Citation
Extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-stability in relation to person perception

Material Information

Title:
Extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-stability in relation to person perception
Creator:
Ward, Dorothy Ball, 1928-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1968
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 189 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Emotional adjustment ( jstor )
Empathy ( jstor )
Extroversion ( jstor )
Introversion ( jstor )
Mathematical dependent variables ( jstor )
Memory ( jstor )
Personality inventories ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Stereotypes ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Empathy ( lcsh )
Extraversion ( lcsh )
Introversion ( lcsh )
Neuroses ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 183-187.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022045330 ( AlephBibNum )
13432904 ( OCLC )
ACY4472 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














EXTRAVERSION-INTRO VERSION
AND NEUROTICISM-STABILITY
IN RELATION TO PERSON PERCEPTION











By
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
1968













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


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.

ii















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLED3IENTS . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

CHAPTERS


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 . . . . .

iii


Page

S. .ii

. . v

. vii

S.viii



1




5

7
. . 1




. . 15


.17




.22

S.25
. 27
. .29
. .32
. .35
. .36
. .36

. .39
.39

.42
. .49

. .58

. .58
. .62
. .62









CHAPTERS

VI (Continued)

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

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


Table Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Judgments of Extraversion According to Judge Type . .88

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

11 Intercorrelations of Judges' Personality Variables. .90

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

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

14 Academic Factors Good and Poor Judges Part III . 94

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

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











Table


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


Page


116













LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

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


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


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


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


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


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














KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS


E-I: Extraversicn-Introversion

N-S: Neuroticisa-Stability

Es: Extraverts

Is: Introverts

Ns: Neurotics

Ss: Stables

NE: Neurotic Extraverts

SE: Stable E:traverts

NI: Neurotic Introverts

SI: Stable Introverts

OP: Object Persons

1-0: Introvert Object Person

E-O: Extravert Object Person

A-O: Ambivert Object Person


viii













CHAPTER I

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


-1-





-2-

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




-3-

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






-4-


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.













CHAPTER II

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

complementarily introverted."

Jung's concept found quick acceptance in psychological circles.

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

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

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

ological condition.





-6-

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


The first instrument devised to measure this dimension was the

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

research devoted to ascertaining behavioral differences between extra-

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

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

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

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

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

extraversion (Allport, 1961):

S: social introversion (shyness and tendencies to withdraw from

social contacts);

T: thinking introversion (an inclination to meditative thinking,

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

justment factor by Carrigan, 1960);

D: depression, with feelings of unworthiness and guilt;

C: cycloid tendencies (strong emotional reactions, fluctuations

in mood and tendency toward flightiness or instability);

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

and impulsiveness).

Other scales which attempt to refine the construct include the

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





-7-


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

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

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

in the life.

7he Factor-Analytic Approach: Eysenck and Cattell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Extraversion consists of:

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







Cattell feels that environmental factors account for more of the

variance of the various primaries than are apparently ascribable to

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

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

p. 268).

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

differences in the formation of excitatory and inhibitory potentials as

the underlying cause of introverted and extraverted behavior patterns,

and of constitutional differences in autonomic liability as the underlying

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

personality theory.

Eysenck & Eysenck argued that, given a constitutional basis for

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

conceptual status in psychology from that achieved by the shifting and

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

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

(Eysenck, 1955).

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

nervous system, both excitatory and inhibitory potentials are created.

The algebraic sum of these potentials determines the amount of learning

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

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

inhibitory potentials dissipate in time more quickly than excitatory ones.

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








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


Eysenck's suggestion that hysteria is the typical psychoneurosis

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

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

psychoneurotic introvert as anxious or obsessive.

In keeping with his theory that extraverts condition less readily

than introverts and that such responses extinguish more quickly than in

the introvert, Eysenck has hypothesized that extraverts are undersocial-

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

duced the failure of extraverts to develop a vocabulary equivalent to

their abstract intelligence; their tendency to lay stress on speed

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

valued quality of persistence.

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

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

tivity. Callaway pointed out:

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


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

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

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

failed to find an hypothesized relationship between narrowed attention

and introversion.

Until recently, Eysenck was unwilling to include sociability as

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





-10-

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

and neurotic. Further, extraverts were described as either constitutional

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

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

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

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

measures of behavioral extraversion, while objective performance tests

are probably better measures of constitutional extraversion.

That Eysenck appears to have come around to o position taking

account of differences in reactivity to the external environment is

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

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

ongoing impulses."


Major Issues

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

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

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

adjustment?


The question of unidimensionality

The fact that several joint analyses of the Guilford and Cattell

questionnaires show that at least two independent factors are required

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

Carrigan to question the unidimensionality of extraversion-introversion.

The two main factors which have resulted from analysis of the

Guilford-ZiLmerman Tempezament Survey are very similar to the pattern

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

suggestion that:





-11-

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

contrasts:

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

control;

Guilford's T: mental disconcertedness vs. reflectiveness and

self-observation;

16PF F: carefreeness vs. introspectiveness and brooding;

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

and conscientiousness;

16PF Q3: laxity vs. control.

Carrigan considers this factor as identified with Eysenck's conception

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

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

factors defined by the Guilford scale.

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

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

is consistently related to the extraversion primaries from these factor-

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

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

unrelated" to Eysenck's E-I dimension.

Rorschach's conceptsof introversion and extratension have been

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

1955). Carrigan reports that several studies have found differences

between extratensive and introversive subjects which correspond to





-12-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her assessment of the unidimensionality of the construct,

Carrigan states:

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

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


E-I and adjustment

Theoretically, Jung maintained that adjustment and E-I were

independent, while Freud believed that introversion was the forerunner

of neurosis.

The two major independent factors identified in the Cattell and

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

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

For instance, Carrigan suggests that Social Extraversion may be considered





-13-

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

samples.

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

justent, while impulsiveness has a slightly negative correlation.





-14-


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).





-15-


The Concept of Ego Closeness-Ego Distance

The common core of the construct dimension extraversion-introver-

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

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

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

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

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

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

a compelling need to maintain contact with external objects and social

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

oneself from external reality, less dependence upon external stimuli,

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

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

alcoholics, hysterics, involutional melancholics, manic-depressives,

paranoids and psychopaths were found to report little or no autokinecic

movement, whereas schizophrenics, obsessionals and anxiety neurotics

reported fairly extensive movement.

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

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

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

exhibitionistic, and more active socially, more labile emotionally and

more impulsive.

Ego-distant subjects were described as more reflective, enjoying

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

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

responses and mere likely to be withdrawn and shy.





-16-

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.














CHAPTER III

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-


-17-





-18-


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.





-19-


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-

larly).

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


reactiens.





-20-


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.






-21-


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.














CHAPTER IV

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

make.
-22-





-23-


2. Indirect observation: the judges watched the object person

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

personality measure.

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

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

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

judging.

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-

psychopaths."

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.





-24-

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

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

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

asked to nominate extraverts and introverts from among their friends.

The results showed no relationship between the judges' personality

traits on extraversion-introversion and the accuracy of judgment of

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

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

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

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

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

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

more, global judgments are undoubtedly easier to make with accuracy

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

personality inventory.

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

tently failed to establish personality factors as significant sources

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

Zimerman Temperament Survey, which measures extraversion, was one of

the personality measures included. Intelligence was consistently

related to the judging tasks, even in the relatively homogeneous

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

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

inferences about object persons from visual observations of them;

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

evidence against the following hypothesis:





-25-


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





-26-

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

by Eysenck as general emotional instability, emotional overresponsive-

ness and predisposition to neurotic breakdown under stress. Extra-

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

clinations. The four quadrants derived from these two orthogonal

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

and neurotic introverts.

Because of the relation of adjustment to accuracy, the stable

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

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

introvert, and the neurotic extravert more accurate than the neurotic

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

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

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

Hypothesis 2: Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will

decrease in the following order:

Stable extravert

Stable introvert

Neurotic extravert

Neurotic introvert

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

though the extraverted psychopaths were significantly more accurate in

judgments of object persons than were the mere introverted noipsycho-

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

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

Congruent with the preceding hypothesis is the following:

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





-27-


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-

lated.

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





-23-


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

maladjustment.

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

Guilford's Social and Thinking scales and the Maudsley Personality

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

ex-dermatitis patients resembled control extraverts in being unrigid

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

resembled control introverts in being rigid and having low affect

hunger. Social extraversion has been reported related to student-

teaching success (Evans, 1947).

The emotional dimension interacts with the adjustment factor

previously discussed, as does the social dimension. Social introverts

were found to be anxious, while emotional introverts had satisfactory

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

social extraverts were emotionally adjusted and emotional extraverts

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

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

emotional introverts.

It seems likely from the evidence indicating the relationship of

sociability to accuracy of interpersonal perception that social extra-

version is the subtype most likely to show a significant relationship

to empathy. emotional extraversion appears to be related to poor





-29-


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





-30-


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





-31-


visual images. Costello found considerable overlap between the normal

and neurotic groups.

The suggestion that introverts might show an increase in accuracy

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

ically greater capacity "to shift attention-cathexis to subjective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the basis of the foregoing rationale, the following hypotheses

are generated:

Hypothesis 6: a) Extraverts will show greater accuracy when

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

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

of the object person.

Mypothesis 7: a) Extraverts will make more accurate judgments

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

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

of judgments when the object person is absent.

Thus, while introverts should improve in accuracy, and extraverts

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

accurate stereotype of the extravert should balance to some degree his

loss of accuracy frao the absence of differentiating cues.





-"2-

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.





-33-

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],





-34-

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.





-35-

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





-36-


of the extravert and ambivert object persons, while introverts will

be most accurate in predicting for the introvert object person.

Overt Behavioral Differences in Judges

The extent to which judges rely on the immediately available

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

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

that some judges constantly referred visually to the object person,

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

to him.

It seems likely that more empathic judges are those who refer

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

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

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

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

hypothesis 13: Extraverts will refer visually to the object

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

verts.

Hypothesis 14: Good judges will refer visually to the object

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

judges.

Sualary

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





-37-


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

typic accuracy as components of accuracy scores.

The following hypotheses were stated:

Hypothesis 1: Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers

than are introverts.

Hypothesis 2: Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will

decrease in the following order:

Stable extravert

Stable introvert

Neurotic extravert

Neurotic introvert

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

Hypothesis 4: Social and Thinking Extraversion are positively

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

version is negatively related to accuracy.

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

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

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

available at the time of judging.

Hypothesis 6: a) Extraverts will show greater accuracy when

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

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

of the object person.

ypothesis 7: a) Extraverts will make mere accurate judgments

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

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

of judgments when the object person is absent.








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

arity to a greater extent than the introverted groups.

Hypothesis 9: Introverts will assume similarity inaccurately to

a greater extent than the extraverts.

Hypothesis 10: Introverts will rely more on their stereotypes in

judging others than will extraverts.

Hypothesis 11: The extravert object person will be most accurately

judged, followed by the introvert and ambivert.

Hypothesis 12: Extravert judges will be most accurate predictors

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

most accurate in predicting for the introvert object person.

Hypothesis 13: Extraverts will refer visually to the object

persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will

introverts.

Hypothesis 14: Good judges will refer visually to the object

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

judges.

The next chapter will describe the methods implemented to test

these hypotheses.














CHAPTER V

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

being judged.

A more detailed description of the procedures employed in these

experimental stages follows.

Part I

Selection of object persons

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

sons who phenomenologically appeared to represent the extremes and middle

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

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

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

following way.

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

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

-39-





-40-

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





-41-


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

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

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

tained from the group of 25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following are the respective ratings and test scores of the

subjects chosen as object persons:

Rating MPI E MPI N

Extravert 87 38 14

Ambivert 67 32 18

Introvert 40 20 16

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

closely resembles the extravert than the introvert.

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

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




-42 -


Thinking E Social E Emotional E

Extravert 99 165 49

Ambivert 155 136 65

Introvert 120 89 45

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

These scores indicate that the subject chosen to represent the

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extraversion scale supports the notion that social extraversion is the

common denominator of all three measures.


Part II

Subjects

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:





-43-


Neuroticism Extraversion

Stable Extraverts (SE) below 22 above 32

Stable Introverts (SI) below 22 below 27

Neurotic Extraverts (NE) above 22 above 32

Neurotic Introverts (NI) above 22 below 27

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

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

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

To insure an adequate sample size, no restrictions were imposed

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

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

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

first experimental session, and another 74 reported for the second

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

19 was eliminated from statistical treatment because these subjects

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

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

Another 23 subjects were eliminated who had been previously classified

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

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

numerically as follows:

Subect Type Coand ton 1 Ca.dititon 2

SE 17 12

NE 13 14

SI 18 15

NI 12 12

60 53





-44-


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of 96 subjects, 48 in each condition.


Judging conditions

There were two conditions under which the three object persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dition was introduced to provide the judges with auditory and visual

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

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

persons' responses.

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

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

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

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

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





-45-

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.


Procedure

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.





-46-


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





-47-


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

been found.

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

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

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

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

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

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

correlates highly with measures of neuroticism and anxiety. The MPI

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

described next, as follows:

Saple esse E scale N scale

Thinking Extraversion 87 -.05 .04

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

Emotional E::traversion 37 .21* .17

(Asterisks will be used throughout to indicate confidence levels as

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

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

"Previous evidence has suggested that the response set of acquiescence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





-48-


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
people.

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
appeals.

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





-49-


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

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

proven excessively burdensome. Secondly, while the object persons were

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

desirable that they also be differentiable on another, related dimension

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

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

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

sion to insure differentiation among the object persons in advance of

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

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

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

one to use.

Another reason for choosing this scale was its heterogeneity of

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

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

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

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

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

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

psychopathic functioning in relation to empathy.


Part III

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

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

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

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





-50-


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

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

stable extraverts, three neurotic introverts and two stable introverts.

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

stable extraverts, two neurotic introverts and three stable introverts.

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

verts, five neurotic introverts and five stable introverts.

An extravert object person and an introvert object person were

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

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

with the exception that their scores on the Neuroticism scale were

considerably higher.

MPI E MPI N Rated score

Extravert 38 32 89

Introvert 4 30 58

They were paid $3 for their participation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

immediately began reading the items aloud, pausing between each item

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

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





-51-

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.





-52-

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.





-53-


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

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

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

Inaccuracy-Similarity scores.

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

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

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

similarly.

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

stereotype.

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.





-54-

The dependent variables in Part III consisted of the following

scores:

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

dimension.

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





-55-

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

variables:

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.





-56-


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





-57-

individually. The following main effects and comparisons were studied:

Source df Cocparison

Objects 1 E-O vs I-0

Judges 3 N vs S

E vs I

NE + SI vs SE + NI

Levels 1 Good vs Poor

Levelsx Judges 3 Good vs Poor x N vs S

Good vs Poor x E vs I

Good vs Poor :: NE :- SI vs SE + NI

Objects x Judges 3 E-O vs I-0 x N vs S

E-O vs I-0 x E vs I

E-O vs I-0 x NE + SI vs SE + NI

Objects x Levels 1 E-O vs I-0 x Good vs Poor

Objects x Levels 3 E-O vs I-0 x Good vs Poor x N vs S
x Judges
E-O vs 1-0 x Good vs Poor x E vs I

E-O vs I-0 x Good vs Poor x NE + SI vs
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.














CHAPTER VI

RESULTS


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

1.)


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

-58-





-59-


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.






-60-


0 o".) m1 onoD e
5n o. co o10co ooo r- ci D


oDon-m oon o
LI o>f 0' r-.Lfl In V. n .






O r O 00 0 04 T%
o rm4 o OCO o ocin o








OC'Jv-4N OON? 0
S * * * * *
l o rO co~ (7> C% C14 C4 C3 OO rl
o Ln r-INC0e %DCVJONGC 0 4NO
0 %DV-.4 o co"-i r<- Llr-I co










NOc'n OO0CMI O '-'O3 N
** * *. e *
Sr4 N N r-I % 4'-In O
t o 0 r-4 cn 0 an C% e
n IA ".400%D C%





O N 0 C0 O Or-'-iC'4 o03: r-c 040
O0".4N OCO rIC"4 Or )-aIt 'o




0 oVr-i C 000 oCDo no
C% p COcnO NON400 N.4ONCO ".4





0C4 r- N
r4l.f O O l.C


I n r- C 0NO4 C-




U 4
SH0

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)
r-4

0

C S

'p1 *r4 0 r4 64 o

LI Sy : 0
41 > 0>
0 00C
c! c o i) a) 44



4> e > 4 w






-61-


4 * * *0 * * *
m L-40 0 ONNem 0

%D J 4 o N 14 2A a
4 . c . *- o






C Om o N 4 % D CO CN
-41 C1 C! CO C! 01 ra cC
o0 O CO CO N 00 %oNO u-4l 4 0% 1l
0 v-l r4 r-4 iql r4 r-4 fl




C. 0o 0 ocO A 0C % c m
LA o r m Ocn %0 N o0
. * *








9 r n -! C!o 0 .O ca
o O %v .2n. . .00 c; 4 4 O
So' a o
26 *


4 *
oa% CO mLN 1% M L .0


NI N 4 N
fl m 4 I tI i
NN El*


U4
rt co NincrlO r 60
0 04











.k 44Jr



5o 4 wl s .0 a.
14 W w cn I





-62-

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





-63-


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

hypotheses.


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





-64-

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

include:

Neurotics vs Stables: NE + NI vs SE + SI

Extraverts vs Introverts: NE + SE vs NI + SI

Interaction: NE + SI vs NI + SE

Of these, the third was found not to be a significant factor for any

of the variables discussed below, with the exception of the Error

variable, Empathy Condition.


Total Errors

The main effect of Judges did not reach significance in either

the Empathy or Memory Conditions. Furthermore, the Neurotic judges







-65-


00 Ln 0Ln






N CO -0
4 CM4 C--
(CN0mC


co0



-'-I03






0 n %0


MMM r


CO a' r-C
* *
inam 3


co co r1 co
QAhOl
rlmeQam
.... c


CON C0
i.n in


CO 0c ;% 0

'I

w

0 o -
M Ed M M


N >n aotn



r-4 -@ r-4 -4
**o *































* *



n MC M
h1 1 11
oo CM 11n
r^ r-. ii (


en C4 C4
* NN
.3 .- a


0 m%0 m
co 00i n






.ren\o 0
* ** I


0 GO P! CO




f0



5 V 53M Eb


cn
M
3



E4


z w
r F





v bj


0U


Cu
U


0 0
a "q






0G
u-4
So
14-








00




Uir



o *r4
U o
114
44 1
0r 0r
*~- *r







-66-


CO \D 0
1: i4

4 4


in en
0! CM



cn M





cO r.

-l e-


M 00
*o

-4-4


0 CO

n n




In CM O

co P. %c
Nm3o
... ;


c



5 a
'0

E H



" 8

I
M "

sO


co %I co





%004
i* e
-;r LM M


r- 04
;*
0CO
"4


'ell

aI


cowedi




COl CM 4






%0 o
0 N













-l l4
-"4-r


0oc


r<. o 0







%M r4
C4 4












r-4
co r <
CO* '-io


kkd


W "4 8

aMM <>


woo
oau




000


00
OOU
-4- U-


"-4
"r-4








.CgS


Wi tn cn
u *u *u

n a


0

.I





* L
1
g^X






-67-


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. > .
I I


d0LrIomoQoo0-dm

"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


H



z




no0
E-4






M E-i


0

H
E-i
H

0
o






-68-


0
H


NH
H-r

U


Nl


i9


A M
COa
* *

















0 3



















D


cn co
1-A Ln


.
U M







u a


r


Lo
0!


co
















%,0
t%















.04









c iri













Go
0O
u
P
rc> i

0


*1c
-4
'V.'
































.LJ 1.4

ii


*
C
in







a%
-4


co LnAO 'o


OLn
a in

CO.










ro.4





























1H>
I















0
C) I
>F
N


.-
u 0
* *


csO
co "






-69-


a















f
v0













'di


.400


coI
G Cl
* N
Cl




40'
r4 c
in





o
rO
00
CO


* r
Lf 1l


ii


i t








a'


r-c
-I


0
-


!fl
I
>:
"o


fI1


ii



0 %0




r-lcn
* *
i-l M)






-70-


a rONCIN I
-I CO * C C *




1 (u 10 *
04-I C In 4ct 0e
Sw cco n -r i D nco

0



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

M

%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



U U(U

0 c c N %o oo 0 %.ao
0 Nt NO r-I %. 00o to) cn %D T 06 c o


9 00
v c 0 C S t

U41 68com N carcn C> M 0 0
H a * 4 S S P C C)






H- UC4 C 4-?C4 ;
0 0
0CC Ci o-
w "4 n4 U-A



t oc 0 w c
coo
Cnc CU

N I 0CC 0 0 k 1 00 4 4


H -.1CV)'-d 111 Cinl 0 *
Ii, Qg|0;|6
). >0
rO~~~~ 0"4 ae l wC~
















C0 r41 CM-
co I-, s

m n
r4C r4l









orlON







cNO

cn i9-
' r-io
* I s








* en 0
o r-ft C




N Nc
























Li i oN
0*r





* I U



















0 CM




II I
M (a


00 0
en o 4

i- q ro



Ln Cq GN


cn L f -.





o n co

NNO
*-i












'030
C-1 In Ln




CN CM m


















4 r-e
MN n %
N4 CM CM





















C-4 NO





r4N










000
-4 ri-II
11


















C4
M C
*
coo*


mI Il IO

1- rn


NWO


n C1 a
* T 0





ren N T,








-I o
0000

0 vO CO





400

*0*




,4 r-lI





In en M








OCON
0%n n P>.








* 0 *






en cnn

























000
IIl


M


v-ON

N4 r-i r4




0%NN








CMr 0z
C %0 C7%















C04%












V4N















0 0
Am o en
* *
* *
Il 1-



C3 o i


or ON







* g
inen s


S-l-l C



* *
Nc ?


urmm c


men


r-I
MMrc


000




H
to


-71-


Q

i-i

HU
M M
HE







0
CJ





-72-

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.


Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity

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.


Inaccuracy-Similarity

The main effect of Judges was significant in all three analyses

(p .05 in the Empathy Condition; p4 .01 in the Memory Condition and

in the Combined Analysis). The means were ranked in the same order in

both conditions, from highest to lowest: NI, SI, NE, SE. These ranks

are diametrically opposite from those obtained for the Inaccuracy-

Dissimilarity variable.


Accuracy-Similarity

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.





-73-


Accuracy-Dissimilarity

In the Empathy Condition the main effect of Judges was significant,

and a highly significant difference emerged in the Neurotic vs Stable

contrast. Neurotic judges were more accurate on the basis of assuming

dissimilarity than were Stable judges.


Total Assumed Similarity

There were no significant differences in the extent to which the

judges resorted to assuming similarity in making their predictions.


Real Similarity

The judges differed in the degree of their actual similarity to the

object persons (Empathy Condition and Memory Condition, p ;.05; in the

Combined Analysis, p4.01). In the Empathy Condition the SE were most

similar to the object persons, followed by the SI, NE and NI. In the

Memory Condition the means were ranked SE, NE, SI, NI. The Stable

judges were more similar to the object persons than the Neurotics in

the Empathy Condition (p4.05). This difference was attributable to

the higher mean level of the SE. The Extraverts were more similar to

the object persons than the Introverts in both conditions (p..05 in

the Empathy Condition; p4 .01, Memory Condition).


Accurate Stereotype

The only significant Judge effect was the E vs I contrast in the

Memory Condition, where the Extraverts were more accurate in applying

their stereotypes than were the Introverts (p4.05). In both conditions

the highest mean was attained by the NE.





-74-


Inaccurate Stereotype

Although the means were ranked in the same order in both con-

ditions (high to low: NI, SI, NE, SE), the only significant difference

was found in the Empathy Condition, where the main effect exceeded a

probability level of .05. The E vs I contrast was highly significant;

the Introverts were more inaccurate in applying their stereotypes than

the Extraverts.


Total Stereotype

There were no differences in the extent to which judges applied

their stereotypes in making predictions of the object persons.


Self-Stereotype Similarity

No significant differences emerged between subjects in the Em-

pathy Condition; however, the main effect of Judges in the Memory Con-

dition was significant at the .05 level of confidence, and the Extra-

verts showed greater agreement between their stereotypes and self-ratings

than the Introverts. In both conditions the NI ranked lowest in Self-

Stereotype Similarity.


The Object Variable

In addition to a discussion of the main effect of Objects for

the dependent variables, the two degrees of freedom available from

the Object variable which were evaluated will receive attention. The

contrasts for the Object variable are:

Extravert Object vs Introvert Object (E-O vs I-0)

Extravert Object + Introvert Object vs Ambivert Object (E-O + I-0


vs A-O)





-75-


Total Errors

The main effect of Objects was very highly significant in both

conditions, as were the E-O vs 1-0 contrasts and the E-O + 1-0 vs A-O

contrasts. These significant differences are based on the judges' poor

accuracy in judging the E-O. The effect of Object differences was more

pronounced in the Memory.Condition than in the Bmpathy Condition; the

Combined Analysis revealed very highly significant differences for both

the Object effect and Conditions x Objects. The difference between

conditions is attributable to the marked increase in errors in judgments

of the E-O in the Memory Condition. The A-O and 1-0 means were similar

in both conditions.


Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity

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.


Inaccuracy-Similarity

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 +





-76-

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.


Accuracy-Similarity

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.


Accuracy-Dissimilarity

The main effect of Objects was very highly significant in both

conditions. The 1-0 was most often judged accurately on the basis of

assumed dissimilarity, while the E-0 was least often judged accurately

on this basis. The E-O 1I-0 contrast was very highly significant in

both conditions.


Total Similarity

The Objects differed in both conditions in the extent to which

the judges assumed similarity to them (Empathy Condition, p<.01;

Memory Condition, p<.O001). The A-0 was most often judged as being





-77-

similar to the judges, followed by the E-0, with the I-0 seen by the

judges as least similar to themselves. The mean difference between

E-0 and 1-0 on this variable was significant in both conditions.


Real Similarity

The Object means in the Empathy Condition did not differ sig-

nificantly in the degree of real similarity to the judges as a whole.

However, the F value for the Object means in the Memory Condition was

significant. The judges were significantly more similar to the A-0

in that condition than they were to E-0 and I-0.


Accurate Stereotype

The extent to which the judges' stereotypes were applied accu-

rately to the object persons differed in both conditions (Empathy

Condition, pL-.Ol; Memory Condition, p-.O01). In both conditions

the A-O was moot accurately judged on this basis, with the E-0 least

accurately judged. The I-0 and E-0 means did not differ on this

variable in the Empathy Condition, but did differ in the Memory Con-

dition (p-C.O1). The A-O mean differed from the E-0 + I-0 mean

combination, at the .001 level of confidence. In the Combined Analysis

the Object x Condition interaction was significant, indicating that in

the Memory Condition there was greater variability among the means

than in the Empathy Condition. This variability is due primarily to

the decrease in Stereotypic Accuracy in judging the E-0 in the Memory

Condition.


Inaccurate Stereotype

In both conditions the F for the Object effect was very highly

significant, with the E-0 being judged inaccurately meet often on the





-78-

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

Condition.


Total Stereotype

The Object effect was very highly significant in both conditions.

Judges applied their stereotypes most often to the A-0, followed by the

E-O, and least often to the 1-0. The E-O mean differed from the I-0

mean in both conditions (Empathy Condition, p-.001; Memory Condition,

p-.05). The E-O + 1-0 vs A-O contrast differed also (Empathy Con-

dition, p .01; Memory Condition, p4.O01).


The Judge x Object Interactions

This section will be devoted to a survey of the significant

Judge x Object interactions and the significant contrasts obtained

when the six degrees of freedom available froa the analysis of this

interaction were evaluated individually. From these six degrees of

freedom the following contrasts were defined:

N vs S x E-0 vs I-0

M vs S x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0

E vs I x E-0 vs I-0

E vs I x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0





-79-

NE + SI vs SE + NI :: E-0 vs 1-0

NE + SI vs SE + NI x E-O + 1-0 vs A-0

The last two listed above were not significant for any of the variables.

It is also noted here that none of the Judge x Object x Condition inter-

actions were significant.


Total Errors

The Judge x Object interaction was not significant in either

condition, nor were any of the contrasts.


Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity

The interaction was significant when the conditions were combined.

In both conditions the E vs I x E-O vs I-0 contrast was significant

(Empathy Condition, p.Ol0; Memory Condition, p .05). In each

condition the pattern was the same--as would be expected, the Extra-

verts were most inaccurate on the basis of assumed dissimilarity when

judging the I-0. It should be noted that the Extravert means were

more variable than were those of the Introverts, a phenomenon which

will be seen in the pattern of means for some of the other variables.

(See Fig. 1 for a graphic presentation of the Judge x Object inter-

action for this variable.)


Inaccuracy-Simie rity

In the Memory Condition the interaction was significant (p..05),

but not in the Empathy Condition. (See Fig. 2.) However, with the

data combined from both conditions, the interaction was very highly

significant. All groups were meat inaccurate in assuming similarity

when judging the E-0, but the Introverts made more errors on this basis

than did the EIKtraverts.





-80-


p.--


- -k\\


N. -


Empathy Condition: E va I F 7.33**


E-O


A-0


I-0


Memory Condition F 6.10 *


E-O


A-O


Fig. 1. Judge x Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Diassiilarity.


21
OBJECTS


I-0










UE O----
SE e_----
SE -- -A
III LN--L
SI 4-


8//


Empathy Condition (not sig.)


I-0


E-O


A-O


I
I
I


I
I /


/ \ N


Memory Condition F = 2.41*


I-0


A-U


Fig. 2. Judge x Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Similarity.


-81-


I'


I
I


2
OBJECTS


I I\


E-u





-82-


Accuracy-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.


Accuracy-Dissimilarity

The Judge x Object interaction was very highly significant in

both conditions and in the Combined Analysis. Again it was the NI

who differed from the other groups; they were most accurate in judging

the A-0 on the basis of assuming dissimilarity, whereas all other groups

in both conditions judged the I-0 most accurately on this basis. (See

Fig. 4.)

The N vs S x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0 contrast was significant in the

Memory Condition, but not in the Empathy Condition. In both conditions

the E vs I contrasts were highly significant or very highly significant.

The significant E vs I x E-0 vs 1-0 contrasts were due primarily to the

fact that the differences between the E-O and I-0 means were signifi-

cantly more variable for the Es apparently than for the Is.




-83-


NE O---
SE ----
NI 6- -A
SI A- --A


I,:


//


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.


4



t\

a


\





-3a-


NE 0--
SE --

NI A- -A
SI & -


7





6



/ \ //









\ T/ /
A

4 -4 7





3





2

Empathy Condition F 5.80*** Memory Condition F = 8.22***


1
JECTS 1-0 E-0 A-O 1-0 E-0 A-O


Fig. 4. Judge x Object interactions for Accuracy-Dissimilarity.


OB&





-85-


Total Assumed Similarity

In both conditions the interaction was very significant, and

in the Combined Analysis, very highly significant. All groups, with

the exception of the NI, assumed similarity to the greatest extent

when judging the A-0, followed by the E-O, and assumed least similarity

to the I-0. (See Fig. 5.) In each condition the NIs' lowest mean for

this variable was for the A-0. The N vs S x E-O + I-0 vs A-0 con-

trasts were significant (Empathy Condition, p<..01; Memory Condition,

p<.001). This effect seems attributable to the greater variability

among the E means.


Real Similarity

The effect of the Judge x Object interaction was very highly

significant in all three analyses; in other words, there were very

real differences in the extent to which the different judge types were

similar to the object persons they were judging. (See Fig. 6.)

The N vs S x E-0 vs I-0 contrast was significant in both con-

ditions (p-<.05 in the Empathy Condition; p-.001 in the Memory Con-

dition), as was the E vs I x E-0 vs I-0 contrast (p.<.001 in both con-

d itions). These differences were in large part due to the variability

of SE and NI means--that is, the SE were most like the E-0 of all the

judge types and least like the I-0 in both conditions, while the NI

were most like the 1-0 and least like the E-0 in both conditions. The

significant E vs I x E-0 + I-0 vs A-0 contrast in both conditions dis-

closes higher mean levels of similarity to A-0 for the Extraverts.


Accurate Stereotype

Neither the Judge x Object interaction in the Empathy Condition

nor in the Memory Condition was significant. In the Combined Analysis,





-86-


NE 0---
SE -
SI A- -A
SI A. ..


'K

/P


/
/K


Maory Condition


Empathy Condition F 3.32**

OBJECTS I-0 E-0 A-0
Fig. 5. Judge x Object interactions


I-0 E-0
for Total Assuued


F = 2.98**

A-O
Similarity.


A-


K





-87-


A----A

----
A--_A


14


vI/


~1
A
/
/


A6


Af


Blpathy Coadition F = 5.01***


I-0


E-0


A-0


\ /




Memory Condition F = 10.01***


I-0


E-0


A-0


Fig. 6. Judge -: Object interactions for Real Similarity.


14


13 1


91
OBJECT


S





-88-

however, the interaction was significant.


Inaccurate Stereotype

None of the interaction studies for this variable proved to be

statistically significant.


Total Stereotype

No significant Judge x Object interactions were found in studies

of this variable.


Global Judgments

As previously described in Chapter V, the judges were asked to

summarize their impressions of each object person by checking one of

the categories, Extrovert, Ambivert or Introvert. The highly signifi-

cant Chi-Square value for judgments of extraversion according to judge

type means that the judges' ratings are more nearly alike than random

or chance assignments.


TABLE 9

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





-aS-

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.


TABLE 10

GLOBAL JUBgHENTS
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***


Correlation Studies

The simple correlations among the personality variables are

shewn in Table 11.

Correlations between the MPI Extraversion scale and the Minnesota

Social and wEotional Extraversion sales were very similar to those

reported by Knapp in 1962 (see page 47), but the correlation with the

Minnesota Thinking Extraversion scale wan slightly larger in the present

sample.





-90-

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.


TABLE 11

INTERCORRELATIONS OF
JUDGES' PERSONALITY VARIABLES


Variable E N Pd M-T M-S M-E

Extraversion 1.00
(MPI E)
Neuroticism -.19* 1.00
(MPI N)
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





-91-

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

measure.

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.




Full Text

PAGE 1

EXTRAVERSION-INTRO VERSION AND NEUROTICISM-STABILITY IN RELATION TO PERSON PERCEPTION By DOROTHY BALL WARD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNI\'EESITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1968

PAGE 2

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08552 2042

PAGE 3

ACKNCWLEDGMENTS The authoress wishes to express her appreciation to all those who supported and assisted her in this study. Dr. Benjamin Barger, Chairman of the supervisory connnittee, 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 ccomilttee 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 departure 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 programming most of the data as well as with some of the other statistical work necessary. Acknowledgment is made to the University of Florida Computing 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 Giraulo, Mr. Frank W. Schneider, and Miss Mary Ann Watermolen. 11

PAGE 4

TABUS OF CONIENTS Page ACKMCWLEDGMENTS il LIST OF TABUSS v LIST OF FIGURES vii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS viii CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 II THE CONCEPT OF EXTRAVERS IONINTROVERSION 5 History of the Concept 5 The Factor-Analytic Approach: Eysenck and Cattell 7 Hajor Issues 10 The Concept of Ego Closeness-Ego Distance 15 III PERSON PERCEPTION AND EXTRAVERS IONINTROVERSION 17 The Concept of Empathy 18 IV FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESES 22 Estraversion, Adjustment and Person Perception . . .25 Types of EKtraversion 27 Conditions Under Which Judgnents Are Made 29 Components of Accuracy 32 Tlie Object Persons 35 Overt Behavioral Differences in Judges 36 Summary 36 V METHOD OF THE RESEARCH 39 Part I 39 Part II A2 Part III 49 VI RESULTS 58 The Personality Variables 58 The Dependent Variables 62 iii

PAGE 5

CHAPTERS VI (Cont inued) Hcmogeneity of Variance 63 THie 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 Tlie Conditions Variable 107 The Object Variable 109 The Effect of Judges 113 The Effect of NeuroticiMn-Stability 116 Discussion of the Hypotheses 118 VIII SUMMARY 127 Implications for Future Research 131 APPENDICES 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 188 iv

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABUES Table Page 1 Comparison of Personality Variables of Judges Between Conditions Part II 60 2 Comparison of Personality Variables Between Judges Part II 61 3 Means and Significant F Values Main Effect of Judges Part II . 65 4 Means and Significant F Values Main Effect of Objects Part II 66 5 Means and Significant F Values Judge X Object Interaction Part II 67 6 Significant Contrasts, Main Effects and Interactions Part II 68 7 Means and Significant F Values Main Effects Conditions Combined Part II 70 8 Means and Significant F Values Interactions Conditions Combined Part II 71 9 Judgments of Extraversion According to Judge Type * . .88 10 Global Judgments of the Object Persons 89 11 Intercorrelations of Judges' Personality Variables. . .90 12 Simple Correlations Between Personality Variables and Dependent Variables 92 13 Interrater Reliability in Part III 94 14 Academic Factors Good and Poor Judges Part III . . 94 15 Dependent Variables Means and Significant F Values of Main Effects Part III 97 16 Dependent Variables Significant Interactions Part III 98 V

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Continued Table Page 17 Number of Congruent Ranks for Judges Between Pairs of Means Total Similarity, Real Similarity and Total Stereotype Judge x Object Interaction. . . 116 vi

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Judge X Object Interactions for InaccuracyDissimilarity 80 2 Judge X Object Interactions for InaccuracySimilarity 81 3 Judge X Object Interactions for AccuracySimilarity 83 4 Judge X Object Interactions for AccuracyDissimilarity 84 5 Judge X Object Interactions for Total Assumed Similarity . 86 6 Judge X Object Interactions for Real Similarity. . . 87 vil

PAGE 9

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS E-I: Extraverslcn-Introversion N-S: Neuroticism-Stability Es : Ejctraverts Is : Introverts Ns: Heurotics Ss: Stables NE: Neurotic Extraverts SE: Stable E:ctraverts NX: Neurotic Introverts SI: Stable Introverts OP: Object Persons I-O: Introvert Object Person E-O: Extravert Object Person A-O: Ambivert Object Person vili

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTROIXJCTION TO THE PROBUEM Extraversion-introversion has been one of the most widely researched personality-trait dimensions in psychology. Hence, it is somewhat surprising that there appears to have been no major attempt to explore possible differences in person perception between groups chosen on the basis of the extraversionintroversion dichotOTQr. That such differences 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 introvert. Differences in degree of attentiveness to others— as a major aspect of the external environment—should be reflected in differences in ability to assess probabilities about how others will behave. In other words, it seems to make psychological sense that one's success, or accuracy, 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 extraversionintrovers ion dimension is highly relevant. For example, Hawkes & Egbert (195A) 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 intercourse are major factors. Assuming that values are related to action -1-

PAGE 11

-2tendencies, those who value social intercourse should seek more opportunities for contacts with people, and are likely to experience relationships 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 encompass in his empathlc scope" (1955, p. 452). Further evidence comes from Chance & Headers, 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, x*ho 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. Tlie 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 cliaracteristlcs which have been found to differentiate 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 understand themselves well; some are good at understanding their friends; while others excel In Judging strangers. He characterized the good

PAGE 12

-3judge 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 cind 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 concentrate on his own inner environment and because of his hypothetical defensiveness when confronted with social stimuli. Compared to a situation 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 presimiably is more tied to ongoing stimuli, might be more accurate when the stiimilus 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

PAGE 13

adjustment interact with extraversion-introversion in person perception, and to what extent are the subtypes of extra vers ion-thinking, social and einotional--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*

PAGE 14

CHAJPTER II THE CONCEPT OF EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION History of the Concept Extravers ionintroversion (E-I) was established as a personality dlmension by Jung. In 1921 he wrote of the extraverted 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 viex7S, but by objective circumstances, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. If this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted 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 ioqiression 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 complententary attitudes in continual interplay, "When the attitude of the conscious is extraverted, then the attitude of the unconscious is complementarily introverted." Jung's concept found quick acceptance in psychological circles. As early as 1924, in his social psychology text, F, Allport referred to extraversion as the more normal condition and as less clearly definable than introversion. He considered introversion as a more pathological condition. -5-

PAGE 15

-6The extravert simply lacks the symptoms of repression, conflict, over sensitivity, unreality and protracted daydreaming. He is easier to make contacts with because he does not set up defensory attitudes nor respond with some unintelli;^ible 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). Ihe 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 extraverts and introverts was the development of improved tests. But gradually it became apparent that an individual may be Introverted in one respect and extraverted in another. In recognition of this fact. Gullford attempted to refine the concept by the use of factor analysis. In his scale of 175 items he found five factors or kinds of introversionextraversion (Allport, 1961): S: social introversion (shyness and tendencies to withdraw from social contacts); T: thinking introversion (an inclination to meditative thinking, philosophizing and analyzing one's self and others— said to be a maladjustment factor by Carrigan, 1960) ; D: depression, with feelings of unworthiness and guilt; C: cycloid tendencies (strong emotional reactions, fluctuations In mood and tendency toward f llglitlness or instability) ; R: rhathymia (happy-go-lucky or carefree disposition; liveliness and impu 1 s ivene s s ) . Other scales which atten;>t to refine the construct include the Minnesota T-S-E (thinking, social and emotional introversion-extr avers ion.

PAGE 16

Evans & McConnell, 1941), and the Myers-Brigcs Type Indicator (1961), which restores Jtoxs's original suggestion that the types be subdivided according to the prominence of thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition in the life. The Factor-Analytic Approach; Eysenck and Cattell During the 19AOs 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 personality; one dintension is ExtraversioiiIntroversion (E-I) , and the other is Neuroticism-Stability (N-S) . Eysenck's work brought a revival of research interest, nnach 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 approKimately 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 T^iich 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, to^^ether with greater memory for one's subjective views than for outer presentations (p. 268), Extraversion consists of: . . .higher fluency, self-confidence, ego strength, attention to outer detail on the CM. S. test, low reproduction accuracy and less recall of consonant opinions. (p. 268).

PAGE 17

-8Cattell feels that environmental factors account for more of the variance of the various primaries than are apparently ascribable to heredity: ". . .surgency-desurgency is almost wholly environmentally determined, but plays a major role in the extraversion factor"(1957, p. 268). Eysenck, on the other hand, has argued in favor of constitutional differences in the formation of excitatory and inhibitory potentials as the underlying cause of introverted and extraverted behavior patterns, and of constitutional differences in autonomic lability as the underlying cause of neurotic and stable behavior, the other factor dimension in his personality theory. Eysenck & Eysenck argued that, given a constitutional basis for both factors, "it would seem to follow that E and N have a different conceptual status in psychology from that achieved by the shifting and purely descriptive 'traits' identified by factor analysis" (1963, p. 57). The rationale of Eysenck' s theory of E-I has been stated as follows (Eysenck, 1955). Whenever a stimulus in a response ccnnection 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 hysterico-psychopathic disorders in cases of neurotic breakdown; conversely, Individuals in whom reactive inhibition has developed slowly, In whom weak reactive inhibitions are generated, and Ln whcni reactive inhibition is dissipated quickly, are

PAGE 18

-9thereby predisposed to develop introverted patterns of behavior and to develop dysthymic disorders in cases of neurotic breakdosm (1955, p. 35). Eysenck's suc^estion that hysteria la the typical psychoneurosis of the extravert is congruent with Jung's orisinal belief, as is his concept of dysthymia, which parallels June's conception of the typical psychoneurotic introvert as anxious or obsessive. In keeping with his theory that extra\rerts condition less readily than introverts and that such responses extinguish more quickly than in the introvert, Eysenck has hypothesized that extraverts are undersocialized while introverts are oversocialized. Prom this hypothesis he deduced the failure of extraverts to develop a vocabulary equivalent to their abstract intellifcence; 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 differentiation between the types in terms of objective and subjective reactivity. Callai^ay 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 somewhat free from the immediate demands of the environment at the same time that he may be considered withdrawn or reserved. His study failed to find an hypothesized relationship between narrowed attention and introversion. Until recently, Eysenck was unwilling to Include sociability as part of his extraversion constellation (Carrigan, 1960). In 1962

PAGE 19

-10Eysenck & 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, althoush unlikely, that a constitutional extravert laay 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 ccroe around to a position taking account of differences in reactivity to the external environment is implied in his suggestion to Howarth (1964, p. 950) that "Extraverts have a greater degree of stimulus hunger due to reactive inhibition of ongoing impulses." Major Issues Two major issues concerning E-I as a dimenulon of personality were raised in an important review article by Carrigan (1960). The issues: Is extraversion-introversion a unitary dimension? Is it independent of adjustment? The question of unidimenslonallty The fact that several Joint analyses of the G. ilford and Cattell questionnaires show that at least two independent factors are required to account for the intercorrelatlons 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-Zinmerman Temperament Survey are very similar to the pattern of variables found by Caticll in his 16PF Test. Carrigan cites Mann's suggestion that :

PAGE 20

-nFactor III corresponds to the American conception of estravcrsion, with its emphasis on sociability and ease in interpersonal relations, while Factor IV corresponds to the European conception of extraversion, with its eiaphasis on impulsiveness and weak superego controls (1958, p. 108). Hann's suggested Lack of Self -Control Factor defines the folloi^Lns contrasts: Guilford's R: happy-go-lucky unconcern vs. seriousness and selfcontrol ; Guilford's T: mental disconcertedness vs. reflectiveness and self-observation ; 16PF F: carefreeness vs. introspectlveness and brooding; 16PP G-: indolence and lack of dependability vs. perseverance and conscientiousness; 16PF Q3: laxity vs. control. Carrigan considers this factor as identified with Eysenck's conception of E-I, and cites Hildebrand's analysis (1958) as establlshins an important link between Eysenck's conception of E-I and the questionnaire factors defined by the Guilford scale. Joint studies of the MMPI and the STDCR, and the MMPI and 16PF, have indicated that only the Social Introversion (Si) scale of the MPI is consistently related to the extraversion primaries from these factorial measures. Relevant to Eysenck's linkage of extraversion with hysteria is the finding that the MMPI Hysteria (Hy) scale is "essentially unrelated" to Eysenck's E-I dimension. Rorschach's concepts of introversion and extratension have been said to be essentially Identical with the Jungian "attitudes" (Bash, 1955). Carrigan reports that several studies h.^ve found differences between extratenslve and Introversive subjects which correspond to

PAGE 21

-12hypothesized or observed differences between extraverts and introverts. However, she concludes that "E-I questionnaire factors, at least, have little In common with the extravers ionlike factors obtained from the Rorschach test" (p. 35A) . It appears , then, that though reiationahips are found between questionnaire measures of E-I and the Rorschach, the loadings do not correspond to Rorschach's experience balance. For iaatance, Eysenck's extraversion has loadings on Rorschach D, FM:M, F7» and P, but his analyses include no color variables. "His results thus say nothin;:, about a relationship between extraversioa and extratension'' (Garrisan, 1960, p. 351). In her assessment of the unidimensionality of the construct, Carrigan states: . . .it is possible to identify in all extensively studied Bteasures and media at least one factor which bears some resemblance to traditional conceptions of E-I. . . . Factor loadinv;s 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 consistently 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, Juns maintained that adjustment and E-I were independent, while Freud believed that introversion was the forerunner of neurosis. The two major independent factors identified in the Cattell and Guilford questionnaires as Social Extraversion 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

PAGE 22

-13a factor of "well-adjusted extraversion," 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 extraversion, 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 adjustment continuum (1960, p. 339). In summary of the findings relevant to adjustment and E-I, Carrigan points out that: . . .virtually every analysis which has produced an extraversion-lilce factor has also yielded a factor identifiable with some 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 extraversion, "poor" adjustnKsnt with introversion (p. 356). As a follov7-up to Carrigan' 8 analysis, Eysenck & Eysenck (1963a) undertook a factorial study of a 70-ltem matrix containing extraversionintroverslon, neuroticism and lie-scale items, using a sample of 300 men and x7omen. On the basis of their results, the Eysencks concluded: 1. That extraversion may be regarded as a unitary factor, depending somewhat on the definition of the term "unitary." If by "unitary" is meant simply "caaiposed 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 iBq>ulsiveness do eoierge as separate traits on the E items, correlating about .5 with each other in two independent samples . 4. That sociability lias a slightly positive correlation with adjustnent, while impulsiveness has a slightly negative correlation.

PAGE 23

-14The Eysencks handle the enviroianent vs. heredity question by suggesting that "sociability is more easily subject to enviroiuncntal control, while impulsiveness may have deeper roots in heredity" (p. 54). In a 1964 study. Corah affirmed that two recurring MMPI factors are E-I and neuroticiam. The scores on the first factor, N, significantly differentiated neurotics frcm normals and sociopaths, and sociopaths 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 characterised more by somatic symptoms of anxiety while introverted 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 independence of neuroticism and extraversion-introversion is supplied by a study (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963b) in which two ci^oups of high-intelliyence individuals were asked to choose one extreme extravert 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. !nie 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),

PAGE 24

-15The Concept of Ego Closenesa-Eno Distance The comnion core of the construct dimension extraversionintroversion appears to be found in the extent to which the individual is "open" or responsive to tlie 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 investment of attention-cathexis in the inmediate stimulus field, reflected in a ccmpelling 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 melancholies, manic-depressives, paranoids and psychopaths were found to report little or no autokinetic movement, whereas schizophrenics, obsessionals and anxiety neurotics reported fairly extensive movement. Ego-close subjects (those reporting little movement) were described on the basis of interviews as more suggestible, more responsive to external stimulation, more distractible, more simple and open, more exhlbitionistic , and more active socially, more labile emotionally and more impulsive. Ego-distant subjects were described as more reflective, enjoying solitude, prone to daydreaming, more autonomous in the sense of showing more initiative, more self -sufficient , less open in their emotional responses and more likely to be withdrawn and shy.

PAGE 25

-16Conceptually, Voth 6e Mayman's definitions are compatible with this writer's view of extraverslon-lntroversion In relation to person perception, and they will be used in subsequent theoretical discussions.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER III FERSm PERCEPTION AND EXTEUWERS IONINTROVERSION According to Heider (1958), '"Hie ordinary person has a s^eat and profound understanding of himself and of other people which, though unfomailated, or only vaguely conceived, enables him to interact with others in more or less adaptive x^ays*.' (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 judgees' answers as the basis for a criterion of accuracy. There has been considerable investigation of the conq>onents x*hich 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 aspects of the judging process which have been considered. Vernon has pointed out the a posteriori nature of these analyses : They shCT*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 stereotype and individual predictions, between variances and assumed correlations. . . .Th&re is a certain danger, then, in reifying the components. . . .Thus it may be that halo, projective tendencies and response sets such as overor under-17-

PAGE 27

-X8* differentiation appear to play so prominent a part largely because the exigencies of the experiments force the subjects to verbalise and quantify subtle feclinijS axid 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 understanding 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 stereotypic 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 sli^^ht movements of the brows, eyes, irunk 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 anpathically 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.

PAGE 28

-19The 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 conccmitant mental events. Finally, seme 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 understandins of other people's emotions and thoughts (Luchins, 1957, pp. 13-14). Amheim (1949) has stated this concept if Isomorphism between physical and psychical events in relation to person perception as follows: Applied to body and mind [isomorphism] 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 movemencs will result in a jerky spatiotemporal 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 Koffka, "The same or very similar 'R' produces a cruder organization In one observer than in another, just as in a concert a musical person receives more hi^ly organized impressions than a less musical one" (1935, p. 658). What are the factors which might lead to a "cruder organlzatlcn" in one observer than in another? Halpern & Lesser (1960) have stated three conditions for empathy: 1. The individual must perceive in some way the cues presented by the other person. 2. He must react somatically (vlscerally, vascular ly and muscular ly). 3. He must be aware of internal cues caused by his somatic reactions .

PAGE 29

-20Major deterrents to empathy, then, are perceptual defenses which 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, overinvolvemont 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 frcan the stimulus-person are taken in» Another basis for predicting greater accuracy in judging personality among extraverts comes from studies of Rorschach "extratensives," who are considered by Bash (1955) as comparable to extraverts. "Extratensive" individuals in responding to the physical qualities of the Rorschach blots typically use external stixmalus factors, which suggests that in responding to people as stimuli, they would focus on expressive behavior, which Maslow (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 perception of people than did the introversive subjects. Other conditions for empathy which Halpem & Lesser (1960) refer to are the somatic reactions of the perceiver— his visceral, vascular and muscular responses— and his awareness of his internal reactions.

PAGE 30

-21In 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 kinesthetic awareness than the introvert, in whom action seems to be more readily inhibited by thought. That extraverts may have a sot to focus upon action in their cognitive activityperhaps perceptually as well--is suggested by Eysenck's finding that extraverts 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.

PAGE 31

CHAPTER IV FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESES The basic assumption of the present research is that extraverts 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 MMPI (Si in either of the last two code positions defined as a low score). Tliere 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" were store 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 rocm 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 make, -22-

PAGE 32

-232, Indirect observation: the judges watched the object person from behind a one-way mirror as they predicted his responses to the personality measure, 3, Stereotype: judges predicted responses on the basis of objective items of information about the object person, such as age, favorite hobbies, etc., without seeing or hearing the person they were judging. The "psychopaths" maintained 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 "nonpsychopaths," The finding that the more Introverted "nonpaychopaths" were less discriminating judges is congruent with Dymond's description (1950) of subjects low in empathy as rather rigid, introverted people who are subject tc outbursts of uncontrolled emotionality and who seem unable to deal with concrete material and Interpersonal relations very successfully. The subjects high in empathy in her study showed a preponderance of color or emotional responses on the Rorschach, Luchlns (1957) described the foliating factors as tending to Interfere with an individual's understanding of another person: centering on one's own needs, emotions or purposes; focusing on only one feature of an individual's behavior; stereotypes concerning the relationship between physical features and personality traits; prejudices; lack of knowledge of group standards; and keeping a distance between oneself and others.

PAGE 33

-24There is sooe evidence which contra Indicate 3 extraversion-introversion 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 finding is that extraversion-introversion may be one of the easiest trait dimensions on which judfpoents can be made; or it is possible that the judgment of extremes is easy* As the Eysencks themselves state, ". . .judges have no difficulty in identify ins individuals who are extreme In extraversion or introversion" (1963b, p. 143). Furthermore, global judgments are undoubtedly easier to make with accuracy than specific inferences, such as predicting responses to items of a personality inventory, A series of experiments by Davltz and co-workers (1964) consistently failed to establish personality factors as significant sources of variance in ability to identify emotional meanings. The GuilfordZimoennan 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 obst-irvations of them; hence, while heeding his results, they are not considered crucial evidence against the following hypothesis:

PAGE 34

-25Hypothesls 1 ; Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers than are introverts, Extraversion. Adjustment and Person Perception As Carrisan pointed out in her survey article of the extraversionintroversion construct, most factorial studies have yielded an adjustment 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 ie sufficient evidence that adjustment is an important variable in accuracy of person perception to warrant study of -':is dimension in relationship to E-I. . . Typical of such evidence is Ormont's finding (1960) that differentiated 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 Bollard & Miller's hypothesis that maladjustment results from the failure to make appropriate discriminations in social situations. 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 admirably suited to a study of personality factors in relation to empathy and other components of person perception. The neuroticlsm-stabillty

PAGE 35

-25dimenslon, of course, represents the adjustanent factor; N is described by Eysenck as general emotional instability, emotional overresponsiveness and predisposition to neurotic breakdown under stress. Extraversion refers to outgoing, uninhibited, impulsive and sociable inclinations, Tlie four quadrants derived from these two orthosonal 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 hi^ neurotic extravert is seen to be relatively more self -actualized than the high neurotic introvert." Therefore, we have the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2 ; Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will decrease in the following order: Stable extravert Stable Introvert Neurotic extravert Neurotic introvert This order is predicted on the basis of the finding by this writer that though the extraverted psychopaths were significantly more accurate in judgnents of object persons than were the more introverted nonpsychopaths, 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 h3n?othesis is the following; Hypothesis ^ 3: Stable judges are more accurate than neurotic judges.

PAGE 36

-27It should be noted that Wallach & Gahin (1960) found that the neurotic-stable dimension interacts with E-I in varying ways, depending upon the performance required. For instance, individuals low in manifest anxiety X7ho 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 & Minehart, 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 excunining the relationship between accuracy of person perception 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 uncorrelated. Subsequent studies (some of them using the Evans & McConnell instrument, the Minnesota T-S-E) have revealed behavioral differences betxreen 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

PAGE 37

-28attributable to reduced attention to the environment on the part of the introvert y 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 maladjustment. In the social sphere, the relationships are more complex. Using Guilford's Social and Thinking scales and the Maudsley Personality Inventory OlPI) , 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 Iot* affect hunger. Social extraversion has been reported related to studentteaching 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 extraverts were more likely to be sexually aroused by music than were emotional introverts. It seems likely from the evidence indicating the relationship of sociability to accuracy of interpersonal perception that social extraversion is the subtype most likely to show a significant relationship to empathy. Emotional extraversion appears to be related to poor

PAGE 38

-29adjustment, 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 judgments of strangers, while anotional Extraversion is negatively related to accuracy. Conditions Under Which Jud^^ments 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 memory, 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 made immediately after the object person read each item aloud. This procedure was introduced on the grounds that empathy occurs in an ongoing situation, and that auditory cues are an important mediator for empathy. If aiq)athy is enhanced by the object person's presence, and en^athy leads to increased accuracy in judging others, then the

PAGE 39

-30expectation 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 stimulus situation to which he tmist 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 asstmed 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 differences between hysterical disorders (extraverts) and dysthymic disorders (introverts). T^e 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 normals) were able to control their

PAGE 40

-31visual 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 theoretically 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 previously seen but no longer present than the extravert would be expected to possess. Further, the introvert's hypothesized comparative sense of unease in group situations, and shifting attention to the external xjforld, suggest that because of anxiety or defenses against it, he would not be as "open" to the other person's Gestalt and would miss more cues than would the extravert while the object person is present. On the basis of the foregoing rationale, the following hypotheses are generated! Hypothesis 6 ; a) Extraverts will shew 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. Hypothesis 7 ; a) Extraverts v/ill 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 from the absence of differentiating cues.

PAGE 41

-32Coaiponents o£ Accuracy Hiough Davits (1964) has quectioned the role of personality factors in over-all sensitivity to others, he does suggest that such factors may influence the errors made in judyaent. 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 assuiae similarity 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, uarmth and affinity that the subject feels for the other person, while Dymond (1948) saii? it as a measure of projection and considered it pathological. If Fiedler is correct, extraverta 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 similarity than mental-patient groups. In a study by Bieri, Blacharsky & Reid (1955), better-adjusted subjects tended to predict most accurately on the basis of similarities between themselves and others, while maladjusted subjects were more accurate predictors of differences among tbSBMelves and others.

PAGE 42

-33Several studies using subjects designated as repressors and sensitizers by MMPI criteria have relevance because of the identification of repressors with hysteria (neurotic esctraverts) and sensitizers with psychasthenia (neurotic introverts). In two studies (1957, 1959), Gordon found that sensitizers predicted oore dissimilarity between partners' responses and their own. Of particular interest is Gordon's finding (1959) that the iumediate presence of the to-be-predicted person operated to enliance 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-description and not to any clear differences in perception of others nor to any substantial correlation beft*een perception of others and perception of self" (p. 533). Sensitizers were found to have more negative selfconcepts 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) . However, there is some rather tenuous evidence which suggests a relationship between introversion and a tendency to assume similarity inaccurately. In the writer's study of high and low Pd scorers mentioned earlier, nonpsychopaths (an introverted group) were significantly more prone to assume 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].

PAGE 43

-34to a sreater extent than NP-J [nonpsychopathic judges} , based their predictions on a more accurate assessment of real similarity between themselves and those they judged than on the basis of a nondiscriminating predisposition to assume similarity (Ward, 19G6, p. 56). To attempt to resolve the theoretical conflict, the follcrwing hypotheses are formulated: Hypothesis 8 ; Stable and neurotic extraverts will assume similarity to a greater esctent 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 accuracy scores. Gage has stated: Judges do not Integrate a host of subtle cues from expressive behavior in arriving at judc^nents concerning the strangers. Rather they make inferences from their relatively gross Icnowledge of the subgroup to whish they think the stranger belongs, and insofar as the observation of expressive beliavior affects their judpaents at all, the effect is to reduce accuracy (1952, p, 10), The finding (Ward, 1966) that accinracy significantly improved with increasing proximity to the persons being judged, and that nonpsychopathic object persons were accurately judged as being more anxious and having less social presetice 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 €ixpected to possess more 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.

PAGE 44

-35Hypothesls 10 ; Introverts will rely more on their stereotypes in judging others than will eKtraverts, The Object Persons Some types of object persons are more accurately judged than others. For instance. Baker & Block (1957) found that overcontrolled social objects x/ere more accurately judged, compared to appropriately controlled and undercontrolled objects. Those expressing the most favorable self-descriptions were also most accurately judged. According to lyytaoxid (1950) , it is easier to predict the responses of a person who is highly empathic than one of lew empathic ability, regardless of one's own level of ability. This statement is consistent with the thesis that extravcrts are ire 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 assume similarity, extraverts should be more accurate in predicting other extraverts, while introverts should be more 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. 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

PAGE 45

-36of the extravert and ambivert object persons, while introverts will be SBOSt accurate in predicting for the introvert object person. Overt Behavioral Differences In Jud;?,es The extent to which judges rely on the insnediately available visual cues may be an important indication of the extent to which the judges are actually empathizing. In a pilot study, this writer noticed that some judges constantly referred visually to the object person, while others, after an initial brief glance, paid no further attention to him. It seems likely that more cmpathic 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 "canpelling need to maintain contact with external objects and social realities" (Voth fie Mayman, 1963, p. 367). Hypothesis 13 : Extraverts will refer visually to the object persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will introverts. Hypothesis 14 ; Good judges will refer visually to the object persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will poor judges, SiHamary The relationship of the extravers ion-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

PAGE 46

-37person) ; and the role o£ tendencies to assm&c similarity and stereotypic accuracy as components of accuracy scores. The following hypotheses were stated: Hypothesis 1 ; Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers than are introverts. Hy poth esis 2; Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will decrease in the following order: Stable extravert Stable introvert Neurotic extravert Neurotic introvert Hypothesis 3: Stable judges are more accurate than neurotic judges, Hypothesis 4 ; Social and Tliinking Extraversion are positively related to accuracy in judgments of strangers, while Ehnotional Extraversion 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. Hypothesis,?.; a) Extraverts will make more accurate judgments when the object person is present than will introverts ; b) tliere will be no difference between extraverts and introverts in over-all accuracy of judgments when the object person is absent.

PAGE 47

-38Hypofchesls 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. Hyp othesis 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. Hypot hesis 12 ; Extravert judges will be most accurate predictors of the extravert and ambivert object persons, while introverts V7ill be most accurate in predicting for the introvert object person. Hypothe sis 13: Extraverts will refer v^isually to the object persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will introverts. Hypothesis 14 : Good judges will refer visually to the object persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will poor judges. The next chapter will describe the methods implemented to test these hypotheses.

PAGE 48

CHAPTER V METHOD OF THE RESEARCH The research was carried out in three stages, to be desi^^nated as Part I, Part II and Part HI, In Part I, the object persons (persons to be judged) were chosen. The main purposes of the research were fulfilled 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 Itxi accuracy scores, ^is group of subjects was used to test the hypotheses concerning frequency and duration of visual referral to the object persons being judged. A more detailed description of the procedures employed in these experimental stages follows. Part I Selection of object persons The design of the research called for the selection of object persons who phenomeno logically 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 fol lolling way. At the end of the Fall, 1966 term, male college students in Psychology 201 and 202 x»ho did not plan to register for either of these -39-

PAGE 49

-40courses 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 introductory courses the follcwing 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 approximately 200 words from The Silent Language by Edward Hall. (Each subject read a different passage.) A3 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," "amblverted," "moderately extraverted" to "very ejitraverted," (See Appendix A.) At the end of the judging process, all subjects were administered the A8 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 amblverts; those scoring beyond these limits were classified as test extraverts 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; amblverted, 3; moderately extraverted, 4; and very extraverted, 5. Theoretically, then, a subject's score was the siim of all the ratings assigned him by the other subjects in his group. However, since there were a little over half

PAGE 50

-41as 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 ccmparable to the results obtained 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 Neurotic ism 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: Extr avert Ambivert Introvert 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: Rat in?;

PAGE 51

-42Thinklnft E Social E Emotional B Extravert 99 165 49 Amblvert 155 136 65 Introvert 120 89 45 (The higher the score, the greater the degree of extr aversion.) TSiese 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 face, the ambivert is more extraverted emotionally and in his thinking, according to these results, than is the subject chosen to represent the extravert category. The finding that the subject rated as an extravert by his peers and scoring as an extravert on the MPI also scores highest on the Minnesota Social Extraversion scale supports the notion that social extraversion is the common denominator of all three measures. Part II Subjects 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-week period in February, 1967, to 189 volunteer male college students from Psychology 201 and 202, the introductory courses. From the obtained distribution, the median was determined, and the approximately 20% of the distribution which fell around the median of 29.71 was arbitrarily designated as the range of ambiversion. The remainder were subdivided into the four experimental categories on the basis of the following criteria:

PAGE 52

-A3Stable Extraverts (SE) Stable Introverts (SI) Neurotic Extraverts (NE) Neurotic Introverts (NI) Neuroticism below 22 below 22 above 22 above 22 Extraversion above 32 below 27 above 32 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 Appendix B). To insure an adequate sample size, no restrictions were imposed to exclude anyone who had taken the KPI 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: Condition 1 17 13 18 12 60 Subject Type SE HE SI NI Condition 2 12 14 15 12 53

PAGE 53

-44It 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 subjects were eliminated at random to reduce the oversized groups to the desired size, 12, Hence, the final sample consisted of 12 subjects in each of the four categories in each of the tv;o conditions, for a total of 96 subjects, 48 in each condition. Judging conditions There were two conditions under which the three object persons were judged by two separate groups of subjects. In what will be designated as the Empathy Condition (the first experimental session), each object person (OP) read aloud the 22 items frcsn the Subtle Psychopathic Deviate scale from the MMPI (Appendix C), pausing after each item to permit the judges time to predict his responses and record these predictions on their answer sheets. Heam^ile, the OP marked his answer on an answer sheet which he kept concealed from the judges. This condition was introduced to provide the judges with auditory and visual cues at the time of judgment as a means of Increasing the probability that judges' empathy would operate as a factor in predicting the object persons' responses. In the Memory Condition , the judges observed each object person as he read aloud the 22 items from Siegman's adaptation (1956) of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Appendix D). This measure was used because it consists of the same number of items as is found in the Subtle Psjrchopathic Deviate scale, the criterion measure, and because the items in the two

PAGE 54

-45scales are somewhat similar in content. The object persons were instructed to pause briefly between each item to provide the judges in this condition 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. Procedure 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.

PAGE 55

-46The order of appearance by the object persons in the Empathy Con^ dltion 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 themselves, 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 Maudsley Personality Inventory .— As previously stated, the judges were selected to participate in the experiment on the basis of their scores on this copywrlted and commercially published instrument. Devised by Eysenck, this factor-analytically developed test measures "two pervasive and relatively independent dimensions of personality" (Knapp, 1962): extraversion-introversion (E-I) and neuroticism-stabilIty (N-S), According to the manual, extraversion refers to the "outgoing, 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 items could be considered socially objectionable. For the Extraversion scale, both split-half and Kuder-Rlchardson reliability coefficients lie between .75 and ,85 for most 8aoq>les. For the Neuroticism scale they

PAGE 56

-47lie between .85 and .90. Test-rete3t reliabilities of .83 and .81 have been found. There have been many validation studies of the MPI, "Factoranalytic confirmation of the dimensions measured by the MPI are numerous," according to the manual. Validity by nominated groups has been demonstrated, 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: Sample size Thinking Extraversion 87 Social E:ctraversion 87 Emotional Extraversion 87 (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 (1962i 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 Minnesota 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 E scale

PAGE 57

-48factor analysis of thic personality dimension. The three types of extraversionintroversion 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 people. 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 appeals. These separate tests intercorrelate negligibly, indicating their relative independence. The authors list the following coefficients from two separate analyses: Sample size Thinking and Social I-E blinking and Emotional I-E Social and Emotional I-E Reliability for all three tests is .88 or above by at least one of the two reliability techniques. Many studies attempting construct validation are reported by the authors. This test has been published commercially and is copywrited. Subtle Psychopathic Deviate Scale .— This scale from the MMPI 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 396

PAGE 58

-49inventory 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 Bopathy Condition; hence it was not possible to pretest them on another dimension to insure differentiation among the object persons in advance of the judging situation on the to-bejudged trait dimension. Because of the significant relationship between the ^WPI 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 themselves, it was possible to correlate the judges' Pd scores with the accuracy measures, as a follow-up to the earlier study (Ward, 1966) of psychopathic functioning in relation to empathy. Part III Following tabulation of the results from Part II, a list of the most accurate and the least accurate judges was compiled. These subjects were contacted by phone, and the cooperation of 20 subjects was obtained— ten of the most accurate and ten of the least accurate. Care was taken

PAGE 59

-50to 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 extraverts, 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 Fart I, on the basis of the same criterion used for selection of object persons in Part II, with the exception that their scores on the Neuroticism scale were considerably higher. MPI E MPI N Rated score Extravert 38 32 89 Introvert 4 30 58 They were paid $3 for their participation. Four subjects were scheduled at a time to judge the two object persons in the same manner as employed in the Empathy Condition. (There were five replications of the experimental setup, in order to accommodate the 20 subjects.) Each object person read aloud the 18 items from the Gough Social Presence scale from the MMFI (Appendix G) . The judging took place in a room 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-

PAGE 60

-51balanced 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 familiarize 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. MetronOTnes in each of the two observation 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 dependent and independent variables. In Parts II and III, Independent variables for the judges include: 1. Extraversion scale score from the Maudsley Personality Inventory; 2. Neuroticism scale score from the Maudsley Personality Inventory; 3. Subtle Psychopathic Deviate scale score from the MMPI; 4. Minnesota Tliinklng Extraversion score; 5. Minnesota Social Extraversion score; 6. Minnesota Emotional Extraversion score.

PAGE 61

-52Scores 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 Gouj-h's Social Presence scale from the MMPI. Dependent variables in Part II consist of the follov^ing: 7. Error Score ; The measure of empathy was the Error Score, obtained 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' selfratings 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 designated as "inaccurate projection" by other investigators. 9. Inaccuracy based on perceived differences (Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity) 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 summing correct predictions in the same response direction as the judge's own self-rating responses. Some investigators have referred to this coiiq>onent as "accurate projection." 11. Accuracy based on perceived differences (Accuracy-Dissimilarity) is the sum of correct predictions in the opposite direction from the judge's own self -rating responses.

PAGE 62

-5312, Total Assumed Sltnilarity ; 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 InaccuracySimilarity scores. 13, Real Similarity ; This score is the sum of Accuracy-Similarity and Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity, and represents the total number of items on which a judge and a given object person rate themselves similarly. 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 stereotype. 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.

PAGE 63

-54Ihe dependent variables in Fart III consisted o£ the following scores: 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 dif ferentiable in the judges' perceptions on this dimension. 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 person'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 differences 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 Introduce unknown sources of error. However, it was deemed necessary to

PAGE 64

-55eliminate the within-object-person variability which occurred over the five separate SKposures. The first step in treating the subject data, in order to eliminate the above-mentioned variability, was to average the time and number-offixations 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 Frequencyof -Fixations to obtain an Average Fixation Time. The corrected Observation Time was then divided by this Average Fixation Time to obtain a corrected Frequency-of-Fixations for each subject. To sinmnarize the above, we have the following additional dependent variables: 21. Observation Time (corrected for OP variability across replications): 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 halfseconds spent in a single fixation.

PAGE 65

-56Statistical 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 Ehnpathy Condition data and to the Memory Condition data separately, since the subjects were not the same for the two conditions. However, because seme of the hypotheses concerned differences between the conditions, an Analysis of Variance was undertaken in which the data from the two conditions 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 Judges Objects df Comparison 3 Neurotics vs Stables (N vs S) Extraverts vs Introverts (E vs I) Neurotic Extraverts + Stable Introverts vs Stable Extraverts + Neurotic Introverts (NE + SI vs SE + NI) 2 Extravert OP vs Introvert OP (E-0 vs I-O) Extravert OP + Introvert OP vs Ambivert OP (E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0) Interactions 6 N vs S X E-0 vs 1-0 N va S X E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 E vs I X E-0 vs 1-0 E vs I X E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 NE + SI vs SE + NI X E-0 vs I NE + SI vs SE + NI X E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 The five scores computed from the data in Part III were also evaluated by ^alysis of Variance. Again, the degrees of freedom were treated

PAGE 66

-57individually. The following main effects and comparisons were studied: Source

PAGE 67

CHAPTER VI RESULTS 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. !niis factor comes into question because a meaningful comparison of the dependent variables betvi/een conditions 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. Comparison of personality variables between conditions A simple Analysis of Variance of each of the six independent variables (MPI 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 1.) 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 -58-

PAGE 68

-59extraverts and introverts, and between the stable and neurotic classifications, Fol lowing are summaries of these findings, (See Table 2 for means and significant F levels. ) MPI 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 conparison 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 (p-<^.001). Subtle Psychopathic Deviate scale .— A highly significant difference 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 extraverts and introverts on this scale, with extraverts scoring as more socially extraverted, and a highly significant difference between the stable and neurotic classifications— the stable aibjects were more socially extraverted than were the neurotic subjects. Minnesota Emotional Extraversion .— The extraverts and introverts did not 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.

PAGE 69

•60J

PAGE 70

-61o vO vo sr . . m rH

PAGE 71

-62Cr iter ion-measure differences amono the ob.iect 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: I-O, 7; E-0, 9; and A-0, 9. Despite the over-all similarity of their scores, there were varying patterns of dissimilarity in their responses. The 1-0 differed from the E-0 in his response to 12 of the questions, and differed from A-0 in eight of his answers. £-0 differed from A-0 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, AccuracySimilarity, Accuracy-Dissimilarity, Total Assumed Similarity, Real Similarity, 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 been 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

PAGE 72

-63the Conditions variable, Bie Judge means for the 11 dependent variables are shoim in Table 3; Object raeans in Table 4; Judge x Object means in Table 5; and Table 6 summarizes the significant contrasts. Means of main effects for the Conditions Combined analysis are shown in Table 7, with the Judge x Object interactions shown in Table 8. TSie results will be presented first, followed by a discussion of the hypotheses and those results which pertain specifically to the hypotheses. Homogeneity of Variance One of the questions underlying the interpretation of the results of the Analysis of Variance is the homogeneity of the variance attributable to experimental error within each of the treatment groups. To test the contributions to error variance for homogeneity, Bartlett's Test (Chi-Square) was applied to the analyses of the Eapathy 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 xdiich approached clgnificance were also found in the analysis of Memory Condition variables—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 "P tests are robust with respect to departures from homogeneity of variance," and "only relatively large

PAGE 73

-64departures from the hypothesis of equal population variances" need concern the experimenter, Tlie 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 inaccuracy on the basis of assuming dissimilarity in the Memory Condition (p<^,01). Accuracy on the basis of assumlnc dissimilarity and applying the stereotype accurately were significantly greater in the Empathy 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 inc lude : 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 ai^ of the variables discussed below, with the exception of the Error variable. Empathy Condition. Total Errors The main effect of Judges did not reach significance in either the Empathy or Memory Conditions. Furthermore, the Neurotic judges

PAGE 74

-65a 1

PAGE 75

-66* s ^ f/i ««

PAGE 76

-671^

PAGE 77

-685 J U (0 o ta a u s CO es) • • O St m r-l •sJvO H * 00 I ox (0 o o i % 1 1 St vO O rH •-< CM ?h J3 o > cn •u u CO Q S CO o a I > M o I o o I I w < id tttla m >\ > H M o o 0) I 01 I > W > H H I M o 0) > o .s CO

PAGE 78

-691

PAGE 79

•70a ^ o SelfSter.

PAGE 80

-71* CO Tota Ster

PAGE 81

-72did not differ frcmi Che Stable judges, nor were the Extraverts more accurate than the Introverts. The insignificant Judge x Object interaction is added evidence that the extravers ionintroversion and neuroticismstabllity dimensions of personality are unrelated to accuracy per se, at least in this study. Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity 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. Inaccuracy-Similarity Tlie main effect of Judges was significant in all three analyses (p<..05 in the Empathy Condition; p^ .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 InaccuracyDissimilarity variable. Accuracy-Similarity 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.

PAGE 82

-73Accuracy-pis s imi lar 1 ty In the Empathy Condition the main effect of Judges was significant, and a highly significant difference emerged in the Neurotic vs Stable contrast. Neurotic judges were more accurate on the basis of assuming dissimilarity than were Stable judges. Total Assumed Similarity There were no significant differences in the extent to which the judges resorted to assuming similarity in making their predictions. Real Similarity The judges differed in the degree of their actual similarity to the object persons (Empathy Condition and Memory Condition, p^.05; in the Combined Analysis, p-
PAGE 83

-74Inaccurate Stereotype Although the means were ranked in the same order in both conditions (high to low: NI, SI, NE, SE), the only significant difference was found in the Empathy Condition, where the main effect exceeded a probability level of .05. The E vs I contrast was highly significant} the Introverts were more inaccurate in applying their stereotypes than the Extraverts. Total Stereotype There were no differences in the extent to which judges applied their stereotypes in making predictions of the object persons. Self-Stereotype Similarity No significant differences emerged between subjects in the Empathy Condition; hcwever, the main effect of Judges in the Memory Condition was significant at the .05 level of confidence, and the Extraverts showed greater agreement between their stereotypes and self-ratings than the Introverts. In both conditions the NI ranked lowest in SelfStereotype Similarity. The Object Variable In addition to a discussion of the main effect of Objects for the dependent variables, the two degrees of freedom available from the Object variable which were evaluated will receive attention. The contrasts for the Object variable are: Extravert Object vs Introvert Object (E-0 vs I-O) Extravert Object + Introvert Object vs Ambivert Object (E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0)

PAGE 84

-75Total Errors The Bialn effect of Objects was very highly significant in both conditions, as were the E-0 vs I-O contrasts and the E-0 + I-O vs A-0 contrasts. These significant differences are based on the judges' poor accuracy in judging the E-0. "Hie effect of Object differences was more pronounced in the Meniory. Condition than in the Empathy 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 I-O means were similar in both conditions. Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity 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-0 and I-O means was not significant in the Eiiq>athy Condition, but was highly significant in the Memory Condition. The judges were least inaccurate in judging the A-0 by assuming dissimilarity. Inac cur acy-S iml lar i ty 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-0 and I-O means was very highly significant. The judges were least Inaccurate in judging the I-O; coincidental ly, the I-O mean in each condition was the same. The fact that the E-O +

PAGE 85

-76I-O V8 A-0 contrast was highly significant in the Memory Condition, and not algnificant in the Empathy Condition, with the I-O mean a constant value in both conditions, implies that there was a significant difference between the E-0 and A-0 in the Memory Condition, which did not hold true for the Empathy Condition. Accuracy-Similarity 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-0 was judged accurately less often on the basis of assumed similarity than were the 1-0 and A-0, the latter being most accurately judged on this basis. The difference between E-0 and 1-0 means in the Memory Condition was significant, but not in the Eo^athy Condition. The A-0 mean was very highly significant in its difference from the E-0 + 1-0 mean combination. Accuracy-Dissimilarity 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-0 x 1-0 contrast was very highly significant in both conditions. Total Similarity The Objects differed in both conditions in the extent to which the judges assumed similarity to them (Empathy Condition, p<.01; Memory Condition, p'C.GGl). The A-0 was most often judged as being

PAGE 86

-77simllar to the judges, followed by the E»0, with Che I-O seen by the judges as least similar to themselves. The mean difference between E-0 and 1-0 on this variable was significant in both conditions. Real Similarity The Object means in the Baipathy Condition did not differ significantly 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-O. Accurate Stereotype The extent to which the judges' stereotypes were applied accurately to the object persons differed in both conditions (Empathy Condition, p-£^.01; Memory Condition, p'^.OOl). In both conditions the A-O was most accurately judged on this basis, with the E-O least accurately judged. The I-O and E-0 means did not differ on this variable in the Empathy Condition, but did differ in the Memory Condition (p-<.01). The A-0 mean differed from the E-0 + I-O 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 Condition. Inaccurate Stereotype In both conditions the F for the Object effect was very highly significant, with the E-0 being judged inaccurately most often on the

PAGE 87

-78basis of the judges' stereotypes, and the I-O least often misjudged on this basis. The E-0 vs 1-0 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 1-0 compared to the decrease in the mean level of the A-0. This inference is supported by the fact that the E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 contrast did not reach significance in the Empathy Condition, but was highly significant in the Memory Condition. Total Stereotype The Object effect was very highly significant in both conditions. Judges applied their stereotypes most often to the A-O, follovo'ed by the E-0, and least often to the I-O. The E-0 mean differed from the 1-0 mean in both conditions (Empathy Condition, p-«i.001; Memory Condition, p-^.05). The E-0 + I-O vs A-0 contrast differed also (Empathy Condition, p ,01; Memory Condition, p-il.OOl). 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 from the analysis of this interaction were evaluated individually. FrOTi these six degrees of freedom the following contrasts were defined: N V8 S X E-0 vs I-O N vs S X E-0 + I-O vs A-0 E vs I X E-0 vs I-O E vs I X E-0 + I-O vs A-C

PAGE 88

-79NE + SI v» SE + NI X E-0 vs I-O NE + SI V8 SE + NI X E-0 + 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 interactions were significant. Total Errors The Judge x Object interaction was not significant in either condition, nor were any of the contrasts. Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity The interaction was significant when the conditions were conbined. In both conditions the E vs I x B-O vs 1-0 contrast was significant (Empathy Condition, p-<:.01; Memory Condition, p^.05). In each condition the pattern was the same— as would be expected, the Extraverts were most inaccurate on the basis of assumed dissimilarity when judging the I-O. 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 interaction for this variable.) Inaccuracy-Simila rity In the Memory Condition the interaction was significant (p^,05), but not in the Empathy Condition, (See Fig. 2.) However, with the data combined from both conditions, the interaction was very highly significant. All groups were most inaccurate in assuming similarity when Judging the E-0, but the Introverts made more errors on this basis than did the Extraverts.

PAGE 89

-808 NE O SE •• NI A 6 SI A 4 \ Empathy Condition: E v» I F » 7.33*Memory Condition F = 6.10 OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-0 I-O E-0 A-0 Fig. 1. Judge X Object Interactions for Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity.

PAGE 90

-818 2 OBJECTS NE SE •NI 6 ^ SI A 4 Empathy Condition (not sig.) Memory Condition F » 2,41* I-O E-0 A-0 1-0 E-0 A-0 Fig. 2. Judge X Object interactions for Inaccuracy-Similarity, •* t

PAGE 91

-82Accuracy-Similarity The Interaction was significant in all three studies (Empathy Condition, p<<^,001j Memory Condition, p
PAGE 92

-8312 11 10 9 En^athy Condition P » 4,54*** ^ \ / Memory Condition F = 3,71** OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-0 1-0 E-0 A-0 Fig. 3. Judge X Object interactions for Accuracy-Similarity,

PAGE 93

-84NE O O SE • • / Bnpathy Condition P « 5.80*** Memory Condition F = 8.22*** OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-0 1*0 E-0 A-0 Fig. 4. Judge x Object Interactions for Accuracy-Dissimilarity,

PAGE 94

-85Total 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-0, and assumed least similarity to the I-O. (See Fig. 5.) In each condition the NIs' lowest mean for this variable was for the A-0. The N vs S x E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 contrasts were significant (Empathy Condition, p
PAGE 95

-8616 15 14 13 12 11 10 8 NE SE • • NI A-A SI A 4 Empathy Condition F » 3.32** Memory Condition F =» 2.98** OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-0 I-O E-0 A-0 Fig. 5. Judge x Object Interactions for Total Assumed Similarity.

PAGE 96

-8716 15 14 13 12 11 10 NE O O SE • • NI A A SI A Empathy Condition F = 5.01*** Memory Condition F = 10.01*** OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-0 1-0 E-0 A-0 Fig. 6. Judge 2 Object interactions for Real Similarity.

PAGE 97

-88however* the Interaction was significant. Inaccurate Stereotype None of the interaction studies for this variable proved to be statistically significant. Total Stereotype No significant Judge x Object interactions were found in studies of this variable. Global Judpp>ents As previously described in Chapter V, the judges were asked to summarize their impressions of each object person by checking one of the categories, Extravert, Ambivert or Introvert, TSie highly significant Chi-Square value for judgnents of extraversion according to judge type means that the judges' ratings are more nearly alike than random or chance assignments. TABLE 9 JUDGMENTS OF EXTRAVERSION ACCORDING TO JUDGE TYPE Judj;e Type

PAGE 98

-8SThe 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 Chl>Square for One* Sasiple Tests ; all three tests were significant beyond the .001 level of confidence, Tliese results show that both the E-0 and A-0 were most often perceived as fitting the judges' conception of an Ambivert, while the I-O was very clearly perceived by the Judges as an Introvert, Visual inspection of the tallies suggests that the A>0 was seen by loany 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-O. TABLE 10

PAGE 99

-90The results showed Neuroticistn scale correlations with the Minnesota Thinking and Emotional Extravcrsion scales comparable to those reported by Knapp, but there was a marked discrepancy bet^J'een the £ of ,33 between the Neuroticism scale and the Minnesota Social E2ctraversion scale (Knapp) and the very higlily significant negative rela* tionship (r= -.30) found in this study. TABLE 11 INTERCORRELATIONS OF JUDGES' PERSONALITY VARIABLES Variable E N Pd M'T M-'S M-E EKtraversion 1.00 (MPI E) Neuroticism -.19* 1.00 (MPI N) 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 relationship 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 shoi/n the correlations bet\,?een the personality variables and scoie of the dependent variables. For the most part, correlations are very low; of the 22 values which reach a statistically

PAGE 100

-91significant 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 measure. Neuroticism is related positively to both accuracy and inaccuracy 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 relationship to Total Assumed Dissimilarity indicate that high Subtle Pd scale scorers tended to assume similarity less than did low scorers.

PAGE 101

-92I X I CM Pt4 U 0) iH <8 •H a (0 « «

PAGE 102

-93Minnesota Thinking Extraveraion was negatively correlated with Total Assumed Dissimilarity and Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity, suggesting a slight trend for thinking introverts to assume dissimilarity between themselves and others and to be inaccurate in doing so. Emotional Extraversion was the only personality variable found to be related to the Error variable. The negative relationship indicates that emotional extraverts tended to make fewer errors than did emotional introverts. Their superior performance was apparently due to accuracy in assuming similarity. Results of Part III This section is devoted to a summary of the results obtained when a group of ten of the best and ten of the worst judges from Part II were observed in the process of judging by other subjects behind a one-way mirror. As described in the Methods Cliapter, there were two basic measures of the judges' behavior recorded by the observers behind the one-way mirror: number of fixations of each of the two object persons, and the time spent (in half-second coun':s) per fixation. Four judges participated at a time; two observers were assigned to each judge in order to have more reliable measurement of the two variables. Reliability of the Observers The results indicate that there was a very high level of interrater agreement on both measures. Table 13 lists the correlations between pairs in observations of five different judges, as well as over-all interrater reliability.

PAGE 103

-9ATABLE 13 INTERRATER RELIABILITY IN PART III Pair of Raters Time Measure Number of Fixations A B C D All Raters E-0

PAGE 104

-95The Dependent Variable s The five dependent variables— Error Score, Attributed Social Presence, Observation Time, Frequency of Fixations and Average Fixation Time—were treated statistically by Analysis of Variance. The main effects analyzed included Objects (E and I), Judge Type (NE, SE, NI and SI) , and Level (Good and Poor judges— classifications based on performance in Part II of the experiment). Interactions were analyzed as contrasts with individual degrees of freedom. In this way it was possible to contrast the performance of Neurotics vs Stables, Extraverts vs Introverts, etc* (See page 57 for a listing of the individual degrees of freedom.) The significant results are presented in Tables 15 and 16, and are described below. Total Errors The judges made more errors in predicting the responses of the I-O in this study than they did in judging the E-0 (p-^.Ol), The contrast of Good vs Poor x Neurotic vs Stable was also highly significant. The variability was due to the tendency for the Neurotic Good judges to make more errors than the Neurotic Poor judges; the Stable Poor judges, on the other hand, made more errors than the Stable Good judges . Attributed Social Presence The judges attributed greater social presence to the E-0 than they did to the 1-0 (p-^.Ol). The Object x NE + SI vs NI + SE contrast was significant, with the SE and NI judges tending to attribute a higher level of social presence to the E-0 than did the NE and SI judges.

PAGE 105

-96Obaervatlon Time The E-0 was in the room with the judges a shorter length of time than was the I-O because o£ E-O's faster reading speed; therefore, the judges had less opportunity to look at the E-0 than they did the I-O. Hence, the very highly significant Object difference for this variable is to be expected, and is not relevant to the purposes of this study. There was a nonsignificant trend for the Good judges to spend more tine looking at the OP than did the Poor judges. i Frequency of Fixations Again, uhe significant Object effect is not a meaningful one because of the disparity between the varying times spent by the OP In the room with the judges. The significant Object x Neurotic vs Stable interaction Is of interest; it shows that Stable judges looked more often at the OP than did the Neurotic judges. Average Fixation Time The results show that each time the judges looked at the I-O, they spent a longer time doing so than they did when they looked at the E-0 (p-<.01). It should be noted, however, that the I-O was wearing a paisley-patterned shirt, while the E-0 was wearing a white shirt. It Is quite possible that the judges looked at the I-O for longer periods of time because of his shirt. It Is also possible that the I-O's slower pace in reading and longer pauses between items left the judges feeling less hurried in their task and stimulated longer fixations.

PAGE 106

-97c

PAGE 107

-98TABLE 16 DEPENDEHST VARIABLES SIGNIFICANT INTERACTIONS PART III Total Errors Neurotics vs Stables x Good vs Poor Judges P == 10,76** E-0 I-O N6

PAGE 108

-99TABLE 16 " Continued Average Fixation Time Neurotics vs Stables x E-0 vs I-O F => 7.84** E-0 1-0 NE 2.93 3.97 NI 2.79 3.64 SE 2.08 3.64 SI 2.90 3.27 HE + SI vs SE + NI X E-0 vs 1-0 F = 7.77*

PAGE 109

-100The main effect of Level of judging ability was very significant. The Good judges averaged longer fixation times than the Poor judges. Both the Object x Neurotic vs Stable contrast and the Object x NE + SI vs SE + NI contrast were significant. The Neurotic judges tended to have higher means than the Stable judges. The NE and SI were similar in the time they spent looking at the E-0, but represented the extremes with respect to the I-O. Evaluation of the Hypotheses This section will be devoted to a consideration of those results which bear directly on the hypotheses stated in Chapter IV. Hypothesis 1 ; Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers than are introverts. This hypothesis is not supported by the results of the analysis of Error scores. Neither the main effect of Judges nor the Judge x Object interaction was significant, nor were any of the contrasts. Hypothesis 2 ; Accuracy in making judgments of strangers will decrease in the following order: stable extravert, stable introvert, neurotic extravert, neurotic introvert. No statistical test was made of this ordered hypothesis, since the observed means did not conform to the predicted order. It is noteworthy that in both conditions the lowest error means were attained by the Neurotic Extraverts, while in each condition the Neurotic Introverts' error means were highest, although these differences are not statistically reliable. Since the main effect of Judges was not significant, it Is assumed that this hypothesis Is not upheld.

PAGE 110

•101Hypothesis 3 ; Stable Judges are more accurate than neurotic judges. This hypothesis was not confirmed in the analysis of Errors. However, in the Empathy Condition, Stable judges did differ significantly from Neurotic judges in the extent to which they were accurate in predicting on the basis of similarity and dissimilarity to themselves. In Tables 3 and 6 it can be seen that Stable judges were more accurate than Neurotic judges on the basis of assuming similarity between themselves and the object persons, while Neurotic judges were more often accurate on the basis of assuming dissimilarity between themselves and die object persons. Scanning the significant F values for the Judge X Object interactions of the Accuracy-Similarity, Accuracy-Dissimilarity and Total Assumed Similarity variables (see Table 5), it appears that the response idiosyncrasies of the Neurotic Introvert account for the differences between the groups. Hypothesis 4 : Social and Hiinklng Extraversion are negatively related to inaccuracy in judgments of strangers, while Emotional Extraversion Is negatively related to accuracy. This hypothesis Is not supported by the correlation studies (Table 12). The low but significant negative relationship between Emotional Extraversion and Errors is the opposite of the prediction. Hypothesis 5 : Over -a 11 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.

PAGE 111

-102This hypothesis was upheld by the highly significant F ratio in the Between Subjects analysis of Conditions for the Total Errors variable. It is relevant at this point to note that this difference in errors between conditions is attributable to the increased tendency to assume dissimilarity inaccurately when judging in the absence of the object person, as evident by the highly significant main effect of Conditions for the Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity variable. Tliere was no difference in the tendency to assume similarity inaccurately between the two conditions. 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. A t^ test of differences between the errors made by the Extraverts in the Empathy Condition compared to errors made by Extraverts in the Memory Condition revealed that the Extraverts were more accurate when judging in the presence of the object person than in his absence (£ = 1.94, 142 df ; p<.05). Since the means indicate that both groups were more accurate when judging during the presence of the object persons, it appears that (b) of the above hypothesis is not upheld by the results. Hypothesis 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. Part (a) of this hypothesis is not supported by the data, since the Extraverts and Introverts did not differ in number of errors in

PAGE 112

-103the Empathy Condition. In the Memory Condition the Extravert and Introvert groups showed no difference in number of errors, which supports the null hypothesis stated in (b). Hypothesis 8 ; Stable and neurotic extraverts will assume similarity to a greater extent than the introverted groups. This hypothesis was not supported. In fact, the obtained means were higher for the Introverts in both conditions, though the differences were not significant. Hypothesis 9 ; Introverts will assume similarity inaccurately to a greater extent than the extraverts. This hypothesis was supported in both conditions (p-c.Ol in the Empathy Condition; p<<:.001 in the Memory Condition). The interaction of Judge X Object for Inaccuracy-Similarity was significant at the .05 level of confidence in the Memory Condition, where a sizeable portion of the variance was accounted for by the large number of errors of this type made by the Neurotic Introverts in judging the extravert object person. There was a similar pattern in the Empathy Condition, but the F ratio did not reach significance. There were no significant differences between Extraverts and Introverts in assuming similarity accurately. Hypothesis 10 ; Introverts will rely more on their stereotypes in judging others than will extraverts. There were no significant differences in the extent to which the judges' stereotypes were evoked in predictions of the object persons. However, in the Memory Condition the Extraverts were more accurate in applying their stereotypes than the Introverts. In the Empathy Condition the Introverts significantly more often applied their stereo-

PAGE 113

-104types inaccurately. The implication is that Extraverts in this sample had more accurate stereotypes. Hypothesis 11 ; The extravert object person will be most accurately judged, followed by the introvert and ambivert. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. The main effect of Object type for the Total Errors variable was significant at the .001 level of confidence in both conditions, where the E-0 was erroneously judged to a imich greater extent than the I-O and A-0, who were judged with approximately the same degree of accuracy by the judges. It is worth noting, however, that in Part III, with other object persons, the judges were more accurate in judging the E-0 (p
PAGE 114

-105Hypothesls 13 ; Extraverta will refer visually to the object persons during the judging process to a greater extent than will introverts. This hypothesis was not supported by the results. Hypothesis 14; Good judges will refer visually to the object person during the judging process to a greater extent than will poor judges. The Good judges selected from Part II fixated the object persons for a longer period of time per observation during Part III than the Poor judges, at the .01 level of significance. However, the total amount of time spent looking at the object persons did not differ significantly, though there was a strong trend for the Good judges to spend more time looking than did the Poor judges (Observation Time). Further evaluation and discussion of these results will be found in the following chapter.

PAGE 115

CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION OF RESULTS In order to achieve an Integration of the results Into a meaningful pattern, it will be necessary to consider not only significant findings, but also how these relate to nonsignificant trends and untested differences between variables. Hence, considerable emphasis on inferences from the data will characterize the discussion. To aid the reader in separating fact from inference, an asterisk will mark significant results unless significance is specifically stated. Three major findings emerged clearly from the data. The most striking is the consistency of results between the two groups of subjects under slightly different conditions of jud^ent of the object persons. Related to this consistency between conditions is the second major finding: the importance of perceived differences among the object persons and the consistency of the judges' responses to them in the two conditions of judgment. All main effects of Objects In both conditions for all variables in Part II, with the exception of Real Similarity, showed highly significant differences at the least. In both conditions the ordering of means was the same for all dependent variables, with one exception (Total Errors)--a remarkably stable phenomenon, and one which suggests that the three object persons evoked remarkably similar response tendencies from the two different groups of judges. Of particular note is the deviance of the responses elicited by the E-O. Hie third finding of note is the idiosyncratic res-106-

PAGE 116

-107ponslveness of the Neurotic Introverts in the judging situation compared to the relative similarity of the responses of the Neurotic and Stable Extraverts and the Stable Introverts. The Conditions Variable Some idea of the consistency in results between conditions can be gauged from the number of congruencles between the ranks of means of the two conditions for each of the ten variables. For the effect of Judges, with II sets of four ranks to be compared, there were 18 congruencles out of 44 pairs of scores ; for the Object effect, with ten sets of three ranks, there were 26 congruent ranks out of 30 pairs; and for the Judge x Object Interaction, v/ith 40 sets of three ranks, there were 91 congruent ranks out of 120 pairs. In most cases, also, if a variable was significant in the Empathy Condition, the same variable proved to be significant in the Memory Condition. As stated earlier, this consistency between conditions serves to emphasize the stability of the results and demonstrates the consistency with which the various judge types reacted differentially to the three object persons. The effect of Conditions Turning to the variables in which the main effect of Conditions was significant, it will be recalled from Table 7 that four of the 11 variables showed such a difference: Total Errors, Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity, Accuracy-Similarity and Accurate Stereotype. Inspection of the means shown in Table 3 reveals that the greater number of errors in the Memory Condition is accounted for primarily by the Increase in Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity in this condition.* Related to this are the decreases in accuracy on the basis of assumed similarity,* and accurate

PAGE 117

-103application of the judges' stereotypes in the Memory Condition.* It should be noted at this point that there are no significant differences between conditions for the Real Similarity, Total Assumed Similarity or Total Stereotype measures. To what can these differences between conditions be ascribed? A clue comes from the very highly significant Conditions x Objects interactions for Total Errors and Accurate Stereotype. From Table A it can be seen that the significant effect for Total Errors is mainly attributable to the increased inaccuracy in judging E-0 in the Memory Condition, The Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity increase in the Memory Condition, however, is not confined to the E-0, though the major increase is for E-0; inspection of the means for this variable in Tables 5 and 3 indicates that the means for all three object persons are larger in the Memory Condition, as are those for all the judges (though not significantly so). It appears, then, that one effect of the Memory Condition was to increase the judges' inaccuracy on the basis of assuming dissimilarity,* and that this effect was accentuated for the E-0, The significant Accuracy-Similarity and Accurate Stereotype effect for Conditions appear to be related phencanena. This inference is based on the similarity of the mean patterns of the two variables for all effects. Again, the major change between conditions, as seen in Table 4, occurs in judgjnents of E-0, with some variance contributed by decreased Accuracy-Similarity in relation to I-O as well in the Memory Condition, (The means for A-0 are very similar in both conditions.) Interestingly, the decrease in Accuracy-Similarity for 1-0 seems to have been confined to the Stable subjects, both SE and SI, while

PAGE 118

-109Accuracy-Similarity means for all four judge types decreased for E-0 in the Memory Condition* The significant Accurate Stereotype difference between conditions is similar to Accuracy-Similarity In that again the major decrease among the three object persons and for all judges occurs in the Memory Condition for E-0, The decrease for I-O was confined to the Introvert judges. To sisnmarlze, Che chief effects of the Memory Condition seem to have been to decrease the judges' tendency to assume similarity to the E-0, with the exception of NI (see Total Assumed Similarity means. Table 5), resulting in more errors,* greater Inaccuracy on the basis of assuming dissimilarity,* and a decrease in the number of correct applications of the judges' stereotypes.* These effects were most pronounced In judgments of the E-0, but to a lesser extent also are seen In the 1-0 means. The Object Variable From the preceding discussion, it is apparent that E-0 proved a difficult person to judge, and that his absence at the time of judging accentuated the difficulty. A possible source for this phenomenon may be found in the resuli:s of the judges' global judgments of the object persons. Whereas both 1-0 and A-0 were correctly classified by the majority of the judges as belonging to their respective niches on the E-I continuum, E-0 predominantly was seen as an amblvert, with a sizeable minority classifying him as an Introvert. Congruent with the global judgments is the fact that in both conditions the Es underassumed similarity to E-0 compared to the extent of their real similarity.

PAGE 119

-nowhile the Is tended to overaasume similarity to E-0. A'^ the same time, both the Es and Is tended to underassume similarity to I-O, Since the E-0 and 1-0 were fairly siaiilar on two of tha Minnesota T-S-E variables (low on Thinkinti and Emotional Extraver3ion--see pa^e 42 for means), it is possible that it was the E-O's lack of emotional expressivity that led to his beiu^ misperceived and rejected as an identiCi« cation figure by the Es, Further, it is conjectured that the Is tended to overidentify with E-0 coiiq)ared to 1-0 because of the socially desirable qualities which go along with high social extraversion, and which the judges would be presumed to perceive, (These conjectures are based on the assun^jtion that answers to personality-test <^uestions scored as indicating possession of a certain "irait" will correlate with behavior; i,e,, that a person who scores high on social extraversion will behave in such a way that he will appear socially extraverted to others. Other assumptions are also implicit—for instance, that introverts would like to be mora socially extraverted.) Why E-0 should be more difficult to judge accurately in the Memory Condition is a moot point (as is the fact that judges in Part I evaluated him as being predominantly extraverted, while he was not perceived as an ezttravert by judges in Part II). Since the Memory Condition was the second appearance before a group of judges for each of the object persons, it would be necessary to hypothesize that the E-0 reacted differently from the other object persons to increased familiarity with the situation. Would he disclose even less of himself as he became more comfortable, or uncomfortable, in a situation? If, however, there was no apparent change in his outward appearance and manner in the Memory Condition (and none was noted by the exper-

PAGE 120

-111imenter), then it might be conjectured that the decrease in relevant meaning cues during actual time spent before the group was even more critical for the E-0 than for the other object persons; i.e., that the I-O and A-0 were able to cocsminicate more about themselves than the E-0 even in the situation where they were not reading material from which the judges could as easily obtain relevant cues. It remains for a future item analysis of the judges' predictions and patterns of errors for each object person to determine whether there is a clear-cut explanation of the judges' deviant reaction to this E-0. It was pointed out earlier in the evaluation of Hypothesis 11 relative to the judgeability of the object types (page 104), that the E-0 in Part III was judged more accurately on Social Presence than was I-O,* which suggests the interpretation that other variables may interact with social extraversion to determine degree of judgeability. A higher level of neuroticism may be one such variable— the object persons in Part III scored in the upper range of the MPI Neuroticism scale, while those in Part II were scmewhat lower. Another factor may be degree of emotional extraversion in the object person, as implied earlier. Though T-S-E scores were not available for the object persons who participated in Part III, it was apparent to the examiner that the E-O in Part III was considerably more expressive in his facial and vocal activity than was the E-0 in Part II. A final suggestion is that extreme Es and Is may differ in their judgeability on various personality dimensions, and that the questions on the Social Presence scale used in Part III as the criterion measure were more congruent with overt behavioral cues, and thus easier to judge, than questions on the Subtle Pd scale in Part II.

PAGE 121

-112The degree of accuracy with which the judges predicted the A-0 and I-O was comparable, but visual inspection of the means in Table 4 suggests that they were perceived and reacted to quite differently by the Judges. It is apparent from the range of the differences between the 1-0 and A-0 means for Total Similarity and Total Stereotype* and from the very highly significant E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 contrasts, that the Judges as whole perceived themselves as being more similar to the A-0 than to I-O. As a matter of fact, they were more similar to A-0 in the Memory Condition. Further, the A-0 was perceived as a more "standard" person who fitted the judges' stereotjrpes. In other words, in judging the A-0, the Judges applied their stereotypes to a greater extent than with the E-0 or I-O,* and were significantly more accurate in doing so. Also, the Judges were significantly more accurate when assuming similarity to the A-O, and A-0 was misjudged on the basis of assumed dissimilarity significantly less often than the other object persons. It should be remembered, in considering these results, that the A-0*s T-S-E scores appear to be higher for Thinking and Emotional Extraversion than those of the object person chosen to represent the extravert type by other criteria. The A-0 often was judged as an extravert in the global Judgments. Turning to Table 5, the Judge x Object interactions, it becomes evident, in looking at the Total Similarity means, that NI differed from the other judges in decreasing the extent to which he assumed similarity to A-0. At the same time, NI applied his stereotype to the A-0 to a degree comparable with the other Judge types. Hence, it appears that NI does not identify himself as closely with his

PAGE 122

-113stereotype as do the other judge types. This interpretation is given some support by the fact that lowest means in both conditions for Self-Stereotype Similarity were attained by NI . The I-O was perceived by the judges, with the exception of NI, as being least similar to themselves in both conditions.* Consequently, InaccuracySimilarity was reduced,* as was the inaccurate application of the judges' stereotypes compared to judgment of E-0.* The judges less often used their stereotypes as a basis for predicting I-O,* The Effect of Judges It is noteworthy that the Introverts-and particularly the NI-who were classified as such on another personality instrvnnent (the MPIX also display the greatest real similarity to the I-O on the different, though related, personality dimension used as a criterion measure (r =» .39***. . NI was more prone to assume similarity to the I-O, however, thar was SI, whose mean levels for Total Assumed Similarity for both E-0 and A-0 were higher. This finding raises a question concerning the Si's unwillingness to identify with the I-O to an extent comparable to the NI. From Table 5 it appears that SI assumed the greatest similarity to A-O, while NI assumed least similarity to A-O. Since the A-O was more generally perceived as fitting the judges' stereotypes of the typical male college student, it Is suggested that the SI may feel less alienated from others as a function of his greater stability, and hence is able to choosr a more socially desirable mode of adjustment with which to identify than is the NI. The NI, on the other hand, sees himself as less like his concept of the average male college student than do the other judge types. (See Self-Stereotype Similarity, Table 5.) Yet another possibility presents

PAGE 123

-114Itself in the fact that the MPI Extraversion scale mean for the Stable Introverts was 20.12, which is considerably higher than that of the Neurotic Introverts' mean of 13.75. In short, since the Stable Introverts were not as extreme in the direction of introversion as were the Neurotic Introverts, perhaps they were more comfortably able to deny their introversion to some extent, or that they Identify with a more socially desirable position with less cognitive dissonance than would have been possible for the Neurotic Introverts, The main effect of Judges reaches significant levels for the Inaccuracy-Similarity and Real Similarity variables In both the Empathy and Memory Conditions, while Accuracy-Dissimilarity and Inaccurate Stereotype were significant in the Empathy Condition only. Self-Stereotype Similarity was highly significant only in the Memory Condition. When the Extraverts were contrasted with the Introverts, the Es were found to be significantly more inaccurate on the basis of assumed dissimilarity in both conditions, while Is were significantly more inaccurate on the basis of assumed similarity in both conditions. Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity tended to vary with Real Similarity, so that the greater the degree of real similarity, the greater the number of errors made on the basis of assuming dissimilarity. Likewise, the greater the degree of real similarity, the fewer were the number of errors made on the basis of assuming similarity. Since the Extraverts as a whole were more similar In reality to the object persons than were the Introverts,* it seems that these significant differences are

PAGE 124

115due to the fact that the Introverts tended to assume a greater degree of similarity than In fact existed, as has been noted earlier, while Extraverts assumed less similarity than existed. These are untested assumptions, however. There were no significant differences between Extraverts and Introverts in the extent to which they applied their stereotypes. The Is were more inaccurate than the Ea in applying their stereotypes in the Empathy Condition,* and the Es had higher Accurate Stereotype scores in the Memory Condition.* In inspecting the Inaccurate Stereotjrpe and Inaccuracy-Similarity means. It Is apparent that there is a great degree of congruency in rank order among the groups. When similar observations are made of the Total Similarity, Total Stereotjrpe and Real Similarity variables, it appears that the Neurotic Extravert is most congruent in the rank ordering of n^ans among these variables, with 100% congruency among six sets of three pairs, while the Neurotic Introvert is least congruent. The table on the next page lists the number of such congruent ranks between pairs of means for both conditions for the comparisons of Total Similarity and Real Similarity; Total Stereotjrpe and Total Similarity; and Real Similarity and Total Stereotype. These figures suggest that the Extraverts are more realistic in their perceptions of themselves and others. In general, there was a high degree of agreement among the Stable Extraverts and Neurotic Extraverts in the pattern of their means among the variables (as seen in Table 3).

PAGE 125

-116TABLE 17 NUMBER OP CONGRUENT RANKS FOR JUDGES BETWEEN PAIRS OF MEANS TOTAL SIMILi\RITy, REAL SIMILARITY AND TOTAL STEREOTYPE JUDGE X OBJECT INTERACTION Comparison

PAGE 126

-117Dissimllarity variable, the significant effect in the Empathy Condition shews the Neurotics more accurate on this basis than the Stables— again a function of degree of real similarity.* In general, the neuroticism-stability dimension did not prove as iiiq>ortant in person perception in this study in terms of conventional accuracy scores as did the extravers ionintroversion dimension. A noteworthy exception occurred in Part III, where Stable judges looked significantly more often at the object persons than did the Neurotic judges} however, the Neurotics averaged significantly longer fixation times than the Stables when they looked at the object persons. Hence, there appear to be overt behavioral differences between Ns and Ss which are called into play when confronted with human visual targets. An interesting and highly significant interaction between N vs S x Good vs Poor judges was found in the analysis of the Total Errors variable in Part III. The Stable judges classified as Good on the basis of their performance in Part II maintained their superior performance in Part III; Stable Poor judges were also consistent with their classification by their low level of accuracy. But surprisingly, the Neurotic judges classified as Good on the basis of their performance in Part II made more errors in Part III than Neurotic judges classified as Poor. Hence, the Stable judges were more consistent in their performance between judging situations than the Neurotics. The significant contrast for Attributed Social Presence (E-0 vs I-O X NE + SI vs SE -iNI) is notable for the fact that the Neurotics attributed a lower level of social presence to 1-0 than did the Stables.

PAGE 127

-118Dlscusslon of the Hypotheses Aa stated earlier in the fonnulation of hypotheses: "The basic assumption of the present research is that extraverts are more empathlc Judges of strangers than are introverts." For want of a more precise estimate of empathy, the judges' accuracy In predicting the object persons was defined operationally as the measure of empathy, so that judges who made fewer errors were considered more empathic than less accurate judges. This led to the formulation of Hypothesis 1: Extraverts are more accurate judges of strangers than are introverts. The results failed to support the assumption that extraverts are more empathic judges of strangers (assuming that accuracy is an adequate operational measure of empathy). No differences between judge types were found; the implication is that extraversion-introversion and neurotic ism-stability are not related to over-all accuracy in predicting strangers. Hypothesis 2, which predicted the order of the judges' error means, was not upheld either. Stable extraverts had been predicted to be most accurate; instead, the observed error means of the Neurotic Extraverts were the lowest (though not significantly so). Although these results establish that extraverts are not more accurate judges than Introverts under the conditions of this experiment, there is a question as to whether it can be inferred that they are no more empathic, since there is some doubt as to whether the Empathy Condition provided an adequate test of empathy. The Empathy Condition was Introduced to provide increased opportunity for empathy via relevant meaning cues from facial and vocal expressions presumed to accompany the reading aloud by the object persons of the items on which they were to be predicted. It was thought that opportunity for empathy would be reduced by withdrawal of the object persons during actual judging, as occurred in

PAGE 128

-119the Memory Condition. In fact, Ifypothesis 5, which stated that accuracy would be reduced in the Memory Condition, was upheld. However, the significant difference was attributable to the increased difficulty the judges had in predicting the E-0 in the Memory Condition. With a less ambiguous E-0, it is quite likely that the difference between conditions would not have been significant. Therefore, the results obtained are not considered evidence that the Empathy Condition did in fact provide the judges with enough behavioral cues from the object persons with which they could adequately empathize. Also, it should be noted that even if the Empathy Condition did provide added opportunity to empathize, there is no guarantee that judges could take advantage of these cues sufficiently to improve their accuracy. On the other hand, it does appear that the absence of the E-0 during judging may have made it more difficult for the judges to predict his responses, which suggests that judges may have more difficulty judging certain kinds of object persons when they are out of sight. Certainly it would appear that further exploration of the conditions under which judges make their predictions is warranted, and that the factors in the object person which may make judgments of him more difficult under certain conditions is another relatively unexplored area. Hypothesis 6 stated that extraverts would show greater accuracy when judging in the presence of the object person than in his absence, and that introverts would show greater accuracy when judging in the absence of the object person. Again, although Extraverts were more accurate in the Empathy Condition compared to the Memory Condition, the significant results were attributable to the decrease in accuracy in judging E-0 in his absence. Therefore, the effect of the difference in conditions for the extravert has not been demonstrated.

PAGE 129

-120Tbe Introvert was hypothesized to Increase in accuracy in the Memory Condition on several grounds (see page 31 for discussion) , none of which appear to have been valid, since the Introverts did not improve in accuracy in the Memory Condition. Ifypothesls 7 stated that extraverts would make more accurate judgments when the object person was present than would introverts, and that there would be no difference between extraverts and introverts in over-all accuracy of judgments when the object person was absent. The similarity of the Es and Is in over-all accuracy in both conditions has already been discussed in the evaluation of Hypothesis 1. The rationale for the null hypothesis stated that "the more accurate stereotype of the extravert should balance to some degree his loss of accuracy from the absence of differentiating cues" in the Memory Condition. TMs logic, while not proved by the results, does receive some support from the significant E vs I contrast in the Memory Condition, where the Es applied their stereotypes more accurately than the Is* without a corresponding significant increase in Total Stereotype levels. To test possible differences between subjects in visual response to differentiating cues from the object persons. Part III of the study was carried out. An implicit assumption was that greater visual contact with an object person would result In a greater degree of empathy, all other things being equal, Tliere were no significant differences between Extraverts and Introverts for any of the variables in Part III, contrary to Hypothesis 13, which stated that extraverts would refer visually to the object persons during the judging process to a greater extent than Introverts. This hypothesis was based on the rationale that extraverted groups would have a more "compelling need to maintain contact with external objects and social realities" (Voth & Mayman, 1963),

PAGE 130

-121and that such a need f.o maintain contact would be translated into greater visual contact with the object persons being Judged, IThile this did not prove to be true of the Extraverts, the neuroticisinatablllty dimension took on significance as an important source of variance in visual responsiveness and accuracy in the judging situation. These results were described in the preceding section on the effects of neuroticlsm-stability. The fact that Good judges averaged longer fixation times per observation of the object persons during the judging process than the Poor judges in Part III supports Hypothesis 14, which stated: "Good judges will refer visually to the object person during the judging process to a greater extent than will poor judges." Unfortunately the Good judges from Part II did not perform consistently as good judges in Part III. Hence, there was no significant difference between their accuracy and that of the Poor judges in the follow-up study, unless the neuroticism-stability dimension is taken into account. It remains for further study of the data to determine the extent and direction of the relationship between longer average fixation times and frequency of fixations to accuracy. A highly positive relationship would seem to serve as an adequate refutation to Gage's statement that "accuracy is reduced insofar as the observation of expressive behavior affects their [^the judges 'J judgments." The results of Part III demonstrated the importance of the neuroticism-stability dimension, with Stable judges proving more consistent in accuracy than Neurotic judges. Hypotheses 3 and 2, however, which predicted superior accuracy for the Stable subjects in Part II, were not confirmed. The finding that in the Empathy Condition Stable

PAGE 131

-122judges were more accurate than Neurotic judges on the basis of assuming similarity between themselves and the object person,* while Neurotics were more accurate by assuming dlssimilarit}^ appears to be related to the fact that the Stable subjects in the Empathy Condition seem to have been more similar to the object persons on the Subtle Pd scale than were the Neurotics." (See Real Similarity means. Table 3.) These findings, incidentally, are congruent with those of Blerl, Blacharsky & Reid (1955), mentioned earlier on page 32, As has been discussed, the groups appear to vary in the extent to which Real Similarity, Total Assumed Similarity and Total Stereotype are related, with the Es demonstrating greater congruency between ranks (Table 17). It was hypothesized that stable and neurotic extraverts would assume similarity to a greater extent than the introverted groups (Hypothesis 8). This was based on the assumption, per Fiedler (1953) and Jackson & Carr (1955), that asstnned similarity is a measure "of the degree of psychological closeness, warmth and affinity that the subject feels for the other person" (page 32), rather than a measure of psychological projection. It was believed that extraverts would assume more similarity than introverts because of their greater sociability—sociability being equated implicitly with "psychological closeness, warmth and affinity." Either this implicit equation is false, Dymond's conception of assumed similarity as a manifestation of projection is true, or, as the data seem to indicate, the E-I dimension is not related in a major way to the tendency to assume similarity. First, the Es did not assume similarity to a greater extent than the Is. As a matter of fact, the means for the Is were

PAGE 132

-123higher in both conditions, though the difference was not significant. The correlation studies show low negative relationships between Total Assumed Similarity and the MPI Extraversion scale (r = -.123*), the Subtle Pd scale (-.168***), and the Minnesota Social Extra\^er3ion scale (-.090, not significant). However, the contrast E vs I x E-0 + I-O vs A-0 was highly significant in the Empathy Condition, «ind very highly significant in the Memory Condition, indicating that the Es assumed similarity to the A-0 to a greater extent than the Is, while the Is assumed similarity to E-0 and 1-0 more than the Es. Hence, the judges did differ in their tendency to assume similarity as a function of the type of person they were Judging. As has been pointed out earlier, the Es appear to have been more realistic in their perceptions of the object persons in the extent of their congruency between assuming similarity and real similarity. This might be interpreted as an indication of psychological closeness or affinity. Because the E-0 apparently was experienced by the judges as either an introvert or ambivert, it cannot be concluded that the NI was projecting in ovarassuming similarity to E-0. Related to the abovementioned factor is the data supporting Hypothesis 9, which stated that introverts would assume similarity inaccurately to a greater extent than extraverts. It was the large number of errors of this type made by the Is— in particular, NI— in judging E-0 which accounted for a sizeable portion of the variance in the significant Interaction for the Memory Condition and the nonsignificant interaction in the Empathy Condition. Hence, again the ambiguity of the E-0 seems responsible for a significant result supporting a hypothesis which otherwise might not have received support.

PAGE 133

-124Introverts were also predicted to rely more on their stereotjrpes than the extraverts, as stated in I^othesis 10. The results did not support this prediction. No test was made of the difference between the Introverts' application of their stereotypes between conditions, but there does appear to have been a decrease in the Memory Condition which may account for the lower proportion of accurate stereotypic responses in the Memory Condition for the Is— the Es had significantly higher Accurate Stereotype scores in this condition, while the Is had significantly higher Inaccurate Stereotype scores in the Empathy Condition. The NI appears to have a larger proportion of inaccurate stereotypic responses relative to his total than do the other judges, though again no statistical test was made of this observation* Turning to the hypotheses concerning object persons, again it appears that the results cannot be considered generalizable beyond this study to support or disconfirm the findings of other investigators because of the atypicality of the E-0. Hypothesis 11 stated that the extravert object person would be most accurately judged, followed by the introvert and ambivert. As pointed out elsewhere, the E-0 was erronecaisly judged to a much greater extent than the I-O, who was judged with approximately the same degree of accuracy by the judges as the A-0. However, the E-0 in Pcjrt III was judged more accurately than the I-O. Because of the assumptions concerning the general tendency to assume similarity. Hypothesis 12 stated that extravert judges would be most accurate predictors of the extravert and ambivert object persons, while introverts would be most accurate in predicting for the introvert object person. This hypothesis was not supported, since both Es

PAGE 134

-125and Is were least accurate in judging the E-0. Furthermore, although the means are not significantly different, there was a tendency for the Extraverts to be more accurate in judging the I-O than were the Introverts. !nie final hypothesis to be discussed concerns the effect of types of extraversion on the error variables. Ifypothesis -^f predicted that Social and Thinking Extraversion would be positively relai:ed to accuracy in judgments of strangers, while Emotional Extraversion would be related negatively to accuracy. Social and Thinking Extraversion were not related to the Error variable, while the relationship with Emotional Extraversion was a significant but very low one. This indicates a correlation with accuracy for this subtype of extraversion--the opposite of the prediction. Furthermore, it was the only independent variable which showed a relationship, however low, to accuracy. The MPI E, Subtle Pd and Minnesota Social Extraversion scales were found to be most related to the dependent variables in Part II, but correlations were low, the highest being .251*** between the Minnesota Social Extraversion scale and Self-Stereotype Similarity. Hence, social extraversion, which the MPI E scale ia also said to reflect, is the only one of the three subtypes studied vrfiich seems relevant to person perception. A number of questions have been raised by the findings vi^ich must be dealt with by further exploration of relationships among the variables. Inferences need to be tested. A subsequent item analysis may answer some of the questions raised concerning the aianner in

PAGE 135

-126in which the E-0 was judged. Investigation of possible relationships between the dependent variables in Part III should shed additional light on whether judges' style of visual response to an object person affects accuracy, etc. Other questions beyond the realm of data collected in this study present themselves, and will be dealt with in the Summary which follows.

PAGE 136

CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY The basis of the research described in the preceding pages was the assumption that the extravers ion-introversion dimension of personality interacts with neuroticism-stability as major determinants of the degree of empathy and success achieved in judging other people. The 96 male college students who served as judges were classified, on the basis of their scores on the Maudsley Personality Inventory, as Stable or Neurotic Extraverts, and Stable or Neurotic Introverts. An important variable in person-perception studies has been the object persons themselves. It was assumed that their personalities as perceived by the judges would evoke varying response tendencies from the judges depending on their own personalities. Accordingly, the object persons were preselected as representing the extravert, ambivert and introvert types on the basis of their MFI Extraversion scale scores and ratings by male college students who observed them reading aloud. A third variable with which the research was concerned consisted of the conditions under which judgments of object persons occur. To enhance the probability that empathy would operate as a variable in determining the extent of the judges' accuracy, a condition was introduced in which responses of each object person were predicted as he read aloud the items of the personality measure (Subtle Pd scale from -127-

PAGE 137

-128the MMPI) on which he was being Judged. This was called the Empathy Condition, since relevant meaning cues were presumed to be maximal at the time of judging. In a Memory Condition, judges observed each object person as he read aloud similar items from a personality measure different from the one on which he was to be judged. Actual predict ions of his responses to the criterion measure were made by the Judges after the object person had left the room, so that they were forced to rely on their memories of him during the judging process. Forty-eight subjects participated in each judging condition, 12 of each judge type. To explore the personality variables in relation to how the judges carried out their task, a follow-up study was made of ten "good" and ten "poor" judges from the main experiment. Observers behind a one-way mirror recorded frequency and length of the judges* visual fixations on the two object persons during the judging task under the conditions which prevailed in the Einpathy Condition. The data from the main experiment demonstrated that extraversionintroversion (E-I) and neuroticism-stability (N-S) do interact as significant sources of variance in accuracy and other elements of person perception. E-I proved to be more important than N-S in studies of the conventional components of accuracy and stereotype scores, while N-S was of major importance in accounting for certain stylistic differences in carrying out the judging task, such as average time per visual fixation. The major findings for the Judge effect: The Neurotic Extraverts (NE) were most congruent in the extent to which they assumed similarity

PAGE 138

-129between themselves and the object persons, applied their stereotypes and were in reality siaiilar to the object persons. The Neurotic Introverts (NI) were distinguished by their departure from the patterns of response typical of the other judge types, Tlie Extraverts and Introverts did not differ in the extent to which they applied their stereotypes, but the Introverts were more inaccurate on this basis in the Empathy Condition, while the Extraverts were more accurate in the Memory Condition, all of which suggests that extraverts apply their stereotypes more accurately than do introverts. In the follo5*-up study, the Stable judges looked significantly more often at the object persons than did the Neurotic judges; however, the Neurotics averaged significantly longer fiKr.tion times when they did look at the object persons. Stable judges were more consistent in their level of accuracy between judging situations than were Neurotics, ITie three object persons were reacted to in markedly different ways, and there was great consistency betv;een conditions in the judges' responses to them. All main effects of the Objects variable in both conditions for nine dependent variables were highly or very highly significant. The E}:travert object person (E-0) proved a difficult person to judge, as evidenced by the high level of inaccuracy in predicting his responses. He was rated as an Ambivert (A-0) or Introvert (I-O) by the judges, whereas both A-0 and 1-0 were accurately rated by the majority of subjects, (The E-0 in the follow-up study, who was a different person than the E-0 in the main study, was judged more Ite.*^-' accurately than the follow-up I-O,) A-0 and 1-0 were judged with comparable accuracy. However, the judges as a whole perceived themselv'ffl as being more similar to A-0. Kiey also applied their stereo-

PAGE 139

-130type to the A-0 significantly more than to I«0 or E-0 and were significantly more accurate in doing so. The judges were significantly more accurate when assuming similarity to the A-0 and significantly less inaccurate on the basis of assuming dissimilarity. The I-O was perceived by the judges, with the exception of the Neurotic Introverts, as being least similar to themselves in both conditions. The judges less often used their stereotypes as a basis for predicting the I-O, and they were less inaccurate in applying their stereotypes to I-O conpared to E-0, The major interaction effect disclosed that the judges differed in their tendency to assume similarity as a function of the type of person they were judging. Extraverts assumed similarity to the A-0 to a greater extent than the Introverts, while the Introverts assumed similarity to E-0 and I-O to a greater extent than to A-0, However, this effect was primarily due to the Neurotic Introverts. Since the A-0 actually scored higher on the Thinking and Einotional Extraversion scales of the Minnesota T-S-E than the E-0, and was rated as an Extravert by many of the judges, it appears that the Extraverts were not unrealistic in assuming greater similarity to A-0, just as the I-O was justified in assuming greater similarity to E-0 and I-O, since the E-0 was comparable to I-O on Thinking and Emotional Extraversion scores. One of the major findings of the study was the striking consistency of results between the two groups of subjects under slightly different conditions of observation of the object persons. In most cases, if a variable was significant in the Empathy Condition, the Memory Condition replicated the finding. The effect of Conditions was significant for four variables: Total Errors, Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity ,

PAGE 140

-131Accuracy-Similarity and Accurate Stereotype. The greater number of errors In the Memory Condition was mainly due to the increase in inaccuracy on the basis of assumed dissimilarity in this condition* accompanied by decreased accuracy on the basis of assumed similarity and accurate application of the judges' stereotypes. These effects were most pronounced in judgments of the E-0, but to a lesser extent are seen in judgments of I-O. The significant effect for Total Errors was mainly attributable to increased inaccuracy in judging E-0 in the Memory Condition, Since the differences between conditions were in large part a function of the atypical E-0, the results are not considered adequate evidence that the Empathy Condition did in fact result in increased empathy as an aid to accuracy. Correlation studies of the personality variables (the MPI Extraversion and Neuroticism scales, MMPI Subtle Pd scale > and the Minnesota niinking-Social-Emotional I-E scales) with the dependent variables yielded low relationships, chiefly confined to the MPI Extraversion, Subtle Pd and Minnesota Social Extraversion scales. Social extraversion, then, appears to be the only one of the three subtypes of extraversion studied which seems relevant to person perception as a characteristic of the Judges. Implications for Future Research Although thinking and eaaotional extraversion appear to be relatively unimportant aspects of the judge's personality in person-perception studies such as this one, a question is raised from the present results as to the relevance of these variables for the object person. The fact that the E-0 was often perceived and judged as an introvert may have something to do with the fact that he scored as low on the

PAGE 141

-132Thinking and Emotional Extraversion scales of the Minnesota T-S-E as the I-O. Likewise, the A-0 scored high on the Thinking and Emotional Extraversion scales and was often perceived and judged as an Extravert . The finding that the E-0 was considerably more difficult to judge in the Memory Condition while the other object persons were not, led to the conjecture that personality variables may interact with situational variables to determine how accurately one is judged. For instance, are some people more difficult to judge from memory? Are some people easier to judge under stress? It would have been helpful In the present study to have asked the judges to Indicate the extent of their like or dislike of the object persons on the basis of their impressions of them. A correlation between assumed similarity and liking should shed light on whether the judges are projecting or demonstrating psychological closeness and warmth. Perhaps it depends upon the indivithial judge in question. In the present study the Neurotic Extravert tended to be the most accurate judge of the I-O, which suggests that accuracy of judgments may be facilitated in judging one's opposite, particularly if the opposite is disliked. The present study demonstrated again that the personality measure used as a criterion Is an Important determinant of level of errors. Social presence was more readily judged accurately in this study than were the items frcm the Subtle Pd scale, just as in the writer's earlier study (1966), anxiety and social presence proved to be more predictable dimensions for judgment than cognitive complexity.

PAGE 142

-133Vernon has rightfully pointed out that the analyses of personperception scores "do not tell us much about how judges normally carry out their task" (1964). The follow-up study of the behavioral characteristics of ten of the best and ten of the worst judges from the main study is a step in the direction of finding out what effect personality differences have upon how the judges go about their task. The finding that Neurotics and Stables differed in frequency and duration of visual fixation of the object persons leads one to wonder if this phenomenon would hold true of nonhuman visual stimuli as well. Investigators continue to find it difficult to quantify that elusive variable empathy. Perhaps it can be approached more profitably by looking at the behaviors manifested by people rated as empathlc compared to those rated as relatively unempathic. For instance, would an enq)athlc person look at the person he is anpathizlng with more often than an unempathic person? By eliciting such empathlc behaviors (if such exist) » could higher levels of anpathy be fostered in unempathic individuals? Ihe problems which face the investigator of person perception are complex and varied, just as the data tends to be. New approaches and methods must be tried; the results of the follow-up study are evidence that the method used may be fruitful for future research.

PAGE 143

APPENDICES

PAGE 144

APPENDIX A RATING SCAIE PART I Below are rating scales on which you are being asked to rate the other subjects who are present. Each subject will read aloud a literary passage. You are to observe him and determine where you would rate him on the dimension of introversion-extraversion: very introverted, moderately introverted, ambiverted (balanced between introversion and extraversion), moderately extraverted or very extraverted. Place a check mark on the line above the phrase which best seems to fit the person you are observing. Since you will be rating several people, the same scale is repeated a number of times on the page. For the first subject, use the scale marked #1; for the second subject, use Scale #2, etc. Following are typical descriptions of an extraverted person and an introverted one, which may be useful in helping you make Judgments on this dimension. The typical extraver t is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally an Impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change. He is carefree, easygoing, optimistic, and likes to "laugh and be merry," He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends to be aggressive and may lose his temper quickly. His feelings are not kept under tight control, and he is not always a reliable person. The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead, "looks before he leaps," and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes a wellordered mode of life. He keeps his feelings under close control, seldom behaves in an aggressive manner, and does not lose his temper easily. He is reliable, somewhat pessimistic, and places great value on ethical standards. very moderately moderately very introverted introverted ambiverted extraverted extraverted Scale 1: __»_^ __««_ Scale 2: etc. to Scale 13 -135-

PAGE 145

APPENDIX B LETTER TO SUBJECT POOL February 27, 1967 Dear Student: This letter is to request your participation In the second part of the experiment on social perception. Experiment 20-B. In the first part of the study, 20-A, you filled out a personality Inventory. (Students in Dr. Margulls* section filled this out in class.) On the basis of your scores, you have been classified for experimental purposes as Subject ^pe . There will be only two experimental sessions, and you are asked to sisn up for only one of the two. One session will be held at 4 p.m. on Monday, March 6, in Room 121 of the General Classroom Building, which is directly south of Building E. (Room 121 is at the end of the building closest to Walker Auditorium.) Another session will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 8, in the same room. The experiment will last a little over an hour, and each subject will receive 1% experimental credits. Si£;n-up sheets for the two dates will be limited to fifteen subjects of each Subject Type for each session; there are five Subject Types. This is to insure having adequate numbers of each Subject Type represented at both sessions. If you want to sign up for one particular session because the other time is inconvenient for you, I would suggest that you sign up promptly. If you find that all the spaces have been taken for your Subject Type designation for the experimental date you want, write your name on a special sheet provided for overflows, including which date you need to sign up for. Then simply shosr/ up at that time. However, if you would be able to attend either session and find both signup sheets full, please Indicate this, and you will be contacted by phone about vrtilch session to attend. Or you could call me at 372-5732 after 5 p.m., if you prefer. Also, please call me if you have any questions. Please bring a pencil or pen. If you forget your Subject Type designation, you will find an alphabetical list near the bulletin board listing experiments to which you can refer for your Subject Type when you sign up« Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Even if you have already fulfilled the minimum requirement for experlrcntal participation, you will find this a relatively simple way to obtain extra credit. Sincerely, /s/ Dorothy Ward -136-

PAGE 146

APPENDIX C CRITERION KEASURE SUBTIf PD SCALE PART II (The instructions at the top of the page of the inventory varied, depending upon whether it was being used in the Empathy Condition, the Memory Condition, or in predictions of the Typical Male College Student or for the Self. These instructions are reproduced below.) Etopathy Condition instructions Below are 22 statements which represent personal experiences, feelings and ways of doing things. Each person you are to Judge will read aloud these statements, pausing after each one so that you may have time to consider which answer he would be likely to check. Please observe him carefully while he is reading aloud each item. Then circle or check either True or False, whichever answer you feel is applicable to the person being judged. The items are printed here so that if you miss anything that is read aloud, you can refer to the printed statement. However, remember to look at and listen to the person you are judging while he is speaking rather than looking at the printed statements. Memory Condition instructions Below are 22 statements which represent personal experiences, feelings and ways of doing things. You are asked to answer these statements as you think the person you have just observed would answer them. On the basis of your observations of him, try to decide whether each statement is true or false with respect to him. If you feel a -137-

PAGE 147

-138atatement is probably true of him, circle or check T. If the statement is probably not true, circle or check F. Instructions for predictions of Typical Male College Student Below are 22 statements which represent personal experiences, feelings and ways of doing things. We are interested in your opinion of how the typical male college student at the University of Florida would answer these questions for himself. Just circle or check T for True or F for False, depending on hew you think such a "typical" student would respond. Work quickly; we prefer to have initial reactions wherever possible rather than a lengthy analysis to decide on a response . Instructions for Self responses The 22 statements below represent personal experiences, feelings and ways of doing things. Please read each statement and decide whether or not it is true with respect to yourself. If it is true or mostly true, circle T. If the statement is not true or not usually true, circle or check F. Answer all statements as honestly as you can. Ttiere are no right or wrong answers. Items 1. I like school. J f 2. I have been quite independent and free from family rule. T F 3. My relatives are nearly all in synq)athy with me. T F 4. I have very few quarrels with members of my family. T F 5. I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special reason. T F 6. What others think of me does not bother me. T F

PAGE 148

-1397. At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could speak thCTi, 'g f 8. I am against giving money to beggars, f f 9. I am neither gaining nor losing weight, T F 10. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong, I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world." T F 11. My conduct is largely controlled by the customs of those about me. T F 12. I am always disgusted with the law when a criminal is freed through the arguments of a smart lawyer. T F 13. I have been disappointed in love. T F lA. I know who is responsible for most of my troubles. T F 15. My hardest battles are with myself. 7 F 16. At tisies I have very much wanted to leave home. T F 17. I like to talk about sex. T F 18. I wish I were not so shy. T F 19. I find it hard to make talk when I meet new people. T F 20. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. T F 21. I am easily downed in an argument. T F 22. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of things. T F

PAGE 149

APPENDIX D STATQiarrs read by the object persons IN THE MIMORY CONDITION 1. I am very confident of myself. 2. I am no more nervous than most others, 3. I work under a great deal of strain. 4. I worry over money and school. 5. I frequently notice my hands shake when I try to do something. 6. I worry quite a bit over possible troubles, 7. I am often afraid that I am going to blush, 8. I have nightmares every few nights, 9. At tines I lose sleep over worry. 10. I often dream about things I don't like to tell others, 11. I am easily embarrassed. 12. I have a great deal of stomach trouble. 13. I feel anxious about scwiething or someone almost all the time, 14. I am happy most of the time. 15. It makes me nervous to have to wait. 16. At times I have worried beyond reason about something that really did not matter. 17. I have been afraid of things or people that I know could not hurt me, 18. Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to get to sleep. 19. I am not at all confident of ntyself. 20. I am the kind of person who takes things hard. 21. Life is often a strain to me. 22. I am a very nervous person. -140-

PAGE 150

APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES FOR aiPATHY AND MEUORY CONDITIONS Empathy Condition instructions nils is an experiment concerned with your ability to judge the personality characteristics of three male college students. Specifically, you will be asked to fill out a personality inventory as you think the person you will be observing will fill out his. Each student you are to judge will enter the ro
PAGE 151

-1A2Memory Condition instructions This is an experiment concerned with your ability to judge the personality characteristics of three male college students. Each student you are to judge will enter the room and will read aloud a number of statements which represent personal experiences, feelings and ways of doing things. It will be your job to observe and listen to him carefully while he is reading in order to gain an impression of the kind of person he is. From this sample of his behavior, after he has left the room you will be asked to fill out a personality inventory containing similar statements, marking on your answer sheet the answers you think are an accurate description of him. At the end of the judging, you will be asked to answer some questions with respect to yourself, after which you are free to leave after picking up your experimental credit card and turning in your personality Inventory sheets. Please write your subject number on all sheets given to you in the space provided in the upper left-hand corner.

PAGE 152

APPENDIX F JUDGES' RATING SHEET FOR DEGREE OF ACQUAINTANCE AND GLOBAL JUDGMENTS Subject No, Please answer the following questions: 1. There is a possibility that you may know one or more of the students whom you observed. If you do, please indicate below by circling which one(s) you knew in the order of their appearance, and by checking how much personal contact you have had with him (or them). Order of no previous very little slight moderate considerable appearance contact contact contact contact contact 2 3 2, Please check below your judgment of each of the three target persons as being an extravert, introvert or ambivert (someone in the middle range), Extravert Ambivert Introvert 2 3 3. Finally, I would appreciate having your reaction to this experiment, Check below the adjective which best describe your feelings. boring enjoyable depressing interesting dull worthwhile Other comments or adjective you may have in mind: Thank you very much for participating in this e::periment, 143-

PAGE 153

APPENDIX 6 CRITERION MEASURE FOR PART III SOCIAL PRESENCE SCALE Instructions to .iudRe_8 Below are 18 statements which represent personal experiences, feelings and ways of doing things. Each person you are to judge will read aloud these statements, pausing after each one so that you may have time to consider which answer is applicable to him. Please observe him carefully while he is reading aloud each item. Tlien circle or check either True or False, whichever answer you feel is applicable to him. The items are printed here so that if you miss anything that is read aloud, you can refer to the printed statement. However, remember to look at and listen to the person you are judging while he is speaking rather than looking at the printed statements. 1. I find it hard to keep n^ mind on a task or job. T F 2. I usually feel that life is worthwhile. I P 3. I like to go to parties and other affairs where there is lots of loud fun. IF A. I believe that women ought to have as much sexual freedom as men. T F 5. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me. T f 6. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of things. T F 7. I find it hard to make talk when I meet new people. T F 8. When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement. T F 9. I gossip a little at times. T F -144-

PAGE 154

-14510. I usually expect to succeed in things I do. T f 11. The only interesting part of the newspapers is the "funnies." T P 12. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. S F 13. I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. T P 14. I refuse to play scnne games because I am not good at them. T P 15. I have no dread of going into a rocm by myself where other people have already gathered and are talking. T P 16. I am embarrassed by dirty stories. T F 17. In a group of people I would not be embarrassed to be called upon to start a discussion or give an opinion about something I know well. T P 18. A large number of people are guilty of bad sexual contact. T P

PAGE 155

APPENDIX H INSTRUCTIONS TO OBSERVERS PART III This is part of an experiment on person perception. Students on the other side of the one-way-vision mirror have been instructed to observe an "object person" as he reads aloud a list of items from a personality inventory. These judges are to guess whether he would answer a question True or False and mark their sheets accordingly. There are two object persons to be judged. You are asked to observe one judge at a time as he goes about his judging assignment. Specifically, you are to keep track of how often the person you are judging looks at the person he is judging, and how long he keeps his gaze focused on the object person when he does look at him. A metronome will be ticking while you are judging, and you are to count the number of times you hear it beat every time you see your subject look at the object person. This is the figure you record in the space provided for the separate observations. As an example, supposing that your judge looks continually at the object person when he first comes into the room for 20 seconds. In the first space on the record sheet, you would record the figure 20* Your subject now looks away for a few seconds and then looks at the object person again for 10 seconds. In the second space, you would record the figure 10. The next time he looks at the object person, he does so for less than a second and you don't hear the metro* nome before he looks away again. This should be recorded as "1", Following is the way this hypothetical record sheet looks up to this point: 20 10 1 -146-

PAGE 156

-147You will notice that you are to record across the page before going to the next line. Two of you will be assigned to observe each judge; however, please do not consult with your ''partner"--be as accurate as you can on your own* but do not be anxious if you happen to miss a brief glance or are uncertain of the timing on an observation— simply record your best guess. Tnere will be no more than four judges in the other room at a time; there will be several different groups, however, so that you will be judging four or five subjects in the next hour or so. There will be a brief practice session before the judging actually begins. BEGIN JUDGING when the object person enters the room. STOP JUDGING as soon as the object person gets up from his chair to leave.

PAGE 157

APPENDIX I SIMMARY TABLE— TOTAL ERRORS SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS COMBINED EMPATHY CONDITION Means F MEMORY CONDITION Means F JUDGES

PAGE 158

o o 4J b (0 u ta CO o §1 CO o w CS I. 13" to o CO •a 0) u u § CO vO 00 r^ IT) o -* O «;f . r-l 00 0% • • • sT r^ tH »n
PAGE 159

APPENDIX K SUMMARY TAB1£— INACCURACY-DISSIMILARITY SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CCOIDITIONS CCMBINED EMPATHY CONDITION Means F MEMORY CONDITION Means F JUDGES HE SE NI SI OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-0 INTERACTIONS NE X 1-0 E-O SE X NI X SI X A-0 1-0 E-0 A-0 1-0 E-0 A-0 1-0 E-0 A-0 4.42 5,22 3.97 4,03 4.56 5.12 3.54 4.33 5.58 3.33 4.67 7.17 3,33 4.25 3.67 4.00 5.00 4.08 3.00 5.78** 5.69 6.06 4.67 4.97 5.23 6.85 3.96 4.83 8.00 4.25 5.58 8.25 4.33 5.08 5.25 3.67 5.42 5.92 3.58 15.41*** CONTRASTS E vs I E-0 + 1-0 vs A-0 E-0 vs 1-0 E vs I X E-0 vs 1-0 4,52* 10.14** 7.73** 6.11* 21.16*** 9.66** 6.10* CONDITIONS CGMBINED Conditions Judges Objects Judges X Objects 7.58** 3.06* 25.40*** 3.66** * Significant at the .05 level of confidence; ** .01; *** .001. -150-

PAGE 160

Q a o o >^ b ta u I CO m w o OT h n o u ca 3 o a 0) u d §1 w o w o o «n >* d «n ^o • • • * o 00 • • • sr vo o vO O r^ rH I*. 00 CM fO CO sr I. si»-l IN. eg •* rH • • • CM m t-4 <-t CO m r^ r-4 \0 • • • •vC tH 1^ 1-1 o m\o o t-4 C^ * 00 ON CM r>. o • • • CM lO M r>. CM \0 ON 0\ 1-4 1-1 O »H r-4 CO r-4 1-4 m ON ON 00 CT» in •-• vo CO o o CO CM vO §f-4 CO »-4 O •^5 f«» t** vO vO r^ O • • • o -* m CM ON r-t CsJ CO ON CO CO 00 CO O CO I NO ON 00 SSSf^iS CM O NO o CM v£) I I CM NO ONin \o-sr.r^m • • •••••• r»
PAGE 161

APPENDIX M Sl»MARY TABI£ INACCURACY-SIMILARITY SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS CCMBINED

PAGE 162

Px 09 Hi ll*. I sr o\ ^s• • • in rH CM C>4 CO I* c o u •H § 9 3" CO B CO 1-1 Cv) vO ON CO m 00 vo «* c^ i-t r>. CM CM CO co Cvl CM r-l t-i CO «;r o 00 •a o o Xi I PL. CO 4) CO ! (0 3 to O CO 0) o § CO o\ in • • •^ IX. O vD vO CO • • • rs. m CO o^ o^ o\ r-t m f^ CM CO CO n-l rH 3 .a Q C JJ u «) .r) O ta s H * m r«. vo l»» 0> CM • • • CO n 00 vO i-« • • • O CM «* m r-< CO CO CM vO 8 (0 u CO -u q) 0> U M :o « 0) 3 ^ C '^ o w I I 40 Q > to H CO m ffl H+ S M g to r-l CM CO CM CO
PAGE 163

APPENDIX SIMMARY TABLE ACCURACY" SIMILARITY SIGNIFICANT F V.^LUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS CCMBINED

PAGE 164

Km OS u CO CO c (9 0) I O VO 00 Ot en o\ I .27 21.82'

PAGE 165

APPENDIX Q SIMIARY TABLE ACCURACY-DISSIMILARITY SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS CCMBINED

PAGE 166

§ U •rl g ^ a o » g ^ P=4 a u W cs (U CD §1 w o w PC4 ca 0) to §1 w Q 0) to 3. CO <« o to O r-t o o • • CM * m en ON ui <7> O tM » o I «n 0 Csl CM 0> CO 2 CM C\ CM 1^ CM CO O O i lo c^ CM r-l CM ON CM CO d <> • • • ir> -* r-t F-t li^ CO M3 CJN en <• r^ ey> r^ CO r>. >* O 00 I vo vi) r» m m vo v£* ^ 00 m 00 CM CO •-< • • CO CM 3S CM 00 CM «* i-< rO r-t O O t^ ft Ct m r-t CM vO O CO o t fO CO vO < vO •n CO m • • • I o> vO CO CM U^ • • vO CM O 1 1 f-4 CO • • 00 O vO 00 rH O . CM O O CO o o • ••••• <{* CM fH 00 vO On • r-l r-l o^ m tn ON CTN M-l

PAGE 167

APPENDIX S SUMMARY TABLE TOTAL ASSUMED SIMILARITY SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUKE, OBJECT AND INTERACTIONS MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIOt^S COMBINED

PAGE 168

•a g o >i u O ^ HI § a o « §1 to (U eg a u I w O w Ik4 09 0) A CO 00 a V -H o m ^ H I 1-t en 00 sr «/^ ch • • • r-l CM vo r>. -dCO so -J • • • -* o >-• r-< O en 00 m m to en vo • • • ^aiH 00 <• O 00 CM r-l CM r*. CM vo CO en • • • ft \D c<\ o ~4 r-i en to M W S O CO to «s > > tS M CO r-i CM on d fi in t-« 9k • m o m o en • • «n ^r m CO O i o I M H H -a* m cs > I CO P-. CM r>. 00 O «H vO 1-4 f-4 vo vo o o m • •••»• * 00 »C CM i-« O en St t-t St §r-l -dO r^ CM 0% o o in r-i fH c^ • ••••• • ^0 C^ CM CM 00 I-t <7> en i-< r-4 CM \o 1-1 sr m i ii n a i-i i-i CM CM en en CM

PAGE 169

APPENDIX U SIMMARY TABLE REAL SIMILARITY SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS COMBINED EMPATHY CONDITION Means F MHIORY CONDITION Means F JUDGES NE SE NI SI OBJECTS I-O E-0 A-O INTERACTIONS NE X 1-0 E-0 A-0 SE X 1-0 E-0 A-0 NI X 1-0 E-0 A-0 SI X 1-0 E-0 A-0 12.61

PAGE 170

Psi 0) eg g •4CO o CO CO CM m CO CM in • • CO O I CO U1 CT> CO i r-i sT o 1-4 r-l rH O O a» CO »-• o rj m CO 0) u cr w o O CO o^ vO CO 0^ 5 vO CM CO m vO o m o • • CO vD 1-1 \0 cj «a>c • • • r* i>. r^ CM CO <}• CM CO Vi tu * c^ CO CM CO o •JC o I CO a eg CO P«« P^ CO CO rH
PAGE 171

APPENDIX W SIJMMARY TABLE ACCURATE STEREOTYPE SIGNIFICAHT P VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND C(»n)ITIONS COMBINED

PAGE 172

b I en cs 0) u (0 w e ft 0^ •a CO O m CO va cn o CO CO vjCNJ vO e>4 <:r vo • • • r>l CM <3;f cn CM \o o o CO !-• O CM • • C05 "sT r-l o o • iTi 00 CM <}• CM sr 00 < ^ (14 > w cn 4 * CO CM CM I to I 3 $ cn m r<« cy> o CM • • • r-. r-t CO

PAGE 173

APPENDIX Y SUMMARY TABLE INACCURATE STEREOTYPE SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT MD INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS COMBINED

PAGE 174

§ 4J o > U N rl o Cci cr CO Q « (0 0) to OT b 3 cr to O CO 4> U U s o C/3 SO CO r^. St • • o r^ r>. CO o c» • • • CO . CO 00 vO CM m CO cy» o P>4 vO fO 0\ ITl fO CO • • • t-l i-l CM r*
PAGE 175

APPENDIX AA SIWMARY TABLE TOTAL STEREOTYPE SIGNIFICANT F VALUES FOR JUDGE, OBJECT AND INTERACTION MEANS AND CONTRASTS AND CONDITIONS COMBINED

PAGE 176

M % a

PAGE 177

8 I S P^ C9 to C «3 CO O w Cti (0 (3) 5 o CO 4> y w CO a\ en vo • • o -Io I 00 vO vO v0 O O O • • • a\ m rfy CO o \0 r-l CM r>. eo O CO CM

PAGE 178

APPENDIX DD KEY TO VARIABLES DATA TABIDS 1. Subject Number 2. MPI Extraversion Score 3. MPI Neurotic ism Score 4. MWPI Subtle Pd Score 5. Minnesota Thinking Extraversion Score 6. Minnesota Social Extraversion Score 7. Minnesota Emotional Extraversion Score 8. Object Person Judged 9. Errors 10. Inaccuracy-Dissimilarity 11. Inaccuracy-Similarity 12. Accuracy-Similarity 13. Accuracy-Dissimilarity 14. Total Assumed Similarity 15. Real Similarity 16. Accurate Stereotype 17. Inaccurate Stereotype 18. Total Stereotype 19. Self -Stereotype Similarity •169-

PAGE 179

APPENDIX EE DATA PART II EMPATHY CONDITION NEUROTIC EXTRAVERTS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 112 37 29 9 104 128 50 139 40 32 13 100 142 67 151 33 36 14 93 124 65 185 34 36 13 108 132 53 195 39 33 15 73 110 76 198 41 28 9 145 109 58 1117 40 31 10 125 122 58 1125 38 24 14 124 145 51 1132 34 28 8 114 141 71 1136 36 34 11 132 125 58 1163 35 38 14 157 132 61 1106 42 30 13 150 124 67 STABUS EXTRAVERTS 257 35 17 10 116 139 43 261 33 13 10 99 145 49 I-O

PAGE 180

-1718 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 268 36 7 13 151 110 50 I-O 10 8 2 6 6 8 14 6 2 8 18 E-0 8 6 2 10 4 12 16 11 2 13 18 A-0 6 6 10 6 10 16 9 1 10 18 270 41 10 12 122 169 56 1-0 10 5 5 8 4 13 13 5 3 8 15 E-0 13 6 7 9 16 15 7 8 15 15 A-0 6 2 4 13 3 17 15 11 3 14 15 283 40 12 6 114 151 45 1-0 6 4 2 10 6 12 14 11 3 14 16 E-0 15 9 6 7 13 16 5 8 13 16 A-0 7 6 1 14 1 15 20 11 4 15 16 290 41 17 13 135 163 57 1-0 7 3 4 9 6 13 12 9 5 14 19 E-0 11 8 3 8 3 11 16 8 2 10 19 A-0 8 5 3 9 5 12 14 8 3 11 19 299 40 7 13 81 181 66 1-0 10 5 5 4 8 9 9 4 4 8 16 E-0 15 11 4 5 2 9 6 5 4 9 16 A-0 5 2 3 14 3 17 16 15 4 19 16 2116 38 12 14 127 140 60 1-0 6 4 2 9 7 11 13 10 2 12 19 E-0 8 2 e 13 1 19 15 13 7 20 19 A-0 10 3 7 10 2 17 13 11 5 16 19 2145 35 4 17 114 134 55 1-0 8 4 4 6 8 10 10 3 4 7 19 E-0 12 6 6 6 4 12 12 5 5 10 19 A-0 11 5 6 10 1 16 15 9 7 16 19 2148 39 16 14 99 156 76 1-0 9 5 4 6 7 10 II 7 3 10 16 E-0 12 7 5 8 2 13 15 8 3 11 16 A-0 5 1 4 12 5 16 13 15 3 18 16 2151 38 8 9 125 125 58 1-0 9 6 3 2 11 5 8 9 4 13 12 E-0 8 7 1 11 3 12 IS 11 3 14 12 A-0 10 6 4 8 4 12 14 10 6 16 12 2152 36 19 13 98 172 61 1-0 6 3 3 9 7 12 12 9 1 10 10 E-0 12 9 3 7 3 10 16 5 9 14 10 A-0 10 6 4 10 2 14 16 6 6 12 10 NEUROTIC INTROVERTS 308 19 42 5 110 99 70 1-0 7 2 5 14 1 19 16 13 6 19 18 E-0 7 1 6 9 6 15 10 8 7 15 18 A-0 3 1 2 11 8 13 12 3 3 11 18 323 21 26 7 120 139 73 1-0 8 6 2 12 2 14 18 10 3 13 19 E-0 11 2 9 8 3 17 10 6 8 14 19 A-0 6 2 4 12 4 16 14 11 4 15 19 326 7 37 8 126 81 44 1-0 9 4 5 11 2 16 15 8 3 li 13 E-O 11 6 5 7 4 12 13 4 7 11 13 A-0 14 7 7 4 4 11 11 6 10 16 13 329 11 33 13 175 78 45 1-0 8 5 3 9 5 12 14 9 3 12 16 E-0 11 7 4 3 8 7 10 4 7 11 16 A-0 3 1 2 9 10 11 10 9 2 11 16 337 12 38 10 133 68 53 1-0 10 6 4 7 5 11 13 10 7 17 8 E-0 12 4 8 3 7 11 7 7 10 17 8 A-0 8 5 3 2 12 5 7 7 6 13 8 348 20 28 6 85 109 39 1-0 9 5 4 12 1 16 17 12 4 16 20 E-0 14 4 10 7 1 17 11 6 11 17 20 A-0 10 5 5 10 2 15 15 10 7 17 20

PAGE 181

-1721 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 E-0

PAGE 182

-1733 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .6 17 18 19 4161 26 8 12 130 4166 10 11 5 141 128 38 36 11 123 136 33 35 15 67 147 40 29 16 99 152 35 32 12 164 155 38 36 13 135 1103 33 30 9 121 1105 37 36 7 80 1107 36 44 10 112 1142 34 27 9 134 1147 39 23 14 102 1168 36 26 13 93 1177 38 23 12 120 LO 78 I-O

PAGE 183

-1748 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 STABUS EXTRAVERTS 216 40 11 9 154 134 45 217 38 19 11 80 145 46 244 36 5 9 79 164 58 280 38 20 9 124 124 41 287 43 13 12 106 156 55 2109 42 12 12 133 147 48 2114 32 9 12 85 163 45 2121 32 18 15 124 132 56 2143 41 19 15 93 167 58 2150 35 17 9 127 149 69 2179 33 17 15 125 133 47 2180 36 16 11 42 200 62 NEUROTIC INTROVERTS 303 21 29 9 119 118 73 I-O

PAGE 184

-1758 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 325 17 35 7 155 91 59 330 5 23 9 126 78 50 342 13 32 10 59 101 57 354 20 24 8 145 84 54 381 20 34 11 95 119 50 3113 4 32 10 144 74 57 3134 15 33 12 135 94 54 3137 8 44 11 122 76 58 3154 22 27 9 167 115 60 3187 5 34 7 81 73 52 I-O

PAGE 185

.176. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 472

PAGE 186

APPENDIX FF

PAGE 187

APPENDIX GG SiaiMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ATTRIBUTE FAVORABILITY PAPvT III Source df Sums of Sc^uares Object (E-0 vs I-O) Judge Type 1 (N vs S) 2 (E vs I) 3 (NE -b SI vs SE -:NI) 1 1 1 105.62 16.56 .62 5,91 12.39** Level (Good vs Poor) 9.02 Level X Type 1 Level X Type 2 Level X Type 3 1 1 1 16.66 1.22 A. 47 Object X Type 1 Object X lype 2 Object X Type 3 1 1 1 13.71 5.62 56.49 6.63* Object X Level .54 Within 24 8.52 * Significant at the .05 level of confidence; ** .01. •178-

PAGE 188

APPENDIX HH SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OBSERVATION TIME PART III Source df Object (E-0 V8 I-O)

PAGE 189

APPENDIX II SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FREQUENCY OF FIXATION PART III Source df Sums of Squares Object

PAGE 190

APPENDIX JJ SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AVERAGE FIXATION TIME PART III Source df Sums of Squares F Object

PAGE 191

I H M I I I tlon TinK 1-0

PAGE 192

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, F. H. Social psy holoCT . Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1924, Allport, G. W. Pattern and srowiJi .In personality . New York, N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961, Altrocchi, J. Interpersonal perceptions of repressors and sensitizers and component analysis of assumed dissimilarity scores. J. abn . soc. Psychol .. 1961, 62, 528-34, Ardis, J. A. Personality and perception: the constancy effect and introversion. Brit. J. Psychol .. 1957, 48, 48-54. Arnheim, R. Tlie Gestalt theory of expression. Psychol. Rev .. 1949, 56, 156-71, ~ Baker, B., & Block, J. Accuracy of interpersonal prediction as a function of judge and object characteristics, J. abn, soc , Psychol ,, 1957, 54, 37-43, Bash, K. W. Einstellungstypus and Erlebnistypus : C. G. Jung and Herman Rorschach. J. proj. Tech .. 1955, 19, 236-42. Bieri, J., BlacharslQr, E., & Reid, J. W. Predictive behavior and personal adjustment. J. consult, Psychol ., 1955, 19^ 351-55. Bieri, J., & Messerley, Susan. Differences in perceptual and cognitive behavior as a function of experience type. J. consult, Psychol ,, 1957, 21, 217-21. Brown, D. G,, 6e Younn, A. J. The effect of extraversion on susceptibility to disease. J. Psychosom. Res .. 1965, 8, 421-9, Buros, 0. K. (ed.) The sixth mental measurements yearbook . Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1965. Callaway, E. Influence of amobarbital (amylobarbitone) and n»thanq>hetamine on the focus of attention. J. ment. Sci . . 1959, JL05, 383-92, Carrigan, Patricia M, Extraversion-introversion as a dimension of personality: a reappraisal. Psychol. Bull ,. 1960, 57, 329-60, Cattell, R. B. Personality and motivation structure and measurement , Yonkers, N, Y.: World Book Co., 1957. -183-

PAGE 193

-184Chance, June E., & Headers, W. Needs and Interpersonal perception. J. Pers ., 1960, 28, 200-9. Corah, N. L. Neuroticisa and extraversion in the MMPI: empirical validation and exploration. Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol ., 1964, 3, 168-74, Costello, C. G. The control of visual iaianery in mental disorder, J. ment. Sci ., 1957, 103, 840-9. Davitz, J. R. The communication of enmtional meaning . New York, N. Y.j McGraw-Hill, 1964. Dymond, Rosalind. A preliminairy investigation of the relation of insight and empathy. J. consult. Psychol ., 1948, 12, 228-33. Dymond, Rosalind, Personality and empathy. J. consult. Psychol ., 1950, 14, 343-50. Estes, S, G. Judging personality from expressive behavior, J. abn. soc . Psychol .. 1938, 33, 217-36, Evans, M. Catharine. Social adjustment and interest scores of introverts and extraverts, Educ, Psychol. Measmt^ . , 1947, 7,* 157-67. Evans, Catharine, & McConnell, T. R. A new measure of introversionextraversion. J. Psychol ., 1941, 12_, 111-24. Evans, Catharine, & McConnell, T. R. Manual, The Minnesota T-S-E . (Revised ed.) Educational Testing Service, 1957. Evans, Catharine, & Wrenn, C. G. Introversion-extraversion as a factor in teacher training. Educ, Psychol, Measmt ., 1942, 2, 47-58. Eysenck, H. J. A dynamic theory of anxiety and hysteria. J. ment. Sci ., 1955, 101, 28-51. Eysenck, H. J. The Maudsley Personality Inventory . London: University of London Press, 1959, Eysenck, H. J. Personality and verbal conditioning. Psychol., Rep ., 1959, 5, 570. Eysenck, H. J. , & Claridge, G. The position of hysterics and dysthymics in a two-dimensional framework of personality description. J. abn. soc. Psychol .. 1962, 64, 46-55. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, Sybil B. G. The Eysenck Personality Inventory . San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1963. Eysenck, Sybil B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. The validity of questionnaire and rating assessments of extraversion and neuroticism, and their factorial stability. Brit. J. Psychol .. 1963, 54, 51-62. Eysenck, Sybil B, G., & Eysenck, H. J. On the dual nature of extraversion. Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol ., 1963a, 2, 46-55,

PAGE 194

-185Eysenck, Sybil B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. The personality of judges as a factor in the validity of their judgments of extraversion-introversion. Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol .. 1963b» 2» l^l-^. Fields, S. J, Discrimination of facial expression and its relation to personal adjustment. J. soc. Psychol ., 1953, 38, 63-71. Fiedler, F, E. The psychological distance dimension in interpersonal relations. J. Pers ., 1953, 22, 142-50. Gage, N. L. Judging interests from expressive behavior. Psychol . Monogr .. 1952, 66, No. 18. Gordon, Jesse B. Interpersonal predictions of repressors and sensitizers. JjjJPers., 1957, 25, 686-98. Gordon, J. E. The stability of the assumed similarity response set in repressors and sensitizers. J. Pers ., 1959, 27, 362-73, Guilford, J. P. An inventory of factors STDCR. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sheridan Supply Co., 1940. Cited in Allport, G. W. Pattern and growth in personality . New York, N.Y. : Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961. Halpern, H. M. Bnpathy, similarity and self-satisfaction. J. consult . Psychol .. 1955, 19, 449-52. Halpern, H. M., & Lesser, Leona. Empathy in infants, adults and psychotherapists. Psychoanal, Rev ., 1960, 47, 32-42, Hawkes, G. R., & Egbert, R. Personal values and the empathic response: their interrelationships. J, educ. Psychol ., 1954, 45, 469-76. Heidbreder, Edna. Measuring introversion and extraversion. J. abn . soc. Psychol ., 1926, 21, 120-34, Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1958. Hildebrand, H. P. A factorial study of introversion-extraversion. Brit . J. Ps ychol ., 1958, 49, 1-11. Cited by Carrigan, Patricia. In Psychol. Bull .. 1960, 57, 329-60. Howorth, E. Differences between extraverts and introverts on a buttonpressing task. Psychol. Rep ., 1964, JA, 949-50. Jackson, W,, & Carr, A. C. Empathic ability in normals and schizophrenics. J. abn. soc. Psychol .. 1955, 51, 79-82. Jensen, A. R. Review of the Maudsley Personality Inventory. In Euros, 0. K. (ed.) The sixth mental measurements yearbook . Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1965. Jung, C. G. Psycholor^ische Typen . Zurich, Switzerland: Rascher, 1921. Cited by Bash, K. W. In J. proj. Tech .. 1955, j;9, 236-42.

PAGE 195

-186Knapp, R. R. Manual for the Maudsley Personality Inventory . San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Testing Service, 1962. Knapp, R. R. Relationship of a measure of self -actualization to neuroticisin and extraversion. J. consult. Psychol ., 1965, 29, 168-72. Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt psycholonv . New York, N.Y. : Harcourt, Brace & Co. , 1935. Lewis, M. N., & Spilka, B. Sociometric choice status, empathy, assimilative and disowning projection. Psychol. Rec , 1960, jLO, 95-100. Luchins, A. A variational approach to empathy. J. soc. Psychol ., 1957, ^, 11-18. Lundy, R. M. Assimilative projection and accuracy of prediction in interpersonal perception. J. abn. soc.__P8ych ol., 1956, 52, 33-8, Mann, R. D. The relationship between personality characteristics and individual performance in small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissert .. Univer. of Michigan, 1958. Cited by Carrigan, Patricia. In Psychol. Bull .. 1960, 57, 329-60. Maslow, A. H. The expressive cranponent of behavior. Psychol. Rev ., 1949, 56, 261-72. Murray, H. A., et al. Explorations in personality . New York: Oxford Univer. Press, 1938. Myers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Research ed,), Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1961. Cited by Allport, G. W. In Pattern and fxrowth in personality . New York, N. Y. : Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961. O'Day, E. F., Jr. Differential success of neuropsychiatric patients in predicting the self-ratings of other persons. Unpublished doctoral disse rt.. Univer. of Florida, 1956. Ormont, L. R. Tendency to differentiate in perceiving others as related to anxiety and adjustment. Dissert. Abstr ,, 1960, 2^, 960-1. Vernon, P. E. Some characteristics of a good judge of personality. J. soc. Psychol .. 1933, 4, 42-58. Vernon, P. E. Personality assessment; a critical assessment . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Voth, H. M. , & Mayman, M. A dimension of personality organization: an experimental study of "ego closeness-ego distance." Arch, gen . Psychiat .. 1963, 8, 366-80. Wallach, M. A., & Gahm, Ruthellen C. Personality functions of graphic constriction and expansiveness. J. Pers . , 1960, 28, 73-88,

PAGE 196

-137Wallach, M. A,, 6e Gahm, Ruthellen C, Personality functions of graphic constriction and expansiveness, J. Pers ., 1960, 28, 73-88. Wallach, M. A,, Green, L. R., Lipsltt, P. D., & Minehart, Jean B. Contradiction between overt and projective personality indicators as a function of defensiveness . Pay chol . Mono; ;r , > 1962, 76, No, 1. Ward, Dorothy B. The relationship of psychopathic functioning to empathy. Unpublished master's thesis . Univer. of Florida, 1966, Winer, B. J. St atistical principles in experimental design. New York, N. Y. : McGraw-Hill, 1962, pp. 337-48.

PAGE 197

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Dorothy Ball Ward (nee Dorothy Lee Ball) was born August 24, 1928, at Cuyahoga Falls, diio. She graduated from Central High School in Akron, Chio in June, 1945, and in June, 1949, received a B.A. with a major in English Literature from the University of Akron, Active in campus affairs, she was president of the campus YWCA and secretary of Kappa Kappa Gaoma social sorority. During the period of her marriage to an Air Force officer, from 1950-60, she held positions as editorial assistant on The Kiwanls Magazine in Chicago, as assistant to the promotion manager of Dayton Newspapers, Inc., and secretary to the director of advertising of The Mead Corporation in Dayton, Ohio, The period from 1954-7 was spent in Madrid, Spain, An undergraduate major in Psychology was completed at the University of Dayton before she moved to Florida in 1962, After a year as secretary to the director of music at Rollins College in Winter Park, she entered graduate school at the University of Florida in September, 1963. A fellowship was provided by the Florida Council on Training and Research in Mental Health for the first three years of her graduate school training. The master's degree was awarded in April, 1966, following completion of her thesis entitled "The Relationship of Psychopathic Functioning to Empathy" under the chairmanship of Dr. Audrey Schumacher. In her fourth year of training she was the recipient of a University of Florida Graduate School Fellowship. -188-

PAGE 198

-189At present she is Interning as a clinical paycholocist at The Guidance Center, Inc., Daytona Beach, Florida, under the supervision of Dr. Elizabeth H. Faulk and Dr. Sterling J. Dinanitt*

PAGE 199

!nii8 dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory conmiittee and has been approved by all members of that conmittee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, August, 1968 Dean, Col Supervisory Conmittee: Dean, Graduate School £ 3iiiChairman kL:2^ L L-f-c^^o^^ "^ Z,'^. ^ \ / ^^.ui^Jjj^ ^s4m ^^Ai-^ A^A^^/A:^

PAGE 200

60 1 M