An Investigation of the Relationship Between Self-Insight and Popularity

Abstract

The study of popularity becomes increasingly important as society becomes more complex and human interaction becomes more involved. In much of modern society popularity in some form is necessary for success. Without it the diplomat, the politician, and the salesman could not continue in their respective roles. Therefore, any study that yields new knowledge about the nature of popularity or its relationship to other characteristics of personality contributes to t he advancement of society. Points at Issue This thesis is an investigation of the relationships between popularity and insight into one's personality. That is, does the more popular person have more insight into his personal characteristics than the less popular person? Former studies have shown that better adjusted persons have more insight into their personalities than less well adjusted persons, i.e., that the former possess more self-understanding. It has also been found that leaders often possess better adjusted personalities than nonleaders, and leaders also possess more self-insight. On logical grounds, then, it would seem that popular persons would have more insight into their personalities than nonpopular persons. The concepts of popularity, leadership, friendship, and dominance are not, of course, synonymous, but there is a close relationship between them that should be considered at this time. Popularity is generally defined as the possession of the confidence and favor of a group of people. The popular person is not always a leader, but the leader is always popular. The former may be a good fellow in his group or the life of the party, but he does not necessarily direct group activities toward a definite end. Quite often his main role is that of an informal entertainer --group members may find it pleasant to be with him. However, he may possess all the necessary characteristics of a leader but make no attempt to assert himself. The leader, on the other hand, is defined by Pigors in the following manner: Any person may be called a leader when , and in so far as, his will, feeling, and insight direct and control others in t he pursuit of a cause, which he represents. This definition implies that the leader would not be a leader if the situation was not such that the group needed a leader. Otherwise, whether or not he will become a leader is not completely determined by him, but is determined by the situation and by the relations between group members. The most important implication here is that the leader must assume responsibility for group action. The essential difference between the popular person described above and the leader is responsibility. The leader must be popular and take the responsibility of guiding the group toward a mutually desired end. Leadership, as defined above, is often confused with dominance; however, Pigors points out that there are distinct differences between the two concepts, and gives the following definition: Domination is a process of control in which by the forcible assumption of authority and the accumulation of prestige a person (through a hierarchy of functionaries) regulates the activities of others for purposes of his own choosing. It seems that popularity does not play a role in complete domination. The dominant head of the group may act in the best interests of the group, but he does so without regard for group wishes; whether or not group members understand the orders of the dominant authority they must obey. Pigors emphasizes that leadership often turns into dominance, and there is always some domination in an organized group. A good example of the differences between leadership and domination are the differences between a democracy, in which the leaders are chosen by popular vote, and a dictatorship, in which the dictator assumes and maintains his position by force. The relationship between popularity and leadership is indicated in a study by Flemming. He did not define the terms personality, popularity, and leadership, because he felt that most persons were aware of the meanings. The subjects were seventy-one high school girls. The criterion for leadership was based on the positions a girl had held in school. From three to six of the girls’ teachers were asked to check a list of 46 personality traits for each girl and to indicate on a ten point scale how much personality each girl possessed. Also, each girl indicated on a ten point scale the degree of pleasant feeling she subjectively felt for every other girl. A correlation of .50 was found between leadership and personality as defined above. A correlation of .33 was found between leadership and pleasingness of personality as defined above. Further analysis of the data revealed four types of leaders: the entertaining, the brilliant, the culture-talented, and the just. There was a great deal of overlapping of types, and the most outstanding leaders possessed traits from each type. Flemming decided that the basic qualities of leadership were liveliness, wide interests, intelligence, good sportsmanship, ability to amuse, athletic prowess, a pleasant voice, and the absence of modesty. The traits of leadership are mentioned here in order that they may be compared with the traits reported by Benney to be important for the social success and friendships of children. Bonney investigated sociability in two ways: through trait rating of subjects by teachers and classmates, and by sociometric techniques. Three classes of fourth grade children were used as subjects. However, only the extreme quartiles (twenty in each quartile) were used in analyzing the data. The trait data were gathered by asking each student to rate three other students of his own choosing on twenty traits. Teachers also rated the student . The sociometric data were gathered at different times during the year when children were asked to indicate to whom they would like to give valentines, with whom they would like to work, to whom they would like to give Christmas presents, and to list the names of their best friends and the leaders in the class. A composite score for the sociometric data and the trait ratings was computed for each student. The socially successful children were found to be reliably superior to the socially unsuccessful children in the following traits: tidiness, leadership, friendly, welcomed, good- looking , enthusiastic, happy, frequent laughter, at ease with adults, and active in recitations. These data led the author to suggest that social success does not go to the docile children . The traits which differentiated between the socially successful and the socially unsuccessful children were found to form two syndromes. The first is composed of the strong aggressive traits listed above, that is, leadership, enthusiasm, daring, and participation in recitations. The second syndrome consists of those traits which are believed to be most important in interpersonal relationships. The most important of these traits are tidy, good-looking, frequent laughter, happy, friendly, and welcomed. Out of twenty-two pairs of mutual friendships in the group, the following ten traits were found to be the most important in the friendship association: quiet, tidy, daring, leadership, friendly, welcomed, good- looking, enthusiastic, laughter, and active in recitations. When the traits necessary for leadership as reported by Flemming are compared with the traits necessary for social success and friendship as reported by Bonney, it is apparent that there is much over lapping and similarity between the terms . Because of the impossibility of separating the terms, popularity in this study will include the concepts of friendship, leadership, and dominance. To some degree, most people exhibit many of the above mentioned characteristics. And it is reasonable to assume that a large number of them can be acquired or improved upon by the individual. Further, it is true that many nonpopular individuals wish to be popular. If these assumptions are correct , then there are at least four possible inferences: (1) The nonpopular individual has insight into his personal characteristics, but he does not know how to correct or alter them. (2) The nonpopular person does not have insight into his personal characteristics; he does not know which positive characteristics he lacks and which negative characteristics he exhibits. (3) The popular person has self-insight and has utilized the knowledge derived from it to improve his personality. (4) The popular person lacks insight into his own personality characteristics. ...