Role Playing Ability And Social Adjustment In Children

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received 69-4547
THOMPSON, Linda Ann, 1940-
ROLE PLAYING ABILITY AND SOCIAL ADJUST
MENT IN CHILDREN.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968
Psychology, clinical
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor. Michigan
( £ ) LINDA A N N T H O M PSO N 1969
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ROLE PLAYING ABILITY AND SOCIAL
ADJUSTMENT IN CHILDREN
fey
Linda Ann Thompson
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)
June 1968
UNIVERSITY O F S O U TH ER N CALIFORNIA
T H E GRADUATE SCHOO L
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALI FORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...................L.iiida.Anji..Tb.ojmp.s.Qn....................
under the direction of hsx.... 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
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
~? r i a % 0
v Dean
Date -Junej...1.9.68
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is indebted to the members of her
committee, Doctors Tiber and Arnold, and particularly to
her committee chairman, Dr. Perry London, for the valuable
guidance and assistance received throughout the preparation
of this dissertation and during her graduate studies at the
University of Southern California. Acknowledgement is also
due to Dr. Benjamin Siegel and the Psychology staff of
Camarillo State Hospital for their support, encouragement
and guidance. Thanks are also due to Mr. Norman Palley,
Los Angeles County Mental Health Department, for his excel
lent services as statistical consultant to this study, to
Miss Nancy Naves for her secretarial assistance, and to
Miss Miriam London for inventing several of the original
charades used in the study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......... ii
LIST OF TABLES......................................... v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION..................................
II. HISTORY OF ROLE PLAYING LITERATURE .......... .
Role Playing and Psychopathology
Role Playing and Development
III. THE PROBLEMS OF THIS INQUIRY.................. 12
Role Playing as a Developmental Phenomenon
Role Playing and Socialization
General Role Playing Ability and the Playing
of Specific Roles
IV. HYPOTHESES..................................... 15
V. M E T H O D ......................................... 16
Subjects
Instruments
Procedure
Reliability
in
Chapter Page
VI. RESULTS.......................................... 2 9
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
VII. DISCUSSION ................................... 38
VIII. SUMMARY........... 42
Subjects, Instruments, and Procedures
Results and Conclusions
REFERENCES........................ 47
APPENDIX A .............................................. 51
APPENDIX B .............................................. 67
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5 .
6.
7 .
8.
9 .
10.
11.
Means and Standard Deviations of Control Data
by Group .......................................
Interjudge Reliabilities Among Three Judges for
the Dramatic Acting Test ......................
Interjudge Reliabilities for the Social Charades
T e s t ...........................................
Dramatic Acting Test Means for All Subjects by
One-Year Age Intervals ........................
Charades Test Means for All Subjects by One-Year
Age Intervals ...................................
Dramatic Acting Test Means for All Subjects by
Two Categories of Age ..........................
Charades Test Means for All Subjects by Two
Categories of Age ..............................
The Dramatic Acting Test Means of All Subjects
Charade Test Means of All Subjects .............
Dramatic Acting Test Means for Selected Subjects
by Intelligence ............................
Analysis of Variance of Dramatic Acting Test
Total Scores.of Socialization Groups by
Intelligence .... ..........................
Page
52
53
54
55
■ i
j
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
v
Table Page
12. Social Charades Test Means for Selected Subjects
by Intelligence................................ 63
13. Analysis of Variance of Social Charade Test
Total Scores of Socialization Groups by
Intelligence .................................. 64
14. Analysis of Variance of Dramatic Acting Test
Means for Socialization Group by Age by Role
Content........................................ 65
15. Analysis of Variance of Social Charades Test
Means for Socialization Groups by Age by
Role Content.................................. 66
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Since shortly before 1900, role playing ability
i
has been the subject of extensive theorizing. Conceptual
formulations of role behavior developed by early theorists
such as William James (1892) and G. H. Mead (1934) have
influenced the thinking of contemporary social scientists
such as Sarbin (1954) and Cameron (1951). Common elements
in most role theories are the assumptions (1) that role |
playing ability is crucial for the occurrence of well-
adjusted behavior, and (2) that role playing as a personal
ity variable is a developmental phenomenon.
In contrast with the great volume of theoretical
work, there has been meager empirical research dealing with
the concept of role. The present study attempted to empiri
cally test the ideas that role playing ability is a
developmental variable crucial to the performance of well-
socialized behavior.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Since shortly before 1900, role playing ability
has been the subject of extensive theorizing. Conceptual
formulations of role behavior developed by early theorists
such as William James (1892) and G. H. Mead (1934) have
influenced the thinking of contemporary social scientists
such as Sarbin (1954) and Cameron (1951). Common elements
in most role theories are the assumptions (1) that role
playing ability is crucial for the occurrence of well-
adjusted behavior, and (2) that role playing as a personal
ity variable is a developmental phenomenon.
In contrast with the great volume of theoretical
work, there has been meager empirical research dealing with
the concept of role. The present study attempted to empiri
ically test the ideas that role playing ability is a
developmental variable crucial to the performance of well-
socialized behavior.
1
i CHAPTER II
i
I
HISTORY OF ROLE PLAYING LITERATURE j
! Modern role theories propose that role playing |
I i
I |
lability underlies the development of socialization skills, j
!The history of the concept of role can be traced to shortly j
before 1900, and its development as an important concept is j
! ■ !
iclosely associated with the history of the concept of self. |
i j
I ' ' I
Iwilliam James (1892) and James M. Baldwin (1899), both of j
; i
Iwhom emphasized the importance of the concept of self in j
|the development of personality, stressed the idea that the !
i
social self is largely determined by the attitudes and
expectations of others towards the developing person. James
and Baldwin strongly influenced the ideas of Dewey (1922),
Cooley (1902), and G. H. Mead (1934). Mead's work, in
particular, has made a strong impact on the modern social
sciences. Mead's conception of personality development
includes the following elements: (1) James's idea of the
social self as the product of the attitudes and expectations
2
jof others towards him; (2) Baldwin's idea of the reciprocialj
relationship between self and others; (3) Dewey's idea that
‘ language is the basic element in social interactions; and
j(4) Mead's own idea of "taking the role of the other." j
i i
‘ These four ideas form the basic conceptual framework within
j
jwhich most subsequent investigations of social role have j
) - • i
been formulated. The influence of the above mentioned theo-j
: ' i
irists and their ideas can be seen among modern social psy
chologists (Sarbin, 1954), sociologists (Brim, 1957; Moreno,j
;1953), and psychiatrists (Sullivan, 1953; Cameron, 1951). i
| i
Among contemporary scholars, Sarbin's (1954) 1
itheory in particular has generated considerable empirical
i |
jresearch. He associates the concept of role with that of I
! t
jstatus, and there has been an increasing tendency among
i
•role—theorists towards this association. For Sarbin, a
|
role is a "patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds
performed by a person in a given position or interaction
situation [1954, p. 225]." A position (or status) is a
system of rights and obligations organized around specific
roles. Role enactment (Sarbin's term, and equivalent to
Mead's "role playing") is defined as an individual's overt j
performance, and includes "gross skeletal movements, the 1
!
performance of verbal and motoric gestures, posture i
4
i
and gait, styles of speech and accent, the wearing of
certain emblems or ornamentation, including tattoos, etc.
[Sarbin, 1954, p. 232]."
In general, role theorists posit a close relation
ship between role playing ability and socialization. Good
role playing ability is thought to be crucial for the
development of well-socialized behavior. According to
Cameron (1951), organized thought and language develop as
a result of social communication. Social communication,
in turn, depends on the ability to take the role of another
person. With the development, of role playing ability, the
y
human organism becomes a social person. According to
Cameron (1951), loss of the ability to role play or the failure of this ability to develop fully, often leads to
the development of psychologically disturbed behavior.
Skill in role playing is taken as an indication of the ex
tent to which a person is socially and interpersonally
adequate. Cameron (1951) believes that disorganized schiz
ophrenics are persons who never developed adequate role
playing skills.
Role playing has been observed to occur early in
the process of personality development. The play, fantasy
productions and imitative behavior of children indicate
5
that they engage actively in the learning and practicing
of social roles appropriate to both peers and adults. It
has been suggested (Maccoby, 1961; Sarbin &.Farberow, 1952)
that the practice provided by games of pretending is impor
tant for the development of fully socialized behavior.
The term socialization itself requires some dis
cussion. Traditional definitions of socialization include
varying conceptions such as control of impulses, acquisition
!
I
of values, internalization of parental superego, and
conformity to norms (Brown, 1965). For the purposes of
i
the present study, socialization may be understood to refer j
i
broadly to cooperative interaction in a specified social
situation. Cooperative behavior may be considered a mani
festation of socialization defined as conformity to social
norms.
Role Playing and Psychopathology
In contrast to the great volume of theoretical
Iwork, there are relatively few empirical studies examining
jwhether the ability to role play affects the socialization
j
^of behavior,
i
| Adapting the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test
i
|to measure various aspects of role behavior in college
i
6 I
students, Borgatta (1951) attempted to test the hypothesis !
that role playing tends to approximate actual behavior.
He employed—three—depen4snt variables: (1) a statement
as to how the subject thought he would behave in a partic
ular situation, as measured by a paper and pencil test; ;
(2) a role playing measure based on the subject's behav
ioral responses when asked to pretend that he was involved
in the particular situation; and (3) a score based on the
|subject's behavioral responses to standardized but seem-
i
ingly spontanteous actions on the part of the examiner.
The results indicated that role playing behavior resembled
actual behavior to a significantly greater degree than it
resembled written statements as to how the subject expected:
to behave in the situation.
i
Mann and Borgatta (1959) studied the effect of
role playing experience on changes in personality and be
havior in a group of college students. Of methodological |
interest, was their finding that three measures of role j
playing ability (self report, audience report, and fellow
actor report) were not congruent, and thus cannot be con
sidered interchangeable measures of role playing skill.
7
The effect of role playing on attitude change was
investigated by Elms (1966). Cigarette smokers* asked to
play the role of nonsmokers, attempted to convince other
smokers to stop smoking. Eighty smokers, assigned randomly
to play or to listen to role players' persuasive arguments,
were tested in pairs. Role players showed significantly
more attitude change than nonrole players.
Role playing was employed as both an assessment
and a psychotherapeutic technique by Moreno (1940, 1953),
who named it "psychodrama." As a therapeutic procedure,
Moreno used psychodrama extensively with schizophrenics.
He assumed that the experience of playing roles of self and
significant others provides opportunities for emotional
contact with others. Moreno (1940) reported research
findings which suggested that psychodramatic procedures
lead to decreases in the symptomatic behavior in schizo
phrenic patients. Mann (1956), however, in his article
"Experimental Evaluations of Role Playing," pointed out
that Moreno's studies do not include control groups, and
| the results are based primarily on the experimenter's
t
iclinical judgment. /A more rigorous study of the effects
|of psychodrama on hospitalized patients was performed by
iSchneidmuhl (1951). Patients met in drama groups twice a
8
week for 18 weeks. His results indicated that depressed
patients benefitted most from the procedure and that the
kinds of problems they acted out tended to be limited to
realistic problems of adjustment to hospital life. Similar
results were found in another study involving hospitalized
schizophrenic patients (Parrish & Mitchell, 1951). Each
patient's behavior was evaluated by staff members after
each psychodrama meeting. The evaluations led to the con
clusion that progress was made in coping with problems
arising in the hospital setting, but that very few patients
developed insight or personality change. Willens (1965)
conducted an experiment to test the effects of training in
role playing techniques on the role behavior and the under
standing of roles in hospitalized male schizophrenics. The
study was derived from current role theory (Sarbin1s, in
particular), and thus, role playing ability was considered
to reflect the social and interpersonal skills of an
individual. The results demonstrated that there was an
increase in appropriate behavior for subjects who were
initially poor in conceptual understanding of roles. How-
ever, there was no increase in role understanding as a
result of the training procedure. Training in specific
I role behavior did not lead to improvement in playing these
: 9
jroles in appropriate situations. Maas (1966) investigated
the use of actional procedures in group psychotherapy with
sociopathic women. She predicted that "an opportunity for
antisocial individuals to experience relationships with
others through psychodramatic procedures would result in
a greater sense of interpersonal consistency as measured by
Block's Ego Identity Scale." The results indicated that
after 26 sessions, the psychodrama group showed a stronger
sense of personal identity. The author concluded that
psychodrama techniques in combination with traditional
group psychotherapy, appeared to be a promising approach
to the treatment of anti-social behavior disorders.
iRole Playing and Development
Although role playing ability is considered a
developmental phenomenon, there is a very meager literature
of experimental studies of role playing in children. Role
playing ability was found to increase with increases in
;age and intelligence (Feffer & Gourevitch, 1960; Bowers &
London, 1965; Wolfe, 1963). With age and intelligence
] controlled, role playing in children was found to be di
rectly related to conceptual level (Feffer, 1959; Wolfe,
1963). Bowers & London (1965) found no difference between
10
'sexes in ability to role play in children. However,
Rosenblith (1959) found that the sex of a child influenced
imitative behavior. It should be noted that Rosenblith1s
study dealt with imitative behavior,.whereas Bowers &
London examined nonimitative role playing behavior (e.g.,
where no model was present).
Maccoby (1959) discussed the development of role
playing ability in children and its consequences for social
learning. She offered the following two hypotheses:
(1) The more frequently we interact with another
person (and the more our own actions are inter
dependent with his), the more we must learn to
anticipate what he will do if the interaction is
to harmonious and in anticipating him, we learn
the content of his behavior; (2) The more power
another individual exercises over ego, the more
ego will rehearse alter1s actions in the absence
of the alter [Maccoby, 1959, p. 243].
In a more recent study, Maccoby (1961) indirectly tested
the hypotheses that children acquire adult-like behavior
during early childhood through covert practice of parents'
behavior. She separated her sample of children into two
groups, one with strict parents, the other with permissive
parents. As predicted, when a child sees another child
breaking a rule, he will be more likely to enforce the rule
if his parents were themselves strict rule enforcers. Thus,
11
! assuming covert practice, and given a strict rule enforcing
parent, the child will act the part of a strict rule en
forcer when presented with an appropriate situation.
CHAPTER III
THE PROBLEMS OF THIS INQUIRY
The purpose of the present study was to examine
three questions: (1) Is role playing more of a develop
mental phenomenon than a socialization phenomenon? If
this were true, then most of the variance associated with
role playing ability would be attributable to age; (2) Is
role playing critical for socialization? If it is crucial,
then poorly-socialized children should manifest less role
playing skill than well-socialized children; (3) If a
relationship does exist between role playing and sociali
zation, is it general role playing ability or the experience
of specific roles, or both, which differentiates children
who differ in socialization?
Role Playincr as a Developmental
Phenomenon
Previous studies (Feffer & Gourevitch, 1960; Bowers
i& London, 1965; Wolfe, 1963) have demonstrated that role
i
I 12 ________
13
playing ability in children improves with age. It is,
therefore, expected that regardless of other variables
which may be related to role playing, older children will
be better role players than younger children.
Role Playing and Socialization
If it is true that role playing ability is critical
for socialization, then one would expect well-socialized
individuals to be better role players than poorly-socialized
individuals. Since role theories define socialization as
a process of learning to play social roles, one may predict
that children who are poorly-socialized are also poor role
players, and that children who are well-socialized are
better role players.
General Role Playing Ability and
the Flaying- of Specific Roles
If differences in role playing ability do exist
between well- and poorly-socialized children, the question
then arises as to whether well- and poorly-adjusted children
differ in general role playing ability. That is, will
ipoorly-socialized children be consistently inferior role
players over a wide range of social roles?
It is conceivable that well- and poorly-socialized
14
^children may differ not in general role playing ability,
but rather in the ability to play specific roles. Both
well- and poorly-socialized children may be able to play
some roles equally well, whereas some roles may be played
well only by well-socialized children, and others only by
poorly-socialized children. Since roles are defined as
patterns of acquired behavior, and since roles are learned
through either intentional instruction or incidental ex
perience with significant others, it is entirely possible
that children will differ in the types of roles they play
on the basis of exposure to differing models. In summary,
the question may be asked as to whether it is role playing
or the playing of specific roles, or both, which differen
tiates the well-socialized from the poorly-socialized child.
CHAPTER IV
HYPOTHESES
Three experimental hypotheses were formulated from
the foregoing considerations:
1. Older children are better role players than
younger children.
2. Well-socialized children are better role
players than poorly-socialized children.
3. There are some differences in ability to play
specific roles among populations, such that those roles
played most skillfully by well-socialized children differ
from the roles played most skillfully by children who are
less well-socialized.
15
CHAPTER V
METHOD
The questions of this study were investigated by
comparing the performances of ninety children selected from
three different sources and representing a wide age range.
Two standard tests of role playing, one verbal and one non
verbal, were administered in constant order to the subjects.
Subjects
The subjects were ninety boys between the ages of
7 years and 12 years 11 months. A six year age range was
chosen to allow for developmental comparisons. Thirty of
;the subjects were selected from a sample of delinquent
children hospitalized at a public institution for the men
tally disturbed. This group was designated the low-
i socialized group. Another thirty subjects were selected
i from a sample of delinquent boys receiving out-patient
psychotherapy at a public clinic. This group was designated
16
the middle-socialized group. The third group of subjects
consisted of a sample of boys living in a local community
and belonging to either the cub scouts or boy scouts. This
group was designated the high-socialized group.
- /
The criteria for inclusion in the low-socialized
group were: (a) excessive acting out, anti-social and/or
aggressive behavior; (b) absence of psychotic symptoms;
(c) absence of mental retardation; (d) absence of organic
brain dysfunction; and (e) absence of a history of insti
tutionalization from birth.
The information required to meet these criteria
was gathered from reports of medical examination, psycho
logical testing, psychiatric examination, and social
histories. Informal interviews were conducted with appro
priate hospital personnel. If a subject's record did not
include the results of a recently administered Wechsler
Intelligence Test for Children (WISC) the experimenter
administered a WISC vocabulary subtest, and extrapolated
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) estimates from it.
Inclusion in the middle-socialized group required
|meeting the following criteria: (a) currently engaged in
out-patient treatment for acting-out, anti-social, and/or
aggressive behavior; (b) absence of a history of
18
hospitalization for psychological disturbance; (c) absence
of psychotic symptoms; (d) absence of mental retardation;
and (e) absence of organic brain dysfunction.
The necessary information was obtained from inter
views with the subject's psychotherapist and from clinical
records. Each clinical record included an initial psycho
logical evaluation, therapy progress notes, and family
history. Records sometimes included school reports and
psychological testing reports. An estimate of intelligence
was obtained by the experimenter who administered the WISC
vocabulary subtest to each subject.
The high-socialized group consisted of boys who
were undiagnosed and therefore, presumably, normally
adjusted. Inclusion of this group required only the scout
leader's or den mother's judgment that the child's behavior
did not deviate markedly from what might be described as
"normal." An estimate of intelligence was obtained from
the WISC vocabulary subtest, administered by the experi
menter.
The three groups were matched for intelligence,
socioeconomic level, and number of subjects at different
age levels. Since the low-socialized sample was selected
from a population of markedly limited size, i.e., a
19
hospital ward, this group's characteristics defined the
socioeconomic, intelligence, and age distribution criteria
for the middle- and high-socialized groups. In each group
of thirty subjects, there were seven subjects between
seven and eight years old, 13 between nine and ten years
old, and 10 subjects between eleven and twelve years of
age (Table 1). Estimates of intelligence based on the WISC
vocabulary subtest scores were used to match the groups on
IQ (Table 1). Years of education of father and mother
(Table 1), and father's occupational category were used as
the basis for matching the groups on socioeconomic level
(Svalastoga, 1964). A Chi-square computed for categories
of father's occupation indicated no significant difference
among groups on this variable. The source of this socio
economic data for the low- and middle-socialized groups
was each subject's clinical record. A short questionnaire
asking for years of parental education and father's
occupation was mailed to the parents of the high-socialized
subjects (Appendix B). Thirteen of the questionnaires were
returned by mail. The remaining twelve families were
contacted by telephone and supplied the necessary informa
tion at that time.
20
i
i Instruments
The ability to take the role of another person was
measured by two instruments, a verbal test (Dramatic Acting)
and a nonverbal test (Social Charades, Appendix B).
The verbal test consisted of five playlets selected
from the Dramatic Acting Test: A Role Playing Test for
Children developed by Bowers & London (1965), and three
additional playlets, constructed for the present study.
The roles selected from Bowers & London were Mother, Friend,
Bully, Teacher, and Sheriff. The newly constructed roles
were similar in format and administration to those in
Bowers & London's test. The purpose of constructing new
roles was to include social situations which might be ex
pected, on the basis of social case histories, to tap
experiential differences between poorly- and well-adjusted
children. The newly constructed roles were Drunk Father,
Runaway, and Good Husband. Thus, for the purposes of the
present study, the revised Dramatic Acting Test consisted
of eight roles. Four of the roles (Sheriff, Bully, Runaway,
and Drunk Father) required ability to portray aggressive
and/or antisocial behavior; the other four roles (Mother,
Friend, Teacher, and Good Husband) required the ability to
take the role of cooperative, loving and/or interpersonally
21
responsible person.
The task of role enactment involved the same kind
of verbal interaction between experimenter and subject in
eight playlets, intended to last one minute each. Follow
ing a general introduction to the task, the experimenter
described each play's theme, and assigned a specific role
to himself and the subject. The experimenter's role con
sisted of three standard lines, and each play began with
the experimenter reciting one of these lines. The child
was instructed to make up a line in response to each of
the experimenter's preceding lines. In the first play, for
example, the child was asked to respond as a Friend to the
experimenter's role of a peer who had lost money. In the
second play, the child was asked to act like a Bully to
the experimenter's enactment of a younger child who wants
to play with him. The subject was asked to pretend to be
a Mother in the third play, responding to the experimenter
as a child who had broken a lamp. The fourth play involved
the subject; as Teacher interacting with the experimenter
as a child complaining about a classmate's behavior. In
;the fifth play, the subject was to play the part of a
Sheriff in response to the experimenter as a robber. In
’ the sixth play, the subject had to act like a child trying
|to convince his Friend (experimenter) to run away from home
w.ith him. In the seventh play, the subject was to pretend
to be a Drunken Father interacting with the experimenter
as his child. The last play required the subject to play
a loving husband in response to the experimenter's role of
the sick wife.
The standard scoring manual devised by Bowers &
London for the Dramatic Acting Test was revised appropri
ately and employed in the present study (Appendix B). The
manual serves as a guide in assigning category scores to
the content of the subjects' responses. There are four
possible category scores for any line, describing a con
tinuum of appropriate role enactment. The category number
assigned to the subject's response was the subject's score.
Each subject's total score for the Dramatic Acting Test
was the sum of the average line score for each role. The
manual describes a high score as meaning "the adoption of
an attitude consistent with the cultural stereotypes of the
pole* and a logical sequence of lines which incorporates
I
|
| this attitude with the specific situation of the play, es
pecially the preceding stimulus line of the experimenter."
The newly constructed roles (Runaway* Drunk Father* and
|Good Husband) were scored in the same manner.
i 23
For the new roles, category numbers for different
degrees of response appropriateness were determined by
agreement among three independent judges. Two of the judges
were clinical psychologists, and one was a graduate student
in clinical psychology.
A nonverbal measure of role playing, the Social
Charades Test, was developed for this study. The rationale
for devising this test was suggested by research findings
relating social class to motoric orientation (Miller &
Swanson, 1960). There is evidence that boys from lower
socioeconomic groups use bodily movements easily and natur
ally in the communication of ideas, whereas middle-class
boys tend to use more conceptual means of communication.
In the present study the three groups were matched for
socioeconomic level with the standards for matching deter
mined by the hospitalized delinquent group. Since this
! group tended to be comprised of lower-middle and upper-lower
class children, it was considered advisable to measure
■role playing ability nonverbally as well as verbally.
The Social Charades Test consisted of eight role
|playing subtests. Each subtest consisted of a one or two
sentence description of social situations in which the
subject was assigned to play a specific role, portraying
Ithe character's behavior without using speech or props and
without interacting with the experimenter. Subjects were
told they could move around the room and use body movements
and gestures, including silent lip movements. Subjects
were asked to enact the roles of (1) an 111 Child, (2) a
Best Friend, (3) a Shoplifter, (4) a mother discovering
the misbehavior of her very young child (Mother), (5) a
Soldier in combat (6) a Motorcycle Policemen, (7) a high-
school student smoking in the school restroom (Smoker),
and (8) a Mailman encountering a big dog. The role of Best
Friend (buying candy) was considered to require sharing on
the part of the subject while the roles of Shoplifter,
Soldier, and Smoker required agressive and/or antisocial
behavior. The- roles of Mother, Policemen, and Mailman were
considered neutral with regard to both cooperativeness and
aggression. Unlike the Dramatic Acting Test, the division
of The Social Charades Test into content categories was
post hoc. The 111 Child subtest was not assigned to a
; content category on this basis because it was not thought
i
|to fit clearly into cooperative, antisocial, or neutral
categories of meaning.
The Social Charades Test was administered to a
|pilot group of eight normal children ranging in age from
.....................' .......................................... ........................ " ................ ’..................... 25
I
t |
\l to 14 years. A detailed record was written of each j
j i
child's role enactment activity for each of the eight roles.j
i !
j I
|The movements and gestures of the pilot subjects were the j
iempirical basis for construction of scoring check-lists j
I !
lemployed in the experiment proper for each role. The lists i
jincluded both role-appropriate and role-inappropriate ac-
i
i !
tivities which a subject might perform. Behaviors not j
I i
lanticipated on the check-list were recorded by the judges j
i !
|at the time of testing. These check-lists (Appendix B) were;
Ithe only means by which a subject's nonverbal behavior was j
jrecorded in this experiment. Each subject's nonverbal role j
; !
playing was observed and recorded independently by two
'judges, the experimenter and assistant also present in the
room at the time of testing. The total score for each role
was the number of role-appropriate movements minus the num- j
j
ber of role-inappropriate movements. Each single appro-
i
ipriate movement was worth one point and each single inappro
priate movement was worth minus one point.
Procedure
The entire experiment was conducted in a single
one-hour session. Each subject was tested individually by
I
one of three experimenters. Experimenter-^ tested 3 7 sub
j e c t s , experimented tested 36 subjects, and experimented
; 26
tested 17 subjects. In addition to the subject and exper
imenter an assistant (one of the other experimenters) was
always present in the room to operate the tape recorder and
judge responses on the Social Charades Test. To introduce
the study, the experimenter explained to the subject that
they were going to play two acting gamesj and if the subject
played the games well, he would receive a large chocolate
bar that was on the table. All the subjects were given the
candy bar at the end of the experimental session whether
they deserved it or not. The WISC vocabulary subtest was
then administered by the experimenter (to all except 12
I subjects for whom full scales were available). Of the role
: playing measures, the Dramatic Acting Test was administered
:first and tape recorded. The subject was asked to pretend
he was in a TV or radio play, and told that the experimenter
would tell him~a&ho he was to pretend to be. The eight
plays were presented in the same order to all the subjects.
The experimenter then introduced the Social Charades Test
as another acting game in which the subject was to act by
moving his body rather than talking. While the subject
acted out the roles in this test, the experimenter and the
assistant recorded his responses on the check-lists.
j 27
: Reliability
Product-moment correlations were computed in order
to assess the scoring reliability of both the Dramatic
Acting Test and the Social Charades Test. The results
indicate that scoring reliability was satisfactory.
Three independent judges had rated each subject's
responses: (a) Experimenter^ who had observed each subject
in the test-taking situation, and who scored the responses
from tape recordings; (b) a supervisor of Rehabilitation
Services at a local State Mental Hospital; and (c) a grad
uate student of psychology. Judges (2) and (3) scored
responses from tape recordings and verbatim transcripts
jonly. The interjudge reliabilities for all groups combined
and for each group separately ranged from .7825 to .9220
(Table 2). For purposes of statistical analysis, only the
scores of experimenter^ were used.
For the Social Charades Test each subject's total
score was the sum of his eight role scores. All subjects
were rated by a team of two judges. Judge A was experi-
jmenter^ and rated all 90 subjects. Judge B was experi-
jmente^ and rated 59 subjects, 8 from the low-socialized
}
\ group, 21 from the middle-socialized group, and 30 from the
ihigh--socialized group. Judge C was experimenter^ and rated
1 31 subjects, 22 from the low-socialized group and 9 from
the middle-socialized group. Each subject was rated,
therefore, either by Judges A & B working as a team or by
Judges A & C working as a team. Interjudge reliabilities
for all groups combined and for each group separately was
exceptionally high, ranging from .9296 to .9852 (Table 3).
For purposes of statistical analysis, only the scores of
experimenter^ were used.
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS
The main hypotheses of this study are that (a)
well-socialized children are better role players than
poorly-socialized children, (b) that older children are
better role players than younger children, and (c) that
differences in ability to play specific roles varies sys
tematically among well- and poorly-socialized populations.
These hypotheses were investigated statistically by com
parisons of mean scores on The Dramatic Acting Test and
;The Social Charades Test among the subject groups using
analysis of variance. All of the computer analyses were
conducted at the Health Sciences Computing Facility, UCLA
and was sponsored by NIH grant FR-3.
The first two hypotheses were tested by computing
a separate two-way analysis of variance (Groups X Age) for
jeach individual role and for all roles combined (total
jtest score) for both The Dramatic Acting Test and The Social
[ ...... . ...................................... 2 9 ____ _______________
| 30
|
|Charades Test, giving a total of eighteen analyses of
variance (Dixon, 196 7).
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis states that older children
are better role players than younger children. A comparison
of the means on The Dramatic Acting Text and on The Social
Charades Test for all subjects by one year age intervals
is presented in Tables 4 and 5. For purposes of computing
analyses of variance subjects were divided by age into a
younger group and an older group, each consisting of 45
subjects. The mean age of the younger group was 8.8 years;
the mean age of the older group was 11.1 years. The total
score for both The Dramatic Acting Test and The Social
Charades Test indicates that older children are signifi
cantly better role players than younger children. Although
separate comparisons by age groupings for each Dramatic
Acting role (verbal) did not yield significant differences,
i
;the older group obtained a higher mean score than the
younger group for all roles except Sheriff (Table 6). Com
parisons between older and younger children for each of the
.'Social Charade roles, however, indicate that older children
|play the roles of Best Friend, Shoplifter, Motorcycle
31
I Policeman, and Mailman significantly better than the younger
children. Of the four remaining roles, older children
achieve a higher mean score than do younger children on all
roles except Soldier (Table 7), but none of these differ
ences are significant.
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis states that well-socialized
children are better role players than are poorly-socialized
children. Results on our verbal measure fail to support
this idea, while results on nonverbal measures do favor it.
A comparison among the three groups on The Dramatic Acting
Test fails to support the prediction. The hypothesis
demanded that the Normal group obtain significantly higher
role playing scores than either of the other groups, but
Inone of the observed differences are significant (Table 8).
It is of interest to note, on the other hand, that on six
of the eight verbal roles of The Dramatic Acting Test, the
inormal subjects achieved a slightly higher mean score than
idid all other subjects.
The results of The Social Charades Test do support
ithe second (socialization) hypothesis. The mean scores for
ithe Hospital group were consistently the lowest. The Clinic
32
[group obtained lower mean scores than the Normal group on
all but three roles (Shoplifter, Soldier, and Smoker).
!
Both the total Charades score and two of the individual
pantomine scores (Best Friend and Smoker) differentiated
significantly among groups (Table 9).
For comparisons which yeilded significant F ratios,
t tests were computed in order to gain further information
regarding group differences. Of the nine t. tests, the
following five were significant: (a) the Clinic and the
Hospital groups differed significantly on total test score
(j: = 2.15, p < *05) ; (b) the Normal and Hospital groups
also differed significantly on total scores (t = 2.51, p <
.05). For individual roles, (c) the Normal and Hospital
^groups differed significantly on Best Friend (t_ = 2.65,
p. < .05) ; (d) the Clinic and Hospital groups differed sig
nificantly on the Smoker role (t = 2.97, p < .01); and (e)
the Normal and Hospital groups also differed significantly
Ion the Smoker role (t = 2.60, p < .05).
It is important to note that unlike the Dramatic
[Acting Test, The Social Charades Test yields an absolute
!
[score for which there is no fixed upper limit. Since a
[role score consists of the sum of appropriate movements
[minus the sum of inappropriate movements, The Social
I 33
“ Charades Test may be thought of as a test of expressiveness
with a correction factor for appropriateness. The Normal
group performed the greatest number of appropriate move
ments (1,061), the Clinic group performed the next greatest
number of appropriate movements (1,005), and the Hospital
group performed the fewest number of appropriate movements
(808). The Clinic group performed the greatest number of
inappropriate movements (85), the Hospital group performed
the next greatest number of inappropriate movements (74),
and the Normal group performed the fewest number of in
appropriate movements (64). A Chi-square was computed to
determine whether inappropriate movements significantly
iinfluenced the scores of one group more than any other
group. The results indicated that type of movement (appro
priate or inappropriate) is not independent of socialization
group status. Therefore, the above mentioned group dif
ferences in role playing ability may be interpreted as
differences both in expressiveness and social appropriat-
1
ness.
! The possibility exists that intelligence level is
|a contaminating factor in the relationship between adjust
ment status and role playing ability. Since emotionally
disturbed children frequently have artifically depressed
IQ scores, our procedure of matching the three mental
status groups on tested IQ may have yielded clinic and
hospital subjects with higher true intellectual potentials
than those of normal subjects. The relationship of intel
ligence and adjustment level was investigated by comparing
the role playing scores of 60 subjects matched across
adjustment groups for age and IQ, with 10 children of rel
atively high and 10 of relatively low IQ in each group.
Analysis of variance demonstrated that, among the Dramatic
Acting tests, the more intelligent subjects were better
role players than the less intelligent subjects in all
three adjustment groups, on all but the Sheriff subtest;
[only the total test score difference was significant
(Tables 10 & 11). There was no significant interaction
[between IQ and adjustment status for any scores except the
; Enemy subtest which, considering that nine interaction
analyses were performed, should probably not be interpreted.
Among the Social Charade Tests, the results of analysis of
;variance also showed no significant relationship between
I (nonverbal) role playing and (verbal) intelligence and no
[significant interaction between intelligence and adjustment
; (Tables 12 & 13).
35
j
j Hypothesis 3
The third hypothesis states that there.are dif
ferences among groups in ability to play specific roles,
such that the roles played most skillfully by well-adjusted
subjects will be different from the roles played most skill
fully by poorly-adjusted subjects. This hypothesis was
tested by a three-way analysis of variance (Groups X Age X
Role Content).
For The Dramatic Acting Test, the three socializa
tion groups (Normal, Clinic, Hospital) were compared by age
categories (older and younger), and by role content cate
gories (aggressive versus cooperative roles). The aggres
sive category consisted of four roles: (a) Sheriff, (b)
Bully, (c) Runaway, and (d) Drunk Father. The cooperative
category consisted of the four remaining roles; (a) Mother,
(b) Friend, (c) Teacher, and (d) Good Husband. There were
no important differences between age or socialization
groups, but virtually all subjects played aggressive roles
significantly better than they played cooperative roles.
There were no significant interactions among the three var
iables (Table 14).
r
Although the differences were not significant, it
jis of interest to note that the Hospital group obtained the
36
Ihighest (i.e., most aggressive) mean score on the Sheriff
role and the next highest'mean score on Bully and Drunk
IFather roles. The Clinic group also scored higher than the
Normal group on two of the aggressive roles (Sheriff and
Drunk Father). Neither the Clinic nor the Hospital groups,
however, obtained a mean score higher than the Normal group
on any of the cooperative roles.
The three-way analysis of variance of The Social
Charades Test used most of the same categories as did The
Dramatic Acting Test, but added a neutral category of Role
Content. The aggressive category consisted of three roles:
(a) Shoplifter, (b) Soldier, and (c) Smoker. The coopera
tive category also consisted of three roles: (a) Best
Friend, (b) Mother, and (c) Policeman. Mailman made up
the neutral category.
Main effect tests of total scores for each category
indicated no significant differences among groups in ability
to play different kinds, of roles, nor were there significant
differences among categories of role across all subjects,
;or significant interactions among any of the three variables,
l i t is of interest to note that the interaction between
'Groups and Role Content categories is very close to being
■significant at the .05 level of probability (Table 15).
3 7
On both the cooperative role (Best Friend) and the
aggressive role (Smoker), the Hospital group obtained the
lowest mean score (Table 8). For both of these roles, the
two-way analysis (Groups X Age) indicated a significant
difference among the three socialization groups. As in
dicated by the t tests reported above, the Hospital group
differed significantly from the Normal group on Best Friend
and from both the Normal and Clinic groups on Smoker.
CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION
As predicted by Hypothesis 1, older children are
better role players than younger children. Earlier studies
(Feffer & Gourevitch, 1960; Bowers & London, 1965; Wolfe,
1963) have also found support for the idea that role play
ing ability increases with age. Although the present study
and the Bowers & London (1965) study both used The Dramatic
Acting Test to measure role playing ability, the earlier
study did not analyze individual roles. The present study
analyzed individual role scores as well as the Total test
score, and found no significant differences between younger
and older children in ability to play individual verbal
roles. However, the Total test (verbal) score did signif
icantly differenciate between age groups, showing that
'older children are more generally skillful role players
I
I than younger children. The influence of age on role playing
i
i
jwas demonstrated even more clearly on the nonverbal measure
j
i
I
j
i
l _______ 38_______________________________
| 39
! (The Social Charades Test) than on the verbal measure (The
j
Dramatic Acting Test). Four of the nonverbal subtests
(Best Friend, Shoplifter, Policeman, and Mailman), as well
as the Total test (nonverbal) score discriminated signif
icantly between older and younger children, favoring the
older.
The second hypothesis states that well-socialized
children are better role players than poorly-socialized
children. The difference between verbal and nonverbal roles
becomes even more important in connection with Hypothesis 2
i
than it is with Hypothesis 1, because Hypothesis 2 finds
its only significant support from The Social Charades Test
results. Although results from The Dramatic Acting Test-'
go in the predicted direction (normal subjects acheived
higher mean scores than all other subjects), none of the
differences were significant.
As predicted by earlier studies (Feffer &
Gourevitch, 1960; Bowers & London, 1965; Wolfe, 1963),
Iverbal role playing skill was significantly influenced by
; verbal intelligence. However, nonverbal role playing abil-
jity was not mediated to any significant degree by verbal
I intelligence.
Besides differing in mode of expression, verbal
j 40
i
land nonverbal roles differed in the degree to which the
task was structured. The verbal roles were more highly
structured than the nonverbal roles by the relatively stand
ard verbal interaction between subject and experimenter.
Since verbal intelligence was found to mediate only verbal
role playing but not nonverbal role playing, it is conceiv
able that the major variables mediating role playing are
masked by a high degree of task structure which permits a
child's ability to understand the task intellectually to
supercede any other than an intellectual response to it.
i
Variables such as imagination or self-reliance may be the
chief determinates of performance on a nonverbal role
playing test, because there is sufficient lack of structure
;for these traits to operate. This says, in effect, that
:the relatively unstructured test may enable a child to ex
press himself better than he can in the highly structured
verbal tests. Since the relationship of test structure to
role playing ability was not investigated by this study,
jhoweveTr, all statements made in regard to task structure
|are purely speculative.
j
The third hypothesis states that there are dif
ferences among groups in ability to play specific roles,
;Such that the roles played most skillfully by well-adjusted
41
I subjects will be different from the roles played most
skillfully by poorly-adjusted subjects. This hypothesis
was not supported by either The Dramatic Acting Test or
The Social Charades Test. The middle-socialized group
(clinic subjects), however, did tend to perform in the pre
dicted direction. Considering both measures combined, the
clinic children obtained a very slightly higher mean score
(statistically insignificant) than did the normal subjects
on five out of seven roles that called for aggressive
behavior.
For The Dramatic Acting Test, it was found unex
pectedly that all subjects, regardless of adjustment group,
; played aggressive roles more skillfully than they did
cooperative roles. It is possible that some kinds of social
stereotypes (i.e., aggression) are more familiar to every
body than are other kinds (i.e., cooperativeness), or that
aggressive stereotypes are easier to act out dramatically
even if they are not more familiar or appealing. This study
;did not, of course, find evidence one way or the other for
|this speculation.
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY
Since shortly before 1900, role playing ability
has been the subject of extensive theorizing. Conceptual
formulations of role behavior developed by early theorists
such as William James (1892) and G. H. Mead (1934) have
influenced the thinking of contemporary social scientists
such as Sarbin (1954) and Cameron (1951). Common elements
in most role theories are the assumptions (1) that role
playing is crucial for the occurrence of well-adjusted
behavior, and (2) that role playing as a personality vari
able is a developmental phenomenon.
In contrast with the great volume of theoretical
work,, there has been meager empirical research dealing with
the concept of role. The present study attempted to empir
ically test the idea that role playing ability is a devel-
j
jopmental variable crucial to the performance of well-
i
! socialized behavior.
i 43
1 Subjects. Instruments, and Procedures
The subjects were ninety boys from 7 through 12
years old. Thirty of the subjects were selected from a
sample of delinquent children in a public mental hospital
(low-socialized group). Another thirty subjects were
selected from a sample of delinquent boys receiving out
patient psychotherapy at a public clinic (middle-socialized
group). The third group of subjects were boys living in a
local community and belonging to either the cub scouts or
boy scouts (high-socialized group). The three groups were
matched for intelligence, socioeconomic level, and age.
The main instruments of the study were two tests
of role playing ability, The Dramatic Acting Test (a verbal
test) and The Social Charades Test (a nonverbal test) .
Each test consisted of eight playlets, some of which re
quired aggressive and/or antisocial role behavior, and
others which required cooperative and/or loving role be
havior.
Each subject was tested individually on all exper
imental procedures in a single one-hour session. To
introduce the study, the experimenter explained to the
subject that they were going to play two acting games. The
iWISC vocabulary subtest was then administered, followed
: 44
iby The Dramatic Acting Test and then by The Social Charades
Test.
Three independent judges rated each subject's
Dramatic Acting Test responses in accordance with a stand
ard scoring manual. The interjudge reliabilities (Product-
moment correlations) for all adjustment groups combined and
for each group separately ranged from .7825 to .9220
(Table 2). For purposes of statistical analysis, only the
scores of experimenter^ were used.
For the Social Charades Test each subject's total
score was the sum of his eight role scores. All subjects
were-rated by a team of two judges. Interjudge reliabili
ties (Product-moment correlations) for all adjustment
groups combined and for each group separately was exception
ally high, ranging from .9296 to .9852 (Table 3). For
purposes of statistical analysis, only the scores of ex
perimenter^ were used.
I Results and Conclusions
As predicted, older children are better role players
ithan younger children. The influence of age on role play
ing skill was demonstrated even more clearly of the non
verbal measure (The Social Charades Test) than on the verbal
45
measure (The Dramatic Acting Test). Well-adjusted children
are also better role players than poorly-adjusted children
as indicated by the results of The Social Charades Test.
The results from The Dramatic Acting Test, however, although
they go in the predicted direction, fail to support this
hypothesis.
Finally, it was predicted that there would be
differences among groups in ability to play specific roles,
such that the roles played most skillfully by well-adjusted
subjects will be different from the roles played most
skillfully by poorly-adjusted subjects. This hypothesis
was not supported by either The Dramatic Test or The Social
Charades Test. For the Dramatic Acting Test, it was found
unexpectedly that all subjects, regardless of adjustment
group, played aggressive roles more skillfully than they
did cooperative roles.
REFERENCES
46
REFERENCES
Baldwin, J. M. Mental development in the child and in the
race. New York: Macmillan, 1898.
Borgatta, E. F. An analysis of three levels of response:
an approach to some relationships among dimensions of
personality. Sociometry, 1951, 14, 267-316.
Bowers, P. & London, P. Developmental correlates of role-
playing ability. Child Development. 1965, 30, 499-508.
Brim, 0. G., Jr. The parent-child relation as a social
system: I. Parent and child roles. Child Development,
1957, 28 ., 343-364.
Brown, R. Social psychology. New York: The Free Press,
1965.
Cameron, N. Experimental analysis of schizophrenic think
ing. In J. S. Kasanin (Ed.), Language and thought in
schizophrenia. Berkely: University of California
Press, 1951, pp. 50-64.
Cooley, C. H. Human nature and the social order. New
York: Scribners, 1902.
Dewey, J. Human nature and conduct. New York: Holt, 1922.
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.) Biomedical computer programs. Berkeley
& Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.
;Elms, A. C. Influence of fantasy ability on attitude
I change through role playing. Journal of Personality.
1966, 4, 36-43.
47
48
jFeffer, M. H. The cognitive implications of role-taking
behavior. Journal of Personality, I960, 28, 383-396.
Feffer, M. H. & Gourevitch, V. Cognitive aspects of role
taking in children. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28,
383-396.
James, W. Psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 1892.
Maas, J. The use of actional procedures in group psycho
therapy with sociopathic women. International Journal
of Group Psychotherapy, 1966, 16, 190-197.
Maccoby, E. E. Role taking in children and its consequences
for social learning. Child Development, 1959, 30,
239-252.
Maccoby, E. E. The taking of adult roles in middle child
hood. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology. 1961,
63, 493-503.
Mann, J. Experimental evaluation of role playing. Psycho
logical Bulletin, 1956, 53, 227-334.
Mann, J. & Borgatta, E. F. Personality and behavior cor
relates of changes produced by role-playing experience.
Psychological Reports, 1959, J5, 505-526.
Mead, G. H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: The Uni
versity of Chicago Press, 1934.
Miller, D. R. & Swanson, G. E. Inner conflict and defense.
New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1960.
Moreno, J. L. Psychodramatic treatment of psychosis.
Sociometry. 1940, 3., 115-132.
jMoreno, J. L. Who shall survive? New York: Beacon House,
| 1953.
jParrish, M. M. Sc Mitchell, J. Psychodrama in Pontiac State
Hospital. Group Psychotherapy. 1951, 4, 580-583.
jRosenblith, Judy. Learning by imitation in kindergarten
j children. Child Development, 1959, 30, 69-80.
49
ISarbin, T. R. Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook
of social psychology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley,
1954, pp. 223-258.
Sarbin, T. R. & Farberow, N. L. Contributions to role-
taking theory: A clinical study of self and role.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1952, 47,
pp. 117-125.
Schneidmuhl, A. M. Groups psychotherapy program at the
Spring Grove State Hospital. Group Psychotherapy,
1951, 4^ pp. 41-44.
Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1953.
Svalastoga, K. Social differentiation. In E. L. Faris
(Ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand
McNally & Co., 1964, pp. 530-575.
Willens, J. G. Training role behavior in schizophrenics.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1965.
Wolfe, R. The role of conceptual systems in cognitive
functioning at varying levels of age and intelligence.
Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 108-123.
APPEND IXES
. • * * * »
50
APPENDIX
TABLES
52
TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CONTROL
DATA BY GROUP
Control Data Hospital Ss Clinic Ss Normal Ss
M SD M SD M SD
1
i
IQ* 102.33 15.78 106.27 16.90 109.03 18.49
Age in Years 10.09 16.37 10.06 18.3 7 9.80 15.36
Father's Ed.
in Years 9.43 3.51 10.17 3.67 10.3 7 3.65
Mother's Ed.
in Years 9.70 2.79 10.03 3.09 10.73 2.85
*Vocabulary subtest scores from the WISC were used
to derive estimates of intelligence.
53
TABLE 2
INTERJUDGE RELIABILITIES* AMONG THREE JUDGES
FOR THE DRAMATIC ACTING TEST
Group N Reliability
r
12 r13 r23
All Groups
Combined 90 .8516 .9043 .8793
Hospital 30 .9214 .9196 .9048
Clinic 30 .7825 .8873 .8668
Normal 30 .8684 .9220 .8689
*Interjudge reliabilities were computed as Pearson
Product-Moment correlations.
54
TABLE 3
INTERJUDGE RELIABILITIES* FOR
THE SOCIAL CHARADES TEST
Group N Reliability____
r r
AB AC
All Groups 90 .9613 .9423
Combined (N=59) (N=31)
Hospital 30 .9319 .9296
(N=8) (N=22)
Clinic 30 .9526 .9852
(N=21) (N=9)
Normal 30 .9767
(N=30) (N=0)
*Interjudge reliabilities were computed as Pearson
Product-Moment correlations.
55
TABLE 4
DRAMATIC ACTING TEST MEANS FOR ALL SUBJECTS
BY ONE-YEAR AGE INTERVALS
(N=90)
Role Age
7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 11 Years 12 Years
(N=6) (N=15) (N=23) (N=16) (N=21) (N=9)
Friend 2.38 2.29 2.89 2.78 2.88 2.74
Bully 2.56 1.91 2.23 2.64 2.34 2.52.
Mother 2.68 2.36 2 .59 2.50 2.67 2.95
Teacher 2.33 1.78 2.33 2.58 2.07 2.55
Sheriff 2.61 2.92 2.76 2.86 2.87 3.21
Runaway 1.55 1.82 1.78 1.98 1.93 2.00
Drunk
Father 1.83 1.64 1.38 1.55 1.61 1.71
Good
Husband 1.81 1.96 2.16 2.21 2.07 2.31
[Total 17.76 16.56 18.16 19.13 18.48 19.66
56
TABLE 5
CHARADES TEST MEANS FOR ALL SUBJECTS
BY ONE-YEAR AGE INTERVALS
(N=90)
Role Age
7 Years
(N=6)
8 Years
(N=15)
9 Years
(N=23)
10 Years
(N=16)
11 Years
(N=21)
12 Years
(N=9)
111 Child 4.66 3.73 5.04 5.12 5.09 5.11
Best Friend 3.66 3.26 4.30 4.87 4.33 5.00
Shoplifter 0.83 3.33 2.95 4.50 4.00 4.00
Mother 2.50 2.93 3.82 4.00 4.00 4.55
Soldier 4.00 2.80 4.13 3.56 3.33 4.11
Policeman 3.16 3.20 3.91 5.18 5.14 5.00
Smoker 2.66 4.46 5.69 6.31 5.23 5.11
Mailman 3.33 4.53 4.69 5.06 5.33 5.88
Total 24.66 28.26 34.47 38.50 36.52 38.77
57
TABLE 6
DRAMATIC ACTING TEST MEANS
BY TWO CATEGORIES
(N=90)
FOR ALL SUBJECTS
OF AGE
Role Group
Younger
(N=45)
Older
(N=45)
F
Friend 2.61 2.83 1.95
Bully 2.24 2.42 1.33
Mother 2.56 2.64 0.18
Teacher 2.05 2.44 3.68
Sheriff 2.79 2.95 1.22
Runaway 1.78 1.95 2.45
Drunk Father 1.54 1.60 0.36
Good Husband 2.06 2.16 0.53
Total 17.60 18.93 5.32*
*£ < .05
I
i
58
TABLE 7
CHARADES TEST MEANS FOR
CATEGORIES
(N=90)
ALL SUBJECTS
OF AGE
BY TWO
Role Group
Younger
(N=45)
Older
(N=45)
F
111 Child 4.60 5.06 2.24
Best Friend 3 .82 4.71 3.97*
Shoplifter 3.00 4.00 4.66*
Mother 3.35 4.11 3.37
Soldier 3.64 3.57 0.03
Policeman 3.60 5.13 11.45**
Smoker 4.66 5.80 3.39
Mailman 4.44 5.37 4.82*
Total 31.04 37.77 7.83**
*£ < .05
**£ < .01
59
TABLE 8
THE DRAMATIC ACTING TEST MEANS
OF ALL SUBJECTS
(N=90)
Role
Normal
(N=3 0)
Group
Clinic
(N=30)
Hospital
(N=3 0)
F
Friend 2.80 2.61 2.75 0.54
Bully 2.37 2.28 2.33 0.11
Mother 2.81 2 .68 2.29 2 .96
Teacher 2.39 2.25 2.09 0.74
Sheriff 2.69 2.85 3 .06 2 .23
Runaway 1.92 1.91 1.77 0.89
Drunk Father 1.49 1.62 1.60 0.73
Good Husband 2.18 1.99 2.15 0.70
Total 18.53 18.20 18.05 0.24
60
TABLE 9
CHARADE TEST MEANS OF ALL SUBJECTS
(N=90)
Role Group
F Normal
(N=3 0)
Clinic
(N=3 0)
Hospital
(N=3 0)
111 Child, 5.20 4.83 4.46 1.84
Best Friend 5.06 4.23 3.50 4.12*
Shoplifter 3.40 4.16 2.93 2.41
Mother 4.20 3.83 3.16 2.16
Soldier 3.63 3.80 3.40 0.42
Policemen 4.80 4.30 4.00” 1.06
Smoker 5.86 6.06 3.76 5.71**
Mailman 5.36 5.13 4.23 2.64
Total 37.50 36.33 29.39 4.42*
*£ < .05
* * £ < .01
61
TABLE 10
DRAMATIC ACTING TEST MEANS FOR SELECTED
SUBJECTS BY INTELLIGENCE
(N=6 0)
Role Group
Low IQ
(N=3 0)
High IQ
(N=3 0)
F
Friend 2.73 2.78 0.05
Bully 2.27 2.58 2.75
Mother 2.50 2.85 2.58
Teacher 2.06 2.51 3.02
Sheriff 2.89 2.88 0.00
Runaway 1.76 1.92 1.63
Drunk Father 1.60 1.61 0.01
Good Husband 2.03 2.24 1.26
Total 17.82 19.30 4.78*
< .05
62
TABLE 11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DRAMATIC ACTING TEST
TOTAL SCORES OF SOCIALIZATION GROUPS
BY INTELLIGENCE
(N=60)
Source df MS F
Intelligence (I) 1 33.15 4.78*
Group (G) 2 0.20 0.03
I X G 2 8.75 1.26
R (I X G) 54 6.94
*jo < .05
i
63
TABLE 12
SOCIAL CHARADES TEST MEANS FOR SELECTED
SUBJECTS BY INTELLIGENCE
(N=60)
Role Group
Low IQ
(N=3 0)
High IQ
(N=30)
F
111 Child 4.73 4.97 0.33
Best Friend 4.37 4.53 0.08
Shoplifter 3.30 3.77 0.53
Mother 3.60 3.77 0.10
Soldier 3.67 3.63 0.01
Policeman 4.43 4.73 0.23
Smoker 5.63
r ' 1
5.57 0.01
Mailman 5.17 4.70 0.65
Total 34.87 35.53 0.04
64
TABLE 13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SOCIAL CHARADE TEST
TOTAL SCORES OF SOCIALIZATION GROUPS
BY INTELLIGENCE
(N=6 0)
I
i
Source df MS F
Intelligence (I) 1 6.67 0.04
Group (G) 2 215.00 1.30
I X G 2 3.27 0.02
R (I X G) 54 165.63
65
TABLE 14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DRAMATIC ACTING
TEST MEANS FOR SOCIALIZATION GROUP
BY AGE BY ROLE CONTENT
(N=90)
Source df MS F
Groups (G) 2 0.03 0.15
Age (A) 1 1.14 6.65*
i
Role Content (C) 1 6.90 59.42**
G X A 2 0.10 0.58
G X C 2 0.15 1.32
A X C 1 0.01 0.13
R (G X A) (Error) 84 0.17
G X A X C 2 0.02 0.21
I
RC (G X A) (Error) 84 0.12
*£ < .05
* * £ < .01
66
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF SOCIAL CHARADE TEST
MEANS FOR SOCIALIZATION GROUPS BY
AGE BY ROLE CONTENT
(N=90)
Source df MS F
Group (G) 2 31.97 4.77*
Age (A) 1 46.87 7.00**
Role Content (C) 2 2.71 2.02
G X A 2 17.33 2.59
G X C 4 3.32 2.48
A X C 2 0.36 0.27
R (G X A) (Error) 84 6.70
G X A X C 4 1.51 1.13
RC (G X A) (Error) 168 1.34
*£ < .05
* * £ < .01
APPENDIX B
RAW DATA AND TEST MATERIALS
67
THE DRAMATIC ACTING TEST SCORES* FOR CLINIC SUBJECTS
. I.D.# Friend Bully Mother Teacher Sheriff Runaway Dr.Fath. Gd.Husb. Total
01 2.3 2.5 4.0 3.7 2.5 2.3 1.7 2.5 21.5
02 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.3 2.3 2.0 3.0 19.3
03 1.7 2.0 3.3 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.3 1.0 14.1
04 1.7 1.3 3.3 3.7 1.7 1.3 2.0 2.3 17.4
05 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.0 1.7 3.0 1.3 2.0 18.3
06 2.3 1.7 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.3 1.0 1.7 17.5
07 1.7 3.3 3.3 2.7 3.3 2.0 1.7 2.5 20.4
08 2.5 3.7 3.3 1.0 3.3 1.7 2.0 3.3 20.7
09 3.7 3.0 3.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.7 2.0 20.0
10 2.7 3.0
1.3
1.0 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.3 16.0
11 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.3 3.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 13.6
12 3.7 1.7 3.3 1.0 3.3 1.0 1.3 1.7 17.0
13 3.3 1.0 1.3 3.7 3.0 1.7 1.3 1.7 17.0
14 2.7 2.7 3.0 1.0 3.3 2.3 1.7 2.0 18.8
15 3.3 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.0 16.4
16 4.0 2.5 3.3 1.3 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 18.5
17 3.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 1.7 2.0 20.2
18 2.3 3.7 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 18.2
19 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.7 3.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 16.4
20 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.0 3.7 2.0 2.7 1.0 17.1
21 3.0 1.7 1.3 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.3 2.3 15.7
22 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.3 2.7 20.7
23 3.0 2.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 2.0 1.7 2.3 22.0
< y >
o o
TEST SCORES— Continued
. I.D.# Friend Bully Mother Teacher Sheriff Runaway Dr.Fath. Gd.Husb. Total
;
24 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.0 3.3 1.7 2.0 1.3 18.1
25 2.3 1.7 3.3 2.3 2.7 1.0 1.3 2.3 16.9
26 3.0 1.3 2.3 4.0 4.0 1.3 1.7 3.0 20.6
27 1.5 3.1 1.5 2.0 3.2 2.1 2.7 1.0 17.2
28 3.7 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.0 3.0 21.7
29 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.0 2.0 16.6 1
30 3.0 2.0 1.7 3.0 3.3 1.7 1.7 2.0 18.4
*These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1.
THE DRAMATIC ACTING TEST
Subj. I.P.# Friend Bully Mother Teacher
31 2.5 2.3 4.0 1.7
32 1.7 2.7 2.5 2.3
33 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.0
34 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.3
35 2.5 2.7 3.7 2.7
36 2.5 2.5 4.0 3.7
37 2.7 1.6 3.3 1.0
38 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.3
39 3.0 1.7 1.7 1.0
40 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.7
41 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.0
42 2.7 2.0 1.6 3.7
43 1.3 3.0 2.5 2.3
44 3.0 2.0 3.7 2.3
45 2.5 2.3 1.3 3.0
46 2.7 3.5 3.7 3.7
47 3.7 2.0 2.3 3.7
48 4.0 3.3 4.0 2.3
49 2.7 1.7 3.7 1.7
50 2.0 2.3 2.3 1.0
51 4.0 3.0 2.7 1.0
52 2.7 2.0 3.0 2.3
53 2.7 2.0 1.3 1.0
SCORES* FOR NORMAL SUBJECTS
Sheriff Runaway Dr.Fath. Gd.Husb. Total
3.0 2.0 1.3 2.7 19.5
1.7 2.0 1.0 1.7 15.7
1.7 2.0 1.7 1.7 15.6
3.7 2.0 1.7 4.0 21.7
3.0 1.7 1.0 2.7 20.1
3.3 2.3 1.7 1.7 21.7
3.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 15.3
2.0 3.0 1.3 CO
•
o
18.7
2.7 1.7 1.3
o
•
CM
15.1
2.7 2.0 1.7 1.0 13.9
3.0. 2.3 1.0 2.0 19.0
3.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 19.7
3.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 18.7
3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20.0
4.0 1.7 1.3 2.3 18.3
1.3 2.3 1.0 2.0 20.3
2.7 2.0 1.7 3.3 21.4
2.3 2.0 2.0 3.7 23.5
2.0 1.7 1.3 2.0 16.9
2.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 14.9
r ' '
•
CM
1.0 1.3 2.0 17.7
2.7 1.7 1.0 2.0 17.5
2.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 14.0
o
TEST SCORES— Continued
Isubi. I.P.# Friend Bully Mother Teacher Sheriff Runaway Dr.Fath. Gd.Husb. Total
54 3.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 3.0 ro
•
o
1.7
o
•
(N
20.2
55 3.3 2.3 2.0 3.7 2.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 18.3
56 3.7 3.0 2.7 3.7 3.0 2.3 1.7 2.3 22.4
57 2.5 2.3 2.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.3 17.5
58 3.7 1.8 3.7 2.7 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.0 19.9
59 3.3 2.5 2.5 3.7 3.0 1.3 1.3 1.7 19.3
60 3.0 2.3 3.7 2.3 3.3 3.3 1.0 2.7 21.6
*These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1.
THE DRAMATIC ACTING TEST
Subj. I.P.# Friend Bully Mother Teacher
61 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.7
62 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.0
63 2.7 2.3 3.3 2.3
64 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0
65 3.0 3.3 2.0 1.0
66 3.0 2.0 3.3 3.7
67 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.0
68 2.5 1.5 3.5 1.0
69 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.3
70 3.7 3.5 2.0 2.5
71 4.0 3.0 1.7 3.7
72 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.0
73 3.0 2.0 2.3 3.0
74 3.0 3.3 1.7 3.0
75 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.0
76 3.0 2.2 3.3 1.0
77 1.7 2.3 2.3 1.0
78 2.3 1.3 1.7 2.0
79 3.0 2.5 2.3 3.0
80 3.7 4.0 1.3 1.0
81 4.0 3.0 2.7 3.0
82 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.0
83 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0
SCORES* FOR HOSPITAL SUBJECTS
Sheriff Runaway Dr.Fath. Gd.Husb. Total
2.3 1.3 1.0 3.3 17.1
4.0 1.0 1.3 1*7 13.0
3.3 2.3 2.0 3.0 21.4
4.0 1.0 3.0 1.3 13.9
3.3 2.0 1.3 1.7 17.5
2.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 19.0
2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 13.1
3.7 2.0 3.0 2.0 19.2
3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 16.8
3.0 2.7 2.7 1.5 21.6
3.7 1.7 1.7 3.3 22.6
3.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 14.6
2.3 2.0 1.3 1.7 17.6
2.7 1.7 1.7 2.7 19.7
4.0 1.0 2.3 1.7 22.8
3.3 2.0 1.0 1.7 17.5
3.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 15.9
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 11.5
4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20.8
2.7 2.3 1.3 1.3 17.6
2.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 20.4
2.3 1.7 1.7 2.3 18.7
4.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 14.8
-j
t o
! TEST SCORES— Continued
j
. I.D.# Friend Bully Mother Teacher Sheriff Runaway Dr.Fath. Gd.Husb. Total
84 2.7 2.0 2.7 3.7 3.5 2.0 1.3 2.0 19.9
85 2.3 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.7 1.0 1.3 2.7 16.0
86 4.0 2.5 1.7 1.7 3.3 2.3 1.0 1.7 18.2
87 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.0 2.0 3.3 25.9
88 2.0 1.0 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 14.1
89 4.0 3.0 3.8 1.7 3.0 3.0 1.7 4.0 24.2
90 3.3 2.0 2.7 1.0 2.3 1.7 1.3 2.0 16.3
!
*These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1.
-j
u>
THE SOCIAL CHARADES TEST SCORES* FOR CLINIC SUBJECTS
Subj. I.P.# Ill Child Best Friend Shoplifter Mother Soldier Policeman Smoker Mailman Total ;
01 6 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 30
02 5 4 4 5 5 3 _ 7 5 38
03 4 4 5 2 2 3 '=9 4 33
04 3 2 0 1 5 2 2 2 17
05 5 4 3 6 4 2 7 4 35
06 7 4 7 4 6 8 4 6 46
07 6 6 7 7 6 7 8 7 54
08 5 4 5 8 4 7 5 6 44
09 3 3 5 3 3 7 9 6 39
10 5 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 16
11 5 1 0 1 3 2 2 5 19
12 3 3 2 1 4 \
4 5 6 28
13 5 4 1 2 3 2 10 4 31
14 6 7 6 6 5 7 7 7 51
15 6 4 6 6 6 8 . . . 5 6 47
16 5 5 5 5 4 0 4 7 35
17 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 6 36
18 3 3 10 1 0 5 9 3 34
19 6 2 4 2 3 1 2 3 23
20 4 2 1 3 4 3 4 6 27
21 3 2 5 3 3 3 4 5 28
22 4 4 4 4 5 4 7 6 38
TEST SCORES— Continued
J
Subi. I.P.# Ill Child Best Friend Shoplifter Mother Soldidr Policeman Smoker Mailman Totalj
23 6 7 6 6 6 4 9 7 5 1 ;
24 7 3 3 4 4 3 5 3 26
i 25 7 10 6 6 5 10 9 9 62
26 5 5 5 6 1 1 3 6 30 |
27 3 2 5 3 5 5 7 4 34
| 28 2 6 8 5 5 10 9 9 54
I 29 5 8 5 6 1 6 11 2 44
1 3 0 6 7 0 2 4 3 9 5 36
*These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1.
THE SOCIAL CHARADES TEST SCORES* FOR NORMAL SUBJECTS
Subi. I.D.# 111 Child Best Friend Shoplifter Mother Soldier Policeman Smoker Mailman Total;
! I ■
31 6 5 5 9
6
11 13 10 66
32 5 2 3 4 4 ' 4 1 6 29
33 7 6 3 4
4 1
6 9 6 45
34 7 9 7 5
4
7 4 6 49
35 6 2 2 3 4 6 5 7 33
36 4 7 5 5 2 8 7 6 44
37 6 7 3 4 4 4 8 6 42
38 6 8 6 6 4 5 9 8 52
39 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 3 16
40 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 15
41 5 4 3 2 3 5 8 6 36
42 6 0 2 3 2 1 2 6 22
43 5 5 0 3 2 2 1 4 22
44 6 5 3 4 2 5 3 9 37
45 5 4 0 3 5 6 6 4 33
46 4 6 5 5 1 6 9 6 42
47 6 6 3 6 4 7 9 5 46
48 6 6 5 4 4 5 7 5 42
49 5 2 2 5 4 4 5 3 30
50 4 2 2 2 2 4 8 7 31
51 6 3 3 4 3 3 6 4 32
52 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 27
-sj
CF>
TEST SCORES— Continued
Subj. I»D«# 111 Child Best Friend Shoplifter Mother Soldier Policeman Smoker Mailman Totalj .
53 5 7 1 4 4 3 6 1 31
54 6 6 1 3 5 6 4 5 36
55 4 9 7 5 6 3 4 1 48
56 6 10 6 4 7 7 9 5 54
57 5 6 6 7 2 4 8 6 44
58 6 3 4 8 7 4 7 7 46
59 5 7 2 3 2 4 6 3 32
60 6 6 4 6 6 6 5 2 41
*These scores were assigned by Experimenter 1.
-j
-j
THE SOCIAL CHARADES TEST SCORES* FOR HOSPITAL SUBJECTS
1
Subj. I.P.# Ill Child Best Friend Shoplifter Mother Soldier Policeman Smoker Mailman Total
61 5 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 27
62 6 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 33
63 6 5 5 4 3 4 4 7 38
64 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 3 11
65 3 4 5 10 7 6 5 5 45
66 3 1 5 2 5 2 7 4 29
67 1 2 0 2 3 2 2 3 15
68 5 1 2 3 4 3 5 3 24
69 5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 13
70 5 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 30
71 5 5 4 5 5 6 10 5 45
72 1 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 7
73 3 2 4 0 1 1 3 3 17
74 6 4 6 6 6 4 5 7 44
75 6 5 2 4 6 6 6 3 38
76 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 16
77 4 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 12
78 3 2 1 3 3 2 0 5 19
79 5 6 4 5 4 4 4 6 38
80 8 5 7 5 5 6 7 6 49
81 7 6 5 4 5 9 13. 7 56
82 3 2 4 1 1 2 2 5 20
vj
oo
TEST SCORES— Continued
iSubj. I.P.# Ill Child Best Friend Shoplifter Mother Soldier Policeman Smoker Mailman Total
83 5 8 5 4 5 5 9 7 48
84 5 6 3 4 1 6 5 2 32
85 5 4 0 3 3 4 1 5 25
86 5 6 2 2 4 5 1 5 30
87 6 3 0 3 5 5 4 4 30
88 5 3 2 2 1 4 3 4 24
89 5 6 6 4 4 9 6 7 47
90 5 1 2 3 1 0 1 5 18
*These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1.
80
1.1.D.#
TOTAL DRAMATIC ACTING TEST SCORES
Judqe
Judqe 2
20.4
FOR JUDGES
Judqe 3
2 AND 3
Subi.I.D.# Judqe 2
01
22.3 36 21.3 20.0
02 19.3 18.3 37 13.9 14.7
03 16.1 15.3 38 18.1 19.1
04 18.9 19.6 39 14.5 16.1
05 20.9 22.7 40 13.8 14.7
06 18.6 21.3 41 19.6 18.3
07 20.9 24.0 42 19.1 19.0
08 21.7 24.3 43 15.4 15.7
09 22.4 22.3 44 20.1 19.6
10 15.1 19.0 45 18.9 18.2
11 13.6 15.5 46 19.3 22.0
12 17.3 17.6 47 20.0 19.6
13 17.5 16.8 48 22.2 19.8
14 18.2 17.9 49 16.6 15.7
15 16.4 17.3 50 13.3 14.2
16 17.3 17.2 51 15.7 17.8
17 21.5 20.6 52 15.7 15.7
18 19.0 18.6 53 14.1 13.9
19 16.1 15.3 54 20.8 21.9
20 16.5 16.9 55 18.2 18.7
21 17.1 17.2 56 22.2 24.0
22 21.0 20.9 57 17.5 16.9
23 21.3 21.7 58 17.9 18.5
24 18.7 21.9 59 19.6 21.2
25 15.6 17.4 60 20.7 23.7
26 22.2 25.0 ‘ 61 14.3 17.5
27 17.1 16.8 62 12.2 14.3
28 20.9 21.3 63 17.6 20.5
29 16.3 16.7 64 13.0 13.3
30 17.3 18.6 65 19.4 20.3
31 19.4 18.1 66 19.6 19.0
32 16.6 16.0 67 13.6 12.6
33 16.5 14.9 68 19.0 21.5
34 19.7 22.0 69 18.6 16.0
35 19.9 19.0 70 18.5 23.5
81
TOTAL TEST SCORES— Continued
Subi.I.D.# Judge 2 Judge 3 Subi.I.P.# Judge 2 Judge 3
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
22.7
14.6
18.3
21.2
21.5
17.3
17.1
14.0
20.1
17.6
26.7
14.3
17.0
22.9
23.7
17.9
17.0
15.3
22.3
17.6
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
19.3
18.3
16.1
19.5
15.6
19.5
25.1
15.1
23.1
16.6
21.0
19.2
16.7
20.3
17.0
18.6
26.4
14.6
23 .9
18.3
82
Subi .I.D.#
TOTAL SOCIAL CHARADES TEST SCORES
Jude
Judae B
FOR JUDGES
Judqe C
B AND C
Subi.I.D.# Judqe B
01 31
36 43
_
02 39
- 37 40 -
03 30
- 38 52
-
04 9
- 39 15
-
05
—
34 40 8 -
06
—
44 41 36 -
07
- 54 42 22 -
08
— 45 43 23
-
09 43
- 44 41
-
10
—
15 45 29 -
11 22
- 46 43
-
12
—
33 47 42 -
13 31
- 48 42
-
14 52 - 49 29
-
15 50
- 50 30 ■-
16 35
— 51 33
-
17 34
- 52 27
-
18 35
- 53 31
-
19
_
22 54 34
-
20 28
— 55 42 -
21 27
- 56 50 -
22 28
- 57 45 -
23 52 - 58 44
-
24 30 - 59 35
-
25 61
—
60 40
-
26
—
31
61
- 28
27 35
- 62 - 38
28 51
-
63
- 37
29 49
- 64 - 12
30 37
- 65 - 44
31 71
- 66
- 29
32 29
- 67
- 16
33 40
- 68
- 42
34 47
- 69 - 13
35 32
—
70
—
32
83
TOTAL TEST SCORES— Continued
Subi .I.D.# Judqe *B Judqe C Subj. I. P.# Judqe B Judqe C
71
—
42 81 55 —
72
—
12 82 - 21
73 17
- 83
- 49
74
- 50 84 26 -
75
—
31
85 22 -
76
—
16 86 31
-
77
—
12 87 34
-
78
- 17 88 16
-
79
- 37 89 44 -
80
—
52 90 19
-
84
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE
Name Study Code #
Father's (or Guardian's) Name: __________________
Father's Education: Please circle highest grade completed.
Grades Year Diploma or
______ Graduated Degree
Elementary School 12345678
High School 9 10 11 12
College 13 14 15 16
Graduate School 17 18 19 20
Father ' s Occupation: ___________
Mother1s Name:
Mother's Education: Please circle highest grade completed.
Grades Year Diploma or
______ Graduated Degree
Elementary School 12345678
High School 9 10 11 12
College 13 14 15 16
;Graduate School 17 18 19 20
iMother's Occupation: ________________
How many children are there in your family?
Name Sex Age
DRAMATIC ACTING TEST
THE DRAMATIC ACTING TEST:
A ROLE PLAYING TEST FOR CHILDREN
(Revised)
The materials of this test were first used in an
experiment reported by Bowers and London in "Developmental
correlates of role playing ability [1965]." The test was
designed for children from kindergarten level through about
age twelve, and in its original form was administered suc
cessfully to almost one hundred children in this age range.
The test was revised for purposes of the present study.
Three of the original playlets were deleted and replaced by
three newly constructed playlets.
No props are necessary to administer the test, but
verbatim recording of a child's responses is desirable.
Tape recording of the test permits independent scoring at a
later time to ascertain inter-scorer reliabilities. Bowers
and London report such reliabilities as .80 and higher for
I judges to whom scoring manual and verbatim transcripts were
both available.
86
87
Instructions: Dramatic Acting Test
Today we're going to see how good an actor you can
be. You've seen television and heard radio plays, haven't
you? Well, you and I are going to act in a group of very
short plays. You're going to pretend you're someone else,
and act just like that person would, like they do on TV or
radio. The only difference is that you're going to make up
your own lines as we go along. O.K.? All you have to do
is pretend you really are the person I tell you and do just
what that person would do. Let's pretend we're doing a
radio show, all right? In fact, we're going to record it
and we can listen to it later. Would you like that? There
will be eight little plays. Now, for each play I will tell
you who you are supposed to be and who I am supposed to be,
and I will say the first line of the play. Then you make
up a line, and so on, and we will keep the play going for
one minute. Understand? (Repeat if necessary.)
88
ROLE PLAYING TEST
FRIEND
General Instructions to £3:
We1 re good friends. We know each other from school
and live near each other. You play the part of my friend.
General Orientation of E:
solution _S proposes to problem other than S Finding money:
"Here it is I"
Worried^ answers factual questions of £ 3 , rejects any
Experimenter Script S responses requiring cues
or modifications of lines
E line 1: Gosh; I'm really
in trouble.
E line 2: Remember when we were
playing ball on the
playground: I lost ten
dollars, and I must
have lost it there.
*Come and help me find No help offered.
it. *Why not? What Refusal of help.
kind of friend are you?
ROLE PLAYING TEST
FRIEND (con'd)
1 5 line 3: We've looked every
where around here for
fifteen minutes and
haven't found it. I
don't know what to do.
90
ROLE PLAYING TEST
BULLY
General Instructions to S.:
I'm a couple of years younger than you. You're a
bully and you don't like me at all.
General Orientation of E:
Denies or refuses to accept S's not allowing him to
play, or make mistakes if he plays and blames them on S..
Experimenter Script S responses requiring cues
or modifications of lines
E line 1: Could I play ball
with you? Perhaps, I don't know.
Alt. 1. * Oh please, I can
play real good
2. * (gesture of missing
ball) You threw that
ball too high! Continues to allow him
3. * Gosh, I'm tired to play.
Let's play something
else.
E line 2: Why?
I don't want to go
ROLE PLAYING TEST
BULLY (con'd)
E line 2: Please let me play.
But I like to play
with you.
(Use lines which are most appropriate and continue one
minute.)
92
ROLE PLAYING TEST
MOTHER
General Instructions to S.:
You're my mother. It's during the afternoon and
I've been playing with my friend (Jim or Sally) in the
living room. You play the part of my mother.
General Orientation of E:
Half-scared and defensive.
Experimenter Script S responses requiring cues
or modifications of lines
IE line 1: Gee, Mom, we were
just playing and the
lamp broke.
E line 2: It wasn't our fault.
We were throwing the
ball to each other and
something happened to
make it go wrong, and
it hit the lamp. It
was just an accident.
* It isn't fair to get S_ gives punishment,
punished when it was
93
ROLE PLAYING TEST
MOTHER (con'd)
E line 2: just an accident.
E line 3: It never happened
.when we played here
before.
i
i
94
i ROLE PLAYING TEST
TEACHER
General Instructions to £>:
You are my teacher. We're in class, and my name is
Sally. You are teaching an arithmetic lesson.
General Orientation of J3:
Persistent, whines, unpleasant tattle-tale.
Experimenter Script S responses requiring cues
or modifications of lines
_E line 1: Teacher, Joe just
took my pencil!
]E line 2: Teacher, Joe pulled
my hair and it hurts!
* Joe's laughing now. Has addressed himself
He's hiding his face only to Sally,
behind his book but
he's laughing because
he's gotten away with it.
E line 3: He's not listening to you,
teacher. He's laughing.
He's hiding his face behind
his book but he's laughing.
95
ROLE PLAYING TEST
SHERIFF
General Instructions to _S:
You're a sheriff in a town far out West about 100
years ago. I'm a robber who has just ridden into town with
my gang. It's like a cowboy TV story.
General Orientation of E:
Bold, bragging manner.
Experimenter Script S responses requiring cues
or modifications of lines
. E line 1: Hey you! Are you -
the sherriff around
here? We won't be
needing you any more.
We're taking over this
* town. My men are Scared reaction:
nearby. You'd bet- "Please don’t."
ter surrender and leave
town before someone
gets hurt.
E line 2: So, you think you'll
be able to stop me?
ROLE PLAYING TEST
SHERIFF (con'd)
E line 2
(con'd)
E line 3
E line 4
: My men are nearby.
You'd better surrender
and leave town before
someone gets hurt.
* End of playlet.
(Let _S win!)
: (turn back to Sj Yes,
this will be a nice
place for my office
when you leave.
: I dare you to do any
thing to me.
Action responses.
If continues to
challenge.
97
ROLE PLAYING TEST
RUNAWAY
General Instructions to jS:
We are pals. We have been through lots of trouble
together and have done some bad things nobody knows about.
This time you want for us to run away from home. You won't
take no for an answer.
General Orientation of E:
Consistently refuses to runaway
Experimenter Script S responses requiring cues
E line 1: I don't want to run
or modifications of lines
UrgeSj insists or
away from home threatens
; J C line 2: You can't make me. Same as above
E line 3: I don't have to ♦Blackmails
You can't do any- Blackmails
* thing to me. You
wouldn't dare tell
because they'd find
out about you too
98
ROLE PLAYING TEST
FATHER (Drunken)
General Instructions to £5:
You are my father. It's Saturday and you didn't
have to go to work. You are drunk and in a bad mood. You
just yelled at me.
General Orientation of E:
Defensive
Experimenter Script
S responses requiring cues
or modifications of lines
E line 1: Why are you yelling
at me. I never took
any money off the
table
E line 2: You always pick on
me. You're mean
Leave me alone
E line 3: You don't scare me *Hits or threatens
You're a dirty old to hit
bum
* OWJ Don't hit me again
Pick on someone your own
size. __ . . . . _...
99
ROLE PLAYING TEST
GOOD HUSBAND
General Instructions to _S:
You are my husband and I'm your wife. We love each
other very much. It is after dinner and you are watching a
fight on TV. I'm only half through washing the dishes, but
I just turned off the water and walked into the living room.
Experimenter Script
E line 1: I don't feel well.
E line 2: I have a bad
headache.
E line 3: I think I will lie
down for a while. I
S responses requiring- cues!
or modifications of lines
Expresses concern.
Asks what's wrong.
Offers help (i.e., to
get aspirin or turn
down TV) and/or sug
gests she lie down.
Offers to do dishes.
guess I'll just leave
the dishes for later.
j 100
Directions for Scoring
The general principle guiding the assignment of
scores on the Dramatic Acting Test is that there exist a
sufficiency of cultural stereotypes associated with the
roles demanded in this test such that role playing ability
may be treated as the accurate representation of the con
tents and response sequence most commonly associated with
those stereotypes. The plausibility of this principle
permits the a priori assignment of line sequences to the
experimenter even though he cannot know precisely what
response S_ will make to the first line of the script. The
same reasoning makes it possible to classify responses into
a small number of categories and to assign weighted values
to responses falling within particular categories. The
considerable agreement among independent judges as to the
'scores to be assigned and the tendency for performance to
be positively related to age respectively testify to the
reliability and validity of these procedures. ; 1
Four categories of response have been used to
! S
Iscore the Dramatic Acting Test, each representing a dif-
i
jferent degree of efficiency at role playing in terms either
of the adoption of effective stereotype or the maintenance
of a plausible response sequence. Each "line" in the
101
child's performance receives a numerical score correspond
ing to one or another category, and the total score for a
single playlet is the average score per line. In other
words,
Total Score per playlet = —scores—^Pr . A - * - ne, s.
No. of lines in playlet
Total test score is the sum of playlet scores. A "line" is
defined as the unit of response behavior which the child
performs between any two 1 2 lines or subsequent to the final
JL line in each playlet, as indicated in the E Script above.
The length of such responses is quite variable, of course,
and scores must consequently be assigned on the basis of
the scorer's best judgment as to the over-all adequacy of
the "line" with respect to the available scoring categories.
The general characteristics of scoring categories
are:
Category 1. No role adoption, i.e., behavior does not
correspond at all to the expected cultural
stereotype. Receives score of 1.
Category 2. Response sequence is illogical and/or role
adoption is inadequate approximation of
stereotype. Receives score of 2.
102
Category 3. Moderately logical response sequence
and/or moderately good adoption of role.
Score 3.
Category 4. Satisfactory response sequence and/or
good role adoption. Score 4.
The material which follows presents a Scoring
Manual for the Dramatic Acting Test, indicating the expected
stereotype for each role, the categories applicable to dif
ferent lines, and examples of response lines which would
receive particular scores.
103
Role 1: Friend
Friend stereotype in this situation: One who wishes to
help.
Category Line Examples
1 1 & 2
alt.
No response; self references; re
fuses aid; irrelevant questions;
does not know what to do.
2 1,2,3
alt.2
Spontaneous sympathy; open ques
tion or interest; positive agree
ment to help after request is
made.
3 1,2,3 Problem-oriented questioning;
proposed explanations of possi
bilities (What might have happened
to money).
4 1,2,3 Offers help; solves whole problem
(i.e., finds money); offers fur
ther constructive suggestions
(i.e., tell mother, police, or
look in lost & found).
104
Role 2: Bully
Personal Bully stereotype in this situation: One who will
refuse to please or to accede to the wishes of his enemy.
C a t e g o r y L i n e E x a m p l e s
1 1, alt. 2
alt. 2
2
No response; acting like a friend
(i.e., yes, you can play);
(i.e., here is a lower ball)
reversal to a friend role (i.e.,
you can play a little).
2 1 & 2
alt. 2
alt. 3
Simple refusal to allow play
(i.e., No); refusal with imper
sonal reason given (i.e., you are
too little).
Minor criticism of missing ball
(i.e., too little to catch it
right).
Refusal to stop playing; continues
playing with no criticism.
3 1, alt.2
alt. 1
Hostility shown; rejection;
personal criticism of playing.
4 1, alt.2 Purely personal attacts and re
jection (i.e., brat, pest, I don't
like you); threat of physical
punishment.
105
Role 3: Mother
Mother stereotype in this situation: One who is concerned
with children's behavior as a possible cause of lamp break
ing, and reference to this behavior from the point of view
of an adult authority rather than a sympathetic peer.
Category Line Examples
1 11& 2 Reassures child; forgives; concern
with lamp only;
3 reversal to forgiveness without
any explanation.
2 1 Concern with lamp only (implies
minimal adoption of mother role
in the first line because concern
with children1s breaking may be
implicit. In subsequent lines it
must be made explicit).
1.2.3 Scold, punishes, forbids, repri
mands without explanation, e.g.,
"Don't play here. Go to bed."
2.3 Repetition of previous lines un
elaborated.
Questions neutrally.
4 1 Questioning which implies know
ledge of how it happened and/or
irritation with child.
2,3 Any explanations, e.g., "You must
be more careful not to break good
things." "You're not allowed to
play ball here and you disobeyed.
You can't play here again."
106
Role 4: Teacher
Teacher stereotype in this situation: One who has authority
to attempt to enforce rules of fair play in this class.
Category Line Examples
1 1 & 2 Fails to react to Joe; reactions
to Sally:
Unfriendly* "Take it back."
Friendly* "Here's another."
No refference to E_ line.
(back to lesson)
3 Ignoring Sally's statement.
1 Reaction to Joe but without any
command to return* etc. (e.g.*
that isn't nice).
2 & 3 Essential repetition of previous
lines* only substituting different
situations: Stop pulling hair*
stop laughing after saying give
back pencil. (Logically* the re
sponses should reflect the fact
that bad acts are piling up.)
3 Reaction only to Sally* frinedly
or unfriendly.
1 Command "Give back pencil."
3 Demands explanation of behavior.
1 Command and explanations or warn
ing (disturbing class* lessons*
not nice* can have own if need it),
2 & 3 Punishment* warning* persuasion*
explanations* taking into account
that it is second or third
offense.
107
Role 5: Sheriff
Sheriff stereotype in this situation: A brave man.
Cateqory Line Examples
1 1
1.2.3
2.3
Neutral questions (i.e., why?); j
scared reaction "Please don't." j
No response.
Scared reaction.
2 1,2,3 Simple denial "No you aren't."
. i
3 1.2.3
2.3
Challenges "Just try to." Bragg
ing "I'm faster than you."
Questions.
Commands and warnings with no ex
planations of strength to enforce,
etc.
4 1
1.2.3
1.2.3
Command to leave, warning. Ex
planations of sheriff's power.
Action.
108
R o l e 6 : R u n a w a y
D e l i n q u e n t s t e r e o t y p e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n : O n e w h o m a n i p u
l a t e s p e o p l e i n t o d o i n g w h a t h e w a n t s t h e m t o .
C a t e g o r y L i n e E x a m p l e s
1 1 & 2
alt. 3
No response; ignores refusal;
neutral questions (i.e., why?);
acceptance of refusal; indiffer
ence.
Indifference ("Big deal").
2 1 Sc 2
3
alt. 3
Urges; insists.
Vauge threats ("You want to bet, "
"Oh, yes I can, " "Just wait Sc see")
Denial ("No they won't").
3 1,2,3
alt.3
Bribes; threatens specific action
(e.g., physical harm).
"I'll blame you."
4 1,2,3 Threatens blackmail.
109
Role 7: Drunk Father
Father stereotype in this situation: Rejecting, accusing,
and irrational father.
Category Line Example
1 1,2
3
No response; irrelevant comments;
gives reasonable and rational
(i.e., I'm drunk) responses (I'm
not picking on you, I saw you
take the money). i
Tells not to talk to him that way.
2 1, 2,3 Vague threats of punishment & def
inite statement of mild punishment
(i.e., Watch it or you will catch
it from me, go to your room, if
you keep this up, 1111 hit you);
admits to being mean & not caring
about his meanness.
3 1, 2, 3, &
alt. 3
Physical punishment; name calling;
cursing; threat of rejection;
threat of violent punishment.
4
1,2,3,&
alt .3
Physical punishment and cursing or
name, calling; actual rejection
(i.e., leave home & never come
back).
110
R o l e 8 : G o o d H u s b a n d
t f c . v -
H u s b a n d s t e r e o t y p e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n : O n e w h o w i s h e s t o
h e l p .
C a t e g o r y L i n e E x a m p l e s
1 1,2 No response? acknowledges state
ment but gives no sympathy or
concern.
3 Tells her not to lie down, or
expresses unconcern about her
actions; insists she do dishes
now.
1 Asks what is wrong.
2 Expresses concern; suggests she
get herself an aspirin.
3 Approves of wife's action.
1 Expresses concern.
2 Asks if he can get her anything.
3 Asks if she wants him to do dishes.
1,2 Insistance on helping; assertively
offers help.
3 States he will finish dishes— he
would not think of her doing
them.
THE SOCIAL CHARADES TEST
111
112
Instructions: The Social Charades Test
I have another acting game for you to play. When
a person acts out a scene; they both talk and move around
a stage. Remember how in the last game we acted by talking
to each other? We moved around very little. This time I
want you to act by moving around the room and using body
motions. Do not talk at all. If you want to pretend you
are speaking you may move your lips, but do not talk out
loud. O.K.? I will tell you who you are supposed to be
and what you are supposed to do. There are eight little
plays. Do you understand what to do? Do you have any
questions? Good. Let's begin.
113
THE SOCIAL CHARADES TEST:
A NONVERBAL ROLE PLAYING TEST FOR CHILDREN
Role 1: 111 Child
Pretend you have eaten too much candy and feel. sick
to your stomach. It gets worse and you throw up.
Role 2: Best Friend
Pretend you are with your best friend and you are
going into a store to buy a whole lot of candy.
Role 3: Shoplifter
Pretend you go into a 5 and 10 cent store and steal
a comic book.
Role 4: Mother
Pretend you are a mother and have just caught your v
three year old child scribbling on the wall with < a crayon.
Role 5: Soldier
Pretend you are a soldier fighting against very
tough and mean enemies. Suddenly you see one of. them sneak-
;ing up on you.
i Role 6: Motorcycle Policeman
j Pretend you are a motorcycle policeman and you have
i
just stopped a car going too fast on the freeway.
Role 7; Smoker
Pretend you are a highschool student and have just
gone into the bathroom at school to smoke a cigarette.
After you are in there a few minutes, a teacher comes in.
Role 8; Mailman
Pretend you are a mailman delivering mail to a
house and a big, mean-looking dog starts barking at you.
115
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
Subiect's name Age Group Judge E
Role 1: 111 Child
Appropriate Movements Inappropriate Movements
Eating candy (specify)
Moves sluggishly
Sick expression on face
HoIds stomach
Runs or walks to toilet
Lifts seat
Bends over
ppens mouth
Vomits
Flushes toilet
Cleans up mess
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Comments:
116
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
Subject's name _Age Group Judge E
Role 2: Best Friend
Appropriate Movements
Walking
Talks to friend
Holds friend's hand
Arm around friend
_Enters store
jOpens door
JLooks at candy
Selects candy
_Takes money out of pocket
_Counts money
JPays for candy
_Gets change
_Eats candy
_Shares candy with friend
Carries candy in pocket
jQther (specify)
Other (specify)
Inappropriate Movements;
No interaction with
friend
Other (specify)
Comments:
117 j
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
[Subject's name Age Group Judge E
Role 3: Shoplifter
Appropriate Movements
Enters store
Opens door
_Looks at items on display
Looks to see if someone is
watching
Takes comic
Hides it on person
JLeaves store quickly but
not running
_Looks around again
_Runs after leaving store
_Gets caught
_Other (specify)
jOther (specify)
Comments:
Inappropriate Movements1
Waves to clerk
Runs out of store
Other (specify)
I
118
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
Subiect's name Aqe Group Judqe E
Role 4: Mother
Appropriate Movements Inappropriate Movements
Sees child Hits child exces
Look of anqer sively
Talks to child as if Other (specify)
explaining
I
Yells or scolds
Waqs finqer i
Hits child once or twice
Takes crayon away
Sends child out of room
Takes child out of room
Cleans wall
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Comments:
119
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
S u b j e c t ' s n a m e ______________________________ A g e ______ G r o u p ______ J u d g e E
Role 5; Soldier
Appropriate Movements Inappropriate Movements
Carries a weapon Fails to attack
Uses weapon Other (specify)
, Crouches on hands and knees
Avoids enemy attacks by
moving to one side or
ducking
Use of pretended barrier
Sees enemy sneaking up
Shows fear or anger
A t t a c k s e n e m y
: ____Kills him
Checks to see if dead
Gets hurt himself
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Comments:
120
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
Sub j ec t1 s name_____________________Age Group Judge E
Role 6: Motorcycle Policeman
Appropriate Movements
Gets off motorcycle
Walks to car
Talks to driver
Asks of driver's license
Looks at driver1s license
Looks at license plate
Writes•ticket
Hands ticket to driver
Gets on motorcycle
Rides away
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Comments:
Inappropriate Movements
Yells at driver
Arrests driver
Other (specify)
121
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
Subject's name _Age Group Judge E
Role 7: Highschool Student
Appropriate Movements
Walks into bathroom
Opens door
Looks around
JTakes pack of cig. out
of pocket
JTakes cig. out of pack
_Lights cig.
Blows out match
Smokes
_Reacts to teacher entering
Talks to teacher
_Hides cig.
_Puts cig. out
_Engages in appropriate bath
room behavior
_Nods head to deny or admit
smoking
Inappropriate Movements
Puts lighted cig.
in pocket
Continues smoking
_Offers cig. to
teacher
_Other (specify)
Role 7: (Continued)
Appropriate Movements Inappropriate Movements
Gives pack of cig. to
teacher
Leaves room without getting
caught
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Comments:
123
Score Sheet for The Social Charades Test
\ Subj ect1 s name_ Age Group Judge E
Role 8: Mailman
Appropriate Movements
Walks up to house
Carries mail pouch
Takes mail from bag
Sorts it
Puts mail in box
_Notices dog
Shows fear or surprise
_Walks away, cautiously
_Runs away
JTries to quiet dog
Calls owner
_Hits dog
Gets knocked down by dog
JCloses gate
jShows relief
jOther (specify)
Other (specify)
Comments:
Inappropriate Movements
(specify)

Asset Metadata

Creator Thompson, Linda Ann (author)

Core Title Role Playing Ability And Social Adjustment In Children

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical

Language English

Advisor London, Perry (committee chair), Arnold, Aerol (committee member), Tiber, Norman (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-647250

Unique identifier UC11361008

Identifier 6904547.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-647250 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6904547.pdf

Dmrecord 647250

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Thompson, Linda Ann

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