TABLE 2
ERROR OF SELF-ESTIMATES COMPARED WITH ERROR OF JUDGMENTS OF 24 a.s.sOCIATES
--------------------------------------------------A. D. of a.s.soc.A. E. of Self-Est.
-------------+----------------+------------------- Neatness4.55.8 Intelligence3.76.0 Humor4.57.3 Conceit4.15.7 Beauty3.86.0 Vulgarity3.56.1 Sn.o.bbishness4.85.1 Refinement5.97.2 Sociability4.75.4 --------------------------------------------------
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 a.s.sociates 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 a.s.sociates. In other words, these students do not judge themselves as accurately as their friends judge them, if the average position a.s.signed the individual by the group of twenty-four a.s.sociates 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 sn.o.bbishness) this constant error is toward underestimation. On the average, these individuals rank themselves as less conceited, less vulgar and less sn.o.bbish than they really are, as judged by the combined opinion of their a.s.sociates. 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
------------------------------------------------------------NumberNumber TraitConstant ErrorOverestimatingUnderestimatingThemselvesThemselves ------------+--------------+--------------+----------------- Refinement+6.34010 Humor+5.23911 Intelligence+3.03416 Sociability+2.23416 Neatness+1.82525 Beauty+0.22525 Conceit-1.72426 Sn.o.bbishness-2.01832 Vulgarity-4.21733 ------------------------------------------------------------
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 quant.i.tatively 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 a.s.sociates. 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 a.s.sociates. 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
----------------------------------------------- TraitConstantTraitConstantErrorError -------------+--------++--------------+-------- Refinement+6.3Neatness+1.8 Humor+5.2Originality+1.2 Kindliness+4.0Beauty+0.2 Energy+3.8Conceit-1.7 Intelligence+3.0Sn.o.bbishness-2.0 Sociability+2.2Vulgarity-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 att.i.tudes are conditioned, under different circ.u.mstances, by a variety of factors, such as compet.i.tion, education, motive, age or s.e.x 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)
-------------------------------------------------------------JudgmentJudgmentJudgmentJudgment TraitofofTraitofofOthersSelfOthersSelf ------------+--------+--------++------------+--------+-------- Neatness.22.45Vulgarity-.24-.37 Intelligence.49.59Sn.o.bbishness.33-.27 Humor.59.87Conceit.19-.22 Beauty.23.15Refinement.38.83Sociability.48.47--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases of the definitely "undesirable" traits, vulgarity, sn.o.bbishness 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 sn.o.bbishness, 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)
------------------------------------------------CorrelationCorrelationTraitwith Mentalwith AcademicAverageTestsRecord------------+-----------+-------------+--------- Intelligence.62.52.57 Humor.55.15.35 Refinement.34.34.34 Sn.o.bbishness.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 a.s.sociates. 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 pa.s.sed. The high correlation between tests and estimates suggests that the abilities displayed in these tests correspond very closely to those characteristics on which our a.s.sociates 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, sn.o.bbishness, 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 a.s.sociates are concerned.
This would mean that a sense of humor, a tendency toward self-esteem, physical attractiveness and a gentle manner dispose one"s a.s.sociates 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 cla.s.sification.
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 const.i.tute 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 cla.s.s room and laboratory. In our own case we have teachers"
estimates only in the form of the actual cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s 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
--------------------------------------------------------2525JuniorsSeniors ----------------------------------------+-------+------- Correlation of psychological tests withestimated Intelligence.70.53 Correlation of psychological tests withAcademic Records.42.57 Correlation of Academic Records withestimated Intelligence.22.37 --------------------------------------------------------