SELF-ANALYSIS AND THE JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATES
THE SELF-ANALYSIS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
We have now reviewed the vocational efforts of primitive magic, medieval
clairvoyance, phrenology, physiognomics, industrial education, the
vocational survey, the individual psychograph of genius, the vocational
psychograph, the graded scales of intelligence tests, and the four proposed
types of specialized vocational tests.
We have yet to consider three further methods available for the purposes of
vocational psychology, that of "self-analysis," and that of the "consensus
of opinion" of one's associates, and that of inferring the characteristics
of the individual from his achievement in the work of the school
curriculum. In the absence of more reliable ways of determining the
capacities, interests and vocational aptitudes of individuals in the past,
and whenever there was any question of selection, fitness, or choice, four
vague methods have often been followed. (1) Either the individual undertook
the first available type of employment, tried it out, and then persevered
in it or abandoned it for a trial at some other type of work until a
suitable occupation was found; or (2) he continued at the original work and
made the most of the results and of the ensuing satisfactions or
dissatisfactions; or (3) he felt more or less clearly drawn to some
particular occupation because of a keen interest in it or because he
believed himself to be particularly likely to succeed in it because of his
own analysis of his aptitudes and characteristics; or (4) he consulted
friends and associates, asking them to advise him on the basis of their
impression of his individuality and powers.
The unsatisfactoriness, waste and misery of the first two of these methods
are largely responsible for the development of a conscious attempt at the
vocational guidance of youth. Perhaps if more use were made of the two
remaining methods we should never have been moved to initiate the laborious
work called for by the psychographic and the test methods. Not enough
critical attention has been given to the methods of self-analysis and to
the validity of the judgments passed on us by our associates. The
difficulty encountered when one seeks for information on such questions as
the following indicates the desirability of further and closer study of
these matters.
1. In the individual's analysis of his own personality, are formal guidance
and method needed, is special terminology useful, and the recorded
experience of others an aid?
2. If so, what sort of guide or scheme or system may such self-analysis
profitably follow?
3. Have such guides to the introspective analysis of the self been
formulated, and by whom, where, and when?
4. How reliable and consistent are an individual's judgments of his own
characteristics, interests, and aptitudes? Has one any constant tendency to
overestimate or underestimate himself?
5. Do the degree of reliability and consistency, and this constant error
vary in any way with the individual, with the circumstances, and with the
particular trait that is being estimated?
6. How is the individual's judgment of himself likely to compare with the
impression of him which his associates form? To what degree does this vary
with the individual, the trait, and the associates?
7. What relation exists between the individual's opinion of himself and the
results of objective measurements of him, such as those afforded by
psychological tests? How do the results of tests compare with the judgments
of associates?
8. Are individuals who themselves possess a given trait in high degree
better judges of that trait in themselves or in others than are those who
possess the trait in less degree?
9. What intercorrelations exist between the estimates of self and others,
when different traits are compared?
10. In the case of people in school, what relations exist between the
self-estimate, the estimate of others, and the results of tests, on the one
hand, and school standing, academic success, and extra-academic activities?
What relation between these factors and successfulness in later life?
On the first three of these questions I shall indicate in following
sections such material as is available, pointing out where the more
valuable and detailed information may be found. On the remaining seven
questions recorded information is much rarer. Here I shall summarize the
available material and shall also present tentative answers based on an
original investigation which was conducted for the express purpose of
calling more definite attention to the problems, as well as to suggest
fruitful methods, and at least make a beginning in the accumulation of
facts concerning these very interesting features of human nature.
There is perhaps no proof required that complete and systematic
self-analysis is more desirable than random and undirected introspections,
whatever value may be attached to the results of such analysis. Whatever be
the purpose of self analysis, it will be the more useful and suggestive the
more completely it compasses the total range of capacities and
inclinations. Comparison of different analyses by different individuals
should result in a synthesis of traits, an acceptable terminology and a
mode of statement better calculated to throw light on individual equipment
than is secured by the methods of casual and unguided rumination. So far as
possible such analyses should proceed in terms of identifiable, comparable
and measurable characteristics rather than by the vague categories of
conversation and literary description. Such categories, traits and
terminology should be used as will best enable the individual not only to
state his own reactions in figures of speech, but also to compare himself
with his immediate associates and with characters less directly known.
One of the first attempts to draw up a list of fundamental qualities as an
aid in the inventory of a given individual's particular nature was made by
Professor Cattell in an article concerning the characteristics of men of
science. Twenty-four traits are enumerated, as follows:
Physical Health Reasonableness
Mental Balance Clearness
Intellect Independence
Emotions Cooperativeness
Will Unselfishness
Quickness Kindliness
Intensity Cheerfulness
Breadth Refinement
Energy Integrity
Judgment Courage
Originality Efficiency
Perseverance Leadership
Of this list Thorndike has written: "These elements of manhood or
components in mental structure hail from a mixture of psychological theory
and general reflection on human behavior. It is regrettable that the list
has not been published more widely and used in a variety of connections. It
seems probable that these significant nouns may in many cases be paralleled
by natural units of mental organization-atoms in the human compound. I
venture to suggest also, as at least a provisional principle of
organization, the instincts or original tendencies of man as a species, it
being my opinion that some of the terms of the above list refer to rather
complex concatenations of traits in man's nature which have only the
artificial unity of producing some defined result in human life."
Partridge, in his "Outline of Individual Study," gives an account of
methods whereby the teacher may assist the young child in discovering his
or her particular physical and mental constitution. The book contains a
brief outline for such study and enumerates many pages of words descriptive
of human nature. The main aspects of the mental life of children are taken
up in successive chapters and discussed in a general way, with suggestions
in the way of tests, problems, questions, points of observation, etc.
The "Family History Book" (Bulletin No. 7) of the Eugenics Record Office
contains a scheme, arranged by Drs. Hoch and Amsden, for the examination of
the personality of persons suspected of mental abnormality. This scheme is
further elaborated by Wells in an outline to be referred to at a later
point in this chapter. In the "Trait Book" (Bulletin No. 6) of this same
office there is to be found a long list of traits descriptive of human
beings, including physical and physiological as well as nervous and mental
characteristics. These traits are classified for convenient reference and
record according to a decimal key. The pamphlet also contains classified
lists of diseases, crimes, and occupations. Various other bulletins issued
by the Eugenics Record Office will also be found both interesting and
suggestive to those interested in the study of self-analysis, heredity and
individual differences. They contain nothing, however, of immediate
vocational applicability.
Dr. F. L. Wells has made a comparative study and synthesis of the schemes
proposed by Cattell, Hoch and Amsden, Heymans and Wiersma, and Davenport,
supplementing these at certain points and suggesting a method of giving
more or less quantitative form to the characterizations. It is obvious that
an outline of this sort can be used in expressing the personality of
another individual as well as for the purposes of self-analysis. Such an
outline is of value not only for general knowledge or for vocational study
but also in the examination into questions of mental health, pathological
tendencies and trends, predispositions leading to or favoring mental
instability, etc. Wells describes fourteen phases or aspects of human
personality, and under each phase presents guiding questions, suggestive
clues, and sub-features. Especially convenient and helpful is the method of
giving an approximate quantitative statement which facilitates comparison
and summation. Suitable marks assigned to the several different
characteristics under each of the fourteen main headings (there are in all
about ninety-five subtraits) serve to indicate marked, distinct or doubtful
presence, or marked, distinct or doubtful deficiency or aversion.
The main headings given by Wells are as follows:
1. Intellectual Processes (5 subtopics)
2. Output of Energy (4 subtopics)
3. Self Assertion (7 subtopics)
4. Adaptability (5 subtopics)
5. General Habits of Work (5 subtopics)
6. Moral Sphere (6 subtopics)
7. Recreative Activities (16 subtopics)
8. General Cast of Mood (3 subtopics)
9. Attitude Toward Self (4 subtopics)
10. Attitude Toward Others (7 subtopics)
11. Reactions to Attitude Toward Self and Others (12 subtopics)
12. Position Towards Reality (5 subtopics)
13. Sexual Sphere (9 subtopics)
14. Balancing Factors (6 subtopics)
The complete outline, accompanied by much suggestive discussion and comment
on the constitution, development and types of human personality, is
published in the issue of the _Psychological Review_ for July, 1914. It
should be carefully read by all interested in this type of individual
analysis.
One of the most carefully planned, easily available and concretely
serviceable outlines for self-analysis is that recently formulated and
published by Yerkes and LaRue under the title "Outline of a Study of the
Self" (Harvard University Press, 1914). The authors of this outline have
found that a study of ancestry, development and present constitution is an
extremely profitable task. They present this guide as an aid to such
systematic and thorough study. The purpose of such study is threefold: (1)
to help the individual understand himself or herself; (2) to help the
individual understand and sympathize with others; (3) to arouse interest in
the study of heredity, environmental influences, eugenics and euthenics.
The "Outline" is put together on the looseleaf system, with blank pages for
records and replies. Under the heading "Ancestral History of the Self" are
given the "Record of Family Traits" of the Eugenics Record Office, and many
supplementary questions concerning physical, mental, moral and social
traits of near relatives, with suggestions as to their classification and
evaluation. Under "Development or Growth of the Self" and "The Self of
Today" the prenatal, infantile, childhood and adolescent periods and the
present time are each provided with questions concerning characteristics,
influences, growth, temperament, inclinations, habits, capacities and
social relations. Under "The Significance of the Characteristics of the
Self" are given questions concerning vocational demands, equipment, and
ambitions; marital propensities and fitness; responsibilities and
preparation for parenthood; and the "Index to the Germ Plasm" of the
Eugenics Record Office is considered. A final section invites reflection on
"The Duties of the Self as a Member of Social Groups" in the light of
physical and mental constitution, moral and religious tendencies,
vocational abilities, and marital and parental relations and duties.
Such attempts to present suggestive outlines for self-analysis or for the
inventory of the traits of others are both commendable and timely. That
they are but beginnings in the right direction their authors commonly
recognize. Their supporting idea is not that employers, teachers or
physicians should take the individual's replies to these questions as
embodying information which the individual did not previously know about
himself. The individual, in attempting to express and analyze his
inclinations and reactions, may find them clarified and ordered in the
process. He is likely to discover at a very early point in his record how
little he is really able to say about himself with assurance. If this
should induce a humility which would lead him to more careful
self-scrutiny, such value as this subjective stock-taking may have will
surely tend to be enhanced.
THE JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATES
No less important than the correct evaluation of the individual's
self-analysis is the problem of evaluating the judgments which his
acquaintances pass on his mental constitution and qualifications. Not only
does the youth often determine his choice of a vocation by relying on the
advice of his associates, teachers, and friends, but his success in
securing an opportunity to undertake any kind of work whatsoever often
depends on the oral or written estimate of some other person of whom
inquiry is made. Selection on the basis of the testimonial and the
recommendation has come to be a traditional vocational step.
"The problem of judgment of character is one which is continually
confronting people of all classes and stations. In many instances the
correct estimate of a person's character is of vital importance. The
success of officers of administration from the President of the United
States to the school superintendent of a small village depends often on
their ability to choose for their subordinates persons of the proper
character. In everyday life one's happy choice of friends, one's ability to
sell goods, to persuade people to accept a new point of view or doctrine,
to get on harmoniously with people in general in all the various
occupations of life, depend upon one's ability to estimate the powers,
capacities, and characteristics of people. To those who have to make
personal recommendations or to make use of those made by others, this
question of judgment of character is a grave one. Is it possible for one to
judge at all fairly the character of another?"[8]
We are concerned here not with inference from physiognomic features and
anthropometric measurements, but with impressions based on the observed
conduct, expression and achievement of the individual who is in question,
his or her characteristic behavior, attitudes, activities, reactions, and
accomplishments. When the individual being judged is a total stranger and
the judgment is immediate, estimates of character are of course merely of
the type discussed in preceding sections on phrenology and physiognomy.
Professor Cattell once requested twelve acquaintances of five scientific
men to grade these five men in the various traits of character to which we
have referred on page 127. The grades assigned were to represent the
position of the individual in his group. Thus a grade of twenty-five per
cent would mean that the individual belonged in the lowest one-quarter of
the total group of scientific men in the country, in the trait so marked,
three-fourths of the group being superior to him in this trait. A grade of
one hundred per cent would mean that the individual so graded would belong
among the highest one per cent of all the scientific men in the country, in
the trait so marked. When these records were compiled it was seen that in
the case of certain traits, such as energy, perseverance, efficiency, the
twelve judges differed much less among themselves than when judging other
traits, such as cheerfulness, kindliness, unselfishness. It is interesting
to note that the traits on which the judges agreed closely represent the
individual's reactions to objective things, whereas the traits on which
they disagreed most represent the individual's reactions toward other
people.
There are, of course, several reasons for this result. In the first place
the reactions of an individual to objects, as displayed in his daily work,
are matters of common knowledge and are likely to leave objective and even
measurable evidence such as wealth, books, buildings, etc. Reactions to
other individuals are more likely to vary with the occasion and with the
companion, and are also likely to be deliberately controlled, inhibited or
assumed, in the interest of more objective and remote ends. This would mean
that whereas in the first case all the judges were dealing with much the
same material, in the form of actual products of the traits in question, in
the second case they were more or less likely to have in mind rather
different reactions or occasions of a more strictly personal character.
The problem of the validity of judgments of the various traits was
considered in a more detailed way by Norsworthy, from whose account of her
inquiry we have already quoted. She chose the traits enumerated by Cattell,
and performed several experiments to determine the reliability of judgments
of this sort. Thus she had five intimate acquaintances independently grade
a sixth person for her possession of these twenty-four traits, on two
different occasions several weeks apart.
Two things were clearly shown. In the first place the individual judges, in
their second trials, did not diverge far from their first ratings. In the
second place the double judgments of the five different judges did not
diverge far from each other. These two facts "prove that the ratings do
stand for some actual quantitative value and are not subject to mere
chance. The validity of the judgments, in the sense of their correspondence
with the actual character of X is then only a matter of the impartiality of
the group of judges."
Similar results were found in the judgments of nine members of a college
society by five of their comrades, and in the judgments of a teacher by two
hundred college students. It was apparent also that judges differ from one
another in the general accuracy of their gradings. Some of them agree
closely with the consensus of opinion, while others depart, in varying
degrees, from the average or correct estimate. It was also seen that, in
estimating certain individuals, judges with presumably equal acquaintance
with those being judged agreed closely with one another. Other persons had
produced quite different impressions on the different judges and this was
revealed in the greater divergence of the grades assigned to such persons.
As in the case of Cattell's results, figures are presented showing the
degree of divergence among the judges in estimating the different traits.
In the table on page 139 these figures are given, as shown in the records
of five judges in one of Norsworthy's experiments, and the records of the
twelve judges in Cattell's investigation. The average variability or degree
of divergence for all the twenty-four traits is taken as the standard and
each trait compared with this standard. A variability of one hundred thus
indicates the average amount of disagreement. Figures smaller than one
hundred indicate that the agreement was closer than average, and figures
larger than one hundred indicate that here the judges disagreed by more
than the average amount.
Naturally, there is not perfect agreement in these two cases, since the one
set of data is from a group of girls judging one another on the basis of
their acquaintance as social comrades and fellow students, while the other
set is from scientific men judging one another on the basis of less
constant association and largely on acquaintance in lecturing, research,
teaching and the writing of articles and books. Moreover, results from
groups of only five judges in the one case and only twelve in the other are
subject to considerable variable error. In spite of these facts,
interesting suggestions are afforded by the comparison.
TABLE 1
VARIABILITY IN JUDGING DIFFERENT TRAITS
------------------------------------------------------------
| Relative Divergence of Different Judges
Trait |-------------------------------------------
| Cattell, | Norsworthy,| Average of Both
| 12 Judges | 5 Judges | Experiments
----------------+-----------+------------+------------------
Efficiency | 75.0 | 92.4 | 83.7 (Close
Originality | 95.2 | 77.2 | 86.2 Agreement)
Quickness | 90.0 | 88.0 | 89.0
Intellect | 95.2 | 92.0 | 93.6
| | |
Perseverance | 75.0 | 101.0 | 88.1
Judgment | 100.0 | 78.7 | 89.4 (Fair
Will | 85.1 | 98.1 | 91.8 Agreement)
Breadth | 100.0 | 92.4 | 96.2
Leadership | 90.0 | 102.9 | 96.5
| | |
Clearness | 104.9 | 75.7 | 90.3
Mental Balance | 110.2 | 81.8 | 96.0
Intensity | 85.1 | 113.7 | 99.4
Reasonableness | 115.0 | 86.4 | 100.7 (Slight
Independence | 104.9 | 98.5 | 101.7 Agreement)
Refinement | 90.0 | 116.5 | 103.5
Physical Health | 115.0 | 92.4 | 103.7
Emotions | 120.0 | 91.0 | 105.5
Energy | 75.0 | 109.0 | 91.0
Courage | 100.0 | 119.5 | 109.8
| | |
Unselfishness | 115.0 | 106.0 | 110.5
Integrity | 104.9 | 130.1 | 117.5 (Little
Cooperativeness | 125.0 | 113.5 | 119.3 Agreement)
Cheerfulness | 130.0 | 112.0 | 121.0
Kindliness | 120.0 | 125.7 | 122.9
------------------------------------------------------------
It is to be noted that certain traits show small divergence in both cases.
Thus intellect, quickness, originality and efficiency have low measures of
variability, both for the sorority members and for the men of science. The
average percentages of these four traits are, in the order named, 93.6,
89.0, 86.2, and 83.7. These, it is to be observed, are the traits which are
likely to yield objective products. The more personal, social and moral
traits, however, such as cooperativeness, unselfishness, kindliness,
cheerfulness, and integrity, show large divergence of the individual
judgment with both groups. The average measures of variability for these
traits, in the order named, are 119.3, 110.5, 122.9, 121.0, and 117.5.
There is another group of traits which, while showing only about average
variability with one group, show close agreement in the other: such as
will, judgment, perseverance, leadership and breadth. These, it is clear,
are more nearly like the objective than they are like the personal traits.
Then there are several traits which, while showing only average variability
with one group, show large divergences in the other, such as courage and
independence. These would seem to be more nearly like the more strictly
personal traits.
Norsworthy points out that the traits about which inquiries are commonly
made in recommendation blanks sent out by teachers' agencies, employment
bureaus, and employers, tend to be those on which, according to her
results, individual opinion is least reliable. Traits such as originality,
judgment, clearness and quickness, on which judgments are most unanimous
and consistent, are usually omitted from these blanks. This indicates the
desirability of a more careful examination into the general validity of
this type of judgment.
Here, then, as in all the other topics that we have had occasion to
discuss, we find that our present knowledge is far from adequate to meet
the demands of practical life. Available results are tentative only, but
they are so suggestive as to afford a series of interesting problems for
further investigation. The validity of judgments of associates varies with
the judge, with the trait in question, and with the person who is being
estimated. But it does not vary at random; it varies in what seem to be
fairly definite, common, and determinable ways. That we do not know more
about the precise nature of these variations means merely that few persons
have taken the trouble to inquire into the matter.
The use of oral and written recommendations, testimonials, "characters,"
and letters of introduction should be based on a careful study of these
materials. Especially should we know more than we now do concerning the
reliability of judgment in the case of the different traits, the likelihood
that the verdict of a single judge will agree with the consensus of
opinion, the relation of these judgments to the individual's self-estimate,
and the accordance of both these with the results of objective performance.
In the following chapter some of these questions will be further
considered.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] Norsworthy, "The Validity of Judgments of Character," in "Essays in
Honor of William James," p. 553.