Part 6
Partridge, in his "Outline of Individual Study," gives an account of methods whereby the teacher may a.s.sist the young child in discovering his or her particular physical and mental const.i.tution. The book contains a brief outline for such study and enumerates many pages of words descriptive of human nature. The main aspects of the mental life of children are taken up in successive chapters and discussed in a general way, with suggestions in the way of tests, problems, questions, points of observation, etc.
The "Family History Book" (Bulletin No. 7) of the Eugenics Record Office contains a scheme, arranged by Drs. Hoch and Amsden, for the examination of the personality of persons suspected of mental abnormality. This scheme is further elaborated by Wells in an outline to be referred to at a later point in this chapter. In the "Trait Book" (Bulletin No. 6) of this same office there is to be found a long list of traits descriptive of human beings, including physical and physiological as well as nervous and mental characteristics. These traits are cla.s.sified for convenient reference and record according to a decimal key. The pamphlet also contains cla.s.sified lists of diseases, crimes, and occupations. Various other bulletins issued by the Eugenics Record Office will also be found both interesting and suggestive to those interested in the study of self-a.n.a.lysis, heredity and individual differences. They contain nothing, however, of immediate vocational applicability.
Dr. F. L. Wells has made a comparative study and synthesis of the schemes proposed by Cattell, Hoch and Amsden, Heymans and Wiersma, and Davenport, supplementing these at certain points and suggesting a method of giving more or less quant.i.tative form to the characterizations. It is obvious that an outline of this sort can be used in expressing the personality of another individual as well as for the purposes of self-a.n.a.lysis. Such an outline is of value not only for general knowledge or for vocational study but also in the examination into questions of mental health, pathological tendencies and trends, predispositions leading to or favoring mental instability, etc. Wells describes fourteen phases or aspects of human personality, and under each phase presents guiding questions, suggestive clues, and sub-features. Especially convenient and helpful is the method of giving an approximate quant.i.tative statement which facilitates comparison and summation. Suitable marks a.s.signed to the several different characteristics under each of the fourteen main headings (there are in all about ninety-five subtraits) serve to indicate marked, distinct or doubtful presence, or marked, distinct or doubtful deficiency or aversion.
The main headings given by Wells are as follows:
1. Intellectual Processes (5 subtopics) 2. Output of Energy (4 subtopics) 3. Self a.s.sertion (7 subtopics) 4. Adaptability (5 subtopics) 5. General Habits of Work (5 subtopics) 6. Moral Sphere (6 subtopics) 7. Recreative Activities (16 subtopics) 8. General Cast of Mood (3 subtopics) 9. Att.i.tude Toward Self (4 subtopics) 10. Att.i.tude Toward Others (7 subtopics) 11. Reactions to Att.i.tude Toward Self and Others (12 subtopics) 12. Position Towards Reality (5 subtopics) 13. s.e.xual Sphere (9 subtopics) 14. Balancing Factors (6 subtopics)
The complete outline, accompanied by much suggestive discussion and comment on the const.i.tution, development and types of human personality, is published in the issue of the _Psychological Review_ for July, 1914. It should be carefully read by all interested in this type of individual a.n.a.lysis.
One of the most carefully planned, easily available and concretely serviceable outlines for self-a.n.a.lysis is that recently formulated and published by Yerkes and LaRue under the t.i.tle "Outline of a Study of the Self" (Harvard University Press, 1914). The authors of this outline have found that a study of ancestry, development and present const.i.tution is an extremely profitable task. They present this guide as an aid to such systematic and thorough study. The purpose of such study is threefold: (1) to help the individual understand himself or herself; (2) to help the individual understand and sympathize with others; (3) to arouse interest in the study of heredity, environmental influences, eugenics and euthenics.
The "Outline" is put together on the looseleaf system, with blank pages for records and replies. Under the heading "Ancestral History of the Self" are given the "Record of Family Traits" of the Eugenics Record Office, and many supplementary questions concerning physical, mental, moral and social traits of near relatives, with suggestions as to their cla.s.sification and evaluation. Under "Development or Growth of the Self" and "The Self of Today" the prenatal, infantile, childhood and adolescent periods and the present time are each provided with questions concerning characteristics, influences, growth, temperament, inclinations, habits, capacities and social relations. Under "The Significance of the Characteristics of the Self" are given questions concerning vocational demands, equipment, and ambitions; marital propensities and fitness; responsibilities and preparation for parenthood; and the "Index to the Germ Plasm" of the Eugenics Record Office is considered. A final section invites reflection on "The Duties of the Self as a Member of Social Groups" in the light of physical and mental const.i.tution, moral and religious tendencies, vocational abilities, and marital and parental relations and duties.
Such attempts to present suggestive outlines for self-a.n.a.lysis or for the inventory of the traits of others are both commendable and timely. That they are but beginnings in the right direction their authors commonly recognize. Their supporting idea is not that employers, teachers or physicians should take the individual's replies to these questions as embodying information which the individual did not previously know about himself. The individual, in attempting to express and a.n.a.lyze his inclinations and reactions, may find them clarified and ordered in the process. He is likely to discover at a very early point in his record how little he is really able to say about himself with a.s.surance. If this should induce a humility which would lead him to more careful self-scrutiny, such value as this subjective stock-taking may have will surely tend to be enhanced.
THE JUDGMENT OF a.s.sOCIATES
No less important than the correct evaluation of the individual's self-a.n.a.lysis is the problem of evaluating the judgments which his acquaintances pa.s.s on his mental const.i.tution and qualifications. Not only does the youth often determine his choice of a vocation by relying on the advice of his a.s.sociates, teachers, and friends, but his success in securing an opportunity to undertake any kind of work whatsoever often depends on the oral or written estimate of some other person of whom inquiry is made. Selection on the basis of the testimonial and the recommendation has come to be a traditional vocational step.
"The problem of judgment of character is one which is continually confronting people of all cla.s.ses and stations. In many instances the correct estimate of a person's character is of vital importance. The success of officers of administration from the President of the United States to the school superintendent of a small village depends often on their ability to choose for their subordinates persons of the proper character. In everyday life one's happy choice of friends, one's ability to sell goods, to persuade people to accept a new point of view or doctrine, to get on harmoniously with people in general in all the various occupations of life, depend upon one's ability to estimate the powers, capacities, and characteristics of people. To those who have to make personal recommendations or to make use of those made by others, this question of judgment of character is a grave one. Is it possible for one to judge at all fairly the character of another?"[8]
We are concerned here not with inference from physiognomic features and anthropometric measurements, but with impressions based on the observed conduct, expression and achievement of the individual who is in question, his or her characteristic behavior, att.i.tudes, activities, reactions, and accomplishments. When the individual being judged is a total stranger and the judgment is immediate, estimates of character are of course merely of the type discussed in preceding sections on phrenology and physiognomy.
Professor Cattell once requested twelve acquaintances of five scientific men to grade these five men in the various traits of character to which we have referred on page 127. The grades a.s.signed were to represent the position of the individual in his group. Thus a grade of twenty-five per cent would mean that the individual belonged in the lowest one-quarter of the total group of scientific men in the country, in the trait so marked, three-fourths of the group being superior to him in this trait. A grade of one hundred per cent would mean that the individual so graded would belong among the highest one per cent of all the scientific men in the country, in the trait so marked. When these records were compiled it was seen that in the case of certain traits, such as energy, perseverance, efficiency, the twelve judges differed much less among themselves than when judging other traits, such as cheerfulness, kindliness, unselfishness. It is interesting to note that the traits on which the judges agreed closely represent the individual's reactions to objective things, whereas the traits on which they disagreed most represent the individual's reactions toward other people.
There are, of course, several reasons for this result. In the first place the reactions of an individual to objects, as displayed in his daily work, are matters of common knowledge and are likely to leave objective and even measurable evidence such as wealth, books, buildings, etc. Reactions to other individuals are more likely to vary with the occasion and with the companion, and are also likely to be deliberately controlled, inhibited or a.s.sumed, in the interest of more objective and remote ends. This would mean that whereas in the first case all the judges were dealing with much the same material, in the form of actual products of the traits in question, in the second case they were more or less likely to have in mind rather different reactions or occasions of a more strictly personal character.
The problem of the validity of judgments of the various traits was considered in a more detailed way by Norsworthy, from whose account of her inquiry we have already quoted. She chose the traits enumerated by Cattell, and performed several experiments to determine the reliability of judgments of this sort. Thus she had five intimate acquaintances independently grade a sixth person for her possession of these twenty-four traits, on two different occasions several weeks apart.
Two things were clearly shown. In the first place the individual judges, in their second trials, did not diverge far from their first ratings. In the second place the double judgments of the five different judges did not diverge far from each other. These two facts "prove that the ratings do stand for some actual quant.i.tative value and are not subject to mere chance. The validity of the judgments, in the sense of their correspondence with the actual character of X is then only a matter of the impartiality of the group of judges."
Similar results were found in the judgments of nine members of a college society by five of their comrades, and in the judgments of a teacher by two hundred college students. It was apparent also that judges differ from one another in the general accuracy of their gradings. Some of them agree closely with the consensus of opinion, while others depart, in varying degrees, from the average or correct estimate. It was also seen that, in estimating certain individuals, judges with presumably equal acquaintance with those being judged agreed closely with one another. Other persons had produced quite different impressions on the different judges and this was revealed in the greater divergence of the grades a.s.signed to such persons.
As in the case of Cattell's results, figures are presented showing the degree of divergence among the judges in estimating the different traits.
In the table on page 139 these figures are given, as shown in the records of five judges in one of Norsworthy's experiments, and the records of the twelve judges in Cattell's investigation. The average variability or degree of divergence for all the twenty-four traits is taken as the standard and each trait compared with this standard. A variability of one hundred thus indicates the average amount of disagreement. Figures smaller than one hundred indicate that the agreement was closer than average, and figures larger than one hundred indicate that here the judges disagreed by more than the average amount.
Naturally, there is not perfect agreement in these two cases, since the one set of data is from a group of girls judging one another on the basis of their acquaintance as social comrades and fellow students, while the other set is from scientific men judging one another on the basis of less constant a.s.sociation and largely on acquaintance in lecturing, research, teaching and the writing of articles and books. Moreover, results from groups of only five judges in the one case and only twelve in the other are subject to considerable variable error. In spite of these facts, interesting suggestions are afforded by the comparison.
TABLE 1
VARIABILITY IN JUDGING DIFFERENT TRAITS
------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Divergence of Different Judges Trait
-------------------------------------------
Cattell,
Norsworthy,
Average of Both
12 Judges
5 Judges
Experiments ----------------+-----------+------------+------------------ Efficiency
75.0
92.4
83.7 (Close Originality
95.2
77.2
86.2 Agreement) Quickness
90.0
88.0
89.0 Intellect
95.2
92.0
93.6
Perseverance
75.0
101.0
88.1 Judgment
100.0
78.7
89.4 (Fair Will
85.1
98.1
91.8 Agreement) Breadth
100.0
92.4
96.2 Leadership
90.0
102.9
96.5
Clearness
104.9
75.7
90.3 Mental Balance
110.2
81.8
96.0 Intensity
85.1
113.7
99.4 Reasonableness
115.0
86.4
100.7 (Slight Independence
104.9
98.5
101.7 Agreement) Refinement
90.0
116.5
103.5 Physical Health
115.0
92.4
103.7 Emotions
120.0
91.0
105.5 Energy
75.0
109.0
91.0 Courage
100.0
119.5
109.8
Unselfishness
115.0
106.0
110.5 Integrity
104.9
130.1
117.5 (Little Cooperativeness
125.0
113.5
119.3 Agreement) Cheerfulness
130.0
112.0
121.0 Kindliness
120.0
125.7
122.9 ------------------------------------------------------------
It is to be noted that certain traits show small divergence in both cases.
Thus intellect, quickness, originality and efficiency have low measures of variability, both for the sorority members and for the men of science. The average percentages of these four traits are, in the order named, 93.6, 89.0, 86.2, and 83.7. These, it is to be observed, are the traits which are likely to yield objective products. The more personal, social and moral traits, however, such as cooperativeness, unselfishness, kindliness, cheerfulness, and integrity, show large divergence of the individual judgment with both groups. The average measures of variability for these traits, in the order named, are 119.3, 110.5, 122.9, 121.0, and 117.5.
There is another group of traits which, while showing only about average variability with one group, show close agreement in the other: such as will, judgment, perseverance, leadership and breadth. These, it is clear, are more nearly like the objective than they are like the personal traits.
Then there are several traits which, while showing only average variability with one group, show large divergences in the other, such as courage and independence. These would seem to be more nearly like the more strictly personal traits.
Norsworthy points out that the traits about which inquiries are commonly made in recommendation blanks sent out by teachers' agencies, employment bureaus, and employers, tend to be those on which, according to her results, individual opinion is least reliable. Traits such as originality, judgment, clearness and quickness, on which judgments are most unanimous and consistent, are usually omitted from these blanks. This indicates the desirability of a more careful examination into the general validity of this type of judgment.
Here, then, as in all the other topics that we have had occasion to discuss, we find that our present knowledge is far from adequate to meet the demands of practical life. Available results are tentative only, but they are so suggestive as to afford a series of interesting problems for further investigation. The validity of judgments of a.s.sociates varies with the judge, with the trait in question, and with the person who is being estimated. But it does not vary at random; it varies in what seem to be fairly definite, common, and determinable ways. That we do not know more about the precise nature of these variations means merely that few persons have taken the trouble to inquire into the matter.
The use of oral and written recommendations, testimonials, "characters,"
and letters of introduction should be based on a careful study of these materials. Especially should we know more than we now do concerning the reliability of judgment in the case of the different traits, the likelihood that the verdict of a single judge will agree with the consensus of opinion, the relation of these judgments to the individual's self-estimate, and the accordance of both these with the results of objective performance.
In the following chapter some of these questions will be further considered.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] Norsworthy, "The Validity of Judgments of Character," in "Essays in Honor of William James," p. 553.
CHAPTER VII
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SELF-a.n.a.lYSIS, ESTIMATES OF a.s.sOCIATES AND THE RESULTS OF TESTS
As we have already remarked, it would be of scientific interest and of practical value in vocational psychology if we knew something more or less precise concerning the reliability of the individual's self-a.n.a.lysis. It would be of equal interest and value to know in what ways the results of such introspection compare with the judgments of friends and the results of actual measurement. By way of initiating investigations of these and related questions the following experiments have been carried out. The results to be reported are so suggestive as to make very desirable a continuation and extension of researches of this kind.
From a list of about one hundred and fifty students in their third college year each member of the group was asked to indicate by marking, as 3, 2, 1, or 0, the degree of her acquaintance with each of the others. From the total list a group of twenty-five were selected, all of whom were acquainted with one another. At intervals varying from two weeks to a month each individual was given twenty-five slips of paper bearing the names of these acquaintances and including the individual's own name. She was asked to arrange the members of the group in order of merit, on each occasion, according to their degree of possession of some one trait, such as neatness, humor, intelligence, conceit, etc. Thus in the case of neatness, for example, the twenty-five persons were to be placed in a series with the neatest at one end, the most slovenly at the other end, and all the others arranged in their appropriate intermediate positions, as based on the judge's personal opinion of them. The judge was to include her own name in the series, placing herself where she believed herself to belong in relation to her twenty-four acquaintances. The record was then handed in, in an apparently anonymous way, but, unknown to the individuals, accurate record was kept, identifying each arrangement. This was done in order that the judges might be encouraged to the greatest degree of frankness both in judging their acquaintances and in recording their self-estimates. The different arrangements were separated by considerable intervals of time, so that the judgments of the various traits should be influenced as little as possible by the memory of where the different individuals in the list had been placed for other traits on previous occasions.
In addition to this part of the experiment, each person was put through a series of seven psychological tests, all of which had been rather generally found to give results which revealed, to a very high degree of correctness, the general intelligence of people when this was determined in other ways, as by mental age, school grade, academic marks, opinions of teachers, judgments of friends, etc. The particular tests used were the Graded Completion Test, described in a previous section, and six so-called a.s.sociation Tests, recommended by the Committee on Standardization of Tests of the American Psychological a.s.sociation. They are usually known as Directions Test, Opposites Test, Supraordinate Concept Test, Whole-Part Test, Action-Agent Test, and Mixed Relations Test. Copies of the forms used in these tests are given in the Appendix.
All of these tests involve the demand for the quick and accurate perception of and reaction to the relations of things or ideas to each other.
Everything indicates that this ability is most important and determining in the composition of that characteristic which we vaguely call "general intelligence," especially if we are dealing with people with school experience.
Furthermore, the academic marks of scholarship a.s.signed to these twenty-five students by their instructors in different college branches during three terms of college work were secured from the official records.
Judgments of the degree to which the different students had been prominent in extra-academic activities during their college career were made by officers of the college who had known them during this time. Photographs of the twenty-five persons, of the same general style and size, were secured also, as well as characteristic specimens of their handwriting.
This experiment having been completed, a similar investigation was undertaken with twenty-five members of the senior cla.s.s. The same method of procedure was followed as in the first case, the same traits judged, the same tests administered, etc. This second investigation thus affords a check on the results of the first study. When the results from the two investigations are averaged we have figures of considerable reliability, and fairly accurate data on numerous interesting questions.
Probably never before have such diverse ways been employed in attempting to get intensive measurements of the individuality. The material enables us to throw preliminary and suggestive light on many of the questions we have already raised. It should of course be fully recognized that the results of this little investigation cannot be generalized into final conclusions which will be true in other cases, without further verification of them.
The results show only what happened in this case, and only to that degree do they suggest what we may expect to be generally true. Many similar studies must be made, under all sorts of conditions and by a variety of methods, before we shall have the final answers to our questions. But the results are no less valuable because of their lack of finality. Tentative as they may be, they nevertheless show what happened in the only recorded attempt to find answers to the questions we have been considering. If the reader will now turn back to page 124 he will note how numerous, important, and complex these questions are, and how little is at present known about them.
Turning now to our experiment, it will be observed that only in the case of intelligence do we have what purport to be objective measures of a trait, viz., the results of the psychological tests and the academic records. But we have, in the average of the judgments of the twenty-five individuals, in the case of this and also of the various other traits, what const.i.tutes as valid a measurement as it is possible to secure under the circ.u.mstances.
Neatness, conceit, humor, beauty, etc., are not to be conceived as substances of which the different individuals possess different amounts.
These traits are mainly ways of behaving or ways of impressing our neighbors. No better measure of them exists than the actual statement of what this impression is. Just as the value of a commodity depends entirely on what, as a matter of fact, people can be persuaded to pay for it, so the beauty, conceit, neatness, etc., of an individual are mainly const.i.tuted by the kind of impression the individual makes on those about him. At least we may be sure that only to the degree that such traits actually manifest themselves and thus determine the reactions of others toward the individual concerned, only to that degree do the traits have vocational significance.
Lovableness is just the degree to which people actually have affection for us; eminence is just the degree to which the individual becomes approvingly known; and kindliness and benevolence are present to just the degree that people are actually gratified and comforted by our conduct.
Let us turn at once to the actual results of our experiments. It will perhaps be best to ask specific questions about them and in the case of each question present the data and draw such conclusions as the figures warrant. In the figures which follow I have averaged together the results from the two investigations, so that our conclusions or suggestions may have the highest possible validity. In some other connection it would be interesting to compare the two sets of data, and to attempt to explain certain differences which are to be found between them. But in the present instance it is our chief concern to exhibit the method of procedure and to indicate the type of information which may be secured from such investigations. Many more such studies must be made before the results can be said to apply to human nature at large, or before the tendencies discovered can legitimately be expected to be present in the case of any particular individual.
_I. How do the self-estimates of these fifty persons agree with the judgments pa.s.sed on them by their acquaintances?_ The following table gives, in the case of each of the nine traits studied, the average deviation of the self-estimates of the various individuals from the median position a.s.signed them by their twenty-four a.s.sociates, and also the average deviation[9] among these twenty-four a.s.sociates in their judgments of each individual. The figure given is in terms of the number of positions in the total scale of twenty-five possible positions. Thus, in the case of neatness, the figures mean that, whereas each individual, in the long run, displaces herself by 5.8 positions from her true or median position, the twenty-four a.s.sociates deviate on the average by only 4.5 places in their judgments of another person. That is to say, the individual's error in judging herself is somewhat greater than the average error of her friends in their judgments of her. The individual does not judge herself as accurately as she is judged by her friends.
