"‘x 7

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF VARIATIONS IN PERCEPTIONS OF
BEHAVIOR ON DYADIC INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR

by

Rita Wendelin Larson

The present research consisted of two studies in the area of
person perception. Experiment I examined the consistency of a person's
perceptual style—-the extent to which a person is differentially
sensitive to negative and positive behaviors—-across different stim-
ulus persons. Experiment II examined the relationship between
perceptions and interpersonal behavior through the investigation of
three separate types of perceivers (negative, balanced, and positive
behavior perceivers).

For Experiment I, approximately 1,100 male and female undergraduates,
in groups of 30-35, viewed a videotape of play interaction between an
adult and a male or female child actor. The child demonstrated on the tape
approximately equal numbers of behaviors that had differentiated
clinic-referred ("disturbed") from non-clinic referred ("normal")
children in previous research on parental perceptions. After viewing

the videotape, the subjects completed four separate rating scales.

Rita Wendelin Larson

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBC) assessed the subject's perception
of the child's behavior in the playroom and "in general"; the Bessell—
Palomares Rating Scales and the Kaplan-Anderson Checklist Form I
assessed the subject's perception toward the adult in the playroom;
and lastly, the Kaplan-Anderson Checklist Form II assessed the con-
ception of a (general) person the subject's age.

A correlational analysis of the rating scales indicated that
college students were consistent when rating different stimulus per-
sons on a positive-negative dimension. This suggests that a person's
perceptual style might be a relatively stable characteristic of the
perceiver and a basic dimension in an individual's perception of
another person.

For Experiment II, three groups of behavior perceivers were
selected on the basis of their perceptual style score. The Egg for
the 1,100 undergraduates was scored for perceptual style by subtracting
the number of "negative" (i.e., "disturbed") child behaviors checked
from the number of "positive" (i.e., "normal") behaviors checked.
"Negative Behavior Perceivers” consisted of 12 males and 12 females
who had the lowest perceptual style scores; "Balanced Behavior Per—
ceivers" consisted of 12 males and 12 females who had perceptual style
scores closest to zero; and "Positive Behavior Perceivers" consisted of
12 males and 12 females who had the highest perceptual style scores.

The subjects were observed interacting with a peer (confederate)
in a structured situation which consisted of a ”revealed difference"
task. After the subject and confederate had completed an attitude

questionnaire, the experimenter selected three items (those the subject

Rita Wendelin Larson

had responded to with a strong opinion) and instructed the dyad
members to try and reach an agreement for the items during the next
30 minutes. Two male and two female confederates were trained such
that they could always advocate, in a rational and nonthreatening
manner, a position opposite to whatever the subject defended.

The effects of the presence of a negative, balanced, or positive
behavior perceiver on dyadic interaction were examined via four
separate sets of dependent variables that were designed to measure
different aspects of the interaction: the Behavior Scores System
categories (Borgatta, 1965), which measured overt behavior; a post-
study questionnaire, which measured the subjects' (and confederates')
perception of their partner; a measure of the interaction which
consisted of the times to completion and the outcomes of the revealed
difference tasks; and the coders' global ratings which measured
observers' perceptions of the subject and the total interaction.

Several significant sex differences were found which support the
findings from previous research that males are more aggressive and
make more dominant attempts. However, the data did not support the
general stereotype that females are more submissive.

The results also indicated that a person's perceptual style had
consequences for the person's interpersonal experiences, as measured
by all four dependent measures of the dyadic interaction. More
specifically, when comparing the effectiveness of the dyadic inter-
actions for the three types of behavior perceivers, it was found
that in a conflict situation a positive behavior perceiver engaged

in the most dysfunctional interaction; a balanced behavior perceiver

Rita Wendelin Larson

engaged in the most effective interaction; and the negative behavior
perceiver engaged in more effective interaction than a positive be-
havior perceiver.

Speculations were made in an initial attempt to explain the
childhood situations that might affect perceptions of behavior.
Implications for future research were discussed, particularly with
regard to examining the effects of perceptual style on spouse and

parent-child interactions.

 

.’ /
. S ,’ i] '\_
/ \ \_//\ '0 ,7
.2 ,/‘/ "
Approved: .gxfxdeL€/¥,i. ."jifdJZgéf/g
,// Committee Co—Chairperson

 

Committee Co-Chairperson

/ /
1' I

Date: /, A: [w

 

THE EFFECTS OF VARIATIONS IN PERCEPTIONS OF

BEHAVIOR ON DYADIC INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR

BY

Rita Wendelin Larson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1975

"Sometimes the lights all shinin' on me,
other times I can barely see, lately it
occurs to me what a long strange trip

it's been . . . just keep truckin' on."

The Grateful Dead
(Hunter, Garcia, Lesh & Weir, 1970)

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

At long last! It's finally time to acknowledge the many people
who have made significant contributions to my development as a
psychologist during my many years as a graduate student. I must begin
by giving extra special thanks to my co-chairmen, Dr. Gary Stollak and
Dr. Lawrence Messe'. These men have been a continual source of know-
ledge for me: Dr. Stollak throughout my graduate training and Dr.
Messe' throughout the course of this study. Also, their respect for
scholarly research and high regard for one another taught me the value
of collaborative research done by psychologists with different orien—
tations. I hope to continue this trend in my future research efforts,
thanks to them. In addition, their creativity, enthusiasm, and re-
freshing wit were invaluable when my energy wanned during the course of
this study. I will always have a warm place in my heart for these two
very special people.

Special thanks is also due to my other committee members, Dr.
Joel Aronoff for his critical reading and thoughtful comments, and Dr.
Dozier Thornton for serving as a committee member.

Much deserved thanks go to my undergraduate research assistants:
John DuLong, the experimenter; the coders - M. Kris Busk, Kathy Hahn,

Rob Lincoln, Jerry Moss; the confederates - Dave Baerman, Delmarie

iii

Gingerich, Rick Palmer, Caryle Seim; and the coordinator, Nancy
Smolenski. Their many hours of hard work, along with their enthusiasm
and good humor, made the collection of data an exciting and enjoyable
experience.

Jane Rice also deserves "mucho" thanks. Her continual help
throughout all stages of the research, ending with the typing of the
final copy, is greatly appreciated.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank some of my
supervisors who taught me a great deal during my training in their own
unique and understanding ways: Dr. Lucy Ferguson, Dr. Bill Kell, Dr.
William Mueller, Dr. Sam Phyler, Dr. Arthur Seagull, and Ms. Marsha
Worby.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family, who over the years
have given me encouragement, understanding and latitude to grow and
learn. Their never ending confidence in my abilities, even when mine
flagged on occassion, was the best possible source of support. Thank

you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

Person Perception . . . . . . . .
Personality Variables . . . . .
Sex Differences . . . . . . . . . . .
Implicit Personality Theory . . . . .
Response Disposition . . . . . . . .

Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior

Person Perception, Interpersonal Behavior, and
Adult Roles . . . . . . . . . .
Parent Behavior . . . . . . . . .
"High Risk" Adults . . . . . . . .

2. EXPERIMENT II . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Method . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . .

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bessell-Palomares (1970) Rating Scales . . .

Child Behavior Checklist (Form I and II) . . .
Kaplan-Anderson Checklist (Form I and II) . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlational Analysis: Child and Adult Ratings
Subsidiary Analyses . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. EXPERIMENT II . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . .
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Assistant . . . . . . . . .

Page

viii

(DNOUI-le-J

12

14
14
15
15
15
15
17
17
17
17
18
18
22
23

25
25
25
26
26
27
27

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

CHAPTER Page
Setting . . . . . . . 27
Procedure and Instrumentation. . . 28
Coding of Peer Interaction. . . . 31
Coders' Global Ratings . . . . 32
Training Procedure . . . . 32
Results. . . . . . . . . . 33
Coder Reliability. . . . . . 33
Category Usage. . . . . . . . 35
Dependent Measures . . . . . . 35
Behavior Scores System . . . . . . 36
Post—Study Questionnaire . . . . 47
Times to Completion and the Outcomes
of the Revealed Difference Tasks 54
Coders' Global Ratings . . . . . 57
Summary . . . . . . 60
Discussion. . . . . . . . . 64
Sex Differences . . . . . . . 65
Origins of Perceptual Style . 70
Perceptual Style and Interpersonal Behavior . 74
Methodological Issues . . . . 81
Reflections. . . . . 82
4. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . 94
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Bessell-Palomares (1970) Rating Scales . 99
B. Child Behavior Checklist-—Form A (Male)anu1Forn1B (Female). 110
C. Kaplan-Anderson Checklist--Form I and Form II. . 115
D. Analysis of Variance: Child and Adult Ratings for the
1,100 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 117
E. Analysis of Variance: Adult Ratings for the 150
Negative, Balanced, and Positive Behavior Perceivers. . 126
F. Attitude Questionnaire . . . . . . 130
G. Value Scale . . . . . . . . 134
H. Confederate Scripts . . . . . . . 135

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Appendix
I. Post-Study Questionnaire
J. Borgatta's Behavior Scores System .

K. Tables of the Mean Category Usage and
Standard Deviation for the BSS Scoring

Categories for the Subjects' and
Confederates' Behavior.

vii

Page
152

156

158

Table

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Correlations Between the Child Behavior Checklist,

Bessell-Palomares Scale, and the Kaplan—Anderson
Checklist for the 1,100 Subjects . . .

Correlations Between the Child Behavior Checklist,
Bessell-Palomares Scale, and the Kaplan-Anderson
Checklist for the 150 Subjects Who Were Designated
As Either a Negative, Balanced, or Positive
Behavior Perceiver . . . . . . . .

Inter-Rater Reliability for the Behavior Scores
System Categories . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Significant E Ratios Not Qualified by
Higher Order Interactions for the Behavior Scores
System . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Category that Yielded a Significant Perceptual
Style Effect . . . . . . . . .

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Categories that Yielded a Significant Role in
Dyad Effect . . . . . . . . . . .

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Categories that Yielded a Significant Sex of
Subject X Role in Dyad Interaction . . .

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Category that Yielded a Significant Perceptual
Style X Role in Dyad Interaction . . .

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Category that Yielded a Significant Sex of
Confederate X Perceptual Style Interaction .

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Categories that Yielded a Significant Sex of
Subject X Perceptual Style X Role in.Dyad
Interaction . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

20

21

34

37

38

39

40

40

41

43

Table

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Means (Per Minute) of the Behavior Scores System
that Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject X

Sex of Confederate X Perceptual Style Interaction .

Summary of Significant_§ Ratios Not Qualified
By Higher Order Interactions for the Post-Study
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . .

Means of the Post-Study Questionnaire Scores
that Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject Effect

Means of the Post-Study Questionnaire Scores
that Yielded a Significant Perceptual Style
Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means of the Post-Study Questionnaire Scores
that Yielded a Significant Sex of Confederate X
Role in Dyad Interaction . .

Means on Item 1 of the Post-Study Questionnaire
that Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject X
Perceptual Style Interaction . . . . . . .

Means (In Minutes) of the Interaction Time
Which Ended in Disagreement that Yielded a
Significant Perceptual Style Effect . . . .

Means (In Minutes) of the Interaction Time
Spent in Reaching Moderate Agreement that

Yielded a Significant Sex of Confederate X
Perceptual Style Interaction . . . . .

Means of the Proportion of Items Discussed that
Resulted in a Moderate Agreement Which Yielded

a Significant Sex of Subject X Sex of Confederate
X Perceptual Style Interaction . . . .

Means of the Coders' Global Ratings Which
Yielded a Significant Sex of Confederate
Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means of the Coders' Global Rating of the
Total Interaction that Yielded a Significant
Sex of Subject X Perceptual Style Interaction

Means of the Coders' Global Rating of the
Total Interaction that Yielded a Significant
Sex of Confederate X Perceptual Style
Interaction . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Page

45

48

49

50

51

52

54

55

56

58

59

60

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Schematic representation of person perception
(Warr & Knapper, 1968) . . . . . . . . . . 3

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

How do we perceive and judge other people? This is an essential
question in the study of interpersonal relationships because the way
individuals behave in relation to each other is in part determined by
the manner in which they perceive and judge each other. As Asch (1946)
stated, "To take our place with others we must perceive each other's
existence and reach a measure of comprehension of one another's needs,
emotions, and thoughts" (p. 258). Although only a few studies have
investigated the nature of the interaction between our perceptions and
judgments with interpersonal behavior, there is a sizable number of
studies investigating how people perceive and judge others. This area
of investigation has come to be known as "person perception."

The present research consisted of two studies in the area of
person perception. Study I examined the consistency of negative,
balanced, and positive behavior perceptual styles across different
stimulus persons. The stimulus persons were a child and an adult in a
videotaped play interaction, and a hypothetical "person in general."
Study II examined the relationship between perceptions and interpersonal
behavior through the investigation of the interpersonal behavior of
three separate types of perceivers. Specifically, it was hypothesized
that an individual's perceptual style would have important interpersonal

consequences for the perceiver in adult peer relations. On a broader

spectrum, the present research provided some preliminary implications

for identifying "high risk" prospective spouses and parents.

Person Perception

 

Shrauger and Altrocchi (1964) broadly defined person perception as
"the attribution of psychological characteristics (e.g., traits,
intentions, emotions) to other people — either by describing them or
by making predictions of their subsequent behavior" (p. 290). Warr
and Knapper (1968) supplemented this definition with a schematic model
(Figure 1) of person perception. This model is an information pro-
cessing system with ten components. A perceiver selects only certain
aspects of the stimulus person and of the situation. This requires an
"input selector" which may be influenced by five components operating
upon it: present stimulus person information, present context infor-
mation, stored stimulus information, and relatively stable and relatively
transitory characteristics of the perceiver. Another system that
transforms information is the "processing centre" which consists of a
set of "decision rules" (inference and combination rules) developed
by the perceiver. The output from the system (which feeds back into
earlier components) is seen as having three aspects: expectancy re-
sponses, attributive responses and affective responses.

Throughout the large research literature on person perception there
is a consistent, but not surprising, finding that there are individual
differences in person perception. Early investigators noted what they
considered a frequent source of "error" in predicting a particular
person's characteristics and thought it was an undesirable perceptual
bias that should be eliminated from psychological studies. However,

Bruner and Taguiri (1954) suggested that the precesses underlying the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present
stimulus Present Stored
person ' context ' stimulus person
information information information
¢ A
V _

 

 

 

Input selector

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-——-—-w-~—~w———-——— z. y
l ' I
g l
l l
' l
! ,. i 1
Perceiver's Perceiver's stable
current state characteristics
i
E
1
1
v
Processing centre ‘ h
} _..J
Affective __l Attributive Expectancy
responses , [firesponses responses
L11.-- t ”F
{-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Schematic representation of person perception
(Warr and Knapper, 1968).

 

 

apparent sources of error should be studied. Nowadays, investigators
do not view individual differences as an "error" but as a necessary
part of the process of person perception.

Many investigators followed Bruner and Taguiri's suggestion and
have studied the way a perceiver actively processes the stimuli to
infer characteristics (make judgments) about the stimulus person.
Perceivers make sense of the world by imposing stability on the char—
acteristics and behavior of others and as a result, need to process
stimulus cues.

A great deal of research indicates that the processing of stimuli
in person perception is "dominated far more by what the perceiver
brings into the situation than by what he [she] takes in during it"
(Gage & Cronbach, 1955, p. 420). In other words, pre-existing per-
ceiver characteristics account for most of the individual differences
in perception of the same stimulus object. When perceiving the same
stimulus object, perceivers receive the same cues but infer differently
from these perceptual cues. Jones and Thibaut (1958) suggest that the
person perception task primarily involves inference and interpretation
of cues. Therefore, a crucial problem is the identification of the
perceiver variables that account for different perceptual inference
rules among perceivers. Many studies have focused on just this area.
The major perceiver variables that have been identified are grouped
under four headings: 1) Personality variables, 2) Sex differences,

3) Implicit personality theory, and 4) Response dispositions.

Personality»Variab1es

 

There are a sizable number of studies in person perception

demonstrating that personality variables of the perceiver account for

some of the individual differences found in person perception. Shrauger
and Altrocchi (1964), Taguiri (1968), and Warr and Knapper (1968)
reviewed many of these studies and provide a good bibliography, so
specific studies will not be cited here. In summary, some of the
personality dimensions that have been investigated are: authoritarianism,
a perceiver's hostility, "repressors" and "sensitizers", intelligence,
degree of conceptual differentiation, maladjustment, and self concept.
Thus, several relatively stable characteristics of the perceiver can
influence the way s/he perceives other people. However, such findings
are very limited in their usefulness for developing a general theory

of person perception because, in themselves, they do not lead toward
identifying patterns of influence of personality factors in person

perception.

Sex Differences

 

A number of investigators also have found sex differences in
person perception. Most of the differences between male and female
perceivers are found in experiments that allowed subjects to give
free descriptions of stimulus persons; females tend to give more de-
tailed and favorable descriptions (Kohn & Feidler, 1961; Sarason &
Winkel, 1966), make more inferences (Collin, 1958; Sarbin, 1954),
and may use different categories than do men (Brach & Wertheimer, 1961).
Warr and Knapper (1968) have examined the results of their experiments
separately for male and female subjects. They have collected re-
sponses to over fifty different stimulus persons perceived in a wide
variety of indirect situations. The perceivers did not give free
responses but rated the stimulus person using the semantic differential.

They found that women in general make more positive perceptual

responses, but this tendency was especially marked when the women were

not previously familiar with the persons being judged.

Implicit Personality Theory

 

The notion of implicit personality theory was first introduced by
Bruner and Taguiri (1954). They defined it as "the assumptions we
make about the nature of other people" (p. 649). Cronbach (1955) first
studied implicit personality theories by correlating subject's trait-
ratings for several stimulus persons and found different subjects used
different underlying dimensions. Gage and Cronbach (1955) elaborated
the original definition by stating that implicit personality theory
"is the 'built-in' correlations that the perceiver consciously or un-
consciously imposes on the traits, characteristics or behaviors of
others" (p. 420). In other words, the term indicates that many dimensions
of perception are implicit to the perceiver.

A historic study in this area was conducted by Koltuv (1962). She
obtained the names of personally relevant and nonrelevant traits and the
names of familiar and unfamiliar people for each of her subjects and
then had them rate these people on both kinds of traits. Based on her
findings, she reasonably concluded: (1) individuals have implicit
personality theories; (2) there are individual differences in implicit
personality theories; and (3) individual perceivers use similar patterns
of inference across many different stimulus persons. In other words,
implicit personality theories have consistency and individuality, they
vary among perceivers, and influence a perceiver's perceptions more so
than the stimuli of the person. Therefore, by knowing how a person

categorizes others, we can tell a great deal about the person.

Response Dispositions

 

Levy (1961) and Kaplan (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973) have stated that
individual differences in person perception are due to differences in
pre—existing response biases and not to differences in information
reception.

Early studies found people to have characteristic ways of rating
others, labeling these tendencies as "halo effect" (Thorndike, 1920);
"logical error" (Newcomb, 1931); and "leniency effect" (Sears, 1936).

In one of the earliest experimental studies in person perception,

Asch (1946) observed that perceivers display consistent positive or
negative tendencies in their evaluation of a variety of stimulus per—
sons. Similarly, Gage and Cronbach (1955) suggested that people
possess global dispositions or tendencies to reach directionally (i.e.,
positive or negative) toward "others" both before and after specific
"others" are observed. More recently, Kaplan (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973)
found that people attach maximum importance to information about

others that is consistent with their own general tendencies to evaluate
others favorably or unfavorably.

The typical methodology used for the studies investigating perceiver
biases has an important limitation. That is, the stimulus person is not
actually observed by the perceiver. Instead, the data about the stimulus
person are presented in a brief written vignette consisting of a set
of personality traits. Following this the perceiver rates the stimulus
person on several scales. The stimulus person typically is assumed
to be an adult male. In the present study another methodology has
been employed. It was expected that the perceiver's positive-negative

response bias would affect a perceiver's inferences about real people

who have been observed in a video-taped play interaction, as well as
a hypothetical "person in general."

Levy and Dugan (1960) and Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957)
factor analyzed subjects' judgments of different stimulus persons.
Their results are consistent with the other studies cited, since they
indicate that the evaluative component of the response to another per—
son accounts for a substantial portion of the variance of the perceiver's
behavior.

It is apparent that many investigators have observed a basic
disposition of a perceiver to rate along a dimension of positive—
negative which affects the perceiver's inferences or judgments about a
person. Hastorf et a1. (1970) stated "this dimension is probably a
basic dimension of human experience" (p. 23). Therefore, the present
research identified three separate groups of perceivers along the
evaluative dimension: negative, balanced, and positive behavior

perceivers (Messe' & Stollak, 1974).

Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior

 

Obviously, a basic assumption that underlied much research in the
area of person perception was that how a person categorizes and per-
ceives another person influences how the perceiver behaves toward that
person. Unfortunately, it is only an assumption, since the relationship
between perception and interpersonal behavior has been sadly neglected
in research. An overview of person perception research reveals that the
studies are seldom more than a symbolic response to a symbolic situation.

Only a few studies have investigated the behavioral consequences

of perception and they support the assumption that perceptions influence

interpersonal behavior. For example, Kelley (1950) found that students
interacted less in a class when they perceived their instructor to be
cold than when they perceived him to be warm. Kleck, Ono, and Hastorf
(1966) found that subjects interacting with an apparently physically
disabled confederate tended to demonstrate less variability in their
behavior as a group, expressed Opinions that were less representative
of their actual beliefs, and terminated the interaction sooner than did
subjects interacting with the physically normal confederates.

To specify adequately the relationship between perception and
interpersonal behavior, researchers need to examine overt behavior.
Therefore, the present research studied the interpersonal behavior of
three separate types of perceivers. It was expected that the "perceptual
style" of a perceiver would have important behavioral consequences in
initial encounters between two strangers. Thus, each interactant
simultaneously was both perceiver and perceived. It was expected that
the results of this study would hlep identify more precisely some

interpersonal consequences of perceptual differences.

Person Perception, Interpersonal Behavior, and Adult Roles

 

In addition to the present study providing results for the general
area of person perception and interpersonal behavior, it also should
provide some preliminary implications for identifying "high risk"
prospective spouses and parents.

Probably two of the more important and demanding roles that people
assume in adulthood are those of spouse and parent. Both of these

dyadic relationships take place within the intimate and complex family

10

system. As a result, adults are often simultaneously acting in the
role of parent and spouse. How does one try to integrate these two
roles? There are no easy answers to this question. An important
contribution to the understanding of families would be research that
begins to_specify the relationship between interpersonal behavior
patterns of an adult with his/her spouse and with his/her child. For
example, do interaction patterns that are established with a spouse
generalize and affect the interaction patterns between parent and child?

There is a large amount of research literature exploring both types
of dyadic relationships--parent-child and husband-wife. However, much
of this research has used questionnaire techniques, individual inter-
view procedures, retrospective analysis, or clinically based material
rather than direct observation of interpersonal behavior. Most recently
there has been some valuable research conducted that has observed
directly and quantified the behavior of parent-child or husband-wife
relationships (Baumrind, 1967; Mishler & Waxler, 1968; Raush et a1.,
1974). In addition, family interaction research has become prevalent
since the early 1960's (Riskin & Faunce, 1973). One would expect that
such research would be able to shed some light on the relationship
between parent and spouse behavior. Unfortunately, most of the re—
search has been concerned only with finding differences between

certain classes of "pathological" families and "normal" families.

Parent Behavior

 

Mishler and Waxler (1968) conducted an innovative study in the
area of family interaction that does not pertain directly to the question

at hand, but does demonstrate the potential that direct observational

11

studies have in exploring important and complex questions concerning
family functioning. They compared parents interacting with a
schizophrenic child and with a "well" sibling and found that the
parents did not have a relationship with the schizophrenic child
that was qualitatively different from the relationship they had with
a "well" child. There was, however, a slight exaggeration of a
general style or a reduction in variability of behavior when the
parents were with their schizophrenic child. As Mishler and Waxler
stated, "perhaps this was a way of saying that the parents behaved
like themselves, only more so, with their schizophrenic children"
(p. 288).

Thus, the observable parental behaviors measured by Mishler and
Waxler tended to be consistent across different children in the family.
Therefore, one could speculate that some of their behavior might be
consistent across spouse and children. In conjunction with this
speculation, Dollard and Miller (1950) have observed that the same
kinds of interpersonal behavior are likely to occur in different kinds
of social interactions, irrespective of the function or social pur—
pose of these involvements. Therefore, they stated that, "an analysis
of the stereotypic behavior of one dyad type may provide data which
will enhance the ability of the researcher to predict various behavior
variables in other dyad types" (p. 261).

A major study of parent-child relationships was conducted by
Baumrind (1967). Nursery school children were rated by observers as
either: Pattern I - self-reliant, self—controlled, explorative, and
content; Pattern II - discontent, withdrawn, and distrustful; and

Pattern III - having little self-control, self—reliance, and a tendency

12

to retreat from novel experiences. Observations were made in natural
and structured settings and data were obtained on parents and children
together and independently. Parents of Pattern I children were found
to be "notably firm, loving, demanding, and understanding." Parents of
Pattern II children were found to be "firm, punative, and unaffectionate,"
and mothers of Pattern III children "lacked control and were moderately
loving" with the fathers of these latter children being "ambivalent

and lax" (p. 83). Baumrind did not specifically study the husband-wife
relationship, but one could speculate that the descriptions of the
parent-child relationships also might describe the husband-wife
relationship. In other words, it is possible that if parents are
"firm, loving, demanding, and understanding" with their child then it
may be expected that they would behave in a similar manner with each
other.

Determining the similarities and differences of interactions in
parent-child and husband-wife relationships should be an important con-
tribution to the understanding of family functioning and should provide
a new direction in family interaction research. Although there is
evidence to indicate that the same interactional qualities of empathy,
genuiness, and non-possessive warmth underly an effective adult—adult
relationship as well as an adult-child relationship (Bierman, 1968;
Liberman, Stollak & Denner, 1971; Mbustakas, 1969; Truax & Carkhuff,
1968), researchers need to examine the similarities and differences

in dyadic interactions within the same family.

"High Risk" Adults

 

One of Messe' and Stollak's (1974) major objectives in initiating

their research project relating adult perceptions to child psychopathology

13

was to develop procedures to identify "high risk" adults. There has

 

been a great deal of interest and research devoted to the early iden-
tification of children and methods of assessment. It is assumed that
if "high risk" children can be identified early in their lives they

can most easily be helped and their problems most effectively removed
(Cowen et a1., 1975). Messe' and Stollak "believe that of equal impor-
tance and of equal feasibility is the development of procedures to
identify 'high risk' adults, and the implementation of educational
programs hopefully designed to prevent much of child and family
psychopathology" (Stollak, 1973, p. 167).

Messe' and Stollak's initial study examines the relationship
between prospective parent's differential perceptual bias and their
behavior in an interaction with a child. However, another important
interpersonal sphere for these prospective parents is their behavior in
an interaction with another adult. Therefore, to identify "high risk"
adults adequately we need to be concerned not only with identifying
"high risk" parents but also identifying "high risk" spouses. The
current research used the same subjects that Messe' and Stollak se-
lected for their initial study. However, in the present study
(Experiment II) the subjects were observed interacting with a peer
(confederate) in a structured situation consisting of a revealed

difference task.

CHAPTER 2

EXPERIMENT I

Overview

Experiment I was undertaken to test the general hypothesis that
there is a relationship between college students' perceptual bias
toward a child and toward a person their own age. An overview of the
research that examined individual differences in person perception sup-
ports the idea that a person's perceptual style (inferential process)
is consistent across different stimulus persons. However, the varied
stimulus persons studied have always been adults and most often, the
adults are only known through written descriptions. There have been
no studies investigating whether a person's perceptual style, more
specifically, a person's evaluative tendency in making inferences, is
similar when perceiving a "real" child and a ”real" adult. Therefore,
for the current study, it was expected that college students' percep-
tual style toward a child would be similar toward an adult. Four
different rating scales were administered to approximately 1,100 under-
graduate males and females. The Child Behavior Checklist assesses
the perceptual orientation toward a specific child, the Bessell-
Palomares Rating Scales and the Kaplan-Anderson Checklist Form I

assess impressions of a specific adult, and the Kaplan-Anderson

14

15

Checklist Form II assesses the conception of a (general) person the
subject's age. The distinction between "perception" and "conception"
was made by Warr and Knapper (1968). They used the term perception
to refer to judgments made when the stimulus object is present and
conception to refer to judgments made when the stimulus object is

absent.

Hypothesis

 

College students will show a similar consistency on a positive—
negative dimension when (1) rating a child's behavior; (2) rating an
adult's behavior; and (3) ascribing positive and negative traits to a

person "in general."

Method

Subjects

The subjects were approximately 1,100 Michigan State University
students who responded to an advertisement placed in the student news-
paper which solicited students interested in research for pay. The ad

read as follows:

Undergraduates to Participate in Behavioral Research. If

 

chosen, you will be paid $5/hour for 1-3 hours of your time. If
interested, come for a "pre—employment" interview for which you

will be paid $1.

Procedure
The subjects viewed the Standard Perceptual Stimulus (SPS)

videotape, developed by Messe' and Stollak (1974). The SP8 is a

l6

20-minute videotape of play interaction between a female and a child
actor in a playroom setting. The videotape was balanced for positive
and negative behaviors, in that the child was shown emitting approxi-
mately equal amounts of each type. Positive behaviors were those
which were reported more frequently by a sample of parents of non-clinic
children who responded to an earlier version of the Child Behavior
Checklist that was developed by Ferguson, MacKenzie, and Does and
reported in Ferguson, Partyka, and Lester (1974); negative behaviors
were those which were reported more frequently by a sample of parents
of clinic children. Two tapes were developed, using the same script
and same adult, but the sex of the child actor was varied.

Subjects, in groups of 30-35, observed the SPS. The §P§_was

introduced as follows:

The purpose of this study is to see if the evaluations
of people who are relatively naive agree with so called experts
in play encounter training. You will see excerpts from several
weeks of afternoon sessions in which a graduate student in
training plays with a child. The child was one of a number of
volunteers from the public schools who was paid for participating
and who came over a period of weeks to play with her. What we
are asking you to do is to view this 15 to 20 minute video-tape
of portions of these play encounters with Karen/Tom. After the
tape is over you will be asked to evaluate the graduate student's
behavior. Are there any questions?

Now I am going to start the tape. Again, watch the screen
carefully to see how the graduate student acts with the child over

the course of her encounters with her/him.

17

After they viewed the SPS, subjects were escorted to a larger
room where they were instructed to complete the Bessell-Palomares
Rating Scales (BE), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBC) Form A or

Form B, and the Kaplan-Anderson Checklist (KAC) Form I and 11.

Materials

Bessell-Palomares (1970) Rating Scales. The_BP (presented in

 

Appendix A) is a lO—item instrument on which the subject rates the
adult's behavior on a scale from 1-5, with 1 the most negative score
and 5 the most positive score. A total BE score was derived from the
subject's BE by summing their scores on the 10 items.

Child Behavior Checklist (Form A and Form B). The CBC (presented

 

in Appendix B) is a checklist of 64 items referring to the behavior of
children which significantly differentiated clinic and non-clinic
children (Ferguson, et a1., 1974). For example, items scored nega-
tively were perceived present in their children by parents of clinic
children to a greater extent than they were perceived present by
parents of non-clinic children. The subjects rated each item twice.
First they checked the item if they thought it applied to the child's
behavior in the playroon and they checked it a second time if they
thought it applied to the child's behavior in general. Four scores
were derived from the subject's CBC: positive and negative score for
the child's behavior in the playroom; positive and negative score for
the child's behavior "in general."

Kaplan—Anderson Checklist (Form I and II). The KAC (presented in

 

Appendix C) was designed for the present study to measure the subject's
perceptual style toward the adult in the film (Form I) and to measure

the subject's conception of an adult "in general" (Form II). The

18

checklist consisted of 18 high-likeableness personality traits and
18 low-likeableness personality traits, chosen from Anderson's

norms (1968), and listed in random order. Two restrictions were
added in the selection of the traits: 1) They would be highly mean-
ingful words, using Anderson's norms (1968); and 2) the same valence
traits would not be synonyms.

The subject's task was to check the twelve words, from the pool
of 36, which s/he would most likely use in describing l) "a person of
your own age" and 2) the "adult in the film."

A similar checklist was used by Kaplan (1973). He used twelve
high-, medium-, and low-likeableness traits, taken from Anderson's
norms, which were listed in random order. The subject's task was to
check the twelve words, from the pool of 36, which s/he would most
likely use in describing people in general.

Four scores were derived from the subject's KAC: positive and
negative score for the adult in the playroom; positive and negative

score for an adult "in general."

Results

Correlational Analysis: Child and Adult Ratings

 

To examine the relationship of perceptual style across different
stimulus persons, the following scores were correlated: positive and
negative ratings on the QBC_for the child in the playroom and for the
child "in general"; positive and negative ratings on the KAC for the
adult in the playroom and for a person "in general"; and the total BP_
rating for the adult in the playroom. Separate correlation matrices

were computed for the 1,100 subjects and for the 150 subjects who were

19

selected as the negative, balanced, and positive behavior perceivers.

The correlation matrix for the 1,100 subjects is presented in
Table 1. Inspection of this matrix reveals that out of the 36 corre-
lation coefficients, 17 were significant at the .001 level and four
were significant at the .01 level. Although most of the significant
correlations were between the ratings of the child on the CBC (p_<..001)
or between the ratings of an adult on the KA§_(p_<..001, with one
exception), there were also some significant correlations between
child and adult ratings. The total BP_score, a rating of the adult
in the playroom, correlated significantly with the following: the
positive and negative ratings of the adult in the playroom on the KAC
(p <..001); the positive and negative ratings of the child in the
playroom (p <..001); and negative rating of the child "in general"
(p_<..01); and the positive and negative rating of an adult "in general"
on the KAC (pg< .001). In addition, the negative rating of the adult
in the playroom and the negative rating of an adult "in general"
correlated significantly with the rating of the child in the playroom
(p < .01).

The correlation matrix for the 150 negative, balanced, and positive
behavior perceivers is presented in Table 2. The pattern of significant
correlations was similar to the matrix for the 1,100 subjects. How—
ever, there are additional significant correlations. Out of the 36
correlation coefficients, 19 were significant at the .001 level and 6
were significant at the .01 level. Additional significant correlations
showed that there were more relations between ratings of the adult with
ratings of the child: The negative rating of the adult in the playroom

on the KAC correlated significantly with the ratings of the child on

20

TABLE 1

Correlations between the Child Behavior Checklist,

Bessell-Palomares Scale, and the Kaplan-Anderson
Checklist for the 1,100 Subjects

 

 

Variable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
l. Positive-Child
in Playroom (CBC) -
2. Negative-Child _ 34** _ _
in Playroom (CBC)'
3. Positive-Child 52** _ 25** _
in General (CBC) ' °
4. Negative-Child _ ** ** _ ** —
in General (CBC) '22 '44 '50
in Playroom ° ' ° .
6. Positive-Adult
_ - ** _
in Playroom (KAC)'06 .02 .Ol .01 .26
7. Negative-Adult _ * * _ _ _ ** _ ** _
in Playroom (KAC)°11 .09 .01 .01 .56 .44
8. Positive—Adult
_ _ ** _ _ ** _
in General (KAC) .05 .06 .01 .01 .28 .05 .40
9' Negative-AdUIt .09* .05 .03 -.O6 -.28** -.25**-.54** -.15** -

in General (KAC)-

 

* p<.01
** p < .001

Note.-—All tests were one—tailed

21

H>wfim N

oomwmwmneosm wmnSmms nrm OUHHQ wmrm<H0H armowHHmn.
wmmmmHHImeoBmHmm momwm. mam firm wmvaDI>samHmos
osmowHHmn mow nrm Hmo mcvmmonm 2:0 Smdm Ummwmsmnma

>m menrmn m 2mmmnw<m. wmwmsomm. 0H womwnw<m wmrm<HOH wmuomw<mu

 

 

 

<mnwmva H N w b m m u m
H. womHnH<mIOUHHQ I
H: wwmwnooa Aowov
N. zmmmnw<mlorwwa I uwxx I
H: wwmwnooa Aowov .
u. womwnw<mIorwwa .mux» I.VH** I
Ha nmsmnmw Aowov
b. 2mmmnw<mlnrwwa I »» »» x» I
H5 nmsmHmH Aownv .uo .mH .mm
m. 9.0an glam: be: I31 .3: IE...» I
as wwmwnoos
m. womHnH<mI>QCHn
I I »* I
H: wwmwnooa Aw>nv .Ho .OV .oo .Hw .wm
u. zmmmnw<ml>mcwn I »x a» I » x I »» I x» I
H: wwmwnooa Aw>ov .mm .m» .NN .NN .mw .b@
m. womwnw<ml>mcwn
I » I x» I s» I
H5 Qmsmnmw Aw>nv .H@ .H@ .Hu .Hm .9m .00 .mw
o. 2mmmnw<mI>mcHn I x» I » » I I »* I s
H: nmsmnmw Aw>ov .Na .Ha .NN .No .Hm .HH .bw .Ho
* cun.ow
1. v A .2:

zonm.II>HH nmmnm Smnm osmlanHmm.

 

22

the CBC (p_<1.001); the negative rating of an adult "in general"

"in general"

correlated significantly with the rating of the child
(p <..01); and the total BF rating correlated significantly with all
the ratings of the child (p <L.001).

Of particular relevance to the present study was the finding that
ratings of a child correlated significantly with particular ratings of
an adult. The relationship was strongest when correlating the ratings
of the 150 subjects, who comprised two extreme groups (those who rated
the child the most negatively of the 1,100 subjects or who rated the
child the most positively of 1,100 subjects), and the middle group
(those who rated the child the most equally on positive and negative
behaviors). For these 150 subjects, 12 out of the 20 correlations be-
tween their ratings of an adult with their ratings of a child were
significant. Seven of the correlations which were not significant
consisted of the rating of the child with the positive rating of the
adult in the playroom and the adult "in general" on the KAC.

To summarize, the results of the correlational analysis indicated
that college students showed a consistency on a positive-negative
dimension when rating a child in the playroom and "in general," an
adult in the playroom on two different types of rating scales (BP_and
KAC), an adult in the playroom and an adult "in general," and an adult

and a child. These results, in terms of number, although not magnitude,

provide strong support for the hypothesis.

Subsidiary Analyses

 

To examine if there were differences in the subject's perceptions

as a function of the sex of the perceiver, sex of the stimulus person,

23

and/or instructional context, the Bessell—Palomares Scale, Child Behavior
Checklist, and the Kaplan-Anderson Checklist each were subjected to an
analysis of variance. Unfortunately, findings are confounded by the

fact that the subjects only perceived (rated) a specific female adult

and a specific male or female child. Therefore, due to the necessarily
tentative nature of the conclusions drawn from the data, the specific
results and discussion relevant to these analyses are presented in
Appendix D.

In addition to examining the consistency of the subject's
evaluative dimension across different stimulus persons through correla-
tional analysis, the adult ratings of the 150 subjects selected as the
negative, balanced, and positive behavior perceivers were subjected
to an analysis of variance. However, for the reasons presented above
in regard to similar analyses for the total sample, the results and
discussion relevant to these subsidary analyses are presented in

Appendix E.

Discussion

 

The results of the correlational analysis indicated that college
students showed a consistency on a positive-negative dimension when
rating different stimulus persons. This suggests that a person's
differential selectivity to and/or inferential process when attributing
positive and negative behaviors might be a relatively stable charac-
teristic of the perceiver and a basic dimension in an individual's
perception of another person. It is assumed that the evaluative di-
mension used by the perceiver is a result of the undergraduates'

childhood interactions with their parents. More detailed formulations

24

about the origins of perceptual bias (evaluative dimension) will be
discussed in the report of Experiment II, below.

The findings for the present study, in which the subjects
evaluated real people, correspond to those of previous investigations,
in which the subjects evaluated hypothetical people described in written
vignettes (Osgood et al., 1957; Levy & Dugan, 1960; Levy, 1961; and
Kaplan, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973). The findings support the assertion
that the processing of stimuli in person perception is strongly deter—
mined by what the perceiver brings into the situation. However, the
more important issue is the relationship between perceptions and

interpersonal behavior. This will be the focus for Experiment II.

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENT II

Overview

Experiment II was undertaken to test the general position that a
person's perceptual style influences how the perceiver behaves toward
the stimulus person. Although there has been a steady stream of research
in person perception, there is a paucity of studies investigating the
relationship between perception (questionnaire or checklist responses)
and social actions. In the present study, it was expected that the
perceptual style of a perceiver, as measured by the Child Behavior Check-
list, would have important interpersonal consequences in adult dyadic
relations. Three separate types of behavior perceivers (positive, balanced,
negative) were observed interacting with a confederate in a structured
situation consisting of a revealed difference task. It was expected
that the perceptual style of the subject would have an effect on the

dyadic behavior.

Hypotheses

 

' conflict situation,

It was expected that in a "revealed differences,’
dyadic interaction would be affected differentially by the presence of a

negative, balanced, or positive perceiver. Since the present research

25

26

was part of the initial study that investigated the effects of
perceptual style, it appeared too premature to generate specific direc-
tional hypotheses. Therefore, the effects of the presence of a

negative, balanced, or positive behavior perceiver on dyadic interaction
were examined via four separate sets of dependent variables that were
designed to measure different aspects of the interaction: the Behavior
Scores System categories (Borgatta, 1963), which measured overt behavior;
a post-study questionnaire, which measured the subjects' (and confeder—
ates') perception of their partner; a structural measure of the interaction
which consisted of the times to completion and the outcomes of the re-
vealed difference tasks; and the coders' global ratings which measured
observers' perceptions of the subject and of the total interaction. In
addition to examining the effects of perceptual style on dyadic inter-
action, the four dependent measures also were examined for the effects

of sex of the subject and/or sex of the confederate.

Method

Design

The design of Experiment II was a 2 X 2 X 3 X 2 factorial, with
sex of the subject, sex of the confederate, perceptual style, and role
in dyad respectively as factors. There were a total of 96 subjects,
48 males and 48 females, and four confederates, 2 males and 2 females.
Each cell contained 8 dyads (subject and confederate). Subjects were
paired with a confederate of the same sex as that of the target child

that they viewed in the SPS.

27

Subjects

Subjects were 48 males and 48 female undergraduates at Michigan
State University who participated in the research for pay. They were
randomly chosen with a perceptual style category from 150 subjects
selected by Messe' and Stollak (1974).

From the 1,100 subjects who participated in Experiment I, Messe'
and Stollak (1974) selected three types of behavior perceivers, using
a score that was derived by subtracting the number of negative behaviors
checked on the CBC from the number of positive behaviors checked. From
these scores subjects were selected who met the following criteria:

(a) to be considered a "negative behavior perceiver,’ a subject had to
check at least 20 behaviors (that he or she saw the child emit in the
playroom) and receive a perceptual bias score of at least —14; (b) to
be considered "balanced," subjects had to check at least 20 behaviors
and receive a bias score that ranged from -1 to +1; (c) to be considered

a "positive behavior perceiver,‘ a person had to check at least 20

behaviors and receive a score of at least +5.

Research Assistants

 

Four confederates (2 male and 2 female), four coders (2 male and 2
female), and a male experimenter were selected from undergraduate
psychology majors. They received psychology research credits for

participation in the study.

Setting

The experimental setting was a small room with a one-way mirror,
three chairs and two tables. While filling out the questionnaires,

described below, the subject and confederate sat at separate tables.

28

The tables were placed so that the participants would not be facing
each other. For the interaction, the subject and confederate were

instructed to more their chairs so that they would be facing each other.

Procedure and Instrumentation

 

One subject and a confederate (who played the role of a subject)
were present for each session. The experimenter introduced himself and
asked the subjects to do the same. The experimenter told them that he
was interested in studying how two people with differing attitudes
resolve their differences. Care was taken to treat the confederate at
all times just as if s/he were a real subject.

The subject and confederate first completed separately a 17 item
attitude questionnaire, developed by the experimenter (see Appendix F),
that asked for their opinion on several attitude issues. Items for the
attitude questionnaire were constructed from several issues deemed to be
of interest to college students. No attempt was made to develop items
having content covering a systematically defined set of issues since
the content was not of major interest in the experiment. In responding
to the items of the questionnaire the subject could either strongly
agree, moderately agree, moderately disagree, or strongly disagree.

After completion of the attitude questionnaire, the experimenter
excused himself in order to choose three items on which they had oppos-
ing attitudes. While the experimenter was gone, he had the subject
and confederate complete a value scale (Appendix G). This scale was
administered merely to keep the subject and confederate occupied and
prevent them from interacting while the experimenter was out of the room.

Eight items from the attitude questionnaire were preselected during

training by the experimenter and confederates to be used for the

29

interaction segment. They were items which appeared most likely to
elicit strong Opinions from a college-aged sample. The items that
dealt with sexually-oriented topics were excluded along with topics
that were felt to have a weak argument for one Of the sides. Scripts
were developed with points "for" or "against" the attitudes statement,
along with counterpoints, and are listed in Appendix H.

The experimenter selected three items from the attitude question-
naire to which the subject responded with a strong Opinion. If the
subject did not express either a "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree"
response, the moderate responses were used.

All of the eligible items, along with different responses were
typed on 3 X 5 cards. S1 was written in the blank corresponding to
the subject's response; 82 designated the confederate's response, and
it was always in Opposition to the subject's response. For example,

if the subject marked "strongly agrees," S was placed in the blank

1

next to the strongly agree response and S was placed in the blank for

2
the strongly disagree response. The same procedure was used for
moderately agree and moderately disagree responses.

When the experimenter returned to the room he collected the value
scales and instructed the subject and confederate to move their chairs
so that they would be facing one another. He then proceeded to give
the following directions:

I have selected three items that the two Of you have
expressed divergent attitudes on. The three items are typed

on these cards, along with each Of your responses. S, your

response is designated by 81’ which merely stands for subject

one, and 9, your response is designated by 82, which stands

for subject two.

30

Now I would like the two of you to discuss the items,
one at a time, and try to reach an agreement for the items.
Begin with the first item and do not look at the next item
until you are ready to begin discussing it. You will have
30 minutes to discuss, one, two, or all three of the items.
In other words, if you want to, you can spend the entire
30 minutes discussing only the first item. However, you may
proceed to the next item if both of you consent to move on,
even if you haven't reached an agreement on the item you're
discussing. MOst importantly, remember that your discussion
will last for 30 minutes and your instructions are to tgy

and reach an agreement for the items.

The procedure used in this study was very similar to the Revealed
Difference Technique developed by Strodbeck (1951). This technique
has been used quite widely and has been utilized primarily as a research
tool to generate data for the study of content and/or process relation-
ships in such groups as the family (Mishler & Waxler, 1968). This
procedure was used in this study because it generates conflict. It was
felt that some type of experimental manipulation would be necessary in
order to break through the camouflaging effects of convention and
politeness which are characteristic of behavior with strangers, especially
strangers in a psychology experiment.

After completion of the interaction segment of the experiment, the
subject and confederate were asked to fill out a post—study questionnaire
(Appendix I). In the first part, the subject indicated along a 7-point
scale how well each of 36 personality traits described their partner.

The 36 traits were the same positive and negative traits that were on

31

the Kaplan—Anderson Checklist used in Experiment I. The endpoints for
the 7-point scales were labeled "very" and "not at all." The 18
positive and negative trait scores were summed to yield a total positive
score and a total negative score. The second part of the questionnaire
consisted of six questions. Five items consisted of evaluating their
partner on 7-point dimensions of persuasiveness, likeability, desira-
bility as a future partner in an experiment, ability to win affection
and liking from others, and ability to fit in with the person's circle
of close friends. The remaining item assessed how comfortable the

individual felt during the experiment.

Coding of Peer Interaction

 

Two coders independently rated the interaction occurring in a
session. Each coder rated an equal number of subjects from each condi-
tion. Coders viewed the session through a one-way mirror and heard the
interaction through headphones. The coders were trained to score the
behaviors of both the real subject and the confederate using the
Behavior Scores System, BSS, developed by Borgatta (1963). Appendix J
presents details of this coding system. Reliability estimates for this
study were obtained for each category.

The BSS seemed the most apprOpriate to examine peer interaction
since it was designed "to devise a set of scoring categories, essenti-
ally using the same type of units that are common to Chapple's, Bales',
and other systems, but focusing on definitions that would maximize
content areas corresponding to peer assessments" (Borgatta, 1963; p. 26).

In addition to having high relevance to peer interaction, the
system had a small number of scores (basically ten) that appeared

manageable for rating "live" interaction.

32

Coders' Global Ratings

 

In addition to coding the behavior, the coders rated the dyad and
subject, using five 7-point semantic differential scales. The scales
consisted of rating the total interaction (positive-negative) and the
subject's intelligence, comfortableness, friendliness, and nondefensive—

HESS.

TrainingpProcedure

 

Confederates. Initial subjects who helped in the training of the

 

four confederates were 80 MSU undergraduates in introductory psychology
courses who received credit toward their class grade for participating.
Subjects were recruited by a notice on the class bulletin board, in-
forming them of an "Opinionated discussion study." From the initial
80 subjects, each confederate was trained by encountering 10 males and
10 females.

The training objective was to standardize the confederate's behavior.
The confederates were coached to use rational, intelligent and concise
points for their arguments. Their manner of presentation was to be
assertive, enthusiastic, confident, and opinionated. They were not to
be hostile, sarcastic, over-emotional, or use sensationalized, exaggera—
ted, and irrelevant arguments. In addition, their style of discussion
was to take the form of the debate style. The confederates were to
challenge the subject's point and then add an additional point for their
side. Also, confederates were instructed not to initiate going on to
the next item for discussion. This was always left up to the subject
and the confederate would agree after the subject had made the sugges-
tion. In the noninteraction segment of the study, the confederates

did not initiate any conversation with the subject and only responded

33

with short answers when the subject initiated conversation.

At the end of training the confederates appeared well trained
since they behaved in a highly standardized manner with the pilot
subjects.

Coders. Unaware of the purpose or design of the study, the four
coders learned the categories to be scored. Discussion followed and
definitions were revised and made more clear. Category 5 was dropped
from the rating scale. Essentially this category consisted of responses
such as head nods or "um hums." These behaviors were exhibited so
often that rating them interfered with the coder's concentration on the
dialogue. Therefore, this category was eliminated.

The training process consisted of three parts. First they rated
practice transcripts of social interaction protocols, followed by
rating audiotapes of role-playing sessions of the confederates, and
ended with live ratings of the confederates and pilot subjects. The
training process consisted of approximately 5-6 hours/week for 10

weeks.

Results

Coder Reliability

 

Six rater pairs coded the "live" 30 minute interaction, using the
.BSS. To Obtain an estimate of the reliabilities for each of the
categories, product-moment correlation coefficients were computed for
the six rater pairs, and an average was computed to obtain a mean
category reliability. Table 3 presents correlation coefficients across
categories. The range of the average correlations was .35 to 1.00,
which indicated a somewhat large degree of variability in interjudge

reliability across behaviors. The low reliabilities that some of the

H>wfim u

Hsnmnlwmnmfl mewmdwwwnw mom nrm wm5m<won mOOHmm mwmnma omnmmonwmm

 

 

34

wmnmu wmwnm 3mm: omnmmonw
omnmmonw H HH HHH H< < <H meHmUHHHn%
H .mu .0» .oo .oH .om .mu .0» H
H> .b@ I .wu I .wm .Nb .wm pm
pm .uo .om .mw .uo .Vo .Hb .mm HO
Ho .oH .Hm .mo .um I .HN .mo HO
HO .Na .Hu .uo .uo I .m0 .m» we
N .op .mw .mb .uo .mu .oo .mo N
N> .wm .mH I.ow .bo .bH .mw .bb mm
mm .um .um .ub .wu .oo .Vo .om NO
NO .m» I I .bw .mu H.oo .om NO
NU .mo I I I I I .mm mm
w .om .mu .mm .mm .ww .mo .mo w
u> I I H.oo I I I H.oo wm
um I I I H.oo I.Ob I .mN av
we .00 .mo I .oH .um .uo .mN an
um I .mH I I I I .mH we
9 .mm .mo .m» .00 .mm .mm .0» b
b> I I I I .NO I .uo so
no .mo I .mu .0» .VO .mm .mm so
o .0» .ow .ou .oN .mo .mm .oH a
ow .oo .NH .uo .HN I.om .wm .wm ad
on I H.oo .00 I I I .mb on
ad I I I .mm .m» I .mm on
M> .bu .mo I.Ob .mm .mH .bm .mH m
Mm .wo .mb .uo .um .ub .ow .um v
Mn .oo .mb .oo .om .mb .Hw .um 0
ma .mb .Nu .0H .0» .uu .mu .mm a

 

35

categories yielded appeared related to the very low occurrence of

these behaviors during the 30 minutes interaction. Therefore, categories
la~neutra1 communication-task determining, 2a—assertive acts-task
determining, and 6b-supportive acts, group maintaining were eliminated
from further analyses because of insufficient reliability. The re—
maining categories showed sufficient reliability to be included in

subsequent analyses.

Categornysage

 

The mean category usage and standard deviations for the BSS
categories of the subjects' and confederates' behavior are presented
in Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix K. The categories are listed in

order of frequency of their usage.

Dependent Measures

 

Four types of dependent measures were employed in this study to
test the effects of perceptual style and the other independent
variables on dyadic interaction:

(1) A behavioral measure--the subjects' and confederates' behavior
was scored using the BSS categories. Every act received a
score in one of the following categories: neutral assertions
or communications; assertive or dominant acts; antagonistic
acts; withdrawal acts; and assertive supportive acts. In
addition, an act could receive one of the following surscores:
task determining acts; group maintaining acts; hostility dis-
played; and tension displayed (it should be noted that an
act could never receive just a surscore);

(2) A questionnaire designed to examine the subject's and confeder-
ate's perception of their partner on a positive—negative

dimension;

(3) Time to completion and the outcome of the revealed difference
task;

(4) Coder's global ratings of the participants.

36

For all four types of dependent measures, the dyad was used as the
unit of analysis, with the exception of four of the coder's global
ratings, which were made only of the subject. In addition, for the
.§§§ and the post-study questionnaire, scores for the role in dyad
(subject or confederate) were included in the analyses as a factor,
repeated within a dyad. Thus, data for the BSS and post-study
questionnaire were subjected to 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (sex of confeder-
ate) X 3 (perceptual style) X 2 (role in dyad, a repeated measure)
analyses of variance. The times to completion and outcomes of the
revealed difference tasks, and the coder's global ratings were sub—
jected to 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (sex of confederate) X 3 (perceptual
style) analyses of variance. Findings are reported for_§ ratios

that were (a) significant at'p 41.10, and (b) not qualified by
significant higher order interactions.l Further analyses of sig-
nificant interactions were carried out through simple effects tests
and when appropriate, Neuman-Keuls tests also were performed (Winer,

1971, pp. 347-351).

Behavior Scores System

 

Table 4 presents a summary of the significant F ratios not
qualified by higher order interactions for the BSS. Because the
amount of time for the interaction was not always exactly 30 minutes,
the BSS scores were standardized by dividing the scores by the number
of minutes for the interaction. Therefore, the analyses were done on

the behavior scores per minute, and the cell means listed in the tables

Because of the exploratory nature of the present research it
seemed reasonable to examine the marginally significant findings
(i.e., those whose confidence level exceeded .10 but did not
reach .05) as well as those that met the traditional criterion
of statistical significance (i.e., p <..05).

37

TABLE 4

Summary of Significant F Ratios Not Qualified

By Higher Order Interactions fO; the Behavior Scores System

 

 

Source .3 .2
1. Sex of Subject (df = 1/84)
3-Antagonistic Acts 2.84 .10
3C-Antagonistic Acts-Hostile 3.75 .06
2. Perceptual Style (df = 2/84)
6C-Supportive Acts-Hostile 3.99 .03
3. Role in Dyad (d: = 1/84)
2A—Assertive Acts-Task Determining 23.13 .0001
3--Antagonistic Acts 12.05 .0009
3C-Antagonistic Acts-Hostile 2.98 .09
4—-Withdrawal 38.75 .0001
4A—Withdrawal-Task Determining 5.50 .03
4D—Withdrawal-Tension 7.53 .008
6--Supportive Acts 71.65 .0001
4. Sex of Subject X Role in Dyad
(g: = 1/84)
l——Neutral Communication 8.20 .006
2-—Assertive Acts 8.39 .005
6D-Supportive Acts-Tension 3.99 .05
ZA-Task Determining Acts 3.25 .08
5. Perceptual Style X Role in Dyad
(g: = 2/84)
3D-Antagonistic Acts-Tension 2.87 .07
6. Sex of Confederate X Perceptual Style
(9: = 2/84)
l-éNeutral Communication 3.17 .05
7. Sex of Subject X Sex of Confederate
X Role in Dyad (if = 1/84)
ZC-Assertive Acts-Hostile 3.15 .08
3B-Antagonistic Acts-Group 3.72 .06
Maintaining
8. Sex of Subject X Perceptual Style
X Role in Dyad (df = 2/84)
lC—Neutral Communication-Hostile 4.48 .02
2D—Assertive Acts-Tension 3.80 .03
{C—Hostile Affect 3.42 .04
9. Sex of Confederate X Perceptual
Style X Role in Dyad (df = 2/84)
2B-Assertive Acts-Group Maintaining 4.72 .02
10. Sex of Subject X Sex of Confederate
X Perceptual Style (d: = 2/84)
2D-Assertive Acts-Tension 5.91 .004
11. Sex Of Subject X Sex of Confederate X
Perceptual Style X Role in Dyad
(d_f = 2/84)
lB-Neutral Communication-Task 2.81 .07
Determining
lD-Neutral Communication-Tension 2.83 .07

 

38

represent the amount of behavior displayed per minute.

Sex main effect. Two of the BSS categories showed a significant

 

main effect for sex of subject: 3-antagonistic acts; and 3C-antagonistic
acts, hostile. Dyads which contained male subjects exhibited more
antagonistic acts (X = 1.61) and antagonistic acts-hostile (X = .028)
than did dyads which contained female subjects (antagonistic acts

'X = 1.33; antagonistic acts-hostile X = .007).

Perceptual style main effect. The BSS category, 6C-supportive

 

acts--hosti1e, showed a significant main effect for perceptual style.
Only dyads containing a negative behavior perceiver exhibited this
behavior; Table 5 presents the cell means that are relevant to these

findings.

TABLE 5

Means (per minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Category that Yielded a Significant Perceptual Style Main Effect

 

Variable Negative Balanced Positive

 

6C-Supportive Acts—
Hostile .007 0 0

 

Role in dyad main effect. Seven of the BSS categories showed a

 

significant main effect for role in dyad: 2A—assertive acts, task
determining; 3-antagonistic acts; 4-withdrawals; 4A-withdrawals, task
determining; 4D-withdrawals, tension; and 6-supportive acts. For all
of these categories, the subjects exhibited more of these behaviors
than did the confederates. Table 6 presents the means that are

relevant to these findings.

39

TABLE 6

Means (per minute) of the Behavior Scores System
Categories that Yielded a Significant Role in Dyad Effect

 

Variable Subject Confederate

 

2A—Assertive Acts—Task

Determining .042 .013
3--Antagonistic Acts .780 .675
3C-Antagonistic Acts-Hostile .011 .005
4--Withdrawal .345 .062
4A—Withdrawal-Task Determining .002 0
4D—Withdrawa1-Tension .034 0
6-—Supportive Acts .787 .432

 

Sex of subject X role in dyad. Four of the BSS categories showed a

 

significant sex of subject X role in dyad effect: l-neutral communica-
tion; 2-assertive acts; 6D-supportive acts, tension; and ZA-task determining
acts. These interactions were explored further via simple effects analyses.
For category l-neutral communication, a simple effects analysis revealed
that sex of subject was significant only for confederates (F = 2.87,

.p 4 .10). Confederates exhibited more neutral communication when the sub-
ject was female than when the subject was male. The simple effects tests
for the remaining categories indicated that sex of subject was significant
only for subjects: 2—assertive acts (3 = 3.40, p 4 .08); 6D—supportive
acts, tension (F = 7.20, p_<..01); and ZA-task determining acts (F = 6.16,
p_<..01). Male subjects displayed more assertive and task determining

acts than did female subjects, whereas female subjects displayed more

6D~supportive acts-tension, than did male subjects. The cell means

40

relevant to these findings are presented below in Table 7.

TABLE 7

Means (per minute) of the Behavior Scores
System Categories that Underlied Significant
Sex of Subject X Role in Dyad Interactions

 

 

Variable Role in Dyad Female Male
l--Neutra1 Communications Confederate 3.914 3.359
2—-Assertive Acts Subject 2.420 2.736
6D—-Supportive Acts- Subject .013 0
Tension
ZA--Task Determining Acts Subject .040 .068

 

Perceptual style X role in dyad. The BSS category, 3D-antagonistic

 

acts-tension, showed a significant interaction for perceptual style X

role in dyad. A simple effects analysis indicated that Neuman-Keuls tests
between perceptual style were appropriate for subjects (F = 2.82, p_4..08).
The Neuman-Keuls tests showed no significant difference between positive
behavior perceivers and negative behavior perceivers. However, balanced
behavior perceivers showed more antagonistic acts-tension than negative

behavior perceivers (q = 3.14, p < .10) or positive behavior perceivers

(q = 2.65, p <;.10). Table 8 presents the cell means that are relevant

to these findings.

TABLE 8

Means (per minute) of the Behavior Scores System Category that
Yielded 8 Significant Perceptual Style X Role in Dyad Interaction

 

Variable Role in Dyad Negative Balanced Positive

 

3D—Antagonistic
Acts-Tension Subject 0 .0088 .0013
(per minute)

 

41

Sex of confederate X perceptual style. The BSS category, l—neutral

 

communication, showed a significant interaction for sex of confederate

X perceptual style. A simple effects analysis revealed that Neuman-
Keuls tests between perceptual style conditions were apprOpriate when
the dyad contained a female confederate (F = 3.25,_p < .05). There was
significantly more neutral communication in dyads with a female con—
federate that contained a positive behavior perceiver than in those

that contained a negative behavior perceiver subject (q_= 3.59, p_<..05).
NO other differences were statistically significant. The cell means

relevant to this finding are presented in Table 9.

TABLE 9

Means of the Behavior Scores System Category that
Yielded a Significant Sex of Confederate X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

Sex of

 

Variable C Negative Balanced Positive
l'Neutral . 6.956 7.382 7.984
Communications

 

Sex of subject X sex of confederate X role in dyad. Two of the

 

‘BSS categories showed a significant interaction for sex of subject

X sex of confederate X role in dyad: 2C-assertive acts-hostile; and
3B-antagonistic acts—group maintaining. To clarify these results
further, simple effects analyses were performed.

First, category 3B-antagonistic acts, group maintaining was
divided into subjects' behavior and confederates' behavior and simple
two-way ANOVAS were computed. The results of this analysis indicated
that sex of subject X sex of confederate interaction was significant
only for confederates' behavior (F = 8.94, p_<..01). This interaction

was explored further via simple effects tests which showed a significant

42

sex of subject effect only for male confederates (F = 3.57, p_<,.07).
Only when male confederates were with female subjects did they exhi-
bit antagonistic acts-group maintaining (X = .004); they did not emit
this behavior at all with male subjects.

Category ZC—assertive acts-hostile was divided into subjects'
behavior and confederates' behavior and a two-way simple effects
ANOVA was computed. No simple effects tests reached significance,
however.

Sex of subject X perceptual style X role in dyad. Three BSS

 

categories reflected a significant interaction for sex of subject X
perceptual style X role in dyad: lC-neutral communication, hostile;
2D-assertive acts, tension; and ZC-hostile affect. Tests of simple
effects explored these interactions further.

The data first were divided into subjects' behavior and confeder-
ates' behavior and two-way simple effects ANOVAS then were computed.
The results of these analyses for all three categories indicated that
sex of subject X perceptual style interaction was significant only for
subjects' behavior: 1C-neutral communication, hostile (F = 3.93, p_<..03);
2D-assertive acts, tension (F = 7.13, p < .01); and ZC-hostile affect
(F = 3.89, p < .03). These interactions were explored further via
simple effects tests.

Category lC-neutral communication-hostile, revealed a significant
effect for perceptual style for male subjects (F = 4.16, p < .03).
Neuman-Keuls analyses showed that for male subjects, positive behavior
perceivers exhibited more neutral communication-hostile than negative
behavior perceivers (q = 4.01, p < .05) and balanced behavior per-

ceivers (q.= 2.71, p <..05). No significant difference was found

43

between balanced and negative behavior perceivers. Table 10 presents
the cell means relevant to these findings.

Category 2D-assertive acts-tension reflected a significant
perceptual style effect for female subjects (F = 7.13, p_<_.01).
Neuman-Keuls tests revealed that female subjects who were balanced
behavior perceivers displayed significantly more assertive acts—tension
than negative or positive behavior perceivers (q = 5.28, p_<_.01).

Table 10 presents the cell means that are relevant to these findings.

TABLE 10

Means (per minute) of the Behavior Scores System Categories that Yielded
a Significant Sex of Subject X Perceptual Style X Role in Dyad Interactions

 

 

Role in Sex of .
Variable Dyad Subject Negative Balanced Positive
1C-Neutral
Communication- Subject Male .004 .014 .036
Hostile
ZD'Assertive' Subject Female 0 .011 o

Acts-Tension

 

Category ZC-hostile affect showed a significant sex of subject
effect for positive behavior perceivers (F = 8.55, p_<_.01). Female
positive behavior perceivers did not display any hostile affect,
whereas the male positive behavior perceivers displayed the most hos-
tile affect, (32 = .077).

For the confederates behavior, the only significant effect was a
sex of subject effect for category lC-neutral communication, hostile
(F = 10.78, p <_.01). Only when the subject was a male, did the

confederates exhibit neutral communication, hostile behavior (X = .063).

44

Sex of confederate X perceptual style X role in dyad. The BSS

 

category 2B-assertive acts-group maintaining showed a significant sex
of confederate X perceptual style X role in dyad interaction. Tests
of simple effects explored these interactions further.

The data were divided into subjects' behavior and confederates'
behavior and two-way simple effects ANOVAS were computed. The only
simple effects test that reached significance was sex of confederate
for confederates' behavior (F = 3.44, p <_.04); female confederates
exhibited more assertive acts-group maintaining (X =.300) than did male
confederates (XI= .181).

Sex of subject X sex of confederate X perceptual style. The BSS

 

category, 2D-assertive acts-tension, showed a significant interaction
for sex of subject X sex of confederate X perceptual style. This
interaction was investigated further via simple effects analyses.

The data were divided into female confederate dyads and male
confederate dyads and two-way simple effects ANOVAS were computed.
The results of this analysis revealed that sex of subject X perceptual
style was significant only for male confederate dyads (F = 9.065,
_p <;.01). This interaction was explored further via simple effects
tests and showed that perceptual style was significant only when the
dyad contained a female subject and male confederate (F = 12.69,
p <..01). Neuman-Keuls tests showed that when the dyad consisted of
a female balanced behavior perceiver subject and a male confederate,
there was more assertive acts-tension behavior displayed than when the
dyad contained a male confederate with a female negative behavior
perceiver subject or a female positive behavior perceiver subject

(9 = 6.17, p_<I.01). The three means that are relevant to these

45

findings are presented in Table 11.

TABLE 11

Means (per minute) of the Behavior Scores System
that Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject X Sex
of Confederate X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

Sex of Sex of , ,
Variable Subject Confederate Negative Balanced POSltive

 

2D-Assertive
Acts-Tension

 

Sex of subject X sex of confederate X perceptual style X role in dyad.
Two F§§ categories reflected a significant interaction for sex of subject
X sex of confederate X perceptual style X role in dyad: lB-neutral communi-
cation--task determining; and lD-neutral communication-—tension. Tests of
simple effects explored these interactions further.

The data were divided into subjects' behavior and confederates'
behavior and three-way simple ANOVAS were computed. For category 1B, no
simple effects tests reached significance. For category 1D, the results of
these analyses revealed that sex of subject X sex of confederate X perceptual
style interaction was significant only for subjects (F = 3.28, p <;.05).
However, further investigation of this interaction revealed no additional
significant simple effects.

Summagy. The presence of a negative, balanced, or positive behavior
perceiver did significantly affect interpersonal behavior, as measured by
the FFF, but these effects were usually qualified by the sex of the per-
ceiver. In addition, sex and role differences in behavior also were found.

Tension or anxiety during assertive or aggressive acts differentiated

the dyadic interaction of the balanced behavior perceivers from that of

46

other dyads. More specifically, the dyads containing a balanced behavior
perceiver displayed more tension while exhibiting an antagonistic act.
When the dyad contained a female balanced behavior perceiver and a male
confederate the most tension for assertive acts was displayed. For only
the subjects' behavior, female balanced behavior perceivers displayed the
most tension when exhibiting an assertive act.

Hostility during neutral communication or hostility "in general" was
characteristic of male positive behavior perceivers. In contrast, the
female positive behavior perceivers displayed no hostility during their
behavior. When the dyad contained a positive behavior perceiver, the
female confederates displayed more neutral communication.

Dyads with negative behavior perceivers were distinct from the other
dyads in that they were the only dyads which displayed hostile supportive
acts. This behavior can best be described as sarcastic behavior, or say-
ing something that is "supposedly" positive but accompanied with an
undertone of hostility.

The sex differences that were found fit the sex role stereotypes.
Dyads with a male subject displayed more aggressive behavior, as evidenced
by more antagonistic acts and hostile antagonistic acts. Also, male sub-
jects displayed more dominant behavior--assertive acts and task determining
acts. On the other hand, females displayed more tension supportive acts.
This behavior consisted primarily of nervous laughter. In relationship
to these findings, confederates exhibited more neutral communication when
interacting with a female subject versus a male subject and only exhibi-
ted some amount of hostile neutral communication when interacting with
male subjects.

Differences in behavior between the subjects and confederates were

47

found, but they were not surprising since the confederates were trained
to behave in a standardized manner; thus, they were instructed not to be—
have in an aggressive manner, not to withdraw from the interaction, not
to initiate going on to the next item, and to avoid diluting the conflict
situation by behaving overly friendly. The following differences in be-
havior were observed: the subjects displayed more assertive acts, task
determining; antagonistic acts; antagonistic acts, hostile; withdrawals;
withdrawals, task determining; withdrawal, tension; and supportive acts.
Two additional findings not summarized previously were found for the
confederates' behavior: female confederates displayed more assertive
acts, group maintaining than male confederates; and male confederates
displayed more antagonistic acts--group maintaining with female subjects

than with male subjects.

Post-Study Questionnaire

 

Table 12 presents a summary of the significant F ratios not qualified
by higher order interactions for the post-study questionnaire data. These
data consisted of a total positive score (ratings from the 18 positive
traits were summed), a total negative score (ratings from the 18 negative
traits were summed), and the following six items:

(1) How persuasive did you find your partner?

(2) How did you feel about your participation in this kind of task?

(3) How much would you enjoy working with your partner in a future
experiment?

(4) How much did you like your partner?

(5) How much would your partner win personal affection and liking
from others?

(6) How would your partner fit in with your circle of close friends?

48

TABLE 12

Summary of Significant

F Ratios Not Qualified By

Higher Order Interactions for the Post-Study Questionnaire

 

 

Source _F ‘p
1. Sex of Subject (FF = 1/84)
Positive Score 6.85 .01
#5 4.79 .04
2. Sex of Confederate (FF = 1/84)
#3 10.05 .003
3. Perceptual Style (FF = 2/84)
Negative Score 4.39 .02
#6 2.50 .09
4. Role in Dyad (FF = 1/84)
#3 5.73 .02
5. Sex of Subject X Sex of
Confederate (FF = 1/84)
#1 7.05 .01
6. Sex of Confederate X Role
in Dyad (FF = 1/84)
Positive Score 19.60 .0001
Negative Score 9.09 .004
#1 3.43 .07
#4 6.01 .02
#5 3.69 .06
7. Sex of Confederate X
Perceptual Style (FF = 1/84)
#1 3.79 .03
8. Sex of Subject X Sex of
Confederate X Role in Dyad
(g = 1/34)
#2 4.30 .05
9. Sex of Confederate X
Perceptual Style X Role in
Dyad (93: = 2/84)
#2 2.81 .07

 

49

Sex of subject main effect. The positive score and item #5 on

 

the post-study questionnaire showed a significant main effect for sex
of subject. These findings indicated that when the dyad contained a
female subject, the dyad was rated more positively and the partners
were rated more likely to win personal affection and liking from o-
thers than when the dyad contained a male subject. Table 13 presents

the cell means that are relevant to these findings.

TABLE 13

Means of the Post-Study Questionnaire Scores that
Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject Effect

 

 

Variable Female Male
Positive Score 191.56 181.04
Item 5 10.63 9.77

 

Sex of confederate main effect. Item #3 showed a significant

 

effect for sex of confederate. This overall finding indicated that
dyads containing a male confederate reported they would enjoy working
with their partner in a future experiment (X'= 10.94) more than dyads
containing a female confederate (X'= 9.36).

Perceptual style main effect. The negative score and Item 6 on

 

the post-study questionnaire showed a significant main effect for
perceptual style. Neuman-Keuls tests for the negative score showed

no significant difference between dyads containing a negative behavior
perceiver versus dyads containing a balanced behavior perceiver. How-
ever, dyads containing a positive behavior perceiver were scored
significantly more negatively than dyads containing a balanced behavior

perceiver (F = 4.18, p C..05), or a negative behavior perceiver

'DA‘AFIF‘ —

50

(F = 2.50, p (1.10). Neuman-Keuls tests for Item 6 revealed that for
dyads containing a balanced behavior perceiver, the partners were
rated significantly more likely to fit in with their circle of close
friends than dyads containing a positive behavior perceiver (F = 3.20,
.p <_.10). No other differences were statistically significant for

the Neuman—Keuls tests. Table 14 presents the cell means relevant to

these findings.

TABLE 14

Means of the Post—Study Questionnaire Scores that
Yielded a Significant Perceptual Style Effect

 

 

Variable Negative Balanced Positive
Negative Score 83.06 76.99 90.56
Item 6 8.53 9.38 7.84

 

Role in dyad main effect. Item 3 showed a significant main effect

 

for role in dyad. Subjects reported that they would enjoy working
with their partner in a future experiment (X = 5.33) to a greater
degree than did confederates (X = 4.82).

Sex of subject X sex of confederate. Item 1 showed a significant

 

sex of subject X sex of confederate interaction. When the dyad con-
tained a male subject, simple effects analysis revealed that sex of
confederate was significant (F_= 14.55, p_<:.01). When the dyad con-
tained a male subject and male confederate, the partners were rated
as being more persuasive (X = 9.04) than when the dyad contained a

male subject and female confederate (X = 6.25).

51

Sex of confederate X role in dyad. Five scores on the post-study
questionnaire showed a significant sex of confederate X role in dyad
interaction: positive score; negative score; Item 1; Item 4; and Item
5. These interactions were investigated via simple effects analyses.
These tests revealed a significant sex of confederate effect for con-
federates: positive score (F = 12.65, p <L.01); negative score
(F = 12.32, p_<L.01); Item 1 (F,= 6.87, p_<..01); Item 4 (F = 10.10,
p_<..01); and Item 5 (F_= 7.65, p (_.01). Female confederates rated
subjects less positively, more negatively, less persuasive, less liked,
and less likely to win personal affection and liking from others than
did males. Table 15 presents the cell means that are relevant to

these findings.

TABLE 15

Means of the Post-Study Questionnaire Scores that
Yielded a Significant Sex of Confederate X Role in Dyad Interaction

 

 

Variable Rgizdin Female Male
Positive Score Confederate 72.28 87.79
Negative Score Confederate 61.40 46.08
Item 1 Confederate 2.94 4.15
Item 4 Confederate 4.58 5.77
Item 5 Confederate 4.69 5.67

 

Sex of confederate X perceptual style. Item 1 showed a significant
sex of confederate X perceptual style interaction. This interaction
was explored further via simple effects analysis which showed that

perceptual style was significant when the dyad contained a female

52

confederate (F = 3.67, p_<;.04). Neuman—Keuls tests showed no significant
difference between dyads containing a negative behavior perceiver

versus dyads containing a balanced behavior perceiver. However, dyads
containing a positive behavior perceiver were scored as significantly

less persuasive than were dyads containing a negative behavior perceiver
(F = 3.75, p_<..05), or a balanced behavior perceiver (F = 2.56, p14..10).

Table 16 presents the cell means that are relevant to these findings.

TABLE 16

Means on Item 1 of the Post-Study Questionnaire that
Yielded 3 Significant Sex of Subject X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

 

Sex of . .
Variable Confederate Negative Balanced P081t1ve
Item 1 Female 8.06 7.13 5.69

 

Sex of subject X sex of confederate X role in dyad. Item 2 on the

 

post-study questionnaire showed a significant sex of subject X sex of
confederate X role in dyad interaction. This interaction was investi-
gated via simple effects snalysis.

The data were divided into subjects' behavior and confederates'
behavior and two-way simple ANOVAS were computed. The only simple
effects tests that reached significance was sex of confederate for
confederates' behavior (F = 5.17, p_<L.03). Female confederates re-
ported feeling more comfortable (X = 6.65) than male confederates
(SE = 5.94).

Sex of confederate X perceptual style X role in dyad. Item 2 on

 

the post-study questionnaire also showed a significant sex of confeder-

ate X perceptual style X role in dyad interaction. This interaction

53

was investigated via simple effects analyses and the same result as
shown in the previous section was found. Sex of confederate was the
only simple effect that reached significance.

Summary. In support Of the results of the F§§J the post-study
questionnaire data demonstrated that the perceptions of the dyad
(subject and confederate) were affected by the presence of a negative,
balanced, or positive behavior perceiver. The subjects and confeder-
ates in the dyads containing a balanced behavior perceiver were
perceived the least negatively and the most likely to fit in with the
subjects' or confederates' close circle of friends. In contrast, the
subjects and confederates in the dyads containing a positive behavior
perceiver were perceived the most negatively and the least likely to
fit in with close friends. In addition, when dyads contained a female
confederate and a positive behavior perceiver, the participants were
perceived the least persuasive.

Sex differences also were found. When the dyad contained a female
subject, the dyad members were perceived more positively and more
likely to win personal affection and liking from others. When the dyad
contained a male subject and a male confederate, the participants were
rated as more persuasive than when the dyad contained a male subject
and female confederate.

Several significant differences were found for the sex of the
confederate. However, these differences would be more likely to emerge
since each confederate rated 24 post-study questionnaires as Opposed to
the one post-study questionnaire that each subject rated. Female
confederates reported feeling more comfortable. They rated the subjects

less positively, more negatively, less persuasive, less liked, and less

54

likely to win personal affection and liking from others. Male
confederates reported they would enjoy working with their partner in

a future experiment more than did female confederates.

Times to Completion and the Outcomes of the Revealed Difference Tasks

 

Presented below is a summary of the significant_F ratios not
qualified by higher order interactions for the times to completion and
the proportion of outcomes of the items discussed that resulted in
either an agreement, moderate agreement, or disagreement. Moderate
agreement was included as an outcome measure to differentiate when the
subject agreed completely with the confederate's position versus when
the subject compromised their position but did not agree completely
with the confederate's position.

Perceptual style main effect. A significant main effect for

 

perceptual style was found for interaction time that resulted in disa-
greement (F_= 2.77, p_<;.07). Neuman-Keuls tests revealed that dyads
containing negative behavior perceivers spent 6.33 more minutes in
disagreement than dyads containing balanced behavior perceivers

(F = 3.66, p (,.05). NO other Neuman-Keuls tests reached statistical

significance. Table 17 presents the relevant cell means.

TABLE 17

Means (in minutes) of the Interaction Time Which Ended
in Disagreement that Yielded a Significant
Perceptual Style Effect

 

Variable Negative Balanced Positive

 

Time/Disagreement 18.62 12.29 15.35

 

55

Sex of confederate X perceptual style. The interaction time that

 

resulted in a moderate agreement showed a significant sex of confederate
X perceptual style interaction (F = 3.10, p < .06). Further analysis of
this interaction by use of simple effects tests revealed a significant
effect for perceptual style for female confederates (F = 4.21, p_<..05).
Neuman-Keuls tests showed a significant difference between dyads con-
taining a positive behavior perceiver and dyads containing a negative
behavior perceiver (F = 4.03, p <1.05). Dyads containing a female
confederate and a positive behavior perceiver spent more time in
reaching a moderate agreement than dyads containing a female confeder—
ate and a negative behavior perceiver. Table 18 presents the relevant
cell means. Unfortunately, in the condition female confederate and
positive perceiver who reached moderate agreement, there was only one

person. Conclusions, therefore, must be drawn tentatively.

TABLE 18

Means (in minutes) of the Interaction Time Spent in Reaching
Moderate Agreement that Yielded a Significant Sex
of Confederate X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

 

Sex of
Variable Confederate N B P
Time/
MOderate female 14.13 17.71 25.00
Agreement

 

Sex of subject X sex Of confederate X perceptual style. The

 

proportion of items discussed that resulted in a moderate agreement
showed a significant sex of subject X sex of confederate X perceptual

style interaction (F = 3.57, p_(‘.07). Simple effects analyses

56

investigated this interaction further. The data were separated into
female and male confederates and two-way simple ANOVAS were computed.
These results showed that sex of subject X perceptual style interaction
was significant only for female confederates (F = 6.18, p_<,.01). This
interaction was explored further and showed that perceptual style was
significant only for male subjects (F = 12.26, p_<;.01). The dyads

which contained a female confederate and male positive behavior perceiver
never reached a moderate agreement. Therefore, the Neuman—Keuls tests
showed that dyads with a female confederate and male balanced or negative
behavior perceiver had a higher proportion of items that resulted in a
moderate agreement (balanced:_F = 6.82, p_<..01); negative:_F = 5.55,

p_<..01). Table 19 presents the relevant cell means.

TABLE 19

Means of the Proportion of Items Discussed that Resulted in a Moderate
Agreement Which Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject
X Sex of Confederate )( Perceptual Style Interaction

 

 

Sex of Sex of . . .
Variable Confederate Subject Negative Balanced P031t1ve
Items/
MOderate female male .611 .75 0
Agreement

 

To summarize briefly, the measures of the dyadic interaction were
affected by the perceptual style of the subject. Dyads containing
negative behavior perceivers spent more time in disagreement than dyads
containing balanced behavior perceivers. It must be noted that the
amount of time spent in disagreement was determined solely by the sub-

ject. The confederates never suggested going on to the next item.

57

The amount of time spent in reaching a moderate agreement or the
proportion of items discussed that resulted in a moderate agreement
were affected by perceptual style only when the dyad contained a fe-
male confederate. Dyads with a female confederate and a positive
behavior perceiver spent more time in reaching a moderate agreement
than when the perceiver was negatively biased and male positive be-
havior perceivers with a female confederate never reached a moderate

agreement.

Coder's Global Ratings

 

Only the coder's global ratings of two coders were subjected to
analyses of variance. One coder was eliminated because he failed to
rate globally sex of the subjects that he observed. The second coder
was eliminated because she showed very little variance in her ratings,
and thus, the experimenter felt her ratings would not be very dis-
criminating.

Because the two coder's ratings that were used for the analysis
rated 16 of the same subjects, the experimenter flipped a coin to see
which coder's rating would be used when this occurred the first time.
Consequently, that coder's rating was used every other time this
occurred. The following results were Obtained for the analysis of
variance that were performed on these data.

Sex of confederate main effect. Two of the items showed a

 

significant main effect for sex of confederate: intelligent (F = 5.02,
FF_= 1/65, p 4..03); and comfortable (F = 6.09, FF_= 1/65, p_<..02).
Subjects who interacted with female confederates were rated more

intelligent and more comfortable by the coders than were subjects who

58

interacted with male confederates. Table 20 presents the cell means

that are relevant to these findings.

TABLE 20

Means of the Coders' Global Ratings Which Yielded
3 Significant Sex of Confederate Effect

 

 

Variable Female Male
Intelligent 5.78 4.96
Comfortable 5.64 4.68

 

Sex of subject X perceptual style. The total interaction rating

 

showed a significant sex of subject X perceptual style interaction

(F = 4.34,_FF = 2/65, p_<..02). A simple effects analysis revealed
that Neuman-Keuls tests between conditions of perceptual style were
appropriate when the dyad contained a male subject (F = 7.31, p l..01).
Neuman—Keuls tests showed a significant difference between dyads
containing a balanced behavior perceiver versus a positive behavior
perceiver (F = 5.15, p <..01) and between dyads containing a negative
behavior perceiver versus a positive behavior perceiver (F = 4.00, p 4..Ol).
The total interaction was rated more positively for dyads containing a
male balanced behavior perceiver or a male negative behavior perceiver
versus dyads containing a male positive behavior perceiver. Cell means

that are relevant to these findings are presented in Table 21.

59

TABLE 21

Means of the Coders' Global Rating of the Total Interaction
That Yielded a Significant Sex of Subject X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

 

Variable Sex 0f Negative Balanced Positive
Subject

T°tal . male 4.86 5.29 3. 38

Interaction

 

Sex of confederate X perceptual style. Two of the items showed a

 

significant sex of confederate X perceptual style interaction: non-
defensive (F = 2.61, FF = 2/65,_p 4..09); and total interaction

(F = 3.13, FF = 2/65, p_41.05). The interaction for the nondefensive
ratings was investigated further, but no simple effects tests reached
significance. The interaction for the total interaction ratings was

also explored further via simple effects tests and showed that perceptual
style was significant only when the dyad contained a female confederate
(F_= 5.95, Pu<--Ol)° Neuman-Keuls tests showed no significant differences
between female confederate dyads containing a balanced or negative be-
havior perceiver. However, the total interaction for female confederate
dyads containing a balanced or a negative behavior perceiver was rated
‘more positively than female confederate dyads containing a positive
behavior perceiver (F (B-P) = 4.14, p_<,.01; g (N-P) = 4.32, p 41.01).

Table 22 presents the cell means that are relevant to these findings.

60

TABLE 22

Means of the Coders' Global Rating of the Total Interaction That
Yielded a Significant Sex of Confederate X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

 

Variable Sex Of Negative Balanced Positive
Confederate

T°tal , female 5.07 5.00 3.47

Interaction

 

To summarize, perceptual style affected an observer's positive-
negative rating of the dyadic interaction. Dyads with a positive behavior
perceiver were rated most negatively, but only when subjects were male,
or when the positive behavior perceiver interacted with a female confed-
erate. This finding is similar to the finding for the post—study
questionnaire, although the post-study questionnaire was not qualified
by sex of subject or sex of confederate. The main effect for perceptual
style on the post-study questionnaire showed that dyads which contained a
positive behavior perceiver were rated most negatively.

The Observers also rated the subjects who interacted with a female
confederate as more intelligent and more comfortable than the subjects
who interacted with a male confederate. This last finding is similar to
the finding on the post-study questionnaire that female confederates

reported feeling more comfortable than male confederates.

Summary

The presence of a negative, balanced, and positive behavior perceiver
affected all four dependent measures of the dyadic interaction, although
the findings were somewhat fewer than expected. However, the findings

should not be underestimated since they occurred in a situation in which

61

strangers interacted for a very short time. Many sex differences also
were found. MOst of the findings from the four dependent measures are
consistent with and supplement one another.

Sex of the subject. Dyads with female subjects were perceived

 

more positively and more likely to win personal affection and liking from
others. This is consistent with the findings that the behavior for

female subject dyads was less antagonistic and hostile. Also, the
confederates' behavior was affected by the sex of the subject and was
most likely elicited by the differential behaviors exhibited by the male
and female subjects. Confederates responded with more neutral communica-
tion when interacting with a female subject versus a male subject and only
responded with hostile neutral communication to male subjects. Therefore,
dyadic interactions with a female subject were less negative than inter—
actions with a male subject and as a result, both the female subjects

and confederates perceived one another more positively than dyads with a
male subject.

Perceptual style. The strongest effect for perceptual style was

 

found for the post-study questionnaire; dyads with a positive behavior
perceiver were evaluated more negatively than dyads with a balanced or
negative behavior perceiver. Therefore, the other three types of
measures are most easily interpreted within the framework of how they
help us to understand the perceptual style main effect for the post-study
questionnaire.

On the post-study questionnaire, dyads with a positive behavior

 

perceiver were perceived more negatively than dyads with a balanced or
negative behavior perceiver, and the partners in the positive behavior

perceiver dyads were perceived as less likely to fit in with their

62

partners' circle of close friends than dyads with a balanced perceiver.
The FFF data shed some light on these differences. Male positive be—
havior perceivers behaved with more hostile neutral communication and

the most overall hostility. This finding is consistent with the coders'
global rating of the dyadic interaction. The coders' rated the inter-
action for dyads with male positive behavior perceivers more negatively
than dyads with a male balanced or negative behavior perceiver. However,
none of the data accounts for the fact that dyads with female positive
behavior perceivers were also rated the most negatively on the post-study
questionnaire. Because the behaviors which were responsible for their
negative ratings did not emerge in the detailed ratings of the interac—
tions, it is quite probable that the F§§_was not sensitive to these
behaviors.

With the exception of the post-study questionnaire, the effects of
the positive behavior perceivers often were influenced by the sex of the
confederate. The findings suggest they had the most ”difficulty" with a
female confederate. The coders rated the total interaction more nega-
tively for female confederate dyads with a positive behavior perceiver
versus a balanced or negative behavior perceiver. In addition, in these
same dyads, participants rated their partners as less persuasive and spent
more time in reaching a moderate agreement. The female confederates
exhibited more neutral communication with dyads containing a positive
behavior perceiver. Also, when the dyad consisted of a male positive
behavior perceiver and a female confederate, a moderate agreement was
never reached.

On the post-study questionnaire, negative behavior perceiver dyads

 

were perceived significantly less negatively than dyads with a positive

63

behavior perceiver. They also were perceived more negatively than a
balanced behavior perceiver, but this difference was not significant.

The behavior that differentiated the negative behavior perceiver dyads
from the other dyads was sarcasm, which was exhibited more than in the
other dyads. Negative behavior perceiver dyads also spent the most time
in disagreement. Male negative behavior perceivers were less hostile
than the male positive behavior perceivers and this finding is consistent
with the coders' rating of the total interaction for male negative be-
havior perceiver dyads. They were rated more positively than male
positive behavior perceiver dyads.

Subjects and confederates in the balanced behaviordperceiver dyads

 

were perceived the least negative and the most likely to fit in with
their partner's close circle of friends. Their anxious behavior exhi—
bited with antagonistic acts did not seem to be associated with a
negative perception. These dyads also spent less time in disagreement
as compared to negative behavior perceiver dyads. The coders' rating

of the total interaction indicated that male balanced behavior perceiver
dyads had the most positive total interaction and this finding is
consistent with the results of the post-study questionnaire. However,
the post-study questionnaire applied to the female dyads as well.

The lack of findings for the coders' ratings of dyads in part may be
understood by the fact that the dyads with female balanced behavior per-
ceivers were more anxious when exhibiting assertive acts. Also, when
examining just the behavior of the female balanced behavior perceiver,
they were most anxious exhibiting an assertive act when interacting

with a male confederate.

64

In summarizing, the strongest effect for perceptual style was
elicited by the post-study questionnaire, which measured the subjects'
and confederates' perceptions immediately following the interaction.
Many of the findings for the interaction behavior help to understand
the perceptions on the post-study questionnaire, but only for male sub-
jects. The interaction behavior is least helpful in understanding the
results of the perceptual style effect on the post-study questionnaire
for the female subjects. This in part, may be due to limitations of
the FFF, which measured only a restricted number of behaviors. In
contrast to the FFF, the participants were interacting on many levels of
interpersonal communication which were not measured on the FFF, It may
have been these "other" behaviors which were responsible for the finding
that dyads with female positive behavior perceivers were perceived more
negatively than dyads with a female balanced or negative behavior
perceiver.

The F§§_findings were most consistent with the coders' global
ratings. However, since the same coders used the FFF and were trained
to focus on the dimensions of the FFF, it is most likely that they would
rely more heavily on these same dimensions when giving their global

ratings.

Discussion

 

Before beginning a discussion of the meaning of the results, it is
important to note that the findings might be limited to the specific
conflict situation used in the present research. The findings might or
might not generalize to other situations and further research is needed
to examine if these findings are applicable to other settings and with

groups of people other than college student stranger-dyads. However,

65

it is believed that the conflict situation used in the present research
reflects realistically an important arena of interpersonal communication
and it was selected because of its apparent relevance to "everyday"

life situations.

Sex Differences

 

Although the primary focus of the present research was the effects
of perceptual bias on dyadic interaction, some significant sex differ-
ences for dyadic interaction also were found. The findings were not
unexpected and most support the sex role stereotypes. However, the
present findings add to the previous research and demonstrate that
psychological sex differences are present in dyadic interpersonal behavior.

Aggression. It was found that dyadic interaction involving a male

 

subject showed more aggressive behavior, as measured by antagonistic acts
and hostile antagonistic acts. The aggressive behavior was not limited
just to the subjects' behavior since the confederates also exhibited
aggressive behavior. It was felt, however, that the confederates' aggres-
sive activity was elicited by the male subjects' behavior since the
subjects exhibited much more aggressive behavior than did the confeder—
ates. Besides the significant difference for aggressive behavior with
male subject dyads, a significant difference was found just for the
confederates' behavior. Confederates exhibited more neutral communication
with female subjects and more hostile neutral communication with male
subjects. Therefore, it appears that not only did dyads with males
exhibit more aggression, but male subjects also elicited more aggression
from a person with whom they interacted.

The present finding was consistent with previous findings of sex

differences in aggressive behavior. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974)

66

extensively reviewed and summarized existing research on psychological
sex differences and conclude that males are consistently more aggressive
than females. This has been found beginning at age two through adult-
hood, in a wide variety of settings, using a wide variety of behavioral
measures, and in a wide variety of cultures. Of particular relevance

to the present research are the experimental studies using college stu-
dents as "aggressors." The basic methodology used for such studies has
involved a standardized eliciting situation which gives the subject

the opportunity to administer "shock" to a peer (a confederate of the
experimenter who simulated being shocked). The situation is presented
as one in which the subject is helping to teach something to the target
person (a confederate) and is administering the "shock" as punishment

for wrong responses. A number of studies (Epstein, 1965; Buss, 1966;
Titley & Viney, 1969; Shuck et al., 1971; Knott & Drost, 1970; Youssef,
1968) have shown that males are more likely than females to administer
high levels of "shock" and to hold the "shock button" down longer. The
present research demonstrated that in a conflict situation involving a
male subject, the interpersonal behavior of the dyad was more aggressive.
In other words, the greater aggression by college-aged males (as compared
to females) is not limited solely to "button pushing" behavior.

The present study found that more aggressive behavior was exhibited
for dyads with a male subject, irrespective of the sex of the confederate.
This finding is inconsistent with previous studies. Three experiments
examined the effects of administered shocks to "learners" depending on the
sex of the "learner" (Buss, 1966; Taylor & Epstein, 1967; and Youssef,
1968). They found that women "learners" were given milder and fewer

"shocks" than male "learners." Studies using children (Shortell & Biller,

67

1970; and Patterson et al., 1967) also found that girls were less
frequently aggressed against. These results have been interpreted as
support for the possibility that females know how to turn off an
aggressive sequence once it has begun. In other words, they may refuse
to respond to a provocation with a counterprovocation. The confederates
for the present study were trained not to withdraw from a confrontation,
although they also were trained not to respond aggressively in turn.
However, it appeared that the male subjects' aggression was strong enough
to elicit this behavior from the confederates. It may be that in a con-
flict situation, as set up by the present experiment, when females do not
withdraw from a provocation, the sex of the target is not a factor.

As noted above, it is also possible that females might be more
skilled at eliciting responses from others that are incompatible with
aggression. The present study found that females exhibited more nervous
laughter than males. In other words, although laughter may be a good
tension reliever, maybe the more important function of such a behavior
would be its ability to turn off an aggressive sequence or to prevent
such a sequence from escalating into a hostile interaction.

In conjunction with the behavioral data, the post-study questionnaire
showed that participants in dyads that contained a female subject rated
their partner more positively and more likely to win personal affection
and liking from others. No doubt this is a direct result of the inter—
action. Female subject dyads had less aggressive interactions and
therefore it is understandable that dyad members would rate each other
more positively.

In a separate but related study, Green (1975) had the parents of

the undergraduate negative, balanced, and positive behavior perceivers

68

fill out a CBC on their college-aged child. In support of the present

findings, he found that male subjects were rated by their mothers as

showing more negative behaviors characteristically than were female

subjects. This may be due to the fact that interactions with male

children involved more aggression.

Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) noted three major theories which have

been used to explain the pervasive finding that males are more aggressive

than females:

1)

2)

3)

Through imitation; children choose same-sex models (particularly
the same-sex parent) and use these models more than opposite-
sex models for patterning their own behavior. This selective
modeling need not be deliberate on the child's part, of course.
Through praise or discouragement; parents (and others) reward
and praise boys for what they conceive to be "boylike" behavior
and actively discourage boys when they engage in activities

that seem feminine; similarly, girls receive positive reinforce-
ment for "feminine" behavior, negative reinforcement for
"masculine" behavior.

Through self-socialization; the child first develops a concept
of what it is to be male or female and then, once the child has
a clear understanding of his/her own sex identity, s/he

attempts to fit her/his own behavior to her/his concept of what

behavior is sex appropriate. (p. 1)

Maccoby and Jacklin examined the research that is relevant to these

three positions and found the evidence inconclusive. The research on

socialization of the two sexes revealed surprisingly little differentiation

in parent behavior according to the sex of the child. They did not find

69

that parents were systematically more reinforcing of aggressive behavior
for sons. Evidence showed that parents believed boys naturally were
more aggressive than girls, but they usually did not value aggressive
behavior in either sex. After their extensive review of the research,
Maccoby and Jacklin believe that the deveIOpment of sex differences

for aggressive behavior is not exclusively a result of learning processes
and conclude that a biological component most likely underlies this
difference. In other words, they acknowledge that learning processes

are a factor, but they argue that boys are more biologically prepared

to learn aggressive behavior.

Dominance. Another sex difference found for the present research
was that male subjects exhibited more dominant behavior, as measured by
assertive acts and task determining acts. Maccoby and Jacklin in their
review found that during childhood boys more frequently attempted to
dominate others, but their dominance attempts were primarily directed
toward one another. However, this, in part, may be a result of the
segregating of the sexes during childhood. There is little evidence on
whether boys "successfully" dominate girls during childhood. The
studies among adult mixed pairs or groups indicate that formal leader-
ship tends to go to males in the initial phases of interaction.

However, leadership becomes more sex-equal the longer the relationship
lasts because then leadership becomes determined by an individual's
competence, motivations, and commitment of the parties to a relationship.

Although there is strong evidence in the literature that males
behave more aggressively and make more attempts to dominate others,
there is not strong evidence that females are submissive or "passive
victims." Maccoby and Jacklin suggest the possitility that "dominance-

submission" is not a single continuum. For the present research, we

70

were unable to ascertain if females would have submitted more to the
aggressive and dominant behavior of the male subjects because the
confederates never submitted to a subjects' opinion, no matter the
subject's sex. However, we were able to examine the submission of the
subjects to the confederate's opinion and found that female subjects did
not submit to the confederate's attitudes any more than did the male
subjects.

Summary. Several significant sex differences were found which
support the findings from previous research that males are more aggressive
and make more dominant attempts. However, the data did not support the
general stereotype that females are more submissive. Strong sex differ-
ences are typically found for college students. It is particularly
this age (18 - 22) when young adults are involved in dating and mating.
Perhaps it is at this period of their lives, more than any other, that
individuals define themselves in terms of "masculinity" and "femininity"

and as a result, as in the present study, sex differences appear.

Origins of Perceptual Style

 

The present research was designed to demonstrate that an individual's
perceptual style would produce effects on interpersonal interaction. This
is a basic assumption in the area of person perception. Unfortunately,
the relationship between perception and interpersonal behavior has been
neglected in research. The present research examined this relationship
and found that perceptual style did affect interpersonal interaction.

Previous research, along with the findings from Experiment I,
support the assertion that perceptual style is a consistent and stable
characteristic of the perceiver. Possibly, an individual's perceptual

style is established at an early age and rooted in parent—child

71

interactions. Therefore, before beginning a discussion of the results
of the present study that pertain to the effects of perceptual style,
speculations are made in an initial attempt to explain the childhood
situations that might affect perceptions of behavior.

Mueller (1973) stated that "the perceptual process is distorted,
molded, shaped, and defined in terms of a person's inner conflicts"

(p. 20). In other words, to avoid undue anxiety a person sees what s/he
wants to see, what s/he needs to see, and s/he avoids seeing those
things that s/he cannot afford to see.

The origins of perceptual style are assumed to be a result of the
undergraduates' childhood interactions with their parents. Originally,
the perceptual style of a parent results in differential patterns of
parental behavior which affects the psychosocial development of the
child, which in turn perpetuates a similar perceptual style for the
child.

Negative perceptual style. It is speculated that negative behavior

 

' resulting from three different

perceivers could consist of three "types,'
patterns of parent-child interactions. The first type of extreme nega-
tive behavior perceiver parent could be considered authoritarian;
selectively sensitive to negative behavior and ignoring of positive
behavior in their children. This perceptual bias could result in a child
being constantly and excessively punished for his/her negative and
undesirable behaviors and unrewarded for positive behaviors. A second
type of negative behavior perceiver parent could be one who interprets
positive behavior as "negative." This would result from a child being

punished for positive behaviors due to the parents' interpreting such

behavior as "negative" (e.g., appropriately assertive behavior labeled

72

aggressive). As a result, the child might reduce the frequency of
the expression of,such behavior and interpret appropriate behavior as

' The third type of negative behavior perceiver parent

"negative.'
could perceive the positive behaviors but when making inferences about
the positive behavior infer that the behavior was not positive enough and
therefore s/he would not interpret it as positive. This perceptual bias
could result in a child being punished for his/her nonperformance of
frequent, enduring and high quality positive, pro—social behaviors. Most
relevant, Green (1975) found that the mothers of negative behavior per-
ceivers showed more "concern with a child's pro-social - competent
behavior" on the Child Rearing Concerns and Practices Questionnaire
(QFQF) than did mothers of balanced behavior perceivers. It is possible
that the mothers of negative behavior perceivers selected for the

present research might have been overly concerned with their child's
expression of sufficient quantities of positive behaviors, might have

had unrealistic expectations for positive behaviors of their children,

and as a result, might have placed excessive demands upon their children.

Balanced perceptual style. The balanced behavior perceiver observes

 

and reports the existence of both positive and negative behaviors and may
be considered the most "accurate" behavior perceiver. There may be less
"need" for a balanced behavior perceiver to deny or distort certain types
of behavior. It is assumed that as children, balanced behavior per—
ceivers were rewarded for positive behaviors and reprimanded for negative
behaviors, but not punished severly so as to activate anxiety. Green
(1975) found that mothers of balanced behavior perceivers "give extrinsic
reward for desirable behavior" more often than do mothers of positive

and negative behavior perceivers. In addition, the parents of male

73

balanced behavior perceivers rated their child the most positively on
the CBC.

Positive perceptual style. Positive behavior perceivers report the

 

existence of positive behaviors and deny, distort the existence, and do
not report significant amounts of the negative behaviors, indicating a
possible conflict regarding negative behavior. Parents of positive be-
havior perceivers may be similar to the "Permissive" parents described
by Baumrind (1973). Such parents were described on the Baumrind's
Parent Behavior Rating Scales as noncontrolling, passive-acceptant
parents who were also cool or uninvolved. According to ratings,
Permissive parents were not willing to express anger when the child dis-
obeyed but were more punitive in attitude. Moreover, Baumrind reported
Permissive parents admitting, during an interview, to explosive attacks
of rage in which they inflicted more pain or injury upon the child than
they had intended. It is possible, therefore, that parents of positive
behavior perceivers may be "permissive" at times and convey the message
that negative behaviors should be overlooked or denied. This could be
an attempt to minimize friction between the parent and child. However,
when the child's behavior escalates, in terms of frequency and/or in
intensity, the parent's tactic of passive-withdrawal becomes insufficient
in controlling their anger. Consequently, the parent's anger erupts and
the child is severely punished. As a result, expression of negative
behaviors produced great conflict and the child "needs" to deny the

presence of negative impulses, needs, and behavior.

Summary

In tracing the transmission of perceptual style through the family,

Speculations about the parents of the negative, balanced, and positive

74

behavior perceivers were described, along with different patterns of
parent-child interactions. Basically, the parents' own negative and
positive perceptual biases can be conceptualized as defensive strategies
utilized to minimize anxiety and used to cope with parent-child conflicts.
These perceptual biases are transmitted to the child, who also learns to

utilize similar defensive strategies to minimize anxiety.

Perceptual Style and Interpersonal Behavior

 

The results from the present study indicated that a person's
perceptual style produced consequences on the person's interpersonal
experiences. More specifically, when comparing the effectiveness of
the dyadic interactions for the three types of behavior perceivers, it
was found that in a conflict situation positive behavior perceivers
engaged in the most dysfunctional interaction; the balanced behavior
perceivers engaged in the most effective interaction; and the negative
behavior perceivers engaged in more effective interaction than positive

behavior perceivers, but not as effective as balanced behavior perceivers.

Positive perceptual style. Positive behavior perceivers were involved

 

in the most dysfunctional interaction. The findings suggest that for
males a positive perceptual bias works as a defense to avoid (repress or
deny) negative behavior or the negative affect that motivates negative
behavior--e.g., hostility. Such a defense results in a person not know—
ing at the conscious level, that s/he has any hostile feelings toward
another. However, although negative affect may be removed from the
person's awareness, it is not eliminated or abolished and can result in
a highly explosive and eruptive affective expression which is Often

beyond the person's control (Horney, 1937). The present study found

75

that in a conflict situation, male positive behavior perceivers
exhibited the most hostile behavior. Findings from Green (1975) and
Baumrind (1973) support the speculation that a positive perceptual bias
works as a defense to protect the individual's repressed hostility from
erupting. Green found that the undergraduate positive behavior perceivers
on the FF9F_were more likely to "do nothing" in response to a child's
refusal to meet a parental demand. This "do nothing" is similar to the
pattern reported by the "Permissive" parents studied by Baumrind. How—
ever, she also found that these same parents apparently became more
violent, admitting to explosive attacks of rage in which they inflicted
more pain or injury upon the child than they had intended because they
felt they could neither control the child's behavior nor tolerate its
effect upon themselves.

The present study also found that positive behavior perceivers had
more difficulty interacting with a female confederate. During the
interaction the female confederates were assertive, confident, and
rational, which is contrary to the common stereotype that females are
submissive, weak, and emotional. Perhaps the positive behavior perceivers
had the most difficulty with female confederates because their self—
image is firmly grounded upon the traditional stereotype of what a male
and female should be. Therefore, when a female does not behave accord-
ing to her assigned role, the positive behavior perceivers would be
expected to become threatened. The findings indicated that the dyads
with a female positive behavior perceiver and a female confederate were
rated the least persuasive and the female confederates emitted more

neutral communication. Therefore, the female positive behavior perceivers

76

may have withdrawn from the confrontation and encouraged the female
confederates to elaborate their points. The male positive behavior
perceivers, on the other hand, never compromised with the female
confederates' position. Because the F§§_data were not particularly
revealing with regard to the behavior that transpired when the dyad
contained a positive behavior perceiver and female confederate or a
female positive behavior perceiver and confederate, it appears that
the differences were subtle (e.g., passive-aggressive behavior) and
not picked up by the categories used in the FFF,

The fact that female positive behavior perceivers did not exhibit
overt hostility, which is in marked contrast to the male positive
behavior perceivers, suggests that a positive perceptual bias may
work better for a female, due to the consistent finding that females
exhibit less aggressive behavior. It is possible that it would take
more to provoke hostility from a female and that a conflict situation
with a stranger is not sufficient to provoke a significant amount of
such behavior from a female positive behavior perceiver. However, it
still could be assumed that the female positive behavior perceiver has
much repressed hostility and that in an unavoidable conflict situation
with a familiar person it would be released. The female positive
behavior perceivers, however, may be more skillful in withdrawing from
a conflict situation. Thus, they may never have really "entered" the
conflict situation with the confederates, remaining more passive by
never putting their position "on the line" for a confrontation. This
passivity also might be considered a form of passive-aggressive be-
havior. It's possible that although female positive behavior perceivers

were able to keep a "cap" on their overt hostility, they exhibited more

77

passive-aggressive behavior, and it was this type of behavior which
was primarily responsible for the negative perception of the partners
for the female positive behavior perceiver dyads.

A particularly noteworthy finding was that positive behavior
perceivers changed their bias drastically and rated their partner the
most negatively. It is possible that if they encounter a negative
interaction they cannot acknowledge that it was in any way due to their
negative behavior and therefore must project the negative behavior and
negative interaction unto the environment, or in this case their part—
ner. Also, not only did the positive behavior perceivers evaluate their
partner more negatively, they also described their partner as less
likely to fit in with their circle of close friends. This suggests that
in their choice of close friends they may choose people who would not
disagree with them or therefore pose a threat to their positive perceptual
bias. It would be interesting to know if once a positive behavior per—
ceiver has been the participant of a negative encounter, do they then
exclude that person from their circle of friends and project most of the
blame onto the other person?

Balanced perceptual style. As compared to positive and negative

 

behavior perceivers, the balanced behavior perceivers showed more anxiety
when making an assertive statement and the female balanced behavior per—
ceivers showed the most anxiety when antagonistic, particularly with a
male confederate. However, the dyads containing a balanced behavior per-
ceiver were still rated the least negatively and the most likely to fit
in with the partner's close circle of friends. Often anxiety is regarded
as a negative affect that is painful and debilitating. However, this is

considering anxiety only in the extreme intensity in which it disrupts

 

78

behavior. Studies have found that moderate anxiety energizes a person
and improves performance (Lewis, 1967). The anxiety exhibited by the
balanced behavior perceivers evidently did not disrupt the interaction
and therefore probably falls in the moderate range and, as a result,
balanced behavior perceivers were able to utilize anxiety construc-
tively. It has also been hypothesized that a negative and positive
perceptual bias are part of a defense against anxiety. It could be "
speculated that balanced behavior perceivers do not need to distort
reality to avoid anxiety. Freud (1923) postulated three types of an-

xiety: reality anxiety, neurotic anxiety, and moral anxiety. Perhaps

 

the balanced behavior perceivers were experiencing "reality anxiety"

as a response to a stressful situation; they were placed in a situation
in which they were supposed to reach an agreement with someone who ob-

viously was not going to give in. Therefore, for the present study the
anxiety experienced by the balanced behavior perceiver could be consi-

dered adaptive and proportional to the threat posed by the confederate.
According to Freud, it is sensible and healthy for a person to tolerate
"reality anxiety."

It also was found that balanced behavior perceiver dyads spent less
interaction time than negative behavior perceiver dyads when the outcome
of the task resulted in a disagreement. It could be interpreted that
balanced behavior perceivers were more passive and therefore wanted to
avoid the conflict. However, their average time was 12.29 minutes.

This would be considered a reasonable amount of time to spend on an item,
given the fact that the dyads were presented with three items to discuss

for 30 minutes. Therefore, one could speculate that the balanced

79

behavior perceivers were less argumentative than negative behavior
perceivers, and therefore, realizing that the confederate was not going
to change his/her attitude, simply maintained their original attitude
and felt the best alternative was to move on to a new item.

Negative perceptual style. A negative perceptual bias produced a

 

more effective interaction than a positive perceptual bias, but not as
effective as a balanced perceptual bias. It was found that negative
behavior perceivers (male and female) exhibited less hostility than
male positive behavior perceivers. It is possible that negative be-

havior perceivers release their negative affect more consistently in

 

their everyday interactions. In other words, negative behavior per-
ceivers may create or initiate more conflict situations with people in
their daily encounters. Also, the negative behavior perceivers may
have fared better in the conflict situation than the positive behavior
perceivers because the situation was more compatible with their percep-
tual bias. The confederates presentation as a person who disagrees
with them may not be very threatening to their orientation. It could
be that when negative behavior perceivers are in a situation in which
another person behaves neutrally or in a positive manner, they might
become more anxious than in a conflict situation, thus resulting in
more dysfunctional interactions.

It was also found that dyads with a negative behavior perceiver
spent the most interaction time when the result ended in a disagreement.
When the negative behavior perceiver did not change his/her opinion,
they kept the sequence going for approximately 2/3 of the interaction

time. It could be speculated that the negative behavior perceivers

80

held stronger attitudes and therefore were more committed to convincing
the confederate. An alternative explanation is that they are more
argumentative, making it more difficult for them to terminate an
argument.

Another interesting finding revealed that negative behavior perceiver
dyads made sarcastic statements (saying something positive but accompanied
with a hostile affect). This behavior elicited similar behavior though
to a lesser degree, from the confederates. It should be noted that no
other dyads displayed this behavior. A sarcastic statement may be a
negative behavior perceiver's way of negating a positive interaction.

It would be useful to know when in a sequence such behavior occurred.
Was it a response to the confederate saying something positive to the
negative behavior perceiver? In any event, the fact that hostile affect
was present in their positive behaviors, suggests that negative behavior
perceivers have conflicts with positive behaviors. It is possible that
if the negative perceptual bias originated because of nonperformance of
positive behavior that positive behavior would create a conflict for
him/her. The negative behavior perceiver may not recognize positive
behaviors as part of himself/herself or others because that aspect of
his/her behavior received disapproval and tended to be "dissociated"

as part of himself/herself.

In relationship to the present findings, Green (1975) found that
the negative behavior perceivers endorsed "shaming and ridiculing"
child-rearing techniques more than the balanced or positive behavior

perceivers, suggesting a punitive orientation.

 

81

Summa y. The results obtained on the effects of perceptual style
support the conclusions that in a conflict situation a positive percep-
tual style produced the most dysfunctional interaction; a balanced
perceptual style produced the most effective interaction, and a negative
perceptual style produced a more effective interaction than a positive

perceptual style, but not as effective as a balanced perceptual style.

Methodological Issues

 

The effects of perceptual style on interpersonal interactions fell
short of the original expectations. It could be that with the following
methodological refinements, the present research would have yielded
more significant results.

First, a 30 minute interaction with a stranger provided a very
limited sample of behavior. A longer interaction segment would have
provided more information and probably would have generated a more
"stressful" situation which might have further reduced the inhibitions
which typically restrain a person's behavior when interacting with a
stranger, particularly in a laboratory. It should also be mentioned that
the study of the effects of perceptual style on interpersonal interaction
does not have to be confined to an experimental laboratory. No doubt,
the observation of free social interaction in natural settings will
provide the most significant information regarding the effects of
perceptual style. However, this will be a difficult and time consuming
endeavor and would best be left until the variable of perceptual style
has been more thoroughly studied in controlled laboratory situations.

Another improvement in the collection of data would have been the

use of videotapes. This would have allowed for a more comprehensive

 

82

coding system which could provide information about a broader range
of behavior, including multi—level channels of communication, such as
nonverbal behavior. Mehrabian (1971) stated that perhaps negative
feelings are "delegated to subtle non-verbal channels more frequently
than are positive feeling, and people become proficient at expressing
their negative feelings nonverbally" (p. 116). A closer examination
of nonverbal behaviors may have provided more information about the
subjects' behavior, particularly the dyads which contained female
subjects. Also, videotapes would lend themselves to sequential
analysis of behavior which could provide added insight into the

process of the dyadic interaction.

Reflections

 

During the collection of data the present investigator (along with
the coders) observed the dyadic interaction behind the one-way mirror,
remaining unaware of the subject's perceptual style until after the
interaction terminated. As a result, the present experimenter made
some subjective observations that were not revealed by the present
measures which examined only limited dimensions of the interaction.
Therefore, the present investigator will share her intuitive impressions,
leaving for a moment the specific findings revealed by the data.

The most consistent and easily recognized behavior patterns were
displayed by the female positive behavior perceivers. Their behavior
patterns were noticeably different when interacting with either a
male or female confederate. When female positive behavior perceivers
interacted with a male confederate, they showed alot of flirtateous

and seductive behaviors. They usually presented themselves as helpless

 

83

and dependent, often giving excessive praise to the male confederates
(e.g., "oh, you're so smart"). Despite the female positive behavior

" the male confederates

perceivers' attempts to flatter the "male ego,
did not seem particularly susceptible to their flattery and often

found it difficult and therefore, frustrating to debate the issues with
these subjects. The female positive behavior perceivers frequently
tried to avoid the confrontation with the confederate by engaging in
social conversation. Sometimes while just listening to the interaction,
it was difficult to determine what the female positive behavior
perceivers' stance was on a particular issue because they frequently
avoided articulating their opinion. In summary, the female positive
behavior perceivers' behavior with a male confederate can be described

as "overly friendly,"

over solicitous, flirtatious, and passive. They
showed many characteristics of the "hysterical personality."

In contrast to their behavior with a male confederate, the female
positive behavior perceivers when interacting with a female confederate
were "catty" and passive-aggressive, expressing their negative affect
in a devious, covert manner. Because of the subtly, their passive-
aggressive behavior was not rated as overt hostility. However, the
interaction was usually laced with a negative undertone. For example,
while the female confederate was elaborating an important point, the
female positive behavior perceiver might interrupt with a pleasant

voice and say "let's go on to the next question."

Another pattern
was a tendency to ignore or "not listen" to what the female confederate
was saying. Rather than responding back with a statement that related

to what the confederate had just said, the female positive behavior

perceiver would often bring up an unrelated point.

 

84

The male positive behavior perceivers behaved in marked contrast
to the female positive behavior perceivers. This differentiation of
behavior patterns between males and females with a positive perceptual
style was not observed between the males and females with a balanced
or negative perceptual style. Unlike the oversolicitous behavior or
passive-aggressive behavior displayed by the female positive behavior
perceivers, the male positive behavior perceivers displayed hostile
outbursts. This pattern was revealed by the behavioral data, however,
it should be noted that their outbursts were often unexpected and out
of proportion to the situation. Frequently the hostility was expressed
by directly attacking the confederate as a person. The present investi-
gator was sometimes surprised by the intensity of the negative affect
displayed by the male positive behavior perceivers, particularly con-
sidering they were interacting with a stranger in a laboratory setting.

Another pattern observed for male positive behavior perceivers
was the manner in which they agreed with the confederates' opinion.
Rather than agreeing because they thought the confederate had presented
intelligent reasons which caused them to reevaluate their Opinion, the
male positive behavior perceivers tended to agree in a condescending
manner. This was particularly noticeable with female confederates and
generally throughout these interactions the male positive behavior
perceivers presented an air of superiority.

The negative behavior perceivers (male and female) can best be
described as argumentative, jumping immediately into a confrontation
with the confederate. They appeared comfortable with the situation and

typically were able to argue well, although they seemed more dogmatic

 

85

and interrupted the confederate more frequently than balanced behavior
perceivers. The negative behavior perceivers were able to keep to

the task and although the interaction sometimes would escalate into a
"heated" argument, hostility was very rarely expressed as a direct
attack on the confederate as a person.

The present investigator also noted a subgroup of negative behavior
perceivers who behaved quite differently than the pattern described
above. Approximately five of the negative behavior perceivers (2 male
and 3 female) were very withdrawn. In contrast to active confrontation,
they would sit in silence for long segments of time (sometimes even as
long as a couple of minutes), occassionally even physically tuning the
confederate out by closing their eyes. The silence had a very intense
quality associated with it and the present investigator felt it might
have been used by the subject to keep control over his/her hostility.
Also, it was felt that some of these people were quite disturbed,
maintaining a marginal or borderline adjustment.

Similar to the negative behavior perceivers (excluding the withdrawn
subgroup), balanced behavior perceivers (male and female) were also very
willing to engage in a confrontation or debate with the confederate but
usually dealt more rationally with the issues. Although the debate
might get "warm," it usually never escalated into a "heated" argument.
Also, the balanced behavior perceivers were more open or self-disclosing
with their partner, frequently using personal experiences for examples
when making a point. In addition, the balanced behavior perceivers
seemed to interrupt the confederate less often than either negative or

positive behavior perceivers. In any event, the interactions

”3'

‘.v

 

86

involving a balanced behavior perceiver did in fact appear to the
present investigator as the most positive interactions.

Besides merely elaborating these subjective observations, infer-
ences will be drawn about the effects that perceptual style could
have in a marriage relationship. As stated in the introduction, one
of the reasons for pursuing research on the effects of perceptual
style on dyadic interaction was the implications the findings might
have for identifying "high risk" spouses.

In terms of making speculations about the relationships that
might result if spouses had different perceptual styles, the present
investigator feels the "worst" possible match would consist of a
positive behavior perceiver paired with a negative behavior perceiver,
particularly if the positive behavior perceiver was a male.

The present investigator conceptualizes the negative behavior
perceiver as using the defense mechanism of projection when perceiving
people. By projecting negative impulses or affect on to other peOple,
negative behavior perceivers are able to simultaneously express their
"own" negative affect by rationalizing that it is the other person
(e.g., spouse) that is behaving negatively. Therefore, the negative
behavior perceiver has a reason or even a "right" to express anger or
hostility toward that person.

0n the other hand, the present investigator conceptualizes the
positive behavior perceiver as using the more primitive defense
mechanism of denial. By denying negative behavior or affect,positive
behavior perceivers attempt to keep their negative impulses under

control. However, when they are unable to do this and their underlying

-4"

87

hostility gets expressed, they then resort to the use of projection.

If the present investigator's conceptualizations are accurate,
the relationship that would result from the pairing of a negative be-
havior perceiver with a positive behavior perceiver would be burdened
with a great deal of friction. Each spouse's distortions (perceptual
biases) would be oppositional to one another's, thereby disconfirming
their spouse's perceptions. This would create continual conflict. In
addition, both negative and positive behavior perceivers are conceptual-
ized as having conflicts over negative affect, with both denying
responsibility for their own negative feelings. This prevents them
from learning control over their negative affect. Therefore, if one
spouse (e.g., negative behavior perceiver) is projecting negative affect
onto his/her spouse and the other spouse is trying to deny negative
affect, in time, the provocations from the negative behavior perceiver
will probably break through their partner's denial, thereby causing
an explosive outburst from the positive behavior perceiver.

The present researcher elaborated the possible relationship
difficulties that could be encountered if spouses had very different
perceptual styles. Many other speculations can be drawn about different
combinations of perceptual styles among spouses, but rather than elabor-
ating these more specifically, implications for future research will be
discussed below in which future studies will be described that could
give us more objective information about relationships involving
partners with different combinations of perceptual styles.

In summary, as a supplement to the findings of the present study,

the present investigator has included her subjective observations and

 

88

conceptualizations as an additional aid in the beginning attempts
to understand the behavior patterns of a negative, balanced, and

positive behavior perceiver in an interpersonal encounter. It is
also hoped that the subjective observations can assist future re-
searchers in developing more comprehensive measures to be used in

examining the effects of perceptual style.

 

 

CHAPTER 4

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The present research must be viewed as exploratory in nature and
consequently, the findings raise many issues that need to be verified

through future research.

 

The findings from Experiment I, along with previous research,
suggest that a person's differential selectivity and/or inferential
process of positive and negative behaviors might be a relatively stable
characteristic of the perceiver. Why should this occur? Hastorf
et al., (1970) concluded that people need to simplify the complex world
of other people because if they did not their experiential world would
be rapidly changing and unstable. Therefore, to achieve a meaningful
world in which a perceiver can act, s/he searches for "invariant pro-
perties of a person” and avoids focusing on a person's everchanging
behavior.

The above explanation accounts for the presence of stable
characteristics within perceivers. However, none of the person percep-
tion researchers have offered an explanation of how stable characteristics
might develop. In the previous chapter, the present researcher pre-
sented some initial formulations about the origins of a perceiver's
evaluative disposition (perceptual style). It was suggested that a

negative, balanced, or positive perceptual style of a parent results in

89

90

differential patterns of parental behavior which affects the

psychosocial development of the child, which in turn perpetuates a
similar perceptual style for the child. The general developmental
framework regarding the origins of perceptual style must be examined
through future longitudinal research with families. Of particular
importance might be a more detailed look for possible subgroups within
the larger groups of negative, balanced, and positive behavior perceivers.

Experiment II was designed to demonstrate that an individual's

:A.“'fi'
’:_-"‘-9
I

perceptual style would affect interpersonal interaction. In this sense

the study was successful and indicates that continual examination of

V
'L tut-x

the relatively unexplored variable of perceptual style should yield
interesting results. . .

Before discussing the broader implications for this study, it
should be emphasized that in explaining the findings of Experiment II,
many speculations were formulated about the subject's internal pro—
cesses. Therefore, to validate these assumptions, a more in depth
study of their intrapsychic processes would be valuable. Also, as
suggested previously, examining the subjects' behavior in other situ-
ations would help to determine when perceptual style presents the
most interference in interpersonal interactions. More specifically,
it could be that positive behavior perceivers would have the most
dysfunctional interactions in a conflict situation, whereas the nega—
tive behavior perceivers would have the most dysfunctional interactions
in a positive or even neutral situation. In contrast, it could be that
balanced behavior perceivers are more flexible and would be able to
adapt more appropriately to a variety of situations--positive, neutral,

and negative situations.

91

The present research only examined the influence of one member's
perceptual style on the dyadic interaction. Future research should
study the dyadic interaction when both members of the dyad have been
selected for perceptual style. With this type of design, the affects
of different combinations of perceptual style on dyadic interaction
could be examined. It would be expected that two balanced behavior
perceivers would engage in the most effective communication, followed
by dyads in which only one member was a balanced behavior perceiver.
The most dysfunctional interactions would be expected to result when
the dyad contained two positive behavior perceivers, two negative be-
havior perceivers, or a negative and positive behavior perceiver.
Future research with couples will also be needed to more accurately
assess which combinations of perceptual style would produce the
"higher risk" couples in regards to marital dysfunctions.

Messe' and Stollak (1974) have also studied the subjects in an
encounter with a child. Presently, their data are in the process of
being analyzed. The present findings, in conjunction with their
findings, may provide some preliminary implications for the issue,
raised earlier, regarding the consistency of behavior with a child and
an adult. The findings from Experiment I indicated that a person's
perceptual style was consistent when evaluating a child and an adult.
Therefore, we might expect behavior patterns to show a similar
consistency. However, it will be necessary to test this more directly
with families.

Messe' and Stollak (1975) have proposed a series of studies to
examine more closely the effects of perceptual style. One of their
primary objectives in initiating their innovative research on percep-

tual style is to develop a link between adult perceptions and child

 

92

psychopathology; to develop procedures to identify "high risk" adults;
and to implement a training program that would refocus parents' per-
ceptual sensitivity so as to help "high risk" parents become more
effective parents.

They have proposed three additional studies, including the
examination of the perceptual biases and behaviors of "clinic" and
"normal" families. If their findings support a link between parental
perceptual style and child psychopathology, they hope to undertake a
longitudinal study in which they will study in detail high- and low-risk
parents selected for perceptual style; determining if parents with a
negative and positive perceptual style are more likely to have children
who develop behavior dysfunctions than will parents who have a balanced
perceptual style. Finally, if their expectations are confirmed by the
longitudinal study, they will implement a comprehensive and education
training program in an attempt to refocus parents' perceptual sensiti-
vity with the hopes of minimizing the potential harm that perceptual
style has on a child's developing psychological functioning.

The findings from the present study provide evidence for a link
between a person's perceptual style and their interpersonal behavior
with a person their own age. Taken a step further, the study suggests
that a person with a negative or positive perceptual style may be a
"higher risk" spouse than a person with a balanced perceptual style.

In the future research proposed by Messe' and Stollak, Schreiber
(personal communication) will be examining the characteristics of
conflict-resolution in the parents of "clinic" and "normal" families

and relating such characteristics to each spouses perceptual style.

This will enable Messe' and Stollak to assess not only parent-child

 

‘”‘“""TIZIZZV
d

.v
V.- Eg‘h' a

93

dysfunctions but also husband-wife dysfunctions. As a result of this

 

 

added dimension they will be able to further explore the larger arena

of family dysfunctions.

 

In conclusion, the present researcher believes that it is essential
for the "well-being” of an individual (e.g., spouse/parent) to be able
to acknowledge and respond to the "total" person. Positive and negative
behavior perceivers appear to distort reality by creating a fiction of

a person, thereby rejecting important aspects of a person's experience

 

and action.

' 7
.'

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“

 

V“ d"'" . _'_
l - -.
w

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, N. H. Likableness ratings of 555 personality trait words.
Journal of Personality_and Social Psychology, l968,_9, 272-279.

 

Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1946,.31, 258—290.

 

 

Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of
preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 22, 43—88.

 

Beach, L., & Westheimer, M. A free response approach to the study of
person cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961,
62, 367-374.

 

Bessell, H., & Palomares, Y. H. Methods in human development: Rating
scale booklet. San Diego: Human Development Training Institute, 1967.

 

 

Bierman, R. Dimensions of interpersonal facilitation in psychotherapy
and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 12, 338-352.

 

Borgatta, E. F. A new systematic interaction observation system:
Behavior scores system (BSs System). Journal of Psychological

 

Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. The perception of people. In G. Lindzey
(Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley, 1954.

 

Buss, A. H. Instrumentality of aggression, feedback, and frustration as
determinants of physical aggression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 153-162.

 

 

Cowen, E. L., Frost, M. A., Lorion, R. P., Dorr, D., 1220, L. D. &
Isaacson, R. V. New ways in school mental health: Early detection

and prevention of school maladaptation. New York: Human Sciences
Press, 1975.

 

 

Cronback, L. J. Processes affecting scores on 'understanding of others'
and 'assumed similarity.‘ Psychological Bulletin, 1955,‘§2, 177-193.

 

94

95

Epstein, R. Authoritarianism, displaced aggression, and social status
of the target. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,
2, 585-589.

 

Ferguson, L. R., Partyka, L. B., & Lester, B. M. Patterns of parent
perception differentiating clinic from non-clinic children. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2, 169-181.

 

Freud, S. Theyproblem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936.

 

Gage, N. L., & Cronback, L. J. Conceptual and methodological problems
in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 411-422.

 

Gollin, E. S. Organizational characteristics of social judgment: A
developmental investigation. Journal of Personality, 1958, 26,

 

Green, R. Child-rearing attitudes and perceptions of children's
behavior across two generations in families. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975.

 

 

Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., & Polefka, J. Person perception.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

 

Horney, K. The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton, 1937.

 

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. From acts to dispositions: The attribution
process in person perception. In L. E. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic
Press, 1967, pp. 220-266.

 

Jones, E. E., & Thibaut, J. W. Interaction goals as basis of inference
in interpersonal perception. In R. Taguiri and L. Petrullo (Eds.),
Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1958.

 

Kaplan, M. F. The effect of judgmental dispositions in forming
impressions of personality. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
1971, 2, 43—51.

 

Kaplan, M. F. Interpersonal attraction as a function of relatedness of
similar and dissimilar attitudes. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 1972,_§, 17-21.

 

 

Kaplan, M. F. Response hierarchy, reception, and the process of person
perception. Human Relations, 1971, 24) 189-199.

 

Kaplan, M. F. Dispositional effects and weight of information in
impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1971, 18, 279-284.

 

Kaplan, M. F. Forming impressions of personality: The effect of the
initial impressions. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 18, 255-256.

 

96

Kaplan, M. F. Stimulus inconsistency and response dispositions in
forming judgments of other persons. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 58-64.

 

 

Kelley, H. H. The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons.
Journal of Personality, 1950, 28, 431—439.

 

Kleck, H. H., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A. H. The effects of physical
deviance upon face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 1966,
19, 425-436.

 

Knott, D. D., & Drost, B. A. Sex-role identification, interpersonal
aggression, and anger. Psychological Reports, 1970, 22, 154.

 

Kohn, A. R., & Fiedler, F. E. Age and sex differences in the perception
of persons. Sociometty, 1961, 25, 157-164.

 

Koltuv, B. B. Some characteristics of intrajudge trait intercorrelations.
Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76, (No. 33, Whole No. 552).

 

Levitt, E. E. The psychology of anxiety, New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.

 

Levy, L. H., & Dugan, R. D. A constant error approach to the study of
dimensions of social perceptions. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1960, 62, 21-24.

 

 

Levy, L. H. Adaptation, anchoring and dissipation in social perception.
Journal of Personality, 1961, 22, 94-104.

 

Liberman, M. S., Stollak, G. E., & Denner, B. Assessment of family
play interaction. Paperypresented at the 1971 Meeting of the
Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, Michigan.

 

 

Maccoby, E. G., & Jacklin, C. N. The psychology of sex differences.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974.

 

Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal communication. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 1971, 22, 107-161.

 

 

Messe', L. A., & Stollak, G. E. Adult perceptions and child psycho-
pathology. NIMH Grant # 24250, 1974.

Messe', L. A., & Stollak, G. E. Adult perceptions and child behavior
dysfunctions. Grant Renewal, submitted to NIMH, Sept. 1, 1975.

Mishler, E. G., & Waxler, N. E. Interaction in families: An experi-
mental study of family processes and schizophrenia. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968.

 

 

Moustakas, C. E. The authentic teacher. Cambridge and Doyle, 1969.

 

97

Mueller, W. J. Avenues to understanding: The dynamics of thetgpeutic
interactions. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1973.

 

 

Newcomb, T. M. An experiment designed to test the validity of a
rating technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1931, 22,
279-289.

 

Novak, D. W., & Lerner, M. J. Rejection as a function of perceived
similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,_9,

 

Osgood, C., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of
meaning. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

 

Patterson, G. R., Littman, R. A., & Bricker, W. Assertive behavior
in children: A step toward a theory of aggression. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1967, 32,
Serial No. 113.

 

 

Quereshi, M. 1., Leggio, A. H., & Widlak, F. W. Some biosocial
determinants of interpersonal perception. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1974, 22, 229-244.

 

 

Raush, H. L., Barry, W., Hertel, R., & Swain, M. Communication, conflict,
and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974.

 

 

Reif, T. R., & Stollak, G. E. Sensitivity to children: Training and
its effects. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1972.

 

 

Riskin, J. M., & Faunce, E. E. An evaluative review of family inter-
action research. Fami2y Process, 1972, 22, 1-455.

 

Sarason, I. G., & Winkel, G. H. Individual differences among subjects
and experimenters and subjects' self-descriptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 448-475.

 

 

Sarbin, T. Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

 

 

Schreiber, J. Personal communication. November 7, 1975.

Sears, R. R. Experimental studies of projection 1: Attribution of
traits. Journal of Social Psychology, 1936, 2, 151-163.

 

Shortell, J. R., & Biller, H. B. Aggression in children as a function
of sex of subject and sex of opponent. Developmental Psychology,
l970,_§, 143-144.

 

Shrauger, S., & Altrocchi, J. The personality of the perceiver as a
factor in person perception. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62,
289-308.

 

98

Shuck, S. 2., Shuck, A., Hallman, E., Mancini, F., & Wells, R. Sex
differences in aggressive behavior subsequent to listening to a radio
broadcast of violence. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 921-926.

 

Stollak, G. E., Liberman, M., & Denner, B. Assessment of family play
interaction. Paper presented at the 1971 Meeting of the Midwestern
Psychological Association.

 

 

Stollak, G. E. Undergraduates and children: An integrated graduate-
undergraduate program in the assessment, treatment, and prevention of
child psychopathology. Professional Psychology, 1973, 3, 158-169.

Stover, L., Guerney, B. G., Jr., & O'Connell, M. Measurements of
acceptance, allowing self-direction, involvement and empathy in
adult-child interaction. Journal of Psychology, 1971,_ZZ, 261-269.

 

Strodbeck, F. L. Husband-wife interaction over revealed differences.
American Sociological Review, 1951,_26, 468-473.

 

Taguiri, R. Person perception. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 3. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

Thorndike, E. L. A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1920,_§, 25-29.

 

 

Titley, R. W., and Viney, W. Expression of aggression toward the
physically handicapped. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 22,
51-56.

 

Truax, C. B., & Carkhoff, R. F. Towards effective counseling and
psychotherapy: Training and practice. Chicago: Aldin Publishing
Company, 1967.

 

 

Warr, P. B., & Knapper, C. The perception of people and events.
New York: Wiley, 1968.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd Ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

 

Youssef, Z. I. The role of race, sex, hostility, and verbal stimulus
in inflicting punishment. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 22, 285-286.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Bessell—Palomares (1970) Rating Scales

BESSELL-PALOMARES (1970) RATING SCALES

Name of Person Being Rated

 

Name of Rater

 

Date Rated

 

Instructions

 

You have been observing someone in interaction with a child, and
you are now being asked to convey your impressions of this person
through this brief checklist. You might feel that some of the
judgments you are being asked to make are too hard, especially since
they must be based on only a brief period of observation. However,
we would like you to trust your first impressions. If it would be
helpful, try to imagine yourself as the child having a long-term
relationship with this person. Your first impressions are what we

are interested in. Obviously, there are no "correct" answers.

99

100

STABILITY

The stable person is emotionally
balanced. He remains composed in
the face of stressful events. He
remains involved and does not find
it necessary to shift his direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to be very stable. Not easily upset by change or
disappointment.

Seems to be usually stable. Accepts and adjusts well to
changing circumstances, but occasionally loses his calmness
and direction.

Seems to be moderately stable. Often retains his equilibrium,
but rather easily upset and loses his direction.

Seems to sometimes show stability, calm and direction, but
frequently is upset and loses his bearings when circumstances
change.

Seems to be unstable. Shows little capacity to accomodate to
change. Excitable or immobilized by new demands.

 

101

SELF-CONFIDENCE

The confident person believes that he
is able and behaves with a calm,
assured manner. He is self-assured
and realistic when coping with new
challenges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to be realistically very confident. Seems to approach
challenge with assurance. Possible failure does not deter
action.

Seems confident most of the time with realistic challenges.
Seems to be only mildly cautious with unfamiliar tasks.

While often confident, in many instances is unsure of his ability
to cope with realistic challenge.

Seems to have some degree of confidence with familiar things,
but often expects to meet with failure with challenge.

Seems to have virtually no self-confidence. Unable or unwilling
to try. Almost always behaves as though he expects to fail
with new challenges.

 

102

SENSITIVITY TO OTHERS

 

The sensitive person is aware and
concerned about the welfare of other
people. He readily ascertains what
the other person is feeling and what
would be in their best interest.

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to be acutely aware and concerned about the child's
feelings and reactions.

Seems to be most of the time aware and concerned about how the
child is truly feeling and reacting.

Seems to be often aware and concerned, but in many instances
seems unaware and relatively unconcerned about the child's
feelings and reactions.

Seems to be usually unaware and disinterested in what the child
is feeling, but can recognize what is going on when it is
directly called to his attention.

Seems to be insensitive and unconcerned as to what is going on
in and with the child. Deals with the child as though the child
was devoid of feelings.

103

SPONTANEITY

 

The spontaneous person is natural. His
acceptance of himself is high and permits
freedom of expression. He is uninhibited,
but not dramatic or exhibitionistic.

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to be always highly spontaneous. Very natural and free in
his expressions.

Seems to be very often spontaneous. Most of the time reacts
freely and naturally, but on occasion is inhibited.

Seems to be usually spontaneous. While he frequently expresses
himself naturally be is inhibited on many occasions.

Seems to show spontaneity on occasion, but more often inhibited,
constricted, and stilted in his response.

Seems to have many strong inhibitions, very constricted.
Almost never spontaneous; not natural.

 

104

EFFECTIVENESS

 

The effective person copes apprOpriately.
He readily tries and is successful in
his efforts to implement his own desires
or to meet the external demands of the
environment.

 

 

RATING
Seems to be very effective. Always deals appropriately and
successfully with his inner needs and external demands.

Always meets and responds effectively to a problem situation.

Seems to be mostly effective. Typically gets his needs met
and handles challenge successfully.

Seems to be moderately effective. Often successful, but often
fails to get his needs met or to cape with problems with success.

Seems to be mostly ineffective. But occassionally successful
in his efforts.

Seems to rarely succeed in his efforts. Inadequate. Ineffective.

105

TOLERANCE

The tolerant person recognizes and
accepts individual differences. He
accepts and gives full regard to
others who have different feelings,
thoughts, and reactions than his own.
But he does not necessarily approve
or yield to their influence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to be extremely tolerant. Understands and accepts differences
as natural. Tolerates a very broad spectrum of feelings, thoughts,
and behavior in others.

Seems to be reasonably tolerant about individual differences.

Seems to be mildly tolerant, but tends to not accept certain
natural variations.

Seems to be usually intolerant. Tends to regard people who
differ from him as being unacceptable, even wrong.

Seems to be very intolerant. His way of feeling, thinking,
and reacting is the only way that he can accept. People who are
different are completely unacceptable. Very narrow.

 

106

AWARENESS OF SELF

 

The aware person knows how he feels,
what he thinks, and what he is doing.
Although he is conscious of himself,
he is not self-conscious, insecure or
embarrassed. This awareness does not
produce anxiety. He accepts and can
acknowledge how he really feels,
thinks, and acts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

wigs

Seems to be very aware; always conscious of his feelings, wishes,
fears, and the meaning of his behavior (positive or negative).

Seems to be most of the time aware, ready to acknowledge what he
feels, thinks, and does. Only occasionally uses denial.

Often aware of his feelings, thoughts, and behavior, and willing
to recognize them as such. However, often reacts without
awareness or using denial.

Seems to be usually unconscious or unaware of himself; denies
his real feelings and thoughts, and cannot recognize his own
actions for what they are.

Unconscious of self; full of denial, completely unable to
recognize his true feelings, thoughts, or behavior.

 

107

INTERPERSONAL COMPREHENSION

 

This trait assesses the person's
understanding of how one person's
behavior causes approval or disapproval
of that behavior in another person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to have very high comprehension. Person almost always
recognizes the effect of any given behavior.

Seems to usually comprehend what the child's reaction will be
to his behavior.

Seems to sometimes perceive the interpersonal effects, but just
as often seems to fail to comprehend how one person's behavior
affects another person's attitude.

Seems to seldom comprehend interpersonal interaction. Seems to
usually be at a loss in being able to see how one person's
behavior affects another person's reaction.

Seems to have virtually no comprehension of how a person's
behavior causes attitudes in other people. Seems to almost
always fail to comprehend the interaction.

 

108

FLEXIBILITY

 

The flexible person can shift his
viewpoint or behavior in accordance with
new information or new demands made of
him. He is adaptive, but shifts be-
cause of conviction rather than because
of passively submitting to persuasion.
When changing he continues with the

same degree of interest and involvement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATING

Seems to be very flexible. Adapts readily and easily to new
information and demands. Participation continues with undimin-
ished interest.

Seems to be very frequently flexible. Most of the time adapts
although shows some tendency to persist even in the face of new
information or new expectations.

Seems to be reasonably flexible, but often clings to his original
viewpoint or behavior.

Seems at times flexible, but usually unable to adapt to new
information or demands.

Seems to be rigid. Very unresponsive to new information or
demands. Cannot shift.

 

109

CONSIDERATENESS

 

The considerate person cares about

the well-being of others. He adjusts
his behavior in ways that are thought—
ful and beneficial to others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seems

RATING

to be extremely considerate. Always thoughtful and spon-

taneously concerned with the child's welfare.

Seems

to be very considerate. Most of the time he is thoughtful

and deals constructively with the child.

Seems
about

Seems
takes

less,

Seems

to be somewhat considerate, but sometimes inconsiderate
what is good for the child.

to seldom consider the well-being of the child. Only rarely
into account what the child may feel. Tends to be thought-
indifferent.

to rarely consider the child. Tends to pursue his behavior

no matter how it may affect the child.

 

nr.'—."sl-I 9;. .TT _fl
“ran... '

 

APPENDIX B

Children's Behavior Checklist - Form A and Form B

CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST - FORM A (MALE) AND FORM B (FEMALE)

(SCORING KEY)*

Name of Person (completing checklist):

 

Date:

 

Directions:

Below is a list of items describing many aspects of children's ’
behavior-things that children do sometimes, ways that they act and feel. 1
Of course, not all of these items apply to the child in the playroom that
you first observed on the video-tape, but, quite a few of them do.

First, read Item 1 carefully and then make up your mind about whether
or not it describes the way he/she acted in the playroom. If so, mark an
”X" in column one; if not put a zero in the first column. Then, go on to
the second item and decide whether or not this behavior applies to the
child's behavior, marking it the same way. Do this for all 64 items,
putting an "X" in the first column of each item which you feel is appli-
cable to his/her playroom behavior and a "0" for each item you feel is
not applicable to the behavior you observed.

Once you have completed this task, go back to the first item, and
this time decide if the behavior described applies to the way that you
think that the child acts in general--that is, not just his/her behavior
in the playroom, which you saw, but behavior which you think occurs in
other situations such as at home, in school, on the playground, with
friends, etc., as well. If you do not think so, put a zero in the second
column. On the other hand, if you think this item applies to his/her
behavior in general, put an "X" in the second column (whether or not you
put one in the first column). Again, go through all 64 items deciding
for each whether or not each item applies to his/her behavior in general.

I
1
I

 

 

Column 1 Column 2
Applies to Applies to
Item behavior in his/her
playroom behavior
which I saw in general
1. Is happy when he/she does a "good
job."
2. Gets carried away by his/her
feelings.
3- Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a A
little bit fussy about it.
4. Can't wait — wants to have things B

immediately.

*A = Positive Behavior
B Negative Behavior

110

111

Column 1
Applies to
Item behavior in
playroom
which I saw

Column 2

Applies to
his/her
behavior
in general

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

l9.

2(L

21.

222.

Is concerned about the feelings
of adults.

Gets irritated or angry easily.

Feelings are apprent in his/her
facial expressions.

Plays with toys in a rough way.
Handles small objects skillfully.

Doesn't pay attention to what
others say.

Activity is focused on a parti-
cular purpose, seems to accomplish

what he/she sets out to do.

Looks awkward when he/she moves
around.

Accepts new ideas without
getting upset.

Acts in ways that makes adults
not like him/her.

Shows pride in accomplishment.

Appears stiff in walking or
moving about.

Seemed comfortable in the situation
that you observed.

Has trouble finding the right
words to say what he/she means.

Wants very much to be approved of.

Seems to do things just to get
adults angry at him/her.

Moves gracefully - well coordinated.

Has a characteristic mannerism
or nervous habit.

‘ m Ir'
’..'_"_D_

‘
—

 

112

Column 1
Applies to
Item behavior in
playroom
which I saw

Column 2

Applies to
his/her
behavior
in general

 

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Plays to win.

Quickly loses interest in an
activity.

Does what persons ask him/her
t0.

Never gets excited about anything,
even when you expected him/her to

be pleased with something.

Makes friends quickly and easily.

Seems sad and unhappy.

Self-confident.

Tends to go too far unless
reminded of rules.

Talks all the time.

Often has to be reminded of
what he/she can and can't do.

Affectionate - enjoys being
physically close to adults.

Threatens to hit or hurt others.

Is able to stand up for himself/
herself.

Seems out of touch with what is
going on around him/her — off in
his/her own world.

Is polite and cooperative.

Has uncontrollable outbursts
of temper.

Is easily embarrassed.

Often breaks the rules in games.

A

 

113

Column 1
Applies to
Item behavior in
playroom
which I saw

Column 2

Applies to

his/her
behavior
in general

 

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

Is careful in explanation -
precise.

When told to do something he/she
doesn't want to do, he/she
becomes angry.

Is curious about things.

Plays aimlessly, doesn't seem
to make or accomplish anything.

Prefers competitive games.

Seems selfish, always wants
his/her own way.

Showed appreciation when others
helped or did things for him/her.

Seldom laughs or smiles.
Energetic.

Doesn't seem to care about how
he/she looks — often looks

sloppy.

Asks sensible questions.
Blows up very easily when bothered.

Shows pleasure and involvement
in most things he/she does.

Fidgety and restless.
Is competitive.

Acts as if adults are against
him/her.

Pitches in when things have to
be done.

Often seems angry for no parti-
cular reason, expresses it in
many different ways.

114

Column 1
Applies to
Item behavior in
playroom
which I saw

Column 2

Applies to

his/her
behavior
in general

 

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

Quick and clever.
Aggressive and overpowering.
Learns quickly.

Bossy.

Likes to do things well.

Tires easily in activities.

A

 

”Hunt... ..II.. raw“...

APPENDIX C

Kaplan—Anderson Checklist Form I and Form 11

KAPLAN-ANDERSON CHECKLIST FORM I

Directions. Check 22 words from the following 36 words which you would
use to describe the adult in the film.

______gloomy ______lazy
talented ______understanding
phony ______enthusiastic
cowardly _____2broad-minded
pessimistic _____2distrustfu1
_____prejudiced ______sensible
obnoxious _____boring
honest _____rude
capable _____irresponsible
self-centered ______1oyal
generous ______efficient
_____gossipy _____conceited
_alert ____happy
considerate _____friend1y
domineering _____unappreciative
cooperative _____reliable
patient ______independent
hostile ______fau1t—finding

115

KAPLAN-ANDERSON CHECKLIST FORM II

Itirections: Check 22_words from the following 36 words which you would

‘uuast likely use in describing people

_____gloomy
talented
phony
cowardly
pessimistic
prejudiced
obnoxious
honest

______capab1e
self—centered
generous

______gossipy
alert
considerate
domineering
cooperative

patient

hostile

116

of your own age.

______1azy
understanding
enthusiastic
broad-minded

_____distrustful
sensible

_____2boring
rude
irresponsible

_____2oya1
efficient
conceited

____happy

_____friend1y
unappreciative

______reliable
independent

fault-finding

 

APPENDIX D
Analysis of Variance: Child and Adult Ratings

for the 1,100 Subjects

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: CHILD AND ADULT RATINGS

FOR THE 1,100 SUBJECTS

To examine if there were differences in the subject's perceptions
sass a function of sex of perceiver, sex of the stimulus person, and/or
ilistructional context, the Bessell—Palomares Scale, Child Behavior
Cflnecklist, and the Kaplan-Anderson Checklist each were subjected to an
zarialysis of variance. Findings are reported below for F ratios which
‘verre (a) significant at‘p <..05, and (b) not qualified by significant
frigher-order interactions. Further exploration of significant inter-

éictions were carried out via appropriate simple effects analyses.

ISessell-Palomares Scale

The total B£_score was subjected to a 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (sex

C>f child) analysis of variance. Only the following_§'s were significant:

tsex of subject main effect (F = 4.08, d£_= 1/1064, p_<;.05); and sex of
(:hild main effect (F = 5.43,_d£ = 1/1064, 2 <1.0201). Female subjects
rated the adult more positively (X = 41.00) than male subjects

(X = 40.29); and the adult was rated more positively with the female

child ()2 = 41.04) than with the male child (SE = 40.24).

Child Behavior Checklist

The §B§_was subjected to a 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (sex of child)

X 2 (score--positive/negative, a repeated measure) X 2 (instructional
context--playroom/"in general," a repeated measure) analysis of variance.
Sex of subject X instructional context X score. The EEE showed
a significant sex of subject X instructional context X score interaction

(F = 4.56, 22_= 1/1064, p,< .04). Tests of simple effects explored

117

118

this interaction further. The data were classified as a function of
sex of subject and two—way simple effects ANOVAS were computed. The
results of these analyses revealed that instructional context X score
interaction was significant for both males (F = 11.15, p_< .01) and
females (F = 3.40,_p <..10). These interactions were explored further
via simple effects tests, which showed that instructional context was

significant only for positive scores: females (F = 11.00, p,< .01);

 

males (F = 15.97, p < .01). Females and males rated the child more
positively when rating her/him "in general" versus when the child was
in the playroom. Cell means that are relevant to these findings are

presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Cell Means that Showed a Significant Sex of Subject
)( Instructional Context Interaction for the Positive
Score on the CBC

 

 

Sex of Sub'ect Instructional Context: Instructional Context
J Child in Playroom Child "in General"

Female 11.82 13.42

Male 11.50 13.42

 

Sex of child X score X instructional context. The ANOVA of the
229 also showed a significant sex of child X score X instructional
context interaction (F = 4.12,_d£ = 1/1064,.p.< .04). Tests of simple
effects explored this interaction further. The data were classified
as a function of score and two—way simple effects ANOVAS were com-
puted. The results of these analyses revealed that the sex of child

X instructional context interaction was significant only for positive

119

scores (F = 4.10, p,< .05). This interaction was explored further

via simple effects tests and showed that sex of child was significant
only for instructional context—-child "in general" (F = 17.09, p < .01).
The male child was rated more positively "in general" (X = 14.03),

than the female child (X = 12.81).

Sex of subject X sex of child X score. The CBC showed a

 

significant sex of subject X sex of child X score interaction (F = 5.81,
.df = 1/1064, p <;.02). Tests of simple effects explored this interac-
tion further. The data were separated into female and male child and

a two-way simple effects ANOVA was computed. These results showed

that the sex of subject X score interaction was significant only for

the female child (F = 5.75, pg< .05). Simple effects tests explored
this interaction further and showed that sex of subject was significant
only for the negative score (F = 6.00, p_<;.05). Female subjects

rated the female child more negatively (X = 17.79) than did male

subjects (36 = 16.89).

Kaplan-Anderson Checklist

 

The proportion of positive to total (positive plus negative) scores
on the KA§_was subjected to a 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (sex of child) X
2 (instructional context-—playroom/”in general," a repeated measure)
analysis of variance. The sex of subject X instructional context
interaction was significant (F = 16.87, of = 1/1064, 3.4 .0001). Tests
of simple effects explored this interaction further. The difference
between instructional contexts was highly significant for both males
and females. The adult in the playroom was rated more positively than

an adult "in general." The simple effects test revealed that sex of

j{
)1
'1

 

120

subject was significant for instructional context--adu1t "in general"
(F = 35.47, p_<_.01). Female subjects rated an adult "in general"
more positively (X = .695) than did males (X = .635).

To summarize, the sex of the perceiver, the sex of the stimulus
person, the score (positive or negative), and the instructional context
all were found to affect an individual's perception. Therefore, these
variables should always be taken into account in studying person per-
ception. For the present study the following significant differences
were found: females rated the adult in the playroom (total BE) and an
adult "in general" more positively than males; the adult was rated
more positively on the 22_when playing with a female child than with
a male child; the child was rated more positively "in general" than
in the playroom; the adult in the playroom was rated more positively
than an adult ”in general;" the male child was rated more positively
"in general" than the female child; and female subjects rated the
female child more negatively than did male subjects. Implications

of these results are discussed in detail below.

Discussion

As stated previously, interpretations of the results must be
tentative. For the present study, the subjects rated a specific
female adult and a specific male or female child. Therefore, one is
unable to determine if the significant findings would generalize to
the subject's perceptions of other adults or children. Despite these
inherent limitations, the results found for these subsidiary analyses
are discussed in general terms, assuming that the findings are not

specific to the particular adult and child in the film. Unfortunately,

121

the conclusions drawn about the results are only tentative until

they are tested and confirmed with other children and adults.

Sex of the Perceiver

 

\Sex of the perceiver seems to have a consistent effect upon
person perception. Consistent with previous research (Kohn & Feidler,
1961; Sarason & Winkel, 1966; and Quereski, Leggio & Widlak, 1974), r?
the present study found that females rated the adult in the playroom g'i,
and an adult "in general" more positively than did males. Kohn and

Feidler, in accounting for a similar finding, stated that females

 

may learn to mask their genuine feelings about others because our
culture gives males greater latitude in expressing strong negative
feelings, whereas females are expected to show warmer and more accepting
attitudes. As an alternative explanation, they stated that females

may actually evaluate others more favorably. The present investigator
believes that Kohn and Feidler's alternative explanation is more
consistent with the overall research on sex differences. Maccoby and
Jacklin (1974), in their extensive survey on the research on sex
differences found a remarkable degree of uniformity in the socialization
of the two sexes. Although the existing evidence is limited and not
conclusive, it does not support the first hypothesis and consequently
they believe that socialization pressures are not sufficient to account
for the origins of sex differences. In support of the second hypothesis
is the persistent finding that males are more aggressive, despite
similar socialization. This if found even in "safe" situations where
one might expect females to let out their "real" or "genuine" feelings

that they are "taught" to inhibit. Maccoby and Jacklin believe that

122

the two sexes are not equal in initial aggressive response tendencies;
"males are more biologically ready to learn aggressive behavior” (p. 274).
In light of Maccoby and Jacklin's formulation and the findings from
Experiment II, reported previously, the present investigator believes

that females evaluate others more favorably because they generally have
more positive interactions with people. Another way to state this
assertion is that males have more negative interactions as a result of F]
their more aggressive behavior. Support for this formulation is

elaborated more thoroughly in the discussion of Experiment 11.

 

Sex of the Child

 

An unexpected finding revealed that the adult was perceived more
positively when playing with the female child. This may be due to
differences between the two videotapes. It's possible that, despite
every effort on the part of the adult to behave similarly with both
children, there were subtle differences in her nonverbal behaviors
possibly as a result of her being more responsive and sensitive toward
a child of her own sex. An alternative explanation involves the child's
behavior. Although the male and female child exhibited the same
negative behaviors, the male actor might have been displaying more
intensity when behaving negatively. As a result, when making inferences
about the adult's behavior the subjects may have interpreted the
adult's handling of the male child's negative behaviors as less
competent.

Two results showed that the sex of the child affected the subject's
rating of the child. These results are interpreted as due to the under-
graduates response to the child in terms of stereotypes they hold for

the sex role of the child.

123

The male child was also evaluated more positively "in general"
than the female child. Typically, a female child is expected to be
more cooperative, sociable, and helpful than a male child. As a
result, when a female child exhibited positive behaviors in the play-
room the subjects may have made fewer inferences about her positive
behaviors "in general” because that is the way a girl is supposed to
act. However, such behaviors are regarded as relatively usual
for a male child and as a result the subjects may have inferred more
positive behavior for him "in general." This conjecture is congruent
with Jones and Davis' (1967) attributional approach to imputing
causality for people's behavior.

The female subjects also perceived the female child more
negatively than the male child. The negative behaviors exhibited by
the child in the playroom consisted of low tolerance for frustration,
withdrawal, as well as aggressive and attacking behaviors. These be—
haviors are typically seen as more sex inappropriate for females than
for males. It is assumed that what is inappropriate or undesirable for
a female would be more internalized for the female subjects. Therefore
the negative behaviors exhibited by the female child would be regarded
as more negative by the female subjects. On the other hand, it is
most likely that what is inappropriate for a male child would be more
internalized for a male subject. Therefore, if some of the behaviors
exhibited by the child in the film had consisted of more typically
"feminine" behaviors (e.g., fantasy play with dolls or dressing up
in female clothes) it is assumed that these behaviors would have been

perceived as sex-inappropriate for the male child. Therefore, it

124

would be expected that the male child would have been perceived more
negatively "in general," particularly by the male subjects.

These results suggest that when a child behaves with a desirable
behavior that is seen as relatively unusual for his/her sex, the child
is perceived "in general" more positively by both sexes. However, when
a child behaves with an undesirable behavior that is seen as unusual
for his/her sex, the same—sexed adult perceives it more negatively.

However, these speculations will need to be further researched.

 

Instructional Context Effect

 

It was found that the subjects' evaluations varied depending on g
the instructional context. In other words, subjects responded differ—
ently when rating the child in the playroom versus "in general," and
when rating the adult in the playroom versus a hypothetical person
"in general." It appears that a balancing effect occurred.

The child in the playroom was evaluated more negatively. The
overall means of the perceptual bias score was -4.77. This may be a
result due to the dramatic quality of the "negative" behaviors (e.g.,
pushing over some blocks) as compared to the "positive" behaviors
(e.g., expressing positive feelings toward the adult). However, it was
found that the child was evaluated significantly more positively "in
general" versus in the playroom, although the overall mean of the
perceptual bias score was still negative for the child's behavior "in
general." A possible explanation for this finding is that the subjects
may have wanted to present a more balanced evaluation of the child.

It is also possible that their conception of a child "in general" is

more balanced. Therefore, since the subjects had already committed

125

themselves to their ratings of the negative behaviors, they were able
to evaluate the child in a more balanced manner by inferring more
positive behaviors for the same child's behavior "in general."

The adult in the playroom was perceived more positively than
a hypothetical person "in general." This is not surprising since
the adult in the playroom did not exhibit any overt negative behaviors.
Therefore, it seems reasonable that when looking at an average of ratings

for 1,100 people, their conception of a person "in general" would be

 

more realistic, allowing for a more balanced conception (selecting

fewer positive and more negative traits) of a person "in general."

 

In summary, the sex of the perceiver, sex of the stimulus person,
instructional context, and the score (positive or negative) influenced
the perceiver's perception. Unfortunately, the findings are confounded
by the fact that the subjects only perceived a specific adult and a
specific male or female child. Therefore, future person perception
research needs to examine these variables and determine if the present
findings are consistent when subjects perceive other adults and

children.

APPENDIX E
Analysis of Variance: Adult Ratings for the

150 Negative, Balanced, and Positive Behavior Perceivers

i1

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: ADULT RATINGS FOR THE

150 NEGATIVE, BALANCED, AND POSITIVE BEHAVIOR PERCEIVERS

The 150 subjects who were selected as negative, balanced, and
positive behavior perceivers by their rating of the child in the film
also rated the adult in the film and an adult "in general." From these
150 selected subjects, 96 subjects were randomly chosen for Experiment
11 of the present research. To acquire a better understanding of their
ratings of an adult, their total Bg_score and the KA§_positive and
negative scores were subjected to 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (sex of confeder—
ate) X 3 (perceptual style) analyses of variance. Findings are reported
for F ratios which were (a) significant at p_< .10, and (b) not qualified
by significant higher—order interactions. Further analysis of signi—
ficant interactions were carried out through use of simple effects
tests and Neuman-Keuls tests, when appropriate. Table 1 presents the
significant_F ratios that were not qualified by any higher order

interactions.

TABLE 1

Summary of the Significant F Ratios
Not Qualified by Higher Order Interactions for
the Adult Ratings of the Negative, Balanced, and
Positive Behavior Perceivers

 

 

 

 

Source _3 _p
1. Sex of Subject (of = 1/132)
Positive-Person in General
(KAC) 5.85 .02
Negative-Person in General
(KAC) 6.43 .02
2. Sex of Child X Perceptual
Style (df_= 2/132)
Total Bessell-Palomares 2.44 .10
Positive-Adult in Playroom (KAC) 2.40 .10
Negative-Adult in Playroom (KAC) 2.80 .07

126

127

Sex Main Effects

 

The positive and negative score for a person "in general" on the
KAC showed a significant main effect for sex. The means presented
in Table 2 show that females rated a person "in general" more positive-

ly and less negatively than did males.

TABLE 2

Means of the Rating of the Adult in
the Playroom that Yielded a Significant Sex
of Subject Effect

 

 

Variable Females Males
Positive-Person in General (KAC) 8.43 7.33
Negative-Person in General (KAC) 3.5 4.67

 

Sex of Child X Perceptual Style

 

The total B: score and the positive and negative K29 score for
the adult in the playroom revealed a marginally significant (p<:.01)
effect for sex of child X perceptual style. Simple effects analyses
of these interactions indicated that perceptual style was significant
for the subjects who rated the adult in the playroom with the male

child: total BE (F = 8.02, p <..01); positive KAC (F = 7.04, p <..Ol);

and negative KAC (F 7.59, p_<1.01). Neuman-Keuls tests for the
three scores revealed a significant difference between both positive
and balanced behavior perceivers and negative behavior perceivers, and
a nonsignificant difference between balanced and positive behavior

perceivers. Positive and balanced behavior perceivers rated the

adult more positively than negative behavior perceivers on the total

128

22_(q(P-N) = 5.19, p_<..01;_q(B-N) = 4.56, p_<;.01) and positive
_K_A_C_ (3(B-N) = 4.91, p< .01; 3(P-N) = 4.19, p4 .01). Negative
behavior perceivers rated the adult more negatively than positive or
balanced behavior perceivers on the negative KAC (q(N—P) = 4.90,
34 .01; 3(N-B) = 4.64, p4 .01). Table 3 presents the means

relevant to these findings.

TABLE 3

Means of the Rating of the Adult in the
Playroom that Yielded a Significant Sex of
Child X Perceptual Style Interaction

 

 

 

- Sex of , .
Variable Child Negative Balanced Positive
Total Bessell- Male 36.17 41.00 41.67

Palomares
Positive-Adult in
Playroom (KAC) Male 8'00 10°58 10-21
Negative-Adult in
Playroom (KAC) Male 3'67 1°42 1-29
Discussion

Of the 150 subjects who were selected as negative, balanced,
and positive behavior perceivers, female subjects rated a person "in
general" more positively than did male subjects. This difference also
was found for the 1,100 subjects. In addition, female subjects rated
the person "in general" less negatively than did male subjects. How-

ever, of major importance to the present study was the fact that for

129

all three ratings of the adult in the playroom with a male child, the
negative behavior perceivers showed a similar perceptual bias toward
the adult in the playroom as they did toward the child stimulus. They
rated that adult more negatively and less positively than the balanced
and positive behavior perceivers. Differences between the balanced
and positive behavior perceivers were not significant, although the
cell means for the total 22_and negative KA§_were in the appropriate
direction. It should be noted that the behaviors of the adult in the
playroom versus those of the child were noticeably different. Where—
as the child exhibited positive and negative behaviors, the adult did
not exhibit overt negative behaviors. The adult's behavior could best
be described as positive or neutral or, at worst, passive. This is
supported by the finding that the mean for the proportion of positive
traits checked on the KAg_to describe the adult in the playroom was
.87. In contrast, the mean for the proportion of positive traits
checked on the KAC to describe a person "in general" was .67. This
might account for the lack of significant differences between the
positive and balanced behavior perceivers. One might expect that if
the adult also exhibited negative behaviors, the balanced behavior per-
ceivers would rate the adult more negatively and less positively than

would the positive behavior perceiver.

APPENDIX F

Attitude Questionnaire

GENERAL ATTITUDES QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions:

 

The statements listed on the following pages describe attitudes
about many issues. The statements themselves are both agreed and
disagreed with by many college students. There are no right or wrong
answers, only opinions. The best answer to each statement below is
your personal opinion. You are asked to express your feelings about
each statement by indicating whether you strongly agree, moderately
agree, moderately disagree, or strongly disagree. Please indicate
your opinion by placing an "X" by the alternative which best describes
your personal attitude. Please respond to every item.

Name

 

Date

 

130

131

Marijuana is not really harmful and therefore should be legalized.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

Religious viewpoints which differ with the findings of science should
be abandoned.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

Women have more ability and are more efficient at tasks around
the home and as a result, their rightful place is in the home and
not in the business world.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

Viet Nam War draft evaders and deserters should be granted full
amnesty and should not have to fulfill the two years of alternative
service required by Ford's clemency policy.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

A girl who is a virgin on the day she is married is more likely to
have a happy marriage.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

The poor need to be taught how to value money.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

All persons who love their fellow-man should refuse to engage in
any war in the future.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

132

An abortion should never be permitted because it is equivalent
to murder.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

Despite the American ideal of equality of the sexes, there are
certain jobs, like that of President of the United States, which
are just too important to be held by a woman.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

The most important things that happen to people are the result of
circumstances beyond their control.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

The nuclear family, as a social unit, is on the way out, and communal
family should and will become prevalent in the future.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

It is important for a child to learn as early in his life as
possible that in the real world what really counts is hard work,
getting ahead, and being a good citizen.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

I am not bothered by women and men looking more and more alike in
their hair styles and clothing.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

President Ford was wrong in granting a pardon to Richard Nixon.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

15.

l6.

17.

133

A father should never allow his 8-year old daughter to see him
naked.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

Environmental issues should be put aside until the economy has been
stabilized.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

Universities should be exclusively for scholarly study and
acquisition of knowledge, related to becoming an educated, mature
adult. Training for jobs, such as those in the agricultural,
business, and engineering fields should take place in advanced
vocational school and not within.

strongly agree moderately agree

 

 

moderately disagree strongly disagree

 

APPENDIX G

Value Scale

VALUE SYSTEM SCALE

Below is a list of 12 values arranged in alphabetical order. We are
interested in finding out the relative importance of these values for
you. Study the list of values below carefully. Which of these values
do you feel to be the most important for you? Place a 2_on the blank
line to the left of this value. Now, cross this value off your list

and look carefully at the remaining 11 values. Which one of these values
is second most important for you? Place a 2 etc. Cross this value off
your list and look carefully at the remaining 10 values. Place a_2

etc. Now, rank all of the remaining values in order of importance to
you. The value which is least important, relative to the others, should
be ranked 22. When you have completed ranking all of the items, go

back over your list to make sure they are in the proper order.

A comfortable life
A meaningful life
A world at peace
Equality

Freedom

Maturity

National security
Respect for others
Respect from others
Salvation

True friendship

Wisdom

134

APPENDIX H

Confederate Scripts

(la)

(lb)

(la)

CONFEDERATE SCRIPTS

Marijuana is not really harmful and therefore should be legalized.

Agree

Less harmful than alcohol and 1.
cigarettes, which are legal

Yes,but there are many things (la)
which may prove harmful to
people that we don't know
about - a) chemicals in foods,
teflon utensils, etc. and they

don't make them illegal.

They could also do the same (1b)
as they do for cigarettes,
put warnings on the

package.

But its a persons indivi— (1c)
dual right - the decisions
to use it or not should be
left up to the individual -
if we followed your logic
we would have to make
driving cars illegal be-
cause it may cause harm

to the person.

Control it like alcohol, 2.
have it restricted to

certain places, have an

age limit, and amount.

135

Disagree

We don't really know what
the long—term effects are
because we don't have ade-
quate research yet to answer
that question. It could
cause diseases like other
drugs that were put on the
market too early.

Yes, but I don't agree with
that policy if there is any
indication of harmful effects
(of things people ingest).

I think the government should
make it illegal, take it off
the public market and not put
it back until they have ade-
quate proof that its not
harmful.

Yes, but people don't pay
attention to warnings - very
few people have stopped

smoking even though they know
its hazardous to their health -
which tells me that people

need to be protected from

such self-destructive behavior.

I'm not saying to make every-
thing that causes harm to an
individual illegal - but
things that people ingest and
certainly don't make something
legal that we don't have
enough information about.

How are we going to control it?

136

Agree Disagree

(2a) It will be harder to control
because of the ease of pro-
ducing it - all you need is
equipment and knowledge and
its much more expensive to
make it yourself. The com-
panies may have to resort to
huge fines on people who
grow their own - the penal-
ties may be more severe than
the fines now for its use.

(2b) If its not harmful then why
an age limit?

Nowadays drug use is a 3. I would agree with you that
social norm - its a ma- many types of people use
jority phenomenon. Its so marijuana and I'm not say—
widespread - among all ages, ing that drug users are
occupations, etc. deviants or criminals. But

I don't agree that its a
majority phenomena. In
California that had it on
the ballot and it lost by a
sizable majority. There is
nothing wrong with them
morally or psychologically.
But I object to our chem-
ical culture - we're already
too much of a drug oriented
culture. People are taught
that chemicals will make
them feel better. This pro-
motes chemical dependency and
thus has long-term disadvan-
tages because it keeps
people from exploring and
experiencing non-chemical
alternatives. There are so
many natural ways to achieve
highs - and legalizing mari-
juana would only promote

our chemical culture.

 

(3a)

(4a)

(4b)

137

Agree

But still marijuana is a (3a)
cheap and easy means to
get "high" - relax -

feel better and in our
society (with all its
problems) we need "highs"
even if its a chemical
high. And besides the
problem will not be solved
by keeping marijuana
illegal - but Doctors

need to stop prescribing
amphetamines, barbituates,
or tranquilizaers so
readily.

It's a victimless crime. 4.

But the effects of
marijuana are easily
suppressed, at least much
more so than those of
alcohol - driving is much
easier under the influence
of marijuana.

(4a)

Well, I don't drive if
I'm really stoned and it
doesn't impair my driving.

(4b)

Disagree

Certainly the problem won't
be solved by keeping mari-
juana illegal but its a
beginning and we need to
begin somewhere because I
see the most harmful effects
of drugs is the obstacle

it creates for man by limit-
ing man from exploring his
full potentials in a natural
way - there are better ways
than chemicals to feel
better.

It's classified as a psycho—
active drug because it produces
a physiological change in

the body (intoxicating) which
you can't change effects

once it begins.

But still when peOple are
high their behavior is
changed and although it may
not be as severe as alcohol,
their driving skills will be
impaired if really stoned -
which would infringe on the
rights of other people —
you cannot stop the physio—
logical reaction once it

has begun - (also just
smoking infringes on other
peoples rights).

Okay, you may not - but we
know the statistics that
many people drive when they
shouldn't - and that's
another characteristic of
marijuana - people feel

that their performance isn't
impaired when in fact it is
(studies have shown this).

138

Agree

Pot could be an additional
source of revenue - it

could be taxed, like alco-
hol and could create jobs.

Studies from prohibition showed

that less harm was done to
people after it was made
legal. People used it more
moderately and there was a
better quality — also the

fact that it's illegal

makes it more provocative

for kids to use - rebellious —
if you tell kids you shouldn't
do something you're raising
the probability that they'll
do it. People do it.

Disagree

It would be a mistake for the
government to create jobs
that could prove harmful in
the future to people. The
bad outways the good.

Sure, some people will do
whatever they're not supposed
to do, but that's no reason
to condone it - that's just
giving up. At the same time
there is a large proportion
of people who don't use it
precisely because it is
illegal.

139

Religious viewpoints which differ with the findings of science

should be abandoned.

Disagree

I don't think we should abandon
them. People have a right to
decide. It should be left up
to the individual. One of our
countries freedoms is the free-
dom of religion. Anyway, you
can't force a person to abandon
something that he believes in.

Yes, but religious beliefs
function isn't just to explain
the "truth" — often it gives
life more meaning and hope

and makes people feel better
and more secure (life after
death).

Definition of scientific
study is that which has been
recreated and proven.

But we can't create even the
single cell.

These amino acids are synthetic,
they haven't produced life.

Science has only theories, too.
How can we accept these theories
without proof? They're no more
than make believe, until proven,
religion provides a much more
understandable explanation.

 

Agree

Well, I took the question from a
personal point of view. I would
abandon certain religious view-
points if it conflicted with
scientific findings. I agree with
you that it's a person's indivi-
dual right but I also think there
are harmful effects if society
perpetuates a religious belief
that is contradictory to science.
It's misleading the people.

Religion can stifle scientific
knowledge. In history religion
has persecuted science.

I question how helpful religion
is - save sometimes - but it's
also been destructive - look at
Ireland now and also all the
religious wars - maybe science
could be a uniting factor of
different religions. It's

more universal.

Scientific age.

Evolution explains everything
from the single cell to modern
man.

We're working on it. We have
recreated the amino acid.

The only missing links are the
chemicals present during lifes
beginnings.

We must quit passing fantasies
on through our children.

140

Agree

But science hasn't proven that
humans evolved from apes. It's
only speculation. We haven't
observed this evolution in all
of our years of scientific
observation.

Thousands of living creatures,
surely one would have reached
this point of evolution by
now.

Fossils are dated also by man's
imagination. Skulls now
labeled as early man could have
been apes with diseases.

Divine creation, each unique.
No new beings have evolved
or have been created.

Religious beliefs never hurt
anyone.

Disagree

Process which takes hundreds of
years.

Fossils prove man's evolution.

Glorified Godly being is difficult
for modern man to accept.

Abandoned, not in the sense of
stricken - but rather brought to the
attention of the believers and maybe
seen as cluttering up the dogma

and therefore, put aside.

But they are hurting themselves.
Religion can be escapism. Religion
gives simple explanations for
complex phenomena. I think scien-
tific explanations are more difficult
but their explanations are more real.
Modern man needs to begin to under-
stand this complex phenomenon (such
as the evolution of man) and not

rely on simplistic explanations.

Birth control - most religions have
abandoned the sanction against
birth control, which was harmful

to mankind.

Christian Scientists do not believe
in receiving medical treatment.
Certainly this is harmful as they
could die unnecessarily because

of such a belief.

Viet Nam War draft evaders and deserters should be granted full
amnisty and should not have to fulfill the two years of alternative
service required by Ford's clemency policy.

Agree

Viet Nam War was not war
against the U.S.

Full amnesty was granted
after other wars. They
should be forgiven, like we
forgave the South for the
Civil War, which was a worse
offense to this country.

It's only punishment for not
murdering people. I think
they've suffered enough.

They made a great sacrifice
when they left this country —
leaving family and friends.

Changing society. We par—
doned Nixon, therefore, we
should pardon war resistors.

Americans have suffered
enough over another coun-
tries waring problems.

We should have an all volun-
teer army, anyway.

It's against the principle of
freedom - to force someone or

at least insist that a citizen

participate in a war. They
should have made the alterna-
tive services available
during the way and not after.

They shouldn't have to because
they're not guilty of anything.

Well, it's everybody's coun-

try - it should be everybody's

duty.

What about women?

Disagree

Unfair to men who did fight.

Serving in one of the U.S.'s armed
services is one of our responsi-
bilities as one of her citizens.
Therefore, alternative service is
fulfilling a responsibility and not
punishment.

They knew of the consequences prior
to leaving.

Weakness in military support in eyes
of foreign countries.

Full amnesty would set a precedent
for running from problems, you'll
one day be excused.

Reciprocalities of citizenship.
Social Security, freedom of speech
and religion, high standard of
living, etc. in exchange for taxes,
services, etc. (all relationships
are based on this reciprocity).
Often we have to give in when it
isn't necessarily comfortable.

That would be nice, but volunteer
armies don't work in wartime,
only in peacetime.

I think equality is just as impor-
tant a principle, citizens must
equally share the duties, and
responsibility.

Since the resistors left because they
didn't want to kill or participate

in war then why should they mind
giving social service to their
country?

Agree

142

Disagree

It's not because they're guilty but
because to be a citizen of this
country they must fulfill some
responsibility and if a person won't
do that then he doesn't deserve the
benefits of being a citizen of this
country.

The duty for the armed services falls
on those who are physically able,
therefore that does exclude those
who are too young, too old, or not
physically able. Those men who
served in World War II and the
Korean War now expect the younger
generation to follow through with
their duty. I agree it's discrimi—
natory - women should have to - in
other countries they do. I think
that reflects our countries bias
that women are the "weaker" sex -
which I disagree with.

143

All persons who love their fellow man should refuse to engage in
any war in the future.

Agree Disagree
The conviction that your Can't love and do harm at the same
belief is necessary and must time.

be spread or defended to
insure peace and love among

men.
True, we are intelligent e- We have the intelligence to solve
nough to go to the moon but our differences without war.
both historical and contem-
porary accounts of man prove We need to practice non—violence, i.e.
his barbaris attempts at Ghandi preached non-violence and
intellectually solving his had influence on people. We need
belief differences. more people to act as examples to
offer models to our society - we
shouldn't glorify war so much.
The UN seems to be helping other
people to share and become more
familiar with others beliefs.
However, while the UN is War is a bad example. We can and
talking that same group of should stop now and start setting
intelligent people has a peaceful examples.

war force that would fight
against both sides.

On what universal belief If a powerful country is seen as
can we establish peaceful doing all it can to solve a problem
examples? peacefully others may see the value

to mankind.

What would that country's
course of action be if it
found itself being taken
advantage of?

What you're saying sounds
really nice. But it's too
idealistic - man cannot
change his basic nature.
It's just not something
people do because it's the
duty of citizens to go to
war for their country. Man
is an aggressive animal,
that when frustrated soon
resorts to aggression. It's
just the condition of man.

Agree

144

Disagree

Granted, history shows us that war
has always existed. But times have
changed. Never before has mankind
possessed weapons that could destroy
itself. Therefore, there is high
probability that future wars will
eventually lead to the destruction of
man. Therefore, it's become a
necessity for man to find other

means to solve disagreements.

Man will stOp waging war when the
priorities become clearer. If I
value my life and want to stay
alive, I cannot engage in wars,
and particularly when our leaders
realize this, they they will find
other ways to settle disputes.

Relations with our "enemies" have
already progressed - China and
Russia - astronauts are working
together.

11.

145

The nuclear family, as a social unit, is on the way out, and communal
family should and will become prevalent in the future.

Disagree

It may be a good idea but I don't
think people will change to communal
living in the future and will con-
tinue with the traditional nuclear
family unit.

Smaller group facilitates mobility
in a mobile society.

Too much choice - need regularity.
High turnover of individuals
leads to less stable relations.
Children need regularity.

Nuclear family serves the needs
of the child — consistency; It
offers stability for adults in
a fast changing world.

That can be done in day-care
centers, also and doesn't neces—
sarily have to be done in
communes.

Agree

I'm not supporting the dis-
truction of the nuclear family.
But I am advocating more al-
ternatives other than just the
nuclear family. I agree with
you that peOple have a tenden-
cy to stick with the traditional
(or what they've been raised
with) - therefore, people need
to be educated to the advan- 5
tages of communal living. It
may even become a necessity in
the future

 

With better personal life —

maybe more content to be less
mobile - less likely to look
for satisfaction in job area.

Distribution of communes could
incorporate mobility.

Communes leads into the oppor—
tunity by choice alternatives
offered.

High rate of divorce, single
parent families seem to indi—
cate nuclear family is not
stable. The nuclear family
structure does not meet the
needs of these outcasts. The
stability of a child involves
l) someone there, 2) attention
which is more likely in com-
munes - also communes can
probably offer a better quality
of child care. Parenting is
not a natural ability, but
rather a skill and many parents
(maybe even a large percentage)
are not knowledgable in appro—
priate child rearing practices.
Communes can have a few skilled
and well trained caretakers

for the children.

146

Disagree

Can such a "variety" concernably
get along together? It's
difficult enough to establish
workable co-Operative relation-
ship between two people.
Increase in incompatibility.

How do you deal with sexuality,
etc?

Nuclear offers established rules -
something to start on, expecta-
tions mutual; do not see how
commune can become most prevalent.

Can get support outside without
disrupting family. Social
Services focus on community in-
volvement, mental health;
women's groups, etc. offer
support in special areas, home
provides it in general.

Nuclear family offers intimacy
needed by all; commune identi-
fies with group, more difficult
intimacy.

Agree

Yes, but there are more benefits
if in a communal setting. You
don't need to transport the kid.
He stays within his own home
surroundings and it's also like
having a relative take care of
your child because you'd have a
personal relationship with the
caretaker.

Communes offer exposure to a
variety of experiences, incor-
porates more types of peOple
all who need companionship.

That is the point of a commune,
people don't fit society's roles,
offers less role rigidity, more
chance for individuality. Nuclear
family could be incorporated.
Rules made by those involved.

Commune may become a necessity —
breakdown of family proves its
inoperativeness, it was geared
for industrial society, we are
now in a post—industrial society,
and we need more social support
goes back to extended family -
their focus on economic
necessity - Communes is a social
necessity - less isolation.

Groups do not preclude 1-1
relationship. Within every group
there are cliques and within them
l-l relationships. There is

always a partial breakdown into
couples. Nuclear families w/in
communes. Nuclear families today
are very isolated and spouses

become too dependent upon each other
to satisfy emotional needs (one
person can't satisfy all your needs)
and this overdependency 23p build
resentment. This may be one of the
reasons for the high rate of divorce.

Nuclear family is not a god-given
fact, it is a social institutiom &
should be subject to social change.

14.

President Ford was wrong in granting a pardon to Richard Nixon.

Agree

No man is above the way, not even

the president.

Yes, but I think what is really

in the best interest of the
country is to clean up the
office of the presidency.

Ford could have pardoned
Nixon after a trial.

The day Nixon resigned, the
stock market went way up. I
think what stabilized our
economy is faith in our
country's governmental sys-
tem and not faith in a man.
Also, Nixon would not have
been the president while he
was on trial because he
resigned before Ford par—
doned him.

Yes, but if he was an ordi-
nary citizen and robbed a
bank he would go to jail.

We need to find out the
truth - now we'll never know.

Yes, but look at what his
subordinates were doing.
Nixon knew all along. Let's
face it, Nixon is a crook
and had a bunch of crooks
working for him. He selects
his staff and therefore must
be responsible for the type
of men he has on his staff.

Congress was trying the
office of the presidency
more than Nixon. Who had the
power?

Disagree

I'm not looking at this question
as to Nixon's guilt or innocence.
Personally, I feel he's guilty -
but I do think Ford used the pardon
wisely. Presidents have pardoned
other people who are guilty of
crimes. The President has that
power. I think Ford gave Nixon
the pardon, not because he wanted
to spare Nixon anymore grief or
to put him above the law, but for
the best interest of the country.
Congress as well as the media

and the people needed to divert
it's attention back to the

more important matters of the
country, the economy, also to
unite the country - rather than
two factors - for/against Nixon.

Also, Nixon is not an ordinary
citizen and therefore his trial
would have been very time con-
suming and expensive and many
legal debates would have to be
worked out throughout the trial.

Also, our economy is shakey
enough the way it is. I'm sure
our economy would be even more
precarious during a trial of a
president.

Hasn't he already been found guilty?
He has by the majority of the
American people and the media and

it will go down in history. There-
fore a trial seems merely a for-
mality and therefore a waste of

time and money.

Agree

148

Disagree

Yes, but Nixon isn't an ordinary
citizen. He was the president
and he probably had more publicity
and media coverage than any citi—
zen ever before. Also, in our
judicial system the punishment is
geared to fit the crime. Punish-
ments are used primarily as
deterrants, to remove criminals
from the societal role. A crimi-
nal is punished in the hopes that
he won't do it again. Nixon has
been removed from his position in
society. Nixon can never do his
crime again. He will never be in
that position again to hurt the
American public. Also, the fact
that he was forced to resign and
has become a tragic figure if not
a laughing stock to the American
public is a deterrant to any
future president. I can think of
no greater punishment for a
politician. In essence, Nixon
has been given a life sentence to
live in his own personal prison.

Nixon would never have gone to
jail anyway.

I disagree. For one thing, we
have the tapes. Also, the fact
that he is pardoned doesn't pre-
vent him from testifying. It
was only because Nixon was ill
that Judge Cirica excused him
from testifying. Nixon will
probably be called in the appeal
trials of Haldeman. Maybe with
his pardon he will be a more
cooperative witness, since he has
no more to lose.

It was more important to expose
the situation than to prosecute
and punish Nixon. It's been
going on before. I'm just glad
Watergate was exposed.

Agree

149

Disagree

Nixon didn't need to resort to
such tactics to win. Therefore,
I think he's responsible for the
cover-up, but not for the break-
in. Nixon can't be responsible
for everyone who works under him.
The presidency is a very time
consuming job and maybe it is too
much for just one man to do.

The president has more important
thinkgs to devote his time to
rather than policing his staff.

Nixon was upsetting the powers of
the government. He thought he
had the power to withhold tapes
and not to answer subpeonas, for
example.

17.

150

Universities should be exclusively for scholarly study and acquisition

of knowledge, related to becoming an educated, mature adult.

Training

for jobs, such as those in agricultural, business, and engineering
fields should take place in advanced vocational school and not within

Universities.

Agree

As set up, Universities provide a
little knowledge in everything, and
not enough in anything. In other
words, the way the University is set
up, they try to do both and end up
doing a mediocre job in both areas.
Also, with our ever increasing
technology, there is a need for
speicalists. Such trade schools

as Ag. tech offer basic writing
skills, that are pertinent to

job. They make these classes

more relevant to their job and
therefore retain more knowledge
from the class.

Separate facilities would spare
time and money, would focus on
what you really need to know to
get job in this work-ethic cul-
ture. People who are getting
the jobs nowadays are those who
are trained for specific jobs.
It's the people with "general
education"--social sciences--

who are having a terrible time getting

jobs.

Employers also look at "experience"
—-work study, which is not really
provided in Universities.

Most people get jobs in "related"
areas because they are not quali—
fied for what they really want

to do.

Shorter term education as provi-
ded by trade school increases

the supply for high demand occu—
pations. "Specialists" positions
increase job Opportunities.
General practitioners decrease
labor demand as they take over
some specialist functions.

Disagree

Need for well-rounded education.
We need to be more than a specialist.

Too narrow of focus, need such
basic skills as writing and com-
munity skills to get any kind of
job.

Diversification is needed in
jobs--employers want a knowing
person-—combined provides more
opportunity for more diversified
jobs, ability to get into related
fields.

Specialists cannot become
specialists without general know—
ledge first. Doctors need to

know more than their special areas.
In this way, the "general" prac-
titioners do not usurp other

jobs, eventually narrow their field
into specific areas--making room
for others.

Combined facilities offer aware—
ness of alternatives, possibility
for branking off—-more individual
freedom in choosing curriculum.

University now offers such sub-
divisions-—like ag. tech—-and
provides easier access to
"further learning" because of
combined location.

Variety of staff with different
orientations increases the chance
that the needs of the students
will be met. More responsive

to the changes needed than an
isolated school.

151

Agree

As set up, this "choice" is very
obscure. Alternatives often not
known because of vast bureacracy
and because of the very nature of
its variety. Too much choice
results in confusion and no real
basic background in any one field.

Separation does not preclude
choice, nor further general edu—
cation. Enrollment in trade
school does not preclude courses
at University in related areas.
Separation merely strengthens job
opportunity in your area.

If we keep them combined, Univer—
sities will only become larger,
more impersonal and more bureau-
cratic. This will make quality
education more difficult because
large institutions cannot meet

the needs of individual students--
classes are too 1arge--very little
personal contact with professors.

Yes, but we meet people from

different backgrounds at trade schools,
too-—and certainly on your job

training and job you'll come in
contact with people from many
backgrounds and of course different
ages.

In smaller schools you can form
more intimate and close friend-
ships and at large Universities
you may say "hello" to several
hundred people, but most of them
are only casual acquaintances.
Also, at such a large University,
peOple feel insignificant and
insecure and tend to form friend-
ships with people who are very
similar to themr-they feel more
secure.

Disagree

Come in contact with a wide
range of people with different
interests and backgrounds--this
is helpful in getting to know
people who are different from
ourselves.

Most freshman don't know what
their major will be--often
change--need a place to get
started and find yourself.

APPENDIX I

Post—Study Questionnaire

POST STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to measure your perception
of your partner by having you judge him/her against a series of
descriptive scales. Therefore, on a scale of one to seven please
indicate how well you feel each of the following characteristics de-
scribes your partner. In taking this test, please make your judgments
on the basis of your own personal impressions. You are to rate the
person on each of these scales in order.

For example, if you feel that your partner is very sophisticated
you should place an x—mark as follows:

Sophisticated very: X : : : : : : :not at all

 

On the other hand, if you feel that your partner is not at all
sophisticated, you should place your x-mark as follows:

Sophisticated very: : : : : : : X :not at all

 

If you feel that your partner is somewhere "in-between" on
sophistication, you should mark that space on the scale that best
describes how sophisticated you feel he/she is. For example, if you
feel that your partner is neutral on sophistication, equally sophis-
ticated and unsophisticated, or if sophistification is irrelevant,
unrelated to the person, then you should place an x-mark in the middle
space, as shown below:

Sophisticated very: : : : X : : : :not at all

 

Make each scale item a separate and independent judgment. Work at
a fairly fast pace through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over
individual items. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because
we want your true impressions.

IMPORTANT: (1) Place your x—marks in the middle of the spaces, not
on the boundaries:

this not this
X : : : : X

 

(2) Be sure you check every scale - do not omit any.
(3) Never put more than one x—mark on a single space.

 

152

In.

honest

alert
sensible
irresponsible
boring
enthusiastic
cowardly
conceited
considerate
broad—minded
rude

generous
friendly
pessimistic
happy

loyal
self-centered
distrustful
lazy

phony

hostile
obnoxious
understanding
capable
prejudiced
efficient

gloomy

gossipy

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: not

: not

2 not

: not

: not

: not

2 DOC

: not

2 not

2 DOt

2 not

2 not

2 not

: not

2 not

: not

2 not

: not

2 not

2 not

2 1101:

2 not

: not

2 not

: not

: not

: not

2 DOC

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

patient
fault-finding
cooperative
talented
domineering
unappreciative
independent

reliable

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:not

:not

:not

:not

:not

:not

:not

:not

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

at

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

all

155

Answer the following questions by putting an gfmark in the appropriate
scale.

1) How persuasive did you find your partner?

not very persuasive: : : : : : : :very persuasive

 

2) How did you feel about your participation in this kind of task?

dislike it very much, like it very much,
very uncomfortable : : : : : : : :very comfortable

 

3) How much would you enjoy working with your partner in a future
experiment?

very little: : : : : : : :very much

 

4) How much did you like your partner?

very little: : : : : : : :very much

 

5) How much would your partner win personal affection and liking from
others?

very little: : : : : : : :very much

 

6) How would your partner fit in with your circle of close friends?

definitely not definitely
fit in : : : : : : : :fit in

 

 

APPENDIX J

Borgatta's Behavior Scores System

BEHAVIOR SCORES SYSTEM (BSS SYSTEM): A SUMMARY

Objective of system. To provide for scoring of behavior in
correspondence to factorial categories as derived from peer and self
assessment.

Assertive Actions

 

1. Neutral assertions or communications (Continuations, explanations,
etc.).

2. Assertions or dominant acts (Draws attention, asserts, initiates
conversation, etc.).

3. Antagonistic acts (Rejects other, rejects other's position

implying rejection of other, is self assertive or ego defensive,
etc.).

Withdrawal

 

4. Withdrawal acts (Leaves fields, fails to respond when the situation
demands, etc.). Prolonged periods scored every 10 seconds.

Supportive Actions

*5. Supportive acts (Acknowledges, responds, etc.).
6. Assertive supportive acts (Status raising, implies initiative
beyond mere responsiveness, etc.).

(Note: Every act must get a score in the range 1—6)

Group Oriented Surscores

a. Task determining acts (Draws attention to task of group, returns
group to task consideration, moves group on task to further
concern, etc.).

b. Group maintaining acts (Draws group together, raises unity,
breaks deadlocks, etc.).

Above scores are ordered in priority, "a" before "b" when both are
involved equally. No score of "a" or "b" means action is relatively
neutral with regard to change of status (improvement) for either.

Emotional Quality of Action Surscores

c. Hostility displayed.
d. Tension displayed (Nervous, anxious, pressured behavior, etc.).

156

!_l.-‘

.‘s. Q 'l

 

157

Conventional Response Scoring

 

1d. Convention for ...ah... and false starts continued
successfully, or not interpretable as withdrawals.

4c. Convention for withdrawal in obvious hostility.

4d. Convention for withdrawal under tension (contrasted to
incomplete starts 4).

 

*Category 5 was eliminated from the rating scale for the present
research.

.-‘M.

 

APPENDIX K
Table of the Mean Category Usage and Standard
Deviation for the BSS Scoring Categories for the

Subjects' and Confederates' Behavior

TABLE 1

Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviation for
the BSS Scoring Categories for the Subjects' Behavior.
BSS Scoring Categories Ranked by Mean Usage

 

 

Rank Mean
1 1 Neutral Communication 111.08 38.31
2 2 Assertive Acts 78.67 21.01
3 6 Supportive Acts 24.16 13.71
4 3 Antagonistic Acts 23.94 14.14
5 4 Withdrawal Acts 10.75 13.39
6 EB Group Maintaining Acts 4.83 3.96
7 2B Assertive Acts — Group Maintaining 3.15 2.62
8 13 Neutral Communication - Group Maintaining 1.61 2.20
9 ID Tension Displayed 1.56 3.23
10 {A Task Determining Acts 1.56 1.53
11 2A Assertive Acts - Task Determining 1.26 1.42
12 4D Withdrawal Acts - Tension 1.04 3.69
13 EC Hostility Displayed .92 2.44
14 3C Antagonistic Acts - Hostile .37 1.29
15 1D Neutral Communication - Tension .36 .94
16 1C Neutral Communication - Hostile .32 1.03
17 6B Supportive Acts - Group Maintaining .28 .79
18 1A Neutral Communication - Task Determining .24 .58
19 2C Assertive Acts - Hostile .21 .82
20 6D Supportive Acts - Tension .19 .85
21 3D Antagonistic Acts - Tension .ll .56
22 2D Assertive Acts - Tension .11 .34
23 4A Withdrawal Acts - Task Determining .08 .35
24 6C Supportive Acts - Hostile .06 .35
25 6A Supportive Acts - Task Determining .04 .24
26 3B Antagonistic Acts - Group Maintaining .02 .20
27 3A Antagonistic Acts - Task Determining .01 .10

 

158

TABLE 2

Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviation for the

 

 

_B§§ Scoring Categories for the Confederate's Behavior._§§§
Scoring Categories Ranked by Mean Usage
Rank Mean STD. DEV.
1 1 Neutral Communication 109.08 84.42
2 2 Assertive Acts 75.61 19.71
3 3 Antagonistic Acts 20.24 11.60
4 6 Supportive Acts 12.97 7.35
5 {B Group Maintaining Acts 4.27 4.31
6 2B Assertive Acts — Group Maintaining 2.71 2.56
7 4 Withdrawal Acts 1.85 2.70
8 13 Neutral Communication - Group Maintaining 1.52 2.75
9 {A Task Determining Acts .52 1.19
10 EC Hostility Displayed .44 1.14
11 2A Assertive Acts - Task Determining .40 1.10
12 {D Tension Displayed .23 .67
13 1D Neutral Communication - Tension .18 .63
14 1C Neutral Communication - Hostile .16 .54
15 6B Supportive Acts - Group Maintaining .16 .46
16 3C Antagonistic Acts - Hostile .16 .49
17 1A Neutral Communication - Task Determining .12 .39
18 2C Assertive Acts - Hostile .12 .50
19 3B Antagonistic Acts - Group Maintaining .03 .18
20 2D Assertive Acts - Tension .02 .15
21 3A Antagonistic Acts - Task Determining .02 .21
22 6D Supportive Acts - Tension .02 .15
23 3D Antagonistic Acts - Tension .02 .15

 

159