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 | Coöperativeness |
| 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
| Trait | Relative Divergence of Different Judges | ||
| Cattell, 12 Judges | Norsworthy, 5 Judges | Average of Both 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 (Little |
| Integrity | 104.9 | 130.1 | 117.5 Agreement) |
| Coöperativeness | 125.0 | 113.5 | 119.3 |
| 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 coöperativeness, 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.