in 4 - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc...G-rotip-ITominat i ons Self-Nominations Agreement Scores...

PEER- AND SELF-EVALUATIONS ON SOCIAL ROLES 3T

SOCIOMETRICALLY DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS

APPROVED:

in 4

Major Professor

roles

Director of the Department of Psychology

Deafe of the Graduate School

PEER- AND SELF—EVALUATIONS ON SOOIAI ROLES BY

SOOIOMET'RICALLY DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Jiramie Ray Ifaugher, B. A,

Denton, Texas

August, 1970

TABLE CP CONTENTS

Page

LIST 0? TABLES iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem of the Study Hypotheses Definitions Related Research

II. METHODOLOGY 22

Subjects Instruments Procedures

III. R33ULTS

Hypotheses Concerning Group-Noninatior.s Hypotheses Concerning Sell f-Nominations Hypotheses Concerning Agreement Scores Hypotheses Concerning negative Discrepancy Scores Hypotheses Concerning Positive Discrepancy Scores Hypotheses Concerning Sex

IY. DISCUSSION OP R3SULTS 47

G-rotip-ITominat i ons Self-Nominations Agreement Scores Negative Discrepancy Scores Positive Discrepancy Scor Sex Differences

e", ^ O b

Y. SUNI4ARY, 0 ON C LU 31CN S, AND RECCi ~ 13NI)ATI ONS . . . 56

Summary Conclusions Re c oirirt e nd a t ions

APPNNDIG3S 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . 6?

i n

LIST OP TABLES

Table Page

I. GN, SN, AS, NDS, and PDS Means on the Social Roles Instrument for Each Sociometric Group and for All Groups Combined 34

II. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Group-nominations Received by Highs, High-Kiddles, "Low-Middles, and Lows 35

III. Summary of the Scheffa Test of All Possible Comparisons Between Means of Group-Nominations Received by Highs, High-Middles, Low-Kiddles, and lows . 36

IV. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Self-nominations Given by Highs, High-Middles, low-Middles, and Lows . . . . . . . 37

V. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Agreement Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, .Low-Middles, and Lows . . . . . 39

VI. Summary of the Scheffe Test of All Possible Comparisons Between Means of Agreement Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, Low—Middles, ajid Lows . . . . . . . . , , , , 3 9

VII. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Negative Discrepancy Scores Received by Highs, High-Kiddles, Low-Middles, and Lows 41

VIII. Summary of the Scheffe Test of All Possible Comparisons Between Means of Negative Discrepancy Scores Received By Highs, High-Middles, Low-Middles, and Lows 41

1a* mammary for the Analysis of Variance of Positive Discrepancy Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, low-Middles, and lows /•*

IV

Table Page

X. Summary of the Scheffe Test of All Possible Comparisons "Between Means of Positive Discrepancy Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, Low-Middles, and lows . . . . . 44

XI. GN, SH, AS, NBS, and PDS Means for Boys and Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

v

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have been made of the relationship

between self-evaluation and evaluation by others since Sears

(16) pioneered in the area a third of a century ago. In

such studies self-evaluation has been compared to the eval-

uation made by peers (13), by an authority figure such as a

supervisor or teacher (6), by someone expert in the area

such as a psychologist (11), and by scores on an instrument

such as an intelligence or personality test (21). These

studies all involved -some measurement of agreement or dis-

crepancy between self-evaluations and evaluations by others.

Such agreements and discrepancies have an important place

in self-concept theory (22, pp. 275-316). WAle research

in this and other areas of self—concept have produced many

positive trends, there also remains a great deal of ambi-

guity in the results and considerable apparent contradiction

among the findings of various studies (22, p. 317).

Perhaps one reason for some of the ambiguities is that-

most of the earlier studies correlated self-evaluations and

evaluations by others in terms of a group as a whole rather

than analyzing results in terms of sub-groups, Tyoical of

the early studies was one by C-reen (8) in which he reported

that self-estimates of leadership tended to be exaggerated

when compared to peer-estimates, but that in some cases they

were underestimated. The procedures did not allow him to

say if there were any differences among sub-groups. More

recent studies have subdivided the group according to some

factor and have then studied the agreement or discrepancies

in evaluations on a variable in relation to the sub-groups

with some important differences having been shown to exist

"between sub-groups (6, 9, 19).

One way in which a group may be sub-divided is on the

basis of sociometric measurements. It has been shown that

people who differ in ranking on sociometric measurements

also differ in other significant ways (1). Some studies of

the normal person have utilized sociometric measurements as

part of the criteria for differentiating between high and low

normals (2). In one study of normal persons it was found

that the typical highly mature youth was much more accurate

in assessing what others thought of him than was the typical

immature youth (10, pp. 170-171). It would seem likely,

therefore, that persons who differ in sociometric ranking

would also tend to differ in agreements and discrepancies

between self- and pear-evaluations on certain variables.

Variables such as mental and physical abilities have

certain social aspects, thus the effectiveness with which

a person functions in these areas is important in the class-

room and to mental health generally (l, pp. 92-113). In

normal interaction with others a person evaluates the

effectiveness of associates in performing various social

roles. Attention was called to the fact that people also

evaluate themselves in the same way when, in administering

an instrument calling for children to name those who were

among the best in the group in performing certain social

roles, it was found that several children asked if they

could name themselves (3). This brought up the question of

what relationships might exist between peer- and self-

evaluations on the social roles and if the relationships

might differ between various sociometric sub-groups.

The Problem of the Study

The problem of the present study was to determine the

relationships between peer- and self-evaluations on a social

roles measurement and the relationships betv/een these eval-

uations and sociometric rankings.

Hypotheses

To carry out the purposes of this study, hypotheses

were formulated utilizing sub-groups differentiated on the

basis of sociometric rankings and scores obtained on a social

roles instrument. The sociometric groups were called Highs,

High—I'iiddles. Low—Middles, and lows» j'ivo scores were

derived from the social roles instrument: group-nomination

(GN), self-nomination (SIT), agreement score ( 4 3 ) , negative

discrepancy score (NDS), and positive discrepancy score (PDS)

Criteria for determining the sociornetric groups and scores

on the social roles instrument are outlined in the sections

on definitions and procedures. The following hypotheses

were formulated.

1. Mean group-nomination scores will vary in the

following ways:

A. Highs will have significantly higher mean GN

scores than High-Middles.

B.- Highs will have significantly higher mean GN

scores than Low-Middles.

C. Highs will have significantly higher mean GN

scores than lows.

D. High-Middles will have significantly higher

mean GIT scores than Low-Kiddles.

E. High-Middles will have significantly higher

mean GIT scores than Lows.

P. Low-Middles will have significantly higher

mean GH scores than Lows,

2. Mean self-nomination scores will vary in the fol-

lowing ways:

A. There will be no significant difference in the

mean SN scores of the Highs and High-Middles.

B. Highs will have significantly higher mean SN

scores than Low-Middles.

C. Highs will have significantly higher mean SN

scores than lows.


mean SET scores than Low-Middles.


mean SN scores than Lows.

F. Low-Middles will have significantly higher

mean SN scores than Lows.

3. Mean agreement scores will vary in the following

ways: - -

A. Highs will have significantly higher mean ASs

than High-Middles.

B. Highs will have significantly higher mean ASs

than Low-Middles.

C. Highs will have significantly higher mean ASs

than lows.

D. High-Middles v/ill have significantly higher

mean ASs than Low-Middles.

E. High-Middles v/ill have significantly higher

mean ASs than lows.

P. Low-Middles v/ill have significantly higher

mean ASs than Lows.

4. Mean negative discrepancy scores will vary in the

following ways:

A. Highs will have significantly lower mean NDSs

than High-Middles.

B. Highs will have significantly lower mean HDSs

than Low-Middles.

6

G. Highs will have significantly lower mean KDSs

than Lows.


mean NDSs than Low-Middles,


mean NDSs than Lows.

P. There will "be no significant difference in the

mean NDSs of the Low-Middles and Lows.

5. Mean positive discrepancy scores will vary in the

following ways:

A. Highs will have significantly higher mean PDSs

than High-Middles.

B. Highs will have significantly higher mean PDSs

than Low-Middles.

C. Highs will have significantly higher mean PDSs

than Lows.


mean PDSs than Low-Middles.


mean PDSs than Lows.

P. Low-Middles will have significantly higher

mean PDSs than Lows.

6. Boys and girls will not differ significantly

A. On mean group-nomination scores

B. On mean self-nomination scores

C. On mean agreement scores

D. On mean negative discrepancy scores

E. On mean positive discrepancy scores.

Definitions

Group-nomination (Gil). A GN was recorded for a student

for each social role on which, he v/as nominated by 20 per

cent of his class on the instrument, How Pupils See Bach

Other (Appendix B).

Self-nomination (SN). An SN v/as recorded for a student

for each social role on which he nominated himself on the

instrument, Hoy; Pupils See 5ach Other (Appendix B).

Agreement score (AS). An AS was recorded v/hen a

student both received a GN and gave himself an SN on a given

role.

Negative discrepancy score QvPS) . An NDS v/as recorded

when a student gave himself an SH on a social role but did

not receive a GIT on the role.

Positive discrepancy score (PDS). A PDS v/as recorded

v/hen a student received a GN on a social role but did not

give himself an SN on the role.

Highs, High-Kiddles, Low-Kiddles. and Lows. These

terms designated soeiometric groups which were determined

on the basis of choices received on tne instrument, How Iv'e

See Others (Appendix A). Specific criteria for how the

groups were determined are given in the section on procedures,

8

Related Research

Summarizing studies published through 1958, !'/ylie (22,

pp. 386-316) concluded that self ratings show low but sig-

nificant correlations with ratings received from others and

that this seemed to hold true for a wide variety of traits

and persons. The studies considered traits such as leader-

ship ability, academic ability, grades, intelligence,

happiness, friendliness, success at physical tasks, and

other variables. She further found that solf-overestimation

was much more common than self-underestimation, but that

there were indications of consistent individual differences

in the tendency toward overestimation, underestimation, or

accurate estimation across a variety of traits. The present

study sought to determine if sociometric ranking is a factor

in such agreements and discrepancies.

Wylie (22, pp. 275-316) also analyzed the various

reliability and validity problems involved in securing and

interpreting self-evaluations and evaluations by others.

She concluded that the degree of agreement or disagreement

was partly a function of the particular variable studied

(22, p. 314). j1 or example, some variables tend to promote

more ego-involvement than others and such ego-involvement

tends to Influence the degree of discrepancy between

evaluations. Holt (11) found that the desirability or

undesirability of certain traits influenced self-ratings.

There was a tendency for people to overestimate themselves

on desirable traits and underestimate on undesirable ones.

Approximately the same relationship was also found bjr Webb

(20). The present study dealt with social roles which are

all positive in nature and thus are assumed to be desirable.

Therefore, a general tendency toward overestimation of self

"by the group as a whole was expected. However, the study

went further to deal with the question of whether agreements

and discrepancies would differ from one sociometric group

to another.

Ambiguity of the variable also influences the degree

of discrepancy between evaluations. The aspect of himself

which a person is called upon to assess may range " . . . from

external facts like one's skin color to half-conscious

motives (11, p. 95)." Wylie (23) has suggested that the

low correlations found for evaluations by self and others on

the traits of friendliness, likeability and generosity were

probably due to the ambiguity of the traits. Several studies

seem pertinent at this point.

In presenting a theory of social comparison processes,

Festinger (5, p. 118) stated that where the criterion is

unambiguous and can be clearly ordered, it furnishes an

objective reality for the evaluation of one's ability so

that the evaluation depends more on actual comparison of

one's performance with the performance of others than on

what one believes to be the opinions of others. Several

studies were quoted which indicated that self-evaluations of

10

abilities are very unstable if the person does not have

opportunity to compare his performance with the performance

of others on the task. He concluded that even after a

person has had a good deal of experience at a task, the

evaluation of what is a good performance continues to fluc-

tuate until a criterion other than one's own performance is

provided (5, p. 119). In harmony with this theory is the

finding by Gerard (7) that self-appraisal was influenced by

direct comparison of one's performance to the performance

of others on a task involving judgments about spacial re-

lations.

Festinger (5, p. 121) has also theorised that if the

only comparison available is a very divergent one the

person will not be able to make a subjectively precise

evaluation of his opinion or ability. In agreement with

this is the research of Sherwood (18) who, in an experiment

involving adults engaged in a two-week human relations

training group, found that people changed their self-

evaluation in the direction of the public evaluation made

by others in the group, and they changed in the direction

it was believed that others in the group might evaluate

them. This was true whether the evaluation was raised or

lowered. 7ollow~up research in the same kind of setting

showed differences in self-evaluation patterns between

tnose for wnom there was wide variance in public evaluations

by refexent otners as compared to those for whom there was

11

closer agreement by referent others. This was interpreted

to mean that when public evaluations "by various group

members vary widely, and are thus ambiguous, then the

self-esteem motive has more opportunity to increase the

self-evaluation. The person is reacting to ambiguous

stimuli when there is wide variance in the responses of

others. However, if all the group members tend to agree,

it provides the person with a stable stimulus by which to

evaluate himself (19). The questions on the self- and

peer-evaluation instrument used in this study are stated

in terms of performance on common classroom social roles

rather than traits, thus there is opportunity for rela-

tively objective Judgments.

However, more is involved in evaluation than having an

ambiguous or unambiguous instrument. Gaier (6), at the time

of the final exam, had students estimate the grade they

would receive in the course. This should have been a rel-

atively unambiguous variable since each student had had

feedback in terms of grades throughout the course on which

to base his estimate. Correlations were lower for those

who received the middle grade than for those who received

high and low grades. It seems that the place occupied by

the individual may be an important factor. T/hat Coopersraith

has said relative to self-esteem was expected to be equally

true for self-evaluation in the present study:

12

Persons who are at the bottom or top of the group can place themselves with relative confidence. Their position in the scheme of things is relatively unam-biguous and they can appraise themselves accordingly. The man in the middle range is in the much more un-certain situation of not knowing how well he has met the criteria of judgment. . . . This uncertainty may be expressed in less confident self-appraisals and in the need for external confirmation (4, p. 233).

He also found that the middle group was most inclined

to rely on others for their self-evaluations (4, p. 230).

Possibly they depended on others for confirmation of their

evaluation because their ratio of success and failure was

high enough to encourage expectation of success, yet with,

enough failure to make their situation ambiguous. To be in

the middle " . . . may induce a greater need to structure

one's personal world (4, p. 142)."

Persons with higher and more certain self-esteem appar-

ently accept their personal judgments as guides, or they are

not as concerned about or threatened by the values set forth

by their social environment (4, p. 142). Heath (10, p. Ill)

has made the same point about the highly mature youth. This

is in accord with Bonney's conclusion that the most univer-

sal characteristics of the high normal people are ego

strength and self-actualizing motivations (2, p. 111).

Coopersmith (4, p. 145) also found that the high self-

esteem group set nigher goals for themselves as measured by

an ideal-self score, and, despite the higher score, he

found tii?. t trie highs had significantly smaller differences

between the ideal-self and self-esteem means than did the

13

other groups (4 , p . 147) . He interpreted this to mean that

the high group both set and achieved higher standards. A

possible reason for the higher self aspiration may have been

that the ratio of success and failure experienced led them

to expect success and thus to have higher aspirations (4,

p . 147) . This is in accord v/ith the findings of Bonney

(2 , p . 18) that high normals rated themselves as relatively

low on "abasement," which is defined in terms of feelings of

guilt, need for punishment, and inferiority attitudes. This

would indicate that high normal persons will tend to evaluate

themselves more highly on positive values. Related to this

is the finding by Heath (10, p. 170) that the typical highly

mature youth had a generally favorable self-image and tended

to believe that others thought of him as he thought of him-

self. He also showed considerable self-understanding and

was relatively-accurate in assessing what others thought of

him (10, p. 170) .

In contrast, the highly immature youth viewed himself

differently from the view he believed others had of him and

was unable to assess accurately what others actually thought

of him (10, p. 172) . He tended to be trait dominated and

more likely to respond to all situations primarily on the

basis of subjective conditions within himself. Either his

inner traits were so rigidly organized that he was motivated

to shape each situation to his own needs, or his subjective

organization was so weak that he allowed situations to

14

dominate him (10, p. 173). This is in accord with the con-

clusion "by Bonney (2, p. Ill) that many low normals exhibit

characteristics which are opposite to the ego strength and

self-actualizing motivation frequently seen in the high

normals.

Heath (10, p. 109) has pointed out that a large dis-

crepancy between a person's view of himself and what he

believes others think of him must seriously complicate his

adaptation to others. When people are confined to groups

of incomparables " . . . we may expect them to be imprecise

in evaluation of themselves (16, p. 247)." However, a per-

son with low self-esteem may accept the social definition of

what is important but not necessarily be enthusiastic about

standards that virtually commit him to judgments of failure

(4, p. 142).

Some people who are rated lov/ by others on a variable

tend to rate themselves low (14). A person who is un-

certain about his low self-appraisal will more readily

accept "approving information" while one who is certain of

his low appraisal seeks to gain "self-consistent" infor-

mation (13). Commitment to a lov: self-appraisal may be a

device to protect oneself from the responsibilities con-

tingent with accepting social praise and rejecting social

censure (12).

On the other hand, some people who are rated lov; by

others will tend to rate themselves much higher. This can

15

be viewed as a defensive self-evaluation which, may he one

of two kinds: a person may he aware of low self-regard and

try to hide it from others, or he may he unaware of low

self-regard and try to hide it from himself as well as

others (4, p. 25).

However, the differences between people of high, middle,

and low psychological maturity are not so much in individual

traits as in ". . • trait-syndromes, their interrelationships,

and their constant modifications according to interpersonal

dynamics of situations (2, p. 73)." Bonney (2, p. 14) found

the most discriminating syndrome between high and low nor-

mals to be the capacity to establish close interpersonal

relationships with others. The sociometric measures which

were used in this study tap interpersonal relationships.

On this basis it was expected that the sociometric groups

would tend to exhibit the characteristics of the high, mid-

dle, and low groups described above.

In general, it was expected that the sociometrically

high group would tend to evaluate themselves more highly

than the others and that this evaluation would be in harmony

with that of peers. The self-evaluations of the sociomet-

rically low group were expected to be lower, reflecting

their knowledge that they are lower. However, the low group

was expectcd to have wider discrepancies between self- and

peer-evaluations than the high group, due in part to defen-

siveness which would be reflected in somewhat inflated

16

self-evaluations. The middle sociometric groups, because

of the ambiguity of their situations, were expected to give

higher self-evaluations which would result in larger dis-

crepancies between self- and peer-evaluations than for

either of the other groups.

It should be noted that agreement scores, negative

discrepancy scores, and positive discrepancy scores were

functions of relationships between group-nominations and

self-nominations. This means that results which confirm,

or fail to confirm, the hypotheses concerning group-

nominations and self-nominations would also affect those

hypotheses concerning agreement scores, negative discrepancy

scores, and positive discrepancy scores. The latter were

needed, however, in order to note agreement ana direction

of discrepancies between peer- and self-evaluations.

The hypotheses concerning group-nominations were based

on the theory that a somewhat linear relationship exists

between being highly chosen and being seen as one who

functions effectively in many social roles. The hypotheses

concerning self-nominations were based on two theories:

first, that the high and low groups were fairly well aware

of their status, and, second, that the middle groups were

in a more anioiguous situation and thus the self—esteem

motive would have more opportunity to increase self-

evaluation. The hypotheses concerning group-nominations

and self-nominations were in terms of the number of

17

nominations received or given without regard to relationships

between the two. Expected relationships "between the t\vo

were stated in terms of hypotheses concerning agreement

scores, negative discrepancy scores, and positive discrepancy

scores.

Obviously, if an individual received a group-nomination

on a given role he either had given or had not given himself

a self-nomination on the same role. Thus, every group-

nomination produced either a corresponding agreement score

or positive discrepancy score. Every self-nomination pro-

duced either a corresponding agreement score or negative

discrepancy score.

The hypotheses concerning agreement scores and negative

discrepancy scores were based on the theories (A) that Highs

and High-Middles would both give about the same number of

self-nominations but that High-Middles would receive corre-

spondingly fewer group-nominations and thus have higher

negative discrepancy scores, and (B) that Lows, as compared

to low-Middles, would give fewer self-nominations and would

also receive fewer group-nominations, thus having a dif-

ference in agreement scores but not in negative discrepancy

scores.

The hypotheses concerning agreement scores and positive

discrepancy scores were based on the theories (A) that

self-evaluations of Highs would better correspond with peer-

evaluations than would those of other groups, thus producing

18

higher agreement scores, (B) that Highs would also be seen

as among the "best on many social roles on which they would

not judge themselves so, thus producing higher positive

discrepancy scores, and (C) that the other groups would

have fewer positive discrepancy scores because of conditions

which were expected to produce higher negative discrepancy

scores.

There were no theoretical reasons for expecting dif-

ferences between sexes on the five scores.

Material extracted from some unpublished research by

Bonney (3) also indicated the probability of confirming the

hypotheses formulated for the present study. The social

roles instrument, as originally designed by Bonney, was

administered to a fifth-grade class along with a sociometric

instrument calling for play group and work group choices and

leadership nominations. Students were told they could name

themselves on the social roles if they desired, however,

neither oral nor written instructions were given to encourage

them to do so. About half the class gave one or more self-

nominations (13 out of 25). The class was divided into

thirds according to sociometric rankings. Of the half who

gave self-nominations, four were in the upper third, five in

the middle third, and four in the lover third, ilean scores

for the groups, from upper to lower respectively, were as

follows: G-ITs — 11.25, 4.75, 0; SNs — 4.25, 4.6, 1.0; ASs —

3.0, 1.6, 0; 1'iDSs — 1.25, 3.0, 1.0; PDSs — 8S25, 3.0, 0.

19

GNs, ASs, and PDSs were in descending order. However,

the upper and middle groups gave about the same number of

SNs and the lower group few. The middle group had the

highest NDSs and the high group the highest PDSs.

An important difference between the study by Bonney

and the present study was that the social roles instrument

had been changed to encourage self-nominations.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in. Education, Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 19T0.

2. f The Normal Personality. Berkeley, California, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1969.

3. , unpublished research, Department of Psychology, llorth Texas State University, Denton Texas, 1969..

4. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Erancisco, California, tf. H. Freeman and Compa'ny, 1967.

5. Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Pro-cesses," Human Relations, VII (Hay, 1954), 117-140.

6. Gaier, Eugene L., "Student Self-Estimates of Pinal Course Grades," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 98 (March, 1961), 65-S7~ ~ "

7. Gerard, II. 3., "Some Determinants of Self-Evaluation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (March, 1961), 288-293.

8. Green, G. H., "Insight and Group Adjustment," Journal Abnormal and Social Psychology. 43 (January, 1948),

43-61.

9. Greenburg, Gloria U., and Prank, George H., "Personality Correlates of Attitude Change: The Tendency to Alter" Attitudes Toward Self in Other-Directed and" Inner-Directed People," Journal of General Psycholorv. 76 (January, 1967), 85^90~.~~ ~

10. Heath, Douglas H., Explorations of Katuritv. Few Yor'r, Appleton-Century-~rofti7~r%"5. ~~ '

11. Holt, Robert R., "The Accuracy of Self-Evaluations: Its j-leasurement and Some of Its Per sociological Correlates,"

2l Consulting Psychology. 15 (April, 1951), 95-101.

10 •

21

12. Jones, Stephen C., and Ratner, Carl, "Commitment to Self-Appraisal and Interpersonal Evaluations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 T H g u s V 19^77* 442-447.

13. , and Schneider, David J., "Certainty of Self-Appraisal and Reactions to Evaluations from Others," Socsiometry, 31 (December, 1968), 395-403.

14. Reeder, Leo G., Donahue, George A., and Biblarz, Arturo, "Conceptions of Self and Others," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (September, I960), 153-lf>9.

15. Reynolds, Maynard C., "The Social Psychology of Ex-ceptional Children: Part III. The Interaction of Exceptional Children with Other Persons," Exceptional Children, 26 (January, I960), 243-247.

16. Sears, R. R., "Experimental Studies of Projections: I, Attribution of Traits," Journal of Social Psv-chology, 7 (Hay, 1936), 151-16"3.

17. Sherwood, John J., "Increased Self-Evaluation as a Function of Ambiguous Evaluations by Referrent Others," Sociometry, 30 (December, 1967), 404-409.

18. __________ f "Self Identity and Referrent Others," Sociorae'fry T"2& (March, 1965), 66-81.

19. Start, K. B., "Overestimation of Personal Abilities and Success at First Year University Examinations," Journal of Social PsycholoM, 59 (April, 1963), 337-345.

20. Webb, ¥. B., "Self-Evaluation Compared with Group Evaluations," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (October, 1952TTT05--3C7. ~

21. , "Self-Evaluation, Group Evaluations and ObjecfTve Measures," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19 (June, 1955), 210-212. — — j — u * .

22. Y/ylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

23 . , "Some Relationships Between Defensiveness and Self-Concept Discrepancies," Journal of Per-sonality, 25 (September, 1957), 600-bl67

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Subjects for the study were 147 fifth- and sixth-grade

students from schools in two North Central Texas towns of

less than 2,000 population. There were two fifth- and four

sixth-grade classes with enrollments of 15, 15, 20, 31, 32,

and 34.

Instruments

Two instruments involving peer selection measurements

were used. One, How We See Others (Appendix A), is a socio-

metric measurement containing a play group question and a

work group question. The other, How Pupils See 3ach Other

(Appendix B), is a social roles instrument. Both are modi-

fications of instruments developed by Bonney (3).

Modifications of the sociometric instrument were limited

to changing the title from How We See Other Children to How

We See Others and the elimination of one question on leader-

ship which correlated highly with the play group question.

The first sociometric question reads, "Tnich other

pupils in this class would you choose to be with you for a

"Play group—one in which you play games and have fun? List-

as many as you wish, but you probably will not want to name

22

23

more than 4 or 5." ITote that it calls for choices for a

"play group," not "to play with." "Play with" requires

knowledge of the game to "be played to get a discriminative

response. "Play group" is designed to "be a more general

measure of the degree to which, each child is perceived as

a desirable person to be with in a situation which is

strictly personal-social in nature, requiring primarily

personality assets and capacities to meet emotional, and

social needs ( 3 ) .

The second socioiaetric question reads, "Which other

pupils in this class would you choose to work v/.ith you on

a committee or work project—one which requires thai jou

obtain information and prepare a report to be givon to your

teacher, and possibly before your class? You may list as

many as you wish, but you probably will not want to name

more than 4 or 5." This is designed to get a measure of

the persons who are perceived as being the most and least

desirable as associates or partners in getting a 30b done

requiring effort, knowledge, and responsibility (3). The

last part of both questions is designed to encourage the

student to name as many classmates as he wishes, yet be

discriminative in his choices.

Bonnev (2, pp. 6-8) has summarised materials bearing

on the validity and reliability of peer selection measure-

ments with emphasis on sociometric choices as representative

of all measurements involving peer assessments. T-Te has

2 4

given attention to face validity, correlation with other

self-rating scales, particularly with, those correlations

pertaining to persons high or low on sociometric criteria,

and to empirical results in terms of sociometrically formed

groups tending to function better than groups not so

structured. He concludes that . . assessments of ma-

terials bearing on validity and reliabilitjr of sociometric

data lead to the conclusion that such data do present sig-

nificant information on important personality variables

(2, p. 8)."

The major modification in the social roles instrument

was the addition of directions that the student nominate

himself, along with classmates, on those roles for which he

considers himself to be among the best in the class. The

theory for adding the self-nomination instructions was that

an individual's self-perception can provide an added insight

into the individual. Lambert and Bower (7, p. 34), in de-

veloping a screening procedure, found that teacher- and peer-

perceptions correlated most positively, while self-perceptions

had lower correlations with both teacher- and peer-perceptions,

suggesting that self-perceptions ad.Led a significant measure

to the instrument. Other modifications included changing the

wording of two questions for clarification purposes and drop-

ping two questions to result in an instrument measuring 16

social roles.

25

Conclusions about the reliability and validity of peer

selection measurements referred to previously also apply to

the social roles instrument (2, pp. 6-8). In addition,

Bonney's original instrument was administered to four ele-

mentary school classes in January and again in May. Each

class was composed of 25 students. Correlations were run

between the rank orders based on total scores. The corre-

lations were .72, .83, .93, and .97, indicating that

students perceptions of classmates on the social roles were

quite stable over a period of four months (3).

Certain aspects relative to the items on the social

roles instrument also need to be considered. 7irst, there

are no derogatory or socially unfavorable roles for two

reasons: some schools are reluctant to elicit negative-

type responses from pupils and, more importantly, the

instrument was originally developed for the primary purpose

of determining which students are perceived by their class-

mates as functioning well in many roles and which in few

and which in none (3).

A second important aspect is that the items are not in

terms of traits possessed but in terms of overt ways of

functioning in the classroom. All questions are put in

terms of actual, concrete actions. ?or exc-mple, instead of

using an abstraction such as "generosity," item 14 asks the

student to list classmates who are "most likely to share

school materials when needed by other children." The theorv

26

is that it is easier to make accurate judgments about what

people do than about more subjective character traits they

possess. On this basis, the social roles should be rela-

tively unambiguous. The social roles are also the kind of

variables which can be worked with and improved most appro-

priately in a school setting (3).

A third aspect is that the items call for the student's

perceptions of who is "among the best at" or "most likely to

do" something. Students are not asked to rank people in

terms of first, second, third, et cetera, nor are they asked

to name the very best one. This applies to both self- and

peer-evaluations.

Some other important factors relate specifically to

the interpretation of self-evaluations. For one thing, it

was recognised that an individual may refrain from naming

himself on a social role either because he honestly feels

he is not one of the best on the role or because of modesty.

The instructions were designed with the specific intention

of eliciting all self-nominations a person really feels he

should give himself, yet without, at the same time, encour-

aging a person to give more self-nominations than he feels

are true.

Also, the instructions call for a "private-self" type

of evaluation (how one sees himself) rather than a "social-

self" type evaluation (how one thinks others see him).

Research has indicated that different results are obtained

27

when a person is asked to state how he sees himself than

when asked to state how he thinks others see him (7, p. 276).

However, it is unlikely that there can he a sharp separation

on the person's part between his private-self and social-

self concept (7, p. 280) since any concept must he largely

environmentally derived through the process of interaction

with others (2, p.99; 4, p. 141). Discrepancies between

peer-evaluations and a private-self type evaluation do not

necessarily mean that one is wrong and the other is right,

only that the group does not see the person as he sees him-

self. In some cases it would be expected that, given more

group interaction so that the person would have more oppor-

tunity to function in a specific role, his peers would also

come to see him as among the best in the group on that role.

Moreover, it would be expected that certain classroom activ-

ities could help an individual to also come to recognize

himself as functioning effectively in a social role on which

his peers consider him as one of the best in the group.

Self-nominations which differ from peer-evaluations

also indicate something important about a person. While

indiscriminate self-nominations may be viewed as a defensive

reaction, those which apparently reflect some discrimination

by the individual may be interpreted in terms of subjective

aspirations or wants and thus be related to the concept of

"choice-daring" (1, p. 263). A self-nomination would seem

to indicate that the individual wants to be seen as

28

functioning in a certain way. That he would record this on

the instrument may .indicate that his aspiration level in

regard to his possibilities is high enough that he has the

"choice-daring" to "believe that he could be among the best

on the given role.

In the present study the relationships between peer-

and self-evaluations were analyzed and interpreted in terms

of agreement scores, negative discrepancy scores, and

positive discrepancy scores. The criteria by which these

scores were determined are given in the following section.

Procedures

Both the sociometric and the social roles instruments

were administered to a class at the same sitting, with the

sociometric instrument being administered first. Students

were allo\fed as much time as needed on each instrument. It

required about 30 minutes for each class to complete both

instruments. Pour absentees completed the forms under

supervision of the teachers within a week of the original

administration.

Students were listed in rank order according to the

number of choices received on each of the sociometric

questions. They were then listed in rank order according

to the total number of choices received on both questions

combined. Students were divided into approximate fourths

on the basis of choices received. The term "approximate

29

fourths" is used because exact fourths could not he obtained

for two reasons: first, the number of students in some of

the classes was not exactly divisible by four, and, second,

in some classes there were tie scores which produced over-

lapping at the dividing points. The division into fourths

was based on the theory that resulting groups would be

sufficiently differentiated on the high and low sociometric

criteria to make comparisons in the study meaningful. The

upper fourth was called "Highs," and the other fourths

were called "High-Kiddles," "Low-Middles," and "Lows,"

Criterion for grouping was on the basis of combined

total number of choices received on both sociometric

questions with the stipulation that a student was not con-

sidered a High unless he was definitely in the upper fourth

on one question and above average on the other. The recip-

rocal was true in determining the Lows. The theory behind

the stipulation was that a High should be a person whom his

peers perceived as a desirable person to be with in a situ-

ation which is strictly of a personal-social nature (play

group) and also one who is desirable to work with on a job

requiring effort, knowledge, and responsibility (work group).

All students in the sample who ranked in the upper or lower

fourth on the combined total number of choices also qualified

on the stipulation. High-Kiddles and Low-Middles were deter-

mined by rank order standings on the combined total number

30

of choices received without regard to relative standings on

either specific question.

Highs from each class were combined to form one group

with IT = 36. The sane was done for High-Middles (IT = 36),

Low-Kiddles (IT = 37), and Lows (IT = 38).

A self-nomination (SIT) v/as recorded for a student for

each social role on which he named himself as one of the

best in the class.

Three other scores were determined on the basis of re-

lationships between group-nominations and self-nominations.

An agreement score (AS) .-/as recorded when a student both

received a GIT and gave himself an SIT on a given role. A

negative discrepancy score (NDS) v/as recorded when a student

gave himself an SM on a social role but did not receive a GIT

on the role. A positive discrepancy score (PDS) v/as re-

corded when a student received a GIT on a social role but

did not give himself an SIT on the role.

Sverv self-nomination produced either a corresponding

agreement score or a negative discrepancy score. Every

group—nomination produced either a corresponding agreement

score or a positive discrepancy score.

GiTs, SNs, ASs, ITDSs, and PBSs were determined for boys

and girlo sep«.rc;.uoljy. Ih.is -information v/as used to determine

if there were any differences in terms of sex.

The null forms of hypotheses one through five v/ere

teoted by simple an.1 Lysis of variance andt where appropriate

31

by the Scheffe test of all possible comparisons between

groups (6, pp. 230-242). The hypotheses concerning sex

were tested by the t-test for independent samples (6,

pp. 165-169).


1. Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in Education, Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 19S0.

2. , The Normal Personality, Berkeley, California, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1969.

3. ____ * unpublished research, Department of Psychology, iTorth Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1969.

4. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Francisco, California.,""™','/. H. Freeman and* Company, 1967.

5. Lambert, Nadine M., and Bower, Eli M., A Process for In-School Screening of Children with SmotionaT Handicaps : Technical "R'eport for Behoof MrnTnTstrators and TeacHers" Los Angeles, California, "Educational Testing Service, 1961.

6. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Scie"hces, Mew York, Holt, Rinehart S M V/inston, InFTTT^g.

7. Wylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of NilbrSikS Press, '1961.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

As previously stated, a sociometric instrument, How ¥e

See Others (Appendix A), and a social roles instrument, How

Pupils See Each Other (Appendix E), were administered to

147 fifth- and sixth-grade students from schools in two

North Central Texas towns of less than 2,000 population.

There were two fifth- and four sixth-grade classes with

F = 15, 15, 20, 31, 32, and 34.

Both instruments were administered at the same sitting,

with the sociometric instrument "being administered first.

Students were allowed as much time as needed on each instru-

ment, It required about 30 minutes for each class to

complete both instruments. Pour absentees completed the

forms under supervision of the teachers within a week of

the original administration.

Each class was divided into Highs, High-Kiddles, low~

Middles, and lows on the basis of sociometric criteria given

in Chapter II, Highs from each class were combined to form

one group with N - 36. The same was dor;e for High-Kiddles

(N » 36), Low-Kiddles (F s 37), and Lows (lv = 38).

Peer-nominations were tallied on each social, role for

each student o A student '..'as given a group-nomination (GF)

33

34

if he was nominated "by 20 per cent of his class on a given

role. The rationale for this was given in Chapter II. Each

role on which a student named himself as among the best in

the class was recorded as a self-nomination (SIT). Roles on

which students had SNs and GITs were compared. If a student

had both an SIT and GIT on a given role it was recorded as an

agreement score (AS) . If he ha.d an SN but did not receive a

GIT on the role it was recorded as a negative discrepancy

score (ITDS). If he received a GIT but hs,d not given, himself

an SIT on the role it was recorded as a positive discrepancy

score (PDS). Total GITs, SNs, ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs were cal-

culated for each sociometric group and mean scores determined,

The means are given in Table I. Hypotheses were tested in

TABLE I

GN, SIT, AS, EDS, AED PDS MEANS OF THE SOCIAL HOLES INSTRUMENT FOR EACH SOCIOMETRIC GROUP

AND FOR ALL GROUPS COMBINED

Sociometric Groups ' " 0 U—I Means

" s r -

Means ~~ AS Means

¥LS Me ans

PW~ Means

Highs, IT = 36 6 . 8 9 7 .14 3 . 5 5 5 . 5 5 3 . 3 3

High-Middles, N = 36 2 .17 6 . 3 1 1 . 1 3 5 . 1 7 1 . 0 3

Low-Middles, IT - 37 1 . 3 8 5 .84 .89 4 . 9 5 .49

Lowe, IT ~ 38 .82 6 . 5 8 .47 6 , 1 1 .34

All Groups Combined, IT -~= 147 2 . 7 8 6 .46 1.50 4 . 9 7 1 . 2 8

35

the null form "by simple analysis of variance and, where the

F was significant at the .05 level, by the Scheffe test of

all possible comparisons between means (1, pp. 230-242).

Hypotheses Concerning Group-?;ominations

Hypothesis 1 was that mean Gils would vary between

sociometric groups in the following ways: (A) Highs would

have significantly higher mean GNs than High-Middles;

(B) Highs would have significantly higher mean GITs than Low-

Middles ; (C) Highs would have significantly higher mean GNs

than Lows j (D) High-Middles 'would have significantly higher

mean GITs than Low-Kiddles; (3) High-Middles would have sig-

nificantly higher mean Gils than Lows; (j?) Low-Kiddles would

have significantly higher mean GITs than Lows.

Analysis of variance yielded an P = 32.58, P < .01

(Table II); thus the null hypothesis of no significant

TABLE II

SUMMARY FOR THE ANALYSIS CE VARIANCE 0? GROUP-IfOMmTICNS RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOWS

Source of Variation

Sums of" _ Squares df

Mean Sauares F P__

Between Groups 840.62 3 280.21 32.58 .01

Within Groups 1,229.97 143 8.60 • t> • • *

Total 2,070.59 146 • • • • • * * *

36

difference "between, groups was rejected. The Scheffe test

of all possible comparisons between groups was then used

and the results were recorded in Table III.

TABLE III

SUMMARY OP THE SCHEPEE TEST 0? ALL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS BETV/EEN MEANS 0? GROUP-NOMINATIONS RECEIVED 3Y HIGHS,

HIGH-MIDDLES, LOV/-KIDDIES , AND LOY/S

Groups Compared — df = 3, 143 F P

Highs and High-Middles 5.55 .01

Highs and Low-Middles 11.23 .01

Highs and Lows 13.72 .01

High-Middles and Low-Middles .23 Not Significant

High-Middies and Lows . 68 Not Significant

Low-Middles and lows .23 Not Significant

The null hypothesis was rejected for hypotheses 1(A),

1(B), and 1(C). The GN mean of the Highs was significantly

higher than the GN means of the High-Middles, low-Middles,

and Lows. This was in accord with what had been predicted.

The null hypothesis was retained for hypotheses 1(D),

1(E), and 1(F). There was no significant difference in the

GN means between High-Middles, low-Middles, and Lows. This

was not in accord with what had been predicted.

31

Hypotheses Concerning Self-Nominations

Hypothesis 2 v/as that mean SNs would vary between

sociometric groups in the following ways: (A) There would

be no significant difference in the mean SNs of the Highs

and High-Middles; (B) Highs v/ould have significantly

higher mean SNs than Low-Middles; (C) Highs would have

significantly higher mean SNs than Lows; (D) High-Middles

would have significantly higher mean SNs than Low-Middles;

(E) High-Middles v/ould have significantly higher mean SNs

than Lov/s; (?) Low-Middles would have significantly higher

mean SNs than Lows.

Analysis of variance yielded an F = .65, which did not

reach, the .05 significance level (Table IV); thus the null

hypothesis of no significant difference between groups v/as

retained.

TABLE IV

SUMMARY FOR THE ANALYSIS 0? VARIANCE OP SELF-NOMINATIONS GIVEN BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOV/S

.. ,,r , ~ 2'Z" Source of Variation

Sums of Squares df

Mean Squares F _jp

Between Groups 22.30 3 7.43

1 in

!

Not Significant

Within Groups 1,637.24 143 11.45 • • • *

Total 1,659.54 146 • «

38

It had been predicted that Lows would have the lowest

SN mean, and that each of the other sociometric groups would

have correspondingly higher and significantly different

means, with the exception that Highs and High-Kiddles were

expected to have the highest SN means "but not be signifi-

cantly different from each other. However, no group had

significantly higher mean SITs than another. Thus, results

confirmed hypothesis 2(A) but failed to confirm hypotheses

2(B), 2(C), 2(D), 2(E), and 2(F).

Hypotheses Concerning Agreement Scores

Hypothesis 3 was that mean ASs would vary between

sociometric groups i.n the following ways: (A) Highs would

have significantly higher mean ASs than High-Middles;

(B) Highs would have significantly higher mean ASs than

low-Middles; (C) Highs would have significantly higher

mean ASs than Lows; (D) High-Middles would have signifi-

cantly higher mean ASs than Low-Middles; (3) High-Middles

would have significantly higher mean ASs than Lows;

(?) Low-Middles v/ould have significantly higher mean ASs

than Lows.

Analysis of variance yielded an 7 = 15.98, P < .01

(Table V); thus the null hypothesis of no significant dif-

ference between groups was rejected. The Scheffe test of

39

TABLE V

SUMMARY FOR THE AHALY3I3 0? VARIANCE 0? AGREEMENT SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDIES, L0\/-MIDDLES, AND LOWS

Source of Variation

'Suras of Squares df

Mean Squares P P

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

210.51

628.24

3

143

70.17

4.39

15.98 « • #

.01 • •

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total 838.75 146 • • • # • # • •

alii possible comparisons between groups was then used and

results were recorded in Table YI.

TABLE VI

SUMMARY 0? THE SCHEPPE 'TEST 0? AIL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS OP AGREEMENT SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS,

HIGH-MIDDIES, LOW-MIDDIES, AND LOWS

- j i . n

Groups Compared — df = 3, 143 P P


Highs and low-Mideles 5.13 .01

Highs and lows 6.92 .01

High-Middles and low-Middles .04 Hot Significant

High-Middles and Lows .32 Hot Significant

Low-Kiddles and Lows .25 Not Significant

40


3(B), and 3(C). The AS mean of the Highs v/as significantly

higher than the AS means of the High-Middles, low-Kiddles,

and Lows. This v/as in accord with what had been predicted.

The null hypothesis v/as retained for hypotheses 3(D),

3(E), and 3(1?). There was no significant difference in AS

means between High-Kiddles, Low-Middles, and Lows. This v/as

not in accord with what had been predicted.

Hypotheses Concerning negative Discrepancy Scores

Hypothesis 4 was that mean HDSs would vary between

sociometric groups in the following ways: (A) Highs would

have significantly lower mean HDSs than High-Kiddles;

(3) Highs would have significantly lower mean JTDSs than

Low-Middles; (C) Highs would have significantly lower

mean HDSs than Lows; (D) High-Middles would have signifi-

cantly higher mean HDSs than Low-Middles; (S) High-Kiddles

would have significantly higher mean HDSs than lows;

(P) There would be no significant difference in the mean

NDSs of the Low-Kiddles and Lows.

Analysis of variance yielded an F = 4.28, P < .01

(Table VII); thus the null hypothesis of no significant

difference between groups v/as rejected. The Scheffe test

41

TABLE VII

SUMMARY FOR THE ANALYSIS 0? VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-KIDDLES, AMD LOWS

Source of Variation

Sums of Squares df

Mean Squares E P

Between Groups 123.61 3 43.20 4.28 .01

Within Groups 1,443.22 143 10.09 • • * •

Total 1,572.83 146 • • • • • • •

of all possible comparisons between groups was then used

and the results recorded in Table VIII.

TABLE VIII

SUMMARY OE THE SCHEEEE TEST OP ALL P0S3I3IE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS 0? NEGATIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED

BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOWS

Grour.>s Compared — df = 3, 143 P P

Highs and High-Middles . 56 Not Significant

Highs and Low-Kiddles .62 Not Significant

Highs and Lows 2.08 Not Significant

High-Kiddles and lew-Middles .02 Not Significant

High-Middles and Lows • ro

CO

Not Significant

Low-Middles and Lows .83 Not Significant

42

The Scheffe test did not yield any F reaching the .05

level of significance. Roscoe has said of this type sit-

uation:

Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon to follow a significant finding "by the analysis of variance with the Scheffe procedure and find that no two means differ significantly. This may be attributed to the fact that the analysis of variance provides a more powerful test of the hypothesis of equal means. 'Then this occurs, if the various samples are of equal (or nearly equal) size, and the analysis of variance yields a significant finding, it is reasonable to conclude that the largest mean is significantly larger than the smallest mean, even though the Scheffe test was unable to detect this difference (1, p. 241).

Following Roscoe's suggestion, the null form of hypo-

thesis 4(C) was rejected and the results were interpreted as

a significant difference between the UD3 means of the Highs

and Lows. An examination of ITD8 means in Table I revealed

that the difference was in the predicted direction, with

Highs having a lower mean score than Lows.

The null hypothesis was retained for hypotheses 4(A),

4(B), 4(D), 4(3), and 4(F). This was as predicted by hypo-

thesis 4(2). However it was not as predicted by hypotheses

4(A), 4(B), 4(B), and 4(E).

Hypotheses Concerning Positive Discrepancy Scores

Hypothesis 5 was that mean PDSs would vary between

sociocietric groups in the following ways: (A) Highs would

have significantly higher mean PDSs than High-Kiddles;

43

(B) Highs would have significantly higher mean PDSs than

Low Middles; (C) Highs would have significantly higher

mean PDSs than Lows; (D) High-Middles would have signifi-

cantly higher mean PDSs than low-Middles; (E) High-Kiddles

would have significantly higher mean PDSs than lows;

(P) low-Middles would have significantly higher mean PDSs

than lows.

Analysis of variance yielded an P = 35.78, P < .01

(Table IX); thus the null hypothesis of no significant dif-

ference between groups was rejected. The Scheffe test of

TABLE IX

SUMMARY POR TriE ANALYSIS CP VARIANCE OP POSITIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDIES , LOVMMIDDLE3 , /.YD LOWS

-wwar .K»i

Source of Variation

Sums of Squares df

Mean Squares P p

Between Groups 427.20 3 142.40

CO •

! in

JO .01

Within Groups 568.76 143 3.98 • • • t «

Total 995.96 146 • • • • • • • •

all possible comparisons between groups was then used and

the results recorded in Table X.

44

TABLE X

SUMMARY OP THE SCHEEPE TEST 0? ALL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS OF POSITIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED

BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOWS

Groups Compared — df = 3, 143 F p


Highs and Low-Middles 6.45 .01

Highs and Lov/s 7.19 .01

High-Middles and Low-Kiddles .23 Not Significant

High-Middles and Lov/s .38 Not Significant

Low-Middles and Lov/s l 1

O

1 «

Not Significant


5(B), and 5(C). The PDS mean of the Highs was significantly

higher than the PDS means of the High-Middles, Low-Middles,

and Lows. This was in accord with what had been predicted.

The null hypothesis v/as retained for hypotheses 5(D),

5(E), and 5(?). There v/as no significant difference in the

PDS means between High-Middles, Low-Middles, and lows. This

was not in accord with what had been predicted.

Hypotheses Concerning Sex

Hypothesis 6 v/as that boys and girls would not differ

significantly (A) on mean GNs, (3) on mean SNs, (C) on

mean ASs, (D) on mean NDSs, and (s) on mean PDSs. Students

45

were divided "by sex, without regard to sociometric grouping,

GN, SN, AS, EDS, and PDS means were determined for boys and

girls and recorded in battle XI.

TABLE XI

GN, SN, AS, NDS, AND PDS MEANS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS

Group GN

Means SN

Means AS Means

HDS Means

PDS Means

Boys, N = 80

Girls, N = 67

2.58

3.01

6.19

6.79

1.36

1.66

4.83

5.13

1.21

1.36

The t test for independent samples was used to test the

null hypothesis of no significant difference between means

for boys said girls on each of the five scores. No t reached

the .05 level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis

was retained on all five measures. There was no significant

difference between boys and girls on mean GNs, SITs, ASs,

NDSs, or PDSs.


1. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, Holt, Rinehart" and Winston, Inc., 19&9.

46

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION OP RESULTS

As was pointed out in Chapter II, the "basic scores on

the social roles instrument were group-nominations (GIT) and

self-nominations (SN). Every GN resulted in either an

agreement score (AS) or a positive discrepancy score (PDS).

Every SjST resulted in either an agreement score (AS) or a

negative discrepancy score (NDS). Thus, the hypotheses con-

cerning GNs and SNs were the key hypotheses, "but the

hypotheses concerning ASs, NDSs, and PDSs v/ere needed to deal

with relationships "between GNs and SNs. To confirm, or to

fail to confirm, a hypothesis relative to GNs or SNs would

automatically affect hypotheses about ASs, NDSs, and PDSs,

though not necessarily assuring a confirmation or rejection

of a given hypothesis.

Group-Nominations

Three of the hypotheses concerning GNs were confirmed

and three v/ere not confirmed. As predicted, Highs received

significantly more GNs than High-Middles, low-Middles, and

Lows. An inspection of GN means in Table I reveals a trend

in the predicted direction for High-Middles, Low-Kiddles, and

Lov/s, but statistical analysis indicated the differences

47

48

were not significant. The findings relative to GNs were of

necessity also reflected in ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs.

Perhaps the most relevant finding concerning Gils was

that those who were highly chosen by peers as persons who

are desirable to be with in strictly personal-social

situations (play group) and desirable as associates in

working situations (work group) were also viewed by peers

as functioning effectively in a number of social roles.

Self-lTominations

Probably the most important finding in this study was

that there were no significant differences in the number

of SITs given by the various sociometric groups.

The SIT hypotheses had predicted differences between

all groups except Highs and High-Middles, with, those groups

giving the most SMs and each succeedingly lower sociometric

group giving correspondingly fewer SITs.

The theoretical bases for the hypotheses consisted of

several elements. One was that Highs would see themselves

as effective in many social roles and that this would be

reflected in many SITs, while Low-Kiddles and Lows would see

themselves as effective in fewer roles and this would be

reflected in fewer SITs. However, it was expected that de-

fensiveness would produce high SITs among some in the lower

groups. Another part of the theory was that High-Middles

would be in a more ambiguous position than others, since

49

they would experience just enough, success In the social

roles to not have a clearly defined position. In the am-

biguity of the situation the self-esteem motive would have

more opportunity to increase the self-evaluations (2), thus

resulting in a larger number_of SITs.

Technically, the prediction of no significant difference

in SNs between Highs and High-Middles was confirmed. How-

ever, it Is questionable as to whether the effect was due to

a more ambiguous position of the High-Middles, since the Low-

Middles and lows also gave approximately the same number of

SITs.

One explanation for no difference between groups could

have been that a few lows, for defensive reasons, might have

given an extremely large number of SITs and thus overweighted

the mean. Two steps were taken to check this. First, a

table was prepared of the frequencies at which different

numbers of SITs were given by students in the different

sociometrie groups. This information is recorded in Appendix

G. It revealed that a few persons in each group gave a large

number of SITs. A second step was to devise a method whereby

scores which might .indicate extreme defensiveness could be

detected and removed to see if there v/ould be any change.

On theoretical grounds it seemed that possible defensive

scores by Highs should be removed as well as those by lows.

The method used was a measure of the ratio of SITs to GIT3 in

terms of means by sociometric group. A person's score was

50

considered "defensive" if he scored above trie SIT mean of

his sociometric group and also below the GIT mean for his

group. This procedure yielded eight Highs and twelve lows.

The scores of these students were removed and new SIT means

calculated. The mean SIT was 'reduced by .35 points for the

Highs and by .54 points for the lows which was not a signi-

ficant change,, This was not a wholly satisfactory method,

but it did appear more valid than simply setting an arbitrary

number of SNs as defensive, especially since some of the

Highs who gave the most SNs also received the most GITs.

This does not mean that defensiveness was not a factor

in the high SIfs given by the lows. It only indicates t^at

any defensiveness was reflected by many in the group rather

than just a few.

The basic point of the finding is that all sociometric

groups tended to give about the same number of SITs on the

social roles. Why this was so is an unanswered question,

but it is one which, in part, may be related to some findings

by Coopersmith (1, pp. 138-144).

He had expected to find that the areas of greater com-

petence would be systematically related to personally

important values, but instead he found there were virtually

no differences in value preferences among the groups that

differed on measures of self-esteem.

In such important areas of preadolescent life as academic performance, athletics, friendline tivenose, intel.3 igence, and independence, v.

ness, attrac-, we find that

51

groups differing in their level of esteem hold these and other values equally important. This would imply that persons high, medium, and low in the various ex-pressions of esteem tend to employ much the same criteria for judging their worth (1, p. 139).

This would seem to indicate that people do not necessarily

select self-value standards in terms of what they do well.

He concluded that self-values are environmentally de-

rived and supported so that there is relative little latitude

for focusing upon socially deviant values as a major basis

of self-esteem, therefore a person cannot readily select,

shift, and transform these values to attain favorable self-

judgments. I-Iov/ever, the person can accept the social norm

on which he fares badl3/ and cone to a favorable resolution

oy an aggrandized estimate of his performance. "It is in

this regard—that is, in estimates of meeting standards,

rather than in value selection—that favorably inflated

self-judgments are lilcely to be achieved (1, p. 141)." His

conclusion is that the person who does not think hi-zhly of

himself is just as likely to set lofty goals as is the

person who concludes that he is a worthy individual.

The SHs on social roles are probably related to the

self-esteem measure used by Coopersmith, though this has not

been demonstrated by research. That lows gave about as many

SNs as the other groups certainly fits well with the other

facts Coopersmith employed in arriving at his interpretation.

52

Agreement Scores

An AS was a function of relationships between a GF and

an SN in that a person must have received a GN on a given

role and also must have given himself an SIT on the same role.

It was predicted that Highs v/ould have the highest mean AS

and each succeedingly lower sociometric group would have a

correspondingly lower mean AS. However, it v/as found that

Highs scored significantly higher than each of the other

groups, but that there v/as no significant difference between

High-Kiddles, low-Middles, and Lows. This would be expected,

since the same results were found for Gils, and it was im-

possible to have an AS without a GIT.

The findings give support to the theory that self-

evaluations of Highs better correspond with peer-evaluations

than do the self-evaluations of other groups.

Negative Discrepancy Scores

An NDS v/as also a function of relationships between GITs

and SIfs. It was the opposite of an AS in that a person gave

himself an SIT on a social role but did not receive a GIT on

the role. The only significant difference found v/as that

Hi-jitk..* nad c* 1 ovvemoan .iTiJo than lows. .lt had been t*redic*ced

that Highs would have a lower mean NDS than all others. It

had also been predicted that High-Middles would have the

highest ITDS. The actual results were what would be expected,

53

since there was no significant difference "between groups in

terms of SITs and since the GKs were distributed as they were.

That is, higher than expected SITs for Low-Kiddles and Lows

coupled with lower than expected GITs for High-Middles had a

canceling effect on differences between expected NDSs.

However, the lack of significant differences "between

means may be masking very real differences in KDSs. The

per cent of SITs resulting in ITDSs, or the reciprocal ASs,

can easily be calculated from the mean scores recorded in

Table I, The per cent of SKs resulting in EDSs were as

follows: Highs, 50 per cent; High-Middles, 82 per cent;

Low-Middles, 85 per cent; and Lows, 93 per cent. That is,

the self-evaluations of Low-Mi ddles registered as SITs differed

from peer-evaluations 85 per cent of the time while Highs

differed only 50 per cent of the time.

Positive Discrepancy Scores

Like the AS and ITDS, the PDS was also a function of

relationship between GITs and SITs. A PDS occurred when a

person received a GN on a social role but did not give him-

self an SN on the role. Again, in keeping with the pattern

of GlCs, Highs received significantly more PDSs tvan any other

groups, and there were no significant differences between the

other groups. The difference in what was predicted and what

occurred was basically the same for both GITs and PDSs,

54

The high number of SIIs given by the lover groups would

seem to make it very likely that any GNs v/ould result in

ASs rather than PDSs. However, by use of means recorded in

Table I, the per cent of GMs resulting in PDSs was detei'mined

to be as follows: Highs, 48 per cent; High-Middles, 47 per

cent; Low-Middles, 36 per cent; and Lows, 41 por cent. Thus,

all groups failed in a rather large per cent of cases to

evaluate their strength on social roles in the same terms as

did peers. The Lows, with 93 per cent of their SMs resulting

in NDSs, failed to give SHs on 41 per cent of the roles on

which they received GZTs. They could not recognize, in a

relatively large per cent of cases, the few roles on which

peers judged them strongest.

The relationships brought out in terms of percentages

indicate that statistical analysis of difference in mean

ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs was not an entirely satisfactory measure

of relationship between GXs and SNs.

Sex Differences

As predicted, there were no differences between boys

and girls in terms of Gils, Sl\s, ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs.


1. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Francisco, California, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1967.

2. Sherwood, John J., "Increased Self-Evaluation as a Function of Ambiguous Evaluations "by Referrent Others," Sociometry, 30 (December, 1967), 404-409.

55

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

A sociometric instrument and a social roles Instrument

were administered to 147 fifth- and sixth-grade students.

Students were grouped into Highs, High-Middles, Low-Kiddles,

a.nd Lows on the basis of the choices received on the socio-

metric measurement. The social roles instrument called for

peer- and self-evaluations as to who were among the best in

the class on specific social roles. Scoring categories for

the social roles instrument were group-nomination (GN)» self-

nomination (SN), agreement score (AS), negative discrepancy

score (NDS), and positive discrepancy score (PDS). The cri-

terion for a group-nomination was to be named by 20 per cent

of the class on a specific social role. A self-nomination

meant that a student had named himself on a role. Relation-

ships between group-nominations and self-nominations were

analysed in terns of the other three scores. A group-

nomination and se±1 -nommaticn on a given role was counted

as an agreement score. A group-nomination without a corre-

sponding self-nomination on a given role was counted as a

positive discrepancy score. A self-nomination without a

corresponding group-nomination on a given role v/as countcd

56

57

as a negative discrepancy score. differences "between the

various mean scores for each sociometric group v/ere analyzed

by simple analysis of variance and, where appropriate, by

the Scheffe test.

As hypothesized, Highs received significantly more

group-nominations than other sociometric groups, indicating

that Highs were seen by peers as functioning effectively in

a number of social roles. Contrary to predictions, there

were no significant differences in group-nominations received

by High-Middles, Low-Kiddles, and Lows.

Probably the most important finding was that there was

no significant difference in the number of self-nominations

given by the different sociometric groups. This was con-

trary to what had been hypothesized. This finding was

interpreted in terms of the suggestion by Coopersmith (2,

pp. 138-144) that self-values are environmentally derived and

supported rather than growing out of what a person does well.

While a person may not change the value standard, he can

accept the social norms on which he fares badly and come to

a favorable resolution by an aggrandized estimate of his per-

formance.

Since agreement scores, negative discrepancy scores,

and positive discrepancy scores v/ere defined in terms of re-

lationships between group-nominations and self-nominations,

it also followed that the hypotheses concerning the former

were directly affected by whether or not hypotheses concerning

58

the latter were confirmed or rejected. Highs had signifi-

cantly higher agreement scores and positive discrepancy

scores than other groups, and there were 110 significant

differences between the other groups. Highs had significantly

lower negative discrepancy scores than Lows, but there were

no other significant differences between groups,

GIT, SIT, AS, NDS, and PDS means were determined for each

sex without regard to sociometric grouping. Differences

between sexes on each score were tested by the t-test for

independent samples. Ho t reached the .05 level of signi-

ficance, thus there were no significant differences between

sexes.

Some criticisms were made of procedures used to analyze

relationships between group-nominations and self-nominations.

The suggestion was ma.de that some type of score based on

percentages might be more revealing.

Conclusions

One conclusion which seems warranted by the findings in

this study is that those who are frequently chosen by peers

as persons who are both desirable to be with in strictly

personal-social situations and desirable as associates in

working situations are also viewed by peers as functioning

effectively in a larger number of positive social roles than

are persons who are less frequently chosen. This conclusion

is based on the findings ii.at Highs received significantly

59

higher group-nominations, agreement scores, and positive

discrepancy scores than other sociometric groups, They also

had significantly lower negative discrepancy scores than

Lows. These findings are in accord with those from other

studies in which high and low normal persons have "been com-

pared and contrasted (l, 2, 3).

Another conclusion is that sex makes no significant

difference in peer- and self-evaluations as measured on the

social roles instrument. This is based on the finding that

there v/ere no significant differences between sexes on any

of the five scores,.

Probably the most important conclusion which can be

drav/n from this study is that while peer-evaluations on the

social roles are related to sociometric ranking, self-

evaluations on the roles are not. There were no significant

differences on mean self-nominations between sociometric

groups. While group-nomination means differed between groups

by as much as 6.07, the widest difference between self-

nomination means v/as only 1.3. This may be interpreted as

giving support to Coopersmith's (2, pp. 138-144) suggestion

that self-values are environmentally derived and supported

rather than growing out of what a person does well. While

a person may not cnange the value standard, he can accept

the social norms on which he fares badly and come to a

favorable resolution by an aggrandized estimate of his

performance.

60

Recommendations

1. Research aimed at determining why all sociometrie

groups give approximately the same number of self-nominations

could be valuable. The suggestion was made that this likely

relates to findings by Coopersmith (2).

2. It seems probable that self-nominations would corre-

late with the subjective self-esteem measure developed by

Coopersmith (2). A study could determine if this is true.

3. Some individuals gave many self-nominations and

received few group-nominations, while some gave few self-

nominations and received many group-nominations. An

investigation which would result in a description of the

kinds of students with unusual group-nomination to self-

nomination ratios would be helpful in providing a guide to

interpretation of the social roles instrument in terms of

individual students. One possible factor is the type of

self-esteem as measured by instruments Coopersmith (2) has

developed for determining subjective self-esteem and ob-

jective self-esteem.

4. It was noted that procedures used in this study

for analyzing agreement scores, nege,tive discrepancy scores,

and positive discrepancy scores were not entirely satisfactory,

Research aimed at providing better measures of relationships

between group-nominations and self-nominations could be of

benefit to the teacher who wishes to use the social roles

instrument in planning activities for individual students.

61

5. The school teachers and administrators involved in

the study indicated that responses on the social roles in-

strument were especially suggestive in planning activities

to meet needs of specific children. For example, one

teacher reported that she planned to identify the roles on

which individual lows received the most peer-nominations

and provide opportunities for those individuals to function

with peers in those roles, A study could be made to note

changes in sociometric choices received, or other variables,

by lows following activities instigated as a result of

identifications made through the social roles instrument.


1. Bonney, Merl E., The Normal Personality» Berkeley, California, McCutchan Pu ol i shing Corp oration, 1969.

2. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem. San Francisco, California, Y/~ H. Freeman and Company, 1967.

3. Heath, Douglas H., Explorations of Maturity, New York, Apple ton-Century-Crofts, 19^5. ~

62

APPENDIX A

Student's name_

Teacher

Date

HOW WE SEE OTHERS

Directions; Please give the names asked for in the two questions "below so your teacher can better understand this class and help everyone in it to profit from being in this group.

You may put the sane names under more than one of the questions if you wish, but you will probably want to name some new ones under each of the two questions.

QUESTION 1: T.</hich other pupils in this class v/ould you choose to be with you for a play group ~~ one in which you play games and have fun? list~as~many as you wish, but you probably will not v/ant to name more than 4 or 5.

QUESTION 2: Which other pupils in this class v/ould you choose to work with you on a committee or work project — one which requires that you obtain information and prepare a report to be given to your teacher, and possibly before your class? You may list as many as you wish, but you probably will not v/ant to name more than 4 or 5.

63

APPENDIX B

Your Name _ Your School_

Your Teacher

HOW PUPILS SEE EACH OTHER

Directions: By listing the names asked for in the spaces Felow you v/ill help your teacher to better understand this class, so she can help each student gain the most from this year's work.

(1) In the space under each question below, list the names of the students in this class you think best fit the questions. You may list the name of a student under more than one question if you wish, but you will probably want to think of some different names to put under the different questions. Please write both the first name and last initial. If you believe that no student fits a particular question, you may leave the space blank.

(2) After you have listed the names of other students, go back over the questions ajid write "me" in the space after each question which you feel fits you. Be sure to write "me" after every question which you feel is true of you.

In this class which students are:

1. Most likely to do or say something unusual or original which other people like.

2. Most likely to dare to be different in some ways from most of the group.

3. Most likely to do or say something which helps the group settle some kind of difficulty on the playground or in the halls.

4* Most likely to do or say something which helps settle a difficulty between two or more children in the class-room.

5. Among the best in making an oral report before the class.

64

65

In this class which students are:

6. Among the best in acting a part in a play or dramati-zation.

7. Among the best in making posters or other kinds of art exhibits.

8. Among the best in playing games during play periods or noon hours.

9. Among the best in writing stories which are interesting to the rest of the class.

10. Most likely to show some concern about the difficulties and problems of other children.

11. Most likely to show concern about the whole class doing well and being a "good class" in whatever is undertaken.

12. Most likely to offer good suggestions during a class discussion on a topic in social studies, language arts, or some other subject.

13. Among the best in being friendly with most other class members.

14. Most likely to share school materials when needed by other children.

15. Most likely to have a good time and enjoy himself wherever he is.

16. Among the best in thinking out the answer to a problem in one of our school subjects (arithmetic, science, etc.) as given in a book or by the teacher.

APPENDIX C

FREQUENCIES AT WHICH DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF SELF-NOMINATIONS OH SOCIAL ROLES WERE GIVEN

BY DIFFERENT SOCIONETRIC GROUPS

Number of Frequency "by Sociometric Grow SNs Given Highs High-Middles Low-Middles Lows

0 1 2 • 1

1 1 # 2 •

2 1 1 4 2

3 1 4 6 4

4 1 4 5 5

5 7 6 1 3

6 3 7 1 5

7 2 2 6 4

8 6 2 2 5

9 7 • 5 3

10 2 1 3 2

11 1 3 1 1

12 2 1 • •

13 # 2 • 1

14 1 1 • 1

ITS H • • 1 *

16 • • • 1

U=3S N=36 ; N=37 N=38

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in Education, Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., I960.

, The Normal Personality. Berkeley, Cali-"Tor'nia/ i IcCutcKan Publishing Corporation, 1969.

Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Francisco, California**, ¥. H. Freeman and Company, 1967.

Heath, Douglas II., Explorations of Maturity, Few York, Apple ton-Century-Croft™, 19"^.

Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19&9.

Wylie, Ruth 0., The Self Concept, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of I'Te bra ska" Press, 1961.

Articles

Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes," Human Pelations, VII (May, 1954), 117-140.

Gaier, Eugene I., "Student Self-Estimates of Final Course Grades," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 98 (March, 1961), 63-67.

Gerard, H. B., "Some Determinants of Self-Evaluation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (March, 196T), 288-293. — - ,

Green, G. H., "Insight and Group Adjustment," Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (January, 194877

49-61.

Greenburg, Gloria U., and Frank, George H., "Personality Correlates of Attitude Change: The Tendency to AT te*> Attitudes Toward Self in Other-Directed and Inner-Directed People," «]ourno.l of" General Psychology. 76 (January, 1967), 8*5=907 " —

67

68

Holt, Robert R., "The Accuracy of Self-Evaluations: Its Measurement and Some of Its Personological Correlates," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15 (April, 1951)« 95-101„

Jones, Stephen C., and Ratner, Carl, "Commitment to Self-Appraisal and Interpersonal Evaluations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 6 (August, 19&7T7 442-447.

and Schneider, David J., "Certainty of Self-Appraisal and Reactions to Evaluations from Others," Socionetry, 31 (December, 1968), 395-403.

Reeder, Leo G., Donahue, George A., and Biblarz, Artu.ro, "Conceptions of Self and Others," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (September, I960), 153-139.

Reynolds, Maynard C., "The Social Psychology of Exceptional Children: Part III. The interaction of Exceptional Children with Other Persons," Exceptional Children, 26 (January, I960), 243-247.

Sears, R. R., "Experimental Studies of Projections: I. At-tribution of Traits," Journal of Social Psychology, 7 (May, 3936), 151-163. ~ ~ ~ . ^

Sherwood, John J., "Increased Self-Evaluation as a function of Ambiguous Evaluations by Referrent Others," Socioaietry, 30 (December, 1967), 404-409.

, "Self Identity and Referrent Others," Soc'ionetry ~"28 (March, 1965;, 66-81.

Start, IC. B., "Overestimation of Personal Abilities and Success at First Year University Examinations." Journal of Social Psychology, 59 (April, 1963), 337-345.

¥ebb, \'It B., "Self-Evaluation Compared with Group Evaluations," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (October. 195?}. 305-307. " —

, "Self-Evaluation, Group Evaluations and Ob-jective Measures," Journal of Consulting Psychol or*y. 19 (June, 1955), 210-2127" ' — — *•*

Wylie, Ruth C., "Some Relationships Between Defensiveness and Self-Concept Discrepancies," Journal of Personality, 25 (September, 1957), 600-6167 -

69

Manuals

Lambert, ITadine M., and Bower, Eli M., A Process for In-School Screening of Children with Emotional Handicaps: Technical Report for School /.cTmini'str at or s "and"" Teachers, Los Angeles, "California, Sducational Testing Service, 1961.

Unpublished Materials

Bonney, Merl B., unpublished research, Department of Psy-chology, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1969.

in 4 - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc...G-rotip-ITominat i ons Self-Nominations Agreement Scores...

Documents

Transcript of in 4 - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc...G-rotip-ITominat i ons Self-Nominations Agreement Scores...