New Page 1

<body id="MyBody" onload="MyBegin()"> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font face="Times" size="6">Cultural Cybernetics</font></p> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="4">Theory & Method of Symbolic Framing</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Hugh M. Lewis</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1995</p> <hr> </font></b><font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Copyright, 1996, Hugh M. Lewis</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(Copies of this text may be printed for research or classroom use only)</p> </font> <hr> <p><font size="5"><b>Cybernetics Contents</b></font></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/CyberneticsPreface.htm" target="main"><b>Preface</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/CyberneticsIntroduction.htm" target="main"><b>Introduction</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics1.htm" target="main"><b>1. Theory & Method of Symbolic Framing</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics2.htm" target="main"><b>2. Perception Tasks</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics3.htm" target="main"><b>3. Basic Things Tasks</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics4.htm" target="main"><b>4. Color Tasks</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics5.htm" target="main"><b>5. Drawing Tasks</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics6.htm" target="main"><b>6. Projective Tasks</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics7.htm" target="main"><b>7. Dichotomous</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics8.htm" target="main"><b>8. Grids & Frames</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/Cybernetics9.htm" target="main"><b>9. The Symbolic Frame Battery</b></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/Cybernetics/CyberneticsConclusions.htm" target="main"><b>10. Conclusions</b></a></p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <p align="center"><font size="4">Preface</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5">Symbolic Framing Reconsidered</font></p> <p align="center"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p align="center"> </p> <p align="left"><font size="3">When traveling to the field in Penang, Malaysia, to do dissertation research in comparative anthropology, I had a fairly specific set of research goals in mind, though I lacked the necessary background experience in what proved to be a fairly exploratory, and I believe, revolutionary approach to comparative research in Anthropology. I had come to focus upon the somewhat esoteric theoretical challenge of the anthropology of knowledge. The key question was how exactly does symbolism articulate cognitively in the human brain/mind, in a way that explains the importance of symbolic behavior in socio-cultural contexts. Surprisingly, in spite of the mountain of published articles, this problem had never been exactly asked in terms of field research or clearly answered, though a great deal of research in anthropology and psychology has already been done that pointed in the right direction.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">I independently adapted a variety of projective, perception and other types of methods for the sake of conducting structured interviews in some field setting. I wanted to gather cross-cultural samples between Malay, Indian and Chinese ethnocultural groupings, but political obstruction by the Malays and cultural closure by the Indians proved impossible for me to overcome without adopting what I considered to be probably unethical means, which prevented my attempting to further access these communities. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">What is presented within these pages are the first-hand results of the analysis of close to 14,000 pages of field data that were primarily generated over an 8 to 9 month period of time, based upon a set of samples derived principally from the Jetty community under study, and secondly from a larger sample of Hokkien informants in the wider Georgetown community. I did get a handful of tasks from Malay and Indian informants, but these were not substantial enough to be included in this study and were therefore left out. Even so, just superficial observation  of these few tasks revealed significant differences of overall pattern. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Development of this form of analytical study progressed rapidly in the first few months of fieldwork, leading to repeated refinement and development of the basic tasks, and eventually to the compiling of different kinds of tasks into a battery that I called the SFB (Symbolic Framing Battery) This battery was implemented to facilitate who did what and to make the overall study more consistent. Analysis of the SFB also proved relatively straightforward compared to the requirements of analyzing thousands of separate data sheets collected from different individuals at different times and places.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Subsequent to this main study, I accomplished a cross-cultural sample from a set of 20 British students (all from various parts of England) who were residing in Penang at the time, ranging in ages from about 20 to 30 years. When I returned to the US, I collected a third sample of about 17 Americans from a very broad range of backgrounds. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">The results presented in these pages were based upon a preliminary first pass analysis of the data. Specifically, the symbolic framing battery that was  developed in three successive editions on the Jetty (the first two editions were left unanalyzed) was analyzed in a comparative fashion in as many different dimensional categories as could be obtained from the analysis of the completed batteries.  First pass analysis primarily compared results of performance of various tasks based on categories and types of tasks, and the inter-correlation analysis performed between these types and categories of tasks. A second pass analysis was called for the main study that would have compared the inter-correlation pattern based upon a grouping of tasks across different individuals and ages sets and other basic differences like gender, educational background, etc. To some extent, the Symbolic Framing Battery allowed a standardization of tasks that permitted both first and second pass analysis in a more consistent manner, and that subsequently allowed partial automation of this analysis with an integrated database that was constructed with Microsoft Excel.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">The results of these tasks I take to be remarkable for the significant and consistent patterns of variation they demonstrated at multiple levels of analysis. This, compared to the relative ease of task-taking performance and the logistics of this kind of analytical research, makes symbolic framing a truly powerful approach to comparative research that has applicability in a wide number of areas of study. If it were combined with a kind of socio-grid analysis that depended upon observational protocols in naturalistic, culturally defined behavioral settings, it would become even more powerful an approach to doing fieldwork, especially in complex settings as represented in urban contexts.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">By the end of 1995, I had developed two other batteries, the Symbolic Differential Battery, or SBD, and the Symbolic Analysis Battery, (SAB) with the aim of getting at a more refined understanding of age and group differentiation of symbolic framing pattern based upon various types of tasks. By the end of 1995, work on this area had ceased after graduation with the doctorate in August of 1995. The last work undertaken was upon inter-correlation analysis, which was a derivative methodology relating directly to the analysis of these tasks. As a white male American anthropologist with a fairly scientific approach, employment in Academia proved to be an impossible prospect. If my skin were any other shade than white, it would have been an entirely different story altogether.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">I did not pick up the trail once again in this line of research for another two years, until 1998. Between 1996 and 1998 I became involved in the Robidoux research in Wyoming which was mostly archival, genealogical and ethnohistorical. I sojourned to China in the summer of 1998 with the intention of furthering post-doctoral research in this area, and I therefore carried with me the basic materials from my various batteries and the basic tasks. The first semester there at a small teacher's college proved too busy to conduct significant symbolic framing research, except that I did resolve in the course of the semester a basic issue underlying these tasks that related to the visual and possible auditory nature of patterning recognition and alternative information channels.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">This issue related to the use of symbolic framing in the analysis of aural recognition problems. Up until that point, most of the tasks were either visually based with a structured linguistic complement that entailed visual recognition on some implicit level. The question was how to define symbolic framing procedures within a purely temporal framework presented by aural processing and pattern recognition in speech and sound. This problem proved to be operationally compatible with the theoretical question of second-language acquisition in English that I was then confronting with my Chinese students. Searching for a breakthrough, I decided to give my students a series of surprise vocabulary quizzes in preparation for their mid-term examinations. I realized that the students were visually dependent in their learning of English through text-books, having no real natural language models for learning through an auditory channel except some tapes and listening to the radio, neither of which modes allowed spontaneous feedback or were very productive in the long run. Visual dependency served therefore as a learning handicap to more natural language acquisition that in its most basic form is oral and therefore also aural in nature and pattern.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Upon analysis of the results of the vocabulary quizzes, I recognized a familiar response pattern I had seen many times before in the analysis of other kinds of symbolic framing tasks in terms of the errors made of vocabulary, and the breakdown of the listening mode in pattern recognition capabilities with increasing, and increasingly ambiguous inputs. This led to a breakthrough in adapting symbolic framing methods to purely aural procedures based upon simple speaking and listening without intermediary visual cues, and to the development of a set of oral based exercises designed to facilitate aural language development of English speakers. It became apparent that short-term and working memory, as well as deeper memory processes, were directly tied to this aural pattern recognition problem. Working in a second language entailed a cognitive rewiring of these basic mechanical operations of the brain within a pattern-recognition framework. For the last half of the first semester I applied these methods methodically and consistently, and half-successfully to the reorganization of my teaching, and believe that I made some significant progress by the end of the first semester.  </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3"> In the second semester, reconsidering my entire approach and the shortcomings of the methods as I originally designed them, I applied more "dynamic" and active methods in the second semester, progressively bringing students into active oral-aural participation in English at all levels, until, by the end of the second semester, some rather surprising results were obtained from the majority of my students. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Of course, the theory of symbolic framing does not depend upon its demonstration in ESL teaching, but this framework did provide a useful means for applying, adapting and extending this kind of research to real world problem sets. In the middle of the second semester, once my experimental classes were under way and the students new what to expect, I turned my attention increasingly to gathering a significant sample of my standard symbolic framing methods that were visually based. In this manner, I had collected a number of dichotomous inventories, color tasks, drawing, perception and even a few inkblot tasks. I had constructed a new battery derived from my previous batteries, and I was just about to take this to a copy shop to have it printed for all my students (a sample of about 160 persons that were fairly evenly distributed across the whole of Henan province), when the American bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Eastern Europe occurred.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">This unfortunate incident couldn't have happened at a worse time. We were confined to our apartment for about a week until classes resumed normally. The student reaction in general, organized by student unions and by hidden communist party leaders, was quite strong and aggressive. The consequence was to destroy my ability to effectively teach in an experimental manner for the remainder of the semester and to further my fieldwork in the manner I was intending to do. Furthermore, my work had increasingly attracted the attention of the authorities. Though I had implicit permission to do the work, I had been up to that point obstructed, and even discouraged, from its promotion or actual application. Fearing the worst, with other extenuating circumstances arising in the background as well that cannot be openly mentioned within this context, I decided it was best to destroy most of the data I had collected, which was about box full of miscellaneous things.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">This was most unfortunate turn of events, as even preliminary results of the various kinds of tasks showed consistent patterns that were remarkably different than anything I had seen before, with either the Hokkien samples from Penang or from the English or American samples that I had previously collected. The pattern appeared even more intensively elaborated than the British pattern, at least in some ways that seemed more compulsive and contextually dependent, but it did not otherwise resemble the English pattern. Color choice derived from a number of students was completely different than anything found with the Americans, British or Hokkien Chinese. Surprisingly to myself, red and violet did not emerge in the first or second place categories on almost any of the tasks. Blue, green, white and pink emerged repeated in the first place, but in an altogether different combination than would have been expected from previous samples. Color pyramids were dramatically different than anything expected or experienced before, and were quite interesting.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">The inkblots, derived from the Lewis inkblots I had developed while in Penang, were quite remarkable and effective in results that showed an extreme intensification of detail in part-whole and edge patterning, but relatively low whole gestalts. Furthermore, there appeared remarkable pathognomic and plant-animal type responses, as well as environmental or nature-location type responses.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Though I failed in my original purpose due to unexpected circumstances, due to unforeseeable circumstances that made impossible any further progress on my symbolic framing methods at the time, the China experience was not a total loss as it permitted an advancement of methods both in terms of its addition to temporal-based aural pattern recognition and to an entirely new sample that yielded dramatic and remarkable results when compared to my earlier samples of Chinese, British and Americans.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Part of the difficulty in furthering this form of study has been very strong resistance by American academics and their administrative directors, as well as by basic social prejudice from most Americans in general. I do not know if it is purely territoriality and paradigmatic perspective, or a basic incredulity that accompanies an ambiguous social identity in American society, or perhaps some combination of both. When I returned from the field in 1995, I did not expect this kind of reaction or resistance, which was strongly mixed and ambivalent. Surprisingly, the only psychologist on my committee, a cognitive psychologist, was quite pleased and interested with the results, compared to the linguist or the psychiatrist who voiced skepticism.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">The methods have tremendous efficacy, productivity and applicability to a broad range of developmental and analytical areas of comparative research. They well warrant further in-depth work to render them more refined and useful for science and humanity.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Have I answered thereby my original research question, which was the problem of the mechanism of symbolic articulation between the human brain/mind and the socio-cultural context within which learning, interaction and behavior normally and naturally take place? I would say that I have partially answered this question in a satisfactory and empirically consistent manner. Symbolic framing empirically elicits and evaluates patterns of response that are consistent within cultural groupings and consistently and significantly different across these boundaries. It is difficult to explain why we do the kinds of things we do in the way that we prefer to do them, though these choices are unconsciously conditioned by our cultural constraints and contexts far more than we may realize or would probably be willing to admit. Of course, individual preferences and patterns vary widely regardless of cultural or other background differences, but to some extent these variations can be controlled for and occur within larger boundaries. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Most of this patterning is not obvious to the doer of the tasks. It cannot be obvious as attention to such detail would interfere with normal adaptive functioning. Indeed, this is the entire point, as too much obsessive preoccupation with choices and reasons is maladaptive and neurotic. A complete breakdown of Symbolic framing mechanisms of the brain is basically psychotic. Many street-people I observed during the course of the fieldwork in Penang showed obvious patterns of being fundamentally "disconnected" from their environments such that their brains were manufacturing their own independent patterns.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="3">Symbolic framing behavior facilitates and promotes adaptation of human beings in complex contexts that tend to be symbolically loaded, whether we acknowledge or attend to stimuli or not. Such patterning should be expected to be especially important and prevalent in contexts, like Penang, that are inherently plural, chaotic, and fast changing due to acculturative modernization and urbanization. And the direct, efficient reasons why a person or group of people choose consistently one way versus some alternate cannot ultimately be explained. But neither can the saliencies and consistencies of the pattern be statistically or empirically denied, and they appear to point to subconscious operations of the human brain that are at work in some complex, chaotic and only partially determined manner.  Much work needs to be done before symbolic framing methods, that are rooted in an applied gestalt theory of psychology, can be adapted successfully in the world and applied in alternative ways to specific problem sets, such as second language acquisition mentioned previously.</font></p> <p align="left">The second issue of tremendous import in the understanding of symbolic framing methods is the implication that they, and their theoretical evaluation, holds for the understanding of the effects and role of culture in the daily lives of people. Cultural patternings occur across different samples, and can dramatically affect how people organized things and respond to their environment. Frequencies of patterns found in different societies can in part be explained by the function that cultural patterning plays in the everyday background of people's lives, helping people to cognitively negotiate and navigate their complex worlds. To give to culture an empirical basis that is statistically evident in everyday life, as elicited from a number of alternative tasks that can be assumed to be objective and unbiased, is to confer a sense of power and direction for culture as something that has scientific substance and great significance for all people, and for our understanding of human reality in general.</p> <font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">INTRODUCTION</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">THE SYMBOLIC MEDIATION OF THE PHENOMENAL FIELD</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Cultural cybernetics constitutes a general theoretical framework for the understanding of human processes and patterning of reality. It is a paradigm that is rooted in information theory, cognitive sciences, gestalt psychology, and an anthropological theory of the symbolic construction of reality. Within this framework, the arrangements of cultural artifacts in the ground, language, the ritual arrangement of sacred objects on an altar, all share in common an underlying cultural paradigm which determines phenomenologically that these various instances are but particular facets of a larger "gestalt" of cultural patterning.</p> <b><u> <p>Natural Systems Theory</p> </u></b> <p>From a scientific point of view, we may understand the informational patterning of a language, or its material expression in an environment, as manifestations of an underlying cultural codification that is homologous to the developmental expressions of human genetic information, or to the organic molecular configurations which may be expressed precisely in bio-chemical formulas, or on an even finer, subatomic level of discrimination, the information contained in the electron shells about the nucleus of an atom.</p> <p>We may speak analytically of different natural levels of informational patterning with a general hierarchy of determinations. Upon each of these levels, there exists fairly precise formulaic codifications of information which control and account for the patterning of natural "cosmographical" processes that are largely complex and chaotic. Thus it is the same physics which which precisely describes the atomic weight of atoms that describes the composition of stars light years distant, that discovers black holes in other galaxies, and explores the patterning of galaxies in their waltz across the universe. But physics alone cannot explain complex chemical reactions or the crystallization of mineral compounds in precise geometric forms, nor the processes of the genetic transmission and reproduction that underlies and drives the processes we call evolution. In a similar way, it is not enough to invoke the biological theory of evolution in order to understand the patterning of language and meaning production, in the dialectal divergence of separate cultural groupings, or in the separate historical development of human civilization in diverse regions of the earth.</p> <p>We must understand that explanation and description of events at one level of analysis cannot be reduced or directly translated into another level--we do not invoke theories of physics for the understanding of evolutionary processes, and we do not invoke understanding of organic photosynthesis for the understanding of cultural phenomena. To do so, especially in an exclusive sense, is a form of analytical reductionism which destroys the sense of order and implicitly the denies the patterned order at a higher level of natural systems integration.</p> <p>Natural systems theory which seeks to understand in precise forms the structural principles of patterning of information at various levels of analysis that occur in nature are all rooted in a structural-functional presupposition which stipulates that patterned relations are to some extent deterministically ordered--in effect, patterns of relationship at all levels of analysis are causally dependent upon specific variables which account for the resulting pattern and which in part determines the predictable, recurrent dynamics of the functioning of the system. The order which exists between the parts of the whole are thus functionally interrelated such that they constitute a dynamic system of interactions and relations which are minimally interdependent--a change in one part of the system will result in reverberations of changes in other parts.</p> <p>But this functional order of a "system" is never itself an entirely closed affair--at all levels of analysis, natural systems, as information systems, are part of a larger continuum of a universe of relationships at the same and at lower levels of analysis, relationships which may, however indirectly, affect the functional pattern of the system. It is this partial openness of natural systems which render their patterning "chaotic" and open to random variation of pattern. It is this systemic openness, or lack of complete closure of the system which guarantees that any natural system is always subject to change and modification, and will only be partially deterministic.</p> <p>The concern of this work is approaching description and general theoretic explanation of the socio-cultural level of human systems in a naturalistic way in terms of a central set of systemic propositions which are partially determinative of the informational processes and patterns which occur at this level. Furthermore, it constitutes an attempt to empirically demonstrate this analysis with consistent elicited patterns of data, generally from a methodology developed around a central theoretical premises and referred to as "symbolic mediation."</p> <b><u> <p>Symbolic Mediation</p> </u></b> <p>Symbolic mediation can be considered to be a form of "field theory" which has as its basis the developmental symbolic specialization of the "phenomenal field" which is defined as "the entire universe, including oneself, as it is experienced by the individual at the instant of action."</p> <p>The precise mechanism of this specialization is held to be the neurologically programmed apparatus of the human brain to terminologically recognize, or nominally designate, a set of external/internal relations both as: 1. a separate subset or whole part; and 2. as a part-whole of a larger nexus of relations.</p> <p>The external/internal relations are composed of both cognitive and affective components. <u>All "symbolizations" of the phenomenal field are accompanied by some relative level of both components: 1. the cognitive differentiation of the field; 2. the affective dynamics of relations within the field</u>.</p> <p>The central neural mechanism accounting for these processes is regarded as the symbolic mediation of the phenomenal field in which cognitive and affective associations of a differentiated sub-field of phenomenal experience becomes configured and mediated by the lexical naming which gives central symbolic definition and form to this configuration, and which brings this fragment of awareness into a "gestalt" as part of a whole field of possible relations.</p> <p>The human brain has evolved neural apparatus for speech production and for human language which has special design features of duality and symbolic reference of meaning--as such these developments of the brain were part of a development of the physiological apparatus for speech production and processing, and in a nonspecific sense its unique evolution can be considered to be the cerebral specialization for such speech recognition and production.</p> <p>If the nominological function of the word as the symbolic mediator of human experience rests as a pivot point in understanding the foundation of human consciousness and systems of symbolization, we must look beyond the word itself as an isolated name to the question of language structure itself as the syntagmatic production of a chain of paradigmatically alternate words.</p> <p>In this regard, it can be seen that each statement made or sentence, no matter how short, constitutes an implication of meaning which is always subject to question. A statement is thus an implicit inference about reality, the validity of which is always open to demonstration. Validity in this sense is bound up in the relative context of the symbolic frame of the sentence--the unstated understanding and knowledge which is required to complete the question that the statement implicitly asks us.</p> <p>Sentence construction in language is therefore a form of symbolic framing that serves to link together spaces, events, or regions of the phenomenal field, across time as well as space, and that enable us to re-synthesize and reunify the whole in relation to the parts. In this regard, language construction always implicitly has at least indirect reference to the whole. That we will unconsciously tend to construct and contextualize our sentences in terms which are consistent with our other symbolic frames and pre-understandings of how the world is framed speaks for the close linkage between language and socio-cultural context, on the one hand, and language and the subjective phenomenal field of experience on the other.</p> <p>Sentence construction is therefore bound to and structured by the need to make symbolic semantic inferences which can be subject to the validation of phenomenal experience in the world. In this regard, the structuring of language can be seen to follow the function of language in the construction of complex spaces or "gestalts" of differentiated phenomenal regions, and the transference of significance from one such "gestalt" to another. The job of a sentence is to link the subject as a figure to a larger frame that consists of the implicit background space of the sentence--the phenomenal field itself. This process of construction is influenced minimally by the aspectual form that the sentence construction normally takes in a language.</p> <p>We can refer to a form of relational inference in which the main task of linking things designated by nomenological reference to other things or to relations or events which occur in a hypothetical space is controlled by a relatively underdetermined model of plausible multidirectional inference. Normal direction of inference will be inherent to the syntagmatic, aspectual and marking of the sentence structure.</p> <p>Coherence of these semantic linkages is guided by a loose form of relational or relative inference and relative contextuality of the implicit frame of the sentence. Relative contextuality can refer to some variable pattern of differentiation of the part-whole relationship, in which the "entire" whole of the universe is always an external and implicit context to the configuration of a variable set of "parts".</p> <p>Relative inference refers to inferences which are guided by posited semantic primes of relational linkages between the parts or differentiated spaces and by a relative nonrestrictive form of plausibility of inference that is constrained mostly by the principle of explicit direct non-contradiction--in other words, any direction of semantic inference is permitted in the transference of significance between parts in the construction of mental space, as long as it is not directly contradicted.</p> <p>Universal semantic relational primes are given by Hamil (1991: pg. 42) as the following list:</p> <p>1. X is a kind of Y. 2. X is a part of Y.</p> <p>3. X is a place in Y. 4. X is oriented with respect to Y.</p> <p>5. X is contingent on Y. 6. X is a reason for doing Y.</p> <p>7. X is a place for doing Y. 8. X is used for Y.</p> <p>9. X is a means of effecting Y. 10. X is in a sequence including Y.</p> <p>11. X is a characteristic of Y. 12. X is similar to Y.</p> <p>13. X is different from Y. 14. X is an example of Y.</p> <p>15. X is equivalent to Y. 16. X is the opposite of Y.</p> <p>17. X is the source of Y. 18. X is X.</p> <p> </p> <p>The relative plausibility of the inference within the context of its implicit frame that is what is ultimately determinative of its truth value--there is no final, non-arbitrary truth value of any language, and this is the flexibility of language for prevarication, and for alternative interpretation.</p> <p>The structure which a language takes can thus be understood directly in terms of this semantic space building function function as a central mechanism for the symbolic framing of reality and the intermediation of internal and external realities.</p> <p>It is possible to describe the structural syntactic patterning of different languages in terms of this requirement of language in the construction of credible mental spaces which map to some extent and have implicit reference to the external world of relations, without making reference or inferring universal "deep structures" of language. This process of space construction in language may be stated symbolically in explicit propositional form without requiring the adoption of a rigid mathematical model of language that hasn't room for ambiguity of meaning.</p> <p>Linguistic articulation thus allows for the building of complex symbolic spaces, and even of symbolic constructions within symbolic constructions that can be linked by relational inference to yet other symbolic constructions. Thus language has the effect of forging chains of complex inter-linkages which may subsume a variety of different sets of cognitive and affective associations, and from which a symbolic complex of an internally coherent system of rationalization or belief system can be created, reiterated and linguistically reinforced.</p> <p>In reference to the relative contextuality and relative plausibility of the inference structure of language, it is important to emphasize the relative contextual dependency of different language constructions and the relative degrees context-boundness of alternative implicit semantics, and even the relative levels of contextuality exhibited by different languages and reflective of the degree of differentiation and symbolic specialization achieved within the culturally defined language system.</p> <p>The foundation of symbolic human awareness can be seen to be the hardwiring of the brain for the function of naming and terminological definition attached to an articulated and differentiated nexus of cognitive and affective relations and associations--such that the evocation of the name can lead to an evocation of the pattern of relations thus designated.</p> <p>This naming function of the human mind is fairly specific, such that discrete regions of the mind are neurologically wired to fairly specific names. But these named regions of phenomenal life-space are not exclusive in the sense that they stand separate or unconnected to other names--both names and the associations they index are interconnected within a context of other names and patterns of association, and these patterns of interconnection are organized along several overlapping principles of organization--analogically, homologically, and functionally.</p> <p>Thus for instance, perception of color and production of the term for color become learned separately, until a certain region of the brain links up the color with the term such that its recognition can lead to its automatic naming. This does not normally become "learned" until 3 or 4 years of age, at an age when the neuronal linkages are being made in a fairly specific location of the brain between those designating areas of color names and color perception--before this time the child knows the word "red" and can perceive red as a color, but cannot clearly recognize and name red as a color at the same time.</p> <p>It is also very certain that the order of the acquisition of terminological recognition and probably the perceptual differentiation of the color continuum is almost universally predictable and ordered in a fairly definite sequence of acquisition. Furthermore this developmental sequence is parallel for both the ontological development of the individual and the phylogenetic development of the culture--such that cultural orientations may be more or less differentiated in terms of color terminology is concerned. Individuals of those cultural backgrounds will, like children, be able to recognize by naming only those colors which are culturally available, though they may be capable of perceiving a much more highly differentiated spectrum of color differences.</p> <p>What has been demonstrated to be the case with color terms can be demonstrated also in many other "natural domains" of basic terms--for instance basic forms of flora and fauna, basic shapes or objects, parts of the body, categories of food, categories of natural things, etc. Furthermore, as will be demonstrated later in this work, the analysis of the symbolic framing of color does not end with the demonstration of the acquisition of color terminology, but involves the analytical elucidation of a plethora of cognitive-affective associations to colors, patterns of color preference and rank, underlying ethno-semantic dimensions by which colors are ordered and differentiated--this becomes the case with many other "natural" symbolic dimensions.</p> <p>In general, the following set of propositions are made. It can be said that in general there is a tendency that:</p> <p>1. more basic terms underlie and come sequentially before more elaborated, derivative terms.</p> <p>2. more basic terms designate a region of differentiated field, or part-whole relation, which is somehow more naturally "prototypical" and more deeply embedded than more elaborated terms.</p> <p>3. more basic terms show greater agreement and consensus of sharing within a culture.</p> <p>4. more elaborated terms have less agreement, and more ambiguity associated with the designated meanings.</p> <p>5. more basic terms tend to be simply and more efficiently encoded--more elaborated terms tend to be more expressive and less efficient in code.</p> <p>6. more basic terms are less likely to have been borrowed from outside, and are less subject to be "loaned" outside than more elaborated terms.</p> <p>7. more basic terms are less likely to change morpho-phonologically than more elaborate terms.</p> <p>8. within any "category" that is constitutive of a natural continuum--for instance colors, animals, insects, plants, shapes, etc.:</p> <p>a. there will be a sequence of acquisition in which more basic terms will come before more elaborated forms.</p> <p>b. the number of available terms will determine the range and level of differentiation of the resulting "spectrum"</p> <p>9. basic terms will tend to be more unmarked than elaborated terms.</p> <p>10. basic terms will be less symbolically specialized than elaborated terms.</p> <p>11. basic terms will be taxonomically higher and more general than elaborated terms.</p> <p>This points up a critical factor of human acquisition and symbolic functioning--that it is tied to an effective cultural environment within which symbolic acquisition becomes reinforced and structured. Language is inherently a social phenomena--it is situated and takes its shape in a community of speakers and cannot occur or be realistically considered in isolation from this socio-cultural context. We cannot therefore fully account for language in terms the language apparatus for speech production ontologically centered in the individual organism.</p> <p><u>The locus of socio-cultural phenomena as a natural system of information is therefore objectively situated in the external environment and is evolutionarily and inextricably situated within a socio-cultural context.</u> As such it is out there and takes its shape largely independent of its subjective character in the mind of the individual culture-bearer.</p> <p><u>There is an isomorphism of patterning between ontogenetic, developmental acquisition and socio-cultural acquisition, just as there is a parallel isomorphism between the objective patterning of information in the external socio-cultural context and the subjective patterning of information in the internalized phenomenal field of the individual.</u> This isomorphism is due primarily to <u>:1. the evolutionary dependency of human development and linguistic apparatus upon a socio-cultural context; 2. the developmental ontogeny of the brain, the hardwiring of symbolic framing of the world being dependent upon the socio-cultural context.</p> </u> <p>In general, the ontogeny and cultural phylogeny of developmental acquisition is in the direction of greater symbolic framing and dynamism of this phenomenal field along different, successively embedded principles of organization. It is important to recognize the developmental aspects of the emergence of the symbolically mediated phenomenal field in the life-world of the individual and the socio-cultural group.</p> <p>This emergence of the phenomenal field begins with the embryo, and in early stages consists of a "multitude of transient mental experiences that are not linked together and vanish past all recall in a few second. Perhaps such mental experience are all animals and very young children have, all their learning processes being subconscious and strictly speaking unremembered." (Eccles, 1953.). It has been postulated that "The emergence of a part of the phenomenal field is a cognitive event always accompanied by some degree of affect." (Turney, 1955: 5)</p> <p>We speak of the emergence of an increasingly differentiated field from a cognitive standpoint and of an increasingly dynamic field from the affective standpoint, and an increasingly specialized field from a symbolic standpoint. This refers to the analytical separation of a whole and previously undifferentiated phenomenal field into a mosaic of subspaces which are then composed into a configuration in relation to the whole. This reconfiguration is part of symbolic framing of the phenomenal field. In all symbolic frames, there is always an implicit part-whole relationship. It has been hypothesized that 1:"The whole field determines the nature of each of its parts." (Turney, 1955: 9) and 2: "Any part determines in part the nature of the field and affects its dynamics at any moment of action." (Turney, 1955: 11)</p> <p>The organization and "structure" of the patterning of mediation of the phenomenal field is held to be variable and dynamic, though become more stable with maturity. Because of the complexity, the polythetic constitution and the inheritance of both lexical, cognitive and affective associations, realistically mapping regions of this field for any particular person was held to be extremely difficult if not impossible, at least before the advent of the computer revolution.</p> <p>It has been hypothesized that "The potential of parts in the dynamics of the field is a function of the affect, but is not a constant." (Turney, 1955: 12) and that "The differentiation of the field (or any part) is a cognitive function, its associated affect changing in direction and intensity with each stage of differentiation." (Turney, 1955: 15)</p> <p>The affective component of the symbolic articulation of the field may lead to the cathectic fixation of feeling within an ossified and undynamic structure of symbolic relations which to some degree locks up the potency of the field for adaptive acquisition. It entails that all events are filled with relative embodied meaning and that we respond to them as "lived" or vital experience, and all symbolic structures of meaning are inherently "loaded" from the standpoint of affective associations which engender some level and kind of dynamic organismic response or reaction.</p> <p>The affective component of meaning should not be understated, as it determines that the core structure of a cultural paradigm cannot be merely comprehended as a cognitive, abstract model, but entails a nexus of values, feelings and states of subjective being which are integral to the core.</p> <p>Affective universals of meaning have been empirically documented by Charles Osgood et.al. Osgood located a universal set of primary dimensions of semantic meaning which differed cross-culturally. These basic dimensions of affective meaning are Evaluation, Potency and Activity.</p> <p>We may refer to relative levels of symbolic mediation of experience, both externally in the socio-cultural context and internally in the subjective mapping of the phenomenal field--relative levels which will be reflected in terms of terminological categories and distinctions, language, and symbolic specialization of function.</p> <p>These relative levels of symbolic framing allow us to refer to an acquisitive/developmental scale which holds isomorphically for both ontogenetic subjective development as well as for wider cultural development, along which both individuals and different cultures may be relatively ranked in order of their achieved degree of symbolic articulation of reality. Higher achieved articulation of reality makes available greater degrees of cognitive differentiation--higher levels of achieved differentiation allows for a greater more specialized symbolic articulation of reality.</p> <p>Two related postulates posit a connection with this proposition to general neurological activity and functioning: 1. There is some degree of awareness of each and every differentiation of the field, awareness that may be linked to the reticular system of the brain stem in both ego-trophic functions of excitability and tropho-tropic functions of activity inhibition as well as to involvement of the cerebral cortex in the selection of the content of experience and to the control of the direction of thought--ie attention and set. These are linked to corresponding levels of consciousness, and to the general proposition that:</p> <p>The precision and clearness of the cognitive event and the intensity of the affect associated with it are both determiners of the degree of awareness.</p> <p>Awareness with the implications of waking consciousness or some alternate or relative or dependent state of consciousness does not take into account the unconscious influence of "parts previously differentiated" that are completely out of awareness.</p> <p>It is a central hypothesis of this theory that such unconscious background processes have a critical influence upon the symbolic articulation, dynamics and differentiation of the phenomenal field and is constraining, unavoidable, and empirically available to validation through indirect, circumstantial evidence. We may state that in every symbolic articulation there is some degree of unconscious unawareness which influences the event, and which in part influences the relative level differentiation and dynamics of the event.</p> <p>It is this extraneous factor, of the influence of the ground on the perception of the figure, which is the source of noise and ambiguity of identity of relations within our awareness--and is tied to both the external context of background associations and relations, as well as to an internal unconscious process which is largely constituted by potential memory associations--or trace residual patternings which remain embedded in the neural connections of the brain.</p> <p>Thus the symbolic mechanism underlying the articulation of reality is not entirely deterministic of the patterning of the phenomenal field, but must be accounted for in terms of a wider, less deterministic and more open role of the processes of symbolization which allow the symbolic construct to tolerate some ambiguity, to carry more than one meaning, to be designated by alternate terms, or to stand for different, even mutually contradictory things at the same time. Thus, the part-whole relationship stands in some measure of funny irrelation.</p> <p>Symbol systems allow for a relative degree of achieved "unity of the whole" over and above the parts, or for the "part" to stand in place of the whole or the whole to stand in place of the part. Thus a symbolic reunification of a differentiated phenomenal field can be achieved symbolically, but never completely.</p> <p>We may account for and define the role of symbolization neurologically on two levels: 1. in the analytical articulation of the phenomenal field from a previously undifferentiated whole into part-whole relations, principally by means of terminological associations of cognitive and affective components and; 2. a synthetic reunification of the part-whole relationships into a previously differentiated whole, principally by means of terminological abstraction, concretization, reification and rationalization--such that the term comes to designate and stand in place of the region of the phenomenal field which it articulates.</p> <p>It is the secondary symbolic function that we find the proclivity of the human mind to strive to reconfigure an analytically differentiated world to achieve some form of synthetic "gestalt" of sense of overall pattern of part-whole relationship--a drive to find order among parts that may be neurotically tied to the reduction of ambiguity inherent to its analytical differentiation, as well as to a normal need for "order" among the parts. It is the capacity of symbolizations to achieve effectively this second function that we speak of the integration of phenomenological reality as a symbolic achievement which is correlated to some extent with adaptation to a dynamic, changing world. The ability to achieve "conscious" awareness in this second form of a "gestalt" is determined in part by both conscious and unconscious processes involving both affective and cognitive dimensions of association.</p> <p>Psycho-cultural gestalt is the term I have adopted to refer to the second achievement of a sense of reunification of the part-whole relation, and its frequency and clarity are relative measures of the adaptive integrity of both the individual culture-bearer and the socio-cultural context in which the member of culture is situated.</p> <p>It points up the dynamic, cybernetic relationship between internal process of symbolic articulation and external patterns of the socio-cultural contexts--it suggests that the interdependency between the internal and external orders for a 'dual processing' system in which feedback can be both resonance amplifying and resonance dampening and in which long term patterns may lead to destructive or constructive patterns of interference. Thus cultural gestalt is a relative measure of the state of patterned interference of relations between external context and internalized subjective constructs.</p> <p>This theory can lead to the precise articulation of 1. a systematic conceptioning of the socio-cultural contexts which define the objectve, external foundation, with the aim of explaining the central, underlying implicit structure and functioning of this system. 2. a systematic conceptioning of the internal processes of symbolization and recognition which parallels and to some extent subjective maps the external order, especially accounting for the unconscious dynamics of the process. 3. the implementation of a body of methods which will allow for the empirical and experimental exploration of these processes, their analysis and graphic representation in a realistic manner.</p> <b><u> <p>Cultural Paradigms and Scientific Codifications</p> </u></b> <p>Socio-cultural contexts depend upon the establishment and reinforcement of a minimal level of coherence and order which tends to follow certain principles: it is simple and focally oriented, based upon the relationship between a few core variables or values: it tends to appropriate basic forms or categories, such that it becomes embedded in a level that is largely unmarked and indirect in its constraining function: it becomes focally elaborated and symbolically represented in highly stylized codifications which define and positively sanction the focal orientation; its focal and basic elaborations are relative conservative and resist change or alteration; a secondary system of direct negative sanctions may arise which define alternate or relativizing orientations as antithetical and which may contain symbolic apparatus for managing marginal events or relativizing orientations when they arise.</p> <p>This central orientation of a culture will be more or less highly differentiated, and constitutes the basis of an implicit cultural model of a focal cultural orientation. Every cultural system, in order to be coherent, maintains implicitly some core or central "paradigm" which defines and orients the world in a focal and coherent model. The capacity for individuals within a cultural orientation to achieve and maintain an effective sense of cultural gestalt rests upon their ability to realize and positively reinforce in their everyday lives and social relations the implicit paradigm which underlies its patterning and which becomes largely ossified and ritually elaborated in a conservative sense in the form of core traditional practices, beliefs, teachings, and texts.</p> <p>The paradigm of a cultural orientation is meant in a generic sense of "a basic set of beliefs that guides actions". This paradigm is usually implicit as a guide, and its integration is largely invisible on the surface of everyday behavior. A paradigm is rooted in a socio-cultural context of interaction--it is this context which largely, conventionally defines it as received and "normal" and which reinforces it in everyday life.</p> <p>So basic and transparent is it in our everyday judgment and decisions and actions that it informs our understanding of the world as pragmatic common sense. Its function of sanctioning and constraining behavior are largely indirect. Paradigms are, in a structural, and largely ideal sense, rule-bound and this deeper sense of order can be propositionally represented in a rule-based system.</p> <p>The central thesis of this work is that for any cultural orientation to be minimally coherent, like any language to which it is largely attached and expressed, a cultural orientation must exhibit in terms of patterning of behavior and social relations a centrally oriented paradigm against which the entire world becomes ordered and understood. It is this paradigm by which we come to recognize and understand culture and cultural differences, and by which we come to understand that cultural differences are largely relative to the orientation in which they are situated.</p> <p>To say that this paradigm is largely symbolic and behavioral should go without saying--as such it provides unity not only within the culture, but to the entire universe which becomes oriented around it. It functions symbolically in our lives, and is constituted symbolically in our own being, even at an organic level of our perceptions, feelings and bodily reactions to our world.</p> <p>This paradigm is from a culture historical standpoint not unlike the Hegelian Geist--but it does not stand as the hub around which all action depends. People may or may not act in relation to it--people may choose and often do so act independently of it or in its contradiction--but it remains there, embedded in the background of the action, to give it social significance and symbolic form, and whether we go with the grain or against it, we all at least implicitly know what it is.</p> <p>The paradigm itself is not a changeless or static structure--it changes as well, and its changing often entails major disruptions on the surface flow of events in our shared lives the origin or reasons for which we may not clearly understand. When our paradigm changes, our world changes with it.</p> <p>When we refer to a paradigm shift, we refer to a socio-cultural revolution in which conversion from one symbolic orientation to another is at the heart of the process, and in which the symbolic orientation of the paradigm becomes subjectively embodied in not only the way we do things, act and think about the world, but even in the way we talk about it and perceive it. Thus, a conversion experience that accompanies a paradigm switch, something referred to as "alternation" of subjective identity, is in a sense total, leading to a new way of seeing, talking about and behaving in relation to the world, as well as a new way in which the world itself becomes related to us.</p> <p>The effectiveness of the cultural paradigm is measureable in terms of its consequences for symbolic framing, and in terms of its effectiveness in the achievement of cultural gestalt in the relations and lives of its culture-bearers. It is the contention of this paper and this work that the implicit structural patterning and function of the underlying cultural paradigm which is based upon focal cultural models as indirect sanctions for belief and behavior, can be expressed in terms of which are propositionally explicit and lend themselves to naturalistic, scientific codification which are independent of the cultural expressions or codifications found within the context.</p> <p>It is an outcome of this line of thought that this theory of human socio-cultural realities as natural systems theory of informational patterning is <u>scientific</u> because it is by definition and demonstration effectively independent of any particular socio-cultural context of interpretation, and hence can be considered non-ethnocentric and objectively unbiased, though it is equally amenable to virtually any different cultural orientation.</p> <b><u> <p>Symbolic Framing</p> </u></b> <p>Symbolic framing is a term coined for a very basic perceptual and cognitive process of "filling in" the ambiguous gaps of a figure-ground relationship such that a "gestalt" configuration is achieved in the comprehension of an external stimuli. It is referred to as symbolic because it is held to be the fundamental neural mechanism underlying our capacity for symbolization and the construction of symbolic meaning in reality. A series of "symbolic frame tasks" were devised and administered in the course of an extensive ethnographic study with the intention of analyzing in greater detail the hypothetical process of symbolic framing and its variations in a number of different tasks.</p> <p>It may be said at the outset that symbolic framing is a form of pattern recognition in which the achievement of a "gestalt" or comprehension of a unified configuration is tied to our capacity for processing and organizing the figure-frame or figure-ground or figure-field relationships both perceptually and conceptually. Reference to a phenomenal field as the ground of both perception and cognition refers to a basic neural unity of mental activations which are rooted in the base nervous sensory perception of the world, and works its way "up" to the level of abstract conceptualization and conscious rationalization.</p> <p>In this regard, we cannot consider the abstract thought of some ideal notion to be fundamentally, in essence, any different or separate from the perception of, say an apple or the feeling of a slimy fish in our hands. We may speak then of a presupposed psychic-phenomenal unity of experience which states not that all of us sees things necessarily in the same way, but that the things we see tend to see also to be the things that we think. A mental disorder like schizophrenia may be the rudimentary dysunification of this relatively continuous field of psychic integration--such that perceptions and conceptions no longer stand in any necessary one-to-one correspondence or in homologous or even analogous relationship.</p> <p>Behind this psychic-phenomenal unity of experience exists an innate predisposition of the mind to superimpose a sense of order, or, to put it another way, to prefer and select for a sense of "field coherence" such that there is continuity and consistency of experience. Perceptual constancy is but one fairly well studied aspect of this general mental tendency. This is a very basic proclivity of the mind, and occurs on a level which is automatic and usually, normally, well out of our conscious awareness. It may be argued that this predisposition is so fundamental to human mentation that it actually frees our conscious mind the problematics of attending to details to attend to more focal and adaptively significant tasks.</p> <p>To a large extent, symbolic framing shares a very similar and, it is argued, derivative function of both smoothing the ripples of the phenomenal and psychic field, and of maintaining the coherence and unity of experience.</p> <p>As it often happens, disruptions and disunities of experience frequently occur at many levels of our experience. These threaten and tend to undermine our sense of unity of experience--they result in confusion, disorientation, cognitive errors of mistaken identity, "tricks of the mind," and "cognitive dissonance" are the result of such states of "disrepair". Thus it largely becomes the psychological function of the mind in our recognition and relation to the field of experience to be able to "repair" in a sufficient manner these disruptions of our field in order that they do not pose a threat to our sense of order any longer, and a sense of unity and "gestalt" experience can be restored.</p> <p>Cognitive repair occurs continuously on very unconscious and even in very fundamental perceptual ways. The famous blank spot in the corner of our field of vision at which the optic nerve connects to the inner surface of the eye, is almost always filled in by information from surrounding rod and cone cells such that a spot never comes to our awareness. The mind has a tremendous facility in filling in the gaps of the perceptual field such that we perceive as continuous what may in fact be discontinuous signals. The net effect is the generation of an illusion of "animated consciousness" or of a continuous stream of experience. The point by point focal awareness of our focal awareness or consciousness is another case in point--that fact that awareness is rarely if ever steadily focused, but continuously networks a configuration of focal points in our field of awareness, demonstrates that even at a higher level of consciousness our experience is rarely if ever a "steady state" though it appears so.</p> <p>It is this proclivity and inherent organizational facility of the human mind that, it is the claim of this paper, constitutes the foundation of symbolic awareness as a distinctively human form of "mentation" and which underlies the constructive and productive processes of allow our systems of symbolic representation of reality. To dismiss this process as merely "pattern-recognition" misses the point of the complexity of the process as an innate patterning of both the brain and human mentation. It is a form of pattern-recognition which may be like the frog's visual recognition of a fly in motion or of a shadow--but it is a form of recognition with a difference as the frog instinctively responds to the fly's motion or the presence of a shadow, but the human must "think" about it, symbolize it, even name it, and then "decide" on a course of action, whether this is reflexive or not. In fact, human's cannot but help "think" about it even in the basic sense that much of the filling in of gaps of lower-order sensory fields may actually be accomplished at a "higher" level or from a higher level source. Thus, human brains are "thinking machines" in a very basic and fundamental ways, and have probably evolved as such--we are "thinking" all of the time--even when we are asleep or when we are dreaming, our brains our thinking. And the basic way that we think is by definition and function "symbolic."</p> <p>In the process of elicitation of symbolic frame tasks, several patterns of response became quite evident:</p> <p>1. Memory material stored deeply in the mind is frequently used for filling in the gaps of the phenomenal field in order to achieve a "gestalt."</p> <p>2. Such memory material, itself symbolic, is often times "incorrect" or erroneous in that it does not "fit" the field.</p> <p>3. Memory material seems to come from different, and probably "stratified" levels and these levels reflect the working of thoughts from perceptual substance to full blown abstract rationalizations. Memory material that comes deeply from the mind tends to be more abstractly symbolic than "surface" content. Thus the filling in of perceptual gaps may require only the material available from short-term memory--the color of the surrounding background of the object, for instance. If unavailable, or if the gaps are of a more complex sequential or arrangement pattern in a figure field relations, then the memory information may be drawn from a deeper source of a "working" or a medium term memory. Finally, if the gaps represent a basic figure-frame ambiguity or inherent thematic ambiguity of the figure itself, then memory information relied upon to disambiguate the figure-frame relation or to make thematic sense of the figure may be drawn more deeply from within the memory, drawing upon psychic content or material which may be more "symbolic" as well as rationalistic in the conventional sense.</p> <p>4. It is evident that these processes of "psychic repair" of the phenomenal field are largely unconscious and, furthermore, compulsive. We cannot but help but do these things, because we are driving in a fundamental, perhaps "squamous" way to configure pattern and structure in our world.</p> <p>5. The process of disruption and repair are fairly continuous background processes, and normally this can be considered a subconscious form of basic learning--it can be expected that the mind will come to habitually rely upon similar or the same memory materials that it successfully applied to previous similar contexts.</p> <p>6. But there results a certain potential for negative or degenerative feedback such that greater disruption generates greater repair which generates a greater likelihood of "disrepair" or mistakes, which leads to greater disruption or the process of disrupted information as if it were normal. Uncorrected problems of vision or hearing, or problems of visual or auditory integration, may lead to deeper seated problems of cognitive disrepair--or the creation and filling in of gaps deeper within the processes of consciousness. I refer to this as basically psychically pathological processes of secondary disrepair.</p> <p>7.It appears that there are within the mind basic forms which are good to "think" and which the mind uses to fill in and on which to construct more elaborated forms albeit in a stereotypical, analogous or simplified manner--there is a marked tendency to rely upon such basic forms at very early stages of the process of symbolic disambiguation.</p> <p>8. Furthermore, it appears that with the deeper, more expressive, processes of symbolic repair, there are certain basic, "paradigmatically" alternate directions of stylization, as well as mixed, inbetween, hybrids, which such reconstructive repair can take, and these basic symbolic directions appear to be affectively and symbolically tied to the psycho-social identity of the self in relation to the other, as well as to the juxtapositioning of the "ideal" in relation to the "base" or "vulgar".</p> <p>9. These tendencies appear to take on a pattern similar to that elucidated by Claude Levi-Strauss in the dialectical interplay and synthesis of opposites, and elicited forms of thematic rationalization can be referred to as forms of ego-defense mechanisms in the conceptual definition of the boundary and symbolic mediation between these dialectically contraposed symbolic forms. These structural patterns appear to be deeply rooted in the psyche and in a sense "pre-structure" our symbolic recognition and interpretation of the world. They are mostly unconscious processes which shape our conscious awareness.</p> <p>10. At all levels, these forms of consciousness tend to take two or three basic modalities--a normal mode, a neurotic mode, and a psychically or organically disturbed mode which can be distinguished on the ability to achieve a clear gestalt or relative level of psychic integration of the figure-ground relationship, and by the noticeable absence or presence of latent processes of secondary psychic disrepair.</p> <p>11. Furthermore, these forms of conscious process can also be said to be distinguished on the basis of their relative level organic articulation between internal and external realities and relative level of achieved symbolic differentiation and sophistication of elaborated forms. In this regard, there appears to be an "acquired" form of disordered characteriological "dependency" in gross relation to the environment which can be thought to be a kind of passive responsiveness to the environment versus an active participation with it. This form of phenomenal dependency upon the whole to frame the part can be considered as an overall and nearly exclusive over reliance on the external cues of the context of psychic perception, to the ignorance or inability to effectively separate or disambiguate as definitively distinct the object of focus from the framework</p> <p>Symbolic framing procedures offer a productive new methodology. Not only are a wide variety of symbolic frame devices able to be designed and administered in a controlled and reliable manner, but different procedures allow for multiple or similar forms of analysis and representation of the response patterns which enable a systematic mapping of these patterns and an exploration of the symbolic spaces which they open up for us. Furthermore, symbolic framing methodology readily lends itself to the construction of alternative computer systems which allow for the complex modeling of socio-cultural patterning.</p> <p>We may refer to the ability of the same symbolic framing devices to approach the analysis of symbolic framing in its several respects simultaneously:</p> <p>First, it allows elicitation of knowledge, domains, terms and their relations which are indicative indirectly of the external patterning of information in the socio-cultural contexts, especially as such knowledge is a shared pattern.</p> <p>Secondly, it allows the detailed analytical means of indirectly demonstrating the internal processes and patterning of the cognitive differentiation and affective dynamics of the phenomenal field, as well as the basic symbolic processes which allow the intermediation between internal and external worlds.</p> <p>Third, they allow us a form of control over the process which enable us to situate the administration and pattern of response within the socio-cultural milieu which is a naturalistic context of their normal occurrence. We can then speak of experimentally manipulating the cultural context or of observationally analyzing it in order to more fully investigate the patterning of influence this may have upon symbolic framing.</p> <font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER ONE</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">THEORY AND METHOD OF SYMBOLIC FRAMING</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The Science of Anthropology has yet to define itself paradigmatically, though some would claim that it is essentially a non-paradigmatic humanity, while many others, especially in the United States, have attempted to fit it into a biological model of Evolution--which from the standpoint of culture is a little like trying to fit the model of biological evolution into the physical model of Einstein's theory of relativity.</p> <p>Sociobiological and "bio-cultural" studies which attempts to explain social behavior and patterning on the basis of genetic and evolutionary causes while at the same time explaining away or euphemistically "redefining" human culture as biology represents a kind of persistent folk biology which is deeply rooted in nature/nurture dichotomy and in the belief that "blood is thicker than water." These orientations indirectly serve to legitimate very conservative and essentially racist "do nothing" attitudes and structural relations which continue domestically to discriminate and victimize by "benign neglect" certain minority groups--largely blacks, homosexuals, and poor women and children, and internationally to promote "coca cola" policies of aiding the elite while starving the poor.</p> <p>Not only have no clear cut genetic linkages ever been found to explain complex individual behaviors, but no genetic linkages have ever been clearly proven to underlie complex social patterning. These attempts when applied to cultural explanations of reality represent a kind of pseudo-science which, because they ignore the problem of human history and conflate and fail to clearly discriminate at several levels (early socialization, development, secondary socialization and social sanctioning) the influence of environment and culture in the patterning of individual behavior.</p> <p> </p> <b><u> <p>Theory</p> </u></b> <p>There have been five cornerstones in cultural anthropological research--relativism, cross-cultural comparison, a strong inductive empiricism, participant observation and a quest for universal's of human nature. It has been upon these cornerstones that a genuine science of anthropology must be built.</p> <p>The concept and study of human ethno-culture has been posed as a viable alternative to implicitly racist biological approaches to the study of human society and culture. Ethnoculture outlines not only an attitude towards the importance of historical relations and events in influencing the patterning of culture, and of the resulting relativities of culture history, but also the intrinsic and unavoidable "historicity" of our hermeneutical and critical interpretations of the evidence, both from a standpoint of internal and external validity, which readers all our models of the other largely reified "constructions" of our own making.</p> <p>The science of anthropology can move beyond these limitations, but only slowly and carefully and not by committing the majority of its funding to genetic short-cuts or grand leaps of evolutionary faith.</p> <p><b><u>Cultural gestalt</u></b> is the distinctive pattern of characteristics--including mental attitudes, affective dispositions, perceptions, language, systems of belief, value, knowledge, technology, customs, arts, styles of social interaction, sanctions, roles, behavior, habits of dress, tastes and eating habits, material and symbolic artifacts and relations with an environmental context--shared by an <b><u>ethnoculture</u></b>, a corporate community of people existing in a common time and place, that is defined both internally by shared cognitive structures of mind and externally in social relations and reference with other people and groups.</p> <p>The emphasis upon ethnoculture as a viable theoretical alternative provides a critical emphasis <u>upon the reality of culture</u>--not as an end-product or by-product of other theoretical explanations (as something to be explained away), but as itself a viable social and historical phenomena which causes things to happen to people in the world.</p> <p>The study of ethnoculture has become particularly important in the post-colonial world where new asymmetrical nationalisms have encompassed diverse cultures and have served to highlight ethnic differences and identities in the struggle for resources and power in the world, even to the point of ethnic schismogenesis.</p> <p>Symbolic framing constitutes a general theory about human cultural phenomena. <u><b>Culture</b> </u> from this standpoint <u>is the whole gestalt of symbolic connections between external social-environmental relations and internalized mental representations of these relations, and the consequent behavioral, emotional and social patterning which represent responses to these relations</u>. Culture takes shape, has reference to and is always 'situated' within a larger nexus of historical, social and environmental relations. We cannot consider human identity or social phenomena outside of or apart from this cultural context which serves to relativize cultural orientations and differences between groups.</p> <p>Socially, culture comes to define itself through processes of interpersonal objectification at several possible levels (familialy, locally, ethnically, regionally, nationally) in terms of a shared corporate sense of community that is larger than life and to some extent has a superorganic life of its own. At the same time, culture comes to express itself psychologically in terms of individual identity and personality, through processes of subjectification involving internalization and identification with group values and norms, a distinctive profile of shared traits or range of behaviors and symbolic orientations, rationalizations, attitudes and motivations. The collective sharing of a suit of traits, and its sanctioning, reinforcement and reification as if natural and given, both socially and psychologically, constitutes the basis of cultural reality.</p> <p>The general 'Symbolic framing theory' informing this study can be outlined by seven main principles and their corollaries:</p> <p><b><u>1. Culture is causally effective and thus functionally real. </u></b>Maintaining cultural gestalt is vital both to the functioning of human society as well as to the ordering of human consciousness, and is an expression of the natural cybernetics of culture.</p> <p><b><u>a:</u></b> <u>Cultural reality is holistically integrated.</u> Cultural Gestalt can be best understood at the level of cultural phenomena itself, within the context of its historical occurrence, and analytical reduction of such patterning is inadequate to the representation of culture, though acceptable and demanded from the standpoint of cross-cultural analysis.</p> <p><b><u>b: </u></b><u>Cultural reality is symbolically mediated and subjectively embodied</u>.The implicit cultural gestalt becomes internalized through processes of enculturation and socialization, and humans have evolved explicitly for this process of internalization which is accomplished through the symbolic mediation of language.</p> <p><b><u>b:</u></b> <u>Human reality is culturally and psychologically relative.</u> The cultural gestalts of different peoples follows different patterning, and these differences are in many ways incommensurable and incompatible with one another.</p> <p><b><u>2. Cultural reality is always ethnoculturally situated in an historical context of asymmetrical acculturation. </u></b>Cultural Gestalts are the historical consequence of ethnocultural groupings maintaining their distinctive cultural orientation in background relation to other ethnocultural groupings.</p> <p><b><u>a:</u> </b><u>Ethno-culture is an enduring, corporate institutional form of symbolic expression</u> that is characterized by: 1. a shared sense of identity; 2. a shared sense of community; 3. a shared implicit patterning of gestalt symbolization.</p> <p><b><u>b:</u></b> <u>Ethno-cultural realities are embedded within larger social historical realities</u> and is but one level of human reality which is itself integrated with other kinds of social, historical and biographical patterning.</p> <p><u>3. <b>Cultural change due to historical influence is inevitable.</b></u> Cultural realities are always changing historically and are part consequence of inter-cultural contacts or patterns of acculturation from alternative cultural realities which become the primary source of discordance and change for a cultural grouping.</p> <p><b><u>a:</u></b> <u>For a variety of different reasons, cultures may change at different and variable rates.</p> </u> <p><b><u>b:</u></b> <u>Acculturation is the primary source of cultural change.</u> Though cultural change may be both endogenous and exogenous, extraneous acculturative influences have been historically preponderant and are usually the independent variable while endogenous changes remain the dependent variable.</p> <p><b><u>c:</u></b> <u>Cultural reality is contextualized and relativized within a multicultural continuum.</u> All cultures exist within a larger socio-historical continuum which serves to contextualize inter-cultural relations. We can speak of an historically defined, multi-cultural continuum which constitutes the larger social realities of humankind and which always serve to contextualize and relativize the realities of any single culture.</p> <p><b><u>4:</u></b> <b><u>All cultural groupings face a common and chronic existential challenge of adaptive integration in relation to change.</u></b> Because of the inevitability of cultural change, groups always face the existential problem of adaptive integration. The problem of cultural integration is the chronic consequence of change, of always being only partially and incompletely integrated.</p> <p><b><u>a:</u></b> <u>Cultural Gestalt is cybernetically structured</u> on the basis of the functional need to always maximize cultural coherence and minimize cultural chaos.</p> <p><b><u>b:</u></b> <u>All cultural groupings are preoccupied with the problem of reconstruction, defined as the reciprocal problems of primary production and secondary reproduction of the predominant cultural patterning. </u>Production concerns the utilization of basic resources vital to the survival of the population. Reproduction concerns the replacement of the population and the symbolic continuation of the cultural gestalt. <u>In order for a culture to adapt in the long run, reproductive strategies must be consonant with productive strategies.</p> </u> <p><b><u>c:</u></b> <u>All cultures are inherently conservative, some more than others. </u>The conservativeness of cultural orientations, usually expressed as tradition and the resistance to innovation, is a natural and normal predisposition of all cultural orientations, and is the principle expression of the cultural interests in the priority of cultural reproduction.</p> <p><b><u>d:</u></b> <u>All cultures are minimally shared</u>. Culture is mostly a social phenomena, and cultural integration is mostly achieved through sharing of cultural traits and the minimal achievement of cultural consensus.</p> <p><b><u>e:</u></b> <u>Cultural reproduction depends upon primary enculturation and socialization, i.e. direct and indirect sanctioning of appropriate traits, ideals, patterns, habits, tastes, models, roles, interpersonal relations and symbolic and institutional forms of culture.</u> Cultures are transmitted through time and conserved principally by the means of enculturation and subsequent sanctioning of appropriate behavior by adults.</p> <p><b><u>f:</u></b> <u>Cultural reconstruction is reinforced by its positive valuation, its social sanctioning, symbolic reification and its focal elaboration in patterns of secondary socialization and enculturation.</p> </u> <p><b><u>5 The challenge of cultural integration results in the construction of cultural reality structured in terms of the gestalt patterning of human symbolization.</u></b> Cultural reality is symbolic and the symbolic organization of cultural reality forms a "gestalt" patterning.<b> </b>Symbolization is a pattern-matching process in which externally framed figure-ground relationships are perceived as isomorphic or disconsonant with internalized information about such relationships. The cultural construction of human reality is primarily symbolic, and this symbolic basis of human culture underlies the mental, emotional, linguistic, relational, behavioral and even material organization of human existence.</p> <p><b><u>a: </u></b><u>Cultural reproduction involves the dialectical processes of social externalization and psycho-social internalization of symbolic forms.</u> Humans have externalized as a part of their objective environments elements which are both natural and cultural in origin, and have simultaneously internalized the same elements, and there is a constant feedback between these internal and external realities. The results of this dialectical process can be referred to as the <u>cultural construction of human reality</u>.</p> <p><b><u>b:</u></b> <u>The human capacity and evolutionary possibility of cultural reality is cognitively embedded in the organization of the brain and has its origins in human evolution.</u><b> </b>The cognitive foundation of cultural organization is primarily symbolic, built upon the gestalt pattern-matching competence of the human brain, and we can properly speak of the symbolic organization of cultural realities and of its many aspects--its language, art, religion, technology and practical or "reality culture" as well.</p> <p>The symbolic organization of human reality has its foundation in the neuro-physiological organization of the human brain, and in the developmental ontogeny of the individual as a culture-bearer.</p> <p><b><u>6. The reconstruction of cultural reality becomes symbolically reified as a unique and distinctive "gestalt" of adaptive integration and expression of individual and cultural identity. </u></b>The human reconstruction of cultural reality is an adaptive response that becomes symbolically reified. Human nature and culture are dialectically intertwined, such that culture defines and is defined by human nature. The symbolic reification of the cultural construction of reality depends upon the <u>perceived and recognized </u>isomorphism between internalized and externalized versions of that reality.</p> <b> <p><u>a:</u></b> <u>The principle consequences of cultural integration and reproduction become expressed primarily in symbolic forms of contradiction and consonance affecting the organization of everyday life</u>. These contradictions and consonances are manifest upon several levels of cultural reality, in the dialectical problems of symbolic boundary maintenance both within and outside of the cultural grouping of people, and in terms of status-role identification of the individual within the group, and in the existential dilemmas which are commonly shared in the life-worlds of its members.</p> <p><b><u>b:</u></b> <u>Culture is socially externalized in interpersonal relations and institutional organization and psychologically internalized in the status-role identity of the individual.</u><b> </b>The realities of culture are mostly subjective and socially expressed by its members via their values, beliefs, attitudes, emotions, knowledge, language, behavior, external and material representations, and social institutional forms, in relation with one another. The internalization and externalization processes are mutually and dialectically reinforcing, and are necessary in the reification of cultural reconstructions of reality.</p> <p><b><u>c: </u></b><u>Inconsistencies in social-psychological identification, interpersonal relations and boundary maintenance are the principle forms of symbolic expression of the contradictions and disconsonance of cultural realties. </u>This proposition is more of an hypothesis that some forms of illness and social pathology will be symbolic expressions symptomatic of deeper and broader psycho-cultural dilemmas and conflicts.<u></p> </u> <p><b><u>d: </u></b><u>Language is the principle means of the symbolic mediation, communication and expression of cultural reification.</u><b> </b>Language is the central symbolic mechanism mediating between external patterns of culture and internalized maps of culture. Linguistic analysis must ultimately be framed in terms of this symbolic function--i.e., language is symbolically structured.</p> </font><b><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> </font></b><font FACE="Times"> <p>The difficulty in approaching the problem of cultural reality is its 'non-reflexive transparency'--an inherent invisibility of the facets of one's own culture that is the consequence of its deep internalization and contextualization in the background of everyday life, and thus its tendency to become 'naturalized' as a taken-for-granted aspect of human nature that is usually out of awareness.</p> <p>The theory of symbolic framing in the formation of cultural gestalt brings us to the central problem of the "integration" of human reality simultaneously at several levels of its psychological articulation and differentiation. Symbolisms allow the integration of diverse and eclectic elements into a coherent and otherwise unnatural order--this is the power of symbolization to merge and fill in gaps and to overcome the contrasts represented by contradictory or incompatible elements.</p> <p>Cultural gestalt, moreover, is more than just a "predominant patterning" of a culture as defined by the average or modal personality. It is a set of consistent relationships between variables which is both externalized in the cultural landscape and internalized as a cognitive map in the brain of the culture-bearer.</p> <p>Cultural Gestalt is a mosaic of traits and affinities, except that individual patterning varies markedly--more like a variable cultural moire'. Though the individual components and relationships of the gestalt may vary, there are consistent patterns within these relationships--frequencies of occurrence, marked salience of certain objects, remarkable lack of salience for others--which remain unvaried and which give a distinctive form to the gestalt. Though individual components of the mosaic may be continuously juxtaposed with one another, these broader relationships remain stable.</p> <p>The external stimuli of a symbol can be thought of as only a single tile of the cultural mosaic, but it should not be construed as just an artifact or objective entity. A symbol is more of an expression of a relationship and a process of interaction between the external and internal worlds, and can be thought of rather as a mediator or "interface" between these worlds. It is more precise to speak of symbolization than of symbols per se.</p> <p>Symbolizations as human percepto-cognitive constructs "fill" in and "repair" gaps in the cognized field of environmental relations, thus smoothing out and rendering this field coherent and apparently integrated.</p> <p>All symbolizations share a number of common features rooted to the symbolic psychology of the mind, one that underlies the psychology of culture. Anything can be symbolic and most things have a symbolic aspect. Symbols are composite constructs. All symbols have an external reference--a perceptual "stimuli" configured against an expected context of relations with other stimuli. All symbols have a multifaceted, emblematic structure composed of multiple signs, multi-modal percepts and alternative associations. All symbols also have an internal reference--a set of semantic, affective, linguistic and evaluative relations or associations which define the internal locus that is rooted in the memory. Symbols thus 'chunk' the landscape of cultural knowledge in distinct ways.</p> <p>There are several important characteristics of cultural knowledge:</p> <p>1. Cultural knowledge is historically influenced, principally by processes of acculturation.</p> <p>2. Cultural knowledge is materially embedded in or 'situated' in a local social and environmental context.</p> <p>3. Cultural knowledge is psychologically embodied within the mental and behavioral constructions and response of the individual as a culture bearer.</p> <p>4. Cultural knowledge is primarily symbolic, comprising both internal and external components of symbolization.</p> <p>5. Symbolic functioning of the human mind is organized on the basis of gestalt pattern recognition, therefore cultural knowledge is deposited in the human mind as such gestalt patterning.</p> <p>6.. Cultural knowledge is linguistically encoded and is linguistically relative to the group in which it is situated.</p> <p>7.. Cultural knowledge is unevenly distributed across a group, hence we may speak of different levels and orientations of cultural competence within any group.</p> <p>8. The patterning, function and organization of cultural knowledge is mostly implicit, unconscious and contextual to human awareness, both psychologically in the mind of the cultural informant and culturally in the arrangement and patterning of the socio-cultural context.</p> <p>9. The patterning of cultural knowledge is therefore normally transparent and invisible to the cultural informant.</p> <p> </p> <p>Gestalt symbolization thus describes a complex cultural psychology--an understanding of how cultural knowledge becomes embedded in the mind of the culture bearer as a distinct set of psychological affinities and processes that are shared within a community.</p> <p>Gestalt symbolization represents a simple extension of the principles of gestalt perception to the process of symbolization, or the human cognition of symbols, which is held to be primarily a perceptual process and secondarily a cognitive process.</font><sup><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> </font></sup><font FACE="Times">The symbolic 'chunking' of human experience defines those gestalt patterns that are culturally appropriate and which are perceived in a relatively unambiguous manner.</p> <p>Symbolization may occur in a fairly discrete number of steps--each representing a distinct psychological process. These steps are ordered along a single continuum ranging from gestalt perception to conception and, though discrete, seem to share in many of the same fundamental cognitive processes of the brain.</p> <p>It is evident that language intrudes upon and is implicated in these processes as early as the stage of focal attention. But language identification is clearly present in the process of objectification and all subsequent processes, and language can be seen as inherent to the indexical functioning of the cognitive mapping of the external world. The internal cognitive 'map' of reality is mediated by language and linked to the function of the memory as well as to the development of passive 'pattern recognition' of an internalized semantic field.</p> <p>Memory is stratified on at least four or five levels of functions: short-term memory, working memory, daily memory, medium-term memory, weekly, long-term memory--life-long. Memory is symbolically structured and mediated via linguistic indexing. Memory provides a mental map of symbolic reality. This map is constantly being tested against the perception and interaction with the external world.</p> <p>It is also evident that there may be clearly divergent alternative cognitive styles of problem solving and cognitive task performance as well as of personality orientation, that may be adequately encompassed within any single cultural orientation. Any cultural orientation is inherently flexible enough, and the processes of human symbolization so complex, as to allow for the coexistence and mutual functioning of a virtual infinity of alternate psychological orientations and profiles to coexist.</p> <p>The cybernetics of culture are that the internal patterning of the map and the external construction of the cultural environment are mutually reinforcing but not entirely symmetrical or exactly isomorphic. The mind is not the perfect mirror of the world. It is more an anagram that distorts the stimuli received from the world in different ways. Culture is, therefore, the overall gestalt which results from this cybernetic interaction and integration of a shared symbolic field.</p> <p>The cultural landscape is nothing other than the embedded field of symbols situated in time and place--in the effective cultural environment--within a specific ethnocultural community. The relative coherence and integration of this field is a measure and product of the degree of fit between external and internalized realities.</p> <p>There are a set of centrally important hypothesis to be tested by this research. These are:</p> <p>1. All human symbolization depends upon and involves basic processes of human perception and cognition that are fundamentally gestalt in structure and organization, therefore all human symbolization is also gestalt in design and function.</p> <p>2. Basic cognitive processes of memory, cognitive mapping, reason, are indexically organized by linguistic symbols, therefore language is also symbolically structured in both the mind and as spoken discourse.</p> <p>3. Cultural and psychological realities are integrated principally by means of gestalt symbolization, therefore cultural reality is also symbolically organized and its patterning follows the gestalt of human symbolization.</p> <p>4. Cultural symbolization is minimally shared and this sharing constitutes the basis of predominant cultural patterning, therefore, for any given community or sample, we may hypothesize an 'average level of cultural competence' defined by the degree of sharing manifest.</p> <p>5. Cultural symbolisms are emically salient and subjectively available to the average member of a culture, therefore patterns of cultural symbolization, cultural sharing and cultural-based cognition are etically available by the elicitation of shared patterns of response to similar symbolic stimuli.</p> <p>6. While anything may be symbolic, at any one time some symbols are more salient than others, and different cultures pick and choose focal and peripheral symbols from among a wider field, therefore, generally speaking, the more salient a symbol from among a field of alternative objects; 1. the more focal is that symbol to the cultural orientation; 2. the greater number of psychological processes are involved in the definition of the symbol.</p> <b><u> <p>Methodology</p> </u></b> <p>The objective of this study has been nothing less than a systematic description of Malaysian Chinese cultural gestalts in terms of the correlations and relationships manifest between a number of discrete variables--colors, objects, words, phrases, symbols, shapes, values-- as indicated by response patterns to a series of symbolic frame tests. The patterning of interrelationships defined between these kinds of variables can be said to characterize the community upon a distinctive cultural symbolic landscape.</p> <p>The basic design of symbolic frame tasks is rooted in the empirical efficacy of several basic principles of gestalt perception. Human perception is held to be consistent with the psychological integration of information as well as behavioral or symbolic response associated with such perception. Problems with perception are held to be primarily a problem of the interaction of the figure-ground or part-whole relationship, and are indirect indications of deeper seated problems tied to the percepto-cognitive pathway of the integration of perceptual information.</p> <p>The central principles of gestalt perception are:</p> <p>1. The principle of inhomogeneousness--the figure must be in some way incongruent with the ground in order to be readily recognized as such.</p> <p>2. The principle of interaction of figure-ground--different backgrounds influence the perception of the figure. The more congruent are figure and ground, the more stable is perception--the more incongruent, the less stable the perception.</p> <p>3. The principle of the laws of grouping--each figure has its own separate properties aside from those of its ground such that when certain conditions are achieved between the parts, namely proximity, similarity or common fate (i.e. same rotation or relative position to the frame) the more cohesive and unitary the figure appears to be. The less the proximity, similarity or fate are achieved, the greater the internal ambiguity and less stable is the perception of the figure.</p> <p>4. the principle of the law of Pragnanz--the tendency to get a decisive structuration of the perceived object with true orientation, such that a perceived "gestalt" tends to become sharply, correctly defined, more precise and stable as conditions permit.</p> <p>According to these principles, there is a greater cohesiveness and stability of the figure-ground relationship as these principles hold, and inversely, greater ambiguity and instability of the figure-ground relationship as these principles fail to pertain to the perception. Between these there is a continuum of more to less ordered or integrated gestalt perception. The failure to achieve gestalt or to achieve only a poor gestalt in perception may be credited to the application, or lack of realization, of these principles.</p> <p>"Psychologically, an organizing process occurs in perception which involves both internalization of objects and externalization of a subject's differentiation in this regard. Thus, adaptive behavior depends upon the quality and direction of a person's response to perceived objects in terms of inner needs and outer realities." (Fuller, 1982: 85)</p> <p>Other gestalt principles also play in the operation of perceptual response to symbolic frame tasks. It became evident that there is a constancy of perceptual field that may be carried over from one gestalt to another and that may influence the perception of gestalt. The need to control the local, immediate ground in the elicitation of the tasks points out the influence of this tendency towards perceptual constancy.</p> <p>Another principle that appears to hold across samples is that certain basic forms are inherently "good to think" and are implicated at the early stages of perception and influence the ability to achieve gestalt recognition. To the extent that the perceived figure-ground relationship appears to resemble such basic forms, the prestructuring of such forms may facilitate the gestalt perception. Related to such basic forms are also what appear to be culturally defined 'stereotypical' forms which are "cartoonish" and which prefigure in the perception of the gestalt. An extension of this principle is to hypothesize that more basic and regular shapes, forms, figures and things will tend to be preferred over more elaborated, irregular forms, and that to some unknown extent, culture will dictate the preference for and selection of some kinds of things over others.</p> <p>Another principle which emerged strongly in at least one pattern recognition task was that in at least visual stimuli, asymmetrical objects are perceived earlier, more correctly and more easily than symmetrical objects. The rational is that asymmetrical objects show greater incongruency with the ground, and provide a "handle" for the laws of grouping and pragnanz to be achieved in the gestalt perception of the figure. We might hypothetically extend this hypothesis to conclude that intrinsically imbalanced forms are more readily perceived than balanced forms.</p> <p>Finally, and most importantly for the understanding of symbolic frame tasks, it can be said that the context of the ground has a significant influence over the perception of the gestalt of the figure or of the figure-ground relationship, such that the greater the complexity, ambiguity and interference of the ground, the less stable and more imprecise is the perception and configuration of the figure in relation to the ground.</p> <p>Within symbolic frame tasks, it is possible to distinguish several distinct types of part-whole relationships--a figure-ground, a figure-frame and a figure-field relationship.</p> <p>A figure ground relationship is a simple figure against a neutral or unconfigured background--usually a white or blank piece of paper or the neutral tan of a task elicitation board.</p> <p>A figure frame relationship is a more complex presentation of a central figure oriented around either an explicit or implicit frame, both of which appear against a background--thus figure-frame relationship by design are inherently more complex and tend to be more interesting and provocative than simpler figure-ground relationships. A rod and frame relationship is a typical figure-frame relationship--the perception of a figure through a window, or in relation to the implicit frame of the edge of the paper or outline of a card, are forms of such figure-frame relationships.</p> <p>A figure-field relationship consists of a presentation of a central figure in relation to a surrounding field of other similar or different figures, or an array or arrangement of figures, as a "+" in an array of "-"'s.</p> <p>We may also specify a specific form of a part-whole relationship which consists of a marked part of some structure against a shared background, as an alternative form of such relationship.</p> <p>All or some combination of these relationships may pertain and be controlled for in the construction and elicitation of different types of tasks. <u>We can thus manipulate these constraints to systematically vary the degree to which they interfere with or intrude upon the perception of the figure or part-whole relationship, with significant consequences for patterns of response. In general, the greater the complexity of the figure-ground/frame or field relationship, the greater the interference of the background to the perception of the gestalt, and the greater the likelihood of error and ambiguity in the perceptual integration of the figure background relationship.</p> </u> <p>Tasks also vary along a continuum to the extent to which they response can be evaluated by some criteria of "correct" performance, or the achievement of a "true" gestalt, versus tasks which lack a "correct" or even a normal standard, but aim at eliciting a variety of different responses. In general, a more "performance" type tasks is one in which the individual learns through systematic error, and will, over time, "improve" performance upon repeated elicitations. The distinctions between these types of tasks may not always be as clear-cut as we may think them to be--standards of what is correct or "better" or preferable may be culturally implicit in the context of the elicitation of the task.</p> <p>Since the central set of hypothesis of this methodology depends critically upon establishing such significant patterns, the empirical efficacy, validity, reliability and inductive interpretability of the symbolic frame task remains the methodological cynch-pin of this entire study.</p> <p>In general, the design of the various symbolic frame tasks share the following features:</p> <p>1. A general, controlled local background defining the frame, field or ground of perception.</p> <p>2. A partial, incomplete or otherwise ambiguous focal "structure", stimuli or object of attention defining the figure of perception.</p> <p>3. A standard protocol of instructions and an instrument for the "filling" in of the frame in a more or less constrained manner.</p> <p>The symbolic frame can be regarded as an incomplete visual or oral stimuli to which the interviewee must respond by completion of the frame. Such frames vary considerably in the amount to which they are both internally constrained--the degree of completeness of the inherent structure of the frame--and externally constrained--the degree to which specific protocols or instructions inform the completion of the task. The resulting elicitations and patterns of response to such tasks have semantic, cultural and projective content. The "completion" of the frame, whether partial or total, minimal or exhaustive, is sought and is regarded as leading to the full contextualization of the frame.</p> <p>All frames share a basic, hypothetical attribute, in that they are:</p> <p>1. somehow minimally constrained in terms of the figure-ground perception of the symbolic frame and the manner of elicitation.</p> <p>2. somehow have a minimally controlled local context and ground.</p> <p>3. a somehow incomplete in the part-whole relations, creating a "gap" in the phenomenal field which becomes the task of the subject to fill in to complete the frame.</p> <p>4. are provocative of some kind or level of ambiguity of part-whole relationship and alternative response which creates room for variability of response pattern and for "incorrect" type responses--i.e., controlled error of response.</p> <p>The boundary where one kind of task ends and another kind begins is often unclear, as many of the perceptual and ethno-symbolic tasks certainly involve an amount of apperceptive and projective response, while many of the originally projective types of techniques also involved definite perceptual and cognitive and symbolic identification. Rather than obfuscating the linkages and distinctions between these types of tasks, the considerable overlap between them is an important source of information and reinforcement for the response patterns that emerged from them.</p> <p>In general, a distinction can be made between linguistic type tasks or linguistic components of task design, and non-linguistic components. It is hypothesized that the linguistic components of tasks primarily elicit information which is conscious, which functions at the level of conscious awareness, and thus secondarily and only indirectly at the level of unconscious awareness. On the other hand, non-linguistic components of tasks, for instance, the selection of colors, drawing, recognition of form and pattern in inkblots, function largely and more directly on the unconscious level, which, while rendering them perhaps more directly insightful of the background of cultural knowledge, at the same time render their analysis interpretation inherently more problematic.</p> <p>The types of symbolic and cognitive processes the informant is using to perform the tasks are the same that the informant will use everyday within a cultural context, thus the consistent patterns of response to these types of tests and the correlations between them will provide insight into the cultural gestalt of the informants--insights which will yield understanding to be confirmed by more emic forms of analysis and description of the ethnocultural context.</p> <p>However personally idiosyncratic the overall patterning of response by any one informant, there is hypothesized a minimum amount of overlap which constitutes the basis of culture in context--the sharing of cultural traits and attitudes. Sharing is rooted in consensus theory and hypothetical agreement--the greater the agreement the greater the level of sharing that can be hypothesized, while the greater the level of sharing hypothesized, the greater the degree of agreement can be expected. Those traits which are most shared should also be those which are more salient, more central and more contextual, and are also those traits which are more consistently reinforced and valued within the cultural context.</p> <p>Primary symbolizations which are more basic in the cultural context and more fundamental in human personality are reinforced by secondary systems of symbolization which modify, reinforce, manipulate primary symbolizations and which annihilate or rehabilitate alternate symbolizations. These secondary symbolizations involve ego-defense mechanisms and culturally shared rationalizations which are highly schematized, formalized, and stylized.</p> <p>All significant, intentional behavior has symbolic components, and many of these symbolic components are culturally organized. It is in terms of both the psychological and cultural organization of these components that they have significance--within the context in which they occur.</p> <p>Though no single test or technique is adequate or sufficient for either the diagnosis of personality or the analysis of the internalization of cultural symbolisms, all tasks together elicit to some degree two kinds of "psycho-cultural" information at two levels of analysis:</p> <p>Direct, manifest symbolisms are externalized and projected onto the stimuli of the technique. These are usually culturally sanctioned and defined, even if anti-structural in character, and they are primarily indicated by content of response: "what" it is, and by marked "positive" or "negative" valuations or judgement as to the basic "goodness" or "badness" or a stimuli--whether "pretty" or "ugly", nice or bad, etc.</p> <p>Indirect, latent symbolisms which are repressed and internalized and which constitute the motivational basis for: 1. the strength of response as indicated by salience and attention; 2. the direction of response as indicated by choice and focality of attention; 3. avoidance or blocking of stimuli which evokes threatening feelings, or by rationalization, in the explanation of "why", 4. what can be referred to as "apperceptive" or "self-descriptive" elaboration.</p> <p>The challenge in such task construction is the effective combination of ethnosemantic-type elicitations of indigenous cultural knowledge with the use of "contextualized" projective stimuli which enable the elicitation and clear demarcation of response patterns at both levels of analysis:</p> <p>The stimuli of any symbolic frame tasks must minimally:</p> <p>1. be symbolically effective--they must be evocative if not provocative of response; 2. be culturally relevant--available to the normal, everyday awareness and perceptions of the average informant;</p> <p>3. have some kind of 'contextual incompleteness' either in terms of a figure-ground relation or in terms of the internal design of the object;</p> <p>4. provide space for the filling in of the frame in a non-leading manner; and</p> <p>5. be constructed with as little structure as possible to allow a distinguishing between alternative response patterns.</p> <p>In terms of the symbolic response expected to be elicited by all such symbolic frame tasks, we may hypothesize that all such tasks are more or less symbolic, according to the extent to which they are internally ordered, consistent and culturally shared. As such, all responses contain some minimal manifestation of cognitive and affective associations and content--and as such can be evaluated both in terms of cognitive dimensions and affective components. Response patterns will also likely contain some level of terminological definition and secondary rationalization--both of which are critical to the full understanding of the pattern of response a frame elicits.</p> <b><u> <p>Analysis, Representation and Interpretation</p> </u></b> <p>Symbolic frame tasks can serve a number of purposes simultaneously--to get at different levels and units of analysis in the symbolic stratification of meaning, to assess the individual in depth, the individual and group nomothetically in cross-reference to other individuals, to assess the small group or family unit, and to get at broader shared cultural or national meanings and associations.</p> <p>A system of classification of symbolisms can be constructed according to the following dimensions--basic versus elaborated symbols, and simple versus complex symbolisms--such that we may refer to the location of any particular symbolic response to a simple two-by-two matrix according to the features which it shares--simple/basic, complex/basic, simple/elaborate, complex elaborate.</p> <b><u> <p>basic elaborated</p> </u> <p>simple </b>simple-basic simple-elaborated</p> <b> <p>complex </b>complex-basic complex-elaborated</p> <p>According to this corelation table, we may categorize and analyze symbolic response patterns according to a variety of criteria into one or another of the designated classes. We may also non-parametrically analysis the statistical pattern of the occurrence of different kinds of symbolisms within frame tasks and across samples.</p> <p>We might hypothesize the following criteria for the classification and analysis of patterns of response according to the above table:</p> <p>1. simple-basic symbolisms consist of simple single associations which, when terminologically recognized, elicit linguistic codifications which are short and prototypical. They are recognized by their generality and lack of specificity of detail--a "vagueness" which nevertheless is belied by their "concreteness". In a drawing task, a example of simple basic symbolism is the drawing of a circle, or a heart shape, or a simple smiling face.</p> <p>2. a complex-basic symbolism consists of a set of associations which are in themselves single and simply aggregated, or which form a larger gestalt which is itself basic and general or nonspecific in nature. The drawing of an unadorned, simple figure with only the rudimentary components of limbs, torso, minimal indications of clothes or features, etc. is an example of a complex-basic symbolisms.</p> <p>3. simple-elaborated symbolisms consist of derivative single associations which elicit non-basic terminological designations and which are subject to a wider variety of paradigmatic alternation, or, in terms of consensus, a lack of agreement or variability. The overt aspectual marking of the symbolism in terms of specific dimensions or characteristics is also greater. Hair that is braided, with zig-zag bangs and a ribbon, is an example of an elaborated but simple symbolisms which may be brought into association with an otherwise unadorned happy face.</p> <p>4. complex-elaborated symbolisms consist of a concatenation of elaborated or elaborated-basic symbolisms into some larger configuration which are never merely an "aggregation" but form some larger gestalt. The figure of a girl with bangs, ribbons, pony tails in a dress that has pockets, buttons, frills, elaborated patterns, and a simple face with dimples and eyelashes is a clear cut example of an complexly elaborated symbolism that may be readily compared to more "primitive" drawings which lack such elaborate marking of specific details or characteristics.</p> <p>We may say that the principle difference between the two sets of dimensions is that between the iconographic function of a symbol that is composed of objective signs, and the emblematic function of the symbolism that is composed of subjective associations. The iconograpic function of the symbol is that it points referentially to something, or to a category of things. The emblematic function of a symbolism is that it integrates diverse internalized significations into a coherent and holistic unity of meaning. All symbolisms are emblematic in that they integrate more than a single kind of sign into a coherent unity that is synergistically more than the signs which compose it and thus incorporates them.</p> <p>Another dimension of symbolic constructs is the presupposition percept-concept isomorphism such that a symbol is simultaneously an object situated in an effective external context in meaningful relation to other objects, and also an affective, linguistic, behavioral, noetic or visual-auditory association, or set of associations or combination of such associations, which psychologically represents or stands cognitively in place of the object itself. It is important to reaffirm that the necessary connection between the external object and its internal associations are fundamentally, and critically, culturally arbitrary, except for some basic patterns which maybe more-or-less pan-human. It is the cultural arbitrariness of symbolisms which allows for their great productivity, creation and destruction.</p> <p>Analysis and interpretation of symbolic frame tasks rests upon certain presuppositions of inferable levels of cultural competence in domains of knowledge or cultural understanding, in consensus patterns in the sharing of cultural knowledge, values, and symbolisms as represented by nonrandom frequencies of consistency of response to the same task, and in the finite distribution of cultural competence and knowledge as elicited by a frame task across a sample. Any given task can be expected, if it is effective in its design and implementation, to elicit for any given sample a limited range of alternate response patterns, within which a nonrandom pattern of frequency saliency will emerge which confers on this range a central foci. Consensus theory that allows us to presuppose an average level of cultural competency upon which we can presume sharing to occur, entails that sample sizes do not have to be very large in order for significant patterns to emerge. These patterns will reemerge and remain consistent over a number of small sub-samples.</p> <p>There are a plethora of ways of analyzing the data from various symbolic frame tasks, but no single "correct" way for approaching such analysis. Data may be analyzed both across a sample of the same task, and across different tasks of the same individual, and across the different tasks for the same or different samples, and across the samples for the different tasks. Analysis of each task can proceed on the in-depth interpretation of the individual pattern of response, or the statistical analysis of the average or conflated patterns of response for different individuals within or between samples. Analysis of each task can also proceed at several levels and in several ways, with different consequences.</p> <p>There is some debate as to whether the consensus theoretic approach to the analysis of the data does not effectively conflate important individual differences of patterning, and, in effect, construct a reified and hypostatized structure which does not in fact exist. The alternative has been to investigate and compare the patternings of individuals within the sample, and to find common or alternate pathways. But from a statistical standpoint, there is a law of averages which states that, whatever the individual variation, the average does not lie, even if no single individual is represented by the average. Thus, the comparison of average scores between tasks or between samples or sub-samples serves to precipitate and concretize basic underlying dimensions of difference between individuals and samples. This statistical description of response patterning among and between populations cannot be ignored.</p> <p>The fact that symbolic frame tasks are united under the aegis of a common theory, allows us to hypothesize some degree of relationship and comparability of response pattern between different types of tasks, and that when we find such relationship, especially if it is found to be highly significant, then we may posit this as at least circumstantial evidence in the partial validation of the theory.</p> <p>The type of analysis involved in these tasks was largely corelational and what I have referred to as "inter-corelational"--involving the construction of derivative correlation matrices from primary correlations, and the emergence of basic underlying dimensions of inter-corelation. Whether or not correlation matrices can be correlated is a moot point, but it appears to be the case that comparable correlation matrices appear to move in ways which are frequently similar or markedly different--it may be impossible to figure out the statistical significances of these inter-corelations--but the resulting composite correlations are often significant and suggestive.</p> <p>We might only speculate as to the meaning or appropriate labels of the underlying inter-corelational dimensions which allow us to link together different samples and different tasks in complex space, but they permit a form of scatter-plot and tree representation that enables us to recognize and possibly interpret such dimensions in a non-relative way. The problem with a direct approach in inter-corelational representation is that the inherent relative structure or dimensionality of the corelational matrices become squashed into the principle axis along which the inter-corelational structure is plotted--hence the inherent relative structure of these matrices becomes lost in the process of their trans-positioning in inter-corelational space.</p> <p>Nevertheless, such inter-correlation graphing appears to bring out a certain kind of multi-dimensional structure which pertains grossly between the matrices and their categories. Furthermore, these representations are ordered in an absolute sense about the origin and permit a variety of statistical manipulations--in terms of non-parametric, rank order and ordinal data--of the resulting plotted points. It is possible to see at a glance of such graphs the extent to which the corelational matrices themselves are strong or significant according to their relative proximity to the origin. Furthermore, regression relationships become apparent in these representations, and it allows us to postulate that a high inter-correlation score at one level is indicative of some form of regression functional relationship at the lower level between corelational matrices. The extent to which these aspects of this form of representation are useful or productive remains to be determined, but they are definitely apparent and suggestive.</p> <p>The inter-positioning of multidimensional scaling of the corelational matrices and the inter-corelational graphing of the transformed MDS scores along contraposed axis may allow us to plot the underlying "relative structure" of the correlations in a manner which enables us to preserve this structure in its transposition and inter-dimensional comparison of different matrices, or even of derivative matrices. One way of doing this would be to inter-correlation the dimensional scores of the different matrices--the number of rows or columns being equal and the same, and then either directly plotting these inter-corelations of the different MDS matrices, or correlating them and then running a multidimensional scaling of this composite matrix.</p> <p>There is a sense that different matrices of variables and relationships in the response patterns of scores can be plotted in the same hypothetical space that is absolutely oriented around the same origin. The orientation and rotation of dimensions around the origin in two or three dimensional space may not be fixed, but the coexistence of different matrices within the same space is suggestive of the representation of implicit dimensions of the symbolically mediated phenomenal field itself--dimensions which may be in a fundamental sense basic and even universal to human symbolization and the organization of experience.</p> <p>This manner of graphically representing the latent structure of correlations of symbolic response patterns may only go so far in resolving the problematics of comparing and usefully analyzing such patterns for their underlying structures and unities, but they and the symbolic framing techniques on which the corelational matrices are based open a door upon an alternative mode of analysis which may offer many productive techniques toward the resolution of the theoretical problematics of symbolic framing.</p> <p>Beyond the problematics of analysis and representation of the patterns with the aim of elucidating the underlying patterns within the data, exists the problem of interpreting the data in a manner which lends itself to a propositionally explicit explanation of the pattern, without a priori presuppositions of universal dimensions or categories of significance which frequently accompany and bias such interpretations.</p> <p>Interpretation of the symbolic frame tasks is made problematic not only by the inherently inferential and implicit nature of the patterning of response to the tasks, but by the fact that such response patterns themselves are not occurring within a locally, immediate natural context, but in a contrived local context which is rigidly controlled. This control permits the comparison of scores between individuals and across samples to the same and different tasks, but they leave unaddressed either the question of the larger relationship and relevance of these elicited patterns to the cultural context or life-world of the individual, or possibly other important but unelicited forms of response patterning which may be critical to the understanding of the psycho-cultural patterning.</p> <p>Part of this problematic is resolved in the development of normative, controlled samples among clinical populations with known characteristics--or alternatively the anchoring and cross-references of such tasks with comparable related tasks that do have such norms empirically established. The other partial resolution of this problematic stems from the inferential interpretability of the tasks on a number of levels, and from a premise that at least a part of these tasks are in fact eliciting underlying patterns of response which are in some sense basic, primary and possibly even universal in the structure of their symbolic patterning. Inkblots do seem to consistently elicit patterns of response which seem to be drawn symbolically deeply from the psyche, and this appears to be more or less the case with almost any individual or population sample.</p> <p>Related to this problem is the related dilemma of the reliability of any particular symbolic frame task to actually do the job, consistently and repeatedly, for which it is designed, and whether the response pattern itself is a reliable response. There appears to be a great amount of variability of both individual and inter-individual patterns of response to the same tasks--this free play within the task elicitation and response process opens the door to a variety of problematics inherent to symbolic framing. Related to this is the weakness of any single symbolic frame to decisively point to or indicate any definite pattern of response or underlying inference. Thus, high scores on an MPDT task may or may not be related to organic dysfunction of the brain, though within a sample and average high scores is within a norm definitive of such a condition. In other words, an individual who is organically impaired is bound to score highly on the task, but these high scores alone will fail to differentiate between this organic response and the response pattern of an individual who scores abnormally high due to extreme "task anxiety" or to having "a bad day."</p> <p>Again, a partial resolution to these problematics of interpretation lies in the "triangulation" between different scores, tasks and types of tasks which appear by definite indicators to point in the same direction. But this is also only a partial solution, because the same nervousness which led a normal person to score highly upon the MPDT task might lead the same individual to prefer dark colors over the primaries, or to block or see pathognomic responses in the inkblots--though it can be expected that an individual over a variety of tasks will tend towards an average, individually normative performance.</p> <p>But the triangulation and implicit comparison of tasks--itself a problematic project--does allow us to make plausible inferences about relationships and patterns of response which may otherwise be absent from a superficial analysis of separate scores of individual tasks, and many of these inferences may allow us to partially and predictively fill in gaps between the tasks which may be filled in by subsequent tasks or by extensive reference to ethnographic or other forms of data.</p> <p>Related to the empirical efficacy and possibility of linguistic frame tasks is a theoretical understanding of human language as an "oral-aural" symbolic codification of reality. Symbolic linguistics has as its principle object of understanding the function and processes of language in this symbolic codification of reality, both psychologically and socially in terms of the collective objectification of knowledge and understanding.It also seeks to understand how these functions and processes influence the "structure" and patterning which language and language changes take on several levels of analysis, especially when expressed and reiterated in "key" terms which may be symbolically central to the understanding of the cultural patterning. Linguistic frame devices, the normal cultural use of such devices in naturalistic sociolinguistic settings, and their analysis have yet to be fully explored.</p> <p>The inferable coherence of cultural gestalt as an inherent sense of nonrandom order and "structure" implies to some extent a semi-hierarchical and non-random, constrained network of relations at several levels of analysis which may implicitly embody a "rule system" the explicit representation of which would allow a summary, concise understanding of the cultural gestalt. This possibility exists in the translation of the frequency patterns of responses to frame tasks into probabilistic "discrimination networks" from which decision trees and "rule-based" knowledge systems can be inferred. Such a rule system would serve as a means of representing and modeling the cultural gestalt.</p> <p>To claim that implicit rule structures may underlie cultural gestalt, and by deduction, linguistic and cognitive patterning, is to insert a claim that cultural systems may, in their integration, be ultimately semi-structured "rule-based" systems of knowledge and interaction which guide and make predictable behavior and response. Such rules which underlie cultural gestalt must be considered as relational "linking devices" in the integration of reality--they stipulate a given direction and order of relation in this pattern of integration. Such rule systems may be more directly worked out and elaborated in some areas of cultural patterning than others. While some such rules may actually be explicitly, formally codified within institutions or records of a culture, they are mostly latent, a posteriori and implicit in the patterning itself, and function as indirect constraints upon behavior. Thus we come to know and learn about these rules not so much from bringing them into clear direct awareness, but from the history of their violations and contradiction which temporarily make them visible until the condition of their violation is somehow reversed.</p> <p>We may also learn these rules not so much from their codification or being made explicit or taught, but from their repeated performance by which we become adept in their practice. We may never be able to clearly explain why or even what it is we are doing in objective, anthropological terms, but we can clearly demonstrate their efficacy through their reiteration. Explaining them objectively in anthropological terms does not necessarily mean that we understand them or have acquired them in any implicit sense. The task of the objective anthropologist is therefore to be distinguished from the interests of the participant.</p> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 2</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">PERCEPTION TASKS</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The Perception tasks included a number of different kinds tasks that were independently devised as spin-offs of the MPDT. The Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Technique (or MPDT) was employed in the course of the study as both an empirical 'anchor point' for the partial grounding of other symbolic frame tasks. In the course of its administration a number of other alternative techniques were devised to get at some of the patterns of response which were being observed on the task, and as a means of overcoming certain basic limitations of the MPDT.</p> <p>Thus tasks were systematically devised for "testing the limits" of the MPDT, especially for categories 2 and 3 for the procedure, as well as a task intended to elicit patterns of short-term memory and working memory. Another "rotating frame" task emerged somewhat unexpectedly from these developments, and though the evolution of its design led to several "fractured" sub-samples, its simplicity and understanding are interesting enough to warrant further research. Also, another "pattern test" was devised which shows interesting results in the processes of perceptual identification and recognition.</p> <p>The cross-cultural and empirical robustness of the MPDT is rooted in the simplicity and efficacy of its design, and yet these aspects of its design, as well as its scoring and interpretation, constitutes also its central weakness--namely its lack of resolution and detail in understanding the variation of typical response patterns. When errors such as circle-diamond separations or distortions occur, this is supposed to be symptomatic of some form of mental dysfunction associated with organic brain disrepair--the problem is its lack of specificity in the diagnosis of exactly what kinds of disrepair produce which kind of error of response pattern. Thus, scores are only broadly correlated with general levels of percepto-cognitive integration and diagnostically wide categories of disorder. Problems relating to general nervousness or even test anxiety or distraction may produce scores high enough to categorize an individual as neurotic or even psychotic though the individual may appear normal in almost every other aspect. While an individual that is organically impaired will almost certainly score highly on the MPDT, the MPDT cannot by itself clearly separate the high scorer with actual organic or psychological disorder from another high scorer who may only have apparent disorder as manifest mostly by such a high score.</p> <p>It is apparent also that the individual scores of the MPDT can and often are conflated by the lack of attending carefully to the task, such that separations or distortions which occur may be the result of this failure of attention (and may sometimes also indicate a kind of "attention deficit disorder"). These kinds of errors are not sufficiently controlled.</p> <p>In giving the technique to a number of different people, apparent patterns are: 1. its empirical efficacy in indicating the possible presence of some kind of manifest disorder; 2. its lack of specificity in diagnosing the latent cause of the underlying functional disorder; 3. its susceptibility to contextual interference and to the current anxiety state of the subject.</p> <p>"Testing the limits" of the MPDT is a recommended technique in partially correcting for this weakness, except that this follow-up procedure is itself too weak and too dependent upon the analyst's initial and gross evaluation of the patterns of the figure.</p> <p>Thus the idea of testing the limits was extended systematically with the intention of deliberately controlling for and diagnosing potential problems with 1. visual perception. 2. visual-perceptual integration. 3. hand-eye coordination. Furthermore, the second potential problem of visual-perceptual integration was further extended to include systematic and hypothetical evaluation of short-term and working memory.</p> <p>Alongside of this, a more detailed system of analysis of the figure-pattern of the original MPDT was applied, entailing evaluation of distinct patterns of distortion or rotation error--whether along vertical or horizontal axis, whether to the left or the right of the axis. Some correlation was sought with actual problems of vision or visual perception, as well as with other problems such as alcoholism, general anxiety, age, etc.</p> <p>At the same time, an alternate version of the MPDT, created on individual record sheets instead of the cards, and in reverse sequence, was tested out and compared with the results of the original MPDT.</p> <p>Two other types of tasks that are considered more closely related to the MPDT and its extensions, as perceptual and figure-frame and figure-field tasks, include the Pattern Task and the Rotating Frame Task, and these were developed and refined in the course of fieldwork related to extending "testing the limits" of the MPDT.</p> <p>In the evaluation and comparison of individual patterns of response to the MPDT, it is necessary to presume a basic level of test-competence by the average informant above a certain age indicative of sufficient cognitive development. It is as one illiterate informant told me as she tried to do the task--she had hardly ever held a pencil before. Because these were "performance" tasks on which subjects were scored and compared to established norms, as with all "performance" tasks there is an inherent bias in that with repeated retesting, subjects can be expected to show significant "improvements" on their scores. This is probably the case with practically every kind of performance test imaginable. It means that different people are bringing different backgrounds of experience and cognitive skills into the performance which are implicated in the "show". It also renders tests such as IQ, achievement and performance type tests evaluations of mental-psychological "showmanship" than necessarily of inherent capacities.</p> <p>Furthermore, these tasks are justified not for the sake of the scores themselves, which are taken with a grain of salt, but in the detailed patterns of response which different informants showed, and in the inter-correlation between the sub-samples and the different nature of the tasks.</p> <p>This brings up the question of the scores of young children and adolescents. There were no IQ scores so that the raw scores of the below 15 year olds could not be adjusted. The possibility of computing such "scores" exists in the analysis of their human figure drawings, which was done, but because these scores are held to be highly unreliable and probably relatively invalid, and also in part the consequence of a child's motivations, skills and background in drawing, they were not used. It rendered one very bright 8 year-old girl who liked to draw a lot for me an IQ of 220 and a mental age of 13 years old, and another bright 5 year old who was good at drawing little girls an IQ over 180. Even if these scores were used it would leave a gap for the 14 and 15 year olds. The "below-15" year-olds raw scores were therefore earmarked and left unadjusted for the sake of overall consistency in the evaluation of patterns of response in the overall sample.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the alternate task designs that were spin-offs of the MPDT were set up in such a way that high scores were significant of poor performance, so that they could be more easily corroborated with the MPDT.</p> <p>Sample sizes are small for a number of reasons. The development of new tasks in the field setting led to the fracturing of several otherwise quite substantial samples. At first the receptivity of the Jetty Chinese to these tasks was quite high, often because they thought I was measuring IQ. A number of parents brought their children to me with the idea that I could tell them how bright their children were. Chinese love to think of their kids as more intelligent than others and will do anything and everything they can to 'hot' house their children to an early road to success. They backed off and grew suspicious of my motives which they did not well understand, and thus the willingness to do these tasks rapidly decreased afterwards. The community then grew to think that I was doing some kind of brain surgery to steal secrets from their heads, perhaps so that the American government might afterwards use this information against them in some way.</p> <p>The MPDT task was divided into several sub-samples: a non-Jetty Chinese sample, a Jetty Chinese sample, and a sample of my reference group drawn mostly from the Jetty. The Jetty Chinese sample was divided into a male and female sub-sample. The tasks were analyzed for their raw scores, for the number of circle-diamond distortions and separations which occur, as well as for the relative enlargement/reduction of the drawn figure from the presented figure, the direction of the axis of rotation from the vertical, and minor distortions and separations not normally scored. The total sample of the Jetty consisted of 27 scores, of which the average raw scores was 36. There was a .433 positive correlation between the raw scores and the adjust score for minor distortions, a .6072 positive correlation between the adjusted score for minor distortions and the adjusted score for diamond distortions, a .3126 positive correlation between adjusted scores for circle-diamond separations and diamond distortions. There was also a negative correlation of approximately .2 between the adjusted scores for the reduction and the number of distortions and separations in all the categories, as well as for age. There was a positive correlation between age and diamond distortions (.2672) and minor distortions (.1889).</p> <p>Below is a graph of the scores of the total sample.</p> <p>These scores are comparable to the raw scores of the reference group (N 19), which had an average of 32.1. Correlations between raw scores and other scores show a negative correlation between reduction and circle-diamond separations (-.263), raw scores (-.117) and minor distortions (-.11). There was a negative correlation also between age and raw score (-.253) and minor distortions (-.345), as well as between raw scores and reduction and diamond-circle distortions (-.117 and -.136, respectively). There was a high positive correlation between minor distortions and circle-diamond distortions (.509), raw scores and minor distortions (.207) and between raw scores and circle-diamond separations (.199). The graph of the raw scores of the reference group is shown below.</p> <p>A small non-Jetty sample was collected as well (N= 18). The mean was about the same, 32.8, though the median of 23.5 was much lower than for the reference group, 26.5 and for the Jetty sample, 29.5. This sample was thrown off by the inclusion of an elderly woman and a young boy who had abnormally high scores. There is a perfect positive correlation between diamond distortions and age, between age and reduction scores (.51) and high positive correlations between diamond distortions and raw scores (.95), minor distortions (.58), reduction scores (.50), circle-diamond separations (.47) and circle-diamond distortions (.4). There were also high positive correlations between raw scores and all the other scores, except for age. The graph of these scores is presented below.</p> <p>The more interesting difference is when the Jetty sample is split between males and females. Males then show up with a higher average score of 46 with a median of 37 and a mode of 44, compared to an average score for the women of 25.1 with a median of 21 and a mode of 8. Though the samples are too small to mean anything, it does hint at a possibly significant difference between men and women, and it is the kind of difference that is corroborated by observation. For the men there was a positive correlation between minor distortions and circle-diamond distortions (.5153), age and circle-diamond separations (3.003) and minor distortions (.2845), and between circle-diamond distortions and circle-diamond separations (.3056). There was a strong negative correlation between raw scores and circle diamond separations (-.284) and circle-diamond distortions (-.285) and between reductions and minor distortions and circle-diamond distortions (-.125 each).</p> <p>For the women's sample (N= 13) there is a high positive correlation between circle diamond distortions and minor distortions (.87), and raw scores (.77) and age (.44) and circle-diamond separations (.34). There is a high correlation as well between raw scores and minor distortions (.61) and between age and raw scores (.25) and minor distortions (.61). There is a negative correlation between reduction and age and minor distortions (1.4 each) and circle diamond separations (-.2) and between reduction and circle-diamond distortions (-.3) The graph of the women's raw scores is presented below:</p> <p>Another interesting difference was in the difference of frequency scores of the direction of rotation between men and women of the Jetty. This difference was not significant for the reference group, nor for the non-Jetty sample, so may therefore just be a fluke, nevertheless it is a pattern present in the data worth mentioning. The chi square test for significance is 6.611, significant above the .025 level.</p> <p>The average score of the males of the Jetty is well into the region normally regarded as indicative of neurosis, compared to a lower but still marginally neurotic score for the women, or for the reference group or the non-Jetty Chinese. These scores are not to be regarded as significant samples in any sense, but they are suggestive of a larger overall pattern</p> <p>Besides the MPDT, a systematic means of "testing the limits" of this tasks was devised as a series of multiple choice tasks of images of the cards with the figures in different orientations. This task was especially meant to help assess any relative level of impairment of perceptual integration of information. A small sample of 31 subjects was collected. A paired variates T-test with MPDT scores with a sub-sample of 15 sets of scores shows no significant difference in the two sub-samples at a level of .05 rejection.</p> <p>There is a positive correlation of .215 between these sets of scores.</p> <p>These statistics suggest that though the sample sizes are small, the task may be measuring to some degree what it was designed for, that is the relative level of perceptual ability to integrate information in an increasingly "noisy" or ambiguous field. There are four pages of three multiple choice per page. By the third item on each page, there is noticeable improvement of performance as the subject tends to "figure out" the pattern and to disambiguate the figures from the ground. But with each successive page the figures are increasingly ambiguous, first reversing the direction from left/right to right/left, and then eliminating the direction altogether, and finally changing the solid lines of the background frames into dashed lines. The frequency pattern of these 12 successive choices is given below:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Graph 12-5. Histogram of Sequenced Item Error</p> </font><font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <p><img SRC="Image534.gif" WIDTH="606" HEIGHT="286"></p> </font><font FACE="Times"> <p>Besides this task for systematically testing the limits of the MPDT, especially in relation to the perceptual integration of information, an alternate "short term memory" task was devised that was parallel to the MPDT and that was designed to get at the process of the individual's retrieval of information from "short term" just perceptually processed by the presentation of cards before their removal. Unfortunately, only a small sample of this task was accomplished (N = 17), due primarily to over involvement in other task areas and neglect of its value.</p> <p>The task was analyzed in the same manner as the MPDT, and placement on the page was introduced as a control in the process to help disambiguate the field for the subject. It is interesting that the average adjusted score is 21, with a median of 13 and a mode of 8, reflecting an overall tendency to reduce the size of the drawn image by about 2/3rds, compared to the usual one half average reduction score of the MPDT. It may represent the loss of perceptual information in the short-term memory. Overall, the average score was 23 with a median of 22 and a mode of 24. This reflects a better score than that of the MPDT, and this is reflected in the very slight negative correlation between high scores on the MPDT and lower scores of the short term memory task (-.0081, N = 11). These scores are in spite of the fact that the short-term memory task entails eight rather than six items, and thus is inherently more error prone towards higher scores than the MPDT. Two types of errors became apparent with this task that is not clearly a part of the MPDT (although there are some noteworthy exceptions, and this points up an important, yet unexplored facet of the MPDT). These are in the number of reversals and rotations that occur within the figure itself, though the overall figure is drawn correctly. There is a noticeable tendency to draw the figure correctly, but to reverse in the mirror image some of its elements. This same pattern occurred occasionally with the MPDT and made these difficult to score within the current system.</p> <p>Correlations between the different scores on the tasks reveal that there is a negative correlation between reduction and raw scores (-0.2738), minor reversals (-.3002), separations (-.2087) and distortions (-.2216) suggesting that the reduction of the size might be important in understanding how the performance is improved when relying upon memory, as well as between frequency of full rotations and minor distortion scores (-.1815) and minor reversals (-.2794), and distortions (-0,4168). There are slight positive correlations between reductions and minor distortions (.154), raw scores and minor reversals and distortions, as well as between minor distortions and minor reversals (.4995), separations (.483) and distortions (.4556), as well as between minor reversals and separations (.83206) and (.39059).</p> <p>This pattern suggests that while there is increasing potential for minor error, as evidenced by minor distortions, distortions, separations and minor reversals, the reduction of the image entails an overall improved performance which is correlated with low raw scores, and slightly with major rotations. Attending to the minor details, the overall axis of orientation may be simple "left out of the picture" or "forgotten". This approach definitely warrants further research.</p> <p>Correlations of items of combined cumulative frequencies of minor distortions, reductions, separations, distortions and raw scores show remarkably high correlations. The same cumulative frequencies correlated in terms of the scoring dimensions also show relatively high correlations.</p> <p>Table 12-6 Correlations of Scores</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="406"> <tr> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">reduction</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">minor</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">separation</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">distortion</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">raw scores</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>reduct.</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="35%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>minor</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.80629</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="35%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>separat</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.3225</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.08418</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="35%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>distort</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.29562</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.0895</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2029</font></td> <td WIDTH="35%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>raw</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.16698</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2179</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4177</font></td> <td WIDTH="35%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.596461</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>The "rotating frame task" was a direct spin off of the development of extensions of the MPDT, and concerned only the axis of rotation in relation to the frame. The axis of rotation became represented as a solid line. This line was kept in constant position as the frame about it was rotated one quarter turn. The original position of the frame was slowly revolved from a horizontal to a diamond position, and the original axis of the rod shifts from the vertical, to the horizontal, and to the diagonal, and then to the oblique. It's clear relation to embedded figures tasks, the rod and frame task, etc. is obvious. But the exact nature of this relationship remains to be well defined. Unfortunately, the elicitation of this task suffered a "fractured sample" as it underwent four successive version of development in the field. The first version was tested with a sample of eleven but it did not produce the kind of response pattern I was looking for. It seemed that the central rod was heavily emphasized with a dark line, while the surrounding frame was a very thin and relatively unnoticeable line. This combined with the fact that the rod was consistently disconnected from the frame, allowed most subjects to easily separate rod and frame and to perform in a manner that generated low scores. The average score on this task was 9 with a median of 8.5 and a mode of 4. The histogram revealed that it was heavy on the low-score end with 9 people scoring below four and only 2 scoring higher.</p> <p>The central rod was made lighter in weight than the surrounding frame, which was emphasized, and the line was extended on both sides to actually touch the frame. The order in which the frame and the rod were rotated on successive frames was also altered. The informant is told simply to "draw the line in the center of the square as you see it and in the easiest way they can.</p> <p>A sample of 30 was collected with the revised version. The mean was 14.9 and the median was 16 and the mode 5.5. A histogram of the frequency patterns of this sample showed that 14 of the sample scored in the below 2 range. Five persons scored in the below 9.8 bin, 7 in the below 17.6 bin, 2 below 25.5 and 2 below 32.2. It is difficult to draw a cut-off point at which score might represent something like "frame dependency".</p> <p>Rather the task shows a clear gradient between relatively "frame independent" and extremely frame dependent response patterns. The scoring of the system was rather simple and straight forward, and allows for intermediate .5 scores, and is fairly clear and reliable.</p> <p>Because there are forty eight items, the total score can be multiplied by a factor of 2.083 give a solid percentile score. While a gradient is clear in all the samples taken, the graph below of the raw, unadapted scores of the N=30 sample, show a clear demarcation line at the above 15 (15 x 2.083 = 31.245) which might be taken as significantly splitting the sample between "frame dependent" (N=15) and "frame independent" (N= 15) halves.</p> <p>The orientation of the true frame was either horizontal or diagonal, and these were taken as relatively more basic and less ambiguous in relation to either a vertical, horizontal or clearly diagonal rod.</p> <p>The task was also set up in such away that the items were arranged in four groups of 12 each, with scoring patterns in each subgroup representing different approaches to framing or drawing the rod. Correlation with the MPDT of a sub-sample of 15 shows a slight negative correlation between the tasks of -.02581, showing a lack of any obvious relationship between hypothetical "frame dependency" and the "perceptual integration" as measured by the MPDT. It may well be that there is little correlation between the two tasks because they may be eliciting precisely the opposite responses--the MPDT the ability to pay attention to the figure in relation to the ground, the rotating frame the need to attend to the figure regardless of the frame.</p> <p>Inter-item correlation was done. Because 48 items in sets of two and in subgroups of 12 and sub-sub groups of 6 makes for a great deal of complexity, complete analysis is beyond the scope of this report. Suffice it to summarize that most items show a fairly strong positive correlation with one another (.2 -.6) while only a few items show no correlation at all or only a slight negative correlation (below -.2)</p> <p>In terms of what this task implies, it is not clear. In scoring the tasks it was clear that some subjects were for the most part unable to ignore the information of the frame in defining the axis of the rod. It was easier for these subjects to draw the line in relation to the frame than independently of the orientation of the frame. For an intermediate group, there was a decreasing response of frame independence, and an increasing pattern of frame dependency. The graph below of the frequency pattern of the errors per item shows the pattern of increasing error toward the end of the task, successively punctuated by the low scores of presenting the "true" frame. It is apparent that with each set, more "frame dependent" subjects were repeatedly, and increasingly, unable to ignore the information of the frame in drawing the rod.</p> <p>What emerges from analysis of this task is that there is a clear and strong positive correlation between the age of the subject and high scores. I would hypothesize that disturbed perception is largely acquired, as is "frame dependency", and we can refer to people who have learned how to depend upon external cues of contextual information as a primary cognitive strategy. It is not difficult to imagine how some contexts can be more difficult to ignore than others, and how some may also be more "confusing" than others, making attending to the context a difficult but necessary means of survival.</p> <p>Correlation using Fisher's exact technique for analyzing significance of differences between men and women who score 15 or above on the N=30 sample and those who score below 15 show no significant difference, though the sample size was too small to really tell N=27.</p> <p>The correlations relating age to high scores is ambiguous. The first and weakest task (N = 10) has a negative correlation between scores and age of -.41. The second and strongest task (N = 30) has a positive correlation between these two factors of .248. The third task (N = 19), transitional from the third to the fourth, has a stronger positive correlation of .364 and is noteworthy because this was perhaps the best task, generating a clearly bipolar histogram between high and low scores (10 below 1.75, and 9 above, out of a total score of 12). The fourth and final sample proved the most difficult, and had a low negative correlation of -.044. The sample was the smallest (N = 10) of which only 2 scored below 2.5 while 8 scored above.</p> <p>If these statistics have any significance whatsoever, their implications about the effect of the environment in influencing "frame dependency" cannot be ignored. The positive correlation with increasing age seems at contrast with the dominant theory explaining field dependency which rests upon the differentiation between self in the disambiguation of the perceptual field. It suggests that the environmental factors influencing the development of these broad cognitive styles may be multi-factorial, and that different factors may be having cross-cutting effects. Increasing separation of self from environment may be at odds with the increasing control of the environment over the self, leading to a kind of double bind. Children do not feel their servitude, parents do not know their tyranny.</p> <p>The final perception task given was in some ways the most interesting and reveals with greater detail the processes of recognition and object identification that may be involved in modes of perception. The pattern text consists of 9 pictures each of 8 common objects (half of an apple, a fish, a spider, a horse, a flower with stem and petals, a human skeleton oriented along the horizontal axis, a cat's face and a mouse). Each successive picture of each series presents a more definite outline of the object. The first pictures are relatively formless, while the last couple of pictures show the form in a clear and unmistakable manner. Subjects were asked to turn through the pages and tell us what they saw in each, if anything. The pages were in a booklet such that the same order was used each time.</p> <p>A substantial sample was collected (N = 41, 18 males and 23 females). People were scored at the page at which they first had recognition of the object. At the same time, notes were kept of the details of individuals' response patterns, indicating what they thought they were seeing in the pictures until the "true form" of the object became apparent to them. What is interesting is how pattern recognition is preluded with much processing of details and trying out of different possible forms, and at some point, the "aha" pattern of the gestalt emerged, or else failed to clearly emerge at all.</p> <p>The tasks were further analyzed by allowing individuals of the reference group to take copies of the pictures in order and to draw in the pictures of things they saw on each page.</p> <p>The first set of pictures consists of half an apple. The average response score was 9, with a median and mode of 10. The round, symmetrical shape was difficult for people to analyze. The histogram of this item showed that only one person had a score of 6, 7 people had a score of 7, five scored 8, 4 scored 9 and 27 scored 10. People saw a round shape, usually by the 6th or 7th page. Otherwise people saw elephants, eggs, bears, rats, hearts, tomatoes, pomegranites, insects, butterflies and cats and dogs. The drawing analysis revealed that people were drawing part of the hemispherical outline by the second or third card, which became fully connected by the 4th or 5th page, and then a stem is attended by the 6th to 8th page, until finally the apple configuration is put together.</p> <p>The second set of pictures was a fish. The average response score to the fish was 6.5 with a median and mode of 6. It appears that unlike the apple, the asymmetry of the fish provided early cues for the subjects to put together the picture. The frequency histogram of the fish shows that 1 person guessed it on the second page, 2 by the third page, none on the fourth page or fifth, and then 35 guessed it on the 6th page, 1 on the 7th and 5 by the 8th or 9th and 2 couldn't guess it at all (10). One person saw a cat, one a human, two saw a bird, one a crab and one a elephant. On a couple, seeing an alternate shape seemed to block and preclude recognition of the true form, and represents a frequent pattern in which projection of an image onto a vague field tends to obfuscate perceptual recognition of the pattern which is already there. This happened frequently enough, and especially by certain individuals, as to warrant consideration. This pattern shows the degradation of gestalt response on the fourth and fifth as the subjects are attending to details of the figure outline--for instance tail, fins, and gills of the fish--just before the final gestalt pattern emerges. This pattern of building a rough, cartoonish image, then degradation of response as details are organized, and then sudden gestalt of pattern recognition recurs repeated in the drawing analysis of the figures.</p> <p>The third set of figures were of a spider which was also symmetrical. The average response score of the spider was 8.57 with a median of 9 and a mode of 10. Again, the symmetry of the figure, like that of the apple, seemed to provide no perceptual "handles" on which the subject could anchor the cognitive construction of the gestalt. The histogram of this response pattern was 1 person by page 2, 2 at 3, 1 by the fourth page, 2 by the sixth page, 10 by the seventh page, 9 people by the eighth, 12 by the ninth, and 15 could not guess it. This is significant because it was a relatively simple picture to see. One person saw a vague animal, one a bee, one a fly, one a tiger, one saw wild grass, two a girl's head, one a "vague shape", a vague "animal's head", an "arrow & blob", a cat's face, a tiger's head, a beetle, 4 saw a crab (10%) , and one saw "King Kong". One fairly bright individual saw a flower, then nothing, then a flower again, then a frog, a rose, an orchid and finally a crab, never guessing the spider.</p> <p>Drawing analysis of this task revealed that people began drawing small figures, but not in the center of the picture, for one a butterfly, then a spider emerges by the third page, changes shape and position on the fourth card, and then disappears until the end. This pattern of seeing different "de-centered" things in the first sets, then nothing, and finally either seeing or missing the true gestalt is repeated by all the subjects. Fifty percent recognized the spider by 8 or 9, and fifty percent found no recognition.</p> <p>The fourth set of pictures was of a horse, and again the asymmetry of the figure seemed to make it easy for people to recognize. Perhaps like the fish, there is something prototypical of the four legged horse with ears and a tail that makes it easy for people to recognize. In this regard it is interesting that the names and shapes of animals are some of the first things children acquire, even before colors and other basic shapes. Perhaps there is something primordial, of the cave paintings of our ancestor's, which is embedded in our brains. The average response score of the horse was 5.11, with a median and mode of 4. Seven people guessed it by the third page, and 16 by the fourth page, five by the fifth page, one by the sixth, four by the seventh, one on the 8th, one on the 9th, and four couldn't guess it at all.</p> <p>Drawing analysis of the figure reveals that the outline gradually emerges by the second or third page at certain areas, the legs, tail, mane, head, and shoulders. These lines become joined and then becomes progressively more refined. One person of four couldn't guess the figure, though a rough outline of a dog was drawn by the second page. It is interesting that a great many people confused the horse with the dog (19 of 40, 47.5%) and of thee seeing of a dog precluded recognition of the horse for five people (12.5%). Another person saw an elephant. It is interesting also that some people would carry the recognition of the dog up until the eighth page, at which the clear outline of the horse suddenly caused them a little embarrassment.</p> <p>The fifth set of pictures was of a flower that combined asymmetry of the stem and leaves with the central symmetry of the flower itself. This was the most complex of the pictures, and was one of the more difficult. The average score was 7.95 with a median and mode of 8. The histogram of the fifth set shows that only one guessed it by the fifth card, six people guessed it at the sixth card, three on the seventh, 18 by the eighth, six by the ninth and five didn't guess it at all. People saw a body or head, a bird, a blbo, a tree, a horse and a boat. One person saw a deer which was carried up until the end, and a horse was carried up until the eighth page, by which the sudden recognition of the flower occurred. On person saw a cat's face until the sixth card, then a pear, then a pineapple, and finally the flower by the ninth. On person saw a flower on the first and second page, then a coconut, then Garfield, Snoopy, then there was degradation of pattern, and finally found the flower.</p> <p>Drawing analysis of this shows small fish shapes, or nothing, and then the gradual emergence of a flower, with an erose of the outline by the 6th or seventh page, and its clearer reemergence by 8 or 9. The flower changes shape, position and appearance throughout the drawing sequence.</p> <p>The sixth set of pictures consisted of a human skeleton which was turned to the horizontal axis. The asymmetry of the figure led to an early recognition of the human form, usually by the fifth page, but recognition of the actual skeleton did not come until later, with an average response score of 8.3 and a mode and median of 9. The histogram reveals that two peole saw the skeleton by the fifth page, four by the sixth, two by the seventh, 10 by the eighth, 16 by the 9th and 8 didn't guess it at all. One person saw a cat, two a shark, one an "animal", two saw a crocodile, two saw a fish, one a "diver in the sea" and another "somebody swimming or floating, arms and legs". 23 (57.5%) saw a figure of a person, either a human, man, woman or "a person." One person saw a fish, then a scorpion, then a lobster, then a crocodile, then a lobster again, then a woman, and finally a skeleton by the eighth page. It appears that the asymmetry allowed early recognition of the human form, but the shape of the human threw off recognition of the actual skeletal appearance and details until the end.</p> <p>Drawing analysis of the skeleton pictures shows the gradual emergence of a central figure by the third figure, then nothing at the fourth page at which the figure was intentionally reversed, and then the outline of a human form by five, becoming refined by the sixth, then erosion at the 7th and 8th page, with attention to the hands and head. Only one person in four found the skeleton by the 9th page.</p> <p>The seventh figure was of a cat's face. It's symmetry and general shape led a number of people to see a butterfly before a cat (14, 35%), one a human face, one a dog's face, one a ribbon, one an elephant, one a bee, and one a map. The butterfly seemed to postpone actual recognition by the eighth or ninth card, despite the emergence of clear clues, whiskers and ears, by the fifth and sixth card. The average response score was 7.39, with a median and mode of 8. Four saw it by the fifth page, 8 by the sixth, 6 by the seventh, 12 by the eight, five by the ninth, and four didn't guess it at all.</p> <p>Drawing analysis of the cat's head shows cartoonish "Mickey Mouses" emerging on page one and two on 50 percent, and a ribbon by another. There is definite erosion of the pattern by the 6th and 7th card, with the reemergence of the "true" form by 8 or 9. The "Mickey Mouse face" is an interesting projection, and is studied more thoroughly in the analysis of the children's drawings.</p> <p>The final figure was of a mouse. It was relatively asymmetrical in appearance, with it's long curving tail in the foreground. The average score was 6.89 with a median and mode of 7. One person saw it by page two, because of the tail, one by page four, five by page five, four by page 6, then 18 by page 7 (45%), then 3 by page 8 and and five by 9 and two couldn't see it. Three people initially saw a fish, two a head, one a crocodiles head, one a rabbits head and one a cat. One person confused the mouse with a shrew, and one with a lizard. Three saw a rat. Drawing analysis reveals a similar type of pattern, with a Mickey Mouse face and a heart and monster appearing on the first page, then the appearance of a crude, cartoonish rat form, then its erosion and final reappearance by everyone by the 7th page.</p> <p>To interpret the response patterns of this pattern test, it appears that asymmetrical forms were more difficult to recognize than asymmetrical forms, as evidenced by difference in average scores. The chi square test comparing of scores of 10 (no correct response) with scores of 6 or below, of the four symmetrical figures with the four asymmetrical figures is 34.996, significant way past the .005 level.</p> <p>It also appears that certain unclear prototypical forms are frequently confused with similar types of things, and this confusion can delay perception of the true form. In attending to the whole pattern, there is a recurrent erosion of 'gestalt" typically by the sixth or seventh card, while the individual is attending more to the correctness of details of the image. Then the image suddenly reappears in more true to form manner by the 8th or 9th picture, often as an "aha" of sudden recognition, especially if there is previous confusion of forms or lack of overall gestalt recognition.</p> <p>Analysis of the gross frequency patterns indicates that no one saw the correct image by the first page. Only three saw the image on any of the cards by the second, 11 by the third, 21 by the fourth, 19 by the fifth, 38 by the sixth, 56 by the seventh, 84 by the eighth, 55 by the ninth, and 75 could not see anything. The graph below shows these relative frequencies, the peak at the eighth position. The postponement and erosion of the pattern recognition is indicated by the four and fifth positions.</p> <p>The total scores of subjects was correlated with the age of respondents, revealing a slight negative correlation of -.141. Older subjects in general do slightly better than younger subjects. Chi square test comparing men and women between those with an average score of 6 and below and those with an average score above 6 is .7466, showing significant difference between the two samples only above the .5 level of rejection. Thus there is no significant difference between men and women's scores. Unfortunately, the three main samples of the MPDT, rotating frame tasks and pattern tasks did not overlap enough to allow for correlations.</p> </font><font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 3</p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font face="Times" size="5">BASIC THINGS TASKS</font></p> <font FACE="Times" SIZE="4"> <p align="center"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font><font FACE="Times"> <p>The elicitation of "Basic Things" from people was achieved by having them mostly rank order pictures of things presented on paper. Colors were also associated with the things by having people choose different colored as they rank ordered the things. Things fell into a few categories--animals, flora and fauna, general shapes and symbols, household things and miscellaneous things. The principle behind these tasks is that cultural orientation, for whatever unknown reasons, will lead us to select and prefer certain kinds of things over others, and this preference pattern will be consistent across groups of people and over time. We cannot guess at the factors which may be behind what would lead us to consistently choose one kind of thing over another. But the pattern of response in such tasks reveal not only such consistency, but also important inventories and dimensions about the cultural experiences of the people doing the rank ordering.</p> <p>If we lay fifty common objects on a table, all with practically equal chance of being selected over the other, people of different backgrounds should consistently choose some kinds of things over others. This proclivity of our cultural predispositions gives us a heuristic handle for gaining insight into some facets of how culture may be operating in the minds of subjects.</p> <p>Out of ten objects, the chances that any one object will be chosen, given all things random, is 10%. Out of a hundred objects, it will be one percent. Thus in a discrimination table based on the frequency patterns of a sample of rank orders, the fact that certain objects emerge much more often than can be expected by chance alone, suggests that something other than random order governs the selection of similar objects by a sample of informants. When these frequency patterns recur across several samples, and across several different kinds of tasks, then the evidence becomes especially convincing.</p> <p>Basic color shapes task entailed the rank ordering from 1 to 10 of a set of 14 basic shapes. The probability that any single object will be chosen at random will be 7.1%. There were two samples for this task (#1, N = 56, #2, N= 63, #3, N = 17.) That means that for the first sample, there were 560 choices spread over a field of 10 x 14 possibilities. The average score for a random response should be 560/140, or 4, and the average number of responses per category of items should be 560/14, or 40. Thus categories in which frequencies were significantly lower, and especially higher, than this, or frequencies of individual rank orders significantly above or below 4, must be regarded as "salient". Of the fourteen shapes, the following were the most frequent in sample #1: the circle (50), the square and hexagon (47 each), the octagon (45), the triangle (44), the horizontal oval (43), parallelogram (42). Of the remaining shapes, the least frequent were the horizontal rectangle (12), the trapezoid (19), the vertical rectangle (30), the rectangle (31), the upside down triangle and the vertical (36 each). Perhaps more revealing, are the saliency patterns of the individual rank order choices, as the distribution of scores among categories for certain items is far above the expected frequency of four. For the first choice is the hexagon (18) and the circle (8) and octagon (7). For the second choice are the circle (10) and the pyramid and octagon (7) each. For the third choice is the square (10) and the pentagon (9). For the fourth choice is the circle and the pyramid (8 each). For the fifth choice is the horizontal (10) and the octagon (9). For the sixth choice is the horizontal (7). For the seventh choice is the parallelogram (10) and the vertical (9). For the eighth choice is the parallelogram (9), for the ninth choice is the trapezoid (8) and for he last choice is the rectangle (8) and the parallelogram (7).</p> <p>Typical of each significant category is a saliency "peak" which may span the range of 2 or 3 rank orders. These peaks may overlap with one another and some categories may have two peaks. Each category may have a peak, but such peaking is especially salient for those that are more salient overall. It is expected that such peaks should be significantly lower for the last ranks, and for the lower frequency choices.</p> <p>A theory of basic shapes would suggest that more basic shapes, particularly the square, the circle and the triangle, would be preferred over more irregular shapes such as the trapezoid and the parallelogram. Furthermore, when there is strong saliency of non-basic shapes, then this must be particularly indicative of a culturally salient pattern, and especially when this is strongly a first choice, such as the hexagon.</p> <p>Sample #2 (N = 63) would expect an average frequency per category of 45 and an average score 4.5 per rank. The most frequent category is again the circle (55) followed by the horizontal (54), the hexagon and the pyramid (53), the square (52), the octagon (50), and the vertical (48). The least frequent shapes of the second sample was the horizontal rectangle (19), the trapezoid (26), the vertical rectangle (37), the parallelogram pentagon and upside down triangle (43) and the finally the rectangle (44). The rank order frequency reveal the hexagon and circle (15 each) for first choice, followed by the square (8). The square was the strongest second choice (12) followed by the hexagon (10) and the octagon (8). The circle was the strongest third choice (13) followed by the triangle (9) and the hexagon (7). The fourth choice was the vertical (9) and the upside down triangle and the hexagon (7 each). Fifth choice included the pentagon and hexagon (8) and the octagon (7).</p> <p>The sixth choice is the horizontal (11) and the pyramid (10) and the rectangle (7). Seventh choice is the parallelogram (9) and the rectangle (8). The eighth choice is the pyramid (8) and the pentagon and rectangle (7 each). Ninth choice includes the horizontal, vertical and upside down triangle (7 each) and last choice is the parallelogram (13) and the trapezoid (10) and the horizontal rectangle (8). One should expect from this pattern that the basic shapes as strong in the first five, and the irregular shapes more apparent in the last five ranks. One might also expect that the "inbetween" shapes, for instance the rectangle, pentagon, upside-down triangle, and parallelogram, to be the least salient overall and the most spread out between the ranks. The vertical rectangle is the least overall salient shape, with a peak of only 5.</p> <p>In sample #3 (N =17) one would expect a category frequency of 12 and a rank-item frequency of 1.2. Because this is the smallest sample, one might also expect the greatest departure from the patterns presented above. The most frequent categories are the hexagon and the square (17), followed by the circle and the horizontal (16) and then the pentagon and the pyramid (15), and then the upside down triangle (13). The least frequent categories include the trapezoid (2), the horizontal rectangle (6), the vertical rectangle (10 each), the rectangle (11) and the parallelogram and vertical (12). In terms of rank order, the hexagon is the most frequent first choice (7), followed by the circle (4). For the second choice is the circle (5) and the hexagon (4). Third choice is the square (7). Fourth choice is the pentagon (4). Fifth choice is the octagon and horizontal (4). Sixth choice is the triangle (4). Seventh is the vertical rectangle (5), eight is the rectangle (4). The ninth choice has no salient ranks, except for the horizontal (3). The tenth has the pentagon as the most salient (5). The lowest frequency categories were also the least salient in terms of rank frequencies.</p> <p>There is a positive correlation of .96 between sample #1 and sample # 2, a positive correlation of .89 between sample #2 and sample # 3, and a positive correlation of .87 between sample #3 and sample #1, showing high consistency in response pattern.</p> <p>The correlations of gross frequencies between the shape categories for the three samples was also run, revealing an interesting pattern, a .9 + positive correlation for all the different shapes.</p> <p>It can be expected that a similar pattern holds across the different tasks for basic things. For example in the selection of animals, there were unfortunately four fractured sub-samples (#1, N = 16, #2 N = 23, #3, N = 23, #4, N = 14) due primarily to successive revisions of the original task. Because the sample sizes are smaller, a greater amount of variability of pattern can be expected compared to a larger more robust sample. The similarity between the different versions is close enough, and the overlap between the samples small enough, that they can be readily compared, and even combined without significant conflation of the results. There were seventeen animals which were ranked to 10. In the first sample the expected frequency per category is 9.4 (rank frequency .94). In the second and third samples this expected frequency is 13.5 (rank frequencies 1.35). In the fourth sample it is 8.24 (rank frequency is .824).</p> <p>For the first sample the most salient categories are shark (15), horse and elephant (13), rooster and fish (12), the tortoise (11) and the cow (10). The least salient categories are the monitor (1), the crab (3), the pig and the dog (6), the snake and the chicak (7) and the crocodile and the mouse (9). The rank order of salience was from first to tenth place: 1. horse and fish (6), 2. fish and rooster (4), 3. rooster (4), 4. the elephant (3), 5. cow and elephant (3), 7. horse (3), 8. the crocodile (4), 9. crocodile (2) and 10. the shark (10).</p> <p>For the second sample the most salient categories were the horse (22), the tortoise and fish (21), the cow (20) the elephant (18), the rooster (17), the crab (16), and the least salient categories were the monitor (4), the mouse and the crocodile (6), the shark (8), the dog (9) snake (10), bird (12), penguine (13). The rank order in terms of highest frequency was: 1. the horse (15); 2. the fish (10); 3. tortoise and crab (7); 4. fish (5); 5. cow (5); 6. the cow (4); 7. the elephant (4); 8. the rooster and cow (4); 9 the chicak; and 10. the snake (4).</p> <p>In the third sample most frequent are the cock (24), the horse (21), the cow (20), the fish (18), the elephant (17),the tortoise (16) and the snake (15) and least frequent are the monitor (4), the shark (5), the pig, crab and crocodile (6), the the penguin (9), bird (10), penguin and chicak (11).The rank order is: 1. horse (8) 2. the horse, tortoise and fish (3), 3. the elephant (4), 4. the rooster (4), 5. cow (5), 6. the fish, rooster and bird (3), 7. the snake and rooster (4); 8. the rooster (8), 9. the elephant (2) and 10. the mouse (2). The scores of this sample are a little skewed because a few of the rank orders in it were not complete in the ninth and tenth ranks.</p> <p>The fourth sample (N =14) the most salient categories were the horse (13), the fish and elephant (12), the penguin (11), the cow (10), the tortoise and crab (9), while the least salient categories were the pig and mouse and dog (4), the rooster, monitor and crocodile (5), the bird (6), the snake (7) and the shark (8). Rank frequencies are: 1. horse (7), 2. penguin (4), 3. none, 4. the cow (4), 5. the elephant (3), 6. shark and mouse (3), 7. none, 8. none. 9. none. 10. none. This last sample suggests that a size of 14 is too small to produce significant patterns, the variability of the sample is too great. On the other hand, the fact that this was a color-ranked task compared to the previous three sub-samples may have something to do with the minor differences in rank frequencies.</p> <p>The use of color ranking and association was used extensively in the basic items tasks, and magnifies the complexity and scale of the samples by several times. The full analysis of these color patterns was not undertaken. For the preceding sample, there are few clear color saliencies, and this lack of clear association between colors and objects suggests that objects are not associated to colors, but colors are associated with objects. Thus, the selection of the color before the object led to the across the spectrum coloring of different objects. There may be patterns in color combinations with different objects, but this requires more complex analysis. Only several rank item ratings at a score of 3. The horse was associated curiously with both purple (3) and black (3), the crab with red (3), bird with yellow (3), penguin with blue (3). Otherwise most associations were missing.</p> <p>In terms of rank orders of colors themselves, purple was the most frequently chosen first color (4), pink the second color (3), none for the third rank, purple for the fourth (3), none for the fifth or sixth, blue for the seventh rank, brown for the eighth (5), grey for the ninth (3) and black for the final choice (6). These patterns replicate the frequency patterns of the Luscher color tasks, and can be expected to recur throughout the color-rank basic items tasks. The lack of any clear saliency pattern in the third, fifth and sixth positions may be due either to the small size of the sample, or to the subjects attending to the ranking of objects and colors at the same time, or perhaps also to the inherent lack of association of objects to colors, which made color selection less important than object ranking. There may well be a negative correlation between color rankings and associations and object rankings and associations, such that the saliency of color frequencies will be substantially lower than those for the object rankings.</p> <p>Another rank order task involved the selection of basic "symbols" (really "signs" such as stars, crosses, etc.) A sample of N = 38 was collected with an average category frequency of 15.2 and an average rank-item frequency of 1.52. The most frequent categories were the five point star (33), the crescent (32), the heart and the mandala (29), the diamond and the eight point star (26), the Greek cross (25), the eight point star (22), the arrow (20), the X-mas tree (18). The least frequent categories were the period sign (0), the sickle (2), the equal sign and the sworl (3), scales (4), the "x" and the cross (6), the flag and the pyramid (7), the fisheye (10), the MAS logo (13) and the swastika (14). Rank order frequencies were: 1. the 5 point star (12) and the heart (6), 2. the mandala (9) and the 6 pt. star (7) and 5 pt. star (5), 3. the five pt. star and the heart (6), 4. the X-mas tree (6) and the mandala and heart (5) 5. the crescent (6), 6. the diamond (7), 7. the 8 pt. star (7) and the crescent, Greek cross and diamond (5), 8. the Greek Cross (7), 9. the flag (10), and 10. the arrow (5).</p> <p>This sample was corroborated with a smaller overlapping sample (N=17) in which the expected category frequency is 6.8 and the expected rank-item frequency is .68. The most salient items are the 5 pt. star (16) heart and the mandala (15), the six pt. star and the Greek cross (14), the 8 pt. star (13), the crescent and X-mas tree (12), the swastika (10), and the gold and diamond (8). Least frequency categories are the sickle, period, sworl and fisheye (0), the ankh, and scales (1), the equal sign (2),the flag, saw, christian cross, (3) the "x" and the MAS logo (4). Rank order frequencies are: 1., the Mandala (6), 2. 5 pt. star (7), 3. crescent and heart (3), 4. 6 pt. star and heart (4), 5. Greek cross (4), 6. gold sign (6), 7. Greek cross (4), 8. nothing, 9. the heart (3), and 10. the diamond (3).</p> <p>Another task of basic things involved the 12 order ranking of 37 common household objects. A large sample (N = 88) yields a rank item frequency of 2.38 and a category frequency of 28.5. The most salient categories were the bicycle (70), shoes (65), the television (59), the armchair (56), sunglasses (57), alarm clock (55), the skeleton key (41), the fountain pen (40) open box (34), coffee cup (33) ribbon and ruler (32) and stapler (31). Least salient categories were the scotch tape (1) and the eraser (1), soap (3), the black box and the tube of glue (4) the pushpin and thermometer (7) the photo album (9), the boiling pot with handle (12) the pen knife and the right-angled square and pencil (14) the bird cage (17), the heart and the spanner wrench (20) the postage stamp (23) and calendar book (24). Other items falling in the upper twenties range include the address book, shower head and robot (27). Rank item frequencies were: 1. bicycle (28) and sunglasses (12) and chair (9); 2. bicycle (9), skeleton key and arm chair (6), sunglasses, robot, alarm clock, ribbon (5), 3. the television and sunglasses (8) and the arm chair and calendar (7), 4.the alarm clock (8) and the television, skeleton key and armchair, 5. television (10), shoes (9), bicycle (6) and alarm clock (5), 6. the alarm clock (9), open box (7), sunglasses (6), 7. the arm chair and shoes (6) and the open box (5), 8.fountain pen (7) and the bicycle, pencil and sunglasses (5), 9. the ruler and shoes (6) and the television and the shower head (5), 10. the television (7), sunglasses (6), and the armchair, shoes, postage stamp and coffee cup (5) 11. the television (7) and ruler (5), and 12. shower head and address book (4).</p> <p>Another task involved the ranking of 12 of 50 of different images of plants and animals or "flora and fauna". Analysis of the sample (N =76, category frequencies equaling 18.24 and rank-item frequencies of 1.52) showed that highest frequencie categories were the crab (52), the snake (42), the dog (40), the crow (39), the second crab (34), the pony and the second sea turtle (33), the starfish and the frog (30), the crocodile and the fish (28), the tyrannosaurus and another frog (27), the squirrel (25), the pine tree (24), the shell (23), the lizard (22) the clam and the snail (21) and the dragonfly (20). It is interesting that only one plant and no insects were represented in the high frequency group, though 21 such forms were presented. Low frequency items were the dinosaur, the beaver cactus (2), the oak leaf, small cactus, ant, and trilobyte (3), seaweed, grasshopper and bee (4), the acorn and fig tree (5), the beetle, flower, coconut palm (6), the spider and pterosaurus (7), the palm tree and the dolphin (9), the second ant (10), the archaeopterix, saguru cactus and a sea turtle (11), the second pine tree, the "magnolia" (12), the bee (14), the quail and the beetle (15), and the mushroom and the tuna (16). Rank order salience include: 1. the crab (14) and tyrannosaurus (9) and second crab (8) and beetle (7), 2. the crab and dog (7), the crow, crab and frog (6); 3. the dog (7), 4. the crow (8) and starfish and the dog (7)m, 5. the crow and the squirrel (6), 6. the dog (7), 8. the pony (6), 9. the seaturtle (7), 10. the starfish and dragon fly (5), 11. none, 12. none.</p> <p>These different rank order task of basic items were corroborated with a separate and differently constructed rank order task utilizing nine sets of many of the same items but differently arranged on the page and differently configured on a "framed" background and field. Question of the relative bias absolute position of the figures on the page, the relative juxtaposition of the objects in relation to one another, and their relative sizes needed to be dealt with in some manner. The effect of presenting these figures on a more ambiguous background was to render the task more difficult to complete, and to make the problem of rank ordering more prone to error as people would chronically skip over a number or repeat a number twice.</p> <p>One example of these tasks was of 19 "shapes". The sample (N=21) has a category frequency score of 10 and a rank item score of 1. The most frequent categories were the horizontal oval (21), the circle (20), the hexagon (19), the square, triangle and the octagon (18), the oval (16) the parallelogram (15), the small oval (12), and the pentagon (11) while the least frequent categories were the arrowhead, the chisel, and the right triangle (1), the horizontal rectangle and the diamond (3), the vertical rectangle (4), the trapezoid and the upside down triangle and the rectangle (7). Rank item frequencies were: 1. the circle (12), 2. the horizontal oval (8), 3. the hexagon and circle (4), 4. the small oval and the square (5), 5. the triangle and the octagon (5), 6. the oval (5) and the upside down triangle (4), 7. the parallelogram (4), 8. the triangle (4), 9. the pyramid (4) and 10., the parallelogram (4).</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table 12-10. Correlations between different basic shapes</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="524"> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">hex</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">square</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">circle</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">hor</p> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">oval</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">pent.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">tri.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">upsid</p> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">down</p> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">tri</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">parall</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">rect</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">trap</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>hexagon</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>square</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>circle</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>horizontaloval</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>pentagon</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>triangle</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>upsidedown triangle</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.95</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>parallelogram</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>rectangle</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>trapezoid</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9</font></td> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p> </p> <p>Correlation between 10 objects from this sample and same objects from the #3 (N =17) and the #1 (N=56) samples presented above shows a positive correlation of .71 between this and #3, .93 between #3 and #1 and .84 between this one and #1, and the following high positive correlations between the different objects as shown on the previous table.</p> </font><font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 4</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">COLOR TASKS</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The color tasks were clearly projective and rank order in nature. The problem with the projective nature of these tasks seems to be that no valid "universal" ascriptions of associations can be given to the choice of colors. We really do not know what the choice of red over blue, or of the distaste of black or brown may represent, even in our own culture, much less within any other such as the Chinese. Colors do seem to represent moods to some extent, as well as some general sense of anxiety, anger, gregariousness, shyness and depression, and it is possible that the orders in which colors are selected or arranged may relate somehow to configurations of personality. But there appears few if any hard and fast associations between specific "colors" and specific feelings. This question is explored in greater detail in other color-related tasks.</p> <p>The color tasks included an adaptation of the Luscher 8 color ranking task, a 12 color version of the same task, an ethnosemantic "grid", association and pilesort task using the same 12 colors, and an adaptation of the "Color Pyramid Technique" using 12 colors matched as close as possible to the 12 color Luscher. An 8 color triads task utilizing the same colors was afterward constructed and administered to a small American sample.</p> <p>The method of analysis of these tasks involved the creation of frequency histograms for each of the colors of the different samples, the creation of correlation matrices from these histograms, 3-dimensional bar graphs and multidimensional scaling diagrams. Afterward Chi-square tests were run upon salient differences between the samples.</p> <p>The nature of the design of the Luscher tasks leads to two successive rank orders of the same cards. These two rank orders are then split to create two sub-samples. In the Luscher 8 and Luscher 12 tasks, the colored cards are laid in a pyramid and half square in front of the informant on an interview board that gave uniformity of local ground. The informant was asked to choose their most favorite colors, the card was taken up, and the rank order of selection was recorded. This procedure was then repeated, with the interviewee being told to make the second selections independent of the order of the first.</p> <p>For the Luscher 8 for all sub-samples the most salient color is black in the 8th or final position. The larger the sample size, the more salient black as the last choice became. The second most salient color is purple for the 1st and 2nd position, a saliency which is greater for women than for men, and for children than for adults. For men, purple is replaced by red as the most frequent color of first choice. For all the sub-samples, red emerges as the second most frequent color as a first and second choice. Yellow emerges as the most frequent colors in the third, fourth and fifth ranks. For the male sub-samples, both colors are more strongly salient in the second and third positions. Green and Blue compete for the intermediate positions of 3, 4, and 5, and are followed by Grey and Brown respectively which compete for the 6th and 7th positions. Brown is the most salient 7th color in three of the four sub-samples, except for the women for whom it is grey.</p> <p>Thus it appears in the Luscher eight that the most salient color rank order is purple, red, yellow, green, blue, grey, brown and black, competing with juxtapositions between red and purple, yellow green and blue, grey and brown.</p> <p>In the control group which consisted mostly of young Chew Jetty females, purple is clearly the most salient first choice, followed by black as a last choice. Green is the second most salient color, competing with yellow and blue which follow. Red, grey and brown emerge in the 5th, 6th and 7th positions.</p> <p>The greatest differences between male and female samples is the saliency of red in the first and second position for the males and the saliency of yellow and green in the second and third positions for the females.</p> <p>For the Luscher 12, black as the last choice remains the most salient color and purple remains the most salient color first choice, followed by violet, and then red and pink, green and yellow and orange, then blue and grey and finally brown and white. For the reference group, white and green emerge as the most common second choice colors, followed by violet and blue. Orange and yellow occupy intermediate positions, followed by grey, pink and brown as the 9th, 10th and 11th colors. For the men, red and pink are the first and second most common choices, followed by grey, yellow and purple, green and blue.</p> <p>The bipolar ambivalence, or tendency to cluster at both ends, of some colors must be taken into account, as well as the relative flatness or even distribution across the landscape. Overall, there were few such curves in the color. Most colors are represented by fairly strong peaks. Red appears strongly ambivalent, especially for men more than women or children. For men and boys the flatest color is grey.</p> <p>It is interesting to compare these color saliency landscapes with a color grid done in written English utilizing only the names of the colors. Though only small in number, the sample shows red, followed by black and brown, pink, grey and orange as the least favorite color and purple, followed by yellow, then blue, green and black and white as the most favorite. Strong intermediate colors are green and blue, grey, brown and yellow.</p> <p>A more ethnosemantic sort of task was given with the same 12 luscher cards in an effort to get at some common color associations and values. The subjects were asked to choose one card. No mention was made of it being a favorite card. Of 21 subjects, the most salient first choice was red (33.3%), followed by purple (16.6%). The last three choices were brown, grey and black. Pink and orange both have peaks at the eighth color position.</p> <p>The subjects were asked to identify the colored cards along certain basic dimensions of contrast that came out from the interviews as somehow important in differentiating the colors. These dimensions were male and female, pretty and ugly, light and dark, good and bad, dirty and clean, and dangerous and safe. For each category an intermediate category emerged that was considered "both male and female" and "sometimes dirty and sometimes clean"</p> <p>In the category of male (ta por) /female (char bor), the most female colors were purple and pink (both 78%), followed by red (76%) and then violet (54.5%). It is interesting that among these three are the most salient first choice colors. The most male colors are grey and brown (59% each) and then followed by blue and green (54.5% and 50.%) respectively. Strongly "fe/male" colors included white (57%), black (50%) and orange (42.8%). Yellow is the only remaining color and is more evenly distributed between the three categories, though it is more strongly "female" (42.8%) than either male (23.8%) or inbetween (33.3%)</p> <p>Similar types of patterns emerge for the other dimensions. "Pretty" (Swie) colors are purple, yellow, violet, red, pink, orange, white and green in order of decreasing frequency. "Ugly" (boh swie) colors were black, brown and grey. It is interesting to note that there were no significant "pretty/ugly" colors. Overall, colors were prettier than they were uglier.</p> <p>Light (chien) colors included purple, pink white and violet. Dark colors (tang) were red, black, brown, blue, yellow, green, orange. Inbetween colors were minor, but violet emerges as the most ambivalent, being equally distributed between dark and light categories.</p> <p>Good (ho) and Bad (boh ho) also emerged as individuals consistently made value judgment about different colors. Good colors were purple (90.9%), orange (95.2%), pink (82.6%), red (90%) blue (81.8%) and green (85.7%), all with a high level of agreement. Bad colors were black (73.7%) and grey (50%), while there were no significant inbetween colors. Two colors, grey and brown, were strongly ambivalent between the two categories (47.6% each).</p> <p>Dirty (la sam, or "boh chin ki") colors were brown (71%) and black (33.3%), while clean colors (chin ki) were white (100%), pink and purple (92.8% each), orange and violet (85.7% each), green and yellow (78.5%) and red (76.9%). Ambivalent colors included grey and blue.</p> <p>Dangerous (Hong hiam) colors included black (77.8%) and red (62.5%). "Safe"(boh hong hiam) included violet (100%), white (100%), purple (95%), pink (90.4%), green and grey (85%), orange (84.2%), blue (78.9%) and yellow (83.3%). Again, there were no significant inbetween colors.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 1-1. Correlations between Semantic Dimensions of 12 colors.</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="631"> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">pretty</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">light</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">good</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">clean</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">safe</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">female</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">ugly</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">dark</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">bad</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">dirty</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">danger</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>pret.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>light</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.262</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>good</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.966</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.297</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>clean</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.91</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.472</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.914</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>safe</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.424</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.694</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.535</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.517</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>fem.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.688</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.423</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.615</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.666</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.128</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>ugly</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.17</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.94</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.37</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>dark</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.31</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.35</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.52</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.72</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.39</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.218</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>bad</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.15</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.38</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.64</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.964</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.195</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>dirty</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.92</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.97</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.37</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.67</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.917</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.44</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>dang.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.51</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.65</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.61</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.57</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.98</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.13</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.475</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.688</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.468</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.458</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>male</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.58</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.31</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.51</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.7</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.047</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.78</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.515</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.29</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.549</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.706</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.03</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>The most salient dimensions associated with the 12 colors are "safeness," "goodness", "prettiness" and "femaleness", followed by "cleanness and lightness". These are all positive associations. The following table demonstrates the positive correlations between the six positive dimensions, the negative correlations between these and the six negative dimensions, the the positive correlations between the negative dimensions of "dangerousness", "badness", "ugliness", "maleness", "dirtiness" and "darkness."</p> <p>From this table it is apparent that the highest positive correlations are between the dimensions of goodness and prettiness, prettiness and cleanness and cleanness and goodness, as well as between badness, dirtiness and ugliness, as well as with maleness and dirtiness. High negative correlations are between prettiness and badness and dirtiness, and between goodness and dirtiness and ugliness.</p> <p>In the same task, the terms for the colors were also elicited. The following colors show uniform (100%) agreement in color terminology: red ("ang"), blue ("lam"), white ("pek"), black ("oo"). Of 22 people, one person referred to the green card as "hai che" or "sea green" whereas most of the others called it "che" (95.45%). The purple card was referred to as "lamina" by 19 of 23 people (82.6%) while one person didn't know the name, one person referred to it as "chien lamina" or light purple, and one person called it "chien lam" or light blue and one referred to is tas "chui lam" which can be translated as "watered (down) blue". Yellow was referred to as "ooi" by 20 of 22 people (90%). One person referred to it as "sunkist" in reference to the orange, and the other as "kam" or orange. The color orange was called "kam" by 20 of 22 people (90%) and referred to as "chui ooi" or "watery yellow" by one person and as "tang kam" or "dark orange" by another. Pink was referred to as "chui ang" or "watery red" by 20 people (90%) and as "chien ang" by one person and "kam ang" or orangish red by another. Brown was called "chocolate" by 15 of 22 people (72.7%), perhaps reflecting a borrowed word, as "coco" by 3 people (13.6%), as "lamina" or "purple" by another, and as "tua te sek" or "liver colored" or interpreted as "maroon" by 3 people (13.6%). Grey was referred to as "hoay hu" (literally "cement or fire fish") by 20 of 22 people (90%), English "grey" by one person, and as "oo" (black) by another. Violet appeared to be the most ambiguous category. Nine persons referred to it as "lamina" or purple. Four persons called it "tang lamina" (dark purple) and four "chui ang" (watery red). One person each referred to it as "tang lam" (dark blue), "chui lamina," (watery purple), "chien lamina" (light purple), "chui lam" or watery blue, "sian ka ang" (literarily "off red" or referred to as "chien ang" or "tang ang") and as "tua ta sek" or "liver color".</p> <p>It appears that violet especially is not a clear-cut color category, and the color seems mostly unfamiliar to the Jetty Chinese, except that I have noticed it on some of their standards and small flags that they fly. The ambivalence of the color violet, as it spans the categories of red, blue and purple, as well as the "dark/light" terms with which it is evaluated, suggests that this category is new or emergent for this culture.</p> <p>Lightness and darkness appear to be very basic dimensions by which colors are analyzed and evaluated, and though it is not the most salient dimension by which all the colors are thought of, it does appear to be related and perhaps underlie basic distinctions between the other dimensions.</p> <p>Semantic associations of each color were also elicited from subjects. There appeared a great deal of variability in pattern of response, in the number of associations made drawn on internalized or memory associations. At some point this resource became exhausted, then individuals would begin looking around their immediate context in order to find things of the same color. This was a common pattern with almost everyone thus interviewed. A couple of highly nervous children appeared to immediately begin searching their contexts for informational clues to the color, not relying upon memory process very much.</p> <p>The red color was associated with temples (28.5%), shirts (23.8%), blood and red light (on boats and street stoplight) (19%), house and cars (14.3% each), fire, apple, postboxes, lipstick, paper, flower (9.5%), and dresses, music box, pencil box, shoes, plastic bags, incense burner, sampan, lantern, cat's eyes, street light, candy, skirt, bush, stool, paint, boat, motorcycle, brake lights, bicycles, bamboo pole, roof, clothes, rose, men's and women's clothes, lipstick, pen, and ice bucket (4.7% each). One person didn't know any associations. The average number of associations was 3.12 per person, with a range of 7 and a mode of 3.</p> <p>Elicitations of semantic associations also yielded the following comments. Red is a lucky color. The Heart is bad if it is red--red is a bad color. If red is not dangerous then it is good. If you see red be careful--danger. Women like red--after cooking something and it turns red then real good. A lot of things are red--red is a warning color for danger. All Gods are honored with red--it is a spirit color.</p> <p>Associations with blue included blue plastic buckets common on the Jetty (38%), motorboats painted blue (33.3%), shirts (23.8%), sky and pen, (19% each); clothes and pants (14.3%); the sea, houses, balls, shoes, bicycles, paint, and bags (9.5%); books, T-shirts, sampans, watches, ships, material, eggplant ("Brinjal"), lights, ribbons, motorcycles, helmets, cars, sapphire, cap, paper, water, pencil, and work clothes (4.8% each). In regard to the last item, "if clothing, blue hides dirt. For welding blue is the color." The average number of associations per person were 3.6 per person with a mode of 2 and a range of 9.</p> <p>The color grey is associated with shirts, cars, and cement (19% each); houses (14.3%);floors, bamboo, ashes, boats (9.5%); and T-shirts, marble, dresses, motorboats, sampans, balls, shoes, hair, body, paper, material, table, pen, pencil, oil drums and pants (4.8% each). 3 people didn't know any associations (14.3%). Grey is a common color, it is associated with "a lot of things" If you mix black and white it becomes grey. Grey and black "fit together." "Grey is a dirty color for me." The average number of associations per person is 2.5, while the mode is 2 and the range is 8.</p> <p>The color orange is associated with oranges ("chiam", usually "sunkist") (81.8%), shirts (18%), bicycles (9%), traffic lights, fire, t-shirts, table, shoes, paper, magic ink, material, skin, umbrellas, persimmons, tins, lights, Holland's soccer Jerseys, water tanks, ginger (4.5% each). Two people didn't know any associations and the average number of associations per person was 2.05 with a range of 5. It appears that not many things in the Jetty world are orange, and orange are not more common. The color term "orange" is used almost interchangeably with "sunkist" to refer to oranges.</p> <p>Pink is associated with clothes (23.8%), chairs, bikes and chinese cakes ("mee ku") (14.2% each), material, houses, lipstick, and buckets (9.5%); and dresses, balls, shoes, tables, water buckets, paper, watercolor paints, pencil boxes, pens, plastics, women's clothes, material curtains, heart, shop, strawberries, koay (glutinous rice cakes), paint, snooker pin balls (4.7% each). The average number of associations per person was 2.35 with a range of 7 and a mode of 1.</p> <p>Yellow is associated with umbrellas and shirts (19% each), lights (14%), oranges and houseplants (9.5% each) and with road signs, leaves, pencil boxes, dresses, bicycles, balls, houses, shorts, shoes, boards, paper, plastics, boats, bags, milk powder, koay, cakes, corn, bananas, Gods, plastic trim, flowers, clothes, cushions, pineapples, hats, socks, mee (noodles), the Shell logo, the ferry boat, Brazilian Soccer teams, sports shirts posters, poster letters, and poster colors (4.7% each). Two people didn't know any associations, and one simply said "a lot of things". One person told me that "darker yellow is prettier." The average number of associations is 2.67 per person, with a range of 7 and a mode of 2.</p> <p>Purple is associated with clothes (27%), shirts (13.6%), t-shirts, pants, bikes, shoes, purple containers, material and cars (9%) and dresses, balls, ribbon, socks, plastics, umbrellas, pants, candy, drinks, paper, cakes, flowers, lamp, mangosteens, balloons, vehicles, cap, hat, stone, ribbons, "Brinjal" (eggplant) paint, colored pencils, pub lights, and the park (4.5% each). The average number of associations is 2.78 per person with a mode of 2 and a range of 7.</p> <p>Green is associated with trees and leaves (22.7% each), traffic lights (14.3%), houses, sampans, shirts, shoes, apples, paint, grass, motorcycles, leafy vegetables ("chai") and cars (9%) and also with the forest, blackboards, pens, motorboats, bicycles, Durians, doors, paper, table, tins, containers, daun pandan (sweet, aromatic leaves used in making pandan bread and koay), bananas, material, tiles, pineapple, cucumber, clothes, pants, t-shirts, jade, park, poster and adultery (4.5%). "If one sees a tree that is green it is living. Green things are alive. Green is pretty." "Adultery--one thing green for Chinese." The average number of associations is 2.36 per person with a range of 6 and a mode of 1.</p> <p>Violet is assocated with paint, shirts, colored pencils, watches and bicycles (8.3% each) and with candles, shirts, dresses, pants, tiles, roofs, houses, crayons, shoes, paper, "Brinjal", material, clothes, bracelets, flowers, umbrellas, bags and kueh (koay, or glutinous rice cakes) (4.1% each) That violet is not a common color and is an inherently ambiguous color for the Jetty people might be reflected in the fact that only 17 of 24 people gave any clear associations with the color and that 6 people said they didn't know any associations (25%). One person said "a lot of things" and left it at that. Another person tried to qualify the color and define it, "like blue but brighter, "purple" but not sure. After a while blue changes and becomes that color." Another person referred to violet as an "Indian color, gaudy--nothing." The average number of associations was 2.88 per person, with a range of 7 and a mode of 3.</p> <p>Brown is associated with chocolate (22.7%) which it is called, with shoes, skin, and houses (18%), with colored pencils, the body, pens, joss sticks, and paint (9%) and with dogs, hair, bicycles, balls, bags, boats, kop peng (coffee with ice and condensed milk) paper, candy, pants, material, Sarsi soda, Brinjal, milo, clothing, socks, cupboards, wood, car, blankets, carbon paper, glass holders and coco (4.5%). Brown "can take dirt, hide it." The average number of associations is 2.88 with a mode of 3 and a range of 7.</p> <p>Black is associated with hair (52.4%), shirts (28.6%), pants (23.8%)</p> <p>bags and shoes (19%), tires and charcoal (14.3% each), boats, pens, eyes, death, bicycles, and motorcycle seats (9.5% each) and with socks, t-shirts, plastic bags, motorboats, sampans, houses, pencils, ships, paints, tar, tar, hair bands, motorcycles, shorts, clothes, trousers, sotong ink (octopus ink), people, monk's cloaks, cars and hand carts (4.8%). Three people said "a lot of things." "For Chinese, black is O.K.". "Old people "soi" black (bad luck, evil). Old people don't like it. Young people like to wear black. It is good to have red and pink with it. It is the color of death." "Black means death in the house for the family, but when you wear it its an easy color. It's dangerous because its dark. If you wear black pants any color shirt will go with it." The average number of associations is 3.2 per person, with a range of 9 and a mode of 3.</p> <p>White is associated with shirts (36.4%), with paper (31.8%), house paint (22.7%), houses (18%), pants (13.6%), motorboats, ocean liners, shoes, t-shirts, fans, cars, dresses and boats (9%) and with uniforms, cotton, wool, the sky, dresses, lamps, the sea, cruisers, eggs, bags, plastics, tins, material, tiles, tissue, the sun, clothes, shoes, cigarettes, buildings, cushions, balconies, walls, lamplights and clouds (4.5%). Four people said "a lot of things." It was qualified with "White is clear". "If you use white as paint in the house, it's clear, clean, light. Most coffee shops usewhite as the base paint for walls. People like it." The average number of associations per person was 2.95 with a mode of 1 and a range of 7.</p> <p>The same task also included at the end a "top-down" pile sort with the twelve color cards. Overall, the predominant trend was to subdivide the piles into two equal sized groups, from 12 to 2 piles of 6, and then from 6 to two piles of 3 cards each, then one card would be separated from the 3 card piles. Only two people did not follow this pattern, one grouping in odd sized piles of 8 and 4 cards, and one who seemed unable to do a top-down sort with the cards, and instead ended up doing a bottom up sort joining two cards at a time together. At the end of this informant's sort, a bottom-down configuration could be inferred.</p> <p>The analysis of the pile sorts proceeded from left to right, and from grouped to ungrouped at the bottom of the tree. Red at each level was taken as an anchor point for the identification of the different colors.</p> <p>The results of the pile sorts reveal that there were four overall levels of pile sorts for 19 of 20 subjects, with only 1 subject completing a five level sort. At the first level, red was most frequently associated with yellow (70%), blue (65%), green (60%), brown (55%), orange (50%), grey and pink (45% each), black and violet (40% each), purple (30%), and least with white (25%). The second cut in the first level included in order of greatest frequency white (75%), purple (70%), black and violet (60% each), orange (50%), brown (45%), green (40%), blue (35%) and, finally, yellow (30%). Orange was equally associated with both cuts.</p> <p>On the second level in four groups of three (except one), the first two cuts coming from the first cut on level one, and the second two from the second cut on level one. Red was associated yellow (40%), brown (35%), green and blue (30%), black (25%), orange, violet and grey (15%), purple and white (10%) and no association with pink. In the second cut was pink (40%), blue and orange (35% each), grey and green (30%), purple, yellow and violet, (25%), brown (20%), black (15%) and white (10%). In the third cut was blue, white, pink (35% each), green (30%), orange, brown, violet and grey (25% each) and purple, yellow and black (20% each). In the fourth cut was purple (45%), white (40%), black and violet (35%), grey and orange (25%), pink and brown (20%), yellow (15%), and green (10%). For one sort that entailed six rather than seven groups at this level, the fifth pile was white and grey and the sixth one was pink and black.</p> <p>On the third level there were 8 subsorts, with four single cards and 4 subgroups. Single cards associated with the first cut on the second level include yellow (35%), black and grey (15%), blue, green and brown 910%), and purple, orange, white and violet (5% each). Associated most strongly with red in the first cut on the third level, associated with the first cut on the second level, were brown, blue and green (15% each), orange, black and violet (10% each) and purple, yellow and white (5% each, or one time). No other associations were made with red at this level. Single cards associated with the second cut on the second level was orange and grey (20% each), blue, pink and brown (15% each), green, yellow and black (10% each). In the second cut associated with the second cut on the second level was purple and violet (25% each), blue (20%), green, pink and white (15%), and yellow, orange, brown and grey (10% each). The single cards associated with the third cut on the second level was blue and brown (20% each), green and pink (15% each), yellow and grey (10%) and orange, black and violet (5% each). The third cut on the third level associated with the third cut on the second level include purple (30%), green (25%), orange, white and violet (20% each), blue (15%), yellow, pink and brown (10% each) and black (5%). The fourth card associated with the fourth cut on the second level includes grey (30%), pink and white (15%), purple, yellow, black and violet (10%) and orange and brown (5% each). The fourth cut associated with the fourth cut on the second level includes white and black (30%), orange (20%), violet and purple (15%), pink and brown (10%) and green, yellow and grey (5%). The lone set of cards from the fifth and sixth cuts of the second level include violet, purple, white, grey, pink, and black (5% each).</p> <p>The four cuts of the on the third level separate out on the fourth level into their individual cards. Only one individual carried a sort to the next, fifth level, and this was due to failure to separate on the third level the first and second cuts, and include separating a cut of yellow and orange with a card of green from the second cut on the third level, and a cut of white and grey and a single card of purple from the first cut of the third level.</p> <p>There is surprising consistency in these pile sorts, as well as a tendency to draw out red, and yellow from purple and and violet in the first cuts. The following correlations by color reflect the different the degree of association at different levels of the pilesorts.</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 1-2. Associations of the 12 colors across the levels of the pilesort</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="583"> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">red</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">blue</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">green</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">purple</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">yellow</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">pink</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">orange</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">white</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">black</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">brown</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Times" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">violet</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>red</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>blue</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.48</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>green</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.52</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.96</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>purple</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.32</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.43</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>yellow</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.55</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.78</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.81</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.25</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>pink</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.68</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.64</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.7</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.43</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>orange</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.15</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.72</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.78</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.74</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.58</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.87</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>white</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.23</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.31</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.17</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.66</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.68</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>black</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.17</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.42</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.48</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.75</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.52</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.63</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.78</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.84</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>brown</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.54</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.49</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.81</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.65</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.75</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.43</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.67</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>violet</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.05</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.54</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.62</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.95</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.43</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.8</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.83</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.88</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.81</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.66</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="7%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p>grey</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.01</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.59</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.54</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.62</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.85</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.76</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.62</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.73</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.71</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Times" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.72</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Analysis of one other color task may shed light on the grouping of colors. A 12 color version of the "color pyramid test" was given by matching the 12 colors of the Luscher cards with colored felt. Informants were asked to construct pretty and then ugly pyramids from these colored squares of felt. Each pyramid was symmetrically balanced, requiring fifteen patches of felt to complete. Thus there were from top down five rows of 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 squares on each level, respectively, and a total of fifteen such patches per pyramid. This technique, though complex and time consuming to prepare and administer, provides a useful and interesting way of corroborating the Luscher related rank order tasks.</p> <p>Correlation scores for both colors and levels for five sub-samples were run, for men, women, girls, boys and the control-reference groups. A number of chi square tests can be run on different levels between groups and pretty and ugly pyramids. For example, purple and black in the first three positions for the girls' pretty and ugly pyramids reveal a chi square of 24.46, significant far above the .001 level of significance. Also, average frequency scores for colors and for levels of each sample can be calculated, and then correlated between the different sub-samples, as well as between pretty and ugly pyramids.</p> </font><font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 5</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">DRAWING TASKS</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font><b><font FACE="Times" SIZE="4"> <p></font></b><font FACE="Times">Drawing tasks are perhaps the most projective of all tasks, and are closely related to the inkblot tasks. Unlike the inkblots, they are vehicles for more direct expression though this expression is itself basically silent and context bound. This is especially the case for the less constrained types of drawings.</p> <p>There was a great deal of resistance to drawing tasks, especially by the adults. It was very difficult to get any adult to draw anything for the embarrassment it would cause. They considered drawing to be a "childish" past-time. Children were less reticent about this form of expression, though many of them apparently did not have great skills or experience as drawers.</p> <p>While drawings were for the most part 'kid's stuff', the utility of drawing as productive symbolic frame tasks and the basic competence of children as productive and willing cultural informants, warranted extensive incorporation and utilization of numerous drawing tasks. The principle difficulty of the use of drawing tasks are the development of a valid and reliable nomothetic system of analysis and evaluation.</p> <p>Several types of drawing tasks were utilized. The main kind were the largely unconstrained techniques used in children's psychological evaluation, the Human Figure Drawing, Family and Kinetic Family drawings (variously "Draw your family", "Draw any Family", "Draw your family with everyone doing something, including yourself"), and a variant of the House-Tree-Person drawings that involved the relative drawing and placement of the house, tree and person on the same page. These were supplemented by several other types of drawing tasks, of which the main ones were an adaptation of the Ruth Fry Symbolic Profile which was quick to administer, a similar variant of this constructed on the basis of the "Sander Fantasie Technique", as well as another experimental set of coordinated drawing tasks that I constructed that ranged between drawing on totally unconstrained spaces to progressively more constrained background features--dots, then dots and lines, then closed lines.</p> <p>It is my conclusion that these tasks all accomplish about the same thing, except that the more constraint there is involved in the task, the less expressive and more "responsive" the elicitations become. It is also my belief that any universal ascriptions can be attached to particular things drawn, or to particular shapes or symbols. This is especially pertinent to the Symbolic Profile the interpretation of which is rooted in Jungian theory.</p> <p>What all these drawing tasks do elicit, are forms of expression which, when fit into the cultural background in which they were created, allow for a deeper reading of both the theme of the picture, of the artist who created that picture, and of the cultural context in which that artist is situated.</p> <p>Since most of the drawing tasks involved the use of color pens, an intrinsic part of the their analysis is the use of color associations and frequencies of occurrence in the drawings. Color in drawing tasks is not well explored. Colored pens were used in a sub-sample of the Human Figure Drawings, and though using color in Human Figure drawings obfuscates the analysis of these tasks, it also helps to understand how color may be related to certain facets of our identity and emotionality.</p> <p>Analysis of this task was based upon the Goodenough inventory which is used extensively in the calculation of mental age and IQ, combined with Elizabeth Koppitz's inventories of gender, developmental items, emotional and organic indicators. The figures were also measured for height and width, as well as for the degrees and direction of rotation from the vertical, as well as for a few other characteristics which became noticed during analysis, such as open mouths, smiles, zigzag lines, disproportionately enlarged heads, reduced trunks, hands hidden behind the back, bangs, fists.</p> <p>Only frequency scores of the samples are presented, here. Samples have been split between male and female, and differences due to age which may be relevant to the analysis of mental age or IQ or to development, are conflated within the analysis. It is interesting that it is in the area of these drawing tasks alone that the male samples outweigh the female samples, and it is about the only thing that any number of boys were consistently willing to do for us.</p> <p>The few scores calculated for estimation of mental age and IQ showed scores which were probably unreliable when compared to other observational evidence and information from other tasks. It may be possible on the basis of these scores to refer children to nominal categories of "above average, normal, or below average" mental age, but the scoring system seems unreliable to give more exact estimations.</p> <p>Of two samples of 28 boys, the average developmental score of the male sample was 21.178 out of a possible score of 30. For this sample there was an average score of 1 for impulsivity, .64 for insecurity, .46 for anxiety, .46 for shyness, and .178 for anger. For the most part, these scores were distributed evenly over the whole sample. Only one males showed a score of 3 for each category impulsivity, insecurity, anxiety, and two males had a score of 2 in each of the categories of shyness and anger.</p> <p>For the female sample of 21 women, there was an average score of .33 for impulsivity, .19 for insecurity, .38 for anxiety, .38 for shyness and .047 for anger. For impulsivity, this score is distributed between 4 out of 21 persons, with 3 having a score of 2. For insecurity this score is distributed among 2 persons with a score of 2 each. Scores for anxiety (6 people) and shyness (8 people) are more evenly distributed across the sample, and the anger score is only represented by 1 person.</p> <p>This scores are not really comparable with the male sample because the average age of the female sample of 13.9 years with a mode of 16 was much higher than that of the male sample, 11.4 years with a mode of 13, but it does show the relative differences of emotional profiles as these are indicated by the scoring of human figure drawings. Correlations between the combined categories for men and women is .4738, and there is a 1.0 positive correlation between all the categories for both men and women. Overall, the women show a much more balanced and stable emotional profile than the males. In both samples there is very low evidence for anger. Women have higher indications of anxiety and shyness, whereas the boys show higher scores for impulsivity and insecurity, anxiety and shyness.</p> <p>Analysis of children's drawings is complicated by that fact that developmental, emotional and mental dimension are to some extent overlapping and conflated. It is difficult if not impossible to separate out what indications may be due to developmental, mental or emotional factors. An example of this are the organic indicators which clearly have a relationship to development and relative mental age. Immature individuals can be expected to show a higher score on the indicators for organic dysfunction and more mature or older individuals. The average score for organic indicators for the males is 5.25, though there were not visible signs of organic disturbance by any of the males. Of course, some of the criteria for scoring, such as distortion, integration and asymmetry, are relatively subjectively based. Even if a lower score is given for these categories such that the average score is half of what it appears to be, there is still a strong indication of organic disorder among the males.</p> <p>The average score for organic indicators for the female sample is 2.62, which is about half of the male sample's score, a difference significant above the .05 level with a chi square of 4.899. It is difficult to interpret this statistic, because the females are on the average older than the males. Both sets of scores are fairly evenly distributed over the entire sample. These scores may show that the males are possibly twice as disturbed as the females according to these indicators, or that their degree of possible disturbance is much greater than the women, or else their mental age and developmental scores are lower than that for the females.</p> <p>There is can be expected to be a strong correlation between these average scores and those for the different emotional indicators, as well as for the scores for neurotic indications. The average score for neurotic indicators are 1.96, compared to an average score of the women of .86 for the women, less than half the male score, and with a chi square of 4.63, also significant above the .05 level.</p> <p>On the traits decreasing in frequency with age, we should expect a higher score for the men than for the women. The average for the male sample is 1.96, while that for the female sample is 1.38. The chi square test for the raw scores of previous figures is .958, not significant about the .25 level, thus it seems as if its impossible to separate clearly developmental from non-developmental factors in children's drawings, although there is a substantial difference between male and female scores.</p> <p>Another set of developmental items which are expected to increase in frequency with age should indicate a higher score for the female than for the male sample. The average male score is 11.75, while the average female score is 13.67, a minor difference with correlates very well with the average age of the two samples. Another way of asking this question is in terms of exceptional items which are supposed to increase in frequency with age. Thus it can be expected that the males should score considerably lower than the females in these indicators. The average score for the male sample is 10, compared to an average score of 9.57 for the females.</p> <p>The average score used to calculate mental age and IQ should show the difference in the average age, as does the difference in the frequency of expected items above. The average score for the male sample is 28.96, while the score for the female sample is 32.95 According to the Goodenough scoring sheet, this yields a mental age of about 10.3 for the males and about 11.3 for the females. Thus the computed average IQ of the male sample is 97, while that of the female sample is 81. It is of course erroneous to conflate individual scores in this way to compute average IQ, and part of the reason for this error is the high median of the female age curve which inflates the denominator of the IQ equation.</p> <p>The average score of the male sample for the masculine indicators is 1.04, compared to the female average of .9 for the females. The average score of the male sample for feminine indicators is 1, compared to 1 for the females. The average score for males on the masculine characteristics for girls is .64, while it is .2438 for the females. The average score of the males for traits showing male differentiation of male from female drawings is .25, while it is .23 for the females. The average score for the males showing female differentiation of male and female drawings is 1.46, while it is 1.0476, not significant above .25 for the chi square test. Thus, masculine and feminine indicators are not clear in these samples, with the males showing greater feminine characteristics than the females.</p> <p>Characteristics noticeably absent in the drawings of boys were nostrils, the correct number of fingers, fingers, no hands, opposable thumbs, complete costume, legs, ears and chins. The highest frequencies of neurological indicators were the the presence of 2 or more organic indicators, the most frequent of which were gross immaturity of the figures and distortions of the figure. For the males the most significant indicator of impulsivity was asymmetry.</p> <p>For the female sample, noticeably absent features were also related to the hands, as well as the lack of ears and nostrils. There were no outstanding neurological or organic indicators, nor any outstanding emotional indicators.</p> <p>Of the male sample, more than 85% drew male figures, and only 14.28% drew female figures. Of the female sample, more than 90% drew female figures, and only 9.5% drew male figures. The average number of clothes for the male figures is 3.8, while the number of clothes for the female's figures is 3.28.</p> <p>There were no significant differences in rotation scores, except that the females had a higher frequency of no rotations (40%) than the males who had no 0 rotations. Males</p> <p>had slightly more rotations to the right, with an average right rotation score of 4.2, compared to an average left rotation score of 4.68. The females had an even number of rotations to the right and left, and they had a left rotation score of 2.58, and a right rotation score of 4.166.</p> <p>Both males and females drew a high proportion of characteristics not normally scored, these included bangs, enlargement of the head in relation to the body, clear emphasis of the eyes, reduction of the trunk in relation to the body or the head, shading or detail to the hair, hands behind the back or in the pockets, smiles and open mouths. The males especially showed a special characteristic (50%) of emphasized zig-zag lines, either as bangs on the head, or on the body or hands, a difference from the females with a chi square of 1.586, significant above the .25 level. It is not known at this point what these special characteristics may represent, though correlations between these frequencies and the frequencies of other characteristics might yield some sense of their significance.</p> <p>These scores speak little for the Human Figure drawings, nor for the children who drew them. The heads are frequently enlarged with a great deal of attention, especially to the eyes and the hair, and sometimes the mouth. Typically the body is short in relation to the head and squarish in shape. Also the arms are short, almost cut off at the end, without much attention to the hands. Clothing is usually sparse and without a lot of pattern or detail, though there are frequent exceptions--this is nothing unusual in a context where many men walk around all day long with nothing more than a pair of shorts or swimming trunks on, and most people dress with just a t-shirt and shorts and slippers.</p> <p>Though Human figure drawings have been extensively used in cross-cultural analysis, and significant differences between character frequencies do show up between different cultural samples, it is yet unclear what are the significant culturally distinctive patterns of the Jetty human figure drawings. The heads are emphasized, and the bodies and limbs relatively poorly developed and reduced.</p> <p>Another sample of drawings were the Family drawing tasks. It is interesting that the typical arrangement of the members are in a kind of hieratic order of size, with individual's standing side-by-side in a row, usually without touching. In only about 10 of about 29 (34.5%) boys drawings are any members of the family touching, and these are usually just one or two figures, while in only five of the 17 (29.4%) girl's drawings are there any family members touching, while in only 4 drawings of the total sample (8.7%) are all the members touching one another as a group.</p> <p>In the boy's drawings, out of the 17 of 29 (58.6%) which depict a father and a mother, only four (13.7%) show the father larger than the mother, while seven (24%) show them of equal size, and six (20.6%) show the mother actually larger than the father. The same thing occurs with the female drawings. Fourteen out of 17 (82.35%) show both a father and a mother, of which six show them of equal size (35.3%) while five show the mother to be larger than the father (29.4%) and only three show the father to be larger than the mother (17.6%). Though these differences are not too significant in a statistical sense, they do serve to highlight a fact which became very apparent during the analysis of the drawings, the central and prominent role of the mother in the life of the family and the artist. In two of the boys drawings is the self actually drawn as large as or larger than the parents.</p> <p>In the drawings of the family figures, there was an overall reduction in the size and in the attention to detail which rendered significantly lower overall scores to the figures, as well as a reduction in the form of the figures. The amount of such reduction is of course proportionate to the number of family members drawn, but also marks out the fact that there is less differentiation of figures at the family level than in terms of the individual self. Details that were frequent in the family drawings were the attention to the head and hair of the figures, especially to the bangs and eyes, but also giving patterned shirts and pockets to family members. The enlargement of the head and reduction of the torso were</p> <p>also quite apparent in these family figures, in many instances even being more marked than in the figure drawings. There were many open mouths, but fewer smiles on average than the figure drawings.</p> <p>The average rotation was lower than that for the human figures, 2.0 degrees right and 1.90 left for the boys, and 2.07 right and 1.12 left for the girls. Out of a total sample of 46, there were 20 drawings (43.5%) on which mixed rotations on the same page occurred.</p> <p>Predictably, there was an increase in the average score of organic and neurological signs per figure in the drawings, being 5.98 for the boy's sample and 4.9 for the girls' sample. The boys' average score per figure for impulsivity was 1.05, the girls .896. The boys' average score per figure for insecurity was .672, the girls .36. The boys' average score per figure for anxiety was .874, the girls .96. The boys' average score per figure for shyness was .756, the girl's was .78. The boys' average score per figure for anger/aggressiveness was .277, the girls' were .1.</p> <p>Correlations between these scores indicates a positive correlation of .838 between the boy's figure drawings and family drawings for all emotional indicators.</p> <p> </p> <p align="center">Table Appendix 5-1. Correlations of Scores between Human Figure</p> <p align="center">and Family Drawings</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="370"> <tr> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Boys' Figures</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Girl's Figures</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Boys Families</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Boys' Figures</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Girl's Figures</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.4738467</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Boys Families</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.83775</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.8603201</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Girls Families</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.5181941</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9500556</font></td> <td WIDTH="25%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.888075</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Correlations of scores between the different categories of emotional indicators are shown in the table below:</p> <p align="center">Table Appendix 5-2 Correlations of Scores for Emotional Indicators</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="447"> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">impulsivity</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">insecurity</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">anxiety</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">shyness</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>impulsivity</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>insecurity</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.894056</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>anxiety</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.5974742</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.2716851</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>shyness</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.650503</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.3497761</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9962123</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>anger</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9350008</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.8175609</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.7755176</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.82529</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>The closer similarity in emotional indicator scores between the boy's and girl's samples for the family drawings may be due in part to the closer similarity of average age, which is 11.58 years for the boys and 13.05 years (with a mode of 13) for the girls, as well as to just random variation of the sample. But there is also the possibility that emotional profiles attached to familial relations and the family context compared to those attached to self-identity may be more different in the case of the girl's than the boys. If so, then in relation to the family girls show profiles similar to the boy's, greater impulsivity and insecurity, anxiety and timidity.</p> <p>There are relatively few actions or objects associated with family drawings. Two figures are kissing in one drawing, in another all the children are reaching towards the mother, in another a mother is reaching toward the child. In two figures appear to be walking in one direction, in another the boys appear to be running. In one the father is waving toward the family. In another one is holding another. Two hearts are drawn between the self and the mother in two of the boys' drawings. There is a slight tendency for the boys to draw the males, father's and son's, alike, with similar hair, clothes, postures, and for the girls to draw the women alike in a similar manner. Siblings are usually drawn very similarly, and smaller than the adults. The inter-positioning of another</p> <p>sibling between ego and a parent, or the turning away of the parent from ego toward another sibling, occurs in a few drawings.</p> <p>Perhaps the most interesting family drawn was made by a young girl who's mother had recently died of breast cancer. In it she draws her cousins of her uncle's family which she calls her own. Her father and mother are absent. There are clouds and birds in the sky and a tree growing in the foreground.</p> <p>House-Tree-Person drawings were collected from small samples of boys (N = 16) and girls (N=14). The two samples are remarkably consistent in the scores of the expected frequency of developmental items, the absence of which serve as neurological indicators, as well as in the relative frequencies of exceptional items which are also used in developmental analysis, the girls having an average absence score of 11.428 out of 28 items (40.8%) and the boys having an average absence score of 10.5 out of 28 items (37.5%). Of these items, the most common absences were ears, nostrils, pupils, elbows, knees, two lips, five fingers, etc. and the correlations between these two sets of score are remarkably similar. Correlation between the boys and girls scores on these indicators is .936.</p> <p>It can be expected that these scores for the organic-neurological traits are relatively high, due to the reduction of detail and form in relation to the task of also drawing a house and tree in the same field. The score for the girls' sample is 6.143. Scores for the boys' sample are 5.437. Scores for the emotional categories are about equal for impulsivity (boys, 1.06 and girls 1.14), boys .31 for insecurity, girls .143, boys .25 for anxiety, girls .50, boys .44 for shyness, girls 1, and boys .06 for anger and girls .07. It seems that on this task the girls show considerably more timidity and anxiety than the boys, whereas the boys appear slightly more insecure or inadequate than the girls.</p> <p>Again it is difficult to interpret these scores on the basis of its relationship to the drawing of the house and the tree, and what these may symbolically represent in</p> <p>relationship to the human figure drawn. The two boys drew female figures (12.6%) while three girls drew male figures (21.4%). The differences in direction and degrees of rotation were significant for the human figures, the boys being slightly oriented to the left while the girls were slightly oriented to the right. The chi square for this difference in left/right orientation between the boys and girls is 10.878, significant above the .001 level. What this may mean is unknown at this time.</p> <p>In terms of other characteristics, both boys and girls had the enlarged heads and reduced trunks, zigzags, smiles, open mouths and clothing details. The girls showed proportionately more hands hidden behind the back, bangs and fists. These features were consistently frequent on almost all human figures drawn.</p> <p>The drawings were also scored for the relative position of the house, tree, person from left to right, from foreground to background (from bottom edge to top) and also in terms of large to small size. The predominant pattern was a left to right orientation in which the paper was cut evenly into thirds widthwise to accommodate each item.</p> <p>For the boys, 43.7% drew their trees on the left side, 68.9% drew their houses in the centerline, (only 6.25% trees in center), and 62.5% drew their trees on the right side. 68.75% of the boys drew the houses as the largest item, followed by trees as both second most frequent largest item and most frequent second sized item (43.5%), then persons were both the least most first largest sized thing drawn (6.25%) and the most frequent third sized thing drawn (62.5%). No houses were the smallest things drawn. People were the most frequent item drawing in the foreground (50%), followed by trees (31.25%). Both houses and persons were equally drawn in the mid ground (37.5%) and trees (50%) followed by houses (43.5%) were the most frequent things drawn in the background. There may be larger patterns in these scores, but the distribution of Houses, Trees, and Persons looks fairly uniform without any other obvious clear cut patterns.</p> <p>For the girls, Trees were also the most frequent thing drawn on the left edge, (57.1%) followed by houses (28.57%). Houses were the most frequent thing drawn in the center (42.85%), while people and trees occurred in the centerline with equal frequency (28.5% each). People occurred most frequently on the right edge (57.1%), followed by trees and then houses. Trees were the largest things drawn (42.85%), followed by houses (42.85%) and people. Trees were also the second largest things drawn (42.85%) again followed by trees (35.7%) and people. People were the smallest thing drawn (64.28%), followed by trees and then houses. People were the most frequent things placed in the foreground, (71.4%), followed by trees and then houses. Trees were the most important things placed in the midground (50%), followed by houses and then people. Houses were the most important things placed in the background (57.14%), followed by trees (35.7%) and one person.</p> <p>Table Appendix 5-3. Correlations of Relative Position and Size of House,</p> <p>Tree and Person.</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="456"> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">left</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">center</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">right</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">largest</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">middle</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">small</p> </font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">foregd.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">midgnd.</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>left</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>center</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>right</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>largest</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>middle</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-11</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>smallest</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-11</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>foreground</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>midground</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>background</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Correlations were run on the different combinations between the male and female samples. There is a perfect correlation between these two samples in the frequencies of position and size of the person. There is a .74 correlation in the two samples in the position and size of the house, and the tree shows the greatest difference, with a negative correlation of .03348. Correlations were run on the nine sets of dimensions for the placement and relative size of the tree between the two samples, showing the following table of perfect correlations:</p> <p>The total sample was also correlated between House, Tree and Person. There is a .098 positive correlation of position and size of the House and the Tree, and a negative correlation of -.7721 between the position and size of the Person and the House, and a negative correlation of 1.6136 between the Tree and the Person. Correlations between the different positions and sizes of the House, Tree and Person are given in the table below:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 5-4</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">. Correlations of the Total Sample of House, Tree and Person Drawings.</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="540"> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">left</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">center</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">right</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">largest</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">middle</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">smallest</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">foreground</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">midground</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>left</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>center</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.96</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>right</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.908</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>largest</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.182</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.104</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.25</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>middle</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.771</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.56</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.434</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.7661</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>smallest</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.048</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.33</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.462</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.97-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>foreground</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.07</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.21</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.354</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.69</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.993</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>midground</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.277</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.54</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.655</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.89</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.973</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.939</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>background</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.099</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.187</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.33</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.996</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.71</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.99</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.93</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p> </p> <p>There are clear in these patterns different saliencies between boys and girls in the drawing of the house, tree and person in interrelationship. The person is the most salient in the foreground for both boys and girls and show surprisingly exactly equal correlations in both placement and size. But the person is also the least salient in terms of size. Both boys and girls drew trees more frequently on the left edge and people more frequently on the right edge. For the boys, the house is the most salient in terms of size, and in terms of</p> <p>placement in the center of the page, whereas for the girls the tree is the most salient in size in positioning in the center of the page. Whereas boys background the trees more often, the girls are back-grounding the houses more often. The sample sizes and differences in these frequencies in the placement of the House and Tree between the samples are not great enough to be significant, but they remain suggestive.</p> <p>It is not clear exactly what the house or the tree may symbolically represent, or the relationship of the person to either. Analysis of the House was fairly straight forward. It was measured for height and width, and scored for presence or absence of a number of elements, some of which emerged in the course of the analysis--curtains in windows or doors, door knobs, stilts, antenna, smoke coming from the chimney. The prototypical Jetty child's house is rectangular in shape, slightly wider than higher, with two square windows in the upper right and left corners or quadrants of the front, and a roof steeped on both sides to the top, which consists of a horizontal line about 2/3's of the way across the width of the house. Most houses are only one dimensional, with a single front wall with a doorway in the center bottom. Only two boys and two girls drew transparent houses, or doors open, or lights on in the houses, and no furniture was represented in any of the houses. Only one or two boys and girls drew sidewalks, fences, antennas, stilts, double doors, curtains in the door, smoke from the chimney, porches or tiles on the roof. About half of the houses had shaded roofs with either tiles or thatch. Only two girls drew chimneys. Most kids drew knobs on the doors (76.7%), curtains in the windows (73.3%). There was no significant difference in average Form scores for the houses between boys (2.25) and girls (2.50). The average sizes of the boys houses was slightly larger than that of the girls, but not significantly so.</p> <p>Tree drawings were either prototypical fist like with large trunks and foliage outlines, or else they were palm trees (10%). Four girls and three boys drew fruit in the trees. Three girls and 8 boys filled in the foliage with shading or hatching. Six boys and 5 girls drew branches in the tree. Boys drew slightly shorter (12.928 cm.) and narrower (5.4 cm.) trees with skinnier trunks (2.0) than the girls, whose trees were typically shorter, fatter at the foliage and with thicker trunks (12.98 X 6.29, trunks 2.7 cm). Average trunk length for boys and girls was about the same (9.53 boys to 9.42 girls). Rotation scores and direction with slight and insignificant except for one boy whose tree was slanted 12 degrees to the right, compared to those scores for the human figures. Six boys and three girls drew baselines at the bottom of their trees. One boy and 3 girls drew their trees with the foliage cut off by the top edge of the paper, and 3 girls drew their trees cut in half length-wise by the left or right edge of the paper. One girl drew two trees.</p> <p>The trees were also scored on the degree to which the trunk intruded into the foliage area of the tree to create a kind of transparency effect that did not quite resemble branches. This category was scored from slight, the half, to extreme. Four girls fell into the slight category, five into the half, and five into the extreme category. Six boys fell into the slight, 3 into the middle and 2 into the extreme category. Overall, 33.3% fell into the slight category, 26.6% into the middle and 23.3% into the extreme category. Only 5 (16.7) showed no such transparency at all. This was common enough to become a salient category for scoring, though its possible symbolic or developmental or emotional significance is unknown. It is apparent though that extreme or half transparency of the trunk into the foliage of the tree is indicative of poor form and integration of the tree.</p> <p>Related to the House-Tree-Person task, and particularly to the figures of the houses, were a group of spontaneous drawings of houses that emerged from children who would draw for me. This sample of house drawings (N= 19) constituted the main category of such spontaneous drawings, next to human figure drawings. That these constituted a clear cut, salient spontaneous category of drawings is in itself of interpretive value. These houses were all of the prototypical form drawn by these kids, but overall show greater detail of elaboration and form than the houses of the HTP task, which can be expected. There were more objects, animals, clouds, suns, flowers and trees associated with these houses than in the HTP drawings. Overall the two sets of houses are almost the same, with the rectangular, almost square shape, the characteristic roof, two window's in each upper corner, a central door, curtains in window excetera. There were more roofs shaded, transparencies, furniture (tables and a bed), people inside the houses, curtains in the windows, double doors, curving arches of the door, walkways or paths, chimneys with smoke and lights inside the houses, though not very many more of these. Flowers are found in front of the house. Also, 15 of 19 houses were drawn with color. Of these, 6 were drawn in purple outline (40%, 2 in black, 2 or 3 in blue, 1 in green, 1 in brown, 1 in pink, 1 in yellow outline). Orange, yellow, brown and green colors are frequently found associated with items around the house. At least one picture suggests that the house as a symbol is closely associated with the face, with the two windows for the eyes and the door for the nose or the mouth. Such an association is certainly within the realm of possibility, though it is not the only association likely to be made with houses. But the face is a potent symbol in the drawings, recurring again and again in different forms.</p> <p>Another spontaneous category of drawings which was clearly salient was a number of "Mickey Mouse" faces which can be considered to be prototypical of a "heart-shape/face" that I believe to be related to the frequency of the butterfly/bird/bat/heart form in the inkblots, as well as to the inbetween "half-human/half-animal" category, that recurs in the inkblot elicitations, and which also is frequent in the first four or five pages of the pattern test.</p> <p>The relationship to the heart shape may be more than just analogy or happenstance, there is a clear sense of emergence of the face from the prototypical heart-shape in a few of the drawings, and across several of these drawings there is the development of the picture along more human-like or more zoomorphic characteristics. Symbolically, I see in these</p> <p>pictures a prototypical human face--that of the mother or of ego, that clearly emerges and becomes more refined, often in a stereotypical manner.</p> <p>A sample of these drawings (N=19) shows that 9 (47.4%) have clearly humanlike characteristics, especially the eyes and the mouth. Only 8 (42%) have clear muzzles, the cheek outlines and ear outlines more characteristic of the prototypical "Mickey Mouse" face. These drawings thus fall along a continuum from humanlike to more zoomorphic features. Twelve have tongues sticking out, and 3 have teeth. Five have eyebrows and four have eyelashes. Nine of 19 (47%) show clear distortions and disproportions of overall form, and represent poorly drawn attempts, and are possibly emotional or neurotic indicators.</p> <p>Most of them are done in monochrome, and most are drawn in black (9 of 18, 50%), brown (4 of 18, 22%), 3 in yellow (16.7%) and two in green (5.6%) and only one was purple. Other colors only used in combination with black were red (3), pink, green, yellow, blue and purple.</p> <p>There symbolic significance may be inherently ambiguous, both connotative of love and of anger and anxiety, as suggested by their dark colors, shading of the face, large size, open mouth with tongue and teeth. There ambivalence as potent symbols cannot be ignored in the sample.</p> <p>An inventory of items produced on a sample of miscellaneous drawings yields a color associated list over 90 long and a non-color list list over 90 items long. Both lists overlap to a minimal extent. In the color list, about 53 items occur only once (58.8%) and another 12 items occur only twice (13.33%) this leaves about 25 items which occur 3 or more times. Of these, the most frequent are water (13), fish (10) the sun with mandala waves and cats (7 each), pencils (6), balloons (5), houses, cars, leaves, flowers, stems, boats and hearts (4 each). Other items occurring at least 3 times are eyes, girls, faces, Chinese letters, stick figures, apples, ribbons, persons, birds, and rats. In one drawing, a triangular form was turned into the shape of a face with triangular, heart-shaped outline, a circle, a square, a funny hat and glasses.</p> <p>In these drawings there are no particularly salient associations between objects and colors, except for orange fish, blue water, brown stems, brown ribbons, blue birds, orange boats, green leaves, red apples and black cats. The most frequent colors used were orange (19.1%), followed by black (16.1%), red (10.55%), brown (9.5%), blue and yellow (9%), pink (8.5%), purple (8%), green (7.5%) and finally grey (2.5%).</p> <p>Spontaneous items drawn in pencil yielded a range of over 90 items, of which the most salient in frequency were fish (12), eyes (11), faces (10), leaves (9), rivers, flowers, apples (6 each), crabs and mountains or hills (5 each), followed by boats, hats or caps, triangles, glasses and balls (4 each).</p> <p>Several other drawing tasks were administered, and a couple of other categories of salient pictures emerged spontaneously during the course of our study on the Jetty. The first type of task all consist of the subject drawing a picture around a little symbol or shape which is usually minimal in form--a wavy line, a curve, a dot, a circle. Three of these types of tasks were administered, and all had about the same kind of response patterns. Since there are no clearly objective ways of analyzing these pictures, and since I reject the universal significances which are attached to the drawing of some of these symbols, especially with the Jungian "symbolic profile", about the most that can be done with these is to record and analyze their frequency patterns, their themata and color associations for any significant patterns.</p> <p>Three samples were therefore constituted of drawings of from different tasks. They all yielded a similar interesting and highly significant patterns of associations in which certain types of figures drawn were highly associated with the symbols which served as their stimulus. Thus, for the first small "square" of the Symbolic profile (N = 37), 14 people drew houses (37.8%), four people drew "baju's" or shirts (10.8%), two people</p> <p>drew glasses and two ribbons. The odds of this occurring by chance are slim to say the least. But the same pattern recurs in all the different symbols on all three of the tasks, with more or less greater range of variation and/or agreement. The second "wave" symbol of the Symbolic Profile yielded 5 eyes (13.5%), 4 seascapes, 3 rivers, 3 men and 2 faces. The third "dot" yielded 6 faces (15.5%), 4 girls, 3 hills, and 2 Mickey Mouse faces, 2 flowers and two "dots". The fourth "diagonal line" yielded 7 triangle/pyramids, 4 hats/caps, 2 boxes, 2 trashcans, and 2 houses. The fifth "circle" yielded 5 flowers, 3 views, 3 coconuts, 2 houses, umbrellas, balls and tables. The sixth and final "curve" yielded 7 faces, 5 apples and 5 cups, 4 eyes, and 2 hand bags and 2 balls.</p> <p>Similarly for the "Sandar Phantasie" task (N = 10-17), the first set of six sets of symbols yielded 7 fish and 3 seascapes, the second set yielded 5 irregular shapes, 2 trees, 2 Mickey Mouse faces and 2 other faces, the third set yielded 3 fish, along with a sun, a tree, a "view", a clock, a house and a Mickey Mouse face, the fourth set yielded 7 fish, 3 animal forms, and 2 balls, along with one seascape and 1 flower, the fifth set yielded 7 irregular forms, 4 squares, 1 fish, 1 Mickey Mouse, and 1 playground, and the sixth and last set yielded 3 birds, 3 circles, 2 sets of double doors, 2 trees, and 2 irregular shapes.</p> <p>Again, the same phenomenon occurred for the "Blobs & Circles" task (N > 39) in which the first set of blobs yielded 10 faces, 8 filled spaces, 2 clowns, 2 houses, 2 hats and 2 "x's", the second set of triangles yielded 7 outlines with inner patterns such as flowers , 6 filled areas, 5 triangles, 4 faces, 3 jungle gyms, 3 kites, 3 flowers, 2 clown faces, and 2 planes, the third set of squares rendered 8 4 or 5 point stars, 5 outlines with inner "x's" or hearts (4), 5 filled triangles, 4 kites, 3 larger squares incorporating the smaller one, 2 Chinese gambling dice, 2 squid, and 2 fish, and the final set of circles yielded 9 flowers, 8 suns, 5 filled triangles, four sets of rambutans, four circles, 3 balls and 2 animals.</p> <p>The chances of these patterns happening independently by chance alone are so remote out of the endless possibilities of things that can be drawn, as suggested by other tasks, that we must invoke another pattern of structure, possibly the sharing of similar symbolic responses to similar material on one or several levels of psychological organization. Clearly cultural material, such as the Chinese gambling dice, sea scapes, fish, rambutans, Mickey Mouse faces and the house styles are highly unlikely to occur among other peoples in the same combination or frequencies.</p> <p>This pattern also suggests that there may be certain prototypical symbolic forms, such as the circle or square or triangle, which are inherently "good to think" and upon which more complex symbolic forms, such as flowers, suns with Mandala rays, faces, animals, balls, fruit, etc. This is obvious in any introduction to drawing technique, but it is less obvious when it comes to understanding how the mind may be actually configuring perceptual and mental information in the construction of such symbols with meaningful content. Different minimal stimuli can invoke similar types of symbolic responses, and at the same time, the same symbolic stimuli can be used in the fashioning of many alternate symbolic forms. We cannot, it seems, in the symbolic organization of human consciousness, clearly separate categories of house, animal, face, flower, sun and fruit, at least on a basic level in which perceptual stimuli fuse with cognitive patterns to create the content of our thoughts and imagery.</p> <p>The final drawing task that was administered to the Jetty (N=11) was a set of stimuli which ranged from "open" blank drawing pages to dots, to dots and lines, and finally to "closed" spaces. The object of the task was for the individual to successively draw in pictures in the spaces provided using the ground in levels of increasing background constraint. Because the sample was small and only partially overlapping, the results cannot be used in any but a suggestive manner.</p> <p>In the first level of four sets of "open" or unconstrained drawings, every picture was filled with full, expressive items. Recurrent drawings were 4 thousand dollar notes, 5 houses, 2 butterflies, 4 sets of balloons, 2 credit cards, 3 cars, 3 sets of fish, 2 sets of ducks, 2 sets of boats, 2 books and a diploma, a clock and a watch, 3 views, 2 of the sea and one from a hill, and 1 tree and a forest with bushes.</p> <p>In the next level of "connecting the dots", fewer clear items occur, and more geometrized forms occur. There is a banana, two dogs Lost is the symbolic gestalt as the structure of the ground effectively blocks the filling in of the empty space. This pattern of the intrusion into the picture of the external structure of an increasingly constrained ground as reflected in the increasing abstraction and reduction of the image to simple lines and geometric forms, becomes increased at each successively level.</p> <p>At the second level of eight sets of drawings, there are 10 rough triangles, 6 squares, 1 trapezoid, 3 crescent moons, 3 dog's heads, a banana and a crescent shaped French fry, a boat hull, a flag, a "7" and a "56", a plate/pie, 2 hats or caps, 1 ice cream cone, 1 balloon, 1 map, 1 kite, 1 5-pt. star, 2 rough animal shapes, 3 very rough and crude fish, 1 zigzag, one simplifed view with a sun, a hill and horizon line, an "x" and a rough tree 'with a hole in it." With increasing background constraint, lost is the pattern of the shared symbolic gestalt, a breaking up of a pattern to yield a broader range of individual items which are simplified in form and rough.</p> <p>At the third level, this process continues even further, as noise is increased with the addition of lines partially connecting the dots. At the third level there occurs 22 rough triangles, 6 crescent moons, 4 irregular shapes, 4 rough, simplified fish shapes, 2 straight lines, 2 filled dots, 2 "snowmen" in rough outline, 2 zigzags, 2 "arrows", 1 bow and arrow, a set of "petals" as if fallen from the flower hip, a pair of shirt and pants, a simple "mountain", small darts, an ice cream cone, a tadpole, a hairdryer, a helmet, "batman", branches, an "X", a crude "handker-chef", a poorly integrated "face, 1 rough square, a rectangular "water tank", 1 bird and 1 rabbit, 1 tape measure and a "slice of watermelon."</p> <p>By the fourth level, the images are so constrained by the enclosed spaces and the external structure of the lines, that images are purely projective and imaginary, and the drawn figures lack almost any but the most geometric integration. There are more than 33 triangles, 7 filled in spaces, 6 filled in dots, 5 figure "8's", 3 circles, 2 trapezoids, 3 "cigar" shapes, 2 "bun" shapes, 1 snake, 1 fish coiled around a dot, 2 rough eggs, 2 seats, 1 "leg stocking", 1 hair, 1 butterfly in triangular and trapezoidal shape, 1 fish, 1 "monkey", 1 "person sleeping", 1 "ghost", 1 "head of an alien with no eyes, ears, nose and so on--it only has tongue", 1 "a mask with eyes, nose and a mouth", 1 dog head, and 2 parts of houses, one "part of a house with hole under wall" and the other missing a bottom edge, a "c", an "l" and an "i", and one star.</p> <p>The loss of "expressive" control and symbolic representation is reflected in the increasing frequency in which pictures were not completed. All the pictures of the first level were completed (44 of 44). By the second level, 39 of 88 pictures were left uncompleted (44.3%). By the third level, 35 of 88 pictures are undrawn (39.8%). By the fourth and final level, 50 pictures of 88 are left unfinished (56.2%). It appears then that increasing external constraint and perhaps "ambiguity" leads significantly to the reduction of the capacity to independently construct clear and realistic expressive symbols.</p> </font><font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 6</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">INKBLOT TASKS</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>A different set of projective inkblot tasks were employed which can be considered primarily projective in design, though a number of other tasks also have definite projective aspects to their elicitation. What is apparent is that projection may occur at different levels of elicitation and analysis.</p> <p>A critical problem exists in the analysis and evaluation of these tasks, since such interpretation is formally held to be the purview of only qualified psychoanalysts. Since the theoretical ground for this type of analysis is for the most part outside of the main objective of this study, which is the culturally relevant symbolic content and patterns of response to such tasks, the system of analysis and interpretation here is different and independent of the standard form of analysis of these types of tasks. No attempt has been made to offer a psychoanalysis of the average or basic or "modal personality" of the Jetty people. Rather, these tasks were utilized as an interesting variant of the frame tasks which pose a similar type of problem for the subject in organization of the field in a structured and meaningful way.</p> <p>The complexity of analysis of these samples renders a satisfactory presentation of their patterns beyond the scope of this work. Like the Luscher and other tasks already presented, these projective inkblots, when construed merely as devices for the elicitation of primarily projective "symbolic framing" responses, without the a priori ascription of universal or scientific significations to their interpretation, offer and interesting window for gathering various kinds of information which can then be organized and analyzed in a variety of alternate ways.</p> <p>Scoring of the different tasks was standardized for the sake of consistency and comparison of frequency patterns across the samples. Locational scoring was done by dividing the space into an even 3x3 grid.</p> <p>They were scored for whole and part responses, and an "part whole" response, as well as for minor detail responses. Scoring was also done for overall Form based upon a 1 to 5 rating scale, with five represent the clear and "true" use of form, and 3 about the average vague use of form, and 1 the lack of any clear resemblance between a prototypical object named and the location of the inkblot. Scoring was done for K-type responses in which a sense of 3-dimensional perspective, topographical overview or x-ray type responses seemed to emanate from a special "gestalt" recognized and thus named in the inkblot. "Ch" responses were included for the use of any implied shading in the image. M responses, which were infrequent, was for the implied use of action or animate movement of the image. Content scores included Human, Animal and Plant in whole, part or "object" categories, as well as for the use of space, abstracted "signs" or images, the use of pure shapes, such as "hearts or love" or triangles or squares or circles.</p> <p>The resulting composite scores form a kind of frequency "psychogram" based upon the saliency patterns in the frequency scores across the different samples of informants. It is clear that in the analysis of these tasks there was considerable variation in the quality and strength of different subjects responses, but there was also a considerable amount of sharing at different levels. Color, form-color and color-form responses were scored only for the color version of the Harrower which also constituted the smallest sample, and such color responses were evident in only a few of this sample.</p> <p>The five samples taken from the Jetty were mostly overlapping, based upon five different sets of inkblot pictures, two of which were of my own construction, one of which was a photocopied version of the Rorschach, lacking the color and fine detail, and another a similar version of the Harrower inkblot in both black and white and in color. The total sample size was about 135 sets of tasks. Given that the two "homemade" tasks had 15 pictures each, and the three others had 10 each, and that each one of these pictures generate several spreadsheets of scores, the complexity of full detailed analysis of these tasks, as well as the proper presentation of this part of the study, is beyond the scope of this present report, except to provide an example and to illustrate some overall patterns which were found throughout the data.</p> <p>Though there was substantial amount of individual variability, and some variability in overall pattern of scores and responses between the different tasks, all five tasks yielded fairly consistent and parallel patterns of response. In general, K and movement scores were low, and form scores were relatively high. There were not a lot of whole responses, but many part whole responses. Neither were there many minor detailed responses, possibly due in part to the context of presentation and the basic lack of privacy that this involved. The frequencies of the scores for all five samples were recorded, and correlation between the tasks is quite high, as shown by the table below:</p> <p>Table 12-10. Correlations of Scores of Inkblots</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="295"> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">#1</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">#2</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Ror.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Har.</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>#1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>#2</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.978</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Rors.</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.923</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.969</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Har.</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.913</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.956</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.959</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Color</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.817</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.855</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.811</font></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.866</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Because these correlations conflate the different scoring categories, they mask some important differences of pattern between the five sets of tasks. For example, the Rorschach and Harrower were much stronger than the others in the elicitation of whole responses as well as in the elicitation of high form responses, also in more use of shading in responses, and proportionately greater numbers of human and human object responses. Also, there were no plant responses for the Rorschach and few for the Harrower versions, and fewer shape, shape, abstract and use of space for the latter samples. Correlations were run between the different scoring categories on the five samples to yield fairly strong positive and negative correlations between all but a few of the categories.</p> <p>To describe these samples in terms of the gross frequency patterns of the scores used, there are high scores in the Animal content in all five samples, and relatively high F scores for form responses, which were good, but not the highest. On the other hand, there were low scores in movement, K, space, and other categories. Because color scores were not a dimension of the black and white tasks, no such scores could be obtained, but the few colors scores that were obtained from the color version of the Harrower indicate fairly low color responses, and mostly pure color or FC type responses.</p> <p>Frequency patterns for content scores entailed the search for saliency among and between samples, for recurrent content across different pictures. Three of the five samples were compared for content frequencies, #2, the Rorschach and the Harrower 1 because of the high correlations between these different tasks, and also because of important basic differences in response pattern and scores which were noticed between these tasks.</p> <p>All three samples yielded a great variety of content, content which overlaps as much as 90%.(Rorschach had approximately 224 different items, while task #2 had approximately 350, and the Harrower about 270 items). This gross overlapping of the total ranges of items on the 3 samples thus analyzed should not be overlooked, for it is in this gross sharing of response pattern that a large part of shared cultural patterning might be defined. Though many items occur only once or a few times in each sample, most of the same items with but few exceptions recur repeatedly in more than one sample. This sharing may not be just the consequence of the overlap of the same subjects in all the samples, but also because the same people are responding to different sets of stimuli in similar ways which evoke similar patterns of response across a common range of possibilities.</p> <p>Though the range of kinds of items was roughly the same between the samples, the distributions of frequencies within this range varied considerably. The variation between the samples is not so much in kind, as in relative frequencies of things elicited. In analyzing the content frequencies of these samples, it is important to take into account the number of different cards in which certain content items occur. If a high frequency score occurs only on one card, this suggests that the image on the card clearly biased the response pattern. On the other hand, lower frequencies of items which occur both across informants and cards are more interesting for their potential. Some low frequency items my recur in a sample as the result of the same one or two people repeating similar responses to different images.</p> <p>On all three samples, the vast majority of items occurred only once or twice throughout the sample. Of the 350 items of sample #2, approximately 212 items occurred only once or twice (60.5%). (For the Harrower, 210 items of about 270 occurred only once or twice (77.8%), while with the Rorscharch, 150 items of approximately 220 occurred only once or twice (68%). It is of course this great variety of response which renders these techniques valuable in psychoanalysis. Of the remaining items, 33 of 270 of #2 were of frequencies of 3 or 4 (12%). It is impossible to say what level of frequency might be taken as a significant cut off point, but for sample #2 only about 17 items of 270 (6.3%) have a frequency of 5 or greater out of a sample of more than 350 possible responses.</p> <p>For sample #2, the most frequently occurring item were birds (60 over 9 of 15 cards), followed by eyes (46 over 10 cards), people and legs ( both 33 over 9 cards), butterflies (30 over 6 cards), trees (30 over 6 cards), nonspecific animals (24 over 8 cards), legs (20 over 6 cards). Lower frequency but still salient items are hearts or "love" shapes (18 over 7 cards), bats (16 over 5 cards), dinosaurs (16 over 6 cards), human faces (15 over 8 cards) wolves (14 over 4 cards) and monkeys (14 over 2 cards), the body (14 over 9 cards), bugs or insects (12 over 6 cards), dogs and buttocks or anuses (12 over 5 cards each), and dancing (11 over 2 cards). Other salient items with frequency scores between 5 and 10 are girls, bears, porcupines, kissing, leaves, crocodiles, ladybirds, mouths, human heads, noses, eyebrows, kidneys, bones, crabs, bees, bird beak's, insect feelers, foxes, mice, hands, kangaroos, rats, kites, ducks and turtles.</p> <p>High frequency items of the Rorschach are people (60 over 9 cards), legs (41 over 6 cards), butterflies (39 over 8 cards), crabs (37 over 2 cards), birds (32 over 5 cards), shoes or boots (30 over 2 cards), eyes (28 over 6 cards ), hands (23 over 4 cards), women (22 over 3 cards), nonspecific animal forms (19 over 10 cards), human heads (18 over 9 cards), faces (17 over five cards), duck heads (17 over 4 cards ), ducks (14 over 3 cards), mouths (13 over 6 cards), bats (13 over 3 cards), hats or caps (12 over four cards) and dogs (15 over three cards). Other items with a frequency score between 5 and 10 were wings, monsters, wolves, eagles, flies, ribbons, men, dancing, feet, dragonflies, cats, caterpillars, hair, tigers, bears, ears, cat's faces, and sea shells.</p> <p>High frequency scores for the Harrower were butterflies (42 over 5 cards), people (41 over 9 cards, snakes (33 over one card), eyes (23 over 8 cards), bats (23 over 5 cards), birds (20 over 5 cards), fish (17 over 3 cards ), kidneys (14 over 1 card), dancing (13 over 5 cards), men (13 over 4 cards), hats (11 over 4 cards) and women (11 over 1 card). There were overall fewer high frequency scores for the Harrower, though the frequency of total scores was higher than for the Rorschach, in part because of the clearer version of the copies, and in part because subjects tended to give more specific types of responses for items. Other high frequency items with a frequency score between 5 and 10 are bird heads, cat faces, ducks, dogs, dragons, fish, hands, animal faces, rabbit faces, squirrels, tongues, cats, mouths, legs, planes, hearts or "love shapes", wings, cow heads, chickens and penguins.</p> <p>Correlations between the samples on the basis of five shared most frequent items (butterflies, people, eyes, bats, and birds) shows a high positive correlation (.75) of frequencies between the Harrower and Rorschach, a low positive correlation between the Rorschach and #2 (.175) and a negative correlation between the Harrower and #2 (-.38). Correlations between the item frequencies themselves show the follow pattern of association.</p> <p>Table 12-12. Correlations between most Frequent Items.</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="398"> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">butterflies</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">people</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">eyes</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">bats</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">birds</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>butterfly</font></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>people</font></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.54267</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>eyes</font></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.9994</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.571</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>bats</font></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.45246</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.504</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.422</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>birds</font></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.9985</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.496</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.9961</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.5</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>It is difficult to interpret the real meaning of these frequencies and correlations. Sharing at this level of analysis may be in more implicit terms of domains and shared characteristics of location and quality of response pattern to cards. It is presently beyond the scope of this analysis but there are apparent basic cognitive and conceptual domains under which content items can be grouped on the basis of similarity in terms of the response to the same or similar types of figures. For example, bats, birds, butterflies, airplanes and dragon flies and sometimes heart shapes all form a common class of objects. Another such class of objects were dogs, foxes, wolves, cats, lions, and tigers. The categories into which things are implicitly grouped are not as clear cut, and there are many overlaps of shared traits of items. For example, mice and dogs may sometimes occupy different basic domains, but mouse snouts and dog muzzles may form a common membership.</p> <p>If there is cultural or psychological relativity in response patterns in terms of content, then it seems to be upon a more superficial level of common class membership, for example, adding a tapir to the list of bears, and cows, which might be a common thing for Malaysians to do, but not expected from Americans. Bats and butterflies, though probably also commonly found in American scores, are perhaps more salient in the Malaysian sample if not for the very ubiquity of these creatures in the local context. Another example of this is seeing sea horses, pipe fish, crabs and other sea creatures. Though there is perhaps of modicum of relativity at this level of association, it appears that the larger domains to which these items are grouped may be more robust across cultural or psychological boundaries. The use of content analysis from projective tests in order to elicit information about conceptual domains might be a promising avenue of further research.</p> <p>At least one author has mentioned the possibility of cultural and even historical variability of "popular" or common responses to the images of the cards. Recording the frequency patterns of such popular responses may have more theoretical import than the establishment of cross-cultural norms for the psycho-diagnostic administration of such techniques. Rather, they may reveal important linkages of culturally shared response patterns at a deeper psychological level of symbolic response than is normally available to other tasks like those previously considered.</p> <p>Furthermore, the response patterns which they do elicit across a sample of informants may offer revealing information about some aspects of how information and identity are organized and how complex stimuli may be managed on different symbolic levels. In particular they reveal how information is organized in such a way as to be consistent with self and social identities, and how this identity may fluctuate between an idealized and personalized sense of self projected as human and superhuman image, and a more naturalized image of self projected as an animal form. The projection of the self as some half/human and half/animal form--witches, giants, monsters, robots, aliens, dragons, or even as clouds, responses which are typically regarded as "patho-gnomic" in character. The projection of plant forms must be taken as an important variant of the animal and human form which has not be thoroughly analyzed, but bears a parallel resemblance to the use of tree drawings in the HTP drawing tasks. Also the envisioning of "objects" which are either inanimate or abstracted, seems to be another alternate form of such response in which personalized feeling and identification is repressed or for some reason controlled or "neutralized".</p> <p>What emerges from this patterning is a kind of structured patterning in the way humans may be actually creating and utilizing symbolic content and form to organize information in their environment in meaningful, and predictable ways--the same object may be "visualized" mentally and psychologically in alternate forms--animal, plant, human, object or some inbetween way. The manner in which the stimuli is thus construed and understood will then have consequences in the patterning of response by the individual. It is not difficult to imagine how threatening content that might arouse anxiety on some level will evoke a different pattern of response than the perception of an image which may arouse interest or excitement rather than anxiety.</p> <p>The process of "zoomorphization" of stimuli, versus the alternative anthropomorphization of the same or comparable stimuli, or possibly the "objectification" or "abstraction" of stimuli, suggests an interesting process of symbolic interpretation of such material that may evoke uncertain or repressed feelings in the subject. Related to this were few action words encountered which created a verb class of items. People dancing were the most frequently encountered actions in all the samples. Thus dancing, drumming, kissing, flying, swimming, running, standing, embracing, holding, touching, shitting, carrying, pointing, shouting, quarreling, fighting, gossiping were the common actions encountered, whether the actors were human or animal. Examples of this include a few sparse statements such as "two lady rat's gossiping", "the hand of Popeye raised to shout", "two animals friendly touch", "two rats holding hands", "animals kissing", "two animals fighting", "two dolphins kissing", "two animals making love", or "crab without legs and with eyes staring at you".</p> <p>Also relevant in this regard are the "inbetween" type responses which are in some manner half human and half animal. This category includes witches, angels, giants, satan, aliens, teddy bears, dolls, robots, monsters, beasts, dragons, ghosts of "hantus", "fox-men", batman, spiderman, Garfield, superman, and vampires. In these types of responses we can see the use of a preconceived and fairly stereotypical symbolic form being superimposed upon the stimuli, perhaps as a means of mediating and "framing" such possibly conflicting or contradiction causing stimuli in a meaningful way. An example of such a statement to a possibly sexually evocative inkblot is "An evil queen in her glory dressing."</p> <p>The presentation of the results of these various tasks was not intended for the purpose of ultimately explaining how and why the people of the Jetty are who they are. This kind of analysis was intended as a means of describing on different levels of analysis common patterns of response to different kinds of "symbolic framing" techniques. Theoretical exposition is postponed until the concluding chapter. Ultimately, though, explanation of these phenomena is not well in hand. We do not really have a good idea of how culture is organized in our brains, and how are brains may function to organize our cultural worlds. These tasks are steeped more in questions than in theoretical understanding or explanation.</p> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 7</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">DICHOTOMOUS (TRUE OR FALSE) TASKS</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>A number of dichotomous True and False inventories were employed in this study to assess the 'reported' response pattern to basic values and beliefs. These emerged as a fairly successful form of task as most subjects did not seem too threatened by it, and many even seemed not too bothered by doing them. They developed one after the other, beginning with a basic 15 item "Dogs-Children-Women" dichotomous inventory (N = 121), and leading to a 25 item Sex-Authoritarianism dichotomous inventory (N =71), and a 20 item "Products-Commercials-People" inventory (N = 64), a 22 item grid (N =61) rating basic categories of people along five basic dimensions of cleanliness, generosity, and obedience, a 15 item set of miscellaneous assorted questions filling in gaps in the other inventories (N = 58), and finally a 25 item set of questions relating religion, fortune, and parental authority (N = 30) that was administered toward the end of the study.</p> <p>Open to many vicissitudes of cross-cultural difference, elicitation, translation, subjective evaluation and vagaries of response, interference, etc., the partial value of these inventories is to get at patterns of cross-correlation in response that suggest important orientations of attitudes and values within the community.</p> <p>Because the questions emerged in the course of the fieldwork following leads as to things that might be important to ask, they might be seen as less inherently biased in the cultural sense than the adoption of questions directly from such inventories designed in the U.S. and at least implicitly for an American target population. Problems of translation to Hokkien were considerable, and many initial questions had to be left out because of the seeming irrelevance or else the difficult of framing the question in a manner that would make any sense in Hokkien.</p> <p>Questions on these tasks were set up in such a way that uncertain responses were given a default of false, and subjects were encouraged to express themselves and expand on their responses at will. It is in these interjections of opinion that as much was learned about the attitudes and value orientations of the community as in the pattern of responses to the questions themselves.</p> <p>Samples were large enough to permit comparison of subsamples along relevant dimensions, usually being split into children, male adults, female adults, Non-Jetty adults and the reference group which was kept separate. Only on the last inventory was the sample size to small to permit this.</p> <p>While there are no established norms for any of these inventories, and it is therefore difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, they are measuring, these limitations are offset by the cultural relevance of the questions in which they were framed.</p> <p>There is a clear sense that the questions are basically open and there are not clear indications of a correct response. The questions appear to be ambiguous at some semantic level of understanding, in the sense that there are no clear or obvious "correct" answers nor any indications given as to the motives behind the question. The questions themselves have a certain weight of authority just by being asked the way they were. There was a since that there exists for most of them some kind of "default" or expected answer, and that seeing through the question meant discovering "exceptional cases" to the expected pattern, cases often drawn from personal experience or a relatively more open-minded attitude. It seems that people had to struggle to think through the response, to see through the more or less obvious frame, to the wider implications beyond. Often, responses fell clearly into two groups of agreement and disagreement. Sometimes, there was no clear demarcation line, and the obvious answer was not so clear as well.</p> <p>It can be hypothesized that these questions form a kind of linguistic frame comparable in a verbal way to the visual symbolic frames thus far presented. As such, they can be expected to yield a pattern of consensus in typical responses. It can be expected that some people who respond in a certain typical manner to these sets of questions are tending to fall back upon conventional frames of reference for their interpretation and expression, while others, with perhaps more worldly or interpersonal wisdom, may think again about what kind of response to give.</p> <p>There is a clear sense in studying the qualifications for many of the answers that those individual's who had had personal experiences, especially in the world, were better able to see alternative points of view and to accept the possibility that all things may not be as they seem.</p> <p>In the first task, there was an interesting in understanding any possible relationship of attitudes and opinions toward animals, cleanliness, women, and children. Of fifteen questions, the five in which there is near uniform agreement across the total sample (N = 124) the following:</p> <p>Older children should take care of their younger brother's and sisters. (97.6%)</p> <p>If adults are talking, children should not interrupt. (99.2%)</p> <p>Nearly unanimous positive responses to these questions in all sub-samples must be interpreted as representing fairly uniform, and to some extent, core Overseas Chinese cultural values. The following questions all show over fifty percent agreement across the entire sample:</p> <p>A child should not answer back an adult. (88.7%)</p> <p>Showing too much affection to a child will spoil the child. (87.9%)</p> <p>A daughter-in-law should respect a mother-in-law's wishes. (65.%)</p> <p>A child should be punished for spilling its food. (52.42%)</p> <p>Strong agreement across the sample show that traditionally, a daughter-in-law is in little better position than a child in relation to the mother-in-law, and that the mother-in-law's perogative will be held to out weigh that of the wife. More loosely, it can be interpreted that the chief responsibility of the daughter in law would be to take care of the children of the household. It is interesting that it is among the women themselves that there is the least agreement to this last question (28 out of 51, or 54%).</p> <p>Dogs do not feel pain like people do. (19.35%)</p> <p>Women should not sit in coffee shops by themselves. (36.29%)</p> <p>A dog should not come inside. (43.55%)</p> <p>Women should always listen to their men-folk. (45.96%)</p> <p>It is best to whip a dog with a cane to make it obey. (48.38%)</p> <p>Chaining a dog up makes it a good watchdog. (49.2%)</p> <p>These responses can be interpreted as showing greater agreement in regard to children than in regard to either dogs or women. The manner that the questions were set up, shows surprising amounts of "authoritarian" orientation on almost all the question attitudes rooted in a traditional Chinese culture orientation. Given an American orientation, a score above 1 or 2 would indicate a fairly authoritarian and narrow mind set. In this task, the men's sample (N = 28) had a high average score of 9.6 and the women's sub-sample (N =51) average was 10.843. These were at odds with the child's sub-sample (N =8) which was 8.75, with the Non-Jetty sample (N =17), which was 8.35 or the reference group sample (N = 20) which was 8.95. It can be said that in relation to these questions about dogs, women and children, women have a slightly more conservative and traditional orientation than the men, and both men and women have a more conservative orientation than the other samples. For the women, there were 18 (35.29%) who had a score of 13 or above and 33 with a score of 10 or above (64.7%) between compared to 5 men (17.857%) with a score of 13 or above and 16 with a score of 10 or above (57.14%).</p> <p>It is my opinion that this difference between the men and the women reflects the nature of the experiences and relative level of education between the men and the women. The women on average appear to be more bound to the Jetty than the men.</p> <p>Dogs are not dirty if you know how to take care of them. Strays are dirty. Housedogs are clean. A dog can come inside the house, but only if it is clean and not a stray. A good dog can come in only if the owner lets it. If a dog is dirty it cannot come inside. Rich people let them come in and they eat better than humans. Personally I don't. Dogs are dirty, cats also. All animals are dirty. If a dog bites people it should be chained up, but if you chain a dog it will bite you when you take it off the chain. If you chain a dog for the whole day it will run wild, just like persons or children. Chaining a dog makes it fierce, it goes mad. If a dog doesn't listen you must also beat it. Sometimes it must be beat, but only if it has done something bad or mean. Sometimes must beat, sometimes must love. If you beat it, it will bite you. Must train it from young, teach it, scold, check or explain. I don't beat, I only scold. You have to teach it like a child, if it is wrong you can beat it, but not always.</p> <p>If you beat a dog hard enough, it will definitely feel pain just like children do. Dogs have flesh like people do. But dogs can run and they forget. If you beat a stray, next time he will remember you. They make a sound--it hurts. According to scriptures some animals feel more pain than humans. If you cut class and play truant on your own, if you discipline a child, nowadays parents will come, parents are concerned, can't do much. Dogs can whine but do not feel pain like humans do. Some people say that dogs can cry. Dogs and cats, if hit, they will feel pain. How can dogs not feel pain?</p> <p>Older children should definitely take care of their younger siblings, but sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It is Chinese tradition. Sometimes children don't have older siblings. Children should definitely no interrupt while adults are talking. They have ears but no mouths. Showing too much affection to a child will spoil it, with a friend or with a child. You can love but you cannot show it because in the long run you will spoil the child. Some naughty children grow up to be good and some good children grow up to be naughty. Children do not know anything. You shouldn't beat them for spilling food. You must teach them, scold them, tell them. It depends, if it's an accident, O.K., if not... Depends, scold first, beat if the child gets stubborn. Accidents can happen, must explain. If parents love they won't beat, otherwise they will beat. You must threaten or scold them. Children should not answer back an adult. In olden days this was so, mothers can reprimand without children answering back. Now it is hard to control them. If they are bigger they also talk facts to you. It depends if parents are right or wrong. Sometimes adults accuse you of something you haven't done.</p> <p>Women should listen to their men-folk, but you have to disagree if they are wrong. If the man is wrong I don't listen. Depends on if they are right or wrong. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Only if they are right, you must be fair. They take care of us. For me it is a two way street. Have to talk reason, be equal. But nowadays women don't. They should, but don't. If the men are wrong it doesn't apply. A woman who dresses too daringly is shameful. In olden days they closed themselves up, but now it depends on situation. They want face. It depends on the fashion. I don't like to see these things. If a woman is attractive she does not have to dress too daringly, only unattractive women dress too daringly. If a woman is asking for trouble, she can also wear decent clothes and trouble still will come. Nowadays in the modern world it doesn't matter. Depends if its East or West. To me it is nothing. A women should not go out to drink by herself, unless her job is a bar hostess. The modern world cannot wait for the husband. I also go out and drink by myself. It depends on the individual. Two or three people, it's O.K. You must go with your husband, else people will say you are a bad woman. A lot of women drink and smoke now. Women should not drink. A woman should not sit in a coffee shop by herself. She can drink at home. It is only all right if just for coffee. So many women and girls are working now it doesn't apply anymore. This rule is 40 years old. If it is an older woman it is all right. But she must be accompanied by her parents or other women. If not people will say she is a bar girl. It is nothing just to eat. Some do for snacks and coffee. It depends on the Coffee shop environment, who will know the kind of men there. The modern world is different. If the mother's-in-law are right, daughters-in-law must listen to them. Daughter's-in-law must have filial piety. Chinese law--must always listen to mother in law wishes even if she is wrong. The mother-in-law is like your mother. Only young women should do it. Nowadays its different. They do not listen. Daughter's-in-law control their mother's-in-law, sometimes they fight them and even beat them. But some mother's-in-law are mean. If she is right she should be listened to. Now they talk facts. Nowadays it depends.</p> <p>Another inventory was designed with the attitude of eliciting attitudes in relation to women. Items showing the most agreement were the following:</p> <p>A husband should help do housework. (91.5%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for little boys to play with little girls. (90.14%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for the daughter of a hawker to marry the son of a banker. (90.14%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for an unmarried man over 40 to live with his parents. (88.73%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for a child to wipe up an invalid parent's bodily excrement. (88.73%)</p> <p>It is O.K. if a daughter of a doctor marries a construction worker. (85.92%)</p> <p>It is important for a child to work for and support the parents. (84.5%)</p> <p>It is right for a woman to leave her husband if he regularly mistreats her.(83.1%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for a father to clean his infant daughter's bottom. (81.7%)</p> <p>A child must not be allowed to see its parents naked. (78.87%)</p> <p>A man can serve his wife a meal at the table. (63.38%)</p> <p>It is important for a son to continue his parent's religion. (53.52%)</p> <p>Questions which show the most consistent false answer across the total sample include the following:</p> <p>A son or daughter can scold his or her parents. (9.86%)</p> <p>It is best if a child follows its parents choices in marriage. (16.9%)</p> <p>It is all right for a woman to get drunk sometimes. (18.3%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for an unmarried woman to sleep with a man. (19.72%)</p> <p>It is all right if a woman touches a man in public. (21.13%)</p> <p>Highly intelligent women are attractive. (26.76%)</p> <p>It is good for husbands to go out to night clubs or bars on weekends without their wives. (28.17%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for a single man and woman to be alone together inside a room. (32.39%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for a man to wash a woman's clothes. (38%)</p> <p>Women can behave like Tomboys and men can behave like women. (38%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for a single unmarried woman to pursue a professional career even if it means indefinitely postponing marriage and having a family. (38%)</p> <p>It is O.K. if a man gets drunk ocassionally. (49.29%)</p> <p>The scores were adjusted such that a low score is equal to a high rating of authoritarianism. The average score of the female sample was 7.55, compared to a male average of 8.33. The children's average score was 8.75, the Non-Jetty sample's score was 10.56, and the reference group's average score was 8.1. Again, the women show slightly more authoritarian attitudes than the other samples.</p> <p>There is a since of a clear double standard as far as attitudes towards men and women are concerned. For instance, while almost 50% agreed that men can get drunk, only 18% said that a woman can get drunk. While 38% said women should not sit in coffee shops by themselves, 28% said that men can go out to bars on weekends without their wives.</p> <p>This sample is comparable to another non-overlapping sample based earlier version of the same task task (N = 15, 6 men and 9 women). In this sample, highest agreement was for the question "A child must not be allowed to see its parents naked" and "It is O.K. for an unmarried man over 40 to live with his parents" (100% each), followed by "It is O.K. for a father to clean his infant child's bottom," "It is important for a child to work for and support the parents" and "It is right for a woman to leave her husband if he regularly mistreats her." (93.33% each), followed by "A man should share in the feeding of his baby," (8.6.67%) "It is O.K. for a child to wipe an invalid parent's excrement" and "Women can behave like tomboys and men can behave like women," (73.33% each) "It is best if a child follows its parents choices in marriage" and "It is important for a son to continue his parent's religion" and "It is O.K. if a single unmarried women pursues a professional career even if it means indefinitely postponing marriage and having a family" (66.67% each).</p> <p>In this sample, the least agreement across the sample was "It is all right for a woman to get drunk sometimes." (6.7%) followed by "It is best if a child follows its parent's choices in marriage." (13.3%), "A son or daughter can scold his or her parents", and "It is all right if a woman touches a man in public," (20% each) and "It is O.K. for the daughter of a hawker to marry the son of a banker" (33.33%), "It is O.K. for an unmarried woman to sleep with a man" (40%), "It is good for husbands to go out to nightclubs on weekends without their wives," "A man should share in the feeding of the baby at night", and "It is O.K. if a man gets drunk occasionally." (46.67%). The average score for this sub-sample was 11.066.</p> <p>Highly intelligent women are attractive, and also vicious. It is not true.</p> <p>It is O.K. for husbands to go out to nightclubs without their wives, but only on business or for dinner. If it is in the company of friends to drink and party with girls it is no all right. It is not good to drink</p> <p>A women can only drink when she is sad. What if a man puts something in your drink and then you must follow the man's wishes. A woman can drink but not get drunk. My sister has problems with her husband and she drinks to forget. If it is fun or playtime, it is O.K. At home it is O.K., but not in a public place. Where to find?</p> <p>It is O.K. for men to drink as long as they behave themselves. It is better not to drink. Only at home, not outside while driving. Should not drink until one gets drunk. If you drink until you get drunk it is wrong. Drink but don't come back and bring it to the house. It is stupid if they drink. It is not good to drink. Some will drink until they are senseless. The drunker the better. It is best to drink until one gets drunk.</p> <p>Nowadays a woman will go inside a room alone with a man--now it is normal. Now during the dating period, they go into rooms by themselves. My aunt's daughter went into the room with her boyfriend. She got married after she got pregnant. If they are just talking it is all right, but you cannot close the door. It depends on what they are doing. Chinese custom decrees otherwise. If they are not doing anything. Object. It is up to them, you cannot tie them up.</p> <p>It is not wrong for a woman to touch a man in public, but only if it is holding hands. Only if they are married. It is up to the woman. Just a little pat is O.K. If holding hands but not glaringly holding each other. If they do, you must beat them. If friends all right. Nowadays it happens, but not right if in public. It is not nice to see but nowadays it is quite common. It is so "gili" only to see.</p> <p>Nowadays unmarried couples sleep together. Last time not, but now everyone does it. If both are consenting adults it is O.K., but it is not good to sleep around with too many different partners. English-style, nowadays it is very common.</p> <p>A child must not see its parent's naked. No way. Women can see women, it's O.K. Father's can see mothers. Children will pay each other a dollar to tell them what their parents look like naked.</p> <p>Boys and girls can play together when they are young, as long as they are happy. There is no problem, but only in the open. When they are young it is O.K. Children do not know anything. When they get older it is better if boys play with boys and girls with girls.</p> <p>Girls can behave like tomboys and boys like girls if they are born that way, then it is natural, but it is better not to. But if they are not born that way and they acquire it when they are older it is not right. Older people say it is not right. If they want to be that way what can parent's do. Better not. It is not right for women to behave like tomboys, but some men look masculine but may be effeminent.</p> <p>It is important for a child to work for and support the parents. But my uncles just ignore their parents. If the child can afford extra, then it is O.K.</p> <p>A child can scold their parents if their parents are wrong. Nowadays they are bold, they can answer back. Parents must explain to them and teach them. Now children curse back. Some also say "Fuck mother." I scold my mother when she gets me angry. I have done it too. Parents hope children won't do it. They must use the cane.</p> <p>It is O.K. for the daughter of a hawker to marry the son of a banker, if they are in love with each other. If she is pretty and agreeable. It is their wish. There is no line between rich and poor. If both are willing. It is up to the parent's wishes. If they love each other and their parent's object they may commit suicide. Some parent's seek rich in-laws, some prefer working class. Some say it is not equal, it is too high for the girl.</p> <p>If the daughter of a doctor and a construction worker love each other, then it is all right to get married. If they are both willing it is up to them, only I'm afraid the parents will object. If there are no objections, usually the rich parent's will object. They are not equal at all, not matched. It depends on if they love each other. Usually the rich marry the rich, but not always.</p> <p>A child should follow its parents choices in marriage especially if the child has no friends. They will then have to follow the parent's choices. It's up to whether they like their parent's choices. They cannot force them. It depends on whether the couple like each other. What if child doesn't like the choice, marriage is forever. If match is agreeable, it is fine. If the children are agreeable too. What if partner is ugly, then the child has to object. It depends on whether it is fated to be. Parents do not like to match. Only if the match is good. Parents cannot force them into marriage. If the child wants a love match, they should find their own respective loves, if they want their parent's to find a match for them, they should follow their parent's choice. It depends on the individual's choices. Only in the olden days, yes. Nowadays, no way, too old fashioned. I don't want. I want to find by myself.</p> <p>It is O.K. for a single man over 40 to live with his parents. It's only the English way to object to this. Here if they are as old as anything they will stay with their parents. But what if they work far away? Women also can stay with their parents. Some share their premises with their friends and sleep in the living room when there is no room.</p> <p>Some fathers dare not clean their daughter's bottom. It is a woman's job. Usually the mother does it. Men will do it, but only when the mother is busy. The mother should wash the babies bottom. They ask the wife to do it. It is not good. According to Chinese, men do not do it.</p> <p>We wash our clothes by machine now, so men can wash women's clothes, but not by hand, and never hang them out. Older people will scold. But if the wife is sick we can wash only the wife's clothes. If my wife works it's up to me. Only when the wife is busy. Ask wife, some can and cannot, some do and some don't. For Chinese, no. It is women's work, men work outside. My brother washes my clothes for me.</p> <p>It is not a husbands duty to feed an infant in the middle of the night if he is working. Some men share in this work. They have a share in the baby. Some will help and some say they are going to work the next day. Chinese fathers love their children and will do it. Some will do it, but Chinese don't. Some ask their wives to do it.</p> <p>It is certain that a child should wipe up an invalid parent's excrement. Usually people are hired to do it, but a child should do it. It is a must. If children don't do it, who will. They raised us from young, but if the children are far from home? Daughter's-in-law should do it.</p> <p>A husband can help with the housework but not everyday. He can help around with the children, especially if the wife is busy, but not wash clothes. If the wife works so hard. Some help and some do not. The good ones will do it. Especially those who sell food, husband and wife should work together. They should help each other. If the husband works outside he cannot help with the housework.</p> <p>When the wife is busy, and if it is one's own husband, it is O.k. if he serves the wife a meal at the table, but only sometimes. It is quite all right, but not always. Do not make it a habit. If they are scared of their wives, they serve them. Nowadays men serve their wives. Usually it is the other way around. Very rare, a pimp can. Everything is cooked, together can sit down and eat. Some yes, some don't. Maybe, because my husband does it for me.</p> <p>A wife does not need the sort of husband who regularly mistreats her. If she can tolerate him she should stay with him, but if she can't she should leave. If he is bad, she should find a better one. I will leave also. She should see the reason, it is not right to leave if it is just an argument. Wife should not leave her husband, cannot do it. Each has their own problems.</p> <p>It is not right for a woman to pursue a professional career even if it means postponing marriage and a family. It is a big wrong--women must have a family to be complete. She should marry and have a family. Every woman should have a family. Parents cannot take care of her forever. If there is no family, there is no reason for life. Better to marry, you have your husband to take care of you. Must have a family, when you get older you will yearn for family and children. If picky life will pass you buy. Some may be ugly or too choosy. Some are scared they may find a bad husband. Some think getting married to the wrong person is horrible. If you work and earn money but don't have anyone to leave it to, then the government will take it all. Yes it happens, a lot of single women nowadays. It is up to the individual. Look at me, I don't want to get married.</p> <p>On the next inventory, subjects were asked to evaluate comparative relationships between men, women, boys, girls, adults, children and dogs on the basis of five dimensions (cleaner than, more affectionate than, more obedient than, more trustworthy than and more generous than). The greatest amount of agreement was "Adults are more generous than children" ( (81.96%), followed by "Children are cleaner than dogs" (78.68%), and then "Men are more generous than women" (77%), then "Women are cleaner than men" (73.77%),"Adults are cleaner than children" (70.49%), "Dogs are more obedient than children" (68.85%), "Children are more affectionate than dogs" (67.21%), "Boys are more generous than girls" (63.93%), "Adults are more obedient than children," (57.38%), "Children are more trustworthy than dogs" (55.74%), and "Adults are more obedient than dogs" (49.18%).</p> <p>The questions show the greatest false answers over the entire sample are "Men are more affectionate than women" (6.5%), "Boys are more obedient than girls" and "Boys are more affectionate than girls" (9.84% each), "Boys are cleaner than girls" (11.48%), "Men are more obedient than women" (19.67%), "Boys are more trustworthy than girls" (27.87%), "Adults are more affectionate than children" (29.5%), "Men are more trustworthy than women," (32.78%) "Children are more trustworthy than adults" (37.7%) and "Adults are more trustworthy than dogs." (47.5%)</p> <p>It is hard to say, children like to pee and poop. Adults are also dirty. Children can also be clean and neat, it depends on the situation. Adults are all the same. Some women are dirtier than men. Women like to beautify themselves. Some men are also clean, but men that can keep clean are very few. Some women are more dirty than men. Men work and come back home dirty. It is hard to say if children are cleaner than dogs. Children are also dirty. It is up to the mother to care for them. It's women's business. Dogs are dirty, they sleep and roam the street. Older people take care of children, bathe them all the time. Dogs are not that way. Girls are cleaner than boys. Both of them are clean if you take care of them. Boys are more wild. Girls like to pretty themselves. Both boys and girls are clean, both are affectionate, both like to fight and quarrel. If you buy for one you have to buy for both.</p> <p>Women are more affectionate than men. Some women can be affectionate and some cannot. Women are that way because they want the men to buy them something. Both are the same. Both men and women are equally affectionate. Boys are uncontrollable, "oh lor". Boys are cheeky. Girls are more affectionate than boys. Both are disobedient. Girls know their parent's love them more. Girls are more loving. Boys spend more. Both are the same, both are affectionate. Children are more affectionate than adults. Some adults lie and some don't. They want to lie to the child. Dogs are more affectionate than children. They come to be petted just like children. Dogs are glad to see you. They wag their tails when they see their owner. Dogs are more affectionate than adults. If you feed dogs they wag their tails when they see you.</p> <p>Boys like to lie, they are more cheeky and stubborn. Girls are more obedient. If you take care of them well they will both be obedient. Some girls are naughtier than boys. You have to teach them right and wrong. In our grandparent's time they liked boys more. Men and women are the same, with age both become equally disobedient. Women are more obedient than men. With age, women tend to listen more. Dogs are sometimes more obedient than children, especially if you train them from young. Children are also more obedient than dogs. Children are more obedient than adults, they listen more. You have to teach them and they become obedient. Children do not know anything. If grown-ups are rascals, you cannot trust them. It depends on the situation. Dogs are more obedient than children. Dogs can only bark, they do not talk back.</p> <p>Women are more trustworthy than men. Men in front say "honey" but behind their backs you don't know what they may be doing. Men are more untrustworthy. Men are liars. Both men and women are untrustworthy. Both cannot be trusted. It depends on the person, it is up to the individual's behavior. Some women are con people. Women can change. It depends on the situation, for example, if they lose their money when they are gambling. Children sometimes can also tell lies. Children lie a lot, they are great liars. You cannot trust children. But children do not tell lies. Girls always tell the truth. You have to see how boys and girls talk. It is up to what they say. Boys like to lie, girls are more trustworthy. Can trust girls. Both girls and boys are the same, they blame each other. Children cannot be trusted too much. They say each telling truth. Adults can be trusted over dogs. Dogs cannot carry talk. Dogs do not talk, they only listen. Adults know better, dogs are just animals. Children can be trusted over dogs, but need dogs also to take care of the house. You can believe in dogs. Both also can be trusted.</p> <p>Boys are more stubborn than girls, but it is hard to say if they are more generous. It is give and take, some share and some cannot. If parents teach them. Men are more generous than women. Women count until the last penny. Children forget faster than adults. Adults are more generous.</p> <p>It appears in this that women are rated the highest in the most positive categories, followed by men. Adults are rated higher than children. Girls are rated higher than boys. Adults are rated higher than children, and children are rated above dogs.</p> <p>In the next inventory, (N = 65), the most agreed upon questions were:</p> <p>Smoking is worse for women than for men. (83.1%)</p> <p>Newer appliances are better than older appliances. (73.85%)</p> <p>It is better to buy a larger quantity more cheaply on sale. (73.85%)</p> <p>Newer things are better than older things. (70.76%)</p> <p>People on commercials are wealthier than average. (67.6%)</p> <p>Thin women are more attractive. (67.6%)</p> <p>Things on sale are a better deal than things not on sale. (67.6%)</p> <p>Newer clothes are better than older clothes. (59.76%)</p> <p>Questions upon which there were the most false answers were:</p> <p>Men who smoke live as long as men who do not smoke. (9.2%)</p> <p>Wealthy people are more attractive. (26.15%)</p> <p>More expensive things are better than cheaper things. (32.3%)</p> <p>Smoking is not a dirty habit. (35.38%)</p> <p>Products advertised on television are better than those not advertised. (35.38%)</p> <p>Products sold at Komtar (Supermarket/Mall) are better than those sold at the market. (40%).</p> <p>Men who smoke are more masculine. (44.6%)</p> <p>Wealthy people are like people who are on commercials. (46.25%)</p> <p>People on television are better looking than those who are not. (49.23%)</p> <p>The object of this inventory was to elicit attitudes and value judgments that were related to acculturation, smoking, the media, and materialism. The average score for the children (N = 6) was 9.17. For the women (N = 20) it was 11.7. For the men (N = 12), 9.67. For the Non-Jetty sample (N= 9) it was 7.78. For the reference group (N = 18) it was 8.72.</p> <p>New things are better to use than old things. You have to take care of new things. Sometimes new things break down faster, they last only one year. Older things last longer. Both are the same. Some old things are also good. Old used things are better, the older the better.</p> <p>"Newer clothes are definitely better, they are much more fashionable, more action, more face." New clothes are prettier (2), but older clothes are more comfortable (6). I like old clothes. Some prefer old clothes. The Chinese prefer new clothes for Chinese New Year. Both new and old clothes are the same, you must also see the quality of the material.</p> <p>New and old appliances are the same. Older one's are better. My older fan is good.</p> <p>New appliances break down faster. They have more plastic. Sometimes they breakdown after one year. Older appliances also break down, but are much easier to use.</p> <p>Old things are not nice, according to the current things. Old things are better looking than newer things. Personally, I like old things like antiques.</p> <p>Things advertised on television are definitely better than those not advertised--people will buy them. TV ad products sell better. If business is good only then put add in the TV If you do not advertise, people will not know your product. New brands are advertised on the TV TV products are better known. Some advertised things are also bad. Some unadvertised things are better. Some here say those things not advertised are no good. Not all products advertised are 100 percent good. Products advertised on TV usually do not sell. Things not advertised on TV are better. Advertised products are usually scam jobs. It depends on how individuals use them. Advertised and unadvertised things are the same.</p> <p>More expensive things are not necessarily better than cheaper things--not 100%. Both have their uses. It depends on the brand. Cheaper things are also good. Cheaper things are better, expensive things are good as long as you can afford them.</p> <p>Larger quantities are cheaper per box. Bulk is cheaper. But if you buy it, it is not so cheap. If you buy products more often then you should buy in bulk. It depends on the goods. If you buy little you conserve more, if buy a lot tend to over-indulge. It means greed.</p> <p>Usually sale things are not so good. Canned things that are expired are sold more cheaply. Things on sale are usually inferior quality. Sale is name only. Things on sale are cheaper but usually older and out of fashion. Sometimes sale things are expensive, they jack up the price. Things are really not on sale--discount a few cents only. Look out for the differences in prices. Sale things are not so cheap, only a little bit cheaper.</p> <p>Things sold at the shopping center are definitely better, but sometimes more expensive then things sold at the market. There are more expensive brand names. The packing is nicer, and the things are cleaner. Things at the market and at the shopping center are more or less the same, only cheaper or more expensive. It depends on the product, there is good and bad. Market things are better, cheaper, produce is better, fresher. If imitation then it is O.K., as long as it is cheaper.</p> <p>Imported products are better than Malaysian made products, I have worked in the supermarket before. Not everything imported is better, it depends on the product. A lot of people say M'sian products are inferior. Only the proton car is not so good, the rest are comparable. Rubber things are best in Malaysia. Malaysian products are better.</p> <p>Smoking is a very dirty habit, also smelly. Ashes are everywhere. You get diseases, bad for the health. Smoke gets into the heart. Smoking is dirty, but people still want to smoke. Nicotine is addictive. People say smoking is toxic. I don't know, I don't smoke. It depends on the individual. I smoke.</p> <p>Men who smoke are mostly more masculine, although those who don't smoke are also masculine. Women who smoke are different. I hate smokers. I get angry at smoking.</p> <p>Men who smoke die faster. They live shorter lives. Smokers get sick. Cigarettes have nicotine that sticks to the lungs. Smoke affects the lungs. If you smoke you get disease of the lungs. Smoking is addictive, 90% of the men smoke. People who smoke live the same length as men who don't--maybe smokers live only a few months less. It is the same, only smokers tire more easily. If smokers stop, they still have a chance. Some non-smokers also live short lives. It is hard to say. They say smoking is bad. Some smokers live longer lives, it is not necessarily so that smokers will live shorter lives. People who don't smoke have short lives. It is up to our fate, we never know when we will die.</p> <p>Smoking for women is bad taste. Smoking is the same for women as it is for men. Both can get cancer. It is equal, no difference. Women are less heavy smokers unless they work in bars or night clubs. Older women are better, teenage girls who smoke do not look good. Teenage girls smoke mentholated cigarettes--it seems it is in fashion. Smoking is bad for men, the lungs get bad. It is up to the individual</p> <p>Cannot say if wealthy people are like those on commercials. Some poor people also put on acts. Most rich people are proud, off course there are humble ones. Rich people can afford to buy expensive cosmetics more easily.</p> <p>Some people on commercials are also poor, but they have a higher salary. They get more money. You just need to be good looking. They con people out of their money.</p> <p>People who get on television are definitely better looking than those who are not. You must have personality to be on television. If producers need you they hire you. There money is more easy to come by. People make up when they go on TV Some ordinary people are also good looking.</p> <p>Wealthy people are definitely more attractive than poor people--they use more makeup and have more time for relaxation. Wealthy people can afford facials and expensive makeup. They can afford all the expensive cosmetics to cover themselves, poor people just work and do not take care of themselves. Rich people are afraid of the sun and eat good. Some rich people have ugly daughters, it's all in the makeup. Some rich people are also ugly, and attractive people usually have no money.</p> <p>Thin women are definitely more attractive. Most men prefer thin women. Thin women have shapely bodies. Not too thin, too thin is not good. Thin and fat women are the same. Average women are nicer looking. Medium is best, cannot say. Not really, fat women have their own attractiveness. Nonsense that thin women are more attractive.</p> <p>On the following inventory, 15 "odds and ends" questions were asked that were meant to plug any holes left over from the previous questionaire.</p> <p>The greatest agreement were on the following items:</p> <p>Young men and women should not have sexual relations. (70.2%)</p> <p>Most men prefer to marry attractive women. (68.4%)</p> <p>Boys and girls should start dating early in life to find the right partner. (64.9%)</p> <p>It is O.K. if an older woman marries a younger man. (63.15%)</p> <p>Police protect rich people more than they protect the poor. (61.4%)</p> <p>People who do not gamble are afraid of losing. (56.14%)</p> <p>The average tourist is a middle-aged couple. (56.14%)</p> <p>The questions on which the most number of false items were marked included the following:</p> <p>Most police do not take bribes. (14.03%)</p> <p>It is O.K. for a single young man to sleep with a woman. (29.8%)</p> <p>It is alright for a man to have more than one wife. (29.8%)</p> <p>You are bound to strike it rich if you keep playing numbers. (35%)</p> <p>Most Westerner's are wealthy. (36.84%)</p> <p>A child should be discouraged from marrying outside one's own race. (40.35%)</p> <p>Long engagements result in better marriages. (42.1%)</p> <p>Police will assist you if you report your bag snatched. (49.12%).</p> <p>The average score of true for the children (N = 6) is 5.17. For the women (N =15) it was 7.4. For the men (N =9), 7.11. For the Non-Jetty sample (N = 9), it was 6.89. For the reference group (N = 18) it was 7.33.</p> <p>Most tourists have money, because they are tourists, "you hardly see any beggars." But who says so, some are also poor. Most of them are middle-aged, but some are also young individuals or couples.</p> <p>Now, young men and women sleeping together out of wedlock is common and O.K.. In the modern world nowadays it happens. With Westerners it is O.K., but with our culture it is a no no.</p> <p>Now some couples are sleeping together before marriage. Not like the old days. Now it is a young world so younger men and women have sexual relations. Nowadays there is a lot of premarital sex, when they know each other a few weeks. It's not like grandparent's time. Modern days are different, each generation is different.</p> <p>Boys and girls date early, nowadays anything is possible. If they do not mix, parent's can match for them. If it is a fellow worker, it is all right, but don't mix with bad people. Sometimes you don't have to go out to find the right partner, they will come to you.</p> <p>Some people go out to disco bars to meet them.</p> <p>Long engagements, "Teng hoon", result in better marriage, but short engagements also resulting long marriages. Couples know each other better. Some long engagements will also end in divorce. Engagements should not be too long, "familiarity breeds contempt." Too long is not right. Engagements should not be too long, only about 2 or 3 months. Long engagements break up in the long run. Now there are no engagements.</p> <p>If an older woman and younger man are agreeable to each other, then it is all right if they get married. If they can match together and love each other, it is all right. It is up to her. A lot of marriages are like that, the wife a few years older. It does not matter now, if the woman is rich and can afford to keep a man, then it is all right. Personally, I have never seen this kind of thing. It is not so good, it will not last long. They are not equal. The younger man will change. But someone, the man, wants the woman's money. If the woman is too old, it is not too nice.</p> <p>A child should be discouraged from marrying outside their own race. It's best to marry one's own kind. If my ancestors have never married out, then I will follow suit. There will be a communication barrier. All races are the same. If the partner is bad, why bother, or if there is a communication barrier. One cannot say, it depends on where they work. Nowadays it is difficult to say. Also nowadays they can do it if they love each other. It's up to a person's choice, especially when they are adults. It is up to them, they can marry whoever they want, one cannot say anything.</p> <p>The first thing a man looks for in a wife is beauty. Attractive women belong to everybody. If I were a man, I would not do it, it is unsafe. Not 100 percent want beautiful wives, ugly ones will have to soak in brine or salt water. Some also don't have pretty wives. It is up to a man what kind of wife he prefers. Most prefer a woman who is good.</p> <p>For women's responses, if the wife is bad, it is O.K. for the husband to have another. Men can have more than one wife only if they have the money. Two or three are also all right, but it is better to have only one. The wives will fit among themselves, so cannot. What can you do, they find ways and means to get another wife. You cannot stop men, they hide it from their wives.</p> <p>For the men's responses, only if men have money can they have more than one wife. Some men also have friends on the side. If I have money, why not. Two wives are enough. If the first one dies, sometimes men will take another. Two or three wives also never mind. As long as there is money, it is O.K., but by law only one. Personally, I do not want more than one wife.</p> <p>All policemen always take bribes. Most usually take bribes, 9 out of 10. Some yes, some no. Its 50/50. They do not have enough to feed their families. Even a little money is O.K., they have little. But not from me.</p> <p>After your purse has been snatched, the police will wait for someone to return the identification card. "They say they will help?" By law you have to report, you just report the loss to cover yourself for your license and identity card, but you must find it yourself. It is hard to find back. The bag will never be recovered. They will assist you but it takes a long time to find it. Only 50% will help you.</p> <p>Police help the rich more than the poor because they want the rich man's money. They also protect the rich. They "jack" only the rich. "The rich are afraid of bad people, bad people are afraid of the government, the government is afraid of rich people." Rich people know the rules, poor people do not. Rich people give them more "kopi" (coffee) money. They also want rich people to pay them pocket money. Not all police but usually that is the case.</p> <p>If you play the lottery a long time, you are bound to win. Everyone hopes like that. Sometimes only. Sometimes will lose all, even if you win you will not get all the money back. If it was that way, I would not be standing here working. If you are lucky you get big money, if not then only small money. It depends on your luck, sometimes if you gamble till you die you will not get anything. Usually you strike little, only "small luck". I have never stricken it rich. Some people play many times and never strike it rich.</p> <p>Some people like to save their money instead of gambling, it doesn't mean they are afraid of losing. I do not gamble, I am afraid of losing. It is up to the individual. Some just do not want to gamble, some just do not like it. Most like to gamble whether the stakes are big or small. Mostly 40 years or older like to gamble to pass the time. It is all right. I do not know how to gamble. It is better not to gamble, do not be too greedy. Some people are just not greedy. It is very hard to get lucky money. It is better not to, I don't like gambling.</p> <p>The final dichotomous inventory was designed to elicit beliefs about the supernatural and about fate. Because it was designed toward the end of the study, it suffered a basic translation problem. The sample size was relatively small (N = 30), so the scores are collapsed into a single group:</p> <p>The most agreed upon questions were:</p> <p>Children are basically good and learn how to be bad. (86.7%)</p> <p>Gods are willful and unpredictable. (83.33%)</p> <p>Money is a cause of evil. (70%)</p> <p>A person who does bad deeds is bound to suffer misfortune. (70%)</p> <p>Money is good. (66.67%)</p> <p>Gods are willful and unpredictable. (63.33%)</p> <p>One's fortune on earth is influenced by one's filial piety. (56.67%)</p> <p>Questions upon which there was the least agreement by the answering of false were the following:</p> <p>Success in making money is a sign of one's fate in heaven. (10%)</p> <p>One's place on earth is influenced by one's ancestors in heaven. (13.33%)</p> <p>One's place in heaven is measured by one's fortune on earth. (13.33%)</p> <p>The Gods can be influenced by the deeds of people. (16.67%)</p> <p>A child should obey its parents even if its parents are wrong. (16.67%)</p> <p>A person's fate in life determines that person's state after death. (16.67%)</p> <p>Our parent's are influenced by our ancestor's fate in heaven. (20%)</p> <p>Success in business is influenced by the worship of one's ancestors. (23.3%)</p> <p>Our thoughts and actions can be influenced by the will of Gods. (23.3%)</p> <p>If a parent is wrong then heaven will punish the children. (26.67%)</p> <p>Success in life depends upon the goodwill of the Gods. (30%)</p> <p>Evil spirits cause human misfortune. (30%)</p> <p>A man's good fortune depends upon the happiness of his ancestors. (30%)</p> <p>Happiness is measured by how much money one makes. (30%)</p> <p>Good people are favored by the Gods more than bad people. (30%)</p> <p>Fate is controlled by the Gods. (30%)</p> <p>Success is a sign of respect for one's ancestors. (30%)</p> <p>A person will suffer misfortune if spirits aren't placated. (33.33%)</p> <p>One's ancestors in heaven are influenced by one's fortune on earth. (33.33%)</p> <p>People are controlled by fate. (40%)</p> <p>Success in money is a sign of good fortune. (46.67%)</p> <p>Children are basically bad and must be taught to be good. (50%)</p> <p>Your ancestor's will reward you if you work hard. (50%)</p> <p>Overall agreement to the tasks as indicated by the number of true scores is 45.33%.</p> <p>This may signify that the task was not very well designed or interpreted, but also that there may not be clearly uniform agreement of a theodetical beliefs by these people of the Jetty.</p> <p>Many of the questions were more inherently ambiguous, even with proper translation, thus being more difficult for people to answer in a definite and clear way.</p> <p>Qualifications to the answers, as in "People are controlled by fate" indicate that either people were not sure or believed that our fate was up to ourselves. Success in life depends not so much on the goodwill of the Gods but upon "shear hard work". Human misfortune is caused as much "by our carelessness" as it is by the Gods. Good fortune in this life depends not so much on the happiness of the ancestors but upon "luck" or Feng Shui. Happiness is not necessarily measured by money, "the best is average person, do not need that much money." Many people were reluctant to answer or unsure whether a person will suffer misfortune if spirits aren't placated. For many, money is "number one" and "without money things cannot be done." People "dare not say" if one's fate in life determines a person's state after death. Children are both good and bad so "we must teach them." The "Gods bless everybody." Each person is for him or her self in the world, so we must work hard. No one will know if one's place in heaven is influenced by one's fortune on earth. One's ancestors in heaven are influenced by the place of their burial. Money may not be the sign of one's fate in heaven, we "cannot say whether we can go to heaven or not." If a child does not obey its parents even if they are wrong, then the child "will get beaten." Success is not so much a sign of respect for one's ancestors as it is a matter of fate.</p> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CHAPTER 8</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">GRIDS AND FRAME TASKS</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Two sets of five open ended questions were also asked. These questions basically elicited conceptual domains over the central topics they addressed--namely Thai women, Singapore, Japanese, Malaysian Products, AID's, Chinese, Whites, Blacks, Malays and Indians. They provide insight into how complex concepts such as these may be constructed and cohere across a cultural field. Traits and terms used to describe these concepts recur again and again throughout the elicitations with great frequency. No single concept is monotypic--each spans a range of values, images, experiences, beliefs which go into their construction. Neither do they exist in isolation from one another or from other domains of knowledge.</p> <p>The first set of questions (N = 120) were the following:</p> <p>What do you think about Thai women?</p> <p>What do you think about Singapore?</p> <p>What do you think about the Japanese?</p> <p>Wht do you think about things made in Malaysia?</p> <p>What do you think about the AID's problem in Malaysia?</p> <p>Responses to the first question show that the most frequent term to describe Thai women was "dark" (16.9%), "prostitutes" (13.7%), "like Malay" (8%), "same as Chinese" (8%), "some good/some bad" (8%), "sexy" (2.4%). Other salient associations are "some beautiful, some not", cheap, dirty, not good, humorous, "whatever they do can't be helped because of their poor circumstances", fair complexion, good, daring, decent, discriminated against, friendly, average, different, more free. The concepts of darkness, "like Malay", and "prostitute" and dirty, sexy, were closely related, while "fair" and "same like Chinese" were also closely associated. "They follow everyone, go with all men, cannot be trusted. If marry a Thai prostitute she will later open the back door and find other men." On other hand, "A friend is married to an ex-Thai prostitute and they have two children. She is a good and decent woman." 17.7 % said they didn't know any Thia and 7.25% said they had never been to Thailand.</p> <p>Responses to the second question show the most frequent associations to "Singapore" were "clean" (22.58%), "good" (19.35%),"strict" (9.67%), "beautiful"(6.45%), "nice" and "developed" (5.64%). Other salient associations were peaceful, scenery, good and bad, rights or fairness, developed or modern, prosperous, different from Malaysia, proud, better than Malaysia, superior in attitude or "talk down" to others. There were close associations between concepts of strictness, goodness, cleanliness and beautifulness. Overall, attitudes about Singapore were positive, such as "Good, like when the Singaporean Government flogged the American boy for vandalism." 15.3% had never been to Singapore, and 11.29% didn't know or had forgotten what it was like.</p> <p>The most frequent association to the concept of the "Japanese" were "fairness (complexion, 11.29%), shortness of stature (13.71%), manners (8.9%), and intelligence (8.9%). Other associations were fast working, better than others, the war, modern, good, fat, same as Chinese, cruel, developing. Fairness, shortness, smartness and hardworking are associated. "Men always knock against women, just bow their head and knock against them. They came in a boat and took women away." "Japs and Koreans are '584.' At night they pass you and touch you on the hand and piss in the water. People here beat them worse when they are drunk. Very gili." An older women related her war experiences as a young 16 year old girl. "When younger Japs in wrong. It was very difficult. They killed a lot of people, raped a lot of girls. Took them up to the hills out of the city and beat them up. People ran and hid in the caves. Could hear their boots stomping. They gang raped them until they couldn't walk." 16.12% didn't know and 5.6% had never seen any Japanese before.</p> <p>The concept of "Malaysian made products" had fewer overall elicitations than the other concepts, and was mostly associated with "good" (21.78%), "O.K." (16.9%), "imports better than" (9.67%), "not good" (9.67%), "good and bad" and "inferior", (9.67%). Other salient associations were "best", "lose", "depends", "average", "break down", "Proton", convenience, affordable, progress or development, in Japanese, English.9.67% didn't know.</p> <p>The concept of "AID's" was most associated with "in Malaysia" (46.77%), "not many cases" (33.87%), "a lot of cases" (12.9%). Other salient categories were "dangerous/frightening" (9.67%), "increasing" (9.67%), as well as "heard but never seen", "mostly Overseas', Thailand, Newspapers, contagious, incurable, "no problem in Malaysia", "government control", "deserve it", "bad", "government quarantine". 88.7% didn't know, and there was a sense that this lack of understanding was serious and genuine. A dialogue with some children of the Jetty reveals their lack of awareness of the disease "Due to smoking, drugs also have. If you sit close to a person who also has it give it to you." "No, girl to girl or boy to boy." "No, go out with strangers, they put drug into something and let us eat it and get it. Didn't learn about it in school. On T.V., young man got it with a prostitute." "No, T.V. shows a commercial with drug addict without drugs, climbing up the steps, then a skeleton."</p> <p>The second set of questions were the following (N=30):</p> <p>What do you think about Chinese people?</p> <p>What do you think about White people?</p> <p>What do you think about Black people?</p> <p>What do you think about Malays?</p> <p>What do you think about Indians?</p> <p>Most associated with "Chinese" are "hardworking" (33.3%), "selfish" (23.3%), "intelligent", "unpunctual", "stingy", "face", "talkative" (13.3%), other associations are "money faced", "good", "greedy".</p> <p>Most associated with "Whites" are "friendly" (20%), "liberal" and "liberated" (16.67% each). Other associations are adventurousness, tall, enjoy self, "different thinking", "great thinking", "easy going".</p> <p>Most associated with "Blacks" are "poor" (40%) and "white teeth" (16.67%) . Other salient associations are "curly hair", "tall", "good in sports", "contempt by Whites".</p> <p>Most associated with "Malays" are "lazy" (33.33%), "cooperative between themselves" (16.67%). Other associations are unsporting, selfish, government parades, hate, rich, follow the leader, dirty, proud, and easy going.</p> <p>Most associated with "Indians" are "dirty" (23.3%), "poor" (16.67%) and "drinking" (16.67%). Other salient associations are "fakers", beautiful eyes, "smelly", religious, hardworking, "simple life".</p> <p>It appears that linguistically structured symbolic framing tasks do elicit patterns of response comparable in many respects to the other kinds of tasks such as the inkblots and drawing tasks. To some extent, they involve projective filling in of cognitive content, with a similar symbolic process of "objectification" or "anthropomorphization" occuring which restructures this content. In these kinds of responses we can perhaps find the foundation of projective prejudices and of reference group stereotypes which are founded upon the repression of aspects of the self subsequent cast out in modified form onto others.</p> <p>There were an assortment of other tasks that fell into the catch-all category of 'frames and grids,' and included several thematic apperceptive tasks, several kinds of sentence completion type tasks, and several grid used in giving ratings to various items along certain dimensions.</p> <p>For the most part these tasks involved more linguistic-like frames similar to those above which involved more linguistic type responses and perhaps greater conceptual organization or reorganization of ambiguous frame stimuli on the page or in one's mind. The problem with these type of tasks was the very low response rate and very strong resistance in their completion. There appeared to be a number of difficulties in their design and administering--foremost perhaps was the difficulty of translation from English into Hokkien, which perhaps brings up a need to reassess the argument for linguistic relativity functioning at different syntactic and semantic levels.</p> <p>It is interesting in this regard that one of the main and most consistent traits left off of the Children's human figure drawings were the ears, an expected item that occurs near the top of the most frequently found list. On the Jetty young children can be heard everyday cursing up and down some adult who tries to check their behavior. Houses are frequently crowded and unbearably noisy, and their is a background den of human noises that probably lasts past midnight each evening. At the same time, there is always a background lulling sound of the tide which washes in and out just a few feet below everyone's feet, day after day after day. Boats are constantly lapping in the water and the piles and pierings are continuously groaning and creaking. Young children sleep in rows of two or three bundled up in their net bags, suspended from a rope and a spring from the ceiling, beneath the cooling breeze of a humming fan. It is unknown what the implications of this may be, if any, especially in relation to these verbal-linguistic type symbolic framing tasks, but it would be worth future exploration.</p> <p>But there was also a basic problem of inherent resistance and seeming aversion to these types of tasks on the part of most of the Jetty Chinese. Is it possible that these kinds of frames involved a kind of structured verbal and conceptual response pattern which was too alien to their characteristic world view that they were too difficult to complete? For many even some of the relatively simple rank order type tasks seemed burdensome. Some of the tasks, such as sentence completion frames, even when adapted to Chinese, were like pulling teeth.</p> <p>Some of these tasks also clearly explored the boundaries of their worldview in a manner which they frequently found threatening. There was also a sense that statements they could make may be linked to their own names and identities with perhaps unknown consequences. This made the use of a tape recorder for several of the tasks designed to elicit spontaneous, tip of the tongue type oral responses, virtually impossible to use with anyone but less than a handful of people. On several occasions attempting to encourage completion of these relatively simple tasks (from an American's point of view) led to the characteristic "ingenuine" response which was hiding the truth and which was wasting everyone's time, and even at a point to a closure of a small group of people of the Jetty who had previously been quite open to being interviewed.</p> <p>The net consequence is that there are about 20 to 25 different incomplete samples which are for the most part too small to do anything with, and yet which comprise some of the more interesting and insightful responses of all the tasks given. Only a couple will be treated here, mostly in passing.</p> <p>The first is a set of grids which involved subjects rating on a scale of 0 to 3 different basic categories of familial members--father, mother, son, daughter, grandparents, godparents, aunts, uncles, husband, wife--in relation to one another according to certain basic statements such as "should punish", "should serve", "should give money to", etc.</p> <p>It appears that in the category of sons (N = 11), there is very strong agreement sons should take care of fathers (90.9 %), answer to fathers (72.7%), obey fathers (81.8%), serve food to fathers (100%), give money to fathers (100%), pray after fathers (63.6%) and should not question fathers (54.54%). On the other hand, sons cannot punish or scold fathers (81.8% each) or be served food by fathers (54.54%). Being served food was the category showing greatest indifference (45.5%)</p> <p>In relation to mothers, sons should take care of mothers (100%), serve food to mothers (100%), give money to mothers (100%), answer to and obey mothers (81.8%) pray after (63.6%) and should not question mothers (45.5%). On the other hand, sons cannot punish or scold mothers (81.8%) or be served food by mothers. (54.54%). Again the category of being served food by is shows the most ambivalence and indifference (45.5%)</p> <p>It thus appears that the profile of the son's relationship along these basic dimensions to both parents is roughly the same, except that there is slightly stronger agreement about the relationship toward the mother than the father. This difference is showing in the son's relationship to the daughter. Sons should take care of daughters and pray before daughters (54.54%), and can punish and scold daughters (45.5%) but do not answer to daughters (54.54%), nor obey daughters (63.6%) nor serve food to daughters (45.5%). There is much greater ambivalence and indifference about the filial obligations of the son to the daughter compared to son's relationship to his parents, especially in the category of being served food by but also giving money to the daughter. There is greatest uncertainty in who should pray after whom between the son and the daughter.</p> <p>Similar types of grids were constructed for the different familial roles, father, mother, daughter, uncle, aunt, etc. Mother's relationships to the father are quite different than the son's, having an obligation to take care of the father, and serve food to the father, but not necessarily to answer to or obey the father. It is strongly believed that mothers should not give money to fathers and should not punish fathers, though it appears they can scold them. The greatest indifference is in being served food by fathers, and praying after fathers, though indifference marks are the domains to a much greater degree than with the sons.</p> <p>In relation to the son, the mother should take care of him and answer to the son, but should not obey, serve food to, give money to or pray after the son, and appears to have a right to question the son, punish and scold the son (91.67% each). Being served food by the son and praying after the son show the greatest ambivalence and indifference.</p> <p>In relation to the daughter, the mother should take care of her (100%), punish and scold her, and question her, but should not answer to, serve food to, give money to the daughter. There is greater indifference in these relationships than in any others, especially in terms of who prays after whom, who serves food to whom, who obeys whom and who gives money to whom.</p> <p>Fathers have the obligation to take care of, punish, scold, and question mothers, sons and daughters, but they should not pray after or answer to any except on occasion the mother. Giving money shows the greatest ambivalence across the spectrum, and though the entire spectrum of the fathers relationships is marked by greater ambivalence and uncertainty, it is not clearly marked by any salient indifference.</p> <p>As far as the daughter is concerned (N = 17), it is clear that daughter's must take care of, answer to, obey, serve food to, give money to and should not question either mothers or fathers, with about equal strength (> 90%), and they cannot punish or scold or be served food by their parents (100%). There is almost no indifference or uncertainty about these relationships, but there is marked ambivalence especially in who should pray before whom. In relationship to the son, this profile changes a little bit with greater ambivalence and disagreement across the board, but still little indifference or uncertainty. Daughters should still take care of sons, but not as much, and they should pray after sons (64.7%) but they do not need to answer to sons, (52.94%), nor serve food to or give money to sons, and they can punish and scold sons, especially younger brothers and can be served food by sons.</p> <p>In the obligation of children to grandparents (N =9), children should take care of and give money to them (100%), answer to, obey, serve food to and and cannot punish or scold and have no rights over grandparents (100%), and have few privileges over them. The greatest indifference is in who should pray after whom, or be served by whom or question whom, and who should be free from whom. These same relationships and salience carry over almost completely to the relationships between children and both categories of parents and godparents, though there is slightly greater indifference about children obeying their godparents than either their parents or grandparents.</p> <p>Another set of tasks involved sentence completion, and from these small samples a couple of them proved quite interesting, especially one given to the children of the Jetty. Responses are presented in order of descending frequencies.</p> <p>What I like best about school is? P.E. (77.8%), math, (22.2%), playing badminton, playing, talking with friends, crafts, Chinese studies, Malay studies, English, sweeping the floor, cleaning the blackboard, the library that gives knowledge, and the Malay teacher who is a joker.</p> <p>When I grow up I want to be...a policeman (22.2%) who catches robbers and thieves, a nurse, soldier, fireman who saves people, hairdresser, beautician, printing like the brother, a writer working in a publishing company "because get to bring papers home to write with", a typist because "I like playing with typewriters" and a driver of alcoholic beverages.</p> <p>My parents become angry when I... go out with friends (22.2%), go out and fight (22.2%), play around, steal things, gamble, beat my younger brother, don't do my homework, don't listen to them, go to the shopping mall with my friends, don't help with the housework, go to my friend's house, and go swimming.</p> <p>Bad things are...smoking (55.6%), drugs and gambling (44.5%), fighting (22.2%), stealing, gangs, mixing with other bad people, quarreling and "bad words, nothing else."</p> <p>The leader of my country... is intelligent (77.8%), favors Malays (66.7%), is good, takes shares of bribes, disfavors Penang and takes care of the country.</p> <p>The world will be a better place when..."there are no wars" (33.3%),"they don't take young girls to sell" (22.2%), no fighting (22.2%), no drugs, "we don't throw trash everywhere", there is peace "and other countries don't invade us", no stealing, no gangs and no quarreling.</p> <p>Children shouldn't...gamble (44.5%), smoke (33.3%), fight, scold, use foul words, "take mom's money to buy drugs", "take mother's money to treat friends", (22.2% each), "con mother's money", scratch, vandalize, but in when older people are talking, be bad, mix with gang members, play with fire, be truant, quarrel, scold teachers, use alcohol or drugs. "Teachers can hit. One hit three students, and we cut up the teacher's tires."</p> <p>When I cross a street, I..."look carefully before crossing so that there are no cars" (55.6%), see both sides, (22.2%), go when there are no cars (22.2%), run across and be extra careful.</p> <p>The following is a brief account given of the Jetty by a young teenage girl who has lived there all her life, in the same home in which her mother was born. She was my best "primary informant" and one day I gave her a blank piece of paper and told her to write me a story about the Jetty and her family. This is her story:</p> <p>I'm the eldest in my family.</p> <p>The sister whom I like the most is my first younger sister. She is a very funny person. She is fat but she never holds herself in contempt. She is cheerful all of the time. She is not selfish and she is very generous and helpful.</p> <p>Well, sometimes I am selfish but of course sometimes I am kind. I have a bad temper. I'll get angry when I can't achieve something. Almost all my friends and my family and even my relatives will sometimes become afraid when I am angry, because I'll scream out and sometimes I'll break something on purpose. But most of the time, I'll be cheerful in school and get along with my sister. I'm very fortunate to have this sister. Of course, I'm kind to someone if they treat me kindly, but if they do something wrong to me I'll get my revenge.</p> <p>Anyways, I don't feel any stress or any trouble, because my sister teaches me not to have pressure, and I just need not to bother about it, but just leave it alone.</p> <p>Actually, I like to be left alone because I can have peace of mind and can think about everything without anybody disturbing me. By the way, I also do not need to talk too much.</p> <p>Of course, we don't know about our future. Nobody can predict what the future will be. Nowadays, our world is facing a lot of trouble that we are not really able to solve, or maybe there will be an end to the world one day. Or maybe all the creatures or living things in the world will become extinct.</p> <p>Although we are going to achieve Vision 2020, I think we should confront these obstacles. But, of course, everybody wants to have their own good future, so that they can live easily. People are quite selfish and always think of themselves. They always want to receive advantages and benefits from someone else.</p> <p>I hope that every country may have a good future and all residents can live in a good condition. But all the residents of all the world must become shouldered together and to challenge all the trouble like pollution, disease, starvation and war.</p> <p>Nowadays, the world is developing from long long ago until today. But, of course, some countries progress easily and more quickly than others. Unfortunately, some countries are "greedy," they want to control and administer the other countries. So they make war. War causes an unpeaceful world and destroys all of the buildings and all the people die. It also leaves all the residents living terrible, horrible lives. Every body lives in fear and scarcity, and no one lives in a peaceful environment. It's so terrible! I don't like it!</p> <p>The world is facing another problem--pollution. Nowadays this issue is being discussed by all the countries in order to solve it. Why do they want to do such a foolish thing? It is better for them to take some effective action and save the world. Now the ozone layer is becoming less and less and the oxygen is not sufficient already. It is better if everybody is cooperative. It is better if they do not cut down the trees without control, or burn down the forest for development, wasting all the timber, releasing all the useless and poisonous gases.</p> <p>Malaysia is a nice country. There are no wars or earthquakes here. It can be said that Malaysia is very peaceful and does not harm other countries.</p> <p>Malaysia is administered by an intelligent and capable leader--Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir. I like him very much. He is a perfect man. He can progress and advance our country's economic condition and make friendship with other countries. Although he is now becoming old, he still looks young and strong.</p> <p>Well, Malaysia has 3 vital races: Malays, Chinese and Indians. Most of the population are Malay, followed by Chinese and Indians. Some of the Malays here are lazy and some are hardworking. Why are they lazy? Of course, because of the government. They have privileges like private companies having to give at least some of them work. And most of them are protected by the government, such that they can get a high job in government companies. The Chinese are always serious. They are always hardworking in order to earn money. Most of them could be rich because they are stingy. Some of the teenagers do not like to study because they have in their minds just money x 1000.00. Well, I do not know much about Indians. But they are quite friendly.</p> <p>Well, my family has seven people: mother, father, four sisters (including myself) and a brother.</p> <p>My mother is a very strict person. She is very hardworking in order to raise the family. She wants us to study hard so that we can have a nice future. She is a capable person. She can work and work without stopping. Even though she always gives us an ear-full, we still respect her.</p> <p>However, my father is a kind and cheerful person. He never becomes angry at us. He always makes jokes when we are under pressure or stress or are sad. He never controls us. We respect him, too, although he does not work because he is ill all of the time.</p> <p>I have three younger sisters. The first one is very cheerful and generous. But of course sometimes she is not like that. She is very liberal. She doesn't want to be controlled by anyone. She wants to be free. My second younger sister is hardworking but irresponsible. She never pays attention while listening to my mom or dad or us. She is a selfish person, and my youngest sister is impolite and stingy and a selfish person too. She always cares about money, money, money. I don't like her very much. She is never obedient to my parents. She always shouts at them, so I always am strict on her. The last one is my brother. He is a talkative boy. He doesn't like to study. He is very intelligent and funny. When I ask him to study and learn to write, he always says 'Oh, I want to sleep now!' He is also not obedient. He doesn't respect my parents because he isn't afraid of them. So I get him back. I control him strictly. Even though he is still a child, he must also be taught from now.</p> <p>Most of the people who live here on the Jetty are Hokkiens. There are about sixty to seventy houses here. All of the houses are built of wood.</p> <p>Most of the old men here are working as fishermen or carrying passengers by boat. some of them do not work. They are "pensioned" already. But, of course, they will find something to do. Most of them are very kind and generous.</p> <p>The women here are snoopers and busy bodies. They like to chat about other people's affairs. They are always gossiping behind the other people, although it is none of their business. They are always shouting to their children. They like to shout, and to chatter. Their attitudes make the teenagers here become very bothered. Every night, when they are free, they will sit outside their homes together or go to visit the other women to gossip. Most of them are selfish and stingy. They are jealous of other people who earn very much money. If other people earn money, then they will try to get close to them to learn their way of earning money. Some of them will start to gamble together. They also sometimes will become crazy when their children or kids are not obedient, study hard or can't earn extra money. They will mutter all the time.</p> <p>However, the teenagers here mostly do not like to study or work. Most of the boys here are not studying anymore. Most of them stopped studying after Form 3. Of course, they are very intelligent in their math. They can calculate their money or whatever very quickly because they are always gambling most of the time, and they like to show off. They think that smoking, racing with motorcycles, gambling and spending luxuriously in front of ladies is more masculine.</p> <p>And the ladies here can be said to like to beautify themselves to attract the attention of the others. They also always sit together to chat too.</p> </font><font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <font FACE="Arial"><font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p> </p> <hr> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter 9</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">THE SYMBOLIC FRAME BATTERY</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="3">INTER-CORRELATION ANALYSIS IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The symbolic frame battery was designed during the course of the field work with the intention of standardizing the elicitation of a series of different symbolic frame tasks, with the aim of implementing basic controls over the administration/elicitation of response of these tasks, and in order to simplify and ensure greater reliability of analysis between individuals and of different tasks by the same individual.</p> <p>It was deliberately designed for the purpose of eliciting and analyzing cross-cultural differences in the profiles of response patterns of these different tasks across different samples of persons, examining the hypothesis of whether significant differences of average response pattern based on cultural or subcultural levels of analysis do in fact exist, and if so, then of exploring the extent and implications of such difference in terms of cross-cultural comparison, analysis and research.</p> <p>Given a range of objects to choose from--a miscellaneous collection or assortment of things placed upon a table--the random likelihood that any object chosen should in theory be the same. The fact that individuals will choose the same objects consistently at frequencies that are greater than random points to the influence of a "structural" patterning at some level which, though not directly understood, has in a sense been "indirectly elicited" by the response patterning.</p> <p>This similiarity and consistency of patterning may indeed be of a relatively low frequency and therefore not clearly salient. But a similar basic design and pattern of response consistency which reveal a normal range and frequency pattern of content, can be carried over into many other kinds of framing tasks.</p> <p>A great number of correlations have been run on the different samples and this number nowhere exhausts all the possibilities. An "intercorrelational" search was conducted to find those sets of highly positive and negative correlations among a number of dimensions, between different tasks, items and scores on tasks and across the different American, English and Chinese samples and subsamples.</p> <p>The raison d'etre of many of these correlations are possibly chance or a matter of small, unrepresentative samples. Virtually anything may be correlated with anything else, whether there is an actual relationship or not. Even apparently strong correlations may be rather quite spurious. On the other hand, even relatively low and insignificant correlations can in fact represent important patterns, especially if these recur in certain matrices or intercorrelational structures.</p> <p>When especially high positive or negative correlations are found, especially over large samples or ranges of data which are quite large, and thus have little likelihood of chance correlation, and when these data sets are united by dimensions or analytical categories, then the resulting "matrix" is regarded as meaningful in some way, even if its significance is not clear. When specific sets of correlations were found consistent across samples, the likelihood of these representing nonrandom associations increases significantly. But what they may still imply remains something of a mystery.</p> <p>A number of such intercorrelational "matrices" were found to occur in a number of tasks at several levels of correlational analysis--especially at the third or fourth level of analysis when categorical dimensions or cross-dimensions began to be collapsed between the samples. Intercorrelational analysis begins properly at the second level removed from the actual data, in the correlation of correlational scores. While it is possible to go from a primary matrix of relatively low average correlation, to a second or third derivative matrix which exhibits a higher correlation, this "normal" structure may in fact be only spurious--there is no reason in claiming a structure to exist among relationships which in themselves are non-existent.</p> <p>On the other hand when analysis moves from higher to lower subsequent intercorrelations, as would be expected, we can expect that derivative structure to retain some important aspects of hidden relationships between different dimensions, variables and data.</p> <p>From such intercorrelational analysis, an alternative means of graphic representation of these structures, as well as a means of testing statistically for the significances and directions of their patterning, have been devised. This alternative form of statistical description should be seen as "possibilistic" rather than probabilistic in the more conventional form of statistics. Patterns which may be of low significance or correlation in some respects may nevertheless reveal hidden relationships in other ways. Together, this form of intercorrelational analysis has proven to be heuristically productive, and allows some feedback and inference to be made between different levels of analysis--even to the level of predicting the likelihood of certain specific types of response, or of infering the higher order significance of such specific responses.</p> <p>Overall, these correlational patterns suggest the degree and extent of overall similarity, fit and difference between the different samples on the SFB, across its tasks, as well as the ways in which these patterns of similarity and difference occur. It is held that correlational patternings and differences between the samples may represent structural differences between cultural samples.</p> <p>Within the theoretical design of the Symbolic frame protocol, such associations and complexes of associations are held to be tied to a partial validation/falsification of the theory, as well as to other unknown, and possibly hitherto unexplored relationships.It is felt that this "search" for underlying structure in the response patterns of the symbolic frame protocol can be usefully extended through more sophisticated techniques such as factor analysis. When large numbers of correlations were collected, across the sample "correlations of correlations" were tried out to find out where larger and less obvious relationships may lie in the patterning of response. Such correlational searches were done with almost every task in the battery, as well as between many of the different tasks.</p> <p>In general it is felt that underlying correlational "matrices" may exist which are not obvious in a superficial examination of the data patterns and which provide evidence for symbolic "structuring" at different levels. Significant differences as well as similarities between these matrices across the different samples may exist which can be clearly discerned primarily through the use of representations in complex multidimensional space. The shared design feature of all these symbolic frame tasks, and their rationale, is that the individual response in "completing" the frame is its systematic "disambiguation" of an essentially "incomplete" and therefore intrinsically ambiguous figure/field/ground relationship in a manner that is acceptable to the individual.</p> <p>The usefulness of the battery is not in terms of any single set of scores derived from any its tasks, so much as it is in the overall "socio-grid" generated from the unique patterning of profiles of the concatenated scores of all the different tasks. It is felt that if this battery is fine tuned enough, it may allow for the systematic discrimination of response patterns at a number of basic levels.</p> <p>The scores are to be used as a composite of different samples. Individuals can be expected to vary substantially within different tasks, but the overall profile of the all the scores are expected to show less variation. While the battery is primarily designed for the analysis of grouped differences of response pattern, they have a secondary possibility of detailed individual analysis of response patterning as well. The battery thus allows for an number of multiple forms of analysis of the patterns of response, which may lead to a number of productive interpretations and patterns based on the derived data.</p> <p>More generally, this battery is designed to solve several problems simultaneously. First it can be considered to be a supplementary research method which can be in its finished form incorporated into the fieldwork agenda of any number of researchers. Secondly, it resolves the inherent paradox that has long plagued anthropological theory and methodology, by pointing up in a statistically significant, empirically repeatable and predictable manner. The patterns of reponse may be unique to a particular category or grouping, hence relative to that grouping, and at the same time may be shared between groups, and hence, comparision of group scores should enable an alternative form of cross-cultural analysis and research which is systematic and relatively etic in form.</p> <p>Furthermore, the design of the symbolic frame battery itself rests upon certain basic presumptions about the nature of human cognition, the symbolic structure and organization of reality, and of culture which its implementation and refinement may help to resolve and potentially validate at several levels, and which may be productive of new theoretical insights and perspectives as well.</p> <p>What follows is an analysis of three samples of the first revised form of the SFB as it was given to Chinese people, mostly from the Jetty (N = 35), a small sample of British students (N =14) and of Americans (N =14). The English sample was much more educated than the others, as it was taken from a set of university students in a Southeast Asian studies exchange program, followed by the American and then the Chinese samples, which was relatively uneducated. Though small, the samples are suggestive. They have been split into subsamples of males and females of each group. The Chinese sample was large enough to be split into four subsamples of males over and under 17 and females over and under 16. Two young girls of the American female sample skewed the curve of an otherwise adult sample, and so both sets of scores are included.</p> <p>The SFB is ordered in a sequence of 9 sets of tasks. The sequence was deliberate, for the purpose of moving from more perceptually oriented tasks through a variety of drawing, color ranking tasks, and basic item tasks, to the final set of inkblots.</p> <b><u> <p>Task Set 1: Revised Form B of the MPDT</p> </u></b> <p>The first task were the six MPDT figure-frame images given in reverse order, following "form B" or the "parallel" version of the orginal task (Fuller, 1982: 101-113). Presenting the figure-frame relations in reverse order does seem to make a substantial difference in terms of the sequence of individual scores--subjects in general tend to move from a more difficult to easier figure-frame relationships, as indicated by progressively lower scores, which is a inverse pattern from the original task.</p> <p>The figure-frame relationships were presented printed on a paper in the upper 1/3 of a paper, with the subject asked to draw directly beneath the image. Several problems of control are resolved in the orginal task involving cards, namely, maintaining alignment to a perpendicular axis of the presented image to the paper, placement and possible crowding or copying of the figures on the same field, and removing any confusion or possibility for error in the presentation of the order or direction of the cards. Results show good correlations with the original samples with the cards, and though requiring revised norms, the efficacy of this mode of administering the task warrants further work.</p> <p>Responses were scored for enlargement/reduction of the figure, for distortions and separations as well as for minor distortions, for overall direction of rotation across the six drawings, and for the raw score.</p> <p>Average reduction/enlargement score was highest for the the Chinese male sample (N=6) with an average of 106.25, followed by British female (N=5) and American male (N=5) scores of 98.33, followed by the British Male score of 87.037, and then by the Chinese adult females (N=11) with a score of 83.7, the American female's score of 83.33 (total American female score inclusive of 2 children is 75.5, while the average score of the two American children was 47.92), and then Chinese child female sample (N=12) with an average of 67.0138 and a Chinese child male sample (N=5) of 64.1667.</p> <p>In general, there is a pattern that Adult males score higher than adult females, and that adults score substantially higher than children. Chinese males scored highest, followed by American males and then English females. British females equal the American males, and scored higher than the Chinese and the American females.</p> <p>It is not known at this time was reduction/enlargement of the drawn figures in comparison to the presented image may mean, although there is the sense that the "correct" response approaches 100. American Males and British females both most closely approximated this score.British in general most closely approximate this score, followed by the Americans and then the Chinese. Anything above (Chinese males) or below this score represents a form of distortion which may be related to the loss of information between perception and final completion, to the problem of "control" and perhaps to anxiety or shyness.</p> <p>In terms of combined major distortions/separations of the figures, the English average (N=14) was lowest, .2857, compared to a Chinese average (N=34) of .647 and an American average (N=14) of .57. If we eliminate the two American girls, the average American score (N=12) is .417. Otherwise, there is no clear difference between average scores of adults and children under 17. British males scored higher than females.</p> <p>A similar pattern appears for the scores for minor distortions, with the British score of 1.643, an American score (N= 14) of 2.714 (discounting the two girls 2.542) and a Chinese score of 2.853. Chinese males with a score of 3.4 did noticeably poorer than Chinese females, with a score of 2.56. American males with an average score of 2.7 scored more poorly than American females with a score of 2.428 (with the two girls 2.72).English males with a score of 1.833 scored more poorly than English females with a score of 1.3. Children 17 and under (N =21) with a score of 3 did more poorly than adults over 17 (N =41)with an average score of 2.56.</p> <p>The significance of minor distortions is not well known, and the reliability of their scoring is less than that of the major distortions, though there is a strong correlation between these scores and certain forms of major distortion as well as raw scores. Minor distortions may be related to attention to detail (relative carelessness) in drawing, as well as to nervous anxiety.</p> <p>In terms of direction of rotation, there appears to be little overall difference in either male or female subsamples, with 109 right rotations and 95 left rotations for the women, and 67 right rotations and 69 left rotations for the men. The Chinese males (N=11) show greater left rotations (39) than right rotations, (21). English and American male subsamples individually and combined (N=14) show greater right rotations (37) than left rotations (19)--these differences appear irrespective of age. The chi square test for significance of these total left/right rotations between Chinese men and English/American men is 11.186, which is significant past the .001 level. Women of all the subsamples show similar numbers of left and right rotations.</p> <p>In terms of salience of total degrees of error in either direction, Chinese males scored a total of 101.5 degrees rotation to the right, and 142.5 degrees rotation to the left.</p> <p>American men scored 30.5 degrees rotation to the right and 26 degrees rotation to the left, while British males scored 71 degrees rotation to the right and 41.5 degrees rotation to the left. British females have total of 56.5 degrees rotation to the right and 24.5 degrees rotation to the left. American females have a total of 60.5 degrees rotation to the right and 225 degrees rotation to the left. Chinese females under 17 have a total of 120 degrees rotation to the right and 187.5 to the left. Chinese females 17 and over have a total of 112 degrees to the right and 123 to the left. It appears that English overall have more rotation error to the right over the left (127.5 right, 66 left), and Chinese have overall more rotation error to the left than to the right (333.5 right, 453 left). American have 91 right and 252 left, though this difference is largely represented by the female subsample--a distortion largely the result of inclusion of the two young females. Discounting these two females, the total is 70 right and 148.5 left. Chi square tests between British and American totals, English and Chinese and Chinese and American all reveal significant differences between the .001 level.</p> <p>These differences are represented by the following average scores:</p> <p><u>Right Left</p> </u> <p>English 9.107 4.714</p> <p>Chinese 9.808 13.323</p> <p>Americans 5.833 12.375</p> <p> </p> <p>Unadjusted average raw scores for the different subsamples are: For Chinese as a total sample, 22.817. For English as a total sample, 14.35. For Americans as a total sample (minus the two young girls) 17.05. Chinese males 17 and under, 21.7. Chinese males over 17, 22.583. Chinese females 16 and under, 25.625. Chinese females over 16, 21.36. English males, 12.5; English females, 16.2. American males, 11.3, American females (less the two young girls) 23.07 (with the two young girls, it is 31.72). Chinese males average score is 22.1415. Chinese females average score is 23.4925. These differences can largely be accounted for on the basis of educational achievement, as the American male sample is clearly the most strongly represented in the total number of years in school.</p> <p>The following represent the correlations between the different subsamples based on the distribution of raw scores per performance the six different items.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 8-1</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="515"> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Chin.M</p> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Child</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Chin.M.</p> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Adult</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Amer. Male</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Amer. Female</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">English Male</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">English Female</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">ChineseFChild</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Chin.MChild</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Chin.M.Adult</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6342</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Amer. Male</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.5604</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.551</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Amer. Female</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.03354</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.131</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.429</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Engl. Male</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.5582</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.27</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.19</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.051</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Engl.Female</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.0966</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.672</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.15</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.37</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.154</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Chin.FChild</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.47098</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.022</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.114</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.719</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.09</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Chin.FAdult</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.5424</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.774</font></td> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.299</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.33</font></td> <td WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.032</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.68</font></td> <td WIDTH="10%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.09</font></td> </tr> </table> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Item correlations between all of the subsamples reveal the following table of correlations between performance on the different items:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 8-2.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <div align="center"> <center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="364"> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">2</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">3</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">4</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">5</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">2</font></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.43659</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">3</font></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.95491</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.47</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">4</font></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.35167</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.783</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.504</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">5</font></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.5367</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.754</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.585</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.799</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">6</font></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.57435</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.58</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.755</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.819</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.808</font></td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <font FACE="Times"><b><u> <p>Task Set 2: Systematic "Testing the Limits"</p> </u></b> <p>The second set of tasks as presented involved systematic testing the limits of the MPDT responses (Fuller, 1982: 5-24) with a series of yes-no questions for each of the six images drawn to test for perception, a 12 item multiple choice tasks to test for possible problems of perceptual integration, and a 6 item tracing task to test for possible hand-eye coordination problems.</p> <p>In regard to the first perception task, questions as to the similarity of form and axis of rotation for each of the drawings was asked, and if a negative response was given on the first question, elaboration of the difference of perceived form between the drawn and presented image were sought. Of all the subsamples, only three Chinese males showed any score at all on this set of tasks. There were qualitative differences in the elaboration of response, as both British Males and Females showed much greater care and attention to the detail of the form, indicating not only good perception, but perhaps a heightened sense of critical perception that is akin to being a perfectionist. This qualitative difference was also stronger on average for the females than for the males, indicating a greater cooperativeness and patience in the performance of the task.</p> <p>The task for indicating a problem with perceptual integration of information reveals an average score of 1.4167 for Chinese females under 17 years, and an average score of 2 for Chinese females 17 years or older, an average score of 1.6 for males 17 years or below, and an average score of 1.167 for males over 17 years of age. This gives a total average score of 1.708 for Chinese females and 1.3835 for Chinese males, and a total of 1.546 for the total Chinese sample. English males have an average score of .667 and English females have an average score of .2 for the females, yielding an average score of the total English sample of .43335. American males have an average score of .5, and American females have an average score of 1.61, with a combined average of 1.056.</p> <p>The task indicating possible problems with hand-eye coordination reveal the following score distributions, all scores relating to the tracing of only the circle-diamond figures.The average score of the American male subsample was 2.7. That for the American female subsample was 1.44. The average score for the English male subsample was 1.33, and for the English female subsample it was .9. For the young Chinese male subsample it was 1.6, while for the adult Chinese male subsample it was 1. For the young Chinese female subsample it was 1.542, while for the adult Chinese subsample it was 1. The american sample clearly showed the highest overall score, with an average of 2.07, compared with an average Chinese youth score of 1.57, an average English score of 1.115 and a Chinese adult average score of 1. The significance of these kinds of differences are not clear, except that perhaps Americans are spending a little less attention or care for detail. These scores are overall low and minor--to be significant of hand-eye motor coordination problems scores would have to be at least above 3.5.</p> <p> </p> <b><u> <p>Task Set 3: The "Rotating Frame"</p> </u></b> <p>The third task was a revised version of the rotating frame task, which shows a clear bipolar pattern of response, especially for the British, and to a lesser extent, the American samples, but much more of a continuum for the Chinese sample. Interpretation and design of this task is not unproblematic, and exactly what the response patterns by individuals may indicate is not entirely clear. Revision of this task in future versions of the SFB will resolve some of these difficulties.</p> <p>For the Chinese males, 4 out of 11 had a score of 12 or less (out of a possible score of 24), with three of these scoring 3 or less, while 7 had a score above 12, with five of these scoring 22 or above.The bipolar nature of this response pattern is clear, with only three intermediate scores. The average score of the young Chinese males was 19.1, while that of the Chinese adult males was 11.667, and an average of 15.383 for the total sample. Fourteen out of 23 Chinese females scored 12 or less, of which 6 scored 3 or less, and 11 scored less than 6. Of the remaining 9 who scored more than twelve, 6 scored 22 or more. The average score of the young Chinese females was 10.5, while that for the adult Chinese females was 11.545, while the total female average was 11.02. The average score for the total Chinese sample as 13.2.</p> <p>For the English, males 4 out of 9 scored less than 12 and less than 4, while all of the remaining 5 scored 21 or above.Only one of the five English females had a score of 1, while the remainder had a score of 20 or above. The average English female score was 18, while the average of the English males was 12.667. The average score of the total English sample was 15.335.</p> <p>For the American males, 3 had a score of 1 or less, while two had a score 23 or above. The American male average was 9.6. For the American females, two out of 9 had a score of 12 or less, and only 1 had a score less than 6. Of the remaining 7, 4 had a score of 21 or above, while one had a score of 15 and two of 18. The average for the American females was 16.33. The average of the total American sample was 12.967.</p> <p>The totals of the females and male averages are compared in the table below:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 7-4</p> <p><u>Males</u> <u>Females</u> <u>Total Average</p> </u> <p>Chinese 15.383 11.02 13.2</p> <p>English 12.667 18 15.335</p> <u> <p>American 9.6 16.33 12.967</p> </u> <p>Total Average 12.55 15.1167 13.834</p> <p>Correlations of these averages on the basis of male versus female and total male/female averages reveals the following table:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 7-5</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <div align="center"> <center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="234"> <tr> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Males</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Females</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Males</font></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Females</font></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-0.704</font></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Total Aver.</font></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">0.12409</font></td> <td WIDTH="31%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">0.61735</font></td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The following table shows nearly perfect positive an negative correlations of average scores between English, American and Chinese subsamples. Though the sample sizes are too small to be genuinely significant, they remain suggestive of possible differences between the subsamples. Chi square comparing raw scores of American and Chinese males and females reveals a significant difference past the .001 level.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Table Appendix 7-6.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <div align="center"> <center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="287"> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Chinese</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">English</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">American</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Chinese</font></td> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>English</font></td> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>American</font></td> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Total. Aver</font></td> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-1</font></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <font FACE="Times"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>There is a sense that many subjects who scored highly on this task viewed the problem as an intellectual challenge of a puzzle of attempting to rotate the rod in the same way as the frame to create correct alignment with the presented figure-frame relation. Regardless of the rationalization of this task in any manner, there appeared to be consistent failure to ignore the context of the frame, or alternatively to view the rod as independent of the rotating frame.</p> <p>Scores of the degree of enlargement and reduction of the MPDT figures were correlated with the MPDT raw scores, the Rotating Frame raw scores (RF), with cumulative minor/major distortion and separation scores (Error), percetual integration scores (Per.In.) and with hand/eye coordination scores (E/H).</p> <p>MPDT-E/R. R/F-E/R Error-E/R Per.In.-E/R H/E-E/R</p> <p>En.Males -.1021 .1565 .165 .385 -.1305</p> <p>En.Females .59 .1465 .6389 -.25 -.5833</p> <p>En. Total .2045 .1533 -.0091 .1331 -.2397</p> <p>Am. Males -.3618 -.3009 .5021 -.4962 -.0591</p> <p>Am. Female -.3055 -.4216 -.604 .5175 -.4537</p> <p>Am. Total -.6786 -.5025 -.3325 .1328 0.0181</p> <p>Yo.Ch.Males -.4241 .1596 -.853 -.49 -.7159</p> <p>Ad.Ch.Males -.0097 .5158 .3288 .7572 -.6417</p> <p>Ch.Male Tot. -.0391 .1925 -.0543 -.0543 -.3437</p> <p>Yo. Ch.Fem. -.4711 -.3685 -.4357 -.555 -.5911</p> <p>Ad. Ch.Fem. .3742 -.25 -.2324 .7832 -.5196</p> <p>Ch. Fem.Tot. -.2626 -.1785 -.3087 .342 -.4795</p> <p>The following sets of correlations are of the intercorrelations of the correlations of these different dimensions:</p> </font> <div align="center"> <center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="282"> <tr> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">MPDT-E/R.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">R/F-E/R</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Error-E/R</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Per.In.-E/R</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>MPDT-E/R.</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>R/F-E/R</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.49</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Error-E/R</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.54</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.39</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Per.In.-E/R</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.3</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.14</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.02</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>H/E-E/R</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.3</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.27</font></td> <td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0</font></td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <font FACE="Times"> <p>The following table represents the correlations of these dimensions of correlation of reduction enlargement with other scores across the samples:</p> </font> <div align="center"> <center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="608"> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">En.Males</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">En.Females</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">En. Total</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Am. Males</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Am. Female</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Am. Total</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Yo.Ch.Males</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Ad.Ch.Males</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Ch.Male Tot.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Yo. Ch.Fem.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Ad. Ch.Fem.</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>En.Males</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>En.Females</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>En. Total</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.57</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Am. Males</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.36</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.5</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Am. Female</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.64</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.37</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.7</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Am. Total</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.39</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.8</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.5</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.55</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Yo.Ch.Males</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.16</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.02</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.59</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.09</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Ad.Ch.Males</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.91</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.31</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.73</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.53</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Ch.Male Tot.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.48</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.54</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.82</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.05</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.77</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.77</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Yo. Ch.Fem.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.15</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.71</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.56</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.18</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.8</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.59</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.46</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.87</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Ad. Ch.Fem.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.52</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.11</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.68</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.86</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.12</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.07</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.59</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.23</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Ch. Fem.Tot.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.85</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.56</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.93</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.39</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.23</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.81</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.36</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.85</font></td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Correlation of scores between the MPDT and the Rotating Frame task (RF), between age and the MPDT and the RF, and between education and the MPDT and the RF are represented in the following table:</p> <p>MPDT-RF Ed.-MPDT Ed.-RF. Age-RF Age-MPDT</p> <p>English Males .28 .76 .49 .58 .38</p> <p>English Females .08 ....-.33 .27 .04 -.52</p> <p>English Total .24 -.39 .44 .23 -.62</p> <p>American Males .511 -.62 -.047 -.04 -.28</p> <p>AmericanFemales .367 -.68 -.33 .001 -.45</p> <p>American Total -.35 .307 .347 .778 -.47</p> <p>Young Chin. Males -.13 -.76 -.43 -.56 -.3</p> <p>Adult Chin. Males -.63 -.8 .264 -.14 -.3</p> <p>Chin. Males total -.92 -.86 .849 .88 -.88</p> <p>Young Chin. Females -.16 .17 -.42 -.4 .17</p> <p>Adult Chin. Females .547 -.47 -.56 .78 .56</p> <p>Chin. Females Total .-.38 -.14 -.38 .356 .097</p> <p>From the table above there are noteworthy differences of pattern between the different samples. Though it can be seen that there is some agreement in certain areas, there is also some disagreement of scores. Correlations of correlations between the different relationships of scores yields the following table:</p> </font> <div align="center"> <center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="264"> <tr> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">MPDT-RF</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">ED-MPDT</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">ED-RF</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Age-RF</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>MPDT-RF</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>ED-MPDT</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.16</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>ED-RF</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.4</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Age-RF</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.1</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.26</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.46</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Age-MPDT</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.43</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.5</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.6</font></td> <td WIDTH="19%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.04</font></td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <font FACE="Times"> <p>Correlations of the correlations between the different samples yields the following composite pattern:</p> </font> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="2" WIDTH="632"> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">En.M</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">En.F</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">En.Tot.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Am. M</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Am.F</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Am.Tot.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Yo. ChinM</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Ad.ChinM</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Chin.M.Tot.</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Yo.ChinF</font></i></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><i><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="1"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">Ad.ChinF</font></i></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>En.M</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>En.F</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>En.Tot.</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.2</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN="2"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Am. M</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.8</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.62</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.66</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p>Am.F</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">-0.7</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.56</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.62</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">0.96</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Arial" SIZE="2"> <p ALIGN="RIGHT">1</font></td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="8%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH