Tying It Up
By Hugh M. Lewis
1996
You can take the girl off the Jetty but you can't take the
Jetty out of the girl.
Ethnocultural models presume that cultural reality is to some extent
"situated" within a specific social and historical context. If we
traverse cultural boundaries, we suffer culture shock. Not only are
ethnocultural groupings contextualized by a particular period and place, as an
historically rooted and socially entangled reality, but the symbolisms of
ethnoculture become "planted" inside of our heads. Cultural reality
occurs mostly on an implicit level--it is contextually defined and bound to
rules of practice. It is therefore also an unconscious process which moves us
in mysterious ways.
A number of different tasks were designed and administered upon the Jetty
with the aim of discerning significant patterns of symbolic response by these
people that are linked to perceptual recognition. The design and
intercorrelation of these tasks rests upon several related theoretical
presuppositions. In some largely unknown way and to some largely unknown
degree: 1) "culture" is planted "inside our heads," 2)
shared patterns of response across a common community are significant
indications of "culture," 3) both this "sharing" of
culture and its psychological correlates are "situated" and rooted
in the common setting and group context of the culture bearers' daily lives.
These tasks have been constructed and grouped under the influence of an
alternative theoretical framework for which these tasks are largely perceptual
gestalt-like frames in analyzing the differentiation of the perceptual field (Turney
1955; Fuller 1982; Zubin, Eron & Schumer 1965:95-166). These symbolic
frame tasks elucidate not just a random response, but patterns of response
which meet certain requirements of statistical significance. The tasks aid in
this effort in at least two ways: first they are capable of eliciting a
limited range of similar response sets between any number of people, and,
second, they are capable of eliciting a relatively wide, but not unlimited
range of variability within and between these response sets. I define these
response patterns as symbolic.
The samples of the frame tasks on the Jetty were variable in composition
and only partially overlapping. When possible, the samples were grouped during
analysis on the basis of gender, age (children younger than 18-years-old,
adults 18 and over), and Jetty versus control reference group and non-Jetty
samples. It was difficult coordinating who did what within the different
behavioral settings of the Jetty, and in part it was this difficulty which led
to the design of the symbolic frame battery (SFB) and the use of a reference
group as a means of establishing systematic control and consistency between
samples. The lack of control and consistency in the ethnographic context is
felt to have been offset by the exploratory and experimental nature of these
tasks, and the degree of achieved consistency of response pattern apparent
even with small samples, and especially evident in repeated subsamples of
similar tasks. This presentation is intended only to suggest that there may be
significant patterns of sharing and inter-sample differences (Szalay &
Deese 1978). This minimal sharing appears consistent enough between samples
and across different kinds of tasks to suggest that these frequencies may be
indicative of common symbolic and mental attitudes that are tied to cultural
and sub-cultural differences. Where possible, correlations of scores were
sought, and thus a correlational search was conducted in the effort to
identify hidden patterns of relationship in the different kinds of response
patterns elicited. This data can be interpreted in any number of ways,
depending ones theoretical primes. Discussion is confined to only the most
preliminary analysis of these results; gross averages of group scores conflate
significant individual differences and inter-task relationships. Its value is
as an analaytical (largely atheoretical) description of an implicit level of
shared patterning that is hypothetically linked to internalized cultural
orientations.
Color Tasks
In what I refer to as the 8 and 12 card tasks (Semeonoff 1976:250-257),
colored cards are laid in random order in a pyramid and half square in front
of the informant on an interview board that gives uniformity of local ground.
Informants are asked to choose their most favorite colors, the card is taken
up, and the rank order of selection recorded. This entire procedure was then
repeated, with the interviewee being told to make the second selections
independent of the order of the first.
In the 8 card sample (adult females, N=58; adult males, N=34) the most
frequent color rank order is purple, red, yellow, green, blue, gray, brown and
black, competing with juxtapositions between red and purple, yellow, green and
blue, and gray and brown.The greatest differences in responses between male
and female subjects is the frequency of red in the first and second position
for the males and the frequency of yellow and green in the second and third
positions for the females.
For the 12 card sample (adult women, N=14; adult men, N=24), black as the
last choice remains the most frequent color and purple remains the most
frequent color first choice, followed by violet, and then red and pink, green
and yellow and orange, then blue and gray and finally brown and white. For the
men, red and pink are the first and second most common choices, followed by
gray, yellow and purple, green and blue.
An ethnosemantic task was given with the same 12 cards in an effort to get
at some common color associations and values. The subjects (N=22) were asked
to identify the colored cards along dimensions of contrast that emerged from
the interviews as 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." Figure D-1 shows a cluster
analysis of the correlation of the colors across the elicited categories.
Figure D-1. Cluster analysis of the positive and negative
dimensions of color associations.
The same task also included at the end a "top-down" pile sort
with the twelve color cards. 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. Figure D-2 shows the most frequent first choice colors at
each level of the pilesort. There is surprising consistency in these pile
sorts, as well as a tendency to draw out red and yellow from purple and violet
in the first cuts.

Figure D-2. Most frequent first choices in each level and
cut of the 12 card color pile sorts.
A 12 color version of the "color pyramid test" (Semeonoff
1976:258-270; Schaie & Heiss 1964) was given in which subjects were asked
to construct sets of pretty and ugly pyramids using small pieces of color
felt. The colors of the felt were matched as closely as possible to the 12
color cards. Informants were asked to construct pretty and then ugly pyramids
from these colored squares of felt. 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. In terms of the gross frequency scores for the
occurrence of the 12 colors across the six samples, there was an
intercorrelation of -.82 between the ugly and pretty pyramids--with the
sequence of colors for pretty and ugly pyramid occurring almost in reverse
order. Highest to lowest frequency colors of the pretty pyramids were pink,
purple, yellow, red, orange, blue, white, green, violet, grey, brown and
black. Highest to lowest frequency colors of the ugly pyramids were black,
brown, grey, green, blue, white, orange, yellow red, pink, violet and pink.
Analysis of another color task may shed light on the grouping of colors. A
12 color version of the "color pyramid test" was done 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.
Twelve sets of "color-thing" rank order tasks were also given
involving color-object association with pictures of diverse groups of things
printed on paper by the use of a set of ten colored pens with which subjects
(N=21)were asked to choose one object at a time (objects covered diverse sets
of shapes, symbols, animal forms and household things) and rank it (from one
to ten) on the page.
The perfect correlations for the colors across the twelve tasks suggests
that the rank order of the colors was amazingly consistent. A low average
correlation of colors across the items in each of the tasks and of items
across the colors in each task suggests that there is only slight if any
interaction between choice of color and choice of item--leading to the
conclusion that overall there is a lack of association between colors chosen
and items chosen.
The rank order of the frequency distribution of the 12 colors of the pretty
pyramid is highly correlated with highest frequency distribution of the rank
order of the most two most preferred cards of the 12 card task, while the rank
order of the ugly pyramids is highly correlated with the two least preferred
cards. The correlation matrix of the 12 color task and of the color pyramid
task is shown in Table D-1.
Numerous frequency distributions of the ten rank order colors in the
trait-color association tasks bears out the same relationships, with the most
preferred colors becoming most highly associated with the most preferred, and
presumably the most basic, objects across a number of domains. There is a -.61
correlation between last and first frequency rank orders.
| |
ONE |
TWO |
THREE |
FOUR |
|
1. Most Preferred |
1 |
|
|
|
|
2. Pretty Pyramids |
0.6 |
1 |
|
|
|
3. Least Preferred |
-0.44 |
-0.56 |
1 |
|
|
4. Ugly Pyramids |
-0.69 |
-0.82 |
0.66 |
1 |
Table D-1. Correlations of Pyramids to Rank Order
Frequencies of Colors.
Drawing Tasks
While drawings were for the most part "kid's stuff," (most adults
strongly resisted requests to draw, and were embarrassed by drawing) 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.
Of a sample of 28 boys, the average developmental score of the Human Figure
drawings (Koppitz, 1966, 1968, 1984) was 21.2 out of a possible score of 30.
For this sample there was an average score of 1 for impulsiveness, .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.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.
Of the male sample, more than 85% drew male figures, and only 14% drew
female figures. Of the female sample, more than 90% drew female figures, and
only 10% drew male figures. The average number of clothes for the male figures
is 3.8, while the number of clothes for the females' figures is 3.28.
Another sample of drawings were derived from 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. Table D-2 shows the correlation matrix of the scores
for the family and human figure drawings of the boys and the girls.
| |
Boys' Figures |
Girls' Figures |
Boys' Families |
Girls' Families |
|
Boys' Figures |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Girls' Figures |
0.47 |
1 |
|
|
|
Boys' Families |
0.84 |
0.86 |
1 |
|
|
Girls' Families |
0.52 |
0.95 |
0.89 |
1 |
Table D-2. Correlations between Human Figure and Family
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. Predictably, there was an increase in
the average score of organic and neurological signs per figure in the
drawings, being 5.98 for the boys' sample (N=32) and 4.9 for the girls' sample
(N=16)
An adapted version of house-tree-person drawings which were done on the
same page 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 11.4 out of 28 items (40.8%) and the boys having an average absence
score of 10.5 out of 28 items (37.5%).
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 10.9, significant
above the .001 level.
The drawings were also scored for the relative position of the house, tree,
and person from left to right, from foreground to background (from bottom edge
to top) and also in terms of small to large size. The predominant pattern was
a left-to-right orientation in which the paper was cut evenly into thirds
widthwise to accommodate each thing. In terms of relative positioning and
size, there is a .1 correlation between the house and the tree, a -.77
correlation between the person and the house, and a -.61 correlation between
the tree and the person.
Three samples were constituted of drawings from different tasks. They all
yielded similar interesting and highly significant patterns of association in
which certain types of figures drawn were highly associated with the symbols
which served as their stimulus.
A number of other drawing tasks were also conducted, as well as a number of
"spontaneous samples" which emerged as natural groupings from the
children, including drawings of houses, mickey mouse faces, and persons.
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,
with 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 with successive levels of increasing background constraint. In the
first level of four sets of "open" or unconstrained drawings, every
picture was filled with full, expressive items. In subsequent levels, fewer
clear items occur, and more geometricized forms occur.
Perception
The understanding of perception in relation to symbolic framing is
critical, because we can refer to the basic "perceptual integrity of
experience" (Fuller 1982:84-5) The first levels of perception and the
final levels of cognitive processing are interlinked in a feedback loop within
which our continuity of experience becomes shaped and defined. It is this
perceptual continuity of conscious experience that enables us to utilize
symbolic framing tasks in ways that give us insight into systematic patterning
of this informational processing of the brain.
The perception tasks included a number of different kinds of tasks that
were independently devised, mostly as spin-offs ("testing the
limits" with a perceptual integration and hand-eye coordination task, a
short term memory task, a "rotating frame" task and a pattern
recognition task) of the Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Technique (or MPDT, see
Fuller, 1982).
The average raw scores of the female Jetty sample (N=13) of the adapted
version of the MPDT is 25.1. The average raw score of the male Jetty sample (N
= 15) is 46.1. The average raw score of the reference group sample (N=18) is
31.7. The average raw score of the non-Jetty sample (N = 15) is 34.
There is a difference of frequency scores of the direction of rotation of
the MPDT figures 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.
Besides the MPDT, a systematic means of "testing the limits" of
this tasks, especially in terms of perceptual integration of information, 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 from 31 subjects was collected. A paired variates
T-test with MPDT scores with a subsample of 15 sets of scores shows no
significant difference in the two subsamples at a level of .05 rejection.
There is a positive correlation of .215 between these sets of scores. This
correlation suggests that though the sample sizes are small, the task may be
measuring to some degree what it was designed for, and that is the relative
level of ability to perceptually integrate information in an increasingly
"noisy" or ambiguous field.
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 (N=17) was devised that was
parallel to the MPDT. It was designed to learn about the process of the
individual's retrieval of information from "short term" memory that
was just perceptually processed by the presentation of cards before their
removal. Two types of errors became apparent with this task. These
are in the number of reversals and rotations that occur within the figure
itself, though the overall figure is drawn correctly. Attending to the minor
details, the overall axis of orientation may be simple "left out of the
picture" or "forgotten."
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 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, diagonal, and oblique. Four
samples were collected from different designs of the tasks (N=11, N=30, N=19,
N=10). While a gradient is clear in all four samples taken, unadapted scores
of the N=30 sample, show a clear demarcation line at greater than 15. The 13
highest frequency scores for errors of this sample all reveal that the error
was made when the frame itself was rotated to the diagonal axis such that it
assumed a diamond shape. It appears on this task that this was the least
stable or most difficult orientation, especially when the rod was rotated to
the vertical or slightly oblique from the vertical axis. Also unstable were
the diagonal frame in which the rod was also pointed to the diagonal.
The patterning of the correlation matrix suggests that there are four
subgroups on the sample--low scorers below 4, low intermediate scorers from 5
to 14, high intermediate scorers from 15 to 21, and high scorers from 22 to
46. The high/low intermediate groups form a distinctive boundary between each
other, with the highest average correlation of .74 occurring with the high
intermediate groups, compared to an average of .41 for the low intermediate
group, and a .18 average correlation for both the remaining low and high
scorers.
It appears that diagonal frame or rod in relation to non-diagonal figure or
frame is more difficult for the high intermediates to guess than for the low
intermediates. The seven point spread between the two groups suggests that
these are substantial and consistent types of errors made between the two
groups, and are near perfect discriminators of the pattern.
The third task (N = 19), transitional from the third to the fourth, has a
stronger positive correlation of .36 and is noteworthy because this was
perhaps the best task, generating a clearly bipolar histogram between high and
low scores (ten below 1.75, and nine above, out of a total score of 12). The
consistency of the third task sample was quite remarkable, especially for
those who scored six, and was without exception due to the diagonal rotation
of the frame to the oblique or vertical rod. This sample bears out the
diagonal rotation of the frame as the main discriminator, as shown in Figure
D-3.

Figure D-3. Two examples of the rotating frame task showing
diagonal.
The final perception task reveals with greater detail the processes of
recognition and object identification that may be involved in modes of
perception. The pattern task 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. 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
emerge at all. Table D-3 illustrates very directly in terms of the gross
frequency scores of the entire sample the pattern of achieving the
"gestalt" The greatest tendency was to see the gestalt by the eighth
card, while the second greatest tendency was to be unable to perceive the
correct gestalt at all.

Figure D-3. Frequency of scores per sequenced item number
across total sample.
Symmetrical forms were more difficult to recognize than asymmetrical forms,
as evidenced by difference in average scores. The chi square test comparing of
scores of ten (no correct response) with scores of six or below, of the four
symmetrical figures with the four asymmetrical figures is 35, significant past
the .005 level.
Drawing analysis of the same tasks in which subjects were asked to draw
what they saw on successive pages, reveals a consistent pattern of early
disparate, geometric and prototypical forms (i.e., fish, butterflies, faces,
hearts, ribbons), the gradual emergence of a focal and
"stereotypical" form that is "cartoonish" in its
simplicity, then the sudden degradation of this entire form as attention
appears to become focused upon specific "key" details of the image,
and then either the sudden emergence of the true form in a more realistic
representation, if the correct form was found.
A test of the difference of between eight paired values of the highest peak
and the frequency score immediately preceding the peak has a critical t value
of 3, which is significant above the .02 level. There was a slight positive
correlation of scores with age of .28. This edge of recognition in difference
of values is better represented in Table D-4:

Figure D-4. "Edge" at which gestalt recognition
occurs.
Basic Things Tasks
Several different "basic things" tasks (Semeonoff 1976:231-245;
Szalay & Deese 1978) were used, involving subjects rank ordering with
pencil various pictures of objects upon a paper. Different "domains"
of objects were used in these tasks (shapes, symbols, flora and fauna,
animals, household things, miscellaneous things.) Basic shapes tasks entailed
the rank ordering from one to ten of a set of 14 basic shapes. The probability
that any single object will be chosen at random is 7.1%. There were three
samples for this task (#1, N=56, #2, N=63, #3, N=17). 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. Categories in which frequencies
were significantly lower, and especially higher, or frequencies of individual
rank orders significantly above or below 4, must be regarded as
"salient". The most frequently chosen by subjects in sample #1 were:
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 frequency 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:
1. the hexagon (18) and the circle (8) and octagon (7).
2. the circle (10) and the pyramid and octagon (7 each).
3. the square (10) and the pentagon (9).
4. the circle and the pyramid (8 each).
5. the horizontal oval(10) and the octagon (9).
6. the horizontal oval (7).
7. the parallelogram (10) and the vertical oval (9).
8. the parallelogram (9).
9. the trapezoid (8).
10. the rectangle (8) and the parallelogram (7).
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.
In all the samples which were of substantial size (N=50-100), the same
pattern emerges with remarkable consistency. These different rank order tasks
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.
"Shapes" tasks show an average correlation of .98 between
different geometric shapes. There is a positive correlation of .71 between the
rank order frequency of the ten objects from this sample and the same objects
from the #3 (N=17) sample presented above and a .84 with the same objects from
the #1 (N=56) sample.
In two samples of 9 tasks of sets of basic things, one utilizing color
(N=21) and one with pencil (N=10), almost every item that occurred most
frequently of all, also tended to be the most frequent first or second item
chosen. The frequency distributions of the two samples show an average
correlation of .75. This pattern of high correlation suggests a remarkable
consistency which is not influenced by the relative sizes of the samples and
which also suggests that underlying "structures" exist which cannot
be accounted for on the basis of chance alone. Another kind of task related to
these basic things tasks consisted of "analogical" sets of from four
to six items of similar shape and/or kind presented in a row. The informant
was asked to rank the objects, choose the three most alike, the two most
different, and the reasons for the choice. In total there were 36 sets of such
analogies, given to samples ranging from 7 to 29 subjects.
An example of the frequency distribution is the set encompassing the
crocodile, turtle, lizard, frog, fish and snake. The turtle is clearly the
most frequent first choice, followed by the turtle as the second choice and
most frequent thing. The fish is the most frequent third rank, followed by the
frog for fourth and the lizard and snake tying for fifth and the crocodile as
the most frequent last thing. The three things most alike are the crocodile,
lizard and frog, because they have the same shape and all have legs. Table D-5
shows the frequency landscape of the three most alike:

Table D-5. Three most alike of crocodile, frog, lizard,
snake, fish and turtle.
What also frequently occurs is an implicit underlying basic form, such as
triangularity, "roundness" or four-leggedness, which appears to be
critical in the distinguishing between most different and most alike. "Basicness"
also appears to influence the relative rank order, especially of the first
thing chosen--this is especially the case in the geometric shapes in which a
square or circle can be easily distinguished as more "basic" than a
pentagon or an egg shape.
Inkblot Tasks
The five inkblot 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 123 sets of tasks (Rorschach, N=25; Harrower, N=27; Harrower Color,
N=15; #1, N=30; #2, N=26). The frequencies of the relative scores for all five
samples were recorded, and correlation between the tasks is quite high, as
shown by the Table D-6:
| |
#1 |
#2 |
Rorschach |
Harrower |
Color |
|
Inkblot #1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Inkblot #2 |
0.98 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Rorschach |
0.92 |
0.97 |
1 |
|
|
|
Harrower |
0.91 |
0.96 |
0.96 |
1 |
|
|
Color Harrower |
0.82 |
0.86 |
0.81 |
0.87 |
1 |
Table D-6. Correlations between Scores of Inkblot Tasks.
Three of the five samples (#2, the Rorschach and the Harrower) were
compared for content frequencies. All three samples yielded a great variety of
content, which overlaps as much as 90%. The Rorschach had approximately 224
different items, while task #2 had approximately 350, and the Harrower about
270 items. 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 pattern of association in Table D-7.
| |
butterflies |
people |
eyes |
bats |
birds |
|
butterfly |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
people |
0.54 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
eyes |
-1 |
-0.57 |
1 |
|
|
|
bats |
0.45 |
-0.5 |
-0.42 |
1 |
|
|
birds |
-1 |
-0.5 |
1 |
-0.5 |
1 |
Table D-7. Correlations of most frequent shared items.
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. 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.
The Symbolic Frame Battery (or SFB)
The symbolic frame battery (or SFB) 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. It was also designed for the
purpose of cross-cultural research based upon etically measured differences of
response patterns between different cultural (or sub-cultural) samples, while
at the same time it may provide an objective means of measuring the relative
"distance" between samples in terms of the profile of scores (and
hence of the cultures they represent). Correlational patterning and
differences between the samples may represent structural differences between
cultural samples. 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 and
multidimensional scaling.
What follows is an analysis of three samples of the second revised form of
the SFB as it was given to Chinese people (N=35, 6 adult men, 5 boys, 12
girls, 11 adult women), mostly from the Jetty (87%), a small sample of British
students (N=14, five women and nine men) and a diverse group of Americans
(N=14, five men and nine women).
Task Set 1: Revised Form B of the MPDT
The first task were the six MPDT figure-frame images given in reverse
order, following "form B" or the "parallel" version of the
original task (Fuller, 1982:101-113). In terms of scoring of
reduction/enlargement of figures and of minor distortions, there were clear
differences between the samples. The chi square test for significance of total
left/right rotations between Chinese men and English/American men is 11.9,
which is significant past the .001 level. Women of all the subsamples show
similar numbers of left and right rotations. These differences are represented
by the following average scores in Table D-8:
|
Rotations |
English |
Chinese |
Americans |
|
Right |
9.1 |
9.8 |
5.8 |
|
Left |
4.7 |
13.3 |
12.4 |
Table D-8. Average degrees of rotations of the 3 cultural samples.
Unadjusted average raw MPDT scores for the different subsamples are:
Chinese as a total, 22.8; English as a total, 14.4; Americans as a total, 17.
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.
The task for indicating a problem with perceptual integration of
information reveals an average score of 1.4 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 1.2
for males over 17 years of age. This gives a total average score of 1.7 for
Chinese females and 1.4 for Chinese males, and a total of 1.6 for the total
Chinese sample. English males have an average score of .67 and English females
have an average score of .2 for the females, yielding an average score of the
total English sample of .43. American males have an average score of .5, and
American females have an average score of 1.6, with a combined average of 1.1.
Task Set 3: The "Rotating Frame"
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. The totals of the females and male averages are compared below
in Table D-9:
|
Rotation Scores |
Chinese |
English |
American |
Total Average |
|
Males |
15.4 |
12.7 |
9.6 |
12.6 |
|
Females |
11 |
18 |
16.3 |
15 |
|
Total Average |
13.2 |
15.3 |
13 |
13.8 |
Table D-9. Average rotating frame scores across the three
cultural samples
There is -.7 correlation between men's and women's scores. There is a
perfect negative correlation between Chinese and English, and Chinese and
American scores, and a perfect positive correlation between American and
English scores. Chi square comparing raw scores of American and Chinese males
and females reveals a significant difference past the .001 level.
Task Set 4: 8 Color Rank.
It was apparent that the adult Chinese females had the greatest consensus,
followed by the Americans and the other Chinese subsamples, while the English
had the least amount of agreement. Table D-10 shows the color preference
sequences of the three samples. There is .9 correlation of these frequency
scores of the color rank order patterns between English and Chinese samples; a
.68 correlation between American and Chinese samples; and a .65 correlation
between American and English samples.
|
8 colors |
1st. |
2nd. |
3rd. |
4th. |
5th. |
6th. |
7th. |
8th. |
|
American |
yellow |
yellow |
blue |
red |
green |
brown |
grey |
black |
|
English |
purple |
purple |
red |
blue |
red |
grey |
grey |
brown |
|
Chinese |
purple |
purple |
yellow |
blue |
green |
brown |
grey. |
black |
Table D-10. Most frequent colors in eight card rank order
task
Task Set 5: The Symbolic Profile Drawing Task
The symbolic profile (Fry 1976) consists of six small squares on the paper,
each containing a different symbol. In some of the squares the
"underlying" geometric form of the presented symbol of the square
thematically "unites" the different pictures drawn within the
square, and also provides a basic form which may take many alternate shapes--a
round dot can become grapes, marbles, suns, concentric circles, dots on the
ends of pencils, holes in walls or tables, while small squares can become
elaborated into larger rectangles--computer screens, hallways, boxes, books,
puzzles or houses. Items have been highlighted where this seems to be occuring
in the following lists, and also items have been underlined which reappear
with frequency between different samples or within the same sample.
Square 1--curved line
1. Chinese females: fish and flag 3
each; river, mouse, eye, hat 2 each; lips, cake,
candles, face, hair, tree, sea, string or thread,
caterpillar, ice cream, glass, bag with strap, shape 1 each.
2. Chinese males: worm, 3; eye and flag,
2 each; paper, brow, face, waves, 1 each.
3. English: face and pairs of eyes, 3 each; lips,
sea, sun, and sail boats, 2 each; flower, leaf, rabbit, skyline,
life-raft, squiggly line, cigarette, 1 each.
4. Americans: face 5, ocean, 4; waves,
sailing boat, 2 each; dolphin, snake, fish,
car on a road, 1 each.
Square 2--small circle
1. Chinese females: flower, 4; concentric
circles, sun, leaf, eyes, turtles, 2 each; box, hole, grapes,
nail with head, umbrella, stick, child's face, snowman, snow,
fish, marbles, hills, pencil, 1 each.
2. Chinese males: sun, face, hair, fish,
person, radio, television, flag, flower, Chinese javelin,
concentric circles, hole in wall, 1 each
3. English: stick figure 2; cat's face, snow,
cloud, spider, wheel barrow, dice, flower, # 5, straw, soccer
player, ball, pea shooter, pea, fox head, string
of pearls, smiling face, 1 each.
4. Americans: happy face 3; flower
2; Cheshire cat, snake, circle, dog, dots, reindeer,
snowman, fish, 1 each.
Square 3--diagonal line
1. Chinese females: house 4; pencil and triangle
3 each; table, 2; line, box, frog egg, ladder,
key, umbrella, rain, pot, stirrer, river, tree, ruler, kite,
kite tail, hills, tree, 1 each.
2. Chinese males: triangle 6; pencil
2; house, kite, fly, arrow and arrowhead, 1
each.
3. English: kite, kite tail, 3 each; park, swing,
slide, merry-go-round, fir tree, hill, house, sail boat,
water, flag, asterix, fish, big Ben clock, triangle, stick
figure, Javelin thrower, javelin, volcano erupting, arrow, 1
each.
4. Americans: pyramids, 3; house, arrow
2 each; puzzle, slide on playground, face, book, box, square
bisected with diagonal, road arrows, mountain with snow, chimney, 1
each.
Square 4--small square
1. Chinese females: house, 8; box
4; cup, 2; rectangle, robot, umbrella, pencil, fish, face,
square, ribbon, cat's face, ground, weeds, moon, 1 2. Chinese
males: radio, tree, pencil, book, glasses, nose, bell,
anchor, stick, helicopter, concentric squares, brick wall, 1
each.
3. English: house with chimney 4; flower 2; robot's
face, face with squares, stick figure, fruit in a
basket, leaves , step pyramid, glasses, television, car,
t hrowing dice, match stick, flower pot, shoulder pole for carrying
baskets, 1 each.
4. Americans: square inside a square, 4;
checkerboard, face, hallway windows, computer, 3; rectangles of
increasing size, wood, blocks, cube, house, chimney, Christmas
tree with presents, 1 each.
Square 5--up-turned curved line
1. Chinese females: face, 10; hair, 5; bangs,
4; tongue, cup, torso, 2 each, bowl, t-shirt, mouth, eye, flower,
sun, crescent, dress, round thing, cake, fish, 1
each.
2. Chinese males: face, 4; banana, 2; shape, can-cylinder,
head, eye, samurai armor, concentric circles, 1 each.
3. English: face, 5; eye, palm
trees, hair, 2 each; lashes, hammock, human figure, rugby ball, crescent
moon, sun, wok, stick figure, jack-o-lantern, mug, bird,
tie, 1 each.
4. American: face, 9; snail, reindeer, sun,
volcano, 1 each.
Square 6--dot
1. Chinese females: head, bangs, flower, 3 each; triangle,
arrow with point, tree, 2 each; umbrella, pyramid, stick, fish,
tadpole, flower pot, shirt, lamp, plug, apple, hill line, clock
with hour hand, star, crescent moon, grass, 1. 2. Chinese
males: ice cream cone, 2; shampoo bottle, pencil,
ribbon, arrow, bow, line dot, sea, fishhook, jet airplane, MPDT
dots, raindrops, 1 each.
3. English: dots, 7; face, 2;
sun, dress, concentric spirals, # 4, dice, ball, cat,
boat, water, mouse, tail, whiskers, MPDT dots, 1 each.
4. Americans: Snow/rain/hail, 4; circle around
dot, 2; right triangles, house, fire from dot, curving line, dog,
four legged animal, Christmas tree, dot, mouth
shape, window, blob, flower, rectangle,
1 each.
From these lists basic "symbol chains" for each subsample can be
constructed based on the most frequently occurring things across the six task
items.
Chinese females: face 13; house 12; fish and flower 6; pencil, 5;
triangle 4; flag, 3.
Chinese males: triangle 6; face 5; pencil 4; flag 3; concentric
circles, 2
English: face 13; house, boats, and suns, 5 each; eyes, 4 flower 3;
kite, 3.
Americans: face 13; animals (dogs, cats, snails, snakes, fish,
reindeer) 12; ocean 4; flowers and house, 3.
Task Set 6: Basic Things
The sixth set of tasks involves 5 different sets of basic items (geometric
shapes, basic symbolic shapes, animals, household things, flora and fauna)
which subjects were asked to select and rank from 1 to 10, and then to draw
lines connecting as many items together on the page by any criteria of
relationship of the subject.
Geometric Shapes
1. Americans: 1. horizontal oval, (21%); 2. triangle (21%);
3. square (21%); 4. square (21%); 5. none; 6. circle (21%); 7. pentagon (21%);
8. hexagon (21%); 9. parallelogram (35.7%); 10. octagon (21%).
2. English: 1. circle (35.7%); 2. none; 3. square, vertical
oval and circle, (21% each); 4. hexagon and square (21% each); 5. none; 6.
octagon and hexagon, (28.6% each); 7. none; 8. triangle (21%); 9. triangle
(21%); 10. parallelogram (21%).
3. Chinese males: 1. hexagon (36.4%); 2. circle and
horizontal oval, (27%); 3. none; 4. triangle (27%); 5. pentagon (27%); 6 none;
7. none; 8. none; 9. none; 10. vertical rectangle (27%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. octagon, hexagon, and circle
(27% each); 2. none; 3. none; 4. small rectangle (27%); 5. triangle (27%); 6.
triangle (27%); 7. hexagon (36%); 8. none; 10. square (27%).
5. Young Chinese females: 1. hexagon (41.67%) and circle
(33.3%); 2. hexagon (25%); 3. octagon (25%); 4. none; 5. upside down triangle
(33.3%); 6. none; 7. none; 8. horizontal oval (25%); 9. none; 10. none.
Basic Symbols
1. Americas: 1. sun (35.7%); 2. 5 pt. star, (42.9%);3.
Christmas tree (28.6%); 4. crescent moon (35.7%); 5. heart (21%); 6. Greek
Cross (21%); 7. none; 8 none; 9 none; 10, none.
2. English: 1. sun (71.4%); 2. 5 pt. star (25.7%); 3. swirl
(21%); 4. none; 5. 8 pt. star (21%); 6. 8 pt. star and heart (28.6% each); 7.
crescent (28.6%); 8. equal sign. (21%); 9. none, 10. 8 pt. start, (28.6%)
3. Chinese males: 1. 5 pt. star and sun, (36.4% each); 2. 5
pt. star (27%); 3. sun (27%); 4. none; 5. 8 pt. star (45.45%); 6. arrow and
heart, (27% each); 7. none; 8. none; 9. none; 10; gold symbol (27%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. sun (36.4%); 2. 5 pt. star
(36.4%); 3. none; 4. 8 pt. star (27%); 5. none; 6. swastika (36.4%); 7.
diamond; (27%); 8. none; 9; none; 10. MAS logo, (27%)
5. Young Chinese females: 1. none; 2. sun (41.7%); 3. 5 pt.
star (33.3%); 4. none; 5. crescent (25%); 6. none; 7. crescent (25%); 8. none;
9. none; 10; none.
Animals
1. Americans: 1. horse and dog (21% each); 2. dog (21%); 3.
turtle (28.6%); 4. none; 5. alligator and dog (21% each); 6. bird (42.9%) and
cow (21%); 7. none; 8. shark (28.6%); 9. pig (21%); 10. none.
2. English: 1. gecko (28.6%); 2. elephant (21%); 3. dog and
elephant (21% each); 4. cow (28.6%) and turtle (21%); 5. crab (28.6%); 6.
turtle and monitor (21% each); 7. cow (28.6%) and fish (31%); 8. rooster,
(21%); 9. gecko (21%); 10. none.
3. Chinese males: 1. horse and turtle (27% each); 2. crab
(36.36%) and cow (27%); 3. none; 4. none; 5 none; 6. elephant (36.36%); 7.
fish and rooster (27% each); 8. none; 9. mouse (27%); 10. none.
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. horse (27%); 2. fish (27%); 3.
none; 4. cow (27%); 5. rooster (27%); 6. bird (27%); 7. none; 8. shark (27%);
9. none. 10. monitor (27%)
5. Young Chinese females: 1. horse (41.67%) and dog (25%); 2.
none; 3. turtle and elephant (25% each); 4. none; 5. none; 6. none; 7; none;
8. fish and cow (25% each); 9. shark and mouse (33.33% each); 10. snake (25%).
Household things
1. Americans: 1. chair, sunglasses, globe, bicycle, and
knife, (14.28% each); 2. sunglasses (14.28%); 3. key (21%), valentine
(14.28%); 4. stapler, (14.28%); 5. tennis shoe, alarm clock (14.28% each); 6.
robot, skeleton key (14.28% each) and globe (21%); 7. tennis shoe and box
(14.28%); 8. sunglasses and calendar (14.28% each); 9. ribbon (14.28%); 10.
tennis shoes and book (14.28% each).
2. English: 1. bicycle (42.86%) and sunglasses (14.28%); 2.
globe (21%); Swiss army knife and bicycle (14.28% each); 3. globe (21%), Swiss
army knife and tennis shoe (14.28% each); 4. valentine, bird cage and coffee
cup (14.28%); 5. globe (21%); Swiss army knife and key (14.28%); 6. stamp,
open box and chair (14.28%); 7. clock, fountain pen and tennis shoe (14.28%);
8. tennis shoe (21%); skeleton key, television and open box (14.28%); 9.
fountain pen and book (14.28%); 10. chair, stamp and book (14.28% each).
3. Chinese males: 1. sunglasses (27%) bicycle and Swiss army
knife (18%); 2. ennis shoe, bicycle and book (18% each); 3. pot (18%); 4.
tennis shoe, closed box and open box (18% each). 5. sunglasses (18%); 6. globe
(27%) and bird cage (18%); 7. bicycle and key (18% each); 8. spanner wrench
and bird cage (18% each); 9. none; 10. valentine (27%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. television (27%) and ribbon
(18%); 2. bicycle (27%) tennis shoe, and globe (18% each); 3. tennis shoe,
globe and Swiss army knife (18% each); 4. none; 5. bicycle (18%); 6. globe and
valentine (18% each); 7. sunglasses (27%) and ribbon (18%); 8. chair,
sunglasses, ribbon and television (18% each); 9. clock (18%); 10. stamp (27%)
and skeleton key (18%).
5. Young Chinese females: 1. bicycle (50%),valentine and
closed box(16.67%); 2. none. 3. bicycle (16.67%); 4. sunglasses, television
and skeleton key (16.67%); 5. spanner wrench and key (16.67%); 6. none; 7.
ribbon and Swiss army knife (16.67%); 8. globe and book (16.67%); 9. stamp
(16.67) and 10. stapler (25%), stamp and sunglasses (16.67%)
Flora and Fauna
1. Americans: 1. dog (21%) and tyrannosaurus and pine tree
(14.28% each); 2. bird (21%), archaeopteryx and palm tree (14.28% each); 3.
pine tree and dragon fly (14.28% each); 4. dog (14.28% ); 5. spider and
coconut palm (14.28%); 6. magnolia tree, horse, and frog (14.28% each); 7.
clam shell and starfish (14.28% each); 8. none; 9. horse (14.28%);
2. English: 1. sea turtle (21%) and fish (14.28%); 2.
starfish and clamshell (14.28%); 3. palm tree and saguaro cactus (14.28%); 4.
saguaro cactus and starfish (14.28%); 5. lizard and dragon fly (14.28% each);
6. mushroom and sea turtle (14.28% each); 7. fish and sea turtle (14.28%); 8.
magnolia, mushroom, and coconut palm (14.28%); 9. snail (14.28%); 10. crab and
pterodactyl (14.28%). The beetle, flower, cactus, acorn, oak leaf, seaweed,
peel bug, ant, spider, grasshopper, shark, tuna fish, dinosaur, trilobite,
alligator were things not chosen at all. Items salient in any rank include the
coconut palm (6.36%), the pine tree and the horse (6 each) followed by the
starfish, magnolia and clam shell (5 each).
3. Chinese males: 1. tyrannosaurus and horse (18%); 2. fish
(27%) and clam shell (18%); 3. shark (18%); 4. sea turtle (18%); 5. frog,
snake and sea turtle (18%); 6. horse and fish (18%); 7. bird (18%); 8. none;
9. none; 10. clam shell (18%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. pine tree (27%) and coconut palm
(18%); 2. magnolia (18%); 3. magnolia (18%); 4. coconut palm (27%) and
pterodactyl (18%); 5. mushroom and horse (18% each); 6. none; 7. none; 8.
none; 9. dog and clamshell (18% each); 10. horse, starfish and dragon fly (18%
each).
5. Young Chinese females: 1. tyrannosaurus (25%); 2. dog,
horse and dragon fly (16.67% each); 3. pine tree (16.67%); 4. bird and dragon
fly (16.67%); 5. none; 6. bird (25%) and tuna (16.67%); 7. dog and frog
(16.67%); 8. clam shell (16.67%); 9. none; 10. tyrannosaurus (16.67%).
There are clear, consistent individual differences in patterning of the
linkages, individual consistencies which are carried over from one task to the
next, as well as different overall tendencies for the different samples to
link things together in fundamentally different ways. Differences in
frequencies of linkages, things linked, and ratios of linkages to things
linked have been calculated for the different groups. British have more
average linkages than the American or the Chinese, and a higher average ratio
of linkages to things linked, than either the Chinese of the Americans. Also
the pattern of what kinds of things are linked to others varies considerably
between different samples, and shows some significant consistencies within
samples.
A similar pattern exists for the average number of things connected between
the different samples, except that the Americans (12.4) are higher on average
than the British (11.6) and both are higher than the Chinese total average
(8.4). English males have the highest average (13.2), followed by American
Females (12.5).
Task Set 7: The 12 Color Rank.
The seventh task involves a 12 color rank order. Though similar in form to
the 8 color task, it should not be considered the same--it is more complex and
leads to a wider variation of choice. Composite scores of the Chinese, English
and American subsamples are summarized by Table D-11. There is a .7
correlation between American and English scores and between English and
Chinese scores, and a .5 correlation between American and Chinese scores.
| |
1st. |
2nd. |
3rd. |
4th. |
5th. |
6th. |
7th. |
8th. |
9th. |
10th. |
11th. |
12th. |
|
Amer. |
yellow |
green |
blue |
pink |
orng. |
blue |
blue |
green |
red |
grey |
grey |
black |
|
Engl. |
purple |
blue |
yellow |
violet |
red |
orng. |
green |
pink |
grey |
grey |
brown |
black |
|
Chin. |
purple |
purple |
yellow |
orng. |
orng. |
red |
blue |
green |
brown |
brown |
grey |
black |
Table D-11. Most frequent colors of the 12 ranks order task.
Task Set 8: Second drawing task.
The seventh task involves three symbolic images (Semeonoff 1976:194-5) on
which the subject draws. Responses are similar to the symbolic profile with
some of the same basic qualitative differences between the samples, except
that there is a greater frequency of sharing of basic shapes, and of greater
thematic unity within and between the drawings.
Square 1.
1. Chinese females: t-shirts and triangles, 5; crescent moon,
balloon, house, square, shape, bowl, bow, tree, lamp, 2 each.
2. Chinese males: rectangles 4; tree and flowers, 2 each.
3. English: sail boats and trees, 3 each; cup, water, land,
stick figures, crescent moon, 2 each.
4. Americans: rectangles, 5; faces, 3, sailboats, water,
square, valentine, sun, pine tree, 2 each.
Square 2
1. Chinese females: rectangles 19; house, 6; "L" 4;
square 3; gift, box, circles, face, ribbons, 2 each.
2. Chinese males: rectangles 8; ladder-steps, candle, 2 each.
3. English: rectangles 5; aliens 5; house 4; rectangular
boxes and "domino men", 3; clock, 2.
4. Americans: rectangles 10; human figures 5; square faces
and rectangular buildings 3 each; road and steps, 2 each.
Square 3
1. Chinese females: fish, 20; ocean/water, 5; flag, 4; snake
and birds, 3; road, flower, eye and triangle, 2 each.
2. Chinese males: fish, 10; waves, 3; cloud, skyline, snakes,
2 each.
3. English: ocean/water, seagulls, faces, 4 each; waves, sun,
sail boat, hill line, 2. 4. Americans: water/ocean and faces, 6
each; sun and birds, 4 each.
Task Set 9: Inkblots
The final task consists of six inkblots which subjects are asked to outline
and detail anything that they may see in them. Form scores are the best
overall indicator of performance and clear perception of "gestalt"
in the inkblots. Table D-12 presents the average relative form scores for the
different subsamples:
|
Form Scores |
1st. |
2nd. |
3rd. |
4th. |
5th. |
6th. |
total |
aver. |
|
Total English |
31.7 |
23.5 |
24 |
22.9 |
31.4 |
23.6 |
157.1 |
26.2 |
|
Total Americans |
29.9 |
23.5 |
24.7 |
15.6 |
23.7 |
23.4 |
140.8 |
23.5 |
|
Total Chinese |
18.9 |
16.7 |
17.5 |
13.1 |
14.8 |
13.2 |
94.2 |
15.7 |
Table D-12. Average Form Scores across the 3 samples.
It is evident by these relative scores that in terms of relative form
American males score highest, followed by British females, British Males,
American females, Chinese males and then Chinese females. Other total averages
of relative scores of the inkblots are presented in Table D-13:
| |
W. |
Wd. |
D. |
dd. |
c. |
K. |
M. |
S. |
|
Total English |
2.35 |
3.4 |
17.1 |
4.2 |
1.15 |
3.2 |
1.6 |
4.8 |
|
Total Americans |
1.2 |
4.8 |
14 |
2 |
0.38 |
1.45 |
1.44 |
2.65 |
|
Total Chinese |
13 |
2.85 |
10.04 |
4.33 |
1.023 |
1.37 |
1.36 |
1.05 |
Table D-13. Average relative psycho grid scores of the three
samples.
Finally gross content scores are presented in Table D-14 and include
average number of the following response types (Semeonoff 1976: 52-101, Levitt
1980): whole human (H), human part (Hd) and human object (Ho), whole animal
(A); animal part (Ad); animal object (Ao); whole plant (P); plant part (Pd);
plant object (Po); Object (O); Abstract-type (Abs); Shape (Sh.) and Pathonomic
(Path.):
| |
H |
Hd |
Ho |
A |
Ad |
Ao |
P |
Pd |
Po |
O |
Abs |
Sh |
Path |
Net |
|
Total English |
2.7 |
6.6 |
1.8 |
7 |
3.8 |
0.5 |
2.7 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
6.8 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
3.3 |
37 |
|
Total Americans |
1.9 |
4 |
1.4 |
7.5 |
5.9 |
0.2 |
1.9 |
0.6 |
1.2 |
3.4 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
29 |
|
Total Chinese |
1.8 |
2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
2 |
0.6 |
1 |
0.4 |
1 |
2.3 |
0.2 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
14 |
Table D-14. Average content scores across the three samples.
CONCLUSIONS
The small sizes of the cross-cultural samples compromises the statistical
significance of their differences. But consistent differences appear to occur
not only on a cultural level, but also in terms of age and sex. There were
important differences in a number of empirical measures, defined by age and
sex, between Jetty and non-Jetty samples, and, cross-culturally, between the
English, Americans and Chinese (which sample was 86% from the Jetty). The
average MPDT scores of the Jetty men and women were much higher than the
non-Jetty Chinese, and the parallel form of this task on the Symbolic Frame
Battery shows that average Chinese MPDT scores were substantially higher than
either English or American samples. Other error and rotation scores of this
task also produced similiar kinds of differences, as well as the task for
perceptual integration. The rotating frame task shows the average scores of
the Chinese slightly higher than those for the American and English samples.
The American and English samples show much more of a bi-modal distribution,
while the Chinese sample shows a clearer gradient. The Chinese samples of the
rotating frame tasks from the Jetty all point to a similar kind of gradient,
with the diagonal axis in relation to the diamond frame being the primary
discriminator. Similar kinds of differences occur in the linkage scores of the
basic things tasks, as well as in all the relative average measures of the
inkblots.
In order to understand the implications of these consistent differences
between the samples, we may refer to gestalt theories of the symbolic
differentiation of the phenomenal field (Turney 1955; Werner 1957; Mortensen
1991). In general, increasing background noise or ambiguity tends to obstruct
or delay the ability of people to form clear, well defined
"gestalts" which are in a critical sense "true to form."
There is a difference between individuals and between samples in the average
ability to form early or complete gestalt recognition under conditions of
increasing background noise. There is a differential of reliance upon
preconceived, stereotypical information drawn from the memory and, as well,
upon contextual information derived from the background for cues as to the
gestalt recognition which, if exaggerated, especially under ambiguous
circumstances, may interfere (and in the long run, incapacitate) the
individual's ability to achieve gestalt recognition which is independent of
such information (recognition of the "thing in itself" so to speak).
This kind of difference is consistent across different kinds of tasks, and may
be linked to two aspects of human difference: 1) the development and adaptive
organization of personality configurations, 2) the cultural context and
social-environmental background in which these configurations of personality
may be developed and situated (Whiting and Whiting 1975).
I refer to this pattern of recognition as basically symbolic, and the
differences between individuals and samples reflect differences of symbolic
organization of cultural psychological functioning. Symbolic framing appears
empirically to function at several levels. Symbolization occurs continuously
both in the analytical differentiation of the phenomenal field, and in the
subsequent reintegration of this field. Symbols thus appear to mediate complex
boundaries in complex ways.
It has long been accepted that symbols are somehow important in
understanding how culture works and influences our ways of thinking, but
precise linkages or mechanisms between the outer world of symbols and the
inner world of meanings have not been clearly established. The empirical
demonstration of such a linkage was implicitly suggested a number of times in
the frequency patterning of the responses in the data presented, but nowhere
explicitly stated. To put it concisely, our minds are somehow organized to
function symbolically as "pattern recognition" devices which bounce
the myriad inputs of rudimentary percepts around in our heads to construct
progressively higher organized mental patterns. In this we can see a basic
"isomorphism" of symbolic structure, patterning and content between
the inner world of the subconscious psyche and the external world of the lived
cultural context. The linkage between the inner cognitive model of the world
and the culturally organized environment are the "gestalt" patterns
of the symbolic framing mechanism.
At the individual level of psycho-cultural functioning there is a sense in
which the external context of informational perception provides a relative
level of organization or structure or order which is never complete or static.
Gaps of information frequently occur at numerous levels in the perceptual and
symbolic processing of such information which it is the facility and
adaptability of the human mind to compensate for by filling in with what it
"interprets" implicitly as relevant information drawn from its own
memory and symbolic material. The mind may try to repair the holes to
reconstruct gestalts with information which may become increasingly irrelevant
and out of synchrony with the original patterning.
There is a great deal of cultural consonance and consistency of shared
values in the communities of the Jetty. The Chinese there have elaborated a
locally situated version of a wider familial model of order which has been
extended symbolically, principally through their religion, to incorporate
larger relations with the social, natural and supernatural worlds. The mother
with a cane in one hand and a candy in the other is performing a similar role
as the community shaman-turned-baby God who in a state of semi-trance gives
candy to the children while cracking his whip with the other hand. The Gods
which protect from harm and bless the Jetty Chinese with good fortune in the
lotteries or in gambling, can also punish and chastise them for going against
the established way and values of the community.
In this we can refer to basic field dependency theory and the differences
between articulated and "global" personality structures, in which
the articulated personality is relatively differentiated (individually) from
the surrounding nexus of perceptual relations. "To characterize a system
as more differentiated implies, first of all, segregation of self from nonself"
(Witkin and Goodenough 1981:19-20; Werner and Kaplan 1963). Developmental
differentiation depends upon the effective environment, and involves separate
identification and sense of autonomy, an articulated concept of the body as
having definite limits and of integrated but different parts, the availability
of structures for controlling impulse, and use of specific defenses such as
intellectualization, projection and isolation, "rather than relatively
nonspecific defenses such as repression and denial." Such differentiation
is associated with neuro-physiological specialization of brain function.
APPENDIX D
SYMBOLIC FRAMING
You can take the girl off the Jetty but you can't take the
Jetty out of the girl.
Ethnocultural models presume that cultural reality is to some extent
"situated" within a specific social and historical context. If we
traverse cultural boundaries, we suffer culture shock. Not only are
ethnocultural groupings contextualized by a particular period and place, as an
historically rooted and socially entangled reality, but the symbolisms of
ethnoculture become "planted" inside of our heads. Cultural reality
occurs mostly on an implicit level--it is contextually defined and bound to
rules of practice. It is therefore also an unconscious process which moves us
in mysterious ways.
A number of different tasks were designed and administered upon the Jetty
with the aim of discerning significant patterns of symbolic response by these
people that are linked to perceptual recognition. The design and
intercorrelation of these tasks rests upon several related theoretical
presuppositions. In some largely unknown way and to some largely unknown
degree: 1) "culture" is planted "inside our heads," 2)
shared patterns of response across a common community are significant
indications of "culture," 3) both this "sharing" of
culture and its psychological correlates are "situated" and rooted
in the common setting and group context of the culture bearers' daily lives.
These tasks have been constructed and grouped under the influence of an
alternative theoretical framework for which these tasks are largely perceptual
gestalt-like frames in analyzing the differentiation of the perceptual field (Turney
1955; Fuller 1982; Zubin, Eron & Schumer 1965:95-166). These symbolic
frame tasks elucidate not just a random response, but patterns of response
which meet certain requirements of statistical significance. The tasks aid in
this effort in at least two ways: first they are capable of eliciting a
limited range of similar response sets between any number of people, and,
second, they are capable of eliciting a relatively wide, but not unlimited
range of variability within and between these response sets. I define these
response patterns as symbolic.
The samples of the frame tasks on the Jetty were variable in composition
and only partially overlapping. When possible, the samples were grouped during
analysis on the basis of gender, age (children younger than 18-years-old,
adults 18 and over), and Jetty versus control reference group and non-Jetty
samples. It was difficult coordinating who did what within the different
behavioral settings of the Jetty, and in part it was this difficulty which led
to the design of the symbolic frame battery (SFB) and the use of a reference
group as a means of establishing systematic control and consistency between
samples. The lack of control and consistency in the ethnographic context is
felt to have been offset by the exploratory and experimental nature of these
tasks, and the degree of achieved consistency of response pattern apparent
even with small samples, and especially evident in repeated subsamples of
similar tasks. This presentation is intended only to suggest that there may be
significant patterns of sharing and inter-sample differences (Szalay &
Deese 1978). This minimal sharing appears consistent enough between samples
and across different kinds of tasks to suggest that these frequencies may be
indicative of common symbolic and mental attitudes that are tied to cultural
and sub-cultural differences. Where possible, correlations of scores were
sought, and thus a correlational search was conducted in the effort to
identify hidden patterns of relationship in the different kinds of response
patterns elicited. This data can be interpreted in any number of ways,
depending ones theoretical primes. Discussion is confined to only the most
preliminary analysis of these results; gross averages of group scores conflate
significant individual differences and inter-task relationships. Its value is
as an analaytical (largely atheoretical) description of an implicit level of
shared patterning that is hypothetically linked to internalized cultural
orientations.
Color Tasks
In what I refer to as the 8 and 12 card tasks (Semeonoff 1976:250-257),
colored cards are laid in random order in a pyramid and half square in front
of the informant on an interview board that gives uniformity of local ground.
Informants are asked to choose their most favorite colors, the card is taken
up, and the rank order of selection recorded. This entire procedure was then
repeated, with the interviewee being told to make the second selections
independent of the order of the first.
In the 8 card sample (adult females, N=58; adult males, N=34) the most
frequent color rank order is purple, red, yellow, green, blue, gray, brown and
black, competing with juxtapositions between red and purple, yellow, green and
blue, and gray and brown.The greatest differences in responses between male
and female subjects is the frequency of red in the first and second position
for the males and the frequency of yellow and green in the second and third
positions for the females.
For the 12 card sample (adult women, N=14; adult men, N=24), black as the
last choice remains the most frequent color and purple remains the most
frequent color first choice, followed by violet, and then red and pink, green
and yellow and orange, then blue and gray and finally brown and white. For the
men, red and pink are the first and second most common choices, followed by
gray, yellow and purple, green and blue.
An ethnosemantic task was given with the same 12 cards in an effort to get
at some common color associations and values. The subjects (N=22) were asked
to identify the colored cards along dimensions of contrast that emerged from
the interviews as 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." Figure D-1 shows a cluster
analysis of the correlation of the colors across the elicited categories.
Figure D-1. Cluster analysis of the positive and negative
dimensions of color associations.
The same task also included at the end a "top-down" pile sort
with the twelve color cards. 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. Figure D-2 shows the most frequent first choice colors at
each level of the pilesort. There is surprising consistency in these pile
sorts, as well as a tendency to draw out red and yellow from purple and violet
in the first cuts.

Figure D-2. Most frequent first choices in each level and
cut of the 12 card color pile sorts.
A 12 color version of the "color pyramid test" (Semeonoff
1976:258-270; Schaie & Heiss 1964) was given in which subjects were asked
to construct sets of pretty and ugly pyramids using small pieces of color
felt. The colors of the felt were matched as closely as possible to the 12
color cards. Informants were asked to construct pretty and then ugly pyramids
from these colored squares of felt. 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. In terms of the gross frequency scores for the
occurrence of the 12 colors across the six samples, there was an
intercorrelation of -.82 between the ugly and pretty pyramids--with the
sequence of colors for pretty and ugly pyramid occurring almost in reverse
order. Highest to lowest frequency colors of the pretty pyramids were pink,
purple, yellow, red, orange, blue, white, green, violet, grey, brown and
black. Highest to lowest frequency colors of the ugly pyramids were black,
brown, grey, green, blue, white, orange, yellow red, pink, violet and pink.
Analysis of another color task may shed light on the grouping of colors. A
12 color version of the "color pyramid test" was done 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.
Twelve sets of "color-thing" rank order tasks were also given
involving color-object association with pictures of diverse groups of things
printed on paper by the use of a set of ten colored pens with which subjects
(N=21)were asked to choose one object at a time (objects covered diverse sets
of shapes, symbols, animal forms and household things) and rank it (from one
to ten) on the page.
The perfect correlations for the colors across the twelve tasks suggests
that the rank order of the colors was amazingly consistent. A low average
correlation of colors across the items in each of the tasks and of items
across the colors in each task suggests that there is only slight if any
interaction between choice of color and choice of item--leading to the
conclusion that overall there is a lack of association between colors chosen
and items chosen.
The rank order of the frequency distribution of the 12 colors of the pretty
pyramid is highly correlated with highest frequency distribution of the rank
order of the most two most preferred cards of the 12 card task, while the rank
order of the ugly pyramids is highly correlated with the two least preferred
cards. The correlation matrix of the 12 color task and of the color pyramid
task is shown in Table D-1.
Numerous frequency distributions of the ten rank order colors in the
trait-color association tasks bears out the same relationships, with the most
preferred colors becoming most highly associated with the most preferred, and
presumably the most basic, objects across a number of domains. There is a -.61
correlation between last and first frequency rank orders.
| |
ONE |
TWO |
THREE |
FOUR |
|
1. Most Preferred |
1 |
|
|
|
|
2. Pretty Pyramids |
0.6 |
1 |
|
|
|
3. Least Preferred |
-0.44 |
-0.56 |
1 |
|
|
4. Ugly Pyramids |
-0.69 |
-0.82 |
0.66 |
1 |
Table D-1. Correlations of Pyramids to Rank Order
Frequencies of Colors.
Drawing Tasks
While drawings were for the most part "kid's stuff," (most adults
strongly resisted requests to draw, and were embarrassed by drawing) 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.
Of a sample of 28 boys, the average developmental score of the Human Figure
drawings (Koppitz, 1966, 1968, 1984) was 21.2 out of a possible score of 30.
For this sample there was an average score of 1 for impulsiveness, .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.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.
Of the male sample, more than 85% drew male figures, and only 14% drew
female figures. Of the female sample, more than 90% drew female figures, and
only 10% drew male figures. The average number of clothes for the male figures
is 3.8, while the number of clothes for the females' figures is 3.28.
Another sample of drawings were derived from 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. Table D-2 shows the correlation matrix of the scores
for the family and human figure drawings of the boys and the girls.
| |
Boys' Figures |
Girls' Figures |
Boys' Families |
Girls' Families |
|
Boys' Figures |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Girls' Figures |
0.47 |
1 |
|
|
|
Boys' Families |
0.84 |
0.86 |
1 |
|
|
Girls' Families |
0.52 |
0.95 |
0.89 |
1 |
Table D-2. Correlations between Human Figure and Family
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. Predictably, there was an increase in
the average score of organic and neurological signs per figure in the
drawings, being 5.98 for the boys' sample (N=32) and 4.9 for the girls' sample
(N=16)
An adapted version of house-tree-person drawings which were done on the
same page 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 11.4 out of 28 items (40.8%) and the boys having an average absence
score of 10.5 out of 28 items (37.5%).
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 10.9, significant
above the .001 level.
The drawings were also scored for the relative position of the house, tree,
and person from left to right, from foreground to background (from bottom edge
to top) and also in terms of small to large size. The predominant pattern was
a left-to-right orientation in which the paper was cut evenly into thirds
widthwise to accommodate each thing. In terms of relative positioning and
size, there is a .1 correlation between the house and the tree, a -.77
correlation between the person and the house, and a -.61 correlation between
the tree and the person.
Three samples were constituted of drawings from different tasks. They all
yielded similar interesting and highly significant patterns of association in
which certain types of figures drawn were highly associated with the symbols
which served as their stimulus.
A number of other drawing tasks were also conducted, as well as a number of
"spontaneous samples" which emerged as natural groupings from the
children, including drawings of houses, mickey mouse faces, and persons.
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,
with 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 with successive levels of increasing background constraint. In the
first level of four sets of "open" or unconstrained drawings, every
picture was filled with full, expressive items. In subsequent levels, fewer
clear items occur, and more geometricized forms occur.
Perception
The understanding of perception in relation to symbolic framing is
critical, because we can refer to the basic "perceptual integrity of
experience" (Fuller 1982:84-5) The first levels of perception and the
final levels of cognitive processing are interlinked in a feedback loop within
which our continuity of experience becomes shaped and defined. It is this
perceptual continuity of conscious experience that enables us to utilize
symbolic framing tasks in ways that give us insight into systematic patterning
of this informational processing of the brain.
The perception tasks included a number of different kinds of tasks that
were independently devised, mostly as spin-offs ("testing the
limits" with a perceptual integration and hand-eye coordination task, a
short term memory task, a "rotating frame" task and a pattern
recognition task) of the Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Technique (or MPDT, see
Fuller, 1982).
The average raw scores of the female Jetty sample (N=13) of the adapted
version of the MPDT is 25.1. The average raw score of the male Jetty sample (N
= 15) is 46.1. The average raw score of the reference group sample (N=18) is
31.7. The average raw score of the non-Jetty sample (N = 15) is 34.
There is a difference of frequency scores of the direction of rotation of
the MPDT figures 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.
Besides the MPDT, a systematic means of "testing the limits" of
this tasks, especially in terms of perceptual integration of information, 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 from 31 subjects was collected. A paired variates
T-test with MPDT scores with a subsample of 15 sets of scores shows no
significant difference in the two subsamples at a level of .05 rejection.
There is a positive correlation of .215 between these sets of scores. This
correlation suggests that though the sample sizes are small, the task may be
measuring to some degree what it was designed for, and that is the relative
level of ability to perceptually integrate information in an increasingly
"noisy" or ambiguous field.
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 (N=17) was devised that was
parallel to the MPDT. It was designed to learn about the process of the
individual's retrieval of information from "short term" memory that
was just perceptually processed by the presentation of cards before their
removal. Two types of errors became apparent with this task. These are in the
number of reversals and rotations that occur within the figure itself, though
the overall figure is drawn correctly. Attending to the minor details, the
overall axis of orientation may be simple "left out of the picture"
or "forgotten."
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 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, diagonal, and oblique. Four
samples were collected from different designs of the tasks (N=11, N=30, N=19,
N=10). While a gradient is clear in all four samples taken, unadapted scores
of the N=30 sample, show a clear demarcation line at greater than 15. The 13
highest frequency scores for errors of this sample all reveal that the error
was made when the frame itself was rotated to the diagonal axis such that it
assumed a diamond shape. It appears on this task that this was the least
stable or most difficult orientation, especially when the rod was rotated to
the vertical or slightly oblique from the vertical axis. Also unstable were
the diagonal frame in which the rod was also pointed to the diagonal.
The patterning of the correlation matrix suggests that there are four
subgroups on the sample--low scorers below 4, low intermediate scorers from 5
to 14, high intermediate scorers from 15 to 21, and high scorers from 22 to
46. The high/low intermediate groups form a distinctive boundary between each
other, with the highest average correlation of .74 occurring with the high
intermediate groups, compared to an average of .41 for the low intermediate
group, and a .18 average correlation for both the remaining low and high
scorers.
It appears that diagonal frame or rod in relation to non-diagonal figure or
frame is more difficult for the high intermediates to guess than for the low
intermediates. The seven point spread between the two groups suggests that
these are substantial and consistent types of errors made between the two
groups, and are near perfect discriminators of the pattern.
The third task (N = 19), transitional from the third to the fourth, has a
stronger positive correlation of .36 and is noteworthy because this was
perhaps the best task, generating a clearly bipolar histogram between high and
low scores (ten below 1.75, and nine above, out of a total score of 12). The
consistency of the third task sample was quite remarkable, especially for
those who scored six, and was without exception due to the diagonal rotation
of the frame to the oblique or vertical rod. This sample bears out the
diagonal rotation of the frame as the main discriminator, as shown in Figure
D-3.

Figure D-3. Two examples of the rotating frame task showing
diagonal.
The final perception task reveals with greater detail the processes of
recognition and object identification that may be involved in modes of
perception. The pattern task 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. 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
emerge at all. Table D-3 illustrates very directly in terms of the gross
frequency scores of the entire sample the pattern of achieving the
"gestalt" The greatest tendency was to see the gestalt by the eighth
card, while the second greatest tendency was to be unable to perceive the
correct gestalt at all.

Figure D-3. Frequency of scores per sequenced item number
across total sample.
Symmetrical forms were more difficult to recognize than asymmetrical forms,
as evidenced by difference in average scores. The chi square test comparing of
scores of ten (no correct response) with scores of six or below, of the four
symmetrical figures with the four asymmetrical figures is 35, significant past
the .005 level.
Drawing analysis of the same tasks in which subjects were asked to draw
what they saw on successive pages, reveals a consistent pattern of early
disparate, geometric and prototypical forms (i.e., fish, butterflies, faces,
hearts, ribbons), the gradual emergence of a focal and
"stereotypical" form that is "cartoonish" in its
simplicity, then the sudden degradation of this entire form as attention
appears to become focused upon specific "key" details of the image,
and then either the sudden emergence of the true form in a more realistic
representation, if the correct form was found.
A test of the difference of between eight paired values of the highest peak
and the frequency score immediately preceding the peak has a critical t value
of 3, which is significant above the .02 level. There was a slight positive
correlation of scores with age of .28. This edge of recognition in difference
of values is better represented in Table D-4:

Figure D-4. "Edge" at which gestalt recognition
occurs.
Basic Things Tasks
Several different "basic things" tasks (Semeonoff 1976:231-245;
Szalay & Deese 1978) were used, involving subjects rank ordering with
pencil various pictures of objects upon a paper. Different "domains"
of objects were used in these tasks (shapes, symbols, flora and fauna,
animals, household things, miscellaneous things.) Basic shapes tasks entailed
the rank ordering from one to ten of a set of 14 basic shapes. The probability
that any single object will be chosen at random is 7.1%. There were three
samples for this task (#1, N=56, #2, N=63, #3, N=17). 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. Categories in which frequencies
were significantly lower, and especially higher, or frequencies of individual
rank orders significantly above or below 4, must be regarded as
"salient". The most frequently chosen by subjects in sample #1 were:
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 frequency 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:
1. the hexagon (18) and the circle (8) and octagon (7).
2. the circle (10) and the pyramid and octagon (7 each).
3. the square (10) and the pentagon (9).
4. the circle and the pyramid (8 each).
5. the horizontal oval(10) and the octagon (9).
6. the horizontal oval (7).
7. the parallelogram (10) and the vertical oval (9).
8. the parallelogram (9).
9. the trapezoid (8).
10. the rectangle (8) and the parallelogram (7).
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.
In all the samples which were of substantial size (N=50-100), the same
pattern emerges with remarkable consistency. These different rank order tasks
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.
"Shapes" tasks show an average correlation of .98 between
different geometric shapes. There is a positive correlation of .71 between the
rank order frequency of the ten objects from this sample and the same objects
from the #3 (N=17) sample presented above and a .84 with the same objects from
the #1 (N=56) sample.
In two samples of 9 tasks of sets of basic things, one utilizing color
(N=21) and one with pencil (N=10), almost every item that occurred most
frequently of all, also tended to be the most frequent first or second item
chosen. The frequency distributions of the two samples show an average
correlation of .75. This pattern of high correlation suggests a remarkable
consistency which is not influenced by the relative sizes of the samples and
which also suggests that underlying "structures" exist which cannot
be accounted for on the basis of chance alone. Another kind of task related to
these basic things tasks consisted of "analogical" sets of from four
to six items of similar shape and/or kind presented in a row. The informant
was asked to rank the objects, choose the three most alike, the two most
different, and the reasons for the choice. In total there were 36 sets of such
analogies, given to samples ranging from 7 to 29 subjects.
An example of the frequency distribution is the set encompassing the
crocodile, turtle, lizard, frog, fish and snake. The turtle is clearly the
most frequent first choice, followed by the turtle as the second choice and
most frequent thing. The fish is the most frequent third rank, followed by the
frog for fourth and the lizard and snake tying for fifth and the crocodile as
the most frequent last thing. The three things most alike are the crocodile,
lizard and frog, because they have the same shape and all have legs. Table D-5
shows the frequency landscape of the three most alike:

Table D-5. Three most alike of crocodile, frog, lizard,
snake, fish and turtle.
What also frequently occurs is an implicit underlying basic form, such as
triangularity, "roundness" or four-leggedness, which appears to be
critical in the distinguishing between most different and most alike. "Basicness"
also appears to influence the relative rank order, especially of the first
thing chosen--this is especially the case in the geometric shapes in which a
square or circle can be easily distinguished as more "basic" than a
pentagon or an egg shape.
Inkblot Tasks
The five inkblot 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 123 sets of tasks (Rorschach, N=25; Harrower, N=27; Harrower Color,
N=15; #1, N=30; #2, N=26). The frequencies of the relative scores for all five
samples were recorded, and correlation between the tasks is quite high, as
shown by the Table D-6:
| |
#1 |
#2 |
Rorschach |
Harrower |
Color |
|
Inkblot #1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Inkblot #2 |
0.98 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Rorschach |
0.92 |
0.97 |
1 |
|
|
|
Harrower |
0.91 |
0.96 |
0.96 |
1 |
|
|
Color Harrower |
0.82 |
0.86 |
0.81 |
0.87 |
1 |
Table D-6. Correlations between Scores of Inkblot Tasks.
Three of the five samples (#2, the Rorschach and the Harrower) were
compared for content frequencies. All three samples yielded a great variety of
content, which overlaps as much as 90%. The Rorschach had approximately 224
different items, while task #2 had approximately 350, and the Harrower about
270 items. 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 pattern of association in Table D-7.
| |
butterflies |
people |
eyes |
bats |
birds |
|
butterfly |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
people |
0.54 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
eyes |
-1 |
-0.57 |
1 |
|
|
|
bats |
0.45 |
-0.5 |
-0.42 |
1 |
|
|
birds |
-1 |
-0.5 |
1 |
-0.5 |
1 |
Table D-7. Correlations of most frequent shared items.
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. 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.
The Symbolic Frame Battery (or SFB)
The symbolic frame battery (or SFB) 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. It was also designed for the
purpose of cross-cultural research based upon etically measured differences of
response patterns between different cultural (or sub-cultural) samples, while
at the same time it may provide an objective means of measuring the relative
"distance" between samples in terms of the profile of scores (and
hence of the cultures they represent). Correlational patterning and
differences between the samples may represent structural differences between
cultural samples. 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 and
multidimensional scaling.
What follows is an analysis of three samples of the second revised form of
the SFB as it was given to Chinese people (N=35, 6 adult men, 5 boys, 12
girls, 11 adult women), mostly from the Jetty (87%), a small sample of British
students (N=14, five women and nine men) and a diverse group of Americans
(N=14, five men and nine women).
Task Set 1: Revised Form B of the MPDT
The first task were the six MPDT figure-frame images given in reverse
order, following "form B" or the "parallel" version of the
original task (Fuller, 1982:101-113). In terms of scoring of
reduction/enlargement of figures and of minor distortions, there were clear
differences between the samples. The chi square test for significance of total
left/right rotations between Chinese men and English/American men is 11.9,
which is significant past the .001 level. Women of all the subsamples show
similar numbers of left and right rotations. These differences are represented
by the following average scores in Table D-8:
|
Rotations |
English |
Chinese |
Americans |
|
Right |
9.1 |
9.8 |
5.8 |
|
Left |
4.7 |
13.3 |
12.4 |
Table D-8. Average degrees of rotations of the 3 cultural samples.
Unadjusted average raw MPDT scores for the different subsamples are:
Chinese as a total, 22.8; English as a total, 14.4; Americans as a total, 17.
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.
The task for indicating a problem with perceptual integration of
information reveals an average score of 1.4 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 1.2
for males over 17 years of age. This gives a total average score of 1.7 for
Chinese females and 1.4 for Chinese males, and a total of 1.6 for the total
Chinese sample. English males have an average score of .67 and English females
have an average score of .2 for the females, yielding an average score of the
total English sample of .43. American males have an average score of .5, and
American females have an average score of 1.6, with a combined average of 1.1.
Task Set 3: The "Rotating Frame"
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. The totals of the females and male averages are compared below
in Table D-9:
|
Rotation Scores |
Chinese |
English |
American |
Total Average |
|
Males |
15.4 |
12.7 |
9.6 |
12.6 |
|
Females |
11 |
18 |
16.3 |
15 |
|
Total Average |
13.2 |
15.3 |
13 |
13.8 |
Table D-9. Average rotating frame scores across the three
cultural samples
There is -.7 correlation between men's and women's scores. There is a
perfect negative correlation between Chinese and English, and Chinese and
American scores, and a perfect positive correlation between American and
English scores. Chi square comparing raw scores of American and Chinese males
and females reveals a significant difference past the .001 level.
Task Set 4: 8 Color Rank.
It was apparent that the adult Chinese females had the greatest consensus,
followed by the Americans and the other Chinese subsamples, while the English
had the least amount of agreement. Table D-10 shows the color preference
sequences of the three samples. There is .9 correlation of these frequency
scores of the color rank order patterns between English and Chinese samples; a
.68 correlation between American and Chinese samples; and a .65 correlation
between American and English samples.
|
8 colors |
1st. |
2nd. |
3rd. |
4th. |
5th. |
6th. |
7th. |
8th. |
|
American |
yellow |
yellow |
blue |
red |
green |
brown |
grey |
black |
|
English |
purple |
purple |
red |
blue |
red |
grey |
grey |
brown |
|
Chinese |
purple |
purple |
yellow |
blue |
green |
brown |
grey. |
black |
Table D-10. Most frequent colors in eight card rank order
task
Task Set 5: The Symbolic Profile Drawing Task
The symbolic profile (Fry 1976) consists of six small squares on the paper,
each containing a different symbol. In some of the squares the
"underlying" geometric form of the presented symbol of the square
thematically "unites" the different pictures drawn within the
square, and also provides a basic form which may take many alternate shapes--a
round dot can become grapes, marbles, suns, concentric circles, dots on the
ends of pencils, holes in walls or tables, while small squares can become
elaborated into larger rectangles--computer screens, hallways, boxes, books,
puzzles or houses. Items have been highlighted where this seems to be occuring
in the following lists, and also items have been underlined which reappear
with frequency between different samples or within the same sample.
Square 1--curved line
1. Chinese females: fish and flag 3
each; river, mouse, eye, hat 2 each; lips, cake,
candles, face, hair, tree, sea, string or thread,
caterpillar, ice cream, glass, bag with strap, shape 1 each.
2. Chinese males: worm, 3; eye and flag,
2 each; paper, brow, face, waves, 1 each.
3. English: face and pairs of eyes, 3 each; lips,
sea, sun, and sail boats, 2 each; flower, leaf, rabbit, skyline,
life-raft, squiggly line, cigarette, 1 each.
4. Americans: face 5, ocean, 4; waves,
sailing boat, 2 each; dolphin, snake, fish,
car on a road, 1 each.
Square 2--small circle
1. Chinese females: flower, 4; concentric
circles, sun, leaf, eyes, turtles, 2 each; box, hole, grapes,
nail with head, umbrella, stick, child's face, snowman, snow,
fish, marbles, hills, pencil, 1 each.
2. Chinese males: sun, face, hair, fish,
person, radio, television, flag, flower, Chinese javelin,
concentric circles, hole in wall, 1 each
3. English: stick figure 2; cat's face, snow,
cloud, spider, wheel barrow, dice, flower, # 5, straw, soccer
player, ball, pea shooter, pea, fox head, string
of pearls, smiling face, 1 each.
4. Americans: happy face 3; flower
2; Cheshire cat, snake, circle, dog, dots, reindeer,
snowman, fish, 1 each.
Square 3--diagonal line
1. Chinese females: house 4; pencil and triangle
3 each; table, 2; line, box, frog egg, ladder,
key, umbrella, rain, pot, stirrer, river, tree, ruler, kite,
kite tail, hills, tree, 1 each.
2. Chinese males: triangle 6; pencil
2; house, kite, fly, arrow and arrowhead, 1
each.
3. English: kite, kite tail, 3 each; park, swing,
slide, merry-go-round, fir tree, hill, house, sail boat,
water, flag, asterix, fish, big Ben clock, triangle, stick
figure, Javelin thrower, javelin, volcano erupting, arrow, 1
each.
4. Americans: pyramids, 3; house, arrow
2 each; puzzle, slide on playground, face, book, box, square
bisected with diagonal, road arrows, mountain with snow, chimney, 1
each.
Square 4--small square
1. Chinese females: house, 8; box
4; cup, 2; rectangle, robot, umbrella, pencil, fish, face,
square, ribbon, cat's face, ground, weeds, moon, 1 2. Chinese
males: radio, tree, pencil, book, glasses, nose, bell,
anchor, stick, helicopter, concentric squares, brick wall, 1
each.
3. English: house with chimney 4; flower 2; robot's
face, face with squares, stick figure, fruit in a
basket, leaves , step pyramid, glasses, television, car,
t hrowing dice, match stick, flower pot, shoulder pole for carrying
baskets, 1 each.
4. Americans: square inside a square, 4;
checkerboard, face, hallway windows, computer, 3; rectangles of
increasing size, wood, blocks, cube, house, chimney, Christmas
tree with presents, 1 each.
Square 5--up-turned curved line
1. Chinese females: face, 10; hair, 5; bangs,
4; tongue, cup, torso, 2 each, bowl, t-shirt, mouth, eye, flower,
sun, crescent, dress, round thing, cake, fish, 1
each.
2. Chinese males: face, 4; banana, 2; shape, can-cylinder,
head, eye, samurai armor, concentric circles, 1 each.
3. English: face, 5; eye, palm
trees, hair, 2 each; lashes, hammock, human figure, rugby ball, crescent
moon, sun, wok, stick figure, jack-o-lantern, mug, bird,
tie, 1 each.
4. American: face, 9; snail, reindeer, sun,
volcano, 1 each.
Square 6--dot
1. Chinese females: head, bangs, flower, 3 each; triangle,
arrow with point, tree, 2 each; umbrella, pyramid, stick, fish,
tadpole, flower pot, shirt, lamp, plug, apple, hill line, clock
with hour hand, star, crescent moon, grass, 1. 2. Chinese
males: ice cream cone, 2; shampoo bottle, pencil,
ribbon, arrow, bow, line dot, sea, fishhook, jet airplane, MPDT
dots, raindrops, 1 each.
3. English: dots, 7; face, 2;
sun, dress, concentric spirals, # 4, dice, ball, cat,
boat, water, mouse, tail, whiskers, MPDT dots, 1 each.
4. Americans: Snow/rain/hail, 4; circle around
dot, 2; right triangles, house, fire from dot, curving line, dog,
four legged animal, Christmas tree, dot, mouth
shape, window, blob, flower, rectangle,
1 each.
From these lists basic "symbol chains" for each subsample can be
constructed based on the most frequently occurring things across the six task
items.
Chinese females: face 13; house 12; fish and flower 6; pencil, 5;
triangle 4; flag, 3.
Chinese males: triangle 6; face 5; pencil 4; flag 3; concentric
circles, 2
English: face 13; house, boats, and suns, 5 each; eyes, 4 flower 3;
kite, 3.
Americans: face 13; animals (dogs, cats, snails, snakes, fish,
reindeer) 12; ocean 4; flowers and house, 3.
Task Set 6: Basic Things
The sixth set of tasks involves 5 different sets of basic items (geometric
shapes, basic symbolic shapes, animals, household things, flora and fauna)
which subjects were asked to select and rank from 1 to 10, and then to draw
lines connecting as many items together on the page by any criteria of
relationship of the subject.
Geometric Shapes
1. Americans: 1. horizontal oval, (21%); 2. triangle (21%);
3. square (21%); 4. square (21%); 5. none; 6. circle (21%); 7. pentagon (21%);
8. hexagon (21%); 9. parallelogram (35.7%); 10. octagon (21%).
2. English: 1. circle (35.7%); 2. none; 3. square, vertical
oval and circle, (21% each); 4. hexagon and square (21% each); 5. none; 6.
octagon and hexagon, (28.6% each); 7. none; 8. triangle (21%); 9. triangle
(21%); 10. parallelogram (21%).
3. Chinese males: 1. hexagon (36.4%); 2. circle and
horizontal oval, (27%); 3. none; 4. triangle (27%); 5. pentagon (27%); 6 none;
7. none; 8. none; 9. none; 10. vertical rectangle (27%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. octagon, hexagon, and circle
(27% each); 2. none; 3. none; 4. small rectangle (27%); 5. triangle (27%); 6.
triangle (27%); 7. hexagon (36%); 8. none; 10. square (27%).
5. Young Chinese females: 1. hexagon (41.67%) and circle
(33.3%); 2. hexagon (25%); 3. octagon (25%); 4. none; 5. upside down triangle
(33.3%); 6. none; 7. none; 8. horizontal oval (25%); 9. none; 10. none.
Basic Symbols
1. Americas: 1. sun (35.7%); 2. 5 pt. star, (42.9%);3.
Christmas tree (28.6%); 4. crescent moon (35.7%); 5. heart (21%); 6. Greek
Cross (21%); 7. none; 8 none; 9 none; 10, none.
2. English: 1. sun (71.4%); 2. 5 pt. star (25.7%); 3. swirl
(21%); 4. none; 5. 8 pt. star (21%); 6. 8 pt. star and heart (28.6% each); 7.
crescent (28.6%); 8. equal sign. (21%); 9. none, 10. 8 pt. start, (28.6%)
3. Chinese males: 1. 5 pt. star and sun, (36.4% each); 2. 5
pt. star (27%); 3. sun (27%); 4. none; 5. 8 pt. star (45.45%); 6. arrow and
heart, (27% each); 7. none; 8. none; 9. none; 10; gold symbol (27%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. sun (36.4%); 2. 5 pt. star
(36.4%); 3. none; 4. 8 pt. star (27%); 5. none; 6. swastika (36.4%); 7.
diamond; (27%); 8. none; 9; none; 10. MAS logo, (27%)
5. Young Chinese females: 1. none; 2. sun (41.7%); 3. 5 pt.
star (33.3%); 4. none; 5. crescent (25%); 6. none; 7. crescent (25%); 8. none;
9. none; 10; none.
Animals
1. Americans: 1. horse and dog (21% each); 2. dog (21%); 3.
turtle (28.6%); 4. none; 5. alligator and dog (21% each); 6. bird (42.9%) and
cow (21%); 7. none; 8. shark (28.6%); 9. pig (21%); 10. none.
2. English: 1. gecko (28.6%); 2. elephant (21%); 3. dog and
elephant (21% each); 4. cow (28.6%) and turtle (21%); 5. crab (28.6%); 6.
turtle and monitor (21% each); 7. cow (28.6%) and fish (31%); 8. rooster,
(21%); 9. gecko (21%); 10. none.
3. Chinese males: 1. horse and turtle (27% each); 2. crab
(36.36%) and cow (27%); 3. none; 4. none; 5 none; 6. elephant (36.36%); 7.
fish and rooster (27% each); 8. none; 9. mouse (27%); 10. none.
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. horse (27%); 2. fish (27%); 3.
none; 4. cow (27%); 5. rooster (27%); 6. bird (27%); 7. none; 8. shark (27%);
9. none. 10. monitor (27%)
5. Young Chinese females: 1. horse (41.67%) and dog (25%); 2.
none; 3. turtle and elephant (25% each); 4. none; 5. none; 6. none; 7; none;
8. fish and cow (25% each); 9. shark and mouse (33.33% each); 10. snake (25%).
Household things
1. Americans: 1. chair, sunglasses, globe, bicycle, and
knife, (14.28% each); 2. sunglasses (14.28%); 3. key (21%), valentine
(14.28%); 4. stapler, (14.28%); 5. tennis shoe, alarm clock (14.28% each); 6.
robot, skeleton key (14.28% each) and globe (21%); 7. tennis shoe and box
(14.28%); 8. sunglasses and calendar (14.28% each); 9. ribbon (14.28%); 10.
tennis shoes and book (14.28% each).
2. English: 1. bicycle (42.86%) and sunglasses (14.28%); 2.
globe (21%); Swiss army knife and bicycle (14.28% each); 3. globe (21%), Swiss
army knife and tennis shoe (14.28% each); 4. valentine, bird cage and coffee
cup (14.28%); 5. globe (21%); Swiss army knife and key (14.28%); 6. stamp,
open box and chair (14.28%); 7. clock, fountain pen and tennis shoe (14.28%);
8. tennis shoe (21%); skeleton key, television and open box (14.28%); 9.
fountain pen and book (14.28%); 10. chair, stamp and book (14.28% each).
3. Chinese males: 1. sunglasses (27%) bicycle and Swiss army
knife (18%); 2. ennis shoe, bicycle and book (18% each); 3. pot (18%); 4.
tennis shoe, closed box and open box (18% each). 5. sunglasses (18%); 6. globe
(27%) and bird cage (18%); 7. bicycle and key (18% each); 8. spanner wrench
and bird cage (18% each); 9. none; 10. valentine (27%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. television (27%) and ribbon
(18%); 2. bicycle (27%) tennis shoe, and globe (18% each); 3. tennis shoe,
globe and Swiss army knife (18% each); 4. none; 5. bicycle (18%); 6. globe and
valentine (18% each); 7. sunglasses (27%) and ribbon (18%); 8. chair,
sunglasses, ribbon and television (18% each); 9. clock (18%); 10. stamp (27%)
and skeleton key (18%).
5. Young Chinese females: 1. bicycle (50%),valentine and
closed box(16.67%); 2. none. 3. bicycle (16.67%); 4. sunglasses, television
and skeleton key (16.67%); 5. spanner wrench and key (16.67%); 6. none; 7.
ribbon and Swiss army knife (16.67%); 8. globe and book (16.67%); 9. stamp
(16.67) and 10. stapler (25%), stamp and sunglasses (16.67%)
Flora and Fauna
1. Americans: 1. dog (21%) and tyrannosaurus and pine tree
(14.28% each); 2. bird (21%), archaeopteryx and palm tree (14.28% each); 3.
pine tree and dragon fly (14.28% each); 4. dog (14.28% ); 5. spider and
coconut palm (14.28%); 6. magnolia tree, horse, and frog (14.28% each); 7.
clam shell and starfish (14.28% each); 8. none; 9. horse (14.28%);
2. English: 1. sea turtle (21%) and fish (14.28%); 2.
starfish and clamshell (14.28%); 3. palm tree and saguaro cactus (14.28%); 4.
saguaro cactus and starfish (14.28%); 5. lizard and dragon fly (14.28% each);
6. mushroom and sea turtle (14.28% each); 7. fish and sea turtle (14.28%); 8.
magnolia, mushroom, and coconut palm (14.28%); 9. snail (14.28%); 10. crab and
pterodactyl (14.28%). The beetle, flower, cactus, acorn, oak leaf, seaweed,
peel bug, ant, spider, grasshopper, shark, tuna fish, dinosaur, trilobite,
alligator were things not chosen at all. Items salient in any rank include the
coconut palm (6.36%), the pine tree and the horse (6 each) followed by the
starfish, magnolia and clam shell (5 each).
3. Chinese males: 1. tyrannosaurus and horse (18%); 2. fish
(27%) and clam shell (18%); 3. shark (18%); 4. sea turtle (18%); 5. frog,
snake and sea turtle (18%); 6. horse and fish (18%); 7. bird (18%); 8. none;
9. none; 10. clam shell (18%).
4. Adult Chinese females: 1. pine tree (27%) and coconut palm
(18%); 2. magnolia (18%); 3. magnolia (18%); 4. coconut palm (27%) and
pterodactyl (18%); 5. mushroom and horse (18% each); 6. none; 7. none; 8.
none; 9. dog and clamshell (18% each); 10. horse, starfish and dragon fly (18%
each).
5. Young Chinese females: 1. tyrannosaurus (25%); 2. dog,
horse and dragon fly (16.67% each); 3. pine tree (16.67%); 4. bird and dragon
fly (16.67%); 5. none; 6. bird (25%) and tuna (16.67%); 7. dog and frog
(16.67%); 8. clam shell (16.67%); 9. none; 10. tyrannosaurus (16.67%).
There are clear, consistent individual differences in patterning of the
linkages, individual consistencies which are carried over from one task to the
next, as well as different overall tendencies for the different samples to
link things together in fundamentally different ways. Differences in
frequencies of linkages, things linked, and ratios of linkages to things
linked have been calculated for the different groups. British have more
average linkages than the American or the Chinese, and a higher average ratio
of linkages to things linked, than either the Chinese of the Americans. Also
the pattern of what kinds of things are linked to others varies considerably
between different samples, and shows some significant consistencies within
samples.
A similar pattern exists for the average number of things connected between
the different samples, except that the Americans (12.4) are higher on average
than the British (11.6) and both are higher than the Chinese total average
(8.4). English males have the highest average (13.2), followed by American
Females (12.5).
Task Set 7: The 12 Color Rank.
The seventh task involves a 12 color rank order. Though similar in form to
the 8 color task, it should not be considered the same--it is more complex and
leads to a wider variation of choice. Composite scores of the Chinese, English
and American subsamples are summarized by Table D-11. There is a .7
correlation between American and English scores and between English and
Chinese scores, and a .5 correlation between American and Chinese scores.
| |
1st. |
2nd. |
3rd. |
4th. |
5th. |
6th. |
7th. |
8th. |
9th. |
10th. |
11th. |
12th. |
|
Amer. |
yellow |
green |
blue |
pink |
orng. |
blue |
blue |
green |
red |
grey |
grey |
black |
|
Engl. |
purple |
blue |
yellow |
violet |
red |
orng. |
green |
pink |
grey |
grey |
brown |
black |
|
Chin. |
purple |
purple |
yellow |
orng. |
orng. |
red |
blue |
green |
brown |
brown |
grey |
black |
Table D-11. Most frequent colors of the 12 ranks order task.
Task Set 8: Second drawing task.
The seventh task involves three symbolic images (Semeonoff 1976:194-5) on
which the subject draws. Responses are similar to the symbolic profile with
some of the same basic qualitative differences between the samples, except
that there is a greater frequency of sharing of basic shapes, and of greater
thematic unity within and between the drawings.
Square 1.
1. Chinese females: t-shirts and triangles, 5; crescent moon,
balloon, house, square, shape, bowl, bow, tree, lamp, 2 each.
2. Chinese males: rectangles 4; tree and flowers, 2 each.
3. English: sail boats and trees, 3 each; cup, water, land,
stick figures, crescent moon, 2 each.
4. Americans: rectangles, 5; faces, 3, sailboats, water,
square, valentine, sun, pine tree, 2 each.
Square 2
1. Chinese females: rectangles 19; house, 6; "L" 4;
square 3; gift, box, circles, face, ribbons, 2 each.
2. Chinese males: rectangles 8; ladder-steps, candle, 2 each.
3. English: rectangles 5; aliens 5; house 4; rectangular
boxes and "domino men", 3; clock, 2.
4. Americans: rectangles 10; human figures 5; square faces
and rectangular buildings 3 each; road and steps, 2 each.
Square 3
1. Chinese females: fish, 20; ocean/water, 5; flag, 4; snake
and birds, 3; road, flower, eye and triangle, 2 each.
2. Chinese males: fish, 10; waves, 3; cloud, skyline, snakes,
2 each.
3. English: ocean/water, seagulls, faces, 4 each; waves, sun,
sail boat, hill line, 2. 4. Americans: water/ocean and faces, 6
each; sun and birds, 4 each.
Task Set 9: Inkblots
The final task consists of six inkblots which subjects are asked to outline
and detail anything that they may see in them. Form scores are the best
overall indicator of performance and clear perception of "gestalt"
in the inkblots. Table D-12 presents the average relative form scores for the
different subsamples:
|
Form Scores |
1st. |
2nd. |
3rd. |
4th. |
5th. |
6th. |
total |
aver. |
|
Total English |
31.7 |
23.5 |
24 |
22.9 |
31.4 |
23.6 |
157.1 |
26.2 |
|
Total Americans |
29.9 |
23.5 |
24.7 |
15.6 |
23.7 |
23.4 |
140.8 |
23.5 |
|
Total Chinese |
18.9 |
16.7 |
17.5 |
13.1 |
14.8 |
13.2 |
94.2 |
15.7 |
Table D-12. Average Form Scores across the 3 samples.
It is evident by these relative scores that in terms of relative form
American males score highest, followed by British females, British Males,
American females, Chinese males and then Chinese females. Other total averages
of relative scores of the inkblots are presented in Table D-13:
| |
W. |
Wd. |
D. |
dd. |
c. |
K. |
M. |
S. |
|
Total English |
2.35 |
3.4 |
17.1 |
4.2 |
1.15 |
3.2 |
1.6 |
4.8 |
|
Total Americans |
1.2 |
4.8 |
14 |
2 |
0.38 |
1.45 |
1.44 |
2.65 |
|
Total Chinese |
13 |
2.85 |
10.04 |
4.33 |
1.023 |
1.37 |
1.36 |
1.05 |
Table D-13. Average relative psycho grid scores of the three
samples.
Finally gross content scores are presented in Table D-14 and include
average number of the following response types (Semeonoff 1976: 52-101, Levitt
1980): whole human (H), human part (Hd) and human object (Ho), whole animal
(A); animal part (Ad); animal object (Ao); whole plant (P); plant part (Pd);
plant object (Po); Object (O); Abstract-type (Abs); Shape (Sh.) and Pathonomic
(Path.):
| |
H |
Hd |
Ho |
A |
Ad |
Ao |
P |
Pd |
Po |
O |
Abs |
Sh |
Path |
Net |
|
Total English |
2.7 |
6.6 |
1.8 |
7 |
3.8 |
0.5 |
2.7 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
6.8 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
3.3 |
37 |
|
Total Americans |
1.9 |
4 |
1.4 |
7.5 |
5.9 |
0.2 |
1.9 |
0.6 |
1.2 |
3.4 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
29 |
|
Total Chinese |
1.8 |
2 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
2 |
0.6 |
1 |
0.4 |
1 |
2.3 |
0.2 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
14 |
Table D-14. Average content scores across the three samples.
CONCLUSIONS
The small sizes of the cross-cultural samples compromises the statistical
significance of their differences. But consistent differences appear to occur
not only on a cultural level, but also in terms of age and sex. There were
important differences in a number of empirical measures, defined by age and
sex, between Jetty and non-Jetty samples, and, cross-culturally, between the
English, Americans and Chinese (which sample was 86% from the Jetty). The
average MPDT scores of the Jetty men and women were much higher than the
non-Jetty Chinese, and the parallel form of this task on the Symbolic Frame
Battery shows that average Chinese MPDT scores were substantially higher than
either English or American samples. Other error and rotation scores of this
task also produced similiar kinds of differences, as well as the task for
perceptual integration. The rotating frame task shows the average scores of
the Chinese slightly higher than those for the American and English samples.
The American and English samples show much more of a bi-modal distribution,
while the Chinese sample shows a clearer gradient. The Chinese samples of the
rotating frame tasks from the Jetty all point to a similar kind of gradient,
with the diagonal axis in relation to the diamond frame being the primary
discriminator. Similar kinds of differences occur in the linkage scores of the
basic things tasks, as well as in all the relative average measures of the
inkblots.
In order to understand the implications of these consistent differences
between the samples, we may refer to gestalt theories of the symbolic
differentiation of the phenomenal field (Turney 1955; Werner 1957; Mortensen
1991). In general, increasing background noise or ambiguity tends to obstruct
or delay the ability of people to form clear, well defined
"gestalts" which are in a critical sense "true to form."
There is a difference between individuals and between samples in the average
ability to form early or complete gestalt recognition under conditions of
increasing background noise. There is a differential of reliance upon
preconceived, stereotypical information drawn from the memory and, as well,
upon contextual information derived from the background for cues as to the
gestalt recognition which, if exaggerated, especially under ambiguous
circumstances, may interfere (and in the long run, incapacitate) the
individual's ability to achieve gestalt recognition which is independent of
such information (recognition of the "thing in itself" so to speak).
This kind of difference is consistent across different kinds of tasks, and may
be linked to two aspects of human difference: 1) the development and adaptive
organization of personality configurations, 2) the cultural context and
social-environmental background in which these configurations of personality
may be developed and situated (Whiting and Whiting 1975).
I refer to this pattern of recognition as basically symbolic, and the
differences between individuals and samples reflect differences of symbolic
organization of cultural psychological functioning. Symbolic framing appears
empirically to function at several levels. Symbolization occurs continuously
both in the analytical differentiation of the phenomenal field, and in the
subsequent reintegration of this field. Symbols thus appear to mediate complex
boundaries in complex ways.
It has long been accepted that symbols are somehow important in
understanding how culture works and influences our ways of thinking, but
precise linkages or mechanisms between the outer world of symbols and the
inner world of meanings have not been clearly established. The empirical
demonstration of such a linkage was implicitly suggested a number of times in
the frequency patterning of the responses in the data presented, but nowhere
explicitly stated. To put it concisely, our minds are somehow organized to
function symbolically as "pattern recognition" devices which bounce
the myriad inputs of rudimentary percepts around in our heads to construct
progressively higher organized mental patterns. In this we can see a basic
"isomorphism" of symbolic structure, patterning and content between
the inner world of the subconscious psyche and the external world of the lived
cultural context. The linkage between the inner cognitive model of the world
and the culturally organized environment are the "gestalt" patterns
of the symbolic framing mechanism.
At the individual level of psycho-cultural functioning there is a sense in
which the external context of informational perception provides a relative
level of organization or structure or order which is never complete or static.
Gaps of information frequently occur at numerous levels in the perceptual and
symbolic processing of such information which it is the facility and
adaptability of the human mind to compensate for by filling in with what it
"interprets" implicitly as relevant information drawn from its own
memory and symbolic material. The mind may try to repair the holes to
reconstruct gestalts with information which may become increasingly irrelevant
and out of synchrony with the original patterning.
There is a great deal of cultural consonance and consistency of shared
values in the communities of the Jetty. The Chinese there have elaborated a
locally situated version of a wider familial model of order which has been
extended symbolically, principally through their religion, to incorporate
larger relations with the social, natural and supernatural worlds. The mother
with a cane in one hand and a candy in the other is performing a similar role
as the community shaman-turned-baby God who in a state of semi-trance gives
candy to the children while cracking his whip with the other hand. The Gods
which protect from harm and bless the Jetty Chinese with good fortune in the
lotteries or in gambling, can also punish and chastise them for going against
the established way and values of the community.
In this we can refer to basic field dependency theory and the differences
between articulated and "global" personality structures, in which
the articulated personality is relatively differentiated (individually) from
the surrounding nexus of perceptual relations. "To characterize a system
as more differentiated implies, first of all, segregation of self from nonself"
(Witkin and Goodenough 1981:19-20; Werner and Kaplan 1963). Developmental
differentiation depends upon the effective environment, and involves separate
identification and sense of autonomy, an articulated concept of the body as
having definite limits and of integrated but different parts, the availability
of structures for controlling impulse, and use of specific defenses such as
intellectualization, projection and isolation, "rather than relatively
nonspecific defenses such as repression and denial." Such differentiation
is associated with neuro-physiological specialization of brain function.