Vocational Psychology: Its Problems and Methods

by Harry L. Hollingworth; Leta Stetter Hollingworth

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.