Nancy Wiggins

Prediction of First-Year Graduate Success in Psychology: Peer Ratings.

AbstractThe present study involved a comparison among a variety of measures in predicting first-year grade-point average (GPA) in graduate school in Psychology at the University of Illinois. The predictors included standard ability measures such as the Graduate Record Examination, biographical characteristics, peer ratings on intellective and personological variables, and scales from the Opinion, Attitude, and Interest Survey. The samples involved forty-six psychology first-year students at the University of Illinois in 1965 and fifty-eight students in 1966. Results indicated that among ail predictors only the peer ratings demonstrated predictive validity of first-year grades.

Prediction of Long-Term Success in Doctoral Work in Psychology

THIS study examines the degree to which measures of aptitude and undergraduate preparation obtained before the beginning of doctoral study are predictive of the &dquo;success&dquo; of psychology graduate students. Criterion measures were taken at two points in time. At the end of the first year of graduate study, the general progress and potential of each student was rated, and first-year course grades were obtained. Judgments of the overall success of each student were made six years after the beginning of graduate work, when all students in the research either had completed a Ph.D. or

AFFECTIVE MEANING SYSTEMS: A MULTIVARIATE APPROACH

A three-mode factor analysis was applied to the semantic differential ratings by 100 subjects of 20 concepts on 76 bipolar adjeotival scales. Four scale factors, five concept factors, and two subject factors emerged f m the analysis. On the basis of the interrelationships among these three types of factors it was concluded that different types of subjwts tend to utilize the basic scalar dimensions of meaning in different ways when applying khese scales across concepts. Further, thris differential application of scale dimen- sions varied with the class of concept being rated.

Implicit theories of personality: An individual differences approach.

Twenty ratees were described on 20 bipolar personality trait adjectives by 51 raters in an own-control design in which both complete strangers and close friends were judged. The trait factor structures were extremely similar for both friend descriptions and stranger descriptions. Although the ratees were not distinguished in terms of acquaintanceship (friends vs, strangers), they were differentiated along physiognomic and personality dimensions reminiscent of Sheldons typology. Individual differences among the raters were largely due to different fraternity membership and associated personality characteristics. A three mode factor analysis indicated an interaction among rater, ratee and trait dimensions.

A semantic differential for facial attribution: The face differential

Four groups of 10 subjects each (black males, black females, white males, and white females) associated a total of 2,400 personality descriptive adjectives to slides of 20 black and white male faces. Adjectives were grouped into synonym classes, and important adjective groups and their antonyms were selected on the basis of: (a) frequency of association; (b) judged relevance of adjective to faces; (c) judged commonness of opposite; and (d) judged commonness of adjective. This procedure was conducted for the whole group of 40 subjects by one investigator and for each of the four subgroups by another investigator. The two adjective lists were compared, and a final set of 27 bipolar adjective scales was selected as appropriate for the study of personality attributions to faces. Race and sex differences in the use of these adjectives were explored.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SEMANTIC SPACE: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION

Using a rating task and a method of analysis which allows for individual differences in the use of semantic differential scales, substantial individual differences were found to emerge. In addition, the group average structure corresponded closely to that which has been found in traditional semantic differential research. These two findings replicate previous results. To test the usefulness of an individual differences approach, evaluative scores based on an individuals own evaluative dimension and evaluative scores based on the group average evaluative dimension were used to predict political preferences. Although both sets of scores were highly correlated with preferences, predictive power was not improved by the individual difference approach.

A Cross-Cultural Study of the Attribution of Personological Characteristics As a Function of Facial Perception

The extensive literature on faces alone attests to their importance. However, it is somewhat surprising that very little research has been concerned with the major objectives of this investigation. In particlular, identifying the salient personological characteristics attributed to faces, and examinign, systematically, individual differences in the perception and attribution of important personality characteristics. Not only are personality traits readily attributed to various sorts of faces, but such judgments have shown a high degree of agreement (Secord, 1958; Brunswik, 1956). Judgments of intelligence from photographs (Brunswik, 1956) reveal high inter-rater reliability, as do &dquo;cuteness&dquo; judgments (Brooks & Hochberg, 1960) of schematized baby’s faces. The major individual difference variables that have emerged in the person perception literature have been race, sex and the amount of prejudice of the judge. A study by Parrott & Saiia (1972) in which both males and females (half black, half white) were asked to rate opposite sex black and white photos on selected semantic differential-type scales concerned itself with heterosexual perception. A sex by race interaction was obtained for such scales

Individual Differences in Diagnostic Judgments of Psychosis and Neurosis from the MMPI

THE numerous comparisons of clinicians with computers in forecasting behavior (usually to the computer’s advantage) have led investigators to the more fundamental problem of how different clinicians arrive at their predictions; for a recent review see Goldberg (1968). This concern with the clinical judgment process has necessarily involved the notion of individual differences among clinical judges. As with most kinds of data, individual differences in clinical judgments can be treated in two ways. Should differences

Book Reviews : Clinical and Social Judgment: The Discrimination of Behavioral Information by James Bieri, Alvin L. Atkins, Scott Briar, Robin Lobeck Leaman, Henry Miller, and Tony Tripodi. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Pp. xiv + 271:

Clinical and Social Judgment: The Discrimination of Behavioral Information by James Bieri, Alvin L. Atkins, Scott Briar, Robin Lobeck Leaman, Henry Miller, and Tony Tripodi. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Pp. xiv + 271. Rather than broadly surveying concepts and research in the areas of clinical and social judgment as the title of this book suggests, the authors have chosen instead to concentrate on the diverse literatures of information theory, anchoring phenomena, individual differences, situational factors, and the roles of structure and affect in judgment. The intensity of topical coverage varies inversely with the apparent relevance of the research involved to clinical and social judgment. Consequently, there is no single organizational principle underlying the various topics covered, although the authors have addressed themselves to the basic question : &dquo;... What factors in the judgment situation lead to differences among judges in their ability to discriminate among the behavioral information available to them?&dquo; (p. viii). In particular, the authors postulate that this judgmental ability is a function of: (a) the dimensionality of the stimuli in terms of the number of dimensions and the number of discriminable intervals along any