Citation
The relationship of the concept of differentiation to the structure of verbal behavior

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of the concept of differentiation to the structure of verbal behavior
Creator:
Davidov, William H., 1936-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1968
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 91 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anxiety ( jstor )
Cognitive psychology ( jstor )
Directive interviews ( jstor )
Discriminants ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Spoken communication ( jstor )
Verbs ( jstor )
Words ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Verbal behavior ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 85-89.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022446614 ( AlephBibNum )
13755834 ( OCLC )
ACZ7817 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONCEPT OF
DIFFERENTIATION TO THE STRUCTURE
OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR










By

WILLIAM H. DAVIDOV


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1968













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer wishes to gratefully acknowledge the

assistance he received from the members of his supervisory

committee: Drs. Benjamin Barger, Chairman; Hugh Davis,

Harry Grater, and Henry Pennypacker of the Department of

Psychology; and Dr. Wilbur Bock of the Department of

Sociology. He also wishes to thank Drs. Philip Costanzo,

Carolyn Hursch, and Paul Satz for assisting with the statis-

tical analysis.

He wishes to express a special word of appreciation

to Dr. Benjamin Barger, who provided a constant source of

encouragement, constructive and creative suggestions and

questions, as well as the willing and consistent patience

and understanding which made the completion of this study

possible.

Most of all, he wishes to thank his lovely wife,

Jane, who worked many long hours, side by side with the

writer, and whose help in editing and typing, as well as

her patience and encouragement throughout, was truly

unmeasureable and deserves a lifetime of appreciation.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . .

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . .

The Concept of Differentiation
Verbal Behavior . . . .
Units of Analysis . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . .

II METHOD . . . . . .


a 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 . 0 0 v


. . . . 1


* 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Subjects . . . . .
Apparatus . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . .
Method of Analysis . . . ..

III RESULTS . . . . . . . .

The Discriminant Function Analyses


IV DISCUSSION . . . . . .

V SUMMARY . . . . . . .

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A. Structured Interview .

APPENDIX B. Representative Cards from
Embedded Figures Test .


* 0 0

* 0 0

* 0 0

* 0 0


the
0 0


a 0 0


of Anxiety


APPENDIX C. Two-Way Analyses of Variance
for the Three Verbal Expressions


APPENDIX D. Results of Discriminant Function
Analyses II and III . .





iii


0 0 0 0 0 0 & 0 0 0 0


0
0
0
0


*


* 0








Page

APPENDIX E. Representative Protocols for a
Low-differentiated and a High-
differentiated Individual . . 66

APPENDIX F. Frequencies of Word Categories
Which are Preceded by a Speech
Disturbance . . . . . .76

APPENDIX G. Ratio Scores for All 30 Subjects 78

BIBLIOGRAPHY A . . . . . . . 85

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . 90












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Analyses of Variance of the 10 Verbal
Measures for High- and Low-differentiated
Subjects . . . . . . . . 34

2 Mean Ratio Scores and the Differences Between
the Means for the Criterion Groups on the 10
Verbal Measures (Discriminant Function
Analysis I) . . . . . . . . 38

3 Classification of Subjects by Use of Discri-
minant Function I . .. . ..... 41

4 Two-Way Analyses of Variance for the Three
Verbal Expressions of Anxiety . . . . 61

5 Results of Discriminant Function Analyses
II and III . . . . . . . . 63

6 Classification of Subjects in the Spontaneous
Speech Task by Use of Discriminant Function
III . . . . . . . . . . . 64

7 Frequencies of Word Categories Which are
Preceded by a Speech Disturbance for a Low-
differentiated Subject in Structured and
Unstructured Speech Conditions . . . . 76

8 Frequencies of Word Categories Which are
Preceded by a Speech Disturbance for a High-
differentiated Subject in Structured and
Unstructured Speech Conditions . . . . 77

9 Ratio Scores for the 10 Verbal Measures for
the Combined Speech Tasks . . . . . 78

10 Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal Expressions
of Anxiety for the Structured Interview . . 82

11 Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal Expressions
of Anxiety for the Spontaneous Speech Task . 83













CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION



Thepurpose of this study is to investigate the

relationships between cognitive-perceptual style and

verbal behavior.



The Concept of Differentiation

Cognitive-perceptual styles have become highly

important in the field of psychology. The cognitive style

dichotomies,which have been proposed, are many; e.g.,

Differentiated--Non-differentiated (Witkin et al., 1962),

Sharpeners and Levelers (Gardner et al., 1960; 1959)

Yeasayers and Naysayers (Couch and Keniston, 1960), etc.

These dichotomies have been found to be related to per-

ception, intelligence, personality, sex differences,

body concept, and pathology. The most extensively re-

searched work has been that of the continuum of differ-

entiation (Witkin et al., 1962; 1954; Witkin, 1965).

Witkin and his associates have presented causal-etio-

logical factors beginning in childhood which result in

the development of a "specific" cognitive or perceptual

style in an individual. They report evidence that this








style is distinctly related to an individual's perception

of himself, his environment, and the relationship of

himself to his environment (Witkin et al., 1962). Addi-

tionally, Witkin has recently theorized that this style

is, at least in part, genetically determined. "Under

feral conditions, survival may depend on the ability to

separate quickly, from the complex visual and auditory

fields in which the animal lives, those sights and sounds

which signify danger, food, etc." (Witkin, 1965, p. 333).

Witkin and his associates (1962; 1954) have demonstrat-

ed a developmental trend in perceptual style from eight years

of age to young adulthood, progressing from global to a

more analytic approach. His studies have shown that an

individual's "characteristic approach to the world" is usual-

ly determined by the age of eight (Witkin et al., 1962).

The mode of perception associated with early stages of

development is referred to as "field-dependent" (F-D),

"global," "low-differentiated," or "non-differentiated"

(Witkin et al., 1962). Early in development, the child

is believed to experience himself and his environment as

"an amorphous, continuous mass." Formation of the "self"

involves the development of an "inner-core" of experience

and the separation of this core from the environmental

field. Throughout growth, the "self" becomes articulated

from the environment in a more structured manner, During

this period of development, stimulus objects take on








"function and meaning" as a result of continuous, yet

varying, dealings with them. The person who has the

ability to perceive the environment in an articulated

manner such that he is able to perceive items as discrete

from their backgrounds, is referred to as a "field-inde-

pendent," "high-differentiated," or "differentiated" person

(Witkin et al., 1962).

It has been demonstrated that it is possible to

predict an individual's functioning in the areas of percep-

tion, problem solving, intelligence, and personality from

a knowledge of his level of differentiation (Witkin et al.,

1962; 1954).

The concept of increasing articulation has been

applied to the "experience of an immediately present

stimulus configuration," i.e., perception (Witkin et al.,

1962; 1954; Witkin, 1949; Jackson, 1964; Asch and Witkin,

1948). Witkin feels that it also may be applied to "the

experience of symbolic material," i.e., cognition or thinking

(Witkin et al., 1962).

A primary concern with the perceptual-cognitive

Styles has been the adaptive function of cognitive processes

in the psychological economy of the individual. This

has resulted in a search for consistencies across psycho-

logical areas. A by-product of cognitive style research

has been "its contribution to a more integrated, holistic

view of personality" (Witkin, 1965).







For the low-differentiated person, perception

is strongly dominated by the over-all organization

of the field, and parts of the field are experienced

as "fixed" (Witkin, 1965, p. 318). In a field-in-

dependent mode of perceiving, "parts of the field are

experienced as discrete from organized background"

(Witkin, 1965, p. 318).

The cognitive style of field-dependence is

described as follows, "At one extreme [field-dependence,

low-differentiated] there is a consistent tendency for

experience to be global and diffuse; the organization as

a whole dictates the manner in which its parts are

experienced. At the other extreme [field-independence,

high-differentiated] there is a tendency for experience

to be delineated and structured; parts of a field are

experienced as discrete and the field as a whole organized"

(Witkin et al., 1962, p. 319).

Various techniques have been devised to measure

the articulation dimensions e.g., the Rod and Frame Test,

the Tilting Room Test, and the Tilting Chair Test, etc.

(Witkin et al., 1962; 1954). Witkin (1950) developed the

Embedded Figures Test (EFT) for the measurement of field-

dependence. This test is a modification of the Gottschaldt

figures to which color and increased complexity have been

added. The EFT (Appendix B) has-been found to correlate








significantly with other techniques used for measuring the

field-dependence dimension (Jackson et al., 1964; Witkin

et al., 1962; Young, 1959). Short forms have been devised

for the EFT which have been found to correlate up to +.99

with the original scale (Witkin et al., 1962; Jackson, 1956).

The EFT requires the person to locate a simple

figure in a complex design which is so organized as to

conceal the simple figure. The high-differentiated person

is able to discern the figure easily, whereas others may

not discern it for long (5 minutes) periods of time.

High-differentiated persons give evidence of a

developed sense of identity, i.e., "they have an awareness

of needs, feelings, attributes which they recognize as

their own and which they identify as distinct from those

of others" (Witkin, 1965, p. 320). This implies an experience

of self as segregated and structured. Low-differentiated

individuals reveal greater reliance on external sources

for their feelings, attitudes, and judgments.

From his studies reported in 1954, Witkin found the

following personality components associated with the different

levels of differentiation (Witkin et al., 1954): Low-differ-

entiated individuals display general passivity in dealing

with the environment; they lack a sense of self-awareness;

they have relatively poor control of impulses, with accom-

panying fear of aggressive and sexual impulses, and often,

high anxiety; and they have a sense of low self-esteem








with a low evaluation of their bodies. High-differen-

tiated individuals are active in dealing with their envi-

ronment; they have an awareness of "inner-life" and effective

control of impulses with low anxiety; and they have high

self-esteem, including confidence in their bodies.

Upon replicating some of Witkin's experiments,

Young (1959) found that field-dependence (low-differentia-

tion) does correlate with passive dependence, distrust of

one's own feelings, and lack of introspectiveness. Taft

and Coventry (1958) found that S's who score high extro-

version on Eyesenck's introversion-extroversion scale

were significantly less accurate on measures of field

dependence than were those who scored low. The rationale

here was that extroverts would be relatively unprepared to

handle the environment by means of cues emanating from

themselves. A study by Marlowe (1958) found that field

independence (high-differentiation) was related to "intra-

ception," i.e., the need to be analytic in regard-to the

behavior and motives on one's self and others. Linton

(1955) found that the field dependent personality is associ-

ated with high conformity as measured by the auto-kinetic

effect and attitude change measures.

There are distinct sex differences regarding

degree of field-dependence, with females showing a con-

siderably lesser degree of differentiation than males (Witkin

et al., 1962; 1954; Bennet, 1956; Young, 1959). "The sex








differences that have been observed are clear-cut and

pervasive, but they are relatively slight, compared to the

range of individual differences within each sex (Witkin

et al., 1962, p. 221). These stylistic tendencies mani-

fest themselves in the individual's intellectual tendencies

as well. Low-differentiated people do less well in solving

problems which require isolating essential elements from

the presented contexts and using them in different contexts

(Witkin et al., 1967). Jackson (1957) found that time

taken on the EFT correlated -.57, for males and females

combined, with undergraduate scores on the ACE. Goode-

nough and Karp (1961) using the EFT, found it was signi-

ficantly correlated with the Block Design, Figure Completion,

and Object Assembly for two groups of children (ages 10

and 12). Messick and Damarin (1964) found that low differ-

entiated S's showed greater incidental learning when the

material consisted of human faces, as compared to high

differentiated S's. The reverse was found when non-

human incidental material was used.

At any level along the continuum of differentia-

tion, different modes of integration are possible, although

more complex modes are expected with greater differentia-

tion. Adjustment is a direct function of the effective-

ness of integration, i.e. "a: more or less harmonious

working together of parts of the system as a whole with

its environment. Adequate adjustment is found at any








level of differentiation, resulting from integration

effective for that level, although the nature of adjust-

ment that may be considered adequate varies from level to

level" (Witkin, 1965, p. 324). Also, faulty integration

can occur at all levels of differentiation; however, the

kind of impairment will most likely be different. There

is evidence for greater pathology at the extremes of the

differentiation continuum than at the middle (Witkin et al.,

1962). The pathology takes on quite different forms at

the two extremes.

Low-differentiated persons (at the extreme) usually

have severe identity problems and exert little effort

to maintain their identity. They show deep-seated pro-

blems of dependency, inadequately developed controls

which result in chaotic functioning, and are passive with

strong feelings of helplessness (Witkin, 1965; Witkin et al.,

1962). They are prone to feelings of shame, hostility

directed inward, and diffuse anxiety, and their major

defenses are repression and denial (Witkin, personal

communication).

The types of pathology associated mainly with low-

differentiation are alcoholism (Karp et al., 1963; Bailey

et al., 1961; Witkin et al., 1959); ulcer problems, asthma,

obesity, and hysteria (all reported in Witkin, 1965;

Witkin et al., 1962).

The pathology associated with high-differentiated








persons usually involves delusions, expansive and euphoric

ideas of grandeur, outward direction of aggression, over

ideation, and struggle for identity and self-aggrandisement

(Witkin, 1965; Witkin et al., 1962). They are more like-

ly to have feelings of guilt and hostility directed outward

and they are apt to experience anxiety as having a specific

source and occurring under specific circumstances (Witkin,

personal communication). Most paranoid disorders occur

in high-differentiated persons (Witkin, 1965). Projection

is quite specialized and selective regarding persons and

situations. This selectivity necessitates an ability to

articulate. The major defenses of the differentiated

person are isolation and over-intellectualization. This

enables them to maintain the discreteness of feelings

and ideas, with the possibility of feeling components being

"split-off."

"The global-analytical dimension of cognitive

functioning appears not to relate to presence or absence

of pathology, adequacy of adjustment, or some of the con-

ventional psychiatric nosological categories. However,

the kinds of problems, symptoms, and maladaptations

found in children and adults with contrasting modes of

field approach appear to be very different" (Witkin et al.,

1962, p. 213).

Differentiated persons show a greater degree of

"activity level" (Witkin et al., 1962). However, this








does not refer to expenditure of motoric energy. "Activi-

ty level" refers to an activity attitude, i.e., a quality

of directness which involves a definition of goals and

the means of reaching the goals. It involves assertiveness

or striving. "The weight of the evidence from the studies

presented is that people with an analytic approach are

more likely to show an active attitude than people with

a global approach (Witkin et al., 1962, p. 189).

The differentiated individual utilizes structured

controls which lead to regulation of attention. This

regulation of attention is related to directness of activi-

ty. This "type" of person can better rely on internal

frames of reference as guides for action. However, the

opposite is true of the low-differentiated person whose

diffuse anxiety and weakly developed boundaries of inter-

action often preclude the formation of a delineated

directedness towards specific goals.

Therefore, the numerous studies on the dimen-

sion of differentiation have shown it to be a stable

phenomenon involving many psychological processes.

However, the evidence relating differentiation to verbal

behavior is sparce and inconclusive. The few studies

reported involve TAT protocols and WAIS and WISC responses.

Witkin (1962) reports that these studies and the results

provide tentative generalizations without any direct

findings. Using the unstructured interviews taken from








a group of 10- year-old boys, Witkin (1962) found that

the subjects whose interviews showed general immaturity,

poorly developed self-concept, diminished sense of

awareness, under-developed expressive powers, passivity,

relative lack of orientation to past events, and little

comprehension of relationships between past events, had

perceptual index scores which correlated significantly

with their interview ratings. Those Ss scored at the

non-differentiated levels on the perceptual tasks.

The opposite relationship was found with those Ss whose

interviews gave evidence of developed self-esteem, positive

abilities for interpersonal relationships, active inter-

ests, vitality, greater insight, and clear general

orientation.



Verbal Behavior

The importance of studying verbal behavior becomes

extremely clear when it is recognized that it represents

the primary data observed and collected by clinical

psychologists. It is considered a major part of the raw

material from which personalities are constructed. It

has been shown that "patterns of language variables

themselves may be used to reflect and indicate quanti-

tative aspects of intrapsychic processes" (Gottschalk and

Hambidge, 1955, P. 338).

One of the commonest forms of behavior that








typifies man is verbal behavior. While to a great extent

man's patterns of speech are determined by the grammar and

rhetoric of the language he speaks, it is reasonable to

assume that within this framework the individual's choice

of words, themes, and style of speech may reveal something

of his personality dynamics and his current emotional style"

(Gottschalk et al., 1957, P. 300).

"Language provides a natural and spontaneous

form through which man represents his perception of exter-

nal reality (Lorenz, 1959).

Sanford (1942) states that "Language tradition-

ally has been regarded as the vehicle of thought..." (p. 611).

He points out that as early as 1916, it ,was suggested that

verbal behavior is indicative of psychopathology. The

patient's relationship with his environment is reflected

in grammatical mood, voice, etc. He further states that

the study of "speech as abnormal behavior demonstrates that

abnormality of adjustment is revealed in linguistic

behavior and that more or less specific syndromes are

accompanied by more or less characteristic speech usages"

(p. 386). If speech is looked on as behavior and if

speech can be objectively and quantitatively treated, then

observation can be more precise and inference more in-

cisive" (p. 836).

McClelland and Atkinson (1953), state that "the

frequency with which a certain person employs a certain








grammatical category such as nouns, verbs, adjectives,

and the like, has been shown to be related to various

personality characteristics" (p. 248-249).

Wendel Johnson (1944) views the study of language

as being primarily useful in ascertaining individual

differences. He suggests the following type of words as

being effective as means of studying language behavior:

A. Self-reference words.

B. Quantifying terms precise numerical terms.

C. Pseudo-quantifying terms words less indicative of

amount, size, etc.

D. "Allness" terms superlative or extreme words, such

as "never," "always," "no one," etc.

E. Qualification terms words that serve to qualify or

limit statements, such as "except," "but," "however,"

"if," etc.

F. Terms indicative of consciousness of abstracting -

such words as "apparently," "seems," "appears," "as if."

Johnson also suggested the following measurements:

A. Type-frequency changes that characterize language

development.

B. Type-frequency characteristics of special groups that

may differentiate one group from another.

C. Type-frequency characteristics that correlate with

other variables, e.g., intelligence, emotional

stability, etc.







Jaffe (1961) and Johnson (1944) advocate the

use of a Type Token Ratio (TTR) as a means of analyzing

verbal data. The TTR is a measure of "verbal diversi-

fication" and is represented by the formula TYPE where the

"type" is the total number of each different word used,

and the "token" represents the total number of words

spoken. Jaffe states that "Previous experience with TTR

analysis indicates that low TTR (repetitive verbal trans-

actions) is characteristic of affect, misunderstanding,

confusion, and anxiety, in short, the various agitations

which interrupt the flow of referential verbal communi-

cation" (p. 83). Fairbanks (1944) and Mann (1944) found

lower TTR's in the speech and writing of schizophrenic

patients than in normal controls.

Boder (1940) reports an earlier study by Busemann

who used a variation of the Verb Adjective ratio (V/A).

Busemann viewed the V/A as a reflection of emotional

stability with higher ratios indicating greater instability.

Boder also reports that Rorschach found high V/A to be

related to movement responses, which were produced by

introverted people, while low V/A was related to color

responses, produced by extratensive individuals. Balken

and Masserman (1940) theorized that "high [V/A] values

connote restless, forceful, dramatic action in the phan-

tesies, expressing libidinal tensions and anxiety in the

subject" (p. 79).








Speech disturbances, which are usually not under

control exercised in speaking and are not readily subject

to social or linguistic control,, can serve as useful

indicators of anxiety.

Mahl's (1966) studies showed that speech distur-

bances ratios (Speech disturbances/Total words in sample)

were sensitive discriminators of anxiety which produce

statistically significant individual differences between

interviews for the same individual, and statistically

significant variations from moment to moment within in-

dividual interviews.

The following speech disturbance categories were

used by Mahl (1966) as measures of anxiety:

1. Sentence Change. A correction in form or content of

the expression while the word to word progression

occurs, e.g., Well, she's...'already she's lonesome.

2. Repetition. The serial superfluous representation

of one or more'of the words--usually of one or two

words, e.g.', Cause... cause they get along.

3. Stuttering.

4. Omission. Parts of words or entire words may be

omitted, e.g., She mour... was in mourning.

5. Sentence Incompletion. An expression is interrupted,

clearly left incomplete and the communication

proceeds without correction.

6. Tongue Slips. includes neologisms, the trans-

position of entire words from their "correct serial








position in the sentence, and the substitution

of an 'unintended' for an intended word", e.g.,

We speat the bitches (for "split the beeches").

7. Intruding incoherent sound. A sound which is ab-

solutely incoherent to the listener, e.g., If I

see her now, I just dh... ask her.

Short samples of speech (5-15 minutes) have been

used effectively as a means of studying verbal behavior

(Weintraub and Aronson, 1964; Gottschalk et al., 1961;

1957; 1955; Lorenz and Cobb, 1952). TAT cards have also
been used (Witkin et al., 1961; Gottschalk et al., 1957,

1955). However, Gottschalk and Hambidge (1955) found
significant definable differences in the pattern of speech

elicited by the use of TAT cards and the short samples of

speech. Other investigators have used psychotherapeutic

interviews to obtain their speech samples (Lennard, 1961;

Lennard and Bernstein, 1960; Gottschalk et al., 1961;

Saslow and Matarazzo, 1955).

Gottschalk and Hambidge (1955) studied content

variables, i.e., "the meaning, relationships, objects,

concepts, and processes which the verbal elements in

speech are intended to symbolize" (1955, p. 389). Their

units of analysis consisted of self-references, non-self-

references (other humans, animals, flora, and fauna),

verbs (words expressing action, motivation, perception,

and thought, and which represent processes occurring between








objects and/or concepts), and references to measure,

i.e., time, space, and quantity. "The number and kind

of verbal symbols which express a relationship of measure,

size, quantity, time, space may indicate the degree of

the speaker's exploratory alertness and attention to

orientation. Such orienting activities occur in relation

to sequences of intrapersonal and interpersonal events.

Therefore, they may be of significance in elucidating

certain qualitative and possible quantitative aspects of

psychodynamic processes" (p. 390). In their later study

(1957) Gottschalk and his associates added other units of

analysis, e.g., total qualifying words (which included

adjectives, prepositions, articles, adverbs, conjunctions,

interjections, and negations).

Weintraub and Aronson (1964), using a ten-minute

sample of speech on anything the subject wished, used 12

scoring categories which included:

A. Quantity of speech number of spoken words.

B. Shift to past tense.

C. "Negators" e.g., "no," "not," "nothing."

D. Qualifiers words or phrases indicating uncer-

tainty, e.g., "suppose," "guess," etc., use of

modifiers which detract from the forcefulness of the

statement, e.g., "more or less," etc., and phrases

or words which introduce an element of vagueness,

e.g., "what one might call" or "something like."








E. Explaining or "justifying" use of phrases or words

which indicate (1) relationships, e.g., "because," "due

to," "as if," "as a," (2) a reason for an action,

thought, or attitude, e.g., "My purpose is to...," and

(3) a participal phrase containing a justification

for an action, or thought, e.g., "Having attended

many times, I can speak with authority about...."

F. Evaluators, e.g., goodness and badness, usefulness

and uselessness, right and wrong.

The investigation of perceptual-cognitive styles

has contributed extensively to the field of clinical

psychology. Witkin and his associates have done the

most extensive research in this area in respect to the

concept of differentiation. This cognitive-perceptual

dimension has been related to intelligence, sex differ-

ences, self-awareness, problem solving, personality, and

psychopathology. Yet, one of the most crucial tools of

the clinical psychologist--verbal behavior--has been neg-

lected in respect to its relationship to perceptual-cogni-

tive style.

Witkin's concept of differentiation can be summa-

rized by the following basic personality concepts which

have been found to be associated with high levels of

differentiations

A. A general activity in dealing with the environment;

B. A general tendency to see the world as structured and








analyzed;

C. A sense of separate identity;

D. Effective control of impulses with low anxiety;

The purpose of this study is to test hypothesized

verbal correlates for these four basic personality com-

ponents, in an attempt to demonstrate the relationship

between differentiation and the structure of verbal behavior.


Units of Analysis

The following verbal measures which would seem

to be related to the concept of differentiation were se-

lected for investigation in this study:

1. Adjectives, Adverbs, and Prepositions--usually

express an expansion or addition of character-

ization. They serve as particularization fac-

tors (Lorenz, 1959). They also represent a

means of controlling self and the environment.

2. Verbs--usually express motivation, action,

perception, and thought. They represent pro-

cesses, occurring between objects and/or concepts

(Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955).

3. Verb Adjective Ratio (V/A)--used to indicate

level of anxiety and amount of fantasy life.

4. Type Token Ratio (TTR)--used as a measure of

verbal diversification.

5. Allness Terms--(e.g., everyone, no one, always,








never, etc.) suggests diffuseness, i.e.,

difficulty in being discrete.

6. Measure Terms--(space, time, quantity, size)

indicate the individual's degree of exploratory

alertness and attention to orientation (Gott-

schalk and Hambidge, 1955).

7. Attenuating Terms--(e.g., "more or less," "a

little bit," "something like," etc.)--words or

phrases which tend to weaken the meaning of the

words they modify, and therefore would indicate

a lesser degree of discreteness.

8. Speech Disturbances--(e.g., stutter, omissions,

tongue slips, etc.) indicate degree of anxiety

in speech,

9. Terms Indicating Causal Relationships--(e.g.,

"because," "due to," "resulting from," etc.)

indicating comprehension of the relationship

between events.


Hypotheses

The findings related to the concept of differ-

eAtiation are used to develop the following hypotheses

which were tested in the context of the four basic person-

ality components.

A. General activity in dealing with the environment.

1. The high-differentiated person will use a








significantly greater number of verbs in

his speech than the low-differentiated per-

son. Rationales The high-differentiated

person has a more "active attitude," is

more goal directed, has a greater aware-

ness of his goals, and is more capable of

relating events in his environment.

B. Tendency for the world to be experienced as

structured and analyzed.

2. The high-differentiated person will use

significantly more total qualifying words

(adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions) in

his speech than will the low-differentiated

person. Rationales High-differentiated

persons are more precise and perceive their

environment in a more discrete manner.

3. The high-differentiated person will use

significantly fewer "allness" terms than

the low-differentiated person. Rationales

The high-differentiated person perceives

his environment in a discrete manner, is

more specific, and less diffuse than the

non-differentiated person.

4. The high-differentiated person will use

significantly fewer attenuating terms than

will the low-differentiated person. Rationales








High-differentiated individuals are more

specific and expressive in their speech,

and attenuating terms tend to weaken the

discreteness of speech.

5. The high-differentiated person will use

significantly more terms indicating causal

relationships. Rationale: High-differen-

tiated persons have greater comprehension

of relationships between events.

C. A sense of separate identity.

6. The high-differentiated person will use

a significantly greater number of measure

terms (time, space, quantity, and size)

than the low-differentiated person.

Rationale: The high-differentiated

person more discretely articulates his

environment and has a greater sense of

separate identity than the low-differ-

entiated person.

7. The high-differentiated person will make

fewer references to self. Rationales

The high-differentiated person has a more

adaptive self-concept and therefore, less

of a need for self-references.

D. Effective control of impulses with low anxiety.

8. The high-differentiated person will have a








lower Verb Adjective Ratio than the low-

differentiated person. Rationales The

high-differentiated person is less ex-

troverted, and has greater control over

his impulses and anxiety than the low-

differentiated person.

9. The high-differentiated person will have

a significantly higher Type Token Ratio

than the low-differentiated person. Rationales

The high-differentiated person has greater

control of his anxiety and is more verbally

expressive.

10. The high-differentiated person will

have significantly fewer speech distur-

bances than the low-differentiated person.

Rationale: The high-differentiated

person has greater control of his impulses

and less anxiety.

A structured interview (Appendix A) was developed

in order to elicit verbal behavior in the context of

structure. As the interview represents a structured

situation for the individual, it is further hypothesized

that it will represent less of a threat to the low-differ-

entiated person than elicited spontaneous speech. Witkin's

findings have shown that the low-differentiated person

has a greater anxiety of a non-specified source, is more








dependent, and requires greater environmental structure

and support than the high-differentiated person (Witkin,

personal communication). Therefore, on the basis of

these findings, the following hypotheses will be tested:

11. The low-differentiated person will have a

significantly lower Verb Adjective Ratio

in the structured interview than in spon-

taneous speech.

12. The low-differentiated person will have a

significantly higher Type Token Ratio

in the structured interview than in spon-

taneous speech.

13. The low-differentiated person will have

significantly fewer speech disturbances

in the structured interview than in spon-.

taneous speech,

14. The high-differentiated person will show

no significant differences in the Verb

Adjective Ratio, Type Token Ratio, or

Speech Disturbances when the structured

interview results are compared with spon-

taneous speech results.













CHAPTER II


METHOD



Subjects

A total of 56 male S's who were enrolled in an

undergraduate, introductory psychology course at the

University of Florida were administered the EFT (Appendix B).

Using Witkins's norms (Witkin, 1950), 15 S's who scored in the

lowest quartile and 15 S's who scored in the highest

quartile were selected and used in this study.



Apparatus

The EFT short form, devised by Witkin (1962), con-

sisting of 12 complex figures and eight simple figures, was

administered to 56 S's in order to determine his degree of

differentiation (field-dependence--field-independence).

Each S selected for further study was given the

structured interview and then asked to give five min-

utes of uninterrupted, spontaneous speech. The interview

and the spontaneous speech were both recorded electronically

on tape.' Typewritten transcripts were made from the tapes to

facilitate the data analysis. Two judges (the experi-

menter and his wife who has a B.A. in psychology) rated








independently each transcript (presented in random order) for

the purpose of determining the reliability of tabulating the

verbal measures.



Procedure

Each S was met by an experimenter and administered

the EFT. At the beginning of the test, the following in-

structions, which were taken from Witkin (1950), were given

to each S:

I am going to show you a series of colored
designs. Each time I show you one of these
designs, I want you to describe the over-all
pattern that you see in it. After you examine
each design I will show you a simpler figure,
which is contained in that larger design. You
will then be given the larger design again,
and your job will be to locate the smaller
figure in it. Let us go through one to show
you how it is done.


The S was then shown the practice complex figure

(P-l) for 15 seconds, after which it was removed and the

practice simple figure (P) was shown for 10 seconds.

When it was removed, the complex figure was presented once

more, with instructions to locate the simple figure in it.

As this was done, a stop watch was started. When S reported

that he had found the figure, the time was recorded and he

was required to trace the figure, so that the E could.be

sure it was the correct one.

After the practice trial, the S was given the

following additional instructions:








This is how we will proceed on all
trials. I would like to add that in
every case the smaller figure will be
present in the larger design. It will
always be in the upright position.
There may be several of the smaller
figures in the same large design, but
you are to look only for the one in
the upright position. Work as quickly
as you possible can, since I will be
timing you; but be sure that the figure
you find is exactly the same as the
original figure both in size and in
proportions. As soon as you have
found the figure, tell me at once.
If you ever forget what the simple
figure looks like, you may ask to
see it again. Are there any questions,?


The same presentation procedure was used on 12

test trials. The S's score on each trial was the time tak-

en to find the simple figure in the complex one after

the latter was presented for the second time. A maximum

of five minutes was allowed for each trial. If the subject

failed to locate the figure in that time, his score was

recorded as 5'. While he searched for the simple figure,

he was permitted to re-examine the copy of it as often as

he wished. This was deemed necessary because the task would

cease to be the one intended if the S no longer remembered

the structure of the figure for which he was searching.

The complex figure was of course removed if he looked back

at the simple one,.so that both figures were never seen

simultaneously, and the S was discouraged from taking

more than 10 seconds for each re-examination of the simpler

figure. The stop watch was stopped during the period of







re-examination, so that this time was not included in the

final score, When the S reported discovery of the simple

figure within the complex one, the time was noted, but the

stop watch was permitted to run while he traced the figure.

If the tracing was done correctly, the score recorded for

the trial was the time of discovery, but if the correct

figure was not traced, the S continued his search and the

time consumed in tracing the incorrect figure was included

in the final score. Witkin's method (1962) for scoring

the short form was applied. For this method, the S's

score for the whole test was the sum of the times taken to

locate the simple figures in all 12 complex figures.

This sum was multiplied by two in order to use the norms

of the long form, which consist of 24 complex figures.

In order to control for experimenter bias, a different

Examiner, who was not aware of the EFT scores, obtained the

speech measures. Each of the 30 S's selected for their

extreme scores on the EFT was administered the speech

tasks individually. Each S was seen in the same room,

with the same meeting arrangements, and the same placement

of the tape recorder in full view. He was informed of the

confidentiality of his verbal productions. He was first

given the structured interview (Appendix A). Following

this, each S was asked to speak for 5 minutes. The in-

structions were as follows:

This is a study of speaking and conver-








national habits. Upon a signal from me,
I would like you to start telling me a-
bout any interesting or dramatic life ex-
periences you have had. Once you have
started, I shall be here listening to you
but would prefer not to reply to any
questions you may feel like asking me
until the five minutes are up. Do you
have any questions you would like to
ask before we start? Well then, you may
start (Gottschalk et al., 1957, P. 301).

After completion-of the spontaneous speech task, the

study was explained to the subject and he was thanked for

his participation and excused.



Method of Analysis

To insure that the high- and low-differentiated

subject groups did not differ significantly in verbal

skills, they were compared by the t test using the verbal

scores of The School and College Ability Test, which were

available from university records.

The verbal measures used in this study were first

transcribed from the tapes into typewritten form. Then

each verbal unit was scored by a judge and single page

selections from each of the 30 S's were scored indepen-

dently by an additional judge for a reliability check. The

two judges achieved 98% agreement.

For each hypothesis, the appropriate verbal units

were then totalled for each subject and transformed into

ratios. The ratios consisted of the total number of words

representative of a given measure (excepting TTR and V/A)








divided by the total number of words used by the subject.

The ratio method was employed to accommodate for individual

differences in total verbal production.

Ten one-way analyses of variance were computed in

order to test for the differences between the two groups

(high- and low-differentiated) on each of the first 10

hypotheses.

For the remaining four hypotheses, three 2 x 2

analyses of variance were done. The two dimensions in

these analyses were the two population groups (high- and

low-differentiated) and the two verbal tasks (structured

and unstructured). Analysis of the role of these variables,

as well as their interactions, were tested by the F statistic.

Dependent variables in these analyses were the V/A, the TTR,

and the speech disturbances.

In order to determine whether a combination of the

verbal measures could result in significant discrimination

between the two groups, three discriminant function analyses

were done. This statistical technique was developed by

R.A. Fisher in 1936 in order to best differentiate criterion

groups where multiple measurements were being used.1

Occasionally, decisions can be made on the basis of a single

variable, but more frequently two groups differ across


1
The following readings are suggested for a more
thorough discussion of discriminant function analysis
(Goulden, C.H., 1952; Fisher, R.A., 1936; Mather, K., 1946).








several variables, each of which contributes to the classi-

fication of an individual. The technique of discriminant

function analysis is essentially a multiple regression

method which is expressed by the function:

Z = XlX 1 2x2 3x3+.. +XInXn

in which z is the Composite predictor score derived from

the individual raw scores (x) on each of the variables

and the corresponding weightings (N). It is necessary to

determine the optimal weights for each of the variables,

i.e., to find values for the lambda coefficients which

will maximize the difference between the composite means

of the criterion groups. Discriminant function should

differentiate groups more efficiently than any other multi-

variate technique.

The three discriminant function analyses used in

this study were as follows: 1) Analysis was made of the

10 verbal units used in this study to determine how effi-

ciently these variables would classify the subjects into

the two appropriate criterion groups; 2) the TTR, V/A and

speech disturbances were analyzed for the structured speech

task. It was expected that this particular analysis would

serve as a control test in that accurate classification

of the criterion groups should not occur, as the structured

task should not produce significantly different anxiety

expressions in the two groups; and 3) TTR, V/A and speech

disturbances were analyzed for the unstructured speech





32


task. With this analysis, accurate classification of the two

criterion groups was expected, as the unstructured context

should increase the anxiety level of the low-differentiated

subjects. This increase should be reflected by a signi-

ficant difference between the two criterion groups in the

use of the three verbal expressions of anxiety.













CHAPTER III


RESULTS



The comparison which was made of the SCAT verbal

scores of the two criterion groups yielded a t of .95,

.50 >p<.20. This finding suggests that the two groups do

not differ significantly in verbal skills and therefore,

differences in their patterns of verbal behavior may be

attributed to factors other than verbal skills.

Table 1 presents the results of the one-way analyses

of variance for the first ten hypotheses. In all of the

ten one-way analyses, the results were non-significant and

the hypotheses regarding differences between the two criter-

ion groups on the ten verbal measures were not confirmed.

The results of the three 2 x 2 analyses of variance

for the three verbal expressions of anxiety are presented

in Appendix C. These three analyses tested hypotheses 11,

12, 13, and 14. The F ratios, in all instances, were

non-significant and the three hypotheses, predicting an in-

crease in anxiety reflected in the three verbal measures for

the low-differentiated group in the structured situation,

were not supported. Hypothesis 14, which predicted no differ-

ence between the structured and unstructured tasks in the










Table 1


Analyses of Variance of the 10 Verbal Measures
for High- and Low-differentiated Subjects


VERBS

Source of Sum of
Variation Squares D/F MS F P


Between groups 374.53 1 374.53 <1 n.s.

Within groups 14732.27 28 526.15

Total 15106.81 29



QUALIFYING TERMS

Source of Sum of
Variation Squares D/F MS F P


Between groups 307.20 1 307.20 <1 n.s.

Within groups 18368.81 28 656.03

Total 18676.01 29



ALLNESS TERMS

Source of Sum of
Variation Squares D/F MS F P


Between groups

Within groups


12.03

759.33


1 12.03


<1 n.s.


27.12


771.37 29


Total










Table 1 Continued


ATTENUATING TERMS

Sum of
Squares D/F


Source of
Variation


Between groups

Within groups

Total





Source of
Variation


Between groups

Within groups

Total


258.13

4890.53

5148.67


1

28

.29


258.13

174.66


CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP TERMS

Sum of
Squares D/F MS


32.03

258.13

290.17


32.03

9.22


MEASURING TERMS


Source of
Variation


Between groups

Within groups

Total


1.48










F


3.47


n.s.










P


n.s.


Sum of
Squares


D/F


213.33

3146.13

3359.47


213.33

112.36


1.90


n.s.


_ _


__ __











Table 1 Continued


Source of
Variation


Between groups

Within groups

Total


SELF-REFERENCES

Sum of
Squares D/F


.30

14199.87

14200.17


.30

507.14


V/A


Source of
Variation


Sum of
Squares
(x 10-3)


MS
D/F (x 10-3)


Between groups

Within groups

Total





Source of
Variation


Between groups

Within groups

Total


253.92

2522.27

2776.19


2539.20

900.81


2.82 n.s.


n.s.


51.50

190.93


n.s.


51.50

5346.06

5397.57




Sum of
Squares


TTR


D/F











Table 1 Continued



SPEECH DISTURBANCES

Source of Sum of
Variation Squares D/F MS F P


Between groups 282.13 1 282.13 3.32 n.s.

Within groups 2379.07 28 84.97

Total 2661.20 29


Note.--n.s. = non-significant.



occurrence of verbal expressions of anxiety for the high-

differentiated group, was supported.



The Discriminant Function Analyses2

Discriminant Function Analysis I tested the effect

of using the combination of the 10 verbal measures in

maximizing the accuracy of classifying appropriately each

subject into the two criterion groups. The mean scores

and differences for each verbal measure between the two

groups are presented in Table 2. The differences, with the

exceptions of V/A, TTR, and Allness Terms are in the pre-

dicted directions.

2
The data were analyzed at the University of
Florida Computer Center. The program used was BMD04--
Discriminant Analysis--Two Groups--Version of May 26,
1964. Health Sciences Computing Facility, UCLA.











Table 2


Mean Ratio Scores and the Differences Between the
Means for the Criterion Groups on the 10 Verbal
Measures (Discriminant Function Analysis I)




Low- High-
differentiated diffentiated
Variables (N = 15) (N = 5) Difference
(x 103) (x 103) (x 103)


1. Verbs

2. Qualifying
Terms

3. Allness
Terms

4. Attenuating
Terms

5. Causal
Relationships

6. Measuring
Terms

7. Self-
References


8. V/A

9. TTR


198.27


393.80


11.60


26.60


4.80


22.87


72.93

1838.27

347.27


205.33


400.20


12.87


20.73


6.87


28.20


72.73

1921.13

328.87


- 7.07


- 6.40


- 1.27


5.87


- 2.07


- 5.33

0.20

-82.87

18.40


10. Speech
Disturbances


28.67 22.53


6.13








The following lambda values (X) for each variable

were obtained: Verbs (X1 = 0.00198), Qualifying Terms

(X2 = -0.003196), Allness Terms (X3 = -0.00576), Attenuating

Terms (% = 0.00319), Causal Relationships (X5 = -0.02326),

Measuring Terms (%6 = -0.00583), Self-References (X =

-0.00121), V/A (x8 = -0.0008), TTR (?9 = 0.00023), and

Speech Disturbances (X10 = 0.00404). The lambda values

suggest how much each variable has contributed to the

classification.

The derived mean composite discriminant score for

each criterion group are as follows: Za = -1.42219 and

Zb = -1.58898, in which Za is the score based on the mean

scores of each variable for the low-differentiated subjects

(Xal, ... a10), and the corresponding weights assigned to

each of the respective variables (X1, ...8)* Zb serves

as the respective mean composite score for the high-differ-

entiated group.

The following strategy was used to determine the

optimal cut-off score for the purpose of classifying any

subject on the basis of his composite score:

If Zi > Za Zb,
2

then classify low-differentiated.

If Zi Za + Zb,
2

then classify high-differentiated.

The ratio, (Za + Zb)/2, yielded the composite








value of Z = -1.50559 as the optimal cut-off score.

Classifications were then made on each subject and

the results are presented in Table 3. These results demon-

strate that only two low-differentiated subjects and three

high-differentiated subjects were misclassified. The

discriminant function analysis accurately classified 83%

of the tested sample of 30 subjects.

The results of Discriminant Function Analysis I

showed significant differentiation between the two criterion

groups (F = 2.38 with d/f = 10, 19, P < .05).

Discriminant Function Analysis II tested the effect

of combining three verbal measures of anxiety (V/A, TTR,

and Speech Disturbances) in the structured speech task upon

accurate classification of the two criterion groups. It

was expected that since structure should not produce differ-

ential anxiety between the high- and low-differentiated

groups that accurate classification would not occur. The

results supported this prediction (see Appendix D for tables).

The obtained lambda values were as follows: V/A

(X1 = -0.00002), TTR (X2 = 0.0000), and Speech Disturbances

(3 = 0.00072). The derived mean composite discriminant

scores were Za = -0.01581 and Zb = -0.02542 with a cut-off

score (Za + Zb/2), Z = -0.02062. Using this cut-off score,

Discriminant Function Analysis II accurately classified only

57% of the total sample (six low-differentiated and seven
high-differentiated subjects were misclassified). This











Table 3


Classification of Subjects by Use of
Discriminant Function Ia


Low-differentiated High-differentiated
Subject Composite Subject Composite
Rank Scores (N = 15) Scores (N = 15)


-1.320
-1.321
-1.337
-1.377
-1.391
-1.394
-1.404

-1.419
-1.420
-1.450
-1.479

-1.485
-1.487


-1.410



-1.480


-1.488


-1.510

-1.540


-1.538

-1.544
-1.567
-1.596
-1.598
-1.624
-1.627
-1.639
-1.657
-1.661
-1.682
-1.723


z = 1.50558


a
Composite cut-off score: Z = 1.50558; Correct classi-
fication--83%, false classification--17% (Two low-defferen-
tiated subjects and three high-differentiated subjects).








analysis yielded an F ratio = 0.625.

In order to test whether combining the V/A, TTR,

and Speech Disturbances would accurately classify the sub-

jects into the two criterion groups in the unstructured

speech task, Discriminant Function Analysis III was done.

It was expected that the lack of structure would produce

a sufficient increase in the occurrence of verbal evidence

of anxiety for the low-differentiated subjects that the

combination of these measures would significantly differ-

entiate between the two groups. Although the results did

not significantly confirm the prediction, the accuracy of

classification was substantially higher than that of the

classification of the criterion groups in the structured

speech task (see Appendix D for tables). The obtained

lambdas were as follows: V/A ( = 0.00002), TTR (2 =

0.00080), and Speech Disturbances (C3 = 0.00316). The

respective mean composite discriminant scores were Za =

0.44057 and Zb = 0.40404 with a cut-off score of Z = 0.4223.

Discriminant Function Analysis III correctly classified

77% of the total sample (five low-differentiated subjects
and two high-differentiated subjects were misclassified).

The discriminant function analysis yielded an F = 2.37

with d/f = 3, 26. This ratio does not reach significance

at the .05 level.













CHAPTER IV


DISCUSSION


The results failed to confirm the first 10 hypotheses

which predicted significant differences between the two

criterion groups (high- and low-differentiated) on each of

the 10 verbal measures.

Although none of the individual verbal measures sig-

nificantly differentiated the two groups, combining these

same 10 variables into a multivariate analysis did signifi-

cantly differentiate the two criterion groups (Table 3).

Such findings suggest that, although individual variables

by themselves may not describe a population group, a com-

bination of variables may serve as a much more effective

means of predicting or classifying. The results of Discri-

minant Function Analysis I (Tables 3 and 4) lend support to

the general hypothesis that language, as an expressive

behavior, is reflective of personality and perceptual mode.

This seems especially true when various measures are combined.

McClelland and Atkinson's (1953) statement (p. 12 in text),

that "the frequency with which a certain person employs a

certain grammatical category such as nouns, verbs, adjectives,

and the like, has been shown to be related to various person-








ality characteristics," most accurately describes the

results of this study.

It is observed that the high-differentiated group did

use a higher proportion of verbs, qualifying terms, allness

terms, causal relationship terms, measuring terms, and a

higher V/A, whereas the low-differentiated group have a

higher proportion of attenuating terms, self-references,

speech disturbances, as well as a higher TTR.

Allness terms, V/A, and TTR were the three verbal

measures for which the results were not in the predicted

direction. Since the analyses of the differences between

the two criterion groups for the 10 verbal measures demon-

strate that they do not differ significantly from chance,

one might expect the results for two or three variables

to be in the direction opposite of that predicted.

Regarding allness terms, however, it may be that

their use represents a means of being more concise or

speaking with "certainty," characteristics which one might

expect to find more with high-differentiated subjects.

The TTR results were even more unexpected. Johnson (1944)

has found that the TTR represents a measure of verbal diver-

sification. Jaffe (1961) has additionally indicated that

"low TTR (repetitive verbal transactions) is characteristic

of affect, confusion and anxiety." Therefore, one should

expect a higher TTR among high-differentiated subjects

who are reported to be less anxious and more discrete in








their interactions with the environment (Witkin et al.,

1962; 1954). The findings of this study gave evidence of

a higher TTR for the low-differentiated group. This finding

may, in part, be explained on the basis of the limiting

aspects of the structured interview. The interview, al-

though devised to question areas which might reflect

differences in the two criterion groups, tended to restrict

occasionally the diversification of responses. For example,

both high- and low-differentiated subjects frequently respon-

ded to question #1, "How is your health?," with an answer

such as "My health is fine." or "My health is good." This

kind of question, it may be observed, elicits responses

in which both groups tend to utilize the same or similar

words. Use of interview questions which allowed for more

open-ended answers might have provided a greater oppor-

tunity for verbal differentiation. Under such circum-

stances, the high-differentiated subjects may have exhi-

bited the expected greater diversity in their verbal pro-

duction.

The higher V/A for high-differentiated subjects

may be partly explained by this group having a more active

attitude, which is manifested in speech by the use of a

greater number of verbs (Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955). Bal-

ken and Masserman, also (1940) theorized that high V/A "values

connote restless, forceful, dramatic action in the fanta-

sies ..." The assumption in this study was, however,

that the V/A represents a measure of anxiety as suggested








by Boder (1940), and Balken and Masserman (1940).

Therefore the low-differentiated group was predicted to

show a higher V/A. The lack of support for this predic-

tion may be accounted for also by a fault in the design

of this study. For all 30 subjects, the structured inter-

view task preceded the spontaneous speech task. Such

a procedure may have masked differences in anxiety level

between the two groups as hypothesized. For example, the

kind and amount of structure provided by the interview

situation might not have permitted the full expression

of existing anxiety to be fully reflected in the speech

of the low-differentiated subjects. Thus, the V/A for

the low-differentiated group was not as high as it might

have been in a less structured situation.

In addition, by the time these subjects reached the

spontaneous speech task, which was calculated to give

existing anxiety full expression in the subjects' speech

patterns, the level of their anxiety may have been suffi-

ciently reduced such that measurable differences in an-

xiety level between the two groups no longer existed.

Such reduction in anxiety might have resulted from the

climate of reassurance provided in the structured task,

as well as from rapport established with the examiner.

The most effective means of controlling for this possible

source of experimental bias would be to alternate the or-

der of presentation of the two tasks. In this way, the









effect of the structured task on the unstructured one

could be evaluated.

The next three hypotheses, which predicted increased

anxiety for the low-differentiated subjects in the spon-

taneous speech task as measured by V/A, TTR, and Speech

Disturbances, were not supported. No significant differen-

ces occurred between the two groups on any of the verbal

measures of anxiety for either the structured or the

spontaneous speech task. The absence of significant differ-

ences may, again, be accounted for by the influences of the

structure in the interview situation and the anxiety

reducing impact of the structured situation on the unstructur-

ed. It is also possible that a spontaneous speech task

may not be a more anxiety arousing situation for one group

than for the other, although this would seem unlikely if

one views this task as an unstructured situation. The

results of Witkin's research (1962; 1954) provide consis-

tent evidence for the low-differentiated (field-dependent)

individual's need for structure.

The last hypothesis predicted no difference in the

occurrence of anxiety as measured by the V/A, TTR, and

Speech Disturbances for the high-differentiated group,

between the structured and spontaneous speech task. This

hypothesis was confirmed by the results, however it is of

little relevence in light of the non-significant findings

for the low-differentiated group.








To determine whether, as a composite, the three verbal

measures of anxiety can accurately classify the two criterion

groups on both the structured and spontaneous speech tasks,

Discriminant Function Analyses II and III were done. The

results of Discriminant Function Analysis II tested the

classifying effectiveness of the composite for the struc-

tured speech task and the results were not significant.

This was as predicted, since the presence of structure was

not expected to arouse anxiety for either group. Discrimi-

nant Function Analysis III, which tested the composite of

the same verbal measures of anxiety for the spontaneous

speech task, correctly classified 77% of the total sample,

again providing support for the increased effectiveness of

a composite of variables over single variables in describ-

ing a population. Despite this high rate of classification,

the F ratio was not significant. With this analysis too,

varying the order of presentation of the speech tasks

might have resulted in more significant differences for the

condition in which the unstructured task was presented

first.

The classes of words which followed each individual

speech disturbance were scored and the results of the

frequency count are presented in Tables 7 and 8 (Appen-

dix F). It is interesting to observe that the scores for

each individual category (e.g., articles, prepositions,

nouns, etc.) are markedly similar for both groups, for








each speech task. By inspection, a higher frequency of

speech disturbances preceding active verbs does seem to

exist for the low-differentiated group in the spontaneous

speech task. This suggests that greater anxiety may have

been aroused in the low-differentiated subjects than in

the high-differentiated when action or an action attitude

was to be expressed verbally in the unstructured speech

situation. This observation, although not verified

statistically, is congruent with Witkin's (1962) findings

that high-differentiated (field-independent) individuals

demonstrate evidence of a more active attitude in their

content of their verbalizations.

The highest frequency of speech disturbances pre-

ceded pronouns for both groups in both speech tasks.

However, this was also the only class of words in which

the number of speech disturbances for the combined speech

tasks was greater for the high-differentiated group than

for the low-differentiated group. This aspect of speech

disturbances, although not a formal part of this study,

appears to justify a more thorough investigation in future

related research.

In summary, the results of this study point to the

likelihood that relationships do exist between the cog-

nitive-perceptual style of differentiation and the struc-

ture of verbal behavior. The combining of all 10 verbal

measures in a discriminant function analysis did sig-








nificantly classify (or dichotomize) the two criterion

groups. )Such a finding also offers support for the hy-

pothesis that the structure of verbal behavior lends itself

as a potentially effective representation of personality,

perception, and cognition.

The importance of verbal behavior in typifying and

understanding man is paramount (Lorenz, 1959; Gottschalk

and Hambidge, 1955). Verbal behavior is also one of the

basic diagnostic and prognostic tools of the clinician.

Therefore, positive findings in this study would have

strengthened the usefulness of the concept of differen-

tiation in the understanding of the human organism. Addi-

tional, more extensive and intensive research of the re-

lationship between the concept of differentiation and

verbal structure needs to be undertaken. In order to

correct for the problems in the present design, further

experimental controls, as discussed above, should be in-

cluded. The use of a structured interview which allowed for

more open-ended answers may have resulted in significantly

higher TTR's for the high-differentiated subjects.

The two speech tasks should have been randomly presented

in order to control for the effect of one task on the other.

However, the minimal significant relationships found

in this study between differentiation, as measured by the

EFT, and the structure of verbal behavior, suggest the

possibility that differentiation, as a personality con-









struct, may not generalize to the extent of including

the structure of verbal behavior. A further question is

concerning the validity of the construct itself. It may

well be that differentiation, as described and studied

by Witkin and his associates, may represent no more than

an overt expression of more basic processes, such as

biochemical functions, anxiety levels, etc. As such,

the construct of differentiation would serve only as a

convenient and descriptive label which has little or no

relevance in the nature of the human organism.

An additional, possible explanation of the non-

significant findings in this study is that the popu-

lation group studied, although scoring in the extremes

(upper and lower 25 percentiles) on the EFT, may be very

similar in the structure of their verbal behavior.

They were all college students who scored high in the

verbal section of the SCAT. Such a population, whose

scholastic training emphasizes verbal skills and who

are also similar in their verbal skills, are most likely

very unrepresentative of the general population. More

extreme differences might be found among subjects more

representative of the general population.

Additional relevant factors to study might be as

follows:

1. Content variables, e.g., expressions of affect,

self-concept, somatic complaints, etc. Low-differ-








entiated subjects might be expected to use a great-

er frequency of affect expression and somatic com-

plaints in their speech, and should have more diffi-

culty describing themselves verbally.

2. Additional populations, e.g., nosological cate-

gories, vocations, etc. It would seem relevant to

have a better understanding of the verbal behavior,

both structure and content, of different nosolo-

gical categories and how such information relates

to their specific problems in respect to dynamics,

onset, deterioration, and/or growth. This may be

especially important since Witkin (1965) has al-

ready demonstrated a relationship between various

types of pathology and the cognitive-perceptual style

of differentiation. One might expect, for example,

asthmatic, alcoholic, obese, and ulcerative pa-

tients, whom Witkin (1965) found to be related

to non-differentiation, to use a smaller proportion

of verbs, qualifying terms, etc., than would

patients with.paranoid difficulties, whom Witkin

found to be more differentiated.

Since Witkin (1962) has found developmental

trends to be operating in the cognitive-perceptual

style of differentiation, it would be useful to

examine the existence of parallel developmental

trends in speech measures for various age groups








(children, geriatric, etc.).

3. Other verbal structure measures, e.g., the use of

negators, evaluators, shifts to past tense, etc.

Such additional speech measures may be equally or

more related to differentiation than some of those

measures used in this study. One might expect,

for example, low-differentiated individuals to

make more references to past tense, as such re-

ferences may provide a form of structure.

4. Further study of the occurrence of speech distur-

bances and the words (structure and content) which

they precede. Such studies would provide infor-

mation relating the verbal expression of anxiety

to other speech measures.



In conclusion, it should be strongly emphasized

that, although the use of the multivariate instrument of

discriminant function analysis appeared to be an effective

means of classifying the two criterion groups, the pre-

dictive validity of the instrument can not be demonstrated

without additional cross-validation studies. This same

caution is even more strongly stressed when one observes

that only seven of the 10 verbal measures which made up

the composite in Discriminant Function Analysis I were

in the predicted direction. Therefore, three of the

variables used in the significant differentiation of the








two groups may have contributed to the discrimination for

reasons other than those hypothesized. The lambda weights of

these variables suggest only Allness Terms may have signi-

ficantly contributed to the composite, whereas it is possi-

ble that the removal of V/A and TTR might have added to the

accuracy of classification of the two criterion groups.

Relationships of the concept of differentiation to

the structure of verbal behavior have been only suggested

by this study. Further research utilizing more stringent

controls is needed before these relationships may be more

fully understood.













CHAPTER V


SUMMARY



The cognitive-perceptual style of differentiation,

as developed by H. A. Witkin, has been found to be re-

lated to many dimensions of the human being, e.g., per-

ception, intelligence, personality, sex differences,

body concept, and pathology. The area of verbal behavior

and its relationship to differentiation has not been

investigated beyond anecdotal observations. The purpose

of this study was, therefore, to study the relationship

between the concept of differentiation and the structure

of verbal behavior.

An initial total of 56 male S's were administered

the Embedded Figures Test. Using Witkin's norms, 30 S's,

15 who scored in the highest quartile (designated low-

differentiated) and 15 who scored in the lowest quartile

(designated high-differentiated), were selected and used

in this study. Each S selected for further study was

engaged in a structured interview and then asked to give

five minutes of spontaneous speech.

Ten verbal measures which were seen as related to

the personality correlates of differentiation, as reported








by Witkin end his associates, were used to predict sig-

nificant differences between the two criterion groups.

It was predicted that for the total speech production,

the high-differentiated group would use a significantly

higher proportion of verbs, qualifying terms, causal

relationship terms, measuring terms, and that they would

produce a higher type Token Ratio and a lower Verb Ad-

jective Ratio than the low-differentiated group. For the

low-differentiated group it was predicted that they would

use a higher proportion of Allness Terms, attenuating

terms, self-references, and speech disturbances. For the

two speech tasks (structured and unstructured), it

was predicted that the low-differentiated group would

show a significant increase in the use of verbal measures

reflecting anxiety in the spontaneous speech task over the

use of these measures in the structured interview.

The results did not support the hypotheses. A

discriminant function analysis was used to determine the

effectiveness of the composite of the 10 verbal measures

in accurately classifying the two criterion groups. The

results demonstrated that the composite significantly

differentiated the two groups, accurately classifying

83% of the total sample.

Individually, the three verbal measures of anxiety

failed to differentiate the two groups for the two speech

tasks. The multivariate test of the composite of the three








variables for the structured task also yielded non-signi-

ficant results, accurately classifying only 57% of the total

sample. Using the same composite for the spontaneous

speech task, the results, although non-significant, did

accurately classify 77% of the total sample. This

finding suggests that the unstructured task may have

aroused greater anxiety in the low-differentiated subjects,

as was predicted.

The results of this study point to the likelihood

that relationships do exist between the cognitive-per-

ceptual style of differentiation and the structure of

verbal behavior. Further research utilizing more strin-

gent controls is needed before these relationships may

be more fully understood.

The use of the multivariate instrument of discrimi-

nant function analysis appears to be an effective means of

classifying the two groups; however the predictive validity

of this instrument cannot be demonstrated without addi-

tional cross-validation studies.
































APPENDICES








APPENDIX A


Structured Interview



The structured interview was devised to elicit

approximately four to five minutes of speech from each sub-

ject. The specific questions asked are those which were, in

some way, related to personality differences found between

high- and low-differentiated persons (Witkin, 1954; 1962).

These personality differences, corresponding to each number-

ed question in the structured interview, are as follows:

1. Somatic complaints.

2. Dependency factors.

3. Need for social acceptance.

4. Self-concept.

5. Articulated future goals.


The specific questions asked were as follows:

1. How is your health?

a. What illnesses are you prone to?

b. (when applicable) When does this occur?

2. What is your relationship with your family like?

Describe it.

3. What do you think of campus social life?

a. What are your social activities?

b. How about friends?

4. How would you describe yourself?

5. What do you plan to do after graduation?

59







APPENDIX B


Representative Cards from the
Embedded Figures Test


Simple Figure
(achromatic)


Complex Figure
(chromatic)


Simple Figure
(achromatic)


Complex Figure'
(chromatic)


Simple Figure
(achromatic)


Complex Figure
(chromatic)


Z-








APPENDIX C


Table 4


Two-Way Analyses of Variance for the Three
Verbal Expressions of Anxiety


V/A

Source of Sum of
Variation Squares D/F MS F P


Between subjects 29

High- and low-
differentiated(A) 0.11 1 0.11 <1 n.s.

Subjects with-
in groups 9.11 28 0.30

Within subjects 30

Structured and
unstructured(B) 0.65 1 0.65 <1 n.s.

A x B 0.95 1 0.95 2.52 n.s.

B x subjects
within groups 10.95 28 0.38



TTR

Source of Sum of
Variation Squares D/F MS F P


Between subjects

High- and low-
differentiated

Subjects with-
in groups


0.00


0.11


1 0.00


0.00


n.s.











Table 4 Continued


Source of
Variation


Within subjects


Structured and
unstructured(B)


AxB


B x subjects
within groups


0.00

0.00


0.04


1 0.00

1 0.00


0.00


Speech Disturbances


Source of
Variation


Between subjects


High- and low-
differentiated(A)

Subjects with-
in groups

Within subjects


0.00


0.00


1 0.00


3.84 n.s.


0.00


Structured and
unstructured(B)


AxB


B x subjects
within groups


0.00

0.00


0.00


1 0.00

1 0.00


<1 n.s.


n.s.


0.00


Note.--n.s. = non-significant.


Sum of
Squares


D/F


n.s.


Sum of
Squares


D/F








APPENDIX D


Results of Discriminant Function
Analyses II and III


Table 5

Classification of Subjects in the Structured Speech
Task by Use of Discriminant Function IIa


Low-differentiated High-differentiated
Subject Composite Subject Composite
Rank Scores (N = 15) Scores (N = 15)


1 0.00794
2 0.00652
3 0.00170
4 0.00058
5 -0.00011
6 -0.00181
7 -0.00507
8 -0.00953
9 -0.00987
10 -0.01273
11 -0.01445
12 -0.01515
13 -0.01680
14 -0.01811
15 -0.01941
16 -0.02021 Z = -.02062
17 -0.02224
18 -0.02602
19 -0.02612
20 -0.02652
21 -0.02667
22 -0.02847
23 -0.02924
24 -0.03175
25 -0.03340
26 -0.03582
27 -0.03774











Table 5 continued


Low-differentiated
Subject Composite
Rank Scores (N = 15)


High-differentiated
Subject Composite
Scores (N = 15)


28 -0.03879
29 -0.04095
30 -0.08822


aComposite cut-off score: Z = -.02062; Correct classi-
fication--57%, false classification--43% (six low-differ-
entiated subjects and seven high-differentiated subjects).




Table 6


Classification of Subjects in the Spontaneous Speech
Task by Use of Discriminant Function IIIa




Low-differentiated High-differentiated
Subject Composite Subject Composite
Rank Scores (N = 15) Scores (N = 15)


0.52244
0.50248
0.47835
0.47768


0.45019
0.44935
0.44835
0.44407
0.44138


0.46813
0.45205












Table 6 continued


Low-differentiated
Subject Composite
Rank Scores (N = 15)


High-differentiated
Subject Composite
Scores (N = 15)


0.43115


0.40854


0.40117
0.39846

0.39346




0.36152


0.41396
0.41057
0.40992
0.40917

0.40212
0.40163
0.40122


0.39365

0.39057
0.38573
0.37975
0.37406
0.36805


Z = .84450


aComposite cut-off score: Z = .84450; Correct classi-
fication--77%, false classification--23% (five low-differ-
entiated subjects and two high-differentiated subjects).








APPENDIX E


Representative Protocols for a Low-differentiated
and a High-differentiated Individual



Subject E--Low-differentiated


Structured Interview

(How is your health?) Excellent, good, very good. I have

no problems at all that I know of as far as that goes.



(What illnesses are you prone to?) Just a common cold.



(When does this occur?) Probably, oh, one or two times a

year during winter.



(What is your relationship with your family like?) We get

along all right, We get along great. We have no problems

that I may have had when I was younger. I don't live with

them now, so I just see them maybe several times a year

and any contact I have is usually by phone.



(What do you think of campus social life?) I think there

is plenty to do. There is certainly all year long. I've

been up here--this is my third summer in a row. I don't

find anything a problem. Sometimes I think there is just

too much to do, especially in the fall. There is something

going all the time that you can't take advantage of all of it.

66








(What are your social activities?) Depending on the time

of year--right now, I think it is mostly swimming or I like

to go out at night a lot. Night life--there isn't too much

to offer in Gainesville, especially to a dance or a bar or

something.



(What about friends?) Well, most of them I think right now

are connected around what my interest is over in Journalism.

I'm interested in television, so most of them are--well--

instructors that are directors over there, technicians or

people working in radio and television.



(How would you describe yourself?) I don't know, I don't

know--this--I don't know what you want really.



(What do you plan to do after graduation?) I graduate this

August and I would like to work right for a commercial

television station, like Field's Broadcasting and I've done

a little work with Channel 5 on a part time basis. I think

I eventually would like to get back into educational tele-

vision, but it seems the opportunity, or maybe the money,

right now, is in commercial television. I would like to

go out and work for them a year, a year and a half or so,

and then come back and work on the master's degree in

broadcasting and eventually into the educational end of it.

That's about it. It would be in television production

work. That's what I would like to get into eventually.








Spontaneous Speech

Oh, I think some of the interesting things probably

happened during--well, I spent two years in the army. Of

course it wasn't my choice. I was drafted, but I think the

interesting thing about it was I was sent overseas to

Germany. I spent about 18 months in Germany right outside

of Nuremberg. There is a little college town called Erlang

and I think those two years gave me an opportunity to see

Europe which I probably wouldn't have done if I had stayed

in Florida. I think the people were most interesting. The

Germans were the most friendly of--compared to Italy or

even England. I seem to have had more language problems

in England than anywhere else. They seem to think I was

doing something for the English language and they couldn't

understand it. But I managed to travel through Italy,

France, Germany, Austria, England, and found the German

people most easily to'get along with, most friendly and

found the Italians, even though I am an Italian, a little

bit after the money rather than the individual. They

spotted us as Americans right off and were interested in

how much we were going to spend rather than who we were.

I spent about a week in Berlin--contrast between East and

West was most striking. For instance, West Berlin was

built up to, oh, compared to any modern city we have--

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, anywhere. East Berlin is

still run down, still using cars over twenty years old and








you could see vast areas that were bombed down that had

just been cleared away, grass planted, and nothing built

in this city of two and one-half million people--see whole

blocks that was just blank which was grass and churches

still standing. You could see large churches on corners,

but they were all blocked and boarded with concrete and

stone, brick with wire fences around them. To get into

East Berlin, you had to wear your uniform and you could

feel the people looking at you and knowing you were an

American and could walk in and out whenever you felt like

it or wanted to, felt people looking at you, but I think

the difference in the cities--West Berlin had, well, the

neon lights, the shops and the stores, the cars and the

people. I really enjoyed my stay in Berlin more than in

any other city. I went back several times just to wander

around. I would like to go back some day and see more of

it. I like to travel. I came back to the United States

and traveled up--I haven't been too far west--ILwent as

far west as Chicago, went up to Canada. In our travels

to Europe we drove most of the way, bought a Volkswagen

over there. It was about 18 years old, but it ran anyway

so we drove around Italy, Austria, France--Two of my bud-

dies and myself .... I can remember going through Germany.








Subject GG--High-differentiated


Structured Interview

(How is your health?) I thought it was pretty good.



(What illnesses are you prone to?) None.



(What is your relationship with your family like?) It is

above normal. I have a very good relationship with my

parents. Most kids up here treat their--talk about their

parents as if they were just individuals, just people, and

I don't think I do that. I think I have a better relation-

ship than most people, especially with my mother. I have

a better relationship with my mother than I do with my

father, but we do have a good relation.



(What do you think of campus social life?) Greek or inde-

pendent? Well, Greek is great and independent is very poor,

and I can say that because I've been both. I mean, I waited

a trimester and a half to pledge a fraternity so I know

what--more or less what's it like for an independent and I

know what it's like for a Greek, and it, the difference,

socially, is tremendous. There's no comparison.



(What are your social activities?) Well, dating and foot-

ball games, dances, parties, things like that, football

games, whatever you do on dates, I mean, you know, horse-

back riding, whatever there is to do.








(How about friends?) Well now, what about friends? I'm

not trying to be beligerant--what--oh, the friends that I

have are very good friends and I can usually count on them

any time I need them, and can count on them even when I don't

need them. I mean, you know, even if it is not a need, I

know they are there and they are pretty good to me, the ones

I have. I don't know. I don't think I have any trouble

making friends, but I don't have too many very good ones,

but the ones I have, I, you know, I'm glad I've got.



(How would you describe yourself?) Average. Well, I'm

5'9", weight, approximately 150 pounds, brownish or blonde--

brownish-blonde hair, brown eyes, with Polish and Italian

origin. I have a tendency to have a hot gut.and I'm pretty

active. I like to have a good time.



(What do you plan to do after graduation?) Well, if I can,

I'd like to go on for my masters. Actually, what I'd like

to do is travel. I would like to go to Europe and just, if

I could, I'd like to spend a year in Europe on a--just have

a little car and just travel all around and see the cities,

of course, you know, the big sights and everything, but get

out into the countryside so I could see the true--the true

Europe, the real Europe, and just try to communicate more,

and see more of the things I'm studying about now, especial-

ly in Humanities.








Spontaneous Speech

In my junior year in high school, a very good friend

of mine, well, three very good friends of mine and myself

decided to go camping on a weekend, and we had a jeep, and

we took the jeep as far in as we could go into this grove,

and it turned into--from the grove on was a pasture, and

the pasture was fenced off, and in the pasture were horses

that were there for a summer camp for the riding--for you

to ride in this summer camp. So we camped out there and

rounded up the horses that night, and it was very inter-

esting, and we finally got four horses, but we didn't have

any saddles or bridles, so we opened the shed there and

took out a bridle--there was only one there. But one of

the boys that was with us was the guy that was taking care

of the horses during the day, so he had the key, and it

wasn't really that--as illegal as it sounds. So we had one

brible, and then we improvised. We used what they call an

Indian bridle, I believe, just ropes, and then we rode bare-

back, and I had a horse called Sundown. I'll never forget

that. It was a white horse and it was very old--at least

he looked old--and I got on him and fell right off. So I

got on him again, and he threw me off this time. So George,

this good friend of mine, decided he was going to try to

calm him down a little because he was probably just, you

know, probably from being ousted out in the night like this.

So he got on him, and the horse tried to throw him, but









George stayed on pretty well, and then the horse took off

and went around this big clump of bushes and trees that we

couldn't-see. Of course, it was dark, and we couldn't see

anyway, and all of a sudden we heard this scream, and the

horse came trotting back by himself. So we went around

there to see what had happened, and George had been bucked

off and had fallen onto an old fence post, and in the fore-

arm are two bones, the ulner and the radius, and I can't

remember which, but the one that runs along with the small

finger had been popped out of joint at the elbow, and it

was sticking up out of the arm. It hadn't broken the skin,

but it was sticking up out of the arm. So we just forgot

the horses and took him to a car, and it was raining--it

started to rain. It was raining like heck, so we couldn't

see the road, and the nearest hospital at this time was 11

miles away. That was after we got out of the pasture.

That took us quite a while, and he was taking it pretty

good. We were more shook than he was, as a matter of fact.

And then, when we finally got to the road, it was raining

fits. It was raining so bad that we couldn't see, so, what

we were doing, we were following the white line on the road,

and that was the only way we could see where we were going,

was to follow this white line, and it seemed like an endura-

ble time, but--I mean, an unendurable time, but we finally

made it to the hospital, and all they did, they brought him

in, didn't give him anything for the pain at all. They








brought him to the X-ray room and called the guy--the

technician, and it took him about half an hour to get there,

and, of course, George was getting worse and worse. His

arm was swelling even more so. When they got him there,

they laid his arm on the table, took an X-ray of it, and

then--his hand was palm down--and then they took and turned

his palm so that the palm was up and, of course, George

was back to the ceiling, and they took another X-ray that

way. And then, when they developed the X-rays, they said

that it was just dislocated, and there was nothing that

they could do there as they didn't have a specialist, and

that we were going to have to take him to Lakeland, which

is 60 miles from there, and we didn't think the car would

make it. It was an old--it was an old junky car anyway.

We had gotten out of the jeep in the meantime. It was an

old junky car. So one of us had to call our parents, and

I was elected. So at 2:30 in the morning, I called my

father, got him out of bed and he came down to the hospital,

picked us up, and drove us to Lakeland, and we arrived in

Lakeland, and I had the X-rays, and they gave him--they

finally gave him something for his pain, but it didn't help

very much. And then, we got there, they wanted--the recep-

tionist and the people there wanted my father to sign a

paper saying it was alright to put him under for the pain,

so they could reset the bone and stuff. My father couldn't

take that responsibility anyway, and his parents, George's






75

parents were in Miami, and we didn't have any idea where, so

the only--the nurse told us to call first was his grandmother,

and he didn't want to call his grandmother because, he kept

saying, she'd have a heart attack if we did.








APPENDIX F


Frequencies of Word Categories Which are
Preceded by a Speech Disturbance



Table 7


Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded
by a Speech Disturbance for a Low-differentiated
Subject in Structured and Unstructured
Speech Conditions





Part of
Speech Structured Unstructured Total


Articles

Prepositions

Pronouns

Conjunctions

Active Verbs

Passive Verbs

Adjectives

Adverbs

Nouns

Miscellaneous


Total


37

52

131

18

44

17

56

31

42


26


257


--


197


454













Table 8


Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded
by a Speech Disturbance for a High-differentiated
Subject in Structured and Unstructured
Speech Conditions


Part of
Speech Structured Unstructured Total


Articles 8 25 33

Prepositions 26 26 52

Pronouns 75 69 144

Conjunctions 4 12 16

Active Verbs 11 13 24

Passive Verbs 5 12 17

Adjectives 13 25 38

Adverbs 19 21 40

Nouns 7 23 30

Miscellaneous 8 13 21


176 239


Total


415








APPENDIX G


Ratio Scores for All 30 Subjects



Table 9


Ratio Scores for the 10 Verbal Measures
for the Combined Speech Tasksa


LOW-DIFFERENTIATED

Quali- Attenu-
Sub- fying Allness eating Causal
jects Verbs Terms Terms Terms Terms


.204
.220
.196
.189
.162
.182
.220
.207
.223
.115
.221
.188
.234
.218
.206


.391
.393
.364
.383
.432
.421
.395
.405
.395
.390
.408
.433
.346
.366
.385


.009
.004
.021
.007
.020
.015
.015
.009
.009
.014
.018
.007
.011
.007
.008


.280
.038
.009
.038
.022
.074
.037
.014
.012
.014
.026
.029
.016
.013
.029


.011
.008
.003
.004
.006
.007
.002
.002
.004
.006
.000
.004
.003
.005
.007


aAll the ratios used in the tables in Appendix except-
ing V/A and TTR, were derived by dividing the total number
of words representative of each measure by the total number
of words used by the subject.















Table 9 extended


Self- Speech
Measure Refer- Distur-
Terms ences V/A TTR bances


.013
.015
.011
.022
.019
.028
.022
.047
.007
.032
.022
.030
.032
.023
.020


.083
.058
.075
.084
.048
.074
.068
.098
.049
.050
.072
.074
.078
.110
.073


1.611
2.008
2.361
1.779
1.396
1.342
2.082
1.652
2.148
1.074
2.156
1.181
2.500
2.111
2.173


.372
.361
.316
.349
.323
.374
.372
.353
.327
.316
.337
.388
.366
.339
.316


.028
.031
.033
.025
.016
.032
.032
.053
.026
.025
.022
.026
.047
.018
.016














Table 9 continued


HIGH-DIFFERENTIATED

Quali- Attenu-
Sub- fying Allness eating Causal
jects Verbs Terms Terms Terms Terms

V .189 .435 .009 .014 .004
0 .197 .395 .010 .015 .012
J .211 .393 .021 .020 .005
GG .228 .349 .007 .006 .012
BB .223 .367 .011 .034 .00-
DD .189 .416 .023 .020 .010
B .198 .420 .009 .018 .007
TT .200 .440 .012 .015 .003
M .211 .377 .020 .019 .005
X .200 .395 .007 .008 .004
F .215 .390 .013 .036 .002
R .195 .436 .009 .031 .009
D .189 .421 .017 .025 .008
P .225 .381 .010 .029 .008
AA .210 .388 .015 .021 .010















Table 9 extended


Self-
Refer-
ences


.099
.086
.057
050
.090
.065
.033
.042
.087
.085
.126
.044
.053
.105
.069


V/A


1.352
2.021
1.941
2.613
2.386
1.799
1.724
1.598
1.871
1.807
2.742
1.309
1.605
2.373
1 .676


TTR


Speech
Distur-
bances


Measure
Terms


.049
.011
.038
.016
.024
.026
.050
.033
.023
.019
.023
.026
.032
.033
.020


.347
.338
.331
.309
.318
.335
.292
.363
.324
.383
.308
.360
.379
.260
.286


.032
.017
.016
.029
.019
.014
.021
.021
.038
.032
.013
.021
.012
.030
.023










Table 10


Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal
Expressions of Anxiety for the
Structured Interview


LOW-DIFFERENTIATED

Speech
Subject V/A TTR Disturbances

Y 1.486 .507 .034
C 1.833 .467 .028
FF 1.977 .374 .035
N 2.567 .434 .019
T 1.860 .448 .008
K 1.344 .450 .038
E 2.324 .431 .035
S 1.878 .444 .064
H 2.250 .358 .027
G 1.879 .371 .028
Q 2.125 .466 .023
L 1.098 .518 .032
I 1.647 .490 .055
A 1.576 .427 .017
LL 2.271 .401 .018



HIGH-DIFFERENTIATED

Speech
Subject V/A TTR Disturbances


2.111
2.194
2.091
2.222
2.465
1.453
1.804
1.656
2.906


.436
.525
.377
.398
.431
.491
.420
.458
.392


.046
.022
.023
.035
.013
.020
.010
.033
.047












Table 10 continued


Subject


V/A


TTR


Speech
Disturbances


X 1.381 .476 .038
F 4.579 .438 .009
R 1.123 .486 .028
D 2.200 .506 .012
P 2.905 .312 .031
AA 1.480 .332 .024


Table 11



Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal
Expressions of Anxiety for the
Spontaneous Speech Task


LOW-DIFFERENTIATED

Speech
Subject V/A TTR Disturbances


1.676
2.529
2.667
1.415
1.092
1.340
1.934
1.527
2.000
1.659


.422
.402
.364
.402
.342
.418
.461
.374
.415
.382


.025
.033
.031
.029
.021
.028
.030
.047
.024
.022











Table 11 continued


Speech
Disturbances


.021
.023
.044
.018
.016


HIGH-DIFFERENTIATED


Speech
Disturbances


.026
.015
.014
.026
.024
.011
.026
.017
.034
.030
.016
.019
.013
.029
.019


Subject


V/A


TTR


2.172
1.227
3.225
2.779
2.114


.363
.418
.396
.349
.381


Subject


V/A


1.094
1.938
1.778
2.851
2.328
2.025
1.675
1.576
1.511
2.039
2.000
1.443
1.371
1.958
1.873


TTR


.382
.359
.388
.336
.363
.365
.337
.396
.393
.415
.378
.391
.428
.337
.352













BIBLIOGRAPHY


Asch, S. E. and Witkin, H. A. Studies in space orienta-
tion: Perception of the upright with displaced
visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psycho-
logy, 1948, 38, 325-337.

Bailey, W., Hustmyer, F., and Kristofferson, A. Alco-
holism. Brain damage and perceptual dependence.
Quarterly Journal of Studies in Alcoholism,
1961, 22, 387-393.

Balken, Eva, R. and Masserman, J. H. The language of
the phantasies of patients with conversion hy-
steria, anxiety state, and obsessive-compulsive
neuroses. Journal of Psychology, 1940, 10,
75-86.

Bennet, D. H. Perception of the upright in relation
to body image. The Journal of Mental Science,
1956, 102, 487-50-.

Boder, D. P. The adjective-verb quotient; a contri-
bution to the psychology of language. Psycho-
logical Record, 1940, 2, 309-344.

Couch, A., and Keniston, K. Yeasayers and Naysayers:
Agreeing response set as a personality variable.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960,
62, 151-174.

Fairbanks, Helen. Studies in language behavior: II.
The quantitative differentiation of samples
of spoken language. Psychological Monographs,
1944, 56, 19-38.

Fisher, R. A. The use of multiple measurements in taxo-
nomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 1936, ~,
87-104.

Gardner, R. W., Jackson, D. N., and Messick, S. J.
Personality organization in cognitive controls
and intellectual abilities. Psychological
Issues, 1960, (Whole No. 8), 4, 1-149.








Gardner, R. W., Holzman, P. S., Klein, G., Linton,
Harriet, and Spence, D. P. Cognitive control:
A study of individual consistencies in cognitive
behavior. Psychological Issues, 1959, (Whole
No. 4), 4, 1-186.

Goodenough, D. R. and Karp, S. A. Field dependence
and intellectual functioning. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 1961, 2, 2,71-246.

Gottschalk, L. A., Springer, K. J., and Gleser, G. C.
Experiments with a method of assessing the
variations in intensity of certain psychologi-
cal states occurring during two psychothera-
peutic interviews. In Gottschalk, L. A.
(Ed.) Comparative psycholinguistic analysis
of two psychotherapeutic interviews, New York:
International Universities Press, Inc., 1961,
Pp. 115-138.

Gottshalk, L. A., Gleser, G. C., and Hambidge, G.
Verbal behavior analysis: Some content and form
variables in speech related to personality ad-
justment. A.M.A. Archives of Neurology and
Psychiatry, 1957, 77, 300-311.

Gottshalk, L. A. and Hambidge, G. Verbal behavior
analysis: A systematic approach to the problem
of quantifying psychologic processes. Journal
of Protective Techniques, 1955, 19, 387-409.

Goulden, C. H. Methods of statistical analysis, (2nd
ed.) New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1952.

Jackson, D. N., Messnick, S., and Myers, C. T. Evalu-
ation of group and individual forms of embedded-
figures measures of field-independence. Edu-
cational and Psychological Measurement, 1964,
24, 177-191.

Jackson, D. N. Intellectual ability and mode of per-
ception. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1957, 21, 458.

Jackson, D. N. A short form of Witkin's Embedded-
Figures Test. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1956, j5, 235-255.








Jaffe, J. Dyadic analysis of two psychotherapeutic
interviews. In Gottschalk, L. (Ed.) Comparative
psycholinguistic analysis of two psychothera-
peutic interviews, New York: International
Universities Press, Inc., 1961, Pp. 73-90.

Johnson, W. Studies in language behavior. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1944, (Whole No. 255)
56, 19-38.
Karp, S. A., Poster, Dorothy, and Goodman, A. Differ-
entiation in Alcoholic Women. Journal of Per-
sonality, 1963, 31, 386-393.

Lennard, H. L. Some aspects of the psycho-therapeutic
system. In Strupp, H. H. and Luborsky, L.
(Eds.) Research in psychotherapy. Proceedings
of a conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
May 17-20, 1961, Pp. 218-236.

Lennard, H. L. and Bernstein, A. The anatomy of psycho-
therapy: systems of communication and expectation.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.

Linton, H. B. Dependence on external influence: Correlates
in perception, attitudes, and judgment. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51,
502-507.

Lorenz, Maria. Language as an index to perceptual
modes. Journal of Projective Techniques,
1959, 23, 441-52.
Lorenz, Maria and Cobb, S. Language behavior in manic
patients. A.M.A. Archive Neurology and Psychi-
atry, 1952, 67, 763-770.

Mahl, G. F. Measuring the patient's anxiety during
interviews from "expressive" aspects of speech.
In A. P. Goldstein and S. J. Dean (Eds.)
The investigation of psychotherapy, New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, Pp. 133-139.

Mann, Mary, B. Studies in language behavior: III.
The quantitative differentiation of samples
of written language. Psychological Monographs,
1944, 56, 41-74.

Marlowe, D. Some psychological correlates of field
independence. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1958, 22, 334.








Mather, K. Statistical analysis in ioloy (2nd ed.)
London: Bethuen and Co., Ltd., 1946.

McClelland, D. and Atkinson, J. W. Clark, R. A., and
Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive, New
York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1953.

Messick, B. and Damarin, F. Cognitive styles and memory
for faces. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 196, 19 62, 313-318.

Saslow, G., Matarazzo, J. D., and Guze, S. B. The
stability of interaction chronograph patterns
in psychiatric interviews. Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 417-430.

Sanford, F. H. Speech and personality. Psychological
Bulletin, 1942, 39, 811-841.

Taft, R. and Coventry. J. Neuroticism, Extraversion,
and the Perception of the vertical. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56,
139-142.

Weintraub, W. and Aronson, H. The application of verbal
behavior analysis to the study of psychological
defense mechanisms. II: Speech patterns associ-
ated with impulsive behavior. The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 1964, 132, 75-82.

Witkin, H. A. Psychological differentiation and forms of
pathology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho-
logy, 1965, 70, 317-336.

Witkin, H. A. Personal communication.

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, D. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough,
D. R., and Karp, S. A. Psychological differen-
tiation, New York: Wiley, 1962.

Witkin, H. A., Karp, S. A. and Goodenough, D. R. Depend-
ence in alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies
in Alcoholism, 1959, 20, 493-504.

Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover,
Karen, Meissner, P. and Wapner, S. Personality
through perception, New York: Harper and Bros.,
1954.





89


Witkin, H. A. Individual differences in ease of percep-
tion of embedded figures. Journal of Personality,
1950, 19, 1-15.
Witkin, H. A. The nature and importance of individual
differences in perception. Journal of Personality,
1949, 18, 145-170.
Young, R. H. A test of Witkin's field-dependence hypo-
thesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho-
logy, 1959, 59, 1i-192.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


William H. Davidov was born October 22, 1936, at

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was graduated from Camden

High School, Camden, New Jersey. In June, 1958, he receiv-

ed the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers College of

south Jersey. In August, 1963, he received the degree of

Master of Arts with a major in Psychology from Temple

University. From February until September of 1964, he

served as a Psychology Intern at the Philadelphia State

Hospital. In the Fall of 1964, William H. Davidov enrolled

in the Graduate School of the University of Florida to work

toward the degree of Doctor of Philisophy. Since then he

has worked as a Psychology Trainee at the Veteran's Adminis-

tration Hospital in Coral Gables, Florida, was a Graduate

Fellow for one year, and was a United States Public Health

Fellow for one year. He completed his internship at the

Irving Schwartz Institute for Children and Adolescents,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July, 1967. William H.

Davidov took a position as a Staff Psychologist with the

West Philadelphia Community Mental Health Consortium from

July, 1967 until December, 1967. From January, 1968 until

September, 1968, he worked as a Clinical Psychologist for

the Alachua County Health Department, Gainesville, Florida.






91


In 1966, William H. Davidov married the former Jane

Rebecca Winnie of Buffalo, New York. He is an associate

member of the American Psychological Association.







This dissertation was prepared under the direction
of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee
and has been approved by all members of that committee.
It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

December, 1968


Dean, College of rts and Sciences



Dean, Graduate School



Supervisory Committee:


--Chairman
Chairman


MiV- nL




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONCEPT OF DIFFERENTIATION TO THE STRUCTURE OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR By WILLIAM H. DAVIDOV A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQIHREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHDLOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1968

PAGE 2

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08552 3750

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to gratefully acknowledge the assistance he received from the members of his supervisory committee t Drs. Benjamin Barger, Chairman; Hugh Davis, Harry Grater, and Henry Pennypacker of the Department of Psychology; and Dr. Wilbur Bock of the Department of Sociology. He also wishes to thank Drs. Philip Costanzo, Carolyn Hursch, and Paul Satz for assisting with the statistical analysis. He wishes to express a special word of appreciation to Dr. Benjamin Barger, who provided a constant source of encouragement, constructive and creative suggestions and questions, as well as the willing and consistent patience and understanding which made the completion of this study possible. Most of all, he wishes to thank his lovely wife, Jane, who worked many long hours, side by side with the writer, and whose help in editing and typing, as well as her patience and encouragement throughout, was truly unmeasureable and deserves a lifetime of appreciation. ii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i in W I.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11 LIST OF TABLES v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 The Concept of Differentiation 1 Verbal Behavior 11 Units of Analysis 19 Hypotheses ..... 20 II METHOD 25 Subjects 25 Apparatus 25 Procedure ........ 26 Method of Analysis 29 III RESULTS 33 The Discriminant Function Analyses ..... 37 IV DISCUSSION 43 V SUMMARY 55 APPENDICES 58 APPENDIX A. Structured Interview ....... 59 APPENDIX B. Representative Cards from the Embedded Figures Test 60 APPENDIX C. TwoWay Analyses of Variance for the Three Verbal Expressions of Anxiety 6l APPENDIX D. Results of Discriminant Function Analyses II and III 63 ill

PAGE 5

Page APPENDIX E. Representative Protocols for a Low-differentiated and a Highdifferentiated Individual 66 APPENDIX F. Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded by a Speech Disturbance 76 APPENDIX G. Ratio Scores for All 30 Subjects . ?8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 90 iv

PAGE 6

LIST OP TABLES Table Pa ^e 1 Analyses of Variance of the 10 Verbal Measures for Highand Low-differentiated Subjects 34 2 Mean Ratio Scores and the Differences Between the Means for the Criterion Groups on the 10 Verbal Measures (Discriminant Function Analysis I) , 38 3 Classification of Subjects by Use of Discriminant Function I J^l k Two-Way Analyses of Variance for the Three Verbal Expressions of Anxiety .... 6l 5 Results of Discriminant Function Analyses II and III 63 6 Classification of Subjects in the Spontaneous Speech Task by Use of Discriminant Function III 6k 7 Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded by a Speech Disturbance for a Lowdifferentiated Subject in Structured and Unstructured Speech Conditions fS 8 Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded by a Speech Disturbance for a Highdifferentiated Subject in Structured and Unstructured Speech Conditions 77 9 Ratio Scores for the 10 Verbal Measures for the Combined Speech Tasks 78 10 Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal Expressions of Anxiety for the Structured Interview .... 82 11 Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal Expressions of Anxiety for the Spontaneous Speech Task . . 83

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between cognitive-perceptual style and verbal behavior. The Concept of Differentiation Cognitive-perceptual styles have become highly important in the field of psychology. The cognitive style dichotomies, which have been proposed, are many; e.g., Differentiated--Non-differentiated (Witkin et al., 1962), Sharpeners and Levelers (Gardner et al. , I960; 1959) Yeasayers and Naysayers (Couch and Keniston, i960), etc. These dichotomies have been found to be related to perception, intelligence, personality, sex differences, body concept, and pathology. The most extensively researched work has been that of the continuum of differ entiation (Witkin et al., 1962; 195^-; Witkin, 1965). Witkin and his associates have presented causal-etiological factors beginning in childhood which result in the development of a "specific" cognitive or perceptual style in an individual. They report evidence that this

PAGE 8

style is distinctly related to an individual's perception of himself, his environment, and the relationship of himself to his environment (Witkin et al., 1962). Additionally, Witkin has recently theorized that this style is, at least in part, genetically determined. "Under feral conditions, survival may depend on the ability to separate quickly, from the complex visual and auditory fields in which the animal lives, those sights and sounds which signify danger, food, etc." (Witkin, 1965. P. 333). Witkin and his associates (1962; 195*0 have demonstrated a developmental trend in perceptual style from eight years of age to young adulthood, progressing from global to a more analytic approach. His studies have shown that an individual's "characteristic approach to the world" is usually determined by the age of eight (Witkin et al., 1962). The mode of perception associated with early stages of development is referred to as "field-dependent" (F-D), "global," "low-differentiated," or "non-differentiated" (Witkin et al., 1962). Early in development, the child is believed to experience himself and his environment as "an amorphous, continuous mass." Formation of the "self" involves the development of an "inner-core" of experience and the separation of this core from the environmental field. Throughout growth, the "self" becomes articulated from the environment in a more structured manner, During this period of development, stimulus objects take on

PAGE 9

"function and meaning" as a result of continuous, yet varying, dealings with them. The person who has the ability to perceive the environment in an articulated manner such that he is able to perceive items as discrete from their backgrounds, is referred to as a "field-independent," "high-differentiated," or "differentiated" person (Witkin et al. , 1962). It has been demonstrated that it is possible to predict an individual's functioning in the areas of perception, problem solving, intelligence, and personality from a knowledge of his level of differentiation (Witkin et al. , 1962; 195*0. The concept of increasing articulation has been applied to the "experience of an immediately present stimulus configuration," i.e., perception (Witkin et al., 1962; 195^; Witkin, 19^9; Jackson, 196^; Asch and Witkin, 19W. Witkin feels that it also may be applied to "the experience of symbolic material," i.e., cognition or thinking (Witkin et al. , 1962). A primary concern with the perceptual-cognitive styles has been the adaptive function of cognitive processes in the psychological economy of the individual. This has resulted in a search for consistencies across psychological areas. A by-product of cognitive style research has been "its contribution to a more integrated, holistic view of personality" (Witkin, 1965).

PAGE 10

For the low-differentiated person, perception is strongly dominated by the over-all organization of the field, and parts of the field are experienced as "fixed" (Witkin, 1965, p. 318). In a field-independent mode of perceiving, "parts of the field are experienced as discrete from organized background" (Witkin, 1965, P. 318). The cognitive style of field-dependence is described as follows 1 "At one extreme [field-dependence, low-differentiated] there is a consistent tendency for experience to be global and diffuse 1 the organization as a whole dictates the manner in which its parts are experienced. At the other extreme [field-independence, high-differentiated] there is a tendency for experience to be delineated and structured; parts of a field are experienced as discrete and the field as a whole organized" (Witkin et al., 1962, p. 319). Various techniques have been devised to measure the articulation dimensioni e.g., the Rod and Frame Test, the Tilting Room Test, and the Tilting Chair Test, etc. (Witkin et al., 1962; 195*0. Witkin (1950) developed the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) for the measurement of fielddependence. This test is a modification of the Gottschaldt figures to which color and increased complexity have been added. The EFT (Appendix B) has been found to correlate

PAGE 11

significantly with other techniques used for measuring the field-dependence dimension (Jackson et al., 1964; Witkin et al,, 1962; Young, 1959). Short forms have been devised for the EFT which have been found to correlate up to +.99 with the original scale (Witkin et al., 1962; Jackson, 1956). The EFT requires the person to locate a simple figure in a complex design which is so organized as to conceal the simple figure. The high-differentiated person is able to discern the figure easily, whereas others may not discern it for long (5 minutes) periods of time. High-differentiated persons give evidence of a developed sense of identity, i.e., "they have an awareness of needs, feelings, attributes which they recognize as their own and which they identify as distinct from those of others" (Witkin, 1965, P. 320). This implies an experience of self as segregated and structured. Low-differentiated individuals reveal greater reliance on external sources for their feelings, attitudes, and judgments. From his studies reported in 1954, Witkin found the following personality components associated with the different levels of differentiation (Witkin et al., 1954) t Low-differentiated individuals display general passivity in dealing with the environment; they lack a sense of self-awareness; they have relatively poor control of Impulses, with accompanying fear of aggressive and sexual impulses, and often, high anxiety; and they have a sense of low self-esteem

PAGE 12

with a low evaluation of their bodies. High-differentiated individuals are active in dealing with their environment ; they have an awareness of "inner-life" and effective control of impulses with low anxiety; and they have high self-esteem, Including confidence in their bodies. Upon replicating some of Witkin's experiments, Young (1959) found that field-dependence (low-differentiation) does correlate with passive dependence, distrust of one's own feelings, and lack of introspectiveness. Taft and Coventry (1958) found that S's who score high extroversion on Eyesenck's introversion-extroversion scale were significantly less accurate on measures of field dependence than were those who scored low. The rationale here was that extroverts would be relatively unprepared to handle the environment by means of cues emanating from themselves. A study by Marlowe (1958) found that field independence (high-differentiation) was related to "intraception," i.e., the need to be analytic in regard. to the behavior and motives on one's self and others. Linton (1955) found that the field dependent personality is associated with high conformity as measured by the auto-kinetic effect and attitude change measures. There are distinct sex differences regarding degree of field-dependence, with females showing a considerably lesser degree of differentiation than males (Witkln et al., 1962; 195^; Bennet, 1956; Young, 1959). "The sex

PAGE 13

differences that have been observed are clear-cut and pervasive, but they are relatively slight, compared to the range of individual differences within each sex " (Witkln et al., 1962, p. 221). These stylistic tendencies manifest themselves in the individual's intellectual tendencies as well. Low-differentiated people do less well in solving problems which require isolating essential elements from the presented contexts and using them in different contexts (Witkin et si., 1967). Jackson (1957) found that time taken on the EFT correlated -.57, for males and females combined, with undergraduate scores on the ACE. Goodenough and Kerp (1961) using the EFT, found it was significantly correlated with the Block Design, Figure Completion, and Object Assembly for two groups of children (ages 10 and 12). Messick and Damarln (196^) found that low differentiated S's showed greater incidental learing when the material consisted of human faces, as compared to high differentiated S's. The reverse was found when nonhuman incidental material was used. At any level along the continuum of differentiation, different modes of integration are possible, although more complex modes are expected with greater differentiation. Adjustment is a direct function of the effectiveness of integration, i.e. "a. more or less harmonious working together of parts of the system as a whole with its environment. Adequate adjustment is found at any

PAGE 14

8 level of differentiation, resulting from Integrations effective for that level, although the nature of adjustment that may be considered adequate varies from level to level" (Witkin, 1965. P. 32*0. Also, faulty integration can occur at all levels of differentiation; however, the kind of impairmant will most likely be different. There is evidence for greater pathology at the extremes of the differentiation continuum than at the middle (Witkin et al., 1962 ) . The pathology takes on quite different forms at the two extremes. Low-differentiated persons (at the extreme) usually have severe identity problems and exert little effort to maintain their identity. They show deep-seated problems of dependency, inadequately developed controls which result in chaotic functioning, and are passive with strong feelings of helplessness (Witkin, 1965? Witkin et al., 1962). They are prone to feelings of shame, hostility directed inward, and diffuse anxiety, and their major defenses are repression and denial (Witkin, personal communication) . The types of pathology associated mainly with lowdifferentiation are alcoholism (Karp et al., 1963s Bailey et al., 1961 ; Witkin et al., 1959); ulcer problems, asthma, obesity, and hysteria (all reported in Witkin, 1965s Witkin et al., 1962). The pathology associated with high-differentiated

PAGE 15

persons usually involves delusions, expansive and euphoric ideas of grandeur, outward direction of aggression, over ideation, and struggle for identity and self-aggrandisement (Wit kin, 1965; Witkin et al. , 1962). They are more likely to have feelings of guilt and hostility directed outward and they are apt to experience anxiety as having a specific source and occurring under specific circumstances (Witkin, personal communication). Most paranoid disorders occur in high-differentiated persons (Witkin, 1965). Projection is quite specialized and selective regarding persons and situations. This selectivity necessitates an ability to articulate. The major defenses of the differentiated person are isolation and over-intellectualizatlon. This enables them to maintain the discreteness of feelings and ideas, with the possibility of feeling components being "split-off." "The global-analytical dimension of cognitive functioning appears not to relate to presence or absence of pathology, adequacy of adjustment, or some of the conventional psychiatric nosological categories. However, the kinds of problems, symptoms, and maladaptatlons found in children and adults with contrasting modes of field approach appear to be very different" (Witkin et al., 1962, p. 213). Differentiated persons show a greater degree of "activity level" (Witkin et al., 1962). However, this

PAGE 16

10 does not refer to expenditure of motoric energy. "Activity level" refers to an activity attitude, i.e., a quality of directness which involves a definition of goals and the means of reaching the goals. It involves assertiveness or striving. "The weight of the evidence from the studies presented is that people with an analytic approach are more likely to show an active attitude than people with a global approach " (Witkin et al. , 1962, p. 189). The differentiated individual utilizes structured controls which lead to regulation of attention. This regulation of attention is related to directness of activity. This "type" of person can better rely on internal frames of reference as guides for action. However, the opposite is true of the low-differentiated person whose diffuse anxiety and weakly developed boundaries of interaction often preclude the formation of a delineated directedness towards specific goals. Therefore, the numerous studies on the dimension of differentiation have shown it to be a stable phenomenon involving many psychological processes. However, the evidence relating differentiation to verbal behavior is spsrce and inconclusive. The few studies reported involve TAT protocols and WAIS and WTSC responses. Witkin (1962) reports that these studies and the results provide tentative generalizations without any direct findings. Using the unstructured interviews taken from

PAGE 17

11 a group of 10year-old boys, Wltkin (1962) found that the subjects whose Interviews showed general immaturity, poorly developed self-concept, diminished sense of awareness, under-developed expressive powers, passivity, relative lack of orientation to past events, and little comprehension of relationships between past events, had perceptual index scores which correlated significantly with their interview ratings. Those Ss scored at the non-differentiated levels on the perceptual tasks. The opposite relationship was found with those Ss whose interviews gave evidence of developed self-esteem, positive abilities for interpersonal relationships, active interests, vitality, greater insight, and clear general orientation. Verbal Behavior The importance of studying verbal behavior becomes extremely clear when it is recognized that it represents the primary data observed and collected by clinical psychologists. It is considered a major part of the raw material from which personalities are constructed. It has been shown that "patterns of language variables themselves may be used to reflect and indicate quantitative aspects of intrapsychic processes" (Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955, P. 338). One of the commonest forms of behavior that

PAGE 18

12 typifies man is verbal behavior. While to a great extent man's patterns of speech are determined by the grammar and rhetoric of the language he speaks, it is reasonable to assume that within this framework the individual's choice of words, themes, and style of speech may reveal something of his personality dynamics and his current emotional style" (Gottschalk et al. f 1957. p. 300). "Language provides a natural and spontaneous form through which man represents his perception of external reality " (Lorenz, 1959). Sanford (19^2) states that "Language traditionally has been regarded as the vehicle of thought..." (p. 6ll) He points out that as early as 1916, it : was suggested that verbal behavior is indicative of psychopathology. The patient's relationship with his environment is reflected in grammatical mood, voice, etc. He further states that the study of "speech as abnormal behavior demonstrates that abnormality of adjustment is revealed in linguistic behavior end that more or less specific syndromes are accompanied, by more or less characteristic speech usages" (p. 386). " If speech is looked on as behavior and if speech can be objectively and quantitatively treated, then observation can be more precise and inference more incisive" (p. 836). McClelland and Atkinson (1953), state that "the frequency with which a certain person employs a certain

PAGE 19

13 grammatical category such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and the like, has been shown to be related to various personality characteristics" (p. 248-2^9). Wendel Johnson (19^) views the study of language as being primarily useful in ascertaining individual differences. He suggests the following type of words as being effective as means of studying language behavior i A. Self-reference words. B. Quantifying terms precise numerical terms. C. Pseudo-quantifying terms words less indicative of amount, size, etc. D. "Allness" terms superlative or extreme words, such as "never," "always," "no one," etc. E. Qualification terms words that serve to qualify or limit statements, such as "except," "but," "however," "if," etc. F. Terms indicative of consciousness of abstracting such words as "apparently," "seems," "appears," "as if." Johnson also suggested the following measurements: A. Type-frequency changes that characterize language development. B. Type-frequency characteristics of special groups that may differentiate one group from another. C. Type-frequency characteristics that correlate with other variables, e.g., intelligence, emotional stability, etc.

PAGE 20

14 Jaffe (1961) and Johnson (1944) advocate the use of a Type Token Ratio (TTR) as a means of analyzing verbal data. The TTR is a measure of "verbal diversification" and is represented by the formula mS§|v where the "type" is the total number of each different word used, and the "token" represents the total number of words spoken. Jaffe states that "Previous experience with TTR analysis indicates that low TTR (repetitive verbal transactions) is characteristic of affect, misunderstanding, confusion, and anxiety, in short, the various agitations which interrupt the flow of referential verbal communication" (p. 83). Fairbanks (1944) and Mann (1944) found lower TTR's in the speech and writing of schizophrenic patients than in normal controls. Boder (1940) reports an earlier study by Busemann who used a variation of the Verb Adjective ratio (V/A). Busemann viewed the V/A as a reflection of emotional stability with higher ratios indicating greater instability. Boder also reports that Rorschach found high V/A to be related to movement responses, which were produced by introverted people, while low V/A was related to color responses, produced by extratenslve individuals. Balken and Masserman (1940) theorized that "high [V/A] values connote restless, forceful, dramatic action in the phantesies, expressing libidinal tensions and anxiety in the subject" (p. 79).

PAGE 21

15 > Speech disturbances, which are usually not under control exercised in speaking and are not readily subject to social or linguistic control, can serve as useful indicators of anxiety. Mahl's (1966) studies showed that speech disturbances ratios (Speech disturbances/Total words in sample) were sensitive discriminators of anxiety which produce statistically significant individual differences between interviews for the same individual, and statistically significant variations from moment to moment within individual interviews. The following speech disturbance categories were used by Mahl (1966) as measures of anxiety: 1. Sentence Change. A correction in form or content of the expression while the word to word progression occurs, e.g., Well, she's... already she's lonesome. 2. Repetition. The serial superfluous representation 1 of one or more of the words — usually of one or two words, e.g., Cause... cause they get along. 3. Stuttering. 4. Omission. Parts of words or entire words may be omitted, e.g., She mour... was in mourning. 5. Sentence Incompletion. An expression is Interrupted, clearly left incomplete and the communication proceeds without correction. 6. Tongue Slips. includes neologisms, the transposition of entire words from their "correct serial

PAGE 22

16 position in the sentence, and the substitution of an 'unintended* for an intended word", e.g., We speat the bitches (for "split the beeches"). 7. Intruding incoherent sound. A sound which is absolutely incoherent to the listener, e.g., If I see her now, I Just dh... ask her. Short samples of speech (5-15 minutes) have been used effectively as a means of studying verbal behavior (Welntraub and Aronson, 196^; Gottschalk et al., 1961; 1957s 1955; Lorenz and Cobb, 1952). TAT cards have also been used (Witkin et al., 1961; Gottschalk et al., 1957. 1955). However, Gottschalk and Hambidge (1955) found significant definable differences in the pattern of speech elicited by the use of TAT cards and the short samples of speech. Other investigators have used psychotherapeutic interviews to obtain their speech samples (Lennard, 196l$ Lennard and Bernstein, I960; Gottschalk et al., 196l; Saslow and Matarazzo, 1955). Gottschalk and Hambidge (1955) studied content variables, i.e., "the meaning, relationships, objects, concepts, and processes which the verbal elements in speech are intended to symbolize" (1955. P. 389). Their units of analysis consisted of self-references, non-selfreferences (other humans, animals, flora, and fauna), verbs (words expressing action, motivation, perception, and thought, and which represent processes occuring between

PAGE 23

17 objects and/or concepts), and references to measure, i.e., time, space, and quantity. "The number and kind of verbal symbols which express a relationship of measure, size, quantity, time, space may indicate the degree of the speaker's exploratory alertness and attention to orientation. Such orienting activities occur in relation to sequences of intrapersonal and interpersonal events. Therefore, they may be of significance in elucidating certain qualitative and possible quantitative aspects of psychodynamic processes" (p. 390). In their later study (1957) Gottschalk and his associates added other units of analysis, e.g., total qualifying words (which included adjectives, prepositions, articles, adverbs, conjunctions, interjections, and negations). Weintraub and Aronson (1964-), using a ten-minute sample of speech on anything the subject wished, used 12 scoring categories which included: A. Quantity of speech number of spoken words. B. Shift to past tense. C. "Negators" e.g., "no," "not," "nothing." D. Qualifiers words or phrases indicating uncertainty, e.g., "suppose," "guess," etc., use of modifiers which detract from the forcefulness of the statement, e.g., "more or less," etc., and phrases or words which introduce an element of vagueness, e.g., "what one might call" or "something like."

PAGE 24

18 E. Explaining or "Justifying" use of phrases or words which indicate (1) relationships, e.g., "because," "due to," "as if," "as a," (2) a reason for an action, thought, or attitude, e.g., "My purpose is to...," and (3) a partlcipal phrase containing a justification for en action, or thought, e.g., "Having attended many times, I can speak with authority about.,.," P. Evaluators, e.g., goodness and badness, usefulness and uselessness, right and wrong. The investigation of perceptual-cognitive styles has contributed extensively to the field of clinical psychology. Witkin and his associates have done the most extensive research in this area in respect to the concept of differentiation . This cognitive-perceptual dimension has been related to Intelligence, sex differences, self -awareness, problem solving, personality, and psychopathology. Yet, one of the most crucial tools of the clinical psychologist — verbal behavior--has been neglected in respect to its relationship to perceptualcognitive style. Witkin' s concept of differentiation can be summarized by the following basic personality concepts which have been found to be associated with high levels of differentiation! A. A general activity in dealing with the environment; B. A general tendency to see the world as structured and

PAGE 25

19 analyzed? C, A sense of separate identity; D, Effective control of impulses with low anxiety j The purpose of this study is to test hypothesized verbal correlates for these four basic personality components, in an attempt to demonstrate the relationship between differentiation and the structure of verbal behavior. Units of Analysis The following verbal measures which would seem to be related to the concept of differentiation were selected for investigation in this study i 1. Adjectives , Adverbs , and Prepositions — usually express an expansion or addition of characterization. They serve as particularlzation factors (Lorenz, 1959). They also represent a means of controlling self and the environment. 2. Verbs — usually express motivation, action, **.' ! perception, and thought. They represent processes occurring between objects and/or concepts (Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955). 3. Verb Ad jective Ratio (V/A) — used to indicate level of anxiety and amount of fantasy life. *K Type Token Ratio (TTR) — used as a measure of verbal diversification. 5. Allness Terms — (e.g., everyone, no one, always,

PAGE 26

20 never, etc.) suggests diffuseness, I.e., difficulty In being discrete. 6. Measure Terms — (space, time, quantity, size) indicate the individual's degree of exploratory alertness and attention to orientation (Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955). 7. Attenuating Terms — (e.g., "more or less," "a little bit," "something like," etc.)— words or phrases which tend to weaken the meaning of the words they modify, and therefore would indicate a lesser degree of discreteness. 8. Speech Disturbances — (e.g., stutter, omissions, tongue slips, etc.) indicate degree of anxiety in speech. 9 . Term s In dicating Causal Relationships — (e.g., "because," "due to," "resulting from," etc.) indicating comprehension of the relationship i between events. Hypotheses The findings related to the concept of differentiation are used to develop the following hypotheses which were tested in the context of the four basic personality components, A. General activity in dealing with the environment. 1. The high-differentiated person will use a

PAGE 27

21 significantly greater number of verbs in his speech than the low-differentiated person. Rationale! The high-differentiated person has a more "active attitude," is more goal directed, has a greater awareness of his goals, and is more capable of relating events in his environment. B. Tendency for the world to be experienced as structured and analyzed. 2. The high-differentiated person will use significantly more total qualifying words (adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions) in his speech than will the low-differentiated person. Rationale i High-differentiated persons are more precise and perceive their environment in a more discrete manner. 3. The high-differentiated person will use significantly fewer "allness" terms than the low-differentiated person. Rationale i The high-differentiated person perceives his environment in a discrete manner, is more specific, and less diffuse than the non-differentiated person. ^. The high-differentiated person will use significantly fewer attenuating terms than will the low-differentiated person. Rationale i

PAGE 28

22 High-differentiated individuals are more specific and expressive in their speech, and attenuating terms tend to weaken the discreteness of speech, 5. The high-differentiated person will use significantly more terms indicating causal relationships. Rationale i High-differentiated persons have greater comprehension of relationships between events. C. A sense of separate identity. 6. The high-differentiated person will use a significantly greater number of measure terms (time, space, quantity, and size) than the low-differentiated person. Rationale i The high-differentiated person more discretely articulates his environment and has a greater sense of separate identity than the low-differentiated person. 7. The high-differentiated person will make fewer references to self. Rationale! The high-differentiated person has a more adaptive self -concept and therefore, less of a need for self-references. D. Effective control of impulses with low anxiety. 8. The high-differentiated person will have a

PAGE 29

23 lower Verb Adjective Ratio than the lowdifferentiated person. Rationale* The high-differentiated person is less extroverted, and has greater control over his impulses and anxiety than the lowdifferentiated person. 9. The high-differentiated person will have a significantly higher Type Token Ratio than the low-differentiated person. Rationales The high-differentiated person has greater control of his anxiety and is more verbally expressive. 10. The high-differentiated person will have significantly fewer speech disturbances than the low-differentiated person. Rationale! The high-differentiated person has greater control of his impulses and less anxiety. A structured interview (Appendix A) was developed in order to elicit verbal behavior in the context of structure. As the interview represents a structured situation for the individual, it is further hypothesized that It will represent less of a threat to the low-differentiated person than elicited spontaneous speech. Witkin's findings have shown that the low-differentiated person has a greater anxiety of a non-specified source, is more

PAGE 30

2k dependent, and requires greater environmental structure and support than the high-differentiated person (Witkin, personal communication). Therefore, on the basis of these findings, the following hypotheses will be tested: 11. The low-differentiated person will have a significantly lower Verb Adjective Ratio in the structured interview than in spontaneous speech. 12. The low-differentiated person will have a significantly higher Type Token Ratio in the structured interview than in spontaneous speech. 13. The low-differentiated person will have significantly fewer speech disturbances in the structured interview than in spon. taneous speech, 1^. The high-differentiated person will show no significant differences in the Verb Adjective Ratio, Type Token Ratio, or Speech Disturbances when the structured interview results are compared with spontaneous speech results.

PAGE 31

CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects A total of 56 male S's who were enrolled in an undergraduate, Introductory psychology course at the University of Florida were administered the EFT (Appendix B). Using Witkins's norms (Witkin, 1950), 15 S's who scored in the lowest quartile and 15 S's who scored in the highest quartlle were selected and used in this study. Apparatus The EFT short form, devised by Witkin (1962), consisting of 12 complex figures and eight simple figures, was administered to 56 S's in order to determine his degree of differentiation (field-dependence — field-independence ) . Each S selected for further study was given the structured interview and then asked to give five minutes of uninterrupted, spontaneous speech. The interview and the spontaneous speech were both recorded electronically on tape. ' Typewritten transcripts were made from the tapes to facilitate the data analysis. Two Judges (the experimenter and his wife who has a B.A. in psychology) rated 25

PAGE 32

26 independently each transcript (presented in random order) for the purpose of determining the reliability of tabulating the verbal measures. Procedure Each S was met by an experimenter and administered the EFT. At the beginning of the test, the following instructions, which were taken from Witkln (1950) » were given to each S: I am going to show you a series of colored designs. Each time I show you one of these designs, I want you to describe the over-all pattern that you see in it. After you examine each design I will show you a simpler figure, which is contained in that larger design. You will then be given the larger design again, and your job will be to locate the smaller figure in it. Let us go through one to show you how it is done. The S was then shown the practice complex figure (P-l) for 15 seconds, after which it was removed and the practice simple figure (P) was shown for 10 seconds. When it was removed, the complex figure was presented once more, with instructions to locate the simple figure in it. As this was done, a stop watch was started. When S reported that he had found the figure, the time was recorded and he was required to trace the figure, so that the E could.be sure it was the correct one. After the practice trial, the S was given the following additional instructions »

PAGE 33

27 This Is how we will proceed on all trials. I would like to add that in every case the smaller figure will be present in the larger design. It will always be in the upright position. There may be several of the smaller figures in the same large design, but you are to look only for the one in the upright position. Work as quickly as you possible can, since I will be timing you; but be sure that the figure you find is exactly the same as the original figure both in size and in proportions. As soon as you have found the figure, tell me at once. If you ever forget what the simple figure looks like , you may ask to see it again. Are there any questions? The same presentation procedure was used on 12 test trials. The S's score on each trial was the time taken to find the simple figure in the complex one after the latter was presented for the second time, A maximum of five minutes was allowed for each trial. If the subject failed to locate the figure in that time, his score was recorded as 5'. While he searched for the simple figure, he was permitted to re-examine the copy of it as often as he wished. This was deemed necessary because the task would cease to be the one intended if the S no longer remembered the structure of the figure for which he was searching. The complex figure was of course removed if he looked back at the simple one,. so that both figures were never seen simultaneously, and the S was discouraged from taking more than 10 seconds for each re-examination of the simpler figure. The stop watch was stopped during the period of

PAGE 34

28 re-examination, so that this time was not included in the final score, When the S reported discovery of the simple figure within the complex one, the time was ; noted, but the stop watch was permitted to run while he traced the figure. If the tracing was done correctly, the score recorded for , the trial was the time of discovery, but if the correct figure was not traced, the S continued his search and the time consumed in tracing the incorrect figure was included in the final score. Witkin's method (1962) for scoring the short form was applied. For this method, the S's score for the whole test was the sum of the times taken to locate the simple figures in all 12 complex figures. This sum was multiplied by two in order to use the norms of the long form, which consist of 2k complex figures. In order to control for experimenter bias, a different 1 examiner, who was not aware of the EFT scores, obtained the speech measures. Each of the 30 S's selected for their extreme scores on the EFT was administered the speech tasks individually. Each S was seen in the same room, with the same meeting arrangements, and the same placement of the tape recorder in full view. He was informed of the confidentiality of his verbal productions. He was first given the structured interview (Appendix A). Following this, each S was asked to speak for 5 minutes. The instructions were as follows: This is a study of speaking and conver-

PAGE 35

29 sational habits. Upon a signal from me, I would like you to start telling me about any interesting or dramatic life experiences you have had. Once you have started, I shall be here listening to you but would prefer not to reply to any questions you may feel like asking me until the five minutes are up. Do you have any questions you would like to ask before we start? Well then, you may start (Gottsohalk et al.t 1957 » p. 301). After completion of the spontaneous speech task, the study was explained to the subject and he was thanked for his participation and excused. Method of Analysis To insure that the highand low-differentiated subject groups did not differ significantly in verbal skills, they were compared by the t test using the verbal scores of The School and College Ability Test, which were available from university records. The verbal measures used in this study were first transcribed from the tapes into typewritten form. Then each verbal unit was scored by a judge and single page selections from each of the 30 S's were scored independently by an additional Judge for a reliability check. The two Judges achieved 9Q% agreement. For each hypothesis, the appropriate verbal units were then totalled for each subject and transformed into ratios. The ratios consisted of the total number of words representative of a given measure (excepting TTR and V/A)

PAGE 36

30 divided by the total number of words used by the subject. The ratio method was employed to accomodate for individual differences in total verbal production. Ten one-way analyses of variance were computed in order to test for the differences between the two groups (highand low-differentiated) on each of the first 10 hypotheses. For the remaining four hypotheses, three 2x2 analyses of variance were done. The two dimensions in these analyses were the two population groups (highand low-differentiated) and the two verbal tasks (structured and unstructured). Analysis of the role of these variables, as well as their interactions, were tested by the P statistic. Dependent variables in these analyses were the V/A, the TTR, and the speech disturbances. In order to determine whether a combination of the verbal measures could result in significant discrimination between the two groups, three discriminant function analyses were done. This statistical technique was developed by R.A. Fisher in 1936 in order to best differentiate criterion groups where multiple measurements were being used.l Occasionally, decisions can be made on the basis of a single variable , but more frequently two groups differ across 1 The following readings are suggested for a more thorough discussion of discriminant function analysis (Goulden, C.H., 195 2 ; Fisher, R.A., 1936; Mather, K. , 19^6).

PAGE 37

31 several variables, each of which contributes to the classification of an individual. The technique of discriminant function analysis is essentially a multiple regression method which is expressed by the function: Z = X. -i x* +A0X0X0X0+ , , , +Xj^x„ in which z is the Composite predictor score derived from the individual raw scores (x) on each of the variables and the corresponding weightings (x). It is necessary to determine the optimal weights for each of the variables, i.e., to find values for the lambda coefficients which will maximize the difference between the composite means of the criterion groups. Discriminant function should differentiate groups more efficiently than any other multivariate technique. The three discriminant function analyses used in this study were as follows: l) Analysis was made of the 10 verbal units used in this study to determine how efficiently these variables would classify the subjects into the two appropriate criterion groups; 2) the TTR, V/A and speech disturbances were analyzed for the structured speech task. It was expected that this particular analysis would serve as a control test in that accurate classification of the criterion groups should not occur, as the structured task should not produce significantly different anxiety expressions in the two groups; and 3) TTR, V/A and speech disturbances were analyzed for the unstructured speech

PAGE 38

32 task. With this analysis, accurate classification of the two criterion groups was expected, as the unstructured context should increase the anxiety level of the low-differentiated subjects. This Increase should be reflected by a significant difference between the two criterion groups in the use of the three verbal expressions of anxiety.

PAGE 39

CHAPTER III RESULTS The comparison which was made of the SCAT verbal scores of the two criterion groups yielded a t of .95. • 50 >p<.20. This finding suggests that the two groups do not differ significantly in verbal skills and therefore, differences in their patterns of verbal behavior may be attributed to factors other than verbal skills. Table 1 presents the results of the one-way analyses of variance for the first ten hypotheses. In all of the ten one-way analyses, the results were nonsignificant and the hypotheses regarding differences between the two criterion groups on the ten verbal measures were not confirmed. The results of the three 2x2 analyses of variance for the three verbal expressions of anxiety are presented in Appendix C. These three analyses tested hypotheses 11, 12, 13, and 1^. The F ratios, in all instances, were nonsignificant and the three hypotheses, predicting an increase in anxiety reflected in the three verbal measures for the low-differentiated group in the structured situation, were not supported. Hypothesis 14, which predicted no difference between the structured and unstructured tasks in the 33

PAGE 40

3^ Table 1 Analyses of Variance of the 10 Verbal Measures for Highand Low-differentiated Subjects

PAGE 41

35 Table 1 Continued ATTENUATING TERMS Source of

PAGE 42

36 Table 1 Continued SELF-REFERENCES Source of

PAGE 43

37 Table 1 Continued SPEECH DISTURBANCES Source of

PAGE 44

38 Table 2 Mean Ratio Scores and the Differences Between the Means for the Criterion Groups on the 10 Verbal Measures (Discriminant Function Analysis I) Variables

PAGE 45

39 The following lambda values (X) for each variable were obtained: Verbs (X . = 0.00198), Qualifying Terms (X 2 = -O.OO3196), Allness Terms (X^ = -0.00576), Attenuating Terms (X^ = 0.00319), Causal Relationships (X* = -0.02326), Measuring Terms (Xg = -O.OO583), Self-References (X„ = -0.00121), V/A (\ Q = -0.0008), TTR (X 9 = 0.00023), and Speech Disturbances (X-,q = 0.00^-0^). The lambda values suggest how much each variable has contributed to the classification. The derived mean composite discriminant score for each criterion group are as follows: Z & = -1.^2219 and ZD = -1. 58898, in which Z & is the score based on the mean scores of each variable for the low-differentiated subjects (x &1 , ... x ), and the corresponding weights assigned to each of the respective variables (x^ , ,,,Xg), Z-^ serves as the respective mean composite score for the high-differentiated group. The following strategy was used to determine the optimal cut-off score for the purpose of classifying any subject on the basis of his composite score: If Z< > Z a * Z b t 2 then classify low-differentiated. If Z. z. Z a + 2 b , 1— 2 then classify high-differentiated. The ratio, (z & + Z b )/2, yielded the composite

PAGE 46

40 value of Z = -1.50559 as the optimal cut-off score. Classifications were then made on each subject and the results are presented in Table 3. These results demonstrate that only two low-differentiated subjects and three high-differentiated subjects were misclassif led. The discriminant function analysis accurately classified 83% of the tested sample of 30 subjects. The results of Discriminant Function Analysis I showed significant differentiation between the two criterion groups (F = 2.38 with d/f =10, 19, P < .05). Discriminant Function Analysis II tested the effect of combining three verbal measures of anxiety (V/A, TTR, and Speech Disturbances) in the structured speech task upon accurate classification of the two criterion groups. It was expected that since structure should not produce differential anxiety between the highand low-differentiated groups that accurate classification would not occur. The results supported this prediction (see Appendix D for tables). The obtained lambda values were as follows : V/A (X-L = -0.00002), TTR (\ 2 0.0000), and Speech Disturbances (Xq = 0.00072). The derived mean composite discriminant scores were Z & = -0.01581 and Z b = -0.025^2 with a cut-off score (Z a + Z b /2), Z = -0.02062. Using this cut-off score, Discriminant Function Analysis II accurately classified only 57% of the total sample (six low-differentiated and seven high-differentiated subjects were misclassif led) . This

PAGE 47

4l Table 3 Classification of Subjects by Use of Discriminant Function I a Low-differentiated High-differentiated Subject Composite Subject Composite Rank Scores (N = 15) Scores (N = 15) 1

PAGE 48

42 analysis yielded an F ratio = O.625. In order to test whether combining the V/A, TTR, and Speech Disturbances would accurately classify the subjects into the two criterion groups in the unstructured speech task, Discriminant Function Analysis III was done. It was expected that the lack of structure would produce a sufficient increase in the occurrence of verbal evidence of anxiety for the low-differentiated subjects that the combination of these measures would significantly differentiate between the two groups. Although the results did not significantly confirm the prediction, the accuracy of classification was substantially higher than that of the classification of the criterion groups in the structured speech task (see Appendix D for tables). The obtained lambdas were as follows: V/A Q^ = 0.00002), TTR (^3 = 0.00080), and Speech Disturbances (Xj O.OO316). The respective mean composite discriminant scores were Z & = 0.44057 and Z b = 0.40404 with a cut-off score of Z = 0.4223. Discriminant Function Analysis III correctly classified 77% of the total sample (five low-differentiated subjects and two high-differentiated subjects were misclassified) . The discriminant function analysis yielded an F = 2.37 with d/f = 3, 26. This ratio does not reach significance at the .05 level.

PAGE 49

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The results failed to confirm the first 10 hypotheses which predicted significant differences between the two criterion groups (highand low-differentiated) on each of the 10 verbal measures. Although none of the individual verbal measures significantly differentiated the two groups, combining these same 10 variables into a multivariate analysis did significantly differentiate the two criterion groups (Table 3). Such findings suggest that, although individual variables by themselves may not describe a population group* a combination of variables may serve as a much more effective means of predicting or classifying. The results of Discriminant Function Analysis I (Tables 3 and 4) lend support to the general hypothesis that language, as an expressive behavior, is reflective of personality and perceptual mode. This seems especially true when various measures are combined, McClelland and Atkinson's (1953) statement (p. 12 in text), that "the frequency with which a certain person employs a certain grammatical category such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and the like, has been shown to be related to various person43

PAGE 50

ality characteristics," most accurately describes the results of this study. It is observed that the high-differentiated group did use a higher proportion of verbs, qualifying terms, allness terms, causal relationship terms, measuring terms, and a higher V/A, whereas the low-differentiated group have a higher proportion of attenuating terms, self -references, speech disturbances, as well as a higher TTR. Allness terms, V/A, and TTR were the three verbal measures for which the results were not in the predicted direction. Since the analyses of the differences between the two criterion groups for the 10 verbal measures demonstrate that they do not differ significantly from chance, one might expect the results for two or three variables to be in the direction opposite of that predicted. Regarding allness terms, however, it may be that their use represents a means of being more concise or speaking with "certainty," characteristics which one might expect to find more with high-differentiated subjects. The TTR results were even more unexpected. Johnson (19^) has found that the TTR represents a measure of verbal diversification. Jaffe (1961) has additionally indicated that "low TTR (repetitive verbal transactions) is characteristic of affect, confusion and anxiety." Therefore, one should expect a higher TTR among high-differentiated subjects who are reported to be less anxious and more discrete in

PAGE 51

^5 their interactions with the environment (Witkin et al., 1962; 195*0. The findings of this study gave evidence of a higher TTR for the low-differentiated group. This finding may, in part, be explained on the basis of the limiting aspects of the structured interview. The Interview, although devised to question areas which might reflect differences in the two criterion groups, tended to restrict occasionally the diversification of responses. For example, both highand low-differentiated subjects frequently responded to question #1, "How is your health?," with an answer such as "My health is fine." or "My health is good." This kind of question, it may be observed, elicits responses in which both groups tend to utilize the same or similar words. Use of interview questions which allowed for more open-ended answers might have provided a greater opportunity for verbal differentiation. Under such circumstances, the high-differentiated subjects may have exhibited the expected greater diversity in their verbal production. The higher V/A for high-differentiated subjects may be partly explained by this group having a more active attitude, which is manifested in speech by the use of a greater number of verbs (Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955). Balken and Masserman, also (19*1-0) theorized that high V/A "values connote restless, forceful, dramatic action in the fantasies ...." The assumption in this study was, however, that the V/A represents a measure of anxiety as suggested

PAGE 52

Ur6 by Boder (19^0), and Balken and Masserman (19^0). Therefore the low-differentiated group was predicted to show a higher V/A. The lack of support for this prediction may be accounted for also by a fault in the design of this study. For all 30 subjects, the structured interview task preceded the spontaneous speech task. Such a procedure may have masked differences in anxiety level between the two groups as hypothesized. For example, the kind and amount of structure provided by the interview situation might not have permitted the full expression of existing anxiety to be fully reflected in the speech of the low-differentiated subjects. Thus, the V/A for the low-differentiated group was not as high as it might have been in a less structured situation. In addition, by the time these subjects reached the spontaneous speech task, which was calculated to give existing anxiety full expression in the subjects' speech patterns, the level of their anxiety may have been sufficiently reduced such that measurable differences in anxiety level between the two groups no longer existed. Such reduction in anxiety might have resulted from the climate of reassurance provided in the structured task, as well as from rapport established with the examiner. The most effective means of controlling for this possible source of experimental bias would be to alternate the order of presentation of the two tasks. In this way, the

PAGE 53

^7 effect of the structured task on the unstructured one could be evaluated. The next three hypotheses, which predicted Increased anxiety for the low-differentiated subjects in the spontaneous speech task as measured by V/A, TTR, and Speech Disturbances, were not supported. No significant differences occurred between the two groups on any of the verbal measures of anxiety for either the structured or the spontaneous speech task. The absence of significant differences may, again, be accounted for by the influences of the structure in the interview situation and the anxiety reducing impact of the structured situation on the unstructured. It is also possible that a spontaneous speech task may not be a more anxiety arousing situation for one group than for the other, although this would seem unlikely if one views this task as an unstructured situation. The results of Witkin's research (1962; 195^) provide consistent evidence for the low-differentiated (field-dependent) individual's need for structure. The last hypothesis predicted no difference in the occurrence of anxiety as measured by the V/A, TTR, and Speech Disturbances for the high-differentiated group, between the structured and spontaneous speech task. This hypothesis was confirmed by the results, however it is of little relevence in light of the nonsignificant findings for the low-differentiated group.

PAGE 54

k8 To determine whether, as a composite, the three verbal measures of anxiety can accurately classify the two criterion groups on both the structured and spontaneous speech tasks, Discriminant Function Analyses II and III were done. The results of Discriminant Function Analysis II tested the classifying effectiveness of the composite for the structured speech task and the results were not significant. This was as predicted, since the presence of structure was not expected to arouse anxiety for either group. Discriminant Function Analysis III, which tested the composite of the same verbal measures of anxiety for the spontaneous speech task, correctly classified 77% of the total sample, again providing support for the increased effectiveness of a composite of variables over single variables in describing a population. Despite this high rate of classification, the F ratio was not significant. With this analysis too, varying the order of presentation of the speech tasks might have resulted in more significant differences for the condition in which the unstructured task was presented first. The classes of words which followed each individual speech disturbance were scored and the results of the frequency count are presented in Tables 7 and 8 (Appendix F). It is interesting to observe that the scores for each individual category (e.g., articles, prepositions, nouns, etc.) are markedly similar for both groups, for

PAGE 55

^9 each speech task. By inspection, a higher frequency of speech disturbances preceding active verbs does seem to exist for the low-differentiated group in the spontaneous speech task. This suggests that greater anxiety may have been aroused in the low-differentiated subjects than in the high-differentiated when action or an action attitude was to be expressed verbally in the unstructured speech situation. This observation, although not verified statistically, is congruent with Witkin's (1962) findings that high-differentiated (field-independent) individuals demonstrate evidence of a more active attitude in their content of their verbalizations. The highest frequency of speech disturbances preceded pronouns for both groups in both speech tasks. However, this was also the only class of words in which the number of speech disturbances for the combined speech tasks was greater for the high-differentiated group than for the low-differentiated group. This aspect of speech disturbances, although not a formal part of this study, appears to justify a more thorough investigation in future related research. In summary, the results of this study point to the likelihood that relationships do exist between the cognitive-perceptual style of differentiation and the structure of verbal behavior. The combining of all 10 verbal measures in a discriminant function analysis did sig-

PAGE 56

50 nificantly classify (or dichotomize) the two criterion groups, j Such a finding also offers support for the hypothesis that the structure of verbal behavior lends itself as a potentially effective representation of personality, perception, and cognition. The importance of verbal behavior in typifying and understanding man Is paramount (Lorenz, 1959 J Gottschalk and Hambidge, 1955). Verbal behavior is also one of the basic diagnostic and prognostic tools of the clinician. Therefore, positive findings in this study would have strengthened the usefulness of the concept of differentiation in the understanding of the human organism. Additional, more extensive and intensive research of the relationship between the concept of differentiation and verbal structure needs to be undertaken. In order to correct for the problems in the present design, further experimental controls, as discussed above, should be included. The use of a structured interview which allowed for more open-ended answers may have resulted in significantly higher TTR's for the high-differentiated subjects. The two speech tasks should have been randomly presented in order to control for the effect of one task on the other. However, the minimal significant relationships found in this study between differentiation, as measured by the EFT, and the structure of verbal behavior, suggest the possibility that differentiation , as a personality con-

PAGE 57

51 struct, may not generalize to the extent of including the structure of verbal' behavior. A further question is concerning the validity of the construct itself* It may well be that differentiation, as described and studied by Witkin and his associates, may represent no more than an overt expression of more basic processes, such as biochemical functions, anxiety levels, etc. As such, the construct of differentiation would serve only as a convenient and descriptive label which has little or no relevance in the nature of the human organism. An additional, possible explanation of the nonsignificant findings in this study is that the population group studied, although scoring in the extremes (upper and lower 25 percentiles) on the EFT, may be very similar in the structure of their verbal behavior. They were all college students who scored high in the verbal section of the SCAT. Such a population, whose scholastic training emphasizes verbal skills and who are also similar in their verbal skills, are most likely very unrepresentative of the general population. More extreme differences might be found among subjects more representative of the general population. Additional relevant factors to study might be as follows : 1. Content variables, e.g., expressions of affect, self-concept, somatic complaints, etc. Low-differ-

PAGE 58

52 entlated subjects might be expected to \ise a greater frequency of affect expression and somatic complaints in their speech, and should have more difficulty describing themselves verbally. 2. Additional populations, e.g., nosological categories, vocations, etc. It would seem relevant to have a better understanding of the verbal behavior, both structure and content, of different nosological categories and how such information relates to their specific problems in respect to dynamics, onset, deterioration, and/or growth. This may be especially important since Witkin (1965) has already demonstrated a relationship between various types of pathology and the cognitive-perceptual style of differentiation. One might expect, for example, asthmatic, alcoholic, obese, and ulcerative patients, whom Witkin (1965) found to be related to non-differentiation, to use a smaller proportion of verbs, qualifying terms, etc., than would patients with paranoid difficulties, whom Witkin found to be more differentiated. Since Witkin (1962) has found developmental trends to be operating in the cognitive-perceptual style of differentiation, it would be useful to examine the existence of parallel developmental trends in speech measures for various age groups

PAGE 59

53 (children, geriatric, etc.). 3. Other verbal structure measures, e.g., the use of negators, evaluators, shifts to past tense, etc. Such additional speech measures may he equally or more related to differentiation than some of those measures used in this study. One might expect, for example, low-differentiated individuals to make more references to past tense, as such references may provide a form of structure. If. Further study of the occurrence of speech disturbances and the words (structure and content) which they precede. Such studies would provide information relating the verbal expression of anxiety to other speech measures. In conclusion, it should be strongly emphasized that, although the use of the multivariate instrument of discriminant function analysis appeared to be an effective means of classifying the two criterion groups, the pre' dictive validity of the instrument can not be demonstrated without additional cross-validation studies. This same caution is even more strongly stressed when one observes that only seven of the 10 verbal measures which made up the composite in Discriminant Function Analysis I were in the predicted direction. Therefore, three of the variables used in the significant differentiation of the

PAGE 60

5^ two groups may have contributed to the discrimination for reasons other than those hypothesized. The lambda weights of these variables suggest only Allness Terms may have significantly contributed to the composite, whereas it is possible that the removal of V/A and TTR might have added to the accuracy of classification of the two criterion groups. Relationships of the concept of differentiation to the structure of verbal behavior have been only suggested by this study. Further research utilizing more stringent controls is needed before these relationships may be more fully understood.

PAGE 61

CHAPTER V SUMMARY The cognitive-perceptual style of differentiation, as developed by H. A. Witkin, has been found to be related to many dimensions of the human being, e.g., perception, intelligence, personality, sex differences, body concept, and pathology. The area of verbal behavior and its relationship to differentiation has not been investigated beyond anecdotal observations. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to study the relationship between the concept of differentiation and the structure of verbal behavior. An initial total of 56 male S's were administered the Embedded Figures Test. Using Witkin' s norms, 30 S's, 15 who scored in the highest quartile (designated lowdifferentiated) and 15 who scored in the lowest quartile (designated high-differentiated), were selected and used in this study. Each S selected for further study was engaged in a structured interview and then asked to give five minutes of spontaneous speech. Ten verbal measures which were seen as related to the personality correlates of differentiation, as reported 55

PAGE 62

56 by Witkin end his associates, were used to predict significant differences between the two criterion groups. It was predicted that for the total speech production, the high-differentiated group would use a significantlyhigher proportion of verbs, qualifying terms, causal relationship terms, measuring terms, and that they would produce a higher type Token Ratio and a lower Verb Adjective Ratio than the low-differentiated group. For the low-differentiated group it was predicted that they would use a higher proportion of Allness Terms, attenuating terms, self-references, and speech disturbances. For the two speech tasks (structured and unstructured), it was predicted that the low-differentiated group would show a significant increase in the use of verbal measures reflecting anxiety in the spontaneous speech task over the use of these measures in the structured interview. The results did not support the hypotheses. A discriminant function analysis was used to determine the effectiveness of the composite of the 10 verbal measures in accurately classifying the two criterion groups. The results demonstrated that the composite significantly differentiated the two groups, accurately classifying 83^ of the total sample. Individually, the three verbal measures of anxiety failed to differentiate the two groups for the two speech tasks. The multivariate test of the composite of the three

PAGE 63

57 variables for the structured task also yielded non-significant results, accurately classifying only Sl% of the total sample. Using the same composite for the spontaneous speech task, the results, although nonsignificant, did accurately classify 77% of the total sample. This finding suggests that the unstructured task may have aroused greater anxiety in the low-differentiated subjects, as was predicted. The results of this study point to the likelihood that relationships do exist between the cognitive-perceptual style of differentiation and the structure of verbal behavior. Further research utilizing more stringent controls is needed before these relationships may be more fully understood. The use of the multivariate instrument of discriminant function analysis appears to be an effective means of classifying the two groups » however the predictive validity of this instrument cannot be demonstrated without additional cross-validation studies.

PAGE 64

APPENDICES

PAGE 65

APPENDIX A Structured Interview The structured Interview was devised to elicit approximately four to five minutes of speech from each subject. The specific questions asked are those which were, in some way, related to personality differences found between highand low-differentiated persons (Witkin, 195^; 1962). These personality differences, corresponding to each numbered question in the structured interview, are as follows i 1. Somatic complaints. 2. Dependency factors. 3. Need for social acceptance. k. Self-concept, 5. Articulated future goals. The specific questions asked were as follows: 1. How is your health? a. What illnesses are you prone to? b. (when applicable) When does this occur? 2. What is your relationship with your family like? Describe it. 3. What do you think of campus social life? a. What are your social activities? b. How about friends? ^. How would you describe yourself? 5. What do you plan to do after graduation? 59

PAGE 66

APPENDIX B Representative Cards from the Embedded Figures Test Simple Figure (achromatic) Simple Figure (achromatic) Simple Figure (achromatic) Complex Figure (chromatic) Complex Figure (chromatic) Complex Figure (chromatic) 60

PAGE 67

APPENDIX C Table 4 Two-Way Analyses of Variance for the Three Verbal Expressions of Anxiety V/A Source of Variation

PAGE 68

62 Table k> Continued Source of Variation

PAGE 69

APPENDIX D Results of Discriminant Function Analyses II and III Table 5 Classification of Subjects in the Structured Speech Task by Use of Discriminant Function II a Rank Low-differentiated Subject Composite Scores (N = 15) High-differentiated Subject Composite Scores (N = 15) 1

PAGE 70

6^ Table 5 continued Rank Low-differentiated Subject Composite Scores (N = 15) High-differentiated Subject Composite Scores (N = 15) 28 29 30 -0.03879 -0.04-095 -0.08822 a Composite cut-off score: Z = -.02062; Correct classification — 57%, false classification — kj% (six low-differentiated subjects and seven high-differentiated subjects). Table 6 Classification of Subjects in the Spontaneous Speech Task by Use of Discriminant Function III a Rank Low-differentiated Subject Composite Scores (N = 15) High-differentiated Subject Composite Scores (N = 15) 1 2 3 45 6

PAGE 71

65 Table 6 continued

PAGE 72

APPENDIX E Representative Protocols for a Low-differentiated and a High-differentiated Individual Subject E — Low-differentiated Structured Interview (How Is your health?) Excellent, good, very good. I have no problems at all that I know of as far as that goes. (What illnesses are you prone to?) Just a common cold. (When does this occur?) Probably, oh, one or two times a year during winter. (What is your relationship with your family like?) We get along all right. We get along great. We have no problems that I may have had when I was younger. I don't live with them now, so I just see them maybe several times a year and any contact I have is usually by phone. (What do you think of campus social life?) I think there is plenty to do. There is certainly all year long. I've been up here — this is my third summer in a row. I don't find anything a problem. Sometimes I think there is just too much to do, especially in the fall. There is something going all the time that you can't take advantage of all of it. 66

PAGE 73

67 (What are your social activities?) Depending on the time of year — right now, I think it is mostly swimming or I like to go out at night a lot. Night life — there isn't too much to offer in Gainesville, especially to a dance or a bar or something. (What about friends?) Well, most of them I think right now are connected around what my interest is over in Journalism, I'm interested in television, so most of them are — well — instructors that are directors over there, technicians or people working in radio and television. (How would you describe yourself?) I don't know, I don't know — this — I don't know what you want really. (What do you plan to do after graduation?) I graduate this August and I would like to work right for a commercial television station, like Field's Broadcasting and I've done a little work with Channel 5 on a part time basis. I think I eventually would like to get back into educational television, but it seems the opportunity, or maybe the money, right now, is in commercial television. I would like to go out and work for them a year, a year and a half or so, and then come back and work on the master's degree in broadcasting and eventually into the educational end of it. That's about it. It would be in television production work. That's what I would like to get into eventually.

PAGE 74

68 Spontaneous Speech Oh, I think some of the interesting things probablyhappened during — well, I spent two years in the army. Of course it wasn't my choice. I was drafted, but I think the interesting thing about it was I was sent overseas to Germany, I spent about 18 months in Germany right outside of Nuremberg. There is a little college town called Erlang and I think those two years gave me an opportunity to see Europe which I probably wouldn't have done if I had stayed in Florida. I think the people were most interesting. The Germans were the most friendly of — compared to Italy or even England. I seem to have had more language problems in England than anywhere else. They seem to think I was doing something for the English language and they couldn't understand it. But I managed to travel through Italy, France, Germany, Austria, England, and found the German people most easily to get along with, most friendly and found the Italians, even though I am an Italian, a little bit after the money rather than the individual. They spotted us as Americans right off and were interested in how much we were going to spend rather than who we were. I spent about a week in Berlin — contrast between East and West was most striking. For instance, West Berlin was built up to, oh, compared to any modern city we have — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, anywhere. East Berlin is still run down, still using cars over twenty years old and

PAGE 75

69 you could see vast areas that were bombed down that had just been cleared away, grass planted, and nothing built In this city of two and one-half million people — see whole blocks that was just blank which was grass and churches still standing. You could see large churches on corners, but they were all blocked and boarded with concrete and stone, brick with wire fences around them. To get into East Berlin, you had to wear your uniform and you could feel the people looking at you and knowing you were an American and could walk in and out whenever you felt like it or wanted to, felt people looking at you, but I think the difference in the cities — West Berlin had, well, the neon lights, the shops and the stores, the cars and the people. I really enjoyed my stay in Berlin more than in any other city. I went back several times just to wander around. I would like to go back some day and see more of it. I like to travel. I came back to the United States and traveled up — I haven't been too far west — I .went as far west as Chicago, went up to Canada. In our travels to Europe we drove most of the way, bought a Volkswagen over there. It was about 18 years old, but it ran anyway so we drove around Italy, Austria, Prance — Two of my buddies and myself .... I can remember going through Germany.

PAGE 76

70 Subject GG--High-dlfferentiated Structured Interview (How Is your health?) I thought it was pretty good. (What illnesses are you prone to?) None. (What is your relationship with your family like?) It is above normal. I have a very good relationship with my parents. Most kids up here treat their — talk about their parents as if they were just individuals, just people, and I don't think I do that. I think I have a better relationship than most people, especially with my mother. I have a better relationship with my mother than I do with my father, but we do have a good relation. (What do you think of campus social life?) Greek or independent? Well, Greek is great and independent is very poor, and I can say that because I've been both, I mean, I waited a trimester and a half to pledge a fraternity so I know what — more or less what's it like for an independent and I know what it's like for a Greek, and it, the difference, socially, is tremendous. There's no comparison. (What are your social activities?) Well, dating and football games, dances, parties, things like that, football games, whatever you do on dates, I mean, you know, horseback riding, whatever there is to do.

PAGE 77

71 (How about friends?) Well now, what about friends? I'm not trying to be beligerant — what — oh, the friends that I have are very good friends and I can usually count on them any time I need them, and can count on them even when I don't need them. I mean, you know, even if it is not a need, I know they are there and they are pretty good to me, the ones I have. I don't know. I don't think I have any trouble making friends, but I don't have too many very good ones, but the ones I have, I, you know, I'm glad I've got. (How would you describe yourself?) Average. Well, I'm 5' 9". weight, approximately 150 pounds, brownish or blonde — brownish-blonde hair, brown eyes, with Polish and Italian origin. I have a tendency to have a hot gut and I'm pretty active. I like to have a good time. (What do you plan to do after graduation?) Well, if I can, I'd like to go on for my master's. Actually, what I'd like to do is travel. I would like to go to Europe and just, if I could, I'd like to spend a year in Europe on a — just have a little car and just travel all around and see the cities, of course, you know, the big sights and everything, but get out into the countryside so I could see the true — the true Europe, the real Europe, and just try to communicate more, and see more of the things I'm studying about now, especially in Humanities.

PAGE 78

72 Spontaneous Speech In my junior year in high school, a very good friend of mine, well, three very good friends of mine and myself decided to go camping on a weekend, and we had a jeep, and we took the jeep as far in as we could go into this grove, and it turned into — from the grove on was a pasture, and the pasture was fenced off, and in the pasture were horses that were there for a summer camp for the riding — for you to ride in this summer camp. So we camped out there and rounded up the horses that night, and it was very interesting, and we finally got four horses, but we didn't have any saddles or bridles, so we opened the shed there and took out a bridle — there was only one there. But one of the boys that was with us was the guy that was taking care of the horses during the day, so he had the key, and it wasn't really that — as illegal as it sounds. So we had one brible, and then we improvised. We used what they call an Indian bridle, I believe, just ropes, and then we rode bareback, and I had a horse called Sundown. I'll never forget that. It was a white horse and it was very old — at least he looked old — and I got on him and fell right off. So I got on him again, and he threw me off this time. So George, this good friend of mine, decided he was going to try to calm him down a little because he was probably just, you know, probably from being ousted out in the night like this. So he got on him, and the horse tried to throw him, but

PAGE 79

73 George stayed on pretty well, and then the horse took off and went around this big clump of bushes and trees that we couldn't see. Of course, it was dark, and we couldn't see anyway, and all of a sudden we heard this scream, and the horse came trotting back by himself. So we went around there to see what had happened, and George had been bucked off and had fallen onto an old fence post, and in the forearm are two bones, the ulner and the radius, and I can't remember which, but the one that runs along with the small finger had been popped out of joint at the elbow, and it was sticking up out of the arm. It hadn't broken the skin, but it was sticking up out of the arm. So we just forgot the horses and took him to a car, and it was raining — it started to rain. It was raining like heck, so we couldn't see the road, and the nearest hospital at this time was 11 miles away. That was after we got out of the pasture. That took us quite a while, and he was taking it pretty good. We were more shook than he was, as a matter of fact. And then, when we finally got to the road, it was raining fits. It was raining so bad that we couldn't see, so, what we were doing, we were following the white line on the road, and that was the only way we could see where we were going, was to follow this white line, and it seemed like an endurable time, but — I mean, an unendurable time, but we finally made it to the hospital, and all they did, they brought him in, didn't give him anything for the pain at all. They

PAGE 80

7^ brought him to the X-ray room and called the guy — the technician, and it took him about half an hour to get there, and, of course, George was getting worse and worse. His arm was swelling even more so. When they got him there, they laid his arm on the table, took an X-ray of it, and then — his hand was palm down — and then they took and turned his palm so that the palm was up and, of course, George was back to the ceiling, and they took another X-ray that way. And then, when they developed the X-rays, they said that it was just dislocated, and there was nothing that they could do there as they didn't have a specialist, and that we were going to have to take him to Lakeland, which is 60 miles from there, and we didn't think the car would make it. It was an old— it was an old junky car anyway. We had gotten out of the jeep in the meantime. It was an old junky car. So one of us had to call our parents, and I was elected. So at 2:30 in the morning, I called my father, got him out of bed and he came down to the hospital, picked us up, and drove us to Lakeland, and we arrived in Lakeland, and I had the X-rays, and they gave him — they finally gave him something for his pain, but It didn't help very much. And then, we got there, they wanted — the receptionist and the people there wanted my father to sign a paper saying it was alright to put him under for the pain, so they could reset the bone and stuff. My father couldn't take that responsibility anyway, and his parents, George's

PAGE 81

75 parents were in Miami, and we didn't have any idea where, so the only — the nurse told us to call first was his grandmother, and he didn't want to call his grandmother because, he kept saying, she'd have a heart attack if we did.

PAGE 82

APPENDIX F Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded, by a Speech Disturbance Table 7 Frequencies of Word Categories Which are Preceded by a Speech Disturbance for a Low-differentiated Subject in Structured and Unstructured Speech Conditions Part of

PAGE 83

77 Table 8 Frequencies of Word. Categories Which are Preceded by a Speech Disturbance for a High-differentiated Subject in Structured and Unstructured Speech Conditions Part of

PAGE 84

APPENDIX G Ratio Scores for All 30 Subjects Table 9 Ratio Scores for the 10 Verbal Measures for the Combined Speech Tasks a LOWDIFFERENTIATED

PAGE 85

79 Table 9 extended

PAGE 86

Table 9 continued HIGHDIFFERENTIATED

PAGE 87

Table 9 extended

PAGE 88

82 Table 10 Ratio Scores for the Three Verbal Expressions of Anxiety for the Structured Interview LOWDI FFERENT I ATED Subject V/A Y C FP N T K E S H G Q L I A LL 1.486 1.833 1.977 2.567 1.860 1.344 2.324 1.878 2.250 1.879 2.125 1.098 1.647 1.576 2.271

PAGE 89

83 Table 10 continued Subject V/A

PAGE 90

84 Table 11 continued Subject V/A TTR Speech Disturbances Q L I A LL 2.1?2 1.227 3.225 2.779 2.114 .363 .418 .396 .349 .381 .021 .023 .018 .016 HIGH-DIFFERENTIATED Subject V/A

PAGE 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY Asch, S. E. and Witkln, H. A. Studies in space orientation: Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psycho logy , 19^8, 28, 325-337. Bailey, W. , Hustmyer, P., and Kristofferson, A. Alcoholism. Brain damage and perceptual dependence. Quarterly Journal of Studies in Alcoholism, , 1961, 22, 387-393. Balken, Eva, R. and Masserman, J. H. The language of the phantasies of patients with conversion hysteria, anxiety state, and obsessive-compulsive neuroses. Journal of Psychology , 1940, 10 , 75-86. Bennet, D. H. Perception of the upright in relation to body image. The Journal of Mental Science , 1956, 102, 487-5067 Boder, D. P. The adjective-verb quotient; a contribution to the psychology of language. Psycho logical Record , 1940, ^. 309-344. Couch, A., and Kenlston, K. Yeasayers and Naysayers : Agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , i960, 62, 151-174. Fairbanks, Helen. Studies in language behavior: II. The quantitative differentiation of samples of spoken language. Psychological Monographs , 1944, £6, 19-38. Fisher, R. A. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomlc problems. Annals of Eugenics, 1936, 7» 87-104. Gardner, R. W. , Jackson, D. N. , and Messick, S. J. Personality organization in cognitive controls and intellectual abilities. Psychological , Issues , I960, (Whole No. 8), 4-, 1-149. 85

PAGE 92

86 Gardner, R. W. , Holzman, P. S., Klein, G. , Linton, Harriet, and Spence, D, P. Cognitive controls A study of individual consistencies in cognitive behavior. Psychological Issues , 1959. (Whole No. 4), 4, 1-186. Goodenough, D. R. and Karp, S. A. Field dependence and intellectual functioning. J ournal of Ab normal and Social Psychology , 1961, 2, 234-246 . Gottschalk, L. A., Springer, K. J., and Gleser, G. C. Experiments with a method of assessing the variations in intensity of certain psychological states occurring during two psychotherapeutic interviews. In Gottschalk, L. A. ( Ed . ) Comparative psychollnguistic analysis of two psychotherapeutic interviews , New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1961, Pp. 115-138. Gottshalk, L. A., Gleser, G. C. , and Hambidge, G. Verbal behavior analysis : Some content and form variables in speech related to personality adjustment. A.M. A. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry , 1957, 22* 300-311. Gottshalk, L. A. and Hambidge, G. Verbal behavior analysis: A systematic approach to the problem of auantifying psychologic processes. Journal of Projective Techniques , 1955, I2« 387-409. Goulden, C. H. Methods of statistical analysis , (2nd ed. ) New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1952. Jackson, D. N. , Messnick, S # , and Myers, C. T. Evaluation of group and individual forms of embeddedfigures measures of field-independence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 177-191. Jackson, D. N. Intellectual ability and mode of perception. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1957, 21, 4~58. Jackson, D. N. A short form of Witkin's EmbeddedFigures Test. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1956, 51* 2.1&-255.

PAGE 93

87 Jaffe, J. Dyadic analysis of two psychotherapeutic interviews. In Gottschalk, L. (Ed.) Comparative psychollngulstic analysis of two psychothera peutic interviews , New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 196l, Pp. 73-90. Johnson, W. Studies in language behavior. Psycho logical Monographs , 1944, (Whole No. 255) 36. 19-38~i Karp, S. A., Poster, Dorothy, and Goodman, A. Differentiation In Alcoholic Women. Journal of Per sonality , 1963, 31, 386-393. Lennard, H. L. Some aspects of the psycho-therapeutic system. In Strupp, H. H. and Luborsky, L. (Eds.) Research in psychotherapy . Proceedings of a conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, May 17-20, 1961, Pp. 218-236. Lennard, H. L. and Bernstein, A. The anatomy of psycho therapy ; systems of communication and expectation . New York: Columbia University Press, I960. Linton, H. B. Dependence on external influence: Correlates in perception, attitudes, and judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1955, 51. 502-507. Lorenz, Maria. Language as an index to perceptual modes. Journal of Projective Techniques , 1959, 22. 441-452. Lorenz, Maria and Cobb, S. Language behavior in manic patients . A.M. A. Archive Neurology and Psychi atry , 1952, 67, 763-770. Mahl, G. P. Measuring the patient's anxiety during interviews from "expressive" aspects of speech. In A. P. Goldstein and S. J, Dean (Eds.) The investigation of psychotherapy , New Yorki John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1966, Pp. 133-139. Mann, Mary, B. Studies in language behavior: III. The quantitative differentiation of samples of written language. Psychological Monographs , 1944, 56, 41-74. Marlowe, D. Some psychological correlates of field independence. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1958, 22, 334.

PAGE 94

88 Mather, K. Statistical nalysls in iolcgy (2nd ed.) London: Bethuen and Co., Ltd." 1946. McClelland, D. and Atkinson, J. W. Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive , New York: Apple tonCentury Crofts, 1953. Messick, B. and Damarin, F. Cognitive styles and memory for faces. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 196^, 6£, 313-318. Saslow, G., Matarazzo, J. D. , and Guze, S. B. The stability of interaction chronograph patterns in psychiatric interviews. Journal of Con sulting Psychology , 1955. i£» 417-430. Sanford, F. H. Speech and personality. Psychological Bulletin , 1942, 21* 811-841. Taft, R. and Coventry. J. Neuroticism, Extraversion, and the Perception of the vertical. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1958, 5oT 139 I I52. Weintraub, W. and Aronson, H. The application of verbal behavior analysis to the study of psychological defense mechanisms. II: Speech patterns associated with impulsive behavior. The Journal of Nervous and Mental D isease , 1964, 139 , 75-82. Witkin, H. A. Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho logy , 1965, 2°. 317-336._ Witkin, H. A. Personal communication. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, D. B., Faterson, H. F. , Goodenough, D. R., and Karp, S. A. Psychological differen tiation . New York: Wiley, 1962. Witkin, H. A., Karp, S. A. and Goodenough, D. R. Dependence in alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies in Alcoholism . 1959, 20, 493-505"; Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B. , Hertzman, M. , Machover, Karen, Meissner, P. and Wapner, S. Personality through perception . New York: Harper and Bros., 1954.

PAGE 95

89 Witkin, H. A. Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality , 1950, 12, 1-15. Witkin, H, A, The nature and importance of individual differences in perception. Journal of Personality , 19^9, 18, 1^5-170. Young, R. H. A test of Witkin* s field-dependence hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho logy . 1959, i2. 1B5-192.

PAGE 96

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH William H. Davidov was born October 22, 1936, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was graduated from Camden High School, Camden, New Jersey. In June, 1958, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers College of south Jersey. In August, 1963. he received the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Psychology from Temple University. From February until September of 1964, he served as a Psychology Intern at the Philadelphia State Hospital. In the Fall of 1964, William H. Davidov enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida to work toward the degree of Doctor of Philisophy. Since then he has worked as a Psychology Trainee at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Coral Gables, Florida, was a Graduate Fellow for one year, and was a United States Public Health Fellow for one year. He completed his internship at the Irving Schwartz Institute for Children and Adolescents, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July, 1967. William H. Davidov took a position as a Staff Psychologist with the West Philadelphia Community Mental Health Consortium from July, 1967 until December, 1967. From January, 1968 until September, 1968, he worked as a Clinical Psychologist for the Alachua County Health Department, Gainesville, Florida. 90

PAGE 97

91 In 1966, William H. Davidov married the former Jane Rebecca Winnie of Buffalo, New York. He is an associate member of the American Psychological Association.

PAGE 99

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, December, 1968 Dean, Coll s and Sciences Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee: irman 6 Chair ma

PAGE 100

64V 9 .,


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
dl
!-- relationship of the concept differentiation to structure verbal behavior ( Book ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00097792_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xsi:schemaLocation
http:www.loc.govstandardsmetsmets.xsd
http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-3.xsd
http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitss.xsd
http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcmsobekcm.xsd
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2010-09-20T08:54:26Z ID LASTMODDATE 2010-02-04T00:00:00Z RECORDSTATUS NEW
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF
METS:note server=TC
projects=
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC - FDA Preparation Tool
INDIVIDUAL
UFAD\mariner1
METS:dmdSec DMD1
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata
METS:xmlData
mods:mods
mods:genre authority marcgt bibliography
non-fiction
mods:identifier type AlephBibNum 000570835
OCLC 13755834
NOTIS ACZ7817
mods:language
mods:languageTerm text English
code iso639-2b eng
mods:location
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
UF
mods:name personal
mods:namePart Davidov, William H.
given William H.
family Davidov
date 1936-
mods:role
mods:roleTerm Main Entity
mods:note thesis Thesis -- University of Florida.
bibliography Bibliography: leaves 85-89.
additional physical form Also available on World Wide Web
Manuscript copy.
Vita.
mods:originInfo
mods:place
mods:placeTerm marccountry xx
mods:dateIssued marc 1968
point start 1968
mods:copyrightDate 1968
mods:recordInfo
mods:recordIdentifier source ufdc UF00097792_00001
mods:recordCreationDate 860620
mods:recordOrigin Imported from (ALEPH)000570835
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
marcorg FUG
mods:languageOfCataloging
English
eng
mods:relatedItem original
mods:physicalDescription
mods:extent v, 91 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.
mods:subject SUBJ650_1 lcsh
mods:topic Verbal behavior
SUBJ690_1
Psychology thesis Ph. D
SUBJ690_2
Dissertations, Academic
Psychology
mods:geographic UF
mods:titleInfo
mods:nonSort The
mods:title relationship of the concept of differentiation to the structure of verbal behavior
mods:typeOfResource text
DMD2
OTHERMDTYPE SobekCM Custom
sobekcm:procParam
sobekcm:Collection.Primary UFIR
sobekcm:Collection.Alternate VENDORIA
sobekcm:SubCollection UFETD
sobekcm:MainThumbnail relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001thm.jpg
sobekcm:Download
sobekcm:fptr FILEID UR2
sobekcm:EncodingLevel I
sobekcm:bibDesc
sobekcm:BibID UF00097792
sobekcm:VID 00001
sobekcm:Source
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:Type Book
sobekcm:SortDate -1
METS:amdSec
METS:digiprovMD AMD_DAITSS
DAITSS
daitss:daitss
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT PROJECT UFDC
METS:fileSec
METS:fileGrp USE reference
METS:file GROUPID G1 J1 imagejpeg SIZE 201364
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001.jpg
G2 J2 104487
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_002.jpg
G3 J3 221642
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003.jpg
G4 J4 216141
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004.jpg
G5 J5 113494
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005.jpg
G6 J6 272258
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006.jpg
G7 J7 221178
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007.jpg
G8 J8 332575
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008.jpg
G9 J9 264652
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009.jpg
G10 J10 313236
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010.jpg
G11 J11 313828
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011.jpg
G12 J12 297792
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012.jpg
G13 J13 292607
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013.jpg
G14 J14 285187
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014.jpg
G15 J15 309546
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015.jpg
G16 J16 296569
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016.jpg
G17 J17 283305
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017.jpg
G18 J18 289533
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018.jpg
G19 J19 253099
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019.jpg
G20 J20 288728
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020.jpg
G21 J21 286533
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021.jpg
G22 J22 283270
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022.jpg
G23 J23 294988
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023.jpg
G24 J24 292967
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024.jpg
G25 J25 270740
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025.jpg
G26 J26 243550
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026.jpg
G27 J27 256691
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027.jpg
G28 J28 250354
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028.jpg
G29 J29 272421
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029.jpg
G30 J30 205190
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030.jpg
G31 J31 240349
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031.jpg
G32 J32 287113
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032.jpg
G33 J33 305333
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033.jpg
G34 J34 309251
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034.jpg
G35 J35 294587
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035.jpg
G36 J36 278406
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036.jpg
G37 J37 306198
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037.jpg
G38 J38 107883
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038.jpg
G39 J39 264468
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039.jpg
G40 J40 166631
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040.jpg
G41 J41 154645
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041.jpg
G42 J42 151971
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042.jpg
G43 J43 225135
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043.jpg
G44 J44 169665
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044.jpg
G45 J45 256737
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045.jpg
G46 J46 317342
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046.jpg
G47 J47 178140
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047.jpg
G48 J48 292205
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048.jpg
G49 J49 278249
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049.jpg
G50 J50 311069
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050.jpg
G51 J51 307119
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051.jpg
G52 J52 296769
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052.jpg
G53 J53 299119
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053.jpg
G54 J54 296941
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054.jpg
G55 J55 309566
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055.jpg
G56 J56 319656
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056.jpg
G57 J57 302444
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057.jpg
G58 J58 281035
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058.jpg
G59 J59 278145
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059.jpg
G60 J60 162578
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060.jpg
G61 J61 247445
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061.jpg
G62 J62 305628
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062.jpg
G63 J63 224533
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063.jpg
G64 J64 46021
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064.jpg
G65 J65 226400
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065.jpg
G66 J66 116851
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066.jpg
G67 J67 161497
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067.jpg
G68 J68 159601
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068.jpg
G69 J69 158428
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069.jpg
G70 J70 183592
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070.jpg
G71 J71 147563
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071.jpg
G72 J72 229814
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072.jpg
G73 J73 285556
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073.jpg
G74 J74 301641
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074.jpg
G75 J75 286107
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075.jpg
G76 J76 272507
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076.jpg
G77 J77 278093
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077.jpg
G78 J78 303197
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078.jpg
G79 J79 309681
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079.jpg
G80 J80 303764
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080.jpg
G81 J81 87178
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081.jpg
G82 J82 156576
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082.jpg
G83 J83 142324
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083.jpg
G84 J84 196046
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084.jpg
G85 J85 134350
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085.jpg
G86 J86 135066
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086.jpg
G87 J87 130649
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087.jpg
G88 J88 163379
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088.jpg
G89 J89 154238
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089.jpg
G90 J90 135614
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090.jpg
G91 J91 286420
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091.jpg
G92 J92 332617
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092.jpg
G93 J93 345864
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093.jpg
G94 J94 322206
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094.jpg
G95 J95 118454
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095.jpg
G96 J96 294767
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096.jpg
G97 J97 77515
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097.jpg
G98 J98 44178
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_098.jpg
G99 J99 179199
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099.jpg
G100 J100 141532
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_100.jpg
E1 imagejp2 561399
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001.jp2
E2 275317
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_002.jp2
E3 921836
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003.jp2
E4 905377
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004.jp2
E5 369202
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005.jp2
E6 921797
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006.jp2
E7 921838
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007.jp2
E8 921771
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008.jp2
E9 921837
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009.jp2
E10 921824
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010.jp2
E11 921754
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011.jp2
E12 921835
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012.jp2
E13 921830
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013.jp2
E14 921828
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014.jp2
E15 921840
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015.jp2
E16 921841
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016.jp2
E17
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017.jp2
E18 921839
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018.jp2
E19 921816
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019.jp2
E20 921791
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020.jp2
E21
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021.jp2
E22
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022.jp2
E23
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023.jp2
E24
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024.jp2
E25
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025.jp2
E26
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026.jp2
E27
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027.jp2
E28 921815
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028.jp2
E29 921796
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029.jp2
E30 921806
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030.jp2
E31 921817
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031.jp2
E32 921742
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032.jp2
E33 921755
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033.jp2
E34 921762
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034.jp2
E35 921826
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035.jp2
E36
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036.jp2
E37 921819
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037.jp2
E38 384921
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038.jp2
E39 921825
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039.jp2
E40 718827
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040.jp2
E41 621191
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041.jp2
E42 602124
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042.jp2
E43
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043.jp2
E44 735363
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044.jp2
E45
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045.jp2
E46
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046.jp2
E47 755001
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047.jp2
E48
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048.jp2
E49
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049.jp2
E50 921720
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050.jp2
E51 921833
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051.jp2
E52
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052.jp2
E53
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053.jp2
E54 921780
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054.jp2
E55
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055.jp2
E56
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056.jp2
E57 921752
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057.jp2
E58 921831
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058.jp2
E59
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059.jp2
E60 672664
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060.jp2
E61
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061.jp2
E62 921834
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062.jp2
E63 921808
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063.jp2
E64 60651
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064.jp2
E65 921818
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065.jp2
E66 474056
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066.jp2
E67 677710
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067.jp2
E68 656487
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068.jp2
E69 705213
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069.jp2
E70 835139
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070.jp2
E71 590298
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071.jp2
E72 921829
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072.jp2
E73 921766
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073.jp2
E74 921801
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074.jp2
E75 921739
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075.jp2
E76
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076.jp2
E77
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077.jp2
E78
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078.jp2
E79 921822
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079.jp2
E80 921821
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080.jp2
E81 253291
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081.jp2
E82 671842
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082.jp2
E83 559736
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083.jp2
E84 882316
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084.jp2
E85 513660
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085.jp2
E86 548772
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086.jp2
E87 498757
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087.jp2
E88 726950
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088.jp2
E89 604890
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089.jp2
E90 547733
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090.jp2
E91
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091.jp2
E92 921790
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092.jp2
E93
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093.jp2
E94 921748
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094.jp2
E95 407652
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095.jp2
E96 921832
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096.jp2
E97 195773
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097.jp2
E98 37975
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_098.jp2
E99 800955
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099.jp2
E100 269701
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_100.jp2
archive
F1 imagetiff 6.0 22147240
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001.tif
F2
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_002.tif
F3
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003.tif
F4
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004.tif
F5
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005.tif
F6
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006.tif
F7
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007.tif
F8
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008.tif
F9
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009.tif
F10
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010.tif
F11
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011.tif
F12
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012.tif
F13
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013.tif
F14
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014.tif
F15
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015.tif
F16
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016.tif
F17
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017.tif
F18
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018.tif
F19
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019.tif
F20
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020.tif
F21
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021.tif
F22
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022.tif
F23
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023.tif
F24
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024.tif
F25
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025.tif
F26
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026.tif
F27
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027.tif
F28
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028.tif
F29
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029.tif
F30
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030.tif
F31
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031.tif
F32
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032.tif
F33
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033.tif
F34
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034.tif
F35
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035.tif
F36
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036.tif
F37
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037.tif
F38
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038.tif
F39
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039.tif
F40
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040.tif
F41
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041.tif
F42
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042.tif
F43
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043.tif
F44
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044.tif
F45
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045.tif
F46
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046.tif
F47
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047.tif
F48
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048.tif
F49
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049.tif
F50
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050.tif
F51
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051.tif
F52
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052.tif
F53
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053.tif
F54
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054.tif
F55
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055.tif
F56
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056.tif
F57
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057.tif
F58
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058.tif
F59
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059.tif
F60
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060.tif
F61
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061.tif
F62
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062.tif
F63
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063.tif
F64
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064.tif
F65
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065.tif
F66
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066.tif
F67
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067.tif
F68
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068.tif
F69
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069.tif
F70
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070.tif
F71
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071.tif
F72
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072.tif
F73
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073.tif
F74
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074.tif
F75
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075.tif
F76
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076.tif
F77
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077.tif
F78
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078.tif
F79
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079.tif
F80
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080.tif
F81
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081.tif
F82
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082.tif
F83
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083.tif
F84
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084.tif
F85
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085.tif
F86
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086.tif
F87
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087.tif
F88
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088.tif
F89
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089.tif
F90
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090.tif
F91
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091.tif
F92
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092.tif
F93
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093.tif
F94
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094.tif
F95
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095.tif
F96
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096.tif
F97
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097.tif
F98
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_098.tif
F99
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099.tif
F100
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_100.tif
R1 textx-pro 8082
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001.pro
R3 26311
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003.pro
R4 34748
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004.pro
R5 10730
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005.pro
R6 40562
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006.pro
R7 26754
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007.pro
R8 39164
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008.pro
R9 35408
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009.pro
R10 34651
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010.pro
R11 39177
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011.pro
R12 38412
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012.pro
R13 38590
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013.pro
R14 35635
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014.pro
R15 36603
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015.pro
R16 37668
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016.pro
R17 33315
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017.pro
R18 36602
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018.pro
R19 31401
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019.pro
R20 36753
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020.pro
R21 34310
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021.pro
R22 36347
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022.pro
R23 35193
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023.pro
R24 34896
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024.pro
R25 29603
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025.pro
R26 27416
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026.pro
R27 28496
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027.pro
R28 27106
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028.pro
R29 29967
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029.pro
R30 23464
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030.pro
R31 26501
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031.pro
R32 35078
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032.pro
R33 41769
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033.pro
R34 37917
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034.pro
R35 36964
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035.pro
R36 36928
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036.pro
R37 37253
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037.pro
R38 9305
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038.pro
R39 30908
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039.pro
R40 17941
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040.pro
R41 14826
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041.pro
R42 13227
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042.pro
R43 26986
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043.pro
R44 18313
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044.pro
R45 31370
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045.pro
R46 38477
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046.pro
R47 17165
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047.pro
R48 34412
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048.pro
R49 31171
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049.pro
R50 37862
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050.pro
R51 40127
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051.pro
R52 38168
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052.pro
R53 37063
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053.pro
R54 38341
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054.pro
R55 37168
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055.pro
R56 38235
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056.pro
R57 35614
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057.pro
R58 33911
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058.pro
R59 33663
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059.pro
R60 15865
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060.pro
R61 28665
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061.pro
R62 37422
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062.pro
R63 25604
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063.pro
R64 564
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064.pro
R65 26021
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065.pro
R66 7117
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066.pro
R67 18221
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067.pro
R68 16345
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068.pro
R69 23157
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069.pro
R70 18991
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070.pro
R71 13280
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071.pro
R72 27616
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072.pro
R73 35323
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073.pro
R74 38338
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074.pro
R75 34553
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075.pro
R76 32024
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076.pro
R77 35817
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077.pro
R78 39075
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078.pro
R79 40384
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079.pro
R80 39936
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080.pro
R81 6360
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081.pro
R82 13369
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082.pro
R83 16862
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083.pro
R84 24271
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084.pro
R85 15142
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085.pro
R86 21984
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086.pro
R87 14534
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087.pro
R88 26524
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088.pro
R89 18041
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089.pro
R90 13550
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090.pro
R91 38105
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091.pro
R92 44911
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092.pro
R93 46407
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093.pro
R94 42814
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094.pro
R95 10150
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095.pro
R96 34344
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096.pro
R97 4499
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097.pro
R99 12944
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099.pro
T1 textplain 476
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001.txt
T3 1089
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003.txt
T4 1496
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004.txt
T5 596
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005.txt
T6 1767
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006.txt
T7 1120
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007.txt
T8 1561
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008.txt
T9 1446
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009.txt
T10 1400
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010.txt
T11 1576
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011.txt
T12 1540
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012.txt
T13 1543
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013.txt
T14 1440
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014.txt
T15 1476
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015.txt
T16 1511
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016.txt
T17 1350
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017.txt
T18 1479
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018.txt
T19 1348
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019.txt
T20 1477
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020.txt
T21 1454
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021.txt
T22 1488
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022.txt
T23
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023.txt
T24 1469
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024.txt
T25 1285
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025.txt
T26 1234
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026.txt
T27 1279
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027.txt
T28 1226
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028.txt
T29 1379
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029.txt
T30 1067
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030.txt
T31 1121
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031.txt
T32 1514
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032.txt
T33 1829
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033.txt
T34 1559
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034.txt
T35 1599
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035.txt
T36 1495
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036.txt
T37 1507
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037.txt
T38 403
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038.txt
T39 1286
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039.txt
T40 949
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040.txt
T41 743
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041.txt
T42 635
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042.txt
T43 1191
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043.txt
T44 1032
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044.txt
T45 1322
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045.txt
T46 1558
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046.txt
T47 753
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047.txt
T48 1387
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048.txt
T49 1284
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049.txt
T50 1524
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050.txt
T51 1597
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051.txt
T52 1525
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052.txt
T53 1491
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053.txt
T54 1537
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054.txt
T55 1490
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055.txt
T56 1535
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056.txt
T57
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057.txt
T58 1431
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058.txt
T59 1443
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059.txt
T60 647
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060.txt
T61 1202
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061.txt
T62 1504
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062.txt
T63 1045
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063.txt
T64 73
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064.txt
T65 1180
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065.txt
T66 292
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066.txt
T67 1000
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067.txt
T68 750
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068.txt
T69 1236
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069.txt
T70 894
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070.txt
T71 584
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071.txt
T72 1177
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072.txt
T73 1408
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073.txt
T74 1530
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074.txt
T75 1381
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075.txt
T76 1304
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076.txt
T77 1430
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077.txt
T78
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078.txt
T79 1603
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079.txt
T80 1585
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080.txt
T81 283
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081.txt
T82 718
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082.txt
T83 903
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083.txt
T84 1098
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084.txt
T85 693
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085.txt
T86 1188
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086.txt
T87 623
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087.txt
T88 1532
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088.txt
T89 954
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089.txt
T90 588
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090.txt
T91 1665
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091.txt
T92 1971
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092.txt
T93 2011
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093.txt
T94 1853
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094.txt
T95 467
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095.txt
T96 1374
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096.txt
T97 218
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097.txt
T99 590
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099.txt
UR1 43758
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001thm.jpg
applicationpdf 3710788
relationshipofco00davirich.pdf
AR1 114
processing.instr
AR2 85012
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_001.QC.jpg
AR3 54448
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_002.QC.jpg
AR4 35546
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_002thm.jpg
AR5 102796
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003.QC.jpg
AR6 48069
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_003thm.jpg
AR7 103538
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004.QC.jpg
AR8 47634
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_004thm.jpg
AR9 58563
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005.QC.jpg
AR10 36235
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_005thm.jpg
AR11 110900
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006.QC.jpg
AR12 50613
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_006thm.jpg
AR13 97843
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007.QC.jpg
AR14 47405
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_007thm.jpg
AR15 139123
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008.QC.jpg
AR16 56237
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_008thm.jpg
AR17 114091
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009.QC.jpg
AR18 52479
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_009thm.jpg
AR19 132028
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010.QC.jpg
AR20 55628
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_010thm.jpg
AR21 134376
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011.QC.jpg
AR22 56977
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_011thm.jpg
AR23 125888
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012.QC.jpg
AR24 54857
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_012thm.jpg
AR25 124203
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013.QC.jpg
AR26 54617
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_013thm.jpg
AR27 122418
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014.QC.jpg
AR28 55234
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_014thm.jpg
AR29 132029
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015.QC.jpg
AR30 55850
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_015thm.jpg
AR31 124986
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016.QC.jpg
AR32 54228
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_016thm.jpg
AR33 117675
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017.QC.jpg
AR34 53785
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_017thm.jpg
AR35 121662
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018.QC.jpg
AR36 53802
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_018thm.jpg
AR37 112041
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019.QC.jpg
AR38 51685
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_019thm.jpg
AR39 126025
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020.QC.jpg
AR40 54950
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_020thm.jpg
AR41 124239
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021.QC.jpg
AR42 54783
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_021thm.jpg
AR43 128511
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022.QC.jpg
AR44 54772
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_022thm.jpg
AR45 122594
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023.QC.jpg
AR46 54131
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_023thm.jpg
AR47 128450
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024.QC.jpg
AR48 55453
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_024thm.jpg
AR49 117301
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025.QC.jpg
AR50 51642
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_025thm.jpg
AR51 105677
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026.QC.jpg
AR52 51046
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_026thm.jpg
AR53 111284
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027.QC.jpg
AR54 49566
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_027thm.jpg
AR55 107685
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028.QC.jpg
AR56 50352
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_028thm.jpg
AR57 115566
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029.QC.jpg
AR58 51280
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_029thm.jpg
AR59 89960
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030.QC.jpg
AR60 45499
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_030thm.jpg
AR61 106176
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031.QC.jpg
AR62 48662
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_031thm.jpg
AR63 115130
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032.QC.jpg
AR64 52175
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_032thm.jpg
AR65 125872
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033.QC.jpg
AR66 53072
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_033thm.jpg
AR67 132289
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034.QC.jpg
AR68 55868
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_034thm.jpg
AR69 126237
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035.QC.jpg
AR70 54492
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_035thm.jpg
AR71 116397
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036.QC.jpg
AR72 53656
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_036thm.jpg
AR73 128389
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037.QC.jpg
AR74 55417
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_037thm.jpg
AR75 56834
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038.QC.jpg
AR76 35213
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_038thm.jpg
AR77 112320
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039.QC.jpg
AR78 50887
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_039thm.jpg
AR79 79057
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040.QC.jpg
AR80 42078
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_040thm.jpg
AR81 73040
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041.QC.jpg
AR82 43445
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_041thm.jpg
AR83 73312
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042.QC.jpg
AR84 41546
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_042thm.jpg
AR85 97205
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043.QC.jpg
AR86 47586
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_043thm.jpg
AR87 78165
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044.QC.jpg
AR88 42119
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_044thm.jpg
AR89 108372
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045.QC.jpg
AR90 50014
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_045thm.jpg
AR91 129711
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046.QC.jpg
AR92 56628
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_046thm.jpg
AR93 77361
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047.QC.jpg
AR94 42230
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_047thm.jpg
AR95 122261
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048.QC.jpg
AR96 52593
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_048thm.jpg
AR97 118865
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049.QC.jpg
AR98 52289
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_049thm.jpg
AR99 132741
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050.QC.jpg
AR100 56538
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_050thm.jpg
AR101 135900
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051.QC.jpg
AR102 56696
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_051thm.jpg
AR103 129327
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052.QC.jpg
AR104 55965
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_052thm.jpg
AR105 124381
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053.QC.jpg
AR106 54078
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_053thm.jpg
AR107 129966
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054.QC.jpg
AR108 56468
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_054thm.jpg
AR109 132091
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055.QC.jpg
AR110 55725
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_055thm.jpg
AR111 134488
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056.QC.jpg
AR112 57185
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_056thm.jpg
AR113 125447
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057.QC.jpg
AR114 54507
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_057thm.jpg
AR115 122622
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058.QC.jpg
AR116 52657
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_058thm.jpg
AR117 122151
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059.QC.jpg
AR118 53667
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_059thm.jpg
AR119 74913
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060.QC.jpg
AR120 39851
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_060thm.jpg
AR121 108381
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061.QC.jpg
AR122 50379
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_061thm.jpg
AR123 125931
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062.QC.jpg
AR124 54351
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_062thm.jpg
AR125 99864
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063.QC.jpg
AR126 47504
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_063thm.jpg
AR127 33220
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064.QC.jpg
AR128 28945
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_064thm.jpg
AR129 100359
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065.QC.jpg
AR130 47255
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_065thm.jpg
AR131 58342
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066.QC.jpg
AR132 37278
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_066thm.jpg
AR133 75070
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067.QC.jpg
AR134 42924
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_067thm.jpg
AR135 73852
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068.QC.jpg
AR136 42429
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_068thm.jpg
AR137 71898
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069.QC.jpg
AR138 41676
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_069thm.jpg
AR139 81219
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070.QC.jpg
AR140 41240
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_070thm.jpg
AR141 67106
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071.QC.jpg
AR142 38186
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_071thm.jpg
AR143 101739
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072.QC.jpg
AR144 48839
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_072thm.jpg
AR145 121408
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073.QC.jpg
AR146 52113
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_073thm.jpg
AR147 130715
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074.QC.jpg
AR148 55045
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_074thm.jpg
AR149 122646
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075.QC.jpg
AR150 51749
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_075thm.jpg
AR151 116802
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076.QC.jpg
AR152 53238
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_076thm.jpg
AR153 117603
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077.QC.jpg
AR154 51225
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_077thm.jpg
AR155 132469
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078.QC.jpg
AR156 56023
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_078thm.jpg
AR157 129871
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079.QC.jpg
AR158 54199
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_079thm.jpg
AR159 129656
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080.QC.jpg
AR160 55708
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_080thm.jpg
AR161 50269
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081.QC.jpg
AR162 33983
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_081thm.jpg
AR163 72488
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082.QC.jpg
AR164 41792
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_082thm.jpg
AR165 68095
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083.QC.jpg
AR166 39170
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_083thm.jpg
AR167 80708
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084.QC.jpg
AR168 43601
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_084thm.jpg
AR169 64262
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085.QC.jpg
AR170 37654
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_085thm.jpg
AR171 62624
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086.QC.jpg
AR172 37556
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_086thm.jpg
AR173 61464
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087.QC.jpg
AR174 37399
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_087thm.jpg
AR175 73300
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088.QC.jpg
AR176 41202
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_088thm.jpg
AR177 70810
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089.QC.jpg
AR178 40305
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_089thm.jpg
AR179 65685
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090.QC.jpg
AR180 37908
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_090thm.jpg
AR181 108505
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091.QC.jpg
AR182 49166
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_091thm.jpg
AR183 122664
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092.QC.jpg
AR184 52686
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_092thm.jpg
AR185 127617
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093.QC.jpg
AR186 54652
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_093thm.jpg
AR187 122001
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094.QC.jpg
AR188 52270
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_094thm.jpg
AR189 59155
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095.QC.jpg
AR190 36287
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_095thm.jpg
AR191 126321
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096.QC.jpg
AR192 53851
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_096thm.jpg
AR193 47346
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097.QC.jpg
AR194 33256
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_097thm.jpg
AR195 32912
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_098.QC.jpg
AR196 28729
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_098thm.jpg
AR197 81496
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099.QC.jpg
AR198 42189
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_099thm.jpg
AR199 66417
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_100.QC.jpg
AR200 38762
relationshipofco00davirich_Page_100thm.jpg
AR201 126709
UF00097792_00001.mets
METS:structMap STRUCT1 mixed
METS:div DMDID ORDER 0 main
D1 1 Main
P1 Page i
METS:fptr
P2 i-a 2
P3 ii 3
P4 iii 4
P5 iv 5
P6 v 6
P7 7
P8 8
P9 9
P10 10
P11 11
P12 12
P13 13
P14 14
P15 15
P16 16
P17 17
P18 18
P19 19
P20 20
P21 21
P22 22
P23 23
P24 24
P25 25
P26 26
P27 27
P28 28
P29 29
P30 30
P31 31
P32 32
P33 33
P34 34
P35 35
P36 36
P37 37
P38 38
P39 39
P40 40
P41 41
P42 42
P43 43
P44 44
P45 45
P46 46
P47 47
P48 48
P49 49
P50 50
P51 51
P52 52
P53 53
P54 54
P55 55
P56 56
P57 57
P58 58
P59 59
P60 60
P61 61
P62 62
P63 63
P64 64
P65 65
P66 66
P67 67
P68 68
P69 69
P70 70
P71 71
P72 72
P73
P74 74
P75 75
P76 76
P77 77
P78 78
P79 79
P80 80
P81 81
P82 82
P83 83
P84 84
P85 85
P86 86
P87 87
P88 88
P89 89
P90 90
P91 91
P92 92
P93 93
P94 94
P95 95
P96 96
P97 97
P98 98
P99 99
P100 100
METS:behaviorSec VIEWS Options available user for viewing this item
METS:behavior VIEW1 STRUCTID Default View
METS:mechanism Viewer JPEGs Procedure xlink:type simple xlink:title JPEG_Viewer()
VIEW2 Alternate
zoomable JPEG2000s JP2_Viewer()
VIEW3
Related image viewer shows thumbnails each Related_Image_Viewer()
INTERFACES Banners or interfaces which resource can appear under
INT1 Interface
UFDC_Interface_Loader