UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Toward a theory of two-person interaction Reimer, William C. 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A1 R43_9.pdf [ 7.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093505.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093505-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093505-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093505-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093505-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093505-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093505-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093505-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093505.ris

Full Text

TOWARD A THEORY OF TWO-PERSON  INTERACTION  by WILLIAM C . REIMER  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  i n the Department of A n t h r o p o l o g y and S o c i o l o g y  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  the  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at  further  agree  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree  the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it I  in p a r t i a l  freely  available  for  t h a t p e r m i s s i o n for e x t e n s i v e copying of  of  this  representatives. thesis for  It  financial  this  thesis  of  gain s h a l l not  Anthropology and Sociology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  D a t e  June 15,  1974  or  i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  written permission.  Department  that  reference and study.  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department: by h i s  for  be allowed without my  ABSTRACT  In t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , a c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r t h e study o f i n t e r a c t i o n between two persons i s p r e s e n t e d .  One  s p e c i f i c a s p e c t o f t h a t framework i s s e l e c t e d and an e x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t which f o c u s e s on t h a t a s p e c t i s conducted.  This test i s  designed t o begin the process of r e f i n i n g the o r i g i n a l conceptualization. The c o n c e p t u a l framework u t i l i z e d s t r e s s e s t h e s e q u e n t i a l and i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g f e a t u r e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n . The responses o f persons a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e r e s u l t o f two processes:  one i n which an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s made (the  " i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s " ) , and one by which t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n forms t h e b a s i s f o r a new response  (the "decision process").  T h i s two-step model o f a c t i o n i s used i n o r d e r t o d e a l w i t h some of t h e problems c r e a t e d when a s i m p l e one-step b e h a v i o r a l model i s used t o d e a l w i t h c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c  processes.  S i n c e s e q u e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s a c e n t r a l concern i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , t h e manner i n which i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o r d e c i s i o n s are changed over time i s a c r u c i a l i s s u e . " i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s " i s b e s t accounted  I t i s proposed  that the  f o r by a t h r e s h o l d type  of o p e r a t i o n , whereas t h e " d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s " might b e s t be d e a l t w i t h by a more s i m p l e l e a r n i n g model.  These s u g g e s t i o n s a r e made  i n o r d e r t o account f o r some o f t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o change which t h e l i t e r a t u r e on e x p e c t a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e s , and a t t h e same t i m e , t h e  i ii  f l e x i b i l i t y of response  which i s found  i n s i t u a t i o n s of l e a r n i n g .  Once t h i s c o n c e p t u a l framework i s s p e c i f i e d , a more d e t a i l e d e l a b o r a t i o n of the " i n t e r p r e t i v e process" i s begun. Two g e n e r a l types of t h r e s h o l d c h o i c e processes  are d e s c r i b e d :  one which p r e d i c t s a change i n c h o i c e a f t e r a run of events of the same type, and the other which p r e d i c t s a change a f t e r the d i f f e r e n c e s between two event types reaches experiment i s developed  a threshold.  An  which allows one to d i f f e r e n t i a t e which  t h r e s h o l d model best accounts  f o r the c h o i c e s made.  T h i r t y - f i v e s u b j e c t s are used and the r e s u l t s  support  the d i f f e r e n c e t h r e s h o l d model as the one which accounts f o r most of the c h o i c e s .  However, the p r e d i c t i v e power of the  d i f f e r e n c e model a t i t s maximum i s only 84% of the c h o i c e s made. There i s , i n a d d i t i o n , some evidence which suggests  that the  s u b j e c t s might a l t e r c h o i c e models under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . Finally,  s e v e r a l weak p o i n t s i n the conceptual  work a r e i d e n t i f i e d , along with suggestions r e g a r d i n g for  future research.  frame-  strategies  Refinements of the experimental  design  which i n c l u d e g r e a t e r c o n t r o l s on m o t i v a t i n g and memory f a c t o r s are suggested.  Such refinements would a l l o w an even s t r o n g e r  t e s t of the t h r e s h o l d models proposed.  An a l t e r n a t i v e  suggestion  i s t h a t the reseach move t o an e l a b o r a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between events and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s or an e l a b o r a t i o n of the " d e c i s i o n process"  itself.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1  INTRODUCTION Summary  4  SECTION 1 CHAPTER ONE  CHAPTER TWO-  - THE GENERAL THEORETICAL ISSUES - Interdependence and the S e q u e n t i a l Nature of I n t e r a c t i o n - L i m i t a t i o n s of the B e h a v i o r a l Account - The I n t r o d u c t i o n of an " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " - Example: The Double Bind Theory of Schizophrenia - Example: The L a b e l l i n g T h e o r i e s of Deviance - Research S t r a t e g i e s -  A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INTERACTION On the Concept of " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " A Conceptual Framework f o r I n t e r a c t i o n I n d i v i d u a l C o g n i t i v e Operations A Model f o r I n t e r a c t i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of A s s o c i a t i o n s  CHAPTER THREE - THE PROCESS OF CHANGE IN ASSOCIATIONS - T h e o r e t i c a l Background - The Nature of the Change - The Process of Change  6 12 13 16 19 21 24 25 33 36 40 47 51 53 54 61  SECTION 2 CHAPTER FOUR - OPERATIONALIZING THE THRESHOLD MODEL - The Threshold Model - R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the I n d i v i d u a l Process  65 66 71  CHAPTER FIVE -  75 77 80 83 85  CHAPTER SIX  - THE EXPERIMENT The General Design The B a s i c Model and the Experiment The Choice Models and the Experiment The F i r s t Mode of A n a l y s i s  - RESULTS AND ANALYSIS - Test of Assumption 3 and the Second Mode of A n a l y s i s - Primary A n a l y s i s - The Interviews - The T h i r d Mode of A n a l y s i s - S h i f t s i n Models Used  91 93 98 102 105 107  V  Page CHAPTER SEVEN - CONCLUSIONS - Research C o n c l u s i o n s  H2 112  - C o n c e p t u a l Framework and C o n c l u s i o n s  116  FOOTNOTES  121  BIBLIOGRAPHY  128  APPENDIX A - A D e s c r i p t i o n o f the E x p e r i m e n t a l S i t u a t i o n APPENDIX B - a . Handout t o the S u b j e c t s - b . An Example o f an I n t e r a c t i o n Sequence  133 135 137  APPENDIX C - a . b.  Schedule of Symptoms f o r the L a s t Four Patients Number o f T r i a l s t o D i a g n o s i s f o r T h i r t y - f i v e Subjects  APPENDIX D - C a l c u l a t i o n o f Expected F r e q u e n c i e s P a t i e n t Number 4  141  for  APPENDIX E - Q u e s t i o n s Asked D u r i n g P o s t - E x p e r i m e n t a l Interview APPENDIX F - a . b.  140  Computer Program Example o f Data Recorded by Machine f o r S u b j e c t Number 20  142 143 144 148  vi  LIST OF TABLES Page 5.1  Example of symptom sequence and e x c i t a t i o n f o r one " p a t i e n t "  l e v e l of 86  6.1  Minimum, maximum and mean number of t r i a l s d i a g n o s i s f o r the l a s t four p a t i e n t s  6.2  Values of k f o r f i v e s u b j e c t s , by p a t i e n t number  94  6.3  Mean t r i a l s to d i a g n o s i s and p f o r p a t i e n t s 2 to 5  99  6.4  6.5  7.1  to  associated values  A c t u a l f r e q u e n c i e s f o r four types of outcomes expected f r e q u e n c i e s under the geometric distribution  92  of and ntxr i.  100  P r o p o r t i o n of t r i a l s to d e c i s i o n which were a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d by d i f f e r e n c e and runs models, f o r two h a l v e s of sequence  110  Range of k v a l u e s under d i f f e r e n c e model  117  LIST OF FIGURES 2.1  Graphic  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a s s o c i a t i o n s  49  4.1  General  branching  72  5.1  Branching  process  process  f o r choice array  f o r experimental  choices  75  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n was completed under  the  d i r e c t i o n o f P r o f e s s o r R . A . H . Robson a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. for  I am d e e p l y i n d e b t e d t o P r o f e s s o r Robson  h i s c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e l l e c t u a l i n p u t as w e l l as h i s m o r a l  s u p p o r t throughout the whole p r o c e s s .  A l l the o t h e r  members  of my d o c t o r a l committee have had a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on my p e r s p e c t i v e as w e l l :  D r . Martha F o s c h i , who made c l e a r  importance o f e x p e c t a t i o n s Dr.  r e s e a r c h t o my academic  the  concerns,  Tom Storm, who p r o v i d e d many i n s i g h t f u l c r i t i c i s m s o f  o r i g i n a l drafts perspective,  o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n from a p s y c h o l o g i c a l  D r . R i c h a r d R o b i n s o n , who made s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t  c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the i n t e g r a t i o n o f d i v e r s e i n t e l l e c t u a l  issues  w i t h which I was c o n c e r n e d , and t o D r . P i e r r e Maranda, who h e l p e d me w i t h some o f the more f o r m a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which this dissertation  includes.  I am a l s o v e r y g r a t e f u l t o D r . Dorothy S m i t h , who first  s t i m u l a t e d my i n t e r e s t  i n d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n , and t o Donald  Earner and W i l l i a m Foddy f o r t h e i r many u s e f u l comments a t p o i n t s i n the development o f t h i s t h e o r y and Finally,  various  research.  I would l i k e t o acknowledge the  support which I have r e c e i v e d from the Canada C o u n c i l .  financial They  have p r o v i d e d me w i t h a d o c t o r a l f e l l o w s h i p d u r i n g the p e r i o d i n which the r e s e a r c h was t a k i n g p l a c e .  1  INTRODUCTION  In t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n we a r e concerned ing  theory about i n t e r a c t i o n between two persons.  with  develop-  Our  i n t e n t i o n i n the space o f t h i s document i s not t o complete  such  a development, but only t o propose a conceptual framework from which theory might be The  developed.  f i r s t major p o r t i o n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n  (Chapters  1 t o 3), i n v o l v e s the e l a b o r a t i o n o f t h i s conceptual framework. In t h i s s e c t i o n , we w i l l e l a b o r a t e the c e n t r a l concepts and propose a p a r t i c u l a r way of viewing exchange.  i n d i v i d u a l s ' c h o i c e s i n an  T h i s framework forms the b a s i s f o r the second  section. The  second s e c t i o n (Chapters  4 t o 7) , begins the  process o f r e f i n i n g the conceptual framework by o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g one  small p a r t o f i t .  In no way i s the experiment which comes  from t h i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , designed conceptualization.  I t i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d simply as a p r e -  l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the u t i l i t y through  as a t e s t o f the f u l l  o f the framework.  Only  such an e l a b o r a t i o n o f v a r i o u s aspects of the c o n c e p t u a l -  i z a t i o n and the s u b j e c t i o n o f these e l a b o r a t i o n s t o e m p i r i c a l t e s t s can we e s t a b l i s h i t s u t i l i t y . The type o f i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h which we are concerned i s l i m i t e d by f i v e g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n s .  Some o f these c o n d i t i o n s  were c l e a r from the beginning o f our r e s e a r c h and they t h e r e f o r e stand as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f the bounds of our p e r s o n a l in this dissertation. of  Others have been developed  interest  as the r e s u l t  t h e o r e t i c a l problems which have emerged as the r e s e a r c h was  2 c a r r i e d out.  Taken together,  they provide  a r a t h e r c l e a r out-  l i n e of the focus o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . F i r s t o f a l l , we are concerned w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n only i n f a c e - t o - f a c e  situations.  w i l l be w i t h "focussed According  To t h a t extent,  our concern  i n t e r a c t i o n " i n Goffman's sense.  t o him:  Focused i n t e r a c t i o n occurs when people e f f e c t i v e l y agree t o s u s t a i n f o r a time a s i n g l e focus of c o g n i t i v e and v i s u a l a t t e n t i o n , as i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n , a board game, or a j o i n t task s u s t a i n e d by a c l o s e f a c e - t o - f a c e c i r c l e of c o n t r i b u t o r s . * By  l i m i t i n g our concern i n t h i s way, we have e l i m i n a t e d the  e f f e c t s of d e l a y s  i n communication between persons, problems  c r e a t e d by the form i n which the communication might be t r a n s mitted,  and v a r i a t i o n s i n response produced by gross v a r i a t i o n s  i n the immediate environment of the i n t e r a c t a n t s . Second, we a r e d e a l i n g o n l y w i t h f a c e - t o - f a c e  inter-  a c t i o n i n which the persons i n v o l v e d are attempting t o c o o r d i n ate t h e i r b e h a v i o r .  We w i l l c o n s i d e r  only those s i t u a t i o n s  i n which the i n t e r a c t a n t s a r e not i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e c e p t i v e o r operating  with s t r a t e g i e s of confrontation.  Such  confrontation  or c o n f l i c t might develop through i n t e r a c t i o n of course, but we w i l l not d e a l w i t h those i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which i t i s an i n i t i a l condition.  As a r e s u l t of t h i s g e n e r a l  c o n d i t i o n , we  w i l l u t i l i z e theories r e l a t i n g to information-processing  rather  than those of c o n f l i c t o r b a r g a i n i n g . As a t h i r d c o n d i t i o n , we w i l l d e a l o n l y w i t h  inter-  a c t i o n i n which the persons i n v o l v e d a r e interdependent.  This  means t h a t one person's a c t i o n has the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a f f e c t i n g  3 the o t h e r ' s ; so on.  whose a c t i o n i n t u r n can a f f e c t the f i r s t ;  S i n g l e a c t s are r a r e l y meaningful i n themselves,  and there-  f o r e , but o n l y as they occur as p a r t of a sequence of a c t s . In t h i s concern, we  share once again Goffman's p e r s p e c t i v e  focus; not on the i n d i v i d u a l and h i s psychology  and  alone,  ...but r a t h e r the s y n t a c t i c a l , r e l a t i o n s among the a c t s of d i f f e r e n t persons mutually present t o one another. None the l e s s , s i n c e i t i s i n d i v i d u a l a c t o r s who cont r i b u t e the u l t i m a t e m a t e r i a l s , i t w i l l always be reasonable t o ask what g e n e r a l p r o p e r t i e s they must have i f t h i s s o r t of c o n t r i b u t i o n i s to be expected of them.2> C l o s e l y r e l a t e d to t h i s p o s i t i o n i s our  fourth  c o n d i t i o n t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n continue  over a p e r i o d of time.  S i n g l e exchanges w i l l not be considered  except as they may  p a r t of a sequence of exchanges. important aspects  We  be  are assuming t h a t many  of i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l o n l y emerge a f t e r many  such exchanges. The  fifth  c o n d i t i o n which i s r e f l e c t e d i n our  con-  c e p t u a l framework i s the c e n t r a l r o l e of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of behavior.  .  We  w i l l assume t h a t a c t i o n s i n an exchange do  not have unequivocal  meanings, but may  ways by the a c t o r s i n v o l v e d . we  have considered  be i n t e r p r e t e d i n v a r i o u s  T h i s means t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n , as  i t , i s an open-ended process which has  p o t e n t i a l of developing  new  the  forms as the persons i n t e r a c t .  Under d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s the same a c t may  produce  d i f f e r e n t responses. I f we i n t e r a c t i o n , we  assume t h a t these c o n d i t i o n s operate i n  can see t h a t the c o o r d i n a t i o n of a c t i o n between  persons i s p o t e n t i a l l y very complex.  Not  o n l y do the i n d i v -  iduals involved  have the problem of e s t a b l i s h i n g the  appropriate  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to make of the o t h e r ' s a c t i o n , but  they must  a l s o take i n t o account the e f f e c t which t h e i r own  action  might have on the other person. a c t i o n are not increased. are not  If interpretations  shared by both persons, the problems are  Even the process of d i s c o v e r i n g  f o r forming i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , may  i n s h i f t i n g the o r i g i n a l b a s i s f o r the This perspective f e e l t h a t one  can  interpretations  l i m i t e d by v a r i o u s environment p l a c e  be  instrumental  relationship.  of i n t e r a c t i o n i s very complex,  introduce  of c o n s t r a i n t s which p l a c e  and  that  further  shared, or the process of attempting to i d e n t i f y a  common b a s i s  but we  of  i n t o the p r o c e s s , a number  l i m i t s on  it.  Individuals  demands which the other person and on them.  are the  They are a l s o l i m i t e d by  the  skills  r e s o u r c e s which they have at t h e i r d i s p o s a l to meet these  demands.  I t i s through the  l i m i t s and  they way  sequence, t h a t we interpersonal  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of some of  they a f f e c t the u n f o l d i n g  hope to i n c r e a s e  those  of an i n t e r a c t i o n  our understanding of  exchange.  Summary We conditions  are now  which we  i n a p o s i t i o n to s p e c i f y the  require  Since i n the d i s c u s s i o n  our  theory of i n t e r a c t i o n to s a t i s f y .  that follows,  made which r e f l e c t these c o n d i t i o n s a b b r e v i a t e d form.  central  we  t h e r e are many  decisions  w i l l s p e c i f y them i n an  5 1.  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n must d e a l w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n in face-to-face s i t u a t i o n s .  2.  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n must d e a l with i n t e r a c t i o n i n a s i t u a t i o n where both i n t e r a c t a n t s d e s i r e c o o r d i n a t i o n of t h e i r  3.  activity.  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n must d e a l w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the persons i n v o l v e d are  4.  interdependent.  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n must allow p r o p o s i t i o n s t o be made r e g a r d i n g  the ways i n which a sequence of  i n t e r a c t i o n , r a t h e r than s i n g l e a c t s might proceed. 5.  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n must permit one t o i n t r o d u c e the e f f e c t s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of a c t s i n t o the interaction  process.  6  SECTION CHAPTER 1 - THE  ONE  GENERAL THEORETICAL ISSUES  W i t h i n the s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , t h e r e are a number of r e f e r e n c e s to the type of i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h which are concerned.  we  However, p o s t of the t h e o r i e s i n t h i s area  d e a l o n l y w i t h two or three of the c e n t r a l i s s u e s we mentioned and not w i t h a l l f i v e .  have  I t i s out of the f a i l u r e of  such t h e o r i e s to p r o v i d e an i n t e g r a t i o n of these i s s u e s t h a t t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l be  developed.  Of the f i v e b a s i c c o n d i t i o n s which we  have s p e c i f i e d ,  the l a s t three are p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l t o the d i r e c t i o n have adopted attempt  i n our c o n c e p t u a l framework.  I t was  we  i n an  to i n t e g r a t e the c o n d i t i o n of interdependence  3) w i t h t h a t of the s e q u e n t i a l nature of i n t e r a c t i o n  (condition (condition  4) , t h a t we were f o r c e d to invoke the concept of an  interpret-  ation  conceptual  (condition 5).  Since t h i s i s c e n t r a l t o our  framework, we w i l l begin our d i s c u s s i o n a t t h i s p o i n t .  Interdependence  and the S e q u e n t i a l Nature of I n t e r a c t i o n  As we  have s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , we were i n t e r e s t e d  i n an account of i n t e r a c t i o n which d e a l s w i t h the i n t e r d e p e n d ence of persons  i n an exchange and a t the same time w i t h the  exchange as a s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s .  We  turned f i r s t of a l l t o  the body of l i t e r a t u r e and r e s e a r c h a s s o c i a t e d w i t h game theory i n our e f f o r t to d e a l w i t h the interdependence  of  7 individuals. way  Game theory, through  3 .  i n which one person's  other person's as an account present.  i t s emphasis on the  c h o i c e or s t r a t e g y w i l l a f f e c t the  c h o i c e appears t o h o l d a g r e a t d e a l of promise of the mutual interdependence  we hope t o r e -  I t allows one t o i n t r o d u c e i n t o the exchange, the  r e c o g n i t i o n of such interdependence i n v o l v e d , and attempts t o account  on the p a r t of the persons  f o r the e f f e c t s of t h i s  recognition. Game theory i s , however, a s e t of p r o p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the i d e a l behavior c e n t r a l concern  of a r a t i o n a l person.  The  i s not w i t h the way people a c t u a l l y behave,  but w i t h the way i n which they should behave i f they were behaving  rationally.  Data r e g a r d i n g a c t u a l behavior  i s some-  times i n t r o d u c e d , b u t only as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g the major dilemmas which persons concern  face i n a choice s i t u a t i o n .  Since our  i s not w i t h the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of some b e s t form of  i n t e r a c t i o n , but w i t h the e x p l a n a t i o n of a c t u a l i n t e r a c t i o n , most of t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s of game theory a r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e . On the other hand, there are s e v e r a l developments i n the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e which use the s t r u c t u r e of game theory experiments as a framework f o r p r o p o s i t i o n s of a d e s c r i p t i v e o r non-normative form. a convenient  format  choice behavior and  These experiments p r o v i d e  f o r i n t r o d u c i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l  into a s o c i a l context.  Both i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e  the s t r u c t u r e of mutual interdependency  are conveniently  represented by the game t h e o r i s t ' s matrix of outcomes. For our purposes,  t h e r e a r e two major t h e o r e t i c a l  developments which adopt the framework o f game theory  experiments.  8 The  first  i n v o l v e s the e x t e n s i o n of l e a r n i n g theory t o the  p o i n t where p r o p o s i t i o n s can be made r e g a r d i n g m u l t i p e r s o n interaction. assumption  4 .  The bulk of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e r e s t s on the  of s t a t i s t i c a l l e a r n i n g theory, and i n most cases  i n v o l v e s the development of.mathematical The  models of l e a r n i n g .  second development which makes e x t e n s i v e use of the game  theory experimental form i s t o be found w i t h i n the on exchange.^*  literature  The g e n e r a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i s  toward the development of a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r c o l l e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s such as norms, s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s , s o c i a l power relations, etc. Both of these t h e o r e t i c a l developments have somet h i n g to o f f e r f o r our concern w i t h dyadic  interaction.  Learning theory p r o v i d e s a s e t of p r o p o s i t i o n s about i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e behavior  a t a very s p e c i f i c l e v e l .  Since we  ested i n being a b l e t o account f o r i n t e r a c t a n t s "  are  inter-  behaviour  at each p o i n t i n an exchange, the l e v e l of a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e d by l e a r n i n g theory can be very u s e f u l .  I t i s , i n addition,  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our d e s i r e to examine i n t e r a c t i o n i n which c o o r d i n a t i o n i s attempted  by both persons  or b a r g a i n i n g i s not a necessary  involved.  Competition  prerequisite.  Exchange theory o f f e r s the p o s s i b i l i t y of generati n g p r o p o s i t i o n s which are p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o s o c i a l behaviour.  Exchange t h e o r i s t s have developed  which r e f e r t o p a t t e r n s of interdependence those of l e a r n i n g theory.  a s e t of  concepts  which go f a r beyond  The n o t i o n s of "dependence",  " s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " , and  "norm", f o r example, are much  9 e a s i e r to d e f i n e and d e a l with i n the c o n t e x t of an exchange r e l a t i o n than as a consequence of l e a r n i n g  principles.  Exchange theory i n a d d i t i o n , makes the i n t e g r a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e aspects of behavior learning theory.  a much more d i r e c t matter One  than does  can then i n c l u d e w i t h i n an account  of  i n t e r a c t i o n , the e f f e c t s of language on behavior. We  do not mean t o suggest t h a t these two  developments are mutually e x c l u s i v e . t h a t there may  theoretical  In f a c t , the s u g g e s t i o n  be some t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k s between the two  has  been i m p l i e d , and i n some cases e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d i n the literature.  Our  s e p a r a t i o n of the two  to make c l e a r what aspects of the two are most r e l e v a n t f o r our One  areas i s done i n order  t h e o r e t i c a l developments  concerns.  of the most e x p l i c i t attempts  to formulate  a t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k between exchange theory and l e a r n i n g has been made by R.M.  theory  Emerson.^'  In h i s account of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two  types of theory, he has taken the assumptions of  operant  c o n d i t i o n i n g and used them t o p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r an exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p . proceeded  From t h i s p o i n t of view he has  to d e f i n e more g e n e r a l concepts  then  such as power, norms  and s t a t u s , and on the b a s i s of these to generate p r o p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g group s t r u c t u r e . 7 *  Although h i s concerns are much  more g e n e r a l than ours', the t h e o r e t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s he made suggest t h a t l e a r n i n g theory may b a s i s f o r more g e n e r a l s o c i a l theory. t h a t we might u t i l i z e  has  w e l l p r o v i d e a reasonable I t seems, i n a d d i t i o n ,  some aspects of l e a r n i n g theory to d e a l  10 w i t h the s e q u e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n p a r t of our concern, and  still  be a b l e t o u t i l i z e exchange theory as a b a s i s f o r understanding the interdependence of persons. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the way we  t h i s might be done  can r e f e r t o the work of K e l l e y , T h i b a u t , R a d l o f f and Mundy 8  on the "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " .  "  Their research e n t a i l s  the examination of the c o n d i t i o n s under which the c o o r d i n a t i o n may  occur i f persons can only communicate through a simple  reward-punishment s i t u a t i o n .  T h e i r d e s i g n e n t a i l s the separ-  a t i o n of two s u b j e c t s by a p a r t i t i o n .  that  one  person can communicate t o the other i s through the use of  two  buttons;  The o n l y way  one which i s connected t o a r e l a t i v e l y  outcome f o r the other person  beneficial  (a s c o r e ) , and the other i s  connected t o a r e l a t i v e l y n o n - b e n e f i c i a l outcome (a m i l d shock) They were i n t e r e s t e d i n the c o n d i t i o n s under which the i n d i v i d u a l s would move t o a mutually rewarding outcome. In t h i s r e s e a r c h and i n a number of other s t u d i e s which used a s i m i l a r d e s i g n , f i v e f a c t o r s were c o n s i d e r e d to a f f e c t the r a t e a t which c o o r d i n a t i o n o c c u r r e d .  The  first  f a c t o r i n v o l v e d the v a r i a t i o n of the type of response which g s u b j e c t s were p e r m i t t e d . "  In some experiments, the s u b j e c t s  were allowed to respond whenever they chose condition).  (the "simultaneous"  In o t h e r s , they were o n l y p e r m i t t e d a response  a f t e r they had r e c e i v e d a stimulus from the other person. T h i s meant t h a t they took t u r n s responding condition).  (the " a l t e r n a t i n g "  The second f a c t o r i n v o l v e d v a r i a t i o n of the  s e v e r i t y of the shock r e c e i v e d , ^ " and the t h i r d 1  i n v o l v e d v a r i a t i o n of the importance  factor  of the reward  (operational  11  i z e d by the v a l u e of the p o s i t i v e o u t c o m e ) . " xx  The f o u r t h  f a c t o r i n v o l v e d the v a r i a t i o n of the manner i n which i n t e r dependence was o b t a i n e d .  For one c o n d i t i o n , the s u b j e c t s  c o u l d g i v e each other a shock o n l y , f o r another c o n d i t i o n , they could g i v e each other a score o n l y , and f o r a t h i r d  condition  they c o u l d g i v e each other a shock or a score depending button which they p u s h e d . f i f t h  on the  f a c t o r i n t r o d u c e d was  the awareness which the s u b j e c t s had of the experimental setup. In  the "informed" group,  they were t o l d t h a t they were i n t e r -  a c t i n g w i t h another person and the d e t a i l s of the l i n k s between them were o u t l i n e d  (except, of course, f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n  r e g a r d i n g which button was a shock and which was a s c o r e ) . In  the "uninformed"  group, the s u b j e c t s were not t o l d  that  they were i n t e r a c t i n g with another person. Of these f i v e f a c t o r s , the i n f l u e n c e of the f i r s t four can be e x p l a i n e d u s i n g two types of t h e o r e t i c a l The f i r s t  i s a behavioral  accounts.  theory of l e a r n i n g and the develop-  ment of d i f f e r e n t i a l response r a t e s .  The chances o f an  i n d i v i d u a l r e p e a t i n g the button he pushed i s i n c r e a s e d i f he r e c e i v e d a b e n e f i c i a l outcome from the other s u b j e c t .  I f the  outcome i s not b e n e f i c i a l , the chance of a repeat i s lowered. C o o r d i n a t i o n then, i s simply an outcome of the reward-punishment s t r u c t u r e of the experiment.  The second account i s taken from  game theory and i t r e f e r s t o the s t r a t e g i e s which the s u b j e c t s use.  The authors suggest t h a t the s u b j e c t s use a win-stay/  lose-change s t r a t e g y i n the experiment.  The e f f e c t of such  a s t r a t e g y i s the same as t h a t p r e d i c t e d by the b e h a v i o r a l .  12 account above;  i f the s u b j e c t wins, he repeats  i f he l o s e s , he pushes the other button.  h i s l a s t move,  On the b a s i s of the  experiment t o t h i s p o i n t , the r e l a t i v e u t i l i t y  of the two  accounts cannot be determined, although the ad hoc nature of the " s t r a t e g y " It et  account makes i t the weaker of the two.  i s a l s o the case t h a t t o t h i s p o i n t , K e l l e y ,  a l . have provided  a f o r m u l a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n which seems  to d e a l with the c e n t r a l f a c t o r s i n our concern.  T h e i r exper-  iment d e a l s w i t h f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r a c t i o n i n which c o o r d i n a t i o n of the a c t i o n i s the o b j e c t i v e . interdependent It  In a d d i t i o n , the persons a r e  and they i n t e r a c t over a sequence of exchanges.  i s a l s o formulated  a t a l e v e l which permits one t o make  p r e d i c t i o n s about the l i k e l i h o o d of c e r t a i n responses from trial  to t r i a l .  So ,far our c o n d i t i o n s a r e s a t i s f i e d .  L i m i t a t i o n s of the B e h a v i o r a l . Account There i s one problem which remains, however, when we i n t r o d u c e the f i f t h conditions) al.  f a c t o r (awareness of the experimental  i n t o the "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " .  Kelley, et  found t h a t i f they informed the s u b j e c t t h a t he was i n t e r -  a c t i n g with another person, the time taken f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n was reduced.-*- * 4  To account f o r t h i s they u t i l i z e d the ad  hoc p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the e f f e c t was due t o the s u b j e c t s ' use of the s t r a t e g y o f s t a b i l i z i n g t h e i r own behavior. and observing  whether the other person's behavior  (implying t h a t he i s r e c e i v i n g p o s i t i v e scores) (implying t h a t he i s r e c e i v i n g n e g a t i v e  scores).  temporarily was s t a b l e  or f l u c t u a t i n g There i s a  13  problem with t h i s p a r t i c u l a r account o f the behavior i t merely r e d e f i n e s the p a t t e r n of a c t i o n without i n t o some more g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l context.  since  placing i t  I t i s , therefore,  more i n the order o f a d e s c r i p t i o n than an account o f the behavior . under study.  I t does, however, p o i n t t o the t h e o r -  e t i c a l weakness of the "stragegy"  account.  A s i m i l a r problem a r i s e s i f we attempt t o account f o r the r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment u s i n g b e h a v i o r a l X theory. In the "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , informing  the s u b j e c t s o f  the s t r u c t u r e of the experiment a l t e r e d nothing  i n the form  of the i n t e r a c t i o n they had, but i t d i d a f f e c t the r e s u l t of that i n t e r a c t i o n . t h e i r behavior.  The s u b j e c t s were q u i c k e r t o c o o r d i n a t e To account f o r t h i s change, we can no  longer depend on the b e h a v i o r a l , theory which has been adequate t o t h i s p o i n t .  To.do so would mean t h a t the s e t of  i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the experiment would have t o be understood i n terms of the response r a t e s o f the s u b j e c t s .  This  would mean t h a t the language and a s s o c i a t i o n s o f the i n s t r u c t i o n s would have t o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of r e i n f o r c e m e n t s , rewards or c o n d i t i o n e d responses. impossible  task, but there i s reason  T h i s may not be an t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s an  15 extremely d i f f i c u l t one.  "  I t was m  attempting  to deal with  t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l weakness, t h a t the t h i r d major c o n d i t i o n i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d . The  I n t r o d u c t i o n of an " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " As an a l t e r n a t i v e t o an examination of the way i n  14 which the i n s t r u c t i o n s might be i n c l u d e d i n a b e h a v i o r a l . account of the "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , we s i d e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s of t h i s p o i n t of view. was  to i n t r o d u c e a new  between a stimulus  began to conThe  simplest  f a c t o r or f a c t o r s i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p  and  a response.  We  c o u l d then  t h a t the i n s t r u c t i o n s have an e f f e c t on these new i n t h a t way  f a c t o r s and  w i l l be  i n t o the b e h a v i o r a l . account an h y p o t h e t i c a l  and with  consider  i n f l u e n c e the response r a t e s . To proceed i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n , we  ing  i t a new  set of problems.  a c o n s t r u c t can only be j u s t i f i e d otherwise.be a very complex  introduc-  construct,  The i n t r o d u c t i o n of such i f i t s i m p l i f i e s what would  explanation.  To develop  more complex e x p l a n a t i o n would take us i n t o the area language l e a r n i n g and v e r b a l behavior^  Since we  p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n i n t e r a c t i o n , and not i n the of a b e h a v i o r a l to accept  account of language and behavior,  In t h i s way  we  of  were details we  decided  i n t r o d u c e d a mediating  between the r e c e i p t of an outcome and  a button  this  the i n t r o d u c t i o n of an h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t as a  simplifying device. process  i n the  the p r e s s i n g of  "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , o r , i n g e n e r a l ,  between an event and  a response.  Between the occurrence of an event and  the response  which an i n d i v i d u a l makes on the b a s i s of t h a t event, we proposing aspects  way  t h a t a process  of the event  of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o c c u r s .  (stimulus)  emphasized by the i n d i v i d u a l and which are acted upon.  Certain  are s e l e c t i v e l y p e r c e i v e d i t i s t h i s new  In a g e n e r a l  are  or  s e t of events  sense, the o r i g i n a l event  15  i s "interpreted",  and on the b a s i s  of t h a t  interpretation, a  c h o i c e i s made.  Thus the "same" event may be responded t o  i n d i f f e r e n t ways depending on the p a r t i c u l a r made of t h a t  interpretation  event. Although the n o t i o n of an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  hypothetical  as the i d e a of a s t r a t e g y ,  c e r t a i n advantages t o i t s use.  we f e e l t h a t t h e r e are  A strategy  i n c l u s i v e term than an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ;  i s as  i s a much more  i t r e f e r s not only t o  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s e t o f events, but t o the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f u t u r e  p o s s i b i l i t i e s , the e v a l u a t i o n  of c e r t a i n  ends o r g o a l s and the s e l e c t i o n of one over the o t h e r . interpretation,  on the o t h e r hand, can be d e a l t w i t h as a  coding process which i s more e a s i l y r e l a t e d of a b e h a v i o r a l ,  An  nature.  change i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s than a r e p r o p o s i t i o n s  to  propositions  As a r e s u l t , p r o p o s i t i o n s are e a s i e r  regarding  t o generate and t e s t  r e g a r d i n g changes i n s t r a t e g i e s .  Since the n o t i o n of an " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n "  as we  have conceived i t i s viewed as a coding p r o c e s s f o r events, we do not have to abandon p r i n c i p l e s of behavior learning it  theory i n order t o use i t .  is still  possible  As we w i l l show l a t e r ,  to view the " i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s " as one  i n which stimulus-response l e a r n i n g introducing  t h i s concept, t h e r e f o r e ,  behavioral,  learning  takes p l a c e .  We are  not as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o  theory, but as a convenient means by which  language and c o g n i t i v e conceptualization  theory or  f a c t o r s may be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o our  of i n t e r a c t i o n .  Once we have added the n o t i o n of an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  16 to our o r i g i n a l s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . , f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r a c t i o n , c o o r d i n a t i o n of a c t i v i t y , interdependency,  and the  s e q u e n t i a l aspects of i n t e r a c t i o n ) , there are a number of t h e o r e t i c a l developments i n s o c i a l theory w i t h which we can d e a l , b e s i d e s the "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " . two of these by way of i l l u s t r a t i o n :  We w i l l  the "double  select  b i n d " theory  of s c h i z o p h r e n i a ^ and the l a b e l l i n g theory o f deviance.^ * .. In 1  7  t h i s way we hope t o show how the focus o f our a t t e n t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o a wider range of i s s u e s than suggested  by the  "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , i n a d d i t i o n t o i l l u s t r a t i n g the type of i n t e r a c t i o n which we hope t o e x p l a i n .  Example: The Double Bind Theory of S c h i z o p h r e n i a . (DB) The DB theory o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a r e f e r s t o the "damned i f you do, damned i f you don't" type of s i t u a t i o n . No matter what the i n d i v i d u a l who i s the " v i c t i m " o f the s i t u a t i o n does, he w i l l be wrong.  Take, f o r example, the  student whose p r o f e s s o r r i d i c u l e s him i f he p a r t i c i p a t e s i n seminars,  y e t reprimands him i f he does not.  W i t h i n the  c o n f i n e s of these two a l t e r n a t i v e s , the i n d i v i d u a l cannot win. The  focus o f the DB theory i s not p r i m a r i l y on the  way i n which c o n f l i c t i s produced i n such s i t u a t i o n s , but on the way i n which the a c t o r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r affected.  is  The r e s u l t o f such a s i t u a t i o n from an i n f o r m a t i o n -  p r o c e s s i n g p o i n t of view, i s a g r e a t d e a l o f u n c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the o t h e r ' s a c t i o n s .  If  the student i n t e r p r e t s the p r o f e s s o r ' s a c t i o n s as r i d i c u l e , he  17 i s informed v i a the reprimand t h a t he i s wrong. he  i n t e r p r e t s the a c t as something other  However, i f  than r i d i c u l e , he w i l l  e x h i b i t abnormal responses t o the occurrence o f r i d i c u l e i n t h i s and other  situations.  might expect a r e very associated  The abnormal responses which we  s i m i l a r to the responses which a r e found  t o some forms of s c h i z o p h r e n i a ,  Bateson  claims.  We might note as w e l l t h a t the r e s u l t s o f such.a s i t u a t i o n a r e dependent on a s e r i e s of repeated i n t e r a c t i o n s of the s o r t we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g . student example i s l i m i t e d .  In t h a t sense, the p r o f e s s o r -  The type of exchange i t r e f e r s  to c o u l d be seen as a s i n g l e episode.  In such a case, we  would not expect t h a t the r e s u l t s p r e d i c t e d by Bateson, e t a l . would emerge.  Should i t be p a r t of a lengthy  s e t of i n t e r -  a c t i o n s , however, there would be s u f f i c i e n t time f o r the abnormal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and responses t o be l e a r n e d  and p o s s i b l y  extended t o s i t u a t i o n s beyond t h a t represented Once t h a t has occurred, the DB theory  i n our example.  the p r e d i c t i o n made by the authors of  are l i k e l y t o be observed. T h i s emphasis i s c o n s i s t e n t with our concern f o r  a sequence o f a c t i o n s r a t h e r than w i t h i n d i v i d u a l a c t s . order  In  f o r the persons i n v o l v e d t o develop a s e t of i n t e r p r e t -  a t i o n s t o the p o i n t where a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n i n j u n c t i o n s i s made, a h i s t o r y of communication i s r e q u i r e d . it  In a d d i t i o n ,  i s o n l y a f t e r a s e r i e s of such c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t the  e f f e c t s of the DB on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i s produced.  Without a  sequence o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i t i s presumed t h a t the exchange may produce c o n f l i c t o r c o n f u s i o n ,  but not the development of  18  abnormal modes o f a c t i o n w h i c h the DB t h e o r y seeks t o e x p l a i n . The t h i r d c o n d i t i o n i n our c o n c e r n , t h a t o f interdependence DB t h e o r y .  between the i n t e r a c t a n t s ,  i s a l s o b a s i c to  the  The problems, o f ^ c o o r d i n a t i o n are: not viewed as  problems o f each i n d i v i d u a l , but problems w h i c h a r i s e as r e s u l t o f each o t h e r ' s  action.  the  As one p e r s o n a t t e m p t s t o  a n t i c i p a t e an a c t i o n o f the o t h e r and t o respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y , he i n a d v e r t a n t l y a f f e c t s  the b a s i s f o r t h a t a c t i o n i n such a  way as t o i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e a c t i o n o c c u r r i n g . same procedure i s r e p e a t e d as the i n t e r a c t a n t s  The  attempt t o d e v e l o p  a r e l i a b l e s e t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s on t h a t new b a s i s .  I n the  p r e v i o u s example, the s t u d e n t can be seen as one whose attempt t o s a t i s f y the demand t o speak c r e a t e s a b a s i s f o r Similarly,  ridicule.  t h e p r o f e s s o r ' s demand f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c r e a s e s  the l i k e l i h o o d o f s i l e n c e .  I t i s i n t h i s type of i n t e r a c t i o n  t h a t the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the DB a r i s e . In the same way t h a t c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f  the  " m i n i m a l s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " c o u l d not e a s i l y be e x p l a i n e d by a behavioral,  t h e o r y a l o n e , t h e phenomenon d e a l t w i t h by t h e DB  t h e o r y must r e f e r t o an h y p o t h e t i c a l p r o c e s s o f  interpretation.  I n o r d e r t o account f o r the phenomenon o f s c h o z o p h r e n i a , a u t h o r s have i n t r o d u c e d the i d e a of a c o n f l i c t between pretations.  the  inter-  The problems of communication which are p r e d i c t e d  by the t h e o r y , are problems o f making the p r o p e r o f a c t s and events f o r b o t h o n e s e l f and f o r  interpretation  others.  The DB t h e o r y i s one o f the few t h e o r i e s  which  d e a l s e x p l i c i t l y w i t h a l l those a s p e c t s o f i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h  19  which we  are concerned.  T h i s i s u s u a l l y because most t h e o r i e s  of i n t e r a c t i o n are developed a t a more g e n e r a l specificity.  Nevertheless,  w i t h which we general  f e e l t h a t many of the  As  issues  an example of t h i s type of theory  i n t e r a c t i o n i s t t h e o r i e s of deviance which  on the l a b e l l i n g  Example:  of  are concerned are i s s u e s r e l a t e d to these more  theories.  examine the  we  level  The  we  will  focus  process.  L a b e l l i n g Theories  of Deviance  Most l a b e l l i n g t h e o r i e s of deviance assume t h a t i n t e r a c t a n t s are interdependent and  t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are  important i n understanding i n t e r a c t i o n .  The  s p e c i a l feature  of the t h e o r i e s of the l a b e l l i n g process i s the way they combine these two  i n which  assumptions w i t h the s e q u e n t i a l  aspects  of i n t e r a c t i o n . S e v e r a l of the i n t e r a c t i o n t h e o r i e s of deviance, f o r example, suggest t h a t the l a b e l l i n g of a d e v i a n t may  be  much more the r e s u l t of the accumulated e f f e c t or q u a l i t a t i v e s h i f t s of s e v e r a l minor i n c i d e n t s over time r a t h e r than than the r e s u l t of one  single e v e n t . S a m p s o n ,  Messinger  Towne suggest t h a t i t i s only a f t e r the s u c c e s s i v e of accommodative p a t t e r n s between the f u t u r e and  h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l community" ^* t h a t  i s considered.  x  and  ''collapse  (mental) p a t i e n t  institutionalization  To the p a t i e n t , Goffman suggests, t h i s i s  experienced as a "kind of b e t r a y a l f u n n e l " i n which "Passage from person to p a t i e n t may l i n k e d stages,  be e f f e c t e d through a s e r i e s of  each managed by a d i f f e r e n t agent."  Minor  20 v a r i a t i o n s from expected behavior, f o r example, may  be  suffic-  i e n t t o r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t " a l l i s not w e l l " w i t h a friend.  Once t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s r a i s e d , i t i n c r e a s e s the  chance t h a t f u t u r e a c t s w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d as evidence f o r that b e l i e f .  I t may,  of behavior we  show to t h a t f r i e n d , thus i n c r e a s i n g the p o s s i b -  ility  i n a d d i t i o n , e f f e c t a s h i f t i n the  t h a t h i s behavior w i l l be "strange".  accumulation  Through the  of such "strange" behaviors and the q u a l i t a t i v e  s h i f t s i n behavior which are produced, the communication behavior may  and  become more and more d i f f i c u l t to comprehend  h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n may  occur.  same type of process may hospitalization itself future  type  and  Once h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n o c c u r s , the  c o n t i n u e , w i t h the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of  s e r v i n g as a b a s i s f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g  acts/ ' 1  To the extent t h a t we  are concerned  w i t h making  p r e d i c t i o n s about s p e c i f i c a c t s i n an exchange, we w i l l have t o develop a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r m u l a t i o n than the a c t i o n i s t s , however.  In order t o account  inter-  f o r the course of an  i n t e r a c t i o n , we must f i n d c a t e g o r i e s of a c t s which assure t h a t the assignment of a c t s to c a t e g o r i e s i s unequivocable. w i t h r e s p e c t to t h i s n e c e s s i t y f o r a p r e c i s e and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a c t s t h a t the language of the is insufficient.  It is  general interactionists  Up to t h i s p o i n t i n time, most of the empir-  i c a l r e s e a r c h of the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t s has focussed on the i n which p a r t i c u l a r l a b e l s or i d e n t i t i e s are developed changed i n i n t e r a c t i o n .  way  or  The main problem w i t h these s t u d i e s  from our p o i n t of view i s t h a t they are o f t e n r e l e v a n t o n l y  21  to the i d e n t i t y under c o n s i d e r a t i o n and they do not a l l o w p r o p o s i t i o n s t o be made about  the process o f e s t a b l i s h i n g  l a b e l s or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l .  One can f i n d r e s e a r c h  on the process by which persons are i d e n t i f i e d as m e n t a l l y  ill  or homosexual, f o r example, but very l i t t l e r e g a r d i n g the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n process f o r the two l a b e l s . In those cases where g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s are developed,  they a r e u s u a l l y formulated a t a l e v e l of a n a l y s i s  which does not permit one t o make p r e d i c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e v o l u t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r a c t s i n an exchange.  T h i s i s due, on  the one hand, t o the d i f f i c u l t y of measuring  some of the c r u c i a l  v a r i a b l e s i n a s p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n sequence, and, on the other hand, t o the l i m i t e d range of a p p l i c a b i l i t y of some of the categories.  Goffman, f o r example, r e l i e s h e a v i l y on such  n o t i o n s as "deference", "demeanor", "embarrassment" and the " r u l e s of conduct"; difficult  a l l v a r i a b l e s which are e i t h e r  extremely  t o measure or they are not m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e and  thus do not permit p r e d i c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r  sequence  to be made.  Research  Strategies I t i s i n t r y i n g t o d e a l w i t h the problem  of p r e -  d i c t i o n t h a t we a f f e c t the l e v e l o f our r e s e a r c h t o the greatest extent.  Since we would l i k e t o develop  theoretical  p r o p o s i t i o n s which a l l o w us t o p r e d i c t over sequences of a c t s , we are n e c e s s a r i l y engaged i n the problem  of t r y i n g t o use  v a r i a b l e s which a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y g e n e r a l t o r e p r e s e n t a wide  22 range of a c t i o n s , y e t not so g e n e r a l  as t o make the p r o p o s i t i o n s  about those a c t i o n s u n t e s t a b l e .  Since we were concerned w i t h  developing  the e f f e c t s of i n t e r a c t i o n  p r o p o s i t i o n s regarding  over a s e r i e s o f a c t s , the p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s i n g techniques f o r the development of the theory was  simulation considered.  Such a procedure would be a g r e a t advantage s i n c e i t p r o v i d e s a means of r e d u c i n g  the time r e q u i r e d to examine the i m p l i c a -  t i o n s o f a p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l model f o r a long sequence of acts.  I f one can s p e c i f y a s i n g l e exchange sequence w i t h  s u f f i c i e n t c l a r i t y t o simulate simple o p e r a t i o n  i t , then i t becomes a r e l a t i v e l y  t o see what would happen over a s e r i e s of such  sequences by u s i n g  computer or l o g i c a l  techniques.  Although we w i l l not i n c l u d e a f u l l  simulation  of our t h e o r e t i c a l model i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , we mention t h i s i s s u e because i t has i n f l u e n c e d the l e v e l of t h e o r e t i c a l d e v e l opment used. techniques,  Since we hope t o move i n the f u t u r e t o s i m u l a t i o n we have u t i l i z e d concepts and p r o p o s i t i o n s which  are c o n s i s t e n t with such a s t r a t e g y .  I t a l s o means t h a t we  have been w i l l i n g t o propose a s p e c i f i c s e t o f p r o p o s i t i o n s regarding  how i n d i v i d u a l s make c h o i c e s  h y p o t h e t i c a l a t many p o i n t s .  even though they are  We f e e l t h a t the problems of  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which such a s t r a t e g y poses are o f f s e t by the advantages which i t o f f e r s f o r t h e o r e t i c a l e l a b o r a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n processes over time. One  f u r t h e r e f f e c t of our concern w i t h t e s t i n g  our c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n i s t h a t we have had t o s e t t l e f o r r e s e a r c h which r e l a t e s t o o n l y a small p a r t of our  23 framework.  At the l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y i n which our  framework i s developed,  there i s r e a l l y no way  t h a t the  framework can be s u b j e c t e d to an e m p i r i c a l t e s t . a l t e r n a t i v e , we  have decided to focus on o n l y one  the framework, develop p r o p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g i t , s u b j e c t t h a t aspect to a t e s t .  conceptual  As  entire  an  aspect of : and  T h i s i s a long way  then  from con-  d u c t i n g a " f i n a l " t e s t of a theory, but i t does p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r e x p l i c a t i n g the conceptual framework i n a manner which i n t e g r a t e s theory w i t h e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  24  CHAPTER 2 - A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INTERACTION  A b a s i c c o n d i t i o n w i t h which we began t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s t h a t the persons i n i n t e r a c t i o n are mutuallyinterdependent. time may  T h i s means t h a t one person's a c t i o n a t one  a f f e c t not o n l y the o t h e r ' s a c t i o n , but through t h a t  other person, i t may  a f f e c t h i s own  a c t i o n a t a l a t e r time.  Under such c o n d i t i o n s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e between persons over a s e r i e s of exchanges may  soon become very complex.  Since the complexity i s seen t o be the r e s u l t of the interdependency and not n e c e s s a r i l y the p r o c e s s by each person chooses h i s a c t i o n , i t may  which  be t h a t r e l a t i v e l y  simple  c h o i c e p r o c e s s e s produce complex p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n over time.  T h i s l e a v e s us with the p o s s i b i l i t y of a c c o u n t i n g f o r  a wide range of b e h a v i o r by u s i n g v e r y simple t h e o r e t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s about how  people make c h o i c e s .  I t i s on the  b a s i s of t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t our s t r a t e g y of c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n w i l l be developed. In a d d i t i o n to the e f f e c t of interdependence between i n t e r a c t a n t s we have mentioned  a second f a c t o r  which  might i n c r e a s e the complexity found i n most i n t e r a c t i o n tions.  T h i s f a c t o r i s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c t s .  We  situahave  given a c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n i n our c o n c e p t u a l framework t o the e f f e c t which such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s might have on Since we assume t h a t the same a c t may  interaction.  be i n t e r p r e t e d i n many  d i f f e r e n t ways a t d i f f e r e n t times, we make i t p o s s i b l e f o r a g r e a t d e a l of ambiguity to be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o  interaction.  25  T h i s ambiguity i s not unwelcome from a t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t of view.  I t may  stem from a r e l a t i v e l y simple process of i n t e r -  p r e t a t i o n development and change, thus a l l o w i n g a g r e a t d e a l of e x p l a n a t o r y power t o such a p r o c e s s .  We w i l l assume t h a t  t h i s i s the case and develop our r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y on t h a t b a s i s . Since the process of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n change i s t o be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the c h o i c e p r o c e s s , we w i l l begin our d i s c u s s i o n with an account of the meaning Of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  The p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n we w i l l g i v e  to t h i s concept i s designed to p r o v i d e a c o n c e p t u a l l i n k  be-  tween a s t a t i c understanding of the term and one which can be applied to a sequential i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n .  In the process  of making t h i s l i n k , we w i l l a l s o t i e the n o t i o n of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of s e q u e n t i a l events t o the concept of e x p e c t a t i o n s .  On the Concept We  of " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " have chosen to i n t r o d u c e the h y p o t h e t i c a l  con-  s t r u c t of an " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " i n t o the process of i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e s i n c e i t seems to s i m p l i f y d r a s t i c a l l y the e x p l a n a t i o n necessary f o r phenomena such as the "minimal  social  situation"  and the DB theory of s c h i z o p h r e n i a . The precedent f o r such a concept i s found i n many areas i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , from l i n g u i s t i c s t o psychology. In most of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , however, the n o t i o n of an  inter-  p r e t a t i o n i s developed w i t h r e g a r d t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of objects,  2 3 ,  or s i n g l e a c t s , * 2 4  r a t h e r than sequences  of a c t s .  Our problem w i l l be t o g i v e the concept of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n some  26  t h e o r e t i c a l meaning w i t h to  do s o , t h e f i r s t  interpretation  r e s p e c t t o such  step w i l l  be t o r e l a t e  t o the concept  the a b i l i t y  behavior it  o f each person  of the other.  i s necessary  affect of  the concept of  between p e r s o n s  to anticipate  depends  t o some e x t e n t t h e  B e f o r e we s a y " h e l l o "  to a stranger,  t o make some a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t w h e t h e r he  speaks our language, attack us.  In order  of expectation.  Coordination of a c t i v i t y on  sequences.  will  Different  welcome t h e g e s t u r e , o r i s a b o u t t o  t a s k s and d i f f e r e n t  situations  will  t h e d e t a i l w i t h which such e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e developed,  course,  but f o r our purposes  some a n t i c i p a t i o n s In  of action  i ti s sufficient  occurs.  a sequence o f a c t i o n s , such  o n l y be g e n e r a t e d  to claim that  e x p e c t a t i o n s can  i f t h e p r e s e n t a c t i s p e r c e i v e d t o be a  25 p a r t o f a p a t t e r n o f a c t i o n which i s as y e t i n c o m p l e t e . For  example, i f we saw a man b o a r d  he w o u l d for  a bus r i d e  includes paying, box  soon p l a c e a t i c k e t  such  that  o r money i n t h e box, s i n c e p a y i n g  i s usually part of a pattern of a c t i v i t y  which  t h i n g s a s w a i t i n g a t t h e b u s s t o p , g e t t i n g on,  etc.  Should  the passenger  p u t a gum w r a p p e r i n t h e  we w o u l d be s u r p r i s e d , s i n c e t h a t i s n o t u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d  with the a c t s which preceeded relating  it.  I t i s t h i s process of  an a c t t o p r e v i o u s a c t i o n w h i c h we w i l l  the process  refer  t o as  of interpretation. We may n o t e  interpretation the  a bus we m i g h t e x p e c t  a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t the concept  a s we have o u t l i n e d  framework o f an a s s o c i a t i o n  o f an  i t , may be r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n  theory of behavior  or concepts.  27  I f we i n t e r p r e t the process  o f r e l a t i n g one a c t t o another as  the development of a type of a s s o c i a t i o n a l t i e , the language of a s s o c i a t i o n s can be used.  Thus, the g e n e r a t i o n o f  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s might be seen as the assignment or reassignment of weights t o v a r i o u s a s s o c i a t i o n s , e i t h e r a t a c o g n i t i v e or behavioral l e v e l .  We do not i n t e n d t o f u l l y  elaborate  this  t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k a t t h i s time, but i t i s mentioned as an i n d i c a t i o n o f the p o s s i b l e ' u t i l i t y o f our c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n for  other t h e o r e t i c a l developments. Once an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an a c t i s made, i t may  p r o v i d e a. b a s i s upon which e x p e c t a t i o n s generated.  o f f u t u r e a c t s may be  Since the a c t i s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o some  p a t t e r n of events, we may expect f u t u r e a c t i o n s t o be c o n s i s t e n t with the completion  of t h a t p a t t e r n .  Only i n the case where  the p a t t e r n i s complete does the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f a i l t o p r o v i d e a basis f o r generating  expectations.  In our example above,  we might expect the passenger t o proceed t o a seat if  (or stand  the bus i s crowded) a f t e r p l a c i n g a t i c k e t i n the box, t o  s i g n a l when he wants to g e t o f f , and t o g e t o f f when the bus stops.  A l l these a c t i o n s are c o n s i s t e n t with the p a t t e r n  which we might c a l l  " t a k i n g a bus r i d e " .  A f t e r the person  has got o f f the bus, t h a t p a t t e r n i s terminated  and we must  look t o another p a t t e r n i n order t o form an e x p e c t a t i o n o f h i s action.  T h i s p a t t e r n may be more g e n e r a l  work") or more s p e c i f i c  (e.g., "going t o  (e.g., "walking"), but once i d e n t i f i e d  i t can p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r e x p e c t a t i o n a t l e a s t a t some l e v e l . In t h i s way then,  the concept o f an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  28  i n s e q u e n t i a l a c t i o n i s l i n k e d with the i d e a of e x p e c t a t i o n s i n s o f a r as an expected event r e q u i r e s an i n t e r p r e t e d one. At the same time, we have l i n k e d the concept of an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the a c t s which preceeded t h a t a c t i o n , and to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h a t a c t i o n as p a r t o f a p a t t e r n of acts.  To the extent  acts occuring  t h a t one has i d e n t i f i e d a p a t t e r n i n the  i n an i n t e r a c t i o n , we w i l l c o n s i d e r  made an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of those a c t s . to p e r c e i v e  t h a t he has  F o r example, i f I were  t h a t a l l your a c t s toward me were b e n e f i c i a l t o me,  I might expect t h a t they would continue t o be so.  As we have  o u t l i n e d our use o f the concept o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , we would consider  t h a t I had i n t e r p r e t e d your a c t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner  (we have attached  the l a b e l " b e n e f i c i a l " t o t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  which generates an e x p e c t a t i o n you  about what I might expect from  i n the f u t u r e . Whether t h i s a n t i c i p a t i o n occurs a t a conscious  or unconscious l e v e l i s of secondary importance t o the above proposition.  We are merely suggesting  persons i n v o l v e d as i f they considered of t h e i r a c t i o n . ^ 7 .  t h a t one t r e a t s the the p o s s i b l e outcomes  i t i s necessary f o r them, a t some l e v e l ,  to be aware o f t h e i r own a c t i v i t i e s , the other persons' a c t s and  aspects of t h e i r environment, but i t i s not necessary  a l l these t h i n g s are c o n s c i o u s l y  considered  that  i n the process o f  interacting. There i s one aspect  o f our use o f " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n "  i n the example above which can be used t o make the concept a p p l i c a b l e t o a wide range o f i s s u e s o u t s i d e of the context o f  29  sequential interaction.  When we r e f e r r e d t o the l i n g u i s t i c  category o f " b e n e f i c i a l " as a category which might express an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a person's a c t i o n , i t was used merely as a shorthand way o f i d e n t i f y i n g t h a t p a t t e r n o f everyday which I p e r c e i v e d .  action  In a s i m i l a r way, the use of c a t e g o r i e s  which i d e n t i f y types of communication or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of events  (e.g., "angry",  " h e l p f u l " , "necessary") can be seen as  convenient ways of i d e n t i f y i n g a c e r t a i n p a t t e r n o f events which one has found or expects t o f i n d .  F o r example, we might  p r e t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a c t t o be " f r i e n d l y " ,  inter-  " h o s t i l e " o r "confused".  We w i l l c o n s i d e r each o f those terms t o be s i g n i f i c a n t  insofar  as i t p o i n t s t o a p a t t e r n of a c t i o n which has o c c u r r e d and may continue t o occur on the p a r t o f t h a t i n d i v i d u a l .  I f the  person's a c t i o n s are g e n e r a l l y b e n e f i c i a l to us, we say he i s " f r i e n d l y " , i f they are harmful we say he i s " h o s t i l e " , i f they are u n p r e d i c t a b l e , we say he i s "confused" o r " c o n f u s i n g " . viewing the c a t e g o r i e s " f r i e n d l y " ,  By  " h o s t i l e " o r "confused" as  meaningful o n l y w i t h r e s p e c t to p a t t e r n s o f a c t i o n , our p r e v i o u s use o f the concept o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s shown t o be r e l a t e d t o a more common type of usage o f the term. The use of t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " can be found i n p h i l o s o p h y and psychology.  G. Ryle, i n h i s  d i s c u s s i o n of human motives t r e a t e d the a t t r i b u t i o n o f motives as an i n f e r e n c e from p a t t e r n s which are p e r c e i v e d i n b e h a v i o r . * 2 8  A man who i s greedy, f o r example, i s a man who i n the p a s t has always kept t h i n g s f o r h i m s e l f and who we can expect t o keep t h i n g s i n the f u t u r e .  The term "greedy" becomes a convenient  30  shorthand form of i d e n t i f y i n g a r e l a t i v e l y complex s e t o f behaviors. A t t r i b u t i o n theory this perspective  can be seen as an e x t e n s i o n of  t o the p o i n t where v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s  necessary  f o r the a t t r i b u t i o n o f motives or causes are s p e c i f i e d . 2 9 . H.H. K e l l e y , i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the a t t r i b u t i o n process r e f e r s to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of events as a l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n  based on  a s e r i e s o f c r i t e r i a f o r t e s t i n g the v a l i d i t y of the a t t r i b u t i o n . He suggests t h a t persons u t i l i z e the four c r i t e r i a o f " d i s t i n c t iveness", and  "consistency  consensus" i n order  over time", " c o n s i s t e n c y  over m o d a l i t y "  to e s t a b l i s h that t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s  or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s about o t h e r s ' behavior, a r e v a l i d .  Although  the a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s focus p r i m a r i l y on the process by which v e r i f i c a t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e i r theory a t t r i b u t i o n s are representations  f o r patterns  implies  that  o f behavior i n  the same way t h a t we have used the n o t i o n of " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " . D.T. Campbell, i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f a t t i t u d e s implies a s i m i l a r p e r s p e c t i v e .  3 1 -  He proposes t h a t a t t i t u d e s  be t r e a t e d as r e f l e c t i o n s o f b e h a v i o r a l p a t t e r n s , experienced o r a n t i c i p a t e d . does not l o s e explanatory  either  He suggests t h a t by so doing, one  power and a t the same time one gains  by making p r o p o s i t i o n s about a t t i t u d e s e a s i e r t o t e s t .  In a  s i m i l a r way, we expect t h a t such a view of the n o t i o n o f " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " w i l l enable us t o develop p r o p o s i t i o n s i n g changes i n s e q u e n t i a l  regard-  behavior.  Although none of the examples above deals i n d e t a i l w i t h behavior over time, they are a l l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an  31 approach which views i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s or a t t r i b u t i o n s as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of behavior over time.  In the case o f a t t r i b -  u t i o n theory there i s a d i s t i n c t i o n made between behavior p a t t e r n s over time and p a t t e r n s over m o d a l i t y , but there i s no suggestion made t h a t the process of e s t a b l i s h i n g v a l i d i t y i n each case i s d i f f e r e n t . a r i l y concerned  The a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i s t s are prim-  w i t h the type of i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d f o r  v e r i f y i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s , not w i t h the d e t a i l s of the process of c o n f i r m a t i o n .  Our focus on t h i s process i n the second  s e c t i o n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n may then be seen as an attempt to develop dimension  t h i s aspect o f t h e i r theory, a t l e a s t i n s o f a r as the of time i s concerned. Up t o t h i s p o i n t we have made a t h e o r e t i c a l  d i s t i n c t i o n between a c t s and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c t s , y e t conceived of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s as r e f l e c t i n g the p e r c e p t i o n o f c e r t a i n patterns of acts.  I t i s c l e a r from t h i s c o n c e p t u a l -  i z a t i o n t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f a c t s over time i s not a simple one.  The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a  p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n of a c t i o n a t one time w i l l i n f l u e n c e the way i n which subsequent a c t s a r e p e r c e i v e d i n a sequence of a c t i o n . For example, i f we view an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a c t i o n as t h r e a t e n i n g up t o a c e r t a i n time, we w i l l more l i k e l y see a s m i l e on h i s p a r t as devious, than i f we had p e r c e i v e d h i s p r e v i o u s a c t i o n s to be f r i e n d l y .  Our response  to h i s "devious" smile may i n  t u r n serve t o i n c r e a s e the chance t h a t h i s a c t s w i l l to be t h r e a t e n i n g i n the f u t u r e .  continue  Such processes can be seen  as those o f the " s e l f f u l f i l l i n g prophecy" type and Rosenthal have e x p l o r e d i n d e t a i l .  which Merton  32  When we  consider  the f u n c t i o n of language i n  development of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , we nesting  type of r e l a t i o n s h i p  there i s w i t h the a c t s may  be  f i n d that there i s a s i m i l a r  between l i n g u i s t i c c a t e g o r i e s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c t s over time.  interpreted  l i n g u i s t i c categories),  i n various so can  ways (and  p o s s i b i l i t y forms the b a s i s f o r the  expressed i n  This  seen the  logical  i d e a of a " l o g i c a l  an important p a r t i n the DB  a theoretical consideration,  as as  which, i n t u r n , form  b a s i s f o r more g e n e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  As  Just  these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s be  as elements of more g e n e r a l p a t t e r n s  of a n a l y s i s which p l a y s  the  the  level"  theory.  3 3 .  possibility  of persons d e v e l o p i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s p r o v i d e s a powerful e x p l a n a t o r y n o t i o n t h a t persons can  f o r complex b e h a v i o r .  i d e n t i f y more and  I t means  more a b s t r a c t p a t t e r n s  of  events or b e h a v i o r , s u c c e s s f u l l y adapt to a wider v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s and  communicate a g r e a t d e a l of i n f o r m a t i o n  quickly.  example, i n s t e a d of d e s c r i b i n g  For  might f i n d at each bus  stop, one  bus",  can  and  i n t u r n , one  can  language may of b e h a v i o r .  be 3 4  and  the behavior  t a l k about g e t t i n g on the bus  the  The  the  as  elaboration  i n t e g r a t i o n of them i n t o  c o n s i d e r e d as a major f a c t o r i n the  of  our  organization  ' From an e m p i r i c a l p o i n t of view, however, we  l e f t w i t h a problem.  I f we  are to examine the process  which i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are i d e n t i f i e d or changed, we be  one  t a l k about " g e t t i n g on  p a r t of more:.general types of i n t e r a c t i o n . such g e n e r a l p a t t e r n s  very  can  are  by never  i n a p o s i t i o n where e i t h e r p r e v i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s or more  33 g e n e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s do not p l a y a p a r t i n persons' behavior.  T h i s means t h a t we can only d e a l w i t h the change of  interpretations within  a context of p r e v i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  For  example, we w i l l f i n d i n our experimental procedures  the  i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o the s u b j e c t s  i n b i a s i n g the p a t t e r n s  that  p l a y an important r o l e  o f events which they expect t o f i n d .  A Conceptual Framework f o r I n t e r a c t i o n On  the b a s i s of t h i s account of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ,  we can now begin t o s p e c i f y a g e n e r a l c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r information-processing interaction.  on the p a r t of i n d i v i d u a l s i n an  We w i l l view persons as p r o c e s s o r s o f i n f o r m a t i i  who i n t e r p r e t events and make d e c i s i o n s actions  about t h e i r  on the b a s i s of these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  s i t u a t i o n both i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s but  s h i f t from moment t o moment.  future  W i t h i n any  are not s t a t i c ,  We w i l l focus not on the  substance o f these s h i f t s , but on the p o s s i b l e r e g u l a r i t i e s we may f i n d i n the way i n which these s h i f t s occur.  The  behavior o f a dyad i s then proposed to be the r e s u l t o f a s e r i e s of such d e c i s i o n s l i k e l i h o o d of the next  i n which one d e c i s i o n a f f e c t s the occurring.  At the most g e n e r a l l e v e l , we a r e viewing i n t e r a c t i o n as the r e s u l t o f two i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o g n i t i v e w i t h a communication l i n k between them. must s p e c i f y our assumptions regarding  systems  T h i s means t h a t we the way i n which an  i n d i v i d u a l might process the i n f o r m a t i o n t i e them i n t o a system of communication.  he r e c e i v e s ,  and then  34  W i t h i n t h i s framework, we  w i l l f i n d t h a t a con-  v e n i e n t way of c o n c e i v i n g of a c t s of i n d i v i d u a l s sequence o f emissions (the i n d i v i d u a l ) .  i s as a  (the acts) from a p a r t i c u l a r source  F o l l o w i n g t h i s lead we can then f i n d an  analogy f o r the problem faced by i n d i v i d u a l s  i n interaction  i n the t h e o r e t i c a l developments o f s e q u e n t i a l  a n a l y s i s .-> •  T h i s i s a technique of a n a l y s i s  3  f o r s i t u a t i o n s where one must  make judgements about c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the source o f some emissions on the b a s i s receives.  of p a t t e r n s i n the emissions which one  A t y p i c a l problem o f s e q u e n t i a l  analysis, f o r  example, would be t o make a judgement about the q u a l i t y of a batch of t r a n s i s t o r s as they come o f f the assembly l i n e . examining the q u a l i t y o f a s h o r t sequence of these  By  transistors  a reasonably a c c u r a t e judgement can be made, not only o f the q u a l i t y o f the batch, but of whether i t i s necessary t o continue  sampling i n order t o s a t i s f y a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of  statistical  confidence. We w i l l view the problem o f i n t e r a c t i o n i n a sim-  i l a r way.  In an i n t e r a c t i o n , one i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a  sequence of behavior from another person, and on the b a s i s of that  sequence one must make a judgement about the l i k e l y  sequences one can expect i n the f u t u r e .  As we have p o i n t e d  out  i n our d i s c u s s i o n  of the n o t i o n o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ,  can  be c o n s i d e r e d the same as the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g some  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an i n d i v i d u a l ,on the b a s i s The  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of such a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  " f r i e n d l y " ) w i l l then serve as a b a s i s  this  of h i s b e h a v i o r . (e.g., he i s  f o r the p r e d i c t i o n o f  35 f u t u r e a c t s on the p a r t of t h a t person. analogous of  At t h i s l e v e l i t i s  to the judgement of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p o p u l a t i o n  t r a n s i s t o r s on the b a s i s of a sequence observed  population.  from t h a t  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the p o p u l a t i o n , once  i d e n t i f i e d , serves as the b a s i s f o r g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s about f u t u r e o c c u r r e n c e s . In  a s i t u a t i o n where the source of emissions i s  unchanging, the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the source may  be r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d .  However, we would  l i k e to develop t h e o r i e s about an i n t e r a c t i o n i n which person's  a c t i o n may  a f f e c t the s t a t e of the o t h e r and  the nature of the o t h e r ' s responses.  The  situation  one thus  then  becomes more l i k e t h a t of the s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h e r whose measuring technique a f f e c t s the v a r i a b l e s he i s attempting study. ^ ' 3  -  to  The very process of t r y i n g t o f i n d out what p r o -  duces the behavior s t u d i e d ends up a f f e c t i n g i t s nature -. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y makes the r e s e a r c h problem difficult, scientist.  f o r o u r s e l v e s as w e l l as f o r our h y p o t h e t i c a l s o c i a l However, to i n c l u d e i t as a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of  i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n makes i t a very powerful concept. for we  explanatory  Most of the l i t e r a t u r e on the s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g  example, p o s t u l a t e s a mechanism of feedback o u t l i n e d above.  In t h i s case i t i s proposed  e x p e c t a t i o n s of an i n d i v i d u a l  prophecy  such as the  one  t h a t the  (as r e f l e c t e d i n h i s behavior.)  are a major c a u s a l f a c t o r of h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s being In  extremely  fulfilled.  the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l , the development and  maintenance of d e v i a n t c a r e e r s i s o f t e n c o n s i d e r e d to be -3 Q  dependent on a s i m i l a r process.• •  In t h i s case, the  36  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a person's  behavior as "strange" and the  subsequent r e a c t i o n s t o h i s behavior on t h a t assumption i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a main f a c t o r i n the l a b e l l i n g o f t h a t person as "mentally i l l " ,  "homosexual" o r i n some other way " d e v i a n t " .  Each a c t i o n i n the exchange taken one a t a time i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o account it  f o r the development of the l a b e l , but  i s the r e s u l t of an accumulation  o f exchanges; each one  moving the r e l a t i o n s h i p f a r t h e r and f a r t h e r from i t s o r i g i n a l position.  I n d i v i d u a l C o g n i t i v e Operations In order t o complete the g e n e r a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , it  i s necessary t o make some s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g  the way i n which the i n d i v i d u a l s i n an i n t e r a c t i o n process the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t they r e c e i v e . we w i l l  i n t r o d u c e are based  suggested  will  The processes  on the g e n e r a l i n t e r a c t i o n model  above, but they i n t r o d u c e f e a t u r e s o f i n d i v i d u a l  behavior which w i l l a l l o w us t o make p r e d i c t i o n s about  specific  types of b e h a v i o r . As the g e n e r a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n suggests, are expected  persons  t o i d e n t i f y some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the other  i n d i v i d u a l on the b a s i s o f h i s behavior, and then use t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as a b a s i s f o r the p r e d i c t i o n of f u t u r e a c t s by t h a t person.  T h i s suggests a two-step model f o r i n d i v i d u a l  action;  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o r c h a r a c t e r -  istics,  and the c h o i c e o f a c t i o n based on t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .  The processes i n v o l v e d i n each o f these steps might be very  37  different. In our d i s c u s s i o n o f the concept o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , we had suggested t h a t the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c might be c o n s i d e r e d  equivalent  t o an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a  sequence o f a c t s as p a r t of a p a t t e r n of a c t s . a process,  past a c t i o n s become a s s o c i a t e d  Through such  t o present  to the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e a c t i o n s .  ones and  I f , f o r example,  on the b a s i s of a number of unexpected r e a c t i o n s , we had come to q u e s t i o n  our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f our f r i e n d ' s b e h a v i o r , we  might t r y t o f i n d some i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which would make sense of those r e a c t i o n s .  I f one i s found, i t would a l l o w us t o  i d e n t i f y those r e a c t i o n s as p a r t of a p a t t e r n and t o form a b a s i s on which f u t u r e a c t i o n s might be a n t i c i p a t e d .  This  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f some p a s t a c t i o n as p a r t o f a p a t t e r n i s the f i r s t  step of the two-step p r o c e s s .  We w i l l r e f e r t o t h i s  as the " i n t e r p r e t i v e process". The operations  second step of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o g n i t i v e  i s one which generates a response on the b a s i s of  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n made i n t h e f i r s t decided  step.  Once we have  t h a t our f r i e n d i s "upset", and even i f we i n t e r p r e t  i t as a s i g n o f h i s recent d i v o r c e ,  ( f o r example), we a r e s t i l l  i n a p o s i t i o n where we have many p o s s i b l e courses o f a c t i o n for  responding t o him.  The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n we have made does  l i m i t the range of responses t o some extent,  but i t i s not  l i k e l y t o be s u f f i c i e n t t o account f o r the a c t u a l response we make t o him.  The process by which t h i s f i n a l response i s made,  we w i l l r e f e r t o as the " d e c i s i o n  process".  38  Whereas i n the i n t e r p r e t i v e process we w i l l emphasize t h e o r i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n and c o g n i t i o n , i n the d e c i s i o n process we w i l l u t i l i z e t h e o r i e s which i n v o l v e the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of u t i l i t i e s , p r e f e r e n c e s and outcome l i k e l i h o o d s .  In  both o f these p r o c e s s e s , we w i l l r e l y t o a g r e a t e x t e n t on t h e o r i e s of l e a r n i n g i n order t o account f o r the way i n which a s s o c i a t i o n s between a c t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e developed  and changed.  The s p e c i f i c t h e o r i e s which we use  w i l l be d i s c u s s e d as we d e t a i l the two p r o c e s s e s . D i v i s i o n s s i m i l a r t o the two processes we have i d e n t i f i e d are not new t o the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e .  For  example, D.H. Lawrence suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n t r o d u c i n g  39 a "coding response"  i n t o the stimulus-response  By the "coding response"  paradigm."  he r e f e r s t o an o p e r a t i o n which  codes sensory i n p u t i n t o a p a r t i c u l a r code item. t h a t the s t i m u l i are transformed  T h i s means  a c c o r d i n g t o a s e t of r u l e s  i n t o some k i n d o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the s t i m u l i , much l i k e the behavior of the Other i n our f o r m u l a t i o n i s transformed a c c o r d i n g t o the i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s i n t o an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the b e h a v i o r .  I t i s t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the s t i m u l u s  ( i n Lawrence's terms, the "stimulus-as-coded")  which i s  d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the o v e r t b e h a v i o r . There are as w e l l a number o f t h e o r i e s o f s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n which make a d i s t i n c t i o n between an a c t i v a t i o n 40. and a d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s .  process  Since the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of  each of these processes i s u s u a l l y i n the symbolic  language  of mathematics, they have i n g e n e r a l , wide a p p l i c a b i l i t y and  39  the p o s s i b i l i t y of encompassing s e v e r a l theories  o f the p r o c e s s .  d i f f e r e n t substantive  Many d i f f e r e n t processes may be  invoked f o r the manner i n which the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t i e s might be developed and changed. theories  locate  the l e a r n i n g  Most o f these s i g n a l  process  (which i n v o l v e s  detection  changes  i n the t r a n s i t i o n p r o b a b i l i t i e s ) i n the a l t e r a t i o n s of the parameters i n the d e c i s i o n  process alone.  Since the a c t i v a t i o n  process i n these models i s most s i m i l a r t o the i n t e r p r e t i v e process i n our theory, the f i x e d parameters i n t h a t  process  w i l l not p r o v i d e the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r change which the i n t e r pretive  process proposes.'  In s p i t e of t h i s , however, the  formal techniques demonstrated i n s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n useful  f o r the d e r i v a t i o n s  theory a r e  from the model which we w i l l  specify. In the l i t e r a t u r e of p h y s i o l o g y as w e l l , some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t  i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n might be u s e f u l l y  as the r e s u l t of two major s t e p s . ations  there i s  of speech d e f e c t s ,  seen  As a r e s u l t of i n v e s t i g -  A.H. L u r i a , suggests a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  between an i n s t r u c t i o n c e n t r e and an a c t i o n  c e n t r e t o account  41. f o r c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r a l problems. on the f u n c t i o n for action.  *  H i s work focuses  primarily  of speech i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n s  The evidence i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  suggests a  c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between speech i n s t r u c t i o n and the a b i l i t y to a c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t a c o r t i c a l l e v e l , o r where damage has o c c u r r e d .  Both l e v e l s appear t o operate  subcortical quite  independently, even t o the p o i n t where one can take over some f u n c t i o n s of the other should there be the need.  40  Another p h y s i o l o g i c a l study by H.R. S c h a f f e r makes the same d i s t i n c t i o n between c o r t i c a l and s u b c o r t i c a l a c t i v i t y and suggests t h a t s t r e s s may i n c r e a s e the amount o f subcortical activity i n problem-solving.^•  Both o f these  f o r m u l a t i o n s a r e c o n s i s t e n t with a d i v i s i o n o f a c t i o n two major areas; operations to  into  one having t o do w i t h complex c o n c e p t u a l  ( i n v o l v i n g strong t i e s w i t h language) and one having  do w i t h simpler o p e r a t i o n s such as those proposed i n  association learning.  The former  i s analogous  t o our  " i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s " and the l a t t e r t o our " d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s " .  A Model f o r I n t e r a c t i o n In  the development of our c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n we  have made a d i s t i n c t i o n between an i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n and an i n t e r a c t i o n system.  process  That t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s somewhat  a r b i t r a r y i s r e f l e c t e d i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n model which f o l l o w s .  The f i r s t two elements of the  model r e f e r t o concepts which are not simply about i n d i v i d u a l s , but about the l i n k s between persons.  The f i r s t  l i m i t s our  concern t o i n d i v i d u a l s i n i n t e r a c t i o n and the second a b a s i s f o r communication between persons.  provides  These two elements  are necessary i n order t o move from i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n t o dyadic interaction.  They occur a t t h i s p o i n t i n the d i s c u s s i o n because  they are b a s i c elements of the i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n model. We w i l l p r e s e n t the a c t i o n model i n the n o t a t i o n of  s e t theory.  as an attempt  T h i s i s meant more as an h e u r i s t i c d e v i c e than t o present a formal theory o f a c t i o n .  It will  41  allow a reasonably c l e a r r e f e r e n c e p o i n t of the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n integrating  possible  i n the f u t u r e ,  f o r the e l a b o r a t i o n as w e l l  as a means o f  disparate research enterprises.  A  s i m i l a r format w i l l be adopted when we come t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e v a r i o u s aspects of the conceptual framework i n the second s e c t i o n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .  We w i l l i d e n t i f y p a r t i c u l a r ,  assumptions which we f e e l are c e n t r a l t o the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , but we w i l l not p r o v i d e an account o f a l l the assumptions made i n the p r o c e s s .  S.l.  Set P = {x,y,z,...,q} This set consists  o f the persons o r groups i n the  interaction. Up t o t h i s p o i n t we have mentioned o n l y two individuals  i n our d i s c u s s i o n .  The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of s e t P  allows the p o s s i b i l i t y o f three or more persons t o be i n the i n t e r a c t i o n . condition and  Although we w i l l not develop t h i s  i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i t i s n o t without p l a u s i b i l i t y  f o r t h i s reason we a l l o w the g e n e r a l statement o f the  conceptual framework t o i n c l u d e The be  included  applicable  more than two.  i n t e r a c t i o n system as i t i s s p e c i f i e d may  t o groups, and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between groups.  There are s e v e r a l  examples i n the l i t e r a t u r e o f p o l i t i c a l  r e l a t i o n s where models of i n d i v i d u a l r e l a t i o n s have been 43  f r u i t f u l l y applied For  t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between groups.  t h i s reason, we are l e a v i n g  including  also  groups i n the model.  open the p o s s i b i l i t y o f  42  S.2.  Set C = {a,b,c,...n} T h i s s e t r e f e r s t o communicative a c t s which persons  may perform.  For our purposes, a communicative a c t must be recognizable  by a l l the i n t e r a c t a n t s .  By r e c o g n i t i o n we  do not mean t o imply conscious awareness o n l y , but i n c l u d e as well perceptions The  of a c t i v i t y  central consideration  for perception of r e c o g n i t i o n .  'below* the conscious  level.  i s t h a t the a c t i v i t y must be a v a i l a b l e  and not hidden t o view or below some t h r e s h o l d In t h i s way each a c t has a p o t e n t i a l f o r  i n f l u e n c i n g the other  person.  One l i n e of e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t -  i g a t i o n would be the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f those f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e such  perception.  I t i s c l e a r t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n o f an a c t a t t h i s l e v e l leaves  a g r e a t d e a l t o be d e s i r e d i n s o f a r as c l a r i t y i s  concerned.  Our s t r a t e g y w i l l be t o t o l e r a t e t h i s u n c l a r i t y  at t h i s p o i n t s i n c e i t allows  a wide range o f a p p l i c a t i o n , but  to p l a c e severe c o n s t r a i n t s on i t when i t comes t o the formu l a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r example.  S.3.  Set I =  {i,j,k,...p} This s e t consists of  assigned  t o communicative a c t s .  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which may be  43 In order to form a b a s i s f o r developing  the  notion  of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s as a coding process, we w i l l take a s l i g h t d i v e r s i o n i n the d i s c u s s i o n . The  i d e a of a code was  o r i g i n a l l y used i n t h e o r i e s  r e g a r d i n g the communication of i n f o r m a t i o n . i t r e f e r r e d to the process  In t h a t  context,  by which language, or the elements  of a language, were transformed  i n t o another s e t of elements.  For example, the code d e v i s e d by Morse was  one which  transformed  l e t t e r s or sometimes words i n t o sequences o f sounds or  lights  of a c e r t a i n d u r a t i o n .  trans-  These sequences c o u l d then be  m i t t e d by means which the o r i g i n a l l e t t e r s or words c o u l d (E.g., l i g h t or e l e c t r i c a l impulse)  The  s e t of correspondence r u l e s r e g a r d i n g  the l e t t e r s and  not.  code c o n s i s t e d of a sequences.  So long as the persons a t both ends of the l i n e used the same r u l e s , messages c o u l d be sent and  understood.  Since t h a t time much work has been done on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of codes themselves. * 44  the  T h i s work has  generated a s e t of theorems and c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of  the  i m p l i c a t i o n s of codes which makes the term u s e f u l f o r many other s i t u a t i o n s b e s i d e s the t r a n s m i s s i o n of messages i n a narrow sense. A c r u c i a l aspect  i n the expansion of the  of code has been the l i n k between codes and pattern. T h i s may  s t r u c t u r e or  Codes impose a s t r u c t u r e on otherwise be done i n a number of ways.  c e r t a i n aspects of the event i n the way  notion  random  A code may  events.  e x t r a c t only  t h a t an ear responds  o n l y to p h y s i c a l v i b r a t i o n s or a r u l e r i s s e n s i t i v e only to  44.  distance.  In the former example, the mechanisms of the ear  transform an event i n t o v i b r a t i o n s and e v e n t u a l l y e l e c t r i c a l impulses  to the b r a i n .  In the l a t t e r example, the r u l e r  transforms the event i n t o a value on a s c a l e .  By the  utiliz-  a t i o n of a code, the events which occur are transformed  into  some other event which i s p a r t of a p a t t e r n or s t r u c t u r e of events. Such a coding o p e r a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our view of the way  i n which meaning i s g i v e n t o events i n an  i n t e r a c t i o n sequence.  We w i l l assume t h a t the events which  occur are nonmeaningful t o the i n t e r a c t a n t s u n t i l they are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a t t e r n s of a c t s which the a c t o r s c o n c e i v e . The  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of such p a t t e r n s can be c o n s i d e r e d as a type  of coding o p e r a t i o n i n which events are r e l a t e d to other events. There are a number of ways i n which we a n a l y t i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t the p a t t e r n or s t r u c t u r e of coding o p e r a t i o n s .  ence between events and the code items. may  such  Each r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n v o l v e s two  however: a s e t of code items and a s e t of r u l e s of  correspondence  might  factors,  correspond-  The r u l e s of  be r e p r e s e n t e d i n two d i f f e r e n t ways,  although a t a t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l they are e q u i v a l e n t .  First  of a l l , we might t h i n k of the code as a s e t of c o n s t r a i n t s on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n some s i t u a t i o n . In t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n , the focus i s on the r e l a t i v e  likelihood  of c e r t a i n events w i t h r e s p e c t t o other events.  T h i s comes  to us from the f o r m u l a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n theory and the d e f i n -  45  i t i o n i n t e c h n i c a l terms. --  A second method i s t o speak o f  45  a code as a s e t o f r u l e s .  The r u l e s a r e used t o guide us i n  the assignment of events of one type t o events o f another.  A  good example of t h i s type o f code i s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l 4 fi  grammar developed  by Chomsky.  Both of these  interpretations  of a code w i l l be d e a l t with i n more d e t a i l when we come t o d i s c u s s the r e l a t i o n s between a c t s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . In summary, there a r e two aspects o f our d i g r e s s i o n which a r e important t o the d i s c u s s i o n .  First,  i s the r e l a t i o n -  s h i p between the n o t i o n of a coding o p e r a t i o n and the n o t i o n of s t r u c t u r e .  Second, i s the e q u i v a l e n c e f o r our purposes  of the n o t i o n o f a code, a c o n s t r a i n t and a r u l e or a s e t of rules.  These terms a l l may be used to s p e c i f y a r e l a t i o n s h i p  between two or more events. In the language of our b a s i c model, the s e t o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e s the s e t of code elements which a r e a v a i l a b l e t o the i n t e r a c t a n t .  From the p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n ,  we can see t h a t the -coding o p e r a t i o n l i n k s the communi c a t i v e a c t t o a p a t t e r n o f other a c t s .  F o r example, when we  i d e n t i f y an event as a " f o u l b a l l " , we c o n c e p t u a l l y l i n k i t t o a l l the other a c t i v i t i e s , events and persons who are i n c l u d e d i n the game of b a s e b a l l . person's  S i m i l a r l y , when we i n t e r p r e t a  a c t i o n s as those of a "teacher", we imply a wide  v a r i e t y o f other r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s on the p a r t of other such as "students", " a d m i n i s t r a t o r s " , "parents", e t c .  persons,  Clearly,  the substance o f these a s s o c i a t i o n s w i l l s h i f t a c c o r d i n g t o time, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s , but the t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e  46  remains  the  same. The most  comes is  from  not  are  language  crucial  strictly  used by  the  by  to  to  test  note, for  with  or  empirical  however,  relating  persons use.  analysts.  that  of  the  language  the  of  "coding  to  process".  following  R.l.  act  IN  a  code  This  is  a quaternary such that  y  a by  interprets relation  acts  of  act IN  is  This specification  these  the  person x to  w h i c h may acts  is  item w i l l  be  ourselves  we  will we  important  code does p r o v i d e to  our  items  come to  a  basis  model. relating  referred  represented  to  a  as  the  by means  of  definition.  o f P x C x P x I  The  It  it  categories  concept u n t i l  theoretically  process is  code  limit  discussion,  the  a  than  items  point,  the  linguistic  communication  The mechanism f o r communicative  of  code  this  whether  model.  notion  and  our  of  At  Rather  into  ambiguity  aspects  model  particular  such substance  various  identification  theoretical  actors  introducing the  our  that  identified  either  tolerate  typical  be  of  relation, (x,a,y,i)  person x  as  particular,  eIN  iff  x  interpretations  relation  provides  constraints  represented  on  the  acts.  ^ y  a  subset  ~  person  i.  c o d i n g p r o c e s s mapping  associated with  c a n be  in  by  a  person  y.  technique  possible The  by means  communicative  of  for  the  interpretations  coding process a  for  specification  of  the  47  the nature of I N . ' * 4  c o n s t r a i n t s on behavior  C o n s t r a i n t s on t h i s coding process t o the extent  t h a t the process  become  limits  the response a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e .  R.2.  OUT i s a quaternary r e l a t i o n , i n p a r t i c u l a r , a subset  o f P x I x C x P  such t h a t  (x,i,a,y) e OUT i f f x ^ y * a i s  a communicative a c t which person y does a f t e r x does an a c t which i s i n t e r p r e t e d by y as i . The  r e l a t i o n OUT i s the l i n k between i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and  communicative a c t s by person y .  This r e l a t i o n represents i n our model.  the " d e c i s i o n  process"  I t i s t h e process which a s s o c i a t e s i n t e r p r e t -  a t i o n s with a c t s f o r each person i n the i n t e r a c t i o n . Both of these r e l a t i o n s r e f e r t o the l o g i c a l S t r u c t u r e o f our conceptual  framework r a t h e r than t o p r o p o s i t i o n s  which c o n s t r a i n the a s s o c i a t i o n s p o s s i b l e . a s s o c i a t i o n s may be represented  Since  these  i n many d i f f e r e n t ways we w i l l  d i g r e s s a t t h i s p o i n t t o make c l e a r the way i n which we w i l l p o r t r a y them.  Representation  of A s s o c i a t i o n s A g e n e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s IN and  OUT taken independently representing  may be made i n a p i c t o r i a l way by  a s s o c i a t i o n s from some elements t o o t h e r s as l i n e s .  In the case o f IN the elements would be those of s e t C and s e t  48  I;  that  one  p o s s i b l e arrangement  ordered  is,  acts  and  quadruples  interpretations,  the  of  such  same a r r a n g e m e n t  1  2  2  2  represents  2.1  associations.  { (x,C ,y,I ) , (x,C ,y,I ) , (x,C ,y,l" ) 1  Figure  As a  may b e  set  of  represented  as:  , (x,C ,y,I ) , (x,C ,y,I ) ,  3  3  3  3  4  (x,C ,y,I ) } 4  3  There relation more to  I  than  of  one  C  3  act  are  a verbal  precision  a  an  Although to  this  point  w o u l d be later  date.  iations. begin ever.  the In  the It  to  way  move  to  interaction the  particular  may b e  associated  (e.g.,  C  1^).  I ).  The  3  requires  mathematical  worth  our  noting  of  to  the  becomes a formal  fashion,  p a r s i m o n y , we  future  it  associations at  occurrence of  a  of  a s s o c i a t i o n s up  a deterministic  model w i t h o u t  that  degree  process.  the  of  it  and  likelihood  of  more  (e.g.,  a greater  p r o c e d u r e s c o u l d be  interests  associated  representation  Such w e i g h t i n g  the  to  Similarly,  As a r e s u l t ,  weights  for  is  2  interpretation.  representation in  this  and  3  one  form.  assign  development is  this  h a s b e e n made  p o s s i b l e to  represent  in  linguistic  of  I  a s s o c i a t e d to  easy matter  representations  interpretations,  a s s o c i a t e d to  all  of  One a c t  a s s o c i a t e d to  statement  than  relatively  is  3  features  noteworthy.  may b e  and  several  different  3  than 2  two  are  and I ;  2  C ,C  which  are  used  certain  have  such  a  to assoc-  decided feature,  structural  a  to how-  elaboration  Figure  Graphic  Person  x  representation  2.1  of  associations  Person  50  might  utilize  between of  this  possibility.  This  particular  interpretations  theoretically  and a c t s  linking one  has,  cognitive  processes.  On t h e  involved  establishment  the  conceptualization  hand,  relations  the  advantage  relationships  we h a v e  and  as w e l l ,  of  with  assumed t h a t  alteration  of  learning  learning •  associations  48 between  interpretations  considered language  _  of  that  represent  signs which  structures.  certain  assumed by  these  of  our  reasons.  model.  First,  it  is  theoretical  development.  system of ment  to  actants a  might  treat  are  may  be  are  used as  the  same t i m e  represented  structure  In  to  They  are  be  elaborate raised  suggestion of  by  a basis (IN of  Second,  it  in  other  "educated"  to  sufficient  history  of  associations  between  acts  the  we  have  the  for  theories  a n d OUT)  then,  associations  the  way  interaction  to  in  of  a  an  areas  develop  interpretations.  they a  set  of  context  for  established  empirical  is,  two  which  assume t h a t  that  for  other  provide  as p a r t  these  point  these  will  we w i l l  some e x t e n t ,  detail  this  c o n c e p t u a l and  words,  and  in  at  developed with  interpretations  alternatives  follow.  the  The r e l a t i o n s  want  a  links  d e c i s i o n to  At  theories.  theoretical  our  49  aspects of  We d o n o t aspects  acts.  interpretations  symbols or  cognitive  and  developthe  have of  interhad  51  CHAPTER  3 -  THE PROCESS  Now t h a t the  interaction  s y s t e m , we  various  aspects of  between  acts  and  acts  the  general  which  a  order  to  action one  the  are  in  sequence of  reason  because of  s e q u e n c e we m u s t  it  be  able  affects  presented is  a general to  and between  account  of  elaborate  here  the  locates  interpretations  f o c u s s i n g on t h i s our  may  concern for change over  propositions regarding  just  ASSOCIATION  a position  for  interaction  person's action  IN  p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d when a s s o c i a t i o n s  The  system i s  and OUT,  provided  interpretations,  change.  framework IN  and  make  we h a v e  OF CHANGE  to  the  the  other.  the  way  that  we m u s t  begin  Since  we h a v e  limited  our  which  the  to  acts  of  in In  of  Since our  changes i n  way  time.  direction  identify  aspect  an  in  inter-  which  conceptual  in  the  elaborate  relations our  conceptualization.  situations their  in  behavior  we  persons are  can view  this  process.  At  each point  in  are  to  learn  are  trying  situation. which as  That  actions  what  is,  will  shifting. judgement  At  a beneficial some  in  joint  the  in  the  each point  regarding  the  attempting  change  type  outcome.  assumptions about  the  a  of In  the  of  order  pattern  of  coordinate of  learning  actions to  a puzzle  involved for  do  identify  he m u s t make  action  so,  that  him  w h i c h may  which w i l l to  those  We may v i e w  interaction action  to  persons  attempting  coordination.  the  to  type  "appropriate"  solution  in  as  interaction  each person i s  result  a person involved  the  discussion  keep a  produce he m u s t  which  the  make  other  52  person that  is  likely  to  usually  not  situations action  too are  that  pattern  severely  difficult not  of  levels  once.  other  at  a major  persons  of  evidence  that  we w i l l  on  •the the  and  find  own a c t i o n  a  altered  to  typical  way  such  the  which  likely  hope  this  in  a  we m i g h t  In  resolve  be  able  manner  in  which  shifting  other.  In different  feedback  from  the  to  the  feedback  is  handled  effect  to an  interaction  judgements  one  the  in  at  of  strategies issue.  formulate  relationship  the  judgements judgements  specificity  a more  handled  between  little  which if  contra-  abstract emerging  level, which  By f o c u s s i n g on in  a  sequential  propositions  interaction  sequence  regardwill  proceed. In  terms  of  our  basic model,  will  regarding  with  expect  level  the is  an  addition,  information  to  of  is  than  concrete  feedback  Each  many  and a l t e r e d  processes or to  interaction  at  It  which  example,  slowly.  at  is  turn.  coordinate  b a s e d on  use  we  to  the  identified of  this  extent.  from  process.  way  change,  most  possibility  expect  which  for  situations,  large  the  made q u i c k l y  interactants in  now in  If,  difficult  those  situation, ing  support  a  monitoring  on the  information  with  we m i g h t  influence  to  formed  based  such  raises  Thus the  person are  be more  dict  his  However,  a c t i o n may b e  may p r o c e e d .  other  are  to  he m i g h t  The manner  to  adjust  task.  p e r s o n becomes a c r u c i a l  feedback  the  a  limited  action  patterns  be  then  constrained  a p e r s o n makes  addition,  of  and  pattern. For  the  make,  the  structure  of  53  associations ented  by  which  changes  research  question  will  in  the  then  are  not  which  will  be  concerned at  occur  when  altered  relations  the  there  with  changes  more  than  two  exchange.  in  the  a s s o c i a t i o n s between  OUT).  More  only  persons  in  the  two  and between  remainder  Theoretical  of  our  the  this  account  of  step  in  the  such  an  a c c o u n t was  theoretical  their They asked  acts  and  set  P.  OUT b e  in  altered  that  involved  with  the  changes  interpretations  this  This  and  acts  means  (in (in  that  condition  we  associations  persons  interpretations  point  elaboration  piece  conducted a estimate  distribution  of  a  IN  the  the  there  will  are  apply  both  relatively  a n d OUT a s  interaction.  for  The  an  simple  a  first  direction  experimental  for  and  a  work. and DuCharme w e r e information the  series  experiments  from  of  which given  validity  urn  a  in  of in  series  information  coloured balls  interested  efficiently  regarding  They were of  of  provide  between  s u g g e s t e d by  persons used  selected.  we w i l l  interdependence  inferences  to  first  discussion.  Peterson which  repres-  Background At  to  Our  discussion  concerned rather,  specifically,  the  and  point  are  We a r e  IN  our  the  relation  c a n be  and OUT.  from  in  IN)  IN  feedback  relations  apparent  this  relation  by  is:  In what ways m i g h t by f e e d b a c k ? It  be  when  various which of  balls  and  the  as  extent  changing hypotheses.  subjects  regarding  each urn,  in  were  were the the  total balls  5 0  *  54  were  picked  from  which  the  out the  estimate  changes the  in  they  were  to  balls  were  drawn,  being  selection more  of  on B a y e s '  likelihood  show o n e is  the  balls  and  in  A c o m p a r i s o n was made Bayes'  change  that  choice  our  model makes  which  is  the  relevant  nature  of  acts  Peterson  in  for  the  we  and DuCharme  information  some  a person's  of  results  support  change acts, by  at  a view  least  into  of  which  our  of  in  they  from  their were  predictions  Just  this  the  findings  discussion. the  face  analogy model,  experiments, as the  regarding standard  of  and u r n s the  the  sequence  of  experimental  reluctant  of  of  regarding  the  the  and  two  composition  analogy, are  It  between  information  individuals  to  DuCharme  in an  regarding  to  source  change  of  suggested  theorem.  Nature  in  respect  see  convey  Given  that  our  regarding  interpretations  with  the  Change  On t h e way  acts  "nature".  established  Bayes'  The  his  and  interaction  balls  aspects  data  effect"  the  urn  between  no p r e d i c t i o n s  estimates If  1  so do  than  Peterson  become r e l a t e d .  urn,  the  c h o s e n an u r n ,  conceptualizations  the  and  had  evidence.5 -  provide  theorem  the  likelihood  they  functions,  their  the  the  once  conservative  persons  with  of  theorem.  effect  contradictory  along  prediction  "primary  urns; to  their  showed a  Although the  using  Subjects  resistent  -based  correct.  likelihood  subjects.  give  the  model.  basis  of  stability The  this  experiment,  of  the  type  simplest  way  was  found to  we  looked  c o u l d be  propose that  for  a  introduced shifts  in  55  IN  relations  were  less  likely  coordination,  than  two  suggesting this  bases for  were  IN  a n d OUT r e l a t i o n s .  of  view  is  an  of  of  we  the  option  of  friend  option  "friend", "friend"  to  (being  an  in  a  little  definition  have  to  Assuming  that  he  the  in  There  relationship argument  his  the  the  definition  are  between  from  and  more  expect are  the  point  second  of  the  coordination,  individual  the  past interpret-  example,  of  who  hostility of  action  the  the  suddenly  toward  other  make  or  him  from  definition  he w i l l  perhaps),  others.  of  toward  altering  action.  changes h i s  interpretation,  he m o s t  to  have  or  events  in  relationship  a s s o c i a t e d to  for  maintaining  defensive,  of  than  the  the  based on t h a t  deal  of  change on  individual  definition  type  other  of  interpretation  his  and h i s  many  in  a great  relationships  that  to  action  "enemy", the  some f o r m s  A person,  interaction  the  similar  hostility  error  r e a s s i g n meaning  in  that  costly  altering  altering  occurred  would  is  that  c h o i c e of  perhaps  but  his  an  showing  of  If  or  error  information-processing aspects  find  changing both.  his  the  will  first  changing h i s  or  both  particular  the  less  occurrence of  ation,  him  we  are  changing his  has  an  OUT r e l a t i o n s .  Lawrence  consider  event,  finds  by  action,  feedback  Upon t h e has  in  after  response.52.  individual  basis  The  raised  If of  shifts  occur  information-processing efficiency,  argument  coding  to  similar  has have  events the  which  already  interactions.  developed over been  some  experienced,  beside  likely  the  interpretation  time,  we  specific "friend".  56  If  one were  ship",  to  therefore,  other  actions  which  had been  "bribes".  the  to  in  the  that  Even  events, the  future  that  time  we  "friends"  as more  to  we  work.  Within  To move  utilities  or  particular of  an  interpretation both  stabilizing  in  the  that  the  events  "Gifts" to  be  to  maintain  of  events.  relationship  more  of  would  statement  on  at  least  as  one  redefining  uncertainty have  friendship.  our  many  addition,  w h i c h we w o u l d  s i g n s of  "friend-  perhaps  this  problem  deal  to  in  We m a k e  of  have  events  attempt  one  time.  would  affection,  a great  In  relationships  past  into  up  until  addition, with  other  uncertain. the  the  choice of  involves framework  actions one  which to  adjustment  the of  the of  the  does not  classes  of  events.  terms  of  classes the  expectations.  time  based on  adjustment  of  interpretation  may m e a n  outcome  a  of and  acts the  may b e  there  shift  likelihood  alteration  the of  it  may  framein  for  a adjust-  the  a rather  problems  factors,  that  n e c e s s a r i l y mean The  relatively  fewer  consonant with  other  it  whole  actions  an  are  but  of  new  escape the  as  to  interpretation  reinterpret  from  event,  whole  of  to  example,  reinterpret  we  change  be many d i f f e r e n t  task,  if  interpretations  however.  ment  their  interpreted forced  have  false.  occurrences of  we may b e  stable  reinterpret  for  as  introduce  To  also  individuals  friendship,  but  from  expressions of  some c o n s i s t e n c y i n  was  relationship  o c c u r r e d up  light  reevaluated  presumption  which  have  exchanged,  Past  be  the  one would  which  reinterpreted  have  redefine  costly  creates  for  57  On t h i s most try  efficient a  new  other's  strategy  action  past  types  of  since  it  when  notion  we  of  the  relation  reaction,  and or  to  the  similar  the  the  theoretical  his  by  of  acts  the  and  to  costs  in  so,  of  both  relations and A  he  behavior, of  the  other this  as  a  transfer  and  in  the  way,  similar  inter-  response  the he  ties  the  of  a stimuli  coding  the  the  (the  is  proximal  aspects  situation critical  a reinterpretation  learning  learning  function of  of  his  coding response  than  provides  s u c h as  theory,  shifts  contextual  learning  issues.^5-  distinction specified  some e x t e n t , persons might  by  exists H.  . 5 8 Skinner, be  the  the  of  n  to  of  between  notion  psychological level,  p r o c e s s as  and  similarity  Lawrence's  situation.  perception  the  D.H.  stimulus-as-coded to  the  at  attribution  In  b a s e d on t h e  of  similarity  to  and u n c h a n g i n g  controversy  the  the  to  of  respect  of  assumes t h a t  factors  stable  aspects  redundancy  he  situation.  more  action  definition  model)  controlled  problems  57.  both  with  is  noncontinuity  Bern  place  propostion  By d o i n g  response  changing  addition  in^our  changing  many  of  the  processor is  interpretation  an  In  a particular  rules  third  the  " s t i m u l u s - a s - c o d e d " and o u r  4  in  into  proposing that  information  involves  recall  pretations.^ '' IN  option  are  c h a n g e s . • This  view  the  we  changing  The  falls  then,  for  before  acts.  interpretations efficiency  basis,  in  Kelley.  continuity-  measurement in  stimulus-  changes,  the  of  theory  56. *  stimulus  of  the  Following  . Kelley  separated  into  suggests two  that  classes.  58  The  first  is  relatively proposed by  that  stable  that  social  class  first  training  and  statements.  those  which  are  ation  of  to  responses under  characteristics  in  The  which  of  are  behaviors by  specific is  situation  of  is  of  It  These  as  and  behaviors  specific  insofar  shaped  responses  properties  to  is  largely  naming  located.  control  associated  environment.  second c l a s s  to  one  the  the  of  which  epitomized  associated in  one's  class  is  descriptive  be  behaviors  entities  this  action  of  of  includes  the  are  situ-  presumed  reward/punishment  the  actor  is  concerned. They be  recognized  of  behavior  categories can  be  times  and  over  that  s u c h by  which  is  (e.g.,  to a  shift  a wide  in  was  If for  apparent  that  teacher  in  depending  each  on I  did  the  at  to  variety  regard  was  guided  by  by  specific  than  the  status)  to  the  show  of  would  rather  led  type  different  one  situations  conclude  social reinforcement  situation. hand,  consistent the  low  am o b s e r v e d  be  A  can  conceptual  time,  other  example, in  of  time.  and  occurrence  in  necessarily  teachers,  consistent  high  teachers  the  situation.  between  behaviors  learned  university  On t h e not  previously  I  period  of  consistency over  difference its  class  if  contingencies  are  by  first  example,  long  of  their  the  For  my b e h a v i o r  category  by  places.  that  guided  the  recognized  deference and  as  propose  behaviors over  specific not but  array  always only  situation,  time of  of or  the  situation,  reinforcements  show d e f e r e n c e when  one  a  strong  could  second  to  but  they  in  each  university  reward  conclude  class  or  that  threat such  59  deference second  was w i t h i n  "interpretive the  we w e r e  process"  attribution  and p r o x i m a l  to  features  of  the  are  less  occur  likely  However,  our  for  an  such  to  patterns  it  is  very  between  of  to  of  action  difficult  which  are  that  the  or  Kelley's  of  the  behavior  are  to  the  to  behavior  that  the  other  at  with  time  in  have  to  a  person t).  is If  and  his  since  interpretation proximal all  it  basis  process" process".^ problems  interpretations  difference situation features in  that  friend.  identify  t  a  and of  which on  two  the  basis  t h e . . p e r s o n s comes t o  we w e r e  time  that  interaction,  situation  Presume as w e l l  as was  to  (i.e.,  accept  have  behavior on the  was m a d e .  time,  previous  non-proximal  if  an interpretation  features  to  identify is  this  T h i s would  make  stimuli  a c t i o n may b e is  not  of  and n o n - p r o x i m a l  in  makes  Lawrence's  which  basis  the  he  non-proximal  we w o u l d  instant  ;  an  the  stable  linked  specific  a  of  of  special  non-proximal  one  with  have  e s t a b l i s h the to  of  "decision  within  interpretations,  between  the  creates  occur  example,  situation,  the  distinction any  linked  least  notions  "interpretive  S i n c e we  linked  for  at  the  changes  clearly  are  our  we w o u l d  interaction  occurring before  proximal  sidered  than  conceptualization  situation  at  situation,  interacting.  interpretation  since  to  interaction,  identify  changes i n  Take,  an  the  belonging  "decision process"  w h i c h may  which  situation.  conclusion  the  behavior  conceptualization  identification.  stimuli  that  a  concern with  stimuli  strangers  the  theorists'  proposing that  the  of  simply  and  for  those  type  class. If  of  the  made.  Thus  useless conthe  60  identification  of  non-proximal  (and  introduction  of  of  only one  of  same the by  for  (or  formation  within  may  also  in  the  be  stability  structural  the  not  mean  themselves. the  f o c u s on  instant  of  interpretation  there  has  been  stimuli  the  are formation,  consistency  in  this  the  change  basis  the  IN  of  for  IN  in  to  be  is  propose  dependent  itself.  changing  the  be  action  sensitive  IN  OUT  to  accounted  not  the  the  relation, for  themselves.  relation  but  the  Since  the  must  (the on  a n d OUT r e l a t i o n s  which of  we m u s t  interpretations  relation  the  patterns  OUT r e l a t i o n  of  interaction  a model  to  problem,  is  specific  specific  acts  interaction. note  at  this  that  we m u s t  exclude  the  effects  of  OUT r e l a t i o n s ,  of  they  propositions  proximal  the of  devise  We m i g h t does  the  is  the  If  this  features  sensitive  while  added by  since  and change  stimuli)  Somehow we m u s t  acts,  what  time.  avoid  permits  relative  relatively  to  which  action  the  order  the  relation)  action  the  is  a l s o makes  inappropriate,  to  defines  time. In  IN  It  e s t a b l i s h whether  over  itself  and n o t h i n g  terms.  theory  relating  cannot  a model  proximal)  consistency over  those  response  interpretation  these  attribution  notion  an  Rather,  Lawrence  dealing  with  type  of  sequence  felt  that  we  have  and K e l l e y  the  a model  acts is  in  our  for  an  point from  stimuli simply  that either  outside  interaction  changes  in  the  of  IN  on when  this  IN  the  sequence.  concern at  above  the  focussed--  conceptualizations  primary  the  argument  or  the  acts  the it  weakness comes  Since  point,  we  a n d OUT r e l a t i o n s  to  this have which  61  does  not  favour  The  deal  of  with  behavior  one which  Process  of  IN  is  of  done  for  the  a  type  of  the  effect lag  changes model for  stems  the  until  and  which  in  betrayal  acts  of  relationship, or  severe  will  in  we w i l l  before  be  rejected  two  the  the  acts to  will  are  sources. and  show no point find  a  notion  which  which  pass  the  on  to  to  in  in  might  of  a  not  it  has  in only  after  a  for  result  feedback. a  of  threshold friends,  tolerance as  we  for  hostility  redefined  by  can  redefinition  which  of  Small  Between  sufficiently at  the  provide  is  threshold,  threshold  in  appropriate  we  defined  the  OUT  find  under  be  the  a model  shift  of  deal  be  a  sequential  activation. great  model  interpretations.  effect  precede  were  such  reached,  effect  of  over  be most  First,  the  our  changes  of  likely  effect  friendship  the  for  literature  c i r c u m s t a n c e s may  hostility  enough  model  it  we  into  relation  responses i s  often  Using  as  that  feedback  pass  other  the  conservative  from  IN  interpretations  environment  participants. those  of  build  development  that  allow  a  the  they  example,  acts  of  between in  extent  threshold  possibility  This  theoretical  we  the  threshold  situation If  particular  the  a  we m i g h t  for  T h i s may m e a n  interaction. a  of  large  '  which  stability  The  to  analysis.  in  by means  relation.  been  sequence must  Change  degree  relation  a  does.  One way greater  in  the see  of  the  numerous reinterpretation  occur. The  second  factor  w h i c h makes  the  threshold  model  62  resistent  to  change  action  model.  affect  the  response,  since  determines  very  the  the  effect ation that  of  if  we  both  found  in  others'  the  OUT r e l a t i o n ) of  a more  the  might  other  be  IN  without  hand,  foe;  to  the  The  example,  if  of  this  extremely  to  in  follow  Under  a  what  his  behavior  conservative interpret-  validity  difficult  such  which  simple  also  interpretive  made our  by a  formulation reasonable  process  is  of in  the  a model, an  of to  basis the  patterns error  alteration  matter  to  might  extend  by u s i n g  some  behavior. ^' 6  the the  details light  of  of  the  interpretations  and  a  in  of  t h r e s h o l d model  interaction learning  on t h e  model by  some o f  straightforward  sequential for  decisions  (specified  delay  particular is  it  interdependence expected between  decisions.  For  even  form  immediately  the  relatively  a n d OUT p r o c e s s e s  action  find  expected  available This  response  made.  followed  c h o i c e model  models  other's  the  a  the  person's  b e h a v i o r may h a v e  paranoia,  We t h u s  In  other  actions provides evidence for  It  of  of  a  basic  will  responses from  An extreme  case  as  our  1  time.  response. his  the  time  the  be  a  of  the  cases.  imply. simple  terms  that  the  friend,  choice model.  a c t i o n made,  of  at  of  where  might  is  a  of  that  interpretation  simple  judgement  impact  him  interpretations  a particular  structure  identify  the  On t h e of  as in  interpretation.  alter  the  interpretation  meaning  same i n is  an  an o t h e r  different give  affect  the  response at  significance of  identify  we w o u l d is  will  of  interpretation  possibilities for it  we  a result  A particular  addition,  if  is  recursive  the  process  63  over  time  state.  in  that  its  F e e d b a c k w h i c h may  particular  interpretation  interpretation. we  alteration  are  more  friendly,  If  likely  than  the  potential  are  themselves  if to  to we  reinforce  addition  not  changed as from  function of  the  a  the  other's  particular own p a s t  his  as  or  an  as  model  two  that  the  behavior.  they  expect  are  which  the  a  have  the  find  action  of  is  that an  by  might  it  is  the  inter-  one  but  change  first  the  first  to  of  behavior,  possibility  also  as  interpretation  persons in  of  other's  the  example,  interpretation.  Similarly, by  for  Events which  different  the  particular  particular  A pattern  of  a  feedback)  interdependencies  interpretation  but  (the  to  the  of  friend,  enemy. a  previous  a  same  interpretation  acts,  to  on the  the  function  a  acts  alter  independent.  our  of  other  own  utility  subject  a n d d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s we  action  clear  the  its  on the  itself  see him  processes of  be  is  interpret  individual are  reflect  see  dependent  In interpretive  we  involves  is  a  p e r s o n has  made  likelihood  of  a  a  of  his  function  function  of  the  other's  action. It processes an  that  the  view  in  of  the  of  interaction  find  most  over  directions  the  time which  p r o c e s s e s are  interaction  is  It  between  intriguing. might are  process involved  persons involved.  learning ity  we  interdependence  sequences of  is  not  or  may b e  relatively introduced  be  The  to  move  obvious  from that  the the  simple by  these  the  two  effect  of  such  interaction from  the  initial decision  and  change  that  point  states  of  and  the  concatenation  complexof  these  64  processes  and  the In  types  of  aspects  of  individual  are  excitation introduce decision the  made is  p r o c e s s on, t h e of  a  the  simple in  the  in  other  We a r e  psychology.  in  type  is  and  of of  some is  level  made  will  searching  the  in  which  of order  process.  assumed to  individual  decision  mechanism i n  mechanism such as This  general  proposing that  interpretive  hand,  learning  evident  interpretive  proposition  the  of  time.  c h o s e n two  threshold  This  sensitivity as  a  over  have  threshold  after  stability  environment  behavior.  behavior. a  them we  represent  reached.  some  manner  represent  only  of  then,  process is  sampling models  the  summary  processes to  interpretive changes  repetition  The  operate the us  to  behavior  to  shifts  decision  in  stimulus  allow  and  to  making  in  65  SECTION  CHAPTER  4 -  In  developed be  in  O P E R A T I O N A L I Z I N G THE THRESHOLD  this  operationalizing  it  chosen  Section  and  way  to  the  general  both  process  eliminate  a  at  at  finally each our  the we  to  of  elaboration  to  the  the  through  the  general  able  to  to  from  to  research  of  the  conceptual  use  the of  be  in  will,  framework  process of two  in  on  this  the attempt  strategy  able  to change,  a process of  is  the process  interaction. of for only  to  This  interpretive  we w i l l  of  aspects  interpretive  an e x a m i n a t i o n  dissertation, of  we m i g h t  results  have  framework  p r o c e s s and  two  we  and  focus  Once s u c h  the  way  conceptualization.  we w i l l  the  no  make m o r e  general  level.  can  As a r e s u l t  process for  move on  the  really  decision process.  simple  research  framework  is  of  framework  alternative,  interpretive  distinct  this  be  more  concatenation  of  of  strategy  the  An i n v e s t i g a t i o n b e made  aspect  the  structural  the  As an  assumption that  can then  the  there  MODEL  process  general  general  applicable  of  relatively  In  will  the  p r o c e s s as  step  step.  in  the  investigation.  hope  research  effects  under  identify  decision  a  the  total.  small  and r e f i n e  the  identified  we  exchange  adopted  least  in  begin  the  s o many w a y s ,  framework  test  of  Since  empirical  investigation,  As  is  in  tested  it  aspects of  1.  f o c u s on one  subject  this of  can be to  s e c t i o n , we w i l l  various  operationalized  that  2  course,  and At  influence  interaction. begin  the  interpretive  t h r e s h o l d models  for  first  changes choice.  66  These in  models w i l l  order  pretive  The  to  be  subjected  establish  their  to  utility  of  threshold enormous Rather for  a  our  conceptual  interpretive model  if  of  one  than  change  choice.  identifies  begin  such  framework  a  involves  the  the  alternatives  satisfy their  our  search,  into  discussion  reduces  the  types. make  requirements  number  By an  a more  actual  information which  such models  a is  we b e g a n  to  t h r e s h o l d models which  look  would  classes. threshold  models whioh  s u g g e s t e d by A u d l e y  models  to  of  a  6  set  each of  c h o i c e of  of  all a  of  to  The level it  their  threshold include  which might  pretation.  of  of  1  * of the  and P i k e  Their  to  in  classification  mutually types  a particular  seems  exclusive  we  can  then  c h o i c e model  for  changes.  adjusted  behaviors  of  examination  In  be  is  operation  therefore,  choice behavior.  plausible  interpretive  location  of  the  the  choice process s p e c i f i c a l l y .  A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  in  inter-  we p r o p o s e t h a t  The v a r i e t y  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme o f  reduce  the  explaining  T h r e s h o l d Model  process  can  for  investigation  changes.  In  or  experimental  be  takes  confirming  the to or  for  change  all  or  is  some o f  associated with  difference of  suggested models,  in  their  threshold  variable, the  value  so t h a t  it  alternative  then,  the  change o n e ' s m i n d ) , contradictory  actual  a particular  models (i.e.,  the  is  amount  but  information  in  internot  in  of  the  about  manner an  67  interpretation suggested: threshold choice type,  one of  when  activates type  in  and  The  choice  evidence  "When  model  will  amount. events  (E.g., occur,  I  "When will  the  alternative specific  reached.  added  reach  In  separately  to  This  reach  a  first  two threshold  of  one  proceeds  until  predetermined  choice  situation,  processing information  *A'  be  or  a  choice of  reaching  him  to  of  'A'  as  units  of  type  reach of  act  sequence  of  activate  a  type  A occur,  I  number  occur will  in  B occur  associated with  b .'.)  The  the  units other  A type  1  events  by  a  than  in  the a  difference  associated with acts  a  choose  type  one  particular B  type  A".) these  s p e c i f i c models, into  This  of  3 more  each of  which  'B'.  a  the  a particular  one  "When 3 e v e n t s  choose  instances  in  evidence  a  the  a predetermined  another.  associated with  Within of  be  a c h o i c e when  those  absolute  and one w h i c h makes  a binary  events  choose the  activates  exceed  in  number  A";  are  made.  related  10  models  an  t h r e s h o l d mechanism w i l l  units  a particular  of  made w h e n  second type, of  choice of  associated with I  is  assumed t o  the  is  classes  is  sufficiently  absolute  (E.g.,  row,  act  when  when  row.  is  reached  the  example,  a  is  threshold  conceived to  either  information units.  In  choice  For  supports  is  subsystem to  a  is  choice  the  predominates  individual  a  and a g a i n s t  choice.  and  Two m a i n  for  'cancels out' type  act  which  a difference  a  threshold  or  handled.  information  evidence  subsystems  one  is  models,  but  a more  each  there class  general  are  a  serves  framework.  number to  put For  our  68  purposes, action  this  model  developed, our  to  and  theory.  between our  level  the  of  formulation  research  in  to  identify  This  c a n be  areas areas  done  conceptualization  allows  which of  us  are  if  'we  link  our  reasonably  crucial  only  to  inter-  well  significance  establish  s u g g e s t e d by A u d l e y  the  to links  and P i k e  and  model. The d e c i s i o n t h e o r i e s  Pike  deal  as  function  a  they  view  primarily  specific in  it  result  basis  the  empirical  only  of  as  result they  one in  of  are  a  element  or  be  being  decisions  that  reason,  elements  of  a  are  directly  associated  one  an  stimulus  may  individual,  sampled.  necessarily  and  theories  example,  sampled by  not  of  such  may n o t  elements  elements,  For  sampling  For  being  of  individual  used in  events.  a group  these  about  environment.  c o n c e p t s w h i c h may  result  the  theories  stimulus  Elements  hypothetical  may  the  c h o i c e as  stimulus.  with  of  with  s u g g e s t e d by A u d l e y  the  It  or  is  stimulus  on  alone,  62. that  a particular  Within  each  choice rule  empirical Rather  we  are  For  concerned with  our  purposes,  the  than  single  interaction  over  a  language  sequence  language,  we m u s t  referring  to  than in  by  sequences of  time.  element,  This  is  although  exact  of  form  of  alter  the  elements  sampled  consistent with we may w a n t  to  vary  be  acts an  of  it  is  more  and P i k e  over event  from  however,  exchanges.  sampling  notion  identified.  choices,  c h o i c e models  from the  decision.  must  series  Audley  the  sequences of  the  elements  with  To  slightly  the  make  dealing  than  this  used to  then,  appropriate use  the  study  is  of a  time at a  models. only rather  one  point,  stimulus  strict  one-to-  69  one  relationship  this  general  tools  of  between  c h a n g e we  are  choice theory Our  in  interpretive  for  proposing a point S i n c e we  at  are  or  element  of  stimulation  effect  of  the  to  the  in  order  identify  a  must  Events assumed  and  process.  use  is  that  for  The the  established at  to we  elements:  The  the  conceptual  have  a  basis  process  might  rule  of  conceptactivation  activation  which  for  the  identification  of  in  changes.  conceptualize  a unit  the  unit way  making  interpretive  that in  After  threshold model,  a rule  represent  of  a way  act.  to  point  change  two  a general  the  some l e v e l  adopt  theoretical  those  "other's  behavior"  to  activate  units  the  are  hypothetical  relate  effect  of  order  to  in  of  is  events  available  As theory  may b e  errors  in  in  an  given  simple  "subsystem"  our  up  in  with  the  the  these  and  In  units  events  a  two  Pike. are  certain  "subsystems" associated  responses.  our  of  are  case,  the  excitation  left  to  be  are identified  situations.  example  of  the  way  s u b s t a n c e , we may learning (e.g.,  for  conceptualization)  excitation  interpretations,  substantive  language  s p e c i f i e d by A u d l e y  build  c o n c e p t s , and  particular  a  of  These u n i t s  each of  pretive  this  such  (or  responses  in  to  be  we w i l l  probability. with  at  least  an  threshold. As  elements,  analysis  stimulation.  interpretive  stimulation  our  suggesting a  at  and  a position  which  requires  necessary  in  process in  ualization  the  element  objective  the  occur.  an  situation. "I  in  which  identify  this the  events  A particular  am l e a r n i n g " )  may  general  allow  as  intera  certain  70  number that  of  errors  maximum  shift  to  to  number  Pike  can  be  experimental distinguish  ation  a great  be  a most  rules  and for  of  view  the  The  made.  provided  we  develop  test  c l a s s e s of able  to  a  choice  eliminate as  will  learning").  use  can  Beyond  subsystem  efficient  theoretical  by  of  Audley  the  which  will  mechanisms from  consider-  unreasonable.  development  this  From  appears  to  possibility.  focus  for  the  at  which  another.  They our  interpretations,  specification the  in  of  two  which  of  models  alternative  p r o c e s s moves  suggest  model the  classification  from  c l a s s e s of  may  be  decision  one  sub-  decision  subsystems are  decision rules  which  rules.  identified  specified  in  the  manner.  1.  Absolute threshold: In t h i s m o d e l , an interpretation w i l l b e made a s s o o n a s i t s s u b s y s t e m h a s g a i n e d a c e r t a i n number o f e v e n t s as s u p p o r t .  2.  D i f f e r e n c e t h r e s h o l d : In t h i s m o d e l , an interpretation w i l l be made a s s o o n a s i t s s u b s y s t e m h a s g a i n e d s u f f i c i e n t support events to exceed a l l other subsystems by a g i v e n amount.  absolute  classes  the  am n o t  c h o i c e models  point  of  is  a very  be  the  language  "I  various  is  In  following  If  use  to  with  of  desirable  Pike  of  success  choice models  make  we may  number  system the  the  suggested,  The Audley  to  of  a  however,  (e.g.,  account  between  are  point  one  used  before  errors,  procedure.  which  the  of  some o t h e r The  and  occur  by la.  threshold  Audley  and  models  are  subdivided  into  two  further  Pike.  The s i m p l e . a c c u m u l a t o r : In t h i s m o d e l , e a c h s u b system a c c u m u l a t e s s u p p o r t u n t i l one r e a c h e s a common t h r e s h o l d v a l u e k . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is made a n d t h e t o t a l s y s t e m r e v e r t s t o t h e original values.  71  lb.  The r u n s m o d e l : In t h i s model an interpretation i s made o n l y when an u n i n t e r r u p t e d r u n o f k u n i t s of s u p p o r t i s r e c e i v e d by a p a r t i c u l a r subsystem. This  models or  of  the  changed;  difference be for  way  in  the model.  rejected  from  Of  events  for  occurrence effect  which  up u n t i l decided  of  to  against those  experimental  representation to  for  two  to  and  not  For  runs  provide  specific deal  and  three  model  to  total  of  number  the  order  choice,  of for  at  r e a s o n we  can  account the  the  the  the  the least  have of  the  models.  d i s c u s s i o n of  range  of  the  a  for  of  limited moving  the  mutually  alternative  of  the  manner.  from  the  individual  time-being  the  possibilities  a representation  account  three  the  Process  a basis  for  and  accumulator  and d i f f e r e n c e  limit  develop  activated  model  investigation  facilitate  to  three  assumes t h a t  to  that  an  be  no p r o v i s i o n  against  to  runs simple  the  decision processes in  persons,  each person,  to  us w i t h  might  likely  makes  Individual  We w i l l involving  the  order  will  a more  It  research of  the the  a  only  value.  we w i l l  and  as  evidence  the  design  models,  interpretive  theory  our  of In  the  be  provides  T h i s model  events.  utility  Representation  three,  a c h o i c e and  threshold  limit  comparative  these  sensitive  might  the  accumulator,  changes.  choosing i s  then  interpretations  consideration  interpretation  and  which  simple  person  for  classification  with  exclusive  This general  process. a process  interpretations  responses for  each  72  interpretation. interactants Figure  The  c a n be  array  of  possibilities  represented  by  the  4.1.  Figure  4.1  Act  (A)  for  branching  one  of  process  the in  73  As might  an  represent  categories  a  and  of  the  context  of  If of  At  association  to  simple  of  between  such  is  c o u l d use  part  to  other  'a'  or  and  (i.e.,  for  the  'b')  In  1^  as  the  r e s p o n s e s A^  Figure and A  ?  a  as  a  static  the  into  the become  situation  has  a  I  stable  by  4.1,  am  as  attempting  my r e s p o n s e s  the  in  learn  'c'  w o u l d mean 2  w o u l d mean  on the  s e q u e n c e c o u l d mean  the  that  that other's If  (i.e.,  becomes  that  to  appropriate  interpretation.  by m y s e l f  affect  person changes  a change  this  of  coordination  other  to  where  becomes one  a s s o c i a t i o n s as w e l l  this  account  activity  r e s p o n s e A^ and A  coordination  in  it  If  if  I^  This  it  problem of  appropriate  4.1  of  have  attempting  Figure  occurrence of  successful In  in  A^.  interpretation,  However,  represented  myself  put  situation  If  and  arrangement  self)  an  the  information',  see  and a c t s .  complex.  p e r s o n c h a n g e s IN  impossible. of  situation.  increased.  identify  the  (A)  I^/  simplistic we  we m i g h t  a s s o c i a t i o n , the  only  problem  responses I  an  becomes v e r y  OUT r e l a t i o n s the  some a c t  1^,  A^ to  forms  than  4.1  substitute  for  same t i m e  p e r s o n ' s a s s o c i a t i o n s , the  activity  'h')  level,  if  this  complex  interpretations  learning  other  into  the  very  simple  for  individual  and a t  can  a rather  (some p e r s o n o t h e r  between  develop  the  a  to  Figure  'request  substituted  an  which  'uncertain'  introduce  change  individual  as  we  in  c h o i c e , we  leads  interaction,  possible.  a  course,  associations for  possibility  well  be  way  'smile',  1  of  the  and  'Embrace ,  arrangement.  one  'foe'  ' p u n c h ' may  arrangement,  of  substantive  'friend',  respectively. 'kick'  example  changes  almost occurrence  the  appropriate  74  interpretations In  the  are  c a s e where  when  y o u know  extemely is  a  is  one  or  to  c a n b e made  in  Figure  4.1.  we  introduce  If  into  smile  may b e made  that the  the  level  the  the  of  by  an  dynamic  it  by  let  has  a  the  embrace  complex behavior  one  for  both responses.  possible  a  is  the  interpretations  responses to friend,  not  but  certain  process at  elements  issue  one  or  a  possibility or  of  a punch. the  this  model  compounding of  compounding f e a t u r e  through  interaction  step  of  is  sequence.  whether  our  the  example a  smile,  ambiguity  further. This  Even at become  In  this  A  means  moving e i t h e r this  in  simple  important.  level,  developed out them.  is  of  for  foe.  elementary  may b e  of  make  it  as A^ r e p r e s e n t  a possibility  friend  significant the  1^  what  A^ as w e l l  either  features  the  when  interaction  show  through  the  person i s  altering  on t h e  models  or  A possible representation  focussing that  1^,  learn  coordination  interaction  direction  do  we  the  to  other  foe.  situation  can c a r r y  thing  the  difficult  which  then  more.  that  friend  first  A^ and A^ o c c u r ,  i n c r e a s e d even It  he  are  we  of  this  By  hope  simple case,  introduction  of  the time  to  75  CHAPTER  The the  relative  model ient the  and  previous  which  of  type  a medical  to  test  pretations' be  into  of  diagnosed,  the  the  of  our  two  model.  In  (cf.  decision.  This  threshold  models  the  4.1  (I-,/  'acts'  certain  (cf.  Fig.  drugs  or  therapy  on  examine  models:  the  introduce  model,  we  have  4.1) allow  framework  a  become  A,.)  reconstructed  us  I )  then  suffic-  the  above.  2  runs  into  outlined  to  frame-  The  '.inter-  diseases  become  the  of  diagnosis  in  to  administration  b  the  basis  the  5.1)  Figure  Drug A  to  to  will  1 of  designed  order  Fig.  and (A,,  is  threshold  theoretical  situation  Figure and  THE EXPERIMENT  experiment  of  difference  substance  work  following  likelihood  the  5 -  Drug B  More information  Drug A  Drug B  5.1  More information  Drug A  Drug B  More information  76  This many the  possibilities interaction  example,  the  from  two  to  type  of  of  This  means,  may b e  as  one w o u l d  associated with may b e  for  of  just  as  analogous  to  the  administration  of  of  over  our  the  the and  that  of  behavior  the  of  the  In  a  For  increased  similar  may b e  patient. they  In  would  be  likelihoods  the  "doctor" are  its  way,  the  frequency  complemented  this  tree,  related  of in  to  dis-  association. the  situation  ambiguously r e l a t e d  diseases for  elements of  and  which  a given  basis  interaction by  the  the  progress of then  w h i c h we The  of  interdependency  situation  to therapy  and of  which  are  allowing  the  disease  becomes more  had e n v i s a g e d i n  administration  disease,  d i s e a s e on the  likelihood  the  therapy This  of  uncertainty.  condition  investigation.  progress of the  add  great  interested.  e a c h d i s e a s e and  different  some  time.  interaction  the  like.  a  elements  d i s e a s e s may b e  choice tree  h e may h a v e  We may  the  acts  example,  prescribed with  shift  the  representing  basis  are  has  altered.  addition,  replace  i n c l u d e more  w h i c h we  c o n f r o n t e d b y symptoms w h i c h  diseases, is  in.  a s many  tree  the  expansion to  alternative  symptoms w o u l d on  chosen because i t  of  administration  eases  was  number  therapy  another  for  situation  In by  framework  the  similar the  of  the  information  accurately  to  beginning  a d r u g may  judgement  uncertain  disease being  of  to  affect  nature may  bias  diagnosed in  the  future. This tion  of  design w i l l  motivational  also  pressures into  allow the  the  eventual  interaction  introduc-  through  the  77  manipulation of  the  some  the  therapy.  time.  utility  The  of  s e r i o u s n e s s of  To g e t  We a r e  of  the  General  of  design for  our  model  to  interpretation  changes.  empirical we  at  a portion  element only  from  time  to  effect  will  take  demonstrate  concern of  a discussion  is  to  test  select  By d o i n g we w i l l  the  a  be  plausible  within  of  this  one  of  the  dissertation.  the  of  within able  the  to  general  its  c h o i c e model  this  features. for  context  feel  with  of  our  the  general  respect  of  confident  assumptions about  context  assumptions f i t  of  one  will of  not  We w i l l the  will  be  clear  the  which  "interactants" In  to  the  model,  other  d esig n the  experiment  permit  a  will  be  that  for in be  the  will  be  allowed  aspect  data  such  aspects  in  a way  of  to  The  change  the  conceptual  two s u b p r o c e s s e s  the  experiment.  that  the  The  choice to  related  controlled;  to  of  eliminated.  o n e - s t e p model  is  framework.  choice process into  account  decision process w i l l  experiment  example,  addition,  divides  the  conceptual  for  necessary to  to  that  general  interdependence,  of  framework  be  the  interpretations.  the  this  however,  the  interaction.  only  in  at  specific  least it  these  It  is  test  By d o i n g  we k n o w w h e r e of  a  investigation,  h a v e made  process.  point,  central  now m o v e  this  that  the  d i s e a s e and  Design  The p u r p o s e o f  an  this  satisfied  We w i l l aspects  to  the  variation  effect  account  of  this  for  data. The  reason  for  adopting  this  type  of  a  strategy  is  78  to  examine  time. of  theoretical  we  of  apparent account the  the  we  we w e r e  to  we w o u l d  by  with,  be  the  the  model would  experiment  range  the  of  from  as  the  separation,  it  as  an  By  specifying  that or  the  we  alternative  we m u s t  to  also  of  extend  the  the  in  the  the  a  two  the  a  model  experimental model.  beyond  1 would c a n be  have  to  theoretical  Thus,  models In  third  the with  not  be  explained we w i l l  constrained but  not  design of  view the  eliminated  working  possibility  out  our  is  this  is  implied previously.  independently,  classes  Since this  framework  interpretation  c h o i c e models presented  between  in  become  The p r o b l e m s  reduced.  choice models  consider this  the  choice.  of  two  some  one-step  analysis  phenomena w h i c h  that  in  theoretical  Chapter  w h i c h we  lose  a  situation,  a  of  at  at  possible  using  developed.  in  we  will  is  "decision process",  shift  decision-type.  it  artifact  distinguish.  the  each of  It  problem b e s i d e s the  clear to  that  not  outlined  separation  p e r s o n s do n o t  over  to  have  the  primary  was  an  that  confidence  o n e - s t e p model  process of  c h a n g e w h i c h we w a n t  of  experiment is  situation  overall  empirical  our  drastically  responses in  The the  a  is  framework  experimental  degree  however,  range be  the  example,  able  situation  and  strategy  in  This  o n e - s t e p m o d e l w h i c h we  dealt  is  of  simply  not  conceptual  change p r o p o s e d .  chosen,  use  this  for  results  have  experimental  it  process of  the  the  a greater  choice process.  level,  a  of  complexity  a s we p r o c e e d , for  strategy If  aspect  do end up w i t h  nature  of  one  One c o n s e q u e n c e o f  the  but  only  of  always  experiment.  we  models over a  assume time  possibility,  79  As choice in  strategies  this  the  first  effect  which  a result,  an  of  the  the  third  lined  straight in  diagnose blood  one  of  pressure  general  4.1 two  (HBP),  a  The  other  preponderance  may  show t h e  have to  coined  represent  of  In subject look not to a  must  for  trends  sufficient the  other  of  a  Only  closely  is  told  it  may  drop  for  short  that  disease  high  of  of  periods produces it  time.  this  readings.  (N)  the  readings  and  One r e a d i n g  factors  a number  We  research.  diseases then,  p r o d u c e d by  too  "Neurophasia"  blood pressure  examining  of  although  and  purpose these  one  short  periods  (A)  to of  typically  (LBP)  out-  sequence  a preponderance  sequence of may b e  structure  a  subject  of  the  is  of  diagnose  by  experiment  basis  and  two.  the  the  series  it  the  model  model,  requested  "Aneurophasia"  to  difference  the  in  runs  is  for  for  investigated  interpretation  (Neurophasia)  reading  be  A subject  blood pressure  that  since  of  is  unrelated  readings  will  emerge. The  readings  for  in  between  produces  diseases  in  disease.  trend  low  order  ask  The  disease  terms  two  will  possible  suggests the  follows  although  opposite the  first  5.1.  readings.  blood  time.  The  d i s e a s e s on  typically  of  change  It  three  propose differences  the  structure  and  (Aneurophasia) pressure  which  all  alternation  forward.  Figures  with  second suggests the  s u g g e s t s an The  on  makes.  the  left  They  information  process,  are  interactants  experiment.  individual  for  fairly  for  we  for  severe  as  subjects long  as  constraint.  are  they  allowed like,  Not  only  to  request  although will  they  blood are  inaccurate  pressure  under  one  diagnosis  80  lead  to  the  therefore,  "patient's" treatment) The  terminal of  the  of  a  asks if or  for  computer.  It  gives  disease  more  is  the  the  time  asks  is  subject from  the  a g a i n made five  "patients".  The  Basic  Model  and  iment, order This the  we to  c a n move  events  that in  The same w a y  as  S.1  P =  the  the  1  of  display a  description  blood pressure reading,  and  the  if  subject  may  Neurophasia  readings  are  is  type  a new  If  new o n e  is  "  old  provided,  This  and a is  a  Each  reading  procedure  'A'  patient  blood pressure readings. the  then  diagnosed,  required.  introduce  a new r e a d i n g , a  "patient"  and  N'  between  the  is  request repeated  have  those the  a general  outline  assumptions which  of  are  the  necessary  p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h we w i s h  relate  the  language  of  the  exper-  to  models  in  test. to  experiments. first  set  elements  of  concepts can be  of  the  basic  we  define  introduced  in  the  model.  {s,c} In  in  we  we m u s t  the  at  to  (and  Experiment  operationalize  means  Set  the  to  death  out  program w i l l  for  that  in  diagnosis  diseases  time  a diagnosis.  for  Now  carried  this  set  screen,  for  delay  result  first  blood pressure  diagnosed,  to  relations  diagnosed,  a new  removed  is  At  and p r o c e e d w i t h the  also  the  a diagnosis.  if  but  The program b e g i n s w i t h  and o f  Aneurophasia i s 'B'  will  procedure  procedure  symptoms.  death,  interaction;  this s  set  (the  subject)  only  and  c  two (the  " p e r s o n s " who computer).  are  81  5.2  Set  C =  {'A',  'N ,  C c o n s i s t s of  The  first  occur.  the  subject  for  Aneurophasia or pressure  C  the  5.3  can  =  pretations  which  of  The  sequence  of  disease,  and  R.l  as  the  are  displays  from  IN  we w i l l  of in  according  are  three  two  respectively) The  last  or  two  acts  letters  diseases  ('A' ask  which  which or  'N'  for  elements  readings  Neurophasia, represent  assume t h e two  more  in  which  set  the  as  last  being  the  represents  three  may  the  possible  give  to  the  of  a  inter-  sequence  interpretation  result his  Uncertain}  the  subject  represent  to  not  {(c,  of  the  particular  interpretation  of  the  'High  BP',  s,  An)  (c,  'High  (c,  'High  BP',  s,  Un)  (c,  'Low B P ' ,  (c,  'Low B P ' ,  relation  the  the a  it  Ne)  the  the  elements Since  'Low B P ' ,  in  relation  m o d e l we this  s, s,  c a n make  to  the  definition  of  this  apply  machine  is  propose  for  s,  1  of  which  the  BP ,  array  subject In  (c,  stimulus-response fashion  two-step  include This  those  subject.  one-step the  the  computer. only  s,  represents  assuming t h a t  including  respond"  1  uncertain.  w h i c h we  pretation  we  readings  relation  are  elements  first  This  we  BP }  communicative  blood pressure  {Aneurophasia, These  system  the  the  ('B').  of  'Low  1  elements  diagnose  readings  BP ,  display.  I  acts.  all  Neurophasia  indications  Set  three  can push to  blood  machine  'High  Set can  are  ' B ' ,  1  Ne) An)  Un) }  interpretations  to  various  the  relation, inter-  programmed and  the  to  not  subject,  discussion.  includes  elements  in  which  ' H i g h BP.'  82  is  related  subsystems to  the  is  the  'aneurophasia ,  on the  part  related  to  pretations  for  are  the  original  for  This  is  the  development  for  the  following  relation  a very  simple  the  act  or  only our  an  interpretation,  action done by  equivalent of  'aneuro-  uncertainty  elements  where  on  'Low B P '  Thus a l l  responses to  identification  the  {(c,  in  of  the  which  the  subject  this  logical inter-  relation,  elements  the  section  experiment.  'A',  experiment  relationship  c  and  full  account  1  not  is  This  for  he  has  is  it  s  are  of  our  necessary also  immediately  in  on the  the  case  (c,  Un,  emphasizing  the  when  importance an  that  the  give.  that  be  is  based we  allow  in.  In  terms  eliminated. to  make  he  has  an  his  interpretation  early is  made Thus  Second,  interpretation. of  and  First  once  choice This  the  we  of  diagnosis.  made,  'B'  subject  interpretation  h e may  subject an  s)  response p o s s i b l e .  effect,  upon making  assume  means  one  'N*,  assumption  we  state  Ne,  the  This  this  only  (c,  between  which  each  framework  s)  we w i l l  perform.  instructions  pressure  assuming that  in  An,  decision process, i s , the  of  'uncertain'  relation.  conceptual  increase  are  of  response  of  the  machine  is  result  production includes  framework  she w i l l  on the one  the  interpretations.  o n e way  this  has  him  the  OUT =  In  primarily  also  as  each quadruple,  conceptual  he  the  relating  for  R.2  BP'  This  or  included.  that  same.  or  three  Through obvious  subject.  'High  It  these  the  of  part.  possibilities  is  of  'neurophasia',  subject's  'neurophasia'  1  interpretation  phasia', the  to  is We  subject  c)}  83  will  immediately  that  interpretation.  decision utilize  The  the  choice  Choice Models  elements our  the  of  basic  subjects  theoretical The  These  but  the to  this  point,  utilize,  we m u s t  as  an  order  the  we  This  a  assume t h a t is  the  unlikely  not  simply  to  the  the  theoretical  test  the  c h o i c e models  link  the  as  the  of  made.  It  an  make  basis  those  points  will  the  a  be  which  to and  that  of  exhaustive  from  concepts  experiment  p r o p o s e d by A u d l e y used to  move  related  to  is  provide  Each element associated  of  to  indication  do n o t  with  the Pike.  link.  formal at  which  the  apparent, account  conceptual  of  all  framework  experiment.  A S S U M P T I O N 1:  notion  have  models  meant,  assumptions necessary to the  we  also  assumptions are  that  consistent  delay.  assumptions  are  can  s i n c e he  design  In  of  we  is  Experiment  model.  only  critical  therefore,  the  of  experimental  assumptions  theory, more  and  set  way  eliminated,  concepts of  following  this  strategy  to  the  a diagnosis which In  process is  Up  of  make  of  an  ASSUMPTION  2:  with  assumption  interpretation  subsystem i n  the  of  set  I  an  interpretation.  simply in  the  c h o i c e model  Each element  of  Set  represents  identifies b a s i c model  a  subsystem  the with  use the  p r o p o s e d by A u d l e y C which  r e p r e s e n t s one u n i t o f system f o r the subject scheme. HBP = o n e u n i t f o r t h e Aneurophasia LBP = one u n i t f o r t h e Neurophasia  the  of  concept  and  computer  the  Pike.  presents,  e x c i t a t i o n for each suba c c o r d i n g to the following subsystem a s s o c i a t e d  with  subsystem a s s o c i a t e d  with  84  •  If a t h r e s h o l d has not been r e a c h e d , the subsystem a s s o c i a t e d with U n c e r t a i n t y is activated. This  symptoms.  It  necessarily  has  particular the in  an  to  subject  the  way.  is  with  a preponderance  must  be  to  careful  look  at  phasia  is  pressure  to  readings The  of  view  of  structure him  an  Similarly  the of  purpose  model,  it  would  in  which  there  at  least  at  be  are  subject  with  put  it  the  was  no  to  context  interpretations  can  examine  of  us  to  in  do  not  The associated but  over  time  in  told  that  Neuro-  of  from  one order  low  time  have  create  then, of  diagnosis)  the  subject  same  on the  interpretation medical  diseases  readings,  the  A s we  strategy,  within  manner  to the  them.  interpretations  on  blood  B).  at  impossible for  they  preponderance  introduce  Our  is  a  based  fashion.  instructions  and y e t  a general  the  these  change  possible then  of  some l e v e l .  the  into  to  a  is  typically  she  A p p e n d i x A and  associations,  earlier,  or  symptom  Aneurophasia,  although  readings  associated with  (cf.  opportunity  he  a  subsystem i n  of  blood pressure  several  and  symptoms t o  symptomatic  Aneurophasia is  examine  typically  links  a deterministic  high  the  assumption  in  of  trends.  of  Neurophasia,  that  excitation  occurrence of  of  diseases  informed  the  which  HBP i s  of  the  state  of  subject  symptomatic the  part  units  that  on the  This  to  following  relate  effect  manner.  and LBP i s  links  assumes, as w e l l ,  instruction the  assumption  part has the and  point  an  to  initial  leave  discussed a  situation of  the  been  subject  to  events  provide (i.e.,  a range  that  general  framework.  which  changes  are  made  from  of We one  85  type  of  interpretation  to  another  within  the  context  we  have  provided.  The  First  Mode o f  Analysis  We a r e inferences  we w i l l  behaves.  The  is  the  now  draw  crucial  which  ject.  Insofar  as  the  between  a  models will  make  be  to  move  disease  is  diagnosed.  point  as  subject  from  a means is  of  sequence  of  in  the  The  H  example of  H for  the  a  view,  to the  of  in  the  this  test  this to  is  the  determined.  association  is  models.  at  which  a  reached, to  be  type  of  sub-  association  three  therefore the  regard  the  point  the  subject  presented  uncertainty  identifying  the  probabilistically  threshold  state  are  concerned,  is  We w i l l  m o d e l s may  be  to  5.1  is  of  trial.  Table  inferred in  The  threshold  we  expect  one  in  looking  the  which at  a  this  c h o i c e model  an  we w i l l  to  a  the  from  or  L  his  (Low  Aneurophasia is  high expect  or  and  her  their  the  the  who  values  receives  blood pressure (by  excited  by  assumption one  way  responses. being  Blood Pressure).  individual  Since  s h o w how  subject  sequence with  A n e u r o p h a s i a , we  subsystem f o r  5.1  presented  Blood Pressure)  first  with  be  presented  Table  the  associated  is  of  about  s y m p t o m s may  (High in  experiment  order  referring  symptoms a r e  either  the  symptoms  which  precisely  using. By  which  in  Once a  subject  of  point  predictions  reached.  in  a disease  manipulated  specify  way  subject  experimenter's  purposely  the  to  the  aspect  in  From the  a position  from  sequence  symptom and  in  unit.  a  The  reading  is 2)  typically that This  86  Table  (Example  of  symptom  excitation  Trial  No.  Symptom  5.1  sequence  for  one  Value for Difference Model  and  Value for Runs Model  H  1  1  2  L  0  1  3  L  1  2  4  H  0  1  5  L  1  1  6  L  2  2  7  H  1  1  8  L  2  1  9  H  1  1  10  H  0  2  11  H  1  3  when d i a g n o s i s m a d e ,  sequence  of  "patient")  1  *Note:  level  of  symptoms  Models supported if_ d i a g n o s i s made o n t r i a l indicated*  D R  R  D  R  is  terminated.  87  excitation  is  the  model)  "runs"  of  1 unit  of  the  When  of  the  assuming  value that  acquisition the  the  is  (i.e.,  1  for  of  adapt  the  various  k  of  the  k  =  the  of  under the  a  in  k  given  and  "k"  represents  subject's  in  value  the  choice  threshold,  we  a disease are  unable  operation.  necessary  By making  sequence  both  a particular  diagnoses  is  "difference"  level  model.  we  are  diagnosis.  excitation  1).  value  symptom,  models  of  The  subject first  (the  are  reaches make  models  therefore  choice,  the  level  can  both  they  he w i l l  two-choice  that  for  exictation.  If  of  and  threshold  the  same  such  the  to  as  to  We d o reach  following  a way  after  to  the  infer  which  know,  the  however,  threshold  assumption  we  differentiate  between  models.  ASSUMPTION 3 :  The  level  of  excitation  necessary  to  reach  t h e t h r e s h o l d ( i . e . , t h e v a l u e o f k) is constant throughout the experiment for each individual. Each i n d i v i d u a l need not have t h e same v a l u e o f k , however. This  assumption  c a n be  of  symptoms  for  we  ask  subject  having  each a  slightly If  the  acquisition  blood next  pressure trial.  excitation the  of  patients" to  subject the  reading  symptom  associated with  with  model the  L  for  subject.  five  does  diagnose  not  symptom, (cf.  is  that  each  she w i l l  2  in  Table  this  reason  patient  a disease  or  activate  subsystem for  already  For  he  trial  that  sequence  symptoms.  assumed t o  the  the  patients,  of  predicts  unit  each  of  sequence  first of  repetitions  by  diagnose  different  the  This  difference  interfere  "new  checked by  unit  accumulated  5.1)  after  receive for  a unit  Neurophasia. of for  excitation  a the  of Since will  Aneurophasia,  88  we  assign  a value  of  The  runs  model  has  been  terminated  takes  the  Should second the  symptom,  two  model For  the  zero, runs  assumption  3,  a n d we  for  runs  occur  under  mean  either  have  made  this a  in  unable level  to  model  failure  occurred  identify at  supported"  the  column  of  a run  of  infer  threshold  1),  we  or  above  in  the  Table  5.1).  the  line  which  of  be  trial  3 would  support  the  runs  after  trial  6 would  support  the  difference  It  important  to  sequence  of  the  patient  next  respect  symptoms  Table  terminating  5.1  at  implications  effort.  will is  Once a  use of  that  for  once  that  be  of the  of  model  particular  if  to  one  change  point  1 to  would we  (cf.  at  does  will if  be  decisions  "Models a diagnosis  k  =2:  model is  patient  the  we  at  diagnosis k  =  made, will  subject. not  view  allow  us  made  2,  etc.  the stop In  the  and  that process  diagnosis.  the  computer  will  subjects' responses with  diagnosis  no  to  equals  supported  a diagnosis  introduced  deceptive  a point  The the  note  k  by  assumptions  example,  after  is  expected  argument,  sequence For  Since  models.  of  would  occur.  1.  this  the  of  difference  where  at  the  either  to  expect  A change  'H'  after  the  not  point  of  only.  ' L ' .  for  is  is  would  models  run  choice  excitation  operationalize  points  for  no  passed the  the  the  support  expect  model  a disease  excitation  the  models  in  diagnose  either. of  to  various  2 starts  of  trial  Following able  the  of  already (on  order  since  to  level  that  one,  we w o u l d  the  subsystem for  of  subject  value  model  value  the  so t h a t  have  the  trial  The  the  to  and  are  model,  change, the  we  models.  is  zero  occurs,  the  machine  to  check  a minimum will  of  identify  out  89  the  models  and  and  set  future  Each all  up  threshold  sequences of  3.  check the p o s s i b i l i t y that the s u b j e c t uses d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n models throughout the experiment.  of  these  decided the  be  within  (re.  with  the  set  up  problems the  the  the  value  value  is  "patients"  experimentally  of and  ASSUMPTION 4:  value  more  larger,  have  in  to  The  greater  gets such  low.  making  k  into  requires  influence the  the  the  the  of  of  features  which  We i n f o r m  minutes.  is  requested We a l s o  it  the  made  can keep subject  represents  inform  the  in  the that the  subject  is  vary  the  way  in  models. cases, costly  the to  the  to of  lower to  provide k  time  the  the  required  passage of that  k  k.  order  each  'of  may  information,  value  level  experimental  in, most  value  the  indistinguishable.  T h i s may b e  costs  assumption i s  it  assumption about  integrated of  to  the  value  since  them  we  that  actual  time  a difference an  a way  The  this  information.  act  This  reading  check  k  w i l l be t h e l e v e l o f e x c i t a t i o n activate a diagnosis.  design  to  of  at  we m u s t m a k e  A high  for  the  from  experiment  d o e s make  however,  individual  of  inferences  models without  acquisition  stability  making  each of  is  the  of  importance  it  to:  uniquely  sufficient  theoretical  its  as  aspects.  i n c r e a s e s as to  design, which  run  subsystem thresholds  of  Since  a way  check Assumption 3 t h r e s h o l d v a l u e k)  will  models  such  diagnosis  2.  sequence  not  symptoms i n  the  differentiate  subject  the  s u p p o r t e d by  1.  Since  of  values  a  basis  low. a blood about  disease  30 is  pressure  90 usually is  terminal  after  administered.  were  was  able  to  on  At  same  to  the it  an  was  time  accurate  effect  of  increasing  this the  our  pressure  solution  try  various  early  within  of  for  of  a  the  for  an  of  early  that  not  the  slow  the  diagnosis. formally  smal  diagnosis  subjects' The  against The  we  k values  d i a g n o s i s has  and w o r k i n g  c a n be more  a  diagnosis  jeopardized.  accurate  k  kept  costs of  insure  an  slow  treatment  the  the  effect  of  represented  by  greater  post  an  inaccurate  diagnosis  this  to  in  dilemma  a  of  series in  trials  concern to  of  contradictory  pressure of  which  and a t  experimental  In  costs of  to  combinations  10  the  a s s o c i a t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r subsystem, the g r e a t e r i s the l e v e l of e x c i t a t i o n r e q u i r e d activate that response.  a combination  their  was  to  about  cost  design which  that  value  accuracy  The  diagnosis  devised  no p r o p e r  assumption.  5:  Our  in  for  following  ASSUMPTION  demand  if  d i a g n o s i s was  increased pressure the  onset  the  necessary to  of  of  its  a research  effect  effects  of  By e m p h a s i z i n g  settle  emphasized,  commitment  3 days  for  pretest most the  p r e s s u r e s was  accuracy  experiments.  p e r s o n s made  same  interviews  and  time that  for We  their  gave  an  some  choices indications  accuracy of  diagnosis  them. addition,  we p r o g r a m m e d  the  computer  to  print  out:  "YOU H A V E G I V E N T H E WRONG D I A G N O S I S - YOUR P A T I E N T HAD D I E D " if  the  This to  was  done  refrain  unable or  subject  two  to  made in  an  a d i a g n o s i s on attempt  from making differentiate  trials.  to  first  increase  a diagnosis the  the  on  or  second  pressure  these  c h o i c e models  on him  trials  u s e d on  trial. or  s i n c e we the  basis  her were of  one  91  CHAPTER  This of  analysis.  as  the  strategy) for  each  involves  the  assumption  (cf.  unreasonable  distribution  mode  insight  the  analysis, to  a  into  the  it  was  our  was  d i a g n o s i s was type  Since  of  factors  very  decided  to  of  that our  was This  threshold  values  probability  that  was  values  of  values  for  utilization  strong  analysis  involved  the  the  (k)  devised.  expected  apparent  e a c h mode  was  5  (or  course  geometric  After  Chapter  mode  assumption  that  types  d i a g n o s e d by the  analysis  the  experiment.  third  this  main  threshold  In  generating  it  the  87).  in  This  patients  that  three  outlined  that  of  of  58).  assumption  for  use  been (p.  p.  instead,  a basis  on  of  the  influence  the  subjects.  devised which  analysis  in  this  type  include  each  of  this  has of  of  allows  provided  some  choice  them  in  a discussion  results. Before  to  the  uses  effect.  situation, of  but  3,  the  all  s e c o n d mode  of  result, this  a  the  As  for  clear  of  pressure  for  became  require  as  time a  equal  Assumption  and  not  outcome  are  it  constant,  second  has  analysis"  investigation  the  type  for  subject.  are  first  involves  mode  subject  mode d o e s  R E S U L T S AND A N A L Y S I S  chapter  The  "first  6 -  central  general  we  begin  hypothesis,  characteristics  indication  of  the  range  Subjects Appendix patients.  A.  an  analysis  we w i l l  of  our  of  behavior  outline  data. we  data  some o f  with  the  respect  more  should provide  some  found.  run  using  Each subject  was  requested  the  the  This  were  We a s s u m e d t h a t  of  the  diagnosis  design to of  outlined  diagnose the  first  in  five patient  92  was of  unsuitable learning,  Our  patients  which  diagnose  along  with  analysis  particularly  console.  to  for  for the  analysis, each  since  in  four  mean number  involved  operation  therefore,  subject  these  the  it  was  patients of  is  trials  Table  to  The given  for  trials the  last  the on  in  teletype  the  range  amount  last of  Table  four  trials 6.1  diagnose.  6.1  Minimum!/, m a x i m u m . - a n d m e a n of  of  done  diagnosed.  a certain  to  number  diagnosis  four  patients.  Patient  Patient  Patient  Patient  2  .3  4  5  Minimum  1  1  2  1  Maximum  11  24  20  19  Mean  5.9  .  9.7  8.6  9.7  93  The five  are  identical  symptoms points  sequence of  (i.e.,  where  except  for  occurred  at  Appendix  Ca for. the  is  those  reflected  for  in  patients  sequence five.  of  decision. sequence very  and  the  Patient  early  two  the  has  of  to  diagnosis for  symptoms p r e s e n t e d  C.  In  that  sex,  would  spite or  affect  of  the to  to  those  (cf. similarity  decision  patients  a  shorter  three  mean t r i a l s  mean v a l u e  the  use  these the  fact of  of of  subjects subjects  that the  our  and  to  because  sequence of  total.^  c a n be  found  made  no  nature  choice models,  that  these  variables  have  had  choice  situations  and might  have  to  out,  in  along with  theory  simply  turned  run  "artificial"  certain these  were  on b o t h  As i t  of  'Low BP'  includes  the  a continual  information  as w e l l .  This  than  lowest  and  occurred.)  four  reducing  subjects  to  awareness the  of  three,  trials  Patient  type  and  occurred at  symptoms). mean  the  three  the  'High BP'  experiment.  Thirty-five trials  BP'  symptom t y p e s  effect  of  BP'  patient  of  five.  symptoms moves in  'High  'High  similarity  alternating  of  where  patients  reversal  five,  schedule of  the  has  the  occurred in  points  three  This  for  patient  'Low BP'  symptoms f o r  factors.  we  The r e a s o n an e f f e c t  be  patterns  in  controlled emerged  The  4 .  the  schedule  in  Appendix  suggestion of  the  choice  kept for many in  this  was  other  this  independent  one of  them.  Test  of  A s s u m p t i o n 3 and Our  that  the  value  of  the  S e c o n d Mode o f  design permitted k  is  constant  a  over  test each  of  Analysis our  assumption  subject  (cf.  Assumption  94  Table  Values by  of  k  for  patient  6.2  5  subjects  number.  Patient Subject  number 1  '-' *  2  3  4  5  range  -  2  3  2  2-3  2  3 ,4*  -  4,3  2  2-4  3  1  -  2  -  1-2  4  6,7  5  5  3  3-7  5  4,5  4,3  -  3  3-5  indicates  both  number  no k  k values  are  value given  c o u l d be where  identified  two  models  by  are  the  choice  implied.  point  95  3). of  It  was  important  a n a l y s i s we  However,  it  assumption pretest value was  as  s o o n became to  k  make.  for  high  revise  originally  subjects  of  the  as  doing  the  method  different the  since  design of  a  standard  of  of  for  Of  their  no.  develop  an  another  c h o i c e model  its  we  first  five  the in  chose to  of of  one had  case to  analysis.  analysis work  use  expectation  in  it. in  reThis  order  to  choices.  fall  imply.  same  mode o f  deal  of  support.  unreasonable  values  on one  we c l a s s i f y t h e they  on  technique  evaluation  if  strategy  We e i t h e r  great  choice might  trials  of  alternate  mathematical the  an the  4).  saved a  the  choices with  range  subject  out,  was  6.2).  The  since  dependent  this  experiment,  subject's of  that  Table  this  the  notion  types  type  or  turned  and  A  by  it  used the  construct  (cf.  out  p l a n n e d was  patients.  five  this  n o n e made  experiment  possible,  check  clear  (cf.  run,  all  As was  to  of  trials  The  four of  choice  possibilities  are:  These be  Type  1.  The  Type  2.  The  Type  3.  The  Type  4*  No m o d e l .  categories  identified  his  by  d i f f e r e n c e model runs  (type  it  would  are  mutually  one  of  support  3 outcome),  support  no model  model alone.  difference and/or  d i a g n o s i s on t r i a l  5.1,  alone  if  the  For  the  his  runs  and  sequence of and/or  if  if  a  can  subject  symptoms i n the  d i a g n o s i s on  4 outcome),  model  each t r i a l  example,  difference  h e made  (type  exclusive  them. 1 of  the  h e made  runs  trial his  made  Table  model 2,  it  choice  would on  96  trial and  3 i t would support the runs model alone  so on.  (type 2 outcome),  W i t h i n the eleven t r i a l s shown i n Table  5.1  t h e r e i s one o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a type 1 outcome, two o p p o r t u n i t i e s for  type 2, one  for  type  o p p o r t u n i t y f o r type 3, and  seven o p p o r t u n i t i e s  4. The  chance of a random c h o i c e f a l l i n g  the other of these types i s not e q u a l , so i f we d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of times one  on one  or  find a  type of model i s used  over the o t h e r s , i t w i l l be very d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h whether t h i s i s a f u n c t i o n of b i a s e s i n the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r each model being used, or of s u b j e c t s ' p r e f e r e n c e of one model over the o t h e r s .  I t w i l l t h e r e f o r e be necessary  to s e t up  a standard f o r comparison which r e f l e c t s the d i f f e r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s which each model has by v i r t u e of the symptom sequence, but does not r e f l e c t i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r e n c e s . To do t h i s we "If  begin by asking the q u e s t i o n :  the s u b j e c t s always diagnosed  randomly, what k i n d of  d i s t r i b u t i o n of outcome types would we a t t a i n such a d i s t r i b u t i o n , we  expect?"  In order to  can t r e a t the making of a  d e c i s i o n as the occurrence of a success i n a b i n o m i a l  trial.  At each d e c i s i o n p o i n t then, the s u b j e c t has some p r o b a b i l i t y (p) of making a d e c i s i o n .  I f the process i s a random  one,  then we would expect the p r o b a b i l i t y to be the same f o r each trial.  T h i s assumes t h a t i n random c h o i c e behavior t h e r e i s  nothing to d i f f e r e n t i a t e a c h o i c e a t one p o i n t from a c h o i c e at  another p o i n t . Using t h i s framework, we  can then c a l c u l a t e  the  97 theoretical in  the  trial  probability  following is  the  way.  same  If  (e.g.,  decision  on the  first  decision  on the  second  the  first  procedure decision  for  a c h o i c e b e i n g made the  p)  probability  then  trial  is  p,  second  [i.e.  can be  the  third  for  [i.e.,  (1-p)(1-p)(l-p)p] distribution  (1-p)(1-p)  parameter  order  outcome  type  add  probabilities  type the  an  to  and  the  under add any  the  after  extending  the  20  such values  way,  of  the  is  of  final a  final  no c h o i c e  of  on  The  a  same  final  fourth,  trials.  [i.e.:  The  a geometric  or  of  resulting  distribution  trials  of  5.1,  2 to  data  occur  a  at  but  which  simply  certain  we w e r e (the  this  s h o u l d be  the  outcome  to  runs  calculate  model need  adopt  the  50  trials.  smaller  p c a n be for  carried  probabilities  We w i l l  the  certain  a d e c i s i o n would  is  of  a  a c h o i c e o c c u r r i n g on t r i a l s  there  criterion and  if  that  of  can then  Table  trials  c h o i c e were  to  one  of  symptom s e q u e n c e s h o w n , we  a total  value  probability  on w h i c h  type  so t r i a l s  to  of  actual  in  trials,  process.  the  trial  Theoretically,  The number  each  outcome  further  only  probabilities  for  probability  number  the  p],  random p r o c e s s ,  particular  runs model.  small  n  p]  calculate  example,  for  other  infinite  1 to  to  this  For  probability  only 11  under  occurs.  alone)  a  each  p. In  the  I(1-p)  trials  of  (l-p)p].  probability  trial  n™ 1  and n  over  of  each  c h o i c e on  probability  and a c h o i c e on the  th  with  the  product  repeated  is  a  probability  the  on the  trial  the  of  at  than  estimated  a particular  probabilities  of  By t h a t .0005  for  all the  the  so  to  calculating  patient.  under  on  time  for  from  imply  become  no a d v a n t a g e policy  3,  the "patients".  mean In  this  geometric  98  distribution  are  made  judgement  the  differences  of  similar  a n d we  c a n make  a  reasonable  between  expected  and  actual  65. frequencies. "patients"  Primary  The means  are  given  frequencies the  for  each  Using of  trials  dicted  by  the  expected A more  calculated number  of  number  following  difference their  for  patient  model  model  for  the  last  alone  The  reflects  this.  For  subjects.  at  model The  was was  alone  2.  difference  the  found  look  four  alone  first  a  of  3,  pre-  From  type  to the  distribution.  this  was  done  columns of  for  which  the  can  that  Table  patient  subjects  in  infer over this  by  the  the  2,  implies  that  6.4  making  sequence of  9 times  predicts  choice  calculating  For  trial  we  mean  D.  three  in  the  choice predicted  utilized  random model  which  used by  of  from  geometric  in  occurs  number  was  for  Appendix  because  following  choice  c a n be made.  frequency  patient  the  never  the  actual presented  generated.  each  a basis  in  in  were  for  and  each p a t i e n t  probabilities  way  the  never  for  expected  estimated  the  persons under  This  model  p as  and used as  interpretation  choices.  difference  of  of  of  calculated  probability  4 c a n be we  and  distribution  example  If the  the  values  type  criterion,  geometric  detailed  patient  values  to  distribution was  outcome  These were the  number  occur  p  6.3.  shows t h e  6.4  subjects.  manner.  this  Table  of  Analysis Table  to  in  and v a l u e s  the symptoms  the  random  the 35  should  occur  99  Table 6 . 3 Mean t r i a l s t o diagnose and a s s o c i a t e d values of p f o r patients 2 t o 5. (number o f s u b j e c t s = 35)  1  P a t i e n t No.  Mean no. o f t r i a l s  mean  2  5.9  .169  3  9.7  .103  4  8.6  .116  5  9.7  .103  Total  8.5  Table 6 . 4 A c t u a l frequencies for 4 t y p e s o f outcomes and expected f r e q u e n c i e s under the geometric d i s t r i b u t i o n (number of s u b j e c t s = 35)  Outcome t y p e s  Patient Number  1.  2.  Runs model, alone  3.  D i f f e r e n c e and/or . runs model  4.  No  model  Exp.  Actual  Exp.  Actual  2  0  0  4.08  6  19.78  25  11.13  4  3  3 . 85  9  1.88  5  4.30  5  24.98  16  4  5.59  14  3.17  4  5.10  3  21.13  14  5  3.83  12  1.88  5  4.32  2  24.98  16  13.27  35  1 1 . 01  20  33.50  35  82.22  50  Total Total Actual - T o t a l Exp X  Difference . model a l o n e  21 . 7 3  8.99  ( c a l c u l a t e d on t o t a l s f o r columns) = X  2  , .01, n  3d 11  =  11.34  Exp.  Actual  1.50  55.62  Exp.  Actual  - 3 ; >.22  101.  only  3.8 5 t i m e s .  numbers over  4 and  all  number  5.  In  patients,  of  times  times).  is  can  continue  the  c h o i c e model  of  types.  Through  this  explanatory Total  of  power  that and  statistically  the  type  subject below  both  above  choice  three for  from  times  only  we  the  a s many  about  or  over  less  the  the  the  each  which  of the  the  explanatory  distribution. the  of  relative  "Total  between  distribution  more We  than  relative  (cf.  find  and to  square measure  we  the  table.  data  establish  types  chi  the  extent  random  can a l s o  at  the  total  striking  see  number  of  Actual  provides  the  -  an  random  choice  that  two  figure  patterns  the  actual  types  times  under  model  alone  and  The  number  of  times  difference  random m o d e l ,  are  are  each of  a s many  the  evident.  number  runs  of  was  four,  For  times  model  predicted  model  whereas  points  the  a  far  a random c h o i c e assump-  however,  choice points, times  for  s u g g e s t i n g no model  of  expected  assumption.  variation  patients  The  look  difference the  (21.73  used  the  a choice point  expected  The  was  each of  outcome  some r a t h e r  chose at  tion.  we  4 outcome,  the  in  significant. If  models  increase  of  establish  actual  distribution  row  differences  the  patients  bottom  of  row).  the  alone  more  type  for  random  the  can  between  the  By c o m p a r i n g  c o m p a r i s o n , we  distribution  choice  we  outcome  Expected"  indication  for  found  show an  model  the  process for  account  each  are  data  difference  random d i s t r i b u t i o n , power  actual  shown i n  this  types  results  comparison with  the  the  This  various  Similar  shows a  by  over  runs  the  the  were  random  greater  accounting the  alone  for  almost  model  random  accounts  model.  102  The  type  of  m o d e l was by  the  c h o i c e w h i c h may  not  significantly  indicate different  b a s i s of  the  different  the  random d i s t r i b u t i o n )  we  find  the  greatest  in  prediction  is  clearly  opportunities  improvement  As a p r e d i c t i v e of  a powerful  or  difference  outcome  difference number  of  model,  type  (i.e.,  3) 3  5  it +  3  that  Only  predicted  even  if the  still x  5  choice type the  of  that  the  it  on the  add t o  makes  distrib-  rather (35  b a s i s of  out  of  a  figure  a  for  (through  random falls  that  of  model  choices  m o d e l may b e  only  has  difference  over  made we  importance  Controlling  however,  25%  clearly  c h o i c e s made w h e r e  (i.e.,  choices  and  each  statement,  were  the  identified.  which  claim.  possible 140)^*  model  the  results,  difference  ution.  model  these  the  the  from  a runs  random m o d e l . On t h e  short  either  the  difference  accounts for  50%  of  the  100).  140 By v i e w s we m i g h t of  variation  these  The  turning  get in  to  the  some i d e a  the  of  why  was  there  a  and p r e d i c t i v e  the  sizeable  inter-  amount  significance  of  results.  Interviews  asked  this  responses in  theoretical  Upon c o m p l e t i n g  made  subjects'  to (cf.  give  an  account  Appendix E ) .  q u e s t i o n was "I asked than the  of  the  The  a rather  for readings other."  the  experiment, way  usual  vague until  in type  which of  statement I  got  each the  subject  c h o i c e s were  response given such  more  of  was  as: one  type  to  103  On p r o b i n g  for  accounts. a  of  reading  we  row,  the  the  both  of  a  that  or  source of  overall and a  said  that  in  as  one  two  the  another  to  method  but  a  the  if  the  we  the  more type  considOften,  not  trial would  at  or  two  probably  identified  reaching  s u b j e c t s would  of  one  c h o i c e was made  Such b e h a v i o r  the  of  of or  judgement.  a decision,  our  range highs  referred  their  a decision with  or  a wide  preponderance  in  was m a d e . error  was  number  factors  had assumed t h a t  soon  there  occurrence of  s h e made  accounts of  s i n c e we as  these  he  the  other,  "decision"  subjective  choice  looked,  the  subject  where  a major  old,  over  that  point  after be  some s p o k e o f  of  found  they  Some m e n t i o n e d  in  eration  what  of  a  make  the thresh-  their  models p r e d i c t e d  a  change. Such for  in  going over  indicate reading  that to  decision they  If  that  the  point  of  the  fact  symptom and  the  other  last  trial  often "it  evidence seen in  of  that  justified  went  as  their  back for  the  would most  go o n t o at  actual  h a d made  check.  would  spite  the  they  they  w h i c h was in  a c c o u n t s were  to a  similar  up next  next  the  of  choose.  Choices  tried  one  it  were  often  such  This on  Peterson  "primary  the  the  by  type  first  comments  seemed t o this and  be  such  -  subject as  sufficient  b a s i s might  6 7  of  and  DuCharme d e a l  effect".  machine  a response  c i r c u m s t a n c e s the  point  made  one  their  inconsistent  produce  between  would more  consistent with  changed between  that  often  A response from  thought".  the  but  If  difference  In  those which  examination  was  c o n s i s t e n t would  choice at  choice.  trial  however,  subjects  minds  trial.  had not  I  their  likely  that  what  to  c h o i c e s made,  sequence.  the  somewhat m i s l e a d i n g ,  be with  104  This pressure  for  making  experimental had of  had  a  factor  design.  this  contradicted  said,  they  attempt  evidence  to  A problem down t h e the  memory.  to  interpersonal  write  concerned that  tained,  a n d we  All of  variation  account of  As the  in  it  of  turned  time  choice,  of our  or  the  since  often  they  middle  evidence they  almost  as  disconfirming  if  they  use  the  the  factor  of any  may  the  write  forgotten  experiment  done  they  since  were most  maintenance  problems  of  interaction particular  account  Our  have  strategy  a guide  for  of  memory. be  main-  choice  model  occurrence  taken  model  for  into purposes  was  to  refining  our  model.  examine  memory  be  the  then,  loss  use  some e f f e c t s  associated strategy of  for  to  difference  p o s s i b l e to  and  this  the  to  and would  use  as  had  the  data.  effects  to  permit  of  could  interaction,  subject  the  results,  was  e x p r e s s e d was  T h i s was  features  the  in  subjects  pressure but  be  these  these  it  of  hunch,  concerned with  does not  simulation.  out,  the  continue,  further  asked  down.  therefore  s h o u l d one want  prediction  comments  them  apparent  than  original  interpersonal  hoped t h a t  be  piece  o c c u r r e d , because they  interaction  We w e r e  in  that  the  process.  to  and would  s t i l l  Rather  the  s p e c i f i e d by  indicated  single  occurrence of  they  records  would  a  Some s u b j e c t s  related  permitted  got  their  S i n c e we w e r e  it  as  subjects  a s p e c t w h i c h was  symptoms as  as  the  compounded by  d i a g n o s i s , were  hunch.  the  third  sequence.  insofar not  of  they  diagnose  and p r o l o n g  of  proper  when  prevent  also  d e c i s i o n promptly  the  their  chose to  apparently  A number  out  which  an  one's  hunch about  checking  was  of  would  delaying require  the  of the a  105  change  in  experimental  its  effect  at  this  The  T h i r d Mode o f In  there  are  assume t h a t  or  2 trials  all  do  it  for  demanding also  to  that  we  have  been  of  that  p o s s i b l e to  for  it  effect  the  of  examine  reduced the  one  models  severe  in  the  our  the  would  strategy and is  a  data  revealed  on  the  they  it  was  of  the  requires  does o p e r a t e , the  1  very  predictability  for  be  for  that  This  second strategy  criterion  pressure,  first  decision,  of  The  time  The  trials.  nothing. of  of  delaying  their  An a n a l y s i s  one,  assume t h a t  but  that  we  identification  model. If  an e a r l y that  not  possible.  h a v e made  same n u m b e r  virtually  too  the  persons u t i l i z e they  poor  examine  strategies  assumption.  a very  models  to  of  all  the  was  Analysis  order  after  it  time.  a couple  to  design,  there  were  d i a g n o s i s , under  they  would  make  no p r e s s u r e the  their  difference  choice only  subjects  model,  to  we w o u l d  on t h o s e  trials  make expect  in  68 which  the  example, can on  see trial  k value if  that  2 has  our this  test  turn  the  6 only  identified of  we  once  again  difference (at  least  up  that  occurred  (cf.  column  m o d e l s was  expectation A  consistent  with  will  only  slightly our  it  our  3).  11  the  account  is  first is  in  50%  if  we  by This  time the  that  yet  5.1 a  we  diagnosis is  a k  value  b a s i s upon  A s we of  For  Table  implied  made.  prediction,  c a n b e made  "  trials).  This  for  time.  example  alone  the is  first  originally  weaker  model  to  to  fact  the  the  model  the  of  by  increased for  the  have  which  seen,  c h o i c e s made.  one w h i c h  introduce  the  is effect  106 of  pressure  might  be  of  which  k)  expect  of  threshold  on  model,  then,  this  first  greater  to  =  would  as  of  that  in  the  k value  Our  third  the  following  schedule  of  procedure our  as  any  support  of  there a  140) was  basis  of an  for  by  model.  runs  with  the  new  to The  value  (cf.  the  differ-  general in  under  trials  1,  been  difference  3,  an  model.  therefore, identify by  the  looking  Appendix  difference  of  for  k  at  the  C a ) .  The  outlined  only k  a  the  has  procedure  criterion  we  d i a g n o s e s w e r e made of  establishing it  the  in  the  model  patient  occurrence  indicate  on  there  and each  reduce  represented  analysis,  runs  might  increase  might  We c a n  the  whose  that  any  diagnosis  trials  subject  In  on  is  might  of  6.  the For  k  under  the  the  on  is  in  that  a particular  first  of  that  trials  difference  significance  percentage the  find  of  84% in  which  model.  this  value,  occurrences,  the  we  model,  (118  choices accounted  time  value  T h u s we  model.  increase  can compare  for  analagous  this  the  trial  procedure.  analysis.  that  Using out  for  increase  for  on  by  these  mean  persons  the  second  utilization  associated with  difference  of  5.1  strategy  directly  s e c o n d mode  consider  On e a c h o f  symptoms  is  the  a  point  would  c h o i c e s made  Table  in  the  this  (i.e.:  2,  c h o i c e on the  This  model  =  that  choice model.  increase  for  imply  k  model)  11.  values  a  pressure  passes.  of  to  this  value,  some p a r t i c u l a r  or  of  time  2 up  5.1  that  8,  consists  than  a diagnosis  suggest  under  as  occurrence  Table  8 would  Under  threshold  2 a n d make In  well  difference 6,  the  k  the  acceptable  been  as  utilization  5,  find  trial  (identified  diagnosis.  reduce  threshold.  ence  the  early to  after  has  diagnosis  k  they  that  this  an  expected  threshold his  for  As we for  107  runs  model  For  any  can  be  of  can be  increase used  140).  to  used in  The  all  but  problem be  our  the  are  as  too  model  the  is  or  the  framework.  some  sparse  respect  diagnoses  now  are  used  faced  indications else  they  it (92  to  out  very  account  with  diagnoses also  reveals to  diagnosis.  model)  to  An e x a m i n a t i o n  interview  or  total  runs  c a n be  are  they  the  superior.  unexplained  whether  with  the  still  we  whether  of  total  diagnoses,  strategies  either  of  the  error  are  under  model  experimental  There  66%  35%  difference  conceptual  different 16%.  of  for  the  deciding  post  for  difference  16%  considered  into to  of  account  (identified  account  Since for  k  to  are  be  of  the to  integrated  the  little  responses regarding  t h o s e p e r s o n s who w e r e ,  of  relationships,  are  unconnected  but  to  in  they  any  69 theoretical  Shifts  in  Models  Used  Up t o of  c h o i c e models  the we  models have  over  not  time  shifts  might  on  ad hoc b a s i s The  persons  shift  this  linked  for is  example, not  for  first  from to  any be  the  identification  p e r s o n s do n o t  different  sets  of  theoretical expected,  exploring  length  basis  it  is  this  possibility  one might  on  that  one m o d e l the  concentrated  assumption  for  a difference  reached,  have  the  or  specified  of  is  now we  under  types an  v  interpretations.  the  of  time  problems.  for  Since  deciding  necessary  to  what  proceed  possibility.  we m i g h t  to  shift  other in  examine  only  is  once  and  interaction.  model  is  being  shift  in  the  used and  models  used  that  the in  that If,  threshold order  to  108  find  a  solution  to  This predictability of  the  the  of  number  the  interaction. was  looking for  of  type  of  might  the  model, over  across  exist  the  second sections  two  models  model and  is  are  superior  the  5,  for  of  the  is  superior  the  difference  parts  of  the  model  is  superior  and of  model  interaction, during  is  trials  and the  under early  each (i.e.,  results the under any  the  prop-  shown  no d i f f e r e n c e the  For  half,  first  the  in  difference  patients  superior  for  the  half  the  diagnosis.  to  be  certain parts  of  in  model  general the  conditions, an  3  second  runs In  superior  the  4,  the  first  this  and  patient  but  which  in  For  of  appears  of  differences  result  within  first  the  of  are  comparing  virtually  only  in  there  models.  second h a l f .  model  predictor  the  the  if  runs  interactions.  keep  half  trials  or  the for  the  the  models  to  analysis  of  by  striking  is  of  compare  two  interaction,  then,  rather  as  each  end  by  By c o m p a r i n g  see  the  same  for  6.5.  to  can  a way  the  the  v a l u e ) . T h e  Table  we  and  predictability  addition,  there  of  difference  half a  the  a k  difference  2,  equal  second h a l f  In  one  between  the  in  possible  is  such  s e c o n d mode  it  the  in  the  and  patient  predictability  number  in  columns,  between  For  accomplished  our  trials.  There table.  was  first is  compare  This  half,  given  we  beginning  approximately each  that  the  increase  are  suggest  between  patient  using  first  for  differences ortions  by  For  analysis  proportions  models  subjects  the  would  sequences.  calculated  at  this  each  the  trials  the  problem.  reasoning  interaction  dividing  model  the  latter the  interaction  runs  109  sequence. If various  (cf.  patients  for  look  patients,  results  blood  we  3 and  5 are for  of  is  which  separates  them  Up  the  trial  symptoms  are  sequence  in  from  point  the  there  is  Several  simply which  for  patients  the  2 and  4,  in  long  3.  producing There  model a is  of  a priority  favored) is  to  and  delayed)  second  the a  high.  are  two it  simply be  in  will  only the  of  be  because This  explanation  is  when  less that  of It  c h o i c e models  that  hand,  the  the  the  the  model  explanation (the  costs  the  2).  k  =  point  2 is  these  results  is  important  an  choice.  for  this  change  does  not  model (i.e.,  model  be  utilized. track  of  their "permit" there  being  high  lose  trial  with  are  subjects  other  =  assumes t h a t  difference  of  For  for  model  4.  long  k  this  subjects  first  preferable the  at  explanations  that the  with  run  symptoms  runs  or  point.  from  a  seventh  run  first  appears  2 and  types  disease  a  that  sequences.  produce  diagnoses  possible  may  made.  at  account  sequences  two  On t h e  (i.e.,  alternating  use  one  high  would  the  these  for  (i.e.,  patients  would  for  symptom  number  of  5  subject.  The  the  First,  choice  diagnosis  3 and  no b i a s  symptoms  two-patient  for  the  produce  two-patient  This  other  sequence  phenomenon.  these  of  This  sequences  the  proportionately  factor  trial  on  not  the  of  for  might  value  these  d i a g n o s e s w e r e made  on  that  of of  occurs as  for  alternated.  view  in  versa).  patients  is  symptoms  schedule  reversed  the  of  conditions  The  aspect  from  a repetition of  what  results  there  of  sequence  and v i c e  additional  sixth  see  simply  There  to  the  C a ) .  low  similarity an  can  Appendix  pressure  the  we  at  a  diagnosis A  the  110  Table  6.5  Proportion of t r i a l s to d e c i s i o n which were a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d by difference and r u n s m o d e l , f o r two h a l v e s o f s e q u e n c e *  (Proportions r e p r e s e n t the proportion of choices i n each c e l l which are a c c o u n t e d f o r by the model alone)  Patient  First  Second  half  half  *  2  Patient  Patient  3  4  Patient  5  diff model  runs model  diff model  runs model  diff model  runs model  diff model  runs model  .50 (20)  .40 (20)  .06 (17)  .35 (17)  .35 (17)  .35 (17)  .06 (18)  .33 (18)  1.0 (15)  .72 (18)  .22 (18)  .61 (18)  .17 (18)  .71 (17)  .05 (17)  identified  by  1.0 (15)  •  trials in  k  to  decision  values.  Total  number  of  first  subjects  increase in  parentheses  Ill  difference nating  between  sequence.  difference requires change  only  in  ated  that  make  a  symptom  the  alternation first  was  no  of  the  the  number  of  140).  design:  that  Second,  since  runs  possible the  in  for  first  model that  results  The  model  which  events  since  the  of  the  of  alone s u c h an in  early  the  would  the  the  other  last  regarding  is  for  not  of  analysis 6.5.  involved,  in  small  models First  (10  out  primarily  the  utility  of  the  completed,  it  is  allow  a  for there  simpler  used  of  of  the  f o c u s s i n g on  may  to  the  support  not  been  indic-  utilized.  shifts  is  from  some  reasons.  very  this  simply  analysis  two  the  choice  a change  they  of  p u s h e d them  subjects  process  for  three of  diagnosis  suggest  reason  Table  type  This  involved  has  interviews  of  For  we w e r e  full  shown  runs  the  what  alter-  use  occurrence  tentative  choices  a  the  at  particular  an  suggestions be  is,  track  this  symptoms.  necessarily  to  over  a guess  experimental  indication  possible  and  post  explanation.  clear  symptoms  make  switch  keep  necessity at  of  type.  the  These must  they  types than  they  involved  choice  the  be,  that  persons  two  Rather  might  In seven  the  all,  a  research  this  problem.  difference still account  of  112  CHAPTER  We h a v e put  this  context  specific of  reference of  the  the  our to  two  df  consistent  runs  point into  w h e r e we m u s t the  This  those  that  undertaken,  and  more  try  general  will  be  done  relate  to  the  those  to  that  with results  deal  with  framework.  was  basis  for  with  that  the  of of  and  of  in  two  type  in  of  choice  in  models  previous  the  development,  model  undertaken  changes  mechanism,  model  response,  of  of  to  would  examine for  had be  a  assumed threshold-  of  the  effects  of  pressures  of  the  experimental  for  were  perspective  seem p r o m i s i n g .  account  the  IN  considered  From the  results  seems  we  choice  mechanism.  to  choice  research  relations  models  the  order  spite  more  subjects' design,  The  data  than  delays  in  and  variations  memory. One  ation they of  areas:  research  guess  theoretical  difference  in  the  framework.  conceptual  On t h e  a best type  the  to  research  reasonableness  relations.  of  CONCLUSIONS  Conclusions  theoretical  ing  of  research  Our  that  piece  major  general  Research  come  conceptual  specific  more  now  7 -  of do  the  these in  effects  fact  in  to  alter.  variation  confidence greatly  alternative,  from  our  increased.  see If  the  then,  they  effect  the  be  how m u c h o f account of  conceptualization At  would  same  the of  time,  to  the for  begin choice  a  an  explor-  process  significant  difference  model,  interaction  would  we m i g h t  able  be  portion our  be to  113  improve  the  predictive This  experiments  might of  factors  4  an  and  accurate  control In and  the  5,  our it  of  proportion present,  of  the  us  from  utility  of  the  relaxed for  in  the  as  the  many  choice  error  the  is  the  the  subjects  for  reduce  same t i m e  c h o i c e model making  an  a  used.  or  at  second or  third  abandon our  they  against  the  require if  the  that  a  we  i n c r e a s e d the  demand  proportion  particularly find  values.  clarify  Thus  example,  that  S h o u l d we  we m u s t  do n o t  so would  expect  k  predictability  To do  and  low  high  the  for  For  hold.  very  claim  choice  drop,  the  itself.  design.  early  the  kept  they  low.-  models proposed are  into  the  create  experimental  second occurrence of  c h o i c e s would  k value,  The  which  allows  producing a  d i a g n o s e s , we w o u l d  k value  factors  of  at  two  Through assumptions  disadvantage the  which  point,  k was  experimental  c h o i c e s made  particular  the  c h o i c e models  the  non-informative where  these  this  new  this  p r e s s u r e w h i c h we  diagnosis.  values  confidently  pressure  accurate  of  the  of  factors  of  and  reasonableness of  variation  is  early  the  research to  choices drastically  choice model,  prevent  some o f  in  value  choices at  these  in  development  reported  factors  an  the  one  critical.  threshold  had  the  the  be most  experiments,  of  At  the  versus  may h a v e  to  From the  these  model.  require  variations  seem t o  the  our  would  manipulation  over set  with  of  of  similar  error.  One for  are  but  introduce  these  strategy  which  dissertation,  power  at we  those have  points  just  occurrence of  assumption that  of  a  the  reasonable.  second f a t o r  which  choice process is  appears  the  to  influence  introduce of  some  memory.  It  114  is  possible that  is  due  to  acts.  In  models  have  fact  spite  then,  predicted we  the  by  the  already  difference  the  runs model any  to  models.  to  the  extent  memory  strategies  to  it  would  to  which  utilize  a  sequence of  to  inventory  likely  to  of  a  of  of  sequence  the  other  other  of  choice  than  memory  loss  monitoring)  those which  c h o i c e models  begin monitoring  influence  on  not  be  to  account  from to  the  reflect  sequential the  our  effect  account of  acts  so,  "natural"  a crucial the  example,  the  we w i l l  reduce  interaction  factor  we  occur,  if  the  give  solution  which  less  explanation  into  the  analysis  variation  due  to  theories  concern with  choice rather  functioning  be  loss  course,  of  of the  than  memory.  problem of  on the have  control  of  The level achieved. memory  development This  is  of  the  memory.  memory  the  subject with  general  of  of  him  the  depend,  we  shift  to  integrate for  if  a  he w o u l d  memory  readings errors  possible  if  memory  the  symptoms and p r o v i d e they  of  some o f  doing  examine  For  will  development  regarding  to  runs model,  to  by  such  the  reduce  match more  symptoms as  strategy  strategies  continual  However,  might  be  with  p o s s i b l e to  loss.  the  might  this  theoretical  theory  the  points  constant  dealing  a  An a l t e r n a t i v e  function of  for  alternating  the  utilize  effects  success  Both  to  c h o i c e models  one o r  shifting  one  strategy  memory  correct.  memory  it  this  due  long  be  T h i s would  models  of  allows  of  result  requires  variations.  situations.  model  the  By p r o v i d i n g  subject  due  was  is  (which  of  diagnoses at  One o t h e r  the  track  utilization  w o u l d make  (which  lost  from  point).  the  an  variation  subjects  their  model  possible.  were  the  mentioned  Two are  that  of  they  the  at  some o f  of  consistent  115  with  our  primary In  imental  concern with  both  design,  cases  our  interaction  and not  By  introducing  influences  the  for  severe  test  ization  of  of  the  At  one  greatly model  undermined  in  the  our  data  percentage adopt in  the  our  the  The  discussion  At  trial  might of  demand  for  that There we  the k  (For  in we  to  by  had  memory,  we  do n o t  we  the  of  of  exper-  a  theory  interaction.  and by  experimentally  necessarily  do p r o v i d e  development hoped  of  a basis  exact  for  this  accounted only  to  theoretical of  the  if  any 50%  one of  trial  the  we  of  a  make  more  k =  choice w i l l  b e made  is  some c h a n c e  that  integrate  the  the  alone  which  also  the  leaves  also  our  we  prediction  we  can p r e d i c t 1,  3 or  predictions  variations  we  might have  that  which his  relax  all  for be  84%  a  exact our  those  will  with 5  above  increased.  can p r e d i c t  of  should  be  value  include  50%  largest  we  might  be  Even i f and  the  mentioned it  are  about  If  threshold we  use  difference  only  factors.  time.  on t r i a l s  conceptual-  technique  of  development,  choice  1,  this  factors  patient,  these the  model  the  theoretical  weakness  unknown  know  accuracy  for  for  model might  the  of  we m i g h t  using  for,  elaborating  for  that  predictive Under  be  of  example,  to  k  the  the  attempted  of  provide  the  present,  value  simulation  but  in  development  value  possibilities  choice only  particular 84%.  point  utility  have  with  the of  the  changes  theory.  to  strategy  propose  with  "natural",  attributable  predictive  person  more  research. seem  on  effects  techniques  elaboration.  we  primarily  interaction,  simulation  of  the  investigation  where  concern i s  of  controlling  interaction.  of  only  be  accuracy  patient improved  found.  a  2). if  11.6  The in  first  thing  the  value  of  k.  values  would  be  constant  apparent ination  that of  restricted, four  patients  This  would  k  would  a  limited  time  be  number  of  is  equation  the  used to  of  deals,  it  the  soon  k became  are  generally  1 value (cf.  exam-  over  Table  7.;.1) .  for  the  since  the  are  stable  k  one p e r s o n a t  for  estimate  values  future  one  values  .  the  techniques  factor  the  pressure  would and  influence  value  of  within  point  with  this  . In  suggest the  i n c l u s i o n of  the  value  might  be  of  account  then,  number  Conceptual  The  an  of  the  be  in  consid-  by  the  of  by  for  an  choose as of  the the  assume t h a t pressure  of  of  k  k value  effect  each  indiv-  choose after  Both of  development  the  prediction  to  k values.  value  the  choices  of  and  a c h o i c e b e i n g made  function  a  exper-  interaction  differential in  our  at  at  these  a  prediction  the  pressure  a  particular  that  trial  71. trial.  Framework An  a  we  the  to  development  If  increase  accounted for  likelihood  would  k.  for  using distributions  time.  the  influenced  occurrence of  might  of  s u g g e s t e d by  increases.  differentially  first  factors  be  time  quickly,  trial  of  they  second important  trials  this  between  of  useful  but  variation  A preliminary  a range  estimation  the  assumed t h a t  that  subject  be  accuracy.  would  the  a  Values be  had  subject,  indicates  which  range.  each  mode b e i n g  reasonably  iments  idual  for  we  w i t h would  some v a r i a t i o n .  suggest that  The  model  the  with  could then  erable  was  values  with  deal  Originally  there  these  to  and  alternative  Conclusions strategy  for  future  research  must  and  117  Table  Range  of  k Values  maximum  Range  7.1  under  possible  Difference range  =  Model  7  No.  of  persons  0  4  1  18  2  8  3  4  5  1  Total  35  118  also  be  c o n s i d e r e d , however,  cern  was w i t h  interaction experiment general the  the  especially  development  and n o t  an  reported  account  here  step  in  the  elaboration  IN  a n d OUT r e l a t i o n s .  changes  in  IN  an  would in  the  have  to  make  or  at  difference  different  type  settle  for  OUT r e l a t i o n  relation.  the  IN  relation  now  the  we  If  changed,  if  then  on a  we w e r e  to  the  variation  the  due  to  One  further  experimental  the  not  only  now  mask  that  a  we  the  as  with  proceed  To do  that  our  feedback  s o we  unexplained  variation have  effects  of  fundamentally  operating. would  of  the  model,  of  be  that  involved  how  able  the  for  two the  it  to  in  have the  was  relations. IN  we w o u l d  m o d e l w h i c h we  types  found  of  the  have in  factors.  elaboration  of  As  relation  example,  requires  that  experimentally  insignificant  and o t h e r  we w o u l d  conclusions regarding  idea  we w o u l d  that  factors  precise  which  mean  conceptualization  design,  which  to  of  research  dealt  factors  signs  theoretically  our  the  The  portion  in  be  which merely  from  area  ways  would  assume t h a t  assume t h a t  between  the  choice of  difference  was  of  a clear  the  data  of  test  had  small  OUT r e l a t i o n s .  had more  we  a  con-  regarding  alone.  considered this  strategy  under  relationship in  this  influence  stands,  operates to  the  others  a much weaker  IN  separate  result  and were  if  only  strategy  p r o c e s s was  than  choice behavior  assumption that  the  adopt  the  it  the  least  of  our  original  framework  S i n c e we h a v e  changes i n  model  To to  of  r e s e a r c h was  mentioned, the  relations  examination  of  conceptual  We h a d  affects  to  a  represents  conceptualization.  first  of  since our  is  the  choice process  situations.  We  119  have,  in  can be  general,  opment  the  of  Up t o  an  way  in  a better  is  not  Our  total  he  one  in  in  keeps  us  a  which  to  other  w h i c h we h a v e of  the  pressure If  it  for  looks  factors  will  interaction, we m i g h t  be  results. ination movement  of  the  away  conceptualization  as  it  minor  now part  of  persons,  is  making  and  from  choices,  and where  constrained. the  type  of  Each  of  situation  in  stands  both  the  a where  the  information  these  conditions  w h i c h we  hope  for. one  only as  more  after  an  This  these  strategies  examination  includes  and t h e  the  mixing  of  the  on t h e  centrality  influence of  of  examination  of  us  far  our  concern  account it  from  these for  looks  more as  central  central  factors of  with  the  though  the  these  hope  variation  a more  research w i l l  concern with  memory,  choice models.  detailed  too  over  factors  a more  explore  our  of  possible influences  diagnosis,  if  or  c o n t i n g e n c i e s on the from  a very  be  conceptualization.  d e s i r e d by  take  However,  our  then  is  model.  to  of  we w i l l  .  the  cooperation  we w i l l able  limitations  which  with  though  not  so,  in  elaborating  only  outlined  as  situations  of  that  dealt  be made  early  strategy  tested  devel-  have  choice of  difference  to  on the  consistent with  By d o i n g  only  sequential  we  account  will  the  with  situations  addition  simple  The the  In  l o n g way  eventually  relate  we h a v e  is  alternate  theoretical  that  is  the  interaction  focussed mostly  design which  test  interactant  receives  we h a v e  might  to  most  situations  sequential.  structure.  situation only  it  position  limited  now,  neglected  which  case that  choice  experimental  and have  information  is  the  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as  information.  view,  made  in  thorough lead  to  interaction,  with that the exama we  120  will  most  likely  move  to  consideration of  a  adopt  the  relations.  The  adoption  we w o u l d  use  some o f  not  theoretical due  to  the  exploration lack  of  operationalization One general  Throughout rather  this  loosely  ways.  First  interaction were  the  a  the  more  powerful  as  interpretive  conceptual development  all  it  have  conceptual  has  a  These  such  include  persons i n  interaction,  interpretations  in  action  the  work  for  This  allows  permits  the  one  research such  a  identification problems to  issues  the  effect  the  expectation take  able  might  conceptual  has  will  be  of  to be  making  with  of  be  before  it  the  behavior has  a of  felt  the  importance  of  which  provided  is  a  frame  research problems.  in  Even  which  i n an  it  more  imprecise  precise.  strategy  also  separate  research which  p o s s i b l e to  expectation.  as  way  research is  used.  of  w h i c h we  r e s e a r c h and  framework  our  the  a number  for  can generate  the  it  particular  related.  which  that  Second,  specify  in  things  the  sequential  identified  framework  some t i m e  reasonableness  to  of  regarding  conceptualization factors  interaction.  primarily  w h i c h we h a v e  emphasises p a r t i c u l a r  and  is  our  framework  provided  factors  of  d e v e l o p e d and u t i l i z e d  of  of  of  b e made  interdependence  characteristic  This  that  process.  comment m i g h t  we  OUT  techniques  power  and  w o u l d mean  simulation.  of  formulated  important.  strategy  predictive  the  strategies  changes i n  such  dissertation  which  two  process of  strong  for  of  the  of  such  further  strategy  second of  was  evaluate  form in  turn,  This  was  chosen. the  I  121  FOOTNOTES  1.  Goffman, E . , action,  E n c o u n t e r s ; Two S t u d i e s i n t h e S o c i o l o g y o f InterI n d i a n a p o l i s , The B o b b s - M e r r i l l C o . , 1961, p.7.  2.  Goffman,  Interaction  3.  G e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e t h e o r y o f g a m e s may b e f o u n d i n : L u c e , . R . D . a n d H . R a i f f a , Games a n d D e c i s i o n s , J o h n W i l e y . .< a n d S o n s , 1957 . R a p a p o r t , A . , F i g h t s , Games a n d D e b a t e s , U . o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s , 1960.  E.,  Ritual,  New Y o r k ,  Doubleday,  1967,  p.2.  1  S h u b i k , M. ( e d . ) , Game T h e o r y a n d R e l a t e d A p p r o a c h e s t o Behavior, J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , 1964.  Social  4.  A t k i n s o n , R . C . a n d P . S u p p e s , " A n a n a l y s i s o f t w o - p e r s o n game s i t u a t i o n s i n terms of s t a t i s t i c a l l e a r n i n g theory", J . o f E x p t l . P s y c h . ,55,1:958, 369-78. Burke, C . J . , " A p p l i c a t i o n s of a l i n e a r model to two-person i n t e r a c t i o n s " , C h a p t e r 9 i n B u s h , R.R. and W.K. E s t e s (eds), Studies in Mathematical Learning Theory, Stanford, S t a n f o r d U . P r e s s , 19.59. E s t e s , W.K. "Of M o d e l s and M e n " , Amer. P s y c h o l . , 12, 1957, 609-17. F l o o d , M . M . , "A s t o c h a s t i c model f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n " , Trans. N.Y. Acad. S c i . , 16, 1954, 202-5. F l o o d , M . M . , " G a m e - l e a r n i n g t h e o r y a n d some d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g e x p e r i m e n t s " , C h a p t e r 10 i n T h r a l l , R . M . , C H . C o o m b s and R . L . D a v i s ( e d s ) , Dec i s i o n P r o c e s s e s , N . Y . , W i l e y , 1954 Suppes, P. and R . C . A t k i n s o n , Markov L e a r n i n g Models f o r Multiperson Interactions, S t a n f o r d , S t a n f o r d U. P r e s s , 1960  5.  T h i b a u t , J . W . , and H . H . K e l l e y , The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y o f G r o u p s , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , 1967. H o m a n s , G . C , S o c i a l B e h a v i o r : I t s E l e m e n t a r y F o r m s , New Y o r k , H a r c o u r t , B r a c e and W o r l d , 1961. B l a u , P . M . , E x c h a n g e a n d P o w e r i n S o c i a l L i f e , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , 1964.  6.  E m e r s o n , R . M . , " E x c h a n g e t h e o r y , P a r t I: and Network S t r u c t u r e s " , i n B e r g e r , and A n d e r s o n B. ( e d s ) , S o c i o l o g i c a l V o l . 2, B o s t o n , Houghton M i f f l i n C o  7.  Emerson, R . M . , "Exchange Theory Part Network S t r u c t u r e s " , i n B e r g e r , pp.58-87.  8.  K e l l e y , H . H . , T h i b a u t , J . W . , R a d l o f f and Mundy, "The Development of c o o p e r a t i o n i n the 'minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n ' " , P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1962, 76 ( 1 9 , W h o l e N o . 538).  Exchange R e l a t i o n s J . , Zelditch, M.J., Theories in Progress, . , 1972, p p . 38-57.  II: Exchange R e l a t i o n s and J . , et a l . (eds), op. cit.,  122  9.  Kelley,  H.H.,  et  al.,  Ibid.  10.  S i d o w s k i , J . B . , L . B . W y c k o f f , and L . T a b o r y , "The i n f l u e n c e of r e i n f o r c e m e n t and p u n i s h m e n t i n a m i n i m a l social s i t u a t i o n " , J . Abnorm. and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 52, 1956, 115-19.  11.  Sidowsky,  12.  R a b i n o w i t z , L . , H . H . K e l l e y , and R.M. R o s e n b l a t t , "Effects o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e and r e s p o n s e c o n d i t i o n s i n the minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , J . exper. p s y c h o l . , 2, 1966, 169-197.  J . B . , et  al.,  Ibid.  soc.  13.  K e l l e y , H.H., et a l . , op. cit. Sidowski, J . B . , et a l . , op. cit.  14.  K e l l e y , H.H., et a l . , op. cit. T h e f a c t o r o f a w a r e n e s s o f t h e o t h e r p e r s o n was e x a m i n e d by S i d o w s k i ( c f . Sidowski, J . B . , et a l . , op. c i t . ) in their e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t had no e f f e c t . This was c o n s i d e r e d b y K e l l e y , e t a l . t o b e d u e t o t h e unclarity of the i n f o r m a t i o n which the s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d . Kelley, et a l . , r e p l i c a t e d t h i s aspect of the experimental situation w i t h g r e a t e r d e t a i l and found t h a t t h e awareness o f the nature of the interdependency s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d the speed of coordination.  15.  F o r two s i d e s o f t h e d e b a t e s e e : S k i n n e r , B . F . , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , New Y o r k , Appleton-Century Crofts, 1957. Chomsky, N . , "Review of ' V e r b a l B e h a v i o r ' " , Language, 35, J a n - M a r . , 1959, pp.26-58.  16.  B a t e s o n , G . , D.D. J a c k s o n , J . H a l e y and J . Weakland, "Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia", Behavioral Science, V o l . 1, No. 4, 1956. B a t e s o n , G . , D . D . J a c k s o n , J . H a l e y and J . W e a k l a n d , "A Note on the Double B i n d - 1 9 6 2 " , F a m i l y P r o c e s s , 2, 1963, pp. 154-161. Watzlawick, P., "A Review o f the d o u b l e - b i n d t h e o r y " , Family P r o c e s s , 2, 1963, p p . 132-153. Weakland, J . , "The d o u b l e - b i n d h y p o t h e s i s o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a and three-party interaction" i n J a c k s o n , D. ( e d ) , The E t i o l o g y o f S c h i z o p h r e n i a , New Y o r k , B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 6 0 , pp.373-388.  17.  R u b i n g t o n , E . and Perspective,  18.  S c h e f f , T . J . , Being Mentally 111, C h i c a g o , A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. Denzin, N.K., "The S e l f - F u l f i l l i n g P r o p h e s y and Patient-Therapist I n t e r a c t i o n " , i n S p i t z e r , S . P . and D e n z i n , N.K., The M e n t a l P a t i e n t , M c G r a w - H i l l , 1968, p p . 349-358.  H. W e i n b e r g , D e v i a n c e : The I n t e r a c t i o n i s t New Y o r k , T h e M a c m i l l a n C o . , 1968.  123  Kitsuse, J.I., " S o c i e t a l Reaction to Deviant Behaviour: P r o b l e m s o f T h e o r y and M e t h o d " , S o c i a l P r o b l e m s , 9, 9162, pp.247-256. 19.  S a m p s o n , H . , S . M e s s i n g e r a n d R. T o w n e , " F a m i l y P r o c e s s a n d Becoming a Mental P a t i e n t " , Amer. J . of S o c . , 68, 1962, pp.88-96.  20.  Goffman, E . , Goffman,  21.  Denzin,  22.  Two e x a m p l e s may b e f o u n d i n G o f f m a n , E . , T h e P r e s e n t a t i o n S e l f i n E v e r y d a y L i f e , New Y o r k , D o u b l e d a y , 1 9 5 9 , and Scheff, T . J . op. cit.  23.  Morris, C , 1955.  24.  Ogden, C . K . and I.A. R i c h a r d s , The Meaning Y o r k , H a r c o u r t , B r a c e and W o r l d , 1923.  25.  We w i l l a s s u m e t h a t s u c h p a t t e r n s a r e g e n e r a t e d t h r o u g h a n a s s o c i a t i o n - l e a r n i n g type of p r o c e s s , c f . C r a m e r , P . , W o r d A s s o c i a t i o n , New Y o r k , A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1968. D e e s e , J . , The S t r u c t u r e o f A s s o c i a t i o n s i n L a n g u a g e and Thought, Baltimore, John Hopkins P r e s s , 1965. O g d e n , C . K . and I . A . Richards, op. cit. Posner, M.I., " A b s t r a c t i o n and the P r o c e s s o f R e c o g n i t i o n " , P s y c h o l o g y o f L e a r n i n g a n d M o t i v a t i o n , V o l . 3 , New Y o r k , Academic P r e s s , 1969, pp.43-100. F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f o u r d i s c u s s i o n , we w i l l a s s u m e t h a t a b a s i c r e p e r t o i r e of a s s o c i a t i o n s has been e s t a b l i s h e d by the interactants a n d we w i l l f o c u s o n t h e c h a n g e s a n d adaptations p r o d u c e d i n t h a t r e p e r t o i r e by interaction. U s i n g t h i s a s s u m p t i o n i t w i l l be a p p a r e n t t h a t the notion of p a t t e r n i s very general in t h i s part of the discussion. I t may r e f e r t o a p a t t e r n o f a c t i o n o v e r t i m e (e.g., repetition, alternation, random), overspace ( e . g . , square, c i r c l e , random) o r o v e r some c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e t w o ( e . g . , p l a y i n g c h e c k e r s , painting a wall, serving a customer). In s o c i a l relations r o l e s c a n be c o n c e i v e d as p a t t e r n s o f a c t i o n .  26.  For  27.  A n i n t e r e s t i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e way i n w h i c h teleological a n d m e c h a n i s t i c v i e w s "of b e h a v i o r -may be* c o m p a t i b l e c a n b e found i n A c k o f f , R . L . and F . E E m e r y , On P u r p o s e f u l S y s t e m s , C h i c a g o , A l d i n e A t h e r t o n , 1972. From t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n i t may n o t b e u n r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n s i d e r e v e n s o c a l l e d "reflex a c t i o n " from the p o i n t of view of p u r p o s e f u l b e h a v i o r . The u t i l i t y o f d o i n g so w i t h s u c h a c t i o n i s p r o b a b l y v e r y s l i g h t b u t a t t h e l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s w h i c h we p r o p o s e we f e e l t h a t there i s g r e a t u t i l i t y i n l o o k i n g at a c t i o n from a  "The M o r a l C a r e e r of the M e n t a l P a t i e n t " in E . , A s y l u m s , New Y o r k , D o u b l e d a y , 1 9 6 1 , p.140.  N.K.,  op.  cit.  Signs,  references,  see  Language  footnote  and  25.-  W  Behavior,  New Y o r k ,  of  Braziller,  Meaning,  ,  .  of  New  .  124  teleological  point  of  view.  28.  R y l e , G. , The C o n c e p t o f M i n d , See e s p e c i a l l y C h a p t e r 5.  29.  H e i d e r , F . , The P s y c h o l o g y o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relations, N.Y., Wiley, 1958. J o n e s , E . E . and K . E . D a v i s , "From A c t s t o D i s p o s i t i o n s : The a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s i n p e r s o n p e r c e p t i o n " , in Berkowitz, L . , Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, New Y o r k , L A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1 9 6 5 , pp.219-266. Kelley, H.H., "Attribution theory in s o c i a l psychology", in Levine, D., ( e d ) . , Nebraska Symposium oh M o t i v a t i o n , L i n c o l n , U n i v . of Nebraska P r e s s , 167, pp.162-240.  30.  Kelley,  31.  Campbell, D.T., " S o c i a l A t t i t u d e s and Other A c q u i r e d B e h a v i o r a l D i s p o s i t i o n s " , i n Koch, S. (ed), Psychology: A Study of a S c i e n c e , V o l . 6 , New Y o r k , M c G r a w - H i l l , 1 9 6 3 , pp.94-172.  32.  M e r t o n , R . K . , "The S e l f - f u l f i l l i n g Prophesy", A n t i o c h Review, 8, 1948, p p . 1 9 3 - 2 1 0 . Also in Merton, R.K., Social T h e o r y a n d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , New Y o r k , F r e e P r e s s , 1957, pp.421-436. Rosenthal, R., Experimenter E f f e c t s in Behavioral Research, New Y o r k , A p p l e t o n , 1966. R o s e n t h a l , R. a n d L . J a c o b s o n , P y g m a l i o n i n t h e C l a s s r o o m , New Y o r k , H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1968.  33.  Bateson,  34.  B e r g e r , P . L . and T . Luckmann, The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a l i t y : A T r e a t i s e i n the S o c i l o g y of Knowledge, Garden C i t y , Anchor Books, 1967.  35.  Wald,  36.  The  most famous example o f t h i s p r o b l e m i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s i s the "Hawthorne E f f e c t " as r e p o r t e d by R o e t h l i s b e r g e r , F . J . a n d W . J . D i c k s o n , (Management and t h e W o r k e r , Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1939).  37.  See  R o s e n t h a l , R. a n d L . on t h i s literature.  38.  Denzin,  39.  L a w r e n c e , D . H . , " A c q u i r e d D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s o f C u e s I: Transfer between D i s c r i m i n a t i o n s on the B a s i s o f F a m i l i a r i t y with the S t i m u l u s " , J . Exp. P s y c h o l . , 39, 770-784, 1949. Lawrence, D . H . , "Acquired D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of Cues II: Selective Association in a Constant Stimulus Situation", J . E x p . P s y c h . , 40, 175-188, 1950.  H.H.,  G.,  A.,  op.  et  a l . ,  op.  Hutchinson,  1949.  cit.  Sequential  N.K.,  Middlesex,  op.  cit.,  Analysis,  1956.  New Y o r k ,  Jacobson,  op.  Wiley,  cit.  for  of  1947.  a  bibliography  cit.  125  L a w r e n c e , D . H . , " T h e N a t u r e o f a S t i m u l u s : Some R e l a t i o n s h i p s between L e a r n i n g and P e r c e p t i o n " , i n K o c h , S . , P s y c h o l o g y a S t u d y O f a S c i e n c e , V o l . V . , New Y o r k , McGraw-Hill, 1963, pp.179-212. 40.  A t k i n s o n , R . C . , G . H . Bower a n d E . J . G r o t h e r s , An Introduction t o M a t h e m a t i c a l L e a r n i n g T h e o r y , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y , 1965, C h . 5.  41.  L u r i a , A . R . , T h e H i g h e r C o r t i c a l F u n c t i o n s i n Man a n d T h e i r Disturbance in Local Brain Lesions, New Y o r k , B a s i c Books, 1966.  42.  Schaffer, H.R., "Behaviour under s t r e s s : A n e u r o p h y s i o l o g i c a l h y p o t h e s i s " , P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 61, No. 5, 1954.  43.  R i c h a r d s o n , L . F . , " M a t h e m a t i c s o f War a n d F o r e i g n P o l i c y " i n Newman, J . R . , T h e W o r l d o f Laws and t h e W o r l d o f C h a n c e , New Y o r k , S i m o n a n d S c h u s t e r , 1 9 5 6 , pp.1240-1253.  44.  Cherry,  45.  S h a n n o n , C E . a n d W. W e a v e r , T h e M a t h e m a t i c a l T h e o r y o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n , U r b a n a , The U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1964.  46.  Chomsky,  47.  By u s i n g t h e t e r m ' c o d i n g p r o c e s s i n r e l a t i o n to the notion of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n we m e a n o n l y t o l i n k t h e f o r m a l t e r m ' c o d e ' t o the more i n f o r m a l n o t i o n o f "interpretation". We r e f e r t o t h e same t h i n g w i t h t h e u s e o f t h e t w o t e r m s , b u t make t h e l i n k o n l y t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f the model.  48.  This  49.  Ogden, C . K . and I.A. Richards, Deese, J . , op. cit. Kelley, H.H., op. cit.  50.  Peterson, C.R. subjective 1967, V o l .  51.  This  52.  Lawrence,  C.  O n Human  N.,  Communication,  Syntactic  Structures,  New Y o r k ,  The  Hague,  Wiley,  Mouton,  1957.  1957.  1  i s an a s s u m p t i o n s h a r e d t h e o r i e s and models from stimulus sampling. Cf.,  by a wide r a n g e o f learning paired-associate learning to Atkinson, R . C , et a l . , op.cit. op.  cit.,  and W.M. DuCharme, "A p r i m a c y e f f e c t in probability r e v i s i o n " , J . Exp. Psychology, 7 3 , N o . 1, pp.61-65.  phenomen i s d e a l t w i t h i n a number o f o t h e r s t u d i e s a s well. For a general d i s c u s s i o n of research in this a r e a s e e E d w a r d s , W . , " C o n s e r v a t i s m i n Human I n f o r m a t i o n Processing" in Kleinmuntz, Formal Representation of Human J u d g e m e n t , J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , 1968. D.H.,  op.  cit.,  1963.  126  53.  We would a l s o l i k e t o note t h a t t h i s argument might serve as a b a s i s f o r a theory of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e should i t be reversed. That i s , we would expect t o f i n d t h a t a c o n c a t e n a t i o n of a t h r e s h o l d and a simple l e a r n i n g mechanism would produce an a s s o c i a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e w i t h the form of a h i e r a r c h i c a l branching p r o c e s s . In terms of our model, each i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would have a number o f a c t s a s s o c i a t e d with i t , but not v i c e v e r s a .  54.  Lawrence, D.H., op. c i t . , 1963, p . l 9 0 f .  55.  Lawrence, D.H., I b i d .  56.  K e l l e y , H.H., op. c i t . , 1967.  57.  Bern, D.J., " S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n : an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e dissonance phenomena", P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 74, 183-200, 1967.  58.  Skinner, B.F., op. c i t . , 1957.  59.  Wald, A., op. c i t .  60.  A t k i n s o n , R . C , e t a l . , op. c i t . , Ch. 8.  61.  Audley, R.J. and A.R. P i k e , "Some a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c h a s t i c models of c h o i c e " , The B r i t . J . o f Mathem. and S t a t i s t i c a l Psych. V o l . 18, p a r t 2, Nov. 1956, pp.207-225.  62.  F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f the t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the concept of stimulus elements see A t k i n s o n , R.B., e t a l . , op. c i t . , pp.346-349.  63.  The i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n t o the s u b j e c t s w i t h an example o f t h e output of a program i s g i v e n i n Appendices A and B.  64.  Ten o f these s u b j e c t s v o l u n t e e r e d from c l a s s e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. and the other t w e n t y - f i v e v o l u n t e e r e d from c l a s s e s a t S i r George W i l l i a m s U n i v e r s i t y i n Montreal. These v o l u n t e e r s were a l l from undergraduate courses i n the f a c u l t i e s of a r t s and s c i e n c e . E i g h t e e n of the s u b j e c t s were male and the other seventeen were female.  65.  The best estimate o f the mean of the geometric g i v e n by 1  66.  T h i s value i s c a l c u l a t e d from the t o t a l number o f times the d i f f e r e n c e model alone c o u l d be used t o account f o r the c h o i c e s made ( i . e . , 35) and the t o t a l number o f c h o i c e s made ( i . e . , 140) 35/140 x 100 = 25%  67.  Peterson, C R . and W.M.  68.  Note t h a t the k v a l u e s a r e the v a l u e s as c a l c u l a t e d under one or other of the models.  p.l98ff.  distribution i s  P"  DuCharme, op. c i t .  127  69.  For  e x a m p l e : a) t h e o n e s u b j e c t who c o n s i s t e n t l y c h o s e a t a p o i n t n o t p r e d i c t e d by the D i f f e r e n c e model s a i d t h a t she diagnosed the sequence Low-High-High-Low as ' N e u r o p h a s i a ' (Low s u b s y s t e m ) b e c a u s e i t " c a m e b a c k t o L o w " , b) t h e m a j o r i t y o f d i a g n o s e s w h i c h w e r e made a t variance w i t h t h e D i f f e r e n c e m o d e l w e r e made b y f e m a l e s (77%; f = 16) .  70.  Under the t h i r d s t r a t e g y the d i f f e r e n c e s f o u n d  71.  A p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n u s i n g such a f u n c t i o n i n which k was a s s u m e d t o b e n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d a n d t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f c h o i c e was a s s u m e d t o b e a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f t h e number o f t r i a l s h a s y i e l d e d e n c o u r a g i n g but i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s . T h i s i s one s t r a t e g y w h i c h w i l l be p u r s u e d .  for analysis i n T a b l e 6.5  (any i n c r e a s e disappear.  in  k)  128  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ackoff, 1972  R . L . and F . E . Emery, Aldine Atherton.  Oh P u r p o s e f u l  Systems,  Chicago,  A t k i n s o n , R . C . a n d P . S u p p e s , " A n a n a l y s i s o f t w o - p e r s o n game 1958 s i t u a t i o n s i n terms of s t a t i s t i c a l learning theory", J . of E x p t l . P s y c h o l . , 55, 369-378. A t k i n s o n , R . C , G . H . Bower and 1965 Mathematical Learning Chapter 5. Audley, 1956  E . J . C r o t h e r s , An I n t r o d u c t i o n Theory, New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y ,  R . J . a n d A . R . P i k e , "Some a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c h a s t i c m o d e l s o f c h o i c e " , The B r i t . J . o f Math, and S t a t . Psych., 18, 2, November, 207-225.  Bateson, 1956  G . , D.D. J a c k s o n , J . H a l e y and J . W e a k l a n d , "Toward t h e o r y o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a " , B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1, 4, October, 251-264.  Bateson, 1963  G., the  Berger, 1967  Blau, 1964  D.D. J a c k s o n , J . H a l e y and J . W e a k l a n d , d o u b l e b i n d - 1962", F a m i l y P r o c e s s , 2,  a  "A n o t e on 154-161.  P . L . and T . Luckmann, The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n o f Reality; A T r e a t i s e i n the S o c i o l o g y of Knowledge, Garden C i t y , Anchor Books.  P . M . , Exchange and W i l e y and S o n s .  Burke, 1959  to  Power  in  Social  Life,  New  York,  John  C . J . , " A p p l i c a t i o n s of a l i n e a r model to two-person interactions", i n B u s h , R.R. and W.K. E s t e s ( e d s ) , Studies in Mathematical Learning Theory, Stanford, Stanford U. P r e s s , C h a p t e r 9.  Campbell, D.T., " S o c i a l a t t i t u d e s and o t h e r a c q u i r e d behavioral 1963 d i s p o s i t i o n s " , i n Koch, S. (ed) , P s y c h o l o g y : A S t u d y o f a S c i e n c e , V o l . 6 , New Y o r k , M c G r a w - H i l l P u b . C o . , 94-172. Cherry, 1957  C.,  On Human  Communication,  Chomsky, 1957  N.,  Chomsky, 1959  N., "Review of March, 26-58.  Cramer, 1968  P.,  Syntactic  Structures,  'Verbal  Word A s s o c i a t i o n ,  New Y o r k ,  The  Hague,  Behavior'",  New  York,  John Wiley  -Mouton  Language,  Academic  and  Sons  Press.  35,  Press.  January  129  Deese, 1965  J . , The S t r u c t u r e o f A s s o c i a t i o n s i n Baltimore, John Hopkins P r e s s .  Language  and  Thought,  Denzin, 1966  N.K. and S . P . S p i t z e r , "Paths to the mental h o s p i t a l s t a f f p r e d i c t i o n s of p a t i e n t r o l e behavior", J . of a n d Human B e h a v i o r , 7 , 265-271.  and Health  Denzin, 1968  N.K., "The s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g p r o p h e s y and patient-therapist interaction", i n S p i t z e r , S . P . and N . K . D e n z i n (eds), The M e n t a l P a t i e n t : s t u d i e s i n the s o c i o l o g y of d e v i a n c e , New Y o r k , M c G r a w - H i l l , 349-358.  Edwards, 1968  W . , " C o n s e r v a t i s m i n human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g " i n K l e i n m u n t z , F o r m a l R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Human J u d g e m e n t , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s .  Emerson, 1972  R . M . , " E x c h a n g e t h e o r y p a r t I: Exchange r e l a t i o n s and network s t r u c t u r e s " i n B e r g e r , J . , M . J . Z e l d i t c h and B. Anderson (eds), S o c i o l o g i c a l T h e o r i e s i n P r o g r e s s , V o l . 2, B o s t o n , Houghton M i f f l i n C o . , 3 8 - 5 7 .  Emerson, 1972  R . M . , "Exchange t h e o r y p a r t II: Exchange r e l a t i o n s and network s t r u c t u r e s " i n B e r g e r , J . , et a l . , S o c i o l o g i c a l T h e o r i e s i n P r o g r e s s , V o l . 2, B o s t o n , Houghton Mifflin Co., 58-87.  Estes, 1957  W.K.,  "Of  models  and m e n " ,  Flood, 1954  M . M . , "A s t o c h a s t i c model f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n " , N.Y. A c a d . S c i e n c e , 16, 202-205. •  Flood, 1954  M . M . , " G a m e - l e a r n i n g t h e o r y a n d some d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g e x p e r i m e n t s " i n T h r a l l , R . M . , C H . Coombs a n d R . L . D a v i s ( e d s ) , D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s e s , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , Chapter 10. of  Amer.  Everyday  609-617.  E . , The P r e s e n t a t i o n Doubleday.  Goffman, 1961  E.,  Goffman, 1961  E . , E n c o u n t e r s : Two S t u d i e s action, Indianapolis, The  i n the S o c i o l o g y of Bobbs-Merrill Co.  Goffman, 1967  E.,  York,  Interaction  in  12,  Goffman, 1959  A s y l u m s , New Y o r k ,  Self  Psychol.,  Life,  Trans.  New  York,  Doubleday.  Ritual,  New  Heider, 1944  F., "Social perception Review, 51, 358-374.  and  Heider, 1958  F . , The P s y c h o l o g y o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l J o h n W i l e y and S o n s .  Inter-  Doubleday.  phenomenal  causality",  Relations,  New  Psychol.  York,  130  Homans, 1961  G.C., Social Behavior: Its H a r c o u r t , B r a c e and W o r l d .  Elementary  Forms,  New  York,  Jones, 1965  E . E . and K . E . D a v i s , "From a c t s t o d i s p o s i t i o n s : the attribution process in person perception", in Berkowitz, L . , Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, New Y o r k , A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 2 1 9 - 2 6 6 .  Jones, 1967  E . E . and H . B . G e r a r d , F o u n d a t i o n s New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s .  of  Social  Psychology,  Kelley, 1962  H . H . , J . W . T h i b a u t , R. R a d l o f f a n d M u n d y , " T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of c o o p e r a t i o n i n the 'minimal s o c i a l situation'", P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 76, (19, Whole No. 538).  Kelley, 1967  H.H., "Attribution theory in Levine, D., (ed), Nebraska L i n c o l n , Univ. of Nebraska  Kitsuse, 1962  social psychology", in Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n , P r e s s , 162-240.  J.I., " S o c i e t a l r e a c t i o n to deviant behavior: Problems o f t h e o r y and m e t h o d " , S o c i a l P r o b l e m s , 9, 247-256.  Lachenmeyer, C . , "An e x p e r i m e n t a l study of 1967 h y p o t h e s i s " , M.A. T h e s i s , Chapel Carolina.  the double-bind H i l l , Univ. of  Lawrence, 1949  D . H . , " A c q u i r e d d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s o f c u e s : I. Transfer between d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on the b a s i s of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the s t i m u l u s " , J . of Exp. P s y c h . , 39, 770-784.  Lawrence, 1950  D . H . , "Acquired d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of association in a constant stimulus Exp. P s y c h . , 40, 175-188.  Lawrence, 1963  D . H . , " T h e n a t u r e o f a s t i m u l u s : Some r e l a t i o n s h i p s between l e a r n i n g and p e r c e p t i o n " , i n K o c h , S . , P s y c h o l o g y : A S t u d y o f a S c i e n c e , V o l . 5 , New Y o r k , McGraw-Hill, 179-212.  Luce, 1957  and H. R a i f f a , and S o n s .  R.D.  Games a n d  c u e s : II. Selective s i t u a t i o n " , J . of  D e c i s i o n s , New  of speech Word, 15,  York,  i n development (2,3) 341-352.  John  Wiley  Luria, 1959  A . R . , "The d i r e c t i v e r o l e d i s s o c i a t i o n , P a r t 1",  and  Luria, 1959  A . R . , "The d i r e c t i v e dissolution, Part  Luria, 1959  A . R . , Speech and the Development o f M e n t a l P r o c e s s e s i n the C h i l d : an E x p e r i m e n t a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n , London, Staples Press.  Luria, 1966  A . R . , T h e H i g h e r C o r t i c a l F u n c t i o n s i n Man a n d T h e i r D i s t u r b a n c e i n L o c a l B r a i n L e s i o n s , New Y o r k , B a s i c B o o k s .  f u n c t i o n of speech i n development 2", Word, 15, (2,3) 453-464.  and  131  L u r i a , A . R . , "The f u n c t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n 197 0 American, March, 6 6 - 6 9 .  o f the b r a i n " ,  Scientific  M e r t o n , R . K . , "The s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g p r o p h e s y " , A n t i o c h Review, 8 , 1948 193-210. A l s o i n M e r t o n , R . K . , S o c i a l Theory and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , New Y o r k , F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 5 7 , 4 2 1 - 4 3 6 . M o r r i s , C . , S i g n s , Language and B e h a v i o r , New Y o r k , B r a z i l l e r . 1955  Ogden, C . K . , and I . A . R i c h a r d s , The Meaning o f Meaning, New Y o r k , 1923 H a r c o u r t , Brace and W o r l d . P e t e r s o n , C R . and A . S . M i l l e r , " S e n s i t i v i t y o f s u b j e c t i v e 1965 p r o b a b i l i t y r e v i s i o n " , J . Exp. P s y c h . , 70, 1 1 7 - 1 2 1 . P e t e r s o n , C R . and W.M. DuCharme, "A p r i m a c y e f f e c t i n s u b j e c t i v e 1967 p r o b a b i l i t y r e v i s i o n " , J . Exp. P s y c h . , 7 3 , 1, 6 1 - 6 5 . Phillips, 1961  Pitz, 1967  L . D . and W. Edwards, " C o n s e r v a t i s m i n a s i m p l e p r o b a b i l i t y inference task", J . Exp. P s y c h . , 72, 3, 3 4 6 - 3 5 4 .  G . F . , L . Downing and H . R e i n h o l d , " S e q u e n t i a l e f f e c t s i n the r e v i s i o n o f s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s " , Canad. J . P s y c h . , 21,  Posner, 1969  5,  381-393.  M . I . , " A b s t r a c t i o n and the p r o c e s s o f r e c o g n i t i o n " , P s y c h o l o g ; o f L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n , 3 , New Y o r k , Academic P r e s s , 43-100.  R a b i n o w i t z , L . , H . H . K e l l e y and R . M . R o s e n b l a t t , " E f f e c t s o f 1966 d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e and r e s p o n s e c o n d i t i o n s i n the m i n i m a l s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , J . E x p e r . Soc. P s y c h . , 2, 1 6 9 - 1 9 7 . Rapoport,  A . , F i g h t s , Games and D e b a t e s , U . o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s .  1960  Rapoport, 1962  A . , and C . Orwant, " E x p e r i m e n t a l games: a r e v i e w " , Behavioral Science, 7, 1 - 3 7 .  R i c h a r d s o n , L . F . , "Mathematics of war and f o r e i g n p o l i c y " i n 1956 Newman, J . R . , The World o f Laws and the World o f Chance, New Y o r k , Simon and S c h u s t e r , 1 2 4 0 - 1 2 5 3 . R o e t h l i s b e r g e r , F . J . and W . J . D i c k s o n , Management 1939 Cambridge, M a s s . , H a r v a r d U n i v . P r e s s . Rosenthal, R . , Experimenter 1966 York, Appleton.  Effects  and the  Worker,  i n B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h , New  R o s e n t h a l , R. and L . J a c o b s o n , P y g m a l i o n i n the C l a s s r o o m , New 1968 Y o r k , H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n .  132  R u b i n g t o n , E . and H. W e i n b e r g , D e v i a n c e : The I n t e r a c t i o n i s t 1968 P e r s p e c t i v e , New Y o r k , T h e M a c m i l l a n C o . Ryle, 1949  G.,  Sampson, 1962  The  M.  Skinner, 1957  Press.  111,  Chicago, Aldine  Verbal  Behavior,  Publishing  Approaches and S o n s .  New Y o r k ,  of  to  Co.  Communication  Social  Appleton-Century-Crofts,  and R . C . A t k i n s o n , Markov L e a r n i n g I n t e r a c t i o n s , S t a n f o r d , S t a n f o r d U.  J . W . and H . H . K e l l e y , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y Sequential  Analysis,  W a t z l a w i c k , P . , "A r e v i e w 1963 2, 132-153. Weakland, 1960  hypothesis",  J . B . , L . B . Wyckoff and L . T a b o r y , "The i n f l u e n c e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t and p u n i s h m e n t i n a m i n i m a l s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " , J . A b n o r m . arid S o c . P s y c h . 5 2 , 115-119.  P.  A.,  and 68,  stress: a neurophysical 61, 5, 323-333.  ( e d ) , Game T h e o r y a n d R e l a t e d B e h a v i o r , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y  B.F.,  Thibaut, 19 67 Wald, 1947  Hutchinson  C E . a n d W. W e a v e r , T h e M a t h e m a t i c a l T h e o r y U r b a n a , The U n i v . of I l l i n o i s P r e s s .  Sidowski, 1956  Suppes, 1960  Middlesex,  H.R., "Behavior under P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,  T . J . , Being Mentally  Shannon, 1964 Shubik, 1964  Mind,  H . , S . M e s s i n g e r a n d R. T o w n e , " F a m i l y p r o c e s s becoming a mental p a t i e n t " , Amer. J . of S o c . , 88-96.  Schaffer; 1954 Scheff, 1966  Concept of  of  The and  Social Sons.  New Y o r k ,  the  Models Press.  for  Psychology of  John Wiley  double-bind  and  theory",  Multiperson  Groups,  Sons.  Family  Process,  J . , "The d o u b l e - b i n d h y p o t h e s i s o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a and three-party interaction" i n J a c k s o n , D. (ed), T h e E t i o l o g y o f S c h i z o p h r e n i a , New Y o r k , B a s i c B o o k s , Chapter 13, 373-388.  133  Appendix  A Description  1.  Subjects  terminal  were  used  terminal.  CDC t e r m i n a l . responses  on  responses  were  2.  3.  of  the  They  This  record  set  of  (cf. 4.  of  subjects  (cf.  for  similar on  all  a  asked  25  IBM  MED2260  subjects  subjects  was  typed  typewriter,  to  to  read  a number  and  a  their the  a general  on  distinguish  The m a c h i n e  operating  an  The  machine  descrip-  B.a).  type  used  was  last  the a  terminal.  screen.  were  to  the  to  Appendix  asked  data.  Appendix  10  machines,  both  simply  specific  Subjects  first  Situation  a computer  For  then  of  before  displayed  was  Experimental  used  study  number  the  terminal  first  were  the  the  a keyboard  Subjects  tion  seated  for  The  of  A  then  the  the  console.  subjects  r e s p o n d e d by  instructions  on  the  on  typing  a  screen.  B.b). began  the  sequence of  symptoms  by  typing  ' s ' . a  A  typical  typical at  a  sequence  sequence  time  on  the  the  symptom was  5.  When  the  message: "I  is  is  printed,  screen. erased  a diagnosis  WILL  printed  and  was  NOW G I V E  and  a new  series  of  6.  After  5 patients,  in the  Appendix subject  After  the  a new  one  made,  a new  B.b. saw o n l y  subject  made  Whereas one a  the  program  substituted. patient  was  begun. was  symptom  response,  introduced  YOU R E A D I N G F O R A NEW P A T I E N T "  s y m p t o m s was  this  terminated.  with  134  A record responses, for  each  k  values  trial  was  of  under stored  program  with  some  The  post  experimental  7. D) .  sample  the  subject  each model by data  the is  responses, and  the  computer. given  interview  was  in  machine  time  of  response  (A c o p y o f Appendix  conducted.  the  E). (cf.  Appendix  135  Appendix  Handout  A general  description In  persons  make  this  By an  improve  way  personnel,  and  diagnose  patients  The who  which  possibly the  a disease  readings.  of  the  we  are  of  on  the  this  even  by  the  contacted  way  basis  of we  in a  which  sequence  hope  d i a g n o s e d by  of  to medical  machines.  exchange  basis are  the  process,  d i s e a s e s may b e  readings  have  examining  diseases  following on  Subjects  study  examination  in  In  the  study  diagnoses  symptoms. the  of  to  Ba  of  a  sequence  a typical the  two  you w i l l of  sequence  diseases  be  in  asked  blood of  to  pressure  readings  which  we  for  are  interested. The typically these will in  blood  are  pressure  patient's  and  the  which the  is  patient's  is it  blood  factors.  for the  a  called  for  presence of  many of  is  like  distinguished  by  the  creates. pressure  It  is  called  readings  of  but  time.  complex  It  although sometimes  This  factors  associated  is  drop such  as  complications,  illness.  second disease  usually  levels,  patient,  period  of  ANEUROPHASIA.  pressure  each  short  result  the  history  is  HIGH b l o o d  constant  stamina,  The it  not  drastically  the  but  disease  associated with  levels drop  first  will  the  first  in  many  LOW l e v e l s  of  blood  NEUROPHASIA. sometimes  shift  Like due  respects, pressure  aneurophasia, to  various  136  Both will the  result proper  patient  with  the  the  death  these  as  of  diagnosis  the  will  relatively this  through -  yet  date, the  time  indicating  only  be  way  may mean  the  diagnose the  REMEMBER:  loss  High  of  be  a as It  only  from  not  treated.  3 days  is  Inaccurate  result.  of  then,  basis  of  separating in  is  to  make  unstable the  two  blood pressure  to  help  you would  a  symptoms. diseases  over  is  time  or  us  in  this  diagnose  dilemma  by  aneurophasia  Low). about  with  a  series  Each reading 30  A wrong  minutes.  of  you At  blood  pressure  receive any  diagnosis w i l l  point  almost  you certainly  patient.  A HIGH b l o o d p r e s s u r e ANEUROPHASIA,  reading  is  most  typical  of  whereas  A LOW b l o o d p r e s s u r e NEUROPHASIA.  or  patients.  presented  disease. the  of  to  possible.  is  the  you  which  passage of  the  respond well  wasted.  particular  (either  both  s h o u l d b e made  soon as  a doctor,  means  asking in  as  rare,  deterioration  after  same  for  the  both  die  difference  You w i l l  represents  the  yet  may  it  d i a g n o s i s on  cannot  for  also  if  reasonably  a diagnosis  a patient  general  neurophasia  but  problem  the  the  treated,  Because of  produce  We a r e  readings  not  disease  quick  diseases are  diseases,  that  The  To  if  possible,  case  onset  these  treatment.  accurately often  in  of  reading  is  most  typical  of  137  Appendix  An Example  Note:  of  an  B.b  Interaction  Upper  case  letters  are  printed  Lower  case  letters  are  typed  by  by  Sequence  the  the  Each time the s u b j e c t types b, n or e r a s e d a n d a new s y m p t o m presented. WHAT  IS  machine subject.  a,  the  screen  is  YOUR NUMBER?  200 HELLO, I  HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF BOTH T H E A C C U R A C Y OF T H E D I A G N O S I S YOU MAKE AND T H E S P E E D WITH WHICH YOU MAKE IT. I W I L L G I V E YOU ONE OF TWO P O S S I B L E BLOOD P R E S S U R E R E A D I N G S : H I G H BP OR LOW BP AND T H E N A S K F O R YOUR D I A G N O S I S . I F YOU N E E D MORE BLOOD P R E S S U R E READINGS B E F O R E MAKING YOUR D I A G N O S I S , S I M P L Y T Y P E THE L E T T E R ' B ' . YOU MAY T A K E YOUR T I M E I N R E S P O N D I N G , BUT REMEMBER T H A T E A C H R E A D I N G YOU R E Q U E S T R E P R E S E N T S T H E L O S S OF A B O U T 30 M I N U T E S , SO DO NOT L E T T H E P A T I E N T ' S C O N D I T I O N D E T E R I O R A T E TOO L O N G . YOUR F I N A L  DIAGNOSIS 'A'  CAN B E I N D I C A T E D BY FOR ANEUROPHASIA OR FOR NEUROPHASIA  TYPING:  'N' REMEMBER: A N E U R O P H A S I A PRODUCES A P R E P O N D E R A N C E OF H I G H BP R E A D I N G S N E U R O P H A S I A PRODUCES A P R E P O N D E R A N C E OF LOW BP READINGS T H E R E A D I N G S FOR YOUR F I R S T TYPE ' S ' .  OKAY H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP  PATIENT  WILL BEGIN  WHEN  YOU  DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? a I  W I L L NOW G I V E YOU R E A D I N G S F O R A NEW P A T I E N T  H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b HIGH BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? n I  W I L L NOW G I V E YOU R E A D I N G S F O R A NEW P A T I E N T  H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? n I  W I L L NOW G I V E YOU R E A D I N G S F O R A NEW P A T I E N T  LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? n  I  W I L L NOW G I V E YOU R E A D I N G S F O R A NEW P A T I E N T  LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? b LOW BP DIAGNOSIS? b H I G H BP DIAGNOSIS? a THANK YOU F O R YOUR T I M E  140  Appendix  a.  S c h e d u l e f o r Symptoms f o r t h e H L  Trial  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  No.  C  = high = low  L a s t Four P a t i e n t s  blood pressure blood pressure  Patient  Patient  Patient  Patient  2  3  4  5  H L L H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H  H L H L H L L H L L H L H L L L H L L H L L H L  L H H L H H L H L H H H L H H L H H L H H H L H  L H L H L H H L H H L H L H H H L H H L H H L H  141  b.  Subject Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  Number  of  Trials  to  Diagnoses  for  Patient 2  Patient 3  Patient 4  5 7 1 10 8 9 11 8 8 3 6 6 3 2 6 5 6 7 6 3 3 8 7 9 1 6 9 6 3 7 5 6 7 7 3  7 17 2 19 16 8 24 19 15 7 10 15 1 3 10 3 5 12 6 5 3 16 15 10 5  11  1 16 9 7 16 7 9 10 4 3  Thirty-five  Patient . .5 . . .  12 3 15  9 20 15 10 6 5 11 6 4 3 7 13 6 6 3i 12 10 12 2 6 18 10 2 11 3 6 11 11 4  •  Subjects  Sex o f Subject  10 10 3 15  M  8 19 19 15  F  7 10 15 4 4 7 5 5 10 6 6 1 16 8 17 5 7 19 9 6 18 7 10 12 7 4  F  M M M M M M M M F  F F F  M M M M F  •  M M F  M F F F F F F F  142  Appendix  Calculation  D  of  Expected Frequencies  of  trials  for  Patient  Number  4.  Steps: 1.  Mean number (mean =  2.  Parameter p  8.6  p of  decision calculated  over  all  subjects.  trials)  the  =  to  =  geometric  distribution  calculated.  .116  mean 3.  Probabilities for calculated, using Example Trial  a c h o i c e on e a c h t r i a l up t o the geometric distribution.  probabilities  for  trials  number  1 -  trials 47 a n d  summed o v e r  all  trials  of  is  .116) choice  which  imply  a  .•  given  6, 1 1 , 1 5 , 1 8 , 2 3 , 24, 2 7 , 30, 35, 36, 3 9 , 48 imply type 1 (Difference model o n l y ) .  The p r o b a b i l i t y of a c h o i c e o c c u r r i n g (under the g e o m e t r i c d i s t r i b u t i o n ) is trials, to give a p r o b a b i l i t y f o r the o c c u r r i n g by c h a n c e . (Prob ( D i f f ) = .160) 5.  =  50  .115 .102 .090 .080 . 071 .063 .055 .043 .038 .038  Probabilities choice type e.g.,  (p  Probability  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.  10.  trial  42,  on e a c h o f t h e s e trials summed o v e r a l l the D i f f e r e n c e model only  P r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r each t y p e of model a r e m u l t i p l i e d by (the n o . of s u b j e c t s ) to g i v e the expected f r e q u e n c i e s each model.  35 for  143  Appendix  Questions  Asked During  Post-Experimental  1.  C a n y o u t e l l me a n y t h i n g a b o u t d e c i d e d what t o d i a g n o s e ?  2.  To what e x t e n t diagnosis with  3.  Go t h r o u g h e a c h c h o i c e m a d e a f f e c t e d the making of t h a t  4.  Have y o u before? If  so -  ever  what  E  the  way  in  Interview  which  were you c o n c e r n e d about making r e s p e c t to making a q u i c k one?  participated  kind?  - - ask what choice. in  an  it  experiment  was  you  an  accurate  that  like  this  APPENDIX  10 20C 30C 31C ^32-C 33C *»0C 50 60+ 70 90 100 110 120 130  moc  F.A.  COMPUTER PROGRAM  PROGRAM D O C T O R ( I N P U T , O U T P U T , T A P E ^ , T A P E 5 = I N P U T , T A P E 6 = O U T P U T ) PROGRAM OCC 4ULY 6/72 DOCTOR PROGRAM T H I S PROGRAM I S USED TO P R E S E N T A S E R I E S OF SYMPTOMS, ASK FOR A D I A G N O S I S , AN!} TO RECORD S E V E R A L FACTORS R E L A T I N G TO THE R E S P O N S E . DIMENSION N O M ( 1 2 ) , N O ( 5 , 6 0 ) , N O U T < 2 ) , I N ( 2 0 ) , M A ( 2 ) , J M ( 3 , 2 ) , D t 2 ) , TMC2) DATA N C M / 1 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 / 10HLOW BP DATA N C U T / 1 0 H H I G H BP /,NS/10HB DATA MA/10HA ,10HN DATA KEND/10HEND / DATA NE >T/10HNE XT / NPAT=0 flK = i  SET UP R E S P O N S E ARRAYS 150C 160C L3 = 0 170 DO 70 L l = l , 5 180 00 70 L 2 = l , 1 2 190 L3-L3+1 200 210 70 N0<1,L3)=N0ML2> 220 L2=0 230 00 71 L l = 7 , 1 0 2^0 L2=L2+1 250 L3=Ll-6 260 NO ( 2 , L 2 ) - N 0 M L 3 ) N0(3,L2)=N0MLi) 270 7 1 DO 72 L l = i,<+6 280 L2=Ll+4 290 NO ( 2,L 2 ) = 1 300 N0(3,L2)=N0(1,L1) 310 7 2 320C RE AO I N SU'EJECT NUMBER AND ACT A P P R O P R I A T L Y 330C 3-fOC WRITE C6 ,1) 350 5 1 360 1 FORMAT(6X,*WHAT I S YCUR NUMBERS*/) 370 R E A D * 5 , 2 ) NAME 380 2 FORMAT(13) 390 IF(NAr-E) 56,56,52 <+00C klQC PUT I N S T R U C T I O N S I N HERE ••2QC tf30 5 2 WRITE(6,3) F O R M A T ( 5 X , * H E L L O , * / 3 X , * I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE -+<+0 3 i , * n c t - L. u , • f o A , 1*50+ lf60+ if70+ U8Q + ^90+ 500+  IMPORTANCE*  * OF BOTH THE ACCURACY O F * / 1 0 X , * T H E D I A G N O S I S YOU MAKE AND THE*, * S FEED WITH WHICH YOU MAKE I T . * / 8 X , * I WILL G I V E YOU ONE OF TWO P O S S I B L E BLOOD P R E S S U R E R E A D I N G S ! * / 26X,*HIGH EP*/ 30X,*OR*/26X,*LGW B P * / 1 0 X , * A N D THEN ASK FOR YOUR D I A G N O S I S . * / 8 X , * I F YOU NEED MORE BLOOD P R E S S U R E READINGS BEFORE MAKING */  SIR G E O R G E W I L L I A M S U N I V E R S I T Y  COMPUTER CENTER  510+ 520+ 530+ 5^0+  IH<>  10X,*YOUR DIAGNOSIS, SIMPLY TYPE THE LETTER *B*.*/ 8X,*YOU PAY TAKE YCUR TIME IN RESPONDING,*, * BUT RENEfBER THAT EACH*/10X,*READING YOU REQUEST REPRESENTS*, * THE LGSS OF ABOUT 30 MINUTES,*/iOX,* SO DO NOT LET THE PATIENT/S*,  —U LMJ1  J-trt L U1M U t / / ! ! A , i U U 1 t — r 1 IN H L U l H U I N U l l J • , * CAN BE INDICATED BY TYP I fvG I */2 0 X , * * A* FOR ANEUROPHASIA */30X,*OR*/ 20X,**N# FCR NEUROPHASIA*/eX,*REMEMBER:*/10X,*ANEUROPHASIA*, * PRODUCES A PREPONDERANCE OF HIGH BP REAOINGS*/,10X,*NEUROPHASIA*, * PROOUCES A PREPONDERANCE OF LOW BP PEADINGS*//8X,*THE READINGS*, * FGR YCUR FIRST P A T I E M WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU ENTER *S*'.*///> READ(5,100) START — FORMAT(1Al) 620 100 WRITE(6,101) 630 FORMAT(5X,*OKAY*) 6*tQ 101 650C WRITE IN DATE AND TIME O N UNIT k 660C 670C OD = DAT ER(D) 680 0TM=CLOCK(TM) 690 W R I T E C f f i B ) NAME, D,TM 700 FORMAT(I*»,lX,A10,lX,Ai0) 710 18 720C 730C I N I T I A L I Z E AND CHECK FOR NUMBER OF PATIENTS 7<t0C NPAT=NPAT+i 750 56 IF(NPAT .EQ.1) GO TO 57 760 IF(NPAT.GT.5) GO TO 58 770 780C 790C PUT INTRODUCTION TC NEW PATIENT IN HERE 800C WRITE(6,16) 810 F0RMAT(6X,*I WILL NOW GIVE YOU READINGS FOR A NEW PATIENT* 820 16 830 + 8<*0C I M T I A L I 2 E FOR RUN 850C 86QC DO 5k 1=1,3 870 57 DO 5k J = l , 2 880 JM(I,J)=0 890 5k JD = 2 900 910C LCOP FOR PATIENT 920C 930C DO 13 1=1,50 9kQ 950G CHOOSE SYMFTOM AND ACT 960C 970C NPT=NP A. T 980 IF(NPAT.LE.3) GO TO 73 990 NPT=hPAT-3 100 0 IF(NPAT.EO.5) NPT=3 1010 MC=NC(NPT,I) 1020 73 IF(NFAT.GT.3) M0~2/M0 1030 IF (NAME .LE.*+99. AND. NAME. GE.-«<9) GO TO 6<+ 10<f0 TI=(FLCAT<I)*30.)/60. 1050 WRITE(6,19) NOUT(MO),TI 1060 1070 19 FCRMAT(////////////5X,A10,3X,*(*,F5.1,* HOURS HAVE PASSED)*) 1080 GO TC 6 5 1090 -6-^+— WR,ITE(e,'i) NOUT(MO) Il l f  I t  I t K l U K H  It  T  T  SIR G E O R G E W I L L I A M S U N I V E R S I T Y  COMPUTER CENTER  1100 4 FORMAT (////////////5X,A10) 1110C 1120C MONITOR MODELS AND K VALUES 1130C IF(MC.NE.JD) JM(3,JC)-0 1140 65 1150 55 JD=MC I F ( J C . E Q . 2 ) JD=M0-3 1160 JM(i,l)=JM(l,i)+JD 1170 JM(2,M0)=JM(2,M0)+1 1180 JM(3,M0)=JM(3,MO)+i 1190 JO = MC 1210C , REQUEST A NO READ DIAGNOSIS 1220C 1230C WRITE(6,5) 1240 1250 5 FORMAT (3X,*OIAGN0SIS->) S = RTIME(SO) 1260 53 READ(5,6) (INCI3),13=1,8) 1270 FORMAT ( 8 A i d ) 1280 6 P=RTI ME(SD) 1290 T = ( P - S ) / ( 1 0 . * * 1 0 .) 1300 1310C IDENTIFY DIAGNOSIS 132OC 1330C DO 7 J = l , 2 1340 I F ( I M l ) . E G . N E X T ) GO TO 56 1350 I F ( I M l ) .EQ.NEND) GO TO 58 136G I F f l M l l .EG.NS) GO TO 59 1370 I F ( I N ' d ) .EG.MA(J)) GO TO 8 1380 1390 7 CONTINUE 14Q0C 1410C WRITE GUT UNRECOGNIZED DIAGNOSIS AND PROMPT 1420C 1430 WRITER*,10) NAME, I , (IN < K) , K=i , 7) FORMAT (214, 7A10) : 1440 10 WRITE(6,9) 1450 1460 9 FORMAT(5X,48HI D0N*T UNDERSTAND YOU, PLEASE ENTER 1465+ ) 1470 GO TC 53  1H,  REPLACEMENT  148QC  MONITOR S RESPONSE 1490C 1500C WRITE(4,17) NAME,NPAT ,1 ,MO,T,(<JM(I1,Ji),J1=1,2) ,11=1,3) 1510 59 FORMAT (14,213,12,F8.3,612) 1520 17 GO TC 13 1530 1540C — 1 5 5 0 C — RECORD DATA 1560C WRITE(4,11) NAME,NPAT,I,MO,T,( ( J M ( I 1 , J 1 ) , J l = l , 2 ) , 1 1 = 1,3) , J 1570 8 F0RMAT(I4,2I3,I2,F8.3,7I2) 1580 11 1590C 1600C MONITOR DIAGNCSIS 1610C 1620 I F ( I . L E . 2 ) MK= 2/MK 1630C 1640C INCREASE K VALUE IF I IS TOO SMALL 1650C 1660 I F ( I . G T . 2 ) GO TO 56 WRITE(6,21) 1670  SIR G E O R G E W I L L I A M S U N I V E R S I T Y  \ ^  i  COMPUTER CENTER  1680 21 FORMAT (6X,*Y0U HAVE GIVEN THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS*/ 1690+ 10X,*-YOUR PATIENT HAS DIED*) 1700 GO TC 56 1710 13 GONTINLE 1720 WRITE<(L 20) 1730 20 FORMAT(6X,*Y0U HAVE TAKEN TOO LONG - THE PATIENT HAS 17^0 GO TC 56 1750 58 WRITE(6,15) 1760 15 FORMAT<6X,*THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME*) 1765 REWIND h 1770 S^-QP , END 1780  i in  >  SIR G E O R G E W I L L I A M S U N I V E R S I T Y  DIED*/)  COMPUTER CENTER  A P P E N D I X F.B. DATA RECORDED 'BY MACHINE FOR S U B J E C T NUMBER 20 I N F O R M A T I O N RECORDED I N THE FOLLOWING FORMAT t 1. E X P E R I M E N T NUMBER 2. P A T I E N T NUMBER 2. T R I A L NUMBER k. MACHINE R E S P O N S E (SYMPTOM) 1 = HIGH BP 2 = LCfe BP 5. LATENCY OF S U B J E C T R E S P O N S E 6. K VALUE FOR D I F F E R E N C E MODEL 7. NO INFORM A T I C 6. AND 9. K V A L U E S FOR THE TWO SUBSYSTEMS OF THE S I M P L E ACCUMULATOR MODEL 1 0 . AN-D 1 1 . K V A L U E S FOR THE TWO SUBSYSTEMS OF THE RUNS MODEL 1 2 . SUBJECT DIAGNOSIS! 1 = ANEUROPHASIA 2 ~ NEUROPHASIA  419 419 419 419 419 419 419 -44-3 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 -44-9 419 419 419 419  73/07/09. 1 1 1 35.232 1 C 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 28.521 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 26.844-1 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 21.810 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 11.744 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 2 31.877-1 0 1 2 0 2 3 1 1 16.777 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 10.066 0 O 1 1 0 1 3 3 1 18.455 1 0 2 1 1 0 3 4 2 16.777 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 5 1 13.422 1 0 3 2 1 0 4 12 13.422-1 0 0 1 0 1 U, 2—1 11.7'i4 0 C 1 1 1 0 4 3 1 IE.777 1 0 2 1 2 0 4 4 2 10 • T366 0 iO 2 2 0 1 4 5 1 15.099 1 0 3 2 1 0 4 6 1 11.744 2 0 4 2 2 0 5 12 13.««22-i 0 0 1 0 1 5 2—1 1 5 . 0 99 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 3 2 13.422-1 0 1 2 0 1 5 4 1 15.099 0 0 2 2 1 0 5 5 2 10.066-1 0 2 3 0 1 5 6 1 20.133 0 0 3 3 1 0 1  COMPUTER CENTER  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093505/manifest

Comment

Related Items