What are the factors related to the ability to judge accurately such behavioral characteristics as the abilities, traits, action tendencies, motives, and emotions of other people? 2 Are there some persons who consistently demonstrate good ability to judge others accurately and, if so, what are the correlates of such ability? These are the general questions to which this review is addressed. The practical importance of the above questions in psychology is obvious, especially when we consider the role of the psychologist's personality in determining the validity of the observations and inferences with which he works. METHODS OF MEASURING ABILITYTO JUDGE OTHERS The number of differing methods of measuring ability to judge others that have been used in the experiments in this area may partly account for the varied and sometimes conflicting results found. The distinction between analytic and non-1 The major part of this review was prepared by the writer while he was a research assistant at the Institute of Personality Assessment at the University of California. He wishes to thank Professors D. W. MacKinnon and T. R. Sarbin for their advice and assistance which have been given unstintingly.3 The review is confined to judgments about the emotional, personality, and behavioral characteristics of others, not their physical or sociological characteristics.

The Remote Associates Test was administered in a battery of tests of convergent and divergent thinking abilities ro 107 high school students. Contrary to previously rcported results, it related largely to the convergent thinking measures.Claims have been made that the Remote Associates Test (RAT) can be assumed to be a measure of creative thinking (Mednick, 1962;Andrews, 1965; Lucas & Dana, 1966). This test requires S to find a word which is associated in some way with two other given words. Datta (1964) and Shapiro (1965) have expressed doubts as to its suitability as a test of divergent thinking since it appears to be culture-bound, highly dependent on verbal ability, and because there is only one allowable solution for each item The present study represented an attempt to resolve its status with respect to divergent and convergent thinking.Method.-The RAT was administered, together with a battery of tests representing convergent and divergent chinking factors, to a sample of 107 high school students who had completed ninth-grade examinations 5 mo. previously. The convergent thinking measures included: verbal and quantitative IQs on A.C.E.R. Form W (Total IQ Range, 82 to 135+, M = 110.7, SD = 13.6);Raven's Progressive Matrices; A.C.E.R. Speed and Accuracy test (a 12-min. test of number and name checking), and the Number Series subtest from the Army Alpha. The divergent thinking battery consisred of four of the Guilford tests: Ideational Fluency, Word Pluency, Consequences, Unusual Uses, and a Figure Completion test. These were scored to yield three measures: Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality; and total scores were obtained for each of these dirnensions by adding the relevact four standard scores. School achievement tests of English, Mathematics, and Science, and a total score were also calculated from ninth-grade statewide examinations.Reszllts.-Product-momenc correlations of all measures with the RAT are given in Table 1. With few exceptions individual tests correlate positively with RAT, but the convergent thinking tests, and even school achievement as a whole, correlated considerably higher than the tests of divergent thinking. The highest correlation for the divergent tests was with Word Fluency, a simple test of speed of producing words cornme~cing with particular prefixes. While this correla-'The authors thank Mrs. Marrhj Mednick for kindly making rhe RAT available for this study.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract