Profile of the Mechanical Engineer II. Interests

Profile of the Mechanical Engineer

II. Interests

By ROSS HARRISON, WINSLOW HUNT, and THEODORE A. JACKSON

Stevenson, Jordon and Harrison, Inc.

Summary

THE interests of mechanical engineers were studied by means of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, selected items from a personal history form, and an interview. The data indicate the following interest pattern : Mechanical engineers are extremely fond of sports and active outdoor pursuits. Their strong mechanical and technical interests tend toward immediate application rather than toward basic science and research. They are, in a sense, more technologists than scientists. There were suggestions in the tabular data that mechanical engineers are social conformists and show close rapport with commonly accepted beliefs and practices. Though they have been shown to have superior verbal problem-solving ability, they are primarily non-verbalists. They are basically more interested in things than in people. Their values are conspicuously masculine. Engineers as a whole have few cultural or esthetic interests. Although highly intelligent, they are no more intellectuals than they are political extremists or bohemians. The scope of their interests, relative to their intellectual potentialities, may be described as constricted.

Introduction In the second of a series of articles on mechanical engineers

we are concerned with their vocational and recreational inter- 315

31 6 ROSE HARRISON, WINSLOW HUNT, AND THEODORE A. JACKSON

ests and activities. The data were taken from the same sample of 240 engineers employed in a large manufacturing concern reported on in the preceding article on engineering abilities and aptitudes (3).

The literature on engineering interests is rather limited. It consists primarily of comparisons between the scores of engineering and non-engineering students on standard vocational interest inventories (1, 2, 7). The studies demonstrate differ- ences in occupational and other scoring categories but fail to describe the nature of engineering interests.

Procedure

While the interest evaluation has leaned heavily on the Strong Vocational lnterest Blank, it has been appreciably supplemented by information obtained from a personal history form and by interview questions. The personal history items that have been tabulated for the purposes of the study include hobbies, social and recreational activities, church attendance, magazines read regularly, and most and least popular college subjects. In addition, interview information was available in many cases on book-reading preferences and extracurricular activities in college. Tabulations were made as source material for establishing generalizations about the interests of mechanical engineers.

Results

Strong Vocational Interest Blank. The main trend of the high occupational scores brings out the anticipated technical and mechanical interest (Engineer, Chemist, Math-Science Teacher, Carpenter, Printer). Considering the empirical way in which the Strong Blank was constructed, one might expect a group of engineers to score highest on the occupation Engi- neer. Instead Figure 1 shows that both Production Manager and Aviator gave higher scores. Our group differs from the original test population in two main respects, either of which could be sufficient explanation of the discrepancy. The present group is composed entirely of mechanical engineers, whereas

-

-

ROL

-

- 1 I1

I11 N v VI

VI I

I11 IX

X XI -

OC

CU

PA

T I

0 N

AR

TIS

T PS

YCHO

LOG

IST

ARC

HIT

ECT

PH

YS

ICIA

N

DE

NTI

ST

RT

HE

RT

ICIA

N

ENG

INEE

R C

HEM

IST

PRO

DUCT

ION

RN

AG

ER

AV

IATO

R FA

RMER

CA

RPEN

TER

PRIN

TER

RTH

.-SC

I. T

EACH

ER

PO

LIC

ER

N

FORE

ST S

ERVI

CE

Y.

PHYS

ICAL

DIR

. PE

RSO

NNEL

MN

AGER

Y.

M.C.

A.

SECY

. S

OC

IAL

SC

I.

TEAC

HER

CIT

Y S

CHO

OL

SUPT

. M

INIS

TER

M

US

ICIA

N

C.P.

A.

4CCO

UhTA

NT

OFF

ICE

WOK

KER

PU

RCHA

SING

AGE

NT

BANK

ER

SALE

S M

NA

GE

R

REAL

EST

ATE

SA

LES

MM

LI

FE

INSU

R.

SA

LES

MN

4D

VER

TISI

NG

Ml

LAW

YER

IUM

OR

-JO

UR

NAL

IST

PRES

IDEN

T

C I-

* C+

1

B.- 1

B

-n

-W

-M

W

-W

W W

W -

W W

- n ----

- I

W

8+

A

-M

-W

n >

Y

-

I

FIG

. 1. O

CCUP

ATIO

NAL PR

OF

ILE

W

ITH

MED

IAN

S AN

D I

NT

ER

QU

AR

TIL

E

RA

NG

ES FO

R 2

40 M

EC

HA

NIC

AL

E

NQ

INE

ER

S O

N T

HE

STR

ON

G

VO

CA

TIO

NA

L INT

ER

EST

B

LA

NK

318 ROSE HARRISON, WINSLOW HUNT, AND THEODORE A. JACKSON

the Strong normative population was made up of civil, electri- cal, and mining engineers as well as engineers specializing in the mechanical field. The group used by Strong was also con- siderably older and better established in the profession. This fact is relevant because the present group contained some atypical individuals with non-engineering interest patterns. Undoubtedly, some of these “occupational misfits” will eventually leave the field, but their presence lowers the median score for Engineer.

The high Aviator score requires comment. Judging from information gained in interviews, very few engineers are frus- trated pilots. Since occupations like Farmer and Policeman were also high and since engineers are very fond of sports, it seems probable that the close identification with aviators re- flects active outdoor interests rather than a specific vocational aspiration. The original Strong group of aviators was drawn from an earlier generation of pilots who were reputedly more adventurous and pioneering in spirit than their present-day successors.

The low score for Mathematician may at first glance seem surprising, since a knowledge of mathematics is an essential tool in the practice of engineering. What this result means is not that engineers do not like mathematics but simply that engineers do not have the typical interests and attitudes of mathematicians. Current experience with a revised and en- larged Strong scoring form suggests that engineers also score relatively low on Physicist. At the same time they are fairly high on the skilled mechanical trades in Group IV. These findings together with the high Production Manager score indicate that engineers have a practical and mechanical-minded approach with little theoretical and research interest. The interviews give confirmation on this point. When specific engineering interests were discussed for placement purposes, four out of five expressed a clear-cut preference for practical application as opposed to research. Even when research was given consideration, it was usually with the stipulation that it

PROFILE O F MECHANICAL ENGINEER. I1 319

be applied research. Presumably men with greater theoretical interest in physical phenomena make physics rather than engineering their vocational choice. Moore and Levy, using an entirely different approach, also found that engineers have a strong practical orientation (5) .

Other areas of low interest are more consistent with original expectations. The lowest scoring occupations were Minister, City School Superintendent, YMCA Secretary, Artist, Banker, and Real Estate Salesman. There was a tendency for those vocations to be low which emphasize either personal service (Minister, City School Superintendent, YMCA Secretary, Social Science Teacher) or verbal fluency (Lawyer, Author- Journalist, Advertising Man). Apparently engineers are not service-minded nor are they primarily verbalists. There is no evidence on the Strong Blank of human relations interest, and in the low sales and personal service scores there is some evidence to the contrary.

For engineers the median standard score on Occupational Level was 52.0, which is slightly above average. The median standard score on the MF scale was 57.4, which is definitely above average. The high masculinity score of engineers has been confirmed both by the Terman-Miles occupational norms (9) and by Strong himself (8) and is understandable in terms of engineers’ pronounced mechanical and outdoor interests.

Because of its empirical construction, the Strong test em- bodies in its scoring keys a considerable amount of information about the interests and attitudes of various occupational groups. So that we might to some extent generalize our findings beyond mechanical engineers, a form of item analysis was per- formed on the scoring key for Engineer. All answers with posi- tive and negative scoring weights greater than 1 were sepa- rately tabulated, and consistent interest trends were sought in the resulting tallies.

The analysis showed that engineers like technical, mechanical, mathematical, and physical science activity much more than do other men and that they avoid selling, advertising,


publicity, routine office work, and public contact and display in general. They do not seem to enjoy work where personal relationships are paramount. Of special interest is the observa- tion that they would rather deal with things than with human beings (Item 331) and that they do not react strongly one way or the other to the peculiarities of people (Part V).

Although item inspection is a different approach, the results are consistent with the conclusions derived from the Strong occupational scores and are congruent with the interest findings to follow. Tentative evidence, then, points to the basic simi- larity of interests among the major varieties of engineers, excluding industrial engineers.

College subjects. Their favorite college subjects relate either directly or, like mathematics and physics, indirectly to engineering. Of the strictly technical subjects, drafting is one of the least popular, apparently because of the monotony involved.

Even though engineers score low on the Strong for Mathe- matician, Table 1 shows that mathematics is the most popular college course. Engineers realize its instrumental value and frequently have a real fondness for the logical rigor of mathe-

TABLE 1 Favorite College Subjects of Mechanical Engineers

Subject I Incidence 1 5

Mathematics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thermodynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Machine Design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. E. Lab es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Mechanical Engineering”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal combustion engines.. ... Aerodynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drafting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Science”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 34 34 26 20 18 17 14 12 10 9 9 8 7 6 6

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER. I1 321

matical operations, even though they are too concrete-minded and practical in orientation ever to make mathematics their career. They also rarely seek an engineering assignment where most of their time would have to be devoted to analytical work.

The liberal arts and social sciences have small appeal. Only economics, English, and the humanities are mentioned in Table 1 and then rather infrequently and usually by engineers with atypical interests. Most engineering schools today have some general cultural subjects in the curriculum, so that it is not altogether lack of exposure which creates the interest vacuum.

Table 2 brings out engineers’ common abhorrence of English. Even though they show more than adequate ability on verbal tasks (3), verbal interest is usually weak. While unfortunately no comparisons could be made with graduates of liberal arts colleges, the amount of misspelling on written tests seemed excessive for an educated group, and for certain individuals the spelling was suggestive of the orthography of the fifth grade.

Reading preferences. Favorite periodicals are the popular large circulation magazines like Life, Time, and Reader’s Digest. Engineers follow the general public in this regard. Logically one might have expected them to be more selective, since their median score on intelligence tests falls at approxi- mately the 90th percentile of the general population.

TABLE 2 Most Disliked College Subjects of Mechanical Engineers

Subject I Incidence >3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mathematics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public speaking.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 29 17 16 14 9 6 4 4


TABLE 3 Periodicals Read by Mechanical Engineers

Magazine

Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reader's Digest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coronet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Atlantic Monthly.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other popular magazines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sports magazines.. ............................................

Mechanical Engineering. .. . . . . . . Popular Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Journal of the American S a1 Engineers. . . . .

Metal's Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanics Illustrated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aeronautical Engineering Review. . . . . . . . . . . Other aeronautical jou . . . . . Other technical journa . . . . . . . . . . .

Incidence >5

113 83 67 52 21 17 15 11 11 9 9 6 6 5 17 14

39 26 25 20 20 15 10 9 8 7 7 6 15 32

The only other kind of magazine commonly read are technical journals. Table 3 mirrors their aeronautical, automotive, , and model building interests. Even among technical journals, however, certain distinctions may be made. Semi-popular and practically oriented magazines like Popular Mechanics and Popular Science rank high on the list. There is apparently little interest in scientific fields not closely related to mechanical engineering. They avoid scientific journals like Science or Scientific Monthly, which are not slanted toward immediate

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER. II 323

application and which are somewhat broader and more theoretical in scope.

In order to get a fuller picture of engineers’ cultural interests, it is helpful to inquire into the magazines they choose not to read. The list in Table 3 shows there was a tendency to avoid what are usually called high-brow or intellectual magazines. About the only exception was the Atlantic Monthly, which is well down the list. Periodicals like Harpers, New Republic, and Saturday Review of Literature go unmentioned to say nothing of such recondite journals of the intelligentsia as the Partisan Review. To bring out the opposite end of the interest spectrum, it would have been interesting to contrast the engineers’ reading habits with those of a group of English teachers.

While they avoid periodicals of high cultural content, engineers do not read, or do not admit reading, low quality magazines. Culturally speaking, the engineering group may be described as neither high-brow nor low-brow but instead as characteristically middle-brow.

Information was available from interviews on book-reading preferences for 88 cases. Forty-three per cent stated that they read “little or nothing” in the way of books, while 15 per cent indicate that they are only “occasional” readers. Thus less than half are regular book readers. More detailed results are reported in Table 4.

With books as with magazines, technical interest is marked. Nevertheless, the majority prefer fiction with the main trends toward bestsellers, historical novels, adventure stories, and mysteries. One is immediately struck by what might be called the “muscular” nature of their preferences; the element of action is present in the novels of adventure and in the historical fiction and, to a less degree, in detective stories. These results correspond with the findings on the Strong of an active outdoor occupational identification. Classics and semi-classics are modestly represented; about one out of 10 prefers serious reading of this nature. Books on philosophy, psychology, social


TABLE 4 Book Reading Habits of Mechanical Engineers

N = 88

Classification I Incidence >3

Technical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical novels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Bestsellers” .......................... Novels”. “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biography and autobio . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-fiction” . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . .

17 11 10 8 8 6 5 5 4 4

science, public affairs, and the fine arts attract few readers among mechanical engineers.

Social and recreational activities. Many of the activities reported in Table 5, such as dancing, dating, movies, parties, and the like, are commonplace for young men of their age. No doubt there were many more engineers, especially among the un- married ones, who date and attend dances and parties but took these activities for granted and did not mention them on the personal history form. Their tendency to do what is accepted and conventional parallels their reading habits, which center around books and magazines of popular appeal. There is not much encouragement here for the notion that engineers are social isolates. Their social activities appear to be fairly typical for young college graduates.

In addition to the expected interest in mechanical hobbies, the recreational activities run heavily to sports and outdoor life. Since the personal history sheet called for past as well as present recreational interests, some of the hobbies mentioned, like stamp collecting and model airplanes, are in the past tense. The interest in photography was current in most instances. One exception to the lack of enthusiasm for cultural pursuits was an interest, on the part of some, in serious music. There was also a smattering of Sunday painters.

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER . I I 325

TABLE 5 Social and Recreational Interests of Mechanical Engineers

Activity I Incidence >5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Movies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stamp collecting ............................................. Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theatre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clubs ........................................................ Automobile driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Home gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cards, unspecified . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Radio and television .......................................... Home repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Picnics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sports, unspecified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swimming .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Golf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishing ....................................................

Bowling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Skiing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hiking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sailing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basketball ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Softball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

Model airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Automobile mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Woodshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Model railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Mechanical gadgets” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Music, unspecified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Painting and sketching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concerts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84 73 38 38 36 32 29 28 26 24 20 17 15 14 14 12 10 10 10 7 6

85 35 31 27 26 24 16 13 11 10 9 9 8 8 6

53 33 28 12 8 6

29 13 13 11 7


Classification

Every week.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rarely or infrequently.. . . . . . . . . . . . Never, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Twice a month.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Twice a year.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Several times a year.. ....

Religious holidays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Once a year.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Although no table is presented, a tally was made of extracurricular activities in college in cases where such information was available from interview notes. Ordinarily the recreational pattern was similar to that for current avocational interests. Athletics, usually in the form of intramural sports, were the preferred recreational outlet. The only other significant trend was toward membership in social fraternities and in engineering societies, which again reflect their conforming tendencies and technical interests. Dramatics, campus publications, musical organizations, and political discussion groups were rarely mentioned. C ~ ~ T C ~ attendance. One question on the personal history form

asks about the amount of church attendance. The information was iilled in by only 166 respondents. Whether they are repre- sentative of the larger group is not known. The answers were difficult to tabulate because of the vagueness and variability of the terminology. Table 6 gives the figures for what they are worth. Ninety-five, or 57 per cent, attend at least fairly regularly (twice a week, once a week, almost every Sunday, twice a month, once a month, frequently). Thirty-nine per cent attend once a week or better.

Incidence

60 33 18 14 12 7 6 4 4 3 2 1 1 1

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER. II 327

These figures appear to be roughly comparable to published statistics on the church attendance of college graduates. A recent study, which reported data on college graduates broken down by denomination, found that 79 per cent of Catholics, 46 per cent of Protestants, and 12 per cent of Jews attend church regularly (4). The same study gave 56 per cent of the general population as church members.

These tabulations were made not so much because of concern with the amount of religious observance but because church- going may be regarded as a manifestation of social conformity. The results on engineers indicate neither particular interest nor marked deviation in religious observance, but the pattern of conforming behavior, previously reported, is if anything sup- ported by the information on church attendance.

Discussion

The presentation of highly detailed and specific information on interests is of value only insofar as analytic and synthetic use of these data can lead to generalized conclusions about the basic interest patterns of mechanical engineers. Since most of these conclusions have been foreshadowed in the discussion of tabular material, the main trends with their supporting evidence will be stated briefly.

Engineers like sports. A good deal of their recreational life in college was occupied with athletic participation ; they have also shown a continuing interest in many of these activities after graduation. When participation is not feasible, they enjoy watching professional games.

Closely related is a fondness for active outdoor life. Engineers enjoy roughing it. Many of them like to hunt, fish, and hike. They identify on the Strong Blank with people who do active outdoor work or with occupations which involve some degree of adventure or danger. It was not by accident that Aviator was one of the highest ranking Strong scores. The adventure stories and historical novels they prefer for light reading are a form of extraverted fiction dealing mainly with swashbuckling action.


Mechanical and technical interest is obvious throughout. It comes out in almost every approach-occupational identification, favorite college subjects, books, magazines, and hobbies. Their technical interests are definitely practical. In expressing preferences for assignment , an overwhelming majority said they would much rather be in some form of applied work such as project engineering than in research. Their indifference to theory is shown indirectly by the low Strong scores for Mathe- matician and Physicist. At the same time they score high for the more earth-bound occupations like Production Manager, Aviator, Farmer, Policeman, Printer, and Personnel Director. Their reading habits likewise give no evidence of any special concern with scientific principle or theory. Engineers prefer the particular and the concrete.

Social conventionality and rapport with popular modes of thought are implicit in many of the tables. Despite outstanding intelligence and education beyond the average, they closely follow popular tastes in reading bestsellers and large circulation magazines. Their social activities imply a good deal of conformity to community norms. With most engineers church attendance is fairly regular. Certainly there is nothing in any of the interest data which is even slightly suggestive of bo- hemianism. While no inquiry was made into political opinions, in interviewing several hundred engineers the impression gained from spontaneous comments is that they are predominantly a conservative lot. It is perhaps not too much of an extrapolation to say that economic and political radicalism would be rarely found among them.

It may be worth considering some of the things that engineers are not. They are non-verbalists in the sense that verbality other than for the purposes of technical communication means less to them than does the more concrete world of mechanical objects. In engineering school, English, especially English composition, was the most disliked subject. The verbal occupations in Group X of the Strong Blank yield some of the lowest scores on the test. Moreover, as a group they could

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER. I I 329

scarcely be characterized as great lovers of books or of reading in general.

Engineers seem to have relatively little human relations interests. Scores for Strong vocations which depend mainly on interpersonal relationships, such as sales positions and personal service occupations, are usually low. Although engineers engage in the usual social activities, they express more interest in things than in people and are not much concerned about the personal peculiarities of others. If we may judge by their apparent indifference to the psychological sciences in their preferences for college subjects and in their reading habits, they do not have an analytical interest in people. When they read for relaxation, the works of fiction chosen are seldom psychological novels. The low level of interest in people is corroborated by Rieger’s finding that engineers give few human responses on the Rorschach (6).

Nor are many engineers cultural enthusiasts. While intel- lectually well-endowed, they are unesthetic and non-intellectual in the direction of their interests. Except for a few who enjoy serious music, cultural activities are conspicuously absent in their private life. Intellectual journals are rarely found on their magazine racks, while only one out of 10 ever reads classical or semi-classical literature. The humanities were poorly represented among the favorite college subjects and were more often found among subjects they cordially dislike. Artistic Strong occupations like Artist, Musician, and Architect gave uniformly low scores.

Social science interest is seldom high. A similar statement could be made regarding social service. Engineers are usually not interested in “making the world a better place in which to live. ” By inclination they are neither reformers nor do-gooders. One line of evidence comes from the Strong Blank where they score low on social service occupations. Then in Table 5 there was little indication of interest in political clubs or even in veterans’ organizations. Their reading habits carry out the same theme, for they read little in the way of social science,


politics, or world affairs. History and economics were well up on the list of unpopular college subjects, though there were a few who placed economics among their favorite courses.

Pyramided or second-order inferences are also possible. The combination of outdoor and mechanical interests with the lack of primary orientation to people and the dearth of esthetic interest point to a definite masculinity of attitude. Further confirmation on this point comes from the high masculinity scores of engineers on the Strong inventory.

Their interests are pretty much confined, aside from ordinary social activities, to the mechanical-technical on the one hand and to athletic-outdoor life on the other. Constricted interests are apparent in their relative indifference to human relations, to psychology and the social sciences, to public affairs and social amelioration, to the fine arts and cultural subjects, and even to those aspects of physical science which do not immediately relate to engineering.

References

1. BLUM, L. P. A comparative study of students preparing for five selected profes-

2. GOODMAN, C. H. A comparison of the interest and personality traits of engineers

3. HARRISON, R., HUNT, W., AND JACKSON, T. A. Profile of the mechanical engineer.

4. HAVEMAN, E., AND WEST, P. S. They went to college. New York: Harcourt, Brace,

5. MOORE, H. B., AND LEVY, S. J. Artful contrivers: a study of engineers. Personnel,

6 . RIEQER, A. G. The Rorschach test and occupational personalities. J . uppl. Psy-

7. SPEER, G. S. The vocational interests of engineering and non-engineering students.

8. STRONQ, E. K., JR. Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, Calif.: Stan-

9. TERMAN, L. M., AND MILES, C. C . Sez and personality. New York: McGraw-Hill,

sions, including teaching. J . ezp. Educ., 1947, 16, 31-65.

and liberal arts students. J . appl. Psychol., 1942,26,721-737.

I. Ability. Personnel Psychology, 1955, 2, 219-234.

1952.

1951,28, 148-153.

chol., 1949, 33, 572-577.

J . Psychol., 1948,26, 357363.

ford Univer. Press, 1943.

1936.

Profile of the Mechanical Engineer II. Interests

Documents

Transcript of Profile of the Mechanical Engineer II. Interests