An Introduction to Social Psychology
Chapter 16: The Attitudes and Personality
Luther Lee Bernard
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
ATTITUDES AND ADJUSTMENT— We have had occasion a number of times to speak of attitudes, but have not hitherto discussed this phase of behavior. The category of attitudes is a broad one and covers all aspects of the behavior of the organism in partially effective adjustments. An attitude is essentially an incompleted or potential adjustment behavior process. It is the set of the organism toward the object or situation to which an adjustment is called for. When the adjustment is made the attitude disappears, except in so far as it is retained in memory or in the habitual set of the organism. Attitudes are strong or weak in inverse proportion to the amount of the adjustment which remains unexecuted, and in direct ratio to the strength of the drives behind the adjustment behavior. Attitudes arise only in an adjustment situation and they may be regarded primarily as preparation for the adjustment which is in its initial stages and is to be completed. As that adjustment proceeds the behavior is transformed from attitudinal or preparatory into true or successful adjustment behavior. However, the attitude persists while the adjustment is in process, and the attitude is often regarded as more characteristic of the actual adjustment behavior than of the preparation for that behavior. As a matter of fact the attitude is characterized by both preparation and execution, for the two processes are continuous. But if behavior occurred without interruption or blocking we should think but little of attitudes and speak primarily of adjustment. Thus, attitude and adjustment are usually continuous processes, and the one arises within the other.
THE NATURE of ATTITUDES — Attitudes may be either overt or inner and psychic. The muscular or body attitudes are very familiar to all of us, both through observation and experience.
(247) We know what it is to take an attitude of defense against a blow or against crowding, to have an attitude of assistance, or of readiness to grasp an object, etc. The muscular tensions which develop in a situation of readiness for play, fighting, or vocational behavior are among the strongest of our kinesthetic sensory experiences and play a very large part in the consciousness of childhood, of the athlete, actor, laborer, etc., in fact of any one who is acquiring a skill. It is through the "feel" of these tensions that one comes to control his technic behavior and acquire skills or technique. We perceive our own body attitudes largely kinesthetically, those of others mainly visually.
Likewise we are familiar with emotional and intellectual attitudes. We have attitudes of sympathy for those in distress, of anger toward those who frustrate our aims, of intellectual eagerness or weariness toward some problem which has arisen. Our emotional attitudes are perceived by us largely through our kinesthetic and subvocal responses but we perceive these attitudes in others by observing their overt signs and expressions visually and auditorily. When we solve our problems or dismiss them, or when the distress of the other person who has aroused our sympathies is relieved, our attitudes of eagerness, or weariness, or sympathy disappear, just as our muscular attitudes of defense against attack are transformed into some other type of behavior as soon as there is no longer any threat of attack. Although the execution of the action for which the attitude was a preparation is a continuation of the attitude itself, the behavior which follows is not identical with that of the attitude. If it were we should never get beyond the stage of preparation in our behavior. And in a sense this is true, for the completion of one act ordinarily puts us in an attitude of preparation for another act. Our behavior itself is continuous, and what is completion of one phase of behavior in an adjustment situation is at the same time preparation for another phase. The problem and the process of adjustment are always with us. Life itself is adjustment. Consequently, attitude and adjustment are not distinguishable except by a process of analysis. Attitudes are omnipresent in behavior.
Attitudes are for the most part acquired behavior patterns
(248) having been built up out of our experiences in characteristic situations. But there are inherited or instinctive elements in attitudes as in all other types of behavior. It may even transpire that the inherited elements are sometimes dominant, especially in the case of fundamental organic needs. Attitudes serve as conditioning stimuli as well as conditioned responses, and vice versa. In their simplest form they are symbolized overtly merely by emotional expressions and rudimentary gesture and vocal language. But in their more developed forms they constitute our conscious desires, valuations, and ideals, and all of the normative aspects of our social consciousness or behavior. In such form they find overt or symbolic expression in highly integrated and complex language forms. Thus the attitudinal behavior which is symbolized by the partial and substitute overt responses is ordinarily inner or neuro-psychic behavior. All inner or neuro-psychic behavior, in so far as it represents delayed or modified or potential overt adjustment response, is attitudinal behavior. Put it can be known by and communicated to another only through its overt symbolic responses. The attitude is partial or symbolic behavior preparatory to overt adjustment and is transformed into true overt adjustment behavior as the adjustment proceeds.
THE ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY— Social psychology is concerned with the analysis of attitudes primarily because its function is to interpret those stimulus-response interrelationships between people in groups and between people and the material or tangible and symbolic aspects of institutions by means of which they communicate. Furthermore, a large part of the psycho-social environment consists of the attitudes of people. We grow up in social contact situations and develop our own behavior or personalities in the degree to which we are able to respond to, or, as Cooley would say, identify ourselves with, the behavior or personalities of others. This mutual stimulus-response or intercommunication relationship in society is predominantly psychic. That is, it is carried on mainly by means of symbols. Contacts iii modern society are overwhelmingly by means of the interpretation of symbols. Symbolic expression is attitudinal expression. It is the function of social psychology to interpret this symbolic or atti-
( 249) -tudinal behavior and to give an account of the methods by which it is integrated and the processes by which its meaning is communicated. It is because of this function of social psychology that it has recently devoted so much of its attention to language, which embraces the chief forms of attitudinal or symbolic behavior.
This study of attitudes or the communication of inner behavior from one person to another takes on two aspects. One is the analysis and classification of the attitudes. Some of the older writers on social psychology appear to have considered this the most important aspect of the subject matter. This is, of course, a relatively static phase of social psychology. It is indeed important to be able to recognize the significant types of attitudes in an adjustment situation where it is necessary to guide or divert responses. The orator, actor, salesman, advertiser especially, must be acquainted with the language of attitudes if he wishes to gauge successfully and control adequately his efforts. The study of attitudes is also important from the dynamic aspect. The social and educational psychologists desire to know how the attitudes are built up and what environmental pressures— educational and social— to bring to bear upon individuals and groups of individuals to build up the desired response mechanisms. This is the problem of conditioning responses in others through the control of stimuli. It is also the problem of imitation and suggestion.
The subsequent parts of this volume are concerned with these two aspects of attitudes. In Part III the theme is the methods of conditioning our responses to the attitudinal behavior of others and thus building up in ourselves effective forms of personality through suggestion and imitation. In Part IV we shall discuss kinds of attitudes and the conditions under which they are integrated. After discussing briefly some of the typical attitudes and the relatively permanent attitudinal sets of the organism in the remainder of this chapter we shall turn to the development of these themes.
TYPICAL ATTITUDES are very numerous acid of great diversity of form and emotional quality. There have been many attempts to classify them. One classification, that of primary and derivative attitudes and ideals, is presented in some detail
( 250) in a subsequent chapter. Other classifications may be presented very briefly here. As pointed out in Chapter IX, the old classifications of abstract or general so-called instincts were in reality classifications of acquired attitudes which undertook to name and evaluate classes or general types of behavior. Thus the so-called instincts of pugnacity, maternal care, self-assertion, self-abasement, self-preservation, gregariousness, criminality, altruism, and scores of others, are but general classes of concrete forms of behavior which we have learned to think of together or conceptually. It is because people had learned to conceptualize or generalize concrete forms of behavior into types that earlier psychologists mistook them for inherited unit patterns of behavior or instincts. In a similar way the ethicists have spoken and written about the virtues. Goodness, kindness, sympathy, charity, benevolence, truthfulness, honor, loyalty, and all of the other general or abstract virtues are but class terms used to evaluate and classify a vast array of behavior forms which possess similar emotional and adjustment value. Such classifications are devices to secure economy of attention so that we can dispense with the necessity of naming all of the concrete cases and substitute therefor concepts which summarize the whole on the basis of typical representatives or a synthetic view, or some other conceptualized device, as discussed in Chapter XI.
We may also speak of attitudes from the standpoint of their relative prevalence. Thomas has attempted to reduce all attitudinal behavior to four basic types, which he calls wishes. These are (1) the desire for new experience, (2) the desire for security, (3) the desire for recognition, and (4) the desire for response. Small, following in part the lead of Ratzenhofer, has sought to state the springs of human behavior in terms of interests and has given six, as follows: health, wealth, sociability, knowledge, beauty, and rightness. Classifications of this sort are legion. They have been made by psychologists, educationists, ethicists, sociologists, economists, in fact by all classes of social thinkers, as a means of looking the almost impossibly large complex of human behavior into some sort of perspective. But they are always classes, or concepts, never the concrete attitudes as they actually appear in human behavior.
( 251) They are our abstract words for such behavior in the large, not that behavior. If we desire to descend to the concrete attitudes as such and list them we shall find it an endless task. But there are some relatively concrete attitudes which are especially prominent and fairly constantly in our attention. Some of these are affection, dislike, tenderness, heedlessness, envy, rivalry, competition, sympathy, ambition, truthfulness, deceit, domination, submission, coöperation, etc. But even these relatively concrete attitudes are by no means constant in form. They vary markedly according to the place, tithe, the personalities of those who exercise them and other circumstances.
THE PERMANENT ATTITUDES— So far we have discussed the attitude as preparation for an adjustment which arises out of an immediate situation. We should also speak of attitudes in connection with persistent habits of preparedness for recurrent situations or of attack in malting adjustments to them. Those problems and situations which recur frequently or persist throughout a large portion or the whole of one's life necessarily develop in the organism concerned a constant readiness for the expected stimulus. Regular modes of behavior or of response to these fairly constant stimuli arise in the organism. These attitudes become permanent parts of the organism's behavior equipment. In their abnormal manifestations the preparatory attitudes may become so dominant that they actually inhibit the consummation of the adjustments for which they are the preparation, as in the case of people who are always talking about what they are going to do but never do it. Here the preparation or attitude becomes a substitute for the final behavior. This result is caused by the overemphasis of the attitudes through too great concentration of environmental pressures upon the organism in the adjustment process. In their normal aspects these permanent sets of induced attitudes are generally known as temperament, disposition, character, and personality. Because of their permanence and relative fixity of form they have in the past frequently been regarded as instinctive. We shall turn stow to an examination of their nature.
TEMPERAMENT— Temperament is the name of one of those general background conditions or relatively permanent sets of
(252) attitudes which influence behavior; or, perhaps we should say, it is the characteristic form or direction which behavior takes under certain organic and neuro-psychic conditions. It belongs in the general category of attitudinal sets which we have just discussed. There is no absolute agreement about the nature of temperament, but practically all writers recognize its existence, at least as an abstraction, although they differ in their characterizations of it. Some of the definitions which the present writer has collected from various sources run as follows: "Result of the physiological condition of the body as shown in the behavior . . . a person with a sluggish liver will be habitually morbid." "Temperament is physical and mental behavior which results from physiological conditions." "Result of the functioning of the organs of the body . . . as affected by both external and internal conditions." "Peculiarities of physical and mental constitution of individuals." "Their inborn traits and those traits of circulatory, secretive, and other non-neural organs which have an effect on the conscious activities of individuals." "The characteristic manner in which a person reacts to a stimulus." "Tendency to act or behave in a certain way when in a given environment." "That quality of our physical organization which affects our manner of acting, feeling, and thinking." "Those inborn traits which manifest themselves in outward behavior."
Most of these definitions express the view that temperament is behavior rather than structure, but all trace this behavior back to organic structure. Only one places the explanation in the environment, and even here of course the organic constitution is assumed. It furthermore appears that the behavior is characteristic of the person who possesses the temperament, that is, the peculiarity of his behavior constitutes his temperament. Of course one's temperament is not definitely fixed, but is rather a fluid thing, changing as outward circumstances and inner organization change. Perhaps the brief definition, "the characteristic manner in which a person reacts to a stimulus," is as good and as accurate as any other definition of temperament.
ORGANIC BASES OF TEMPERAMENTS— If this characteristic reaction to a stimulus is primarily the result of organic con-
(253) -dition, what in particular are the organic conditions which are responsible for temperamental behavior patterns' McDougall has one of the best brief treatments of this question. He says, "The temperamental factors may conveniently be grouped in two principal classes— on the one hand, the influences exerted on the nervous system and through it, oil mental process by the functioning of the bodily organs; on the other hand, general functional peculiarities of the nervous tissues."
One of the most important organic factors in temperament is probably the functioning of the endocrines or secretions of the ductless glands. Both McDougall and Woodworth rank this factor very prominently. The latter says, "The excitable individual might be one with over-active adrenals. And . . . the strenuous individual might be one with ail unusually active thyroid gland . . . . There are several other glands that possibly affect behavior in somewhat similar ways, so that it is not improbable, though still rather hypothetical, that chemical substances, produced in these glands, and carried by the blood to the brain and muscles, have much to do with the elusive traits that we class under temperament and personality." Phlegmatic behavior also seems to be due in some cases to underactivity of the thyroid gland and some writers on the endocrines claim to find an aggressive intellectual curiosity connected with high pituitary activity. The instincts no doubt have their influence upon temperament, but in most cases they probably stabilize it rather than differentiate it. Diseases, especially the organic diseases, are important factors, for it is necessary for the organism to make permanent adjustments in behavior to chronic pathological conditions of the organism. Toxins and general bodily and muscular or nervous tone also exert their shares in determining characteristic types of behavior in the individual. Among the influences coming from the nervous organization, McDougall cites native differences of excitability, rapidity of response and transmission of nervous impulse, and differences in respect to fatigability and rapidity of recuperation. These are all physico-chemical qualities, and are doubtless influenced by the general physico-chemical organization of the organism
( 254) as a whole, as well as by the special organic conditions already mentioned.
The neural organization basis of temperament is perhaps equally important with the other organic bases here discussed. These are the habitual psychic sets of the organism and need not be discussed in detail at this point, since a large part of the present volume is given over to the consideration of them.
CLASSIFICATION OF TEMPERAMENTS — There have been many attempts to classify the temperaments, although there is no more agreement here than in the matter of definition. The classification most generally mentioned comes down from an early unscientific physiology and psychology and includes the terms sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic, to which we often add nervous. In addition to these characteristic terms, indicating corresponding behavior of the individual, the present author has collected the following terms indicating types of behavior or temperament: feminine, masculine, cheerful, happy, sweet, morbid, gloomy, sour, secretive, dainty, precise, lazy, slow, indifferent, dull, stupid, calm, average, restless, ambitious, active, quick, alert, brilliant, emotional, sympathetic, frank. Obviously some of these terms overlap, just as temperamental types overlap, and some may object that in certain cases they indicate disposition or character rather than temperament.
DISPOSITION AND CHARACTER— It is doubtful if any definite distinctions can be drawn between temperament and disposition and character. McDougall believes that such a distinction should be made and he defines disposition as "the sum of all the innate dispositions or instincts with their specific impulses or tendencies." "Character, on the other hand," he thinks, "is the sum of acquired tendencies built upon the native basis of disposition and temperament." He also regards temperament as inborn, in spite of the fact that he finds that it is influenced by diseases and toxins. As examples of dispositions he mentions irascible, tender, and timid. To the present writer these distinctions regarding temperament, disposition, and character seem largely artificial. However, we might properly distinguish character from temperament and disposition by attributing to the former a moral and mental bent
( 255) which does not necessarily inhere in the two latter. Also, we might perhaps further distinguish disposition from temperament on the ground that the latter is more active than the former— that temperament is disposition in action. No one of these sets or processes is entirely inherited. Acquired elements enter freely into all of them. This is true of both the neural and non-neural protoplasmic organizations which condition the behavior. The acquired elements are perhaps particularly prominent in character because it contains so many adjustment mechanisms in the higher cortical centers.
PERSONALITY— Personality is another of the general background conditions closely related to temperament, disposition, and character. It also is largely composed of attitudinal sets. In fact, it includes all of these other behavior systems and all other traits of the individual. It is the general term describing all conceivable aspects of the individual behavior, and it corresponds to the collective term society, which includes all aspects of collective behavior. All of one's qualities, moral, intellectual, emotional, active and passive, are to be grouped under the general head of personality. Personality includes anything which can function in an attitude or in action. It is the functioning self or selves, for personality is ever changing as condition and situation, as organism and environment, change. Just as the self is largely a social product, that is, as the social self is more important in the personality than the physical self, so personality is primarily, but not wholly, a social fact and product. Inheritance exerts its influence basically, and the acquired organic processes operate alongside of the mental, in building up the personality, especially through temperament and disposition. But character is at least as important in personality as are temperament and disposition, and character is very largely psychical. Allport defines personality "as the individual's characteristic reactions to social stimuli, and the quality of his adaptation to the social features of his environment." The similarity of this definition to that adopted for temperament will he noted. It differs primarily iii being somewhat more inclusive. As Allport says, personality is a result of social behavior, and also a cause. It is the individual's persistent or longtime behavior in a social situation.
( 256)
ALLPORT'S ANALYSIS OF PERSONALITY— Allport has an extensive analysis of the traits of personality, perhaps the most satisfactory in the literature of social psychology. His outline follows: [1]
1. Intelligence
- Problem-solving
- Ability
- Memory and Learning Ability
- Perceptual Ability
- Constructive Imagination
- Special Abilities
- Soundness of Judgment
- General Adaptability
2. Motility
Hyperkinesis— Hypokinesis
- Impulsion— Inhibition (Control)
- Tenacity
- Skill
- Style
- Emotional Frequency and Change
- Emotional Breadth
- Emotional Strength
- Characteristic Mood
- Emotional Attitude
- Drive
- Compensation
- Extroversion— Introversion
- Insight
- Ascendance— Submission
- Expansion— Reclusion
5. Sociality
- Susceptibility to Social Stimulation
- Socialization— Self-seeking (Aggressive). Social Participation
- Character
(257) It will be seen from this list of traits that Allport includes elements which we have not mentioned by name, although we have implied them in other terminology. It will be observed also that he makes temperament more exclusively emotional than is customary with most writers. This usage has at least one advantage in its favor. It sets temperament off more definitely from the general and inclusive fact of personality.
INHERITED AND ACQUIRED ELEMENTS ix PERSONALITY — Perhaps we should raise the question as to the relative importance of inherited and acquired elements in personality. Like the self, its more static synonym, it is predominantly acquired. Its behavior aspect is determined chiefly by environmental pressures acting upon the protoplasmic constitution of the organism. But these environmental pressures take effect primarily upon the neuro-protoplasm of the cerebral cortex. Hence the chief induced organic mechanisms of the personality are cortical and highly flexible. Personality is chiefly mental, moral, and social, and is made up very largely of traits of these types. It is not easy to distinguish between the inherited and acquired neuro-protoplasmic organization of the organic side of the personality, because many, perhaps most, of the relatively constant behavior patterns in the personality are acquired patterns which are, so to speak, "stored" in the neuro-protoplasm as habit mechanisms. Accordingly, when we speak of behavior as determined by environment we must include past environment operating through the "stored" habit mechanisms as well as immediate environment acting upon the personality in the immediate present.
There has been a number of attempts to test or measure personality and character traits, references to which are made in the bibliography at the end of this chapter.
MATERIAL EXTENSIONS of PERSONALITY— Personality is by no means wholly within the organism, but it also embraces such external attachments and appendages as become assimilated to or are utilized by the self. Thus one's clothes, books, ornaments, even his living quarters and possessions — both iii the concrete and in the abstract sense of "wealth"— become by induction parts of his personality. This is true both subjectively and objectively, or as viewed in the behavior of ourselves as
(258) well as of others. Every one has observed how such an article of clothing as a hat, or a pair of spectacles, or a cane, may frequently seem to be the dominant characteristic about some other person. It may even happen that such "equipment" as these articles of furnishings may so condition and dominate the behavior of the person possessing them that they determine in large measure the growth of his personality. This is particularly true of such possessions as wealth, families, a home, an office, or other things and obligations to which we must constantly adjust our behavior. A change in one's possessions not infrequently induces a change in his personality in conformity therewith. Such external material facts as property and such psycho-social facts as conventions constantly mold the personalities of people in society into much the same general forms and thus produce the phenomena of uniform personalities and collective behavior of the uniform type.
THE EXTROVERT PERSONALITY— One interesting classification of personalities from the functional standpoint is that of extrovert and introvert, according as their behavior is directed outwards or inwards. An extrovert personality is one in which there is a minimum of conflict or reflection upon the propriety and significance of the overt behavior, of self-criticism, and introspection. Such personalities belong to men of action, to those who act first and then reflect about it afterwards or not at all. We call them forceful personalities. They are most fit for rôles in a world of conflict and strife where forcefulness of attack and brute egoism are most effective in getting results. Such men and women are not necessarily intentionally selfish. On the contrary they may be very generous on the level of naïve and non-reflective sympathy, but they are not remarkable for their understanding of the motives of others when these are in opposition to their own interests. Tolerance and the capacity to make ready compromises are not among their chief virtues. They drive straight toward their goals, and if they succeed, they are apt to turn as readily to the subsequent tasks which their success brings them. They are as little likely to pause to gloat over victory or enjoy refined forms of vengeance and torture as they are to study the ethics of their methods or the social values of their aims. They act
( 259) directly from the impulses that well up within them; they speak before they think; they love and hate whole-heartedly, and if they have occasion for either rewards or punishment they administer both with little ceremony, but with thorough conviction. They make better soldiers, promoters, political leaders, thugs, husbands, and surgeons than they do philosophers, statesmen, investigators, lovers, and physicians. They catch inspirations without much intellectual application or analysis and carry them through because they possess the self-assurance which secures for them abundance of followers, as long as their efforts are crowned with success.
THE INTROVERT PERSONALITY— The detailed work of the world, however, is likely to be done by the introvert type. It is the introvert who develops the habit of careful analysis as the result of painstaking self-study. He is ever ready to question his own motives, to raise the question as to the rightfulness of his conduct, to weigh this method of procedure over against that, and perhaps in the end to defer the execution of all plans "until the matter has had time to settle in his mind." To many he appears— as indeed he may be— a person overburdened with hesitancy and conflicts and fears. He moves slowly and consciously, and not infrequently winds himself up in such a mass of red tape that he is practically incapable of any forward motion. This perhaps explains why great universities are so poorly administered, for if they are controlled by scholars, who are likely to be introvert in temperament, they run heavily to overhead organization and too little to instruction and investigation. If they are ruled by extroverts they are likely to pick their faculties for "personality" rather than for scholarship and powers of intellectual analysis.[2] The introvert is ordinarily better equipped by temperament to follow than to lead. He is capable of inexhaustible research and definition and can oil (or clog) the
( 260) machinery of action with a vast quantity of facts. No country can have a successful existence without large numbers of men of his type. Yet others are better able to appreciate and to use their products for constructive programs of adjustment than they. They are the power behind the throne, which speaks out from cloister and study and research laboratory. Their reward is relatively meager, both in worldly goods and in praise, but they find their chief satisfactions in neither, but in the perfection of the system in which they are working, that is, in wrapping their cocoon about themselves.
THE CASE OF THE AVERAGE MAN — Such a classification is more interesting as a practical functional view than for its strict scientific accuracy. As here presented the types appear at their extremes. Actual men and women ordinarily find their rôles somewhere between the extremes. All of us, perhaps, have something of each type of character or personality in our make up. The classification itself is, like all classifications, more or less artificial and schematic, to which the actual facts approximate as best they may. Classifications are made primarily for the purpose of securing perspective of concrete cases, not because they accurately describe those constituent individual instances. People are not always and under all circumstances equally extrovert or introvert. Most young people begin by being extrovert and if life represses them and puts them on the defensive— makes logicians of them instead of generals— they become introvert, unless, as some criminals do, they rebel against the social organization and refuse to be self-disciplined. Others who get an early start in introversion and become hesitant and reflective sometimes consciously or otherwise cultivate the opposite habit of mind and by a process of constructive compensation build up extrovert personalities. It has been claimed that such was the mental history of Theodore Roosevelt. Others still, perceiving the rewards gained by the successful extrovert, simulate his qualities and develop secondary traits of self-assertion, overbearingness, anal ruthlessness. Such men can usually he distinguished from the genuine members of the type. Likewise, men who are not fitted for the student life, but who lack the energy or the courage required for the extrovert career,
( 261) frequently drift into the learned or sacerdotal pursuits and play at the technique of the more introvert careers.
Some functional psychologists and psychoanalysts look upon these two types of personality or temperament as inherited. All complexes of attitudes so complete as to constitute character are of course primarily acquired. However, the inherited organic constitution may do much to predispose one to either the extrovert or introvert character. Robust people with strong native or acquired drives are likely to become extrovert, and the less robust and those with weak organic drives are likely to develop introversion. But there is no invariable rule to this effect.
MATERIALS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY READING- Allport, F. H., Social Psychology, Chs. V, VI, XIII
- Burnham, W. H., The Normal Mind, Ch. X
- Downey, J., The Will-Temperament and Its Testing
- Edman, L, Human Traits and Their Significance, Ch. VIII
- Hollingworth, H. L., Judging Human Character
- Jastrow, J., Character and Temperament
- Kretschmer, E., Physique and Character, Part II
- McDougall, W., An Introduction to Social Psychology, pp. 116-120
- Peters, C. C., Human Conduct, Chs. XII, XVIII-XXIII
- Robinson and Robinson, Readings in Gcncral Psychology, Ch. XX
- Stratton, G. M., Auger: Its Religious and Moral Significance
- Thomas, W. L, The Unadjusted Girl
- Watson, J. B., Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist, Ch. XI
- Watts, F., Abnormal Psychology and Education, pp. 207-15
- Williams, J. M., Our Rural Heritage, Chs. V-XX
- Woodworth, R. S., Psychology, a Study of Mental Life, Ch. XXI
