S E L E C T E D F A C T O R S OF G R O U P I N T E R A C T I O N

A N D T H E I R R E L A T I O N W I T H L E A D E R S H I P

P E R F O R M A N C E

APPROVED:

Graduate Committee:

*9. Q/TJJ&L m Professor

J/ „) M 4 1 r Professor

Committee Member

Coramittee Member

Dean oi the School of Edbttcatioa

Dean of the Graduate School

S E L E C T E D F A C T O R S O F G R O U P I N T E R A C T I O N

A N D T H E I R R E L A T I O N W I T H L E A D E R S H I P

P E R F O R M A N C E

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State College la Partial

Fulfi l lment of the Requirements

F or the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

B F

F r a n k W. b a n n i n g . B . A, » M. A .

Denton, Texas

August, 1956

T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S

Page

LIST OF TABLES v i

LJST OF ILLUSTRATIONS* . * &

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION I

Purpose erf the Study State (Mini of the Problem Hypotheses Limitations Sources of Data

5 Procedure and Treatment of Data Definitions Review of Research Bibliography

II. LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE OF LEADERSHIP ROLES 20

Establishing Level of Efficiency of Leadership Roles

Rating of Leadership Performance Reliability of Rating Scale Consistency of Level of Leadership Performance Bibliography

HI. INDIVIDUAL FACTORS: AGE, LENGTH OF TIME IN CAMP, AND INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT . 34

Purpose Selected Factors Affecting Leadership P e r f o r m .

ance (Tejas Group) Selected Factors Affecting Leadership Perform-

ance (Beavers' Group)

iii

Chapter Fage

Selected Fac to r s Affecting Leadership P e r f o r m -ance (Front ier Group)

Selected Fac to r s Affecting Leadership P e r f o r m -ance (Tehuacana Group)

Intelligence and Leadership Length of Time and Leadership Individual Tra i t s and Leadership Bibliography

IV. THE FACTORS OF GROUP INTERACTION . . . 48

Development of Study of Socioempathy Measuring Socioempathy Estimation of Rank Developmental Aspects of Socioempathy Comparison of Ease of Estimating "Own" and

"Other" Status Self-Group Identity Measuring Self-Group Identity Sociometry Some Fac tors of High and Low Sociometric

Status Psychitele and Sociotele Target Sociogram—~ Beavers• Group Target Sociogr am ~~ Front ier Groap Target Sociogram—Tfehuacana Group Target Soc iogram—Tejas Group Reliability and Validity of Sociometric Data Inter correlat ions Bibliography

V. LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE AND THREE FACTORS OF GROUP INTERACTION . 81

Intercorre la t ioas Between Level of Leadership Per formance and Three Fac to r s of Group Interaction

Upper (Fourth) Quartile in Level of Leadership Per formance

Socioempathic Efficiency of Subjects in Four th Quartile —- Own Rank

iv

Chapter P&ge

Socioexopathic Efficiency of Subjects in Third Quartile— Own Rank

Measuring Sociaempaihy—-Others1 Rank Socioexapathic Efficiency of Subjects i s Fourth

Quartile-—Others' Rank Relation of Self-Group Identity with Level ©f

Leadership Performance Superiority of Subjects ia the Fourth Qutrtil«-«

Self-Group Identity Quartile Ratings and Sociomefcrie Status High Sociometric Status of Subjects ia Fourth

Quartila Possible Emotional Relations of Leaders a&d

Hon-Leaders Bibliography

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . 101

Summary Conclusions

Problems for Further Study

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 0 7

L I S T O F T A B L E S

Table Page

I. Reliability of Rankings: Test and Re-teat . . . 24

11. Degree of Relatedness between Group*s Ratings and Combined Ratings of Counselors and the Investi-gator 25

IlL Mean Rankings and the Mem of the Means ©I the Four Groups m an Indication of Over*ail Performance in Leadership Roles 26

IV. Comparison of Rank Orders Achieved by Highest and l Lowest Rated Subject in Level of Leadership Per-

formance in Eight Leadership Situations . . 31

V. Approximate Mean Intelligence Quotients of the Four Quartiles Rated for Leadership Performance . 43

VI. Average Length of Time, in Months, Spent in Caxnp by Subjects in Each of the Four Quartiles Rated for Leadership Performance 45

VII. \ Mean Correlation between "Guessed'11 and Actual Rank by Groups . . . . . . . . . 51

VIII. Comparison of Mean Age of Group with M e m Correla-tion between "Guessed" and Actual Rank . . 52

IX. Mean Group Correlation {Rho) between Subject*s Final Rating of Others and Combined Final Rating . , 53

X. Comparison of Mean Age of Group with Mean Correla-tion between Subject's Final Rating of Others and Combined Rating of Others . . . . . 54

XI. Comparison of Two Factors: (1) Own Status, and (2) Others' Status, of Socioempathy between Groups

vi

Table Page

XII. Tehuacana Group (Mean Age, 9. 2): The Direction and Siase of Self-Group Identity Compared to Ranking in Level of leadership Performance . . . . 58

XXJQU Frontier Group (Mean Age, 12.8): The Direction and Size of Self-Group Identity Compared to Ranking in Level of Leaderahip Performance . . . 59

XIV. Beaver Group (Mean Age, 13.9): The Direction and Size of Self-Group Identity Compared to Ranking in Level of Leadership Performance . . . . 60

XV. Tejas Group (Mean Age, 15.3): The Direction and Sise of Self-Group Identity Compared to Ranking in Level of Leadership Performance . . . . 61

I XVL Group Comparison of Mean Self-Group Identity Scores

and Direction (Over- or Under-estimations) . . 62

XVII. i Comparison of Work and Play Criterion, by Groups, cm the Baals of Positive, Negative, and Mutual Choices 66

XVHI. 1 latereorrelations (Mean Hho df Four Groups): Socio-empathy (I. Own Status, 2. Others* Rank), Sociometric Status, and Self-Group Ideality . . 76

XIX. Comparison of Intercorralations (Rho) by Groups: 1. Socioempathy-— Own Rank, 2. Socioempathy— Others* Rank, 3. Sociometric Status, and 4, Self-Group Identity 77

XX. Intercorrelations (Rho) between Level of Leadership Performance and Socioempathy (Own and Others' Rank), Sociometric Status, and Self-Group Iden-tity, and Mean (Rho) of Four Groups . . . 81

XXL t : Significance of Socioempathic Estimation of "Own" Acceptance in Leadership Roles; Comparison of the Fourth Quartile with the First , Second* and Third Quartiles . . . . . . . . 84

vii

Table

xxn.

Page

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

XXVIL

XXVUL

XXIX.

XXX.

t Test of Significance of Socioempatbic Estimation of *"*" "Own11 Acceptance to leadership Holes; Compari-

son o£ Third Uuartile with the F irst and Second Quartiles . . . . . . . . .

t Test of Significance of Socioerapathic Estimation of *"* "Others'" Acceptance in Leadership Roles; Com-

parison of the Fourth Quartile with the Firsts Second, and Third Quartiles .

£ Ratios between the Third sad Second Quartiles, the "** Third and F i r s t Quartiles. and the Second and

First Quartiles between Mean Score ©f Socio-etnpafchie F a c t o r of Estimation of Others* Rank in Acceptance of Leadership Roles .

Comparison of Scores and Direction of Kstination (Over ©r Under) between the Four th and First Quartiles . . . . . . . . .

Self "Group Identity: t Ratios between the Fourth and the First* Second and Third Quartiies .

Self-Croup Identity: t_ Ratios between the Third and Second Quartiles, the Third and Firs t Quartiles, and the Second and First Quart i les .

Comparison of Mean Net Acceptance Score of the Fourth, Third, Second, and Firs t Quartiles .

Comparison of £ Ratios between the Fourth and the Third, Second, and Firs t Quartiles.

t_ Ratios of Third and Second Quar t i les , Third and First Quartiles, and Second and First Quar t i les .

85

87

SB

90

92

93

95

96

9?

viii

LIST OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S

Figure * Page

1. Beavers* Croup: Showing the First and Second Choice® Received cm Flay and Work Criteria of Subjects Ranked in Quartlles on the Basis of Net Accept* ance Scores 67

2. Frontier Group: Showing the First and Second Choices Received on Play and Work Criteria of Subjects Ranked in Quartiles on the Basis of Net Acceptance Scores 69

3. Tehuacana Group: Showing the First and Second Choices Received on Play and Work Criteria of Subjects Ranked In QuartUes on the Basis of Net Acceptance Scores 71

4. Tejas Groups Showing the First and Second Choices Received on Play and Work Criteria of Subjects Ranked ia Quartiles on the Basis of Net Accept* ance Scores 73

ix

C H A P T E R 1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

P u r p o s e of t h e S t u d y

The purpose of title study l i e s in i t s a t tempt to contribute to the

underst an ding of leadership in small groups of boys in m conceptual

framework that considers leadership as a dynamic interacting process

rather than the summation of individual traits .

A

S t a t e m e n t of t h e P r o b l e m

The problem of this study i s to find in the "light" of a. "field" con-

cept of leadership, what the re la t ion is of three f a c t o r s of g roup i n t e r -

action to the level of performance of l e ade r sh ip r o l e s . The t h r e e f a c -

t o r s of group interaction to be studied in relation to the leve l of per-

formance of leadership roles are socioempathy, sociometric status,

and self-group identity. Each factor gives a measure of some degree

of the quality of interaction of the individual to the group and the group

to the individual. Therefore, a high level of performance of leader-

ship roles should be related to a high measurement of the three factors,

indicating a high or be t t e r adjusted quality of group interaction.

H y p o t h e s e s

1. That there exists & positive relationship between the level o£

performance of leadership roles and three factors of group interaction:

(1) the degree of socioerapathy in reference to acceptance in leadership

roles, (2) the level of degree of acceptance on friendship cri ter ia , and

(3) the degree of self-group identity as It relates to acceptance in. lead-

ership roles.

2. That those subjects in the upper (fourth) quartile of level of

performance of leadership roles show a significant difference in these

three factors f rom those whose level of performance i s in the lower

(first) quartile.

L i m i t a t i o n s

The nature and scope of this study suggest that the following lim-

itations be recognized:

1. The study was made in an outdoor or camping situation. While

Camp Woodland Springs i s recognised as employing modern educational

practices to meet the needs of the child, it i s recognised that the situa-

tional factors of camping may be unlike the situational factors to be

found in the classroom.

2. The subjects for the study were all boys. This means that

implications cannot validly be made to apply to girls and thus to inter*

sex differences.

3. The subjects were boys who at one time had not been able to

adjust to the school and/or the home and community situation. Thus,

the sample represented here is not intended to be representative of the

so-called "average" school population.

4. The study was based upon m intensive investigation of the lour

basic groups at Gamp Woodland Springs. The sttuJy, then, is meant

to be intensive rather than extensive.

S o u r c e s of D a t a

The following sources of data were used:

1. The primary source of data consisted of the experiences gath-

ered from four "year-around" camping groups—two groups of eight boys

and two groups of ten boys. , These groups were to be found at Camp

Woodland Springs* Dallas, Texas. The camp was established to work

with boys who, for various reasons, required special help in overcom-

ing adjustment problems that might have shown up at home* in the

school* or in the community. The major orientation at this "year-

around" camp is to help these boys recognise and overcome their dif-

ficulties to the extent that the interaction of their phenomenal self with

their phenomenal field is adjusted and integrated with the expectations

of our society.

2. Sociometric tests were given at the beginning of the study.

Both work and play cr i ter ia were used.

3, Ratings by the two counselors of each group ©a a five-point

scale were made and incorporated in the study.

4. Ratings were made of individual leadership performance on a

five-point scale by the group.

5, Self-ratings were made of individual leadership performance

on a five-point scale by the group.

6. Ratings were made by the wri ter of individual leadership per-

formance on a five-point scale.

P r o c e d u r e and T r e a t m e n t of D a t a

I. Sociometric tes ts were administered on a general, friendship

criterion basis.

A. Sociometric tes ts were given t© each group at the be-

ginning of the period of study.

B. The criteria were based upon both work and play situa-

tions which were actual situations in the groups.

C. Both choices and rejections were obtained from the in-

dividuals of the groups.

D. An analysis of test resul ts was made and included such

factors as the positive* negative* and mutuality

choices and the net acceptance score (the number of

positive and mutual choices minus the number of re-

jections and mutual rejections).

E. The data f r om the sociometrie tes ts were gathered by

individual interviews or conferences with the subject.

Fo r the purpose of establishing bet ter rapport with

the subjects, each individual was askeci to respond

orally in the administration of the sociometric tes ts .

II. Level of performance of leadership situations.

A. In a total of eight situations, rat ings by the groups,

counselors, and experimenter were made on a five*

point rating scale. Because of the different age

levels and to take care of any reading difficulties,

the rating scale below served mainly as a basis f rom

which, through conferences with the subjects, an a t -

tempt was made to make as sure as possible that all

of the participants had the same understanding of the

meaning if not of the words.

Ea fc ing S c a l e

1. A rating of "1" means that this person can pe r -

form this leadership role bet ter than any other

member of the group.

2. A rating of "2" means that this person can pe r -

fo rm this leadership role bet ter than most

other members of the group.

3. A raftteg of "3" means that this pert©** ean p@r«

form this leadership role as well as most other

persons who are members of the group*

4. A riding of "4" means that this person performs

this leader «hip role poorer than most members

of the group.

5. A rating of "5" means that this person performs

this leadership role poorer tha i any other mem-

ber of the group.

The tmm ©f the total of the counselors' , groups'* and

experimentor's scores was considered as an indication of

the level of performance of leadership situations.

XII. Socioempathy.

There were eight leadership situations that were planned

in which* during the course of each camp's program, there

would be a need to choose a leader on the part of the group.

The subjects were told that they would vote in a new way,

giving a vote of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Then each boy,

by individual conference, was told the meaning of the num-

bered voting, which was based upon the rating scale. Then,

after the subject voted, he was asked to make an estimate

of what numbered vote (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) was given him.

Small sample technique* and rank order correlations were

used to determine how significant the "guesses" or est i -

mates of Ms "own" and "others1" rankings were.

IV. Self-group identity.

in the eight leadership situations the subjects were

also asked to rate themselves as to how well they thought

they could perform the particular leadership role. Both

the self-rating and the rating given to the group by the sub-

ject were considered m factors I s determining the signifi-

cance of self-group identity, i. e . , how closely he ra tes him-

self as he rates the group.

V. Statistical application.

The nature and number of data were such that small

sample techniques as described by McNemar (34) and Guil-

ford (22), along with rank-difference correlation, and socio-

metric techniques were used.

The test and re- tes t method was used to measure the reliability of

the rating scale used in the study.

The degree of reiatednes® of the groups' ratings was based upon '

how closely their ratings correlated with the three "expert" ratings, i, e . ,

the two counselors of each group and the investigator, for each of the

eight leadership situations.

D e f i n i t i o n s

1 . S o c i o e m p a t k y . —Socioempathy i s a form of social pe rcep-

tion which, according to Ausubel and others (3), refers to an individual's

awareness of his own and others* sociornetric status in m group of which i

he i s 'd member . For the purpose of this study, socioempathy will r e f e r

to a form of socia l percept ion which denotes an individual's awareness

of his own and of others' leadership pe r fo rmance . Thin simply means

that a more specific criterion in the form of performance of leadership /

roles i s substituted for the more general friendship criterion.

2 . S o c i o m e t r i c s t a t u s . —The psycho-social position of

the individual in a group as measured by the extent of positive and nega-

tive choice expressions focused upon him by members of the group.

3 . .Leadership*—-a. " f i e l d " c o n c e p t . .-—Considers lead*

ership as a collective function in that it i s the integrated expression of a

groupfe effort. It can only arise in relation to the problems and/or pur-

poses of the group; therefore, it i s not the sum of individual dominances

and contributions—-it i s their relationship. Consequently, what seems

to emerge i s that every man should be capable of some degree ©f lead-

e r sh ip by influencing others on his own level and in his own field of ac-

tivity. Stated in other words, leadership may be thought of as the expres-

sion of man's adequately realized group effectiveness on his own level.

4 . S e l f - g r o u p i d e n t i t y .——The degree to which the individ-

ual of a group ident if ies himself a s being like the group.

5 , L e v e l of p e r f o r m a n c e o f l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s , —•

For the purpose of this study, the level of performance of leadership

roles will be determined by the mean total rating, on a five-point scale,

of counselors, the groups, and the researcher. Therefore, it refers

to the effectiveness of leadership performance.

6 . S o c ! a d y n a m i c e f f e c t . ——When the range of choices in a

sociometric test ts increased, those individuals who are already among *

the roost chosen (stars) receive a progressive majority of the additional

choices, while isolated individuals remain in their vmchoseu. positions.

? . E m o t i o n a l e x p a n s i v e a e s s . — — T h e performance of the

individual in positive choice of others for inclusion in his l ife requiring

collaboration with others.

8 . R e j e c t i o n s - The performance of the individual in nega-

tive choice of others for exclusion from situations in his life requiring

collaboration with others.

9 . E m p a t h y . —— The perception of how other people feel.

1 0. L e a d e r s h i p r o l e . — A leadership role i s a role played by >\

any individual in a given situation which either directly ©i* indirectly i s

oriented toward serving the purpose of the group in that situation.

1 1 . S m a l l g r o up . — Any number of persons engaged in inter-

action with one another in a single face-to-face meeting or a s er i e s of

such meetings, in which each member receives some impression or

perception of each other member distinct enough so that he can, either

10

at the time or In later questioning, give some reaction to each of the

ethers as an individual person.

12. " ' " E x p e r t " r a t i nga, —The combined ratings ©f the coun-

selors of each group and that ©I the investigator.

R e v i e w of R e s e a r c h

The earliest antecedent works to social perception of people were

centered upon the accuracy of perception or judgment. Earlier investi-

gators focused upon the characteristic of the judge, the characteristics

of the person to be judged, the procedures used in judging* and the cr i -

teria used for assessing accuracy. In Wolff's (45, 46, 47) studies of

1933, 1935, and 1945 and Huntley's {27) studies of 1940, the Judge had

the task of making a judgment about himself as a subject without being

aware that the disguised pictures and samples of handwriting were Ms

own. As to assessing the accuracy of judgment, some unique effects

were noted. As early as 1907 Wells found that judges tended to rale

subjects on several t rai ts in terms of a general impression of goodness

and badness (9). This effect was coined by Thorndika (44), in 1920, as

halo effect. Newcomb (36) in 1931 described another tendency and

Guilford (21) in 1936 called it the logical e r ro r . That is , on the basis

of personal experience judges have conceptions as to what traits go

with what other trai ts . Other antecedent studies by Gates (17) in 1923,

Kellogg and JCagleson (32) in 1931* Kanner (31) in 1931 investigated the

ability to judge the facial expression of emotions m represented in

11

drawings. While AUport (1) In 1924 and Guilford (20) la 1929 investi-

gated sex differences in the ability t© judge the facial expressions of

emotions and reported no significant differences.

Studies by Dyxnond (14, 15) on empathy, Tagiuri (42) on re la -

tional analysis, and Ausubel (2, 3) on socioempathy are some of the more

recent studies that have given impetus to the study of the relatively new

field of social perception. Dyanond (14) concluded in her studies cm the

basis of combined results of the Wechsler, the Rorschach, the Thematic

Apperception Test, and the California Ethnocentric Test , . along with the

subjects' self-analysis, that those persons scoring high in empathy *' /

tended to be optimistic, warm, emotional people who have a strong in-

teres t in others. While this was true, on the other hand those low in

empathy seamed rather rigid, Introverted people who are subject to out-

bursts of uncontrolled emotionality. High positive correlation* were

found at all grade level® between the measures of actual and predicted

sociometric status in Ausubel1 s study. He obtained split-half reliabili-

ties of socioempathic ability of . 67 «ad »65 for the self and other func*

. tions, - respectively, indicating a fair amount of consistency* Norman

(38) has found correlations of . 30 to . 41 between insight into oneself

and realistic perception of others. Tagirui and Blake (43) have con-

cluded in their study that the inter perceptions of individuals in a small

face-to-face group appear to be depend©at to a large extent upon the

12

operation of a coagruency between how a. member feels toward another

than how the other i s seen i a feeling toward Miss. Therefore, if two in-

dividuals have mutual feelings toward each other, their impressions of

each other are likely to be "accurate. H

So f a r , there have been few studies in which sociometric percep-

tion oar socioempathy has been studied to re la t ion to l eadersh ip s i tua-

t ions. Chowdhry and o thers {11) have made a study in which they hy-

pothesized that chosen l eade r s of a group a r e super ior to non-leader® ia

estimating group opinion oa i s sues of high re levance to that group, but

not superior to them on issues of little relevance. The results of their

study seemed to support the i r hypothesis. They concluded that each

individual ad jus ts to the si tuation according to the way he perceives it,

and not as it "really" i s . Since the leader1* perception of the p redomi-

nant attitude t r ends existing in a group tend to be more realistic than

those of non- leaders and i so la tes , the chances of their adequate adjust*

ment are greater than those of the non-leaders and isolates.

Medalia (35) in a study of unit siaaj and leadership perception for

the Army Air Force obtained correlations of . 47 for predicting size

from perception and . 57 for predicting perception from squadron sissa.

The conclusion of this study suggested that admin i s t r a to r s can influence

the perception that followers will have of their unit leaders, by manipu-

lating 4he 'size alone of these units. Also, the implicat ion was made that

13

if perception of a leader in the dimensions of human relations minded-

ness ca r r ies with i t certain correlate# wife, respect to unit morale and

efficiency, the possibility of such manipulation might well be made the

subject of further study.

Other studies, while not directly measuring or studying leader-

ship in relation to social perception# have suggested some, implications

for leadership in their findings. Borgatta (6) and Mathews (33) have

found that a strong relation exists between the tendency to choose and v

the tendency to expect to be chosen. Singer (41) found % positive but

not significant association between an individual's popularity and his

tendency to perceive the performances of those whom he preferred more

than those whom he preferred less. Gage (16) concluded in a study that

teachers* accuracy of social perception is positively related to their ef-

fectiveness in eliciting positive affect in pupils. It was also found in

a study by Pepitone (39) that the distortion of social perception of a

group of high school sophomore® was in a direction which was beneficial

with respect to the person's goal achievement.

Studies such as those made by Bonney (4, 5), Northway (37), and

others have established that, generally speaking* differences in person-

ality characteristics are found between the highs and the lows in socio-

metric status and that the more positive or desirable characteristics

are found in those possessing high sociometric status. Jennings (28),

14

in her studies -of leadership and isolation, lias also found certain general

differences in the personalities of her "leaders" and "isolates. " How-

ever* she has concluded that the "why" of leadership appears not to re*

side in any personality trait considered singly, nor even in a constella-

tion of related traits, feist in the interpersonal contribution of which the

individual becomes capable in a specific setting eliciting such contribu-

tions from Mm*

Jennings (28, 29, 30) found, in her studies, that both leadership

and isolation were products of interpersonal interactions, and not at-

tributes residing within the persons placed in the respective choice- '

status by the membership. A social process of interaction involving a •

certain manner of behaving by and toward the individual respectively so

isolated or "lifted" to leadership was found to form the very basis of

the isolation and of the leadership. No simple variable such as the

length of time the individual had been in the group or his chronological

age relative to other members of his intelligence group or even his

greater opportunity for contacting others appears to account for the

particular choice-status accorded to him. instead, the reciprocal in-

terplay maintaining between the individual and those in the same field

and constituting the individual's personality as fee latter view Mm, ap-

pears the underlying basic explanation for leadership as well as isola-

tion.

15

Finally, many studies la leadership, such as those made by Pigors

(40), Hemphill (25, 26), Gibb (18, 19). Carter (10, 11, 12), Brown (8),

Harris (24), Hsiman (23), Jennings (28, 29, 30), and others have

stressed other more dynamic factors of leadership than the assumed

personal characteristics for leadership. Situational factors, leader-

ship behavior, and interrelationships of the leader and follower functions

in the group which have been stressed in the above studies are orienting

studies in leadership to more interaction theories sad concepts. The

emergence of group structure and the differentiation of function of group

members seem dependent upon the interaction of those members, and

are general group phenomena. An individuals assumption of the leader

rote depends not only upon the role needs of the group and upon his in-

dividual attributes of personality, but also upon the members' percept

tion of him as filling the group role requirements. These, in turn,

vary as the situation and the task alter. In genersl, it seems possible

to say that leadership is a function of personality and of the social sit&a*

tion* and of these two in interaction.

B i b l i o g r aphy

1. AUport, F. H., Social Psychology, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Com-pany, 1924.

2. , Ausubel, D. P . , "Reciprocity and Assumed Reciprocity of Accept" ance Among Adolescents, a Sociometric Study," Socioraetry, XVI (1953), 339-347.

16

3. Ausubel, D. P.»H. M, Schiff* and E. B. Gasser* "A Preliminary Study of Developmental Trends la Socioeznpathy: Accuracy of Per-ception of Own laid Others' Sociometric Status, " Child Devel meat, 30021(1952). 111.128.

4. Boaaey, M. '&*» "Popular and Unpopular Children: Sociometric Study, " S optometry Monographs, No. 9, New York, Beacon House, 1947.

5. Bonney, M» E . , and J. Powell, "Differences ia Social Behavior Between Sociometric ally High and Sociometric ally Low Children, " Journal of Educational Research, XL.VI (1953), 481*495.

6. Borgatta, £ . F . , "Analysis o£ Social Interaction and Sociometric Perception, " Sociometry, XVII (1955), 7-32.

7. Borgatta, E. F. , and R. P. Bales, "Interaction of Individuals in ilecon^tituted Croups, " Sociometry, XVI (1954), 302-320.

8. Brown, J. F. > Psychology and the Social Order, New York, Mc-, Gr aw-Hill Book Company. "TOST

9. . Bruner, J. S . , and Renato Tagiurf, "The Perception of People, " lindsey (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. E, pp. 634-654, Addison»Wesley' ' Corapany*J *f 54*

10. Carter, L. F . , "Leadership and Small Group Behavior, M M. Sherif and M, O. Wilson (eds.), Group Relations at the Crossroads* New York, Harper and Brothers, i953^ pp.

11. Carter. L. F . , W. Haythora, and M. Howell, "A Further Investi-gation of the Criteria of leadership* " Journal of Abaormal and So-clal Psychology, XLV (1950), 350-358.'" ** " " w

12. Carter, Lannor, and Mary Nixon* "Ability, Perceptual, Person-ality, and Interest Factors Associated with Different Criteria of Leadership," Journal of Psychology, XXVII (1949), 377-388.

13. Chowdhry, Kamla, and others# "The Relative Abilities of Leaders and Non-leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Own Groups* " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVH (1952), 51-57.

14. Dymond* R. F . , "A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation of In-sight and Empathy, " Journal of Consulting Psychology* XII (2948), 228-233.

1?

15. Dymond, R. F , , "A Scale for the Measurement ®f Empathic Abil-ity, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIV (195#)* 343-350.

16. Gage, M* L.* and G. Suci, "Social Perception and Teacher-Pupil Relationships, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XLJS (1951), 144*153.

17. Gates, Georgina S . , "An Experimental Study of the Growth of Social Perception, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XXV (1923), 449-442.

18. Gibb, C. A. , "The Principles wad. Traits of leadership, " Journal Abnormal and Social. Psychology, XLH (1947), 267*284."

19. Gibb, C. A. , "The Sociometry of Leadership in Temporary Groups," Sociometry, XUI (1950), 226*234.

20. Guilford, J. P. , "An JCxperiznent In learning to Read Facial Ex-pression, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXIV (1929), 19C20£

11. Guilford, J . P . , 'Psychometric Methods, Mew York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, I?IC" r' "

12, Guilford, J . P , , Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Educa-tion, New York, McGraW-HUl'^ook Cos^any,

23. Haixnan* F. S . , Leadership and Democratic Action, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951'.

24. Karris, Henry, The Group Approach to Leadership*Testing, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1949.

25. HemphiU, J* K., "Relations Between the Size ©I the Group mad the Behavior of ^Superior' Leaders, " Journal of Social Psychology, XXX11 (1950), 11-22.

26. Hemphill, J. K., "Situational Factors in Leader ship," Ohio State University Educational Research Monographs, ,1949, MoT "S« '

27. Huntley, C. W«, "Judgments of Self Based upon Records of £»* pressive Behavior, " Journal of Abnormal a»d Social Psychology, XXXV (1940), 398-427. ' ~ '

18

28. Jennings, Helen H.» Leadership and Isolation: A Study of Person* ality to Inter-personal Selations'Tsecond* e&), New York, JLang* ®asi # Green ani Compa&y* If 50.

29. Jennings, Helen H., " leadership and Sociometric Choice, " Soci-ometry, X (1947), 32-49. ~

30. Jennings, Helen H. # "Structure of Lrfsadership-JDevelopment and Influence, " Soclometry, I (1937), 99-143.

31. Kanner, I . . , "Judging Emotion# from Facial Expressions, *' Psycho* logical Monographs, Vol. X£J* Mo. 3 (1931).

32. Kellogg, W. N., and B. M. Eagleson, "The Growth of Social Per* caption in Different Racial Groups," Journal of Educational Pay* chology, XXH (1931), 367-375.

33. Mathews, Ted, "The Relation of Sociometric Perception to Sonne Other Sociometric Variables, " unpublished mas te r ' s thesis, North Texas Sta&e College# 1955*

34. McNemar, Quins, Psychological Statistics, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1949. .»•»«•»»»».«

35. Medalia, N, Z . , "Unit Size and leadership Perception, " Soclonaetri X¥M(mS}» 64-67. •

36. Newcosnb, T . , "An Experiment Designed to Test the Validity of a Rating Technique, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XXII (1931), 279-289.

37. Northway, Mary L. * "Outsiders# " Sociometry, VII (1944), 10-25.

38. Norman, R. D., "The Interrelationships Among Acceptance-Rejec-tion, Self-Other Identity, insight into Self, and Realistic Percep-tions of Others, " Journal of Social Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 205-235. ' ~ ~

39. Peptone, A. , "Motivational Effects in Social Perception, " Human Relations, HI (1950), 57*76.

40. Pigors, Paul, leadership or j&ominafcion, Boston* Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935.

I t

41. Singer, E . , "An Investigation of Sense Aspecta of Empathic Behavior," American Psychologist, VI (1951), 309-310.

42. Taguiri, Eeaadfeo, "Relational Analysis, " Sociometry, XV (1952), 91-104.

43. Taguiri, Renato, and R. R. Blake and J. $. Bruner, "Some Be* terminants of the Perception of Positive and Negative Feelings in Others, n Journal of Abnormal ami Social Psychology, XL VIE (1953), 585-592. '

44. Thorndike, £ . JL., HA Constant E r ro r in Psychological Ratings, M

• Applied Psychology, IV (1920), 25-29.

45. Wolff, W., "Involuntary Self-expression in Gait and Other Move-meats; An Experimental Study, " Character and Personality# 1935, pp. 327-344.

46. Wolff, W., The E g r e s s i o n of Personality; Experimental Depth Psychology, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1943.

47. Wolff, W., "The Experimental Study of Forme oi Expression, " Character and Personality, H (1933), 168-176.

C H A P T E R I I

L E V E L O f P E R F O R M A NC £ OF

L E A D E R S H I P R O L E S

E s t a b l i s h i n g L e v e l o r E f f i c i e n c y o f L e a d e r s h i p S o l e ®

In using the methods of iavestigatiixg leadership, the study accepted

the point oi view of Zeleny (5). He believes that consistent -with the con-

cept that a leader can be studied in relation to a total group situation,

r e sea rch points to the conclusion that a true group leader can be identi-

fied only by some kind of observation of the effectiveness of his per form-

ance in the type of group to which the leadership i s related, either by

outside "experts" qualified to judge or by rating of "choices" made by

associates. In this study both ratings by outside "experts" and "choices"

made by the group were used to determine the effectiveness of the indi-

viduals* performance in the various leadership ro les .

Establishing the level or efficiency of performance in various

leadership situation© was of major importance in the study. Because

of the varying age levels of the four groups, i t was thought that an arb i -

t r a ry cr i ter ion for leadership efficiency would not possess the validity

for their , the group's, attempted rankings or nominations as would be

20

21

found la an actual situation in which the subjects were, asked to vote or

choose & leader lor a particular situation. The sociometric studies of

Sonney (1), Northway (3). and Pepinsky (4) have shown validity may r e -

side in a real or actual situation in which the subjects were choosing

from a real purpose or preference.

With the help of the administrative staff and the counselors of the

camp, eight leadership situations were decided upon as (1) having com-

mon elements or a common "core" of experiences within all four of the

groups, (2) likely to arise in the period of study, and (3) calling for

some leadership upon the part of the members of the group. They were

as follows:

1. C o o k i n g o a t , # " In each group the members of the group

had to plan and prepare many of their meals throughout

the year .

2. C h o o s i n g f o r a n d t h e p l a y i n g of g a m e s . —-Many

of the games played within the individual groups were initiated

and led by various members of the group.

3. T a k i n g c h a r g e of t h e c h a p e l s e r v i c e s . —Both the

services on Wednesday and Sunday of each week were planned

and given by the four camp groups during the period of

study.

4. T h e r e a p o n s i b l l i t i e s of p r e p a r i n g f o r c a m p i n g

t r i p s . —.Each of the groups planned and prepared for

. 2 2

one or more camping t r ips away from their own camp

sites.

5. The b u i l d i n g of s h e l t e r s in " p e r a a a e a l " c amp

s i t e ».-«».Each of the groups built one or more structures

for living or for housing kitchen* library, etc. , during the

period of study.

6. L e a d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s i n P o w - W o w . —»£ach group

evaluated its day's activities through the use of nightly dis-

cussion periods led by members of the group*

7. C u t t i n g and g a t h e r i n g w o o d f o r f u e l and con-*

' ' ^ s t r u c t i o a . -—One or morn trips were made into the cut-

over area for the selection and cutting of trees for construc-

tion and for fuel*

8. K a t u r e and e x p l o r a t o r y h i k e s . -—One or more nature

and/or exploratory hikes were planned for and led by mem-

bers of each group*

R a t i n g of Le a d e r s h i p P e r f o r m a n c e rfi1 """fnitinT IT nmritniiitiwMiiijfijTnnr - ^ N R R T N R ~ - * f . : . T L T : t f .R r"ii, :i.x .:x:ujj n

As each of the situations arose, the subjects were asked to "vote"

for a leader. In "voting," ttie subjects were instructed that they were to

give all members of the group a "vote" but were to use the numbers

one through five to indicate what they thought of each one in relation to

the group for being the leader.

23

It w u explained that they were to give a 'Vote" (rank) of one to the

person or person® they thought were the beat in the group* a two to

the person or persons they thought were better then most, a three to

the person or person# they thought were fair or average, a four to the

person or persons they thought were poorer than roost, sad a five to

the person or persons who were very poor or worst in the group. ^ The

votes (ranks) were tabulated and the leader chosen.

At the time of the group's voting, each subject was asked to vote

for himself on the same basis as described above. Ia this way a se l f -

rating was obtained for each of the eight situations. The self-rating was

then used in determining the self-group identity score.

R e l i a b i l i t y of R a t i n g S c a l e

The five-point rating scale used in this study was checked for

reliability by the test and re-test method. At the start of the study, the

rankings of the groups were obtained in the f i r s t leadership situation,.

cooking out. From two to three weeks after the time when each group

gave its rankings, and depending upon the opportunity for re test iag and

when it could best take {rilace "naturally, n the groups were asked again

to vote for whom they would want to lead in preparing and cooking their

meals. The data in Table 1 show that the rank*difference correlations,

for the second test, ran from . 76 to . 94, with a mean correlation of . 86.

24

TABLE I

RELIABILITY OF RANKINGS: TEST AND RE-TEST

Groups Correlation (rho)

3i^eavers « « * • * 85

Ptoiiititr * » # • «89

Tehuacana . . . . .94

xejas • « • • * 76

Mean correlation, . 86

Further ratings vrere obtained from each of the two counselors

of each group and by the investigator* using the five-point scale (da-

scribed in Chapter I)* Through discussion with the counselors it was

emphasised that the rankings were not to be based upon ability alone

and that such factors or t ra i ts as group acceptance, personality, a#

well as observation of actual over*all performance in the leadership

situation, should be considered*

To check fur ther upon the effectiveness of the ranldbg scale, a

rank-difference correlation was obtained between the combined rankings

of the counselors and the investigator, and that of the group. In Table II

the data show that the correlations (rho) ranged f rom . 72 to . 94, with

the in© an being • 79.

25

TABLE n

DEGREE OF RELATEDNESS BETWEEN GROUP'S RATINGS AND COMBINED RATINGS OF COUNSELORS

AN© THE INVESTIGATOR

Cor relation (rho) between Group's Groups Had Combined Ratings '

Beavers 73§

Frontier . 721

Tehuacan* . 770

Tejas 939

Mean correlation (rho), . 79

The mean correlation (rho) of .. 79 suggests that there was a fairly

high degree of relatedness between tike wmkinge of the group and those

obtained through the combined rankings* and that both the members of

the group and the "experts" were in agreement, to a certain extent,

upon the ratings of performance of leadership in the eight leadership

situations.

To establish final, over-all level of performance or rank in the

leadership roles, tha mean of the mean rankings of the group, the coun-

selors, and the investigator in the eight leadership situations was used.

The data in Table III show the mean score and rank of each subject in

each of the groups.

TABLE III

MEAN RANKINGS AND THE MEAN OF THE MEANS OF THE FOUR GROUPS AS AN INDICATION OF OVER-ALL

PERFORMANCE IN LEADERSHIP ROLES

26

Group Sources of Rankings, and Totals

Member

Group Counselor A

Counselor B

Inveeti* gator

Total Mean Rank

Beavers

Clif 2.998 4. 25 3.875 3.875 14.998 3.749 7

Bill 2. 285 2. 375 2,375 2.125 % im 2. 29 4

Mfifee 1.302 2 1. 875 1.375 6.551 1.637 1

Glenn 1. 678 2.5 1.25 2.75 8.178 2. 044 5

Kenneth 3.606 4. 25 4. 625 4. 25 16. 731 4,182 8

John 1.796 2.375 2 2. 375 8.545 2. 136 3

jLoimie 2. 548 1. 625 1.750 2.25 8.173 2.043 2

Roland 2,192 3 2 2.875 . 10.. 067 2. 514 6

TABLE HI—Continued

27

t Group

Sources of Rankings, and Totals

Member

Group Counselor A

Couaselox* B

Investi-gator

Total Mean Rank

Frontier V

Bill 2. $21 2. 125 2. 875 2.5 9. 821 2.455 5

Bobby 2. 892 1.875 1.750 2.75 9.167 2 .2 f2 ' 3

Charlie 2.499 4 3 3 .5 12.999 3.249 6

Dannie 1.946 1,250 1.5 1. 25 5.946 1.487 1

Jackie 2.660 2. 375 2.125 2. 625 9.725 2.431 4

Keaneth 3.10? 3.750 3. 375 3. 375 13.607 3.402 7

Paul 3.071 3.625 4 3.625 14.321 3. 580 a

Ealph 2*16© 1. 375 2 1.125 6* 650 i . m 2

28

TABLE HI—Continued

Group Member

Sources of Rankings, and Totals

Group Counselor A

Counselor B

Investi* gator

t o t a l M e w Rank

Tehuacaaa

W ayne 3.319 3 ,5 4.125 3.625 14.569 3.642 9

Douglas 2. 499 2.750 3.375 2.125 10. 749 2.687 4

B. W. 1.36 1 1 1 4. 36 1.09 I

Parker 2.430 2. 625 1. 750 2 .5 9. 305 2. 326 3

Frank!© 3.457 3 3.25 3 .5 13. 207 3,302 5

Mike 3.430 3. 125 3.250 3.875 13.680 3.42 6

Oonaie 2.805 4.375 <41 (8? 3.125 14. 305 3. 576 a

Gregory 1.888 2 2 1.9 7. 388 1.847 2

Joha 4. 027 4.375 4.125 4.125 16. 652 4.163 10

Glen 2. S i t 3 49 5 3.5 13.818 3.455 7

TABLE in—Continued

29

Group Member

Sources of Rankings, and Totals

Group Counselor A

Counselor B

Investi-gator

Totsd lean Rmk

Taj as

Chuek 2. 652 1. 875 3.375 3 10.902 2.726 5

Don 3.639 4.625 4.625 4 16. s*9 4. 222 10

George 1.458 1.25 2 .5 1. 375 6. 583 1.-646 1

Israel 3 . 4 f f 3.125 4 3. 875 14.479 3.619 9

Jimmy 1. 916 1. 25 2.625 2. 25 8. 041 2.010 2

John 2.986 2. 625 3. 5 3. § 12. 611, 3.153 8

Ken 2.416 1.25 2.25 2. 375 8. 291 2.073 3

Hub 2.68 2 .5 3.125 3. 875 12.180 3.045 6

Sonny 2.222 2.75 3.5 2. 375 10.847 2.712 4

Stan 2.815 2. 875 3. 875 3 12. 565 3.141 7

This mean, changed into a raxtk, was then used to establish the up*

per and lower groups for further study to, relation -with socioexnpathy,

sociometric, and self-group factors.

C c a s i s t e a c y of L e v e l of L e a d e r s h i p

P e r f o r m a n c e

The data in Table IV show the rank orders achieved by the top

rated subject and the lowest rated subject in each group on the basis of

level of leadership performance. The top rated subject in each of the

four groups combined to receive twenty*six f i r s t rankings or tied for

f i r s t rankings, which constituted 81. 3 per cent of a possibility of thirty-

two chances to rate at the top. The subjects rated lowest in over-all

leadership performance, in each group, were rated lowest in twenty-

three or 71.9 per cent of a possibility of thiJrty-two chances to receive

last»place ranks. •

In only one instance was there a leadership situation in which the t , -

top* ranked subject in each group was rated below a third-place rank.

This was the cme of Don of the Frontier Group being rated sixth in a

groiq? of eight in the fourth leadership situation (preparing for a camping * t'£

trip). Also in only one instance was there an elevation of the last-place

rank, of those subjects rated lowest in level of leadership performance,

obtaining a rank of more than two places above their last-place rank.

This was found also in the Frontier Group, in the case of Paul being

rated fourth place in a group of eight.

31

TABLE IT

COMPARISON OF RANK ORDERS ACHIEVED BY HIGHEST AND LOWEST RATED SUBJECT IN LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP

PERFORMANCE IN EIGHT LEADERSHIP SITUATIONS

Groups tad Numbers in Each Group

Leadership Beavers (8) Frontier (f) Tehuacana

(I©) Tejas {10)

Situations Leadership Rank

.First Eighth Firs t Eighth Firs t Tenth Firs t Tenth

1 i 8 1 7.5 1 9.5 1 1®

XI i 6 2.5 7 1 10 1 f .S

III 2 7 1.5 4 I 10 1 9

IV i 8 6 0 I 9 .5 1 9

V 1 8 3 4 i 10 1 10

VI 3 $ 1 7.5 I 9 .5 1.5 9

VII 1 8 1 7 1 10 3 10

VIII 1 8 1 8 I 10 1 8

From the above brief consideration of the relation of level of lead«

ership performance and the variety of leadership roles it would seem

that leadership acceptance in one situation tends to be carried over in

32

the other situations. That Is, the members of the group lead to choose

the same individual whom they chose in one situation lor leadership in

other situations, and, when rating an individusllow in one situation, to

rate him low in other situations. This further suggests that the mem-

bers of the group are not basing their ratings upon specific traits or

skills jfcrot rather upon a "constellation" of traits. A study by Carter

and others (2) of the interrelations between leadership performances by

tasks suggested that the general positive nature of fee correlations

indicated that leadership performance is not completely specific but

rather, from having known that a person was a leader in one situation,

we can predict that he will tend to be a leader la other situations.

In this study, it was found, also, that, on the whole, leadership in one

situation meant leadership in the other leadership situations, and a low

rating, on the whole, in one leadership situation meant low ratings in

the other leadership situations.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

1. Bonney, M, E. , "The Constancy of Sociometric Scores and Their Relationship to Teachers' Judgments of Social Success, and to Personality Self Ratings,t1 Sociometry, V (1943), 409-424.

2. Carter, L. F , , W. Haythorn, and M. Howell, "A Further Investi* gatioa of the Criteria of leadership, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLV (1950), 350-351T 1

3. Northway, M. L>., A Primer of Sociometry, University of Toronto Press, 1952. ~

33

4, Pepiaaky, P. N. , "The Meaning of Validity and Reliability aa Ap-plied to Sociometric Tests, " Educational and Psychological Measurement, (1949). 34.48.'

5. - Zeleny, JL. D. , "Social JLe&dersMp,H Sociological a d Social Re-search, XXXIII (1948), 431-436.

C H A P T E R I I I

I N D I V I D U A L F A C T O R S : A G S , L E N G T H O F T I M E

IN C A M P * AN® I N T E L L I G E N C E Q U O T I E N T

P u r p o s e

ft i s the purpose of this chapter, before going on with the study

and discussion of the factors of socioempathy, socioroetric status, and

self*group identity, to d i scuss some of the information or data that

were obtained from the case records and from the observations of the

counselors of those subjects rated Mgh in leadership performance and

those rated low.

«

S e l e c t e d F a c t o r s - A f f e c t i n g L e a d e r s h i p P e r f o r m a n c e

( T e j a s G r o u p ) ± / I

In the Tejas Group, George was r»ied highest in leadership per-

formance. He was fourteen years of age at the time of the study. On

a Kuhlroan- Anderson Intelligence Test given in 1950, he obtained an in-

telligence quotient score of eighty-two. Including the three-month

period at the study, he had been at the camp for six months. Like many

of the boys at this camp, he had failed to make progress in the school and

was led into truancy by an older brother. Finally, a progress report

dated May, 1955, stated that he:

34

35

. . . is neat about a rea and himself and i t a leader in the group* active in all planning, participates well la group activities, and i s always on the positive aide of the prob-lem.

Don of the Tejas Croup bad an intelligence quotient 0! «iaety<»£our

obtained from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Ekm was at

the camp a total of ten months including the period of study. P a r t of

$ the psychologist 's report s tates:

. . early experiences have not been conducive to the development of feelings of confidence or trust in others, and he does not have faith in people.

Don, too, was not able to ma te adequate adjustment in the public schools,

and thus was sent to this camp. A progress repor t made at the same

time that the report was made on George shows a contrast:

. . . i s mischievous and delights in irritating campers and counselor to get attention. He says he hates a l l people* e s -pecially women, and talks about his experiences in beer taverns . , .

Here it would seem that a slightly higher intelligence quotient, a longer

length of t ime in camp, and being approximately seven months older than

George# who was rated highest in leadership performance, did not give

Don an advantage in adjustment and leadership performance in. the Tejas

group.

^Psychological examinations were given to all of the boys who were accepted in this camp.

36

S e l e c t e d F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g L e a d e r s h i p P e r f O T w a a c e

( B e a v e r s ' G r o u p )

la fee Beavers' Group, Mike was rated f i r s t ia l e w ! of leadership

performance. On Hie Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children lie had a

full-scale score of eighty-five, doll normal* Part of tfae psychologist's

report on Ms personality stated:

, . . appears to have been over disciplined, the mother figure i s perceived as an aggressive, threatening, punitive person with whom he i s forced to cope . . .

Though he missed a lot of school, his grades were about average. Mike

had spent about thirteen months i a the camp, including the period of

study. His progress report , made just before the s t a r t cf Hits study,

stated in par t :

. . . he is better oriented with his peers than ever before. He participates in group discissions, but often makes unrealistic suggestions. He i s trustworthy and respectful

said takes the positive side of a controversy . . .

The above seemed to indicate that he was making progress in his ad-

justment to the group when this study started.

Ken, also of the Beavers* Group, was rated lowest in level of

leadership performance. Approximately a year younger than Mike,at

thirteen he had a ful l-scale score cm the Weschler Intelligence Scale for

Children of eighty-eight, three points higher than Mike. P a r t of the ex-

amining psychologist's report stated:

3?

. . . Etoes not feel at ease with people-—projective material suggests that presence of idea* of reference; that others in-tend to harm him, are talking about him, etc. Much of his thinking centers around the female figures, women and gi r l s , with frequent tendency to confusion of the roles assigned.

His progress report* made at the same time as Mike's report, stated in

part:

. . . he brags about Ms experiences with little girls and plans vulgar actions for the future. He does, how* ever, try to take active part in the planning of camp programs . . .

A fur ther example of how Men was trying to become a pa r t of the group

was observed in a panne played several times during the period of study.

In it he would allow the other members of the group to taunt Mm and

they in turn let Mm run af ter them, seeming to know that in his awk-

ward efforts he could not catch them.

The factors of intelligence quotient, length of time, and age seemed

not to be important. In intelligence Ken and Mike were in approximately

the same category, with Ken scor ing three points above Mike on the

Wechsler Individual Scale for Children Intelligence Test. The fact

that Mike had been in camp longer than Ken may have given Mm an ad-

vantage in adjustment with the group, but as will be seen later, tMs

variable of length of time in camp does not seem to correlate highly

with leadership performance. St seems, then, that the difference be-

tween these two subjects l ies within the total adjustment of the individ-

ual to the group.

38

S e l e c t e d F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g L e a d e r s h i p P e r f o r m a n c e

( F r o n t i e r C r o u p )

la the next to the youngest group* Frontier, Don was rated highest

in level of leadership performance. A boy thirteen years old* he had

been in the camp group eleven months, inclu<&ag the period during the

study. With the Vechster Individual Scale for Children Intelligence Test

he made a full-scale score, verbal sad performance, of ninety-nine*

which was rated as normal. During the psychologies! testing* the psy-

chologist stated in part: '

. . . he showed many signs erf emotional disturbance#,, even to refusing to continue the testing situation and seemed to be indicating a lack of emotional control rather than conscious opposition to the tests or admin* istrator—he i s very sensitive about failure, aad his face and neck flushed deeply a# he lost control . . .

His progress report made by the counselors at the beginning of this study

stated in part:

. . . i s easily hurt and cannot take correction. He seems to get along with group better. He seems to control tem-per better# and tries to be a leader by impressing group with his intelligence. He still becomes annoyed when he cannot excel in an activity . . .

The effects of Ms temper aad Ms attempts to impress toe rest of the

group can be seen, somewhat, in the fact that Ms sociometric status i s

low, seventh in a group of eight. Here i s a subject,theugh rated high

by his group and by "experts, " who was not a "popular" leader in the

sense that he did not rate high in sociometric status.

39

Paul, rated lowest la level of leadership performance, was twelve

year# old at the time of the study. Paul's intelligence quotient on the

Wechsler Jfadividual Scale for Children was eighty-five, dull normal.

Hia psychological report states in part:

. . . he has noticeable s tammer which bothers him when he i s excited or bothered by a particular response~»does not s tammer when singing .or if angered. He i s apparently quite aware that his difficulties are "in his head" and Ms desire for help seems to be the result of a bewilderment as to what to do ra ther than a dependence and a desire for others to do for him . . .

In a progress report made about seven months before this study was

s tar ted, the following was stated; "Paul is not & leader but he has some

status and prestige in the group. He often m a t e s helpful suggestions for

the grfeup.11 At the time the study began, further progress was noted on

his report : "Paul was t rans fe r red to older group. He works better and

does not have to have the supervision he first needed. " Paul, while

rated low on level of leadership performance, did seem to be more

"popular" on the basis of Ms third*place tie for sociometric status than

was Don, who rated first in Ms level of leadership performance.

Once more there seems to be emphasized that having or not hav-

ing a single desirable t ra i t does not assure an individual of his leader-

ship or lack of leadership. In this case the subject, Paul, who rated

third in sociometric status, was rated at the bottom of his group for

level pf leadership performance. While this was true, Don, on the

other hand, was not "popular" on the basis of the sociometric choice,

m

but was rated f irst by las group In level of leadership performance. Per-

haps Don'a superior abilities in camp c r a f t s acrid his slightly higher in-

telligence score might have accounted, in part, for Ms higher rating as

to level of performance, but by the same token, these skills did not

make him popular, as evidenced by his low sociometric status. Therefore,

it seems that a comparison of single traits does not clearly differentiate

between Mgh leadership performance and low leadership performance.

S e l e c t e d F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g L e a d e r s h i p P e r f o r m a n c e

{ T e h u a c a n a G r o u p )

At ten years of age, Billy was the oldest member of the Tehua-

cana Group. He was rated Erst in all eight of the leadership situations.

The name of the intelligence test used to obtain Billy's score was not

mentioned in his record, though both his chronological age, 6. 9, and

Ms mental age of 6, 6 were stated. When computed, this gave Mm an

intelligence quotient of 104. His psychological report stated in part:

. . . he had poor oral functioning, soma slight speech dif-ference, and seemed insecure and quite concerned about himself. . . . there was evidence of aggressive drives, but he did seem quite able to form warm and satisfying perscnal relationships with adults . . .

Billy had been in the camp for approximatcly two years. His progress

report, made just before the start of the study, stated:

. . . he has made steady improvement. He seems to have lost most of his hostility and i s l e s s nervous. He i s aware of his nervousness and tries to control it . He i s a good

41

worker and handles all camp skil ls well, and i s the most p r ac -t ical and dependable boy in the group and handles responsibil-ity well. He i s a leader but doesn' t capitalize on It and the group l ikes him very much because he i s {Mr.

F r o m the above repor t i t would seem that Billy was making good social

adjustment through the use of his skil ls , both physical and social , in

personal interrelationships with the group. Further evidence that Billy

would be able to make p rogress , and that he did do so, was the fact that

in the psychologist 's repor t it was fel t that Billy was quite able to fo rm

satisfying relations with adults.

John, who rated lowest in level of leadership performance, was

one of the youngest members of the group at seven yea r s of age, said a lso

entered the group at the time of the study. John's full-scale score on

the Wechsler Individual Scale for Children was seventy-nine, which i s

considered a borderl ine score between normal and re ta rded intellectual

functioning. His psychological examination stated, in par t , the follow-

ing:

. . . Emotionally this i s a highly impulsive child whose lowered critical ability i s likely to result in much inappro-priate behavior. He i s likely to relate to others only on the most infantile and egocentric basis. He appears not to have developed much in the way of empathy for others . . .

Much of Ms behavior during the study was infantile and egocentric. His

enuresis seemed symptomatic of his immaturity. His egocentric orien-

tation seemed evident in the se l f - ra t ings that he made. Though he was

rated lowest in the group as to level of leadership performance, he

42

seemed to have no awareness of this fac t and r a t ed himself first in l ead-

erahip performance. The statement by the psychologist that "he appears

not to have developed much in the way of empathy f o r o the r s , M i s sub-

stant iated in the fac t thai he had one of the lowest scores* for soeio-

eropathy, of a l l the subjects studied,

In this instance, an age difference of approximately three years

between the subject rated highest and the subject r a t ed lowest in level

of leadership performance may account in part for the difference.

That i s , the social , emotional, and physical matura t ion levels of John

will no doubt inc rease and develop in an approximate t h r e e - y e a r period,

and his infantile behavior will be overcome, in par t . Even here , though,

I, *

the gaining of t h ree chronological y e a r s , p e r se , will not necessa r i ly

guarantee that improvement will be made in John's behavior . Here ,

again, it s e e m s that we cannot single out a single trait to account for

the differences, but must look at the totality or gestalt of individual

f ac to r s in in ter re la t ionship with the group situation to begin to account

fo r the d i f fe rences in level of leadership performance.

Table V shows the approximate intelligence quotient averages

for the four quartiles.

43

TABLE V

APPROXIMATE* MEAN INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS OF THE FOUR QUAR TILES RATED FOR

LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

Mean (Approximate) JMelll-Quartile geace Quotient

Fourth 96

Third 98

Second . . . . . . . . 93

F i r s t . 89

$ Some records ifaov only an estiimatioa of intelligence

quotients by the examining psychologist; also, intelligence quotient scores were derived mainly f r o m the Wechsler Indi-vidual Scale for Children, though a few other intelligence quo-t ients were based upon other tes t s .

Because of the different intelligence tes t s used and the est imations made

in a few c a s e s by the examining psychologist, i t would not be appropriate

to say anything other than that the data in Table V suggest the in*

telligence quotient as an intelligence factor was generally spread

throughout the quart i le rat ings of level of leadership performance, with

perhaps no significant superior i ty to be found in intelligence quotients

on the pa r t of the subjects of the upper or f i r s t quart i le .

44

I n t e l l i g e n c e a n d l e a d e r s h i p

Studies of the relation between leadership and general intelligence

such as those of Master and Jordan (4) and Gidd (3) are many, and moat

of the findings show that leaders are superior to noa-leaders. Few,

however, have tended to show that the essent ial characteristic i s one

of interrelationship to the group situation and of the leaders ' contribu-

tion to the group goal. Since much of the behavior of individuals and of

groups involves problem solving, end since i t i s one of the conditions

of the emergence of leadership that there must be a group problem,

it would seem that this factor contributes greatly to leadership. How-

ever, that this factor of leadership i s purely one of general intelligence

in problem solving cannot be stated with surety. Recent work by Cattell

and Stiee {1), in which the leaders were identified by a variety of c r i -

teria, concluded that on all leadership select ion methods, leaders are

higher than non-leaders. However, on one criterion only—total num-

ber of leadership acts—was there a statistic ally significant difference

between leaders .and non-leaders on this factor. Therefore, it would

seem safe to conclude that the factor of intelligence i s not the "general

leadership trait" that it has often been thought to be.

L e n g t h of T i m e a n d L e a d e r s h i p

There seemed to be little indication that length of t ime, per se ,

spent in the camp had a relationship to level of leadership performance.

45

The data in Table VI snake evident that, indeed* if any tread esdsted, i t

was a negative one. That is , the subjects in the f irs t quartilc, rated

lowest in leadership performance, Had been at the camp aa average of

14. 2 months, while those rated highest in leadership performance in

the fourth quartile had been in camp for an average of 10. 6 months.

TABUS VI

AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME, IN MONTHS, SPENT IN CAMP BY SUBJECTS IN EACH OF THE FOUR QUARTILES

RATED FOR LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

Average Length of Time (in Months) Spent in

Quartiles Camp

Fourth 10.6

Third . . . . . . U . 8

Second . . . . . . 12 .6

First 14.2

The subjects in both the second and third quar t i les had spent, on the

average, more time in the camp. Here,, again, time spent in camp, as

a single variable, has little or ao value in determining leadership or

level of leadership performance. Therefore, mere length of t ime does

not indicate anything about the qualitative experiences of the subject;

and, though the longer the length of t ime, undoubtedly, the more chance

there i s for experiences, it i s the nature of the experiences and not the

46

number that contributes to the development of leadership through inter-

relationships with the group.

I n d i v i d u a l T r a i t s a n d L e a d e r s h i p

There are indications that such traits as intelligence, dominance,

social participation, and others a r e often found to characterise leaders. i

Gifab (2) firmly believes that in every instance the relation of the trait

to the leadership prole i s raore meaningful when consideration i® given to

the. nature of tj$Mg leadership role. An individual does not become a

leader because #f Ms possession of any one par t icular pat tern of pe r -

sonality. Stogdill (6) states, "Thus, leadership must be conceived in

terms of the interaction of variables which are in constant flux and

change. H

J « n i * g s (5. p. 265} aUo concur, when she .tatea that, "The 'why'

of leadership appears, however, not to reside in any personality trait /

considered singly, nor even in a constellation of related traits, but in

the inter-personel contributions of which the individual becomes capable

ip a specific setting eliciting such contribution from him. " Therefore, it

aeems that a study of single traits or of "static" data gathered from

<. records cannot tel l about the nature of leadership or leadership p e r -

' forxnance. At best, the study of single traits and other such data tel ls

I us only about the trait in isolation and thereby loses i ts meaning by not

being studied in/k dynamic interrelationship or gestalt situation.

41

B i b l i o g r a p h y

1* Cattell, R. B . , and G. E. Slice, The Psychodynamics of Small Group*, Urbaaa, Laboratory of Personality Assessment and Group Behavior, University of Illinois, 1953.

2. Glbb, C. A.» "Leadership, " Handbook of Social Psychology, Lindzey (ed. ), p. B#9, Addis©a~Wesley Publishing Company, 1954.

3. Gibb, C. A. * "The Principles and Traits of Leadership. " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XJLU (1947), 267-284.

4. Hunter* E. C.» and A. M. Jordan, "An Analysis of Dualities Asso-ciated with Leadership Among College Students, " Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, XXX (1939), 497-509.

5. Jennings, Helen H. , Leadership and Isolation: A Study of Person-ality to tiller- Personal ReiationgT^econd adidonTTWew ¥o5 ™** Longmans, 6reaa Company, 1950, p. 205.

6. Stogdill, R. M., "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership, n

Journal of Psychology, XXV (1948), 35-71.

/ /

I i

C H A P T E R 1Y

T H E F A C T O R S O F G R O U P I N T E R A C T I O N

D e v e l o p m e n t of S t u d y of S o c i o e c n p a t h y

Social perception has ooiy in relatively recent years come under

intensive study. Heider (15), within the f ramework of field theory,

has u*fd the concept "heter (momous event" to r e f e r to all change*

whose origin does not Me i s the person but i n the environment. He f a r the r

emphasizes that the psychological significaace of a "heteronomous

event" i s very much influenced by i ts perceived source . Therefore# he

define# the study of social perception m not so much the study c i socia l

influences upon the perception of the physical world, but ra ther the

study of conditions which influence our perception of other people

(groups, etc . } and determine the charac ter i s t ics and relations we at-

tribute to them.

Iieider points out that the attribution of responsibili ty to people

as sources of events has the function of providing cognitive stability to

our psychological environment. The motives and personali ty charac-

te r i s t i c s of other persons provide the underlying causes which give

cohesion and meaning to the diverse "overt f ac t s " with which we a re

48

49

confronted. In effect, he i® asserting thai people develop their owa

"naive" psychology m a means of giving meaning and cognitive &rgmai-

zatian to the overt actions of others.

It wm from the above study and the studies by Dymond (11, 12),

Ausubel (1), Tagiuri (24), Norman (18), and Chowdhry (10) that this

study received i t s bas is for including end studying the socioempathic

factor. The "guessing" or perceptual procedure as suggested by Ausu-

bel and Tagiuri was used to obtain the data for the eocioempathic fac tor .

.As each of the leadership situations arose* the subjects were asked to

"vols" for their preferences; they* at the same time, were asked to

"guess" or estimate what "vote" (rank) each of the members of the group

would give Mm,

M e a s u r i n g S o c i o e m p a t h y

Two aspects of the socioempathic factor were measured: (1) the

rank-difference correlation between the subjects' "guessed" or est i -

mated score and the actual score received. This factor was of major

concern for this study because of the more extensive data available for

this measurement. The task of the subject was in some ways the same

sort of task that Tagiuri (24) required of the subjects in his relational

analysis concept. That is , Tagiuri required the subject to "guess" what

persons gave the subject positive choices and what persons gave the

subject negative rejections. The nature of the task for the subject in

50

this study was the subject*s estimate of what "vote" or ranking was

given to him by each of the other members of the group. This implied

that* as in Taginri's study, the subject had to estimate a positive choice,

corresponding to a high "vote, " i e . , a 1 oar Z ranking;, and a negative

rejection, corresponding to a low "vote, " L e . , a 4 or 5 ranking.

(2) The second aspect was the correlation between the subject's ranking

of the group, including Ms own rank* and the final combined ranking of

the group, counselors, and the investigator.

These two measures were used so that there would be a more com-

plete measure of both end products of the interrelationship to be found

in socioempathic ability. As Ausufoel (1) slates, "The adjustment of an

individual to his peer group, therefore, i s partly a function of how

well he is able to perceive the relative hierarchical status of the vari-

ous group members, including Ms own. " The interrelated nature of

socioempathic ability i s seen also in Tagimi's (24) statement that,

. . the interpersonal perceptions of individuals in a small face to

face group appear to be dependent to a large extent upon the operation

of a congruency between how a member feels toward another and how

the other i s seen in feeling toward Mm. "

E s t i m a t i o n of R ank

In this study, the orientation is toward the ability to "guess" or

estimate the rank, i. e . , level of performance, in each of the eight

51

leadership situations. Studies by Chowdhry (10) tmd by Medalia (17) a re

examples of the few studies to be found which were dealing with the r e -

lation between social perceptions and leadership.

The ability to use m perceptual procedure of estimating rank com-

pared to actual rank seemed high for all four groups studied. The

data in Table VU show that the correla t ions (rho) range f rom . 72 to

.84.

TABLE VII

MEAN CORRELATION BETWEEN "GUESSED" AND ACTUAL RANK BY GROUPS

Groups Correlat ion (rho)

Beavers . . , » , 7f

Fron t ie r . . . . . 73

Tehuacana . . . . . 72

Tejas 84

Mean correlat ion, . 77

The mean corre la t ion i s . 77. This compares favorably with the . 65

correla t ion for perception of own status obtained by Ausubel.

D e v e l o p m e n t a l A s p e c t s of S o c i o e m p a t h y

While as yet there i s l i t t le evidence to suggest a developmental a s -

pect of socioempatMe ability, Ausubel*$ study did indicate that

52

socioempatMc ability may increase with age. The sample In. this study

Is too sma l l to have may statistical validity, hot the facta in Table VHI

show met interesting developmental t r ead when meaa correlation I s com-

pared to the mean age of the group. The data suggest that fu r the r

study of the developmental aspect# of socioempatMc ability may ©how a

positive correlation of age aad'socioempathic ability* although* of

course , other factors would be involved. ^ i

/ TABLE v m

COMPARSON OF MEAN AGE OF GROUP WITH MEAN CORRELATION BETWEEN "GUESSED"

AND ACTUAL RANK

Group Mean Age Mean. Correlat ion .

Tejas 15.3 .84

Beavers 13.9 .79

-Frontier 12.8 . 73

Tehuacana 9 .2 .72

Another factor added to the final determination of sociometric

ability was the factor of pre dieting or estimating final level of perform*

ance as compared to the f inal rating determined by the mean rating of

the group, counselors, and the investigator. The correlations (rho)

in Table IX show the results.

5$

TABLE IX

MEAN GROUP CORRELATION (RHO) BETWEEN SUBJECT'S FINAL RATING OF OTHERS AND COMBINED

FINAL RATING

Groups Correlat ion

Beavers .68

Froot ier 49

Tehuacana . . . . . .48

Tejas 72

Mean correlation* . 59

The mean correlat ion of . 59 in the subject ' s ability to ra te others

compared to the mean correlat ion of . 77 in estimating Ms own status

suggests that the task of estimating other s tains i s a more difficult

task than estimating "own" status. While the difference i s not of s ta t i s -

t ical significance, the two*fold nature of socioempathy i s emphasised.

The da ta in Table X fu r the r indicate that this second factor of

socioempathy may have a developmental aspect . While* again, the

sample was not large enxmgh to establish stat ist ical significance, the

evidence points to the need for fur ther investigation of the aspect of

socioempathy.

TABLE X

COMPARISON OF MEAN AGE OF GROUP WITH MEAN CORRELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT'S FINAL

RATING OF OTHERS AND COMBINED RATING OF OTHERS

54

Groups Mean Age Mean Correlation

Tejas 15.3 .72

Beavers 13.9 . 68

Front ie r 12.8 .47

Tehuacana 9 .48

C o m p a r i s o n of E a s e of E s t i m a t i n g

" O w n " a n d " O t h e r " S t a t u s

F r o m the data in Table XI i t i s evident that the task for the groups

was eas ie r to accomplish when i t came to estimating "own" status than

i t was for the groups to es t imate the rat ings of o t t e r s . While i t s eems

fa i r ly obvious because of the uniqueness of an individual's phenomeno-

logical field that itwould be an eas ie r task to predict "own" status ra ther

than "other" status, i t i s interesting to note the size of the difference

between the two older groups and the two younger groups. Though there

a re insufficient data to tes t as to the significance of the difference,

there i s the suggestion that "estimation" of "o thers ' " s tatus may be a de-

velopmental task requiring a higher maturation development.

55

TABLE XI

COMPARISON OF TWO FACTORS: (1) OWN STATUS, AND (2) OTHERS* STATUS, OF SOCIOEMPATHY

BETWEEN GROUPS

Croup Mean Age Own States Others* Status Mem Difference

Beavers

Front ie r

Tehuacana

Tejas

13.9

12. 8

9 . 2

15.3

. 79

.73

.72

.84

68

49

4S

72

.11

.24

.24

. 12

S e l f - G r o u p I d e a l i t y

Group membership charac ter i s important for the leader . Brown

Mates:

;The successful leader must have membersh ip-charac te r in Hie group he is attempting to lead. In order that a point may acquire high potential within a region i t must be ordered to the region. In popular language this means that an indi-vidual must belong to the group which he attempts to lead. (8, p. 342)

"Membership" means, fur ther , that the individual must have cer ta in

pat terns of attitudes and reaction tendencies that a re common to the

group. P igors (22), Jennings (16), Har r i s (14), Zeleny (25), and

others emphasize this fact by pointing out that the leader i s a par t of

the social field. The leader may not be se t apart f r om the group.

§6

though he may be thought of In a position of high potential within the field.

Therefore, i t i s through the dynamics of interrelat ions within the group

that Ms position of high potential i s obtained.

While sociometric status may be used as one indication of group

membership or acceptance, another aspect of "membership" can be

found i s the factor of self*group identity. Is the individual's self es£U

mate close to or the same as the group's ? Since group membership i s a

reciprocal relationship, acceptance or "membership" must partly be de-

termined by the individual's acceptance of the role or status given to him

by the group or the degree of agreement of both the group's and se l f ' s idea

of status or role. For example. Ken of the Beavers received the low-

est net score on sociometric choice, but Ms self*group identity was ac-

curate; that is , he rated himself low and the group ra ted him low. He

accepted a role of being the "butt" of jokes and jibes that the group im-

posed on him. By doing so he participated in many of the group activities,

though, of course, in Ms group-as signed and self-accepted role. Chi the

other hand, Bon of the Tejas Group also had low sociometric status, but

Ms self-group identity was not accurate; that i s , he rated Mmself much

Mgher than the group rated Mm. He participated in few group activities

as a "member , " but drew Ms participation from one person at a time or

pre fe r red Ms own independent activity. Therefore, "membersMp"

must be partly a function of accurate perception and/or acceptance of

57

one's self estimate of status or role ia t e r m s of actual or group's im-

posed status or role.

Me a s a r i ng S e l f - G r o u p I d e n t i t y

The factor of self-group identity was used as a measure of group

membership. The score was obtained in two ways. F i r s t , the mean dif-

ference between the mean of the subject 's self-rat ing and the mean rating

given him by the group was found. Secondly, the subject 's ranking of the

group, based on the total "votes" or ratings given in eight leadership

situations, and his own relative ranking in the group based on his self-

rating, was subtracted f rom the group's ranking of the subjects based on

their total scores . The resultant sum of these two differences was mul-

tiplied by a constant of one hundred to remove the decimal place. By

using the above methods of determining the score, the emphasis of rela-

tive rank in the group helped balance the self-group identity factor by

showing thai a comparatively large difference in the mean ratings did not

necessari ly show that there was a difference in the relative rank of the

subject 's estimate compared to the group's .

The direction, as well as size, of the self-group identify score is

important. The facts ia Table XII show whether there was an over-es t i -

mation or an under-estimation, the persons who made them, and the size

of the estimation.

58

TABLE XII

TEHUACANA GROUP (MEAN AGS, 9. 2): THE DIRECTION AND SIZE OF SELF-GROUP IDENTITY COMPARED TO RANKING IN

LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

Leadership Over-estimation Under-estimation Rank Score Score

1, B. W. 2

2. Greg 3 0

3. Lee 181 0

4. Doug 175 0

5. F rank 358 Q

6. Mike 618 0

7. Glen 357 0

8. Bonnie 343 0

9. Wayne 432 0

10. John 1,077* 0

*The numbers in the one 's and ten's places show the approximate mean difference between group and subject* and the numbers In the hun-dred's place show the approximate difference in rank which the subject received from the group aad Ms self* rank.

The f i r s t two subjects* of this youngest group# have a score indi-

cating that there was no difference in their self-ranking of f irst and sec-

ond in the group and the ranking actually obtained f rom the group. Further,

58a

there wm mly m small HZ m&. 0 ".—b«t^cea te nmm ef

ttwir tati«g m ! that af £fc.e g^omp, Ti« »ub$«ct wito sMaiuel Cfin Mglwial

In gfreng* HA h&w%w th^n f)i& jpwipsf ty# tifff

« m ystitoESfdl iShe i t » fflttl risesd Mm nt t>p% y i A jm a #

r#st of fH* ij»at.l«ftij!tftftiftKne tM9iI @WB*e< liiB#ttB®8» The WMyi ppt e*/er-®sti»

iyml|.^i n§ gslf &?•&& |^r tfe& TO%jy#f fe& inm&sI-in limn In ^aufcliig fnf

level of Isidhifidhto to^rf^rmiiMs* fmt wi^ ntittd iiit»ii^lf rfsswi

H)|^ Jn pBf^f'ISftS'gg i-

#,11 of Hie score* far f t e Ff«®l§@jr Cxrap. shown iu Tefale X8S»

r aagtfig ftrcwi a #®sH tflXteMCft tMrfMMHEi fgywiff

of ««Sf» x-jtf&ig* M i groups witti m diffe.r©met la r«s»k t© %large dtfS«r-

e®c« I i I w m i te erm$m» (I. 82} m&A m $UXm?mi&. of six r«G&* afeoree tfee

g m ^ i reals, iJsoMsg st ttoe aafcjact; wis© wm&t®$ first Is leadership

ge*§»*ms8ie@ «ai tibe subject wh» s*®isfaei last* w« llacl tfcsi: l&e mifojtct

wb& W0&$®&£ te l#ffc^yf^Mj|^ y.p#pp w®cl& l^te

rsted Jiim. Howwir. tbe Mftiect ill IM@ ^>ic rifts# iaat greatly

9wrmi lbMt< i M»«#ll te tertsa of tbe gr©w|>*s

TImi tftta in Ti^te XW #fcw Unt Umi Bcinvwrt* CHreK9 wm» t&e «4y

«»©»? to »M«k t k m « e « »©w w ^ r - « * t o < ^ « «€ a@lf to r@l«iiof& t»

gro^# mm mm~€mmrntesm* B to «t®o m®mmw% to mm «W* to m im

m mm sim «f tlw #w?r« to Hmgm&ag fiwdUv, the at

le«l«r^lilp pwrferws* arid w»*« lcKtcr^hip p » H « m r e€ a t f » ^

59

TABUS x r n

FRONTIER GROUP (M£AN AGE, 12. 8): TEE DIRECTION AND SIZE OF SELF-GROUP IDENTITY COMPARED TO BANKING IN

LEVEL OF- LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

Leadership Over-es t imat ion Unde r - e e t im ation Rank Score Score

1. Donnie U 0

2, Ralph 41 0

3. Bobby 352 0

4. Jack 454 0

5. BUI 120 0

6. Char l i e 280 0

t . Kenneth 211 0

8. Paul 732 0

rated t hemse lves m o r e lik« the group than any of the intervening r ank -

ings cf the group.

60

TABLE XIV

BEAVER GROUP (MEAN AGE, 13. 9): THE DIRECTION AND SIZE OF SELF-GROUP IDENTITY COMPARED TO RANKING IN

LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

Leadersh ip Rank

Over -es t ima t ion Score

Under.- es t imat ion Score

i

I . ' Mike ' G S&

2. Lonnie 205 0

3. John § 285

4. Bil l 0 116

5. Giea 0 407

6. Roland 6 107

7. Clif 287 0

3. Ken 95 o

The data in Table XV f o r the o ldes t group, Te ja s , showed a t r end

s i m i l a r to the Tehuacana and F ron t i e r Groups . The top subjec t in

l eadersh ip pe r fo rmance gave himself the same rank as the group and

under -ea t ima ied the roean of Ms s e l f - r a t i n g s f r o m the i m a a ef the g roup ' s

ra t ing with a mean d i f fe rence of . 67, aa compared with the l a s t two

ranked sub jec t s , who o v e r - e s t i m a t e d the i r r ank f r o m four to eight

r a n k s above that of the g roup ' s ranking.

61

TABLE XV

TEJAS GROUP (MEAN AGE, 15. 3): THE DIRECTION AND SIZE OF SELF-GROUP IDENTITY COMPARED TO RANKING IN

LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

Leadership Rank

Over-est imation Score

Under- estimation Score

1. George 67

2. J immy 121

3. Ken 129 0

4. Sonny 85 0

5. Chuck 115 0

6. Hub 543 0

7„ Stan 406 0

8. John 424 0

9* Is rae l 98? 0

10. Don 576 9

The facts l a Table XVI show & group comparison of mean s e l f -

group identity scores and the direction, i . e . , over* o r under -es t ima-

tions of self in relat ion to group, Perhaps the most significant thing

about the da ta i a the following table Is the amount of under - est imations

of the Beaver Group, five out of eight. It was fel t , on the pa r t of the ad-

minisfcrators and counselors of the camp, that the Beaver Group was the

62

furthest along in group adjustment. It might be postulated that there

seemingly was l e s s seed lor ego enhancement through over-estimation*

perhaps because of a strong sense of status within the group that al-

lowed for rather smal l under - e s t im ation (except fo r one ease in which

there was a difference of three ranks below the group). The above*

then* together with Table XVI, suggests the importance of the size and

direction of estimations in the self-group identity- factor for further

understanding of group dynamics.

TABLE XVI

GROUP COMPARISON OF MEAN SELF-GROUP IDENTITY SCORES AND DIRECTION (OVER- OR

UNDER-ESTIMATIONS)

Group Mean Score: Self-Group Identity

Number of Over-estimations

Number of Under-estimations

Beavers 184 3 5

Frontier 277.8 8 0

Tebuacana 354. 6 9 1

Tejas 345.3 S 2

S o c i o m e t r y

Sociometry can, in a number of ways, contribute to the under-

standing of group dynamics. Northway has pointed out that there

63

axe three basic contributions or assumptions underlying sociometry,

as follows:

First is the fact that there i s preference. People can-not love each other equally. From ear l ies t childhood there are those whom the child prefers to other*. Thus, this being the fact, i t i s important to accept preferences whether they fit into our preconceived idea of society or not.

Secondly, aociometry implicitly assumes that the indi-vidual i s or becomes conscious of his preferences. Even at an early age the child can state his preferences. He may not be aware of the motives for his preference, but he still knows Ms preference.

Thirdly, sociometry assumes that social relationships have a time dimension. Thus while actual preferences* as have been demonstrated in studies, wax and wane, they do show a remarkable constancy. (19, pp. 42-44).

Indicating fur ther the importance of sociometry Is the stress laid

upon the total personality as it relates to sociometric status. Bonney

(3) believes that quality or level of response emphasizes a general prim-

ciple which is fundamental to an understanding of high versus low peer

acceptance on any criterion. He thinks that this principle is that high

choice status on any criterion is due probably, not to greater amounts

of certain desirable t rai ts , but to a more effective integration and use

of a variety of t ra i ts which are appropriate to a particular kind of sit-

uation and which are in accord with the expectations or wishes of a

fairly large proportion of the participants in this kind of situation.

64

S o m e IT a c t o r a of H i g h a n d L o w S o c i o m e t r i c S t a t u s

F r o m Endings of other studies fey Bonney (3, 4, 5, 6), Northway

{19, 20), Scandrette (23), Baron (2), and others , i t weald seem justifi-

able to say that those who have high, medium, o r tow sociometric s t a -i j

tus in any group do not fal l into a type, do not follow some one social I

success formula, and are not free from socially and ethically disap-

proved t r a i t s . This should not he in terpreted to mean that to a pa r -

t icular situation any combination of amy t r a i t s i s equally a s good as any

other . Bonney (3) believes that this i s not the case . He thinks that, al-

though it i s undoubtedly t rue that peer acceptance, whether Mgb o r low,

is due to response to total personali ty ra ther than to separate t ra i t s , i t

is also true that some trait ingredients a re much more likely than others

to be found in a hij^ily desi red as opposed to a poorly desired personal*

ity. "This "field" concept of personality i s supported by the studies

mentioned above.

Two sociometric measures were given to each group during the

course of the investigation. The f i r s t measure was based upon a work

criterion in which the subjects of each group were asked whom they

would choose to work with in cleaning up their tent and camp si te . The

second measure was based upon choosing sides for a game of "Capture

the F l a g , " and again each of the subjects in each camp was asked to

65

state Ms preference for whom lie would like to have on Me side when Ms

time to choose caxne up.

P s y c h i t e l e a n d S o c i o t e l e

The situation upon which the work cr i ter ion was based emphasized

the psychiteie nature of choice* That i s , the subject was t© choose aa-

other person with whom he would have to work in the various tasks in-

volved in cleaning up around hi* tent and camp site. Since much of the

success of the day's activities depended upon the way in which the task

was done, it was very important for the boys to make a good choice.

0 a fiie other hand, the play criterion was based upon a f r e e r play situa-

tion where psychiteie was not as important, perhaps, as the sociotele of

the group.

The facts presented in Table XVII exhibit a comparison of the

positive, negative, and mutual choices. Perhaps the nature of the freer

expression in the play situation i s shown in the data. For the play situa-

tion there i s a group mean of positive choices of 30. ®f compared to a

group mean of 26.0 positive choices for the work situation. The freer

expression seems again emphasised in the play situation when a com-

parison of the percentage of negative mutuals to positive mutual choices

i s made*—*16,0 per cent for the play cr i te r ion as compared to 42 .9 per

cent for the work criterion.

66

TABLE XVII

COMPARISON OF WORK AND PLAY CRITERION, BY GROUPS, ON THE BASIS OF POSITIVE, NEGATIVE,

AND MUTUAL CHOICES

Work Play

Groups C hoice Mutuals Choice Mutual®

Pos i -tive

Nega-tive

Pos i -tive

Nega-tive

Pos i -tive

Nega-tive

Pos i -tive

Nega-tive

Beavers (8)

21 11 8 4 20 6 12 @

Frontier (8)

1? 12 4 4 28 7 16 2

Tehua-cana m

28 If 12 6 34 20 14 2

Tejas 38 14 18 4 33 16 8 4

Totals 104 56 42 18 123 49 50 3

Means 26 14 10. 5 4 .5 30,8 12.3 12.5 2

T a r g e t S o c i o g r a r a — B e a v e r # 1 G r o u p

Jte Figure I , p«ge 6?* subjects Mike and Glen show an increase in

number of choices received in the work cri ter ion over the play cri terion.

67

PLAY

Roland

Mike

Glen

Mike

No secon<rchoice

Mutual choice _____ ^ *

~W ORK F ig . 1. — B e a v e r s 1 Group: Showing the F i r s t and Second Choices Rece ived on P l a y

and Work C r i t e r i a of Sub jec t s Ranked in Q u a r t i l e s on the B a s i s of Net Accep tance S c o r e s .

m

Bill arid Lctaiie, in the third quartile, show a revert© trend, receiving

more votes for the play criterion than for the work criterion, la the

case of Lonnie, a strong, husky boy, most of the group members who

chose Mm made a point of saying that "he is good si games, H and seem-

ingly were very realistic in their chooeing.

While Ken, in the f i r s t quartUe, did not receive any f i r s t o r sec-

ond choices, he did receive two third*place choices. In the play situa-

tion he was tolerated (he received no rejections)# and often was able to

participate in games. In the work situation he received four r e j ec -

tions, more than anyone e lse ; and, though some of Ms camp skills were

good, he was not accepted as a work mate. The mutual choices were

rather evenly distributed with only two subjects receiving more than

two mutual choices. This was in the play situation, in which Glen r e -

ceived four mutual and BiU received three mutual choices, which con-

stituted 58 1/3 per cent of the total mutual choices received.

T a r g e t S o c i o g r am—» F r o n t i e r G r o u p

The target sociogr am on page 69 shows the f i r s t and second choices

received for both work and play criteria for the Frontier Group.

Charlie and Ralph in the fourth quartile show about the same

strength in getting f irst and second choices in the play situation as weU

as in the work situation. Paul, on the ©titer hand, in the third quarti le,

was much more accepted in the work situation than he was in the play

69

PLAY

Ralph

Ralph

Bob I X X I Jack

No ftecond>choice

Mutual choice .

WORK

Work F i r 8 t ^ S e C O n d C h o i c e s Received on P l ay and Work Cri ter ia ot Subject* Ranked In Quartiles on the Bas i s of Net Acceptance Scores .

70

situation. Again the reason could partly be explained in that the games

at the camp usually required running and dodging ability, which Paul

did not possess. Several of the other members of the gronp stated the

real is t ic fact, "He*® too slow. "

M the partnership relation required in the work situation* Donnie's

temper (first quartile) seemed to be & contributing factor in Ms not re-

ceiving any first or second choices, bat receiving three rejections in

the work situation. In the pi ay situation he received two first-place

choices and one second-place choice, and often appeared to take the

leadership in some of the games.

In this group, too, the mutual choices were rather evenly dis-

tributed, with only Ralph and Charlie (fourth quartile) receiving more

than two mutual choices. They both received three apiece in the play

situation.

T a r g e t S o c i o g r a r a — T e h u a c a n a G r o u p

The target sociogram on page 71 shows the first and second choices,

on play and work criteria, of the youngest group in the study. In the

play situation the subjects in the fourth quartUe received all but three

of the first and second choices, showing their high acceptance in the

play situation. This i s further emphasized by the subject B. W., who

received seven choices* and all but one was a f irst choice. The com-

pleteness of his acceptance i s further shown by the fact that in the

71

PLAY

Doug

F r i

Mike Wayne Glen

Greg]

choicei

/ /7B. k y \

I a lni liv —

i V ^ ^>cc i /

John

[Wayne) \ ( Greg]

Mike

B. W.

Glen

Frank

Don

Doug ;

IK

Mutual choice.

Fig. 3. — Tehuacana Group: Showing the F i r s t and Second Choices Received on Play and Work Cr i t e r i a of Subjects Ranked in Quart i les on the Basis of Net Acceptance Scores .

7Z

other three quart i les there was a total of only three choices which were

received.

B. W. *s high sociometric status also holds for the work situation,

in. which he received six E r s t choices. J» the work situation the subjects

l a the other three quar tiles received three more votes* but the three

subjects in the fourth quartile stil l show strength in their high socio-

metr ic states. Their unusually high sociometric strength i s also seen

in the fact that, of thirty-nine rejections given by the group, only one

rejection was received by one of the members of the fourth quartile.

This contrasts sharply with the only complete isolate of the group (as

f a r as positive choices received were concerned)* John, lie did receive

five rejections in the play situation* and four in the work situation.

Par t of B. W. ' s attraction may have been due to the fact that he was

two to |h ree years older than most o£ the other members of Hie group and

had been to the group for the longest period of t ime. This .compared to

John's age, who was three years younger, Ms relative newness to Hie

group, and his more immature or maladjusted behavior, which included

enuresis , can explain some of the differences, but not all.

T a r g e t S o c i o g r a m — T e j a s G r o u p

Finally, Figure 4 on page 73 shows the target sociogr am of the

oldest group with regard to their first and second choices. Xa the play

situation, George, in the fourth quartile, seems to be the dominant

73

PLAY

John

Sonny

o .Noyprcfcr-Sonny J

John

Chuck

Mutual choice.

WORK

Fig. 4. — T e j a s Group: Showing the F i r s t and Second Choices Received on Play and Work C r i t e r i a of Subjects Ranked in Quart i les on the B a s i l of Net Acceptance Scores .

74

figure, receiving all bat two of the possible f i r s t choices. Jim* . also in

the fourth quartile, received only one choice in the play situation* but

picked up three more choice* in the work situation* Sonny* the other

member of the fourth quartile, showed little sociometric strength, in

receiving f i r s t or second choices* in either work or play criteria.

Israel's (third quartile) sociometric strength i s shown through his five

choices received in the play situation and the three choices l a the work

situation* which was only exceeded by one choice by Jimmy* in tine

four th quartile.

Everyone in this group received at least one choice in each of the

criteria. However, Chuck's (f irst quartile) rejection i s seen in the fact

that he received only a total of three positive choices as against eight

negative choices and four mutual rejections. John, the subject .in the

f irst quartile, received three positive choices and three negative

choices. This i s another example, then, that high intelligence quotient

does not necessari ly go with high sociometric status; for* even though

Chuck had the highest intelligence quotient score of the group, he sti l l

received the mos t rejections.

R e l i a b i l i t y a n d V a l i d i t y of S o c i o m e t r i c D a t a

After considering the above sociometric data, a final word about

the reliability and validity of these data should be considered. The

IS

reliability and validity of sociometric studies using actual or rea l situa-

tions in which choices are made are well established. One study, by

Eugene Byrd (9), of reliability and validity was a study in which socio-

metric choice was correlated with actual choice made on the identical

criterion. The criterion c£ choice was, "Who would you like to be in a

play with you?" The correlations after the test was repeated in eight

weeks, were Test I and actual companions, . 76; actual companions and

Test IX, . 80; and Test 1 and Test IX, . 89. Other studies by Bonney (7)

n»t4 Gronlund (13) of agreement between teacher judgments and student

choice; Pepinsky's (21) study of validity and reliability as applied to

sociometric tests; Scandrette's (23) study of sociometric status related

to scores on a. personality test, and others give further support to the

validity and reliability of sociometric studies.

I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s

The data in Table XVIII exhibit the mean intercorreUtioas (rho)

of «•>**» four groups studied mad show that there exists a tow to medium

positive correlation. The correlations range f rom a . 195 between so-

ciometric status and self-group identity to a . 436 between socioempathy

(factor two, others' rank) and self-group identity. In this study, every

factor measured showed a low but positive relation to every other fac-

tor, and with the self-group identity factor there existed a slightly

higher correlation with the two factors of socioempathy.

76

TABLE XVHI

INTERCORRELATIONS (MEAN RHO OF FOUR GROUPS): SOCIOEMPATHY (1. OWN STATUS, 2. 'OTHERS' '

RANK), SOCIOMETRIC STATUS, AND SELF-GROUP IDENTITY

Inter cor r e -lations

Socioempathy I

Socioempathy 2

Sociometric St i lus

Self-Group Identity

Socioempa-tky 1 • • # • .321 .313 .436

Socioempa-thy Z .321 • • • » .216 . 410

Sociometric status .216 .313 # a * . 195

Self* Group identity .410 .436 . 195 * # a #

In Table XIX the data show a comparison of in tercorre la t ions by

groups. In the Beaver*' Group there was ae ro corre la t ion and in the

Front ier G r o i ^ a minus correlat ion o£ . 173. These correlat ion* dif-

fe red quite markedly f r o m the correlat ions of . §f and . 36 of the Tehua-

caaa and Tejas Groups. The escpiaafcsfcioa for the resul tant low c o r r e l a -

tion between sel f -group identity and sociometr ic s ta tus seem* to l ie in

the fact that individually the accurate or rea l i s t ic perception of self in

relat ion to the group may be found in both low and high sociometr ic

s tatus. For example, subject Ken in the Beavers ' Group had the lowest

77

TABLE XIX

COMPARISON OF INTER CORRELATIONS (RHO) BY GROUPS: 1. SOCIOEMPATHY—OWN RANK, 2. SOCIOEMPATHY—

OTHERS1 RANK, 3. SOCIOMETRIC STATUS, AND 4. SELF-GROUP ©ENTITY

Groups 1 and 2 1 and 3 1 and 4 2 and 3 2 and 4 3 and 4

Beavers - . 452 .286 . 357 .095 .333 .000

Front ie r .452 - .077 .310 . 506 .310 173

Tehu&cana .588 .786 .406 .445 .431 . 590

Tejas .697 - . 230 .567 .207 .670 . 364

sociometr ic status, but- perceived accurately his se l f - s ta tus in relation

to the group. In the Front ie r Group, subject Char les had the highest

sociometric s ta tus , but ra ted f i f th in a group of eight in accuracy of

perception of se l f - estimation of leadership performance in relation to

the group*® perception of him. Another subject, Donnie, in the same

group, tied for lowest sociometr ic s ta tus , though he perceived, ac -

curately, Ms high acceptance in leadership performance by the group,

Norman's (18) r e s e a r c h in which he studied the fac tor of accept-

ance in relation to fac to rs of self -other identity, insight into self , and

real is t ic perception of others showed varied resu l t s . In his study,

wkich used some of the fac tors s imi la r to those in this study, Norman

78

found low negative correlations between Ms net acceptance factor and

the factors of self-other Identity, insight and reality scores. The re-

maining of Ms inter cor relations were low positive. It appears that Ms

low negative inte rc or relations differ somewhat from the low positive cor-

relations, though no real comparison could exist because of the make-up

of Ms groups—student psychologist©, compared to young boys used in

this study. It does suggest, however, the need for further research into

the nature of the relationship between factors of socioempathy and socio-

metric status.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

1. Aosubel, D. P . , H. M. Schiff, and E. B. Gasser, "A Preliminary Study of Developmental Trend# in Socioempathy: Accuracy of Perception of Own and Others* Sodom®trie States, " Child Devel-opment, XXIII (1952), 111-128.

2. Baron. Denis, "Personal-Social Characteristic'* and Classroom * Social Status: A Sociometric Study of Fifth and Sixth Grade Girls, "

Socioaaetry, XIV (1951), 32-42.

3. Bonney, M. E . , "A Study of Some Factors Related to Sociometric Status, " Sociomctry, XVI (1953), 287-301.

4. Bonney, M. £ . , and Johnny Powell, "Difference in Social Behavior between Sociometric ally High and Sociometriealiy Low Children, " Journal of Educational Research, XL.VH (1954), 481-494.

5. Bonney, M. E.» "Personality Traits of Socially Successful and So-cially Unauccessful Children," Journal of Educational XXXIV (1943), 449-472. -

6. Bonney, M. E . , "Popular and Unpopular Children: A Sociometric Study, " Monograph of the American Sociometric Association, Mo. 9,

' New York, Beacon -Press, 1947. 1 •

7f

7, Bonney, M. E.» "The Constancy of Sociometric Score* and Their Relationship to Teachers ' Judgments of Social Success and to Personality Self Ratings. " Sociomctry, V (1943), 409-424.

§. Brown, J. F.» Psychology and the Social Order, Hew York, MeGraw-Hill Book Comptay, 1936.

9. Byrd, Eugene, "A Study of Validity and Constancy of Choices in a Sociometric Test* " Soctometry, XIV (1951), 175*181,

10. Chowdhry, Kamla* and others, "The Relative Abilities of l e a d e r s and Hon-Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Own Groups* Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XX,VH (1952),. 51*5?»

11.- Dymond, R. F . , "A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation of Insight and Empathy,M Journal of Consulting Psychology* XII (1948), 228-233. ""

12. 3E>ymo«d, R. F . , "Personality and Empathy, " Journal of Consul Psychology, XIV (1950), 343*350. ~~

13. Gronluad, N. £ . , "The Accuracy of Teachers ' Judgjaents Concern-ing the Sociometric Status of Sixth Grade Pupils: Par t 1, " Socio-mefcry, XHI (1950), 197-223.

14. Harr is , Henry,. The Group Approach to Leadership Testing, London, : Eoutledge and Xegan Paul, L td . ' 1949 .

15. Heider, F . , and Marianne Simmel, "An Experimental Study of Ap-parent Behavior," American Journal of Psychology, LVH (1944), 243-259. """

16. Jennings, Helen H. , Leadership and Isolation: A Study of Person-ality in Inter-Personal Relations^ecoiid'ed. '), *New fork, '"Loag- • mans. Green and Company," 1950.

17. Medalia, N. Z . , "Unit Sise and Leadership Perception, " Sociometry, XVH (1955), 64-67.

18. Norirjan, R. D. , "The Interrelationships Among Ae&eptance-Rejee-tioa, Self-Other Identity, insight into Self, and Realistic Percep-tion of Others, " Journal of Social Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 205*235. ~ ~

80

19. Northway, Mary h., A Primer erf SocioTOetry, University of Toronto Preaa, 1953.

20. Northway, Mary I»,» and Blossom T. Wigder, "Rorschach Pat terns Related to the Sociometfic States of School Children," Soclometry, X (1947), 186-199.

21. Pepintky,.Pauline N., "The Meaning of •Validity* and 'Reliability1

as Applied to Socio metric Test#, " Educational aud Psychologic al Measurement, XX (1949)# 39-49.

22. Pigors , Paul* Leadership or Domiaatioa, Boston, Kotightoa Mifflin Company, 1935. '

23. Scandrette, O. C., "Classroom Choice Statue Related to Scores on Component* of the California Teat* o£ Personali ty, " Journal of Educational Research, XLVH (1953), 291-296.

24. Tagiuri, Renato,' "Relational Analysts, " Socloractry, XV (1952), 91-104.

25. Z&leny, JL. D. , "Characteristics cf Group Leaders," and Social Research. XXIV (1939), 326-336.

C H A P T E R V

L E V E L O F L E A D E R S H I P P E R F O R M A N C E AND

T H R E E F A C T O R S O F G R O U P I N T E R A C T I O N

l a t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n L e v e l of L e a d e r s h i p \

P e rf or m a n e e and T h r e e F a c t o r s of G r o u p I n t e r a c t i o n

The data in Table XX show the relationship el the factors of socio-

empathy, sociometric status, mid self-group identity to the level of

leadership performance, as determined by the groups1 and "exper ts ' "

ratings. The correlat ions (rho) range f rom moderate, . 46 for socio*

empathy, to moderately high, . 65 for self-group identity. The

TABLE XX

INTER CORRELATIONS <RHO) BETWEEN LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE AND SOCIOEMPATHY (OWN AND OTHERS*

RANK), SOClOMETRIC STATUS, AND SELF-GROUP IDENTITY, AND MEAN (RHO) OF FOUR GROUPS

Level of Leadership Factors Performance

I, Socioempathy

A. Own rank . . . . 455

B. Others ' rank . . . . 464

H. Sociometric status . . . . 533

III. Self-group identity . . . . 647

SI

u

cor re la t ions seem high enough to suggest that a posit ive relationship

existed, in this study between the level of leadership performance and

soeioempathy, sociometric s ta tus and self-group identity. It would

s eem, further, from the considerat ion of the inte rear re I ations between

the th ree f ac to r s In Chapter HI, and the intercorrelations of these f ac -

t o r s with l e t e l of leadership pe r formance , that they a r e interdependent

var iab les . Chowdhry (1), in Ms study of l eade r s and social percept ion,

a lso found evidence of & positive and interrelated relationship of such

f ac to r s as group status, understanding, communication, and adjustment

to leaders. Therefore, the relationship existing between level of per-

formance and socioempathy, sociometric status, and self-group identity

seems to be one of positive interrelationship, and the above da ta tend to

support the f i r s t hypothesis of this study, namely, that the re exis t s a

positive relationship between the level of performance of leadership

ro le s and three factors of group interaction: (1) the degree of socio-

empathy i n reference to acceptance to leadership roles* (2) the level of

degree of acceptance on friendship criteria, and (3) the degree of s e l f -

group identity as it relates to acceptance in leadership roles .

U p p e r ( F o u r t h ) Q u a r t i l e i n L e v e l of L e a d e r s h i p P e r f o r m a n c e

On the basis of ratings received by the group and by "experts,M

that i s , counselors and the invest igator , each of the four camp groups

83

was placed in the quartile that i t s rating meri ted. Then, nine subjects

were placed in each quartile cm the basis of their level of leadership

performance. This part of the discussion concerns the upper or fourth

quartile in leadership performance and their performance in the degree

of socioempathy in reference to acceptance i s leadership roles* the de-

gree of acceptance on f r iendship cri teria* and the degree of self-group

identity as it relates to acceptance in leadership roles.

S o c i o e m p a t h i c E f f i c i e n c y of S u b j e c t s i n F o u r t h Q u a r t i l e — Own R a n k

The socioe mpathic score in the estimation of acceptance i n leader -

ship roles was obtained by using the eight correlations (rho) of each of

the nine subjects and multiplying by the constant one hundred in order to

remove the decimal point. The mean correlation of the seventy..two

correlations used was « 82; this mean correlation in terpreted in the terms

of a score was 81. 5. The data in Table XXI show the resultant t s co res

and levels of significance of the fourth quart i le compared to the first,

second, and third quartiles. The difference between the means of the

upper and lower quart i les was significant at the . 1 per cent level. This

suggests that there was a very significant difference in the degree of

socioempathy in estimating own acceptance on the part of the subjects in

the upper quartile for the degree of socioempathy on the pa r t of the sub-

jects in the lower quart i le .

84

TABLE XXI

t : SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIOEMPATHXC ESTIMATION OF "OWN" ~ ACCEPTANCE IN LEADERSHIP ROLESj COMPARISON OF

THE FOURTH QUARTILE WITH THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD QUARTILES

Quartiles 1U Fourth Quartiie Level of Significance

F i r s t quartiie 4.272 .001

Second quartiie 2. 871 .01

Third quartiie 1.100 Rejected aft . 10

The difference in the mean score of 5. 6 between the fourth quar-

tiie and the second quartiie shows a t_ of 2. 871, which i s significant at

the 1 per cent level . This significance of difference between the fourth

and the f i r s t and third quartiles seems to indicate a marked degree of

estimating "own" acceptance ia leadership ro les on the pa r t of the sub-

jects of the fourth quartiie over both the subjects of the first and the

second quartiles. However, the t_ of 1.095 between the fourth and third

quartiles can be rejected at the 10 per cent level.

S o c i o c m p a t h l c E f f i c i e n c y of S u b j e c t s i n T h i r d Q u a r t i i e •«— Own R ank

A comparison of the subjects of the third quartiie with those of the

f irst and second quartiles i s seen in the data of Table XXIL The subjects

85

of the third quartile do show a significant difference f rom those of the

f i r s t quartile, though somewhat less than the subjects of the fourth quar-

tile showed. The mean difference of T. 1 between the third and f i r s t

quarti les i s significant at the 1 per cent level* while the difference be-

tween the third and second quartile s i s rejected at the 10 per cent level.

TABLE XXII

t TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OFSOCIOEMPATHIC ESTIMATION OF ~ "OWN" ACCEPTANCE IN LEADERSHIP ROLES; COMPARISON

OF THIRD QUARTILE WITH THE FIRST AND SECOND QUARTILES

Quartile s jfc : Third Quartile Level of Significance

F i r s t quartile 2. 985 .01

Second quartile 1.500 Rejected a t . 10

The higher degree or ability to est imate own rank in reference to

acceptance in leadership roles was found to be significantly greater in

both the fourth and third quartiles over the f i r s t quartile. There were

no significant differences found between the fourth and third quart i les ,

the third and second quartiles, and the second and f i r s t quartile®. The

difference between the fourth and first quar t i les tends to be fur ther em*

phasixed by the fact that the third quartile also had a significant d i f fer -

ence over the f i r s t quartile.

86

M e a s u r i n g S o c i o e n p a t h y — O t h e r s ' R a n k

A s another f a c t o r o f s o c i o e m p a t h y , a s a t t e m p t was m a d e t o meas-

ure the s u b j e c t s ' est imation of o t h e r s ' rank l a r e f e r e n c e to acceptance

in leadership r o l e s . F r o m tine m & w i r a t i n g that tit® individual s u b j e c t

gave himself and the group in the eight leadership situations, the rank

o r d e r w a s determined a n d & rank-cttf£erenee corre la t ion between t h e

individual's ranking of the group and that given by the combined rating

of the group and " e x p e r t s , " i . e . , counselors and the investigator, was

computed. T h e n i n e correla t ions (rho) w e r e m u l t i p l i e d b y the constant

of one hundred to remove the decimal point. The £ tes t of significance

w a s then applied to the data,.

S o c i o e m p a t h i c E f f i c i e n c y of S u b j e c t s i n F o u r t h Q u a r t i l e —» O t h e r s ' R a n k

T h e facts p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e XX1Q s h o w & comparison o f the sub-

jects of the fourth quart i le with those of the first, second, and third

quart i les . When the difference between the means of the fourth and

first quartile 8 was subjected to the £ tes t of significance, a t_ score of

2. 571 w a s obtained. T h i s is significant, for n i n e d e g r e e s of f reedom,

at the 5 pe r cent level. The subjects of the fourth quart i le had & mean

difference of 13. 9 over the mean score of 63. 4 of the second quart i le .

This difference, too, was found significant at the 5 per cent level of

significance. However, t h e m e a n difference of 4 .9 b e t w e e n the m e a n

87

scores of the fourth quart i le {77.4) and of the third quarti le (72.4) was

found to have a t of . 96, which la not significant sad can fee re jec ted at

the 10 pe r cent level.

TABUS XXIII

t TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIOEMPATH1C ESTIMATION OF "OTHERS*" ACCEPTANCE IN LEADERSHIP ROLES; COMPARISON

OF THE FOURTH QUARTILE WITH THE FIRST, SECOND. AND THIRD QUARTILES

Quartiles t : Fourth Quartile mm

Level of Signifiearoe

First quarti le 2.571 , 03

Second quartile 2.673 .05

Third quart i le .96 No significance

The subjects in the third quartile had a mean score of 72.4, compared

to the mean score of 27 .1 for the subjects of the f i r s t quart i le . The da-

t a in Table XXIV show that difference of the means of the third and f i r s t

quar t i les i s significant at the 5 per cent level. The £ ra t io of 1- 509

between the third and second quartiles i s not significant. Also, the

mean difference between the second and the first quartiles, with a t ra-

tio of 1.9» i s re jected as not significant.

The data above tend to support the hypothesis that. socioeropatMe

efficiency was found to exist in a significantly greater degree in not

8S

TABLE XXIV

t RATIOS BETWEEN THE THIRD AM© SECOND QUARTILES, THE ""THIRD AND FIRST QUARTILES, AN© THE 8SC0ND AMD FIRST

QUARTILES BETWEEN MEAN SCORE OF SOCIOEMPATHIC FACTOR OF ESTIMATION OF OTHERS* RANK M

ACCEPTANCE OF LEADERSHIP ROLES

Guartiles t Ratio Level of Significance

Third and second 1.509 Not significant

Third and first 2 . 4 m . 05

Second and f i r s t 1.900 Mot significant

only the fourth quart i le bat also the third quart i le over the f i r s t or l ove r

quart i le . The data used, in measuring the socioempatHc factor of e s t i -

mating own rank In leadership ro les were more extensive and showed

higher Jt_ ra t ios between the fourth sund the f i r s t quarti le a. While the data

used to measure the socloempathic factor of estimating others1 rank ia

leadership roles were l e s s extensive, nevertheless , a t ra t io signifi*

cant at the 5 per cent level was obtained for berth the fourth and third

quar t i les over the f i r s t quarti le.

Fur ther interpretat ion of the data tend® to support the conclusion

in this study that a high level of leadership performance cor re la tes with

a high l e w ! of socioempathy. Therefore , i t was found that those sub-

jects performing at a high level of leadership performance in the f i r s t

§9

quartile had a significantly greater socioempathy efficiency than did

those subjects in the lower quartile. In this study, also, it wm found

flwt even the third quartile had a significant difference over the f irst

quartile in socioempaihy.

K e l a t i o n of S e l f - G r o u p I d e n t i t y w i t h L e v e l of Le a d e r s h i p P e r f o r m a n c e

Do the subjects in the four camp groups who have been rated in

the upper quartile for level of leadership performance tend to identify

themselves with the group* in terms of accurately rating themselves m

the group rates them, significantly more accurately than the subjects in

the lower or first quartile ? & is to the above question that this study

now turns for discussion. Table XXV shows the score and the direction

(over or under) of the estimation. In the fourth quartile there were only

two subjects who actually failed to estimate their rank in the group.

One subject, with the score of 181, ** missed his ranking by one rank

above the group's; while the other subject, with a score of 205, over-

estimated Ms rank order two place® above what he received from the

group. The remaining subjects of the fourth quartile, were accurate

*See Chapter III for discussion of the determination of the score.

**The number in the hundredths place is usually a guide to the difference in ranking, while the number in the ten's and one's places indicates, approximately, the difference between the means of the in-dividual's and the group's ratings of a five-point scale.

m

TABLE XXV

COMPARISON OF SCORES AND DIRECTION OF ESTIMATION (OVISE on umnm) between the FOURTH

AND FIRST QUARTXLSS

Fourth Quartile Score F i r s t Quartile Score

Over-estimation Under- estimation Over-estimation Under *estixn alios

1. 0 67 732 0

Z. 0 121 211 0

3. 0 2 287 0

4. I 0 95 0

5. 181 0 1.077 0

6, ® 86 432 0

7. 205 0 424 ©

8. 32 0 987 0

9. 41 0 576 0

Totals'* 736 4*821

Me so 81.8 535.7

Totals include; over- and imder~e sMmafcicms combined.

91

in their identity of rank order with that of the group, missing only in the

difference in the means of their self-ratings and the group's on the f ive-

point rating scale.

Obviously, the subjects in the f irst quartile did not do as well in

the factor of self-group identity as did the subjects in the fourth quartile.

Of added interest, though, i s the fact that every one of the subjects in

the f irst quartile made over-estimations compared with the fact that

only four of the nine subjects in the fourth quartile made slight tmder-

estimations of self in relation to the group. This would seem to sug-

gest that the need fo r se l f - enhance meat was greaterfor the subjects of

the f irst quartile not only as seen in She greater mean score, but also,

to a l esser extent, in the fact that all of the subjects of the f irst quartile

seem to fee l that they needed to give themselves high ratings, while some

of thus cubjects of the fourth quartile seemed s ecu re or modest enough t

to slightly under-estimate themselves in terms of the group. In Table

XXVI i t i s evident that the t_ ratios were not only significant for the

fourth quartile over the f irst , but also over the second and third quar-

tiles as well. The mean difference between the fourth and the second

quartiles of 271. 6 was found, to be significant at the 1 per cent level.

Also, the mean difference of 151.4 between the fourth and third quar -

t i les was found to be significant at the 2 per cent level. For the factor

of self-group identity, the subjects in the fourth quartile for level of

92

performance were significantly bet ter than the f i r s t and second quartile s

at the 2 per cent level and significantly bet ter than the thi rd quarti le at

the 2 pe r cent level.

TABLE XXVI

SELF-GROUP IDENTITY: t RATIOS BETWEEN THE FOURTH AND THE FIRST, SECOND, AMD THIRD QUARTILES

Quar t i les ti Fourth Quartile JLevel of Significance

F i r s t quart i le 4.218 .01

Second quarti le 4.359 .01

Third quarti le 2. 974 .02

The data in Table XXVII show a comparison of the third, second,

and E r s t quar t i les . The mean difference of 120. 2 between the third'

and second quartile*, when applied to the £ tes t of significance, resul ted

in a t_ ra t io of 1. 651. This £ ra t io was found to be of no significance.

The subjects in the third quart i le , however, were accorded a signifi-

cantly higher score in self-group identity, as shown by the £ ra t io of

2. 653, significant at the 5 per cent level. The £ rat io of 1.441 that was

found between the second and first quar t i les was not significant.

93

TABJLE XXVE

SELF-GROUP IDENTITY: t RATIOS BETWEEN THE THIRD AMD SECOND QUARTILTES, THE THIRD AND FIRST

QUARTILES, AND THE SECOND AND FIRST QUARTIL.ES

Quartiles t Ratio Level of Significance

Third and second 1.651 Not significant

Third and f i r s t 2. 653 .05

Second and f i r s t 1.441 Mot significant

S u p e r i o r i t y of S u b j e c t s i n t h e F o u r t h Q u a r t i l e * ~ S e l f - G r o u p I d e n t i t y

The subjects rated in the fourth quertUe for level of leadership

performance seemed, from the data, to have a rather "clear-cut" su-

periority in the factor of self-group identity. The mean differences of

this group were significant at the 1 per cent level over the Ers t and sec-

ond quartiles and significant at the 2 per cent level over the third quar-

til®. These subjects rated in the fourth quartile for Ugh level of lead*

ership performance seemed to know better their acceptance in leader-

ship roles and to rate themselves very much as the group had r a t e d

them. On the other hand, those subjects in the f i r s t quartile, especially,

tended to over-estimate their rank, as much as nine places in one in-

stance, in acceptance of leadership roles. It might be further pointed

94

out that in only one instance* of the subjects In Hie f i r s t quartile, did a

subject estimate correctly Ms rank order, whereas the rest of the sub-

jects overes t imated f rom two to nine place* in their actual rank order

given by the group.

V

• The fact that the subjects in the fourth quartile in leadership

performance were significantly better in self*group identity would tend

to suggest* in this study, that leadership status urns clearly defined.

That i s , that In these small groups of boys, on the whole, leadership

status seemed well defined, and those in leader ship positions seemed to

recognise this and rate themselves in t e rms of this. Therefore, the

data seem to support the fact, in this study, that high level of leader*

ship performance went with a significant score in the factor of self-

group identity.

Q u a r t i l e R a t i n g s a n d S o c i o m e t r i c S t a t u s

The net acceptance score to determine the sociometric status

made use of the deference of both positive choices and positive mutual

choices, minus the rejections and mutual rejections. This was done to

make the net acceptance score more comprehensive. The data in Ta-

ble XXVin show the mean net acceptance score of the four quartiles.

The mean difference of 11.2 of the net acceptance score between the

f i r s t and fourth quartiles was found to be significant at the 1 per cent

level.

95

TABLE XXVIII

COMPARISON OF MEAM NET ACCEPTANCE SCORE OF THE FOURTH, THIRD, SECOND, AND FIRST GUAR TILES

Mean Net Acceptance Quartiles Score

Fourth . . . . . 12,3

Third 2 .2

Stcosd . . . . . 4 . 6

First . . . . . 1 .1

H i g h S o c i o z n e t r i c S t a t u s of S u b j e c t s i n F o u r t h Q u a r t i l e

The data in Table XXIX show that the socioznetric status on accept-

ance on the part of the subjects of the fourth quartile i s significantly

higher over the other subjects of the remaining quartiles. The mean

difference of the net acceptance score of 10.1 between the fourth and

third quartiles was found to be significant at the 2 per cent level. The

mean differences between the fourth and second, and between the fourth

and first quartiles were found to be significant at the 5 and I per cent

levels, respectively.

The high net acceptance or socioznetric status of the subjects

rated in the fourth quar tile in level of leadership performance can further

be seen by looking at the percentage of the mutual choices, the mutual *

rejections, and the rejections. Of the total of eighty-eight mutual

96

TABLE XXIX

COMPARISON OF t RATIOS BETWEEN THE FOURTH AND THE THIHD, SECOND, AMD FIRST QUAJRTXLES

Quartiles t : Fourth Quartile •mm

JLevel of Significance

Third 3.061 .02

Second 2.4S4 . 05

First 3.613 .01

choices gives, the subjects in the fourth quartile had thirty-one or 35.2

per cent of all mutual choices given. This compares to the seventeen

mutual choices given by the subjects in the first quartile, or 14.7 per

cent of the total mutual* given. Only three mutual rejections were

given by the nine subjects in the upper quartile, which wa* only 13.4

per cent of the total of mutual rejections. On the other hand, the nine

subjects of the lower cjtmrtile gave sine mutual rejections, or 39.1 per

cent of the total mutual rejections given. Again, of the total of 106

rejections given, the fourth quartile received only twelve of these re*

jections, with subjects Donnie and lx>nnie receiving nine of these. The

remaining rejections were fairly evenly divided with the third quartile

receiving thirty, the second quartile thirty-three, and the first qaartile

thirty-one rejections.

f t

While the fourth quartile was found to have a significantly greater

net acceptance score or sociometric statu* over fee other quarti le s» the

data in Table XXX show that no such significance was found. The mean

differences between the third quartile and the second and f i r s t quart i les

were found to be s© small that so significance was found when the test

of significance was applied. The difference between the second and f i r s t

quar t i les , while l a rger and having a higher t ratio, was still not suf-

ficiently high to be found significant.

TABLE XXX

t RATIOS OF THIRD AND SECOND QUARTILES, THIRD AND "FIRST Q U A R T I L S S , AND SECOND AND FIRST QUAR TILES

Quartiles £ Ratios Level of Significance

Third and second .800 Not significant

Third and first .366 Not significant

Second and f i r s t 1.206 Not significant

P o s s i b l e E m o t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s of L e a d e r s and N o n - L e a d e r #

In the psychology of group interrelat ions, further study i s needed

in the description ol possible emotional relations between group members

and those designated in leadership roles. Gibb (Z) thinks that at the

n

pretes t time we can safely talk about two kinds of relations between the

members of the group and the persons in leadership roles. The emotions

©£ love and fear, ia a psychoanalytic sense, or some form of liking, seem

to play the most important roles in fee le ader -follower relation. These

two emotions help to define the nature of the relation in several recog-

nisable forms. A high degree of love and fear might indicate a relation

known as patriarchy or paternalism. On the other hand* a high degree

of fear and little love could be recognized as a relation of tyranny. The

central person might also be characterized by little emotion and might

stand in the position of-organiser. Finally, however, the relation that

incorporates a high positive relation and little fear of negative may be

called leadership In its limited or intrinsic sense.

The sociometric states of 'those subjects rafcgd ia the highest cjuar-

tile of leadership performance suggests something as to the nature of the

relation. For one thing, the above data have shown that the sociometric

; status of the upper or fourth quartile was significantly higher than the

other three quartiles, at varying levels of acceptance. This seems to

lend support to the fact that, in this study, the nature of the relation of

the members to the leaders was- ©f a positive nature.

ft wa» the positive choices «ad positive mutual choices that gave

those subjects in the upper quartile of leadership performance, superi-

ority in sociometric status. As further evidence that the nature of the

99

relation was of a positive kind was the comparatively few negative choices *

received, only 11, 3 per cent of the total rejection* given. Therefore,

considered as a group* in this study, by f a r the moat important re la-

tion between the leaders and followers was based upon positive choices

given In eight leadership situations which strongly showed that there was

some form of liking or "love" between the leaders and the followers..

Am with tike other two factors of socioempathy and self-group identity,

the factor of socioroetric status was found to be significantly higher with

those subjects rated in the f i r s t quartile of leadership performance than

was found with the subjects of the fourth quartile, ra ted lowest in level

of leadership performance. Howell (3) in a study of the relation of so*

ciometry to leadership, found that a group of known leaders had a mean

statu# score of f ?, 92, as compared with a mesm. score (status) of the I

random group of 28.89. The difference between these means was found

to be seven t imes the standard e r r o r of the difference. He concluded

that not only the validity of his social status scale was established, but

also that the relationship of^this scale to leadership was shown, in this

instance, in his study.

While, as a group, the subjects in the upper quartile of leadership

performance had a marked advantage in sociometric s tatus over the sub*

jects in the first quarti le, there were individual exceptions. In fact, six

of the subjects in the f i r s t quartile had a net acceptance score as. good as

or better than the lowest net acceptance score in the upper quartile.

190

Also, three of the subjects in the first qusrtile had a net acceptance

score as good as ox better than the second lowest score of the upper

quartile. In soeiometric status, a# well as la socioempathy and self-

group identity factors, there were individual exceptions, taut on the

whole there was & group quartile superiority of the fourth quartile over

the first quartiUe.

*

B i b l i o g r a p h y

1. Chowdhry, Kamla. aad others, "The Relative JMtttle# of Leaders and Non-Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Own Owmps, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XJLVU (1952), 51-57.

2. Gibb, C. A. , "leadership,*' Handbook of Social Psychology, JLiad-sey, ed . , Addison-Wesley Pul^shing Company, 1954, pp. 877-920.

3. Howell, C. E. , "Measurement of Leadership," Socioroetry, V (1942), 163-168.

C H A P T E R ¥ 1

S U M M A R Y AMD C ONC JLUSIONS

S u m m a r y

The intercorrelations (rho) between the factor of socioempathy,

both own and others* estimations of rank, and the level of leadership

performance were found to he positive and moderately high. In factor

"a*" estimation of own rank* the correlation with the level of leadership /

performance waa found to be • 455. With factor "b» estimation of

others1 rank* the correlation with the level of leadership performance

waa found to relate with factor "a, " at . 464. A slightly higher correla-

tion was found to exist between the fac tor of sociometric statu# and the

level of leadership performance* The correlation of . 531 indicated

a positive and moderately high relation between sociometric status and

the level of leadership performance. Finally* the factor of self-group

identity had the highest correlation of the three factors. The correla-

tion of . 647 between the factor of self-group identity and the level of

leadership performance again indicated a positive and moderately s ig-

nificant relationship between tfcem.

In the socioempathic factor of the efficiency of being able to esti-

mate own acceptance of ranking in leadership performance* the subjects

101

102

of the fourth quartiie showed & significant difference. The ratio of

4. 272 showed, that the significance of difference of the first quartiie

subjects for estimation of own acceptance o r rank* to be significant at

the i per cent level. The socioempaihic factor of the efficiency of being

able to estimate others' acceptance or rank in leadership performance

indicated that the subjects of the tipper o r fourth quartiie showed a sig-

nificant difference at the 5 per cent level over the subjects of the f irst

quartiie.

With the factor of self-group identity, the subjects of fh& first

quartiie showed a distinct advantage over the subjects of the fourth

quartiie in the closeness of their self-evaluation with the mean rating

that the group gave them. A £ ratio of 4. 218 showed that the difference

can be accepted at the 1 per cent level of significance.

The subjects of the fourth quartiie of level of leadership perform-

ance were generally accepted better, as measured by the sociometric

tests, than were those subjects in the lower or first quartiie. The dif-

ference of the mean net acceptance score of the fourth quartiie and the

first quartiie was found to be significant at the 1 per cent level.

The subjects of the fourth quartiie also showed significant differ-

ences (at different levels of acceptance) over the second and third

quartitles, as follows:

103

1. Seeioeaap&thy ( o w n rank).-—A difference significant

at the i per cent level ovex* the subject# of the second quar-

tile.

2. Socio empathy ( o t h e t » ' rank) . —A difference •igaiii-

cant at the S per cent level over the subjects of tbe itcmd

quartile.

3. S e l f - g r o u p I d e n t i t y . —A difference significant at the 1

per cent level over the subjects of the second quartile and a

difference significant at Use 2 per cent level over the sub*

jects of tile third quartile.

4» S o c l o m e t r i c s t a tus ( n e t accept&nce). «-»Adiffer-

ence significant a* the 5 per cent level over the a objects of

the third quartile and a difference significant at the 2 per

cent level aver the subjects of the third quartile*

C o n e l u s i o n s

From the analysis and Interpretation of the data, gathered in this

study, the following conclusions are drawn:

1, That there exists a positive relationship between the level of

performance of leadership roles and the factors of socioempathy, socio-

metric status, and self-group identity.

Z. That the subjects of the upper or fourth quartile show a signifi-

cantly greater ability to perceive own and others* ra*ik, are more often

104

chosen, ©a both play and work c r i t e r i a of sociometric testis,, Had more

often ra te themselves as the group ra tes them.

3. That the ability to function or effectively adjust to the group

seems to be related, in par t , to the ability of the individual to perceive

his own or o thers ' acceptance within the group. • Therefore , since Hxe

perception of the subjects in the fourth quartile of level of leadership

performance was found to be significantly grea te r than that ©f the sub-

jects of the f i r s t quartile, the chances of their adequate adjustment

with the group should be better and were definitely shown to be better

in the study.

4. Sociometric status i s important to a leadership concept, not

only in the demonstration of i ts correlat ion with leadership performance

in this study, but also in that it s t r e s se s the interrelationship by the na-

ture of i t s choices and rejections which are given within the group.

5. That self-group identity seems to be dependent, in a large

part , upon the interaction of the individual with his group. The indi-

vidual's evaluation or rating of self in t e r m s of how fee group ra ted

or evaluated him must depend partly upon Ms awareness of acceptance

by and adjustment to the group, part ly upon understanding and appre-

ciation of self , and partly upon the quality of interrelationship of both.

6. The fact that leadership seems dependent upon the in te r re la -

tionships of personality and behavioral variables (as shown by the

105

relation of the three variable* in this study-), rather than upon Individ*

wA traits* suggests that leadership training i s most effective when chil-

dren experience the ©Mils mid values in a variety of real situations.

7. Finally* the data of this study tend to support an interactional

theory of leadership.

P r o b l e m s f o r F u r t h e r Sj&fcdy

The following are some suggestions erf studies and/or problems for

further ata^y:

1. Further b v i ^ g a t k m into the nature of aocioempa&hy.

2. Further studies to establish the exact nature of the interrela-

tionship between socioempathy and sociometric s ta tus .

3. A study of the importance of se l f -group identity or membership

charac te r to leadership.

4. A study of the factors of socioempathy and self-group identity

in relat ion to group and individual adjustment and maladjustment.

5. A study of the effectiveness of leadership training through

small camp groups vs . formal learning of leadership techniques.

6. A study of fee implications of the decentralized camping, trends

for school camps.

?. A study of the usefulness of socioempathy and self-group iden-

tity f ac tors for the use by c lassroom teachers .

106

S. Further studies of soeioempathy and self-group l d e n % in r e -

lation to individual factors ©I personality.

9. A study of sociometric s ta r s m d isolates in relation to socio-

empathy and self-group identity.

10. Studies into the function of soeioempathy and self-group iden-

tity within the framework of group dynamics.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

B o o k s

Allport, F. H. , Social Psychology, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1924.

Barnard, C. L , Organization and Management, Cambridge, Mas®*, Harvard University Pre* a, 1948.

Brown* J . F . , Psychology and the Social Order, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, If 16.

Cartwright, Porwln, and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics, White Plain*, N< Y.» Row, Peterson and Company, 1953.

Goulder, A. W., (ed.) , S a d i e s in .Leadership, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1950. w w ™ w w

*

Guilford, J. P . , Fundamental Statistics to Psychology wad Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950.

Guilford, J. P . , Psychometric Methods, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19361

Hairaan, F. S . , l eadership and Democratic Action, Boston* Houghton MUHin Company, t95fc.

Harris, Henry, The Group Approach to Leadership Testing, London, Eoutledge ano Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1949.

Hollingworth, Leta S . , Children Above 180 L Q . , New York, World Book Company, 1942.

Jennings, Helen H. , Isea&ership and Isolation: A Study of Personality in Inter"Pergonal Relations ( s e c o n d e d ! ) , N e w YmhTLongmans, Green and Company, 1950.

McNemar, Quian, Psychological Statistics, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1949. '

107

108

Moreno, J , L . , Who Sh«U Survive ? (revised ed» )# Mew York, Beacon House, 1953.

Northway, Mary JL., A P r i m e r of Soclometry, Toronto, University of Toronto P r e s s , *1953.

Par t r idge , E. Be Alton* .Leadership Among Adolescent Boys, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934.

Pigors , Paid# Leadership or Domination, Boston, Houghton. Mifflin Com-pany, 1935. "" ^

Shane, H. G . , and 35. T. McSwain, Evaluation and the Elementary Cur -riculum, New York, Henry Holt and Compsny, 1951. ' ' '

Snygg, Donald, sad Arthur W. Combs, Individual Behavior, New York, Harper and Brothers , 1949. '"***

Wheeler, R. H . , sad F . T. Perk ins , Pr inciples o£ Mental Development, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1*932.

Witkins, H. A . , and others , Personal i ty Through Perception, New York, Harper and BrcAhers, 191

Wolff, W. , The Expression of Personali ty: Experimental Depth Psy-chology, New York*1" Harper ' and Brothers , 1943.

A r t i c l e s

Allen, P . J . , "The ^Leadership P a t t e r n , " American Sociological Review, XVtt (1952), 93-96.

Arseaian, Seth, "Own Est imates and Objective Measurements, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIII (1942), 291-302.

Ausubel, D. P . , "Reciprocity and Assumed Reciprocity of Acceptance Among Adolescents, A Sociometric Study, " Sociomeiry, XVI (1953), 339-347.

Ausubel, D. P . , H. M. Schiff, and £ . B. Gasse r , "A Pre l iminary Study of Developmental Treads in Socioempathy: Accuracy of Pe rcep -tion of Own and Others* Sociometric Status, " Child Development, XXH1 (1952), 111-128. —

lot

Baior, D. E . , "A Review of Lcsdership »Studies with Particular Refer-ence to Military Problem*, " Psychology Bulletin, XJL1V (1947), 466-467.

Baron, Denis, "Personal-Social Characteristics n d Classroom Social Status: A Sociometric Study of Fifth and Sixth Grade Girls, " Sociometry, XIV (1951), 32-42.

Bell, G. B . , and R. L. French, ''Consistency of Individual Leadership Position in Small Groups of Varying Membership, M Journal of Ab-normal and Social Psychology, XLV (1950), 764-767. """"

Bender, I. E . , and A, H. Hastorf, "The Perception of Persona on Three Personality Scales, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol XLV (1950), 556-561. ! ' 1 " ~ ™

Benne, K. B.» "Leaders Are Made, Mo* Bom, " Childhood Education, XXIV (1948), 203-208.

Bock, R. Darrell, "A Synthesis of Time Sampling and Sociometric Testing, " Sociometry, XV (1952), 263-271.

Borgatta, E. F . , "Analysis cf Social Interaction and Sc. 'ometric Percep-tion, " Sociometry, XVH (1955), 7-32.

Borgatta, E. F . , and R. F . Bales , "Interact ion of Individuals in Recon-sti tuted Groups, " Sociometry, XVI (1954), 302-320.

Bonney, M. E . , "A Study of Some Factors Related to Sociometric Status, M

Soctcmetry. XVI (1953), 287-301.

Bonney, M, E . , "Personality Traits of Socially Successful and Socially • Unsuccessful Children, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIV (1943), 449-472-. _ ~ _ _

Bonney, M, E . , "The Constancy of Sociometric Scores and Their Rela-tionship to Teacher Judgments of Social Success and to Persona l i ty Sel f -rat ings ," Soclometry, VI (1943), 409-424.

Bonney, M. E . , and J. Powell, "Differences in Social Behavior Between Sociometrically High and Sociometric ally Low Children, " Journal of Educational Research, XLVI (1953), 481-495.

110

Brtmer* J . S . , and Re&ato Tagiuri, "The Perception of People, , !

Liadeey (ed.), Handbook of Social. Psychology, Vol. U» pp. 634-654, Addisen-Wenley rHib&chiiig Company, 1954.

Byrd, Sugene, "A Study of Validity and Constancy of Choices in ft Socio-metr ic Test, " Sociometry, XIV (1951), 175*181.

Car ter , J . F.« "Leadership and Smell Croup Behavior ," M. She r if end M. O. Wilson (edo.), Group Relations at the Crossroads, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1953, pp. 257-284. "

Car te r , L. F . , W. Haythorn, and M. Howell, "A Fur ther Investigation of the Cri ter ia of l eadersh ip , " Journal of Abnormal and Social

" Psychology, XLIV (1950), 350-358.

Car te r , L. F . , W. Haythorn, £ . Shriver, and J . Lansetta, "The Be-havior of Leaders and Other Group Members , " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), 589-595. " ~

Car ter , L. F . , and Mary Mason, "Ability, Perceptual, Personality, and Interest Factors Associated with Different Cr i te r ia of Leadership, " Journal of Psychology, XXVH (1949), 377-388.

Cattell, E. B . , "New Concepts for Measuring Leadership in Terms of Group Syntality," Human Relations, IV (1951), 161-184.

Cattell, R. B . , and G. F . Stice, "Four Formulae for Selecting Leaders on the Basis of Personality, " Human Relations, VG (1954), 494-507.

Chowdhry, Kamla, and T. M. Newcomb, "The Relative Abilities of Lem&tra and Non- Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Own Groups ," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVH (1952), 51-57. "" ' — - •

Christner, Charlotte A. , and J. K. Hemphill, "Leader Behavior of B-29 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members* Attitude Toward the Crew," Sociometry, XVIII (1955), 82-87.

Cobb, Katherine, "Measuring Leadership in College Women by F r e e As-sociation, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVII (1952), 126-128.

Coffin, Thomas E., "A Three-Component Theory of Leadership, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXIX (1944), 63-83.

I l l

Deutsch, M., A. Pepitone, and A. F. Zander, "Leadership la the Small Group, " Journal of Sociological Issues, IV(2) (1948), 31-40.

Dymond, R. F . , "A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation of Insight and Einp«Uiy> u Journal of Consulting Psychology, XB (1948), 228* 233. ~ ~

Dymond, R. F . , "A Scale for the Measurement of Empathlc Ability,M

Journal of Consulting Paychology, Xin (1949)# 127*133. * ' *

Dymond, H. F . , "Personality and Empathy, " Journal of Consulting Psy-chology, XIV (1950), 343-350.

Fauquier, W., and J. Gilchriat, "Some Aspects of Leadership in an In-stitution, ° Child Development, XHI (1942), 55-64.

Gage, N. L , , "An Explicit Forecasting of Strangers ' Interests f rom Ex-pressive Behavior, " American Psychologist, VI (1951), 310.

Gage, N. JL., and R. V. Exline, "Social Perception and Effectiveness in Discussion Groups, " Human Relations, VI (1953), 381-396.

Gage, N. L . , and G. Suci, "Social Perception and Teacher-Pupil Rela-tionahips, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVII (1951), 144-153. ' ""

Gates, Georgian S . , "An Experimental Study of the Growth of Social P e r -ception, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XIV (1923), 449-462.

Gibb, C. A. , "Leadership, " Handbook of Social Psychology, Lindssey (ed.), p. 889, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954.

Gibb, C. A. , "The Principles and Traits of Leadership," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLil (1947), 267-284.

Gibb, C. A., "The Sociometry of Leadership la Temporary Groups, M

Sociometry, XU1 (1950), 226-243.

Goode, C. E . , "Significant Research on Leadership, " Personnel, XXVII (1951), 342-350.

Green, G. H. , "Insight and Group Adjustment, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XL1XI (1948), 49-61.

112

Gronlund, N. E. , "The Accuracy of Teachers* Judgments Concerning toe Sociometr lc Status o l Sixth Grade Pupi ls : F a r t I, " Sociometry, x m (1950), 197-225.

Guilford, J . P . , HAu. Experiment in Learning to Read Fac ia l E x p r e s s i o n s , " Journal of Abnormal and- Social Psychology, XXIV (1929)# 191*202.

Hei<i*r, F . , and Marianne Simmel, "An Exper imental Study of Apparent Behavior, " American. Journal of Psychology, LV1X (1944), 243-259.

Hemphill, J . K . , "Relations Between the Si*e of the Group and the Be-havior of 'Superior* Leader s , M Journal of Social Psychology, XXXH (1950), 11-22. ~

Howell, C. £ . , "Measurement of Leadership , " Sociometry, V (1942), 163-168.

Hunter, £ . C . , and A. M. Jordan, "An Analysis of Qualit ies Associated with Leadersh ip Among College Students, " Journal of Educational

r, XXX (1939), 497-509. ~

Huntley, C. W. , "Judgments of Self Based upon Records of Express ive Behavior, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXV (1940), 398-427.

Jennings, Helen H . , "Leadersh ip and Sociometr ic Cho i ce , " Sociometry, X (1947), 32-49.

Jennings, Helen H . , "Structure of Leadership-Development and Sphere of Influence, M Sociometry, I (1937), 99-143.

Kahn, R. L . , and D, Katz, "Leadersh ip P r a c t i c e s in Relation to Produc-tivity and Morale, " D. Car twright and A. F . Sander (ed®.), Group Dynamics: Resea rch and Theory, Evaaston* 111., Row, P e t e r s o n '

j and Company, 1953, pp. 612-628.

Kellogg, W. N . , and B. M. £«gles<», "The Growth of Social Percep t ion in Different Racial G r o u p s , " Journal of Educational Psychology, x x n (1931). 367-375. :

Knickerbocker, I . , "Leadersh ip : A Conception and Some Implications, M

Journal of Social I ssues , IV (1948), 23-40. ~

113

Lewis, K», "A Kesearch Approach to Leadership, " Journal o£ Educational Psychology, XVII (1944), 393-398. ^

Maa« t H. S. * "Personal and Group Fac to r s l a Leader*' Social P e r c e p -tion, " Journal of -Abnormal and Social Psychology, XI.V (1950),

Mclntyre, Charles J . , "Acceptance of Others and Its Halation to Accept-ance of Self and Others , " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol* ogy, XL VII (1952), 624-625.

Medalia, N. Z., "Unit S im and Leadership Perception, " Sociometry, XYH (1955), $4-61.

Merei, F.» "Group Leadership aad Institutionalization," Hmmaii Relations, H (1949), 23-39.

Mill, C. R. , "Personal i ty Pa t te rn of Sociometrically Selected and Socio* metr ical ly Rejected Male College Students, " Sociometry, XVI (1953)t 151-167.

Morr is , E. H. * "Measuring Leadership, " Personnel Journal , IX (1930), 124-127. —

Newcornfo, 7 . , "An Experiment Designed to Test the Validity of a Eating Technique, " Journal of Sducatio&al Psychology, XXII (1931), 279-289.

Horman, R. D. , "The Interrelationships Among Acceptance-Rejection, Self-Other Identity, Insight Into Self, and Realist ic Perception of Others, " Journal of Social Psychology, XXXVH (1953), 205-235.

Nortjhway, Mary L.» "Outsiders, " Sociometry, ¥11 (1944), 10-25.

Morthway, Mary L . , and Blossom T. Wigdor, "Rorscttach Pa t te rns Be-lated to the Sociometric Status of School Children, " Sociometry, X (1947), 186-199.

Par ten , Mildred B . , "Leadership Among Preschool Children, " Journal of Abnormal aad Social Psychology, XXVII (1933), 430-440.

Pepinsky, Pauline N. , "The Meaning of * Validity' and 'Reliability* a s Applied to Sociometric Tests* " Educational and Psychological Measurement, IX (1949), 39-49. "

114

Pepitoae, A, , "Motivational Effects to Social Perception," Human Rela-tione, 111 (1950), 57-76.

Phillips, E. L.,^ "Attitudes Toward Self and Others: A Brief Question-naire Report* " Journal of Consulting Psychology, XV (1951), 79-81.

Preston, M. C . , aad Heintst, R. K., "Effects of Participatory Versus Supervisory Leadership on Croup Judgment, " Journal of Abnormal aad Social Psychology, XUV (1949), 345*355. I',,,":"nuj,"1"r"1'

Redl, Fr i t s , "Group Emotion and Leadership, " Psychft atry, V (1942), 573.596.

Richardson, Helen M., and N. G. Hanawalt, "Leadership as Related to the Bernreuter Personality Measures: HI, Leadership Among Adult Men in Vocational and Social Activities, " Journal of Applied

XXVHI (1944), 308-317. ~

Roff, M., "A Study of Combat Leadership in the Air Force by Means of a Rating Scale: Group Differences, " Journal of Psychology, XXX (1950), 229-239.

Russell, Pavid, "What Does Research Say about Self-Evaluation ?" Journal of Educational Research, XLVI (1952), 561-571.

->*» iiriiwtiifwiifiiwijiiwfrjituwTOTii)»i:Tmn1 uninjimimuinn iwiwm. wmiwiiiiiwwi iw'miniiiliiwii'.w»<i*Mwi>jti»rti •

Scandrette, O. C . , ' 'Classroom Choice Status Related to Scores on Com-ponents of the California Tests of Personality,11 Journal of Educa~ tional Research, XLVH (1953), 291-296. ~

Seeman, M., "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership, " American Sociological Review, XVHI (1953), 373-380.

Shartle, C. L . , "Leadership and Executive Performance," Personnel, XXV (1949), 370-380.

Sheerer, Elizabeth T . , "Analysis of the Relationship between Acceptance of and Respect for Self and Acceptance of and Respect for Others in Ten Counseling Cases , " Journal of Con suiting Psychology* Xin , ^ „ .MMWIWPMMM' mrnm ***rnm^mmmtmrnmimmSKm

(1949), 169-175.

Singer, E . , "An Investigation of Some Aspects of Empathic Behavior,M

American Psychologist, VI (1951), 309-310.

u s

Stock, D. # "An Investigation into the Interrelations between the Self Con-cept and Feelings Directed Toward Other Persons and Groups, " Journal erf Consulting Psychology, H B (1949)* 176-181.

StogdiU, Ralph M. , "Leadership, Membership, and Organisation, " Psychological Bulletin, XLVII (1950), 1.14.

Stogdill, Ralph M., "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology, XXV (1948), 35-71. . . . . . .

Tagiuri, Reoato, "Relational Analysis," Sociomefcry, XV (1952), 91-104. i

Tagiuri, Renato, and R. R. Blake and J. S. Eraser, "Some Deter* roinaats of the Perception of Positive and Negative Feelings la Others," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVXH • (1953), s a i ^ I T *

Terman, L. M., "A Preliminary Study in the Psychology and Pedagogy of Leadership, " The Pedagogical Seminary, U (1904), 413*451.

Thorndike, E. L . , "A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings, n Journal •of Applied Psychology, IV (1920), 25*29.

White, R. K., and R. lippltt, "Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three 'Social Climates, m D. Carfcwright and A. F. Zander (eds.) , Group Dy&aaalcss Research and Theory, Evsnston, II],., Row, Peterson and Company,' 1953, pp. 585-611.

Whyte, W. F. • "Informal Leaderohip and Group Structure, " A. W. Gouldner (ed, }» Studies in Leadership, Mew York, Harper and Brothers, 1950, p. 736. ~

White, W. F.» 11 Leader-Follower Relations in Street-Corner Society, " - <{i. E. Swanson, T. M. Nevrcomb, and E. L. Hartley (eds.) , Read*

izigs in Social Psychology (revised ed.), • Hew York, Henry Holt "anil >iinin»m.iwilffitiwiiiifti iuwww -iwiyiiiwrtwws 3KJ..»

Company, 1952, pp. 355.359.

Wolff, W., "The Experimental Study of Forms of Expression," Character and Personality, H (1933), 168-176.

Wolff, W., "Involuntary Self- Exprmsdan in Gait and Other Movements: An Experimental Study, " Character and Personality, IV (1935), 327-344.

1U

Zeleny, L. D., "Characteristics of Croup Leaders, " Sociological and Social Research, XXIV (1939), 140-149.

Zeleny, L. D. , "Objective Selection of Group Leader*, " Sociological and Social Research, XXIV (1939), 326-336.

Zeleny, JL, D. * "Social Leadership," Sociological and Social Research, XXXIII (1948), 431-436.

M o n o g r a p h s

Boaney, M» £ . , "Popular and Unpopular Children; A Sociometric Study, " Sociometry Monographs, No. 9, New York, Beacon House, 1947.

Cattell, ft. B . , aad G. F. Stice, The Psychodynamicg of Small Grot Urbana, Laboratory- of Personality Assessment and Group Be* havior, University of Illinois, 1953.

Hemphill, J. K., "Situational Factors in Leadership,11 Ohio State Uni-versity g&ucatjonal Research Monographs, No.

Kanner, L . , ' "Judging Emotions from Facial Expressions, " Psychological Monographs, XL! (1931), No. 3.

Newman, Frances B. * The Adolescent in Social Groups, Applied Psycho-logical Monographs, MoT'9»' IKrf©rd'' 'tlafv«rsity P ress .

Northway, Mary L . , "Appraisal of the Social Development of Children at a Summer Camp, n University of Toronto Studies, University of Toronto Press* 1940.

U n p u b l i s h e d M a t e r i a l s

Mathews, T. W., "The Relation of Sociometric Perception to Some Other Sociometric Variables, '* unpublished mas te r ' s thesis, School of Education, North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, 1955.