Title: Extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-stability in relation to person perception
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097817/00001
 Material Information
Title: Extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-stability in relation to person perception
Physical Description: viii, 189 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Ward, Dorothy Ball, 1928-
Publication Date: 1968
Copyright Date: 1968
Subject: Introversion   ( lcsh )
Extraversion   ( lcsh )
Neuroses   ( lcsh )
Empathy   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 183-187.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097817
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000559026
oclc - 13432904
notis - ACY4472


This item has the following downloads:

extraversionintr00wardrich ( PDF )

Full Text






The authoress wishes to express her appreciation to all those who

supported and assisted her in this study. Dr. Benjamin Barger, Chair-

man of the supervisory comittee, was invaluable for his encouragement

and guidance. His integrity, consistency and trust have been a major

source of inspiration in this endeavor.

Dr. Audrey Schumacher, Dr. Everette E. Hall, Dr. Hugh C. Davis,

Jr., and Dr. George R. Bartlett have been the best of all possible

supervisory committee members. Each one deserves special mention for

some particular suggestion, expression of interest or encouragement.

Dr. Jack M. Wright also served as a committee member until his depart-

ure in 1967 and deserves thanks for his assistance and advice.

Dr. A. E. Brandt, former head of the Statistical Section of the

Agricultural Experiment Station, was a great help with programing

most of the data as well as with some of the other statistical work

necessary. Acknowledgment is made to the University of Florida Com-

puting Center for use of its facilities and to Dr. Wilse B. Webb and

the Department of Psychology for support of the research.

Finally, gratitude is expressed to the many male students who

served as subjects, and to the friends and acquaintances who assisted

in various ways. Special thanks go to the observers in Part III of

the study: Mrs. Claudia Batteiger, Mr. Richard Batteiger, Mr. Larry

Bilker, Mr. Richard Blumberg, Miss Judi Giraulo, Miss Christa Kinzy,

Miss Linda Giraule, Mr. Frank W. Schneider, and Miss Mary Ann Watermolen.



ACKNOWLED3IENTS . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . .

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . .




History of the Concept . . . . . .
The Factor-Analytic Approach: Eysenck and
Cattell . . . . . . . .
Major Issues . . . . ....... .
The Concept of Ego Closeness-Ego Ditance...


The Concept of Empathy . . . . . .


Extraversion, Adjustment and Person Perception
Types of Extraversion . . . . . .
Condition Under Which Judgments Are Made. .
Components of Accuracy . . . . .
The Object Person . . . . . . .
Overt Behavioral Differences in Judges . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .


Part I . . . . . . . . . .
Part II . . . . . . . . .
Part III . . . . . . . . .

VI RESULTS . . . . . . . . . .

The Personality Variables . . . . .
The Dependent Variables . . . . .



S. .ii

. . v

. vii




. . 1

. . 15



. 27
. .29
. .32
. .35
. .36
. .36

. .39

. .49

. .58

. .58
. .62
. .62


VI (Continued)

Homogeneity of Variance. . . . . . .. .63
The Condition Variable . . . . . ... .64
The Judge Variable . . . . . . ... 64
The Object Variable. . . . . . . .. .74
The Judge x Object Interactions. . . . ... 78
Global Judgments. . . . . . . . ... 88
Correlation Studies. . . . . . . ... 89
Results of Part III. . . . . . . .. .93
The Dependent Variables. . . . . . .. .95
Evaluation of the Hypotheses . . . . .. 100


The Conditions Variable. . . . . . ... 107
The Object Variable. . . . . . . ... 109
The Effect of Judges . . . . . . ... 113
The Effect of Neuroticina-Stability. . . .. 116
Discussion of the Hypotheses . . . . .. .118

VIII SUMKARY ................... .... 127

Implications for Future Research . . . ... 131

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 134

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 183

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . .. 188


Table Page

1 Comparison of Personality Variables of Judges
Between Conditions Part II. . . . . . . .60

2 Comparison of Personality Variables Between
Judges Part II. . . . . . . . . . .61

3 Means and Significant F Values Main Effect
of Judges Part II. . . . . . . . . 65

4 Means and Significant F Values Main Effect
of Objects Part II. . . . . . . . ..66

5 Means and Significant F Values Judge X Object
Interaction Part II. . . . . . . . ... 67

6 Significant Contrasts, Main Effects and Interactions
Part II. . . . . . . . .... ..... 68

7 Means and Significant F Values Main Effects -
Conditions Combined Part II. . . . . . ... 70

8 Means and Significant F Values Interactions -
Conditions Combined Part II . . . . ... .71

9 Judgments of Extraversion According to Judge Type . .88

10 Global Judgments of the Object Persons. . . . .89

11 Intercorrelations of Judges' Personality Variables. .90

12 Simple Correlations Between Personality Variables
and Dependent Variables. . . . . . . ... 92

13 Interrater Reliability in Part III . . . ... 94

14 Academic Factors Good and Poor Judges Part III . 94

15 Dependent Variables Means and Significant F Values
of Main Effects Part III . . . . . . . 97

16 Dependent Variables Significant Interactions -
Part III . . . . . . . . ... ..... 98


17 Number of Congruent Ranks for Judges Between
Pairs of Means Total Similarity, Real Similarity
and Total Stereotype Judge x Object Interaction. .





Figure Page

1 Judge x Object Interactions for Inaccuracy-
Dissimilarity . . . . . . . .... 80

2 Judge x Object Interactions for Inaccuracy-
Similarity ................... 81

3 Judge x Object Interactions for Accuracy-
Similarity . . . . . ........ 83

4 Judge x Object Interactions for Accuracy-
Dissimilarity . . . . . . ..... 84

5 Judge x Object Interactions for Total
Assumed Similarity . . . . . .... 86

6 Judge x Object Interactions for Real Similarity. .. 87


E-I: Extraversicn-Introversion

N-S: Neuroticisa-Stability

Es: Extraverts

Is: Introverts

Ns: Neurotics

Ss: Stables

NE: Neurotic Extraverts

SE: Stable E:traverts

NI: Neurotic Introverts

SI: Stable Introverts

OP: Object Persons

1-0: Introvert Object Person

E-O: Extravert Object Person

A-O: Ambivert Object Person




E:traversion-introversion has been one of the most widely re-

searched personality-trait dimensions in psychology. Hence, it is some-

what surprising that there appears to have been no major attempt to ex-

plore possible differences in person perception between groups chosen on

the basis of the extraversion-introversion dichotomy. That such differ-

ences may exist is suggested by certain primary characteristics by which

such groups are defined: the emphasis on sociability and attention to

the external environment in the extravert, and the comparative social

withdrawal and preference for the inner world which typify the intro-

vert. Differences in degree of attentiveness to others--as a major as-

pect of the external environment--should be reflected in differences in

ability to assess probabilities about hoe others will behave. In other

words, it seems to make psychological sense that one's success, or accu-

racy, in person perception will be related to the extent to which one's

attention and perceptual preferences are oriented toward social interaction.

Several studies of personality characteristics of accurate judges

indicate that the extraversion-introversion dimension is highly relevant.

For example, Hawkes & Egbert (1954) found that students with high empathy

(one of the processes believed to operate in person perception) tended

to have highest values in areas where group interaction and social inter-

course are major factors. Assuming that values are related to action



tendencies, those who value social intercourse should seek more oppor-

tunities for contacts with people, and are likely to experience relation-

ships with a wider variety of people than those to whom interaction with

others has less value. Halpern felt that the wider an individual's

phenomenological experience, "the more people he will be able to encom-

pass in his empathic scope" (1955, p. 452).

Further evidence comes from Chance & Meaders, whose more accurate

judges appear to have been well-adjusted extraverts:

. .the more accurate judge in this situation as contrasted
with the less accurate judge is inclined to see himself as a
person who is active and outgoing in social relationships, who
likes other people but is not markedly dependent upon them,
who is ascendant but not hostile and competitive, and who is
not given to intellectual reflections about his interpersonal
relationships. The picture is one of an individual who finds
significant satisfactions in social activities and carries on
his daily life with a minimum of interpersonal or intrapersonal
conflict (1960, p. 204).

In a summary of characteristics which have been found to differ-

entiate between interpersonally sensitive and insensitive individuals,

Allport included social skill and adjustment:

Most studies show that good judges are socially skillful
and emotionally stable. On the whole they are free from neurotic
disorders. They are rated high in leadership and in popularity.
They are outgoing and like to influence, supervise, or take care
of others (1961, p. 509).

Somewhat dissenting evidence is available in regard to sociability

as a favorable condition for accurate person perception. Vernon (1933)

distinguished three ranges of skill in judgments: some people under-

stand themselves well; some are good at understanding their friends;

while others excel in judging strangers. He characterized the good


judge of self as having high intelligence and humor. Good judges of

friends were said to be less socially inclined and less intelligent

than good judges of self, but more artistic. The better judges of

strangers were high in intelligence and in artistic gifts, but tended

to be unsocial in many respects.

It should be noted that Vernon's judges were not in the presence

of those they were judging. Apparently few studies have been made of

the effects of presence versus absence of the person-to-be-judged at

the time of judgment. It is suggested that introverts and extraverts

may differ in accuracy,depending upon the extent to which behavioral

cues from the object person are available while judgments are being

made. For instance, it might be argued that the extravert is not as

fearful of others as is the introvert; therefore, when in the immediate

presence of others, the extravert should be less defensive and hence

more flexible in his orienting responses to the other person in the

situation. The introvert, it is believed, might fail to observe some

behavioral cues from the other person because of his tendency to con-

centrate on his own inner environment and because of his hypothetical

defensiveness when confronted with social stimuli. Compared to a sit-

uation where the person being judged is present, the situation where the

person is no longer present may be more conducive to accuracy for the

introvert. On the other hand, the extravert, who presumably is more

tied to ongoing stimuli, might be more accurate when the stimulus

person is present. Further, it can be conjectured that extraverts and

introverts might assume similarity to different degrees under different

conditions of observation of a stimulus person. Finally, how does


adjustment interact with extraversion-introversion in person perception,

and to what extent are the subtypes of extraversion--thinking, social and

eaotional--related to accuracy of person perception?

Before reviewing some relevant literature which seems pertinent to

the questions raised above, and the formulation of hypotheses, a brief

review of the concept of extraversion-introversion will be presented.



History of the Concept

Extraversion-introversion (E-I) was established as a personality dimen-

sion by Jung. In 1921 he wrote of the e:traverted type:

When orientation on the subject and the objectively given
predominates in such a way that the most frequent and important
decisions and acts are determined not by subjective views, but
by objective circumstances, one speaks of an extraverted attitude.
If this is habitual, one speaks of an c::traverted type. .(p. 478).

He described the introverted type as:

. .distinguished from the extraverted by the fact that it
does not, like the latter, orientate itself predominantly
on the object and on the objectively given, but on subjective
factors. . .Whereas the extraverted type usually takes its
stand in the main upon what accrues to it from the object,
the introvert relies mainly upon what the external impression
constellates in the subject.

It is important to note that Jung did not consider extraversion

and introversion as mutually exclusive; instead, they were considered

to be complementary attitudes in continual interplay. "When the attitude

of the conscious is extraverted, then the attitude of the unconscious is

complementarily introverted."

Jung's concept found quick acceptance in psychological circles.

As early as 1924, in his social psychology text, F. Allport referred

to extraversion as the more norml condition and as less clearly de-

finable than introversion. He considered introversion as a more path-

ological condition.


The extravert simply lacks the symptoms of repression,
conflict, oversensitivity, unreality and protracted daydream-
ing. He is easier to make contacts with because he does not set
up defensory attitudes nor respond with some unintelligible
inhibition or burst of emotion. His poise is not disturbed by
exaggerated self-feeling. Life for him is probably less rich
in emotional and imaginal experience than for the introvert;
but he is likely to be better adjusted to the actual world and
the people in it (p. 117).

The first instrument devised to measure this dimension was the

Freyd-Heidbreder test (1926); concomitant with a steady stream of

research devoted to ascertaining behavioral differences between extra-

verts and introverts was the development of improved tests. But grad-

ually it became apparent that an individual may be introverted in one

respect and extraverted in another. In recognition of this fact, Guil-

ford attempted to refine the concept by the use of factor analysis. In

his scale of 175 items he found five factors or kinds of introversion-

extraversion (Allport, 1961):

S: social introversion (shyness and tendencies to withdraw from

social contacts);

T: thinking introversion (an inclination to meditative thinking,

philosophizing and analyzing one's self and others--said to be a malad-

justment factor by Carrigan, 1960);

D: depression, with feelings of unworthiness and guilt;

C: cycloid tendencies (strong emotional reactions, fluctuations

in mood and tendency toward flightiness or instability);

R: rhathymia (happy-go-lucky or carefree disposition; liveliness

and impulsiveness).

Other scales which attempt to refine the construct include the

Minnesota T-S-E (thinking, social and emotional introversion-extraversion,


Evans & McConnell, 1941), and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (1961),

which restores Jung's original suggestion that the types be subdivided

according to the prominence of thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition

in the life.

7he Factor-Analytic Approach: Eysenck and Cattell

During the 1940s and early 1950s there was a diminution of interest

in extraversion-introversion. Then Eysenck announced his two-factor

theory, which he believes accounts for most of the variance in personal-

ity; one dimension is Extraversion-Introversion (E-I), and the other is

Neuroticism-Stability (N-S). Eysenck's work brought a revival of research

interest, much of it based on use of the Maudsley Personality Inventory

(Eysenck, 1959), and more recently the Eysenck Personality Inventory

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963) to differentiate groups. At approximately

the same time Cattell discovered second-order E-I factors in rating and

questionnaire data; he had originally believed that E-I was simply a

broad cluster of related trait elements. In 1957 he suggested:

It is perhaps worthwhile to make a determined attempt to
rescue the label "extravert-vs-introvert" from the scientific
disrepute and uselessness into which it has fallen through
popular adoption (p. 267).

Cattell states that his second-order factor agrees with the Jungian

concept. Introversion can be described broadly, according to Cattell, as:

. .a lack of self-confidence in regard to overt reaction and
an inattention to outer requirements, together with greater
memory for one's subjective views than for outer presentatiors.(p. 268).

Extraversion consists of:

.. .higher fluency, self-confidence, ego strength, attention to
outer detail on the C. M. S. test, loi reproduction accuracy and
less recall of consonant opinions.(p. 268).

Cattell feels that environmental factors account for more of the

variance of the various primaries than are apparently ascribable to

heredity: ". .curgency-desurgency is almost wholly environmentally

determined, but plays a major role in the extraversion factor"(1957,

p. 268).

Eysenck, on the other hand, has argued in favor of constitutional

differences in the formation of excitatory and inhibitory potentials as

the underlying cause of introverted and extraverted behavior patterns,

and of constitutional differences in autonomic liability as the underlying

cause of neurotic and stable behavior, the other factor dimension in his

personality theory.

Eysenck & Eysenck argued that, given a constitutional basis for

both factors, "it would seem to follow that E and N have a different

conceptual status in psychology from that achieved by the shifting and

purely descriptive 'traits' identified by factor analysis" (1963, p. 57).

The rationale of Eysenck's theory of E-I has been stated an follows

(Eysenck, 1955).

Whenever a stimulus in a response connection is made in the central

nervous system, both excitatory and inhibitory potentials are created.

The algebraic sum of these potentials determines the amount of learning

that takes place, and through it the particular reaction the organism

makes whenever the stimulus in question is presented again. Further,

inhibitory potentials dissipate in time more quickly than excitatory ones.

Individuals in whom reactive inhibition is generated
quickly, in whom strong reactive inhibitions are generated,
and in whom reactive inhibition is dissipated slowly are thereby
predisposed to develop extraverted patterns of behavior and to
develop hystarico-psychopathic disorders in cases of neurotic
breakdown; conversely, individuals in whom reactive inhibition
has developed slowly, in whom weak reactive inhibitions are gener-
ated, and in whom reactive inhibition is dissipated quickly, are

thereby predisposed to develop introverted patterns of behavior
and to develop dysthymic disorders in cases of neurotic break-
down (1955, p. 35).

Eysenck's suggestion that hysteria is the typical psychoneurosis

of the extravert is congruent with Jung's original belief, as is his

concept of dysthymia, which parallels Jung's conception of the typical

psychoneurotic introvert as anxious or obsessive.

In keeping with his theory that extraverts condition less readily

than introverts and that such responses extinguish more quickly than in

the introvert, Eysenck has hypothesized that extraverts are undersocial-

ized while introverts are oversocialized. From this hypothesis he de-

duced the failure of extraverts to develop a vocabulary equivalent to

their abstract intelligence; their tendency to lay stress on speed

rather than on accuracy in their work; and their lack of the socially

valued quality of persistence.

In his earlier work Eysenck did not emphasize the classical differ-

entiation between the types in terms of objective and subjective reac-

tivity. Callaway pointed out:

Although Eysenck and his co-workers rely heavily on the
Jungian concepts of extraversion and introversion, especially
as modified by Guilford, they fail to take much account of
sensitivity to environmental stimuli (1959, p. 391).

Callaway also noted that the introvert is considered to be some-

what free from the immediate demands of the environment at the same

time that he may be considered withdrawn or reserved. His study

failed to find an hypothesized relationship between narrowed attention

and introversion.

Until recently, Eysenck was unwilling to include sociability as

part of his extraversion constellation (Carrigan, 1960). In 1962


Eysenck & Claridge distinguished two types of social shyness--introverted

and neurotic. Further, extraverts were described as either constitutional

(high cortical inhibition and low excitation), or behavioral: "Thus it

is possible, although unlikely, that a constitutional extravert may turn

out to be a behavioral introvert, or a dysthymic neurotic" (p. 54).

Questionnaires such as the MPI are considered by Eysenck to be sensitive

measures of behavioral extraversion, while objective performance tests

are probably better measures of constitutional extraversion.

That Eysenck appears to have come around to o position taking

account of differences in reactivity to the external environment is

implied in his suggestion to Hotarth (1964, p. 950) that "Extraverts

have a greater degree of stimulus hunger due to reactive inhibition of

ongoing impulses."

Major Issues

Two major issues concerning E-I as a dimension of personality were

raised in an important review article by Carrigan (1960). The issues:

Is extraversion-introversion a unitary dimension? Is it independent of


The question of unidimensionality

The fact that several joint analyses of the Guilford and Cattell

questionnaires show that at least two independent factors are required

to account for the intercorrelations between the E-I variables leads

Carrigan to question the unidimensionality of extraversion-introversion.

The two main factors which have resulted from analysis of the

Guilford-ZiLmerman Tempezament Survey are very similar to the pattern

of variables found by CatLcll in his 16PF Test. Carrigan cites Mann's

suggestion that:


Factor III corresponds to the American conception of
extraversion, with its emphasis on sociability and ease in
interpersonal relations, while Factor IV corresponds to the
European conception of extraversion, with its emphasis on
impulsiveness and weak superego controls (1953, p. 108).

Mann's suggested Lack of Self-Control Factor defines the follow-in


Guilford's R: happy-go-lucky unconcern vs. seriousness and self-


Guilford's T: mental disconcertedness vs. reflectiveness and


16PF F: carefreeness vs. introspectiveness and brooding;

16PF G-: indolence and lack of dependability vs. perseverance

and conscientiousness;

16PF Q3: laxity vs. control.

Carrigan considers this factor as identified with Eysenck's conception

of E-I, and cites Hildebrand's analysis (1958) as establishing an impor-

tant link between Eysenck's conception of E-I and the questionnaire

factors defined by the Guilford scale.

Joint studies of the MPI and the STDCR, and the MQPI and 16PF,

have indicated that only the Social Introversion (Si) scale of the MMPI

is consistently related to the extraversion primaries from these factor-

ial measures. Relevant to Eysenck's linkage of extraversion with hys-

teria is the finding that the wMPI Hysteria (Hy) scale is "essentially

unrelated" to Eysenck's E-I dimension.

Rorschach's conceptsof introversion and extratension have been

said to be essentially identical with the Jungian "attitudes" (Dash,

1955). Carrigan reports that several studies have found differences

between extratensive and introversive subjects which correspond to


hypothesizcd or observed differences between c::traverts and introverts.

However, she concludes that "E-I questionnaire factors, at least, have

little in common with the catraversion-like factors obtained from the

Rorschach test" (p. 354). It appea-s, then, that though relationships

are found between questionnaire measures of E-I and the Rorschach, the

loading do not correspond to Rorschach's experience balance. For

instance, Eysenck's extraversion has loading' on Rorschach D, ,iM:M,

F% and P, but his analyses include no color variables. "His results

thus say nothing about a relationship between extraversion and e::tra-

tension" (Carrigan, 1960, p. 351).

In her assessment of the unidimensionality of the construct,

Carrigan states:

S.it is possible to identify in all extensively studied
measures and media at least one factor which bears some resem-
blance to traditional conceptions of E-I . .

Factor loadings vary from study to study, and variables
are sometimes added or dropped, but there remains in each of
the questionnaires a "core" of variables which appear con-
sistently on E-I factors, regardless of the population studied,
or the factorial procedure employed. Moreover, evidence from
several studies shows that the core variables from the various
questionnaires are at least moderately interrelated (1960, p. 355).

E-I and adjustment

Theoretically, Jung maintained that adjustment and E-I were

independent, while Freud believed that introversion was the forerunner

of neurosis.

The two major independent factors identified in the Cattell and

Guilford questionnaires as Social E::traversion and Lack of Self-Control

appear to be related in differing ways to the question of adjustment.

For instance, Carrigan suggests that Social Extraversion may be considered


a factor of "well-adjusted e3:traversion," and that both extremes of the

Lack of Self-Control factor are linked with maladjustment.

. .if it should turn out that Social Extraversion and Lack
of Self-Control do reflect well-adjusted and maladjusted extra-
version, respectively, the lack of overlap on the two factors
might suggest that extraversion and introversion are differentially
manifested in individuals falling at opposite ends of the adjust-
ment continuum (1960, p. 339).

In summary of the findings relevant to adjustment and E-I, Carrigan

points out that:

S. .virtually every analysis which has produced an extraver-
sion-like factor has also yielded a factor identifiable with
anse aspect of adjustment. The latter factors. .appear to be
essentially independent of E-I. . .In analyses which have
yielded a single E-I factor, the shared variables tend to align
with that factor in such a way that "good" adjustment is associated
with e:traversion, "poor" adjustment with introversion (p. 356).

As a follow-up to Carrigan's analysis, Eysenck & Eysenck (19G3a)

undertook a factorial study of a 70-item matrix containing extraversion-

introversion, neuroticiam and lie-scale items, using a sample of 300

man and women. On the basis of their results, the Eysencks concluded:

1. That extraversion may be regarded as a unitary factor, depend-

ing somewhat on the definition of the term "unitary."

If by "unitary" is meant simply composedd of non-independent
constituent units," then our results suggest that E is indeed a
unitary factor (p. 52).

2. That extraversion and adjustment are essentially independent.

3. That sociability and impulsiveness do emerge as separate traits

on the E items, correlating about .5 with each other in two independent


4. That sociability has a slightly positive correlation with ad-

justent, while impulsiveness has a slightly negative correlation.


The Eysencks handle the environment vs. heredity question by

suggesting that "sociability is more easily subject to environmental

control, while impulsiveness may have deeper roots in heredity'.' (p. 54).

In a 1964 study, Corah affirmed that two recurring MIPI factors

are E-I and neuroticism. The scores on the first factor, N, signifi-

cantly differentiated neurotics from normals and sociopaths, and socio-

paths from normals, but did not differentiate different groups of

neurotics from each other. The E-I factor differentiated neurotics

from hysterics and sociopaths, with normals falling in the middle.

Corah also confirmed an additional hypothesis that extraverted neurotics

would be characterized more by somatic symptoms of anxiety while intro-

verted neurotics would be characterized by cognitive anxiety symptoms.

The sociopathic groups were found to be closer to the normals than to

the neurotics on the N dimension, which Corah stated was consistent

with Eysenck's theorizing.

Empirical evidence for the subjective independeae of neuroticism

and extraversion-introversion is supplied by a study (Eysenck & Eysenck,

1963b) in which two groups of high-intelligence individuals were asked

to choose one extreme e::travert and one extreme introvert from among

their acquaintances. Those nominated as extraverts were found to have

E scores averaging 31, while those chosen as introverts averaged 16.

The Eysencks concluded:

It is apparent that, as in the previous studies, judges
have no difficulty in identifying individuals who are extreme
in extraversion or introversion, and it is also apparent that
in doing so, they do not fall into the error of confounding
introversion and neuroticism to any considerable degree.(p. 143).


The Concept of Ego Closeness-Ego Distance

The common core of the construct dimension extraversion-introver-

sion appears to be found in the extent to which the individual is "open"

or responsive to the external environment. Voth & Mayman (1963) have

suggested a dimension which they designated "ego closeness-ego distance"

that shows striking similarities to the E-I dimension. Operationally,

ego-closeness was defined as referring to a "relatively unwavering invest-

ment of attention-cathexis in the imldiate stimulus field, reflected in

a compelling need to maintain contact with external objects and social

realities," whereas "ego-distance implies a greater capacity to detach

oneself from external reality, less dependence upon external stimuli,

more awareness of internal objects and stimuli, and more capacity to

shift attention-cathexis to subjective events" (p. 367). Diagnosed

alcoholics, hysterics, involutional melancholics, manic-depressives,

paranoids and psychopaths were found to report little or no autokinecic

movement, whereas schizophrenics, obsessionals and anxiety neurotics

reported fairly extensive movement.

Ego-close subjects (those reporting little movement) were des-

cribed on the basis of interviews as more suggestible, more responsive

to external stimulation, more distractible, more simple and open, more

exhibitionistic, and more active socially, more labile emotionally and

more impulsive.

Ego-distant subjects were described as more reflective, enjoying

solitude, prone to daydreaming, more autonomous in the sense of showing

more initiative, more self-sufficient, less open in their emotional

responses and mere likely to be withdrawn and shy.


Conceptually, Voth & Mayaan's definitions are compatible with

this writer's view of extraversion-introversion in relation to person

perception, and they will be used in subsequent theoretical discussions.



According to Heider (1958),."The ordinary person has a great and

profound understanding of himself and of other people which, though

unformulated, or only vaguely conceived, enables him to interact with

others in more or less adaptive ways'! (p. 2).

The major problem in the field of person perception is how this

understanding of others is achieved. Research in this field ordinarily

involves ratings or predictions by judges of how another person will

behave or rate himself, with comparisons between the judges' and

judges' answers as the basis for a criterion of accuracy.

There has been considerable investigation of the components which

make up such accuracy scores. Cronbach (1955), for instance, has pointed

out the effect of response sets and statistical artifacts on such scores;

Gage (1952) has emphasized the extent to which stereotypes affect accuracy.

The judges' built-in personality theories and projection are other as-

pects of the judging process which have been considered. Vernon has

pointed out the ji posterior nature of these analyses:

They show that personality judgments in controlled
experimental situations can be effectively resolved into
such-and-such variables; but they do not tell us much
about how judges normally carry out their task. Obviously
judges do not usually distinguish consciously between stereo-
type and individual predictions, between variances and
assumed correlations. .. .There is a certain danger, then,
in reifying the components. . .Thus it may be that halo,
projective tendencies and response sets such as over- or under-



differentiation appear to play so prominent a part largely
because the exigencies of the experiments force the subjects
to verbalize and quantify subtle feelings and unconscious
inferences (1964, p. 67).

The Concept of Empathy

The concept of empathy takes into account the subtle feelings

and unconscious inferences which are the basis for genuine understand-

ing of others. For purposes of this discussion, empathy is defined as

that component of predictive accuracy which is based primarily on direct

observation of another's expressive behavior, independent of stereo-

typic and projective accuracy, response sets, etc.

According to Allport (1961), the concept of empathy or Einfuhlung

(feeling oneself into) was introduced by Lipps around the beginning of

this century. "As originally used, the concept referred primarily to

the process of motor mimicry. Contemplation of a %work of art, for

example, involves many slight movements of the brows, eyes, trunk and

limbs which are in some way imitative of the stimulus-object" (p. 534).

Lipps assumed that this process has objective reference rather than

being a process of kinesthetic inference.

We do not perceive our own body in action but the body
of the other. There is no break between the strain, pride,
sorrow or playfulness which I feel empathically and the
personality of the one I am seeking to understand (Allport,
1961, p. 536).

Similarly, Gestalt psychologists conceptualize the perception of

emotional qualities as based on objective factors in the perceiver

rather than subjective ones. They maintain that such emotional qualities

may be carried by objects other than the self, and are perceived directly.


The sadness of the man is considered to be as much an
objective part of the viewer's perceptual field as is the
body of the man or his chair. Moreover, facial and bodily
events are considered to correspond, to some extent, to the
concomitant mental events. Finally, some characteristics
of the overt behavior are regarded as mirrored in or mapped
by the psychophysical perceptual organization which is set up in
the observer. . .In this manner, Gestalt theory would account
for our direct perception and understanding of other people's
emotions and thoughts (Luchine, 1957, pp. 13-14).

Arnheim (1949) has stated this concept if isomorphism between

physical and psychical events in relation to person perception as follows:

Applied to body and mind [isamorphism] means that if the
forces which determine bodily behavior are structurally similar
to those which characterize the corresponding mental states, it
may become understandable why psychical meaning can be read off
directly from a person's appearance and conduct (p. 160).

Thus, Person A's jerky movements will result in a jerky spatio-

temporal stimulus distribution on Person B's retinae, and this in turn

leads to B's experience of a jerky movement, from which he can infer

A's inner state. According to Keffka, "The same or very similar 'R'

produces a cruder organisation in one observer than in another, just

as in a concert a musical person receives more highly organized impros-

sions than a less musical one" (1935, p. 658).

What are the factors which might lead to a "cruder organization"

in one observer than in another? Halpern & Lesser (1960) have stated

three conditions for empathy:

1. The individual mist perceive in som way the cues presented

by the other person.

2. Ie must react sematieally (viscerally, vascularly and muscu-


3. He mrt be aare of internal cues caused by his somatic



Major deterrents to empathy, then, are perceptual defenses uhich

aim to cut off or modify external cues. Internal cues are cut off or

modified by the affective defenses, such as isolation, alienation of

feeling, poor body awareness, intellectualization, overinvolvement in

detail, and concrete emotional responsiveness. According to Murray (1938),

the use of analytic perception and induction plus repression of emotion

and feeling lead to poor ability to judge others.

It seems likely that the extravert, because of his "relatively

unwavering investment of attention-cathexis in the immediate stimulus

field" (Voth & Mayman, 1963) has an advantage over the introvert at

the perceptual level at which cues from the stimulus-person are taken in.

Another basic for predicting greater accuracy in judging personal-

ity among extraverts comes from studies of Rorschach "extratensives,"

who are considered by Bash (1955) as comparable to extraverts. "Extra-

tensive" individuals in responding to the physical qualities of the

Rorschach blots typically use external stimulus factors, which suggests

that in responding to people as stimuli, they would focus on expressive

behavior, which Maslmo (1949) refers to as the external "epiphenomenon

of the nature of character structure." Of relevance here is Bieri &

Masserley's finding (1957) that extratensive subjects perceived embedded

figures significantly faster than introversive subjects perceived them,

and had significantly higher cognitive complexity scores in their per-

ception of people than did the introversive subjects.

Other conditions for empathy which Halpern & Lesser (1960) refer

to are the somatic reactions of the perceiver--his visceral, vascular

and muscular responses--and his awareness of his internal reactions.


In terms of Lipps' theory of motor mimicry, it might be argued that

extraverts, who are frequently observed to be more active than introverts

(Eysenck, 1959), would have greater hinesthetic awareness than the intro-

vert, in whom action seems to be more readily inhibited by thought. That

extraverts may have a set to focus upon action in their cognitive activity--

perhaps perceptually as well--is suggested by Eysenck's finding that ex-

traverts in a verbal-conditioning paradigm emitted a significantly

greater number of action verbs than did introverts.

To summarize, a major basis for accuracy in person perception is

presumed to be empathy, and it is inferred from theoretical statements

of conditions for empathy that extraverts are more likely to be empathic

and accurate judges of others than are introverts.



The basic assumption of the present research is that extroverts

are more empathic judges of strangers than are introverts. The writer

was led to this conclusion on the basis of her study of the relationship

of psychopathic functioning to empathy, in which it was found that male

college students whose peak MMPI scale was Psychopathic Deviate (Pd)

were more accurate judges of others than were subjects who scored low

on the Pd scale (Ward, 1966). Thirty of the 36 high Pd scorers were

low scorers on the Social Introversion (Si) scale of the IMPI (Si in

either of the last two code positions defined as a low score). There

was a total of only five low scorers on Si among the low Pd scorers.

Eight of the "nonpsychopaths" were high scorers on Si, compared to none

of the "psychopaths." It appears, then, that the "psychopaths" uere

more extraverted as a group than were the "nonpsychopaths." The

"psychopaths" had been predicted as better judges on several grounds,

one of which was their hypothesized extraversion, subsequently borne

out by the results.

One feature of this research was the use of three conditions of

distance from the person being judged:

1. Direct observation: the judges were in the same room with the

object person as the latter read aloud the items of the personality

measure to which the judges predicted responses the object person would



2. Indirect observation: the judges watched the object person

from behind a one-way mirror as they predicted his responses to the

personality measure.

3. Stereotype: judges predicted responses on the basis of ob-

jective items of information about the object person, such as age,

favorite hobbies, etc., without seeing or hearing the person they were


The "psychopaths" maintatained their superiority in accuracy over

all three conditions; the fact that accuracy tended to improve with

increased proximity to the object person was interpreted as indicating

that the judges were actually empathizing on the basis of perception of

expressive behaviors on the part of the object person, and that "psycho-

paths" were more discriminating and hence more empathic than were "non-


The finding that the more introverted "nonpsychopaths" were less

discriminating judges is congruent with Dymond's description (1950) of

subjects low in empathy as rather rigid, introverted people who are sub-

ject to outbursts of uncontrolled emotionality and who seem unable to

deal with concrete material and interpersonal relations very success-

fully. The subjects high in empathy in her study showed a preponder-

ance of color or emotional responses on the Rorschach.

Luchins (1957) described the following factors as tending to

interfere with an individual's understanding of another person: center-

ing on one's own needs, emotions or purposes; focusing on only one

feature of an individual's behavior; stereotypes concerning the re-

lationship between physical features and personality traits; preju-

dices; lack of knowledge of group standards; and keeping a distance

betwrr. oneself and others.


There is some evidence which contraindicates e::traversion-intro-

version as an important variable in accuracy of person perception. In

one such study (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963b), two groups of subjects were

asked to nominate extraverts and introverts from among their friends.

The results showed no relationship between the judges' personality

traits on extraversion-introversion and the accuracy of judgment of

this trait dimension in others. A possible explanation for this find-

ing is that extraversion-introversion may be one of the easiest trait

dimensions on which judgw nts can be made; or it is possible that the

judgment of extremes is easy. As the Eysencks themselves state,

". ..judges have no difficulty in identifying individuals who are

extreme in extraversion or introversion" (1963b, p. 143). Further-

more, global judgments are undoubtedly easier to make with accuracy

than specific inferences, such as predicting responses to items of a

personality inventory.

A series of experiments by Davitz and co-worrkrs (1964) consis-

tently failed to establish personality factors as significant sources

of variance in ability to identify emotional meanings. The Guilford-

Zimerman Temperament Survey, which measures extraversion, was one of

the personality measures included. Intelligence was consistently

related to the judging tasks, even in the relatively homogeneous

graduate school students used in most of these studies. In the

studies which Davitz reports, the subjects were not engaged in making

inferences about object persons from visual observations of them;

hence, while heeding his results, they are not considered crucial

evidence against the following hypothesis:


Hypothesis 1: Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers

than are introverts.

Extraversion, Adjustment and Person Perception

As Carrigan pointed out in her survey article of the extraversion-

introversion construct, most factorial studies have yielded an adjust-

ment factor which is independent of the E-I dimension. Further,

A great amount of evidence has shown that two relatively
independent superfactors, identified by Eysenck as neuroticism
and extraversion-introversion, represent most of the variance
in the personality domain (Jensen, 1965, p. 288).

Finally, there is sufficient evidence that adjustment is an impor-

tant variable in accuracy of person perception to warrant study of ct:is

dimension in relationship to E-I.

Typical of such evidence is Ormont's finding (1960) that differ-

entiated perceptions of others and adjustment were positively related,

while intelligence was not related to ability to differentiate. To

explain his results, which were contrary to his hypothesis, Ormont

referred to Dollard & Miller's hypothesis that maladjustment results

from the failure to make appropriate discrimination in social situa-

tions. Fields (1953) found a positive and significant correspondence

between discrimination of facial expression and emotional adjustment.

In a brief survey of the literature, Vernon (1964) wrote:

Taft's and others' experiments contradict the notion
that the more neurotic or maladjusted are more sensitive to
others, and Cline found that his better student judges tend
to be sympathetic and affectionate, his poorer ones more
dissatisfied, irritable and awkward (p. 69).

As a theoretical framework Eysenck's two-factor theory seems admir-

ably suited to a study of personality factors in relation to empathy and

other components of person perception. The neuroticim-stability


dimension, of course, represents the adjustment factor; 11 is described

by Eysenck as general emotional instability, emotional overresponsive-

ness and predisposition to neurotic breakdown under stress. Extra-

version refers to outgoing, uninhibited, impulsive and sociable in-

clinations. The four quadrants derived from these two orthogonal

factors consist of: stable extraverts, neurotic extraverts, and stable

and neurotic introverts.

Because of the relation of adjustment to accuracy, the stable

groups should be superior in judging accuracy to the neurotic groups.

The stable extravert is expected to be more accurate than the stable

introvert, and the neurotic extravert more accurate than the neurotic

introvert. According to Knapp (1965, p. 171): "The high neurotic

extravert is seen to be relatively more self-actualized than the high

neurotic introvert." Therefore, we have the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will

decrease in the following order:

Stable extravert

Stable introvert

Neurotic extravert

Neurotic introvert

This order is predicted on the basis of the finding by this writer that

though the extraverted psychopaths were significantly more accurate in

judgments of object persons than were the mere introverted noipsycho-

paths, there was a considerable amount of overlap between the two groups;

it is believed that the adjustment dimension may have been operative.

Congruent with the preceding hypothesis is the following:

Hypothesis 3: Stable judges are more accurate than neurotic judges.


It should be noted that Wallach & Gahm (1960) found that the

neurotic-stable dimension interacts with E-I in varying ways, depending

upon the performance required. For instance, individuals low in mani-

fest anxiety who have extensive social ties are more expansive in

graphic expression than are social isolates, while among high-anxiety

subjects, those with many social ties are more constricted in graphic

expression than are social isolates (Wallach, Green, Lipsett & Mine-

hart, 1962). In a study of symbolic sexual arousal to music, the

highest degree of sexual arousal was found for the anxious social

introvert, followed in order by nonanxious social extraverts, anxious

social extraverts and nonanxious introverts.

Types of Extraversion

In examining the relationship between accuracy of person per-

ception and E-I, the discussion thus far has considered extraversion

as though it were a unitary factor in the Eysenckian sense. However,

the further refinement of the concept into subtypes has been fruitful

and may have relevance for person perception. Evans & McConnell (1941),

following Guilford's work in which factor analysis revealed three types

of E-I, devised three distinct sets of items in an effort to develop

relatively independent tests dealing with thinking, social and emotional

reactions. These three measures have been shown to be almost uncorre-


Subsequent studies (some of them using the Evans & McConnell

instrumnt, the Minnesota T-S-E) have revealed behavioral differences

between groups representative of the subtypes of E-I.

Thinking introverts, for example, have been found to show less

size constancy than thinking extraverts, which Ardis (1957) suggests is


attributable to reduced attention to the environment on the part of

the introvert, and an analytical attitude. Evans & Wrenn (1942) found

thinking introversion related'to high scholastic achievement, and

Evans (1947) reported that thinking introverts and extraverts were

differentiated by Kuder Literary, Social Service and Persuasive

interest scores. Carrigan (1960) linked thinking introversion with


In the social sphere, the relationships are more complex. Using

Guilford's Social and Thinking scales and the Maudsley Personality

Inventory (MPI), Brown & Young (1965) found that socially introverted

ex-dermatitis patients resembled control extraverts in being unrigid

and having high affect hunger; when socially extraverted, the patients

resembled control introverts in being rigid and having low affect

hunger. Social extraversion has been reported related to student-

teaching success (Evans, 1947).

The emotional dimension interacts with the adjustment factor

previously discussed, as does the social dimension. Social introverts

were found to be anxious, while emotional introverts had satisfactory

emotional adjustment (Evans, 1947); the opposite was true of extraverts--

social extraverts were emotionally adjusted and emotional extraverts

were anxious. Wallach & Greenberg (1960) found that emotional extra-

verts were more likely to be sexually aroused by music than were

emotional introverts.

It seems likely from the evidence indicating the relationship of

sociability to accuracy of interpersonal perception that social extra-

version is the subtype most likely to show a significant relationship

to empathy. emotional extraversion appears to be related to poor


adjustment, hence a negative relationship to empathy might be expected.

A positive relationship to thinking extraversion is hypothesized from

the finding that thinking extraverts show greater perceptual constancy;

it will be recalled that Ardis (1957) found less size constancy in

thinking introverts, which he attributed to the analytic attitude

Murray (1938) considered a detriment to empathy.

Hypothesis 4: Social and Thinking Extraversion are positively

related to accuracy in judments of strangers, while Emotional Extra-

version is negatively related to accuracy.

Conditions Under Which Judments Are Made

A relatively unexplored area in the judging process as it relates

to personality variables is the effect of varied conditions under which

the judgments are actually made. In the usual empathy study, judges

interact with the object person or see a filmed or live sequence of

his behavior, after which predictions are made by the judges in the

absence of the person they are judging. Such a procedure introduces

sources of variance attributable to differences in visual and auditory

imagery and nmmory, for instance. In this writer's study (Ward, 1966),

as previously described, judging in the Direct and Indirect Conditions

was carried out with the object person visible, with predictions for

each item of the personality inventory ade iaediately after the object

person read each item aloud. This procedure was introduced on the

grounds that apathy occurs in an ongoing situation, and that auditory

cues are an important mediator for apathy.

If apathy is enhanced by the object person's presence, and

empathy leads to increased accuracy in judging others, then the


expectation would be that accuracy in predicting the responses of

another person would be greater in such a condition than in a condition

in which the judges were relying on their memory of the object person.

This expectation is formulated in the following statement:

Hypothesis 5: Over-all accuracy will be greater when both visual

and auditory cues are available in a judging situation, compared to a

situation in which only memory cues of visual and auditory stimuli

are available at the time of judging.

There are several arguments for predicting that extraverts would

be more accurate when judging in the object person's presence than

when judging in his absence. The importance of the immediate stimulus

field for the extravert is one basis for such a prediction: with the

object person gone, the extravert is faced with another external stimu-

lus situation to which he must respond--in this case a paper-and-pencil

stimulus plus various sources of social distraction from his fellow

judges, to all of which he is assumed to be more reactive than is

the introvert. It is also suggested that the extravert might have a

more difficult time concentrating on his mental image of the absent

object person than would the introvert. This latter inference is made

from the results of a study by Costello (1957) on visual imagery,

using the Gordon test of visual images. He found characteristic differ-

enees between hysterical disorders extravertss) and dysthymic disorders

(introverts). The images of the dysthymics were vivid and hard to

manipulate, while those of the hysterics were weak and not easily held.

The hysterics' normal and slow rates of fluctuation on the Necker Cube

were significantly higher than those of the dysthymics. The members of

a third group (mostly composed of norals) were able to control their


visual images. Costello found considerable overlap between the normal

and neurotic groups.

The suggestion that introverts might show an increase in accuracy

in the absence of the object person is based on the introvert's theoret-

ically greater capacity "to shift attention-cathexis to subjective

events" (Voth & Mayman, 1963), which implies a greater capacity to

recall one's impressions of, and reactions to, an object person pre-

viously seen but no longer present than the extravert would be e::pected

to possess. Further, the introvert's hypothesized comparative sense

of unease in group situations, and shifting attention to the external

world, suggest that because of anxiety or defenses against it, he

would not be as "open" to the other person's Gestalt and would miss

more cues than would the extravert while the object person is present.

On the basis of the foregoing rationale, the following hypotheses

are generated:

Hypothesis 6: a) Extraverts will show greater accuracy when

judging in the presence of the object person than in his absence;

b) introverts will show greater accuracy when judging in the absence

of the object person.

Mypothesis 7: a) Extraverts will make more accurate judgments

when the object person is present than will introverts; b) there will

be no difference between extraverts and introverts in over-all accuracy

of judgments when the object person is absent.

Thus, while introverts should improve in accuracy, and extraverts

decrease in accuracy in the absence of the object person, the more

accurate stereotype of the extravert should balance to some degree his

loss of accuracy frao the absence of differentiating cues.


Components of Accuracy

Though Davitz (1964) has questioned the role of personality factors

in over-all sensitivity to others, he does suggest that such factors

may influence the errors made in judynent. A great deal of attention

in the literature of person perception has been devoted to such sources

of error. A major source of inaccuracy is the tendency to assume similar-

ity when the person being judged is, in fact, dissimilar.

The psychological meaning of the tendency to assume similarity

(operationally characterized by the degree of similarity between a

judge's self-rating and his prediction of another's self-rating) has

been variously interpreted. Fiedler (1953) and Jackson & Carr (1955)

considered this relationship as a measure of the degree of psychological

closeness, warmth and affinity that the subject feels for the other

person, while Dymond (1948) saw it as a measure of projection and

considered it pathological. If Fiedler is correct, extraverts should

manifest greater assumed similarity because of their greater sociability

and warmth. On the other hand, Dymond's point of view implies that

adjustment is a relevant variable in the tendency to assume similarity.

The results obtained by some investigators (O'Day, 1956, and Jackson &

Carr, 1955) suggest that the relationship is a positive one, contrary

to Dymond's position. Both studies found normals assuming more simil-

arity than mental-patient groups. In a study by Bieri, Blacharaky &

Reid (1955), better-adjusted subjects tended to predict most accurately

on the basis of similarities between themselves and others, while mal-

adjusted subjects were more accurate predictors of differences among

thimselves and others.


Several studies using subjects designated as repressors and

sensitizers by MMPI criteria have relevance because of the identifi-

cation of repressors with hysteria (neurotic extraverts) and sensitizers

with psychasthenia neuroticc introverts). In two studies (1957, 1959),

Gordon found that sensitizers predicted more dissimilarity between

partners' responses and their own. Of particular interest is Gordon's

finding (1959) that the immediate presence of the to-be-predicted per-

son operated to enhance differences among repressors, neutrals and

sensitizers in the tendency to assume similarity. Altrocchi's results

(1961) were similar; however, his analysis of Assumed Dissimilarity

scores revealed that "the differences in assumed dissimilarity between

self and others were due primarily to stable differences in self-des-

cription and not to any clear differences in perception of others nor to

any substantial correlation between perception of others and perception

of self" (p. 533). Sensitizers were found to have more negative self-

concepts than repressors and to be a more heterogeneous group.

The bulk of evidence seems to suggest that both neurotic and

stable extraverts would tend to assume greater similarity than the

neurotic and stable introverts (since stable extraverts are presumed

to be sociable and warm, and hysterics are neurotic extraverts). How-

ever, there is same rather tenuous evidence which suggests a relation-

ship between introversion and a tendency to assume similarity inaccu-

rately. In the writer's study of high and low Pd scorers mentioned

earlier, nonpsychopaths (an introverted group) were significantly

more prene to asuma similarity inaccurately.

From the P-J's significantly greater AS scores (Accuracy
on the basis of perceived Similarity), and significantly
lower IS scores (Inaccuracy on the basis of perceived
Similarity), it appears that the P-J [psychopathic judges],


to a greater extent than ITP-J [nonpsychopathic judges] based
their predictions on a more accurate assessment of real simil-
arity between themselves and those they judged than on the basis
of a nondiscriminating predisposition to assume similarity
(Ward, 1966, p. 56).

To attempt to resolve the theoretical conflict, the following

hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 8: Stable and neurotic extraverts will assume

similarity to a greater extent than the introverted groups.

Hypothesis 9: Introverts will assume similarity inaccurately to

a greater extent than the extraverts.

The stereotype is another important component of predictive accu-

racy scores. Gage has stated:

Judges do not integrate a host of subtle cues from
expressive behavior in arriving at judcuents concerning the
strangers. Rather they make inferences from their relatively
gross knowledge of the subgroup to which they think the
stranger belongs, and insofar as the observation of expressive
behavior affects their judgments at all, the effect is to reduce
accuracy (1952, p. 10).

The finding (Ward, 1966) that accuracy significantly improved

with increasing proximity to the persons being judged, and that non-

psychopathic object persons were accurately judged as being more

anxious and having less social presence than psychopathic object

persons when the judges observed them is considered a refutation of

Gage's extreme position. However, no quarrel can be made with the

proposition that stereotypes play an increasing role with decreased

acquaintance. Extraverts would be expected to possess mere accurate

stereotypes because of their greater sociability, which would leed

them to interact with a wider range of subgroups. At the same time,

they would be expected to rely less on stereotypes, particularly in

situations where the object persons are present.


Hypothesis 10: Introverts will rely more on their stereotypes

in judging others than will extraverts.

The Object Persons

Some types of object persons are more accurately judged than

others. For instance, Baker & Block (1957) found that evercontrolled

social objects were more accurately judged, compared to appropriately

controlled and undercontrolled objects. These expressing the most

favorable self-descriptions were also moet accurately judged. According

to Dymond (1950), it is easier to predict the responses of a person who

is highly empathic than one of low empathic ability, regardless of one's

own level of ability. This statement is consistent with the thesis

that extraverts are more empathic and with the finding that they are

more easily judged (Estes, 1938; Allport, 1961). Allport found that

"people who are extraverted, adaptable, ascendant are people who can

be reliably rated on these and on all other traits" (p. 500).

Because of the tendency to arsume similarity, extraverts should

be more accurate in predicting other extraverts, while introverts

should be mere accurate in judging other introverts than in judging

extraverts or ambiverts. An object person in the middle range, an

ambivert, might prove a more ambiguous target, and greater accuracy by

one group of judges than another in judging the middle range might

prove definitive in a determination of which group has manifested the

greater degree of empathy.

Rypethesis 11: The extravert object person will be most accurately

judged, followed by the introvert and ambivert.

Hypothesis 12: Extravert judges will be mest accurate predictors


of the extravert and ambivert object persons, while introverts will

be most accurate in predicting for the introvert object person.

Overt Behavioral Differences in Judges

The extent to which judges rely on the immediately available

visual cues may be an important indication of the e::tent to which the

judges are actually empathizing. In a pilot study, this writer noticed

that some judges constantly referred visually to the object person,

while others, after an initial brief glance, paid no further attention

to him.

It seems likely that more empathic judges are those who refer

more frequently to the object person when he is present during the

judging process, and that extraverts are more likely to do so because

of their "compelling need to maintain contact with external objects and

social realities" (Voth & Mayman, 1963,.p. 367).

hypothesis 13: Extraverts will refer visually to the object

persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will intro-


Hypothesis 14: Good judges will refer visually to the object

persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will poor



The relationship of the extraversion-introversion dimension of

personality functioning to person perception, particularly empathy,

has been examined, as well as some of the variables which may have

relevance for accurate judgments of others. These variables include

adjustment; the personality type of the persons judged; the conditions

under which the judgments are made (the presence or absence of the object


person); and the role of tendencies to assume similarity and stereo-

typic accuracy as components of accuracy scores.

The following hypotheses were stated:

Hypothesis 1: Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers

than are introverts.

Hypothesis 2: Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will

decrease in the following order:

Stable extravert

Stable introvert

Neurotic extravert

Neurotic introvert

Hypothesis 3: Stable judges are more accurate than neurotic judges.

Hypothesis 4: Social and Thinking Extraversion are positively

related to accuracy in judgments of strangers, while Emotional E:L:tra-

version is negatively related to accuracy.

Hypothesis 5: Over-all accuracy will be greater when both visual

and auditory cues are available in a judging situation, compared to a

situation in which only memory cues of visual and auditory stimuli are

available at the time of judging.

Hypothesis 6: a) Extraverts will show greater accuracy when

judging in the presence of the object person than in his absence;

b) introverts will show greater accuracy when judging in the absence

of the object person.

ypothesis 7: a) Extraverts will make mere accurate judgments

when the object person is present than will introverts; b) there will

be no difference between extraverts and introverts in ever-all accuracy

of judgments when the object person is absent.

Hypothesis 8: Stable and neurotic e::traverts will assume simil-

arity to a greater extent than the introverted groups.

Hypothesis 9: Introverts will assume similarity inaccurately to

a greater extent than the extraverts.

Hypothesis 10: Introverts will rely more on their stereotypes in

judging others than will extraverts.

Hypothesis 11: The extravert object person will be most accurately

judged, followed by the introvert and ambivert.

Hypothesis 12: Extravert judges will be most accurate predictors

of the extravert and ambivert object persons, while introverts will be

most accurate in predicting for the introvert object person.

Hypothesis 13: Extraverts will refer visually to the object

persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will


Hypothesis 14: Good judges will refer visually to the object

persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will poor


The next chapter will describe the methods implemented to test

these hypotheses.



The research was carried out in three stages, to be designated

as Part I, Part II and Part III. In Part I, the object persons (persons

to be judged) were chosen. The main purposes of the research were ful-

filled in Part II, in which two groups of subjects served as judges of

the three object persons under two different conditions. In Part III,

a small group of judges was selected from among those who participated

in Part II on the basis of having either very high or very low accuracy

scores. This group of subjects was used to test the hypotheses con-

cerning frequency and duration of visual referral to the object persons

being judged.

A more detailed description of the procedures employed in these

experimental stages follows.

Part I

Selection of object persons

The design of the research called for the selection of object per-

sons who phenomenologically appeared to represent the extremes and middle

of the extraversion-introversion continuum, and who also scored on the

Maudsley Personality Inventory in the same area of the E-I continuum as

they were rated by others. These object persons were chosen in the

following way.

At the end of the Fall, 1966 term, male college students in

Psychology 201 and 202 who did not plan to register for either of these



courses in the Winter term were requested to sign up for one of the

two experimental sessions. (The stipulation regarding registration

was made to reduce the likelihood of the object persons being known

to the judges, since the judges were to be drawn from these intro-

ductory courses the following term.) Thirteen students participated

in the first such experimental session; 25 in the second session. In

each of these groups, each subject came to the front of the room in

turn, signed a register, then read aloud a prose passage of approxi-

mately 200 words from The Silent Language by Edward Hall. (Each sub-

ject read a different passage.) As he returned to his seat, the other

subjects in the room rated him on a five-point scale ranging from

"very introverted" through "moderately introverted," "ambiverted,"

"moderately extraverted" to "very entraverted." (See Appendix A.)

At the end of the judging process, all subjects were administered the

48 items of the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI). Those subjects

who scored within one standard deviation from the obtained mean on

the Extraversion scale of the MPI were classified as test ambiverts;

those scoring beyond these limits were classified as test ex:traverts

or test introverts.

To determine how the subjects were perceived by each other, the

ratings were tallied for each subject judged by the group as a whole.

Each tally was weighted according to the following point scale: very

introverted, 1; moderately introverted, 2; ambiverted, 3; moderately

extraverted, 4; and very extraverted, 5. Theoretically, then, a sub-

ject's score was the sum of all the ratings assigned him by the other

subjects in his group. However, since there were a little over half


as many subjects in the first session as there were in the second session

(13 in Session 1, and 25 in Session 2), the total scores obtained in the

first session were doubled to be roughly comparable to the results ob-

tained from the group of 25.

The mean of the combined distribution was 71.45, and the standard

deviation was 13.46. Again, ambiverts were defined as those falling

within one standard deviation either above or below the mean. Rated

extraverts were those with ratings of 86 or more; rated introverts

were those with scores of 58 or less. A list of those subjects who

scored both as rated extraverts and test extraverts was compiled, as

were similar lists of ambiverts and introverts. Of these, the subjects

who scored in the extreme ranges on the Neuroticism scale of the MPI

were eliminated. From the final group of eligible subjects, selection

was made at random. These randomly selected subjects were called by

phone and their cooperation for Part II of the study was obtained.

They were paid a total of $6 each for assisting in the experiment.

Following are the respective ratings and test scores of the

subjects chosen as object persons:

Rating MPI E MPI N

Extravert 87 38 14

Ambivert 67 32 18

Introvert 40 20 16

From a glance at the scores above, it appears that the ambivert more

closely resembles the extravert than the introvert.

At a later date, the three object persons took the Minnesota

T-S-E (to be described in another section), with these results:

-42 -

Thinking E Social E Emotional E

Extravert 99 165 49

Ambivert 155 136 65

Introvert 120 89 45

(The higher the score, the greater the degree of extraversion.)

These scores indicate that the subject chosen to represent the

ambivert category is indeed closer to the chosen extravert than to the

introvert on the E-I dimension. In fact, the ambivert is more extra-

verted emotionally and in his thinking, according to these results,

than is the subject chosen to represent the extravert category. The

finding that the subject rated as an extravert by his peers and scoring

as an extravert on the MPI also scores highest on the Minnesota Social

Extraversion scale supports the notion that social extraversion is the

common denominator of all three measures.

Part II


As the first step in obtaining and classifying the required number

of subjects to represent the four types--stable and neurotic introverts

and stable and neurotic extraverts--the Maudsley Personality Inventory

was administered over a three-wek period in February, 1967, to 189

volunteer male college students from Psychology 201 and 202, the intro-

ductory courses. From the obtained distribution, the median was deter-

mined, and the approximately 20% of the distribution which fell around

the median of 29.71 was arbitrarily designated as the range of ambiver-

sion. The remainder were subdivided into the four experimental cate-

gories on the basis of the following criteria:


Neuroticism Extraversion

Stable Extraverts (SE) below 22 above 32

Stable Introverts (SI) below 22 below 27

Neurotic Extraverts (NE) above 22 above 32

Neurotic Introverts (NI) above 22 below 27

Each subject who participated in the initial screening was sent a letter

with further details about the experiment, and was asked to sign up for

either one of the two experimental sessions (see Appcndix B).

To insure an adequate sample size, no restrictions were imposed

to exclude anyone who had taken the MPI in the screening process. Of

the original group of 189 who took the MPI, only 34 decided not to

participate in the experiment. Eighty-one subjects reported for the

first experimental session, and another 74 reported for the second

session, for a total of 155. Of this number, the data obtained from

19 was eliminated from statistical treatment because these subjects

indicated on a form designed to elicit this information that they had

previous acquaintanceship with one or more of the three object persons.

Another 23 subjects were eliminated who had been previously classified

as ambiverts, but who had been permitted to serve as subjects in order

to obtain experimental credit. This left a total of 113, divided

numerically as follows:

Subect Type Coand ton 1 Ca.dititon 2

SE 17 12

NE 13 14

SI 18 15

NI 12 12

60 53


It had been decided in advance that the sample size for each subject

type should number at least ten, and it was also considered desirable

for statistical treatment of the data to have all groups equal in size.

Since three of the eight groups had 12 eligible subjects, it was decided

to use this number as the sample size for all groups. Seventeen sub-

jects were eliminated at random to reduce the oversized gro:-ps to the

desired size, 12. Chance, the final sample consisted of 12 subjects in

each of the four categories in each of the two conditions, for a total

of 96 subjects, 48 in each condition.

Judging conditions

There were two conditions under which the three object persons

were judged by two separate groups of subjects. In what will be desig-

nated as the Empathy Condition (the first experimental session), each

object person (OP) read aloud the 22 items from the Subtle Psychopathic

Deviate scale from the MePI (Appendix C), pausing after each item to

permit the judges time to predict his responses and record these pre-

dictions on their answer sheets. Meanwhile, the OP marked his answer

on an answer sheet which he kept concealed from the judges. This con-

dition was introduced to provide the judges with auditory and visual

cues at the time of judgment as a means of increasing the probability

that judges' empathy would operate as a factor in predicting the object

persons' responses.

In the Uromry Condition, the judges observed each object person as

he read aloud the 22 items from Siegmen's adaptation (1956) of the Taylor

Manifest Anxiety Scale (Appendix D). This measure was used because it

consists of the ne number of item as is found in the Subtle Psychopathic

Deviate scale, the criterion measure, and because the items in the two


scales are somewhat similar in content. The object persons were instruc-

ted to pause briefly between each item to provide the judges in this con-

dition a length of time in which to view them comparable to that afforded

judges in the Empathy Condition. In this way the judges in the Memory

Condition observed the OP under similar circumstances--reading aloud

items from a personality inventory--but unlike the Empathy Condition,

the judges did not receive relevant auditory and visual cues from the

material read to use in predicting the OP's answers to the specific

items on the criterion measure. Furthermore, predictions of each OP's

answers to the criterion measure were made by the judges after he had

left the room, so that the judges had to rely on their memories of their

impressions of him.


At each of the two experimental sessions, the procedure was the

same, with the exception of the conditions under which predictions were

made, as described above.

At the beginning of each session, the judges were asked to fill out

the criterion personality measure as they thought a typical male college

student at the University of Florida would fill it out. After this was

done, written instructions were handed to each judge describing what was

to happen during the experiment (Appendix E). Questions were answered

at this point to clarify any confusion about what the judges were to do.

In the Empathy Condition, as described above, each object person

was present while his responses to the criterion measure'were predicted

by the judges. Copies of the criterion measure were passed out before

each OP appeared, so that a time period of approximately three minutes

intervened between the time judges finished predicting responses of one

OP and the appearance of the next OP to be judged.


The order of appearance by the object persons in the Empathy Con-

dition was: extravert, ambivert, introvert. In the Memory Condition,

the order of appearance was: introvert, ambivert, extravert.

After the judges had predicted the three object persons' responses

to the criterion measure, they were asked to answer the same questions

for themselves. Finally, they filled out the Minnesota T-S-E for them-

selves, as well as a questionnaire requesting information about the

degree of acquaintanceship with each of the object persons and a rating

scale to determine the judges' subjective impressions of the degree of

extraversion of each object person. (See Appendix F.)

Measures of personality characteristics

The Maudslay Personality Inventory.--As previously stated, the

judges were selected to participate in the experiment on the basis of

their scores on this copywrited and comercially published instrument.

Devised by Eysenck, this factor-analytically developed test measures

"two pervasive and relatively independent dimensions of personality"

(Knapp, 1962): eKtraversion-introversion (E-I) and neuroticim-atabil-

ity (N-S). According to the manual, extraversion refers to the "out-

going, uninhibited, impulsive and sociable inclinations of a person"

while neuroticism refers to the "general emotional instability of a

person, his emotional overresponsiveness, and his liability to neurotic

breakdown under stress."

The MPI consists of 48 items, 24 keyed to N and 24 to E. None of

the item could be considered socially objectionable. For the Extraver-

sion scale, both split-half and Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients

lie between .75 and .85 for most samples. For the Neuroticism scale they


lie between .85 and .90. Test-retest reliabilities of .83 and .81 have

been found.

There have been many validation studies of the MPI. "Factor-

analytic confirmation of the dimensions measured by the MPI are numerous,"

according to the manual. Validity by nominated groups has been demonstra-

ted, and a number of experimental studies testify to its construct valid-

ity. Its concurrent validity has been well established; the E scale

correlates highly with other measures of extraversion, while the N scale

correlates highly with measures of neuroticism and anxiety. The MPI

manual lists correlation coefficients with the Minnesota T-S-E, to be

described next, as follows:

Saple esse E scale N scale

Thinking Extraversion 87 -.05 .04

Social Extraversion 87 .81*** .33**

Emotional E::traversion 37 .21* .17

(Asterisks will be used throughout to indicate confidence levels as

follows: for .05; ** for .01; and *** for .001.)

The question of response set arises. According to Knapp (1962, p. 9),

"Previous evidence has suggested that the response set of acquiescence

(tending to agree) does not affect MPI scores." A factor-analytic study

by Eysenck, reported by Knapp, demonstrated the presence of response-set

factors of indecisiveness and acquiescence, but the "E and N scale showed

virtually no loading on these factors, the coefficients all being .07 or

below for both scales on each response set factor.' (p. 10).

The Minqaesa T-S-E Inventory.--Evans & McConnell (1941) developed

this test of 150 items to measure three types of extraversion-introversion:

Thinking, Social and Emotional, which were isolated by Guilford in his


factor analysis of this personality dimension. The three types of extra-

version-introversion are defined as follows (Evans & McConnell, 1957,pp.2-3):

Thinking I-E: The Thinking Introvert shows a liking for
reflective thought, particularly of a more abstract nature.
His thinking tends to be less dominated or oriented by objective
conditions and generally accepted ideas than the extrovert. In
contrast, the Thinking Extrovert shows a liking for overt action,
and his ideas tend to be ideas of overt action. His thinking
tends to be more dominated by objective conditions and generally
accepted ideas than that of the introvert.

Social I-E: The Social Introvert withdraws from social
contacts and responsibilities. He displays little interest in
people. The Social Extrovert seeks social contacts and depends
upon them for his satisfaction. He is primarily interested in

Emotional I-E: The Emotional Introvert tends to repress
and inhibit the outward expression of emotions and feelings.
He tends not to make the typical response to simple, direct
emotional appeals. On the other hand, the Emotional Extrovert
readily expresses his emotions and feelings outwardly. He
tends to make the expected response to simple, direct emotional

These separate tests intercorrelate negligibly, indicating their

relative independence. The authors list the following coefficients

from two separate analyses:

Sample size 396 132

Thinking and Social I-E -.25** -.27**

Thinking and faotional I-E .17** .13

Social and Emotional I-E .23** .24**

Reliability for all three tests is .88 or above by at least one of the

two reliability techniques. Many studies attempting construct valida-

tion are reported by the authors. This test has been published commer-

cially and is copywrited.

Subtle Psychopathic Deviate Scalj.--This scale from the MHPI was

chosen as the criterion measure for several reasons. A practical reason

is its length, 22 items. Since each judge had to fill out the personality


inventory five times--once for the stereotype, once for himself and once

for each of the three object persons--a lengthy inventory would have

proven excessively burdensome. Secondly, while the object persons were

chosen from the extremes and middle of the E-I dimension, it seemed

desirable that they also be differentiable on another, related dimension

for the actual judging situation. It was necessary that they not be

familiar with the items in advance of the Auditory-Visual or Empathy

Condition; hence it was not possible to pretest them on another dimen-

sion to insure differentiation among the object persons in advance of

the judging situation on the to-be-judged trait dimension. Because of

the significant relationship between the MMPI Psychopathic Deviate scale (Pd)

and the Social Introversion scale, the Pd dimension seemed an appropriate

one to use.

Another reason for choosing this scale was its heterogeneity of

content. Some of the items appeared judgeable on a visual basis, while

others seemed to call for acuity in empathizing from auditory cues. Most

of the items also did not seem to carry a clear-cut stereotype. Finally,

since the judges also were required to fill out the inventory for them-

selves, it was possible to correlate the judges' Pd scores with the

accuracy measures, as a follow-up to the earlier study (Ward, 1966) of

psychopathic functioning in relation to empathy.

Part III

Following tabulation of the results from Part II, a list of the

most accurate and the least accurate judges was compiled. These subjects

were contacted by phone, and the cooperation of 20 subjects was obtained--

ten of the most accurate and ten of the least accurate. Care was taken


to insure that half of the sample were introverts and half extraverts.

The group of Good Judges consisted of three neurotic extraverts, two

stable extraverts, three neurotic introverts and two stable introverts.

The group of Poor Judges was made up of three neurotic extraverts, two

stable extraverts, two neurotic introverts and three stable introverts.

The total sample contained six neurotic extraverts, four stable extra-

verts, five neurotic introverts and five stable introverts.

An extravert object person and an introvert object person were

obtained from those who had qualified as such in Part I, on the basis

of the same criterion used for selection of object persons in Part II,

with the exception that their scores on the Neuroticism scale were

considerably higher.

MPI E MPI N Rated score

Extravert 38 32 89

Introvert 4 30 58

They were paid $3 for their participation.

Four subjects were scheduled at a time to judge the two object

persons in the same manner as employed in the Empathy Condition. (There

were five replications of the experimental setup, in order to accommodate

the 20 subjects.) Each object person read aloud the 18 items from the

Gough Social Presence scale from the MMPI (Appendix G). The judging

took place in a roem with a one-way mirror; the four judges sat facing

the mirror. After the judges received instructions and answer sheets,

the first OP entered,seated himself with his back to the mirror and

immediately began reading the items aloud, pausing between each item

while the judges predicted his response. As soon as the OP finished

reading, he left the room. The object persons were presented in counter-


balanced order throughout the five replications. Because of the nature

of the data being collected, and the variability in the rate with which

the object persons read the items and were available for visual fixation,

the experimenter timed each object-person presentation.

In two adjoining rooms behind a large one-way mirror, unknown to

the subjects, were eight observers, friends of the experimenter, who

had consented to assist in this part of the experiment. They had

assembled half an hour before the subjects arrived in order to familiar-

iae themselves with the procedure and to practice. Two observers were

assigned to each subject on the other side of the one-way-vision mirror

to watch him during the judging process in order to count the number of

times he looked at each object person, as well as the length of time

spent in each such visual fixation. Metronomes in each of the two ob-

servation rooms ticked off half-seconds to provide an objective standard

by which the observers could measure length of visual fixations. (For

directions to the observers, see Appendix H.)

Description of the variables

Before turning to a discussion of the specific statistical techniques

used in treating the data, it may be helpful to list and define the de-

pendent and independent variables.

In Parts II and III, independent variables for the judges include:

1. Extraversion scale score from the Maudsley Personality Inventory;

2. Neuroticim scale score from the Maudsley Personality Inventory;

3. Subtle Psychopathic Deviate scale score from the MPI;

4. Minnesota Thinking Extraversion score;

5. Minnesota Social Extraversion score;

6. Minnesota Emotional Extraversion score.


Scores on these independent variables are also available for the

three object persons in Part II; however, the two object persons in Part

III were measured only on the first two, as well as on Gough's Social

Presence scale from the MMPI.

Dependent variables in Part II consist of the following:

7. Error Score: The measure of empathy was the Error Score, ob-

tained by comparing the judge's predictions for a given object person with

that object person's answers to the personality inventory. Lower error

scores were considered to indicate higher empathy.

Some of the measures were obtained by comparing the judges' self-

ratings with their predictions for each of the object persons judged.

In this way the following components were obtained:

8. Inaccuracy based on perceived similarity (Inaccuracy-Similarity)

is the sum of incorrect predictions in the same response direction (true

or false) as the judge's own self-rating responses. This has been desig-

nated as "inaccurate projection" by other investigators.

9. Inaccuracy based on perceived differences (Inaccuracy-Dissimil-

arity) is the sum of incorrect predictions in the opposite direction from

the judge's own self-rating responses.

10. Accuracy based on perceived similarity (Accuracy-Similarity)

is obtained by suing correct predictions in the same response direction

as the judge's own self-rating responses. Some investigators have refer-

red to this component as "accurate projection."

11. Accuracy based on perceived differences (Accuracy-Dissimilar-

ity) is the sum of correct predictions in the opposite direction from the

judge's own self-rating responses.


12. Total Assumed Similarity: The extent to which the judges

assumed similarity with the object persons is measured by this score,

which is obtained by summing each judge's Accuracy-Similarity and

Inaccuracy-Similarity scores.

13. Real Similarity: This score is the sum of Accuracy-Simil-

arity and Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity, and represents the total number of

items on which a judge and a given object person rate themselves


In addition to the foregoing dependent variables, there are several

used in the present study which are based on comparisons between the

judges' stereotypes and the object person's answers. The stereotype

measure was obtained by asking judges to fill out the criterion measure

as they thought a typical male college student at the University of

Florida would fill it out.

14. Stereotypic Accuracy: This score represents the number of

times a judge's accurate predictions coincided with his stereotype.

15. Stereotypic Inaccuracy: This score represents the number of

times a judge's inaccurate predictions coincided with his stereotype.

16. Total Stereotype: This score represents the sum of both

accurate and inaccurate predictions which coincide with a judge's


17. Self-Stereotype Similarity: This measure is the sum total

of items which are answered in the same direction on both the self-rating

and the stereotype.

18. Global Judgments of the object persons' personality type:

This measure is the number of times judges rated each object person as

fitting their conceptions of extravert, ambivert and introvert.


The dependent variables in Part III consisted of the following


19. Error Score, obtained by comparing the judges' predictions

with the object persons' self-ratings.

20. Attributed Social Presence: This score represents the number

of times a judge predicted an object person's self-rating in the direction

of the attribute being judged, i.e., the number of predictions that

would be scored on the Gough scale as indicating the possession of

social presence. This measure was introduced to determine if the

object persons were differentiable in the judges' perceptions on this


Before describing the remaining dependent variables, an explanation

is necessary concerning the method of dealing with the variability in

the length of time the five groups of four subjects each were exposed

to each of the two object persons. The mean time of each object per-

son's five appearances before the groups was figured. The introvert's

mean exposure time was 3.012 minutes, while for the extravert, mean

exposure time was 1.864 minutes. Because of the size of the disparity

between the mean exposure times of the two object persons, it was

decided to consider the results for the two object persons separately,

rather than trying to eliminate this source of variability. The main

reason for doing so has to do with the possibility that marked differ-

ences in exposure time might alter degree of responsiveness to the object

person as measured by the percentage of time spent looking at him, as well

as the number of times a judge would look at him. To attempt to consider

the responsiveness to the two object persons jointly would seem to intro-

duce unknown sources of error. However, it was deemed necessary to


eliminate the within-object-person variability which occurred over the

five separate exposures.

The first step in treating the subject data, in order to eliminate

the above-mentioned variability, was to average the time and number-of-

fixations data obtained by the two observers assigned to each subject.

Next, a corrected Observation Time measure (the time measure refers to

time spent looking at the object person, as measured in half-seconds

by the metronome) was figured for each subject in a given replication

by dividing the number of half-seconds spent looking at the object

person by the total number of half-seconds the OP was present, in order

to obtain a percentage. This percentage was applied to the OP's mean

time exposure to derive the corrected Observation Time for each subject.

Similarly, uncorrected Observation Time was divided by Frequency-

of-Fixations to obtain an Average Fixation Time. The corrected Obser-

vation Time was then divided by this Average Fixation Time to obtain a

corrected Frequency-of-Fixations for each subject.

To summarize the above, we have the following additional dependent


21. Observation Time (corrected for OP variability across repli-

cations): The total amount of time a given subject spent looking at

the OP from the time the OP sat down to the time he left his seat.

22. Frequency-of-Fixations (corrected for OP variability across

replications): The number of times a subject looked at the OP from the

time he sat down to the time he left his seat.

23. Average Fixation Time: The average length of time in half-

seconds spent in a single fixation.


Statistical treatment of the data

The main point of discussion here concerns the application of

Analysis of Variance to the dependent variables in Part II (7-17).

In the initial stages, Analysis of Variance was applied to the Empathy

Condition data and to the Memory Condition data separately, since the

subjects were not the same for the two conditions. However, because

some of the hypotheses concerned differences between the conditions, an

Analysis of Variance was undertaken in which the data from the two con-

ditions were combined in order to make comparisons between conditions

(Three-Factor Experiment with Repeated Measures, Case II; Winer, 1962).

In the analyses of the two conditions taken separately, individual

degrees of freedom were evaluated to make the following comparisons:

Source df Comparison

Judges 3 Neurotics vs Stables (N vs S)

Extraverts vs Introverts (E vs I)

Neurotic Extraverts + Stable Introverts
vs Stable Extraverts + Neurotic Intro-
verts (NE + SI vs SE + NI)

Objects 2 Extravert OP vs Introvert OP (E-O vs I-0)

Extravert OP + Introvert OP vs Ambivert
OP (E-O + 1-0 vs A-O)

Interactions 6 N vs S X E-O vs 1-0

N vs S X E-O + 1-0 vs A-O

E vs I X E-O vs I-0

E vs I X E-O + I-0 vs A-O

NE + SI vs SE + NI X E-O vs I 0

NE + SI vs SE + NI X E-O + 1-0 vs A-0

The five scores commuted from the data in Part III were also eval-

uated by Analysis of Variance. Again, the degrees of freedom were treated


individually. The following main effects and comparisons were studied:

Source df Cocparison

Objects 1 E-O vs I-0

Judges 3 N vs S

E vs I

NE + SI vs SE + NI

Levels 1 Good vs Poor

Levelsx Judges 3 Good vs Poor x N vs S

Good vs Poor x E vs I

Good vs Poor :: NE :- SI vs SE + NI

Objects x Judges 3 E-O vs I-0 x N vs S

E-O vs I-0 x E vs I

E-O vs I-0 x NE + SI vs SE + NI

Objects x Levels 1 E-O vs I-0 x Good vs Poor

Objects x Levels 3 E-O vs I-0 x Good vs Poor x N vs S
x Judges
E-O vs 1-0 x Good vs Poor x E vs I

E-O vs I-0 x Good vs Poor x NE + SI vs

The Analysis of Variance technique was used to test all the hypoth-

eses with the exception of Hypothesis 4, which called for the use of

correlation. The personality variables (1-6) were intercorrelated, and

simple correlations between the personality variables and the dependent

variables in Part II were also computed.

In addition to the statistical handling of data described here,

various other tests were applied to answer specific questions which arose

in the process of working with the data. These will be mentioned at the

appropriate point in the next chapter, which describes the results obtained

from application of the method described in this chapter.



The Personality Variables

Before turning to a consideration of the results which bear on

the hypotheses set forth in Chapter IV, it is necessary to consider

whether personality characteristics of the judges in the various groups

and between the conditions differ. This factor comes into question

because a meaningful comparison of the dependent variables between con-

ditions is possible only if the judges who participated in the Empathy

Condition were drawn from the same population as those who participated

in the Memory Condition.

Comarison of personality variables between conditions

A simple Analysis of Variance of each of the six independent

variables (MFI Extraversion and Neuroticism, Subtle Pd, and Minnesota

T-S-E scores) disclosed no significant mean differences between subjects

in the two conditions for any of these variables. However, the subjects

who participated in the Empathy Condition were significantly more variable

than were those in the Memory Condition on the Subtle Pd scale and the

Emotional Introversion scale of the Minnesota T-S-E (p -.05). (See Table


Comparison of personality variables between groups

An Analysis of Variance which combined the subject data from the

two conditions was made to ascertain the extent of differences between



cxtraverts and introverts, and between the stable and neurotic classifi-

cations. Following are summaries of these findings. (See Table 2 for

means and significant F levels. )

HPI Extraversion scale.--Since the subjects were classified initially

on the basis of scores on this scale into the categories of extravert and

introvert, it is no surprise that a very highly significant difference

in the mean scores of these two groups was found. The Stable x Neurotic

comparison did not reach significance, nor did the interaction.

MPI Neuroticism scale.--The only significant difference was that

between the subjects initially designated as stable and neurotic on the

basis of their scores on this scale (pL-.001).

Subtle Psychopathic Deviate scale.--A highly significant differ-

ence was found in the comparison of scores of extraverts and introverts--

the extraverts scored higher on this variable than did the introverts.

Minnesota Thinking Extraversion.--No significant differences were

found between the groups on this variable; however, there was a strong

trend for subjects classified as introverts to have higher scores (in

the direction of greater extraversion) than did the extraverts.

Minnesota Social Extraversion.--There was a very highly significant

difference between e:traverts and introverts on this scale, with extra-

verts scoring as more socially extraverted, and a highly significant

difference between the stable and neurotic classifications--the stable

subjects were more socially extraverted than were the neurotic subjects.

Minnesota Emotional Extraversion.--The extraverts and introverts

did net differ significantly on this variable. However, the neurotic and

stable subjects did differ (p-'.05). The neurotic extraverts appear to

account for the major portion of the variance in this difference.


0 o".) m1 onoD e
5n o. co o10co ooo r- ci D

oDon-m oon o
LI o>f 0' r-.Lfl In V. n .

O r O 00 0 04 T%
o rm4 o OCO o ocin o

OC'Jv-4N OON? 0
S * * * * *
l o rO co~ (7> C% C14 C4 C3 OO rl
o Ln r-INC0e %DCVJONGC 0 4NO
0 %DV-.4 o co"-i r<- Llr-I co

NOc'n OO0CMI O '-'O3 N
** * *. e *
Sr4 N N r-I % 4'-In O
t o 0 r-4 cn 0 an C% e
n IA ".400%D C%

O N 0 C0 O Or-'-iC'4 o03: r-c 040
O0".4N OCO rIC"4 Or )-aIt 'o

0 oVr-i C 000 oCDo no
C% p COcnO NON400 N.4ONCO ".4

0C4 r- N
r4l.f O O l.C

I n r- C 0NO4 C-

U 4

rLM 4co OQCl % 0 F4

"4 .4 -CI CON".4g N4 -I
Ncn o N 04 C% q s-I c 1
". r N Q)



'p1 *r4 0 r4 64 o

LI Sy : 0
41 > 0>
0 00C
c! c o i) a) 44

4> e > 4 w


4 * * *0 * * *
m L-40 0 ONNem 0

%D J 4 o N 14 2A a
4 . c . *- o

C Om o N 4 % D CO CN
-41 C1 C! CO C! 01 ra cC
o0 O CO CO N 00 %oNO u-4l 4 0% 1l
0 v-l r4 r-4 iql r4 r-4 fl

C. 0o 0 ocO A 0C % c m
LA o r m Ocn %0 N o0
. * *

9 r n -! C!o 0 .O ca
o O %v .2n. . .00 c; 4 4 O
So' a o
26 *

4 *
oa% CO mLN 1% M L .0

NI N 4 N
fl m 4 I tI i
NN El*

rt co NincrlO r 60
0 04

.k 44Jr

5o 4 wl s .0 a.
14 W w cn I


Criterion-measure differences among the object persons

The object persons proved very similar in their scores on the Subtle

Psychopathic Deviate scale. Out of a possible total score of 22, the

object persons scored as follows: 1-0, 7; E-O, 9; and A-0, 9. Despite

the over-all similarity of their scores, there were varying patterns of

dissimilarity in their responses. The I-0 differed from the E-O in his

response to 12 of the questions, and differed from A-0 in eight of his

answers. E-0 differed from A-O in six responses.

The Dependent Variables

To simplify the presentation of results of the dependent variables

derived from the judges' predictions of the object persons, it has been

deemed advisable to treat these results in several ways. A separate

table has been included in the appendices for each of these variables:

Total Errors, Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity, Inaccuracy-Similarity, Accuracy-

Similarity, Accuracy-Dissimilarity, Total Assumed Similarity, Real Simil-

arity, Accurate Stereotype, Inaccurate Stereotype, Total Stereotype, and

Self-Stereotype Similarity. A table for a given variable will list Judge,

Object, and Judge x Object means for both the Empathy and Memory Conditions,

as well as significant F values. The significant contrasts obtained by

evaluating individual degrees of freedom are also shown, as are significant

F values from the Analysis of Variance of the Conditions Combined. Each

table of means is followed by an Analysis of Variance summary for the

variable in question.

The verbal description of the results has been organized differently.

The data has ben treated in four separate sections. Hence, significant

results pertaining to the Judges have been grouped together, as have

those pertaining to Objects, to the Judge x Object interaction, and to


the Conditions variable. The Judge means for the 11 dependent variables

are shown in Table 3; Object means in Table 4; Judge x Object means in

Table 5; and Table 6 summarizes the significant contrasts. Means of

main effects for the Conditions Coabined analysis are shown in Table 7,

with the Judge x Object interactions shout in Table 8.

The results will be presented fir.t, followed by a discussion of

the hypotheses and those results which pertain specifically to the


Homogeeoity of Variance

One of the questions underlying the interpretation of the results

of the Analysis of Variance is the homogeneity of the variance attribu-

table to experimental error within each of the treatment groups. To

test the contributions to error variance for homgeeeeity, Bartlett's

Test (Chi-Square) was applied to the analyses of the Bkpathy and

Memory Condition variables considered separately, as well as to the

data derived from Part III. Of the 29 such analyses, only one showed

the contribution to error variance to be nonhomogeneous. The variable

in question was the Error measure in the Memory Condition, where

Bartlett's Test disclosed a very highly significant Chi-Square value.

It should be noted that the only other Chi-Square values which approached

significance were also found in the analysis of Memory Condition varia-

bles--both Inaccuracy-Similarity and Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity approached

significance, as did the Total Stereotype variance. However, since

statistical significance was not achieved, this experimenter will heed

Winer's statement (1962, p. 93) that "F tests are robust with respect

to departures from homogeneity of variance," and "only relatively large


departures from the hypothesis of equal population variances" need

concern the experimenter.

The Condition Variable

Of the 11 dependent variables from Part II, only four were

affected significantly by the Condition factor.

More errors were made in the Memory Condition than in the Empathy

Condition (p-.01). This difference was the result of greater inaccu-

racy on the basis of assuming dissimilarity in the Memory Condition

(p<.01). Accuracy on the basis of assuming dissimilarity and apply-

ing the stereotype accurately were significantly greater in the Em-

pathy Condition than in the Memory Condition.

The Judge Variable

The discussion of significant results for the main effect of

Judges will include not only the over-all analysis of this variable,

but also refer to the contrasts defined from the three degrees of

freedom available for the Judge effect. The three contrasts evaluated


Neurotics vs Stables: NE + NI vs SE + SI

Extraverts vs Introverts: NE + SE vs NI + SI

Interaction: NE + SI vs NI + SE

Of these, the third was found not to be a significant factor for any

of the variables discussed below, with the exception of the Error

variable, Empathy Condition.

Total Errors

The main effect of Judges did not reach significance in either

the Empathy or Memory Conditions. Furthermore, the Neurotic judges


00 Ln 0Ln

N CO -0
4 CM4 C--



0 n %0


CO a' r-C
* *
inam 3

co co r1 co
.... c

i.n in

CO 0c ;% 0



0 o -
M Ed M M

N >n aotn

r-4 -@ r-4 -4
**o *

* *

n MC M
h1 1 11
oo CM 11n
r^ r-. ii (

en C4 C4
* NN
.3 .- a

0 m%0 m
co 00i n

.ren\o 0
* ** I

0 GO P! CO


5 V 53M Eb



z w
r F

v bj



0 0
a "q




o *r4
U o
44 1
0r 0r
*~- *r


CO \D 0
1: i4

4 4

in en
0! CM

cn M

cO r.

-l e-

M 00


0 CO

n n


co P. %c
... ;


5 a


" 8

M "


co %I co

i* e
-;r LM M

r- 04




COl CM 4

%0 o
0 N

-l l4


r<. o 0

%M r4
C4 4

co r <
CO* '-io


W "4 8

aMM <>



-4- U-



Wi tn cn
u *u *u

n a



* L


N c'CMNo .cocM
00 -IT 0oe0 a%
*c u .c *-3 *o .,-4 ln cI. r.. ci
l r-4 r-1 r-4 "i Pl4 "4 w r-4 -4 r-1 r

0 co e 1-0i rccm r -* o o in|
oeN O OmN QN CM o

s r mi Om on C"Im n MIN o |
.1 II r .!OI .[CoQ n I

in*r-ilI mcoc oO o c I1 .
1. > .


"1 CM "M wM *, "1 wOco enr,

%6 o Z?. r- m wo m r

6 r-4nI aa% m nomin o wm
a; 2u-I 9 4u- LIA 0;

ocm0 Ln LneO 0M ar

Nem ral-inm m oN c chi4
c-1 rl-l4 r-1 v -4 t4 l4 l r 4I r- e rl

O CM CM|O N CMCV oofe cO O
0 N- a" 0 f l 1 '_W I m N o en,1 m o lcn r.in r icf i 0 1 UL N ,o r o

% M cn r-l0 o o M f%. l n lrl Dl "a iC l iN N fO

aoO c an Lm0 o u0 co0 %Dooo a-IT 0 CrmM -4:

ro lmr 1 C M r .o- r. a" r M r|r ,D co o 0

r-N c O N 0cooo r n rr r-O % MN W FI
S %0 r r n000 ON %0 L I 0 c Io "- I .-I C0o Lo

t-4 "4 e r-1

C m olo in nO co co WC CnM
0M w Le'n SN 0n| 3 n i

. . . ..* .

m< c I cl r. i'm 0 cso o

a< in Mll 1; ? 4. -r;i ;14' 1n

n M 1M rcn 0 C3 .
M or-I % m t n in n m

rAr 4 IA-f r-1
** s e s e I
No H mo m m

N co Nas
0 iO n 010 0 N

cm < 1n 14 m10 no lnr i NC
n4 CO In IIico n M 0M

oo 1 in o I m ON A 4 e

1-4 r' W4 1-1

0 0 010 0 0100 010 0 0 000000 0 010
1I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1i1 Ii
.. .- K K ,5 ,. ,M





M E-i










* *

0 3


cn co
1-A Ln


u a






c iri

rc> i



.LJ 1.4




co LnAO 'o

a in




C) I

u 0
* *

co "






G Cl
* N

r4 c


* r
Lf 1l


i t







0 %0

* *
i-l M)


-I CO * C C *

1 (u 10 *
04-I C In 4ct 0e
Sw cco n -r i D nco


0 C04 o;;4 1 1 C4 C4 0
Q %0 an r.4 on an in
C 4.1 C e S ** S

S hoo w D oDn cC


%DmONOC C%' 1D 0 J
0 00%0 co Dococn coo

o co coD %DO On n cm
z K 0 -p0< 00 04 i- f
(n C J-A o c % 0 .% CO CO 34 %D


ut OW D0 0 rN CMn C f 0T

"4- I- "4 "44 44 D


0 c c N %o oo 0 %.ao
0 Nt NO r-I %. 00o to) cn %D T 06 c o

9 00
v c 0 C S t

U41 68com N carcn C> M 0 0
H a * 4 S S P C C)

H- UC4 C 4-?C4 ;
0 0
0CC Ci o-
w "4 n4 U-A

t oc 0 w c
Cnc CU

N I 0CC 0 0 k 1 00 4 4

H -.1CV)'-d 111 Cinl 0 *
Ii, Qg|0;|6
). >0
rO~~~~ 0"4 ae l wC~

C0 r41 CM-
co I-, s

m n
r4C r4l



cn i9-
' r-io
* I s

* en 0
o r-ft C

N Nc

Li i oN

* I U

0 CM

M (a

00 0
en o 4

i- q ro

Ln Cq GN

cn L f -.

o n co


C-1 In Ln


4 r-e
MN n %

C-4 NO


-4 ri-II


mI Il IO

1- rn


n C1 a
* T 0

ren N T,

-I o

0 vO CO



,4 r-lI

In en M

0%n n P>.

* 0 *

en cnn




N4 r-i r4


CMr 0z
C %0 C7%



0 0
Am o en
* *
* *
Il 1-

C3 o i

or ON

* g
inen s

S-l-l C

* *
Nc ?

urmm c











did not differ from the Stable judges, nor were the Extraverts more

accurate than the Introverts. The insignificant Judge x Object interaction

is added evidence that the extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-

stability dimensions of personality are unrelated to accuracy per se,

at least in this study.


Extraverts and Introverts differed significantly in both conditions

in the extent to which they were inaccurate on the basis of assumed

dissimilarity. The Es were significantly more prone to be inaccurate

on this basis than were the Is. The mean ranks from highest to lowest

in each condition were: SE, NE, SI, NI.


The main effect of Judges was significant in all three analyses

(p .05 in the Empathy Condition; p4 .01 in the Memory Condition and

in the Combined Analysis). The means were ranked in the same order in

both conditions, from highest to lowest: NI, SI, NE, SE. These ranks

are diametrically opposite from those obtained for the Inaccuracy-

Dissimilarity variable.


The Stable judges were significantly more accurate on the basis

of assuming similarity between themselves and the object persons than

were the Neurotic judges in the Empathy Condition. There were no

significant differences in the Memory Condition.



In the Empathy Condition the main effect of Judges was significant,

and a highly significant difference emerged in the Neurotic vs Stable

contrast. Neurotic judges were more accurate on the basis of assuming

dissimilarity than were Stable judges.

Total Assumed Similarity

There were no significant differences in the extent to which the

judges resorted to assuming similarity in making their predictions.

Real Similarity

The judges differed in the degree of their actual similarity to the

object persons (Empathy Condition and Memory Condition, p ;.05; in the

Combined Analysis, p4.01). In the Empathy Condition the SE were most

similar to the object persons, followed by the SI, NE and NI. In the

Memory Condition the means were ranked SE, NE, SI, NI. The Stable

judges were more similar to the object persons than the Neurotics in

the Empathy Condition (p4.05). This difference was attributable to

the higher mean level of the SE. The Extraverts were more similar to

the object persons than the Introverts in both conditions (p..05 in

the Empathy Condition; p4 .01, Memory Condition).

Accurate Stereotype

The only significant Judge effect was the E vs I contrast in the

Memory Condition, where the Extraverts were more accurate in applying

their stereotypes than were the Introverts (p4.05). In both conditions

the highest mean was attained by the NE.


Inaccurate Stereotype

Although the means were ranked in the same order in both con-

ditions (high to low: NI, SI, NE, SE), the only significant difference

was found in the Empathy Condition, where the main effect exceeded a

probability level of .05. The E vs I contrast was highly significant;

the Introverts were more inaccurate in applying their stereotypes than

the Extraverts.

Total Stereotype

There were no differences in the extent to which judges applied

their stereotypes in making predictions of the object persons.

Self-Stereotype Similarity

No significant differences emerged between subjects in the Em-

pathy Condition; however, the main effect of Judges in the Memory Con-

dition was significant at the .05 level of confidence, and the Extra-

verts showed greater agreement between their stereotypes and self-ratings

than the Introverts. In both conditions the NI ranked lowest in Self-

Stereotype Similarity.

The Object Variable

In addition to a discussion of the main effect of Objects for

the dependent variables, the two degrees of freedom available from

the Object variable which were evaluated will receive attention. The

contrasts for the Object variable are:

Extravert Object vs Introvert Object (E-O vs I-0)

Extravert Object + Introvert Object vs Ambivert Object (E-O + I-0

vs A-O)


Total Errors

The main effect of Objects was very highly significant in both

conditions, as were the E-O vs 1-0 contrasts and the E-O + 1-0 vs A-O

contrasts. These significant differences are based on the judges' poor

accuracy in judging the E-O. The effect of Object differences was more

pronounced in the Memory.Condition than in the Bmpathy Condition; the

Combined Analysis revealed very highly significant differences for both

the Object effect and Conditions x Objects. The difference between

conditions is attributable to the marked increase in errors in judgments

of the E-O in the Memory Condition. The A-O and 1-0 means were similar

in both conditions.


The main effect of Objects was highly significant in the Empathy

Condition and very highly significant in the Memory Condition and in

the Combined Analysis. The Extravert Object was most often inaccurately

judged on the basis of assumed dissimilarity, and the Ambivert was least

often judged inaccurately on this basis. The difference in E-O and

I-0 means was not significant in the Empathy Condition, but was highly

significant in the Mcmory Condition. The judges were least inaccurate

in judging the A-O by assuming dissimilarity.


The Object effect was very highly significant in both conditions

and in the Combined Analysis. Again, the E-O had the highest means.

The difference between the E-O and I-0 means was very highly significant.

The judges were least inaccurate in judging the I-0; coincidentally,

the I-0 mean in each condition was the same. The fact that the E-O +


I-0 vs A-0 contrast was highly significant in the Memory Condition, and

not significant in the Empathy Condition, with the I-0 mean a constant

value in both conditions, implies that there was a significant differ-

ence between the E-0 and A-O in the Memory Condition, which did not

hold true for the Empathy Condition.


The greater variability among means in the Memory Condition is

reflected in a very highly significant difference for the main effect

of Objects, while in the Empathy Condition the difference was highly

significant. In both conditions the E-O was judged accurately less

often on the basis of assumed similarity than were the 1-0 and A-O,

the latter being most accurately judged on this basis. The difference

between E-O and 1-0 means in the Memory Condition was significant,

but not in the Empathy Condition. The A-O mean was very highly

significant in its difference from the E-0 + I-0 mean combination.


The main effect of Objects was very highly significant in both

conditions. The 1-0 was most often judged accurately on the basis of

assumed dissimilarity, while the E-0 was least often judged accurately

on this basis. The E-O 1I-0 contrast was very highly significant in

both conditions.

Total Similarity

The Objects differed in both conditions in the extent to which

the judges assumed similarity to them (Empathy Condition, p<.01;

Memory Condition, p<.O001). The A-0 was most often judged as being


similar to the judges, followed by the E-0, with the I-0 seen by the

judges as least similar to themselves. The mean difference between

E-0 and 1-0 on this variable was significant in both conditions.

Real Similarity

The Object means in the Empathy Condition did not differ sig-

nificantly in the degree of real similarity to the judges as a whole.

However, the F value for the Object means in the Memory Condition was

significant. The judges were significantly more similar to the A-0

in that condition than they were to E-0 and I-0.

Accurate Stereotype

The extent to which the judges' stereotypes were applied accu-

rately to the object persons differed in both conditions (Empathy

Condition, pL-.Ol; Memory Condition, p-.O01). In both conditions

the A-O was moot accurately judged on this basis, with the E-0 least

accurately judged. The I-0 and E-0 means did not differ on this

variable in the Empathy Condition, but did differ in the Memory Con-

dition (p-C.O1). The A-O mean differed from the E-0 + I-0 mean

combination, at the .001 level of confidence. In the Combined Analysis

the Object x Condition interaction was significant, indicating that in

the Memory Condition there was greater variability among the means

than in the Empathy Condition. This variability is due primarily to

the decrease in Stereotypic Accuracy in judging the E-0 in the Memory


Inaccurate Stereotype

In both conditions the F for the Object effect was very highly

significant, with the E-0 being judged inaccurately meet often on the


basis of the judges' stereotypes, and the 1-0 least often misjudged

on this basis. The E-O vs I-0 contrast was very highly significant

in both conditions. The Object x Condition interaction was significant,

reflecting the fact that in the Memory Condition there was an apparent

increase in mean levels for the E-0 and I-0 compared to the decrease

in the mean level of the A-0. This inference is supported by the

fact that the E-0 + I-0 vs A-O contrast did not reach significance

in the Empathy Condition, but was highly significant in the Memory


Total Stereotype

The Object effect was very highly significant in both conditions.

Judges applied their stereotypes most often to the A-0, followed by the

E-O, and least often to the 1-0. The E-O mean differed from the I-0

mean in both conditions (Empathy Condition, p-.001; Memory Condition,

p-.05). The E-O + 1-0 vs A-O contrast differed also (Empathy Con-

dition, p .01; Memory Condition, p4.O01).

The Judge x Object Interactions

This section will be devoted to a survey of the significant

Judge x Object interactions and the significant contrasts obtained

when the six degrees of freedom available froa the analysis of this

interaction were evaluated individually. From these six degrees of

freedom the following contrasts were defined:

N vs S x E-0 vs I-0

M vs S x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0

E vs I x E-0 vs I-0

E vs I x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0


NE + SI vs SE + NI :: E-0 vs 1-0

NE + SI vs SE + NI x E-O + 1-0 vs A-0

The last two listed above were not significant for any of the variables.

It is also noted here that none of the Judge x Object x Condition inter-

actions were significant.

Total Errors

The Judge x Object interaction was not significant in either

condition, nor were any of the contrasts.


The interaction was significant when the conditions were combined.

In both conditions the E vs I x E-O vs I-0 contrast was significant

(Empathy Condition, p.Ol0; Memory Condition, p .05). In each

condition the pattern was the same--as would be expected, the Extra-

verts were most inaccurate on the basis of assumed dissimilarity when

judging the I-0. It should be noted that the Extravert means were

more variable than were those of the Introverts, a phenomenon which

will be seen in the pattern of means for some of the other variables.

(See Fig. 1 for a graphic presentation of the Judge x Object inter-

action for this variable.)

Inaccuracy-Simie rity

In the Memory Condition the interaction was significant (p..05),

but not in the Empathy Condition. (See Fig. 2.) However, with the

data combined from both conditions, the interaction was very highly

significant. All groups were meat inaccurate in assuming similarity

when judging the E-0, but the Introverts made more errors on this basis

than did the EIKtraverts.



- -k\\

N. -

Empathy Condition: E va I F 7.33**




Memory Condition F 6.10 *



Fig. 1. Judge x Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Diassiilarity.



UE O----
SE e_----
SE -- -A
SI 4-


Empathy Condition (not sig.)





I /

/ \ N

Memory Condition F = 2.41*



Fig. 2. Judge x Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Similarity.





I I\




The interaction was significant in all three studies (Empathy

Condition, p-.001; Memory Condition, p<.05; Combined Analysis,

p-.001). In the Combined Analysis the NE, SE and SI were most accu-

rate on the basis of assuming similarity in judging the A-O. The NI

were most accurate on this basis in judging the I-0. In the Empathy

Condition the N vs S x E-0 + I-0 vs A-O contrast was significant,

while in the Memory Condition the N vs S x E-O vs 1-0 contrast was

significant. The conditions differed with respect to these two con-

trasts because of the greater variability of means in the Memory Con-

dition. (See Fig. 3.) In both conditions the E vs I x E-O + I-0

vs A-0 contrasts reached significant levels.


The Judge x Object interaction was very highly significant in

both conditions and in the Combined Analysis. Again it was the NI

who differed from the other groups; they were most accurate in judging

the A-0 on the basis of assuming dissimilarity, whereas all other groups

in both conditions judged the I-0 most accurately on this basis. (See

Fig. 4.)

The N vs S x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0 contrast was significant in the

Memory Condition, but not in the Empathy Condition. In both conditions

the E vs I contrasts were highly significant or very highly significant.

The significant E vs I x E-0 vs 1-0 contrasts were due primarily to the

fact that the differences between the E-O and I-0 means were signifi-

cantly more variable for the Es apparently than for the Is.


NE O---
SE ----
NI 6- -A
SI A- --A



Empathy Condition F = 4.54***

Memory Condition F = 3.71**

OBJECTS I-0 E-O A-0 I-0 E-O A-0

Fig. 3. Judge :: Object interactions for Accuracy-Similarity.






NE 0--
SE --

NI A- -A
SI & -



/ \ //

\ T/ /

4 -4 7



Empathy Condition F 5.80*** Memory Condition F = 8.22***

JECTS 1-0 E-0 A-O 1-0 E-0 A-O

Fig. 4. Judge x Object interactions for Accuracy-Dissimilarity.



Total Assumed Similarity

In both conditions the interaction was very significant, and

in the Combined Analysis, very highly significant. All groups, with

the exception of the NI, assumed similarity to the greatest extent

when judging the A-0, followed by the E-O, and assumed least similarity

to the I-0. (See Fig. 5.) In each condition the NIs' lowest mean for

this variable was for the A-0. The N vs S x E-O + I-0 vs A-0 con-

trasts were significant (Empathy Condition, p<..01; Memory Condition,

p<.001). This effect seems attributable to the greater variability

among the E means.

Real Similarity

The effect of the Judge x Object interaction was very highly

significant in all three analyses; in other words, there were very

real differences in the extent to which the different judge types were

similar to the object persons they were judging. (See Fig. 6.)

The N vs S x E-0 vs I-0 contrast was significant in both con-

ditions (p-<.05 in the Empathy Condition; p-.001 in the Memory Con-

dition), as was the E vs I x E-0 vs I-0 contrast (p.<.001 in both con-

d itions). These differences were in large part due to the variability

of SE and NI means--that is, the SE were most like the E-0 of all the

judge types and least like the I-0 in both conditions, while the NI

were most like the 1-0 and least like the E-0 in both conditions. The

significant E vs I x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0 contrast in both conditions dis-

closes higher mean levels of similarity to A-0 for the Extraverts.

Accurate Stereotype

Neither the Judge x Object interaction in the Empathy Condition

nor in the Memory Condition was significant. In the Combined Analysis,


NE 0---
SE -
SI A- -A
SI A. ..




Maory Condition

Empathy Condition F 3.32**

Fig. 5. Judge x Object interactions

I-0 E-0
for Total Assuued

F = 2.98**












Blpathy Coadition F = 5.01***




\ /

Memory Condition F = 10.01***




Fig. 6. Judge -: Object interactions for Real Similarity.


13 1




however, the interaction was significant.

Inaccurate Stereotype

None of the interaction studies for this variable proved to be

statistically significant.

Total Stereotype

No significant Judge x Object interactions were found in studies

of this variable.

Global Judgments

As previously described in Chapter V, the judges were asked to

summarize their impressions of each object person by checking one of

the categories, Extrovert, Ambivert or Introvert. The highly signifi-

cant Chi-Square value for judgments of extraversion according to judge

type means that the judges' ratings are more nearly alike than random

or chance assignments.



Judge Type Extraversion Ambiversion Introversion

NI 14 29 29

SI 11 32 29

NE 11 30 31

SE 14 31 27

Chi-Square value: 1.16, 6 df, p>.975


The extent to which each object person was perceived as an

Extravert, Ambivert or Introvert is shown in the table below. The

tallies for each object person were analyzed by Chi-Square for One-

Sample Tests; all three tests were significant beyond the .001 level

of confidence. These results show that both the E-0 and A-0 were most

often perceived as fitting the judges' conception of an Ambivert,

while the 1-0 was very clearly perceived by the judges as an Introvert.

Visual inspection of the tallies suggests that the A-0 was seen by

many of the judges as being an Extravert, while the E-0 was judged

by many to be an Introvert. There was much less ambiguity in the

judges' minds about the I-0.



Judawent E-0 A-O 1-0

Extravert 10 38 2

Ambivert 51 52 10

Introvert 35 6 74

Chi-Square, 2 df: 26.69 ** 34.75*** 91.19***

Correlation Studies

The simple correlations among the personality variables are

shewn in Table 11.

Correlations between the MPI Extraversion scale and the Minnesota

Social and wEotional Extraversion sales were very similar to those

reported by Knapp in 1962 (see page 47), but the correlation with the

Minnesota Thinking Extraversion scale wan slightly larger in the present



The results showed Neuroticism scale correlations with the Minne-

sota Thinking and Emothonal Extraversion scales comparable to those

reported by Knapp, but there was a marked discrepancy between the r

of .33 between the Neuroticism scale and the Minnesota Social Extra-

version scale (Knapp) and the very highly significant negative rela-

tionship (r= -.30) found in this study.



Variable E N Pd M-T M-S M-E

Extraversion 1.00
Neuroticism -.19* 1.00
Subtle Pd .39*** -.10 1.00

Minn. Thinking I-E -.17* .13 -.17* 1.00

Minn. Social I-E .80*** -.30*** .33*** -.33*** 1.00

Minn. Emotional I-E .25** .20* .17* -.16 .28** 1.00

* Significant at .05 level of confidence; ** .01; *** .001.

The intercorrelations among the Minnesota T-S-E scales were of

the order listed earlier (see page 48), with the exception of the rela-

tionship between Thinking and Emotional I-E. In the present study the

relationship was a very highly significant negative one (-.33), whereas

in the studies Evans & McConnell report (1941), the correlations were

both positive (.13 and .17).

In Table 12 are srhwn the correlations between the personality

variables and some of the dependent variables. For the most part,

correlations are very low; of the 22 values which reach a statistically


significant level, the highest value is -.269, the correlation between

the MPI Extraversion and the Inaccuracy-Similarity variables. The E

scale, the Subtle Pd scale and the Minnesota Social Extraversion scale

were most highly related to the criterion variables.

To summarize findings of statistical significance:

The significant MPI E scale and Minnesota Social Extraversion

correlations indicate that social extraversion is positively related

to the tendency to be inaccurate on the basis of assuming dissimilarity

between oneself and an object person, and negatively related to the

tendency to be inaccurate on the basis of assuming similarity; both

scales are also positively correlated with the tendency to see others

as similar to the self, as expressed in the Self-Stereotype Similarity


Neuroticism is related positively to both accuracy and inaccu-

racy on the basis of assuming similarity between oneself and the person

one is judging. It is negatively related to judging others inaccurately

on the basis of assuming dissimilarity. The negative Self-Stereotype

Similarity correlation with Neuroticism indicates that there is a slight

tendency for more neurotic judges to see themselves as less similar to

the average male college student than do the less neurotic subjects.

Psychopathy as measured by the Subtle Psychopathic Deviate scale

was very highly significantly related to accuracy on the basis of

assumed similarity, and negatively related to assumed dissimilarity.

The negative relationship to Total Assumed Similarity and positive re-

lationship to Total Assumed Dissimilarity indicate that high Subtle Pd

scale scorers tended to assume similarity less than did low scorers.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs