EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SELF-ANALYSIS, ESTIMATES OF ASSOCIATES AND THE
RESULTS OF TESTS
As we have already remarked, it would be of scientific interest and of
practical value in vocational psychology if we knew something more or less
precise concerning the reliability of the individual's self-analysis. It
would be of equal interest and value to know in what ways the results of
such introspection compare with the judgments of friends and the results of
actual measurement. By way of initiating investigations of these and
related questions the following experiments have been carried out. The
results to be reported are so suggestive as to make very desirable a
continuation and extension of researches of this kind.
From a list of about one hundred and fifty students in their third college
year each member of the group was asked to indicate by marking, as 3, 2, 1,
or 0, the degree of her acquaintance with each of the others. From the
total list a group of twenty-five were selected, all of whom were
acquainted with one another. At intervals varying from two weeks to a
month each individual was given twenty-five slips of paper bearing the
names of these acquaintances and including the individual's own name. She
was asked to arrange the members of the group in order of merit, on each
occasion, according to their degree of possession of some one trait, such
as neatness, humor, intelligence, conceit, etc. Thus in the case of
neatness, for example, the twenty-five persons were to be placed in a
series with the neatest at one end, the most slovenly at the other end, and
all the others arranged in their appropriate intermediate positions, as
based on the judge's personal opinion of them. The judge was to include her
own name in the series, placing herself where she believed herself to
belong in relation to her twenty-four acquaintances. The record was then
handed in, in an apparently anonymous way, but, unknown to the individuals,
accurate record was kept, identifying each arrangement. This was done in
order that the judges might be encouraged to the greatest degree of
frankness both in judging their acquaintances and in recording their
self-estimates. The different arrangements were separated by considerable
intervals of time, so that the judgments of the various traits should be
influenced as little as possible by the memory of where the different
individuals in the list had been placed for other traits on previous
occasions.
In addition to this part of the experiment, each person was put through a
series of seven psychological tests, all of which had been rather generally
found to give results which revealed, to a very high degree of correctness,
the general intelligence of people when this was determined in other ways,
as by mental age, school grade, academic marks, opinions of teachers,
judgments of friends, etc. The particular tests used were the Graded
Completion Test, described in a previous section, and six so-called
Association Tests, recommended by the Committee on Standardization of Tests
of the American Psychological Association. They are usually known as
Directions Test, Opposites Test, Supraordinate Concept Test, Whole-Part
Test, Action-Agent Test, and Mixed Relations Test. Copies of the forms used
in these tests are given in the Appendix.
All of these tests involve the demand for the quick and accurate perception
of and reaction to the relations of things or ideas to each other.
Everything indicates that this ability is most important and determining in
the composition of that characteristic which we vaguely call "general
intelligence," especially if we are dealing with people with school
experience.
Furthermore, the academic marks of scholarship assigned to these
twenty-five students by their instructors in different college branches
during three terms of college work were secured from the official records.
Judgments of the degree to which the different students had been prominent
in extra-academic activities during their college career were made by
officers of the college who had known them during this time. Photographs of
the twenty-five persons, of the same general style and size, were secured
also, as well as characteristic specimens of their handwriting.
This experiment having been completed, a similar investigation was
undertaken with twenty-five members of the senior class. The same method of
procedure was followed as in the first case, the same traits judged, the
same tests administered, etc. This second investigation thus affords a
check on the results of the first study. When the results from the two
investigations are averaged we have figures of considerable reliability,
and fairly accurate data on numerous interesting questions.
Probably never before have such diverse ways been employed in attempting to
get intensive measurements of the individuality. The material enables us
to throw preliminary and suggestive light on many of the questions we have
already raised. It should of course be fully recognized that the results of
this little investigation cannot be generalized into final conclusions
which will be true in other cases, without further verification of them.
The results show only what happened in this case, and only to that degree
do they suggest what we may expect to be generally true. Many similar
studies must be made, under all sorts of conditions and by a variety of
methods, before we shall have the final answers to our questions. But the
results are no less valuable because of their lack of finality. Tentative
as they may be, they nevertheless show what happened in the only recorded
attempt to find answers to the questions we have been considering. If the
reader will now turn back to page 124 he will note how numerous, important,
and complex these questions are, and how little is at present known about
them.
Turning now to our experiment, it will be observed that only in the case of
intelligence do we have what purport to be objective measures of a trait,
viz., the results of the psychological tests and the academic records. But
we have, in the average of the judgments of the twenty-five individuals,
in the case of this and also of the various other traits, what constitutes
as valid a measurement as it is possible to secure under the circumstances.
Neatness, conceit, humor, beauty, etc., are not to be conceived as
substances of which the different individuals possess different amounts.
These traits are mainly ways of behaving or ways of impressing our
neighbors. No better measure of them exists than the actual statement of
what this impression is. Just as the value of a commodity depends entirely
on what, as a matter of fact, people can be persuaded to pay for it, so the
beauty, conceit, neatness, etc., of an individual are mainly constituted by
the kind of impression the individual makes on those about him. At least we
may be sure that only to the degree that such traits actually manifest
themselves and thus determine the reactions of others toward the individual
concerned, only to that degree do the traits have vocational significance.
Lovableness is just the degree to which people actually have affection for
us; eminence is just the degree to which the individual becomes approvingly
known; and kindliness and benevolence are present to just the degree that
people are actually gratified and comforted by our conduct.
Let us turn at once to the actual results of our experiments. It will
perhaps be best to ask specific questions about them and in the case of
each question present the data and draw such conclusions as the figures
warrant. In the figures which follow I have averaged together the results
from the two investigations, so that our conclusions or suggestions may
have the highest possible validity. In some other connection it would be
interesting to compare the two sets of data, and to attempt to explain
certain differences which are to be found between them. But in the present
instance it is our chief concern to exhibit the method of procedure and to
indicate the type of information which may be secured from such
investigations. Many more such studies must be made before the results can
be said to apply to human nature at large, or before the tendencies
discovered can legitimately be expected to be present in the case of any
particular individual.
_I. How do the self-estimates of these fifty persons agree with the
judgments passed on them by their acquaintances?_ The following table
gives, in the case of each of the nine traits studied, the average
deviation of the self-estimates of the various individuals from the median
position assigned them by their twenty-four associates, and also the
average deviation[9] among these twenty-four associates in their judgments
of each individual. The figure given is in terms of the number of positions
in the total scale of twenty-five possible positions. Thus, in the case of
neatness, the figures mean that, whereas each individual, in the long run,
displaces herself by 5.8 positions from her true or median position, the
twenty-four associates deviate on the average by only 4.5 places in their
judgments of another person. That is to say, the individual's error in
judging herself is somewhat greater than the average error of her friends
in their judgments of her. The individual does not judge herself as
accurately as she is judged by her friends.
TABLE 2
ERROR OF SELF-ESTIMATES COMPARED WITH ERROR OF JUDGMENTS OF 24 ASSOCIATES
--------------------------------------------------
| A. D. of Assoc.| A. E. of Self-Est.
-------------+----------------+-------------------
Neatness | 4.5 | 5.8
Intelligence | 3.7 | 6.0
Humor | 4.5 | 7.3
Conceit | 4.1 | 5.7
Beauty | 3.8 | 6.0
Vulgarity | 3.5 | 6.1
Snobbishness | 4.8 | 5.1
Refinement | 5.9 | 7.2
Sociability | 4.7 | 5.4
--------------------------------------------------
In all cases the individual places herself farther from her true position
than do her friends on the average. The average of all the deviations of
associates is 4.4 places; that of all the individual self-estimates is 6.1
places. That is to say, in general the error of self-estimation tends to be
half again as great as the average error of the judgments of associates. In
other words, these students do not judge themselves as accurately as their
friends judge them, if the average position assigned the individual by the
group of twenty-four associates may be taken as a fair measure of the
individual's true status in the group.
_II. Is there any constant tendency toward overestimation or
underestimation, in the case of the individual's self-estimates, and if so,
how does this tendency vary with the trait in question?_ It may be said in
answer to this question, first, that in the case of none of the traits do
all the individuals consistently either overrate or underrate themselves.
But if the self-displacements be averaged algebraically, certain very
definite tendencies toward constant errors are revealed. The following
table shows the constant error in the case of each trait. In the case of
"undesirable" traits (conceit, vulgarity and snobbishness) this constant
error is toward underestimation. On the average, these individuals rank
themselves as less conceited, less vulgar and less snobbish than they
really are, as judged by the combined opinion of their associates. In the
case of all the remaining traits (the "desirable" ones) the general
tendency is toward overestimation. The amount or degree of this
overestimation varies considerably from trait to trait. It is greatest in
the cases of refinement and humor, in which traits there are constant
errors of +6.3 and +5.2 places. In the cases of neatness, intelligence, and
sociability the overestimation is only about half as large as in these two
traits, while in the case of beauty there is really no constant error.
TABLE 3
Showing Constant Tendencies Toward Overestimation (+) and Underestimation
(-) of Self
------------------------------------------------------------
| | Number | Number
Trait |Constant Error|Overestimating|Underestimating
| | Themselves | Themselves
------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------
Refinement | +6.3 | 40 | 10
Humor | +5.2 | 39 | 11
Intelligence| +3.0 | 34 | 16
Sociability | +2.2 | 34 | 16
Neatness | +1.8 | 25 | 25
Beauty | +0.2 | 25 | 25
Conceit | -1.7 | 24 | 26
Snobbishness| -2.0 | 18 | 32
Vulgarity | -4.2 | 17 | 33
------------------------------------------------------------
Another way of expressing these constant tendencies is to give in each case
the number of people in the group of fifty observers who tend in each
direction. These figures are given in the last two columns of the above
table. It is clear at once that in the case of the first four traits the
tendency is predominantly in the direction of overestimation; in the next
three traits the two tendencies are evenly balanced, while in the last two
the general tendency is strongly toward underestimation.
It is of course difficult to say, in this connection, just how accurately
the figures given portray the real self-estimation of the different
individuals, and to what degree they indicate merely what the individual
will do with her own name in the case of such an experiment. Natural
modesty might easily lead one to place her own name lower in the scale for
a given trait than she really believed herself to belong. If this were the
case, we might then infer that the figures we have presented, although
qualitatively suggestive, were not quantitatively reliable. They would, in
other words, express smaller degrees of overestimation and underestimation
than were really present in the consciousness of our observers. Here, as in
all the results of this investigation, the figures are given only as
indicating what individuals actually do when asked to rank themselves among
their associates. Our conclusion on this point is that they tend to
overestimate or to underestimate themselves, according to the
"desirableness" or "undesirableness" of the trait in question. Individual
differences in these tendencies are everywhere apparent. Thus, in neatness,
individuals S and H stand about equally high (S being ninth and H being
thirteenth), but S underestimates herself by thirteen places, while H
overestimates herself by ten places.
In a third experiment of this same kind another group of twenty-five
college seniors, in the same school and during the preceding year, had
judged each other, including themselves, for the traits, efficiency,
energy, kindliness and originality. The data from this experiment are not
given here in full, since the method was precisely that of the two
investigations we have just described, and since all of the results must be
held as only suggestive of what may be expected to happen in the long run.
These seniors also showed a general tendency to rate themselves somewhat
higher than they were rated by their associates. The amount of
overestimation varied with the trait, all the traits in this case being of
the "desirable" sort. Since the conditions of this third experiment were
quite the same as those of the investigation just described in greater
detail, except that a different group of individuals were concerned, it is
perhaps fair to treat the results as comparable, and to include the
measures of constant error along with the preceding records. The results
from all the groups are included in the following table, which shows the
constant tendency in the case of thirteen traits.
TABLE 4
CONSTANT TENDENCIES OF SELF-ESTIMATION IN THIRTEEN TRAITS
-----------------------------------------------
Trait |Constant|| Trait |Constant
| Error || | Error
-------------+--------++--------------+--------
Refinement | +6.3 || Neatness | +1.8
Humor | +5.2 || Originality | +1.2
Kindliness | +4.0 || Beauty | +0.2
Energy | +3.8 || Conceit | -1.7
Intelligence | +3.0 || Snobbishness | -2.0
Sociability | +2.2 || Vulgarity | -4.2
Efficiency | +2.1 || |
-----------------------------------------------
Data from certain other investigations also tell us something about these
tendencies in judging ourselves and others. Thus, in an investigation by
the writer,[10] a number of persons were set to work at the continuous
performance of a series of mental and physical tests. After each trial the
performer was required to judge whether he had done better or worse than
usual on this occasion. In each case another person was required to watch
the performer, and to judge, in the capacity of witness, whether the
performance had been better or worse than usual for the individual who was
doing the work.
The data showed that although an observer is no more "sensitive" to gain in
efficiency than he is to loss, he is predisposed to judge both himself and
another performer whom he is watching as having done "better than usual"
rather than "worse than usual." The consequence is that smaller degrees of
superiority tend to be judged as better with higher degrees of confidence,
and that a certain slight degree of inferiority tends to be incorrectly
judged as "better." We seem predisposed to judge "better" rather than
"worse," and in this experiment the observers were, furthermore,
predisposed in favor of the other person, somewhat more than in favor of
themselves. They were disinclined to judge any trial as "worse than
usual," and this disinclination was stronger when judging as witness than
when judging as performer. This results in a combination of altruism and
optimism which, if found to be a common occurrence, would seem to have
interesting implications. Further investigation will perhaps show that
these attitudes are conditioned, under different circumstances, by a
variety of factors, such as competition, education, motive, age or sex of
performer and witness, and perhaps by individual differences of a
temperamental sort.
When Cattell had scientific men arrange their colleagues and themselves on
the basis of scientific merit, he found no constant tendency either to
overestimate or to underestimate oneself. He remarks, concerning this
result: "It thus appears that there is no constant error in judging
ourselves--we are about as likely to overestimate as to underestimate
ourselves, and we can judge ourselves slightly more accurately than we are
likely to be judged by one of our colleagues. We can only know ourselves
from the reflected opinion of others, but it seems that we are able to
estimate these more correctly than can those who are less interested. There
are, however, wide individual differences; several observers overestimate
themselves decidedly, while others underestimate themselves to an equal
degree."[11]
Since these individual differences, in all the investigations that have
been reported, are so conspicuous, we may next inquire whether the
individual who possesses a given trait in high degree is a better or worse
judge of that trait in himself and in others, than is a person in whom the
trait itself is less marked.
_III. Is one who possesses a given trait in high degree a better or worse
judge of that trait than is an individual in whom the trait is less
conspicuous?_ On the basis of the combined judgments of the group we have
secured a final position for each individual, which indicates her most
probable standing in the various traits. Since each individual judged all
the others of the group, we can, by correlating[12] the judgments of each
individual with the combined judgments of the group, secure a coefficient
of correlation which will indicate the "judicial capacity" of the given
individual. This figure will be a measure of the correctness or
representative character of her judgments of her friends. If the figure is
low, it will mean that her own judgments do not agree closely with the
combined or true judgments. If the figure is high it will indicate that
there is close correspondence, and that the individual's judgments of her
friends agree closely with the combined judgment. Having secured these
measures of judicial capacity, and having also measures of the degree to
which each individual possesses the various traits, we may by correlating
these two measures determine whether or not any relation exists between
possession of the trait and ability to judge others with respect to that
trait. In the same way we may determine the relation between possession of
the trait and ability to judge oneself in that trait. The table on page 160
gives these coefficients of correlation in the case of all the traits.
In the cases of neatness, intelligence, humor, refinement and sociability
the coefficients are all positive and fairly high. Thus in the case of
humor the coefficients of .59 and .87 indicate that that individual whom
others consider humorous tends to be the most correct or representative of
the group in her judgments of the humor of herself and of others. The
coefficients of .49 and .59 in the case of intelligence indicate that that
individual who impresses others as being intelligent is a good judge of
intelligence both in herself and in others. The same is to be said of
neatness, refinement and sociability. In the case of beauty the
coefficients, although positive, are very low and hence not very reliable.
They seem to indicate that in this case there is no relation of any sort
between the possession of the trait and the ability to judge it.
TABLE 5
SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN POSSESSION OF A TRAIT AND ABILITY TO JUDGE
SELF AND OTHERS IN THAT TRAIT (All coefficients are positive unless
otherwise indicated)
-------------------------------------------------------------
|Judgment|Judgment|| |Judgment|Judgment
Trait | of | of || Trait | of | of
| Others | Self || | Others | Self
------------+--------+--------++------------+--------+--------
Neatness | .22 | .45 ||Vulgarity | -.24 | -.37
Intelligence| .49 | .59 ||Snobbishness| .33 | -.27
Humor | .59 | .87 ||Conceit | .19 | -.22
Beauty | .23 | .15 || | |
Refinement | .38 | .83 || | |
Sociability | .48 | .47 || | |
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases of the definitely "undesirable" traits, vulgarity,
snobbishness and conceit, the coefficients tend to be negative, and
although none of them is very high, they suggest that the possession of
these traits to a given degree tends to disqualify the individual to that
degree as a judge of those traits, whether in herself or in others. These
results also confirm the results in the case of certain of the "desirable"
traits, since vulgarity and snobbishness, with low or negative
coefficients, are, grammatically at least, the opposites of refinement and
sociability, which have high and positive coefficients.
In general, then, our results suggest that, in the case of "desirable"
traits, ability to judge a quality accompanies possession of that quality,
whereas in the case of the "undesirable" traits the reverse of this is the
case.
_IV. What relation exists between these estimated traits and the more
objective measurements of the individuals concerned?_ On the basis of the
mental tests we have secured measures which may be compared with these
estimated traits. The same comparison may be made in the case of the
academic records received by the individuals in their college courses. The
following table shows the correlation of all the estimated traits with
these two objective measurements.
TABLE 6
SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN ESTIMATED TRAITS AND (A) THE RESULTS OF MENTAL
TESTS; (B) THE ACADEMIC RECORDS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL IN COLLEGE SUBJECTS
(All coefficients are positive unless otherwise indicated)
------------------------------------------------
|Correlation| Correlation |
Trait |with Mental|with Academic| Average
| Tests | Record |
------------+-----------+-------------+---------
Intelligence| .62 | .52 | .57
Humor | .55 | .15 | .35
Refinement | .34 | .34 | .34
Snobbishness| .53 | .13 | .33
Neatness | .36 | .24 | .30
Conceit | .54 | .03 | .28
Beauty | .40 | .06 | .23
Sociability | .25 | -.07 | .09
Vulgarity | .29 | -.31 | -.01
------------------------------------------------
In the case of the mental tests all the coefficients are positive and
fairly high in most cases. The correlation is highest of all with estimated
intelligence, whatever that may mean. As we have used the term it perhaps
means the impression of general capacity which an individual makes on her
associates. It is interesting to find that the mental tests, which can be
administered in a few minutes, give us so close a measure of what this
impression will be; a measure, it should be noted, which is higher than
that afforded by the academic records, in spite of the fact that these
academic records had been from term to term announced in a public way and
might have been expected to contribute toward the general impression on the
basis of which the judgments of intelligence were passed. The high
correlation between tests and estimates suggests that the abilities
displayed in these tests correspond very closely to those characteristics
on which our associates base their estimates of our intelligence. This is
an encouraging result for those interested in the vocational use of mental
tests.
But it is equally interesting that the results of the mental test correlate
to so high a degree with the estimates of various other traits, notably
humor, snobbishness, conceit, beauty, neatness and refinement. This result
suggests either or both of two interpretations. It may be, on the one hand,
that these characteristics are only partial components of that more general
trait, intelligence (with which the correlation of the tests is still
higher), at least so far as the estimates of our associates are concerned.
This would mean that a sense of humor, a tendency toward self-esteem,
physical attractiveness and a gentle manner dispose one's associates to
think favorably of her general mental endowment. On the other hand the
result may mean that an individual who has sufficient distinction to stand
out prominently in any of the estimated traits here considered is possessed
of a nervous system which enables her to accomplish the work of these
mental tests with corresponding efficiency. Such a characteristic as
"general stand-out-ishness" may perhaps be a trait which calls for
recognition, not only in daily life but also in the narrower categories of
psychological classification.
In the case of the academic records this general tendency toward positive
correlation is not present. The only high correlation is with estimated
intelligence. It is impossible to say how far this high coefficient is due
to general knowledge of academic attainments on the part of the individuals
composing the groups. Refinement and neatness are the only other traits
which show any claim at all for correlation with academic records. The
positive direction of these coefficients may afford some consolation to
those who put their faith in the vocational significance of academic
records of college students, but their low values constitute a somewhat
less encouraging commentary.
_V. How do the various measures of intelligence compare with one another,
and what is the reliability of these various measures?_ Frequent studies
have been made of the relation between teachers' estimates of the general
intelligence of pupils and their intelligence as shown by their performance
in psychological tests. The teacher's estimate is perhaps very likely to be
based on that sort of intelligence which shows itself in academic
performance only, since in many cases the acquaintance is limited to
contact in class room and laboratory. In our own case we have teachers'
estimates only in the form of the actual class records. These are, then,
not estimates of general intelligence in the strict sense, but are
conditioned presumably for the most part by the student's performance in
the class room.
The academic marks were reported according to a letter system, in which A
means "very good," B means "good," C means "fair," D means "poor" and F
means "failed." Having secured these marks for all the students in English,
German, Logic, Psychology, Economics and History, we averaged the marks for
each student, by giving A, B, C, D and F values of 90, 80, 70, 60 and 50.
This gave us final averages for all the students, on the basis of which
averages they were arranged in order of merit, the two groups being
separately treated.
We have now the three following measures of intelligence:
a. The results of the psychological tests.
b. The opinion of fellow students.
c. The academic records.
The correlations between these various measures are given in the following
tabulation:
TABLE 7
SHOWING THE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE
--------------------------------------------------------
| 25 | 25
|Juniors|Seniors
----------------------------------------+-------+-------
Correlation of psychological tests with | |
estimated Intelligence | .70 | .53
Correlation of psychological tests with | |
Academic Records | .42 | .57
Correlation of Academic Records with | |
estimated Intelligence | .22 | .37
--------------------------------------------------------
The most striking result here is the rather low correlation of the academic
records with the other measures of intelligence. The psychological tests
agree closely with the results of the estimates by associates. The
correlation of the tests with the records is considerably lower, while the
correlation of records with estimates is exceedingly low. The full
significance of these results will of course depend on the attitude one
takes toward the various measures. One who has faith in the value of
academic records must of course reject the estimates of associates and be
very sceptical of the value of the mental tests. But vocationally the
estimates of associates must always have value, since these determine or
indicate the reactions of others toward a given individual, and vocational
success will depend to a considerable degree on these reactions. The
ultimate value of the mental tests is still to be determined; in fact, it
was partly in order to aid in their evaluation that these experiments were
performed. Inasmuch as the tests and the estimates agree closely, the tests
and the records less closely, while the records do not correlate to any
marked degree with either of the two other measures, the significance of
the academic marks, or their reliability in this instance, must be
seriously called into question.
TABLE 8
SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN JUDICIAL CAPACITY AND (A) ABILITY IN MENTAL
TESTS; (B) ACADEMIC RECORDS
-------------------------------------------------------------
|Correlation of Judicial|Correlation of Judicial
Trait | Capacity and Ability | Capacity and Academic
| in Mental Tests | Records
-------------+-----------------------+-----------------------
Neatness | .05 | .09
Intelligence | .55 | .26
Humor | .48 | -.02
Conceit | .20 | .09
Beauty | .15 | .14
Vulgarity | .18 | .14
Snobbishness | .20 | -.02
Refinement | .15 | .25
Sociability | .26 | .03
-------------------------------------------------------------
_VI. Does the ability to judge the traits of others (judicial capacity)
stand in any relation to proficiency in mental tests or to success in
college work?_ The following table shows the correlation of judicial
capacity in the case of each trait with standing in the tests and with
academic records.
In the case of academic records there is seen to be absolutely no
correlation with judicial capacity, in any of the traits estimated. In the
case of the mental tests, only two of the traits yield high coefficients.
In intelligence and in humor there is fairly high correlation (.55 and
.48). The suggestion here is that those who do well in the mental tests are
good judges of the intelligence and the humor of their friends, but that in
the case of the other traits there is no necessary or probable relation.
_Question VII. Is the individual who is a good judge of others also one
whose self-estimates have high reliability?_ If the individuals are placed
in an order of merit with respect to their judicial capacity in estimating
the characteristics of their friends, and placed also in another order of
merit on the basis of the accuracy of their self-estimates, what relation
will be found between the two arrangements? The following table gives the
coefficients of correlation when such arrangements are compared in the case
of each of the traits.
TABLE 9
SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN ABILITY TO JUDGE OTHERS AND ABILITY TO JUDGE
ONESELF
------------------------------------------
|Correlation between Judicial
Trait |Capacity and Accuracy of the
|Individual's Self-Estimates
-------------+----------------------------
Refinement | .54
Humor | .53
Beauty | .47
Sociability | .46
Intelligence | .44
Conceit | .26
Neatness | .22
Vulgarity | .22
Snobbishness | .15
------------------------------------------
All the coefficients are positive, their median value being .44. In the
long run it is true that she who knows herself best is the best judge of
others. The degree to which this is true, however, varies with the trait in
question. With the "undesirable" traits of snobbishness, conceit and
vulgarity, the coefficients are so low as to be quite unreliable and
perhaps represent only chance. The same is true of neatness. But in the
cases of refinement, humor, beauty, sociability and intelligence the
coefficients are fairly high.
_VIII. What correlations are found among various traits of character, as
these are estimated by associates?_ For example, is an individual who is
judged intelligent also likely to be judged to be humorous, or refined, or
snobbish, etc.? If there are such correlations between estimated traits,
what is their direction and amount? The following table shows the average
correlations (from the two groups) in the case of all the traits:
TABLE 10
SHOWING THE INTERCORRELATION OR ESTIMATED TRAITS(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Neat.|Intel.|Hum.|Con.|Beau.|Vulg.|Snob.|Refin.|Socia.
------------+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+------+------
Neatness | -- | .39 | .29| .51| .50 | .09 | .57 | .32 | .10
Intelligence| .39 | -- | .59| .44| .34 | .06 | .43 | .49 | .25
Humor | .29 | .59 | --| .32| .50 | .40 | .50 | .23 | .55
Conceit | .51 | .44 | .32| --| .51 | .24 | .75 | .33 | .07
Beauty | .50 | .34 | .50| .51| -- |-.09 | .41 | .56 | .32
Vulgarity | .09 | .06 | .40| .24|-.09 | -- | .40 |-.37 | .18
Snobbishness| .57 | .43 | .50| .75| .41 | .40 | -- | .20 |-.12
Refinement | .32 | .49 | .23| .33| .56 | -.37| .20 | -- | .34
Sociability | .10 | .25 | .55| .07| .32 | .18 |-.12 | .34 | --
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note 1: The upper parts of this table and the one following repeat the
figures given in the lower parts, for greater convenience in making
comparisons and in presenting averages.]
Interesting as these coefficients are to one who has the passion for
correlation, it is peculiarly difficult to state precisely what they mean.
Neatness correlates, in varying degrees, with all the traits except
vulgarity and sociability; intelligence with all except vulgarity and
perhaps sociability; humor with all except neatness, conceit and
refinement, where the coefficients are low; conceit correlates especially
closely with neatness, beauty and snobbishness; beauty with neatness,
humor, conceit and refinement; vulgarity correlates positively with only
humor and snobbishness, and negatively with refinement; refinement, with
everything except humor, snobbishness and vulgarity; snobbishness with all
but refinement and sociability; while sociability correlates with nothing
except humor. How far these figures measure definite relations between
different and specific traits, how far they measure the degree to which
one's impressions of various traits conspire to make up one's notion of
other characteristics, or how far they measure only the degree of confusion
that exists as to the precise meaning of the various words, it is
exceedingly difficult to say.
_IX. What degree of correlation exists among the academic records in the
various college subjects?_ Is the individual who stands high in certain
subjects likely to stand either high or low in other subjects or in all
subjects? The following table shows the intercorrelations between eight
subjects as calculated by the rather rough mode of grading and averaging
previously described. Since the correlations are by the method of relative
position, the fallacy of treating the various grades as susceptible of
quantitative treatment is of very slight importance.
TABLE 11
SHOWING THE INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG GRADES IN EIGHT COLLEGE SUBJECTS, ON
THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS OF THE 50 STUDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Psych.|Log.|Hist.|Econ.|Eng.|Germ.|Chem.|Math.|Avge.
-----------+------+----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----
Psychology | -- | .60| .36 | .52 | .48| .49 | .33 | .54 | .47
Logic | .60 | --| .48 | .57 | .47| .41 | .25 | .57 | .48
History | .36 | .54| -- | .44 | .62| .46 | .52 | .61 | .51
Economics | .52 | .57| .44 | -- | .51| .43 | .45 | .71 | .52
English | .48 | .47| .62 | .51 | -- | .25 | .26 | .46 | .44
German | .49 | .41| .46 | .43 | .25| -- | .39 | .38 | .40
Chemistry | .33 | .25| .52 | .45 | .26| .39 | -- | .57 | .40
Mathematics| .54 | .57| .61 | .71 | .46| .38 | .57 | -- | .55
---------------------------------------------------------------
The correlations between the various college subjects are all positive, and
argue against the commonly expressed belief in rather close specialization
of abilities; the student who does well in one of these subjects tends to
do well in all of them.
As has been frequently stated in this discussion, the data and conclusions
here presented are by no means to be taken as final answers even to the
specific questions asked. One cannot argue from what these groups of
students do under the special conditions of this investigation to what they
or others will do in other circumstances or in general. The results are
presented mainly by way of suggesting the type of investigation which must
be carried much further before we are in position to evaluate properly the
self-analysis of an individual or the judgments of associates as presented
in testimonials, interviews, or other indications based on general
acquaintance. In the case of the psychological tests, a long program of
selection, standardization, and accumulation of norms is laid out for those
interested in the further advance of vocational psychology. So also from
the point of view of introspective analysis, consultation, advice of
friends, the methods of interview, testimonial, etc., there is an equally
inviting though arduous program which must be carried through before even
the most general principles of evaluation and selection are known.
It should also be insisted that the personal experience of this or that
interviewer, adviser, teacher or expert is by no means a sufficient basis
for general practice. Magic, clairvoyance, phrenology, physiognomics, were
all founded on the treacherous basis of "personal observation" and
occasional striking coincidence. Vocational psychology will be safe from
prophets and charlatans only when it is made to rest on a stable structure
of consistent and verifiable experimental data.
FOOTNOTES:
[9] See footnote on p. 42 for an explanation of the computation and meaning
of such measures of deviation or error.
[10] Experimental Studies in Judgment, Archives of Psychology, No. 29,
1913, 119 pp.
[11] "American Men of Science." Second edition, p. 542.
[12] See p. 45 for explanation of the meaning and technique of correlation.