Post on 03-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
1/73
Hogan Development SurveyManual
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
2/73
Acknowledgements
Over the last five years, a number of people have assisted us with the development of the
Hogan Development Survey (HDS). We are grateful for their contributions and it is a plea-sure to acknowledge them. Paul Babiak and Tom-Erik Dybwad commented on the item pool.
John Thompson created the computer program for the interpretive report and has continued
to refine the scoring systems. Kimberly Brinkmeyer, Doug Klippel, Suzan Rybicki, Robert
Smither, and Ron Walker helped gather the original data sets. Suzan Rybicki developed and
maintained the HDS archive and computed the statistical analyses. Heather Heidelberg and
Dallas Stovall contributed technical assistance and test scoring. Ann Ferguson provided
production support, and day-to-day help has come from M. Gooch, B. Dings, M. Paddy, and
L. M. Gracie. At the University of Tulsa, Judy McHenry produced the written material, includ-
ing design, layout, and graphics. We thank all of them for their assistance.
Robert Hogan
Joyce Hogan
Tulsa
1997
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
3/73
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Conceptual Background............................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 2
Development Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2: Inventory Construction .............................................................................. 7
Development .................................................................................................................................. 7
Definitions of the Scales ................................................................................................................. 8
Composition of the HDS ................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 3: Validity ....................................................................................................... 13
Construct Validity ..........................................................................................................................13Correlations with Other Measures..................................................................................................13
Excitable .............................................................................................................................14
Skeptical .............................................................................................................................15
Cautious ..............................................................................................................................16
Reserved .............................................................................................................................19
Leisurely ..............................................................................................................................19
Bold.....................................................................................................................................21
Mischievous.........................................................................................................................22
Colorful ................................................................................................................................23
Imaginative ..........................................................................................................................26
Diligent ................................................................................................................................26
Dutiful ..................................................................................................................................27
Chapter 4: Interpretations and Uses.......................................................................... 29
Scale by Scale Interpretation.........................................................................................................29
Excitable .............................................................................................................................29
Skeptical .............................................................................................................................30
Cautious ..............................................................................................................................31
Reserved .............................................................................................................................31
Leisurely ..............................................................................................................................32
Bold.....................................................................................................................................33
Mischievous.........................................................................................................................33
Colorful ................................................................................................................................34
Imaginative ..........................................................................................................................35
Diligent ................................................................................................................................35
Dutiful ..................................................................................................................................36
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
4/73
Sample HDS Profile Interpretations ...............................................................................................37
Moving Away Profile ..........................................................................................................39
Moving Against Profile .......................................................................................................40
Moving Toward Profile ........................................................................................................41
Corporate Stalker Profile ......................................................................................................42
Litigious Profile ....................................................................................................................43
Fear-driven Salesman Profile ...............................................................................................44
Uses ............................................................................................................................................45
Chapter 5: Administering and Scoring ...................................................................... 47
Paper-and-pencil Administration ....................................................................................................47
How to Administer Paper-and-pencil HDS Forms...........................................................................47
Materials .............................................................................................................................47
Completing the Answer Sheet..............................................................................................47
Conducting the Testing Session ....................................................................................................49
Administrators Script for Conducting a Testing Session ................................................................49How to Administer Computer On-line Testing .................................................................................51
Materials .............................................................................................................................51
Using the On-line System....................................................................................................51
How to Score the HDS Answer Sheets..........................................................................................52
Keyed Data Entry ................................................................................................................52
Optical Scanning of Answer Sheets .....................................................................................52
Mail-in or FAX Scoring .........................................................................................................52
References................................................................................................................... 55
List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices
Tables
Table 2.1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the HDS ..............................................................10
Table 2.2 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for HDS Scales by
Demographic Group ............................................................................................................. 11
Table 2.3 HDS Scale Intercorrelations ................................................................................................. 11
Table 2.4 Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales ...................................................................12
Table 3.1 Correlations Between the Hogan Personality Inventory and the HDS....................................15
Table 3.2 Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS ...........................................17
Table 3.3 Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales
and the HDS ........................................................................................................................17
Table 3.4 Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory
and the HDS ........................................................................................................................18
Table 3.5 Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
and the HDS ........................................................................................................................20
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
5/73
Table 3.6 Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS ............................................21
Table 3.7 Correlations Between Observers Description Ratings
and the HDS ........................................................................................................................24
Table 3.8 Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS ................................................28
Figures
Figure 1.1 Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders .......................... 5
Figure 4.1 A Quick Guide for Interpreting the HDS................................................................................37
Figure 4.2 Average HDS Profile ............................................................................................................38
Figure 4.3 Average HPI Profile ..............................................................................................................38
Figure 4.4 Moving Away HDS Profile ..................................................................................................39
Figure 4.5 Moving Away HPI Profile ....................................................................................................39
Figure 4.6 Moving Against HDS Profile ...............................................................................................40
Figure 4.7 Moving Against HPI Profile.................................................................................................40Figure 4.8 Moving Toward HDS Profile ................................................................................................41
Figure 4.9 Moving Toward HPI Profile ..................................................................................................41
Figure 4.10 Corporate Stalker HDS Profile..............................................................................................42
Figure 4.11 Corporate Stalker HPI Profile ...............................................................................................42
Figure 4.12 Litigious HDS Profile ............................................................................................................43
Figure 4.13 Litigious HPI Profile .............................................................................................................43
Figure 4.14 Fear-driven Salesman HDS Profile .......................................................................................44
Figure 4.15 Fear-driven Salesman HPI Profile .........................................................................................44
Figure 5.1 Sample Answer Sheet .........................................................................................................48
Figure 5.2 HDS Data File Variable Specifications .................................................................................53
Appendices
Appendix A: HDS Norms for the Total Sample ...........................................................................................59
Appendix B: Sample HDS Interpretive Report ............................................................................................61
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
6/73
Conceptual Background 1
C H A P T E R
1
Conceptual Background
Introduction
The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is designed to assess eleven common dysfunctional
dispositions. These dispositions: (a) are caused by peoples distorted beliefs about how others
will treat them; and (b) negatively influence peoples careers and life satisfactions. Before de-scribing the development of the HDS, some background comments may help the reader better
understand the purpose of this inventory.
Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and H. S. Sullivan all studied self-defeating behav-
ior. However, they explained this behavior very differently. Freud was concerned exclusively with
intrapsychic processesevents occurring inside the mindwhereas the others were concerned
with interpersonal processesevents occurring between people. Consequently, the others are
known as interpersonal theorists. Freud thought everyone (who has not been psychoanalyzed) is
neurotic; the interpersonal theorists thought that the problems most people have are much less
severe than a neurosis. Freud thought people could be characterized in terms of how they man-age their neuroses; the others thought people could be characterized in terms of their expecta-
tions about how others will treat them. Because some of these expectations are wrong, they tend
to behave in ways that others find annoying and that, over time, may interfere with their life goals.
Freuds view that everyone is somewhat neurotic is surely incorrectpeople who are neurotic
are severely impaired and most people are not deeply disturbed. Nonetheless, his view pre-
vailed and inspired the early history of personality measurement; that, in turn, led to the develop-
ment of instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway &
McKinley, 1943; MMPI 2, Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989).
Adler, Horney, Sullivan and the later interpersonal theorists are probably right in their view that,
although everyone is not neurotic, the nature of experience in childhood is such that almost every-
one feels inadequate about something. That is, childhood is almost inevitably stressful and most
people develop expectations of being criticized in certain situations; they
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
7/73
also develop methods for dealing with the criticism. For Freud, all neuroses have a single cause
a failure to resolve the Oedipus complex; for the interpersonal theorists there are many reasons
for feeling inadequate, and almost everyone feels insecure about somethingfew of us had
perfect childhoods.
The interpersonal theorists have had far less influence on personality assessment than Freud,
despite the importance of the problems they analyze. Other than research on the interpersonal
circumplex inspired by Leary (1957) and elaborated brilliantly by Wiggins (1979), there has been
little systematic effort to classify the key interpersonal processes. In our judgment, the first step in
studying these processes is to develop a taxonomy of what we call dysfunctional dispositions.
Horney (1950) identified 10 neurotic needs which seem to be the first taxonomy of flawed
interpersonal tendencies. She later summarized these needs in terms of three themes: (1) mov-
ing toward peoplei.e., managing ones insecurities by building alliances; (2) moving away
from peoplei.e., managing ones feelings of inadequacy by avoiding contact with others; and
(3) moving against peoplei.e., managing ones self-doubts by dominating and intimidating
others. We believe that Horneys taxonomy is a useful first step in classifying the dysfunctionaldispositions; moreover, it is implicit in the classification of personality disorders contained in
DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
Hypotheses
We would like to proposeas a hypothesisthat the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders can
serve as a provisional taxonomy of flawed interpersonal strategies. Like all taxonomies, it is
subject to revision as data emerge that cannot be interpreted or incorporated into the taxonomy.
We would like to propose a second hypothesis, one that concerns the structure of personality.
Researchers often organize personality variables in a hierarchy defined by many specific behav-
iors and/or narrow traits at the bottom and by a few broad and/or general traits at the top. Al-
though this is sensible, there is a second natural hierarchy of personality concepts that extends
from terms characterizing people with good interpersonal skills, to terms describing flawed skills,
to terms referring to non-existent skills. This second hierarchy reflects the fact that interpersonal
competency is probably normally distributed; thus, a few people at one end of the distribution are
self-assured and highly effective in interaction, and a corresponding few at the other end are
profoundly self-doubting and incompetenteven neurotic. In the middle of this distribution is the
majority of the populationpeople whose development included failure, disappointment, loss,
fights, accidents, illness, injury, family discord, experiments with forbidden behaviors, and feel-
ings of guilt, loneliness, powerlessness, humiliation, inadequacy and betrayalabout whose
lives Adler, Horney, and Sullivan wrote so perceptively.
2 Conceptual Background
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
8/73
Conceptual Background 3
In our view, the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) is a cross-section of this personality hierar-
chy at the competent end of the distribution. At the incompetent end, Harkness, McNulty, and
Ben-Porath (1995) propose what they call the PSY-5, where agreeableness turns into hostility
and conscientiousness turns into delinquency. Finally, then, the personality disorders can be seen
as a cross-section in the middle of the distribution, a cross-section that has not been well-de-
fined in psychometric terms.
The two foregoing hypotheses suggest that the personality disorders occupy a psychological
space half-way between the domain mapped by measures of normal personality such as the
California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) or the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI;
R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995), and measures of abnormal personality such as the MMPI. This sug-
gests one justification for developing the HDSthe personality disorders concern a region of
interpersonal behavior that has not been adequately mapped or measured. But the most impor-
tant reason for paying attention to the personality disorders, in our judgment, is that they occur so
frequently at every level of society and have detrimental effects on interpersonal and career ef-
fectiveness. Consider the following two examples.
First, R. Hogan worked for two years as a probation officer; he investigated five or six cases of
troubled adolescents each week and then wrote evaluations. In this process, he found the stan-
dard categories of psychiatric diagnosis unhelpful because they fit so few cases. Instead, he
relied on the personality disorders to make sense of his investigations. Thus, most juvenile delin-
quentswho are only somewhat disturbed in a psychiatric senseare more easily classified in
terms of the personality disorders than in terms of the standard psychiatric categories because
the problems they have are usually unrelated to neurosis or psychosis.
Second, in reviewing the literature on leadership, the authors (R. Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994)noticed that there is little agreement regarding the characteristics that define effective leader-
ship, but there is considerable agreement regarding the characteristics of managerial incompe-
tence. Bentz (1985) identifies leadership styles associated with managerial derailment in the
retail industry (e.g., playing politics, moodiness, and dishonesty). Researchers at the Center for
Creative Leadership and at Personnel Decisions International similarly conclude that managers
who are technically competent but who fail are variously perceived as arrogant, vindictive, un-
trustworthy, selfish, emotional, compulsive, overcontrolling, insensitive, abrasive, aloof, too am-
bitious, or unable to delegate (Hazucha, 1991; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall
& Lombardo, 1983). Bentzs observations overlap substantially with those from the Center for
Creative Leadershipmanagers who are typified by dysfunctional dispositions are unable to
build a constituency to support them in the pursuit of their agendas. Our point is that the themes
that predict managerial incompetence strongly resemble the personality disorders. Like the Five-
Factor Model, which is reliably replicated in various languages and cultures, the standard per-
sonality disorders seem to reflect common themes in the lives of people who are getting by but
perhaps gradually failing, or at least not realizing their potential.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
9/73
The empirical literature clearly indicates that measures of psychopathology such as the Ror-
schach and the MMPI are uncorrelated with indices of effective occupational performance (Kelly
& Fiske, 1951). In 1992 as an experimental exercise, we included a measure of personality
disorders in a study of insurance claims examiners; we discovered, to our great surprise, that
several scales of the inventory were robust predictors of performance in the negative direction
(Arneson, Millikin-Davies, & Hogan, 1993). In fact, these scales predicted job performance bet-
ter than the HPIan inventory of normal personalityalthough they predicted in the negative
direction. We concluded that measures of personality disorders, unlike measures of neurosis
and psychosis, will predict (negative) reliable occupational outcomes. At this point we decided
to develop the HDS.
Development Guidelines
In developing the HDS, we were guided by four considerations. The first concerns what to mea-
sure. We regard the personality disorders described in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as lists de-
signed by committees; as such, they are inevitably somewhat arbitrary and generally not foundedin science. The construction of the HDS departs from the DSM-IV, Axis 2 taxonomy in two ways.
First, we retained the category of Passive-Aggressive personalitybecause we think it is an
important theme in the behavior of some normal, employed adults. Second, our measure of the
Antisocial personality is designed to assess classic psychopathic tendenciesmanipulation,
deceitfulness, and exploitationrather than a delinquent lifestyle. Table 1.1 presents the 11
HDS scales, their descriptors, and the personality disorders they most closely resemble.
The second consideration concerns how to conceptualize the constructslisted in Table 1.1.Many people define the personality disorders as types; each construct, they believe, refers to a
distinctive cluster of behaviors that characterize certain types of people. A person with a highscore on a narcissism scale, for example, will manifest more tendencies typical of a narcissist
than a person with a low score. In our view, however, the constructs are dimensions. Each per-
sonality disorder refers to a distinct themea dysfunctional dispositionappearing in interper-
sonal relations. People are normally distributed on these dimensions, and any single person
may have high or low scores on any of the dimensions.
The third consideration we used in developing the HDS has to do with how to measure the
various personality disorders. The standard approach to constructing these scales is to write
items for each personality disorder using the diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV. For ex-
ample, the criteria for the Avoidant personality include sensitivity to criticism, anxiety proneness,
fearfulness, and low self-confidence. To develop an Avoidant scale, therefore, a test author would
write items reflecting each of these themes. The problem is that the DSM-IV assigns many of the
same attributes to more than one personality disorder. For example, being sensitive to criticism
is a criterion for diagnosing four of the standard 10 disorders, and items concerning being sen-
sitive to criticism would appear on four of an inventorys scales
4 Conceptual Background
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
10/73
Conceptual Background 5
Figure 1.1
Overlapping Themes from HDS and DSM-IV, Axis 2 Personality Disorders
HDS Themes DSM-IV Personality Disorders Themes
Excitable Moody and hard to please; Borderline Inappropriate anger; unstableintense but short lived and intense relationships
enthusiasm for people, alternating between idealization
projects, or things. and devaluation.
Skeptical Cynical, distrustful, and Paranoid Distrustful and suspicious ofdoubting others true others; motives are interpreted
intentions. as malevolent.
Cautious Reluctant to take risks for Avoidant Social inhibition, feelings offear of being rejected or inadequacy, and hyper-
negatively evaluated. sensitivity to criticism or
rejection.
Reserved Aloof, detached, and Schizoid Emotional coldness anduncommunicative; lacking detachment from social
interest in or awareness of relationships; indifferent to
the feelings of others. praise and criticism.
Leisurely Independent; ignoring Passive- Passive resistance to adequatepeoples requests and Aggressive* social and occupationalbecoming irritated or performance; irritated when
argumentative if they persist. asked to do something he/she
does not want to do.
Bold Unusually self-confident; Narcissistic Arrogant and haughtyfeelings of grandiosity and behaviors or attitudes;
entitlement; over-evaluation of grandiose sense of self-
ones capabilities. importance and entitlement.
Mischievous Enjoying risk taking and testing Antisocial Disregard for the trugh;the limits; needing excitement; impulsivity and failure to plan
manipulative, deceitful, cunning, ahead; failure to conform with
and exploitative. social norms.
Colorful Expressive, animated, and Histrionic Excessive emotionality anddramatic; wanting to be noticed attention seeking; self-
and needing to be the center of dramatizing, theatrical, and
attention. exaggerated emotional
expression.
Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative Schizotypal Odd beliefs or magical thinking;and sometimes odd or unusual behavior or speech that is odd,
ways. eccentric, or peculiar.
Diligent Meticulous, precise, and Obsessive- Preoccupations withperfectionistic; inflexible about Compulsive orderliness, rules, perfection-rules and procedures; critical of ism, and control; overconscien-
others performance. tious and inflexible.
Dutiful Eager to please and reliant on Dependent Difficulty making everydayothers for support and decisions without excessive
guidance; reluctant to take advice and reassurance;
independent action or go difficulty expressing disagree-
against popular opinion. ment out of fear of loss of
support or approval.
Note: *From DSM-III-R
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
11/73
constructed in this manner. This builds in item overlap and necessarily reduces the power of
such inventories to discriminate among people. To avoid this problem when developing the HDS,
we wrote items directed at the heart of each construct, then carefully reviewed the item content
across scales to eliminate item overlap and enhance the discriminatory power of the entire in-
ventory. Thus, for example, items on the Skeptical (Paranoia) scale concern suspiciousness,
mistrust, and a heightened readiness to confront persons suspected of giving offense, whereas
items on the Reserved (Schizoid) scale concern being aloof, insensitive, and indifferent to the
problems of others. The content of each scale is independent of the content of the other scales.
The final consideration shaping the development of the HDS concerns the actual content of the
items. Because the HDS is intended to be used in everyday contexts for career development,
job placement, promotion, and other people decisionsas opposed to being used to make
mental health status or medical evaluationsthe items reflect themes from the world of work
e.g., how one is perceived at work, how one relates to supervisors, co-workers, and friends,
attitudes toward competition and success, etc. In addition, to further enhance the acceptability of
the HDS in everyday applications, the scales have been renamed so as to not stigmatize unnec-essarily persons receiving high scores on the various dimensions. Finally, we are aware of the
implications of recent rulings, especially the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA; 1990),
as they affect test item content (R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). To the degree that it was
possible, we eliminated items with obvious medical or psychiatric content.
6 Conceptual Background
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
12/73
Inventory Construction 7
C H A P T E R
2
Inventory construction
Development
As noted in Chapter 1, the scales of the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) have their roots in
the taxonomies of the personality disorders. The original model for the HDS is the PROFILE,
developed by Warren Jones (1988) shortly after the appearance of the DSM III, Axis 2 personal-ity disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). Jones intended to use the PROFILE as
a psychometrically defensible alternative to the inventories of personality disorders available to
clinical psychologists at the time. We used the PROFILE for about five years with our clients in
business and industry and conducted several validity studies. We began to see associations
between PROFILE scores and problem managers, and other indications that personality dys-
function is related to failures in the achievement of career potential.
We concluded that there is a role for the assessment of dysfunctional dispositions in the work-
place. However, we were concerned about the overt clinical content of the PROFILE and its
emphasis on anxiety and depression. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of1990 (ADA; 1990), it became clear that scales of the PROFILE would be seen as evaluations of
mental disabilities, which are prohibited for pre-offer employment inquiries. We saw a need for a
non-clinical inventory that would assess interpersonal behaviors that adversely affect the perfor-
mance or reputation of people at work. We envisioned a tool to be used primarily for profes-
sional development and coaching rather than personnel selection.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, at least three sources influenced our thinking about the scales of the
HDS. The first was the DSM-IV, Axis 2 personality disorders. The second was the literature on
managerial derailmenta literature that became accessible through the technical reports and
popular publications from the Center for Creative Leadership. The third source was data from
appraisals of others at work, and, in particular, evaluations of first line supervisors by their subor-
dinates (Millikin-Davies, 1992). In our view, first line supervisors probably affect the productivity
and satisfaction of more workers than any other element of organizational structure. Therefore,
we targeted for assessment the problems that these supervisors display most frequently.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
13/73
8 Inventory Construction
Our strategy for writing the items focused on the distinctive characteristics of each dysfunctional
disposition. We wrote items with work-related and interpersonal content, and we avoided items
referring to clinical themes, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences. Like the HPI, the items are
designed to reflect what a person with that particular disposition might say or do. Finally, we tried
to develop scales with non-overlapping and homogeneous themes and to avoid repeating de-
scriptors across scales. This was challenging because symptoms such as anxiety are common
to many of the standard personality disorders. We also tried to minimize intercorrelations be-
tween the scales.
We began working on the HDS on Labor Day weekend, 1992. We wrote items for one scale at
a time. We wrote an initial set of items, tested samples of people, computed internal consistency
reliabilities and correlations with other well-established measures, reviewed the data, and re-
vised the items so as to: (a) enhance internal consistency reliability and; (b) sharpen convergent
and discriminant validity. We also solicited and received valuable input from many colleagues in
the United States and Europe concerning the content of the scales. The HDS is the product of six
cycles of item writing, revision, testing, and further revision. The final set of items was definedduring the summer of 1995.
Between 1995 to 1996, we tested over 2,000 people, including employed adults, job applicants,
prisoners, and graduate students. The ages in these samples ranged from 21 years to 64 years,
with a mean of 38.5 years. There were 1,532 men and 322 women, 620 whites and 150 blacks.
We estimate that about 15% of the sample were college educated.
Definitions of the Scales
The 11 HDS scales are defined as follows:
Excitableconcerns seeming moody and inconsistent, being enthusiastic about new persons or
projects and then becoming disappointed with them.
Skepticalconcerns seeming cynical, distrustful, overly sensitive to criticism, and questioning
others true intentions.
Cautiousconcerns seeming resistant to change and reluctant to take even reasonable chances
for fear of being evaluated negatively.
Reservedconcerns seeming socially withdrawn and lacking interest in or awareness of the
feelings of others.
Leisurelyconcerns seeming autonomous, indifferent to other peoples requests, and becoming
irritable when they persist.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
14/73
Inventory Construction 9
Bold concerns seeming unusually self-confident and, as a result, unwilling to admit mistakes or
listen to advice, and unable to learn from experience.
Mischievousconcerns seeming to enjoy taking risks and testing the limits.
Colorfulconcerns seeming expressive, dramatic, and wanting to be noticed.
Imaginative concerns seeming to act and think in creative and sometimes unusual ways.
Diligentconcerns seeming careful, precise, and critical of the performance of others.
Dutifulconcerns seeming eager to please, reliant on others for support, and reluctant to take
independent action.
Composition of the HDS
The HDS contains 168 items in the form of statements to which a respondent indicates agree
or disagree. Each scale contains 14 items that were derived rationally using the distinguishing
features of each syndrome. There is no item overlap among the 11 scales. The items were
screened for content that might seem offensive or to invade privacy. There are no items concern-
ing sexual preferences, religious beliefs, criminal or illegal behavior, racial/ethnic attitudes, or
attitudes about disabled individuals. Fourteen additional items appear on an experimental so-
cial desireability scale.
Readability statistics computed on the 168 items indicated an average sentence length of 6.8
words and an average word length of 4.0 characters. A Flesch-Kincaid reading level analysisshows that the inventory is written at a fifth grade level.
Table 2.1 presents descriptive statistics and reliabilities for each of the HDS scales. Because
the response coding uses a 2-point scale (0 = disagree, 1 = agree), and each scale contains 14
items, scale scores range from 0 to 14. Items are scored in the direction of the syndrome, so that
higher scores represent more dysfunctional tendencies. With the exception of the test-retest
reliabilities, the data in Table 2.1 are based on an archival sample of 2,071 adults, most of whom
are job applicants or incumbents. Table 2.1 indicates that the highest mean scale scores appear
for the Diligent, Dutiful, and Bold scales, respectively. The lowest mean scale scores appear for
Excitable, Cautious, and Reserved scales. The Colorful scale is the most variable (SD = 2.94),
whereas the Dutiful scale is the least variable (SD = 2.13). Internal consistency or alpha reliabilities
(Cronbach, 1951) vary between .50 (Dutiful) and .78 (Excitable) with an average alpha of .67.
Test-retest reliabilities were computed for a sample of graduate students (N = 60) over a three
month interval and the highest scale reliability was for Excitable (.87) and the lowest was for
Leisurely (.58), with an average value of .75. The standard error of measurement was consistent
across all scales and averaged .06.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
15/73
10 Inventory Construction
Table 2.1
Descriptive Statistics and Reliabili ties for the HDS
Number Inter-
Scale Name of Items Mean SD Alpha Item r rtt
SE
Excitable 14 3.2 2.85 .78 .20 .87 .06
Skeptical 14 4.5 2.78 .76 .18 .65 .06
Cautious 14 3.3 2.60 .73 .16 .77 .06
Reserved 14 4.2 2.33 .66 .12 .59 .05
Leisurely 14 4.7 2.29 .58 .09 .58 .05
Bold 14 7.7 2.73 .69 .14 .78 .06
Mischievous 14 6.1 2.60 .59 .09 .72 .06
Colorful 14 7.4 2.94 .72 .16 .85 .07
Imaginative 14 5.6 2.54 .64 .11 .73 .06Diligent 14 9.8 2.23 .65 .12 .77 .05
Dutiful 14 7.9 2.13 .50 .06 .73 .05
Table 2.2 contains scale means and standard deviations by gender, race, and age. As seen,
men and women obtain comparable scores across all scales; the largest mean difference is .5
points on the Reserved scale. The largest race difference occurs on the Cautious scale with
Whites scoring slightly higher (.4 points) than Blacks. Comparing younger and older people,
those under 40 years have a slightly higher mean score on the Skeptical scale (.7 points). Gen-
erally, the average scores for men and women are similar, average scores for Whites and Blacksare similar, and average scores for younger and older persons are similar.
Table 2.3 presents the intercorrelations between the HDS scales based on a sample of 2,071
respondents. As seen, the highest correlations in the matrix are between the Excitable scale and
the Cautious (r = .59) and the Skeptical (r = .54) scales. The most independent scale is Diligent,
with correlations of .22 or less with the other scales. All scales have about three meaningful
correlations with other scales. The only inverse pattern of relations in the matrix is for the correla-
tions with the Colorful scale.
Table 2.4 presents a principal components analysis of the correlation matrix presented in Table
2.3. As seen, three components account for 62% of the variance in the matrix. The first compo-
nent is defined by the Excitable, Skeptical, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely scales and this
component resembles the theme of moving away from people in Horneys (1950) model of
flawed interpersonal tendencies. The second component is defined by the Bold, Mischievous,
Colorful, and Imaginative scales and corresponds to Horneys theme of moving against people.
The third component is defined by the Diligent and Dutiful scales and
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
16/73
Inventory Construction 11
corresponds to Horneys theme of moving toward people. Because the measurement goal of
the HDS is to cover the major themes of flawed interpersonal behavior and because many of
these themes co-exist in the same person, we judged it would be difficult to develop eleven
scales that are statistically independent. The results in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show that the relations
between the HDS scales are sensible and interpretable.
Table 2.2
Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations for
HDS Scales by Demographic Group
Male Female Black White Under 40 40 & Above
(n = 1,532) (n = 322) (n = 150) (n = 620) (n = 907) (n = 801)
Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Excitable 3.2 2.86 3.0 2.63 3.0 2.59 2.9 2.72 3.3 3.02 3.3 2.77
Skeptical 4.5 2.83 4.3 2.39 4.5 2.64 4.2 2.48 4.9 3.02 4.2 2.53
Cautious 3.3 2.60 3.2 2.62 2.8 2.41 3.2 2.47 3.3 2.73 3.5 2.55
Reserved 4.3 2.40 3.8 2.01 4.2 2.16 4.0 2.25 4.4 2.43 4.1 2.25
Leisurely 4.7 2.31 4.6 2.28 4.6 2.31 4.7 2.26 4.8 2.46 4.7 2.16
Bold 7.7 2.77 7.8 2.56 8.0 2.76 7.7 2.84 7.7 2.77 7.7 2.74
Mischievous 6.0 2.66 6.1 2.41 6.0 2.54 6.1 2.68 6.2 2.68 5.8 2.53
Colorful 7.3 3.01 7.6 2.75 7.2 2.87 7.4 3.08 7.5 2.96 7.1 3.01
Imaginative 5.5 2.56 5.8 2.51 5.8 2.55 5.5 2.51 5.8 2.63 5.3 2.48
Diligent 9.9 2.24 9.7 2.15 10.0 2.07 9.8 2.14 9.8 2.30 9.8 2.19
Dutiful 7.9 2.12 7.8 2.14 8.0 2.05 7.8 2.16 8.0 2.14 7.9 2.13
Table 2.3
HDS Scale Intercorrelations
EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Excitable
Skeptical .54 Cautious .59 .36
Reserved .47 .44 .43
Leisurely .39 .47 .40 .32
Bold -.13 .18 -.25 -.12 .13
Mischievous .06 .30 -.16 .01 .16 .45
Colorful -.21 -.07 -.41 -.32 -.09 .50 .45
Imaginative .16 .30 -.04 .02 .19 .35 .48 .38
Diligent -.10 .03 -.04 -.06 .05 .22 -.06 -.03 .00
Dutiful .01 -.13 .21 -.09 .04 -.13 -.22 -.15 -.10 .19
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
17/73
12 Inventory Construction
Table 2.4
Principal Components Analysis of HDS Scales
Component
Scale I II III
Excitable .81
Skeptical .75 .34
Cautious .74 -.34
Reserved .70
Leisurely .67
Bold .78
Mischievous .77
Colorful -.35 .72Imaginative .69
Diligent .80
Dutiful .68
Note: Percent of Variance = 61.6
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
18/73
Validity 13
C H A P T E R
3
Validity
Construct Validity
Chapter 2 concerns the development of the HDS scales and their technical or psychometric
propertiesi.e., their internal consistency and temporal stability. The evidence presented inChapter 2 suggests that these fundamental technical properties are acceptable, which leads to
the next questionwhat do scores on the HDS scales mean?
This is the issue of validity, a topic that is much discussed but often misunderstood. Our view (cf.
R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997) is that the meaning of a personality scale must be discoveredit
cannot be stipulated in advanceand it must be discovered in the pattern of external non-test
correlates of the scale in question (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988).
We have a theory about the content of each scale. Each scale is designed to assess a particular
syndrome, a unique theme that occurs in interpersonal behavior, a theme that usually has nega-tive implications defined in terms of a persons ability to build relationships and establish a ca-
reer. Thus, the validity of the HDS scales depends not only on having robust external correlates,
but also on having external correlates that make sense given our theory of each scales content
(see also R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996).
Correlations with Other Measures
In the sections that follow, we define the syndrome each scale is intended to capture, then we
review the evidence regarding the pattern of external correlates for each scale. We provide evi-
dence from six sources for each scale. First, we review correlations with the Hogan Personality
Inventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan, 1995). The HPI is a 206-item measure of normal personality,
based on the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins, 1996) and normed on 30,000 working adults. Sec-
ond, we present correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI, the best-known and most
highly respected measure of psychopathology in the world. Third, we review correlations be-
tween the HDS and a special set of MMPI scales developed by Morey, Waugh,
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
19/73
14 Validity
and Blashfield (1985) to assess the standard DSM-III personality disorders. Fourth, we com-
pare the HDS scales with the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI; J. Hogan & Hogan,
1996), a 200-item measure of 10 motivational themes that are prominent in the history of psy-
chology. Fifth, we present correlations between the HDS scales and measures of cognitive
ability that are often used to evaluate candidates for management positions. Sixth, we present
correlations between scores on each scale and descriptions of a persons performance as a
manager from the perspectives of subordinates, peers, and supervisors. And finally, we
intercorrelated the scale scores of the HPI, the MVPI, and the HDS, factor analyzed the
intercorrelations, and followed this with a varimax rotation. The result was a six-factor solution.
An examination of the loadings of each HDS scale gives additional insight into the meaning of
the scale scores.
Excitable.The Excitable scale is designed to model the Borderline personality as it is seen in
working adults. Excitable people tend to become enthusiastic about new relationships or projects,
perhaps even to idealize them, then to discover flaws or shortcomings in the idealized object and
to become disillusioned, discouraged, and upset. The person will then tend to reject that whichshe/he formerly idealized and to sever the relationship; such persons have many terminal quar-
rels with former friends and a history of repeated job turnover.
The behavior resembles Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Walls (1978) description of a child who
is ambivalently attached to its primary caretakersan eager approach to the caretaker followed
by an angry rejection and turning away. It also resembles what the early theorists (Lewin, 1935)
described as an approach-avoidance conflictan oscillation between approaching and fleeing
a goal object. We can speculate that, as children, these people experienced an unusual amount
of rejection from family members or peers. This rejection left them with an unfilled need for be-
longing and acceptance and a tendency to reach out for it; at the same time, they expect to berejected and are unusually alert to signs of rejection. They have sufficient social skills to begin
relationships, but their expectation of rejection robs them of the flexibility needed to sustain the
relationships.
These people have never been able to evaluate their belief that rejection is inevitable; like moths
they continue to return to the flamethey initiate interactions that they expect will fail, and the
expectation turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a result, high scores on the Excitable scale
implicate more overt unhappiness than high scores on the other scalesbecause they continu-
ally repeat a self-defeating cycle of rejection and disappointment.
Table 3.1 indicates that, of all the HDS scales, the Excitable scale has the largest negative cor-
relation (-.76) with the Adjustment scale of the HPI. The HPI Adjustment scale is a good proxy for
the first factor of the MMPI (cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 1996). Table 3.2 indicates that the Excitable
scale is more highly correlated with the MMPI standard scales than any other HDS scale. The
correlation of -.67 with the MMPI K scale suggests that persons with highscores on the Excitable
scale are often anxious and unhappy and they make little effort to disguise it.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
20/73
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
21/73
16 Validity
A prototype of the Skeptical person might have been James Jesus Angleton, the brilliant and
refined head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counter-espionage unit during the 1970s.
Angleton became persuaded that a Russian double agent had infiltrated the CIA; in his relent-
less efforts to find the potential spy, he badly demoralized the agency. Angleton was finally fired
in apparent disgrace for these disruptions; nonetheless, the subsequent Aldrich Ames case
suggests that he may have been right about the existence of a double agent working for the CIA.
Skeptical people believe they were deceived at some point in their development. In order to
protect themselves from future betrayal, they have become especially alert and watchful. Their
alertness pays off because there are in fact people in the world who want to take advantage of
them. The problem is that they also alienate potential friends and allies whom they incorrectly
suspect of being their enemies.
Paranoid tendencies are notoriously difficult to capture in assessment procedures because these
people tend to be suspicious, smart, and alert. Although the items on the Skeptical scale largely
reflect suspiciousness and mistrust, the scale loads on the same factor as the Excitable scale.Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show that the correlations between the Skeptical scale and the HPI and the
MMPI largely track the correlations for the Excitable scale, although they are somewhat lower.
Table 3.3 shows that the Skeptical scale has its largest correlation with the MMPI content scale
for Paranoid personality disorder. Table 3.4 shows that the Skeptical scale is correlated with
MVPI scales for Hedonism (.35), Power (.26), and Recognition (.33); such people are energetic,
achievement-oriented, and impulsive. In a joint factor analysis (see Table 3.8) using the HPI,
MVPI, and the HDS, the Skeptical scale loaded primarily on the first component which is defined
by the Power, Recognition, and Commercial scales of the MVPI, and the Bold, Mischievous, and
Colorful scales of the HDS. This component reflects energy, drive, social skills, and shrewdness;
thus, there are some positive features to high scores on the Skeptical scale.
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Skeptical scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or
the Industrial Reading Test. Managers with high scores on the Skeptical scale are described as
(see Table 3.7) easily disappointed (.28), needs attention (.28), feels mistreated (.26), easily hurt
by criticism (.25), easily upset (.23) and questions peoples loyalty (.19).
Cautious.The Cautious scale is designed to model the Avoidant personality as seen in work-
ing adults. Cautious people doubt their own abilities; at the same time, they are greatly con-
cerned about making mistakes and being criticized for doing so. This creates a kind of rigidityborn of insecurity in which a Cautious person is reluctant to do anything other than what has
worked in the pastworked in the sense of allowing the person to avoid criticism. At work, such
people will adhere to rules even when doing so is counterproductive. They will also resist innova-
tion out of a concern for making errors. And their life style will be organized around efforts to
avoid surprises and keep their affairs manageable and predictable.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
22/73
Validity 17
Table 3.2
Correlations Between the MMPI Standard Scales and the HDS
SCALES HS D HY PD MF MA K PA PT SC SI
Excitable .35** .36** -.03 .60** .06 .32** -.67** .37** .66** .52** .45**Skeptical .23* .18 -.14 .44** -.03 .36** -.45** .26** .43** .43** .30**
Cautious .30** .43** .05 .32** .15 -.01 -.36** .27** .49** .32** .61**
Reserved .08 .21* -.18* .25** .05 .20* -.25** .24** .32** .31** .40**
Leisurely .31** .28** -.06 .28** .11 .36** -.54** .42** .50** .51** .42**
Bold .14 -.20* -.06 -.01 .03 .44** -.26** .21* .13 .28** -.10
Mischievous .13 -.15 -.06 .33** .00 .57** -.43** .31** .29** .37** .01
Colorful .13 -.18 .04 .05 .07 .46** -.15 .15 .07 .16 -.34**
Imaginative .16 -.09 .04 .26** .30** .52** -.38** .38** .27** .42** .01
Diligent .06 -.15 -.17 -.09 -.03 .17 -.13 -.11 -.03 .04 -.07
Dutiful .01 .01 -.07 -.17 .12 -.09 -.04 -.13 -.04 -.10 -.11
Note: HS = Hypochondriasis; D = Depression; HY = Hysteria; PD = Psychopathic Deviate; MF = Masculinity-Femininity;
MA = Hypomania; K = Subtle Defensiveness; PA = Paranoia; PT = Psychasthenia; SC = Schizophrenia; SI = Social Introversion; *: p
< .05, **: p < .01; one-tailed test.
N=140
Table 3.3
Correlations Between the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales and the HDS
SCALES MBDL MPAR MAVD MSZD MPAG MNAR MANT MHST MSTY MCPS MDEP
Excitable .67** .56** .43** .23* .55** .01 .56** -.20* .49** .57** .29**
Skeptical .49** .62** .21* .27** .38** .24** .48** -.07 .54** .37** .11
Cautious .28** .28** .60** .29** .27** -.36** .21* -.38** .33** .32** .27**
Reserved .29** .39** .24** .47** .25** -.01 .31** -.32** .30** .16 .09
Leisurely .43** .58** .38** .38** .46** .07 .36** -.33** .61** .48** .21*
Bold .28* .35** .02 -.06 .24* .55** .10 .21* .35** .17 -.05
Mischievous .44** .47** .05 .03 .49** .38** .45** .14* .39** .31** .03
Colorful .16 .17 -.19* -.32** .22* .53** .14 .51** .12 .17 -.06
Imaginative .32** .43** .07 .10 .41** .37** .27** .18 .49** .30** .01
Diligent .14 .03 .05 .01 .03 .17 -.03 .13 .11 .14 -.11
Dutiful -.03 -.24** .03 -.30** -.06 -.11 -.27** .21* -.07 .00 .07
Note : MBDL = Borderline; MPAR = Paranoid; MAVD = Avoidant; MSZD = Schizoid; MPAG = Passive Aggressive; MNAR = Narcissis-
tic; MANT = Antisocial; MHST = Histrionic; MSTY = Schizotypal; MCPS = Compulsive; MDEP = Dependent; * p: < .05; **: p < .01;
one-tailed test.
N=140
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
23/73
18 Validity
We can speculate that persons with high scores on the Cautious scale were raised by parents
who were overprotective, controlling, and highly critical, and who never let their child explore, test
his/her abilities, or manage his/her life. The syndrome associated with the Cautious scale re-
sembles a failure at Eriksons second stage of psychosocial development or Freuds anal stage
of development. The child, as a result, is guilt prone, rigid, conforming, and reluctant to learn new
skills or to experiment. As a manager, these people will tend to micromanage their staff, resist
innovation, and be reactive rather than proactive, in a defensive effort to avoid criticism. At the
extreme, such people may continue to do their work in their customary way even when new
procedures are clearly preferable and superior.
Table 3.1 shows that the Cautious scale correlates -.70 with the HPI Ambition scale and -.60 with
the HPI Adjustment scale, suggesting that high scorers are self-critical and unassertive. Table
3.2 shows that the Cautious scale is most highly correlated (.61) with the MMPI Social Introver-
sion scale, which further supports the unassertive theme found with the HPI. Table 3.3 shows that
the Cautious scale is the HDS scale most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Avoidant
personality disorder (.60). In a joint analysis including the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8),the Cautious scale forms a component with the Leisurely scale of the HDS and the Hedonistic
scale of the MVPI, a syndrome that can be described as defensive self-indulgence.
Table 3.4
Correlations Between the Motives, Values, Preferences
Inventory and the HDS
SCALES AES AFF ALT COM HED POW REC SCI SEC TRA
Excitable .01 -.38** -.09** -.15** .15** -.07* .10** -.08* .14** .00
Skeptical .07* -.11** -.04 .10** .35** .26** .33** .09** .10** -.04
Cautious -.04 -.41** -.01 -.21** .12** -.18** -.02 -.13** .23** .06
Reserved .02 -.63** -.27** -.10** .03 -.09** -.04 .05 .09** -.06*
Leisurely .02 -.15** .00 .04 .24** .14** .19** .00 .16** .04
Bold .16** .26** .10** .42** .15** .57** .51** .25** .00 .05
Mischievous .20** .28** .04 .22** .32** .47** .43** .19** -.34** -.16**
Colorful .26** .40** .04 .26** .22** .42** .52** .17** -.31** -.09**
Imaginative .33** .14** .08* .13** .23** .31** .37** .24** -.29** -.07*
Diligent -.03 -.02 .21** .18** -.04 .15** -.01 .20** .39** .28**
Dutiful -.02 -.01 .27** .00 .02 -.17** -.10** -.07* .25** .14**
Note: AES = Aesthetic; AFF = Affiliation; ALT = Altruistic; COM = Commercial; HED = Hedonistic; POW = Power; REC = Recognition; SCI
= Science; SEC = Security; TRA = Tradition; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.
N=735
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Cautious scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or
the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that managers with high scores on the Cautious
scale are described as self-doubting (.28), consistent (.20), feeling inadequate (.18), not rational
(.25), and not expressing emotions appropriately (.20).
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
24/73
Validity 19
Reserved. The Reserved scale is designed to model the Schizoid personality as seen in work-
ing adults. Reserved people are introverted, shy, misanthropic, and imperceptive or uninsightful
about social, interpersonal, or political cues. Their imperceptiveness may be a function of delib-
erately tuning other people out; whatever the reason, they seem unconcerned about the welfare
of others, indifferent to their moods and feelings, and unaware of or indifferent to how others
react to them.
Related to their social gaucheness is a preference for working alone and a tendency to be more
interested in data and things than people. Such people can have successful careers in technical
fields, but their indifference, stiffness, and insensitivity make them poor managers. The Chief
Financial Officer of a hospital with which we have worked is a good example of this type. Each
morning when he comes to work, he gets off the elevator, marches to his office without greeting
anyone, goes into the office, shuts the door, hangs up his coat, and sits down at his desk. Only
then will he respond to other people, and then only after they knock on his closed door. He is self-
confident, bright, and very good with numbers, but his staff dislikes him because he communi-
cates with them so infrequently and incompetently.
We suspect there is a genetic component to high scores on this scalebecause shyness is
known to be hereditary (cf. Jones, Cheek, & Briggs, 1991). A disposition toward shyness com-
bined with parents who were withdrawn and uncommunicative would likely create a child who
was withdrawn and awkward around peers. Feedback from peers might further exacerbate a
childs tendency toward social withdrawal. There are, nonetheless, some real benefits to this
pattern of interpersonal behavior. On the one hand, being genuinely indifferent to the problems of
others can reduce the amount of stress in ones life. On the other hand, just as people seem
compelled to try periodically to cheer up a depressed person, so people feel compelled to try to
coax the Reserved person out of his or her shell; this coaxing must to some degree reinforce thereserved behavior.
The correlations in Table 3.1 suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale are
imperceptive and socially maladroit (Likeability, Ambition), impulsive and noncompliant (Pru-
dence), and somewhat self-doubting or unhappy (Adjustment). Correlations with the standard
scales of the MMPI (Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Reserved scale are
aloof and stand-offish (Si). Table 3.3 shows that the Reserved scale is most strongly correlated
with the MMPI scale for Schizoid personality. The results of a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and
HDS suggests that the Reserved scale is a measure of introversion and misanthropy (see Table
3.8). Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Reserved scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-
Glaser or the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that supervisors, peers, and subordinates
describe managers with high scores on the Reserved scale as self-centered (.19), socially inept
(.17), disliking to meet new people (.21), and unkind (.18), but as following company policy (-.15).
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
25/73
20 Validity
Leisurely.The Leisurely scale is designed to assess passive-aggressive tendencies as seen
in working adults. Such people are preoccupied with their own goals and dreams and they resent
being disturbed or interrupted. Although requests for greater focus, productivity, or effort will irri-
tate them, they wont express their irritation directly; rather, they will express it in relatively subtle
ways. For example, they are often late for meetings, they procrastinate, and they put off working
on tasks that dont interest them. They blame their non-performance on computer failures, lack of
adequate resources, lack of cooperation from someone else, or other factors beyond their con-trol. As managers they tend to set up their staff for failure by not telling them what they want, and
then criticizing them for not delivering what they allege they actually wanted.
We can only speculate about the origins of passive aggression. The pattern may appear in chil-
dren who were talented or attractive, and who were indulged but somewhat neglected. This
combination left them feeling both special and resentful. Overtly and superficially compliant, they
became privately rebellious and vindictive.
Correlations with the HPI in Table 3.1 are not very helpful in interpreting the meaning of high
scores on the Leisurely scalethe theme on the HPI is one of mild alienation indicated by low
negative correlations with Ambition, Likeability, and Prudence. The correlations in Table 3.2 with
the MMPI standard scales are more helpful and suggest a syndrome of unhappiness (K, Pt),
suspiciousness and distrust (Pa), and odd thinking (Sc). These themes are further amplified in
Table 3.3, where moderately large correlations with Compulsive, Paranoid, Schizotypal, and
Passive-Aggressive personality disorder scales suggest a cautious and controlled interpersonal
style combined with a somewhat strange, skewed, and suspicious view of the world. As noted
above, in a joint analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (see Table 3.8), the Leisurely scale defines
a component we labeled defensive self-indulgencespoiled and self-indulgent but concerned
with staying out of trouble.
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Leisurely scale is uncorrelated with either the Watson-Glaser or
the Industrial Reading Test. Table 3.7 shows that people describe managers with high scores on
the Leisurely scale as delegating appropriately (.19) and not testing the limits (.17), but also as
resentful (.15), feeling mistreated (.16), and questioning others loyalty (.15).
Table 3.5
Correlations Between the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal and the HDS
SCALES EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Watson-Glaser .01 .06 -.02 .12 -.15 .09 .25** .32** .03 -.20* .07
Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; **: p < .01; one-tailed test.N=125
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
26/73
Validity 21
Table 3.6
Correlations Between the Industrial Reading Test and the HDS
SCALES EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Industrial Reading
Test .06 .11 .04 .13 -.03 .08 .18* .22* .06 -.09* .14
Note: EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL= Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL=Colorful; IMA= Imaginative; DIL= Diligent; DUT= Dutiful; *: p < .05; ** p: < .01; one-tailed test.N=90
Bold. The Bold scale is designed to model Narcissistic tendencies as seen in working adults.
Narcissism is primarily defined by feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; by virtue of a persons
unique talents and attributes, she/he naturally deserves favors, praise, and recognition. Narcis-
sists avoid recognizing their failures and shortcomings by means of narcissistic withdrawal
they wont associate with or listen to people who might criticize themthey take more credit for
success than is fair, they blame their failures on others, and consequently they dont learn fromexperience. They are often talented and capable, and their self-confidence encourages them to
take initiative, offer opinions, and claim major competenciese.g., I can get this country moving
again. As a result, they often rise rapidly in organizations, but others will find them hard to work
with because they can be overbearing, demanding, arrogant, and unrealistic. Their inability to
build a team and learn from experience usually leads to a fall from power.
An example of a high functioning narcissist could be the brilliant and imperious Douglas MacArthur,
who graduated first in his class from West Point and did well as an officer in World War I. Al-
though he languished in the 1920s and 1930s, McArthur led a brilliant defense and subsequent
campaign against the Japanese in the Philippines in World War II, for which he became justifi-ably famous. He was fired by President Truman 10 years later for impetuous insubordination
during the Korean War. Talented, self-dramatizing, vain, overbearing, and self-aggrandizing,
General MacArthur embodied the strengths and shortcomings of the Narcissist at his best.
We can speculate that, as children, Narcissists were indulged, praised, and pampered (MacArthur
certainly was), but not required to exercise much self-control. Indulgence without controls is actu-
ally a form of rejection which leaves a child with the feeling both of being very special and of being
unworthy. The result is public self-confidence and self-assurance and private self-doubt.
Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Bold scale are
seen as confident, outgoing, and bright. Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI (Table
3.2) suggest that such persons are also active and energetic (Ma), and mildly unconventional in
their thoughts and behavior (K, Sc). Table 3.3 shows that the Bold scale is
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
27/73
22 Validity
most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for Narcissistic personality disorder. In an analysis
combining the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Bold scale is part of the first component
which is defined by energy, potency, ascendancy, and impulsivity; thus, there are some distinctly
positive features to high scores on the Bold scale. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 suggest the Bold scale is
uncorrelated with cognitive ability. In Table 3.7, supervisors, peers, and subordinates describe
managers with high scores on the Bold scale as socially appropriate (.17), content with their
image (.19), and not a follower (.20), but also as self-promoting (.17), unrestrained (.22) andtesting the limits (.17).
Mischievous. The Mischievous scale is designed to assess the Antisocial personality disor-
der as seen in working adults. We agree with Lykken (1995) that the most important form of the
Antisocial personality is what Cleckley (1982) called a psychopatha person who is charming
but deceitful, easily bored, risk-taking, and careless about rules and conventions. The psycho-
path resembles the Narcissist in terms of social skill, impulsiveness, and an inability to learn from
experience, but psychopaths lack the Narcissists energy and career focus.
Psychopaths are naturally bright and socially skilled; they are raised by parents who are warmand permissive, who indulge them, set no limits, and who find their evasions and deceptions
amusingpossibly because the parent(s) also tend to prevaricate and cut corners when it is
advantageouspsychopaths are often exposed to deceitful models in childhood. These chil-
dren learn early on that they can often have their way by being cute and by lying when it is conve-
nient and plausible to do so.
An example of a high functioning psychopath could be Kim Philby, a bright, charming, and unusu-
ally talented man, whose father, St. John Philby was a famous adventurer, scholar, British spy
and possible double agent. After graduating from Cambridge, Philbys exceptional talent and
interpersonal skill allowed him to rise rapidly in British intelligence in the 1930s. The novelistGraham Greene, who worked for Philby during World War II, described him as the most impres-
sive person he ever knew. Nonetheless, Philby routinely seduced his friends wives, and he be-
came a Russian double agent and the greatest traitor in British history. He escaped to Russia
just as he was finally detected, where he lived like royalty but was never trusted by the Russians,
and where he finally died.
Correlations with the HPI (Table 3.1) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous
scale will seem outgoing and entertaining (Sociability), impulsive and easily bored (Prudence),
and bright and imaginative (Intellectance). Correlations with the standard scales of the MMPI
(Table 3.2) suggest that persons with high scores on the Mischievous scale are energetic andimpulsive (Ma), somewhat socially inappropriate and nonconforming (K, Pd), and somewhat
odd in their thoughts and behavior (Sc). The Mischievous scale has its highest correlations with
the MMPI scales for Passive Aggressive, Paranoid, Antisocial, Borderline, Schizotypal, and
Narcissistic personality disorders (see Table 3.3). This is a complex syndrome involving en-
ergy, impulsivity, and odd mentation. In a joint analysis using the HDS, HPI, and MVPI (Table
3.8), the Mischievous scale loads on a component reflecting energy,
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
28/73
Validity 23
drive, and personal effectiveness. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that the Mischievous scale correlates
.25 with the Watson-Glaser and .18 with the Industrial Reading Test, further testifying to the talent
of such people. In Table 3.7, managers with high scores on the Mischievous scale are described
as arrogant (.17), deceitful (.17), testing the limits (.14), but socially appropriate (.16).
Colorful.The Colorful scale is designed to model the Histrionic personality disorder as it ap-
pears in working adults. People with high scores on the Colorful scale need frequent and variedsocial contact, preferably while being at the center of attention. They develop considerable skill
at making dramatic entrances and exits and otherwise cleverly calling attention to themselves.
Interpersonally, they are gregarious, flirtatious, and often charming, but their interest in others
tends to be superficial and primarily oriented toward gaining immediate agreement on how at-
tractive they themselves are.
Because they have charm, wit, social presence, and the ability quickly to establish relationships
with others, they tend to do well in sales jobs. But as managers their need for attention, inability to
share credit, flightiness, lack of intellectual discipline, and short attention span tend to annoy and
disorient their subordinates.
A high functioning example of this interpersonal style could be President William Clinton. Clinton
reports that his mother taught him that, after entering a room full of strangers, he should leave with
everyone in the room liking him, a rule he still follows assiduously. He is an astonishingly good
campaigner because he seems unable to get enough human contact and this makes him inex-
haustible. His chaotic managerial style is legendarybut it hardly separates him from many
politiciansas is his phenomenal ability to connect with strangers and to convey the sense that
he feels their pain. His conversations turn into speeches, and his inability to stay focused on a
single topic and analyze it in depth is also well known. Finally, once again, he exemplifies the
charm and attractiveness of this style, as well as its shortcomings in a managerial role.
Table 3.1 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the Sociability, Ambition,
Intellectance, and School Success scales of the HPI, suggesting that high scorers seem ener-
getic, outgoing, charismatic, bright, and imaginative. In Table 3.2, the Colorful scale is most
highly correlated with the MMPI Ma and Si standard scales. Such persons are extraverted, exu-
berant, and active. Table 3.3 shows that the Colorful scale is most highly correlated with the
MMPI scales for Narcissistic and Histrionic personality disorders. On the MVPI in Table 3.4, the
Colorful scale is substantially correlated with Recognition, Power, and Affiliation, suggesting a
somewhat compulsive need for attention and positive feedback. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that
the Colorful scale correlates .32 with the Watson-Glaser and .22 with the Industrial Reading Test,further substantiating the view that high scorers seem bright and articulate. Finally in Table 3.7,
managers with high scores on the Colorful scale are described as limit testing (.27), unrestrained
(.24), noisy (.24), smooth talking (.21), and quick to become angry (.20).
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
29/73
24
Validity
Table 3.7
Correlations between Observers Description Ratings and t
HDS Scale HDS Scale
Observerss Description Item r Observerss Description Item
Excitable Mischievous
Yells at people when they make mistakes .30 Is deceitful
Expresses emotionsappropriately -.30 Isarrogant
Is easily upset .29 Is a follower
Follows company policy -.29 Is unassuming
Is self-doubting .28 Acts in a socially appropriate ma
Is fault finding .27 Is independent
Is tense .27 Is flighty
Is calm -.27 Tests the limits
Is moody .26
Is predictable -.24 Colorful
Accepts feedback well -.22 Tests the limitsIs quick to become angry .21 Is self-restrained
Is quiet
Skeptical Questions peoples loyalty
Is not easily disappointed -.28 Is innovative
Needs attention .28 Is a follower
Feels mistreated .26 Is a smooth talker
Is easily hurt by criticism .25 Is quick to become angry
Is tense .24 Is socially insightful
Is easily upset .23 Is the life of the office
Is fault finding .21 Is detail-oriented
Is unassuming -.21 Is reserved
Is uninterested in close relationships -.20
Questions peoples loyalty .19
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
30/73
Validity
25
Cautious Imaginative
Is self-doubting .28 Engages in horseplay
Is rational -.25 Is self-restrained
Is consistent .20 Is socially insightful
Expresses emotions appropriately -.20 Is predictable
Enjoys meeting new people -.19 Is the life of the office
Feels inadequate .18 Is imaginative
Is content with self-image -.17 Has odd attitudes
Is anxious .17 Is eccentric
Is uneasy around new people .17 Is calmIs flighty
Reserved Is innovative
Enjoys meeting new people -.21
Is self-cenered .19 Diligent
Is kind -.18 Is detail-oriented
Needs reassurance -.18 Is polite
Is socially inept .17 Is uninterested in close relations
Is considerate -.15 Is perfectionistic
Does not follow company policy -.15 Is organized
Is accommodating -.15
Dutiful
Leisurely Is predictable
Enjoys meeting new people -.19 Is a followerDelegatestasks appropriately .19 Is unassuming
Tests the limits -.17 Makes own decisions
Feels mistreated .16 Is empathetic
Is practical -.16 Is indecisive
Encourages constructive criticism -.15 Is nonconforming
Questions peoples loyalty .15 Is self-restrained
Is resentful .15 Is rude
Bold Note: r > 13; p < .05; one-tailed test.Is self-restrained -.22 N=193Is a follower -.20
Is easy going -.20
Is content with self-image .19Is self-promoting .17
Acts in a socially appropriate manner .17
Tests the limits .17
Holds grudges -.17
Sociable .15
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
31/73
26 Validity
Imaginative.The Imaginative scale is designed to model the Schizotypal personality disorder
as it is found in working adults. People with high scores on the Imaginative scale tend to talk,
dress, and behave in ways that are different and even unusual, but these actions typically are not
self-conscious, affected, or necessarily designed to attract attention. These people are often
bright and/or well educated, and they are often strikingly original in their ideas and insights. Other
times, however, their ideas may be inappropriate or even disruptive.
Related to their imaginative and unusual insights is a kind of childish self-absorption; when they
are involved in their work, they can beat their worstsingle-minded, insensitive to the needs
and reactions of others, and unconcerned with the social or political fall-out that results from their
intense focus. At their best, however, they can be amazingly insightful about the motives of oth-
ers.
The same generalization is true for highly creative people; their originality and insight is the
source of innovation and even progress in an organization, but they are often hard to live with;
sometimes they are whimsical and charming, sometimes they are selfish and self-absorbed. At
all times, however, their speech, dress, and mannerisms tend to set them apart from their more
conventional and less creative peers.
Table 3.1 shows that the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with the HPI scales for Intel-
lectance and Sociability in the positive direction and Prudence in the negative direction. Such
people will seem creative, impulsive, and non-conforming. The Imaginative scale is most highly
correlated with the Ma and Sc scales of the MMPI in the positive direction and the K scale in the
negative direction, suggesting that high scorers are energetic, odd thinking, and willing to admit
unflattering things about themselves (see Table 3.2). Table 3.3 shows that the Imaginative scale
is most highly correlated with the MMPI scale for the Schizotypal personality disorder. On theMVPI in Table 3.4, the Imaginative scale is most highly correlated with Recognition, Aesthetic,
and Power needs, which adds a task-oriented component to the creative profile. The Imagina-
tive scale is uncorrelated with the cognitive measures in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Table 3.7 shows that
managers with high scores on the Imaginative scale are described as engaging in horseplay
(.22), impulsive (.20), socially insightful (.20), unpredictable (.18), and the life of the office(.18).
Diligent. The Diligent scale is designed to model the Obsessive-Compulsive personality dis-
order as it appears in working adults. People with high scores on the Diligent scale are hard
working, well-organized, careful, conservative, socially appropriate, fussy, and perfectionistic.
Their meticulous attention to detail is useful and even important in many jobs, but it has a downside too. Such people have trouble prioritizing their work because they believe that every task
must be done equally wellwhich becomes increasingly difficult as a person becomes busier.
They have trouble delegatingbecause they want to be sure that things are done rightwhich
deprives their subordinates of opportunities to learn. They tend to micromanage their staff, and
their conservatism may make them resistant to change. They will be good with details, but they
will rarely be a source of true innovation.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
32/73
Validity 27
Such people resemble Freuds anal retentive personality typestingy, neat, and stubborn. Freud
suggested this behavior is caused by being severely toilet trained as a child; Erikson related the
behavior to over-zealous parenting in which care-takers monitor a childs behavior too closely
and the child develops too much self-control. Alternatively, one could see this syndrome as re-
flecting a child who is trying very hard to please his or her overcontrolling parents. Whatever the
developmental dynamics, high scores on the Diligent scale reflect excessive conformity but little
personal unhappiness.
Table 3.1 contains correlations with the HPI. The correlations with Prudence and Likeability sug-
gest persons with high scores on the Diligent scale are conforming, self-controlled, and socially
appropriate. Correlations with the MVPI (see Table 3.4) suggest that high scorers on the Diligent
scale are conservative and perhaps moralistic. Table 3.2 reveals no significant correlations with
the standard scales of the MMPI. Similarly, Table 3.3 contains no significant correlations with the
MMPI personality disorders scales, although the highest (nonsignificant) correlation is with the
Narcissistic scale. In a joint analysis with the HPI, MVPI, and HDS (Table 3.8), the Diligent scale
loaded on a component defined by the MVPI Security and Tradition scales, and by the HPI Pru-dence scale, which is a syndrome of conformity, conservatism, and self-control. Managers with
high scores on the Diligent scale are described as detail-oriented (.22), polite (.20), perfectionistic
(.15), and organized (.15).
Dutiful. The Dutiful scale is designed to map the Dependent personality disorder as it is seen in
working adults. Such people are compliant, conforming, unctuous, and excessively eager to
please. Because they are so agreeable, they rarely make enemies; because they seldom criti-
cize or complain and because they dont threaten anyone, they tend to rise in organizations. As
managers, they will be tactful and considerate but, because they are so eager to please their
bosses, they avoid standing up for their subordinates. These people are characterized by exces-sive timidity and conformity rather than anxiety and self-doubt.
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
33/73
28 Validity
Table 3.8
Principal Components Analysis of the HPI, MVPI, and HDS
Components
Scale I II III IV V VI
Power (MVPI) .82
Bold (HDS) .75
Recognition (MVPI) .70
Commercial (MVPI) .60
Mischievous (HDS) .59
Colorful (HDS) .57
Skeptical (HDS) .52
Reserved (HDS) -.79Affiliat ion (MVPI) .78
Likeability (HPI) .72
Altruist ic (MVPI) .53
Sociability (HPI) .48
Security (MVPI) .71
Prudence (HPI) .63
Tradition (MVPI) .63
Diligent (HDS) .63
Dutiful (HDS) .44
Adjustment (HPI) .91
Ambition (HPI) .80
Excitable (HDS) -.55
Aesthetic (MVPI) .79
Intellectance (HPI) .72
School Success (HPI) .57
Imaginative (HDS) .51
Leisurely (HDS) .70
Hedonistic (HDS) .57
Cautious (HDS) .51
Note: Percent of Variance = 61.9N=1,041
8/13/2019 HDS Manual.pdf
34/73
Interpretations and Uses 29
C H A P T E R
4
Interpretations and Uses
Scale by Scale Interpretation
This chapter provides some suggestions and examples of how to interpret HDS profiles. There
are four points to remember when interpreting profiles. First, virtually everyone can improve some
aspect of his/her social performance, and the HDS indicates where improvement might be help-ful. Second, research shows that persons with lower scores on the HDS tend to have fewer
problems at work. Third, the interpretations of each scale are based on descriptions provided by
coworkers. Fourth, because people often dont realize that aspects of their interpersonal behav-
ior need improvement, the HDS provides an efficient and reliable way to highlight these issues
so that one can learn to manage them.
For interpretation, we suggest the following percentile ranges:
Average scores = 0% to 40%
E