EVALUATEQN OF A FRAKNENG PROGRAM TO EMPROVE THE AB‘BLITY TO DlFFERENFIATE EEFWEEN PEOPLE Elms“ for {he Dogma of p31. D. MICHKGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Burton A. Grossman 1967 {THESIS 0-169 i LII um; MW!!! in i; ii iii Ii :1 l'l'l’"! ll ? LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled EVALUATION OF A TRAINING PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE . BETWEEN PEOPLE presented by Burton A. Grossman .- w -,1.r., .. has been accepted towards juliillment 9f the requirements for Ph-D- degree inmgy t '7: fl ' H K ( i --, I M( _- LRAJN ~“““ I ‘Ma or profes r r" war-1- /.J \ '\ DateW~ -~- MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Piace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beiow. VP“? 9%.? '— ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF A TRAINING PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PEOPLE by Burton A. Grossman The purposes of the present study were twofold: (l) to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program designed to increase Individual Accuracy, and (2) to investi- gate specific individual differences in the impact of training. Individual Accuracy was defined as the ability of a judge to differentiate between individuals when group member— ship cues are reduced to a minimum, and to use this knowledge in making predictions about the individuals. The training program utilized the principles of practice, participation, and feedback, focused on systemati- zation of the prediction process, and used an explicit empirical personality theory as a guideline for change. The training criterion consisted of the typescripts of interviews with three men followed by sixty items which required the judge to make predictions differentiating between the men. Thirty items measured the accuracy of secondrperson predictions, and thirty items measured the accuracy of third-person predictions. Burton A. Grossman The experimental design involved pre- and post- tests on the training criterion for both the experimental and control groups, and comparisoniof pre- to post-test differences for the two groups through the use of matched t-tests. A correlational analysis was used to study the individual differences in the impact of training. The training program consisted of five one-hour training sessions interpolated between the pre- and post— test on the training criterion. There was a period of approximately four weeks between the pre-test and post-test. On the basis of the data reported, the following conclusions can be made: 1. Specially designed training programs can lead to significant improvement in Individual Accuracy. Most of this improvement can be attributed to an increase in the accuracy of second-person predictions. 2. The use of an explicit. empirical personality theory as a guideline and aid to change does not seem to be related to improvement in Individual Accuracy. 3. For male subjects. boldness is related to gains on the criterion; for female subjects, there is no relation between boldness and improvement. 4. Male subjects who are more emotional, and more impulsive show greater gains on the criterion as a result of training. Burton A. Grossman 5. No specific personality factors are related to differential improvement in Individual Accuracy among female subjects. 6. Female subjects show slightly greater improvement on the criterion than do male subjects. 7. Age and intellectual ability have no clear relation- ship to improvement in Individual Accuracy. It was suggested that future training programs use smaller groups. more discussion of, and more effective presentation of, knowledge of results, and a criterion composed exclusively of second-person predictions. Also. the use of diagnostic tests of the various components of sensitivity was suggested as a likely starting point for future training programs. EVALUATION OF A TRAINING PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PEOPLE BY \90 Burton A. Grossman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1967 To my parents, DEDICATION for their continuing faith in me. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Henry Clay Smith for his valuable guidance, insightful criticisms, and continuing encouragement. His assistance has made the completion of this thesis a meaningful learning experience. I also wish to thank Drs. Eugene Jacobson, James L. Phillips, and John H. Wakeley for their helpful suggestions and criticisms. iii Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . History Development of the Concept of Interpersonal Sensitivity Research on Sensitivity Training Informal, Academic Training Programs .Empirical Research in Sensitivity Training Individual Differences in the Impact of Training Evaluation of Training Research PROBLEM . . . . . . . . METHOD . . . . . . . . 'Subjects Criterion Instrument Additional Experimental variables Demographic Variables Personality Variables General Procedure Method of Data Analysis RESULTS . . . . . . . . Effectiveness of Training Individual Differences in the Impact of Training Sex Differences Differences in Personality Factors Differences in iv Intellectual Factors 13 15 18 21 21 22 25 25 26 28 33 36 37 41 41 44 45 Chapter V. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O I O O O O 0 O O O O 0 Effectiveness of Training Program Explanation of the Findings .Agreement with Previous Findings Individual Differences in Impact of Training Sex Differences Personality Differences Differences in Intellectual Factors Methodological Considerations The Criterion Limitations of the Present Research The Other Experimental Groups Implications VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 48 48 48 51 52 53 53 55 56 56 57 58 59 64 67 71 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Sample sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. Reliabilities of the Individual Accuracy criterion (internal consistency) . . . . . 24 3. An explicit and empirical theory of common basic traits of personality . . . . . . . 27 4. Reliabilities of the Protebob Personality Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. Overall experimental design . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Summary of the contents of the training sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 7. Relationship between pre-test scores and gains on the post-test criterion . . . . . 34 8. Correlations between pre-test scores on the criterion and gains in scores as a result Of training 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 34 9. Summary of evidence for hypotheses . . . . . . 37 10. Matched t-tests for all subjects (males and females) in all training groups on total individual accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . 38 ll. Matched t-test for all experimental groups on second and third person individual accuracy . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . 39 12. Correlations between Knowledge of Personality Theory test and gains on Individual Accuracy criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O 13. Correlations between training session attendance and gains on the Individual Accuracy criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 14. Matched t-tests for male and female subjects in all groups. on total individual accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 vi Table Page 15. Matched t-tests for male and female subjects in all groups on second and third person individual accuracy . . . . . 43 16. Matched t-tests comparing male and female subjects (in Individual Accuracy training group) on Individual Accuracy criterion . 44 17. Correlations between Boldness scores and gains on the Individual Accuracy criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 18. Correlations between personality variables and gains on the Individual Accuracy criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 19. Correlations between measures of intellectual ability and gains on the Individual Accuracy criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 vii LIST OF APPENDICES _Appendix Page A. The Training Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . 72 B. The Protebob Personality Inventory . . . . . 81 C. Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 D. Additional Statistical Data . . . . . . . . 112 E. Explanation of varying Sample Sizes . . . . 115 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the recent past there has been increased interest in the area of interpersonal relations, and, more particularly in interpersonal sensitivity. Attempts have been made to determine the nature of interpersonal sensitivity, its re- lationship to other psychological variables (mainly personality traits), and ways of developing it. These attempts have been hampered by the lack of a sound theoretical basis from which testable hypotheses could be developed. Smith (1966) proposes a new approach to the problem by looking at inter- personal sensitivity as composed of a number of independent components: Level, Spread, Observation, Empathy, Differentiation between Groups, and Differentiation between Individuals. Each of these is assumed to make an independent contribution to the overall ability. He defines interpersonal sensitivity as the ability to accurately predict the thoughts, feelings and attitudes of another person about you, himself, and others. Past attempts to improve sensitivity by training have not been rigorously evaluated; studies that have been done have produced conflicting results. Presenting the individual components as being independently defined and measured permits a more rigorous testing of more concrete 1 training hypotheses. The purpose of the present research is to make such an experimental test. It deals with the component we call Individual Accuracy—-the ability to accurate- ly differentiate between individuals on the basis of their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes. The research focuses on two general questions: Can specific training programs help people to increase their Individual Accuracy? What characteristics distinguish those persons who do from those who do not show increased sensitivity as a result of training? Rigger); After tracing the conceptual and methodological development of interpersonal sensitivity, the following discussion considers (l) informal, academic programs aimed at improving sensitivity, (2) empirical research investi— gating training in sensitivity, (3) individual differences in the impact of training, and (4) an evaluation of training research. Development of the Concept of Interpersonal Sensitivity The concept known as "the ability to understand people" has a long and varied history. One of the first constructs referring to this ability was "empathy." Dymond (1949, 1950) defined empathy as "the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling and acting of another.” It was assumed that an "empathic" person, through this transposing process, could perceive the characteristics of another person and thus predict his behavior. However, there seemed to be some inherent faults in the measurement of the ability: generally, the subject was given information about another person and was asked to predict how that person rated himself. A number of studies pointed out that the empathy score was seriously affected by such variables as projection, assumed similarity, and various rating errors (Hastorf and Bender, 1952: Bender and Hastorf, 1953; Lindgren and Robinson, 1953; Gage and Cronbach, 1955). In an attempt to clarify these methodological problems Cronbach (1955) published a study in which he proposed a statistical breakdown of empathy scores into four components: 1. Elevation: the way in which the judge uses the response scale: 2. Differential Elevation: the judge's ability to judge deviations of an individual's elevation from the average elevation: 3. Stereotype Accuracy: the judge's ability to predict the norm for the Objects (persons) he is judging: 4. Differential Accuracy: the judge's ability to pre— dict differences between Objects (persons) on any item. His analysis explained many of the contradictory research findings, and served as a basis for further methodo- logical developments. Differential Accuracy now seemed to be the key concept in the ability to predict the behavior of individuals. Attempts to develop a purer measure of this component were somewhat successful (Cline, 1955: Crow and Hammond, 1957: Cline and Richards, 1960). Pieper (1960), using a matching rather than a rating method, eliminated the influence of Elevation and Differential Elevation on Differential Accuracy. Bronfenbrenner §£_§1_(l958) furthered the conceptual and methodological development of the ability to understand individuals by treating it as a social skill, and by attempt— ing to define and measure independent components. He pro- posed two types of social perceptions: Sensitivity to the Generalized Other--an awareness of the social norm as the typical response of a large class or group (Cronbach's Stereotype Accuracy component); and Interpersonal Sensitivity-- recognition of the ways in which one person may differ from another (or from the average) in his behavior. Bronfenbrenner also felt that a thorough analysis demanded different kinds of predictions of behavior, and suggestéd inclusion of second ,person sensitivitye-A's awareness of what B thinks of him- self--and third person sensitivity--A's awareness of what C, a third person, thinks of B. By using predictions expressed as deviations from the mean, he obtained a measure .that was independent of the judge's similarity and sensitivity to the generalized other, a "pure” measure of Interpersonal Sensitivity, free from.the influence of Stereotype Accuracy. The most recent development of the concept is that of Smith (1966). Building on the work done by Cronbach and Bronfenbrenner, he proposes that the ability to predict behavior consists of six components (Level, Spread, Empathy, Observation, Differentiation between groups, and Differentia— tion between individuals), which are both defined and measured independently. Level and Spread, characteristics of the perceiver (Judge), are similar to Cronbach's Elevation and Differen- tial Elevation, but are defined as tendencies of the rater rather than as statistical components of an overall accuracy score. Empathy and Observation, related to the interaction between the perceiver and the person perceived, are defined respectively as "the tendency of the perceiver to assume that another person's feelings, thoughts, and behavior are similar to his own," and; "not the accuracy of inferences based on perceptions, but the accuracy of the perceptions themselves," Smith (1966). The remaining two components are associated with the person being perceived. Differentiation between gropps is the ability to predict the differences between groups, rather than predicting norms within groups as Bronfenbrenner and Cronbach proposed. The final component, and the one most relevant to the present study since it is used as the criterion for improvement in sensitivity, is Differentiation between individuals, or, as we refer to it, Individual Accuracy. Measured independently of the other five components, it is "the ability to differentiate between individuals when group membership cues are reduced to a minimum." This is the definition that will be used in the present study. Attempts to measure each of the six components have ~been fairly successful, and have.been combined with investi; gations of the determinants of each component. Grossman ' (1965) developed a measure of Level and Spread; Bruni (1963) a measure of Observational Accuracy: Mullin (1966) a measure of Empathic Accuracy; Johnson (1963) a measure of Differentia- tion between groups, and Grossman (1963) a measure of Differentiation between individuals. The training criterion used in the present study, developed by Grossman, is free from the influence of Level, Spread, and Differentiation between groups, and includes second and third person pre- dictions as suggested by Bronfenbrenner (1958). Reseagch on Sensitivity Training In his book, Smith (1966) discusses the need to improve programs aimed at training people to be more sensi— tive, and suggests ways of improving aCcuracy. This seems to follow naturally from the conceptual development of "interpersonal sensitivity" i.e., once we know what sensitivity is, can we train people to be more sensitive? The following sections deal with research on sensitivity training. The studies are divided into two parts: (1) those which equate psychological experience or course work with training (no formal training programs); and (2) those that interpolate training between a pre-test and end-test ‘(training programs are integrated into the research design). A final section will evaluate training research. Informal, Academic TrainingyProggams It has generally been assumed that psychological training leads to increased sensitivity: empirical research, however, does not seem to support this assumption. Studies comparing psychologists and non—psychologists on the basis of predictive accuracy find no differences between the two groups, and often the non-psychologists are found to be more accurate (Estes, 1938: Luft, 1950; Taft, 1955: SoSkin, 1959: Weiss, 1963: Stelmachers and McHugh, 1964: and Smith, 1966). Another group of studies, comparing the relationship between the number of psychology courses (one or more) and interpersonal sensitivity, finds no significant relationship between the two factors (Rabin, 1950; Taft, 1955: Trumbo, 1955; Smith, 1966: Grossman, 1963). Comparisons of under— graduates and graduate students in terms of the ability to predict behavior, have found undergraduates as accurate as the graduate students (Buzby, 1924: Wedell and Smith, 1951: Trumbo, 1955: Cline, 1955). Also, no differences in sensi- tivity have been found between graduate students in psychology, and practicing clinical psychologists (Kelly, and Fiske, 1951: Soskin, 1954: Taft; 1955). In general, across a variety of subjects, and a variety of sensitivity criteria, training (when equated with psychological experience or amount of course work) has not led to improvement in the ability to predict behavior. Empirical Research in Sensitivity Training There has been of late, increased interest in sensitivity training in industrial settings. This is due partly to a proposed relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and organizational effectiveness (Likert, 1961: Argyris, 1962). However, there has been a dearth of well- designed research which evaluates training programs (Carron, 1964), and as a result the effectiveness of sensitivity training has been questioned (Anderson, 1963). In general, studies have focused on individual differences in the impact of training and the correlates of improvement, rather than the effectiveness of the training program in improving sensitivity (Hariton, 1951: Papaloizos, 1962). In all cases the validity of the criterion of sensitivity can be seriously questioned (Miles, 1960). Let us turn now to some relevant studies. Martin (l938).had judges watch people being inter— viewed, and then asked the judges to estimate five traits of the interviewees. He gave the judges the correct answers, and then proceeded to the next interviewee. Using this training technique of practice and correction, he found improvement in judging ability, with a trial and error ,learning curve for each trait. Crow (1957) reported a study in which he investi- gated the effects of training on predictive accuracy, and the relationship between accuracy and variability. Using pre- and post-tests to evaluate training effectiveness, he gave his experimental group instruction in patient-physician relationships (the 83 were medical students), and more pro- longed contact with patients than the control group. Using three sets of 10 films each showing a physician interviewing a patient as input information, he asked the judges to predict how the interviewees rated themselves, and how they ”actually" should be rated. He found that the control group improved mpg; than the experimental group, although not significantly: training seemed to lead to a decrease in accuracy. He proposes that the experimental group showed a greater increase in the amount of differentiation in their judgments about patients, and shows that there is a negative relationship between variability of judgments and accuracy (twelve negative correlations between accuracy and variability significant at the .01 level). ”If a subject increases his differentiations among objects without a corresponding increase in estimating ability, he will make greater errors" (Crow, 1957). Using six different training programs, Wakeley (1961) investigated the effects of a brief (one-hour) training procedure on sensitivity. He used two criteria to test the effectiveness of the training: (1) Accuracy in Judging People-~the judge is asked to predict an inter— viewee's behavior after seeing him in a sound, color film; (2) Ability to Judge Differences between People--the judge has to differentiate between three interviewees with respect to their behavior. Of the six training programs 10 based on an analysis of the judging process, two focused on observation in the judging situation, two focused on infer- ring, one related to recording aspects of the situation, and one "outlined the analysis of the judging situation and presented all of the principles of the other five programs." Comparing pre- to post—test differences among the six experimental groups and the control group, Wakeley found no change in performance with the criterion.Accuracy in Judging People. However, with the criterion Ability to Judge Differences between People, both the combination (t 2.50, 28 df) and the Inferring-Pooling programs (t 2.69, 40 df) were effective in improving performance. A second study "confirmed the effectiveness of the Inferring- Pooling program and suggested that a modification of the Combination program was effective” (Wakeley, 1961). The Inferring-Pooling program emphasized the use of individually determined reference groups, a kind of stereotyping, in helping to improve sensitivity, and since Wakeley's criterion was probably heavily influenced by the Stereotype Accuracy component, it seems likely that this program would have the best chance of the six to improve sensitivity. Practicing clinicians were compared with under- graduates to investigate the relationship of experience (practical) to predictive accuracy (Oskamp, 1962). Their task was to predict, on the basis of an MMPI profile, whether a patient was hOSpitalized for psychiatric or medical reasons. Before training the undergraduates were inferior 11 in accuracy to the clinicians. However, after being taught a method of diagnosing the MMPI based on an actuarial decision— making system, the undergraduates' mean accuracy score was 72.6 compared to 71.7 for the clinicians (nonsignificant, t = 0.93). Oskamp concludes: "for this particular task, the brief training procedure had an effect on judgmental accuracy equal to many years of clinical experience and training." The success of the training programs seems due to their specificity, their use of immediate feedback, and extensive experience with the prediction task. Dailey (1963) reports a study in which 43 subjects were asked to predict events in the lives of twelve persons. In his ”programmed case" technique, life histories are pre- sented to the subject event by event, and the subject pre— dicts the next event (out of three possible events). The subject is then given the correct answer, and thus accumu— lates information about the person in the case. The im— portant training principles are immediate feedback and successive accumulation of information. Dailey compared total accuracy scores(across persons) for the first, second, third, etc., predictions, and obtained a chi square of 19.5 (df = 4, significant beyond the .01 level). He concludes "the subject does '1earn' another person if the data are programmed, and, there is a measurable degree of generalization of this skill to other cases." The study most comparable to the present one, both in experimental design and training criterion, is an 12 investigation of sensitivity training by Kepes (1965). Using pre- and post-tests with an experimental and control group, he studied the effectiveness of eight one-hour training sessions on improvement in sensitivity. The training was designed to stress the principles of practice, participation, and knowledge of results. The training criterion was the test of Interpersonal Sensitivity developed by Grossman (1963). This test consists of viewing sound, color films of interviews with three subjects (of the same sex), followed by sixty items which ask the judge to differentiate between the three people by predicting which one of the three behaved in a certain way. There is a men's test (60 items) and a women's test (60 items), and each includes second and third person predictions as suggested by Bronfenbrenner (1958). By the use of a matching technique and a double item analysis, the test is a relatively "pure” measure of interpersonal sensitivity (or Individual Accuracy as we refer to it). Items were constructed so that the subject had to match one of the three interviewees with a particular item, thus reducing the effect of Level and Spread. Items for the final form were chosen on the basis of high discrimination for interpersonal sensitivity, and no discrimination for group sensitivity, thus reducing the effects of stereotyping. The effectiveness of the eight-hour training program was tested by matching experimental and control subjects on the basis of pre-test scores and computing matched t— tests. Kepes found that there was a trend of increased 13 performance for second-person sensitivity, but no such trend was found for third-person sensitivity. His con- clusions are: (l) ”The main effectiveness of training was for those subjects who score low on the pre-test. It was suggested that these subjects make larger errors of stereo— typing, assumed similarity, and implicit personality theories." (2) ”Training was effective in enabling subjects to practice making inferences, to discuss their reasons for specific inferences, and to determine whether or not they were correct. The major limitation of the training was a lack of explicit guidelines for changing and correcting inter- personal inferences." He suggests constructing empirically derived personality theories as a means of establishing explicit guidelines. Individual Differences in the Impact of Training The concern here is to identify those characteristics that distinguish the person who shows improvement in sensiti- vity as a result of training (the ”improver") from the person who does pg; show an improvement in sensitivity (the "non-improver"). Studies have been made of the correlates of sensiti- vity itself (Cline, 1955; Taft, 1955; Grossman, 1963) but few have dealt with sensitivity training Egg the differen- tiation of improvers from non-improvers. Smith (1966) summarizes a discussion of who is sensitive in this way: In sum, the most sensitive person is the one best equipped to learn about people. He is curious 14 about and deeply involved with others but is neither gregarious or undiscriminating. He is open to people and non-defensive in his relations with them. He is frank about himself and bold, but not hostile, in his dealings with others. He is an intelligent user of complex concepts. Some research has been done on the personality correlates of improvement in sensitivity due to training. Hariton (1951) compared foremen who improved. (as a result of human relations training) with those who showed negative change, and found the improvers: (l) were more receptive to training principles: (2) saw more opportunity to use the results of their training: (3) were more highly motivated to use their training: and (4) were more adaptable. Papaloizos (1962), using the Maudsley Personality Inventory, found that normal extroverts (33% of his sample) were the only group that showed a significant improvement (pre- to post-test) on training criteria. He also found no correlation between intelligence and changes on the criteria. Miles (1960) in a study of human relations training outcomes, hypothesized that "persons high in ego strength, flexibility, and need affiliation were thought to be~more likely to WiSh for change in self, unfreeze, become involved, and receive feedbadk in a learningful way." Of the three factors, only flexibility was related to gains as a result of the training. Smith (1966) reviews five training studies and concludes: ”learning about people requires boldness--a willingness to approach people, ask questions, and express feelings . . . boldness is particularly relevant in 15 training, for the trainee who is a bystander will not learn.” He refers to an unpublished study by Hershey (1960) in which people were assigned to training groups on the basis of their social boldness score. The bold groups improved more than the cautious groups: they expressed opinions more freely, were more willing to listen to others, and more willing to change their own opinions. Cline and Richards (1959) describe their most sensitive trainees as possessing a considerable amount of ego strength, self-assuredness, and even conceit. Quite inconsistent findings were reported by Poplar and Jones (1966), who compared the personality traits of Gainers (83 showing a pre- to post-test increase on six or more of ten criteria) and Nongainers (showing a decrease in score on six or more criteria). They found that the Nongainers were more bold than Gainers--for male subjects, t = —l.37, 29 df, nonsignificant: for female subjects, t -2.00, 24 df, nonsignificant. Of all the studies reviewed, the preceding ones were the only ones to investigate correlates of improvement in sensitivity due to training. Even such simple variables as age, sex, and intelligence have not been fully investi- gated. One of the purposes of the present study is to fill in this gap in our knowledge of individual differences in the impact of training. Evaluation of TrainingiResearch ‘Previous studies have presented valid criticisms of past research attempts in sensitivity training. The two 16 major faults pointed out are: (1) many studies do not have formal training programs, but rather equate years of psycho- logical experience or course work with training--in such cases it is difficult to determine exactly what has been measured, and generalization is practically impossible: and (2) most studies fail to state explicitly the content of the training programs, and fail to specify a framework or guidelines for improvement in sensitivity. These two factors prevent one from drawing any significant conclusions from past research. But two relevant comments should be added. First, in order to obtain an accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of any training program, a rigorous experimental design must be used. The most suitable design utilizes experimental and control groups, with pre-tests and post-tests on a training criterion for both groups. Few studies have used this type of design. Secondly, in light of the previous discussion on the concept of interpersonal sensitivity, it would seem that a training criterion that is a relatively "pure" measure of sensitivity is a necessity. The key ability seems to be Individual Accuracy--”the ability to differentiate between individuals when group membership cues are reduced. to a minimum" (Smith, 1966). The variety of criteria pur- ported to measure "sensitivity" is very broad, but in many cases it is unclear exactly what it is that is being measured. 17 Much of the training research in the past has suf- fered from one of the above—mentioned criticisms. However, these investigations have helped to establish the criteria for an effective training study: (1) a suitable experimental design to evaluate effectiveness of the training program: (2) a specific formal program providing a structure for learning, and guidelines for change: (3) a training criterion that is a relatively "pure" measure of sensitivity, i.e., Individual Accuracy: and (4) the use of practice, partici— pation and feedback as general training principles. CHAPTER II PROBLEM The preceding discussion brings the problem of evaluating sensitivity training into clearer focus. We now have some specific criteria from which we can develop an appropriate research study. The present investigation is an attempt to conduct such a study. First, the experimental design included experimental and control groups (students enrolled in Psychology of Personality), and both groups are given a pre- and post-test on the training criterion. Secondly, the goal of the train- ing was to improve sensitivity, defined operationally as Individual Accuracy. The training criterion is a "pure" measure of sensitivity, being free from the influence of Level, Spread, and stereotypes. Thirdly, a unified training program was developed with the goal of increasing Individual Accuracy in mind. The actual content of the training program is specific, and practice, participation, and feedback are utilized as principles of training. Finally, an explicit, empirical theory of the basic personal- ity traits is introduced as part of the training program. The purpose of the theory is to provide guidelines for change, and to provide a framework within which the subject can develop his predictive ability. 18 19 Having fulfilled the criteria for a successful re- search study, it was felt that the present investigation could help to clarify some of the conflicting findings arising from past evaluations of sensitivity training. Towards this end, some specific hypotheses were developed, and they are presented below. 1. Participation in a specially designed training program will result in an increase in Individual Accuracy. 2. Gains in Individual Accuracy will be greater for second person predictions than for thirdgperson predictions. Kepes (1966) found an increase in sensitivity for second-person predictions but not for third person predictions. It appears that second person predictions are more direct and less difficult than third person predictions, and thus should be more amenable to improvement through training. 'This hypothesis is presented to permit validation of this relationship. 3. rThose subjects with greater knowledge of the explicit empirical personality theorygwill show greater gains than subjects with less knowledge of the theopy. For purposes of clarity, let us define what we mean by empirical personality theory. In general, a theory is a set of concepts, and an assumed relationship between them. The concepts in this case are the empirically-derived personality traits: but the traits are independent of one another, and thus the assumed relationship is one of 20 independence. The twenty—two scales from which the five traits are derived were taken from various personality inventories, and thus have been derived and validated by other psychologists. Our purpose has been to adopt these emperically-derived traits as a framework for organizing behavioral cues, and as guidelines for improvement of sensiti- vity. 4. The holder subjects will show greater_gains in Individual Accuracy than the cautious subjects. This hypothesis is included in an attempt to clarify the conflicting findings of Hershey (1960) and Poplar and Jones (1966) with regard to the relationship between boldness and increases in sensitivity. In addition to the above Specific hypotheses, it was felt that further investigation of individual differences in the impact of training would be beneficial. However, due to the lack of previous findings on which to base hypotheses, this aspect of the study is somewhat exploratory. Towards this end the relationships between gains in Individual Accuracy and the following variables were investigated: age, sex, intelligence, and four personality traits (Impulsive— Controlled, Extroverted-Introverted, Rational-Empirical, Emotional-Calm). CHAPTER III METHOD The research was divided into the following phases: (1) pre-testing on the sensitivity criteria and administration of the Protebob Personality Inventory: (2) administration of five one-hour training sessions designed to improve sensiti- vity: (3) post-testing on the sensitivity criteria: and (4) testing of the experimental hypotheses by appropriate methods of data analysis. A secondary analysis investigated the variables related to improvement in sensitivity. Subjects The subjects in the experimental groups were Michigan State university students enrolled in the Fall, 1965, class of Psychology of Personality (N = 301), Section 1. The subjects in the control group were MSU students enrolled in the Fall, 1965, class of Psychology of Personality, Section 301 (N = 49). Table 1 presents a breakdown of these subjects by sex and by training group. The purpose of the three experi- mental groups will be explained later in the General Procedure section. See Appendix E for complete analysis of the sample sizes. 21 22 Table 1. Sample- sizes. Subjects Males Females Total Individual Accuracy Training Group 49 44 93 Empathy Training Group 47 44 91 Level Training Group 59 58 117 No Training Group 28 21 49 Criterion Instrument The criterion instrument used to measure changes in sensitivity from the pre-test to the post-test (See Appendix A) was a modification of the film test originally developed by Cline (1955) and later modified by Grossman (1963). The original test consisted of two sound color motion picture films of interviews with three men and three women. Each interviewee in the films was asked a series of standard questions dealing with his personal values, hobbies, reactions to being interviewed, religious beliefs, and personality strengths and weaknesses. There are two subtests, the "men test" and the ”women test.“ In the present study only the "men test" was used, due to the brevity of the time available for testing. The testing procedure was as follows: the subjects viewed the threetmen in the process of being interviewed, and then were asked to answer a series of questions (60 in all) which require them to predict which of the three men (a) responded in a certain way to a statement, (b) described himself in a certain way, or (c) was rated or described by his friends in a certain way. 23 There are two types of predictions in the men test: second person accuracy, in which the subject is asked to make judgments about how the interviewee views himself (30 items): and, third person accuracy, in which the subject makes judgments about how other people (friends and relatives) view the interviewee. Grossman (1963) started with Cline's original data (which consisted of tests, questionnaires, and ratings completed both by the interviewees and their friends and relatives) and developed a purer measure of "Interpersonal Sensitivity.” First, to lessen the effects of Stereotype Accuracy upon test scores, he grouped the films by sex, three men, and three women, and developed items for both groups. Second, the items were constructed so that the judge had to match one of the three subjects with a particular item, thus reducing the effects of Level and Spread. Items for the final form were chosen on the basis of (1) high discrimination for interpersonal sensitivity, and (2) no discrimination for group sensitivity (Stereotype Accuracy): this further reduced the effects of stereotyping. The odd- even reliability for the "men test” was .50, for the "women test” .36, and for the total test, .59. Only the men test was used in the present study, and it was chosen because of its higher reliability. The major modification made was to change from a visual presentation (films) to a written presentation (typescripts of the original interviews). The reason for this change was threefold: 24 (l) elimination of visual cues probably reduces the effect of stereotyping by eliminating the physical appearance cues which have a powerful influence (McKeachie, 1952: Secord, 1958); (2) ease of administration to a larger group of subjects, and (3) control over extraneous variables such as memory, and differences in hearing and vision. In addition, there is empirical evidence (Giedt, 1955: Borke and Fiske, 1957: and Kepes, 1965) that mode of presentation.has no ; significant effect upon predictive accuracy. The final form of the criterion consisted of the typescripts of the interviews with the three men, followed by a sixty-item test, 30 items measuring second person accuracy, and 30 items measuring third person accuracy. Measures of internal consistency were obtained for the test using the Kuder-Richardson formula No. 20, and these are presented in Table 2, for all three experimental groups, and the control group. Table 2. Reliabilities ofthe individual accuracy criterion (internal consistency). N Second Third Person (Person Experimental Groups Pre-test 360 .57 .56 Post-test 283 .45 .60 Control Group Pre-test 93 .71 .79 Post-test 61 .68 .73 25 Additional Experimental variables There are some additional variables which are crucial to this study: their particular relevance is to the delineation of those factors which lead to improvement in sensitivity. First the background and intellectual ability variables will be discussed, and then the personality variables. Demographic Variables Certain variables are of value for a complete evaluation of the effectiveness of the training program, and therefore the following data were obtained for each subject in the Fall, 1965, class of Psychology of Personality, Section 1. Age: The age of each subject was obtained. Sex: Each subject recorded his (or her) sex on the IBM answer sheet. American Council on Education Psychological Examination for College Freshmen (ACE): This is a measure of scholastic aptitude. A quantitative, linguistic (verbal), and total score were obtained. Grade Point Average: Based on the subject's overall academic record. Course Grade: The gradeimithe Psychology of Personality course, based on two examinations, a total of 104 multiple choice questions. Personality Achievement Score: Based on two quizzes of knowledge of the personality theory: a total of 32 multiple-choice questions. 26 Attendance: Number of training sessions attended. Personalitnyariables The personality variables actually play a dual role in this study. First, they form an explicit, empirical theory of personality which is used as a part of the train— ing program. The goal of the training is to have this theory replace the implicit personality theories that the subjects previously used to make judgments about people. The theory is based on a factor analysis of twenty-two personality scales, and the subsequent development of five basic factors. These factors, and their related traits are presented in Table 3. The factor loadings are also given as an.indication of how heavily that trait is "saturated" with the factor. The second use of the personality variables (Linden, 1965) was in the form of the Protebob Personality Inventory (see Appendix B). This test is composed of 200 items, with 40 items measuring each of the five basic traits listed in Table 4. Each of the subjects in the experiment took this test, and received a profile of their scores. Our interest is in finding out which of the traits is related to improve— ment in sensitivity: What are the personality characteris- tics of the person who has increased his sensitivity as a result of the training program? Our specific hypothesis is that the ”bold person" will be more likely to show an improvement due to training. Internal consistency and stability measures for the Protebob Personality Inventory are presented in Table 4. 27 Table 3. An explicit and empirical theory of common basic traits of personality. Basic Traits and Related Traits Loading 1. The Cautious vs. The Bold Submissive Dominant .79 Low activity level High activity level .71 Low self-confidence Self-confident .63 Pessimism Optimistic .62 2. The Emotional vs. The Calm Emotional Calm .79 Critical Amiable .74 High sensory awareness Low sensory awareness .55 Cold Warm .34 Expressive Inhibited .32 3. The Introverted vs. The Extroverted High artistic values Low artistic values .72 Low economic values High economic values .68 Introverted thinking Extroverted thinking .64 Low manifest sexuality High manifest sexuality .55 4. The Impulsive vs. The Controlled Unambitious Ambitious .82 Unorganized Organized .77 Low emotional control High emotional control .50 Gregarious Aloof .37 5. The Rational vs. The Empirical Resistance to change Readiness for change (conservative) (Liberal) .67 Religious believer Religious sceptic .66 Social conformist Nonconformist .59 NOnscientific Scientific .49 (Linden, 1965) Table 4. Reliabilities of the Protebob Personality Inventory. N = 322. . Internal . . Trait Consistency Stability Cautious-Bold .88 .83 Emotional-Calm .88 .81 Introverted-Extroverted .90 .92 Impulsive-Controlled .80 .80 Rational-Empirical .90 .94 (Linden, 1965) 28 General Procedure In order to aid the reader, a summary table of the overall experimental design is presented in Table 5. Section 1 was split into thirds alphabetically so that three separate experimental groups could be established. Section 301 was divided alphabetically to provide two control groups for different training criteria. The data gathered in the Fall, 1965, class of Psychology of Personality included three hours of testing (pre-test, post-test, Protebob Personality Inventory) and five hours of training. Actually, three separate training programs were carried out. The Level program was conducted by the instructor of the course. The level component is a judge's normal tendency to rate people favorably or unfavor— ably. The object of this program was to teach the subjects to maintain a flexible level, varying with the actual judging conditions. A second program, conducted by a graduate student in psychology, concerned a component of interpersonal sensiti- vity known as empathy, defined as the tendency to assume similarity to other people. The aim of this program was to improve the accuracy of a judge's assumed similarities. Their relevance for our purposes relates to the fact that both of these other training groups took the pre- and post-test on the Individual Accuracy criterion. There- fore, in some cases, they can be considered as second and third control groups. In fact, since they were students in the same class as the Individual Accuracy experimental group, for some situations there is a high degree of 29 ecu mcHHSU umoqumom ecu EuH3 .mcoflmmom usonloco o>Hw .mxoo3 usom Xaoumeflxonmmm mm3 Ammsoum Houucoo pom HmucoEHummxo neon Homv DmoUIpmom pom Iona coosuon oEHB .Hson nuxflm «mmsoum Hmucmfiflnomxo now mcficflmua ummulumom mflumufluo Ham mauoufluo Ham menopauo Ham umouuumom momusoud. so umoqumom co ummqumom co ummqumom homusoum HMSOH>HUCH oflnummam paw Ho>on mcasflmua maficfimus mcflcflmus >0musoo¢ mcflcflmue oz Ho>oa Hospw>flch anummam umoquum >0musoo¢ humusoofl HoopH>HUCH mauouflno Ham menoufluo Ham menopauo Ham Uflnumoem can Ho>oq so umouloum, co ummuloum co unoplonm N I A x I d N I o z I m 0 I m macaw m .02 msouw N .02 msouo a .02 macaw Houucoo Hmucofifluomxu Hmucofiauomxm. Hmucoaauomxm Hom aceuomm .mmm smoaososmm a sofluoom "mmm mmoHonoxmm .cmammp Hmucofifluwmxo Hamum>o .m manna 30 comparability. The reader will find that from time to time these groups are used for purposes of comparison: in such cases, the relevance of the comparison will be stated. A further consideration of these two groups is important for the general improvement of sensitivity training programs. By comparing these three groups, it may be possible to uncover some significant facts that otherwise might be lost. This point is discussed further in the Discussion section. The purpose of the Individual Accuracy training program was to improve the ability to differentiate be- tween people. This was to be achieved by five one-hour training sessions interpolated between the pre- and post- test on the criterion. A brief description of these five sessions is presented in Table 6. Table 6. Summary of the contents of the training sessions. Training Session Contents 1 Lecture on the purpose, method, and sequence of training. 2 Brief test and discussion on knowledge of the empirical, explicit personality theory. 3 Matching of written biography and personality profiles (based on the Protebob). 4 Live interview with three male students in class, followed by behavior prediction test. 5 Typescripts of interviews with three women followed by the Women's Individual Accuracy Test. 31 The contents of each session are listed in the follow- ing paragraphs. The training materials used in each session are found in Appendix C. Training Session l.--This session consisted of a lecture which gave the subjects an overall View of the training program. It included four basic topics: (1) the overall program--the goal of developing sensitivity with the focus on Individual Accuracy, and the concepts of second and third person sensitivity: (2) the method--the use of the empirical personality theory, and, the relationship between observation of behavior. use of the theory to order the information gathered, and prediction of behavior on the basis of the ordered information: (3) sequence of training-— knowledge of theory, practice in relating behavior to traits, practice in making predictions from live interviews, practice in making inferences from written typescripts: and (4) cycle of each session--information presented, prediction, feed- back of correct answers, discussion, second set of pre- dictions. Training Session 2.--The subjects were asked to predict whether people who had a certain personality trait (each of the five basic traits was considered) would answer true or false tO-a set of items (see Training Session No. 2, Appendix C). After completing a group of items, the correct answers were given, and the basis for making choices was discussed. Then the Ss completed the next set of questions, received feedback, discussed choices, etc. until all of the 32 five traits and their related items had been completed. Training_Session 3.--In this session the 85 were given a group of three biographical sketches, and a group of three personality profiles (based on the Protebob Personality Inventory). Their task was to match each biography with its corresponding profile by using the in- formation gathered from the biography. .After completing this task, they were given the correct answers, and the reasons for their choices were discussed. Then the pro- cedure was repeated with a second set of biographies and profiles. Training Session 4.--This session began with the experimenter asking a standard setcflfquestions to three male volunteers in front of the class. The interviewees had each previously completed the same-series of personality measures. The class was then asked to make behavioral predictions which required them to differentiate between the three interviewees. After completing a group of twenty items, the class was given the correct answers, and, in addition, the personality profiles of the three men (from their Protebob Personality Inventory scores). -The class then completed a second set of predictions about the:inter- viewees. TrainingySession 5.—-In this session the subjects were given the typescripts of interviews with three women who had been asked a standardized set of questions concerning 33 themselves and.their values and beliefs. The judges' task was to choose which of the three women had made a certain response to a personality questionnaire item, or had been described in a certain way by their friends and relatives. After completing one set of items, they were given the correct answers, their choices were discussed, and then they were asked to complete a second set of items. This test uses the same format as the criterion instrument except that the interviewees in this case were women. This enables the trainees to have practice on a task similar to the actual training criterion. Method of Data Analysis The basic measure of improvement in sensitivity due to the training program is the difference between pre- and post-test scores on the criterion. To insure that these differences are due to the training programs and not to other uncontrolled.variables, the difference scores of the experimental groups should be compared to the difference scores of the control group, on the assumption that the training is the only differential variable affecting scores on the criterion. However, past research (Kepes, 1965) has shown that pre-test scores are related to improvement in sensitivity (gains scores). That is, there may be differential improve- ment along the range of the pre-test scores, with those Ss who start low having a greater probability of showing 34 improvement than those who start with higher pre-test scores. Table 7. presents data to show this differential improvement effect in the current research. It can be seen that the phenomenon occurs for all three experimental groups as well as the control group. Table 7. Relationship between pre—test scores and gains on the post-test criterion. i . . % above median % below median Training Group showing gains showing gains gpd Person: Level 34 77 Empathic Accuracy 30 68 Individual Accuracy 36 71 Control 33 64 3rd Person: Level 26 64 Empathic Accuracy 33 61 Individual Accuracy 15 62 Control 14 64 In addition, correlations were obtained for the relationship between pre-test scores and gains on the criterion for the Individual Accuracy training group. These correlations are presented in Table 8. Table 8. Correlations between pre-test scores on the criterion and gains in scores as a result of training. Subjects N 2nd person 3rd person gains gains Males 48 “-60 _.60 Females 44 -.50 -.56 Total 92 -.54 -.58 35 As seen in Table 7, if a subject's pre-test score is below the median score, he is more likely to show improve— ment on the criterion than if his score is above the median. In Table 8, it is seen that there is a strong negative relationship between pre-test scores and gains on the criterion, supporting the data found in Table 7. Because of this relationship it was felt that a matched t—test would be more suitable for the analysis of difference scores because it would permit matching subjects in the experimental and control groups on pre—test scores, controlling for any differential improvement effect, and providing greater comparability between the groups. All comparisons between experimental and control groups pre- sented in the Results section are based on a score for score matching procedure. A secondary analysis concerned the variables related to individual differences in the impact of trainhng. The variables included here are discussed in a previous section (Additional Experimental Variables). The data were analyzed by the use of a correlational analysis run on Michigan State's Control Data 3600 computer. Because of the relation- ship between pre-test scores and gains on the criterion, partial correlations were calculated so as to obtain a clearer picture of the relationship between the additional variables and training gains. The correlations presented in the Results section are partialcorrelationsl‘with the influence of pre-test score partialed out of the original correlations. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The results of this study will be presented in two sections. The first section deals with the overall effective- ness of the Individual Accuracy training program and pre- sents results concerning the first three hypotheses: (l) parti— cipation in a Specially designed training program improves Individual Accuracy: (2) gains in Individual Accuracy will be greater for second person predictions than for third person predictions: and (3) those subjects with greater knowledge of the explicit empirical personality theory will show greater gains in accuracy than those subjects with less knowledge of the theory. The second section deals with individual differences in the impact of training. It presents results concerning the fourth hypothesis: bolder subjects will show greater gains in accuracy than the cautious subjects. Also, results concerning the influence of personality and intellectual factors will be presented. The two other experimental groups are used to clarify the generality of the major findings by highlighting the similarities (and differences) in results for the three training groups. Comments on the effectiveness of these other training programs (Level training, and Empathy training) 36 37 in improving Individual Accuracy will be reserved for the Discussion section that follows this one. Table 9 Presents a summary of the results. Table 9. Summary of evidence for hypotheses. Hypothesis Level of Confidence 1. Participation in a training program improves Individual Accuracy .05 2. Gains in second person predictions .05 for 2 of 3 will be greater than gains in third experimental person predictions . ' groups 3. Subjects with greater knowledge .05 in the negative of the explicit personality theory direction for 2nd will show greater gains than subjects person gains with less knowledge 4. The bold subjects will show greater gains in Individual Accuracy than the cautious subjects Males, .05 Females, not signifi- cant Due to the matching procedure, the Ns used in the following tables vary. Where possible the N is incorporated into the body of the table: where thiswould hamper readability, the Ns are given immediately below the table. Effectiveness of Training Hypothesis.l: _Participation in a specially designed training ppogram improves Individual Accuracy. Table 10 presents the overall results of the matched t-tests for all three training groups. Each group is matched with the same identical control group, so comparisons across 38 groups are possible. The figures show that the training programs led to significant increases in Individual Accuracy, and thus provide support for the hypothesis stated above. It seems that all three programs lead to equivalent gains in accuracy. Table 10. Matched t-tests for all subjects (males and females combined) in all training groups on total Individual Accuracy. (N = 19) ._ . Initial Einal . Subjects Score Score Gain t Individual Accuracy'Training .Group 26.68 27.05 0.37 1.81* Empathy training group " 27.16 0.48 1.80* Level training group ” 27.26 0.58 1.89* No training group " 24.42 -2.26 *=significant at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis 2 suggests that gains for second person predictions would be greater than those for third person predictions. Results concerning this hypothesis are pre— sented in Table 11. Again, within each type of prediction, the experimental groups are matched with the same control group. The results show.that gains for second person pre- dictions are significant for two of the three experimental groups. The results of the matched t—tests for third person predictions, however, show no significant increase in accuracy for all three experimental groups. In terms of actual numerical gains, also, no increases in accuracy are revealed. These data provide support for the hypothesis stated above: the training programs led to significant increases in second 39 person Individual Accuracy, but did not lead to increases in third person Individual Accuracy. In fact, no increase at all was found for third person predictions. The training programs seem to improve the ability of a judge to predict how a person describes himself, but do not help him to predict how other people would describe this person. Table 11. Matched t-tests for all experimental groups on second and third person individual accuracy. 2nd person, N = 37: 3rd person, N = 34 .Initial Final Type of Prediction Score Score Gain t 2nd Person: Individual Accuracy Training Group 12.16 12.76 0.60 0.66 Empathy training group " 13.43 1.27 1.74* Level training group =" 13.59 1.43 1.70* No trainingygroup " 12.27 0.11 3rd Person: Individual Accuracy Training Group 13.65 13.00 -0.65 N.S. Empathy training group ," 13.59 -0.66 N.S. Level training group " 13.65 0.00 N.S. No training group " 13.35 0-30 * = significant at the .05 level of confidence .N.S. = not significant Hypothesis 3: Those subjects with greater knowledge of the explicit, empirical personality theory will show greater gains than subjects with less knowledge of the theory. The correlations in Table 12 show the relationship between knowledge of the theory and gains on the training criterion for the Individual Accuracy training group. All of the correlations are negative, and two of them are 40 statistically significant. The data do not provide support for Hypothesis 3 stated above:- actually it seems that, for 2nd person gains, knowledge of the personality theory leads to decreases in Individual Accuracy. The hypothesis is not supported: greater knowledge of the theory does not lead to greater increases in predictive accuracy. Table 12. Correlations between Knowledge of Personality theory test and gains on Individual Accuracy criterion. Subjects N 2nd person 3rd person Total gains gains gains Males 48 -.27* -.05 -.18 Females 44 -.13 -.12 -.16 Total $3 92 -.l7* -.08 -.16 * = significant at the .05 level. Table 13 presents the correlations between attendance and gains on the criterion for the Individual Accuracy training group. There is no significant relationship between any gains scores and attendance: attendance is not related to improvement. Table 13. Correlations between training session attendance and gains on the Individual Accuracy criterion. Subjects N ’2nd person 3rd person Total gains gains gains Males 48 .16 -.08 .06 Females 44 -.04 -.07 —.07 Total $5 92 .05 -.06 .01 41 Individual Differences in the Impact of Trainigg In this section we look at sex differences, dif- ferences in personality factors, and differences in intel- lectual factors, in that order. Sex Differences Table 14 presents the results of t—tests comparing the performance of male and female subjects matched with same-sex control groups on total Individual Accuracy. A cheek was made of the comparability of the two groups of subjects by calculating a t-test on the pre-test scores. The test showed no significant differences in pre-test means for male and female subjects (t = 0.38, 17 df). The data show that male subjects compared with a male control group, show no significant increases in Individual Accuracy across all three experimental groups. However, two of the three experimental groups of females (when compared with a same-sex control group) did show statistically signifi- cant increases in total Individual Accuracy. The third group's performance approaches significance (a t of 1.9 is needed for significance at the .05 level, with 6 df). The results seem to indicate that females show greater responsivenessixnthe training programs than the male subjects do. Since differences between second and third person types of predictions are of interest to the present study, a comparison of male and female subjects was made on this 42 basis. jects again showed no significant differences: t = 0.68, 37 df: (b) 3rd person: t = 0.09, T-tests of the pre-test scores of male and female sub- (3) 2nd person: 32 df. Table 14. Matched t-tests for male and female subjects in all groups, on total individual accuracy. Male, N = 12: Females, N = 7. . Initial Final . Subjects Score Score Gain ‘t Males: Individual Accuracy Training Group 27.00 26.75 -0.25 0.48 Empathy training group " 27.50 0.50 0.95 Level training group " 26.83 -0.17 0.55 No trainingygroup ” 25.92 -1.08 Females: Individual Accuracy Training Group 26.14 27.57 1.43 2.53** Empathy-training group »" 26.57 0.43 1.55 Level training group " 28.00 1.86 2.38** No training group, " 21.85 -4.29 ** = significant at the .025 level of confidence. The results are presented intTable 15. Again, all experimental groups are matched with an identical same-sex control group. The findings here are less conclusive: only one t-test was statistically significant, and this was for the Level training group. However, a general comparison indicates a slight tendency for the females to show higher performance gains on both second and third person predictions. 43 Table 15. Matched t-tests for male and female subjects in all groups on second and third person individual accuracy. 2nd person: .Males, N'= 24: Females, N = 15. 3rd person: —Males, N = 22: Females, N = 12. . Initial Final . i ‘ Subjects Score Score Gain t 2nd Person Accuracy: Males: Individual Accuracy Training Group. 12.29 12.63 0.34 -0.68 Empathy training group " 13.63 1.34 -0.61 Level training group " 13.04 0.75 -0.04 No trainingigroup, " 13.08 0.79 Females: Individual Accuracy Training Group 11.67 11.73 0.06 0.24 Empathy training group ” 12.60 0.93 1.15 Level training group " 13.60 1.93 1.98* No trainingggrogp " 11.40 -0.27 3rd Person Accuracy: Males: Individual Accuracy Training Group 13.50 12.59 -0.91 -l.07 Empathy training group " 13.68 0.18 0.05 Level training group " 13.41 -0.09 -0.25 No training grogp ” 13.64 0.14 Emilee: Individual Accuracy Training Group 13.58 15.00 1.42 1.75 Empathy training group " 12.50 —1.08 0.00 Level training group " 13.83 0.25 1.29 No training group " 12.50 -l.08 * = significant at the .05 level of confidence. Focusing Specifically on the Individual Accuracy training group, a direct comparison of male and female subjects in this group was made. The results of the matched t-tests are presented in Table 16. No significant difference 44 was found for second person predictions. But for third person predictions, female subjects when compared to male subjects, showed a significant superiority in gains in Individual Accuracy. However, the difference seems due more to the decrease in the scores of male subjects than in an increase in the scores of the female subjects. Table 16. Matched t-tests comparing male and female subjects (in Individual Accuracy training group) on Individual Accuracy criterion. . Initial Final . Subjects N Score Score Gain t 2nd Person: Males 35 12.62 12.97 0.35 0.23 Females 35 12.62 12.77 0.15 3rd Person: Males 32 13.59 12.13 -l.46 -2.31** Females 32 13.59 13.81 0.22 ** = significant at .025 level of confidence. Differences in Personality Factors Hypothesis 4: The bolder subjects will Show greater geins in Individual Accuracy than the cautious subjects. The boldness scores noted in Table 17 are taken from each subject's score on the Cautious-Bold factor of the Protebob-Personality Inventory: only subjects in the Individual Accuracy training group are included here. The correlations show a significant relationship between Boldness and total gains on the criterion for male subjects, but not for female subjects. On the basis of this data we must conclude that the hypothesis is partially supported. 45 Table 1?. Correlations between Boldness scores and gains on the Individual Accuracy criterion. . 2nd person 3rd person Total Subjects N gains gains gains Males 48 .13 .21 .24* Females 44 .05 -.03 .01 Total $5 92 .08 .08 .10 * = significant at the .05 level. Table 18 presents the data regarding the relation- ship between gains on the criterion and four factors from the Protebob Personality Inventory. In order of their presentation in the table, they are: Emotional—Calm, Introverted-Extroverted, Impulsive-Controlled, and Rational-Empirical. It is important to keep in mind that the factors are relatively independent, and that the results presented here are exploratory. The correlations in Table 18 show that for female subjects, no particular personality characteristics are related to improvement in Individual Accuracy. For male subjects two personality factors are significantly related to gains in Individual Accuracy: Calmness and Controlled. Male subjects who show improvement as a result of training tend to be more emotional and more impulsive. Differences in Intellectual Factors Table 19 reports the relationships between various indicators of intellectual aptitude and ability and gains in score on the training criterion. Grade point average 46 Table 18. Correlations between personality variables and gains on the Individual.Accuracy criterion. . Calm- Extro- >Control- Empiri- Subjects N ness version led cal 2nd person gains: Males 48 —.17 .17 -.21 -.11 Females 44 -.10 .17 -.01 .00 3rd person gains: Males 48 -.30* -.19 -.33* .14 Females 44 .09 .05 .06 -.04 Total gains: Males 48 -.30* -.04 -.36** .06 Females 44 -.03 .15 .02 -.01 * significant at the .05 level. ** = significant at the .025 level. Table 19. Correlations between measures of intellectual ability and gains en the Individual Accuracy criterion. Males, N = 48: Females, N.= 44 Grade ACE ACE Subjects Point Course Quanti- Linguis- ACE Average Grade tative tic Total 2nd_personygains: Males .06 -.12 -.24 -.ll -.21 Females .16 .06 -.10 .06 .11 3rdgperson gains: Males .14 .12 -.04 ..08 .06 Females -.03 -.06 -.25 -.29 -.25 Total gains: Males .18 .07 -.18 .00 -.ll Females .ll .01 -.19 -.11 -.05 47 and Course grade are measures of intellectual achievement, one a general measure, and the other Specifically related to achievement in the course in which the subjects (the Individual Accuracy training group) were enrolled. The three ACE scores are measures of aptitude, given to all incoming freshmenat Michigan State. No significant cor- relations are found between any of these measures and gains. However, it appears the relationship is more positive for measures of achievement than for measures of aptitude. A final factor that was included in this study was age. The correlations between age and gains on the criterion for male and female subjects combined are: (1) for second person gains, r = -.07: (2) for third person gains, r = .07: and (3) for Total gains, r = .00. Thus, there seems to be no relationship between age and gains on the training criterion, for the restricted range of age available in our sample. CHAPTER V IDISCUSSION Effectiveness of the Training Program The results of this study support the hypothesis that participation in specially designed training programs leads to increases in predictive.accuracy: individuals participating in the training showed significant improve- ment on the Individual Accuracy training criterion. Comparison of increases in second person predictions-~when the judge is asked to predict'how another person views himself--and third person predictions, where the judge predicts how a third person will view a particular individual, suggest that second person gains are greater. The findings do not support the third hypothesis: subjects with a greater knowledge of the empirical personality theory did not show more improvement on the training criterion than subjects with less knowledge of the theory. In fact, there was a significant negative correlation between knowledge of the theory and second person gains on the criterion. Explanation of the Findings The improvement in Individual Accuracy can be attri- buted to a number of factors. One of these is the presence 48 49 of clearly stated, explicit goals of training. The subjects were provided with their own scores on the pre-test, and thus knew where they stood in terms of their ability to predict behavior. Also, the first training session provided them with a clear picture of what was expected of them during the training, and gave them an idea of what to expect in the course of the training. The subjects knew the task on which they were expected to improve and they were provided with a picture of how this improvement was expected to occur. Many studies in the past have failed to provide this kind of structuring (Crow and Parson, 1957: Miles, 1960). The make—up of the training sessions provides another source of aid for improvement. The use of practice, participation, and knowledge of results is a key factor in any training program. rEach training session permitted the subjects to practice making predictions of behavior, to discuss the reasons for their predictions, and to evaluate the effectiveness of their predictions through the use of feedback. This allows them to focus on the judging process, and enables them to improve their performance. The sequence of the overall training program also heightens the possibility of improving performance. It is based on a breakdown of the components of the prediction process: (1) observation of the behavior of a person; (2) underlying causative personality characteristics: and (3) prediction of behavior. The training first focuses on 50 information or cues obtained from observation, and their relationship to underlying personality characteristics. Then a theory of personality traits is presented, and the subjects practice relating observed behavior to traits, and making comparisons across persons based on trait dif- ferences. Next they practice comparing individuals on the basis of trait differences and then making predictions on the basis of these differences. This procedure permits them to make their predictions in a more organized, systematic manner, and helps them to improve the general accuracy of their predictions. The failure of the use of an explicit personality theory to aid improvement is probably due to three factors. First, knowledge of the theory does not necessarily guarantee that it will be used in the prediction process. Implicit personality theories are highly resistant to change, and although a new theory is presented, the individual is not really sure that it will help him to improve his predictions. Second, the items measuring knowledge of the personality theory were part of two quizzes given in the Psychology of Personality course. There was no attempt to relate the items to the training program, and perhaps the subjects saw no direct relationship between knowledge of material presented as the content of a course and the use of this material as an essential aspect of the training program. Third, the theory itself may not have provided enough information con- cerning the relationship between observed behavior and the 51 underlying personality characteristics associated with it. The theory provides a means of differentiating between indivi- dualstIterms of differences on the five personality traits but may not provide enough detailed information on the behavioral cues indicative of these differences. Agreement with Previous Findinge Only two studies are comparable with the present investigation. Wakeley (1961) compared the effectiveness of six different training programs in improving predictive accuracy, and found two of them-—Pooling and a Combination program--to lead moincreases in accuracy. His Pooling program was based on a form of stereotyping, and since the present training criterion eliminates the influences of stereotypes, it cannot be compared to this study. But the contents of his Combination program are similar to our analysis of the prediction process, and our results here seem comparable to his findings. Use of this analytical procedure in training seems to be a key factoriJIthe design of an effective training program. The study most relevant to the present one, is an investigation carried out by Kepes (1966). Using a similar training procedure and experimental design, he found a trend in the direction of increased performance on second- person sensitivity as a function of training." This result agrees with our finding of significant improvements in second-person predictions. As pointed out by Kepes, both Bronfenbrenner t l (1958) and Grossman (1963) have —_——— 'fi SI; 52 suggested that second— and third-person sensitivity have different determinants, and this could be the cause of the differential improvement in second- and third-predictions found in the present study. Predicting the behavior of another person is a fairly straightforward process; pre- dicting what a third person thinks of another individual is a much more complicated process. Besides the influence of one's own implicit theories, one must consider how the implicit theories of this third person influence pie views of the individual we are asked to make predictions about. This compounding factor could lead to more difficult predictions, and thus reduce the accuracy of third—person predictions. In addition, the training program did not include a specific consideration of the problems of third- person predictions, and focused more on factors concerned with second-person prediction. This combination of factors could account for the differential improvement for the two types of predictions. Individual Differences in the Impact of Training The only specific hypothesis concerned with individual (differences involved the Cautious-Bold factor measured by the Protebob Personality Inventory. It was hypothesized “that the bold subjects would show greater improvement on the training criterion than the cautious subjects. The results show that this is true for male subjects, but not for female subjects. Thus the hypothesis is not fully supported. 53 Hershey (1960) found that bold groups improved more than cautious groups on a written test of the ability to predict behavior, but he does not deal with sex differences. Poplar and Jones (1966) found female gainers more cautious than male gainers. More research is needed to clarify the relationship between sex, boldness and training gains. Sex Differences In general, the results seem to suggest that females profit more from the training program than males do. The comparisons made Show that the female subjects made greater gains on the training criterion than did the male subjects. Past research has suggested that there is no sex difference in ability to judge, or perhaps a slightly superior ability in women (Taft, 1955: Grossman, 1963). The present research suggests that training has a differential impact on men and women, and that training helps to develop the ability of women more than the ability of men. Motivation could be an important factor in this situation: in our society women are expected to be more interested in other people and in social relationships, and perhaps they are more motivated to learn, and to improve their ability to under- stand other people. Personality Differences The exploratory findings presented in the Results section suggest that: (l) for female subjects the personality characteristics investigated lead to no differential training 54 improvement: and (2) for male subjects, the more emotional, and impulsive Show greater improvement on the training criterion. Only three studies were found that investigated the relationship between impact of training and personality variables (Hariton, 1951: Miles, 1960: and Papaloizos, 1962): two deal with human relations training, and one with T—group training, and thus they are not directly comparable to the present study. The results suggesting that males who are more emotional and more impulsive show greater gains cannot be compared to any prior studies. However, the relationships seem to make some sense. The more emotional males are more critical, have higher sensory awareness, and are more expressive: this would permit them to look more closely and carefully at the behavior they are observing, to be more aware of all the cues present in the behavior, and to feel more free to express their feelings and opinions about what they see and hear. All of these factors seem to lead to more sensitivity and responsiveness to the training program, and result in greater improvement. The more impulsive subjects are more gregarious and perhaps this leads to increased social interaction and social knowledge, and thus helps increase sensitivity. This relationship is not too clear, and future investigations may help to clarify it. 55 Differences in Intellectual Factors The results concerning these factors are again exploratory. In general, the findings seem to indicate that intelligence is not a crucial factor in the improve- ment of Individual Accuracy. An important factor to consider here is the nature of the sample. All of the subjects are college students and as such have a higher level of intelli- gence than a random sample drawn from the general population. Also, the range of intelligence in the sample is somewhat restricted, and this would tend to depress the size of any correlations obtained. Therefore, although no significant relationship between intellectual ability and gains is found, the high minimum level of intelligence of the subjects must be kept in mind. Future investigations should include a wider range of intelligence to more rigorously test this relationship. The interpretation of the correlations is further clouded by the fact that there is no consistency in the correlations for male and female subjects. It would seem that for a factor such as intelligence, there should be only slight differences between male and female subjects, yet some large differences do occur. Thus caution should ‘be taken in making any definitive statements concerning the findings reported. 56 Methodological Considerations The Criterion The requirements for an adequate criterion are: (1) it should include all levels of item difficulty: (2) relatively clear differences should exist among the Others to be judged: and (3), judgments should be made between two or more individuals. The present criterion meets the first and third requirements by providing various levels of item difficulty, and requiring differentiation~ among three men. Satisfying the second requirement is more difficult, especially because of practical limitations. To insure clear differences one would have to gather data on a large number of people, and choose those with extreme differences. However, getting detailed data from a large group of people is almost impossible: usually one must rely on volunteers, and often there are only a handful. Secondly, how does one decide what characteristics are most important in setting up extreme:differences?--do differences in bold- ness lead to more accurate predictions than differences in degree of extroversion-introversion? More information is needed about the relationship between cues obtained from loehavior and predictive accuracy before this question can ‘be answered. The use of written typescripts rather than films seems to have no harmful effect on reliability, and it simplifies administration greatly, so it is recommended ffi b4 (3. I) 57 that this mode of presentation continue to be used. Limitations of the Present Research One of the difficulties encountered in the training sessions was obtaining a thorough discussion of the reasons for predictions among the class members. This was due partly to the size of the group which averaged about one hundred students. Related to this was the problem of making feedback of the correct answers in a meaningful way. It is suggested that in the future groups of about L/. twenty subjects would be ideal, and some audio-visual means of feedback be utilized. Another problem was the maintenance of a high level of motivation. Design of practice tasks should begin with relatively easy predictions and proceed to more difficult ones. Often the subjects would become frustrated if the predictions asked of them were too difficult. Pre-testing of all practice materials would seem to provide one means of alleviating this problem. A limitation mentioned previously was the lack of relating Specific behavioral cues to the underlying per- sonality traits. Some form of systematization would be desirable, e.g., classes of cues related to personality traits. In general, more research needs to be done to isolate Specific behavioral cues related to personality characteristics. 58 The Other Experimental Groups It is evident from the tables presented in the Results section of this study, that the training given in the Level and Empathy training programs led to improvement on the Individual Accuracy criterion. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into the Specific nature of this phenomenon. Sufficient data is not yet available, and the experimental design does not permit certain comparisons across the groups. However, some comments are in order. One possibility is that both of these programs utilized diagnostic tests which provided information to the subject about his judging habits. This type of general information could easily lead to improved performance on all of the various components of sensitivity, including Individual Accuracy. The subject becomes more aware of his personal biases in making predictions, and elimination of these biases could lead to heightened predictive accuracy. Moreresearch is called for, especially in the area of the effectiveness of diagnostic tests, and in the appropriate sequencing of training. Perhaps it would be best to begin 'training by focusing on the individual, and trying to show laim how his own biases and prejudices are affecting his predictions. Then the training could move on to a more (detailed examination of the prediction process itself, to a look at the role of behavioral cues, implicit personality theories, etc., and finally to an improvement of specific predictions. 59 Implications There remains the question of what implications the present research results have for the design and evaluation of future training programs. Hypotheses derived from a consideration of the overall results of the study are pre- sented below. Each is followed by a summary of the major facts that suggested that hypothesis, speculations about ways the hypothesis might be tested, and some of the more general implications of the hypothesis, if correct. 1. Training that stresses what a person is and does is more effective than training that stresses what others think he is or will do. With regard to the training criterion, the elimination of third person predictions seems desirable. The results of the present study indicate that training can improve the accuracy of second person predictions (judging what a person is and does)--t Significant at the .05 level, but does little to improve third person accuracy (judging what others think he is or will do)-—t not significant. This finding is supported by similar results found by Kepes (1966). Elimination of third person predictions from the criterion \NOUlO probably increase its reliability, and would permit training to focus exclusively on increasing the accuracy of predictions of actual behavior. Since most of the daily judgments we make about people are predictions of what they ‘think of themselves or of us, this would make the training Inore useful and more realistic. 60 Third person predictions require more complex judgments because the judge is not asked to predict how the person actually behaves, but rather how another person thinks he will. This increases the number of variables that must be considered in making a prediction, making it more difficult, and this also makes the design of an effective training program that much more difficult. The state of our knowledge in this area does not yet permit a clear delineation of all relevant variables. From a practical point of view, students are often confused by third-person predictions, and eliminating them would lead to less confusion and clearer goals. Also, data gathered from the person himself is probably more valid than data gathered from a third person. The implication that stressing predictions of actual behavior would lead to more practical, realistic and valid training criteria, and training goals, could be tested by comparing the performance of two groups who received the two different types of training on a common criterion. 2. Traineesvmo take Level training before Individual Accuracy training will improve more than those who do the reverse. The development of the component approach has given rise to the question of the optimal sequence of training. Our suggestion would be to focus first on the individual and his judging habits, and then move on to differentiation between individuals. 61 The present study did not include a direct test of the sequencing hypothesis, but the results suggest that Level and Empathy training are as effective as the Individual Accuracy program in improving Individual Accuracy (all three ts for total gains are significant at the .05 level), and in some cases more effective (for second person gains, Level and Empathy t-tests are significant at the .05 level, but the Individual Accuracy group showed no significant gain). It could be argued that the other trainers were more effective. But they taught completely different programs, so what the subjects learn plays a more important role than who trains them. It could also be argued that the training materials were different, or better developed for one group than another. This is possible, but there is no reason to assume so, and besides, the effectiveness of the materials in improving predictions has never been determined. All three groups had some common training material (the '"women test”), but it was utilized differently in each group. It is the author's opinion that the first phase of training should be Level training. Through the use of diagnostic tests and feedback, this training helps the subject learn about himself and about his judging habits. His ability to diagnose and correct his judging errors will eenhance the effectiveness of subsequent Individual Accuracy training. The increased self-understanding gained through the Level training can provide a high level of motivation 'throughout subsequent training programs, and can help lower the subject's resistance to change. P‘Y 62 Training should proceed from less stressful to more stressful situations. Level training is less stressful than Individual Accuracy training because: (1) there are no right or wrong answers, just information about one's judging habits: (2) it requires less complex judgments: and (3) it does not create frustration due to the lack of a pass-fail situation. Level training should therefore precede Individual Accuracy training. This hypothesis could be tested by comparing two matched groups-~one receiving Level training then Individual Accuracy training, and the other Individual Accuracy, then Level training—-on a standardized criterion. 3. The most effective training matches the training methods to the varying personalities of the trainees. The results of the present study show that bold males do well in this type of training, but bold females do not. Perhaps some other method would be more suitable for these females. Hershey (1960) used a group discussion Inethod and found that his bolder subjects improved more. ‘but he failed to investigate sex differences. More research is needed before additional specific recommendations can be made, but, in general, bold subjects inculd probably benefit more from training using small groups. iHere they could assert themselves, say what they feel, listen 'to what others think and develop a greater willingness to <:hange. Cline and Richards (1959) found that trainees in fr-groups (intensive group interaction) who improved more 63 were bolder. Larger groups may be more suitable for the more cautious subjects. This hypothesis could be tested by comparing both cautious and bold subjects who participated in small group discussion training with their counterparts who participated in large group (lecture-type) training. 4. Most effective training is achieved by_closely articu- latingethe discussion of theoreticaleprinciples with practice in applying them. Training research has suffered from the lack of a sound theoretical basis from which programs could be developed. When training is equated with psychological experience or course work, no relationship is found between training and improvement in sensitivity (Taft, 1955: Smith, 1966). The theoretical principles are presented, but not practiced. The few studies where principles are practiced have shown that training can improve sensitivity, e.g., Wakeley, 1961: Kepes, 1966, and the present study. Theory alone does not seem sufficient: practice and feedback must accompany it. This hypothesis could be tested by comparing groups which have received varying proportions of theory, and practice in applying the theory. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purposes of the present study were twofold: (l) to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program designed to increase Individual Accuracy, and (2) to investi- gate Specific individual differences in the impact of training. Individual Accuracy was defined as the ability of a judge to differentiate between individuals when group member- ship cues are reduced to a minimum, and to use this knowledge in making predictions about the individuals. The training program utilized the principles of practice, participation, and feedback, focused on systemati- zation of the prediction process, and used an explicit empirical personality theory as a guideline for change. The training criterion consisted of the typescripts of interviews with three men followed by sixty items which required the judge to make predictions differentiating be- tween the men. Thirty items measured the accuracy of second— person predictions, and thirty items measured the accuracy of third—person predictions. The experimental design involved pre- and post-tests on the training criterion for both the experimental and control groups, and comparison of pre- to post-test dif- ferences for the two groups through the use of matched 64 t-tests. 65 A correlational analysis was used to study the individual differences in the impact of training. The training program consisted of five one-hour training sessions interpolated between the pre- and post- test on the training criterion. There was a period of approximately four weeks between the pre-test and post-test. On the basis of the data reported, the following conclusions can be made: 1. Specially designed training programs can lead to significant improvement in Individual Accuracy. Most of this improvement can be attributed to an increase in the accuracy of second-person predictions. The use of an explicit, empirical personality theory as a guideline and aid to change does not seem to be related to improvement in Individual Accuracy. For male subjects, boldness is related to gains on the criterion: for female subjects, there is no relation between boldness and improvement. Male subjects who are more emotional, and more impulsive show greater gains on the criterion as a result of training. No specific personality factors are related to differential improvement in Individual Accuracy among female subjects. Female subjects show slightly greater improvement on the criterion than do male subjects. 66 7. Age and intellectual ability have no clear relation- ship to improvement in Individual Accuracy. It was suggested that future training programs use smaller groups, more discussion of, and more effective presentationrflfi knowledge of results, and a criterion com- posed exclusively of second-person predictions. Also, the use of diagnostic tests of the various components of sensiti- vity was suggested as a likely starting point for future training programs. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson. W. How effective is human relations training for the first line supervisor? Personnel, 1963, .gg. 62-66. Argyris, C. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood, 111.: Irwin, 1962. Bender, I. E., and Hastorf, A. H. On measuring generalized empathic ability (social sensitivity). J. abnorm. SOC. PSYChOl.( 1953' fig] 503-506. Borke, Helen,and Fiske, D. W. Factors influencing the prediction of behavior fromia diagnostic interview. J. consult. Psychol., 1957, gr, 78-80. Bronfenbrenner, V., Harding, J., and Gallwey, M. The . measurement of skill in social perception. In McClelland. D. C. (ed.). Talent and Society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958, pp. 29-108. Bruni, E. A film test of accuracy in observing people and its correlates. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. Buzby, D. E. The interpretation of facial expression. Amer. J. Psychol., 1924, 1;, 602-604. Carron, T. J. Human relations training and attitude change: A vector analysis. Personnel Psychol., 1964, 11, 403-422. Cline, V. B. Ability to judge personality assessed with a stress interview and sound film technique. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, eg, 183-187. Cline, V. B., and Richards, J. M. Variables related to accuracy in interpersonal perception. Second annual report, Office of Naval Research, Contract NE 171-146. University of Utah, 1959. Cline, V. B., and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal perception: A general trait? J. abnorm. soc. Peychol.. 1960. _6_0. 1-7. 67 68 Crow, W. J. The effect of training upon accuracy and variability in interpersonal perception. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, §§, 355-359. Crow, W. J. and Hammond, K. R. The generality of accuracy and response sets in interpersonal perception. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, i4, 384-390. Dailey, C. A. An experimental method for improving inter- personal understanding. Peychol. Reports, 1963, .;§. 240. Dymond, R. F. A scale for measurement of empathic ability. J. consult. Psyehol., 1949, 1;, 127-133. Dymond, R. F. Personality and empathy. J. consult. Psychol., 1950, 13, 343-350. Estes, S. G. Judging personality from expressive behavior. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1938, 33, 217-236. Gage, N. L., and Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodo- logical problems in interpersonal perception. Peychol. Rev. 1955, eg, 411-422. . Giedt, F. H. Comparison of visual, content, and auditory cues in interviewing. J. consult. Psyehol., 1955, 12, 407-416.. Grossman, B. A. The measurement and determinants of inter- personal sensitivity. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. Grossman. B. A. The ALAS test. Unpublished research project. Michigan State University, 1965. Hariton, T. Conditions influencing the effect of training in new human relations principles. Diss. Abstr., 1951, ll, 734. Hastorf, A. H. and Bender, I. E. A caution respecting the measurement of empathic ability. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 31, 574-576. Hershey, D. L. The relative effectiveness of discussion groups with dominant and submissive members. Unpublished research report. 1960. Johnson, R. L. Correlates of a test of group sensitivity. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. Kelley, E. L., and Fiske, D. W. Theeprediction of_performance in clinical psychology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951. 69 Kepes, S. Y. Experimental evaluations of sensitivity training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State university, 1965. Likert, R. Newgpatterns of management. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961. Linden, J., The self-centered orientation in interpersonal relationships. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Lindgren, H. C., and Robinson, J. An evaluation of Dymond's test of insight and empathy. J. consult. Psyehol., 1953. 11, 172-176. Luft, J. Implicit hypotheses and clinical predictions. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950,.gi, 756-759. McKeachie. W. J. Lipstick as a determiner of first .impressions of personality. J. soc. Psychol., 1952,‘;§, 241-244. Martin, H. W. Effects of practice on judging various traits of individuals. Psychol. Bull., 1938, §§, 690. NHles. M. B. Human relations training: Processes and outcomes. J. counsel. Psychol., 1960, 1, 301-306. .Mullin, J. Reliability and validity of a projective.fi1m test of empathy. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University. 1962. Oskamp, S. W. The relation of clinical experience and training methods to several criteria of clinical prediction. Psychol. Monogr., 1962, 19, No. 28 (Whole No. 547). Papaloizos, A. Personality and success of training in human relations. Personnel Psychol., 1962, re, 423-428. Pieper, W. J. Study on and revision of a test on accuracy i 'udging people. unpublished research pnoject. Mic 'gan State university, 1960. Poplar, J., and Jones, D. Personality traits and sensitivity training. Unpublished research study. Michigan State University, 1966. lRabin, A. I. Szondi's pictures: identification of a diagnosis. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950, 3; 392-395. 70 Secord, P. F. Facial features and inference processes in interpersonal perception. In R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo (Eds.), Personyperception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958- Smith, H. C. Sensitiviey toppeople. New YOrk: McGraw- Hill, 1966. Soskin, W. F. Bias in postdiction and projective tests. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1954, 32, 69-74. Soskin, W. F. Influence of four types of data on diagnostic conceptualization in psychological testing. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, §§, 69-78. Stelmachers. Z. T., and McHugh, R. B. Contribution of stereotyped and individualized information to predictive accuracy. J. consult. Peychol., 1964, .;§, 234-242. Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull., 1955. eg, 1-23. Trumbo, D. A. The development and analysis of a test of the ability to predict behavior. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1955. wakeley, J. H. The effects of special training-on accuracy in judging others.' Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Wedell, C., and Smith, K. V. Consistency of interview methods in appraisal of attitudes. J. appl. Psychol., 1951, ;§, 392-396. ’ Weiss, J. H. Effect of professional training and amount and accuracy of information on behavioral predictions. J. consult. Psychol., 1963, 27, 257-262. APPENDICES The Training Criterion The Protebob Personality Inventory Training Materials Additional Statistical Data Explanation of Varying Sample Sizes . APPENDIX A THE INDIVIDUAL ACCURACY CRITERION Directions: This is a test of your ability to make accurate predictions about people. You will be given information about three men--Mr. George, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Allen. Your task is to make judgments about the three men: that is, to predict their behavior. The Case of Mr. George Mr. George is a middle-aged, married man with one child. As part of a research project on understanding people, he was given a brief interview. A typescript is given below. Psycholcgist: "What sort of person are you? How would you characterize yourself as a person?" .Mr. George: "Just an average person. I like the normal things most people do. I like sports, I like to dance and play around that way. Of course, I don't run around, I'd say I was getting into a stable class. I'm over the younger fling." Psychologist: "What would you consider to be your greatest personality difficulty or handicap?" Mm. George: ”Well, maybe too reserved." Psycholggist: _"You find you're too reserved,in what way?" NE; George: "Well, especially in business. I think I take too much of what the boss says, and do it. And, though maybe I can do it better. I do it the way he says to avoid trouble. In other words, I try to get along with people, which is good. But maybe sometimes I should say more about it to maybe help me and the others.” Psychologiet: "Assert yourself a little more?” Nun George: "Yes.” Psychologist: "Do you ever lose your temper?" Mr. George: "Well, very seldom with the person. I may become upset. I try my best not to let them know it." JPsychologist: "What would you do if someone told a lie about you?” g. George: "Well, what kind of a lie - that I did something I didn't?" 73 74 Psychologist: "Yes. A lie that perhaps would be damaging to your character.? Mr. George: "Well, I don't know, but I imagine I'd try and find out why the person said it. Maybe, as far as he knew, he was telling the truth.” Psychologist: "Do you think that you would go to him and talk to him about it?" Mr. George: ”If it was of importance. otherwise I would forget it." Psychologist: "What sort of hobbies do you particularly enjoy?" Mr. George: ”Well, I like to make things. Oh, woodwork and hunting I guess are the main things." Psychologist: ”How important do you feel religion is to people in these times? Mr. George: "I don't go in for religion too much. I believe that it is necessary for everybody to have a basic belief. As far as the religious part goes. in my own living I don't place that as a major issue." Psychologist: "Then religion is not too important to you personally?” Mr. George: "No." Psychologist: "But you do feel that people should have some sort of basic faith?” Mr. George: "Yes, they have to have a code to live by, and that's the best one I can think of." The Case of Mr. Walter Mr. Walter is a young married man with two children. As part of a research project on understanding people, he was given a brief interview. A typescript is given below. Psychologist: ”Just what sort of a person arerou?” Mr. Walter: "That's hard to determine. I'm one type of person to myself and another type of person to society. I'd have to give two definitions to answer that correctly - how I am to myself, and how Ijam to people who know me." Psychologist: ”Would you like to discuss that a little further? What sort of a person are you to yourself?” Mr. Walter: "Well, I think I'm a person of probably over- average intelligence. with ambitions to be able to better myself and my society, to be able to help society." Psycholggist: ”What sort of person do you feel you are to other people?" Mr. Walter: "Well, I hope I'm pretty nearly the same kind of person to other people as I am to myself. I get along well with most people, I don't have a great many friends; I have a few intimate friends, and! with these people I'm quite close. I get along well 75 with these people. And, I can be pretty compatible with most people." Psychologist: "What do you feel is your greatest personality handicap?" Mr. Walter: ”The fact that I try too hard to do things, I believe. This hinders me from being able to do things - by being under certain tensions.” Psycholggist: "Do you ever lose your temper?" Mr. Walter: ”Rarely." Psychologist: "What sort of thing would cause you to lose your temper?" Mr. Walter: "Well, never having lost my temper completely - I've always been able to hold my emotions pretty well in check - it would have to be a fairly devastat- ing thing. I think, to make me lose it. or to become completely out of control of myself." Psychologist: ”What sort of hobbies do you particularly enjoy?" Mr. Walter: "Golf, music, spectator sports - I am not too athletic - tennis, things such as this." Psyehologist: ”Well, how important do you feel religion is to people in these times?” Mr. Walter: "That's a pretty deep subject. Not being a deeply religious man myself, it isn't too important to me. The moral teachings of religion help man be able to live better with himself. and with other people in society. I think today it's quite important for most people - not for the supernatural aspects of it, but for the moral teachings of religion." Psychologist: "You don't feel that it's necessary for you?" Mr. Walter: ”Not necessary, no." The Case of Mr. Allen Mr. Allen is a young, single man. As part of a research project on understanding people, he was given a brief interview. A typescript is given below. Psychologist: "Just what sort of person are you?" Mr. Allen: "Well. I guess an easy-going one. I'm easy to get along with.” Psychologist: "Well, what else can you tell me about your- self as to what sort of person you are?" Mr. Allen: "Well, I guess that's about all. I have some temper - not much.” Psycholggist: "Well, what would you consider to be your greatest personality handicap?" Mr. Allen: "Well, I guess just paying attention when there are people talking to me. Just paying attention to them." Psychologist: "Do you have difficulty paying attention to people when they talk to you?" 76 Mr. Allen: ”No, No, I don't have no difficulty, it's just that whenever I walk into a place, I just don't speak, I'm quiet." Psychologist: ”Oh, I see, you find yourself quiet. Do you have difficulty making friends?” Mr. Allen: ”No. No, I don't find no difficulty making friends. Psychologist: ”After you once get to know them. then. But to begin with, you feel a little reServed about it, is that it?" Mr. Allen: "YUh." Psychologist: "Well, do you ever lose your temper? What sort of thing would cause you to lose your temper?” Mr. Allen: "Once in a great while. It has to be something pretty mean, I guess, or something pretty big. One I guess is just - I don't know - couldn't tell you that untillflost my temper. Well, for instance, my little brother taking off with my car." Psychologist: "That would make you unhappy?" Mr. Allen: ”Yuh." Psychologist: "What would you do if someone told a lie about you?” .Mr. Allen: ”I guess that would make me a little sore too. if it wasn't true." Psychologist: "What would you do about it? Would you go to the person and talk to him about it?" Mr. Allen: "I wouldn't do nothing. Just sort of keep it to myself.” Psyehologist: “Well, how would you feel, and what would you do if someone gave you a million dollars?” NE. Allen: "I'd be pretty happy, I guess. I guess I've never thought about what I'd do with it. I'd spend it I guess.’ Psychologist: "What sort of things do you do in your spare time, when you're not working?” .Mr. Allen: "Oh, usually drive around: I like to drive around quite a bit." Peychologist: ”Do you participate actively in any sports. or are you a spectator?" .Mr. Allen: ”No, I participate in it. Basketball, for instance." Psychologist: "Well, tell me, how important do you feel religion is to people in these times? How is it important to you?” Mr. Allen: "Yes, I really do think that religion is important. I don't know, I guess just being good, people go out, and that ain't so bad, just going out and partying, but after that, the way they gather--." Psychologist: ”And you think that religion would affect that sort of thing?" .Mr. Allen: "I think so, because of conscience - people have a conscience, and that would be on it." :Psychologist: "In what way is religion important to you?" Mr. Allen: ”I don't know, well, sometimes when you go out ——I partying, you feel like doing something else, and yet you don't." 77 Psychologist: ”Because of your religion, is that it?" Mr. Allen: "Uh-huh." 78 Behavior Predictions INSTRUCTIONS: All the men in the interviews filled out a series of attitude and personality scales. Their friends rated them on a series of traits and also gave sketches of them. The statements below are based on the answers that the men and their friends gave. When you answer the questions, use only spaces 1, 2, and 3, on the IBM ,sheets. The numbers correspond to the order in which the interviews appeared. That is, Mr. George is (1), Mr. Walter is (2), and Mr. Allen is (3). In other words, if you think the answer to a particular question is: Mr. George mark "1" Mr. Walter mark ”2" Mr. Allen mark "3" The correct answers are known from the attitude scales and other tests that the interviewed men filled out. Also, the correct answers are equally distributed among the three men. You may go back and reread the inter- views if you wish to. Religious Beliefs (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr.‘Walter, and (3) Mr. Allen, filled out a rating scale about their religious beliefs. Which one answered in the following manner? Correct Answer 2 67. Agreed that "I am unable to accept the idea of 'Life after death' at least not until we have some definite evidence there is such a thing." 3 68. Agreed that "God will punish those who disobey his commandments and reward those who obey Him (either in this life or a future life)." 2 69. Disagreed that "There exists an evil intelligence, personnage, or spirit in the universe often referred to as Satan or the Devil." 79 Adjective Check List description of themselves. In each of the pairs below only one of the men checked the adjective underlined. Mark ”1" if you think it was Mr. George, ”2” if you think it was Mr. Walter. or "3" if you think it was Mr. Allen. 2 70. Arrogant - apathetic 2 71. Progressive — outgoing 3 72. ghy - assertive 1 73. Steady - Spunky l 74. Tolerant - ingenious 1 75. Stable - robust 1 76. Practical - charming 3 77. Contented - quick 1 78. Warm - forceful l 79. Moderate - artistic 2 80. Restless - unemotional 3 81. Sincere - original 1 82. Good-natured - painstaking 3 83. Kind - insightful 1 84. Changeable - tense 3 85. Loyal - clever 3 86. Considerate - sharp-witted l 87. Foolish - cynical Personality Inventory Items (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr. Walter. and (3) Mr. Allen were given a series of true—false items. Which one of the three answered false to these items? 3 88. I like to be the center of attention. 3 89. It is easy for me to talk to strangers. 2 90. At times I think I am no good at all. Which one of the three answered true to these items? 2 91. I easily become impatient with people. 1 92. I take a pretty easy-going and lighthearted attitude toward life. 2 93. My hardest battles are with myself. 94. Policemen are usually honest. 95. I seldom have quarrels with the members of my family. 1 96. I do not always tell the truth. w w 80 Thumbnail Sketches by Friends Friends of (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr. Walter, and (3) Mr. Allen also gave described 2 97. 2 98. 3 99. 2 100. 3 101. 3 102. 3 103. 1 104. l 105. 1 106. 2 107. l 108. 3 109. 3 110. l 111. 3 112. 2 113. 2 114. thumbnail descriptions of them. Which one was as follows? "Is in a state of rebellion against all religions." "Enjoys almost all good art and music." "Does quite poorly in speaking to groups.” "Rather fussy about what he eats and how it is prepared." "Is shy and reserved at parties." "Prefers going steady with one person." "Rather easy-going with no great ambition.” ”Is fairly easy-going with his children." "Raises voice a little but maintains control in family arguments." ”Is about average in regards to ambition." ”Somewhat insecure and highstrung.” "Is easy to get along with." ”Is a rather quiet and humble person." ”Loyal, honest, and kind." "Enjoys himself at parties, but is not much noticed." "very reliable and hard working." ”Avoids emotional scenes with people because they make him feel most uncomfortable.” "Tends to 'stew' about things, changes his mind back and forth before making final decisions." Ratings by Friends (1) Mr. George, (2) Mr. Walter, (3) Mr. Allen, were rated by their friends on a series of personality traits. Which one was rated as follows? 2 115. 2 116. 2 117. 2 118. 3 119. 3 120. l 121. 3 122. 2 123. 2 124. l 125 1 126. least affectionate most rebellious least shy least friendly least egotistical most careful least ambitious least realistic least confident most egotistical least rebellious least careful APPENDIX B BG/HS. 5/65 THE PROTEBOB PERSONALITY INVENTORY Directions: There are no right pr wrong answers to the l'-‘ bum U1 (>QO 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15° 16. 17. following statements. They represent experiences, preferences, ways of doing things, or beliefs that are true of some people but are not true of others. Read each statement and decide whether or not it is true with respect to yourself. Indicate your answers on the separate answer sheet. Mark "1" if it is true or more true than false of yourself. Mark "2" if it is false or more false than true of yourself. I like to make a very careful plan before starting in to do anything. I am guided in all my conduct by firm principles. I find it rather hard to keep toaa rigid routine. I like to be with people who don't take life too seriously. Whenever I have to undertake a job I make out a care- ful plan of procedure. never lose my head. set very difficult goals for myself. am not particularly methodical in my daily life. generally go from one thing to another in my daily life without a great deal of planning. I like to keep all my letters and other papers neatly arranged and filed. HHHH I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation. Most of my Spare money is used for pleasure. I occasionally neglect serious things in order to have a good time. I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property. I always finish one task before taking on others. I find it difficult to keep my mind on one detail for very long. I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and without much change in plans. 82 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 83 I can always do a good job even when I am very excited. I am extremely ambitious. I'm occasionally disorganized if I am called on suddenly to make a few remarks. I enjoy work more than play. I feel that friendship is more important in life than anything else. I really don't like to drink alcoholic beverages. I find that my minor likes and dislikes change rather frequently. I frequently obey whatever impulse is strongest. I am considered extremely "steady" by my friends. I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside for eating. I keep my workplace very neat and orderly. I believe in getting as much fun as I can out of life. I believe that I have the disposition of a pleasure- seeker. I generally seek whatever makes me happy here and now. I would rather see a musical comedy than a documentary film. I live more for the future than for the present. I believe that what a person does about a thing is more important than what he feels about it. I like to be with people who are not preoccupied with the future. I am greatly influenced in minor decisions by how I happen to be feeling at the moment. I am much more interested in activities which I can enjoy for their own sake than in activities which are of long range benefits. I spend a good deal of time thinking about my plans for the future. . I accept my feelings as the best guide for my actions. I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one thing for a long time. I am more interested in what I see and hear than in abstract principles. I am temperamentally more a sceptic than a believer. I am more interested in general ideas than in specific facts. No individual, no matter what the circumstances, is justified in committing suicide. The idea of God must remain absolutely central to the whole plan of human purpose. It is possible that there is no such thing as divine inspiration. My faith in God is complete for "though he slay me, yet will I trust him." 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 84 I believe that everybody would be happier if both men and women had more sexual freedom. I carry a very strict conscience about with me wherever I go. I consider the close observance of social customs and manners as an essential aspect of life. I have occasionally doubted the reality of God. It is absolutely vital to assume that there is a God behind the Universe. A person Should develop his greatest loyalty toward his religious faith. The world might benefit from.having a new kind of religion. I think that it is much more important to learn to control sexual impulses than to express them. I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others. Some of my friends think my ideas are a bit wild and impractical. I control my sexual impulses by instituting prohibitions and restrictions. I have always been unalterably convinced of the reality of God. I would rather be a salesman than a scientific research worker. The thought of God gives me a complete sense of security. The European attitude toward mistresses is more sensible than ours. I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong. In matters of conduct I conform very closely to custom. I haven't yet reached any final opinion about the nature of God. It is as important for a person to be reverent as it is for him to be sympathetic. The idea of God means more to me than any other idea. I think that cremation is the best method of burial. In the long run, science provides the best hope for solving the world's problems. I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines. Radical agitators should be allowed to make public speeches. Women should have as much right to propose dates to men as men to women. I believe we should have less censorship of Speech and press than we do now. I often act contrary to custom. Science should have as much to say about moral values as religion does. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 85 I would enjoy the kind of work that a scientific research worker does. I think that I have a more rigorous standard of right and wrong than most people. It is necessary to retain the belief that God exists as a personal being. Divine inspiration is an infallible source of truth. Compared to your own self-respect, the respect of others means little. I enjoy going to art galleries very much. I would like to hear a popular lecture on contemporary painters. I can deal much better with actual situations than with ideas. I like to discuss abstract questions with my friends. If I had unlimited leisure and money, I would enjoy making a collection of fine sculptures or paintings. I have seldom really enjoyed an art course. I like to visit exhibits of famous paintings. Sports generally interest me somewhat more than very intellectual affairs. I am mainly interested in ideas that are very practical. I like abstract paintings. am an extremely practical person. like balIet performances. sometimes think more about my ideas than about the routine demands of daily life. I only work for concrete and clearly-defined results. I would rather be a salesman than an artist. HPdH If I had the ability, I would enjoy teaching poetry at a University. Magazines such as Arts and Decorations bore me. I get an intense pleasure from just looking at a beautiful building. I like to read poetry. Artistic experiences are of great importance in my life. I would like to take a course in the modern novel. I would rather read "Business Week" than "Atlantic Monthly.“ I spend a lot of time philosophizing with myself. I tend to judge people in terms of their concrete accomplishments. I tend to accept the world as it is and not worry about how it might be. I always keep my feet solidly on the ground. I think there are few more important things in life than money. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 86 I am really only interested in what is useful. I prefer friends who have well developed artistic tastes. In a discussion, I tend to lose interest if we talk about serious literature. I think I would like to decorate a room with flowers. I have never tried to collect pictures of paintings I like. I would rather see a movie than read a book. My head is always full of imaginative ideas. I believe that competitiveness is a necessary and desirable part of our economic life. I would rather read an article about a famous musician than a financier. I often think for a long time about an idea that has occurred to me. I would particularly enjoy meeting people who had made a success in business. I prefer the friends of my own sex to be very efficient, and of a practical turn of mind. Daydreams are an important part of my life. I am generally regarded by others as a leader. I am very self-confident. I like to have people around me practically all the time. I am generally active in my everyday life. I generally talk very quietly. Most of the time. I am extremely carefree and relaxed. I am quite often lacking in self-confidence. I am cautious about undertaking anything which may .lead to humiliating experiences. I enjoy speaking in public. 'There are few things I enjoy more than being a leader of people. I have frequently assumed the leadership of groups. I am a rather carefree person. I feel somewhat inferior as a person to a few of my friends. . I am frequently discouraged by my own inadequacies. When I meet a stranger, I sometimes think he is a better person than I am. I am somewhat more shy than the average person. I generally feel self-conscious in the presence of important superiors. I am inclined to limit my friends to a few people. I always like to be with people rather than be alone. I spend myself freely as I have plenty of energy. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. ,151, 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 87 I would rather listen to a story than tell one. I prefer quiet games to extremely active ones. I frequently become involved in too many activities. Some people I know can look forward to a happier life than I can. I am very optimistic. am a very adventurous person. have quite a few fears about my future. am at least as much of a pessimist as an optimist. sometimes become melancholy without very good reasons. have some feelings of inferiority. HHHHH am almost never embarrassed. always prefer to work with others. dislike it when I am with people constantly. enjoy taking the full responsibility for introducing people at a party. I am always taking on added social reSponsibility. HHHH I am generally leader of the people I know. I am seldom the center of attention in a group. I am often called upon to settle arguments between people. I sometimes find it hard to lead people and maintain them in order. I generally keep in the background at social functions. I am rather easily stirred up. I have never been seasick, plane sick, or car sick. It takes a great deal to make me emotional. My emotional life is marked by great moderation. I believe I am less emotional than most people. I rather frequently find myself getting emotional about something. Sometimes I become so emotional that I find it a little hard to get to sleep. I become emotional fairly easily. I have sometimes actually screamed with joy. I am seldom disturbed about sexual matters. I usually prefer to keep my feelings to myself. I almost always do about as well as I expected in competitions. I suppress my emotions more often than I express them. I am easily moved to laughter or tears. I think much and speak little. I consider most matters from every standpoint before I form an opinion. I have sometimes gotten so angry that I felt like throwing and breaking things. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 88 I am practically always tolerant even in dealing with people that I don't like. My feelings and emotions are very easily aroused. I almost never notice minor physical injuries. I am considered rather emotional by my friends. I find that my life moves along at an even tenor without many ups and downs. I have occasionally had to make an effort not to cry. I am a rather objective and matter—of-fact person. I like having someone with whom I can talk about my emotional problems. I am rather spontaneous in speech and action. I usually express myself objectively, with considerable caution and restraint. I am a fairly impulsive person. I never complain about my sufferings and hardships. I have sometimes corrected others. not because they were wrong. but only because they irritated me. I have occasional difficulty getting the temperature of my bath the way I like it. I have very strong likes and dislikes. Quite a few things make me emotional. I am moderate in my tastes and sentiments. I usually do things in a leisurely sort of way, seldom getting excited. I am almost never extremely excited or thrilled. I experience rather frequent pleasant and unpleasant moods. I like to discuss my emotions with others. I sometimes speak on the spur of the moment without stopping to think. I can stand pain better than the average person. APPENDIX C TRAINING SESSION NO. 2 Knowledge of the Empirical Personality Theory Listed below are items from the Protebob personality inventory which measure each of the basic traits. In order to gain a more thorough knowledge of the theory, we will discuss how each of the traits is measured. Then you will be asked to predict how each of the items should be answered (true or false) on the basis of this discussion. Then the correct answers will be given so that you can check your own accuracy. Please mark all scores on the separate Summary Sheet. (Correct answer given next to each item.) CAUTIOUS-BOLD Submissive - Dominant T l. I have frequently assumed the leadership of groups. F 2. I am seldom the center of attention in a group. T 3. I am often called upon to settle arguments between people. F 4. I sometimes find it hard to lead people and main— tain them in order. 5. I generally keep in the background at social functions. '13 Low activity level - High activity level F 6. I generally talk very quietly. T 7. I spend myself freely as I have plenty of energy. F 8. I would rather listen to a story than tell one. F 9. I prefer quiet games to extremely active ones. T 10. I frequently become involved in too many activities. Low self—confidence - Self—confident F 11. I am cautious about undertaking anything which may lead to humiliating experiences. T 12. I enjoy Speaking in public. F 13. I feel somewhat inferior as a person to a few of my friends. F 14. I am frequently discouraged by my own inadequacies. F 15. I am somewhat more shy than the average person. Pessimistic - Optimistic T 16. Most of the time, I am extremely carefree and relaxed. F 17. Some people I know can look forward to a happier life than I can. 90 T F F 91 18. I am a very adventurous person. 19. I have quite a few fears about my future. 20. I sometimes become melancholy without very good reasons . Low sociability - High sociability T T F 21. I like to have people around me practically all the time. 22. I always like to be with people rather than be alone. 23. I am inclined to limit my friends to a few people. T 24. I always prefer to work with others. F 25. I dislike it when I am with people constantly. EMOTIONAL — CALM Emotional - Calm F 26. My feelings and emotions are easily aroused. T 27. I find that my life moves along at an even tenor without many ups and downs. T 28. I am moderate in my tastes and sentiments. T 29. I usually do things in a leisurely sort of way. seldom getting excited. 30. I experience rather frequent pleasant and unpleasant moods. High sensory awareness - Low sensory awareness T 31. I have never been seasick, plane sick, or car sick. T 32. I almost never notice minor physical injuries. F 33. I have occasional difficulty getting the temperature of my bath the way I like it. T 34. I can stand pain better than the average person. T 35. I am occasionally not too aware of my physical surroundings. Cold - Warm T 36. I always try to praise people who are discouraged by their failures. T 37. I enjoy helping people with their personal problems. F 38. I say what I think about important things even if it hurts the feelings of some people. T 39. I almost always forgive peOple who hurt me. F 40. I am somewhat intolerant of people who bore me. Expressive - Inhibited T 41. I suppress my emotions more often than I express them. F 42. I think much and speak little. T 43. I consider most matters from every standpoint before I form an opinion. 92 F 44. I am rather Spontaneous in speech and action. T 45. I usually express myself objectively, with considerable caution and restraint. INTROVERTED — EXTROVERTED High artistic values - Low artistic values F 46. If I had unlimited leisure and money, I would enjoy making a collection of fine sculptures or paintings. F 47. I get an intense pleasure from just looking at a beautiful building. F 48. I like to read poetry. F 49. I prefer friends who have well developed artistic tastes. T 50. In a discussion, I tend to lose interest if we talk about serious literature. Low economic values - High economic values T 51. I think there are few more important things in life than money. T 52. I am really only interested in what is useful. T 53. I believe that competitiveness is a necessary and desirable part of our economic life. F 54. I would rather read an article about a famous musician than a financier. T 55. I prefer the friends of my own sex to be very efficient, and of a practical turn of mind. Introverted thinking - Extroverted thinking T 56. I can deal much better with actual situations than with ideas. T 57. Sports generally interest me somewhat more than very intellectual affairs. F 58. I sometimes think more about my ideas than about the routine demands of daily life. T 59. I only work for concrete and clearly-defined results. T 60. I tend to judge people in terms of their concrete accomplishments. Low manifest sexuality - High manifest sexuality F 61. I am rather modest about sexual matters. T 62. I enjoy the company of almost all members of the opposite sex. T 63. It is extremely important to me that I be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite sex. T 64. I like to participate in discussions about sex and sexual activities. F 65. I seldom asked questions about sex when I was a child. IMPULSIVE 93 - CONTROLLED Unambitious - Ambitious T 66. I set very difficult goals for myself. F 67. Most of my spare money is used for pleasure. F 68. I occasionally neglect serious things in order to have a good time. T 69. I enjoy work more than play. F 70. I generally seek whatever makes me happy here and now. Unorganized — Organized T 71. Whenever I have to undertake a job I make out a careful plan of procedure. F 72. I generally go from one thing to another in my daily life without a great deal of planning. T 73. I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property. F 74. I always finish one task before taking on others. F 75. I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one thing for a long time. Low emotional control - High emotional control T 76. I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation. T 77. I can always do a good job even when I am very excited. F 78. I frequently obey whatever impulse is strongest. T 79. I am considered extremely "steady" by my friends. F 80. I am greatly influenced in minor decisions by how .I happen to be feeling at the moment. Gregarious - Aloof F 81. When I am in low spirits I always try to find someone to cheer me up. F 82. I enjoy taking part in any large social affair. T 83. I enjoy it immensely when I am left alone with my own thoughts. T 84. I could become so absorbed in work that greatly interested me that I would not notice the absence of social life. T 85. I usually enjoy spending an evening alone. RATIONAL - EMPIRICAL Resistance to change (conservative) — Readiness for change (liberal) T 86. I believe that everybody would be happier if both T 87. men and women had more sexual freedom. The world might benefit from having a new kind of religion. T 88. T 89. T 90. Religious T 9l. F 92. T 93. F 94. F 95. 94 The European attitude toward mistresses is more sensible than ours. Women should have as much right to propose dates to men as men to women. I believe we should have less censorship of speech and press than we do now. believer - Religious sceptic It is possible that there is no such thing aswdivine inspiration. My faith in God is complete for ”though he slay me, yet will I trust him." I have occasionally doubted the reality of God. A person should develop his greatest loyalty toward his religious faith. I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong. Social conformist — Nonconformist F 96. F 97. T 98. F 99. T100. I consider the close Observance of social customs and manners as an essential aspect of life. I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others. Some of my friends think my ideas are a bit wild and impractical. In matters of conduct I conform.very closely to custom. Compared to your own self-respect,1he respect of others means little. Nonscientific - Scientific F 101. T 102. T 103. T 104. F 105. I would rather be a salesman than a scientific research worker. In the long run, science provides the best hope for solving the world's problems. I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines. I would enjoy the kind of work that a scientific research worker does. I think I can lead a full life without knowing much about science. 95 TRAINING SESSION NO. 3 Matching Trait Profiles Given below are three sketches of people based on their autobiographies. Your task is to match each of these sketches with the personality trait profiles given on the Summary Sheet. Read the sketches, choose the profile that fits each case (the people also took the Protebob test) and record your answer on the Summary Sheet. Repeat for the second group of cases and profiles. No. 1. Mary is a 43 year old senior majoring in Home Economics. Her childhood was difficult because her parents were very strict and expected much of her, and permitted no deviation from their high standards. As a result, she tended to avoid trouble, became independent early in life, and has some difficulty establishing relationships with people. As she says ”nothing offered; nothing accepted." She spent her summers with her aunts and uncles who were very religious, and thus developed very very high ethical and religious standards for herself. She is tolerant of other people, can deal easily with abstract theories, and has an almost unlimited amount of physical energy to do what she wants to do. She lists her favorable characteristics as "impeccable honor and integrity, very empathetic, extremely tender hearted, organized, perserverant, very fastidious, respect for the dignity of man. On the other hand she is somewhat conceited, is unable to compromise, often attempts to do too much, and tries too hard to be perfect. She finds it dif- ficult to balance recreation and work, wants to be a complete person, and feels she is obligated to no one person and holds no person obligated to her. No. 2. Ray is a 38 year old junior majoring in Mechanical Engineering. He comes from a middle class background, and his parents did not get along with each other too well. His parents were submissive to his desires, but often in- flicted harsh punishment. He was not close to any of his relatives, and went his own way in play and friendships. Ray has a tendency to stay aloof from people (of both sexes) who do not show ready acceptance of him. He tries to operate within his own moral and religious standards but is often not true to them. He feels he is above average in ability in most activities, but is hampered by feelings of inferiority and embarrassment. He admits that his grades are low, but says that at his age the degree is the important thing. He describes himself as sincere, willing to try, and introverted. 96 Charlotte is a 47 year old junior majoring in Social No.3. Wnk. She was often ill as a child, and this was resented Her mother punished bykmr foster parents who raised her. heroften and sometimes unjustly, and avoided handling her She ran away from home a number of ifshe could help it. thmm, and only survived her childhood because her foster faflmr liked her, showed her some consideration, and tried tofwlp her. Charlotte has difficulty getting along with wmmm, eSpecially her superiors at work. She likes to be in armlping relationship with any person, male or female. She believes in God but not in a formal religion, amiher moral views are narrow: "intent to wrong is almost lfluadoing." Her first goal is to someday teach creative wrfljng; now she writes poetry and prose for pleasure and Improvising is something she does well because of and she has a great deal of perserverance. and feels she often She feels profit. her versatility, Ikmever, she is somewhat egocentric, 'Uflks more than she should, eSpecially in class. amamay be losing something by not participating in college activities, and is anxious to complete her education and get to work. Group 2 No. 4. Joan is a sophomore, majoring in Psychology, and is She has three older brothers, and all of the 20 years old. children were raised by her grandmother because her mother was working. Her mother always compared her to her brothers, and she never measured up to their achievements. Her father, the vice-president of a small company, was respected and obeyed by all the children, and gave no physical disciplining. Ifler brothers considered her as the "kid” or a tag-along. Jtmnu had negative feelings toward her grandmother because skma sided with her mother, and often berated Joan's father. Skma.had few friends as a child, and got along better with boys than with girls. Joan says her ideas on religion are in the process She is a Cif (finanging, but she is anti-organized religion. cnarirnis person, doesn't get bored easily, is interested in But practically everything, and likes to read and learn. 45118 :is inconsistent, often needs reassurance from her close and is sometimes frightened by external friends and relatives, conditions like the possibility of World War III. Susan is a 19 year old Social Work major, and is in IJC>- .5. her sophomore year. Her family was not very close because and shared few common the members were individualistic, interests. At an early age she developed a liking for animals and’she had as many and as varied an assortment of Her parents didn't under- pets as her parents would allow. stand where this interest came from (they were both teachers) and disliked her spending so much time with her animals. 97 Susan says "I told m animals my secrets and how I felt, and can't see why I should tell people who might take it the wrong way or not understand." Susan didn't date much till she came to college, and gets along better with older people than with people of her own age group, who seem immature to her. She believes in two religions - God and Mother Nature - and understands the latter better; "I just don't know what side God is on." She likes cooking, skating, swimming, and horsebadk riding. Her interests are broad, and she feels she often expects too much of herself. She respects other people's beliefs, is persistent, and is depressed a lot of the time. She says she can be a tomboy, or a lady, when called for. No. 6. Carol is a sophomore, 20 years old, and is majoring in Home Economics. She comes from an upper middle class family, and feels that her parents (who are "snobby") were strict, but that the discipline was good for her. Her relationship with her parents was "terrible" during adolescence, but improved when she started dating. She doesn't like to be pushed around by her friends, and feels that she has often been persuaded (fairly easily) to do things she would not normally do. Her ethical and moral standards are very high; she does not smoke or drink. Religion means a lot to her, but she doesn't go to church often during the school year. She wants to teach Home Economics, and has to study hard to get good grades. She tries to be friendly and get along with everybody, and doesn't deliberately hurt people's feelings. She says she is considerate, responsible, and sincere, but also is very sensitive, and gets hurt easily. She also gets moody and depressed easily for no reason. SUMMARY SHEET: 98 Training Session No. 3 Listed below are the Personality Profiles of the people described in the sketches. These people wrote auto— biographies, and also took the Protebob Personality Inventory. Your job is to match the sketches with the profiles, first for the cases in Group 1 and then for the cases in Group 2. Record your choices in the Spaces provided below. The figures given in the profiles are percentiles, as in your own personality profiles. GROUP 1 Profile A Percentile Cautious-Bold ’ 30 Emotional-Calm 9O Introverted— Extroverted 20 Impulsive-Controlled 90 Rational-Empirical 90 Profile B Percentile Cautious—Bold 80 Emotional—Calm 4O Introverted- Extroverted 50 Impulsive—Controlled 9O Rational—Empirical 40 Profile C Percentile Cautious-Bold 0 Emotional-Calm 30 Introverted- Extroverted 4O Impulsive—Controlled 65 Rational—Empirical 4O Mark the letter of the Profile that corresponds with the Sketch. Correct answer Sketch # l ' B Sketch # 2 C Sketch # 3 A GROUP 2 Profile D Percentile Cautious-Bold 50 Emotional—Calm 4O Introverted- Extroverted 80 Impulsive-Controlled 3O Rational-Empirical 5 ,Profile E Percentile Cautious-Bold 6O Emotional-Calm 95 Introverted- Extroverted 45 Impulsive-Controlled 75 Rational—Empirical 40 Profile F Percentile Cautious-Bold lO Emotional—Calm lO Introverted— Extroverted 10 Impulsive-Controlled 3O Rational-Empirical 85 Your Correct answ. answer Sketch # 4 ___ _§_ Sketch # 5 ___ _§__ Sketch # 6 D Total Score 99 4: Behavior Prediction TRAINING SESSION NO. Part 1 in class filled out a series ofaflitude and personality Scales. The statements below anelmsed on the answers that the men gave. When you answer Hmcwestions, use the Spaces on the separate answer Sheet. Ifymlthink the answer to a particular question is Mr. A, flmnnmrk "A" in the Space next to that item on the answer All the men interviewed sheet. The correct answers are known from the scales that thenmn filled out. Also, the correct answers are equally distributed among the three men. Adjective Check List Theifluee men were given a list of adjectives and asked to ched