Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the effects of ego-involvement on the ability of students to present contrary view-points… Jillings, Charles Robertson 1951

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1951_A8 J5 S7.pdf [ 2.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106628.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106628-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106628-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106628-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106628-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106628-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106628-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106628-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106628.ris

Full Text

art ft* A S T U D Y O F T H E E F F E C T S O F E G O - I N V O L V E M E N T O N  T H E A B I L I T Y O F S T U D E N T S T O P R E S E N T C O N T R A R Y V I E W - P O I N T S T O A N A F F E C T I V E L Y C H A R G E D T O P I C h y C H A R L E S R O B E R T S O N J I L L I N G S A- T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F MASTER O F A R T S i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P H I L O S O P H Y A N D P S Y C H O L O G Y W e a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d f r o m c a n d i d a t e s f o r t h e d e g r e e o f M A S T E R O F A R T S M e m b e r s o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P h i l o s o p h y a n d P s y c h o l o g y . T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 5 1 A S T U D Y O F T H E E F F E C T S O F E G O - E T V O L V E M M T O N T H E A B I L I T Y O F S T U D E N T S T O P R E S E N T C O N T R A R Y V I E W - P O I N T S T O A N A F F E C T I V E L Y C H A R G E D T O P I C A b s t r a c t W h a t d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l a p e r s o n e n c o u n t e r , a n d w h a t d e f e n s e s w i l l h e u s e , i f p l a c e d i n a p o s i t i o n w h e r e h e m u s t v e r b a l l y a t t a c k a g r o u p w i t h w h i c h h e h a s s t r o n g l y i d e n t i f i e d h i m s e l f ? I n a n a t t e m p t t o g a i n s o m e ' i n s i g h t i n t o t h i s p r o b l e m , t w o g r o u p s o f p e o p l e w e r e s e l e c t e d . O n e g r o u p w a s m a d e u p o f f i f t e e n m a l e u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s w h o h a d s t r o n g l y e g o - i n v o l v e d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h . T h e s e c o n d g r o u p , t h e c o n t r o l s , c o n s i s t e d o f f i f t e e n m a l e s t u d e n t s w h o s c o r e d i n t h e n e u t r a l z o n e o f t h e T h u r s t o n e -C h a v e s c a l e o f A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d t h e C h u r c h . B o t h g r o u p s f o u n d i t m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o a t t a . c k t h e c h u r c h t h a n t o s u p p o r t i t . . A l s o , w h e n - a t t a c k i n g t h e c h u r c h , b o t h g r o u p s t e n d e d m o r e t o w e a k e n t h e i r a r g u m e n t s b y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d b y m a k i n g c o n c e s s i o n s t o t h e o p p o s i n g v i e w - p o i n t . I n t e r m s o f g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p w e r e m u c h m o r e e f f e c t i v e ( c o n v i n c i n g ) i n t h e i r a r g u -m e n t s i n f a v o r o f t h e c h u r c h t h a n w e r e t h e n e u t r a l s . T h e r e w a s n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , h o w e v e r , i n t h e i r r e l a t i v e a b i l i t i e s t o a t t a c k t h e c h u r c h i n a c o n v i n c i n g m a n n e r . T h e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s h o w e d t h e g r e a t e s t d i s p a r i t y i n t e r m s o f r a t i n g s g a i n e d w h e n s u p p o r t i n g t h e c h u r c h , m i n u s r a t i n g s g a i n e d w h e n a t t a c k i n g i t . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s p a r i t y s c o r e s w a s n o t " s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , o u r p r i n c i p a l h y p o t h e s i s w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d . C o n t i n u o u s G . S . R . r e c o r d s w e r e m a d e w h i l e t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e e n g a g e d i n t h e t w o t a s k s . F r o m t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d , w e a r e u n a b l e t o s a y t h a t e i t h e r . o f t h e t v / o ' a c t i v i t i e s i s m o r e t e n s i o n - p r o d u c i n g f o r e i t h e r g r o u p . CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH 1 'The Problem . 1 Related. Research 2 II THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; MATERIALS 5 AND SUBJECTS EMPLOYED Experimental Design 5 Materials . 10 The Subjects 13 III THE PROCEDURE AND THE CONTROLS 17 EMPLOYED The Procedure 17 Controls 20 IV THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT 25 The G.S.R. Data 25 The G.S.R. Results 26' Treatment of the Verbal Material 29 V THE RESULTS OF THE VERBALLY 37 OBTAINED.DATA Hypothesis I 37 Hypothesis II 39 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH REFERENCES APPENDICES- -I C i r c u i t Diagram- of the Sargent-Heyrovsky Polarograph. Model XI II A Graphs"obtained from the G.S.R.s of f i f t e e n Religious Subjects i n response to Stimulus B and Stimulus C II B Graphs obtained from the G.S.R.s of f i f t e e n -Neutral Subjects i n response to Stimulus B and Stimulus C III Instructions to the three Raters TABLES Comparison of the G.S.R^s of f i f t e e n Religious Subjects to Stimulus B and Stimulus C Comparison of the G.S.R.s of f i f t e e n Neutral Subjects to Stimulus B and Stimulus C s '. ' C o e f f i c i e n t s of Agreement among the Raters as to the e f f e c t i v e -ness of the t h i r t y Arguments presented C o e f f i c i e n t s of Agreement- among the Raters as -to the extent to which Instructions were obeyed when t h i r t y Subjects responded to Stimulus C The number of times and the extent to which the three Raters d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r Assessments of the Data pertaining to Judgement I I , Stimulus B Extent of Agreement among three Raters as to the Category into which each' of the Responses of t h i r t y Subjects were placed v i i TABLE PAGE VII Religious' and Neutral Group Mean 38 Scores regarding the strength of the Arguments presented to Stim u l i B and C VIII Religious" and Neutral Group Mean Scores regarding the extent to which Instructions were followed 40 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer i s indebted to h i s advisor, Dr. E. S i g n o r i , f o r h e l p f u l c r i t i c i s m and encourage-ment, to h i s colleagues, Miss L. Wilson and Mr. J.S. Scott, f o r t h e i r conscientious and very time consuming e f f o r t s i n making the necessary assess-ments, to Dr. 0. Blu.li f o r the equipment he made ava i l a b l e , and f o r h i s kind co-operation through-out, to the t h i r t y assistants who acted as subjects, and to Miss M. Massey and Miss E. Milne f o r t h e i r c a r e f u l work i n typing t h i s t h e s i s . CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH The Problem Snygg and Combs sum up rather w e l l the t h e o r e t i c a l structure from which t h i s problem was derived. In describing the r e l a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l to the s o c i a l group, they outline the following as one of their, points: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l with a group leads him to adopt and defend the standards and behavior of the group. To think w e l l of himself i t i s necessary to think w e l l of h i s group, thus introducing d i s t o r t i o n into the indivi d u a l ' s phenomenal f i e l d . An attack upon the group i s an attack upon himself, aggrandizement f o r the group i s aggrandizement f o r himself. (25, p. 188) The purpose of the experiment to be .out-l i n e d was to demonstrate, under s p e c i f i c conditions, the existence, or non-existence, of the d i s t o r t i o n to which Snygg and Combs r e f e r . Supposing we have a number of 2 p e o p l e w h o h a v e i d e n t i f i e d t h e m s e l v e s s t r o n g l y w i t h a g r o u p , w h a t w i l l b e t h e i r r e a c t i o n s i f t h e y a r e p l a c e d i n a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e y m u s t e i t h e r v e r b a l l y a t t a c k t h e i r g r o u p o r f a c e l o s s o f s e l f - e s t e e m b e c a u s e o f o t h e r f a c t o r s ? W i l l t h e y b e a b l e t o a t t a c k t h e i r g r o u p e f f e c t i v e l y ? I f n o t , w h a t m e a n s o f d e f e n s e w i l l b e e m p l o y e d a g a i n s t t h e t h r e a t e n i n g s t i m u l u s s i t u a t i o n ? T o w h a t e x t e n t w i l l t h e s i t u a t i o n p r o d u c e t e n s i o n ( e m o t i o n a l i t y ) ? T o p r o v i d e s o m e i d e a o f t h e a n s w e r t o t h e s e p r o b l e m s , a n d t o l o c a t e f u r t h e r m e a n s o f s o l v i n g t h e m , w a s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s e x p e r i m e n t . R e l a t e d R e s e a r c h A g r e a t d e a l o f m a t e r i a l o n e g o - i n v o l v e m e n t , f r a m e s o f r e f e r e n c e , a f f e c t i v e l y c h a r g e d a t t i t u d e s , n e e d -p e r c e p t i o n , a n d t h e l i k e , i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . A l l o f t h i s m a t e r i a l i s d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t d i s c u s s e d h e r e . S h e r i f a n d C a n t r i l h a v e b a s e d m u c h o f t h e i r . w o r k , i n c l u d i n g a t e x t b o o k i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y ( 2 4 ) o n s u c h c o n c e p t s . A t t i t u d e s a r e s e e n t o f u n c t i o n i n w e l l f o r m e d f r a m e s , i n r e f e r e n t i a l s e t t i n g s . T h i s f r a m e w o r k i s a g u i d i n g p a t t e r n o f b e l i e f a n d a c t i o n . . A p e r s o n t e n d s c o n s c i o u s l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y t o s t r u c t u r e s i t u a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o h i s f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e . H i s 3 perceptions are to a considerable•extent determined by the strength and d i r e c t i o n of h i s needs, deprivations and anchorages. Few experiments s i m i l a r to the one described here have been attempted. In 1939, Watson and Hartman (28) published an account of an experiment through which they were tes t i n g the hypothesis that an attitude which i s highly charged a f f e c t i v e l y w i l l r e s u l t i n an i n d i v i d u a l 1 s r e s i s t i n g material which does not f i t into the "frame". They used ten t h e o l o g i c a l students and ten ath e i s t s . The subject material chosen was a number of arguments pro and con as to the existence or non-existence of a personal God. They wished to discover i f there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the r e c a l l of r e l a t i v e l y innocuous opposing material compared with quite disturbing opposition arguments. Would a series of balanced pro and con argu-ments on an issue tend to s h i f t subjects i n extreme positions toward-a more neutral position, or would the frame act i n such a way that the subject would accept only that portion of the material presented which supported h i s own o r i g i n a l attitude? Their findings, b r i e f l y , were as follows. The a t t i t u d i n a l frame d i d not prevent the r e c a l l of opposing arguments but these were often mis-interpreted, or the wording changed, so as to make the 4 a r g u m e n t s s e e m r i d i c u l o u s . T h e i n d i v i d u a l s i n e a c h g r o u p w e r e e q u a l l y a b l e t o s o r t o u t t h e a r g u m e n t s , f o r e a c h p o i n t o f . v i e w , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h . B u t w h e n a s k e d . t o c o m p a r e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p r o a r g u -m e n t s w i t h t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e c o n a r g u m e n t s , t h e t w o g r o u p s d i s a g r e e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i r a t t i t u d e s . R e s p o n s e s t o t h e T h u r s t o n e a n d C h a v e s c a l e o f " A t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e C h u r c h " s h o w e d t h a t n o c h a n g e h a d t a k e n p l a c e i n t h e s t r e n g t h o f a n y i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e s o n b e i n g e x p o s e d t o o p p o s i n g a r g u m e n t . I n 1 9 4 3 , Wood ( 2 9 ) c i t e d b y S h e r i f ( 2 3 , p . 6 4 ) h a d h e r s u b j e c t s , w h o s e r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e s w e r e k n o w n , w r i t e a n a b s t r a c t o n a n a r t i c l e o n N e g r o - W h i t e d i f f e r e n c e s . T h e y a l s o v e r b a l l y t r a n s m i t t e d t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e i r a b s t r a c t s t o o t h e r s u b j e c t s . I n b o t h p r o c e s s e s , W o o d f o u n d t h a t s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e j o u r n a l a r t i c l e w e r e d i s t o r t e d a n d o m i t t e d , a n d o t h e r s t a t e m e n t s a d d e d , s o t h a t t h e r e p o r t s w e r e m o r e i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l s ' a t t i t u d e s . CHAPTER II • THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: MATERIALS AND SUBJECTS EMPLOYED Experimental Design F i f t e e n students who i d e n t i f i e d strongly with the C h r i s t i a n Church, and f i f t e e n subjects who considered themselves as neutral, being neither active supporters nor p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l of t h e C h r i s t i a n Church, were selected. They were asked, i n d i v i d u a l l y , to carry out, o r a l l y , the following two procedures, which w i l l be c a l l e d "Stimulus B" and "Stimulus C". 1. Stimulus B Conceding nothing to any opposing point of view which might exist, v e r b a l l y support the following-statement :-THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS AN INSTITUTION WHICH MERITS THE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF EVERYONE. Do not use humor. Please begin. 2. Stimulus C Conceding nothing to any opposing 6 p o i n t o f v i e w w h i c h m i g h t e x i s t , v e r b a l l y s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t : -T H E C H R I S T I A N C H U R C H I S A N I N S T I T U T I O N W H I C H M E R I T S T H E A C T I V E S U P P O R T O F N O O N E . D o n o t u s e h u m o r . P l e a s e b e g i n . T h e o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e t w o s t i m u l i w e r e p r e s e n t e d w a s v a r i e d , o d d n u m b e r e d s u b j e c t s r e s p o n d i n g f i r s t t o S t i m u l u s B . T h e o n l y p r e p a r a t i o n w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t s h a d w a s a p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n o n a n e u t r a l t o p i c . T h e i n -s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h i s e x a m p l e w e r e e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l t o t h e a b o v e . W h i l e t h e s u b j e c t w a s c a r r y i n g o u t t h e t w o -e x e r c i s e s , a c o n t i n u o u s m e a s u r e o f h i s p a l m e r s k i n r e -a c t i o n s ( G . S . R . ) w a s r e c o r d e d . T h e s e w e r e t r e a t e d i n t e r m s o f a r e a u n d e r t h e c u r v e . T h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e a c t i o n t o S t i m u l u s C w a s c o m p a r e d w i t h h i s r e a c t i o n t o S t i m u l u s B . T h e v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s w e r e r e c o r d e d a n d l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d o n p a p e r . T h e s e w e r e a n a l y z e d i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t w a y s b y t h r e e r a t e r s , a s f o l l o w s : J u d g e m e n t 1 H o w e f f e c t i v e ( s t r o n g ) w a s t h e a r g u m e n t p u t f o r w a r d i n s u p p o r t o f e a c h o f t h e s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s ? 7 Judgement 2 To what extent were the instructions -conceding nothing to any opposing point of view which might exi s t -obeyed or disobeyed? Judgement 3 What changes, i f any, occurred i n the subject's frame of reference as he responded to the words, "The C h r i s t i a n Church i s an i n s t i t u t i o n . . . " i n the context of the instructions to Stimulus C as compared with Stimulus B? The two stimulus statements (B and C) were presented under s i m i l a r conditions. The procedure employed w i l l be discussed f u l l y i n Chapter III* Responses of about f i f t y to one hundred words were obtained from each of the t h i r t y subjects to each of the two s t i m u l i . This material was analyzed by three raters i n order to bring out such factors as the strength of the arguments put forward and extent to which the instructions were obeyed and disobeyed. The raters were following exactly the same set of instructions when grading the data from Stimulus B and Stimulus C. Also, they were using an i d e n t i c a l r a ting scale. Therefore, the numerical ratings made of the data from each of the two st i m u l i should be comparable. For example, l e t us suppose that we were rating some responses i n order to evaluate the strength of each of the arguments put forward. I f the responses of i n d i v i d u a l A 8 t o t h e t w o s t i m u l i e a c h r e c e i v e d a r a t i n g o f " 5 " ( o n a s e v e n p o i n t s c a l e ) t h e n i t s h o u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o s a y t h a t h e w a s e q u a l l y c o n v i n c i n g ; w h e n a t t a c k i n g t h e c h u r c h a s w h e n s u p p o r t i n g i t . O r , i f t h e a v e r a g e - r a t i n g o f t h e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p w e r e " 6 " w h e n s u p p o r t i n g t h e c h u r c h a n d " 4 . 5 " w h e n a t t a c k i n g i t , i t . s h o u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I n o r d e r t o d i s c o v e r i f a n y s u c h o b t a i n e d s c o r e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n a m e a n i n g f u l s e n s e , w e m u s t m a k e r e c o u r s e t o r a t i n g s e a r n e d b y t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p . W e r e . t h e t w o g r o u p s p e r f e c t l y e q u a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s , i n c l u d i n g k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h a n d i n t e r e s t i n i t , t h e n a d i r e c t c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e a v e r a g e s c o r e s o f t h e t w o g r o u p s c o u l d b e m a d e . H o w e v e r , w h i l e t h e y w e r e c l o s e l y e q u a t e d i n t e r m s o f a g e a n d e d u c a t i o n , t h e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p w a s s u p e r i o r i n k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t o p i c a n d w a s m o r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e c h u r c h . A d i r e c t c o m p a r i s o n o f s c o r e s w o u l d l e a v e t h i s v a r i a b l e u n c o n t r o l l e d . H o w e v e r , b y m a k i n g i n t e r - g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n s u s i n g o n l y r e l a t i v e f i g u r e s t h i s d i f f i c u l t y c o u l d b e c i r c u m v e n t e d . T h e r e f o r e " d i s p a r i t y s c o r e s " w e r e c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h g r o u p o n e a c h o f t h e t w o p r i n c i p a l j u d g e m e n t s . T h e r a t i n g r e c e i v e d b y a n i n d i v i d u a l o n S t i m u l u s C w a s s u b t r a c t e d f r o m h i s r a t i n g o n S t i m u l u s B . T h e a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e was that i f subject matter (e.g. r e l i g i o n ) were being studied objectively, the knowledge gained should be he l p f u l i n assessing a l l sides of t h i s controversial question. The hypotheses set up were as follows: Hypothesis I (a) That the r e l i g i o u s group w i l l be more e f f e c t i v e i n t h e i r arguments supporting the church than i n t h e i r arguments attacking i t . (b) That the discrepancy, i f any, i n the religious-group's a b i l i t y to support the two statements, and i n the d i r e c t i o n indicated (Hypothesis l a ) , w i l l be greater than the discrepancy, i f any, i n the a b i l i t y of the neutr a l group to support the two statements. Hypothesis II -(a) The r e l i g i o u s group w i l l adhere more c l o s e l y to the instructions when supporting the church than when attacking i t . (b) The discrepancy, i f any, i n the extent to which the r e l i g i o u s group adhere to the instructions common to the two stimulus statements, and i n the d i r e c t i o n indicated (Hypothesis I l a ) , w i l l be greater than the discrepancy, i f any, i n the extent to vrtiich the neutral group adheres to the instructions common to both s t i m u l i . 10 (c) The neutral group w i l l follow the instructions more c l o s e l y when attacking the church, than w i l l the r e l i g i o u s group. Hypothesis I I I More r e l i g i o u s subjects than neutral subjects w i l l show a change i n t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of what i s included i n the phrase, "The C h r i s t i a n Church i s an i n s t i t u t i o n . . . " as they respond to each of the two s t i m u l i . Hypothesis IV (a) The reaction as measured by the-G.S.R. w i l l , f o r the r e l i g i o u s subjects, be greater as they attack the church than when they support i t . (b) This discrepancy w i l l be greater f o r the r e l i g i o u s group • than f o r any s i m i l a r discrepancy f o r the neu t r a l group. Materials The Galvanometer A Sargent.-Heyrovsky polarograph, model XII (22) was employed. A D.C. voltage i s balanced across a bridge by means of a compensator. Any change i n the resistance of a subject i s registered as an increase or 11 decrease i n current. The circuit.diagram i s reproduced i n Appendix I. The Electrodes The electrodes were of p l a t i n i z e d brass, l\ inches i n diameter, and curved to f i t the palm. Pressure against the palm was kept constant by means of springs. Cellulose pads, dampened i n phy s i o l o g i c a l s a l t solution, were inserted between the palms and the electrodes. Recording The polarograph employed was designed to photographically record the movements of a l i g h t , which i n turn ascended and descended a scale i n accordance with the d i r e c t i o n of the disturbance across the bridge. The photographic paper was fi x e d to a revolving drum, so that changes i n the subject's resistance caused a d e f l e c t i o n on the v e r t i c a l axis, while time was the variable on the hor i z o n t a l axis. Timing It was important that each subject should 12 spend exactly the same amount of time on each of the corresponding tasks of the two parts of the experiment. This was accomplished by noting the distance t r a v e l l e d by the revolving photographic drum which was so ca l i b r a t e d that accurate timing was f a c i l i t a t e d . The distance covered by the drum was e a s i l y converted into seconds, since the drum moved at a constant rate. Recording of the Verbal Material The verbal responses to Stimuli B and C were put on a wire recorder. These were l a t e r transcribed on paper. A l l exclamations and pauses were reproduced i n the written d r a f t , so that as l i t t l e as possible of the " f e e l i n g tone" of the material would be l o s t . S i t u a t i o n of the Experiment The t e s t i n g took place i n a large physics laboratory, during evenings and Saturday afternoons when there were no d i s t r a c t i o n s . The subject sat slouched over a table, h i s hands i n the electrode box.. The stimulus statements, with i n s t r u c t i o n s , were placed d i r e c t l y i n the subject's l i n e of v i s i o n . On the subject's r i g h t , and out of h i s l i n e of v i s i o n , were the examiner and the remaining equipment. 13 The Subjects The Religious Group Male u n i v e r s i t y students, who f e l t that they could meet the following c r i t e r i a , were asked to volunteer. 1. That they considered themselves to be devout and p r a c t i s i n g Christians, 2. That they attended church at l e a s t once per week. 3. That they were at present, or planned to become, active members of • some church group as opposed to being merely church attenders. The Thurstone-Chave scale of attitudes toward the church was administered to a l l volunteers a f t e r they had acted as subjects.x The data obtained from any who scored higher than "3" on t h i s eleven point scale was discarded. The Thurstone scale was very valuable i n detecting those whose r e l i g i o u s philosophies d i d not include a high regard f o r the existing organized C h r i s t i a n Church. A l l of the r e l i g i o u s subjects were i n the xThis was done a f t e r they had acted as subjects because i t was f e l t that the material i n the scale might have an influence on the subjects' responses i f given before. 14 Faculty of Arts at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Eight were obtained as volunteers from Second and Third Year philosophy and psychology courses. Five more were obtained from three Campus r e l i g i o u s clubs. Two others were acquaintances of the examiner. Fourteen of the f i f t e e n were Protestants. The mean number of years they had spent at u n i v e r s i t y was 3.6. The range was from Second Year (two students) to one year of Post-Graduate work (two students). The Neutral Group Male students, who f e l t that at l e a s t two of the following four statements expressed t h e i r attitude toward the church, were asked t o volunteer as subjects. These statements were taken from the neutral area of the Thurstone-Chave scale. 1. I believe i n what the church teaches but with mental reservations. 2. Sometimes.I f e e l that the church and r e l i g i o n are necessary, and sometimes I doubt i t . 3. The churches may be doing good and usef u l work, but they do not i n t e r e s t me. 15 4. I l i k e t h e c e r e m o n i e s o f m y c h u r c h , b u t d o n o t m i s s t h e m m u c h w h e n I s t a y a w a y . A f t e r e a c h v o l u n t e e r h a d a c t e d a s s u b j e c t , t h e w h o l e T h u r s t o n e s c a l e w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d . O n l y t h e d a t a f r o m t h o s e w h o s c o r e d w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f "4" t o "7" o n t h i s s c a l e w e r e r e t a i n e d . T e n o f t h e f i f t e e n n e u t r a l s u b j e c t s w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m v o l u n t e e r s f r o m S e c o n d a n d T h i r d Y e a r c o u r s e s i n p h i l o s o p h y a n d p s y c h o l o g y . T h e r e m a i n i n g f i v e w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m a u n i v e r s i t y r e s i d e n c e . T h r e e o f t h e s e w e r e a c q u a i n t a n c e s o f t h e e x a m i n e r . A l l b u t ' o n e w e r e , o r h a d b e e n , i n t h e F a c u l t y o f A r t s . T h e m e a n n u m b e r o f y e a r s s p e n t a t u n i v e r s i t y w a s 3.7. T h e r a n g e w a s f r o m S e c o n d Y e a r A r t s ( o n e s u b j e c t ) t o o n e y e a r o f P o s t - G r a d u a t e w o r k ( t w o s u b j e c t s ) . G e n e r a l T h e p u r p o s e - o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t , a n d t h e w a y i t w a s t o b e c a r r i e d o u t , w e r e , u n k n o w n t o a l l t h i r t y s u b j e c t s . T h e y w e r e t o l d o n l y t h a t t h e e x a m i n e r w a s t e s t i n g a t h e o r y a b o u t a t t i t u d e s a n d t h a t t h e e x a c t , n a t u r e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t w o u l d b e r e v e a l e d t o e a c h a s s o o n a s h e h a d a c t e d a s s u b j e c t . N o s u b j e c t w a s s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n t h e f i e l d o ' f p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n . C H A P T E R I I I T H E P R O C E D U R E A N D T H E C O N T R O L S E M P L O Y E D T h e P r o c e d u r e T h e t h i r t y s u b j e c t s c a m e i n d i v i d u a l l y t o t h e l a b o r a t o r y . T h e y w e r e i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e p h y s i c a l s i t u a t i o n a n d a g a i n r e a s s u r e d t h a t a f u l l e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d b e f o r t h c o m i n g l a t e r . T h e g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r e t o b e f o l l o w e d w a s t h e n d e s c r i b e d t o e a c h s u b j e c t a s f o l l o w s : 1. H e w a s t o l d t h a t h e w a s g o i n g t o b e a s k e d t o t a l k v e r y b r i e f l y o n t h r e e s u b j e c t s w i t h o u t p r e p a r a t i o n . R e a s s u r a n c e s w e r e g i v e n t h a t t h e e x a m i n e r f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n ' s o d o i n g a n d d i d n o t e x p e c t m u c h i n t h e w a y o f u n i t y o r c o h e r e n c e . 2. H e w a s t o l d t h a t t h e f i r s t o f t h e t h r e e t a s k s w a s o n l y a n e x a m p l e t o a c q u a i n t h i m w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e . l i e w a s t o l d t o " g i v e i t a t r y " a n d n o t t o w o r r y i f h e f o u n d i t d i f f i c u l t . 3. I t w a s e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r 17 a l l . three tasks were exactly-p a r a l l e l ; that, when he under-stood the example, he would have no d i f f i c u l t y with the procedure of tasks two and three. The subject was then seated at the, table and h i s hands placed i n the electrode box. He was asked to t a l k about hi s courses while the examiner was balancing the current across the bridge. The examiner's instructions at t h i s time were as follows: Now t e l l me a l i t t l e about your courses. You can enumerate them i f you wish, or you can j u s t t a l k about one or two of them. I t doesn't matter i f you repeat yourself - j u s t as long as you are t a l k i n g . No timing was attempted at t h i s stage of the experiment. Neither the wire recorder nor the photographic recorder were i n operation. When the bridge was balanced, a printed card, Stimulus A, was placed i n front of the subject. He was asked to read t h i s while, at the same time, the examiner read i t aloud. The instructions making up Stimulus A were as follows: Conceding nothing to any opposing point 18 o f v i e w w h i c h m i g h t e x i s t , v e r b a l l y s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t : -A T H L E T I C S A T U . B . C . S H O U L D B E D I S -C O U R A G E D I N F A V O R O F M O R E E M P H A S I S O N T H E H U M A N I T I E S . D o n o t u s e h u m o r . P l e a s e b e g i n . A d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h o s e o n t h e c a r d w e r e t h e n g i v e n . ( T h e s e w e r e o n l y g i v e n f o r t h e e x a m p l e , S t i m u l u s A . ) Y o u s e e t h a t t h i s m e a n s t h a t y o u h a v e t o b e d o g m a t i c . Y o u m u s t . p r e s e n t a c a s e f o r t h i s o n e p o i n t o f v i e w o n l y . D o n o t c o n c e d e a n y t h i n g , o r g i v e a w a y a n y t h i n g , t o a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t o f v i e w . I f t h e s u b j e c t a s k e d a t t h i s p o i n t i f h e w e r e t o p r e s e n t o n l y m a t e r i a l w i t h w h i c h h e a g r e e d , t h e a n s w e r w a s , " N o , j u s t u s e a n y a r g u m e n t w h i c h s u p p o r t s t h i s s t a t e m e n t . " A f t e r a m i n u t e o r t w o , d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e s u b j e c t ' s p e r f o r m a n c e , h e w a s t o l d t o r e l a x . " R e l a x n o w , p l e a s e . ' J u s t g e t a s l i m p a s y o u c a n . I m a g i n e t h a t y o u a r e h a v i n g a n a p o n a n i c e q u i e t b e a c h u n d e r a h o t s u n . J u s t r e l a x . . . e t c . " A f t e r a s h o r t t i m e , t h e a p p a r a t u s w a s r e m o v e d . D u r i n g t h i s w h o l e p e r i o d , t h e e x a m i n e r w a s 19 watching f o r any idiosyncracies which, might a f f e c t the experiment proper, e.g., excessive muscular movement? or i n a b i l i t y to relax. When such were noted, a d d i t i o n a l practice was given. Following the above practice session, the whole experimental procedure was reviewed, with emphasis on the f a c t that the procedure i n the " t r i a l run", although not so formal, was p a r a l l e l to what was to come. The procedure f o r the experiment proper may be stated more b r i e f l y . 1. The subject was asked to t a l k about his courses. He could repeat what he had said previously i f he desired. The wire and photo-graphic recorders were turned on and the examiner balanced the current across the-bridge. 2. Thirty-four seconds l a t e r x either Stimulus B or Stimulus C, a l t e r -nately given f i r s t , were presented (see pp. 5 and 6 f o r the wording of these two statements). One minute and f o r t y seconds were allowed f o r subject's response. xFor the f i r s t three subjects, these times do not hold. However, the time involved f o r each of the two corresponding tasks of the two parts of the experiment, per subject, were the same. 20 3. A period of one minute's relaxation followed. 4. The subject's hands were dried, and fo r the res t period of at lea s t f i v e minutes conversation was r e s t r i c t e d to neutral topics. 5. The remaining stimulus statement was presented under conditions exactly s i m i l a r to the above. 6. The Thurstone-Chave scale was administered. 7. The ra t i o n a l e of the experiment was explained to subject. Stress was placed on the need f o r h i s co-operation i n not passing t h i s information along to anyone. Controls G *S»R. The d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n using the G.S.R., p a r t i c u l a r l y when a continuous record i s made, are many and complex. Two forces are i n operation and d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g current flow. These are, f i r s t l y , the change i n the e l e c t r i c a l resistance of the body, almost e n t i r e l y i n the skin; 'and, secondly, but to a much lesser extent, the E.M.F. produced i n the body by certa i n mental changes. I t i s possible that the changes i n skin resistance may be 21 either reduced or accentuated by the E .M.F. produced i n the body. The type of electrode used (p. 11) and the f a c t that the tv/o points of contact (both palms) were the same, tend to reduce p o l a r i z a t i o n effects at the electrodes (2, 5 and 7). The springs i n the electrode structure, the back re s t f o r the hand, and the p o s i t i o n of the subject (who v/as l i t e r a l l y slouched over the tab l e ) , tended to minimize the effects of, and tendency to, muscular movements on the part of the subject. The short t o t a l time, about three minutes per task, v/as also a factor here. On two occasions, extreme movements did produce a d i s t o r t i o n i n the graphs obtained. (See Appendix I I , A, subject 12; and Appendix I I , B, subject 2.) Re a c t i v i t y i s known to be p a r t l y a function of the i n i t i a l resistance l e v e l . Since comparisons are not being made between in d i v i d u a l s , we had only to worry about each subject's i n i t i a l resistance/being the same from one stimulus to the next. Since the sti m u l i were introduced only about f i f t e e n minutes apart, and since the preparatory task (discussion of courses) was the same, one would not expect much deviation. This v/as borne out by the f a c t that very l i t t l e manipulation v/as required to "balance" the current f o r the second stimulus. The 22 apparatus used did not give the resistance l e v e l i n ohms so no objective data i s ava i l a b l e here. Any s l i g h t deviations i n i n i t i a l resistance which did occur should cancel out i n the treatment of group data. Much has been written on the G.S.R. phenomena and i t has been used i n many ways with varying degrees of success. A word of explanation i s therefore necessary as to the l o g i c i n using i t here. The writer's main source of authority was C a t t e l l (2). The following two quotations from h i s book f i t so we l l into the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of t h i s experiment that they w i l l be reproduced here. The magnitude of the d e f l e c t i o n was once, thought to be proportional to the amount of emotion, but there i s considerable evidence that i t corresponds rather to conation and the conative element i n emotion... The greatest deflections occur with pain, fear, tension, w i l l acts, excitement, impulses and e f f o r t . Deflections are proportional to the in t e n s i t y of the experience, whether i t be pure conation or emotionally toned conation." (2, p. 264) and The hypothesis which seems to the present writer most apt to the fa c t s , i s that the de f l e c t i o n i s proportional to the act of suppression which the ego finds i t necessary to exercise upon the impulses 23 aroused. The psychogalvanometer can therefore be used as a measure of the strength of impulses, of w i l l acts, and of the c o n f l i c t between them. (2, p. 265) This l a t t e r quotation describes exactly what i s being attempted i n t h i s study. A continuous measure of the palmar resistance was recorded. The obtained data were there-fore i n the form of graphs. The r e l a t i v e areas under each of these curves were ascertained and intergroup and intra-group comparisons were ca r r i e d out using these r e l a t i v e f i g u r e s . The rationale f o r t h i s procedure w i l l be discussed i n the next chapter. Verbal Material As has been mentioned, care was taken to preserve as much of the f e e l i n g tone as possible when ( t r a n s c r i b i n g the responses on paper. In addition, notes were made on the subject's general behavior. These notes were valuable i n one instance where a subject's response would have been beyond analysis were i t not f o r an ad d i t i o n a l comment made l a t e r which c l a r i f i e d h i s frame of reference. In the treatment of the verbal material 24 m a n y c o n t r o l s w e r e a p p l i e d . T h e s e w i l l b e o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r I V , " T h e D a t a a n d t h e i r T r e a t m e n t " , a n d w i l l n o t b e r e p e a t e d h e r e . G e n e r a l S t i m u l u s B a n d S t i m u l u s C w e r e a l t e r n a t e l y g i v e n f i r s t , s o t h a t a n y t e m p o r a l v a r i a b l e m i g h t c a n c e l o u t i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f r e s u l t s . S u b j e c t s f r o m b o t h g r o u p s c a m e t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t i n a m o r e o r l e s s r a n d o m o r d e r s o t h a t a n y c h a n g e s i n t h e e x a m i n e r ' s b e h a v i o r , r e s u l t i n g f r o m i n c r e a s i n g p r a c t i c e , s h o u l d h a v e i n -f l u e n c e d e a c h g r o u p s i m i l a r l y . T h e e x a m i n e r u s e d t h e s a m e v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d e x p l a n a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t . S e v e r a l t r i a l r u n s w e r e m a d e b e f o r e t h e e x p e r i m e n t i n g p r o p e r b e g a n . C H A P T E R I V T H E D A T A A N D T H E I R T R E A T M E N T T h e G . S . R . D a t a S i n c e t h i s m a t e r i a l w a s a n a l y z e d i n t e r m s o f a r e a u n d e r t h e c u r v e , a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c u r v e i s i n o r d e r . I n m o s t c a s e s t h e i n i t i a l G . S . R . , w h i c h o c c u r r e d w h e n a s t i m u l u s w a s p r e s e n t e d , v / a s u n -d o u b t e d l y d u e t o a f e e l i n g o f a p p r e h e n s i o n . H o w e v e r , a s D a r r o w ( 4 , 6 a n d 7 ) a n d C a t t e l l ( 2 ) p o i n t o u t , t h e r a t e o f d e c l i n e v a r i e s w i t h t h e s u b j e c t ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e . I f t h e s u b j e c t i s e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f f i c u l t y o r c o n f l i c t , t h e r a t e o f d e c l i n e i s s l o v / e d . S h o u l d a s t a t e o f t e n s i o n m o r e o f t e n f o l l o w t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f o n e s t i m u l u s t h a n a n o t h e r , t h i s s h o u l d b e r e v e a l e d b y t h e r a t e o f t h e d e c l i n e w h i c h , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a m p l i t u d e o f t h e i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n , d e t e r m i n e s t h e a r e a u n d e r t h e c u r v e . S o m e d i s t o r t i o n i n t h e r e s u l t s c o u l d o c c u r b e c a u s e t h e r a t e o f t h e d e c l i n e v a r i e s a l s o w i t h t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e i n i t i a l G . S . R . , w h i c h i n t u r n i s p a r t l y d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e s u b j e c t ' s i n i t i a l r e s i s t a n c e l e v e l . A s h a s b e e n p o i n t e d o u t , t h i s l a t t e r 2 6 f a c t o r w a s s e e m i n g l y f a i r l y w e l l c o n t r o l l e d . S i n c e o n l y i n t r a - s u b j e c t , r a t h e r t h a n i n t e r - s u b j e c t , c o m p u t a t i o n s w e r e m a d e , a n d s i n c e t h e o r d e r o f t h e s t i m u l i w a s v a r i e d , a n y d i s t o r t i o n , a r i s i n g f r o m u n c o n t r o l l e d f a c t o r s a f f e c t -i n g t h e r a t e o f d e c l i n e , s h o u l d c a n c e l o u t i n t h e t r e a t -m e n t o f g r o u p d a t a . T h e a r e a u n d e r t h e c u r v e w a s o b t a i n e d b y r u l i n g o u t a g r i d w i t h s q u a r e s o f . 1 7 i n c h e s o n t r a n s -p a r e n t m a t e r i a l . T h i s w a s l a i d o n t h e g r a p h a n d t h e n u m b e r o f s q u a r e s , t o t a l l y o r p a r t i a l l y , b e n e a t h t h e b a s e a n d t h e o u t l i n e o f t h e c u r v e w e r e c o u n t e d . " S t i m u l u s B a r e a s " w e r e s u b t r a c t e d f r o m " S t i m u l u s C a r e a s . " I n t e r m s o f o u r h y p o t h e s i s , w e w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t t h e l a r g e r n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p w o u l d r e s u l t i n p o s i t i v e n u m b e r s . T h e G . S . R . R e s u l t s T h e f i n a l r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d f o r t h e r e l i g i o u s a n d n e u t r a l g r o u p s b y t h e m e t h o d d e s c r i b e d a b o v e a r e s h o w n i n T a b l e s I a n d I I ( p p . 2 7 a n d 2 8 ) . O u r h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p w o u l d s h o w a g r e a t e r r e a c t i o n t o s t i m u l u s C t h a n t o S t i m u l u s B i s r e f u t e d . T h e c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e o b t a i n e d G . S . R . c u r v e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s m a l l s i z e o f t h e g r o u p s , d o n o t w a r r a n t T A B L E I C O M P A R I S O N O F T H E G . S . R . s O F F I F T E E N R E L I G I O U S S U B J E C T S T O S T I M U L U S B A N D S T I M U L U S C . S u b j e c t A r e a C -A r e a B 1 1 7 2 ' - 4 3 - 3 2 4 9 2 5 - 9 6 4- 5 2 7 - 1 5 8 - 2 9 - 44 1 0 - 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 2 - 2 1 1 3 - . 2 5 1 4 + 8 1 5 6 0 T o t a l P l u s R e s u l t s T o t a l M i n u s R e s u l t s = 5 = 1 0 T A B L E I I C O M P A R I S O N O F T H E G . S . R . s O F F I F T E E N N E U T R A L S U B J E C T S T O S T I M U L U S B A N D S T I M U L U S C . S u t g e c t A r e a C -A r e a . B 1 - 2 3 2 - 4 3 • 4 7 4 + 1 2 5 + 1 2 7 6 + 3 0 7 + 86 8 4 5 4 9 + 7 1 0 - 1 3 1 1 - 4 7 1 2 + 2 9 1 3 + 1 8 1 4 - 8 . 1 5 - 1 3 T o t a l P l u s R e s u l t s = 9 T o t a l M i n u s R e s u l t s - 6 29 the use of more refined statistical techniques. A check was made to determine i f the temporal order of the stimuli had an effect on the G.S.R.'s as measured. That this v/as not a significant factor is indicated by the fact that an equal number (fifteen) of the total of thirty cases had a greater reaction to the second stimuli, and vice versa. Treatment of the Verbal Material . From the thirty subjects used, twenty pages of typewritten material, single spaced, were obtained. The manner of breaking this down in order to derive results,-which would directly follow the hypothesis, involved the use of three types of ratings, each to be rated by three judges. These three types of assessments were termed "Judgements I, II and III," in the instructions for the raters. Each rating had two parts, since assessments had to be made on the materials supporting and also attacking the church. The same seven-point rating scale and the same instructions were used for both parts. - The writer v/as the only one of the three raters who had knowledge of v/hether he were grading the material of a neutral or a religious subject. Each did the ratings tv/ice, with about one month between assessments; only the writer knew that re-rates would be 3 0 r e q u i r e d . T h e w r i t e r g r a d e d t h e r e s p o n s e s t o S t i m u l u s C b e f o r e g r a d i n g t h o s e t o S t i m u l u s B . W i t h t h e o t h e r t w o r a t e r s , t h e p r o c e d u r e w a s r e v e r s e d . A s f o r t h e r e - r a t e s , t h e p r o c e d u r e w a s c h a n g e d s o t h a t t h e w r i t e r f i r s t a s s e s s e d t h e d a t a f r o m S t i m u l u s B ; t h e o t h e r r a t e r s t h e d a t a f r o m S t i m u l u s G . T h e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d a t t h i s p o i n t t o A p p e n d i x I I I , I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r R a t e r s . F r o m t h i s m a t e r i a l , h e w i l l s e e t h e m e a n s u s e d t o s t a n d a r d i z e t h e r a t i n g p r o -c e d u r e s a n d , i n g e n e r a l , t o i n c r e a s e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y a n d v a l i d i t y o f t h e o a s s e s s m e n t s . , T h e r a t i n g s m a d e r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e -n e s s , o r s t r e n g t h , o f t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d , f e l l i n t o a r o u g h l y n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n w h e n t h e d a t a f r o m a l l t h e t h i r t y s u b j e c t s w e r e e m p l o y e d . H e r e , t h e r e f o r e , P e a r s o n i a n c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e e x t e n t o f a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e r a t e r s , a n d a l s o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e r a t i n g s a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e t e s t - r e t e s t p r o c e d u r e ( T a b l e I I I , p . 3 2 ) . T h i s m e t h o d w a s a p p l i c a b l e a l s o w h e r e t h e d a t a u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w a s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h , c o n c e s s i o n s w e r e m a d e a s t h e t h i r t y s u b j e c t s a t t a c k e d t h e c h u r c h ( T a b l e I V , p . 3 3 ) . H o w e v e r , w h e n t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e s u p p o r t i n g t h e c h u r c h , t h e y t e n d e d t o m a k e v e r y f e w c o n c e s s i o n s , v / i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e r a t i n g s w e r e b u n c h e d l a r g e l y b e t w e e n p o i n t s " 5 " t o " 7 " o n t h e s e v e n - p o i n t s c a l e . W i t h s u c h a l i m i t e d s c a t t e r a n d s o g r e a t a n e g a t i v e . s k e w n e s s , s o m e m e a n s o t h e r t h a n a P e a r s o n i a n r h a d t o b e e m p l o y e d . T h e s i m p l e p r o c e d u r e o f e x p r e s s i n g t h e e x t e n t o f a g r e e m e n t i n t e r m s o f t h e n u m b e r o f p e r f e c t a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n r a t e r s , t h e n u m b e r o f o n e s c a l e u n i t d i s a g r e e m e n t s , a n d t w o s c a l e u n i t s d i s a g r e e m e n t s , h a s b e e n e m p l o y e d . W h i l e s o m e w h a t u n w i e l d y , i t r e v e a l s t h e a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n a n y o t h e r m e t h o d . T h e r e s u l t s a r e s h o w n i n T a b l e V ( p . 3 4 ) . R e g a r d i n g J u d g e m e n t I I I , t h e r a t e r s w e r e a s k e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n ( a c c o r d i n g t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s ) w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t w a s u s i n g a s h e r e s -p o n d e d t o t h e p h r a s e , " T h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h i s a n i n s t i t u t i o n . . . " A f u r t h e r c a t e g o r y v / a s a d d e d f o r t h o s e r e s p o n s e s w h i c h m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d u n r a t e a b l e . A b o u t 2 5 % o f t h e r e s p o n s e s w e r e p l a c e d i n t h i s g r o u p i n g . T a b l e V I ( p . 3 2 ) s h o w s t h e e x t e n t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n r a t e r s . S i n c e t h e s e w e r e s o l o w , i t v / a s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e d a t a s o o b t a i n e d c o u l d n o t b e f u r t h e r e m p l o y e d . T h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s e a s s e s s m e n t s w a s t h e r e f o r e n o t d e t e r m i n e d . W h e n t h e r a t i n g s w e r e c o l l e c t e d , m e a n s c o r e s v / e r e d e t e r m i n e d f o r t h e t w o p a r t s o f e a c h o f 32 TABLE I I I COEFFICIENTS OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE RATERS AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THIRTY ARGUMENTS PRESENTED. STIMULUS B STIMULUS C Rater II I I I Rater II I II .81; .90* II .74 . 76* II .92 .95 K I I I .69 .72 .785 III .78 .83 .91* Rate - Rerate r 33 TABLE IV COEFFICIENTS OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE RATERS AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH INSTRUCTIONS WERE OBEYED WHEN THIRTY SUBJECTS RESPONDED TO STIMULUS C. Rater I II • III I .75* II .69 .79* III .61 .63 .75* * Rate - Rerate r 3 4 T A B L E V T H E N U M B E R O F T I M E S A N D T H E E X T E N T T O W H I C H T H E T H R E E R A T E R S D I F F E R E D I N T H E I R A S S E S S M E N T S O F T H E D A T A P E R T A I N I N G T O J U D G E M E N T I I , S T I M U L U S B . ( N = 3 0 : T o t a l S c a l e U n i t s - 7 ) N o D i f f e r e n c e D i f f e r e d b y 1 U n i t R a t e r I I I I I R a t e r I I I I I 1 8 3 1 0 * I I 2 0 1 9 X I I 8 1 1 * I I I 1 2 1 4 I I X I I I 7 4 1 4 * D i f f e r e d b y 2 U n i t s D i f f e r e d b y m o r e t h a n 2 U n i t s R a t e r I I I I I R a t e r I I H i :>X 0 x I I 0 * I I 0 0 X I I I 8 3 * I I I 6 2 * R a t e - R e r a t e D i f f e r e n c e s 3 5 T A B L E V I E X T E N T O F A G R E E M E N T A M O N G T H R E E R A T E R S A S T O T H E C A T E G O R Y I N T O W H I C H E A C H O F T H E R E S P O N S E S O F T H I R T Y S U B J E C T S W E R E P L A C E D . S t i m u l u s C 3 R a t e r s a g r e e 1 0 2 R a t e r s a g r e e 1 1 N o a g r e e m e n t 9 S t i m u l u s B 3 R a t e r s a g r e e 1 2 2 R a t e r s a g r e e N o a g r e e m e n t 9 3 0 3 0 36 J u d g e m e n t s I a n d I I . T h e r e w a s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e m e a n s c o r e s o f t h e t h r e e r a t e r s o n a l l f o u r o f t h e s e a s s e s s m e n t s . R a t e r I I I c o n s i s t e n t l y g r a d e d a b o u t . 5 0 s c a l e u n i t s l o w e r t h a n R a t e r s I a n d I I , b e t w e e n w h o m t h e a g r e e m e n t i n t e r m s o f m e a n s c o r e s w a s a l m o s t p e r f e c t . I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n t h e m o s t a c c u r a t e s c o r e s , t h e m e a n s o f t h e r a t i n g s f o r e a c h s u b j e c t w e r e ' d e t e r m i n e d . F r o m t h e s e f i g u r e s , f o u r m e a n s c o r e s f o r e a c h g r o u p w e r e c a l c u l a t e d . I t w a s f r o m t h e s e s c o r e s t h a t o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s o f t h e t w o g r o u p s . w e r e m a d e ( C h a p t e r V ) . CHAPTER V THE RESULTS OF THE VERBALLY OBTAINED DATA Hypothesis I From Table VII (p. 38), we can see that the r e l i g i o u s subjects were more e f f e c t i v e i n t h e i r arguments fo r the church than against i t . There i s less than 1 chance i n 100 that t h i s could be due to chance. Part (a) of Hypothesis I i s therefore supported. The d i s p a r i t y shown i n the r e l i g i o u s group's a b i l i t y to support the two stimulus statements was greater than the d i s p a r i t y shown by the neutral group. In order to t e s t the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the difference i n these two d i s p a r i t y scores, the following procedure was carri e d out. For each group, each ind i v i d u a l ' s score on Stimulus C was subtracted from h i s score on Stimulus B. This gave us a d i s t r i b u t i o n of differences f o r each of the experimental and control groups. A t e s t was then made by the usual s t a t i s t i c a l procedures to determine whether there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the means of the two TABLE V I I RELIGIOUS AND NEUTRAL GROUP MEAN SCORES REGARDING THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO STIMULI B AND C S t imulus B S t imulus C D i f f e r e n c e ( D i s p a r i t y Score) L e v e l o f Confidence Mean R a t i n g o f the R e l i g i o u s Group 4.9 (CM = .17) 3.5 (cTM = .42) 1.4 99.3 chances i n 100 Mean R a t i n g o f t he N e u t r a l Group 4.1 (cTM = .29) 3.2 (cru- .33) 0.9 98 chances i n 100 D i f f e r e n c e 0.8 0.3 0.5 L e v e l o f Confidence 99 chances 1 i n 100 71 chances i n 100 39 d i s t r i b u t i o n s . The chances of a true difference existing proved to be 91 i n 100. We may only say, therefore, that there seems to be a tendency fo r the r e l i g i o u s group to show a greater d i s p a r i t y than the neutral group i n terms of t h e - a b i l i t y of each to respond to the two s t i m u l i , but that t h i s difference between the groups may be due to chance fac t o r s . One of the most, important figures i n the calculations i s one which has not yet been mentioned. The chances are 98 i n 100 that a.true difference exists i n the neutral group's a b i l i t y to support and attack the church. Such a finding must have an influence on the int e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s as a whole. Hypothesis II From Table VIII (p. 40), we may check the re s u l t s of the tes t i n g of the three parts of Hypothesis II: the a b i l i t y of the two groups to follow instructions when attacking the church and when supporting i t . Table VIII reveals a s i t u a t i o n which i s almost p a r a l l e l to that found i n the tes t i n g of Hypothesis I. There i s a highly s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n t h e ' a b i l i t y of the r e l i g i o u s subjects to follow instructions when supporting, as opposed to attacking, the church. Since TABLE V I I I RELIGIOUS AND NEUTRAL GROUP MEAN SCORES REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH INSTRUCTIONS WERE FOLLOWED S t imulus B S t imulus G D i f f e r e n c e ( D i s p a r i t y Score) L e v e l o f Confidence Mean R a t i n g o f the R e l i g i o u s Group 6.3 (cr M = .23) 4.6 (<TM = .52) 1.7 99.7 chances i n 100 Mean R a t i n g o f the N e u t r a l Group 5.7 (CM = .27) 4.7 (crM - .45) 1.0 97 chances i n 100 D i f f e r e n c e 0.6 -0.1 0.7 L e v e l o f Confidence 96 chances i n 100 50 chances i n 100 41 the d i r e c t i o n of the d i s p a r i t y i s as predicted, part (a) of Hypothesis II i s supported. Although part (b) of Hypothesis II i s sup-ported, the r e s u l t s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The d i s p a r i t y score (B rating - C rating) i s 0 . 7 u n i t s greater f o r the r e l i g i o u s group than f o r the neutral group. The chances are 8 1 i n 1 0 0 that t h i s difference would not occur by chance. Part'(c) of Hypothesis II i s not supported. There i s no difference i n the degree to which the two groups followed instructions when attacking the church. Again, the neutr a l group showed a high d i s -p a r i t y score, t h i s time at the 5% l e v e l of confidence. Though not as great as the d i s p a r i t y score of the r e l i g i o u s group, i t w i l l again be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the discussion of r e s u l t s . CHAPTER VT DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS The G.S.R. results have already been discussed briefly (p. 26). No refined statistical methods were employed in their treatment since the groups were small and the inter-individual and intra-individual differences were very large. Although attempts were made to reduce to a minimum the operation of extraneous variables which might affect the palmar reflex, we have no way of knowing whether these controls were adequate. Reliable trends might be discovered using these methods with a much larger group. However, the writer now feels that the G.S.R. might better be employed when subjects are not so actively involved as they were in this experiment. This is true especially where the whole experimental situation is tension producing, as was this one, to many of the individuals in both groups. Both groups obtained significantly higher ratings when supporting the church, rather than when r 4 3 attacking i t . They presented arguments which were more convincing, and were le s s prone to restructure the s i t u a t i o n by disobeying the i n s t r u c t i o n s . These two trends are present to a greater extent i n the r e l i g i o u s group than i n the control group, but t h i s difference i n groups i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The meaning of our r e s u l t s i s not c l e a r since we can only make hypotheses as to why the control group should f i n d one stimulus so much more d i f f i c u l t than the other. I f i t i s j u s t that the one point of view i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y more d i f f i c u l t to support than i t s contrary, then we may simply investigate the differences between the two groups. There are, however, two reasons f o r thinking that t h i s i s not the true answer. F i r s t l y , the f a c t that a l l three raters gave r e l a t i v e l y low ratings to material attack-ing the church implies that i n t h e i r minds t h i s material was not as adequate as i t might have been. That i s , i f i n a c t u a l i t y the church i s more e a s i l y supported than attacked, the raters themselves could not avoid taking t h i s f a c t o r into account i n t h e i r grading, since they would be s i m i l a r l y affected themselves. Secondly, any such reason does not adequately explain why the control group should disobey the instructions to a greater extent when attacking the church than when supporting i t . A second hypothesis may be put forward to 4 4 account f o r the discrepancy i n the a b i l i t y of the control group to handle the two s t i m u l i i n accordance with the inst r u c t i o n s . They might not have been " t r u l y " neutral (free from bias i n any dire c t i o n ) i n t h e i r attitude toward the church, although scoring i n the ce n t r a l (neutral) area of the Thurstone-Chave' scale. From a subjective analysis, two of the three r a t e r s * came to the conclusion that c u l t u r a l conditioning - ours i s a C h r i s t i a n culture - was strongly r e f l e c t e d i n the majority of the responses. As an extreme example, one "neutral" subject, upon completing h i s attack upon the church, promptly inquired into the experimenter's views on the place of the C h r i s t i a n Church i n our society. He admitted having been concerned about t h i s when attacking the church but said that he v/as not concerned when supporting i t . I t i s int e r e s t i n g to note that the graph of h i s galvanic skin r e f l e x showed a con-tinued upward trend during the period of relaxation following his attack upon the churchl Our hypothesis that any d i s p a r i t y i n the a b i l i t y of the r e l i g i o u s group to convincingly handle the two s t i m u l i would be greater than any si m i l a r d i s p a r i t y on the part of the control group was not conclusively xThe t h i r d r a t e r offered no opinion. 45 supported. There seems to be a tendency i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n but on a s t a t i s t i c a l basis the chances are 9 i n 100 that the difference found could be due to chance f a c t o r s . S i m i l a r l y we have no conclusive r e s u l t s supporting the hypothesis that any d i s p a r i t y i n the a b i l i t y of the r e l i g i o u s group to follow the in s t r u c t i o n s , while respond-ing to each of the two s t i m u l i , would be greater than any s i m i l a r d i s p a r i t y on the part of the control group. Again there i s a tendency f o r t h i s to be so, but the chances are 19 i n 100 that the apparent difference between the two groups could be due to chance. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS A r e l i g i o u s group and a second group, who considered themselves neutral i n t h e i r feelings toward the C h r i s t i a n Church, were asked to (1) support, and ( 2 ) attack the C h r i s t i a n Church while conceding nothing to any opposing point of view. The findings were b r i e f l y as follows: (1) The r e l i g i o u s group were more e f f e c t i v e i n supporting the C h r i s t i a n Church than were the neutr a l group. They were also better able to follow the examiner's instructions while doing so. ( 2 ) The two groups were approximately equal i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to attack the church and to follow i n -structions while doing so. (3) Both groups were much more e f f e c t i v e when supporting the church than when attacking i t . • (4) Instructions were disobeyed to a greater extent by both groups when they were attacking the church 47 t h a n when t h e y were s u p p o r t i n g i t . (5.) The r e l i g i o u s g r o u p showed more d i s -p a r i t y t h a n d i d t h e n e u t r a l g r o u p a s r e g a r d s t h e above p o i n t s (3) and (4). T h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s were n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . (6) The G.S.R. r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d no s i g -n i f i c a n t t r e n d s i n t e r m s o f e i t h e r i n t e r - g r o u p o r i n t r a -g r o u p m e a s u r e s . (7) B e c a u s e o f t h e many " u n s c o r e a b l e " r e s p o n s e s a n d b e c a u s e o f t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s a g r e e m e n t among t h e r a t e r s , we were u n a b l e t o j u d g e w h e t h e r o r n o t e i t h e r g r o u p showed a n y t e n d e n c y to. change t h e i r w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f "The C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h i s a n i n s t i t u t i o n . . . " a s t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o r e s p o n d t o e a c h o f t h e two s t i m u l i . I n g e n e r a l , t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s do n o t d e m o n s t r a t e , i n a n y c o n v i n c i n g manner, e i t h e r t h e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f a n y d i s t o r t i n g f a c t o r i n t h e p h enomenal f i e l d s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who h a d i d e n t i f i e d s t r o n g l y w i t h t h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h . The r e s u l t s s e r v e m a i n l y t o r a i s e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s , a n d t o p o i n t o u t where u n f o r e s e e n v a r i a b l e s may h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . We h a v e o f f e r e d some s p e c u l a t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t p e r h a p s 48 the control group was not functioning as an unbiased objective group. I f t h i s i s true, we were not j u s t i f i e d i n using t h e i r performances as a standard i n an experi-ment designed to demonstrate the effects of ego-involved at t i t u d e s . CHAPTER VIII IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH As f a r as we have been able to discover, the study described i s the f i r s t of i t s type. D i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered, perhaps some aspects were inadequately controlled. Although the r e s u l t s were inconclusive they do serve to r a i s e new questions and to indicate d i f f e r e n t ways of experimenting with problems of t h i s type. -We col l e c t e d two types of raw data - the G.S.R. graphs, and the wire recordings of the verbal responses. • We now f e e l that the experimental design, while adequate f o r c o l l e c t i n g the l a t t e r , was probably inadequate f o r the. former. The subjects -were perhaps under too much mental stress, from the active r o l e they were taking i n t h i s experiment, f o r v a l i d r e s u l t s to be expected from the G.S.R. Also, when subjects are so a c t i v e l y involved there i s a greater tendency f o r them to make phys i c a l movements which w i l l a f f e c t the palmar r e f l e x . We do f e e l , however, that very p r o f i t a b l e studies 5 0 could, be made through the c o l l e c t i o n and treatment of verbal data i n a s i m i l a r manner to that described. While our experimental group was made up of subjects who had i d e n t i f i e d themselves with the i n s t i t u t i o n of the C h r i s t i a n Church, any subjects could be employed so long as they i d e n t i f i e d themselves with a group or a philosophy. Any such experimenters might be advised to employ, i n the place of a "neutral" group, a control group made up of people who are strongly opposed to the group or philosophy under question. This at l e a s t would eliminate the problem of establishing adequate c r i t e r i a f o r finding . subjects who were interested i n the p a r t i c u l a r topic but who were not biased i n any one d i r e c t i o n . . ' We were able to show that the extent to which instructions were disobeyed varied d i r e c t l y with the d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n responding to the stimulus state-ments. The nature of our r e s u l t s were such, however, that we could not demonstrate c l e a r l y that the reason f o r the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered were, or were not, due to ego-threat or to some unknown f a c t o r s . Further"studies on s i m i l a r l i n e s should throw more l i g h t on t h i s problem and indicate the dynamics of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s -obedience of instructions and d i f f i c u l t y i n supporting an argument. 51 A second means by which a subject might re-structure the experimental s i t u a t i o n ( i . e . changing h i s functioning d e f i n i t i o n of the topic i n 'question) was described and an attempt made to investigate whether or not t h i s means was employed. We were not successful, and would suggest that i f any s i m i l a r attempts are made the subjects should be asked to write out t h e i r arguments at t h e i r l e i s u r e . Such a procedure should be of great advantage when the time comes f o r the analysis of the material i n terms of the frame of reference employed on each of the tasks. The material obtained, when subjects must produce without s u f f i c i e n t opportunity f o r the organization of thought processes, i s unsuitable f o r such analysis. We f e e l that t h i s whole f i e l d i s worthy of study. This would seem to be a time when much e f f o r t should be applied to gaining a better understanding of a l l those factors which have a bearing on the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n -ships of groups of people. In our opinion, many of the problems involved, including the " d i s t o r t i n g e f f e c t s " of ego-involvements, may be successfully studied i n the psychologists' laboratories. REFERENCES 1. ALLPORT, G.W. The ego i n contemporary psychology. Psychol. Rev.. 1943, 50, 451-478. 2. CATTELL, R.B. A Guide to Mental- Testing. London: London U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1936. 3. COOK, S.W.,.and HARRIS, R.E. The verbal conditioning of the galvanic skin r e f l e x . J . exp. Psychol., 1937, 21, 202-210. 4. DARROW, C.W. The equation of the galvanic skin r e f l e x curve. J . gen. Psychol., 1937, 16, 285-309. 5. DARROW, C.W. Considerations f o r evaluating the galvanic skin r e f l e x . Amer. J . Psychiat., 1933, 13, 285-298. 6. DARROW, C.W. The r e l a t i o n of the galvanic skin r e f l e x recovery curve to r e a c t i v i t y , resistance l e v e l , and per s p i r a t i o n . J . gen. Psychol., 1932, 7, 261-273. 7. DARROW, C.W. The sign i f i c a n c e of the galvanic recovery curve. Psychol. B u l l . , 1931, 28, 678-9. 8. DARROW, C.W. Differences i n the ph y s i o l o g i c a l reactions to sensory and ideat i o n a l s t i m u l i . Psychol. B u l l . . 1929, 26, 185-201. 53 9. DAVIS, R.C. Factors a f f e c t i n g the galvanic r e f l e x . Arch. Psychol.. 1930, 115. 10. DORCUS, R.M., and HARRELL, J.W. Some r e l a t i o n s between i n i t i a l body p o l a r i t y and p o l a r i t y during the psychogalvanic r e f l e x . J . gen. Psychol., 1937, 16, 489-491. 11. PRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E. Mechanisms of s e l f deception, J . soc. Psychol.. 1939, 10, 409-420. 12. GARRETT, H.E. S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and Education. Toronto: Longmans-Green Co., 1946. 13. GHEENWALD, D.V. C i r c u i t s now avai l a b l e f o r the measurement of electrodermal responses. Psychol. B u l l . , 1935, 32, 779-791. 14. GUILFORD, J.P. Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and Education. 2nd Ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1950. 15. HAGGARD, E.A., and GERBRANDS, R. An apparatus f o r the measurement of continuous changes i n palmar skin resistance. J . exp. Psychol., 1947, 37, 92-98. 16. JONES, H.E., and WECHSLER, D. Galvanometric technique i n studies of association. Amer. J . Psychol., 1938, 40, 607-612. 17. LACY, O.C., et a l . An analysis of the u n i t of measurement of the galvanic:" skin response. J . exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 122-127. 18. LEVBTE, J.M., and MURPHY, G. The learning and forgetting of con t r o v e r s i a l material. J . abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1943, 38, 507-517. 54 19. LEVY, J.R. Changes i n the galvanic skin response accompanying the Rorschach t e s t . J . consult. Psychol., 1950, 14, 128-133. 20. LITTMAN, R.A. Conditioned generalization of the galvanic skin reaction to tones. J . exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 868-882. 21. McCLEAHYJ R.A. The nature of the galvanic skin response. Psychol. B u l l . , 1950, 47, 97-117. 22. SARGENT,' E.R". Manual of Instructions f o r the Sargent Model XII High-Speed Photographic  Recording Polarograph. Detroit, Michigan D i v i s i o n , 1948. 23. SHERIF, M. An Outline of S o c i a l Psychology. New York: Harpers, 1948. 24. . SHERIF, M.V and' "CANTRIL, H. The Psychology of Ego-Involvements.. New York: Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1947. 25. • SNYGG, D., and COMBS, A.W. Individual Behavior. New York: Harpers, .1949. 26. THURSTONE, L.L., and CHAVE, E.J. The Measure-ment of Attitude. Chicago: Chicago Un i v e r s i t y Press, 1929. 27. WALT,EN, R.W. Ego-involvement as a determinant of s e l e c t i v e f o r g e t t i n g . J . abnorm. soc. Psychol., -1942, 37, 20-39. 28. WATSON, W.S., and HARTMANN, G.W. v The r i g i d i t y of a basic a t t i t u d i n a l frame. J . abnorm. • soc. Psychol., 1939, 34, 314-335. 5 5 29. WOOD, C. An Analysis of Changes occurring; i n  Successive Stages of Verbal Abstracting. Unpublished Master's Thesis, State University, Iowa, 1934. APPENDIX I CIRCUIT DIAGRAM OF THE SARGENT-HEYROVSKY POLAROGRAPH, MODEL XI 4.5 v , E . M.F. 1 CONSTANT E . M.P. INCREASE 25SL 25JI downscale upscale D.C. WIRING APPENDIX I I GRAPHS OBTAINED FROM THE G.S.R.S OF FIFTEEN RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS IN • RESPONSE TO STIMULUS B AND STIMULUS C \ GRAPHS OBTAINED FROM THE G.S.R.'S SUBJECTS IN RESPONSE TO STIMULUS OF 15 RELIGIOUS ' B l AND STIMULUS APPENDIX II B GRAPHS OBTAINED FROM THE G.S.R.s OF FIFTEEN NEUTRAL SUBJECTS IN . RESPONSE TO STIMULUS B AND STIMULUS C A »> GRAPHS OBTAINED FROM THE G.SR.'S OF THE 15 ^ NEUTRAL SUBJECTS IN RESPONSE TO STIMULUS 'B' AND STIMULUS 'C' B C B B C C B 7 B C 8 B C 10 B 13 C B 14 WA. B C B C 12 C 1 !,B !C 6 B '• C APPENDIX III THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE THREE RATERS INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATERS ORIENTATION Raters are asked to read the following instructions and then to read through the material to be rated. This i s f o r the purpose of orientation, .and no r a t i n g should be attempted during t h i s preliminary work. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Ratings w i l l be made on the blank forms provided. For each subject, three types of judgements w i l l be made on each of h i s responses to the two s t i m u l i . That i s , responses to both s t i m u l i w i l l be rated f o r the same factors on s i m i l a r r a t i n g scales. Following the preliminary readings, raters are asked to grade a l l t h i r t y of the responses to Stimulus B under the three headings to be described (Judgements I, II and I I I ) . Raters may rate a l l three categories on the one reading, rather than going through a l l the material on Stimulus B three times. When these three judgements are completed, then a l l t h i r t y responses to Stimulus C may be graded s i m i l a r l y . Raters should thoroughly f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with the i n s tructions which were given to the subjects tested. The instructions which made up Stimulus B are as follows: Conceding nothing to any opposing point of view which might exist, v e r b a l l y support the following statement:-THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS AN IN-STITUTION WHICH MERITS THE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF EVERYONE. Do not use humor.. Please .begin. The instructions which made up Stimulus C were as follows: Conceding nothing to any opposing point of view which might exist, v e r b a l l y support the following statement:-THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS AN IN-STITUTION WHICH MERITS THE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF NO ONE. Do not use humor. Please begin. Additi o n a l instructions were given before either Stimulus B or Stimulus C were presented. Each subject practised res-ponding to a stimulus which was worded exactly p a r a l l e l to those above but which was on a d i f f e r e n t t o p i c . At t h i s time, the following a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n was given: You see that t h i s means you have to be dogmatic. You must present a case f o r t h i s one point of view only, and you must concede nothing to any d i f f e r e n t point of view. I f a subject asked i f he had to present only material with which he agreed, the answer was: No, j u s t use any argument which supports t h i s statement. JUDGEMENT I. The judgements here are to be based on your opinion as to the strength . (worth) of each of the complete arguments presented. (Please remember however that a l l of the res-ponses to Stimulus B are to be judged before any of those to Stimulus C.) In making these judgements you should have the following c r i t e r i a i n mind: 1. The scope covered by the argument. That i s , i s the C h r i s t i a n Church and what you f e e l i t stands, f o r , "praised" (Stimulus B) or "condemned" (Stimulus C), i n toto, or does the argument take only some C h r i s t i a n Church groups and (or) some functions of the Church? 2. How much do concessions to 1an.opposing point of view detract from the argument? 3. How much pertinent material was the subject able to produce i n the one and one-half minutes allowed? 4. How pertinent are the points put forward? i Raters should keep i n mind that the subjects produced the material without preparation, so responses of a high q u a l i t y are not to be expected. The following i s the verbal description of the types of responses earning each of the ratings from "1" to "7" as provided on the rat i n g scales. The same c r i t e r i a apply to the rat i n g responses to both Stimulus B and Stimulus C under Judgement I. RATING: 1. A rat i n g of "1" would mean that there i s no material supporting the topic, and that the material which i s produced i s a c t u a l l y i n favor of the opposing (contrary) point of view. 2. No material supporting the topic, but neither are there any concessions to the opposing view. OR The number and scope of the concessions f a r outweighs the material i n support of- the top i c . 3. Some remotely acceptable arguments. No concessions. OR Some acceptable arguments but many concessions which detract from i t s worth. 4. An unconvincing argument but one which i s f a i r l y acceptable. No., concessions. OR Several acceptable points i n favor of the^ topic but unconvincing because of concessions which somewhat detract from the strength of the argument. 5. A f a i r l y convincing argument, a few acceptable points, or several f a i r l y acceptable points. No concessions. OR A very good supporting argument; many acceptable points and some (or one) points which you f e e l are of primary importance. Some concessions are made however which detract somewhat from the strength of the argument. 6. A convincing argument. Some of the points brought up are of primary importance. No concessions. OR A thorough, impassioned argument, s t i c k s to important issues. One or tv/o concessions which detract l i t t l e from the argument. 7 . A thorough, " s t i r r i n g " argument. Stays p r i m a r i l y with issues of greatest importance. No concessions. JUDGEMENT II Here we wish to know ..the extent to which concessions were made. In other words, how well does the i n d i v i d u a l conform to the instructions which read - "Conceding nothing to any opposing point of view which might e x i s t ..." This i s the same factor which played an important part under Judgement I. but i n t h i s case i t i s the only factor under consideration. A seven-point scale i s again employed. The type of response earning each r a t i n g i s as follows: RATING: 1. Sweeping concessions to the opposing point of view. The whole argument i s completely i n opposition to the topic which he i s supposed to support. 2. Many minor and/or several broad general con-cessions, several of which are elaborated upon. 3. Several concessions of a minor nature but few broad, negative generalizations. One or more of these concessions i s elaborated upon b r i e f l y ; that i s , the points conceded receive s l i g h t l y more than passing comment. 4. Several minor concessions and/or one major concession, but these are brief-and not elaborated upon and a f t e r making them the subjects proceed i n t h e i r attempts to support the stimulus statement. 5. A few b r i e f concessions of a very minor nature, not elaborated upon. OR One major concession, b r i e f and not elaborated upon, and which i s so presented as to detract l i t t l e from the argument as a whole. 6. One b r i e f , minor q u a l i f i c a t i o n or concession. 7. . Concedes nothing whatsoever. Judgements responses to both Stimulus B and Stimulus C are made on the basis of the r a t i n g scale above. JUDGEMENT III This judgement concerns frame of reference which the i n d i v i d u a l i s using as he responds to the words "The-C h r i s t i a n Church i s an i n s t i t u t i o n " i n the context of the in s t r u c t i o n s . What i s the d e f i n i t i o n which the subject i s using f o r t h i s phrase? The C h r i s t i a n Church is ( | made^up of many d i f f e r e n t orthodoxies with'a somewhat common basic philosophy and a common founder, but which vary'from each other i n some respects. The raters are asked to determine into which of the following categories the subject's response seems to f a l l . Category ;! 1, • The subject's response r e f e r s , very largely, to the philosophy upon which the C h r i s t i a n Church, as a whole, :1s based. That i s , the subject r e f e r s to the teachings of C h r i s t either ,: d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y and concerns himself with the p r i n c i p l e s expounded by the church i n general. :j 2. The discussion centers very l a r g e l y about the work done by one or more church groups and/or t h e i r means of doing t h i s work. The basic philosophy of the church i s very l a r g e l y ignored. The subject i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with the more concrete functions or effects of the church (e.g. "promoting young-people's clubs" or "some groups cause an unreasonable amount of emotionality.") Both'the philosophy of the Ch r i s t i a n Church (Category 1) and s p e c i f i c church functions (Category 2) receive more than b r i e f passing comment. Subject's response f i t s into none of the above three Categories. 

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.831.1-0106628/manifest

Comment

Related Items