Journal of Educational Psychology

1887. Vol. 58, No. 3,181-188

EFFECT OF FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS

TO PRINCIPALS1
ROBERT W. DAW2 AND N. L. GAGE
Stanford University

Each member of an experimental group of 151 elementary school

principals was given feedback concerning his teachers' ratings of their
actual and ideal principals on 12 behaviors. These principals were sub-
sequently found to differ significantly, in the direction of teachers'
preferences, from 143 principals in a control group. Initial differences in
ratings were controlled by analysis of covariance. A 2nd, nonpretested
control group did not differ from the pretested control group; hence the
pretest itself did not produce the effect and difference between experi-
mental and control groups was attributable to the feedback itself. 2
intervals between feedback and 2nd rating, 2 forms of feedback, the
principal's age and experience, and the sequence and direction of the
rating-scale items were found to be nonsignificantly related to the effect
of the feedback. The results suggest that feedback of this kind im-
proves the behavior of elementary school principals.

It is highly plausible that feedback changes behavior has been developed

regarding how others feel about one's by Gage, Runkel, and Chatterjee
behavior will affect one's behavior. (1960). In brief, the rationale is that
Whether this maxim will hold under a the feedback will inform some princi-
given set of practical circumstances pals that their teachers evaluate their
must, however, be determined empiri- behavior less favorably than the prin-
cally. In the present experiment, ele- cipals might desire. If we assume that
mentary school principals were told principals respect their teachers' opin-
how their teachers rated them and an ions, we can expect this information
ideal principal; other principals, simi- to create in the principals a condition
larly rated, were not given this in- of imbalance (Heider, 1958), asym-
formation. metry (Newcomb, 1959), incongruity
One theoretical justification for hy- (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955), or
pothesizing that feedback of this kind dissonance (Festinger, 1957). To re-
move or reduce this condition, that is,
'A more detailed presentation of the to restore a condition of equilibrium or
data and instruments is available in the consistency, the principals are likely
first author's doctoral dissertation, "Chang- to change the behaviors concerned in
ing the Behavior of Elementary School
Principals Through the Use of Feedback," the directions desired by the teachers.
on file in the Stanford University Library. After enough time has elapsed to al-
The dissertation was written under the di- low such behavior changes to occur
rection of the second author. Support for and to be perceived by the teachers,
the research was provided by the Graduate a second description of the principals'
Division of Stanford University and by a
small grant (MHI544-01) from the United behaviors by their teachers will re-
States Public Health Service. The present flect such changes.8
report was written by the second author
during tenure as a Fellow at the Center for "William McGuire (personal communi-
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences cation, August 15, 1966) has suggested that
and as a special Fellow of the National self-esteem theory—that is, that persons be-
Institute of Mental Health. have so as to maximize self-esteem, not to
8
Now at Santa Maria Joint Union High minimize inconsistencies, or discrepancies—
School District, Santa Maria, California. is more relevant to our experiment. This
181
182 ROBERT W. DAW AND N. L. GAGE

Positive results in experiments on TABLE 1

the effect of feedback of ratings have DISTRIBUTIONS, MEANS, AND RANGES ON
previously been obtained (Bryan, VARIOUS VARIABLES FOR EXPERIMENTAL
AND CONTROL GROUPS
1963; Gage, 1963; Gage, Runkel, &
Chatterjee, 1963). In those experi- Experi- Control Control
ments, teachers were rated by their Variable mental group 1 group 2
group (Ci) (C,)
pupils and then, on a subsequent (E)
rating by the same subjects, were Kind of district
found to differ significantly, and in the District with superintend-
ent other than principal 105 111 115
direction of the raters' ideals, from a District where the principal
also acts as the superin-
control group not given the ratings. tendent 46 32 46
The present experiment was aimed Sex
Male 137 130 146
at determining whether the same ef- Female
Education
14 13 15
fects would be found with feedback No B.A. degree
B.A. degree
1
49
0
40
1
44
from teachers to principals. It also M.A. degree 97 100 115
Ed.D. degree 3 3 1
incorporated some refinements in de- Ph.D. degree 1 0 0
Number of students in the
sign that permitted testing rival hy- school
potheses as to the cause of the change M 909 512 607
Range 185-1011 185-1187 200-1175
in rated behavior. In addition, data M 42 43 41
were gathered concerning different Range
Number of years of experi-
27-63 29-63 27-63
time intervals, forms of feedback, ence as a principal
M 8.3 8.6 7.9
and personal characteristics of the Range 1-36 1-32 1-35
principals. Number of teachers in the
school
M 14.8 15.3 15.5
Range 8-34 8-37 8-39
METHOD
Note.—For the Experimental Group, N = 151; for
Subjects Control Group 1, N = 143; for Control Group 2, If = 161.

The subjects were 455 elementary school

principals in all the counties in California
in the fall of 1962. Because they were as-
signed at random, the principals in the ex-
perimental and control groups had about
the same number of pupils and teachers,
and were similar in sex, age, educational
level, and years of experience as a princi-
pal, as shown in Table 1. Besides the ex-
perimental (E) group, there were two con-
trol groups: Control Group Ci, which was
rated on both the first and second occasions,
and "posttest only" Control Group Ca,
which was rated only on the second occa-
sion.
Each superintendent of an elementary
school district (including unified districts)
in California with more than one principal
was invited to send the name of the first
principal in the alphabetical listing of prin-
cipals in his district, and then that principal
was invited to participate. In districts with
kind of alternative to consistency theory
has been outlined by Deutsch, Krauss, and
Rosenau (1962), Steiner and Rogers (1963),
and McGuire and Millman (1965).
a single principal who also acted as super-
intendent, the superintendent-principal was
directly invited to participate. Although
initial attrition was about 25%, the subse-
quent rate of participation was never less
than 93% of the principals invited. That
is, of the 1007 original contacts, 752 yielded
the name of the person who participated.
To insure the anonymity of the teacher
responses, all schools with less than eight
teachers were eliminated, leaving 500 prin-
cipals. Of these, 455 completely met all
other requirements for inclusion in the ex-
periment. Obviously, this final group may
have been biased toward containing super-
intendent-principals (a) interested in what
their teachers thought of their actions or
(b) reluctant to refuse to participate.
Methods and Schedule of Data Col-
lection
The study was made in the school year
1962-63. Letters of invitation were sent on
November 30. To minimize the possibility
that principals would discuss the project
 EFFECT OF FEEDBACK FBOM TEACHERS TO PRINCIPALS
with one another, only one principal was
invited from each district. By January 5,
752 principals' names had been received;
of these, 252 were excluded because their
schools had less than eight teachers. Be-
tween January 2 and 9, booklets entitled
"What Do They Expect?" (WDTE) were
mailed to 340 principals in Groups E and
Ci. These booklets, presenting the research
as the tryout of a "Principal's Information
Project," required the principal to rate him-
self and his ideal principal on 12 items.
In addition, the principal was asked to pro-
vide the information summarized in Table
1 and to indicate how many Teacher Opin-
ion Booklets would be needed to collect
ratings of the principal from his teachers.
(The WDTE booklet was mailed to Group
Ca just prior to the mailing of the posttest
materials.) Principals were randomly as-
signed to Groups E, Ci, and Ca prior to the
mailing of the WDTE booklet. The rate of
return of these booklets for the three groups
ranged from 94.0 to 98.7%.
Teacher Opinion Booklets were mailed
to the principals on January 21; only eight
of the 336 booklets mailed were not re-
turned. In these booklets, the teachers
rated their actual and ideal ("best imagina-
ble") principal on the same 12 items.
On February 11, booklets entitled "Re-
port on Your Teachers' Opinions" (RYTO)
were mailed to the principals in Group E.
In these booklets, as shown in Figure 1, the
Item: Acts Promptly to Fulfill Teacher Requests
Percent giving indicated answer
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
i LIKE my principal
attest UNLIKE my principal
-jSomewhat UNLIKE my principal
Very much UNLIKE my principal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
FIG. 1. Form of feedback, arrow-plus-histogram, in "Report on Your Teachers' Opinions."
183
principal was given, for each of the 12 items,
histograms showing the percentages of his
teachers who described him and their ideal
principal with each of the six response-
alternatives. A randomly chosen half of the
experimental group (the "a + h" group)
received both the histograms and the me-
dians (indicated by arrows) of the ratings
of the actual and ideal principal; the re-
maining principals (the "a" group) were
given only the medians of the ratings by
their teachers. These RYTO booklets were
withheld from Groups Ci and Ca until after
the second round of ratings of principals
by their teachers.
A follow-up questionnaire, designed to
encourage careful reading of the RYTO's,
was mailed on February 25 to all principals
in Group E. This questionnaire and a re-
minder elicited responses concerning the
RYTO from 93% of the experimental group.
The second round of Teacher Opinion
Booklets was mailed to a randomly chosen
half of Groups E and Ci on March 25. A
letter had been mailed a week in advance
asking the principal to set aside a specific
day for the administration of these instru-
ments. They were returned with little delay.
Teacher Opinion Booklets were mailed to
the second half of Groups E and Ci on
May 6. The use of two posttest dates per-
mitted determining whether the effect of
the feedback changed with the length of in-
terval between feedback and posttest.
Percent giving indicated answer
10 20 30 40 50 60
principal
LIKE the best principal
A little bit UNLIKE the best principal
Somewhat UNLIKE the best principal
very much UNLIKE the best principal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
184 ROBERT W. DAW AND N. L. GAGE
Items Concerning Principal Behavior
The teachers described their actual prin-
cipal and their ideal principal on the fol-
lowing 12 items concerning principal be-
havior :
1. Encourages teachers with a friendly
remark or smile.
2. Gives enough credit to teachers for
their contributions.
3. Does not force opinions on teachers.
4. Enforces rules consistently.
5. Criticizes without disparaging the ef-
forts of teachers.
6. Informs teachers of decisions or ac-
tions which affect their work.
7. Gives concrete suggestions for improv-
ing classroom instruction.
8. Enlists sufficient participation by
teachers in making decisions.
9. Demonstrates interest in pupil prog-
ress.
10. Interrupts the classroom infrequently.
11. Displays much interest in teachers'
ideas.
12. Acts promptly in fulfilling teacher
requests.
The items were based on ideas obtained
from Campbell and Gregg (1957), Gross,
Mason, and McEachern (1958), Guba and
Bidwell (1958), Medsker (1956), and vari-
ous elementary school teachers. Each item
was worded in both positive and negative
directions in Forms A and B, respectively.
Forms Ai and Bi placed the items in reverse
order from that in Forms As and B2.'
The items were intended to deal with
behaviors that could be expected to occur
frequently, could be briefly described with-
out qualifying phrases, and could be changed
by the principal within the time span of
the research in a way that could be recog-
nized by the teachers.
The 70 items originally written were re-
duced to the final 12 on the basis of ratings
of their importance, improvability, and no-
ticeability; the ratings were made by psy-
chologists, professors of educational ad-
ministration, teachers, and principals.
Teacher Opinion Booklet
In the Teacher Opinion Booklet, the
teacher was asked to rate his principal on
each item using one of the six alternatives
4
The various forms—Ai, Aa, Bi, and
Ba—were randomly assigned across schools;
that is, every teacher in a given school re-
ceived the same form.
shown in Figure 1. Then he was asked to
rate his ideal principal on the same 12 items.
The teachers read the directions silently
while the principal read them aloud. The
teacher wrote his responses on a card, put
the card in an envelope, and sealed the
envelope. On the cover of his booklet, the
teacher read: "Your answers will be sealed
in an envelope by you and sent directly to
Stanford University. No one at your school
or in your district will know how you an-
swered these questions." Further to insure
the teachers' privacy, the principal was di-
rected to stand far enough away from his
teachers to prevent him from seeing their
papers, to make certain that all teachers'
answer cards were sealed in the envelope,
to require the teachers to put their sealed
envelopes into the large mailing envelope,
to permit his teachers to see him moisten
and close the clasp of the large envelope,
and finally to ask one of his teachers to
drop the envelope in a United States mail
box. The administration of the question-
naires was standardized as fully as possible
with printed directions to the principals
and teachers so as to assure both groups
that their anonymity would be preserved.
It is noteworthy that all answer cards came
back in sealed envelopes.
"Report on Your Teachers' Opinions"
The "Report on Your Teachers' Opin-
ions" consisted of a booklet containing two
charts for each of the 12 items, as shown in
Figure 1. The discrepancy between the
teachers' descriptions was implicit in the
vertical distance between the two arrows
indicating medians. If the two arrows were
at the same point on these scales, the prin-
cipal could infer that his teachers saw no
difference between him and their ideal prin-
cipal in that kind of behavior. In propor-
tion to the distance between the two arrows,
the principal could infer that he departed
in the given direction from his teachers'
ideal for that kind of behavior.
To determine the principal's reaction to
the RYTO and to encourage him to review
these reports, he was asked to answer six
questions on a reaction sheet. The re-
sponses indicated that high percentages
(86-96%) of Group E found the RYTO
interesting, understandable, and informa-
tive.
Experimental Design
The experimental design is shown in
Figure 2. Here, X represents the expert-
 EFFECT OF FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS TO PRINCIPALS
Croup Tntttt Tre»tMnt 6 veeU
E
i-ihort
••long
i-long
' 1-long "11
C
2-ihort °13
c
2-long
Fw. 2. The experimental design.
mental treatment (feedback), O refers to
the process of observation (ratings), Xs and
Os in a given row are applied to the same
subjects, the left-to-right dimension indi-
cates temporal order, and the rows represent
equivalent samples of persons. X. repre-
sents "arrow-only" feedback; Xith repre-
sents "arrow-plus-histogram" feedback.
Group d (posttest only) was used to allow
comparisons free of any effect attributable
to unintended feedback received by Group
Ci through participating in the pretest;
these comparisons would show whether the
pretest itself produced changes in behavior.
RESULTS
In describing the results, we shall
refer to the protocols obtained from
the teachers as follows:
Pre-ACT—the teacher's description
of his actual principal on the pretest.
Post-ACT—the teacher's descrip-
tion of his actual principal on the
posftest.
Pre-IDL—the teachers' description
of his ideal principal on the pretest.
For each item, the mean of the
ratings received by a group of princi-
pals was computed over the medians
of the ratings of each principal by his
teachers. The ratings of all items,
regardless of whether they were origi-
nally worded positively or negatively,
were converted to a scale in which 1
185
12 w»t» signified the desirable end, and 6 the
undesirable end, of the continuum.
Pre-ACT
The random assignment of princi-
pals to Groups E and Ci should have
made them equivalent. But the pre-
ACT means of these groups differed
at the .05 level on five of the 12 items
and on the mean of the 12 items. Also,
the direction of the difference was the
same for all 12 items, namely, the
direction favoring Group E. Presuma-
bly, however, the analysis of covari-
ance, to be described below, elimi-
°U nated this pretest bias to the extent
that the pretest scores were reliable.
The difference between Groups E
and Ci in pre-ACT means might have
resulted from a greater tendency of
subjects receiving unfavorable feed-
back on pre-ACT to drop out of
Group E. In that event, the remaining
members of Group E would be those
who had received more favorable pre-
ACT ratings. But when this possi-
bility was investigated, it was found
that, in fact, the few drop-outs from
Groups E and Ci did not differ on pre-
ACT in this way, and the difference
remained unexplained.
The two experimental subgroups
differing in the type of feedback pro-
vided (arrow-only and arrow-plus-
histogram) did not differ significantly
on any of the 12 pre-ACT means. Nor
were there any significant differences
in pre-ACT means among the sub-
groups given forms differing in the
direction of wording or the sequence
of the items.
Adjusted Post-ACT
The effect of the feedback was
measured by the difference between
Groups E and Ci. To adjust for the
pre-ACT differences between the
groups, analysis of covariance was
used. The pre-ACT rating served as
186 ROBERT W. DAW AND N. L. GAGE
TABLE 2
MEANS OF TEACHERS' RATINGS OF ACTUAL.
PBINCIPALS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AND
CONTROL GROUPS Ci AND C 2
Means
Difference
Item pre-ACT
Adjusted between
adjusted
post-ACT post-
ACT post-ACT
Means
E Ci E Ci C, E Ci
1 1.82 1.39 1.31 1.50 1.44 1.38 1.43 .05
2 1.47 1.57 1.45 1,63 1.60 1,50 1.58 .08
3 1.54 1.61 1.50 1.77 1.77 1.61 1.66 .05
4 1.68 1.75 1.59 1.84 1.95 1.69 1.74 .05
5 1.34 1.51 1.36 1,56 1.56 1.42 1.49 .08
a 1.42 l.« 1.38 1.61 1.67 1.48 1.51 .03
7 1.72 1.84 1.64 2,04 1.93 1,81 1.87 .06
8 1.58 1.98 1.50 1.80 1.86 1.63 l.«7 .04
9 1,28 1.37 1.27 1 36 1.38 1,30 1.34 .04
10 1.19 1.26 1.20 1.29 1.30 1.23 1.26 .03
11 1.40 1.55 1.40 1 59 1.57 1 45 1.54 .09
12 1.51 1.61 1.44 1,66 1.71 1.52 1.57 .05
1-12 1.49 1.55 1.42 1.64 1.65 1.49 1.57 .08
Note.—In this and all other tables, means refers to a
scale in which a score of 1 was assigned to "Very much
LIKE" rating scale alternative, 2 to "Somewhat LIKE,"
etc., to 6 for "Very much UNLIKE." For the Experi-
mental Group (E), N <= 151; for Control Group 1 (Ci),
N = 143; for Control Group 2 (C«), N = 161.
* p < .05.
" p < .01.
the control variable, the post-ACT
rating as the dependent variable, and
the feedback as the independent vari-
able. Although the 12 items are corre-
lated, it is considered worthwhile to
examine results for each item indi-
vidually as well as for the mean over
all 12 items. Analyses of covariance
for each of the 12 items and for the
mean over Items 1-12 yielded the re-
sults shown in Table 2. The difference
between the adjusted post-ACT means
was significant at the .05 level or
better for all but two of the 12 items;
for the mean over Items 1-12, it was
significant at the .01 level. In all
cases, the difference between the ad-
justed post-ACT means favored the
experimental group. Only on Items 9
and 10 did the adjusted post-ACT
means not differ at even the .05 level
of significance. But even on these
items, the difference favored the ex-
perimental group. Item 9, "Demon-
strates interest in pupil progress," may
have been too difficult for the teachers
to perceive in the period allowed.
Item 10, "Interrupts the classroom
infrequently," may have been rated
too favorably on the pretest to allow
sufficient room for improvement; the
pre-ACT means on Item 10 were the
P
most favorable (had the lowest nu-
merical value) of all 12 items.
Posttest-Only Control Group
11.6" The "posttest-only" control group
5.0' (C2) was used to eliminate certain
16.5"
13.5" possible attenuating effects on the
6.7*
17.0" comparisons. Such effects might have
25.1"
19.0" resulted from any feedback, or sensi-
2.2
3.3 tization to the items of behavior, that
4.4"
8.7" might have been received by the pre-
19. 4»* tested control group (Ci) as a result
of their participation in the pretest.
If such sensitization occurred, Group
Ci would differ less from Group E
than would a nonpretested control
group (C2) which received neither the
feedback nor the pretest, Here the
comparisons must be made in terms
of unadjusted posttest means, since
there were no pretest means with
which to adjust the posttest means of
Group C 2 .
Table 2 also shows the means for
Group C 2 . The means for Group Ci
and C2 did not differ significantly.
Both of these groups did differ, in the
same direction, from Group E. Hence,
the pretest in itself did not affect
Group Ci, and the improvement in
Group E must be ascribed to the feed-
back alone, not to the feedback plus
the pretest.
Adjusted Post-ACT Minus Pre-IDL
The teachers' initial ratings of their
ideal principal (pre-IDL) make possi-
ble an interpretation of the direction
of the difference between adjusted
post-ACT means. It should be re-
called that the feedback informed
Group E as to how their teachers rated
the ideal principal. The feedback
should influence the principal to
 EFFECT OF FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS TO PRINCIPALS 187

TABLE 3 6-week or a 12-week interval group.

ADJUSTED MEAN Posi-ACT AND PRE-IDL Analysis of covariance revealed no
RATINGS FOB THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP significant difference in the two groups'
AND CONTROL GROUP Ci
adjusted post-ACT means. Further,
Adjusted Adjusted there was no significant effect due to
post-ACT pre-IDL U post-ACT the Feedback X Interval interaction.
if
minus
Item pre-IDL In short, the effect of the feedback
was not a function of the interval over
E Ci E Ci E Ci
which it was measured.
1 1.38 1.43 1.09 1.08 .29 .35 One randomly chosen half of the
2 1.50 1.58 1.13 1.14 .37 .44 experimental groups received feed-
3 1.61 1.66 1.21 1.22 .40 .44 back in the form of median ratings
4 1.69 1.74 1.20 1.17 .49 .57 (arrows) only, and the other half
5 1.42 1.49 1.13 1.17 .29 .32
6 1.48 1.61 1.09 1.10 .39 .41 received median ratings plus the fre-
7 1.81 1.87 1.19 1.25 .62 .62 quency distributions (histograms) of
8 1.63 1.67 1.20 1.23 .43 .44 the ratings. Either kind might rea-
9 1.30 1.34 1.10 1.13 .20 .21 sonably by predicted to be the more
10 1.23 1.26 1.15 1.19 .08 .07 effective: The median-only might be
11 1.45 1.54 1.13 1.18 .32 .36
12 1.52 1.57 1.13 1.16 .39 .41 sharper, less ambiguous; on the other
1-12 1.49 1.57 1.14 1.17 .35 .40 hand, the median-plus-distribution
might be more convincing. But no
Note.—For the Experimental Group, significant difference was found for
N = 151; for Control Group Ci , N = 143.
any item between the adjusted post-
change in that direction. Hence, the ACT means of the subgroups receiv-
difference between adjusted post-ACT ing these two kinds of feedback.
and pre-IDL should be smaller for When the principals were divided
Group E than for Group Ci. As Ta- into subgroups on the basis of age
ble 3 shows, most of these differences (40 or younger versus 41 or older),
were indeed smaller for the experi- experience (5 years or less as ele-
mental group. At the time of the post- mentary school principal versus 6
test, the principals who received feed- years or more), and form (A t , A 2 ,
back came closer to their teachers' BI , B2) of the Teachers' Opinion
desires. Since the items are interde- Booklet, analyses of covariance
pendent, they do not, of course, pro- yielded no significant difference at
vide 12 separate tests of the overall the .05 level due to main effects or in-
hypothesis. But the means over all teractions. Thus, the significant re-
12 items also differed in the expected sults that occurred due to feedback
direction. did not seem to vary with age, experi-
ence, or form. The latter findings show
Interval, Form of Feedback, and that positional or directional sets did
Other Variables not significantly affect the teachers'
In the experiment by Gage, Runkel, responses.
and Chatterjee (1960), experimental
group subjects changed more if they DISCUSSION
had a longer interval between feedback All in all, the results indicate that
and posttest. But the time interval the feedback affected changes in the
was relatively short, ranging from 18 principals' behavior. Various questions
to 59 days. In the present experiment, remain, however, for subsequent re-
the experimental and control groups search. First, we must recall the un-
were assigned at random to either a explained pretest differences between
188 ROBERT W. DAW AND N. L. GAGE
the experimental and control groups
despite their random assignment.
Second, we must ask whether methods
of measuring behavior other than re-
ratings by the same teachers would
reveal the same kinds of behavior
change. Would observations by trained
observers produce confirming evi-
dence? Would interviews of the princi-
pals reveal the process by which feed-
back operates, and show whether the
principals were consciously attempt-
ing to change their behavior? Would
disguised tests of teacher "morale"
reflect the desirable changes in rated
principal behavior?
Third, we should determine better
whether the improvements in the post-
ACT ratings reflect mere improved
"halo effect" or actual changes in
specific behaviors. One way to proceed
on this question would be to collect
post-ACT ratings on uncorrelated
items not dealt with in the feedback;
if behavior also improves on such
items, the significance of the feedback
on specific items must be questioned.
Similarly, items differing widely in
"changeability" could be compared
as to the amount of change principals
exhibit in them; presumably, if the
ratings reflect more than general im-
pressions, relatively unchangeable be-
haviors should be rated as changing
If research allays the skepticism
implicit in these suggestions, further
attention should be given to ways
of enhancing the effectiveness of feed-
back. The behavior of teachers, princi-
pals, and persons in many similar
roles could be made more effective by
applying the results of such a pro-
gram of research.
REFERENCES
BRYAN, R. C. Reactions to teachers by stu-
dents, parents and administrators. (United
States Office of Education, Cooperative
Research Project No. 668.) Kalamazoo:
Western Michigan University, 1963.
CAMPBELL, R. F., & GBEQG, R. T. (Eds.)
Administrative behavior in education.
New York: Harper, 1957.
DEUTSCH, M., KBAUSS, R. M., & ROSENAU,
N. Dissonance or defensiveness? Journal
of Personality, 1962, 30, 16-28.
FESTINOER, L. A theory of cognitive dis-
sonance. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson,
1957.
GAGE, N. L. A method for "improving"
teacher behavior. Journal of Teacher
Education, 1963, 14, 261-266.
GAGE, N. L., RUNKEL, P. J., & CHATTEHJEE,
B. B. Equilibrium theory and behavior
change: An experiment in feedback from
pupils to teachers. (Report No. 6 in
Studies in the generality and behavioral
correlates of social perception.) Urbana:
Bureau of Educational Research, College
of Education, University of Illinois, 1960.
GAGE, N. L., RUNKEL, P. J., & CHATTERJEE,
B. B. Changing teacher behavior through
feedback from pupils: An application of
equilibrium theory. In W. W. Charters
& N. L. Gage (Eds.), Readings in the
social psychology of education. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1963. Pp. 173-181.
GROSS, N., MASON, W., & MCEACHERN,
A. W. Explorations in role analysis: Stud-
ies of the school superintendency role.
New York: Wiley, 1958.
GUBA, E. G., & BIDWELL, C. E. Adminis-
trative relationships. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center, University of Chi-
cago, 1958.
HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Wiley, 1958.
McGuiRE, W. J., & MILLMAN, S. Anticipa-
tory belief lowering following forewarn-
ing of a persuasive attack. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2,
471-479.
MEDSKER, L. L. The job of the elementary
school principal as viewed by teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stan-
ford University, 1956.
NEWCOMB, T. M. Individual systems of ori-
entation. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology:
A study of a science. Vol. 3. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1959. Pp. 384-422.
OSGOOD, C. E., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. The
principle of congruity in the prediction
of attitude change. Psychological Review,
1955, 62, 42-55.
STEINER, I. D., & ROGERS, E. D. Alternative
responses to dissonance. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66,
128-136.
(Received July 11,1966)