Profile of the Mechanical Engineer III. Personality

Profile of the Mechanical Engineer

111. Personality

By ROSS HARRISON, DON T. TOMBLEN, and THEODORE A. JACKSON

Stevenson, Jordon and Harrison, Inc.

Summary

THE personalities of 100 mechanical engineers were investigated by means of projective techniques, a personality inventory, a personal history form, and a clinical interview. While they show a wide range of temperamental variation, there are definite trends which characterize the main body of mechanical engineers.

(1) Mechanical engineers are emotionally stable. They ordinarily make compatible marriages, maintain comfortable human relations, and are usually free of neurotic and psychosomatic symptoms. (2) Interpersonal relations are harmonious but casual. Impersonality is one of their more common traits. (3) An analytical interest in people is rare. (4) They avoid introspection and self-examination. Insight is often shallow. This lack of self-understanding makes them less perceptive of social nuances and relatively insensitive to the less obvious needs of others. (5 ) Engineers are straightforward, direct, and self-sufficient. (6) They are inclined, to be matter-of-fact and, outside their own field, are often unimaginative. Their attitudes are realistic, though their brand of realism deals more with surfaces than with depths. (7) Engineers are energetic. When faced with problems, they are advocates of the direct action approach. Polite diplomacy and oblique conciliatory tactics are foreign to their nature. (8) Most of them are goal- oriented, serious-minded, and conscientious. (9) They like

469

470 HARRISON, TOMBLEN AND JACKSON

phenomena to be definitely structured; there is a fundamental aversion to ambiguity. This fondness for structure and order may underline their essentially authoritarian approach. (10) Engineers have definitely masculine traits and interests. (1 1) Social participation is normal in amount. The explanation is more a matter of conventionality and social conformity than any profound interest in people. It is not true that engineers are usually introverts. What sometimes makes them appear so is their characteristic impersonality.

Introduction

The present series on the characteristics of mechanical engineers employed in a large manufacturing plant is brought to completion with a report on personality traits. Previous articles dealt with ability (11) and interests (12).

For the final study the sample has been reduced from 240 to 100 cases. Aside from the fact that processing projective data for the larger N would entail an enormous and unneces- sary expenditure of time, the psychologists doing the evalua- tions employed somewhat dissimilar descriptive vocabularies in the reports originally submitted to management. To insure uniformity in descriptive terminology, since one of the methods used in analyzing the data involved trait tabulation from the reports, only cases evaluated by the first-named writer were included in the study. In addition, we have background experience evaluatirkg over 600 mechanical engineers in the same plant.

Many of the conclusions from the article on interests are pertinent here, since the distinction between interest and personality is an arbitrary one. More properly, interest may be considered as one aspect of personality functioning. That engineers have more interest in things than in people, that they obtain high masculinity scores, are practical in outlook, and have socially conforming attitudes (12) are all conclusions that have an obvious bearing on any discussion of their personality characteristics.

PROFtLE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, Ill 471

The main contribution to literature on the personality of engineers comes from a brief paper by Moore and Levy (14), who studied a small group of successful engineers by means of a picture-story test and a personal history form. Steiner summarized her Rorschach experience with engineers in industry but presented no documentation for her conclusions (15). There are also occasional questionnaire studies (4, 7). Goodman found that engineering students are less neurotic and more self-sufficient on the Bernreuter than liberal arts students (7), but Blum, using the MMPI, obtained no differences between engineering and non-engineering students (4).

Procedure The procedures used in evaluating personality were pri-

marily clinical with chief reliance being placed on a depth interview one hour in duration. The interview was structured around a personal history form which, in addition to eliciting the usual educational and occupational information, included several questions of a more personal nature than are commonly found on these forms. Two projective techniques also entered significantly into the evaluation. One was an eight-picture abridgment of the Thematic Apperception test and the other an open-end problem situation test in which the respondent is asked how he would handle certain situations for which there are no definite right or wrong answers. A custom-made questionnaire completed the battery. Most of the items were derived from standard inventories, and these in turn were scored for five traits-neuroticism, physical drive, detail- mindedness, frankness, and self -sufficiency.

The personality data could be subjected to several possible forms of analysis. To establish trends, several avenues of approach were explored. The various methods were considered as complementary to one another.

On the personality questionnaire a statistical comparison was made between the scores for engineers and for a control group. The control group consisted of 100 men of equivalent


- 1

age and educational background selected from our personnel files. They may be considered as fairly representative of the population of young business men in a large city. A chi- square analysis was made of the categorized responses to the problem situation test for the engineers and for the control group.

In contrast, the TAT stories were studied qualitatively. No comparison with an independent group was possible because data on identical TAT pictures were not available for the business group. As a global approach utilizing the conclusions from all the evaluative methods taken together, descriptive terms with personological reference were tabulated from the written reports. Again comparisons were not possible, since a sufficient number of matched cases evaluated by the same psychologist could not be located in the files.

Results Personality questionnaire. Table 1 shows that only the frank-

ness score deviated significantly for engineers. The lower score indicates greater freedom from exaggeration. Significance was at the .01 level of confidence. Differences in the expected direction were obtained for self-sufficiency and detail-mindedness, but the differences were slight and insignificant. The mean scores for physical drive and neuroticism were practically identical.

When the validation literature on personality questionnaires is considered (5, S), these largely inconsequential findings are

S.D.

1 .4 2 .2 1 . 2 2 . 2 1 . 8

___- Y

1.2 6.8 2 .5 5.3 4 .2

-~

Trait I+ S.D.

1.4 2 .2 1 .3 2.1 1.5

.50 .50

.64 .50 1.67 .10 4.27 . 01 1.74 .10

Neuroticism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physical drive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detail-mindedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . Frankness.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self -sufficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3 6 .6 2 .8 4.0 4.6

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, 111 473

5 4 5 5 4 8 3

not surprising. Moreover, each scoring category on the inventory contained fewer items than are found on standardized inventories, which reduces both reliability and the likelihood of obtaining significant differences. The questionnaire was never intended for serious statistical studies. In practice it was used mostly as a clinical instrument with unusual responses serving as a springboard for further probing during the interview.

Problem situation test. In this test the stimulus material consisted of short paragraphs descriptive of six everyday problem situations. Subjects were asked to indicate what they would say or do to handle the particular problem or difficulty. For the purposes of the study the replies were categorized for each situation. The number of categories necessary to cover all possible answers varied from four to nine. The results of the chi-square analysis are given in Table 2.

Situation 1 . 4 3 is leaving on a trip and needs his watch which has been left for repairs. The jeweler, who had promised the watch for the day of departure, now says that it will not be ready for a couple days.

In answering the engineering group placed the responsibility on the jeweler more than twice as often as did the non-engineers. Both groups had an equal number of “no solution” responses, but the engineers were somewhat more critical of the poor service rendered by the jeweler. Group differences were significant at the .02 level of confidence.

.02

.05

.20

. 01 . 01

. 01 . 01

TABLE 2 Comparison between 100 Engineers and 100 Non-Engineers on the Individual Problem

Situations

Situation 1 X’ I df I P

1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b

13.8 11.0 8.4 31.8 18.0 34.4 21.6


Situation 2.-S lent an acquaintance several dollars and now wishes the money returned. However, the acquaintance has only a 20 dollar bill which S cannot change.

The engineers more frequently offered a definite solution to the problem, and they less often gave solutions which were unusual. The engineers were again more inclined to hold the other person responsible and to demand that he get the change. Differences were significant at the .05 level.

Situation 3 . 4 3 decides that he wants to return a small item which he had purchased the day before. But when he approaches the sales clerk for a refund, he is told that the money cannot be refunded because the article has been damaged.

The engineers more often than the control group took concrete action to resolve the conflict. They were less likely to become involved with the clerk; instead they put their reliance on the store manager or on some other person in authority to solve the problem. These trends, however, were not statistically significant.

Situation 4 . 4 3 had been in conflict with one of his associates at work. The associate is very stubborn, but it is imperative that some solution of the difficulty be found.

Engineers strongly prefer the authoritarian approach. The boss has the responsibility to decide between them. The controls, on the other hand, predominantly favor conciliation. Differences were significant a t the .01 level.

Situation 5 . 4 3 is one of a team of five men selected for an important expedition into a remote mountainous area. After several days the weather turned bad to further enhance the natural dangers of the trip. Two men wished to return; two wanted to continue. S has the deciding vote.

The engineers were more decisive. They took the initia- tive and the leadership role more frequently. The desire to continue was more prevalent among them, while the non-engineers either wanted to turn back or refused to come to a de- cision. Significance was at the .01 level.

Situation 6a and 6b.-S overhears two men talking seriously


Adequacy-inadequacy ....................... AggresEiveneas-unaggressiveness .............. Cooperative-uncooperative ...................

at a bus terminal. One man says he has a major worry. The second man asks the nature of his trouble. S is told to indicate the problem and the response of the other man.

Fewer engineers made light of the problem or failed to respond, Engineers more often than non-engineers referred to worries over family or health. The business men talked about financial difficulties or had misgivings about personal habits or traits (6a).

The solution was also handled differently by the two groups. The engineers gave specific advice, sometimes coupled with words of sympathy or encouragment. The non-engineers were less serious and showed less involvement with the problem, gave less advice, and made more non-committal comments

In addition to this analysis, the reactions of the two groups to the various situations were rated on three-point scales for each of the following: adequacy of solution, degree of aggres- siveness, and the degree of cooperation shown by the other people in the situations. The results of the chi-square analysis are presented in Table 3.

At one extreme of the adequacy scale were practical solutions which effectively coped with the situation; at the other were either answers which offered no solution or the solutions offered were overcomplicated or otherwise ineffectual. No significant differences were obtained between the two groups.

Each solution was also rated for emotional tone. The first category included responses of an aggressive or demanding type.’ The second category was made up of neutral responses where the problem was handled in an unemotional, “normal”

(6b) -

2.2 2 .w 11.8 2 . 01 19.7 2 . 01

TABLE 3 Comparison of Ratings for 100 Engineers and 100 Non-Engineers on the Problem

Situation Test

Variable I X ’ l d f l p


manner. The third category contained responses of a mild, unaggressive nature. Differences between the engineers and the non-engineers were clearcut with significance at the .01 level. The engineers were more aggressive, outspoken, and demanding, while the controls were more polite, compliant, and passive.

The third scale was a rating of the social atmosphere or climate provided by the other person in the situation. A three- point scale was set up to consider the amount of cooperation shown. At one end of the rating were responses which depicted other people as uncooperative, unyielding, and unreasonable; at the other were responses which showed the other person as approachable, friendly, and amenable to persuasion. Significant dzerences were found at the .01 level with engineers antici- pating less cooperation and responsiveness than the control group.

In summarizing these results, several conclusions appear tenable. As a group engineers are or would like to be “men of action,” for they believe that only action gets results. They are more decisive and tough-minded than the controls. In dealing with problems their approach is straightforward and direct ; they tend to be more forthright, outspoken, and abrupt. They are less inclined to the ways of diplomacy and conciliation than the young business men. Engineers rely heavily on authority for settling issues. When interpersonal difficulties arise, they apply stern standards of responsibility and hold others strictly accountable. In taking a stand they are less likely than the business men to consider other people’s feelings. They expect, apparently as a projection of themselves, that others will be impersonal and detached and sometimes stub- bornly resistive.

Thematic Apperception test. The engineers were asked to write stories for eight TAT pictures in the standard Murray series (Nos. 1, 2, 3BM, 6BM, 7BM, 17BM, 19, 20). Qualita- tive interpretations were made according to methods which have previously been described (9) and validated (8). Reliance


was placed on general interpretive principles instead of attempt- ing"a duplication of psychometric scoring methods by tallying story units or fragments out of context and out of relationship with other characteristics of the narratives. To establish trerids, tabulations were made of conclusive data from each analysis rather than of discrete narrative elements. These and related methodological problems have been discussed else- where at greater length (10).

The stories of engineers are usually short and simple in structure. In a sense they are picture-bound, for they give descriptive material which is closely associated with the picture. Engineers appear to be concrete-minded ; their approach is tactical rather than strategic. Though the stories are sharply drawn and compactly organized, one would be likely to underestimate the intelligence of the narrators from the TAT alone. Their abilities do not show to best advantge in these rather flat, unimaginative productions. They are much more creative and inventive in their own field. The most plausible explanation is that engineers channelize their energies along mechanical and technical lines with a concomitant neglect of other potentialities in their personalities.

A related finding is the matter-of-factness of the narratives. The content is commonplace, prosaic, and usually deficient in dramatic values. While their stories are not lacking in affect, there is a subnormal degree of emotional involvement or empathy with the fictional characters.

The Thematic productions were well-organized. There was no quality of diffusion in them, no loose ends or fuzzy edges. Engineers are also intlolerant of ambiguities. They dislike anything which is intangible or ill-defined. Everything has to be clearly structured or they feel ill at ease; unstructured stimulus configurations are anxiety-arousing for these men. They are used to situations with definitely patterned organiza- tion, and any ambiguity of structure produces feelings of un- certainty with consequent resentment. Story-telling itself was a sUtl;ciently ambiguous task that many found it vexing


and irksome, though this did not prevent them from being very curious about the purposes of the test. Card 19, the modern painting by Burchfield, was a favorite target for critical remarks. Many of the men regarded it as a child’s drawing or as an example of “crazy modern art.” It was also a frequent source of bewilderment as shown by the following rather typical story.

From this supposed picture I think I can make out a house more or less isolated and covered with snow, with the possibility of automobile headlights in the back. A great deal of turbulence appears to exist.

To be honest I don’t appreciate the picture as it does not clearly show to me what the artist is driving at.

Card 20, a dimly illumined night scene, also offered some d f i - culty in interpretation. Often the engineers resolved the problem by attaching technical meanings to the picture.

This picture I can make less out of than the previous picture. It looks like a photo taken from a plane high in the sky with bombs bursting on the ground, but I’m not at all sure. 1 cannot write anything more about the picture because to me there is nothing more to write.

Other examples of the engineering mind at work are the following stores for card 1 (boy and violin).

The little boy was practicing his violin lessons, and his mother happened to go next door to gossip with her neighbor. The boy took this chance to relax and set the violin down on the sheet music before him, Dreamily looking at the violin, he imagined the strings to form the road bed of a long bridge with streams of cars, trucks and buses passing over it. The bridge has only one support beneath it, and that is where a large river is flowing. He tries to think of all the problems that were encountered in building the bridge, how long it took, and what the cost was. He just hopes his mother won’t notice the silence and return to make him play before he has finished his day dream.

The boy is studying the construction of the violin, why it’s madein this certain manner. The boy is preparing to do some practice since the music sheet is under the violin, but before this practice starts the boy is studying the violin. He may be wondering why it has four strings. The boy probably will not play or practice cause the nature of the violin has caught his fancy.

While the last two interpretations are not altogether typical, they are not likely to be encountered except in the stories of engineers.

Occasionally an engineer took the task of story-telling

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, Ill 479

lightly. The result was a certain amount of humor at the expense of the test or of popular story cliches. The humor was usually barbed and the tone derogatory. Rarely did the engineers allow themselves the luxury of genial humor or relaxed amusement.

There was an almost total absence of phantasy or inner life on the part of the characters. The stories were peopled by individuals who never introspect. Feelings were expressed but tended to be superficial and closely related to external events. The stores were concerned with surface action and were lacking in depth. In contrast to a large number of overt problems and dilemmas, there was relatively little intrapsychic or psychodynamic material. The engineers’ narratives contained less emotional conflict, anxiety, guilt, depression, and inferiority feeling than do the stories of most college-educated subjects. In some ways, though, the stories are not unlike those of the

general population. The engineers gave picture associations which were usually plausible and easy to justify. Popular or common responses predominated, suggesting rapport with conventional modes of thought. There were a few variants in the group who produced original stories which reflected sensi- tivity of feeling and a regard for intraceptive values, but they were in a distinct minority.

The engineering group also followed convention in the way they ended the stories. Endings were rated on a five-point scale along a happiness-unhappiness continuum. The results approximated a normal distribution.

Trait tabulation. Tallies were made of all descriptive terms in the confidential written reports which had been submitted on each man. The trait descriptions were based on an integra- tion of the findings from all the evaluative procedures. The results are presented in Table 4.

While this approach has the advantage of being global in nature and of not being based on a single method of evaluation, there are certain limitations inherent in the tabulation of


TABLE 4 Trait Frequencies Tabulated from the Personal Evaluation Reports of 100 Mechanical

Engineers

”mi t

Easy-going, little friction in personal relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Conscientious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Friendly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pleasant, likable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lack of confidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Compulsive component” (detail-minded, orderly, thorough

meticulous, perfectionistic, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introverted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aggressive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serious-minded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unaggressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diligent.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mild-mannered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sense of humor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persistent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unsociable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nervous, high-strung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incidence > 1s

51 48 33 31 30 27 27 26 25 25 24 22

22 21 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 16 16

traits from reports. The traits chosen for evaluation show the terminological preferences and personological framework of the evaluating psychologist. Furthermore, the psychologist after becoming thoroughly familiar with the personalities of engineers is likely to be so accustomed to certain of their characteristics that existing traits may go unmentioned. While the high-ranking traits in Table 4 are no doubt frequently found among engineers, the fact that a trait is missing is no guarantee that it is not prevalent in the group. In the same way the frequency figures beside the trait names are not to be taken too literally.

PROFILE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER’, 111 481

Maintaining personal relations with a minimum of friction or, as they put it, being easy to get along with is the quality which heads the list. Emotional stability, a high level of energy and activity, sociability and friendliness, a direct straightforward manner, conscientiousness, frankness, independence, ambition, and a practical outlook are the other most frequently mentioned traits. Not until “lack of confidence’’ is reached do we find an unfavorable trait, and this condition was observed in less than a quarter of the men. A compulsive syndrome was suggested by the tendency to be thorough, orderly, meticulous, and engrossed in detail. However, these traits are not uni- versal among engineers; they are more common among the more technically-minded men. Traits which were either found at the end of the list or which were completely missing from the tabulation included snobbishness, conceit, arrogance, haughtiness, exhibitionism, personal vanity, indolence, sullen- ness, moodiness, and introspective tendency.

Discussion

After surveying the contributions made by the several approaches, the task of collation remains. The total impression is one of consistency; only occasionally do different source materials yield conflicting information. The following paragraphs present the conclusions that emerge from a synthesis of the separate findings.

Engineers are frequently characterized as direct and straightforward in manner. They are also open and frank. Like Good- man (7), we find them self-sufficient. Dependency needs are not highly developed.

Their interpersonal relations, while often casual, are relatively free of disharmony. In the reports this was the most frequently noted characteristic. Engineers make a good superficial social adjustment even though they possess few of the skills of the human relations specialist. The situational test showed them to be less diplomatic and conciliatory than the business group. While they are not smooth, they nevertheless


usually make a favorable impression because of their trans- parent integrity and sincerity.

The TAT indicates that engineers in a strictly verbal or literary sense are unimaginative for their intellectual level. Their stories are flat, descriptive, colorless, and commonplace. Their highly concrete, tactical approach to the problem situations is matched by the matter-of-factness of their everyday behavior. Both projective techniques and the trait tabulation reinforce the earlier conclusion from the interest data that they prefer immediate, practical solutions to problems. In engineering they seek the application of scientific principles rather than the principles themselves, and they like to see the practical consequences of their work.

Such a description fits most but not all engineers. Project and test engineers are highly practical and are more aggressive, forthright? and physically active than research engineers. The developmental men like variety and find desk work distaste- ful. By comparison, research engineers are closer to physicists in that they have more theoretical and specialized interests and are probably more sedentary and introverted. With them pressure for action is not m great. Research men have greater analytical interest and are more intrigued by intellectually demanding technical problems. The few engineers with broad cultural interests were usually concentrated in the small group of research specialists.

Personality as well as interest tests support the view that engineers are “apostles of action.” They above all like to get things done. On the TAT they created stories which contained considerable action and very little introspection. The problem situations were usually solved by direct, aggressive action. High activity level is near the top of the trait list in Table 4. Their stories likewise reflect great involvement with work and a striving for achievement. These narrative characteristics are correlated with the conscientiousness mentioned in the trait tabulation.

Men in engineering tend to be as orderly and well-organized


in their daily activities as they are in their Thematic productions. Some of the more pedantic and detail-minded ones are close to being compulsive in the psychopathological sense. Engineers want their perceptual world to be firmly structured. This quality was brought out notably on the TAT, where there was often resentment about story-telling in general and about ambiguous pictures in particular. Perhaps their desire for clear and definite lines of authority is part of the same syndrome. When faced with personal friction on the projective situations, instead of working through the difficulties, they commonly resorted to an authoritarian solution. In fact, in certain respects they show to a mild degree characteristics of the “authoritarian personality” (2).

Not only do they lead well-ordered lives but their attitudes and behavior lean heavily toward conservativism. Possibly one reason why their lives are so well-regulated is this very conformity. Their preference for common modes of apperception was exemplified by the large number of popular responses given for the TAT pictures. That engineers adhere to convention and the status quo was also in evidence from the interest evaluation (12). Aside from more specialized knowledge and greater intellectual ability, the typical engineer in many ways suggests the stereotype of John Doe, conventional, solid citizen.

In asking personal questions during the course of interview- ing, it early became apparent that many engineers have great difficulty in talking about themselves. The reason is that most of them are incapable of sustained introspection or self- examination, and as a consequence insight is often shallow. This relative lack of self-understanding may partly explain their insensitivity to social nuances and to the subtler needs of other persons in their environment.

Engineers concentrate more on the world of symbols and inanimate objects than on the world of people. It is not surprising that their stories suggest a poverty of inner living. In their narratives there is little introspection, phantasy, or


reflection on the outer scene. Interest tests and projective techniques agree on their basic impersonality and their de- tachment from many human values. Engineers conform socially and do what is expected of them, but there is reason to believe that for many of them personal relations have less significance than they do for the rest of the population. They are concerned with human relations insofar as people are a necessary part of their operations, but they have little interest in people as such. That analytical interest in people which is more or less expected of members of the psychological professions is conspicuously absent in engineers.

Considered as a group, engineers are stable. Emotional stability occupies the second place in the trait tally, and the personality questionnaire indicates that engineers develop no more neurotic symptoms than do business men. Using another inventory Goodman found that engineering students were less neurotic than liberal arts students (7). The TAT showed many healthy popular responses and few signs of neurotic involvement. The engineers’ Thematic interpretations were reasonable, logical, and reality-oriented. Here as else- where their emphasis is mainly on cognitive functions. Engi- neers seem to have less awareness of the importance of emotional life, of unconscious impulses, and of irrational elements in human conduct.

From interviews and personal history data it was clear that this group of young engineers has relatively few neurotic and psychosomatic symptoms. Even when there are indications of instability and immaturity their maladjustment is often shallower and less complicated than what is usually found among college-bred neurotics. Their non-introspective tendencies may act as a barrier to the development of deep neurosis.

Additional light on the emotional well-being of engineers comes from a consideration of marital status. In the original sample of 240 men, only three per cent were divorced or separated. While the short span of most of these marriages lends only suggestive value to this figure, it is known that men


in the professions have a lower divorce rate than the rest of the population (18). Furthermore, studies on psychological factors in marriage show that engineers rate high in marital compatibility (1).

Where maladjustment exists, it often takes the form among the younger men of shyness or social awkwardness accom- panied by feelings of inadequacy. Self-consciousness and lack of confidence were not uncommon complaints among engineers just out of college but were rarely found among the older men with industrial experience. With greater maturity and experience much of the social reticence seems to disappear.

Some of the more socially inhibited men, when they were growing up and facing difficulties in social adaptation, may have turned to the inanimate world of mechanical pursuits as a defense against feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. In such cases the choice of engineering as a profession followed naturally as long as they felt they possessed the requisite ability. Among boys with strong mechanical inclinations, intelligence is probably the main factor determining whether engineering or one of the skilled or semi-skilled trades is to be the ultimate vocational goal. Experience in school helps them get acquainted with the limits of their mental capacity and so extends or narrows the range of vocational choice.

With regard to occupational choice in general, questioning revealed a fairly consistent pattern among most mechanical engineers. Insofar as the men could retrospectively report on the conditions affecting their choice, there were two main determinants : (1) mechanical interests and skill, often shown early in their development and usually finding expression in mechanical hobbies and (2) interest and proficiency in physics and mathematics, especially a t the high school level. Excellent achievement in scientific subjects is usually sufficient assurance that college work is within the individual’s capacity. When these trends are found in boys in secondary school, engineering or physical science are the most likely occupational choices. When engineering is preferred over physics, it usually connotes


greater interest in practical application and less concern with basic science.

An assertion frequently made, even by engineers themselves, is that men in engineering tend to be introverts. While there were some definite introverts in the group, most engineers cannot be called socially withdrawn. An introversion-extraversion rating from the written reports showed a normal trait distribution.

Balancing out the small minority of social introverts is another group of approximately equal size who not only are socially poised but, despite their being graduate engineers, are more interested in human relations than in the technicali- ties of engineering. This group further divides into those who are potential administrators and business executives and those who are more likely to become sales engineers or liaison specialists or members of the administrative staff. The differences between the two subgroups come out clearly on the Strong interest patterns and in associated traits. The executive- potential group is stronger characterologically and is more decisive, willful, dominant, and tough-minded. Their natural tendency is to use or exploit people for administrative purposes, while the liaison group is socially smoother, more gregarious, and more service-minded. The latter obtain their satisfaction in working with and sometimes in working around people.

The whole question whether engineers tend more toward introversion or extraversion depends on definition. Ordinarily, extraversion has been equated with sociability, while introversion has meant social withdrawal. Because of their conforming tendencies engineers do not depart much from the general population in the degree to which they participate in social activities. And they are certainly not “thinking introverts”-if anything, their cognitive activities are directed mostly to the external world. In their outdoor recreations and in their mechanical hobbies as well as in the technical nature of their work they are anything but self-absorbed. On the


contrary, they are fully participating in the Allportian sense (3) in activities that are external to themselves. What has probably led to their reputation for introversion is their lack of empathy and of real interest in people.

Before concluding our discussion on personality among engineers, it may be desirable once more to make the point previously established in the interest article (12) that engineers are highly masculine. What was applicable for the interest area holds equally true for the total personality. Engineers are masculine not only in their outdoor and mechanical activities and in their indifference to human and esthetic values but also in possessing traits which are considered characteristically masculine in our culture. They are direct, frank, straightforward, and self-sufficient ; they are emotionally controlled, objective, and matter-of-fact in their human con- tacts; and above all they manifest a quite unfeminine impersonality.

While there is no need or occasion in industrial evaluation to explore psychosexual adjustment, the impression remains very strong after evaluating several hundred engineers that the homosexual count among them is extraordinarily low. The evidence, such as it is, is indirect and comes from the interview and from the Thematic Apperception test. The TAT is a sensitive indicator of homosexual trends, latent as well as overt, as clinical experience has shown. In support of this view is the fact that male homosexuals have a higher average feminine score on the masculinity-femininity tests than the rest of the male population (13, 17), while engineers show up as more masculine than most males (12, 16, 17).

In one of the previous articles (12) attention was directed to the narrow range of engineers’ interests. In a broader sense, their human potentialities often go unfulfilled because of the disproportionate amount of time devoted to mechanical and impersonal activities at the expense of human relations. They also fail to study their own inner consciousness and to develop


latent capacities for enriched and imaginative living. The result is that, while engineers are usually stable and symptom-free, their adjustment is frequently made at the price of constric- tion. Their impersonality and excessive control combined with the conventionalization of their behavior make many of them appear colorless and lacking in individuality. In the cases of some of the more technically-minded men one can go further and say that they are somewhat immature socially and emotionally. Their personalities show the effects of over-specializa- tion; their energies have been too narrowly channelized, so that they are over-developed in some areas and under-developed in others. Many of these men encounter difficulties when they move up from supervised technical work to super- visory responsibility.

In order to integrate these results with the literature on the personality of engineers, Table 5 was prepared to compare our conclusions with those of other writers on the subject (14, 15). The Moore and Levy study was made on a miscellaneous group of 30 successful engineers, using a personal data sheet and the Henry-Moore version of the TAT (14). Steiner con- ducted no formal investigation but in the course of an article on occupational personalities summarized her extensive Rorschach experience with engineers (15). The table shows remarkable consistency which is the more noteworthy because the several authors studied engineers in different specialties and by different methods. The probability is that, with the exception of industrial engineers, personality patterns among engineers in different fields are not greatly dissimilar.

There is, however, one apparent contradiction in the table. The other writers, notably Moore and Levy, found engineers to be more tense and irritable than we did. The explanation may lie in the different populations sampled. The Moore-Levy group was not only older but occupied positions of greater responsibility, which may have produced more frustration and tension.


TABLE 5 Conclusions of Different Invertigations on the Personality Traits of Engineers

Study

Method of investigation

Subjects

Traita

__

Moore and Levy (14)

Personal history form, Henry- Moore Test of Thematic Pro- duction

30 “successful” engineers

Orderly

Objects and processes preferred to people and ideas

Concrete-minded, practical

Casual, impersonal but friendly relations a t work

Ingenious rather than creative

Tense, irritable

Independent Positive reaction

to authority Work-oriented

Stciner (15)

Rorschach

Unspecified

Systematic in work habits

Prefer objects t o people

Concrete and syn- thetic ability

Casual relations with others

Minimal creativity

Tense and sensitive but exert rigid emotional control

~

Present investigation

Personal history form, interview, personality questionnaire, projective techniques

100 mechanical engineers

Orderly, Preference for definite structure, in- tolerance of ambiguity

Impersonal. Little analytical interest in people. Prefer objects and processes

Concrete-minded, practical, realistic

Personal relations lacking in intimacy but free of friction

Unimaginative except in own field

Stable, emotionally controlled, symptom- free. Sometimes con- stricted

Self -sufficient Authoritarian approach

Serious-minded, goal- oriented, conscientious

Direct, straightforward Frank, candid Masculine Conventional, socially

conforming Matter-of-fact. Objec-

tive and factual Non-introspective, “in-

tellectual extraverts”


References 1. ADAYS, C. R. Preparing for marriage. New York: Dutton, 1951.

The authoritarian personality. New York : Harper, 1950. 2. ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E., LEVINBON, D. J., AND SANFORD, R. N.

3. ALLPORT, G. W. The psychology of participation. Psychol. Rev., 1945,63,117-132. 4. BLUM, L. P. A comparative study of students preparing for five selected profes-

sions, including teaching. J. exp. Educ., 1947,16,31-65. 5. ELLIS, A. The validity of personality questionnaires. Psychol. Bull., 1946, 43,

385-440. 6. ELLIS, A., AND CONRAD, H. S. The validity of personality inventories in military

practice. Psychol. Bull., 1948,46,385-426. 7. GOODMAN, C. H. A comparison of the interests and personality traits of engineers

and liberal arts students. J. appl. Psychol., 1942, 26, 721-737. 8. HARRISON, R. Studies in the use and validity of the Thematic Apperception test

with mentally disordered patients. 11. A quantitative validity study. Character & Pers., 1940, 9, 122-133. 111. Validation by the method of “blind analysis,” ibid., 134-138.

9. HARRISON, R. The Thematic Apperception and Rorschach methods of personality investigation in clinical practice. J. Psychol., 1943, 16, 49-74.

10. HARRISON, R. The Thematic Apperception test. In Frank, L. I<., Personality development in adolescent girls. Monogr. SOC. Res. Child Developm., 1953, 16, 60-88.

11. HARRISON, R., HUNT, W., AND JACKSON, T. A. Profile of the mechanical engineer. I. Ability. Personnel Psychology, 1955, 8 , 219-234.

12. HARRISON, R., HUNT, W., AND JACKSON, T. Profile of the mechanical engineer. 11. Interests. Personnel Psychology, 1955,8, 315-330.

13. HENRY, G. W. Sex variants. New York: Hoeber, 1941. 14. MOORE, H. B., AND LEVY, S. J. Artful contrivers: a study of engineers. Personnel

15. STEINER, M. E. The search for occupational personalities-the Rorschach test

16. STRONG, E. K., JR. Vocational interests in men and women. Stanford, Calif.:

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

18. WEEKS, H. A. Differential divorce rates by occupations. SUC. Forces, 1943, 21,

1951, 28, 148-153.

in industry. Personnel, 1953, 29, 335-343.

Stanford Univer. Press, 1943.

1936.

334-337.

Profile of the Mechanical Engineer III. Personality

Documents

Transcript of Profile of the Mechanical Engineer III. Personality