Saint Anselm College Psychology Deptartment Senior Theses 


Social Cognitive Model of Transference: Influence of Significant Other Representations on Interpretation of New Persons

Jennifer Collins
Saint Anselm College
Department of Psychology
E-Mail JLCollin@anselm.edu


Keywords: Transference, Social Perception, Social Cognition
 
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
Reference
Appendix


Acknowledgements

     I would first like to recognize both of my parents and my grandfather for allowing me the opportunity to pursue my educational goals and attend Saint Anselm College.  It is through their constant support, and continuous encouragement that I have been able to achieve both my educational as well as my individual goals.  Special thanks to my sister Lisa for supporting me in every way as both a sister and a friend, as well as thanks to my sister Mary.  Thank you to my roommates, Katie, Kaitlin, and Lindsay for all the joy you have brought to my college experience and for all the support you provide me.  Thank you to Monica, for all your love and laughter.  Special thanks to Mark for all your help, support, and love.  I would also like to show my gratitude to all the professors in the psychology department, as well as Barbara for all of your help, support and direction.  I would especially like to thank Professor McKenna for the extra time and attention she offers her students.   I would also like to show my appreciation for the participants, for their involvement in and commitment to my own research and that of my peers.  

  Top of Page


Abstract

   Transference has historically been looked at as part of the psychoanalytic theory, within which, the patient superimposes childhood fantasies and conflicts about a parent to the analyst during psychoanalysis.  In this process, the patient draws the analyst into his or her own unconscious psychosexual conflicts (Westen, 1998).  More recent research has examined the theory of transference as a construct that is utilized in social perception and interpretation.  Leading this research, Anderson has conducted a number of studies highlighting the relationship of transference and social interaction and formulated a social-cognitive model of transference (1990, 1994, 1998).  Twenty-one undergraduate students were asked to name two significant others, one positive and one negative.  Participants were then asked to list 12 descriptors of those individuals.  One week later, the participants were led to believe they were rating a potential applicant to the college.  Participants were given a description of the applicant that was based on either their positive or negative significant other previously described.   The participants were then asked to rate the applicant on a 10-question Applicant Evaluation Scale.  After the first rating the participants then read a second description of the applicant that violated the first description, and were again asked to rate the applicant.   An independent t-test was used to compare the ratings between the negative significant other condition and positive significant other condition.  No significant differences were found between the ratings.  A repeated measures t-test was used to compare the mean ratings given on each of the 10 questions on the Applicant Evaluation Scale between ratings.  Although significance was found in the negative condition, no practical significance was found.  Transference was not shown to be triggered and/or used to assess the applicant, nor did the participants’ subsequent rating of the applicant change after representation consistent descriptions were violated.


Top of Page
 
Social cognitive model of transference


    Sigmund Freud is a major figure in psychology whose sometimes controversial theories and views of the human mind are still discussed and studied today.  Many psychologists today, however, think that Freud’s theories were not well grounded in science, and are thus quick to dismiss many of his theories.  One part of his theory is the construct of transference.
     As it is interpreted, Freud described transference as occurring when the patient superimposes childhood fantasies and conflicts about a parent to the analyst during psychoanalysis, by weaving the physician into the construct already present in his mind.  In this process, the patient draws the analyst into his or her own unconscious psychosexual conflicts (Westen, 1998).  In simpler terms, feelings toward people who play a part in the person’s conflicts and repressed desires are displaced or transferred onto the therapist.  A growing number of psychologists believe that Freud’s theory of transference may be of substantial value when viewed through more recent interpretations of psychodynamic theory. 
    Today, the proposition that many cognitive processes are carried out unconsciously is widely accepted by experimental psychologists (Westen, 1998).  As argued by Westen and other psychologists, this idea of transference can be taken out of psychoanalysis and made more contemporary.   The most widely accepted definition of transference is “the experiencing of feelings, drives, attitudes, fantasies, and defenses toward a person in the present which are inappropriate to the person and are a repetition, a displacement of reaction originating in regard to significant persons of early childhood” (Anderson & Baum, 1994, p. 461).  A more contemporary application of this theory is the idea that people hold memories of significant individuals from their past and that those memories influence their relations with new individuals.  This notion forms the basis of the clinical concept of transference.  The focus of the present research, as well as much of the most recent research, is how this idea of transference plays a role in everyday life. 
    To understand transference as a cognitive theory one must first understand what in fact social cognition is.  Social perception was founded on the idea that internal factors such as values, needs, and expectancies influence the outcome of perceptions, so that the perception could not be accounted for entirely in terms of stimulus qualities (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). Our judgment of the individual is not entirely based upon the person’s overt actions or behaviors but are an assessment of these things as well as a reflection of internal influences.  It is theorized that these evaluations of others can be swayed by our own internal factors, even when we are not consciously aware that it is happening. 
    Leading this research is Susan Anderson who has conducted many studies examplifying transference.  Anderson and Cole (1990) examined the structure of people’s mental representations of significant others, the cognitive accessibility of these representations, and their capacity to function as social categories in general social perception.  It was hypothesized that significant-other representations (a) are rich in features, (b) have highly distinctive features, (c) are easy to retrieve from memory, (d) function schematically in guiding learning about new persons (Anderson & Cole, 1990).  The familiarity and importance of the significant-other representations were thought to operate as schemata, prototypes or reference points that guide social perception. These representations were thought to act as guides that facilitated and influenced how and what perceptions were made when interacting with others.    Data from the study was examined in a repeated measure ANOVA, which yielded a highly significant main effect for category type, with significant effects in the significant-other category, supporting their hypothesis that significant other descriptions are easily accessible. They also found that significant other representations are more distinctive, and richer than non-significant other, stereotype, and trait representations.  Based on their findings, Anderson and Cole (1990), concluded that there is good reason to expect that significant other representations may also operate as powerful social inference structures, that inferences about new individuals are biased by information about past significant others. 
    The impact of past relationships on interpersonal behavior was displayed in another study.  Berk and Anderson (2002) predicted that behavior confirmation; the idea that an individual’s preexisting beliefs about a second individual can elicit behavior from this second person that is consistent with the initial beliefs, would occur in transference, as a consequence of the activation and use of a significant-other representation to interpret a new person.  It was predicted that when the target person was described as resembling the perceiver’s own significant other; this significant other representation would be activated along with its overall affective tone.  This would lead to behavior confirmation by the target person of the affect associated with the significant other representation.  Targets should express more positive-affective behavior when they appear to the perceivers to resemble their own positively toned significant other and visa versa.  Their results showed that behavioral confirmation occurs in transference when significant-other representations were activated, and used in new relations (Berk & Anderson, 2002).  When the target appeared to resemble the perceiver’s own significant other, behavior confirmation of the affect associated with the significant other representation occurred based on the activation and use of the significant other representation to interpret the target.  Behavioral confirmation of the overall affect associated with the significant-other representation occurred with transference as predicted. 
    In another study conducted by Glassman and Anderson (1999), it was suggested that significant other representations could activate transference even when stimuli were presented outside of awareness, and such influences could affect social perception by inducing biased interpretations of relatively ambiguous behavior.  This study focused on the non-conscious triggering of significant other representations in transference.  The results of this study supported their hypothesis that participants subliminally exposed to their own significant-other features would make more significant other derived inferences about the target person, than would participants in control conditions (Glassman & Anderson, 1999).  Even when significant other representations are activated subliminally, they are still being used to interpret and classify new persons.
   Transference is an important factor in clinical work.  In a study concerned with examining the relation between client attachment to therapist and therapeutic transference, it was found that the higher the client’s level of preoccupation-merger attachment with the therapist, the higher the amount of transference and negative transference (Woodhouse, Crook, Gelso, Lingiero, & Schlosser, 2003).  Participants were 51 client-counselor dyads in ongoing therapy.  The clients were measured on the CATS, The Client Attachment to Therapist Scale.  The CATS has three subscales; secure, preoccupied-merger, and avoidant-fearful. The secure subscale measures the clients’ perception that the therapist is emotionally responsive and available, accepting and understanding. The preoccupied merger subscale measures the degree to which the client is preoccupied with the therapist and the therapist’s other clients, and wishes to expand the boundaries of the therapeutic relationship.  The last subscale avoidant-fearful reflects the extent to which the client suspects the therapist is disapproving, dishonest and rejecting and well as the degree to which the client is reluctant to disclose himself in therapy (Woodhouse et al, 2003).  Consistent with prediction, the higher the clients’ level of preoccupation-merger attachment with the therapist the greater was both the amount of transference and negative transference. Although overall findings of this study were not significant, it proves to be a preliminary example of the implications of transference in clinical therapy today.  Further research on positive transference including what factors contribute to the development and expression of positive transference would serve a great help to the clinical usage of transference. 
    The research suggests that the activation and use of significant-other representations in relation to new people are the basic processes by which transference occurs in everyday social relations and interactions (Anderson & Cole, 1990; Anderson & Glassman, 1996; Hinkley & Anderson, 1996).  Basic principles of social cognition suggest that people should “go beyond the information given” using an existing social construct (Higgins & Bargh, 1987).  Thus, when a significant-other representation is the construct used to interpret a new individual, representation-derived inferences are made about him or her by attributing qualities to him or her that are in fact part of the significant-other representation.  Anderson and Berk’s central assumptions of the social-cognitive model explains that triggering a significant-other representation should lead representation derived evaluation to be activated and used with a new person.  It has been show that transference can be activated unconsciously, as well as consciously, that it can lead to behavior confirmation, a change in inferences and affect, and changes in one’s own working self-concept (Anderson & Berk, 1998).  The concept of social-cognitive transference is one that has been shown to be utilized by everyone in everyday interactions, with continuing research and understanding this concept may become a recognized construct of social interaction. 
    In the present research, I will attempted to activate the significant-other representation in participants and test to see if that activation has an effect on the participants’ evaluation of a new person.  The expectations primed by the significant other representation will then be violated and test to see if the immediate violation of these expectations leads to a change in the rating of the individual.  I expect that with the activation of either a positive or a negative significant other, the participants will rate the new applicant accordingly, and that immediate violation of these representation consistent inferences will affect the evaluation of the individual. 

Top of Page

Method


Participants
    21 undergraduate college students from a small, liberal arts school in the Northeast were recruited for this study (19 female, 2 male). All of the participants received course credit for their participation.  All participants were treated in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by the APA. 
Materials
    A 10-question likert rating scale, Applicant Evaluation Scale, was constructed for the participants to evaluate the applicants after each description. (See Appendix)
Procedure
    Session 1:
The participants were first asked to name 2 significant others, 1 positive and 1 negative.  Significant others was described as “any individual with whom the participant has had a considerable relationship with in the past”.  The participants were then asked to list 12 descriptors of those individuals ranking those descriptors in order of importance.  The descriptors that were given by the participants in this first session were utilized in the second session of the study.  After completing the descriptions of the significant others the participants were then asked to recall and describe using as much detail as possible their first day at the College.  As well as describing their first day at the College, the participants were also asked to name 10 qualities within themselves that they felt eased their adjustment to the new surroundings.  The recollection of their first day at College and the listing of their inherent qualities were only being used here as distracter items.  The participants were then asked to leave the session and return in one week for the conclusion of the study.  Their descriptions of their significant others were then coded and used to form the materials for the second session. 
    Session 2:
  One week later, in the conclusion to the study, the descriptors of the participants either positive or negative significant other, given in the previous session, were used to write a recommendation from a guidance counselor of a potential applicant to the College.  The participants were randomly selected to be in either the negative or positive significant other group.  After reading the description the participant was asked to rate the applicant.  After rating the applicant, the participants were then given a second description of the applicant.  This description was written as an employer reference. This reference directly violated the expectancies that were primed by the initial description.  The individual was portrayed contrary to the initial description, and thus contrary to the participants’ significant other description.  After reading the second description of the applicant the participants were again asked to rate the applicant.  Previous research has shown that indeed people who resembled the participant’s positive or negative significant others should be evaluated accordingly by the participant.  It has also been shown that initial evaluations of an individual are long lasting.  I am looking to see if when the expectations and evaluations that were first made when memory of a significant other was triggered could be changed if the individual immediately violated those expectations.   Previous research shows that triggering a significant-other representation leads to representation-derived evaluation to be activated and used with the new person.  This study should illustrate whether immediate violation of the representation-derived evaluation will change overall evaluation of an individual.  I hypothesize that triggering a significant other will lead to a representation-consistent rating of the applicant, and that if those representation-consistent descriptions are immediately violated the rating if the applicant will also change in accordance with this violation. 

Top of Page

Results

    To assess whether the descriptions of the applicant triggered transference in the participants from the significant other described in the first session, the ratings given to the each of the applicants were compared using an independent t-test.  The mean scores (1strongly disagree – 7 strongly agree) given to the applicant on each of the 10 questions on the Applicant Evaluation Scale and the overall rating of the applicant (0 strong disliking - 10 strong liking) were compared grouping them by condition (positive and negative).  No significance differences were found when comparing the mean ratings by condition.  This indicates that participants who were presented a description using characteristics of their negative significant other did not rate that target differently than those who were presented a description using characteristics of their positive significant other. 
    The mean ratings of the applicant on the 10-question Applicant Evaluation Scale and the overall rating given to the applicant were separated again by condition, and compared after the first description and the second description.  Repeated measures t-tests was used to compare the mean ratings given on the 10-question Applicant Evaluation Scale after the first description to the mean ratings given after the second description to assess whether the participants’ evaluation of the applicant changed after representation-consistent expectancies were violated.  The means and standard deviation for the positive significant other condition are displayed in table 1.1.   No significant differences were found between the ratings of the applicant after the positive or negative representation-consistent first description was presented compared to the ratings after the second description, which violated these representation-consistent descriptions highlighting characteristics of the applicant that were not previously described by the participant. 
 
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Ratings in the Positive Significant Other Condition
Questions Mean Sd Deviation
First Overall Rating

7.3636

1.50151

Second Overall Rating

7.2727

1.55505

Friends

4.4545

1.12815

Friends

4.5455

0.93420

Asset to Community

5.5455

1.50756

Asset to Community

5.4545

1.03573

Experience Success

5.4545

1.50756

Experience Success

5.7273

1.00905

Classmates With

5.1818

1.07872

Classmates With

5.5455

0.68755

Fit In Well

5.0909

1.13618

Fit In Well

5.7273

1.00905

Join My Club

5.2727

1.61808

Join My Club

5.3636

0.92442

Represent My Class

5.3636

1.91169

Represent My Class

6.0909

1.04447

    
    The means and standard deviation for the negative significant other condition are displayed in table 2.1.  A significant difference was found between the first and second ratings on 4 of the questions on the applicant evaluation scale.  The questions that showed significant differences were: “I am likely to be friends with this person” (t = -2.228, p = .053), “This is someone I would want in my classes” (t = -3.354, p =. 008), “This person would fit in well at college” (t = -2.077, p = .068), and “I would pick this person to represent my class” (t = -3.000, p = .015).  Significant difference was also found between the first overall rating and the second overall rating (t =-2.882, p = .018 df = 9).

Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation for Ratings in the Negative Significant Other Condition

Questions

Mean

Sd. Deviation

First Overall Rating*

7.0000

0.66667

Second Overall Rating*

8.2000

0.91894

Friends*

5.2000

1.03280

Friends*

6.0000

1.41421

Asset to Community

5.5000

0.84984

Asset to Community

5.8000

1.13529

Experience Success

5.2000

1.03280

Experience Success

5.7000

1.41814

Classmates With*

4.7000

1.15950

Classmates With*

5.7000

0.82327

Fit In Well*

5.2000

1.31656

Fit In Well*

6.1000

0.87560

Join My Club

5.3000

0.94868

Join My Club

5.9000

0.99443

Represent My Class*

4.9000

0.99443

Represent My Class*

5.9000

1.10050

Note. * signifies questions on the rating scale on which significance was found


    Although statistically significant differences in the mean ratings were found in the negative significant other condition, without finding significant differences on the independent t-test these findings must be deciphered with caution.  Without finding significant differences when comparing the ratings given in the positive significant other condition, compared with the ratings given in the negative significant other condition we must presume that the participants’ evaluation of the applicants did not differ by condition.  Therefore, the changes in ratings between the negative description and the following description violating these negative descriptions must have been due to some extraneous factor rather than due to activation and use of significant other inferences.

Top of Page

Discussion

    The results of the study did not support either of my original hypotheses; that transference plays a role in the evaluation of a new individual, or that immediate violation of the expectations associated with that significant other will lead to a change in evaluation.  My original hypothesis following from the literature was that if a participant was given a description of a new person that was representative of a significant other previously described, they would unconsciously evaluate that individual according to the feelings and construct within which the original person was located (Anderson & Glassman, 1999).  In the present study participants were asked to name 12 descriptors of one negative significant other and 12 descriptors of one positive significant other.  The participants then ranked the descriptors in order of which best described their significant other. Half the participants were randomly placed in the negative condition in which their negative significant other would be described in the first description and half in the positive condition.   I then used seven of the twelve descriptors to write a one-page recommendation for a potential applicant to the college.  After reading the first description, the participants ranked the applicant on a 10-question likert scale, and on an overall liking scale.  The participants’ scores were separated by condition and the mean scores given to the applicants on eight of the ten questions were compared, as well as the scores on the overall rating of the applicant.  Two of the questions were not used in this comparison.  These two questions were; “I would like this person to live in my dormitory”, and “this person is someone I would likely be roommates with”.  These questions were omitted from analysis because this particular establishment upholds a Catholic tradition and as such has separate dormitories for males and females.  Most of the applicant descriptions were of an individual of the opposite sex and the responses to these questions would undoubtedly be outliers and would have swayed the overall means of the set.  There were no significant differences found between the mean ratings given to the applicants toned to trigger the participants’ negative significant other and the applicants toned to trigger the participants’ positive significant other.  One of the reasons significance may not have been found was that the participants were led to believe that they were rating a potential applicant to the college based on a recommendation from a guidance counselor.  With the descriptors embedded within a “recommendation”, the participants in the negative condition may have rated the applicant more positively and therefore more closely to the ratings given by the participants in the positive condition.  Even though the recommendations were based upon descriptions of negative significant others, the expectations put on the participant to view the applicant positively were to strong. 
    Another reason significance may not have been seen was the nature of the task.  The task was such that it influenced the rating or evaluation of the applicant requiring the participant to base their rating upon perceived success the applicant would experience at college rather than simply being an unprejudiced evaluation of the individual described.  In previous research when transference was shown as a social cognitive means of evaluating new individuals, the research design was set up in such a way that the participants’ evaluations remained impartial.  The demand characteristics of this task did not allow the participants to rate the individual described exclusively on their characteristics, rather they rated them and their qualities within the context of an applicant to the college.  
    My second hypothesis was that if transference was triggered and appropriate ratings were given based upon this transference a second description that violated these representation-consistent significant other descriptions would in turn, change the evaluation and therefore the rating of the applicant.  This reference was written specifically to violate the characteristics of the first description.  After reading the employer reference, the participants were then asked to re-rate the applicant.  The participants were filtered by condition and the mean ratings on the same eight questions were compared from the first rating and the second rating as well as the first overall rating and the second overall rating.  In the positive condition, no significant differences were found between the first ratings and the second ratings.  In the negative condition significance was found on the overall rating of the applicant as well as four other questions.  The questions in which significance was found were: “I am likely to become friends with this person”; “this is someone I would want in my classes”; “this person would fit in well in college” and “I would pick this person to represent my class”.  Although statistical significance was found, these findings are still not proven to be practically significant for a number of reasons.  The main reason these findings cannot be interpreted as significant is that without significant differences found between the ratings compared between conditions no further significance can be shown.  The significance shown here is contingent on significance findings between conditions. 
    The reason significance was not found were problems with my methodology.  One of the problems was that my method did not allow a clear separation and control of my variables.  There was no measure to ensure that all of my descriptions were written without bias or that they truly represented the qualities the participants used to describe their significant other.  I cannot therefore decipher whether their significant other was truly triggered by the description and thus their rating reflects that or if they unbiasedly rated the individual described. 
    Another problem with my method was that in order to keep the participants blind to the manipulations of the study I had to create a paradigm that allowed me to access descriptors of significant others for each participant and time to write descriptions of an individual using those specific descriptors.  The idea of rating a college applicant was the only way I could see to get the participants to return for the second session without speculating about my manipulations.  The participants’ responses were fueled by the paradigm and the task the participants were asked to complete rather than by the transference that should have occurred with the triggering of significant other descriptors.  The task may have been such that it caused the participants to deem the use of constructs as inappropriate. 
    I do believe that contrary to most literature first impressions can be changed if those impressions are based upon misplaced transference.  If I were to repeat this study I would certainly change the paradigm.  This time I would have the participants “meet” the new person through a computer medium.   I would attempt to alleviate any constraints to their interpretations by allowing them to objectively rate the new person instead of attaching limiting questions.  I believe that with the right methodology transference could be displayed and measured.  I also believe that if transference was triggered and immediate violation of significant-other-consistent qualities followed it would lead to a change in evaluation.  I think that if transference is triggered and used to evaluate a new person that transference can also be violated by the behavior or characteristics of the new person and the transference could be stopped and the evaluation changed. 
 

 Top of Page

Reference

Anderson, S. M., & Baum, A. (1994). Transference in interpersonal relations: inferences and affect based on significant-other representations.
 Journal of Personality 62(4), 459-497. 
Anderson, S. M., & Berk, M. S., (1998).  Transference in everyday experience: implications of experimental research for relevant clinical
phenomena.   Review of General Psychology 2(1), 81-120.
Anderson, S. M., & Berk, M., S., (1998).  The social-cognitive model of transference: experiencing past relationships in the present.  Current
Directions in Psychological Science 7(4), 109-115.
Anderson, S., M., & Cole, S., W., (1990). Do I know you? the role of significant others in general social perception.  Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 59(3), 384-399
Berk, M. S.,& Anderson, S. M., (2002).  The impact of past relationships on interpersonal behavior: behavior confirmation in the
 social-cognitive process of transference.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(4), 546-562.
Freud, Sigmund, (1912) (1994).  Dynamics of transference. In G. Bauer (Ed), Essentail papers on transference analysis (pp. 5-17).  Northvale
 NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc. 
Glassman, N. S., & Anderson, S. M., (1999).  Activating transference without consciousness: using significant-other representations to go
 beyond what is subliminally given.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6), 1146-1162.
Glassman, N. S., Anderson, S. M., (1999).  Transference in social cognition: persistence and exacerbation of significant-other-based inferences
 over time. Cognitive Therapy and Research 23(1), 75-91.
Higgins, T., Bargh, J., (1987). Social cognition and social perception.  Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369-425.
Hinkley, K., Anderson, S., (1996). The working self-concept in transference: significant other activation and self-change.  Journal of Personality
 and SocialPsychology 71(6), 1279-1295.
Woodhouse, S. S., Crook, R. E., Gelso, C. J., Ligiero, D. P., & Schlosser, L. Z., (2003).  Client attachment to therapist: relations to transference and
 client recollections of parental caregiving.  Journal of Counseling Psychology 50(4), 395-408. 
Westen, D., (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science.  Psychological
 Bulletin124(3) 333-371.

Top of Page
Appendix

Instructions: Please rate the applicant on the following questions.  Please circle the number that best describes your feelings toward the applicant on the following scale.
       
1.  I am likely to become friends with this person.        
                         1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

2.  This person would be an asset to the college community.
                         1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

3.  I would like this person to live in my dormitory.
                           1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

4.  This person would experience success in college.
                          1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

5.  This person is someone I would likely be roommates with.
                          1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree
6.  This someone I would want in my classes.
                          1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

7.  This person would fit in well in college.
                          1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

8.  This person would experience a successful adjustment.  
                              1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree

9.     I would pick this person to join my club.
                          1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree
10. I would pick this person to represent my class.
                          1        2         3         4         5         6         7
        Strongly agree                                                            Strongly disagree
11.  On a scale from 0-10, zero representing an overwhelming dislike for the individual and 10 representing overwhelming liking for this individual where would you             rank this person overall?
                        0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    
Strong Disliking                                                                Strong Liking


Top of Page