The significance of vocal cues in the judgment of tendencies toward social hostility

Citation preview

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VOCAL CUES IN THE JUDGMENT OF TENDENCIES TOWARD SOCIAL HOSTILITY

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Psychology The University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Douglas Quaid Corey June 1950

UMI Number: DP30388

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 PuDiismng

UMI DP30388 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

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

pA.

A

vis

level of confidence.

CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS OF THE STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH I.

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Before the answers to the two basic questions which defined our study and were posed in Chapter I we want to discuss two other related questions.

These are:

(1) Was

the measurement of the;*criterion sufficiently reliable and valid to justify its use in this study, and (2) was the scoring of the R.R.V.A.T. sufficiently objective so that a satisfactory degree of inter-scorer reliability could be obtained. Adequacy of the criterion.

Although the distribu­

tion of the criterion scores was rather skewed it was felt that a tetrachoric r^ would give a sufficiently precise measure of reliability, and that the phi coeffi­ cient would be adequate to indicate validity.

The cor­

rected odd-even reliability coefficient of .95 was as high as one might wish for in an instrument where the gpal was to show only the presence or absence of a gross relationship in a relatively large population.

We felt

91 that the devised rating scale could be considered a suffi­ ciently reliable measurement of the chronic social hos­ tility criterion.

As was previously mentioned, such a

scale as this derived its chief claim to validity by definition.

As T,L. Kelley stated: "If competent judges

appraise Individual A as being better than Individual B, as Individual B

is better than Individual C, then it is

so, as there is no higher authority to appeal to.

hfi

In general, it may be said that the reliability, and therefore the Inferred validity, of the teacherrating scale developed here compared very favorably with the reliabilities reported for such scales by Roy C. B r y a n t which ranged from .56 to .95*

The reliability

and validity of the scale seemed to have been satisfac­ torily established for our purpose. Adequacy of the R.R.V.A.T. scoring system.

Refer­

ence to Tables VIII and X shows that both the transcribed and the recorded scorings of the Against or hostile

46

Kelley, T.L., Influence of Nurture Upon Individual Differences (192b), p. 9 . Bryan, R.C., Pupils' Rating of Secondary School Teachers (New York: Teachers 1 College,““Bureau of Publications, Columbia University Press, 1937.

category were quite reliable with the latter being sig­ nificantly more reliable than the former. will be discussed later.)

(This result

The scoring reliabilities for

the Toward and With categories in both the transcribed and the recorded scorings were so low that it was not possible to draw any conclusions from their use.

However,

the main scoring category for social hostility seemed to have been sufficiently defined and objectified to permit reliable scoring. The direct and indirect significance of vocal cues in the clinical judgment of tendencies toward chronic social hostility.

We may now turn to a discussion of

the two major questions that formed the basis of our investigation:

(1) Is it possible for judges to infer from

a spontaneous voice record the extent to which an indi­ vidual exhibits hostile social behavior as judged by outside raters, and (2) Do vocal cues in a recorded projective test record increase its clinical usefulness or validity? On the basis of the results obtained in the first part of this study the answer to question number one is that it does not seem to be possible to judge from vocal quality per se the extent to which an individual exhibits

hostile social behavior.

Strictly speaking, of course,

this would apply only to the particular groups studied where such procedures as herein described were applied. But to the extent that it can be assumed that the ratings were valid measurements of the general trait of chronic social hostility and that the group studied was fairly representative of the population as a whole (at least as far as this trait was concerned) it can be said that there are no habitual vocal cues that correlated with tendencies toward chronic social hostility.

The suspi­

cions expressed in Chapter II seemed to have been con­ firmed.

When a sufficiently large number of voices are

rated the stereotype error has a chance to cancel itself and non-significant validity coefficnets result. The interpretation of the low inter-rater relia­ bility for the voice ratings presents a problem.

Two

possible explanations suggested themselves. 1.

The two raters were very poor; therefore,

the judgments resulted in low reliability and validity coefficients; and if the judges had been better, more valid results would have been obtained. 2.

The low intra-rater reliability coefficients

were actually a measure of the stereotype factor and no matter how.many raters or how well trained they were,

inter-rater reliabilities could not be increased substan­ tially and no validity for such judgments could be shown. If the first explanation had been correct we would have expected that when just those cases were selected where both of the judges had been in agreement arid were correlated against the criterion, there should have been some increase in the validity coefficient.

As the reader

may see in Table VI, page 77, this maximizing of the ratings1 reliability failed to produce any appreciable change in the validity coefficients.

It was felt that

the second explanation was the more correct and that the inter-rater reliability coefficient was actually a measure of the magnitude of the hostile voice stereotype. Adequacy of voice judgments.

Table VII shows that

the Popularity and Friendliness ratings were highly inter­ correlated, and shows that there were only a few cases in which the raters chose to make a differential judgment between the two traits.

The high intercorrelation indi­

cated that the distinction that seemed to be clinically valid at the time of rating was actually not necessary. However, it does forestall any criticism that the raters were forced to place a case in the friendly category on the basis of the vocal quality even when there were other cues that seemed to indicate to the clinician that

95 the subject would not he regarded as a well-liked or popular teacher with the students.

In other words, a

rater might have felt that a voice, although not clearly hostile In character, indicated a type of person that would not be rated as being friendly by the student raters. This double rating permitted them to indicate this. In summary then it may be said that it was not possible for the two clinicians singularly or together to predict tendencies toward chronic social hostility from an evaluation of the subject's recorded conversational voice.

Also, If it can be assumed that the judges were

at all qualified by training and background to make the ratings, the inter-rater reliability coefficients repre­ sented a measure of the hostility voice stereotype.

This

interpretation was strengthened further by the fact that when the reliability of the ratings were maximized by selecting only those cases where there had been agreement in the rating, the validity coefficient was not appre­ ciably increased. To the second major question: Do vocal cues In a recorded projective test record increase Its clinical usefulness, the answer was, no.

The scorers of the test

were unable to increase the validity of their scoring by utilizing the vocal cues from the recorded test answers.

96 The scoring reliability was significantly increased but not the validity. As was mentioned previously, the scoring relia­ bilities for the With and Toward categories were so low that no further consideration was given to them.

However,

both the transcribed and the recorded scoring for the Against category were quite reliable, with the latter being slightly more so. Why should the recorded scoring be more reliable than the transcribed? suggest themselves:

Again, two possible explanations

(1 ) a vocal stereotype factor could

have caused the greater agreement or (2 ) the vocal cues could have clarified for the scorers the actual intent of the speakers.

Probably both of these factors operated to

produce the higher reliability for the recorded scoring. We have already seen, both from our own data and from that of others, that definite vocal stereotypes do exist. Also, it is quite obvious that vocal cues do give added meaning to spoken language.

However, this is not to say

that vocal cues give information regarding personality structure.

Evidently, from the data secured in this study

it would seem that vocal cues will tell us whether or not an individual is angry at any given time but will not tell us whether or not his personality is such that he becomes

97 angry or hostile sufficiently frequently so that this characteristic may be said to be for him a personality trait.

In summary, vocal cues in a projective test situa­

tion such as was used in this study do not seem to add anything to the validity of the test score. Admittedly, the above finding was somewhat unex­ pected, but even more surprising was the insignificant correlation between the test itself and the criterion. The lack of correlation does not invalidate the procedure used, for if the original hypothesis had been true instead of false the insignificant transcribed validity coeffi­ cients might well have been increased from an approximately zero magnitude to a significant relationship. this finding in itself is valuable.

However,

We can definitely

say that hostile responses to a semi-structured projective test situation such as that used here have no relationship to any behavior that is judged to be hostile or unfriendly by outside raters in the manner followed in this study. Whether this would apply to hostile responses given on the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test, or the Rosensweig Picture-Frustration Test is not known and it would be risky at this time to generalize, but some doubt can not help but be thrown in that direction.

If such a

generalization should be shown to be false, then on the

98 theoretical level at least, it would be important to know the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a hostile projective test response would be valid and under which conditions it would not be valid.

It can definitely

be said that there are some types of hostile projective test responses that have no relationship to hostile social behavior as measured in the manner herein described. In summary, the transcribed test scores, the recorded test scores and the conversational voice ratings all failed to correlate with the outside criterion of social hostility.

It was not possible to show either a

direct or indirect relationship between voice and tendencies toward social hostility.

It was also shown that hostile

projective test responses such as were secured in this study bore no relationship to the individuals hostile or non-hostile social behavior.

II.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study leaves room for much refinement for future research workers.

Although the criterion appears

to have considerable face validity, additional thought should be given to this aspect of the problem.

The measure

of social hostility is phenotypical and not genotypical. Different teachers may be rated popular for quite different

99 reasons.

Probably some type of factorially analyzed rating

scale for the students would have permitted a more valid measurement of the social hostility trait. Probably the confidence in the results; obtained in this study could have been increased if a larger number of raters and scorers had been used.

However, this is a

limitation which usually results, as in this case, from limited research funds with which to secure the services of such personnel. There are many other personality characteristics other than social hostility that should be studied in much the same way.

One of particular interest to clinical

psychologists would be anxiety.

Possibly this or other

personality characteristics might be detected through a voice analysis more successfully than was possible with the social hostility trait.

CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary.

The purpose of this study was to investi­

gate the direct and indirect significance of vocal cues in the clinical judgment of chronic social hostility. There were two parts to the study and each was specifi­ cally formulated in terms of a question.

The first part

of the study attempted to answer the question: Is it possible for judges to infer from a spontaneous conver­ sational voice recording the degree to which an individual exhibits hostile social behavior as judged by outside raters?

The second part of the study attempted to answer

this question: Do vocal cues in a recorded projective test record increase its validity? The procedures used in gathering the data for the two parts of the investigation were both so much a part of the general methods employed that it is not desirable to explain them separately but to relate the steps of the investigation in sequence as they actually occurred. First, a specially constructed projective test was administered to 101 high school teachers.

The test con­

sisted of a "male” and "female" set of forty-two cartoon­ like pictures plus a sample picture.

These were printed

on six by eight cards to permit a flash-card technique of

101 administration.

On each card was pictured on© person

talking to another.

The comment of the person speaking

was printed in a ballooned space such as is used in present day comic strips.

A blank ballooned space by the

other person indicated the person that was supposed to reply to the first person's comment.

The majority of

situations portrayed what would commonly be called a frustrating situation. The test was individually administered.

The

instructions and the stimulus comments that were printed in the ballooned space by the antagonist on the cards were also recorded on a standard wire recorder.

As the

subject would hear the stimulus comment played, the adminis­ trator would present the appropriate card.

The comments

were recorded at seven second intervals to force the subject to give as spontaneous and unpremeditated answers as possible.

They were instructed to say what they thought

the individual in the picture would say in such a situa­ tion.

In other words9 they were asked to speak for the

person in the blank ballooned space.

These comments that

were given by the subjects were recorded on a second wire recorder. At the end of the testing situation the test adminis­ trator engaged the subject in a conversation by asking a

102 few routine questions.

A recording, unknown to the sub­

ject, was made of this sample conversational voice. Each teacher was given a set of rating scales and instructed to give them to one of her average classes. Each student in the class rated the particular teacher on a specially devised Friendliness rating scale.

A low

mean rating on the scale was assumed to indicate the presence of tendencies toward chronic hostile social behavior.

The corrected odd-even reliability index of

.95 indicated sufficient student consistency to justify the use of the criterion measure. Two clinical psychologists who had matriculated beyond the M.A. level rated the conversational voices for friendliness and popularity.

This double rating was

permitted in order to allow the raters to make such a differentiation if they so desired.

However, the inter­

correlation was so high that the two ratings were in effect one and can be so considered.

These voice judgments were'

then correlated against the criterion to determine the answer to the question which defined the first part of our study.

The correlations were of a zero magnitude.

The recorded test records were then transcribed by a typist.

The answers were given one of three scorings

depending upon whether the subject's answer indicated a

mature interaction with the antagonist, a hostile move against the antagonist or a dependent movement towards the aggressor.

More specifically, the With category

included comments indicating an interaction with the individual in an attempt to find a compromise on some sort of a give-and-take basis, or to suggest equitable solu­ tions, or to ask for or give additional clarifying informa­ tion.

The Against category included primarily the sar­

castic, critical, rejecting and threatening remarks. Attempts to please, ingratiate, secure forgiveness, or acquiesce to demands were thought of as indicating depen­ dency and were placed in the Towards category.

The

transcribed records were scored independently by two scorers.

Inter-scorer reliability and validity coeffi­

cients were then obtained. The scorers then listened to the recorded test records and rescored the tests taking into consideration the vocal cues.

Inter-scorer reliability and validity

coefficients were then found for the second scoring.

Both

the recorded and transcribed scoring reliabilities- for the With and Toward categories were so low that no further consideration need be given them.

The hostility score,

Against, proved to have a satisfactory inter-scorer relia­ bility of .91 and .95 for the transcribed and recorded scorings, respectively.

104 At this time the two scorers made an over-all friendliness and popularity rating based on the impression of the whole test record in order to take advantage of any rfclinical,f clues that might have been present.

These

judgments were also correlated against the criterion, but were shown not to be significant. Conclusions. 1.

The average friendliness voice rating for raters

A and B combined correlated .16 and, of course, was not significantly different from results that could have been obtained by chance.

On the basis of this finding it may

be said that tendencies toward chronic social hostility, as measured in this study, cannot be inferred from spon­ taneous conversational voice records. 2.

Although the conversational voice ratings of

the two judges neither singularly nor combined correlated significantly with the criterion scores, some inter-rater reliability was shown by a very significant tetrachoric rt of .3 8 .

Evidently voice stereotypes can produce agree­

ment among judges, even though the judgments have no validity. 3.

To the second major question which defined our

study: Do vocal cues in a recorded projective protocol increase its clinical usefulness, the answer was shown to

105 be, no.

The obtained phi coefficient of .16 between the

combined A and B recorded test scoring and criterion showed that it was not possible to increase significantly the validity of the scoring by utilizing the vocal cues from the recorded test answers. 4.

Of course the combined A and B transcribed

scorings also failed to correlate significantly with the criterion as was shown by a phi of .06.

Evidently hostile

responses in a semi-structured projective test situation, such as was used in this study, have no relationship to hostile social behavior as judged by outside raters.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY A.

BOOKS

Bryan, R.C., Pupils' Rating of Secondary School Teachers. New York: Teachers* College Bureau ofPublications, Columbia University Press, 1937. Chesire, L . , M. Saffir, and L.L. Thurstone, Computing Diagrams for the Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficient. Chicago: University of Chicago B o o k s t o r e , 19387 Fargo, L . , editor, German Psychological Warfare. For the Committee for National Morale. NewYork: Putnam and Sons, 1940. Lindquist, E.F., Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. New York: Houghton MiffTTn Company, 1940. Pear, T.H., Voice and Personality. Hall, 193T:

London: Chapman and

Pennington, L.A., An Introduction to Clinical Psychology. New York: RonaTcT Press, '1948.

B.

PERIODICAL ARTICLES

Allport, G.W., and H. Cantril, "Judging Personality from Voice," Journal of Social Psychology, 5:37-55, 1934. Covner, B.J., "Use of Phonograph Recordings in Counseling Practice and Research," J ournal of Consulting Psychology, 6:105-113, May, 1942. Dusenbury, D . , and F.H. Knower, "Experimental Studies of the Symbolism of Action and Voice, II," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 2 5 :67-7 5 , March, 1939* Eckert, R.G., and N. Keys, "Public Speaking as a Cue to Personality and Adjustment," Journal of Applied Psychology, 24:44-53, Aug. 1946'.

107 Fay, P.J., and W.C. Middleton, "Judgment of Spranger Personality Types from the Voice as Transmitted Over a Public Address System," Character and Personality, 8:144-55j Nov. 1939. , "Judgment of Intelligence from the Voice as Transmitted Over a Public Address System," Sociometry, 3:186-91, March, 1940. Hutt, M.L., "A Clinical Study of ’Consecutive* and *Adaptive* Testing with the Revised Stanford-Binet," J ournal of Consulting Psychology, 7:93-103, May, 1§47. Jones, H.E., "The Adolescent Growth Study; VI. Analysis of Voice Records," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 6 :255-5 6 , Aug. 1942. Kelly, E.L., "Personality as Revealed by Voice and Conversation without Face to Face Acquaintance," Psychological Bulletin, 35:710, Feb. 1938. (abstract) Manson, R.H., and T.H. Pear, "The Conversation as a Basis for Judgments of Personality," Character and Personality, 3:222-29, Mar. 1935. Michael, ¥., and C.C. Crawford "An Experiment in Judging Intelligence by the Voice," Journal of Educational Psychology, 18:107-14, Oct. l92'7. Moore, W.E., "Personality Traits and Voice Quality Deficiencies," Journal of Speech Disorders, 4:33-38, April, 1939. Moses, P.J., "Theories Regarding the Revelation of Consti­ tution and Character Through the Voice," Psychological Bulletin, 38:747, June, 1941. (abstract) Newman, S., "Personal Symbolism in Language Patterns," Psychiatry, 2:177-84, Feb. 1939. , and V.G. Mather, "Analysis of Spoken Language of Patients with Affective Disorders," American J ournal of Psychiatry, 94:913-^2, Oct. 1938. Sapir, E., "Speech as a Personality Trait," American J ournal of Sociology, 3 2 :892-905, July, 1927.

108 Stagner, R., '’Judgments of Voice and Personality/' Journal of Educational Psychology,, 27:272-77, July, 1936. Taylor, H.D., "Social Agreement on Personality Traits as Judged by Speech," Journal of Social Psychology, 5:244-48, June, 193^. Wolff, W . , "The Experimental Study of Form of Expression," Character and Personality, 2:168-76, Mar. 1933.

C.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL

Lord, E . , "The Influence of Negative sTnd Positive Rapport Conditions on Rorschach Performance.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern California, 1948. Luft, J . , "Some Relationships Between Clinical Speciali­ zation and the Understanding and Prediction of an Individual's Behavior," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of California, Los Angeles, 1949.

A P P E N D I X

A

109

X T H I N K X 8X X STAX UP AND READ®

X T H I N K I* I X STAX UP AND R E AD®

X GUESS I FORGOT ABOUT OUR D A T E

X GUESS X FORGOT ABOUT O U R DATE.

A P P E N D I X

B

I N S T R U C T T O N S F O R T H E E V A L U A T I O N OF S T U D E N T R E A C T I O N k F o l l o w i n g are a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s which. s h o u l d b a a n s w e r e d toy y o u and the o t h e r s t u d e n t s in this class. If 3rou a n s w e r t h e m f r a n k l y and h o n e s t l y , the r e s u l t s w i l l g i v e I n f o r m a ­ t i o n o n h o w y o u f e e l a b out this t e a cher* This Information will toe a g r e a t h e l p to u s in f i n d i n g a n s w e r s to c e r t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s that we are stu d y i n g * Tou r teacher will never know how y o u as an I n d i v i d u a l , or the c l ass as a whole, m a r k e d the q u e s ­ tionnaire. DO. NOT W R I T E T O U R NAME- OR T H E N A M E OF T H E T E A C H E R O N T H I S SHEET * ' ' ~ ~ " ' P u t a c h e c k m a r k (X) in f r o n t of the s t a t e m e n t that y o u h o n e s t l y f e e l m o s t a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e s y o u r te a c h e r * When you are through, t u r n y o u r p a p e r over* A s t u dent w i l l t hen c o l l e c t them*

W H A T IS T O U R O P I N I O N C O N C E R N I N G T H E F R I E N D L I N E S S T H I S TEACHER*? C h e c k one.

SHOWN BT

c }

A l w a y s kind, students*

( )

N e a r l y a l w a y s kind, the s t u d ents*

( )

G e n e r a l l y kind, c o n s i d e r a t e , and f r i e n d l y but o c c a s i o n a l l y I r r i t a b l e w i t h the s t u d e n t s *

( >

Is k i n d and h e l p f u l tout is g r o u c h y , and s a r c astic*

( )

A g o o d p a r t of the findings

considerate,

and f r i e n d l y w i t h

considerate,

time

and f r i e n d l y w i t h

sometimes

Is h a r s h ,

the

Impa t i e n t ,

grouchy,

fault­

F O L L O W I N G A R E P A I R S OF O P P O S I T E P E R S O N A L I T Y T R A I T S . CIRCLE T H E O N E IN E A C H P A I R W H I C H S E E M S TO D E S C R I B E B E S T A N A S P E C T OF Y O U R T E A C H E R *S P E R S O N A L I T Y . Sample: Patient Cheerful Tactful Worried Strict Nervous Relaxed

or or or or or or or

Impatient moody tactless no t w o r r i e d easy-going calm tense

A P P E N D I X

C

I t Is r e q u e s t e d t h a t the p u p i l s i n y o u r s e c o n d p e r i o d c l a s s f u r n i s h r e p l i e s to a f i v e m i n u t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r e p a r e d b y the P s y c h o l o g y D e p a r t m e n t a n d E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a ,

Th e p u r p o s e is as f o l l o w s : T h i s Is p a r t of a C i t y - w i d e s t u d y b e i n g c o n d u c t e d b y the E d u c a t i o n a l a n d P s y c h o l o g y D e p a r t m e n t s a t U . S . C . to g a t h e r c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w i l l b e h e l p f u l i n the f u t u r e s e l e c t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s . N o b o d y i n t his s c h o o l system, n e i t h e r t h e p r i n c i p a l n o r s u p e r i n t e n d e n t n o r a n y m e m b e r o f t he staff, w i l l s ee a n y o n e o f the questionnaires. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n is to b e g i v e n a n o n y m o u s l y . Please

do the f o l l o w i n g :

1.

P i c k u p the set of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

i n the m a i n o f f i c e

2.

At t h e f i r s t of t he p e r i o d h a v e a s t u d e n t p a s s o u t one q u e s t i o n n a i r e to e a c h p u p i l .

3. T h e n r e a d the f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h t o t h e class: " F i r s t r e a d the I n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y a n d t h e n f i l l i n t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e . D o n o t p u t y o u r n a m e s o n t he questionnaire. W h e n y o u a re t h r o u g h , t u r n the s h e e t o v e r o n y o u r d e s k u n t i l o n e of t he s t u d e n t s c o l l e c t s them and seals them In this envelope." I n a d d i t i o n to t h i s m a t e r i a l Mr. C o r e y h a s a s k e d If the t e a c h e r s w o u l d v o l u n t e e r t e n m i n u t e s of t h e i r t i m e s o m e t i m e d u r i n g t h e n e x t t h r e e day s to t a k e a v e r y short, i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d o s y c h o l o g i c a l test. Any time during y o u r free p e r i o d or lun c h time w o u l d be satisfactory. W o u l d y o u p l e a s e b r i n g t he s e a l e d e n v e l o p e to h i m at t h a t time. I n t he o f f i c e t h e r e Is an a p p o i n t m e n t sheet.