A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP

1892 - 1952

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement* for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

by

James Harry Ritter, B.S., M.S. 'I .

The Ohio State University 1952

Approved byi

Adviser ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writer wishes to express his deep appreciation to Dr, Lauren Wiape* for his technical advice9 direction and encour­ agement during the entire study. He la also appreciative of the stenographic assistance given by Miss Lucille O'Heill. A debt of gratitude is owed Dr, Harold E, Burtt for his technical and editorial advice.

ii 9£±OG8 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM...... 1-7 Viewpoints on leadership...... 1-5 Poles of thought ...... * 1 Leadership training ...... 1 Kinds of leadership ...... 2 Measurement and predictionof leadership .... 2 Specificity vs. generality...... 3 Traits of leadership...... 3 Overall generalization ...... 4 The Problen...... 6-7 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction...... 3 Previous Reviews of the literature ...... 3-11 Smith and Krueger ...... 3 Partridge ...... 3 Hunter and Jordan ...... 9 Dunkerly ...... 9 Jenkins ...... 10 Stogdill ...... 11 Brief Summaries of Important Leadership Studies .. 11—40 Summary of Review of Literature ...... 41 III. PROCEDURE AND METHOD Procedure...... 43-54 Definition of leadership used ...... 43 Selection of leaders ...... 44-43 Method ...... 49—54 The questionnaire ...... 49 Pilot studies ...... 50-52 Analysis of make-up...... 52-54 Method of Analysis ...... 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER PAGE IV. RESULTS Individual item results ...... 55-87 Chi square analysis of inb eracticns ...... 88-90 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 91 VI. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 92-93 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 94-145 APPENDICES 1. Questionnaire Item Tables ...... 146-230 2. Leader Organization Members, Composition of Questionnaires used in Pilot Studies,Leadership Traits Found in Other Studies, and Miscellaneous Addenda ...... 231-286

3 . Chi Square Charts and Tables ...... 287-302 BIOGRAPHY ...... 3 03

iv TABLES TABLE PAGE

1 . Birthplace (Questionnaire Item 2) (By states) ...... 147 2. Birthplace (item 2) (By eight sections of country)...... 148 3. Birthplace (Item 2) (By four sections of country) ...... 148 4. Birthplace (item 2) (Percentages- four sections ) . 148 5. Birthdates (Item 3) (By year) ..... 149-150 6. Birthdates (item 3 ) (Grouped data) ...... 150 7. Father's Age at Time of Individual's Birth (Item 4a) (By year) ...... 151 8 . Father1 s Age (Itan 4a) (Grouped data) ...... 151 9. Father's Age (Item 4a) (Percentages) ...... 151 1 0 . Moth«*'s Age at Time of Individual's Birth (Item 4b) (By year) ...... 152

1 1 . Mother' s Age(Item 4b) (Grouped data) ...... 152 1 2 . Mother * s Age(item 4b) (Percentages) ...... 152 13. Father's Name (Item 5a) (By individual name) ..... 153-154 14. Father's Occupation (Item 5b) (Three groups) .... 155-156 15. Father's Occupation (item 5b) (Grouped data) ...... 156 1 6 . Father's Occupation(ltem 5b) (Percentages) ...... 1 5 6 17. Mother's Name (item 5c) (By individual name) ...... 157-158 18. Father's Education (item 6a) ...... 159 19. Father's Education (Item 6a) (Percentages) ...... 159 2 0 . Mother's Education (Item 6b) ...... 159 2 1 . Mother's Education (Item 6b)(Percentages) ••...... 159 2 2 . Number of Children in Family (item 7a) ...... 160 23- Number of Children in Family (Item 7a)(Percentages) .... 160 24. Position in Family (item 7b)...... 160 25. Position in Family (Item 7b) (Percentages) ...... 160 2 6 . Age at Marriage (item 8a) ...... 161 27. Age at Marriage (Item 8 a) (Grouped data) ...... 161 28. Age at Marriage (item 8 a) (Percentages) ...... 161 29. Age at Which Individual Had First Child (Item 8b) ...... 162 30.' Age at Which Individual Had First Child (Item 8b) (Grouped data) ...... 162

31. Age at Which Individual Had First Child (item 8 b) (Percentages) ...... 162 32. Number of Children Individual Has Had (item 8 c) ...... 1 6 3 33. Number of Children Individual Has Had (Item 8 c) (Percentages) ...... 16 3 34. Marriage Dates (Item 9a) ...... 164-165 35. Marriage Dates (Item 9a) (1st, 2nd, & 3rd marriages) ... 165 TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE

3 6. Marriage Dates (Item 9a) (Percentages) ...... I65 37• Father 's Residence (Item 10) •...... , 166 3 8. Father’s Residence (Item 10) (Percentages) ...... 166 3 9. Socioeconomic Status of Family (Item 11) ...... 166 40. Socioeconomic Status of Family (Item 11)(Grouped Data). 166 41. Socioeconomic Status of Family (Item 11)(Percentages).. 166 42. Fathers Outstandingly Successful (item 12a) ...... 167 4 3. Fathers Successful(item 12a) (Percentages) ...... 167 44. Mothers Outstandingly Successful (item 12b) ...... 1 6 7 45. Mothers Successful (item 12b) (Percentages) ...... 167

4 6. Uncles Outstandingly Successful (item 12c) ...... 168 47. Uncles Successful (Item 12c) (Percentages) ...... 168 4S. Brothers Outstandingly Successful (Item 12d) ...... 168 49. Brothers Successful (Item 12d) (Percentages) ...... 168 50. Sons Out standingly Successful (Item -12®) ...... 169 51. Sons Successful (Item 12e) (Percentages) 169 52. Cousins Outstandingly Successful (Item 12f) ...... 169 53• Cousins Successful (item 12f) (Percentages) ...... 169 54. Grandfathers Outstandingly Successful (Item 12g) .... . 170 55. Grandfathers Successful (Item 12g) (Percentages) ..... 170

5 6. Combinsd Relatives Outstandingly Successful (item 12) . 170 57. Combined Relatives Successful (item 12) (Percentages) . 170 58. Lineal Descent (item 1 3) ...... 171-172 59. Lineal Descent (Item 1 3) (Percentages) ...... 173 60. Teaching Esg?s*ience (Item 14) ...... 174-130 61. Teaching Experience (Item 14) (Nine College Data)..... 180 62. Teaching Experience (Item 14) (Percentages) ...... 180 6 3. Other Professional Experience (Item 15) ...... I8 I-I83 6 4. Present Teaching Load Per Week (Item 16a) ...... I83 6 5. Present Teaching Load (Item 16a) (Percentages) ...... I83

6 6. Present Teaching Load (Item 16a) (Grouped Percentages). I83 67. Administrative Dutie s Per Week (Item 16b) ...... 184 6 8. Administrative Duties (Item 16b) (Percentages) ...... 184 6 9. Administrative Duties (item 16b) (Grouped Percentages). 184 70. Schools Which Recommended Outstanding Students Attended (item 17) (individual Colleges) ...... 185-186 71. Schools Which Recommended Outstanding Students Attended (Item 17) (Nine College Data) ...... 186 72. Numb a* of PhDs Supervised (Item 18) ...... 187 vi TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE 73. Number of PhDs Supervised (item 18)(Grouped Data) ...... 187 74. Journals, Laboratories, Societies, Businesses Established (Item 19)...... 188-192 75. Number of Books Published (Item 20) ...... 193 76. Number of Books Published (Item 20)(Grouped Data) ...... 193 77. Publications Other Than Books (item 21) ...... 194 78. Publications Other Than Books (Item 21)(Grouped Data).... 195 79. Books With More Than One Printing (Item 22a) ...... 195 80. Books With More Than One Printing (Item 22a) (Grouped Data) ...... 195 81. Books Widely Adopted (item 22b) ...... 195 82. Article Reprint Demand (item 22c) ...... 195-196 8 3. Equipment, Devices, or Tests Constructed (item2 3) ...... 196 84. Productivity (Combined items 18,19,20,21,22, & 2 3) .... 197-199 8 5 . Best Piece of Work Produced (item 24) ...... 200

8 6. Features of Background Considered Important (Item 25) ... 201 87. Features of Background (Item 25)(Percentages) ...... 201 8 8 . Handicaps Which Interferred with Career (Item 26) ...... 202 89. Handicaps (Itan 26)(Percentages) ...... 202 90. AB College (Inst. Item 1) ...... 203-205 91. MA College (Inst. Item 1) ...... 205-206 92. PhD College (Inst. Item 1) ...... 207 93. PhD Colleges by Section of Country & Public-Private 207-208 94. PhD College (Inst. Item l)(Nine College Data) ...... 208 95. Classification of PhD Dissertation (Inst. Item 2) ...... 209

96. Men Who Supervised PhD Dissertations(lnst. Item 3)...... 209-212 97. Number Days a Week Spent in Research(lnst. Item 4a) ..... 212 98. Hours a Day Spent in Research (Inst. Item 4b) ...... 213 99. Rating of Graduate School (Inst. Item 5) ...... 213 100. Library Adequacy (Inst. Item 6a) ...... 2 1 3

101. Physical Conditions of the Library (Inst. Item 6b) ..... 213 102. Library Availability (Inst. Item 6c) ...... 213 103 . Students Ability to Work in University Buildings After Hours (Inst. It on 7) ...... 214 104. Faculty Attitude Toward Graduate Student Research (Inst. Item 8 ) ...... 214 105. Number Psychology Faculty Who Worked After Hours (Inst. Item 9) ...... 214

106. Number Psychology Faculty Who Worked after Hours (Inst. Item 9) (Percentages) ...... 214 vii TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE 107. Names of Outstanding Faculty Leaders (Inst. Item 10) ...... 214 108. Enrollment Graduate Psychology Department (Inst. Item 11) ...... 215 109* Enrollment Graduate Psychology Department (Inst. Item 11) (Percentages) ...... 215 110. Other Facilities Available to Graduate Students (Inst. Item 12) ...... 215 111. Other Facilities (Inst. Item 12)(Percentages) ...... 215 112. Classification of Graduate School (Inst. Item 13) .... 216 113. Classification of Graduate School (Inst. Item 1 3)(Percentages) ...... 216 1 1 4. Liberalness (idealness) Combination of Items 4,5,6,7,a, & 9 ...... 216-217 115. Personal Influences (Averages First, Second, Third and Total Choices) ...... 218-219 116. Group Names (Group Item 1) ...... 220 117. Founder of Group Names (Group Item 2) ...... 221 118. Date of Founding of Group (Group Item 3) ...... 222 119. Group Leader Names (Group Item 4) ...... 222-223 120. Group Outstanding Staff Manbers Mentioned More Than Once(Group Item 5) ...... 223 121. Number of Group Staff Members (Group Item 6) ...... 224 122. Names Outstanding Students in Group (Gp. Item 7) .... 224 123. Number Students in Group (Group Item 8 ) ...... 224 124. Number Students in Group (Group Item 8 ) (Percentages) ...... 224 125. Frequency of Group Meetings (Group Item 9) ...... 225 126. Frequency of Group Meetings (Group Item 9) ... (Percentages) ...... 225 127. Dominant Philosophy of Group (Group Item 10a) ...... 225 123. Changes Group Philosophy (Group Item 10b) ...... 225 129. Fields of Group Interest (Group Item 11) .... . 226 13 0. Kinds of Group Research Problems (Gp. Item 12) ...... 226

131. Number Group PhDs (Group Item 1 3) ...... 227 132. Group Financing (Group Item 14) 227 135. Similar Groups in Other Universities (Gp.1.15) ...... 227 134. Group’s Influence on Individual Members (Group Item 16) ...... 227 135. Group's Influence (Group Item 16)(Percentages) ...... 228

1 3 6. Personal Stimulation by Group (Group Item 17) ...... 228 viii TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE 137. Personal Stumulaticn (Group Item 17) (Percentages) .... 228 13 8. Group Traits ...... 229 139. Date of Death (DVGs) ...... 230 140. Composition of Leader Groups ...... 232

141. APA Presidents ...... 233 142. Men Starred by American Men of Science ...... 234-235 143. Men Starred by American Men of Science not APA Presidents ...... 2 3 6 144. Psychological Menbers of the National Academy of Sciences ...... 237 145. International Congress of Psychology officials ...... 2 3S

1 4 6. Presidents of Psychological Associations...... 238-239 147. APA Division Representatives ...... 240-241 148. Chairmen of APA Divisions (Alphabetically arranged) ...... 242-243 149. Dead Very Great Leaders ...... 244 150. 100 Traits of Leadership ...... 245-246 151. 34 Traits of Leadership ...... 247 152. 50 Traits of Leadership ...... 248 153. Personal Traits Grouped ...... 249-251 154. Clusters of Traits ...... 252-255 155. 20 Final Group Traits ...... 2 5 6 156. Clusters of Group Traits ...... 257-259 157. Summary of Stogdill's Methods and Traits ...... 260-263 158. Summary of Otis' Clusters of Traits ...... 264 159. Introductory Letter to Relatives ...... 265 160. Questionnaire Sent to Relatives 266-270

161 . Introductory Letter Sent to Leaders ...... 271 162. Questicnnair e Sent to Leaders ...... 272-283 1 6 3. Summary Leadership Qualities from Reviewof the Literature ...... 284-236 164. Nine Colleges Which Produced bulk of the Leaders in relation to various factors...... 288 I65 • Chi Square Analysis of Nine Colleges...... 239 166. ChiSquare Analysis of Nine Colleges (Grouped Data) ••••...... 290 167. Sectional Location of PhD School and Whether it is Private or Public in relation to otherfactors 291 168. Chi Square Analys is of Sectional Loc ation ...... 292 169. Chi Square Analysis of "Ideal" Schools...... 293-294 170. Chi Square Analysis of "Ideal" Schools(Continued) ...... 295

ix TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE

1 7 1. Chi Square Analysis of "Ideal" Schools (Continued). 296 172. Chi Square Analysis of "Ideal", Private Schools in relation to Leadership, Location and date of PhD Degree ...... 297 173. Chi Square Analysis of "Ideal" Schools & Productivity.... 298 174. Location and Date of PhD Degree for Leaders and Non- Leader s .... 299-*301 175. Summary Results Questionnaire Items 1-13 ...... 302

x 1 CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM

Terman's study (507) in 1904 is generally credited with being the first experimental investigation of leadership. From then until

1 9 2 0, when a lively interest began to be manifested - and which still has not abated, only two studies are of significance (143, 213). Hence, nearly all leadership studies in the United States have been made within the past thirty years — a comparatively short history.

Leadership is interesting from many points of view: I. There are two opposite poles of thought with regard to what leadership has done in the progress from savagery to civilization. Some, like Emerson and Carlyle, define history as "nothing but the biographies of a few great men."-*- This has been the most common viewpoint in the past. At the opposite pole is the recent concept that the "laborers" create and have created everything, espoused by Karl Marx and his followers. II. A second viewpoint deals with the educatability of individuals to be leaders. The idea that one must be a "born" leader undoubtedly- held back investigations into the phenomena for many years. Yet, even today, prominent erudite psychologists such as Boring2 are doubtful about the ability to "train" those who are not already "leaders". Lewin

^ O ? PP. 413 2Personal Communication. 2

(305, 306, 307> 30S, 309) and his students - Bavelas, (2 3) Benne, (3 0)

French, J.R.P.(l81, 182, I8 3) - on the other hand are convinced that one can be trained in leadership. Rotter-*- has even built up a social learning theory which encompasses the trainability of leadership as well as other traits. III. A third viewpoint has to do with "kinds" of leadership. As might be expected with a subject so complex,many different classifica­ tions have been proposed:

Autocratic-democratic. Bavelas (2 3), Lippitt (3 1 6,3 1 7,3 1s,319*320) Institutional-personal. Albig (4) Domination-integration. Anderson (9), Albig (4 )5 Eaton (152) Cultural-situational. Kraut (282), Murphy & Murphy (370,371) Entertaining-brilliant-culture-talent ed-just. Fleming (173 ) Intellectual-social-religious. Dunkerly (151) Crowd compellers-crowd exponents-crowd representatives. Bogardus (41,42,43), Conway (115) Personal-impersonal. LaPiere & Farnsworth (2 8 3) Charismatic-organizational-intellectual-informal. Levine (302) Sovereign type-despot type. Levy (3 0 3) Direct or face to face — indirect. Smith & Krueger (470) Representative (symbolic) - Dynamic (creative). Albig (4) Umpire-coach-captain. Lindeman (312) Headmen-leaders. Cowley (123,124) Monarchial-scientific. Smith (471,472,473) Reppesentative-dominate-persuasive. Bartlett (22) Military-political—socialized. Chapin (1 0 2,1 0 3,104) Static-executive-prof essional-group. Sanderson & Nafe (441) Static-dynamic. Nafe (3 7 6) Prophet (without office) - priest (office). Kincheloe (273) Men of action - men of thought. LeBon (288) Rational authority-inhibiting authority. Fromm (137,188) IV. A fourth viewpoint cone eras how leadership might be measured or predicted. Seme have taken those who occupy positions which are appointive: "superior selection", Shartle et al (45S, 459, 460, 493); others have

dwelt on those who were elected or rated: "subordinate selection", Bayroff&

-*-0SU Lectures on Social Learning Theory 1949-1951. 3 Machlin (24); others have used a "leaderless" group technique, Carter et al (84,35,66,67,66), Kline (275); and special test techniques have also been devised, V. A fifth viewpoint which is highly controversial at the moment concerns leadership generality versus leadership specificity. The generality of the trait appears to be upheld by the common day experiences of leaders in one industry "crossing over" to head entirely different industrie s, heads of unions and managane nt becoming successful govern­ ment chiefs, and generals and admirals becoming highly-paid executives.

Bell and French (26), Caldwell and Wellman (75), Carter and Nixon (8 6, 87), Goode (207), and Drake (149) found experimental evidence to in­ dicate that leaders in one situation may be leaders in other situations.

However, Coffin (ll4 ),Gibb (200,202) Hemphill (2 3 2,2 3 3) Cowley (1 2 3, 124) and their associates insist there is no general leadership factor; that leadership is peculiar to the specific situation. Inasmuch as these latter studies were dene recently, the general trend of scientific opinion leans heavily toward the specificity or situational approach. VI. A sixth viewpoint emphasizes the traits of the leader as the most significant aspect of leadership; but the traits required in one situation need not be the same as those required in another. Larson

(2 8 3) indicated that leadership is a composite of personality traits, training and experience but that these three factors do not contribute equally to the production of different types of leaders - neither do they function the same in different situationsi Cowley (123) described leadership as a complex multiple group of traits fashioned together as a unity; successful leaders possessing the traits demanded 4 by situational demands. Tead (504) defined leadership as a combination of traits by which one individual is able to get others to accomplish a definite task. It would seem from the myriad of investigations concerning the above ramifications of leadership that its concommitants and determinants were now well known. However, as an over-all generalization it appears that "The record of accomplishment is not a brilliant one."^- No single trait or group of characteristics has been isolated which sets off the leader from the members of his group. Indeed, Dunkerly (151) after a careful perusal of the literature indicates: "The literature on leader­ ship is extensive if all studies indulging in theorizing and broad generalizations are considered, but if attention is confined to the work which was produced by careful experimental methods, the results are

decidedly meagre" , 2

Leadership is still a debatable topic with relatively few objec­ tive clues. Yet there is a critical need for leaders: in business, in industry, in the military services, and in government. There is also a need cone erning the criteria of leadership as the situations are not the same. Lewin has sagely pointed out: "Our approach to the phenomenon of leadership is full of contradiction. With a feeling of awe, we are looking up to the leader in politics, in the arts,in science, in business. That the "hero" is the point where the forces of historical situations and the abilities of the individual meet to determine

1526 PP. 317. 2151 PP. 3. 5 destiny Is granted even by those historians who try to minimize his Importance. On the other hand, and particularly in a democracy, the right of the common man is upheld. Vigilant criticism and a jealous watch over the limitation of the leader's power are considered basic virtues. We may believe that 'leaders are born not made', and at the same time, demand that every child be trained for leadership." 1

*307 PP. 392 6

THE PROBLEM The present study is predicated on the belief that leadership is not due to specific factors or traits alone nor necessarily to groups or families of attributes as such but that leadership is due to the pattern of traits evolving out of particular situations. Part of the difficulty in studying leadership is the defini­ tion of the term. Some studies use: (1) observation and time sampling

techniques - usually of children; (2) associate or buddy nomination -

by voting, ranking, scaling, etc.; (3) expert observer choice - leaders

named by appointed leaders i.e. teachers or executives (4) selection by those occupying leadership positions i.e. elected representatives

(5) bibliographic or case history data (6) leadership traits advocated

by followers; (7 ) standardized tests, scales, interviews, factor analyses and questionnaires. It is believed that the most accurate and most valid of these methods is the selection of leaders from those who hold elective positions of leadership. The present study confines itself to one field of endeavor - psychology - in one cotintry - The United States - and defines leadership in this field operationally in terms of holders of psychological elective positions of eminence. Leadership is believed to be a multi-dimensional phenomenon in­ cluding interactions of cultural factors, sociological factors, per­ sonality factors, professional competance factors, and having to do with the structure of intimate groups and environment. The problem here is to determine the concomitant and determinant interrelations that contribute to leadership by studying four aspects: 1. The familial and 7 social background of American Psychological Leaders from 1892-1952, 2. The atmosphere of the psychological groups - sometimes called "schools" - where they received theLr doctorates, 3 « The personalities of the most influential men in their careers, 4. The institutional structures of the universities where these men studied and taught. It is emphasized that this is a preliminary study with a pioneer approach using data something less than "pure". As such it is not expec­ ted that full solutions will be obtained for the problems involved. All that is hoped for in this study is to obtain more objectivity than has usually been found in most leadership studies, to get ideas of the nature of the relationships, to determine the points at which direct attacks can be made and the tools that are best for the job. 8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature on leadership is vast. Unfortunately, rela­ tively little of it is empirical. Even the studies that are empirical have often been made from a pre-determined viewpoint to "prove a point" . Several authors have attempted to review and summarize these leadership studies, but there has been no comprehensive inclusive leadership study. The closest one from a review standpoint is that of Stogdill (490). The present review does not encompass all the leadership studies nor does it summarize all the empirical leadership investigations. It does attempt to integrate the previous studies, review a representa­ tive sample of them (i.e. note the important empirical studies and the non-empirical studies deemed unique or important) and give an inclusive and complete bibliography.

PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF THE LITERATURE

Smith and Krueger (470) made a survey of the literature up to 1933- After briefly describing five accounts of leadership in primitive societies, they recount Plato’s and Machiavelli's ideal leader character­ istics. Then assuming "genius" and "leadership" to be synonymous, they summarize Galton’s (189,190), Ellis’ (155), Oden’s (393), Wood's (545), Cattell's (90,91,92,93), Lombroso's (322), Terman's (508), and Cox's (125) genius studies. Partridge, E.D. (402) made an extensive leadership study in 1934* He quotes Miller (355) as listing the following leadership 9 attributes: self control, assiduity, common sense, judgement, justice, truthfulness, loyalty , enthusiasm , courage , tact , perseverance, faith , acumen , honor Munson (368) is said to list these leadership traits: personality, manner, cheerfulness, tact, justice, duty, patriotism , knowledge concerning men , use of language, discipline , esprit de corps. The objective studies summarized are those of: Bellingrath (27), Brovin (6l), Caldwell (74), Caldwell & Wellman (75), Chevaleva-Ianovskaia & Sylla (107), Detroit Teachers Colleve (141), Finch & Carroll (164), Hollingworth (242), Luithlen (325), McCuen (342), Nutting (391), Parten (401), Partridge (402), Prosch (417), Terman (507), Wetzel (535). In all, 3 3 books and 1 1 0 periodical references are given. Hunter and Jordan (253) In 1939 summarized "the more significant

leadership studies” up to that time, Galton (190), Ellis (1 5 5), Oden (393), Cattell (90,92,93), and Thorndike (511) are indicated as support­ ers of the conclusion that genius is hereditary and that leadership and eminence are highly correlated. Brief summaries are given the studies of: Bellingrath (27), Brown (6l), Caldwell (74), Cowley (123,124), Chapin (102), Gowin(212), Murphy and Murphy (370), Nutting (391), Partridge (402)> Prosch (417), Terman (507), and Bowdin (47).

They conclude:

"Though certain qualities and characteristics may be associated with leadership, it is not a simple trait and does not operate consis­ tently, It cannot be defined adequately. It appears to be a func­ tion of the situation, depending upon attitudes, dispositions, and the ability to influence others to act and think in a certain way."

Dunkerly (151) in 1940 made a brief review of thirteen studies done on leadership at the college level in connection with her statistical study of leadership of college women. The studies of Chapin

1253 PP. 500 10

(103), Bowden (47 ), McCuen (342), Prosch (417). Cowley (123,124).

Sward (497), Spaulding ( 483). Moore (359,360), Page (398), Janney 655 ), and Hunter and Jordan (253) a*“e summarized impartially.

Jenkins (259) ia 1947 reviewed and summarized "selected ref­ erences from the available literature dealing with the problem of the

selection of leaders in various fields"She primary factors consider­ ed in selecting items were; relevance to military selection problems and empirical research findings. His seventy-four references were dis­

tributed among the following five topics;

1. Industrial and governmental investigations, (17 references) 2. Studies of scientific and professional personnel (10 ref­ erence s ) 3. Pre-school and extra-school studies involving children (5 references) 4. Studies in the school situation (10 references) 5. Military leadership (32 references)

His review of such studies lead him to conclude;

1. Leadership is specific to the particular situation under in­ vestigation. Ihere are wide variations in the characteris­ tics of individuals who become leaders in similar situations and even greater divergence in leadership behavior in dif­ ferent situat ions• 2. Leaders showed superiority over members of their group in at least one of a wide variety of abilities. Che only common factor appeared to be that leaders in a particular field need and tend to possess general superiority of technical competence in that area. Public leaders have ranged from dull normal to genius• 3. Leaders tend to exhibit the common characteristics of their group. Most usual characteristics are; interest and social background • 4. Past history and background items appear to characterize leaders in certain but not all activities. 5* Many studies, but not all, suggest superiority of leaders over their followers in physique, age, education, and socio-economic background•

1 259 PP.54 11

Stogdill (490) in 1948 surveyed all the literature "bearing

on the problem of traits and personal factors associated with leader­

ship11 Only those factors which were studied by three or more in­ vestigators were listed* He found eight general methods were used in

studying leadership and twenty—nine leadership traits resulted from the one hundred twenty-nine studies he reviewed (all but four in the original)•

BRIEF SUMMARIES OF IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP STUDIES

As mentioned above, Terman ( 507) 1904 was one of the first to study experimentally the problems of leadership. He found that the leaders tended to be taller, scholastically brighter, better looking, better dressed, more widely read, less emotional, more fluent of speech, had more prominent parentage and were more daring. Terman accepted his data as providing evidence for persistence of leadership. Leaders were twice as often mentioned by the teachers as being leaders and were chosen four and one-half times as often by their mates as ideals.

Gowin (212) 1915 made a study of characteristics of business executives. He submitted a questionnaire to one thousand executives, two hundred and twenty—five lesser executives, two hundred professional personnel, and two hundi’ed and twenty—two thousand policy holders to ascertain various physical, personal, attitudinal and professional characteristics. The Executives were superior to the policy holders in height, weight and were less variable. There was no difference with

1 490 pp.35 12 regard to age at marriage* number of children, etc* Nor was there any difference between the professional and executives groups* In a second study, Gowin (213) 1918 asked two hundred and seventy-six business executives to rank in importance a number of qualities for administra­ tive ability* The qualities ranked highest were judgment, initiative and integrity* Those ranked lowest were ■ refinement, appearance and sense of humor* Deutschberger (143) 1917 analyzed thirty—two adolescent male groups in New York City for structure and leadership* Each group was observed three — four weeks and eight clinical hours was spent on the leaders* Anti-sociality was determined by the proportion of members with records of arrest or court appearance* The results for the more anti—social groups show; (1 ) That one member was the source of initia­ tion and direction of the group*s activities, (2) The methods of the leader were often derision and disparagement (in the social groups, the leader induced greater effort through encouragement and exhortation),

(3 ) The leaders seemed to choose their lieutenants and to create sub­ groups more on the basis of use then upon real affective ties, (4)

Leaders (a) expressed more negative attitudes toward their mothers and

(b) revealed more admiration for their fathers. Leaders in general were more frequently middle children and claimed to have engaged in heterosexual intercourse with greater frequency*

Bingham and Davis (36 ) 1924 gave an intelligence test to one hundred and two business executives* They then checked personal in­ formation including supervisor ratings contained in experience records 15 chainst seventy—three of these. No correlation was found "between these two sets of data* Kornbauser and Kingsbiu^r (280 ) 1924 compared the mental alert­ ness test results given to twenty-eight clothing executives with rat­ ings given "by their six superior executives. Close agreement was found

"between the tests and the ratings*

o .r i n (l02) 1925 studied leadership in college women from the standpoint of their extra-curricular activities* Ehree quantita­ tive indices were used: 1 * total number of extra-curricular activities in which each of his subjects participated for four years; 2 * cumula­ tive academic grade for four years; 3. physical condition ratings. He found that the more active students had better scholastic standings.

Bowden (47 ) in 1926 was able to divide forty college student council presidents into two personality groups; physical and social.

From a study of these two groups he rejected the idea that leadership was dependent upon a dominating physique*

Caldwell and Wellman (75) 1926 compared six types of school leader representatives: class presidents, student council mem­ bers, magazine staff members, athletic captains, science club officers and citizenship representatives (forty in all) on seven characteristics; chronological age, mental age, intelligence quotient, scholarship, extraversion, height and physical achievement* Ehey found both speci­ ficity and generality of leadership: twenty— six of the forty were leaders in only one activity; six were leaders in two activities; five in three activities; two in four activities and one in five activities* 14 lEhey also found that: (l) scholarship was high for all the leaders;

(2 ) high physical achievement was only noted for athletic leaders;

(3 ) eoctraversion was markedly present for most "but especially for science club, student council and magazine staff members; and

(4 ) class presidents and athletic captains were the tallest hoys; magazine staff leaders were among the smallest in their classes.

Sorokin (479) Ie. 1927 studied the biographies of sixteen hundred leaders of labor and radical movements. He found that the majority of these came from professional, business or managerial familial backgrotind3 .

McOuen (342) 1929 studied student yearbooks, directories, and personally questioned leaders in fifty-eight student groups at Stan­ ford University. He found college groups tended to select leaders who were above average intellectually. Lien seemed to recognise intellectual ability more readily and to depend upon it more readily in selecting leaders than did women. Only athletic leaders were selected for skill rather than intellectual ability.

Bellingrath ( 27) in 1930 obtained ratings from two hundred twenty-four high school boys on teacher traits, one of which ?/as leader­ ship. His highest correlations with leadership were "emotional bal­ ance" +.70; "will power and perserveranee" +.6 8 .

Bridgeman (53 ) 1930 studied success of thirteen hundred and ten graduates in the Bell Delephone System. He found that high scholar­ ship, campus achievement, early graduation and immediate employment in the Bell System were significant favorable factors for success (salary 15 achieved) in this company* College scholarship level was the most sig­ nificant factor found. O'Connor (392) 1931 studied one hundred presidents and vice- presidents of "successful” companies. He found five favorable execu­

tive characteristics: 1. Large English vocabulary, 2. Many aptitudes,

3 . Objective personality, 4. Accounting aptitude, 5. Aptitude for first position. Cowley (123) 1928 isolated six traits common to leadership by a factor analysis method; self-confidence, finality of judgment, motor

impulsion and speed of decision (measured in three ways). He indicates,

"Leadership obviously is not a single ti-ait but rather a complex fashioned together as a unity. An adequate ap­ praisal of leadership would naturally reduce this complex to its individual units, and any sort of study of leader­ ship to be of value should produce a list of traits which go together to make a leaderl^

Cowley advances three distinctions; leaders vs. headmen; effectiveness depends on traits demanded by the situation; leaders differ from fol­

lowers in the same situation but not in different situations* In

another study, Cowley (124) 1931 studied a wide variety of leaders and non-leaders (l32total); twenty Army officers, twenty non-commissioned

officers (Army), twenty Army privates, twenty criminal leaders, twenty

criminal followers, sixteen college leaders and sixteen college fol­

lowers. twenty-eight psychological tests were given to all these and

results were studied to determine (a) if leaders scored diffei’ently from

followers and (b) if leaders in different situations reacted in the same

1 123 PP.144 16 way. Ihe tests did differentiate "between leaders and followers in the same situation; leaders in different situations did not possess the same traits* Luithlen (325) 1931 compared leaders and followers working together. It was found that when a leader and follower were paired - the leader did most of the work* 7Jhen two followers were paired — cooperation took place hut the result took longer. When two leaders were paired — quarreling and fewer sentences resulted.

Moore (359) 1932 used a questionnaire with college women to discover characteristic traits of leaders. !Ehe traits which were found to predominate in the order of their frequency of occurrence were: sympathy, dignity, friendliness, fairness, initiative, intelligence, social—mindedness, self-confidence, sincerity and dependability* A high degree of reliability, in regard to the extent to which individual leaders possessed these characteristics was shown in the judgments of the students. In another study, Moore (360) 1935, twenty—five leaders were compared with a control group, selected without reference to leader­ ship abilities, for variables of weight, height, age, scholarship and personality traits* Ehe differences were small with leaders tending to be; older, taller, higher in scholarship, more extroverted, more as­ cendant, and to have less extreme scores on personality traits*

Farten (40l) 1933 used forty— two children, boys and girls, two to five years of age at the University of Minnesota with IQs from

81-145 with a time sampling observational technique for each child of one minute for several days* It was found that ,fa comparison of the 17 three children who followed most (over twenty-five percent of the time) with the three who never followed showed no striking differences in age, intelligence, occupational level, nationality or number of siblings"*

Smith and Krueger (470) 1933 point out that leadership may best be thought of as a relative relationship which exists between members of a group and the common purpose of that group* They note that a.lmost any member of a group can be a leader in some situation at some time and that there is no leader who can serve efficiently at all times in all situations. Thus leadership should change with each distinctive common purpose accepted by the group* Hative ability is important es­ pecially in times when it is needed for leadership*

Spaulding (4^3) 1933 studied sixteen Junior College leaders, who had been selected by a representative vote of the student body, in their home and school environments. Ho general leadership trait was found but rather five types of student leaders were identified:

1. social climber, 2. the intellectual success, 3. the good fellow,

4* the big athlete, and 5. the athletic-activity type*

Sward (497) 1933 compared one hundred twenty—five college leaders divided into five sub-groups: editors of student publications, debaters, campus politicians, leaders in dramatics, and prominent stud­ ents in womens’ organisations*. He found that prominence in college af­ fairs was closely associated with superior socio-economic status, greater college aptitude, and superior scholastic attainment* Prominent women were found to be more extroverted than prominent men*

Plemming (173) 1935 made a cluster analysis of the personality traits of seventy-one high school leaders. His criteria, of leadership 18 was a point score arbitrarily derived from actual positions of leader­

ship end responsibility held* The girls were rated by their teachers

for a list of traits and for "degree of personality" • Pour trait

clusters had significant average correlations with leadership.: enten-

taining, brilliant, culture—talented, and the Just. The qualities that

seemed to be basic in leadership were; liveliness, intelligence,

sportsmanship, ability to amuse, athletic prowess, pleasant voice, and absence of modesty. 77ith these traits "leadership is not guaranteed but without a majority of them it is impossible11 •

Page (398) 1935 had each member-of a class of cadets rated by every other member for leadership* The combined Judgment of the

cadets we.s weighted eighty points and the rating of the company com­ mander at twenty points. The results show that leadership ratings were more closely correlated with bearing and appearance than with other

traits*

Anderson (' 9 ) 19ff? studied the social behavior of one hundred twenty—eight young children of pre-school age in an experimental play

situation. He noted two distinctive types of behavior in the social

interplay; dominative and integrative* Dominative behavior was defined as involving the use of commands, threats and attacks on the personal

status of the individual; while integrative behavior involved obtaining voluntary cooperation* It was noted that domination incited domination and integrative behavior induced integrative behavior* The techniques were unrelated methods of responding; obtained correlations being vir­ tually zero* 19

LaPiere & Farnsworth. ( 2 8 $ 1936 distinguished between personal leadership: bull sessions, rumor, recreational clubs, conferences, audience and impersonal leadership: autocratic-democratic, propaganda*-

censorship, newspaper, fads and fashions* They also point out that high­ ly institutionalized behavior involved little trial and error and was guided by the system rather than by individual initiative* One in­ dividual was conventionally designated as a leader, even though his leadership was no more than nominal i.e. 1* He does not select or devise the pattern of interaction to which the others subscribe,

2. His leadership role is that of being the focal point of interaction and of being the one who provides cues which guide the other members in

the enactment of their separate roles. The institutionalised mechanisms by which the person of the nominal leader of institutionalized situations

is determined are most commonly those of heredity, age and sex*

Janney (255) 1938 observed three hundred undergraduate college women for two years in regard to clothing feds and fashions. He found

that these fads and fashions were highly indicative; of the personality pattern of the individual; of the social group; of the type of leader­

ship, i.e. dramatic, social, choregraphic and editorial* Those who did not initiate or follow the fads indicated social isolation or schi-zoidal

tendencie s•

Albig ( 4 ) in 1939 distinguished between personal leadership and other forms of authority* He then divided personal leadership into

representative or symbolic and dynamic or creative leadership. He also

reviewed the leadership classifications of Bernard, ( 34)» Allport ( 6 ), 20

LeBon (288), Miller (555)* Bogardus (59 & 40), Sanderson (44o), Nafe

(5 7 6 ), and others and came to the oonolusion that no type classifica­ tion had thus far proved convincing or adequate. He noted also that leadership may be distinguished from domination.

Hunter and Jordan (255) 1959 used student ratings, faculty ratings and leadership records as selective devices for eighty-two leaders, as compared to a larger group of non-leaders, among univer­ sity men. They found that their leaders weret younger, more intelli­ gent, more able scholastically, more mature in their vocational inter­ ests, had' higher vocabulary soores, more self- sufficient^ more domin­ ant, more liberal, had better educated parents and came from a higher occupational status than those of the control group.

Bird (57) 1940 abstracted seventy-nine traits from twenty controlled leadership investigations. He found surprisingly little overlapping. Only five percent of the traits (4 in number) were common to four or more studies.

Dunkerly (1 5 1 ) 1940 attempted a statistical study of leader­

ship among one hundred and seventy Oatholic University women. Sixty of these were chosen as having leadership qualities by a "guess who* test. These women were then voted upon for fifteen different positions of leadership. The scores thus obtained were correlated with age, in­

telligence, scholastic achievement, scores on the Bernreuter Person­

ality Inventory, The Oalifornia Personality Test, a dress rating

scale, ratings of manner and bearing, alertness, initiative, industry,

faithfulness, cooperation, loyalty, eduoation of parents, position in 21 family, type of school previously attended, faculty personality ratings, personal interviews by the personnel director and three leadership scoring devices. She then factor—analyzed these results obtaining four

11 well-defined factors1' and suggestions for a fifth, 7/hich were put into three clusters: intellectual, social., and religious. The results in­ dicated: !• leaders tend to he leaders in specific situations rather than to possess a general leadership ability, 2 , intellectual, social and religious leaders were strong in their own fields but no different from non-leaders in the other two factors, 3. an individual may be a leader in more than one cluster; a leader in one cluster may also be a non-leader in all other clusters*

B&velas* (23) 1943 study is representative of the philosophy and techniques of Lewin and his associates for the problem of leadership,

Three mediocre YIPA leaders of low morale were equated to a control group of three other leaders on the basis of age, total time served in the

Y/PA, time on present project, sex, skill, life history and rating of leadership. After twelve days instruction, averaging two hours a day, concerning the philosophy, attitudes and objectives of good recreational group work, the experimental group showed significant increases in use of praise, apt delegation of authority, ability to get the children to work together and increased personal morale*

IFauquiei’ and G-ilcrist (159) in 1942 made a study of institu*-

tional leadership (male adolescents). They found their leaders to be:

older, of longer residency in the institution, taller, heavier, more

dominant, of greater physical strength, more alert, bolder, more im­ pulsive, more excitable, more cooperative and with a greater desire to 22 hold, the center of attention. Contrary to usual findings, they also found their leaders to "be somewhat lower in intelligence. Q3aey in­ dicate the latter as well as some of the former results might well he due to the situational factor present.

Coffin (114) 1944 attempted a "job analysis11 of leader func­ tions. He found they fell into three categories; planning, organising and persuading. In addition he combined Bird's seventy-nine traits,

Britt’s sixty traits, and Krout's twenty-five traits (total - one hundred sixty-four traits) and analyzed them into eleven clusters; intelligence, moral sensitivity, imagination, restraint, dynamic physi­ cal characteristics, drive and determination responsibility, self- reliance, imperturbability, social responsiveness and easy maintenance of good relations with others. As a parallel to the three clusters of leadership functions he suggested that the above eleven clusters be further reduced to throe parallel clusters of leadership traits; ideational, organisational and interpersonal. He further tied this

3 x 3 analysis to Sprangers 11 six value theory” and Sheldon's ’’three component theory1' •

Brake (149) 1944 after a comprehensive survey of previous experiments and studies noted that such attempts to enumerate personal­ ity and other leadership qualities were made by single observers without benefit of control groups, carefully constructed rating scales, cor­ relational analysis, or systematic treatment of the data. Drake at­ tempted to weigh thirty leadership traits end to determine‘sex differences using a seven point rating scale. His subjects were twenty-one college 25 girls who were instructed to select five girl friends whom they knew well and rate them on all of the thirty traits. Each trait was then correlated with all the others. He founds 1. a high degree of con­ sistency in leadership even for dissimilar groups, 2* girls were high­ er than boys with regard to the traits of self-confidence, sociability, intelligence, desire to impose will, 5* the most important traits positively related to leadership wares originality, aggressiveness, common sense, cheerfulness, humor, emotional stability, trustworthi­ ness, tact, persistence and desire to excel, 4. traits negatively cor­ related with leadership wares readiness to anger, conceit, introver­ sion, selfishness, pure-mindedness, quick oscillation, occasional extreme depression and excitability. He indicates that leadership traits are not static qualities which in every personality and envir­ onmental constellation remain the same, but that they frequently represent general habit tendencies and attitudes which are character­ istic of individuals in many situations.

French, J.R.P. (182) 1944 cites the case of an autocratic Boy

Scout leader who was excellent in scouting but a poor trainer. He was egocentric, a braggard, insensitive to the needs of the group and the group responded by being apathetic, bored, and most dropping out of the course; After five meetings ( thirteen hours) at the Bavelas Training

Institute where role playing and friendly criticism were used, he be­ came aware of his needs, sensitive to the needs of others, more flexible* more democratic. In short, he had a different outlook on life.

Hanawalt and Richardson (224) 1944 compared supervisors 2k and non-supervisors; office holders and non-office holders on a large list of items. Twenty-three items in each comparison showed significant differences none of which were common to the two lists. Leaders were said to differ most from non—leaders on the adjustment scales (neurotic tendency, introversion—extroversion and self-confidence) self-sufficiency end dominance. There was no reliable difference on the sociability scale. They conclude that the chief difference between leaders and non- leaders is one of adjustment.

Lindeman (312) 1944 differentiated between types of leaders in a democracy; the umpire, the coach, and the captains of the rival teams. The umpire is a symbol of arbitrary authority. Whatever leader­ ship he exercises derives from the authority and power vested in him.

He is in one sense a dictator. The coach derives his leadership primarily from his proficiency. He is an "expert*4. The captain of the team is in and of the group which he leads. His position as leader is the result of choice exercised by his teamates. His leadership is a function, not of authority nor of expertness, but of democracy,

lewin (306) 1944 has aptly considered leadership;

"The approach of the psychologist to the problem of leadership has for a long time been dominated by the problem of selection and of testing of specific ’abilities*• Sxperiments have shown, how­ ever, in a precise manner that what is usually called the character and the abilities of the individual, his ideals, his goals, his motivation and values, his perception end his productivity, his friendliness and objectivity, his tendencies to domination and sub­ mission, that all these properties can be changed to a large ex­ tent by changing the social atmosphere of the group belonging to this individual. This holds for the follower as well as for the leader. The idea of training leaders makes use largely of this dependence of the person’s motivation and character on the group of which he is a x>art. If the leader himself is viewed in this way as one part of a social unit, the width of his influence loses its magic and becomes a specific case of the interdex^endence of the various subparts and aspects of a dynamic whole. It does not 25

suffice to Tinder stand the fact of interdependence. TZtiat we want to know is the specific laws governing it. Tor, only then will we know what changes should "be "brought ah out within a social unit to reach a certain objective, and on what subpart of the units the level should best be applied.

Eichardson and Hanawalt (429) 1944 compared the Bemreuter

Persone-lity Inventory scores of two hundred fifty-eight supervisors

(office holders) and non-supervisors (non-office holders). Ehe super­ visors tended to be less neurotic, less introverted, more dominant,

more self-confident, and more self-sufficient.

Eaton (152) 1947 reviewed the wartime selection of leaders

both among the Allies and the Germans* He points out the lack of agree­

ment concerning the criteria of "leadership” ; some thought of leader­

ship a.s a cooperative function (influencing people to cooperate toward

some goal which is considered desirable); others as a dominating func­

tion (role of one individual as initiator or organizer of group action).

He reviews the dissatisfaction of the American and British Armies with

classification tests and officer candidate schools as good leader

selectors and notes that two sociological selection techniques: socio-

drama and sociometry were used. Ansbacher’s (lo)aaalysis of the German

qualitative performance tests, the British Army 17ar Office Selection

Board’s tests, and the American OSS five point scale and ten tests are

discussed. Emphasis is given to the OSS use of buddy ratings, pro­

jective tests (Eorschach), stress interviews, tests of frustration

tolerance, and observation of detail tests.

Gibb (2 0 0 ) 1947 working as a member of an officer selection

1 306 PP. 392-394 2 6

"board in the .Australian Army showed that Selectees were significantly superior in: 1. general intelligence, 2. educational level, 3. prior leadership experience, 4. socioeconomic status, 5. interviewer ratings for sociability, self-confidence, aggressiveness and adjustability*

However, few of the chosen individuals were superior* in all of these traits* He indicates that leadership resides not exclusively in the individual "but in his functional relation with other members of his group, in the group aims and values, and in the organisation and tech­ niques available for reaching a goal*

In another study G-ibb £02 ) 1949 hypothesized that leader­ ship is specific to the situation giving rise to it. He constructed a list of sixty-two group variables and thirty—four individual variables and applied them to ten groups of ten men ages 21—25. Eleven clusters were factored-out (a la Cattell) of which nine are listed:

1* Morale (ill}. 2. Friendly, urbanity, savoir faire vs. lack of group possession. 3. Highly organized, highly controlled, much structured, gregarious vs. dour, desurgent, inhibited. 4. Authoritarian and distinct leadership (Morale II) 5* Group unity end relaxed gregariousness ■ 6 . Low morale vs. high morale. 7. Individual to group relations. 8 . Individual to individual ties. 9. Function vs. form dimension.

Comparisons were also made on many variables such a.s age, intelligence, scholastic ability, leadership experience, emotional adjustment, etc*

Ho significant differences were found anywhere except that leaders tended to be members of smell families. Hypothesis that leadership was specific to situation was not validated; nor invalidated.

Jennings (264,265,267) 1947 has done a great deal of work in 27 the field of leadership using the technique of sociometric choice.

By this method, the most chosen individual (person who has the highest

" choice-status" ) is, by definition, a leader. (G-ibb prefers to call such a person a "socio-center,, as opposed to an "isolate")* She im­ portant findings from her work may be summarised as*

CD Sociometric choice for the individual appears to depend dir­ ectly upon the nature of the group in which he is located, (2) Leadership end isolation are phenomena which arise out of individual differences in capacity for socio-group participa­ tion and as phenomena which are inherent in the specific con­ text of the socio groups in which they are produced, (3) Individuals who emerge as leaders in one socio group may or may not emerge in a similar role in another community or even in another socio group in the same community, (4) (The why of leadership appears to reside in the interpersonal contribution of which the individual, becomes capable in a specific setting eleciting such contributions from him, (Leadership appeal’s as a process in which no one individual has a major role but in which relatively many share.) (5) Ihe social "milieu" is "improved" from the point of view of the membership through the efforts of each leader. Each widens the area of social participation for others (and in­ directly his own social space) by his unique contribution to this "milieu".

Lehman (291,293 ) 1942, 1947 has made a large number of leader­ ship studies from the standpoint of age. She present studies are representative. They reveal that certain types of present-day leaders* legislative, judicial, diplomatic, military, naval, religious and educational are definitely older than were their predecessors who held the same nominal positions. Uhere is also less age variability today.

Lehman ascribes this to no single causative factor but a complex of factors, fhe compaz*ative figures are quite striking* 28

President's Cabinet 1789-1824 1925-1945

Sec. State 53.00 68.50 Sec. Sreas, 44.00 54.00 Sec. War 45.33 50.23 Att. Genl. 41.75 53.29 Post Genl. 46.50 50.70 Sec. XTavy 47.83 53.00

1364-1885 1943-1945

Natl. Acad. Sci. Members 41.30 51.30

1775-1895 1895-1945

U.S. Army Leaders 47.09 59.39

She trend is always in the same direction no matter what dates are selected.

Lippitt and White (319) 1947 performed one of the first of the

Lewinian ” group dynamic studies” which is probe.bly also the most widely known. In it, they attempted to study leadership behavior and total group life by controlled matching and planned variation of the conditions.

The experimental findings were;

1 * morale or group cohesion is greater under ”democratic” than under “autocratic” or "laisses faire” leadership. 2. The "agressive autocracy” group was more ready to express its frustrations in interclub wars. 3. The "apathetic autocracies” were more prone to internalize the aggression. 4. The "democratic” and "laisses faire” groups -were inclined to react against the source of frustration. 5. Previous group history (social climates) had an important ef­ fect in determining the social perception of leader behavior and reaction to it by group members. 6 . The process of small—group life could be experimentally mani­ pulated in a satisfactory way for experimental study and could be recorded adequately for meaningful quantitative analysis, and 7. the presence of observers did not affect the situation and seemed not to exist for the members of the experimental groups* 29

Ste\7ard and Scott (489) 1947 observing the "behavior of goats re­ ported that there was no more than chance correlation "between leader­ ship and dominance, They suggest that these two phenomena are the result of two distinct learning processes# Their findings were:

(1) In a dominance organization the relation "between younger and older animals was important-the older invar 3^>ly dominating the younger#

(2) The age factor was less prevalent in the leadership situations "but it was there end more true for sheep than goats, (3) a dominant animal in one situation is not necessarily a leader in another situation, nor does leadership assist dominance#

TThyte (537) 1947 was one of the first to describe the leadership hierarchy in street corner garnga# He indicates that in these natural groups there was a distinct social structure of which the leader was

"but an important part# The leader depended upon his followers, particu­ larly upon their ideals and values. Effective leadership changed as the situation changed and sometimes it was nearly impossible to choose a leader. "When leadership did change it was not through an uprising of the bottom men but by a shift in the relations between men at the top of the structure*

Benne (30) in 1948 indicated that leaders were made, not born.

He pointed out that democratic .leadership requires attitudes, under­ standings and skills more complex than those needed in autocracies. Such traits are difficult to acquire but they can be learned. Despite this trait insistence he insisted that leadership should be seen in terms of functions to be performed in helping groups to grow and to operate productively, not in terms of qualities inherent in certain persons. 50

Carter ( 85 ) in 1949 studied the consistency of leadership behavior

of thirty-six university men in "leaderless group situations'* • He used six different tasks (reasoning, clerical, intellectual, construction

discussion, motor cooperation and mechanical assembly); groups of vary­

ing sizes and different time situations. Two observers made independent

ratings of the behavior, pf each subject on each task for each session.

Behavior was similar for intellectual, clerical, reasoning end to a

lesser extent discussion but independent of motor and mechanical situa­

tions. It was consistent from task to task but somewhat dependent upon

the kind and size of the groups*

Carter and Nixon (87 ) 1949 assessed the leadership potentials

of one hundred High School men by four criteria: 1. leaderless group

work task situation, 2. High School supervisory personnel ratings,

3. nominations by fellow students, and 4. activity records* The sub­

jects' potentialities were measured with respect to three different

types of tasks: intellectual, clerical and mechanical. It was found

that leadership ability in the intellectual and clerical situations was

similar but independent of that in mechanical assembly situations• It

is suggested that probably certain families of situations "go together1*

in the sense that the individual who is a successful leader in one situa­

tion will tend to be successful in all other situations of that family

type*

Carter, Hey thorn and Howell ( 8 8 ) 1950 investigated five

criteria, of leadership ability; leaderless group technique, nominating

method ratings by faculty members, ratings by friends end assessment of

leadership in previous extra-curricular activities. Intercorrelations were low and indicated that the "generality of studies of leadership is limited "by the nature of the particular criterion used" •

Oat tell and Y/ispe (101) 1948 studied twenty-one groups each composed of sis sorority students. Personality measures were made "by means of (1 ) an intelligence test and (2) a questionnaire. Prom nineteen test situations ever a three-day period, forty-one group variables were derived and intercorrelated. Seven factors were de­ rived:

1, Intelligent "Esprit de corps" (Morale I) vs. Internal friction, 2, Shrewdness, doggedness vs. antism, dynamic lability, 3, Priendly urbanity, "Savoir Fjaire" vs. Lack of group self possession, 4, T7ithdrawal vs. extrovert responsiveness, 5, Industrious, rigid aggressiveness vs. informal, realistic relaxedness. 6 * Easy verbal activity vs. fortitude (Morale III). 7. Eaalism, Dependability (Morale III vs. Instability, Evasive­ ness.

Hemphill (232) 1948, (23/j) 1949, (235) 1950 developed fifteen group dimensions to study (1 ) characteristics of groups (2 ) leadership behavior and (3) judgments of leadership quality. His primary study was based on five hundred and ninety groups. Ten dimensions pertained to the group as a unit: size, viscidity, homogeneity, flexibility, stability, permeability, polarisation, autonomy, intimacy and control.

Five additional dimensions pertained to the members' relation to the group* position, participation, potency, hedonic tone and dependency.

Inter correlations between the fifteen dimensions were low. leafier ship adequacy was obtained.by two ratings: respondents judgment of leaders, over-all qualities of leadership and respondent judgment of the groups over-all evaluation of the leaders qualities. A questionnaire includin 52 a seventy item behavior rating list and a general description of the leader, the group, and the inter relational aspects of each were used*

Thus relations between leadership adequacy and the leader* s behavior between group dimensions and group behavior, and the interaction betY/een leadership adequacy and group dimensions were investigated. It was found that the behavior of leaders varied in a number of respects with changes in each of the fifteen dimensions. This was considered positive evidence that leaders do behave differently in different situations.

The conclusion concurred with the original hypothesis that leadership is a situational, group governed, non—personal, complex, interrelational highly specific series of relations*

The O.S.S. Staff (396) 1948 found that leadership assertion

(i.e. assumption of leadership in leaderless situations) and leadership efficiency (in assigned leadership roles) as rated were very highly correlated (.86SJ200). The authors believe that the two forms of leader­ ship ere in fact distinguishable. They claimed that leadership must be a relatively general trait. A factor analysis of the intercorrelation of eleven ratings were analyzed to give four factors which were named: adjustment, effective intelligence, physical energy and authoritative assertion* The correlations betv/een leadership and other variables were given as (K133):

Energy and initiative *72 Social relations .44 Effective intelligence *65 Observing & reporting *32 Propaganda skills .51 Physical ability *21 Emotional stability *48 Security .16 Motivation for assignment .44

Stogdill and Shartle (493) 1948.as members of the Ohio State 55

University Personnel Research Board studying leadership assumed that leadership in some form exists in top administrative positions as well as at other levels in an organisation. It was postuls-ted that leader­ ship is a function of the interrelated patterns of responsibilities of the members of the organisation. Scales were developed to estimate an individual in regard to hisi (l) level of responsibility (r), 2 . level of authority (a) and degree of authority he delegated to subordinates

(d), i.e. RAD Scales. Che RAD index was defined as " Responsibility SiSore Relegation Score. It was found that RAD Index correlated high with v/ork patterns* with inspection, with planning and with coordination.

Pour possible criteria- of leadership status were: sociometric ratings, level in the organization structure, percent of time spent in contacts v.*ith persons and SAD Index.

In a later study, Stogdill 0+92 ) 1950 indicates that leader­ ship is a phenomena of organisation, not of personal traits or of groups as such and that th,e organisation defines and delimits the scope of leadership. He indicates that the fundamental defining variables of an organization are: (l) work one is expected to do, (2 ) tasks one actually performs (3) persons with whoa one is expected to work,

(4) persons with whoa one works. He insists that leadership must be viewed from the standpoint of influence on organizational activity, rather than on group members*

Carrard (831) 1949 emphasizes the importance of systematic

training of supervisors and executives. He insists that latent scholar­

ship qualities of potential executives must be developed methodically into actual abilities by the 11 transmission of psychologic knowledge11 54 and the solidification of such important qualities as (1 ) knowledge of people (2) objectivity (3) self assuredness (4) initiative (5) perse­ verance (6 ) decisiveness (7) feeling of responsibility* In another study (83 II) 1949 he emphasizes that maturity is very important to good leaders and that leaders who are most effective are 11 catalysts of their groups'1 • Le’yy (303) 1949 observed young group leaders among hetero­ geneous soldiers 19—24 years of age. He found two antithetical types of leaders prevalent: the sovereign and the despot. Ehe sovereign is characterized as taking initiative spontaneously, being the center of the group, being concerned with the interests of the group and without formal office, formal election or formal powers. She despot also takes initiative but commands, supervises, enacts complete passivity in others, must not be contradicted or talked back to, is himself passive

in the presence of superiors and loves to make his authority (usually

formal) felt* Levine (302) 1949 considers four types of leadership with respect to American culture and their effects on participation. Dhe

"charismatic" leader dramatises and focuses the group*s attention on

their common aims, however he tends to become dogmatic and rigid him­

self* She "organizational" leader emphasizes efficient action, tends

to drive people, often loses sight of the group objectives* (The "in­ tellectual" leadei' usually lacks skill in attracting people and affect­

ing them though he himself has clear-cut objectives. Hhe "informal"

leader lias personal warmth and insight into the feeling of his followers but tends to change his style on assuming formal office. 55

I.ierei (346) 1949 attempted to answer tii© question: which is

stronger, the group made up of individuals of average social penetration or the individual of a high degree of social penetration "but alien to

the group. Same—sex children from a day nursery 11 whose social qualities were an average for that group and who were not leaders11 were selected after a two—week observation period. These children were formed into a new group and placed in a separate room. A leader vras then placed in

the group after it had developed its own traditions and rituals (3 - 6 meetings). Twelve groups were used and the power of penetration of twenty-six leaders, who were children so-designated by nursery school teachers and observers in this study was determined. In most cases, the

leader adopted the new group’s traditions rather than instilling his

own, but while he proved weaker than the group, he still managed to play the role of leader*

Shartle (458) 1949 went on the assumption that a study of leadership becomes a study of leadership acts and the variables which will be related to such acts. A shared goal is involved in the situa­ tion of leadership; thus one must study the goals of organizations also. In this study nine dimensions of leader behavior were a priori

set up from 1800 specific sta.tements of leader behavior. These were;

Initiation Representation, Organization, Communication, Production,

Membership Integration, Domination, Recognition. These were made into one hundred fifty items and submitted to three hundred fifty—seven persons. A factor analysis showed three dimensions. 1. I.iaintenance of membershin behavior that increases a leader's acceptability to the group. It is heavily loaded with low domination and high membership 56 dimension. 2. Objective attainment - "behavior high in the production and organisation dimensions. 3. Group interaction facilitation —

"behavior or acts stressing the mechanics of effective interaction of group members. He concludes: Ehe ideal leader is one who: a. places feu demands upon the persons he leads, b. does not interfere with their freedom, c. is a group member and 11 one of the boys". However, at the same time, he is perceived as ideally not a part of the group, as one who can do things for the group that the group cannot do and as one who gets things done.

French, H.L. (184) 1950 used the leaderless group technique for forty-two individuals totalling two hundred ten individuals in undergraduate psychology classes. He found heterogeneous high dominance to be associated with verbal output as well as with leadership.

Bales (17 ) 1950 interaction analysis is noteworthy for its demonstration of the importance of trait patterns and profiles. Al­ though many other authors have hinted at the importance of interpreting behavior traits in this fashion, Bales is one of the very few who have actually set up profile graphs and stressed their importance in differ­ ent situations and for different people.

Bell and French (26 ) in 1950 used twenty-five male volunteers in six five man discussion groups. Bach group contained men who had not met previously. At the end of each meeting, members nominated a leader for a hypothetical second meeting* It was found that the samo individuals tended to bo so nominated, for their groups, Bell & French conclude that leadership status seeras to be rather highly consistent " despite the situation changes involved. 1 1 26 PP. 766 57

Hackman & Moon (220) 1950 attempted to determine if leaders and followers were identified by similar criteria. They had fifty students nominate individuals to serve (l) as leaders of committees and (2) as followers. Individuals also wrote brief personality sketches and took a battery of psychological tests. High correlations were found between the frequency with which individuals were nomina­ ted as leaders and followers.

Patterson (404) 1950 states that there are three basic and delineable factors in any leadership phenomenons (a) the leader (b) the situation and (c) the follower. "It is not enough to study the leader alone. The personality or pattern of behavior that wins followers in one situation will alienate followers in another..... • Studying the traits or behaviors of the leader will be more profitable if these traits or behaviors are studied in relation to the definable charao- teristies of the situation in which the leader is operating."■ 1 He conducted an interview on nine hundred and sixty three people in

Philadelphia. It was found that those who were authoritarian were most ready to react to leaders and leadership favorably, and that per­ sons who were secure do not react necessarily with objectivity toward their leaders nor do they identify with the group readily. However, the leader who is high on a test on "authoritarianism" will (l) be rejeoted by many of his followers and (2 ) will be accepted by relative­ ly many of his superiors and the leader who is low on a test of "author­ itarianism" will (1) be accepted by relatively many of his followers and (2 ) will be rejected by relatively many of his superiors. « 1 404 PP. 1. 58

Reid and Ehle (424) also questioned nine hundred and sixty- three Philadelphia people in a twenty-four "block area "by use of a seventy question questionnaire on leadership* fliey found (l) more leaders were mentioned in poorer areas. (2 ) upper economic areas tend­ ed to nominate leaders associated with specific functions (Only two of seven nominated political 11 leader") 3. lower economic areas tended

(thirteen out of seventeen) to nominate local politicians committee­ men as 11 leaders’1.

Sterling and Rosenthal (488) 1950 used sociometric indices and caneful analyses of group "behavior and transcripts of group meetings to determine leaders and followers. Sentence completion tests and SASMs were used to determine the personality traits of leaders and followers.

A method of analysing group processes wa.s used to characterise psycho­ logically the various phases and activities of the group. Results in­ dicate that leaders and followers at different pei-iods of the group may

"be identified "by the relating of sociometric indices, group observa­ tions, and group transcript analyses in various ways. Leaders and followers change with different psychologicad phases of the groaipj the same leader usually coining to the fore 'with similar group psychological phases.

QJitus (518) 1950 considers leadership to "be synonymous tvith politics and to "be the art of getting what one 'wants and making people like it. He "believes that there are two impelling motives or inherent urges which seem to produce actions on the part of individuals - a quest for survival and ego-appeasement. 59

Goode (207) 1951 mci.de a. study of the published reports of

research on “leadership - it3 qualities and their effects on group behavior" . He found that the following qualities are characteristic of

the successful leader? mental ability, breadth of interests and

aptitudes, language facility, maturity, strong motivation, social

orientation and administrative shill. On the basis of his twenty-two

references he makes the following indicative statements?

1. "Stogdill found leadership is specific to the situation. Carter and ITixor. found there may be common leadership re­ quirements within broad categories of endeavor. Liany other studies have revealed that executive and leadership require­ ments are basically the same regardless of the enterprise or type of work in which the lea-der is engaged" (PP 343) 2 . “...technical skill in the work supervised is not nearly so important as interest in directing the work of others and ability to reach objectives through their organized effort". (PP 344-) 3. "The leadei' is somewhat more intelligent than the average of his followers. However, he is not so superior that he cannot be readily understood by those who work with him* She leader is a well-rounded individual from the standpoint of interests and aptitudes. He tends toward interests, aptitudes and knowledge with respect to a wide variety of fields"• (PP 349) 4. "She leader has an unusual facility with language. He speaks and \7rites simply, persuasively end understandably." (PP 349) 5. " (The leader is mentally and emotionally mature. He has come of age mentally and emotionally as well as physically" • (PP 349) 6 . "The leexLer has a powerful inner drive or motivation which im­ pels him to strive for accomplishment". (PP. 349) 7. "The leader is fully aware of the importance of cooperative effort in getting things done and therefore understands and practices very effectively the so-called social skills" • 0?P 3 4 9 ) 8 . "The leader relies on his adm inis tractive skills to a much greater extent than he does on any of the technical skills which may be associated directly with his work" . ( PP 349)

Oobb (113) in 1952 matched fifty elective office "leaders"

(women) with fifty non-leaders as, to age, class and residence. Eoth

were given the Goodenough Speed - of — Association Test (238 homo­

nyms). She found these results for the leader group: 1. i.iore brothers than slaters, 2. Fewer older than younger aiblings, 5. More younger than older sisters, 4. Higher intelligence and achievement, 5* Higher verbal facility, 6. Slightly more masculine (especially those bora in

rural areas), 7* Took less time to complete the test, 8. Wrote more

legibly, 9• Used shorter words, 10. Made fewer errors in spelling,

11. Used fewer plurals and almost no endings on verbs, 12. Used higher

ratio of verbs to nouns, 15* Used very few personal references, 14.

Evidenced better adjustment, 15* Were less romantio, 16. Were inter­

ested in social organizations and showed knowledge of world events and

politios* In brief, leaders weret more objective, more emotionally

controlled, broad in their views of the world, and had many interests

beyond those immediately related to their personal lives.

Chowdhry and Newcomb (108) 1952 decided that individual

characteristics in a particular group situation had something to do

with the selection of leaders, i.e. the most effective leaders should

be those individuals who are most familiar with the standards of the

group and most familiar with the degree to whioh those standards are

shared by the group's members. To test this, Chowdhry and Newcomb

made up four groups* religious, political, fraternity and sorority.

They found leaders were significantly superior to non-leaders and

isolates in their ability to judge group opinion on familiar and rel­

evant issues} there was no difference, however, in judging unfamiliar

or leas familiar or less relevant issues* 4 1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

SUMMARY It io evident from the above abstracts and from Tables 157# 158# & 165 which are based on these studies that leadership is not a single-faceted trait which sen be studied by any method in any situa­ tion* Table 165 with its many "traits11 fbund to correlate with leader­ ship by different investigators in different situations is indicative of the complexity of the problem* Armchair methods# methods of exper­ imentation on children or goats for traits of leadership applicable to adults# methods of measuring "general" leadership traits do not appear to be reliable or valid* Unfortunately# no study has duplicated the methods or tested the same populations or leaders that have been tested by another study* Nor are definitions of given traits or even leader­ ship the same* Thus it la expected that a hodge-podge of results would accumulate* However# enough scientific objective studies with compar­ able groups of leaders in particular situations have taken place re— eently to indicate trends* Such studies appear to indicate that leader­ ship lot 1* Situational but transferable to similar situations* 8* Trainable — if one knows what to train for and the material Is superior or at least normal* 5* Oonoomltant with eminence or executive position* 4* Hot all-or-»one# but has degrees depending upon the person end the situation* 5* Characterised by many methods* These methods are often taken as kinds of leadership* Thus an apt multi-eituational leader would be characterised as a "different" leader in each situation because he used different methods*

PROCEDURE AIID IIEEHOD 45

Method

In this study, leaders were operationally defined as; (Table 140)

1. American Psychological Association Presidents 2. American Men of Science who were starred psychologists 3. ITational Academy o±' Science members who vrere psychologists 4. International Congress of Psychology officials 5. American AssociaiI6n for tlie Advancement of Science officiads who were psychologists 6 . American Association of A rts and Sciences members who vrere p sy cho lo gi s t s 7. national Institute of Psychologists members 8 . Howard Crosby T’arren Me dad recipients 9. American. Association of Applied Psychologists officials 10* Society for the Psychologiced Study of Sociad Issues chairmen 11* Eastern Psychological Association presidents 12, Midwestern Psychological Association presidents 13* Hestern Psychological Association presidents 14. Society of lixrperimented Psychologists members 15. Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology chairmen 16* Amex’ican Psychological Association Division chairman 17* Pochy Mountain Psycho logical Association presidents,

The above selected group was compiled from a list of fifty- two organizations connected in any way with psychology by a group of twenty-five judges adl having Ph.Ds in psychology; all having different psychological interests.

There are pros and cons concerning this selected list. One of the strongest cons, and with some justification, is that the list is weighted toward experimental psychologists and against clinical psychol­ ogists. To combat this, a list of adl American clinical societies was drawn up end their leaders scrutinised. "Unfortunately, most of these leaders were MDs, not psychologists. Ho organization was found which truly represented American clinical psychologists and only, or even mainly, clinical psychologists. It was ad so felt that this possible objection is alleviated somewhat by the recent trend of the APA presidents. 4 4 Without doubt, the sixty-two presidents of the American

Psychological Association (Table l4l ) belong in our study* However,

even here considerable doubt arises regarding a few of the early members.

Fullerton, the philosopher; Dewey, the philosopher; Marshall, the archi­

tect; Franz, the physiologist; and Royce, the philosopher did not con­

sider themselves psychologists and did not do their greatest work in

psychology* However, they did do great work in psychology and are allow­

ed to remain*

The starred men of science who were and are "psychologists"

include one hundred and thirty-seven names with the seventh edition

(not one hundred and thirty-two or one hundred and thirty-four as some­ times has been published). (See Tables 142—l4j )• Some doubts have

arisen in times past as to the "elect!venessN and the fairness of the

starring* However, J*M. Cattell's several publications and those of the original ten judges together with the wider voting of the later additions makes the judges believe this group applicable for our study*- Again arises questions as'to the "psychologiness" of the members for in addi­ tion to Royce, Dewey, Fullerton and Franz, the following won their spurs in another field and WERE SO LISTED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND EDITIONS;

Patrick, G.W. (Biology) Sohuman, J.G. (Philosophy)

Orelghton, J.E. (Philosophy, Gardiner, H.N* (Philosophy Farrand, L* (Anthropology) Santayana, G. (Philo sophy, Nichols, H* (Engineering) Armstrong, A*0* (Philo (Philosophy' sophy) Meyer, A. (Psychiatry) Peckham, G.W. (Biology) Wissler, 0. (Anthropology) Hurd, H.M. (Psychiatry) (Psyohiat

So little did some of these men consider themselves psychologists that they, like Dewey, had their listing changed from psychology to the in­ dicated fields in later editions* Many of the above did only a small 45 amount (though possibly of great significance) in psychology and then moved on to another field. Some flirted with psychological experimenta­ tion from time to time but were usually engrossed in another field#

There arises serious doubts as to the propriety of their inclusion in this study. However, it was felt that to exclude them would introduce a subjective variable that might not be defensible. So despite their own listings in later editions and possibly their own inclinations as to title they are all included. This may not be such an error as it appears on the surface. From 189S to 1910, there were very few scientists*

Some of these were men of wide interests and abilities. In many cases rigid specialisation wa.s impossible. So psychology leaders we re also leaders in other fields. Psychology was not a separate department in most colleges, so a man's title, even to himself, was often his depart­ ment title. Much was published under "philosophy41 that would today be considered "psychology."

The Hatipnal Academy of Science is considered the top scienti­ fic organization in the United States. In the recent election of 1952, there was only one psychologist, U.S. lindsley, of the fifty-four elected. Most of the thirty-four psychologists who are or have been members of this group have been AFA presidents or are included under the starred men of American Lien of Science. There are a few who do not fit into these two categories. (See Table 144 for NAS membership) 1 At least one member of this group does not consider himself a psycho­ logist. Dr. Hallowell Davis was elected as a joint candidate of physiol­ ogy and psychology but has indice-ted in a personal communication that his formal training in psychology was one-half year at the under-graduate level and his degree is an LED not a PhD in psychology. Dven today, the sciences still overlapi 4 6

TTithout doubt the officials of the International Congress of

Psychology should he included here* Most are already listed under the previous three headings. (See Table 145)

A fellow of the American Psychological Association is auto­ matically eligible to become a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. To hold office in the AAAS is another matter. Only very eminent psychological leaders have acquired such dis­ tinction.

On the other hand, to become a member of the American Associa­ tion of Arts and Sciences is distinctly an honor afforded only leaders.

Pielatively few have attained this honor among psychologists.

The national Institute of Psychology and the Society of Experi­ mental Psychologists are organisations limited to only a few psycholo­ gists end they are of a certain kind. However, despite these organise^, tions’ limitations as to type, they represent a considerable body of psychologists. Their standards are such that to be selected as a mem­ ber is distinctly a sign of leadership. (See Table 146)

The Howard Crosby Y'arren Medal has been awarded to only a few psychologists for outstanding experimentation and leadership in American psychological work. (See Table 146)

Cattell (92 ) has indicated that there were fifty-three leaders in psychology in 1906, of whom possibly seventeen might be listed as leaders in other fields. Thus, at least thirty-siac individuals were considered then as leaders. Cattell (93 ) and Pernberger (163) have also indicated that the number of psychologists in the United States at that time was probably less than three hundred. Only 196 were then members of the American Psychological Association. Today, there are nearly eight thousand members of the American Psychological Association* If the same percentages are used, then approximately eight hundred and thirty individuals might be considered as leaders. This, of course, ia unreasonable, but also is the small number of "national" leaders in­ cluded under the previous organizations. To obtain a closer approxi­ mation of today1 s psychological leaders it was finally deoided to use the regional psychological societies recognizing that the presidents of such organizations sometimes do not exert leadership except in their own localities. Hence the presidents or chairmen of the Eastern, Mid­ western, Western, Southern, and Rocky Mountain psychological associa­ tions were included. It is noteworthy that these same individuals very often are included under one or more of the other organizations. The

Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology usually elects a psychol­ ogist as chairman on alternate years. The philosopher presidents of this organization have, of course, been excluded.

The presidents of the only other national (and at the time competitor in a sense to the APA) psychological association, the Ameri­ can Association of Applied Psychologists, have been included. The question immediately arises with the inclusion of the AAAP whether the

Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and the other APA

Divisions should not also be included. A careful survey of the leaders thus far included reveals several pertinent pointst 1. All of the leaders thus far considered from the above organizations from 1892-1952 number I o b s than one hundred fifty - a total considerably lower than the eight hundred thirty noted above. 2. The leaders are heavily weighted in us number at the older age levels and for the earlier part of the period

1892-1940; yet the growbh of psychologists has been greatest during the

period 1940-1952 i.e. there will be fewer leaders for the period when

there are more psychologists. This is obviously wrong. The inclusion

of the APA Division chairmen corrects this appreciably and adds the

younger leaders to our study. (See Tables 146 & 147)

Thus the choices of the judges and an analysis of the leading

psychological groups agree on the choice of the leaders from these seven­ teen organizations. These leaders include all the noteworthy heads of

American Psychological "Schools11, hearly all the editors of psychological

journals,the writers of the most popular books, the inventors of common psy­ chological apparatus and equipment, etc. Although this was not taken into

consideration in the selection of the leaders, it did work out that way.

The chief discrepancy noted is that the total of leaders is still low. It seems that ten thousand psychologists from 1892—1952 should have more than approximately two hundred leaders. However, it is felt that the study should err on the conservative side. There are certainly very serious ob­ jections to including all the officials of all the psychological organiza­ tions in the United States.as mentioned above. Possibly a ratio of one to five hundred followers is correct for psychologists.

METHOD II

A review of all the published material concerning the above leaders including Who’s Who in America, Who Was Who in America and autobiographies, biographies, obituaries revealed an appalling lack of information about these leaders, and not all of the information 49 available was in agreement. Even such relatively minor information as the birth date of G. Stanley Hall is listed by him and his different bio­ graphers as 1342 and 1344- It was felt that the only accurate method of getting information was from the leaders themselves (or in case they were deceased — their close relatives). Oral interviews of nearly two hundred individuals was beyond the scope of this study as regards time and money. The only feasible method was by use of a questionnaire. Despite its many limitations and weaknesses it was felt that it could give more information quicker than any other means. Then, if contro­ versial points arose, individual interviews would be used to straighten out the difficulties.

Recognizing the value of Hemphill's (232), Shartle's (453)

(459)5 Gibbs' (200,202) and Stogdill's (490,491) recommendations, it was decided not to have a mere listing of personal traits or even

environmental factors but to try to include as many variables of leader­

ship as could be ascertained. The questionnaire^- is composed of five sections: 1. Indivi­ dual or personal factors (traditional approach), 2. Institutional factors (social approach), 3• Personal traits of influential men (traditional and social), 4. Group atmosphere factors (social)and 5. Group traits (social). Under individual or personal variables

such factor3 as birthplace, socio-economic status, father's and mother's education, etc. (Items 2-26, personal factors) were requested. Insti­ tutional factors included: name of PhD institution, location, liberal-

^able 162 50 ness, library facilities, etc. (Items 1 -3 , institutional factors). Personal traits of influential men included three duplicate sets of thirty-four behavior items (Questionnaire pages 6,7*8). Group atmos­ phere was obtained by questions concerning the name, leader of the group, influential personnel, meetings, type of research done, group influence, etc. (Items 1-17, group atmosphere). Group traits were found by one set of eighteen characterizing group behavior items (Questionnaire Page 11.) A remarks section (Page 12) was added to obtain open-ended material. The original double sheet of 21 questions was a priori expanded

to four sheets (on the basis of readings in the literature, Table I63, and discussion with others) at which time a preliminary try-out was made on ten Ohio State University graduate students in psychology. Their comments were analyzed revealing among other things the inadequacy of the 22 personal trait questions and the lack of a group trait section. A group of 170 personal trait questions were prepared and submitted to ten other similar

judges who reduced the number to 1 0 0 by grouping into clusters, noting dupli- cations and ambiguous wordings. (Tables 150,153,154) A 76 group trait list was also reduced to 55 items, in like fashion. A second eight page question­ naire was then prepared and submitted to ten Human Resources Research Laboratory PhD psychologists. From thaLr written and verbal comments the

entire questionnaire was revised, both trait lists were reduced (to 5 0 & 35 questions), (Tables 151,152) and some new material was added. Then another pilot study of twenty-four Ohio State University Psychology Depart­ ment Professors was made with the resultant ten page questionnaire. 51 The results of the third pilot study were incorporated into an eleven page questionnaire which was sent to the APA Committee on

Questionnaires for permission to circulate among APA members. The committee also had several very worthwhile suggestions which were made into the final form (See pages 272-8^1) and sent out to the one hundred and sixty living leaders ( just eight months after the first form was com­ pleted). A companion questionnaire considerably shortened in form, spiring only pertinent factual material was also sent to twenty close relatives

(wife, sone, daughter, brother, uncle) of deceased leaders, (only twenty addresses were obtainable) • A third questionnaire, identical in form to the first, was sent to one hundred non-leaders who were first chosen at random from the APA directory and second matched with the leaders on age, sex, part of country, and receipt of the PhD degree in psychology.

One hundred and sixty, questionnaires were mailed out to psychological leaders and one hundred questionnaires to non-leaders

25 April 1952. Within two weeks answers were obtained from eighty- eight leaders and twenty- seven non-leaders. At that time a second questionnaire, identical in form to the first, but with an additional note requesting cooperation was mailed to the seventy— two leader non­ respondents and the seventy-seven non-leader non-respondents. After two more weeks a third follow-up was made by postal card to those who luud not yet answered. Negligible results are usually obtained after the third follow-up so no further attempt was made at this time to obtain answers from the forty-eight leader non-respondents and the fifty-five non-leader non-respondents. 52

ITo follow-ups were made to the sixteen non—respondent rela­

tives of leaders. ITo follow-ups were made where an individual flatly refused to answer the questionnaire 11 because he did not consider him­ self to belong in this study" or "because he did not believe in the

study41 • Pollow—ups were sent to those who were "too busy" or indicat­ ed that they would not be alienated forever by such procedure.

MEEBDD I I I

A thorough perusal of the leadership literature reveals that many traits, factors, environmental variables, etc. are highly cor­ related with leadership in some studies and not in others. Some authors

(114,123,202,233 have indicated their belief in the environment as­ pect as being the cause of thos fluctuation. It is the premise of this study that it is the social pattern of personal traits evolving with environmental variables, hereditary factors end learned aspects that are responsible for and concommitant with leadership*

Co date there have been only incipient attempts to investi­ gate the inter-operations of personality (intelligence, motivation, perception) and group (social) factors. Host investigators hove ac­ cepted the clinicians* method of investigating or attempting to in­ vestigate the internal variables. Ehe clinician, and his brother psychologists, are prone.to deal with concepts such as motivation, in­ telligence, and perception; all concepts that despite being influenced by external events, persist within the "blach box" of the organism.

Despite lip service to the contrary the clinicians still fail 55 to give social factors their proper weight. In part this is due to the

inability to quantify the variables. However, the inability to write

these factors into the final equation of a life history is more nearly

due to their inadequate conceptualization. The model for such thinking

is not yet clear and quantification may be a long way in the future. Yet

it is possible to analyze and to an extent quantify the interactions of

various personalities with various kinds of group atmospheres.

Heretofore such studies have used sooial case histories. Sub­

ject H's personality traits, his troubles, his environment were verbosely

narrated. This "kind* of personality having this "kind* of mental and

other troubles in this *kind" of group atmosphere was thwarted in men­

tal or personality or productive growth* This type of analysis results

in a "social case history" which is, or may be, peculiar to the par­

ticular personalities involved and the speolfio sooial institutions

within which they operate. Thus we have the relation of illustration

to principle rather than proof to hypothesis. To obtain the latter it

is necessary to extend; the bases upon which we are operating and in

this study it is proposed to do just that.

It will be necessary to make several hypotheses at the out­

sets 1. It is hypothesized that there are "Ideal" and "Non-Ideal" in­

stitutions for scholarly productivity. "Ideal" and "Non-Ideal" being

operationally defined in terms of questionnaire institutional factors 4,

5*6,7,8,9, These institutions will be further analyzed into the various periods of time during which they were "Ideal* or "Non-Ideal".

2. It is hypothesized that election to an outstanding position is more indicative of leadership ability than election to a lesser posi­ tion. Thus being elected president of APA rather than president of an APA division is not only more desirable but indicative of greater leadership. Such very great leadership (LVG or DVG-) is operationally defined as i presidency of the APA, membership in NAS, starring in the AMS, holding an official position in the International Oongress, mem­ bership in AAA & S, presidency of the AAAS and being awarded the HOW medal* If living, such leaders are indicated as LVGj if dead, as DVG* Less than very great leadership (LTG) would constitute chairmanship of all other psychological organizations (APA Division, AAAP, NIP, 3PSSI, Eastern, Midwestern, Western, SEP, SSPPP, and RM). A non-leader would be any psychologist who had not been a chairman of one of the above organizations (or member of NAS or AAA&S, had not been starred in AMS, had not been awarded HOW medal)* 5* It is hypothesized that "Ideal" institutions will lead to greater productivity* Productivity being operationally defined by questionnaire experience and publication fac­ tors 18,19,20,21,22, & 25* Differences in public-private and sohool location will also be measured* 4. It is also hyp°thawed- that "groups" (or "schools") of psychology tend to be fostered by "Ideal" institutions and lead to greater productivity* Such group atmosphere is indioated by Pages 9,10, & 11 of the questionnaire. (See Pages 280 - 282 ) A chi square technique will be used to determine whether VGL have more than ohance relation with "ideal" universities, productivity, group atmosphere, etc. If this is so, it can be assumed that "Ideal" universities were conducive to the eminence of these men - in some way or other - and that the "Non-Ideal" plaoes actually thwarted the devel­ opment of those men who had to operate therein. CHAP23R IV ESSUL2S I PERS0UA1 PAG TOES

One hundred and sixty questionnaires were mailed to living

psychological leaders, twenty questionnaires were mailed to close

relatives of dead, leaders and one hundred questionnaires were sent to

a mat died group of non leaders. All questionnaires were identical ex­

cept the materiel regarding traits of teachers end psychological groups

was omitted from those sent to relatives.

One hundred and twelve completed questionnaires were returned

"by the living leaders, four by relatives of the dead leaders and forty-

five by the non leaders (70$; 30$; 45$ returns). In addition twelve

of the forty-eight non respondent leaders indicated by letters that they

would answer within three to eight weehs; six wrote saying they re­

fused to coopea^ate (two listing clinical reasons; non belief in the

study; two indicating they 'were too oId • and two saying poor health

prevented answering the questions). Shirty did not acknowledge receipt

nor reply in any way. It is believed that this is on unusually high

return for a complicated, long questionnaire. It is an indication of

the high calibre of the respondents. She respondents1 returns ac­

cording to leader-nonleader groups is found in Table 140 .

Birthulace (Questionnaire Item 2) fables 1,3,3,4

It is evident from Table 2 that psychological leaders and nonleaders tend to be b o m in the ITS, HE, UP and 171 states (80$). If

instead of eight the US is divided into four sections (1TE,SS,HT',SW- ) 56 approximately 6 0% of the leaders and 5 0^ the non leaders were born in the NE quadrant. The US census indicates a congregation of only

35fa in this area. There were no reliable differences between any of the leader and non leader groups in regard to US births. There is a significant differenfee between the number of foreign born DVG's and those of any other group.

Birthdate (Item 3) Tables 5 & 6. A comparison of the four groups (LVG,DVG,LTG,NL) in the above tables indicates that the groups are dissimilar. It was to be expected that the dead very great leaders (DVG) would have birthdates considerably previous to those of the other groups - and that is definite­ ly the result. However, it is noted that only 5 LTG leaders (9^0 and 1

NL (3 c/) have birthdates previous to 1890 but 27 of the 53 LYG leaders (51^ ) have such dates. This might be accounted for by the fact that the leaders elected to APA Divisions when the reorganization took place in 1945 were predominantly younger men. It might also be accounted for by the fact that previous to eh out 1940 the number of lesser positions of leader­ ship were limited. Those of the NL who answered were men of later birth years, despite the fact that all NL returns whose birthdates were after 1920 were discarded (13 cases). This means that a fair com­ parison of the four groups on matters relating to age must be restricted to those whose birth years fall between 1886 and 1917.

Father's Age at Time of Individual's Birth (Item 4a) Tables 7»8 ,9 The results are nearly identical for the LVG and the LTG groups. However, the NL group showthat 50^ of their constituents married at ages 20-29 whereas the other groups show only 2 5^ at these 57

ages. The reverse is true for ages 3O-3 9. All three groups (LTG,

LVG, NL) are the same for ages above 3 9. Mother's Age at Time of Individual’s Birth (Item 4b) Tables 10,11,12 The first ten marriable years for mothers (18-27) is about the same as for the fathers for the LVG (28$) and the NL (56$) groups. However, there is a notable increase for the LTG group (25$ to 43$ ). The reason for this is not known. Thus the LTG group resembled the LVG group for fathers but the NL group for mothers. Naturally all the women's ages are younger than their husbands and the span (18-42) is less.

Father's Names Item 5a Table 13 There are no detectable differences between the names of the fathers for any of the group. There are discernible national, racial and older-younger preferences, but nothing significant. Mother * s Names Item 5c Table 17 There are no discernible differences between the groups. It is noted that there are fewer mother's names (93) than father's (96) but more hyphenated names; Father's Occupation Item 5b Tables 14,15,16

Group I - Professional is composed of 57$ DVGj 46 $ LVG; 44$ LTG and 40$ NL. Whereas Group III - semiskilledworkers & laborers is made up of 00$ DVG; 16 $LVG, 18$ LTG; and 28$NL. Clearly the trend is for the leaders to have more in the upper occupational groups. In­ asmuch as the DVG group is represented by only 21 of 73 cases too much weight cannot be placed on the great differentiation noted between it 58 and the other groups. But clearly the leaders and NL groups are differ­

ent. It is also noteworthy that clergy and farmer are the most popular

occupations of psychologists* fathers.

Father’s Education (Item 6a) Tables 18 & 19.

There are no significant differences between the groups for

father's education.

Mother1 e Eduo at ion (item 6b) Tables 20 & 21.

There are no significant differences between the groups for mother's education.

Number of Children in Family (Item 7«.) Tables 22 & 25.

LVG leaders tend to come from larger families than any of the

other groups. The LTG and NL groups are almost the same and the DVGs

are shown as coming from the smallest families. Again, there are too

few oases to make this last analysis trustworthy. It is also noted for

families above six in number the LVG and LTG are the only ones

represented*

Position in Family (Item 7b) Tables 24 & 25

There are no significant differences between the three leader

groups. Even the DVG group with only 7 cases shows the same relative positions as the other two groupB. The LTG has a slightly higher number for the oldest and next oldest positions. There is considerable difference between the leaders and the NL group (66% being the first and only children and an additional 16£ being second for the NLs against

an average of 46^ first and 25$ second for the leaders). 59

Aae at Harriage (item 8a) Tables 26,37,28

The LVGs married later than, the LTGs who in turn married later

then the ITLs. That evidence is present for the DVG group supports the

LVGs. It is noteworthy that no LVG married "before the age of 23 where­ as LTG marriage da-tes start at 19 and KL at 18. This same tendency in reverse is also exhibited somewhat after age ^ (more LVGs married at later years; fewer ITLs married after 32). Differences between ages 23 end 32 are not significant.

Aae at Which Individual had Dirst Child (Item 8b) Tables 29,30,31

Despite the fs,ct that the LTG and ITL groups married younger, approximately 50$ of the LVG group had their first child by age 30 whereas neither the LTG nor 1TL group was quite a.s high. However, 2$ of this same group nlso did not have their first child until after 54 whereas neither of the other groups indicate ages later than 44. There were no significant differences between the LTG and 1TL groups except in the 42—47 bracket where the LTGs had 7$ and tlxe ITLs 00$.

Humber of Children Individual has had (Item 8c) Tables ® & 33)

The LTGs had higher percentages for numbers 1, 2 d 3 than any of the other groups. The ITLs were close seconds for these three num­ bers of children. The LVGs and DVGs although they prox'ortionately also had most percentages concentrated in the lov'er brackets, also had con­ siderable numbers and percentages at the 4 and 5 brackets. The DVGs also had some at the 8 and the LVGs at the 8 figure/(LTG & 1TL had none at either figure).

Marriage Dates (1st. 2nd, 3rd Marriages) (Item 9) Tables .34,35,36

The LVGs tend to be the most married group with higher 60 percentages for all three marriages (100/6, 22%, 2%)» The only other group with comparable marriages is the NL group (100%, 15^, 0%). The least married group is the LTG (6^6, 11?£, 0%) with the DVG group be­ ing in-between it and the NLs (95^, 12%, Q%)»

Father's Residence (item 10) Tables 57 & 58»

There are no reliable differences between the groups. It is noted that about one fourth come from small cities (10,000) and another quarter from large cities (100,000) whereas over half the general pop­ ulation lives in moderate sized cities.

Socioeconomic Status of the Family (item 11) Tables 59,40,41*

As was noted under father* s occupation, there are no signif­ icant differences between the LVG and the LTG groups. There are sig­ nificant differences between these groups and the NL groups the latter having fewer in the upper socioeconomic division and more in the low­ est division with the middle being approximately the same.

Relatives Outstandingly Successful (item 12) Tables 42,45*44*45,46 47,4 8,4 9,50,5 1,5 2,5 5,5 4,5 5,5^, & 5 7 . There ere few differences between the groups. The LVG group is very different from the LTG and NL groups in number of professional fathers and number of business grandfathers} slightly superior in num­ ber of professional brothers and business uncles and cousins. The NL group is superior in professional grandfathers, business fathers, and natural science uncles and cousins. The LTG show slight superiority only in business brothers. There are no great overall differences between the three groups except the LTGs indicate fewer outstanding relatives. It is noteworthy that at least 75^ of all three groups 61 indicated no outstanding relatives.

Lineal Descent (Item 13) Tables 5 8 & 59

The only noteworthy points about lineage are that the com- bination English-Scotch-Irish includes about 60$ of the LVG and LTG groups and about 50$ of the 1TL group. German, on the other hand ac­ counts for 15$, 21$ and 23$ respectively. The quadruple combination

(out of a total of eighteen) accounts for 75$ of all three groups.

Summary 1. Thus far the traditional approach has been taken end the usual results have been obtained. Leaders have been found to differ from non­ leaders in Father’s Age at time of Individual's Birth, Mother’s Age at Time of Individual’s Birth, Father's Occupation, Relative Position in the Family, Marriage Age, Socioeconomic Status of the Family, end

L ineal De s cent.

2. The LTG leaders were more like the Hon—leaders than the LVG or DVG leaders on- Humber of Children in Family, Age of Having First

Child, Humber of Children Individual has, and birthdates.

3. There were no differences discernible for Birthplace, Father's

Hame, Mother's Home, Father’s Education, Mother's Education, Father’s

Residence, and very slight differences for Relatives Outstanding. Many of the differences found were slight.

4. The evidence present for the DVG group shows it to resemble closely the LVG group whereas quite often the LTG group resembles more the HL group than the other two leader groups. 62

HESULTS II SXEBaiBNOE ■ -flJtTD PUBLICATIONS

Teaching Experience (Item 14) Tables 60, 61,62

An analysis of the college where these men taught reveals*

(l) The NL tended to teach at more colleges proportionately than the

leaders i.e. they roved around more: of a total of 186 places taught

53 LVG- - 60; 73 DVG - 103; 63 LTG - 94 end 32 EL - 62. (2) The LVG

and DVG leaders taught significantly more at the nine colleges (PhD)

which produced the hulk of the leaders. (See Tables 61 and 62 )*

(3) There were a few colleges (which offer the PhD) where predominantly

1TL taught i.e. No LVG, No DVG and no or few LTGs taught. (See Table 60)

Other Professional Experience (Item 15) Table 63

The leader groups tended to exhibit their superiority in the

armed forces psychological programs: the LVG having 11; LTG 8 and the

NL 3 entries. Again, the NL group tended to have more professional ex­ perience entries (roved around more) proportionately, with the LTGs being second. There were no differences between the places indicated, nor regions^with the exceptions of more LTGs and NL-j serving as hospital

clinicians, more LVGs and LTG? serving as government consultants and more

LTGs serving as private business consultants.

Present Teaching Load Per "reek (Item 16a) Tables 64,65,66

There is a. significant difference between the three groups:

80$ of the teaching load of the LVGs falls between 2-6 hours; only 20$ is 7—9 and none over 9. On the other hand 67$ of the ILL group teaching load is 7 hours or more and 25$ is 14 hours or more. The LTG group falls between these two with approximately 10$ at each interval between 5 and 65

10; about half liave 2—6 hours and the other half teach 7-14 or more

hours per week.

M m inis tractive Duties Per vTeek (item 16t>) Tables 67*68,69.

There are no significant differences between the groups*

Schools ".Thich Becommended Outstanding Students Attended (item 17) Tables 70 & 71. There are large differences "between the LVG, ICG and ITL

groups. Wot only do the IT! groups recommend fewer outstanding students,

they also recommend almost none from the nine colleges which produce the

bulk of the leaders. Che LTG group, although they numerically and

proportionately recommended fewer students than the LVGs, recommended

them from more schools (LVG—23; LTG—47), but from fewer of the nine col­

leges mentioned above. (See table 71 )• Again there is a diversity

of choice with the ITL selecting numerous students from PhD universi­

ties which were not so recognised by any of the other groups. It is also to be noted that although the bulk of the leader recommendations center around the nine colleges mentioned above, a few other colleges v/ere also included e.g. Minnesota, Princeton, and California. Again the LVGs recommended most, the LTGs less and the ITLs none from these institutions.

ITum.ber of PhDs Supervised , (Item 18) Tables 72 & 73.

The LVGs tended to supervise larger numbers of PhDs, the

LTGs less and the ITLs tfery few e.g. 17-40 PhDs were supervised by 13

LVGs, 12 LTGs and 00 ITLs; 45-99 PliDs were supervised by 11 LVGs, 00

LTGs and 00 ITLs. The total number supervised shows the same trend -

45 LVGs supervised 1300; 43 LTGs supervised 599; and 12 HLs supervised 64 a total of 56 PhDs.

.Journals. Laboratories. Societies. Businesses Established (Item 19) Table 74 XTot only original but also reestablished, revised and re­ oriented journals laboratories, businesses etc. were considered. Thus although the original establishments v;ere mainly by the DVG and some of

the LVG, the x-eestablishments were mainly by the LVGs, to a less extent

by the LTG and relatively few by the ITLs. There was also a difference

in type of establishment, e.g. the totals for the laboratories were LYG

33; DVG 10; LTG 17 and HL 6 whereas the totals for clinical, government­ al, educational and city and state services were LVG 7; LVG 7; LTG 23 and ITL 6.

Humber of Boohs Published (item 20) Tables 75 & 76

53 LVG published 356 books; 63 published 209 books and 32 ITLs published 43 books. There was also a difference in numbers put out by

individuals; LVGs publishing several books, LTGs fewer per person, ITL s very few per individual. (See Table 76 ).

Approximate Humber of Publications Other Than Books (item 21) Tables 77 & 78

There are large differences between the groups; 47 LVGs pub­

lished 4677; 2 DVGs published 1047; 61 LTGs published 3300; and 30 ITLs published 549 articles other than books. More LVGs published larger numbers (in range 91—508 are found 23 LVGs, 10 LTGs, and 1 HL), the HLs

are concentrated at the lower numbers, the LTGs are in between.

IBooks T/Iiich have had More Than One Printing (Item 22a) Tables 79 & 80.

In the combined figures and the totals the leaders far surpass 65

the ITL group. The LVG are also superior to the LTG at all levels of the

combined figures end the totals; 37 LVG - 93; 32 LTG - 76; 8 ITL — 11

"boohs with more than one printing*

Boohs Vilely Adopted as Texts or References (item 22b) Table 81.

The differences here are approximately the same as in the previous item, the totals "being; 40 LVG - 89; 38 LTG — 76; and 8 NL —

13 "boohs widely adopted.

Reprint Demand for Articles (Item 22c) Table 82.

The differences here show the same trend as in the previous

two items. The averages for the groups are; LVG 13.4; the LTG 10.6

end the ITL 5.58 articles, Again the leader groups far surpass the non­

leader.

Uames of V,fell Known Bcminrnent. Devices or Tests Constructed (item 23) Table 83.

The cla.ssification of equipment, devices or tests into paper

>':nd pencil, psychomotor, and equipment indicates that the LTG group have

"been more concerned with paper and pencil tests than the LVG group. Both

far surpass the NL in number and importance of all three classifications.

It is noteworthy that about 50$ of the LVG sard LTG end 85$ of the ITL group indicated no such invention or construction.

Productivity (Combined items 18,19,20,21,22 & 23) Table 84.

A- productivity score was obtained by combining the figures given in each of the above indicated eight items. The results are

clearly indicative of the superiority of the LVG group over the LTG group and it in turn over the ITL group (Averages; 134.2; 84.3; 24.6). 66

Best Piece of T7ork as Judged by its Author (item 24) Table 85•

Dividing this work into various psycho logical fields there are no reliable differences between the groups. Some minor points of in­ terest are: animal and work dealing with behaviorism are favored by the

LVG- group; psycho-physical and educational psychology are favored by the LTG group; clinical and socie.l work are favored by the 1TL group.

Peatures of Background Considered Important (Item 25) Tables 66 & 67*

More leaders indicated good educational opportunities end training than non-leaders. The LVG- group had wider interests than the other two. More LTGs checked contact with a great leader. The ITL grotip believes they were afforded more cultural opportunities and gained more from their colleagues than the leaders.

Handicaps or Interferring factors of Career (Item 26) Tables 86 & 89.

Although poverty is the dominant fa.ctor, the LVG group blames poor health and personality factors more than do the LTG or ITL groups.

The LTGs believe they were inhibited more by their teachers. The 1?L group strongly believes that poverty was their big handicap, with marriage factors a poor second. 67

SUMHABT FJDSULTS I I

1* KLs taught at more colleges than leaders i,e. roved around more.

LVG- and DVG leaders taught more at nine colleges which produced bulk of leaders. At a few colleges ITLs, predominantly, taught#

2. ITLs had more professional experience entries i.e. roved around more.

More IVGs and LSGs sexurcd as government consultants; more LTGs served as private business consultants; more L2Gs and ITLs served as hospital clinicians•

3. Most LVGs taught 2-6 hours per week. Most ITLs taught 7-14 hours per week. Half the LIGs taught 2—6; half 7-14 hours per week.

4. LVGs recommended most outstanding students end recommended more from nine colleges which produced the bulk of the leaders. LFGs re­ commended fewer students and recommended them from more colleges. ITLs recommended very few students, almost none from the nine colleges, and students recommended were from PhD universities not recognised by the leaders.

5. LVGs supervised most PhDs; LIGs less; and ITLs very few.

6. DVGs established most original journals, laboratories, societies and businesses. LVGs reestablished, reorganised, and revised most, the

LHGs less and the ITLs least. LVGs reestablished most laboratories whereas L'PGs established or reestablished most clinical and minor governmental psychological services.

7. LVGs published most books and other publications; had most books reprinted; had most books widely adopted; had highest reprint demand. In general what evidence is present places U7Gs in same category. LEGs

had less, ITLs fev/est.

3. Leaders invented more equipment, devices and tests than non leaders.

LVGs constructed more equipment and devices; LEGs more paper and pencil

tests.

9. T.7hen items 18,19,20,21,22 and 23 are combined to make a productivity

score, the LVGs are superior to the LEGs who in turn are superior to the

ITLs.

10. LVG-s favored animal and "behavioristic psychology; LEGs favored psychophysico,l and education; ITLs favored clinical and social.

11. Background features considered important by the leaders were good

educations.1 opportunities and training. ITLs favored cultural opportuni­

ties and colleagues. LEG indicated contact with a great leader.

12. Handicaps of career listed by LVG were poverty, health and per­

sonality factors,^LEGs thought they were inhibited by their teachers.

ITLs believed poverty and marriage factors held them back. 69

RESULTS III IUSTITUTI01TAL PASTORS

College or University Attended (item l) Tables 90,91,92>93>9A.

Although, the four groups (LVG, DVG, LTG, and 1TL) attended

108 colleges (5 foreign) for their ABs (or equivalent degrees), they

only attended 53 colleges (3 foreign) for their UAs (or equivalent

degrees and 33 colleges or universities (6 foreign) for their PhD

degrees.

It is notable that nine U.S. schools; Chicago, Clark, Colum­ bia (including Teachers College) Cornell, Harvard, Hopkins, Iowa, Stan­

ford, and Yale account for the PhDs of 128 of the 150 leaders (LVG,

DVG and LTG) (21 being from foreign schools). This indicates that the

remaining 26 schools accounted for approximately one leader apiece.

Columbia alone accounted for more leaders than these other schools to­

gether. On the other hand, only 12 of the 31 (1 foreign) non loader

PhDs were from these nine schools.

If the United States PhD schools are divided into sections of

the country and whether they are public or private (see Table 93 )

it will be noticed that 13 of the 26 schools (Columbia counted once)

are IDE, 1 SB, 8 HC, ISC, 1 P J and 2 SW, i.e. 50$ of these schools are

from the HE and 35$ from the 110 sections. It will also be noted that

of the nine leader schools 6 are 1TB, 2 2TC and 1 S\>; 8 are private and 1

public.

Classification of PhD Dissertations (Item 2) Table 95.

A perusal of the PhD dissertations of the four groups reveals

a tendency for the LVG group to be oriented more toward animal—behavior- 70

1stic-physiologic&l psychology; the DVG group toward physiological and a slight trend for the NL group tcward social psychology. No trends for the LTG group were noted. No differences were large.

Men Who Supervised Dissertation (Item 3) Table 9 6. Of the 122 men indicated as supervising PhDs* 45 were listed two or more times. J.M. Cattell was listed 9 times and R.S. Woodworth

16 times. The first 6 6 listed names all belong to our leader groups; 62 being very great leaders (LVG and DVG). Of the remaining 60: 7 are foreigners who are considered leaders in their own country and 9 are recognized leaders in other fields. 43 of the 56 men (7 7 ) listed by the LTG group were not listed by the LVG or DVG groups. 35 of the 40 men of the NL group (88 ) were not listed by the LVG or DVG groups. 28 of the 40 men (70 ^ ) listed by the NL group were not listed by the LTG group. 25 of the 40 men (63 % ) listed by the NLs were not listed by any of the leader groups. From the above it is apparent that the two very great leader groups chose similar men for PhD work and these men were leaders themselves

(57 of 79 LVG (72^ ), 16 of 23 DVG (70 % ), whereas the NL group chose only 17 of 40 (43$ ) among the leader group. The LTGs tended to study under different men than the other leader groups. Number of Days a Week Spent in Research as a Graduate Student (item 4a) Table 97. More time was spent as graduate students on research by the leaders than the non leaders and more by the great leaders than the less than great leaders. Averages are: LVG - 4.8; LTG - 4.3> and NL - 3 . 4 days per week. 71 Mnmher of Hours a Day Spent in Research as a Graduate Student (item 4b) Table 93. Although the differences are nob as large the same trend is exhibited here as in Ua, i.e. more hours per day were spent on research by the leaders than the non leaders; more time was thus spent by the great leaders than the less than great leaders. The averages were: LVG - 3.4; LTG - 3.3; NL - 2.5. Rating of Graduate School (Item 5) Table 99. Thare are large differences between groups I, III and IV (LVG, LTG and NL). Whereas 23 of 53 (43^ ) of the LVG group rated their school among the top two and only 5 of 53 (9 ) rated it below the top five in the U.S., only 16 of 61 LTGs (26 ) and 4 of 3 0 (13^ ) NLs rated their school among the top two^but 3 4 LTG (5Af£ ) and 17 NL (53 ) rated their school either among or below the top five graduate schools in psycho­ logy in the United States.

Library Adequacy (Item 6a) Table 100. There were no differences between the groups.

Physical Conditions of the Library (Item 6b) Table 101. There were no differences between the groups.

Library Availability (Item 6c) Table 102. There were no significant differences between the groups. Student Permissionto work in University Buildings (Item 7) Table 103. Although the majority of all the groups were permitted to work in University buildings as late as they wished,significantly more of the NL and LTG groups indicated such permission was not forthcoming. 72 faculty Attitude toward G-rad.ug.~be Student Research (Item 8) Table 104.

There were no differences between the groups*

Humber of Psychology faculty ',7ho forked After Hours (Item 9) Tablesl05&106

Both leader groups (LVG- and LEG) indicated greater tendencies for their faculties to spend more time (l/4 and l/2 plus) working after hours than did the 1TL group*

Outstanding Vacuity Leo.ders (Item 10) Table 107.

In all 266 different names were mentioned, of which 128 ( W ) were men listed in our leader group. Of the 31 leaders mentioned. 5 or more times, all belong in our category of very great lenders; 7 of

these were mentioned 10 or more times. (R.S. Vfoodworth was listed 23 times.) It is noteworthy that 5 of these 7 spent their major teaching careers at Columbia. It is also noteworthy for these 7 as well as the 31 that there are definite differences between the preferences of the LVG and LTG groups. Certain men seem to be more preferred by one group than the other - R.S. Lashley and U.S. Y/oodworth being exceptions.

The preferences of the HI group are invariably the sane as those of the

LTG group - where shown.

Enrollment of the Graduate Psychology Lenartment (Item 11) Tables 108 &109.

There is a tendency for the graduate psychology department en­ rollment to be smaller for the LVG group then for the other two (LTG end HL). There is also a less noticeable tendency for the 1TL group to be from the larger departments. 75 facilities Available to Psychology Graduate Students (Other than Library and Psychology Laboratories) (Item 12) Tables 110 & 111*

There seem to have been more facilities available to the LTG group than any other. The LVG group used other university labora­ tories 50^5 of the time and facilities in nearby cities 14fo. Similar results were noted for the HL group (42^ and 21^5). An unusually high number of non-answers were found for all three groups*

Classification of G-raduate Schools as Liberal or Conservative (Item 13) Tables 112 & 113• There are no significant differences between the groups.

Literalness (Combined Items 4,5,6,7,8 and 9) Table 114.

A composite " ideal,f or "liberal11 score was obtained by com­ bining Institutional Items 4,5,6,7,8 and 9. Inasmuch an these items consist of differpet numbers of sub-items with varying importance it was necessary to weight each item for the combination according to what was deemed its relative importance. l ive judges (graduate psychol­ ogy students) agreed on the following weights; (in order of their list­

ing on the questionnaire)

Item eights

4a 123456 4b 123456 5 10 8 6 4 2 6a 3 1 6b 3 1 6c 4321 7 5 1 8 2 1 1 9 01234

The average liberalness factor for the LVG group is higher 74

(24.4) than, that for the LEG- group (23.7) which in turn is higher than that for the EL group (23.0).

An interesting analysis of those who were named faculty leaders vs. those who named them indicated the following:

Those who named

I II • III IV Total

LVG LVG LEG 1TL

Shose who LVG I 57 110 35 202 were named LVG II 77 3 60 19 159 faculty leaders LEG III 1 9 12 22 75

SUIJI.IA2Y H3SULES I I I

1. Most leaders came from 9 U.S. PhD schools* Chicago, Olark, Columbia,

Cornell, Harvard, Hopkins, Iowa, Stanford, and Yale. Tew Ills come from

those schools. 8 of these schools are private; 6 are located in the HE

section of the U.S.

2. Most PhD schools are located in the HE section of the U.S.; next highest come from the 1T.C. section; fewest from southern sections (SS2, sc). S. LVG PhD dissertations were oriented toward animal-behavioristic-

■phyBiological psychology; DVG toward physiological; and HL toward social psychologs'-.

4. Most leaders had their dissertations supervised "by leaders; few

ITLs had dissertations supervised by leaders. LVG and DVG selected dif­

ferent leaders to supervise PhDs than did LTGs.

5. More days per week and hours per day were spent as graduate students

on research by the leaders than the HLs end more by the great leaders

(LBG and DVG) then the LTGs,

6. Most LVGs rated their school among the top 2; few L£Gs gave their

school this rating; and very few ITLs so rated their PhD school.

7. More ITLs and LCGs than LVGs indicated they could not work in uni­

versity buildings as late as they wished*

8. Both leader groups (L2G and LVG) indicated greater tendencies for

their faculties to spend more time(-|- and % plus) working after hours

than did the HL group* 9. ITearly 50$ of all outstanding facility leaders listed "belong to our leader group. Of the 31 leaders mentioned 5 or more times, all "belong in our category of very great leaders (LVG- or LVG). LVG- and LTG show definite differences in faculty leader selection. ITLs agree with LTGs.

10. LVG-s came from small graduate psychology departments; LTGs from medium sized; ITLs showed tendency to come from largest.

11. LVG-s used other university laboratories 50$ of the time and facili- ties in nearby cities 14$ of the time when they were not using the psy­ chology departments. ITLs showed sirails.r results. LTG- indicated they used more available facilities.

12. A composite 11 ideal” or "liberal" score was obtained by combining

Institutional Items 4,5,6,7,8 and 9. The overage liberalness factor for the LVG- group was higher then that for the LTG group which in turn was higher then that for the ITLs.

13. LVGs tended vto name most LVGs as outstanding faculty leeders,

LTGs tended to ndme most LVGs; HLs o.lthough they named most LVGs and

LVGs also named proportionately more LTGs then did the leader group. 77

HESULTS IV PEES01TAL IltPLTJITEIDES

Although, the tota.l tabulation of persons who influenced most reads: LVG 39, LTG 116, 1TL 67 > there was considerable overlapping between the three choices.

On first choice, only 19 individuals were chosen more than once; P..S. foodworbh being chosen 9 tines rnd L.U. Herman 5 tines* 16 individuals were chosen more than once on second choice and 4 on third choice, with none receiving 5 or more choices* A combination of the throe choices shows 41 individuals were chosen more than once* She following being chosen 5 or more times: LVG- DVG- LTG 1TL Total Poring, LI.G. 1 4 1 6 Carr, E.A. 1 4 1 6 Hull, C.L. 1 4 1 6 Lashley, 2 .S. 4 1 5 Seashore, C.E. 4 1 5 Herman, L.LI. 1 5 6 Thorndike, E.L. 4 1 5 ’.To odworth, P-.S.5 6 11

Again,'the LVG- and LTG groups tend to differ on their choices with the IT! favoring the LTG group.

As average wos made of the 34 items comprising the traits of leadership (see Table 115 )• A perusal of oil three choices indicates that leaders consistently rated those who influenced them higher than non-leaders. LVG leaders rated higher on ofLl three choices than LTG or non leaders* If the throe ratings are compared c. peculiar thing is noted: the LVG and EL groups and the LTG (with one exception) gave higher averages to their second choices than they gave to their first 78 choice men; end nil gave higher ratings to their third choices than to their second choices. Shis mcy he accounted for by a difference in vorulation for each of the groups for each of the choices i.e. average numbers for the three choices were; LTD L T G H L 3?irst 38 53 31 Second 29 34 19 Third 19 23 15

There is also considerable item variation between the three groups. TTnerever the LVG- had the highest x'ating, the LTG the next highest and the 1TL least a blank was left in front of the item number on the chart. Imy other combination was indicated by an asterisk.

There were 12 asterisks on choice 1, 21 on choice 2 and 25 on choice 3.

The ratings were generally high. A five point scale was used: 5 - always, 4 - frequently, 3 — occasionally, 2 — seldom, end

1 - never. Does not apply and don’t know were not weighted, i.e. were counted as sero. The average ratings were:

LVG LTG PL hong© I Pirst Choice 4.11 3.97 3.73 2.94-4.83 II Second Choice 4.14 3.95 3.93 3.10-4.78 III Third Choice 4.16 4.08 4.12 3.00-4.63 Average Total 4.14 4.00 3.93 3.00-4.63

Prom the above, it is evident that leaders tend to be in­ fluenced mostly by leaders; that non-leaders tore influenced less by loaders. LTG leaders are influenced by different loaders than LVG

1 orders. T/ith few exceptions the men who influenced the leaders al­ ways or frequently exhibited the 3d- traits indicated; whereas the men who influenced the non-leaders showed these traits somewhat less frequently. 19

SttUMAJEOr 2ESULCS IV

1, Leaders consistently rated those who influenced then higher than non loaders on all items; LVG-s rated higher on all three choices than

IihG-s.

2. Leaders tended to "be influenced mostly by leaders; non leaders were influenced less by leaders* LEG- leaders are influenced by dif­ ferent leaders than LVG- leaders.

2. hen who influenced leaders "always11 or "frequently" exhibited the

24 traits indicated; men who Influenced the non—leaders showed these traits somewhat less frequently. so

RESULTS V GROUP ATMOSPHERE

The following indicated that they belonged to a formal or informal group which was studying graduate psychology: 23 of 53 LVG (43^ )> 27 of 63 LTG

(43 ^ ) and 12 of 3 2 NL (37^ )

Group Name (item l) Table 116. Of a total of 59 names, 35 were the names of the group leaders and 24 were names of a given field of psychological experimentation. Five indi­ viduals were mentioned more than once: LVG LTG NL Total

Cattell, J.M. 1 2 3 Hull, C.L. 1 2 1 4 Seashore, C.E. 1 1 2 Tolman, E .B . 1 1 2 Weiss, A.P. 2 2 Four fields were mentioned more than once: LVG LTG NL Total

Animal 1 1 2 Behaviorism 4 2 3 9 Gestalt 2 1 3 Educational 2 1 3 Founder of the Group (item 2) Tab le 117,

Of the 37 names mentioned 24 (67^ ) fall in our leader category,

2 are foreign leaders, 5 are leaders ini other fields . Of the 8 individuals mentioned more than once, all are "leaders": LVG LTG NL Total Cattell, J.M. 1 2 3 Hull, C.L. 2 1 1 4 Sears, R.R. 1 1 2 Thurstone, L.L. 2 2 Tolman, E.C. 1 1 2 Watson, J.B. 2 2 4 Weiss, A.P. 2 2 Wertheimer, M. 1 1 2 81

Date of Founding (item 3) Table 118. A perusal of the dates of founding indicate a great deal of activity from 1910-1915 (Gestalt, Behaviorism). The greatest period of activity, however, is between 1920 and 1935 when 25 tabulations were noted. This does not mean that 25 groups were thai founded^but 8 groups with 25 advocates. The period 1936-1952 shows notably less group activity in foundings. Leaders of the Group at the Time of Membership (item A) Table 119. The founders of the group and the leaders of the group at time of membership were very often the same, a comparison of Table 117 and Table 119 reveals. This is due no doubt to the youthfulness of the groups. Again it is noteworthy that most of the leaders at time of mem­ bership fall under our leader classification (28 of 41 (6 8 % )i 1 foreign;

6 in related fields) . (Total 83 f0 ) Out standing Staff Members (item 5) Table 120.

Of the 129 different names indicated, 23 were mentioned to or more times; 19 of these 23 belong to our leader classification. The number of staff members mentioned were: 3 5 LVG, 92 LTG, 3 6 NL or a total of I6 3.

Number of Staff Menbers in Group (Item 6) Table 121.

Most groups were composed of 2—5 members (LVG 91 y0, LTG65 %; NL 73f^ ). Only those groups of which the LTGs were menbers had 11-20 members (17^ ).

Names of Outstanding Students in the Group (Item 6) Table 122.

Of the 172 names given, 14 were mentioned more than once - 6 of these belong to our leader category. The total number mentioned 82 divide as follows: LVG- 60; LEO 88; 1TL 41; Total 189.

;Tumber of Students in the Group (Item 7 ) Tables 125, 124.

The majority of the groups had 2—10 members (LVG 78$, LTG

59$, 1TL 75$). Only the LTGs had a notable number (33$) in the 11-20

bracket.

How Often the Grown Met (Item 9) Tables 125 & 126.

There is considerable difference between the two leader and

the non-leader categories. Whereas the ITLs met twice a month or more

(80$) the LTGs met usually once a week (68$) and the LVGs usually met

irregularly (53$).

Dominant Philosonhy of the Group (Item 10a) Table 127.

Behaviorism was mentioned most often (4 times) by the LVGs,

with functionalism, introspection, education and general each being

mentioned tv,dee. B e h a v i o r i s m was also m e n t i o n e d m o s t often (5 times)

by the LTGs, with functionalism, genered, experimental, Gestalt end

statistics all being mentioned more than once and in that general order.

Behaviorism was mentioned most often by the ITLs (3 times) with functional­

ism, Gestalt, and philosophy el so being mentioned more than once.

Significant Changes in the Philo sonhy of the Group (Item 10b) Table 128.

ITearly all members of all three categories indicated no changes

took place while they were members. The LVG noted instances of changes

toward Gestalt (1) and mental test material (l); the LTG noted instances

of changes toward behaviorism (2) and philosophy (l); and the ITLs noted

single instances of changes toward behaviorism, Gestalt and emotion or

motivation psychology. 85

fields in VIhich Grour> y/as Host Interested (Item 11) Table 129.

Although, all leaders and non leaders were interested In nearly all of the sixteen categories listed, the greatest number of all three (LYG 35$, LTG- 30$ and ITL 29$) were interested in orperImental jisychology. 15$ of the LTG- were interested in behaviorism and 14$ of the ITLs vrere interested in clinica.1 and behaviorism. ITo other large percentages were noted.

Group he search Problems (Item 12) Table 150.

There were no significant differences between the groups.

Animal, introspection, and learning were highest for the LVGs; learning and perception for the LTGs; and learning and social for the ITLs.

ITurfber of PhDs Given to Group Members (Item 13) Table 151.

The median number for the LYGs was 3; LTGs 4 and ITLs 2. The range being LYGs 1-5; LTGs 1-10; and ITLs 2—6. The LTGs with a larger

IT had more in the higher numbers (4—10); the LYGs and ITLs .more in the lower (1-3).

Hot: the Grout) Was financed (Item 14) Table 152.

All three categories were financed largely by the psychology clexsartmeiit and next by private means; holp from the remaining sources being practically nil.

Other Universities with Similar Groups (Item 15) Table 155*

The LYGs Lad group branches or duplicate groups In Berlin,

Clark, Iowa, and Stanford besides the home groups; the LTGs were at

Clark and Luke; the ITLs were at California... 3y far the majority of all throe categories indicated no group duplicates at other’ colleges. 84

Groups influence in Attracting; Graduate Students (Item 16) Tables 1$4 & 155. The majority of the LTGs (40$) thought the group was not in­ fluential at all; however 26$ thought it was quite influential; the remainder voting for moderately influential (13$) end Some influence

(13$), with very influential receiving only 7$. 44$ of the LTGs thought it was " qu i t e 11, 2 8 $ "very", 8 $ "moderately" , 8$ ''some" and 12 $ "not at all". The ITLs split with 27$ favoring " quite", 27$ "moderately", "not at all" and 19$ voting for "some" influence.

Personal Stimulation by the Group (Item 17) Tables ly6 & 157*

A majority of e.ll three groups who filled out tins section thought they personally had. gained by being stimulated by the group with the iTIis being least favorably inclined (22$ indicating only

"some")•

Group Traits Table 1?8.

Only 13 out of 53 (24$) of the LVGs; 24 out of 63 (38$)of the LTGs; and 13 oait of 32 (40$) of the HLs listed group trouts. All three averaged between 3.50 and 3.00 which means these traits were frequently or "occasionally11 but not " always" in evidence. The generdl trend of LVG being highest, LTG being next high, and ITL being lowest evidenced for the personal influence traits is not seen here. The average differences here are much smaller. The LTG are highest (2.79), the ITL next (2.66) and the LVG.are lowest (2.62). It is noted that IS of the 18 are asterisked. There is wide variation between the three traits for individual items. The LVG range is 0.55 — 4.00; the LTG range is 1.09-4.13 and the ITL range is 1.33-3.69, i.e. apparently the group traits are not as uniformly found in these three leadership 85 cc-'bo<2,’or i © s C'.s ti'-S iiid.ivicLu.£xX inuits • 86

SULlllMJY H3SUL2S V

1. Of the 35 names given under group name, 37 under group founder and

41 under leader at time of membership; 75$ fall in our leader category rnd 20$ are 11 other leaders", Of the 5 individuals mentioned more than once under group name, 8 under founder and 23 under outstanding staff members; all of the first two groups and 19 of the 23 of the last be­ long to cur leader classification. The LTGs end ITLs mentioned more names for outstanding staff members than did the LVG-s,

2. host growxp foundings t o o k plo.ee d u r i n g the p e r i o d s 1910—1915 an d

1920-1955.

3. host groups were composed of 2—5 staff and student members. Only

LTG- group3 hud 11—20 members. 6 of the 14 students mentioned more than once as belonging to a group are in our leader category.

4. host LVG- groups met irregularly, LTGs once a week, ITLs twice a week.

5. Behaviorism was*most often mentioned by all as the dominant philo­ sophy. nearly all categories indicated no changes took plo.ee in the philosophy while they were members. Vfhat changes took place were toward behaviorism, Gestalt, mental testing and different philosophical emphasis.

6. ITearly all leaders end non—leaders were interested in the field of experimental psychology. LTGs next were interested in behaviorism; ITLs next were interested in clinical psychology and behaviorism.

7. Group research problems were: animal, introspection end learning for the LVGs; learning -and perception for the LTGs, learning and social for the ITLs.

8. The numb nr of PhDs given to groups members were 5 LVG-s 3; LTGs 4; 87

ITLs 2.

9. Host group financing was "by the psychology department and next by private means.

10. LVGs had most similar groups at other colleges; LfC-s next; ITLs

least, but most individuals in all three categories indicated no such duplicates.

11. LYGs though influence of group in attracting graduate students v;as 11 nil11; LVGs thought it was "quite” influential; and ITLs split be­

tween " quite11 , "moderately11 and 11 not at all".

12. LCG-s listed group traits highest (frequently), ITLs next (fre­ quent iy) and LVGs lowest (occasionally to frequently). CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION S

After the results in the previous section had been tabulated, they were analyzed using chi square according to productivity-no produc— tivityj group- no group atmosphere; LVG,DVG,LTG,NL ( i.e., leadership - no leadership); date of PhD degree; PhD from the nine institutions which produced the bulk of the leaders — all other institutions; section of the country where PhD college was located; and ideal (liberalness) — nan ideal (non liberal) factors. Nine Colleges which Produced Bulk of Leaders -Other PhD Colleges

1. Tablesl66D & E; 172 C show that a significantly larger number of leaders came from these nine colleges than from all other U.S. colleges.

2. Tables 166B & 170C show that the graduates of these nine colleges pro­ duced significantly more books, publications, tests, apparatus and super­ vised more PhDs than graduates of other colleges. 3. Tables 168H & 172F show that significantly more of the graduates of these nine colleges came from private than from public universities. 4. Tables 165H; 170 D& I show that the graduates of these nine colleges were significantly more ideal (liberal) as measured by questionnaire items

U,5,6,7,8, St 9 under Institutional Factors than were the graduates of other colleges. 5. Table 168C shows that a significantly larger number of the graduates of these nine colleges came from the eastern region.

Sectioi of United States where College is Located 1. Table 168D shows that significantly more of those who belonged to a group received PhD degrees from colleges in the East. 2. Table 172E shews that significantly more private colleges were lo­ cated in the East.

3. Table 168C shows that a significantly larger number of the graduates of these nine colleges came from the Eastern region.

Private or Public University 1. Table 168 G shows that those who graduated from private colleges were significantly more liberal. 2. Tables 168 H & 172 F show that significantly more of the graduates of the nine colleges came from private schools.

3. Table 168 I shows that significantly more of those who belonged to a group came from private schools.

4. Table 168 J shows that a significantly larger number of psychological leaders came from private schools. 5. Table 172 E shows that significantly more private schools were located in the Eastern region.

6. Table 172 D shows that there were significantly more private schools during the early years of U.S. psychology than at present.

Leadership

1. Tablesl72 A & Bj 173 ® show that significantly more psychological leaders were ideal (liberal).

2. Tablesl66 0 & Ej 172 C show that significantly more psychological leaders came from these nine colleges. 3. Table 168 J shows that significantly more psychological leaders obtained their PhDs from private colleges. 4. Table 173 c shows that psychological leaders produced significantly more books, publications, tests, apparatus and supervised more PhDs. 90 Idealneaa (Liberalness)

1. Tablea. 172 A & B; 173 B show that significantly more psychological leaders were ideal (liberal) .

2. Table 160 G shows that those who graduated from private colleges were significantly more liberal.

3. Tables 165 H; 170 D & I show that those who were graduates of the nine colleges were significantly more liberal.

Productivity 1. Tables 166 B & 170 C show that the graduates of these nine colleges produced significantly more books, publications, tests, apparatus and supervised more PhDs than graduates of other colleges. 2. Table 173 C shows psychological leaders produced significantly more than non leaders.

Group Atmosphere 1. Table 168 D shows that significantly more of those who belonged to a group received PhD degrees from Colleges in the East. 2. Table 168 I shows that significantly more of those who belonged to a group came from private schools.

Date of Receiving PhD Degree 1. Table 172 D shows that there were significantly more private schools during the early years of U.S. psychology than at present. 91 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Leaders are significantly different from non—leaders in produc­ tivity ( of students, writings, and equipment), liberalness, ratings of those who influenced them, being influenced by leaders, time

spent on research as graduate students, and teaching at those universities which produced the bulk of the leaders.

2. If leaders are divided into living very great leaders (LVG), dead very great leaders (DVG) and living less than very great leaders

(LTG), it is noted that the living and dead great leaders resemble

each other very closely. In general, they are superior to the others

on productivity, liberalness, rating of leaders, being influenced by

leaders, and researoh time as Btudents. The less than very great

leaders showed distinctly lower ratings on nearly all these, items;

they seemed to place between the great leaders and the non leaders,

(who were still lower in ratings).

Certain universities have produced the bulk of the psychological

leaders. These universities are significantly different from others

in factors of liberalness, being private institutions, section loca­

tion in the United States, and productivity.

4. The present method of ascertaining leadership variables is pro­

ductive of worthwhile results not obtainable by single-channeled

approaches direoted toward traits only or other personal variables.

This social approach should be investigated further. 92 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The above results indicate a pattern of psychological leadership. Living great leaders teach less per week. Perhaps this is a factor in their being great leaders i.e. if capable men are given freedom from over-excessive teaching loads they produce work which elevates them to elective leader positions. Great leaders not only come from but teach at leader pro­ ducing schools. This suggests that leaders attract potential leaders and that good graduate students are encouraged to produce work which gets further recognition for the leader and perhaps makes the student eventually a leader. Great leaders tend to produce more. Apparently these laders carried over their graduate student work habits into later life. Apparently one factor in psychological leadership is working longer hours, doing more research work and as graduate students having advisors who do more work. In order to dcmore work, one must have the facilities. It is significant that more great leaders were able to work late in university buildings and have either psychological or other laboratories available when needed for such work. As graduate students, apparently it is important for great leaders to be allowed a permissive, liberal atmosphere in which to develop. Otherwise, ideas,work habits and professional growth perhaps may be stunted. 93 Leaders tend to be influenced most by leaders. Non-leaders are influenced less by leaders. Apparently, leaders recognize and take advantage of personal influences and opportunities offered. Perhaps this is what eventually enables them to became leaders. There is a difference between public and private institutions in the production of leaders. Private institutions are less prone to public pressures and have more permissive freedom. Perhaps such permis­ sive freedom is necessary for the development of leaders. Leadership is a complex phenomena. The present study of social as well as personal factors indicates many new relations of psycho­ logical leadership. The above investigation has shown significant inter­ relations. It is believed that further investigations alone these lines should be attempted. Because of the nature of the problem and the kind of data, it is entirely possible that alternate conclusions can be drawn. The author has called his shots as he saw them.

1 s*

REFERENCES 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY*

1. Ackerson, L. Children's Behavior Problems: Relative Importance and Intercorrelation among Traits. Chicago: U, Chicago Press, 1942.

2. Ageton, A.A. Naval Leadership and the American Blue- .iacket. N Y : McGraw-Hill, 1944.

3. Air Force A study of prediction of success in Marine Officer Candidate School by ratings. Psychology Branch. Office of the Air Surgeon. HQ AAF Aviation Psychology Abstract Series March, 1945, No. 157 (Restricted)

4. Albig, W. Public Opinion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939,

5. Allen, G. Genesis of genius. Atlantic Mon.. 1881,47, 371-381.

6. Allport, F.H. Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1924.

7. Allport, G.W. A test for ascendance-submission. J~. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1928, 23, 118-136.

8. Allport, G.W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937.

*9. Anderson, H.H. Domination and integration in the social behavior of young children in an experi­ mental play situation. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1937, 18, 343-408.

10. Ansbacher, H.L. German military psychology. Psychol. Bull.. 1941, 38, 370-392.

* asterisks in front of numbers indicate selected experimental references. 96

11. Army, Dept, of Leadership. The Infantry J.. Feb. 1943 8-13.

12. Army, Dept.of Leadership. Training Circular No. 6 Washington 25, D.C., 19 July 1948.

13. Army, Dept, of Leadership - D.A.P. 22-1 Washington 25, D.C., December, 1948.

14. Army, Dept, of The Leaders Course - ATP 22-1 Washington 25, D.C., 21 Feb. 1949

15. Arrington, R.E. Time Sampling in studies of social behavior: A critical review of techniques and results with research suggestions. Psychol. Bull. 1943, 40, 81-124.

16. Baldwin, L.E. A study of factors usually associated with high school male leadership. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Ohio State Univ., 1932.

17. Bales, R.F. Interaction; Process Analysis Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press, 1950.

18. Barker, R.G'. The social interrelations of strangers and acquaintances. Sociometry.. 1942, 5, 169-179

19. Barnard, C.I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Havard Univ. Press, 1938.

20. Barnard, C.I. The nature of leadership IN Human Factors in Management Parkville, Mo: Park. Coll. Press, 1946.

21. Barnes, E. The passing of the great leader IN Graves, W.B. (ED) Readings in Public Opinion N Y: Appleton, 1928, (pp 868-870). 97

22. Bartlett, F.C, The social psychology of leadership. J. Nat. Inst. Indust. Psychol.. 1926, 3, 188-193.

23. Bavelas, A. Morale and the training of leaders IN Watson, G. (ED) Civilian Morale Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1942.

24. Bayroff, A.G. Development of criteria of leadership in Machlin, C.T. ROTC. Amer. Psychologist. 1950, 5, 338.

25. Bekterev, W. The results of the experiments in the field Lange, M. of collective reflexology. Z. Angew. Psychol. 1924, 24, 224-254.

26. Bell, G.B. & Consistency of individual leadership French, R.L. position in small groups of varying member- ship. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1950, 45, 764-767.

27. Bellingrath, G.C. Qualities associated with leadership in extra-curricular activities of the high school Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ. 1930, No. 399.

28. Bellows, R.M. Evaluating Officer Performance. Mimeographed report presented at Army-Navy OSRD Conference 16 Aug. 1945.

29. Bender, I.E. Ascendance-submission in relation to certain other factors in personality. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1928, 23, 137-143.

30. Benne, K.D. Leaders are made, not bom. Childhood Educ.. 1948, 24, 203-208.

31. Bennett, H.S. & Leadership in relation to intelligence. Jones, B.R, Sch. Rev.. 1923, 31, 125-128. 98

32. Bernard, I. Political leadership among North American Indians. Amer. J. Sociol.. 1928, 34, 296-315.

33. Bernard, L.L. Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Heath, 1926 (Chapt. 4, 33, 34).

34. Bernard, L.L. Leadership and propaganda IN Davis, J. & Barnes, H.E. An Introduction to Sociology New York: Heath, 1927 (pp 484-491).

35. Bingham, W.V. Leadership IN Metcalf, H.C. (ED) The Psychological Foundations of Management. New York: Shaw, 1927, (pp 244-260).

36. Bingham, W.V. & Intelligence test scores and business success. Davis, W.T. J. appl. Psychol. 1924, 8, 1-22.

37. Bird, C. Social Psychology.. New York: Appleton- Century, 1940.

38. Blata, W.E. The individual and the group. Amer. J. Sociol. 1939, 44, 829-857.

39. Bogardus, E.S. Essentials of Social Psychology. Los Angeles: Univ. So. Calif. Press, 1918.

40. Bogardus, E.S. Fundamentals of Social Psychology. New York: Century, 1924 (pp 371-473). (Also 1931 revised)

41. Bogardus, E. S. Leadership and social distance. Sociol. & Soc. Res. 1927, 12, 173-178.

42. Bogardus, E.S. Leadership and social situations. Sociol. & Soc. Res.. 1931, 16, 164-170.

43. Bogardus, E.S. Leaders and Leadership. N Y: Appleton-Century 1934. 99

44. Bonney, M.E. The constancy of sociometric scores and their relationship to teacher judgments of social success and to personality self-ratings. Sociometry. 1943, 6, 409-424.

45. Boring, E.G. Statistics of the American Psychological Association in 1920. Psychol. Bull. 1920, 17, 271-278. #

46. Bossard, J.H.S. The law of family interaction. Amer.J.Sociol. 1945, 50, 292.

47. Bowden^ A.O. A study of the personality of student leaders in colleges in the United States. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1926, 21, 149-160.

48. Bowman, J.R. Learning by leading. Balt. Bull. Educ. 1928, 6, 176.

49. Bowman, L.E. Approach to the study of leadership. J. appl. Sociol. 1927, 11, 315-321.

50. Boyer, P.A. Selection of leaders through class and school activities, genna. Sch. J. 1924, 73, 159-161,

51. Bradford, L. & (ED) The dynamics of the discussion group, French, J.R.P. J. soc. Issues. 1948, 4, No. 2.

52. Brandenburg, G.C, Personality and vocational achievements. J. appl. Psychol. 1925, 9, 281-292.

53. Bridgemann, D.S. Success in college and business. Person. J.. 1930, 9, 1-19.

54. Britt, S.H. Social Psychology of Modern Life. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1941. 100

55. Brofenbrenner, U. The measurement of sociometric status, structure and development. Sociometry Monogr., 1945, No. 6

56. Brogden, H.E. & The primary traits in personality terms Thomas, W.F. purporting to measure sociability. J. Psychol. 1943, 16, 86-97.

57. Broich, K. Fllhreranf order ungen in der Kindergruppe. Z. Angew. Psychol. 1929, 32, 164-212.

58. Brown, A .A. The training of leaders for religious education IN Lotz, P.H. & Crawford, L.W (EDS) Studies in Religious Education. Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1931.

59. Brown, J.F, Psychology and the Social Order: An Introduc­ tion to the Dynamic Study of Social Fields. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

60. Brown, J.F. Individual, group and social field. Amer. J. Sociol. 1939, 44, 858-869.

61. Brown, M. Leadership among high school pupils. Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ.. 1933, No* 559.

62. Brown, M. Leadership among high school pupils. Teach. Coll. Rec.. 1934, 35, 324-326.

63. Brown, S.C. Somd case studies of delinquent girls described as leaders. Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 1931, 1, 162-179.

64. Bruner, J.S. & Fifty years of change in American Psychology. Allport, G.W. Psychol. Bull.. 1940, 37, 757-776.

65. Bryan, W.L. & The Republic of Plato. New York: Scribners Bryan, C.L. 1898. lOl

66. Buchanan, W.D. Development of leadership and democracy through organized plays and games. El. Soh. J. 1927, 28, 225-226.

67. Buchner, E.F. A quarter-century of psychology in America (1878-1903) Amer.J.Psychol. 1903, 14, 666-680.

68. Buckingham, B.R. Leadership in educational research. J. Educ. Res.. 1927, 15, 239-245.

69. Bfihler, C. The Social Behavior of the Child IN Mu'&hison, C. (ED) Handbook of Child Psychology Worchester, Mass., 1931,

70. Burks, F.W. Some factors related to social success in college. J. soc. Psychol. 1938,9, 125-140.

71. Burr, W. Community Leadership. NY: Prentice Hall,1929.

72. Burt, C. The assessment of personality. Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 1945, 15, 107-121.

73. Buttgereit, H. „ Ftlhrergestalten in der Schulklass. Z .Angew/. Psychol. 1932, 43, 369-413.

74. Caldwell, O.W. Some factors in training for leadership. Natl Assoc. Sec. Sch. Prin. Fourth Yearb., 1920, 2-13.

75. Caldwell, O.W. & Characteristics of school leaders. J. educ. Wellman, B. Res.. 1926, 14, 1-15.

76. Campbell, C.G. The production of leaders. Eugenics. 1930, 3, 272.

77. Cantril, A.H. The place of personality in social psychology. J. Psychol. 1947, 24, 19-56. 102

78. Carlson, H.B. & An Analysis of Life's "Ablest Congressman" Harrell, W. poll. J. soc. Psychol. 1942, 15, 153-158.

79. Carlyle, T. Lectures on Heroes. Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History IN Parr, P.C. (BID) Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1910.

80. Carpenter, C.R. Characteristics of social behavior in non­ human primates. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci.. 1942, 4, 248-258.

81. Carr, L.J, A study of 137 typical inventors. Publ. Amer. Sociol. Soc. 1929, 23, 209.

82. Carr, L.J. Experimental Sociology: A preliminary note on theory and method. J. Soc. For. 1929, 8, 63-74.

83. Carrard, A. I Kaderschulung (The training of leadership) pp 194-213. II Ftlhrung von Ivlenschengruppen (Group leadership) pp 239-245 IN Carrard,A. Praktische Einftthrung in Probleme der Arbeits Psychologie (Practical Introduction to Industrial Psychology) Zurich: Rascher, 1949.

84. Carter, L.F.' Leadership and its prediction from several levels of performance. Amer. Psychologist 1948, 3, 270.

85. Carter, L.F. The consistency of leadership behavior. Amer. Psychologist. 1949, 4, 263.

*86. Carter, L.F. & An investigation of the relationship between Nixon, M. four criteria of leadership ability for three different tasks. J. Psychol. 1949, 27, 245-261.

*87. Carter, L.F. & Ability, perceptual, personality and interest Nixon, M. factors associated with different criteria of leadership. J. Psychol.. 1949, 27, 377-388. 105 88. Carter, L.F; A further investigation of the criterion Haythorn, W. & of leadership. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. Howell, M. 1950, 45, 350-358.

89. Cattell, J. American Men of Science. N Y: Science Press 1944, 1948.

90. Cattell, J.M. A statistical study of eminent men. Pop. Sci. Mon.. 1903, 62, 359-377.

91. Cattell, J.M American Men of Science. N Y: Science Press 1906, 1911, 1921, 1933, 1938.

92. Cattell, J.M A statistical study of American Men of Science, Science. 1906, 24, 658-665; 699-707; 732-742.

93. Cattell, J.M A further statistical study of American Men of Science. Science. 1910, 32, 663-648; 672-688.

94. Cattell, R.B. Description and Measurement of Personality. New York; World Book, 1946.

95. Cattell, R.B. ^ Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika 1947, 12, 197-220.

96. Cattell, R.B. The ergic theory of attitude and sentiment measurement. Educ. & Psychol. Meas. 1947, 7, 221-246.

97. Cattell, R.B. Primary personality factors in the realm of objective tests. J. Person. 1948, 16, 459-487.

98. Cattell, R.B. Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 48-63.

99. Cattell, R.B. The main personality factors in questionnaire self-estimate material. J. soc. Psychol. 1950, 31, 3-38. 104

100. Cattell, R.B. The dimensions of culture patterns by factorization of national characters. J. abnorm soc. Psychol. 1949, 44, 443- 469.

101. Cattell, R.B. & The dimensions of syntality in small Wispe, I».G. groups. J.soc. Psychol. 1948, 28, 57-78.

102. Chapin, F.S. Socialized leadership. J.Soc.For.. 1924-5, 3, 57-60.

103. Chapin, F.S. Extra curricular activities of college students: A study in college leader­ ship. Sch. & Soc.. 1926, 23, 212-216.

104. Chapin, F.S, Community Leadership and Opinion in Red Wing. Minneapolis: U.Minn. Press 1945.

105. Chappie, E.D. The measurement of interpersonal behavior. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1942, 4, 222-223.

106. Chappie, E.D. & A method of evaluating supervisory Donald, G., Jr. personnel. Havard Bus. Rev.. 1946, 24, 197-214.

107. Chevaleva Ianovskaia, E. & Essai d'une etude sur les enfants Sylla, D. meneurs. (A study of children's leaders) J. de. Psychol. 1929, 26, 604-612.

108. Chowdhry, K. & The relative abilities of leaders and Newcomb, T.M. non-leaders to estimate opinions of their own groups. J. abnorm. soc. Ps.vchol. 1952, 47, 51-57.

109. Clark, L.P A psycho-historical study of the epileptic personality in the genius. Psychoanalytic Rev. 1922, 9, 367-401, 105 n o . Clark, L.P. Unconscious motives underlying the personalities of great statesmen and their relation to epoch-making events. Psychoanalytic Rev.. 1921, 8, 1-21. i n . Cleeton, G.U. & Executive Ability: Its Discovery and Mason, C.W. Development. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press, 1934.

112. Clem, O.M. & The relation of high school leadership Dodge, S.B. and scholarship to post-school success. Peabody J. Educ.. 1933, 10, 321-329.

113. Cobb, K. Measuring leadership in college women by free association. J. abnorm soc. Psychol. 1952, 47, 126-128.

114. Coffin, T.E. A three component theory of leadership. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1944, 39, 63-83.

115. C onway, M • The Crowd in Peace and War. New York: Longmans, 1915.

116. Cooley, C.H. Leadership or personal ascendency IN Human Nature and the Social Order. NY: Scribners, 1902 (pp 283-325).

117. Cooley, C.H.j Angell, R.C. & Introductory Sociology. NY: Scribners, Carr, L. J. 1933.

118. Cooper, W.J. Leadership. Sch. Life 1929, 15, 10.

119. Cosby,B. Training for leadership. Pop. Educ. 1925, 42, 427-428.

1 2 0 . Cottrell, L.S.,Jr. The analysis of situational fields in social psychology. Amer. soc. Rev. 1942, 7, 370, 387. 106

121. Courtney, M.E. Persistence of leadership. Sch. Rev. 1938, 46, 97-107.

122. Courteny, D.C.; Leadership Identification and Greer, F.L. & Acceptance. Philadelphia: Inst. Res. Masling, J. Human Rel., 1951.

123. Cowley, W.H. Three distinctions in the study of leaders. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1928, 23, 144-157.

124. ETowley, W.H. Traits of face-to-face leaders. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1931, 26, 304-313.

125. Cox, C.M. et al Genetic Studies of Genius II The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. Stanford Univ: Stanford Univ. Press, 1926.

126. Coyle, G.L. Social Process in Organized Groups. New York: Smith, 1930.

127. Coyle, G.L.'(ED) Studies in Group Behavior. New York: Harper, 1937.

128. Crannell, C.W. & Combat leadership IN Psychological Mollenkopf, W.G. Research on Problems of Redistribution Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt Printing Office 1947 (AAF Avia. Psychol. Prog. Report No. 14)

129. Crawford, A.B. Extra-curriculum activities and academic work. Person. J.T 1928, 7, 121-129.

130. Crouch, E.H. Public school training for leadership. Peabody J. Educ.. 1926, 3, 320-331.

131. Cureau, A.L. Savage Man in Central Africa (Trans, by E. Andrews) London: T.F, Unwin, 1915. 107

132. Dashiell, J.F. Personality traits and the different professions. J. appl. Psychol. 1930, 14, 197-201.

133. Dashiell, J.F. An experimental analysis of some group effects. J. abnorm. soc Psychol, 1930, 25, 190-199.

134. Dashiell, J.F. Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults. IN Murchison, C. (ED) Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester: Clark Univ. Press, 1935.

135. Davis, J. Contemporary Social Movements. New York; Century, 1930.

136. Davis, J. A study of one hundred and sixty-three outstanding Communist leaders. Amer. Sociol. Soc. Papers. 1930, 24, 42-55.

137. Deane, W. Fi.iian Society. London: Macmillan, 1921,

138. Dearborn, G.V, Every man a leader: notes on the psychology of leadership. Scl. Amer. (Supplement) 1917, 84, 118-119.

139, de Candolle, A.L.P.P, Hlstoire des Sciences et des Savants depuis deus Siecles GenevetGeorge.1885.

140. Dennis, W. (ED) Current Trends in Social Psychology. Pittsburgh: Univ. Pitt. Press, 1948.

141. Detroit Teachers College How Chlldreii Choose Friends. Detroit: Detroit Teach Co., 1929.

142. Deutsch, Morton; Leadership in the small group. Pepitone, A. & J. Soc. Issues. 1948, 4,2, 31-40. Zander, A. 108

143. Deutschberger, P. The structure of dominance. Amer.J. Orthopsychiat. 1917, 17, 343-351.

144. Dexter, E.H. Treatment of the child through school environment. Mental Hyg. 1928, 12, 358-365.

145. Dimock, M.E. The pattern of executive leadership. Advanced Mgmb. 1945,,10, 139-141.

146. Dodd, S.C. Dimensions of Society: A Quantitative Systematics for the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1942.

147. Dougherty, N.F. Leadership for Tomorrow. New York: Field-Doubleday, 1945,

148. Douglas, L.C. Leased Lives. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press, 1918.

149. Drake, R.M. A study of leadership. Charac. & Pers, 1944, 12, 285-289.

150. Draper, T. The 84th Division in the Battle of Germany New York: Viking Press, 1946,

*151. Dunkerley, M.D, A statistical study of leadership among college women. Stud. Psychol. Psychiat. 1940, 4, 1-65.

152. Eaton, J.W. Experiments in testing for leadership. Amer. J. Sociol. 1947, 52, 523-535.

153. Eichler, G.A. Studies in student leadership. Penn.St, Coll. Stud. Educ.. 1934, No. 10

154. Eisendorfer, A-. & The factor of maturity in officer Bergmann, M.S. selection. Psychiatry. 1946, 9, 73-79. 109

155. Ellis, H. A Study of British Genius. London: Hurst & Blackett, 1904.

156. Ellwood, C.A. Cultural Evolution. N.Y.: Century, 1927.

157. Emerson, R.W. The American Scholar. Self-Reliance Compensation. New York: Amer. Bk., 1893.

158. Farago, L. (ED) German Psychological Warfare. N.Y.: Comm. Natl. Morale, 1941.

159. Fauquier, W. & Some aspects of leadership in an Gilchrist, J. institution. Child Development. 1942, 13, 55-64.

160. Fay, P.J. & Judgment of leadership from the Middleton, W.C. transmitted voice. J. soc. Psychol. 1943, 17, 99-102.

161. Fearing, F. Psychological studies of historical personalities. Psychol. Bull. 1927, 24, 521-539.

162. Fernberger, S.W. Statistical analysis of the members and associates of the American Psychological Association in 1928. Psychol. Rev.. 1928, 35, 447-465.

163. Fernberger, S.W. The American Psychological Assn, a historical summary 1892-1930. Psvchol. Bull.. 1932, 29, 1-92.

164. Finch, F.H. & Gifted children as high school leaders. Carroll, H.A. J. genet. Psychol. 1932, 41, 476-481.

165. Findley, W.G. A Statistical index of participation in discussion. J. educ. Psychol. 1948, 39, 47-51. 110

156. Findley, W.G. A generalized procedure for construc­ ting indexes of social assimilation. Abstract A.P.A. Meeting. Boston, 1948,

167. Finney, R.L. Discussion of Theses on Freedom in Relation to Culture. Social Planning and Leadership. Natl Council Educ. 1932.

168. Fisher, H.A.L. Education and genius. J. Nat. Educ. Assn. 1923, 12, 415.

169. Fiske, G.W. The development of rural leadership, Publ. Amer. Sociol. Soc. 1916, 11, 54-70.

170. Fiske, John Sociology and hero-worship. Atlantic Monthly. 1881, 47, 75-84.

171. Fitts, P.M. German applied psychology during World War II. Amer. Psychologist. 1946, 1, 151-161.

172. Flanagan, J'.C. Analysis of the results from the first annual edition of the National Teachers Examinations. J. exp. Educ. 1941, 9, 237-250.

173. Fleming, E.G. Factor analysis of the personality of high school leaders. J. appl. Psychol. 1935, 19, 596-615.

174. Follett, M.P. The New State. Group Organization. the Solution of Popular Government. New York: Longmans, 1918.

175. Foster, W.T. Education for leadership in business. Sch. & Soc.. 1929, 29, 734-736. Ill 176. Franzj S.I. The scientific productivity of American professional psychologists. Psychol. Rev., 1917, 24, 197-209.

177. Fraser, J.M. An experiment with group methods in the selection of trainees for eonior management positions. Occup. Psychol. 1946, 20, No. 2.

178. Fraser, J.M. The group method of selecting execu­ tives. Personnel. 1949, 2 6, 50-55*

179. Freeman, F.N.j The influence of environment on the Holzinger, K.J. & intelligence, school achievement and Mitchell, B.O. conduct of foster children. Nat. Soc. Stud. Educ. Twenty—seventh Yearbk. 1928, 101-217.

180. Freeman, G.L. & Hov/ to Pick Leaders. Nevr York* Frank Taylor, E.K. & Wagnails, 1 9 5 0.

181. French, J.R.P. The disruption and cohesion of groups, J. abnorm. sob. Psychol. 1941, 56, 561-577.'

182. French, J.R.P. Retraining an autocratic leader. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1944, 59, 224-257.

I8 5. French, J.R.P. Organized and unorganized groups under fear and frustration. Univ.. of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare. Voli 2Q/ Part 5, 1 9 4 4

184. French, R.L. Verbal output and leadership status in initially leaderless discussion groups. Amer. Psychologist 1950, 5, 510-511.

185. Fretwell, E.K. Educational for leadership. Teach. Poll. Rec. 1919, 20, 524-552. 112

186i Freud, S. Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego, Internal, Psychoanalytical Libr., London, 1922,

187, Fromm, E. Escape from Freedom. New York: Farrar Rhinehart, 1941.

188, Fromm, E. Man for Himself. New York: Rinehart, 1947.

189. Galton, F. English Men of Science. New York: Appleton, 1875,

190. Galton, F, Hereditary Genius. London: Macmillan, 1925.

191. Ganders, H.S. Prestige, loyality, popularity and other accompaniments of leadership, Educ. Rev.. 1927, 74, 205-208.

192. Ganders, H.S. Primer in leadership. Educ. Rev.. 1927, 74, 149-153.

193. Garforth, F.I.P, War Office Selection Boards (O.C.T.V.) Occup. Psychol. 1945, 19, 97-108.

194. Garrett, H.E. Second Report on Combat Leadership. Mimeographed memorandum Applied Psychology Panel, NDRC June, 1944,

195. Garrett, H.E. & Study of Combat Leadership. Mimeo­ Ligon, E.M. graphed memorandum, Applied Psychology Panel NDRC March, 1944.

196. Garrison, K.C. A study of some factors related to leadership in high school. Peabody J. Educ. 1935, 11, 11-17. 115 197. Gauss, C. The comedy of leadership. Bull. Amer. Ass. Univ. Prof.. 1928, 14, 435-438.

198. Gavitt, H.L. The importance of leadership. Engineering Mag.. 1916, 51, 17-21.

199. Gibb, C.A. Selection of leaders. The Australian Quart.. Dec. 1946, 1-15.

200. Gibb, C.A. The principles and traits of leadership. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1947, 42, 267-284.

201. Gibb, C.A. Some tentative comments concerning group Rorschach pointers to the personality traits of leaders. J. soc. Psychol.. 1949, 30, 251-263.

>202. Gibb, C.A. The emergence of leadership in small tem­ porary groups of men. PhD. Thesis Univ. Illinois.. Urbana, 111.; 1949.

203. Giese, F. The public personality: a statistical study of the intellectual leaders of the day. Beih Z. Angew Psychol. 1928, No. 44

204. Gilcrest, D.B. Doctoral Dissertations accepted b.v American Universities 1950-1950. N Y : Wilson, 1934.

205. Gillin, J.L. & Introduction to Sociology. New Yorlc: Macmillan Gillin, J.P. 1946.

206. Gillman, S.W. Methods of officer selection in the Army, J. Ment. Sci.. 1947, 93, 101-111.

*207. Goode, C.E. Significant research on leadership. Personnel 1951, 27, 342-350.

208. Goodenough, F.L Inter-relationships in the behavior of young children. Child Develop.. 1930, 1, 29-47. 114

209. Goodwin, O.V. Self-training for leadership. Child Welf. Mag.. 1927, 21, 245-246.

210. Gordon, K. Judgments in esthetics, J. exper. Psychol. 1923, 6, 36-43.

211. Gordon, K. Group judgments in the field of lifted weights. J. exper. Psychol.. 1924, 7, 398-400.

212. Gowin, E.B. The Executive and his Control of Men. New York: Macmillan, 1915.

213. Gowin, E.B, The Selection and Training of the Business Executive. New York: Macmillan, 1918.

214. Grabo, C.H. Education for democratic leadership. Amer. J. Soc.. 1918, 23, 76-78.

215. Green, G.H. Insight and group adjustment. J. abnorm. soc. Psvchol. 1948, 43, 49-61.

216. Graicunas, V.A. Relationship in organization. Bull. Intern!. Manag. Inst.. 1933.

217. Guetzkow, H. Classification, categories and coding. Univ.of Mich. Conf. Res. Report April, 1948.

218. Guilford, J.P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1942.

219. Guilford, J.P. & Personality factors D,R,T and A. J. abnorm. Guilford, R.B, soc. Psychol. 1939, 34, 21-*36.

220. Hackman, R.C. & Are leaders and followers identified by Moon, R.G. Jr. similar criteria Amer. Psychologist. 1950, 5, 312. 115

221, Halbwachs, M. Individual consciousness and collective mind. Amer. J. Soc.. 1939, 44, 812-822,

222. Hanawalt, N.G.; Level, of aspiration in college leaders Hamilton, G.E. & and non-leaders. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. Morris, M.L, 1943, 38, 545-548.

*223. Hanawalt, N.G.-t Leadership as related to the Bernreuter Richardson, H.M. personality measures: II An item analysis Hamilton, R.J. of responses of college leaders and non­ leaders. J. appl. Psychol.. 1943, 17, 251-267.

*224. Hanawalt, N.G. & Leadership as related to the Bernreuter Richardson, H.M. personality measures. IV An item analysis of responses of adult leaders and non­ leaders. J. appl. Psychol.. 1944, 28, 397-411.

225. Hanfman, E. Social structure of a group of kindergar­ ten children. Amer. J. Orthopsvchiat. 1935, 5, 407-410.

226. Harper, R.S. The laboratory of '.Viliiam James. Havard Alumni Bull.. Nov., 1949.

227. Hartshorne, H. & Community organization in Religious Miller, J.Q, Education New Haven: Yale Univ Press, 1932.

228. Hastings, E.W. Is pupil training for leadership a worth­ while feature Amer. Phys. Educ. Rev. 1926, 31, 1080-1085.

229. Hayes, E.C. Rural Conditions IN Introduction to the Study of Sociology. New York: Appleton, 1923 ( p p 42-59)

230. Heath, C.W. & What it takes to be an officer. Infantry J . Gregory, L.W. 1946, 58, 44-45. 116 231. Hemphill, J.K. Leader Behavior Description.ColumbusT Ohio: Personnel Research Board, The Ohio State Univ., 1948.

232. Hemphill, J.K. Situational factors in leadership. Abstract of Ph.D. Thesis.Univ of Maryland, 1948.

233. Hemphill, J.K. A study of leadership situations in education. Ohio State Univ. Personnel Res. Bd. Report Oct., 1948.

*234. Hemphill, J.K. Situational factors in leadership. Ohio State Univ. Study; Bur. Educ. Res. Monogr. 1949 No. 32.

235. Hemphill, J.K. Relations between the size of the group and the behavior of superior leaders. J. soc. Psychol. 1950, 32, 11-22.

236. Hemphill, J.K, & The measurement of group dimensions. Westie, C.M. J. Psychol.. 1950, 29, 325-*342

237. Henning, H. Ziele und MBglichkeiten der experimentellen characterpUfung. Jarbuch d. Charakterol. 1929, 6, 213-273.

238. Heyns, R. Functional analysis of group problem solving behavior. Univ. Mich. Conf. Res. Report. Oct, 1948.

239. Hiller, E.T. Social Relations and Structures. New York: Harper & Bros., 1947.

240. Hocking, W.E. Leaders and led. Yale Rev.. 1924.

241. Hollingworth, H.L. Advertising and Selling. New York: Appleton, 1913. 117 242. Hollingworth, L.S. Gifted Children. N Y : Macmillan, 1926.

243. Holmes, R.H, A study in the origins of distinguished living Americans, Amer. J. Sociol. 1929, 34, 670-685.

244. Hooker, E.R. Leaders in village communities. Soc. For.. 1928, 6, 605-614.

245. Hoover, H.H. American Individualism. N Y; Doubleday, 1922.

246. Horne, H.H. Discussion of Thesis on Freedom in Relation to Culture. Social Planning and Leadership. Nat. Council Educ. 1932

247. Horne, H. The Essentials of Leadership. Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1934.

248. Hose, C. & Government in the Pagan Tribes of Borneo. McDougall, W. London: Macmillan, 1912.

249. Howell, C.E. Measurement of leadership. Sociometry. 1942, 5, 163-168.

250. Howitt, A.W. The Native Tribes of South-East Australia New York: Macmillan, 1904,

251. Hull, C.L. Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton- Century, 1943.

252. Hummer, J.K. The development of leadership in the large high school. N.Y. State Educ.. 1927, 14, 371-372.

*253. Hunter, E.C. & An analysis of qualities associated with Jordan, A.M. leadership among college students. J. Educ. Psychol., 1939, 30, 497-509. 118 254. James. W. Great men, great thoughts and the environment. Atlantic Mon.T 1880, 46, 441-459.

255. Janney, J.E. A quantitative study of fad and fashion leadership among undergraduate women, Psychol. Bull.T 1938, 35, 696.

256. Jenkins, J. G. Characteristics of the question as determinants of dependability. J. Consult. Psychol./ 1941, 5, 164- 169.

257. Jenkins, J.G. The questionnaire as a research instru­ ment. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci. . 1940, 2, 118-140.

258. Jenkins, J.G. The nominating technique, its uses and limitations. IN krech & Crutchfield Theorg and Problems of Soc. Psychol.. p. 405-7, N Y: McGraw-Hill, 1948.

*259. Jenkins, W.O. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military prob­ lems. Psychol. Bull.. 1947, 44, 54-79.

260. Jenness, A; Social influences in the change of opinion; the role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact. J. abnorm. soc Psychol.. 1932,27, 29-34: 279-296.

261, Jennings, H.H. The structure of leadership. Sociometry 1937, 1, 99-143.

262. Jennings, H.H. A sociometric study of emotional and social expansiveness. IN Barker, Kounin & Wright. Child Behavior & Development. New York: tylcGraw-Hill, 1943.

263. Jennings, H.H. Leadership and Isolation. NY; Longmans Green, 1943. 119 264. Jennings, H.H, Leadership and Isolation. New York: Longmans Green, 1947.

265. Jennings, H.H, Leadership and sociometric choice. Sociometry. 1947, 10, 32-49.

266. Jennings, H.H. Leadership and sociometric choice IN Newcomb & Hartley (ED) Readings in Soc. Psychol.. Part IX, Sec. 2, New York: Holt, 1947.

'267. Jennings, H.H, Sociometry of Leadership. Beacon House 1947, Sociometry Monogr.. No. 14

268. Jensen, M.B. The galidity of the Multiple Choice Rotter, J.B. Rorschach Test in officer candidate selection. Psychol. Bull.. 1945, 42, 182-185.

269. Jones, A.J. The Education of Youth for Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938.

270. Jucius, Kurt; Studies in topological and vector Lippitt, R. & psychology I. Univ. Iowa Study Child. Escalona, S. Weif.. 1940, 16, 3.

271. Judd, C.H. What makes for leaders Phi Delta Kappan 1929, 12, 15-24^

272. Kephart, W.M, A quantitative analysis of intragroup relationships. Amer. J. Sociol.y 1960, 55, 544-549.

273. Ki^heloe, S.C, The prophet as a leader. Sociol. & Soc. Res. 1928, 12, 461^468.

274. Kiser, C. V. & Demographic characteristics of women Schacter, N.L. in "Who's Who" Milbahk Mem. Fund Quart. 1949 27, 392-433. 120

275. Kline, N.S. A method of leadership selection IN Killinger, G.G. (ED) The Psycholbiologieal Program of the War Shipping Administration. Amer Psychol. Assn: Stanford Univ. Press, 1947 (249-252)/

276. Klugman, S.F. Co-operative versus individual efficiency in problem solving. J. educ. Psychol.. 1944, 35, 91-100.

277. Knickerbocker, I. Leadership: A conception and some implica­ tions. J. Soc. Issues. 1948, 4, 23-40.

278. Kohns, S.C. & Prophesying Army promotion. J. appl. Irle, K.W. Psychol.. 1920, 4, 73-87.

279. Koos, E.L. Families in Trouble. New York: Kings Crown Press, 1946, pp 134.

280. Kornhauser, A.W. & Psychological Tests in Business Chicago: Kingsbury, F.A. Univ. Chicago Press, 1924.

281. Krech, D. & Theory and Problems of Social Psychology. Crutchfield, R.S. New York: McGray-Hill, 1948.

282. Krout, M.H. Introduction to Social Psychology. N Y: I Harper and Bros. 1942.

283. La Piere, R.T & Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Farnsworth, P.R. 1936.

284. Laird, D.A. The Technique of Building Personal Leadership: Proved Ways for Increasing the Powers of Leadership. N Y : McGraw- Hill, 1944. 121 285. Larson, E.L. Leadership as an ideal of Phi Delta Kappa^ The Phi Delta Kappan. 1929, 12, 41-45.

286. LaVoy, K.R. Leaders, born or made. Sch. & Soc. 1928, 28, 683-684.

287. Lazarsfield, P.F. The art of asking why in marketing research. Natl. Marketing Rev. 1935, 1, 1-13.

288. LeBon, G. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. New York: Macmillan, 1897 (Chap 3)

289. Lehman, B.H. Carlyle^ Theory of the Hero Durham,N.C: Duke, Univ Press, 1928.

290. Lehman, H.C. The creative years in science and litera­ ture. Sci. Mon.. 1937, 45, 65-75.

291. Lehman, H.C. Optimum ages for eminent leadership. Sci Mon., 1942, 54, 162-175.

292. Lehman, H.C. Age of starting to contribute versus total creative output. J. aopl. Psychol. 1946, 30, 460-480.

293. Lehman, H.C. The age of eminent leaders: then and now. Amer J. Sociol. 1947, 52, 342-356.

294. Lehman, H.C. Optimum ages for eminent leadership: then and now. Amer J. Sociol. 1947, 52, 342-856.

295. Lehman, H.C. & Ability verSs effective ability.Psychol. Witty, P.A. Rev.. 1928, 55* 6J-Q6. .

296. Lehman, H.C. & Drive: A neglected trait in the study Witty, P.A. of the gifted. Psychol. Rev.. 1927, 34, 364—376. 122

297. Lehman, H.C. & Nervous instability and genius: Poetry Witty, P.A. and fiction. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1929, 24, 77-90.

298. Lehman, H.C. & Playing school-a compensatory mechanism. Witty, P.A. PsvcholL. Rev.. 1926, 33, 480-485.

299. Leib, A. Vorstellungen and Urteile von Schillern tTber Fuhrer in der Schulklasse. 2. Angew. Psychol. 1928, 30, 241-346.

200. Levi, I.J. Student leadership in elementary and junior high school and its transfer into senior high school. J. educ. Res. 1930, 22, 135-139.

301. Levin, H. Description of roles. Univ of Mich. Conf. Res. Report. Aug 1948.

302. Levine, S. An approach to constructive leadership. J. Soc. Issues 1949, 5, 46-53.

303. Le'vy, A. Portraits de meneurs et psychologie du groups. Enfance. 1949, 2, 7-40.

304. Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: ^CGraw-Hill, 1935.

305/ Lewin, K. Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods. Amer. J. Sociol. 1939, 44, 868-896.

306. Lewin, K. A research approach to leadership problems. J. educ. Sociol.. 1944, 17, 385-438; 392-394.

307. Lewin, K. Group decision and social change IN Newcomb and Hartley (ED) Readings inSoc. Psychol. Part VII Sec. 4 NY: Httlt, 1947. 125 308. Lewin, K.; Level of aspiration IN Hunt, J.M. (ED) Dembo, T,j Personality and the Behavior Disorders. Festinger, L. & Ch. 10. New York: Ronald Press Co. 1944. Sears, P.S.

309. Lewin, K. & Lippitt, R. The research center for group dynamics. Soc. Mon.. No 17, 1947.

310. Lewisohn, S.A. Human Leadership in Industry: The Challenge of Tomorrow. New York: Harper, 1945.

311. Lindemann, E.C. Social Discovery. New York: Republic Publishing Company, 1924.

312. Lindemann, E.C. Leadership: a function cf democratic experience. J. educ. Sociol. 1944, 17, 386-391.

313. Lindquist, E.F. Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. Boston: Hcughton-Iviif f lin, 1940.

314, Link, H.C. The definition of social effectiveness and leadership through measurement. Educ. & Psychol. Meas. 1944, 4, 57-67.

315. Linton, R. The Cultural Background of Personality New York: JEpplaton Century, 1945.

316. Lippitt, R. Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Autocratic and democratic group atmospheres. Amer J. Sociol.. 1939, 45, 26-49.

317. Lippitt, R, A program of experimentation on group functioning and &roup productivity. IN Current Trends in Social Psychology. Univ of Pitts. Press, 1948. 124

318. Lippitt, R. & The "Social Climate" of children's White, R.K. groups. IN Barker, .Kounin & Wright (ED) Child Behavior & Development. Ch. 28 New York: McGraw-Hill, 1943.

►319. Lippitt, R. An experimental study of leadership and White, R.K. group life IN Newcomb & Hartley (ED) Readings in Social Psychology New York: Holt, 1947.

320. Lippitt, R.; Sociodramatic clarification of leader Bradford, L.P, and group roles as a starting point for Benne, K.D. ellective group functioning. Sociatry. 1947, 1, 82-91.

321. Lloyd, A.H. Leadership and progress. Intern. J. Ethics 1922, 32, 167-192.

322. Lombroso, C. The determining of genius. The Monist, 1901, 12, 49-64.

323. Lombroso, C. The Man of Genius. New York: Scribners, 1895.

324, Lucas, D.B. & Psychology for Advertisers. Mew York: Benson, C.E. * Harper, 1930*

►325. Luithlen, W.F. Zur Psychologie der Initiative und der Fuhrereigenschaften. (The Psychology of initiative & leadership traits) Z . Angew Psychol. 1931, 39, 56-122.

326. Lumley, F.E. Means of Social Control. New York: Century, 1925.

327. Lumley, F.E. The Propaganda Menace. New York: Century, 1933.

328. MacDonald, C.B. Company Commander. Washington: Infantry I. Press, 1947. 125

329. Machiavelli, N. The Prince. (Transl. by W.K. Marriott) New York: Dutton, 1908.

330. Malinowski, B. The group and the individual in func­ tional analysis. Amer. J. Sociol. 1939, 44, 938-964.

331. Mailer, J.B. Cooperation and competition: An Experi­ mental study in motivation. Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ. 1925, No. 384.

332. Malloy, H. Study of some of the factors underlying the establishment of successful social contracts at the college level. J. soc. Psychol. 1936, 7, 205-228.

333. Mann, C.R. What does a leader do Educ. Rec. (Supplement) 1928, No. 6, Pp 3-9.

334. Markey, S.C. Opinions of subordinate enlisted men as measures of supervisor job proficiency. Amer. Psychologist. 1948, 3, 260.

335. Marks, J. Genius and Disaster. New York: Adelphi Company, 1925.

336. termor, J. leadership training IN Killinger, G.C. The Psychological Program of the War Shipping administration. Amer Psychol. Assn: Stanford Univ Press, 1947.

337. Marston, W.M. Emotionsof Normal People. New York: Harcourt^Brace, 1928.

338. Martin, E.S. Find and train your boy leaders. Playground. 1927, 21, 253-255.

339. Maslow, A.H Liberal leadership and personality Freedom. 1942, 2, 27-30. 126

340. Mayberry, B.A. Training for leadership by means of student government. J. Nat. Educ. Assn. 1925, 14, 186.

341. McCandless, B.R, Changing relationships between dominance and social acceptability during group democratization. .Amer. J. Orthoph.vchiat. 1942, 12, 529-535,

*342. McCuen, T.L. Leadership and intelligence. Educ. 1929, 50, 89-95.

343, McCuhan, F.E. Factors associated with leadership ability. Texas Outlook. 1941, 25, 37-38.

344. McDougell, W, The Group Mind. New York: Putnam, 1920.

345. McGregor, D . Conditions of effective leadership in the industrial organization IN Newcomb & Hartley (ED) Readings in Social Psychology Part IX Sec 4, New Y0rk: Holt, 1947.

346. Merei, F. Group leadership and institutionalization, Human Relat.. 1949, 2, 23-39.

347. Ivierriam, C.E, Four American Party Leaders. New York: Macmillan, 1926.

348. Merriam, C.E, The American Party System. New York: Gosnell, H.E, Macmillan, 1929.

349. Metcalf, H.C, Training for the new conception of leadership. IN Metcalf, H.C. (ED) Business TLeadership New York: Pitman, 1930. 127 350. Meyers, G.C Training for leadership. Sch & Soc. 1923, 17, 437-439.

351. Michels, R. Political Parties. New York: Macmillan, 1915.

352. Michels, R, Authority. Ency. Soc Sol.. 1937, 2, 319,

353. Middleton, W.C, Personality qualities predominant in campus leaders. J. soc. Psychol. 1941, 13, 199-201.

354. Mieklejohn, A. Educational leadership in America: Can America teach itself. Harpers 1930, 160, 440-447. h355. Miller, A.H. Leadership. New York: Putnam, 1920 (chap 2)

356. Miller, N.E. Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven: Dollard, J. Yale Univ. Press, 1941.

357. Minnick, J.H, Leadership in Education. Phi Delta Kappan 1929, 12, 45-56.

358. Mitra, S.C. Factors determining changes in religious phenomena. Indian J. Psychol. 1945, 20, 61-68.

359. Moore, L. H. Leadership traits of college women. Sociol. & Soc. Res..1932. 17, 44-54.

360. Moore, L.H. Leadership traits of college women. Sociol. & Soc Res. 1935, 20, 136-139.

361. Morton, M.A. An evaluation of job-situation tests in Mailer, J.B, the measurement of leadership. Amer Psychol.. 1949, 4, 263. 128 362. Moreno, F.B. Combining role and sociometric testing - a methodological approach. Sociometry. 1946, 9, 155-161.

363/ Moreno, J.L, Who- Shall Survive Washington, D.C.: Nerip. & Ment. Dis. Pub. Co., 1934.

364. Moreno, J.L. Experimental Sociometry and the experimental method in science. IN Current Trends in Social Psychology. Univ of Pitts. Press, ,1948.

365. Mumford, E . Origins of Leadership. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1909.

366. Mumford, E. Origins of Leadership.Amer. J. Soc.. 1927, 12, 216-240; 267-349; 500-531.

367. Munson, E.L. The Management of Men. New York: Holt, 1921.

368. Munson, E.L. Leadership for American Army Leaders. Washington D.C.: Inflantry J. Press, 1941.

369. Murchison, -C. A History of Psychology in Autobio­ graphy WorChester, Mass: Clark Univ. Press, 1930-36.

370. Murphy, G. & Experimental Social Psychology New York: Murphy, L.B. Harper, 1931.

371. Murphy, G.; - Experimental Social Psychology. N Y: Murphy, L.B. & Harper.* Bros. 1937. Newcomb, T.M.

372. Murray, H.A. Explorations in Personality.New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1938.

373. Murray, H.A. & Note on the selection of combat Stein, M. officers. Psychom. Med.. 1943, 5, 386-391. 129 374. Myers, G.C. Training for leadership. Sch. & Soc. 1923, 17, 437-439.

375. Myerson, A, The qualities of the leader and the follower IN The Foundations of Person­ ality. New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1921.

376. Nafe, R.W. A psychological description of leader­ ship. J. soc. Fsychol. 1930, 1, 248- 266.

377. Nash, J.H. Leadership. The Phi Delta Kappan. 1929, 12, 24-25.

378. Nathan, P. Psychology of Fascism. London: Faber, 1943, Pp. 158.

379. Mat. Acad. Sci of USA Biographical Memoirs. Washington D.C.: 1949, Vol. 25.

380. Navy Dept, of Manual for Practical Development of Leadership Qualities. Bus. Personnel Washington: Govt. Printing Office, Oct. 1944.

381. Navy Dept, of Naval Leadership (4th ED) Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute, 1939.

382. Naylor, R.H.; Analytical stiifly on leadership Kern, W.B.; instruction. Millt. Rev. Ft. Leaven­ Luper, J.R. & worth. 1947, 27, 9-20. Chapla, B.C.

383. Neely, T.C. Sources of political power: a contri­ bution to the sociology of leadership Amer. J. Soc. 1928, 33, 769-783.

384. Newcomb, T.M. Personality and Social Change. N Y : Dryden Press: 1943. 150 385. Newstetter, W.I.j Group Adjustment: A study in Experi­ Feldstein, M,J.$ mental Sociology. Cleveland! West. Nev/comb, T.M. Resv. Univ. 1938.

386. North, C.C. Social Differentiation. Chapel Hill: Univ. No. Car. Press, 1926.

387. Northway, M.L. P ersonality and Sociometric status: A review of the Toronto Studies. Sociometry. 1946, 9, 233-241.

388. Norton, H.W. Calculation of Chi-Square for complex contingency tables. J. Amer. Stat. Assn. 1945, 40, 251-258.

389. Norwood, Cyril The English Tradition of Education. London: John Murray, 1929.

390. Nutting, R.L. Some characteristics of leadership. Sch. & Soc. 1923, 18, 387-390.

391. Nutting, R.L, Some characteristics of school leaders. educ. Res., 1926, 14, 1-13.

392. O'Connor, J. , Psychometrics. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1931.

393. Oden, Alfred Genese des Grands Hommes (H. Welter ED) Paris: 1895 (Vol. I & II)

394. Otis, J.L.^et al Psychological Requirements Analysis of of Company Grade Officers. I. Survey of the literature. Personnel Research Section AGO, Dept of the Army 29 Dec. 1950.

395. Offices of the The Officers' Gui

396. O.S.S. Staff Assessment of Men N Y: Rhinehart & Co 1948. 151 397. Overstreet, H.A, Influencing Human Behavior. N Y : Norton, 1925.

398. Page, D.P. Measurement and prediction of leadership. Amer J. Sociol. 1935, 41, 31-43.

399. Page, H.E. Detecting potential leaders. J. Aviat. Med. 1948, 19, 435-441.

400. Parten, M.B. Social participation among pre-school childred. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1933,27, 243-269.

*401. Parten, M.B, Leadership among pre-school childred,. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1933, 27, 430-440,

*402. Partridge, E.D. Leadership among adolescent boys. Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ. 1934, No. 608.

403. Partridge, E.D. A study of leadership ability among adoles­ cent boys. Sch. Rev.. 1932, 40, 526-531.

404. PatterHon, J.N,. et al Leadership identification and acceptance, QNR Inst. Res. Human Rel. Report No. 9 Series A. 1950.

405. Payne, S.L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press, 1951,

406. Pearl, R, The biology of superiority. Amer. Merc. 1927, 12, 257-266.

407. Peck, E.M. A study of the personalities of five eminent men. J. abnorm soc. Psychol. 1931, 26, 37-57.

408. Pennington, L.; The Psychology of Military Leadership. Hough, R.B. & New York: Prentice-Hall, 1943. Case, H.W.

409. Person, H.S. Leadership as a response to environment. Educ. Record 1928, 9, (Supp. No. 6) 10-2 1 . 152 410. Peterman, J. & Solution goal orientation. Univ. of Mich. Guetzkow, H. Conf. Res. Report. Sept., 1948.

411. Philos, C.D, The Thunderbolt Across Europe. Munich, Germany: F. Buckman, 1945.

412. Pigors, P. Leadership and domination among children. Sociologus. 1933, 9, 140-157.

413. Pigors, P. Leadership or Domination. London: Harrap, 1935.

414. Pinard, J.W. Tests of perseveration. Brit. 7. Psychol. 1932, 32, 5-19.

415. Prentice, D.B. & The colleges1 contributions to intellectual Kunkel, B.W. leadership. Sch. & Soc. 1930, 32, 594- 600.

416. Preston, H.D. The Development of a Procedure for Evaluating Officers in the U.S. Air Force. Pittsburgh: Amer. Inst. Res., 1948.

417. Prosh, F. * The basis on which students choose their leaders. Amer Phvs. Educ. Rev.. 1928, 33, 265-267.

418. Psychological Selection of officer candidates in Great Branch Office of the Britian. Aviation Abstract Series. Air Surgeon, HQ. AAF. 1942, No. 56 (Restricted)

419. Puffer, J.A. Boys' gangs. Ped. Sem.. 1905, 12, 175- 213.

420. Pyle, E. . Brave Men. New York: Holt, 1944.

421. Raskin, E. Comparison of scientific and literary ability: a biological study of eminent scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. J abnorm soc. Psvchol. 1936, 31, 20-35. 155 422. Reals, W.H. Leadership in the high school. Sch. Rev. 1938, 46, 523-531.

423. Reed, P.B. Jr. Personal Leadership for Combat Officers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1943.

424. Reid I.D. & Leadership selection in urban locality Ehle, E. areas. Pub. Opin. Quart.. 1950, 14, No. 2.

425. Reininger, K. Das Sociale Verhalten von Schulneulingen. Wien. Arb. pSdag. Psychol. 1927, 7, 14.

426. Remmelin, M.K. Analysis of leaders among high school seniors. J. exp. Educ.. 1938, 6, 413-422.

427. Reynolds, F.J. Factors of leadership among seniors of Central High School, Tulsa, Oklahoma. J. educ. Res.. 1944, 37, 356-361.

428. Richardson, H.M. & Leadership as related to the Bernreuter Hanawalt, N.G. Personality Measures: I. College leadership in extra-curricular activities. J. soc. Psychol.. 1943, 17, 237-249.

*429. Richardson, H.M. & Leadership as related to the Bernreuter Hanawalt, N.G. Personality Measures: III. Leadership among adult men in vocational and social activities. J. appl. Psychol. 1944, 28, 308-317.

430. Riggs, F.B. Leadership. Educ.. 1927, 48, 115-122.

431. Roff, M. A study of combat leadership in the Air Force by means of a rating scale: group differences. J. Psychol. 1950, 30, 229-239. 154 452. Rohrback, Q.A.W. Training in leadership. Amer. Educ. Digest.. 1 9 2 6, 45, 589-591; 421.

455* Rosenthal, D. & The effect on group performance of an Oofer, O.N. indifferent and neglectful attitude shown by one group member. J. exp. Psychol.«~ 1948, 58, 5 6 8-5 7 7 .

454. Ross, E.A. Principle of balance in leadership of society. Amer. J. Soc.. 1918, 25, 801-820.

455* Rossman, J. Study of childhood-education and age of 701 inventors. J. Pat. Off. Soc.. 1955? 17, 411-421. 456. Rosloi*, S. Nation-wide and local validation of the P.Q. or Personality Quotient Test. J. appl. Psychol.. 1940, 24, 529-559.

457* Ruckmick, C.A. The history and status of psychology in the United States* Amer. J. Ps?/chol.. 1912, 25, 517-551.

458. Ruckmick, O.A. The last decade of psychology in review (1905-1915). Psychol. Bull.. 1916, 15, 517-551.

459. Sacks, J.G. Psychological principles and military leadership. Milit. Surg.t 1950? 107? 58-41.

440. Sanderson, D. A preliminary group classification based on structure. Soc. For.. 1958, 1 7, 1 9 6-2 0 1. 441. Sanderson, D. & Studies in rural leadership. Sociol. Soc.. Nafe, R.W. 1929, 25, 165-175.

442. Sands, W.F. Leadership and the masses. Commonweal, 1952, 16, 7-8. 155

445. Sanford, P.H. Some characteristics of the follower which influences leadership phenomena. Amer. Psychologist. 194-9, 4, 2 6 2-2 6 5*

*444. Sanford, F.H. Authoritarianism and Leadership. Philadelphia! Inst. Res. Human Rel., 1950<

445. Santayana, G. Natural Leadership. New Republic. 1915* 5, 555-554.

446. Schneider, J. The cultural situation as a condition for the achievement of fame. Amer. Sociol. Rev.. 1957,2, 480-491.

447. Schuler, E.A. A study of the consistency of dominant and submissive behavior in adolescent boys. J. genet. Psychol., 1955, 46, 405-452.

*448. Seeman, M, & Outline of a research proposal on the MorriB, R.T. relation of status factors to leadership, Ohio State Univ. Person. Res. Educ. Report7 1948.

449* Segard, O.P. Thirty-three essentials of leadership. Indus. Psyohol., 1927, 5, 270-275*

450. Sensenig, H. Government by the fittest to govern. Educ., 1926, 47, 129-146.

451. Silignan, O.G. The Melanesians of British New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910.

452. Severin, F.T. A factor analysis of leadership among boys. Unpublished Masters Thesis Catholic University, 1959* 1?6

453. Seybold, A.M. Training the talented for successful careers. Junior-Senior H.S. Clearing House 1929, 4, 104-109.

454. Shaffer, K.H. Discovering and developing leadership abilities in management personnel. Advanced Mgmb., 1948, 13, 83-87.

455. Shakow, D, Group dynamics, III Discussion. Amer. J . Orthopsvchiat. 1951, 21, 32-35.

456. Shannon, J.R. The post-school careers of high school leaders and high school scholars. Sch. Rev.. 1929, 37, 656-665.

457. Sharp, F.C. Education for Character. Indianapolis: Robbs-Merrill, 1917. h458. Shartle, C.L. Leadership and executive performance. Personnel. 1949, 25, 370-380.

*459. Shartle, C.L. Leadership aspects of administrative behavior. Amer. Psychol. Assn. Pres. Address Div. Bus. & Industrial Psychol. 1950.

460. Shartle, C.L.; Pilot Study of a B-50 Air Crew. Hemphill, J.K.; Washington 25, D.C.: HRRL Report No 21 Hites, R.W. & 1 Feb. 1951. Bruner, E.

461. Shaver, E.L. What is an adequate program of leader­ ship training. Internl. J. Religious Educ.. 1931, 7, 10-11.

462. Shaw, M.E. A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. Amer. J. Psychol. 1 932, 44, 491-504. 157 463. Sheldon, W.H. Social traits and morphologic type. Person. J. 1927, 6 , 47-55.

464. Shelley, H. Questionnaire study of cohesiveness and satisfaction outcome. Univ of Mich Conf. Res. Report. July, 1948.

465. Sherif, M. An Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Bros., 1948.

466. Sidis, B. Philistine & Genius. Boston: Richard G. Badger, 1917.

467. Simpson, H.H. A study of those who influence and of those who are influenced in discussion. Te ach. Coll. Contr. Educ.. 1938, No. 748.

468. Smith, C. So cial Selection in community leader­ ship. Soc. For.T 1937, 15, 530-545.

469. Smith, H.L. Six long steps toward future leadership. Prog. Teach. 1930, 39, 23-33.

*470. Smith, HIL. & A brief summary of literature on Krueger,, L„M» leadership. Bull. Sch. of Educ. In diana Univ. 1933, 9 No. 4.

471. Smith M. Comparative study of Indian student leaders and followers. Soc. For.. 1935, 13, 418-426.

472. Smith, M. Leadership: The management of social differentials. J. abnorm soc. Psychol. 1935-6, 30, 348-358.

473. Smith, M. Social situation, social behavior, social group. Psychol. Rev. 1945, 224-229. 158 474. Smith, M. & A study of social participation and Nystrom, W.C. of leisure time of leaders and non­ leaders. J. appl. Psychol. 1937, 21, 251-259.

475. Smith, T.V. Democratic leadership. Sci Mon.. 1925, 21, 613-628.

476. Smith, T.V. T he Democratic Way of Life. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1926.

477. Snedden, D. Aspirational notions of leadership. S ch. & Soc.. 1930, 31, 661-664.

478. Sorokin, P.A, Social Mobility. New York: Harper, 1927.

479. Sorokin, P.A. Leaders of labor and radical movements in the United States and foreign countries. Amer. J. Sociol.. 1927, 33, 382-411.

480. Sorokin, P.A. & Farmer leaders in the United States. Zimmerman, C.C. Soc. For.. 1928, 7, 33-46.

481. South, E.B. So me psychological aspects of committee work. J. appl. Psychol.. 1927, 11, 348-368.

482. Sparks, C.P. & A re p ort on the evaluation of leader­ Edgerton, H.A. ship potential of pre-flight Navcads . ONR Richardson, Bellows, and Henry, 1951.

483. Spaulding, C.B. Types of junior college leaders. Sociol. & Soc. Res.. 1933, 18, 164-168.

484. Spicer, E. Pascua.'A Yaaui Village in Arizona. Chicago: Chicago Univ Press, 1940. 159 485. Starbuck, E.D, The age of conversion IN The Psychology of Religion. New York: Scribners, 1899.

486. Starch, D. How to Develop Your Executive Ability New York: Harper, 1943.

487. Staton, T.F. An analysis of the effect of individuals on seminar discussion. Abstract A.P.A. Meeting. Boston, 1948.

488. Sterling, T.D. & The relationship of changing leadership Rosenthal, B.G. and followership in a group to the changing phases of group activity. Amer. Psychologist. 1950, 5, 312.

489. Steward, J.C. & Lack of correlation between leadership Scott, J.P. and dominance in a herd of goats. J. comp. Physiol. Psychol. 1947, 40, 255-264.

*490. Stogdill, R.M. Personal factors associated with leader­ ship. A survey of the literature. J. Psychol.. 1948, 25, 35-71. (124 references)

491. Stogdill, R.M. Studies in Naval Leadership: An out­ line of methods and progress. Ohio State Univ. Personnel Res. BB. Report October, 1948.

492. Stogdill, R.M. Leadership, membership and organization. Psychol. Bull.. 1950, 47, 1-14.

493. Stogdill, R.M. & Methods for determining patterns of Shartle, C.L. leadership in relation to organizations structure and objectives. J. appl. Psychol. 1948, 32, 286-291.

494. Stone, R.C. Status and leadership in a combat fighter squadron, Amer. J. Sociol.. 1946, 51, 388-394. 140 495. Stray, H.F. Leadership traits of girls in girls' camps. Sociol. & Soc. Res.. 1934, 18, 241-250.

496, Stroop, J.R. Is the judgment of the group better than that of the average member of the group. J. exp. Psychol. 1932, 15, 550-562.

497. Sward, K. Temperament and direction of achieve- memt. O', abnorm . soc. Psychol. 1933, 4, 406-429.

498. Swetman, R.W. Leadership. Sierra Educ. News. 1929, 25, 25-26.

499. Swigert, I.S. A study of the qualities of leadership and administrative qualifications of thirty- e ight women executives. Master Thesis. Ohio State Univ. 1936.

500. Symonds, P.M. An analysis of tact. J. Educ Res. 1930, 21, 241-254.

501. Symonds, P.M. Role playing as a diagnostic procedure in the selection of leaders. Sociatry. 1947, 143-150.

502. Taubman, R.E. The special leadership training program at the Signal Corps Officer Dandidate School. J. appl. Psychol. 1947, 31, 82-90.

503. Taussig, F.W. & American Business Leaders. New York: Joslyn, C.S. Macmillan, 1932.

504. Tead, 0. The Art of Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955.

505. Tead, 0. Instincts in Industry. New York: Ho ughton-Mifflin, 1918. 141 506/ Tead, 0. The technique of creative leadership. Human Natdre and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1929.

*507. Terman, L.M. A preliminary study in the psychology and pedagogy of leadership. Ped. Sem.. 1904, 11, 413-451.

508/ Terman, L.M. et al Genetic Studies of Genius: I. Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Stanford Univ: Stanford Univ. Press, 1925.

509. Thelen, H.A. Three frames of reference: the descrip­ tion of climate. Human Rel., 1949, 2 , 159-176.

510. Thomas, W.I. & The definition of the situation. IN Znaniecki, F. Newdomb & Hartley (ED) Readings in Social Psychology. Part II Sec 2, New York: Holt, 1947.

511. Thorndike, E.L, The relation between intellect and morality in rulers. Amer. J. Sociol. 1936, 42, 321-334.

512. Thorndike? R.L, On what type of task will a group do well, J. abnorm soc. Psychol.. 1938, 33, 409-413.

513. Thorndike, R.L. The effect of discussion ppon the correct­ ness of group decisions when the factor of majority influence is allowed for. J. socl Psychol. lgSS', 9, 343-362.

514. Thrasher, F. The Gang: A study of 1.315 gangs in Chicago. Chicago: Chicago Univ Press, 1927. 142 515. Thurstone, L.L. A Factorial Study of Perception. Chicago: Chicago Univ Press., 1944, pp.148.

516. Titchener, E.B. The past decade in experimental psychology. Amer. V. Psychol.. 1910, 21, 404-421.

517. Titchener, E.B. Experimental psychology: A retrospect. Amer. J. Psychol..1925. 36, 313-323.

518. Titus, C.H. The Processes of Leadership; Human Relations in Making. Dubuque, la; Wm Brown Co, 1950

519. Toki, K. Leader-follower structure in school classes. Jap. J. Psychol. 1935, 10, 27-56.

520. Trotter, W. Instincts of the Herd IN Peace and War (2nd Ed) New York: Macmillan, 1916.

521. Tryon, C.M. Evaluations of adolescent personality by adolescents. Ivlonog. Soc. Res. Child. Devel. 1939, 7, 224-236.

522. Uhrbrock, R. S. & Item analysis: the basis for constructing Richardson, M.W. a test for forecasting supervisors ability. Personnel J. 1933, 12, 141-154.

523. Van Dusen, A.C. Measuring leadership ability. Personnel Psychol. 1948, 1, 67-79.

524. Van Waters, M. The child who is a leader. Survey. 1927, 58, 498-505.

525. Vieth, P.H. Objectives in Religious Education. N Y : Harper, 1930.

526. Viteles, M.S. Industrial Psychology. New York: Norton, 1932. 145

527* Visher, S.S, Scientists starred 1903-1945 in “American Men of Science” Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1947.

528. Warner, M.L. Influence of mental level in the formation of boys' gangs. J. appl. Psychol. 1923, 7, 224-236.

529. Warren, R.L. Cultural, personal and situational roles. Soclol. & Soc. Res.. 1949, 34, 104-111.

530. Wataon, G.B. Do groups think more efficiently than individuals. J. abnorm soc. Psychol. 1929, 23, 328-336.

531. Webb, U. Character and intelligence. Brit. J. Psychol. Monog. 1915, No.20

532. Weigle, L.A. Why leadership training Internatl J. Religious Educ. 1931, 7, 7-9: 18. g3S. Wert, L.E. Student leadership. Natl,Educ. Ass^Add. & Proc. 1922, 783-787.

534. Westburgh, E.M. A point of view: studies in leadership. J. abnorm soc. Psychol. 1931, 25, 418-423.

535. Wetzel, W.A. Characteristics of pupil leaders. Sch. Rev.. 1932, 40, 532-534.

536. White, R.W. The Abnormal Personality New York: Ronald Press, 1948.

537. Whyte, W.F. Leader-follower relations in street corner society. IN Nev/comb & Hartley (ED) Readings in Social Psychology. Part IX Sec. 1 New York: Holt, 1947. 144 538. Wilkins, E.H. On the distribution of extra-curricular activities. Sch & Soc.. 1940, 51, 661-656.

539. Williams, S.B, Group opinion as a predictor of Leavitt, H.J. military leadership. I. consult. Psychol 1947, 11, 283.-291.

540. Williams. S.B. & Methods of selecting Marine Corps office Leavitt, R.J. candidates IN Kelly, C.A. New Methods in Applied Psychol.. Univ of Maryland, 1947 (pp 96-99)

541. Wilson, E.J. Betio Beachhead. New York: Putnam, 1945. Lucas, J.G.; Shaffer, S. & Zurlinder, C.P.

542. Winston, S. Studies in negro leadership: age and occupational distribution of 1608 negro leaders. Amer. J. Sociol. 1932, 37, 595- 602.

543. Winston, S. Bio-social characteristics of American inventors. Amer. sociol. Rev.. 1937, 2, 837-849.

544. Woods, W.L; Selection of Officer Candidates. Brouha, L. & Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press, 1943. Seltzer, C.C.

545. Woods, F.A. Mental and Moral Heredity in Royalty. New York: Holt, 1906.

546. Woodworth, R.S. Individual and group behavior. Amer. J. Sociol.. 1939, 44, 823-828.

547. Yoder, A.H. The study of the boyhood of great men. Ped. Sem.. 1894, 3, 134-156.

548. Young, P.T. Motivation, feeling and emotion. IN Andrews (ED) Methods of Psychol.. N Y : Wiley & Sons, 1948 (chapt 13). 145 549. Zander, A.F. Role playing: a technique for training the necessarily dominating leaders. Sociatrv. 1947, 1, 225-235.

550. Zeleny, L.D. Characteristics of group leaders. Sociol. & Soc. Research. 1939, 24, 140-149.

551. Zeleny, L.D. Objective selection of group leaders. Sociol & Soc. Res.. 1939, 24, 326—336,

552. Ziegler, J.H. A study of leadership among boys. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Catholic Univ. 1937.

553. Znaniecki, F. The Method of Sociology. New York: Farrar & Rhinehart, 1934.

554. Znaniecki, F. Social groups as products of partici­ pating individuals. Amer. J. Sociol. 1939, 44, 799-811. APPENDEX I Table I. Birthplace (Questionnaire Item 2 ) 147

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I &II 1 ,1 1 , 1 1 1 Total Arkansas 1 1 1 California 1 4 2 1 5 7 8 Colorado 1 1 1 2 Connecticut S 3 2 5 5 Florida 1 1 1 1 Georgia 1 1 1 1 2 Illinois 4 7 3 1 1 14 14 Indiana 4 3 3 7 10 10 Iowa E S 3 1 4 7 8 Kansas 1 4 1 1 5 Kentucky 1 1 1 Maine 1 1 1 2 3 3 Maryland 1 1 1 Massachusetts 4 9 4 1 13 17 18 Michigan 1 2 1 1 3 4 Minnesota 3 1 1 3 4 5 Missouri 1 2 1 3 3 Montana 1 1 1 1 Nebraska 4 1 3 2 5 8 10 New Hampshire 1 1 1 1 New Jersey 1 S 2 1 3 5 6 New York 3 6 8 3 9 17 20 North Dakota 1 1 1 1 Ohio 4 5 6 5 9 15 20 Oklahoma 1 1 1 Pennsylvania 8 3 4 3 1 1 15 18 Rhode Island 1 1 1 1 2 South Carolina S 2 2 2 Tennessee 1 1 1 1 Texas 2 2 Utah 1 1 1 2 3 3 Vermont 1 1 2 2 2 Virginia 1 2 1 3 3 Washington 2 2 2 West Virginia 1 1 1 1 Wisconsin E 1 1 3 3 4 Wyoming 1 1 2 2 2 Dist. of Columbia 1 1 Tenv.of U.S. (Alaska, Hawaii) 1 ~ 1 1 Germany 1 4 1 1 5 6 7 France 3 3 3 3 Russia (Latvia.Esthonia) 2 1 2 3 3 India E 1 2 2 3 Poland 1 1 1 1 Canada 3 1 3 4 4 Australia 2 2 2 Switzerland 1 1 1 1 Czechoslovakia 1 1 1 1 Other 1 1 1 1

Not Listed: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Louisana, Mississippi, Nevada, ’New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota Table 2. Birthplace (Questionnaire Item 2) 148

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

N.E. 9 21 16 5 30 46 51 M.E. 11 5 9 5 16 25 30 S. 1 4 1 1 5 6 7 M.W. 15 16 15 7 31 46 53 N.P. 11 4 9 8 15 24 32 S.P. 0 0 2 3 0 2 5 N.W. 2 1 2 0 3 5 5 s.w. 2 5 3 1 7 10 11 Total 51 56 57 30 107 164 Foreign 2 17 4 2 19 23

Table 3. Birthplace (Questionnaire Item 2 )

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

N.E. 35 42 40 17 77 117 134 S.E. 1 4 1 1 5 6 7 N.W. 13 5 11 8 18 29 37 s.w. 2 5 5 4 7 12 16 Foreign 2 17 4 2 19 23

Table 4. Birthplace - Percentages (Questionnaire Item 2)

I II III IV LVG DVG LTG NL

N.E. .68 .57 .64 .53 S *E . .02 .06 .02 .03 N.W. .26 .07... .18 .24 S.W. ..02 .07 .08 .12 Foreign .02 - .23 .07 _ .06 Table 5. Birthdates (Questionnaire Item 3) 149

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

1842 2______2______2______2 1844 1______1______1______1 1846 1______1______1______1 1847 1______1______1______1 1851 1______1______1 ______1 1852 1______1______1______1 1855 1______1______1______1 1857 1______1______1______1 1859 ______3______3______3______3 1860 2______2______2______2 1861 1______1______1______1 1862 1______1______1______1 1863 ______4______4______4______4 1864 1______1______1______1 1865 2______2______2______2 1866 1______3______4______4______4 1867 ______4______4______4______4 1868 1______1______1______1 1869 3______2_____ ;______5______5______5 1870 1______1______1______1 1871 ______3______3______3______3 1872 1______1______2______2______2 1873 1______3______4______4______4 1874 ______3______3______3______3 1875 ______3______3______3______3 1876 1 1 2______2______2 1877 2 1______3______3______3 1878 ______3______3______3______3 1879 1______1______1______1 188p 3______2______5______5______5 1882 1______1______1______1 1883 1______1______2______2______2 1884 5______2______5______5______5 1885 2______1______3______3______3 1886 3______1_____ I______4______5______5 1887 3______1_____ I______4______5______5 1888 ______1_____ 2______1_____ 1______3______4 1889 1 1_____ 1______2______3______3 1890 2 2_____ 3______4______7______7 1891 1_____ 1______1______2______2 1892 3 ______2______3______5______5 1893 1______1_____ 2______3_____ 2______4______7 1894 2______2______2_____ 2______4__ 6 1895 1______1______1_____ 1______2______3 1896 ______2______I______2______3 1897 2 ______3_____ I______5______6______6 1898 1______3______1______£______4 1899 ______3______3 3 1901 1______3______1_____ 1______4______5 1902 1______2_____ 6______2_____ 3______9______11 1903 1______4______3_____ 1______5______8 1904 5______5______2_____ 3______8 10 (continued) Table 5. (Continued) Birthdates (Questionnaire Item 3) 150

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

1905 1 1 1 1 2 3 1906 3 8 3 11 11 1907 1 1 1 1 1908 2 1 2 2 3 5 1909 2 3 2 5 1910 2 2 2 4 1911 1 1 1 1 2 1912 3 3 3 1913 1 2 1 3 1914 2 2 1915 2 1 2 3 1917 2 2 Unknown 2 2 2 2

Table 6 . Birthdates (Questionnaire Item 3)

I II III IV LVG DVG LTG NL

1842-1864 0 21 0 0 1865-1889 27 41 5 1 1890-1917 26 11 58 31 XX 0 0 0 0

1842-1862 0 16 0 0 1863-1885 20 42 0 0 31886-1905 26 13 44 17 1906-1917 7 2 19 15 Table 7. Father's Age at Time of Individual-' s Birth (Questionnaire Item 4A)

Father1s I II III IV Overall Age LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

20 2 2 21 2 2 22 1 2 1 1 3 23 2 2 2 24 1 1 1 1 2 3 25 1 2 2 1 3 5 26 1 3 4 1 4 8 27 4 3 1 4 7 8 28 3 3 1 3 6 7 29 1 2 1 1 3 4 30 4 1 9 2 5 14 16 31 1 4 1 1 5 6 32 4 1 2 4 5 7 33 2 6 1 2 8 9 34 4 2 1 4 6 7 35 6 7 6 13 13 36 2 2 2 4 4 37 1 1 1 2 38 1 1 1 1 2 39 1 1 1 1 40 2 3 1 2 5 6 41 2 4 1 2 6 7 42 1 1 43 2 1 2 2 3 44 2 2 2 45 2 2 2 4 4 46 1 1 1 2 2 48 2 1 2 2 3 49 1 1 1 2 50 * 1 1 55 1 1 1 1 Unknown ' 4 72 2 76 78 78

Table 8 . Father's Age at Time of Individual' s Birth (Questionnaire Item 4A)

53 73 63 32 LVG DVG LTG NL

20-29 13 0 16 16 30-39 25 1 32 9 40-49 11 0 13 6 50-55 1 0 0 1 XX 4 72 2 0 Table 9. Father's Age at Time (Percentages) of Individual's Birth (4A) 20-29 .25 0 .25. .50 30-39 .47 0 .51 .28 40-49 .21 0 .21 .1 ? 50-55 .02 0 0 .03 Table 10« Mother's Age at Time of Individual's Birth (Questionnaire Item 4B)

Mother's I II III IV Overall Age LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

18 1 1 19 1 2 1 1 3 20 1 1 21 1 1 4 1 2 6 22 3 1 3 3 4 7 23 1 3 1 1 4 5 24 1 2 3 1 3 6 25 3 1 4 1 4 8 9 26 2 8 1 2 10 11 27 3 8 1 3 11 12 28 4 4 1 4 8 9 29 3 2 3 5 5 30 6 8 4 6 14 18 31 2 3 1 2 5 6 32 4 2 1 4 6 7 33 3 4 1 3 7 8 34 3 1 1 3 4 5 35 5 5 1 5 10 11 37 1 1 1 2 38 1 1 1 2 39 1 1 1 2 2 40 2 1 1 2 3 4 42 1 1 1 1 2 3 Unknown 4 72 2 76 78 78

Table 1 1 . Mother's Age at Time of Individual' s Birth (Questionnaire Item ■ LVG DVG LTG NL

18-27 15 0 27 18 28-37 33 0 30 11 37-42 4 5 4 XX 4 73 2 0

Table 1 2 . Percentages - Mother •s Age at Time of Individual's Birth (Questionnaire Item 4B) 5

LVG LTG NL 18-27 .28 • 43 . .56 28-37 .62 .48 .34 37-42 _»Jp8___ .-*13 Table 13. Father 1s Name (Questionnaire Item 5A) 155 I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL Total

Albert 1 1 1 2 Alexander 2 1 1 Alvin 3 1 1 Archibald 4 1 1 Arthur 5 1 1 2 Augustus 6 1 1 Benjamin 7 2 1 3 Bird 8 1 1 Byron 9 ,1 1 Carl 10 1 1 Charles 11 2 4 3 2 11 Christian 12 1 1 1 3 Conrad 13 1 1 Cyrus 14 1 1 Daniel 15 1 1 2 Dickens 16 1 1 Diedrich 17 1 1 Dorman 18 1 1 Edgar 19 1 1 Edmund 20 1 1 2 Edward 21 1 2 1 4 Edwin 22 2 2 . Elisha 23 1 1 Elon 24 1 1 Emil 25 1 1 Eliphalet 26 1 1 Ernest 27 1 1 Ezekiel 28 1 1 Francis 29 1 1 Frank 30 2 1 1 4 Franz 31 1 1 Fred 32 1 1 George 33 2 2 6 4 14 Gerhard 34 1 1 Granville 35 1 1 Hamilton 36 1 1 Hans 37 1 1 Herman 38 1 1 Henri 39 1 1 Henry 40 2 1 4 1 8 Hiram 41 1 1 Ignatius 42 4 3 1 1 9 Jeremiah 43 1 1 Jesse 44 1 1 John 45 4 7 3 2 16 Joseph 46 4 2 6 Josiah 47 1 1 Leander 48 1 1 LeoDOld 49 1 1 Lon 50 1 1 (continued) Table 13. (Continued) Father’s Name (Questionnaire Item 5A) 154

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL Total

Marcus 51 1 1 Marshall 52 1 1 Matthew 53 1 1 Moritz 54 1 1 Robert 55 3 1 4 Russell 56 1 1 Samuel 57 1 3 2 6 Silas 58 1 1 1 3 Stanley 59 1 1 2 Steohen 60 1 1 Thomas 61 4 1 5 Walter Y62 1 2 3 Wilhelm 63 1 1 1 3 William 64 5 5 6 2 18 Wolcott 65 1 1 Paul 66 1 1 Guy 67 1 1 Homer 68 1 1 2 Duncan 69 1 1 Claude 70 1 1 Hiland 71 1 1 Jacob 72 1 1 1 3 Anthony 73 1 1 Ira 74 2 2 ■> Winnbert 75 1 1 Beverly 76 1 1 David 77 1 1 2 Meyer 78 1 1 Dale 79 1 1 Karl 80 1 1 Carson 81 1 1 Urias 82 1 1 Lin 83 1 1 Franklin 84 1 1 Summers 85 1 1 Ole 86 1 1 Jackson 87 1 1 Leo 88 1 1 Harry 89 1 1 Onias 90 1 1 Wilbur 91 1 1 Earl 92 1 1 Norman 93 1 1 Galen 94 1 1 Vincent 95 1 1 Unknown 11 1 12 Table 14. Father's Occupation (Questionnaire Item 5B) 1 5 5

Dictionary Group I Occupational Titles I II III IV Overall Professional: Code Number LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total

Accountant 1 4 4 4 Architect 3 1 1 1 1 Author, Editor or Reporter 6 1 1 1 2 Clergyman 8 5 10 5 ‘ 5 15 20 25 College presi­ dents or professors 11 5 2 3 5 7 10 County agent 12 1 1 1 1 Dentist 13 1 1 1 Civil Engineer 16 1 1 1 1 2 3 Electrical Engineer 17 2 2 2 Mechanical Engineer 19 1 1 1 Mining Engineer 20 1 1 1 Lawyer 22 2 3 1 2 5 6 Druggist 25 2 1 3 3 3 Physician 26 6 2 6 8 8 Social Worker 27 1 1 1 Teacher & Princi­ pal Secondary School 31 2 2 2 2 4 6 Professional Occup. 38 1 1 1

i

Group II

Photographer 56 1 1 1 1 Retail Manager 72 4 1 3 3 5 8 1 1 Wholesale Manager 73 1 1 Dept. Store Head 74 1 1 1 1 2 3 Purchasing Agent & . Buyers 91 1 1 1 Managers 99 1 1 1 2 Office Clerk 105 1 1 1 1 Mail Carrier 128 1 2 1 3 Shipping Clerk 134 1 1 1 1 Telephone Oper. 142 1 1 1 General Clerk 149 1 1 1 2 2 Salesman (Real Estt) 163 1 1 1 1 Sales Clerk 170 2 3 2 5 5 Sales Agent (Wholesale) 187 1 1 1 2 2 General Farmer 306 7 7 9 I 14 23 24 Farm Manager 337 1 1 1 1 2 3

(continued) Table 14. (Continued) Father's Occupation (Questionnaire Item 5B) 1 5 6

Dictionary Group III Occupational Titles II III IV Overall Code Number LVG DVG LTG NL L&II I,II,III Total

Lithocrapher 446 1 1 1 Jeweler 471 1 1 1 1 Sheet Metal Worker 480 1 1 1 2 Carpenter 525 1 2 1 3 3 Plumber 530 1 1 1 1 Locomotive Engineer 541 1 1 1 1 2 Millwright 578 1 1 Manufacturing Foreman 592 3 1 3 4 Typesetter 644 1 1 Electrician 697 1 1 1 Tobacco Manufacturer 812 1 1 1 1 Hat Manufacturer 824 1 1 Lumberman 830 1 1 1 1 Metal Worker 895 1 1 1 1 Transportation 0fficial949 3 2 3 5 Stationary Engineer 972 2 2 2 2 Mechanic 983 1 1 Unknown 52 2 52 54 54

Table 15. Father's Occupation (Questionnaire Item 5B)

53 73 63 32 LVG DVG LTG NL

Group I. 24 12 27 13 Group II. 20 9 23 10 Group III. 9 0 11 cl XX 0 52 2 0

Table 16. Percentages - Father's Occupation (Questionnaire Item 5B)

LVG DVG LTG NL

Group I, .46 .57 .44 — • 40 Group II. .38 .43 .38 _• 31 O O

Group III. .16 • .1 ® .28 Table 17. Mother's Name (Questionnaire Item 5C)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL Total

Abbie 1 - 3 3 Adeline 2 1 1 Ane 3 1 1 Anna 4 1 1 2 Ann 5 1 1 Bertha 6 1 1 2 Besse 7 1 1 Beulah 8 1 1 2 Blanche 9 1 1 2 Carrie 10 1 1 Christine 11 1 1 Clara 12 1 1 Cora 13 1 1 Elizabeth 14 1 2 2 5 Elsie 15 1 1 Emily 16 2 2 Frances 17 1 1 2 Gertrude 18 2 2 4 Gutherz 19 1 1 Helena 20 1 1 Henriette 21 1 1 Ida 22 1 3 1 5 Inez 23 1 1 Julia 24 2 2 Kathryn 25 2 2 Lessie 26 1 1 Lila 27 1 1 Lillian 28 1 1 1 3 Lydia 29 1 1 Lushnatta 30 1 1 Madge 51 1 1 Margaret 32 2 2 Martha •33 2 1 3 Mary 34 3 2 3 8 Merle 35 1 1 Nellie 36 1 1 Pearl 37 1 1 2 Rosa 38 1 1 2 Sara 39 1 1 1 3 Sue 40 1 1 Susan 41 2 2 Theresa 42 1 1 2 Veronica 43 1 1 Virginia 42 1 1 Willie Sue 43 1 1 Lillie 44 1 1 Grace 45 1 1 Sarah 46 2 1 3 Lenore 47 1 1 Bertha 48 1 1

(continued) Table 17. (Continued) • Mother's Name (Questionnaire Item 5C)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL Total

Fanny 49 2 2 Edna 50 1 1 Ines 51 1 1 Alma 52 1 1 Joie 53 1 1 Harrietts 54 1 1 2 Mattie 55 1 1 Mathilda 56 2 2 Sadie 57 1 1 Stella 58 1 1 Alida 59 1 1 Bonnie Bell 60 1 1 Laura 61 2 1 3 Alta 62 1 1 Ethel 63 1 1 Jane 64 1 1 Mabel 65 1 1 2 Maud 66 1 1 Augusta 67 1 1 Helen 68 1 1 2 Rolanda 69 1 1 Abigail 70 1 1 2 Eliza Jane 71 1 1 Lena 72 1 1 Libbie 73 1 1 Waldena 74 1 1 Louella 75 1 1 Jennie 76 1 1 Louise 77 1 1 Laila 78 1 1 Flora 79 2 2 Lois •80 1 1 Dorothea 81 1 1 Edith 82 1 1 Estella 83 1 1 Cenita 84 1 1 Annie 85 1 1 Sophie 86 1 1 Lucina 87 1 1 Ellen 88 1 1 Viola 89 1 1 Isabelle 90 1 1 Thelke 91 1 1 Annabelle 92 1 1 Rebecca 93 1 1 Unknown 4 70 2 76 Table 18* Father's Education (Questionnaire Item 6A) 159

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

Grammar School 1 13 21 8 13 34 42 High School 2 14 15 6 14 29 35 College (Some Tng) 3 6 6 8 6 12 20 College Degree (AB) 4 8 9 4 8 17 21 Masters Degree 5 2 7 3 2 9 12 Ph.D. Degree 6 3 1 2 3 4 6 M.D. Degree 7 5 3 5 8 8 Unknown 2 73 1 1 75 76 77

Table 19. Percentages - Father's Education (Questionnaire Item 6A)

53 63 32 LVG LTG NL 1 . .26 .34 .26 2 . .27 .24 .19 3. .12 .10 .26 4. .16 .15 .13 o 5. « .11 .10 6 . .06 .02 .07 7. ,-*10 .05 .00

Table 20. Mother's Education (Questionnaire Item 6B)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

Grammar School 1. 15______19 7______13______32______59 High School 2. 24______24 10______24______48______58 College (Some Tng), 5. 7______10 9______7______17______26 College Degree(AB) 4. 6______6 3______6______12______15 Masters Degree______5.______2______2______2 M.D. Degree______6.______1 1 Unknown 7. 3 75 2 2______76______78______80

Table 21. Percentages - Mother's Education (Questionnaire Item 6B)

53 63 32 LVG LTG NL

1 . .26 .31 .23. 2 . .48 .39 .33 3. .14 .16 .30 4. .12 .10 .10 5. .00 .03 .00 o o 6 . a .00 .00 o to o o o o • a 7. a Table 22. Number of Children in Family (Questionnaire Item 7A) 160

Number of Childred I II III XV Overall Who Reached AdolescenceLVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 1.- 7 1 11 6 8 19 25 2 . 10 19 6 10 29 35 3. 13 2 1 2 7 15 27 34 4. 1 1 2 6 4 13 19 23 5. 6 2 6 6 8 14 20 6 . 1 4 3 1 5 8 7. 3 1 3 4 4 8 . 1 2 1 3 3 9. 1 1 1 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 66 1 66 67 67

Table 23. Percentages-Number of Children in Family (Questionnaire Item 7A]

LVG DVG LTG NL 1 . .13 .13 .18 .19 2 . .19 .00 .31 .19 3. .25 ,25 .19 .22 4. .21 .25 .10 .13 5. .11 .25 .10 .19 6 . .02 ,00 .06 .10 7. .06 .00 .02 .00 8 . .02 ,00 .03 .00 9. .00 ,00 .02 .00 1 0 . .00 .00 .00 .00 1 1 . .02 .00 .00 .00

Table 24. Position in Family (Questionnaire Item 7B)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Position in 1. 23 3 33 21 26 59 80 Family 2. 9 2 15 5 1 1 26 31 (l-oldest) 3. 11 5 3 1 1 16 19 4. 5 1 1 2 6 7 9 5. 2 4 1 2 6 7 6 . 1 2 1 3 3 7. 1 1 1 2 3 3 8 . 1 1 1 1 9. 66 2 66 6 8 68

Table 25. Percentages-Position in Family (Questionnaire Item 7B)

LVG DVG LTG NL 1 . .43 ,43 .52 .66 2 . .17...... 29 .25 ,16 3. .21 .00 .08 .09 4. .09 .14 .02 .06 5. .04 .00 .07 .03 6 . .0 2 . ... .00 .03 .00 7. .02 .14 .02 .00 8 . .00 .00 .00 ■.00 9. .02 .00 .00 .00 Table 26 Age at Marriage (Questionnaire Item 8A) 161 I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LT(S NL I & II I,II,III Total

18 1 1 19 1 1 1 21 2 4 2 6 22 1 2 1 3 3 23 8 6 3 8 14 17 24 1 1 6 3 2 8 11 25 8 4 6 7 12 18 25 26 4 2 8 2 6 14 16 27 7 6 5 1 13 18 19 28 6 1 4 2 7 11 13 29 3 4 5 2 7 12 14 30 6 3 2 1 9 11 12 31 1 1 1 1 2 3 32 1 1 1 2 2 3 33 3 1 3 4 4 34 2 1 2 3 3 35 2 3 5 5 5 36 2 2 37 1 1 2 2 4 4 38 1 1 1 1 2 39 1 1 1 2 2 40 2 2 2 2 43 1 1 1 ' 2 2 44 1 1 1 1 45 1 1 1 1 56 1 1 Unknown 39 9 39 48 48

Table 27* Age at Marriage (Questionnaire Item 8A()

LVG BVG LTG NL 18-23 8 1 11 8 24-29 29 18 34 17 30-35 14 8 5 3 36-41 1 5 3 3 42-47 1 2 1 0 48-56 0 0 0 1 XX 0 39 9 0

Table 28. Percentages-Age at Marriage (Questionnaire

LVG DVG LTG NL 18-23 .15 .03 .20 .25 24-29 .55 .53 .63 .53 30-35 .26 .24 .09 .09 36-41 .02 .15 .06 .09 42-47 .02 .06 .02 .00 48-57 .00 *Q0 .00 .03 Table 29. Age at Which Individual Had First Child (Questionnaire Item 8B)

I II III IV Overall Age LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II, III Total

20 1 1 21 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 2 23 1 1 24 3 1 1 3 4 5 25 2 1 2 3 5 5 26 2 2 3 2 4 7 27 4 4 2 4 8 10 28 3 1 3 1 4 7 8 29 9 3 3 9 12 15 30 1 2 4 1 3 7 31 1 6 4 1 7 11 32 4 6 3 4 10 13 33 3 4 3 7 7 34 3 2 3 5 5 35 4 1 4 4 5 36 3 1 3 4 4 37 2 2 2 39 1 1 2 1 2 4 40 2 2 2 2 42 1 1 1 44 2 2 2 45 1 1 1 1 54 1 1 1 1 Unknown 6 71 19 5 77 96 101

Table 30. Age at Which Individual Had First Child (Questionnaire Item 8B)

LVG DVG LTG NL

20-23 0 2 3 24-29 23 15 10 30-35 16 20 12 36-41 6 4 2 42-47 1 3 0 48-56 1 0 0 XX 6 73 19 5

Table 31. Percentages-Age at Which Individual Had First Child (Item 8B)

LVG DVG LTG NL

20-23 .00 .05 .11 24-29 .49 .34 .37 30-35 .34 __.45 .44 36-41 .13 . .09 .07 42-47 .02 __ .07 .00 o o • » o 48-56 .02 o 165 Table 32. Number ot Children Individual Has Had (Questionnaire Item 8C)

Number of I II III IV Overall Children LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

1 8 6 12 5 14 26 31 2 22 11 22 13 33 55 68 3 6 6 9 7 12 21 28 4 6 9 1 2 15 16 18 5 4 3 1 7 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 10 1 1 1 1

Table 33. Percentages-Number of Children Individual Has Had (Item 8C)

LVG DVG LTG NL

1 .17 .16 .27 .19 2 .47 .30 .49 .48 3 .13 .16 .20 .26 4 .13 .24 .02 .07 o 00

5 .09 • .02 .00 o o o o • 8 .00 .05 • o o o o o o • • 10 .02 • T&blo 34* Marriage Dates (Questionnaire Item 9A) 1 6 4

first mar riag e I II III IV Overall Year LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I, II, H I Total 1869 1 1 1 1 1878 1 1 1 1 1879 1 1 1 1 1880 1 1 1 1 1881 1 1 1 1 1882 1 1 1 1 1884 1 1 1 1 1886 1 1 1 1 1887 1 1 1 1 1888 2 2 2 2 1889 1 2 3 3 3 1891 1 1 1 1 1894 1 2 3 3 3 1895 1 1 1 1 1896 2 2 2 2 1897 1 1 1 1 1898 4 4 4 4 1899 1 1 1 1 1900 2 2 2 2 1901 2 2 2 2 1902 1 1 1 1 1903 1 2 3 3 3 1904 2 2 4 4 4 1905 3 1 4 4 4 1906 1 1 1 1 1907 1 1 1 1 1908 3 2 5 5 5 1909 1 1 1 1 1911 2 1 3 3 3 1912 2 2 2 2 1913 3 3 3 3 1914 2 1 1 3 4 4 1915 2 2 2 2 1916 1 1 1 1 1917 2 3 2 2 5 7 9 1918 2 1 3 3 3 1919 1 1 1920 4 1 1 2 5 6 8 1921 1 1 1 1 1922 1 2 1 3 3 1923 1 1 3 2 5 5 1924 2 2 1 4 5 5 1925 1 1 4 2 2 6 8 1926 2 6 2 2 8 10 1927 2 4 2 1 6 8 9 1928 1 6 2 1 7 9 1929 1 6 3 1 7 10 1930 1 1 1 2 2 1931 4 1 1 4 5 6 1932 2 2 3 2 4 7 1933 3 £ 2 5 7

((Continued) Table 34. (Continued) Marriage Dates (Questionnaire Item 9A) 1 6 5

FIRST MARRIAGE (cont'd) I II III IV Overall Year LVG DVG LTG NL I & II 1,11,III Total 1934 2 2 2 1935 1 4 1 5 5 1936 1 2 3 1 3 6 1938 2 1 2 3 1939 1 4 1 1 5 1942 1 1 1 1943 1 1 1 1945 1 1 1946 1 1 1 1950 1 1 1952 1 1 Unknown 16 9 16 25 25

SECOND MARRIAGE (Questionnaire item 9B)

1895 1 1 1 1 1897 1 1 1 1 1899 1 1 1 1 1917 1 1 1 1 1920 1 1 1 1 1922 1 1 1 1925 1 1 1 1 1927 1 1 1 1 1930 1 1 1 1932 2 2 2 2 1935 1 1 1 1936 J. 1 1 1 1937 2 2 2 2 1938 1 1 1 1939 1 1 1 1 2 1940 1 1 1 1 1942 1 1 1943 1 1 1 1 1945 1 1 1946 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1947 1 1 1 2 2 1949 2 1 2 3 3 1951 1 1 Unknown or Zero 42 64 56 27 106 162 189

THIRD MARRIAGE (Questionnaire Item 90)

1952 1 1 1 1 Unknown or Zero 52 73 63 32 125 188 220

Table 35. Marriage Dates (Item 9A,b ,C) Table 36. Percentages (item 9A<*B, LVG DVG LTG NL LVG DVG LTG NL 1st Marriage 53 68 54 32 1st Marriage l.QQ .93 .85 1.00 2nd Marriage 12 9 7 5 2nd Marriage .22 .12 .11 .15 3rd Marriage 1 0 0 0 3rd Marriage .02 .00 .00 .00 Table 37. Father's Residence During Individual's Youth (Item 10) 166

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total On a farm 1. 6 2 10 3 8 18 21 In a rural village (1000 or less) 2. 10 1 6 3 11 17 20 In a small city (10,000) 3. 15 2 11 10 17 28 38 In a moderate sized city (50,000) 4. 7 1 12 6 8 20 26 In a large city (100,000 or more) 5. 13 17 10 13 30 40 In a suburb of a large city 6. 2 6 2 8 8 Unknown 67 1 67 68 68

Table 38. Percentages-Father * s, Residence During Individual's Youth (Item

LVG DVG LTG NL 1. .11 .16 .09 2. r 19 .10 .09 3. .28 .18 .31 4. .13 .18 .19 5. .24 .27 .31 6. .04 .10 .00

Table 39. Socioeconomic Status of Family (Questionnaire Item ll)

I II III IV Overall LOWER. LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Very Poor 1. 3 1 3 3 4 Comparatively Poor 2. 8 2 13 7 10 23 30

MIDDLE In Moderate Circumstances3. 20 3 27 16 23 50 66 Better than Average 4. 16 11 6 16 27 33

UPPER Comparatively well-off 5. 5 2 11 2 7 18 20 Well-to-do 6 • . 1 1 1 1 Unknown 66 1 66 67 67

Table 40. Socioeconomic Status of Family (Questionnaire Item ll)

LVG DVG LTG NL U. 6 11 2 M. 36 38 22 L. 11 13 8

Table 41. Percentages-Socioeconomic Status of Family (Questionnaire Item ll)

LVG DVG LTG NL U. .11 .17 ,06 M. .68 t60 .67 167 Table 42. Fathers Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12A)

I II III IV Overall H H H LVG DVG LTG NL I & II H ,111 Total

Agriculture, Fishing. Forestry 1 1 1 2 Psychology 1 1 1 Social Sciences 2 2 2 Natural Sciences 1 1 1 1 Politics 1 1 1 1 2 Business 3 1 3 3 4 7 Professional 9 9 4 9 18 22 Semi-Skilled 1 1 1 1 None 37 50 23 110 160 183

Table 43. Percentages - Fathers Outstandingly Successful (item 12A)

LVG DVG LTG NL Agriculture, Fish. .Forestry• .02 ^03 Psychology .02 Social Sciences .03 Natural Sciences .02 Politics .02 .03 Business .06 .02 .09 Professidnal ♦ 18 .14 .11 Semi-Skilled .02 None .69 7.9 ..*74 Table 44. Mothers Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12B)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Psychology 1 1 1 1 Social Sciences 1 1 1 Business 1 1 1 1 Professional 3 3 3 3 6 9 None 48 59 29 121 180 209

Table 45. Percentages - Mothers Outstandingly Successful (Item 12B)

LVG DVG LTG NL

Psychology .02 Social Sciences .02 Business .02 Professional .06 .05 .09 None „,91 „ ... .94 .91 Table 46. Uncles Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12C)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry _1______1______1______1 Social Sciences______2______2______4______4 Natural Sciences _2______13-2______3______6 Politics______2______1______2______3______3 Business _8______9 4____8_____ 17_____ 21 Professional _3______4 2____3______7______9 None _35_____ 46 23 108 154 177

Table 47. Percentages - Uncles Outstandingly Successful (item 12C)

LVG DVG LTG NL Agri culture, etc. .02 Social Sciences .04 .03 Natural Sciences .04 .02 .09 Politics .04 .02 Business .15 .14 *12. Professional .06 .06 .06 None .66 •J3 .72...

Table 48. Brothers Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12D)

I II III IV Overall LVGf DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total Psychology 2 1 2 3 3 Social Sciences 4 1 4 4 5 Natural Sciences 2 2 2 4 4 Politics 1 1 Business 2 7 3 2 9 12 Professional 7 6 4 7 13 17 None 36 47 23 109 156 179

Table 49. Percentages - Brothers Outstandingly Successful ( Item 12D)

LVG DVG LTG NL o C\1 Psychology .04 « Social Sciences .08 .03 Natural Sciences .04 .03 Politics ,03 Business .04 .11 .09 H o Professional .13 • ,12 to -a None ,68.. .. ,75 » 169 Table 50. Sons Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12E)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total Psychology _JL______2 2_____ 2______4 _ Social Sciences _1______1______1______1 Natural Sciences _2______1______2_____ 3______3 Business _1______1______1____ I____ Professional __2______1___ 2_____ 2______5___ None 46______62 29 118 180 209

Table 51. Percentages - Sons Outstandingly Successful (Item 12E)

LVG DVG LTG NL Psychology .02 .06 Social Sciences .02 Natural Sciences .04 .02

Business .02 1 1 0 • Professional .04 None .87 .98 .91

Table 52. Cousins Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12F)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II K,II,III Total

Psychology______1______1______1____ Social Sciences______1______1 1______1______§____ Natural Sciences______3___ 1____ 3____3______4 •_____ 7___ Business______5______3____2____5______8_____ 10___ Professional v______3____ 3____7____3______6______13____ None______41______55 19 114 169 188

Table 53. Percentages - Cousins Outstandingly Successful (Item 12F)

LVG DVG LTG NL

Psychology .02 Social Sciences .02 .03 ro o Natural Sciences .06 • .09 Business .09 .05 .06 Professional .06 .05 .22 None .77 .87 .59 170

Table 54. Grandfathers Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12G)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG N L I & II 1,11,111 Total Agriculture, Fishing Forestry __1______0______1______1______1 Social Sciences 1 1 1 2 2 Natural Sciences 1 1 Politics 2 2 2 4 Business 9 3 2 9 12 14 Professional 6 8 6 6 14 20 None 36 49 21 109 158 179

Table 55. Percentages - Grandfathers Outstandingly Successful (Item 12G)

LVG DVG LTG NL X Xv U X ULIX w p w w v t « W Social Sciences .02 .02 Natural Sciences .03 Politics .03 .06 Business .17 . .05 .06 Professional .11 .13 ..18 .

None . . 6 8 ...... • -a CO _.6 6 .„_

Table 56. Combined Relatives Outstandingly Successful (Quest. Item 12)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total

Semi-Skilled 1 1 1 1 Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry 3 1 3 3 4 Psychology 4 1 3 2 5 8 10 Social Sciences 9 6 2 9 15 17 Natural Sciences 10 5 7 10 15 22 Politics 3 3 4 3 6 10 Business 29 23 14 29 52 66 Professional 33 33 27 33 66 93 None 279 368 167

Table 57. Percentages - Combined Relatives Outstandingly Successful (Questionnaire Item 12)

LVG DVG LTG NL Agriculture etc Psychology .01 _ .01 .01 __ Social Sciences .03 .02 .01 Natural Sciences .03 . .01 .03 Politics .01 .01 .02 Business .08 .05 .06 Professional .09 _ .07 .12 Semi-Skilled .01 .01 o t O C None ...75 ...... 75 171

Table 58. Lineal Descent (Questionnaire Item 13)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total

Scotch 1 2 1 3 3 Irish 1 1 1 1 Scotch-Irish 2 2 1 2 4 5 German-Austrian 4 10 6 4 14 20 Scotch-Irish-German 1 3 1 4 4 French 1 1 Italian 1 1 1 Norwegian 1 1 1 S candinavian-Fins 2 1 1 3 3 4 English 16 2 8 8 18 26 34 German-English 2 4 2 2 6 8 Scotch-German-French-English 2 1 2 3 3 Hungarian 1 1 1 Scotch-Irish-English 3 4 3 7 7 Scotch-Irish-French 1 1 1 1 Iri sh-Engli sh 1 1 2 2 4 4 Scotch-Irish-German-Swiss 1 1 1 English-Irish-German-Swiss 1 1 1 2 English-American Indian 2 2 2 2 English-Dutch 1 1 1 1 Scotch-Irish-German-French- English-Dutch 1 1 1 1 Scotch-Dutch 1 1 1 Scotch-Irish-German-English 2 2 1 2 4 5 Scotch-English 2 6 1 2 8 9 Irish-Swiss 1 1 1 1 American Indian 1 1 1 Irish-German-Frenoh-English 2 2 Scot ch-German-Engli sh 1 1 1 1 2 German-French-English 2 2 2 Czechoslavakian 1 1 1 1 German-Swiss 1 1 1 1 2 Scotch-Irish-German-French 1 1 1 2 2 Jewish 1 1 1 Scotch-Irish-German-French- English 2 2 2 2 4 Scotch-English-French-Dutch 1 1 1 French-English 1 1 Russian-Polish-Jewish 1 1 Scotch-German-French-Dutch- English 1 1 (Continued) 172

Table 58. (Continued) Lineal Descent (Questionnaire Item 13)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,11,III Total Swedish-Danish 1______1______1______1 Scotch-Irish-Dutch 1 1 1 1 2 Scotch-French 1 1 1 Swiss 2 2 2 Ru s s ian-Engli sh ■ 1 1 1 Scotch-Irish-French-English 1 1 1 Unknown 69 2 69 71 71

American Indian 2 1 2 3 3 Austrian 4 10 6 4 14 20 Czechoslovakian 1 1 1 1 Danish 1 1 1 1 Dutch 3 2 2 3 5 7 English 33 3 27 19 36 63 82 Finnish 2 1 1 3 3 4 French 7 5 7 7 12 19 German 17 25 17 17 42 59 Hungarian 1 1 1 Irish 17 1 16 9 18 34 43 Italian 1 1 1 Jewish 1 1 1 2 Polish 1 1 Scandinavian 2 1 1 3 3 4 Scotch 20 26 8 20 46 54 Swedish 1 1 1 1 Swiss 2 4 2 2 6 8

Total 112 6 1 1 9 ___74 175

Table 59. Percentages - Lineal Descent (Questionnaire Item 13)

LVG DVG LTG NL

American Indian .02 .01 Austrian .04 .08 .08 Czechoslovakian • 01 Danish .01 Dutch .03 .02 .02 English .29 .22 .26 Finnish .02 .01 French .06 .04 .09 German .15 .21 .23 Hungarian .01 Irish .15 .14 .12 Italian .01 Jewish .01 .01 Polish .01 S candinavian .02 ...0.1.. . Scotch .18 . .22 .11 Swedish .01 Swiss .02 .03 .02 174

Table 60. Teaching Experience ( Questionnaire Item 14)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Alabama 1______1______1______1 Amherst 1______1______1______1 Antioch College 2 1______1____3______3______4 Arizona 1______1______1______1 Arkansas 1______1______1______1

Barnard______1______1______1. Berlin 2 2______4______4______4 Bowdoin 1___1______1______2______2. Brigham Young______1______1______1______1 Brooklyn Coll 4______4______4

Brown 5 1 1 2 ____6______7______9 Bryn Mawr 3 2 2 3 5 7 Bucknell 2 2 Buffalo 1 1 California 5 7 5 12 17 17

UCLA 1 2 2 3 3 5 Cal. State Normal 1 1 1 1 Cambridge (Eng.) 1 2 2 2 Carnegie Tech 3 3 3 6 9 9 Catholic Univ. 1 1 1 1

♦Chicago 4 12 5 16 21 21 Chico State Col. 1 1 1 Cincinnati 4 2 4 6 6 ♦Clark Univ. 5 6 5 1 11 16 17 Clark Coll 3 3 3 3

Colorado 1 2 2____1______3______5 Colorado State 3 3 3 ♦Columbia 14 14___8______28______36______36 Conn Coll (Women) 1______1______1 Conn Univ. ______1______1 (Continued) ♦Indicates nine PhD Colleges which produced bulk of Leaders (See Table 61 ). 175 Table 60. (Continued) Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 14)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II 1,11,111 Total ♦Cornell (New York) 7 14 3 3 21 24______27 Cornell (Iowa) ______1______1 Corpus Christie______1______1______1______1 Culver Mil. Acad.______1______1______1______1 Dartmouth 2____2__4____2_____4______8______10

Duke______1______1 1______1______2 Earlham______1______1______1______1_ Fenn Coll (OHIO) ______1______1______1 Florida 1 2______1______3 Fordham______2______2______2

Frankfurt 2 2______4______4______4 Freiburg 2______2______2______2 Georgia Inst. Tech. 1______1______1______1. George Washington 1 2______1______3______3 Giessen 1______1______1______1 GtJttingen 1 1 1______1

Grand Island Col. 1______1______1______1 Halle 1 1 1 1 Hamburg 1 1 1 1 ♦Harvard 13 13 6 1 26 32 33 Hawaii 1 3______1______4______4

♦Hopkins 11 1 1 11 12 13 Hunter 1 1 1 Illinois 4 6 3 1 10 13 14 Indiana 2 1 3 3 6 6 ♦Iowa (State Univ.) 3 5 3 8 11 11

Kansas 5 1 3 1______4______7______8 Kansas City U.______1______’______1 Kansas City T. 1______1 King C. (Tenn)______1______1______1 Lafayette ______1______1______1

(Continued) 176

Table 60. (Continued) Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 14)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II 1,11,111 Total Lake Forrest _____1______1______1 1 Lehigh 1 1______1______2 Leipzig 1 1______2______2______2 Liverpool UnivI _1______1______1.______1____ London 1 1______2______2______2____

Long Island U.______1____ 1______1 Louisiana State______1______,____ 1______1 Maine 1 2______1______3 Michigan 2 5 5 1_____5______10______11 Michigan State______2______2______2

Miami Univ. 1 1 Minnesota 2.1 6 6 2 1 7 23 25 Missouri 2 1 1 3 4 4 Mississippi 2 1 2 3 MIT 1 1 1 2 2

Montana 1 1 1 1 Nebraska 1 3 4 4 4 New Sch Soc R. 1 1 2 2 2 4 Northwestern 2 1 3 2 3 6 8 North Carolina 2 1 1 2 3 4

. N. Park Coll 1______1 CCNY (NYCC) _1______1______1______2______2 NYU 5 5 2______6______8______8 NY State Univ. 1 1 1______1 Oslo^Norway)______1______1______1

Oxford Coll Oxford (England) 2 2 2 2 Qberlin 1 1 1 1 2 Occidental 1 1 1 OSU 4 4 7 2 8 15 17

(Continued) 177

Table 60* (Continued) Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 14)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Ohio Univ. 1 1 1 Ohio Wesleyan 1 1 Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 Oregon 1 1 1 2 2 Park Col. (mo) 1 1

Paris Sch Soc 1 1 1______l Peabody 1__ 1 1 ______2______3______3 Pennsylvania 2 2 2 2_____4______6______8 Penn State 1______1______1 Penn C (Iowa) __1______1______1______1

Pittsburgh _1______2______1______3______3 Princeton 3 8 2 11 13 13 Purdue 1 1 1

Queens Coll 1 1 . 1 Radcliffe 1______1______1______1

Robert Coll Rochester Roosevelt San Jose Coll San Fran. St.

Simmons 1 1 1 1 Smith Coll 4 1 4 4 5 S. California 2 2 2 2 "Stanford 6 4 7 10 17 17 Stauton Mil 1 1

Stevens Inst. 1______1______1______1 Syracuse Univ. 2 1 2 2 3 5 Swarthmore 2 2 2 4 4 *Teach Col Col 2 3 2 5 5 Tennessee 1 1 1 1 2

(Continued) 178

Table 60. (Continued) Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 14)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Temple 1 1______1______2______2______3 Texas - 3 1______1______4______4______5 Toledo 1______1______l______l Toronto 1______1______i______l Tufts______2______2 2 2___

Tulane______1______l______l______l______2 Union (NY) l l______l______2 Ursinus Coll______1______1______1______l Utah 1 2______1______3______3 Valpariso 1______1______l

Vanderbilt 2______2______2 Vienna 1 1 1 1 Vincennes 1 1 1 1 Virginia 4 4 4 Washburn Coll 1 1 1 1

Washington (S) 1 1 1 2 3 3 Washington (SL) 1 1 2 2 4 4 Wells Coll 1 1 1 1 Wellesley C 3 2 1 5 6 6 Wesleyan Coll 1 1 1 1

Wesleyan Univ. . 3 2 1 2 ______5______6______8 Western Res 2____1______2_____ 3______3 West Virginia 1______1 Wheaton Coll -_____ 1______1______1 Williams '______1______1______1 1

Wilson Coll Wisconsin 2 5 5 1 7 12 13 Wurzburg 1 1 1 1 Wyoming 1 1 1 2 3 3 *Yale 11 13 4 1 24 28 29

(Continued) 179

Table 60. (Continued) Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 14)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Yeshiva Univ. 1 1 1 Denver William & Mary Sarah Lawrence Indiana St. Teach.

Military Sch. 1______1______1______1 Gettysburg C. 1______'______i Wittenburg C.______1______1______1 Tulsa 1______1 Baylor Univ.______1______1

Grinnell C. 1 1 1 Delaware 1 1 Kent State 1 1 1 Marquette (M) 1 1 1 listings 1

Mt. Vernon C. 1 1 1 Rhode Island 1 1 State Teach C 1 1 Bridgeport 1 1 1 2 2 American U* 1 1 1 1

Union Theol. • t______1______1______1. Mt. Holyoke______1______1______1______1 Kentucky______1______1 Behav Res F______1______1______1______1 City Psychol '______4______4______4 4 Grade Sch T______5______3 3______5______8_____ 11

Hospital (Cl)______2______1______2______2______3 Mellon Inst.______1______J______1______1 Natl Res F e l l ______1______1______1 Private Practice______1______1_____ 1______1 Private Business______1______1______1______1 (Continued) 180

Table 60. (Continued) Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 14) II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Public Sch Psy 1 1 1 Res Lab Psy 1 1 1 1 Tenerife 1 1 1 1 U S Employee 1 1 YMCA 1 1 1 2

H.S. Teacher 17 12 22 15 29 51 66

No, Colleges: 186 Total No. 186 264 218 97 450 668 765 Total Places .60 1.03 .94 .62 .63 2.57 3.19

* Indicates nine PhD Colleges which produced bulk of leaders (See Table 6l)

Table 61. Teaching Experience (Questionnaire Item 1< LVG DVG LTG NL Chicago 4 12 5 0 Clark 5 6 5 1 Columbia 16 14 11 0 Cornell 7 14 3 3 Harvard 13 13 6 1 Hopkins 0 11 1 1 Iowa 3 5 3 0 Stanford 6 4 7 0 Yale 11 13 4 1 Total 65 72 45 7

Table 62. Percentages-Taught in All Colleges (Questionnaire Item 14) LVG DVG LTG NL Number of Colleges .-.t.YK-.J;.60 1.03 - .94----- .62

Chicago __ ♦ 0_7 ___.11 .05 Clark .08 ,06 .05 .01 Columbia .27 ,13 .11 Cornell .11 ,13 .03 .05 Harvard .21 ,12 .07 .01 _ Hopkins tlO . ._Q1_ ..01 .... Iowa .05 ,05 .03 Stanford ..10. ,04 .08 Yale .18 ,12 .04 .01 1.07* .86 .. ...37 ...... ,0.9__ ^Percentages do not additively equal 100% as some leaders taught in more than one college i.e. 60 colleges but 65 teaching experiences. 181

Table 63. Other Professional Experience (Questionnaire Item 15)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I, II,III Total Brown 1 1 1 2 2 California 1 1 1 Chicago 4 1 4 5 Colorado St. 1 1 1 Columbia 2 1 2 2 3 5

Cornell (NY) 2 2 2 Harvard 4 4 4 4 Hopkins 3 3 3 Idaho 1 1 1 1 Indiana 2 2 2

Iowa (State U.) 1 1 1 2 2 Kansas 1 1 1 1 Michigan 1 1 1 Minnesota 1 2 1 3 Northwestern 1 1

NYCC (CCNY) 1 1 1 NY State U. 1 1 1 1 Oregon 1 1 1 Princeton 1 1 1 1 Purdue 1 1 1

Stanford 1 1 1 1 Swarthmore 2 2 Teach C. Coll 1 1 Vineland Tng 1 1 1 Western Res, 1 1 1 1

Yale 2 1 2 3 3 Denver 1 1 Rhode Island 1 1 Aetna Life 1 1 1 Am Mus•Nat 1 1 1 1 APA Admin. 2 1 1 2 3 4

(Continued) Table 63, (Continued) Other Professional Experience (Item 15)

1 n III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Behav Res F„ 2 2 2 2 Bellevue H, 1 1 1 Bethlehem S. 1 1 1 1 Carnegie Co. 1 1 1 1 City Educ D. 2 2 2

City Psychol. 5 5 5 Corres WW I & II 1 1 1 ' 1 Dunlap, Morr. 1 1 1 Educ, Res. C. 1 1 1 1 German Mil. 1 1 1 1

Govt Empl 1 1 Hosp. Clin. 2 13 4 2 15 19 Indust. Psy. 4 6 3 4 10 13 Inst. Wei Res. 1 1 1 1 Inst. Res HR 1 1

Life Ins SR 1 1 1 Mellon Inst. 1 1 1 1 NRC 5 1 4 2 6 10 12 Nat Res Fel 3 3 3 3 NDRC 3 1 1 3 4 5

OSS 1 1 1 2 Priv. Pract. • 7 3 5 7 10 15 Procter Fel 1 1 1 Priv. Bus. 1 5 1 1 6 7 Procter Gam. 1 1 1

Psy Corp 2 2 2 Psy Res Tng 1 1 1 1 Pub Sch Psy 2 1 2 3 Soc Sec Bd 1 1 1 SSRC 1 1 2 2 2

(Continued) 18 Table 65. (Continued) Other Professional Experience (Item 15) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I, II,III Total St. L. World F. 1 1 1 1 State Empl 1 1 2 1 2 4 State Educ. 1 2 1 3 USAF 1 3 1 4 4 USAF H. Res. 1 1 1 1

U S Army 7 2 6 4 9 15 19 U S Navy 4 2 4 6 USA Psy Prog 10 5 1 10 15 16 USAF P. Prog 1 2 1 1 3 4 USN Psy Prog 1 1 1 2

USPHS 1 1 1 US Dept Agr. 1 2 1 3 3 US Empl 6 7 6 13 13 VA 1 3 3 1 4 7 Yerkes Lab 2 2 2 2

YLICA 1 1 1 2 Fels Res. I. 1 1 Total No. 82 9 112 50 71 203 253 Total Places .39 .47 .29

Table 64. Present Teaching Load Per Week (Questionnaire Item 16A) HOURS TEACHING I II III IV Overall PER WEEK LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 2 1 3 1 1 4 5 3 4 2 1 4 6 7 4 4 5 1 4 9 10 5 7 4 7 11 11 6 9 8 5 9 17 22 7 4 2 4 6 8 5 4 5 o 9 9 1' 6 4 1 7 11 10 5 2 5 7 12 5 2 5 7 14 or more 1 6 1 7 Unknown 22 73 16 8 95 111 119

Table 65* Percentageg-Teaching Loan Per Week Table 66. (Questionnaire Item 16 A) Teaching Load Per Week LVG LTG NL LVG LTG NL (Item 16 A) 2. . 0 3 * 0 7 , 0 4 8. • jLO • v/w • KJKJ 3. ,13 _ ,04 .04 9. .03 .12 ..17.. LVG LTG NL H H H 00 o H • 4. . 1 3 . 0 4 . 1 0 . • • O O 5. . 2 2 . 0 8 • 1 2 . .ii .08 2-6 .80 .46 ,33 6 . .29 , 1 6 , 2 1 1 4 4 . .02 .25 7-14 .20 .54 .67 oo O o o O oo • • 7. • 184

Table 67. Administrative Duties Per Week (Questionnaire Item 16B)

Hours Administration I II III IV Overall Per Week LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 2 4 6 2 4 10 12 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 6 5 2 3 2 5 5 6 1 5 5 1 6 11 7 8 4 4 1 4 8 9 9 1 1 1 1 2 10 5 4 1 5 • 9 10 12 1 3 1 1 4 5 14 or more 11 21 14 11 32 46 Unknown 24 73 11 3 97 108 111

Table 68. Percentages - Administrative Duties Per Week (Item 16 B)

LVG DVG LTG NL • J-.**...... • J . C 3. .00 . 0 4 .07 4. . 0 0 .08 .07 5. .07 .06 .00 6. .0 3 .10 .17 o o « o 7. » o .00 8. . 1 4 .08 .03 o o

9. .0 3 . .03 o CO

1 0 . , .17 « .03 1 2 . .03 .06 .03 144. .39 .40 _ .♦ 4?__

Table 69. Percentages - Administrative Duties Per Week (Item 16 B)

LVG DVG LTG NL

2-5 . .21 .30 .21 6-9 .20 .18 .23 10-14 .59 ...... 54- .55 185 Table 70* Schools Which Recommended Outstanding Students Attended (Questionnaire Item 17)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Antioch Coll 1 1 1 1 Barnard 1 1 1 Brown 9 5 9 14 14 Bryn Mawr 3 3 3 Bucknell 2 2 Buffalo 4 4 California 10 5 10 15 15 UCLA 1 3 1 1 4 Carnegie Inst. 1 3 1 4 4 Chicago 11 9 11 20 20 Chico State Col 1 1 1 Clark Univ. 7 3 7 10 10 Clark Coll 2 2 2 2 ^Columbia 34 3 34 37 37 Cornell (Nf) 6 6 6 6 Dartmouth 1 1 3 1 2 5 Duke 3 3 Florida 3 5 3 8 Fordham 2 2 2 Frank furt 2 2 2 2 Harvard 21 5 1 26 27 27 Hopkins 3 3 2 3 6 8 Indiana 4 5 4 9 9 hIowa (State U.) 1 6 1 7 ' 7 Kansas 2 2 2 Kansas St. T. Col 1 1 Michigan 8 5 8 13 13 Minnesota 13 11 13 24 24 Missouri 2 6 2 8 8 Mississippi 5 1 5 6 MIT 1 1 1 Northwestern 4 5 4 9 9 N. Carolina 1 1 1 NYCC (CCNY) 2 2 2 2 NYU 1 1 1 OSU 3 3 1 3 6 7 Peabody 1 1 1 Pennsylvania 4 3 4 4 7 Penn State 1 1 1 Pittsburgh 2 2 2 Princeton 11 5 11 16 16 Purdue 5 5 5 Queens Coll 4 4 4 Rochester 2 3 2 5 5 Roosevelt 1 1 1

(Continued) 186 Table 70. (Continued) Schools Which Recommended Outstanding Students Attended (Questionnaire Item 17)

I II III IV Overall *8 H H LVGDVG LTG NL H I,II,III Total ♦Stanford 22 8 22 30 30 Syracuse Univ. 2 2 ♦Teach C Col. 4 5 4 9 9 Tennessee 1 1 Texas 2 2

Utah 1 ... 1 1 Virginia 10 10 10 Washington (S) 5 5 5 Washington SL 3 3 3 Wesleyan Univ 1 1 Western Res 3 3 3 W. Virginia 5 5 Wisconsin 5 1 2 6 8 8 Wyoming 4 4 4 ♦Yale 11 3 11 14 14 Yeshiva Univ. 1 1 1 Denver 4 4 4 Wittenburg 2 2 2 Tulsa 1 1 Hospital (Cl) 2 4 2 2 6 H.S. Teacher 1 1 202 11 167 45 213 380 425 No. Colleges 28 4 47 19

Table 71* Schools Which Recommended Outstanding Students Attended (Questionnaire Item 17)

LVG DVG LTG NL Chicago 11______9______Clark 7 3 Columbia 38 8 Cornell 6 Harvard 21 1 Hopkins 3 2 Iowa 1 6 Stanford 22 8 Yale 11 3 167

Table 72. Number of PhDs Supervised (Questionnaire Item 18)

I II III IV Overall No. PhDs LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 9 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 6 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 4 1 1 5 6 4 1 3 1 4 5 3 3 3 6 1 3 1 4 4 7 1 1 1 1 8 4 1 4 5 10 6 3 1 6 9 : 10 12 3 4 1 3 7 8 14 1 1 1 1 15 7 2 1 7 9 10 16 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 2 2 19 1 1 1 1 20 2 6 2 8 8 25 4 2 4 6 6 29 1 1 1 1 30 2 2 2 4 4 40 1 1 1 2 2 45 1 1 1 1 46 1 1 1 1 50 4 1 5 5 5 70 1 1 1 1 75 1 1 1 1 80 * 1 1 1 1 81 1 1 1 1 99 ' 2 1 2 3 3 Unknown 7 71 20 20 78 98 118 Total 46 2 43 12 Total No. PhDs Supervised 1300 599 56

Table 73. Number of PhDs Supervised (Item 18)

LVG LTG NL 0-7 5 16 8 8—16 .17 14 4 17-40 13 12 45-99 11 Table Jk. Journals, Laboratories, Societies, Businesses Established (questionnaire Item 19)

FOUNDED : Code No. I II III IV Overall Labs,J. LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total etc. Animal Behavior Monographs 1 1 ' 1 1 1 Archives of Psychology. 2 I 1 1 1 Comparative Psy. Monographs 4 2 2 2 2 Calif.J.Educ. Res. 5 1 1 1 Amer. Psychologist 6 1 1 1 J. Animal Behavior 7 1 1 1 1 J. Comparative Psychol,, 8 1 1 1 1 J. Consulting Psychol, 9 2 2 2 J. Clinical Psychology 10 1 1 1 J. Personality 12 1 1 1 1 J. Gerontology 13 1 1 1 J. Social Issues 14 1 1 1 J. of SPSSI 15 2 2 2 2 Mental Hygiene Rev. 16 1 1 1 Personnel Psychology 17 2 2 2 Psychological Record 18 2 2 2 Indiana Amer. Clin. Psychologist 19 1 1 1 Fsychometrika 20 2 2 2 Psychosomatic Medicine 21 2 2 2 2 Psychol. Abstracts 22 1 1 1 1 Psychol. Record 24 1 1 1 1 Social Frontier 25 1 1 1 Human Relations 26 1 1 1 J. Psychology 27 1 1 1 1 J. Amer. Psychol. Assn 28 1 1 1 1 J. Iferketing 30 1 1 1 1 Annual Rev. of Psychol 31 1 1 1 1 J. Exper. Psychol. 32 1 1 1 1 American J. Psychol. 33 2 2 2 2 Psychol. Rev. 34 2 2 2 2 Psychol. Index 35 1 1 1 1 Psychol. Monographs 36 1 1 1 1 Pop. Sci. Monthly 38 1 1 1 1 J. Genetics 44 1 1 1 1 Amer. J. Relig. Psy. 45 1 1 1 1 Contrib. Psy. Theory 48 1 1 Amer. Naturalist 49 1 1 1 1 Internal. Union Sci Psy50 1 1 1 1 (18) (10) (17) (1)

FOUNDED: la. Art Psychol. Lab. SOI______1______1______1_ Bryn Mawr Psychol. L. 202______1_____ 1______1 Carnegie Inst. Tech. PL. 203______1______1______1______2______2_ (Continued) 169 Table 74. (Continued) Journals, Laboratories, Societies, Businesses Established (Questionnaire Item 19)

Code. Noi I II III IV Overall FOUNDED: Labs,J. LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total etc.

Columbia Psycho­ metrics Lab. 204 1 1 1 1 Cornell Med Coll PL 205 1 1 1 1 Peabody Psychol L t 206 1 1 1 1 Harvard Dept Soc. Relations 207 1 1 1 1 Inst. Child Wei- 208 fare Ph.vs. Lab(Cal 1 1 1 Harvard Psycho­ acoustic Lab 209 1 1 1 2 2 Missouri Pay.Lab. 210 1 1 1 1 Miss. Psy. Lab. 211 1 1 1 Norwich State Hosp PL 212 1 1 NYS Psych. Inst.PL 213 1 1 1 1 Occidental Psy Lab 214 1 1 1 Oregon PL 215 1 1 1 1 Tennessee PL 216 1 1 1 1 Texas PL 217 1 1 1 1 Wa sh. Univ. Med. School PL 218 1 1 1 1 Wisconsin Exp Lab 219 . 1 1 1 Virginia PL 220 1 1 1 Va. Animal PL 221 1 1 1 Yerkes Primate Biol L. 222 1 1 1 1 Antioch PL 223 1 1 1 1 Univ Kansas City PL 224 1- 1 Yale Clin Child Develop. 226 3- 1 1 1 Wisconsin Anim PL 227 1 1 1 Indiana PL 228 1 1 1 1 Yale Photo Res L. 229 1 1 1 1 Chicago PL 230 1 1 1 1 Columbia Guid.Lab 231 1 1 1 1 Washington Anim L 232 1 1 1 EEG Lab West. Res. 233 1 1 1 1 EEG Lab Bradley Hs d 234 1 1 1 1 EEG L. Butler Hosp 235 1 1 1 1 Cornell SS Res.Cen 236 1 1 Minn. Inst. Child Welfard S37______1______1______1______1 (continued) 190 Table ~jhm (Continued) Journals, Laboratories, Societies, Businesses Established (Questionnaire Item 19)

Code No. I II III IV Overall FOUNDED: Labs,J. LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total et©

Harvard L.Hum. Dev, 238 1 1 1 1 Calif, Rat, Inh. Lab, 239 1 1 1 1 Wisconsin Primate Lab 240 1 1 1 1 OSU Bur Juv Res. 241 1 1 1 1 Vineland, Lab. Feeble M 242 1 1 1 1 Army Pers. Res. Sec, 243 1 1 1 Barnard Coll PL 244 1 1 1 1 New Sch Soc Res P Dept 245 1 1 Lafayette PL 246 1 1 1 Lehigh PL 247 1 1 1 Florida State PL 248 1 1 1 Indiana PL 249 1- 1 1 1 Iowa P Clinic 250 1 1 1 1 Vassar PL & P "Studies,,251 1 1 1 1 Wellesley PL 252 2 2 2 2 Wisconsin PL 253 1 1 1 1 Hopkins PL 256 1 1 1 1 Penna. PL 257 1 1 1 Columbia PL 258 1 1 1 1 Clark Univ PL 259 1 1 1 1 San Jose PL 260 1 1 1 Duke Comparative PL 261 1 1 Duke Child Stud. Inst 262 1 1 Chicago Psychometric L 263 1 1 1 1 N. Car. " L 264 1 1 1 1 Princeton PL 265 1 1 1 1 ' (32) (10) (17) (6)

FOUNDED: AAAP 401 1 1 1 2 2 SPSSI 402 i 1 Missouri Ment.Hygiene Assn. 403 i 1 Midwestern P. Assn 404 .... 1 a. 1 1 Kappa Phi Eappa 405 1 1 1 ._OL.XQlJsL (2)

(continued) 191 Table "Jk, (Continued) Journals, Laboratories, Societies, Businesses Established (Questionnaire Item 19)

REVISED Code No. I II III IV Overall Labs,J. LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total etc. J. Consult. P. 501 1 1 1 1 J. Aesthetics 502 1 1 1 Cornell PL 505 1 1 1 1 Brown PL 504 1 J. _ 1 1 Rochester PL 505 1 1 1 1 Indiana PL 506 1 1 1 1 A.P.A. 507 1 1 1 1 Northwestern PL 508 1 1 1 (6) (0) (2) (0)

FOUNDED: Educ. Res. Corp 601 1 1 i i Inst. Welfare Res. 602 1 1 i i Bur. Auditory Res. 603 1 i i Starch Psy Res Center 604 1 1 i i

(3) ,_(l.) . M ......

FOUNDED: AAF Pers Clin Pay Prop' 702 1 1 Buclcriell Guifi. Bur. 703 1 1 1 Cleveland Pub Sch P Clin704 2 2 2 Kansas City Guid. Clin 705 1 1 Nat Jewish Hosp Rehab 706 1 1 1 Natl P Fdn Inf Par Psy Prog. 707 1 1 1 Midwest Soc Psy Field 708 1 1 1 Nav, Res. Hum. Eng. Sec 709 1 1 1 Queens Coll Psy Curr. 710 1 1 1 Stanford Voc Int Res. 711 1 1 1 1 USPHS Sec. on Gerontol. 712 1 1 1 USA Clin Psy Program 713 1 1 1 2 2 USAF Psy Res Unit 714 1 1 1 1 HRRC & HRRL 715 1 1 1 La. Ment. Health Stud. 716 1 1 Inst Prop Analysis 717 1 1 1 Off Pub 0pin Res. 718 1 1 1 Clin. Services 719 2 2 2 4 OSU Leadership Stud. 720 1 1 1 West Ft. Psy Leadership Studies 721 1 1 1 1 2 3

(Continued) 192

Table ~jh. (Continued) Journals, Laboratories, Societies, Businesses Established (Questionnaire Item 19)

FOUNDED: Code No. I II III IV Overall Labs, J. LVG DVG LTG NL I & II i,i i ,h i Total &tc.

Voc. Adj. Bureau 722 i 1 1 2 2 Indust. Rel. Center 723 1 1 1 1 Testing Bureau 724 1 1 1 1 Method Rt Associates 725 1 1 1 P, of Music 726 1 1 1 1 Dictionary of Psy 727 1 1 1 1 First Lab Manual in P. 728 1 1 1 1 First PhD-Hopkins 729 1 1 1 1 Chi WF Psy Exhibit 730 1 1 1 1 OSS 733 1 1 1 Minn Inst. Pers Ass & Res 734 1 1 1 Minn. Lab. for Res in Soc Rel 735 1 1 1 Vet. Counseling Ser 736 1 1 1 Fenna Psy Clinic 737 1 1 1 1 Purdue Opin. Panel 738 1 1 1 (?) (7) (23) .M ......

Total 67 28 65 15 95______158 173 195

Table 75. Number of Books Published (Questionnaire Item 20)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG N© I & II I,II,III Total Unknown 6 70 15 19____76______91______110 0 1 1 1 _ 1 _6______7 5 6______13______16__ 2 4 5 4 4______9______13_ 3 4 7 2 4_ 11______13- 4 _3______12______3______15______15_ 5 _2______6 2 2______8______10_ 6 __5______£______5______9______9_ 7______3______1 1 3 ______4______5_ 8 4 1 2 ______5______7______7__ 9______3______1_____3______3______4_ 10 __4______1___ 4______5______5_ 12 _2 2______2______2_ 13 _1______1______1______14 i______1 1______1_ 15 _1______1______1______1_ 16 1 1 1_ 17 _1______1 1______1_ 18 _1 1______1______1_ 20 _1______1______1______2______2 _ 21 _1______1______1______1_ 30 _1______1 1______1_ 99 1______1______1______1

Total 356 209 43

Table 76, Number of Books Published (Questionnaire Item 20)

LVG DVG LTG NL

I-5 19 38 11 6-10 19______8 2 II-15 4______0______16-99 5 2 19b Table 77. Approximate Number of Publications Other Than Books (Questionnaire Item 2 1 )

imber of I II III IV Overall ications LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total lo data 6 70 2 2 76 78 80 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 4 1 3 1 4 6 1 2 1 3 8 1 2 1 3 10 1 2 3 1 3 6 12 1 4 1 5 14 1 1 15 1 2 2 1 3 5 16 1 ' 1 18 1 1 1 2 20 3 4 2 3 7 9 22 1 1 1 1 25 4 4 4 30 3 9 3 12 12 35 1 1 .1 2 2 40 1 2 1 3 3 45 2 a 2 2 3 50 5 9 2 5 14 16 53 1 1 1 60 1 3 1 1 4 5 65 1 1 1 2 2 69 1 1 1 1 75 1 5 1 6 6 80 1 1 1 2 2 83 1 1 1 90 1 1 1 1 99 1 1 1 1 100 7 1 5 1 8 13 14 110 2 2 2 2 125 2 2 2 2 128 1 1 1 138 1 1 1 1 150 2 ' 1 2 3 3 170 1 1 1 1 175 1 1 1 1 185 1 1 1 198 1 1 1 1 200 2 1 2 3 3 220 1 1 1 1 226 1 1 1 1 265 1 1 1 300 1 1 1 1 439 1 1 1 1 508 1 1 1 1 Total 4677 1047 3380 549 (47) (3) (61) (30) 19? Table 78. Approximate Number of Publications Other Than Books (Questionnaire Item 2l) LVG LTG NL 2-15 8 9 £5 16-45 11 21 5 50-90 11 21 3 91-175 17 7 1 185-508 6 3 0

Table E9. Books Which Have Had Evlore Than One Printing (Item 22 A)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 1 13 17 5 13 30 35 2 10 8 3 10 18 21 3 7 4 7 11 11 4 3 1 3 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 6 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 Unknown 16 73 31 24 89 120 144 Total 93 76 11 (37) (32) (8)

Table 80. Books Which Have Had More Than One Printing (22A) LVG LTG NL 1-2 26 25 8 3-4 10 5 0 5-6 3 1 0 10-11 1 1 0

Table 81. Books. Widely Adopted as Texts or References ( Item 22 B) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 1 15______14 6 15______27______55 2 11 17 11 28 28 3 8 4 1 8 12 13 4 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 3 3 11 plus 1 1 1 1 Unknown 16 73 25 24 89 114 138 89 76 13 (40) (38) (8)

Table 2. Reprint Demand for Articles (Questionnaire Item 22 c ) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I, II,III Total None 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 4 1 6 10 2 2 4 5 2 6 11 3 4 4 3 4 8 11 4 1 5 1 1 6 7 (Continued) 196 Table 82. (Continued) Reprint Demand for Articles ( Item 22 C) I III III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 5. 5______5 2______5______10______12 6 3 4 3 7 7 7 1 1 1 8 2 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 10 1 5 1 1 6 7 11 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 3 1 1 4 5 20 2 3 2 5 5 25 1 1 1 30 2 3 2 5 5 40 1 1 1 1 50 3 3 3 3 75 1 1 1 1 99 2 3 2 5 5 Unknown 20 73 12 15 93 105 120 Total 682 721 61 (51) (68) (171 o t in 00

Average 13.4 10.6 «

Table 83. Names of Well-Known Equipment, Devices or Tests Constructed (Questionnaire Item 23) Overall I II III IV Total LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III

Papers and Pencil Tjests 14______20 1 14______34______35 Psychoraotor Tests 4______5______1_____4______9______10 Equipment______12_____3_____ 6______3 15______21______24 Unknown 23 70_____ 32 27 93 125______152 197

Productivity (Combined Items 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG N L I & II I,II,III Total ______57 1______57______58______58 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 1 4 5 1 1 6 3 3 3 3 6 8 1 1 9 2 1 2 2 3 10 1 1 11 1 1 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 2 14 2 2 15 1 1 1 2 16 1 2 1 3 17 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 1 20 1 1 21 1 1 1 22 1 1 23 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 27 1 1 28 1 1 1 29 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 31 1 1 1 32 1 2 1 3 33 1 1 34 1 1 1 36 1 1 1 37 3 3 3 3 39 2 1 2 3 41 1 1 1 1 45 1 1 1 47 1 1 1 2 2 48 2 2 2 49 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

(Continued) 198

Table 84* (Continued) Productivity (Combined Items, 18,19,20 ,21,22,23) NUMBER OF I II III IV Overall ITEMS LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 57 1 1 1 58 1 1 1 60 1 1 1 62 1 1 1 1 63 1 1 65 2 2 2 2 67 1 1 1 1 68 1 1 1 1 2 3 70 1 1 1 71 2 2 2 72 1 1 1 1 73 1 1 1 74 1 1 1 1 75 1 1 1 78 1 1 1 1 80 2 2 2 81 2 2 2 2 82 1 1 1 1 84 1 1 1 85 1 1 1 86 1 1 89 1 1 1 90 1 1 1 1 93 2 2 2 94 1 1 1 1 95 2 2 2 96 2 2 2 2 99 1 1 1 2, 2 100 1 1 1 1 103 .1 1 1 2 2 104 1 1 1 1 105 2 2 2 2 107 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 112 1 1 1 1 113 1 1 1 1 115 1 1 1 118 1 1 1 1 120 1 1 1 1 121 1 1 1 2 2 123 1 1 125 1 1 1 1 126 1 1 1 1

(Continued) 199

Table 84. (Continued) Productivity (Combined Items 18,19,20 ,21,22,23] NUMBER OF I II III IV Overall ITEMS LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I, II III Total

128 1 1 1 133 1 1 1 149 1 1 1 1 150 1 1 1 156 1 1 1 161 1 1 1 1 162 3 3 3 3 168 1 1 1 1 177 1 1 1 195 1 1 1 1 214 1 1 1 219 1 1 1 1 221 1 1 1 1 223 1 1 1 1 251 1 1 1 252 1 1 1 256 1 1 1 1 264 1 1 1 1 273 1 1 1 1 301 1 1 1 1 308 1 1 1 1 309 1 1 1 1

326 1 ...... 1 1 396 1 1 1 1 403 1 1 1 1 413 1 1 1 508 1 1 1 1 546 1 1 1 1

Total 7112 1386 5228 789 (53) (16) (62) (52)

Average 134.2 86.6 84.3 24.6 200

Table 85. Best Piece of Work as Judged by the Individual (Item 24)

I II III IV Overall FIELD OF PSYCHOLOGY LVG DVG LTG ML I&II I, II, III Total

1 2 2 2 713 1 1 1 Experimental 901 2 2 1 2 4 5 Clinical 902 3 5 3 3 8 11 Social 903 1 5 3 1 6 9 Perceptual 904 1 1 1 2 2 Child 905 1 6 1 1 7 8 Industrial & Applied 906 2 4 2 6 6 Animal 907 6 2 6 8 8 Behaviorism 908 3 3 3 3 Gestalt 909 1 1 1 Introspection 911 1 1 1 Physiology 912 1 2 1 3 3 Philosophy 913 1 1 1 1 2 Emotion-Motivation 914 1 1 Psycho-physical 915 1 7 1 1 8 9 Personne1-Personality 916 1 3. 2 1 4 6 Educational 917 4 6 3 4 10 13 Learning 918 4 1 2 1 5 7 8 Psychomotor 919 2 2 2 Statistical 921 2 1 1 2 3 4 Mental Tests 922 2 2 1 2 4 5 Theoretical 924 1 1 Hearing 926 2 2 2 2 General 927 1 1 1 2 2 Gereontology 928 1 1 1 Abnormal 929 1 1 1 1 2 Unknown 14 72 6 11 86 192 103 2 0 1

Table 86, Features of Background Considered Important (Item,25) ai 92 39 I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL IS.II I,II,III Total 1. Poverty _2 3 2_____2______5______7 2. Cultural Opportunities _3 4 3_____ 3______7______10 3. Good Educ, Opport. & Tng, 18 18 6____ 18_____ 36____ 42 4. Travel ______X______1______1 5* Family (Parental, brothers,etc 14 14 7___ 14_____28______55 6, Contact with a great leader .13 19 7____ 13_____32______39 7, High level of aspiration______3______4 2_____ 3______7______9 8, Influence through books __1______2______1______3______3 9, Colleagues __4 5 4_____ 4______9______13 10, War Years _1 2 2_____ 1______3______5 11, Interests _4______2______4______6______6 12, Univ. attended (environment) _6 9 4______6_____15______19 13, Post PhD Influences _2______2______2 4______4 14, Marriage______2______2______2______2 15, Admin. Experiences & Opports,______2 2______2______4 16, Industrial Experiences _1______3______1______4______4 17, Good Health _JL______1______1______2______2 18, Organisation Membership _2______1______2______3______3

Table 87, Percentages-Features of Background Considered Important (25) LVG DVG LTG ML -L . • ucj • wo • wo 2. .04 .04 _ .08 3. .23 .20 .15 o o 4. .00 ,01 • 5. .18 . .15 . .18 6. .17 .21 .18

7. .04 .04 1.05 0 o 8. .01 .02 • 9. .05 .05 .....10 _ o , H 10, .021 .05 °l 11. .05 .02 i . Oi 12. .08 .10 .10 o to

.02 .00 i 13; 1 °i o| 14. .03 .00 •

15. .00 .02 .05 E o o 16. .01 .03 • O H • ''•o 17. .01 1 .00 0 •

O *-*! 18. .03 • 202

Table 88, Handicaps or Factors Which Interferred with Career (26) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I, II,III Total 1. Poverty 8 1 4 11 9 13 24 2 . Poor Physical Stamina 2 1 2 3 3. Poor Health 7 1 5 8 13 13 4, Personality Factors (Shyness, Modesty, etc. 6 5 4 6 11 15 5. Marriage (Wife,childreil) 1 3 3 1 4 7 6 . Poor Education and/or Tng 4 6 4 4 10 14 7. Anti-semitism 1 1 1 2 8. Other Interests 2 3 2 5 9. War Years 2 3 2 2 5 7 10. Required admin, duties curtailed research 1 2 1 3 3 11. Family 4 2 4 6 12. Non-recognition 1 1 1 13. Inhibition by a teacher 1 2 1 1 3 14. Political activities & opinions 1 1 1 2 15, Lack of opportunity 2 3 2 2 5 7 16. Poor memory 1 1 1 2 2 17. Too much recognition 1 1 1 18. Being a woman 1 1 1

Table 89. Percentages-Handicaps or Factors Whi ch Interferred with Career (Item 26) LVG DVG LTG NL 1. .24 .09 .30 2. .00 .04 .03 3. .21 .11 .00 4. .18 fll .11 5. .03 *07 .08 6. .12 *13 .11 7. .00 .02 .03 8. .00 .04 .08 9. .06 .07 .06 10. .03 .04 .00 11. .00 .09 .06 12. .00 .02 .00 13. .03 .00 .06 14. .00 .02 .03 15. .06 *07 .06 16. .03 .02 .00 17. .00 .02 .00 18. .00 .02 .00 Table.90, Institutional Factors - AB College or University (Item l) I II III IV Overall LYG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Unknown 3 7 1 10 10 11 Amherst S 2 4 4 4 Antioch 1 1 1 Barnard 2 2 2 Beloit 1 1 1 1 Bowdoin 2 2 2 Brown 1 1 1 1 2 Bucknell 1 1 1 1 2 California 4 4 1 8 9 9 UCLA 1 1 Central H.S. (Pa.) 1 1 1 1 Chicago 2 2 2 4 4 Cincinnati 1 1 1 1 CCNY (NYCC) 1 1 1 1 Clark Univ. 1 1 1 2 2 Clark Coll. 1 1 1 1 Colorado 1 1 1 2 2 Columbia 1 2 2 3 5 5 Cornell (NY) 2 1 2 2 3 5 Dartmouth 2 2 2 Earlham 1 1 1 1 Evansville Coll 1 1 1 1 Geneva 1 1 1 1 Gustavus Adolphus 1 1 1 1 Hamilton 1 1 1 1 Harvard 1 3 1 4 5 5 Haverford Coll 1 1 1 1 Hobart 1 1 1 Hopkins 1 1 1 Illinois 3 I 1 4 5 5 Indiana 2 2 1 4 5 5 Iowa (St Univ) 1 1 1 Iowa St Coll 1 1 1 2 Juniata 1 1 1 1 Kaiserin Augusta 1 1 1 1 Kansas 1 1 Kansas State Coll 1 1 1 2 Kansas St Teach 1 1 1 1 King Coll 1 1 1 Knox Coll 1 1 1 Lafayette 1 1 1 1 Marietta 1 1 1 Maryville Coll 1 1 1 1 McGill 1 1 1- 1 Michigan 1 3 3 2 4 7 9 Michigan St 1 1 1

(Continued) 2 0 4

Table. 90, (Continued) Institutional Factors - AB College or University (Item l) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Minnesota _1______1_____ 1______1______2____ Missouri Valley______1______1______1______l____ Morningside _1______1______1______1____ MIT _1______1______1______1 Nebraska 4 2____3______6______9______9 Neuchatel______1______1______1______1 Northwestern______1____1 1_____ L ______2______3 NYU______1______1______1 Oxford (England) _1____ 1____1______2______,3______3____ Oberlin _____ . 1 2______1______3____ Ohio State U, _2______2______2______4______4 Ohio Wesleyan______1______1______1______1____ Pennsylvania______1____ 3______1_____ 4______4______5____ Penn State 1 1___ Princeton _1____ 2____1______3______4______4 Purdue______1______1______1 Richmond Coll _1______1______1______1 Rochester______1____ 2______1______3______3____ Smith Coll______2______1 2______2______3 Southern Coll______1______1____ Springfield______2______2______2____ Stanford _4______1______4______5______5 Stevens Inst, T.______1______1______1_____ Swarthmore______1_____1______1______2______2 Texas _1 1 1______1.______2 Toronto______1______1______1______1 Tufts * _1______1______1______1 Union (NY) ^ _1______1______1______1 Ursinus Coll ' _1______1______1______1____ Valpariso 1 1______1______Vassar 5 3______3______5 Vermont______2______2______2______2____ V/ashington (s)______3______3______3____ Washington SL.______1______1______1____ Wesleyan Coll______1______1______1 1_ Wesleyan Univ.______3____ 1______3______4______4 ■Western Res.______1______1______1______1____ Westminister 1 1______1______1____ West Virginia______1______1______1______1____ Willamette______2______2______2____

(Continued) 205

Tabid 90. (Continued) Institutional Factors - AB College or University (Item l) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Williams 2 ______2______2______2 Wilson Coll______1_____ 1______1 Wisconsin 1 1___ 2______2______2 Wyoming 1 1______2______2______2 Yale _JL______1______1______2______2___ Denver______1______1______1 Kansas Wesleyan 1______1 Hamline 1______1 Indiana St T______1______1 1 Colgate______1_____1______1______2 North Central______1______1______1 Mt, St. Alphonsus ______1 ______1 Gettsburg Coll ______1______1 Wittenburg _1______1_____1______1______2 Baylor Univ. 1______1 Emory______1______1______1 West. St. ( C o l . ) ______1______1 Hastings 1______1 Muskingum Coll______1______1______1 State Teach Col 1______1 Asbury Coll 1______1 McPherson 1______1 St. Charles 1______1______1______1 Total: 108 Foreign: 5

Table 91. Institutional Factors - MA College or University (item l)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total None or Unknown 17 32___14____2____49______63______65 Andover Theol 1______1______1______1 Brown______1______1 Bucknell______1______1 California 3______1______3 __4______4 UCLA______2______2 Carnegie Tech 1______1______1______1 Chicago 1_3______1______4______4 CCNY (NYCC ) 1______1______1______1 Clark Univ. 1 4______1______5______5 Colorado 2______2______2______2 Columbia 4 5____10______9______19______19

(Continued) 206

Table 91. (Continued) Institutional Factors - Uk College or University (item l) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Cornell (NY) __2______2 2______2______4 Dartmouth 1 1 1___ 1______2 Edinsburgh ______1_____ ;______1______1______1 Harvard 7 11 4 5 18______22______25 Haverford 1______1______l______1 Illinois ___1______1______1______2______2 Indiana 5 1 4 4______4 Iowa (St. Univ.) 5___ 1______3______4______4 Kansas______1______;______1 Kansas St. Coll 1 1______1______2 Kansas St Teach. 1______1______1______1 Lafayette ______1______1______1______1 Leipzig 1______1______1______1 Michigan 1______1______1______2______2 Minnesota______1_____ 3______1______4 Nebraska 2 1____2______3______5______5 Northwestern______1_____ 1______1______2 NYU______1______1______1 Oxford (England) ______1____1______1______2______2 Oberlin______1______1 OSU _ 1 ______2____ 1 1 ______3______4 Ohio Wesleyan ______1 1 1______1______2 Pennsylvania 1 2____1_____ 2____3______4____ 6 Pittsburgh 2______2______2______2 Princeton 1 2_____1______3______4______4 Purdue ______1______1______1 Smith Coll______1 1 1______1______2 Stanford - 4 1______4______5 Teach C (Col)______1______2 1______1______5 Texas ‘ 1______1 Vassar ______1______1______1 1 Virginia______2______;______2______2 Washington (S)______2______;______2______2 Wesleyan Univ ______1______1___ 1______1 Williams ______1______1______1______1 Wilson______1 1 1 1 ______2______5 Yale ______2____1______2______3______3 Denver______1_____1______1 2 Indiana S T C ______1______1______1 Tulsa______1______1 Furman 1 ______1 ______1 1 Kentucky______1______1 Total: 53 Foreign: 3 207

Table, 92. Institutional Factors - PhD College or University (Item l)

1 II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL, I & II I,II,III Total Unknown 2 6 1 3 8 9 12 Berlin 2 3 1 5 5 6 Bryn Mawr 1 1 1 2 California 1 1 1 2 2 Cambridge (England) 1 1 1 1 Chicago 3 9 6 2 12 18 20 Clark Univ. 5 4 4 1 9 13 14 Columbia 11 7 14 3 18 32 35 Cornell (NY) 4 6 1 1 10 11 12 Freiburg 1 1 1 1 Halle 1 1 1 1 Harvard 7 10 5 2 17 22 24 Hopkins 1 6 1 7 8 8 Illinois 3 3 3 Iowa (St. Univ) 3 3 3 6 6 Leipzig 11 11 11 11 Michigan 3 1 3 4 Minnesota 3 1 3 3 4 7 Nebraska * 1 1 1 NYU 3 3 OSU 4 1 4 5 Pennsylvania 2 1 2 2 3 ■ 5 Princeton 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 Radcliffe 1 1 1 1 Stanford 1 1 5 1 2 7 8 Syracuse 1 1 1 2 Teach Col (COL) 1 1 1 1 2 3 Texas 1 1 Virginia 1 1 1 Wisconsin 1 1 1 1 Wurzburg 2 2 2 2 Yale 4 3 4 2 7 11 13 Denver 1 1 Rutgers 1 1 1 1 Totalr 33 Foreign: 6

Table 93. Institutional Fac tors - PhD College or University (Item l) Public or Section of Public Sec. of Private Country or Private Country Bryn Mawr P . N.E. * Harvard P. N.E. California Pb s.w, *Hopkins F. N.E. •Chicago P. N.C. *Iowa Pb. N.C. •Clark P. . .N.E., Illinois Pb. N.C. •Columbia P. N.E. Michigan Pb. N.C. •Cornell .. P*_ _ N.E. Minnesota Pb. N.C. (Continued) • Indicates nine schools producing bulk of leaders. 208

Table 93, (Continued) Institutional Factors - PhD College or Univ. (Iteml) Public or Section of Public Sec. of Private Country or Private Country Nebraska Pb. N.C. *Col (T.C) P. N.E. NYU Pb... N.E. Texas Pb. S.C. OSU Pb. .. N.C. Virginia Pb. S.E. Penna. ___ Pb. N.E. Wisconsin Pb. N.C. Princeton P.... N.E. *Yale P. N.E. Radcliff P. N.E. Denver Pb. N.W. *Stanford P. . S.W. Rutgers P. N.E. Syracuse P. N.E.

*Indicates nine schools producing bulk of leaders. Table 94. Institutional Factors - PhD College or University (Item l) DVG LVG LTG Total Non Leaders Leaders Berlin 3 2 0 5 1 Bryn Mawr 0 0 1 1 1 California 0 1 1 2 0 Cambridge (London) 1 0 0 1 0 TOTALS: Chicago 9 3 6 (18) . 2 Clark 4 5 4 (13) 1 _ Dead Greats 73 Columbia 7 11 14 (32) . 3 Living Gr.:: 53 Cornell 6 4 1 (11) .. 1 LTG. : 63 Freiburg 1 0 0 1 0 _ Tot.Leaders 181 Halle 1 0 0 1 0 _ Non-Leaders 32 Harvard 10 7 5 (22).. 2 Hopkins SSL Iowa l&L o Illinois 0 Leipzig 11 0 11 Michigan 0 ( ) Nine schools Minnesota 0 in parenthesis Nebraska account for NYU 0 128 of 160 osu 0 4 leaders. Penna. 0 2 1 3 2 21 are from 6 Princeton 1 1 1 3 1 foreign soli. Radcliff 1 0 0 1 0 Stanford 1 1 5 (7) 1 Syracuse 0 0 1 1 1 Columbia (T.Col) 0 1 1 2 1 Texas 0 0 0 0 1 Virginia 0 0 1 1 0 Wisconsin 1 0 0 1 0 Wurzburg 0 2 0 2 0 Yale 3 4 4 (11) . 2 Denver 0 0 0 0 1 Rutgers 1 0 0 1 0 No PhD 6 2 1 9 3 209

Table 95. Institutional Factors .Classification of PhD Dissertation (Item 2) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Experimental 4 5 1 4 9 10 Clinical 2 2 1 2 4 5 Social 1 3 3 1 4 7 Perceptual 5 1 5 2 6 11 13 Child 2 2 1 2 4 5 Industrial & Applied 1 3 2 1 4 6 Animal 7 2 5 3 9 14 17 Behaviorism 3 2 3 5 5 Gestalt 1 1 1 2 Functionalism 1 1 1 Introspection 1 1 1 1 Physiological 3 2 3 5 5 Philosophical 1 3 2 4 4 6 Emotion-Motivation 2 2 1 2 4 5 Psycho-physical 7 7 8 2 14 22 24 Personnel 1 1 5 5 2 7 12 Educational 2 4 3 2 6 9 Learning 5 3 4 2 8 12 14 Psychomotor 2 4 6 6 6 Semantics & Phonetics 1 1 1 Statistical 1 2 1 1 3 4 Mental Tests 2 1 2 3 3 Biology-Zoology 1 1 1 1 Theoretical 1 1 1 1 Vision 4 4 4 4 Hearing 1 1 1 1 Abnormal 1 1 1 1 History 1 1 1 1 Unknown 1 43 5 2 44 49 51

. Factors - Men Who ■Supervised PhD Dissertations ( Item 3) Code I II III IV Overall Number LVG DVG LTG NL Iftll I,II,III Total 1. Allport, F.H. 1 1 1 1 2 2. Allport, G.W. 2 1 1 1 2 3. Angell, J.R. 6 2 2 1 4 4 5 4. Angier, R.P, 7 1 1 1 1 5. Beebe-Center,J.G, 17 1 1 1 2 6. Bentley, M, 21 1 1 1 2 2 7* Boring, E.G. 27 1 2 1 3 3 8. Brown, Warner 30 1 1 1 1 (Continued) 210

Table 96. (Continued) Institutional Factors - Men Who Supervised PhD Dissertations ( Item 3) Code I II III IV Overall Number LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 9. Brownell, W.A. 31______1______1______1______1 10. Carmichael, H. 40 1 1 1______1______2 11. Carr, Harvey A, 41 2______1_____1 2 ______3______4 12. Cattell, J.M.______42___ 7 2______9______9______9 13. Culler, E.A.K.______49______2______2______2 14. Dearborn, W.F. 55___ 1______1______l______l 15. Dewey, John 58 1______1______1______1 16. Dodge, Raymond 59___ 1______1______1______1 17. Dunlap, Knight 66______1______1_1 18. Fernberger, S.W. 73______1_____ 1______1______2 19. Ferree, C.E. 74______1______1______1 20. Garrett, H.E.______82______3______■_____3______3 21. Gates, A.I. 83 1______1______1______1 22. Geldard, F.A.______85______1______1______1 23. Guilford, J.P. 93 1______1______1______1 24. Hall, G.S. 96 2 4______6______6______6 25. Heidbreder, E.F. 102______1______1 26. Hilgard, E.R. 108______1______1______1 27. Hollingworth,H.L. 109______1______1______1 28. Hull, C.L. 115______2 1______2______3 29. Hunter, W.S. 118__ 1____ 2______1______3______3 30. James, W. 122______2______2______2______2 31. Judd, C.H.______150______1______1 1 32. Kelley, T.L,______152______1 1______1______2 33. Lanfeld, H.S. 144 2______1______2_____ 3______3 34. Lashley, K.S. 146 5______3_____ 3______3 35. Lewin, K. 150______2______2______2 36. KacKinnon, D. *______160______._____1______1 37. Meyer, M.F. 172______1______1______1 38. Miles, W.R. ' 175______1______1 1 39. Miller, L.W. 174______1______1 40. Munsterburg, H. 181___ 4 1______5_____ 5______5 41. Nafe, J.P. 183 1______1______1_____ 2______2 42. Paterson, D.G. 190______3=_____ 1______1______2 43. Plllsbury, W.B. 195______1 ______1 1 44. Pintner, R. 196______2______2______2 45. Poffenberger, A.T. 197 1______2______1____ 3______5 46. Pressey, S.L. 201_____ 1______1 47. Robinson, E.S. 205 1______2______1 3______3 48. Sanford, E1C. 211 3 3 3______3 49. Scripture, E.W.______216______1 1 1______1___ 50. Seashore, C.E. 218 2______2______2 4______4___ (Continued) 211

Table 96. (Continued) Institutional Factors - Men Who Supervised PhD Dissertations (item 3) Code I II III IV Overall Number LVG DVG LTG NL I&II 1,11,111 Total 51. Stone, C.P. 228 1______1______1______1 52. Strong, E.K,______231______1______1______1 53. Super, D,______232______1______1 54. Symonds, P.M.______253______1______1______I 55. Terman, L.M.______255______1______1______1 56. Thorndike, E.L. 236 2______2______2______4______4 57. Thurstone, L.L. 237______3______3______3 58. Titchener, E.B. 238 5 1 1______4______5______5 59. Tolman, E.C. 259 1______1______1______2______S 60. Watson, J.B.______247______2______2______2______2 61. Weiss, A.P. 249______2______2______2 62.. Wertheimer, M. 252______1______1 63. Whipple, G.M. 254______1______1______1 64. Woodrow, H. 262______1______1______1 65. Woodworth, R.S. 263 9______6 1____9______15_____ 16 66. Yerkes, R.M. 266______1 1______1______2 67. Haggerty, M.E. 517 1______1______1______1 68. Humphreys, Lloyd 457______1______I______1 69. Laaarsfled, Paul 454______1______1 70. Travis, Lee 457 1______1______1______1 71. Stevens, S.N. 467______1______1 72. Rosecrance, F. 468______1______1 73. Singer, E.A. 488 1______1______1______1 74. Parker, G.H. 493 2______2______2______2 75. Burtt, H.E..______505______1______1______1 76. Tomlinson, B.E. 515______1______1 77. Thrasher, F.M. S14______1______1 78. Blodgett, H.C. * 522___ _ 1______1 79. Jeffries, L.A. 523______1______1 80.. Kitson, H.D. ' 531______2 1______2______3 81. Thorndike, R.L. 532______1______1______1 82. Shepherd, J.F. 533______1_____1,______1______2 83. Huber, G.C. 534______1______1______1 84. Kulpe, 0. 536 2______2_____ 2______2 85. Stumpf, C, 537 2______2____ _2______2 86. Benson, C.E. 540 1 1 87. Hollingworth, L, 545______1______1______1 88. Perry, R.B. 550_ 1______1 89. Burr, H.S. 588 1______1______1______1 90. Elliott, R.M, 592______1______1 91. Grittman. L. 595__ 1______1 92. Stoddard, G.D. 601______1______1______1 (Continued) 212

Table 96. (Continued) Institutional Factors - Men Who Supervised Phd Dissertations (Item 3) Code I II III IV Overall Number LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 93. Kinney, L. 615______l______1______l 94. Knight, F. 629______1______1______l 95. Rugg, H. 658 1 1 1_____1______2 96. Urban, F.M. 643 1______1____ l______l 97. Planck, M. 667 1______1 l______l__ 98. Toops, H.A.______695______1______1______1 99. Ford, J. 699 1______1____ 1______1 100. Smallwood, H.W. 701______1______l______l 101. Jennings, H.S. 702 1______1____ l______1 102. Holzinger, K. 717______1______1______1 103. McConnel, T.R. 725______1 ______l 104. Winson, A.L. 729______1______1 105. King, I. 765 1______1____ 1______1 _ 106. Murray, H.A. 775______1______1______l 107. Wundt, W.______785______4______4 4______4 _ 108. Babcock, E. 808 1______1____ 1______1 _ 109. Eells, E.C. 882______1______1______1 _ 110. Bond, G.L. 883______1______1 _ 111. Cook, W.W. 884______1______1 112. Erdmann, Benno 888 1 1______2____ 2______2 113. Vaihinger, Hans 889 1______1____ 1______1 114. McCosh, James______890______1______1_____1______1 115. Preston, R. 917______1______1 116. Coleman, 918______1______1 117. Prince, M. 931 1______1____ 1______1__ 118. Rupp, H. 964 1______1 1______1__ 119. Nagel, W. . * 965 1______1____ 1______1 120. Sears, J.B. 994______1______1 121. Butler, Nicholas M.___ 999______1______1_____1______1 122. Henry, E.R. 1001______1______1 Total Names: 122 Total ______79 25 77 40 102 179______219

Table 97. Institutional Factors-Number days a Week Spent in Research (Item 4 A) 1 II III IV Overall

H W H H H LVG DVG LTG NL I & II \» Total

1 2 6 6 2 H 00 14 2 2 6 4 2 8 12 3 2 3 3 2 5 8 4 11 5 5 11 16 21 5 6 13 5 6 19 24 6 19 17 4 19 36 40 Unknown 11 73 13 5 84 97 102 Total 200 214 92 (42) (50) _(27l Average 4.8 4.3 3.4 215

Table 98. Institutional Factors-Hours A Day Spent in Research (Item 4B) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I S II I,II,III Total 5 ______4 5 5 9 14 2 8 15 6 8 23 29 3 7 12 8 7 19 27 4 10 10 2 10 20 22 5 5 6 3 5 11 14 6 5 • 5 2 5 10 12 Unknown 13 73 11 6 86 97 103 Total 137 170 76 (40) (52) (26) Average 3.4 3.3 2.5

Table 99. Institutional Factors-Rating of Graduate School (item 5) I II III TV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I, II, III Total Among the too two in the US 23 16 4 23 39 43 Among the Top three in the US 6 7 4 6 13 17 Among the top four in the US 7 4 5 7 11 16 Among the top five in the US 8 24 7 8 32 39 Below the top five in the US 5 10 10 5 15 25 Unknown 4 73 2 2 77 79 81

Table 100. Institutional Factors- Library Adequacy ( Item 6 A) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 1. Yes 48 61 31 48 109 140 2. No 1 1 1 1 2 3 Unknown 4 73 1 77 78 78

Table 101. Institutional Factors-Physical Condition of the Library (Item 6 B) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 1. Yes 41 57 31 41 98 129 2. No 5 4 1 5 9 10 Unknown 7 73 2 80 82 82

Table 102, Institutional Factors- Library Availability (Item 6 C)

L$G 5 £ g £ 5 5 M I & II 1,11,111 Total Nights 4 3 4 7 7 Saturdays 1 1 1 1 Holidays 1 1 1 1 None 1 2 1 3 3 Nights & Saturdays 16 20 12 16 36 48 Nights & Saturday & Sunday 3 15 10 3 18 28 Mights & Saturday & Holidays 2 2 Nights & Sats. & Suns. &Hs. 14 20 6 14 34 40 Unknown 13 73 3 2 86 89 91 214

Table 103. Institutional Factors-Students Work in University Build- ings. (Item 7) I II III IV Overall DVG DVG LTG NL i II I,II,III Total 1. Yes 42 49 26 42 91 117 2. No 5 10 5 5 15 20 Unknown 6 73 4 1 79 83 84

Table. 104. Institutional Factors-Faculty attitude Toward Graduate Student Research ( Item 8) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total Research was Important 50 61 28 50 111 139 Research furnished exper­ ience 1 1 1 1 2 Other 1 1 Unknown 2 73 2 2 75 77 79

Table 105, Institutional Factors-Number Psychology Faculty Who Worked After Hours ( Item 9) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG ML I & II 1,11,111 Total None 6 3 1 6 9 10 1/16 3 5 3 3 8 11 1/8 3 6 8 3 9 17 1/4 12 20 7 12 32 39 1/2 or more 9 13 5 9 22 27 Unknown 20 73 16 8 93 109 117

Table 106, Institutional Factors-Percentages- Number Psychology Faculty Who Worked After Hours (Item 9) LVG DVG LTG ML 0 j .18 .06 .04 1/16 .09 .11 .13 . 1/8 .09 .12 .33 1/4 f 37 .42 .29 1/2 4 ,27 .28 .20

Table 107. Institutional Factors-Names of Outstanding Leaders on the Faculty Who Were Mentioned Ten or More Times (Item 10) LVG DVG LTG NL Total Cattail. J.M. 7 1 2 i_ 10 Hollingwo rth, H.L. 3 6 1 10 Lashley, K.S. 4 4 2 10 Miles. W.R. 4 7 1 12 Poffenberger. A.T. 2 7 2 11 Thorndike . E .L , 9 6 1 16 Woodworth, R.S. 10 10 3 23 215 Table 108. Institutional Factors-Enrollment of the Graduate Psychology Department ( Item 11) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I,II,III Total 1. 5 5 1 4 5 6 10 2. 10 18 10 4 18 28 32 3. 20 13 14 6 13 27 33 4. 35 4 7 2 4 11 13 5. 50 3 8 4 3 11 15 6. 75 7 1 7 8 7. 100 2 4 2 2 6 8 8. Over 200 3 3 3 6 Unknown 8 73 9 6 81 90 96

Table 109. Institutional Factors - Percentages - Enrollment of the Graduate Psychology Department (Item 11) I II III IV LVG DVG LTG NL 5 .11 .02 .15 10 .40 .18 .15 20 .29 .26 .23 35 .09 ,13_ .08 50 ... .07 .15 .15 75 .04

,13 o O C 100 .04 .07 . Over 200 .05 .12

Table 110. Institutional Factors - Other Facilities Available to Graduate Students $ Item 12) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 1. Other Univ. Dept. Labs 14______11 8 14______25______35 2. Facilities in Nearby City 4 9 4 4 13 17 3. Instrument Shop 3 3 3 4. Private Offices for Grad.Stud 6 3 6 9 5. Cooperation of Individuals 1 1 1 6. Departmental Library & Books 1 2 1 1 3 4 7. I B M Equipment 1 1 1 8. Graduate Seminars 6 2 2 6 8 10 9. Statistical Resources 1 1 1 10. Research Funds 1 1 1 1 11. Psychological Fraternities 2 2 2 12. Availability of Faculty 2 2 2 2 13. Professors Personal Equipment 1 1 Unknown i25 73 25 13 98 123 136

Table 111. Institutional Factors - Percentages - Other Facilities Available to Graduate Students ( Item 12) LVG LTG NL LVG LTG NL DVG LTG NL 1. .50 .29 .42 5. .03______9. >03___ 2. .14 .23 .21 6. .03 .06 .05 10. .03 3. .07 7. .03 11. 4. .16 .16 8. .21 .06 .11 12. .08 .06 13. .05 216

Table 112. Institutional Factors-Classification of Graduate School (Item 13) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL Iftll I,II,III Total 1. Socially & Politically Liberal, 2 2 2 ______2______4__ 2. Soc. & Pol. Conservative 2 3 2 5 5 3. Intellectually Liberal 6 10 4 6 16 20 4. Intellectually Conservative 1 2 1 3 3 5. S & P Liberal/I Liberal 17 25 14 17 42 56 6. S & P Liberal/I Conservative 2 2 7. S & P Conservative/ I Liberal 12 13 5 12 25 30 8. S & P Conserv. / I Conserv. 5 5 2 5 10 12 Unknown 8 73 5 3 81 86 89

Table 113 . Institutional Factors--Percentages-Classification of Graduate School (Item 13) LVG DVG LTG ML 1. .04 .07 2. , , • 04 .05 3. , •12 .18 .14

4. . •02 .02

5. . •38 .44 .48 6. .07 _ 7. m 27 .23 .17 8. m11 .08 .07

Table 114 . Liberalness (Idesd) (Combination of Items 4,5,6 ,7,8,9) Combined I II III IV Overall Score LVG DVG LTG ML I & II I, II,III Total Unknown 1 73 1 74 75 75 2 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 a 11 2 1 3 12 1 if 1 > 5 6 13 2 1 2 3 14 1 1 1 1 2 15 1 2 1 3 3 16 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 1 1 1 2 18 1 2 1 1 3 19 1 ? 1 4 20 6 5 6 9 21 2 i l 2 3 4 22 4 2 4 6 23 1 2 2 1 3 5 24 2 4 1 2 6 7 (Continued) 217 Table 114. (Co ntinued) Liberalness (ldeeuj} (Comb, of Items 4,5, 8,and 9 Combined Score I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 25 2 2 2 4 26 3 5 2 3 8 10 27 5 2 I .5 7 a 28 4 3 1 4 7 8 29 2 3 1 2 5 6 30 5 2* 5 7 7 31 4 1 1 4 . Y .5 6 32 3 1 3 4 ...... 4 .... 33 1 3 1 1 4 5 34 4 3 4 7 7 35 2 1 2 3 3 36 4 2 2 & 8

37 5 . 1 ? 4 4 38 1 1 39 l 1 1 2 2 40 1 1 1

Total 1267 1448 741 218 (52) (61) (32) Average 24.4 . 23.7 23.0 218

Table 115. Personal Influences

I. Average LVG LTG NL II. Average LVG LTG NL 1 4.83 4.37 4.09 *1» 4.54 4.63 4/45 2 4.68 4.37 4.06 *2 j, 4.24 4.23 4.45 3 3.95 3.91 3.55 *3. 4.24 3.74 3.90 *4 4.16 4.36 4.42 *4, 4.25 4.42 4.50 5 4.29 3.85 3.74 3.83 3.71 4.37 6 3.66 3.29 3.03 *6, 3.48 3.68 3.90 7 4.24 3.80 3.87 *7, 4.38 4.03 4.20 8 3.67 3.18 2.94 *8, 3.79 3.48 3.94 _ 9 3.97 3.90 3.61 9, 4.21 4.21 4.11 10 4.29 4.20 3.61 *10. 4.14 4.35 4.65 11 4.36 4.08 3,84 11. 4.52 4.29 4.28 *12 3.75 3.83 3.94 *12 f 4,17 4.21 4.20 *13 4.39 . 4.39 4,48 *13, 4.21 4.44 4,75 _ *14 4.54 4.42 4.52 . *14. 4.64 4.78 4.80 15 3.80 3.70 3.63 *15. 3.79 4.03 4.05 16 4.55 3.98 3.86 *16, 4.14 4.09 4.30 *17 4.26 3.49 3.68 17, 4.10 4.00 3.90 18 4.19 4.17 3.71 *18, 4.07 4.06 4.37 19 4.51 4.36 4.26 *19. 4.52 4.57 4.14 *20 4.32 4.41 4.00 20. 4.41 .4,24 .4.60 21 3.68 3.43 3.10 *21, 4.11 3.52 3.55 22 4.05 3.71 3.35 22. 4.14_ 4.06 3.79 *23 3.66 3.83 3.67 *23. 4.14 4.26 . 4.11 *24 .. 4.05 4.10 3.90 *24. .4,62 4.24 4.60 25 3.97 3.86 3.29 25, 4.07 4.06 4.00 26 4.19 3.90 3.77 *26, 3.97 3.89 4.00 27 4.78 4.72 4.68 27, 4.72 4.66 4.42 *28 4.68 4.75 4.48 28, 4.69 4.47 4.42 *29 '3.59 3.82 3.00 29, 3.66 3.39 3.44 30 . 4.16 4.13 3.87 30. 3.97 3.85 4.00 *31 3.03 3.24 2f35 31. 3.90 3.41 3.00 _ *32 4.25 4.35 4.13 32. 4.45 4.33 4.50 33 3.62 3.28 3.13 33, 3,79 3.42 3.26 34 3.63 3.66 3,17 *34. 3.69 3.97 3.10

Total 139.75 134.84 126.73 Total 141.59 138.72 140.05 4.11 3.97 3.73 4.16 4.08 4.12

(Continued) 219

Table 115. (Continued) Personal Influences LVG LTG NL

III Average ♦1. 4.53 3.91w • JU 4.00 *2, 4.44 4.55 4.07 *3 , 3.68 3.83 3.33 *4, 4.17 4.22 4.13 5, 3.90 3.87 3.73 *6. 3 .26 3.35 3.73 *7, 3.89 3.83 3.93 8. 4.26 3.30 3.47 *9-, 4.00 ..4.13 4.27 10. 4.32 4.22 4.20 *11. 4.32 3.61 3.87 *12. 4.53 3.96 4.07 *13. 3.84 4.43 4.40 *14. 4.53 4.61 4.40 *15. 3.56 . 4.13 3.67 *16. 4.63 4.17 4.33 *17, 3.90 4.26 3.93 18, 4.21 4.13 4.07 *19. 4.63 4.52 4.67 *20, 4.42 4.30 4.33 *21. 4.32 3.36 3.73 22. 4.00 3.70 3.67 23. 4.42 _ 4.09 3.71 *24, 4.58 3.57 3.60 *25. 4.05 . 3,6.1.. 3.93 *26. 3.68 3.69 3.67 _ *27. 4.67 4.52 4.53 28. 4.95 4.68 4.27 *29. 4.00 3.35 3.71 *30. 4.05 4.35 4.07 31. 3.95 3.32 3.13 *32. 4.26 4.00 4.29 *33. 3.21 3.00 3.47 34, 3.95 3.61 3.07

Total 140.91 134.18 133.45 4.14 3.95 3.93

I. 4.11 3.97 3.73 III. 4.14 3.95 3.93 II. 4.16 4.08 4.12 O O Total (3) 4.14 • 3.93 220

Table 116# Name of Group (item 1) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total Bentley, M. 21 1 1 1 1 Bingham, W.V.D. 24 1 1 1 Carr, H.A. 41 1 1 1 Cattell, J.M. . 42 1 2 1 3 3 Hall, G.S. 96 1 1 1 1 Hull, C.L. 115 1 2 1 1 3 4 Judd, C.H. 130 1 1 1 Lashley, K.S. 146 1 1 1 1 Mtinsterberg, H* 181 1 1 1 1 Paterson, D.G. 190 1 1 1 Pintner, R, 196 1 1 1 1 Robinson, E.S. 205 1 1 1 Seashore, C.E. 218 1 1 1 2 2 Terman, L.M. 235 1 1 1 Thorndike, E.L. 236 1 1 1 Thurstone, L.L. 237 1 1 1 Titchener, E.B, 238 1 1 1 1 Tolman, E.B. 239 1 1 1 2 2 Weiss, A.P. 249 2 2 2 Wer th erme r, M . 252 1 1 1 1 Travis, L, 457 1 1 1 1 Singer, E.A. 488 1 1 Ktllpe, D. 536 1 1 1 1 Rugg, H. 638 1 1 Toops, H.A, 695 1 1 1 Crosier, W.J. 777 1 1 1 1 Adams, D.K* 894 1 1 Experimental 901 1 1 1 Clinical 902 1 1 Animal 907 1 1 1 2 2 Behaviorism 908 4 2 3 4 6 9 Gestalt 909 2 1 & 3 Functionalism 910 1 1 1 Introspection 911 1 1 1 1 Philosophy 913 1 1 1 1 Educational 917 2 1 2 3 3 Semantics & Phonetics: 920 1 1 1 Statistical 921 1 1 1 No data 30 73 36 23 103 139 162 221

Table 117. Founder of Group (Item 2)

I II III IV Overal LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total

1. Allport, F.H. 1.______1______1 _ 2. Angell, J.R. 6 1______1______1 3. Bentley, M. 21 1___ 1______1______1 4« BingJiam, W.V.D, 24 ______1______1______1 5. Carr, H.A. 41 ______1______6. Cattell, J.M. 42 _1______2______1______3_____ 3__ 7. Culler, E.A.K, 49 1______1______1__ 8. Hall, G.S. 96 _JL 1 1______9. Holt, E.B. 110 ,_J. 1 1______1__ 10. Hull, C.L. 115 _2______1 1 2 ______3______4 _ 11. Judd, C.H. 130 1______1______1__ 12. Lewin, K* 150 1______1______1 13. Louttit, C.K. 155 ______1______1 14. Morgan, J.J.B, 177 ______1______1 15. Paterson, D.G, 190 m______1______1______1 16. Plntner, R. 196 _1______3:______1______1 17. Sears, R.R. 218 _1______1______1— ______2 18. Thorndike, E.L. 236 1______3:______1 19. Thurstone, L.L. 237 2______2 2 20. Titchener, E.B. 238__J=______1______1______J=__ 21. Tolman, E.C. 239 _1______1______1______2_____ 2 _ 22. Watson, J.B. 247 _2_____ 2______2______4_____ 4 23. Weiss, A.P. 249 2______2_____ 2 24. Wertheimer, M, 252 _1______1_____3=______3:______£L_ 25. Travis, L. 457 _1______1.______1______1 26. Singer, E.A. 488 ______1______1 . 27. Bagley, W.C. * 503 __1______1______3=______3^_ 28. Van Court, S.W. 516 ______1______3=_ 29. Kulpe, 0. ' 536 __1______1______1______1_ 30. Stetson, R.H, 553 ______1______1_ 31. Kinney, L. 615 1______iL______3=__ 32. Rugg, H. 638 ______1______I_ 33. Toops, H.A, 695 1______3:______1 34. Crozier, W.J. 777 _1______1______1______3*— 35. Wundt, W. 783 1 1 1______36. Ammons, R.B. 810 ______1______1 . 37. Sanford, R.N. 920 1______3=______3^_ No data 35 73 42 21___108_____150_____171 222

Table 118. Date of Founding of The Group ( Item 3)

. I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II 1,11,111 Total 1858 _1______1______1______1 1905______1______:______1______1 1906 _1____ 1______1______1 1909 _1______1______1______1 1910 1 1______1______2 1912 _1______1_____1_____1______2______5 1914 _1______1______1______1 1915 1 1______1______2 1918 _i______;______1______1______1 1919______1______1______1 1920 _2______1______2______3______5 1921______1______1 1924______1______1 1925 _1 1 1______1______2 1926______1______1 1927______2______2______2 1928 _2______2______2______4______4 1929 _1______1____ 1 1 ______2______5 1931 _1______1______1______2______2 1932______2______2______2 1934 _1______1______1______1 1935 1 2______1______3 1936______1______1______1 Y 1938 2______2______2 1945______1______1 1947 1 1 ______1______2 Unknown _2______3______2______5______5____ No data * 37 73 41 20 110______151 171

Table 119. Leader During Membership (item 4) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II 1,11,111 Total 1. Allport, F.H, 1 ______1______1 2. Bentley, M. 21__ _1______1______1______1 3. Carr, H.A. 4 1 ______1______1______1 4. Cattell, J.M. 42__ _JL______1______1______1 5. Culler, E.A.K. 49 1______1______1 6. Dunlap, Knight 66_ 1______1______1 7. Hall, G.S. 96 _1______1______1______1 8. Holt, E.B. 110__ _1______1______1______1 9. Hull, C.L. 115 _2______2 1 2 ______4______5 10. Hunter, W.S. 118______1______1

(Continued) 225

Table 119. (Continued) Leader During Membership (Item 4) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 11. Judd, C.H, 12. Kelley, T.L. 132 1 1 1 1 13. Lashley, K.S* 146 2 1 2 2 3 14. Lewin, K, 150 1 1 1 15. Morgan, J.J.B 177 1 1 16. Nafe, J.P. 183 1 1 1 17. Paterson, D.G 190 1 1 1 18. Pintner, R, 196 1 1 1 1 19. Seashore, C ,E. 218 1 1 ,1 1 2 0 . Terman, L.M 235 1 1 1 2 1 . Thorndike E.L. 236 1 1 1 22. Thurstone L.L. 237 2 2 2 23. Titchener E.B. 23 8 2 2 2 2 24. Tolman, E.CC. 239 1 1 1 2 2 25. Watson, J.B 247 1 1 1 1 26. Weiss, A.P- 249 1 1 . 1 27. Wertheimer M 252 1 1 28. Woodworth, ! S . 263 2 2 2 29. Travis, L. 457 1 1 1 1 30. Esper, E.A 507 1 1 1 31. Kulpe, 0, 536 1 1 1 1 32. Aleck, A 543 1 1 33. Stetson R.H. 553 1 1 34. Yoakum, C. 555 1 1 1 35. Kinney, L. 615 1 1 1 36. Rugg, H 638 1 1 37. Toops, H.A. h 695 1 1 1 38. Dockerayr, f.c.. 696 1 1 1 39. Murray, H.A.1 ' 773 1 1 1 40. Crozier W.J. ' 777 1 1 1 1 41. Ammons, R.B. 810 1 1 No data 35 73 40 22 108 148 170

Table 120. Names of Outstanding Group Staff Members Mentioned More Than Once ( Item 5) LVG LTG NL TOTAL LVG LTG NL TOT, 1. Carr, H.A, 2 1 3 13 .Thurstone L._____ 3____ 3 2. Garrett, H.E. 14 , Tolman, E.C. 1 1____ 2__ 3. Hilgard, E.R. 15 .Weiss, A,P. 2 2 4. Hull, C.L. 16 .Wertheimer M 1______1 2 5. Lashley, K.S. _17 . Woodworth R 1 2____ 5 6. Lewin, K. 18 .Mowrer, O.H._____1. 7. Poffenberger, A.T. 19 .Miller,N.E. JL___1 1 3 8. Robinson, E.S, 20 .Kingsbury,F _____2 9. Sears, R.R. 21 .Dollard, J. 1 1 10. Seashore, C.E. 22 .Renshaw, S. _____2 11. Strong, E.K, 23 .Elliot,R.M. _2____ 12. Thorndike, E.L. 224

Table 121. Number of Staff Members in Group (item 6)

1 11 III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG ML I&II I,II,III Total 1. 2-5 14 16 8 14 30 38 2. 6-10 1 4 3 1 5 8 3. 11-20 4 .4 4 No data 38 73 39 21 111 150 171

Table 122. tudents in the Group (Item 7) LVG LTG NL TOTAL 1. Hilgard-, E.R, 1 1 2 2. Holt, E.B. 2 2 3. Jacobsen, C.F. 1 1 2 4. Katz, Daniel 1 1 2 5. Landis, C, 1 1 1 3 6. Sears, R.R. 1 2 3 7. Spence, K.W. 2 1 3 8. Ream, Jay 1 1 2 9. Thurston, T.G. 2 2 10. Tiffin, J. 2 2 11. Johnson, Wendell 1 1 2 12. Blatz, W.E. 2 2 13. Dresden, K. 2 2 14. Kurtz, A.K, 2 2

Table 123. Number of Students in the Group (Item 8) I II III rv Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 1. 2-5 9 4 6 9 13 19 2. 6-10 6 12 3 6 18 21 3. 11-20 2 9 2 2 11 13 4. 21-30 1 1 1 2 2 5. Over 30 1 1 1 1 2 3 Mo data 34 73 36 20 107 143 163

Table 124. Percentages-Number of Students in the Group (item 8)1

LVG LTG NL

1. 2-5 . 46 .15 .50 2, 6-10 .32 .44 . .25 3. 11-20 .11 .33 .16.. 4. 21-30 .06 .04 o CO 5. Over 30 .06 . ..*04 * 225

Table 123. How Often the Group Met (item 9) I II III IV Overall

H LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II H Total

1. Once a week or more 5 15 6 5 O H 26 2. Tv/ice a month 1 2 1 3 3 , Once a month 3 3 1 3 6 7 4, Irregularly 9 3 1 9 12 13 36 73 41 22 109 150 172

Table 126. Percentages - How Often the Group Met (Item 9) LVG LTG NL 1. Once a month or more .29 .68 . ,60 2. Twice a month .05 .20 3. Once a month .18 .13 ,10 4. Irregularly .53 .13 ,10

Table 127. Dominant Philosophy of the Group (Item 10 A)

I II III rv Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total Experimental 1 1 3 1 1 4 5 Clinical 2 1 1 Industrial & Applied 6 1 1 1 Behaviorism 8 4 5 3 4 9 12 Gestglt 9 1 3 2 1 4 6 Functionalism 10 2 4 2 2 6 8 Introspection 11 2 2 2 2 Physiology 12 1 1 1 1 Philosophy 13 2 2 Psycho-Physical 15 1 1 1 1 Personnel - 16 1 1 1 Educational 17 2 2 2 2 Statistics ' 21 1 2 1 3 3 Biology 23 1 1 1 1 2 Theoretical 24 1 1 1 1 General 27 2 4 2 6 6 34 73 40 20 107 147 167

Table 128. Significant Philosophical Changes of the Group (Item 10B) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total

Behaviorism Gestalt 1 1 1 1 2 Philosophy 1 1 1 Emotion 1 1 Mental Tests 1 1 1 1 51 73 60 30 124 184 213 226

Table 129. Fields in Which the Group Was IJost Interested (I.11) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II 1,11,111 Total 1. Experimental II 20 8 11 31 39 2. Clinical 1 1 4 1 2 6 3. Social 1 6 3 1 7 10 4. Perception 3 7 2 3 10 12 5. Child 1 6 3 1 7 10 6. Industrial 2 2 2 7. Animal 3 2 2 3 5 7 8. Behaviorism 3 10 4 3 13 17 9. Gestalt■ 3 3 3 10. Functionalism 1 4 1 5 5 11. Introspection 2 1 2 3 3 12. Measurement 1 3 1 4 4 13. Educational 1 1 • 1 2 14. Philosophy■ 1 1 1 1 15. Theory 1 1 1 1 16. Learning 2 1 2 2 2 Total 31 66 28 31 97 125

Table 130. Kind of Research Problems Group Worked On (Item 12)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total

1, Experimental 2 3 2 5 5 2. Clinical 2 2 3. Social 1 5 4 1 6 10 4. Perceptual 2 6 3 2 8 11 5. Child 3 1 3 4 6. Indust. & Applied 1 1 1 7. Animal 3 2 2 3 5 7 8. Behaviorism 1 1 1 2 2 9, Gestalt 1 1 1 10. Introspection 3 1 3 3 4 11. PhjrSiological 1 4 1 5 5 12. Emotion 5 3 5 8 13. Ppycho-physical 2 5 1 2 7 8 14. Personnel 4 1 4 5 15. Educational 2 2 2 2 4 6 16. Learning 3 6 4 3 9 13 17, Psycho-motor 2 2 18. Semantics & Phonetics 1 1 19. Statistical 5 5 5 20. Mental Tests 2 1 1 2 3 4 21, Biology 1 .1 22. Theoretical 1 2 1 3 23. General 1 1 1 2 22 56 32 22 78 110 c^> 227

Table 131. Number of PhDs Given to Group Members ( Item 13) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total No data 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 6 6 2 6 4 6 6 10 16 3 3 3 1 3 6 7 4 2 5 1 2 7 8 5 1 4 1 5 5 6 1 2 1 3 10 2 2 2 37 73 41 22 110 151 173

Table 132. How the Group was Financed (Item 14) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total 1. Psychology Dept 8 8 4 8 16 20 2. Graduate School 2 1 2 2 3 3. Private Means 4 7 3 4 11 14 4. Government Grants 1 1 1 5. No s. 2 & 3 1 1 1 2 6, Nos. 1 & 2 1 1 1 2 2 7. Nos. 1 & 3 1 1 1 2 8 * Nos. 1 & 2 & 3 1 1 1

Table 133. Other Universities with Similar Groups (Item 15) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG ML I&II I,II,III Total Berlin 1 1 1 1 California 1 1 Clark 1 1 1 2 2 Duke 1 1 1 Iowa • 1 1 1 1 Stanford 1 1 1 1 49 73 61 31 122 183 214

Table 134. Group's Influence ( Item 16) I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I, II, III Total 1. Very 1 7 1 8 8 2. Quite 4 11 3 4 15 18 3. Moderately 2 2 3 2 4 7 4. S ome 2 2 2 2 4 6 5. Not at all 6 3 3 6 9 12 38_ 73 38 21 111 149 170 o

228

Table 135. Percentages - Group's Influence (Item 16) LVG LTG NL 1. .07 .28______2 * .26 .44 .27 3. .13 .08 .27 4. .13 .08 .19

5. .40 ,12...,. .♦.27 .

Table 136. simulation by the Group ( Item 17)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I&II I,II,III Total

1. Very much 7 14 3 7 21 24 2. Quite a bit 4 9 5 4 13 18 3. . Moderately 4 4 2 4 8 10 4. Some 1 3 1 4 5. Very little 1 1 1 1 37 73___35 19 110 145 164

Table 137. Percentages-Personal Stimulation by the Group ( Item 17)

LVG LTG NL

JU. • ‘xw ♦ 2. .25 .32 .39 3. .25 .13 .15 4. .04 .22 5. .06 229

Table 138. Group Traits

LVG LTG NL 13 24 13

*1. 3.23 3.54 3_*00_____ *2. 3.42 3.71 3.62 *3. 4.00 4.13 3.69 4. 3.85 3.70 3.69 *5. 1.33 1.75 1.23 *6. 3.23 3.13 3.38 *7. 3.50. ... 3.96 2.92 *8. 3.50 3.52 2.77 *9. 1.31 1.29 1.31 *10. 0.55 1.09 1.31 *11. 1.62 1.21 1.69 *12. 2.58 2.96 . 3.55 *13. 1.75 2.58 2.23 *14. 1.31 1.29 1.45 *15. 1.75 2.17 2.67 *16. 3.67 3.63 3.69 *17. 3.75 3.96 3.31 18. 2.83 2.63 2,31 Total 47.18 50.25 47.82 2.62 2.79 2.66 2 5 0

Table 139. Date of Death (En& Item)

I II III IV Overall LVG DVG LTG NL I & II I}II}III Total

1910 1914 1916 1919 1921 1923 1924 1925 1927 1928 1929 1930 1932 1933 1934 1935 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 4 1943 1944 1946 1947 1948 1 1949

51 25 65 52 76______139 171 APPENDSX II 252 Table 140. Composition of Leader Groups Total Number Total Number by No. in Selective Present Sort Study

1. American Psychological Assn Presidents 62 60 60 2. American Men of Science Starred as Psychologists 137 118 63 3. National Academy of Science Members 34 31 02 4. International Congress of Psychology Officials 29 29 00 5. American Assn for the Advancement of Science Officials Who were Psychologists 05 05 00 6. American Assn of Arts & Sciences Members21 21 01 7. National Institute of Psychologists Members 03 00 8. Howard Crosby Warren Medal Recipients 14 12 00 9. American Assn of Applied Psychologists Officials 08 07 02 10. Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Chairmen 16 09 03 11. Eastern Psychological Assn Presidents 23 21 03 12. Midwestern Psychological Assn Presidents23 13 02 13. Western Psychological Assn Presidents 28 08 02 14. Society of Experimental Psychologists Members 26 26 02 15. Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology Chairmen (Alternate Yrs) 22 16 04 16. American Psychological Assn Division Chairman 91 66 37 17. Rocky Mountain Psychological Assn Presidents 21. 05 05 255

Table l4l. A.P.A. PRESIDENTS

1. 1892 Granville, Stanley Hall 32. 1923 Lewis Madison Terman 2. 1893 George Trumbull Ladd *33. 1924 Granville Stanley Hall 3. 1:894 William James 34. 1925 Madison Bentley 4. 1895 James McKeen Cattell 35. 1926 Harvey A Carr 5. 1896 George Stuart Fullerton 36. 1927 Harry Levi Hollingworth 6 . 1897 James Mark Baldwin 37. 1928 Edwin Garrigues Boring 7. 1898 Hugo Mtinstergerg 38. 1929 Karl Spencer lashley 8. 1899 John Dewey 39/ 1930 Herbert Sidney Langfield 9/ 1900 Joseph Jastrow 40. 1931 Waited Samuel Hunter 10. 1901 Josiah Royce 41. 1932 Walter Richard Miles 11. 1902 Edmund Clark Sanford 42. 1933 Louis Leon Thurstone 12. 1903 William Lowe Bryan 43. 1934 Joseph Peterson 13. 1904 William James 44. 1935 Albert Theodore Poffen- 14. 1905 Mary Whiton Calkins berger 15. 1906 James Rowland Angell 45. 1936 Clark Leonard Hull 16. 1907 Henry Rutgers Marshall 46. 1937 Edward Chace Tolman 17. 1908 George Maleolm Stratton 47. 1938 John Frederick Dashiell 18. 1909 Charles Hubbard Judd 48. 1939 Gordon Willard Allport 19 1910 Walter Bowers Pillsbury 49. 1940 Leonard Carmichael 20. 1911 Carl Emil Seashore 50. 1941 Herbert Woodrow 21. 1912 Edward Lee Thorndike 51. 1942 Calvin Perry Stone 22'. 1913 Howard Crosby Warren 52. 1943 John Edward Anderson 23. 1914 Robert Sessione Woodworth 53. 1944 Gardner Murphy 2.4. 1915 John Broadue Watson 54. 1945 Edwin Ray Guthrie 25. 1916 Raymond Dodge 55. 1946 Henry Edward Garrett 26. 1917 Robert Mearne Yerkes 56. 1947 Carl Ransom Rogers 27. 1918 John ’Wallace Baird 57. 1948 Donald George Marquis 28. 1919 Walter Dill Scott 58. 1949 Ernest Ropiequet Hilgard 29. 1920 Shepherd Ivory Franz 59. 1950 Joy Pgml Guilford 30. 1921 Margaret Floy Washburn 60. 1951 Robert Richardson Sears 31. 1922 Knight Dunlap 61. 1952 Joseph HcVicker Hunt • 62. 1953 Laurence Shaffer 254 Table 1 4 2 . Psychological Leaders Men Starred by American Men of Science

1906 Edition x 1. James, Wm. (42-10) x 27. Dodge Raymond * 2 . Cattell, J.1.1. (5-25-60) * S8,-Hyelep-j-J,H,-(54-2e)-4Phil). 3. Ivlundterberg, Hugo (63-16) x 29. Seashore, C.E. * 4. Hall. G.S. (46-24) 30, Strong, C.A. * 5. Baldwin, J.M. (61-34) * 31. Pierce, A.H. (67-14) * 6 . Titchener, E.B. (67-27) * 32. L1cDouge.il, Robert * - 7nr' -Reyee7~ JeBiah-■(§6-16^-Phi !-)•- x 8 8.. Ladd, G.T. (42-21) * --33. Meyer, I.lax * x — 9t— fiewey-j-JehB— (Phili- 34. Lindley, Ernest H. * x 10. Jastrow, Joseph * (BenaldeeH-j-H-,H-,--(Wewre4©gy) x 11, Sanford, E.G. (53-24) * --- 35. Leuba, J.H. * x 12. Calkins, Mary W. (64-30) * 36. Angell, P. * x.13. Bryan, W.L.* x37. Pillsbury, W.B.* x_14^_FalierteH7-G,S,-<59-S5)-4Phil^ 58-, -Wewbeld7-W-rRT--(65-26l--(Phil) x 15. Stratton, G.M.* 39-* . Ft* j? a? a a d-j - Li v i « ge-t ©-9 - * x 16. Thorndike, E.L. (Aathrepelegy)- - 17. Delab rve, E.B. 4©, 'rfieheis-j-Herfeert-S-^BRgia-,) - 18. Scripture, E.W, * 41^-SehurHan^-J-*&•*-■(Phii)- — 19. Ladd-Franklin, Christine (47-30) x 20. Marshall, H.R. (52-27) x42. Washburn, Margaret F * x 21. Judd, C.H.* x43. Woodworth, R.S. (Physiol)* x 22. Angell, J.R. * but restored — 23. Witmer, Lightner * x (F^&H«7 -3-ii)— -(Phyeiel)- 24t — Pair iek-y-G-,TTW-*--( Phil} 44. Wea#e7-H,K-r-(68-18)-lPhil) x25 . Warren, Howard C,* 45. Creighten7-JTE-,-(6l-24}-(Phil} - 26. Harris, W.T. (35-09) 46. Ga¥diHeP7-H»N»-46e-8!7>-(Ph4a> 47. SaHtayaaa-y-Geerge-^Phil) 48. Buchner, Ed.F. (68-29) * 49-»-Ars?etreiag-4,»G-»“'(Pbi4l --50. Bolton, Thaddeus L. *(7-27-65) (Meyea?-y-Ade4f}-Peyehiatry}

1910 Edition (2nd) x 1. Bentley, Madison 8. Sidis, Boris (67-23) x 2. Yerkes, R.I.I. 9. Starbuck, Edwin D, x 3. Watson, J.B. 10. Wells, Frederic Lyman 4. Howes, Ethel Dench Puffer (Mrs) 5. Martin, Lillien Jane 11. Whipple, Guy Montrose 6 . Pace, Edward Aloysius 12. Wieeler-j-Clark-lAathrepelegy) 7. Peekham-j-Geerge-W-T--(Biei) — -13. Holt, E.B. Hurd-j-Heary-M,-.(Psy6histry)- 255

Table 1 4 2. Psychological Leaders (Continued) Men Starred by American Me of Science 1921 Edition (3rd) — 1. Bingham, ’W.V.D. x 10, Dunlap, Knight x2. Boring, E.G. -— 11. Goddard, H.H. — 3. Strong, E.K. --12. Wocley, Helen B.T, x4. Scott, W.D. -- 13. Ferree, C.E. x5. Hunter, W.S. — 14. Pintner, Rudolph x6. Langfeld, H.S. — 15. Starch, Daniel x 7, Hollingworth — 16. Baldwin, Bird T. x 8. Carr, H. -- 17. Dearborn, W.F. x 9. Terman, L.M. — 18. Ogden, R.M,

1927 Edition (4th) 1. Allport, Floyd 8. McDougall, William x 2. Poffenberger, A.T. x 9. Peterson, Joseph x S. Thurstone, L.L. 10. Brown, Warner x 4. Miles, W.R. 11. Downey, June E. x 5. Lashley, K.S, 12. Kelley, T.L. 6. Gates, A.I. 13. Troland, L.T. 7. Gesell, Arnold

1933 Edition (5th) x 1. Anderson, John E. 8. Koffka, K. 2, Dallenbach, Karl M. — 9, May, Mark Arthur

x 3. Dashiell, John Frederick 1 0 , Paterson, Donald G. 4. Fernberger, Samuel W. — 11, Robinson, Edward Stevens 5. Freeman, Frank Nugent X 12, Stone, Calvin P. x 6. Hull, Clark L. x 13, Tolman, Edward C, 7, Johnson, Harry Miles

1958 Edition (6th) x 1 Carmichael, Leonard x 8. Garrett, Henry Edward -- 2 Lewin Kurt ‘ — 9. Jones, Harold E. -- 3 , Wertheimer, Max — 10. Kluver, Heinrich — - — 4 Landis, Carney 11. Gocdenough, F.L, — 5 , McGeoch, John 12. Wever, E.G. x 6 , Allport, Gordon 13, Kohler, Wolfgang x 7 , Woodrow, Herbert 1944 Edition (7th) — -1 Bray, Charles V/. x 8. Marquis, Donald G. 2. Culler, Elmer x 9. Murphy, Gardner — 3 Graham, Clarence H. 10. Skinner, Burrhus F. x 4 Guilford, Joy P. 11, Stevens, Stanley,S. x 5 , Guthrie, Edwin R. 12. Tryon, Robert C. x 6 , Hilgard, Ernest R. 13. Vitales, Morris S. — 7 , Jacobsen, Carlyle, F,

x APA Presidents Not APA Presidents * Also starred in 2nd and succeeding issues of American Men of Science *Also starred in 2nd and succeeding issues of American Men of Science but not as psychologists Hot starred in 2nd and succeeding issues of Amer. Men of Science 256

Table 145* Starred Iwen in American Lien of Science

1. Allport, Floyd Henry 32. Lewin, Kurt 2, Angell, Frank 33. Lindley, Ernest Hiram 3 m Baldwin, Bird Thomas 34. Louttit, Chauncey McKinley 4. Bingham, Walter Van Dyke 35. HacDougall, Robert 5. Bolton, Thaddeus Lincoln 36. Martin, Lillien Jane S. Bray, Charles William 37. May, Mark Arthur 7. Brown, Warner 38. IvIcDougal, William 8. Buchner, Edward Franklin 39. LIcGeoch, John Alexander 9. Culler, Elmer Augustine Kurtz. 40. Meyer, Max Frederick 10. Dallenbach, Karl M. 41. Pace, Edward Aloysius 11. Dearborn, Valter Fenno 42. Patei’son, Donald Gildersleeve 12. Delabarre, Edmund Burke 43. Pierce, -.rthur Henry 13. Doll, Edgar Arnold 44. Pintner, Rudolph 14. Downey, June Etta 45. Robinson, Edward Stevens 15. Fernberger, Samuel Weiller 46. Scripture, Edward Wheeler 16. Ferree, Clarence Errol 47. Sidis, Boris 17. Freeman, Frank Nugent 48. Starbuck, Edv/in Diller 18. Fryer, Douglas H. 49. Starch, Daniel 19. Gates, Arthur Irving 50. Stevens, Stanley Smith 20. Gesell, Arnold Lucius 51. Strong, Charles Augustus 21. Goddard, Henry Herbert 52. Strong, Edward Kellogg, Jr. 22. Holt, Edv/in Bissell 53. Titchener, Edward Bradford 23. Howes, Ethel Dench Puffer 54. Watson, Goodwin Barbour 24. Jacobsen, Carlyle Ferdinand 55 . Wells, Frederic Lyman 25. Johnson, Harry Miles 56 . Wertheimer, Max 26. Kltiver, Heinrich 57. VVever, Ernest Glen 27. Koffka, Kurt . 58. Whipple, Guy Montrose 28. KHhler, Wolfgang 59. Witmer, Lightner 29. Ladd-Franklin', Christine 60. Kelley, Truman Lee 30. Landis, Carney 61 Tryon, Robert Choate 31. Leuba, James Henry 62. Wooley, Helen B. 257 Table 1 4 4 . PSYCHOLOGICAL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

1 . Angell, James Rowland 18 Pillsbury, Walter Bowers 2. Beach, Frank Ambrose 19 Richter, Curt Paul 3. Boring, Edwin Garrigues 20 Royce, Josiah 4. Carmichael, Leonard 21 Seashore, Carl Emil 5. Cattell, James fwlcKeen 22 Skinner, B.F, 6 . Davis, Hollowell 23 Steven, Stanley Smith 7. Dodge, Raymond 24 Stone, Calvin Perry 8. Donaldson, Henry Herbert 25 Terman, Lewis Madison 9. Gesell, Arnold 26 Thorndike, Edward Lee 10. Graham, Clarence Henry 27 Thurstone, Louis Leon 11. Hall, G. Stanley 28 Tolman, Edward Chace 12. Hilg rd, Ernest Ropiequet 29 Washburn, Margaret Floy 13. Hull, Clark Leonard 30 Wever, Ernest Glen 14. Hunter, Walter Samuel 31 Woodworth, Robert Sessions 15. Kohler, Wolfgang 32 Yerkes, Robert Mearns 16. Lashley, Karl Spencer (Medalist 1943)33 Harlow, Harry F. 17. Miles, Walter Richard 34 Lindsley, D.B.

Table 1^5. NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF PSYCHOLOGY Officers I, McKeen Cattell New York President James R. Angell Yale Vice President Edwin G. Boring Harvard Secretary R.S. Woodworth Columbia Treasurer Walter S. Hunter Clark Executive Secretary H.S. Langfeld Princeton Foreign Secretary Raymond Bodge Yale Chairman, Program Committee Roswell P. Angier Yale Chairman Local Committee National Committee J.E. Anderson, Minnesota H.S. Langfeld Princeton J.R. Angell Yale William McDougall Duke' Madison Bentley,Cornell W.B. Pillsbury Michigan E G Boring Harvard C E Seashore Iowa H.A. Carr Chicago L M Terman Stanford J.M. Cattell New York E L Thorndike Columbia Raymond Dodge Yale H C Warren Princeton Knight Dunlap Hopkins MF Washburn Vassar S W Fernberger, Pennsylvania R S Woodworth Columbia W.S. Hunter Clark R M Yerkes Yale International Committee J.M. Baldwin, Paris W. Ktthler, Berlin E G. Boring, Cambridge H S Langfeld, Princeton J.M, Cattell, New York K S Lashley, Chicago R . Dodge, New Haven K. Lewin, Berlin W S Hunter, Worchester J.R. Angell, Mew Haven J. Jastrow, New York W Brown, Oxford K. Koffka, Northampton, Mass. 258

Table £46* Presidents of Psychological Associations

So g . of Experimental Psychologists Rocky Mountain *1. Titchener, E.B, 04 xl. Terman, L.H, 21--22 x2. Sanford, E.C. 05 1. Cole, L.W. 30.-31 x2. Tolnian, E.C. 23 2. Heilman, J.D, 32 x3. Judd, C.H. 06 3. Conklin, E.S. 24 *4. Witmer, Lightner 07 3. Garth, TR 33 4. Sutherland, A.H .25 4. Avery, G.T. 34 x5. Mflnsterberg, H. 08 x5. Miles, W.R. 26 x6. Warren, H.C. 09 5. Heilman, J.D. 35 6 . Gordon, Kate 27 6. Howells, T H 36 x7. Watson, J.B. 10 x7. Franz, S.I. 28 *8. Titchener, E.B, 11 7. Garth, T R 37 8. Brown, Warner 29 8. Muenzinger, K. 38 x9. Baird, J.W, 12 9. Coover, J.E. 30 xlO. Dodge, R. 13 9. Davis F.C. 39 10. Smith, S. 31 10. Miller, L.W. 40 xll. Cattell, J.M. 14 11. Stone, C.P. 32 12. Angier, R.P. 15 11. Wait, W T 41 12. Strong, E.K. 33 12. 42 xl3. Warren, H.C. 16 Crawley, S L. xl3. Guthrie, E.R. 34 13, Bruce, R.H. xl4. Langfeld, H.S, 17 43 14. Jones, H.E. 35 14. Lemmon V.W. 44 *15. Titchener, E.B, 19 15. Fernald, G. 36 *16. Titchener, E.B. 20 15, Miller, L.W. 45 16. Metfessel, H. 37 16. Blakely, W A 46-47 xl7. Boring, E.G. 21 17, Farnsworth, P.R 28 xl8. Dodge, R. 22 17. Howells, T.H. 48 X18. Dunlap, K. 39 18. Portenier, L.G .49 *19. Titchener, E.B 23 19. Taylor, H, 40 x20. Sanford, E.C. 24 19. Muenzinger, K, 50 20 . Eyre, Mary B. 41 20. Cutler, T H x21. Warren, H.C. 25 51 x21. Hilgard, E.R. 42 21. Klauemeier, H 52 *22. Fernberger, S.W. 26 22. i.Iacf arlane, JW 43- x23. Boring, E.G. 27 x23. Guilford, J.P. 47 SPSSI Presidents x24. Dodge, R. 28 24. Tryon, R.C. 48 1. Watson, G. 36--37 25. Grundlach, R.H. 49 x2. Host Murphy, G 38 Fornal Meetings 26. Ruch, Floyd, L, 50 3. x25. Warren, H.C. 29 Hartmann, G, 39 27. Merrill, H.A. 51 x4. Tolman, E.C. 40 x26. Bentley, M. 30 28. Leeper, R A 52 *5. Allport, F.E. 41 x27. Washburn, I.h.F. 31 *6. Lewin Kurt 42 x28. Woodworth, R.S. 32 AAAP Presidents 7. Klineberg, 0. 43 *29. Fernberger, S.W. 33 x8. Allport, G. 44 x30. Boring, E.G. 34 1. Fryer, D H 38 x9. Hilgard, E.R. 45 x31. Miles, W.R. 35 2. Paterson, D. 39 10. Mewcomb, T 46 x32. Hunter, W.S. 36 3. English, H.B. 40 11. Lickert, R. 47 *33 Koffka, Kurt 37 4. Doll, Edgar 41 12. Cantril, H, 48 x34. Dashiell, J.F. 38 *5. Bingham, W.V. 42 13. Lippitt, R. 49 x35. Langfled, H.S. 39 6. Louttit, C.H. 43 14. Kats, D . 50 *36» Fernberger, S.W. 40 x7. Poffenberger, A 44 15. Krech, D. 51 37. Pratt, C.C, 41 x 8 . Rogers, C. 45 16. Cook, S.W, 52 38. Geldard, F.A. (Act. Chairman) 42 Sof .of Exp. Psych. (Cor x39. Poffenberger, AT 43 41, Beebe-Center J 45 *40 Fernberger, S.W. 44 *42. Fernberger S. 46 (Cont' d) *43. Wever, E.G. 47 44. Helson, H. 48 x45. Hunt, J. 1.1 cV 49 46, Wendt, G.R. 50 47. Geldard, I’. A. 51 259 Table 146. Presidents of Psychological Associations MIDWESTERN EASTERN SOUTHERN SOCIETY 1, Gilliland3 A.R. 28 x 1. Woodworth, R.S. 29-30 FOR PHILOSOPHY 2. Weiss, A.R. 29 x 2. Warren, H.C. 31 AND PSYCHOLOGY 04- * 3. Meyer, M.F. 30 x 3. Washburn, M.F. 32 x 1. Baldwin,J.M.07# x 4. Thurstone, L.L. 31 x 4. Dodge, R. 33 2. Sterrett,DI.McB x 5. Woodrow, H. 32 x 5. Cattell, J.M. 34 08 * 6. English, H.B. 33 x 6. Jastrow, J. 35 3. Lefevre, A.09" 7. Morgan, J.J.B. 34 x 7. Langfeld, H.S. 36 * 4. Buchner,Ed.F 10" * 8. McGeoch, J.A. 35 * 8 . Fernberger, S.W. 37 x 5. Franz S I 11 # 9, Ruckmick, C.A. 36 x 9., Lashley, K.S. 38 6. Ogdne, R.M.12# x 10. Carr, H.A. 37 *10. Dallenbach, Karl M. 39 7. Pearce H.J.13' 11. Bills, A.G. 38 *11. Wells, F.L. 40 x 8. Watson,J.B.14# 12. Conklin, E.S. 39 xl2. Hunter, IV.S. 41 9. Barnes, J.C.15* x 13. Guilford, J.P. 40 xl3. Murphy, Gardner 42 10. Hill, D.S.16" * 14. Culler, E.A. 41 xl4. Allport, Gordon W. 43 11. Strong, E.K. 15. Porter, J.P. 42 15. Heidbreder, Edna 44 17-19 # 16. Seashore, R.H. 43-45 xl6. Garrett, Henry E. 45 x 13. Dunlap K. 20# 17. Pressey, S.L. 46 xl7 Boring, Edwin G. 46 14. Fletcher,J.M. 21# 18. Wolfle, D.L. 47 18. Anastasi, Anne 47 x.15. Peterson,J.22# 19. Harlow, H.F. 48 xl9. Hunt, J. McV. 48 16. Sanborn, J.C.23" 20. Skinner, B.F. 49 2 0 . Klineberg, Otto 49 17. Johnson,B.24 # 21. Buxton, C.E. 50 21 . Cantril, Hadley 50 x 18. Dashiell, J.F.25# 22. Hunt, William A. 51 22. Hovland, Carl I 51 19. Miner, J.B.26# 23. Lindsley, D.B. 52 23. Beach, Frank A 52 20. Edwards,A.S.271 21. Moore, J, 28* AWARDED H CROSBY WARREN MEDAL 22. Geissler, L.R.29# * 23. Meyer, LIF.30# 1. Weaver, E.G. & Bray, C.W. 36 24. Bowman, E. 311 x 2. Lashley, K.S. 37 25. Johnson, H.M 32# 3. Culler, E.A. 38 26. Liddell, A.F.33" * 4. Jacobson, Carlyle 39 27. Dorcus,R.M. 34# x 5. Hilgard, E.R. 40 28. Winter, J.C. 35# * 6. Graham, C.H.. 41 29. Blai,A.G,A. 36" * 7. Skinner, B.F. 42 30. Lanier, Lyle 37# * 8. Stevens, S.S. 42 31. Hoor, LI. 38" x 9. Hull, Clark L. 45 32. Geldard, F.A.39# *10. Kohler, Wolfgang 47 33. Harr is, 1.1. S . 40 " 11. Hartline, H.K. 48 34. Nafe, J.P 41# x 12. Miles, Walter R. 49 35. Marti, F, 42" 13. Richter, Curt P. 50 36. Heinlein,C. 14. Beach, Frank A. 51 43-46 # 1.15. Gibson, James 52 39 Carrnichael,P .47" 40 Gilmer.B.vonH 48# X President APA 41. Lee, H.N. 49" American Lien of Science 42. Duffy,E. 50# # Psychologist 43. Hammond,L. 51" n Philosopher 44. Wolfe, J.B. 52# Unknown if Psychologist or Philosopher 240

Table 147 . APA DIVISION REPRESENTATIVES

47 48

1. Norman L. Munn 1. Edward C. Tolman 2. Floyd L. Such 2. Sidney L. Pressey 3. Edwin R. Guthrie 3. Clarence H. Graham I, 5. L.L. Thurstone S. J.P. Guilford S. Donald B. Lindsley 6. Clifford T. Morgan 7. John E. Anderson 7. Piorence L. Goodenough 8. Daniel Katz 8. Gardner Murphy 9. Rensis Lickert 9. Hadley Cantril 10. Paul A. Farnsworth 10. Paul R. Farnsworth 11. 11. 12. Laurance F. Shaffer 12. David Shakow 13. Jack W. Dunlap 13. Donald E. Super 14. John G. JenJrfns 14. George K. Bennett 15. Win. A. Brownell 15. Percival M. Symonds 16. Harry J. Baker 16. Margaret E.•Hall 17. Edmund G„ Williamson 17. G. Frederic Kuder 18. M.W. Richardson 18. Marion W. Richardson 19. John G. Jenkins 19. John G. Jenkins 20. Sidney L. Pressey 20. Walter R. Miles h2. 50

1. Robert H. Seashore 1*. Edna Heidbreder 2. Wm. A. Hunt 2. Norman Munn 3. Clark L. Kill 3. B.F. Skinner 4. 4. W.J. Brogden 5. Robt. L. Thorndike 5. Paul Horst 6. Frank A. Beach 6. 7. Harold E. Jones 7. Arthur T. Jersild 8. Theodore M. Newcomb 8. Otto Klineberg 9. Ronald Lippitt 9. Daniel Katz 10. Paul R. Farnsworth 10. Norman C. Meier 11. 11. 12. David Wechsler 12. Carl R. Rogers 13. Morris S. Viteles 13. Emily Burr 14. Floyd Ruch 3-4. Carroll L. Shartle 15. Arthur I. Gates 15. Gertrude Hildreth 16. Ethel L. Cornell 16. Bertha M. Luckey 17. High M. Bell 17. John G. Darley 18. Roger M. Bellows 18. Roger M. Bellows 19. Arthur W. Melton 19. Arthur W. Melton 20. Herbert S . Conrad 20. George Lawton 24l

Table 147. APA DIVISION REPRESENTATIVES (con1t)

51 52

1. Karl M, Dalleribach 1 . S .W. Fernberger 2. Leonard Carmichael 2. Claude E. Buxton 3. Harry Harlow 3. Harold Schlosberg U. h. 5. Harold Gulliksen 5. Quinn McNeraar 6. 6. 7. Robert R. Sears 7. Wayne Dennis 8. J.M. Hunt 8. Donald MacKinnon 9. David Krech 9. f Stuart W . Cook 10. Paul M. Farnsworth 10. Kate Hevner Mueller 11. 11. . 12. Norman Cameron 12. Samuel Beck 13. Harold Hildreth 13. . Bertha M. Luckey 111.’ Jack Dunlap m . Marion A. Bills 15. Horace B. English 15. H.H. Remmers 16. Vtiilda M. Rosebrook 16. George Meyer 17. ,C. Gilbert Wrenn 17. Donald Super 18. Kenneth B. Ashcraft 18. Herbert Conrad 19. Frank A. Geldard 19. Frank Geldard 20. Raymond G. Kuhlen 20. Harold E. Jones

£3 1. Edward C. Tolman 2. Elizabeth B. Hurlock 3. Neal E. Miller u. 5. Dorothy C. Adkins 6. 7. Roger G. Barker 8. 0. Hobart Mowrer 9 . Dorwin Cartwright 10. Herbert S. Langfeld 11. 12, 0. Harbart Mowrer 13. Morton A. Seidenfeld 1U. Jay L. Otis 15. Wm. Clark Trow 16. Frances A. Mullen 17. Mitchell Dreese 18. Beatrice J. Dvorak 19. Charles W. Bray 20. Nathan Shock 24a

Table 148. CHAIRMEN,OF APA DIVISIONS

Div. Year Name

1. 5 1953 Adkins, Dorothy C* 2. 18 1951 Ashcraft, Kenneth B. 3. 16 1947 Baker, Harry Jay 4. 7 1953 Barker, Roger G. 5. 6 1949 Beach, Frank Ambrose 6. 12 1952 Beck, Samuel Jacob 7. 17 1949 Bell, Hugh McKee 8. 18 1949 Bellows, Roger Marion (Div. 18, 1950) 9. 14 1948 Bennett, George Kettner 10. 14 1952 Bills, Marion Almira 11. 19 1953 Bray, Charles W. 12. 3 1950 Brogden, Wilfred John 13. 15 1947 Brownell, William Arthur 14. 13 1950 Burr, Emily Thorpe 15. 2 1952 Buxton, Claude E. , 16. 12 1951 Cameron, Norman Alexander 17. 9 1948 Cantril, Albert Hadley 18. 9 1953 Cartwright, Dorwin P. 19. 20 1949 Conrad, Herbert Spencer (Div. 18, 1952) 20. 9 1952 Cook, Stuart Wellford 21. 16 1949 Cornell, Ethel Letitia 22. 1 1951 Dallenbach, Karl M. 23. 17 1950 Darley, John Gordon 24. 7 1952 Dennis, Wayne 25. 17 1953 Dreese, Mitchell 26. 13 1947 Dunlap, Jack Wilbur (Div. 14, 1951) 27. 18 1953 Dvorak, Beatrice Jeanne 28. 15 1951 English, Horace Bidwell 29. 10 1947 , Farnsworth, Paul Randolph (Div.10,1948-49-51) 30. 1 1952 Fernberger, Samuel Weiller 31. 15 1949 Gates, Arthur Irving 32. 19 1951 Geldard, Frank Arthur (Div. 19, 1952) 33. 7 1948 Goodenough, Florence Laura 34. 3 1948 Graham, Clarence Henry 35. 5 1951 Gulliksen, Harold Oliver 36. 16 1948 , Hall, Margaret Elizabeth 37. 3 1951 Harlow, Harry Frederick 38. 1 1950 Heidbreder, Edna Frances 39. 15 1950 , Hildreth, Gertrude Howell 40. 13 1951 Hildreth, Harold Mowbray 41. 5 1950 Horst, Aaron Paul 42. 2 1949 Hunt, William Alvin 43. 2 1953 . Hurlock, Elizabeth Bergner 44. 14 1947 Jenkins, John Gamewell (Div. 19, 1947—1948) 45. 7 1950 Jersild, Arthur Thomas 46. 7 1949 Jones, Harold Ellis (Div. 20, 1952) 245

Table 148, CHAIRMEN OF AFA DIVISIONS (con't)

Div. Year Name

47. 8 1947 Katz, Daniel (Div. 9, 1950) 48. 8 1950 Klineberg, Otto 49. 9 1951 Krech, David (Krechevsky I.) SO. 17 1948 Kuder, George Frederic Si. 20 1951 Kuhlen, Raymond Gerhardt 52. 20 1950 Lawton, George 53. 9 5-947 Idkert, Rensis 54. 6 1947 Lindsley, Donald B. 55. 9 1949 Lippitt, Ronald 56. 16 1950 Luckey, Bertha Mussen (Div. 13, 1952) 57. 8 1952 MacKinnon, Donald Wallace 58. 5 1952 McNemar, Quinn 59. 10 1950 Meier, Norman Charles 60. 19 1949 Melton, Arthur Weever (Div. 19, 1950) 61. 16 1952 Meyer, George 62. 3 1953 Miller, Neal Elgar 63. 6 1948 Morgan, Clifford Thomas 64* 8 1953 Mowrer, Grval Hobart (Also Div. 12, 1953) 65. 10 1952 Mueller, Kate Hevner 66. 16 1953 Mullen, Frances Andrews 67. 1 1947 Munn, Norman Leslie (Div. 2, 1950) 68. 8 1949 Newcomb, Theodore Mead 69. 14 1953 Otis, Jay Lester 70; 20 1947 Pressey, Sidney Leavitt (Div. 2, 1948) 71; IS 1952 Remmers, Herman Henry 72; 18 1947 Richardson, Marion Webster (Div. 18, 1948) 73. 16 1951 Rosebrook, Wilda Mae 74. 2 • 1947 Ruch, Floyd Leon (Div. 14, 1949) 75. 3 1952 Schlosberg, Harold 76. 1 1949 Seashore, Robert Holmes 77. 13 1953 Seidenfeld, Morton A. 78. 12 1948 Shakow, David 79. 14 1950 Shartle, Carroll Leonard 80. 20 1953 Shock, Nathan Wetherill 81; 3 1950 Skinner, Burrhus Frederic 82. 13 1948 Super, Donald Edwin (Div. 17, 1952) 83. 15 1948 Symonds, Percival Mallon 84. 5 1949 Thorndike, Robert Ladd 85. 15 1953 Trow, William Clark 86. 13 1949 Viteles, Morris Simon 87. 12 194 9 Wechsler, David 88. 17 1947 Williamson, Edmind Griffith 89. 17 1951 Wrenn, Charles Gilbert Table 149. DEAD VERY GREAT LEADERS

1. Angell, Frank 48. Leuba, James Henry 2. James, Rowland 49* Lewin, Kurt 3. Angier, Roswell Parker 50. Lindley, Ernest Hiram A. Armstrong, Andrew Campbell 51. Macdougal, Robert 5. Avery, George True 52. McDougal, William 6. Baird, John Wallace 53. McGeoch, John Alexander 7. Baldwin, Bird Thomas 54. Marshall, Henry Rutgers 8. Baldwin, James Mark 9. Bolton, Thaddeus Lincoln 55* Martin, Lillien Jame 10. Buchner, Edward Franklin 5 6. Meyer, Adolf 11. Calkins, Mary Whiton 57* Miner, James Burt 12. Cattell, James McKeen 58. Morgan, John Jacob Brooke 13. Conklin, Edmund Smith 59. Munsterberg, Hugo 14. Creighton, James Edwin 60. Newbold, William Romaine 15. Davis, Frank Cornelius 61. Nichols, Herbert 16. Delabarre, Edmund Burke 62. Pace, Edward Aloysius 17. Dewey, John 6 3. Patrick, George Thomas White 18. Dodge, Raymond 6 4. Peckham, George 19. Donaldson, Henry Herbert 6 5. Peterson, Joseph 20. Downey, June Etta 66. Pierce, Arthur Henry 21. Dunlap, Knight 6 7. Pintner, Rudolph 22. Eyre, Mary B. 68. Robinson, Edward Stevens 23. Farrand, Livingston 6 9* Royce, Josiah 24. Ferree, Clarence Errol 70. Ruckmick, Christian Alben 25. Fletcher, John Madison 71. Sanford, Edmund Clark 26. Franz, Shephard Ivory 72. Santayana, George 27* Freeman, Frank Nugent 73 • Schurman, Jacob Gould 28. Fullerton, George Stuart 74. Scripture, E. W. 29. Gardiner, Harry Norman 75* Seashore, Carl Snil 30. Garth, Tnomas Russell 76. Sidis, Boris 31. Geissler, Ludwig' Reinhold 77* Starbuclc, Edwin Diller 32. Hall, Granville,Stanley 78. Strong, Charles Augustus 33. Harris, W. T. 79* Ihorndike, Edward Lee 34. Hart line, H. K. 80. Titchner, Edward Bradford 35- Holt, E. B, 81. Troland, Leonard Thompson 36. Howes, Ethel 82. Wait, Wallace Theodore 37. Hunt, Alvin 83* Warren, Howard Crosby 35. Hurd, Henry M. 84. Washburn, Margaret Floy 39. Hyslop, James Henry 85. Weiss, Albert Paul 40. James, William 86. Werthmeimer, Max 41. Jastrow, Joseph 87. Whipple, Guy Montrose 42. Jenkins, John G. 88. Wissler, Clark 43. Johnson, H. F. 8 9. Wolfe, Harry Kirke 44. Judd, Charles Hubbard 90. Wooley, Helen B. T. 45. Koffka, Kurt 46. Ladd-Franklin, Christine 47. Ladd, George, Trumbull 2*5 Table 150. TRAITS OF LEADERSHIP

1 His manner was friendly. 2 He was very much interested in his students success. 3 His judgments were sound. 4 He stuck by his decisions. 5 He was never reluctant to explain why he did things. 6 He was erudite in matters psychological. 7 He was noted for superior accomplishments. 8 He realized his own abilities and limitations. 9 He could make tactful criticism... 10 He was known for his wit and humor. 11 He appreciated a good joke on himself. 12 He was keenly ambitious for himself. 13 He worked harder and longer than others. 14 He was adaptable to new situations. 15 He was willing to assume responsibility. 16 He persisted in the fact of obstacles. 17 His appearance was superior to that of his contemporaries. 18 He was dominant in his dealings with others. 19 He was an original creative thinker, 20 He was high inverbal fluency. 21 He was known for the quicknessof his thoughts and decisions. 22 He was emotionally stable. 23 He knew the technical details of his job. 24 He had a dynamic method of getting things done. 25 He was impartial in his dealings with others. 26 He was able to enlist cooperation easily. 27 His motions were characterized by physical liveliness. 28 He was self confident. 29 He was meticulous in his work. 30 His physical prowess wqs above average. 31 He was skillful in imparting ideas. 32 He could be depended upon in tough places. 33 His philosophy was- liberal* 34 He was autocratic in his relations to his students. 35 He was easy to talk to. 36 He made other people enthusiastic. 37 He stimulated others to succeed. 38 He deliberately associated only with those he considered his intellectual equals or superiors. 39 He was lax with his students. 40 He was very well dressed. 41 He had high prestige among his compatriots. 42 He worked for the group 43 He was daring and adventurous. 44 He was able to accurately evaluate situations. 45 He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others. 46 He was alert to his environment. 47 He had a happy, cheerful disposition. 48 He was controlled in mood, but seldom gloomy. 49 He participated in many extra curricular social activities. 50 He was not likely to be swayed from his convictions. 246 Table 150 TRAITS OF LEADERSHIP (Contined)

51 He was known for his superior intellect. 52 He knew how to get things done. 53 He was noted for his cooperativeness j he w^tS 'willing to cooperate with others. 54 He was noted for his diplomacy. 55 He was not modest; he was not dogtistical. 56 He was dependable. 57 He was reliable, He could always be relied on in difficult situations. 58 He was trustworthy. 59 His decisions were accurate. 60 His health was better than average for a person his age. 61 He excelled in coordinating different activities. 62 He delegated authority aptly. 63 He did a good job of selling his ideas. 64 He was anexample of what every student should strive to be. 65 He gave orders pleasantly. 66 He rembered when a student did a good job. 67 He knew exactly what to expect of each of his students. 68 He was willing to listen to others. 69 He was willing to spend plenty of time with each student. 70 He treated each student as a special individual. 71 He .vas bery proud of his students. 72 He vas very proud of his department. 73 He liked people. 74 He ’ip.fl Always one step ahead in ideas. 75 He gave credit when credit was due. 76 He have advance notice of changes. 77 He planned his work in detail. 78 He refused to give in just because some disagreed with him. 79 He triet out new ideas* 80 He was easy to understand. 81 He always had time for his subordinates. 82 He say to it that people under hime were working up to their limits. 83 He had people under him share in the decisions he made. 84 He took the blame for mistakes of those under him. 85 He tried to get his subordinates to understand other points of view, than his own. 86 He maintained definite standards. 87 He kept well informed on what people under him were doing. 88 He was the spokesman for his group. 89 He was not loath to criticiae his own work. 90 He used constructive criticism. 91 He criticized an act; never an individual, 92 He let each individual work at his own speed. 93 He stressed cooperation and coordination of those working for him. 94 He helped people settle their conflicts. 95 He knew when something went wnong in the group. 96 He publicized outstanding work of people under him. 97 He was careful to carry out promises he made. 98 He emphasized the quality bather than the quantity of work done under him. 99 He was willing to make changes. 100 He was easy to understand. 247

Table 151. , Traits of Leadership

i j ■ v 1, He was very much interested in his students success, 2, His judgements were sound, 3, He was tactful in his dealings with others* 4* He was erudite in matters psychological 5# He realized his own abilities and limitations, 6, He was known for his wit and humor. 1 .. 7* He was warm and friendly to his students & subordinates, 8. He was’ambitious for himself. 9. He worked harder and longer than others. 10. He was willing to assume professional obligations. 11. He persisted in the face' of obstacles. 12. He was decisive on matters controversial. 13. He was an original creative thinker. 14. He had a sense of purpose and direction. 15. His research was brilliant in conception and execution. 16. He was self confident. 17. He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others. IB. He was open-minded. *- 19. He stimulated others by his enthusiasm. 20. His criticisms were fair and impartial. 21. His health was better thah average for a person his age. 22. He was willing to cooperate with others. 23. He planned his work in detail. 24. He was careful to carry out promises he made. 25. He was willing to make changes. 26. He was .patient and tolerant* 27. He maintained definite standards. 28. His popduct was dignified and mature. 29. B y 1 his very presence he dominated any gathering. 30. He was emotionally stable. 31. He knew how to delegate responsibility. 32. He stimulated ethers by apt criticism. 33. He was invarAly optimistic. 34. He 3aw to it that people under him were working up to their limits • 248

Table 152. TRAITS OF LEADERSHIP 1. He was very much interested in his students success, 2. His judgements were sound, 3. He stuck by his decisions, 4. He was erudite in matters psychological 5. He was noted for superior accomploshments. 6. He was noted for superior accomplishments, 7. He was known for his wit and humor, 8. He could make tactful criticism, 9. He appreciated a good joke on himself, 10, He was keenly ambitious for himself, 11, He worked harder and longer than others, 12, He was adaptable to new situations, 13, He was willing to assume responsibility, 111, He persisted in the face of obstacles, 15, His personal appearance was above average, 16, He was an original creative thinker, 17, He was high in verbal fluency, 1 8, He was emotionally stable, 19, He knew the technical details of his job, 20, He was impartial in his dealings with others, 21, He was self confident, 22, His motions were characterized by physicalliveliness, 23, He was meticulous in his work, 2l|, His physical prowess was above average, 25, He was skillful in imparting ideas. 26* He could be depended upon in tough places, 27, He was easy to talk to, 28, He made other people enthusiastic. 29, He had high prestige among his compatriots. 30, He worked for the group. 31, He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others, 32, He stimulated others to succeed, 33, He had a happy, cheerful disposition. 34, He participated in many extra-curricular social activities. 35, He was known for his superior intellect. 36, His health was better than average for aperson his age, 37, He was noted for his cooperativeness. 38, He delegated authority aptly. 39, He did a good job of selling his ideas. l|0. He treated each student as a special individual, ill. He was always one step ahead in ideas, i|2. He planned his work in detail. 43. He was easy to understand. 44, He always had time for his subordinates. 45. He maintained definite standards, 46, He was the spokesman for his group, 47, He was not loath to criticize his own work. 48, He as careful to carry out promises he made. 49. He was willing to make changes, 50. He saw to it that people undei^ him were working up to their limits. 249

Table 155 PERSONAL TRAITS I. INTELLIGENCE * 4. He was erudite in matter psychological. 17. He was high in verbal fluency. * 35. He was known for his superior intellect. * 5. He was noted for superior accomplishments. a. He was well-informed on all matters pertaining to his psychological work. * b. His research was brilliant and clever. c. He was noted for his intellectual vision.

II. MORAL SENSITIVITY * 2. His judgments were sound. * 20. He was impartial in his dealings with others. 38. He delegated authority aptly. * a. He was open-minded. b. His devotion to truth was well-known. c. He was known for his altrustic idealism. * d. His criticisms were fair,

III. IMAGINATION * 12. He was adaptable to new situations. * 16. He was an original creative thinker. 41. He was always one step ahead in ideas. 49. He was willing to make changes. a, His work showed forethought. b. He was highly original * c. His investigations were marked by mental flexibility and inquisi­ tiveness. . d. He had wide interests. ,

IV. RESTRAINT a. His attitude toward things controversial was one of restraint, b. He was inscrutable. c. He had great self-control.

V. DYNAMIC PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS * 15. His personal appearance was above average. *21. His actions were characterized by physical liveliness. * 24. His physical ability was above average. 36. His health was better than average for a person his age. a. He could be recognized by his erect posture. b. He had great physical strength and tonus. Table 155. PERSONAL TRAITS (Continued) VI. DRIVE AND DETERMINATION * 10. He was ambitious for himself. * 11. He worked harder and longer than others. 3. He stuck by his decisions. * 14. He persisted in the face of obstacles. a. He invariably used a face-to-face mode of address. b. He was ambitious; having a desire for eminence. c. He was persistent and tenacious. d. His outlook on life was one of enthusiasm and zeal. e. He persevered against all obstacles. f. His work was characterized by singleness of purpose.

VII. RESPONSIBILITY 13. He was willing to assume responsibility. 26. He could be depended upon in tough places. 48. He was careful to carry out promises he made. 18. He was emotionally stable. 46. He was the spokesman for his group. a. He was frank, yet at the same time dignified. b. His point of view was mature. c. He industriously devoted himself to duty. d. He loved his work. e. He was the soul of integrity. f. He could be relied upon. g. His powers of concentration were famous.

VIII. SELF RELIANCE 6. He realized his own abilities and limitations. 22. He was self confident. 47. He was not loath to criticize his own work. a. He had a sense of purpose and direction. b. He was'self confident. c. His finality of judgment bespoke great forethought. d. He was decisive on matters controversial.

IX. IMPERTURBABILITY 9. He appreciated a good joke on himself. a. He was self-composed and invariably cheerful. b. He was patient and tolerant. c. He was poised and serene. d. He had an even temper. e. He was optimistic. 251 Table 155* PERSONAL TRAITS (Continued) X. SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS 1. He was very much interested in his students success. 30. He worked for the group. 34. He participated in many extra-curricular social activities. 44. He always had time for his subordinates. 7. He was known for his wit and humor. a. He was susceptible to social stimulation. b. He was warmly friendly to his students. c. His affection for his students knew no bounds.

XI. EASY MAINTENANCE OF GOOD RELATIONS WITH OTHERS 8. He could make tactful criticism. 27. He was easy to talk to. 29. He had high prestige among his compatriots. 31. He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others 33. He had a happy, cheerful disposition. 37. He was noted for his cooperativeness. 40. He treated each student as a special individual. 43. He was easy to understand. a. He was tactful in his dealings with others. b. He had and used his comprehensive knowledge of human nature c. He was kind and sympathetic. d. He was cooperative•

XII. THOROUGHNES S 19. He knew the technical details of his 23. He was meticulous in his work. 42. He planned his work in detail* 45. He maintained definite standards.

XIII. INSPIRATIONAL 28. He made.other people enthusiastic. 32. He stimulated others to succeed. 39. He did a feood job of selling his ideas. 50. He saw to it that people under him were working up to their limits. 25. He was skillful in imparting ideas. 252

Table 15^a The following clusters of traits were found by Judges

1. Intelligence 4,6,35 . a. Mental ability

2. Verbal fluency 17, 26, 43, 46 a* Verbal ability b, Conversational ability

3. Originality-adaptability 12, 16, 41, 49 a. Originality b. Elasticity

4. Ambitiousness 10,11 a* Desire to excel b. Motivated c. Hard working

5. Physical well being 15, 21, 24, 36 a. Appearance b. Physical condition c. Physical liveliness d. Alertness

6. Cheerful disposition 7,9,15,33 a. Good disposition b. Humorous c. Emotional stability

7. Good judgment 2,8,20,38, 40 a. Diplomacy b. Fairness (Justness) c, Tact

8. Dependability 13, 26, 48 a. Sense of responsibility b. Reliability

9. Self Confidence 3, 14, 22 a. Self reliance b. Persistance

10, Prestige 5, 29

11, Self criticism '6, 47

12, Thoroughness 23, 19, 42, 45 a. Meticulousness b. Organizational ability

13, Inspirational 28, 32, 39, 50

14, Socio-consciousness 1, 27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 44 a. Sociability b. Cooperation c. Sympathetic d. Approachable 255 Table 15*H> Personal Trait Clusters

1. Intelligence 4, 15* 2. Moral Sensitivity 2, 18, 20, 3. Imagination 13, 25* 4. Restraint 28, 5. Dynamic Physical Characteristics 21. 6. Drive and Determination 8, 9, H . * * - ’ 7. Responsibility 10, 24, 30, 31* ✓ ■»” 8. Self Reliance 5, 12, 14, 16. 9. Imperturbability 26, 33- 10. Social Responsiveness 1, 6, 7. 11. Easy Maintenance of Good Relations -with Others 3, 17, 22, 29. 12. Thoroughness 23, 27. 13. Inspirational 19, 32, 34. Table Personal Traits According to Clusters 154c i 1. Sbcial Responsiveness 2. Moral Sensitivity 3. Easy Maintenance of Good Relations -with Others 4* Intelligence 5. Self Reliance 6. Spciail Responsiveness 7. Spcial Responsiveness 8. Drive and Determination 9. Drive and Determination 10. Responsibility 11. Dirive and Determination 12. Self Reliance 13* Imagination 14* Self Reliance 13. Intelligence 16* Self Reliance 17. Ea^y Maintenance of Good Relations with Others 18. Moral Sensitivity 19. Inspirational 20. Moral Sensitivity 21. Dynamic Physical Characteristics. 22. Easy Maintenance of Good Relations -with Others 23. Thoroughness. 24. Responsibility 25. Imagination 26. Imperturbability 27. Thoroughness 28. Restraint 29. Easy Maintenance of Good Relations with Others 30. Responsibility 31* Responsibility 32. Inspirational 33. Imperturbability 34. Inspirational 255 Table 154d Personal Traits Analyzed

I II III T Aver A B A B A B A B A B

1. Intelligence ( 2 items) 1 2 1 2 1 5 2 2. Moral Sensitivity ( 5 items) 2 5 1 1 1 5 4 7 1 2 5. Imagination ( 2 items) 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4. Restraint ( 1 item) 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 5. Dynamic Physical Characteristics (1 item) 1 1 1 1 2 1 6. Drive A Determination ( 5 items) 5 5 2 2 1 2 6 7 2 2 7. Responsibility ( 4 items) 2 4 1 1 2 4 5 9 2 5 8. Self Reliance ( 4 items) 2 2 1 5 5 5 1 2 9. Imperturbability ( 2 items) 2 2 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 10. Social Responsiveness ( 5 items) 5 5 1 1 5 5 1 2 11. Easy Maintenance of Good Relations with Others ( 4 items) 2 4 5 5 1 5 6 30 2 5 12. Thoroughness (2 items) 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 6 1 2 15. Inspirational ( 5 items) 2 5 2 1 1 5 6 1 2

Percentages for First Ohoiee and Average Total

I Average Total A 6 A B

1. Intelligence 50% 100% 100% 2. Moral Sensitivity 66% 100% 55% 66% 5. Imagination 50% 50% 50% 50% 4. Restraint 50% 100% 100% 5. Dynamic Phys. Ohar. 100% 100% 100% 6. Drive & Determinationl00% 100% 66jt> 66% 7. Responsibility 50% 100% 50% 75% 8. Self Reliance . 50% 50% 25% 50% 9. Imperturbabi11ty 100% 100% 50% 50% 10. Sooial Respons. 100% 100% 55% 66% 11. E.M.G.R.W.0. 50% 100% 50% 75% 12. Thoroughness 50% 100% 50% 100% 15. Inspirational 66% 100% 55% 66%

I,II,III - Choices Where I * LVG A - I > III> IV II - LTG B - I r III> IV III » ML

or A - LVG) LTG>NL B ■ LYG + LTGx, ^

(Leaders) 256 Table 155. GROUP TRAITS

1.- This group was relatively independent of all other groups in its actions.

2. Members of the group were alike in respect to interests and personal goals.

3. Group meetings were marked by warmth, conradeliness and teamwork.

4. Membership within the group was relatively stable. Only a few members entered or left during the course of a year.

5. The students found group membership a pleasant and meaningful experience.

6. The social atmosphere of the group was unstructured; i.e. each person did about as he pleased in both personal and psychological matters.

7. Students had a part in determining the policies and program of the group.

8. Members depended upon the group for solution of personal problems.

9. The group stimulated each member to work at his highest level.

10. The members of the group had strong loyalities to each other and to the group.

11. The group engendered a "we" feeling among its members.

12. There was high morale in the group effort.

13. Individual s were scrutinized thoroughly by all before being invited to become members.

14. There were group rewards for individual efforts exerted in behalf of the group.

15. The group behavior-regulations which were more-or-less peculiar to it.

16. Group members callSd each other b$ their first names.

17. The members were vitally interested in keeping jche group together as a group.

18. The group exercized control over individual members freedom of action,

19. The group resisted gross changes in its basic philosophical and psychological concepts.

20. Those in the group recognized and conformed to differences in rank. 257

Table 19$ GROUP CLUSTERS WITH THEIR QUESTIONS

* Asterisks indicate the preferred questions a la Ritter & his judges.

1* Homogeneity * 1* Members of the group were alike in respect to interests and personal.** goals. 2. Members were5alike in respect to characteristics relevant to group dbftifcatability.

2. Intimacy * 3. Members had extensive knowledge of each others personal areas. * 4. Group members called each other by their first names. * 5. The group engendered a "we" feeling among its members.

3. Stability * 6. The group resisted gross changes in its basic philosophical and psychological concepts. * 7. Membership within the group was relatively stable. Only a few members entered or left during the course of a year.

4. Flexibility * 8. The group had behavior regulations which were more-or-less peculiar to it. * 9. Each person had a definite place and definite duties within the organization. * 10. The "social atmosphere" of the group was unstructure; i.e. "laissez faire".

5. Hedonic Tone * 11. The .students found group membership a pleasant and signi­ ficant experience. 12. Membership in the group was very important to each individual. 13. There were group rewards for individual efforts exerted on behalf of the group. 14. Those in the group enjoyed cooperating with others more than working by themselves.

6 . Viscidity * 15. The group was close knit, cohesive, all members working together. 16. The members were vitally interested in keeping the group together as a group. * 17. Group meetings were marked by warmth, oomradeliness and teamwork. 18. There was high morale in the group effort. Table 1^6. GROUP CLUSTERS WITH THEIR QUESTIONS (Cont'd)

7 . Permeability 1 9 . The group was open to anyone who wished to join. 20. Individuals were scrutinized thoroughly by all before being invited to become members. 2 1 . The group took in relatively few members and then only after careful screening.

8. Stratification 22. There was a hierarchy of position (formal or informal) from the leader down. 2 3 . Those in the group recognized and conformed to differences in rank. 2 4 . The group had special qualifications for office holders.

9. Participation 2 5 . Students felt free to express their ideas before other members or the entire group. 2 6 . The group atmosphere was democratic i.e. students were considered equal in nearly all things to staff members. 2 7 . Students had a part in determining the policies and program of the group. 2 8 . Members became so involved in group activities that they forgot to think of themselves. The group was all that mattered. 2 9 . Each individual had definite duties within the group. 3 0 . Group activities•consumed a fairly large portion of each members "free** iime. 3 1 . Nearly all of the members took active parts in the groups activities. 1 0 . Control 3 2 . Individual members freedom of behavior was subordinated to the demands of the groups activities. 3 3 . The group exercised control over individual members freedom of action.

1 1 . Polarization 3 4 . The group had a common goal toward which each strived. 3 5 . The group subdivided into cliques which competed against one another. 3 6 . The members of the group had strong loyalities to each other and to the group* 3 7 . Each member was vitally interested in the purposes of the group. 3 8 . Group members often competed as a group against other groups.

(Continued) 259

Table 1 5 6 . GROUP CLUSTERS WITH THEIR QUESTIONS (Cont*d)

12. Potency 39. His membership in the group meant a lot to each member. 40. Members derived, many tangible and intangible benefits and satisfactions from the group. 41. Membership fulfilled the needs and wants of the members of this group. K 42. Failure (and success) of the group was counted by each as an individual failure (or success). * 43. The group stimulated each to work at his highest level.

13. Dependence 44. Members depended jipon the group for solution of personal problems. 45. The group aided each member who brought his troubles to it.

14. Autonomy 46. This group was a part of a larger group. * 47. This group was relatively independent in its actions of all other groups.

i 2 60 Table m Stogdill, Ralph M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature J. Psychol 1948, 25, 35-71. Eight Methods Found*

1 . Observation and Time Sampling of Behavior in Group Situations. 2 . Choice of Associates (Voting, Naming, Banking, Sociometrics) 3. Nomination by Qualified Observer. 4. Selection of Persons Occupying Positions of Leadership 5. Analysis of Biographical and Case History Data. 6 . The Listing of Traits Considered Essential to Leadership. 7. Supplementary Aspects of Methodology. a. Standard .Tests (1) Intelligence Tests (2) Personality Tests (3) Intelligence and Personality Tests b. Questionnaires c. Rating Scales d. Interviews e. Factor Analysis

8 . Age groups studied a. Preschool age b. Elementary school age c. High school age d. College students e. Adults

Twenty-Nine Leadership Traits*

1. Chronological Age a* Leaders found to be younger b. Leaders found to be older c* No' differences found d. Differs with situation

2. Height a. Leaders found to be taller b. Leaders found to be shorter c. No Differences found d. Depends upon situation

3. Weight a. Leaders found to be heavier b. Leaders found to be lighter c/ No difference found Table 157* Tftimty Nine Leadership Traits * (Coat'd)

4* Physique, Energy, Health a* Physique b* Athletic ability, physical prowess c. Energy d. Health e. Health and physical condition not a factor

5. Appearance , a. Leaders present a better appearance b. Leaders are better dressed c* No relationship found (1S4) d. Appearance negatively corr with leadership

6 . Fluency of Speech

7. Intelligence a. Leaders brighter b. No difference c. Too great differences militate against leadership

8 * Scholarship a.Leaders make better scholastic records b.Leaders make poorer scholastic records c.No differences found

9. Knowledge

10* Judgment and Decision a* Soundness and finality of judgment b* Speed and accuracy of thought and decision

11. Insight a. Keenly alive to environment, alert b* Ability to evaluate situations c. Social insight d. Self insight e. Sympathetic understanding

12. Originality

13. Adaptability

14. Introversion-Extroversion a. Leaders found to be more extroverted b. Leaders found to be more introverted c. No differences found 2fe

Table Twenty-Nine Leadership Traita* (Continued)

15* Dominance a. Leaders found to be more dominant, ascendant b. Bossy, domineering persons rejected as leaders c . No differences found

16. Initiative, Persistence, Ambition a. Initiative and willingness to assume respoasibility b. Persistence in the face of obstacles c. Ambition, desire to excel d. Applicationa and industry 17. Responsibility

18. Integrity and Conviction a. Integrity, fortitude b. Strength of convictions

19. Self Confidence a. Self Assurance b. Absence of modesty

20. Mood Control, Mood Optimism a. Controlled in mood, seldom gloomy b* Moods are not controlled c. Happy, Cheerful disposition d* Happiness not a factor e. Sense of humor

2 1 * Emotional Control a. Leaders found to be more stable and emotionally controlled b.,Leaders found to be less well controlled c. No' differences found

22. Social and Economic Status a. Leaders come from higher socio-economic backgound. b. No difference.

23. Social Activities and Mobility a. Leaders participate in more group activities b. Leaders exhibit a higher rate of social mobility 24., Bio-Social Activity a. Active ingames b. Lively, active, restless c. Daring, adventurous Table 197 Twenty-Nine Leadership Traits* (Continued)

2 5 . Social Skills a. Sociability b. Diplomacy, Tact

2 6 . Popularity, Prestige

2 7 . Cooperation a. Cooperative.ness b. Work for the group, corporate responsibility c. Ability to enlist cooperation.

2 8 . Patter of Leadership Traits Differ with the Situation

2 9 . Transferability and Persistence of Leadership 264

Table 158*

Otis (363) using ten judges and a wide variety of trait titles was able to find clusters of traits applicable to given situations:

Clusters Clusters Clusters Clusters Combat Garrison Non-Military Poor Situations Situationa Situations Leadership

Courage Personal integrity Adaptability Adaptability Attitudes Attitudes Drive Drive Drive Mental Ability Knowledge & Physical Ability Ability Gp Relations Gp Relationa Gp Relations Emotional Stability Emotional Stability Physical Data

Emotional Maturity Consistency 265

Table 159. • THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology Columbus 10, Ohio

20 March 1952

Your was one of the most outstanding leaders in psychology. At present, we are attempting to determine some of the factors that are conducive to scientific eminence. We are sending the enclosed questionnaire to a few outstanding living psychologists. We would like to include information about your in this study. Therefore, we are asking if you would be kind enough to fill out the enclosed questionnaire about him.

Although most of the questions can be answered quickly by underlining, checking or filling in short answers, any brief explanatory remarks you make will be welcome. A few open-ended questions have been included where material is controversial or lacking. Whatever information you give will be distinctly helpful.

The circulation of this questionnaire to APA members has the approval of the APA committee on questionnaires. The study is being made in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree in psychology at The Ohio State University.

For your convenience, an addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for the completed questionnaire. Your cooperation in returning this promptly would be appreciated. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

James H. Ritter 266 Table 160. FACTORS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP Personal Factors 1. NAME Last First Middle 2. BIRTHPLACE City State 5, BIRTHDATE _ -jp L. Month. Day Year 4. FATHER’S ACE AT TIME #MOTHER’S AGE AT TIME OF MI BIRTH OF MI BIRTH ____ % FATHER'S NAME HIS OCCUPATION MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME

6. FATHER'S EDUCATION INCLUDED:, (Circle highest level attended) gygmwiay 3ch., High. 3ch.. College, AB Degree, Masters Degree, PhD Degree MOTHER'S EDUCATION INCLUDEDi (Circle highest level attended) fir«iimflr. 8oh., High 8oh.. College, A B Degree, Masters Degree, PhD Degree 1 WAS ONE OF A FAMILY OF CHILDREN WHO REACHED ADOLESCENCE. I WAS NUMBER ■T" ' 8. I WAS MARRIED AT AGE HAD MY FIRST CHILD AT AGE I HAVE HAD ______, CHILDREN.

9 . THE DATE(S) OF MI MARRIAGE(S) IS (ARE) 10. FATHER'S RESIDENCE WHEN I WAS YOUNGWAS* (Check one or more) On a farm ^ . In a moderate sized oity (50,000) In a roral village or"-less)— In a large city (100,000 or more), In a small city ' ______In a suburb of a large city __ 11, WHILE I WAS YOUNG MI FAMILY WAS FINANCIALLY* (Check one) Very poor . Better than average Comparatively poor - Comparatively well-off. In moderate circumstances Well-to-do ______12. AMONG MI CLOSE RELATIVES THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDINGLY SUCCESSFUL IN* (Check appropriate spaces) Social Natural Psychology Sciences Sciences Politics Bus. Stage Other (Name) Father Mother Uncle Brother Son Ooualn Grandfather 267 Table 160.

2^. I AM A LINEAL DESCENDENT OP: (Circle 'those applicable) Scotch, Irish, German, French, Italian, Norwegian, Other (Name)______

EXPERIENCE

14. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: (Where and dates)

a .______From______To.

b •______From______To,

c. From______To.

d .____ From______, To

e .__ From______To,

f. From______To,

15. OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

a •______From______To, Where Type of Experience

b. From______To. Where Type of Experience

c •______From______To. Where Type of Experience

16. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT TEACHING LOAD PER WEEK (Circle one) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 or more hours of teaching

HOW MANY HOURS PER' WEEK ARE PRESENTLY REQUIRED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES (Circle one) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 or more

17. NAMES OF OUTSTANDING STUDENTS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH YOU:

a. Name Institution Approx. da|ses he worked with you b. Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you c. Name Institution Approx, dates he worked with you d. Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you e. Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you

APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PhD'S YOU HAVE SUPERVISED: Page 2 268 Table 160. PUBLICATIONS

1 9 . PLEASE INDICATE ANY JOURNALS, LABORATORIES, ETC., WHICH YOU STARTED OR HELPED TO ESTABLISH:

a .______c.______

b .______d.______

20. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OP’ BOOKS YOU HAVE PUBLISHED (including Collaboration)

21. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS (OTHERTHAN BOOKS) ______

22a .WHICH OF YOUR BOOKS HAVE HAD MORE THAN ONE PRINTING OR REVISION

b.WHAT BOOKS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WIDELY (i.e. at several other schools) AS TEXTS OR REFERENCES______

C.FOR HOW MANY OF YOUR ARTICLES WAS THE REPRINT DEMAND ABOVE FIFTY

2 3 . PLEASE INDICATE THE NAME OF ANY WELL KNOWN EQUIPMENT, DEVICES, TESTS YOU CONSTRUCEED OR HELPED TO CONSTRUCT:

Zk* WHICH DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN YOUR BEST PIECE OF WORK

25. WHAT FEATURES OF YOUR BACKGROUND DO YOU CONSIDER TO HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT IN YOUR CAREER

26. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY HANDICAPS OR FACTORS WHICH HAVE INTERFERRED WITH YOUR CAREER

Page 3 2 69

Table 160, INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

1 . AB _ .______From______To______Date Deg. Rec'd_ College or University MA From To Date Deg, Rec'd_ College or University PhD______From______To______Date Deg. Rec*d_ College or University

2. TITLE OF PhD DISSERTATION

3. NAME(S) OF MAN (MEN) WHO SUPERVISED YOUR DISSERTATION:

a. b.______Name Department Name Department b. AS A GRADUATE STUDENT, HOW MANY DAYS A WEEK DID YOU WORK ON RESEARCH WHICH WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR GRADUATE TRAINING 2 3 4 5 6 7 days per week (Circle one)

AS A GRADUATE STUDENT, HOW MANY HOURS A DAY DID YOU WORK ON RESEARCH WHICH WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR GRADUATE TRAINING 2 4 6 8 10 12 or more hours a day (Circle one)

5. HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE SCHOOL FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVED YOUR PhD AMONG THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS IN PSYCHOLOGY IN THE U.S. (At the time you received your degree) Among the top two Among the top four Below the top five______Among the top three Among the top five_____

6 . WERE THE LIBRARY FACILITIES (books, periodicals, etc.) OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ADEQUATE ‘ YES NO (Circle one)

WERE THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE LIBRARY CONDUCIVE TO STUDY PURPOSES YES NO (Circle one)

WAS THE LIBRARY AVAILABLE (Circle those applicable) None of Nights(7-10) , Sat, (all day). Sun, (any time) , Holidays (any time)^ These

7. COULD GRADUATE STUDENTS WORK IN UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS AS LATE AS THEY WISHED YES NO (Circle one)

8 . WAS THE FACULTY ATTITUDE TOWARD GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH: (Check one) a. That student research results were important______b. That student research was "just to furnish experience"______c. Other (Please s p e c i f y ) ______

Page ^ 270 Table 160. y. HOW MANY OF THE TOTAL PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY WERE WORKING IN THEIR OFFICES AND LABORATORIES EVENINGS AND/OR SATURfiAYS-SUNDAYS None 1/16/ 1/8 1/4 1/2 or more (Circle nearest correct)

1 0 .NAME SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING LEADERS ON THE FACULTY WHILE YOU WERE THERE:

a .______d.______

b .______e.______

C . .. f .

11.THE APPROXIMATE ENROLLMENT OF THE GRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT WHEN YOU TOOK YOUR DEGREE WAS: (Check nearest figure) 5 10 20 35___50___75.___100 150 200 Over 200_____

12.WHAT OTHER FACILITIES BESIDES THE LIBRARY AND THE PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES WERE CONDUCIVE TO RESEARCH AND STUDY FOR PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS

13•WOULD YOU CLASSIFY YOUR GRADUATE SCHOOL AS: (Check one or more) Socially and Politically Liberal Intellectually Liberal_____ Socially & Politically Conservative Intellectually Conservative_____

PERSONAL INFLUENCES

Many psychologists have Indicated that they have been influenced by one or a few individuals - often a teacher. For some the influence was so great that It turned them into psychology as a career? while for others it pointed the way to higher achievement. Sometimes this inspiration took the form of material aid, but more often it involved such things as providing competition, providing the right incentive at the right time, prodding, or even the use of sarcasm. These individuals have sometimes been leaders of definite groups (such as the Cornell group around Titchener) while others have influences without being the center of a psychological nucleus (i.e. William James). If you have ever been influenced by such an individual, or individuals, please give the following information.

A.AS A STUDENT I WAS STIMULATED BY: (If more than one, list in rank order)

X* Name Institution Position

2. Name Institution Position

3. Name Institution Position Page 5 271 Table 161. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology Columbus 1 0 , Ohio

25 April 1952

We are sending the enclosed questionnaire to a sample of those we believe to be the outstanding leaders in psychology as indicated by objective criteria such as membership in the National Academy of Science, Chairman of an APA Division, the Presidency of the APA, etc. This study is an attempt to determine some of the concomitants of leadership in psychology. It is hypothesized that individual variables (such as intelligence or education), institutional variables (such as school atmosphere or opportunities for study) and the influence of brilliant teachers enter into the making of leadership. If you are willing to share information about your background and experience to aid in deter­ mining conditions conducive to scientific eminence, we would appreciate your filling out the enclosed questionnaire.

Although most of the questions can be answered quickly by. checking or filling in short answers, any brief explanatory renarks you make will be welcome. A few open-ended questions have been included where material is controversial or lacking. Whatever information you give-will be distinctly helpful.

This questionnaire has been submittdd to the APA Committee on Questionnaires. .The Committee offer no objection to its circulation. The study is being made in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a PhD degree in psychology at The Ohio State University.

For your convenience, an addressed, stamped envelope for the completed questionnaire is enclosed. Your cooperation in returning this promptly would be appreciated. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

James H. Ritter 272 Table 162, FACTORS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP

Personal Factors

1. NAME______Last First Middle

2. BIRTHPLACE______City State

3 . BIRTHDATE______Month Day Year

A. FATHER'S AGE AT TIME MOTHER'S AGE AT TIME OF MY BIRTH______OF MY BIRTH______

3 . FATHER'S NAME______; HIS OCCUPATION MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME______'

6 . FATHER'S EDUCATION INCLUDED: (Circle highest level attended) Grammar Sch*. High Sch.. College. AB Degree. Masters Degree. PhD Degree

MOTHER'S EDUCATION INCLUDED: (Circle highest level attended) Grammar Sch.. High Sch.. College. AB Degreer Masters Degree. PhD Degree

7 . I WAS ONE OF A FAMILY OF ______CHILDREN WHO REACHED ADOLESCENCE. I WAS NUMBER.______>•

8 . I WAS MARRIED AT AGE HAD MY FIRST CHILD AT AGE______I HAVE HAD ______CHILDREN.

9 . THE DATE(S) OF MY MARRIAGE(S) IS (ARE)______

10.FATHER'S RESIDENCE WHEN I WAS YOUNG WAS: (Check one or more) On a farm In a moderate sized city (50,000) In a rural village (1000 or less In a large city (100,000 or more)____ In a small city In a suburb of a large city______

11.WHILE I WAS YOUNG MY FAMILY WAS FINANCIALLY: (Check one) Very poor Better than average______Comparatively poor ______Comparatively well-off______In moderate circumstances______Well-to-do______

12 .AMONG MY CLOSE RELATIVES THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDINGLY SUCCESSFUL IN: (Check appropriati3 spaces) Social Natural Psychology Sciences Sciences Politics Bus* Stage Other (Name) Father Mother Uncle Brothefj Son Cousin Grandfather 275 Table 162. 13, I AM A LINEAL DESCENDENT OF: (Circle ’those applicable) Scotch, Irish, German, French, Italian, Norwegian, Other (Name),

EXPERIENCE

3A. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: (Where and dates)

a .______. From To.

b •______, From To,

c •______From______To.

d .______From To

e*______From______To.

f .______From______To.

15. OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

a .______From______To. Where Type of Experience

b . From______To. Where Type of Experience

c .______From______To. Where Type of Experience

16. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT TEACHING LOAD PER WEEK (Circle one) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 or more hours of teaching

HOW MANY HOURS PER' WEEK ARE PRESENTLY REQUIRED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES (Circle one) , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 12 14 or more

17. NAMES OF OUTSTANDING STUDENTS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH YOU:

a.______;______Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you ► Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you

Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you k Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you

1 Name Institution Approx. dates he worked with you

18. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PhD'S YOU HAVE SUPERVISED:______Page 2 274 Table 162, PUBLICATIONS

1 9 . PLEASE INDICATE ANY JOURNALS, LABORATORIES, ETC., WHICH YOU STARTED OR HELPED TO ESTABLISH:

b. ;______d. ______

20. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF BOOKS YOU HAVE PUBLISHED (including Collaboration):

21. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS (Other than books),;______

2 2 a.WHICH OF YOUR BOOKS HAVE HAD MORE THAN ONE PRINTING OR REVISION

b.WHAT BOOKS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WIDELY i(i*e* at several other schools) AS TEXTS OR REFERENCES ______

c.FOR HOW MANY OF YOUR ARTICLES WAS THE REPRINT DEMAND ABOVE FIFTY

2 3 . PLEASE INDICATE THE NAME OF ANY WELL KNOWN EQUIPMENT, DEVICES, TESTS YOU CONSTRUCTED OR HELPED TO CONSTRUCT:

2k. WHICH DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN YOUR BEST PIECE OF WORK (Article, book etc)

25. WHAT FEATURES OF YOUR BACKGROUND DO YOU CONSIDER TO HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT IN YOUR CAREER

26. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY HANDICAPS OR FACTORS WHICH HAVE INTERFERRED WITH YOUR CAREER

Page 3 275 Table 162. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

1. AB______From______To______Date Deg. Rec'd. College or University MA______From__ To______Date Deg* Rec'd. College or University PhD From To____ Date Deg. Rec'd_ College or University

2 . TITLE OF PhD DISSERTATION______

3 . NAME(S) OF MAN (MEN) WHO SUPERVISED YOUR DISSERATAION:

a. ______b.______Name Department Name Department

A. AS A GRADUATE STUDENT, HOW MANY DAYS A WEEK DID YOU WORK ON RESEARCH WHICH WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR GRADUATE TRAINING 2 3 4 5 6 7 days per week (Circle one)

AS A GRADUATE STUDENT, HOW MANY HOURS A DAY DID YOU WORK ON RESEARCH WHICH WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR GRADUATE TRAINING 2 4 6 8 10 12 or more hours per day (Circle one)

5. HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE SCHOOL FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVED YOUR PhD AMONG THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS IN PSYCHOLOGY IN THE U.S. (At the time you received your degree)

Among the top two Among the top four______Below the top five______Among the top three___ Among the top five_____

6 . WERE THE LIBRARY FACILITIES {books, periodicals, etc) OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ADEQUATE YES NO (Circle one)

WERE THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE LIBRARY CONDUCIVE TO STUDY PURPOSES YES NO (Circle one)

WAS THE LIBRARY AVAILABLE: (Circle those applicable) Nights 7-10. Saturdays (all day), Sun, (any time), Holidays (any time). None of these

7. COULD GRADUATE STUDENTS WORK IN UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS AS LATE AS THEY WISHED YES NO (Circle one)

8 . WAS THE FACULTY ATTITUDE TOWARD GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCHr(Check one) a. That student research results were Important.______b. That student research was "just to furnish experience"______c. Other (Please s p e c i f y ) ______Page 4 Table 162, 276 9. HOW MANY OF THE TOTAL PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY WERE WORKING IN THEIR OFFICES AND LABORATORIES EVENINGS AND/OR SATURDAYS-SUNDAYS None 1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2 or more (Circle one nearest, correct)

10. NAME SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING LEADERS ON THE FACULTY WHILE YOU WERE THERE:

a .______d.______

b .____ | ;______e,______

c .______f.______

11. THE APPROXIMATE ENROLLMENT OF THE GRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT WHEN YOU TOOK YOUR DEGREE WAS: (Check nearest figure) 5___10___20___ 35__ 50___75___100___150___200 Over 200____

12. WHAT OTHER FACILITIES BESIDES THE LIBRARY AND THE PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES WERE CONDUCIVE TO RESEARCH AND STUDY FOR PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS

13. WOULD YOU CLASSIFY YOUR GRADUATE SCHOOL AS: (Check one or more) Socially and Politically Liberal Intellectually Liberal______Socially & Politically Conservative Intellectually Conservative______

PERSONAL INFLUENCES

Many psychologists have indicated that they have been influenced by one or a few individuals - often a teacher. Fdr some the influence was so great that it turned them into psychology as a career; while for others it pointed the way to higher achievement. Sometimes this inspira­ tion took the form of material aid, but tpore often it involved such things as providing competition, providing the right incentive at the right time, prodding, or even the use of sarcasm. These individuals have sometimes been leaders of definite groups (such as the Cornell group around Titchener) while others have influenced without being the center of a psychological nucleus (i.e. William James). If you have ever been influences by such an individjial, or individuals, please give the following information.

A. AS A STUDENT I WAS STIMULATED BY: (if more than one, list in rank order)

1.. Name Institution Position

2 . Name Institution Position

3. Name Institution Position

Page 5 Table 162 277 The following have been given as the attributes of leadership. Please check each of the traits under the heading which applies to the individual you mentioned above. (If more than one individual was mentioned, please check a trait list for each. Additional lists follow?.

I. THE FOLLOWING TRAITS OF LEADERSHIP PERTAIN TO:

Name (Should be the same as A1 above)

1 . He was very much interested in his students success.______2. His .judgments were sound.______3. He was tactful in his dealings with others.______4. He was erudite in: matters psychological.______5. He realizgj^J^gLjawn abilities & limitations.______6 . He was known for his wit and humor.______7. He was warm & friendly to his students & subordinates._____ 8 . He was ambitious for himself.______9. He worked harder and longer than others.______10. He was willing to assume professional obligations.______11. He persisted in the face of obstacles.______12. He was decisive on matters controversial.______13. He was an original creative thinker.______14. He had a sense of purpose and direction.______15. His research was brilliant in conception & execution.______16. He was afelf confident.______17. He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others. 18. He was open-minded.______19. He stimulated others by his enthusiasm.______20. His criticisms were fair and impartial.______21. His health was better than average for a person his age. 22. He was willing to cooperate with others.______23. He planned his work in detail.______24. He was careful to carry out promises he made.______25. He was willing to make changes.______26. He was patient and t o l e r a n t .______27. He maintained definite standards.______;______28. His conduct was dignified and mature.______29. By his very presence he dominated any gathering.______30. He was emotionally s t a b l e . ______31. He knew how to delegate responsibility.______32. He stimulated others by apt criticism.______35. He was invariably optimistic.______34. He saw to it that people under him were working up to their limits.______;______

Page 6 Table 162 278

If you have indicated a name under AB above, please check each of the traits on this list for the individual you mentioned.

II THE FOLLOWING TRAITS OF LEADERSHIP PERTAIN TO:

Name (Should be the same as A2 above)

1. He was very much interested in his students success.______2. His .judgments were sound. ______3. He was tactful tn his dealings with others.______4. He was erudite in natters psychological.______5. He realized his own abilities and limitations.______6. He was known for his wit and humor. ______7. He was warm & friendly to his students & subordinates._____ 8. He was ambitious for himself.______9. He worked harder and longer than others.______10. He was willing to assume professional obligations.______11. He persisted in the face of obstacles.______12. He was decisive on matters controversial.______15. He was an original creative thinker.______14. He had a sense of purpose and direction.______15. His research was brilliant in conception and execution.____ 16. He was self confident.______17. He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others 18. He was open-minded.______19. He stimulated others by his enthusiasm.______20. His criticisms were fair.______21. His health was better than average for a person his age. 22. He was willing to cooperate with others.______23. He planned his work in detail.______24. He was careful to carry out promises he made.______25. He was willing to make changes. 26. He was patient and tolerant.______27. He maintained definite s t a n d a r d s . ______28. His conduct was dignified and mature.______29. By his very presence he dominated any gathering.______50. He was emotionally stable. 51. He knew how to delegate responsibility.______52. He stimulated others by apt criticism.______33. He was invariably o p t i m i s t i c . ______34. He saw to it that people under himwere working up to their limits.______

Page 7 279 Table 162. If you have indicated a name under A3 above, please check each of the traits on this list for the individual you mentioned.

Ill THE FOLLOWING LEADERSHIP TRAITS PERTAIN TO:

Name (Should be the same as A3 above)

1. He was very much interested in his students success.______2. His .judgments were sound. ______3. He was tactful in his dealings with others.______4. He was erudite in matters psychological.______5. He realized his own abilities & limitations.______6. He was known for his wit and humor.______7. He was warm & friendly to his students & subordinates._____ 8. He was ambitious for himself.______9. He worked harder and longer than others.______lOJjewas willing to assume_srofessional obligations. 11.He persisted in the face of obstacles.______12.He was decisive on matters controversial.______13.He was an original creative thinker.______14.He had a sense of purpose and direction.______15.His research was brilliant in conception & execution.______16.He was self confident.______17.He had sympathetic understanding for the problems of others 18.He was open~minded.______19.He stimulated others by his criticism.______20.His criticisms were fair.______^______- 21.His health was better than average for a person his age. 22.He was willing to cooperate with others.______' 23.He planned his work in detail.______24.He was careful to carry out promises he made.______25.He was willing to' make changes.______26.He was patient and tolerant.______27.He maintained definite standards.______28.His conduct was dignified and mature.______29.By his very presence he dominated any gathering.______30.He was emotionally stable.______31 .He knew how to delegate responsibility.______32.He stimulated others by apt criticism.______35.He was Invariably optimistic.______34.He saw to it that people under him were working up to their limits.______|______

Page 8 260 Table 162 GROUP ATMOSPHERE

In the psychology departments of many universities, both past and present, there have been groups of people working together who had common interests and common goals. These people usually had a dominant "psychological philosophy". Some of these groups, in times past, were called "schools of psychology", but often they existed with­ out any label. Many times these groups had, and have, a relatively formal, institutionalized status; while in other instances they had/ have little formal structure and/or external recognition. If you were a member of any group during your graduate dayd, we would appre­ ciate your answering the questions following. IF IN DOUBT about the recognition accorded your group by psychology in general, answer anyhow as we are primarily interested in the relationship of group atmospheres to psychological productivity and leadership.

1. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF YOUR GROUP ______Y

2. WHO "FOUNDED" THIS GROUP

3. WHAT DATE (APPROXIMATELY) WAS IT ORIGINATED______

4. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE LEADER OF THE GROUP WHEN YOU WERE AT THE UNIVERSITY______

5. SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING STAFF MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP WHEN YOU WERE THERE WERE: a .______d.______

b .______e.______

C.______;______f.______

6. HOW MANYSTAFF MEMBERS DID THE "GROUP" HAVE (Circle one) 2-5, 6-10, 11-20, over 20

?. SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING STUDENTS OF THIS "GROUP" WHEN YOU WERE THERE WERE: a. d.______

b. ; e .______

c*______f.______

8. HOW MANY STUDENTS WERE IN THE "GROUP" 2-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-30, over 30

9. HOW OFTEN DID THE GROUP MEET (Circle one) Once a week or more. Twice a month. Once a month. Irregularly (but less than once a month) Page 9 281 Table 162. 10. WHAT WAS THE DOMINANT PHILOSOPHY OF THE "GROUP"

WERE THERE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THIS PHILOSOPHY WHILE YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THIS UNIT ______

11. IN WHAT FIELDS WAS THE "GROUP" MOST INTERESTED (Circle appropriate items)

Experimental. ClinicalT Social.Perception. Child. Industrial. Animal. Behaviorism. Gestalt. Functionalism. Introspection. Other (Name) _____

12. WHAT KIND OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS DID THE "GROUP WORK ON (Primarily)

a .______;______c.______

b .______d. ______

13. ABOUT HOW MANY FhDS WERE GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THIS "GROUP" IN THE YEAR YOU RECEIVED YOURS ______

14. HOW WAS THE "GROUP" FINANCED (Check one)

By the psychology department______By private means______Directly from the graduate school By government grants______Other (Please indicate)______;______

15. DID THIS "GROUP" HAVE CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE SAME OR A SIMILAR "GROUP" IN ANY OTHER UNIVERSITIES YES NO (Circle one) IF YES, WHERE ______

16. HOW INFLUENTIAL WAS THE "GROUP" AND ITS STAFF'S REPUTATION IN ATTRACTING BRIGHT GRADUATE STUDENTS TO THIS UNIVERSITY (Circle one)

Very. ' Quite. Moderately. Some. Not at all l?. HOW MUCH WERE YOU PERSONALLY STIMULATED BY THIS "GROUP" (Circle one)

Very much. Quite a bit. Moderately. Some. Very little

Page 10 262 Table 162*

The following have been given as some of the attributes of a group. Please check each of these which applies to the psychological "group*' (or "school") of which you were a member.

1. Members of the group were alike in respect*to interests and common goals.______2. Group meetings were marked by warmth, conradeliness and teamwork. ______3. Membership within the group was relatively stable. Only a few members entered or left during the course of a year 4. The students found group membership a meaningful and significant experience.______5. The social structure of the group was relatively formal and rigid.______6. Students had a part in determining the policies and program of the group.______7. The group stimulated each member to work at his highest level.______8. There was high moral in the group effort.

9. Individuals were scrutinized thoroughly by all before being invited to become m e m b e r s . ______10.There were group rewards for individual efforts exerted on behalf of the group.______11.The group had behavior regulations which were more- or-less peculiar to it.______1 2 .Group members regardless of academic rank and/or status called each other by their first names.______13.The members were vitally interested in keeping the group together as a g r o u p . ______14.The group exercised control over individual members freedom of a c t i o n . ______15.The group resisted gross changes in its basic philosophical and psychological concepts. _ 16.The group engendered a "we" feeling among its members i.e. they had strong loyalities to each other as well as to the group.______17.The group members depended upon each other for assistance and suggestions in their research pro.iects. 18.There was competition among the younger members of the group for the recognition of the leaders.

Page 11 (OVER) Table 162.

REMARKS:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Page 12 284

Table 165* SUMMARY REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Leadership Qualities

1. Allport, F.H. ( 6 ) 9. Cobb ( 115 ) Ascendance Tenacity Age Intelligence Physical Power High Motility Verbal Facility Tonus Erect, aggressive Masculinity Face to face carriage Shorter v/ords mode of address Fewer plurals More legible writers 2. Bellingrath, ( 27 ) Fewer spelling errors Emotional balance Higher ratio of verbs to Will Power Perseverance nouns Fewer personal references 3. Benne ( 50 ) Less romantic Attitudes Understandings More social Skills Better adjusted More objective 4. Bernard ( 55 ) Knowledge of world events Trained experience Good looks & nolitics. Size Sympathy Self-Confidence 10. Coffin ( 114 ) Sense of justice Intelligence Appearance of strength of body Moral sensitivity Appearance of strength of character Restraint Dynamic physical charac. 5. Bridgeman (55 ) Responsibility High scholarship Early graduation Self-reliance Campus achievement Drive & determination Imperturbability 6. Caldwell & Wellman ( 75 ) Social responsiveness Scholarship Size Easy maintenance good Physical achievement relations with others Extraversion Height 11. Cowley (125 ,124) Carrard (85 ) Self confidence Self assuredness Initiative Judgment Perseverance Decisiveness Motor implusion Responsibility Knowledge of Speed of decision Objectivity people Situational factors

8. Cattell & Wispe' ( 101 ) 12. Drake ( 149 ) Shrewdness Realism Self confidence Verbal activity Industriousness Sociability Extravert responsiveness Intelligence Intelligent esprit de corps Aggressiveness Originality Desire to impose will (Continued) 285 Table 165* SUMMARY REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (Continued)

12. Drake (Continued) 17 Goode ( 207 ) Common sense Mental ability Maturity Humor Cheerfulness Language facility Trustworthiness Social orientation Emotional stability Breadth of interests & . Persistence appitudes Desire to excel Tact Strong motivation Administrative skill 13. Dunkerly ( 151 ) Intelligence Scholarship 18. Gowin ( 212,215) Dress and appearance Height Weight Manner and bearing Judgment Initiative Religion Integrity less variable

14. Fauquier & Gilcrist ( 159 ) 19. Hanav/alt and Richardson Physical strength Alertness i 224 ) Aggression Excitability Non-neurotic tendency Cooperativeness Impulsiveness Self-sufficiency Boldness Dominance Ex t rav e r s i o n Older Taller Dominance Heavier Self confidence Longer in an institution 20 . Hemphill ( 254 ) 15, Flemming ( 175 ) Situational Group governed Entertaining Brilliant Non-personal Complex Culture-talented lust Intel-relational Liveliness Intelligence Sportsmanship Ability to anms Athletic prov/ness Pleasant voice Absence of modesty 2 1 . Hunter & Jordan ( 255 ) 16, Gibb (200,20 2) Self sufficient Liberal Intelligence Educational level Educated parents Age Leadership experience Socioeconomic status Sociability Intelligence Socioeconomic status Mature vocationally Morale Aggressiveness Dominant Self*-confidence Large vocabulary Savoire faire Adjustability Attitudes Gregariousness Authoritarian Disposition Abilities Situational factors Leadership training Ties to group & individual Organisation & techniques for reaching goal 286

Table 16j. !UMIviARY REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (Continued)

22,- Jenkins ( 259 ) 28. O'Connor (592 ) Ability Situational factors Large English vocabulary Interests Social Background Objective personality History Age Many aptitudes Education Accounting aptitude Socioeconomic status Aptitude for 1st position

23, Le Bon ( 288 ) Keen foresight Conviction 29. OSS ( 596 ) Perseverance Energy & initiative Security 24.Miller (555 ) Effective intelligence Simplicity Prestige Propaganda skills Earnestness Sociality Motivation Self-control Energy Social relations Assiduity Common Sense Observation Dominance Ernanatory Physical ability Courage Tyranny Faith Will 30. Page ( 5 9 9 ) Loyalty Judgment Bearing Appearance Acumen Justice Truthfulness Enthusiasm 31. Shartle (459 ) Honor Perseverance Initiation Tact Representation 25. Moore (259*260) Organization Sympathy Dignity Communication Friendliness Fairness Production Membership Initiative Intelligence Integration Domination Social Iviindedness Recognition Dependability Self confidence Sincerity 32. Steward & Scott ( 489 ) Age Scholarship Age Dominance Taller More extraverted More ascendant 33. Terman ( 5^7 ) Less extreme on personality traits Taller Brighter Better looking 26. Munson -( 568 ) Better dressed Personality Tact More widely read Cheerfulness Justice Less emotional Duty Esprit de corps More daring Discipline Patriotism More fluent speech Knowledge of men More prominent parentage Manner Use of language

27. Nutting ( 590 ) Age oize Physical ability Intelligence Popularity Scholarship APPENDSX III Table U? The nine collegeG which produced the "bulk of the leaders in relation to productivity, group atmosphere, leadership and date of Ph.D. degree.

'Clark Columbia Cornell Harvard Cowa Yale All 0 XX ibilxx XXXX Total 221 20 "Productivity 5? Productivity 96 Ho Data

Group Ho Group 151 LVG (I) DVG (II) LTG (III) UL (IV)

-> 1889

1920-1929

1899

100

Ho Date Ph.D. 13 269 Table 165* The Nine Colleges which produced the Bulk of the leaders la Relation to Productivity* Group Atmosphere* Leadership *»w

Chi. Clark Col. Cor. Har. Ho d . Iowa s. Y. Productivity 4 4 19 3 7 1 4 2 3 Non-Productivity 7 5 12 3 7 1 2 5 7

X2 m 6.0322 df 8 (Between .50 & .70) Not Significant

Group 6 2 8 3 7 2 5 2 7 No Group 5 7 23 3 7 1 5 3

X2 - 15.53997 df 8 Significant at .05 level confidence

Leaders 9 8 27 5 12 2 7 6 8 Non-Leaders 2 1 4 1 2 1 2

y2 .870584 df 8 Not Significant

----- 1919 4 4 9 3 3 1 2 1 1920 ----- 7 5 22 3 11 1 4 7 9

X2 s 6.31649 (Between .50 - .70) Not Significant

Chi. Cl. Colt Cor. Har. H o d . I. s, Y. Other £ Productivity 5 4 20 3 8 2 4 2 3 16 Non-Product. 7 6 12 4 8 5 2 5 8 39

X * 13.26 df 9 Not Significant (Between .10 & .20 Level)

Group 6 2 8 . 3 7 ... 2 5 2 7 28 No Group 14 12 30 9 17 6 1 6 6 50

X2 = 15.62 df 9 Not significant (Between .05 & LO level) 1 Before 1920 10 8 15 8 12 7 2 4 28 After 1920 10 6 23 4 12 1 4 ( 9 45

X2 - 12.56 df 8 Not Significant (Between .10 & .20)

Ideal 9 19 5 11 2 2 4 10 20 I 7 Non*Ideal 2 1.2 12 1 5 1 4 =5 , 1...... 30... X2 - 21.35 df 9 Significant at .02 level Table 166* The Nine Colleges In Relation to Productivity, Group Atmosphere, Leadership & Date of PhD Degree . (Grouped Data)

A Coll Non-C. Coll Non-C. G Ideal NI I NI T Ideal NI I NI T Productivity 34 13 8 8 63 GroUD 36 6 10 18 70 Non-Produtt. 35 14 12 22 83 No Grouo . 33 21 10 12 76 = 4*7423 df 3 (Betw. .10 & .20) X2 » 9.5798 df 3 Not Significant Signif. .02-.05 Lev Conf.

B Coll Non-C T Coll Non-C T H Productivity 47 16 63 GrouD 42 28 70 Non-Product. 49 34 83 No Group 54 22 76 Xrf = 3.8543 df 1 . X2 = 1.9768 df ] Signif. .05 lev con/idence Not Significant IBetw. .10-.20) f} Coll Non-C Coll Non-C T Ideal NI I NI T Ideal NI I NI T Productivity 34 13 8 8 63 Group 36 6 10 18 70 Non-Product. 35 14 12 22 83 No Group 33 21 10 12 76 X*5 = .009869 df 1 x2 NC = X2 Coll = 7.0743 X2 NC (Coll.) Not Signif. 1.88235 df 1 Sig. .001 lev .4870 df 1 0.X X nO u o IMOt Sift.

Coll Non-C I Coll Non-C Ideal NI I NI T ( Ideal NI I NI T Leaders 59 24 16 15 114 8— 41919 17 6 4 4 31 Non-Leaders 10 3 4 15 32 Hl920— 4 49 19 15 22 105 X* - 17.8533 df 3 X2 = 8.2102 df 3 Significant .001 level confiderice Significant bet .02-.05 lev.

Coll Non-C T Coll Non-C T Leaders 83 31 114 — 41919 23 8 31 Non-Leaders 13 19 32 1920-- 4 68 37 105

X2 = 11.4920 Si£. .001 lev Confid. X2 = .9617 df 1 Not Signif. (.30-.50)

Coll Non-C. Coll Non-C I NI I NI T I NI I NI T Leaders 59 24 16 15 114 — 41919 17 6 4 4 31 Non-Leaders 10 3 4 15 32 1920-- 4 49 19 15 22 105

X2 * (Coll) .01895 X2 Non-C = X2 C. = .002965 X2 NC S df 1 Not Signif. 4.5840 df 1 Not Significant _ ? . 4 i 3 Sig. .02-.05 lev Not Sis, 291

Table 167. Sectional Location of Ph.D. School and Whether It is Public (pb.) or Private (P.) in Relation to Productive, Ideal, Group Time and Other Factors

i N.E . S •E. N,C S♦c, N,w, S No N, P, Pb, P, Pb, Pt Pb, P, Pbt P, Pbf P, Pb tData Productive 67 42 3 5 11 2 4 Non-Productive 96 49 5 1 7 15 1 1 5 2 10 No Data 58 28 8 1 1 20 IcfeaX--- 89 57 2 1 9 11 4 2 3 Non-ideal 57 22 6 2 15 1 1 3 7 No Data 75 40 9 1 1 24 Beading rnu mst. T43 ure- 20.. “ TST" 8 U ” Non-L. Fidu. mst. 44 10 8 1 21 1 1 2 0 No Data 34 34 Group ■ ...... "7U 32" 3 i W ' 16 i 1 2 2 6 No Group 151 87 5 14 11 6 28 53 34 "2 ’ 3 ' ' 6 1 .1“ S~ fc.V.G.(li) 73 39 9 1 1 23 L.T.G.(Ill) 63 33 i 1 6 15 5 1 1 N.L.(IV) 32 13 5 2 5 1 1 1 4 = - T S S 9 --- ‘ .9 7 2 " 1890 - 1899 27 3-7 10 1900 - 1909 30 3-7 6 1 6 1910 - 1919 28 17 2 4 3 2 1920 - 1929 46 27 5 10 2 1 1 1930 - 1939 54 28 4 1 4 11 1 4 1 1940 - 1952 14 1 6 2 1 2 1 2 No Data 13fl — g... 13 Total...... [ n y I™ 20 27' “ l i 8 3 4 U 292

Table 168. Private-Public and Sectional Location of PhD School in Relation to Productivity^ Idaalnsss , Leadership and Group Atmosphere.

East Central West Private Public Productive 45 16 2 Productive 49 14 Non-Productive 55 23 8 Non-Productive 61 25

X2 = 1.3080 df 2 Not Signif. X2 = .5636 df 1 Not Significant

East Central West Private Public Ideal 60 20 6 Ideal 70 16 Non-Ideal 28 18 4 Non-Ideal 27 23

X2 - 2.8072 df 2 (.20-.30) X2 = 10.3010 df 1 Not Significant Significant at .001 lev. conf.

East Central West Private Public Coll. (L.I.) 109 26 8 Coll (L.I.) 137 6 Non-C.fN.L.I.) 19 22 3 Non-C.fN.L.I.) 32 12

X2 - 8.5T69 df 2 X2 - 18.0307 df 1 Significant .01-.02 lev. conf. Significant at .001 lev. conf.

East Central West Private Public GroUD 36 23 5 Group 40 24 No GrouD 92 25 6 No Group 107 16

X2 - 6.7309 df 2 X2 - 13.5961 df 1 Significant .02-.05 lev. conf. Significant at .001 lev of conf.

East Central West Private Public L.V.G. 36 9 2 L.V.G. 9 38 D.V.G. 39 10 1 D.V.G. 1 49 L.T.G. 34 21 6 L.T.G. 17 44 N.L. 18 8 2 N.L. 12 16

X2 = 6.3855 df 6 X2 = 20.7432 df 3 Not Significant Significant at .001 lev. conf. i 295 Table 169* "Ideal" — 11 Non-Ideal" Schools and "Group"- "No Group" Factors in “jr «... /UUCJ. • No Ideal Non-Ideal Data Ideal Non-Ideal No No No No N Group Group Grout) GrouD N Gt o u d Grouu Grout) Group Productive 67 20 22 8 13 4 31 7 14 4 6 Non-Product, 96 26 21 16 20 13 31 10 6 7 8 No Data 58 58 1 4 Total 221 '46 ■ 43 "24 " 33" "7b" 62 -IT- “ 2U~ ' XT L.V.G. (l)— ' 53 £o 17 3 12 1 28 12 . 11 1 4 D.VX.(II)' 73 73 L.T.IT. fill) 63 22 16 11 13 1 28 8 9 4 7 N.L. (±v) 32 4 m 10 8 28 4 9 8 7 —Tota±-- 221 46 43 24 33 75 84 24 29 13 18

"Ideal" - "Non-Ideal" Schools and "Institution" - "Non-Institution” Factors in Relationship to Productivity and Leadership

Ideal Non-Ideal No No N Inst. Inst. Inst. Inst. Productive 31 16 5 6 4 Non-Productive 53 25 7 11 10 Pro ‘Tj.'VtG-.- 18”T(J - " 4 4 duc . L.T.G. 11 6 _ 1 2 2 tive^N.L. 2 2 Non- C Pro J L.V.G. 10 7 2 1 due jL.T.G. 17 8 2 7 tivei N.L. 26 10 3 3 10

Ideal Non-Ideal No No N Inst* Inst. Inst. Inst. Proaucxive 3l 16 5 6 4 Non-Productive 31 15 6 5 5 L.VIU.CD 28 17 6 5 D.V.G.(11) L.T.G.(Ill) 28 14 3 9 2 N.L. (IV) 28 10 3 3 12 Total 84 41 12 17 14 Table 169* "Ideal- - "Non-Ideal" and "College ■ - "Non-College" Paotore In Relation to Productivity and Leadership*

Ideal Non-Ideal No Data NO No N College College College College

Productivity il W ' 13 6 .. . 8 Non-Productivity 96 35 11 14 17 19 No Data _ 5 § ______» L.V.G. _ 33 29 6.... 11 1 6 D.V.G. 75 L.T.G. 63 30 8 13 10 2 N.L. — 32 10 3 .-. 2 -,.. 12 4 Total 221 -

Unequal NS Equal NS

Ideal Non-Ideal Ideal Non-Ideal Coll. N.C. Coll. N.C t 1 Coll. NC Coll NC T Productive 34 6 13 6 59 Productive 16 5 6 4 31 Non-Product. 35 11 14 17 77 Non-Product. 13 3 15 10 31

v2 _ (.10-.20) X - 4.4841 df 3 Not Sienif. x2 - 2.0126 df 3 Not Sienif.

B Ideal Non-Ideal T Ideal Non-Ideal T Productive 40 19 59 Productive 21 10 31 Non-Product. 46 31 77 Non-Productive 16 15 31

v2 (.10-.20) vp ( .30) lev, of conf.) X * 2.4575 df 1 Not Signif. X* - 1.6756 df 1 Not Sienif.

Coll. Non-C. T Coll Non-C. T# H Productive 47 12 59 Productive 22 9 31 Non-Productive 49 28 '77 Non-Productive 22 9 31

X2 = 4.1272 df 1 X2 = .0783 df 1 Not Significant Significant .02-.05 level -i H a; j j i i 1 T I NI T Coll. 69 27 36 Coll 31 13 44 N.C. - 17 23 10 N.C. 8 10 18

X2 « 10.4687 df 1 X2 = 4.5414 df 1 Signifleant .01 lev. of confidence Significant .05 level

E I NI I NI Coll. N.C. Coll. N.C. T Coll NC Coll NC T Productive 34 6 13 6 59 Productive 16 5 6 4 31 Non-Product. 35 11 14 17 77 Non-Product. 13 3 15 10 31

X Ideal & 1.07169 X2 NI ■ X2 Ideal = .1176 X2 NI - .026 df 1 Not Sienif. 2.5656 df 1 Not Signif. df 1 Not Sig. df 1 Not Sig. 296

Tabic 171* Ideal - Non-Idealness In Relation to Productivity and Group Atmosphere

Equal NS Unequal NS

Ideal Non-Ideal Ideal Non-I. G N.G. __G. N.G. T G. NG G. NG T Productivity 7 14 4 6 31 Productivity 20 22 8 13 63 Non-Product. 8 12 3 8 31 Non-Product. 26 21 16 20 83

X2 = .6490 df 3 Not Significant X2 = 2.2741 df 3 Not Significant

Ideal Non-Ideal T Ideal Non-I. T Productivity 21 10 31 Productivity 42 21 63 Non-Product. 21 1-1 31 Non-Product. 47 36 83

= ,0 df 1 Not Significant X2 - 1.1245 df 1 Not Significant

Group No Group T Group No G. T Productivity 11 20 31 Productivity 28 35 63 Non-Product. 11 20 31 Non-Product. 42 41 83

X2 = .0705 df 1 Not Significant X2 - .3254 df 1 Not Significant

Ideal Non-Idea] T Ideal Non-I. T Group 15 7 22 Group 46 24 63 No Group 26 14 40 No Group 43 33 83

X2 = .00074 df 1 Not Significant X2 = .9227 df 1 Not Significant

Ideal Non-Idea] Ideal Non-I. G. N.G. G. N.G, T G. NG G. NG T Productive 7 14 4 6 31 Productive 20 22 8 13 63 Non-Product. 8 12 3 8 31 Non-Produet. 26 21 16 20 83

X2Ideal » 1.4080 X2 NI - X2Ideal = .2634 X2 NI = df 1 Not Signif. .0955 df 1 df 1 Not Signif. 3.6199 df 1 Not Signif. Not Signif. (.05-.10) 297

Table 1 7 2 . Ideal — Non-Ideal & Private - Public Institutions in Relation to Leadership, Location and Date of PhD Degree*

Ideal Non-I. Priv. Pub. T. C NG C NC T Before 1910 47 1* 48 L.V.G. (I) 29 6 11 1 47 1910 - 1919 21 5 26 L.T.G. (Ill) 30 8 13 10 61 1920 - 1929 34 11 45 N.L. (TV) 10 3 3 12 28 1930 - 1939 36 18 54

X2 = 19.5649 df 6 X2 =• 17.258 df 4 Significant at .01 Level Significant at .01 Level

Ideal Non-I. T Priv. Pub. T. ] L.V.G. (I) 35 12 47 East 119 9 128 L.T.G. (Ill) 38 23 ■61 Central 20 28 48 N.L. (IV) 13 15 28 West 8 3 11

X2 = 5.998 df 2 X2 = 54.8789 df 2 Significant at .05 level Significant at .001 level

-

Coll N.C. T Priv. Pub. T. L.V.G. (I) 40 7 47 Coll 137 6 143 L.T.G. (Ill) 43 18 61 Non-C. 10 34 44 N.L. (IV) 13 15 28

X2 = 12.67 df 2 X2 = 80.62 df 1 Significant at .01 level Significant at .001 level Table 1735* Idealness and Productivity in Relation to Leadership; Socioeconomic Status in Relation to Leadership.

Ideal Non-I. Productive Non-Product. G. NG G. NG I III IV I III IV L.V.G.(I) 20 17 3 12 Coll 14 8 0 8 15 13 B.T.G.(Ill) 22 16 11 13 Non-Coll. 4 3 2 2 2 13 N.L. (IV) 4 10 10 8

I L _ Group No Group N.P. Coll Non-Coll. L.V.G. (I) 23 29 LVG (I) 8 2 L.T.G. (Illi 33 29 LTG (III) 15 2 N.L.(IV) 14 18 NL (IV) 13 13

X2 s 1.203 df 2 X2 » 7.7571 df 2 Not Significant Significant .02-.05 level

Ideal Non-Ideal P. Coll Non-Coil L.V.G.(I) 37 15 LVG 14 4 L.T.G.(Ill) 38 24 LTG 8 3 N.L. (IV) 14 28 NL 2

X2 = 6.30 df 2 X2 - 5.2865 df 2 Significant at .02- .05 level Not Significant

L M V T I 10 36 5 51 III 11 34 11 56 IV 8 23 2 33

X2 = 4.2793 df 4 Not Significant 299 Table 174* Location and Data of PhD Degree for Leaders & Non-Leaders.

Yr. I II III IV V PhD N N.E. M.E. South Mid—West N. Plains L M U X L M U X L M. U X L M U X L M U X L. -414 25 1 3 1 6 1 7 2 2 V. 15-4 26 2 1 3 2 3 4 2 4 1 G. XX 2 1 1 Tot. 53 1 6 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 12 0 0 4 6 1 0 D. -414 55 2 1 12 4 3 10 3 V. 15-4 11 2 1 1 5 1 G. XX 7 4 1 Tot. 73 2 1 0 18 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 4 L. -414 0 T. 15-4 62 3 9 3 1 3 5 1 3 10 2 1 5 3 G. XX 1 _ Tot,. 63 3 9 3 1 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 2 0 1 5 3 0 N. — 414 0 15-4 29 3 2 - 2 2 1 1 5 1 1 6 L. XX 3 1 1 Tot. 32 3 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 10 17 0 0 TOTAL 221 9 18 5 19 5 16 5 4 0 2 0 4 7 27 3 16 6 18 4 4 ______1 Yr. VI VII VIII Foreign PhD S.Plains N.W. s.w. L M U X L M U X L M U X L M U X L. -414 1 1 V. 15-4 1 1 1 1 G. XX Tot. 0 0 0 0 110 0 110 0 10 10 D . -414 1 1 4 1 13 V. 15-4 1 G. XX 1 1 Tot. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 15 L. -414 T. 15-4 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 G. XX 1 Tot. _,JL„ X Q 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 4 0 0 N. -414 15-4 3 2 L. XX 1 Tot. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 TOTAL 14 10 13 0 1 2 4 14 3 7 2 15 500

Table 174* Location and Date of PUD Degree for Leaders it Non-Leaders.

Yr. I II III IV PhD N N.E. S.E. N.W. S.W. L M U X L M U X L M U X L M U X L. -414 25 1 16 1 1 2 2 V. 15-* 26 3 9 3 3 5 1 1 1 G. XX 2 2 Tot." 53 4 27 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 7 10 110 0 D. -414 55 -. 2 1 26 3 4 1 4 V. 15-4 11 1 7 1 1 G. XX 7 5 Tot. 73 2 1 1 38 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 4 L. -414 0 T. 15-4 62 9 24 6 1 1 7 3 0 1 3 1 G. XX 1 1 Tot. 63 9 24 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 3 0 1 3 2 0 N. -414 0 15-4 29 6 9 2 1 9 3 L. XX 3 1 1 1 Tot. 32 6 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 0 0 1 3 0 0 TOTAL 221 21 61 13 39 0 2 0 4 7 24 4 5 3 8 2 4 501 Table 174* Looation and Date of PhD Degree for Leaders & Non—Leaders

Yr> I II III IV V PhD N N.E. M .E. South Mid-West N.Plains L M U X L M U X L M U X L M U X L M U X L. -424 37 1 3 2 8 1 2 10 3 3 V.25-4 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 G. XX 2 1 1 Tot ,53 1 6 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 12 0 0 4 6 1 0 D. -424 62 2 1 13 1 4 4 13 3 V. 254 4 1 2 1 G. XX 7 4 1 Tot *73 2 1 0 18 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 4 L. ->24 13 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 T. 254 49 2 5 3 3 5 1 2 8 1 1 4 2 G. XX 1 Tot .63 3 9 3 1 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 2 0 1 5 3 0 N. —424 2 1 254 27 3 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 6 L. XX 3 1 1 Tot ,32 3 2 0 0 2 2 10 0 10 0 15 10 1 7 0 0 TOTAL 221 9 18 5 19 5 16 5 4 0 2 0 4 7 27 3 16 6 18 4 4

Yr. VI VII VIII Foreisn PhD S. Plains . N.W. s.w. L M U X L M U X L M U X L M U X L. -424 1 1 1 V. 25-4 1 1 1 G. XX Tot. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 D. -424 ■ 1 1 4 1 14 V. 25-4 G. XX 1 1 — Tot,... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 15 L. -424 T. 25-4 1 1 2 1 G. XX 1 1 1 2 4 Totl 1110 0 2 0 00 2 10 2 4 0 0 N. -424 1 25-4 1 L. XX 3 1 Tot. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 TOTAL 1 4 1 0 1 3 0 1 2 4 1 4 3 7 2 15 Table 175* Summary Results Questionnaire Items 1-15 502

Tables 1.2.3.4 5.6 7.8.9 10.11.12 13 17 Birth- Birth- Father1s Mother * s Father1s Mother's olace date Age Age Name Name L.V.G. 1890 30-39 28-37 yttr D.V.G. 1871 L.T.G. 1902 30-39 28-37 * N.L. ‘K 1904 20-29 18-27

Tables 14,15.16 18.19 20.21 22.23 24.25 Father's Father's Mother's No. Position in Occupation Educ. Educ. Children Familv .46 L.V.G. .38 h e - /Ztr Most 1 or 2 or 3 .16 .57 D.V.G. .43 1 or 2 or 3 .00 A .44 Tr L.T.G. .38 Least 1 or 2 or 3 .18 .40 N.L. .31 Least First child .28

Tables 26.27.28 Marriage Age at Which No, Marriage Age_____ Had 1st Child______Children______Dates Most 1.00 L.V.G. 3rd lat. 2nd latest Higher Nos. .22 4,5.8.10 .02 .93 D.V.G. * like LVG .12 .00 Most .85 L.T.G. 2nd 1st lower Nos. .11 1,2,3 .00 1.00 N.L. 1st 1st like LTG .15 (earliest) .00

Father's S.E.S. OF Relatives Lineal Residence Family Outstanding Descent

L.V.G. I ESI most & o %

D.V.G. £*. L.T.G. I few ESI most differences N.L. III EST most 50% 505

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, James Harry Ritter, was born in Williamsport*

Pennsylvania, April 23, 1915. I received my secondary school education in the Williamsport public schools. My under­ graduate training was obtained at Bueknell University, Lewisburg,

Pennsylvania, from which I received the degree of Bachelor of

Science in 1936. I also received the degree of Master of Science from Bueknell University in 1937. I attended Duke University during the summers of 1938 and 1939 and—Iowa State University from 1940 to 1941. Under the auspices of the United States Air

Force Institute of Technology, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, I attended the Ohio State University while completing the require­ ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.