Use intercorrelations among self, typical, and ideal orders of interests as diagnostic tips for character analysis¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (5 for) · 1 study (1 associational), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 5 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article proposes collecting six orders of interest from individuals and pooled groups—as envisaged, believed typical, believed ideal, and their pooled counterparts—and using their intercorrelations and partials for diagnosis. It states that "a study of all the inter-relations on a correlation basis contains many valuable tips for those concerned with character analysis devices." Specific readings include detecting a self-judged 'different' person, smugness or humility, conceit, naive sentimentality, optimism or cynicism, and clear-sightedness about the group.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Obtain from each individual his self-order, his believed-typical order, and his believed-ideal order, plus the pooled group orders, before computing intercorrelations and partials

Constraints¶

• The article notes conclusions about conceit and sentimentality depend in part on the correlation of the individual's ideal with the group ideal

Target Learners¶

• college students and other rated individuals in character-analysis contexts

Target Learning Goals¶

• diagnosis of traits such as self-satisfaction, conceit, sentimentality, optimism, and clear-sightedness

Claims¶

• Students give themselves higher self-ratings on qualities they judge more important, averaging 14.75 points on A qualities versus 7.0 on F qualities [+W]
• Juniors judge their fellow students as falling short of the ideal order of interests, with a negative correlation between the objective and ideal orders [+W]
• Self-raters show very little association between their introspective self-order of interests and the order attributed to them by peers, indicating a tendency to overrate themselves [+W]
• Raters correlate the importance of a trait with how much of it they credit themselves, an average correlation of +.52 read as a self-defense mechanism [+W]
• Self-overrating persists with a simplified grading method and on a behavioral self-analysis test, where raters claim far more 'Always' and far fewer 'Sometimes' for themselves than for others [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Knight, F. B., & Franzen, R. H. (1921). Pitfalls in rating schemes. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073817