Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between aggressive and non-aggressive personality characteristics and word associations Simpson, Herbert Marshall 1964

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1964_A8 S5.pdf [ 7.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105326.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105326-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105326-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105326-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105326-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105326-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105326-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105326-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105326.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGGRESSIVE AND NON-AGGRESSIVE PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND WORD ASSOCIATIONS by '• Herbert Marshall Simpson B.A.fjDhe University of British Columbia, 1963 A Thesis Submitted i n Partial Fulfilment Of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts -in the Department of Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1964 In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study* I further agree that per-mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publi-cation of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission* Department of mx} J /sT The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8 ? Canada i Abstract It was hypothesized that differences would exist in the aggressive content of the word association responses of aggre-sive (A) and non-aggressive (KA) subjects (Ss) to a word association test (WAT) containing homonymic words having a l -ternate meanings, aggressive and non-aggressive (A:NA). In Study I the WAT was constructed as the research i n -strument and administered to A and NA groups of Ss previously assessed as to aggressive personality characteristics by the total inventory score of the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt In-ventory. The Ss' responses to the A:NA stimulus words were rated for aggressive content and a comparison between A and NA groups performed. The results indicated that two of the twelve A:NA words yielded significant differences between groups. Suggestions for improvement of the methodology and extension of the theoretical framework and analyses were proposed and subsequently incorporated into Study II. The ideas for improvement outlined i n Study I were intro-duced i n Study II. These modifications included determining the r e l i a b i l i t y of ratings of the A:NA words which was assessed and found to be adequate. Next, a larger group of experimental Ss was sampled. The Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory was rescored to obtain a measure of aggression more indicative of verbal ho s t i l i t y . Finally, the r e l i a b i l i t y of ratings of the aggressive content of responses to the A:NA words was i i assessed and found to be adequate. The data i n Study II were analyzed to test the hypothesis that the A group would respond with significantly more aggressive word associations to the A/NA words than would the WA group, and the results were in the direction predicted. The second part of the study involved an attempt to deter-mine which of the A:NA words contributed significantly to differentiating A and NA groups. A comparison across groups of the mean response values (average aggressive content) of the associations to the A:NA words indicated that five of the twelve terms subscribed significantly to the discrimination. The third segment of the research involved an attempt to test the hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1962, p. 257) that the A ind i -vidual reacts in a hostile manner to suitable stimuli, but does not behave aggressively in the absence of such cues. In accordance with this suggestion, i t was hypothesized that A Ss would respond with hostile associations to the A:NA words more frequently than to any neutral (Nu) word on the WAT. There-fore, the Ss' word association responses to twelve randomly selected Nu words were rated for aggressive content. The results indicated that A Ss responded with more hostile word associations to the A:NA terms than to the Nu words. The fourth part of the study attempted to determine i f an examination of relatively unique word association responses to the A:NA words would result in a greater disparity between the aggressive content of the free associations of the A Ss and those of the NA Ss. The results did not support the hy-pothesis. v i Acknowledgment The writer i s indebted to his faculty advisor Dr. E.D. Craig for his constructive criticisms and comments on theoretical and methodological issues as well as the general format and presentation of the thesis. Gratitude i s also expressed to Dr. R.D. Hare for his useful criticisms of the study. A f i n a l expression of thanks i s directed to Dr. D.T. Kenny, who was responsible for many of the ideas that helped formulate the i n i t i a l research. i i i Table of Contents Page Title Page Abstract i Table of Contents i i i Acknowledgment . v i CHAPTER I: Introduction 1 CHAPTER II: Review of the literature 9 A. Aggression 10 1. Definition 10 B. Word Association 13 1. Introduction 13 2. Normative data 14 3. Variables influencing word associations 16 (a) age, sex, education 17 (b) personality variables 20 (i) i n i t i a l studies 20 (i i ) subsequent research 21 CHAPTER III: Study I. A. Introduction 27 B. Method 28 1. Construction of the WAT 28 2. Experimental subjects 32 C. Results 35 D. Conclusions 36 E. Discussion and revision of Study I.... 38 CHAPTER IV: Study II. A. Introduction 41 B. Method 42 1. Reliability of ratings of A:NA words 42 2. Experimental subjects 43 3. Ratings of the word association responses • 44 4. Aggressive content of unique associations 47 C. Results 1. Group differences in responses to the A:NA words 47 2. Item analysis 49 3. Groups' responses to the Nu words 51 i v Table of Contents cont 'd 4. Group comparison fo r aggres-s ive content of unique asso-c ia t ions D. Conclusions . . • CHAPTER V: Discussion A. Sex d i f f e r e n c e s . . . . . B. Non-homophonic aggressive stimulus words C. General l i n q u i s t i c usage of each aspect of A:NA words D. Uniqueness as a measure of psycho-pathologica l thought processes E. Considerations fo r future resea rch . . . CHAPTER VI : Summary APPENDIX A: Var ie t i es of h o s t i l i t i e s APPENDIX B: The 36 stimulus words from which the word assoc iat ion test was derived APPENDIX C: Ratings sheet APPENDIX D: The Buss-Durkee Host i l i ty-Gui l t f Inventory APPENDIX E: A and NA Ss 1 responses to the A:NA words: Study I; frequency of a ssoc i a -t i ons ; frequency times va lue; mean r e -sponse values and v a r i a n c e . . . . APPENDIX P: Mean response values and l eve l s of s ign i f i cance fo r the Fear words APPENDIX G: Comparison of Study I Rs, Study I ex-perimental Ss and Study II Rs on the var iab les sex, aeademic standing and age. APPENDIX H: Comparison of Study I and Study II standard deviat ions of the A:NA terms rated as having a median of three APPENDIX J : Buss-Durkee t o t a l aggression and motor component scores of the Study II A and NA Ss APPENDIX E: Instruct ions and ra t ing scale APPENDIX L: A and NA Ss ' word associat ions to the A:NA words; values of the assoc ia t ions ; mean response values; and t o t a l aggres-s ion scores . APPENDIX M: A and NA Ss ' word associat ions to the Nu words; values of the assoc ia t ions ; mean response values; and t o t a l aggres-s ion scores . BIBLIOGRAPHY V (Table of Contents cont'd Page TABLE 1. A:NA words having a median rating of three and a standard deviation of less than 1.5 .33 TABLE 2. The word association test 33 TABLE 3. Distribution of total inventory scores on the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory - 1 34 TABLE 4. Mean response values and levels of s i g n i f i -cance for the A:NA words - I. 37 TABLE 5. Distribution of total inventory scores on the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory - II... 45 TABLE 6. Example of calculation of mean response values for unique responses to the stimulus word "break" 48 TABLE 7. Average aggression score based on Ss' responses to the WAT 48 TABLE 8. Results of the analysis of variance. 50 TABLE 9. Mean response values and levels of significance for the A:NA words - II.. 50 TABLE 10. t-test comparisons of average aggressive content of the various groups' responses to the Nu words . 52 TABLE 11. t-test comparisons of average aggressive content of the various groups' responses (rs) to A:BTA words 53 TABLE 12. Mean response values and levels of significance for unique associations 55 Chapter I INTRODUCTION - 1 -The statement ascribed to Ben Johnson (Sanford, 1942, p. 813) "Language most showeth a man; speak that I may see thee" epitomizes a common belief that the verbal behavior of an individual i s related to or reflects personality t r a i t s . Evidence to be reviewed below supports this notion that re-lationships exist between various personality dimensions and language usage. Two main aspects of speech may be delineated, namely, the "content" and the "manner" of speech. Soskin (1953) has advanced the idea that verbal communication may be viewed as the simultaneous operation of two channels - the verbal and vocal. The verbal channel carries potential semantic infor-mation, that i s , i t involves the content of speech or "what is said". The vocal channel carries potential affective i n -formation, in other words, tonal variations, voice quality, or "how something i s said". Although both "aspects" of speech are believed to reflect personality t r a i t s , few studies have attempted to isolate the two speech components. Most writers have stressed the importance and richness of the relationships between personality and language characteristics, but have for experimental purposes treated verbal behavior as a unitary dimension. Por example, one early study by Vernon (1936) experimented with literary style and i t was found that the author could match with significant precision anonymous essays of his subjects (Ss) with his impression of their per-sonalities gained by observing the Ss for 45 minutes while - 2 -they were occupied with various non-verbal tasks. Further, ease of communication was demonstrated to be related to per-sonality in one study (Tracy, 1935) by psychometric evaluation of the characteristics of public speakers, who were shown to be significantly above average for example, i n intelligence, extraversion, and dominance. In addition, the literature abounds with studies examining the correlation of language behavior to psychopathology (for example, Moran, 1953» Meadow, Greenblatt and Solomon, 1953» and Murphy, 1923) and the results of the research indicate such a close correspon-dence between the type of verbal behavior and personality anomaly exhibited that i t led Bisenson as early as 1938 to remark that "...a disorder i n the true use of speech of any type or degree reveals a disorder i n personality" (1938, p. 157). Other variables that have been shown to affect language styles are sex and intelligence. One study (Gleser, Gottschalk and John, 1959) discovered sex differences in the words used by Ss in five minute speech samples when the word types were classified by "psychologic" categories (e.g., destructive action words). Also, relationships were found to exist be-tween different levels of intelligence i n terms of the fre-quency of different grammatical categories of the words pro-duced. This latter study i s important, since only the "content" of speech was utilized as a measure of verbal behavior. On the other hand, studies have been attempted which u t i l i z e only - 3 -the "vocal" component of speech (e.g., Starkweather, 1956a; 1956b). In this series of studies speech was rendered con-tent-free by electronic removal of high frequencies. The central concern of the research was to ascertain i f judges could determine a personality variable (specifically, hyper-tension) from speech, which had content removed. It was dis-covered that judges could reliably determine Ss as being hypertensive or not merely from the tonal aspect of speech. Thus, a considerable body of evidence supports the notion that personality and language are related, the general conclu-sion being expressed i n the following statement by Sanford (1942, p. 840), whose article contains an extensive review of literature dealing with speech and personality: A l l along the line there are data, reasonable arguments, insights, and hunches, adding up to the conviction that by his words a man may be known. We can accept i t as a fact that speech and personality are related. As implied above there exist numerous methods of study-ing language behavior. One technique for examining a specific aspect of language, namely, verbal associations, i s the word association test (WAT), In the most frequently utilized WAT an individual reads or i s read each test word and i s requested to respond, either verbally or in writing, with the f i r s t single word that comes to mind. Since the conception of the WAT by G-alton (1879) i t has been assumed and subsequently demonstrated by many investigators (for example, Dunn, Bliss and Siipola, 1958; Jung, 1910; Sarason, 1961a; and Tendler, - 4 -1945) that the responses to the test items were a reflection of certain aspects of the S's personality. One of the important questions that has received consid-erable attention concerns what occurs in the time between the presentation of a WAT item and the production of a response by the S. Schafer (1953) conceived of this association period as two distinct phases. In the f i r s t , the "analytic phase", the stimulus event appears to break down into i t s different connotations, that appear i n the form of ideas or affects, which in the test situation are activated by the stimulus word. Presumably these ideas occur in some form of arousal hierarchy since most of the covert thoughts are unverbalized; some come to subvocal expression as more than one word; others "do not make sense". However, S responds according to the context of the situation and in the "synthetic phase" of the associative process the components produced i n the analytic phase result in a one-word reaction. Superficially, an account such as this seems reasonable but many questions are unexplored or unanswered. How i s i t possible for a complicated "search" process to occur during the usually brief time i n which association takes place? It i s necessary to assume that a stimulus word "breaks down into i t s various connotations"? In other words, i s i t not conceiv-able that the variety of possible word associations have differing potentials for occurrence? Could this potential - 5 -difference or prepotency of words be established according to the frequency of contiguity of the two terms in past experience? Questions of this nature can only be resolved by a comprehen-sive theory of learning since verbal behavior i s presumably a learned phenomenon. Theories are manifold but only those em-ploying a well specified mediation hypothesis appear useful to account for association, since i t seems impossible to ac-count for complex behavior without a mediation mechanism. There i s l i t t l e agreement as to the exact nature of the process, for example: Hull (1930) ut i l i z e s the fractional anticipatory goal response (rg); Guthrie (1952) employs stimulation by pro-prioceptive feedback, or movement produced stimuli (MPS); and Hebb (1949) applies a quasineurological explanation (cell assemblies and phase sequences) of association. Regardless of the specific process and the physiological correlates used to account for verbal mediation, the existence of the process has been demonstrated experimentally. Verbal mediation may be illustrated by the study of Bugelski and Scharlock (1952). College students learned pairs of nonsense syllables, the f i r s t syllable of the pair being the stimulus (S-^), the second the response (R-^). When such a l i s t of S^ -R^  pairs was learned, a new l i s t was learned. This time, the former R l s became S2S and were paired with R2S. When the Sg-^ pairs were learned the experimental Ss learned S-L-R2 combinations. Thus, S-^ arouses R-^, which i s also S2, and since S 2 e l i c i t s - 6 -Rg, t h e r e a c t i o n R2 s h o u l d o c c u r f r o m t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f o n l y S 1 » I n e f f e c t , t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l S s d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y " b e t t e r a t t a s k S-^-Rp^ 'Khan c o n t r o l S s who l e a r n e d t h e same a m o u n t a n d k i n d o f m a t e r i a l s b u t w h e r e t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e S - R c o m b i n a t i o n s was a r r a n g e d t o p r e v e n t t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e n e c e s s a r y m e d i a -t i n g c o n n e c t i o n s ( i n t h i s c a s e S 2 - R 2 > w h e r e S 2 i s t h e same a s R ^ ) . A n e x t e n s i o n o f t h i s s t u d y b y R u s s e l l a n d S t o r m s (1955) u t i l i z e d a s s o c i a t i o n s a l r e a d y f o r m e d i n p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e . T h u s , t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l S s f i r s t l e a r n e d a n o n s e n s e s y l l a b l e -w o r d a s s o c i a t i o n ( e . g . , c e f - s t e m ) . I t i s k n o w n t h a t t h e m o s t common w o r d a s s o c i a t i o n t o " s t e m " i s " f l o w e r " , a n d t h e s t i m u l u s " f l o w e r " n o r m a l l y e l i c i t s t h e r e s p o n s e " s m e l l " m o s t f r e q u e n t l y . T h e r e f o r e , e x p e r i m e n t a l S s l e a r n e d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n " c e f - s t e m " a n d t h e n t h e a s s o c i a t i o n " c e f - s m e l l " . S i n c e e x p e r i m e n t a l S s p r e s u m a b l y k n o w t h e " s t e m - f l o w e r - s m e l l " a s s o c i a t i o n c h a i n , l e a r n i n g t h e c e f - s m e l l a s s o c i a t i o n s h o u l d b e f a c i l i t a t e d a s t h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d . T h i s l a t t e r s t u d y i s n o t e w o r t h y f o r i t i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o i n t t h a t m e d i a t i o n o f t h e t y p e d e s c r i b e d p r e s u p p o s e s a n d d e -p e n d s u p o n t h e p r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l f o r m a t i o n o f l e a r n e d a s s o c i a -t i o n s . I n t h e c a s e o f a n y g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l t h e e x i s t i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s w i l l b e i d i o s y n c r a t i c - t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p e r s o n ' s p a r t i c u l a r p a s t l e a r n i n g . T h u s , i n w o r d a s s o c i a t i o n s t h e c o u r s e o f t h e r e s p o n s e may b e r e g a r d e d a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e l a n g u a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s p e c u l i a r t o a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l . T h r o u g h l e a r n i n g , w o r d s a n d t h e i r c o g n i t i v e c o u n t e r p a r t s may become - 7 -associated so that the presentation of word A w i l l invariably e l i c i t word B. However, most words evoke more than a single response, but one of these has a higher reaction potential (Cofer and Foley, 1942) or prepotency than the others. Dia-gramatically, this may be represented as follows: In this case, has a greater reaction potential and w i l l , therefore, occur more frequently to S-^  i n a free association situation than w i l l other potential Rs. The exact determinants of the reaction potential of each possible free association to any stimulus word are probably multiple. It was indicated above that language has been shown to be related to many different dimensions of personality and, more specifically/that word association responses, to a de-gree reflect some personality characteristics. It would seem plausible, therefore, that the characteristic aggression may bear some relationship to word associations. Substantial theoretical models of aggression have been postulated (e.g. Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer and Sears, 1939) and instruments for the measurement of aggression have also been constructed (for example, Buss and Durkee, 1957). Thus, the characteristic appears amenable to research. The essence of the present study was to examine the relationship between aggressive per-sonality characteristics and word association responses. The personality characteristic aggression was examined by compar-ing the responses of Ss possessing aggressive personality characteristics (A Ss) and those having non-aggressive per-sonality characteristics (NA Ss) to a WAT containing stimulus words, each having an alternate and distinct aggressive as well as non-aggressive meaning. - 9 -CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE - 10 -CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of literature summarizes studies relevant to aggressive behavior and i t s expression in word associations. A. AGGRESSION. 1. Definition Aggression i s a broad term referring to a variety of types of behavior and situations, that i s , for example, i t has p o l i -t i c a l , social, religious and interpersonal implications. Aggression, which i s defined here i n terms of interpersonal activity, has been described as behavior which could "...injure another organism (or organism-surrogate), or which could serve to injure an organism i f i t were i n range..." (Sears, Hovland, and Miller, 1940, p. 275). Briefly stated by Berkowitz (1962, p. l ) aggression i s "...behavior whose goal i s the injury of some object". Hostility and aggression are used here synony-mously even though one connotation of the word aggression im-plies "ambition", " i n i t i a t i v e " or "assertiveness". However, the relationship of this type of aggression to ho s t i l i t y has been recognized, for example, by Freud (in Strachey, 1959, p. 260), who believed the l i b i d i n a l l y modified destructive i n -stinct impelled a person's striving for mastery or power. Jackson (1954) more recently argued that the word aggressive rarely i s used i n the older sense to describe an enterprising person, who "goes ahead despite obstacles and resistance". - 11 -Aggression cannot be adequately treated as a global characteristic since the ways i n which i t i s expressed are manifold. For example, i t i s recognized that the overt man-ifestations (e.g., physical assault and verbal hostility) are clearly separated from the covert expressions (e.g. resentment and suspicion). The f i r s t attempt to identify and define possible subconcepts of hos t i l i t y was reported by Buss, Durkee and Baer (1956). The authors had three psychologists independently rate 60 patients from a neuropsychiatric ward on a seven point scale for each of seven aspects of aggression, namely, resentment, verbal hostility, indirect h o s t i l i t y , assault, suspicion, over-all ho s t i l i t y and Strength of hostile urges. The ratings were correlated with the scores the patients obtained on the Iowa Hostility Inventory, and the results indicated only two of the seven correlations were significant for men but five of the seven for women were significant. One important feature of the study was determining the agreement of the judges' ratings of patients i n the seven host i l i t y ca-tegories. Inter-rater correlations were moderate to high suggesting the definitions for the categories were adequate, thus permitting reliable assessments of different forms of expression of aggressive behavior. In a later study (Buss and Durkee, 1957) the authors elaborated upon the categories for the classification of hos t i l i t y . The fin a l subclasses of aggfession included: assault, indirect hostility, i r r i t a b i l i t y negativism, resentment, suspicion and verbal h o s t i l i t y . See - 12 -Appendix A for a complete description of the categories. An inventory was designed to assess each sub-hostility and factor analyses,of the data performed to determine how many dimensions were being successfully tapped. The analyses "....revealed two factors: an attitudinal component of hosti l i t y (Resentment and Suspicion) and a 'motor component* (Assault, Indirect Hostility, I r r i t a b i l i t y , and Verbal Hostility)" (Buss and Durkee, 1957, p. 349). The conclusion obtained in the above study was substantiated by Sarason (1961b) who administered five inventories, of which one was Buss and Durkee*s Hostility-Guilt Inventory, to 148 Ss. Inter-correlations of the various inventories with the subclasses of the Hostility-Guilt Inven-tory suggested that the test items delineated at least two major types of hosti l i t y . One of these was referred to as host i l i t y experienced on an attitudinal or non-overt level and the other was viewed as referring to the tendency to directly express h o s t i l i t y . Other inventories, for example: Cook and Medley (1954); Edwards (1953); McGee (1954)I and Siegel (1956) have been con-cerned with a global estimate of aggression, i n other words, determining i f the individual i s hostile or not. However, as indicated above, aggression may be expressed i n terms of various subclasses of hostility and, although the specification of a precise delineated definition of the components of aggres-sion i s experimentally s t i l l tentative, the Buss-Durkee Hos-t i l i t y - G u i l t Inventory provides a relatively sound working - 13 -measurement of two aspects of h o s t i l i t y . B. WORD ASSOCIATION 1. Introduction Galton (1879), who i s credited with the development of the f i r s t WAT, analyzed responses i n terms of a number of categories including the speed of association of ideas. Since the time of Galton, the p r i n c i p a l interest has been concentrated on the use of the WAT as a diagnostic c l i n i c a l instrument. The development of the WAT has followed two major d i r e c -tions. Jung (1910), used the test as an instrument to diag-nose emotional disturbance. Response time (the length of time from presentation of a stimulus word u n t i l an associa-t i o n i s given) and complex l o g i c a l categories were used to c l a s s i f y responses. Within the psychoanalytic framework em-phasis was placed on the peculiar meaning or affe c t attached to the response. Jung and hi s co-workers did l i t t l e to deve-lop any normative data f o r word associations of either normal or abnormal in d i v i d u a l s . Pre-occupation with the super-f i c i a l l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c responses of disturbed patients momen-t a r i l y halted progress i n the development of the WAT. How-ever, several years l a t e r normative data, which u t i l i z e d the l o g i c a l response categorization, was published (Jung and R i k l i n , 1918). The second d i r e c t i o n of development was i n i t i a t e d by the research of Kent and Rosanoff (1910), who concentrated - 14 -entirely on comparing individuals in terms of the commonality of associations. Emphasis was upon empirical classifications based on normative data, obtained by administering a l i s t of 100 stimulus words to 1000 adults and tabulating the frequen-cy of each response. If an individual responded with uncom-mon associations, he was considered as abnormal. In other words, i t was suggested that psychopathology could be judged in terms of the extent of deviation from normative data. Subsequent studies have been somewhat eclectic u t i l i z i n g any or a l l of the schemes of classifying responses including response time, commonality and type of association. 2. Normative data. Several studies i n word association have been concerned with variability i n the norms of word association responses. Jenkins and Russell (i960) compared norms established on University of Minnesota students i n 1927 and 1952, and i t was found that 71$ of the primary responses were identical indica-ting a considerable degree of stability i n responses. Fur-ther, primary responses were shown to have greatly increased in frequency. Similar findings have been reported by Dorken (1956), who interpreted the progressive rise in percentage of common responses as a reflection of increased conformity resulting from greater social contact, communication, and so on over the intervening years between studies. Tresselt and Leeds (1955) examined the changes i n primary responses to the Kent-Rosanoff WAT and interpreted the changes as having - 15 -resulted from an educational system, which, fosters the deve-lopment of combinations (particularly opposites). That i s , strong habit strengths, like the habit to respond with oppo-sites, are developed. This finding has been substantiated by a recent study (Carroll, Kjeldergaard and Carton, 1962) which among other things indicated that many stimulus items on the Kent-Rosanoff WAT may be called opposite evoking stimuli i n that many words invariably e l i c i t a response that i s an opposite to the stimulus term. The general conclusion from the above studies i s that some changes have occurred in the original normative data of the Kent-Rosanoff WAT, the changes presumably reflecting cer-tain learned, educational, social alterations. However, other factors may cause variability i n the norms of word associations as indicated i n a study by Buchwald (1957), who examined the differences in responses to stimulus items when presented orally and visually. The results indicated that differences i n cultural frequencies may be dependent on the mode of stimulus presentation. In another paper dealing with method of presentation Cofer (1958) compared the normative data of responses obtained by "continued association""'' to that Continued association may be contrasted with continuous association. In the latter, the test word i s read once to S, who i s instructed to respond with as many words as pos-sible i n a specified period of time. However, S may be responding as much to his own previous responses as to the original stimulus. In continued association this d i f f i c u l -ty i s overcome be a repetitive l i s t i n g of the stimulus word, and having S write associations beside the repeated stimulus term. Responses are therefore presumably made to the s t i -mulus item each time. - 16 -of the Russell-Jenkins (1958) norms based on single responses to each stimulus word. The results indicated that the two me-thods produced relatively the same responses, at least as far as high frequency (primary, secondary and tertiary) associates were concerned. Similar findings were obtained i n a study (Laffal and Peldman, 1962), which compared single word asso-ciation responses to "continuous word association". The above research indicates relatively high stability of the norms of WATs and this, i n part, could account for the r e l i a b i l i t y of the technique, which has been demonstrated in several studies (for example, Karwoski and Berthold, 1945; and Tendler, 1945). Not only have the norms been shown to be stable, but, further, the frequency of occurrence of associa-tions under test conditions has been demonstrated to reflect the language of general usage (Cofer and Stevitz, 1952). A study (Howes, 1957) compared the frequency of each response to the Kent-Rosanoff WAT with the frequency of occurrence of the word i n general linguistic usage as measured by the Lorge magazine count. On the basis of the results, Howes concluded that the special conditions introduced by the association experiment do not affect a person's selection of words. This finding i s particularly important because i t indicates the fe a s i b i l i t y and validity of u t i l i z i n g a WAT as a research instrument for studying normal language behavior. 3. Variables influencing word associations. Although the studies on norms indicate a considerable degree of response commonality and stability, a multiplicity - 17 -of factors, many of which, have been experimentally investigated, may effect or he related to word associations. a) Age, sex, education. Rosanoff and Rosanoff (1913) were concerned with the age in childhood when the association-a l tendencies, as observed in normal adults, become f u l l y developed. Three hundred school children aged 4-15 (25 Ss i n each yearly age level) were randomly selected and admini-stered the Kent-Rosanoff WAT. The results indicated that children responded with a comparatively larger proportion of individual and doubtful (associations that could not be classified) responses than adults. The authors interpreted this finding as indicating a lack of mobility or f l e x i b i l i t y of attention i n children. However, an alternative explanation i n terms of educational, social, or cultural learning i s also possible as evidenced by the research reviewed above on the commonality of associations elicited from adult Ss. This assumption was more directly tested by Brvin (1961), who ex-amined grammatical classes of responses to a WAT. The hypo-thesis was that changes i n age would be associated with clearly specified alterations in the grammatical class of the word association. For example, i n adults, paradigmatic responses (responses of the same grammatical class as the stimulus) were more frequent than i n children. Ervin interpreted this finding as supportive of a theory based on verbal training since, the stimulus and response word connections are learned because of frequent past occurrences of the terms in the same - 18 -verbal contexts. Age differences, therefore, are associated with differences in the type of word associations elicited. Few studies have been concerned with sex as a variable i n word associations presumably because Kent and Rosanoff (1910) grouped the Ss of both sex in the normative sample of the original study. It i s unclear whether or not the au-thors found differences between the associations of male and female Ss. In order to determine whether i t was legitimate to group data for the associations of males and females, Tresselt, Leeds and Mayzner (1955) compared the associations of 114 males and 115 females to the Kent-Rosanoff WAT. The data revealed that 95$ of the popular responses were the same for males and females and, the authors concluded that i t appeared as though Kent and Rosanoff were justified i n combining the data for sexes. G-oodenough (1942) postulated that sex differences i n responses to a WAT may be revealed i f certain kinds of terms are used as stimulus items. On this assumption, the author designed a WAT containing homographs, which were single words having two independent and distinct meanings, one judged to be relevant for males, and the other more relevant for females. Thus, for example, the word "bow" may e l i c i t the response "arrow" from men and the response "ribbon" from women. The use of homographs arose partly because of the di f f i c u l t y i n scoring the wide variety of word associations responses typically elicited by a WAT. If homo-graphs were used, the responses could be classified "...not - 19 -on the basis of the precise word given but in terms of the specialized meaning that i s unconsciously selected by the S as the basis for his response" (Goodenough, 1942, p. 90). The use of the homograph can be viewed, therefore, as a practice that has the result of increasing the variability of responses, because, in effect, different Ss are responding to different words, the selection of which depends upon their different experiential backgrounds. In general, the hypothesis of the study was supported in that the c r i t i c a l homographs showed sex differences in the responses given. As implied in the studies above referring to age as a variable influencing word associations, education i s a very important factor i n determining associative responses. The above studies emphasized the length of education from the standpoint of developing certain response trends (e.g., re-sponding with opposites). Not only i s the length of educa-tion a decisive variable, but also the kind of education affects word associations. In one of a series of studies, Foley and MacMillan (1943) experimented with the effects of differences in professional training on word association responses by verbally administering a WAT to Law and Medical students. The WAT contained homophones (homonyms, i.e., words identical i n pronounciation but not necessarily i n spelling), which had a distinct legal and medical meaning (e.g., chamber, binding). The results showed that the c r i -t i c a l words elicited more legal than medical responses in the - 20 -Law group and more medical than legal responses i n the Medicine group. The authors concluded (Foley and Macmillan, 1943, P. 309) " . . . . i t would appear that professional train-ing definitely influences the type of response elicited i n the 'free association* experiment". Thus, the training might be said to involve a conditioning process in which certain prescribed stimulation, for example the verbal responses characteristic of the professional group, i s imposed upon the trainee for the establishment of specific conditioned be-havior. In summary, age has been shown to affect word associa-tions, especially i f the comparison i s between the responses of children and: adults. In the Kent-Rosanoff WAT, differen-ces were virtually non-existent in the popular responses of males and females. However, i f the WAT was structured to provide stimulus words with two meanings, one relevant for males and one for females, differences in the responses occurred. Both the length and type of education have been demonstrated to influence the kind of word association e l i c i -ted. b) Personality variables. A considerable amount of re-search has been devoted to determining the relationships that exist between word associations and personality variables. i ) I n i t i a l studies. The bulk of the i n i t i a l research in the area of word associations concentrated on the use of the test as a c l i n i c a l instrument for assessing various forms - 21 -of psychopathology. The test was developed by Jung and his associates because i t provided an instrument closely a l l i e d to the psychoanalytic technique of free association. The variability of disorders assessed by WATs was illustrated i n the text edited by Jung (1918a). In this volume, the neces-sity of a set of normative data was recognized and in the article by Jung and Riklin (1918) a preliminary attempt using 38 Ss was reported. Considerable effort was devoted to the development of a complex "logical" classification of responses. Extensive use of the scheme was not made probably because of the di f f i c u l t y of using this complex method. How-ever, one type of classification method, namely that of re-action time (Jung, 1918b) found subsequent popularity. In this series of articles Wehrlin (1918) reported a study dealing with the associations of imbeciles and idiots and the results revealed that one of the most peculiar features of the reactions of the feeble minded was to respond with sever-al words or whole sentences. Disturbance i n reactions was also noted in the associations of hysterics (Riklin, 1918) where a great deal of affect was noticeable in the responses (e.g., mother - hate). The affect notion was further ex-plored and some evidence reported (Binswanger, 1918; and Wunberg, 1918) to support the idea that specific physical reactions, noticeably the psychogalvanic reflex, are connec-ted with certain stimulus items. i i ) Subsequent research. Many personality variables - 22 -have been shown to be related to word associations. Among the variety of personality dimensions explored are attitudes and values, anxiety, impulsivity-inhibition, and psychopatho-logy (neuroses and psychoses). (1) Attitudes and values: Havron, Nordlie and Cofer (1957) used word association triplets consisting of a stimulus word and two possible responses from which the S could choose, the choice being demonstrated to be correlated with basic a t t i -tudes (assessed by the Allport-Vernon Study of Values). McG-innies (1950) designed a WAT containing 36 stimulus items with six words related to each of the six categories of the Allport-Vernon Study of Values. Twenty-five men and women took the Allport-Vernon and the WAT. A content analysis of associations suggested that words related to the highest value area gave rise to proportionately more "covaluate" re-sponses (words clearly related to the same value area as the stimulus) and "evaluative" responses "words such as good and nice that appraise the stimulus item). (2) Anxiety: Several studies have dealt with the effects of anxiety on word associations. In one study (Sarason, 1961a) an attempt was made to determine the effects of anxiety on associations. Anxiety was not psychometrically measured but assumed to exist since i t was experimentally induced by informing experimental Ss that the WAT was a test of i n t e l -ligence. The assumption was that the normal associative pro-cesses would be disrupted by anxiety. The results indicated - 23 -that when Ss repeated the WAT and were instructed to respond with the same associations as they gave the f i r s t time, the experimental (anxious) Ss had a greater discrepancy in respon-ses to the second test than did control Ss. Further, the responses of the experimental group tended to be less common responses (judged by the Russell-Jenkins frequency count) and the authors concludedthat anxiety caused a disorganization of association making the Ss emit interfering or idiosyncratic responses. This conclusion was not entirely justified, however, since experimental Ss may have given pedantic, esoteric re-sponses, which they f e l t indicated intelligent associations. Consequently, their word associations would be highly i n d i v i -dual or idiosyncratic not due solely to any effects of anxiety. Although, the result linking anxiety and rare responses was not discovered i n a study by Goldstein (1961), highly anxious Ss tended "to give longer reaction times in the WAT than mildly anxious Ss, further indicating the possible disruptive effects of anxiety. (3) Impulsivity-Inhibition: Dunn, Bliss and Siipola (1958) attempted to determine the relation of personality and self-imposed time of response. That i s , i f Ss were allowed sufficient time to associate, most Ss adopt a time of response - some respond rapidly ("stimulus-bound" process) and others take f u l l advantage of the lack of time restriction ("sub-ject-bound" association). In part I of the study Ss took the Guilford Inventory of Factors, and those obtaining scores above the 85th percentile or below the 15th percentile also took Tendler*s (1945) l i s t of 25 neutral words as an associa-tion task. Only Factor R on the Guilford Inventory, the measure of impulsivity-inhibition, yielded significant mean responses time differences between low and high R groups. In other words, the impulsive Ss tended to respond more ra-pidly (adopt a stimulus-bound approach) than the inhibited Ss. In part II of the research, 246 female Ss took the Allport-Vernon and those with most extraceptive values (Eco-nomic, Theoretical and Political) were compared to those having predominately intraceptive values (Aesthetic, Reli-gious and Social). The extraceptive Ss generally selected a stimulus-bound pattern of association, having a shorter re-action time. (4) Psychopathological disorders: Tendler (1945) pur-sued the notion proposed by Kent and Rosanoff that deviation from normative responses was indicative of abnormal associa-tive processes. Thus, Rosanoff (1917) reports that normal Ss responded with 91.7$ common responses and 6.8$ individual, whereas psychotics gave only 70.7$ common but 26.8$ in d i v i -dual responses. Tendler utilized a variety of measures of associations including a tendency to respond with individual" associations, delays i n time of response and failure to recall original responses. Individual associations were found to be most reliable as an index of psychosis. This finding has been further substantiated by Schafer (1953)» who found that - 25 -to his WAT of 60 stimulus terms normals gave more popular responses than a group of mixed neurotics, who gave more popular responses than a group of mixed psychotics. Indivi-dual, unique and bizarre responses were most frequent i n the psychotic group. It is important to note that unique associations have been demonstrated to be correlated with severe personality disturbances (institutionalized neurotics and psychotics). However, not a l l personality anomalies are necessarily related to commonality of association as indi-cated by one study (Block, I960). Eighty-five Ss took the Kent-Rosanoff WAT and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and Ss giving the most and least common associations were compared on the personality traits assessed by the CPI. No significant relationships between commonality of response and personality were obtained. In summary, a substantial amount of research has indi-cated that the WAT can be a reliable c l i n i c a l instrument. Various dimensions have been demonstrated to influence the responses elicited by WATs including age, sex, education and numerous personality variables. Since different personality traits have been shown to be related to word; .associations, and aggression i s an important dimension of verbal behavior, the t r a i t of aggressiveness i s expected to be related to word association. Although i t i s a complex characteristic, aggression may be adequately measured for research purposes by the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory. The current - 26 -research was designed to explore the relationships between aggressive and non-aggressive personality characteristics and word associations. The crux of the study rested upon the use of c r i t i c a l homophonic stimulus items in the WAT and,, therefore, the two studies (reviewed above) that are most relevant to the current research are the papers by G-oodenough (1942) and Foley and MacMillan, (1943). Both studies used stimulus words having two distinct and alternate meanings and demonstrated that such a procedure was successful in delineating the independent variable. The current study used homophones having both an aggressive and a non-aggressive meaning, and i t was anticipated that Ss assessed as either hostile or non-hostile would respond differently to the c r i -t i c a l homophonic stimulus items. - 27 -CHAPTER III STUDY I - 28 -CHAPTER III STUDY I A. Introduction The purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between aggressive personality characteristics and responses on a word association research instrument, a WAT containing fear, neutral (Nu), and aggressive non-aggres-sive (A:NA) words as stimulus items. Aggression was considered to be a learned mode of re-sponding to certain stimuli (Berkowitz, 1962; Buss & Durkee, 1957). It may be hypothesized, therefore, that the hostile individual would respond to the aggressive aspect of A:NA homophones more frequently than a non-aggressive individual because the aggressive feature of the A:NA word evokes pre-potent responses that are a function of prior learning ex-periences. HYPOTHESIS; A Ss w i l l respond with aggressive associations to the aggressive stimulus charac-teristics of A:NA words more frequently than w i l l NA Ss. Study I was conducted to test the above hypothesis and to explore and illuminate possible methodological improve-ments for a more comprehensive study. B. METHOD The research instrument, a WAT, was constructed and ad-ministered to groups of Ss possessing aggressive and non-aggressive personality characteristics. - 29 -1. Construction of the WAT The WAT was constructed to assess the relationship between aggressive personality characteristics and word association responses. The WAT included three types of stimulus words, namely, seven fear words, thirty-one Nu words and twelve A:NA words. Fear words had been included in the WAT for the following reasons, however, the results of Study I indicated they were not central to the problem studied in the thesis. It has been demonstrated that anger was the dominant emotional state when a noxious stimulus was of low intensity, but fear became dominant as the intensity of pain increased (Scott and Fredericson, 1951). Some revelation of the verbal relation-ship between aggression and fear was attempted by examining the differences in verbal word associations of A and NA Ss to fear words. The Nu words were selected randomly from the Kent-Rosanoff Word Association Test (Rosanoff, 1927). To insure that the Nu stimulus words did not usually e l i c i t aggressive word associations, the Russell-Jenkins norms (in Tinker and Russell, 1958, p. 296-271) of free association responses to the Kent-Rosanoff WAT stimulus words were examined, using Buss and Durkee*s (1957) conception of hos t i l i t y as the c r i -terion for aggression. Words that elicited aggressive as-sociations were deemed unsuitable for use. The A:NA words constituted the central concern of the - 30 -study. A f a i r l y large and random group of A:NA homophones was sampled hy scrutinizing a dictionary for appropriate words and soli c i t i n g the suggestions of colleagues. The 36 words obtained i n this manner appear i n Appendix B. The criterion for A:NA words was that each had to have an ag-gressive aspect, and this aggressive content of a word was determined, after the i n i t i a l selection, experimentally by ratings. Each of the A:NA words was rated for similarity in meaning to the concept of aggression. The individuals who rated the A:NA words were student volunteers from an Intro-ductory Psychology course. The 29 raters (Rs) were eighteen males and eleven females, who had a median age of nineteen and a median academic standing of f i r s t year university. The Rs were directed by E according to the following instructions: The purpose of this study i s to scale words on a d i -mension of similarity of meaning to the concept of aggression. This dimension may be thought of in terms of a continuum that ranges from no discernable similarity (i.e., neutral) through to extreme similarity. Your task i s to judge each word I read you with respect to this dimension of similarity to aggression. Here on the board i s an example of three terms that a person rated. Each term has been assigned a number. Opposite the numbers corresponding to each of the terms are five boxes: neutral, mild, moderate, strong, and extreme. These boxes represent different degrees of simila-r i t y of each term to aggression as indicated by the adjec-tives at the top. A judge such as yourself has made an estimate of the similarity of these three terms to aggression by placing an X i n a box opposite each term. Thus, the per-son who rated these terms believes that "murderous" is de-f i n i t e l y similar in meaning to the concept of aggression; "malicious" i s strongly similar to aggression; and "surly" i s moderately similar to aggression. Indicate your own judgements of the similarity of the terms, which w i l l be read to you, i n this same manner. Be sure to make a judgement about each term. - 31 -The second term to be rated was not presented u n t i l a l l Rs had made a judgement about the firBt term. The i l l u -strative example "on the board" remained i n f u l l view of a l l Rs. Refer to Appendix C for the rating sheet ut i l i z e d . A value was assigned to each point on the rating scale as follows: neutral 1, mild 2, moderate 3» strong 4, and extreme 5. Words that received a median rating of three were selected for use. The rationale for this was based on the assumption that words rated as neutral or extreme in relation to aggression would not discriminate between A and WA Ss. A:NA words rated as highly aggressive were expected invari-ably to e l i c i t aggressive responses and words rated as neu-t r a l may be so minimally related to aggression that they would not e l i c i t hostile responses. Thus, words with a moderate or three rating were uti l i z e d . Thirteen A:NA words received a median rating of three. A second criterion was a small variability of ratings. A specific stimulus situation, which may be defined by high concordance among Rs was required since, i t w i l l be argued i n more detail below, a suitable cue i s necessary to evoke aggressive behavior. A cutting score of a standard deviation of 1.5 yielded twelve A:NA words having a median of three (Table l ) . The rejected word "squash" had a standard deviation of 1.85. Table 1 - 32 -Nu words and the seven fear words were randomly dis-tributed among the twelve A:NA words to bring the number of stimulus terms up to 50. The f i n a l word association test i s presented i n Table 2. Table 2 2. Experimental Subjects. Individuals were assessed as to aggressive and non-aggressive personality characteristics with the total inven-tory (TI) score of the Hostility-Guilt Inventory (Buss and Durkee, 1957). The TI score was used to differentiate ex-treme groups possessing either high or low levels of aggres-sion. One hundred and thirty student volunteers from Intro-ductory Psychology and Education courses completed the Hostility-Guilt Inventory (see Appendix D for the Inventory). See Table 3 for the distribution of the Ss TI scores. Table 3 The A and NA groups were arbitrarily determined by se-lecting 20$ of the total Ss who obtained the highest and 20$ who obtained the lowest scores on the Inventory. Excluding individuals who failed to participate in further stages of the study, a cutting score of 42 yielded nineteen A Ss, and a cutting score of twenty-four yielded twenty-two NA Ss. - 33 -Table 1 A:NA words having a median rating of three and a standard deviation of less than 1.5 word s word s word s mean 0.19 tackle 0.27 steal 1.05 smack 0.24 wrench 1.01 pound 1.07 hit 0.25 break 1.02 storm 1.13 cuff 0.26 mad 1.03 pelt 1.24 Table 2 The Word Association Test 1. city- A 13. mean 25. river 38. slow A* 2. break 14. comfort 26. ocean 39. cold 3. green A 15. pelt 27. hand 40. house 4. fear A 16. pound 28. table 41. whistle 5. fright 17. high 29. man 42. street 6. butterfly A 18. steal 30. dread 43. afraid 7. sheep 19. window 31. danger 44. threat 8. memory 20. tackle A 32. wrench 45. cabbage A 9. smack 21. earth 33. music 46. lamp 10. carpet 22. beautiful 34. blossom 47. tremble A 11. storm A 23. hit 35. mountain 48. sweet 12. cuff 24. cottage A 36. mad 49. soft 37. g i r l 50. smooth * An A in the margin denotes an A:NA word - 34 -Table 3 Distribution of Total Inventory Scores on the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory - I N SD range male 30 34.5 11.1 34 female 100 33.9 10.2 49 total 130 34.2 9.4 49 - 35 -The nineteen A Ss included six males and thirteen females and the twenty-two NA Ss included seven males and fifteen females. Ss in both groups had a median age of nineteen and their median academic standing was f i r s t year university. These A and NA Ss were administered the WAT. The s t i -mulus words were read aloud by E, standing in front of the seated Ss, who took the WAT in groups under comparable con-ditions. The Ss responded to the stimulus words by writing down their associations on paper. The instructions were read to the Ss as follows: This i s a test of verbal association. I shall pro-nounce a word. As soon as I have pronounced i t you are to write down i n the appropriate space on your paper the word that occurs to you. In other words, the word you think of after hearing the word I pro-nounce. Por example, i f I say foot and you think of shoe, you are to write down shoe immediately. Each word w i l l be pronounced only once; i t w i l l not be re-peated. Please do not make any interruptions or ask any questions whatsoever about the spelling or other characteristics of the stimulus word or anything else. What I want are your own individual reactions. Please remember you are to write down the word you think of after hearing the stimulus word. Write down only one word. Write i t down regardless of what i t i s but i t must be a word with a dictionary meaning (i.e., slang, colloquialisms, proper names, etc. are not permissible). C. RESULTS In order to determine the degree of aggression i n Ss' word associations, the responses (183 unique associations were given; see Appendix E) to the A:NA words were rated by fifteen Rs on the dimension of similarity in meaning to the concept aggression. The Rs, who were drawn from an Intro - 36 -ductory Psychology course, approximated the experimental group in sex distribution, median age and academic year in univer-sity. The Rs received the same instructions as prior Rs (see page 30). On the basis of the ratings of Rs, the median score of 1,2,3»4 or 5 was assigned to each word association response as i t s "value". The values of the word associations given to each stimulus term were summed and a "mean response value" computed for each A:NA word (Refer to Appendix E). The mean response value of an A:NA item represented, therefore, the average aggressive content of associations elicited by the A:NA word. For each A:NA word the mean response/values were compared between,A and NA groups to determine i f A Ss* asso-ciations connoted more aggression than did the responses of NA Ss. Table 4 presents the results of the comparison. Table 4 Table 4 reveals only two significant differences at the 5fo level (for stimulus word "mean"t-~ 2.16, df = 39, p =<.05; and for stimulus word "hit", t = 2.08, df = 39, p =<.05). Appendix F provides a summary of the t-test comparisons of A and NA groups across fear words, which reveals no s i g n i f i -cant differences. D. CONCLUSIONS Study I indicated that the fear words in no way contribu-ted to the study, and, although they s t i l l comprise part of - 37 -Table 4 Mean response values and levels of significance for the A:NA words - I  A Ss WA Ss — 2 — ? word x §_ x s df t p break 1.52 1.93 1.95 1.28 39 1.51 >.05 smack 2.63 0.58 2.09 0.52 39 1.64 >.05 storm 1.52 0.37 1.40 0.35 39 0.95 >.05 cuff 1.10 0.21 1.18 0.35 39 0.62 >.05 mean 2.47 1.26 1.90 0.75 39 2.16 <.05 pelt 1.84 1.47 1.59 1.21 39 1.41 >.05 pound 1.89 0.99 1.82 1.01 39 0.23 >.05 steal 1.26 0.21 1.40 0.25 39 0.86 >.05 tackle 2.57 0.39 2.50 0.74 39 0.33 >.05 hit 2.15 1.07 1.77 1.04 39 2.08 <.05 wrench 1.68 1.23 1.90 1.23 39 0.74 >.05 mad 2.00 0.89 1.82 0.82 39 0.98 >.05 TOTAL 1.89 1.68 1.78 1.56 39 1.16 .05 - 38 -the WAT, they were not analyzed i n later revisions of the study and discussion of them w i l l be terminated. Only two of the A:NA words revealed significant d i f f e r -ences between A and NA groups and thus, the WAT cannot be said to have differentiated between groups since: (l) with the .05 level of significance there was substantial probabil-i t y that the significant differences could be attributed to chance; and (2) the mean total aggressive content between A and NA Ss was not significant (t = 1.16, df = 39, p >.05). B. DISCUSSION AND REVISION OF STUDY I The hypothesis that A Ss would respond with aggressive associations to the aggressive characteristics of A:NA words more frequently than NA Ss was not supported. However, i t was f e l t there was merit in revising the methodology and ex-tending the study. Consequently, several changes, outlined below, were implemented for Study II. First, the results were dependent upon the r e l i a b i l i t y of the ratings of the A:NA words used i n the construction of the WAT. A small sample (N = 29) rated these words as to aggressive content and, therefore, i t appeared desirable to determine the R r e l i a b i l i t y by having another group of Rs rate the A:NA words. Second, the number of Ss from which the A and NA groups were selected could be expanded to provide a larger and, hence, more reliable sample. - 39 -Third, because of the verbal nature of free association, responses to the WAT may have been more affected by Ss who were verbally hostile. A more exact measure of verbal hos-t i l i t y than the TI score was possible since Buss and Durkee (1957) indicated that the Hostility-Guilt Inventory assessed at least two dimensions of hostility including an "emotional attitudinal component" (EAC) and a "motor component" (MC). The subclass verbal hostility was demonstrated to be loaded on the MC factor. The Ss, therefore, could be assessed as to aggressive personality characteristics, that are more re-lated to verbal behavior, by the MC score of the Hostility, Guilt Inventory. Fourth, responses of the A and NA groups were rated as to closeness in meaning to aggression by a very small sample (N = 15). The r e l i a b i l i t y of the ratings could be determined by obtaining the judgements of another group of Rs. The alterations of Study I outlined above were incorpora-ted into the design and methodology of the following experi-ment, Study II. - 40 -CHAPTER IT STUDY II - 41 -A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to further explore the relationships between aggressive personality characteristics and word associations investigated in Study I. The possibilities for improvement of the design and me-thodology suggested in Study I were incorporated into Study II. Briefly, these revisions included: (l) an examination of the r e l i a b i l i t y of the ratings of the A:NA words; (2) sampling a larger group of A and NA Ss; (3) re-scoring the instrument for assessing aggressive personality characteris-tics (the Hostility-Guilt Inventory) i n order to obtain a measure more indicative of verbal hos t i l i t y than the Tl score; and (4) assessing the r e l i a b i l i t y of the ratings of the responses to the A:NA words by having another larger group of Rs rate the word association responses. It was hypothesized f i r s t that A Ss would respond with aggressive word associations to the A:NA words more frequent-l y than NA Ss, and i t was expected, therefore, that ratings of the aggressive content of associations to the A:NA terms would differentiate between A and NA groups. Second, the generality of aggressive behavior was con-sidered i n order to determine i f a specific stimulus situa-tion i s necessary to evoke aggressive responses, or i f the behavior i s so uniform that hostile responses occur to a variety of situations. For example, Berkowitz (1962, p. 257) has stated that the habitually hostile individual " . . . i s 42 -relatively quick to respond aggressively to suitable cues be-cause of his prior learning experiences and probably w i l l not perform aggressive actions in the absence of such cues." It was expected, therefore, i f this observation i s tenable, that both A and NA. groups would respond with non-aggressive word associations to neutral stimulus words. It was hypothesized that: (l) there would be no differences i n aggressive content of the A and NA groups' responses to Nu words; and (2) the A group would respond with significantly more aggressive asso-ciations to the A:NA words than to the Nu words. Third, c l i n i c a l findings (for example, Kent and Rosanoff, 1910; and Tendler, 1945) have utilized unique responses on WATs as a measure of the degree of personality disturbance. Using uniqueness of response (defined as deviation from common responses) as an indicator or psychopathological thought processes, i t was hypothesized that, limiting analyses to relatively unique associations would yield more differences between A and NA groups. B. METHOD The methodology was revised to include both the sugges-tions for improvement and ideas for elaboration made i n Study I. 1. Reliability of ratings of A:NA words. The research value of the WAT depended, i n part, upon the r e l i a b i l i t y of Rs* ratings of the A:NA words. Since a small sample (N = 29) was i n i t i a l l y used to rate the words, support for the original findings was attempted by repeating the procedure with an additional sample of twenty Rs, who rated the A:NA words in terms of aggressive content. The i n -structions read to the Rs were identical with those used in Study I (see page 30). The twenty Rs were similar in sex distribution, median age and academic year i n university to Study I Rs and experimental Ss. See Appendix G for a com-parison of these groups on the variables sex, age and year in university. Median ratings and standard deviations were obtained for each A:NA word and compared with the original medians and standard deviations (see Appendix H). Since the two sets of medians were identical and the standard deviations did not differ appreciably, the original ratings were adopted as having proved satisfactorily reliable. Because the twelve A:WA words were rated reliably and continued to meet the c r i t e r i a for aggressive stimulus items as described above, the WAT was l e f t in the original form. 2. Experimental Subjects Originally, 130 Ss completed the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory. An additional 51 student volunteers from an Introductory Psychology course completed the Inventory and the A and NA groups were obtained from the total of 181 Ss. Table 5 presents the distribution of scores on the - 44 -Inventory for the total Ss. Extreme groups of A and NA Ss were selected according to MC scores on the Hostility-Guilt Table 5 Inventory. The Inventories of the Ss were scored to obtain values for TI and MC scores. Since verbal h o s t i l i t y loads heavily on the MC scale, the MC score was used as the measure of aggressive personality characteristics. Prom the total pool of Ss, a cutting score of 30 on the MC scale yielded twenty A Ss and a cutting score of sixteen yielded twenty NA Ss. The TI and MC scores of the A and NA Ss are presented in Appendix J. The twenty A Ss, eight males and twelve fe-males, and the twenty NA Ss, nine males and eleven females, had a median age of nineteen and a median of f i r s t year i n university. The WAT was administered to the A and NA Ss. The instructions and testing conditions were the same as des-cribed i n Study I (See page 35). 3. Ratings of the word association responses 480 separate word association responses to the A:NA words were produced from the Ss, with identical responses reducing the number to 170 unique associations. A small sample of fifteen Rs i n Study I had rated the associations for aggressive connotation. Fifteen was f e l t to be an i n -adequate number for reliable ratings so, the judgements of an additional 68 Rs were obtained. The 68 Rs, 30 males and - 45 -Table 5 Distribution of total inventory scores on the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory II male 70 N female 111 male 33*6 x female 30.8 male 11.7 S.D. female 10.9 - 46 -38 females, had a median age of nineteen and f i r s t year was the median academic standing in university. The rating scale and instructions administered to the Rs can be found in Appendix E. As before, a median (the value) was obtained for each word association response on the basis of the ratings of the 68 Rs. The free associations for each S and the value of each term are presented i n Appendix L. In order to test the hypothesis that A Ss would respond with significantly fewer aggressive associations to Nu words than to A:NA words, twelve of the Nu WAT words were randomly selected (see Appendix M for the selected words). The 183 unique word associations elicited i n response to the twelve Nu words were rated in the same manner as the A:NA words by the same 68 Rs described above, and a median value was compu-ted for each word association response. The free associations for each S and the value of each term are contained i n Appendix M. The technique for deriving a "mean response value" (see page 36 ) was utilized for each A:NA and selected Nu word. The mean response value of a stimulus word, i t may be re-called, represents the average aggressive content of word associations elicited by the stimulus word. Further, the values of the word associations for each S were summed giving a "total aggression score" for each S. A and NA groups could be compared i n terms of the average aggression score obtained by the Ss in the group. - 47 -4. Aggressive content of unique associations It was suggested that an examination of the aggressive content of relatively unique associations to the A:NA words would yield a larger discrepancy between A and NA groups. Uniqueness i s used here to refer to any response that occurs only once to a stimulus item. To eliminate commonality, each response to a stimulus word was alloted a frequency of one. Thus, A:NA words had varying numbers of "unique" items as word associations, but each response occurred only once as an association to any stimulus term. For example, Table 6 presents: the responses of the A group to the A:NA word "break" the actual frequency of the responses; the allotted frequency, which eliminates commonality; the "value" of each response; and the new "mean response value". This procedure was f o l -lowed for each stimulus word. Table 6 C. RESULTS 1. Group differences in responses to A:NA words Table 7 presents the average aggression score obtained by Ss i n the A and NA groups. Table 7 Using the means reported i n Table 7» a two-way analysis - 48 -Table 6 Example of calculation of mean response value for unique responses to the stimulus word "break"  response actual alotted value f f arm 1 1 1 ball 1 1 1 car 6 1 1 china 2 1 1 cleave 1 1 3 drop 1 1 1 hurt 2 1 4 pieces 1 1 1 severed 2 1 4 smash 2 1 4 stop 1 1 1 22 22 - 11 = 2 (mean response value) Table 7 Average aggression score based on Ss' responses to the WAT A NA X 30.50 20.63 male var. 24.00 6.22 female X var. 26.00 15.83 20.36 14.05 total X var. 27.80 23.96 20.50 11.11 - 49 -of variance was performed on the data with "sex" and "aggres-s ion " representing independent va r i ab les . Table 8 summarizes Table 8 the resu l ts of the analys is of var iance. These resu l t s i n d i -cate that the A Ss, on the average, responded with s i g n i f i -cant ly more aggressive word associat ions than d id the NA Ss (F = 43.48, df = 1 and 36, p = < .01) . Further, the resu l t s ind icate that males as a group responded with more aggressive associat ions than females (F = 4.14, df = 1 and 36, p = <.05). The in te rac t ion between sex and aggression factors was not s i gn i f i c an t (F = 3.23, df = 1 and 36, p = > .05). 2. Item analys is It was expected that not a l l the A:NA words would con-t r ibute equal ly to the d i f f e r en t i a t i on between A and NA groups. The re l a t i ve contr ibut ion of each word was assessed by comparing A and NA groups on each A:NA word. A summary of th i s comparison i s presented i n Table 9. An examination Table 9 of Table 9 reveals that i n every comparison the mean response value i s l a rger fo r the A than the NA group. The discrepancy i s s l i gh t i n some instances and f i ve of the twelve di f ferences are s i g n i f i c a n t . - 50 -Table 8 Results of the analysis of variance Source Sum of df Mean F P Squares Sauare Sex 65.38 1 65.38 4.14 <.05 Aggression 686.49 1 686.49 43.48 <.01 Interaction 50.98 1 50.98 3.23 > .05 Error 568.55 36 15.79 Table 9 Mean response values and levels of s i g n i f l cance for the A:NA words-II stimulus word A Ss NA Ss t P X s^ X s* df break 2.00 2.00 1.60 0.99 38 1.04 > .05 smack 3.10 1.67 2.10 2.10 38 2.30 <.05 storm 1.45 0.26 1.40 0.36 38 0.28 >.05 cuff 1.90 1.67 1.30 0.85 38 1.69 >.05 mean 3.45 1.21 2.10 0.83 38 4.23 >.01 pelt 2.15 1.61 1.45 1.00 38 1.94 >05 pound 2.10 1.78 1.85 1.40 38 0.65 >.05 steal 1.45 0.47 1.40 0.57 38 0.21 >.05 tackle 2.95 1.00 2.20 0.91 38 2.44 <.05 hit 2.55 1.84 1.60 0.99 38 2.53 <.05 wrench 1.95 1.42 1.40 0.57 38 1.74 >.05 mad 2.75 0.36 2.10 0.52 38 3.08 <.01 - 51 -3. Groups' responses to the Nu words It was anticipated that no differences would exist in the aggressive content of associations of the A and NA Ss to the Nu words. Table 10 presents a summary of the t-test compari-sons (between a l l combinations of the variables sex and aggres-sion) based on the aggressive content of responses to the twelve randomly selected Nu words. In a l l the t-tests whe^e the variance ratio was significant the t-test utilized was one to test the difference of means when variances differ significantly (Ferguson, 1959, pp. 143-145). The data i n Table 10 indicate that no differences exist in the aggressive Table 10 content of the word association responses of the A Ss and NA Ss to the Nu words. Secondly, i t was expected that A Ss would respond with more aggressive associations to the A:NA words than to the Nu words. A summary of the t-test comparisons across A:NA and Nu words i s given in Table 11. The results indicate that Table 11 A Ss responded with more aggressive word associations to the A:NA words than to the Nu words (t = 13.41, df\= 38, p = <.05). Further, NA Ss responded to the A:NA words with more aggressive - 52 -Table 10 t-test comparisons of average aggressive content of the vari-ous groups' responses to the Nu words  df t p _ 38 0.91 > .05 18 0.47 > .05 18 0.21 > .05 15 0.63 > .05 21 0.84 > .05 Groups X s 2 A l l A Ss 12.65 1.61 A l l NA Ss 12.45 0.68 A males 12.63 0.84 A females 12.67 3.15 NA males 12.33 0.50 NA females 12.54 0.87 A males 12.63 0.84 NA males 12.33 0.50 A females 12.67 3.15 NA females 12.54 0.87 - 53 -Table 11 t-test comparisons of average aggressive content of the various groups' responses (rs) to A:NA and Nu words Groups X s 2 df t P A Ss* rs to AiNA words A Ss 1 rs to Nu words 27.80 12.65 23.96 1.61 38 13.41 < .05 NA Ss' rs to A:NA words NA Ss * rs to Nu words 20.50 12.45 11.11 0.68 38 10.49 < .05 Male Ss* rs to A:NA words Male Ss' rs to Nu words 25.29 12.47 39.59 0.64 15 8.32 < .05 Female Ss' rs to A:NA worcs23.30 Female Ss' rs to Nu words 12.61 23.95 1.97 21 10.08 < .05 Male Ss' rs to Nu words Female Ss' rs to Nu words 12.47 12.61 0.67 1.97 38 0.88 > .05 A l l Ss' rs to A:NA words A l l Ss* rs to Nu words 24.15 12.55 30.75 1.38 78 40.91 < .05 - 54 -associations than to the Nu stimulus items (t = 10.49, df = 38, p = <.05). No differences existed between the aggressive content of male and female Ss 1 associations to the Nu words (t = 0.88, df = 38, p =>.05). 4. Group comparison for aggressive content of unique  associations. It was expected that an examination of the aggressive content of unique associations would yield a greater discre-pancy between A and NA groups. The aggressive content of unique associations to each A:NA words was compared between A and NA groups. Table 12 gives a summary of the mean re-sponse values and levels of significance for the unique asso-ciation comparison. Only one of the twelve differences was Table 12 significant. D. CONCLUSIONS The hypothesis predicted that A Ss would respond with aggressive associations to the aggressive characteristics of A:NA words more frequently than NA Ss. The results supported the hypothesis since an analysis of variance yielded s i g n i f i -cant differences in the aggressive content of the associations of A and NA groups to the c r i t i c a l homophones on the WAT. Briefly, the findings indicate, therefore, that A Ss respond to the aggressive aspect of homophonic stimulus items more - 55 Table 12 Mean response values and levels of significance for unique associations  _ _ A Ss 2_ _NA Ss 2 stimulus x s x s df t p word  break 2.00 2.00 1.67 0.97 21 1.95 >.05 smack 2.50 1.71 1.70 1.56 16 2.01 >.05 storm 1.38 0.27 1.56 0.15 15 0.98 >.05 cuff 1.63 1.41 1.33 1.00 15 1.21 >.05 mean 3.00 0.60 1.91 0.89 20 2.91 <.01 pelt 2.00 0.84 1.72 1.36 16 1.02 >.05 pound 1.50 0.94 2.00 2.00 18 1.43 >.05 steal 1.42 0.45 1.33 0.42 22 0.32 >.05 tackle 1.88 1.47 1.86 0.81 12 0.27 >.05 hit 2.50 1.61 1.73 1.21 19 2.00 >.05 wrench 1.92 1.17 1.55 0.67 21 1.38 >.05 mad 2.50 1.00 1.90 0.54 20 1.78 >.05 - 56 -o f t e n t h a n M S s . A n i t e m a n a l y s i s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t n o t a l l t h e A : N A w o r d s c o n t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y t o a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f A a n d HA g r o u p s s i n c e , o n l y f i v e o f t h e t w e l v e s t i m u l u s t e r m s y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s . I t was h y p o -t h e s i z e d f u r t h e r t h a t : ( l ) t h e r e w o u l d b e n o d i f f e r e n c e s i n a g g r e s s i v e c o n t e n t o f t h e A a n d NA g r o u p s r e s p o n s e s t o N u w o r d s ; a n d (2) t h e A g r o u p w o u l d r e s p o n d w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e a g g r e s s i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s t o t h e A:N1 w o r d s t h a n t o t h e N u w o r d s . B o t h t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s w e r e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e s u l t s . T h e f i n a l h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n e d l i m i t i n g t h e a n a l y s e s t o r e l a -t i v e l y u n i q u e a s s o c i a t i o n s . I t was e x p e c t e d t h a t m o r e d i f f e r -e n c e s w o u l d b e f o u n d b e t w e e n A a n d NA g r o u p s i f t h e g r o u p s w e r e c o m p a r e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e a g g r e s s i v e c o n t e n t o f S s ' u n i q u e a s s o c i a t i o n s . T h e r e s u l t s f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o -t h e s i s . - 57 -CHAPTER V DISCUSSION - 58 -The current study expanded the body of evidence relating verbal associations and personality by demonstrating that a group of A Ss responded with more hostile associations to A:HA homophones than a group of NA Ss. It has been postulated (Gofer and Foley, 1942; Russell and Storms, 1955) that a reaction potential or prepotency of re-sponse to word associations i s acquired in the l i f e history of the individual so that upon presentation of a selected s t i -mulus item, one word has a greater probability of occurring than a l l other possible responses. This prepotency, greater reaction potential or stronger associative bond i s established by frequency of continquity of the terms in past experience. The A individual, by definition, when involved in hostile situations i s l i k e l y to use words aggressively, since he ex-presses aggression in both style and content of speech (Buss and Durkee, 1957). Thus, the A person i s l i k e l y to use, for example, the word "cuff" more frequently with an aggressive meaning. Because of the frequency with which such homophones may be util i z e d in hostile situations, the probability i s high that when an aggressive context or situation (stimulus) i s presented, the aggressive meaning of the homophone would be evoked. That i s , there would exist a greater potential for an aggressive reaction to occur i f a hostile stimulus were en-countered. Further, and more pertinent for the present study, the homophone has not been used i n the aggressive situation in isolation, but has occurred with other words on their cog-59 -nitive counterparts. Thus, for example, an associative chain like the following could be postulated: aggressive situation ^aggressive word "cuff" ^associated idea "hit" ^associated word "man". The current study, therefore, used only a segment of the associative chain, since no "aggressive situation" was involved. In this research, the i n i t i a l responses to the aggressive situation (i.e., aggres-sive words) were used as stimuli, and i t was predicted that responses to these words (i.e., previously associated words and their cognitive counterparts) would reflect the context in which the stimuli had frequently occurred. Thus, the hypothe-sis, which was supported by the results, stated that A Ss would respond to the aggressive stimulus characteristics of the A:NA words more frequently than NA Ss. Berkowitz (1962, p. 257) has stated that the aggressive person's " hostile behavior when i t i s not precipitated by a recent frustration, stems from the activation of a habit by an appropriate stimulus." One of the central features of the theory of aggression proposed by Berkowitz (1962) is indicated i n the above quotation by the phrase "appropriate stimulus". Berkowitz does not conceive of the frequently hostile in d i -vidual as possessing a constantly operating aggressive drive, but rather as having a predisposition to be readily aroused by suitable cues because of his prior learning experience. In the current study, support was obtained for this concept of stimulus specificity in that A Ss responded with hostile - 60 -associations to A:NA terms, whereas NA Ss gave relatively-neutral associations to the A:NA stimulus items. When the data were analyzed in terms of the contribu-tion to each A:NA word to the differentiation of A and NA groups, i t was indicated that only five of the twelve terms yielded significant differences. Superficially, i t did not appear that these words possessed any special characteristics and the question arose as to why the particular five terms differentiated between groups. A partial answer i s obtained by an examination of the A:NA word "storm" where the mean response values were 1.45 and 1.40 for the A and NA groups respectively. The word associations of almost a l l Ss to the word "storm" were neutral or only mildly related to aggres-sion, and an examination of the actual associations (Appen-dices 1 and M) revealed that every response was a reaction to the definition of storm as "a disturbance of the Atmosphere". Other alternative connotations of an aggressive nature such as "a determined assault on a f o r t i f i e d place", and "a shower or furious flight of missiles violently thrown" did not evoke associations. That i s , no word associations were given to the aggressive component of the term by either the A or NA Ss. One factor, not controlled in the study, which could account for this observation i s the frequency of occur-rence in general linquistic usage of each component of the A: NA words. From the results obtained in this study i t may be - 61 -conjectured that the aggressive component of the word "storm", f o r example, i s rarely used i n general language behavior. In ef f e c t , t h i s suggestion that each component has d i f f e r e n t f r e -quencies i n normal usage raises a p r a c t i c a l problem. That i s , i d e a l l y , each component (A and HA) should occur with equal frequency i n general language usage or the associations pro-duced by the word w i l l i n part be unequally affected by the frequency of incidence of each component. Control of t h i s factor would have to be obtained empirically, since frequency counts l i k e the Lorge-Thorndike (1952) do not give considera-t i o n to the various meanings of a word. The lack of control over the frequency of occurrence of each component of the A:NA terms could also p a r t i a l l y account f o r the observation that NA Ss responded with more aggressive associations to the A:NA words than to the Nu terms. A further explanation, however, comes from the common observation that normally non-aggressive individuals have periodic episodes of h o s t i l i t y and, therefore, some NA Ss i n the study occasionally reacted with aggressive associations. This consideration provides a second explanation of the finding the NA Ss gave more aggressive associations to the A:NA than to the Nu words. The results indicated that when uniqueness of response was u t i l i z e d as a measure, one of the twelve A:NA words yielded a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between A and NA groups. An - 62 -examination of the A Ss' associations to the A:NA words (Appendix L) reveals that there exists considerable common-ali t y of response to the stimulus items. That i s , the variety of unique associations produced by the A group i s no greater than that of the NA group, and the aggressive content of these unique associations does not differ be-tween groups. However, the A Ss produced a greater number of these aggressive word associations. The usefulness of uniqueness as a measure of psychopathological though pro-cesses in the studies of Tendler (1945) and Schafer (1953), for example, was a function of the sample of deviant Ss, who i n both studies were diagnosed as mixed neurotic and psycho-t i c patients. The current study group of college students i s probably not comparable to the patient groups. That i s , the extremes of the personality dimension of aggression were probably not tapped. One extreme would perhaps be represented by institutionalized persons such as found in certain inmates in a prison setting. In these more deviant cases, uniqueness of associations may well prove to be a valuable criterion of psychopathological thought processes. In support of the suggestion that college students alone do not represent some of the extreme points on personality dimensions, a more re-cent exploratory study (Block, I960) used a college sample and discovered no significant relationships between commonality of response to the Kent-Rosanoff WAT and scores on a test of personality, the California Psychological Inventory. - 63 -It was mentioned above (p. 62) that Kent and Rosanoff (1910) grouped the Ss of both sexes in the normative sample presumably because no sex differences existed in the associa-tions of males and females. Further, Tresselt, Leeds and Mayzner (1955) discovered that 95$ of the popular responses of 114 males and 115 females to the Kent-Rosanoff WAT were identical. These studies suggest that no real sex differen-ces exist in the associations of male and female Ss to the Kent-Rosanoff. However, in the current study, although the WAT was not structured to obtain sex differences, male Ss responded with significantly more aggressive associations than females. This finding, although not predicted, certainly i s consistent with the commonly held belief that males are more overtly aggressive or at least express ho s t i l i t y more than females. This belief has been substantiated by research findings, for example, in children (Sears, 1961), in adoles-cents (Lansky, Crandall, Kagan and Baker, 1961), and, more specifically, in college students (Buss and Durkee, 1958). In this latter study the authors discovered that i n a "free responding period", i n which Ss made up sentences, women gave significantly fewer hostile and significantly more neutral words than men. The current study, therefore, went further than Goodenough1s study (1942), which was structured to ob-tain sex differences in responses to a WAT. The present paper obtained sex differences by constructing an instrument for assessing a personality dimension, which i s known to be - 64 -related to the variable sex. The technique of r a t i n g the aggressive content of word associations u t i l i z e d i n the current study involved a large number of Rs independently rating the responses without any knowledge of who gave the associations or of the stimulus items f o r the associations. Possibly a more sensitive tech-nique could be used which takes account of the stimulus term, the rater merely decides whether the association was given i n response to the aggressive or non-aggressive component of the stimulus. Appendix L reveals, f o r example, that an A S gave the response "arm" to the stimulus "break" and a NA S gave the association "car". Both "car" and "arm" were rated as being neutral, however, the A and NA Ss had c l e a r l y re-sponded to d i f f e r e n t components of the stimulus. A sugges-t i o n f o r a future study could involve a re-analysis of the current data by having several judges decide to which compon-ent of the homophone a response was given. Further, A:NA words may not be necessary to d i f f e r e n t i a t e A and NA groups. That i s , an argument could be advanced to support the idea that any aggressive term would e l i c i t hos-t i l e responses from A Ss and non-hostile responses from NA S. In t h i s context, and to support the argument i t i s interesting that the WAT used by Moore and G i l l i l a n d (1921) to d i f f e r e n -t i a t e aggressive (enterprising) from non-aggressive (non-enter-prising) Ss contained stimulus words that were not homophones (for example, success and enterprise). To determine the validity of the above criticism i t would be necessaryto obtain non-homophonic aggressive stimulus words and, in essence, replicate the current research using these words as stimulus items instead of the A:NA words. - 6 6 -CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, - 67 -CHAPTER VI SUMMARY It was hypothesized that differences would exist in the aggressive content of the word association responses of ag-gressive (A) and non-aggressive (KA) Ss to a word association test (WAT) containing homonymic words having alternate mean-ings, aggressive and non-aggressive (A:NA). In Study I the WAT was constructed as the research i n -strument and administered to A and NA groups of Ss previously assessed as to aggressive personality characteristics by the total inventory score of the Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt-In-ventory. The 3sl responses to the A:NA stimulus words were rated for aggressive content and a comparison of A and NA groups performed. The results indicated that two of the twelve A;NA words yielded significant differences between groups. Suggestions for improvement of the methodology and extension of the theoretical framework and analyses were pro-posed and subsequently incorporated into Study II. The ideas for improvement outlined i n Study I were i n -troduced in Study II. The r e l i a b i l i t y of ratings of the A:NA words was assessed and determined to be adequate. Next, a larger group of experimental Ss was sampled. The Buss-Durkee Hostility-Guilt Inventory was rescored by the motor component (MC) score to obtain a measure of aggression more indicative of verbal ho s t i l i t y . Finally, the r e l i a b i l i t y of ratings of the aggressive content of responses to the A:NA words was - 68 -assessed. The data in Study II were analyzed f i r s t to test the hy-pothesis that the A group would respond with significantly more aggressive word associations to the A:NA words than would the NA group, and the results were significantly i n the direc-tion predicted. The second part of the study involved an attempt to de-termine which of the A:NA words contributed to differentiating A and NA groups. A comparison across groups of the mean re-sponse values (average aggressive content) of the associations to the A:NA words indicated that five of the twelve terms sub-scribed significantly to the discrimination. Thirdly, A and NA Ss' responses to twelve randomly select-ed neutral (Nu) words were considered in order to test the notion that the aggressive individual's hostile behavior i s activated by an appropriate stimulus situation (for example, A:NA words) and i s not elicited i n the absence of such cues (i.e., Nu words). It was demonstrated that A and NA groups' word association responses to the Nu words, as hypothesized, were not different in aggressive content. It was also hypothe-sized that the A Ss would respond with more aggressive associa-tions to the A:NA words than to the Nu words. The results supported this prediction. The fourth part of the study attempted to determine i f an examination of unique word association responses to the A:NA words would result i n a greater disparity between the - 69 -aggressive content of the free associations of the A Ss and those of the NA Ss. A comparison of groups across A:NA words revealed only one significant difference. - 70 -APPENDIX A - 71 -Varieties of h o s t i l i t i e s : from Buss and Durkee (1957, p. 343) Assault Indirect host i l i t y 3. I r r i t a b i l i t y 4. Negativism 5. Resentment 6. Suspicion physical violence against others. This includes getting into fights with others but not destroying objects. both roundabout and undirected aggression. Roundabout behavior like malicious gossip or practical jokes i s indirect i n the sense that the hated person i s not atta-cked directly but by devious means. Undi-rected aggression, such as temper tantrums and slamming doors, consists of a dis-charge of negative affect against no one in particular; i t i s a diffuse rage reac-tion that has no direction. a readiness to explode with negative affect at the slightest provocation. This includes quick temper, grouchiness, exasperation, and rudeness. oppositional behavior, usually directed against authority. This involves a refusal to cooperate that may vary from passive noncompliance to open rebellion against rules or conventions. jealousy and hatred of others. This refers to a feeling of anger at the world over real or fantasied mistreatment. projection of hostility onto others. This varies from merely being distrustful and wary of people to beliefs that others are being derogatory or are planning harm. 7. Verbal Hostility negative affect expressed i n both the style and content of speech. Style includes ar-guing, shouting, and screaming; content in eludes threats, curses, and being over-cri-t i c a l . - 72 -APPENDIX B 73 -The 3 6 homophonic stimulus words from which the word association test was derived mean mad heat strike pelt slug squash wrench execute punch pain (pane) break (Brake) damn (dam) steal (steel) groan (grown) stole plow hit bat stick spat scrap pound cuff choke die (dye) smack venemous tackle swear stroke strip storm club prey (pray) sack - 74 -APPENDIX C - 75 -S I M I L A R M i l d NEUTRAL M i l d Moderate .Strong Extreme f 1 i ' [• 1 j 1 i SIMILAR-' M i l d NEUTRAL M i l d . Moderate Strong Extreme - 76 -A P P E N D I X D Name A Self Description Inventory Age Sex Year i n School Directions; Read each statement c a r e f u l l y and decide whether i t i s true  as applied to you or false as applied to you. I f a statement i s TRITE or MOSTLY TRUE, as applied to you, draw a c i r c l e around "T". I f a statement i s FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as applied to you, draw a c i r c l e around "F". BE SURE TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. T F 1. I seldom stri k e back, even i f someone h i t s me f i r s t . T F 2. I sometimes spread gossip about people I don't l i k e . T F 3. Unless somebody asks me i n a nice way, I won't do what they want. T. F. 4. I lose my temper ea s i l y but get over i t quickly. T. F. 5. I don't seem to get what's coming to me. T. F. 6. I know that people tend to talk about me behind my back. T. F. 7. When I disapprove of my friends' behavior, I l e t them know i t T. F. 8. The few times I have cheated, I have suffered unbearable feelings of remorse. T. F. 9. Once i n a while I cannot control my urge to harm others. T. F . 10. I never get mad enough to throw things. T. F. 11. When someone makes a ru l e I don't l i k e I am tempted to break ; T. Ti' .1. 0 12. Sometimes people bother me just by being around. T. F. 13. Other people always seem to get the breaks. T. F. 14. I tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more fri e n d l y than I expected. T. F. 15. I often find myself disagreeing with people. T. J - » 16. I sometimes have bad thoughts which make' me fe e l ashamed of . myself. T. F. 17. I can think of no good reason for ever h i t t i n g anyone. T. J- • 18. When I am angry, I sometimes sulk. T .- F. 19. When someone i s bossy, I do the opposite of what he asks me. T. P. 20. I .am i r r i t a t e d a great deal more than people are aware of. T. P. 21. I don't know any people that I downright hate. T. F. 22. There are a number of people who seem to d i s l i k e me very much T. F. 23. I can't help getting into arguments when people disagree with rae. T. F. 24. People who shirk on the job must f e e l very g u i l t y . T. 25. If somebody h i t s me f i r s t , I l e t him have i t . m x . F . 26. When I am mad, I sometimes slam doors. T. F. 27. I am always patient with others. T. F. 28. Occasionally when I am mad at someone I w i l l give him the " s i l e n t treatment". - 78 -2 . T . P . 2 9 . When I l o o k back on w h a t ' s happened t o me I c a n ' t h e l p f e e l i n g m i l d l y r e s e n t f u l T . P . 3 0 . There a r e a number o f p e o p l e who seem t o be j e a l o u s o f me. T . ?. 3 1 . I demand t h a t p e o p l e r e s p e c t my r i g h t s . T . P . 3 2 . I t d e p r e s s e s me t h a t I d i d n o t do more f o r my p a r e n t s . T . P 3 3 . Whoever i n s u l t s me o r my f a m i l y i s a s k i n g f o r a f i g h t . T . p -1- 0 3 4 . I n e v e r p l a y p r a c t i c a l j o k e s . T . P . 3 5 . I t makes my b l o o d b o i l t o have somebody make f u n o f me. T . . P . 3 6 . When p e o p l e a r e b o s s y , I t a k e my t i m e j u s t t o show them. T . P . 3 7 . A l m o s t e v e r y week I see someone I d i s l i k e . T . P . 3 8 . I sometimes have t h e f e e l i n g t h a t o t h e r s a r e l a u g h i n g a t me. T. P . 3 9 . Even when my a n g e r i s a r o u s e d , I d o n ' t u s e ' " s t r o n g l a n g u a g e " . T . P. 4 0 . I am c o n c e r n e d about b e i n g f o r g i v e n f o r my s i n s . T . P . 4 1 . P e o p l e who c o n t i n u a l l y p e s t e r y o u a r e a s k i n g f o r a f i g h t . T . P . 4 2 . I sometimes pout when I d o n ' t get my own way. T . P. 4 3 . I f somebody annoys me, I am a p t t o t e l l h i m what I t h i n k o f h i m . T . P . 4 4 . I o f t e n f e e l l i k e a powder k e g r e a d y t o e x p l o d e . T . P . 4 5 . A l t h o u g h I d o n ' t show i t , I am sometimes e a t e n up w i t h j e a l o u s y . J - » P . 4 6 . My motto i s " N e v e r t r u s t s t r a n g e r s " . T . P . 4 7 . When p e o p l e y e l l a t me, I y e l l b a c k . T . T. P . P. 4 8 . 4 9 . I do many t h i n g s t h a t make me f e e l r e m o r s e f u l a f t e r w a r d . When I r e a l l y l o s e my t e m p e r , I am c a p a b l e o f s l a p p i n g someone. T . P . 5 0 . S i n c e the age o f t e n , I have n e v e r had a temper t a n t r u m . T. P. 5 1 . When I get mad, I say n a s t y t h i n g s . T . P . 5 2 . I sometimes c a r r y a c h i p on my s h o i i l d e r . T . P. 5 3 . I f I l e t p e o p l e see t h e way I f e e l , I ' d be c o n s i d e r e d a h a r d p e r -son t o g e t a l o n g w i t h . T . P . 54 . I commonly wonder what h i d d e n r e a s o n a n o t h e r p e r s o n may have f o r d o i n g s o m e t h i n g n i c e f o r me. T , P. 5 5 . I c o u l d n o t put someone i n h i s p l a c e , even i f he needed i t . T . P . 5 6 . F a i l u r e g i v e s me a f e e l i n g o f r e m o r s e . T . P . 5 7 . I get i n t o f i g h t s about as o f t e n as t h e n e x t p e r s o n . | T . H 1 •*• a P . 5 8 . 5 9 . I c a n remember b e i n g so a n g r y t h a t I p i c k e d up t h e n e a r e s t t h i n g and b r o k e i t . I o f t e n make t h r e a t s I d o n ' t r e a l l y mean t o c a r r y o u t . ; T . P . 6 0 . I c a n ' t h e l p b e i n g a l i t t l e r u d e t o p e o p l e I d o n ' t l i k e . T . P. 6 1 . A t t i m e s I f e e l I g e t a raw d e a l out o f l i f e . ; T . , ' T . P. P . 6 2 . 6 3 . I used t o t h i n k t h a t most p e o p l e t o l d t h e t r u t h but now I know o t h e r w i s e . I g e n e r a l l y c o v e r up my p o o r o p i n i o n o f o t h e r s . T . P . 6 4 . When I do w r o n g , my c o n s c i e n c e p u n i s h e s me s e v e r e l y . I T . | P . 6 5 . I f I have t o r e s o r t t o p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e t o d e f e n d my r i g h t s , I w i l l . t P. 6 6 . I f someone d o e s n ' t t r e a t rne r i g h t , I d o n ' t l e t i t annoy me. ;T. P . 6 7 . I have no enemies who r e a l l y w i s h t o harm me. ! T . P. 6 8 . When a r g u i n g , I t e n d t o r a i s e my v o i c e . ' P. 6 9 . I o f t e n f e e l t h a t I have n o t l i v e d t h e r i g h t k i n d o f l i f e . T . P . 7 0 . I have known p e o p l e who pushed me so f a r t h a t vie came t o blows. . ' T . P . 7 1 . I d o n ' t l e t a. l o t o f u n i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s i r r i t a t e me. T . P . 7 2 . I se ldom f e e l t h a t p e o p l e a r e t r y i n g t o a n g e r o r i n s u l t me. T . P . 7 3 . l a t e l y , I have been k i n d o f g r o u c h y . P . 7 4 . I would r a t h e r concede a p o i n t t h a n g e t i n t o an argument about i t . F . 7 5 . I sometimes show may a n g e r by b a n g i n g on t h e t a b l e . - 7 9 -APPENDIX E - 80 A and NA Ss* responses to the A:NA words - Study I: frequency of associations; frequency time values; mean response values; and variances Ss NA Ss Stimulus responses f f X responses f f X word value value BREAK arm 1 1 bad 1 2 ball 1 1 bri t t l e 1 1 broken 2 4 car < 2 2 car 5 5 crash 1 3 china 2 2 cut 1 3 cleave 1 3 dislocate 1 4 drop 1 2 failure 1 1 glass 2 2 glass 2 2 hurt 1 3 pipe 1 1 severed 1 4 shoe 1 1 stop 1 1 smack 2 8 pieces 1 1 snap 2 6 stop 1 1 take 1 2 tear 2 4 vase 1 1 waters 1 1 19 29 22 43 (mean 1.52 1.95) (variance 1.93 1.28) SMACK crash 1 3 bad 2 4 hand 1 1 children 1 1 hit 8 24 dab 1 1 hurt 2 6 face 1 1 kiss 1 1 hand 1 1 li p s 1 1 hit 8 24 pain 1 2 kiss 3 3 punishment 1 3 l i c k 1 1 slap 3 9 punch 1 3 slap 2 6 sound 1 1 19 50 22 46 (mean 2.63 2.09) (variance0.58 0.52) - 81 -A Ss NA Ss  Stimulus responses f f x responses f f x word value value STORM black darkness dust fear lightening rain thunder typhoon wind window wires 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 5 1 1 1 3 5 10 1 1 _1 1 19 29 Cloud cold fury gale rage rain thunder tree violent wind 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 7 7 2 2 1 1 1 3 5 10 22 31 1.40) 0.35 (mean 1.52 (variance 0.37 CUFF coat 1 1 collar 2 2 hit 1 3 hit 2 6 link 3 3 jacket 1 1 pants 1 1 link 3 3 shirt 9 9 men 1 1 sleeve 2 2 pants 1 1 white 2 2 shirt 8 8 shoe 1 1 sleeve 3 3 19 21 22 26 (mean 1.10 (variance 0.21 1.18 0.35J aggressive 1 5 angry 2 6 bully 1 3 cruel 1 3 fear 1 2 hate 1 2 hurt 1 3 horrible 1 3 nasty 4 8 person 1 1 sorry 1 1 straight 1 1 strike 1 4 test 1 1 vicious 1 4 19 47 mean 2.47 variance 1. angry 2 6 ani mgQ 1 1 average 1 1 bad 1 2 bully 1 3 cruel 2 6 man 1 1 miserable 1 2 nasty 4 8 person 1 1 shower 1 1 temper 1 3 terror 1 3 ugly 1 1 unfair 2 2 variation 1 1 22 42 1.90) 0.75) - 82 -A Ss NA Ss Stimulus responses f f X responses f f X word value value PELT beaver 1 1 beaver 3 3 belt 2 8 bullet 1 4 fur 5 5 encourage 1 1 hai l 3 3 fur 3 3 hit 3 9 hail 2 2 muskrat 1 1 hit 1 3 rain 1 1 rain 3 3 skin 1 1 rock 1 2 stone 1 4 skin 4 4 throw 1 2 stone 1 4 strike 1 4 throw 1 2 19 35 22 35 (mean 1.84 1.59) (variance 1.47 1.21 POUND butter 2 2 beat 2 6 cake 1 1 butter 3 3 compress 1 2 diet 1 1 • hammer 3 9 fight 1 3 mit 5 15 hammer 3 9 meat 1 1 hit 3 9 minced 1 1 inches 1 1 ounce 2 2 lard •, 1 1 table 1 1 meat 1 1 weight 2 2 ounce 3 3 weight 3 3 19 36 22 40 (mean 1.89 1.82) (variance 0.99 1.01) STEAL bridge 1 1 bridge 3 3 carcass 1 1 building 1 1 careful 1 1 hard 2 2 construction 1 1 iron 3 3 crane 1 1 j a i l 1 1 gray- 1 1 money 2 2 iron 3 3 pinch 1. 2 j a i l 1 1 rob 3 6 manufacture 1 1 robber 1 2 metal 2 2 sharp 1 2 mind 1 1 take 1 2 robber 2 4 thing 1 1 take 1 2 thief 2 4 thief 2 4 19 24 22 31 (mean 1.26 1.40) (variance 0.21 0.25) - 83 -A Ss NA Ss Stimulus responses f f X responses f f X word value value TACKLE fight 2 6 fight 1 3 fis h 2 2 fish 2 2 fishing 1 1 fishing 2 2 football 12 36 football 14 42 ground 1 1 grab 1 2 wrestle 1 3 injure 1 3 pursue 1 1 19 49 22 55 mean 2.57 2.50) variance 0.39 0.74) angry 1 3 bal l 2 2 baseball 2 2 hate 1 2 hurt 4 12 miss 2 2 run 2 2 slap 2 6 smash 2 4 strike 1 4 19 41 (mean 2.15 (variance 1.07 bal l 3 3 baseball 5 5 car 2 2 f i s t 1 2 hard 1 1 hurt 1 3 miss 2 2 slap 1 3 smack 4 12 stick 1 2 strike 1 4 22 39 1.77) 1.04) break 1 3 car 2 2 hammer 1 3 hurt 1 3 machine 1 1 monkey 1 1 nai l 1 1 pipe 1 1 pull 3 3 sever 1 4 sprain 1 2 tool 3 3 turn 1 1 twist 1 4 19 32 (mean 1.68 (variance 1.23 car 1 1 crowbar 1 2 g i r l 1 1 hurt 3 9 machine 1 1 nut 1 1 pain 1 2 pry 1 1 pull 1 1 stench 1 1 snatch 1 2 tool 3 3 tear 2 4 twist 3 12 wriggle 1 1 22 42 1.90) 1.23) - 84 -A Ss NA Ss  Stimulus responses f f x responses f f x word aggravate 1 2 angry 7 21 angry 6 18 annoyed 1 1 crazy 1 1 argue 1 1 cross 1 2 bad 1 2 cry 1 1 crazy 3 3 dog 1 1 deranged 1 1 excited 1 1 dog 1 1 furious 1 3 fear 1 2 insane 2 2 fierce 1 2 man 1 1 hate 1 2 red 1 1 insane 2 2 scream 1 2 magazine 1 1 slam 1 3 scared 1 1 19 38 22 40 (mean 2.00 1.82) (variance 0.89 0.82) - 85 -APPENDIX F Mean response values and levels of significance for the Fear Words A Ss NA Ss word X s 2 X s 2 df t b fear 1.68 0.56 1.73 0.68 39 0.85 > .05 fright 1.52 0.60 1.40 0.30 39 1.14 >.05 dread 1.84 0.25 1.54 0.26 39 1.32 >.05 danger 1.73 0.76 1.32 0.23 39 1.49 >.05 afraid 1.36 0.36 1.27 0.39 39 0.47 >.05 threat 1.78 0.84 1.82 0.44 39 1.04 ;>.05 tremble 1.31 0.34 1.40 0.35 39 0.79 >.05 - 87 -APPENDIX a - 88 Comparison of Study I Rs, Study I experimental Ss and Study II Rs on the variables sex, academic standing and age Study Study I Study I Rs* exp. Ss II Rs* SEX male 18 13 9 female 11 28 11 ACADEMIC YEAR f i r s t 16 38 17 second 8 2 2 third 5 1 1 AGE RANGE 18-27 18-27 18-25 * The Rs here are those who rated the A:NA words on the dimension of similarity of meaning to the con-cept of aggression. - 89 -APPENDIX H - 90 -Comparison of Study I and Study II standard deviations of the A:NA terms rated as having a median of three word Study I Study II word Study I Study II s s s s mean 0.19 0.26 break < 1.02 1.06 smack 0.24 0.18 mad 1.03 1.09 hit 0.25 0.32 steal 1.05 0.95 cuff 0.26 0.51 pound 1.07 1.18 tackle 0.27 0.16 storm 1.13 1.29 wrench 1.01 0.84 pelt 1.24 1.11 - 9 1 -APPENDIX J - 92 -Buss-Durkee Total Aggression and Motor Component scores of the Study II A and NA Ss* A Ss NA Ss Total MC Total MC B-D score B-D score score score 56 38 15 5 54 35 14 6 53 35 8 6 51 35 15 9 57 34 14 9 50 34 21 10 48 34 22 11 51 33 24 12 44 33 22 12 44 33 22 12 48 32 21 12 48 31 20 12 44 31 20 12 43 31 20 13 42 31 24 14 50 30 21 14 47 30 23 15 42 30 20 15 42 30 24 16 50 30 22 16 * scores are arranged i n descending order by MC score for the A Ss and Ascending order by MC score for the NA S. - 93 -APPENDIX K - 94 -The purpose of this study i s to scale words on a dimension of similarity of meaning to the concept of aggression. The dimension of similarity to aggression i s as follows: neutral mild moderate strong extreme' 1 .2 3 4 5 In other words, this dimension may be thought of in terms of a continuum that ranges from no discernable similarity (i.e., neutral) through to extreme similarity. Your task i s to judge each word li s t e d below with respect to this dimension of similarity to aggression. For example, consider the words "murderous", "malicious", "carpet", "offensive", and "surly". A judge such as yourself has made an estimate of the simi-l a r i t y of these five terms to aggression by placing after the words a number which corresponds to the dimension scale above: 1. murderous J L . 2. malicious Jt_ 3. carpet 1 4. offensive 2 5. surly In other words, this judge thought that murderous was extremely related in meaning to aggression and thus he assigned the word a rating of 5; he f e l t the word malicious was strongly related to aggression and thus he assigned i t a value of 4; he f e l t the word carpet had no similarity i n meaning to aggression and thus he as-signed the word a rating of 1; and so on. Indicate your own judgements of the similarity of the following terms to aggression in the same.manner. That i s , assign each word a number in the space provided after i t . The number which you assign i t (either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) w i l l correspond to the aggression scale above. 3e certain to make a rating for each word. 1. grass 31. cleave 61. universe 2. arm 32. average 62. warmth 3. paint 33. butter 63. flow 4. angry 34. baseball 64. beat 5. dress 35. drunk 65. bridge 6. aggressive 36. altitude 66. building 7. spring 37. building 67. plant 8. animal 33. ladder 68. compress 9. wings 39. clouds 69. careful 10. pretty 40. sky 70. l i f e 11. anvil 41. break 71. dirt 12. bully 42. b r i t t l e 72. round 13. bind 43. friend 73. ground 14. flower 44. mountain 74. club 15. bird 45. chair 75. drop 16. yellow 46. annoyed 76. darkness 17. dust 47. blow 77. wet 18. bat 48. argue 78. home 19. ant 49. car 79. roses 20. caterpillar 50. china 80. cry 21. bright 51. b a l l 81. cut 22. motion 52. black 82. house 23. beaver 53. crash 83. children 24. belt 54. brown. 84. wood 25. aggravate 55. planet 85. bungalow 26. f i e l d 56. garden 86. collar 27. bee 57. s o i l 87. construct 28. sun 58. bad 88. beach 29. low 59. coat 89. crazy 30, airplane 60. cruel 90. crane PAGE 2 91. d i s l o c a t e 92. h i l l 93. comfort 94. sea 95. dab 9 6 . l a k e 97. black 93. d i e t 99. deranged 1 0 0 . e x c i t e d 1 0 1 . l o v e 1 0 2 . place 1 0 3 . p eaceful 104. f e a r 1 0 5 . f u r 1 0 6 . cozy 1 0 7 . dishes 1 0 $ . s e t 1 0 9 . f i g h t 1 1 0 . f i s h 1 1 1 . top 1 1 2 . l a m p 1 1 3 . f o o t b a l l 1 1 4 . f u r n i t u r e 1 1 5 . f u r i o u s 1 1 6 . face 1 1 7 . food 1 1 c ! . apple 1 1 9 . bloom 1 2 0 . f u r y 1 2 1 . f e l l 1 3 2 . b i r t h 1 2 3 . peach 1 2 4 . f i s h i n g 1 2 5 . c o l o r 1 2 6 . f i e r c e 127. gray 4.28. grab 1 2 9 . cherry 1 3 0 . f r u i t 1 3 1 . f a s t 1 3 2 . gas 1 3 3 . gale 1 3 4 . walk 1 3 $ . s n a i l 1 3 6 . t u r t l e „ 1 3 7 . d u m b x . 1 3 B . g o l d 1 3 9 . hurt 1 4 0 . hand 1 4 1 . s l u g 1 4 ? . b r o t h e r 1 4 3 . h i t 1 4 4 ' d r a g 1 4 5 .worker 1 4 o . c o t t a g e 1 4 ? . h a t e 1 4 0 . h a i l 1 4 9 . f a m i l y 1 5 0 . g i r l 1 5 1 . l u m b e r 1 5 2 , . h i d e 1 5 3 ' . hammer 1 5 ^ . p e o p l e 1 5 ^ . h o r r i b l e 1 5 6 . l i n e 1 5 7 . h u g _ 1 5 6 \ h e a d 1 5 9 . l a r g e _ 160. b i g _ 1 6 1 . hook 1 6 2 c h a r d l 6 3 c h o m e r u n 1 6 4 . warm _ 165. muskrat _ 166 .horror 1 6 7 . i r o n 168.insane _ 1 6 9 . tune _ 1 7 0 , s i n g _ 1 7 1 . i n j u r e _ 172. j a i l 1 7 3 . boy 1 7 4 . j a c k e t 1 7 5 . k i s s 1 7 6 . l i p s 1 7 7 . l i n k ~ 1 7 8 . come _ 179. money _ 180 . manufacture 181. mouth _ 1 8 2 . t r a i n 1 8 3 . metal _ l 8 4 > m i n d _ 1 8 $ . c a l l 186. a t t r a c t _ 1 8 7 . s h r i l l miss _ 189. monkey ~ 190. happy "~ 191. yodel ~ 1 9 2 . men 1 9 3 . meat ~ 1 9 4 - m a g a z i n e • '~ 195. road 1 9 6 . avenue 1 9 7 - l a n e 1 9 8 . mental 199. man 200. mode " 2 0 1 . pavement ~ 202. name 2 0 3 . sidewalk " 2 0 4 . nasty 2 0 5 . n a i l 2 0 6 . nut 2 0 7 . l o n g 208. bus 2 0 9 . busy 2 1 0 . smooth " 211.ounce " 2 1 2 . overweight" 2 1 3 . hard 2 1 4 . bed ; 2 1 5 . pieces " 23.6. punishment" 2 1 7 . p i i i o w ; 2 1 8 . pants \ 2 1 9 c person .220.red " 2 2 1 .weightless^ 2 2 2 . touch 2 2 3 . v e l v e t ' 2 2 4 . p u l l 2 2 5 . pipe 2 2 6 . s t o r e 2 2 7 . f o r e s t 2 2 8 . p i n 2 2 9 . pursue 2 3 0 . pain 2 3 1 . fence 2 3 2 . horse 2 3 4 . r a i n 2 3 5 . poem t 2 3 6 . stomach 237. net 3 2 3 8 . r a i l w a y 2 3 9 . robber "*" 2 4 0 . r e e l *" 2 4 1 . b u t t e r ~ 2 4 2 . white — 2 4 3 . f l u t t e r — 2 4 4 « r a g e — 2 4 5 . rob — 2 4 6 . record — 2 4 7 . severed — 2 4 8 . dawn — 2 4 9 . tower — 2 5 0 . k i t e — 2 5 1 . smash 2 5 2 . stop 2 5 3 . height _ 254. t a l l _ 2 5 5 . shy _ 2 5 6 . s l a p ~" 2 5 7 . swat "~ 2 $ 8 . s h i r t ' ~ 2 5 9 . sleeve ~* 2 6 0 . smack ~" 2 6 1 . stone 2 6 2 . s t r a i g h t 2 6 3 . pry 2 6 4 . scream 2 6 5 . sore 2 6 6 . world 2 6 7 . heaven 2 6 8 . death 2 6 9 . marriage 2 7 0 . slam 2 7 1 • s o u n d 2 7 2 . cabin 2 7 3 . v i l l a g e 2 7 4 . s k i n 2 7 5 . s t r i k e 2 7 6 . r o o f 2 7 7 . summer 2 7 8 . country 2 7 9 . sharp 2 8 0 . snatch 2 8 1 . scared 2 8 2 . typhoon 2 8 3 . f l a t 2 8 4 . f e s t i v a l 2 8 5 . pink 2 8 6 , l o n g 2 8 7 . throw 2 8 8 . t a b l e - 96 -289. take 290. l a d i n g 291. quick 292. sludge 293.lethargic 294. thief 295. tool 296.learn 297. garden 298. new 299. town 300. turn 301. twist 302. door 303. music 304. tear 305. s h r i l l 306. noise 307. hum 308. thunder 309. tree 310. terror 311. station 312. funny 313. young 314. sing 315. temper P A G E ii 3 316.unfair 317•unplea sant 318.narrow 319•thoroughfare 320. number 321. pole: 322. vicious 323*violent 324i Variation 325ilightening 326iwind 327<narrow 328. curb 329. *.vd.res 330 i white-331*Weight 332. dirty 333. flesh 334. f l u f f 335. cotton 336. wroatling 337. waters 338. pliable 339. wriggle 340. palpable - 97 -A P P E N D I X L - 98 -A Ss 1 word associations* to the A:NA words; values of the associations; mean response values; and total aggression scores A:NA word 1. 2. 4- 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. S (sex) Ss' tota! AL (f) response a a a a a a a a a a a a value 4 4 2 1 3 1 4 2 3 4 3 3 34 IK (m) response b b a b b b a b b b b b value 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 3 38 BN (m) response a a b b c c b c b c c c value 4 4 1 4 3 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 35 PS (m) response e b c b d d c d c a d d value 3 4 2 4 5 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 34 IW (m) response b c a b b a d e a d e e value 4 1 2 4 4 1 1 3 3 1 4 2 30 MM (f) response d a a c e b c d d e a a value 4 4 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 3 3 29 VS (m) response e a a c f e e e a d f f value 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 25 HL (m) response f a b d g f f a a d g a value 1 4 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 3 24 MP (m) response d a d e h g a f b f h g value 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 2 1 1 28 AB (f) response g d d c h h e g b g i h value 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 4 2 1 4 23 TS (f) response h e e f d i g h a h g i value 1 2 2 3 5 . 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 24 ST (f) response h f f f b b h i e i e a value 1 4 1 3 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 3 31 MC (f) response i a g a i b i d a j value 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 4 2 3 29 JD (f) response h f h g g g i b b i b k value 1 4 1 1 3 1 I 1 4 4 1 1 23 PT (f) response h a d c i c a i a g b c value 1 4 1 1 4 3 4 1 3 2 1 4 29 WW (f) response i c f f j a 3 f h e a value 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 3 22 OT (f) response h d a h h g i b g 3 k h value 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 22 AT (f) response b h b f i k a a 1 1 value 1 4 2 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 3 2 30 LL (f) response h g d c i a a 1 a h b e value 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 1 2 22 ES (f) response k h d c k k c g b a h a value 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2, 4 4. 1 3 24 TOTALS 40 62 29 38 69 43 42 29 59 51 39 55 556 MEAN 3.10 1.90 2.15 1.45 2.55 2. 75 27.80 MEAN 2.00 1.45 3.45 2.10 2.95 1.95 * see next page for an explanation of the letters, which represent the word associations. - 99 -A Ss' word associations to the A:NA words A:NA word 1. BREAK associations* 2. SMACK 3. STORM 4 . CUEF a — hurt b — severed c — cleave d — smash e - drop f - pieces S - stop h — car i — china j - b a l l k — arm a _ hit b — hurt c - hand d - l i p s e - punishment f - slap g — swat h — crash a _ wind b - wires c - typhoon d — rain e — fear f — black g — darkness h - dust a link b — hit c — shirt d — sleeve e - pants• f - smack g — coat h — white A:NA word 5. MEAN associations* 6. PELT 7. POUND a angry b — cruel c - horrible d - aggressive e — fear f-— bully g — hate h — nasty i — vicious j - straight k — person a — h a i l b — hit c — stone d — belt e — muskrat f — belt g - fur h — hide i — beaver j — animal k — throw a _ hit b - money c — hammer d - overweight e — ounce f - anvil g - compress h — table i - weight 0 butter * the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to the letters used i n the table of Appendix L. - 100 -A Ss' word associations to the AtNA words (cont'd)  A:HA word associations* A:MA word associations* 8. STEAL 9 . TACKLE 10. HIT a — j a i l 11. WRENCH a - twist b — iron b — tool c — mind c — sever d — metal d - n a i l e — robber e — hurt f - railway- f - hammer g - take g - pull h — careful h - car i — manufacture i — turn J - gray - bind k — thief k - monkey 1 — crane 1 — break a _ football 12. MAD a _ angry b — fight b - fierce c - wrestling c - furious d - grab d — crazy e — reel e — scream f - ground f - slam g — f i s h g — excited h — violent a — hurt i - aggravate b — hate - horror c — club k - cry d - baseball 1 - insane e - miss f — sore g — blow h . -b a l l i - slap 3 - smash * the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to the letters used i n the table of Appendix L. - 101 -NA Ss 1 word associations* to the A:NA words; values of the associations; mean response values; and total aggression scores A:NA word 1. 2. 3- 4- 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11. 12. Ss' . S (sex) total DB (f) response a a a a a a a a a a a a value 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 16 DD (f) response b b b b b b b b b b b b value 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 19 TL (f) response c b c c c c c c b c c c value 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 18 AG (f) response d c d d d d d d c b d d value 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 18 RS (m) response e d e d a d a e b d b e value 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 18 SP (m) response f e f e e e d f a a b f value 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 17 SH (m) response g d b d f f a g a e e d value 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 19 TF (f) response b a b f e b d h d f f e value 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1. 1 1 3 3 18 AK (m) responses : h f g g g c e i b e g d value 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 20 PW (f) response f c f c d c f g d g h g value 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 19 MW (f) response h g f h f g d d b b b g value 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 21 CB (m) response i c b d h h e j a h d a value 1 4 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 21 IS (f) response 0 b b i i b g g b i i d value 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 3 4 2 2 28 DC (m) response h b h d j d f d b b b h value 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 22 NS (f) response f c b g k d h k e j f i value 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 24 LL (f) response j h f g J a g 1 b b j e 26 value 2 4 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 1 3 ZT (f) response i i b d a h i a f k k d value 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 17 AK (m) response k c b d f b e d b 1 k e value 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 21 IB (m) response i j d b i b 0 c b k b e 26 value 1 2 1 4 4 1 4 1 3 1 1 3 VN (m) response i c i g b d e f e b J value 1 4 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 22 TOTAL 32 42 28 26 42 29 37 28 44 32 28 42 410 MEAN 1.60 1.40 2.10 1.85 2.20 1.40 20.50 MEAN 2.10 1. 30 1.45 1.40 1.60 2.10 * see next page for an explanation of the letters, which represent the word associations. - 102 -NA Ss' word associations to the A:NA words A:NA word associations* A:NA word associations* 1. BREAK 2. SMACK 3. STORM 4. CUFF a — waters 5. MEAN a — bad b — stop b - mode c - cut c - animal d - pipe d - average e — china e — unfair f - glass f - nasty g — crash g - variation h — dislocate h — unpleasant i — car i - cruel 3 - tear 3 - angry k — b r i t t l e k — terror a _ sound 6. PELT a hai l b — kiss b — rain c — hit c — skin d — l i p s d - beaver e — hug e strike f — face f — animal g — children g — throw h — slap h — hit i — dab 3 — bad 7. POUND a — butter b — ground a — wet c — beat , b — rain d — hammer c — tree e — meat d — cloud f - weight e — gale g - hit f — wind h — diet g — thunder i — sound h rage 3 - fright i — fury- 8. STEAL a — head a — gold b - metal b — hit c - bridge c — link d - iron d — shirt e - building e — collar f - money f - jacket g - rob g — sleeve h — sharp h — pants i - construct i — mean 3 - thief k — j a i l 1 - pin * the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to the letters used in the preceding table. - 103 -NA Ss 1 word associations to the A;NA words cont'd A:NA word associations* A:NA word associations* 9. TACKLE 10. HIT a — fishing 11. WRENCH a — pain b — football b — tool c - grab c - pipe d — hook d - car e — injure e - wriggle f — line f — twist g — tear a — b a l l h - pull b - baseball i - snatch c - miss j - pry d — record k — nut e — smack f — hard 12. MAD a — annoyed g - homerun b - deranged h - miss c - magazine i — slap d - crazy j - strike e — angry k — car f — man 1 — bat g — mental h - argue i - scared j - temper * The letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to letters used in the preceding table. - 104 -APPENDIX M - 105 -A Ss' word associations* to the Nu words; values of the associ ations; mean response values; andtotal aggression scores. Nu word 1. 2. 5. 4- 5. 6. 7- 8. 10. 11. 12 S (sex) Ss 1 toti AL (f) aft6! response a a a a a a a a a a a a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 IK (m) response a b a b b a a a b b b b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 BN (m) response b c b c c b b a a a c c value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 PS (m) response a d a d d c c a a c a b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 IW (m) response a e c e e d b b a a d d value 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 MM (f) response c f a f f e d c c d e e value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 VS (m) response a g a g g f e d d e f f value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 HL (m) response a f d d a g f a c f g g value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 MP (m) response a h a d b a a a b g h b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 AB (f) response a b e h b a a a e h i b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 TS (f) response a e f i h a a a f i a h value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 ST (f) response d i g j i h g e g 3 3 e value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 MC (f) response a e a k 3 a a a a k a e value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 JD (f) response a 3 h 1 k a a f h 1 k d value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 14 PT (f) response a k i m 1 h h g i m 1 i value 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 18 WW (f) response a b 3" k m a i h a i e c value 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 OT (f) response a c a i b a 3 a f 3* e b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 AT (f) response a 1 3 h n b k i g f b 3 14 value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 LL (f) response a m a i e a a a k m e value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 ES (f) response a n 1 n 0 a d 3" i c n e 12 value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTALS20 21 22 20 22 20 20 25 20 23 20 20 253 MEAN 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.65 MEAN 1.05 1.00 1,00 1.25 1.15 1.00 * see next page for an explanation of the letters, which represent the word associations. - 106 -A Ss 1 word associations to the Nu words Nu word associations* 1. GREEN a — grass b - paint c - dress d — spring 2. BUTTERFLY a — pretty-b - wings c — flower d — bird e - yellow f — insect — ant h - caterpillar i — bright i - beautiful k — motion 1 — f i e l d m - bees n — sun 3. HIGH a _ low b — airplane c — drink d — altitude e — ladder f - building g-— clouds h — sky i - b a l l j — friend k — mountain 1 — chair 4. EARTH a _ brown b — planet c - garden d - s o i l e — universe f — warmth g — flow h - plant i - sky j — l i f e k — dirt 1 — round m — ground n — wet Nu word 5. COTTAGE associations 6. TABLE 7. BLOSSOM 8. SLOW a b c d e f g h i i k 1 m n o a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h i j k a b c d e f g h i home house woods bungalow beach roses h i l l comfort sea lake black love place peaceful cozy chair dishes set wood top lamp furniture food flower apple bloom tree f e l l birth peach color cherry spring fr u i t fast walk snail tree turtle dumb slug brother drag worker the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to letters in the preceding table. - 107 -A Ss' word associations to the Nu words (cont'd) Nu word associations* Nu word associations* 9. HOUSE a — home 11. STREET a — road b — cottage b - avenue c - family- c - lane d — g i r l d - place e — lumber e - car f — car f — woman g - people g - pavement h - large h — name i — warmth i - sidewalk j — big 3 — trees k - long a — tune 1 - people b - sing m - bus c - boy n — busy d — come e — wind 12. SOFT a — smooth f — mouth b - hard g — stop c - bed h — train d — fur i — c a l l e - pillow j — track f — red k - attract g - weight lei 1 — s h r i l l h - warm m — happy i - touch 3 — velvet * the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to the letters i n the preceiding table. 108 -NA Ss 1 word associations* to the Nu words; values of the as-sociations; mean response values; and total aggression scores. Nu word 1. 2. 3 . 4 - 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 S 0(sex) DB (.f). response a a a a a a a a a a a a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 DD (f) response a b b b b b b b b b b a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 TL (f) response b c c b c c b a c c c b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 14 AG (f) response a a d b d a b e c d d c value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 ES (m) response a d a a e a c a d e b d value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 12 SF (m) response c e a c d a b a e f e e value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 SH (m) response a f a d f a b d c g f f value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 TF (f) response a g a c g a b a f g g a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 AK (m) response d h e c h a d e d c h a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 14 PW (f) response a i f f i a e a g h a g value 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 MW (f) response e i a d 3 a f a c i a a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 CB (m) response a a g d g a g f h j i h value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 IS (f) response a b h a d a b a c k c b value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 DC (m) response a j e g k a f a i •3 3 a value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 NS (f) response a k i e d a h g c c k i value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 14 LL (f) response a j a e 1 a i h j 1 a g 12 value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ZT (f) response a 1 e c m a j a k m 1 3 value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 AK (m) response a m d e k a f a 0 3 1 k value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 IB (m) response f n a d c a b i 1 d e 1 value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 VN (m) response a 0 a h c a h a c k f m 12 value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTALS 20 20 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 26 21 20 249 MEAN 1.00 1. 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 12.45 MEAN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.05 - 109 -NA Ss' word associations to the Nu words Nu words 1. GREEN 2. BUTTERFLY 3. HIGH 4. EARTH associations* Nu words associations* a - grass 5. COTTAGE a _ country b - store b - white c - forest c — house d - fence d - lake e - horse e — summer f - red f - bungalow g - village a - beautiful h - roof b - yellow i - beach c - bird - home d - wings k - sea e - poem 1 — cabin f - stomach m — marriage g - net h - butter 6. TABLE a — chair i - pretty b - smooth j - flower c - f l a t k - white 1 - spring 7. BLOSSOM a - pink m - insect b - flower n - f l y c - peach o - flutter d - cherry e — festival a - low f — tree b - down g - red c - tower h - apple d - sky i - bloom e - mountain J — spring f - drunk g - kite 8. SLOW a — fast h - height b - long i - t a l l c - lagging d - quick a - s o i l e - c h i l l b - brown f - car c - world g - sludge d - ground h - lethargic e - dirt i - learn f - heaven g - f i e l d h - death the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to the letters used in the preceding table. - 110 -NA Ss..' word associations to the Nu words (cont'd) Nu word 9. HOUSE 10. WHISTLE associations* Nu word associations* a - door 11. STREET a road b - warm b - car c - home c — narrow d - car d - thoroughfare e - town e — town f - people f - avenue g - new g - number h - cottage h - pole i - garden i - lightening j - big 3 - curb k - family k - dirty 1 - comfort 1 — house a - music 12. SOFT a — pillow b - happy b - fur c - s h r i l l c - palpable d - noise d - pliable e - hum e — touch f - station f — smooth g - c a l l g - hard h - funny h - cotton i - tune i - pink j - train - warm k - sound k — f l u f f 1 .- blow 1 - flesh m - young m — bed * the letters a,b,c, etc., correspond to the letters i n the preceding table. - I l l -BIBLIOGRAPHY - 112 -Bandura, A., and Huston, A.C. Identification as a process of incidental learning. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1961, 63, 311-318. Bandura, A., Ross, D., .and Ross, S.A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1961, 63, 575-582. Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S.A. Imitation of film-me-diated aggressive models. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1962. Berkowitz, L. Aggression: a social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Binswanger, L. On the psychogalvanic phenomenon in association experiments. In C.G. Jung (ed.) Studies in word-association. London: William Heinemann, 1918, 446-530. Block, J., Commonality in word association and personality. Psychol. Rep.. I960, 7, 332. Boyer, R.A., and Elton, CF. Effect of instructions on free association. J. educ. Psychol.. 1958, 49, 304-308. Buchwald, A.M. The generality of the norms of word-associations. Amer. J. Psychol.. 1957, 70, 233-237. Bugelski, B.R., and Scharlock, D.P. An experimental demonstra-tion of unconscious mediated association. J. exp. Psychol. 1952, 44, 334-338. Buss, A.H., and Durkee, A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hos t i l i t y . J. consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 343-349. Buss, A.H., and Durkee, A. Verbal conditioning of hostile and neutral words. J. consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 415-418. Buss, A.H., Durkee, A., and Baer, M.B. The measurement of hostil i t y in c l i n i c a l situations. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 84-86. Carroll, J.B., Kjeldergaard, P.M., and Carton, A.S. Number of opposites vs number of primaries as a response measure in free association tests. J. verb, learn, verb, behav.. 1962, 1, 22-30. Cofer, C.N., Comparisons of word associations obtained by the methods of discrete single word and continued associations. Psych. Rep., 1958, 4, 507-510. - 113 -Cofer, C.N., and Foley, J.P., Jr. Mediated generalization and the interpretation of verbal behavior: I. Prolegomena. Psvchol. Rev.. 1942, 49, 513-540. Cofer, C.N., and Shevitz, R. Word association as a function of word frequency. Am. J. Psychol.. 1952, 65, 75-79. Cook, W.W., and Medley, D.M. Proposed host i l i t y and pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI. J. appl. Psychol.. 1954, 38, 414-418. Dollard, J., Miller, N.E., Doob, L.W., Mowrer, O.H., and Sears, R.R. Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale . University Press, 1939. Dorken, H. Jr. Frequency of common associations. Psychol. Rep. 1956, 2, 407-408. Dunn, S., Bliss, J., and Siipola, B. Effects of impulsivity, introversion, and individual values upon association under free conditions. J. Pers.. 1958, 26, 61-67. Edwards, A. Edwards' personal preference schedule: manual of instructions. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1953. Eisenson, J. The Psychology of speech. New York: Century Crofts, 1938. Ervin, S.M. Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word-association. Amer. J. Psychol.. 1961, 74, 361-372. Ferguson, G.A. Statistical analysis in psychology and educa-tion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Foley, J.P. Jr., and MacMillah, Z.L. Mediated generalization and the interpretation of verbal behavior: V. 'Free association* as related to differences in professional training. J. exp. Psychol.. 1943, 33, 299-310. Freud, S. The economic problem in masochism. In J. Strachey (ed.) Collected papers of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 2, New York: Basic Books, 1959. Galton, F. Inquiries into human faculty and i t s development. J. M. Dent and Company, London: 1879. Gilliland, A.R. A revision of some results with the Moore-Gilliland aggressiveness test. J. appl. Psychol.. 1926, 10, 143-150. - 114 -Gleser, G.C, Gottschalk, L.A., and John W. The relationship of sex and in t e l l i g e n c e to choice of words: A normative study of verbal behavior. J. c l i n . Psychol.. 1959, 15, 182-191. Goldstein, M.J., The relationship between anxiety and o r a l word association performance. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1961, 62, 468-471. Goodenough, F.L. The use of free association i n the objective measurement of personality. In M. M e r r i l l and Q. McNear (eds.) Studies i n personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1942, 87-103. Guthrie, E.R., The psychology of learning. New York: Harper, 1952. Hartmann, G.W. Frustration phenomena i n the s o c i a l and p o l i t i -c a l sphere. Psychol. Rev.. 1941, 48, 362-363. Havron, M.D., Nordlie, P.G., and Cofer, C.N. Measurement of attitudes by a simple word association technique. J . s o c i a l Psychol.. 1957, 46, 81-89. Hebb, D.O. The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley, 1949. Howes, D. On the r e l a t i o n between the probability of a word as an association and i n general l i n q u i s t i c usage. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957, 54, 75-85. Hu l l , C.L. Knowledge and purpose as habit mechanisms. Psychol. Rev.. 1930, 37, 511-525. Jackson, 1. Aggression and i t s interpretation. London: Methuen and Company Ltd., 1954. Jenkins, J.J., and Russell, W.A. Systematic changes i n word association norms: 1910-1952. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. I960, 60, 293-304. Jung, C. The association method. Amer. J. Psychol., 1910, 21, 219-269. Jung, C.G. (ed.) Studies i n word association. London: William Heinemann, 1918, a. Jung, C.G. Reaction time i n association experiments. In C. G. Jung (ed.) Studies i n word association. 227-265. b. Jung, C.G., and R i k l i n , F. The associations of normal subjects. In C.G. Jung (ed.) Studies i n word association, 8-172. - 115 -Karwoski, T.F., and Berthold, F. Jr. Psychological studies in semantics: II. Reliability of free association tests. J. soc. Psychol.. 1945, 22, 87-102. Kent, G.H., and Rosanoff, A.J. A study of association in insanity. Amer. J. Insanity. 1910, 67, 37-97, 317-390. Laffal, J., and Feldman, S. The structure of single word and continuous word associations. J. verb, learn, verb. behav.. 1962, 1, 54-61. Lansky, L.M., Crandall, V.J., Kagan, J., and Baker, CT. Sex differences in aggression and i t s correlates in middle-class adolescents. Child Develpm.. 1961, 32, 45-58. Levy, D.M. The hostile act. Psychol. Rev., 1941, 48, 356-361. McGee, S. Measurement of hostility - a pilot study. J. c l i n . Psychol., 1954, 10, 280-282. McGinnies, E. Personal values as determinants of word-asso-ciation. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1950, 45, 28-36. Meadow, A., Greenblatt, M., and Solomon, H.C. "Looseness of association" and impairment in abstraction in schizo-phrenia. J. nerv. ment. Pis.. 1953, 118, 27-35. Miller, N.E. (with the collaboration of R.R. Sears, 0., H. Mowrer, L.W. Doob and J. Dollard). The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychol. Rev., 1941, 48, 337-343. Moore, A.T., and Gillilan d , A.R., The measurement of aggres-siveness. J. appl. Psychol.. 1921, 5, 97-118. Moran, L.J. Vocabulary knowledge and usage among normal and schizophrenic subjects. Psychol. Monogr.t 1953, (20, whole no. 370)• Murphy, G. Types of word associationin dementai praecox, manic depressive and normal persons. Amer. J. Psychiat.. 1923, 79, 539-571. Nunberg, H. On the physical accompaniments of association processes. In C.G. Jung (ed.) Studies in word-associa-tion. 531-560. Riklin, F. Cases illustrating the phenomena of association in hysteria. In C.G. Jung (ed.) Studies in word-asso-ciation. 322-353. - 116 -Rosanoff, A. Manual of psychiatry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1927, part IV, chpt. VI. Rosanoff, I.R., and Rosanoff, A.J. A study of association in children. Psychol. Rev., 1915, 20, 43-89. Russell, W.A., and Jenkins, J.J. The complete Minnesota norms for responses to 100 words from the Kent-Rosanoff word association test. In M.A. Tinker and W.A. Russell Intro-duction to methods in experimental psychology. New York, Appleton-Century Crofts, 1958, part IX, chpt. XI, and 269-271. Russell, W.A., and Storms, L.H. Implicit verbal chaining i n paired associate learning. J. exp. Psychol.. 1955, 49, 287-293. Sanford, F.H. Speech and personality. Psychol. Bull.. 1942, 39, 811-845. Sarason, I.G. A note on anxiety, instructions, and word association performance. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1961, 62, 153-154. a. Sarason, I.G. Intercorrelations among measures of hosti l i t y . J. c l i n . Psychol.. 1961, 17, 192-195, b. Schafer, R. Tests of personality: word techniques. A. Word association. In A. Weider (ed.) Contributions toward  Medical Psychology: Theory and psychodiagnostic methods. New York: Ronald Press, 1953, Vol II, 577-589. Scott, J.P., and Fredericson, E. The causes of fighting i n mice and rats. Physiol. Zool.. 1951, 24, 273-309. Sears, R.R. Non-aggressive reactions to frustration. Psychol. Rev.. 1941, 48, 343-346. Sears, R.R. Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1961, 63, 461-465. Sears, R.R., Hovland, I., and Miller, N.E. Minor studies of aggression: I. Measurement of aggressive behavior. J. Psychol., 1940, 9, 275-294. Siegel, S.M. The relationship of hostility to authoritariansm. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1956, 52, 368-372. Soskin, W.F. Symposium: Communication in the counselling situation. Amer. Psychologist.. 1953, 8, 272. - 117 -Starkweather, J.A. The communication-value of eontent-free . speech. Amer. J. Psychol.. 1956, 69, 121-123. a. Starkweather, J.A. Content-free speech as a fource of i n f o r -mation about the speaker. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1956, 5 2 , 394-402. b. Tendler, A.D. Signific a n t features of disturbance i n free association. J. Psychol.. 1945, 20, 65-89. Thomdike, B.L., and lorge, Irving. The teacher's word book  of 30.000 words. N.Y., Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1952. Tracy, J.A. A study of personality t r a i t s of mature actors and mature public speakers. Speech Monogr. I I , 1953, 53-56.. Tresselt, M.E., and Leeds, D.S. The Kent-Rosanoff word association:. I. New frequencies f o r ages 18-21 and a comparison with Kent-Rosanoff frequencies. J. genet.  Psychol., 1955, 87, 145-148. Tresselt, M.E., Leeds, D.S., and Mayzner, M.S. The Kent-Rosanoff word association: I I . A comparison of sex differences i n response frequencies. J. genet. Psychol., 1955, 87, 149-153. Vernon, P.E. The matching method applied to investigations Of personality. Psychol. B u l l . , 1936, 33, 149-177. Wehrlin, K. The associations of imbeciles and i d i o t s . In C.G. Jung (ed.) Studies i n word-association. 173-205. 

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.831.1-0105326/manifest

Comment

Related Items