We have been constrained to use the term efficiency in its popular sense. It assumes that the socializing activity is expedient in the sense that it is not in violation of accepted standards of conduct. It assumes that the activity and the results are satisfying to those who share in them. It finally assumes that the group combination is better than some other combination would have been. It signifies that the costs have been calculated and are not out of proportion to the results. Efficient socialization is the advancement of human welfare by the most direct and practicable means which a group can find.

Our question then is: "Upon what does efficiency in socialization depend?" It is unfortunate that data are not at hand that would permit the giving of an absolute answer to the question. In this paper such information as is available will be drawn upon, supplemented by deductive arguments in a few cases. It follows that any hypotheses are tentative, and that if each statement is not qualified it is because time and space does not permit. At the most no more than probability is suggested. Furthermore, out of a wide range of answers which might be attempted, only four are given. Efficiency in socialization is dependent upon (1) the presence and co-operation of the group; (2) the complementary and reinforcing character of the traits of those who compose the group; (3) the presence of leadership; (4) an identity of ideals and objectives.

Very few studies have been made concerning the influence of the group upon effort. Among the earliest may be mentioned the work of Baldwin and Meier; among the latest is Moede. The general conclusions have been that individual effort was greater and more successful when effort was co-operative, and when spectators were present. Moede in Experimentelle Massenpsychologie (1920) makes the most thorough report upon the subject. His investigations cover such topics as the following: (1) tendencies to concomitant movements in the group; (2) sensitivity of discrimination; (3) quality and quantity of work done; (4) range of attention; (5) strength of memory and association.

Several of his conclusions are of importance here. In the first place, he found that the group stimulated subjects of average men

tal ability to higher effort. This was true, independent of whether the effort was co-operative or performed in the presence of the group. That is, there seems to be no appreciable difference in the efficiency of the individual when he works with the group or when he works in the presence of the group. He offers no data on the degree of satisfaction felt by the subjects in the different situations. His second conclusion is that the brighter and the inferior subjects declined slightly in performance under social conditions. The efficiency was greater when effort involved the muscular system or the lower mental powers, than when the higher mental traits were called into use.

He also considered the effect of the size of the group upon efficiency. His conclusions were not convincing because his largest group contained only eight subjects. Nevertheless, his findings bore out those of other investigators, who almost without exception have found that efficiency (in learning) increases as groups become larger up to about forty. From this point on there is a gradual but marked decline. We may answer the first question by saying that efficiency is greater in the group than out of it.

There are few enough data concerning the mental traits of the best working group. Woodworth in Dynamic Psychology states that homogeneity in the sense of equality is essential to effective and satisfying co-operation. Burgess arrives at the same conclusion in The Function of Socialization in Social Evolution. McDougall, on the contrary, finds that satisfaction results only when the groups are heterogeneous. The submission of the inferior and the domination of the superior are to him sufficient explanation. It is also true that efficiency may accompany association between inferior and superior without submission and domination being present, and that equality is not a guaranty of social efficiency in a group.

A consideration of the voluntary choices of associates should throw some light upon this question. We have available a study (1921) of 387 grade pupils, Warner's study (1923) of boys' gangs, and Cheek's study (1924) of 528 high-school students. Warner found that gangs were composed of boys of about the same

mentality, and that the greatest creative and cohesive force among them was a body of common experiences.

In the other two studies mentioned, the pupils were asked to pick out work and play associates. By this method, mentality did not seem to be so important a factor as Warner found it to be in gangs. It was found that pupils who stood low on the intelligence scale selected associates who measured high in intelligence, and vice versa. There was a tendency to choose from the subjects' own levels as is shown by the correlation coefficients (Pearson ProductMoments) in Table I:

TABLE I

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS SHOWING TENDENCY TO SELECT (1) WORK AND (2) PLAY ASSOCIATES FROM SUBJECTS' OWN LEVELS

The figures of Table I reveal a positive tendency for young people to prefer associates on their own level. But when we come to determining a basis for choice we are at a loss. Chronological age is the leading factor, yet ordinary reason seems to indicate that there is something more inclusive and significant at the bottom than the fact of equal-life age. The same may be said of brightness and of mental age. Our conclusion is that this more comprehensive factor is scope of common experience. In other words, what Giddings calls consciousness of kind is a result of group experience primarily, and only in a secondary sense a cause of socialization. This is also to say that the complementary and reinforcing mental traits which promote socialization originate and grow along with social effort.

Our third question relates to the drive toward identity of purpose, feeling, and effort. Woodworth recognizes "a social motive proper, a tendency toward group action, which is not only found by experience to be beneficial, but which is interesting in itself to

creatures that have a native capacity for that sort of action." Now on the hypothesis that so far as leadership has an office it is to direct and redirect this native tendency toward specific activities and ends, and to initiate and awaken it where the subjects are lacking in experience, we come to the question as to what type of person makes the best leader. Must he possess superior intelligence? Must he be in fact an integration of the traits which are common to the mass?

In answering this question we assume that the leader is chosen voluntarily by those he leads. We do not assume that compulsion and force are compatible with democracy. We do not accept the submission-domination theory of McDougall. We do not believe with Carlyle that the eternal question is "Shall I eat you, or will you eat me?" We contend that fighting ability, except in so far as it is the conspicuous common trait of the group, is not an infallible index to leadership ability. A flock of sheep will not select a lion as leader, neither will a group of artists take Jack Dempsey as a guide to an exhibition of paintings. Neither does it seem that there is a tendency for groups voluntarily to select leaders who dominate through sheer intellectual superiority. The old saying that in a kingdom of idiots an imbecile would be king is probably not true if the idiots were free to make the selection.

Our evidence one way or another is not plentiful. Cheek studied free selection of leaders among high-school students. He found a tendency to give the preference to the group a little above the average in intelligence. The mean intelligence of the group was 10910. Seventy per cent of the leaders were selected from the range 115-19, though it represented less than 30 per cent of the school population. The superior showed no tendency to vote for leaders on their own level; the inferior persistently voted for the average. Eight students of the 528 received practically all the votes. What is called popularity, or ability to get votes, is undoubtedly something that is not measured on the intelligence tests we now have.

Three types of leadership were distinguished. One we might designate as the action or executive type; another as the planning or legislative type; and the third as the deliberating or judicial

type. This order represents in ascending scale the intelligence of those chosen. The difference, however, is very slight-less than the probable error of the tests. The results, nevertheless, are quite in line with popular opinion which usually rates judicial ability highest, and executive ability lowest. If this tendency holds generally we shall have but few political officials of superior intelligence.

It was previously stated that some more inclusive factor than age, brightness, and mental development was doubtless responsible for group solidarity and efficiency. We now turn to evidence tending to prove this proposition as well as to show why leaders of average ability are chosen. In our experiment, a list of seven things which people commonly wish for was made up. This list was submitted by Miss Margaret Ware to 150 girls at Roble Hall, Stanford University. The same list was used by Mr. Cheek in his study of high-school pupils. The directions were to rank these ideals in one, two, three order, putting the one most desirable first, and so on. As a criterion, the judgment of competent authorities was obtained.

The ideals with their definitions were as follows:

Fame. To be famous, to render devotion to a cause or to a country as did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Frances Willard.

Service. To be unselfish, energetic, and useful to other people as Clara Barton, Florence Nightengale, and Herbert Hoover.

Wealth. To acquire possession of money, bonds, factories, and land as John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford.

Wisdom. To be a scholar, to spend one's time in study, to engage in research, and to write books as John Dewey, G. Stanley Hall, and David Starr Jordan.

Appreciation of Beauty.-To like poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, and natural scenery.

Physical Fitness.-To engage in games of strength and skill such as boxing, wrestling, football, basket-ball, tennis, rowing, and hockey.

Popularity. To be celebrated, to be well known, and to have one's name in the newspapers as Mary Garden, Douglas Fairbanks, and Babe Ruth.

Using the judges as our criterion and correlating the rankings of the ideals, we get a measure of the extent to which the ideals of our subjects are the ideals of the authorities. For convenience in handling our results, the high-school students were grouped on the