RIJCORD.^ OF MEJJTiya^ 283 



the order of merit method, slightly greater than by the ])aired compari- 

 sons method, and in handwriting judgments the exact opposite is true. 

 These averages in isolation might indicate that the one method is par- 

 ticularly favorable to judgment of weight, the other to judgment of 

 handwriting — or the one method to the one group of subjects, and the 

 other method to the other group. These hypotheses are, however, invali- 

 dated by the exceedingly high correlation between the two methods for 

 any one type of judgment, and by a comparison of the variabilities in 

 handwriting and beliefs, where the judgments were performed by the 

 same group of subjects. The average of these variabilities for the three 

 types of judgment shows a difference of only .02 between the two 

 methods. The differences in isolated cases may be due to the materials 

 themselves or the groups themselves apart from any consideration of 

 method. They are very evidently 7iot due to the methods. 



TI. The second problem is the correlation of the average order with 

 the objective order of the series, by the two methods. In judgment of 

 weights this correlation is exactly the same, and in handwriting almost 

 exactly the same for one method as for the other. The difference in the 

 latter case is only .003. In the case of beliefs there is no objective order. 



III. The correlation between the arrangements of a given series by 

 the one method and by the other averages .987 for the three types. This 

 indicates that it is unnecessary to employ either one of these methods, 

 which for any reason is less to be preferred, if we consider them with 

 respect to the general results obtained by both. 



IV. The individuals of the group correlate as well with their average 

 in the one method as in the other. The differences between the average 

 correlations by the two methods lie in every case within the limits of the 

 probable error. 



V. An individual who stands high in correlation with the group ar- 

 rangement by one method also tends to stand high in that correlation by 

 the other method. This relation is expressed by the correlation -f- -"^'^ ii'i 

 the case of handwriting and beliefs. In the case of weights, the relation 

 is a random one, -\- .01. The individual differences in correlation with 

 the average, are, by the paired comparisons method, so insignificant as to 

 make the order of correlations subject to chance and very unreliable. 



VI. The order of merit method shows a random relation ( — .01) be- 

 tween an individual's judgment of handwriting and the same individual's 

 judgment of beliefs. This result accords with the results obtained by 

 other investigations of this sort of problem. In the paired comparisons 

 method this correlation is expressed by — .35. This represents the first 

 and only discrepancy between the equal efficiency of the two methods in 

 this experiment. 



