This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 16:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of GeneralPsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

Dominant Interests andPersonality CharacteristicsR. Pintner a & C. Forlano aa Teachers College, Columbia UniversityPublished online: 04 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: R. Pintner & C. Forlano (1939) Dominant Interests andPersonality Characteristics, The Journal of General Psychology, 21:2, 251-260, DOI:10.1080/00221309.1939.10544296

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1939.10544296

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Jou.rnal of General Psychology, 1939, 21, 251-260.

DOMINANT INTERESTS AND PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS*

Teachers College, Columbia University

R. PINTNER AND C. FoRLANo

With the increasing number of fairly reliable personality tests, questions as to the interrelationships between tests naturally arise. The present study deals with the relationships between the traits measured by Allport and Vernon's Study of Values and Thurstone's Personality Schedule. The former gives us a measure of general interest values in life and the latter a measure of neurotic tendencies. We have raised two general questions: (a) Are there differences in neurotic tendency among groups differing in their highest (or lowest) interest values, and (b) do the dominant interest values show differ­ent patterns of response on the items of the Thurstone Personality Schedule?

The population consisted of women students in education courses at Teachers College, Columbia University. Each student was given the Allport and Vernon Study of Values Test and the Thurstone Personality Schedule. The total population was then divided into six groups according to the highest interest value for each individual. In a few cases there were two equally dominant interest values and these were tabulated under both categories. The mean Thurstone scores for these six groups were then calculated. The total popula­tion was again divided into six groups according to the lowest interest value for each individual and mean Thurstone scores calculated.

Our first comparison is between the highest and lowest groups of each interest value. These differences are shown in Table 1. This table is to be interpreted as follows: There were 37 students whose highest value among all the six values of the test was the theoretical value; and there were 78 students whose lowest value was the theoretical value; the mean score on the Thurstone test of the high theoretical group was 37.09 while the mean score of the low theoreti­cal was 45.07. The low theoretical group was slightly more neurotic (because high scores on the Thurstone indicate neurotic tendency).

*Received in the Editorial Office on ] uly 1, 1938.

251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E

1 A

CO

MPA

RISO

N

OF

HIG

HES

T AN

D LO

WES

T IN

TERE

ST V

ALU

E G

ROU

PS O

N TH

E TH

UR

STO

N E

PER

SON

ALI

TY

SCH

EDU

LE

Sta

nd

ard

R

atio

n

Th

urst

one

S

core

S

tan

dar

d E

rro

r H

igh

-Lo

w

Inte

rest

Va

lue

Hig

hes

t L

owes

t H

igh

est

Low

est

Hig

hes

t L

owes

t O

'di(f

. In

tere

st V

alu

e

Th

eore

tica

l 37

78

37

.09

45.0

7 3.

85

2.5

9 4.

64

-1.

72

Eco

nom

ic

35

48

36.5

0 4

1.36

3.

77

2.90

4

.76

-1.

02

Aes

thet

ic

79

24

41.8

7 40

.21

2.2

5 4.

83

5.3 3

.3

1 So

cial

56

16

41

.34

47.5

0 2.

57

6.85

7.

31

-.8

4 P

olit

ical

14

56

41

.22

39.0

2 4

.74

3.01

5.

61

.39

Rel

igio

us

78

64

38.7

9 40

.16

2.43

2.

86

3.75

-

.37

[ D

iff. J

O'd

iff,

N

Vl

N

......

0 c: :>0 z >

t""

0 "1

C'l

r:1 z r:1 ~ t""

"0

Vl ><:

(') :I:

0 t"" 8 ><:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R. PINTN ER AND C. FOR LA NO 253

The standard errors of the two means appear next in the table, followed by the standard error of the difference between the means, and finally the ratio of the difference to its standard error. In the first row comparing the high and low theoretical groups we note a standard ratio of -1.72, which shows that although the low theo­retical group scores as more neurotic than the high, the difference between the means of 7.98 points is not statistically significant. The means of these two groups, namely 37.09 and 45.07, are both well within the range of average scores according to Thurstone's inter­pretation of the scores on his personality schedule.

As we study the means of the other five interest values, we note that all of them are very similar, the lowest being 36.50 and the highest 47.50. They are all within Thurstone's "average" range which extends from 30 to 59. Furthermore none of the differences between the means of the low and high groups are statistically reli­able. Four of the six differences show higher (more neurotic scores) for the low groups.

Next we have compared the mean Thurstone score of each highest value group, first with the lowest value group having the lowest mean Thurstone score and then with the lowest value group having the highest mean Thurstone score. The former and latter were the political and social groups respectively. Table 2 gives the main comparison. For example, we note that the first two rows are con­cerned with the high theoretical group. This group is compared first with the low political, because the low political group received

TABLE 2 RELIABILITY OF MEAN THURSTONE SCORE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH OF THE

HIGH INTEREST VALUE GROUPS AND LOW POLITICAL AND Low SOCIAL GROUPS

Values compared

High Theoretical-Low Political High Theoretical-Low Social High Economic-Low Political High Economic-Low Social High Aesthetic-Low Political High Aesthetic-Low Social High Social-Low Political High Social-Low Social High Political-Low Political High Political-Low Social High Religious-Low Political High Religious-Low Social

Mean differences

- 1.93 -10.41 -2.52 -11.00

2.85 - 5.63

2.32 - 6.16

2.20 - 6.28 - .23 - 8.71

Standard ratios

-0.39 -1.33 -.52 -1.41

.76 - .78

.59 -.84

.39 -.76 -.06 -1.20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

254 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

the lowest mean score on the Thurstone of all the six low interest value groups. Then the high theoretical group is compared on the next line with the low social group, because this group received the highest Thurstone score of all the six low interest groups. In other words, all the differences between the high theoretical and the other six low interest groups would fall in between the two groups given in the table. In regard to the high theoretical group we note that both the comparison groups (and hence all the other lowest value groups) make higher neurotic scores, but that the differences are not statistically significant.

As we study this table we note no statistically significant differ­ences, but we do note the large number of negative values. Only three of the differences are positive and these positive differences are rather small. A similar comparison was made in that the Thurstone mean of each of the low interest groups was subtracted first from the highest mean Thurstone score of the high interest group, namely. the aesthetic, and then from the lowest mean Thurstone score of the high interest group, namely, the economic. Only four of the mean differences were positive and rather small. There seems, then to be a trend for high interest groups to score lower on the Thurstone, i.e., be less neurotic.

THE ITEM ANALYSIS

The object of our item analysis was to discover whether the high­est or lowest interest value groups differed in the way they marked individual items. We, therefore, computed the difference between the percentages for each item for each of our six interest values groups. It is obviously impossible and unnecessary to reproduce all these long tables. Items which showed a standard ratio of two or more are considered as indicating a possible difference. An example will make our procedure clearer.

There were 37 individuals whose highest interest value on the Values test was theoretical; there were 78 whose lowest interest value was theoretical. We compared these two groups (the high and low theoreticals) with reference to each of the 223 items on the Thurstone test. For example, Item 72 on the Thurstone test reads, "Do you tend to non-conformity in your political, religious, and social beliefs?" Now 43.20 per cent of the 3 7 high theoreticals marked this "yes"; while only 15.40 per cent of the 78 low theoreticals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R. PINTNER AND C. FORLANO 255

marked this "yes." The difference between these percentages is 27.80, and this difference has a standard ratio of 3.05. We have considered this item, therefore, as · discriminating between the low and the high theoreticals.

This procedure has been followed for the six interest values. Hence, for each interest value we have a group of Thurstone items which discriminate between the high and low groups of that value. To be specific, we find that there are 26 items that seem to dis­criminate between the high and low theoreticals; 12 between the high and low economics; 12 between the high and low politicals; 26 between the high and low aesthetics; 23 between the high and low religious; 11 between the high and low socials.

Now each of these sets of Thurstone items, which discriminate between the high and low interest groups, can be divided into two groups according to whether the high or the low interest group marked them more or less frequently in the maladjusted or neurotic direction. To refer again to our sample, Item 72, "Do you tend to non-conformity in your political, religious and social beliefs?", we note that "yes" indicates maladjustment. Now a much larger per­centage of the high theoreticals than the low theoreticals marked this item "yes/' hence the high theoreticals tend to show maladjust­ment on this response. For all six interest groups we find more discriminatory responses marked in a maladjusted direction by the low than by the high groups.

Let us examine the discriminatory responses for each of the six interest value groups.

1. Theoretical

Of the 26 discriminatory responses only four are marked more frequently in a maladjusted direction by the high theoreticals. These four responses are :

72. Do you tend to non-conformity in your political, religious social beliefs?

105. Were you happy when fourteen to eighteen years old? 121. Do you prefer participation in competitive intellectual

amusements to athletic games? 163. Do you get tired of work quickly?

The high theoreticals tend to non-conformity, they prefer intel­lectual amusements, they get tired of work easily, and were unhappy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

256 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

during adoleEcence in a greater degree than the low theoreticals. The first two characteristics seem very definitely to coincide with high theoretical interests.

The low theoreticals have a long list of 22 items which they mark more frequently in a maladjusted direction. This list is too long to be reproduced here. We give the numbers of the Thurstone items for any reader who may be interested in the detailed items, namely item Nos. 5, 29, 49, 60, 62, 68, 73, 74, 91, 94, 114, 141, 148, 149, 154, 161 166, 178, 183, 214, 217, and 222. These items range over such areas as physical health, sex, feelings of inferiority, and the like. They cannot be easily grouped into a few definite categories.

2. Economic

Of the 12 discriminatory responses, only four are marked more frequently in a maladjusted manner by the high economic group. These four responses are:

29. Are you easily shocked by sexual topics, risque stories, and the like?

152. Do you often feel just miserable? 154. Are you bothered much by blushing? 210. Have you a good appetite?

These four items seem to have no obvious relation to high economic interests. The 8 items marked by the low economic group are Items 9, 39, 62, 86, 105, 108, 162, and 204. There is again no obvious trend here.

3. A esthetic

Of the 26 discriminatory responses, the following 12 are marked more frequently m a maladjusted direction by the high aesthetic group:

10. Do you take responsibility for introducing people at a party?

17. Are you careful not to say things to hurt people's feelings? 21. Do you often feel lonesome, even when you are with other

people? 45. Is your mother's nature usually cheerful? 86. Did you ever have a strong desire to run away from

home? 99. Do you find difficulty in making friends?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R. PINTNER AND C. FORLANO

115. Do you make friends easily? 154. Are you bothered much by blushing? 177. Do you often experience periods of loneliness? 194. Are you frig htened by lightning? 204. Have you any physical defects? 205. Do you think you are regarded as critical of other people?

257

Eight or nine of these may be considered as dealing with an indi­vidual's reaction toward other people. The high aesthetics seem to show a slightly introversive tendency.

The 14 items characterizing the low aesthetics are Items 48, 51, 53, 55, 69, 74, 83, 85, 116, 118, 148, 192, 193, and 199. They are scattered over many areas and do not seem to show any definite trends.

4. Social

Of the 11 discriminatory responses the following six are marked so as to indicate maladjustment by the high social interest group:

6. Do you fee l that life is a great burden? 102. Are your daydreams usually about unpleasant things? 141. Can you stand the sight of blood? 146. Are you thrifty and careful about making loans? 159. Do you love your mother more than your father? 202. Do you often find that you cannot make up your mind

until the time for action has passed?

The five items characterizing the low social interest group are Nos. 26, 115, 177, 194, and 209. Two of these seem to indicate lack of interest in people.

5. Political

Of the 12 discriminatory responses the following six are char· acteristic of the high political group:

42. Can you sit still without fidgeting? 49. Can you stand disgusting smells? 50. Do you ever talk in your sleep? 54. Do you get tired of amusements quickly? 66. Do you often have bad pains in any part of your body?

141. Can you stand the sight of blood?

The items characterizing the low political group are Nos. 21, 140. 179, 187,201, and 211. They confess more frequently to feelings .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

258 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

of inferiority, and do not show a particular liking for people. All of which seems to fit into our idea of low political interest. It is interesting to note that in regard to Item 187 which asks Do you find it difficult to speak in public?, 41 per cent of the low politicals as against 7 per cent of the high politicals responded affirmatively.

6. Religious

Of the 23 discriminatory responses, 12 characterize the high re-ligious group as follows:

11. Do you think most people are self-seeking or malicious? 14. Do you lose your head easily in a dangerous situation? 28. Are your feelings easily hurt? 29. Are you easily shocked by sexual topics, risque stories,

and the like? 43. Do you usually trust people? 78. Have you ever had spells of dizziness? 95. Do you limit your friendships mostly to your own sex? 98. Can you stand criticism without feeling hurt?

116. Have your employers generally treated you right? 123. Do you think you are often regarded as queer? 149. Do you think you know yourself well . from having ob­

served your own mind? 178. Does criticism disturb you badly?

There are indications of sensitiveness here m Items 28, 29, 98, 116, 123, I78, and strangely enough, two items, II and 43, point to a rather low estimate of humanity in general. The II items char­acterizing the low religious group are Nos. 45, 69, 72, I04, 105, I22, I64, 166, I70, 205, and 2I2. No single category seems suffi­cient to sum them up. Four of the II items seem to suggest that there had been some unhappiness in the home.

On the whole this item analysis has not resulted in any clear­cut patterns of maladjusted tendencies characterizing the various interest-value trends of divergent groups, although several of the items seem to have been marked as one logically might expect. A few seem to go contrary to expectation. The difference between the high and low theoreticals is most marked and logical. The economic and political groups show little of interest, but these two groups are not well represented in our population. The aesthetic groups seem to be differentiated in regard to their attitude toward people. The religious group is difficult to characterize.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

R. PINTNER AND C. FORLANO 259

We made a further study of high and low aesthetics to see if we could substantiate Allport and Vernon's description of the aesthetic man. They say on page 9 of the 1931 edition of the manual of directions, "In social affairs he may be interested in persons, but not in the welfare of persons; he tends toward individualism and self­sufficiency." We had three judges check all the items of the Thurstone test which they considered as dealing with persons or social si tuations. There were 29 items upon which all three judges agreed. The standard ratios between the responses of the high and low aesthetics were then calculated. Similarly we calculated the standard ratios between the high social group and the high aesthetic group for these same 29 items, arguing that the high social group should be characterized by great interest in the "welfare of persons," a characteristic which ought to set them sharply apart from the high aesthetic group, if Allport and Vernon's suggestion is correct. In both of our comparisons, however, we found few indications of a difference in the direction expected.

SuMMARY

This study deals with a comparison of the Allport and Vernon Study of Values Test and the Thurstone Personality Schedule. We compared groups of high and low interest values with reference to their neurotic tendency. No statistically significant differences be­tween any of our groups were found. However, there seems to be a suggestive tendency for the high interest value groups to be on the average slightly more adjusted.

A study of the items on the Thurstone test which were marked in a maladjusted direction more frequently by the high or low groups showed no clear-cut patterns, although certain trends in cer­tain groups seemed logically consistent.

Our study is limited inasmuch as we had a rather homogeneous group of women all engaged more or less in education. The ques­tion of the personality make-up which goes along with various dominant interests would be studied to better advantage with a more heterogeneous population reprefenting better all the dominant inter­ests of the Values test. It would also be desirable to have other per­sonality tests measuring more specific traits such as dominance-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

260 JOURNAL Or GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

submission, introversion-extroversion, and others. We may then find that dominant life interests arise out of or are linked to basic personality traits.

T eachers College Columbia University New York City

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

46 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014