Social acceptance and social rejection as related to case history materials and a personality inventory

Citation preview

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND SOCIAL REJECTION AS RELATED TO CASE HISTORY MATERIALS AND A PERSONALITY INVENTORY

A

Thesis

Presented

to

the Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Education

by David Bilovsky

UMI Number: EP56120

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI EP56120 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

Rd

's~0

Bf'ff

T h i s thesis, w r i t t e n u n d e r th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e C h a i r m a n o f th e c a n d id a te 's G u i d a n c e C o m m i t t e e a n d a p p r o v e d b y a l l m e m b e r s o f th e C o m m i t t e e , has been p r e s e n t e d to a n d a c c e p t e d b y th e F a c u l t y o f th e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n o f th e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e r e q u ir e m e n t s f o r th e d e g re e o f M a s t e r o f S c ie n c e in E d u c a t i o n .

Dean Guidance Committee

Chairman

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM

.. . .

...........

1

The p r o b l e m ................................

3

Statement of the problem

II. III.

IV.

........

3

Importance of the problem ...............

3

Description of tools used .................

4

Sociometric test.........................

4

Personality t e s t ............

5

RELATED STUDIES ..............................

9

THE SOCIOMETRIC P R O C E S S .....................

19

The Sociometric t e s t .....................

21

The sample................................

21

V a l i d i t y ................................

22

R e l i a b i l i t y ..............................

23

Test i n s t r u c t i o n s

V

24

Tabulation of results.. ....................

26

Social Status Score.. ....................

26

Social Ratio S c o r e .................

26

. .

Individual scores .........................

27

STUDY OF INDIVIDUAL C A S E S ...................

-31

J o h n ......................................

32

K a y .........................

34

.iii CHAPTER

PAGE R a l p h ....................................

37

H a r o l d ............ '.....................

39

J e r r y ....................................

42

Highest Social Status Scores

V.

.............

44

A r n o l d ..................................

45

V a n ......................................

47

Ell

..................................

47

E r n e s t ..................................

50

Mort

. .....................

52

Camp b e h a v i o r ..............................

54

.....

PERSONALITY TEST, COUNSELORS RATING AND SOCIO­ METRIC STATUS

VI.

VII.

.....

..............’ ............

56

Personality t e s t .........................

56

Counselors ratings

.......................

60

CABIN S C O R E S ................................

64

Cabin d y n a m i c s ............................

64

Cabin s o c i o g r a m s .........................

67

Cabin q u a n t i f i c a t i o n .....................

69

SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .....................

78

*Summary

78

....................................

C o n c l u s i o n s ................................ BIBLIOGRAPHY

79 8l

......................................

86

A P P E N D I X ........................................... '

\

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE

PAGE

1.

Social Data; J o h n ..............................

33

2.

Social Data; Kay

35

3-

Social Data; R a l p h ...............

38

4.

Social Data; Harold ............................

4l

5.

Social Data; Jerry

............................

43

6.

Social Data; Arnold ............................

46

7-

Social Data; V a n ..............................

48

8.

Social

Data; E l i ..............................

49

9.

Social

Data; Ernest ............................

51

Social Data; M o r t ..............................

53

10.

............................

11.

Sociogram of Intracabin Relationship:' Cabin A .

70

12.

Sociogram of Intracabin Relationship:

Cabin B .

71

13-

Sociogram of Intracabin Relationship:

Cabin C .

72

14.

Sociogram of Intracabin Relationship:

Cabin D .

73

15-

Sociogram of Intracabin Relationship:

Cabin E .

7^

LIST OF TABLES TABLE I.

PAGE Total Acceptances and Rejections of the Campers with Their Social Status Scores. . .

II.

Ratio or Degree of Acceptance and Rejec­ tion of Each Camper by His Associates . . .

III.

28

29

Rho Between Social Status Rank and Rankings on Parts I, II, and Total Adjustment of the California Test of P e r s o n a l i t y ........

IV.

58

Behavior Ratings of Campers By the Cabin C o u n s e l o r s ..................................

62

V.

Acceptance of Individuals by Cabins ...........

65

VI.

Rejections of Individuals by Cabins ...........

66

Location of C h o i c e s .............

68

VII. VIII.

Number and Percentage

of Choices and Re­

jections Received by Each C a b i n .............

76

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM It is out of conflict, situations that the per­ sonality develops . 1

As the individual grows older

more demands and requirements are imposed upon him. Social requirements increase.

He moves out of the fam­

ily,, away from the protection of his mother,, into the organization of his home and neighborhood. adjust to his school situation.

He must

And he must attempt

to achieve an independence, and autonomy, without sac­ rificing conformity to laws and customs. When these choices and conflicts become too grave or insurmountable for the individual then attempts;to evade them may be made.

He may be either aggressive

towards the frustrating factor, or he may, on the other p hand, withdraw from the frustrating reality. The specificity of behavior to the social order wherein one finds himself is attested to by the finding

^ Junius P. Brown, The Psychodynamics of Abnormal Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1 9 *10 )"," pp 1 6 1 -1 6 2 . 2 E. K. Wickman, Children1s Behavior and Teachers * Attitudes (New York: The Commonwealth Fund Division of Publications, 1 9 2 9 ):, p 1 3 6 .

of the cultural anthropologist.

o

Benedict -3 and Mead

describe -cultures in terms of behavior.

2l

The cultural

choices of these societies are said to be internally consistant with the total pattern.

Cottrell and Gal-

lagher5 posit the premise that these cultural choices of a society in response to its social configuration are analagous to the individual behavioral choices made in response to its individual configurational pattern. Anthropological studies tend to show the cul­ tural roots of neurosis among the societies studied. If it can be said that social behavioral choices occur and are consistent with a total pattern or "related sets of attitudes"^ then it might be'said that "the dis­ turbances of personality find their origin in unwhole­ some human relationships.

3 Ruth Benedict * Patterns of Culture Houghton Mifflin Company^ 193^) •

(New York:

^ Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead* Balinese Character, A Photographic Analysis (New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1942). 5 Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., and Ruth Gallagher, Developments in Social Psychology, 1930-3-9^0 (Sociometry Monograph No. 1 New York City: Beacon House, Inc., 1941). 6 I b i d ., p. 7

13.

Percival Symonds, The Psychology of Parent-ChiId Relationships (New York: Appleton Century, 1939)> P * 75*

3

I.

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem.

With the aid of an at­

titude inventory, observational reports, case histories, and social status ratings (as determined.by the sociometric test) this study will attempt to determine: How a degree of acceptance or rejection as measured by the sociometric test relates to adjustment as determined by: a.

California Test of Personality

b.

Case histories

c.

Counselors reports

Importance of the problem.

Behavior is social.

It

is impossible to consider a child's behavior apart from the attitudes that are taken towards his conduct.

And, in

a reciprocating manner, the individual's attitudes and feelings toward school and home, toward teacher, mother, o brother, and friends must be investigated. A degree of acceptance or rejection is related to that individual's degree of adjustment.

And friendship

Q p Carl R. Rogers, Measuring Personality Adjustment in Children Nine to Thirteen Years of Age (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni­ versity, 1 9 3 1 )•

4

itself is a vector which influences the social and emo­ tional development of the individual involved.

A lack

of friends or a low degree of acceptance by one’s asso­ ciates indicates some inadequacy in the personality de­ velopment of the individual involved.9 Prescott-^ feels that educators must become more aware of personal relationships.

He feels that through

such awareness isolated children could be encouraged to enter into group activities and leaders would be encour­ aged to become aware of their responsibilities. Witmer 11 states categorically that* 11thus the disturbances of personality find their origin in un ­ wholesome human relationships."

It is this hypothesis

which needs to be confirmed or denied.

II.

DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS USED

Sociometric test.

The method used will be the

9 Mary L. Northway, -"Children With Few Friends," The School, 32:382-383* January, 1944. American Council on Education, Emotion and The Education Process, Daniel Alfred Prescott, Chairman, (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1938), pp 133-136. Helen Witmer, "Parental Behavior as an Index to Probable Outcome of Treatment in Child Guidance Clinic." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 3:431-444, Oct., 1933*

5

sociometric method as devised by J. L. Moreno. ^

This

consists of having each member of a group,, choose from all the other members, those with whom he prefers to associate in specific situations.

This test is designed

to measure the social acceptability of a member of a group relative to the social acceptability of other mem­ bers of the same group.

Through this method and with

the plotting of sociograms the isolates, the leaders, the sub-groups, and the reciprocated pairs (or friends) can be seen. In the usual test we are very concerned with the problem of whether orrnot the test measures what it pur­ ports to measure.

However, in the sociometric test we

are eliciting responses of the actual behavior.^3 test is not concerned with the child’s actual friends, but with his statements about them.

In short, we may

say we have operational validity. Personality test.

The California Test of Person­

ality., Elementary Series had been "designed to identify ^ J. L..Moreno, Who Shall Survive? A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations [New York: Beacon House, 1934)7 13 Helen Hall Jennings, Leadership and Isolation, A Study of Personality in Inter-Personal Relations (New York: Longmans, Green and' Company^ 19^3) / P 2 8 .

6

and reveal the status of certain highly important factors in personality and social adjustment."1^ The test is divided into two sections, Self Adjust­ ment and Social Adjustment. tests.

E&ch section has six sub­

Part I or Self Adjustment has the following com­

ponents :^5 A.

Self Reliance. Ability to do things indepen­ dently. Direct own activities. Emotionally stable.

B.

Sense of Personal Worth. Feels he is well re­ garded by others. Feels capable.

C.

Sense of Personal Freedom. Self determination in conduct and behavior. Free to choose own. friends.

D.

Feeling of Belongingness. Enjoys love and affection of those around him.

E.

Withdrawing Tendencies. Substitutes a fantasy world for reality. Sensitive, lonely,, and introspective.

F.

Nervous Symptoms. Exhibition of physical ex­ pressions of emotional tensions.

Part II or social Adjustment has the following components:

Ernest W. Tiegs, Willis W. Clark, and Louis P Thorpe, The California Test of Personality - Manual of Instructions (Los Angeles: California Test Bureau) p.l ^5 Ibid., p.3The brief descriptions of the various components are delineated in the Test Manual.

7

A.

Social Standards others.

Recognizes the rights of

B

Social Skills. Tactful in dealing with associates. Interested in the activities and problems of associates.

C.

Anti-Social Tendencies. Attempts to get satisfactions in manners which is injurious to others.

D.

Family Relations. Feels that he is loved and well treated at home. Parental control that is neither too strict nor too lenient.

E.

F.

School Relations. Feels that the teacher and children like him. School work is commensur­ ate with his ability and interest. Community Relations. Feels happy with his neighbors and his community surroundings.

Perhaps the large sub-divisions of Social and Self adjustments are justified.

But a mal-adjusted per­

son will overlap and cut into many of the other sub­ divisions,*^

thus extreme caution must be exercised in.

regards to the categorizing of behavior traits. Another question arises is whether or not this test is really a measure of adjustment.

Just as person­

ality has a variety of meaning, so has the concept of adjustment.

Raymond B. Cattel, "California Test of Person­ ality," Oscar K. Buros 1 Mental Measurement (Studies in Education Series, New Jersey: Rutgers University, 19^2), p. 1 2 1 3 .

8

By asking pupils to answer questions about themselves one is securing evidence of only one kind of adjustment, namely the pupils own attitudes. Adjustment may also mean the reputa­ tion that a person has with others.^7 In line with this, another critic of the California Test of Personality states that, No evidence whatsoever is given of any correspondence between a pupil’s score and his actual behavior, or other people’s impression of this be havior.° The present investigation will attempt to present the correspondence or divergence of a pu pil ’s score with his actual behavior and the impressions this person makes upon other people.

^ Percival M. Symonds, "California Test of Per­ sonality," Buros » o p . cit., p. .1212 . 18 P. E. Vernon, Ibid., p. 1214.

"California Test of Personality,"

CHAPTER II RELATED STUDIES Much has been written.on the efforts to understand interpersonal relationship through the use of various choice or reaction techniques.

Many of these attempts

predate Moreno’s study of 193^* Bonser2 in 1902 requested school children to write themes regarding their friends.

He tried to structure

these themes by offering a suggestive outline for the writer to follow.

He considered the responses to these

suggestions as spontaneous.

This is in keeping with the

emphasis which Moreno^ and Jennings** later place upon Spontaneity.

In 1922 Almack^ submitted a questionnaire

to a number of school children.

He asked these children

Jacob L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive (New York: The Mental Disease Publishing Company^ 193*0 • 2 Frederick G. Bonser, "Chums; A Study in YouthFriendships,: Pedagogical Seminary, 9:221-236, June, 1902 3 Jacob L. Moreno, Sociometry and the Cultural Order (Sociometry Monograph No, 2. New York City: Beacon House, Inc., 1943)> P P • 309-315* ** Helen H. Jennings, "Sociometry in Action; How We Get Together in Groups." The Survey Midmonthly, 84: 41-44, February, 1948. ^ John C Almack, "The Influence of Intelligence on the Selection of Associates." School and Society, 1 6 :5 2 9 -5 3 0 ^ November, 1922.

10

to designate whom they would choose to Invite to a party. He then selected those reciprocated pairs for correlation 6 7 8 9 10 studies. Jenkins, Wellman,' Seagoe, Koch, Hagman, 11 and Cattell through various means attempted to chart interpersonal relationships. But despite this work the actual sociometric method1P ology as employed in this paper is dated from Moreno. How does sociometric and non-sociometric methodology differ?

Moreno^^ delineates "dividing-lines" as distinctions

6 Gladys G. Jenkins, "Factors Involved in Children's Friendships," Journal of Educati onal Psychology, 22:440448, September, 1931*

7 Beth Wellman, '^The SchoolChild 1s Choice of Com­ panions," Journal of Educational Research, 14:126-132, September, 192b. o May Seagoe, "Factors Influencing the Selection of Associates," Journal of Educational Research, 27:32-40, September, 1933* ^ Helen L. Koch, "Popularity in Pre-School Children: Some Related Factors and a Technique for its Measurement," Child Development, 4:164-175, June, 193318 E . P. Hagman, The Companionship of Pre-School Children, (University of Iowa Studies Child Welfare, Vol. 7^ N o . T, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1933)* 11 Raymond B. Cattell, "Friends and Enemies: A Psych­ ological Study of Character and Temperament, Character and Personality, 3:55-63* September, 1934. 12 Moreno, op. ci t. 13 Jacob :>L. Moreno, Sociometry and the Cultural Order, (Sociometry Monograph No. 2, New York City: Beacon House Inc., 1943). PP. 309-315.

11

between sociometric and non-sociometric technique.

His

"dividing-lines" are: a.

Two way relationships between individuals in­

stead of one way relationship in non-sociometric studies. "The crucial point of our classification is to define an individual in relation to others and in case of groups, always a group in relation to other groups. ,,14 ciometric classification. b.

This is so-

Sociometric methodology arouses the spontaneous

interest of the individual. d.

Sociometric methodology emphasizes the psycho­

social group organization.

"Organization and function of

a group appear to be closely related.nl5 Jennings‘S

offers more specific criteria for deter­

mining whether of not a test is living up to sociometric standards. a.

She lists these as: The situation is real and not hypothetical.

S Jacob L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive? City: Beacon House, Inc., 19^3)^ P- 80. S *1

(New York

Ibid., pp. 97-93.

D Helen H. Jennings,"Sociometry in Action," Survey Midmonthly, 84:41-44,' February, 1948.

12

b.

.The test Is not an end In itself.

Arrangements

and re-arrangements are made on the basis of the test re­ sults . ,c.

There is a "right now” to the choosing

The

choices :are not made, for some vague time in the future-. The various studies., sociometric and non-sociometric attempts to relate friendships to some "physical" or "objective" factor.

B o n s e r ^ determined that Propinquity

was of similarities of socio-economic major importance in youthful friendships.

Almack-^ was able to show the cor­

relations of .496 for chronological age,

-3 1 7 for intel­

ligence quotient, and .5 3 9 for mental ages between pairs of friends.

Jenkins

^9 came out with similar results.

She did determine that there was a larger spread in chrono­ logical age for friends chosen out of school than for those friends confined to the classroom.

She did discover the

similarities of socio-economic grouping with the highest correlation of .7 1 6 .

But, here again, opportunity for

contact was an unmeasured factor. -^-7 Bonser, op. c it. Almack,

o jd

.

cit .

•*•9 Jenkins, op. cit.

13

W e l l m a n ^ utilized a unique device for ascertaining friendship choices. as the criterion.

Frequency of companionship was taken This frequency was determined through

observation for a period of five months.

The purpose of

the investigation was to determine the similarities and dissimilarities of these observable companions. some interesting sex differences.

He found

Girls were more like

each other in scholarship and less alike in height.

On

the other hand, the boys were more alike in height, in­ telligence quotient and chronological age and less alike in scholarship and mental age. Seagoe^l felt that the reason propinquity was of such significance was in the greater opportunity for more numerous contacts among individuals with corresponding traits or corresponding conditions.

She feels that "sim­

ilarity is more important than dissimilarity in the selec­ tion of associates." Koch

pp

asked pre-school children in an individual

interview which child at nursery they liked best.

The

paired companions of reciprocated responses showed a

20

Wellman, op. cit.

21 Seagoe, op. cit. Koch, op. cit.

14

positive correlation with compliance and respect for rights and property. An attempt to relate "friends and enemies" to 23 ratings on personality traits was done by Cattell. ^ His findings showed that similarity favors companionships. It was further found that the number of enemies or friends an individual has is related to the degree of traits pos­ sessed . Reader and English,2** lano and

Freedraan2 ^

Bonney,25

ana Pintner, For-

all attempted to determine the degree

of similarity of certain personality traits among children

23 Cattell, op. ci t. 2^ N. Reader and H. B. English, "Personality Factors in Adolescent Friendships,: Journal of Consulting Psychology, 11:212-220, July, 194725 Merle E. Bonnej^, "Personality Traits of Socially Successful and Socially Unsuccessful Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, 34:449-472, November, 1943. ____________ _ Popular and Unpopular Children, A Sociometric Study. (Sociometry Monograph No. 9; New York City: Beacon House, Inc., 1947)_________________ "A Soclometric Study of the Re­ lationship of Some Factors to Mutual Friendship on the Elementary, Secondary, and College Levels," Sociometry, 9* 21-47; February, 1946. 2^ R. G. Pintner, G. Forlano, and H. Freedman, "Personality and Attitudinal Similarities Among Classroom Friends," Journal of Applied Psychology, 21:48-65; Febru­ ary, 1937-

15

and their school friends.

Evidence by these investigators

reveal low positive correlations.

There was no indication

that stronger relationships exist in proportion to the de­ gree of similarity in personality traits. In regard to age, intelligence, and socio-economic bachground, research by Potashin,2^

E l l i o t , ^ Pintner et

al.,^9 Bonney,30 Jenkins,31 Wellman,32 ancj Almack,33 ail resulted in correlations that were only mildly significant. H o w e l l ^ studied leadership and found that status

Riva Potashin, "A Sociometric Study of Children1s Friendships,” Sociometry, 9^8-7 0, February, 1946. 28 Merle H. Elliot, “Patterns of Friendship in the Classroom,” Journal of the Progressive Education Associa­ tion, 18:383-390* November, 1941. pintner, et al., op. cit . 30 Merle E. Bonney, "A Sociometric Study of the Relationship of Some Factors to Mutual Friendship on the Elementary, Secondary, and College Levels,” Sociometry, 9:21-47* February, 1946. 31 Jenkins, op. ci t. J 32 Wellman, op. c it. 33 Almack,

o jd

.

cit.

3^ Charles E. Howell, “Measurement of Leadership,” Sociometry, 5 * 163-168, May, 1942.

16

and leadership In the classroom situation are not related to the factors of scholarship and intelligence.

Kerk-

s t e t t e r ^ and E l l i o t t ^ used the sociometric technique as therapy.

Through this method these experimenters were

able to break up troublesome sub-groups and strengthen the social position of the isolate. In regard to social participation Chapin37 found that social intelligence* defined as the ability to deal with or get along with people,, when measured by test., is positively related to the number of groups that students participate in.

Neugarten’s ^

study showed that the

social class position of the child was a contributing factor in determining a child’s choice of friends.

35 Leona M. Kerkstetter*

"Re-assignment Therapy in

the Glassroom, " Sociometry* 3* 293-306., July*" 1940. 36 Elliot* op. cit . 37 p # stuart Chapin* "Social Participation and Social Intelligence*" American Sociological Review* 4: 151-166* April* 1939. 38 Bernice Neugarten* "Social Class and Priwndship Among School Children*" American Journal of Sociology* 60:305-313 j January* 19463

17

An interesting -utilization of the sociometric method is the tracing of the origin and growth of racial cleavage among school

c h i l d r e n . 39

Northway^O found different types of unaccepted children. origin."

The unaccepted child is not "singular in Miss Northway described the recessive child,

the socially uninterested'child, and the socially ineffec­ tive child as "children with few friends." The works of Jennings

1)1

analyze the process within

the individual which underlies his reaching out toward some and rejecting others. hp Kuhlen and B r e t s c h ^ determined the sociometric status of about seven hundred adolescents.

Personal prob­

lems of these adolescents were determined by the Mooney Problems Check List.

The general findings were that the

unaccepted children have more problems (as revealed by the check list) than the more accepted.

39 Joan Criswell, "Racial Cleavage in Negro-White Groups," Sociometry 1:81-89* July, 1937* 40 Mary L. Northway, "Children with Pew Friends," The School, 32:332-383* January, 1944. Helen H. Jennings, Leadership and Isolation, A Study of Personality in Inter-Personal Relations. X'New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 19^3) • ^ Raymond G. Kuhlen and Howard S. Bretsch, "Sociometric Status and Personal Problems of Adolescents," Sociometry, 10:122-132, May, 19^7-

18

In regard to the using of case studies in juxta­ position with test results, Rogers^3 is the prototype. He devises his own personality test and then supports his findings with Child Guidance Clinic reports.

Bonney

iili

concerns himself with a comparison of five popular children with five unpopular children on the basis of personality syndromes.

These syndromes are derived from the California

Test of Personality.

Popularity and unpopularity are de­

termined by the sociometric test.

^3 Carl R. Rogers, Measuring Personality Adjust­ ment In Children Nine to Thirteen Years of Age (New York: Bureau of Publications- Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931)^ Merle E. Bonney, Popular and Unpopular Children A Sociometric Study (New York: Sociometry Monograph No.9, Beacon House, Inc., 19^7,).

CHAPTER III THE SOCIOMETRIC PROCESS There are a number of restrictions or limitations set up for the gathering of data on the affinity of in­ dividuals towards each other.

The observation of this

affinity or the choice of one organism to another is observable in the lower species.

However,, the observa­

tion of' this phenomena in man is obscured by the number., p the complexity, and the subtlety of his choices. This choice of one person towards another can best be compared to a vector, it has direction and intens­ ity.

In addition to this, it is probably correct to state

that choice may be neutral.

That is, there is an absencd

of reaction, towards or away from, an individual.

Prac­

tically speaking this is true; theoretically., however, this may not be so.

As long as two people are moving in

propinquity there is probably some reaction (or choice) between the two. to reveal this.

The measuring tool is not refined enough Because of this it will be found that

^ Helen H. Jennings, "Social Life and Interrelation­ ship in Certain Protozoa," Sociometry 8:9-20, February,

19^ 5 -

2

Helen H. Jennings, Leadership and Isolation, A Study of Personality in Inter-Personal Relations. ("New York; Longmans, Green and Company, 19^37"*

20

a number o,f individuals receive no- choices--positive or negative. The intensity of the choices have been measured in other studies by asking ths subjects to designate their choices in order of life and dislike.

The one to whom

they feel most closely attracted is to be placed on top of their "like" list.

The one who is most repelling to

them is placed in number one position on their "dislike11 list.

However, for reasons to be given later, this study

will not attempt to measure the intensity of these choices. Instead, it shall be concerned only with the direction. Are they repelling or attracting? or attracting?

Who are they repelling

And what is the personal and social data

surrounding the individual who is repelled and the indi­ vidual who is attracted? The facility in entering interrelationships with others is a step in the process of the development of the personality.

The individual is at first a self-centered,

dependent Individual.

This very dependence is what tends

to break down his self-centeredness. others.

He is dependent upon

He must relate to them in a positive manner in

order to continue to have his dependent wishes granted. As the individual becomes more and more independent, this relation to others grows. of the social setting.

He is reacting to the forces

21

The individual is contributing, itself, as part of the social system to the regulation process; he shares in the work of the whole. The larger the role the individual assumes the greater the contri­ bution he will m a k e . 3 Because^of this the individual is anxious to par­ ticipate and to contribute more to this social setting in order to be a greater determinant in his own reactions. And as a result of this participation, he has feelings. Even in the world of things, we feel nearer to those things with which we have experience, and are familiar, and we also reject many more of these things. Of all living beings, man is by far the most dependent upon social relationships for his happiness and growth. ^

I. The sample.

THE SOCIOMETRIC TEST The present study was carried out at

the Max Struas Camp for Boys.

The Max Straus Camp was a

closed community comprising over 30 boys between the ages of eight and sixteen.

Inasmuch as the community is closed,

the subjects are limited in the forming of relationships to those at camp.

The community can be considered even

further drawn together as the majority of boys have had

3 Raymond Wheeler, The Science of Psychology York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1 9 2 9 )* P~ 28. ^ Jennings, op. cit., pp. A -5-

(New

22

previous experiences together at this same camp.

Their

opportunity for social contact is increased by the fact that a great number of them come from the same neighbor­ hood and the same school. The boys are part of an active case work "load” of a Los Angeles Social Case Work Agency.

These boys

were originally referred to this agency by the Child Guid­ ance Clinic, Juvenile Courts City Schools, Child Place­ ment Agencies, County Welfare, ------ 4$-- --- >

Acceptance Rejection Mutual Rejection Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

3^

immature. At times he is not completely in touch with reality. At times his behavior is almost dilapidated’. He is drifting along in a world of his own., taking little responsibility for himself and his reactions. "He is forming patterns, reacting emotionally and intellectually,, which can all too quickly move from borderland into full fledged psychosis. The boy continues to make passive retreats to reality. Camp counselor reports that while at camp, boy exhibited a withdrawing pattern of behavior. His movements in the group were gross and random. Boy appeared to be inadequate for any sustained task. He was anxious for approval on his work. He gained no position of responsibility in the lodge. He was unpredictable and inconsistent emotionally. Often dropped out of group situations because of reluctance to accept group discipline. Chooses younger children for friends. Physically boy is greatly underweight. Positive reactor to Tuberculin Test. X-ray reveals lungs, clear. All else negative. In appearance boy is pleasant to look at., neat and no abnormalities. KAY.

Kay was rejected by twelve different indivi

duals; he was chosen by none.

(-Figure 2).

a Social Status Score of minus twelve. ceptance was zero per cent.

(Table II).

by thirty-eight per cent of the campers.

This gave him

His Ratio of Ac­ He was rejected His entire cabin

with the exception of one boy, rejected him.

He was viewed

in a "neutral” manner by sixty-two per cent.

Three of the

boys he chose were "popular" ranking in the top quartile. One was in the second quartile and one was in the third quartile.

He was rejected by four of his choice.

The one

choice in the third quartile regarded him in a neutral manner.

There were no reciprocated choices.

He rejected

35

KAY

FIGURE

2

SOCIAL DATA: KAY — ------- ^ > u, -------- &r ^ >

Acceptance Rejection Mutual Rejection Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

36

two "stars of attraction.”

Both in his cabin.

Psychiatric examination reveals that Kay has known deprivations and physical and emotional hunger in a home which has shown lack of discipline* lack of consistency, and lack of control. Boy is insecure at home and both insecure and inadequate at .school. (Average on Binet.) Mother is overprotective. House and furniture of home in constant dilapi­ dation and disorder. Mother feels teachers "pick on boy." Teacher says that mother feels that world begins and end with Kay. Boy has been involved in numerous fights often necessitating a change of school. Camp counselor reports that Kay enjoyed camp even though he was the most disliked boy in his lodge., was manhandled by the other boys and had very few friends in camp. Kay tried to get along with his group, but his appearance, manner of dress, constant talking, and desire to be recognized soon made him unpopular. Boy is obese and has feminine deposits of fat on breast and hips. Boy in need of endocrine therapy. Kay had poor personal hygiene, having to be con­ tinually reminded to wash his hands and comb his hair. He had to be told to change his clothes which became dirty soon after he donned them. His locker was always messy. Kay desired recognition and attention from coun­ selors and campers. Not being accepted by the campers, he tried to ingratiate himsdlf with the c counselors by doing things for them. The boy showed a lack of any control and great temper in arguments with other boys . He swore, threw things, and threat­ ened to kill. For the whole period boy could not work with any of his lodge mates. He was always on the defensive. He showed a lack of consideration.' for.- others r .5 He used vile language when angry. He also used "sir” and "gentlemen" to fellow campers which they thought queer. Boy participated in most activities, but was proficient in none.

37

RALPH.

Ralph was rejected by ten different

individuals, he was chosen by two.

(Figure 3)

This

gives him a Social Status Score of minus eight. ratio of Acceptance was six per cent.

(Table II)

Ratio of Rejection was thirty-one per cent. chosen by two in his own cabin. rest in his cabin.

His His

He was

He was rejected by the

He was viewed in a "neutral" manner

by sixty three- per cent of the campers. boys he chose were popular.

None of the

All falling in the lowest

quartile.

One of these he rejected was in the top

quartile.

However, the rest of his rejectees were among

the least chosen.

One of his choices reciprocated, the

other rejected him resulting in a frustrated choice. All of his choices and rejections were confined to his own cabin.

He was chosen by one boy in his cabin, now—

ever, Ray responded by rejecting him.

Is

Ralph was referred to agency from a child placement agency where mother had first gone in an effort to remove child from her home. Mother is emotionally involved in marital difficulties. Father has left her for another woman. Mother is ambivalent in her feelings regarding this. She feels a great deal of animosity towards her husband. She does not want to divorce him and "let the other woman have him." Mother expects and hopes for father’s return to her. She hopes that this miracle will transpire momentarily. This condition has had its effect upon the boy. The boy is extremely bel­ ligerent towards his mother. He resents the fact that his father-has had to go away. The boy is ex­ plicit about the love he has for his father. He wants his return. The father is abusive towards

38

X

RALPH

I I

\ \

FIGURE 3 SOCIAL DATA: RALPH ----; --> ----- >

■ ^ .

Acceptance Rejection Mutual Rejection Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

42

Camp counselor reports that Harold’s general adjustment was poor, being scored very low in personal hygiene, group cooperation, and regard for property, hos own and others. The boy par­ ticipated poorly in the camp program. He used profanity. Harold was regarded by his fellow campers as a trouble-maker, outsider, and nuisance. Harold was incapable of adjusting to living with other boys, or sharing the work-play relationship with them. Extremely jealous of any imagined advantage gained by others, at times his face would assume a blank, uncomprehending stare as if he had gone into trance. During story telling time he seemed to be unusually preoccupied with the subject of violent forms of torture or death, repeating imaginary methods of killing, to the point where even the other boys would protest in disgust. Boy is possessed with the need for T!saving face1' in all situations. He is forever on the defensive. He does not seem to enjoy very many activities, they seem like drudgeries to him. • JERRY. dividuals.

Jerry was rejected by five different in­

(Figure 5) •

He was chosen by none.

a Social Status Score of minus five. ceptance was zero.

(Table I I ) .

Thus

His Ratio of Ac­

His Ratio of Rejection

was sixteen per cent. . Eighty-four per cent of the Campers viewed him indifferently. his own cabin.

He was rejected by three in

Of the three boys he chose one was "popular"

the other two were average chosen. popular" boys.

He rejected two "un­

Two of his choices and all of his rejec­

tions were confined to his own cabin. Jerry lives with his mother, father and younger brother. At the present time divorce proceedings have 'been;- initiated by the mother against the father. This is the culmination of a long history of incom­ patibility, economic difficulty, and failure of father to achieve any success. Boy is of superior intelli­ gence, yet he was referred to Child Guidance Clinic

43

♦

JERRY

FIGURE 5 SOCIAL DATA: JERRY > > ^ ^ >

Acceptance Rejection Mutual Rejection Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

because he was "forgetful; and was constantly losing his possessions, was absent minded." Mother spoke of incompatibility between herself and husband all their married life. Mother is energetic and strong person in family. To a large extent she has been playing the role of the economic provider. Her husband is more easy going, primarily interested in music and has been less concerned in the raising of the children as well as in the economic stability of the home. During his early years boy was indulged in. Boy developed a de­ pendency pattern which' rmother is now objecting t o wishing him to become more independent. In attempting to change•Jerry, mother has become a "nagger". In addition to nagging, mother has resorted to beating. Jerry senses the fatherrs inability to achieve success in his career and satisfaction in his life. Boy has moved in direction of his mother, holding a greater respect for her because of her greater status in family. Boy is disrespectful to father because of this loss of status in the eyes of the boy. Counselor reports that Jerry participated fully in program. That he was cooperative and willing through­ out. However, he was not too well liked by the other boys because of his eagerness to be accepted. However, the boy often suffers in the evaluation of him by other children, because of his overwillingness to please. And because of his easy going and at times submissive atti­ tude .

II.

HIGHEST SOCIAL STATUS SCORES

The case histories of the five boys who were most rejected in the camp have been examined.

These histories

have been abstracted from the reports of social workers, psychologiest, psychiatrists, and camp counselors.

The

case histories of the five most popular boys in camp are not nearly so complete.

Social workers, psychologists,

45

psychiatrists, and camp counselors have spent very little time with this group.

The briefness of their reports may

be considered indicative of their social adjustment. ARNOLD. individuals.

Arnold was chosen by seventeen different

(Figure 6).

He was rejected by one.

a Social Status Score of sixteen. was fifty-three per cent.

His Ratio of Acceptance

(Table II).

three per cent of the campers.

He had

He was rejected by

Only forty-four per cent of

the campers viewed him neutrally. and chosen by six in his own cabin.

He was rejected by one All of the boys he

selected were "stars" or popular boys, whereas the boys he rejected ranked thirty, thirty-one, and thirty-two in popu­ larity. Arnold, on group tests, falls within the average range. He was born in Esthonia. His father is dead. Boy and mother live alone. Financial and counseling assistance is received from an older married brother who lives nearby. Boy and mother are very close to each other. Mother is protective of boy. At times she fears that she is too close to the boy. Mother is 111 and boy feels responsible for her care. The major problem in this family seems to be of an economic nature. Boy is small for age. Camp counselor reports that boy participated well in most activities and was an asset to his lodge. He was humorous. Fellow campers were always laughing at ■ his jokes and antics. Boy was modest and eager. “ He was unassuming. Despite his small stature boy is a leader. Boy has a very pleasant manner and good per­ sonal hygiene. He was always willing to accept responsi­ bilities.

46

ARNOLD

FIGURE 6 SOCIAL DATA: ARNOLD > ^ >

Acceptance Rejection Mutual Rejection Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

47 VAN.

Van was chosen by twelve campers and rejected

by one., giving him a Social Status Score of twelve. 7)-

(Figure

He was accepted by thirty-eight per cent of the camp­

ers.

He was chosen by three boyd in his own cabin.

However,

he rejected four boys in his cabin, including two of the three who chose him.

He chose two popular boys and rejected

five poorly chosen boys. Van lives with mother and father. Family has been a close family unit. Boy is allowed very little ini­ tiative by parents. His needs are met within the family unit. Mother restricts social activities. She describes her son as "a good child, no difficulty with him." Boy is tall and fairly good looking. He attends Junior High where his grades and deportment have been ruled satisfactory. Camp counselor reports that boy was almost immediately accepted by the other boys as a leader. He responds well to this position. He is considerate of those younger than himself. He partici­ pated fully in all group activities. He was very much liked by the other boys. Eli.

Eli was chosen by eleven campers.

He was rejected by four. seven.

(Figure 8).

Thus a Social Status Score of

He was viewed in a neutral manner by fifty-three

per cent of the campers, while thirteen per cent rejected him.

He rejected none in his own cabin.

were in his own cabin.. jected two unpopular.

Two of his choices

He chose two popular boys and re­ He was rejected by one of his choices

and was chosen by two of his choices. Eli was referred to camp because of a post-polio condition which left a slight orthopedic residue. Boy is an only child of average intelligence. Mother and father divorced since boy was infant. Boy and

VAN

FIGURE 7 SOCIAL DATA: VAN

Acceptance _______t> Rejection - j:___ Mutual Rejection ------ Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

5-6 mother are close together. Mother employed. No economic difficulty in home. Boy attends Junior High School where there seems to be no difficulty either in scholarship or behavior. Camp counselor reports that b o y ’s cooperation at camp was excellent. He was looked on as a leader and was elected Chief of the Lodge.. Regard for own and other people’s property and feelings was very good. Boy was considered polite* well mannered. Had good eating habits. He participated in swimming carnival* tournaments* and ceremonies. He always wished to provide leadership. Very likeable and c a n ’t help becoming popular.- Easily controlled and as­ sumed responsibility well. ERNEST.

Ernest was chosen by ten and rejected by

three for a Social Status Score of seven.

(Figure 9)-

He

was viewed in a neutral manner by forty-nine per cent of the campers.

He was rejected by two boys in his own cabin.

He was accepted by four. to his own cabin.

All of his choices were confined

This included three well chosen and two

medium chosen. Ernest is large for age. He is very nice looking and presents a good outward appearance. Mother and father have just recently been divorced. Boy has an expressed enmity towards father. Boy is close to mother. Boy has many friends and plays a great deal on the play­ ground after school. Boy is a "non-reader" in school. He is retarded one and one-half years in grade placement. He shows considerable guilt and defensiveness in regard to school and school work. Despite his academic re­ tardation b o y ’s social adjustment at school is considered satisfactory" Mother is employed in a cocktail lounge. Boy and his younger brother spend most of their time on school playground. The two brothers are close to each other. There appears to be no strained relations between mother and boy. Camp Counselor reports that because of size and ap­ pearance boy was elected Lodge Chief upon his arrival at camp. He would respond to suggestions and showed some ability to shoulder responsibility* but he had

51

ERNEST

FIGURE 9 SOCIAL DATA: ERNEST _____ .____ b> T_ 11 _______> --------- e> ____ •>

-> .{>

Acceptance Rejection Mutual Rejection Mutual Acceptance Non-Reciprocated Choice

54

in the structure of the community have any relation to personal differences exhibited?

Do the under-chosen

individuals show a different parental relationship pattern? Are there specific behaviors which distinguish an under­ chosen from a well-chosen individual?

III.

CAMP BEHAVIOR

Behavior of the individual at camp, was reported by the Counselor on a "Counselors Observation Report."

Each

Counselor was requested to complete a behavior item inven­ tory.

These items as a rule are related to his relation­

ship in the group, and as such, probably affect his social status.

This "Counselors Observation Report" has been used

at Camp Max Straus for a number of years in order to denote "any aspect of the camper that may assist in a better under­ standing of the boy which will help in future relations with him."

Thus the inventory was not constructed to fit

the data of social status. Under-chosen shall be arbitrarily placed as the nine who rank lowest on the Social Status scores; the nine who rank the highest as well chosen; and average chosen as plac­ ing between the two extremes.

If the campers are organize dr'

In respect to social status attained, how are their behavior differences characterized.

55

It must be remembered that these behavior traits „ are the subjective opinions of the Counselors.

And as such.,

interpretation of them must proceed carefully.

The children

were rated by different counselors,, each of whom must surely have had different standards of conduct. The under-chosen and the average-chosen appear to have the same incidence of behavior characterized as poor personal hygiene * poor regard for personal effects, and poor eating habits.

Neither group shows a striking preponderance

of Individuals who may be characterized In this way.

How­

ever, when compared with the well-chosen group, the differ­ ence becomes apparent.

This type of behavior might result

in the avoidance of the individual by others. In behavior which might be characterized as passively or actively interfering with the activities of the group, the differences between the under-chosen and the well-chosen Is greatest.

Such behavior Items, as participation In camp

program, group and individual activities, campfire programs, sports, hiking, archery, etc., and ’’retires by self” showed significant differences.

The counselor found it more dif­

ficult to control the under-chosen than the other two groups.

CHAPTER V PERSONALITY TEST, COUNSELORS RATING AND SOCIOMETRIC STATUS

I.

PERS ONALITY TES T

In addition to the case histories and the reports of counselors, an effort was made to determine a pattern or profile of behavior as related to the social position, attained by an individual through the use of a personality test.

It was hoped that such a test would reveal, clarify,

and support items already suggested by the case histories and the sociometric test. The work done by Rogers

1

in developing a test for

the probing of attitudes and maladjustments was indicative of the road to follow.

Rogers validated his personality

test by correlating the test scores with clinicians ratings and by analyzing the scores to determine whether the child’s behavior as revealed in interviews and past history related to the attitudinal responses obtained. In this instance, however, it was thought best to take an already existing standardized test which contained categories specifically designed to elicit responses directly related to social attitudes.

1 Rogers, op. cit.

The standardized test chosen

57

for this purpose was The California Test of Personality.

2

The California Test of Personality is a paper-pencil personality test designed to evoke attitudinal responses on certain important components of personal and social ad­ justment.

As previously noted,, - the test is divided into

two sections* Self Adjustment and Social Adjustment. It is not the purpose of this study to subject the California Test of Personality to a validity study.

However,

it seems that,, inasmuch as the present study is seeking to examine the relationship between sociality and the total personality* the test responses should be viewed with the actual case histories. Part II* or Social Adjustment* is divided into six sub-divisions:

Subdivision A* Social Standards* "recognizes

the rights of others; B* Social Skills* with associates;"

"tactful in dealing

and C* Anti-Social Tendencies*

"attempts

to get satisfaction in manners which is injurious to others." The subdivisions seem to deal with skills and attitudes which are related to sociality. Table III presents the rho or rank correlation co­ efficient between Social Status rank and ranking on Part I*

2 California Test of Personality* op. cit .

58

TABLE III RHO BETWEEN SOCIAL STATUS RANK AND RANKINGS ON PARTS I, II, AND TOTAL ADJUSTMENT OP THE CALIFORNIA TEST OF PERSONALITY

Test

Rho

I. Self Adjustment

-.02

II. Social Adjustment

-.11

Total Adjustment

+ .04

59 Part II, and the Total Adjustment. It would appear that the correlation between the responses on the Personality Test and the social status attained by the individual would be of a more positive or significant nature.

However, these findings are not

without precedent. Pintner, Forlano and Freedman3 found that the cor­ relations between the scores of the child and his friends are low for all of the attitude and personality test given. They did not find a negative correlation, but they did find one closer to zero.

Bonney^ in giving the same test of

personality to mutual friends and comparing it with the test scores on unreciprocated pairs found a low correlation between ’’personality” and interpersonal relations.

The ac­

cepted and the rejected child cannot be placed into any definite categories or classifications on the basis of per­ sonality.

The work of Koch5 also reported a low correlation

between, personality test scores and social status. The answer to this variance may be found partially

in

the fact that a personality test is an attempt to measure attitudes.

The actual behavior of the individual is not

3 R. G. Pintner, G. Forlano and H. Freedman,

ojd

.

cit.

Merle E. Bonney, Popular and Unpopular Children, A Sociometric Study (Sociometric Monograph No. 9> New York: Beacon House, Inc., 1947)* ^ Helen S. Koch, ’’Popularity in Pre-School Children; Some Related Factors and a Technique for its Measurement,” Child Development , 4:164-175, June, 1933.

60 touched except insofar as an individual’s behavior is a reflection of his attitudes.

Such an assumption is

tenuous to the degree that such mechanisms as compensation,, ambivalence„ and actual repression are present. Another factor.contributing to the lack of relation­ ships between results of a personality test and the social status of an individual is the fact that the personality test does not measure the reputation that a person has with others or other people’s impressions of the individuals behavior.

II.

COUNSELORS RATINGS

Behavior of the individual at camp was reported by the Counselor on a"Couneelors Observation Report." copy of the report form is found in the Appendix.

A sample Each

counselor was requested to complete a behavior item inven­ tory.

These items as a rule are related to his relationship,

in the group and as such probably affect his social status.. This report has been used at this camp for a number of years in order to denote "any aspect of the camper that may assist in a better understanding of’ the’ boy which will help in future relations with him."

Thus the inventory was not con­

structed to fit the data of social status as prescribed by the present study.

61

Under-chosen individuals shall be those nine who rank the lowest on the Social Status scores; well-chosen as the nine with the highest rankings; and finally the average chosen individuals are those that ranked between the two extremes.^ 1 If the campers are organized in respect to social status attained,, how are their behavior differences as rated by the counselors, characterized? Table IV presents the tabulation of the counselor’s ratings.

The under-chosen and the average-chosen appear

to have the same incidence of behavior characterized as poor regard for personal effects and poor eating habits.

Neither

group shows a striking preponderance of individuals who may be characterized in this way.

However, when compared with

the well-chosen group the differences become apparent. In behavior which might be characterized as passively or actively Interfering with the activities of the group,, %

the differences between the' under-chosen and the well-chosen is greatest.

Such behavior items as participation in camp

programs, group and individual activities, campfire programs, sports, hiking, archery, etc., and "retires by self" showed great differences.

The counselor found it more difficult to

control the underchosen than either of the other two groups. However, the counselor found it necessary, at times, to make the well-chosen "the boss" in order to control him.

62 TABLE IV BEHAVIOR RATINGS OF CAMPERS BY THE CABIN COUNSELORS

Trait

Under Chosen

Average Chosen

Well Chosen

No.

No . Per cent

No.

Per cent

Per cent

Personal Hygiene good poor

4 5

44 56

6 8

'43 57

8 1

90 10

Group Cooperation Lodge and Camp good poor

2 7

22 77

6 8

43 57

9 0

100 0

Regard for Property good 4 poor 5

44 56

6 8

43 57

8 1

90 10

Eating Habits and Table Manners good poor

3 6

35 66

9 5

64 36

8 1

90 10

Participation in Camp Program good poor

0 9

0 100

7 7

50 50

8 1

90 10 r

Use of Profanity seldom frequent

7 2

77 22

12 2

85

15

5 4

56 44

Retire by Self Seclusive seldom frequent

0 9

0 100

.8 6

57 43

8 1

90 10

Cheating and Lying 4 seldom frequent 5

44 56

12 2

85

5 4

56

15

44

63

TABLE IV (continued) BEHAVIOR RATING O F .CAMPERS J3Y THE CABIN COUNSELORS

Trait

Under Chosen No.

Displays Initiative Assumes Leadership seldom frequent

Average Chosen

Per cent No.

Per cent

Well Chosen No. Per cen1

'2 7

77 22

2 12

85

15

6 3

35 66

Lodge Considers the Camper as: Leader 0 Useful member 2 Trouble-maker and nuisance 7

0 22

2 10

15 70

4 5

44 56

77

2

15

0

0

To Control Camper it is usually necessary to : Simply tell camper 2 1 Make camper boss Command or Threaten 6

22 10 66

10 3 1

70 21 8

5 4 0

56 44 0

CHAPTER VI CABIN SCORES In addition to there being "popular" boys there were "popular'cabins".

The cabins presented a picture similar

to that of the individual.

Many of the cabins had strong

forces lAJhich tended to disintegrate and disorganize them. Some of the cabins were cohesive and operated as a unit. This is evident in the data presented in Tables V and VI.

I.

CABIN DYNAMICS

Thus it will be seen that the sociometric test reveals the underlying currents in the dynamics of relationships. Prom Tables V and VI it can be seen that some of the cabins are grouped poorly.

Cabins A or B have very few mutual

f r i e n d s w h e r e a s they have a great number of rejections and enmities.

Seventy-seven per cent of Cabin D fs rejections

or dislikes are directed against the members of Cabin D. Prom this analyzation cabins can be seen sending so many choices to other cabins or groups that it is probably the implicit desire of the members of that group to disband. Cabins A and B found only twenty-one per cent -and twenty per cent of their choices within their own cabin. On the other hand these cabins were able to direct twenty-

65

TABLE V ACCEPTANCE OF INDIVIDUALS BY CABINS

Catoin

Total Acceptances made toy ’ whole cabin

Total Accept- Percentage of ances made toy Acceptances made catoin within by individuals itself within catoin toward members in own catoin. (Ratio of interest)

A

28

6

21.0

B

30

6

20.0

C

38

26

68.0

D

31

15

48.0

E

29

13

45 .0

66

TABLE VI REJECTION OP INDIVIDUALS BY CABINS

Cabin

Total rejections made' by wholer • cabin ..

Total Rejections Percentage of made by individual Rejections made in cabin toward .by individuals members in own toward members cabin in own cabin

A

25

7

28.0

B

27

15

55-0

C

28

13

46.0

D

30

23

77-0

E

23

5

22.0

67

eight per cent and fifty-five per cent of their rejections (respectively) to their own cabin mates. The location of the choices whether inside or outside the cabin is of importance. tion of choices.

Table VII tabulates the loca­

Cabins A and B are groups where the needs

of its members are not being met within the cabin. choices go out of the group into other groups.

The

Cabin C is

a sample of an introverted cohesive unit with the majority of choices remaining in. the cabin.

Cabins D and E show no

decided trend between inside and outside choices. Pragmatically this is shown to be significant.

Cabin

C won the camp awards for "cleanup" and the best all around cabin.

Cabin B was a disorganized and ill functioning unit

with very little accomplished by the group. signs of adjustment.

Cabin. 3 showed

Such signs as ease of control, accom­

plishments of cabin and individual members, and general hap­ piness of the members.

Cabins A arid B were not so fortunate.

There was always a certain amount of individual bickering and general failure of the cabin to fit itself into the total group situation. of irritability.

There were present private feelings

And there was a lack of contribution by

these groups.

II.

CABIN SOCIOGRAMS

Figures 11, 12, 13, 14, and 13 on the succeeding pages

68

TABLE VII LOCATION OF CHOICES

Cabin

Inside Cabin

Outside Cabin

A

6

22.0

B

6

24.0

C

26

12.0

D

15

16.0

E

13

1 6 .0

69

are sociograms of the ■underlying social structure of each cabin.

The symbols are read as follows: . >

Choice

---> rejection ^________

w, mutual

mutual

choice rejection

------- ------- choice reciprocated by rejection, in­ compatible pair

III.

CABIN QUANTIFICATION

To determine the cohesiveness of a group and to de­ termine, to some extent, the morale present in that group it is of value to compute, M(l) The interest of members for their own group, Ratio of Interest;

(2) the Distribution of

Attraction and Repulsion within the group; and (3) the amount of attraction the members of the group draw from members of other groups

Ratio of Acceptance."^

With six members Cabin 1 could have made 30 choices (at a rate of 5 choices each).

They actually made 28 choices.

Of these 28 choices, 6 were made for members of its oxm group

J. L. Moreno, Psychological Organization of Groups in the Community. (Sociometric Monograph, No. 12. New York: Beacon House, 19^7)- P- 10.

70

FIGURE 11 TNTRACABIN RELATIONSHIPS: GABIN A Six Boys..

Isolated, and Rejected, Robert NFutual Attractions, Art and Bernie Mutual Rejections, Ernest and Art S~tar of Attractions, Ernest

71

/

/

l i

/ /

✓ '

FIGURE 12 INTRACABIN RELATIONSHIPS: CABIN B Seven Boys.

Isolated and Rejected, Sheldon,, Walt, Jim and Harold Mutual Attraction, Rolf and Len Mutual Rejections, Walt and Harold, Rolf and Harold, Len and Walt. Star of Attraction, Van Incompatible Pairs, Harold and Van, Van and Walt

72

FIGURE 13 INTRACABIN RELATIONSHIPS: CABIN C Eight B o y s . Isolated and Rejected, Kenny Mutual Attraction, Alfred and -Eli* Eli and Virgil, Ralph and Eli* Mateo and Eli Mutual Rejection, Kenny and Eli, Kenny and Alfred Stars of Attraction, Alfred, Ralph, and Mateo Incompatible Pairs, Kenny and Mort, Kenny and Ralph, Kenny and Mateo, Kenny and Virgil, Virgil and Mort

73

FIGURE 14 INTRACABIN RELATIONSHIPS: . CABIN D Nine Boys.

Isolated and Rejected, John, Ralph, Elias, Joe Mutual Attractions, Ralph and Joe, Max and Sam Stars of Attraction, Sam, Max Mutual Rejection, Merk and Ralph, Ralph and Sam Incompatible Pairs, Pete and Merk, Bert and Merk, Pete and Ralph

IK

i

FIGURE 15 INTRACABIN RELATIONSHIPS: CABIN E Six B oy s.

Isolated and Rejected, Dari Mutually Attracted, , Rube and Jerry, Hal and Jerry,_Hal and Dave, Kenny and Dave • Star of Attraction, Hal

75

(21 per cent).

Twenty-two (79 P©1, cent) of these choices

went to hoys outside their own cabin. This Ratio of Interest is indicative of relatively introverted or extroverted group organization.

Table VIII

presents this Ratio of Interest .in tabular form. A total of 156 choices were made by all cabins.

Of

this total Cabin A received 26 choices or 17 per cent of the total choices.

Table VIII presents this data regarding

the ratio of attraction each cabin has for the other cabins in the community.

The ratio of attraction each cabin has

for the other cabins is computed by dividing the number of choices actually received by the maximum choices it might have received if all the boys in all the cabins had sent their choices into that cabin.

The same procedure is followed

for the ratio of rejection in Table VIII. Moreno

p

states that from such quantifications and so­

ciograms the structural position of group in the community can be determined.

Prom his sociometric work with the New

Y¥rk State Training School for Girls, Hudson, New York, he concludes that "the larger the number of isolated structures in a group organization Is, the lower is the standard of its integration; that the larger the number of mutual attractions, the higher is the standard of the group's integration."

2 Ibid., p. 14.

76

TABLE VIII NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OP CHOICES AND REJECTIONS RECEIVED BY EACH CABIN

Cabin

Choices * Per cent Number

Rejections Number Per cent

A

26

17.0

51

37.0

B

20

13 .0

9

7.0

C

55

35.0

26

20 .0

D

23

15.0

26

20 .0

E

32

20 .0

21

1 6 .0

15 6

100.0

133

1 0 0.0

TOTAL

77

Although a sociogram was not made for the entire community, an examination of Table VIII, showing the ratio of attraction each cabin had for the rest of the camp, reveals that Cabin B was a very highly isolated cabin. Cabin B was the recipient of 13 per cent of the total choices. It also received 7 P©r cent of the rejections.

Thus 80 per

cent of the camp viewed Cabin B in a neutral manner.

This

position of isolation in the community was reflected within the cabin itself.

Cabin B finds four of its seven boys

isolated and rejected by its own cabin-mates. also present three pairs of mutual rejections.

There are Perhaps it

was the implicit intention of Cabin B to disband and cease operating as a unit in the camp situation.

CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Thirty-two "boys at a summer camp, were requested to designate their choices in respect to their future cabin mates.

It was also requested that these same boys denote

those whom they preferred not to have in their cabins.

These

choices and rejections were tabulated; a Social Status Score and a Social Status Ratio, both of acceptance and rejection, were computed. The position of these choices and rejections were noted.

This was also done in respect to the individual cabins.

Cabin sociograms made this data more definitive. The sociometric data was then related to (a) the in­ dividuals score on the California Test of Personality;

(b)

the ratings of camp counselor; and (c) individual case histories. SUMMARY 1.

Those who received many rejections received few

choices, whereas those who were well accepted were seldom rejected. 2.

(rho = -.88). Cabin groups vary a great deal in regard to

percentage of acceptances and rejections made within their own cabin.

Physical nearness or propinquity does not appear

to play a major role.

79

3-

Empirically those cabins with the greatest

amount of internal choices were those most harmonious and creative. 4.

The case history material

cepted and

the five

of the

five mostac­

most rejected individuals atcampdo

not lend themselves readily to quantification.

However,

it might be safely said that the isolated individual at camp is also having difficulty at home and at school to a greater extent 5.

than

the non-isolated

The counselors report and

child. rating

reveals that

in behavior which might be considered as interfering with the group process (participation in camp program, athletic activities, hiking, campfire, etc.) the differences between the under-chosen and the well-chosen, is greatest.

The

counselor also found it more difficult to control the under­ chosen than the other two groups. 6.

The child’s social adjustment as measured by

the California Test of Personality showed little agreement with the subject’s social adjustment as measrued by friend-, ship choices or acceptance in a group.

CONCLUSIONS It has been the purpose of the present study to d e ­ termine,

mH o w

a degree of acceptance or rejection relates

80 to adjustment.”

Adjustment, is determined by (a) the Cali­

fornia Test of Personality;

(b) Case histories; and (c)

by the reports of counselors.

It was felt that study along

this line would help answer the following questions: 1.

What in the.child’s behavior and background

determines his social position? 2.

What is the relation between a child’s acceptance

or rejection by his contemporaries to his personality? 3.

Do personality differences relate to the indivi­

dual’s position in the group? The findings seem to point towards the assumption that a degree of acceptance or rejection is related to that individual’s degree of adjustment.

It further seems

to support the point that as rejections increase possibili­ ties of tension and disruption increase.

This appeared to

be valid in both the group and individual sense. The problem of quantification still remains.

The

sociometric process failed to throw light on the relation­ ship of the individual’s position in the group and his total personality pattern. a descriptive tool.

The sociometric method appears to be Its value lying in its ability to

describe an- individual's or a group's position in a community.

b

:: i

b

l

i

o

g

r

a

p

h

y

BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Bateson, Gregory and Margaret Mead, Balinese C h a r a c t e r , a Photographic A n a l y s i s . N e w York; The N e w Y o r k A c a d e m y of Sciences, 1942. 277 PP. Baxter, Bernice and Rosaline Cassidy, Group E x p e r i e n c e , The Democratic W a y . Ne w York: H a r p e r an d Brothers, 1943. 218 pp. Benedict, Ruth, Patterns of C u l t u r e . M i f f l i n Company, 1934. 290 pp.

N e w York: H oughton-

Bonney, Merle E., Popular and U n p o p u l a r C h i l d r e n , A S o c i o ­ metric S t u d y . Sociometric Monograph, No. 9> N e w York: B e a c o n House, Inc., 1947. 8l pp. Brown, Junius P . , The Psychodynamic of Abnormal B e h a v i o r . N e w York: McGraw-Hill B o o k Company, Inc., 1.940. 484 pp. Cottrell, Jr., Leonard S., and R u g h Gallagher, De v e l o p m e n t s in Social P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 3 0 -1 9 4 0 . S o c i ometry Monographs, No. 1. N e w York: B e a c o n House,Inc., 1941. Dimock, H a d l e y S., R e d i s c o v e r i e s . The A d o l e s c e n t ; a Study of Personality Development in Adolescent B o y s . N e w York: Associ a t i o n Press, 1 9 3 7 1 2B 7 pp. Hagman, E. P . , The Companionship of P r e -School C h i l d r e n . U n i v ersity of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, Vol. J 3 No. 4, Iowa: U n i v ersi t y of Iowa, Press, 1933. 68 pp. Jennings, Helen Hall, Leadership a n d I s o l a t i o n . A S t udy of Personality in Inter-Personal R e l a t i o n s . N e w York: Longman, Green and Company, 1943. 240 pp. Moreno, Jacob L . , Psychological Or g a n i z a t i o n of Groups in the C o m m u n i t y . Sociometric Monograph, No. 12, N e w York: B e a c o n House, 1947. 25 pp. , Sociometry and the C u l tural O r d e r , S o c i o m e t r y M o n o ­ graph No. 2, N e w York: B e a c o n House, Inc., 1943. 45 pp.

82

Moreno, Jacob L . , Wh o Shall Survive? A N e w A p p r o a c h to the Problems of Hu m a n Interrelations. N e w York: Bea c o n House, 19W T35- p p . Newstetter, W i l b e r I., Marc J. F e l d s t e i n and Theodore M. Newcomb, Grou p Adjustment, A Study in E x p erimental S o c i ­ ology. Cleveland, Ohio: W e s t e r n R eserve U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 3 8 . 154 p p . Prescott, D. A., Em o t i o n and the Educative P r o c e s s . A m erican Council on Education, 193^.

Washington:

Rogers, Carl R., Measuri n g Personality Adjustment in Child r e n Nine to Thirteen Years of A g e . N e w York: B u r e a u of Publications, Teachers College, Co l u m b i a University, 1931. Symonds, Percival, The Psychology of P a r e n t -Child R e l a t i o n ­ ships . New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y Company, 1939. 228 pp. Wheeler, R a ymond H., The Science of P s y c h o l o g y . Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1929 . 55b p p .

N e w York:

Wickman, E. K., C h i l d r e n 1s Be h a v i o r and T e a c h e r s 1 A t t i t u d e s . N e w York: The Comm o n w e a l t h F u n d D i v i s i o n of Publications, 1929. 247 PP.

PERIODICALS Almack, John C ., nThe Influence of Intelligence on the Selection of A s s o c i a t e s , ” School a n d S o c i e t y , 16:529530, November, 1922. Bonney, Merle E., ”A Sociometric S t u d y of the Relati o n s h i p of Some Factors to Mutual Friendship on the Elementary, Secondary, and College L e v e l s , ” S o c i o m e t r y , 9:21^47, February, 1946. Bonney, Merle E., nA Study of Social Status on the Second Grade L e v e l , ” Journal of Genetic P s y c h o l o g y , 60: 271-305* June, 1942. Bonney, Merle. E., " Personality Traits of Socia l l y Successful and Socially Unsuccessful C h i l d r e n , ” Journal of Educational Ps y c h o l o g y , 34:449-472, November, 1943.

83 Bonser, Fre d e r i c k F., “Churns; A S t udy in *Youthful F r i e n d s h i p s , ” Pedagogical S e m i n a r y , 9 : 2 2 1 - 236 , June, 1902. Cattell, R a ymond B., "Friends and Enemies: A Psychological Study of C h a racter a n d T e m p e r a m e n t , ” Chara c t e r and P e r s o n a l i t y , 3s55-63* September, 1934. Chapin, F. Stuart, “Social P a rticipation an d Social I n t e l l i ­ g e n c e , ” American Sociological Review, 4:151-166, April, 1939. Criswell, Joan, "Racial Cleavage in N e g r o -White G r o u p s , ” S o c i o m e t r y , l:8l-89* July, 1937* Elliot, Merle H., “Patterns of F r i e n d s h i p in the C l a s s r o o m , ” Journal of the Progressive E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 18 :383390* November, 1941. French, John R. P., "Cohesion and D i s r u p t i o n in G r o u p s , ” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 360:361-377* July, 194T. Furfey, Paul Hanley, "The Group Life of the A d o l e s c e n t , ” Journal of Educational Sociology, 14:195-204, December, 1940. Howell, Charles E., "Measurement of L e a d e r s h i p , ” Sociometry, 5:163-168, May, 1942. Jenkins, Gladys G., "Factors Involved In Childrens F r i e n d ­ s h i p s , ” Journal of E d ucational P s y c h o l o g y , 22:440-448, September, 1931* Jennings, H e l e n Hall, “Social Life an d Interrelationships in Certain P r o t o z o a , ” S o c i o m e t r y , 8:9-20, February, 1945. , "Sociometry in Action; H o w We Get To g e t h e r in G r o u p s , ” The S urvey M i d m o n t h l y , 84:41-44, February, 1948. Johnson, Alvin D., "An Attempt at Change in Inter-personal R e l a t i o n s , ” S o c i o m e t r y , January, 1939Katz, Leo, “On the M a t r i x Analysis of Sociometric D a t a , ” S o c i o m e t r y , 10:233-241, August, 1947. Kerstetter, Leona M., room, Sociometry,

"Reassignment Th e r a p y in the C l a s s ­ 3:293-336, July, 1940.

84 Kock, H elen L ., 11Popularity in Pre-School Children: Some Re l a t e d Factors and a Technique for its M e a s u r e m e n t , ” C hild D e v e l o p m e n t , 4:164-175, June, 1933. Kuhlen, Ray m o n d G., and Howa r d S. Bretsch, "Soeiometric Status and Personal Problems of A d o l e s c e n t s , ” Sociometry, 1 0 :1 2 2 -1 3 2 , May, 1947. Lewin, Kurt, Ro n a l d Lippit, a nd R a l p h K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in E x p e r i m e n t a l l y Created Social C l i m a t e s , ” Journal of Social Psychology, 10:271-299, May, 1939. Moreno, Jacob S., "Contributions of Sociometry to R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y in S o c i o l o g y , 11 A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, 12:287-292, February, 1947. ________ , "Progress and Pitfalls in Sociometric T h e o r y , ” S o c i o m e t r y , 10:268-272, August, 1947. Neugartin, Bernice, "Social Class and Friendship School C h i l d r e n , ” American Journal of S o c i o l o g y , 60:305-313, January, 1946. Northway, Mary L., "Children w i t h F e w Frien d s , " The School, 32:382-453, January, 1944. Pinter, R. G. G. Forlano and H. Freedman, "Personality and Attitudinal Similarities Among C l a s s r o o m Friends, 1 Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y , 21:48-65, February, 1937. Potashin, Riva, "A Sociometric S t u d y of C h i l d r e n ’s F r i e n d ­ s h i p , ” S o c i o m e t r y , 9 •48-70, February, 1946. Reader, N., and H. B. English, "Personality Factors in Adolescent Friendships," Journal of C o n sulting P s y c h o l o g y , 1 1 :2 1 2 -2 2 0 , July, 1947. Seagoe, May, "Factors Influencing the S e l e c t i o n of A s s o c i a t e s , ¥ Journal of Educational R e s e a r c h , 27 ;32-40, September, 1933* Smucker, Arden, "Measurement of Group D i v i s i o n T h r o u g h the Use of Negative Sociometric D a t a , ” S o c i o m e t r y , 10:376383, November, 1947.

85

Wellman, Beth, ,rThe School Child's Choice of C o m p a n i o n s , 11 Journal of Educational Research, 14:126-132, September,

1926 .

Witmer, H elen S., "Parental Be h a v i o r as an Index to Probable Outcome of Treatment in Child Guidance C l i n i c , ” A m e r i c a n Journal of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y , 3:431-44, October, 1933. Zeleny, Leslie, "Sociometry of M o r a l e , ” A m e r i c a n Sociological R e v i e w , 4 : 7 9 9 “8o8, December, 1939. ________ , "Status, Its Mea s u r e m e n t and Control in E d u c a t i o n , ” S o c i o m e t r y , May, 1941. SERIES Cattell, R a ymond B., "California Test of Personality," Oscar K. Buros, Mental M e a s u r e m e n t , N e w Jersey: Studies in E d u c a t i o n Series, Ru tgers University, 1942. p. 1213. Symonds, Percival M., "California Test of Personality," Oscar K. Buros, Mental M e a s u r e m e n t y N e w Jersey, Studies in Educa t i o n Series, Rutgers University, 1942, p. 1213. Tiegs, Ernest W., Willis W. C l ark and'Louis P. Thorpe, The California Test of P e r s o n a l i t y , Manual of I n s t r u c t i o n s , ^os Angeles: C aliforn i a Test Bureau, 19^2. Vernon, P. E., "California Test of P e r s o n a l i t y , ” Oscar K. Buros, Mental M e a s u r e m e n t , N e w Jersey: Studies in E d u cation Series, Rutgers University, 1942. p. 1214.

A P P E N D I X

CAMP M A X STRAUS

COUNSELORS OBSERVATION REPORT

CAMPER

AG E

CO UN SE LO R

DATE

LOD GE

IN

DATE OUT

Indicate as follows: Good (1)* Fair (2), Poor (3). Comment on reverse side on any extremes, noti ce abl e improvement, reasons for imp rovement or not, or any aspect of the camper that m a y assi st in a b et t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the boy w h i c h will help in future relations w i t h him, PER SO M L

HY GIENE

Body Teeth Personal Effects Po sture

( )

( )

GR OUP C O O P ER ATI ON

R E G A R D FOR P R O P E R T Y

W i t h Lodge Tradit ions Lineup s Mee ti ng s

Personal Ot he r s 1

SATHC

( ) ( ) ( )

HABITS

Table Ma nne rs Eats all Foods Yes (if nr, Indicate) Rate

No

P A R T I C I P A T I O N IN CRM? P R O G R A M Group A cti v i t i e s Individual A c t i v iti es Camp P ro jec ts Lodge P ro je c t s E du cational Programs Campfire P r o g r a m Use of Camp Librarj'

( ( ( ( ( ( (

) ) ) ) ) ) )

So u r s Swimming Ar chary To urnaments H ik in g M ar gi na l Games Social Games

) ) ) ) > ) )

H a n d ic ra ft Nature Campcraft Pinnae ring Camp Newspaper A t h l e t i c Teams

SPECIAL A B I L IT IE S

A C H I E V E M E N T S & HONORS

GOALS

( ( ( ( ( ( (

(indicate goals set b y camper and degree of a c h i e v e m e n t as: A c h i e v e d (l), G o o d P r o gr ess (2), Some Pr og re ss (3), No Progress If no progre ss is made indicate r e a s o n in commentary.

In follow in g

Items

indicate:

Uses p r o f a n i t y or dirty t a l k Disp la ys Initative As sumes Le ad e r s h i p in Groups Shoulders R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

( )

c )

■(

'(

)

Se ld om (1), O c c a s i o n a l l y F r e q ue nt ly (4):

( ) ( ) ( )

(o).

(2),

)

F ai r l y often (3),

Retires b y self, is seclusive Cheating; lying, sneaking E vi de nc e of Inf er io ri ty F eel in g

( ( (

) ) )

( ) (Ove r )

In the f ol lo wi ng items place a n x in p a r e n t h e s i s a fter p r o p e r te rm or terms, otherwise indicate i n f o r m a t i o n required. Lodge

considers the C a m p e r as:

Le ad er H a n dic ap Baby Useful Member T r o u bl em ak er Out s i de r Nuisance Camper

( ( ( ( ( ( (

considers Staff M e m b e r s

Hill Joys Task m a k e r s Friends To control

Camper

( ( (

) ) ) ) ) ) )

or

shows L e a d e r s h i p in:

C l e a n Up M a i n t a i n i n g Order Table M a n n e r s E me rg en ci e s Athletics Other C o m p e t i t i o n Hike s

( ( ( ( ( ( (

) ) ) ) ) ) )

in general to b e :

) ) )

Lazy "Good Gu ys" Helpers

( (

) )

(

)

Di sci pl in ar ian s P at e r n a l i s t i c

( ( (

Camper it is u s u a l l y n e c e s s a r y for C o u ns el or t®:

Use s u g ge sti on Simp ly toll Camper Make Camper boss Sex At titudes:

( ( (

Reque st Co mmand Threaten

) ) )

( ( (

) ) )

E x p l a i n or instruct Bribe

(Omit this unless you have: fair or positive

Is i nt e r e s t e d but p u z z l e d Expresses dislikQ for girls Considers subject obsc ene

( ( (

) ) )

assurance)

M a r k e d avoidance M a s tur ba te s D iscusses se rio us ly

( ( (

) ) )

Have you b e e n able to observe any not ic ea bl e de ve l o p m e n t or improvement in the (_____ Camper as result of his camp ex p e r i e n c e ? ______________________ So ci al ly

COMMENTARYi ------------

(

)

Mentally

(

)

Physically

(

(include here any starred items, b e h a v i o r problems, mo ti v e s for behavi or , h e a l t h ha bits, t reatment us ed and b o y ’s r e a c t i o n to it, attitude toward his camp ex pericnee r e c o m m e nda ti on s for after comp care, etc.)

)

Elementary Series Grades 4 -9

CALIFORNIA TEST OF PERSONALITY— ELEMENTARY, FORM A A PROFILE OF PERSONAL A N D SOCIAL ADJUSTM ENT Devised by Louis P. Thorpe, Ernest W . T iegs, and W illis W . Clark

Name..........................................................................................................Grade...................Sex: Boy-Girl School.............................................................................Age................... Last Birthday............................. Teacher.........................................................................................................Date..........................................

Possi­ ble P u p il’s Score Score

COMPONENTS

1. Self Adjustment . . . A. Self-reliance

P e r­ c en t­ ile R an k 10

PERCENTILE (Chart pupil's percentile rank here) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

90

99

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

99

10

20

30

!o 40 50 PERCENTILE

io

80

90

72 12

. . . .

B. Sense o f Personal W orth

12

C. Sense o f Personal Freedom

12

D. Feeling o f Belonging .

.

12

E. W ithdrawing T endencies

12

(freedom from )

F. Nervous Symptoms

.

12

.

(freedom from )

2. Social Adjustment . . . A. Social Standards . B. Social

Skills

.

.

72 12 12

. . . .

C. A nti-social T endencies . (freedom from )

12

D. Family Relations

.

.

.

12

E. School Relations

.

.

.

12

F. Community Relations

TOTAL ADJUSTMENT .

12 . 144

C opyright, 1942, by C a lifo rn ia T est B u re au P u b lish ed b y C alifornia T est B u re au 5916 H ollyw ood B oulevard, Los A ngeles 28, C alifornia

SECTION 1 A

SECTION 1 B

1 1. Would you rather plan your own work than to have some one else plan it fo r y o u ?

13

13. Do your friends generally think that your ideas are good?

YES NO

YES NO

2. Do you usually apologize when you are wrong? YES NO

14. Do most of your friends and classmates think you are bright? YES NO

3. When you have some free time, do you usually ask your parents or teachers

15. Are your friends and classmates usually inter­ ested in the things you

w h a t to do?

YES NO

do?

.

YES

NO

4. When someone tries to cheat you, do you usually try to stop h im ? YES NO

16. Do you wish that your father (or mother) had a better job? YES NO

5. Is it easy for you to recite o r talk in class? YES NO

17. Do your classmates seem to think that you are not a good friend? YES NO

6. Do you like to meet new people or introduce them YES NO

18. Do your friends and class­ mates often want to help you? YES NO

7. Do you usually go to bed on time, even when you wish to stay up? YES NO

19. Are you sometimes cheat­ ed when you trade things? YES NO

8. Is it hard to do your work when someone blames you for something? YES NO

20. Do your classmates and friends usually feel that they know more than you do?

to o th e rs ?

9. Do you usually eat food that is good for you, even if y o u d o n o t lik e it?

YES NO

21. Do your folks seem to think that you are doing well? YES NO

YES NO

10. Do your parents or teach­ ers usually need to tell you to do your work? YES NO

22. Can you do most of the things you try?

YES NO

11. Do you get excited when things go wrong?

23. Do people often think that you cannot do things very well?

YES NO

24. Do people often do nice things for you?

YES NO

YES NO

12. Do you usually keep at y o u r w o rk u n til i t is d o n e? YES Score Section 1 A

NO

..........................

— 3 —

Score Section 1 B............................ —

SECTION 1 C

SECTION I D 2

37

25. M ay you usually choose your own friends?

YES

NO

37. Do pets and animals make friends with you easily?

YES

NO

26. Are you allowed enough time to play?

YES

NO

38. Are you proud of your school?

YES

NO

YES NO

39. Do your classmates think you cannot do well in school?

YES

NO

40. Are you as well and strong as most boys and girls?

YES

NO

41. Are your cousins, aunts, uncles, or grandparents as nice as those of most of your friends?

YES

NO

42. Are the members of your family usually good to you?

YES

NO

43. Do you often think that nobody likes you? YES

NO

44. Do you feel that most of your classmates are glad that you are a member of the class? YES

NO

45. D o you have just a few friends? YES

NO

46. Do you often wish you had some other parents? YES

NO

47. Are you sorry you live in the place you do? YES

NO

48. Do your friends have bet­ ter times at home than you do? YES

NO

27. Do others usually decide to which parties you may go? 28. M ay you usually bring your friends home when you want to? 29. May you usually do what you want to during your spare time? 30. Do you have a chance to see many new things? 31. Do your folks often stop you from going around with your friends?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES

NO

32. Are you allowed to do most of the things you want to?

YES NO

33. Are you given some spend­ ing money?

YES NO

34. Do your folks stop you from taking short walks with your friends? 35. Are you punished for lots of little things? 36. Do you feel that your folks boss you too much?

YES NO

YES NO

YES

NO

Score Section 1 C________________

Score Section 1 D...................

SECTION 1 F

SECTION 1 E 49

49. Have people often been so unfair that you gave up? 50. Do you often think of many things that are dan­ gerous? 51. Do you often meet people who are so mean that you hate them? 52. Do you often think about such things as failing in your studies, losing money, losing your par­ ents, or dying?

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

54. Is your work often so hard that you stoptrying?

YES NO

55. Are people often so un­ kind or unfair that it makes you feel bad?

YES NO

58. Are you often with peo­ ple who have so little in­ terest in you that you feel lonesome? 59. Are your studies or your life so dull that you often think about many other things? 60. Are people often mean or unfair to you? Score Section 1 E.

YES NO

62. Do you often have bad dreams?

YES NO

63. Do you bite your finger­ nails often?

YES

NO

64. Does it usually take you a long time to go to sleep at night?

YES

NO

65. Does your often?

YES

NO

66. Do you often find you are not hungry at meal time?

YES

NO

67. Do you take cold easily?

YES

NO

68. Do you often feel tired in the forenoon?

YES

NO

NO

YES NO

57. Do people often try to cheat you or do mean things to you?

61. Do you often have sneez­ ing spells? NO

53. Do your friends or your work often make you worry?

56. Do your friends or class­ mates often say or do things that hurt your feel­ ings?

61

head

ache

YES NO

YES

NO

YES NO

69. Do you often tap with your fingers on a table or desk?

YES NO

70. Do you often feel sick at your stomach?

YES NO

71. Do you often have dizzy spells?

YES NO

72. Do your eyes hurt you often?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Score Section 1 F.

SECTION 2 A

SECTION 2 B •

73

73. When people get sick or are in trouble, is it usually

85

85. Do you like to speak or sing before other people?

YES

NO

74. Is it all right to disobey teachers if you think they YES NO a re not fa ir to you?

86. When people make you angry do you usually keep it to yourself?

YES

NO

75. Should only the older boys and girls be nice and friendly to new people? YES NO

87. Do you help new pupils to talk to other children?

YES

NO

88. Does it make you feel angry when you lose in games at parties?

YES

NO

th e ir o w n fa u lt?

YES

NO

76. Is it all right to take things you need if you h av e no m oney?

YES NO

77. Is it necessary to thank those who have helped you? YES NO

89. Is it hard for you to talk to people as soon as you meet them?

YES NO

78. Do children need to obey their fathers or mothers even when their friends tell them not to? YES NO

90. Do you usually help other boys and girls to have a good time?

YES NO

79. If a person finds some­ thing, does he have a right YES NO

91. Do you usually act friend­ ly to people you do not like?

YES NO

80. Is it all right to make fun of boys and girls who do not believe what you do? YES NO

92. Do you often change your plans in order to help people?

YES NO

81. Should children o b e y signs that tell them to stay off of other peoples’ grounds? YES NO

93. Do you usually forget the names of people you meet?

YES NO

94. Do you often say nice things to people when they do well?

YES NO

95. Do you try games at part­ ies even if you haven’t played them before?

YES NO

96. Do you talk to new child­ ren at school?

YES NO

to k e e p it o r sell it?

82. Should children be nice to people they don’t like?

YES NO

83. Is it all right for children to cry or whine when their parents keep them h o m e fro m a show ?

YES NO

84. Is it all right to cheat in a game when the umpire is n o t lo o k in g ?

YES NO

Score Section 2 A.................................

— 6

Score Section 2 B.

SECTION 2 D

SECTION 2 C 97

109

97. Do people often ask you to do such hard or foolish things that you won’t do them? YES NO

109. Do you have a hard time because it seems that your folks hardly ever have YES NO enough money?

98. Are the tests at school often so hard or unfair that it is all right to cheat? YES NO

110. Do your folks seem to think that you are just as good as they are?

YES NO

111. Are you unhappy because your folks do not care about the things you like?

YES NO

112. When your folks make you mind are they usually nice to you about it?

YES NO

113. Do your folks often claim that you are not as nice to them as you should be?

YES NO

114. Do you like both of your parents about the same?

YES NO

115. Does someone at home pick on you much of the time?

YES NO

116. Does it seem to you that your folks at home often treat you mean?

YES NO

117. Do you try to keep boys and girls away from your home because it isn’t as nice as theirs?

YES NO

118. D o ’ you sometimes feel like running away from home?

YES NO

119. Do you feel that no one at home loves you?

YES NO

120. Have you often felt that your folks thought you would not amount to any­ thing?

YES NO

99. Do you often make friends or classmates do things they don’t want to? YES NO 100. Are things sometimes so bad at school that you stay away? YES NO 101. Do people often act so badly that you have to be mean or nasty to them? YES NO 102. Do you often have to make a “fuss” or “act up” to g e t your rig h ts? YES NO 103. Is anyone at school so mean that you tear, or cut, or break things? YES NO 104. Is it hard to make people remember how well you can do things? YES NO 105. Is someone at home so mean that you often have to q u a rre l?

YES

NO

YES

NO

106. Do you sometimes need something so badly that it is all r ig h t to ta k e it?

107. Do classmates often quar­ rel with you? YES NO 108. Do you like to scare or push smaller boys and girls? YES NO Score Section 2 C..................

Score Section 2 D............................ .

— 7—

SECTION 2 E

SECTION 2 F 121

133

121. Do you think that the boys and girls like you as well as they should? YES NO

133. Do you visit many of the interesting places near YES NO where you live?

122. Do you think that the children would be hap­ pier if the teacher were not so strict? YES NO

134. Do you sometimes do things to make the place in which you live look nicer? YES NO

12-3. Is it fun to do nice things for some of the other boys or girls? YES NO

135. Do you think there are too few interesting places near your home? YES NO

124. Is school work so hard that you are afraid you will fail? YES NO

136. Do you ever help clean up things near your home? YES NO

125. Do many of the children get along with the teacher much better than you do? YES NO

137. Do you-take good care of your own pets or help with other people’s pets? YES NO

126. Does it seem to you that some of the teachers have it in fo r p u p ils?

YES

138. Do you sometimes help other people? YES NO

NO

127. Do your schoolmates seem to think that you are nice to th e m ?

YES

139. Do you try to get your friends to obey the laws? YES NO

NO

140. Do you help children keep away from places where they might get sick? YES NO

128. Would you like to stay home from school a lot if i t w e re r ig h t to d o

so?

YES

NO

129. Are most of the boys and girls at school so bad that you try to stay away from them? YES NO

141. Do you usually try to be nice to peope who are not the same color or race as you are? YES NO

130. Do your classmates choose you as often as they should when they play games? YES NO

142. Is it all right to do what you please if the police are not around? YES NO

131. Do many of the other boys or girls claim that they play games fairer than you do? YES NO

143. Does it make you glad to see the people around your house get along fine? YES NO

132. Do the boys and girls usually treat you nice at school? ' YES NO

144. Do you dislike many of the people who live near your home? YES NO Score Section 2 F_________________

Score Section 2 E....................................

—

8

—

University of S o u t h e r n California LIlWT&ty