IN RELATION TO PERSON PERCEPTION
DOROTHY BALL WARD
A DLSSERTATION PRESENTED TO Till. GRADUATE COUNCU. OF
THE -IrNi' EnsrFY OF FLORIDA
EN PARTIAL FULFLLL ENT OF IflE REQULiLEMEN'TS FOR TILE
DELF(;,EE OF DOCTOR OF PIlL.OcOFill
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLED3IENTS . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . .
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . .
I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM . . . . . .
II THE CONCEPT OF EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION ...
History of the Concept . . . . . .
The Factor-Analytic Approach: Eysenck and
Cattell . . . . . . . .
Major Issues . . . . ....... .
The Concept of Ego Closeness-Ego Ditance...
III PERSON PERCEPTION AND EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION.
The Concept of Empathy . . . . . .
IV FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESES . . . . . .
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 . . . . . . . . .
V METHOD OF THE RESEARCH . . . . . . .
Part I . . . . . . . . . .
Part II . . . . . . . . .
Part III . . . . . . . . .
VI RESULTS . . . . . . . . . .
The Personality Variables . . . . .
The Dependent Variables . . . . .
. . v
. . 1
. . 15
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
VII DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS. . . . . . ... 106
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
LIST OF TABLES
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. .
LIST OF TABLES Continued
LIST OF FIGURES
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
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
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
INTROJDCTION TO THE PROBLEM
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.
THE CONCEPT OF EXTRAVERSION-IITROVERSION
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
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-
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
PERSON PERCEPTION AND EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION
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.
FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESES
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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:
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
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
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
A more detailed description of the procedures employed in these
experimental stages follows.
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
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:
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
SE + NI
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-
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>
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
oa% CO mLN 1% M L .0
NI N 4 N
fl m 4 I tI i
rt co NincrlO r 60
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.
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
co co r1 co
CO 0c ;% 0
0 o -
M Ed M M
N >n aotn
r-4 -@ r-4 -4
n MC M
h1 1 11
oo CM 11n
r^ r-. ii (
en C4 C4
.3 .- a
0 m%0 m
co 00i n
* ** I
0 GO P! CO
5 V 53M Eb
CO \D 0
In CM O
co P. %c
co %I co
-;r LM M
COl CM 4
r<. o 0
co r <
W "4 8
Wi tn cn
u *u *u
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
SM M M M
T M I M M Z Z
co LnAO 'o
a rONCIN I
-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
U1 4 ONOO IICO 4 ON
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
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 ;
0CC Ci o-
w "4 n4 U-A
t oc 0 w c
N I 0CC 0 0 k 1 00 4 4
H -.1CV)'-d 111 Cinl 0 *
rO~~~~ 0"4 ae l wC~
C0 r41 CM-
co I-, s
* I s
* en 0
o r-ft C
Li i oN
* I U
en o 4
i- q ro
Ln Cq GN
cn L f -.
o n co
C-1 In Ln
CN CM m
MN n %
N4 CM CM
mI Il IO
n C1 a
* T 0
ren N T,
0 vO CO
In en M
0%n n P>.
* 0 *
N4 r-i r4
C %0 C7%
Am o en
C3 o i
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-
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.
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).
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.
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
There were no differences in the extent to which judges applied
their stereotypes in making predictions of the object persons.
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-
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.)
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.
Empathy Condition: E va I F 7.33**
Memory Condition F 6.10 *
Fig. 1. Judge x Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Diassiilarity.
SE -- -A
Empathy Condition (not sig.)
/ \ N
Memory Condition F = 2.41*
Fig. 2. Judge x Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Similarity.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neither the Judge x Object interaction in the Empathy Condition
nor in the Memory Condition was significant. In the Combined Analysis,
SI A- -A
SI A. ..
Empathy Condition F 3.32**
OBJECTS I-0 E-0 A-0
Fig. 5. Judge x Object interactions
for Total Assuued
F = 2.98**
Blpathy Coadition F = 5.01***
Memory Condition F = 10.01***
Fig. 6. Judge -: Object interactions for Real Similarity.
however, the interaction was significant.
None of the interaction studies for this variable proved to be
No significant Judge x Object interactions were found in studies
of this variable.
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.
JUDGMENTS OF EXTRAVERSION
ACCORDING TO JUDGE TYPE
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.
OF THE OBJECT PERSONS
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***
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.
JUDGES' PERSONALITY VARIABLES
Variable E N Pd M-T M-S M-E
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.