Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Self-esteem, disclosure and consequent gains and losses of esteem as a determinant of responses to evaluations… Hunt, Valerye Agnes 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 H85.pdf [ 5.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101701.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101701-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101701-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101701-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101701-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101701-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101701-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101701-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101701.ris

Full Text

SELF-ESTEEM, DISCLOSURE AND CONSEQUENT GAINS AND LOSSES OF ESTEEM AS A DETERMINANT OF RESPONSES TO EVALUATIONS FROM OTHERS by VALERYE AGNES HUNT B.A., UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE, 1970  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1972  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree the  L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e  and  that  study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  be granted by  the Head of my  Department or  I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without written  permission.  Department of  Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  Date  A p r i l 10, 19 72  Columbia  my  Abstract  The hypothesis that expectations  of disclosure  and a consequent  gain or loss i n esteem from another would determine reactions to i n i t i a l l y p o s i t i v e or negative evaluations congruent or incongruent with self-evaluation was tested. problem-solving  Subjects experienced success or f a i l u r e at  and then received congruent or incongruent evaluations  from others when disclosure of performance was e i t h e r i n e v i t a b l e o r impossible.  Predictions that subjects anticipating disclosure and sub-  sequent gains and losses of esteem would exhibit a consistency e f f e c t while those safe from the consequences of disclosure would show approval seeking behavior received no clear-cut support.  Possible factors involved  i n the study's f a i l u r e to support the hypotheses were discussed. The study also tested the hypothesis that ratings of the evaluat o r on some scales would r e f l e c t only the p o s i t i v e or negative nature of the note received while others would require consideration of consistency between s e l f and other evaluation.  Results offered some support  f o r this hypothesis and j u s t i f i e d the recommendation that future research give p r i o r i t y to development of measures to r e l i a b l y and v a l i d l y detect interaction effects.  Examination of d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t ratings of the  note-sender implied that a b i l i t y relevance, rather than directness, may account f o r observed discrepancies between direct and i n d i r e c t ratings.  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES  iv  Chapter I  REVIEW OF TEE LITERATUP.E  II III IV  1  RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES OF THE PRESENT STUDY  22  METHOD  33  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  V  ;  45  IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  73  BIBLIOGRAPHY .  76  APPENDICES  79  A.  Text of Instructions  79  B.  Problems and Accompanying Instructions  90  C.  S e l f Rating Scales and Accompanying Instructions  D.  Expected Rating Scales and Accompanying Instructions  E.  Experimental Information Sheet  97  F.  Control Information Sheet . . . . . . .  96  G.  Note Form  99  H.  Disclosure and No Disclosure Second Sheets  I.  T r a i t Rating Scales and Accompanying Instructions . . .  101  J.  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scales and Accompanying Instructions  103  Post Experimental Questionnaire  105  K.  ill  ... .  . . . . . .  93 95  100  LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  1.  Subjects' Self-Ratings on Six T r a i t s  46  2.  Subjects' Expected Ratings on Six T r a i t s  47  3.  Mean Change Scores on Janls & F i e l d Scale  48  4.  Mean Ratings of Note-sender on Set of P o s i t i v i t y Scales  5.  Summary of Analysis of Variance of Subjects' Ratings of Note-sender on P o s i t i v i t y Scales  51  6.  Mean Ratings of Note-sender on Set of Consistency Scales .  52  7.  Summary of Analysis o f Variance of Ratings of Notesender on Set of Consistency Scales  52  8. Mean Ratings of the Note-sender on the Reduced Set of Consistency Scales  54  9. 10.  11.  12.  13.  14.  .  51  Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of Notesender on Reduced Set of Consistency Scales  54  Mean Rating f o r D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Teammate Sent to Note-sender  56  Mean Rating f o r D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Teammate Sent to the Experimenter  57  Mean Difference Between Ratings Sent to the Notesender and to the Experimenter  58  Summary of Analysis of Variance of Differences Between Ratings Sent to the Note-sender and to the Experimenter  .  58  Mean Rating of Note-senders f o r D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Friend  62  Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of Notesender f o r D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Friend  62  16.  Mean Ratings of Note-senders f o r Intelligence  63  17.  Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of Notesenders' Intelligence  63  15.  iv  V  LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Table  Page  18.  Comparison of Control with Experimental Groups . . . . . .  65  19.  Observed Responses to Questions Asking i f Disclosure Would Result i n A l t e r a t i o n of Note-sender's Opinion . . .  68  Obtained Values f o r Distributions of Responses Within Conditions  69  20.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  I welcome the opportunity to extend thanks to Dr. Donald Dutton and Dr. Robert Knox f o r advice and assistance i n the planning and preparation of this thesis.  Thanks are also extended to Dr. G l o r i a  Gutman f o r her help i n d i s t r i b u t i n g pre-experiment scales. The assistance of the many students who acted as subjects i n the study i s also g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged.  Thanks are due to Mrs. Esther McDonald  for her e f f o r t s i n typing the f i n a l d r a f t .  Last, but not l e a s t , I  thank my daughter, Heather Lynn Hunt, f o r assistance and co-operation throughout the project.  vi  CHAPTER I  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  Generally, formulae f o r winning friends recommend that f l a t t e r y , i n one form or another, w i l l result i n reciprocation and friendship formation.  Only those w e l l versed i n s o c i a l psychological studies of  interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n would be i n c l i n e d to advocate that, at l e a s t i n some cases, there i s truth i n the old adage: nowhere". may  " F l a t t e r y w i l l get  you  Some investigacors suggest that e f f e c t i v e i n g r a t i a t i o n t a c t i c s  range from derogation  to adulation depending on the l e v e l of s e l f -  esteem experienced by the target person.  Others, however, would disagree.  A l l findings imply that the importance of self-esteem as a t h e o r e t i c a l l y central variable with s i g n i f i c a n t consequences for the i n d i v i d u a l has not been overestimated.  When i t comes to s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the exact  and consequences of self-esteem, however, controversy  operation  replaces consensu3.  Research i n the area i s plagued by a h i s t o r y of c o n f l i c t i n g theories and findings.  Attempts to reconcile the theories by d e f i n i t i o n and  isolation  of mediating variables suggest that an almost endless s e l e c t i o n of such variables may  be discovered.  The goal of this chapter i s to review some  of the relevant studies i n hopes of deducing a model that w i l l not  only  reconcile c o n f l i c t i n g theories but also subsume rapidly p r o l i f e r a t i n g mediating v a r i a b l e s . Review of the l i t e r a t u r e , however, must be preceded by  consideration  of whether self-esteem as manipulated and investigated by the experime^'e:; i s equivalent  to self-esteem discussed by the t h e o r i s t .  available d e f i n i t i o n s of s alf-esteem,  1  Of the many  the one offered by Coopersmith  2 (1967) Is most s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r use i n the present context.  He regards  self-esteem as: ...the evaluation which the i n d i v i d u a l makes end customarily maintains with regard to himself: i t expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which the i n d i v i d u a l believes himself to be capable, s i g n i f i c a n t and worthy. In short, self-esteem i s a personal judgment of worthiness that i s expressed i n the attitudes that the i n d i v i d u a l holds toward himself (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 5). Coopersmith  (1967) also makes an important d i s t i n c t i o n between the terms  self-esteem and self-evaluation by defining the l a t t e r as:  "...a judg-  mental process i n ifhich the i n d i v i d u a l examines h i s performance, capaci t i e s and attributes according to his personal standards and values and arrives at a decision of h i s own worthiness (p. 7)". Self-evaluation and self-esteem have also frequently been used to refer to an individual's self-assessment a f t e r exposure to experimental manipulations designed to induce him to adopt some estimate of himself, his performance or h i s behavior.  Since i t i s regarded as unlikely that  anything other than an extremely potent experimental manipulation i s apt to appreciably a l t e r a person's o v e r a l l feeling  of worthiness, i t seems  that self-esteem should not be used i n this context..  Reference to manip-  ulation of an individual's self-evaluation of himself on some s p e c i f i c t r a i t or a t t r i b u t e seems more appropriate.  In the present paper, s e l f -  esteem refers to an individual's o v e r a l l f e e l i n g of worthiness and s e l f evaluation to h i s p o s i t i v e or negative judgment of himself regarding a s p e c i f i c t r a i t or a t t r i b u t e .  "Induced" used as a preface to either term  w i l l indicate self-esteem or self-evaluation based on manipulations encountered i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n .  When not so prefaced, the terms  3 may be taken as r e f e r r i n g to n a t u r a l l y occurring self-esteem or self-evaluation. The majority  of the studies to be discussed  appear to deal with  the consequences of induced self-evaluation for relationships with others.  Whether these findings may be generalized to cover the conse-  quences of self-esteem i n s i m i l a r circumstances i s a point that has received scant research  attention.  Previous investigators (e.g.,  Deutsch & Solomon, 1959) appear to have assumed that such a generalization was v a l i d .  Some evidence (e.g., Bramel, 1963; Walster, 1965;  Wiest, 1965) has been offered which suggests that n a t u r a l l y occurring self-esteem does operate i n a fashion s i m i l a r to induced self-evaluation.  At present, i t i s regarded as plausible that findings from  studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of induced self-evaluation may also apply to self-esteem.  A d e f i n i t e commitment to such a point of view,  however, must await further empirical evidence. The greatest impetus for s o c i a l psychological investigation of the e f f e c t s of self-esteem or self-evaluation for relationships with others appears to come from various consistency  theories.  (1958) e x p l i c i t l y acknowledged that h i s formulation assumed a p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n .  Heider  of balance theory  Here, Heider (1958) stated:  the p o s s i b i l i t y of a negative attitude toward the s e l f (p_ DL p_) must also be considered. One would expect i t to play a role contrary to that o f (£ L p_). I f p d i s l i k e s himself he might r e j e c t a p o s i t i v e x as too good for him; a negative £ and a p o s i t i v e x do not make a good unit. Or, the minus character of p_ may spread to the x he has made; e.g., i f h i s f r i e n d admires h i s work, he w i l l think that the f r i e n d does so because of politeness. The tendency toward symmetry of the L r e l a t i o n would also be disrupted; i f £ d i s l i k e s him-. s e l f , he might e a s i l y think that £ d i s l i k e s him too, e s p e c i a l l y i f he l i k e s o. The conditions given are:  A (p_ DL p_) (p_ L o), or one negative and one p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n . According to the conditions of balance, such a combination tends to induce a t h i r d r e l a t i o n which i s negative, i n this case (o DL p_) (p. 210). It i s clear, then, that Heider f e l t that, i n the case of a person  who  regarded himself negatively, balance theory predictions would be reversed.  Such an i n d i v i d u a l might not only be most favorably disposed  to those who  d i s l i k e d him but might also derogate h i s own possessions  and b e l i t t l e h i s accomplishments.  Balance theory,then, provided a  theoretical basis for predicting and understanding such apparently i r r a t i o n a l behaviors; Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance also provides a basis f o r p r e d i c t i n g such behaviors.  Behavior or an evaluation at odds  with the person's cognitions about himself should produce  dissonance.  Dissonance would be reduced by a l t e r i n g cognitions concerning the behavior or cognitions about the evaluator. reasoning i s the assumption  I m p l i c i t i n this l i n e of  that the self-evaluation i s deeply rooted  and more resistant to change.  Such an assumption seems v a l i d when  considering naturally occurring self-evaluation or self-esteem. this assumption  But  does l i t t l e to explain why, when confronted with i n -  formation discrepant with experimentally induced self-evaluation or esteem, the i n d i v i d u a l does not simply a l t e r the newly induced cognitions concerning the s e l f .  The most successful studies of dissonance  dealing with the consequences of induced self-evaluation or esteem have presented p o t e n t i a l l y devastating feedback i n an extremely credible fashion (e.g., Bramel, 1962, 1963; Glass, 1964; Walster, 1965).  Such  5  feedback may induce cognitions r e l a t i v e l y resistant to change:  The  nature of the feedback i n these studies makes i t appropriate to cons i d e r them as manipulating o v e r a l l self-esteem.  Studies using feed-  back designed only to induce subjects to adopt different self-evaluations regarding such a b i l i t i e s as problem-solving have concentrated primarily on reactions to task relevant evaluations. Predictions made on the assumption  that the individual's need  for consistency results izi behavior i n keeping with induced s e l f evaluation or self-esteem have received empirical support.  For example,  I s r a e l (1960) demonstrated that an i n d i v i d u a l induced to adopt a nega t i v e self-evaluation would derogate a prize he had worked to obtain while Gerard, Malcolm & Blevans (1964) found that such an i n d i v i d u a l would devalue an item he had chosen.  Aronson & Mettee (1967) found that  subjects provided with f a l s e personality feedback designed to induce low global self-esteem increased cheating behavior.  S i m i l a r l y , Aronson &  Carlsmith (1962) found that subjects would reject unexpected when i t was inconsistent with self-expectations.  success  Bramel (1962) found  that magnitude and direction of projection of an undesirable t r a i t d i f f e r e d with levels of induced self-esteem.  Further, Bramel (1963)  c i t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g that projection as a function of n a t u r a l l y occurring self-esteem operated i n a fashion s i m i l a r to that observed with induced self-esteem.  Glass (1964) demonstrated that aggressive  behavior incongruent with induced high self-esteem l e d to derogation of the v i c t i m not evidenced by s i m i l a r low self-esteem subjects. While the studies c i t e d o f f e r support f o r the proposition that  6 self-esteem or self-evaluation influences behavior toward, and perception of, others; present interest i s focused primarily on studies investigating the role of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i n determining reactions to direct evaluations from others.  Among the f i r s t to investigate the  p o s s i b i l i t y that a self-derogator might d i s l i k e people expressing esteem f o r him while reserving h i s a f f e c t i o n s for those who were Deutsch & Solomon (1959).  They hypothesized  d i s l i k e him  that an i n d i v i d u a l  would react favorably to others whose evaluations of the i n d i v i d u a l were congruent with h i s self-evaluation and unfavorably to those offering incongruent  evaluations.  In t h e i r study, Deutsch & Solomon  (1959) induced subjects to adopt e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative evaluations of performance.  Each subject subsequently  self-  received an  evaluation, allegedly from a teammate, that was e i t h e r congruent or Incongruent with his performance.  Successful subjects rated a  p o s i t i v e evaluator most favorably and a negative evaluator most unfavorably while unsuccessful subjects d i f f e r e d only s l i g h t l y i n t h e i r ratings of the p o s i t i v e and negative evaluators. (1959) interpreted t h e i r results as showing:  Deutsch & Solomon  "...there i s both the  interaction e f f e c t as predicted by the hypothesis of cognitive balance and a ' p o s i t i v i t y ' effect such that the Ss tended to evaluate the p o s i t i v e notes more favorably than the negative notes (p. 106)". Balance theory predictions regarding the e f f e c t of s e l f evaluation upon reactions to evaluations by others also received support i n a study by Wiest (1965).  Wiest's s p e c i f i c hypothesis  was:  "...the degree of c o r r e l a t i o n between a person's l i k i n g for various  7 others and h i s perception of how much they l i k e him, varies p o s i t i v e l y with the person's l e v e l of self-esteem sures of self-esteem  (1965, p. 7)".  Using two mea-  (a s e l f r a t i n g and a teacher rating) Wiest found  strong support f o r this hypothesis.  His study i s valuable not only for  i t s quantitative extension of Heider's balance theory but also for i t s demonstration that n a t u r a l l y occurring self-esteem seems to operate i n a fashion s i m i l a r to induced self-evaluation. Wilson (1965) reasoned that a decision to take or to avoid a test represented  an i m p l i c i t self-evaluation and hypothesized that a person's  a t t r a c t i o n to an evaluator would depend on the congruency between the individual's s e l f and received evaluation. experience and then permitted  Subjects were given a f a i l u r e  to e l e c t to avoid a s i m i l a r test when doing  so meant loss of a chance for a reward.  Results indicated that, f o l -  lowing a personal decision to avoid the test, subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less attracted to a teammate providing a p o s i t i v e evaluation with the induced self-evaluation.  dissonant  Wilson concluded that his findings  supported the proposition that a t t r a c t i o n to another was dependent on consistency between s e l f and other evaluation. Although consistency  theory predictions have received empirical  support, they have also been questioned by several investigators who have obtained evidence supporting a c o n f l i c t i n g theory.  For example,  Dittes (1959) proposed that self-esteem would influence reactions to others somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y from predictions made by consistency theorists. groups.  Dittes based his model on findings from studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g  He proposed that:  8 A person's a t t r a c t i o n toward membership i n a group, l i k e motivational a t t r a c t i o n toward any obj e c t , may be considered a function of two i n t e r acting determinants: (a) the extent to which h i s p a r t i c u l a r needs are s a t i s f i e d by the grcup, and (b) the strength of h i s needs (Dittes, 1959, p. 7 7 ) . r  Dittes further assumed that the strength of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s need would be indicated by h i s l e v e l of self-esteem and that need for approval increased as self-esteem decreased. His s p e c i f i c hypotheses were: • Hypothesis I.. The tendency of greater acceptance i n a group to produce greater a t t r a c t i o n toward the group i s greater among persons with low s e l f esteem than among persons with high self-esteem. Hypothesis I I . Among persons experiencing acceptance i n a group, attraction to the group i s greater among persons with low self-esteem than among persons with high self-esteem. Hypothesis I I I . Among persons experiencing non-acceptance i n a group, attraction to the group i s less among persons with low self-esteem than among persons with high self-esteem (Dittes, 1959, p. 78). ;  D i t t e s used measures of n a t u r a l l y occurring self-esteem and manipulated  subjects' perceived acceptance i n groups.  Support was  obtained for the f i r s t hypothesis: low self-esteem subjects expressed greatest a t t r a c t i o n to the group when accepted and l e a s t when rejected. High self-esteem subjects were less extreme i n t h e i r reactions. The t h i r d hypothesis also received some support (p < .10) i n that low s e l f esteem individuals encountering  rejection were less attracted to the  group than were s i m i l a r high self-esteem subjects.  With regard to the  second hypothesis, differences were i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n i n that low self-esteem subjects experiencing acceptance were more attracted to the group than were s i m i l a r high self-esteem subjects. ence, however, was not s i g n i f i c a n t . .  The d i f f e r -  9 Predictions s i m i l a r to Dittes' w i r e nade e .d c r r p i r i c a l l y supported by Walster (1965).  She predicted that low self-esteem i n d i v i -  duals would express greater l i k i n g for an affectionate other than would persons high i n self-esteem.  Walster provided subjects with  personality feedback that was e i t h e r v e r y favorable or very and thus induced high and low self-esteem. confederate who  false unfavorable  Subjects were exposed to a  expressed l i k i n g and acceptance.  Findings were that  subjects who had received an esteem lowering treatment  rated the con-  federate s i g n i f i c a n t l y more favorably than did subjects exposed to the esteem r a i s i n g treatment.  Further, these subjects did not d i f f e r s i g -  n i f i c a n t l y on t h e i r ratings of other i n d i v i d u a l s .  To  completely  v e r i f y D i t t e s ' model, the study would r e q u i r e the addition of a condition i n which high and low induced self-esteem subjects experienced rejection. Walster suggested one factor that might account for the a v a i l a b i l i t y of empirical data supporting both balance and need theory might be the ambiguity  of the s i t u a t i o n .  She proposed that i n situations  where the i n d i v i d u a l had to i n f e r how  another f e l t about him, persons  high i n self-esteem would expect acceptance w h i l e those low i n s e l f esteem anticipated rejection.  Because o f a tendsncy to reciprocate  anticipated l i k e and d i s l i k e , there would be a p o s i t i v e correlation between self-esteem and l i k i n g when ambiguity prevailed. When, however, the other was  clear i n h i s expression o f acceptance or r e j e c t i o n ,  the relationship between self-esteem and l i k i n g would be as s p e c i f i e d by D i t t e s .  10 A problem with Walster's ambiguity proposal i s that consistency predictions have been supported i n situations (e.g., Deutsch & Solomon, 1959) where feedback was not ambiguous but d e f i n i t e .  Etrsch«id & Walster  (1969) modified the ambiguity proposal so that i t applied only to situations where subjects experienced generalized acceptance not based on s p e c i f i c t r a i t s .  They suggested:  1) I f another l i k e s us for t r a i t s unrelated to those t r a i t s for which we admire or despise ourselves, the lower our general self-esteem the more we w i l l resent r e j e c t i o n . 2) I f another l i k e s us for the very t r a i t s f o r which we admire or despise ourselves, the more accurate the other i s the more we w i l l l i k e him In return (lerscheid & Walster, 1969, p. 61). Although the accuracy of the evaluation may w e l l be a factor i n determining the reaction to i t , there i s evidence to suggest that accuracy does not necessarily engender l i k i n g .  Subsequent discussion w i l l  report studies by Jones (1968), Jones & Schneider (1968), Jones & Pines (1968) and Jones & Ratner (1967) demonstrating that, under some conditions, an inaccurate and f l a t t e r i n g evaluation i s preferable to an accurate and u n f l a t t e r i n g one. Jones, Gergen & Davis (1962) offer two reasons why  l i k i n g based  on an accurate evaluation should be preferred to that based on an inaccurate one.  The f i r s t relates to the instrumental value of approval:  a person expects to have power or control over those who  l i k e him.  Control over others who perceive accurately i s not only easier to maintain because of elimination of the need to dissemble but, presumably,  i s also more firmly rooted.  needs:  The second reason relates to approval  approval resulting from another's r e a l i s t i c and accurate  11 perception has p o s i t i v e implications f o r one's worth as a person. To test t h e i r hypotheses  concerning the greater value of approval  following an honest self-presentation, Jones, Gergen & Davis  (1962)  instructed h a l f t h e i r subjects to provide an interviewer with a comp l e t e l y candid s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n while the rest were asked to do everything possible t o impress the interviewer favorably.  Subjects were  then informed that the interviewer's evaluation of them had been p o s i t i v e or negative.  Jones, Gergen & Davis hypothesized that ratings  of the interviewer by "accuracy" subjects would be more affected by the p o s i t i v i t y or negativity of the evaluation than would be ratings made by "hypocrisy" subjects.  Although results were i n the d i r e c t i o n  predicted, they were not s i g n i f i c a n t .  The investigators reported:  " I t was apparent that the perceptual e f f e c t s of set were obscured by retrospective d i s t o r t i o n :  those receiving approving feedback concluded  that they were more accurate i n self-presentation than those creating ia negative impression (Jones, Gergen & Davis, 1962, p. 1 6 ) . " A  study by Harvey and Clapp  (1965)  also appears to provide  j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r maintaining that factors other than accuracy of an evaluation operate to determine reactions to i t .  Subjects indicated  ^ow they would expect to be rated by a stranger and were then exposed to ratings allegedly made by the stranger.  These ratings deviated from  subjects' own ratings i n either a favorable or unfavorable d i r e c t i o n by a large or small amount.  Harvey & Clapp hypothesized that the e f f e c t s  of an unexpectedly favorable evaluation would d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the effects of an unexpectedly negative evaluation.  They further hypo-  thesized that subjects expecting negative evaluations would be more  12 wounded by ratings that were even less favorable than expected and more receptive to unexpectedly favorable ratings than would be subjects having higher expectancies.  Of interest was the finding that i n d i v i d u a l s  of lower expectancy were not only more hurt by unexpectedly negative feedback but also less able t o accept unexpectedly p o s i t i v e evaluations. It thus appears Dittes' predictions regarding the effects of r e j e c t i o n on low self-esteem individuals were borne out but the study also part i a l l y supports  consistency theory since these persons were not more  receptive to overly p o s i t i v e evaluations. Jones (1966) questioned whether balance theory predictions would be confirmed i n situations where subjects expected to continue exchanging evaluations directed at s p e c i f i c actions of others.  He argued i n favor  of consideration o f reciprocation theory which predicts that i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l reward p o s i t i v e evaluators and punish negative ones.  Further,  Jones pointed out that i t i s only i n the case of the negative  self-  evaluator that balance and reciprocation theories make d i f f e r e n t predictions.  In a study to compare the theories, Jones used false performance  feedback to induce subjects to adopt high or low self-evaluations. were  They  then placed i n a s i t u a t i o n where they took turns answering ques-  tions and providing evaluations of their own and others' answers. study contained four groups:  The  high self-evaluators receiving p o s i t i v e  evaluations, high self-evaluators receiving negative evaluations, low self-evaluators receiving favorable evaluations and low self-evaluators receiving unfavorable evaluations. Major dependent variables were the p o s i t i v e or negative  evaluations  a subject sent to h i s colleagues and the number of p o s i t i v e or negative  13 evaluations he made of h i s own responses. cation rather than balance theory. that might account for predominant 1)  Findings supported recipro-  Jones (1966) suggested two factors tendencies toward  reciprocation:  Subjects were evaluating single actions of other people rather than  making global evaluations and, 2) d i r e c t l y to others.  Subjects were sending evaluations  Accordingly, Jones suggested when interpersonal  evaluations enable one to achieve control over others' behavior, a person may be primarily motivated by the instrumental value o f the evaluations he sends. theory:  Additionally, Jones found some support for need  as subjects decreased the number of p o s i t i v e self-evaluations,  they became increasingly favorable toward positive evaluators and unfavorable toward negative ones. Jones & Ratner (1967) suggested that investigation of the role of self-evaluation as a determinant of reactions to evaluations from othe-s entailed i s o l a t i n g variables that mediated between consistent o r r e c i procal responses.  They further suggested that commitment to s e l f - a p -  p r a i s a l might be such a variable.  Jones & Ratner (1967) stated:  ...When exchanging evaluations with others, people may w e l l be concerned with the consequent behaviors implied i n the kind of evaluative information they accept for themselves....If a person has made no commitment to a low s e l f - a p p r a i s a l , then accepting praise or rejecting censure from another person implies choosing a level of performance beyond h i s c a p a b i l i t i e s with the hazard of experiencing f a i l u r e . However, i f a person i s committed to a low s e l f - a p p r a i s a l by the decisions he makes o r by public acknowled|?ir:n'\, thsn he i s protected from the negative implications of accepting praise. In e f f e c t , he has avoided the choice of d i f f i c u l t situations implied i n accepting the esteem of others by irrevocably committing himself to easy situations which are commensurate with h i s low self-evaluation. In t h i s case the person can accept the esteem without simultaneously  14 r i s k i n g the undesirable consequences of " l i v i n g up t o " i t s Implications. I f commitment has such a protective function, then one would expect that, contrary to the consistency analysis, the extent of a person's commitment to a low s e l f - a p p r a i s a l would be inversely related to the tendency to devaluate a peer sending positive evaluations r e l a t i v e to a peer sending negative evaluations (pp. 442-43). Jones & Ratner provided subjects with negative feedback regarding performance on a written test and thus induced low self-evaluation of personality inference a b i l i t y .  Subjects were t o l d they would subse-  quently evaluate a c l i n i c a l case which they could select from a l i s t of cases varying i n d i f f i c u l t y .  Half the subjects were permitted to  choose a case immediately after the written test, the other h a l f a n t i cipated s e l e c t i n g a case a f t e r completing the oral portion of the t e s t . A l l subjects then took the o r a l portion of the t e s t , exchanged evaluations of answers with peers and evaluated their own answers. Results indicated that experimental manipulations had Induced low self-evaluations of a b i l i t y and that subjects given an opportunity to commit themselves to an easy case did so.  Most importantly, subjects  committed to easy cases favored a p o s i t i v e evaluator while subjects i n the no commitment condition preferred a negative evaluator. Jones & Ratner interpreted these results as supporting t h e i r hypotheses. Jones & Pines (1968) suggested that people would be motivated by consistency needs when inconsistency could lead to punishment but, i n the absence of undesirable consequences, approval needs would p r e v a i l . They designed a study to determine whether anticipation of s e l f revealing events would mediate between consistent and approval seeking  15 responses to evaluations.  Self-revealing events were  circumstances  l i k e l y to lead to a clear i n d i c a t i o n of degree o f competence. hypothesized  I t was  that low self-evaluators would behave as predicted by  consistency theory when s e l f - r e v e a l i n g events were anticipated and i n  i accord with approval theory when such events were not expected. In a study to test this hypothesis, Jones & Pines used false performance feedback to induce low self-evaluation of a b i l i t y .  Anti-  cipation of s e l f - r e v e a l i n g events was manipulated by t e l l i n g h a l f the subjects that, following oral answers and peer evaluations, the experimenter would announce whether or not answers were correct. of the subjects were not given such expectations. the hypothesis:  Results  The rest confirmed  subjects favored the negative evaluator when s e l f -  revealing events were anticipated and the p o s i t i v e evaluator when such events were not expected.  Furthermore, subjects were asked to indicate  which of the evaluations received (expert = 33% correct or peer = 58% correct) best indicated t h e i r actual a b i l i t y .  Subjects a n t i c i p a t i n g  s e l f - r e v e a l i n g events were more l i k e l y to endorse the lower rating. Jones (1968) contended that the expectation of se i f - r e v e a l i n g events might explain results from previous studies (e.g., Aronson & Carlsmith, 1962) which indicated that subjects encountering  unexpected  success would a l t e r subsequent performance so i t would be consistent with previously established expectations.  Jones noted that subjects  i n the Aronson & Carlsmith study expected a post-test interview i n which, on the basis o f test performance, they may have anticipated doing w e l l or poorly.  Therefore, these subjects could be categorized as expecting  16 s e l f - r e v e a l i n g events.  To test this hypothesis, Jones (1968) used an  experimental paradigm s i m i l a r to that of Aronson & Carlsmith.  In Jones'  study, however, h a l f the subjects expected an interview to follow the test, the rest had no such expectation.  Since i t was thought that  subjects might attempt to control self-representation by actual performance and also by expressed opinions about a b i l i t y , dependent variables included a behavioral measure (the number of items changed from the f i r s t to second taking of the f i f t h section of the test) and a questionnaire measure.  Jones found tentative support for his sugges-  tion that subjects would appear most consistent when a n t i c i p a t i n g an interview.  He also found evidence suggesting  that greatest e f f o r t  was made to correct overly favorable impressions when interviews were expected; otherwise, stress was placed on correcting a less favorable impression. Mettee (1971) examined the roles of consistency and future i n t e r action i n the rejection of unexpected success. for r e j e c t i o n of such success:  He suggested two reasons  one, i t i s inconsistent and, two,  acceptance of such success may e n t a i l negative  consequences as suggested  i  by Jones (1968).  Mettee's study entailed manipulation of the s i t u a t i o n  so that success for some subjects was inconsistent and c a r r i e d a threat of future f a i l u r e ; for others i t was neither inconsistent nor threatening and, for a t h i r d group, i t was only inconsistent.  Mettee con-  cluded that psychological inconsistency and future negative were both factors i n rejection of unexpected success. subjects' expectation  consequences  A d d i t i o n a l l y , the  that the task or s k i l l might be learned would be  17 a factor i n determining whether unexpected success would be or rejected.  accepted  I f subjects believed i t possible to learn an a b i l i t y ,  sudden success might be taken as a demonstration of learning. Jones & Schneider  (1968) suggested that the degree of certainty  of s e l f - a p p r a i s a l might also determine reactions to evaluations from othersi  They suggested that the i n d i v i d u a l s t i l l uncertain of h i s  a b i l i t y might welcome further information that c l a r i f i e d h i s p o s i t i o n . They further argued that u n t i l an i n d i v i d u a l praisal.  consistency motives would not be operative  had adopted a f a i r l y firm and c e r t a i n a b i l i t y  Accordingly, Jones & Schneider  ap-  argued, the less certainty an  Individual had regarding h i s a b i l i t y , the more he would tend to favor a p o s i t i v e evaluator. In a study to test this hypothesis, Jones & Schneider persuaded subjects to adopt a low a b i l i t y appraisal but varied the degree of certainty with which subjects held this appraisal.  Subjects were then  exposed to p o s i t i v e and negative peer evaluations of a b i l i t y .  I t was  found that Certain subjects sent more p o s i t i v e evaluations to a negative evaluator while Uncertain subjects favored the p o s i t i v e evaluator. Questionnaire ratings revealed that subjects i n a l l conditions not only l i k e d the p o s i t i v e evaluator most but also most desired further informal association with her.  Jones & Schneider state:  ...Why the pencil-and-paper ratings which were communicated only to the experimenter showed a d i f ferent pattern of results than the switch-throw measure i n v o l v i n g direct s o c i a l exchange i s unclear.... The p o s s i b i l i t y exists that communicated and non-communicated evaluations of others involve quite d i f f e r e n t processes, and such differences should be subject to more systematic analysis ' (1968, p. 399).  18 Skolnick (1971) attempted to replicate the Deutsch & Solomon (1959) study.  The r e p l i c a t i o n used a procedure s i m i l a r to that f o l -  lowed by the o r i g i n a l investigators. There were, however, some d i f f e r ences.  Skolnick (1971) used introductory psychology students as subjects  and included a control group that did not receive feedback regarding test performance but did receive notes from teammates.  Skolnick as-  sumed that the no feedback subjects would have no s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n for task performance and, consequently, neither p o s i t i v e nor negative evaluations could appear incongruous.  other  Skolnick further argued:  . . . I f subjects were seekxig congruity alone then, they would have no c l e a r preference for the p o s i t i v e or negative evaluator; a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f subjects are seeking p o s i t i v e evaluations, subjects i n this uncertain group should prefer the p o s i t i v e to the negative evaluator (1971, p. 63).  1  Two possible problems may be noted: may,  one i s that no feedback subjects  on the basis of stable self-esteem, have formed hypotheses re-  garding their a b i l i t y .  Secondly, Jones & Schneider  (1968) demonstrated  that degree of certainty regarding one's a b i l i t y appraisal may reactions to evaluations. teration was  Possibly the most important  determine  procedural a l -  that subjects i n the Skolnick (1971) study d e f i n i t e l y ex-  pected to form teams for a contest a f t e r exchanging notes while subjects i n the Deutsch & Solomon (1959) study believed the contest before exchanging notes.  Skolnick's (1971) data indicated that p o s i t i v e  evaluators were l i k e d better than negative ones. action e f f e c t (feedback  concluded  Further, the i n t e r -  x evaluation) tended (p < .09) to approach s i g -  nificance due to a strong tendency f o r f a i l u r e subjects to be most receptive to a p o s i t i v e evaluator and success subjects most favorable  19 to a negative one.  These results prompted Skolnick to state:  The major findings of this study are that (a) persons l i k e p o s i t i v e evaluators, regardless of t h e i r self-esteem, and (b) persons who d i s l i k e themselves are more desirous of p o s i t i v e evaluation than persons who have p o s i t i v e self-concepts. These findings provide support for a s i g n i f i c a t i o n model and, at the same time, contradict consistency theories and the results of the Deutsch & Solomon experiment (1971, p. 66). Skplnlck attributes f a i l u r e to replicate the Deutsch & Solomon study to possible suspicion and lack of involvement on the part of subjects i n the o r i g i n a l study.  He further advocates that these are the con-  ditions under which consistency effects are l i k e l y to occur and that: " . . i a s i g n i f i c a t i o n model i s l i k e l y to be supported where there i s high ego involvement and suspicion i s minimal (p. 66)".  I t w i l l be l e f t to  the reader to judge the v a l i d i t y of the claims that telephone operators are apt to be less ego-involved concerning i n t e l l i g e n c e , or lack of i t , as well as more suspicious of psychological experiments than present day college students. However, a procedural a l t e r a t i o n i n the Skolnick (1971) study may account for the f a i l u r e to r e p l i c a t e .  Subjects presumably  expected  future Interaction since they were told that teammate s e l e c t i o n would follow the exchange of notes.  Thus, i n Skolnick's study, the statement  of being most or least wanted as a teammate may be regarded as carrying with i t meaningful acceptance or rejection since subjects presumably pected to form teams.  ex-  Accordingly, the meaningfulness of the evaluation  i n terms of anticipated future i n t e r a c t i o n may be yet another variable operating to determine whether balance or need motives w i l l  predominate.  20  A possible shortcoming of both the Deutsch & Solomon (1959) and Skolnick (1971) studies i s the nature of the feedback given to subjects. Success subjects were informed  that their score was  almost twice as  great as the average while f a i l u r e subjects were informed was  a l i t t l e less than h a l f the average score.  Festinger (1954) c i t e s  evidence to indicate that use of extreme feedback may f i c u l t for subjects to assess t h e i r own others.  that theirs  make i t more d i f -  a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e to that of  Secondly, subjects could e a s i l y categorize the evaluation as  coming from someone whose test performance was superior to t h e i r s .  e i t h e r i n f e r i o r or  This may have resulted i n a subjective perception  of status differences.  Iverson (1968) investigated the effects of r  status on reactions to partners who  provided i n v a l i d or v a l i d praise  and found reactions varied with status.  Subjects receiving evaluations  from i n f e r i o r s were most attentive to the v a l i d i t y of the proffered praise while subjects being evaluated by superiors did not demonstrate such discrimination.  Therefore, i t may be that p o s i t i v e evaluations  i n the Deutsch & Solomon and Skolnick studies may not only have been perceived as being v a l i d or i n v a l i d but also as coming from sources varying i n competence. Thus far the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed seems to o f f e r support for p o s i t i n g both consistency and need for approval motives as factors determining  reactions to evaluations from others.  Further, i t appears  that research attention has most recently been directed toward i s o l a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n of variables such as certainty of s e l f appraisal, a n t i c i p a t i o n of s e l f - r e v e a l i n g events and commitment which  21  may operate to determine which motive w i l l be uppermost.  Rather than  continuing attempts to define and i s o l a t e such mediating variables, i t seems that a more promising approach would e n t a i l developing  a model  that would not only reconcile c o n f l i c t i n g findings but also subsume and explain the operation o f previously defined mediating variables;  CHAPTER I I RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES OF THE PRESENT STUDY  The gain-loss theory set forth by Aronson (1969) may be extended to explicate the contradictory findings regarding the role of s e l f esteem or s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i n determining from others.  responses to evaluations  This theory proposes that receiving evidence of p o s i t i v e  regard from another has greater reward value i f the other i s someone from whom we have not previously received so much approval.  Similarly,  a loss i n esteem or an expression of disapproval from a formerly approving other has greatest punishment value. Aronson (1969) reports testing h i s theory i n a study using four experimental  conditions.  In the f i r s t (Positive) condition, subjects  received constantly p o s i t i v e evaluations; i n the second (Negative)  con-  d i t i o n , they received constantly negative evaluations; i n the t h i r d (Gain) condition, the evaluations were i n i t i a l l y negative but became positive and i n the fourth (Loss) condition, the i n i t i a l l y p o s i t i v e evaluations became negative. condition expressed  Aronson found that subjects i n the Gain  greater l i k i n g for the evaluator than did subjects  i n the Positive condition.  S i m i l a r l y , subjects i n the Loss condition  tended to d i s l i k e the evaluator more than did subjects i n the Negative condition. Aronson (1969) also suggested that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s reaction to a positive or negative evaluation i s p a r t i a l l y based on expectations of receiving praise or derogation from a p a r t i c u l a r source. 22  Thus, a close  23 friend from whom one expects approval has l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l for providing a gain i n esteem but has greater power to exert punishment s i n c e , the greater the past history of approval, the greater the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for losses i n esteem.  S i m i l a r l y , strangers and acquaintances have  greatest reward power. studies demonstrating  As support for this point, Aronson (1969) c i t e s  more positive reactions to p r a i s i n g strangers and  more negativity upon encountering censure  from a friend.  Extension of the gain-loss theory to reconcile and explain contradictory findings regarding the e f f e c t s of self-esteem or evaluation on reactions to evaluations from others requires consideration of d i f f e r e n t expectancies associated with different levels of self-esteem or s e l f evaluation.  Such expectancies are discussed by Coopersmith (1967) who  suggests that individuals d i f f e r i n g i n self-esteem may have very d i f ferent expectations regarding the outcome of any s i t u a t i o n .  Of high  self-esteem i n d i v i d u a l s , Coopersmith states: ...In s o c i a l situations persons who are accustomed to acceptance and expect to be successful are l i k e l y to believe that they w i l l be treated with due appreciation of t h e i r worth. They w_13. probably i n s i s t upon t h e i r rights and prerogatives and r e s i s t any treatment that even suggests that they are not equal to others....We would expect that a beneficient cycle of...expectations of success leads t o . . . c o n f i dence and more frequent successes, which i n turn leads to greater expectations of success (1967, p. 251). This may be contrasted with the expectations associated with low s e l f esteem described by Coopersmith: "The...expectations  of Individuals with  low self-esteem are marked by lack of f a i t h , expectations of f a i l u r e and the anticipation of rejection (1967, p. 252)."  These statements  provide some grounds for suggesting that high and low self-esteem  24 persons may have very d i f f e r e n t expectations of encountering acceptance and l i k i n g i n any given s i t u a t i o n .  success,  Individuals induced to  adopt d i f f e r e n t i a l self-evaluations of a b i l i t y may expectations of receiving approval or disapproval.  also have d i f f e r e n t That i s , one  who  believes himself a f a i l u r e at solving problems or i n f e r r i n g personali t i e s may expect others to also derogate h i s a b i l i t y .  Similarly,  persons experiencing success may expect t h e i r demonstration a b i l i t y to excite the admiration and approval of others.  of superior  These d i f -  f e r e n t i a l expectations, taken i n conjunction with Aronson's findings regarding the e f f e c t s of gains and losses i n esteem, may provide a key to understanding  different reactions to evaluations from others as a  function of self-esteem or self-evaluation. It may be recalled that Aronson found a gain i n esteem was most rewarding,  followed by a constant high l e v e l of esteem, followed by a  constant low l e v e l of esteem with a loss i n esteem most punishing of all.  On this b a s i s , taking expectancies into account, consideration of  whether an evaluation represents a gain, loss or constant l e v e l of esteem may enable p r e d i c t i o n of responses to i t .  These predictions  follow: 1.  The high self-evaluator should expect a p o s i t i v e evaluation.  Receipt of such an evaluation would represent a constant l e v e l of esteem and lead to moderate l i k i n g . 2.  The low self-evaluator should expect a negative evaluation.  of a p o s i t i v e evaluation should represent a gain i n esteem  and,  Receipt ac-  cordingly, lead to greater l i k i n g for the p o s i t i v e evaluator than would be evidenced by a high self-evaluator.  25 3.  The low self-evaluator should find a negative evaluation i n ac-  cord with h i s expectancies.  Since he i s experiencing a constant  level  qf esteem, he may be expected to express only moderate d i s l i k e for the negative evaluator; 4.  The high self-evaluator receiving a negative evaluation may be  regarded as experiencing a loss i n esteem and should, therefore, express greatest d i s l i k e for the negative evaluator. Several studies do demonstrate that the low self-evaluator reacts to praise by expressing more l i k i n g for the evaluator than the high self-evaluator.  Ft>r example, Walster  Jones (1966) have obtained such r e s u l t s .  (1965), Dittes (1959) and However, only Dittes and  Jones included high self-evaluators exposed to negative evaluations. In the former study, contrary to predictions derived from the gain-loss theory, subjects low i n self-esteem expressed  greater d i s l i k e when  rejected than did high self-esteem subjects.  Furthermore, on the  basis of data reported by Jones (1966) i t i s possible to conclude that subjects induced to adopt a low self-evaluation were no less unfavorable to a negative evaluator than were high s e l f - e v a l u a t o r s . t h i s pattern of results i s not i n accord with predictions made on the basis of the gain-loss theory.  Thus, i t appears that i n some cases,  low self-evaluators express more d i s l i k e when rejected or negatively evaluated than do high self-evaluators. A second problem arises i n connection with data from studies supporting consistency or balance predictions (e.g., Deutsch & Solomon, 1959).  In these studies, the behavior of high and low self-evaluators  receiving negative evaluations i s i n accord with predictions derived  26  from the gain-loss theory: for  high self-evaluators express most d i s l i k e  the negative evaluator.  However, predictions f a i l to be borne out  i n instances of subjects receiving p o s i t i v e evaluations since low s e l f evaluators for whom a p o s i t i v e evaluation presumably represents a gain i n esteem, expressed  less, rather than more, l i k i n g for the p o s i t i v e  evaluator than did high self-evaluators. Consideration of expectations of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may explain these inconsistencies and also why  such variables as a n t i c i p a t i o n of  s e l f - r e v e a l i n g events, certainty of s e l f - a p p r a i s a l and commitment mediate between approval and consistency behaviors.  I t i s suggested  that expectations of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e with a consequent gain or loss i n esteem may  underlie a l l these variables and thus lead to t h e i r e f f e c t .  Disclosure might be defined as a process through which an i n d i vidual becomes known to others.  Although a person may  attempt to con-  ceal d e f i c i e n c i e s and weaknesses, continuing i n t e r a c t i o n increases not only the amount but also the accuracy of personal information available to others.  An i n d i v i d u a l who  adopts an attitude of self-disapproval  because he believes himself to be incompetent, inept and unworthy expect disclosure to result i n revelation of h i s inadequacies sequent disapproval from others. disclosure may others.  may  and sub-  Accordingly, the a n t i c i p a t i o n of s e l f -  affect an i n d i v i d u a l ' s response to i n i t i a l approval from  I f the s i t u a t i o n i s one such that the other offers  approval  despite f u l l knowledge of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s inadequacy or w i l l never discover the inadequacy, then the low self-evaluator may ing  great l i k i n g for the approving other.  respond by  express-  When, however, disclosure i s  not complete and the s i t u a t i o n i s one such that the truth cannot remain  27 hidden; the i n d i v i d u a l must face the p o s s i b i l i t y that the  evaluator  w i l l reverse his opinion and come to regard the i n d i v i d u a l negatively. (Recall that Aronson has demonstrated that a loss i r esteem i s most punishing of a l l . ) Under these circumstances, i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of this loss of esteem, the i n d i v i d u a l may  protect himself by lowering h i s  l i k i n g for the other. Support for the above proposition comes from the observation  that  low self-evaluators have f a i l e d to respond most favorably to a p o s i t i v e evaluator mainly when situations were conducive to disclosure.  For  example, Jones & Ratner (1967), Jones & Pines (1968) and Jones (1968) found subjects acted i n accord with need motives when circumstances were such that individuals induced to evaluate themselves negatively were certain of not being  found out.  Subjects behaved according  predictions when s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was  likely.  to balance  Jones & Schneider (1968)  found certainty of s e l f - a p p r a i s a l to be a mediating factor.  This  may  i l l u s t r a t e that the more certain one i s of one's incompetence, the more certain i t i s that disclosure w i l l lead to a loss i n esteem. S i m i l a r l y , Harvey & Clapp (1965) found that low  self-esteem  subjects confronted with an overly p o s i t i v e evaluation from a stranger did not react to i t as favorably as did high self-esteem Expectancy of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may  subjects.  also account for this f i n d i n g :  subjects believed that the rater was  a classmate and may have anticipated  that closer acquaintance would result i n a lowered evaluation.  The  results of the Deutsch & Solomon (1959) study are not i n accord with the disclosure model since low self-evaluators receiving a favorable tion did not increase their l i k i n g for the evaluator.  evalua-  There i s , however,  28 the p o s s i b i l i t y that these subjects may have very seriously questioned the evaluater's intentions and/or i n t e l l i g e n c e . It i s mainly when s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s anticipated that balance predictions are supported.  Under these circumstances, empirical  results have deviated from gain-loss predictions i n cases of high and low self-evaluators confronted with negative evaluations.  Some i n -  stances are i n keeping with gain-loss predictions i n that high s e l f evaluators receiving a negative evaluation have expressed greatest d i s l i k e for the evaluator.  In others (Dittes, 1959; Harvey & Clapp, 1965),  low self-evaluators have expressed greatest d i s l i k e for a negative evaluator.  Again, consideration of expectations of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  and subsequent gains or losses i n esteem may help reconcile these findings.  Presumably individuals who evaluate themselves highly expect  to receive expressions of approval from others.  When confronted with  an i n i t i a l l y negative evaluation, these individuals may welcome future i n t e r a c t i o n and disclosure since they expect the negative evaluation to eventually become p o s i t i v e .  Anticipation of eventual higher esteem may  lead to a milder reaction to a negative evaluator. It seems, then, that determining whether consistency or approval motives w i l l influence reactions to evaluations from others may be done by considering s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and consequent gains or losses i n esteem. The i n d i v i d u a l who evaluates himself negatively may experience a favorable evaluation from another as a gain i n esteem.  Whether he responds  to this expression of esteem by increasing or decreasing h i s l i k i n g f o r the evaluator may depend on whether or not he expects the other to reverse h i s i n i t i a l opinion.  Thus, when the truth i s unlikely to be  29  revealed or the worst i s already known, he may  reciprocate. When, how-  ever, the low self-evaluator fears that disclosure may opinion reversal he may,  result i n an  i n anticipation of a punishing loss of esteem,  lower h i s l i k i n g for the other. The high self-evaluator may  regard disapproval as a loss of esteem.  I f disclosure i s expected to result i n a reversal of the i n i t i a l l y negative evaluation, anticipation of eventual p o s i t i v e esteem may  act to  temper d i s l i k e for the evaluator. Since the disclosure model seemed adequate to explain most of the data reviewed, the primary purpose of the present study was mine whether or not i t was v i a b l e .  to deter-  I t was suggested that the primary  factor determining whether an i n d i v i d u a l expects approval or disapproval from others i s h i s view of himself. High self-evaluators should expect s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e to reveal a b i l i t i e s and attributes that would favorably impress others while low self-evaluators should expect i t to lay bare t h e i r inadequacies.  Consequently,  the present study tested the d i s -  closure model by providing h a l f the subjects with favorable a b i l i t y feedback  and the other h a l f with unfavorable feedback.  Subjects were  exposed to a p o s i t i v e or negative evaluation allegedly from a prospective teammate under conditions such that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was Inevitable or Impossible.  either  On the basis of the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed, the  following hypotheses were formulated: 1.  When disclosure i s expected, success subjects w i l l l i k e a negative  evaluator more than they w i l l when disclosure i s not anticipated. 2.  When disclosure i s not expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l l i k e a pos-  i t i v e evaluator more than they w i l l when disclosure i s expected.  30 3.  When disclosure Is not expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l l i k e a  p o s i t i v e note-sender more than w i l l success subjects; when disclosure i s expected, success subjects w i l l l i k e a p o s i t i v e note-sender more than w i l l f a i l u r e subjects. 4.  When disclosure i s expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l prefer a negative  to a p o s i t i v e note-sender; when i t i s not expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l prefer a p o s i t i v e to a negative note-sender. As well as i n v e s t i g a t i n g s p e c i f i c hypotheses r e l a t i n g to disclosure and anticipated gains and losses of esteem, the study also t e n t a t i v e l y investigated the s u i t a b i l i t y of various scales as measures o f a t t r a c t i o n i n studies concerned with the e f f e c t s of self-evaluation on responses to evaluations  from others.  Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum (1957) reported that  a problem that had not beer, overcome dealt with comparability scales across concepts.  Although the three factors:  of various  evaluative, ac-  t i v i t y and potency reappeared despite changes i n the concept being judged, i n d i v i d u a l scales did not maintain the same meanings and i n t e r correlations with other scales across a l l concepts.  This problem may  be i l l u s t r a t e d by considering the meanings of the scale fast-slow with reference t o sports cars and women.  Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum further  reported that evaluative scales seem to be the l e a s t stable and most susceptible to v a r i a b i l i t y across concepts. The twelve adjective pairs which Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum (1957) i d e n t i f i e d as loading most heavily on the evaluative factor were: kindcruel, positive-negative, o p t i m i s t i c - p e s s i m i s t i c , sociable-unsociable, good-bad, grateful-ungrateful, t r u e - f a l s e , reputable-disreputable, har_micus-dlsscrnant, wise-foolish.  beautiful-ugly, successful-mnsuccessful, and  While these a l l appeared suitable f o r e-yaluation of  31 stimulus persons, the main concern of the present study was detecting the e f f e c t s of consistency or inconsistency between s e l f and other evaluation.  Some ratings could l o g i c a l l y follow from the nature  (positive or negative) o f the note and would not require  consideration  of consistency between other-evaluation and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n .  A pos-  i t i v e note-sender, for example, could be perceived as kind, p o s i t i v e , optimistic and sociable regardless of consistency between s e l f and other evaluation.  However, the recipient of a p o s i t i v e (and incon-  gruent) note would be required to take into account the consistency between received evaluation and self-evaluation when rating the sender as true or f a l s e .  Accordingly, the twelve adjective pairs were sepa-  rated into two categories: category of Consistency adjective p a i r s :  a category of P o s i t i v i t y scales and a  scales.  Since i t appeared that ratings on the  kind-cruel, positive-negative, optimistic-pessimistic  and sociable-unsociable  could be made without reference to s e l f -  evaluation, these were categorized as P o s i t i v i t y scales. were categorized as Consistency  The remainder  scales and included the adjective p a i r s :  good-bad, grateful-ungrateful, harmonious-dissonant, beautiful-ugly, successful-unsuccessful, t r u e - f a l s e , reputable-disreputable foolish.  and wise-  I t was predicted that the P o s i t i v i t y scales would r e f l e c t  only the nature o f the note while the Consistency  scales would be more  sensitive to the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l f and other evaluation. The study also attempted to further investigate the Jones & Schneider (1968) finding that pencil-and-paper ratings sent to the experimenter d i f f e r e d from behavioral ratings communicated d i r e c t l y to the evaluator.  Recall that Jones.& Schneider found that Certain  32 and Uncertain f a i l u r e subjects showed l i t t l e difference i n evaluations sent d i r e c t l y to the p o s i t i v e evaluator but that they did d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n reactions to a negative evaluator:  Certain subjects were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more favorable to a negative evaluator than were Uncertain subjects.  Pencil-and-paper  ratings sent to the experimenter revealed  a d i f f e r e n t pattern of r e s u l t s :  a l l subjects rated a p o s i t i v e evaluator  more favorably than they did a negative evaluator. compared pencil-and-paper  The present  study  ratings sent d i r e c t l y to the note-sender with  s i m i l a r ratings intended only f o r the experimenter.  The purpose was to  determine i f the discrepancy observed by Jones & Schneider might be, as they suggested, that direct evaluations d i f f e r from i n d i r e c t ones.  CHAPTER I I I METHOD Overview of the Design: The study used a 2 x 2 x 2 completely  crossed f a c t o r i a l design  i n which the variables manipulated were: 1.  Self-evaluation: Half the subjects were t o l d t h e i r task performance was superior, the other h a l f that i t was I n f e r i o r .  2.  Disclosure:  Half the subjects expected t h e i r test scores to be made p u b l i c , the other h a l f believed this information would remain p r i v a t e .  3.  Note:  A l l subjects received a note alleged from another group member.  to come  Half the subjects  received a note i n d i c a t i n g that they were  regarded  as a desirable teammate; the other h a l f a note implying that they were regarded  as an undesirable  teammate.  Subjects: Subjects used were volunteers from Introductory Psychology classes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 100 subjects:  10 i n each of the eight experimental  t i o n a l 10 i n each of two control c e l l s . ranging i n size from three to s i x . the study:  The design called f o r a t o t a l of c e l l s and an addi-  Subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n groups  A t o t a l of 27 groups took part i n  five contained three subjects, nine contained four subjects,  s i x contained five subjects and s i x contained s i x subjects. 33  I t was  34 randomly determined whether a group would be i n the Disclosure or No Disclosure condition and subjects were randomly assigned to positions within each group. A t o t a l of 117 subjects participated In the study. were eliminated:  Of these, 17  seven from Disclosure groups, eight from No Disclosure  groups and two from a control c e l l , for the reasons s p e c i f i e d l a t e r i n this chapter. Procedure: The experimental apparatus was designed so that up to s i x subjects at a time could p a r t i c i p a t e i n the experiment.  Subjects were separated  from one another and from the experimenter by opaque p a r t i t i o n s .  Pre-  experimental i n t e r a c t i o n among subjects was minimized by escorting each subject, immediately upon a r r i v a l , to the experimental room where screens had been erected.  Subjects were instructed to avoid looking at  or communicating with others while waiting for the rest of the group to arrive. Subjects were given an i d e n t i t y l e t t e r which v/as used throughout the experiment.  The i d e n t i t y l e t t e r received by a subject determined  the nature of the feedback and note received by the subject.  These  l e t t e r s were also placed on a l l forms used by subjects during the study. Subjects were t o l d that the purpose of the study was to i n v e s t i gate factors that influence teammate selection and subsequent team performance i n situations where prospective partners were not w e l l known to one another."*"  Subjects were told that t h e i r task was to choose a  See Appendix A f o r a copy of the experimental i n s t r u c t i o n s .  35 teammate from among the other group members and work together on contest problems.  I t was added that screens and i d e n t i t y l e t t e r s were used not  only to ensure that decisions would be! based s o l e l y on information provided during the experiment but also so that they would f e e l free to exchange honest evaluations l a t e r on. In order to motivate the subjects to take the task s e r i o u s l y , they vrere told that the one team having the highest score of a l l teams p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the project would receive a $10.00 p r i z e . Once preliminary i n s t r u c t i o n s had been given, the s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n manipulation was introduced.  Subjects were t o l d that, i n order to give  them some experience with the type of problem they would encounter during the contest and an idea of t h e i r own problem-solving do a couple of problems s i m i l a r to the contest ones.  a b i l i t y , they would I t was stressed that  performance on practice and contest problems would be very s i m i l a r since i n i t i a l performance on the problems had been found to be almost i d e n t i c a l to l a t e r performance.  This was an attempt to ensure that subjects would  not accept a p o s i t i v e evaluation i n hopes that sudden i n s i g h t would enable them to l i v e up to i t .  The problems used were the "Cracker Jack  2 Problem" and the " P o l i t i c s Problem" from the Wff'n'Proof game.  Subjects  were given seven minutes to complete each of the problems. Manipulation of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n e n t a i l e d providing false feedback regarding performance on these problems.  Half the subjects were informed  that they had scored at the 91st percentile and theirs was the highest score i n the group.  Failure subjects were t o l d that they had placed at  the 19th percentile and, thus, had the lowest score i n the group.  See Appendix B for copies of these problems.  Scores  36  attributed to other group members varied with the s i z e of the group. Subjects i n groups of three were told that the group contained one member of comparable (although s l i g h t l y lower) a b i l i t y and one of intermediate competence.  Subjects i n groups of four were t o l d that the group contained  other members of high, medium and low competence while subjects i n larger groups were l e d to believe that the group contained two or three members of medium competence.  In order to increase feedback c r e d i b i l i t y , scores  for each subject on the two problems were varied so that the average was at the 91st or 19th percentile.  Subjects were jivea scorecards with t h e i r  i d e n t i t y l e t t e r c i r c l e d and, beside i t , a score followed by a percent sign* The bottom of the card contained a row of scores allegedly made by other group members.  Subjects were e x p l i c i t l y t o l d that scores shown f o r other  group members were randomly ordered so that a p a r t i c u l a r score could not be i d e n t i f i e d as belonging to a s p e c i f i c subject.  I t was thought that a  possible advantage of this procedure might be that subjects would be less able to categorize the evaluation as coming from someone of d e f i n i t e l y superior or i n f e r i o r  ability.  After completion of each problem, subjects received the scores a l legedly made on the problem.  Once subjects had had a minute or so to  digest the second round of scores, they were asked to rate themselves on nine-point scales for s i x t r a i t s :  problem solving a b i l i t y ,  desirability  as a teammate, i n t e l l i g e n c e , team s p i r i t , d e s i r a b i l i t y as a f r i e n d and 3 likeability.  Once these had been collected, subjects were  See Appendix C f o r a copy of S e l f Rating Scales and i n s t r u c t i o n s .  37 4 given a second set of scales and asked to indicate how  they would  expect to be rated by other group members on the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This constituted a check to determine whether or not the manipulation e f f e c t i v e l y established expectations of p o s i t i v e or negative evaluations from others. Once these ratings had been obtained, subjects were asked to complete a sheet providing information about their appearancej whether t h e i r high school programme had included any Math, Physics or Chemistry courses and whether t h e i r l a s t year's average had been below average, average or above average.  Subjects were also asked to l i s t  courses i n  which they were currently enrolled and three of t h e i r hobbies."* Subjects were t o l d that the purpose of the information sheet was  to  provide other group members with some basis for forming an impression of t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate.  It was expected that the majority  of subjects would have to indicate they had taken some Math and Science courses and had achieved above average marks.  This was intended to  cause subjects receiving positive evaluations to f e e l that t h e i r answers provided the note-senders with reasonable grounds f o r expecting superior performance from them. i t was  Recipients of negative notes might,  thought, attribute the evaluation to such factors as courses In  which subjects were currently enrolled.  Whether or not an evaluator  had j u s t i f i c a t i o n for forming an expectation concerning a person's  See Appendix D for a copy of Expected Rating Scales and instructions. "*See Appendix E f o r a sample of the Experimental Sheet.  Information  38 performance, might affect reactions to the prospect of v i o l a t i n g these expectations.  That i s , subjects might react d i f f e r e n t l y to an e v a l -  uator possessing task relevant information than they would to one who did not have such information. control c e l l s : Note.  Consequently,  the study included two  High Feedback-Negative Note and Low Feedback-Positive  Subjects i n control c e l l s were given.sheets asking only f o r  information which was obviously i r r e l e v a n t to task performance and could provide no l o g i c a l basis f o r forming an expectation concerning problemsolving ability.** Once the completed information sheets had been c o l l e c t e d , subjects were t o l d they would be given the sheet completed by another group member.  They were to decide how they f e l t about having that person as  a teammate and to write a note to the person informing him of t h e i r decision.  The instructions at t h i s point introduced the Disclosure  versus No Disclosure manipulation.  The Disclosure groups were t o l d :  Before you prepare to write a note, I would l i k e to stress that the information on the sheet i s not the only information y o u ' l l have for deciding how you f e e l about having that person as a teammate. Before you make a f i n a l decision, y o u ' l l be t o l d how the person did on the test problems. But — I'm interested i n seeing how accurately you can judge without that i n formation. I want you not to discuss your test performance i n your note. When you receive the information sheet — please read i t carefully and do your best to form an accurate Impression of the person i t describes. Then convey your honest impressions c l e a r l y to the person to whom you are w r i t i n g the note. I mentioned before that precautions had been taken to preserve anonymity and thereby ensure that you f e l t free to evaluate one another honestly. Since you may  See Appendix F for a sample of the Control Information Sheet.  39  be wondering how i t i s possible to maintain anonymity and work together on contest problems, I ' l l explain how this i s to be done. Once you have formed teams you w i l l , as before, each be given a problem. You w i l l follow exactly the same procedure as before i n solving this problem. The t o t a l score for your team on a problem w i l l consist of points earned by you plus those earned by your partner. That i s , y o u ' l l work separately and your scores w i l l be summed. As you can see — having a chance of winning depends not only on your performance but also on that of your partner. Once you've completed the contest problems, I ' l l be able to t e l l you your team score. Also, I ' l l l e t you know how many points you made on each problem and how many your partner made. Y o u ' l l have to wait u n t i l the project i s finished to f i n d out i f your team won or l o s t . Once this project i s over — probably i n about two months — y o u ' l l each receive a l e t t e r t e l l i n g you i f your team won or l o s t . I might add, i f yours i s the winning team, y o u ' l l also receive a cheque representing your share of the winnings.  t  . .  Instructions to No Disclosure groups were as follows: Before you prepare to write a note, I would l i k e to stress that the information on the sheet i s the only information y o u ' l l have for deciding how you f e e l about having that person as a teammate. You w i l l not have scores obtained on the test problems to help i n your decision when you write the note. Nor w i l l they be available at any other time. Your test problem score ; are to remain known only to yourself. I want you not to discuss your test performance i n your note. Since time i s limited, I won't provide you today with any information concerning your performance or your team score for the contest problems. I assume, anyway,'that you're not r e a l l y interested i n how many points you or your partner made so I won't provide you at a l l with this i n formation. I w i l l , of course, l e t you know i f your team won or l o s t the contest.... Subjects were then given the information sheet completed by a group member and directed to write a note to him.  They were provided  40 with note forms  7  showing the subject's Identity l e t t e r and that of the  prospective recipient of the note.  To ensure that the notes written  would be b r i e f , subjects were instructed to write only one sentence,or two at the very most.  Additionally, a time l i m i t was set:  they had  two minutes to read the information sheets and to compose notes.  At  the conclusion of the allotted, time, notes were collected. The t h i r d manipulation, that of other evaluation, was  accomplished  by substituting previously prepared notes for those actually written by the subjects.  Positive notes contained the message:  "You are the  person I would most prefer to have as a teammate" while negative ones stated:  "You are the person I would least prefer to have as a team-  8 mate".  The previously mentioned  r e s t r i c t i o n s concerning length of  notes were imposed to ensure that these messages would not be suspiciously b r i e f .  A d d i t i o n a l l y , the no^tes were written i n variously  colored inks and pencils by appropriately sexed accomplices.  The sub-  s t i t u t i o n was accomplished by retreating behind a screen x?ith the notes actually written by subjects.  The experimenter then noisely shuffled  the notes and stapled second sheets"' to them.  Then the experiteenter  emerged and d i s t r i b u t e d the previously prepared notes. The second sheets served two purposes: closure manipulation and enabled collection-  they continued the D i s of ratings intended by  See Appendix G for a sample of the Hots Fo~ms-. ^These notes were s i m i l a r to those used by Deutsch & Solomon (1959) and Skolnick (1971). 9 See Appendix II for copies of Disclosure and No Disclosure second sheets.  41 subjects to be sent to the evaluator. In the Disclosure condition, the second sheet contained spaces for subjects to f i l l i n their test problem scores.  These were omitted from the second sheet i n the No Disclosure  condition.  For a l l subjects, the second sheet contained a nine-point  scale on which the subject was to indicate how much he wanted the evaluator as a teammate. Once subjects had received the notes and had s u f f i c i e n t time to read and to absorb the contents, the Disclosure versus No Disclosure manipulation continued v i a the instructions.  A l l subjects were t o l d :  F i r s t of a l l , I'd l i k e you to check and make sure the note you received i s addressed to your i d e n t i t y l e t t e r . Nov? turn to the second sheet — the one I just stapled to the note. Please check to make sure that the space marked "To" contains the i d e n t i t y l e t t e r of the person who sent you the note (pause) and that your i d e n t i t y l e t t e r i s i n the space showing that this second sheet i s "From" you. In the Disclosure condition, the experimenter added:  "Now put the  percentile rankings you made on the test t r i a l s i n the spaces provided." A l l subjects were then further instructed: On the scale underneath, indicate how much you would l i k e to have the person who sent you the note as a teammate. Later on y o u ' l l return this to the person who wrote you the note who w i l l then have a chance, (after considering your scores on the test problems/after further consideration), to again indicate how he/she feels about having you as a teammate. Subjects were requested to re-read the note and form the strongest possible impression of the sender.  Subjects were then asked  to rate the note-sender on nine-point scales for: d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate, i n t e l l i g e n c e , team s p i r i t , d e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend and  42 likeability.  Subjects were t o l d that these ratings were intended  only f o r the experimenter.  This was done so that the d e s i r a b i l i t y  as a teammate rating collected here could be compared with the one i n tended for the note-sender.  Subjects were also asked to evaluate the  note-sender on twelve bipolar seven-point Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l scales.^  The adjective pairs contained on the form x^ere those con-  s t i t u t i n g the P o s i t i v i t y and Consistency scales. Once ratings of the note-sender had been collected, subjects were requested to complete the Janis & field (1959) "Feelings of Inadequacy" Scale.  Here, subjects were told: Before we continue, I ' l l need to go over these ratings. I t w i l l take me a few minutes so I'd l i k e you to complete a short personality inventory form while you wait. The form has five answer categories underneath each question. Please read each question and then place a checkmark beside the category that best represents your answer to the question. Please l e t me know i f you have any questions about completing the inventory. And please l e t me know when you're done by announcing out loud that you've finished. Subjects' post-experiment  scores on the Janis & F i e l d (1959)  Scale were compared with measures obtained before tne exp°-i ent to determine i f the manipulation was  s u f f i c i e n t to a f f e c t o v e r a l l s e l f -  esteem as w e l l as self-evaluation on task relevant t r a i t s .  Pre-ex-  periment scores were collected by d i s t r i b u t i n g the scale i n several Psychology 100 classes and requesting students to complete and return It.  Pre- and post-measures were obtained only for the sub-sample  ^See  Appendix I for a sample of the T r a i t Rating Scale.  ^"See Appendix J for a sample of these scales and accompanying instructions.  43 of subjects who completed the scale i n class and also p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. Once subjects had completed the Janis & F i e l d (1959) Scale they were t o l d : I ' l l need to score these inventories before we continue. We seem to be running short of time here today so I'm going to give you this questionnaire (the post-experimental questionnaire^ ) now. I t ' s to make sure that the instructions have been clear. You're not r e a l l y supposed to do i t u n t i l the end of the experiment but I can't see that i t r e a l l y makes that much difference i f you do i t now — and we are short of time. I f you have any questions about completing this — please don't hesitate to l e t me know. And, again, please l e t me know when you've done by announcing "Finished" out loud. 2  The post-experimental questionnaire contained questions designed to determine whether or not subjects could r e c a l l their scores, had understood  the meaning of a percentile score and had comprehended the  disclosure manipulations.  The f i n a l two questions were designed to  e l i c i t subjects' suspicions concerning deceptions i n the study and what they thought the purpose of the study might be, i f they believed I t to be other than as stated.  The post-experimental questionnaire also  served as a guideline f o r elimination of subjects since i t was decided to replace any subject who: 1)  could not r e c a l l his score or did not understand the meaning of a  percentile score; 2)  had f a i l e d to comprehend the Disclosure or No Disclosure manipula-  tions; or,  12 naire .  See Appendix K for a sample of the Post Experimental  Question-  44 3)  very d e f i n i t e l y suspected that the scores and/or notes were phoney.  The post-experimental  questionnaire was inspected and a decision made  to discard a subject without reference to h i s ratings on any of the scales; At the conclusion of the study, the experimenter announced that the scores and notes had been pre-programmed according to the subjects' identity letters.  Subjects were then i n v i t e d to come out from behind  the screens while the experimenter explained the purpose of the experiment and the necessity for the manipulations.  Every attempt was made  to ensure that subjects f e l t t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n had been both valuable and appreciated.  Subjects were told that their scores on the test  problems would be used to determine which of the teams would receive the promised p r i z e and that their i d e n t i t y l e t t e r s would provide a basis for p a i r i n g them into teams.  Since many subjects expressed  interest i n  knowing the outcome of the study, they were also promised a b r i e f description of the findings.  CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  Results reported i n this chapter are accompanied by a discussion of their implications for the present study and, where appropriate, for future research.  The outcomes of tests to determine the effectiveness  of the experimental manipulations are, of course, f i r s t to be reported and discussed.  Discussion w i l l then concentrate on findings relevant  to the s u i t a b i l i t y of various measures f o r studies investigating the effects of self-evaluation on responses to evaluations from others. F i n a l l y , findings concerning the experimental hypotheses regarding the e f f e c t s of disclosure w i l l receive consideration. After experiencing the success or f a i l u r e manipulation, subjects were asked to rate themselves on nine-point scales for s i x t r a i t s : problem-solving a b i l i t y , d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate, i n t e l l i g e n c e , team s p i r i t , d e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend and l i k e a b i l i t y .  The f i r s t three  t r a i t s were c l e a r l y task relevant and i t was predicted that subjects' s e l f - r a t i n g s would follow the d i r e c t i o n of the manipulation. t a i l t^ test, s i g n i f i c a n t at the p < .10 l e v e l , was  A one-  the predetermined  c r i t e r i o n of whether or not the manipulation e f f e c t i v e l y induced subjects to adopt d i f f e r e n t self-evaluations on each of these three traits.  The l a s t three t r a i t s were not so obviously task relevant and  were thought less l i k e l y to be affected by a manipulation directed s p e c i f i c a l l y at subjects' self-evaluations of problem-solving a b i l i t y . On these three t r a i t s , a difference s i g n i f i c a n t at the p < .05, 45  two-  46  t a i l , l e v e l would have been regarded as grounds for suggesting that the effects of a task s p e c i f i c manipulation were capable of spreading to t r a i t s less d i r e c t l y related to performance.  Scores for subjects  in the experimental and control groups were combined f o r these tests. Table 1 shows the mean evaluations for the groups on each of the s i x t r a i t s and the _t values associated with obtained differences between groups.  As may be seen from Table 1, subjects adopted  significantly  d i f f e r e n t evaluations of their problem-solving a b i l i t y and d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate.  Although differences on the other four t r a i t s were i n  a d i r e c t i o n consistent with the manipulation, they were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 1 Subjects* Self Ratings on Six T r a i t s ,  ...  r-  High Feedback  Low Feedback  df  _t  Problem-solving ability  2.92  7.09  98  :. 22  <.005  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate  3.61  5.97  98  1.59  <.10  Intelligence  3.68  4.27  98  .66  Team s p i r i t .  3.63  4.04  98  .26  Likeability  4.00  4.04  98  .03  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend  3.91  4.12  98  .18  T r a i t Rated  P  Subjects were also asked to indicate how they would expect to be rated by others i n the group on these s i x t r a i t s .  Since i t was  47 predicted that subjects would most expect to be derogated or esteemed on the three task relevant t r a i t s : problem-solving a b i l i t y , d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate and i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  o n e - t a i l t_ tests with a c r i t e r i o n  of p < .10 were used to test these ratings. not obviously related  The l a s t three t r a i t s were  to task performance and there were no d i r e c t i o n a l  predictions regarding differences on these t r a i t s .  Two-tail _t tests  x*rith a c r i t e r i o n of p < .05 were used to test these ratings.  Table 2  shows mean expected evaluations and'observed t values for the d i f f e r -  Table 2 Subjects' Expected Ratings on Six T r a i t s High Feedback  Low Feedback  df  Problem-solving ability  3.02  7.20  98  3.23  <.005  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate  3.73  6.18  98  1.53  <.10  Intelligence  3.38  5.28  98  1.47  <.10  Team s p i r i t  4.20  4.48  98  <1  Likeability  4.26  4.56  98  <1  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend  4.43  4.67  98  <1  T r a i t Rated  _t  P  ences between groups. Subjects expected s i g n i f i c a n t l y different ratings on problem-solving a b i l i t y , desirability as a teammate and intelligence. There were no significant differences cn the. other three traits. Since i t had been regarded as  48 questionable that the effect of a success-failure manipulation directed s p e c i f i c a l l y at problem-solving a b i l i t y would spread to non-task relevant t r a i t s , this finding was not unexpected. The study investigated the e f f e c t of a task s p e c i f i c successf a i l u r e manipulation on self-esteem as measured by the Janis & F i e l d (1959) "Feelings of Inadequacy" Scale.  Pre- and post-experiment  on this scale were obtained f o r a t o t a l of 48 subjects.  scores  Possible scores  on the scale range from 0 for no feelings of inadequacy to 92 f o r maximum feelings of inadequacy.  Since both the nature of the feedback con-  cerning performance and the nature (positive or negative) of the note were thought  l i k e l y to a f f e c t self-esteem, subjects were separated into  four groups:  High Feedback-Positive Note, High Feedback-Negative Note,  Low Feedback-Positive Note and Low Feedback-Negative Note. score was  A change  calculated for each subject by subtracting his post-experi-  ment score on the scale from h i s pre-experiment  score.  on the Janis & F i e l d scale indicate lower esteem.  Higher scores  Therefore, a negative  change score indicates a lowering of self-esteem and a p o s i t i v e one an elevation i n self-esteem.  Table 3 shows mean change scores for subjects Table 3  Mean Change Scores on Janis & F i e l d Scale Feedback Positive Note High  Negative Note  -0.166  -1.285 (n = 12)  Low  (n = 14)  -3.380-"(n = 13)  2.555 (n =  9)  *p < .025, o n e - t a i l , as indicated by Wilcoxson sign-rank test. 1  49 in each of the four groups. The WAlcoxson matched-pairs, signed-ranks test, which permits u t i l i z a t i o n of information concerning  both the  magnitude and d i r e c t i o n of differences (Siegp.l, 1956)  used to  was  determine whether the groups showed.a s i g n i f i c a n t change. Feedback-Positive  Note (T = 16.5,  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t change.  Only the  Low  N = 13, p < .025,, one-tail) group  Since only one of the four groups reg-  i s t e r e d such a change and since subjects did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on s e l f - r a t i n g s of non-task relevant t r a i t s , the safest conclusion seems to be that the task s p e c i f i c success-failure manipulation did not preciably alter o v e r a l l self-esteem  ap-  as measured by the Janis & F i e l d  (1959) "Feelings of Inadequacy" scale. The experiment required only that subjects adopt s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t self-evaluations of a b i l i t y .  Obtained differences i n s e l f -  evaluations were s i g n i f i c a n t according to pre-determined c r i t e r i a i n the case of problem-solving  a b i l i t y and d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate.  Al-  though subjects' s e l f - r a t i n g s of i n t e l l i g e n c e were i n the d i r e c t i o n predicted, they did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r for the high and low back conditions.  While this implies that the manipulation may not have  been as potent as desired, i t may derogating  feed-  also r e f l e c t subjects' resistance to  their o v e r a l l i n t e l l i g e n c e i f task f a i l u r e can be a t t r i b u t e d  to a lack of mathematical t r a i n i n g or even of mathematical a b i l i t y . The nature of the task may  have made i t  possible for subjects to r a -  t i o n a l i z e their performance i n this manner.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , subjects were  not t o l d that performance on the task had any relevance  to i n t e l l i g e n c e .  Reference to Table 2 indicates that subjects did expect, according  to  50 pre-established c r i t e r i a , s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t evaluations from others on the three task relevant t r a i t s :  problem-solving  i n t e l l i g e n c e and d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate.  Since i t was  ability, hypothesized  that subjects' reactions to note-senders would depend, to a large part, on subjects' expectations  concerning  the p o s i t i v e or negative  conse-  quences of disclosure of task performance, these differences i n conjunction with subjects' self-evaluations of problem-solving  ability  and  d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate, were considered j u s t i f i c a t i o n for proceeding with the analysis. Tests of Hypotheses Concerning P o s i t i v i t y and Consistency  Scales  Subjects rated the note-sender on 12 seven-point b i p o l a r scales i n Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l form. tive p a i r s :  I t may  be r e c a l l e d that the four adjec-  kind-cruel, positive-negative, sociable-unsociable  optimistic-pessimistic were categorized as P o s i t i v i t y scales.  and The ad- .  j e c t i v e pairs good-bad, beautiful-ugly, grateful-ungrateful, harmoniousdissonant, successful-unsuccessful, true-false,  reputable-disreputable  and wise-foolish composed the set of Consistency  scd.es.  and Consistency  scales were analyzed  subject on each set of scales was on each set.  The P o s i t i v i t y  separately * A single score for each  derived by c a l c u l a t i n g the mean r a t i n g  These scores were then submitted to analysis of variance.  Tables 4 and 5, respectively, show the mean ratings on the set of P o s i t i v i t y scales and the results of the analysis of variance.  As  predicted, only the main e f f e c t for the. note (F"= 122.59, df =  1/72,  p < .001)  was  significant.  produced values of I[ < 1.  A l l other main effects and interactions Reference to the means shown i n Table 4  was  51 indicates that the set of P o s i t i v i t y scales r e f l e c t e d the p o s i t i v e or negative nature of the note received.  Table 4 Mean Ratings of Note-Sender on Set of P o s i t i v i t y Evaluation  Note  Disclosure  Positive High  Low  No Disclosure  1.475 .  Scales Combined  1.375  __  _  ,  1.425 :  .  Negative  -0.825  -0.550  -0.687  Positive '.  1.325  1.750  1.537  Negative  -0.650  -0.575  Combined  0.331  0.500  -.  Table '5  -0.612  ;  Summary of Analysis of Variance of Subjects' Ratings of Note-sender on P o s i t i v i t y Scales  SOURCE  Total D (Disclosure) E (Evaluation) N (Note) D x E D x N E x N D x E x N Error  SS  df  145.73 .57 .17 90.84 .13 .00 .01 .66 53.35  79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72  MS  .57 .17 90.84 .13 ; .00 .01 .66 .74  F  .77 .23 122.59 .18 .00 ,01 .89  p  52 Table 6 Mean Ratings of Note-sender on Set of Consistency Scales Evaluation  Note  Disclosure  No Disclosure  Combined  Positive  1.100  1.162  1.131  Negative  -0.200  -0.187  -0.193  Positive  0.862  0.912  0.887  0.525  -0.250  0.571  0.409  High  Low  — Negative  • —  Combined  •  — 0.137  Table 7 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of -. Note-sender on Set of Consistency Scales SOURCE  Total D (Disclosure) E (Evaluation) N (Note) D x E D x N E x N D x E x N Error  SS  58.04 .53 .04 21.52 .80 .96 1.65 .75 31.79  df  79 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 72  MS  .53 .04 21.52 .80 .96 1.65 .75 .44  F  p  1.19 .08 48.74 1.81 2.16 3.74 1.70  The mean ratings on the set of Consistency scales and the results of the analysis of variance are shown i n Tables 6 and 7.  Examination  of Table 7 indicates that the main e f f e c t of the note (F = 48.74, df = 1/72, p < .01) was s i g n i f i c a n t .  Additionally., the note x evaluation  interaction approached significance (F_ = 3.74, df =.1/72, p < .10);  53 The s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of the note i s attributable to a p r e f e r ence f o r p o s i t i v e versus negative note-senders.  The near s i g n i f i c a n t  note x evaluation i n t e r a c t i o n r e s u l t s from success subjects rating a p o s i t i v e note-sender more favorably than did f a i l u r e subjects. a l l y , success subjects reacted more unfavorably sender than d i d f a i l u r e subjects.  Addition-  to a negative note-  I t should be noted that the tendency  of f a i l u r e subjects to better receive a negative note i s due e n t i r e l y to ratings of the sender under the Disclosure condition.  When disclosure  was not expected, these subjects rated a negative note-sender s l i g h t l y more unfavorably  than did success subjects.  Comparison of the analyses on the P o s i t i v i t y and  Consistency  scales indicates that the former were i n s e n s i t i v e to factors other than the nature of the note received while the l a t t e r appeared to r e f l e c t an i n t e r a c t i o n between s e l f and other evaluation. the Consistency bad,  I t may be r e c a l l e d that  scales included the following adjective p a i r s : good-  grateful-ungrateful, harmonious-dissonant, beautiful-ugly,  ful-unsuccessful, t r u e - f a l s e , reputable-disreputable  success-  and w i s e - f o o l i s h .  Subsequent r e f l e c t i o n l e d to the conclusion that the four p a i r s :  good-  bad, grateful-ungrateful, harmonious-dissonant and beautiful-ugly may II  not have been correctly categorized as Consistency  scales.  While con-  sistency between s e l f and other evaluation may be a determinant of a rating of the note-sender as true or false, i t may have l i t t l e to a judgment of the sender as b e a u t i f u l or ugly.  Accordingly,  relevance the ad-  j e c t i v e pairs good-bad, grateful-ungrateful, harmonious-dissonant and beautiful-ugly were eliminated from the Consistency the p a i r s :  true-false, successful-unsuccessful,  and wise-fooligh i n the Consistency  scales.  scales.  This  left  reputable-disreputable  The mean rating on this set  54 was computed for each subject. hoc analysis of variance.  These scores  submitted to a post  were  Table 8 shows the mean ratings on the  reduced set of Consistency scales and Table 9 summarizes the results of the post hoc analysis of variance. Table 8 Mean Ratings of the Note-sender on the Reduced Set of Consistency Scales Evaluation  Note  Disclosure  No Disclosure  High  Positive _  1.175  1.075 .  1.125  Negative  -0.175  0.025  -0.075  Positive  0.775  0.775  0.775 0.362  :  Low  Combined  : Negative  0.800  -0.075  Combined  0.644  0.450  Table 9 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of Note-sender on Reduced Set of Consistency Scales  SOURCE Total D (Disclosure) E (Evaluation) N (Note) D x E D xN E xN D x E x N Error  SS 74.73 .75 .03 13.00 1.18 .41 3.10 1.72 54.54  df  MS  79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72  .75 .03 13.00 1.18 .41 3.10 1.72 .75  F  .99 .05 17.16 1.56 .54 4.09 2.28  p  55 Reference to Table 9 reveals a pattern of r e s u l t s s i m i l a r to that obtained f o r the o r i g i n a l set of Consistency  scales.  The s i g n i f i c a n t  (i^ » 17.16, df = 1/72, p < .01) main e f f e c t of the note was due to a preferenbe f o r p o s i t i v e note-writers.  However, the s i g n i f i c a n t (F =  4.09, df = 1/72, p < .05) note x evaluation i n t e r a c t i o n indicates that success subjects were more favorable to p o s i t i v e note-senders and more unfavorable to negative note-writers  than were f a i l u r e subjects.  the tendency f o r f a i l u r e subjects to evaluate a negative  Again,  note-writer  more favorably than success subjects i s almost s o l e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to ratings made by f a i l u r e subjects expecting disclosure.  Under t h i s con-  d i t i o n , f a i l u r e subjects rated a negative note-sender favorably; when disclosure was not expected, f a i l u r e subjects tended to rate a negative note-sender  unfavorably.  These findings seem to j u s t i f y the argument that future  research  attention should be devoted to investigation of the scales used as measures of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n cases where the object i s to determine how self-evaluation influences responses to others.  I t i s presently suggested that such adjective pairs as those  categorized as belonging  to P o s i t i v i t y ' s c a l e s may not be appropriate  measures since ratings of the stimulus person appear to be made s o l e l y as a function of the note received without reference to consistency between s e l f and other evaluation. pairs c l a s s i f i e d as Consistency  I t i s also suggested that adjective  scales may be better measures f o r  studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of congruency between s e l f and other evaluation on a t t r a c t i o n to others since these scales appear to r e f l e c t the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l f and other evaluation.  56 Tests of Differences Between Communicated and Non-Communicated Ratings Ratings intended by subjects to be sent d i r e c t l y to the note-sender were compared with ratings intended only for the experimenter.  These  were ratings of the note-senders' d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate and were collected on nine-point scales with the lowest value i n d i c a t i n g the most favorable rating.  Table 10 shows the mean ratings intended f o r the note-  sender and Table 11 shows mean ratings intended for the experimenter.  Table 10 Mean Rating for D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Teammate Sent to Note-sender Evaluation  Note  Disclosure No Disclosure  Positive  Combined  3.391 ;  3.670  3.530  Negative  7.210  7.603  7.406  Positive  3.000  2.422  2.711  Negative  8.000  7.300  7.650  Combined  5.400  5.249  High  :  Low  .  ;  57 Table l l Mean Rating for D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Teammate Sent to the Experimenter Evaluation  Note  Disclosure No Disclosure  Positive  Combined  3.979  3.817  3.898  7.340  7.587  7.463  3.940  3.202  3.571  Negative  8.069  7.229  7.649  Combined  5.832  5.457  High  ;  Negative Positive Low  ._  Difference scores were calculated by subtracting the rating i n tended f o r the experimenter from the rating intended f o r the notesender.  Since a smaller score indicated a more p o s i t i v e evaluation, a  negative difference score indicates that the evaluation sent to the experimenter was less favorable than that sent to the, note-sender; a p o s i t i v e score indicates that the evaluation sent to the experimenter was more favorable than that sent to the note-sender. scores are shown i n Table 12.  Mean difference  58 Table 12 Mean Difference Between Ratings Sent to the Note-Sender and to the Experimenter  Evaluation  Note  Disclosure  No Disclosure  Combined  Positive  -0.588  -0.147  -0.367  Negative  -0.130  0.016  -0.057  Positive  -0.940  -0.780  -0.860  Negative  -0.069  0.071  0.001  Combined  -0.431  -0.210  High  Low  These difference scores were submitted to an analysis of variance and the summary table i s shown i n Table 13.  The only s i g n i f i c a n t F  obtained was that f o r the main e f f e c t of the note.  This indicates that  Table 13 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Differences Between Ratings Sent to the Note-sender and to the Experimenter  SOURCE Total D (Disclosure) E (Evaluation) N (Note) D x E D x N E xN D x E xN Error  SS 92.02 .98 .94 6.86 .10 .12 1.51 .09 81.42  df  MS  79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72  .98 .94 6.86 .10 .12 1.51 .09 1.13  .86 .83 6.06 .09 .11 1.33 .08  59  greatest discrepancies between d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t ratings occurred when subjects were responding  to a p o s i t i v e note-sender.  Inspection of Table  12, which shows magnitude and d i r e c t i o n of differences, reveals that ratings sent d i r e c t l y to a p o s i t i v e evaluator were more favorable than ratings sent d i r e c t l y to the experimenter.  Subjects receiving negative  notes showed less difference between ratings intended for the note-sender and those intended for the experimenter.  Overall, subjects were more  favorable to p o s i t i v e note-senders and no less unfavorable to negative note-senders when sending d i r e c t evaluations.  Thus, subjects appeared  to reciprocate when sending d i r e c t evaluations: p o s i t i v e note-senders and punished negative ones.  i n e f f e c t , they rewarded When sending  evalua-  tions to the experimenter, a l l subjects tended to rate p o s i t i v e notesenders s l i g h t l y less favorably while ratings of negative note-senders were much the same as those conveyed d i r e c t l y to the evaluator. I t may be noted that this comparison of d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t evaluations reveals a pattern of results contrary to those observed by Jones & Schneider  (1968).  They found that subjects i n Certain and Uncertain  conditions showed l i t t l e difference i n ratings sent d i r e c t l y to p o s i t i v e evaluators.  When responding  to negative evaluators, however, Certain  subjects gave most favorable evaluations and Uncertain subjects the most negative ones.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , Jones & Schneider reported that ratings  sent to the experimenter showed the greatest p o s i t i v i t y e f f e c t while the present results indicate a greater tendency toward p o s i t i v i t y i n d i r e c t ratings.  I t may be speculated, then, that the discrepancies found by  Jones & Schneider may not r e f l e c t differences between d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t ratings.  60  The switch-throw evaluations exchanged by subjects i n the Jones & Schneider  (1968) study could be considered ratings of evaluators'  personality inference a b i l i t y . & Ratner (1967) study.  Similar measures wer3 used i n the Jones  Both studies dealt only with subjects induced to  adopt a low a b i l i t y appraisal and both i s o l a t e d variables that appeared to mediate between consistency and approval motives as determinants of responses to evaluations from others.  In both studies subjects d i f f e r e d  l i t t l e . i n t h e i r d i r e c t responses to p o s i t i v e evaluators but did d i f f e r i n t h e i r responses to negative evaluators.  That i s , subjects responded most  favorably to negative evaluators i n one condition and most unfavorably i n the other.  In the present study, examination of f a i l u r e subjects'  ratings of note-senders on Consistency scales reveals a s i m i l a r tendency. F a i l u r e subjects showed l i t t l e difference i n t h e i r ratings of p o s i t i v e note-senders under d i f f e r e n t disclosure conditions.  However, these sub-  j e c t s tended to react favorably to a negative note-sender when disclosure was expected and unfavorably when i t was not. ratings used by Jones & Schneider  The pencil-and-paper  (1968) included ratings of subjects'  l i k i n g f o r evaluators and desire f o r informal association with evaluators. These ratings showed a P o s i t i v i t y e f f e c t .  I t may be that d i r e c t evalua-  tions were o f an a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t while i n d i r e c t ones were of nonability-relevant traits.  Possibly, then, ratings of a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t  t r a i t s may be, l i k e Consistency scales, s e n s i t i v e to the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l f and other evaluation while ratings of non-ability-relevant t r a i t s are not.  Deutsch & Solomon (1959) collected ratings of note-senders on some  measures presumably relevant to a b i l i t y . "effectiveness" factor  These included ratings on an  and a r a t i n g of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  F a i l u r e subjects  61 in the Deutsch & Solomon study rated a negative (and congruent) notewriter more favorably on these t r a i t s than they did a p o s i t i v e (and i n congruent) note-writer.  Thus, f a i l u r e subjects i n the Deutsch & Solomon  study rated p o s i t i v e and negative evaluators  on a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t s  i n a manner s i m i l a r to subjects in the Certain condition i n the Jones & Schneider study and No Commitment condition i n the Jones & Ratner study. An alternative explanation for discrepancies  may,  therefore, be offered to account  observed by Jones & Schneider (1968).  This Is that  ratings on a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t s are sensitive to the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l f and other evaluations while ratings on non-ability-relevant are made primarily on the basis of the received evaluation. was  traits  An attempt  made to offer some post hoc evidence to provide some j u s t i f i c a t i o n  for advocating that future research attention be directed toward invest i g a t i o n of this hypothesis. note-sender on nine-point  Subjects i n the present study rated  scales for f i v e t r a i t s .  Of these, the r a t i n g  of d e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend seems to involve components of l i k i n g desire for Informal association and,  therefore, may  and  be most s i m i l a r to  the Jones & Schneider (1968) pencil-and-paper ratings. i n t e l l i g e n c e was  the  The rating of  the most a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t of the five collected.  Since  both were pencil-and-paper ratings and since both were sent d i r e c t l y to the experimenter, i t vras thought that comparison of responses might i n dicate whether the important difference might be between a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t and non-ability-relevant ratings.  Subjects' ratings of the note-senders  on these t r a i t s were each submitted to a post hoc analysis of  variance.  The mean ratings of d e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend and a summary of analysis of variance  are shown i n Tables 14 and 15,  respectively.  the  62  Table 14 Mean Ratings of Note-senders f o r D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Friend  Evaluation  Note  Disclosure  High  Positive ;  No Disclosure Combined  4.251 ,  3.555  3.903 . ; ;  Negative  7.117  7.210  7.163  Positive  3.564 ;  2.943  3.253  Negative  6.900  6.741  6.820  Combined  5.458  5.112  Low  ;  Table 15 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of Note-sender for D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Friend  SOURCE  SS  df  MS  Total D (Disclosure) E (Evaluation) N (Note) D x E D xN E xN D x E xN Error  386.06 2.39 4.92 233.07 .03 1.95 .47 .13 143.10  79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72  2.39 4.92 233.07 .03 1.95 .47 .13 1.98  F  p  1.20 2.47 117.26 .01 .98 .23 .06  Reference to Table 15 reveals that the only s i g n i f i c a n t F obtained was that f o r the main e f f e c t of the note (F = 117.26, df = 1/72, p < .001).  t h i s i s s i m i l a r to Jones & Schneider's (1968) findings regarding pericil-and-paper  ratings which indicated that p o s i t i v e evaluators were  preferred to negative ones: regarding  subjects  I t i s also s i m i l a r to p.esent findings  subjects' ratings of note-senders on the P o s i t i v i t y scales.  Examination of Tables 16 and 17, which show mean ratings of notesenders' i n t e l l i g e n c e and the analysis of variance Table 16  summary table, reveals  *  Mean Ratings of Note-senders for Intelligence Evaluation  Note  Disclosure  No Disclosure Combined  Positive  4.202  4.299  4.250  Negative  5.082  4.858  4.870  Positive  4.241  4.032  4.136  High  Low  : Negative  3.793,  5.269  Combined  4.?29  4.614  4.531  Table 17 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Ratings of Note-senders' Intelligence SOURCE Total D (Disclosure) E (Evaluation) N (Note) D x E D xN E xN D x E xN Error  SS 84.08 1.62 1.53 6.20 2.43 2.33 .53 5.03 64.41  df  MS  79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72  1.62 1.53 6„20 2.43 2.33 .53 5.03 .89  F  1.81 1.71 6.93 2.72 2.59 .59 5.62  64 a somewhat d i f f e r e n t pattern of r e s u l t s .  As may be seen from Table 17,  the main e f f e c t of the note was s i g n i f i c a n t ( F = 6.93, p < .02).  df =  1/72,  The D x E x N i n t e r a c t i o n was also s i g n i f i c a n t (F =  df = 1/72, p < .05).  5.62,  Of greatest interest i s the finding that, although  f a i l u r e subjects i n the Disclosure and No Disclosure conditions did not d i f f e r greatly i n t h e i r ratings of p o s i t i v e note-senders, their reactions to negative note-senders did vary as a function of disclosure.  When d i s -  closure was expected f a i l u r e subjects rated the senders' i n t e l l i g e n c e most favorably; when disclosure was not expected these subjects evaluated the senders' i n t e l l i g e n c e most unfavorably.  This pattern of r e s u l t s i s  s i m i l a r to that reported by Jones & Schneider (1968) and by Jones and Ratner (1967).  It i s also s i m i l a r to the pattern observed for f a i l u r e  subjects' ratings of note-senders on Consistency scales.  Accordingly,  i t seems j u s t i f i a b l e to urge that the important d i s t i n c t i o n between the switch-throw and pencil-and-paper measures used by Jones & Schneider may be that one involves ratings on a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t s and the other ratings on non-ability-relevant t r a i t s .  Possibly, then,future research  investigating measures should devote some attention to a category of a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t s as l i k e l y indicators of the i n t e r a c t i o n between s e l f and other evaluation.  Comparison of Controls and Experimentals The two control groups were compared with corresponding c e l l s from the experimental groups.  Two-tailed _t tests were used to determine  whether or not these groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the average ratings of the note-sender on the f i v e t r a i t s or on either the Consistency or  65  P o s i t i v i t y Scales.  Means are shown i n Table 18 along with _t values as-  sociated with the differences between these means.  As may be seen from  Table 18, -he groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on none i f these ratings. This would imply that the relevance of the information available to the evaluators did not a f f e c t subjects' reactions to them.  Table 18 Comparison of Control with Experimental Groups  Evaluation High  Low  Note Negative  Positive  Irrelevant Information  Rating  Relevant Information  t  Average rating on five traits  5.554  6.434  .87  Average rating on P o s i t i v i t y Scales  -0.750  -0.825  .56  Average rating on Consistency Scales  -0.337  -0.200  .19  Average rating on five traits  3.273  3.777  .47  Average rating on P o s i t i v i t y Scales  1.650  1.325  .40  Average rating on Consistency Scales  0.875  0.862  .20  9  Tests of Experimental Hypotheses Ratings of the note-sender on the a p r i o r i set of Consistency scales were used to evaluate the experimental hypotheses.  Table 6 on  page 52 shows subjects' mean ratings of the note-sender on these scales and Table 7 on page 52 summarizes the results of the analysis of variance.  66  As has already been mentioned, the s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of the note ( F = 48.74, df = 1/72, p < .01) indicated that p o s i t i v e note-senders were preferred to negative ones.  Further, the note x evaluation i n t e r -  action approached significance (F_= 3.74, df = 1/72, p < .10).  This was  due to success subjects r a t i n g a p o s i t i v e note-sender more favorably (1.131) than did f a i l u r e subjects (0.887) receiving a s i m i l a r note. Success subjects reacted more unfavorably  to a negative  (-0.193) note-  sender than d i d f a i l u r e (0.137) subjects. The main e f f e c t of disclosure was not s i g n i f i c a n t .  I t was, however,  predicted i n advance that this main e f f e c t would not be s i g n i f i c a n t .  The  main evidence f o r disclosure as a mediating variable was not expected to come from consistently higher or lower ratings as a function of disclosure but from a d i f f e r e n t order of means within each condition.  Looking at the  o v e r a l l pattern, both success and f a i l u r e subjects rated p o s i t i v e notesenders more favorably (1.009) than negative  (-0.028) ones and s l i g h t l y  more favorably i n the No Disclosure condition than i n the Disclosure condition.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , success (0.062) and f a i l u r e (0.050) subjects were  about equally more favorable to a p o s i t i v e evaluator under No Disclosure conditions.  Most importantly, while disclosure conditions made very  l i t t l e difference i n success subjects' ratings of negative note-senders, f a i l u r e subjects tended to rate a negative note-sender favorably (0.525) i n the Disclosure condition and unfavorably condition.  (-0.250) i n the No Disclosure  Thus, o v e r a l l the pattern of means offers some evidence f o r a  congruency e f f e c t under Disclosure conditions and approval theory under No Disclosure conditions. A procedure developed by Dunn and outlined by Kirk (1968) was used  67  to evaluate the four experimental hypotheses.  To r e i t e r a t e , these  hypotheses were: 1.  When disclosure i s expected, success subjects w i l l l i k e a negative  evaluator more than they w i l l when disclosure i s not anticipated. 2.  When disclosure i s not expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l l i k e a p o s i t i v e  evaluator more than they w i l l when disclosure i s expected. 3.  When disclosure i s not expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l l i k e a p o s i t i v e  note-sender more than w i l l success subjects; when disclosure i s expected, success subjects w i l l l i k e a p o s i t i v e nota-sender more than w i l l  failure  subjects. 4.  When disclosure i s expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l p r e f e r a negative  to a p o s i t i v e note-sender; when i t i s not expected, f a i l u r e subjects w i l l prefer a p o s i t i v e to a negative note-sender. None of the differences obtained was of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to reach s i g nificance by Dunn's test. Several findings were e i t h e r unexpected or contrary to predictions, however.  I t had been predicted that success subjects would anticipate a  gain i n esteem as a function of disclosure and, there-fore, temper d i s l i k e for a negative evaluator when disclosure was expected. found to be the case. nificantly  This was not  S i m i l a r l y , f a i l u r e subjects did not express s i g -  less l i k i n g for a p o s i t i v e note-sender when disclosure and,  presumably, a loss i n esteem, was expected.  Also contrary to predictions  was the finding that under No Disclosure conditions f a i l u r e subjects d i d not l i k e a p o s i t i v e note-sender  more, than did success subjects.  Finally,  although i t had been predicted that f a i l u r e subjects would express greater l i k i n g for a p o s i t i v e evaluator when disclosure was not anticipated, i t  68  had not been expected  that success subjects would also do so.  F a i l u r e of subjects to expect disclosure to lead to an a l t e r a t i o n of note-senders' ings.  i n i t i a l evaluations, could account f c r unexpected f i n d -  The post-experimental questionnaire was examined i n an attempt  to determine subjects' expectations regarding the consequences of d i s closure.  The following questions, o r i g i n a l l y intended as a check to  determine whether or not subjects had understood  the disclosure manipu-  lations, were included i n the post-experimental questionnaire: W i l l the note-sender have your test problem scores to use i n making a f i n a l decision? - I f so, do you think he w i l l a l t e r his decision? - I f not, do you think that, i f test problem scores were available, he would a l t e r his decision? Table 19  .  Observed Responses to Questions Asking i f Disclosure Would Result i n A l t e r a t i o n of Note-sender's Opinion , ..  Feedback  Response Categories  Number of Subjects i n Category  Positive  Yes Va certain No  0 3 17  Yes Uncertain No  11  Negative  Positive  Yes Uncertain No  18 1 1  Negative  Yes Uncertain No  5 2 13  Note  High 6  3  Low  69  A f t e r responding to the f i r s t part of the question, each subject answered whichever of the second parts was appropriate to h i s experimental condition;  Subjects' r e p l i e s to questions were categorized as "Yes",  "No" or "Uncertain".  Table 19 above summarizes  the number of observed  responses i n each category for subjects i n the four conditions:  High  Feedback-Positive Note, High Feedback-Negative Note, Low Feedback-Positive Note and Low Feedback-Negative Note. Reference to Siegel (1956) suggested that the  s t a t i s t i c could  be used to determine whether the observed responses i n each of the four conditions d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those expected on a chance basis. Table 20 shows obtained x_ values f o r each of the four conditions and Table 20 Obtained x_ Values for D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Responses Within Conditions Feedback  Note  Positive High Negative  df  24.54 . 4.87 .  2  p  <.01  2  Positive  28.75  2  <.01  Negative  9.65  2  <.01  Low  the associated p values.  As may be seen from Table 20, success subjects  receiving negative notes f a i l e d to emit the predicted response s i g n i f i c a n t more often than would be expected by chance.  Subjects i n the other  70 conditions d i d d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from chance i n t h e i r responses and these responses were the expected ones. I f subjects' expectations regarding the consequences of disclosure can be i n f e r r e d from their responses, i t would appear that success subjects receiving p o s i t i v e notes did not expect the evaluator to a l t e r his opinion of them.  I t i s , therefore, d i f f i c u l t to understand why  these subjects expressed greater l i k i n g f o r the note-sender under the No Disclosure conditions. nature of the task.  A possible explanation may be found i n the  These subjects,may have experienced uncertainty as  to whether or not their actual contest performance would be as good as pre-test performance.  I f this were the case, i t would explain greater  f a v o r a b i l i t y toward the p o s i t i v e note-sender when subjects did not have to worry about l i v i n g up to t h e i r past performance  level.  From responses to the questions, i t may be i n f e r r e d that f a i l u r e subjects receiving p o s i t i v e notes expected disclosure to lead to lowered regard from the note-sender.  Presumably,  then, these subjects should  have derogated the note-sender when disclosure was expected and regarded him very favorably when i t was not. reduce the expected difference.  Two factors may have operated to  Several subjects indicated that they  found the note-sender unexpectedly decisive i n h i s appraisal of them since they had expected to see information sheets from a l l participants before making a f i n a l decision.  S i t u a t i o n a l factors, then, may have  caused these subjects to expect, at best, a tentatively approving note. The d e f i n i t e acceptance implied by the note may have been, due to s i tuational and performance factors, doubly unexpected.  As a consequence,  these subjects may have experienced such an immediate gain i n esteem  71  from another that an anticipated loss paled by comparison. have reduced derogation  This may  of the note-sender i n the Disclosure condition.  Secondly, f a i l u r e subjects hbt expecting disclosure uay have f e l t g u i l t y about accepting p o s i t i v e regard from one they might cause to lose a contest and p r i z e .  Such subjective discomfort might be a factor i n reducing  f a v o r a b i l i t y toward a p o s i t i v e note-sender when disclosure was not expected.  Here, i t may be noted that the group of f a i l u r e subjects  receiving p o s i t i v e notes was the only one to shew a s i g n i f i c a n t loss i n self-esteem  as measured by the Janis & F i e l d (1959) S-'-ln.  Success subjects receiving negative notes did not exceed a chance l e v e l i n emitting predicted responses to questions sequences of disclosure.  concerning  the con-  I t may, therefore, be i n f e r r e d that many of  these subjects f e l t they had l i t t l e to gain from disclosure.  This  would have reduced the tempering e f f e c t expected to r e s u l t from subjects' anticipation of reversal of the opinion.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , the unexpectedly  d e f i n i t e and negative note may have created an immediate loss e f f e c t thereby further reducing l i k i n g for the note-sender. It would appear, then, that several factors may explain the study's f a i l u r e to confirm the hypotheses. used.  One factor may relate to the note  This note was successfully used i n previous studies and Deutsch  & Solomon (1959) reported that variations i n notes did not a f f e c t r e s u l t s obtained.  Hindsight, however, suggests that the present study may have  required a ncte that was soms-jhat less decisive and indicated c l e a r l y that acceptance or rejection was predicated on an inference concerning problem-solving  ability.  subjects'  Since subjects expected t o see information  sheets from a l l participants before making a f i n a l decision, the  72  unexpectedly d e f i n i t e acceptance or rejection implied by the note  may  have, e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of incongruent notes, created an immediate gain or loss e f f e c t . closure condition.  This e f f e c t ma3  have been more intense i n the Dis-  Secondly, subjects may have been somewhat uncertain  as to whether the note-sender had accepted or rejected them because of an inference concerning problem-solving  a b i l i t y or for some other  reason.  Consequently, a l l subjects may have experienced some degree of uncertainty as to whether disclosure would result i n a reversal of the i n i t i a l opinion. Both these factors would have weakened the e f f e c t of disclosure. Although Skolnick (1971) reported successful use of problems s i m i l a r to those used i n the present study, these may have been less than i d e a l for present purposes.  The nature of the task seems s u f f i -  ciently complex to ensure that f a i l u r e subjects would have had doubt t h e i r contest performance would be unsuccessful.  little  However, success  subjects' preference for p o s i t i v e note-senders under No Disclosure conditions may  indicate uncertainty as to whether they could repeat t h e i r  e a r l i e r success.  Possibly, then, a task of l e s s e r complexity might be  preferable for a study i n which future performance may  be of consequence  to the subjects. F i n a l l y , i t may have been that the s i t u a t i o n should not have been such that f a i l u r e subjects could cause a p o s i t i v e evaluator to lose a chance for a p r i z e when disclosure was not expected. when acceptance of unmerited esteem from another may  I t may  be that  e n t a i l negative  consequences for that other, feelings of g u i l t and uncertainty i n h i b i t expressions of l i k i n g for the p o s i t i v e evaluator.  may  CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS FOR  FUTURE RESEARCH  The results obtained i n the study did not confirm the s p e c i f i c hypotheses or o f f e r substantial support for the disclosure model. factors that may cussed.  have weakened the effect of disclosure have been d i s -  I t i s suggested  that future investigations of disclosure and i t s  consequences for responses into account.  Several  to evaluations from others take these factors  At present i t i s urged, however, that research attention  i n this area should concentrate on dependent, rather than independent, variables. Studies concerned with self-evaluation as a determinant  of re-  sponses to consistent and inconsistent evaluations from others have used a wide variety of dependent variables.  I t appears to have been generally  assumed that the i n t e r a c t i o n between s e l f and other evaluation would determine ratings on a l l these scales.  Results of the tentative inves-  t i g a t i o n of P o s i t i v i t y and Consistency scales seem, however, to provide grounds for suggesting that this assumption may be f a l s e .  That i s ,  ratings on some scales may be made without reference to self-evaluation while ratings on others may other evaluation.  r e f l e c t the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of s e l f and  While the present findings appear to provide support  for such an hypothesis, they do l i t t l e to determine which scales may most r e l i a b l y and v a l i d l y detect i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s .  I t i s , therefore,  suggested that a subsequent investigation explore various scales used i n previous studies with a view to developing measures appropriate for use  74  i n experiments concerned with consistency between s e l f and other evaluation. An i n i t i a l study might e n t a i l inducing subjects to adopt high and low self-evaluations.  Subjects would be provided with an other evalua-  t i o n e i t h e r consistent or inconsistent with the induced evaluations. Subjects would then be asked to rate the evaluator on a wide variety of scales.  I t i s advocated that an i n i t i a l study be largely exploratory  In nature and concerned primarily with detecting measures that appeared sensitive to i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s .  Such a study could provide hypotheses  concerning the s e n s i t i v i t y of s p e c i f i c scales and these hypotheses could be tested i n subsequent  studies.  One such hypothesis may be derived from the present study.  I t may  be r e c a l l e d that this study examined direct and i n d i r e c t pencil-andpaper ratings of d e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate and found that these ratings did not show the pattern of discrepancies reported by Jones & Schneider (1968) .  Some post hoc evidence was provided that indicated that d i s -  crepancies s i m i l a r to those reported by Jones & Schneider were observed when i n d i r e c t pencil-and-paper ratings of i n t e l l i g e n c e and d e s i r a b i l i t y as a f r i e n d were compared.  Accordingly, i t was suggested that a possible  hypothesis might be that the reason f o r the difference observed by Jones & Schneider was  that ratings on a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t s are sensitive to  the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of s e l f and other evaluation while ratings on a b i l i t y - i r r e l e v a n t t r a i t s r e f l e c t only the. nature of the evaluation received.  A study might be designed to test this hypothesis.  investigation would e n t a i l use of two levels of an independent  Such an variable  believed to mediate between consistent and approval seeking responses to  75 evaluations from others;  F a i l u r e subjects would be asked to provide  direct and i n d i r e c t ratings of evaluators on both a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t and irrelevant t r a i t s . 1.  Predictions might be as follows:  Ratings oh a b i l i t y - i r r e l e v a n t t r a i t s w i l l show a p o s i t i v i t y e f f e c t  with the greatest effect appearing i n ratings sent d i r e c t l y to the evaluator. 2.  Direct and i n d i r e c t ratings on a b i l i t y - r e l e v a n t t r a i t s w i l l not  differ:  on both, negative evaluators would be rated most favorably i n  one condition and most unfavorably i n the other. The main goal of this paper was  to c l a r i f y soma of the issues i n  the area of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n investigating congruency between s e l f and other evaluation as a determinant of responses to others. This goal may,  at the present time, be best served by a series of  studies devoted to measurement.  I t would seem that conclusions regarding  the e f f e c t s of independent variables are only as r e l i a b l e and v a l i d as the measures used to detect these e f f e c t s .  Accordingly, i t i s urged  that research be directed to the development of scales that w i l l r e l i a b l y detect the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l f and other evaluation.  BIBLIOGRAPHY Aronson, E. Some antecedents of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . Symposium on Motivation, 1969, JL7, 143-173.  Nebraska  Aronson, E., and Carlsmith, J.M. Performance expectancy as a determinant of actual performance. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1962, 65 (3), 178-182. Aronson, E., and Mettee, D.R. Dishonest behavior as a function of d i f f e r e n t i a l levels of induced self-esteem. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 9 (2), 121-127. Berscheid, E., and Walster, E.H. Interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.  Don M i l l s :  Bramel, Dana. A dissonance theory approach to defensive projection. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1962, 64 (2), 121-129. Bramel, Dana. Selection of a target f o r defensive projection. of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1963, 66_, 318-324. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. London: & Company, 1967.  Journal  W.H. Freeman  Deutsch, M., and Solomon, L. Reactions to evaluations by others as influenced by self-evaluations. Sociometry, 1959, 22_, 93-112. Dittes, J.E. Attractiveness of group as a function of self-esteem and acceptance by group. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1959, 59, 77-82. Festinger, L. A theory of s o c i a l comparison processes. 1954, ]_, 117-140. Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. University Press, 1957.  Human Relations,  Stanford: Stanford  Gerard, H.B., Blevans, S.A., and Malcolm, T. Self-evaluation and the evaluation of choice alternatives. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 395-410. Glass, D.c. Changes i n l i k i n g as a means of reducing cognitive d i s crepancies between self-esteem and aggression. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 5 31-549. Harvey, O.J., and Clapp, W.F. Hope, expectancy and reactions to the unexpected. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, 2 (1), 45-52. 76  77 Heider, F r i t z . The psychology of interpersonal relations . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.  New York:  I s r a e l , J . The e f f e c t of p o s i t i v e and negative self-evaluation on the attractiveness of a goal. Human Relations, 196* , 13, 33-47. Iverson, M.A. A t t r a c t i o n toward f l a t t e r e r s of d i f f e r e n t statuses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 181-187. Hovland, Carl I., and Janis, Irving L. Personality and P e r s u a s l b l l l t y . London: Yale University Press, 1959. Jones, E.E., Gergen, K.J., and Davis, K.E. Some determinants of reactions to being approved or disapproved as a person. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76 (2, nole No. 521), 1-17. Jones, S.C. Some determinants of interpersonal evaluating behavior. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 3_ (4), 397-403. Jones, S.C. Expectation, performance and the anticipation of s e l f revealing events. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 189-197. Jones, S.C, and Pines, H.A. Self-revealing events and interpersonal evaluations. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 8 (3, Pt. I ) , 277-281. Jones, S.C, and Ratner, C. Commitment to s e l f - a p p r a i s a l and i n t e r personal evaluations. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 6 (4, Pt. I ) , 442-447. Jones , S . C , and Schneider, D.J. Certainty of s e l f - a p p r a i s a l and reactions to evaluations from others.' Sociometry, 1968, 3_1 (4), 395-403. Kirk, R. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1969. Mettee, D.R. Rejection of unexpected success as a function of the negative consequences of accepting success. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1971, 17 (3), 332-341. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric s t a t i s t i c s f o r the behavioral sciences. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Skolnick, P. Reactions to personal evaluations: A f a i l u r e to r e p l i c a t e . Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1971, 18 (1), 62-67.  78 Walster, E. The e f f e c t of self-esteem on romantic l i k i n g . Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, 1, 184-197.  Journal of  Wiest, W.M. A quantitative extension of Heider's theory of cognitive balance applied to interpersonal perception and self-esteem. Psychological Monographs, 1965, 79_ (14, Whole No. 607), 1-19. Wilson, D.T. A b i l i t y evaluation, post-decision dissonance and coworker attractiveness. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, JL (5), 486-489.  APPENDIX A TEXT OF INSTRUCTIONS Now that you've a l l arrived —  I ' l l t e l l you something about the  study and the tasks y o u ' l l be given.  I f , at any time along the way,  you  f i n d that the instructions are not clear and you have a question relevant to the task at hand, please l e t me know. The purpose of this study i s to investigate factors influencing teammate selection and subsequent team performance.  As you've  undoubt-  edly noticed, screens have been erected to cut down on o r a l and v i s u a l communication.  This i s so your reactions to one another w i l l be based  only on information provided. As you know, i n real l i f e i t i s often necessary to choose teammates i n situations where you r e a l l y don't know prospective partners very w e l l . For  example, i n a classroom, an i n s t r u c t o r might ask  partner for a project f o r your course.  you to pick a  I'm interested i n finding out  what factors would be important i n influencing not only your decision but also your subsequent team performance. teams to work on some problems.  Today I'm going to ask you to form  During this project a t o t a l of about  forty teams w i l l do these problems.  At the conclusion of the project,  the one team with the highest score of the forty taking part i n the project w i l l receive a $10.00 p r i z e which, divided between you, w i l l come to $5.00 apiece.  So —  to maximize your chances of winning —  do  your best to form accurate impressions and choose a partner with whom you'11 work w e l l .  79  80  On the desk i n front of you -- y o u ' l l see a card. over.  On i t i s a l e t t e r .  Please turn i t  This i s your i d e n t i t y l e t t e r i n this group.  As the study progresses, y o u ' l l be known to other members of this group as Person A or whatever your l e t t e r i s . We're avoiding use of names because I'm going to be asking you to t e l l other members of the group how you honestly f e e l about having them as teammates and I want you to f e e l free to exchange honest opinions.  Also —  y o u ' l l be dismissed  separately i n order to avoid any possible embarrassment. In r e a l l i f e , people generally have a pretty accurate idea of their a b i l i t i e s and how t h e y ' l l be able to perform.  So —  to give you  a chance to f a m i l i a r i z e yourself with the type of problem y o u ' l l encounter during the contest and to give you a chance to determine what your own problem-solving a b i l i t y i s , y o u ' l l f i r s t of a l l do a couple of problems s i m i l a r to those y o u ' l l be doing l a t e r on. The scores you receive on these test problems are l i k e l y to be pretty s i m i l a r to what y o u ' l l get on the l a t e r ones since we've found that i n i t i a l performance i s pretty well i d e n t i c a l to l a t e r performance. At this point the f i r s t problem was d i s t r i b u t e d . Please look at the instructions on the top sheet.  I ' l l read them over  and you can l e t me know i f anything i s not clear. Once the instructions had been read and Ss had been given an opportunity to raise any questions they had, JE continued as follows: Since speed, as well as l o g i c a l thinking, i s an important factor i n problem-solving a b i l i t y , the time you have to spend on a problem i s limited to seven minutes.  I f you complete the problem before the time  81  i s up, please wait quietly. how much time remains. begin.  At i n t e r v a l s of one minute, I ' l l announce  When I say "Go",  please turn your page and  Go. At the end of the a l l o t t e d time, E_ announced:  Okay, time's up.  I t w i l l take me a few minutes to score these so, during  the interim, please f e e l free to have a cigarette or read any books you have with you.  Please r e f r a i n from any attempts to talk to others.  A f t e r a length of time suitable for marking had elapsed, E_ emerged with scorecards and announced: Now,  I'm going to give you your score oh this f i r s t test problem.  Y o u ' l l be given a scorecard with your Identification l e t t e r c i r c l e d beside i t , a number followed by a percent sign. ranking.  and,  This i s your percentile  Your percentile ranking indicates how your performance compares  with that of 100 other f i r s t - y e a r students.  A percentile of, say 75,  would indicate that out of a group of 100 students, 25 would do better than you while 74 would place below you. score .. the better your performance.  So  the higher your percentile  At the bottom of the scorecard,  y o u ' l l see the scores made by other members of this yroup.  I'd l i k e to  stress that the scores at the bottom are i n a random order and that no p a r t i c u l a r score can be attributed to a s p e c i f i c i d e n t i t y l e t t e r . Scorecards were returned and Ss given an opportunity to digest the information.  Then the instructions  continued: Now  that you're familiar with the type of problem, y o u ' l l have a chance  to do a second one. ~  This second problem i s very s i m i l a r to the f i r s t  one  again you'11 have 7 minutes to complete i t and I w i l l c a l l out the time  82  remaining at one minute i n t e r v a l s .  Please begin when I say "Go".  The second problem was distributed. had 7 minutes to complete i t ,  Once Ss had  the problem sheets  were collected along with the scorecards.  After  elapse of a period of time suitable f o r marking  —  the scorecards were returned. . Okay, I'm ready to give you your scores on this second problem.  When  you get your scorecard back .. y o u ' l l see that i t contains your percentile score f o r the f i r s t problem and your score on the second problem. shown Is your average score on the two problems.  Also  The bottom of the cards  shows scores made by other group members on the second problem and t h e i r average scores f o r the two problems.  I'd l i k e to remind you that the  scores at the bottom are i n random order and no s p e c i f i c score can be attributed to a p a r t i c u l a r i d e n t i t y l e t t e r . Once Ss had had time to examine their scores, E_ continued: Now that you have an idea of the kind of problems y o u ' l l be encountering and your own problem-solving a b i l i t y , I'd l i k e you to give me some idea of how you'd rate yourself on certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  I'll  distribute  the scales and then go over the instructions f o r using them. The scales shown i n Appendix G were distributed and accompanying instructions were read out loud.  Once  Ss had completed the ratings, the forms were collected and the instructions continued: As well as your s e l f - r a t i n g s , I'm also interested i n finding out how you'd expect to be rated by other members of the group.  So —  I'm going  .83  to ask you to give me some idea of how you expect others i n this group to rate you.  The scales are l i k e the ones you j u s t used so I ' l l simply  d i s t r i b u t e them.  When you get the forms —  read over the instructions  on the top sheet and go ahead and make the ratings.  Let me know i f you  have any questions. Once the scales shown i n Appendix D had been completed, E_ announced: Now I'd l i k e you to begin recording your impressions of ore another as prospective teammates.  Of course, y o u ' l l need something to base your  impressions on. I'm going to d i s t r i b u t e a form and ask you to provide about yourself the information requested. The Information you're being asked to provide i s the sort of thing that could be f a i r l y e a s i l y acquired i n a situation where you're preparing to choose teammates. you've completed the form —  I ' l l pass i t on to another member of the  group who w i l l be asked to indicate — provided —  Once  on the basis of the information  how he feels about having you as a teammate.  I think the  forms are f a i r l y self-explanatory so I ' l l d i s t r i b u t e them and ask you to f i l l them i n .  I'd l i k e to stress that you are not t ^ provide any i n f o r -  mation over and above that requested on the form. Once the forms shown i n Appendix E had been distributed, E said: Just take a second to look over the form.  Does anyone have any questions  about f i l l i n g i t out? Once the forms had been completed and collected, the instructions continued: The information form you've just completed w i l l be passed to another group  84  member who, on the basis of the information you've provided, w i l l decide how he/she feels about having you as a teammate.  S i m i l a r l y , y o u ' l l be  given the information sheet completed by another group member and asked to i n d i c a t e how you f e e l about having him/her as a teammate.  When I  give you the information sheet, what I want you to do i s look at the Information provided on that sheet and decide how you f e e l about having that person as a teammate.  Then I want you to write a note to that person  t e l l i n g him/her how you f e e l about having him/her as a teammate. At this point instructions d i f f e r e d depending on whether Ss were i n a Disclosure or No Disclosure condition.  Dis-  closure S_s were t o l d : Before you prepare to write a note, I would l i k e to stress that the i n formation on the sheet i s not the only information y o u ' l l have f o r deciding how you f e e l about having that person as a teammate. you make a f i n a l decision — test problems.  But —  Before  y o u ' l l be told how the person did on the  I'm interested i n seeing how accurately you can  judge xcLthout that information.  I want you not to discuss your test  performance i n your note. No Disclosure _Ss heard the following: Before you prepare to write a note, I would l i k e to stress that the information on the sheet i s the only information y o u ' l l have f o r deciding how you f e e l about having that person as a teammate.  You w i l l  not have scores obtained on the test problems to help i n your decision when you write the note.  Nor w i l l they be available at any other time.  Your test problem scores are to remain known only to yourself. you not to discuss your test performance i n your note.  I want  85  A l l S_ were instructed: When you receive the information sheet —  please read i t c a r e f u l l y and  do your best to form an accurate impression of the person i t describes. Then convey your honest impressions c l e a r l y to the person to whom you are w r i t i n g the note.  I mentioned before that precautions had been t_ken i n order to preserve anonymity and thereby ensure that you f e l t free to evaluate one another honestly.  Since you may be wondering how i t i s possible to maintain  anonymity and work together on contest problems, I ' l l explain how this i s to be done.  Once you have formed teams you w i l l , as before, each be  given a problem.  You w i l l follow exactly the same procedure as before  In solving this problem.  The t o t a l score for your team on a problem  w i l l consist of points earned by you plus those earned by your partner. That i s , y o u ' l l work separately and your scores w i l l be summed.  As. you  can see —- having a chance of winning depends not only on your performance but also on that of your partner. . The instructions again d i f f e r e d for Disclosure and No Disclosure groups.  Disclosure Ss were told:  Once you've completed the contest problems, I ' l l be able to t e l l you your team score.  Also, I ' l l l e t you know how many points you made on  each problem and how many your partner made.  Y o u ' l l have to wait u n t i l  the project i s finished to f i n d out i f your team won or l o s t the contest. No Disclosure Ss heard the following: Since time i s l i m i t e d , I won't provide you today with any information concerning your performance or your team score for the contest problems.  86  I assume, anyway, that you're not r e a l l y interested i n how many points you or your partner made so I won't provide you at a l l with this information.  I w i l l , of course, l e t you know i f your team won or l o s t  the contest.  But y o u ' l l have to wait u n t i l the project i s finished to  f i n d out i f your team won or l o s t the contest. A l l Ss were t o l d : Once this project i s over —  probably i n about two months —• y o u ' l l  each receive a l e t t e r t e l l i n g you i f your team won or l o s t .  I might add,  i f yours i s the winning team, y o u ' l l also receive a cheque representing your share of the winnings. Information sheets and note forms were distributed and Ss were given the following summary of i n s t r u c t i o n s : Okay, you have the information sheets.  Please look at the information  provided and decide how you f e e l about having that person as a teammate. Then write a note to that person t e l l i n g him/her how you f e e l about having him/her as a teammate.  Remember that the person to whom you are w r i t i n g  i s not the same as the one writing to you.  Remember, too, that the  recipient of your note w i l l be asked to form an impression of you on the basis of your note. might help.  So f e e l free to say anything else you think  But do not provide any information pertaining to your test  problem scores.  And do keep your note short —  at the very most.  one sentence —  Does anyone have a question?  minutes to make your decision and write your note. Notes written by _Ss were collected.  or two  Y o u ' l l have two Please begin now.  E_ retreated behind  the screen and re-emerged with previously prepared notes. Now I ' l l pass to you the note written you by another group member.  87 Once jSs had been given the notes allegedly written them and had time to read the contents, the instructions continued. F i r s t of a l l , I'd l i k e you to check and make sure the note you received i s addressed to' your i d e n t i t y l e t t e r * Now, turn to the second sheet —  the one I j u s t stapled to the note.  Please check to make sure that the space marked "To" contains the i d e n t i t y l e t t e r of the person who sent you the note ... (pause) ... and that your i d e n t i t y l e t t e r i s i n the space showing that this second sheet i s "From" you. For Disclosure groups, E added: Now, put the percentile rankings you made on the test t r i a l s i n the spaces provided. A l l Ss were t o l d : On the scale underneath, indicate how much you would l i k e to have as a teammate the person who wrote you the note.  Later on, y o u ' l l return  this to the person who wrote you the note who w i l l then have a chance, a f t e r considering your scores on the t e s t problems/after further consideration, to again indicate how he/she feels about having you as a teammate. Okay, now I'd l i k e you to indicate your impressions of the person who sent you the note by rating him/her on some scales.  These ratings w i l l  not be sent to the person you are rating but w i l l be used only to give me some idea of the impressions you've formed.  Before you do these  ratings, I'd l i k e to make i t clear that the person who sent you the note i s not the one for whom you have an information sheet. sender only on impressions conveyed to you by the note.  Rate the noteBefore you make  88  these ratingsj please read the note over again and form as strong an impression of the note-sender  as you can.  Then indicate your impressions  of the person who sent you the note bh the scales. careful and accurate as possible.  I lease try to be as  Remember to put i n the i d e n t i t y l e t t e r  of the person you are rating. Once scales had been distributed £5s were instructed: Please read over the instructions and l e t me know i f you have any questions about using these scales. ratings.  I f everything's clear .. go ahead and make the  Please l e t me know when you've done by announcing "Finished"  out loud. Once the scales had been collected, JE continued: I want you to rate the note-sender on two sets of scales. set i s a b i t d i f f e r e n t from those  This second  you've used before so I ' l l d i s t r i b u t e  them and then go over the i n s t r u c t i o n s . The scales shown i n Appendix J were d i s t r i b u t e d and the accompanying instructions read over.  The instructions  continued: I f you're clear about the use of these scales, turn over to the second page and begin.  Please announce out loud when you've f i n i s h e d .  Once these scales were completed and collected, E_ announced: Before we continue, I ' l l need to go over these ratings.  I t w i l l take me  a few minutes so I'd l i k e you to complete a short personality inventory form while you wait. each question.  The form has f i v e answer categories underneath  Please read each question and then place a checkmark  beside the category that best represents your answer to the question.  89  Please l e t me know i f you have any questions about completing the inventory.  And please l e t ine know when you're done by announcing  out loud that you've finished. The Janis & F i e l d (1959) "Feelings of Inadequacy" Scale was distributed and j>s given time to complete i t .  Once  the scales had been collected _Ss were t o l d : I ' l l need to score these inventories before we continue.  We seem to be  running short of time here today so I'm going to give you this questionnaire now.  I t ' s to make sure that the i n s t r u c t i n s s have been clear.  You're not r e a l l y supposed to do i t u n t i l the end of the experiment but I can't see that i t r e a l l y makes that much difference i f you do i t now and we are short of time. this —  —  I f you have any questions about completing  please don't hesitate to l e t me know.  And, again, please l e t me  know when you've done by announcing "Finished" out loud. The post-experimental questionnaire was d i s t r i b u t e d . While d i s t r i b u t i n g i t , E added: Most of these questions can be answered with a word or a short sentence. You may want more space to answer some of them.  I f you do need more  space, please turn over the form and write on the back of the page. Once the post-experimental questionnaire had been completed by a l l Ss, E_ announced that the experiment was o f f i c i a l l y over and invited; Ss to come out from behind the screens for debriefing.  r  APPENDIX B  PROBLEMS AND ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO  The problem you w i l l have i s s i m i l a r  to the one i l l u s t r a t e d below.  At the top of the page you w i l l see four statements which you may as premises.  regard  Underneath the four premises, you w i l l see a series of  items labelled Q l , Q2 and so forth.  I t i s your job to decide, on the  basis of the four premises given, whether or not each of the conclusions is valid.  Please do this by placing a check mark under the column headed  "Yes" or the one headed "No". a particular  That i s , i f you f e e l i t i s v a l i d to draw  conclusion, place a check mark i n the "Yes" column.  If  you f e e l i t i s not v a l i d to draw that conclusion, place your check mark i n the "No"  column.  EXAMPLE Given the following two statements as Premises:  1)  I f i t i s sunny, the ground i s dry.  2)  I t i s sunny.  i s i t v a l i d to conclude: Yes Ql.  The ground i s dry?  90  No  91 ID Letter Problem 1: Given the following four statements as Premises: 1)  I f Jack Cracker i s i n j a i l , then Jack Cracker i s not a nuisance to h i s family.  2)  I f Jack Cracker i s not a disgrace, then Jack Cracker i s i n the army.  3)  Jack Cracker i s i n j a i l , i f Jack Cracker i s a disgrace.  4)  I f Jack Cracker i s drunk, then Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family.  Is i t v a l i d to conclude: Ql.  that i f Jack Cracker i s not i n j a i l or Jack Cracker i s not i n the army, then Jack Cracker i s not drunk?  Yes .  Q2.  that i f Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family, then (a) Jack Cracker i s i n the army, or (b) Jack Cracker i s drunk?  Q3.  that (a) Jack Cracker i s drunk, or Jack Cracker i s not a disgrace, i f (b) Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family, and Jack Cracker i s not i n the army?  Q4.  that Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family, i f Jack Cracker i s a disgrace?  Q5.  that i f Jack Cracker i s a disgrace, and Jack Cracker i s drunk, then Jack Cracker i s not i n the army?  Q6.  that (a) Jack Cracker i s not a nuisance to h i s family, i f (b) Jack Cracker i s drunk, and Jack Cracker i s a disgrace?  Q7.  that i f (a) Jack Cracker i s not i n the army, then (b) Jack Cracker i s not drunk, and Jack Cracker i s a disgrace?  Q8.  that Jack Cracker i s a disgrace, i f Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family?  Q. 9 that Jack Cracker i s not drunk, or Jack Cracker i s i n the army? Q10.  that i f Jack Cracker i s a disgrace, and Jack Cracker i s drunk, then Jack Cracker i s not i n j a i l ?  Qll.  that i f Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family, then (a) Jack Cracker Is drunk, or (b) Jack Cracker i s a disgrace?  Q12.  that i f Jack Cracker i s a nuisance to h i s family, then i t i s not so that (a) Jack Cracker i s drunk, or (b) Jack Cracker i s a disgrace?  No  92 ID Letter Problem 2: Given the following four statements as Premises: 1)  (a) I f Smith wins the nomination, then Smith feels happy, and (b) Smith i s not a good campaigner, i f Smith feels happy.  2)  Smith loses the confidence of h i s party, i f Smith does not win the nomination.  3)  I f Smith i s not a good campaigner, then Smith should resign from the party.  4)  Smith i s not a good campaigner, i f Smith loses the confidence of the party.  Is i t v a l i d to conclude: Ql.  that i f Smith wins the nomination, then Smith should resign from the party?  Q2.  that i f Smith wins the nomination, and Smith does not lose the confidence of the party, then i s i t not so that Smith should resign from the party?  Q3.  that Smith should resign from the party, i f Smith feels happy?  Q4.  that i f Smith does not lose the confidence of the party, or Smith wins the nomination, then i s i t not so that Smith should resign from the party?  Q5.  that i f Smith i s a good campaigner, then Smith should resign from the party?  Q6.  that Smith should resign from the party, i f Smith does not lose the confidence of the party?  Q7.  that Smith does not win the nomination, i f Smith i s a good campaigner?  Q8.  that i f Smith i s a good campaigner, then (a) Smith feels happy, or (b) Smith loses the confidence of the party?  Q9.  that i f Smith wins the nomination, or Smith Is a good campaigner, then i s i t not so that Smith should resign from the party?  Q10.  that i f Smith Is a good campaigner, or Smith does not lose the confidence of the party, then i s i t not so that Smith should resign from the party?  Qll.  that Smith i s not a good campaigner, I f Smith should resign from the party?  Q12.  that i f Smith does not lose the confidence of the party, then Smith i s not a good campaigner?  Yes  No  APPENDIX C SELF RATING SCALES AND ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS  PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE INTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO  You are being asked to rate yourself on a number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For a sample of the scales y o u ' l l be using, please look at the example below.  In the example, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c on which you are being asked  to rate yourself i s S o c i a b i l i t y .  Underneath the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , you w i l l  see a scale which ranges from Very High to Very Low.  You are to break  the l i n e at the point on the scale that indicates where you stand on this characteristic.  I f you f e e l that you are extremely sociable, you would  draw a l i n e through the scale at the extreme l e f t side.  I f you f e l t that  you were not extremely sociable but somewhat above average, then you would break the l i n e at a point i n between that best represents your degree of s o c i a b i l i t y .  S i m i l a r l y , i f you regarded yourself as somewhat  less than average i n s o c i a b i l i t y , you would place yourself as much toward the r i g h t side of the scale as you f e l t represented your standing on this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on which you are being asked to rate yourself are to be handled i n a s i m i l a r fashion.  EXAMPLE Sociability  1 Very High  2  3 High  4  5  Average  93  6  7 Low  8  9 Very Low  94'  ID Letter Problem-solving a b i l i t y 1  1.  t  2  Very High  » 4  i  3 High  » 5  Average  ? 6  i  . 7 Low  8  9 Very Low  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a Teammate  1  »  2  Very . High  3 High  i  »  i  t  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  •  8  •  9  Very Low  Intelligence t  i  1  2  t  i  Very High  i  3 High  »  t  «  »  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  » 7 Low  i  8  9 Very Low  Team s p i r i t  I  2  Very High  »  3 High  »  i  t  4  5 Average  6  i  8  i  9  Very Low  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend V  1  i  2  Very High  t  3 . High  4  i  5 Average  t  i  V  6  7 Low  8  ?  9 Very Low  Likeability i  1 Very High  t  2  i  3 High  i  ?  »  ?  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  i  8  t  9 Very Low  APPENDIX D EXPECTED RATING SCALES AND ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO  You are being asked to indicate how you would expect to be rated by others i n t h i s group on a number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  As you may see  from the example below, the scales are s i m i l a r to those you used before. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c on which you are asked to indicate how you expect others to rate you w i l l be followed by a scale ranging from Very High to Very Low.  As before, you are to break the l i n e at the point on the  scale that best indicates where you think others would place you on this characteristic.  EXAMPLE Sociability  f  1 Very High  l  l  t  f  2  3 High  4  5 6 Average  f  95  f  f  7  !  8 Low  9 Very Low  96 ID Letter Intelligence j  1 Vary High  ,  2  ,  i  3 High  4  t  i  5 6 Average  5  »  7  8 Low  :  5  9 Very Low  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate i  T  1 Very High  2  F  3 High  r  »  i  i  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  8  f  i  _ _ _ _ _ _ _  9 Very Low  Problem-solving a b i l i t y i  i  1 Very High  2  »  i  3 High  4  i  »  5 6 Average  7  8 Low  t  9  Vary Low  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend _________  1 V£ry High  _______  2  3 High  ;  4  i  5 6 Average  t  7  '  i  8 Low  i  9 Very Low  Team s p i r i t ,  1 Very High  ,  2  j  3 High  (  4  7  '  5  5 6 Average  !  7  I  8 Low  f  9 Vbry Low  Like a b i l i t y -  1 2 Very High  j  -  3 High  -  4  -  5 6 Average  .  ;  7 Low  |f  8  i  9 Very Low  APPENDIX E EXPERIMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET Information Sheet ID L e t t e r Hair color:  Height:  Weight:  Eye color: Do you wear glasses:  Always  Do you ask questions i n class:  Sometimes Frequently Never  Do you i n i t i a t e discussions i n class:  Occasionally  Frequently Never  Do you usually dress for class In a s t y l e that i s :  How  Never  Occasionally Formal Sloppy casual N«at casual Other -  did you do i n your l a s t year i n high school?  Below average (0 - 49% average)  Average (50-59% average)  Above average (60-100% average)  In high school did you take: Mathematics:  Chemistry:  Physics:  What subject are you majoring i n at University? Please l i s t below the courses you are taking this year:  Please l i s t below three hobbies i n order of preference:  97  APPENDIX F CONTROL INFORMATION SHEET Information Sheet ID L e t t e r  Hair color:  Height:  Weight:  Eye Color: Do you ask questions  i n class:  Frequently Never  Do you i n i t i a t e discussion i n class:  Frequently Occasionally  Do you usually dress f o r class i n a s t y l e that Is:  98  Occasionally  .  Never _  Formal Neat casual Sloppy casual Other t  APPENDIX G  NOTE FORM From: To:  99  APPENDIX H DISCLOStRE AND NO DISCLOSURE SECOND SHEETS From:  To: My test problem scores were: Problem 1:  ,  Problem 2:  percentile Percentile I want you as a teammate:  —!  1 Very much  i  !  4  2 Fairly much  5 Somewhat  »  6  7 Not much  i  8  i  9 Not at all  From: To:  I want you as a teammate:  1 Very much  2  3 4 Fairly much  5 6 Somewhat  100  7 Not much  8  9 Not at all  APPENDIX I TRAIT RATING SCALES AND ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO  You are being asked to indicate how, on the basis of Impressions formed a f t e r reading the note, you would rate the person who sent you the note. tics.  You are asked to rate this person on a number of characteris-  The scales are l i k e the ones you used before.  Please t r y t o be  as accurate as possible i n recording your impressions of the person who sent you the note.  101  102  ID Letter  I am rating Person  (Please place i n the space provided the ID l e t t e r of the person who sent you the note.)  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a teammate 1  1 Very High  t  2  3 High  t  t  »  4  5 Average  6  i  7 Low  8  i  9 Very Low  Intelligence i  1 Very High  2  3 High  i  4  i  »  5 Average  6  i  7 Low  j  8  9 Very Low  Team s p i r i t 1 Very High  » 2  » 3 High  I  S  1  i  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  i  8  t  9 Very Low  D e s i r a b i l i t y as a friend i  1 Very High  «  2  >  3 High  I  t  !  i  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  i  8  t  9 Very Low  Likeability i  1 Very High  T  2  3 High  »  i  i  t  4  5 Average  6  7 Low  f  8  F  9 Very Low  APPENDIX J SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES AND ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT  TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO  On the next page of this booklet you w i l l f i n d a set of descriptive scales. You are to rate the person who sent you the note on each of the these scales i n order. Here Is how you are to use these scales: I f you f e e l that the person i s very closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark as follows: fair fair  x  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  unfair X  or  unfair  I f you f e e l that the person i s quite closely related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your check-mark as follows: strong  :  strong  :  X  :  :  :_____:  :  :  :  :  X  :  weak  :  weak  or  I f the person seems only s l i g h t l y related to one side as opposed to the other side (but i s not r e a l l y neutral), then you should check as follows: active  :  :  active  :  :  X  :  :  :  :  X  :  :  passive  :  :  passive  or  ^  The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seems most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the person you're judging. I f you consider the person to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the person, or i f the scale i s completely i r r e l e v a n t , unrelated to the person, then you should place your checkmark i n the middle space. safe IMPORTANT:  :  :  :  X  :  :  :  dangerous  (1)  Place your check-marks i n the middle of the spaces, not on the boundaries: THIS NOT THIS  (2)  Be sure you check every scale —  (3)  Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale.  do not omit any.  Make each item a separate and independent judgement. Work at f a i r l y high speed through these scales. Do not worry or puzzle over i n d i v i d u a l items. I t i s your f i r s t impressions, your immediate feelings about the person that we want. Please do not be careless, because we want your true impression.  104  ID L e t t e r bad  good  kind  _  grateful _ harmonious _ beautiful _ successful _ true positive _ reputable wise optimistic sociable Person  cruel ungrateful dissonant ugly unsuccessful false _ negative _ disreputable foolish pessimistic  unsociable  (Please place i n the space provided the i d e n t i t y l e t t e r of the person who sent you the note.)  APPENDIX K POST EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE ID L e t t e r 1.  What i s the purpose of the study?  2.  How many teams w i l l be formed during the project?  3.  How much money w i l l the winning team receive?  4.  Why were you i d e n t i f i e d by a l e t t e r rather than by name during the experiment?  5.  How i s your performance during the contest l i k e l y to compare with your performance on the test problems?  6.  I f you were given an aptitute test for marble dropping and then told that you had scored at the 91st percentile, what could you say about your performance? -Out of 100Jpeople of s i m i l a r a b i l i t y , how many would score above you? below you?  7.  What were your percentile rankings on the test problems?  8.  On what basis did the note-sender form h i s impression of you?  9.  Were your test problem scores available to him when he wrote you the note? (  10.  W i l l the note-sender have your test problem scores to use i n making a f i n a l decision? - I f so, do you think he w i l l a l t e r h i s decision? - I f not, do you think that, i f test problem scores were available, he would a l t e r h i s decision?  11.  On what basis did you form an impression of the note-sender?  12.  Once you have formed teams, how w i l l you and your partner work together on problems?  13.  W i l l the score made by your team on the contest problems be a v a i l able to you? - I f so, when w i l l you be t o l d this score? - I f not, would you l i k e to receive this information?  14.  - W i l l you be t o l d how many of the points made by your team on the contest problems were gained by you? - W i l l you be t o l d how many of the points made by your team on the contest problems were gained by your partner? - W i l l your partner be t o l d how many of the points made by your team on the contest problems were gained by you? - W i l l your partner be told how, many of the points made by your team on the contest problems were gained by him/her?  15.  When w i l l you find out whether or not your team won the contest?  16.  How w i l l this information be given to you?  17.  Do you think that any deception has thus f a r been involved i n this study? - I f you believe that deception has been involved i n the study, please write down any guesses you may have as to what the deception was.  18.  F i n a l l y , what do you think the study may be investigating and what do you think the experimenter may be trying to f i n d out? 105  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101701/manifest

Comment

Related Items