about you, answer FALSE. Make no marks on the booklet. On the seperate purple answer sheet are numbers corresponding to the numbers of the inventory items. To the right of each item number there are five letters: A, B, C, D, and E. If the statement is True, please mark the letter A. If the statement is False, please mark the letter B. In marking your answers n the answer sheet, make sure that the number of the state- ment is the same as the number on the answer sheet. Be sure to answer either TRUE or FALSE for every statement, even if you have to guess at some! 160 California Psychological Inventory 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. I doubt whether I would make a good leader. I think I would enjoy having authority over other people. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. I have sometimes stayed away from another person because I feared doing or saying something that I might regret afterwards. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. School teachers complain a lot about their pay, but it seems to me that they get as much as they deserve. I don't blame anyone for trying to grab all he can get in this world. Every citizen should take the time to find out about national affairs. even if it means giving up some personal pleasures. I should like to belong to several clubs or lodges. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. When I work on a committee I like to take charge of things. If given the chance I would make a good leader of people. Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little I very such like hunting. A person does not need to worry about other people if only he looks after himself. I can honestly say that I do not really mind paying my taxes because I feel that's one of the things I can do for what I get from the community. When prices are high you can't blame a person for getting all he can while the getting is good. In school I found it very hard to talk before the class. I am a better talker than a listener. I would be willing to give money myself in order to right a wrong. even though I was not mixed up in it in the first place. We should cut down on our use of oil. if necessary. so that there will be plenty left for the people fifty or a hundred years from now. when the community makes a decision, it is up to a person to help carry it out even if he had been against it. I would rather have people dislike me than look down on me. 161 California Psychological Inventory 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. I must admit I try to see what others think before I take a stand. People should not have to pay taxes for the schools if they do not have children. In a group, I usually take the responsibility for getting peOple introduced. I would be willing to describe myself as a pretty "strong" personality. There are times when I act like a coward. I must admit I am a pretty fair talker. I have strong political opinions. I think I am usually a leader in my group. I seem to do things that I regret more often than other people do. Disobedience to any government is never justified. I enjoy planning things, and deciding what each person should do. I would rather not have very much responsibility for other people. I usually have to stop and think before I set even in trifling matters. It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with me. I have not lived the right kind of life. I have a natural talent for influencing peop e. I like to give orders and get things moving. I am embarrassed with people I do not know well. The one to whom I was most attached and whom I most admired as a child was a woman (mother, sister, aunt, or other woman). I'm not the type to be a political leader. People seem naturally to turn to me when decisions have to be made. I dislike to have to talk in front of a group of people. I have more trouble concentrating than others seem to have. Name 162 CHECKLIST FORM Last Date First Student Number Directions: Check 12 words from the following 36 words which you would use to describe the graduate student in the film. interesting _____strong _rude ____;mediocre unsnobish _____trustworthy ____decisive ____incompetent ____humorous _____outstanding ____bossy ____;unconfident ____sincere .___;unintelligent ____unse1fish .____competent pompous boring energetic intolerant weak sensitive dependent intelligent .____ultracritical ____indecisive ____Jmodest ____convincing insincere unconvincing confident humorless ____self reliant selfish purposeless gentle 163 CHECKLIS '1‘ FORM Name Student Number Last First Date Directions: Check 12 words from the following 36 words which you would use to describe the person‘whorworks for the physical-plant dept. ____ interesting energetic _____strong intolerant __ rude weak ____ mediocre sensitive -____ unsnobish dependent ____.trustworthy intelligent _____decisive ultracritical _____ incompetent indecisive ____ humorous modest ____ outstanding convincing _____bossy insincere _____unconfident unconvincing __ sincere confident _____unintelligent humorless _____unselfish self reliant _____competent selfish _____pompous purposeless boring gentle APPENDIX B INTERCORRELATIONS AND FACTOR ANALYSES FOR THE PERSONALITY MEASURES 164 .oo. v a xxx .c. v Q xx me. v e x on. v a e mm u cm .um pom. .c.- xNN. xm~.- om.- as. m.. cc. 5.. ..m. a:.- me. me. ... mo. cm.- e..- w.. mo.- Eooamo-u~om 3o; .m. XX .0 V K + ...- x_. a.. no. x..- we. as. m..- m.. xxx. c.. Nm.- cm.- mc.- c..- ...- xm~. .eum. cones...ae< .w. XKK + .9 xxx, xx xe.\xom. .N.. .z.- nm.- xm~.- .c.- om.- m..- .N.. ...- .m~.- ea. c.. mc.- ... no. mo.- .ozsuneu.: u umnnummz .n. + xxx xxx xxx xx + x xxx xcm. cc. m..- c..- m:. u..- .c. cc. cc. 9... ... Nc.- c..- +a.. we. o.nooa c. gamma .c. xsmxeom. .m. m:.. ...- mo.- vo.- mm. c.. 5.. .c.- me.- me. N.. a... no. sooumm vommmueeo .m. xxx xx + xxx. xxx + c.. me. am. .x. xx. x.. cm. mx.- on.- xm~.- x..- we.. oo.- Axum. sooomm .c. xxx xxx xx xx xxx xxx xxx, + xmm. oo.- no. m:. ..N.. .c. c..- c.. mo. m:.. me. .o. nosoa : .mu .sx>:m. n... mm. xnn. c... cm. emf mm.» c»..- .cN.- .o. ——.u Emoumm uwumwcowmupz .N— xxx xx xx xxx. xx xx x xv. n.. c.. :m. mm.- ~N.- v..- x~.- o:.- ... ecoeo>o.;u< oxeonmo< ... xxx + xx xx + x c.. ...... +c~. 49¢..- .....- N..- xxN... 2.. no. mmumum .c— mm. :9. mm.- Ne.- xc. c..- ~m.- v..- oueacweoa .m xx xxx xx xxx xx +9.. xe~.- xxm.- 93.- mo.. c.. +.~.- .n>onnc< .w we.. we.- oc.- kc.- m:.. be. xux.a=coo=. .x xxx xxx . _c. x-. c.. o. as. Assn. xuoaam .0 xxx 325m. 9... c.. o..- N.. mucoumceouc. .ecOmnoa .m an.\huw. mc.- n..- no.. Aoconcono: .e x~.- no.- xeocoa=< .m xx m..- sensuous: .N ooceeoousm .. a. w. n. c. m. w. m. N. .. c. a x x. o m e m N . I... I ». III I- win lthlIUHhPHEyEE. "Iii. 'II.I fl.h..§.h 1".“th l 1""- Pdu‘uih,l<.h'7.l 1|! IELI‘V.IFI1'I.“.I. Iris Fl ,nl‘."\"":|h.lll.ll.-. .‘ll'llnl'.l;hvhfl.“r. I ,1! I. .I. 1 ”1'1”... I. “Havelgvih Lat nulll: 0.." IF“L¢..I a! fill-1 In” c.muuomc:m o.ez to. xnnum or. we seem; .o.u.:. 0:» :. cac:.uc. mo.;m.nm> xuw.mCCmnom ..< cmozuom mco.ue.ounoowouc—ul.—-m 9.5mh 1635 .co. v a xxx .0. v a xx mc. v a x c.. v c:. @G n. =5 .cmxeoms cc. cc.- cc.- N..- N.. xx.. .c.- cc. c.. 9.. cm.. mc. c..- mc.- cc.- c..- mc.- cm. sodomo-e.om :on .c. + + x x xx c~.- ... cc.- m..- ec.- c~.- c..- cc.- xc. cc.- cc. em.- cc.- Nc. mc. c..- c.. .eum. co.oa...me< .c. xx + xx xx x + na.\eom. xc.- .e _c.- c:.. xc.- xc.- cc.- .c.- .c.- c..- Nu. m.. mc.- cc. mc.- c..- .azaceco.z e sacrum.z .x. xxx xxx xxx xxx + c.. mc. xc.- mc.- ~.. xc. xn.. cc. .c.. ...- .m..- .c. «c. mc. ... o.cooa :. gamma .0. .am\eow. xx. cc.- ~.. Nc.- c.. em. xc.. kc. cx.- so. - xx..- cc. cc. m..- sesame no...ueno .m. xxx xxx xxx xxx + cc. xc. ac. x.~. km. N.. cc. cc.- cm.- mm.. .c.- mc. cc.- Axum. zooomm .c. xxx xxx Xxx xxx xxx cc. cc.- .c.. cc.- ...- cc. mc. m.. mc. .c.- ec.- mc. assoc : .n. .sm\eom. c.. xc.. c.. x:. xc. .m.- c..- _m.- xc.- cc. mc.- sconce u.om.couuoc< .~. + + xxx x xxx ex. cc. x.... x.. m:.. ~c.- .c.- cw. - x.. ...- ocoso>o.;u< o.eouao< ... xxx + xx x mm. cc. ...w. m..- c..- m... o..- o..- .....- mousum .3 xxx. xx x ... x:.. cc - mm.- mc. ~c.- xcm.- ~.- ounce.eoc .c xxx xxx. xx ac. c..- ...- cc.- N..- mc. me.- .m>otcc< .c xxx x:.. mc.- cc. .c.- nc. cc. xu..a=tooc. .x as. .m. cc.- .c. .c. .eom. xooemm .0 xxx xxx Ao~\huw. c..- cc.- 3.. as. oocouoceouc. .s:0mnoa .m xc_\eom. cc.- ...- ac. xucoccococ .e cc.- xc..- xsocoons< .m m—.. Oucvhowva .N .9 oucmuouumm .. c. c. x. c. m. c. m. N. .. c. c c x o m e m N . “E "I“. ”..lfl.h1tu Ii...” -."Ihufila" ..l" cull “r.“( ”1'! .1.“ "In...“ H .I'lhlhhhlphllnphl'n “run-Hull“. gut-r1! '"l.hhllflb| in”. r III-lb“. 1"" ...”.IVA' - ‘. n1 amuse..c:m o.ceo. new xczum can .0 omega .c...c. on» ex o:.oc. mo.;e.po> xux.ac0mnoe ecu cooxuom eco.um.ounoonouc.-u. ~-m 0—Dnh 1(56 .co. v u xxx .o. v u xx cc. v c x c.. v a H cm. u as .on com. cc. cc. +N... xc.. .... xm.. cc. cc. xN.. cc. +N.. cc. Nc.- cc. .N. - xc..- cc xN.. sconce-c.om see .c. cc.- c.. cc. cc.- N..- N..- cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc. «c.- c..- .c. cc.- xc..- NN. sum. co.ac...cc< .c. xxx. x + + xxx. xxx + xx .c.\hum. c..- xc.- cc. c.. ce.- c..- N.. N..- mc.- c.. ex. c.. ec.- cc. Nc. cc.- .ezccccaxz c occcumxz .N. + xxx xxx x xxx x + x xxx + . xv. .c c. c. - .c. cc .N. cc .c. +c. - cc - .c »c - c. +.. o..ooc c. cu.ec c. .mcxhuc. cc. cc.- ec. cc.- cc. cc. c.. ... .N.- cc.- ...- ... .c.- c..- sooomm no...oacc .c. xxx xxx x xxx xxx + + + cc. cc. xc.. cN cc xv.. c.. «c.- cc.- .c.- cc.- Nc. cc.- .soc. sconce .c. xxx xx xxx xxx xxx xxx . xm.. xc..- Nc. cc.- xc..- cc. Nc.- c.. «c. No. .c.- Nc.- assoc c .c. rthw. cN. c.. c . Nc. c..- cc.- cN.- .c.- .- c. ...- sconce u.om.coxac=< . . xx x x . x xxx xxx. xxx m: . + N .e. co. c.. c.. c..- cc.- «c.- cc.- cc. .c. ocoso>o.co< o.Eccno< ... xxx x x x xxx NN. cc. MN. xc..- ...- .c.- .N.- cc.- .c.- museum .c. xxx. xx + xx c.. cN. cc.- cc.- .c.- cc.- cN.- xc..- oucccneoc .c xx xxx xxx. xxx Xxx N .- c..- c..- Nc.- c..- Nc. cc. .a>occc< .c w x xx xxx cN. c..- cc. cc.- Nc.- cc. xo..acnoo=. .N xx xx cc. cN. .c.- ac. Nc. meow. xoocac .c xxx. xxx .u.\soc. +o..- mo.- +... m.. oocouocsoocu .scOmeoa .m xc.Neoc. Nc.- .c..- cc. xococcococ .e N..- .N.- xeocooa< .c + xx xc..- oucououo: .N oocenouonm .. c. c. N. c. c. e. c. N. .. c. c c N c m c c N . ”hhyapH-IHE hr “1.111“ PL11 111“...““1” 1:. 611 .o ass. a m . v . a In HI-.l.c“|1|uL|hlncI-I 11 . 1 ..xih. I.“ Ch 9:. Lou xtmcv as. e: omen; ......c.. .. .51-1111".“ H “1: .1“.-..fl 111.."111LW 1|h1."1|¢l1|”~. “fl" ."1111‘11 "In! 1.1 1.1 ‘1‘ 1'111 1'-1~.1II- 11! Pk“ burn 0:. :. occ.:.oc. mo.cc.cc> x»..ncomnon use consuom mco.um.onnOuuouc.-. c-c c.cee 1(57 :l mm u c.c c.c N.N. c.c. c.NN c.cc occcccc> co occccouxcc cN.- ... cc. cc.- cc.- .c.- xeocou=< c.. Nc.- m... cm. Nc.- xc.- cccxx ...- cc. c..- cc. cc. cN. so.cc...cc< c.. «N. cc.- cN.- cN. cc.- xuc. scoumc-c.oc 3o; cc. xN. Nm. cc.- cc. cc. xcc. acocmc uxucxcoccu=< cc.- cc.- cc. cc. cN.- Nc. chc aeocmc co.c.cccc cc. xc.- Nc. ...- cc. c..- xozoc .c.- cc. c.. N..- cc. c.. msuccc c..- c.. cc. cc. cc. cN. c=02c>oxcu< uxsoccu< c..- xc.- .c. cc. cc. xc. ouccccsoc cc. cc. xc.- Nx.- c..- cN.- xc.c .czccccccz can ccaxcc.z cc.- xc.- cc. .c.- cc.- cc. xucoccucoc «o. c.. Ne. xc.- v—.- nx.- xu_. mucouoaaoucx _m:0mxom cc.- cc. cc. c.. xN. cc. xuc.ccxocc. cN. ... .N.- c.. cc. xc. .c>oxcc< xx. ... cc.- xc. x.. cN.- oucoxococ .c.- .c. c..- cN. .N. cN.- unaccouusc O hOuU—uu m LOHUN; v Louuux— M. beau—...“. N hOuUflu H heuuau Lose; «mach ouzovcoum< -oucouoLEcU EIE I.. "lurk, nu...l- 11.3.1411“..- A .011: AFHIHM ”.. H .1.” hhhhubhr1t1k kph I”..“.1.1*luuh””1" ".1! o“ .1. H. 3.".HII1.E ..unn1..v InlluluVI I 1 1.! .1511 .llnfl NIH" 1!] 111.1.1.1U .ccuuomc:m c_cz cow moxzccoz xux.c:0muoc mo x:0xucuoz xcsxcc>v mmmx.c:< x0»ouu--.v-m c—nah 1658 :l 9: u x.c c.x c.c. c.c. c.x. c.x. c.cN oucc.xc> co cccccouxox .c.- cc.- .c.- Nc.- N..- Nc.- cc. xeococc< .x. cc. x.. cc. cc. cc.- NN. o.cooc c. cuccc cx. cc. cc.- cc. cc. c.. Nc. co.ccc..cc< cc. cc.- N.. cN. xc. cc. xc.- xuc. acoccc c.uc :oc cc.- xc.- c.. c.. cc. Nc. cc. xccc eccccc occc.coccc=< cc.- c..- c..- cc. x..- cc. .x. xccc scoucc cocccccxc cc.- xc. cc.- x.. ... c.. .N.- cozoc c x..- cc. Nc. Nc. cc.- . cc. cc. cscccc cc.- cc.- cx. xc. x..- .c. No. cccso>o.cu< ocsoccu< cc. ...- .c. cc. ...- cc.- cc. oucccceoc c..- .c.- cc.- xc.- cc.- cc.- c..- xc.c .czccccc.2 vac «czxcm.z cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. Nc.- Nc.- xc.. xucoccccoc Nc. cc.- cc. N.- cc. cc.- Nc.- xc.. oucococsouc. .ccoccoc cc. cc. .N. cN. Nc.- xc. cc. xcc.c:xoc=. cc. cc.- cN. .c.- cc.- cc. c.. .c>oxcc< ...- cc.- c.. .c.- c..- cc. cc. cucoxocec c.. cc. ... c..- cc. cc. Nc.- ouccxouucc h hOuan— O LOHUFJ— m Lazy—...“. Q LOUD-w“. m LOQUCL N LOHUN; n LCHUEN— mucovcoum< -vucouonsou fl. 4tu,100uh.l1h*hk~”hll'h"hfl.l .NIF."11.:1O:M1..“ ".1le u. h.“ h P h L". "E ”I“.I ”nyflt “L..I1111lihl.l.11fl. ”1..“ ”t1“. Fr ".E1 1 .cmcuomczm c.NEou be» mocsmcoz xux_mc0mhoa mo Accxuauoz xmsxxc>v m_cx~c:< heuumu-.m-m 0—Dah 1659 :l cc. u c c.c ..c. ..c. N.c. N.c. N.Nc occc.cc> co occccouxox c..- cc.- cc.- cc.- cc.- c.. xeococ=< xc. .c. cc.- cc. xc. cc. cccxx cc. xc. cN. c.. cc. cc. cocucc..cc< c..- ...- .c. c..- cN. .c. xucc acoccc-c.cc zoc vv.- cm.- m..- cm. mm. x.. xcmc Ecoucm ocucxcomcuc< cN. ...- NN.- Nc. c..- cc. xcc. acoccc coccccccu cc.- cc. c.. c.. cc. cc.- cozoc N..- Nc.- cc. .c. cc. NN. cscccc cc. cc.- ...- cc. cc. .c. ccosc>c.cu< oceoccu< cc. cc.- cc.- Nc.- cN. .x. cuccccsoc xc.- .c.- cc.- 3.. c..- N..- ...: .czficficz ....c 3.5:: .c. cc. Nc. cc. Nc. cc. xc.c xucoccococ .\.c.- .c.- c.. v..- No.- vx.- Au.c mucouun20u:_ ~m=0muoc cc. cc. .c. cc. xN. cN. xcc.c:xccc. NN. cc.- cc.- cc. c.. c.. .c>occc< cc. m..- cN.- cc. xc. om.- vucououoc a.. me. no. me. me. m..- oucmxouusm o cocoa; m cocoa; v Locus; m Lacuna N cocccu _ cocoa; Ecxccucac< _zcouxc; oucovcouc< .c> cc:ch vac o>oc -occouocecu 1.1K....-L11.1.”.le1.|.“11-1“-1.¥|1.1...»u1.l.|blfl.L11-.- H11 Ar.| "...-.111..I."IVFIVIIY1IrP‘LPP'L1.!h.h“tl.fll.1.1.th.1nHLULL,....§&1.1’1‘Ih..hr .|.H .I . ukfiu-fl.fltL#-rb.hul.1'u-I'.hn1ilnvr. ...Ehffih .co.;Ecm _QHOP as» com muczccoz xc.—acacxon mo xcomuauo: xcemxm>v cmcx_cc< xcuuau-.e-m o—nch APPENDIX C THE MAIN HYPOTHESES TESTED ON MEASURES BASED ON THE ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST II :I NNH In HOHCN Ho. v u xx cc.vcx cc. v a + Ho. No.- mo. +v~.- Anmv Emoumm Oxymxcowmuc< me.- xc~.- mo.- xmx.- mocwcxsoo xc..- cc. cc.- xxNN.- xsocopc< xxmm. me. xcx. HH. Aufiv oucmucmeoucfi accomxmm me. xxx. HH. mo. monoummmo No. co. Ho.- co. oucmxoousm ampuonnsm onEou mH.- +wH.- co. xmm.- 52m. Eoopmm uxumxcomwuc< xmm.- +HN.- +w~.- xNN.- mocmcxeoo mo. mo. co. co. xeocous< mH. +oN. Ho. +nH. AQHV mucoummeoucH.Hw:omxom AH. xwm. mo.- +om. mocoxomma +mx. xc. «H. xc. mucwxouosm cccucxccc c.cz coxucsfic>m Hficxm>o maxucoxmucH oocmummeou xuxfixncxuom m>xuoz 1 11,-.111 I :11. 1 .1-1 1.11 1| 1 .m:0mxwm msxsexum msumum 304 ozu vac :wx: may mo m:0xucsfic>m xxocc :x moocmxommMo tam mmxoom m>xuoz .muommnsm :moZHom m:0xumxmhxou-.H-u mfinmh 170 17]. In MOHCN _c. V Qxx mo. V ax c.. v a + .c..- .c.- xc..- cc. xcoccc .c.- cc.- cc. .c. .cc. scoccc occmccoccc=< c..- _c.- cw..- no. xc_c xmzcucsux: w umauucx: v..- xc.- N..- co. xu_c mucouanoUc_ xacomxom + + co. co.- No. v.. coccuouuzw ¢ cc. .c.- mo.- xc. oucmcmsoo . o o o x o xxvm xx. xm. xc. uw_cch u:. x.. cc. xc.. .o. Hang sooucm vamumucxo LmHUOmnzm 0—week c..- xxN.- c..- cc. xcoccc +m..- xc.- mc.- xxmm. Anny Emoumm omumxcoamuc< +m..- xxcm.- +x..- vc. xc.“ _czmxvzcx: w unsuucmx co.- xc.- ~..- no. xu_v oucuuoaeoU:_ xc:0cxoa xc.- mc.- m~.- mo. oucmxouuam +a.. c.. me. _o. vocacxsoo c.. c.. +c.. ac. xxx—caucus. xcm. ch. me. me. xcmc Eooucm vomuxucxu acuuoaczm c.x: coxcc:_c>g ..cco>c u:_ccoxcc:_ oucouozsou xxx—cnc_ucm ..Ihfl-l 'Nu‘..-httrn1lu 1 “111. Ft ”lflkuh Hu‘.“h-flfl.n.u-uu-.IILUF|.Iu1- ..t-A ...-mufl1hhflut1rthuuu c l -UI-v-h “PF".h“ l "N.“hth I .‘ .lfih1.1111h1h.ul”-1.Ilrrlvhurhunlthtficlnflh .mcomxog c:.:Exum zucm we :oxcm:_a>g vo:_LEcu x_o;9 vac .ccxcz cc _cxczcu .oucvcoLEcu mo occom “acacxo; uc coxzmxoz cc coxoum .cuuocssm covzuom mcoxum~oxxou-.Nuu o—nmh APPENDIX D FACTOR ANALYSES OF THE SUBJECTS RATINGS OF THE HIGH AND LOW STATUS STIMULUS PERSONS ccc u cc xc. Nc.- cc. cN. cc. cc.- cc. .cccucx .c. ... cc. c.. cc. .c. cN. o.ccx.c c.. cc. cc.- .N. cc. cN. cc. cc.cc.>ccc cc. c.. cc. _c.- _c.- cc. cc. cccco.ox xc. cc. cc.- cc. ... cc. N..- o>.c.uoc cc.- cc.- Nc.- .c. xc. xc. .c.- xc_x cN.- cc. xc. cc. cc. cc.- c.. .cc.ccc cc. c.. c.. cN. xN. c.. Nc. .cccvccccc c.. xN. c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc. xccc: cc. NN. cc. .c. cc. .N.- cc.- c...cu cz .c. cc. Nc.- c..- cc. c..- cc.- cmccx N.. cc. Nc. cc. cc. N.. cc. “soc...ccc. cc. Nc. c.. .N. c.. ...- ... cc.ccccu Nc. c..- cc. xc.- Nc. cc. cc.- ccoceoc coz cc. xc. Nc. xc.- c..- .c.- cc. cc.c.omcc cc.- xc.- cc. cc.- cc. Nc. cc.- can..oc-c.oc cc. cc.- xN. .c.- c.. x..- c.. c.cccc cm. .c.- x:. cN. cc.- ~_. _c.- mcxucoxoc:_ c.. Nc.- xc.- c.. cc. .c. Nc. ccec.cccc Nc. xc.- xc. .c.- cc.- .c.- cN. cccc coz Nc. cN. .c.- cN. c..- cc. x.. cccxcc .N. cc.- x.. cc.- .N. .N.- cN. o>.c.ccoc x.. ... cc. c..- cc. cc. cN. u.ccccccc cc. cc.- cc. cc. c.. .c.- xc. excuc.c cc. ... cc. ...- ... cc.- cc. acct cN. cc.- cc. cc.- xc. c..- cc. x.cco.cc cc.- cc.- cc. c..- c.. Nc.- Nx. ccocoz cN. cc.- c:.. x:. cc. c.. c..- .cococscc cN. .c. c..- cc. cc.- ... ... cc.ccc.c.=o cc. Nc. xc. cc. cc.- cc. c.. ccoccecc c Locum; c xcxucc m xccunc v begun; m Lccucc N cocum. _ Lcuun; u:_Exc;u Lunacy—Cb ouceu___oc:_ haze; >~___;c_uom -c:..ccxccc. .ccecoc I1IIV. I ... .- n I I .. I -,.I.rI.O-. .x.... t. SUI-.... ..>b .r. .v. .th, 1..» “Il'hlu .. . N.....IIILnu II.rII.... .. ..cc ILILI .1. .nzccco; czcccm ;u_: age he mu:_cnz .ccccc;:m cc x:c.u:ccz o:?__scc mxmx_n:< coconu--._-: 9—;ah .1772 173 :1 saw u a _c. cc. c.. cc. ... _cccucc cc. cc. cc. cc. cN. o.ccx.c cc. mc. mm. Nm. m_. ucxu:_>:cu .c. cx. xc.- cc. cc. cccco.cc cc. c.. cN. m. cc.- e>_c_uo: cc. N.. cc. cc. cc.- cc.x xc. xc. cc. c.. cc.- .cu.c.c cc. cc. cc. cc. cN. .ccocccczc cc. cc. .c. N. c. . 2...... NN. cc. ~c.- cc.- cc.- _cu_c.cu ooc ccz cc. m_. cm.- _..- mc.- xxcxcxccccc cN. cc. c.. cc. cN. ccoc...c.c. c.. c.. c.. cc. - cc. cc.E_.....c c.. .c. .c. c:.. c..- ccccecc .:2 cc. _c. cc.- cc. cc. :c.c.¢cc: cc. c.. Nc.- cc. cc.- ccc..cc c.cc cc. c.. cc. .c.- cN. c..:oc cc. cc. cc.- cN. cc. cc..cccc.c_ c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc. cccc_ccoc Nc. cc. cc.- .c. cc. cccc ccz Nc. _c. c..- cc. n. uchcw ... c. cm. x. - cc. o>_c_c:om me. E. ..c. - ..c. ..c. 3 32.3.... cc. xc. cc _c. xc. ococc.c c.. cc. c. cc.- cc. ace: c.. cc. xc. cc.- cc. x.ccc.cc c.. cc. cm. cc - cc. “coco: .c. cc. cc.- cc. cc. ccococsoc N.. c.. _c.- x. 2;. u:_vcccmc:c cN. xc. Nc. cc.- cc. czcccccc hey-an..— v LCuUR... r. LGuUfl; N #09:“.— — LGuQ—HL xc.—_cc_uom upsc:___c.:. ucxsxazu -eucococscu -uc.«voxvuc_ «c:cxoc cccccm 3:; 9;. co vu:_cnc .ccueccsm co xccxuccox 0:7__Lc. c_cx_ac< heuucc-.~-: o_ncc 174 cl 3%.. n a cc. c.. c.. .N. cc. cc. .:ccuch cc. cc. cc. m . c_. cc. «.ccc.c cc. .c. cN. c_. cc. _c.- accuc.>=cc c_. we. as. _m. cc. co. “cape—sh “c.- c.. cc. cc. cc. c_.- o>c¢_uoc cc. cc. .c. cc. cc. ~c. cc.» cc.- cc. N.. cc. c.. c.. .au.c.. N.. _c. cc. 5.. cc. cc. .ccomocczc cc. «N. c_.- cc. c.. cN. cccc: cc. cc. ~c. c.. c_.- cc. _cuflc..u cob coz cN. c_.- NN.- c_. cN.- .N.- xccscxcmchc cc.- cN. cc. cc. cc. cc. «coumc_occ_ ... 5.. cc. cc. cc. cN. «c_succu cc.- cc. cc.- cc. cc.- cc. maocsoc coz . cc. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. cc. cccc.omcc cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. accc_oc-c_oc cc.- cN. cc. cc. cN.- cc. c_ucoc cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. accumohou=_ cc. cc. c_. c_. cc. cc.- “cucccccc Nc.- .c. _c.- Nc. cc.- cc. cmcccccc uoz cc. cc.- c~. c_. cc. cc.- «sebum cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc.- cc. o>cucucoc .c.- cc” c_. cc. cN. c_. c_.oucocc c..- c. cc. cc. ... cc. occcc.c ~c.- ... cc.- cc. cc. cc. sun: cc.- cc. cc. .c. cc. cc. c_ccc..c cN.- c.. c..- NN. cN.- cc. “coco: cc.- «c. _c. cc. cc. _c. “cococeoc cc.- cc. cc. cn. cc. cc.- ucccccumccc ... cc.- .N. cc. cc. c.. msocoszc c baton“. m LCHUS; v hcuu—u; m LCMUCk N LCgUfl... — beau-un— ouccu___o.:_ scEch Lore; ouceuo_0h VEL‘CAHPfifh-Vl I..~.PO.-ir.rvl§.~ r}L.1.‘u‘....n..IrIflhtc'i-IK-yfpfi. ...Lh..tF.UHILI|.-Ilh.v'.l. .. 1. n. VLF..U...n _ b. I‘llrL.'Hxhl|I.-.D.F.flh bk-” L. full-EL I 'I rlflrt F «cache; m:.:5_~m sac: cc «c_uc: .cucoccsm cc A:o_uauom nasmua>~ mcmx_a:< acuuau--.n-; 0—sch APPENDIX E ANALYSES OF VARIANCE WITH AND WITHOUT SEX OF PERCEIVER AS A FACTOR Table E-1.-—Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Interesting-Charming. Source df MS F Motive of Perceiver (A) 2 .83 .28 Experimental Condition (B) 1 8.71 .91 A x B 1 4.82 .61 Subjects Within/AB 210 2.99 Male Stimulus vs. Female Stimulus (C) 1 19.37 .30xx A x C. 2 .31 .13 B x c (Status of Stimulus) 1 14.45 .19xx A x B x C (Motive by Status) 2 2.29 .98 C x Subjects Within/AB 210 2.33 xx p < .01 175 176 Table E-2.--Ana1ysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Sex of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Sociability. Source df MS F Motive of Perceiver (A) 2 .59 .47 Sex of Perceiver (B) . 1 .07 .06 Experimental Condition (C) 1 1.57 1.26 A x B 2 .00 .00 A x C 2 2.02 1.62 B x C 1 3.45 2.77 A x B x C 2 2.82 2.26 Subjects Within/ABC 205 1.25 Male Stimulus vs. Female Stimulus (D) 1 2.91 2.06 A x D 2 .35 .25 B x D 1 4.87 3.44 C x D (Status of Stimulus) 1 2.34 1.65 A x B x D 2 8.83 6.24x A x c x D (Motive by Status) 2 12.23 8.64xx B x C x D 1 .24 .17 A x B x C x D 2 1.28 .91 D x Subjects Within/ABC 205 1.41 x p < .05 xx p < .01 177 Table E-3.--Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Sex of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Competence. Source df MS F Motive of Perceiver (A) 2 .16 .10 Sex of Perceiver (B) 1 14.19 9.42xx Experimental Condition (C) 1 1.96 1.30 A x B 2 .62 .41 A x C 2 .03 .02 B x C 1 1.21 .80 A x B x C 2 .64 .43 Subjects Within/ABC 205 1.51 Male Stimulus vs. Female Stimulus (D) 1 3.60 1.75 A x D 2 1.44 .70 B x D 1 .99 .48 c x D (Status of Stimulus) 1 37.11 18.01xxxx A x B x D 2 8.41 4.08x A x C x D (Motive by Status) 2 1.20 .58 B x C x D 1 .68 .33 A x B x C x D 2 3.27 1.59 D x Subjects Within/ABC 205 2.06 x p < .05 xx p < .01 xxx p < .001 xxxx p < .0001 178 Table E-4.--Analysis of Variance of Motive of Perceiver x Sex of Perceiver x Experimental Condition x Sex of Stimulus for Interesting-Charming. Source df MS F Motive of Perceiver (A) 2 .24 .08 Sex of Perceiver (B) 1 6.49 .24 Experimental Condition (C) l 9.25 .20 A x B 2 2.01 .70 A x c 2 7.21 .49 B x c 1 1.60 .55 A x B x c 2 15.63 .41x Subjects Within/ABC 205 2.89 Male Stimulus vs. Female Stimulus (0) 1 19.08 .64xx A x 0 2 1.51 .68 B x 0 1 18.24 .26XX C x 0 (Status of Stimulus) 1 13.82 .26x A x B x D 2 11.35 .14x A x C x D (Motive by Status) 2 .01 .01 B x C x D 1 7.94 .60 A x B x C x D 2 .51 .23 D x Subjects Within/ABC 205 2.21 x p < .05 xx p < .01