Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space
(USC Thesis Other)
The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EFFECTS OF REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION, RACE, AND LEVELS OF THREAT ON EXTENSIONS OF PERSONAL SPACE by Juanita Louise Allen A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) June 1972 INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being p h o to g ra p h e d the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Z e e b Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 A Xerox E ducation C om pany 72-25,992 ALLEN, Juanita Louise, 1941- 1HE EFFECTS OF REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION, RACE, AND LEVELS OF THREAT ON EXTENSIONS OF PERSONAL SPACE. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1972 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by J.uani.ta..JLQuis.e..Alljan.......... under the direction of hGX.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The G radu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y Dean Date...Jx&eL m l$lZ. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE h z ^tr , A PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was made possible due to the support and encouragement of numerous persons. For their willing aid and participation in the testing phase of this research, I wish to thank the students of the Loyola University of Los Angeles, the University of South ern California, and the students and faculty of the Pan Africian Studies Department of the California State College at Los Angeles. A very special note of thanks is due to Mr. Larry Marks and Dr. Steven A. Madigan for their much need tech nical advice and assistance in the preparation of the equipment for this research. For his very special kindness, encouragement and sup port, I wish to thank the Reverend Peter M. Ciklic of the Department of Psychology at the Loyola University of Los Angeles. For their continued guidance during the preparation of this dissertation, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to Professors Albert R. Mars ton and Joseph Pruitt. I have great respect for and I am deeply indebted to each of the members of my dissertation committee--Professors A. Steven Frankel, James P. Kahan, and George L. Mallory. I Each of these men has given of himself to me and I shall not forget. i i I am deeply indebted to Dr. James P. Kahan, without whose time, patience and special efforts I would not have been able to arrive at this point. I am equally indebted to Dr. A. Steven Frankel, who has so generously given of his knowledge and himself to guide me throughout the course of my academic stay at the University of Southern California. Finally, I wish to extend my deepest appreciation and gratitude to Dr. George L. Mallory without whose care and emotional support this step would not have been possible. For his love and patience and support this disserta tion is dedicated to Dr. George L. Mallory. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................iv LIST OF TABLES.................................... Y Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .... ......................... 1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................3 A. Personal Space................. . . . 3 B. Perceptual Defense .................... 9 C. Repression-sensitization ............. 26 III. METHOD A. Design................................37 B. Experiment...I ........................ 43 Subjects Instruments Procedure C. Experiment II ..................... 45 IV. RESULTS.................................4 7 V. DISCUSSION................................ 55 Perceptual Defense Personal Space Summary...................................62 REFERENCES....................................... 64 APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Anti-white Scores 50 (Mean number of items scored Anti-White) 2. Recognition Time 51 (Mean seconds per slide) 3. Personal Space 52 (Mean number of feet personal-space floor plan) 4. Summary of the Analysis of Variance of 53 Level of Threat and Repression-Sensitization on Recognition of Time 5/ Summary of the Analysis of Variance of 54 Threat and Repression-Sensitization on Personal Space v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Frankel and Barrett (1971) have reported that the per sonal space used by white males to the approach of a male stimulus varies as a function of the authoritarianism and self-esteem of the subjects and the racial characteristics of the stimulus person. A greater amount of personal space was used by the White subjects in response to the approach of a black stimulus. Furthermore, several other studies (Campbell, et al, 1966; Tolor, 1968; and Willis, 1966) sug gest that race has an effect on the extensions of personal space. Conclusive evidence for the effects of the race of the stimulus on personal space was demonstrated in an experi ment by Frankel and Jenkins (1971). The results of this study indicated that black stimuli are associated with larger areas of personal space than white for white male and female subjects. This result was interpreted in terms of the threat value of the black stimuli to the white sub jects . If we accept the hypothesis that a member of another race may represent high threat and therefore would result in an extension of the individual's personal space, then it follows that a reversal of the stdimtiihus1 and subject's races should yield the same results. That is, white sti- 2 muli should be associated with larger areas of personal space than black for black subjects. However, before it is possible to predict the manner in which the black man's needs for personal space operate, it is necessary to ex plore the nature of the hypothesized threat, i.e., what constitutes a threat to a black man, what defenses operate in regard to the threat, and finally how the threat affects his personal space. The present study is an analysis of how black men differentially utilize personal space, depending upon their racial prejudice and their specific mechanisms of defense, when approached by another black man, a white man, and a man of dubious race. It is also a study of personal time and its relationship, if any, to the personal space phenomenon. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A. Personal Space Current psychological literature has focused on the phenomenon called personal space (Argyle and Dean, 1965; Dorsey and Meisels, 1969; Gottheil, et al, 1968, Horowitz and Duff, 1964, etc.) Personal space refers to an area with invisible boundaries surrounding an individual's body which varies in magnitude with different intruders. The phenomenon of personal space has been viewed as ana logous to the territorial boundaries believed by some to exist for lower forms of animal life (Ardrey, 1961; Ardrey, 1966; Lorenz, 1966). In addition to mapping out specific plots of land as his own, each animal is surrounded by a "series of bubbles of irregularly shaped balloons", (Hall, 1966) that serve to maintain proper spacing between himself and intruders. Lyman and Scott (1967) have further divided the con cept of body territory of personal space into external and internal components. Humans exercise extra-territorial rights over both external and internal space. In the case of the former, the space immediately surrounding a person is inviolate, while control over "inner space" represents the apex of individuality and freedom. Violations of one's 4 external space are merely caused by physical intrusion beyond the limits of the organising boundary. Violations of inner space, however, are carried put by domination, ranging in intensity from perception of more than is vol« untarily revealed to persuasion and hypnosis. Despite Lyman’s distinction it is difficult to imagine an invasion of external territory without a commitant violation of in ner space. Gottheil, et al, (1968) lends some support to this supposition. Most of the psychological and sociological literature on the personal space phenomenon (Frankel and Barrett, 1971; Goldberg, et al, 1969; Horowitz and Duff, 1964; Sommer, 1967; Sommer, 1969(a)) explores external space. The extension of a subject's personal-space region in re gards to an invader is usually measured in inches or feet. Hall (1966) reports that Americansswill not stand nearer than 18 to 20 inches when talking to a stranger of the same sex. If they have to stand closer than this pre ferred distance, they will turn and face each other at right angles or stand side by side. One experiment (Argyle and Dean, 1965) invited subjects to stand "as close as ia comfortable to see well" to three targets: the author with his eyes closed, the author with his eyes open, and a photograph of the author. Results showed that the subjects stood eleven inches closer to the 5 photograph than to the actual person and six inches closer to the author with his eyes closed than to the author with his eyes open. The extra-territorial body zone serves two purposes: (1) it safeguards the privacy of the intruder while, (2) it insures the integrity of the subject. "Patterns of in teraction in any social system are accompanied by counter patterns of withdrawal'.', (Schwartz, 1968). There exists, however, a threshold beyond which social contact becomes irritating for all parties; therefore some provision for removing oneself from interaction and observation must ex ist which can be utilized at the individual's discretion. Even in a social context, i.e., when surrounded by more than one other person, the limits of personal space operate. In an observational analysis of a group seated around a table, Sommer (1959) found that people sitting in neighboring chairs were more likely to interact than people sitting in distant chairs. Moreover an individual's choice of a seat at a table varies with the status of those already seated (Goldberg, et al, 1969; Lott and Sommer, 1967; Sommer, 1969 (a) and (b) ), the sex of those already seated (Sommer, 1967); and the density of the population at any given table (Sommer, 1967). Goldberg (1969) de monstrated that when forced to sit fact-to-face at a close distance, a subject has no recourse but to avert his gaze 6 if he is to maintain the security of his body zone. Simi larly, experimentally-indnced stress (see Dorsey and Meisels, 1969) has a significant effect on interaction distances. The most extensive research on personal space, however has measured the effects of invasion (Frankel and Barrett, 1971, Felipe and Sommer, 1966; Gottheil, et al, 1968; Horowitz and Duff, 1964; Little, et al, 1968; Sommer, 1959; etc.) Invasion of another’s buffer zone has a dis ruptive effect and produces reactions ranging from flight to agonistic display (Felipe and Sommer, 1966). A victim will accomodate himself by a shift in po sition, interposing a barrier between himself and the in vader, or moving further away. If these are predluded, he may take to flight. Sommer (1959) stresses that the in tensity of the accomodation is influenced by a number of factors among which are territoriality, the dominance-sub mission relationship between the invader and the victim, the locus of the invasion, and the victim's attribution of sexual motives to the intruder. All of these factors in teract to produce the necessary defense maneuver of the victim. The first reaction, then, in response to invasion, is either accomodation or adaptation, i.e., the individual first attempts to "live with" the invasion by turning adide, etc, When this fails, he takes to flight. 7 This accomodation-flight pattern was strikingly de monstrated by Horowitz and Duff (1964). These authors tested the theory of body buffer zones with normal and schizophrenic subjects. Regardless of mental status, in dividuals keep a ' ‘ characteristic" distance between them selves and other people and inanimate objects. That distance is shorter with non-threatening inanimate objects than with persons and is greater in schizophrenic subjects than normal. The size, shape, and penetrability of the body buffer zone depends upon immediate interpersonal events as well as the current ego state and motivational state of the individual as well as his psychologic and cultural history. The subject's personality traits (Frankel and Barrett, 1971), the subjective feelings of the subject (Gottheil, 1968), and the commonality of beliefs between members of a dyad (Little, et al, 1968) are among the internal states investigated which are believed to play a part in the per sonal space phenomenon. Gottheil, et al, (1968) attempted to test directly the degree of correspondence between psy chological distance of subjects from an interviewer as measured by a projective test and physical distance from the interviewer maintained in an actual interview situa tion. Their findings supported Little, et al's 1968 theo retical position, in that psychological distance as mea 8 sured by a projective technique was found to be related to overt behavior in a real interaction. When a subject feels "close" to an interviewer, he maintains less physical dis tance from that interviewer. Shared beliefs are considered potent forces in in ducing friendships. Little, et al, (1968) examined the effects of shared beliefs on interaction distances as re flected in the individual's judgement of appropriateness of distance. Results indicated that members of a dyad who shared beliefs interact at a closer distance than those with different beliefs. The effects of various personality traits on the ex tensions of personal space has yet to be thoroughly in vestigated. Frankel and Barrett (1971) however, conducted an experiment whichddemonstrated that subjects high in au thoritarianism and low in self-esteem used a larger area of personal space when approached by a black man than when approached by a white. A later study (Frankel and Jenkins, 1971) also de monstrated that black stimuli are associated with'.Larger areas of personal space than the white, that females use larger areas than males, and that the somatotype of the stimuli results in differential uses of personal space de pending upon the subject’s sex and size. 9 B. Perceptual Defense In 1947 Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman conducted a now famous experiment which demonstrated that perceptual deter minants can be significantly influenced by personality and motivational variables. To test the hypothesis that social ly valued objects are susceptible to behavioral determin ants in proportion to their value, these authors had 30 ten year olds estimate the size of coins and gray discs. The data demonstrated that the greater the value of the coin, the greater was the deviation of apparent size from actual size. They found also that poor children overesti mated the size of coins considerably more than rich children. Hence the greater the subjective need for a socially valued object, the greater the role of behavioral determinants of perception. Thus, what the organism per ceives and how it manipulates its environment is determined in part by such central factors as needs, attitudes, and individual habit systems. A bodily need state may cause the organism to project the object which would satisfy that need onto his visual world. McClelland (1948) projected faint blots on a screen to a group of subjects who had been deprived of food for varying lengths of time. When asked to relate what the blots represented, subjects gave increasing food- related responses as hours of food deprivation increased. 10 Wispe, et al (1953) hypothesized that with increased deprivation, need relevant stimulus words would be recog nized more rapidly than neutral words. He obtained food and water deprivation and recognized thresholds at zero, ten, and twenty-four hours of deprivation. He found that need-related words were recognized more rapidly as need in creased. Emotional responses also affect the perception of stimuli. Murrary (1933) demonstrated that the degree of goodness (benevolence) and badness (maliciousness) esti mated in photographs of faces is markedly affected by the events which preceed this judgement. The effects of tension, frustration, and threat on visual perception have also been studied. Postman, et al (1947) examined the perceptual accentuation of "clearly seen" objects when they are embedded in threatening situ ations and after threat has been removed. His subjects were required to adjust the size of a variable circular patch of light until it was subjectively equal in size to a bright pink plastic disc. Two of the experimental con ditions involved mild and strong shock. The results showed that in the presence of shock-induced tension, perceptual objects related to the source of tension seen to remain in variant in subjective size. With release of tension, how ever, these same objects became significantly magnified in 11 size. Hence, tension and stress introduced into a situa tion,, rather than rendering cues to accuracy irrelevant, may serve to accentuate them still further. McGinnies (1949) demonstrated that frustration induced by sarcasm and criti cism will raise the perceptual threshold of observers to tachistoscopically presented words. The consequences of frustration are subsumed under the heading of primitivism by Bruner and Postman (1948). When the organism is frustrated, his perceptual behavior is dis ruptive, becomes less well controlled than under normal con ditions, and hence, is less adaptive. The major dimensions of perceptual function are affected: selection of percepts from a complex field becomes less adequate and sense is less well differentiated from nonsense. There is also maladap tive accentuation in the direction of aggression and es cape. This discription is in agreement with the work of Sommer (1959) and his description of the behavior of an in dividual whose personal space has been violated. The studies all support the belief that in the analysis and pre diction of perceptual behavior, two major factors operate-- stimulus conditions, and organism conditions. After Bruner and Postman, organism conditions became of major concern to psychologists. Of particular concern was the individual's response to threatening stimuli. In summarizing their findings in the area of human perception, Bruner and Postman (1947) postulated two theo 12 retical constructs, — selection and accentuation. Selec tion was described as the systematic manner in which the perceiver assigns one of a number of possible meanings to stimulus material. While accentuation referred to the ten dency to emphasize certain aspects of the stimulus situa tion at the expense of others. As a more specific state ment of selection, the principles of defense and vigilance were given. Perceptual defense referred to the tendency of the organism to avoid or distort that which is threatening. Perceptual vigilance was defined as the tendency of the organism to respond to threatening material under certain circumstances with increased alertness. This is the cri tical degree of emotionality beyond which perceptual de fense does not operate. Once this critical degree has been bxceeded, the ' ’ dangerous" stimulus is met with utmost atten tion and speed. The hypothesis of a phenomenon called perceptual de fense touched off a wave of psychological research and ex perimentation that has proven to be a major source of con troversy in the field for the last twenty years. After the original description of the perceptual defense process (Bruner and Postman, 1947), McGinnies (1949) further des cribed perceptual defense as a perceptual "filtering" of visual stimuli that serves in many instances to protect the organism as long as possible from an awareness of ob jects which have unpleasant emotional significance for 13 him. Aronfreed, et al (1953) and Lacy, et al (1953) ex perimentally confirmed McGinnies' hypothesis that emotion ally toned words demand longer exposure time for recogni tion than neutral words. Howes and Solomon, (1950), however, challenged McGinnies' (1949) definition by insisting that it was not necessary to evoke an explanation as nebulous as percep tual defense to account for the apparent "blocking" of key words resisting in increased recognition times for such words. They believed that the infrequency of word usage and of familiarity with the "blocked" words were the sole determinants of the phenomenon. Earlier Postman, et al (1948) had stated the per ceptual defense is not the only factor responsible for the impairment in recognition of certain stimuli, however. Part of the responsibility, particularly in the case of very fast reaction times, can be ascribed to familiarity. A familiar stimulus will not only elicit a quick and popu lar response but it is also likely to be recognized readily since familiarity will facilitate "closure" when only part of the stimulus word is seen under rapid exposure. Solomon and Howes' study of 1951 demonstrated that the frequency with which words are used in the language significantly influences their recognition times, i.e., more commonly used words were recognized in shorter times than infre 14 quently used words. Numerous other studies have indicated that the frequency of usage of words is a determinant of their recognition thresholds (Bryant, et al, 1967; DeLucia and Stagner, 1954; Goodstein, 1954; Howes and Solomon, 1950; King-Ellison and Jenkins, 1954; McGinnies, Comer and Lacey, 1952; Postman and Conger, 1954; Postman and Schnei der, 1951; Solomon and Postman, 1952; Vanderplas, 1953). In an effort to equate neutral and emotionally toned words on word frequency, many investigators have employed the Thorndike-Lorge word count (1944). However, McGinnies (1950) countered Howes and Solomon's criticism by pointing out that words infrequently found in the literature did not always evoke prolonged reaction times while many taboo words, which did result in long reaction times, were commonly known and hence by their argument should have been recognized in a relatively brief period of time. Certain inadequacies in employing the frequency of word-usage index as an absolute criterion of familiarity have been noted (Davids, 1956; Eriksen, 1954; Lazarus, 1955; McGinnies, 1950). Some findings have suggested that the use of the Thorndike-Lorge word count results in an underestimation of the familiarity of taboo words (Postman, Bronson, and Garopper, 1953). These findings lend support to Lazarus\ suggestion that n an indication of familiarity 15 other than the Thorndike-Lorge word count be employed (Lazarus, 1955). Moreover, Wiener (1955) conducted an experiment which demonstrated that word meaning and there fore motivational factors are important determinants of perceptual behavior and he therefore concluded that the word frequency hypothesis alone could not account for the perceptual-defense results. Davis (1959) lended support to McGinnies' argument through his study which utilized the Thorndike word count ratings in a stereoscopic task. Davis found that words with low frequency of usage and words with long association (emotionaljttimes tended to be suppressed. One of the most serious criticisms of the perceptual defense phenomenon is the response suppression hypothesis. This hypothesis advances the view that the heightened re cognition thresholds for taboo words are not due to a per ceptual process but are instead caused by the subject's reluctance to report socially embarrassing stimuli. This reluctance results in the subject's demanding greater cer tainty before reporting a taboo word, e.g., "whore," than a neutral word, e.g., "table." This demand for greater cer tainty would result in a heightened threshold for taboo as compared to neutral words. The response-suppression hypothesis advances the view that although the correct response is consciously available 16 to the subject, he suppresses it until lengthened exposures make it impossible for him to withhold the correct report. Thus the defense effect is attributed to response rather than to perceptual variables. Both logical and experimental evidence has been pre sented to support the response suppression hypothesis (Allport, 1955; Bitterman and Kniffin, 1953; Eriksen, 1954; Howes and Solomon, 1950; McGinnies, 1950; McGinnies and Sherman, 1952; Postman, et al, 1953; Solomon and Howes, 1951; Spielberger, 1956; Walters, Banks and Ryder, 1959; Walters and Pilipec, 1964; Whittaker, Gilchrist, and Fisch^ er, 1952; Zajonc, 1962; and Zigler and Yospe, 1960). In an effort to demonstrate response suppression and/or con trol for this variable, investigators have employed intro spective reports (McGinnies, 1950; Whittaker, et al, 1952) ahd have manipulated such variables as the subject's re sponse set (Freeman, 1954; Freeman, 1955; Lacy, Lewinger and Adamson, 1953; Lysak, 1954; Spielberger, 1956; Postman, et al, 1953), sex of experimenter (Cowen and Beier, 1954; Freeman, 1955; Postman, et al, 1953), and race of experi menter (Whittaker, et al, 1952). Noteworthy is the experiment by McGinnies and Sherman (1952) which attempted to counter the argument that subjects are reluctant to report socially unacceptable "taboo" words which explains the prolonged recognition times for such 17 words. The McGinnies and Sherman experiment (1952) was conducted to test the assumption that there may be general ization of perceptual-defense, or interference to words which observers would have no reluctance to verbalize. The experiment invoked determined recognition thresholds for eight five-letter words, approximately equal in frequency of occurrence and of apparently neutral connotation. Four of these were always presented to the subject following full exposure of a taboo word while the others were pre- ce'eded by a neutral word. The results indicated that duration threshold for the task words following taboo words were significantly higher than thresholds for those words followed by neutral words. The results were inter preted as reinforcement of an avoidance reaction that had generalized from the taboo to the neutral stimuli. Similar studies, Matthews and Weitheimer, 1958; McGinnies and Adronetto, 1952 ; Newton, 1955; Walters, et al, 1959, and Walters and Pilipec, 1964, gave the same results. However, Forrest, et al, (1965) repeated the McGinnies and Sherman (1952) experiment substituting nonsense words for taboo words and received the same effect. They con cluded that in both experiments an interruption of set is produced by the occurrence of taboo (nonsense) words and that it is unnecessary to hypothesize the generaliza^ tion of a defensive process. Freeman, (1954), (1955) lends 18 experimental support for the set hypothesis. Moreover, Kleiner, (1959) did not support McGinnies1 interpretations. His study showed some evidence that subjects were aware of blocking. This author stated that three factors influenced the subject's performance--set, embarrassment, and word difficulty. Certain of these procedures have been criticized at length by Allport (1955) , and have at best produced con flicting findings concerning the operation and significance of response suppression (Cowen and Beier, 1954; Freeman, 1955 ; Lysak, 1954 ; Spielberger, 1956;. Whittaker, et al, 1952). Although he supports the belief in the perceptual-de fense phenomenon, Lazarus (1954) states that the McGinnies- type methodology is seriously defective because when verbal stimuli which are judged as emotional are placed in opposi tion to material which is non-emotional and when learning, recall, or perception of them is studied, it is absolutely impossible to establish whether differential perfbrmdncer in a group of subjects is associated with the emotional characteristics of the material or other associated factors such as familiarity, attention value, etc. For Lazarus, all mechanisms of defense are not repressive. The only experiments which are relevant to the notion of a process of defense are those which look, not for main 19 effects, but for interaction differences between different persons and different ways of dealing with threat. In addition, word familiarity is an intervening vari able which is inferred from verbal behavior. According to Lazarus, it is likely that word frequency itself is a pro duct of the individual's personal needs and social experin ence. Another significant criticism of the McGinnies-type experiments is that the experimenters fail to insure that the material employed in the experiment was indeed anxiety provoking for their subjects. It is highly questionable whether words such as "bitch", "raped", etc. are anxiety arousers for the majority of college students subjects. Eriksen conducted several experiments (1951(a), 1951(b), 1952, 1954), and Lazarus, 1952) which demonstrated that it is first necessary to assure that the perceptual stimuli are anxiety arousing for all subjects and second to show that the subjects have avoidance defenses before one can demonstrate the perceptual defense phenomenon. Perceptual defense can be demonstrated if the task involves conflict-relevant stimuli (Blum, 1955), personally relevant stimuli (Chodorhoff, 1954), anxiety-relevant words as determined by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Chodor hoff, 1955), ego-threatening stimuli (Eriksen, 1952), anxiety-arousing cftlors (Hammes, 1961), and the use of 20 task-failure to arouse anxiety (Spence, 1957). Thus whether anxiety is measured as a personality trait or ex perimentally induced, the literature tends to support the underlying assumptions of perceptual defense. There is one exception to this rule, an experiment by Bitterman and Kniffin, 1953. In this experiment subjects were given the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and asked to recognize taboo and neutral words on a tachistoscopic task. There was no significant relationship found between anxiety level and recognition threshold. The author found a differential readiness to report rather than any evidence of perceptual distortion. Numerous other studies, however, demonstrate the exis tence of the perceptual defense phenomenon. For example, Rosenstock, (1951), hypothesized that repression and per ception are intimately related and that the effects of re pression could be observed in perception. His results indicated that repressable sentences, i.e., those dealing with sexual and aggressive attitudes toward parents, were more difficult to see and more frequently distorted than neutral stimuli under varying intensities of illumination. Golding, et al, (1966), also gives support to a per ceptual defense hypothesis, finding it related to con- notative rigidity. Hochberg, et al, (1955) found evidence for perceptual defense and describes it as serving as an 21 interference mechanism. Levy (1958) found evidence for perceptual defense in the tactical sense; while Kleinman (1957) ; Kodman and Blanton (1960) ; and Reed (1961) found that it may operate on an auditory level as well. In addition to the mounting evidence in support of perceptual defense Lazarus and McCleary,(1951) discovered that subjects were capable of recognizing words at tachis- toscopic exposure speeds too fast for conscious discrimina tion. They demonstrated GSR evidence for this phenomenon which they call subception. However, Murdock (1954) experimentally refuted Lazarus' claim and stated that the occurrence of discrimina tion without awareness is unwarranted because of failure of the former study to exclude the possibility of partial recognition. In addition to the concepts of familiarity, frequency of word usage, and response suppression, several other explanations of the perceptual defense phenomenon have been postulated. Postman himself (1953) and Postman, et al, (1953) stated that perceptual defense "cannot be regarded as an irreducible explanatory principle. Experiments and theoretical analysis suggest that perceptual defense need not be regarded as a special principle of perception. The data to which it refers can be conceptualized in terms of more general principles." 22 Eriksen and Browne (1956) for example, believe that the controversy over perceptual defense and unconscious perception has primarily arisen due to a failure to distin guish between the individual's perception and his response. Their study presented an account of perceptual defense in terms of behavior theory principles derived from research on punishment and avoidance conditioning. It was shown that an assumption of "unconscious perception" was not re quired to explain the experimental data on perceptual de fense if certain distinctions are made between the subject'* verbal resppnse and his— perception. An experiment was t presented that attempted to test the behavior theory model. In one group of subjects the response strengths for ten word responses were increased by manipulating the frequency and recency of prior occurrence of these words. A second group of subjects received comparable re cency and frequency experience with these ten words, but here the experimental arrangement was such as to permit the assumption that these words would also become condi tioned stimuli for anxiety. It was predicted that the vari ables of frequency and recency of prior exposure would lower the perceptual recognition thresholds for the ex perienced words, but this reduction in thresholds would be less in the second group due to the anxiety conditioned to these words. The results of the experiment confirmed 23 the predictions. Other theories centering around the response in per ceptual defense were devised. One such theory is that of reponse bias on the part of the subject. Numerous studies, Garner, et al, 1956; Goldstein, 1959, 1962(a), Goldstein, et al, 1962; Goldstein and Radtell, 1961; Kogan, 1968, and Natsoulas, 1965; support the response bias supposition. The response bias theory argues that the perceptual system may ibake differential discriminations on the basis of the emotional content of the perceived stimulus or the dif ference in thresholds may be a result of a characteristic of the response system. The indication of perception in a perceptual-defense experiment typically involves the sub jects' articulation of anxiety linked words and neutral words. However subjects have a negative response bias for anxiety-evoking words. Thus the probability of using such a word as a response is lower than that for using a neutral word. However, the response-bias theory of perceptual de fense has been refuted, Bootzin and Natsoulas,(1965) ; Loiselle, (1966); Minard, (1965a); and Minard, (1965b); Bootzin's (1965) study involved an experimental procedure which minimized differences in response bias for neutral and anxiety arousing words. He presents evidence of poorer recognition for anxiety-arousing than for neutral words 24 unaccounted for by differences in response bias. Other explanations for perceptual defense have in cluded a response probability theory, Goldiamond (1958), and Goldstein (1962b). This theory contends that as a consequence of prior conditionings, the subject developed differential probabilities of using various words as re sponses in perceptual situations. In the case of percep tual defense, responses which have become conditioned stimuli for anxiety will be less likely evoked under con ditions of marginal perceptual stimulation. Others, notably, Dulaney (1957), and Haas,(1963) have suggested that perceptual defense is a learned phenomenon, i.e. , taboo words presented to a subject for recognition are low in the subject's response hierarchy because their utterance has resulted in punishment. Hence, these taboo words are replaced by another word, similar in structure, but not taboo, which is higher in the hierarchy. It has been demonstrated (Banks and Walters, 1959) that learning and verbal conditioning (Welman, et al, 1963) reduces the recognition time of taboo words. Brown (1961) postulated a competing response theory of perceptual defense which assumes that tachistoscopically presented taboo words simultaneously arouse tendencies to speak and not to sepak. Braun (1961), however, argqed that Brown's theory cannot be valid if we accept the traditional 25 view that the avoidance gradient is steeper than the ap proach. Still,. Van Egeren (1968) suggests that some of the differences in recognition behavior which have led to the development of perceptual defense may have arisen from systematic differences in recognition cutedffs rather^than sensitivity per se. It appears, according to this author's study, that it is not only the absolute intensity of the stimulus itself which is important, but the stimulus in relation to some reference level, namely the observer's recognition criterion or cut-off. Bath the stimulus energy and the internal cut-off must be understood in order to evaluate the observed recognition behavior. Earlier it was noted that Bruner and Postman's ori ginal formulations (1947) included a description of two phenomena--perceptual vigilance and perceptual defense. Perceptual defenders avoid or distort that which is threat ening and are thus said to be repressors; while these who perceive threatening stimuli with increased vigilance are called sensitizers. Later studies, e.g., Van de Castle ( (1960) and Mangan and—Adcock,(1962) confirmed that there are perceptual defenders and sensitizers and that each has a consistent mode of perception. It has been suggested, how ever, (Lewitt, et al, 1962) that when low thresholds are obtained for taboo words they may be due to defense 26 mechanisms other than repression. Secondary or counter defenses , other than sensitization and inhibition, may operate when conditions exist for externalizing the blame for taboo words to another source. C. Repression-Sensitization Repression-sensitization (R-S), Byrne (1964) is an ego-defense mechanism assumed to operate in the perception of threatening stimuli. Repressors avoid anxiety-arousing stimuli and demonstrate defenses of repression, denial, and rationalization. Sensitizers on the other hand, attempt to reduce anxiety by approaching or controlling the stimulus and may manifest intellectualization, obsessive behaviors, or ruminative worrying. Although the vast majority of psychological research on the R-S dimension involves perception in the visual sphere, Lazarus (1951) gave credibility to such a pheno menon on the auditory level. Lazarus studied the relation ship between performance on a sentence completion test and auditory perceptual recognition of sexual, aggressive and neutral sentences. He found two basic reactions to threat ening stimuli: (1) high perceptual accuracy and ready ver balization and, (2) low perceptual accuracy and minimal ver balization with blocking. He found that individual subjects were consistent in their use of either of these basic reac- 27 tions and that persons with intellectualizing mechanisms perceived threatened material with significantly greater accuracy than those with repressing mechanisms. Similarly, Goldstein (1966) noted that subjects responded to threaten ing stimuli in either a yigilant or avoidant manner and that this pattern tended to be constant throughout the ex posure ranges of varying stimuli. Byrne (1964) elaborated on his theory by hypothesizing that repressors and sensitizers are equally maladjusted in responding to anxiety evoking stimuli. Among others, Gayton and Bernstein (1969) attempted to test this hypo thesis by demonstrating that both groups would show signi ficantly greater maladjustment than neutrals as reflected by incompatible need scores. However; > they found that repressors manifest significant maladjustment while sensitizers and normals do not. The equility of maladjustment for repressors and sen sitizers is evidenced clinically by the obsessive-com pulsive personality (sensitizers) and the hysterical per sonality (repressors). The clinically reported indecision of the obsessive-compulsive person and the impulsivity which characterizes the hysteric prompted Weinstein and Lewinsohn (1968) to predict that sensitizers, as identified by the Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, 1961) and the Rorschach Index of Repressive Style, would demand more in- 28 formation prior to making a decision than repressors. Their hypothesis received only little support. Numerous studies, Barton and Brickhout, 1969; Chhen and Cariera, 1967; Lomont, 1965; Markowitz, 1969; Petzel and Gymter, 1968; and Tempone, 1964; directly tested the vulnerability of repressors and sensitizers to anxiety. On the basis of both clinical observations and conditioning principles, Lomont (1965) predicted that although repressors report being generally less anxious than sensitizers, they are actually more anxiety prone. The results of his study showed that repression was negatively correlated with a self-report measure of anxiety. Repression was positively correlated, however, with the number of words in a word-as- sociation test eliciting verbal signs of disturbance. Where threat to self-esteem is involved there is a predictable differential effect on R-S. Petzel and Gymer (1968) verified Lomont's observation that the repressor's performance is more vulnerable to the experience of anxiety from relevant stimuli than the sensitizer's. This study examined the task performance of repressors and sensitizers under ggo-oriented and task-oriented instructions. Repres sors solved fewer anagrams, when given ego-oriented instruc tions;. than when given task-oriented instructions. When threat to self-esteem is associated with performance on a psychophysical task, repressors over-estimate the electric 29 shock intensities compared to sensitizers, Barton and Brickhout (1969). Similarly, under high ego threat, sen sitizers show a general increment .in incidental learning, while repressors show a general decrement, Markowitz (1969). Tempone (164a) divided repressors and sensitizers into success and failure conditions. The subjects then received a success or failure experience followed by a tachistoscopic task where eight critical words (words associated with the task) and eight neutral words (words not associated with the task) were presented. Repressors had higher thresholds than sensitizers for critical words under the failure con dition, while there was no significant difference between repressors and sensitizers under the success condition. However, a study by Cohen and Cariera (1967) did not confirm the fact that groups of repressors and sensitizers would differentially judge the performance of their groups following exposures to failure and success evaluation. Other studies, Golin and Solkoff, 1965; Paris and Goodstein, 1966; Shill, 1969; Tolot and Reznikoff, 1967; Weinstein, et al, 1968; etc. also yield opposing and conflicting re sults on the differential responses of repressors and sen sitizers to threat. The differences seem to center around the nature of the anxiety or threat condition, i.e., whether it was experimentally induced or expressed threat. Repressors and sensitizers do respond differently in 30 regards to their verbalization and physiological response to threat. Repressors show relatively greater autonomic than self-report reactions to stress, while sensitizers tend to show the opposite pattern of response, Weinstein, et al, (1968). PRaris and Goodstein's (1966) hypothesis that sensitizers would express more anxiety to literary materials dealing with both sex and death than would re pressors was not supported. Similarly, Golin and Solkoff (1965) predicted that repressors, during the blockade of Cuba, would estimate nuclear war as less likely, would express less anxiety and would show more approval of the blockade than sensitizers. Their results showed that the greater the estimate of the likelihood of nuclear war, the greater the anxiety andtthe less the approval but these re sults were not related to the R-S dimension. One test of induced anxiety (Schill, 1969) however, invited repressors and sensitizers to free associate to double entendre words with sexual implications, e.g., rubber, broad, nuts, etc. and to neutral words, e.g., light, chair, table. The hypothesis that repressors would be more likely to deny the sexual implications wea support ed for male repressors but not for female repressors. MMore- pver, , Tolor and Reznikoff (1967) demonstrated that sen sitizers have significantly greater overt death anxiety than repressors. 31 Finally it is conceivable that the most anxiety pro voking stimulus of all would be one which a subject cannot label or identify. Dublin (1968) demonstrated that sen sitizers produce significantly longer response latencies to ambiguous MMPI and Rorschach stimuli than either re pressors or neutrals. However, repressors tended to give neutral or non-threatening interpretations of ambiguous stimuli and were dogmatic, rigid, and intolerant of am biguity. Several notable studies (Altrocchi, et al, 1960; Cheson, et al, 1970; Kaplan, et al, 1970; Lefcourt, 1966) which dealthwith the self-conceptssof repressors and sen sitizers were among the many conducted on that topic. Altrocchi, et al, (1960) found that since repressors tend to remain unaware of threat, conflict, and negative at= titudes and focus on the positive qualities of themselves and others, they manifest smaller discrepancies between self and ideal-self than sensitizers. LGfcourt,(1966), demonstrated that sensitizers, who describe themselves as emotional, excitable persons used more affect-ideation words to describe persons in Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) scores. While repressors were found to generally view emotional expression as an indica tion of abnormality, hence used limited emotional termino logy. However, when the situation was structured as in 32 volving an evaluation of mental illness, sensitizers be came less expressive. Moreover in a similar experiment by Kaplan, et al, (1970), repressors and sensitizers listenr ed: , to a model characterized as either adjusted or malad justed giving either common or uncommon TAT stories. When the character was of the maladjusted model the performance of both repressors and sensitizers contrasted with that of the model. These findings suggest that R-S is more a di mension of verbal dispositon than actual identification with adjustment or maladjustment. When asked to list the total number of nicknames and slang expressions which pertained to ethnic groups and the number of these which referred to groups of which they were members, sensitizers would admit to the presence of disparaging attitudes both about themselves and others. Repressors, however, would be less likely to verbalize neg ative^ self-descriptions (Cheson, et al, 1970). Of common interest to several psychologists is the comparison of the repressor-sensitizer' s view of self and that of others. Sensitizers assume similarity between self and partners less frequently than repressors or neutrals even after interaction with a partner (Altrocchi, 1961 and Gordon, 1959). Lomont (1966) compared the self-perceptions of repressors and sensitizers with consensual peer percep tions of them in regard to dominance-submission and love- 33 hate. He found that the extent to which a person of either sex is a pepressor is positively related in linear fashion to the dominance he attributes himself. Repression in males bears a positive linear relationship to the dominance their like-sexed peers attribute to them. While in females the sensitizing tendency is positively and linearily related to their ascription of less dominance to themselves than is attributed to them by their like-sexed peers. It has been suggested (Merbaum and Badia, 1967), that repressors are more likely to acquiesce and sensitizers to resist social demands when they recognize the intent of these demands. Merbaum and Badia used this explanation to interpret the results of their study which showed that contrary to their prediction, male sensitizers avoided and male repressors approached painful stimuli while both fe male repressors and sensitizers tend to avoid noxious stimuli. The authors further suggested that repressors are more likely to respond to the cultural stereotype of it's:; masculine to tolerate pain. Feder (1967) likewise found a significant, but low, correlation between the R-S dimension and social desirability and acquiescence response set. Moreover in several experiments Schill, et al, (1968,, 1969, 1970) have utilized the Marlowe-Crowne Scoial Desira bility Scale as a measure of a defensiveness in conjunction with Byrne's R-S Scale. Shill believes that his experiments 34 demonstrate the necessity of using the M-C Social Desir ability Scale to differentiate the "true” repressor from subjects who obtain low Byrne scores because they lack the pathology implied in the test items. Schill, et al's latest study (1970) showed a differential pattern of re sponding between repressors and sensitizers only when de fensiveness as measured by the M-C Social Desirability Scale, was taken into account. These findings refute an earlier study by Silber and Giebstein (1964) in which the authors obtained significant negative correlations between the Byrne R-S Scale and the Marlowe-Crowr.n Social Desir ability Scale. Silber concluded that the magnitude and con sistency of these correlations appear to reflect sufficient independence between these dimensions to justify consider ing them as separate variables. Several studies have tried to determine sexual and per sonality differences between repressors and sensitizers. Becker (1967) for example, found that females tend to be repressors more than males and that sexual differences in R-S was more pronounced in extroverts rather than intro verts. Kogan's study (1956) indicated the presence of an inverse relationship between authoritarian attitudes and the capacity to identify highly emotional stimuli. More authoritarian persons perceive emotional stimuli less ac curately. Later Bernhardson (1967) found that dogmatic 35 people tend to use sensitizing rather than repressive de fenses . Miscellaneous studies have shown the differential re sponding of repressors and sensitizers; e.g., that re pressors believe human nature to be less negative than sen sitizers (Duke and Wrightsman, 1968), are better able than sensitizers to rdduce cognitive dissonance (Glass, 1968; Gordon, 1970), are less aggressive on projective techni ques following aggressive stimulation (Eriksen, 1951), take less of an active role as interviewers and their in terviewees (Kaplan, 1961a), endorse significantly more negative affect (Merbaum and Katsushige, 1967), show a significantly greater amount of skin conductance responses (Parsons, et al, 1969), and relate differently to frustra tion than sensitizers (Rosensweig, 1967). A few studies have demonstrated no significant dif ference between repressors and sensitizers in regard to perceptual responding (Bootzin and Stephens, 1967); in regard to language differences (Brodsky and Dixon, 1968) ; in regard to predictive ability with maximum versus mini mum information (Kaplan, 1967b); in regard to dream recall or dream content (Robbins and Tanck, 1970); or in regard to daydream frequency (Wagman, 1967). Most of the experimental studies reported utilized Byrne's (1961) scale of repression-sensitization. Al- 36 though Byrne's scale dt£ a^highly stable, theoretically useful measurement of a specific dimension of personality, it has been shown to have low correlation with the full booklet MMPI measure (Simmons, 1966); to have an minimal relationship with the Problems Situation Test l(PST) , which is a defense measure, rating acting-out, avoidance, dis tortion, and reality (Hirsch and Dana, 1968); and to have a non-significant negative correlation with the Sentence Completion Test (SCT) which purports to measure repressor and sensitizer styles (Crowley and Nalven, 1969). Byrne's scale appears to yield high correlations with clinical assessment of repression-sensitization, however. One study (Tempone, 1964b) found that clinical judgments of repressors and sensitizers agreed 90% with the subjects' assignment on the R-S Scale. Another (Smith, 1969) suggests that a possible basis for judgement of R-S may be contained in biographical information which is primarily emotional in nature. CHAPTER III METHOD A. Design It appears that personal space may be measured re- lihbly but lacks construct validity. Most of the theory is simple analogy to territoriality in animals. The pre sent study attempted to fill in the theory by relating the measure of personal space to relevant environmental events, i.e., race of stimulus, verbal threat and another exten sively researched construct--repression-sensitization. This study examined the effects of the race of the stimu lus, the level of threat of the stimulus, and the subject's position on the repression-sensitization continuum on the extension of a black man's personal space. Personal space serves to protect the individual from harmful or threatening stimuli and thus can be seen as a mechanism of defense. Moreover, it is a mechanism of de fense which operates in a fashion similar to mechanisms of perceptual defense, i.e., those values represented in the personality of the perceiver tend to determine thresholds (levels) of recognition. The extension of a subject's personal space region in regards to an invader is traditionally measured in inches 37 38 or feet, i.e., the actual physical distance the subject keeps between himself and the invader. The present study differs from the traditional in two ways: (1) its adap tation of Frankel and Jenkins' (1971) paper and pencil mea sure of personal space, and (2) the use of pictorial rather than human stimuli. The paper and pencil measure of per sonal space proved to be an accurate and reliable measure of that phenomenon. The use of pictorial stimuli of human faces was justi fied. Although it may be that in the realm of personal space the perceived threat encompasses the vision of the total body of the intruder, it is usually the intentions of the intruder as displayed by his facial expression which commands the greater attention. "Special schemata are eveluated within which the percepts of persons, their faces and their behavior, are integrated," (Vernon, 1970). The observer is usually aware, to a minor extent, of the de tails of physical characteristics presented by the appear ance and behavior of other people and is concerned mainly with their intentions, emotions, and personality character istics . The present study also attempted to relate personal time as demonstrated in perceptual-defense tasks to the personal-space phenomenon. 39 Perceptual defense may be seen as the delay in recognition time of threatening stimuli and personal space, as the de lay of the approach of a threatening stimulus. Both are avoidance reactions to approaches of threat. One, however, is measured in inches; while the other, in seconds. But inches and seconds, space and time, are inter dependent physically and psychologically. The Tau and Kappa effects in psychophysics (see Cohen, et al, 1953; Geldreich, 1941; and Helson and King, 1931) are experimen tal proof of the interdependence of psychological space and time. And most importantly: "...spatiality and tem porality should not be treated as independent entities, rather, it should be assumed that each is an abstraction for a spatio-temporal event"... (Lebensfield, 1968). The present study, therefore, consisted of two ex perimental procedures utilizing the same instructional information in regard to the level of cthreatthe tsame stimuli, and the same subjects. Only the dependent measure of personal space varied--one measured it in terms of space; the other, in terms of time. In order to study the effects of the aforementioned variables on the dependent measures of personal space and personal time a number of assumptions were made. For ex ample, it was assumed that the race of the intruder and/or the ambiguity of his race constitute threatening stimuli to 40 repressors and sensitizers (after Dublin, 1968; Frankel and Barrett, 1971; and Frankel and Jenkins, 1971). It had already been suggested (Frankel and Jenkins, 1971) that it is the threat-value of the stimulus which affects the sub ject's personal space region. It had also been demonstrated (Carpenter, et al, 1956) and confirmed (Perloe, 1960) that perceptual behavior can be predicted from knowledge of the particular mechanism of defense an individual uses for par ticular classes of stimuli. Carpenter, et al, 01956) found that when subjects were selected as using repressive or sensitizing mechanisms in particular conflict areas, sen sitizers were significantly faster in perceiving conflict words, e.g., petting, necking, hate, inferior, than were repressors. Hence, repressors and sensitizers respond dif ferentially on perceptual task involving the recognition of threatening stimuli. And more recently it had been shorn (Loiselle and Williamson, 1966) that subjects will demon strate perceptual defense to racially critical stimuli significantly more than to racially neutral stimuli. It was also assumed that the level of threat could be elevated or decreased with appropriate verbal information about the stimulus, e.g., whether the stimulus represented an ordinary citizen or a criminal wanted by the law. More over, prejudice has been isolated as a significant factor in the perception of racial characteristics. Secord, et 41 al, (1956) found that both anti-Negro and pro-Negro judges perceive the Negro as Vmore Negroid'1 in physical traits than unprejudiced judges. In a study by Cheson, et al (1970) subjects identified as prejudiced were also iden tified as sensitizers while repressors were found to be low in prejudice. Hence, it was assumed that prejudicial feel ings toward whites would significantly affect the outcome of the data and thus anti-white feelings were examined. The following sets of hypothesis are applicable to both experimental designs. Under the low or minimal threat condition it is hypothesized that: 1. repressors would keep whites at a minimum distance (would have extended reaction times for whites) 2 sensitizers would keep whites at a maximum dis tance (would have relatively short reaction times for whites) These hypothesis are a restatement of the definitions of repression and sensitization and are therefore expected to support the observations of Perloe (1960), Carpenter, et al, (1956) as well as the study of Frankel and Barrett (1971). The R-S phenomenon is an extension of Postman and Bruner's (1947) concept of accentuation which has generally been described in operational terms as an increase in per ceived and remembered size for value or need-related stimuli. 42 It was also hypothesized that: 3 Sensitizers would allow black intruders to come relatively close (would have short reaction times for members of their own race), since the stimuli are not threatening. 4 repressors would allow black intruders to come close (would have extended reaction times for members of their own race), particularly those faces representing the extremes in Negro cari cature. This response was expected because to be so stereotyped was believed to arouse severe anxiety for a black repressor. 5 both repressors and sensitizers would keep the ambiguous intruder at a maximum distance (would have extended reaction times for the ambiguous stimuli). Dublin (1968) demonstrated that ambiguous stimuli evoke longer reaction times for sensitizers than repres sors. However, the stimuli he used (IflMPI and Rorschach material) is not seen as posing the threat or eliciting the perceptual acuity that an intruder of unknown race would evoke. Under the high threat condition it was hypothesized that: 1 see hypothesis (1) under low-threat 43 2 see hypothesis (2) under low-threat 3 repressors would keep black intruders at a great distance (would have longer reaction times) but not as far away as sensitizers 4 sensitizers would keep black intruders at a maxi mum distance (would have the longest reaction times). B. Experiment I Subjects: Ninety-six black male undergraduate students at the Loyola University of Los Angeles, the California State College at Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California served as subjects in this experiment. The subjects ranged in age from 18 to 26 years. Instruments: 1. The Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, 1961). 2. The Anti-white Scale (Shaw and Wright, 1967). 3. The Ethnic Continuum--a series of drawings of faces ranging from ones with extreme Negroid characteristics to ones with extreme Anglo-Saxon features. The central faces on the continuum have been demonstrated to be of dubious race and hence are labeled ambiguous. 4. A personal-space booklet, which consists of a floor plan of a room drawn with eight intersecting lines 44 drawn through the floor plan from the midpoint of the sides £nd from the corners. Each of the intersecting lines was matched for every foot and designations were placed for every two feet. (Frankel, et al, 1971) (See the appendix for the complete instruments). Also Utilized in this experiment were: a Kodak Carou sel Slide Projector, series number 1850 H; a Kodak sound synchronizer; and electronic voice key; a Hunter time counter; and an electric control awitfah. Procedure: The Repressor-Sensitization Scale and the Anti-white Scale were administered to the subjects either in class rooms or small groups. Thirty-nine subjects who received extreme scores on the R-S Scale were selected for the personal space task. Twenty of these subjects performed the task under low or non-threat verbal instructions, while nineteen performed the task under high threat verbal instructions (see appen dix for instructions). The subject, was • shown, in counterbalanced order, slides of the five extreme caricatures from the Ethnic Continuum (see appendix) and asked to imagine himself standing in the middle of the room as the stimulus figure is walking toward him. The subject was instructed to place 45 a dot on the line at which he began to feel some sort of "inner change" as the stimulus figure walks toward him. He did this for all eight lines on the page. The subject's score for a given stimulus figure was the sum of the dis tance in feet that he marked off on the eight lines. C. Experiment II The subjects and instruments for the design were the same as in B. Experimental Design I. Procedure: Thirty-nine subjects who received extreme scores on the R-S Scale were selected for the perceptual defense task. The subjects were shown, in counterbalanced order, slides of the five extreme carcatures from the Ethnic Con tinuum (see appendix). The Kodak sound synchronizer was simultaneously con nected to the Kodak slide projector and the input outlet of the electronic voice key. The voice key was in turn con nected to the Hunter timer and a control switbh which would stop the "noise" from the projector and hence the timer when depressed. The subject was instructed to depress the control switch button when he felt that he had recognized and could designate the stimulus by race, as either white, black or other. Twenty of the subjects performed this task 46 under low or no threat verbal instructions, while nineteen performed the task under high threat verbal instructions, (see appendix for instructions). CHAPTER IV RESULTS Of the ninety-six subjects originally tested for re- pression-sensitization, nineteen were found to be repres sors and twenty-nine sensitizers. Although, each of these forty-eight were contacted for the second half of the ex perimental task only fifteen of the repressors and twenty- four of the sensitizers actually participated. The chi square was not significant. A multi-variate analysis of variance for level of threat X Repression-Sensitization X race of stimulus was conducted on each of the dependent measures-anti-white feeling, personal space and perceptual defense. The total positive or negative score obtained on the test served as the dependent measure on the anti-white dimension. The total number of feet from the centerpoint, summed across all eight radii marked on the floor plan pages of the booklet served as the dependent measure for the personal space task. The time in seconds for the recognition of the race of the stimulus served as the dependent measure for the perceptual defense task. Analysis of the relationships on the dependent measure yielded the following results: 47 48 1. Anti-white feeling correlated -0.141 with re cognition time (perceptual defense) and 0.065 with personal space. None of these correlations is significantly different from zero. The anti white dimension affects neither personal space nor perceptual defense. 2. Recognition time (perceptual defense) correlated 0.081 with personal space. 3. The race of the stimulus, i.e., white, black or ambiguous, did not significantly affect any of the dependent measures. Twenty-eight of the subjects tested labeled the ambiguous figure as white, while eight of those tested thought that he was black. The chi square was signi ficant, p <.01. Because there were manifestly no differences in intra-subject responses on this measure, subsequent analyses were collapsed over this variable. 4. Repression-Sensitization significantly affects (F«5.202, _df = 1 and 113, p. <05) recognition time (perceptual defense) with sensitizers taking longer recognition time than repressors. (See Table 2 and 4 for means and summary, respectively.) 5. Verbal threat instructions significantly affect (F»5.044, df - 1 and 113, p.<05) the personal 49 space phenomenon with high threat instructions resulting in a distance of 27.75 feet, while low threat resulted in a personal space region of 21.76 feet. (See Table 5) 50 TABLE 1 Anti-White Scores* (Mean number of items scored Anti-White) Black White Ambiguous Over Stimulus RH 20.883 20.883 20.883 18.909 RL 14.889 14.889 14.889 14.889 SH 15.385 15.385 15.385 15.385 SL 18.909 18.909 18.909 20.833 Over R 17.886 17.886 17.886 17.267 Threat S 17.147 17.147 17.147 17.000 Over H 18.134 18.134 18.134 17.105 a L 16.899 16.899 16.899 17.100 Over all Conditions 17.103 17.103 17.103 *Notation: R = Repressor S = Sensitizer H = High Threat L = Low Threat 51 TABLE 2 Recognition Time* (Mean Seconds per slide) Black White Ambiguous Over Stimulus RH 0.514 0.510 0.505 0.636 RL 0.487 0.534 0.497 0.506 SH 0.493 0.607 0.688 0.588 SL 0.600 0.626 0.628 0.510 Over R 0.500 0.522 0.501 0.508 Threat S 0.546 0.616 0.685 0.610 Over H 0.503 0.558 0.596 0.563 R/o ° L Over all 0.543 0.580 0.589 0.577 Condi tions 0.525 0.581 0.606 *Notation: R = Repressor S = Sensitizer H = High Threat L a Low Threat 52 (Mean number TABLE Personal : of feet per 3 Space* personal-space floor plan) Black White Ambiguous Over Stimulus RH 14.167 31.500 28.500 24.515 RL 15.333 22.667 17.222 18.407 SH 29.077 29.923 28.462 29.154 SL 20.909 25.727 26.909 24.722 Over R 14.755 27.083 22.611 20.933 Threat S 24.993 27.825 27.685 27.028 Over H 21.627 30.711 28.481 27.754 R/„ a L 18.121 24.197 22.065 21.767 Over all Condi tions 21.308 27.308 25.436 ^Notation: R = Repressor S = Sensitizer H = High Threat L = Low Threat 53 TABLE 4 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Level of Threat and Repression-Sensitization on Recognition Time Mean “ Source Squares df F P A (threat 0.006 1 0.089 0.755 B (R-S) 0.307 1 5.202 0.024* A X B 0.018 1 0.301 0.584 Error 0.059 113 54 TABLE 5 Summary of Analysis of Variance of Level of Threat and Repression-Sensitization on Personal Space Mean Source Squares df F P A (threat) 1048.006 1 5.044 0.027* B (R-S) 776.937 1 3.739 0.056 A X B 18.914 1 0.071 0.763 Error 38815.03 113 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Despite the fact that they are both defense mechanisms which ostensibly utilize the same sense modality and re spond to threatening stimuli, personal space and perceptual defense are, according to the results of this research, separate and distinct phenomena. The correlation between the measure of perceptual defense and that of personal space was non-significant. If we interpret perceptual defense as a measure of personal time, as was the intention in this research, then this result could only mean that the concepts of personal space and personal time are unrelated. However, this researcher still firmly believes that the concepts of personal space and personal time are related and that the results of this particular study are a con sequence of the difference in methodology involved in examining the two different phenomena and the complexity of the perceptual defense phenomenon. Both perceptual defense and personal space rely upon the perception of the stimulus before the defensive maneu ver is invoked. However, this study really only relied upon perception in the experiment measuring perceptual de fense. The methodology involved in the personal space task 55 56 required that the subject imagine that the stimulus figure was approaching him. Thus, the dependent measure in the personal space task did not require that the subject be literally present in an anxiety-evoking or threatening situation. The perceptual defense task required the sub ject's participation literally, i.e., that he actually perform the task, while,tthe personal space task required the subject's cognitive participation only. Individuals differ in their abilities to imagine. The ability to imagine should operate independently of defense mechanisms, such as repression-sensitization, and should therefore be a randomly distributed variable over repressors and sensitizers, thus masking their effects. More importantly, defense mechanisms may not opprate ade quately under imaginary conditions, yielding no differen tial effect due to the various mechanisms at all. In short,, the differences in the nature of the perceptual defense and personal space tasks may be the answer to the non significant correlation. If personal space had been direct ly measured in the actual distance a subject would allow a live intruder to approach him, the correlation might have been significant. This study predicted a significant correlation between personal space and personal time. It may very well be that perceptual defense is not a true measure of personal time 57 as it was meant for this study. Personal time, as it was interpreted to be in this study, is a simple measure of time analogous to personal space, which does not involve complex interpersonal processes or defenses and is not much more than an immediate, almost reflex, reaction to a clear and objective threat. In other words, personal space is as simplistic a phenomenon as territoriality in animals. Personal time is meant to be just as simplistic. However, perceptual defense is a far more complex measure than per sonal time. Although the nature of the perceptual defense phenomenon is not fully understood (See Review of the Literature), it is clear that it involves a far more com plicated process than mere time in seconds and minutes. This author is now proposing that, in fact, the perceptual defense measure, which is more than a measure of personal time, was incorrectly utilized and correlated with the per sonal space measure in this study. The following sections will take a closer look at the dependent measures investigated. Perceptual Defense As earlier studies (Byrne, 1964; Lazarus, 1951, etc.) have indicated, repressors and sensitizers responded differently to threat in regard to perceptual defense. Con 58 trary to prediction, sensitizers required longer recog nition time than repressors, regardless of threat condition. The prolonged reaction time is explanable because the sensitizer according to the literature, Byrne (1964) and Weinstein and Lewinsohn (1968), intellectualizes and makes demands for more information prior to making decisions than repressors. Thus, the more complex and informed cognitive style probably delayed rather than facilitated the recog nition of the stimulus. It would seem that the apparent threat of the pro voking stimulus would seriously influence both the per ceptual defense and the personal space phenomena. However, the level of threat only affected the latter. Throughout the history of the perceptual defense phenomenon, (see Chapter II, Review of the Literature) there has been great tfontroversy over what constitutes an anxiety provoking stimulus. Evidently in this study verbalized threat in formation about the stimulus was irrelevant data or l i t - : sufficients, to arouse anxiety. The failure of the verbalized threat instructions to manipulate the subject's anxiety level in the recognition time task may also have been due to the nature of the task itself. The perceptual defense (recognition time) task required a state of readiness or vigilance since the subt ject knew that he would have to make a discrimination, while 59 the personal space task required no such discrimination and hence no special mental set. The psychological set required in the perceptual defense task may have masked the influence and, hence, the effects of the threat instruc tions. Although previous research (Secord, et al, 1956) has shown that prejudice seriously affects perceptual judge ment, the black subjects in the study, whether repressors or sensitizers, did not respond differentially on the per ceptual defense task to the three different racial stimuli to a significant extent. This result may be due to the fact that the set for the discrimination task interrupted the defensive mode in regard to the stimuli, i.e., the task may have become an intellectualized success-failure task in regard to accuracy of recognition rather than one where defenses would have come into play. Moreover, the subjects general familiarity and daily interactions with persons of the same races as the stimuli may have diminished the threat value of the three different stimuli. Personal Space Contrary to prediction, the repression-sensitization phenomenon has no affect on personal space. It may be that R-S did not affect personal space in this study because repression was not sufficiently measured. Previous re- 60 search (Schill, et al, 1968, 1969, 1970) has indicated that the use of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale in conjunction with Byrne's R-S Scale is a more accurate measure of repression. Significant results on the per sonal space dimension may have been obtained had this study utilized the M-C Sooial Desirability Scale. On the other hand there are defense mechanisms other than repression-sensitization. Some other defense variable may interact in personal space. It may very well be that in the realm of personal space, repression-sensitization is an irrelevant variable. The level of threat about the stimulus, however, does significantly affect personal space. As predicted under high threat conditions the subj ject extends his personal space region. That the length of this extension does not differ significantly for repressors and sensitizers may be an indication of the irrelevancy of the R-S dimension in regard to this dependent variable. Perhaps the most interesting result to come out of this research is the finding that the pace of the approach ing stimulus does not significantly affect perceptual de fense or personal space. The threat level of the approach ing stimulus is of greater importance to the black male subject than the race of the intruder. Blacks do keep white and "ambigious" subjects further away but not signi ficantly so. This finding is in opposition to that of 61 Frankel and Barrett (1971) where the race of the approach ing stimulus was most critical. One of the differences between the present study and that of Frankel and Barrett (1971) is the race of the subjects involved. The subjects in the Frankel and Barrett study were white, while the subjects in the present study were black. It appears that for black subjects, black and white intruders are equally threatening or non-threatening. This result is interpreted as an indication of the realistic feelings blacks, who are victims of oppression by whites and oftentimes victims of criminal assaults by fellow blacks, have about these two different but equally threaten ing groups. SUMMARY The effects of the race of the stimulus, threat value of the stimulus, and repression-sensitization on perceptual defense and personal space were tested in two separate experiments. It was believed that since these two phenom ena operate in similar ways as defense mechanisms they would be highly correlated and yield similar results in regards to the aforementioned variables. To control for the influence of prejudice on either task, an anti-white measure was taken but was found to be of no consequence to the other two dependent measures. Fifteen black male repressors and twenty-four black male sensitizers performed both the perceptual defense and personal space tasks. A multi-variate analysis of variance was conducted. Results of the combined studies indicated that the re pression-sensitization dimension significantly affects per ceptual defense, while threat value significantly affects personal space but these findings were not interchangeable nor were there significant interactions between the race of the stimulus, R-S, and the level of threat on either of the two dependent measures. Two interesting findings were revealed however. Con trary to prediction, sensitizers utilized longer recognition times than repressors. This finding was interpreted as due 62 63 to the complex cognitive style of the sensitizer which de layed rather than facilitated recognition. Also notable was the result that for the black male subjects, the race of the approaching stimulus is irrele vant to the extensions of his personal space. This finding was interpreted as due to the victimization of blacks by whites and blacks alike. Finally, contrary to prediction the phenomenon of perceptual defense does not correlate with that of per sonal space. It was suggested that this result occurred because perceptual defense was far too complex a measure of personal time to be related to personal space and that a simpler measure of personal time be correlated with the relatively simplistic phenomenon of personal space in future research. REFERENCES Allport, F., Theories of Perception and The Concept of Structure, New York: Wiley, 19SS. Altrocchi, J., Interpersonal perceptions of repressors and sensitizers and component analysis of assumed dissimilarity scores. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62^ (3), 528-534. Altrocchi, J. ; Parsons, O.A.; Dickoff, H.; Changes in self ideal discrepancy in repressers and sensitizers. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, F T T T .------------------ “ Ardrey, R., African Genesis, New York: Dell, 1961. Ardrey, R. , The Territorial Imperative, New York: Dell, 1966. Argyle, M. and Dean, J., Eye contact, distance, and affi liation. Sociometry, 1965, 2J[, 289-304. Aronfreed, J.M.; Messick, S.; and Diggory, J., Re-examining emotionality and perceptual defense. Journal of Per sonality, 1953, 21^, 317-528. Banks, R. and Walters, R., Prior reinforcement as a deter minant of recognition thresholds. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1959, 9,5 515-54. Barton, M. and Buckhout, R., Effects of objective threat and ego threat on repressers and sensitizers in the estimation of shock intensity. Journal of Experimen- tal Research in Personality, 1969, 3, 197-205. Becker, G. , Ego-defense patterns in extroverts and intro- verts. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20_, 387-392. Bernhardson, C., Dogmatism, defense mechanism, and social desirability responding. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 511-513. Bitterman, M. and Kniffen^ C., Manifest anxiety and j'per- ceptual defense". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 4j[, C2)', TW-2'57: 64 65 Blum, G., Perceptual defense revisited. Journal of Ab normal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 24-29. Bootzin, R. and Natsoulas, T., Evidence for perceptual defense uncontaminated by response bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1^ ($), *61-468. Bootzin, R. And Stephens, M., Individual differences and perceptual defense in the absence of response bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, (4), 408-412. Braun, J., Note on the Brown competing response theory of perceptual defense. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 13, 178. Brodsky, S. and Dixon, J., Impersonal and personal language patterns of repressors and sensitizers. Journal of General Psychology, 1968, 7j[, 27-33 Brown, J., The Motivation of Behavior, New York: McGraw- Hill, im r. Bruner, J. and Postman, R., Emotional selectivity in per ception and reaction. Journal of Personality, 1947, 16, 69-77. Bruner, J. and Postman, L., Perception under stress. Psychological Review, 1948, 55, 314-323. Bryant, G.; Turner, A.; and Lari, C., Word familiarity as a factor in perceptual defense research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 25, 229-234. Byrne, D., The repression-sensitization scale: rationale, reliability and validity. Journal of Personality, 1961, 29, 334-349. Byrne, D., Repression-sensitization as a dimension of per sonality. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimen- tal Personality Research, Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press, 1964. Campbell, D.; Kreiskal, W.; and Wallace, Wc, Seating ag gregation as an index of attitude. Sociometry, 1966, 29, 1-5. Carpenter, B.; Wiener, M.; and Carpenter, J.; Predictability Of perceptual and defense behavior. Journal of Abnor- 66 mal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52^ 380-383. Cheson, B.; Strickes, G.; and Fry, C., The repression- sensitization scale and measures of prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80^, 197-200. Chodorkoff, B., Self-perception, perceptual defense, and adjustment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1954, 49, 508-512. Chodorkoff, B., A note on Bitterman and Kniffen's "Manifest anxiety and perceptual defense". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 5£, 14TI Cohen, A. and Cariera, R., Changes in the judgements of sensitizers and repressors in response to failure and success evaluations of group performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, T Z t 217-221. Cohen, J.; Hansel, C.*, and Sylvester, J., A new phenomenon in time judgement. Nature, 1953, 172, 901. Cohen, J.; Hansel, C.; and Sylvester, J., Interdependence in judgements of space, time, and movement. Acta Psychological, 1955, U, 360-372. Cowen, E. and Beier, E., Threat expectancy, word frequen cies, and perceptual prerecognition hypothesis. Jour- nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 178- W T . Crowley, J. and Nalven, F., Relationship between two mea sures of repression and sensitization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 2S_t (4), 431. Davids, A., Personality dispositions, word frequency, and word association. Journal of Personality, 1956, 24, 328-338. “ Davis, J., Personality^perceptual defense*and stereoscopic perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 398-402. De Lucia, J. and Stagner, R., Emotional vs. Frequency factors in word recognition time and association time. Journal of Personality, 1954, 2 j £ , 299-309. Doresy, M., and Meisels, M. , Personal space and self-pro tection. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- 67 chology, 1969,Jl, 93-97. Dublin, J., Perception of and reaction to ambiguity by repressors and sensitizers: A construct-validity study. Journal 0f Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1968, 327 FoT r,'T9'8-T01.----------- 1--- Duke, R. and Wrightsman, L., Relations of repression-sen- sitization to philosophies of human nature. Psycho - logical Reports, 1968, 22^ 235-238. Dulaney, D., Learning of perceptual defense and vigilance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, T3T-J38. — Eriksen, C., Perceptual defense as a function of unaccept able needs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951a, 46, 557-564. Eriksen, C., Some implications for TAT interpretation a- iising from need and perception experiments. Journal of Personality, 1951b, 1£, 282-288. Eriksen, C., The case for perceptual defense. Psychologi cal Review, 1954, 61_, 175-182. Eriksen, C., Defense against ego-threat in memory and per ception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, u r a ; Eriksen, C. and Browne, C., An experimental and theoretical analysis of perceptual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, S2_, 224-236. Eriksen, C. and Lazarus, R., Perceptual defense and pro jective tests. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy chology, 1952, 47_, 302-368. Feder, C., Relationship of repression-sensitization to ad justment status, social desirability, and acquies cence response. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, (4), 40l'-“ 4W: Felipe, N. and Sommer, R., Invasions of personal space. Social Problems, 1966, 14^, 206-214. Forrest, D.; and Gordon, N.; and Taylor, A., Generalization of perceptual defense: An interpretation in terms of set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 1965, 2, (1), 137-141. Frankel, A. and Barrett, J., Variations in personal space as a function of authoritarianism, self-esteem, and racial characteristics of a stimulus situation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, ^7 , (1)» 93-98. Frankel, A. and Jenkins, M., Some subject and stimulus valuables affecting the use of personal space. Uni versity of Southern California, 1971. (Unpublished manuscript.). Freeman, J., Set or perceptual defense? Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology, 1954, 4_8 , 283-288. Freeman, J., Set versus perceptual defense: A confirma tion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51^, 710-712. Garner, W. ; Hake, H.; and Eriksen, C., ©perationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 1956, 63, 149-159. Gayton, W. and Bernstein, S., Incompatible need strength and the repression-sensitization dimension. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25, (2), 192-194"! Glass, D.; Canavan, D.; and Schiavo, S., Achievement mo tivation, dissonance, and defensiveness. Journal of fteraonality, 1968, 36, (3), 474-492. Goldberg, G.; Kiesler, C.p and Collins, B., Visuhl behavior and facfe-to-face distance during interaction. So- ciometry, 1969, 3£, (1), 43-53. Goldiamond, I., Indicators of perception: I. Subliminal perception, sub6eption, unconscious processes: An analysis in terms of psychophysical indicator metho dology. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55^, 373-411. Golding, S.; Atwood, G.; and Goodman, R., Anxiety and two cognitive forms of resistance to the idea of death. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 359-364. Goldstein, N., Perceptual defense with and without a per ceptual stimulus. American Psychologist, 1959, 14, 557. (Abstract). 69 Goldstein, M., A test of the response probability theory of perceptual defense. Journal of Experimental Psy chology, 1962a, 63, 23-2JT Goldstein, M., The effect of providing knowledge of re sults upon the perceptual defense effect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962b, 64, 143-147. Goldstein, M., Relationship between perceptual defense and exposure duration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, (5), 608-610. Goldstein, M.; Himmelfarb, S.; and Feder, W., A further study of the relationship between response bias and perceptual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 56-62. Goldstein, M. and Ralteff, J., Relationship between fre quency of usage and ease of recognition with response bias controlled. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 13, 1716177. ---- --------------------- Golin, S. and Solkoff, N., Generality of the repression- sensitization dimension: threat of nuclear war. Psychological Reports, 1965, 16, 385-386. Goodstein, L., Affective tone and visual recognition thresholds. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 44374T2T Gordon, A., Choice ambiguity, dissonance, and defensiveness. Journal of Personality, 1970, 3£, (2), 264-272. Gordon, J., The stability of the assumed similarity re sponse set in repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27^, 362-373. Gottheil, E.; Corey, J. and Paredes, A., Psychological and physical dimensions of personal space. Journal of Psychology, 1968, 69, (1), 7-9. Haas, K., Role of learning in perceptual defense. Journal of General Psychology, 1963, 6£, 113-118. Hall, E., The Hidden Dimension. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966. Hammes, JTip Perceptual defense as a function of manifest anxiety and color. Journal of Clinical Bsychology, 70 1961, 17., (1), 27-28. Hays, W., Statistics for Psychologist. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963 Helson, H., and King, S., The Tau effect: An example of psychological relativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1931, 14, 2 Q 2 - 2 T T Hirsch, C. and Dana, R., Repression-sensitization and psy chological defenses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 32. Hochberg, J.; Haber, S.; Ryan, T. , "Perceptual Defense" as an interference phenomenon. Perceptual and Motor Sk illy, 1965, 5, 15-17. Horowitz, M.; Duff, D.; and Stratton, L., Body-buffer zone. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 651-656. Howes, D., and Solomon, R., A note on McGinnies' "Emotion ality and perceptual defense". Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 229-234. Kaplan, M., Repression-sensitization and prediction of self-descriptive behavior: response versus situation al cue variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967b, 1_2, (4), 354^5T: Kaplan, M., Interview interaction of repressors and sen sitizers. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967a, 31, (5), 513'-TT6"; Kaplan, M.; Simon, S.; and Ditricks, R., Observational learning of TAT theme commonality. Journal of Ex- " r perimental Research in Personality, 1970, 4_, 176-180. King-Ellison, P. and Jenkins, J., The durational threshold of visual recognition as a function of word frequency. American Journal of Psychology, 1954, 67^, 700-703. Kleiner, R., Perceptual defense or perceptual set. Journal of Social Psychology, 1959, 49, 95-103. Kleinman, M., Psychogenic deafness and perceptual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 335-338. 71 Kodman, F. and Blonton, R., Perceptual defense Mechanisms and psychogenic deafness in children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1960, 10, 211-214. Kogan, N., Authoritarianism and repression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 34-37. Lacy, 0.; Lewinger, N.; and Adamson, J., Foreknowledge as a factor affecting perceptual defense and iifcctness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 4£, 169-174. Lazarus, R., Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense? A reply to Postman, Bronson, and Gropper. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 396-398. Lazarus, R.; Eriksen, C.; and Fonda, C., Personality dy namics and auditory perceptual recognition. Journal of Personality, 1951, 1£, 471-482. Lazarus, R. and McCleary, L., Autonomic discrimination without awareness. Psychological Review, 1951, 58, 113-122. Lebensfield, P., Configuration and space-time interdepen dence. American Journal of Psychology, 1968, 81, (1), 106-110. Lefcourt, H., Repression-sensitization: A measure of the evaluation of emotional expression. Journal of Con sulting Psychology, 1966, 3£, 444-449. Levy, L., Perceptual defense in tactual perception. Journal of Personality, 1958, 26 ^ , 467-478. Lewett, D.; Brayer, A.; and Leiman, A., Externalization in perceptual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,~5S>7 (1), 6-13. Little, K.; Ulehla, L. ; and Henderson, C., Value congruence and interaction distances. Journal of Social Psy chology, 1968, TS_t (2), 249-757^ Lott, D. and Sommer, R., Seating arrangements and status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 1, No. 1, 90-95. Loiselle, R., and Wilhamson, L., Perceptual defense to racially significant stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966b, 23, 730. 72 Lomont, J., The repression-sensitization dimension in re lation to anxiety responses. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 84-86. Lomont, J., Repressors and Sensitizers as described by themselves and their peers. Journal of Personality, 1.966, 34 , (2), 224-240. Lorenz, K,, On Aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World -Bantam Books, 1970. Lyman, S. and Scott, M., Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social Problems, 1967, 15, 236-249. Lysak, W., The effects of punishment upon syllable recog nition thresholds. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 47, 343-350. Mangan, G. and Adcock, C. , EEG correlates of perceptual vigilance and defense. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 14, 197-198. Markowitz, A., Influence of the repression-sensitization dimension, affect value, and ego threat on incidental learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy, 1969, 11, (4), 374- W : — Matthews, A. and Wertheimer, M., A ''pure" measure of per ceptual defense uncontaminated by response suppress sion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 57, 373-376'. McClelland, D. , The projective expression of needs. Jour nal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 205. McGinnies, E., Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psy chological Review, 1949, 56, 244-251. McGinnies, E., Discussion of Howe and Solomon's note on "Emotionality and perceptual defense". Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 235-240. McGinnies, E. and Adronette, J., Perceptual defense in normal and schizophrenic observers. Journal of Ab normal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 833-837. McGinnies, E. ; Comer, P.; and Lacey, 0., Visual recognition 73 thresholds as a function of word-length and word fre quency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 65-69. McGinnies, E. and Sherman, H., Generalization of percep tual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho logy, 1952, 47,"ST^T5": Merbaum, M. and Badia, P., Tolerance of repressors and sensitizers to noxious stimulation. Journal of Ab normal Psychology, 1967, £2, (4), 349-353. Merbaum, M. and Katsushige, K., Reports of emotional ex perience by sensitizers and repressors during and in terview transaction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72_, (2) , 661-668. Minard, J., Measurement and conditioning of perceptual defense, response bias, and emotionally biased re cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology, 19 6!Hr," “7, [ ' 5 T J " , " n 5 ‘ 6T-"6 68.---------------- Minard, J., Response-bias interpretation of"f5perceptual defense”: A selective review and an evaluation of recent research. Psychological Review, 1965b, 72, 74-88. ~ Murdock, G., Perceptual defense and threshold measure ments. Journal of Personality, 1954, 22_, 565-571. Murrary, H., The effect of fear upon estimates of the maliciousness of other personalities. Journal of Social Psychology, 1933, 4, 310-329. Natsoulas, T., Converging operations for perceptual de fense. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, (6), 393-401. Newton, K., A note on visual recognition thresholds. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 7os-7r<r:---------------- Paris, J. and Goodstein, L., Responses to death and sex stimulus materials as a function of repression-sen sitization. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 1283- 1291. Parsons, 0.; Fulgenzi, L. ; and Edelberg, R., Aggressive ness and psychophysiological responsivity in groups of repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Personality 74 and Social Psychology, 1969, 12^ (3), 235-244. Perloe, S., Inhibition as a determinant of perceptual defense. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1960, 11, 59-66. Petzel, T. and Gymter, M., Task performance of repressors and sensitizers under ego-oriented versus task-orie nted instructions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 327 (4), 486-487. Post, L., On the problem of perceptual defense. Psycholo gical Review, 1953, 60, 298-306. Postman, L,; Bronson, W.; and Gropper, G., Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48_, (2), 2l5-ZZ4. Postman, L. ; Bruner, J.; and McGinnies, E., Tension and tension-release as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Personality, 1947, 15, 300-308. Postman, L. ; Bruner, J.; and McGinnies, E., Personal values as selective factors.in perception. Journal of Ab normal and Social Psychology, 1948, 45, 142-154. Postman, L. and Conger, B1, Verbal habits and visual re cognition of words. Science, 1954, 119, 671-673. Postman, L. and Schneider, B. , Personal Values, visual recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 1951, 5£, 271-284. Reed, G., Psychogenic deafness, perceptual defense, and personality variables in children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 665-665. Robbins, P. and Tanck, R., The repression-sensitization scale, dreams, and dream associations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970, 26_, (2), 219-221. Rosenstock, I., Perceptual aspects of repression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46^, 304-31S. Rosenzenerg, S., Extending the repressor-sensitizer dic hotomy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23, ( 1) , 37-3T. Schill, T. , Repressor-sensitizer differences in free-as sociative sex responses to double-extendre words. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25, (4) 368-369. 75 Schill, T. ,attd Althoff, W., Auditory perceptual thresholds for sensitizers, defensive and non-defiensive repressors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 2_7, 935-938. Schill, T. and Black, J., Differences in reactions to Rosenzweig's P-F study by defensive and non-defensive repressors and sensitizers. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 929-930. Schill, T.; Emanuel, S.; Pedersen, V . ; Schneider, L.; and Wachowiak, D., Sexual responsitivity of defensive and non-defensive sensitizers and repressors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1900, 35, (1), 3T~47:----- “ Schwartz, B., The social psychology of privacy. American journal of Sociology, 1968, 73_, (6), 741-752. Secord, R.; Beuerin, W.; and Katz, B., The Negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology»,1956. 53, 78-83. Shaw, M. and Wright, J., Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York! McGraw-Hill, 1967. Silber, L. and Giebstein, L., Repression-sensitization and social desirability responding. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28_t (6), 559. Simmons, A., A comparison of repression-sensitization scores obtained by two different methods. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1966, ^2, (4), 465. Smith, B., Clinical judgement and repression-sensitization: A methodological investigation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25, (4) 397-398! Solomon, R. and Howes, D., Word frequency, personal values, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 1951, 5£, 256-270. Solomon, R. and Postman, L., Frequency of usage as a de terminant of recognition thresholds for words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 43>, 195-201. Sommer, R., Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 1959, 22, 2*7-260. -------- Sommer, R., Sociofugal space. American Journal of Sociology, 1967, 72, 654-660. Sommer, R., Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of De sign. New Jersey: Prentice-hall, 1969a. Sommer, R., Territorial defense and the good neighbor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969b, ll, 85-92. Spence, D., A new look at vigilance and defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 5£, 103-108. Spielberger, C., The effects of stuttering behavior and response set on recognition thresholds. Journal of Personality, 1956, 25^, 33-45. Tempone, V., Extension of the repression-sensitization hy pothesis ho success and failure experience. Psycholo gical Report, 1964a, 15, 39-45. Tempone, V., Some clinical correlates of repression-sen sitization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1964b, 20, (4), 440- W T . Thorndike, E. and Lorge, II, The Teacher’s Word Book of 30f000 Words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944. Tolor, A., Psychological distance in disturbed, normal children. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 695-701. Tolor, A., and Reznikoff, M., Relation between insight, re pression-sensitization, internal-external control, and death anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72, (5), 426-4J0": Ullman, L.; Weiss, R.; and Krasner, L., The effect of ver bal conditioning of emotional words on recognition of j threatening stimuli, Journal of Clinical Psychology, ! 1963, 19, (2), 182-183. Van de Castle, R., Perceptual defenses in binocular rivalryj situation. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28, 448-462.j Vanderplas, J., Frequency of experience versus organization; as determinants of visual thresholds. American Journal of Psychology, 1953, 6 ( 6 , 574-5837 Van Egeren, L., Repression and sensitization: Sensitivity 77 and recognition criteria. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1968, 1-6. Vernon, M., Perception Through Experience. London: Methu en and Company, Ltd., 1970. Wagman, M., Relationship of sensitization-repression di mension to daydream behavior types. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 24, 1251-1254. Walters, R.; Banks, R.; and Ryder, R., A test of the per ceptual defense hypothesis. Jonztnal of Personality, 1959, 27, 47-55. Walters, R. and Pelipec, N., Perceptual defense:. A re plication with improved controls. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964* 18, 864. Weinstein, J.; Averill, J.; Opton, Jr., £.,; and Lazarus, R., Defensive style and discrepancy between self-re port and physiological index of stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, r C T j (4), 406-413. Weinstein, M. and Lewinsohn, P., Optional stopping and decision latency as a function of repression-sen sitization. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, W W r ' T n T T ' , W-TT!-------------- Whittaker, E.; Gilchrist, J.; and Fischer, J., Perceptual defense or response suppression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, £7, 732-733. Wiener, M., Word frequency or motivation in perceptual defense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51 , 214-2TB'.------------ ---------- Willis, F., Initial speaking distance as a function of the speaker's relationship. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5j, 221-222. Winer, B., Statistical Principles In Experimental Design. New York: McGfaw-HiTr; 1962; ------------------ Wispe, L. and Drambaren, N., Physiological need, word frequency, and visual duration thresholds. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46 ^ , 25-31. 78 Zajonc, R., Response suppression in perceptual defense. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 6£, 206-214. Zigler, E. and Yospe, L., Perceptual defense and the pro blem of response suppression. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28, 220-239. APPENDIX 79 THE REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION SCALE HEALTH AND OPINION SURVEY This survey consists of numbered statements. Read each statement and decide whether it is true as applied to you or false as applied to you. Mark your answers on the answer sheet you have. If a statement is mostly true, or true most of the time, mark TRUE. If it is false, or usually false, Mark FALSE. Leave no blank spaces. In marking your answers, be sure the number of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Make no marks anywhere except on the answer sheet. 80 81 1. I have a good appetite. 2. I wake up fresh and rested most mornings. 3. I am easily awakened by noise. 4. I like to read newspaper articles on crime. 5. My hands and feet are usually warm enough. 6. My daily life is full of things that keep me interest ed . . 7. I am about as able to work as I ever was. 8. There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time 9. I enjoy detective or mystery stories. 10. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about. 11. I am very seldom troubled by constipation. 12. At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I cannot control. 13. I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting. 14. I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth shut when I'm in trouble. 15. At times I feel like swearring. 16. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. 17. I seldom worry about my health. 18. At times I feel like smashing things. 19. I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I couldn't take care of things because I couldn't "get going." 20. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. 21. Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over. 22. I do not always tell the truth. 82 ; 23. My judgment is better than it ewer was. 24. Once a week or oftener I feel suddenly hot all over, without apparent cause. I 25. I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends. 26. I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I know but have not seen for a long time, unless they speak to me first. 27. I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart or in my chest. 28. I am a good mixer. 29. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would. 30. I do not read every editorial in the newspaper every day. 31. I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose their patience with me. 32. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. 33. I think a great many people exaggerate their misfor tunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of others. 34. I get angry sometimes. 35. Most of the time I feel blue. : 36. I sometimes tease animals. i 37. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. 38. I usually feel that life is worth while. i . j 39. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of i the truth. 40. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. ! 41. I think most people would lie to get ahead. 42. I do many things which I regret aftwewards (I regret 83 things more or more often than others seem to). 43. I go to church almost every week. 44. I have very few quarrels with members of my family. 45. I believe in the second coming of Christ. 46. My hardest battles are with myself. 47. I have little or no trouble with my muscles twitching or jumping. 48. 1 don't seem to care what happens to me. 49. Sometimes when I am not feeling well I am cross. 50. Much of the time I feel as if I have done something wrong or evil. 51. I am happy most of the time. 52. Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the opposite of what they request, even though I know they: are right. 53. Often I feel as if there were a tight band about my head. 54. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when; I am out in company. 55. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me. 56. The sight of blood neither frightens me or makes me sick. 57. Most people will use shmewhat unfair means to gain pro? fit or an advantage rather than to lose it. 58. Often I can't understand why I have been so cross and ; grouchy. 59. I have never vomited blood or coughed up blood. 60. I do not worry about catching diseases. 61. At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I 84 could speak them. 62. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. 63. I commonly wonder what hidden reasonsanother person may have for doing something nice for me. 64. I believe that my home life is as pleasant as that of most people I know. 65. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. 66. My conduct is largely controlled by the customs of those about me. 67. I certainly feel useless at times. 68. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with some one. 69. I have often lost out on things because I couldn't make up my mind soon enough. 70. It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or otherwise interrupt me when I am working on some thing important. 71. I would rather win than lose in a game. 72. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me. j 73. During the past few years I have been well most of the time. 74. I have never had a fit or convulsion. 75. I am neither gaining nor losing weight. 76. I cry easily. 77. I cannot understand what I read as well as I used to. i 78. I have never felt better in my life than I do now. 79. I resent having anyone take me in so cleverly that I have had to admit that it was one on me. 85 80. I do not tire quickly. 81. I like to study and read about things that I am wprking at. 82. I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important. 83. What others think of me does not bother me. 84. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of things. 85. I frequently have to fight against showing that I am bashful. 86. I have never had a fainting spell. 87. I seldom or never have dizzy spells. 88. My memory seems to be all right. 89. I am worried about sex matters. 90. I find it hard to make talk when I meet new people. 91. I am afraid of losing my mind. 92. I am against giving money to beggars. 93. I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something. 94. I can read a long while without tiring my eyes. 95. I feel weak all over much of the time. 96. I have very few headaches. 97. Sometimes, when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me greatly. 98. I have had no difficulty in keeping my balance in walking. 99. I do not have spells of hay fever os asthma. 86 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. I 112. ! 113. | 114. j | 115. : ii6. j 117. 118. I do not like everyone I know. I wish I were not so shy. I enjoy many different kinds of play and recreation. I like to flirt. In walking I am very careful to step over sidewalk cracks. I frequently find myself worrying about something. I gossip a little at times. I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. I have at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something, not because it amounted to much but because of the principle of the thing. I get mad easily and then get over it soon. I brood a great deal. I have periods of such great restlessness that I can not sit long in a chair. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to| myself. I believe I am no more nervous than most others. I have few or no pains. j Sometimes without any reason or even when things are i going wrong I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world”. I can be friendly with,people who do things which I consider wrong. Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I \know very little. I have difficulty in starting to do things. 87 119. I sweat very easily even on cool days. 120. It is safer to trust nobody. 121. Once a week or oftener I become very excited. 122. When in a group of people I have trobble thinking of the right things to talk about. 123. When I leave home I do not worry about whether the door is locked and the windows closed. 124. I do not blame a person for taking advantage of some one who lays himself open to it. 125. At times I am all full of energy. 126. My eyesight is as good as it has been for years. 127. I have often filt that strangers were looking at me critically. 128. I drink an unusually large amount of water everyday. : 129. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. 130. I am always disgusted with the law when a criminal is! fredd through the arguments of a smart lawyer. 131. I work under a great deal of tension. 132. I am likely not to speak to ppople until they speak to me. 133. I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special reason. ! I > 134. Life is a strain for me much of the time. | 135. In school I found it very hadd tottalk before a .class. j ! 136. Even when I am with people I feel ftonely much of the j time. ; i 137. I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of; trouble. j I 138. I am easily embarrassed. 88 139. I worry over money and business. i 140. I almost never dream. 141. I easily become impatient with people. 14 2. I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time. 143. Sometimes I become so excited that In find it hard to get to sleep. 144. I forget right away what people say to me. 145. I usually have to stop and think before I act even in trifling matters. 146. Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone; I see. 147. I often feel as if things were not real. 148. I have a habit of counting things that are not im portant such as bulbs on electric signs, and so forth; 149. I have strange and peculiar thoughts. 150. I get anxious and upset when I have to make a short trip away from home. 151. I have been afraid of things or people that I knew could not hurt toe. 152. I have no dread of going into a room by myself where j other people have already gathered and are talking. 153. I have more trouble concentrating than others seem toj have. 154. I have several times given up doing a thing because j I thought too little of my ability. | 155. Bad words, often terrible words, come into my mind and I cannot get rid of them. 156. Sometimes some unimportant thought will run through my mind and bother me for days. 157. Almost every day something happens to frighten me. 89 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 1 176. 1 am inclined to take things hard. I am more sensitive than most other people. At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual. I very seldom have spells of the blues. I wish I could get over worrying about things I have said that may have injured other people's feelings. People often disappoint me. My plans have frequently seemed so full of diffi culties that I have had to give them up. Often, even though everything is going fine for me, I feel that I don't care about anything. I often think, "I wish I were a child again." I have often met people who were supposed to be ex perts who were no better than I. Ittmakes me feel like a failure when I hear of the success of someone I know well. I am apt to take disappointments so keenly that I can't put them out of my mind. At times I think I am no good at all. I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes. | I am apt to pass up something I want to do because others feel that I am not going about it in the rightj way. | I find it hard to set aside a task that I have under-j taken, even for a short time. I have several times had a change of heart about my life work. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond; reason over something that really did not matter. I like to let people know where I stand on things. 90 177. I have a daydream life about which I do not tell other people. 178. I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself. 179. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them. 180. I have often felt guilty because I have pretended to feel more sorry about something than I really was. 181. I feel tried a good deal of the time. 182. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces. 91 THE ANTI-WHITE SCALE OPINION SURVEY This is a study of what people think about a number of so cial questions. The best answer to each statement below your personal opinion. We have tried to cover many diffe rent points of view. You may agree strongly with some statements, disagree just as strongly with others, and per haps be uncertain about others. Whether you agree or dis agree with any statement, you can be sure that many other people feel the same way that you do. Please mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please Mark Every One. Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case. +1: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little + 2: I agree pretty much -2: I disagree pretty +3: I agree very much much -3: I disagree very much 1. There is nothing lower than white trash. 2. White people may be all right, but they carry it too far when they try to but into the Negro's affairs and go around with Negro women. 3. The whites have shown by their actions that they are; naturally immoral, vicious, and untrustworthy. 4. No matter how nicely they treat a colored person, white people don't really mean it. 5. It is usually a mistake to trust a white person. 6. Any Negro who marries a white is a traitor to his people. 7. There may be a few exceptions, but white musicians and athletes are definitely inferior to Negro musi- ; cians and athletes. 8. White people are only friendly to Negroes when they ; want something out of them. 92 9. Negroes can expect no real help from white people in the fight against racial discrimination. 10. Most white people are always looking for ways to cheat and steal from the colored people. ! 11. The colored race has been pushed around long enough; it's about time that the whites were made to get out of the Negro communities. I 12. If there is a Heaven, it is hard to imagine that there are many iriute people up there. 13. Although the white man now rules the world, it will be a happy day when the tables are turned and the colored people become the rulers. 14. The world might be a better place if there were fewer white people. 15. When the Bible says, "The bottom shall rise to the j top", it gives hope that the Negro people will sogie-j daya; give the orders in this country instead of whites. 16. It may be wrong to damn all whites, but it's plain ; that whites have all the money and power, and that ; they look down on anyone who is colored. 17. There are many white people who are not prejudiced ; and who sincerely believe that Negroes are equal. 18. When it comes to such things as sports, dancing, music, and making love, the white man is not as talented as the Negro. 93 No-Threat Slide Instructions I am about to show you a series of slides, one at a time. These slides are composite drawings of men of different ethnic backgrounds. Your task is to designate the race of the person de picted as either white or black. If you cannot catego rize the race of the subject into either of these two ethnic groups, you may designate him as other. When you think that you recognize the race of the person push the button. Do you have any questions? 94 High-Threat Slide Instructions I am about to show you a series of slides, one at a time. These slides, taken from police files, are com posite drawings of criminals made from the descriptions of witnesses at the scenes of crimes of violence. Your task is to designate the race of the person depicted as either white or black. If you cannot catego rize the race of the subject into either of these two ethnic groups, you may designate him as other. When you think that you recognize the race of the person push the button. Do you have any questions? The Ethnic Continuum 2 DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO SO. Subject No. 96 No-Threat Personal Space Booklet Instructions I I am going to show you a series of slides, one at a time. The task that I am about to ask you to perform re quires that you use one slide for each page in the booklet j before you. Open your booklet to page one. In the bottom right hand corner of the page is a place in which you are to put I the number of the slide that I will show you. I will give you the slide number for each page. The instructions for the task are: "Imagine yourself | standing in the middle of the above room facing toward the j letter F. Visualize that the person in the slide which I am about to show you is walking slowly toward you along one: of the lines. Place a dot at the point on the line at which you would feel some kind of "inner change" (whatever j that means to you) as the person walks toward you. Please j j do this for each of the eight lines, one at a time". j Are there any questions? j For your convenience these instructions are printed at the bottom of each page. When you have finished the task for this page, raise ! your hand so that we may move to the next slide. 98 High-Threat Personal Space Booklet Instructions 1 I am going to show you a series of slides, one at a time. These slides, taken from police files, are com posite drawings of criminals made from the descriptions of witnesses at the scenes of crimes of violence. The task that I am about to ask you to perform re quires that you use one slide for each page in the booklet before you. Open your booklet to page one. In the bottom right hand corner of the page is a place in which you are to put the number of the slide that I will show you. I will give you the slide number for each page. The instructions for the task are: ' ’Imagine yourself standing in the middle of the above room facing toward the letter F. Visualize that the person in the slide which I am about to show you is walking slowly toward you along | one of the lines. Place a dot at the point on the line at ; ; I which you would feel some kind of "inner change" (whatever i ! ; that means to you) as the person walks toward you. Please j do this for each of the eight lines, one at a time". Are there any questions? For your convenience these instructions are printed ! • 1 : at the bottom of each page. i When you have finished the task for this page, raise I your hand so that we may move to the next slide. Imagine yourself standing in the middle of the above room facing toward the letter F. Visualize that the person in the slide which I am about to show you is walking slowly to ward you along one of the lines. Place a dot at the point on the line at which you would feel some kind of "inner change" (whatever that means to you) as the person walks to ward you. Please do this for each of the eight lines, one at a time.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children
PDF
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
PDF
The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows
PDF
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
PDF
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
PDF
Anxiety Level And The Repression-Sensitization Dimension In Desensitization Therapies
PDF
The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure
PDF
Sex-Role Preferences Of Early Adolescents In Relation To Adjustment
PDF
Self-Sacrifice, Cooperation, And Aggression In Women Of Varying Sex-Role Orientations
PDF
Weight Reduction As A Function Of The Timing Of Reinforcement In A Covertaversive Conditioning Paradigm
PDF
Strategies Of Marital Communication
PDF
Differential effects of epinephrine and propranolol on shuttle box avoidance learning in rats of different ages
PDF
Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions
PDF
Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest
PDF
The Effect Of Nonspecific Factors On The Modification Of Smoking Behaviorin Treatment Follow-Up
PDF
Attention, retention, and incentive processes in observational learning
PDF
Diagnostic indices of hyperactivity and an investigation of verbal mediation training as an alternative to pharmacotherapy
PDF
The Effect Of Personalized Emotional Stimuli On Asthmatic Reactions
PDF
Stimulus and response generalization of classes of imitative and nonimitative behavior as a function of reinforcement, task, cues, and number of therapists
PDF
An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath
Asset Metadata
Creator
Allen, Juanita Louise
(author)
Core Title
The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Frankel, Andrew Steven (
committee chair
), Kahan, James Paul (
committee member
), Mallory, George L. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-496213
Unique identifier
UC11363586
Identifier
7225992.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-496213 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7225992
Dmrecord
496213
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Allen, Juanita Louise
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA