INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I

films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete

EW
manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
I
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
EV

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and

continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
PR

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly
to order.

University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Order Number 9118498

S o cial in te llig e n ce an d lik a b ility

Somoza, Maria Pilar, Ph.D.

W
The Florida State University, 1990
IE
EV
PR

UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 NOTE TO USERS

THE O RIG INAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED BY U .M .I. CONTAINED PAGES

W ITH SLANTED AND POOR PRINT. PAGES WERE FILMED AS RECEIVED.

W
THIS REPRODUCTION IS THE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LIKABILITY

W
IE by

MARIA P. SOMOZA
EV

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of

PR

Psychology in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 1990

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 The members of the Committee approved the dissertation

of Maria P. Somoza defended on November 14th, 1990

Richard L. Hagen
Professor Directing Dissertation

W
Stephen Rollin
Outside Committee Member
IE
EV

arbonell
ttee Member
PR

Mark Licht
Committee Member

fe,Ll\c (A,
.ichard' Wagna
Richard'Wagne
Committee Meiffoerr"1
irber

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 This dissertation is the result of a combined effort

between my mother, Estela Portales, and myself. Throughout

W
my life she has not only provided me with the love, courage

and moral support, but also has been physically present

IE
during every step of the road. She has helped me in every

possible way. I never could have done it without her.

EV
PR

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWELEDGMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my

appreciation to a number of people. In particular, I would

like to thank Richard Hagen, my major professor, for his

availability for consultation, guidance and valuable

opinions but most of all for his support and personal

concern. My gratitude is also extended to the members of my

W
committee, Dr. Joyce Carbonell, Dr. Mark Licht, Dr. Stephen

Rollin and Dr. Richard Wagner for their interest and helpful

advice.
IE
A special thank you is extended to Tony Johns for

his assistance in computer analyses. His knowledge of LISREL

EV
was of great importance in the realization of this project.

Throughout my years in graduate school, a number of

friends and family members have helped me to achieve my goal

PR

in one way or another. I extend special recognition to my

friends Eileen Potocki for her willingness to read this

project several times and for her helpful comments and

to Marisol Munoz who patiently listened to all my complaints

and always had a warm response. I would also like to thank

my father Daniel Somoza for his financial support.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all the

undergraduate students who helped me in the data-gathering

stage.

iv

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication.......................................... iii
Acknoweledgment..................................... iv
List of Tables...................................... vii
List of Figures..................................... viii
Abstract........................... ix

INTRODUCTION....................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 .......................................... 3
Definitions of Social Intelligence............... 4
Explicit Approach............................ 4
Conceptual............................... 4

W
Psychometric............................... 7
Implicit Approach............................ 10

Measures of Social Intelligence....... 13

IE
Verbal Measures of Social Intelligence...... 13
The George Washington Social Intelligence.. 13
The Social Insight Test................... 19
Six Factor of Social Intelligence......... 24
- Nonverbal Measures of social Intelligence.... 35
EV

Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity.......... 36

The Social Interpretation Task............ 47
Tests That Combined Verbal and Nonverbal
Measures..................................... 51
The WAIS Picture Arrangement and
PR

Comprehension Subtests..................... 51

Social vs Academic Intelligence: Distinctiveness. 55

Dimensionality of Social Intelligence........... 62

Theories............................. 64
An Outcome Theory of Social Intelligence..... 66
A Process Theory of Social Intelligence.,, 70
A Developmental Theory of Social
Intelligence.................................. 77

Conclusion....................................... 81

CHAPTER 2 ........................................... 84
Social Competence/Social Skills................. 85
Interpersonal Attraction......................... 94
Other Factors Related To Likability............. 96

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Research Related To The construction of
Likability Scales................................ 99

CHAPTER 3 ........... 105

Development of Scales.............................. 105
Likability Scale ............................. 105
Social Intelligence Survey ................ 110

CHAPTER 4 ..................................... 115

METHOD ............................................... 115
Relationships Among Likability, Social
Intelligence and General Intelligence............. 115
Subjects ...................................... 115
Materials.................. 115

W
Procedure ..................................... 118
Hypotheses .................................... 119
Confirmatory Factor Analyses................... 119
Correlational Studies.......................... 121
IE
CHAPTER 5 ................... 123
RESULTS.............................................. 123
Confirmatory Factor Analysis....................... 123
EV

Correlational Analyses.............. .............. 129

CHAPTER 6 ............................................ 139

DISCUSSION........................................... 139
Confirmation of the Adjusted Model................ 139
PR

Likability: A Construct............................ 140

Relationship Among the Three Constructs........... 142

Social Intelligence and Likability............ 142
General Intelligence and Likability........... 146
General Intelligence and SocialIntelligence... 147

Comments on the Two Instruments Developed

Specifically for this Study........................ 148
The Social Intelligence Survey................. 149
The Likability/Dislikability Scale............ 151

Limitations of the Study........................... 152

Overall Summary.......... 153

APPENDICES........................................... 155
REFERENCES................................ 169
vi

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

 LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1. Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

statistics for all the models tested...... 128

2. Correlations between Social Intelligence

measures and roommates Likability scores... 129

3. Correlations between roommates' ratings

on the likability Scales and self-reported
Likability scores ..................... 130

W
4. Correlations between roommates's ratings on
The Social Intelligence Survey (SIS) and
Likability Scales and correlation between
IE
roommate's SIS and self-reported SIS....... 131

5. Intercorrelations among the Likability

scales completed by the roommates......... 132
EV

6. Correlations between the Social

Intelligence measures and
self-reported Likability scales........... 133

7. Intercorrelations among the self-reported

PR

Likability scales.......................... 134

8. Intercorrelations among measures of Social

Intelligence............................... 135

9. Correlations of General Intelligence with

Social Intelligence and Likability measures 136

10. Intercorrelations among General

Intelligence measure....................... 137

11. Correlations between roommate-reported SIS

and Social intelligence measures.......... 138

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1. Hypothesized Model........................... 124

2. Adjusted Model................................ 128

W
IE
EV
PR

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LIKABILITY

Maria p. Somoza, Ph.D

Florida State University, 1990
Major Professor: Richard Hagen, Ph.D.

This study explored the relationship between social

intelligence and likability and the relationship between

W
these two constructs and general intelligence. Five

measures of social intelligence, three measures of general

IE
intelligence and three likability scales were used.

One hundred sixty-one college students took the

EV

social intelligence and general intelligence tests, and in

addition, they provided information on how likable they

perceived themselves on the likability scales. In

PR

addition, the roommates of sixty-three of these students

rated these students on one social intelligence test and

on three likability tests.

The results of confirmatory factor analyses supported

the independence of social intelligence, general

intelligence and likability as three separate constructs.

The correlational anlyses demonstrated some overlap between

the domains of social and general intelligence, but no

relationship was observed between social intelligence

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 and likability or between general intelligence and

likability.

For this study, two measures were developed: a social

intelligence scale, developed from definitions of social

intelligence as provided by researchers in the field, and

a likability-dislikability scale, developed from both a

theoretical and an implicit basis. The Social Intelligence

EW
Scale showed no relationship with any of the measures of

social intelligence; however, it was consistently found to

correlate with measures of likability. The Likability-

Dislikability Scale appeared to have psychometric

I
EV

properties to be considered a useful scale.

PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 INTRODUCTION

Although research in social intelligence was begun

almost 70 years ago (cf., Thorndike, 1920), the fascination

with this topic by researchers continues to keep its study

alive and well, indeed, in the 1980's interest in the study

of social intelligence seems to be as strong as it ever has

W
been.

The construction of various tests of social

IE
intelligence implicitly has brought with it validation

studies; however, attempts to validate the construct of

EV

social intelligence, as it is defined by authors of tests,

have played a relatively minor role in the overall picture of

social intelligence research (see review of the social

PR

intelligence research in chapter 1). A major purpose of this

study is to assess the degree to which several of the major

tests of social intelligence can be validated against a

concept underlying most definitions of social intelligence.

That concept is likability.

Although a number of somewhat different definitions of

social intelligence have been offered over the years (e.g.,

Ford, 1982, 1986; Ford & Tisak, 1983; Marlowe, 1985, 1986;

Mercer, Gomez-Palacio & Padilla, 1986; Moss & Hunt, 1927;

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

Strang, 1930a; Thorndike, 1920; Wedeck, 1947), a commonality

in these definitions seems to be expressed in Vernon's (1933)

statement that social intelligence involves "ability to get

along with other people in general." strange then, that

researchers have overlooked an obvious, and at the same time,

interesting, area of validation and study: the relationship

between social intelligence and likability. The question of

W
whether the socially intelligent are better liked than the

socially unintelligent remains unexplored. The study of this

IE
question has particularly importance for the establishment of

validity of those tests whose authors have attempted to

EV

define social intelligence in terms that embrace the concept

of likability.

Because the study of social intelligence and the study

PR

of likability have not been brought together, there is no

common literature that relates to both of these domains of

study. Accordingly, each of these domains will be reviewed

separately in the following chapters. First, a review of

social intelligence will be presented (chapter 1) and second,

a review of likability will be presented (chapter 2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER 1

The study of social intelligence has a long history. As

early as 1920* Thorndike identified social intelligence as

distinct from other human intelligences* the abstract and

mechanical. However* as noted by Walker and Foley (1973)*

social intelligence has been a cyclical concept, seeming to

come into and go out of favor repeatedly. Interest in the

W
construct has recently resurfaced with the work of

contemporary researchers such as Sternberg* Conway, Ketron

IE
and Bernstein (1981), Sternberg and Smith (1985), Marlowe

(1986) and Ford (1982, 1986). Despite this renewed

EV

interest, the entire field is still limited by conceptual

confusion and conflicting data. Not only have the essential

questions as to definition and measurement not been

PR

answered, but more specific issues, e. g.* the correlation

between academic and social intelligence and the

dimensionality of social intelligence, remain unresolved.

Because of the importance and renewal of interest in this

area, a review of work in social intelligence is warranted.

This chapter will review the history of the social

intelligence concept. In addition, the different definitions

and ways in which the construct have been measured will be

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

analyzed. Special issues related to the topic will also be

explored.

Definitions of Social Intelligence

It is difficult to delimit the scope of a discussion of

social intelligence. Related concepts have included social

insight, empathy, role taking, interpersonal competence and

egocentrism (Walker and Foley, 1973). Two major approaches

W
to the study of social intelligence are advanced, the

"explicit approach", based on theories developed by

IE
scientists founded on empirical research, and the "implicit

approach" which involves the study of peoples' conception of

EV

the construct. Within the explicit approach, two

strategies are identified, the conceptual— the

investigator simply defines what he/she believes social

PR

intelligence to be, and the psychometric— intelligence is

understood in terms of scores on psychometric tests. In the

following section, these two approaches will be presented.

Explicit Approach

Conceptual

The conceptualization of a psychological construct is

probably the most important and difficult part of any

research. In fact, despite the widespread recognition of

social intelligence as an important entity, there has been

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 5

little consensus among theorists as to its formal

definition.

Early definitions. From its beginning in the

psychological literature, the definition of social

intelligence has centered around the idea of social

interaction. As early as 1920, Thorndike specified two

similar definitions of social intelligence- (1) the ability

W
to understand and manage others and (2) the ability to act

wisely in human relations. This binary conceptualization

was accepted by most investigators at that time. For

IE
example, Moss and Hunt (1927) and Hunt (1928) considered

social intelligence to be the ability to get along with

EV

others and the ability to deal with people respectively.

Strang (1930a) accepted the "ability to deal with people"

definition but emphasized two separate aspects of social

PR

intelligence: knowledge (prior knowledge about people) and

function (the exercise of social intelligence). Vernon

(1933) expanded earlier definitions by stating that "social

intelligence includes ability to get along with people in

general, ease with others, knowledge of social matters,

susceptibility to stimuli from other members or a group, as

well as insight into the states or traits of other people."

Wedeck (1947), working on what he called "psychological

ability", defined social intelligence as the ability to

judge correctly the feelings, moods and motivations of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6

others. Finally, Wechsler (1958) viewed social intelligence

as the application of general intelligence to social

contexts. He claimed social intelligence to be one's

facility in dealing with human beings.

Contemporary definitions. Contemporary researchers in

social intelligence have used the terms social intelligence

and social competence interchangeably ( Marlowe; 1985,

W
1986). Also, the usefulness of adopting a behavioral

effectiveness criterion to define the construct has been

IE
emphasized recently (Ford, 1982; Ford, 1986; Ford and

Tisak, 1983). Such an approach has focused on the

EV
individual's ability to deal with the interactions of the

external world, to adapt to different contexts, to establish

and maintain interpersonal relationships and to interpret

PR

nonverbal cues accurately (Mercer, Gomez-Palacio & Padilla,

1986). This conceptualization approach follows current

views of intelligence which focus on the capability of the

individual in adapting to the environment (Charlesworth,

1976; Neisser, 1976; Sternberg, 1984b, 1985a). Ford and

Tisak (1983) and Ford (1986) have claimed that there is

little evidence to support a cognitive conceptualization of

social intelligence. They defined social intelligence as

the ability to accomplish relevant objectives in specific

social settings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 7

Sternberg (1985a) and Wagner and Sternberg (1986)

divided social competence into practical and social

intelligence, arguing that these components deal with

somewhat different sets of abilities. Most of their

research focused on what they calls tacit knowledge, an

important aspect of practical intelligence. Tacit knowledge

is considered to be pragmatic rather than academic, informal

rather than formal, and usually not directly taught.

W
Sternberg and his associates, demonstrating that tacit

knowledge is measurable and predictive of real-world

IE
occupational success, have made this line of research more

promising than any alternate current investigation on social

EV

intelligence.

Marlowe (1984, 1985), researching in the area of social

intelligence, specifically attempted to establish the

PR

independent and multidimensional nature of social

intelligence. Marlowe argued that social intelligence is

composed of a set of problem-solving skills that enable the

individual to find and/or to resolve interpersonal problems.

He has defined social intelligence as the ability both to

understand the feelings, thoughts and behaviors of oneself

and others in interpersonal situations and also to act

appropriately upon that understanding (Marlowe, 1986).

Psychometric

Researchers working on the construction of measures of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 8

social intelligence have chosen to define the construct in

terms of scores on various kinds of psychometric tests. The

first attempts used paper and pencil. However, because of

criticisms regarding the confound of verbal and social

intelligence, other investigators have chosen to use

measures of nonverbal decoding to assess social

intelligence.

W
Self-report measures. Working from a psychometric

approach, Gilliland and Burke (1926) developed several

IE
tests to measure what they called "sociability." using the

terms "social intelligence" and "sociability" synonymously,

EV

Gilliland and Burke described the sociable individual as one

who is friendly, enjoys people and gets along well with

others. Chapin (1939), also taking a psychometric approach,

PR

thought of social intelligence as a form of social insight.

He hypothesized that a measure of overt social participation

would serve as a rough measure of social intelligence.

However, in his later paper (Chapin, 1942), he distinguished

between social insight and social intelligence. Also

working on the construction of tests of social intelligence,

O'Sullivan and her colleagues ( O'Sullivan, Guilford, &

DeMille, 1965) defined one form of social intelligence,

namely "behavioral cognition", as the ability to understand

others' thoughts, feelings and intentions. O'Sullivan and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.