University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Behavioral (Social) Intelligence: A Factor Analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Behavioral (Social) Intelligence: A Factor Analysis

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright by
Maureen O’Sullivan
1965
BEHAVIORAL (SOCIAL) INTELLIGENCE: A FACTOR ANALYSIS
by
Maureen O'Sullivan
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
January 1965
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCH O O L
UNIVERSITY PARK
LO S ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...
under the direction of h$X....Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
Date Janu^y..llJ L ...1965
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Chairman
PLEASE NOTE: Many pages tend to "curl". Filmed
in the best possible way.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS, INC.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author cannot sufficiently express her grati
tude to Dr. J. P. Guilford, the chairman of her disserta
tion committee and the responsible Investigator of the
National Science Foundation and Office of Education grants j
i
which made this study possible. An acknowledgment is j
1
I
small thanks for the freedom and encouragement he gives
all his students. The time and effort spent by Dr. Alfred
Jacobs and Dr. Newton Metfessel in reviewing and criticiz
ing this dissertation is also appreciated.
The major contributions of Dr. Richard de Mille in
the early phases of test construction are gratefully ack-
nowledged. His efforts on tests 12, 18, 19* 25, and 26
were invaluable. Mr. Lynn Rehm and Mr. Barry Karp were
especially helpful in the construction of tests 4, 9, 21,
and 36.
The efforts of Dr. Marcella Bonsai1 in obtaining a
testing sample were truly Herculean. The cooperation of
Dr. Joseph Hansen and Mr. Alan Dittberner in arranging for
the testing at Pasadena High School was largely responsi
ble for its success.
Dr. Norman Cliff's help in "straightening out" the
il
orthogonal pattern rotational solution was much needed
and equally appreciated.
The faculty at the University of Southern Califor
nia and at other colleges in the Los Angeles area, who
gave up class time for pretesting, are too numerous to
mention. However, the author is most thankful for their
help.
Statistical analyses reported in this study were i
performed using IBM facilities at Western Data Processing !
Center, University of California at Los Angeles, and at
I the Graduate School of Business Administration, University
of Southern California. The Honeywell 800 at the Univer
sity of Southern California Computer Sciences Laboratory
was also extensively employed.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ....................... ii
LIST OF TABLES................................ v
Chapter
I. PROBLEM...... ......................... 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............... 7
III. HYPOTHESES . . ....................... 15
Construction of Behavioral Tests
Marker Test Selection
IV. PROCEDURES . ..................... 35
Test Administration
Treatment of the Data
Scoring
Statistical Analysis
The Factor Analysis
V. INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTORS........... 53
VI. DISCUSSION............................ 66
VII. SUMMARY...... ......................... 72
APPENDIX A ....................................... 75
REFERENCES ................................. 84
lv
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1. Distribution of Stimuli among 23
Behavioral Cognition Tests .............. 20
2. Means, Standard Deviations,
Distributions, Scalings, and
Reliabilities of Scores ................ 42
3. Correlation Matrix......................... 48
4. Unrotated Factor Matrix ............ 50
5. Rotated Factor Matrix..................... 52
6. Comparison of Hypothesized
and Obtained Factors............. . . . 67
CHAPTER I
PROBLEM
As long ago as 1920, Thorndike suggested that
intelligence is not a unitary construct, but comprises at
least three different kinds of intelligence— abstract,
mechanical, and social. The psychological literature is
rife with studies dealing with the first two "kinds" of
intelligence. To date, however, no American test con
structor has devised a test of social intelligence which
measures an ability factorially different from that of
verbal aptitude.
The test constructors1 failure to substantiate the
factorial existence of a social intelligence has done
little to dampen the enthusiasm of those interested in
person perception, social sensitivity, empathy, or what
ever name one wishes to give the ability to "understand"
others. It is interesting to note that while most workers
in this field will refer to the "ability" to judge others,
this aptitude is regarded In almost every instance as
a personality variable, not an intellectual one (Taft,
1955)* It may well be argued that to distinguish between
personality and intelligence Is a wasted effort. However,
1
2
when an experimenter defines his variables in terms of
one construct rather than another, he usually commits
himself to the methodology prevalent and preferred in the
investigation of such a construct. Efforts at assessing
personality have had only a modicum of success and/or
acceptance compared to that in attempts to measure intel
ligence.
i
This study, therefore, views understanding of the
emotions, intentions and thoughts of other persons as an
essentially cognitive task, rather than a perceptual one.
In this way, the backlog of individual differences method
ology is more easily brought to bear on the question.
The problem to which this study is addressed, as
has been Implied, is the construction of tests construct-
valid for measuring social intelligence, broadly defined
as the ability to understand the "...thoughts, feelings,
intentions, and attitudes..." (Guilford and Merrifield,
i960) of others.
A second, and equally important purpose of this
research is to validate certain aspects of Guilford's
structure-of-intellect model. Although the ideas basic to
the structure-of-intellect theory were promulgated by
Guilford as early as 1955, and were refined in publications
published in 1956, (in which the term structure of intel
lect was first used), 1957, 1958 and 1959, the version of
the model upon which this study's theorizing is based is
3
that presented by Guilford and Merrifield in I960. This
model is essentially a three-way classification of intel
lectual factors structured to encompass known aptitude
factors and capable of predicting the existence of undis
covered ones. The similarity of function to that of Men-
deleeff’s table of chemical elements easily suggests
itself.
The three parameters of the structure of intellect j
specify respectively, the kind of content, the type of S
I
operation, and the type of product employed in any given
intellectual act. The theory hypothesizes four kinds of
intellectual information. The one most often encountered i
!
in aptitude tests is that of semantic material. Tests of
this kind generally use meaningful words. Symbolic con
tent refers to information such as numbers, letters and
the like which have no significance in themselves.
j
Musical and mathematical notations are two examples of
this content area. Information that is concrete or per
ceivable is said to inhabit the figural content area. A
better-known synonym for this kind of information is
spatial. The fourth content area is that with which this
study is most directly concerned— the behavioral one.
I
The term, behavioral intelligence, emphasizing as
it does the actions of individuals, while unfamiliar and
reeking of Watsonlsm, seems preferable to the more usual
"social intelligence" designate, since the latter Includes
— -----------------------------------------------------------------
so many different and sometimes contradictory definitions.
The behavioral content area was added to the
structure of intellect purely on theoretical grounds
since no intellectual factors of this type had been re
ported in this country.
The operations categories of the structure of in
tellect refer to the intellectual process or activity;—
what the organism does to any particular kind of content.
Five operations categories are hypothesized: cog
nition, memory, divergent production (generation of a var
iety of output), convergent production (generation of the
one correct solution), and evaluation (criticizing or
judging in terms of some criteria). The products dimension
includes the results of intellectual processing. The six
product categories are as follows: units (elements having
"thing1 ' character), classes (aggregates of units having
common properties), relations (connections between units),
systems (organized or structured information), transforma
tions (changes or redefinitions in known information), and
implications (extrapolations in the form of predictions or
V 4 ;
antecedents).
Since each Intellectual factor may be described in
terms of one of five operations, one of four content areas,
and one of six products, it is arithmetically Inescapable
that the structure of intellect predicts the existence of
120 separate intellectual abilities. Spearman and others
5
would most certainly repudiate this conjecture. However,
to date, more than 65 intellectual factors have been iso
lated, many of them suggested by Guilford's model before
they were empirically demonstrated.
The structure of intellect predicts the existence
of 30 factors of social or behavioral intelligence, struc
tured analogously to the intellectual factors previously
discovered in the other content areas. Since one could
not hope to establish the existence of 30 new factors in
one study, this investigation was limited to the area of
behavioral cognition or understanding. This column of the
structure-of-intellect model posits six factors in its
domain. It was felt that behavioral understanding should
underly most of the other behavioral abilities, should it,
and they, exist. For example, most "men in the street"
would picture the socially intelligent individual as one
who does the right thing at the right time. The structure
of intellect would call this ability behavioral convergent
production. It is quite possible that many Individuals
who know what to do or who understand the social situation
(behavioral cognition) are incapable of doing anything
about it (either convergently or divergently) so that good
behavioral cognition abilities need not be highly correla
ted with observable behavior. However, while all good
cognizers may not be good generators of behavior, It is
unlikely that good producers would be uncomprehending.
6
A study of the behavloral-cognition abilities, aside from
its inherent interest, may well provide a basis for the
later study of other behavioral abilities and of more
obviously practical issues. j
.
The purpose of this study, then, was to construct
tests which would delimit a unique, factorial domain, un
inhabited by previously Identified intellectual factors.
The number of factors thought to be extant In the area, as j
well as their Interpretation, were predicted to conform to j
structure-of-intellect parameters. j
CHAPTER II
|
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The amount of previously reported research rele- I
vant to this Investigation is at the same time enormous
and scant. As in any other major area of interest in
i
psychology, research in the general area of person percep- !
tion or social intelligence encompasses the efforts of j
hundreds of social scientists. On the other hand, few
factor-analytic studies, which are more directly pertinent
to this investigation’s purposes, are to be found.
In this chapter, an attempt will be made to out
line the general area of interpersonal perception in which
this study is rooted. Historical perspective will be pro
vided by noting some of the earlier studies in emotional
expression. Mention will then be made of a few of the
currently popular methods of quantifying empathy or social
perception. Current interest in the non-verbal aspects of
speech and the generalized other will be noted as indica
tions of the breadth of interest included in the term,
social intelligence.
Having briefly sketched the general area, the re
search more directly concerned with this study's goals
7
8
will be reviewed. Such research Includes factor-analytic
Investigations, reports of tests of social Intelligence
based on an individual-differences-approach, and studies
in which two-dimensional stimuli such as stick figures and
silhouettes have been demonstrated to be somewhat connected
with social-cognitive processes.
I
In recent years, the conceptualization of social
intelligence or social perception has been so wide as to
include both the philosophical process - orientation of |
l
Gordon Allport (1961) and the minute statistical concerns
of Cronbach (1958). When this study was initiated the
field seemed still to be in a data-gathering stage, for
besides Heider's analysis of interpersonal relations (1958)
Allport's overview is all that existed in the way of
“theory,1 1 a definite if somewhat fuzzy statement as to the
whats, whens and hows of social perception.
Considering that Feleky (1914) was prodding re
searchers into the field fifty years ago, progress has not
been remarkable. A rash of interest in facial expression
in the twenties-and thirties (Boring and Titchener, 1923;
Guilford and Wilke, 1930; Ruckmick, 1921; Landis, 1924)
yielded little new information other than that people
didn't call the same expression by the same name (Buzby,
1924; Goodenough and Tinker, 1931) Gr that the mouth
(Dunlap, 1927), the eyes (Buzby, 1924), and the whole face
(Frois-Wittman, 1930) is most important in judgments of
9
Its behavioral meaning.
Schlosberg (19-4.1) suggested a scale for judging
facial expression which he later amplified, (Schlosberg,
1952; Schlosberg, 1954). His work seems to herald an
Interest In dealing with social-perceptual phenomena in
terms of ratings or "scores1 1 of one kind or another that
continues to this day. The vast literature on "assumed-
similarity" scores (Fiedler, 1954) and the arithmetical
refinements of other social-perceptlon measures (Hastorf,
Bender, and Weintraub, 1955) indicate this general trend.
I
j Related to this score mania is the interest in
I "predictive accuracy," the ability of the individual to
predict responses of another person, often such specific
. responses as answers to psychological test items. Dymond
(1949) seems to be one of the first to use this method of
social-perception assessment. Although they used a movie-
fllm stimulus, Cline and Richards' (i960) is another exam
ple of research from this approach.
Although research enthusiasm has centered mainly
s .
on covert distal stimuli that are visual, in nature, since
the thirties interest in speech as an indicator of per
sonal characteristics has Increased tremendously (Kramer,
1963). Generally, judgments of emotion or other person
ality traits on the basis of vocal cues alone tend to be
Inaccurate, with little agreement either between judges
or with a criterion (Elsenberg and Zalowitz, 1938; Fay ,
10
and Middleton, 1942).
Another whole area is concerned with the ability
to make judgments about a generalized other ("the average
American") rather than the understanding of some one other
person. Bronfenbrenner, Harding, and Gallwey (1958) have
made much of this distinction. Their hypothesis is that
different abilities are Involved in interpersonal sensi
tivity and generalized-other sensitivity. This view is in ;
I
contrast with that expressed by both Taft (1955) and
Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) that accuracy in social percep- j
* I
tion is a general, rather than a situation-specific abil- j
i
ity. This study shares the orientation of Bronfenbrenner j
in considering interpersonal sensitivity a unique behav
ioral ability while the understanding of unified groups,
for the purposes of this study at least, is considered more
in the nature of semantic aptitude.
The general orientation of this investigation is
not unlike that of the studies in the thirties which con
cerned themselves with expressional modes. However, while
these studies seemed to assume constant sensitivity over
I
subjects, the basis of this experiment is that social j
i
intelligence is manifested in the form of individual
differences.
Other psychologists, with the same conception of
interpersonal sensitivity have previously attempted to de
vise tests capable of measuring it. The best-known
11
example Is the George Washington Social Intelligence Test
(Moss, Hunt and Omwake, 19^9)* The five sub-tests of an
early version of this test was factor-analyzed by Woodrow
(1939) In a battery with 47 other measures Including,
among others, attention tests, tests of musical ability,
spatial measures and sub-tests of a general intelligence
test. The ten factors he extracted included none saturated
with the social intelligence sub-tests. These sub-tests
were found to be loaded on factors defined by verbal or
memory variables. R. L. Thorndike's (1936) analysis of
the Moss test corroborated this finding. Considering that
the items of the George Washington sub-tests are almost
all verbally-presented, and that the keyed answers are
"correct" in the Emily Post sense, the high loadings of j
these sub-tests on verbal factors are not surprising.
Recently, two experimental tests of "social intel
ligence" (Izard, Randall and Cherry, 1963; Vandenberg and
Mattson, i960), using an individual-differences model,
were introduced for research purposes. However, both
these instruments require the examinee to label verbally,
in the first case, drawings of facial expressions^ and in
the second, photographs of them. In terms of the Moss
tests' verbal fate, such a semantic labeling procedure
seems unwise.
In 19^7* Wedeck published his doctoral disserta
tion, which had been completed in 1933 under the direction
12
of Spearman. Aside from his 'g' leanings, his purpose was
similar to that of this analysis, to establish the exis
tence of a “psychological ability" different from verbal
ability. To this end, he constructed eight tests of
"psychological ability." Some of these tests involved the
use of verbal labels while others were mainly pictorial.
i
Wedeck also constructed an auditory test. An analysis of
these tests with seven verbal and figural tests yielded :
three factors, which were not independent. Wedeck termed |
these factors the expected, g, v, (verbal), and Y , j
(psychological) factors. His correlation matrix was re- j
analyzed, for this study, and rotated to a varimax cri
terion. Five factors were interpreted. One was a verbal
cluster, the second, a figural grouping, and the other
three were Refined by the "psychological" tests.
Wedeck's success with drawings and photographs of
facial expressions and social situations is heartening,
since these are the types of stimuli generally used in
the tests constructed for this investigation.
Although "...a genuine situation, with real per-
i 1
sons..." (Thorndike, 1920) is the most desirable environ j
i
in which to test for social intelligence, the practical
difficulties involved in the construction of a situational
test are enormously compounded when what is needed is not
one test, but many, the factor-analytic paradigm demanding
as wide a sampling as possible in the factorial domain
13
under Inspection. Necessity dictated, then, the use of
paper-and-pencil tests using less than life-size stimuli.
Taft (1955) has criticized the use of photographs
and drawings in social-perception research on the grounds
that the emotions so portrayed are stereotypic rather than
idiosyncratic, and that the investigator of social intel
ligence is more properly concerned with the latter. It is
doubtful whether the breach between the communicative
i
idiosyncratic expression and its stereotypic counterpart
is as great as Taft suggests. Certainly the one is the J
j
basis for the other. An understanding of the usual way of I
1
I
expressing a feeling would seem requisite for more refined |
comprehension. Admittedly, whether identical abilities j
are involved or not must be empirically determined. At j
i
this stage, however, it does not seem Immoderate to pro- j
ceed as if they were.
If one grants that a mentally disturbed patient is
at least temporarily deficient in social intelligence,
some circuitous and indirect evidence supporting the
validity of two-dimensional stimuli in assessing such
i
aptitude may be cited. For example, Sarbin and Hardyck j
(1955) have reported that schizophrenics are inferior to
normals in attributing a modal behavioral intention to
stick figures, while Knapp (1963) found similar inadequa
cies in hospital patients' interpretations of diadic sil
houettes. Cline (1956) found that the intention
14
face was greatly Influenced by
the social context, another face, In which it was viewed.
Since the same face was seen as "giving off," as Goffman
would say (1959), different expressional information, its
stereotypy must not be all that compelling. Since photo
graphs and drawings have greater "face" validity than the
stimuli just mentioned, they may prove to be at least as
useful in measuring social-cognitive processes.
Although it seems somewhat premature, in the light
of the absence of adequate criterion measures, interest in
discovering the personality characteristics of the "good
social perceiver" is a research field getting increasing
amounts of attention, as the recent review of Shrauger and
Altrocchi (1964) indicates. The recent testing restric
tions in California schools prevented the gathering of
personality data on the examinees of this study. However,
the variables of sex and birth order were available for
analysis. Taft (1955) indicates a slight tendency for
women to be superior f l i n social judgments, while Sears
(1950) and Schacter (1959) suggest that the affillative
needs of the oldest sibling should enhance his attention
to, and therefore.his success at, socially-oriented tasks.
As an interesting aside, the correlations of these vari
ables with the experimental measures in the study will be
inspected.
uted to a schematic
CHAPTER III
HYPOTHESES
The general purposes of this study have already
been indicated; to show that social intelligence is a
measurable factorial domain and to demonstrate that this
domain may be conceptually organized in terms of struc-
ture-of-intellect parameters. This chapter will detail
the hypotheses used in constructing the behavioral intelli
gence tests and outline the manner in which reference fac
tors and marker tests were selected.
In attempting to discover how one individual can
understand another, or others (meaning more than one, not
the generalized other), It was hypothesized that such com
prehension implies information and that such information
must be mediated by manifest cues. The cues which seemed
immediately suitable for this role are those given via
facial expressions, bodily postures, gestures, and vocal
i ;
inflections and phrasings.
As was pointed out in the last chapter, this inves
tigation Is another in the venerable line of studies in
which photographed or other than real-life depictions of
emotion is used. However, the use of such stimuli in
15
--------------------------------------------------------------- jg
factor-analytic tests presents certain problems that
experimental researchers do not have. The tests cannot be
adequately pre-tested until they are printed in a form
suitable for group distribution, and printing of photo
graphic material is quite expensive; so expensive, that
once printed, one is loathe not to use the test. In this
study, the pre-testing problem was approached by preparing
a pool of about 40 items for each test. j
Each of these items was then individually pre
tested on about 30 subjects, and the best 30 items selected
for the printed form of the test. (The items of each part
■ were arranged in order of difficulty and the position of
the keyed answer chosen by means of a table of random num
bers). The printed test was then used for group pre
testings. Such pre-testings indicated that some of the
items in the printed tests were not good discriminaters.
If the test's reliability was acceptable, however, it was
kept in its initially-printed form.
Two general approaches existed with respect tp the
use and generation of stimuli. Most of the stimuli already
existed, in one form or another, and the majority of the
test items were constructed within the limit of such avail
ability. For a few tests, the items were written first and
then the stimuli produced to match them. Generally, this
was a difficult and tedious procedure. The subtletiee
hopefully envisioned by the test constructor were often
17
beyond the capabilities of available artists and actors.
In addition, two general methods of devising be
havioral test ideas might be mentioned, by analogy with
existing structure-of-intellect tests and as suggested by
real-world behavior.
For example, the test for the verbal-comprehension
factor, or CMU in structure-of-intellect terminology, pre
sents the examinee with a word. He is to indicate under
standing of the meaning of the word by choosing from among j
several words the alternative that means the same thing. j
|
What is more work-saving when trying to devise a test to
measure CBU (cognition of behavioral units) than to take
the same format and vary only the stimuli to conform time
the new content area? Defining the unit in the behavioral
domain as an expression, the test constructor may then
present an examinee with a facial expression or a drawing
of one and have the examinee indicate comprehension of the
behavioral meaning of the expression by choosing an alter-
»
native expression that expresses the same feeling. In an
area so full of contradictions and inconsistencies as that
I , !
of social intelligence this strategy in test construction i
has great merit. It may suggest test ideas that inspec- !
tion of the raw material of the social situation would
never call to mind. On the other hand, by sticking too
closely to a test-construction paradigm that only paral
lels tests which mark other factors, one may unnecessarily
18
confine and even distort the factors which emerge, cover
ing more than is disclosed. While the paper-and-pencil
nature of the behavioral tests constructed for this study
almost forced the exclusive use of test construction by
analogy, an effort was made to conceptualize behavior that
was socially intelligent in a context other than that of
the structure of intellect, and then to fit such behavior
into the model. Examples of this latter approach will be ,
mentioned in more detail when discussing individual behav
ioral tests. |
| I
I Construction of Behavioral Tests. !
| !
CBU
As has already been suggested, the unit or element
of behavioral content was taken to be an expression,
whether it be a facial expression, a vocal inflection, a
I gesture of the hand or a bodily posture. A variety of
such expressions were drawn using Krout's (1935) list of
autistic gestures as one source of ideas. The Marjorie
Lightfoot, (Engen, Levy, and Schlosberg, 1957; Engen,
Levy, and Schlosberg, 1958), and Frois-Wittman (Hulin and
Katz, 1935) series of photographed expressions also served
as models for the facial expressions. From this pool of
stimuli the test called Expressions was constructed, anal
ogous to a vocabulary test as has been mentioned. It
seemed desirable to counter-balance as much as possible
the kind of stimuli used in tests of the same factor so as
19
to prevent an artifactual photograph or drawing factor
from occurring. For this reason, In each of the behav
ioral -cognition product factors, tests were designed to
span stimuli types. Table 1 describes the distribution of
kinds of stimuli among the 23 behavioral tests, over the
six product factors. With this paradigm in mind, a photo
graphic analogue of Expressions, the test, Faces, was con
structed. The Lightfoot and Frois-Wittman photographs j
i
were used in this test because the grant under which the J
study began did not afford sufficient funds to produce
other photographic stimuli. At first, an attempt was made
to key the items according to the scale values published
for both series of pictures. (Schlosberg, 1952; Levy and
Schlosberg, i960). However, such pairings were so obvious
as to be useless in a test supposed to be capable of giv
ing normally-distributed scores. (Sample items, as well
as more specific information on these and the following
tests may be found in Appendix A).
Halsman's The Frenchman (19^9), suggested a test
originally intended as an implication measure known as
j
Questions I. Each item presented a picture of the face of
the actor, Fernandel, with four accompanying questions,
each of which might have been the stimulus for the partic
ular expression. It was thought that the correct question
would be selected as an implication from Fernandel1s ex
pression. However, success at the task seemed to depend
Table 1
D istrib u tio n of Stim uli among 23 B eh av io ral C ognition T e s ts 1
P ro d u cts C artoons D raw ings
Photographs Sounds Words O thers
Units
E x p re ssio n s
(Inflections)
Faces
Questions II
Inflections (Q uestions II)
C la sse s I Odd S trip Out E x p re ssio n Grouping P ictu re Exclusion Sound Meaning (Sound Meaning)
R elations S ocial R elations C artoon A nalogies (Silhouette R elations)
(Social R elations)
Silhouette R elations
Stick F ig u re O pposites
S ystem s M issing C artoons
M issing P ic tu re s
F ac ia l Situations
(F acial Situations)
T ra n sfo rm atio n s C artoon Exchange E x p re ssio n Exchange
P ic tu re Exchange
Who Said It?
S o cial T ran sla tio n s
(Who Said It?)
■
Im plications
C artoon Im plications
C artoon P red ic tio n s
R eflections
(R eflections)
(C artoon Im plications)
a P a re n th e siz e d te s t n am es indicate stim u li com binations, Colum n in which p a re n th e se s occur is th at of the le s s im portant stim ulus,
I
21
only on the cognition of the facial expression, the ques
tion serving as a rather direct means of assessment of
this comprehension. Therefore, the test was rewritten as
a units test, and called Questions II. (See Appendix A).
To determine whether vocal Inflections might be
considered behavioral units, the test called Inflections
was constructed. Six phrases of sufficient semantic ambig
uity (yes; mother; I did It; well; really; and that's
good) that they might mean different things If said with j
i
different Inflections were selected. A variety of inflec-
I tions for each phrase was produced. From the sampling of
j
! possible Inflections, five were chosen for each phrase.
For each Item in the final test form, the same Inflection
was mechanically reproduced on tape four times to permit
the examinee's matching rtith each of the four alternative
facial expressions, used as alternative answers.
CBC
The same stimuli were used for Expression Grouping j
as were used In Expressions. In this test, three expres
sions are grouped together. The examinee is to Indicate
his understanding of their common attribute by choosing an
alternative that goes with them. Two of the other classes
tests had exclusion formats. Each item in Picture Exclu
sion consisted of four photographed expressions represen
ting feeling states (the photographs were produced espec
ially for this study), one of which did not belong in the
22
class wit# the other three. Odd Strip Out was a test com
posed of Ferd'nand cartoon strips (Mlk, i960, I96I, 1962,
1963, 1964). Material from this cartoon strip was used in
many of the behavioral tests because the cartoon charac
ters interact and react almost entirely in mime. The task
in Odd Strip Out is to indicate the one of three social
situations in which Ferd'nand exhibited a kind of person
ality or behavior different from that in the other two. |
Picture Exclusion involves an exclusion of units; Odd J
Strip Out, an exclusion of systems. Sound Meaning pre-
| sented groups of emotive sounds such as moans, sighs,
whistles, applause and laughter, each set of which was to
be identified as a group representable by one of four
words. The words were suggested in part by Allport and
Odbert's list of trait names (1936).
CBR
! — 1
The centrality of two-person relationships to
much of the conceptualization in the field of social in
telligence mark this as potentially one of the more impor-
| tant behavioral factors. Cline’s (1956) finding that his
j :
schematic faces were perceived as interacting suggested
such faces as possible stimuli for a behavioral-relations
test. In Social Relations, comprehension of the relation
ships between two of Cline's faces was tested by means of
choice of one of three statements as being applicable to
one of the faces in a pair, but depending on the pair's
23
Interaction. Knapp's (1963)silhouette profiles were
adapted for the same reason. An understanding of the re
lationship involved was assessed not by verbal labeling,
i
as in Social Relations, but by having the examinee match
j t
one of the silhouette figures with a photographed facial
i
expression.
1 j
j By analogy to tests of relations factors in other
i content areas, another test hypothesis for behavioral-
i !
i relations ability was formed. Called Cartoon Analogies,
j this test has the familiar verbal-analogles format. How- j
ever, if the usual part-whole or causal kinds of relations !
; i
were used, the units and classes variance seemed overpower-
j
I ing. For this test the analogy relationship was made to be
; a situational or interpersonal one. j
; Pre-testing had indicated that the units tests
: i
: tended to cohere, suggesting^that no additional tests of j
; that factor were called for. However, a large pool of i
1 1
j stick figures was available. Although they might better |
ihave been utilized in a units test, it was decided to
; 1
ascertain whether opposition of expression (rather than '
; similarity which is a units product) could be considered a 1
relation. It was thought that it might, if the difficulty
of the task lay in determining the dimension of intention
along which the opposition lay. The test Stick Figures
Opposites was constructed as a measure based on this
hypothesis.
24
CBS
Conceiving a behavioral system as an organized
social sequence, Ferd'nand cartoon strips were chosen in j
which the behavior of the cartoon characters was intention
ally rather than logically compelling. These strips were
then used in constructing Missing Cartoons, a test in
which comprehension of the system is revealed by proper
completion of it. Missing Pictures is a photographic ana
logue of this test. To ascertain whether a relation in-
I
j
| volves two people in a behavioral situation or two people
I i
: interacting in a behavioral situation, the test Facial Sit
uations was devised. The hypothesis underlying this test
was that when two people are reacting to a third stimulus \
but not to one another, their reactions to this third stim-j
|ulus comprises the essence of a social system. Only when
the two individuals are reacting to one another does a
relationship exist. The similarity of the format of this I
! I
jtest to that of Social Relations, a relations test, should j
be noted.
I j
CBT j
In other areas of the structure of intellect, the S
| 9 \
isolation of transformations abilities has been particu
larly difficult (Nihira, Guilford, Hoepfner, and Merri-
field, 1964). To guarantee the emergence of factor CBT in
this analysis, a large number of tests was constructed,
each hypothesized to measure it. A transformation is
25
defined, generally, as a redefinition. Cartoon Exchange
is a test in which redefinition of a behavioral system is
i
called for. The examinee must understand not only the j
|
system given, but what alternative cartoon can be used to i
j
change its meaning. Picture Exchange is photographic ana- j
logue of Cartoon Exchange as Missing Pictures is an ana
logue of Missing Cartoons. Expression Exchange was de
vised to test the examinee's ability to see that the same
gesture can have different meanings. It was noted that
| one can say the same thing, and, 'depending on the situa
tion, have it interpreted differently. This observation
i • :
j :
i suggested the test called Social Translations. If humor
! % :
I has any cognitive components some of them must lie in the j
i
I behavioral area. Baby books (Bannister, 19^9; Bannister,
| I
i 195^ ) * In which pictures of infants are paired with cap-
! tions, are considered"humorous by almost everyone. It was
thought that the humor might lie in grasping the disparity
between the infant's actual capabilities and the trans- j
*
! formation worked in him by the caption attached to his
i j
picture. This hypothesis resulted in the test, Who Said
j It? ’ !
CBI
Implications is defined as the ability to extrapo
late from a given to either antecedents or consequences.
In Cartoon Implications a cartoon is given and the verbal
statements applied to It tests comprehension of what will
26
happen next, what happened before, or some other dimension
of the given situation. Cartoon Predictions, for which an
original cartoon character, Barney, was devised, tests j
only the predictions part of the implications definition.
I
A recent finding (Nihlra, et. al., 1965) indicated that a j
sensitivity definition of implications might be appropri
ate. In line with this hypothesis, a test of sensitivity
to verbal communications was devised. Statements were
1
gathered from reported case histories of counseling ses-
| sitms and alternative "reflections" of feeling were chosen j
in terms of what the clinicians noted to be good ones j
; (Porter, Jr., 1950; Porter, Jr., and Streich, 1963;
j . |
Rogers, 19^2; Snyder, 19^7)• Pre-testing results indi- j
: I
| cated that the test was too difficult for most subjects, ;
I i
! so an auditory tape-recording of the statements was made
1
| and the alternatives read so as to reduce difficulties in
| reading comprehension. This study has tended to denigrate
j the importance of verbal skills to behavioral understand- j
| ing. This orientation was prompted, however, mainly by
ithe results of previous research in which over-reliance on !
verbal presentation tended to obscure the existence of any ;
but semantic abilities. Undoubtedly, the clinical psychol-|
ogist and others concerned with person cognition use seman
tic cues at least as often as behavioral ones.
27
Marker Test Selection
In choosing the intellectual factors from which it j
was thought necessary to distinguish the hypothesized |
behavioral cognition dimensions, two general strategies
were used. The most compelling one was to hypothesize,
in broad psychological means, what non-behavioral abilities
i
i
might be assessed in the experimental tests. For example,
though efforts were made to control for this, the examin
ee’s verbalization or labeling of non-verbal stimuli
; might aid in choosing the correct answer and might, in
| !
; fact, be the major ability being measured with the behav
ioral tests. To determine whether this were the case
I measures of Adkins1(Adkins and Lyerly, 1951) concept- j
naming factor (NMU) were included in the test battery.
Another hypothesis as to what the behavioral tests !
; might be doing was that they might be presenting the exam- j
inee with an exercise in problem solving (Moore, 1958). j
As a check on this possibility, measures of the general- j
I
j reasoning factor (CMS) were employed. Related to this was !
i j
! the idea that the unusual nature of the tests might take !
! some "getting used to" and this characteristic of the j
tests might favor more flexible individuals. For this j
reason, measures of creative thinking were employed as in
direct indicators of the examinee’s willingness to accept,
and ability to respond to unusual situations. Welsgerber
(1956) reported that accuracy in judging emotional expres-
28
slons is related to semantic expressiveness and verbal
fluency. Measures of creative thinking would also test
these hypotheses. The factors included for these pur- |
poses were ideational fluency (DMU) and originality (DMT).
i
1
The Louie cartoon strip had been used (Adkins, et.|
al., 1951), to define a semantic ordering factor. This
test, a measure of NMS, was included to see if the behav
ioral factors were nothing but cartoon or format measures,
i or if they were measuring abilities other than those in-
| ■
! volved in dealing with cartoon strips.
Since most of the behavioral tests used visual
stimuli of one kind or another, it seemed desirable to
ascertain whether any figural or spatial abilities were
I '
j involved in taking them.
1
Marker tests of speed of closure (CFU), figural
j reasoning (CFR), and flexibility of closure (NFT) were
used to determine if this were the case. The NFT factor
was included for another reason as well. Messick and
j Damarin (19&3) found that persons better at an embed-
i
' ded-figures task, similar to the task in Hidden Figures,
i an NFT marker test, were superior at recall of social
I
I
stimuli, faces. It would seem useful to ascertain whether
this superiority existed in the cognition area as well as
in that of memory.
The second method of deciding which reference fac
tors to use was dictated by the more specific needs of
29
structure-of-intellect factor definition. If one wishes
to show that six behavioral-cognition factors are factor-
ially independent, a strong experimental demonstration of
this would be to separate these dimensions from all rele- j
i
vant factors having two of the three structure-of-intellect!
parameters in common. In this study, the differentiation
of behavioral-cognition factors from semantic-cognition
factors seemed most pertinent. On this basis, marker
tests for the reference factors of CMU, verbal comprehen-
j sion, CMC, verbal classification, CMR, verbal relations,
j :
i and CMI, conceptual foresight or sensitivity to problems,
i :
iwere administered to all examinees.
The marker tests selected for Inclusion in the |
l
final test battery were chosen because each had defined a
reference factor in the past, and because each could be ;
; administered in a relatively short time period. An attempt!
; • j
was made to include marker tests for as many reference |
j
factors as possible in the testing time available. The j
| reasons for selecting each test as a marker variable will
ibe given below. i
! CMU i
French (French, Ekstrom and Price, 1963) calls
this the ability to understand the English language, a
factor that has been isolated in more than 70 published
studies. The measures defining this factor are essen
tially vocabulary tests. One well-known vocabulary test
3°
is the Guilford-Zimmerman Verbal Comprehension test.
This Instrument, somewhat shortened, was used in this
study. To save time, rather than adding another CMU test,
it was decided to rescore the vocabulary items of the
Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability (1957) that the
examinees had taken only a few months before this study's
testing, as an alternate test of the CMU factor.
CMC
I
The major test for factor CMC is Verbal Classifi-
| cation, which has defined a somewhat distinct classifies- j
! v !
tion factor in two analyses (Merrifield, Guilford, Chris- i
i _ i
tensen, and Frick, 1962; Hertzka, Guilford, Christensen, j
| and Berger, 1954). The other test chosen to mark this
reference factor, Word Classification, had little empirical
evidence to support its use. In one analysis (Hertzka, et.
; al., 1954), it was not loaded with Verbal Classifications
ibut split between vocabulary and relations factors. In
i
| another study (Guilford, Green, and Christensen, 1951) it j
was loaded on verbal comprehension. Word Classification j
was used only for lack of a better test and because it has |
I been suggested as a marker for this factor (Guilford, et * !
I
al., i960).
CMR
Word Matrix Test and Verbal Analogies I have pre
viously (Guilford, et. al., 1951) defined a factor called
eduction of conceptual relations. Although Word Matrix
31
Test has not defined a relations factor since, Verbal
Analogies I has done so consistently (Guilford, Green,
Christensen, Hertzka, and Kettner, 1952; Merrifield, et
al., 1962).
CMS
I
Ship Destination Test is one of the variables j
i
selected by French as a marker test for his factor R, gen- i
eral reasoning (R is synonymous with CMS), the ability to
deal with a broad range of reasoning problems, including
those of a mathematical nature. Again, in order to con- j
I serve testing time, a test administered to the students
; j
several months prior to this study's testing was used as 1
1
ithe other measure of this factor. The Quantitative Think-
jing test in the Iowa Educational Development series (i960)
l
;is a mathematics-reasoning test using a wide variety of
arithmetic tasks. This test seemed to fit the definition
1
of R or CMS quite well.
• i
j£MI - |
i
The two tests selected to measure CMI are Pertin- j
i ent Questions and Seeing Problems. Pertinent Questions 1
! has traditionally been used to define CMI, conceptual fore-!
|
sight (Berger, Guilford, and Christensen, 1957)* Seeing !
Problems is one of the tests recommended by French to de
fine factor Sep, sensitivity to problems, recognized as
EMI in the structure of intellect until very recently.
Seeing Problems was loaded on a factor called EMI in at
32
least three factor analyses (Kettner, Guilford, and Chris
tensen, 1959; Guilford, Merrifield, and Cox, 1961; Merri
field et al., 1962). However, in a recent semantic-evalu
ation study (Nihira, et al., 1964), these two tests were
loaded on the same factor, which was interpreted as CMI,
since another dimension was designated as EMI. Inciden
tally, a measure of divergent-production ability, Conse- j
quences, has been loaded on the same factor with both
Pertinent Questions (Berger, et al.; 1957) and Seeing
jProblems (Guilford et al., 1961). i
! i |
1 DMU-DMT
j
These two factors are referred to by French as Fi, ;
I ideational fluency and 0, originality, respectively. In |
■ -I
|this analysis, as in others, measures of the two factors
;were obtained by scoring each of two tests, Consequences
and Plot Titles, for two kinds of responses. The remote
or clever answers are scored as measures of originality;
all other non-duplicative responses that are relevant con
stitute the responses scored for ideational fluency. To
reduce the experimental dependence in this procedure, it j
was decided to score only the relevant responses of one \
part of each test as measures of DMU, and only the remote !
or clever ones in the remaining part or parts as measures
of DMT. In addition, since It had been indicated (Chris
tensen, Guilford, and Wilson, 1957) that Instructions to
be clever would increase the number of clever or remote
33
responses, one part of Plot Titles was given with an
"appropriate" response set, the other, with a "clever"
one. However, in this study, since no differences in
mean cleverness was observed as a function of different j
instructional set, both parts were scored for both fac
tors. Additional information on these tests will be given
i
in the next chapter.
NMU
The concept-naming factor has been defined pre- !
i ;
| viously (Kettner, et al., 1959) by the two tests chosen to ;
i !
; mark it in this study, Picture-Group Naming and Seeing
Trends I.
j NMS
i I
Two studies (Berger, et al., 1957$ Peterson, et :
! |
| j
al., 1963) isolated an ordering factor defined by Picture
Arrangement and Sentence Order. In addition, Guilford,
■ Merrifield, Christensen, and Frick (1961) identified an
j NMS factor with Picture Arrangement and Ordering I, a |
modified version of Sentence Order on it. The choice of i
1
• these two tests as markers for this factor seems well
supported. t
j ;
CPU
Street Gestalt Completion and Mutilated Words are
modified versions of tests used by Thurstone (1944) in his
discovery of the speed-of-closure factor. A study by
Guilford, Wilson and Christensen (1952) confirmed the
J
34
factor saturation of these tests, although Mutilated Words
was somewhat related to the flexibility-of-closure .factor.
CFR
This factor was isolated in a study of reasoning
abilities (ffuilford, Green, and Christensen, 1951) In
which it was led by Figure Matrix. At that time, it was
called eduction of perceptual relations. i
The test originally intended as the other marker
for the factor was to be the 12 figural analogies items of i
i
| the Henmon-Nelson. However, 95 per cent of the examinees |
I j
■ in this study got all 12 items right, so this measure was
not used. Instead, the examinees1 scores on the DAT Ab- |
i stract Reasoning Test (1959) were used. This measure had
| been rejected initially because it had been administered
; nearly two years prior to this study's testing. A certain j
1 amount of factorial complexity may easily be expected
i from It.
i
| N E T , . j
; The flexibility-of-closure factor is hypothesized j
to be defined in this study by two tests which previously 1
were loaded together on a factor called adaptive flexibil- i
ity (Frick, Guilford, Christensen, and Merrifield, 1959)
Hidden Figures and Penetration of Camouflage. As has been
noted, Penetration of Camouflage has shown some affinity
for the tests defining speed of closure (Guilford, et al.,
1952).
CHAPTER IV
PROCEDURES
The Sample
i
Because of the culturally-specific nature of the
test stimuli, care was exercised in choosing a test sam-
* » i
pie. It was felt that the social environment of Negroes,
l ' !
| Orientals or other minority groups might unduly handicap I
their performance on the tests. On no account should this j
be interpreted to mean that such groups are "inferior" in
j social intelligence. It implies only a control for a per-
i
j haps relevant variable. Their exclusion as examinees was
| a precaution based only on what was presumed to be limited
' experience with gestures or facial expressions more common
i to the Anglo-Saxon middle-class culture.
| Other restrictions on the choice of the sample
were that they have at least average intelligence on tra
ditional I.Q. tests so as to be able to follow test in
structions, and that they be old enough to be familiar j
with the adult social situations presented in some of the |
behavioral tests.
The sample selected for this study included 306
llth-grade students at Pasadena High School in Pasadena,
35
36
California, a middle-class, essentially white community.
At the request of school officials, 52 gifted students
were included in the sample. The other examinees were
pupils of average or somewhat above average ability. Com
plete factor-analytic test information was obtained on 110
boys and 130 girls. Their mean age at the time of testing
was 16.7 years. The average Henmon-Nelson I.Q. of 229 of
these examinees was 117.7 with a standard deviation of
I6.9 and a range from 83 to 155. j
| A subsample of 236 indicated that about half of j
these students came from homes where the head of the house-j
; ? \
hold's occupation was of superior socio-economic standing.
On Hollingshead1s Socio-economic Factor scale, 78 students
received the highest rating, 1, and 57 received a rating
of 2. !
The sample of 240 contained two Negroes, two Nisei
and three Mexican-Americans, and two students who were born
in foreign countries. Examination of their test scores did
i not reveal consistently poor performance, so they were not
excluded as examinees. I
I Test Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------- 1
The factor tests were administered to ten classes
of approximately 30 students each on March 10, 12, 18 and
19, 1964. Four trained test administrators administered
the tests during the usual Social-Studies period, a double
length period of 111 minutes. Two of the administrators
37
gave the test battery twice each day; the other two admin
istered it three times. With the exception of the admin
istrators who tested three times a day and had one class
twice, the administrators were rotated so that each tested
a given class only once.
Each day's test battery was collocated with answer
sheets interspersed in the correct order and placed in a j
plain manila envelope. One of these envelopes was prepared^
for each examinee in order to expedite and standardize !
i !
i i
j testing conditions. An identical testing manual was pre- |
i pared for each administrator. These manuals indicated
l ‘ i
i exactly what the administrator was to say, what he was to i
I read aloud (test instructions), when to say it, when to
start the stop watch, and other such specific information.
The superior nature of the students, the small, familiar
j
groups in which testing occurred and the enjoyable nature
of many,of the tests made for ideal testing conditions.
The morale of the students is indicated by the fact that,
!despite a flu epidemic and the nearness of Easter vacation
iat the time of testing, the largest number of students |
j absent on any one day was 22, and the last day of testing j
saw only 14 absentees. I
The tests were administered in the same order to
all examinees. This order was designed to minimize fatigue
and to balance the effects of kind of task, fatigue, test
sophistication and temporary organismic variables over
38
factors.
Treatment of the Data
Scoring
With the exception of Ship Destination Test, item
responses for all multiple-choice tests were key-punched
and verified on IBM cards. Frequency distributions of
responses to each Item were inspected for agreement with
the rational key. All tests were scored omitting dubious |
i items. Frequency distributions were then obtained for
j ;
(these total test scores. For each test, dichotomization !
I
;at the median Identified high and low scorers, which were I
j i
(then used in item-analyzing all items of the test. Only
j
|items capable of yielding positive phi's were retained for
scoring. For a few tests, this item-analysis procedure
was repeated several times.
In most cases, the rejected items were those recog
nized as "bad" items in pre-testing. This item analysis,
then, is really more in the nature of a cross-validation
! than it might appear.
Part scores for each test were determined on the
j • I
Honeywell 800. Since the correct answer to many of the j
behavioral test items was difficult to verbalize, it was
felt that random guessing might occur. Inspection of
response patterns did not support this belief, but as a
safeguard, a correction for guessing formula was applied
where appropriate. Since the rights plus omits divided bv
39
the number of alternatives formula is perfectly correlated
with the rights minus wrongs divided by the number of al
ternatives minus one formula (Gulliksen, 1950), the former
was used, since it was easily obtained with available com
puter facilities. Each part was corrected separately and
then summed for the total score. Since Ship Destination
Test is a one-part, speeded test (at least in this study)
on which neither split-half nor internal-consistency rell- ■
i
ability could justifiably be determined, its item responses!
i
were not key-punched. Instead, the standard stencil- !
scoring procedure was used. j
Although most of the tests used in this study are |
| scored objectively, fourteen of them require varying de-
jgrees of subjective scoring. Tests 20,22,24,34, and 43,
I
! which were scored and check-scored by clerical workers,
I
i
| are written-response rather than answer-sheet type tests.
However, their scoring is quite objective. Although item-
analyses were done on some of these tests, few changes
were made in the standard scoring guides. Tests 27*33*
1 ■ !
! and 41 were scored and check-scored by clerical workers !
I and then re-check-scored by the author. The scoring guide j
for test 41 was changed slightly. Pertinent Questions, I
Seeing Problems, Plot Titles-high quality and Consequences-
remote which are the most difficult, the least objective
tests to score, were scored using standard scoring guides
by a psychology student who has had experience with them.
These tests were then check-scored by the author. The
inter-scorer reliabilities for these were respectively
.97, .91. .9^ and .83. Since the inter-scorer agreement
for Consequences-remote was relatively low, a list was
made of all responses on which the two scorers disagreed.
These responses were then arbitrated by a third scorer
who originally aided in the construction of the scoring
guide for the Consequences test.
As was mentioned earlier, an attempt was made to
reduce the experimental dependence inherent in the scoring
of Plot Titles and Consequences for DMU and DMT by scoring
half of each test for only one factor. However, when all
the relevant responses for one part of Plot Titles were
scored as a measure of DMU, this score correlated .49 with
the other part of Plot Titles scored for DMT and given
under a "clever" instructional set. Some correlation
might be expected, since the total number of responses
included some remote or clever ones. A correlation of this
size, however, is about what holds between different parts
scored for only one factor. Since this scoring procedure
reduced the variance available for both factors, the
standard scoring procedure was used. The "left-over,"
low quality nature of the DMU score cannot be stressed
sufficiently, however. With present scoring procedures
an examinee with 20 responses, all clever, must be given
a low DMU score although his total output may be higher
41
than someone whose output Includes only mediocre respon
ses. Conceptually, DMU is independent from DMT. Opera
tionally, however, this Independence seems artifactually
forced in the scoring of these two DMU-DMT tests. The
factors DMU and DMT, if defined only by these tests, must
be cautiously interpreted in the light of the scoring pro
cedures used.
Additional information as to the scoring of other ;
tests may be found in Appendix A. j
i I
i j
Statistical Analysis !
The distribution of total scores of each variable j
i was checked to ascertain whether it was normally distribu-
j
tedi If excessive skewing*platykurtosis or truncation
j occurred, the appropriate scaling (C-scaling, stanlne-
|scaling, or dichotomizatlon) was applied. The variables
treated in this manner are indicated in Table 2.
Means and standard deviations were obtained for
all parts and for all total test scores. The only scores
iavailable for the DAT Abstract Reasoning and the ITED
’Quantitative Thinking were nationally normed percentiles.
i
Their medians and semi-interquartile ranges might have
more appropriately been reported in Table 2. Means and
standard deviations were listed for intra-table consis
tency.
42
T a b le 2
M e a n s , S ta n d a rd D e v ia tio n s , D is tr ib u tio n s , S c a lin g s , a n d R e lia b ilitie s o f S c o r e s
T e s t N a m e a n d C ode® M e an
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n
F o r m
d is trib u tio n ^ 1 S c a lin g c
R e li a b i l i t i e s d
K S -B hz
1. C a rto o n A n a lo g ie s C B R 03A 13. 5 2. 7 N . 45 . 25
2. C a rto o n E x c h a n g e C B T 01A 14. 6 5. 0 P C . 84 . 81
3. C a rto o n I m p lic a tio n s C B I01A 28. 2 3 .9 N - . 75 . 71
4. C a rto o n P r e d i c t io n s C B I03A 22. 6 3 .9 N - . 79 . 70
5. C o n s e q u e n c e s - o b v io u s (DMU) 22. 7 6 .6 P C . 77
6. C o n s e q u e n c e s - r e m o te D M T 03B 4. 5 3. 2 T+ S . 60
7. D A T A b s tr a c t R e a s o n in g (C F R ) 79. 5 21. 0 T - D . 94
8. E x p r e s s io n s C B U 01A 24. 1 3. 6 N . 64 . 57
9. E x p r e s s io n E x c h a n g e C B T 04A 16. 1 5. 5 P C . 83 . 81
10. E x p r e s s i o n G ro u p in g C B C 04A 20. 2 3. 1 N . 62 . 58
11. F a c e s C B U 02A 18. 9 2. 4 N . 37 . 39
12. F a c i a l S itu a tio n s CB S03A 16. 1 2 .2 N - . 31 . 24
13. F i g u r e M a tr ix C F R 0 2 A 4. 2 1 .4 N . 43
14. H e n m o n -N e ls o n V o c a b u la ry (CMU) 13. 1 3 .4 N . 84
15. H id d en F i g u r e s N F T 0 4 A 8. 7 3. 1 N . 72
16. In fle c tio n s C B U 04A 20. 8 2 .4 N . 26 . 26
17. IT E D Q u a n tita tiv e T h in k in g (CM S) 79. 9 2 1 . 5 T - D . 86
18. M is s in g C a rto o n s CB S01A 2 1 .9 3. 9 N - . 77 . 75
19. M is s in g P i c t u r e s C B S04A 14. 6 2. 7 N . 53 . 48
20. M u tila te d W o rd s C F U 03A 1 1 .9 3. 4 N . 45
21. O dd S tr ip O u t C B C 02A 12. 8 2. 4 N - . 60 . 53
22. P e n e tr a tio n o f C a m o u fla g e N F T 0 2 A 6. 8 2. 5 N . 44
23. P e r t in e n t Q u e s tio n s C M I02B 1 1 .7 2. 5 N - . 56
24. P i c t u r e A r r a n g e m e n t N M S02B 6. 8 2. 5 T - D .2 1
25. P i c t u r e E x c h a n g e C B T 03A 11. 0 2. 6 N . 43 . 38
26. P i c t u r e E x c lu s io n C B C 05A 13. 3 2. 5 N . 34 . 35
27. P ic tu r e - G r o u p N a m in g NM U 03A 5. 2 1. 5 L . 39
28. P l o t T itle s - lo w q u a lity D M U 05A 7. 3 4. 4 N++ C . 53
29. P lo t T itle s - h ig h q u a lity D M T 0 1 E 6. 4 3. 5 N++ C .6 2
30. Q u e s tio n s II C B U 03A 22. 8 3. 1 N . 50 . 52
31. R e fle c tio n s C B I04A 10. 9 2. 6 N . 43 . 45
32. S e e in g P r o b le m s C M I03A 12. 1 » 3. 3 N . 53
33. S e e in g T ren d B I NM U 01A 4. 6 2. 6 N . 77
34. S e n te n c e O r d e r N M S03B 6. 2 1 .6 N . 43
35. S h ip D e s tin a tio n s T e s t C M S02B 23. 9 9. 3 P C . 52
36. S ilh o u e tte R e la tio n s C B R 05A 14. 1 2. 9 N . 45 . 35
37. S o c ia l R e la tio n s C B R 02A 13. 4 2. 2 N .2 9 . 20
38. S o c ia l T r a n s la tio n s C B T 02A 17. 5 4. 5 N - . 86 . 84
39. S o u n d M e a n in g C B C 06A 2 3 ,4 2. 0 N . 36 .2 9
40. S tic k F ig u r e O p p o s ite s C B R 04A 17. 7 3. 6 N . 65 . 62
41. S t r e e t G e s t a l t C o m p le tio n C F U 05A 1 1 .5 2. 6 N .4 1
42. V e r b a l A n a lo g ie s I C M R 01B 8. 9 2. 0 N - . 50
43. V e r b a l C la s s if ic a tio n C M C 02B 28. 4 7. 2 P C . 70
44. V e r b a l C o m p r e h e n s io n C M U 02C 14. 1 3. 3 N . 78
45. W ho S a id I t? C B T 05A 13. 2 2. 2 N . 25 .2 1
46. W o rd C la s s if ic a tio n C M C 01A 1 1 .6 2. 0 N . 38
47. W o rd M a tr ix T e s t C M R 02A 6. 6 1. 9 N . 53
48. S ex . 5 . 5
49. S ib lin g S ta tu s . 5 . 5
50. S o c io - E c o n o m ic S ta tu s 2. 5 1. 5 T+ D
51. M e n ta l A g e (H e n m o n -N e lso n ) 22. 3 4. 1 T -
52. C h r o n o lo g ic a l A ge 16. 7 . 4 N
a In th e c o d e d e s ig n a tio n o f t e s ts , th e f i r s t th r e e l e t t e r s r e f e r to th e h y p o th e s iz e d f a c to r c o n te n t of
th e t e s t. L e t t e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t th e h y p o th e s iz e d f a c to r c o n te n t o f t e s t s w ith o u t c o d e n u m b e r s .
^ T he c o d e f o r d i s tr ib u tio n f o rm s is th e fo llo w in g : N , n o r m a l; P , p la ty k u r tic ; L , le p to k u r tic ; T,
tr u n c a te d ; s l i g h t n e g a tiv e sk e w ; +, s lig h t p o s itiv e sk ew ; ++, s tr o n g p o s itiv e sk e w .
c T h e c o d e f o r s c a lin g o f s c o r e s is th e follow ing# C , C - s c a le d ; S , s ta n in e - s c a le d ; D , d ic h o to m iz e d
a t th e m e d ia n .
d T h e c o d e f o r r e l i a b i li t y e s t im a t e s is th e fo llo w in g : K , g e n e r a l K u d e r - R ic h a r d s o n fo rm u la ; S -B ,
S p e a r m a n -B ro w n e s t im a t e of w h o le - te s t r e l i a b i li t y f r o m i n t e r - p a r t c o r r e la ti o n s ; h ^ , c o m m u n a lity a s a
lo w e r-b o u n d e s tim a te of r e lia b ility .
43
Equivalence of part means and standard deviations
was determined prior to obtaining inter-part correlations.
These correlations were used in the Spearman-Brown formula
as an estimate of whole-test reliability. Item responses
and total test scores, uncorrected for guessing, were used
in estimating internal consistency via the Kuder-Richard-
son formula 20. Each of these reliability estimates was i
used wherever applicable. As shown in Table 2, when both
t
these estimates were used on the same test, they agreed
| rather well with the internal-consistency estimate, tend-
iing to be slightly larger— an unexpected finding, but not
! unwelcome in terms of the univocalness desirable in uni-
| factor tests. These estimates indicate that most of the
tests in this battery have moderate to high reliability.
Among the behavioral tests, two with particularly disap
pointing reliabilities were auditory ones. These tests,
I Inflections and Sound Meaning, were deliberately made easy
i
j on the basis of previous research, which indicated little
I agreement of subjects when auditory stimuli were used.
i
iUnfortunately, this study’s examinees agreed too readily
I with the test constructor, disastrously reducing item I
variance. Social Relations' low reliability is surprising
and inexplicable. Pretesting results consistently indi
cated a reliability in the .60's, and as will be seen
later, a communality of .45 indicates that the reliabili
ties in Table 2 may well be underestimates.
44
The final score matrix was punched onto IBM cards
and correlation coefficients obtained, based on the actual
number of cases for each variable. Although the majority
of the coefficients were based on the whole sample of 240,
scores for variables 7.»l4,17,49,50,51, and 52 were avail
able only on subsamples of 194,229,231,238,236,229, and
238 respectively.
The computer program used to determine the cor-
I
relation coefficients yields Pearson product-moments for |
normally distributed data. Correlations between dichoto-
! mized and undichotomized variables would then be point
! biserial r's. Between two dichotomized variables, phi’s '
i
i would result. Mindful of the results of mixing correla
tion coefficients in a matrix to be factor analyzed
(Guilford^ 1952; Carroll, 1961), the correlations of the
dichotomous variables, with the other variables to be
- factor analyzed, were corrected so as to approximate Pear
son r’s. This corrected correlation matrix is given in j
i Table 3* !
■ ■ 1
i The correlations holding between the first 47 var- j
I iables, the variables to be factor-analyzed, are what
might be expected of an aptitude correlation matrix. With j
the exception of variable 28, few negatives exist. The
large number of small and zero correlations are promising
in light of simple structure restrictions.
Of the correlations of sex with the other
45
variables significant at the .01 level, about half are in
one direction and half in the other. The boys in this
sample did significantly better on variables 6, 17* and
33* all semantic tests. Since most of the gifted students
were boys, their superiority at verbal tasks is not sur
prising. Although girls did better than boys On one
semantic variable, test 5* the rest of the significant !
negative correlations are with behavioral variables, tests ;
1, 11, 26, 37* and 38. This result of female superiority i
i i
at behavioral tasks supports other such findings in the J
i
literature. However, while these correlations are sig-
! i
I
nifleant, the largest of them is -.17* which indicates !
i only minimal relatedness.
!
Sibling status had only two significant correla-
| tions, both with semantic variables, tests 6 and 32. The
j
: indication that only and oldest children do better at se-
j mantic tests is probably another gifted-student confound-
5 ing, since most of the gifteds in this sample were only
! children. The striking lack of only-oldest superiority in
i
1 behavioral tasks is in contrast to most findings in this
- area. !
All of the significant correlations of socio
economic status are negative in sign, indicating that the
examinees of higher socio-economic standing performed bet
ter. Of the 22 significant correlations, ten are with
semantic variables and 12 with behavioral ones. Again,
46
this could he a confounding, due to the gifted students in
the sample. Another explanation might be that the behav
ioral stimuli used, favored subjects of upper socio
economic status.
(
The high correlations, of practically all vari
ables, with a complex Mental Age estimate, such as the
Henmon-Nelson, is to be expected. An interesting aside |
is the correlation of .83 between the 20 Henmon-Nelson
I
vocabulary items (variable 14) and the full 90-item Hen- 1
| mon-Nelson test. Although the part-whole correlation is I
I !
: an inflated one, it would still seem to suggest a 70-item j
; |
1 waste of time.
I The correlations of Chronological Age indicate a
j !
general superiority of the younger examinees. This should
not be taken to mean that social intelligence decreased
‘ with age, a hypothesis sometimes expressed. The correla-
j tions seem better explained in terms of the age of the
!
I
I gifted students, who as a group are quite young for their j
1 i
! grade placement.
j j
I I
The Factor Analysis
I !
The correlation matrix of the first 47 variables
in Table 3> with the highest correlation in each column in
the diagonal, was submitted to an iterative communality
program. Communalities tended to stabilize after 6 itera
tion cycles so these estimates were used.
47
The iterated communality estimates were then in
serted into the diagonal of the correlation matrix and 33
principal factors extracted, using the BIMD 17 program.
The first 22 principal factors extracted were retained
since they accounted for 95-7 pe** cent of the variance
and a plot of the eigenvalues of all factors extracted
showed a dip after the 21st one. The eigenvalues of the
first 22 factors rounded to the second decimal point, are:
i
11.46, 1.80, 1.61, 1.22, 1.12, .95, .85, .80, .76, .69, J
j
.60, .58, .56, .49, .45, .42, .40, .36, .34, .33, .30, and |
! ■ 1
; .24. |
f A varimax rotation of these 22 factors yielded j
| :
I three large factors. The largest one had only semantic
test loadings, the next, mainly behavioral tests, and the j
!
; third, only figural markers. The remaining factors were
I uninterpretable doublets, a typical varimax solution and
|one not suited to an examination of the hypotheses of
this study. Patterned equamax rotations of 22 factors in j
j one case, and of 18 (the hypothesized number) in another, j
j ' j
iwere tried. These solutions yielded uninterpretable fac- |
|tors with little positive manifold and no simple structure.j
Since all factors were not equally represented in the test
battery, such a finding was not unexpected.
The 22 principal factors were then submitted to an
orthogonal rotation program designed to maximize the simi
larity of the empirical factor matrix to a target matrix
18
T a b l e 3
C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x
Vuiitoj 1 i 3 4 5 4 7 S 910 1 1 U 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 5 2 1 2 8 2 9 3 9 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 5 3 1 3! 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2
2 1 3 5 2 5 0 8 -0 1 2 8 2 8 2 1 3 4 1 5 2 1 5 0 1 8 1 4 2 5 1 2 2 9 2 1 1 0 3 8 1 7 1 1 It 2 4 2 5 0 4 -0 1 0 1 2 1 1 7 1 7 0 1 2 3 1 7 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 5 1 7 2 8 1 5 8 1 1 4 1 5 -1 1 0 2 -88 2 0 -2 0
artoon E x ch an g e 2 1 3 2 2 9 0 2 It 4 8 3 3 2 5 2 8 0 9 2 2 3 0 3 8 3 2 1 ! 5 3 4 5 2 9 1 1 4 0 2 5 3 4 1 1 3 7 2 2 2 5 -0 6 2 4 3 0 3 2 1 3 2 5 2 9 3 4 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 9 1 1 3 5 3 0 4 0 1 ! 3 4 3 7 0 1 -04 -18 4 5 -1 3
artoonIm plications 3 5 3 2 4 0 0 8 1 5 4 4 42-28 4 1 2 2 2 9 2 4 4 7 3 0 3 2 4 2 6 1 4 1 2 3 5 1 2 8 2 8 3 0 4 1 1 9 3 2 -1 2 2 4 4 0 2 b 2 4 1 4 3 3 3 5 2 3 2 0 3 1 2 9 2 7 2 8 3t 3t 4 1 1 9 3 7 3 5 -0 3 0 0 -08 4 6 -1 7
artoon Predictions 2 6 2 9 4 0 1 3 0 7 3 0 3 2 1 6 3 5 0 7 2 5 2 6 3 1 2 6 1 9 3 7 4 5 3 2 2 0 3! 2 0 2 4 1 9 4 0 1 6 2 6 0 0 1 7 1 8 3 0 1 5 1 2 1 8 3 0 1 7 2 3 2 0 1 7 1 5 2! 2 0 3 1 2 6 1 7 2 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 -14 3 5 -1 9
onsequences ■ o b v io u s 0 8 0 2 0 8 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 8 0! 1 9 0 5 0 7 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 7 0 3 0 9 0 8 2 9 1 4 0 0 0 8 0 5 2 6 1 5 0 8 0 6 2 9 0 8 -0 2 1 4 0 7 -04 1 1 -0 2 0 0 0 1 -06 0 4 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 -2 1 -03 0 5 0 9 -0 4
o n sequences ■ rem ote -0 1 1 6 1 5 0 7 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 8 1 6 0 4 -0 2 -0 1 1 9 0 1 0 4 2 4 0 1 0 6 0 2 0 5 1 7 3 8 1 4 1 1 0 5 2 6 0 9 4 2 -0 3 1 0 2 9 0 7 0 4 1 0 -0 2 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 7 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 8 0 4 0 1 1 6 1 2 -18 -1 0 2 0 -04
2 8 4 8 4 4 3 0 0 7 0 1 3 4 2 4 2 8 -0 1 It 3 2 4 3 5 5 1 8 4 8 4 7 1 4 2 3 4 0 2 4 2 8 2 2 3 2 2 7 2 8 -1 3 2 0 2 8 2 9 1 5 3 5 2 5 4 9 1 8 1 5 4 0 2 6 1 7 2 3 4 1 4 8 3 9 1 8 4 8 5 1 -0 1 0 0 -1 5 3 8 -1 8
2 8 3 3 4 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 4 2 1 5 1 2 3 2 0 2 5 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 9 3 2 1 7 4 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 5 2 2 1 2 -0 9 2 9 1 ! 3 3 2 0 1 6 1 ! 2 5 1 6 1 1 3 4 2 6 2 9 2 6 2 8 2 6 4 0 1 2 3 5 3 9 0 1 -04 -1 9 3 3 -0 6
x'pression E xch an g e 2 1 2 5 2 8 ™ 1 6 0 3 0 8 2 4 2 1 2 1 0 7 0 5 1 0 3 4 1 7 1 9 2 3 2 8 2 5 0 6 3 1 0 7 1 9 2 6 2 9 1 5 1 5 -1 2 1 8 2 0 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 6 2 3 1 5 1 8 3 6 2 6 1 8 1 2 2 4 2 3 2 8 1 5 1 7 2 8 -0 8 -0 3 -04 3 2 -0 9
xpression G ro u p in g 3 4 2 8 4 7 3 5 0! 1 6 2 8 5 1 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 6 2 1 2 0 3 6 2 9 4 0 3 7 1 9 3 8 2 3 2 8 2 1 4 0 2 9 2 3 -0 2 3 5 2 1 3 6 2 6 1 4 1 8 2 0 3 3 1 5 2 2 2 4 2 8 2 3 3 0 2 9 5 0 1 2 3 2 3 6 -0 3 0 2 -1 3 3 2 -08
aces 1 5 0 9 2 2 0 7 0! 0 4 -0 1 2 3 0 1 2 4 1 9 1 6 0 4 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 1 8 -0 1 18 -0 3 1 4 -0 5 1 4 0 6 0 5 -0 1 0 7 1 4 0 9 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 9 1 4 1 ! 1 4 2 0 -0 2 1 0 1 5 0 8 0 2 1 4 1 1 -1 7 0 2 -0 3 0 9 -1 1
acial S ituations 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 5 1 9 -0 2 1 6 2 0 0 5 3 1 1 9 1 3 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 6 1 1 84 n 16 o o 1 5 1 0 0 6 -0 8 1 4 2 0 1 9 1 3 0 9 0 9 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 4 1 7 1 6 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 9 1 9 -1 2 0 0 -0 5 1 5 -1 0
Figure M atrix 0 0 3 0 2 4 2 6 0 5 -0 1 3 2 2 5 1 0 2 6 1 6 1 3 3 1 3 5 0 8 4 4 3 0 2 1 1 2 jo 2 5 1 5 2 5 3 0 0 5 1 6 0 8 1 3 1 4 2 6 0 2 1 8 1 4 3 1 0 9 1 3 1 4 2 4 1 5 0 8 3 2 2 7 2 9 0 9 2 3 2 1 0 6 0 4 -1 0 3 2 -1 1
H en m o n -N elso n V ocabulary 1 8 3 8 4 7 3 1 0 1 1 9 4 3 3 2 3 4 2 1 0 4 1 5 3 1 3 6 2 5 5 8 4 1 2 9 2 3 43 32 28 2 1 3 9 2 0 3 1 -0 6 3 6 3 0 4 0 2 8 3 1 4 4 4 0 1 6 2 1 3 1 3 4 2 8 2 5 5 0 5 3 1 8 1 1 4 8 4 8 -0 2 -03 -2 1 8 3 -2 4
H id d e n Figures 1 4 3 2 3 0 2 6 1 0 0 7 5 5 2 1 1 7 2 0 0 1 11 3 5 3 6 1 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 21 2 8 1 8 2 9 1 4 2 1 -0 6 1 9 2 1 1 9 1 5 3 3 2 4 4 3 1 3 0 9 2 4 1 5 1 6 2 3 3 3 3 8 3 1 0 1 2 8 3 0 0 4 0 4 -1 1 4 3 -1 5
Elections 2 5 1 8 3 2 1 9 1 1 0 4 1! 3 3 1 9 3 6 2 1 2 3 0! 2 5 1 4 2 2 3 7 3 0 2 2 30 1 8 19 1 8 26 1 5 1 4 -1 3 1 3 2 5 1 8 2 0 1 7 1 8 1 7 1 2 0 9 2 0 1 4 1 6 2 3 1 8 3 2 2 7 1 9 2 2 2 3 - 0 1 08 - 0 1 24 -14
1 2 5 3 4 2 3 7 1 0 2 4 4! 3 3 2 3 2 9 1 1 1 1 4 4 5 8 4 7 2 2 4 6 2 6 2 3 4 0 3 9 4 4 3 5 4 3 1 0 2 6 0 3 2 8 3 4 3 7 2 5 3! 3 7 5 9 2 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 0 1 6 4 7 5 3 5 6 1 5 4 1 6 1 2 4 -1 1 -1 2 5 9 -18
2 9 4 5 6 1 4 5 0 6 0 7 4 7 4 9 2 8 4 0 2 4 2 0 3 0 4 1 3 2 3 7 4 6 4 0 2 2 6 0 2 9 2 6 3 7 4 2 1 8 2 4 -17 2 7 3 5 3 3 1 8 2 7 2 9 3 6 2 5 1 1 3 3 2 6 2 9 3 3 3 4 4 1 4 3 U 3 4 4 1 0 1 0 6 -16 44 -17
2 1 2 9 4 1 3 2 0 7 0 6 1 4 3 2 2 5 3 7 1 8 2 6 2 1 2 ? 2 2 3 0 2 6 4 0 1 9 4 8 1 6 2 1 1 9 3 1 0 9 2 2 -0 6 1 5 2 5 2 6 1 6 0 2 2 7 2 5 1 8 1 6 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 7 2 ? 2 1 2 3 0 8 2 7 2 4 -0 7 0 2 -0 3 2 9 -0 5
M utilated fads 1 0 1 7 2 3 2 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 1 7 0 6 1 9 -0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 9 2 3 29 12 0 4 1 9 11 2 2 -04 1 3 1 5 0 8 0 3 2 5 1 7 2 7 0 1 0 8 0 6 0 6 1 5 2 8 2 0 2 8 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 4 -06 0 3 2 6 -16
O d d Strip O u t 3 0 4 0 5 1 3! 0 9 0 5 4 0 4 ! 3 1 3 8 1 8 2 4 3 0 4 3 3 1 3 0 4 0 6 0 4 8 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 5 4 1 2 1 2 8 -08 2 4 3 1 3 5 1 5 1 7 3 0 3 1 2 0 1 4 4 1 2 6 3 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 9 1M0 3 4 -0 9 0 6 -1 1 4 1 -08
Penetration ot C am o u flag e 1 7 2 5 2 8 2 0 0 8 1 1 2 4 2 3 0 7 2 3 -03 1 1 2 5 3 2 2 7 1 8 3 9 2 9 1 6 2 9 2 2 1 8 2 3 1 9 1 7 1 9 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 5 2 6 0 8 1 1 1 7 1 4 1 1 2 9 2 4 2 4 2 9 1 0 2 7 2 3 -0 4 -09 -0 7 3 8 -1 5
Pertinent Q uestions 1 7 3 4 2! 2 4 2 9 3 ! 2 8 21 1 9 2 8 1 4 1 6 1 5 2 8 2 8 1 9 4 4 2 6 21 12 2 4 1 8 1 9 2 7 12 3 3 1 4 4 0 2 7 2 7 4 2 26 1 5 3 2 1 1 0 7 2 7 1 6 1 4 2 0 2 3 2 6 2 6 11 2 8 3 1 0 9 -07 -0 8 4 2 -2 0
Picture A rrangem ent 1 6 1 7 1 0 1 9 1 4 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 6 2 1 -0 5 0 0 2 5 2 7 1 8 1 8 3 5 3 1 1 9 0 4 2 5 2 3 1 9 3 2 -0 4 1 2 0 4 1 2 2 2 2 5 0! 1 0 1 4 2 9 1 9 0 1 1 7 1 5 2 2 2 5 1 2 3 4 1 8 0 3 1 8 1 6 -0 1 0 2 -0 4 1 9 0 4
Picture E xch an g e 2 4 3 7 4 1 4 0 0 0 11 3 2 3 5 2 9 4 0 1 4 1 5 3 0 3 9 2 9 2 6 4 3 4 2 3 1 1 9 4 1 1 9 2 7 3 2 0 3 1 8 -1 2 2 4 2 5 3 9 1 6 2 3 2 6 3 2 1 2 16 3! 2 5 3 1 1 8 3 5 3 2 3 7 1 ! 2! 4 0 0 3 1 0 -1 5 3 7 -1 1
Picture E xclusion 2 5 2 2 1 9 1 6 0 8 0 5 2 7 22 1 5 2 9 0 6 10 0 5 2 0 1 4 1 5 1 0 1 8 0 9 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 2 -0 4 0 3 1 4 -0 7 1 2 1 4 2 3 1 5 0 4 1 3 12 0 3 1 5 0 6 0 4 0 5 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 0 1 6 1 6 -1 5 -1 0 -0 8 1 9 -0 6
Picture-G roup N am in g 0 4 2 5 3 2 2 6 0 5 2 6 2 8 1 2 1 5 2 3 0 5 0 6 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 6 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 8 1 9 3 3 1 2 1 8 1 4 -04 3 0 2 0 1 9 il 1 ! 1 9 2 8 0 2 1 6 1 6 2 2 0 9 1 9 2 2 2 6 2 9 2 0 2 7 2 2 0 3 0 4 -07 3 8 -09
Plot T itles - lo w quality -0 1 -0 6 -1 2 0 0 2 6 0 9 -1 3 -0 9 -1 2 -0 2 -0 1 -0 8 0 8 -0 6 -06 -1 3 0 3 -1 7 -06 -04 -0 8 1 1 1 4 0 4 -1 2 -0 7 -04 -0 3 1 2 -0 8 2 1 -2 1 -1 6 -07 0 3 0 0 -0 6 -2 0 -1 0 -14 -0 2 -1 2 -1 8 0 1 -0 5 -1 5 -1 0 0 4 -1 4 -0 3 -0 3
Plot Titles-high quality 0 1 2 4 2 4 1 7 1 5 4 2 2 0 2 9 1 8 3 5 0 7 1 4 1 3 3 6 1 9 1 3 2 8 2 7 1 5 1 3 2 4 2 0 4 0 1 2 2 4 1 2 .5 0 -0 3 1 2 2 5 3 5 3 1 1 9 2 2 0 4 0 4 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 9 3 1 2 3 3 7 1 3 2 6 2 8 2 0 -0 3 -15 3 5 -1 8
Q uestions 1 1 ' 2 1 3 0 4 0 1 8 0 8 -0 3 2 8 1 ! 20.-21 1 4 2 0 1 4 3 0 2 1 2 5 3 4 3 5 2 5 1 5 3 1 U 2 7 2 2 2 5 1 4 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 9 1 7 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 4 1 4 3 8 3 2 2 0 .2 4 2 3 -0 8 -02 -0 1 3 7 -18
pactions 17 3 2 2 6 3 0 0 6 1 0 2 9 3 3 3 2 3 6 0 5 1 9 2 6 4 0 1 9 1 8 3 7 3 3 2 6 0! 3 5 1 4 2 7 2 5 3 9 2 3 1 9 -0 8 2 5 1 9 1 0 1 2 1 7 2 5 1 7 2 5 2 8 2 5 1 9 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 9 4 5 -0 3 0 4 -2 1 3 6 -0!
S eein g Problem s 1 7 1 3 2 4 1 5 2 9 2 9 1 5 2 0 1 3 2 6 1 6 1 3 0 2 2 8 1 5 2 0 2 5 1 8 1 6 0 3 1 5 1 3 4 2 0 8 1 6 1 5 1 7 2 1 3 5 1 7 1 0 1 9 2 3 2 7 1 2 0 6 2 0 1 2 1 5 1 3 1 7 1 8 2 ’ 4 1 3 2! 1 3 0 5 -13 -1 2 3 0 -1 3
S eein g T rends 1 0 1 2 5 1 4 1 2 0 8 0 7 3 5 1 6 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 9 1 8 3 1 3 3 1 7 3 8 2 7 0 2 2 5 1 7 1 2 2 6 1 0 2 3 0 4 1 8 -2 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 9 1 6 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 2 0 9 1 8 1 9 3 2 2 9 0 5 2 8 2 6 2 2 -04 -06 3 2 -1!
S entence O rder 2 3 2 9 3 3 1 8 -0 2 0 4 2 5 1 ! 2 6 1 8 1 1 0 9 1 4 4 4 2 4 1 8 3 7 2 9 2 7 1 7 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 4 2 6 1 3 1 9 -1 6 1 9 2 2 1 7 2 3 1 6 3 2 1 2 16 3 1 2 1 1 9 0 8 2 7 3 3 4 2 1 3 3 8 2 5 -0 3 -07 -08 4 3 -2 5
S h ip D estination T est 1 7 3 4 3 5 3 0 1 4 1 0 4 9 2 5 2 3 2 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 4 0 4 3 1 7 5 9 3 6 2 5 2 7 3 1 2 6 3 2 2 9 3 2 1 2 2 8 -0 7 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 7 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 9 2 8 2 5 1 7 2 3 3 4 3 9 3 6 1 1 3 4 3 4 0 8 0 8 -07 5 1 -2 5
Silhouette R elations 1 3 1 4 2 3 1 7 0 7 -0 2 1 8 1 6 1 5 3 3 0 9 2 1 0 9 1 6 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 5 1 8 0 1 2 0 0 8 1 1 1 9 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 4 1 1 1 7 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 8 1 9 1 6 0 9 1 4 2 6 -06 1 0 -14 1 1 -04
S ocial R elations 2 1 1 7 2 0 2 3 -04 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 8 1 5 1 4 1 2 1 3 2 1 0 9 0 9 2 3 1 1 1 6 0! 1 4 1 1 0 7 0 1 1 6 1 5 1 6 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 5 0 6 0 2 1 6 1 9 1 2 2 5 2 3 2 4 0 3 2 6 2 3 1 3 0 4 0 8 1 5 -17 0 3 -15 2 8 -09
S ocial Translations 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 4 0 3 4 3 6 2 2 18-15 1 4 3 9 2 4 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 4 0 6 4 1 1 7 2 7 1 7 3 8 0 6 1 6 -0 6 24 2 1 2 8 2 0 1 4 3 1 2 8 2 0 2 5 2 2 3 3 1 0 4 2 3 7 3 8 1 5 2 4 3 5 -15 0 3 -14 4 4 -0 8
S o u n d M ean in g 2 2 2 3 2 9 1 7 -0 2 1 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 4 1 4 1 2 2 4 3 4 1 5 1 4 3 2 2 6 2 2 0 6 2 6 1 4 1 6 1 5 2 5 0 4 2 2 -2 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 1 0 2 3 2 2 1 8 0 1 2 0 2 5 3! 1 5 3 0 2 5 -06 0 1 0 1 3 3 -18
S tick Figure O pposites 2 0 1 9 2 7 1 5 00.07 1 7 2 9 1 8 2! 2 0 1 4 1 5 2 8 1 6 1 6 3 0 2 9 2 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 1 0 5 0 9 -1 0 1 4 2 2 1 9 1 5 0 9 1 9 1 7 2 2 2 4 3 3 1 8 0 0 2 1 3 0 3 2 0 5 2 0 2 2 -0 1 0 5 -16 3 0 -0 5
Street Gestalt C om p letio n 1 5 1 1 2 8 2 8 0 7 1 4 2 3 2 6 1 2 2 3 -02 1 7 0 8 2 5 2 3 2! 1 6 3 3 1 7 2 8 2 3 2 9 2 0 2 5 1 8 1 3 1 9 -1 4 1 9 1 4 2 2 1 3 1 8 0 8 2 3 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 6 1 6 -0 5 -06 1 2 2 3 -0 3
V erbal A n alogies I 1 7 3 5 3 6 2 0 -0 6 1 5 4 1 2 8 2 4 3 0 1 0 1 6 3 2 5 0 3 3 1 8 4 7 3 4 2 9 2 0 4 2 2 4 2 3 1 2 3 5 1 4 2 2 -0 2 3 1 1 4 3 1 1 7 1 9 2 7 3 4 1 8 2 6 4 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 3 9 4 7 1 0 3 3 4 7 0 6 0 0 -2 1 5 5 -1 8
V erbal C lassification 2 0 3 0 3 6 3 1 0 4 1 1 4 8 2 6 2 3 2 9 1 5 1 0 2 7 5 3 3 8 3 2 5 3 4 1 2 7 2 8 3 3 2 4 2 6 3 4 3 2 1 4 2 6 -1 2 2 3 3 8 3 3 1 8 3 2 3 3 3 9 1 9 2 3 3 7 2 5 3 0 1 3 3 9 5 1 1 3 4 0 5 5 0 3 -08 -1 7 5 7 -1 7
V erbal C om prehension 1 5 4 0 4 1 2 6 0 2 1 8 3 9 4 0 2 8 3 0 0 8 2 0 2 9 7 8 3 1 2 7 5 6 4 3 2 3 2 4 39' 29 26 1 8 3 7 1 5 2 9 -1! 3 7 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 9 4 2 - 3 6 1 6 1 3 3! 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 7 5 1 1 7 4 5 5 3 0 8 -05 -19 7 0 -25
f a S aid It! 0 7 1 3 1 9 1 1 0 7 0 4 1 8 1 2 1 5 1 2 0 2 1 3 0 9 1 7 0 7 1 9 1 5 1 1 0 8 1 7 12 10 11 03 1 8 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 1 3 0 5 1 3 1 1 0 9 0 4 1 5 1 5 0 5 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 7 1 0 1 2 -04 0 3 -09 1 3 -1 0
W o rd C lassification 1 4 3 4 3 7 2 4 1 0 0 7 4 8 3 5 1 7 3 2 1 4 1 9 2 3 4 8 2 8 2 2 4 1 3 4 2 7 1 1 30 27 2 8 1 8 2 8 1 6 2 7 -0 5 2 6 2 4 2 9 2 8 2 8 3 8 3 4 1 4 0! 2 4 3 0 2 0 1 6 3 3 4 0 4 5 1 0 4 1 -0 4 -07 -15 4 6 -1 6
W o rd M atrix Test 1 5 3 7 3 5 3 1 0 1 1 6 jl 3 9 2 8 3 6 1 1 1 9 2 7 4 8 3 0 2 3 6 1 4 1 2 4 1 3 34 2 3 3 1 1 6 4 0 1 6 2 2 -1 5 2 8 2 3 4 5 1 3 2 6 2 5 3 4 2 6 1 5 3 5 2 5 2 2 1 6 4 7 5 5 5 3 1 2 4 1 0 8 0 1 -2 0 5 4 -2 1
S ex -1 7 0 7 -0 3 0 1 -2 1 1 2 -0 1 0 1 -0 8 -0 3 -1 1 -1 2 0 6 -0 2 0 4 -0 3 2 4 0 1 -07 0 4 .0 9 -04 0 9 -0 1 0 3 -1 5 0 3 -1 0 2 0 -0 8 -0 3 0 5 2 2 -0 3 0 8 -0 6 -1 7 -1 5 -06 -0 1 -05 0 6 0 3 0 8 -04 -0 4 0 8 -08 0 0 0 8 0 3
S ib lin g Status 0 2 -0 4 0 0 0 0 -0 3 -1 8 0 0 -0 4 -0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 -03 0 4 0 8 -1 1 0 6 0 2 -0 6 0 6 -09 -07 0 2 1 0 -1 0 0 4 0 4 -0 3 -0 2 0 4 -1 3 -0 4 -07 0 8 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 5 -06 0 0 -08 -0 5 0 3 -0 7 0 1 -08 -04 -03 -0 8
Socio-econom ic S tatu s -0 8 -1 8 -08 -1 4 0 5 -1 0 -1 5 -1 9 -0 4 -1 3 -0 3 -0 5 -1 0 -2 1 -1 1 -0 1 -1 2 -1 6 -0 3 0 3 .1 1 -07 -08 -0 4 -15 -0 8 -0 7 -1 4 -1 5 -0 1 -2 1 -1 2 -0 6 -0 8 -07 -14 -1 5 -1 4 0 1 -16 1 2 ' -2 1 -17 -1 9 -0 9 -1 5 -2 0 0 0 -04 -19 1 3
M ental A g e (H en m o n -N elso n ) 2 0 4 5 4 6 3 5 0 9 2 0 3 8 3 3 3 2 3 2 0 9 1 5 3 2 8 3 4 3 2 4 5 9 4 4 2 9 2 6 4 1 3 8 4 2 1 9 3 7 1 9 3 8 -0 3 3 5 3 1 3 6 3 0 3 2 4 3 5 1 1 7 2 8 4 4 3 3 3 0 2 3 5 5 5 7 7 0 1 3 4 6 5 4 0 8 -03 -19 -2 7
C h ronological A g e -2 0 -1 3 -1 7 -1 9 -0 4 -0 4 -1! -0 6 -0 9 -0 8 -1 1 -1 0 -1 1 -24 -1 5 -1 4 -1 8 -1 7 -0 5 -1 6 .08 -15 -2 0 0 4 -1 1 -0 6 -0 9 -0 3 -1 8 -1 8 -0 3 -1 3 -1 8 -2 5 -25 -0 4 -0 9 -0 8 -18 -0 5 -0 3 -18 -17 -2 5 -1 0 -1 6 -2 1 0 3 -08 1 3 -2 7
N o te, —D ecim al points om itted .
49
of loadings (Cliff, 1964). The initial target matrix was
patterned in line with the experimental hypotheses, using
the square root of the communality of each test as its
target loading. These loadings were selected to maximize
not only the emergence of the hypothesized factors, but
more importantly, to achieve simple structure (Thurstone,
1947)* and to maintain positive manifold. However, the
rotated factor matrix of 22 factors did not maintain com-
I
munalities, nor did it permit reproduction of the correla- |
i
| tion matrix. |
The program is a simple one, set up only to per- !
I !
form arithmetic, more specifically matrix; algebra. It
I was hypothesized that the eigenvalues of the last factors
were too small to permit computational accuracy. To test
j
this, successively smaller numbers of factors were sub
mitted for algebraic rotation. The largest number of fac- j
tors capable of maintaining communalities was 19. This i
1 t
|number of factors was retained because better simple struc-l
1ture was achieved with it than with a smaller number of
: I
factors. These 19 principal factors account for 92.5 per
cent of the variance and are given in Table 4. i
I
The final target matrix was quite similar to the
initial one already described. The size of some loadings
was changed slightly and not all variables were patterned
in line with original hypotheses. Changes in the final
target matrix were decided primarily on the basis of
50 |
i
Table 4
U nrotated F acto r M atrix
T e sts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
f
Q R S
h*
1. C artoon A nalogies 37 36 -04 -05 02 18 -06 08 24 -01 04 16 09 08 11 08 11 02 05 45
2. C artoon Exchange 59 -06 06 -03 03. 04 14 00 02 -18 03 -14 15 -09 07 09 17 11 -20 56
3. C artoon Im p licatio n s 67 23 -03 -08 -06 -02 -12 0 6 00 -01 02 01 15 -08 -15 -06 03 -03 11 60
4. C artoon P re d ic tio n s
51 17 -05 -21 02 -05 08 13 -06 -09 -16 -11 -05 02 -04 16 -02 04 28
52
5. C onsequences - obvious
14 02 -44 -16 13 15 -07 -21 04 08 -03 -18 -12 16 06 04 -04 -13 01
43
6. C onsequences - rem o te
23 -27 -43 24 -17 -26 08 14 09 -15 06 17 06 -15 -09 01 09 -04 00
60
7. DAT A b stra c t R easoning
67 ■19 22 -26 -02 25 19
-12 38 -08 07 -07 06 -08 -06 -21 -01 -04 07 94
8. E x p re ssio n s
9. E x p re ssio n Exchange
10, E x p re ssio n G rouping
11. F a r e s
57 25 -05 00 -11 -10 15 -12 -03 08 14” 02 07 07 16 -04 02 -05 09
52
42
58
23
10
38
28
06
-21
-10
19
02
16
05
-14
05
-08
-09
12
-09
27
-01
08
-03
-26
25
-04
-22
-06
10
-15
-05
-07
00
-08
20
15
-06
04
07
12
05
-03
06
-01
02
-06
- 1 6
00
-03
-09
-06
06
18
-11
-12
-06
03
37
76
37
12. F a c ia l Situations
32 32 -11 -06 -10 21 11 -09 -19 06 -11 -15 -16 00 -16 03 22 -08 -13 49
13. F ig u re M atrix
14. H enm on-N elson Vocabulary-
44 -11 11 -19 25 -12 21 -04 -30 -06 -04 -03 11 1 6 01 -17 -06 -08 -03 55
75 -27 06 19 -01 03 -13 19
-06 23 00 -14 05 11 ' 01 03 -03 -09
02 82
15. H idden F ig u re s
16. Inflectio n s
52
42
-24
25
09
-07
-32
-05
03
-16
09
03
04
-18
-03
-08
01
-05
-07
10
13
-06
08
08
-11
-06
07
-08
-04
12
-03
01
-02
-04
03
03
-09
-04
51
36
17. ITED Q uantitative Thinking
75 -35 04 -03 26 -06 06 -07 -12 -03 -07
09 05 -04 00 18 15 10 01 86 .
18. M issin g C arto o n s
71 24 08 ■19 -08 -20 -11 -14 01 -04 13 -09
20
-19 -01 10 02 -12 09
82
19. M issin g P ic tu re s
50 31 -03 02 06 -07 -11 11 -19 -14 11 -11 -07 01 -15 09 -20 10 -13 56
20, M utilated W ords
34 -08 05 -32 -20 09 -14 17 -19 -02 04 15 -21 -06 11 -05 -02 08 -04 45
21. Odd S trip Out
65 24 06 -05 02 -06 -05 04 -04 -11 18 -16 03 -03 03 01 -07 -04 -05 58
22. P e n e tra tio n of Cam ouflage
42 -15 -10 -27 00 -06 04 22 -07 14 16 17 02 07 02 00 12 -06 -05 44
23. P e rtin e n t Q uestions
50
-19 -45 05 01 03 00 -08 08 -14 -10 -06 -04 -07 01 10 02 02 -08 56
24. P ic tu re A rra n g e m e n t
40 00 -04 -17 26 -48 -24 -07 24 .15 -09 07 02 09
-03 -05 -01 -05 -10 67
25. P ic tu re Exchange
60 09 08 05 06 -23 00 -03 -02 -14 -06 -04 -12 06 18 -05 08 20 13 58
26. P ic tu re E xclusion 28 12 -06 -07 -19 26 19 18 18 06 -02 06 17 05 15 10 -10 -03 -11 40
27. P ic tu re -G ro u p N am ing
42 -17 -13 00 -16 01 -08 22 -03 -17 -15 -05 07 -07 -15 -11 -15 -04 02 43
28. P lo t T itle s - low quality -11 -09 -52 -14 52 10 07 16 -09 10 09 -03 07 -09 11 -09 -04 02 04 69
29. P lo t T itle s - high quality 44 -20 -33 20 -26 -13 08 -04 -03 -05 05 -03 -05 00 03 -08 -03 -04 -05 50
30. Q uestions II 45 08 -04 -05 16 17 -26 02 -01 01 -19 -04 12 -23 09 -07 06 -02 -14 48
31. R eflections 52 08 03 12 04 -12 23 09 08 04 -23 -11 -08 09 13 10 -10 -06 -08 50
32. Seeing P ro b le m s
36 -07 -52 14 -02 17 -12 -12 05 04 07 06 02 10 -04 03 -02 09
12 53
33. Seeing T ren d s I 39 -31 05 -08 -24 06 -08 -33 -07 -12 -10 08 -07 06 08 -01 02 -03 -05 49
34. Sentence O rd e r
47 -05 13 16 00 15 -24 06 -01 01 10 01 08 14 -09 09 -02 22 00 45
35. Ship D estin atio n T est
58 -22 03 -16 10 06 -08 -07 04 -14 -01 08 -05 16 -10 09 -02 05 06 52
36. S ilhouette R elations
30 23 -01 01 18 01 15 -07 12 25 -01 07 -14 - 0 6 -33 -01 09 05 -05 43
37. S ocial R elatio n s
29 13 10 16 19 20 06 28 -01 -18 -15 22 -08 06 -02 08 03 -19
04 45
38. S ocial T ra n sla tio n s
54 08 05 29 17 06 -06 -02 16 -13 26 -10 -27 -02 05 -09 02 -09
04 64
39. Sound M eaning
42 02 12 18 -02 -01 -05 -01 00 -12 -18 07 15 19 -09
-13 10 -10 00 38
40. Stick F ig u re O pposites
40 16 08 19 14 -03 -08 -08 -04 01 08 19 -07 -03 03 -07 10 -03 -02
33
41. S tre e t G e sta lt C om pletion
36 03 -10
-29 -29 -16 -05 13 07 09
-01 -02 -15 04 -06 07 05 -11 02
41
42. V erb al A nalogies I
58 -11 11 12 05 02 16 14 -08 -01 21 00 -12 -04 -02 -02 -05 -05 01 50
43. V erb al C lassific a tio n
65 -15 18 04 10 08 -14 -07 02 14 -13 20 -10 -20 04 01 -23 -05 00 70
44. V erb al C om prehension
70 -22 14 25 -12 03 -09 06 -17 31 06 -10 07 02 06 -01 13 -06 03
82
45. Who Said It?
24 03 -07 -03 -06 12
-09 14 00 02 -20 -14 -10 -06 04 -27 13 12 10 30
46, W ord C lassificatio n
57 -11 01 04 -04 13 02 -12 -03 14 01 -04 18 11 -11 -03 -11 06 02 47
47. W ord M atrix T e st
65 -12 17 15 01 -02
29 -10 03 16 -09 -03 -08 -20 02 10 -06 06 08 69
N ote. — D ecim al points o m itted,
I
simple-structure dictates.
The rotated factor matrix obtained in this way is
given in Table 5. The accuracy of this solution may be
seen in the agreement of the communalities of the unrotated
! and rotated matrices. There is only one difference as
|
| large as .02, easily accounted for in terms of rounding
i
error. Most differences are non-existent. The post-mul
tiplication of the rotated factor matrix by its transpose
reproduced the correlation matrix almost perfectly. The
! frequency distribution of differences between the original
and the reduced correlation matrix was leptokurtic about
a mean of zero, and had a range from plus to minus five.
5 2
Table 5
Rotated F actor M atrix
T ests h fc a CMU CMC CMR CMS CMI DMU DMT NMU NMS CFU CFR NFT CBU CBC CBR CBS CBT CBI Res. h2
1. C artoon Analogies CBR -01 00 -09 -05
19
-08 -13 -12 05 03 00 18 23 22 37 10 20 20 05 45
2. C artoon Exchange CBT 11 04 13 29 07 -07 05 05 -05
-09 13 21 11 18 01 28 40 11 24 55
3, C artoon Im plications CBI 17 22 -07 06
09
-08 14 02 07 11 18 11 24 13 24 41 20 30 00 61
4. C artoon P redictions CBI 02 05 06 20
09
04 -03 01 -05 18 09 05 07 07 10 26 16 55 -07 52
5. Consequences - obvious DMU 01 -09 -01 01 40 45 -10 08 10
09 09 -03 12 00 -01
09 -02 04 -01 44
6. Consequences - rem ote DMT 05 -02 06 07 24 -02 69
10 02 -02 -09 10 -04 05 02 -05 07 08 06 60
7. DAT A b stract Reasoning CFR 05 28 20 04 21 -14 -07 14 00
09 66 27 03 10 14 09 34 14 21 95
8. E xpressions CBU 13 -04 22 00 12 -05 09 -12 09 08 19 09 36 27 08 26 17 20 -13 53
9. E x p ressio n Exchange CBT 09 07 07 -05 05 -04 01 09 27 -04 -01 00 02 16 16 10 43 11 03 37
10. E x p ressio n Grouping CBC -08 16 17 04 06 06 22 -11 05 18 08 -02 27 59 19 27 16 18 -12 77
11. F aces CBU -06 02 04 07
09
01 03 11 -09 -17 01 -11 40 09 19 22 -03 -02 -19 37
12. F ac ia l Situations CBS 11 -11 07 09 09
13 -09 05 -20 23 05 -18 12 21 21 42 05 00 09 49
13. F ig u re M atrix CFR 11 03 13 33 -25 20 02 11 06 -07 37 16 09 15 -04 18 10 14 -17 55
14. H enm on-N elson Vocabulary CMU 65 25 20 13 10 04 09 18 16 04 06 16 05 09 09 14 27 22 00 81
15. Hidden F ig u res NFT 04 16 16 26
09 02 -04 18 07 22 29 39 00 05 06 15 18 01 00 51
16. Inflections CBU 06 14 04 -02
09 -02 -02 05 09 24 -08 01 38 15 10 22 13 09 01 36
17. ITED Q uantitative Thinking CMS 24 21 26 65
09 05 13 08 10 -02 16 23 14 01 11 11 26 19 08 87
18. M issing C artoons CBS 10 10 08 09 08 -19
10 -03 19 07 25 16 41 -01 05 52 16 35 10 82
19. M issing P ic tu re s CBS -01 17 06 05 -02 07 02 09 10 00 -14 08 06 11 12 58 23 17 -15 56
20. M utilated W ords CFU 04 16 02 10 -06 -02 -03 17 -09 45 -03 34 14 02 00 11 ‘ 13 03 -07 45
21. Odd S trip Out CBC 11 08 12 00 02 -02 02 04 10 00 12 19 22 08 10 50 34 23 -04 58
22. P en etratio n of Camouflage NFT 20 02 04 18 00 11 16 -04 07 25 11 45 05 12 10 09 02 10 01 44
23. P e rtin e n t Questions CMI 04 07 11 22 41 23 28 22 04 02 -01 06 12 09 01 12 24 13 14 55
24. P ic tu re A rrangem ent NMS 01 06 -03 16 -07 14 15 -03 67 11 14 06 12 -03 09 08 14 19 11 66
25. P ic tu re Exchange CBT 04 03 15 25 00 -07 07 -02 15 11 08 00 22 09 05 13 51 27 -17 58
26. P ic tu re Exclusion CBC 06 06 08 -15 16 -03 -09 04 -10 00 -01 26 08 41 09 03 03 18 18 40
27. P ictu re-G ro u p Naming NMU 14 25 -07 03 06 02 27 35 -05 07 06 09 -04 10 -01 14 16 25 02 43
28. P lot T itles - low quality DMU -08 06 -12 04 08 69 13 -24 -12 -16 -01 19 01 -12 01 -12 -05 03 -01 69
29. P lot T itles - high quality DMT 18 01 20 03 28 05 43 20 04 10 03 03 10 18 -10 11 19 04 -06 50
30. Q uestions II CBU 13 26 -13 10 -02 16 -03 13 01 01 02 05 34 01 15 17 26 10 27 48
31. R eflections CBI 13 -01 35 07 -03
09 01 13 15 -01 02 -04 06 28 10 10 27 36 08 50
32. Seeing P roblem s CMI 13 16 -04 08 57 21 20 03 04 02 -03 03 14 12 10 05 08 02 -13 54
33. Seeing Trends I
NMU 10 07 15 28 20 - 1 6 01 37 06 19 19 06 23 06 -13 01 09 -09 -01 49
34. Sentence O rder NMS 29 30 -03 17 16 -16 -09 05 12 -04 -07 13 00 10 14 18 26 02 -11 45
35. Ship D estination T est CMS 08 18 08 37 21 -01 -03 23 17 10 21 24 01 03 13 13 19 16 -08 52
36. Silhouette Relations CBR -01 16 17 09 03 10 03 -21 12 12 13 -15 -06 12 40 23 02 01 10 43
37. Social Relations CBR 07 00 07 09 -10 02 -05 22 -12 -12 -07 11 03 08 50 -01 13 22 -05 45
38. Social T ranslations
CBT 14 04 28 -08 17 02 06 07 10 -07 11 07 10 -13 34 21 51 00 -14 64
39. Sound Meaning
CBC 23 03 -07 16 -02 -14 08 23 11 -09
18 -07 11 22' 21 07 19 11 -06 38
40. Stick F igure Opposites CBR 10 07 13 10 -03 -04 08 -02 13 -02 03 02 27 03 34 13 22 -04 -10 34
41. S treet G estalt Completion CFU 09 -07 04 -02 10 -04 11 09 14 45 06 16 02 08 02 20 01 26 07 42
42. V erbal Analogies I CMR 24 15 37 09 -01 -01 15 07 -04 01 13 24 00 05 18 21 27 10 -11 50
43. V erbal C lassification CMC 18 49 33 16 00 -01 00 24 18 09 09 12 29 -02 22 04 15 15 07 71
44. V erbal Com prehension
CMU 71 21 24 16 05
-09 11 05 07 09
08 08 19 10 06 15 25 08 00 82
45. Who Said It? CBT 13 13 -15 -02 01 11 03 04 -14 25 09
-11 06 06 04 -01 32 12 03 30
46. Word C lassification
CMC 27 36 11 19 21 -02 00 04 08 -01 20 05 08 27 00 19
14 08 -05 49
47. Word M atrix Test CMR 20 28 55 22 06
-09 08 00 00 04 17 -04 12 12 09 10 23 24 11 69
Note. — D ecim al points om itted.
a
Hypothesized factor content.
CHAPTER V
! INTERPRETATION OP THE FACTORS
The factors found in this study will be discussed
primarily in terms of tests having loadings of .30 or
greater on them. The choice of .30 as a "significant"
factor loading is an admittedly arbitrary one, though sup-
|ported by convention. The factors will be discussed in j
I 1
the order in which they are presented in Table 5* first
the reference factors, semantic and figural, then the ex
perimental behavioral factors.
CMU - Cognition of semantic units
: 44. Verbal Comprehension (CMU) .71
14. Henmon-Nelson Vocabulary (CMU) .65
| Verbal Comprehension and Henmon-Nelson Vocabulary
| clearly define this as the unfailing verbal-comprehension j
; factor. Sentence Order originally hypothesized to load on |
' NMS, semantic ordering, failed to do so and exhibits some
i of its variance in a .29 loading on CMU. Reading Compre- j
j
hension tests have been loaded on the CMU factor in the
past, and it is not unlikely that Sentence Order involves
some reading comprehension, hence CMU variance. In sup
porting this, it might be noted that the NMS factor
53
54
isolated by Peterson and others (1964) had substantial
loadings in CMU variables.
CMC - Cognition of semantic classes
43. Verbal Classification (CMC) .49 (CMR .33)
46. Word Classification (CMC) .36
| 34. Sentence Order (NMS) .30
| As was noted earlier, previous studies have had
j difficulty in separating the tests designed as markers for
| CMC and CMR. This study had the same difficulty. The
■ leading test, Verbal Classification, though it loaded sub
stantially on CMC, does have a side loading on the rela
tions factor. The other marker test for this factor, Word
Classification, has a low but unique loading,
j CMR - Cognition of semantic relations
;47. Word Matrix Test (CMR) .55
42. Verbal Analogies I (CMR) .37
31- Reflections (CBI) .35 (CBI .36)
i
|43. Verbal Classification (CMC) .33 (CMC .49)
! Although there is some confusion with the CMC fac-
:tor, the strong loading of the Word Matrix Test and the
I unique loading of Verbal Analogies I clearly defines this
as the predicted reference factor— CMR. Also loaded on
this factor is the only behavioral test with a significant
non-behavioral loading. This is not too surprising. A
high score on Reflections, which is hypothesized to measure
the behavioral-implications factor, depends relatively
55
little on correct Interpretation of vocal Inflections.
The more essential task is an understanding of the subtle
uses of language to convey emotion or feeling. The posi
tion of the subject of the sentence, the length of the sen
tence, etc., are cues writers have long used to convey
i
emotion and to delineate character. Social Translations,
an entirely verbal behavioral test, does not have a sig
nificant loading on this factor, but a loading of .28 in
dicates that this test, too, demands a certain amount of
! verbal sophistication.
CMS - Cognition of semantic systems
17- ITED Quantitative Thinking (CMS) .65
35. Ship Destination Test (CMS) .37
| 13. Figure Matrix (CFR) .33 (CFR .37) j
! !
ITED Quantitative Thinking and Ship Destination
Test were the measures hypothesized to define the general
reasoning factor, CMS. The significant loadings of both
these tests on only this factor seem obviously to define j
s
It as such.- Figure Matrix *s loading on the same factor as j
Ship Destination is not a new finding (Guilford, et al., i
! 1951). Although Figure Matrix helped define Its hypothe- j
sized factor, CFR, Its loading on CMS would not argue well j
for Its univocalness.
CMI - Cognition of semantic Implications
32. Seeing Problems (CMI) .57
23. Pertinent Questions (CMI) .41
56
5. Consequences - obvious (DMU) .40 (DMU .45)
The conceptual foresight or sensitivity to problems
factor, CMI, is led by its two predicted marker tests,
Seeing Problems and Pertinent Questions. The .40 loading
i
of Consequences - obvious is interesting, for though this
test has been loaded with both Seeing Problems and Pertin
ent Questions in other analyses (Berger, et al., 1957;
Guilford, et al., 1961) its loading has always been just
barely significant, and therefore easily overlooked. How-
| ever, conceptualization of this test as a measure of CMI
i [
is quite sensible. Conceptual foresight would certainly |
j j
seem called for when what is asked is "what will happen
i if...?" The task that Consequences presents examinees
1
| much more problem-oriented than the one facing them when
I ■ i
: they take Plot Titles, although both tests are intended as j
; measures of ideational fluency. It is suggested that Con-
i sequences has not previously loaded more strongly with Per
tinent Questions and Seeing Problems because these two
1
tests have not been used to define the same factor in a I
j
test battery, including Consequences, until this analysis. !
1 Seeing Problems, and Pertinent Questions have loadings in j
i
the . 20's on both DMU and DMT. !
Conversely, the marker tests for these factors,
excepting Plot Titles - .iow quality, are in CMI’s hyper
plane. Such a factor loadings pattern is predictable from
the correlation matrix. This interdependence of the
57
"creativity1 1 factors may be only a function of the sample
used in this study. On the other hand, the recent
strengthening and expansion of CMI may make necessary the
relocation in the structure-of-intellect model of certain
of its "marker" tests, specifically, Consequences.
DMU - Divergent production of semantic units
28. Plot Titles - low quality (DMU) .69
j 5* Consequences - obvious (DMU) .45 (CMI .40)
j Plot Titles - low quality and Consequences - obvious;
| define this factor as that of ideational fluency. The re- j
] i
lation of Consequences - obvious to CMI has already been
I pointed out.
; DMT - Divergent production of semantic transformations j
i
j 6. Consequences - remote (DMT) .69 j
i _ |
; 29- Plot Titles - high quality (DMT) .43
The originality factor in this analysis was led by
Consequences - remote, and further defined by Plot Titles -
high quality. Usually, Plot Titles - high quality leads
; j
1 the DMT factor* The present study’s loadings may have
; i
; been occasioned in part by Pertinent Questions' .28 load- !
I ing on the factor and Seeing Problems' one of .20. j
NMU - Convergent production of semantic units
33. Seeing Trends I (NMU) .37
27* Picture-Group Naming (NMU) .35
The concept-naming factor Is uniquely defined by
its two marker tests, Seeing Trends I and Picture-Group
Naming. It should be noted that no behavioral tests are
loaded on this factor, indicating that verbalization abil-
; ity is not essential to the tasks presented In the behav
ioral tests.
NMS - Convergent production of semantic systems
24. Picture Arrangement (NMS) .67
The high, unique loading of Picture Arrangement on
this singlet is considered to represent the hypothesized
ordering factor. The shortened form of Picture Arrange
ment used in this study proved to be very easy for the
examinees. Most of them got perfect scores. Sentence
Order, on the other hand, the test hypothesized to help
define NMS, was moderately difficult with no one achieving
a perfect score. This difference In difficulty may be
what caused the two tests to separate.
CFU - Cognition of figural units
41. Street Gestalt Completion (CFU) .45
20. Mutilated Words (CFU) .45 (NFT .34)
Street Gestalt Completion leads the speed-of-clo-
sure factor (Thurstone's Closurei) with its unique loading
of .45. Mutilated Words, the other marker test of CFU,
has its highest loading on this factor, but has a side
loading on NFT as well. Flexibility of closure, NFT, is
led by Penetration of Camouflage. As was noted earlier,
Street Gestalt Completion, Mutilated Words, and Penetra
tion of Camouflage have been loaded on the same factor
59
previously. The splitting of Mutilated Words between CFU
and NFT in this analysis, then, was not unprecedented.
CFR - Cognition of figural relations
7. DAT Abstract Reasoning (CFR) .66
13. Figure Matrix (CFR) .37 (CMS .33)
The figural relations factor is led by DAT Abstract
Reasoning. Although Figure Matrix is loaded on CFR, too,
it is not unique to this factor. The task of the Figure
Matrix Test is more complex than that of DAT Abstract
Reasoning, where the relationship in each item is only a
trend. In Figure Matrix, trends in two directions must be
considered. The similarity of this task to the one in
Ship Destination Test, which defines factor CMS, is obvi
ous (see Appendix A). This task similarity helps to ex
plain why Figure Matrix is not univocal to its hypothe
sized factor, CFR, but is also loaded with Ship Destina
tion Test on the general reasoning factor CMS.
NFT - Convergent production of figural transformations
22. Penetration of Camouflage (NFT) .45
15. Hidden Figures (NFT) .39
20. Mutilated Words^CFU) .34 (CFU .45)
Flexibility of closure (Thurstone’s Closureg) is
defined by the unique loadings of its two hypothesized
marker tests, Penetration of Camouflage and Hidden Figures.
However, while the former seems relatively specific to
this factor, Hidden Figures is a complex test, very much
60
in evidence in the hyperplanes of the other figural fac
tors of this analysis (notably .29 on CFR). Its loading
of .26 on.general reasoning also indicates the complexity
involved in correctly answering its seemingly simple items.
CBU - Cognition of behavioral units
18. Missing Cartoons (CBS) .41
11. Faces (CBU) .40
16. Inflections (CBU) .38
8. Expressions (CBU) .36
j
| 30. Questions II (CBU) .34
Although the behavioral units factor is led by Miss-:
1 ing Cartoons, a test designed to measure behavioral sys-
j terns, the other four tests defining it are those hypothe- j
I
j i
| sized to do so. Missing Cartoons is a complex test, as :
1
1
j may be seen from its pattern of correlations. To answer
the items of this test correctly, close attention must be
| paid to the expressions of each cartoon character. In the
| light of this consideration, its loading on CBU is not j
1 amiss. i
i !
i Three of the other four tests defining the factor, j
j Faces, Inflections, and Questions II test mainly the abil- j
ity to understand facial expressions. Inflections was !
devised to discover whether a vocal inflection could be
used to Indicate a behavioral unit. However, item analy
ses indicated that any difficulty with the test lay not
with the tape-recorded inflections, but with the drawings
(CBS .52,
CBI .35)
f
61
of the matching facial expressions. The fourth test,
Expressions, uses a variety of expressions, not exclu
sively facial. Notice, however, that its loading on CBC, j
.27, is nearly as high as its loading on CBU. For this
reason, in this analysis, the CBU factor is regarded as
the ability to understand facial expressions. An ampli
fication of this interpretation will be given in the next
chapter.
i CBC - Cognition of behavioral classes
j
| 10. Expression Grouping (CBC) .59
26. Picture Exclusion (CBC) .41
Expression Grouping, a test composed of drawings,
! and Picture Exclusion, a test with a photographic format, !
| i
I clearly define the hypothesized behavioral classes factor. ;
! Considering these two tests in the light of Expressions'
1 ' i
; .27 loading, the CBC factor is interpreted as the ability
to see that different modes or units of expression may
mean the same thing. Odd Strip Out, intedded to test the j
i j
! ability to classify systems of behavior, is not loaded on j
i |
1 this factor at all. This result seems to support the j
; above interpretation of CBC as a classing-of-units factor, j
Sound Meaning, another hypothesized CBC test, in which j
i
three emotive sounds are to be classed and verbally desig
nated, is in the hyperplane of the CBC factor. Although
the alternative words for this test were chosen to be max
imally disparate, Sound Meanings' loadings in the hyper
62
planes of CMU and NMU indicate that verbal variance was
not sufficiently controlled. The low reliability of this
test might also have caused its not emerging on any fac
ts
tor.
CBR - Cognition of behavioral relations
37. Social Relations (CBR) .50
36. Silhouette Relations (CBR) .^0
1. Cartoon Analogies (CBR) .37
! 40. Stick Figure Opposites (CBR) .3^
!
| 38. Social Translations (CBT) .3^ (CBT .51)
i
The two tests leading on this factor, Social Rela-
tions and Silhouette Relations, definitely mark it as the
| hypothesized CBR factor, the ability to understand
I observed diadic relationships. Cartoon Analogies tested
| the ability to comprehend pair relationships, using an
analogies format. The units used in Cartoon Analogies,
however, were more difficult of comprehension than the
schematic ones used in Social Relations and Silhouette Re-
! lations. It is probably for this reason that Cartoon
i Analogies is in the hyperplane of most of the behavioral
i factors. Stick Figure Opposites was constructed to test
i
i whether oppositeness could be considered a relation. Its
loading on the CBR factor indicates that it may justifi
ably be considered so. However, a loading of .27 on CBU
indicates that knowledge of the individual postures might
be almost as important. The loading of Social Transla-
63
tions, while unexpected, is quite understandable on a fac
tor concerned with understanding inter-action between
pairs of people. In this test the same statement must be
%
considered with relation to various pairs of individuals.
CBS - Cognition of behavioral systems I
19.
Missing Pictures (CBS) .58
18. Missing Cartoons (CBS) • 52 (CBU
CBI
21. Odd Strip Out (CBC) • 50 (CBT .34)
12. Facial Situations (CBS) .42
3-
Cartoon Implications (CBI) .41 (CBI .30)
The CBS factor is defined by tests which measure
; the ability to comprehend an integrated social situation.
: ■ j
, Missing Pictures, a pictorial test, seems to be the best !
| measure of this factor, probably because the situations it j
i depicts are grosser and less skill is involved in under- j
standing specific expressions. Cartoon Implications and j
j Odd Strip Out, although hypothesized to measure other fac-
!
tors, have their highest loadings on CBS. The former, j
i i
because unwittingly it was but a verbal analogue of Miss- i
i i
ing Cartoons, its verbally-stated alternatives serving the
1 !
same purpose as the cartoon alternatives of Missing Car
toons. The latter test, Odd Strip Out, seems to assess
systems comprehension in an exclusion format. Facial
Situations’ loading on this factor may be interpreted to
mean that two people may be a system rather than a rela
tionship if they are reacting to a third stimulus rather
64
than to one another. The fact that Cartoon Exchange is
not loaded on this factor as well as the fact that the two
photographic tests, Missing Pictures and Facial Situations,
did have loadings demonstrate that this is not just a
"Ferd'nand" factor, but reflects an ability isolate.
CBT - Cognition of behavioral transformations
25.
Picture Exchange (CBT)
• 51
38. Social Translations (CBT)
.51
(CBR .34)
9.
Expression Exchange (CBT)
.43
2. Cartoon Exchange (CBT) .40
21. Odd Strip Out (CBC) .34 (CBS .50)
7.
DAT Abstract Reasoning (CFR) .34 (CFR .66)
45. Who Said It? (CBT)
.32
j All five tests designed to measure the behavioral
transformations factor emerged together in this analysis.
‘ The essence of the factor seems to be the ability to recog-j
nize that the same "thing," whether it be a gesture (Ex- j
I |
jpression Exchange), a baby's expression (Who Said It?), a j
isystem (Cartoon Exchange and Picture Exchange), or a state-i
i i
ment (Social Translations) can have different meanings. 1
The hyperplane of CBT is not as clear as might be desir
able. This may be due to the large number of tests defin- ;
ing it.
CBI - Cognition of behavioral implications
4. Cartoon Predictions (CBI) *55
31. Reflections (CBI) .36 (CMR .35)
65
18. Missing Cartoons (CBS) .35 (CBS .52,
CBU .41)
3. Cartoon Implications (CBI) .30 (CBS .4l)
CBI Is led uniquely Toy Cartoon Predictions in which J
I
the task is to predict "what will happen next" from a givenj
delimited situation. Cartoon Implications has a minimal I
loading on this factor, presumably because some of its
items are of this predictive sort. Reflections was in
cluded to test a sensitivity definition of the implications
| factor. The size of its loading cannot be accepted as
1 ;
j final proof of this hypotheses. This factor, then, is
iparsimoniously interpreted as one of behavioral prediction.!
The last factor, a residual, had no significant
i loadings and will not be interpreted.
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION
In terms of the general hypotheses of this study,
to establish indications of a factorial domain which can
be called behavioral intelligence and to demonstrate the
heuristic value of the structure of intellect in predict
ing the existence of intellectual factors, little discus
sion is necessary, since all 18 factors hypothesized were
found, including six apparently of behavioral intelligence.
Table 6 indicates the closeness of fit of the empirical
factors obtained to those hypothesized. Considering that
no behavioral-intelligence factors have previously been
discovered, the success of the structure of intellect in
this uncharted area is remarkable. Since as many semantic
and figural reference factors as were thought germane to
the area were included in the study, the newly-found
behavioral factors may clearly be said to be factors of
ability independent of known intellectual factors.
Although all the reference factors hypothesized
emerged, in many cases they did so despite their marker
tests. The CMC-CMR confusion is particularly noteworthy
in this connection. Another example is the figural area
66
1 ■ ; *
r
j,
i
I
T a b le 6
i
C o m p a ris o n of H y p o th esized and O b tain ed F a c to r s
i
O b t a i n e d F a c t o r s
&
f T e s t N am e h f c a CMU CMC CM R CMS CM I DMU DM T NM U NMS C FU C FR N F T CBU CBC CBR CBS C B T CBI
i 14. H e n m o n -N e lso n V o ca b u la ry CMU 65
• 44. V e rb a l C o m p re h e n sio n CMU 71
1 43. V e rb a l C la s s ific a tio n CMC 49 33
; 46. W ord C la s s ific a tio n CMC 36
j 42. V e rb a l A n a lo g ie s I CMR 37
1 47. W ord M a trix T e s t CMR 55
: 17. IT E D Q u a n tita tiv e T hinking CMS 65
35. Ship D e s tin a tio n T e s t CMS 37
23. P e r tin e n t Q u e stio n s CMI 41
32. S eeing P ro b le m s CMI 57
5. C o n se q u e n c e s - obvious DMU 40 45
28. P lo t T itle s - low q u a lity DMU 69
6. C o n se q u e n c e s - re m o te DMT 69
29. P lo t T itle s - h ig h q u ality P M T 43
27. P ic tu r e - G r o u p N am ing NMU 35
33. S eeing T re n d s I NMU 37
24. P ic tu r e A rra n g e m e n t NMS 67
34. S e n te n c e O rd e r NMS 30 ■
20. M u tila te d W o rd s CFU 45 34
41. S tr e e t G e s ta lt C om p letio n CFU 45
; 7. DAT A b s tr a c t R easo n in g C FR 66 34
13. F ig u r e M a trix C F R 33 37
15. H idden F ig u r e s N F T 39
’ 22. P e n e tr a tio n of C am o u flag e N F T 45
8. E x p re s s io n s CBU 36
: 11. F a c e s CBU 40
16. In fle c tio n s CBU 38
30. Q u e stio n s II CBU 34
10. E x p re s s io n G ro u p in g CBC 59
21. Odd S trip O ut CBC 50 34
26. P ic tu r e E x c lu sio n CBC 41
39. Sound M eaning CBC
1. C a rto o n A n alo g ie s CBR 37
36. S ilh o u e tte R e la tio n s CBR 40
37. S o c ia l R e la tio n s CBR 50
40. S tic k F ig u r e O p p o site s CBR 34
12. F a c ia l S itu a tio n s CBS 42
T8. M issin g C a rto o n s CBS 41 52 35
19. M issin g P ic tu r e s CBS 58
2. C a rto o n E x ch an g e CBT 40
9. E x p r e s s io n E x ch an g e CBT 43
25. P ic tu r e E x ch an g e CBT 51
38. S o c ia l T r a n s la tio n s CBT 34 51
- 45. W ho S aid It? CBT 32
3. C a rto o n Im p lic a tio n s CBI
" 41 30
4, C a rto o n P r e d ic tio n s CBI 55
31. R e fle c tio n s CBI 35
36
N ote. — A ll o b tain ed fa c to r lo a d in g s o f , 30 o r l a r g e r a r e given. D e c im a l p o in ts o m itte d .
a H y p o th esized fa c to r c o n ten t.
68
where although the three hypothesized factors were found,
the lack of univocalness In the tests should not be over
looked. Figure Matrix, Hidden Figures, and Mutilated
i
Words are especially to be noted in this regard. The con- ;
i !
t |
| fusion among CMI, DMCT, and DMT, while it might be only an i
| artifact of this study's sample, might also be an indica
tion of what happens when a factor definition is changed
without reference to other tests pertinent to it. Con-
| sequences, A DMU-DMT marker test, as noted earlier, has
i
! several times shown a slight predilection for the earlier,
weaker form of factor CMI or conceptual foresight. The
; expansion of the CMI factor to include sensitivity to
: problems seems to have increased Consequences' attraction j
| to it, at least in this study. The significant loading of
this test on CMI does not make for simple-structure deter
mination of its "real" factorial composition.
The behavioral-units factor found in this study j
! was defined as the ability to understand facial expres
sion. This does not mean that the behavioral unit need
be reconceptualized to exclude gestures, body postures
| and the like. Rather, if tests are to be devised to
1 assess comprehension in these modes of expression, each
i
should be limited to only one kind of expression. Thus,
understanding of inflections should be treated using audi
tory alternatives. This strategy of unit-test construc-
ture is supported by the hyperplane loading of Stick
69
Figure Opposites on CBU. In this test cognition of a
given body posture is tested with three body-posture
alternatives.
Although the CBC factor found in this study is de
fined as the ability to see similarity of behavioral in
formation in different expressional modes, it is hypothe
sized that a grouping test in which only one expressional
mode is used would also be loaded on this factor.
The fate of Sound Meaning, hypothesized to measure
CBU, is interesting. It was the only behavioral test
which used verbal labels for behavioral units, although
j this practice is a prevalent one in social intelligence
research. The loadings of this test on the verbal-compre
hension and concept-naming factors does not recommend
such a procedure.
The fact that the ability to understand relation
ships, CBR, is independent of that involved in compre
hending a more complex social situation (CBS) may well
have implications for researchers in diadic perception.
The behavioral-transformations factor, defining as
it does the ability to see more than one meaning in a
given behavioral stimulus, may be especially important for
everyday behavioral intelligence. Such flexibility would
seem particularly promising in terms of predictive valid
ity. Who Said It?'s loading on this factor brings humor
into the general area of cognition. Unfortunately, this
70
test’s reliability is too low for future use, but humor
conceived as an intellectual trait seems to be a useful
hypothe si s.
One implication of the CBI factor, which was de
fined as the ability to predict from a given stimulus sit-
| uation, is that the many experiments currently being car-
j
! ried out on "predictive accuracy" are studying only one of
many intellectual abilities relevant to understanding of
others. By confining their experimental efforts to but
one of possibly thirty behavioral abilities, they are per
haps mistakenly over-emphasizing its importance.
i
j Before these tests could be used with the general
i
population, they should be analyzed, using a sample less
homogeneous than the one in this study. Though the sig
nificant correlations with socio-economic standing might
be only an artifact of the gifted students in the group,
it might also be indicative of a biasing of the tests in
favor of the dominant culture. This need not be bad. A
minority group member should be cognizant of majority
mores if he is to succeed in the majority culture. This
possible limitation of the tests should not be overlooked,
however.
As well as further construct validation on a heter
ogeneous or minority group, the predictive validity of
these behavioral tests must be ascertained before their
practical usefulness is assumed. Should such predictive
71
validation be forthcoming, the possible utility of these
tests goes without saying.
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY
Although social intelligence has long been pre
dicted to exist as a unique kind of intellectual ability,
no tests of this ability have been devised which measure
intellectual factors other than verbal ones. One theory
of human intelligence, Guilford's structure-of-intellect
model hypothesizes not one social intelligence but thirty !
different factors of behavioral (social) ability. Six of
I
these factors are concerned with behavioral cognition or i
I
understanding, the ability to understand the thoughts,
feelings, and intentions of others. These factors corres
pond roughly to the domain termed person perception,
empathy or social awareness by other researchers.
In an attempt to measure these six hypothesized
behavioral-cognition factors, 23 experimental tests were
constructed. Words were employed as little as possible. '
The stimuli used in most of the tests were photographs, i
!
realistic drawings, cartoons, silhouettes, stick figures, j
and tape-recorded sounds and inflections. !
These 23 tests, as well as 24 marker tests, were
administered to 240 11th grade students who were middle-
12
73
class Caucasians of at least average intelligence.
After iterated communality estimates were deter
mined, 33 principal factors were extracted. The first 19 j
I
of these were analytically rotated to orthogonal struc- j
1 ' I
ture, positive manifold, and factor interpretability. )
Eighteen factors, identified as those hypothesized, and a
residual factor, were obtained. The twelve reference fac
tors included six semantic or verbal ones: verbal compre
hension, verbal classification, verbal relations, general
!
; reasoning, concept naming, and semantic ordering. Three
"creativity’ 1 factors, sensitivity to problems, ideational
fluency and originality were also isolated. Speed of
I closure, figural reasoning, and flexibility of closure,
1
| three spatial factors, were also identified. In addition,
I the six hypothesized behavioral-cognition factors emerged.
The cognition (C) of behavioral (B) units (U) fac-
, tor was interpreted as the ability to understand units of j
j expression, such as facial expressions. A classes factor j
(CBC) seemed to represent the ability to cognize that dif- '
ferent modes of expression (gestures, body postures, and
: facial expressions) can have the same intentional or ex
pressional meaning. A third factor (CBR) was defined by !
tests in which one's understanding of diadic relationships
was assessed. The cognition-of-behavioral-systems (CBS)
factor seemed to represent the ability to comprehend a
complex social situation or sequence of events. The
transformations or redefinition factor (CBT) indicated
that the ability to reinterpret a gesture, a facial ex
pression, a statement or a whole social situation is a
unique one. The sixth behavioral-cognition factor, CBI,
is concerned with the ability to predict what will happen
next following a given social situation. This predictive- !
accuracy factor suggests that much research in social per
ception is overly concerned with a narrow range of ability
when a much broader spectrum exists.
!
I Construct validity such as the study provided for
the behavioral-intelligence tests does not guarantee pre-
i
dictive validity. Obviously, practical usefulness depends j
on the latter. Should predictive validity be established, I
1 :
| however, these objectively scored, reliable, construct - ;
I ' !
i valid tests might serve as criterion measures of social
; j
intelligence, diagnostic techniques in a clinical setting, j
i
I
I job-selection instruments or as training devices, to men-
! tion but a few possibilities. !
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
D escrip tio n of V ariab les ^
C artoon A nalogies CBR03A. Which a lte rn a tiv e e x p ressio n is re la te d to the th ird given e x p ressio n in the sam e
•way the second given e x p ressio n is to the fir s t?
A nsw er: 3. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er p a rt : 10/15, 12/15; w orking tim e: 10 m inutes.
C artoon Exchange CBTOIA^. W hich alte rn a tiv e , when substitu ted for the cartoon indicated by the a rro w , w ill
change the” m eaning of the sto ry by changing the intentions of the c h a ra c te rs ?
@>
A nswer: 2.
Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of
the num ber om itted.
P a rts: 2; item s' p e r part: 12/13, 12/13;
working tim e: l6 m inutes.
3. C artoon Im plications CBIOIA. W hich statem en t
ation s hown f
1. The m an recognized F e r d ’nand as a friend.
2. The salesm an w ill bring a b e tte r fitting jack et.
3. The m an w ill say how s o rry he is.
4. The m an was looking a ll over for F e rd 'n a n d .
d e sc rib e s what happened b efo re, o r w ill happen a fte r the situ
A nsw er: 3. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 18/18, 16/18; working tim e: 12 m inutes.
4. C artoon P red ictio n s CBIQ3A. W hich a lte rn a tiv e situation can be p red icted from the given one?
A nsw er: 1. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e -th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; Item s p e r part: 15/15, 14/15; w orking tim e: 8 m inutes.
5. C onsequences - obvious (DMU) ^ . W rite a s m any d ifferen t re s u lts of an unusual situation as p o ssib le.
Score: one point for each resp o n se that would be a d ire c t re s u lt of the given situation, including very gen eral
re s u lts . P a rts : 4; item s p e r part: 1; w orking tim e: 8 m inutes.
1 D raw n and photographed stim u li a re 25 to 50 p er cent sm a lle r than actu al te s t size. C ircled num bers a re item
num be r s .
2 N u m erato r is the num ber of item s sco red p e r p a rt; denom inator, the num ber of item s ad m in istered .
3 F e rd 'n a n d carto o n s in te sts 2, 3, 18, and 21 used by p e rm issio n of United F e a tu re Syndicate.
4 T ests 5, 6, 23, 35, and 44 w ere adapted by p e rm issio n of Sher idan Supply Com pany, B ev erly H ills, C alifornia.
I
6. C onsequences - rem o te DJvlT03B. W rite a s m any d ifferen t re s u lts of an unusual situation as p o ssib le.
Score: one point fo r each re sp o n se th at indicates an in d ire c t re s u lt o r an uncom m on adaptation to the given
situation. P a rts : 4; item s p er part: 1; w orking tim e: 8 m inutes.
D ifferen tial A ptitude T est - A b stra c t R easoning
p letes a fo u r-fig u re s e rie s .
(C FR ). Choose the one of five a lte rn a te
Score: num ber of item s rig h t m inus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber wrong,
p e rc e n tile s. P a rts ; 1; item s p e r part: 50; w orking tim e: 25 m inutes.
E x p re ss ions CBUOIA. W hich a lte rn a tiv e e x p re sse s the sam e thought,
fig u res that com —
S co res converted to n ationally— norm ed
feeling, o r intention as the given?
( 37)
9.
1 2 3 4
A nsw er: 4. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus one-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p e r part: 18/ 18, 14/18; w orking tim e: 10 m inutes.
E x p re ssio n Exchange CBT04A. W hich a lte rn a tiv e facial e x p ressio n changes the m eaning of the g e stu re ?
do)
1 2 3
A nsw er: 2. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e -th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 14/15, 14/15; w orking time: 10 m inutes.
10. E x p ressio n G rouping CBC04A. W hich alte rn a tiv e ex p ressio n belongs with the given group of e x p re ssio n s?
©
A nsw er: 1. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p e r part: 12/15, 14/15; w orking tim e: 10 m inutes.
F a c e s CBU02A W hich naan's face e x p re s s e s the sam e feeling o r intention as the w o m an 's?
dD
A nsw er: 4. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 11/15, 14/15; w orking tim e: 8 m inutes.
F a c ia l Situations CBS03A. W hich situation fits the ex p ressio n s in both photographs?
©
1. He has finally found a Job.
2. They a re watching a beauty contest.
3. The w ater is too cold for sw im m ing
A nsw er: 2. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p e r part: 11/15, 10/15; w orking tim e: 12 m inutes.
Lightfoot and F ro is-W ittm a n photographs used in te s ts 11, 12, and 36 obtained fro m the Drown U niversity
Photo L ab o rato ry .
13. F ig u re M atrix CFR02A. W hich a lte rn a tiv e figure can he substituted fox the question m a rk in the m a trix ?
© ©
©
?
© © o o ©
A nsw er: C.
Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus one - th ird
of the num ber om itted.
F a rts: 1; item s p e r part: 7/8; working tim e:
3 m inutes.
H enm on-N elson "Vocabulary (GlvlTJ)- W hich a lte rn a tiv e word has the sam e m eaning as the given w ord? Which
a lte rn a tiv e c o rre c tly com pletes a given sentence? Item s 10, 20, 24, 30, 36, 46, 50, 51, 55, 68, 71, 73, 75,
76, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, and 89 of the H enm on-N elson T ests of Ivlental A bility, F o rm A w ere sco red as m e a su re s
of the v erb al - c omp re hen s ion factor.
Score: num ber of item s right plus one-fifth of the num ber om itted.
F a rts : 1; item s p er p art: 20/90; w orking tim e; 30 m in u tes.
Hidden F ig u re s NFT04A. W hich one of the F ive B asic F ig u re s is hidden in the sam ple item fig u re?
a t* c~ r» E I
Sam ple item .
Jl
A nsw er: A. Score: num ber of item s rig h t m inus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber wrong.
F a rts : 1; item s p er part: 15; w orking tim e: 3 m inutes.
In fie ct ions CBU04A (auditory). W hich a lte rn a tiv e facial e x p ressio n goes w ith the inflection of a ta p e -re co rd e d
w ord or p h ra se ? (Male and fem ale item s w ere a lte rn a te d . )
Score: num ber of item s right. F a rts : 2; item s p er part: 13/15, 14/15; w orking tim e: 12 m inutes.
Iowa T ests of E ducational D evelopm ent - Q uantitative Thinking (CMS). Solve a v a rie ty of m ath em atical p ro b lem s.
Score: num ber of item s right. S co res converted to n atio n ally -n o rm ed p e rc e n tile s.
F a rts : 1; item s p e r p art: 53; w orking tim e: 40 m inutes.
M issing C artoons CBS01A. W hich a lte rn a tiv e com pletes the cartoon strip , m aking sen se of the thoughts and
feelings of the cK aracters ?
( 29)
A nsw er: 4. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
F a rts : 2; item s p e r part: 14; w orking tim e: 16 m inutes.
19. M issing P ic tu re s CBS04A. "Which a lte rn a tiv e com pletes the sto ry , making sense of the thoughts and feelings of
the a c to rs ?
A nsw er: 3.
Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus
o n e-th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 11/14,
10/14; working tim e: 16 m inutes.
M utilated W ords CFU03A
liCUEC
Odd S trip Out CBC02A.
Identify w ords in w hich p a rts of each le tte r a re m issin g .
A nsw er: house- Score: one point fo r each c o rre c t resp o n se.
P a rts : 1; item s p er part: 26; w orking tim e: 3 m inutes.
In w hich situation does F e rd 'n an d respond differently than he does in the other two?
777^
I - - . 1
~ "'-'-to
g | - — i
| | M U S §
•
A nsw er: 2. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus one — th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 9/10, 8/10; w orking tim e: 12 m inutes.
P e n e tra tio n of C am ouflage NFT02A C irc le the hum an faces cam ouflaged in the lin es of a re a lis tic draw ing.
Score: one point for each c o rre c t resp o n se. P a rts: 1; item s p e r part; 13; working tim e: 2 m inutes.
P e rtin e n t Q uestions CIvtI02.B. W rite four questions the an sw ers to w hich would se rv e a s a b a sis fo r m aking a
decis Lon in a given s ituation.
Score: one point fo r each c o rre c t resp o n se. P a rts : 1; item s p e r part: 4; w orking tim e: 6 m inutes.
® - R eo rd er a cartoon strip so that it m akes tem p o ral sen se. 24. . P ic tu re A rran g em en t NMS02B ‘
Score: one point for each com pletely c o rre c t o rd erin g . P a rts : 1; item s p e r p art: 8; w orking tim e: 3 m inutes.
€ * T ests 20, 41, and 43 w ere adapted by p e rm issio n from te sts by L. L. T hurstone.
Adapted by p e rm issio n from the A rm y A ir F o rc e te s t of the sam e nam e.
® A dapted by p e rm issio n from D orothy C. A dkins' adaptation of P r e s s F e a tu re s ' cartoon strip LOUIE.
25. P ic tu re Exchange CBT03A. W hich a lte rn a tiv e , when substitu ted for the p ictu re indicated by the a rro w , w ill
change the m eaning of the sto ry ?
w
0 0
o
A nsw er: 3. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num her om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 10/15; 11/15; w orking tim e; 10 m inutes.
27. P ic tu re -G ro u p Nam ing NMU.O3A W rite a c la ss nam e for five p ictu red objects.
Score: one point for each c o rre c t resp o n se. F a rts : 1; item s p e r p art: 9; working tim e: 2 m inutes.
28. p lo t T itles - low quality I>MU05A. W rite as m any ap p ro p riate title s as po ssib le fo r a given sh o rt sto ry (F a rt 1).
W rite as m any clev er title s as p o ssib le for a second sh o rt sto ry (F a rt 2).
Score; one point for each title that Is re le v a n t bu t not rem o te o r clev er.
F a rts ; 2; item s p er pert: 1; w orking tim e: 7 m inutes.
29. F lo t T itles - high quality DMTO I E . W rite a s m any ap p ro p riate title s as possib le fo r a given sh o rt sto ry (F a rt 1).
W rite as m any clev er title s as possib le for a second sh o rt sto ry (F a rt 2).
Score: one point for each title that is esp ecially succinct or clev er, o r that indicates a re in te rp re ta tio n of the plot.
F a rts : 2; item s p er part: 1; w orking tim e: 7 m inutes.
9 T ests 27 and 34 w ere adapted by p e rm issio n of the U niversity of N orth C arolina and the O ffice of the A djutant
G en eral.
Q uestions II CBU03A 1 W hich question' m ight re s u lt in the p ictu red ex p ressio n ?
CD
1. Can yon rem em b er the f ir s t line of the C onstitution?
2. D on't you think that g ir l's sh o rt s k irt is a scandal?
3. Is n 't that your w ife's c a r?
4. Did you enjoy your vacation?
R efle c tions
given statem en t?
Sam ple Item 8.
.Answer: 2. Score: num her of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the item s om itted.
F a rts : 2; item s p er part: 15; w orking tim e: 12 m inutes.
CBI04A (a u d ito ry )^ . W hich a lte rn a tiv e statem ent e x p re sse s the attitu d e or feeling underlying the
"I'm ju s t w ondering how I'll act — I m ean how things w ill tu rn out. "
1. S he's looking forw ard to it.
2. S he's w o rried about it.
3. S h e's in te re ste d in how things w ill w ork out.
A nsw er: 2. Score: num her of item s right. F a rts: 3; item s p er part: 6 /?, 5/T, ? /? ; working tim e: 10 m inutes.
Seeing P ro b le m s ChllO3A . W rite as m any as five problem s connected w ith a com m on object.
CANDLE Answei
2.
■ •
Sam ple item .
Score: one point
F a rts: 1 J ; item s
33. Seeing T rends I
~
Ar
Score: one point
34. Sentence O rd er
m ouse elephant
A nsw er:
F a rts : 1; item s p e r part: 10; w orking tim e: 3 m inutes.
NMS0 3B. A rran g e th re e sentences in a m eaningful o rd e r.
^ She bought som e food a t the m a rk e t.
She re tu rn e d hom e and cooked som e of the food she had bought.
/ She went to the m ark et.
Score: one point for each com pletely c o rre c t o rd erin g . F a rts : 1; item s p e r part: 10; w orking tim e: 3 m inutes.
Ship D estination T e st CMS02B. Find the distance of a ship to a p o rt, taking into account the influence of an in —
• c re a sin g num ber of v a ria b le s .
Score: num ber of item s rig h t m inus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber w rong.
F a rts: 1; item s p er part: 48; w orking tim e: 8 m inutes.
36. Silhouette R elations
houstte relatio n sh ip ?
CBRO 5A Which photograph e x p re sse s the individual's feeling o r intention in the sil-
In p a rt one of the te st, the a lte rn a tiv e p ic tu re s a r e of m en. In p a rt two, they a r e of w om en.
( 22)
)
! 2
A nsw er: 1. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-th ird of the num ber om itted.
F a rts : 2; item s p e r part: 11/15, 12/15; working tim e: 10 m inutes.
I 0 F ern an d el photographs used by p e rm issio n of Fhillippe H alsm an.
II Item s adapted by p e rm issio n from m ate ria l of E. H. F o r t e r , J r. , C .R . R o g ers, "W . U . S nyder, and E . R . S treich.
^ S ilh o u e tte s adapted by p e rm issio n of R. 1 - 1 . Knapp.
37. Social R elations C B R 02A ^. W hich statem en t e x p re sse s the feeling of the face indicated by the arro w , taking
into account the relatio n sh ip betw een the faces?
1) I didn’t like that m ovie very m uch.
2) What a bore.'
3) Who does he think, he is, anyway?
1 ^ ) ^
A nsw er: 3. Score: num ber .of item s rig h t pins o n e-th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 3; item s p er part: 5/7, 7/7, 7/7; working tim e: 6 m inutes.
38. Social T ran slatio n s CBTQ2A. B etw een which altern ativ e p a ir w ill the given statem en t have a d ifferen t intention
o r m eaning?
p a re n t to child 1) teach er to student
2) student to teach er
1 rI don't think so. " 3) student to student
A nsw er: 2. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 11/12, 12/12; w orking time: 8 m inutes.
39. Sound M eaning CBC06A (auditory). W hich one of four w ords is the b e st nam e for a group of th re e ex p ressiv e
s oun ds ?
Score: num ber of item s right. P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 14/15, 13/15; w orking tim e: 14 m inutes.
40. Stick F ig u re O pposites CBR04A. W hich stick figure e x p re sse s a feeling or intention opposite th at of the given
one V
A nsw er: 2. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus one — th ird of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 2; item s p er part: 12/ 15, 13/ 15; working tim e: 8 m inutes.
41. S tre e t G e sta lt C om pletion CFU05A. Identify p ictu red objects having m issin g p a rts.
A nsw er: rab b it.
Score: one point for each c o rre c t resp o n se.
P a rts : 1; item s p er part: 24; working tim e: 3 m inutes.
42. V erbal A nalogies I CMROIB. W hich a lte rn a tiv e is re la te d to the th ird given w ord in the sam e way th at the
second given w ord is to the firs t?
CLOTH : DYE as HOUSE : ? A- shade C. b ru sh
B. paint D. wood
A nsw er: B. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 1; item s p er part: 12/ 15; w orking tim e: 4 m inutes. I
43. V erbal. C lass ification CMC02B. G iven two c la s s e s of four w ords each, decide w hether each of eight d ifferen t
w ords belongs to one c la ss o r the other or to n eith er.
COW
HORSE
GOAT
DOG
31
31
desk
sheep
ro ck er
tree
cat
no se
d re s s e r
donkey
v /
TABLE
CHAIR
BOOKCASE
LAMP
Score: num ber of item s rig h t m inus one-half of the num ber
w rong. P a rts: 1; item s p e r part: 5; working tim e: 4 m inutes.
^ F a c e s adapted by p e rm issio n of R . H. Knapp.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49-
50.
51.
52.
"Verbal ComprehensLon CMIJ02C (G uilford - ZLm m erm an A ptitude Survey, P a r t I). Which one of five a lte rn a tiv e s
has the sam e m eaning as a given w o rd ?
Score: num ber of item s rig h t pins one-fifth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts: 1; item s p er part: 22/24; w orking tim e: 4 m inutes.
Who Said It.? C B T 0 5 A ^. W hich b aby’s e x p ressio n fits the caption?
Item 7. A nother m a rtin i? Oh, I re a lly do n 't think I should.
A nsw er: 3. Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts: 2; item s p er part: 10/12, 10/12; w orking tim e: 8 m inutes.
W ord C lassificatio n CMCOIA. W hich w ord does not belong w ith the o th e rs?
Sam ple item . A. h o rse B . cow C. m an D- flow er
A nsw er: D . Score: num ber of item s rig h t plus o n e-fo u rth of the num ber om itted.
P a rts : 1; item s p er part: 16/20; w orking tim e: 4 m inutes.
W ord M atrix T e st CMR02A. W hich a lte rn a tiv e com pletes the m a trix ?
Sam ple item . ground s tre e t autom obile A. airp lan e D . . balloon
a ir route B . b ird E. cloud
C. kite
A nsw er: A. Score: num ber of item s rig h t. P a rts: 1; item s p e r p art: 10; w orking tim e: 3 1/2 m inutes.
Sex. F em ales w ere assig n ed the code value 0; m a le s, 1.
Sibling S tatus. Only and old est ch ild ren w ere coded O ; o th ers w ere coded 1. O O
Socio-E conom ic S tatus. H ollingshead15 seven-point S ocio-E conom ic F a c to r index was used as follows: 1, ex ecu
tives and m ajo r p ro fessio n als; 2, m an ag ers and le s s e r p ro fessio n als; 3, a d m in istra tiv e p erso n n el and se m i
p ro fessio n als; 4, c le ric a l w o rk ers and technicians; 5, skilled m anual em ployees; 6, se m i-sk ille d em ployees ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7, unskilled em ployees.
M ental Age (H enm on-N elson). This "score** was determ ined in the m anner d e scrib ed in the H enm on-N elson
T ests of M ental A bility, F o rm A m an u al.
C hronological Age. E ach ex am in ee's age a t the tim e of testin g was d eterm ined to the n e a re s t m onth.
i
14 Baby photographs used by p e rm issio n of C onstance B an n ister.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Adkins, Dorothy C. and Lyerly, S. B. Factor analysis of
reasoning tests. Chapel Hill, N. C.: Univer.
North Carolina, 1951.
Allport, G. W. Pattern and growth in personality. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I96I.
Allport, G. W. and Odbert, H. S. Trait-names: a psycho-
lexical study. Psychol. Monogr., 1936, No. 211.
Bannister, Constance. Senator, 1 *1 1 1 glad you asked me that.
Philadelphia: Edward stern and Co., 1949. ~~
Bannister, Constance. The baby book. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1954.
Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G. and Wesman, A. G. Differ
ential aptitudes tests (3rd ed.) New York: The
Psychological Corp., 1959.
Berger, R. M., Guilford, J. P., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of planning abilities.
Psychol. Monogr., 1957, No. 435.
‘ Boring, E. G. and Titchener, E. B. A model for the demon
stration of expression. Amer. J. Psychol., 1923,
34, 471-485-
BrOnfenbrenner, U., Harding, J., and Gallwey, Mary. The
measurement of skill in social perception. In D.
McClelland (Ed.) Talent and society. Princeton,
N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1958.
Bruner, J. S. and Tagiuri, R. The perception of people.
In G. Lindzey (Ed.) Handbook of social psychology.
Cambridge, Mass.: Addison and Wesley, 1954.
Buzby, D. E. The interpretation of facial expression.
Amer. J. Psychol., 1924, 35, 602-604.
Carroll, J. B. The nature of the data, or how to choose
a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 1961,
26, 347-372.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., and Wilson, R. C.
Relations of creative responses to working time and
instructions. J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 53, 82-88.
Cliff, N. Orthogonal rotations to congruence. Amer.
Psychologist, 1964, 19, 582. (Abstract)
85
86
Cline, M. G. The influence of social context on the
perception of faces. J. Pers., 1956, 25, 142-158.
Cline, V. B. and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interper
sonal perception - a general trait? J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., I960, 60, 1-7.
Cronbach, L. J. Proposals leading to analytic treatment
of social perception scores. In R. Tagiuri and
L. Petrullo (Eds.) Person perception and inter
personal behavior. Stanford: Stanford Univer.,
1955:
Dunlap, K. The role of eye-muscles and mouth-muscles in
the expression of emotions. Genet. Psychol.
Monogr., 1927* 2, No. 3*
Dymond, Rosalind. A scale for the measurement of empathic
ability. J. consult. Psychol., 1949* 13* 127-133*
Eisenberg, P. and Zalowitz, E. Judgments of dominance-
feeling from phonograph records of voice. J. appl.
Psychol., 1938, 22, 620-631.
Engen, T., Levy, N., and Schlosberg, H. A new series of
facial expressions. Amer. Psychologist, 1957* 12,
264-266.
Engen, T., Levy, N., and Schlosberg, H. The dimensional
analysis of a new series of facial expressions.
J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55* 454-458.
Pay, L. J. and Middleton, W. C. Judgment of introversion
from the transcribed voice. Quart. J. Speech,
1942, 28, 226-228.
Feleky, A. M. The expression of the emotions. Psychol.
Rev., 1914, 21, 33-41.
Fiedler, F. E. Assumed similarity measures as predictors
of team effectiveness. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1954, 49* 381-388.
French, J. ¥., Ekstrom, Ruth B., and Price, L. A. Manual
for kit of reference tests for cognitive factors
(revised, I963). Princeton, N. JT: Educational
Testing Service, 1963.
Frick, J. W., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., and
Merrifield, P. R. A factor-analytic study of flex
ibility in thinking. Educ. psychol. Measmt.,
1959, 19, 469-496. ____________________________
87
Frois-Wittmann, J. The Judgment of facial expression.
J. exp. Psychol., 1930* 13j 113-151.
Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life.
New York: Doubleday, 1959*
Goodenough, Florence L. and Tinker, M. A. Judgment of
emotions. J. comp. Psychol., 1931* 12, 365-370.
Guilford, J. P. When not to factor analyze. Psychol.
Bull.. 1952, 49, 26-37.
Guilford, J. P. Les dimensions de l1intellect. In H.
Laugier (Ed.) L1analyse factorlelle et ses appli
cations. Paris! Centre national de la Recherche
Sclentifique, 1956.
Guilford, J. P. Structure of intellect. Psychol. Bull.,
1956, 53/ 267-293.
Guilford, J. P. A revised structure of intellect. Rep.
psychol. Lab. No. 19• I*os Angeles: Univer.
Southern California, 1957•
Guilford, J. P. Basic traits In intellectual performan
ces. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.) Second research con
ference on identification of creative scientific
talent. Salt Lake City: Univer. Utah, 1958.
Guilford, J. P. Three faces of Intellect. Amer. Psychol
ogist, 1959, 14, 469-479.
Guilford, J. P., Green, R. F., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of reasoning abilities.
II Administration of tests and analysis of results.
Rep, psychol. Lab. No. 3« I'Os Angeles: Univer.
Southern California, 1951.
Guilford, J. P. and Merrifield, P. R. The structure of
Intellect model: Its uses and implications. Rep.
psychol. Lab. No. 24. Los Angeles: Univer.
Southern California, i960.
Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., Christensen, P. R. and
Frick, J. W. Some new symbolic factors of cogni
tion and convergent production. Educ. psychol.
Measmt., 1961, 21, 515-541.
Guilford, J. P. and Wilke, M. A new model for the demon
stration of facial expressions. Amer. J. Psychol.,
1930, 40, 436-439.
88
Guilford, J. P., Wilson, R. C., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of creative thinking. II
Administration of tests and analysis of results.
Rep, psychol. Lab. No. 8. Los Angeles: Univer.
Southern California, 1952.
Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley,
1950.
Halsman, P. The frenchman. New York: Simon and Schuster,
19^9.
Hastorf, A. H., Bender, I. E., and Weintraub, D. K. The
influence of response patterns on the "refined
empathy score.'1 J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955*
341-343.
: Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations.
| New York: Wiley, 1958.
Hertzka, A. F., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., and
Berger, R. M. A factor-analytic study of evalua
tive abilities. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1954, 14,
581-597.
Hollingshead, A. B. and Redlich, F. C. Social class and
mental illness: a community study. New York:
Wiley, 1958.
Hulin, W. S. and Katz, D. The Frois-Wittmann pictures of
facial expression. J. exp. Psychol., 1935j 18,
482-498. ------------
Izard, C. E., Randall, D. H., and Cherry, E. S. The pic
ture description test: a preliminary report.
Tech. rep. No. 16. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt
Univer., 1963*
Kettner, N. W., Guilford, J. P., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic investigation of the factor
called general reasoning. Educ. psychol. Measmt.,
1956, 16, 438-453.
Kettner, N. W., Guilford, J. P., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study across the domains of
reasoning, creativity, and evaluation. Psychol.
Monogr., 1959* 73* (Whole No. 479).
Knapp, R. H. Group and individual differences in the in
terpretation of diadic silhouettes. Paper read at
Western Psychol. Assn. Santa Monica, April, 1963.
89
Kramer, E. Judgments of personal characteristics and
emotions from nonverbal properties of speech.
Psychol. Bull., 1964, 4, 408-420.
Krout, M. H. Autistic gestures: an experimental study in
symbolic movement. Psychol. Monogr., 1935, No. 208.
Lamke, T. A. and Nelson, M. J. The Henmon-Nelson tests
of mental ability, form A~ New York: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1957.
Landis, C. A preliminary study of facial expression.
J. exp. Psychol., 192^ 7, 325-341.
Levy, N. and Schlosberg, H. Woodworth scale values of
the Lightfoot pictures of facial expression.
J. exp. Psychol., i960, 60, 121-125.
Lindquist, E. F. and Bloomers, P. Iowa tests of educa
tional development: quantitative thinking^
Chic ago: SRA, I960.
Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R.,
and Frick, J. W. The role of intellectual factors
in problem solving. Psychol. Monogr., 1962,
(Whole No. 529).
Messick, S. and Damarin, F. Cognitive styles and memory
for faces. Princeton, NT J.: Educational Testing
Service, 1963*
Mik. "Ferd’nand" comic strip. New York: United Feature
Syndicate, i960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964.
Moore, 0. K. Problem solving and the perception of per
sons. In R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo (Eds.) Person
perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford:
Stanford Univer., 1958.
Moss, F. A., Hunt, T., Omwake, K. T., and Woodward, L. G.
Social intelligence test,(2nd ed.). Washington,
D. C.: George Washington Univer., 1949.
Nihira, K., Guilford, J. P., Hoepfner, R., and Merrifield,
P. R. A factor-analytic study of semantic-evalua-
tion. Rep. psychol. Lab. No. 32. Los Angeles:
Univer. Southern California, 1964.
Petersen, H., Guilford, J. P., Hoepfner, R., and Merri
field, P. R. Determination of "strueture-of-intel
lect" abilities involved in ninth-grade algebra and
90
general mathematics. Rep. psychol. Lab. No. 31.
Los Angeles: Univer. Southern California, 1963.
Porter, E. H., Jr. An introduction to therapeutic coun
seling. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, I95O.
Porter, E. H., Jr., and Streich, E. R. Learn to listen
effectively. Personal communication, 1963.
Rogers, C. R. Counseling and psychotherapy. New York:
| Houghton-Mifflin, 1942.
Ruckmick, C. A. A preliminary study of the emotions.
Psychol. Monogr., 1921, 30, No. 3 (Whole No. 136)
30-35.
Sarbin, T. R. and Hardyck, C. D. Conformance in role per
ception as a personality variable. J. consult.
Psychol., 1955, 19, 109-111.
Schacter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford:
Stanford Univ., 1959.
Schlosberg, H. A scale for judgment of facial expressions.
J. exp. Psychol., 1941, 29, 497-510.
Schlosberg, H. A description of facial expressions in
terms of two dimensions. J. exp. Psychol., 1952,
44, 229-237.
Schlosberg, H. Three dimensions of emotion. Psychol. Rev.
1954, 61, 81-88.
Sears, R. R. Ordinal position in the family as a psycho
logical variable. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1950, 15,
397-401.
Shrauger, S. and Altrocchi, J. The personality of the
perceiver as a factor in person perception.
Psychol. Bull., 1964, 64, 289-308.
Snyder, W. U. (Ed.) Casebook of non-directive counseling.
New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1947.
Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull.,
1955, 52, 1-23.
Thurstone, L. L. A factorial study of perception.
Psychomet. Monog., No. 4. Chicago: Univer.
Chicago Press, 1944.
91
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago:
Univer. Chicago Press, 19^7* ~
Thorndike, E. L. Intelligence and its uses. Harper1s
Mag., 1920, 140, 227-235.
Thorndike, R. L. Factor analysis of social and abstract
intelligence. J. educ. Psychol., 1936, 27*
231-233.
Vandenberg, S. G. and Mattson, E. I. An experimental
test of social perception as measured by the inter
pretation of facial expressions. Ann Arbor:
Mental Health Research Institute, i960.
Wedeck, J. The relationship between personality and
psychological ability. Brit. J. Psychol., 1947*
37, 133-151.
Weisgerber, C. A. Accuracy of judging emotional expres
sions as related to college entrance test scores.
J. soc. Psychol., 1956, 44, 233-239.
Woodrow, H. The common factors in fifty-two mental tests.
Psychometrlka, 1939* 4, 99-107.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Figural-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

Development Of A Mid Primary Screening Battery For Schools Of A High Socioeconomic Community

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Semantic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

Behavioral Seriousness And Impulse-Control Balance In Delinquency

PDF

Empathy And Social Perception

PDF

Semantic-Memory And Creative (Divergent-Production) Abilities Of Senior-High-School Students

PDF

A Study Of The Relationship Of Temperament Variables To The Ability To Make Certain Judgments Of Emotional Behavior

PDF

The influence of social intelligence and social teaching methods upon academic achievement

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Symbolic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

The Effects Of Prior Part-Experiences On Visual Form Perception In The Albino Rat

PDF

Delinquency As A Function Of Intrafamily Relationships

PDF

The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence

PDF

A Factor-Analytic Study Of Problem-Solving Abilities

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

Intellect After Lobotomy In Schizophrenia: A Factor-Analytic Study

PDF

The Relation Of Sense Of Humor To Creativity, Intelligence, And Achievement

PDF

A Study Of Criteria Of Social Perception And Some Related Variables

PDF

A factor-analytic study of symbolic-memory abilities

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Sullivan, Maureen (author)

Core Title Behavioral (Social) Intelligence: A Factor Analysis

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Guilford, Joy P. (committee chair), Jacobs, Alfred (committee member), Metfessel, Newton S. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-156232

Unique identifier UC11359233

Identifier 6507237.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-156232 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6507237.pdf

Dmrecord 156232

Document Type Dissertation

Rights O'Sullivan, Maureen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA