HDS Manual.pdf

8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf

1/73

Hogan Development SurveyManual


2/73

Acknowledgements

Over the last five years, a number of people have assisted us with the development of the

Hogan Development Survey (HDS). We are grateful for their contributions and it is a plea-sure to acknowledge them. Paul Babiak and Tom-Erik Dybwad commented on the item pool.

John Thompson created the computer program for the interpretive report and has continued

to refine the scoring systems. Kimberly Brinkmeyer, Doug Klippel, Suzan Rybicki, Robert

Smither, and Ron Walker helped gather the original data sets. Suzan Rybicki developed and

maintained the HDS archive and computed the statistical analyses. Heather Heidelberg and

Dallas Stovall contributed technical assistance and test scoring. Ann Ferguson provided

production support, and day-to-day help has come from M. Gooch, B. Dings, M. Paddy, and

L. M. Gracie. At the University of Tulsa, Judy McHenry produced the written material, includ-

ing design, layout, and graphics. We thank all of them for their assistance.

Robert Hogan

Joyce Hogan

Tulsa

1997


3/73

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Conceptual Background............................................................................ 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 2

Development Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2: Inventory Construction .............................................................................. 7

Development .................................................................................................................................. 7

Definitions of the Scales ................................................................................................................. 8

Composition of the HDS ................................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 3: Validity ....................................................................................................... 13

Construct Validity ..........................................................................................................................13Correlations with Other Measures..................................................................................................13

Excitable .............................................................................................................................14

Skeptical .............................................................................................................................15

Cautious ..............................................................................................................................16

Reserved .............................................................................................................................19

Leisurely ..............................................................................................................................19

Bold.....................................................................................................................................21

Mischievous.........................................................................................................................22

Colorful ................................................................................................................................23

Imaginative ..........................................................................................................................26

Diligent ................................................................................................................................26

Dutiful ..................................................................................................................................27

Chapter 4: Interpretations and Uses.......................................................................... 29

Scale by Scale Interpretation.........................................................................................................29

Excitable .............................................................................................................................29

Skeptical .............................................................................................................................30

Cautious ..............................................................................................................................31

Reserved .............................................................................................................................31

Leisurely ..............................................................................................................................32

Bold.....................................................................................................................................33

Mischievous.........................................................................................................................33

Colorful ................................................................................................................................34

Imaginative ..........................................................................................................................35

Diligent ................................................................................................................................35

Dutiful ..................................................................................................................................36


4/73

Sample HDS Profile Interpretations ...............................................................................................37

Moving Away Profile ..........................................................................................................39

Moving Against Profile .......................................................................................................40

Moving Toward Profile ........................................................................................................41

Corporate Stalker Profile ......................................................................................................42

Litigious Profile ....................................................................................................................43

Fear-driven Salesman Profile ...............................................................................................44

Uses ............................................................................................................................................45

Chapter 5: Administering and Scoring ...................................................................... 47

Paper-and-pencil Administration ....................................................................................................47

How to Administer Paper-and-pencil HDS Forms...........................................................................47

Materials .............................................................................................................................47

Completing the Answer Sheet..............................................................................................47

Conducting the Testing Session ....................................................................................................49

Administrators Script for Conducting a Testing Session ................................................................49How to Administer Computer On-line Testing .................................................................................51

Materials .............................................................................................................................51

Using the On-line System....................................................................................................51

How to Score the HDS Answer Sheets..........................................................................................52

Keyed Data Entry ................................................................................................................52

Optical Scanning of Answer Sheets .....................................................................................52

Mail-in or FAX Scoring .........................................................................................................52

References................................................................................................................... 55

List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices

Tables

Table 2.1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the HDS ..............................................................10

Table 2.2 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for HDS Scales by

Demographic Group ............................................................................................................. 11

Table 2.3 HDS Scale Intercorrelations ................................................................................................. 11

Table 2.4 Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales ...................................................................12

Table 3.1 Correlations Between the Hogan Personality Inventory and the HDS....................................15

Table 3.2 Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS ...........................................17

Table 3.3 Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................17

Table 3.4 Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................18

Table 3.5 Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................20


5/73

Table 3.6 Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS ............................................21

Table 3.7 Correlations Between Observers Description Ratings

and the HDS ........................................................................................................................24

Table 3.8 Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS ................................................28

Figures

Figure 1.1 Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders .......................... 5

Figure 4.1 A Quick Guide for Interpreting the HDS................................................................................37

Figure 4.2 Average HDS Profile ............................................................................................................38

Figure 4.3 Average HPI Profile ..............................................................................................................38

Figure 4.4 Moving Away HDS Profile ..................................................................................................39

Figure 4.5 Moving Away HPI Profile ....................................................................................................39

Figure 4.6 Moving Against HDS Profile ...............................................................................................40

Figure 4.7 Moving Against HPI Profile.................................................................................................40Figure 4.8 Moving Toward HDS Profile ................................................................................................41

Figure 4.9 Moving Toward HPI Profile ..................................................................................................41

Figure 4.10 Corporate Stalker HDS Profile..............................................................................................42

Figure 4.11 Corporate Stalker HPI Profile ...............................................................................................42

Figure 4.12 Litigious HDS Profile ............................................................................................................43

Figure 4.13 Litigious HPI Profile .............................................................................................................43

Figure 4.14 Fear-driven Salesman HDS Profile .......................................................................................44

Figure 4.15 Fear-driven Salesman HPI Profile .........................................................................................44

Figure 5.1 Sample Answer Sheet .........................................................................................................48

Figure 5.2 HDS Data File Variable Specifications .................................................................................53

Appendices

Appendix A: HDS Norms for the Total Sample ...........................................................................................59

Appendix B: Sample HDS Interpretive Report ............................................................................................61


6/73

Conceptual Background 1

C H A P T E R

1

Conceptual Background

Introduction

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is designed to assess eleven common dysfunctional

dispositions. These dispositions: (a) are caused by peoples distorted beliefs about how others

will treat them; and (b) negatively influence peoples careers and life satisfactions. Before de-scribing the development of the HDS, some background comments may help the reader better

understand the purpose of this inventory.

Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and H. S. Sullivan all studied self-defeating behav-

ior. However, they explained this behavior very differently. Freud was concerned exclusively with

intrapsychic processesevents occurring inside the mindwhereas the others were concerned

with interpersonal processesevents occurring between people. Consequently, the others are

known as interpersonal theorists. Freud thought everyone (who has not been psychoanalyzed) is

neurotic; the interpersonal theorists thought that the problems most people have are much less

severe than a neurosis. Freud thought people could be characterized in terms of how they man-age their neuroses; the others thought people could be characterized in terms of their expecta-

tions about how others will treat them. Because some of these expectations are wrong, they tend

to behave in ways that others find annoying and that, over time, may interfere with their life goals.

Freuds view that everyone is somewhat neurotic is surely incorrectpeople who are neurotic

are severely impaired and most people are not deeply disturbed. Nonetheless, his view pre-

vailed and inspired the early history of personality measurement; that, in turn, led to the develop-

ment of instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway &

McKinley, 1943; MMPI 2, Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989).

Adler, Horney, Sullivan and the later interpersonal theorists are probably right in their view that,

although everyone is not neurotic, the nature of experience in childhood is such that almost every-

one feels inadequate about something. That is, childhood is almost inevitably stressful and most

people develop expectations of being criticized in certain situations; they


7/73

also develop methods for dealing with the criticism. For Freud, all neuroses have a single cause

a failure to resolve the Oedipus complex; for the interpersonal theorists there are many reasons

for feeling inadequate, and almost everyone feels insecure about somethingfew of us had

perfect childhoods.

The interpersonal theorists have had far less influence on personality assessment than Freud,

despite the importance of the problems they analyze. Other than research on the interpersonal

circumplex inspired by Leary (1957) and elaborated brilliantly by Wiggins (1979), there has been

little systematic effort to classify the key interpersonal processes. In our judgment, the first step in

studying these processes is to develop a taxonomy of what we call dysfunctional dispositions.

Horney (1950) identified 10 neurotic needs which seem to be the first taxonomy of flawed

interpersonal tendencies. She later summarized these needs in terms of three themes: (1) mov-

ing toward peoplei.e., managing ones insecurities by building alliances; (2) moving away

from peoplei.e., managing ones feelings of inadequacy by avoiding contact with others; and

(3) moving against peoplei.e., managing ones self-doubts by dominating and intimidating

others. We believe that Horneys taxonomy is a useful first step in classifying the dysfunctionaldispositions; moreover, it is implicit in the classification of personality disorders contained in

DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Hypotheses

We would like to proposeas a hypothesisthat the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders can

serve as a provisional taxonomy of flawed interpersonal strategies. Like all taxonomies, it is

subject to revision as data emerge that cannot be interpreted or incorporated into the taxonomy.

We would like to propose a second hypothesis, one that concerns the structure of personality.

Researchers often organize personality variables in a hierarchy defined by many specific behav-

iors and/or narrow traits at the bottom and by a few broad and/or general traits at the top. Al-

though this is sensible, there is a second natural hierarchy of personality concepts that extends

from terms characterizing people with good interpersonal skills, to terms describing flawed skills,

to terms referring to non-existent skills. This second hierarchy reflects the fact that interpersonal

competency is probably normally distributed; thus, a few people at one end of the distribution are

self-assured and highly effective in interaction, and a corresponding few at the other end are

profoundly self-doubting and incompetenteven neurotic. In the middle of this distribution is the

majority of the populationpeople whose development included failure, disappointment, loss,

fights, accidents, illness, injury, family discord, experiments with forbidden behaviors, and feel-

ings of guilt, loneliness, powerlessness, humiliation, inadequacy and betrayalabout whose

lives Adler, Horney, and Sullivan wrote so perceptively.

2 Conceptual Background


8/73


In our view, the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) is a cross-section of this personality hierar-

chy at the competent end of the distribution. At the incompetent end, Harkness, McNulty, and

Ben-Porath (1995) propose what they call the PSY-5, where agreeableness turns into hostility

and conscientiousness turns into delinquency. Finally, then, the personality disorders can be seen

as a cross-section in the middle of the distribution, a cross-section that has not been well-de-

fined in psychometric terms.

The two foregoing hypotheses suggest that the personality disorders occupy a psychological

space half-way between the domain mapped by measures of normal personality such as the

California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) or the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI;

R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995), and measures of abnormal personality such as the MMPI. This sug-

gests one justification for developing the HDSthe personality disorders concern a region of

interpersonal behavior that has not been adequately mapped or measured. But the most impor-

tant reason for paying attention to the personality disorders, in our judgment, is that they occur so

frequently at every level of society and have detrimental effects on interpersonal and career ef-

fectiveness. Consider the following two examples.

First, R. Hogan worked for two years as a probation officer; he investigated five or six cases of

troubled adolescents each week and then wrote evaluations. In this process, he found the stan-

dard categories of psychiatric diagnosis unhelpful because they fit so few cases. Instead, he

relied on the personality disorders to make sense of his investigations. Thus, most juvenile delin-

quentswho are only somewhat disturbed in a psychiatric senseare more easily classified in

terms of the personality disorders than in terms of the standard psychiatric categories because

the problems they have are usually unrelated to neurosis or psychosis.

Second, in reviewing the literature on leadership, the authors (R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994)noticed that there is little agreement regarding the characteristics that define effective leader-

ship, but there is considerable agreement regarding the characteristics of managerial incompe-

tence. Bentz (1985) identifies leadership styles associated with managerial derailment in the

retail industry (e.g., playing politics, moodiness, and dishonesty). Researchers at the Center for

Creative Leadership and at Personnel Decisions International similarly conclude that managers

who are technically competent but who fail are variously perceived as arrogant, vindictive, un-

trustworthy, selfish, emotional, compulsive, overcontrolling, insensitive, abrasive, aloof, too am-

bitious, or unable to delegate (Hazucha, 1991; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall

& Lombardo, 1983). Bentzs observations overlap substantially with those from the Center for

Creative Leadershipmanagers who are typified by dysfunctional dispositions are unable to

build a constituency to support them in the pursuit of their agendas. Our point is that the themes

that predict managerial incompetence strongly resemble the personality disorders. Like the Five-

Factor Model, which is reliably replicated in various languages and cultures, the standard per-

sonality disorders seem to reflect common themes in the lives of people who are getting by but

perhaps gradually failing, or at least not realizing their potential.


9/73

The empirical literature clearly indicates that measures of psychopathology such as the Ror-

schach and the MMPI are uncorrelated with indices of effective occupational performance (Kelly

& Fiske, 1951). In 1992 as an experimental exercise, we included a measure of personality

disorders in a study of insurance claims examiners; we discovered, to our great surprise, that

several scales of the inventory were robust predictors of performance in the negative direction

(Arneson, Millikin-Davies, & Hogan, 1993). In fact, these scales predicted job performance bet-

ter than the HPIan inventory of normal personalityalthough they predicted in the negative

direction. We concluded that measures of personality disorders, unlike measures of neurosis

and psychosis, will predict (negative) reliable occupational outcomes. At this point we decided

to develop the HDS.

Development Guidelines

In developing the HDS, we were guided by four considerations. The first concerns what to mea-

sure. We regard the personality disorders described in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as lists de-

signed by committees; as such, they are inevitably somewhat arbitrary and generally not foundedin science. The construction of the HDS departs from the DSM-IV, Axis 2 taxonomy in two ways.

First, we retained the category of Passive-Aggressive personalitybecause we think it is an

important theme in the behavior of some normal, employed adults. Second, our measure of the

Antisocial personality is designed to assess classic psychopathic tendenciesmanipulation,

deceitfulness, and exploitationrather than a delinquent lifestyle. Table 1.1 presents the 11

HDS scales, their descriptors, and the personality disorders they most closely resemble.

The second consideration concerns how to conceptualize the constructslisted in Table 1.1.Many people define the personality disorders as types; each construct, they believe, refers to a

distinctive cluster of behaviors that characterize certain types of people. A person with a highscore on a narcissism scale, for example, will manifest more tendencies typical of a narcissist

than a person with a low score. In our view, however, the constructs are dimensions. Each per-

sonality disorder refers to a distinct themea dysfunctional dispositionappearing in interper-

sonal relations. People are normally distributed on these dimensions, and any single person

may have high or low scores on any of the dimensions.

The third consideration we used in developing the HDS has to do with how to measure the

various personality disorders. The standard approach to constructing these scales is to write

items for each personality disorder using the diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV. For ex-

ample, the criteria for the Avoidant personality include sensitivity to criticism, anxiety proneness,

fearfulness, and low self-confidence. To develop an Avoidant scale, therefore, a test author would

write items reflecting each of these themes. The problem is that the DSM-IV assigns many of the

same attributes to more than one personality disorder. For example, being sensitive to criticism

is a criterion for diagnosing four of the standard 10 disorders, and items concerning being sen-

sitive to criticism would appear on four of an inventorys scales



10/73


Figure 1.1

Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders

HDS Themes DSM-IV Personality Disorders Themes

Excitable Moody and hard to please; Borderline Inappropriate anger; unstableintense but short lived and intense relationships

enthusiasm for people, alternating between idealization

projects, or things. and devaluation.

Skeptical Cynical, distrustful, and Paranoid Distrustful and suspicious ofdoubting others true others; motives are interpreted

intentions. as malevolent.

Cautious Reluctant to take risks for Avoidant Social inhibition, feelings offear of being rejected or inadequacy, and hyper-

negatively evaluated. sensitivity to criticism or

rejection.

Reserved Aloof, detached, and Schizoid Emotional coldness anduncommunicative; lacking detachment from social

interest in or awareness of relationships; indifferent to

the feelings of others. praise and criticism.

Leisurely Independent; ignoring Passive- Passive resistance to adequatepeoples requests and Aggressive* social and occupationalbecoming irritated or performance; irritated when

argumentative if they persist. asked to do something he/she

does not want to do.

Bold Unusually self-confident; Narcissistic Arrogant and haughtyfeelings of grandiosity and behaviors or attitudes;

entitlement; over-evaluation of grandiose sense of self-

ones capabilities. importance and entitlement.

Mischievous Enjoying risk taking and testing Antisocial Disregard for the trugh;the limits; needing excitement; impulsivity and failure to plan

manipulative, deceitful, cunning, ahead; failure to conform with

and exploitative. social norms.

Colorful Expressive, animated, and Histrionic Excessive emotionality anddramatic; wanting to be noticed attention seeking; self-

and needing to be the center of dramatizing, theatrical, and

attention. exaggerated emotional

expression.

Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative Schizotypal Odd beliefs or magical thinking;and sometimes odd or unusual behavior or speech that is odd,

ways. eccentric, or peculiar.

Diligent Meticulous, precise, and Obsessive- Preoccupations withperfectionistic; inflexible about Compulsive orderliness, rules, perfection-rules and procedures; critical of ism, and control; overconscien-

others performance. tious and inflexible.

Dutiful Eager to please and reliant on Dependent Difficulty making everydayothers for support and decisions without excessive

guidance; reluctant to take advice and reassurance;

independent action or go difficulty expressing disagree-

against popular opinion. ment out of fear of loss of

support or approval.

Note: *From DSM-III-R


11/73

constructed in this manner. This builds in item overlap and necessarily reduces the power of

such inventories to discriminate among people. To avoid this problem when developing the HDS,

we wrote items directed at the heart of each construct, then carefully reviewed the item content

across scales to eliminate item overlap and enhance the discriminatory power of the entire in-

ventory. Thus, for example, items on the Skeptical (Paranoia) scale concern suspiciousness,

mistrust, and a heightened readiness to confront persons suspected of giving offense, whereas

items on the Reserved (Schizoid) scale concern being aloof, insensitive, and indifferent to the

problems of others. The content of each scale is independent of the content of the other scales.

The final consideration shaping the development of the HDS concerns the actual content of the

items. Because the HDS is intended to be used in everyday contexts for career development,

job placement, promotion, and other people decisionsas opposed to being used to make

mental health status or medical evaluationsthe items reflect themes from the world of work

e.g., how one is perceived at work, how one relates to supervisors, co-workers, and friends,

attitudes toward competition and success, etc. In addition, to further enhance the acceptability of

the HDS in everyday applications, the scales have been renamed so as to not stigmatize unnec-essarily persons receiving high scores on the various dimensions. Finally, we are aware of the

implications of recent rulings, especially the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA; 1990),

as they affect test item content (R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). To the degree that it was

possible, we eliminated items with obvious medical or psychiatric content.



12/73

Inventory Construction 7

C H A P T E R

2

Inventory construction

Development

As noted in Chapter 1, the scales of the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) have their roots in

the taxonomies of the personality disorders. The original model for the HDS is the PROFILE,

developed by Warren Jones (1988) shortly after the appearance of the DSM III, Axis 2 personal-ity disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Jones intended to use the PROFILE as

a psychometrically defensible alternative to the inventories of personality disorders available to

clinical psychologists at the time. We used the PROFILE for about five years with our clients in

business and industry and conducted several validity studies. We began to see associations

between PROFILE scores and problem managers, and other indications that personality dys-

function is related to failures in the achievement of career potential.

We concluded that there is a role for the assessment of dysfunctional dispositions in the work-

place. However, we were concerned about the overt clinical content of the PROFILE and its

emphasis on anxiety and depression. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of1990 (ADA; 1990), it became clear that scales of the PROFILE would be seen as evaluations of

mental disabilities, which are prohibited for pre-offer employment inquiries. We saw a need for a

non-clinical inventory that would assess interpersonal behaviors that adversely affect the perfor-

mance or reputation of people at work. We envisioned a tool to be used primarily for profes-

sional development and coaching rather than personnel selection.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, at least three sources influenced our thinking about the scales of the

HDS. The first was the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders. The second was the literature on

managerial derailmenta literature that became accessible through the technical reports and

popular publications from the Center for Creative Leadership. The third source was data from

appraisals of others at work, and, in particular, evaluations of first line supervisors by their subor-

dinates (Millikin-Davies, 1992). In our view, first line supervisors probably affect the productivity

and satisfaction of more workers than any other element of organizational structure. Therefore,

we targeted for assessment the problems that these supervisors display most frequently.


13/73

8 Inventory Construction

Our strategy for writing the items focused on the distinctive characteristics of each dysfunctional

disposition. We wrote items with work-related and interpersonal content, and we avoided items

referring to clinical themes, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences. Like the HPI, the items are

designed to reflect what a person with that particular disposition might say or do. Finally, we tried

to develop scales with non-overlapping and homogeneous themes and to avoid repeating de-

scriptors across scales. This was challenging because symptoms such as anxiety are common

to many of the standard personality disorders. We also tried to minimize intercorrelations be-

tween the scales.

We began working on the HDS on Labor Day weekend, 1992. We wrote items for one scale at

a time. We wrote an initial set of items, tested samples of people, computed internal consistency

reliabilities and correlations with other well-established measures, reviewed the data, and re-

vised the items so as to: (a) enhance internal consistency reliability and; (b) sharpen convergent

and discriminant validity. We also solicited and received valuable input from many colleagues in

the United States and Europe concerning the content of the scales. The HDS is the product of six

cycles of item writing, revision, testing, and further revision. The final set of items was definedduring the summer of 1995.

Between 1995 to 1996, we tested over 2,000 people, including employed adults, job applicants,

prisoners, and graduate students. The ages in these samples ranged from 21 years to 64 years,

with a mean of 38.5 years. There were 1,532 men and 322 women, 620 whites and 150 blacks.

We estimate that about 15% of the sample were college educated.

Definitions of the Scales

The 11 HDS scales are defined as follows:

Excitableconcerns seeming moody and inconsistent, being enthusiastic about new persons or

projects and then becoming disappointed with them.

Skepticalconcerns seeming cynical, distrustful, overly sensitive to criticism, and questioning

others true intentions.

Cautiousconcerns seeming resistant to change and reluctant to take even reasonable chances

for fear of being evaluated negatively.

Reservedconcerns seeming socially withdrawn and lacking interest in or awareness of the

feelings of others.

Leisurelyconcerns seeming autonomous, indifferent to other peoples requests, and becoming

irritable when they persist.


14/73


Bold concerns seeming unusually self-confident and, as a result, unwilling to admit mistakes or

listen to advice, and unable to learn from experience.

Mischievousconcerns seeming to enjoy taking risks and testing the limits.

Colorfulconcerns seeming expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed.

Imaginative concerns seeming to act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways.

Diligentconcerns seeming careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others.

Dutifulconcerns seeming eager to please, reliant on others for support, and reluctant to take

independent action.

Composition of the HDS

The HDS contains 168 items in the form of statements to which a respondent indicates agree

or disagree. Each scale contains 14 items that were derived rationally using the distinguishing

features of each syndrome. There is no item overlap among the 11 scales. The items were

screened for content that might seem offensive or to invade privacy. There are no items concern-

ing sexual preferences, religious beliefs, criminal or illegal behavior, racial/ethnic attitudes, or

attitudes about disabled individuals. Fourteen additional items appear on an experimental so-

cial desireability scale.

Readability statistics computed on the 168 items indicated an average sentence length of 6.8

words and an average word length of 4.0 characters. A Flesch-Kincaid reading level analysisshows that the inventory is written at a fifth grade level.

Table 2.1 presents descriptive statistics and reliabilities for each of the HDS scales. Because

the response coding uses a 2-point scale (0 = disagree, 1 = agree), and each scale contains 14

items, scale scores range from 0 to 14. Items are scored in the direction of the syndrome, so that

higher scores represent more dysfunctional tendencies. With the exception of the test-retest

reliabilities, the data in Table 2.1 are based on an archival sample of 2,071 adults, most of whom

are job applicants or incumbents. Table 2.1 indicates that the highest mean scale scores appear

for the Diligent, Dutiful, and Bold scales, respectively. The lowest mean scale scores appear for

Excitable, Cautious, and Reserved scales. The Colorful scale is the most variable (SD = 2.94),

whereas the Dutiful scale is the least variable (SD = 2.13). Internal consistency or alpha reliabilities

(Cronbach, 1951) vary between .50 (Dutiful) and .78 (Excitable) with an average alpha of .67.

Test-retest reliabilities were computed for a sample of graduate students (N = 60) over a three

month interval and the highest scale reliability was for Excitable (.87) and the lowest was for

Leisurely (.58), with an average value of .75. The standard error of measurement was consistent

across all scales and averaged .06.


15/73


Table 2.1

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabili ties for the HDS

Number Inter-

Scale Name of Items Mean SD Alpha Item r rtt

SE

Excitable 14 3.2 2.85 .78 .20 .87 .06

Skeptical 14 4.5 2.78 .76 .18 .65 .06

Cautious 14 3.3 2.60 .73 .16 .77 .06

Reserved 14 4.2 2.33 .66 .12 .59 .05

Leisurely 14 4.7 2.29 .58 .09 .58 .05

Bold 14 7.7 2.73 .69 .14 .78 .06

Mischievous 14 6.1 2.60 .59 .09 .72 .06

Colorful 14 7.4 2.94 .72 .16 .85 .07

Imaginative 14 5.6 2.54 .64 .11 .73 .06Diligent 14 9.8 2.23 .65 .12 .77 .05

Dutiful 14 7.9 2.13 .50 .06 .73 .05

Table 2.2 contains scale means and standard deviations by gender, race, and age. As seen,

men and women obtain comparable scores across all scales; the largest mean difference is .5

points on the Reserved scale. The largest race difference occurs on the Cautious scale with

Whites scoring slightly higher (.4 points) than Blacks. Comparing younger and older people,

those under 40 years have a slightly higher mean score on the Skeptical scale (.7 points). Gen-

erally, the average scores for men and women are similar, average scores for Whites and Blacksare similar, and average scores for younger and older persons are similar.

Table 2.3 presents the intercorrelations between the HDS scales based on a sample of 2,071

respondents. As seen, the highest correlations in the matrix are between the Excitable scale and

the Cautious (r = .59) and the Skeptical (r = .54) scales. The most independent scale is Diligent,

with correlations of .22 or less with the other scales. All scales have about three meaningful

correlations with other scales. The only inverse pattern of relations in the matrix is for the correla-

tions with the Colorful scale.

Table 2.4 presents a principal components analysis of the correlation matrix presented in Table

2.3. As seen, three components account for 62% of the variance in the matrix. The first compo-

nent is defined by the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely scales and this

component resembles the theme of moving away from people in Horneys (1950) model of

flawed interpersonal tendencies. The second component is defined by the Bold, Mischievous,

Colorful, and Imaginative scales and corresponds to Horneys theme of moving against people.

The third component is defined by the Diligent and Dutiful scales and


16/73


corresponds to Horneys theme of moving toward people. Because the measurement goal of

the HDS is to cover the major themes of flawed interpersonal behavior and because many of

these themes co-exist in the same person, we judged it would be difficult to develop eleven

scales that are statistically independent. The results in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show that the relations

between the HDS scales are sensible and interpretable.

Table 2.2

Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for

HDS Scales by Demographic Group

Male Female Black White Under 40 40 & Above

(n = 1,532) (n = 322) (n = 150) (n = 620) (n = 907) (n = 801)

Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Excitable 3.2 2.86 3.0 2.63 3.0 2.59 2.9 2.72 3.3 3.02 3.3 2.77

Skeptical 4.5 2.83 4.3 2.39 4.5 2.64 4.2 2.48 4.9 3.02 4.2 2.53

Cautious 3.3 2.60 3.2 2.62 2.8 2.41 3.2 2.47 3.3 2.73 3.5 2.55

Reserved 4.3 2.40 3.8 2.01 4.2 2.16 4.0 2.25 4.4 2.43 4.1 2.25

Leisurely 4.7 2.31 4.6 2.28 4.6 2.31 4.7 2.26 4.8 2.46 4.7 2.16

Bold 7.7 2.77 7.8 2.56 8.0 2.76 7.7 2.84 7.7 2.77 7.7 2.74

Mischievous 6.0 2.66 6.1 2.41 6.0 2.54 6.1 2.68 6.2 2.68 5.8 2.53

Colorful 7.3 3.01 7.6 2.75 7.2 2.87 7.4 3.08 7.5 2.96 7.1 3.01

Imaginative 5.5 2.56 5.8 2.51 5.8 2.55 5.5 2.51 5.8 2.63 5.3 2.48

Diligent 9.9 2.24 9.7 2.15 10.0 2.07 9.8 2.14 9.8 2.30 9.8 2.19

Dutiful 7.9 2.12 7.8 2.14 8.0 2.05 7.8 2.16 8.0 2.14 7.9 2.13

Table 2.3

HDS Scale Intercorrelations

EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT

Excitable

Skeptical .54 Cautious .59 .36

Reserved .47 .44 .43

Leisurely .39 .47 .40 .32

Bold -.13 .18 -.25 -.12 .13

Mischievous .06 .30 -.16 .01 .16 .45

Colorful -.21 -.07 -.41 -.32 -.09 .50 .45

Imaginative .16 .30 -.04 .02 .19 .35 .48 .38

Diligent -.10 .03 -.04 -.06 .05 .22 -.06 -.03 .00

Dutiful .01 -.13 .21 -.09 .04 -.13 -.22 -.15 -.10 .19


17/73


Table 2.4

Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales

Component

Scale I II III

Excitable .81

Skeptical .75 .34

Cautious .74 -.34

Reserved .70

Leisurely .67

Bold .78

Mischievous .77

Colorful -.35 .72Imaginative .69

Diligent .80

Dutiful .68

Note: Percent of Variance = 61.6


18/73

Validity 13

C H A P T E R

3

Validity

Construct Validity

Chapter 2 concerns the development of the HDS scales and their technical or psychometric

propertiesi.e., their internal consistency and temporal stability. The evidence presented inChapter 2 suggests that these fundamental technical properties are acceptable, which leads to

the next questionwhat do scores on the HDS scales mean?

This is the issue of validity, a topic that is much discussed but often misunderstood. Our view (cf.

R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is that the meaning of a personality scale must be discoveredit

cannot be stipulated in advanceand it must be discovered in the pattern of external non-test

correlates of the scale in question (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988).

We have a theory about the content of each scale. Each scale is designed to assess a particular

syndrome, a unique theme that occurs in interpersonal behavior, a theme that usually has nega-tive implications defined in terms of a persons ability to build relationships and establish a ca-

reer. Thus, the validity of the HDS scales depends not only on having robust external correlates,

but also on having external correlates that make sense given our theory of each scales content

(see also R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996).

Correlations with Other Measures

In the sections that follow, we define the syndrome each scale is intended to capture, then we

review the evidence regarding the pattern of external correlates for each scale. We provide evi-

dence from six sources for each scale. First, we review correlations with the Hogan Personality

Inventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). The HPI is a 206-item measure of normal personality,

based on the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) and normed on 30,000 working adults. Sec-

ond, we present correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI, the best-known and most

highly respected measure of psychopathology in the world. Third, we review correlations be-

tween the HDS and a special set of MMPI scales developed by Morey, Waugh,


19/73

14 Validity

and Blashfield (1985) to assess the standard DSM-III personality disorders. Fourth, we com-

pare the HDS scales with the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI; J. Hogan & Hogan,

1996), a 200-item measure of 10 motivational themes that are prominent in the history of psy-

chology. Fifth, we present correlations between the HDS scales and measures of cognitive

ability that are often used to evaluate candidates for management positions. Sixth, we present

correlations between scores on each scale and descriptions of a persons performance as a

manager from the perspectives of subordinates, peers, and supervisors. And finally, we

intercorrelated the scale scores of the HPI, the MVPI, and the HDS, factor analyzed the

intercorrelations, and followed this with a varimax rotation. The result was a six-factor solution.

An examination of the loadings of each HDS scale gives additional insight into the meaning of

the scale scores.

Excitable.The Excitable scale is designed to model the Borderline personality as it is seen in

working adults. Excitable people tend to become enthusiastic about new relationships or projects,

perhaps even to idealize them, then to discover flaws or shortcomings in the idealized object and

to become disillusioned, discouraged, and upset. The person will then tend to reject that whichshe/he formerly idealized and to sever the relationship; such persons have many terminal quar-

rels with former friends and a history of repeated job turnover.

The behavior resembles Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Walls (1978) description of a child who

is ambivalently attached to its primary caretakersan eager approach to the caretaker followed

by an angry rejection and turning away. It also resembles what the early theorists (Lewin, 1935)

described as an approach-avoidance conflictan oscillation between approaching and fleeing

a goal object. We can speculate that, as children, these people experienced an unusual amount

of rejection from family members or peers. This rejection left them with an unfilled need for be-

longing and acceptance and a tendency to reach out for it; at the same time, they expect to berejected and are unusually alert to signs of rejection. They have sufficient social skills to begin

relationships, but their expectation of rejection robs them of the flexibility needed to sustain the

relationships.

These people have never been able to evaluate their belief that rejection is inevitable; like moths

they continue to return to the flamethey initiate interactions that they expect will fail, and the

expectation turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a result, high scores on the Excitable scale

implicate more overt unhappiness than high scores on the other scalesbecause they continu-

ally repeat a self-defeating cycle of rejection and disappointment.

Table 3.1 indicates that, of all the HDS scales, the Excitable scale has the largest negative cor-

relation (-.76) with the Adjustment scale of the HPI. The HPI Adjustment scale is a good proxy for

the first factor of the MMPI (cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 1996). Table 3.2 indicates that the Excitable

scale is more highly correlated with the MMPI standard scales than any other HDS scale. The

correlation of -.67 with the MMPI K scale suggests that persons with highscores on the Excitable

scale are often anxious and unhappy and they make little effort to disguise it.


20/73


21/73

16 Validity

A prototype of the Skeptical person might have been James Jesus Angleton, the brilliant and

refined head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counter-espionage unit during the 1970s.

Angleton became persuaded that a Russian double agent had infiltrated the CIA; in his relent-

less efforts to find the potential spy, he badly demoralized the agency. Angleton was finally fired

in apparent disgrace for these disruptions; nonetheless, the subsequent Aldrich Ames case

suggests that he may have been right about the existence of a double agent working for the CIA.

Skeptical people believe they were deceived at some point in their development. In order to

protect themselves from future betrayal, they have become especially alert and watchful. Their

alertness pays off because there are in fact people in the world who want to take advantage of

them. The problem is that they also alienate potential friends and allies whom they incorrectly

suspect of being their enemies.

Paranoid tendencies are notoriously difficult to capture in assessment procedures because these

people tend to be suspicious, smart, and alert. Although the items on the Skeptical scale largely

reflect suspiciousness and mistrust, the scale loads on the same factor as the Excitable scale.Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show that the correlations between the Skeptical scale and the HPI and the

MMPI largely track the correlations for the Excitable scale, although they are somewhat lower.

Table 3.3 shows that the Skeptical scale has its largest correlation with the MMPI content scale

for Paranoid personality disorder. Table 3.4 shows that the Skeptical scale is correlated with

MVPI scales for Hedonism (.35), Power (.26), and Recognition (.33); such people are energetic,

achievement-oriented, and impulsive. In a joint factor analysis (see Table 3.8) using the HPI,

MVPI, and the HDS, the Skeptical scale loaded primarily on the first component which is defined

by the Power, Recognition, and Commercial scales of the MVPI, and the Bold, Mischievous, and

Colorful scales of the HDS. This component reflects energy, drive, social skills, and shrewdness;

thus, there are some positive features to high scores on the Skeptical scale.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Skeptical scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or

the Industrial Reading Test. Managers with high scores on the Skeptical scale are described as

(see Table 3.7) easily disappointed (.28), needs attention (.28), feels mistreated (.26), easily hurt

by criticism (.25), easily upset (.23) and questions peoples loyalty (.19).

Cautious.The Cautious scale is designed to model the Avoidant personality as seen in work-

ing adults. Cautious people doubt their own abilities; at the same time, they are greatly con-

cerned about making mistakes and being criticized for doing so. This creates a kind of rigidityborn of insecurity in which a Cautious person is reluctant to do anything other than what has

worked in the pastworked in the sense of allowing the person to avoid criticism. At work, such

people will adhere to rules even when doing so is counterproductive. They will also resist innova-

tion out of a concern for making errors. And their life style will be organized around efforts to

avoid surprises and keep their affairs manageable and predictable.


22/73

Validity 17

Table 3.2

Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS

SCALES HS D HY PD MF MA K PA PT SC SI

Excitable .35** .36** -.03 .60** .06 .32** -.67** .37** .66** .52** .45**Skeptical .23* .18 -.14 .44** -.03 .36** -.45** .26** .43** .43** .30**

Cautious .30** .43** .05 .32** .15 -.01 -.36** .27** .49** .32** .61**

Reserved .08 .21* -.18* .25** .05 .20* -.25** .24** .32** .31** .40**

Leisurely .31** .28** -.06 .28** .11 .36** -.54** .42** .50** .51** .42**

Bold .14 -.20* -.06 -.01 .03 .44** -.26** .21* .13 .28** -.10

Mischievous .13 -.15 -.06 .33** .00 .57** -.43** .31** .29** .37** .01

Colorful .13 -.18 .04 .05 .07 .46** -.15 .15 .07 .16 -.34**

Imaginative .16 -.09 .04 .26** .30** .52** -.38** .38** .27** .42** .01

Diligent .06 -.15 -.17 -.09 -.03 .17 -.13 -.11 -.03 .04 -.07

Dutiful .01 .01 -.07 -.17 .12 -.09 -.04 -.13 -.04 -.10 -.11

Note: HS = Hypochondriasis; D = Depression; HY = Hysteria; PD = Psychopathic Deviate; MF = Masculinity-Femininity;

MA = Hypomania; K = Subtle Defensiveness; PA = Paranoia; PT = Psychasthenia; SC = Schizophrenia; SI = Social Introversion; *: p

< .05, **: p < .01; one-tailed test.

N=140

Table 3.3

Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales and the HDS

SCALES MBDL MPAR MAVD MSZD MPAG MNAR MANT MHST MSTY MCPS MDEP

Excitable .67** .56** .43** .23* .55** .01 .56** -.20* .49** .57** .29**

Skeptical .49** .62** .21* .27** .38** .24** .48** -.07 .54** .37** .11

Cautious .28** .28** .60** .29** .27** -.36** .21* -.38** .33** .32** .27**

Reserved .29** .39** .24** .47** .25** -.01 .31** -.32** .30** .16 .09

Leisurely .43** .58** .38** .38** .46** .07 .36** -.33** .61** .48** .21*

Bold .28* .35** .02 -.06 .24* .55** .10 .21* .35** .17 -.05

Mischievous .44** .47** .05 .03 .49** .38** .45** .14* .39** .31** .03

Colorful .16 .17 -.19* -.32** .22* .53** .14 .51** .12 .17 -.06

Imaginative .32** .43** .07 .10 .41** .37** .27** .18 .49** .30** .01

Diligent .14 .03 .05 .01 .03 .17 -.03 .13 .11 .14 -.11

Dutiful -.03 -.24** .03 -.30** -.06 -.11 -.27** .21* -.07 .00 .07

Note : MBDL = Borderline; MPAR = Paranoid; MAVD = Avoidant; MSZD = Schizoid; MPAG = Passive Aggressive; MNAR = Narcissis-

tic; MANT = Antisocial; MHST = Histrionic; MSTY = Schizotypal; MCPS = Compulsive; MDEP = Dependent; * p: < .05; **: p < .01;

one-tailed test.

N=140


23/73

18 Validity

We can speculate that persons with high scores on the Cautious scale were raised by parents

who were overprotective, controlling, and highly critical, and who never let their child explore, test

his/her abilities, or manage his/her life. The syndrome associated with the Cautious scale re-

sembles a failure at Eriksons second stage of psychosocial development or Freuds anal stage

of development. The child, as a result, is guilt prone, rigid, conforming, and reluctant to learn new

skills or to experiment. As a manager, these people will tend to micromanage their staff, resist

innovation, and be reactive rather than proactive, in a defensive effort to avoid criticism. At the

extreme, such people may continue to do their work in their customary way even when new

procedures are clearly preferable and superior.

Table 3.1 shows that the Cautious scale correlates -.70 with the HPI Ambition scale and -.60 with

the HPI Adjustment scale, suggesting that high scorers are self-critical and unassertive. Table

3.2 shows that the Cautious scale is most highly correlated (.61) with the MMPI Social Introver-

sion scale, which further supports the unassertive theme found with the HPI. Table 3.3 shows that

the Cautious scale is the HDS scale most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Avoidant

personality disorder (.60). In a joint analysis including the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8),the Cautious scale forms a component with the Leisurely scale of the HDS and the Hedonistic

scale of the MVPI, a syndrome that can be described as defensive self-indulgence.

Table 3.4

Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences

Inventory and the HDS

SCALES AES AFF ALT COM HED POW REC SCI SEC TRA

Excitable .01 -.38** -.09** -.15** .15** -.07* .10** -.08* .14** .00

Skeptical .07* -.11** -.04 .10** .35** .26** .33** .09** .10** -.04

Cautious -.04 -.41** -.01 -.21** .12** -.18** -.02 -.13** .23** .06

Reserved .02 -.63** -.27** -.10** .03 -.09** -.04 .05 .09** -.06*

Leisurely .02 -.15** .00 .04 .24** .14** .19** .00 .16** .04

Bold .16** .26** .10** .42** .15** .57** .51** .25** .00 .05

Mischievous .20** .28** .04 .22** .32** .47** .43** .19** -.34** -.16**

Colorful .26** .40** .04 .26** .22** .42** .52** .17** -.31** -.09**

Imaginative .33** .14** .08* .13** .23** .31** .37** .24** -.29** -.07*

Diligent -.03 -.02 .21** .18** -.04 .15** -.01 .20** .39** .28**

Dutiful -.02 -.01 .27** .00 .02 -.17** -.10** -.07* .25** .14**

Note: AES = Aesthetic; AFF = Affiliation; ALT = Altruistic; COM = Commercial; HED = Hedonistic; POW = Power; REC = Recognition; SCI

= Science; SEC = Security; TRA = Tradition; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.

N=735

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Cautious scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or

the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that managers with high scores on the Cautious

scale are described as self-doubting (.28), consistent (.20), feeling inadequate (.18), not rational

(.25), and not expressing emotions appropriately (.20).


24/73

Validity 19

Reserved. The Reserved scale is designed to model the Schizoid personality as seen in work-

ing adults. Reserved people are introverted, shy, misanthropic, and imperceptive or uninsightful

about social, interpersonal, or political cues. Their imperceptiveness may be a function of delib-

erately tuning other people out; whatever the reason, they seem unconcerned about the welfare

of others, indifferent to their moods and feelings, and unaware of or indifferent to how others

react to them.

Related to their social gaucheness is a preference for working alone and a tendency to be more

interested in data and things than people. Such people can have successful careers in technical

fields, but their indifference, stiffness, and insensitivity make them poor managers. The Chief

Financial Officer of a hospital with which we have worked is a good example of this type. Each

morning when he comes to work, he gets off the elevator, marches to his office without greeting

anyone, goes into the office, shuts the door, hangs up his coat, and sits down at his desk. Only

then will he respond to other people, and then only after they knock on his closed door. He is self-

confident, bright, and very good with numbers, but his staff dislikes him because he communi-

cates with them so infrequently and incompetently.

We suspect there is a genetic component to high scores on this scalebecause shyness is

known to be hereditary (cf. Jones, Cheek, & Briggs, 1991). A disposition toward shyness com-

bined with parents who were withdrawn and uncommunicative would likely create a child who

was withdrawn and awkward around peers. Feedback from peers might further exacerbate a

childs tendency toward social withdrawal. There are, nonetheless, some real benefits to this

pattern of interpersonal behavior. On the one hand, being genuinely indifferent to the problems of

others can reduce the amount of stress in ones life. On the other hand, just as people seem

compelled to try periodically to cheer up a depressed person, so people feel compelled to try to

coax the Reserved person out of his or her shell; this coaxing must to some degree reinforce thereserved behavior.

The correlations in Table 3.1 suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale are

imperceptive and socially maladroit (Likeability, Ambition), impulsive and noncompliant (Pru-

dence), and somewhat self-doubting or unhappy (Adjustment). Correlations with the standard

scales of the MMPI (Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale are

aloof and stand-offish (Si). Table 3.3 shows that the Reserved scale is most strongly correlated

with the MMPI scale for Schizoid personality. The results of a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and

HDS suggests that the Reserved scale is a measure of introversion and misanthropy (see Table

3.8). Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Reserved scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-

Glaser or the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that supervisors, peers, and subordinates

describe managers with high scores on the Reserved scale as self-centered (.19), socially inept

(.17), disliking to meet new people (.21), and unkind (.18), but as following company policy (-.15).


25/73

20 Validity

Leisurely.The Leisurely scale is designed to assess passive-aggressive tendencies as seen

in working adults. Such people are preoccupied with their own goals and dreams and they resent

being disturbed or interrupted. Although requests for greater focus, productivity, or effort will irri-

tate them, they wont express their irritation directly; rather, they will express it in relatively subtle

ways. For example, they are often late for meetings, they procrastinate, and they put off working

on tasks that dont interest them. They blame their non-performance on computer failures, lack of

adequate resources, lack of cooperation from someone else, or other factors beyond their con-trol. As managers they tend to set up their staff for failure by not telling them what they want, and

then criticizing them for not delivering what they allege they actually wanted.

We can only speculate about the origins of passive aggression. The pattern may appear in chil-

dren who were talented or attractive, and who were indulged but somewhat neglected. This

combination left them feeling both special and resentful. Overtly and superficially compliant, they

became privately rebellious and vindictive.

Correlations with the HPI in Table 3.1 are not very helpful in interpreting the meaning of high

scores on the Leisurely scalethe theme on the HPI is one of mild alienation indicated by low

negative correlations with Ambition, Likeability, and Prudence. The correlations in Table 3.2 with

the MMPI standard scales are more helpful and suggest a syndrome of unhappiness (K, Pt),

suspiciousness and distrust (Pa), and odd thinking (Sc). These themes are further amplified in

Table 3.3, where moderately large correlations with Compulsive, Paranoid, Schizotypal, and

Passive-Aggressive personality disorder scales suggest a cautious and controlled interpersonal

style combined with a somewhat strange, skewed, and suspicious view of the world. As noted

above, in a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8), the Leisurely scale defines

a component we labeled defensive self-indulgencespoiled and self-indulgent but concerned

with staying out of trouble.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Leisurely scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or

the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that people describe managers with high scores on

the Leisurely scale as delegating appropriately (.19) and not testing the limits (.17), but also as

resentful (.15), feeling mistreated (.16), and questioning others loyalty (.15).

Table 3.5

Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking

Appraisal and the HDS

SCALES EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT

Watson-Glaser .01 .06 -.02 .12 -.15 .09 .25** .32** .03 -.20* .07

Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.N=125


26/73

Validity 21

Table 3.6

Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS

SCALES EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT

Industrial Reading

Test .06 .11 .04 .13 -.03 .08 .18* .22* .06 -.09* .14

Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; ** p: < .01; one-tailed test.N=90

Bold. The Bold scale is designed to model Narcissistic tendencies as seen in working adults.

Narcissism is primarily defined by feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; by virtue of a persons

unique talents and attributes, she/he naturally deserves favors, praise, and recognition. Narcis-

sists avoid recognizing their failures and shortcomings by means of narcissistic withdrawal

they wont associate with or listen to people who might criticize themthey take more credit for

success than is fair, they blame their failures on others, and consequently they dont learn fromexperience. They are often talented and capable, and their self-confidence encourages them to

take initiative, offer opinions, and claim major competenciese.g., I can get this country moving

again. As a result, they often rise rapidly in organizations, but others will find them hard to work

with because they can be overbearing, demanding, arrogant, and unrealistic. Their inability to

build a team and learn from experience usually leads to a fall from power.

An example of a high functioning narcissist could be the brilliant and imperious Douglas MacArthur,

who graduated first in his class from West Point and did well as an officer in World War I. Al-

though he languished in the 1920s and 1930s, McArthur led a brilliant defense and subsequent

campaign against the Japanese in the Philippines in World War II, for which he became justifi-ably famous. He was fired by President Truman 10 years later for impetuous insubordination

during the Korean War. Talented, self-dramatizing, vain, overbearing, and self-aggrandizing,

General MacArthur embodied the strengths and shortcomings of the Narcissist at his best.

We can speculate that, as children, Narcissists were indulged, praised, and pampered (MacArthur

certainly was), but not required to exercise much self-control. Indulgence without controls is actu-

ally a form of rejection which leaves a child with the feeling both of being very special and of being

unworthy. The result is public self-confidence and self-assurance and private self-doubt.

Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Bold scale are

seen as confident, outgoing, and bright. Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI (Table

3.2) suggest that such persons are also active and energetic (Ma), and mildly unconventional in

their thoughts and behavior (K, Sc). Table 3.3 shows that the Bold scale is


27/73

22 Validity

most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Narcissistic personality disorder. In an analysis

combining the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Bold scale is part of the first component

which is defined by energy, potency, ascendancy, and impulsivity; thus, there are some distinctly

positive features to high scores on the Bold scale. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 suggest the Bold scale is

uncorrelated with cognitive ability. In Table 3.7, supervisors, peers, and subordinates describe

managers with high scores on the Bold scale as socially appropriate (.17), content with their

image (.19), and not a follower (.20), but also as self-promoting (.17), unrestrained (.22) andtesting the limits (.17).

Mischievous. The Mischievous scale is designed to assess the Antisocial personality disor-

der as seen in working adults. We agree with Lykken (1995) that the most important form of the

Antisocial personality is what Cleckley (1982) called a psychopatha person who is charming

but deceitful, easily bored, risk-taking, and careless about rules and conventions. The psycho-

path resembles the Narcissist in terms of social skill, impulsiveness, and an inability to learn from

experience, but psychopaths lack the Narcissists energy and career focus.

Psychopaths are naturally bright and socially skilled; they are raised by parents who are warmand permissive, who indulge them, set no limits, and who find their evasions and deceptions

amusingpossibly because the parent(s) also tend to prevaricate and cut corners when it is

advantageouspsychopaths are often exposed to deceitful models in childhood. These chil-

dren learn early on that they can often have their way by being cute and by lying when it is conve-

nient and plausible to do so.

An example of a high functioning psychopath could be Kim Philby, a bright, charming, and unusu-

ally talented man, whose father, St. John Philby was a famous adventurer, scholar, British spy

and possible double agent. After graduating from Cambridge, Philbys exceptional talent and

interpersonal skill allowed him to rise rapidly in British intelligence in the 1930s. The novelistGraham Greene, who worked for Philby during World War II, described him as the most impres-

sive person he ever knew. Nonetheless, Philby routinely seduced his friends wives, and he be-

came a Russian double agent and the greatest traitor in British history. He escaped to Russia

just as he was finally detected, where he lived like royalty but was never trusted by the Russians,

and where he finally died.

Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous

scale will seem outgoing and entertaining (Sociability), impulsive and easily bored (Prudence),

and bright and imaginative (Intellectance). Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI

(Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous scale are energetic andimpulsive (Ma), somewhat socially inappropriate and nonconforming (K, Pd), and somewhat

odd in their thoughts and behavior (Sc). The Mischievous scale has its highest correlations with

the MMPI scales for Passive Aggressive, Paranoid, Antisocial, Borderline, Schizotypal, and

Narcissistic personality disorders (see Table 3.3). This is a complex syndrome involving en-

ergy, impulsivity, and odd mentation. In a joint analysis using the HDS, HPI, and MVPI (Table

3.8), the Mischievous scale loads on a component reflecting energy,


28/73

Validity 23

drive, and personal effectiveness. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Mischievous scale correlates

.25 with the Watson-Glaser and .18 with the Industrial Reading Test, further testifying to the talent

of such people. In Table 3.7, managers with high scores on the Mischievous scale are described

as arrogant (.17), deceitful (.17), testing the limits (.14), but socially appropriate (.16).

Colorful.The Colorful scale is designed to model the Histrionic personality disorder as it ap-

pears in working adults. People with high scores on the Colorful scale need frequent and variedsocial contact, preferably while being at the center of attention. They develop considerable skill

at making dramatic entrances and exits and otherwise cleverly calling attention to themselves.

Interpersonally, they are gregarious, flirtatious, and often charming, but their interest in others

tends to be superficial and primarily oriented toward gaining immediate agreement on how at-

tractive they themselves are.

Because they have charm, wit, social presence, and the ability quickly to establish relationships

with others, they tend to do well in sales jobs. But as managers their need for attention, inability to

share credit, flightiness, lack of intellectual discipline, and short attention span tend to annoy and

disorient their subordinates.

A high functioning example of this interpersonal style could be President William Clinton. Clinton

reports that his mother taught him that, after entering a room full of strangers, he should leave with

everyone in the room liking him, a rule he still follows assiduously. He is an astonishingly good

campaigner because he seems unable to get enough human contact and this makes him inex-

haustible. His chaotic managerial style is legendarybut it hardly separates him from many

politiciansas is his phenomenal ability to connect with strangers and to convey the sense that

he feels their pain. His conversations turn into speeches, and his inability to stay focused on a

single topic and analyze it in depth is also well known. Finally, once again, he exemplifies the

charm and attractiveness of this style, as well as its shortcomings in a managerial role.

Table 3.1 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the Sociability, Ambition,

Intellectance, and School Success scales of the HPI, suggesting that high scorers seem ener-

getic, outgoing, charismatic, bright, and imaginative. In Table 3.2, the Colorful scale is most

highly correlated with the MMPI Ma and Si standard scales. Such persons are extraverted, exu-

berant, and active. Table 3.3 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the

MMPI scales for Narcissistic and Histrionic personality disorders. On the MVPI in Table 3.4, the

Colorful scale is substantially correlated with Recognition, Power, and Affiliation, suggesting a

somewhat compulsive need for attention and positive feedback. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that

the Colorful scale correlates .32 with the Watson-Glaser and .22 with the Industrial Reading Test,further substantiating the view that high scorers seem bright and articulate. Finally in Table 3.7,

managers with high scores on the Colorful scale are described as limit testing (.27), unrestrained

(.24), noisy (.24), smooth talking (.21), and quick to become angry (.20).


29/73

24

Validity

Table 3.7

Correlations between Observers Description Ratings and t

HDS Scale HDS Scale

Observerss Description Item r Observerss Description Item

Excitable Mischievous

Yells at people when they make mistakes .30 Is deceitful

Expresses emotionsappropriately -.30 Isarrogant

Is easily upset .29 Is a follower

Follows company policy -.29 Is unassuming

Is self-doubting .28 Acts in a socially appropriate ma

Is fault finding .27 Is independent

Is tense .27 Is flighty

Is calm -.27 Tests the limits

Is moody .26

Is predictable -.24 Colorful

Accepts feedback well -.22 Tests the limitsIs quick to become angry .21 Is self-restrained

Is quiet

Skeptical Questions peoples loyalty

Is not easily disappointed -.28 Is innovative

Needs attention .28 Is a follower

Feels mistreated .26 Is a smooth talker

Is easily hurt by criticism .25 Is quick to become angry

Is tense .24 Is socially insightful

Is easily upset .23 Is the life of the office

Is fault finding .21 Is detail-oriented

Is unassuming -.21 Is reserved

Is uninterested in close relationships -.20

Questions peoples loyalty .19


30/73

Validity

25

Cautious Imaginative

Is self-doubting .28 Engages in horseplay

Is rational -.25 Is self-restrained

Is consistent .20 Is socially insightful

Expresses emotions appropriately -.20 Is predictable

Enjoys meeting new people -.19 Is the life of the office

Feels inadequate .18 Is imaginative

Is content with self-image -.17 Has odd attitudes

Is anxious .17 Is eccentric

Is uneasy around new people .17 Is calmIs flighty

Reserved Is innovative

Enjoys meeting new people -.21

Is self-cenered .19 Diligent

Is kind -.18 Is detail-oriented

Needs reassurance -.18 Is polite

Is socially inept .17 Is uninterested in close relations

Is considerate -.15 Is perfectionistic

Does not follow company policy -.15 Is organized

Is accommodating -.15

Dutiful

Leisurely Is predictable

Enjoys meeting new people -.19 Is a followerDelegatestasks appropriately .19 Is unassuming

Tests the limits -.17 Makes own decisions

Feels mistreated .16 Is empathetic

Is practical -.16 Is indecisive

Encourages constructive criticism -.15 Is nonconforming

Questions peoples loyalty .15 Is self-restrained

Is resentful .15 Is rude

Bold Note: r > 13; p < .05; one-tailed test.Is self-restrained -.22 N=193Is a follower -.20

Is easy going -.20

Is content with self-image .19Is self-promoting .17

Acts in a socially appropriate manner .17

Tests the limits .17

Holds grudges -.17

Sociable .15


31/73

26 Validity

Imaginative.The Imaginative scale is designed to model the Schizotypal personality disorder

as it is found in working adults. People with high scores on the Imaginative scale tend to talk,

dress, and behave in ways that are different and even unusual, but these actions typically are not

self-conscious, affected, or necessarily designed to attract attention. These people are often

bright and/or well educated, and they are often strikingly original in their ideas and insights. Other

times, however, their ideas may be inappropriate or even disruptive.

Related to their imaginative and unusual insights is a kind of childish self-absorption; when they

are involved in their work, they can beat their worstsingle-minded, insensitive to the needs

and reactions of others, and unconcerned with the social or political fall-out that results from their

intense focus. At their best, however, they can be amazingly insightful about the motives of oth-

ers.

The same generalization is true for highly creative people; their originality and insight is the

source of innovation and even progress in an organization, but they are often hard to live with;

sometimes they are whimsical and charming, sometimes they are selfish and self-absorbed. At

all times, however, their speech, dress, and mannerisms tend to set them apart from their more

conventional and less creative peers.

Table 3.1 shows that the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with the HPI scales for Intel-

lectance and Sociability in the positive direction and Prudence in the negative direction. Such

people will seem creative, impulsive, and non-conforming. The Imaginative scale is most highly

correlated with the Ma and Sc scales of the MMPI in the positive direction and the K scale in the

negative direction, suggesting that high scorers are energetic, odd thinking, and willing to admit

unflattering things about themselves (see Table 3.2). Table 3.3 shows that the Imaginative scale

is most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for the Schizotypal personality disorder. On theMVPI in Table 3.4, the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with Recognition, Aesthetic,

and Power needs, which adds a task-oriented component to the creative profile. The Imagina-

tive scale is uncorrelated with the cognitive measures in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Table 3.7 shows that

managers with high scores on the Imaginative scale are described as engaging in horseplay

(.22), impulsive (.20), socially insightful (.20), unpredictable (.18), and the life of the office(.18).

Diligent. The Diligent scale is designed to model the Obsessive-Compulsive personality dis-

order as it appears in working adults. People with high scores on the Diligent scale are hard

working, well-organized, careful, conservative, socially appropriate, fussy, and perfectionistic.

Their meticulous attention to detail is useful and even important in many jobs, but it has a downside too. Such people have trouble prioritizing their work because they believe that every task

must be done equally wellwhich becomes increasingly difficult as a person becomes busier.

They have trouble delegatingbecause they want to be sure that things are done rightwhich

deprives their subordinates of opportunities to learn. They tend to micromanage their staff, and

their conservatism may make them resistant to change. They will be good with details, but they

will rarely be a source of true innovation.


32/73

Validity 27

Such people resemble Freuds anal retentive personality typestingy, neat, and stubborn. Freud

suggested this behavior is caused by being severely toilet trained as a child; Erikson related the

behavior to over-zealous parenting in which care-takers monitor a childs behavior too closely

and the child develops too much self-control. Alternatively, one could see this syndrome as re-

flecting a child who is trying very hard to please his or her overcontrolling parents. Whatever the

developmental dynamics, high scores on the Diligent scale reflect excessive conformity but little

personal unhappiness.

Table 3.1 contains correlations with the HPI. The correlations with Prudence and Likeability sug-

gest persons with high scores on the Diligent scale are conforming, self-controlled, and socially

appropriate. Correlations with the MVPI (see Table 3.4) suggest that high scorers on the Diligent

scale are conservative and perhaps moralistic. Table 3.2 reveals no significant correlations with

the standard scales of the MMPI. Similarly, Table 3.3 contains no significant correlations with the

MMPI personality disorders scales, although the highest (nonsignificant) correlation is with the

Narcissistic scale. In a joint analysis with the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Diligent scale

loaded on a component defined by the MVPI Security and Tradition scales, and by the HPI Pru-dence scale, which is a syndrome of conformity, conservatism, and self-control. Managers with

high scores on the Diligent scale are described as detail-oriented (.22), polite (.20), perfectionistic

(.15), and organized (.15).

Dutiful. The Dutiful scale is designed to map the Dependent personality disorder as it is seen in

working adults. Such people are compliant, conforming, unctuous, and excessively eager to

please. Because they are so agreeable, they rarely make enemies; because they seldom criti-

cize or complain and because they dont threaten anyone, they tend to rise in organizations. As

managers, they will be tactful and considerate but, because they are so eager to please their

bosses, they avoid standing up for their subordinates. These people are characterized by exces-sive timidity and conformity rather than anxiety and self-doubt.


33/73

28 Validity

Table 3.8

Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS

Components

Scale I II III IV V VI

Power (MVPI) .82

Bold (HDS) .75

Recognition (MVPI) .70

Commercial (MVPI) .60

Mischievous (HDS) .59

Colorful (HDS) .57

Skeptical (HDS) .52

Reserved (HDS) -.79Affiliat ion (MVPI) .78

Likeability (HPI) .72

Altruist ic (MVPI) .53

Sociability (HPI) .48

Security (MVPI) .71

Prudence (HPI) .63

Tradition (MVPI) .63

Diligent (HDS) .63

Dutiful (HDS) .44

Adjustment (HPI) .91

Ambition (HPI) .80

Excitable (HDS) -.55

Aesthetic (MVPI) .79

Intellectance (HPI) .72

School Success (HPI) .57

Imaginative (HDS) .51

Leisurely (HDS) .70

Hedonistic (HDS) .57

Cautious (HDS) .51

Note: Percent of Variance = 61.9N=1,041


34/73

Interpretations and Uses 29

C H A P T E R

4

Interpretations and Uses

Scale by Scale Interpretation

This chapter provides some suggestions and examples of how to interpret HDS profiles. There

are four points to remember when interpreting profiles. First, virtually everyone can improve some

aspect of his/her social performance, and the HDS indicates where improvement might be help-ful. Second, research shows that persons with lower scores on the HDS tend to have fewer

problems at work. Third, the interpretations of each scale are based on descriptions provided by

coworkers. Fourth, because people often dont realize that aspects of their interpersonal behav-

ior need improvement, the HDS provides an efficient and reliable way to highlight these issues

so that one can learn to manage them.

For interpretation, we suggest the following percentile ranges:

Average scores = 0% to 40%

E

Documents

HDS Manual.pdf