A constant error in psychological ratings.

In a study made in 1915 of employees of two large industrial corporations, it appeared that the estimates of the same man in a number of different traits such as intelligence, industry, technical skill, reliability, etc., etc, were very highly correlated and very evenly correlated. It consequently appeared probable that those giving the ratings were unable to analyze out these different aspects of the person's nature and achievement and rate each in independence of the others Their ratings were apparently affected by a marked tendency to think of the person in general as rather good or rather inferior and to color the judgments of the qualities by this general feeling This same constant error toward suffusing ratings of special features with a halo belonging to the individual a's a whole appeared in the ratings of officers made by their superiors in the army. The official rating plan devised by Walter Dill Scott called for separate ratings for Physical Qualities, Intelligence, Leadership and Personal Qualities (i. e. Character) The instructions very emphatically required each of these four to be estimated independently of the others, as appears from the directions quoted below. Yet the correlations of the Intelligence rating with the ratings for Physique, Leadership and Character made by a very conscientious officer in the case of 137 aviation cadets whose work he, as flight commander, supervised, were .51, .58 and .64 respectively. These are all higher than reality, plus the attenuation due to erroneous judgments, could well give, especially within the restricted range of the commissioned-officer group. They are also too much alike. In reality Intelligence and Character or Intelligence and Leadership should give about three times as close a correlation as Intelligence and Physique