108 342 THS uamv Immmmnmmmmmmm I r I Egan State 3 1293 10762 6081 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Congruities and Differences of Self- and Peer—Based Ratings of Interpersonal Behavior in Small Groups presented by Nayda M. Flores has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Artgegree in Psychology Major professor John R. Hurle , .D. Date embe 6 1986 0-7639 MSU is an Afi'imuuiw Action/Equal Opportunity [urination MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Flace in book drop to “angles remove this checkout from .-,—. your record. FINES H111 be charged if book is returned after the date \ . stamped beloy. t \ 147‘ v9~¢”“‘“”’¥ CONGRUITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF SELF“ AND PEER'BASED RATINGS 0F INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR IN SMALL GROUPS. by Nayda Maria Flores A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1986 42,7- (Mug ABSTRACT CONGRUITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF SELF- AND PEER-BASED RATINGS OF INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR IN SMALL GROUPS. by Nayda Maria Flores This work explored congruities and differences between how self and peers rated the self-accepting and other-accepting conduct of participants (100 men & 100 women) in 30 small interpersonally-oriented and mixed-sex groups after interaction for both 25 and H5 hours. Individuals' mean ratings from peers *were twice as stable (mean 5 - .68) over the intervening month as self-ratings (mean F. - .148). These measures' intersource correlation mean of .55 rose to .95 when corrected for their stability limitations. Self and peers generally rated women higher than men, especially for other-acceptance. For self- acceptance men's self-reports sharply overreached their ratings from peers. Differences between self- and peer-based self- acceptance ratings correlated equally with each component, but self-ratings correlated much more strongly than peers' ratings with differences on other-acceptance. Both the relevant research literature and the implications of these findings were discussed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most grateful to Dr. John R. Hurley for his consistent encouragement and wise advise. I apprecite Dr. Norman Abeles' and Dr. Dozier Thornton's thoughtful suggestions and kidness. Also I would like to thank my friend Carlos R. Sanchez-Castro for his faith in my capacity and his always present support. A Special thank-you for my husband Carlos w. Salgado, who offered encouragement when most needed, provided unthied assistance, and was always patient and understanding chncing my thesis' crises. 1'1' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE List of Tables........ .............. ... ....... ... iv List of Figures..................................vi Introduction..................................... 1 Statement of Purpose......................... List of Hypotheses.... ...... . ..... ... ..... ... Method............................... ...... ...... PartICIPantSQ00.000000000000000000.00.000.00. mmmzw Instrument................................... Procedure................ ........... . ...... .. 8 Results..........................................12 Intercorrelations among all measures.........12 Hypothesis 1.................................1H Hypothesis 2...... ........................... 1A Hypothesis 3 (a).............................16 Hypothesis 3 (b).............................18 Hypothesis A, (a) and (b)....................19 Hypothesis 5........ ........... . ........ .....20 Hypothesis 6.................................23 Discussion.......................................26 Appendix A.......................................37 Appendix B.......................................39 Appendix c.......................................u2 Appendix D.......................................N3 Appendix E.......................................Uu List or References.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOHS iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Product-Moment Correlations Among All Measures for the Pooled Data of Both Sexes ( N - 200).......13 Table 2. Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations (sd) of Subgroups of Extreme Self-Overraters (EOs), Extreme Self-Underraters (BUS), and Most Accurate Self- Raters (MAS) for ARS and ARO on Each Occasion (N -10) ..... .17 Table 3. Means of Ratings by Group Peers for Extreme Self- Overraters (305) (N - 10), Means of Ratings by Group Peers for the Whole Sample (N = 200), Student t values and Probabilities ......... . ....... 18 Table A. Means of Ratings by Group Peers for Extreme Self- Underraters (EUs) (N = 10), Means of Ratings by Group Peers for the Whole Sample (N = 200), Student t values and Probabilities ..... . ....... ....20 Table 5. Mean Ratings of 100 Men and 100 Women on ARS and ARO by Self (S) and by All Group Peers (G) and Related Sex Differences............................21 Table 6. Mean Ratings of 99 Men and 100 Women on ARS and ARO by Self (S) and by All Group Peers (G) and Related Sex Differences Using Standrdized Data.....2u Table 7. Product-Moment Correlations Among All Variables Separately for Men (above diagonal) and for Women (below diagonal); N's - 100..................25 iv Table 8. Table D1. Table E1. Ranges of Ratings by Scale and Source for Extreme Self-Overraters' (E03) and Extreme Self- Underraters' (EUs) and Most Accurate Raters (MAs) Ranges of Ratings by Scale and Occasion (all N's - 10)....... ..... .........................35 Ratings of Extreme Self-Overraters' (E03) and Extreme Self-Underraters' (EUs) (each N . 10)......u3 Variance of Ratings for Extreme Self-Underraters (E03) and Extreme Self-Overraters (E03), and Related Differences (N . 10 for both subgroups)....uu LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Self-Ratings and Group Peers' Ratings of Individuals for ARS and ARO on Each Occasion.... ................ ..15 Figure 2. Men's and Women's Means of Self-Ratings (S) and Ratings by Group Peers (G) on ARS and ARO at Each Occasion. (N's a 100) ...... ... ..... ...... ....... ......22 Figure 3. Illustrated Covariance Associations (:2) Among Self-Ratings (S), Mean Ratings by Group Peers (G), and Related Discrepancies (S-G) at Times I and II Separately for ARS and ARO... ....................... ..28 Figure B1. Distribution of Discrepancy Scores for ARS (5:200)OOOOOOCOOOOIOOO ....... ...... ........ 00......39 Figure 82. Distribution of Discrepancy Scores for ARO (£3200) 00000000000 00.00.00... ....... ... 0000000000 0.39 Figure B3. Distribution of ARS Discrepancy Scores for women (E a 100).... oooooooooooooooooooooooo 00'... ooooo 140 Figure BA. Distribution of ARS Discrepancy Scores for Men (Ea100).....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. ..... oooooooooooouo Figure BS. Distribution of ARO Discrepancy Scores for Women (3 a 1oo)......................................u1 Figure B6. Distribution of ARO Discrepancy Scores for Men(!"100)............................. ...... ......u1 Figure C1. Distribution of Total Discrepancy Scores for Whole Sample (N = 200)................ ....... ........u2 vi Figure C2. Distribution of Total Discrepancy Scores for Women (N - 100)................. ..... ................u2 Figure C3. Distribution of Total Discrepancy Scores for Men (fl:100)...OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO 0000000000 OOOOOOOOuz vii INTRODUCTION Humans have a seemingly ubiquitous interest in how others view them. The theorists who deve10ped the concept of the "looking glass self" proposed that individuals see themselves according to how they believe others see them (Shrauger &.Shoeneman, 1979). Individuals gather information on how they are being perceived from others' actions toward them and statements about them. This information is obscured, however, bw'personal security needs (Sullivan, 1953) and other influences that restrict self-perceivers' perspectives on their own actions (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Harris, 1980). Discrepancies between individuals' self-perceptions and others' perceptions of them seem inevitable. As Sullivan (1953) succinctly phrased it: it would in fact be one of the great miracles of all time if our perception of another person were, in any greatly significant number of respects, accurate or exact. (p. 167) _'To date, empirical comparisons of self-descriptions with those provided by‘others have yielded ambiguous results. Shrauger and Shoeneman's (1979) review of the pertinent literature revealed that about half of the available studies found no significant correlations between self-ratings and ratings by others, whereas the other half either reported low significant correlations or mixed patterns. These reviewed studies included some that were methodologically weak, some where the ratings by others were from persons who might not have known the ratee well, and some that were conducted quite some time ago (19u0's and 1950's) with samples that might have changed in the interim period. Perhaps,‘UueFeminist movement may have contributed to a rise in women's self-esteem during the past two decades. More recently, Harris (1980) reported a series of moderate correlations (averaging .52) between self- ratings and ratings by knowledgeable peers of graduate students in clinical psychology and a related professional group. Few works appear to have addressed how such discrepancies relate to other variables. Hurley (1978) suggested that most undergraduates overrate themselves on interpersonal skills as compared with their average rating by knowledgeable peers. The same work revealed several patterns of discrepancies between individual's self-ratings versus their ratings by peers. Some persons rate themselves quite close to how peers rate them. Others' self-ratings are highly discrepant. Several researchers have found that more discrepant self-raters appear less competent in interpersonal skills than do less discrepant self-raters (Donovan & O'Leary, 1976; McGreevy, 1962; O'Leary & Donovan, 197A; Spiegel, 1970). High discrepant self-raters were also found less accurate in describing others than were their low discrepant peers (O'Leary & Donovan, 197A). Discrepancy direction also appears important. Thus, self- ratings may either exceed (self-overraters) or fall short (self- underraters) of the individual's ratings by peers. TWHs obvious distinction seems to have been generally overlooked by prior investigators, for few have considered the direction of such discrepancies or how they may relate to interpersonal competence. Hurley and Rosenthal (1978) found, however, that extreme self- overraters were regarded as low in interpersonal skills by their peers, whereas extreme self-underraters were viewed as unusually competent. Spiegel (1970) also reported that psychiatric patients who overrated their own mental health were "sicker" than those who underrated it. Some works have reported sex differences in the styles of self- ratings and of ratings by others, although these results have been inconsistent. Israel (1958) and Lomont (1966) reported that women tend to underrate themselves. In contrast, Hurley and Rosenthal (1978) found a tendency in women to overrate themselves and to also be rated higher than men by peers. These inconsistencies could be due to the use of different populations, upward recent shifts in women's self-concept, or methodological differences. The main purpose of the present study is to identify the ways in which self-ratings of interpersonal behavior differ from ratings by informed peers. The direction of discrepancies between self- ratings and ratings by peers will also be considered as well as the possibility of sex differences in style of self-ratings and in the ratings received from peers. Wylie (197A) pointed out how the generalizability of most prior studies was impaired by using raters unknown to the ratee, unspecified time spans, solo raters, and methods that only indirectly assessed the target's personality characteristics and required much rater inference. This study's design overcomes many of these methodological problems. Participants will rate others and be rated by these others on behaviors naturally occurring during group sessions rather than upon generalized personality characteristics. They will be fully aware of who their raters are, what behaviors are being rated, and have an explicit base for all comparisons. Thus, the raters in this work fit Thorndike & Hagen's (1977) description of the ideal rater: person who has a great deal of oppormnuty to observe the person being rated in those situations in which he would be likely to show the qualities on which ratings are desired (13. 1175). To minimize biases of individual raters, "others" tuitings of participants will reflect their mean ratings by all group members. Social desirability (Edwards, 1957) is another prominent variable that might contribute to discrepancies between self- perception and others' perception of the individual. However, after an extensive study of social desirability's contribution to measures of personality, Block (1965) concluded that "The social desirability concept presently appears to have little predictive or integrative value in the larger context of personality measurement and personality research" (p. 811). More recently, Funder (1980) found that students' self-ratings on socially desirable traits were generally not more favorable than their ratings by peers. Consequently, social desirability was not incorporated 111 the present work. Several hypotheses (Hs), derived from the studies mentioned above, will be tested: H1: There will be a significant positive correlation between self-ratings and ratings by knowledgeable peers. Self-ratings will be significantly higher than ratings by peers. a) Extreme self-overraters will receive lower ratings from group peers than either accurate self-raters or extreme self-underraters. b) Extreme self-overraters will receive below-average ratings from their group peers. a) Extreme self-underraters will receive higher ratings from group peers than will accurate self-raters. b) Extreme self-underraters will receive above-average ratings from their group peers. The self-ratings of men and women will differ significantly. Group peers will rate women significantly higher than men. METHOD Participants These data were obtained from 100 men and 100 women students enrolled in a nonrequired undergraduate psychology course (Small Experimental Groups for Interpersonal Learnings) at a large midwestern.university. Their ages ranged from 19 to “3 years, with a mean of 22 years. Their academic majors varied, but about half were psychology majors. Instrument Arranged in semantic differential format with ten equally- spaced marks separating their anchors, eight scales (Hides feelings- ~Shows feelings; Warm--Cold; Guarded--Expressive; Helps others-- Harms others; Active--Passive; Harsh--Gentle; Submissive--Dominant; and Accepts others--Rejects others) yielded two composite summary measures. The odd scales in this sequence assessed Acceptance versus Rejection of Self (ARS), whereas the even scales measured Acceptance versus Rejection of Others (ARO). This instrument is shown in Appendix A (p. 36). Many authorities, including Foa (1961), Benjamin (1974), and Wiggins (1979). contend that only two principal dimensions undergird the grand variety of human social behaviors. Thus, Conte and Plutchik (1981) stated "For interpersonal personality data, however, any factors after the first two account for very little of the total variance" (p. 707). Related empirical studies and literature led Hurley (1976a, 1976b, 1980), like Foa (1961) and Adams (19611), to label these dimensions as ARS and ARO. A similarly formated Liked-~Disliked scale preceded these eight to provide an outlet for evaluative judgements considered irrelevant to the other ratings. This scale did not directly contribute to either ARS or ARO scores. To restrain thelprobable influence of response sets, the favorable and unfavorable anchors of these scales were irregularly staggered, as shown above. Each scale was scored from zero (least favorable anchor) to nine (most favorable anchor). Similar ratings by self and peers have shown good predictive validity (Small & Hurley, 1978; Schrauger & Osberg, 1981). The ARS and ARO scales have shown strong convergent and divergent validity with prototypical measures (Wiggins, 1982) of the two central interpersonal dimensions. Thus, Gerstenhaber (19711) found that self-ratings on ARO correlated .55 (g < .001) with LOV, the affiliation index from LaForge and Suczek's (1955) Interpersonal Check List (ICL), but .00 with the ICL's dominance index, DOPL (hi the other hand ARS self-ratings correlated strongly (.70, p < .001) with DOM, but only .18 with LOV. Hurley (1983) compared peer's ratings of 117 members of groups similar to the present sample on ARO and ARS with postgnoup ratings from these same peers on Lorr and McNair's (1965) Interpersonal Behavior Inventory (IBI-u). firm both midgroup and group-end administrations of ARS and ABC, peers' mean ARS correlated positively (.141 and .63) with peers' mean ratings on IBI-ll's five- scale Dominance factor, but inversely (-.39 and -.1111) with IBI-U's four scale Intropunitive factor. Neither of these factors correlated significantly with ARO. As expected, ARO correlated strongly (.71 and .711) with IBI-ll's six-scale Affiliation versus Detachment factor. IBI's interlinked (r = .71) Hostility and Competitiveness scales correlated negatively with ARO on each occasion, while also correlating positively with ARS (three of each set of four correlations were significant at p < .05). Procedure All data were collected during consecutive academic terms from fall of 1980 through the spring of 1982. The course was not offered summer terms. At each term's initial meeting of the full class, students were assigned to small groups largely according to their scheduhecfi'courses. Other assignment priorities included minimizing prior acquaintanceships and balancing the ratio of males and females within each group. The typical group consisted of five or six members and one or two leader-facilitators. In total size (members plus leaders), these groups ranged from five to nine persons. All leaders were former class members who had shown good interpersonal skills during their prior experiences and had also studied small group functioning and leadership for a subsequent term. Their data were excluded because of their special role and also due to their prior experiences with these ratings. Also excluded were those few groups composed of four members, as the peers' mean ratings would have been rather narrowly based in these instances. Each group met for about 51 hours over two nine-week periods. This included two 90 minute weekly sessions plus 12-hour "marathon" meetings near the third and seventh weekends of each term. The full class also met for 50 minutes weekly with the instructor. The students rated all other group members and self on each scale. Instructions requested "your personal impression of each member's actual behavior within the group sessions up to now. These ratings will be more useful if you use the full range of possible ratings of each scale". Also, "these ratings will be fully shared with all group members later." The initial (Time I) administration occured between the first and second postmarathon meetings, typically after about 22 hours of group participation. Approximately one week later each member received a report of all ratings of their group that fully and precisely depicted how each person had rated, and had been rated by, all others (including leaders and self) for review at their next 90 minute session. Because unflattering ratings were not uncommon, these review sessions sometimes included intense and emotional episodes. The group leaders had been instructed in constructive approaches to these review sessions. Roughly three weeks later (Time II), following about another 21-hours of group experience, these ratings were readministered, again between the first and second postmarathon meetings. A few days later these were again fully shared within each group. For each student a self-rating (S), the mean rating of the individual by four to eight group peers (G), and a discrepancy score (8-6) were obtained separately for ARS and ARO for each occasion. A total discrepancy score (TD) was computed by algebraically adding the four component discrepencies: ARS (S-G)I + ARS (8-0)“: + ARO 1O (S-G)I + ARO (S-G)II. The extreme five percent of self-overraters (EOs), the extreme five percent of self-underraters (EUs), and the five percent most accurate raters (MAs) were also compared. Extreme self-overraters included five men and five women whose TDs were the highest positive scores of their sex, EUs included five men and five women with the lowest negative TDs for each sex, and Ms were five men and five women selected randomly from those with TDs ranging from -u to A. Extreme self-overraters, EUs, and MAs subgroups were sex balanced to avoid possible influence of sex differences on results. Pearson correlation coefficients were obtained for the following pairs of variables separately at Time I and at Time II and also between occasions: S and G, S and (8-0), G and (8-6), 8 at Time I (SI) and S at Time II (SII), GI and GII’ (S-G)I and (S-G)II. T-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences between means of these pairs of variables: 8 and G, self-ratings of the extreme five percent of self-overraters (SEO) and self-ratings of the extreme five percent of self-underraters (SEU), SEO and self-ratings of the five percent of most accurate self-raters.(SMA), SEU and SMA, G and peers' ratings of EU (GEU), G and peers' ratings of EO (GEO), G given to women and 0 given to men. .All analyses were made separately for raw data and data standardized within each small group. Standardization was used because the climate of some groups might have led to generally elevated or depressed ratings for those groups that would distort results based wholly upon raw data. In this process, one individual's scores could not be standardized because no other 11 member of his group had been included,so his data were subsequently excluded from standardized analyses, but included in all others. 12 RESULTS Intercorrelations amonj all measures. Similar correlational matrices were determined for raw (N . 200) and standardized (N - 199) data. For the sake of brevity, the presented findings will always refer to raw data except for instances where the standardization procedure yielded divergent findings. In these instances the outcome obtained with each procedure will be discussed. The intra- and inter-occasion correlations of self-ratings, peers' ratings, and discrepancies for the total sample on ARS and ARO are given in Table 1. Most stable between occasions were peers' ARS and ARO mean ratings (G), although this linkage was significantly stronger (z - 3.55, p < .01) for ARS (r = .711) than for ARO (r =- .61). Thus, peer-rated ARS showed greater temporal stability than peer-rated ARO. Self-ratings (S) were moderately stable across time for each scale (ARS: 3 = .119; ARO: E = .118). .Self-ratings were implicitly less stable than peers' ratings due to their more fragile base of merely one person's Opinion versus the four- to seven- person base of peers' ratings. Based upon the differences between measures that were of limited stability, ARS and ARO discrepancy scores (8 - G) were least stable across time (each II” .35,}35 oewuac u m ..o. x: >_a_u_=- m use manual-o a_.-mumu __¢ ”m ..Emms s~__.s-o.s so gamma . _oo. o a . “ma p_m- mus an” n- ~_m afin awn- «om pa_ um_- _- m-m awn DEN- ale no» am“- we. n_~ gm_- ue_ o m um_ now «me man ~_ «mm m m- a- m . __ m._h omc mos- woo gnu «an m- mun awn- u¢_ o-m ans o“- awn m_ awn- ~.~ o . a so. n_- N as“ __- u._ m _ ma_p oxc an.. ace an» «.m- s m-m moo ~¢m- ash mew m n- own «as m ~— m.m~ mac mnq- mew m-m «we a - _ m._~ mac m - m w-m m m m-m a m m-m a m - mm-.MmH--- E a._c ---- ---. _H .._h E talc amc amma u~mmm-m-mq-wwmww-muom we mama uo_oom mg“ col mmwmmmmn -¢ acoe¢ meo_~u~ucccu “cmaoz-uu=u0cm _ “Bach 111 ARO's initial bond between group peers' mean ratings and discrepancy scores (31 - -.l10) faded (_z_ - 3.05, p < .01) with time (EII - -.21). This was unlike the highly stable corresponding linkages of ARS (—.u3 on each occasion). With increased group experience, the interscale (ARS vs. ARO) linkages between self- ratings (_rI - .111, _r_'_ - .38) and also between the mean ratings by II group peers (EI - .211, r - .1111) increased moderately (58 = 3.59, II zca-EL08,§£2 <.o1). H1: There will be a significant positive correlation between self-ratings and rating by knowledgeable peers. The results supported this hypothesis. The bonds between ratings by self (8) and others (C) were moderate for‘each scale (ARS : 5 . .62, I - .60; ABC :21 :- stronger for the assertive ARS attributes than for the more £11 .fl3, 311 - .5“), yet were consistently affiliative ARO characteristics. This difference was statistically significant at Time I (z . 3.70, p < .01) and similar but nonsignificant (z - 1.211, p > .05) at Time II. The linkage of self- ratings to group peers' mean ratings increased significantly (5 =- 2.17, p < .05) across time for ARO, but not for ARS (g = .29). H2: Self-ratings will be significantly higher than ratings by 33333. This hypothesis was supported only for ARS. Figure 1 illustrates the differences between self-ratings and group peers' ratings. For ARS these differences were consistently significant (flSI - 211.68, 8d - 6.51; M = 26.89, sd =- 5.23; M - 22.20, _-SII GI EGII . 2n.98) at B < .001 (tI a 5.37: 311 - 5.18). ARO's 15 28F 27 26 b / 24 23- 22 ‘U G TIME I TIME II TIME I TIME 11 ARS ARO Figure 1. Self-Ratings and Group Peers' Ratings of Individuals for ARS and ARO on Each Occasion. 16 differences were nonsignificant (MS - 26.10, sd = 5.08; I 5311 - 27.115, sd - 5.13; 51-0: - 25.75; 24-611 - 27.117; 131 - .99 p < .2, £11 - -.06 2 < .5), although similarly inclined. Another way to approach the question of how people tend to self-rate was to examine the distributions of discrepancy scores given in Appendix B (p. 38). ARO distribution was narrower than ARS with 811% of discrepancies falling between -10 and +10; and 8% at either side (higher than +10 and lower than -10). ARS distribution had more peaks and included 711% between --10 and +10, with 211% self- overrating and only 3% self-underrating. This pattern held separately for men and women. Total discrepancy scores (TDs --= aggregated discrepancy scores for ARS and ARO on both occasions) followed the ARS distribution pattern mentioned above with only 56% falling between -10 and +10; 3A% self-overrating and 10% self-underrating (see graphs in Appendix C, p. 111). Men's and women's distributions of total discrepancies differed, with women's approaching a bell-shaped distribution, versus a multiply peaked distribution for men. A higher percentage of men self-overrated (112%) than self-underrated (7%). Women also self-overrated (26%) more than self-underrated (13%), but less dramatically so. H3: a) Extreme self-overraters (EOs) will receive lower ratings from group peers than most accurate self-raters (MAs) or extreme self-underraters (EUs) . The data strongly supported this hypothesis. Means and standard deviations for E03, MAs and EDS are listed in Table 2. Although EOs self-ratings were not significantly different from Ms (ARS: t = O, t I = .88; ARO: _t_ =- -1.15. II I 17 Table 2 figgn_fiatinqs and Standagd ngiaticns (sd) of_§g§g[ggg§_g{_§§tgggg Sgiizgisctaters (E051. Extreme Self-Unigccaieca-iii§t-inq-t2§t Accurate Self-Raters (HA5) ior_fi3§_gqq A80 on Each 8ccasign 18-3-191- - .... E9:----- ----Eié----- ---.Efié---- ! 5! E 59 8 2i 5 _ ARSI 26.0 4.5 17.7 6.1 26.0 3.8 ARSII 26.8 5.5 23.2 4.1 28.6 3.5 A80I 28.8 2.7 17.6 5.9 26.7 5.1 ARUII 29.4 3.4 19.0 6.3 27.9 4.5 ARSI 12.4 4.9 22.6 6.2 25.5 4.7 ARSII 18.0 4.0 26.2 4.0 27.9 4.3 A801 21.6 2.4 26.1 4.4 27.2 4.6 ARDII 24.6 3.0 27.6 3.4 28.5 3.6 (S-B) ARSI 13.6 4.3 -4.9 7.2 .5 1.3 ARSII 8.8 3.8 -3.0 4.1 .7 1.3 A910I 7.2 3.3 -8.5 4.4 -.5 1.8 A50II 4.8 3.2 -8.6 4.9 -.6 1.5 Eggg = rating by self. 8 = rating by group peers. 18 £11 a -.84, all p's > .05), group peers' consistently rated EOS significantly beneath MAS (ARS: t, - 6.06, p < .001, t = 5.39, I II ‘2 < .001; ARO:_tI - 3.42, p < .005, £11 - 2.58, P. < .01). Peers also consistly rated EOs lower than 803 (ARS: £1 - 4.07, p < .001,‘£ - 4.65, p < .001; ARO: 3 . 2.83, II I p < .01, £11 - 2.09, p < .05). Even though peers' ratings of £03 registered the largest positive shift from Time I to Time II, EOS remained rated beneath both MAS and EUS at Time II. EOS, on their part, (did not significantly shift their self-ratings from Time I to Time II, signaling possible indifference to, or rejection of, the intervening feedback. TABLE 3 Means of Ratings by Group Peers for Extreme Self- Overraters (EOs) (N . 10), Means of Ratings by Group Peers for the Whole Sample (N a 200), Student t values and Probabilities. EOS Whole Sample ‘2 p ARSI 12.44 (4.90) 22.20 -6.30 .001 ARSII 17.96 (3.98) 24.97 -5.56 .001 AROI 21.55 (2.43) 25.75 -5.47 .001 AROII 24.62 (2.96) 27.47 '3.04 .01 Note: All probabilities are based on one-tailed tests. Standard deviations for EOs' means are shown in parentheses. HQ: b) Extreme self-overraters (EOS) will receive below average J ratings from their group peers. Extreme self-overraters received below average ratings from group peers for both scales (ARS and ARO) 19 on both occasions (see Table 3). Their self-ratings were typically mildly above those of all others for ARS (_t_I = .93, p > .05; £11 - -.05, _p > .05) but well above others for ARO (_tI - 3.11, 2 < .01, 1111 -1.79, p < .053). H“; a) Extreme self-underraters (EUs) will receive higher ratings from group peers than will most accurate self-raters (MAS). Results did not support this hypothesis. Contrary to this hypothesis EUS and MAS did not differ Significantly on these measures and both peers and self consistently rated MAs slightly above EUS. (ARSI: _t; = 1.19 B < .25, ARS _I’; = .91 II: _p < .38, AROI: t - .56 _p < .58, ARO _t .53 p < .60; combined II: p < .03, ARS combined 2 < .095, ARO combined 2 < .35, see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). Hg: b)’ Extreme self-underraters (EUs) will receive abolg average ratings from their group_peers. This hypothesis was not supported by the present results. Extreme self-underraters were consistently rated above their all-peer average, although not significantly so on any Single instance (see Table 4). Significance might have been obtained if EUs scores have not been included in ' computing the mean of the whole sample. Nevertheless, the combined probability of these findings was significant (combined 2 < .014, combined 2 for ARS < .071, combined 3 for ARO < .193). 20 TABLE 4 Means of Ratings by Group Peers for Extreme Self- Underraters (EUS) (N . 10), Means of Ratings by Group Peers for the Whole Sample (N - 200), Student t values and Probabilities. EUs Whole Sample .5 p ARSI 22.58 (6.17) 22.20 .20 .42 ARSII 26.24 (3.97) 24.97 1.01 .17 AROI 26.07 (4.42) 25.75 .23 .42 AROII 27.62 (3.43) 27.47 .14 .46 Note: All probabilities are based on one-tailed tests. Standard deviations for EUS' means are shown in parentheses. 1‘.5i__IP.2-2SEEZEEEEB§§_BE_EEB_EES womerLWIII differ significantly. Results strongly supported H5 for self- and discrepancy ratings on ARSI. Some sex differences were observed in ratings given in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 2. Men's ARS self-ratings at Time I Significantly exceeded women's (3 = 2.18, B < .05) as did their same occasion ARS discrepancies (t - 3.00, ‘p < .005)l At Time II, however, these discrepancies declined Significantly for men (2 - 2°70v.2 < .01), moving closer to women's discrepancies (_t - .56, p > .05). That men showed higher initial discrepancies than women on ARS, but not on ARO, might indicate that scales of ARS were more threatening to men than the scales of ARO. Two of the ARS scales, Active vs. Passive and Dominant vs. Submissive,1fldlize 21 TABLE 5 flgag Ratings of 100 Men agd 100 Hagen on ARS and ARO by Self IS) and by All_§rggp_figgrg_1§l and Related Sex Differences. ARS ARO hen Wonen t p hen Hooen t 9 line I S 25.7 (5.57) 23.7 17.23) 2.18 .03 25.7 (5.47) 26.6 14.63) -1.24 .22 8 22.0 (6.071 22.4 16.89) -.42 .68 25.1 (5.47) 26.4 (3.90) -2.25 .03 5-8 3.7 (5.00) 1.3 (6.11) 3.00 .01 .6 (5.56) .1 (4.44) .60 .55 Tine II S 26.4 (5.26) 27.4 (5.17) -l.46 .15 26.7 15.571 28.2 14.54) -2.20 .03 8 24.3 (4.99) 25.7 15.261 -2.00 .05 26.7 (3.82) 28.2 (3.451 -2.84 .005 9-8 2.1 (4.98) 1.7 (4.271 .56 .58 -.1 14.77) .0 (4.01) -.19 .85 Time (ll-ll S .7 (5.59) 3.8 (6.061 -3.72 .001 1.0 15.77) 1.7 (4.59) -.94 .35 6 2.2 (4.19) 3.3 14.52) -1.73 .09 1.6 (4.001 1.8 (2.95) -.28 .78 5-8 -1.6 (5.77) .4 16.021 -2.40 .02 -.6 (6.13) -.1 14.58) -.72 .47 Note: All probabilities are based on tun-tailed tests. = rating by self. 8 = rating by group peers. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. 36 22 ax- 28- 27- .26- 24- 22-. 21- 20- 19 18b I A I l I l I MEN WOMEN Figure 2. Men's and Women's Means of Self-Ratings (S) and Ratings by Group Peers (G) on ARS and A80 at Each Occasion. (N's = 100). ARC" 23 attributes commonly associated with masculinity. An examinatixni of sex differences on these scales is required. Women's higher AROII self-ratings (t = -2.20, p < .05) were found to be nonsignificant for standardized data (2 a -1.70, ‘p > .05). Table 6 shows statistics obtained for men and women using standard scores. Table 7 Shows all intercorrelations separately for men and women. Merely two of these 66 pairs of correlations differed significantly. Women's Time I ARS and ARO self-ratings correlated (5 . .29, p < .005) more strongly (3 - 1.99, p < .05) than men's (§’- .01). Women also had a positive correlation between ARSI S and AROII G (5 = .16), whereas men's comparable bond was negative (g - -.13). These latter correlations differed significantly (5 - 2.05, p_< .05), although neither was individually significant. Because more than two of these 66 correlations would be expected tc> differ Significantly by chance, these findings offer little evidence of noteworthy sex differences. .Eei Group peers will rate women significantly higher than men. The data strongly supported H6 for ARO Although women received II' significantly higher ratings from group peers than men did on ARSII (E - -2.00, p < .05), A80 (2 = -2.25, p < .05) and ARO I II (_1_: - -2.84, p < .005), standardizing diminished two of these three differences to nonsignificance (ARS - t - -1.14, ARO II' 1‘ Even by standard scores, women were rated above men on ARO 5: -1.56). II (2 = '1.71; E < .05). TABLE 6 Bean Ratings of 99 Hen and 100 Hoaen on_ARS and ARO by Self (S) and by 8L1-§C922-E§§£§-1§L and Related Sex Differences Using Standardized Data. Hen line I S .16 (.791 8 .00 (.88) 8-8 .19 (.88) Time II S 00 861 8 —.07 6) 8-3 .06 1 1 Note: All probabilities are based on two-tailed tests. 8 = rating by self. 6 = rating by group peers. ARO Hen Roaen t p - 03 (.89) .03 1.92) -.54 .59 -.10 1.91) .10 1.89) -1.56 .12 .06 1.93) -.06 1.88) .96 .34 -.11 1.89) 11 91) -1.70 .09 -.11 (.88) 11 92) -1.71 .09 .1), (092) -001 (c 'J 022 083 Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. 225 .mcmmq anaco >a mc_>mc u m .>>mm >3 oewum. u m .mumae um~_m~-ozu no names .mo. v a Hm Samo>._=owm mm cage; mnmcms can c0> meowum_mcccu .o Emma was“ cmmxumg mocmcm>>_a a ._o. >3 >_a_~_=a u coe numuulso “_wawumu -¢ "m a .mumou nm>_ua-ozu co wanna . no. v a “ma ~>~- “me was ”a- «an ace mam- m_ mNN m>~1 o- o-m m“- «mm m>m- was mum mom- was mom a- awn no" a m¢> new c> m_¢ men «_m o“ men n" s- > m “m mae> omq . 1 . 1 . .. 1 .. 1 new a“ nu no» «we a>m «mm N «mm mam moo m m > awn «mm «us- ~>. e_- mmm m> m"- emu n_ m an» now «me moo «mm «mu s- m— mm» m- p.mo~ m ~ me>> mac «mm «mm. u~m o_ m- m_ ems- no» m>m mom- > m1m mom- man a an»- m_ emu- was- mea com- mm> «on m mm ¢> mam a"- m OE- «mm mmn . «mm m>m m __ oa_> mac >> «mm- >. «an own. «on «mm mos- >- m>m1 am. m-m >1 > n- «on- a.“ «on- mma- ~m> new gun. «no a m nm_- S. > m- a" a «mu m>w men awe m _ m-_> mac as m m E a m E a m 3 m m ~> mum> _ asap __ msw> _ me_> ea - we .¢o_u m.z Slflmeoammu xofimnv cmmmm-umw-umm-flwmmoam_u msonm. emz-uo» >_mwmuwmmwuwwwmmwums _>c acoe¢ meowuammccnu “cmeozuuuanocm n u4m¢~ 26 DISCUSSION In the sense that self-ratings on ARS and ARO accounted for about 33 percent of all difference in peers' mean ratings of participants and all four relevant correlations were highly significant (p < .001), it can be stated that participants generally displayed a reasonably sound idea of how others viewed their behavior within these groups. Despite many variables that tend to distort self-perceptions, including ego-defenses, social roles, and actor versus observer perspectives (Sullivan, 1953; Jones and Nisbett, 1971), a moderate positive correlation (median _r: = .57) held between self-ratings and ratings by peers on the ARS and ARO composites. Harris (1980) found comparable relationships in a study using broadly similar procedures. Both sets of finding conflict with Shrauger and Shoeneman's (1979) conclusion in a Psychological Bulletin article, that "there is no consistent agreement between peOple's self-perceptions and how they are actually viewed by others" (p‘. 549). As noted earlier, Shrauger and Shoeneman viewed many of the studies they reviewed as methodologically flawed. Wylie's (1974) suggestions for improving the adequacy of research concerned with the self concept (i.e., use of a group of knowledgeable persons as raters vs. "eXpert" solo-raters, and ratings of behaviors versus more general personality traits) were largely implemented in the present work. These sounder methods may have importantly contributed to this better picture of firmer 27 linkages between self-perception and others' perception of the individual. As clearly illustrated in Figure 3, tmepmttern of relationships among self-ratings, ratings by group peers and discrepancy scores differed for ARS and ARO. For ARS, these intercorrelations were stable and yielded a symmetrical pattern. Group-peers' ratings at Time I and II had the strongest bond, followed by the linkage of group peers' ratings to self-ratings for each occasion, with self and peers' ratings contributing nearly equally to discrepancy scores. In contrast, ARO contrasting strongest bonds were between discrepancy scores and self-ratings for each occasion,1nlwipeers' ratings contribuiting faintly to discrepancies at Time II. Apparently group peers made weaker distinctions among individuals when rating them on ARO than CH1 ARS, as shown by ARC more extreme means and smaller standard deviations (in parentheses) than for ARS [ARO: O - 25.75 (4.19); (3 = 27.47 I II (3.70); ARS: 0 a 24.98, (5.17)]. - 22.20, (6.48); 51 I I Individuals' ratings and from self and peers correlated more strongly for ARS than for ARO, although ARO's augmentmdlume II linkage approached ARS'S correlations. Slough (1986) found that the interpersonal climate of such groups had become more relaxed and accepting at Time II than it was earlier. This shift would have facilitated a less defensive, and perhaps also a less offensive, posture toward fellow participants. ARO self-ratings did not decline, but peers' ratings advanced in this interim. It seems 28 Figure 3. Illustrated Covariance Associations (:2) Among Self-Ratings (S), Mean Ratings by Group Peers (G), and Related Discrepancies (S-G) at Times I and II Separately for ARS and ARO. 29 likely that group members got to better know and understand each other as they interacted in these groups, and perhaps becoming less likely to infer that other members' actions were intended to harm or reject them. Participants generally tended to overrate self on the assertive ARS composite but not on the affiliative ARO composite. Thus, individuals apparently believed themselves to be more open and actively participating than their group peers viewed them. Discussions within these groups sometimes entail painful self- explorations and personal risk taking, which might produce an inflated sense of participation. For example, a group member might find it threatening to express feelings or to confront another member, yet does so with the group's encouragement. In such stressful circumstances, this individual might perceiveluthis contributions to the group interactions as more significant than did other group members. Men seem to have contributed more than women towards the general trend to self-overrate on ARS (see Figures 1 and 2). Although no sex difference occurred in ARO's discrepancy-score, men had higher initial ARS'S discrepancies than women, and perhaps experienced some ARS subscales as more threatening than women did. Using the same measures, Blank (1984) found "strong associations of masculinity with self-acceptance, and femininity with acceptance of others..." (p. abstract). Thus, men might have self-rated higher for ARS than would be justified by their behavior in the groups 30 because to do otherwise might bring their masculinity into question, at least in their own minds. The ARS and ARO composites would not be expected to be threatening to women because culturally women are less sanctioned for behaving in "masculine ways than men for behaving in feminine ways", because "masculine" characteristics are valued as more positive than "feminine" characteristics, and also because women are expected to show their vulnerabilities allowing them to self-rate more honestly than men who are expected to hide their vulnerabilities (Brooks-Gunn & Schempp-Mattews, 1979). Finer analyses of scores on each ARS subscale are needed to clarify this. issue since ARS also contains two subscales that could be perceived to favor "feminine" characteristics: Expressive vs. Guarded and Shows feelings vs. Hides feelings. W0men received higher ARO ratings from group peers than men. II They were also seen as more assertive at Time II and more affiliative at Time I than men. These last two differences were not significant after standardizing scores. Two previous studies found difference; in the way men and women are rated on ARS and A80 (Hurley & Rosenthal, 1978; Long, 1983). Their partially overlapping samples consisted of professionals in the mental health field, limiting generalizations to other populations. Because this is a "male oriented" society, successful women, Long (1983) suggested, are more motivated and have better coping skills than successful men on the average. The present college student sample yielded similar results. Although it could be argued that women who attend college 31 are also more motivated, etc., than men who attend college in general, it.seems more likely that women are more skillful than men on the interpersonal behaviors measured by ARS and ARO. A closer look at the individual subscales and their relationships with culturally established sex-roles would help clarify this issue. Older findings that suggested a broad tendency by WGMHILO underrate self (Israel, 1958; Lomont, 1966) no longer seem to be relevant. Perhaps, women's self-esteem has shifted upward as their position in society has changed. The sheer degree of the discrepancy between ratings oftme individual by self versus pooled peers was insufficient to indicate level of acceptance of self and others, but the direction of this discrepancy, distinguishing between extreme self-overraters and extreme self-underraters, did prove useful. These subgroups appeared to differ on their levels of acceptance. In previous works extreme self-overraters were observed to have more difficulties in interpersonal relationships and to benefit less from psychotherapy than others (Hurley, 1978; Hurley & Rosenthal, 1978; Spiegel, 1970). In the present study, they were rated again below-average and significantly lower than both most accurate raters and extreme self-underraters on each composite scales. Thus, their peers viewed extreme self-overraters as notably less assertive and more rejecting of others than their group peers. 32 Even. after learning that their group peers had rated them substantially below average on ARS and ARO at Time I, extreme self- overraters persisted at Time II as rating themselves near average on these measures, suggesting an indiference or rejection of feedback. There is some evidence that extreme self-overraters are less cognitively complex than extreme self-underraters and relatively accurate self-raters (Dillavou, 1978), thus being less likely to integrate discrepant aSpects of complex issues. The large gap between their Time I self versus peers' ratings were likely threatening to extreme overraters' self-esteem. Perhaps lacking better ways of resolving this conflict in their behavioral repertoire, they chose to ignore the feedback. Extreme self- overraters might have perceived such a situation in simple "all or none" terms- This could explain one extreme self-overrater's attitude in a similar group in which the author participated. He claimed to have rated himself highly because he thought "no one else in the group would", and that he at least, "should be on my side". Other possible influences in their disregard of feedback could be that they doubt other members' honesty when rating, perceive other members as incompetent in making such judgements, or simply might have used different norms for their judgements (Shrauger & Shoeneman, 1979). Additional studies seem necessary to more fully understand the dynamics behind extreme self-overrating. Analyzing their style of rating others would eliminate some of the foregoing alternatives and help direct future research. Also, a questionnaire exploring how extreme self-raters explain discrepancies between 33 their self-ratings and others ratings of them, might shed some light (nithis phenomenon. Such a questionnaire could be administered after the first set of ratings had been discussed between group members. To ascertain their awareness of discrepancies, participants would be asked whether there were any discrepancies, the nature of such discrepancies and how they account for their cnu1 and others' discrepant self-ratings. In this work, group peers rated extreme self-underraters and most accurate raters as equally accepting of self and others. Notably lower self-ratings largely accounted for the extreme underraters' discrepancies, unlike the case of extreme overraters. Signaling their utilization of feedback, extreme underraters increased their ARS self-ratings at Time II to the level of their Time I ARS ratings by peers. Their ARS discrepancy did not disappear, but this was largely because group peers also elevated the ratings of them at Time II. Contrastingly, extreme self- underraters continued to rate themselves below how peers rated them for ARO at Time II despite receiving contrary post-Time I feedback from group peers. It seems unlikely that they were ignoring the feedback, since Dillavou (1978) found them to be cognitively complex, and they had apparently accepted ARS-based feedback. Perhaps, extreme underraters were integrating information not available to others in these persistentdiscrepant ARO's self- ratings. Several dynamics might undergird this phenomenon: unrealistic ideas of how one ought to behave toward others, conflict 34 experienced when overtly behaving kindly toward others while covertly rejecting others, past self-perceptions as harmful to others, or behaving in acceptant ways because of fear of being rejected by their group rather than a deeper sense of acceptance of others. Such considerations seem less likely to influence ARS self- ratings because ARS is concerned with more overt behaviors. Extreme self-underraters' self-ratings and ratings by others on ARO were not as similar as those by extreme self-overraters (see Appendix D, p. 42). Most of ARS and ARO ranges were wider for underraters than for overraters and accurate raters (see Table 8). Variances were significantly different between the extreme groups' ARO self-ratings on both ocassions (AROI: F = 4.65; AROII: F . 3.40, each 2 < .05). and on ARO ratings by others at Time I (E -,.3.31, p < .05) [see Appendix E, p. 43]. Thus, extreme underraters' self-ratings were varied and other group members rated them at different levels of interpersonal skills. A closer study of a larger sample of underraters might reveal different types of underraters. Perhaps, one subgroup of self-underraters would be identified as more interpersonally skillful than average participants, as Hurley and Rosenthal (1978) observed with a sample cfi'mental health professionals. Another subgroup might include persons whose extreme self-underrating signaled interpersonal skills deficiencies. 35 'Table 8 Ranges of Ratings by Scale and Source for Extreme Self-Overraters' (E03) and Extreme Self-Underraters' (EUS) and Most Accurate Raters' (MAS) Ranges of Ratings by Scale and Occasion (all N's - 10). EOS EUs MAS ARSI * S 14.0 22.0, 11.0 G 14.8 17.2* .0 S-G 1 21.8 4.9 ARSII * S 18.0 15.0 0.0* G .0 11.0* 3.8 S-G 1 .5 13.2 4 0 AROI * S 10.0 17.0* 15.0 G 9.1 13.7* 13.2 S-G 11.0 13.0 5.6 AROII * S 11.0 21.0 13.0* G 10.0 8.3* 10.8 S-G 8.9 13.4 5.6 Note: S - self-ratings l G - ratings by group peers. *- identifies largest range. Summary Most of the hypotheses examined were supported by the results. A moderate positive correlation was found between participants' self-ratings and group peers' ratings of participants. A general 36 trend to self-overrate on ARS was observed, with men contributing more to this trend than women. Because approximately 67 percent of differences in peers' mean ratings was not accounted for by self- ratings, it seems that other variables affect the ratings. Sex seemed to influence both self-rating and how peers rated individuals. Men tended to self-rate higher initnflly for acceptance of self than did women, but women tended to receive higher ratings from group peers on both scales than did men. Direction of extreme discrepancy between self-ratings and ratings by group peers was related to flexibility in adjusting self- ratings to group peers' feedback, and to ratings received from peers. Extreme self-underraters appeared to be a diverse group of people with different levels of interpersonal skills. Several suggestions were made to further chnfiiv these findings. A questionnaire exploring participants' explanations for (discrepancies between their self-ratings and peers' ratings of them might identify additional relevant variables. Comparing styles of rating others of extreme versus accurate raters, and men1nwsus women might provide further information on rating style. APP END IC ES 37 APPENDIX A Instrument Used to Measure Acceptance versus and Acceptamce versus Rejections of ' RATINGS or BEHAVIOR IN GROUPS (1179) Rejection of Self Others. 9'. 0'. 0' 9' 0'. C‘ 0' hum 09-0 09-0 050 00-0 09-0 00-0 Fri-150.27 NH Fl’ Uni-8‘ OOH. PI‘ hut-9‘ an PW “let? an. “8' use! an “F her-hr In 0 0 DD 0 00 1 . msrnucrroys: On this minibooklet's 1 1'. 3;; last page note that all group mczbers' 1 names have been listed. Encirclc your I c c c own name. Starting with the following d d d page, encircle the letter between the K e g e extremes of each scale that best repre- sents your,personal impression of each E f f f members' actual behavior within the 8 g 8 group sessions up to now. These ratings D will be most useful if you use the full hhh range of possible ratings for each scale. 1 i 1 Rate all group nembers, including 1 J 1 self and leader(s). These ratings will k k k be fully shared with all group seabers 1 1 1 later. complete all ratings on each‘ page before turning ahead to the next. a . n Unlike'other scales which address behw- n n n tor; the Liked versus Disliked scale 0 o o solicits your personal responses. Hall-assaults sssssssssa I b b b b b b b b b b H b b b b b b b b b b C :D C C C C C C C C C C C) 'c c c c c c c c c c y E: d d d d d‘d d d d d 11 a a a a a d a a d a SGGCBCGGBCGS ..cgggcgggo ft’flff:f!*flff g 11:1 1151;11 f F8888888888F ssssssssssL Ehnhhhbhhhh E unnssnnush i i 111 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :0 E1111111111 E 1111111111 L’ k k k k k k k k k k L k k k k k k k k k k [1111111111] 1111111111 N n u a -.u n n I n.u N 1:1: u I‘D u n u u u G n n n n D n 0 0 n n G n n n n n n n n n n 800000000008 0009000000 E mu xbcm "‘8' C~o*:r. Olin 0‘. 0'. 0'. 0'. 9'. 0'. O‘- 0‘. 0“. U’. o a.n o n.n n GHQ n n.n e o.n e n.n e n.n a n.n e n.n e n.n Hr Lung. fl". PK “page NM H” “”9 can. “” H»: «n' ”"' C~r~gr coon “r “r"? our» "” Hererr corn ”‘3‘ Cet~=r 001‘ “’1' “0*: 00". o a a 0': a Oflfl OBI o a l 09' Can 063 o a I on! 38 CONTINUATION OF APPENDIX A G E N TIL-LL ab cde £8 hi... kl nao ab cde £8 hi... kl nno I‘D Cd 3 Ca 8 his... k... m n O )\l \l)\l \l) )\l\l \l.) \l\l\l ab cde £8 hi... k1 nno yawn“ “up...“ “tau. “numb nun... film“. ab cde £8 hi5 k1 one A . a?! : . H ab cde £8 hi1 kl one a. ab cde £8 hi... kl nno U. .. ab cde £8 hi... kl uno k. “a - ~fi —_ _— .ab cde £8 hi.. kl nno m . ab cde £8 hi... kl unno .«.REJECTS OTHER”). H A R S H Mab cde £8 hi.. kl nno ab cde £8 hi... kl nno PASSIVE ab cde £8 hi... kl nno 8.0 Cd: ‘8 hidJ k1 n.n° .b Cde f8 hid... k1 ano- ab cde £8 hi... kl mno ab cde £8 hi... kl uno. ab cde £8 hi... k1 nuo ab cde £8 hi... k1 nno Cb Cde £8 hiaJ k1 Duo Cb Cde £90 .01.... k1 MOO. lb cde foo hi... k1 nno 3b cde foo hij k1 uno. ab cde £8 hi... kl nno ab cde £8 hi1 kl nno lb Cde foo hi... k1 Inc 8.0 6.0-. .18 hij kl nno lb cde £8 hi.J k1 uno ACCEPTS OTHERS. ab cde £8 hi... kl uno w ab cde £8 hi... kl nno .D 0 fl 1.. u A H T. A C T. .I. V. E ab cde £8 hi... kl mno 8.0 6.4.9 foo hi: k1 no HARNS OTHERS .b cde .18 hi... hi “no ab cde £8 hi... kl .mno ab cde £8 hi... kl nno ab cde £8 hi... kl ano ab cde £8 hi... kl ano lb 6.6.. foo hi... k1 ano .Ib .Cde foo .D.-.... k... nno ab cde £8 hi... kl uno ab cde £58 hi... kl nno ab cde £8 hi1 kl nno ab cde £8 hi... kl nno ab cde £8 hi... kl nno ab cde £8 hi... kl nno ab 3.43 ‘8 bid... .81 ““0 ‘b Cde f8 «"11 k1 DUO ab cde £8 hi... kl ano SUBMISSIV E ab cde £8 hi... kl one _. ab cde £8 hi1 kl nno HELPS OTHERS 39 .Aoom . me .Aoom n we Gad. LO.“ mmLOOm >OCGQOLLPHL he Cowuu.DHL-..u~: .....C. mizmwm mad LO.“ mmLCCm matrimLOmwc ho CCWfEWLfiwE ...m rLZw: on ..u 2 N. . a s- 2- ... 3. cm. .../v1, 1 . q . . . 4 o . .. on Ms a... m. e m N- N”. «.7 ..~. an- o .a .4 1% .m 4 o. . a. Jan ... . ..u POM 4.“ ..u L2.. ..au . on . «n . 3 ..n . .... is . 3 .A.oum.om- o. mm- .mm- on _mnv mscaom socmqmnomaa co «0.19 an essence Ace. . z nomov xom >2 can Aoom . 2v oaaemm macs: on» com mocoom zocmmocomfio om< cam mm< no cofiusoacunfia m XHszmnE M0 .82 u .5 :2... ..8 .83 u 5 case: mocoom >ocmamcomfla mr< ho coflusnflcumflo .zm mcsmwm Lou mmcoom zocmaocomwo mm< no cofiuzoficumfia .mm mczmfim an «N a. N. w o «1 NT 2- ¢Noo an an a. N. 0 o on N7 9. ..N- d J a a q a a a , q > a 0 ..¢ 4 J .m .m .N. .2 .2 ...: .ON .ON A¢N I‘N m xHazmmm< be onHocmaocomfio om< no cofiusoficumwo .om oczmfim Lou mocoom zocmqocomwa om< mo :ofiusnfiuumwo .mm oc:mwm .. .. .. m a .. ...- .-fivm. Lave... N m N- ...- ..- .... _. ... ... .0 .m 5. .~. .2. .2 .3 .3 ...u ...N m xHozmmm< mo ZOHH