EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF SENSWWITY TRAENING Thesis for ”ma Degree of DH. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Sherwin Y. Kepes 1965 N\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 33 mm \\\\\\\\\\\\\M f “$33535 93 10343 3227 , 3 , . 3 12 ' Umversxt‘y This is to certifq‘tliat’the thesis entitled EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF SENSITIVITY TRAINING presented by Sherwin Y. Kepes has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Psxcho logy mmfl Date WW \QL < f L! ’1 l 5 ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF SENSITIVITY TRAINING by Sherwin Y. Kepes The present research focused on secondeperson inter- personal sensitivity, using a relatively pure measure of the component. Training was designed to stress practice, parti- cipation, and knowledge of results; principles found to be effective in most training programs. Two studies were con- ducted. In the first study, a control and experimental group took two pretests each assessing observational and interpersonal accuracy. Sound-color films were used to present the individuals to be judged. The experimental group received eight one hour training sessions; three of which were devoted to taking diagnostic tests of sensitivity components. Both groups were then posttested on the same criterion instruments. Training effectiveness was assessed by matching experimental and control subjects on the basis of pretest scores and computing matched t-tests. On the basis of the results of the first study it was concluded that: Sherwin Y. Kepes 1. Training resulted in a trend of increased perfor- mance for second-person sensitivity. 2. The effects of training did not generalize to third-person sensitivity, suggesting.that second and third-person sensitivity have different deter- minants. 3. Anticipated gains in observational accuracy found for both groups suggested that familiarization with the test situation was sufficient to allow subjects to improve. A second study was conducted to provide a general cross validation,to determine the effects of one hour and two and a half hours of training, and to assess the influence of various types of practice materials on performance. Subjects were pretested with one of the criterion instruments, matched on the basis of their scores, and ran- domly assigned to one of four groups. Each group met twice and both times was posttested with the same criterion instrument. The practice materials during.training for three groups were either sound-color films, tape recordings, or live interviews; the fourth group served as the control. Changes in performance were assessed by t-tests. The results of the second study indicated that: 1. One hour of training did not result.in increased performance. 2. Differences in practice materials did not result in differential group increases. 3. Training did not result in greater overall gains for the experimental groups. Sherwin Y. Kepes Additional analyses of second-person sensitivity were made for the experimental and control groups in both studies. These were t-tests of the differences between differences for subjects above and below.the-SOth percen- tile, and an examination of pre to posttest regression lines. It was found.that.trained subjects who initially scored low increased their performance to a greater extent than untrained subjects. The combined results of both studies were discussed and it was concluded that: l. The main effectiveness of training was for those subjects who score low on the pretest. It was sug- gested that these subjects make larger errors of stereotyping, assumed similarity, and implicit per- sonality theories. 2. The differences in overall performance increases found between the experimental groups in the first and second studies were probably due to the shorter amount of training and absence of diagnostic tests in the second study. 3. Training was effective in enabling subjects to practice making inferences, 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 interpersonal inferences. It was suggested that future training programs pro- vide subjects with a clear framework for change. Construct- ing empirically derived explicit personality theories was offered as one technique. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF SENSITIVITY TRAINING BY Sherwin Y. Kepes A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1965 DEDICATION To Marilyn ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appre- ciation to Dr. Henry Clay Smith for his guidance and helpful criticism. Throughout the formulation execution and reporting of the research, he clearly demonstrated his high level of interpersonal sensitivity. I would also like to thank Drs. Alfred G. Dietze, John E. Hunter, and John H. Wakeley for their valuable suggestions and assistance. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The DevelOpment of a Component Approach Interpersonal Sensitivity . . . . . . . Research on Sensitivity Training . . . Studies without Formal Training Programs Studies Conducting Training Programs . Evaluation of Training Research . . . . Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STUDY ONE . C C 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 General Design . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Instruments . . . . . . . . . The Training Sessions . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . STUDY TWO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Design . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criterion Instrument . . . . . . . . . The Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . iv Page iii H ‘1me 13 15 l7 18 18 19 22 27 30 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 47 Chapter Page IV. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 49 The Findings of the Studies . . . . . . . 49 Consistencies with Previous Findings . . 52 Limitations of the Present Research . . . 54 The Criterion Problem . . . . . . . . . . 57 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 61 REFERENCES 0 I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 64 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 67 Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Sex and class level of the subjects . . . . . The criterion instruments . . . . . . . . . . Test retest correlations of the criterion instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary description of the contents of the training sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second-person accuracy gains of training and untrained groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Third-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appearance and conversation accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups . . . . . . . Number and sex of subjects . . . . . . . . . Test retest correlations of the criterion instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in performance from pretest to posttest l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between pretest scores and gains Second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second-person accuracy gains of students below the 50th percentile . . . . . . . . .~ Second-person accuracy gains of students above the 50th percentile . . . . . . . . . Third-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Item difficulty and group gains . . . . . . . Page 18 20 21 22 28 28 29 34 38 38 39 40 41 45 46 46 58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regression lines for trained and untrained groups in the second study . . . . . . . 43 2. Regression lines for trained and untrained groups in the first study . . . . . . . 44 vii Appendix A. B. C. D. E. LIST OF APPENDICES The criterion instruments . . . . . . . . Training materials in the first study . . Additional statistical data for both studies 0 O O O O O I O I O O O O I O 0 Training materials in the second study . Statistical data used for the analysis of regression lines . . . . . . . . . . . Item analysis of "the men test" . . . . . viii Page 69 82 109 116 123 125 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Sensitivity has been defined as, ". . . the ability to predict what an individual will feel, say, and do about you, himself, and others." Smith (1966) The recognized im- portance of this ability is reflected in human-relations training, training in clinical psychology, and education in general. The majority of research on sensitivity has focused on measuring the extent to which it exists in a given sample and on an assessment of its personality correlates. Until recently, few studies have focused directly on the question of whether sensitivity can be increased through training. These studies, together with research indirectly concerned with training and with sensitivity in general have produced conflicting results. In the last decade and a half, several articles have appeared in the literature which have served to clarify certain conceptual and methodological issues, and at the same time offer possible explanations for con- flicting research results. Current research and theorizing reflects a component rather than a global conceptualization of sensitivity. One of these components is interpersonal sensitivity, which may be defined as the ability to differentiate among individuals. The present research will focus primarily on this component, with the major aim of experimentally evaluating interpersonal sensitivity training programs. History The development of a component approach, the nature of these components, the specific component under investi- gation in this study, and a discussion and evaluation of sensitivity training programs provide a broad framework for the following discussion. The Development of a Component Approach The general procedure for assess1ng sens1tivity is to have a subject (judge) predict or estimate how another person or group (Other) feels, acts, or will act. A judge, for example, might be asked to complete a personality scale the way he thinks a particular Other has; the Other has completed the same scale. The judge's accuracy score, how closely his responses agree with those of the Other, is referred to as empathy, sensitivity, interpersonal sensi- tivity, or predictive accuracy. The meaning of the typical accuracy score has been questioned by several researchers. (Bender and Hastorf, 1952; Gage, 1952; Lindgreen and Robin- son, 1953; Giedt, 1955; Crow and Hammond, 1957; and Stel- machers, 1964) Gage and Cronbach note: Writers have inadequately specified just what they mean to measure or to what extent the variable they study overlaps the variables in other investigations. Thus one test of empathy finds out how accurately sub- jects predict the ratings acquaintances will give them. Another test of empathy requires that subjects estimate the musical preferences of the average factory worker. Not surprisingly, these tests correlate only .02. (1955, p. 411) Cronbach's discussion (1955) of processes affecting predictive accuracy scores was the first attempt to develop a component conceptualization of sensitivity. He proposed that the typical accuracy score was affected by processes, some of which were independent of an individual's ability to judge others. He states, ". . . the usual accuracy score is the sum of four components we shall call Elevation (E), Differential Elevation (D E), Sterotype Accuracy (S A), and Differential Accuracy (D A)." (1955, p. 178) Elevation refers to the central tendency of a judge's ratings. A high accuracy score may reflect similarity in central tendencies between the judge and the Other, rather than sensitivity. Differential elevation is the judge's average spread on a response scale. Here, a high accuracy score may reflect agreement of spread between judge and Other, rather than sensitivity. Stereotype accuracy refers to the judge's ability to predict a norm for a group. According to Cronbach, it is possible for a judge to achieve a high accuracy score because he knows the norms of a group and not because he is particularly sensitive to the group. Differential accuracy refers to the ability of a judge to predict differences among Others. Cronbach also presents a statistical technique for measuring each component by partialing it out of the global accuracy score. Bronfenbrenner g£_al. (1958) in a similar though more psychological vein, also posit a component approach to the investigation of sensitivity. They distinguish between two major types of ability in judging others. The first, they refer to as "Sensitivity to the generalized other." This is related to Cronbach's stereotype accuracy; knowledge of the norm or typical response of a group. The second is "Interpersonal sensitivity"; here the judge dis- criminates individual deviations from the group norm. This is similar to Cronbach's differential accuracy. Bronfenbrenner gt_al. feel that the conventional accuracy score reflects both abilities, though probably sensitivity to the generalized other most. They note that it is possible for an individual to excell in one of these skills but not in another, and that attempts to separately measure the two abilities would provide a clearer understand- ing of the nature of sensitivity and also help explain con- flicting research findings. They distinguish among first, second, and third- person sensitivity. First-person sensitivity requires the judge to predict how the Other feels toward the judge; second-person sensitivity requires the judge to estimate how the Other feels toward himself; and third-person sensi- tivity requires the judge to predict how a group of indi- viduals feel toward a specific Other. Smith (1966) suggests a component approach similar to the above two. His approach differs from Bronfenbrenner's in citing more than two components, and it differs from Cronbach's in proposing that each component be measured in- dependently. He identifies and defines the following com- ponents: Level; Spread; Empathy; Observation; Differentiation between groups; and Differentiation between individuals. Level and Spread are similar to Cronbach's Elevation and Differential Elevation. Empathy is defined as, ". . . the tendency of the perceiver to assume that another person's feelings, thoughts, and behavior are similar to his own." (1966) The component of observation is not mentioned by Cronbach or Bronfenbrenner. Smith states, however, "Observa- tion is obviously an important determinant of sensitivity, for what we hear a person say and see him do has much to do with the inferences we make about him." Differentiation between groups is somewhat similar to Cronbach's stereotype accuracy, and Bronfenbrenner's sensitivity to the generalized other. It differs from both because an attempt is made to separate it from the component of level. He states, . . . we will focus not upon the perceiver's judgment of a group, but upon his judgment of the differences between groups: . . . . Smith's conception of differentiation between indi- viduals is similar to both Cronbach's and Bronfenbrenner's. With respect to this component, he states: Our level, spread, empathy, observations, and the differentiations we make between groups exert an inde- pendent influence on the predictions we make about a person. What remains as a determinant of our judgment is the influence of our differentiations between indi- viduals. Interpersonal Sensitivity The preceding discussion has presented the general development of a component approach to sensitivity. Investi- gating sensitivity within this framework, requires techniques for either measuring the components separately as Smith (1966) suggests, or partialing them out of a global score as Cronbach (1955) suggested. Focusing on interpersonal sensitivity, Grossman (1963) developed a pure measure of this component. The in- fluences of level and spread were eliminated by requiring the judges to make matching rather than rating judgments. The influence of group sensitivity was reduced through a double item analysis. Following the suggestion of Bronfen- brenner gE_al. (1958) Grossman included different kinds of predictions in his test. Judges were required to make second and third-person inferences. Grossman investigated possible relationships between several variables and interpersonal sensitivity. Briefly summarized, his data strongly suggested that: "Interpersonal sensitivity is a general ability; the accurate observer has greater sensitivity; and the open-minded judge has greater sensitivity." (1963, p. 50) He found partial support to -suggest that: "The intelligent judge is more sensitive; the socially aloof judge has greater sensitivity; and second and third-person sensitivity have different determinants." (1963, p. 50) He did not find evidence to support the hypotheses that female judges were superior to male judges, and that same sex sensitivity is greater than opposite-sex sensitivity. Research on Sensitivity Training Research on the effects of training on sensitivity may be divided into two broad categories: Those which equate psychological experience or amount of course work with training, and those that interpolate training between a pretest and an end-test. The former studies do not con- duct formal training programs, while the latter include training programs in the design of the research. Both types of studies will be briefly reviewed, followed by an evalua- tion of them. Studies Without Formal Training Programs The majority of studies in this category have failed to demonstrate that training results in increased performance. (Buzby, 1924; Estes, 1938; Luft, 1950; Kelly and Fiske, 1951; Wedell and Smith, 1951; Soskin, 1957; and Kessen, 1957) A few studies, however, report higher accuracy as being related to training. (Polanski, 1949; and Rabin, 1951) Studies Conducting Training Programs Guilford (1929) trained 15 subjects to name facial expressions. Subjects were pre and posttested on one set of Rudolf pictures. Another set of pictures was used as training material. During practice the judges were given feedback as to the correct answers. Guilford reports the following results: An average gain in ability of 51 per cent, a decrease in variability, and a high negative cor- relation between initial scores and gains. No control group was utilized. Jenness, (1932) in an early review of training studies concluded that training was ineffective in increasing accuracy of naming facial expressions. He disagreed with Allport who contended that his obtained negative correlation between initial scores and gains was evidence for the effects of training. Jenness reports that he obtained a similar negative correlation with a control group. Giving his judges feedback during practice sessions, Martin (1938) had judges estimate Others on five traits. He concluded, "It appears that on the basis of brief obser- vation and interview, appreciable improvement may be affected in judging some of the psychological traits, as well as some of the more objective physical features of individuals when such judgements are regularly practiced and checked by standardized measures." (1938, p. 690) No control group was utilized. Crow (1957) randomly assigned 72 senior medical students to experimental and control groups. The experi- mental group received training designed to increase sensi- tivity in terms of doctor-patient relationships. Three sets of 10 filmed interviews were presented to the judges and they were required to estimate the self-ratings of the patients on seven personality scales and to also estimate where the patient actually was with respect to the scales. Crow reports: Contrary to what had been expected, the experimental group which received training in interpersonal relations did not improve more than the control group, which did not receive such training. In fact, the trend of results suggests the Opposite conclusion: That the training in interpersonal relations decreased accuracy. (1957, p. 356) Crow also found that the variance of the experimental group increased and he cites this negative correlation between variance and accuracy as supporting Cronbachs hypothesis. 10 With respect to training, Crow concludes: Since very little is known about how to train people to make more accurate judgements about others, training programs frequently utilize a procedure of "exposure" and little else. The belief that placing the trainee in a position to observe others and to make judgements will produce desirable results is challenged by these findings. Such experiences may lead the trainee to dif- ferentiate among people far beyond his capacity to do so accurately. In the absence of dependable measures of his accuracy, the trainee lacks knowledge of his errors and may continue inappropriate overdifferentiation long after training has ceased. (1957, p. 358) Testing the hypothesis of an inverse relationship between variability of judgements and accuracy, Crow and Farson (1961) had judges take pre and posttests consisting of predictions of how Others would rate themselves. One week of training in interpersonal sensitivity was inter- polated between the tests. A control group received no training and took the pre and posttests. The results SUP- portedtfiuahypothesis,however, in this study, variability decreased and accuracy increased in the experimental group. Oskamp's (1962) research combines two designs within one study. He had expert judges (clinical psychologists) and inexperienced judges (undergraduates) predict from MMPI profiles whether the patients were psychiatric or medical cases. He found that the clinicians were slightly more accurate. Following this, Oskamp trained the inexperienced judges. Two different training programs were used. In the first program subjects were given feedback about their past performance. They then practiced with additional profiles. 11 During training the experimenter suggested ways of improving the judges performance for the following set of profiles. In the second program (accuracy group) subjects were given similar feedback and were also given information on the four best actuarial decision systems for evaluating pro- files. Both groups were given immediate feedback on their performance with the practice profiles. The expert and inexperienced judges were given posttests and the "accuracy group" was found to be more accurate, though not signifi- cantly. With respect to the effectiveness of the training Oskamp concludes: . . . the present findings indicate that training is not difficult and that a brief period of training may equal the results of years of clinical experience. The training methods were not distinguished by fancy gimmicks, rather their success seems due to their specificity and their use of immediate feedback. (1962, p. 21) A study conducted by Wakeley (1961) focused, in part, on the component of interpersonal sensitivity. He developed and tested six specific training programs to determine their effects on accuracy in judging Others. College students saw sound-color movies of interviews with three individuals and completed two tests. One test (Accuracy in Judging People) required the judges to make inferences about Others, one at a time. The other test (Ability to Judge Differences Between People) required judges to discriminate among three Others. No differences in scores from pre to posttests were found 12 for the six experimental groups and one control group on the first criterion instrument. On the other test, two groups significantly increased in accuracy. One group was given a "combination" program which included all the prin- cipciples from the other programs. The other training program that increased accuracy stressed the principle of pooling. Judges in this program were told that one way to make inferences about a person with whom they had little contact was to from a pool of people whom they knew well and who were like the unknown person. The judges were then told that they could make inferences about the person based on the pools they had formed. A second study was conducted using adults as judges. The pooling program again increased accuracy. An additional program stressing pooling and observing others also increased accuracy. Wakeley notes that the pooling program condoned the use of stereotypes and he suggests that the effective- ness of training may have been due to ". . . condoning a normal practice and to emphasizing that the practice can be employed systematically." (1961, p. 35) The criterion instrument consisted of questions based on interviews with two men and one woman; thus, the Opportunity for stereo- typing was enhanced. 13 Evaluation of Training Research An examination of the research on sensitivity train- ing reveals conflicting findings. Reviewing the studies conducted prior to 1955, Taft notes that psychologists tend to be less capable of judging Others than physical scientists and other non-psychologists. Taft also states: In spite of this finding there is reason to believe that ability to judge Others can be improved by specific .training in judging and repeated Specific practice, except where the person already has good ability to judge others. (1955, p. 12) Since Taft's review, some studies have yielded positive results. (Crow and Farson, 1961; Wakeley, 1961; and Oskamp, 1962) As Wakely has noted (1961) the major difficulty with evaluating training studies is two-fold. First, many of the studies that are conducted do not have training programs in any formal sense. Rather, they equate years of psychological experience or course work with training. Wakeley criticizes this method by stating: When training is measured in this way, what has been measured is not clear. An individual receiving training in psychology may study such diverse materials as sta- tistics, principles of interviewing, the physiology of rats and techniques of projective testing. The assump- tion that this training combines additively and is directly related to a criterion of interpersonal judging accuracy is one that is difficult to support. (1961, P- 5) 14 Secondly, the majority of studies fail to explicitly state the content of the training programs. Training is interpolated between a pre and posttest, and treated as an independent variable. Wakeley notes: In this approach training is usually measured by stating the course title and indicating the duration of the training. Again, what goes on in training is not clear. The possibility exists that several, perhaps conflicting, principles for judging are presented and discussed. Interpretation of findings when the inde- pendent variable has not been specified is an ambigious undertaking. (1961, p. 5) Certain general trends, however, do emerge from the research. Studies concerned with observational accuracy reveal increases in performance. (Guilford, 1929; Jenness, 1932; and Martin, 1938) These increases appear to occur for both experimental and control groups. It suggests that improvement in observational accuracy may be obtained inde- pendently of training and, perhaps, is a function of familiar- ization with the test situation. Several researchers point out certain principles of training which they consider to be important. These general principles are practice, participation, and knowledge of results. One or more of them are stressed by Martin (1938); Luft (1950); Soskin (1954); Crow (1957); Wakeley (1961); and Oskamp (1962). As Oskamp (1962) has noted, there is nothing magical about these principles. Presumably they may be effective in increasing performance because they allow subjects to 15 explicitly focus on behavioral processes of making judgments, which implicitly are a part of social interaction. Problem Considering both the methodological and conceptual issues, and the nature of the majority of training programs, it appears that an adequate investigation of training effects should: Specify the component of sensitivity under investigation; develop or utilize adequate criterion measures of the component; explicitly state the contents of the train- ing program; and include those principles of training found or theorized to be effective. As noted before, Wakeley's research (1961) revealed significant increases in performance; measured by one of two criterion instruments. This instrument required the in- dividuals to differentiate among three Others, using match- ing judgments. This was a test, then, of interpersonal sensitivity. Items of second and third-person sensitivity were included in the test; though the author did not dis- tinguish between them. One of the training programs Wakeley found to be effective instructed judges to use stereotypes and the nature of the test was such that stereotyping was enhanced. To a certain extent, our research is an extension of Wakeley's. Our focus is on interpersonal sensitivity and the criterion instruments utilized are revised forms 16 of those in Wakeley's study. Second and third-person in- ferences are identified and separated, and the effects of stereotype or group sensitivity are minimized. Separating second and third-person inferences allows for comparisons between them. Eliminating the influences of group sensi- tivity allows for a clearer evaluation of training. In addition, the present research included a test of observational accuracy so that an assessment of rela- tionships between two components of sensitivity would be possible. Chapter II presents the results of the first study which was primarily exploratory; Chapter III presents the results of the second study which was conducted to serve as a general cross validation; and Chapter IV draws together and discusses the results of both studies. CHAPTER II STUDY ONE The first study was exploratory and no explicit hypotheses were formulated. We did, however, have certain questions and expectations concerning the data: 1. The major question was whether training, uSing a relatively pure measure of a sensitivity component and stressing practice, participation, and knowledge of results, would increase performance. 2. Some theoretical and empirical evidence exists with respect to differences in second and third-person sensitivity, and training primarily stressed practice with second-person sensitivity. Thus, if differential group increases were found for second-person sensitivity, similar increases were not anticipated for third-person sensitivity. 3. It was anticipated that observational accuracy scores would increase from pre to posttests. This was ex- pected because it was felt that exposure to, and familiarity with the tests would be sufficient to produce an appropriate set to be more observant. At the same time, there seemed to be no reason to assume that either the experimental or the control group would manifest significant increases rela- tive to each other. 17 18 General Design Two groups were used in this study. Both groups were pretested on two criterion instruments, the experimental group participated in eight one-hour weekly training sessions, and both groups were posttested with the same criterion instruments used in the pretesting. Subjects Students from a psychology of personality course, taught during the Fall quarter of 1964 at Michigan State University served as the experimental group. The training they received took place during scheduled class periods. The control group consisted of students from an industrial psychology course. Table 1 presents a breakdown of the subjects by sex and class level. Table l.--Sex and Class Level of the Subjects Class Experimental Group Control Group Level Male Female Total Male Female Total Freshman 3 6 9 5 3 Sophmore 4 4 Junior 7 24 31 14 2 16 Senior 3 5 8 8 Other 1 Total 18 40 58 31 5 36 l9 Criterion Instruments Two sound color motion picture films originally developed by Cline (1955) and modified by Bruni (1963) and Grossman (1963) served as the sensitivity tests. One film consists of separate five minute interviews with three .males, "the men test"; the other film is similar, but the interviewees are females, "the women test." Each indi- vidual in the films answers a series of questions concern- ing his reactions to being interviewed, his personal values, hobbies, and personality strengths and weaknesses. Subjects are required to answer 120 questions for each film, (see Appendix A). Items one through 60 in each test measure the observational accuracy of the subjects; the first 30 items pertain to appearance, the second 30 to conversation. Items 61 through 120 require the subjects to make inferences about the interviewees; items 61 through 90 deal with second-person inference, and the last 30 items with third-person inference. Table 2 presents a breakdown of the criterion instruments. Bruni (1963) developed the items for the observa- tional accuracy tests by having four judges View the films a number of times and note cues of observation that differen- tiated the interviewees. Ninety items for appearance and 90 items for conversation were pretested, and using an item analysis the final 120 items were selected. The reported 20 odd-even reliability of the total test was .74; the men test was .68, and the women test was .57. The odd-even reliabilities for total appearance and conversation were .49 and .73 respectively. Table 2.--The criterion instruments Number of Items Total Men Test Women Test Observation Appearance 30 30 60 Conversation 30 30 60 Inference Second-person 30 30 60 Third-person 30 30 60 Total 120 120 240 Grossman (1963) developed the 120 inference accuracy test items by using the criterion data Cline collected from the interviewees and friends of the interviewees. Initially 240 items were constructed and through item analysis, the most discriminating items were chosen. Following this, Grossman conducted another item analysis, using a test of group sensitivity develOped by Johnson (1963). This was done so that in the final form of the test, ". . . items were chosen which were both highly discriminating for inter- personal sensitivity and nondiscriminating for group sensi- tivity." (Grossman, 1963, p. 23) It was assumed that this 21 procedure would eliminate stereotype or group sensitivity from the test. Grossman reported that the correlation between interpersonal and group sensitivity test scores was not significant, (r = .12). The odd-even reliabilities for the different parts of the test were; total test .59, total second-person .55, total third-person .40, total men test .50, and total women test .36. Test-retest correlations for the control and experi- mental groups were computed in the present study. Pearson r's were used to compute the correlations, and they are reported in Table 3. Table 3.--Test retest correlations Men Test Women Test Total Appearance Trained .45 . .58 .43 Untrained .33 (33) .46 (29) .65 (29) Conversation Trained .36 -30 .69 Untrained .28 (35) .45 (34) .47 (32) Second-Person Trained .29 .21 47 Untrained .48 (34) .50 (34) .55 (33) Third-Person Trained .39 .40 .52 Untrained .33 (34) .43 (36) .38 (33) *Parentheses indicate the numbers on which the cor- relations are based. 22 The general format of the test requires the judge to answer 120 items for each film, by the matching method. The use of matching eliminates the effects of level and spread. In addition, as noted above, the effects of stereo- type accuracy are greatly reduced. In summary, the criterion instruments consist of two observational accuracy tests, and two relatively pure measures of second and third-person interpersonal sensitivity. The Training Sessions* Table 4 presents a brief description of the eight training sessions. Table 4.--Summary description of the contents of the training sessions Training Session Contents 1 Case studies of three individuals 2 Case studies of three pairs of individuals 3 Observation of others 4 Judgment of happily married, unhappily married, and divorced men 5 Interpersonal sensitivity inventory 6 Diagnostic test of level-spread accuracy 7 Diagnostic test of assumed similarity 8 Interviews with three female students *See Appendix B for materials used in the training sessions. 23 Training session l.--Case studies of three individuals were given to the class. The subjects were required to read the first case and then answer 15 true~false items about the depicted individual. The correct answers were given and a frequency distribution was put on the board showing the num- ber of correct answers the subjects had. The second case was read and the 15 items were answered. The subjects were then asked to offer reasons for answering specific items the way they did. The correct answers were read and another frequency distribution was placed on the board. The third case was completed in a similar manner. Training session 2.--This session utilized two case studies of twins, and one case study of two individuals. After answering the 15 questions for the first case, and writing reasons for their answers, the subjects discussed their reasons for answering the way they did. Feedback on the correct answers was given and a frequency distribution of correct answers was placed on the board. This procedure was followed for the second and third cases. Training session 3.--This session consisted of practice in observing Others. Three male graduate students completed a questionnaire concerning their academic history, interests, hobbies, values, and personality strengths and weaknesses. The items that differentiated among the graduate students were included in a mimeographed test given to the class. Each graduate student was interviewed three times 24 for approximately three minutes; all three were asked the same questions in the same order. They were instructed before the training session to answer the questions as they had on the questionnaire. After the first three minute interviews were com- pleted, the first part of the test containing 15 items was given to the class. Their task was to match each statement with the individual it applied to. After the items were completed, the subjects received feedback, and a frequency distribution was placed on the board. This procedure was repeated two more times. Training session 4.--The material used in this session was a test of the judgment of happily married, un- happily married, and divorced men. It consists of a num- ber of statements which differentially apply to the three groups. The subjects task was to match each statement with the specific group to which it was most relevant. The sub- jects completed the first 30 items and were asked to discuss reasons why they answered as they did. They were then given the correct answers, and a frequency distribution was placed on the board. The next 30 items were then answered and the same procedure of discussion and feedback was followed. Training session 5.--The material used in this ses- sion was a test developed by Grossman (1963) called the Interpersonal Sensitivity Inventory. Grossman constructed this test by administering 690 items from 22 personality 25 scales, and item analyzing the results for those items that differentiate between high and low scorers on the film tests. The test consists of 90 items which are scored true or false by the subjects. After completing the test, the students were given the correct answers and heard a lecture on procedures involved in conducting an item analysis. Each individual was given his score on the test as soon as the tests could be scored. Training session 6.--During this session, the sub- jects took a level-spread accuracy test which was being developed by another graduate student. After completing the test, the topics of level and spread, as they relate to sensitivity, were presented to the class. Subjects received their individual scores as soon as the tests could be scored. Training session 7.--The student's task during this session was to complete a test of level of assumed simi- larity, being developed by another graduate student. After the test had been completed, the concept of assumed simi- larity, as it related to sensitivity, was discussed. Sub- jects were given their individual scores as soon as the tests could be scored. Training session 8.-—Three females from the class completed the-Cough Adjective Check List. Those adjectives which discriminated among the females were selected as items for the training session test. The females were 26 interviewed in class and were all asked the same questions. The subjects' task was to match each adjective with the fe- male who said it applied to herself. The class was split into eight groups of eight to ten members. The first 15 items were answered by each subject, and then each group discussed reasons why the members answered as they did. Then each subject re-answered the 15 items, changing any answers they wanted. The correct answers were given and the average gain for each group from pre to post-discussion was computed. These average gains were written on the board. The same procedure was followed with the next 15 items. Method of Analysis Subjects from the experimental and control groups were matched on the basis of pretest scores. Matching was done for each test, and for each sub-part of the tests. Comparisons were then made between and within the groups, on increases in performance from pre to posttests. The statistical technique utilized was matched t-tests. Only those students who completed the two pre and posttests were included in the analysis of the data. The largest number of possible matches for each comparison was 36; the number of subjects in the control group. For any given comparison it was not always possible to match every control subject with an experimental subject. In addition, 27 since individual pretest scores vary for the subparts of the tests, it was not generally possible to match the same pairs of experimental and control subjects from one comparison to another. Results Table 5* shows the comparisons made for second- person accuracy. The results of the comparisons between the experimental and control groups indicate a general trend of greater gains for the experimental group. The comparisons within each group from pre to posttests reveal a consistent trend for increased performance in the experimental group. This trend is not seen in the control group. The results of similar comparisons made for third- person sensitivity are reported in Table 6. The table shows that the experimental and control groups are not dif- ferent on the posttests. For the within group data, the experimental group reveals significant improvement in two of the comparisons, while one control group comparison yields a significant increase in performance. *Additional statistical data showing variances, standard errors, standard errors of the differences, and correlations between the experimental and control group posttest scores will be found in Appendix C. The tables in the appendix will be constructed and numbered so that they correspond to the tables in the body of the paper. 28 Table 5.--Second-person accuracy gains of trained and un- trained groups Pretest Posttest Criterion N Means Means Difference t p Men Sub-test Trained 34 14.7 15.7 1.0 1.67 .10 Untrained 34 14.7 14.6 -0.1 .10 .90 Difference in Gains 1.1 1.92 .10 -----_----------—---------------------------—------—------- Women Sub-test Trained 34 15.9 17.2 1.3 1.99 .05 Untrained 34 15.9 16.2 .3 .54 .60 Difference in Gains 1.0 1.58 .20 Total Test Trained 33 30.9 32.9 2.0 2.99 .02 Untrained 33 30.9 31.0 .1 .04 .90 Difference in Gains 1.9 2.65 .02 Table 6.--Third-person accuracy gains of trained and un- trained groups Pretest Posttest Criterion N Means Means Difference t p Men Sub-test Trained 34 16.2 17.6 1.4 2.57' .02 Untrained 34 16.2 17.5 1.3 3.05 .01 Difference in Gains .1 .03 .90 Women Sub-test Trained 36 9.7 10.7 1.0 1.49 .20 Untrained 36 9.7 10.4 .7 1.22 .30 Difference in Gains .3 .31 .80 Total Test Trained 33 26.1 29.0 2.9 3.48 .01 Untrained 33 26.1 27.4 1.3 1.51 .20 Difference in Gains 1.6 1.54 .20 29 Table 7 reports the results of the analysis for the data on observational accuracy. The results consistently reveal significant increases in performance for both the experimental and control groups. For the differences in gains between groups, none of the results are significant. In five of the six comparisons, however, slightly larger gains are found in the control group. Table 7.--Appearance and conversation accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Pretest Posttest Criterion N Means Means Difference t p Men Sub-test Appearance Trained 33 16.8 19.5 2.7 4.91 .001 Untrained 33 16.8 20.2 3.4 5.62 .001 Difference in Gains 7 .98 .40 Conversation Trained 33 19.1 21.9 2.8 4.23 .001 Untrained 33 19.1 22.7 3.6 4.84 .001 Difference in Gains .8 1.19 .30 Women Sub-test Appearance Trained 29 17.6 19.6 2.0 3.45 .01 Untrained 29 17.6 19.9 2.3 3.97 .001 Difference in Gains .3 .39 .70 Conversation Trained 34 20.5 22.4 1.9 2.98 .01 Untrained 34 20.5 21.8 1.3 1.68 .01 Difference in Gains .6 .64 .60 Total Test Appearance Trained 29 34.0 39.1 5.1 4.72 .001 Untrained 29 34.0 40.3 6.3 7.38 .001 Difference in Gains 1.2 1.07 .30 Conversation Trained 32 37.5 44.0 6.5 10.79 .001 Untrained 32 37.5 44.4 6.9 6.48 .001 Difference in Gains .4 .37 .80 30 Discussion and Summary The discussion of the results of this study will follow a framework provided by the questions and expecta- tions discussed at the beginning of the chapter. With respect to second-person sensitivity, the re- sults suggest a general trend of increased performance in the experimental group, as compared to the control group. The trend is further evidenced by the increases within the experimental group from pre to posttests. The results are, however, not conclusive, and the question of whether train- ing would increase performance, may be answered in a moder- ately affirmative manner. The comparisons for third-person sensitivity suggest that training failed to significantly affect performance. This is evidenced by the finding that there was some tendency for both trained and untrained groups to increase their per- formance. The finding of increases for both groups is some- what unexpected, but since training appears to have dif- ferential effects on second and third-person sensitivity it lends some support to previous theorizing and research which suggests that second and third-person sensitivity have dif- ferent determinants. (Bronfenbrenner gt_al. 1958; and Grossman, 1963) The results for observational accuracy support our expectation that both the experimental and control groups would increase their performance. Only one of the 12 31 comparisons for the groups fails to reach at least the .01 level of significance. At first glance, these results might appear to be obvious. It should be remembered, how- ever, that the pre and posttests were given eight weeks apart, the tests are relatively difficult, and that little training emphasis in the experimental group and none in the control group was placed on observation. It appears that observation is a greatly underdevelOped capacity. It was also expected that increases in observational accuracy for the groups, relative to each other, would not occur. This was generally supported by the data. One interesting trend that emerged was the finding that on five of the six comparisons between the experimental and control groups, greater, though non significant increases were found for the control group. The finding is of interest because it may further suggest that the training was affecting performance. Obser- ving Others appears to be an easier task for judges than making inferences. This is indicated, in our study, by the higher mean scores on the observational parts of the tests. It was assumed that increased performance in observing Others would be more or less a function of familiarity with the demands of the test situation. The control group sub- jects, given no training between tests, may have focused on the easier task of being better observers. The subjects in the experimental group may have also been set to observe 32 more closely, but as a function of training, may have been slightly less concerned with what the Others wore or said, and more concerned with how the Others felt about themselves. In summary, the results of this study suggest that the training program was moderately successful; that train- ing focusing on second-person sensitivity does not generalize to third-person sensitivity; and that observational accuracy may be increased as a function of familiarization with the test. The next chapter will discuss a second study that was conducted to evaluate the impact of a training program designed to increase second-person interpersonal sensitivity. CHAPTER III STUDY TWO Problem Since the results on the effectiveness of training in interpersonal sensitivity were suggestive though not conclusive, the second study was conducted to: 1. Provide a general cross validation. 2. Determine the effects of one hour and two and a half hours of training on performance. 3. Investigate the effects of various methods of pre- senting information about Others. With respect to the last point, there is some evidence to indicate that, generally, this is not a critical variable. (Giedt, 1955; Soskin, 1959; and Stelmachers, 1964) An attempt was also made to focus more specifically on second-person interpersonal sensitivity by only using practice materials of this type during training. Though complete data were available for 58 experi- mental group subjects in the first study, on any given training session up to 100 students might be present. In this study, an attempt was made to increase the amount of subject participation by keeping the training groups smaller in size. 33 34 General Design Four groups were used in this study. Subjects were pretested prior to their assignments to the groups. Each of the groups met once a week for two successive weeks. At each meeting three groups received training and were post- tested. The fourth group served as the control, did not receive training, and was posttested at each meeting. Subjects The subjects in the study came from students en- rolled in a psychology of personality class at Michigan State University, during the Winter quarter of 1965. Table 8 presents a breakdown of subjects by sex. Table 8.--Number and sex of subjects Male Female Total Film group 3 9 12 Tape group 4 5 9 Live group 7 12 19 Control group 10 15 25 Total 24 41 65 Criterion Instrument The criterion instrument used in this study was the men film test, discussed in Chapter 2. 35 The Groups* Students were grouped on the basis of pretest scores and randomly assigned to one of four conditions. This grouping was done in order to insure equality of pretest means. Approximately 35 students were assigned to each group and mimeographed sheets were distributed to the class, indicating which group each student was assigned to. The general purpose of the research was explained to the class. They were told that participation was voluntary, but that additional class credit would be given to those who partici- pated. Group 1, film group.--The subjects were given their pretest scores and told about the general nature and purpose of the research. The women film test was shown and the items in the test on second-person inference were used as practice material. The general training procedure was similar to that followed in the first study; after answering the items the subjects were asked to discuss how they answered and why. After each few items were answered and discussed, the correct answers were given to the group. This continued for one hour and then the men film test was shown and the subjects answered the 30 items on second- person inference, (posttest 1). * See Appendix D for the training materials used. 36 The following week the film group met again and the subjects were given their pre and posttest 1 scores with their corresponding gains or losses. The women film test was shown again and additional practice material, prepared by the experimenter, was presented to the group. As in the first meeting, training followed the general format of the judges answering the items, and then discussing how and why they answered as they did. After one and a half hours of training, the men film test was shown and the subjects answered the 60 items for both second and third-person sen- sitivity, (posttest 2). Group 2, tape group.--The same procedure was fol- lowed for this group, but instead of seeing the women film test, this group heard a tape recording of the film's sound track. Group 3, liveggroup.--The same procedure was followed as in the film and tape groups, but subjects in this group saw interviews with three female students enrolled in a psy- chology of interviewing class. The experimenter interviewed the girls one at a time, and patterned his questions after those in the film. The three females completed the same criterion data as had the Others who appeared in the film. The practice material was of the same general form as the other experimental groups. 37 Group 4, control group.--This group served as the control and received no training. At the first meeting they were given their pretest scores and took the men film test. At the second meeting they were given their pre and posttest scores and corresponding gains or losses. Follow- ing this, they completed the men film test again. Results The data were first analyzed to determine test- retest correlations. These were computed for the control and experimental groups, using Pearson r's. Table 9 re- ports these coefficients. Changes in performance from pre to posttest l were investigated for the groups. These are shown in Table 10. The table indicates that the groups differ somewhat on pretest means. It is also apparent that almost no change occurs from pre to posttest l, for the four groups. Addi- tional analyses do not appear to be particularly fruitful, and thus, the remainder of the analyses will focus on changes from pre to posttest 2. 38 Table 9.--Test retest correlations Pre to Pre to N Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Control group 25 Second-person .27 .52 Third-person .42 Film group 12 Second-person .58 .33 Third-person .43 Tape group 9 Second-person .54 .27 Third-person .62 Live group 19 Second-person .44 .32 Third-person .29 Combined 40 Trained groups Second-person .53 .37 Third-person .40 Table 10.--Changes in performance from pretest to posttest 1 N Pretest Posttest 1 Difference Film group 12 16.9 16.6 - .3 Tape group 9 17.4 17.0 - .4 Live group 19 14.8 15.5 .7 Control group 25 15.4 15.5 .1 39 Matched t-tests were computed for each group from pre to posttest 2. The results of these comparisons are shown in Table 11. Table ll.--Second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Group N Pretest Posttest Difference t Tape 9 17.4 17.8 .4 .31 Film 12 16.9 17.3 4 .39 Control 25 15.4 16.0 .6 1.11 Live 19 14.8 16.6 1.8 1.95* *p = .10 As can be seen from this table, one of the four com- parisons approaches significance. The table also illustrates that the higher the pretest mean, the less the corresponding increase on posttest 2. T-tests of the differences between differences were computed comparing the control group with each of the experi— mental groups. (Walker and Lev, 1953, p. 158) None of the comparisons were found to be significant, and the mean in- crease for the control group was slightly larger than in- creases in the film and tape groups. As noted earlier, the groups were initially estab- lished to insure equality of pretest means. Participation in the study was voluntary, however, and subject participation 40 was such that differential group means and group size re- sulted. The tape group, for example, has a significantly higher mean than the live and control groups. These in- equalities of pretest means present certain difficulties in terms of the analyses. The first indication of these difficulties is seen in Table 11. It appeared that nega- tive correlations existed between pretest scores and gains (posttest 2 scores). Pearson r's were computed between pre- test scores and gains for the four groups. In addition, the three experimental groups were combined and a correla- tion was computed; this was also done for the experimental and control groups in the first study. Table 12 reports these correlations. Table 12.--Correlations between pretest scores and gains N 1: Study 1 Experimental 36 - .65 Control 36 - .72 Study 2 Film 12 - .69 Tape 9 - .60 Live 19 - .66 Control 25 — .42 Study 2 Combined Experimental 40 - .68 41 Table 12 indicates that substantial negative corre- lations exist between pretest scores and gains. These negative correlations, and the unequal pretest means may be partly obscuring any training impact. Matching subjects on the basis of pretest scores as in the first study does not completelyaflleviate the problem, because, for the most part, matching tends to be based on subjects who had relatively higher pretest scores. These subjects are less likely to show gains. In addition, the small number of subjects in the film and tape groups, re- stricts the number of possible matches. Matched t-tests were computed, however, comparing the differences between the control group and each of the experimental groups. Table 13 reports the results of these comparisons. Table 13.--Second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Control Compared With N Pretest Posttest t Film 10 Trained 16.1 16.9 Untrained 16.1 16.4 Difference in Gains .5 .39 Tape 8 Trained 17.1 17.5 Untrained 17.1 17.9 Difference in Gains .6 .40 Live 17 Trained 15.1 16.1 Untrained 15.1 15.6 Difference in Gains .5 .64 42 The results shown in this table indicate that although the differences do not approach Significance, the trend is for slightly larger increases in performance in the experimental groups. This slight trend suggested that if training was effective in producing an increase in per- formance, it was perhaps a differential effect as a function of pretest performance. In order to investigate this possibility, regres- sion lines for the experimental and control groups were plotted. They are based on the correlations between pre and posttest scores. Figure 1 indicates the bivariate densities for the combined experimental group and for the control group. In each parallelogram the middle "horizontal" line is the regression curve itself. The top "horizontal" line is the regression curve plus 28y x’ and the bottom is the regression curve minus 28y x’ The two vertical lines are boundaries on x; the right being § plus 28x, the left being E minus 28X.* Figure 1 indicates that subjects in the experimental group who initially score low, increase their performance on the posttest to a greater extent than subjects in the control group. It may also be seen that for relatively high pretest scores the trend is reversed; though the mag- nitude is less. A similar analysis of the men film test data for the experimental and control groups in study 1 was performed. This is shown in Figure 2. An examination of Figure 2 in- dicates a similar trend for greater increases in the *See Appendix E for the data on which Figure 1 and 2 are based. POSTTEST 43 Control Group Experimental Group —————— 25' 241 23- 21. 20‘ 19. 184 17‘ 16* 15- 14q 131 12' 111 10' A A. 7 j j I I I I r I 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRETEST Eigure l.--Regression lines on second-person sensitivity for the trained and untrained groups in Study 2. POSTTEST 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 ll 44 Control Group r Experimental Group ------- I‘_————__—T-—__-——_‘\ \ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRETEST Figure 2.--Regression lines on second-person sensitivity for the trained and untrained groups in Study 1. 45 experimental group at the lower end of the distribution. While the difference between the groups is less at the higher end, the regression lines do not cross. One further technique for investigating possible differential training effects is to divide pretest scores at the 50th percentile and compute t-tests of the differ- ences between differences. In order to compute these tests, pretest scores were categorized below 15, above 15, and at 15. This figure represents the 50th percentile utilizing the data from both studies as norms. Table 14 shows the results of the comparisons for subjects who initially score below the 50th percentile. Table 14 indicates that in both studies there is a tendency for the magnitude of change to be greater in the experi- mental groups. Table 14.--Second-person accuracy gains of students below the 50th percentile Mean Comparison N Gains df t p Study 1 Trained 16 3.3 Untrained 16 1.5 Difference in Gains 1.8 30 1.77 <.10 >.05 Study 2 Trained 12 4.1 Untrained 8 1.2 Difference in Gains 2.9 18 2.16 .05 46 Similar t—tests were also computed for those sub- jects who initially score above the 50th percentile. These are shown in Table 15. Table 15 indicates that no consis- tent or significant trends are present. Both groups in the first study, however, show larger losses than the groups in the second study. Table 15.--Second-person accuracy gains of students above the 50th percentile Mean Comparison N Gains df t p Study 1 Trained 13 -2.00 Untrained 13 -2.54 Difference in Gains .54 24 .50 >.75 Study 2 Trained 25 - .76 Untrained 14 .14 Difference in Gains - .90 37 1.01 .30 Data were also available for performance on third- person sensitivity. Table 16 shows the pretest and posttest means for the four groups. Table 16.--Third-person accuracy gains of trained and un- trained groups - Group N Pretest Posttest Difference Film 12 17.4 17.4 .0 Tape 9 18.6 18.0 -.6 Live 19 17.2 16.9 -.3 Control 25 16.9 16.6 -.3 47 Table 16 indicates that there were no increases in perfor- mance, and in three of the groups there is a slight decrease. Discussion and Summary The results of the analyses for changes in perfor- mance on second-person sensitivity indicate that, generally speaking, the effects of training were not pronounced. The general trends seen in the first study were not replicated in this study. A closer examination of the data, however, suggested that training was primarily affecting those sub- jects in the experimental group who scored lower on the pre- test. This was evidenced by an examination of experimental and control group regression lines, and by a larger mean increase in performance of experimental subjects, initially scoring below the 50th percentile. Negative correlations found between pretest scores and gains would predict increases in performance for those below the 50th percentile; they would not predict the results of the greater magnitude of gain in the experimental groups. The question may be raised as to whether these find- ings may be adequately explained by a simple regression to the mean. If this were the case, it does not appear that differential changes in the experimental and control groups would have been manifested. 48 The results for changes in performance on third- person sensitivity revealed that training did not increase performance. One experimental group had the same mean from pre to posttest, and the other groups showed a decrease in performance. The results on the influence of various types of input materials are somewhat inconclusive. On the one hand, no significant differences in terms of increased perfor- mance were found among the experimental groups. This might indicate that the manner in which information about Others is presented, during training, is not a critical variable. On the other hand, the relative lack of overall increases for the experimental group detracts from the validity of this interpretation. The next chapter will discuss the combined findings of both studies and their consistencies and inconsistencies with previous research. Limitations of the present studies and implications for future research, gained from this re- search, will also be discussed. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The Findings of the Studies The first study yielded relatively unambiguous findings. Though not statistically significant-for all com- parisons, the results suggested a trend in the direction of increased performance on second-person sensitivity as a function of training. It appeared that training which stressed practice, participation, and knowledge of results was explicitly focusing on behavior which individuals im- plicitly engage in during the course of social interaction, and enabled judges to increase their performance. The results of the second study generally failed to substantiate this conclusion. It was found, however, that subjects in the experimental groups who initially scored below the 50th percentile, increased their performance to a greater extent than the subjects in the control group. This was also found in the first study. An examination of the regression lines for the experimental and control groups in both studies also indicated that it was the lower scorers in the experimental groups who improved to a greater extent. The question may be raised as to why training seemed to have its major impact for these individuals. 49 50 l The fact that negative correlations were found be- tween pretest scores and gains may partially explain the findings. The same may be said for regression to the mean. Neither of the two, however, would explain the differential findings for the experimental and control groups. A number of processes affect, or are part of an individual's accuracy score; these may be thought of as variables which individuals bring to the judging situation. They would include the level and spread of the judge, his stereotypes, level of assumed similarity, and implicit per- sonality theories. One can assume that sensitivity is, or in part, a reflection of correct stereotyping, apprOpriate levels of assumed similarity, and adequate personality theories. As initially conceived, the purpose of training was to give judges an opportunity to practice making inferences, discuss reasons why they inferred the way they did, and receive feedback as to the correctness of their predictions. The general attempt was to enable judges to explicitly focus on processes which implicitly are a part of everyday inter- action. The control groups received general knowledge of results; they were given their pretest scores, and in the second study their gains or losses on the posttests. Subjects in the experimental groups were given the additional Oppor- tunity to practice making judgments, express reasons for their judgments,-and to find out if they were correct or not. 51 General knowledge of results seems to have been suf- ficient to motivate individuals to change. It also appeared that practice, participation, and more specific knowledge of results enabled lower scorers to modify incorrect stereo- types, level Of assumed similarity, and implicit personality theories. Subjects in the control groups, initially below the 50th percentile, though they may have been motivated to change, had little or no Opportunity to check the correct- ness Of these judgmental processes. Those who initially score above 15 may have been less motivated to change because scores higher than this are above the 50th percentile. Two factors, however, seem more basic. First, the higher one scores initially, the less is the probability that gains will be made by changing responses. This is most true, if subjects gain little dur- ing training and change responses in a random fashion. Second, higher scorers may have less to learn; they make fewer errors and possibly fewer "gross" errors. One explana- tion, then, for the differential increases may be that lower scorers make "gross" errors with respect to stereotyping, assumed similarity, and implicit personality theories. It appears conceivable that the major impact Of the training was allowing the judges to correct relatively large errors. While the above explanation seems plausible, it does not resolve the problem of why the suggestive overall trends found in the first study, were much less clearly seen in the second study. Two major reasons appear tenable. 52 In the first study eight hours were directly or in- directly devoted to sensitivity training; compared to two and a half in the second study. One can only speculate as to what the results would have been if training were con- ducted for as long a period in the second study. Another difference existed between the training in the two studies which may have been important. In the first study, three of the eight training sessions were spent by the subjects taking diagnostic tests of components of sensitivity. Each subject knew his level and spread rating habits and how much similarity he assumed. He also knew how these components were related to sensitivity. While this interpretation must be speculative, because of the nature of the data, it seems reasonable to assume that these diagnostic tests added to the effectiveness of the training in the first study. Consistencies with Previous Findings Wakeley's research (1961) is closely related to the present studies. His findings rather clearly indicated that increases in sensitivity occurred as a result of training. Our results, while not contradictory, were somewhat less clear. A number of differences exist between the studies which make strict comparisons untenable. Wakeley did not distinguish between second and third-person items in his criterion as the present research did; the criterion on 53 which Wakeley found significant increases in performance was not constructed with the idea of eliminating the in- fluences of stereotype accuracy as ours was; and his train- ing programs were built around specific principles of the judging process, while our programs were more general, stressing principles of learning. Whether second and third-person sensitivity have different determinants, as suggested by Bronfenbrenner e£_§l. (1958) and Grossman (1963) is clouded in our research by the lack of clear increased performance on second-person sensitivity for the experimental groups. If increases for second-person sensitivity were more pronounced and were coupled with the experimental groups' lack of superior gains for third-person sensitivity, our results would be more conclusive. It was found, however, that changes in performance for second and third-person sensitivity were not similar. This was more clearly seen in the first study where both trained and untrained groups showed trends in the direction of increases in third-person sensitivity. It may be con- cluded then, that while no conflicting evidence was found, no strong support may be offered. For the effects of different methods Of presenting information about Others, a similar conclusion appears ap- propriate. While no differences in gains were found as a 54 function of various inputs, clearer overall results would have added to the strength of our support for previous research findings. The findings for Observational accuracy are rela- tively clear. Of 12 comparisons within the experimental and control groups, 11 revealed increases in performance which were significant at the .01 level or more. While the nature Of the data precludes specifying precisely why these increases were found, it is reaSonable to assume that famifiarization with the test situation enabled the subjects to develop an apprOpriate set. These results are, in part, consistent with those of Guilford (1929) and Martin (1938) who found increases in Observational accuracy for their trained groups. The findings also agree, however, with those Of Jenness (1932) who found an increase in his control group. These previous results, together with the present findings suggest that increases in observational accuracy are not necessarily a function of training and can be achieved relatively easily through exposure and familiar- ization with the task. Limitations of the Present Research This section will discuss the samples used in the studies, the training programs, and the criterion instru- ment. 55 A possible limitation of the first study was the lack of strict comparability between the experimental and control groups. One group was drawn from a psychology of personality class, while the other was drawn from an indus- trial psychology course. Differences, not apparent from our analyses, may have been present. In the second study all subjects came from the same population; a psychology of personality class. In this study,tflmnh no question exists about population compara- bility. Certain problems were created, however, by sample differences in pretest means. Future research using larger groups with more rigid controls to insure equality of pre- test performance would be desirable. A chief value of the research was the insights gained from conducting the training sessions. These relate both to sensitivity and to implications for future research with training programs. Though the design of the research precludes quantitative support, it appeared that individuals enter training with an array of stereotypes, assumed simi- larities, and implicit personality theories built up over a lifetime of making inferences. This became apparent to the researcher, during training, as subjects expressed reasons for their answers to the practice problems. Responses such as; "She is older and Older people are more conservative," "She seems to be like me and I feel this way," and "She seems confident, and confident people are bold," would be typical of comments expressed by judges during training. 56 During training, judges were given on Opportunity to check the correctness of their inferences. An individual might discover that his assumptions about trait relation- ships were incorrect and attempt to change them. What became evident, however, was that the training failed to Offer explicit guidelines for change. This was, perhaps, the major weakness of the training programs. For training to be most effective, it would seem advisable to develOp more explicitly structured programs. One possibility would be to develop explicit personality theories. Personality scales could be administered to subjects and these scales could be factor analyzed to deter- mine trait factors and correlated clusters. This would then be presented to the judges during training to replace or complement their implicit theories. An additional factor which future research should consider incorporating into training programs, is the use of diagnostic tests of various sensitivity components, as was done in the first study. In summary, it is suggested that future research include controls for insuring equality of pretest perfor- mance; training programs which Offer clear guidelines for change; and the use of diagnostic tests of sensitivity com- ponents. 57 The Criterion Problem The preceding discussion has suggested possible re- visions for future research. Another area of the present research which needs to be investigated is the criterion. Weaknesses hithecriterion.instrument may obscure the effects Of a sound training program, and artifacts in the instrument may make a poor program appear worthwhile. The nature of our data permitted an investigation of the criterion to be made. Responses to the men film test were item analyzed, using the data from the first study. From this item analysis it was possible to investigate, in an exploratory manner, variables related to the adequacy of the criterion for use in research on training. A summary of this analysis is re- ported in Appendix F. An important consideration is whether the items in the criterion are too difficult, too easy, or of intermediate difficulty. It may be, for example, that items relatively easy or relatively difficult would be less appropriate than items of intermediate difficulty in assessing the value of training. The items for second and third-person sensitivity were classified as easy, moderate, or difficult. Easy items were those where 65 percent or more of the subjects in both the experimental and control groups made correct judgments on the pretest. For moderate items, the corresponding per- centage was between 35 and 64; for difficult items the 58 percentage was 0 to 34. On this basis, 54 of the 60 items were classified; 19 were classified as easy, 23 as moderate, and 12 as difficult.* In order to investigate possible relationships between item difficutly and changes in per- formance, those items where there was a difference Of 10 per cent or less between.the groups, on the pretest, were selected. Table 17 presents a breakdown of item difficulty and the extent to which there were differential gains, or no gains between the groups on the posttest. Table l7.--Item difficulty and group gains Item Experimental Control Difficulty Gain Gain NO Gain Total Easy 5 2 4 11 Moderate 5 4 3 12 Difficult 4 2 5 11 Total 14 8 12 34 The results shown in Table 17 suggest no clear trends with respect to item difficulty and group gains. It may be, thenfi that all three ranges of item difficulty should be included in a criterion which measures the effectiveness of training. *Six items could not be classified because the per- centages in both the experimental and control groups were not within the limits of the same difficulty level. 59 Another area of consideration concerns the degree of difficulty that judges have in differentiating among the three individuals in the film. The available data suggests that the subjects had some difficulty differentiating be- tween the first and third men in the film, (Mr. G. and Mr. Z.), and had less difficulty with the second man, (Mr. W). It was evidenced by the finding that on 12 of the 19 easy items, the correct answer was Mr. W. .It was also suggested by the pattern of responses on the difficult items. On 9 of the 12 items, a majority of the judges selected the same incorrect alternative; for five of these items the correct answer was Mr. G., and for three the correct answer was Mr. Z. On seven items the incorrectly chosen alternative reflected confusion between these two men. That is, if Mr. G. was the correct answer, Mr. Z. was chosen, and if Mr. Z. was the correct answer, Mr. G. was chosen. It would seem that for training purposes, individuals should be.more easily differentiated. This would be especially true if the experimenter attempts to construct explicit personality theories for the judges to use. If judges are learning which traits are correlated, so that the perception of one trait suggests another, then it would seem reasonable that the individuals being judged differ on the trait demensions. 60 Related to the above is the question of whether judgments should be made for one individual, or among more than one as in the present criterion. The task presented to the subjects in our studies appears to be more difficult than making inferences about individuals one at a time. For example, matching an individual with his selected self- descriptive adjective would seem to be complicated if it was thought that two or more individuals might have selected the same adjective. While presenting more than one individual to the judges might be a difficult task, the presentation of single individuals presents the problem of dealing with the influences Of other components such as level and spread.. It would seem apprOpriate, then, to present more than one individual to the judges, but at the same time, efforts should be made to insure that clear differences exist between them. Based on the analysis of the criterion, the following tentative suggestions for future research seem apprOpriate: The criterion should include all levels of item difficulty; relatively clear differences should exist among the Others to be judged; and judgments should be made between more than one individual. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The present research focused on second-person inter- personal sensitivity, using a relatively pure measure of the component. Training was designed to stress practice, parti- cipation, and knowledge of results; principles found to be effective in most training programs.. Two studies were con- ducted. In the first study, a control and experimental group took two pretests each assessing observational and interpersonal accuracy. Sound-color films were used to present the individuals to be judged. The experimental group received eight one hour training sessions; three Of which were devoted to taking diagnostic tests of sensitivity components. Both groups were then posttested on the same criterion instruments. Training effectiveness was assessed by matching experimental and control subjects on the basis Of pretest scores and computing matched t-tests. On the basis of the results Of the first study it was concluded that: 1. Training resulted in a trend of increased perfor- mance for second-person sensitivity. 61 62 2. The effects of training did-not generalize to third-person sensitivity, suggesting that second and third-person sensitivity have different deter- minants. 3. Anticipated gains in Observational accuracy found for both groups suggested that familiarization with the test situation was sufficient to allow subjects to improve. A second study was conducted to provide a general cross validation,to determine the effects of one hour and two and a half hours Of training, and tO assess the influence of various types of practice materials on performance. Subjects were pretested with one.Of the criterion instruments, matched on the basis of their scores, and ran- domly assigned to one Of four groups. Each group met twice and both times was posttested with the same criterion instrument. The practice materials during.training for three groups were either sound-color films, tape recordings, or live interviews; the fourth group served as the control. Changes in performance were assessed by t-tests. The results of the second study indicated that: 1. One hour of training did not result in increased performance. 2. Differences in practice materials did not result in differential group increases. 3. Training did not result in greater overall gains for the experimental groups. 63 Additional analyses of second-person sensitivity were made for the experimental and control groups in both studies. These were t-tests of the differences between differences for subjects above and below.the 50th percen- tile, and an examination of pre to posttest regression lines. It was found that trained subjects.who initially scored low increased their performance to a greater extent than untrained subjects. The combined results Of both studies were discussed and it was concluded that: l. The main effectiveness Of training.was for those subjects who score low on the pretest. It was sug- gested that these subjects make larger errors of stereotyping, assumed similarity, and implicit per- sonality theories. 2. The differences in overall performance increases found between the experimental groups in the first and second studies were probably due to the shorter amount of training and absence of diagnostic tests in the second study. 3. Training was effective in enabling subjects to practice making inferences, 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 interpersonal inferences. It was suggested that future training programs pro- vide subjects with a clear framework for change. Construct- ing empirically derived explicit personality theories was Offered as one technique. REFERENCES Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J. and Gallway, Mary. The measurement of skill in social perception. In: D.C. McClelland (Ed), Talent.and Society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958, 29-111. Bruner, J.S. and Tagiuri, R. The perception Of people. In: G. Lindzey (Ed), Handbook Of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954, 634-654. Bruni, E. A Film Test Accuracy in Observing People and Its Correlates. Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. Buzby, D.E. The interpretation of facial expresSion. Amer. J. Psychol. 1942, 55, 602-604. Cline, V.B. Ability to judge personality assesSed with a stress interview and sound film technique. 5. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1955, 59, 183-187. ., and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal perception-—a general trait? J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1960, 52, 1-7. ’ Cronbach, L.J. Processes affecting scores on "understanding Of others" and "assumed similarity.". Psychol. Bull, 1955, 53, 177-193. Crow, W.J. The effect of training upon accuracy and vari- ability in interpersonal perception. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 51, 355-359. ., and Farson, R.E. The effect of sensitivity training upon accuracy and variability in judging others. Western Behavioral Sciences Institute Report NO. 9, 1961. II ., And Hammond, K.R. The generality of accuracy and response sets in interpersonal perception. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55, 384-394. Dymond, Rosalind F. A scale for measurement of empathic ability. J. consulthsychol., 1949, 55, 127-133. 64 65 Edwards, A.L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research.~ New York: Holt, Rinehart.and Winston, 1962. Estes, S.G. Judging personality from expressive behavior. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1938, 55,.217-236. Gage, N.L. Judging interests from expressive behavior. Psychol- Monographs., 1952, 55, NO. 18. (whole no. 350). ‘ ., and Cronbach, L.J.; Conceptual and.methodological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol Rev.- ., Leavitt, G.S. and Stone, G.C. The intermediary key in the analysis of interpersonal perception. Psychol. Bull., 1956, 55, 258-266. Giedt, F.H.( Comparison of visual, content, and auditory cues in interviewing, Journal of Consulting ng- chology., 1955, 55, 407-416. ., Cues associated with accurate and inaccurate interview impressions. Psychiatry, 1958, El, 405- 409. Grossman, B. A Test of Interpersonal Sensitivity and Its Correlates. Master's thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1963. Guilford, J.P. An experiment in learning to read facial expression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1929, 31, 191-202. ‘ Hastorf, A.H. and Bender, I.E. A caution regarding the measurement of empathic ability. J. abnorm soc. Jenness, A. The recognition of facial expression. Psy- chol. Bull. 1932, 25, 324-350. Kelley, E.L. and Fiske, D.W. The Prediction of Performance in Clinical Psychology. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1951. Kessen, W. The role of experience in judging children's photographs. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 51, 375-379. Lindgreen, H.C. and Robinson, J. An evaluation of Dymond's test of insight and empathy. J. counsulting Psychol., 1953, ll, 172-176. 66 Luft, J. Implicit hypotheses and clinical predictions. 5., abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950, 55, 756-759. Lundy, RaM. Assimilative projection in interpersonal per- ceptions. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 55, 33-38. Martin, H.W. Effects of practice on judging various traits Of individuals. Psychol. Bull., 1938, 55, 690. (Abstract). Miles, M.B. Human relations training: processes and out- comes. J. counseling Psychol., 1960, 1, 301-306. Oskamp, S. The relationship of clinical experience and training methods to several criteria of clinical prediction. PsycholnMonographs., 1962, 76, NO. 27 whole. _— Rolanski, N.A. How shall a life history be written. Character and Personality. 1940-41, 5, 188-207. Rabin, A.I. Szondi's pictures: identification of a diag- nosis. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950, 55, 392-395. Smith, H.C. Sensitivity to PeOple. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. (in press). Soskin, W.F. Bias in postdiction from projective tests. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1954, 55, 69-74. .' Influence of four types of data on diagnostic conceptualization in psychological testing. 5. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 55, 69-78. Stelmachers, Z.T. and McHugh, R.B., Contributions of stereo- typed and individualized information to predictive accuracy.) QLCOunsulingPsychol., 1964, 55, 234-242. Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull., 1955, 55, 1-23. Tobolski, F. P. and Kerr, W. A. Predictive value of the empathy test in automobile salesmanship. J. applied Psychol., 1952, 55, 310-311. Wakeley, J. H. The Effects of Specific Training on Accuracy in Junding Others. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Walker, Helen M. and Lev, J. Statistical Inferences. New York: Henry HOlt and Co., 1953. Wendell, C. and Smith, K.V., Consistency of interview methods in appraisal of attitudes. J. applied Psychol., APPENDICES APPENDIX A The Criterion Instruments 1. The men film test 2. The women film test 70 EB. BG/HS February, 1963 THE JUDGMENT OF MEN GENERAL DIRECTIONS: This is a test of your ability to judge men. You are going to see five-minute filmed interviews with three men: Mr. G, Mr. W., and Mr. Z. When the film is over you will be asked to answer questions about what they looked like and said and also to answer questions about how they rated themselves and what their friends think of them. That is, the test is divided into two parts: Part I. Observational Accuracy Part II. Inference Accuracy Instructions for Part I This part of the test is concerned with the appear- ance, actions, and conversation of the three men. The statements in the test are of the following kinds: He had a red hat He smiled frequently He said he liked to play chess Answer the questions by using spaces 1,2,3, and 4 on the separate answer sheet: Mark "1" if you think the correct answer is Mr. G. (the man in the first inter- View) Mark "2" if you think the correct answer is Mr. W. (the man in the second inter- view) Mark "3" if you think the correct answer is Mr. Z. (the man in the third inter- view) Mark "4" if you think the statement applies to none of the three men. DO all the items and try not to leave any blank. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE FILM IS FINISHED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART 2 FOLLOW PART I 71 PART I OBSERVATIONAL ACCURACY Appearance and Actions The first thirty statements refer to the appearance and actions Of the men. REMEMBER to use "1" for Mr. G., "2" for Mr. W., "3" for Mr. 2., and “4" for statements that refer to none of the men. Correct Answers He smiled frequently. He kept wringing his hands. His shirt and jacket were the same color. He left quickly. He shook the interviewer's hand when he entered. He wore a knit white pullover shirt. He wore a wedding ring. He sat far back from the table. He gave a quick smile upon leaving. He put his left hand to his chin. He had a rather high forehead. 12. He did not change his facial expression. 13. His eyes appeared to be red. 14. He had a nervous stutter. 15. His elbows were on the table. \ocoqoxmwar-J I l—‘ O O N-bWHI—‘Nwaw-bwl—‘tbw |_- H O 16. He folded a piece Of paper. 17. He had a very soft voice. 18. He moved his chair forward. 19. His hands were in his lap most of the time. 20. He sat sideways to the interviewer. 21. He was wearing a shiny belt. 22. There was a birthmark on his upper lip. 23. He wore a tan sport jacket. 24. He needed to shave. 25. He covered his mouth. 26. There was a pen or pencil in his hand. 27. He had a pen clipped to his shirt. 28. His hair was parted on the right. 29. He wore a turtle-neck sweater. 30. He did not shift his body at all during the interview. Hub-bbNNNUNwwwob-MH 72 Conversation The following statements refer to what the interviewees said. Remember to use “1" for Mr. G, "2" for Mr. W, "3" for Mr. Z, and "4" for none of them. Correct Answers 2 31. He did not want to talk about himself. 1 32. He would sometimes go to a person who lied about him. 4 33. Being in movies make him nervous. 2 34. He is not very athletic. 4 35. People don't need religion. 1 36. He has been in home movies. 2 37. He keeps his emotions in check. 4 38. He never attends church. 1 39. He likes dancing. 4 40. He likes being married. 2 41. Moral teachings are important to most peOple. 3 42. He would get "sore" if someone lied about him. 1 43. People need a basic belief. l 44. It is good to get along with people. 2 45. He likes music. 46. He is an average person. 47. He likes to "play around." 48. He wouldn't like it if his brother took his car. 49. Religion is not a major issue to him. 50. He said that people have a big conscience. 51. Religion keeps him from things he feels like doing. 52. He never goes to parties. 53. He has few friends. 54. Only a mean or big thing makes him lose his temper. 55. He gets along well with intimate friends. 56. Religion is important to him. 57. He said that he doesn't mind being in movies. 58. It is important to have a hobby. 59. He likes summer sports. 60. He is disturbed at the way people get after parties. WobrbwwNwaWWHWl-‘H 73 PART II INFERENCE ACCURACY INSTRUCTIONS: All the men in the film 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. G is (1), Mr. W. is (2), and Mr. Z. is (3). In other words, if you think the answer to a particular question is: Mr. G. mark "1" Mr. W. mark "2" Mr. Z. 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. Religious Beliefs (1) Mr. G., (2) Mr. W., and (3) Mr. 2., filled out a rating scale about their religious beliefs. Which one answered in the following manner? Correct Answers 2 61. 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 62. 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 63. Disagreed that "There exists an evil intelli- gence, personnage, or spirit in the universe often referred to as Satan or the Devil." 74 Adjective Check List The three men were each given pairs Of adjectives and were asked to choose the one which they thought was a better 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. G., "2“ if you think it was Mr. W., or "3" if you think it was Mr. Z. Correct Answers 2 64. Arrogant - apathetic 2 65. Progressive - outgoing 3 66. 55y - assertive 1 67. Steady - spunky l 68. Tolerant - ingenious l 69. Stable - robust 1 70. Practical - charming 3 71. Contented - quick 1 72. Warm - forceful 1 73. Moderate - artistic 2 74. Restless - unemotional 3 75. Sincere - original 1 76. Good-natured - painstaking 3 77. Kind - insightful l 78. Changeable - tense 3 79. Loyal - clever 3 80. Considerate - sharp-witted 1 81. Foolish -"Eynica1 Personality Inventory Items (1) Mr. G., (2) Mr. W., and (3) Mr. Z. were given a series of true-false items. Which one of the three answered false to these items? Correct Answers 3 82. I like to be the center Of attention. 3 83. It is easy for me to talk to strangers. 2 84. At times I think I am no good at all. Which one of the three answered true to these items? 2 85. I easily become impatient with people. 1 86. I take a pretty easy-going and lighthearted attitude toward life. 2 87. My hardest battles are with myself. 75 3 88. Policemen are usually honest. 3 89. I seldom have quarrels with the members of my family. 1 90. I do not always tell the truth. Thumbnail Sketches by Friends Friends of (1) Mr. G., (2) Mr. W., and (3) Mr. Z. also gave thumbnafldescriptions of them. Which one was described as follows? Correct Answers 2 91. "Is in a state of rebillion against all religions." 2 92. "Enjoys almost all good art and music." 3 93. "Does quite poorly in speaking to groups." 2 94. "Rather fussy about what he eats and how it is prepared. 3 95. "Is shy and reserved at parties." 3 96. "Prefers going steady with one person." 3 97. "Rather easy-going with no great ambition." l 98. "Is fairly easy-going with his children." 1 99. "Raises voice a little but maintains control in family arguments." l 100. "Is about average in regards to ambition." 2 101. "Somewhat insecure and highstrung." 1 102. "Is easy to get along with." 3 103. "Is a rather quiet and humble person." 3 104. "Loyal, honest, and kind." 1 105. "Enjoys himself at parties, but is not much noticed." 106. "Very reliable and hard working." 107. "Avoids emotional scenes with people because they make him feel most uncomfortable." 2 108. "Tends to 'stew' about things, changes his mind back and forth before making final decisions." N00 Ratings by Friends (1) Mr. G., (2) Mr. W., (3) Mr. 2., were rated by their friends on a series Of personality traits. Which one was rated as follows? 109. least affectionate 110. most rebellious 111. least shy 112. least friendly 113. least egotistical 114. most careful 115. least ambitious 116. least realistic 117. least confident 118. most egotistical 119. least rebellious 120. least careful (JLJNBOBJN Hranamcth 2/11/63 ht 76 EB. BG/HS February, 1963 THE JUDGMENT OF WOMEN GENERAL DIRECTIONS This is a test of your ability to judge women. You are going to see five-minute filmed interviews with three women: Mrs. D., Mrs. N., and Mrs. P. When the film is over you will be asked to answer ques- tions about what they looked like and said and also to answer questions about how they rated themselves and what their friends think of them. That is, the test is divided into two parts: Part I. Observational Accuracy Part II. Inference Accuracy Instructions for Part I This part of the test is concerned with the appear- ance, actions, and conversation of the three women. The statements in the test are of the following kinds: She had a red hat. She smiled frequently. She said she liked to play tennis. Answer the questions by using spaces 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the separate answer sheet: Mark "1" if you think the correct answer is Mrs. D. (the woman in the first interview) Mark "2" if you think the correct answer is Mrs. N. (the woman in the second interview) Mark "3“ if you think the correct answer is Mrs. P. (the woman in the third interview) Mark "4" if you think the statement applies to none of the three women. Please answer all the statements, leaving none blank. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE FILM IS FINISHED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART II FOLLOW PART I 77 PART I Appearance and Actions The first sixty statements refer to the appearance and actions of the women. REMEMBER to use “1" for Mrs. D., "2" for Mrs. N., "3" for Mrs. P. and "4" for statements that refer to none Of the women. Correct Answers 1 1. She wore short sleeves. 4 2. She wore a necklace. l 3. She faced the camera directly. 1 4. Her hair was messy and uncombed. 2 5. She wore a ring on her right hand. 2 6. She smiled very infrequently. 3 7. Her hands were below the table. 1 8. She clenched her fingers. 3 9. She had very thin eyebrows. 4 10. She straightened her glasses. 1 11. She leaned back in her chair. 3 12. Her hair was turned under on the ends. 1 13. She had a long thin neck. 4 14. She had to clear her throat. 2 15. She spoke slowly and softly. 16. Her coat had a button undone. 17. She looked down as she left. 18. She nervously tugged at her collar. 19. She wore shiny silver earrings. 20. Her ring had a dark colored stone. 21. Her watch had a gold strap on it. 22. She wore no lipstick. 23. She had waves in her hair. 24. She used no hand gestures at all. 25. She took something from the table as she left. 26. She gestured with both hands. 27. She carried no purse. 28. She wore no earrings. 29. She put her gloves on the table. 30. She sat sideways to the interviewer. NhI—Iwr-wamppwwaww 78 Conversation The remaining statements refer to what the interviewees said. Remember to use "1" for Mrs. D., "2" for Mrs. N., "3" for Mrs. P., and "4" for none of them. Correct Answers 2 31. She wished she had more patience. 4 32. She reads a great deal. 1 33. She expects people to be inconsiderate. 4 34. She has few friends. 2 35. Religion makes people better. 4 36. In her spare time she works in her home. 2 37. It is a problem for her to put up with 10 other employees. 1 38. Religion is something to cling to and depend on. 3 39. She loses her temper when she's tired and nervous. 4 40. She thinks religious persons don't lose their temper. 3 41. Religion should be the greatest thing in the home. 4 42. She has no time for hobbies. 3 43. She would give money for mentally disturbed people. 1 44. She never gets finished with housework. 3 45. She thinks she is quite a hard worker. 2 46 She loses her temper Often. 3 47. She would laugh off a lie told about her. 2 48. Religion should be "over 50% Of one's life." 2 49. One of her handicaps is lack of time to do what she wants to do. 4 50. She thinks there is good in everyone. 1 51. She tends to control her temper too much. 2 52. Her work is in the field Of religion. 3 53. Remembering names is her greatest problem. 4 54. She can't control her temper. 1 55. The inconsiderateness of people makes her lose her temper. 1 56. A lie would make her mad. 4 57. Her greatest problem is neglecting her family. 1 58. She likes to do things that are creative. 2 59. She agreed that she is "very busy." 3 60. Religion is important in her home. 79 PART II INFERENCE ACCURACY INSTRUCTIONS: All the women in the film 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 state- ments below are based on the answers that the women 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, Mrs. D. is (1), Mrs. N. is (2), and Mrs. P. is (3). In other words, if you think the answer to a particular question is: Mrs. D. mark "1" Mrs. N. mark "2" Mrs. P. mark "3" The correct answers are known from the attitude scales and other tests that the interviewed women filled out. Also, the correct answers are equally distributed among the three women. Religious Beliefs (1) Mrs. D., (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P., filled out a rating scale about their religious beliefs and values. Which one of the three would have made the following statements? Correct Answers 1 l. Agreed that "While God may exist, it is quite difficult for me to accept such a fact without some definite proof." 1 2. Most strongly agreed that "PeOple don't neces- sarily have to believe in God in order to lead good lives and have a high system of ethics and morals." 2 3. Most strongly 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. 4. Most strongly agreed that "When in doubt, I have usually found it best to stop and ask God for guidance." 80 l 5. Agreed least that "I have sometimes been very conscious of the presence of God." 2 6. Most strongly agreed that "NO one.who has ex- perienced God like I have could doubt his existence." 2 7. Most strongly agreed that "I have sometimes been very conscious of the presence of God." Adjective Check List (1) Mrs. D., (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P. filled out a form which contained a number of pairs of adjectives. They were asked to check the adjective in the pair which most closely fit themselves. Which one checked the underlined adjective in the following pairs? Correct Answers 8. Conservative - excitable 9. Talkative - boastful 10. Curious - pleasure seeking 11. Reliable - feminine 12. Interests wide - efficient l3. Impulsive - forgetful 14. Original - quiet 15. Spontaneous - attractive l6. Unconventional - unassuming 17. UnderstanaIng - timid 18. Fairminded’- sharp-witted 19. Unselfish - cool 20. Moderate - silent 21. Healthy - tough 22. Contented - progressive 23. Changeable - submissive 24. 5ympathetic - charming 25. Sincere - warm 26. Courageous - rational 27. Practical - wholesome 28. FrIendl — humorous 29. POised - moderate 30. Capable - obliging WWNNWNWHNWNWNNHHHl—‘HNHHN D., 81 Thumbnail Sketches (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P., were described by their friends. Which one was described as follows? (1) Mrs. Correct Answers 1 31. 1 32. 2 33. 3 34. 2 35. 1 36. 3 37. 2 38. 3 39. 3 40. 2 41. 2 42. l 43. 1 44. (1) Mrs. D., "Emotionally possessed Of considerable mood swings (happy or very unhappy)." "Is very friendly tO everybody at social gatherings and enjoys herself very much.“ "Always on time." "Maintains quite firm and strict discipline with her children." "Very conscientious and responsible." "Likes to be with people who like her when she feels blue." "A very generous and warm hearted person." "Handles and budgets money extremely well." "Is exceptionally sound and stable with regard to her emotional and mental health." "An exceptionally hard working and energetic person." "A very stable, well balanced woman." "Weighs things quite carefully before making a decision." "Resents her husband's criticism and gets upset." "Is open and warm in showing affection to people." Ratings by Friends (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P. were rated by their friends on a series Of personality traits. Which one was rated as follows? Nr-FJNtOUJFWABJFW-bomtvk4H 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. least cooperative least confident most careful least unrealistic most stubborn least friendly least ambitious most affectionate least affectionate most shy least egotistical least rebellious least stubborn most unrealistic least careful least impractical 2/20/63 ht APPENDIX B Training Materials for the First Study 1. The 2. The 3. The 4. The 5. The 6. The 7. The 8. The first training session second training session third training session fourth training session fifth training session sixth training session seventh training session eighth training session 83 H. C. Smith November, 1959 TRAINING SESSION 1 THE CASE OF BORIS* Boris is a strong and tall college student Of 21. Although somewhat above average in intelligence, he has a very poor academic record. He is popular, handsome, and somewhat spoiled by women. His father is an alert and Opportunistic Irish businessman who is now doing very well with a garage on the outskirts of Chicago. His mother is a muscular woman who weighs 175 pounds, never misses a National League ball game, and loves to gamble. Boris was rarely punished by his father but was repeatedly whipped by his mother. Boris is extremely active and almost tireless. He seldom sleeps more than six hours, is up by 5:30 A.M. and likes to start the day with a cold shower. Exercise is carried on regularly and with almost perfect routine. He has a punching bag which he carries about with him and sets up wherever he goes. When possible, he likes a regular gym workout for about three hours each morning and for two more hours in the late afternoon. If he does not get his exercise, he becomes irritable, uncomfortable, and sometimes depressed. He is fond of stunt flying and automobile racing and had found opportunities to take part in both. For each of the statements below indicate whether you think it is "true" or "false." Boris was slow is learning to walk. He could ride a bicycle when he was four. He now feels that he should have been whipped a good deal more during his childhood. He reads much less than the average student. He is polite and considerate. He has many close friends. He is generally patient with peOple. He is bothered by insomnia. . He likes to confide in others. 10. He sleeps nude and swims nude when he can. 11. He likes to go swimming outside in the winter. 12. He prefers to sleep on the floor without a mattress. 13. He is unusually concerned and disturbed about sexual matters. 14. He appears unable to express feeling except in a violent outburst. F 15. Sheldon, the psychologist who dealt with Boris, felt that he should have been much more firmly disciplined as a child. LONi-J o o o F F F FBI-388888868 Ell-3P3 koooqoxme. W’fl'fl'flm'fl’fl’fi'fl'fi V-J '11 *From: Sheldon, W. H. (1945) Varieties of Temperament, N.Y.: Harper, pp. 121-146. 84 H. C. Smith December, 1957 Name Group Directions: Read each case. For each statement put "T“ in the space in front of the number of the statement if you think it is true; "F" if you think it is false. THE CASE OF AGNES NELSON Agnes Nelson is a teacher in a small midwestern university. She is unmarried and in her mid-fifties. A devoted teacher, she enjoys her work and takes a personal interest in all her students. She is blind in one eye but covers her handicap well. The third oldest in a family of eight, she is the only one to have a college education. As a child, she would hide somewhere in order to read books instead of doing house- work. Since her parents came from northern EurOpe in 1900, two languages were spoken in the home. Her father was an iron miner, and the family lived in a small company house in a small company town. Her parents were very strict with the children. They encouraged the children to quit school and go to work. Her sisters and brothers are now married and live within a short distance of the family home. Agnes is active in the university's social life with other single women her age. She is a gracious hostess and does everything to perfection. Her hobby is interior decora- tion and her apartment is just like a magazine feature story on interior decoration. *** __1.__ Grammatical errors that family members make bother her. 2. All of her family are proud of her accomplishments. What other people would think is very important to her in planning her activities. 4. Agnes readily shows her affection for her family. Sex discussions do not embarrass her. Agnes was very hurt when aniece married instead of following in her footsteps. 7. Her career has always been more important than marriage. ll. 85 She enjoys housework. She likes and approves Of all her sisters- and brothers-in-law. She has invested money in the stock market. She has travelled over most of the United States. She is not a good cook. Her sisters ask her advice when buying clothes. She tries to visit all her brothers.and sisters whenever she is at the family home. She favors labor unions. 11/27/57 js 86 THE CASE OF SMITH DIRECTIONS: The present instructor filled out the Strong Vocational Interest Blank several years ago. Among other things, he indicatedia liking for about half of the following items, disliking for the other half. Answer "1" for those which you think he expressed a liking, "2" for those for which you think he expressed a dislike. ___ l. ___ Sales Manager ___ 2. ___ Secretary, Chamber of Commerce ___ 3. ___ Life Insurance Salesman ___ 4. ___ Continually changing activities ___ 5. ____ Auto Salesman ___ 6. ___ .Actor ___ 7. ___ Golf ___ 8. ___ Carpenter .___ 9. ___ Algebra ___10. ___ Tennis ___11. ___ Entertaining others '___12. ___ Living in the city ___13. ___ Certified Public Accountant ___14. ___ Sculptor 15. Picnics 11/7/58 JM 87 H. C. Smith TRAINING SESSION 2 THE CASE OF FRED AND JOHN* Fred, and John, identical twins, had very similar backgrounds and personality. Their father, an unsuccessful and alcoholic son Of a well-to-do New England manufacturer, had gone to Cuba to make his fortune. He failed there as a farmer, and also failed in Florida where the family had moved when the boys were four. He eventually returned to New England to live with the twins' grandmother. The mother Of the twins was industrious and long-suffering. Though she was, for the most part, responsible for rearing the children, their father was sporadically a demanding and cruel disci- plinarian. The twins left school after the eighth grade and went to work in the same factory on semiskilled jobs. They are working at identical jobs today. They have the same eye and hair color and look very much alike. Both have type 0 and Rh positive blood. Both are shy, dependent, passive, and anxious. The twins came to the attention of physicians at the age Of 46 because John had developed a severe duodenal ulcer while Fred remained in good health. Two psychiatrists and a gastroenterologist interviewed both twins. They saw John for a total of 25 hours and Fred for six. Stomach X-rays were studied and blood pepsin levels as a reflection of gastric secretion were determined. One psychologist administered an intelligence test, the Rorschach Inkblot Test, and the Thematic Apperception Test, and a second psychologist, who knew nothing about the twins, interpreted the results. For each of the statements below indicate the name Of the twin to whom you think the statement applies. Use "F" for Fred and "J“ for John. '11 1. Had better understanding of himself and of other people. 2. Was a warmer and more tender person. 3. Was readier to accept blame. 4. Worked harder to keep a brighter view of himself and others. He reacts to frustration with anxiety and anger more easily and intensely than his brother. Showed greater hatred of his father. . Described his wife as a good cook and mother. '11 "IJ'EI'EI C—I LIE-IQ CI U'l ”1'11 CAL: le *From: Pilot, M. L., Lenkoski, D., Spiro, H. M., and Schafer, R. (1957) Duodenal ulcer in one of identical twins. Psychosomatic Medicine, May-June. 88 Was more resentful that their mother had not given them more from the $100,000 she inherited about ten years ago. '11 q m F J 9. Got into more arguments. F J 10. Was more Optimistic. F J 11. He was more stubborn. F J 12. He showed more competitiveness in his relation- ships with his brother. F J 13. While the level Of gastric secretion was much higher than normal in both twins, his level was higher than his brother's. F J 14. One of his son's has a scholarship at an ivy league university. F J 15. Learned that his wife had been carrying on an affair with an Older man. THE CASE OF EARL AND FRANK* Earl and Frank, identical twins, were born in a Midwestern city of uneducated and unmarried parents. When the boys were six months old, they were turned over to their mother's sister. She kept Frank but placed Earl with a family who had advertised their wish to board a baby. This family soon assumed full responsibility for Earl and took him to a city in the Northwest without consulting the aunt of the boys. Earl's foster father was a college graduate and a successful salesman; Frank is a streetcar conductor. Earl graduated from college; Frank attended high school only six months though later he attended night school. Earl was raised in comfort; Frank was brought up with little economic security in the neighborhood where he was born by his fond aunt. Both twins had happy homes with only moderate disci- pline. They were both interviewed and tested by psychologists in 1941 when they were 37 years Old. The boys did not see each other after they were separated until they were 15 and did not know they were twins until they were 23. At the time of the study the twins were living in the same suburban com- munity. Two psychologists made personality ratings of the twins based on their interviews with them. Ratings were also obtained from their wives. Both took the Binet Intelligence Test, the Rorschach Inkblot Test, and the Strong Vocational Interest Test. The twins were remarkably similar in many respects: same height, same hair, same finger prints, same good health, same poor spelling, same ratings on many personality traits, very similar vocational interest scores, etc. In some respects, however, they were different- ' - *From: Burks, Barbara S. and Roe, Anne, (1949) Studies of Identical Twins Reared Apart, 62, NO. 5. 89 For each Of the statements indicate the name of the twin to whom you think the statements applies. Use "E“ for Earl and "F" for Frank. E F 1. Was more energetic. E F 2. Had an IQ of 83 while his brother had an IQ of 96. E F 3. Was warmer in his personal relations. E F 4. Spoke of his brother with condescension. E F 5. Was less pompous and affected. E F 6. Had a higher score on the minister vocational interest scale. E F 7. Was more interested in athletics. E F 8. Was more "cagey," less willing to give himself away. E F 9 Was bothered by the gap between his aspirations and his ability to achieve them. E F 10. Was less stable emotionally. E F 11. Was more self-conscious. E F 12. Said that what he wanted most in life was a good business with men working for him. E F 13. Said that what he wished for most was the happi- ness of his family. E F 14. Was more cooperative with the psychologists. E F 15. Was more eager to impress people. Dr. Smith and Mr. Kepes both completed the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. They indicated their likes and dislikes for a number Of occupations, academic interests, and amusements. Many of their interests were similar; some were not. The following 30 items are a sample of those that were not similar. For each Of these interest areas circle S if you think Smith liked the item, and circle K if you think Kepes liked the item. Circle each item only once. 1. S K Actor (not movie) 16. S K Ship Officer 2. S K Advertiser 17. S K Statistician 3. S K Architect 18. S K Stock broker 4. S K Astronomer 19. S K Algebra 5. S K Auctioneer 20. S K Art 6. S K Buyer of merchandise 21. S K Botony 7. S K Employment manager 22. S K Chemistry 8. S K Lanscape gardner 23. S K Geography 9. S K Lawyer (criminal) 24. S K Geology 10. S K Manufacturer 25. S K Philosophy 11. S K Orchestra conductor 26. S K Shop work 12. S K Physician 27. S K Zoology 13. S K Poet 28. S K Taking long walks 14. S K Real estate salesman 29. S K Chess 15. S K Sculptor 30. S K Bridge 90 TRAINING SESSION 3 Name The Observation of Men You are going to see interviews with three men: Mr. B., Mr. G., and Mr. K. Each individual will be inter- viewed three times. After each has been interviewed once, you will answer a series of questions about what they said. There are three parts to this exercise and the directions are the same for each part. Mark "B" if you think the correct answer is Mr. B. (The first one interviewed). Mark "G" if you think the correct answer is Mr. G. (The second one interviewed). Mark "K" if you think the correct answer is Mr. K. (The third one interviewed). Mark "N" if you think the statement applies to none of the men. PART I 1.___ He has a 4.00 honor point average. 2.___ He was born in Cambridge Mass. 3.___ He has a minor in social-psychology. 4.___ His first name is Burt. 5.___ He attended the University of California. 6.___ He has earned over 100 graduate credits. 72... He has had a fellowship. 8.___ He attended the University of Iowa. 9.____ His Masters Thesis was on sensitivity. 10.___ He hOpes to be finished with school in one year. 11.___ His Major is experimental psychology. 12.____ He has a Minor in counseling psychology. l3.___ His Masters Thesis was on neurotic behavior. 14. He was born in Detroit. 15. His first name is Bob. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 91 PART II He finds it difficult to make friends. He said he would like to Operate a college bar. He began dating when he was 14. He said his parents are upper-lower class. His father owns a meat market. He thought proseminar was his most difficult graduate course. He wants many friends, instead of a few close ones. He is married. He is a Republican. He belonged to a high school fraternity. He is interested in antique cars. His parents are both happy about his interest in psychology, but don't completely understand it. His parents never really said anything either way about his going to college. His father is a union Official. He said the learning section of proseminar was the graduate course he most enjoyed. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 92 PART III He is not in favor of medicare. He feels our sexual morals are declining. As a child, his parents were not strict with him. He has earned a B.S. and an M.A. in college. He said his friends would describe him as con- ceited and aloof. Driving his sports car makes him happy. Not being prepared for examinations makes him anxious. He said he has no patience with himself if he doesn't learn quickly. He said being understanding is one the the most important qualities a person can have. He does not feel that he has much self-insight. His parents live in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is interested in pool. When people are late for appointments, it upsets him. Religion is fairly important to him. He said that most people are probably sincere. 10/16/64 vsk 93 TRAINING SESSION 4 THE JUDGEMENT OF HAPPILY MARRIED, UNHAPPILY MARRIED, AND DIVORCED MEN AND WOMEN GENERAL DIRECTIONS: The following test investigates your knowledge of the dif- ferent interests and traits of happily married, unhappily married, and divorced men and women. The test is in two sections; the first pertaining to men, the second to women. The correct answers are based on a comparison of the replies Of carefully selected groups of happily married, unhappily married, and divorced men and women. EXAMPLE: The question, "Do you prefer a play tO a dance?" was asked of the three groups of women. It was found that: 81% of the happily married women responded "yes." 58% of the unhappily married women responded "yes." 44% of the divorced women responded "yes." Therefore, as pertains to women, the correct answer to the statement "More apt to prefer a play to a dance" is happily married women. TURN THE PAGE AND READ CAREFULLY THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART I INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART II FOLLOW PART I 94 THE JUDGMENT (3F HAPPILY MARRIED, UNHAPPILY MARRIED AND DIVORCED MEN INSTRUCTIONS: Read each item carefully. On your separate answer sheet mark: "1" if you think the responses of more Happily Married Men than unhappily married or divorced men fit the statement. "2" if you think the responses of more Unhappily Married Men than happily married or divorced men fit the statement. "3" if you think the responses of more Divorced Men than happily married or unhappily married men fit the state- ment. Please complete all the itmes, try not to leave any blank. Choose only one answer for each item. Correct Answers 1 1. Enjoy teaching adults. 3 2. Most likely to avoid dictatorial or bossy people. 2 3. Dislike educational movies. 3 4. More apt to like the occupation of novelist. 2 5 Views self as a radical, while actually conserva- tive in nature. 1 6. Enjoy household pets. . 2 7. Most likely to have difficulty in making up their minds. 1 8. Like cautious people. 3 9. Best able to compete in a game against an Opponent of superior ability. 1 10. More apt to like religious peOple. 2 11. Care least for the occupation of teaching. 3 12. More often willing to take chances. 2 13. Least Often take the lead to enliven a dull party. 3 14. Like the occupation of stock broker. 3 15. Prefer commission to definite salary. 2 16. Care least for symphony concerts. 2 17. Prefer outside work. 1 18. Most tolerant of sick peOple. 3 19. Most often seek someone for cheer when feeling low. 1 20. Most likely to solicit funds for a cause of interest. Nl-‘P-‘l—‘Nl-‘wwww l-‘LUNNl-‘l-‘l-‘NNUJ I—‘l—‘UONNWl—‘UJl—‘H NWwaNNNUN 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. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 95 Place the most emphasis on quality of work. Prefer developing plans to executing them. More apt to like playing poker. Most meticulous and methodical in work. Like the occupation of criminal lawyer. Most neurotic. Seldom become excited. Like fashionably dressed peOple. Are seldom asked for advice. Prefer to spend a night at home. Enjoy making radio sets. Prefer being alone during times of emotional stress. Dislike foreigners. Most likely to organize a club or team. Accustomed to planning work in detail. Most tolerant of people with physical deformities. Most Often touchy on various subjects. Slow in making decisions. Most gregarious. Prefer making plans with others. Most often experience feelings of loneliness. Least artistically creative. Most likely to enjoy taking risks. More apt to dislike socialists. Never make wagers. Dislike modern languages. Seldom feel miserable. More apt to like talkative peOple. Like the occupation Of orchestra conductor. More apt to be critical of others. Frequently feel grouchy. Prone to religious radicalism. Rather execute plans than develop them. More apt to like a period of isolation. Seldom organizes teams or clubs. More apt to make wagers. Most likely to enjoy contests. Most appreciative of regular hours. Prefer traveling in company. Often take the lead to enliven a dull party. END OF PART I. 96 PART II. THE JUDGMENT OF HAPPILY MARRIED, UNHAPPILY MARRIED AND DIVORCED WOMEN INSTRUCTIONS: Read each item carefully. On your separate answer sheet mark: "1" if you think the responses of more Happily Married Women than unhappily married or divorced women fIt the statement. if you think the responses Of more Unhappily Married Women than happily married or divorced women fit the statement. if you think the responses of more Divorced Women than happily married or unhappily married women fit the statement. Please complete all the items, try not to leave any blank. Choose only one answer for each item. "2" "3" Corr 8C1: Answers Us) WNHWWNl—‘HN kawraruw NW1“ 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. Prefer work which makes heavy demands on know- ledge and experience. Most neurotic. More apt to like music. More apt to like physiology. Avoid technical responsibilities. Most often make wagers. Like the occupation of inventor. More apt to dislike working in isolation. More often troubled by feelings of inferiority. More apt to like playing chess. Apt to dislike peOple who smoke. More often solicit funds for a cause. More apt to like old people. Least effective in emergencies. Give the most weight to the tangible returns of work. Most conservative in social and political Opinions. Possess the most initiative. Proclaim to be radical but are actually conser- vative by nature. Prefer to work for self. Find reading more helpful than conversation in formulating ideas. Correct Answers HI—‘WWHNHWNN WHNl-‘WLOHLDWW NNl—‘l-JUJNNNWH l—‘WNN Dow 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. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 97 More apt to dislike bolshevists. Least likely to blush. Most unmethodical. Often have spells of dizzyness. More apt to like psychology. Slow in making decisions. Systematic in caring for personal property. Least daring and venturesome. Most likely to be indecisive. More bothered by peOple watching them do their work. Prefer commissions to definite salary. Most self-assertive and self-reliant. Least docile and compliant. More apt to like clerical work. Most willing to be different or unconventional. Prefer taking chances to playing safe. Most tolerant of Negroes. Daydreams most frequently. More apt to like bird study. More apt to like the occupation of foreign correspondent. More apt to dislike peOple who are deformed. More Often arrive late for work. Likely to argue their way past a guard. Apt to like Clergy and religious people. Consider themselves as nervous. Dislike quick tempered peOple. Like the occupation Of interpretor. Most ambitious. More apt to like YMCA workers. More apt to like teetotalers. Least willing to work things out for themselves. Neglect to care for personal property. Accustomed to take the lead in activities. More Often like amusement parks, picnics, and excursions. Prefer frequent changes from place to place. More apt to express judgements regardless of resulting criticism. Prone to fluctuating feelings of happiness and sadness. Dislike spending an evening alone. Dislike detailed work. Least often make excuses. END OF PART II. 98 TRAINING SESSION 5 HCS/BG November, 1964 IS Personality Inventory DIRECTIONS: There are no right or wrong answers to the following state- ments. Indicate your answers on the separate sheet. If you think the statement is "true" or more true than false as far as you are concerned, answer "1" opposite the number of the question. If you think the statement is "false" or more false than true as far as you are concerned, answer "2" Opposite the number of the question. Please try to answer all questions. 1. I enjoy being a leader of peOple. 2. I occasionally act contrary to custom. 3. I am sometimes influenced in minor decisions by how I happen to be feeling at the moment. 4. The notion of divine inspiration may be mistaken. 5. It is possible that there is no such thing as divine inspiration. 6. I think it is more important for a person to be reverent than to be sympathetic. 7. No individual, no matter what the circumstances, is justified in committing suicide. 8. I genuinely like everyone I get to know. 9. The thought of God gives me an absolutely complete sense of security. 10. I have occasionally felt contempt for the Opinions of others. 11. I would rather read an article about a famous musician than about a famous financier. 12. The idea of divine inspiration may be a form of wish fulfillment arising from suggestibility. 13. I would rather grow inwardly than be a success in practical affairs. 14. I like continually changing activities. 15. I was known as a quiet child. 16. Religion should be a set of practices concerning our relation to the supernatural. l7. I am guided in all my conduct by firm principles. 18. I believe that the individualist is the man who is most likely to discover the best road to a new future. 19. The idea of God is not absolutely necessary for the development of good human beings. 20. I like tennis. 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. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.' 53. 54. 55. 99 It is not absolutely necessary to believe in the exis- tence of God in order to lead a good life. My faith in God is absolutely complete for "though he slay me, yet will I trust him." I always feel even the minor interests of others as if they were my own. I generally talk very quietly. I am quick to discard the old and accept the new: new fashions, new methods, new ideas. I get annoyed when people take up my time for no purpose. I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others. I always play every game very hard. I can become so absorbed in solving a problem that I forget everything. I like to keep all my letters and papers neatly arranged and filed. I have never been seasick, plane sick, or carsick. There may be better ways of explaining the working of the world than to assume a God. I like to associate with emotional peOple. I never argue with older people whom I respect. I like to participate in discussions about sex and sexual activities. . I occasionally Spend time thinking about sexual matters. I usually enjoy spending an evening alone. I don't particularly like reading about business trends. Divine inspiration is certainly not the most important source of truth. Women should have as much right to propose dates to men as men to women. I like to perform laboratory experiments. Cat meat is out of the question for the human diet under any circumstances. I seldom do anything for which anyone could reproach me. I am not ticklish at all. Some of my tastes change rather rapidly. I rather dislike directing the activities of people. The average person needs more caution than daring. Before I do something I am apt to consider whether my friends will blame me for it. It doesn't bother me to work in noisy surroundings. I always prefer to spend my social evenings with members of the opposite sex rather than my own sex. I generally prefer to keep my opinions and feelings to myself. People have never criticized me in what I thought was an unfair way. I have occasionally doubted the reality of God. The world might benefit from having a new kind of religion. I have sometimes corrected others not because they were wrong, but only because they irritated me. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. '77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 100 Professors should not put forth their own radical views in the classroom. I like advertising as an occupation. I like the occupation of being a Secret Service Man. Sometimes I rather enjoy doing things I'm not supposed to do. I would like being a sculptor, even if I were not par- ticularly good. I believe that everyone's intentions are good. I have never been jealous of other people 5 success. I would rather read "Atlantic Monthly" than "Business Week." Radical agitators should be allowed to speak publicly in certain parks and streets. I like long periods Of physical exertion. I have occasionally eaten things that upset my stomach. I am considered extremely "steady" by my friends rather than "excitable." I would rather go out with attractive persons of the Opposite sex than do almost anything else. Sometimes I become so emotional that I find it a little hard to get to sleep. I enjoy helping people with their personal problems. I like everyone I meet, even those with different goals and interests than mine. It is of little importance to me whether people agree with my ideas or not. I would like being a Consul. I sometimes lack self—confidence when I have to compete against people who are at least as good as I am. A man who works in business for his living all the week can best spend Sunday in hearing a sermon. I have extremely strong loyalties toward my ideals of beauty. I sometimes tell people frankly what I think of them. I like Vaudeville. The supernatural idea ought to only play a minor part in religious thought. I am sometimes so discouraged about my activities that I cannot do my best. I see life as a constant series of problems which must be solved. I am not particularly methodical in my daily life. My sense of humor is probably no better than that of most peOple. I consider the close observance of social customs and manners an essential aspect of life. 101 85. I am inclined to agree with the poet who said that "Beauty is truth." 86. I have never read a book on modern art that interested me. 87. I control my emotions in practically all situations. 88. I am never aware Of my heart beating. 89. I only work for tangible and clearly-defined results. 90. I spend very little time thinking about money matters. TRAINING SESSION 6 BG/HS Alas Judgment Test January, 1965 This is a test of your judgment of people. It consists of three parts: I. Judgment of the interests of men II. Judgment of the interests of women III. Judgment of how students rate themselves. The directions for each part of the test are somewhat different so read the directions for each part carefully. I. Judgment of Men DIRECTIONS: A representative group of thousands of American men were asked to indicate whether or not they liked certain occupations, activities, subjects, and types of people. Your task is to decide what percentage of the men in the study said they liked a particular item. Indicate your choice in the space provided. For example: 1. Floorwalker (l) 10% (2) 30% (3) 50% (4)70% (5) 90%. If you think that $93 of the men liked the occupation of floorwalker, then mark choice (1); if you think 30% liked it, mark choice (2); and so on. Mark only one choice for each item. Throughout the test an answer of (1) means 10% (2) 30% (3) 50% (4) 70% and (5) 90%. 1. Office clerk 7. Railway conductor 2. Advertiser 8. Auto salesman 3. Auctioneer 9. Buyer of merchandise 4. Sculptor lO. Bookkeeper 5. College professor ll. Bank teller 6. Secretary, Chamber of Commerce 12- Printer 102 13. President of a society or club 14. Arithmetic 15. Educational movies 16. Thrifty peOple 17. Can discriminate between more or less important matters 18. Can carry out plans assigned by other people 19. Usually get other people to do what I want done 20. Energetic peOple 21. Progressive people 22. History 23. Mathematics -24. Musical comedy 25. People who have made fortunes in business 26. Scientific research worker 27. Golf 28. Looking at shop windows 29. Contributing to charities 30. Raising flowers and vegetables 31. Bridge 32. People who assume leadership 33. Observing birds (nature study) 34. Picnics 35. Inventor 36. Author of technical book II. Judgment of Women DIRECTIONS: A large group of women were asked to indicate whether or not they liked certain occupations, activities, subjects, and types of people. Your task is to decide what_percentage of women in the study liked a particular item. Indicate your choice in the space provided, for example: 1. Dressmaker (l) 10% (2) 30% (3) 50% (4) 70% (5) 90%. If you think that lgi of the women liked the occupation of dressmaker, then mark choice (1); if you think 30% liked it, mark choice (2); and so on. Mark only one choice for each item. Throughout the test an answer of (1) means 10% (2) 30% (3) 50% (4) 70% (5) 90%. 37. Philosophy 40. Poetry 38. Museums 41. PeOple who are natural 39. Can discriminate between leaders more or less important 42. Music matters 43. Psychology 103 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. Physician Foreign correspondent Writing personal letters Dramatics Office manager Radio program director Minister Men who drink Bank teller Stockbroker Wholesaler Dentist Artist's model Politician Real estate saleswoman Telephone Operator Afternoon teas Waitress III. Judgment by Others Of Themselves 44. Energetic people 45. Cooking 46. "Reader's Digest" magazine 47. Dancing 48. Decorating a room with flowers 49. Educational director 50. Tennis 51. Zoology 52. Hostess 53. Psychiatrist 54. Florist DIRECTIONS: Each of several hundred midwestern college men rated himself as he thought he compared with other men on a series of traits. The average rating of all the men on each trait was determined. Rate the average college man on each of the traits below as you think he rated himself. Mark Mark Mark "3" if you think he 73. Stubborn 74. Egotistical 75. Shy 76. Affectionate 77. Serious 78. Talkative 79. Imaginative 80. Aggressive 81. Cooperative 82. Friendly 83. Ambitious 84. Adaptable "1“ if you think he rated himself in "2" if you think he rated himself in rated himself in 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. the lowest 25%. the middle 50%. the highest 25%. Wide range of interests Liberal Adventurous Trustful Rebellious Impractical Unrealistic Unpredictable Socially poised Easily upset Timid Irresponsible 104 TRAINING SESSION 7 Personal Interest Inventory The following is a list of 96 occupations, activities, Objects, and descriptive phrases. You are to indicate whether you like If you like the item, mark one (1) on the answer sheet. If you dislike it, mark two (2). Answer each item. This is an interest inventory and there are or dislike each of the items. no right or wrong answers. Manufacturer Musical comedy Auctioneer Auto salesman Art galleries Symphony concerts Auto racer Auto repairman Driving an auto 10. Arithmetic 11. Talkative people 12. Bookkeeper 13. Geometry 14. Spelling 15. Civil Service employee 16. Clergyman 17. Algebra 18. Chemistry 19. Literature 20. Physics 21. Dentist 22. Floorwalker 23. Factory worker 24. Jeweler 25. Tennis 26. Sports pages 27. Life insurance salesman 28. Photo engraver 29. Hunting 30. Golf 31. Pharmacist 32. Music teacher 33. Museum 34. Educational movies 35. Office clerk 36. Railway conductor 37. "National Geographic" 38. Geology \DCI)\10\U1thJNI—’ 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. S7. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Real estate salesman Printer Physical training Geography Poet Politician Economics Vaudeville Undertaker Watchmaker Costume designer Psychologist Proof reader Companion to elderly person Artist Author of novel Accountant Bank teller Magazine writer Musician Dentist Telephone Operator Buyer of merchandise Landscape gardener Missionary Beauty specialist Interior decorator Florist Artist's model Lawyer, criminal Plays Meeting new situations Probation Officer Cashier Meeting and directing people Adjusting difficulties of others 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. Preparing dinner for guests Attending lectures Governor of a state Factory manager Typist Mechanical engineer Movies Camping "True Story" magazine Teacher, grade school Discussions of economic affairs 105 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. "Good Housekeeping" magazine Stenographer Statistician Museums Taking responsibility Teacher, commercial Waitress Cooking Doing research work Stock broker Wholesaler Knowledge of Men Test The following test measures your knowledge of the interests of men. A large and representative group Of men checked whether they liked or disliked the various occupations, activities, school subjects, and objects below. Mark one (1) if you think the majority of men checked that they Mark two (2) if you think the majority checked that they "disliked" the interest. "liked" the interest. 97. Manufacturer 98. Musical comedy 99. Auctioneer 100. Auto salesman 101. Art galleries 102. Symphony concerts 103. Auto racer 104. Auto repairman 105. Driving an auto 106. Arithmetic 107. Talkative peOple 108. Bookkeeper 109. Geometry 110. Spelling 111. Civil Service employee 112. Clergyman 113. Algebra 114. Chemistry 115. Literature 116. Physics 117. Dentist 118. Floorwalker 119. Factory worker 120. Jeweler 121. Tennis 122. Sports pages 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. The following test of women. whether they liked activities, 106 Life insurance salesman 134. Photo engraver 135. Hunting 136. Golf 137. Pharmacist 138. Music teacher 139. Museums 140. Educational movies 141. Office clerk 142. Railway conductor 143. "National Geographic" 144. magazine A large and representative school subjects, Geology Real estate salesman Printer Physical training Geography Poet Politician Economics Vaudeville Undertaker Watchmaker measures your knowledge of the interests group of women checked or disliked the various occupations, and objects below. Mark one (1) if you think the majority of women checked that they “liked" the interest. Mark two (2) if you think the majority checked that they "disliked" the interest. 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. Costume designer Psychologist PrOOf reader Companion to elderly person Artist Author of novel Accountant Bank teller Magazine writer Musician Dentist Telephone Operator Buyer of merchandise Landscape gardner Missionary Beauty specialist Interior decorator Florist Artist's model Lawyer, criminal Plays Meeting new situations Probation officer Cashier Meeting and directing people Adjusting difficulties of others Preparing dinner for guests 107 172. Attending lectures 183. Stenographer 173. Governor of a state 184. Statistician 174. Factory manager 185. Museums 175. Typist 186. Taking responsibility 176. Mechanican engineer 187. Teacher, commercial 177. Movies 188. Waitress 178. Camping 189. Cooking 179. "True Story" 190. Doing research work magazine 191. Stock broker 180. Teacher, grade school 192. Wholesaler 181. Discussions of economic affairs 182. "Good Housekeeping" magazine TRAINING SESSION 8 The Judgment of Female Students Name You are going to see interviews with three girls: Miss B., Miss D., and Miss P. These girls have described themselves by filling out an adjective check-list. On many adjectives all three agreed; that is, they all checked true, or they all checked flase. On some adjectives they differed. Listed below are those adjectives that only one of the three checked as being true of herself. After the interviews, your task will be to select, for each adjective, the one girl who felt that the adjective applied to her. DIRECTIONS: Mark "B" if you think the correct answer is Miss B. (she will be the first one interviewed). Mark "D" if you think the correct answer is Miss D (She will be the second one interviewed). Mark "P" if you think the correct answer is Miss P. (she will be the last one interviewed. \DmxlmU'IbWNH O 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. For the for adjective, \oooqoxmbwtol-I Hraha torao O O O 13. 14. alert clever conservative defensive aloof anxious confident inventive cool artistic noisy simple unexcitable hard-headed shrewd lazy demanding rigid talkative zany silent dependent stern poised dominant prudish self-punishing spendthrift touchy forceful 108 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. assertive impatient idealistic self-confident stubborn cynical irresponsible complicated evasive fault-finding confused dissatisfied high strung timid hasty robust self-denying rebellious slow worrying smug unambitious self-controlled unconventional unstable preserving inhibitied show-Off uninhibited submiSSive the following adjectives, one of the three girls checked adjective as not being true of herself. each of the adjectives, one girl checked false. select the girl you think checked false. sociable adventurous forgiving bossy demanding energetic tactful tense complicated spunky loyal modest assertive evasive 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. In other words, quick determined patient unaffected reserved jolly spontaneous meek weak dependable argumentative practical frank 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. For each mischievous bitter talkative selfish prejudiced peaceable natural careless rational fault-finding responsible foolish arrogant Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 5C: 6C: 7C: 10C: 11C: 13C: 14C: 15C: 16C: APPENDIX C Additional Statistical Data for Both Studies Additional of trained Additional of trained Additional data for second-person accuracy gains and untrained groups data for third-person accuracy gains and untrained groups data for appearance and conversation accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Additional pretest to Additional of trained Additional of trained Additional data for changes in performance from posttest 1 data for second-person accuracy gains and untrained groups data for second-person accuracy gains and untrained groups data for second-person accuracy gains of students below the 50th percentile Additional data for second-person accuracy gains of students above the 50th percentile Additional of trained data for third-person accuracy gains and untrained groups 110 Table 5C.--Additiona1 data for second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Pretest Posttest Standard Posttest Variance Variance Error Correlations Men sub-test Trained 9.5 9.0 .60 18 Untrained 10.8 5.8 .50 ' Standard error of difference .60 Women sub-test Trained 9.3 9.8 .60 29 Untrained 9.3 10.6 .50 ' Standard error of difference .65 Total test Trained 13.8 14.5 .66 46 Untrained 14.5 18.6 .70 ° Standard error of difference .74 Table 6C.--Additiona1 data for third-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Pretest Posttest Standard Posttest Variance Variance Error Correlations Men sub-test Trained 5.8 8.9 .5 l6 Untrained 5.8 4.8 .4 ' Standard error Of difference .58 Women sub-test Trained 10.8 12.8 .6 _ 08 Untrained 10.1 8.4 .5 ° Standard error of difference .8 Total test Trained 19.7 25.3 .8 15 Untrained 20.7 20.4 .9 ° Standard error of difference 1.1 111 Table 7C.--Additiona1 data for appearance and conversation accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Pretest Posttest Standard Posttest Variance Variance Error Correlations Men sub-test Appearance Trained 8.2 10.2 .55 18 Untrained 7.6 8.3 .60 ° Standard error of difference .68 Conversation Trained 10.5 12.3 .66 31 Untrained 10.5 8.9 .74 ° Standard error of difference .66 Women sub-test Appearance Trained 12.9 9.0 .58 04 Untrained 12.9 13.2 .59 ’ Standard error of difference .86 Conversation Trained 13.1 19.7 .63 02 Untrained 13.1 14.7 .75 ' Standard error of difference .99 Total test Appearance Trained 14.0 32.6 1.07 39 Untrained 14.0 24.8 .84 ° Standard error of difference 1.09 Conversation Trained 65.3 44.3 .60 27 Untrained 82.5 32.4 1.07 ' Standard error of difference 1.33 Table 10C.--Additional data for changes in performance from pretest to posttest 1 Pretest Variance Posttest l Variance Film group 13.0 9.7 Tape group 6.7 2.0 Live group 9.1 8.0 Control group 8.0 8.4 112 Table llC.--Additiona1 data for second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Pretest Posttest Standard Variance Variance Error Tape 13.0 7.0 1.0 Film 6.7 6.9 1.0 Control 8.0 9.3 .57 Live 9.1 6.9 .75 Table 13C.--Additiona1 data for second-person accuracy gains of trained and untrained groups Control Com- Pretest Posttest Posttest pared With Variance Variance Correlations Film Trained 13.9 7.2 _ 12 Untrained 13.9 6.3 ' Standard error of difference 1 3 Tape Trained 6.7 7.1 _ 27 Untrained 6.7 8.7 ° Standard error of difference 1.5 Live Trained 9.1 7.0 44 Untrained 10.7 9.1 ° Standard error of difference .73 113 m.m m.ma H.m H.NH omcflmuuco m.H h.h H.ma o.m o.ma UOGHMHB m mwsum m.HH v.ma m.v m.aa OOGHMHDCD mm. v.0 m.mH n.v m.HH OOCHMHB H mwsum mocmummwflo may mo mocmfium> cmmz moccanm> cmmz GOmHHmmEOU Houum pumpcmum ummuumom umwuumom umoumum ammumum wafluamoumm auom map 3OHOQ mucoosum mo mcfimm momnooom cOmuwmuoooomm mom mumo Hmcowuflooall.0va magma 114 o.m v.ma o.m m.na UOCHMHDCD 0.5 0.0 «.55 m.m H.mH emcfimue m >osnm a.m m.mH m.H o.mH Bmcflmupcs H.H m.m o.m5 m.H o.mH omcflmua H mcsum moconmwmao mzu mo mocmflum> com: mocmflum> com: COmflummEOU Houum Oumpcmpm ummuumom ummuumom ummumum ummumum . maflucmoumm Buom msu m>onm mucmpsum mo mcflmm momusoom COmHomlpcoomm “Om mump HOGOHDHUO¢II.UmH mance 115 Table 16C.--Additiona1 data for third-person accuracy gains Of trained and untrained groups Group Pretest Variance Posttest Variance Film 3.9 3.7 Tape 6.2 7.0 Live 12.7 6.0 Control 6.5 4.9 APPENDIX D Training Materials for the Second Study Material for film and tape group Material for live group 117 MATERIAL FOR FILM AND TAPE GROUP Inference Accuracy DIRECTIONS: All the women in the flim 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, Mrs. D. is (1), Mrs. N. is (2), and Mrs. P. is (3). In other words, if you think the answer to a particular question is: Mrs. D. mark "1" Mrs. N. mark "2" Mrs. P. mark "3" The correct answers are known from the attitude scales and other tests that the interviewed women filled out. Also, the correct answers are equally distributed among the three women. Religious Beliefs (1) Mrs. D., (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P., filled out a rating scale about their religious beliefs and values. Which one of the three would have made the following statements? 1. Agreed that "While God may exist, it is quite difficult for me to accept such a fact without some definite proof." 2. Most strongly agreed that "People don't necessarily have to believe in God in order to lead good lives and have a high system of ethics and morals." 3. Most strongly agreed that "God will punish those who disobey his commandments and reward those who obey Him (either in this life or a future life)." 4. Most strongly agreed that "When in doubt, I have usually found it best to stop and ask God for guidance." 5. Agreed least that "I have sometimes been very conscious of the presence of God." 6. Most strongly agreed that "No one who has experienced God like I have could doubt his existence." 7. Most strongly agreed that "I have sometimes been very conscious of the presence of God." 118 Adjective Check List (1) Mrs. D., (2) Mrs. N., (3) Mrs. P. filled out a form which contained a number of pairs of adjectives. They were asked to check the adjective in the pair which most closely fit themselves. Which one checked the underlined adjective in the following pairs? 8. Conservative - excitable 21. Healthy - tough 9. Talkative - boastful 22. Contented - progressive 10. Curious - pleasure seeking 23. Changeable - submissive 11. Reliable - feminine 24. Sympathetic - charming 12. Interests wide - efficient 25. Sincere - warm 13. Impulsive - forgetful 26. Courageous - rational 14. OrIginal - quiet 27. Practical - wholesome 15. Spontaneous - attractive 28. Friendly - humorous 16. Unconventional - unassuming 29. Poised - moderate 17. Understanding - timid 30. Capable - obliging 18. Fairminded - sharp-witted 19. Unselfish - cool 20. Moderate - silent The three women filled out a form which contained a number of pairs of adjectives. They were asked to check the adjec- tive in the pair which most closely fit themselves. Which one checked the first adjective in the following pairs? 1. Efficient - precise 9. Honest - clever 2. Loyal - sophisticated 10. IndiVidualistic-conservative 3. Ambitious - charming ll. Affectionate - poised 4. Independent - adventurous 12. Frank - dreamy 5. Tolerant - steady 13. Tactful - enthusiastic 6. Generous - witty 14. Warm - reflective 7. Reliable - feminine 15. Loyal - clever 8. Determined - relaxed They also filled out an adjective check-list. On many of the adjectives all three agreed; that is, they all checked true or they all checked false. On some adjectives they differed. Listed below are those adjectives that only one of the three checked as being true of herself. For each adjective, which of the three checked it as being true of herself? 119 16. artistic 26. fussy 17. emotional 27. practical 18. moderate 28. high-strung 19. Opinionated 29. unconventional 20. pleasure-seeking 30. curious 21. bossy 31. intelligent 22. complicated 32. reliable 23. enterprising 33. excitable 24. patient 34. impulsive 25. outgoing 35. indifferent It was mentioned at the last session that the three women; Mrs. D. (1), Mrs N. (2), and Mrs. P. (3) completed a number of questionnaires. The items that follow were taken from these questionnaires. Your task is the same as last time: If you think the correct answer is Mrs. D. mark "1"; if you think the correct answer is Mrs. N. mark "2"; and if you think the correct answer is Mrs. P. mark "3." The three women filled out a rating scale-showing their agree- ment or disagreement with a series of statements about reli- gious questions. Which person fits the following statements? 1. Less strongly agreed, but still agreed that, "There exists an evil intelligence, personage, or spirit in the uni- verse Often referred to as Satan or the Devil." 2. Strongly disagreed with the statement, "If there is a 'God,' it is only an impersonal creative force in the universe." 3. Strongly agreed with the statement, "I believe that after death we will ultimately regain our bodies and in a real sense be resurrected." 4. Less strongly disagreed with the statement, "I am unable to accept the idea of "life after death," at least not until we have definite evidence there is such a thing." 5. Strongly agreed that, "God does marvelous things which are called miracles by some." 6. Less strongly agreed that, "While I am responsible for my own actions, I feel that God has some definite pur- pose Or role for me to fulfill in life." These three women were given a series of true-false items. Who answered true to these items? I enjoy bull sessions where everyone talks about sex. . I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around. 9. I practically never blush. 10. I worry over money and business. 11. I seldom have quarrels with the members of my family. 12. I believe that a person should never taste an alcoholic drink. 7 8 120 They were also given a series of incomplete sentences to complete with one of three alternatives. Which of the three completed each of the following sentences in the way underlined? 13. When I make a mistake I am embarrassed. 14. When I make a mistake I laugh it off. 15. When I'm criticized, I appreciate it. 16. I'm afraid of hurting others. 17. I'm afraid Of what peopIe might sgy. 18. When I'm criticized, I defend myself. 19. My philoSOphy of life is,I“Do unto others, as ygu would have them do unto you.’r 20. My philOSOphy of life is, "What you do, do well." 21. I felt most dissatisfied when, I didn't do the right thing. 22. I felt most dessatisfied when, I was not busy. 23. When they offered me help, I was somewhat em- barrassed. 24. When they Offered me help, I thanked them but refused. MATERIAL FOR LIVE GROUP The Judgment of Female Students Name You are going to see interviews with three girls: Miss B., Miss K., and Miss L. These girls have described themselves by filling out a number of questionnaires; including an adjective check-list. On many adjectives all three agreed; that is, they all checked true or they all checked false. On some adjectives they differed. Listed below are those adjectives that only one of the three checked as being true of herself. After the interviews, your task will be to select, for each adjective, the one girl who felt that the adjective applied to her. DIRECTIONS: Mark "1" if you think the correct answer is Miss B. (she will be the first one interviewed). Mark "2" if you think the correct answer is Miss. K. (she will be the second one interviewed). Mark "3" if you think the correct answer is Miss L. (she will be the last one interviewed). 121 agressive 21. shrewd cold 22. unhibited organized 23. clear-thinking artistic 24. independent individualistic 25. flirtatious tolerant 26. distrustful reckless 27. enterprising formal 28. steady efficient 29. mature rigid 30. outspoken hard-headed 31. unambitious unassuming 32. unselfish quiet 33. fickle methodical 34. thorough outgoing 35. sarcastic trusting 36. smug gentle 37. submissive poised 38. cautious contented 39. painstaking stable 40. precise Miss B. (1), Miss K. (2), and Miss L. (3), filled out a rating scale showing their agreement or disagreement with a series of statements about religious questions. Which person fits the following statement? 1. Strongly disagreed with the statement, "God will punish those who disobey his commandment and reward those who Obey Him (either in this life or in a future life)." Strongly disagreed with the statement, "If there is a God, it is only an impersonal creative force in the universe." Most strongly disagreed with the statement, "I believe that after death we will ultimately regain our bodies and in a real sense be resurrected." Most strongly agreed that, "PeOple don't necessarily need believe in God in order to live good lives and have a high system of ethics and morals." Strongly disagreed with the statement, "While God may exist, it is quite difficult for me to accept such a fact without some definite proof." Strongly agreed that, "I am unable to accept the idea of life after death, at least until we have definite evidence that there is such a thing." Strongly agreed that, "While I am responsible for my own actions, I feel that God has some definite purpose or role for me to fulfill in life." 122 These three girls were given a series of true-false items. Who answered true to these items? 8. I have Often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did. 9. When someone annoys me I don't mind telling him what I think Of him. 10. It takes a lot of argument to convince most peOple of the truth. 11. I take a pretty easygoing and light-hearted attitude toward life. ‘ 12. I am happy most of the time. 13. I practically never blush. They were also given a series of incomplete sentences to complete with one of three alternatives. Which of the three completed each of the following sentences in the way underlined? 14. When I'm criticized, I take it. 15. The thing that gets me into hot water most is trusting people too much. 16. When they Offered me help I thanked them but refused. 17. My philOSOphy of life is whatever you do, do well. 18. The thing that gets me into hot water most is not being able to make up my mind. 19. I feel bad about lying. 20. Love to me is a problem. APPENDIX E Data Used for the Analysis of Regression Lines 124 Table lE.--Data for figures 1 and 2 Study 1 Study 2 Trained Untrained Trained Untrained Pretest mean 14.7 14.7 16.0 15.1 Standard Deviation 3.08 3.29 3.5 2.82 Posttest mean 15.7 14.6 16.9 16.0 Standard Deviation 3.0 2.4 2.6 3.0 Correlation .29 .48 .37 .52 Slope .21 .35 .28 .56 Sy x 2.87 2.11 2.44 2.60 APPENDIX F Item Analysis of "the men test" 126 Item analysis of the "men test" Percent Correct Item Pretest Posttest Gains Experiment Control Experiment Control E - C 61 73 55 71 80 -27 62 98 95 96 95 2 63 41 55 48 37 25 64 91 77 93 85 - 6 65 70 82 78 82 8 66 56 47 63 72 -18 67 71 67 81 90 —13 68 66 72 60 57 9 69 68 85 7O 65 22 70 48 47 41 62 -32 71 50 32 61 4o 3 72 35 40 51 42 14 73 55 50 65 45 15 74 61 47 53 57 -18 75 50 45 46 37 4 76 46 37 28 15 6 77 56 45 51 27 13 78 8 5 6 7 — 4 79 28 27 50 27 22 80 41 27 30 27 -ll 81 36 32 13 20 -11 82 25 30 36 22 19 83 71 6O 70 75 -16 84 65 65 70 6O 10 85 75 80 90 9O 5 86 26 30 26 22 8 87 41 30 38 42 -15 88 41 32 50 50 - 9 89 15 7 15 7 0 90 16 17 35 22 14 91 81 95 88 95 7 92 97 82 95 95 -15 93 80 55 85 80 -20 94 76 77 71 70 2 95 55 62 71 72 6 96 73 65 7O 70 ' 8 97 7O 57 76 62 l 98 81 92 75 90 - 4 99 53 47 50 62 -18 100 56 57 71 7O 2 101 65 92 65 85 7 102 60 55 55 42 8 103 36 20 53 25 12 104 36 35 43 40 12 127 Item analysis of the "men test" - CONTINUED Percent Correct Item Pretest Posttest Gains Experiment Control Experiment Control E - C 105 40 22 38 42 ~18 106 3 5 3 0 5 107 25 12 33 25 - 5 108 46 60 46 60 0 109 83 75 78 80 ~10 110 86 9O 90 87 7 111 75 87 73 87 ~ 2 112 81 65 75 65 ~ 6 113 68 50 68 57 - 7 114 l 7 11 5 12 115 13 20 8 7 8 116 68 42 65 47 ~10 117 11 10 1 12 ~12 118 90 97 98 97 8 119 48 65 61 65 13 120 5 0 13 0 8 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES llHl WII Ill 1") "I Mlll W ll WI) 1| 1| III) II” 1|) llllHl 31293103433227