FOOTNOTES:

TraitConstant ErrorTraitConstant ErrorRefinement+6.3Neatness+1.8Humor+5.2Originality+1.2Kindliness+4.0Beauty+0.2Energy+3.8Conceit-1.7Intelligence+3.0Snobbishness-2.0Sociability+2.2Vulgarity-4.2Efficiency+2.1

Data from certain other investigations also tell us something about these tendencies in judging ourselves and others. Thus, in an investigationby 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 overestimatethemselves 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 willmean 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.

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)

TraitJudgment of OthersJudgment of SelfTraitJudgment of OthersJudgment of SelfNeatness.22.45Vulgarity-.24-.37Intelligence.49.59Snobbishness.33-.27Humor.59.87Conceit.19-.22Beauty.23.15Refinement.38.83Sociability.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 caseof 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.

TraitCorrelation withMental TestsCorrelation withAcademic RecordAverageIntelligence.62.52.57Humor.55.15.35Refinement.34.34.34Snobbishness.53.13.33Neatness.36.24.30Conceit.54.03.28Beauty.40.06.23Sociability.25-.07.09Vulgarity.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 veryclosely 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 dailylife 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 manycases 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:

25 Juniors25 SeniorsCorrelation of psychological tests with estimated Intelligence.70.53Correlation of psychological tests with Academic Records.42.57Correlation 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 onthese 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.

TraitCorrelation ofJudicial Capacityand Ability in Mental TestsCorrelation ofJudicial Capacity andAcademic RecordsNeatness.05.09Intelligence.55.26Humor.48-.02Conceit.20.09Beauty.15.14Vulgarity.18.14Snobbishness.20-.02Refinement.15.25Sociability.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 traitwith 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.

TraitCorrelation betweenJudicial Capacity and Accuracyof the Individual's Self-EstimatesRefinement.54Humor.53Beauty.47Sociability.46Intelligence.44Conceit.26Neatness.22Vulgarity.22Snobbishness.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:

Neat.Intel.Hum.Con.Beau.Vulg.Snob.Refin.Socia.Neatness—.39.29.51.50.09.57.32.10Intelligence.39—.59.44.34.06.43.49.25Humor.29.59—.32.50.40.50.23.55Conceit.51.44.32—.51.24.75.33.07Beauty.50.34.50.51—-.09.41.56.32Vulgarity.09.06.40.24-.09—.40-.37.18Snobbishness.57.43.50.75.41.40—.20-.12Refinement.32.49.23.33.56-.37.20—.34Sociability.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.

Psych.Log.Hist.Econ.Eng.Germ.Chem.Math.Avge.Psychology—.60.36.52.48.49.33.54.47Logic.60—.48.57.47.41.25.57.48History.36.54—.44.62.46.52.61.51Economics.52.57.44—.51.43.45.71.52English.48.47.62.51—.25.26.46.44German.49.41.46.43.25—.39.38.40Chemistry.33.25.52.45.26.39—.57.40Mathematics.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 whichmust 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.

[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.

With certain qualifications the work of the school curriculum may be said to constitute an elaborate mental test. One important function of the curriculum is that of selecting and identifying individuals who possess a certain type of mental alertness or patience. Another function is that of supplying the individual with certain implements, facts and ideas, certain subject matter, which may or may not be of direct value in his later life but which is at least in this way perpetuated and preserved. A third function is that of affording opportunity for the exercise of such specific or general abilities as the curriculum may call into play.

All three of these functions have more or less direct vocational relevance. In the hands of industrial and technical interests, subject matter becomes more and more prominent as the important item. As this happens the older idea of discipline and exercise becomes subordinate or implicit. But, whatever be the underlying educationalphilosophy, the selective value of the curriculum is an inescapable fact. The public school system, by its processes of grading, promotion and certification, tends always to mark off as a distinct group those individuals who can and will meet its demands. It also attempts to differentiate the members of this group from one another on the basis of their ability or their inclination. The high schools, colleges, professional and technical courses continue this process of elimination, identification and selection. According to the student's ability and inclination to satisfy the requirements of the curriculum, he or she is dropped, graded, retarded, promoted or passed with honors.

Extending, as it commonly does, over many years of the individual's life, conducted by a considerable number and variety of examiners, and presented in a diversity of forms and methods, school work constitutes a type of mental test which is unequaled in its completeness. It is highly important for vocational psychology to ascertain the degree of correlation between the individual's record in the curriculum test and his success or fitness in later life. To what degree is the individual's academic record prognostic of his industrial, domestic and professional future?

As definite as this question is and as easy of solution as it may seem, it is only very recently that reliable data, as distinguished from unsupported opinions, have begun to be accumulated. The problem is complicated by the difficulty of securing satisfactory measures of success in later life, and by the difficulties encountered in following up the careers of those individuals whose early records are known. Shall success be measured by the obstacles overcome, the income earned, the sacrifices made, the social usefulness accomplished, the amount of local and contemporary publicity received, the public recognition accorded, the scope of activities attempted, or the historical eminence merited? And if more than one of these elements are to be considered, how are they to be treated commensurately? Certainly success may be achieved in any or several or all of these and other forms. For the present our information is limited to a few studies in which one or other of these aspects has been treated separately. As work in this field progresses we may be better able to sum up all the partial results into a statement of the general tendencies.

For our present purpose it may be best to bring together from various sources the data bearingon certain specific questions which have been propounded. At least three of these questions are distinctly relevant to the work of vocational psychology.

I. With respect to school work itself, what relation exists between the early success in elementary subjects and the later success in handling more advanced subject matter?This question is important to all those who may be concerned in advising individuals concerning the desirability and probable profit of continuing their school experience, and of entering occupations in which scholastic abilities may be requisite.

Kelley has recently reported a careful study of the relation between the marks in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh grades and the marks received in the first year of high school work. The results, in the case of fifty-nine pupils followed through the six years, were as follows:

7th grade.726th grade.735th grade.534th grade.62

His study further seeks to show the relative weight to be attributed to the work of each grade, by applying a formula known in statistics as a"regression equation." He says, "The net conclusion which may be drawn from these coefficients of correlation is that it is possible to estimate a person's general ability in the first year [H. S.] class from the marks he has received in the last four years of elementary school with accuracy represented by a coefficient of correlation of .789, and that individual idiosyncrasies may be estimated, in the case of mathematics and English, with an accuracy represented by a coefficient of correlation of .515.... Indeed, it seems that an estimate of a pupil's ability to carry high school work when the pupil is in the fourth grade may be nearly as accurate as a judgment given when the pupil is in the seventh grade."

Miles finds that the correlation between the average elementary school grade and the high school grade is .71. Dearborn also finds that high school efficiency is closely correlated with success in university work. He studied various groups of high school students, the groups containing from ninety-two to four hundred and seventy-two students each. These were grouped into quartiles on the basis of high school standing, and compared with similar classifications on the basis of university work. Dearborn summarizes his results in the following words:

"We may say then, on the basis of the results secured in this group (472 pupils) which is sufficiently large to be representative, that if a pupil has stood in the first quarter of a large class through high school the chances are four out of five that he will not fall below the first half of his class in the university.... The chances are but about one in five that the student who has done poorly in high school—who has been in the lowest quarter of his class—will rise above the median or average of the freshman class at the university, and the chances that he will prove a superior student at the university are very slim indeed.... The Pearson coefficient of correlation of the standings in the high schools and in the freshman year, for this group of 472 pupils, is .80.... A little over 80 per cent of those who were found in the lowest or the highest quarter of the group in high school are found in their respective halves of the group throughout the university.... Three-fourths of the students who enter the university from these high schools will maintain throughout the university approximately the same rank which they held in high school."

Lowell's investigation, which is discussed in later paragraphs, also bears directly on the questionof the relation between college entrance records, college grades, and later work in professional schools. A rather different method of procedure was adopted by Van Denburg, who studied the relation between the first-term marks of high school pupils in New York City and the length of time the pupils continued in school work. The following table gives a general idea of his results:

First-Term MarkPercentage Leaving School in Various Years After Entrance into the High SchoolLeft During First YearLeft in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Years,or Failed to Graduate in 4thGraduatedBelow 50%6139050 to 59%4946560 to 69%3958370 to 79%20621880 to 89%17463790 to 100%64054

Thorndike, in referring to the significance of such results, says: "Ten times as many of those marked below 50 leave in the first year as of those marked 90 or above. Of 115 pupils marked below50 not one remained to graduate in four years. As the marks rise the percentage leaving in the early years steadily falls and the percentage graduating rises. Such prophecies... could easily be worked out for any community. They show that in the important matter of the length of stay in school a pupil's career is far from being a matter of unpredictable fortuity.... It will not be long before [we] will remember with amusement the time when education waited for the expensive tests of actual trial to tell how well a boy or girl would succeed with a given trade, with the work of college and professional school, or with the general task of leading a decent, law-abiding, humane life."

Prompted by Dearborn's study of the relation between work in high school and work in the university, Smith made a somewhat more intensive study of a group of students in the University of Iowa. Dearborn had investigated the academic careers of pupils from eight large and four small high schools in Wisconsin, and concluded that three-fourths of the students entering the university from these high schools would maintain throughout the university approximately the same rank as they had held in high school. When the groups were divided into upper and lower halves,about seventy per cent of those in the upper high school section were found in the upper half of the university section; about the same number of those in the lower high school half were found in the lower university half.

Smith's data showed almost precisely the same figures as those of Dearborn. From the Liberal Arts class of 1910 (one hundred and sixty students) those were chosen whose records were complete in both high school and university. This gave a total of one hundred and twenty students. On the basis of their standing, as based on the grades assigned in all subjects studied, they were ranked in order for each year of high school and university. They were then separated into quintiles on the basis of these rankings, and their standing in these various quintiles observed from year to year.

When the students, on the basis of their general high school average (for the four years), are distributed through their respective quintiles in the university (general average again) the results are as shown in the table on page 183.

Back to Index Next