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
/
An Experimental Comparison Of Spoken Communication Developed Individually and Interindividually
(USC Thesis Other)
An Experimental Comparison Of Spoken Communication Developed Individually and Interindividually
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
This d issertation h a s b e e n m icrofilm ed e x a c tly a s r e c e iv e d 6 7 -2 1 1 6 PERRILL, N orm an K .t 1931- AN EXPERIM ENTAL COMPARISON OF SPOKEN COMMUNICATION DEVELOPED INDIVIDUALLY AND INTERINDIVTDUALLY. U n iversity of Southern C alifornia, Ph.D., 1966 Speech U n iv ersity M icrofilm s, In^., Ann Arbor, M ichigan AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF SPOKEN COMMUNICATION DEVELOPED INDIVIDUALLY AND INTERINDIVIDUALLY by Norman K. Perrill 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 (Speech) September 1966 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PA R K L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by NormanKPerr i 11............. under the direction of h.1.8...Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y ...... Dean Date Sep.M ®]?.e.r,1566 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ir Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem Definitions of Terms Abbreviations Used in the Study Significance of the Problem Limitations of the Study Preview of the Remaining Chapters II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................... 13 IV. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA . . 55 Findings Interpretation and Discussion of Findings Literature Which Led to the Study Relationships Between Thought and Language Summary III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY 36 Subjects Materials Procedures Rationale for the Design V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS 95 Summary Implications ii Page APPENDIXES Appendix A. Numbering of Ss by Order of Particlp&tion and Descending Order of Total Time...........Ill Appendix B. Script for Becorded Stimuli. . . . 113 Appendix C. Personal Data Sheet ....... 1244- Appendix D. Tabulation Sheet................126 Appendix E. Raw Data........................128 Appendix F. Supplementary Raw Data......... 1344- BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................137 ili LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Characteristics of Ss and Schedule of Experimental Sessions ....................... bo iv CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS Introduction The general orientation of this study was toward an exploration of the nature of the process or processes by which the internal thoughts and feelings of one person in termingle with those of another person. Within this frame work, an effort was made to tap the thinking and feeling of each subject by asking him to respond orally to two ques tions which concerned one aspect of his profession. All the subjects were speech teachers; and the first question dealt with each teacher's individual standards for criti cizing, counseling, and grading his students. A second question was asked which required each subject to respond to another teacher's ideas on the same topic. It was thought that the above procedure would pro duce spoken samples of two kinds of idea development— in dividual and interindividual. It was further believed that the thinking and feeling of the subjects would, to some ex tent, be revealed by analysis of their communication be haviors. 1 2 Statement of the Problem More epeoifically, the problem for thie study was to explore the possibility that there might be measurable differences between the communication behaviors of the sub jects during individual idea development in comparison with interindividual idea development. This problem was divided into the following constituent research questions. I. Between individual idea development and inter individual idea development, shat might be the differences, if any, in the proportionate distribution among the follow ing behavioral variables, when those variables are measured by (i.) the number of times each behavior was initiated, and (B) the amount of time devoted to each behavior? 1 . subject listening to the tape-recorded stimulus 2 . subject talking— in response to the tape- recorded stimulus 3 . subject listening to himself— as recorded during the experiment J*. subject "pausing”— including instances of silence and unidentifiable or unclassified noise II. Between individual idea development and inter individual idea development, what might be the proportion ate distribution of the following behavioral variables, as components of the total verbal output of a subject? 3 A. verbal references to verbal material on the stimulus recording B. verbal references to the subject, himself III. Between Individual idea development and inter individual idea development, what might be the differences, if any, in the observed behavior of subjects classified in the following manner? A. college-level speech teachers with eight or more years of teaching experience B. college-level speech teachers with three or fewer years of teaching experience The null hypothesis for each of these questions was that any observed differences could be attributed to chance. Definitions of Terms For purposes of this investigation, the following definitions were formulated: Individual idea development was operationally de fined as the behavior of a subject in this experiment from the instant he began to listen to the first stimulus re cording, to the instant he began to listen to the second stimulus recording. Interindividual idea development was operationally defined as the behavior of a subject in this experiment from the instant he began to listen to the second stimulus I* recording, to the last distinguishable word on a tape- recording of his response behavior. Listening (and the verb, listen, in other forms) was operationally defined as the behavior of a subject in this experiment when "playing back" tape recorded materi al— whether that material was the stimulus recording or his own verbalization recorded during the experiment. Event was operationally defined as an instance of one of the following: 1 . subject listening to the tape-recorded stimulus 2 . subject talking— in response to the tape- recorded stimulus 3. subject listening to himself— as recorded dur ing the experiment k. subject "pausing"— including silence and un identifiable or unclassified noise Event point was operationally defined as the in stant an event was initiated. Intra-, was operationally defined as a combining form meaning within, and concerning one entity— person, be havior, process, etc. For example: Intraindividual (or intrapersonal, or intra-active) thinking was operationally defined as that process, physiologically restricted to one person, by which the ideas and feelings of a person become manifest to that same person. Inter-, was operationally defined as a combining 5 form meaning between, and concerning two entities— persons, behaviors, processes, etc. For example: Interindividual (or interpersonal, or inter-active) thinking was operation ally defined as that process or processes by which the ideas or feelings of one person are observably modified or influenced by the preceding communicated thoughts, ideas, and feelings of another. Multi-, was operationally defined as an extension of inter-, as defined, into situations concerning three or more entities. Abbreviations Used in the Study To simplify tabular reporting and clarify the dis cussion of data, the following abbreviations were adopted. 1. SLT was used to designate the first behavioral variable under research question I— subject listening to the tape-recorded stimulus. 2. ST was used to designate the second behavioral variable under research question I— subject talking. 3. SLS was used to designate the third behavioral variable under research question I— subject listening to himself. U. SF was used to designate the fourth behavioral variable under research question I— subject pausing. 5. EX was used to designate experienced college- level speech teachers— with eight or more years of teaching 6 experience— as classified In k under research question III. 6. INI was used to designate inexperienced college level speech teachers— with three or fewer years of teach^- ing experience— as classified in B under research question III. 7. S and Ss, the standard abbreviations for sub ject and subjects, have been used in the remainder of this report. Significance of the Problem For many years psychologists, neurologists, physi cists, and others who have done research on various aspects of human thought, have called attention to the use of lan guage symbolB as tools for thinking. Some have gone so far as to theorize that thinking is simply subvocal talking. 1 This extreme view has been rejected by most modem re searchers, but the majority position still Includes a heavy stress on the importance of the role of language symbols during the process of a great deal of human thinking. 2 In communication research, the relationships be tween human thought and language have been studied from 1Perhaps the best known proponent of this theory was Watson. See, for example: John B. Watson, Behaviorism (rev. ed.; New Tork: W. W. Norton and Company, Ino., 1930), p. 268, et passim. ^Discussion in this section of the relation between language and thought is more fully documented in Chapter II, "Beview of Literature." 7 widely separated points of view. Authorities generally agree, for example, that during silent thought language symbols are manipulated in the form of electrochemical im pulses. 3 At the other extreme, perhaps, those interested in mass communication or communication between different nations and different cultures hare also found themselves investigating relationships between thought and language.** If one places these extremes on a sort of mental continuum, it is possible to identify, as one crucial research area, the point at which the internal thoughts and feelings of one person are communicated to another. Without communica tion, no one could ever know whether his sensations, per ceptions, and other experiences were peculiar to himself alone or similar to the experiences of other human beings. As Dudycha has written: "All interpersonal response, of whatever sort, depends on communication.*3 3For research relating to these internal processes, see, for example: Wilder Penfield and L. Roberts, Speech and Brain Mechanisms (Princeton: Princeton University tress, 1959); also, Gerald S. Blum, A Model of the Mind (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961). ** 0f the many volumes dealing with this more macro- cosmic level of research, these three, at least, should be noted: Joseph T. Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communica tion (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, i9 6 0); Wilbur Schramm, ed., Mass Communi cat ions (2d ed.; Urbana, Illinois: University or Illinois Press, I960); and, Bruce Lannes Smith, Harold D. Lasswell, and Ralph D. Casey, Prop aganda , Communi cat1on , and Public Opinion: A Comprehensive Reference Guide (Princeton: Princeton University tress, T9WT ^George J. Dudycha, Applied Psychology (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1965;» P. 3**0. It ie true, of course, that not all interpersonal communication requires the manipulation of verbal symbols. Visual symbols, too, are almost universally interpreted as communicating meaning. 6 Race survival requires, as a mini mum, at least tactile communication between the sexes and between a mother and her child.?' Thus, a certain amount of nonverbal communication may be postulated as physical and/or physiological phenomena; but, "the human interest in language seems to be an innate interest in coding and de coding, and this seems to be as nearly specifically human as any interest can be."** Exactly how primitive man devel oped spoken verbal symbols, however, must forever remain a mystery.9 ^See, for example: R. Wittkower, "Interpretation of Visual Symbols in the Arts," in Studies in Communica tion, contributed to the Communication Research Centre, University College, London (London: Martin Seeker and Warburg, 1955)» PP. 109-124. ^Lawrence K. Frank, "Tactile Communication," Ex- 6 1 orations in Communication, ed. Edmund Carpenter and strshalI McLuhan (Boston: Beacon Press, I960), pp. 4-11. ®Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1954), p. 85. Original publication was by Houghton Mifflin Company in 1950. ^See, for example: Giles Wilkeson Gray and Claude Merton Wise, The Bases of Speech (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1934). After devoiing chapter seven to "The Gen etic Basis of Speech," these men concluded that "it is fu tile to speculate whether one or the other of these or other possible sources constitutes the * origin* of speech ..." (p. 354). 9 There is also a great deal of mystery concerning how modem man succeeds (or fails), during spoken communi. cation, to bridge the physical, physiological, and psycho logical gap that separates him from other men. For ex ample, we may visualize two persons, each manipulating in ternal language symbols in the form of electrochemical im pulses. One of the men translates a portion of his silent thinking into another set of language symbols, this time in the form of sound and light waves; his companion hears and sees, and a process is aroused within him that modifies his own internal symbol manipulation. The complexity of the coding and decoding process or processes is go great that the wonder is not that men so frequently mi sunder stand one another, but that they can communicate at all. The communication researcher must leave the further exploration of the nature of individual thinking to experts in other disciplines. He may, however, postulate the in traindividual use of language symbols during silent thought and, certainly, during spoken communication. He should then explore within his own broad field of specialization, and one of his central research concerns would appear to be an attack upon some of the many puzzling questions regard ing the nature of the process by which the "intra" becomes "inter." Any contribution, however modest, to new knowl edge in this area was thought to be significant. The pres ent study was one attempt to make such a contribution. 10 Limitation* of the Study The major limitation of this study was that meas urements of beharlor employed here could only he applied to indirect, overt indexes of internal activity. This inevi table limitation on communication research has been empha sized by Colin Cherry in the following way: The "external observer" is limited in shat he can report upon. Thus he can observe the transmission of signs between the communi cants, and assess their prob abilities objectively, as frequencies; he can observe the overt reactions set up by these signs in their users. In principle, and if instrumentation were available, he might look inside the heads of those he is observing, and note physiological processes at work. But on no account can he observe the thoughts of these people. Thoughts, beliefs, judgments, emotions are all private; they cannot be observed. . . .*® Within this limitation, and to the best ability of the in vestigator, the first stimulus question was controlled to elicit intrapersonal idea development; and the second stim ulus was controlled to elicit interactive idea development. It was recognized that responses to these two stim uli could not be considered as "pure" examples of the two kinds of idea development. Interaction between the S and the tape recording of the stimulus question appeared to be an unavoidable contamination in the first response, however 10Colin Cherry, On Human Communication: A Review. a Survey, and a Criticism (New York: Science Editions, Inc., l9ol), p. 2^3 . This volume first appeared in a series, Studies in Communication, edited by William N. Locke, Leol. Beranelc, and Soman Jakobson, and was copy righted by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1957. 11 small that contamination might he. Similarly, a multi- individual contamination seemed inevitable in the second response. The investigator believed, however, that it was fair to assume that the first response would provide evi dence of idea development which was predominantly individ ual— that the speech of Ss seemed likely to represent that portion of their internal thinking and feeling which they were willing and able to express in verbal form within the context of the experimental situation. Likewise, within the limitations imposed by laboratory research, it was thought that the second response would provide evidence of idea development which was predominantly interindividual. 11 Any support for the validity of these assumptions was nec essarily derived from the data reported herein. Preview of the Remaining Chapters In Chapter II, a review of literature relevant to this study has been undertaken. The design of the study has been covered in Chapter 111. The data gathered in the study have been presented in Chapter IV, together with findings and interpretations based on that data. Chapter V 1 1Ibid. Cherry highlights this general problem by noting: "Each individual and each conversation is unique; different people react to signs in different ways, depend ing each upon their own past experiences and upon the en vironment at the time. It is such variations, such differ ences, which give rise to the principal problems in the study of human communication." 12 has heen devoted to a summary and the Implications of this study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Since the present study sought to explore certain aspects of the individual and interindividual development of ideas, and since the proposed design relied partially on spoken language as an index of these developmental proces ses, this review of literature was conceived as having two limited goals. First, the investigator desired to deter mine the extent to which research in speech and other be havioral sciences, in its concern with the concepts of idea development by individuals and between individuals, pro vided a basis for the present study. Through this review, the researcher sought to determine whether this experiment was a logically related extension of previous research— i.e., whether it appeared to be a progressive step in the ongoing Investigation of the nature of human communication. The second goal of this review was to determine the most recent findings concerning the relationship between human thought and human spoken language. It seemed significant to know the extent to which observable speech behavior was considered to be an index of internal processes of thinking or Ideation. 13 Ik Literature Which Led to the Study Literature reviewed in this section reported find ings which led the investigator to the major concern of this study— the nature of the differences, if any, between spoken ideas developed individually and those developed in- terindividually. To some extent these findings and the re search techniques used also supported the formulation of this study's specific research questions. The Research Sequence To a marked degree the present study grew from the investigator's interest in research reported by two men— Frederick Bowman and Arthur J. Fear. 1 In general, and using different techniques, both men discovered that out side observers (judges) could distinguish between type script speech that was predominantly the result of individ ual thinking as opposed to typescript speech that resulted from interaction in a group discussion. Following a brief discussion of each of these studies, their findings are in terpreted to clarify the research sequence and summarize 1Frederick B. Bowman, "An Experimental Study to De termine the Amount of Inter-active Thinking Displayed in a Problem-solving Group Discussion" (unpublished Ph.D. dis sertation, university of Southern California, 1957); and, Arthur J. Fear, "An Experimental Study of the Ability of Lay Judges to Distinguish Between Typescripts of Individual Idea Development and Group Idea Development" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, university of Southern California, 1966). On both studies, Milton Dickens was the chairman of the dissertation committee. 15 the position of the present experiment in relation to them. Bowman*s study.— Although Bowman's research was not designed to study differences between intraindividual and interlndlridual thinking, a unique feature of his design was particularly relevant to the present investigation. Bowman validated three levels of interactive thinking dur ing group discussion— high, medium, and low. The unique feature occurred, in his effort to develop an example of a minimum level of interaction, when he had his four discus sants wear ear plugs. Since the discussants could not hear one another, Bowman felt the level of interaction would be very low, indeed; and his findings supported this belief to a highly significant degree. 2 The examples of high and medium interaction were chosen from a discussion involving the same discussants and the same topic but without the ear plugs. Using two different techniques, Bowman's judges ranked the three excerpts (each eleven "speeches" or "con tributions" long) in the predicted order (high, medium, and low) with a consistency significant at the .0 0 1 level of confidence.3 One of these two techniques is of particular interest here. Each individual "contribution" or "speech* in the three excerpts was typed on a separate card. Each set of eleven cards representing one excerpt was kept 2Bowman, pp. 37-39; *fl-**2; 58-69. 3ibid.. pp. **2-53; 58-61. 16 together, hut the order of e&oh set wae "shuffled." Each judge was then asked to restore each set of cards to its original order— i.e., the order in which he felt the dis cussion had originally progressed.** These techniques, procedures, and findings seemed relevant to the present study in several ways. When the judges in Bowman's study tried to restore the packet of cards from the ear-plugged "discussion" to the order in which the "speeches" were originally made, their success was no better than chance.5 The present investigator be lieved that one explanation might be that no discussion had taken place. The eleven "speeches" in this excerpt appeared to be just that— speeches, the product or manifes tation of individual thought or ideas. If this were true, as the design and findings seemed to indicate, then it appeared that the judges' considerable ability to correctly arrange the cards from the more interactive discussion ex cerpts and their relative inability to find the "correct" order for the speeches provided some indication that they were recognizing differences between the linguistic prod ucts of individual thinking and interactive thinking. To the extent that this analysis was valid, the present writer believed that an exploration of the processes by which ideas are developed individually or interactively could **Ibid., pp. 7. 5Ibid., pp. 68-69. 17 contribute to an understanding of these two types of commu nication. Thus, the present study seemed a logical exten sion of this interpretation of Bowman*s findings. Fear*a study.— Talcing a cue from Bowman, Fear’s study, in part, compared typescripts of "real” speeches to typescripts of group discussion. His techniques and pro cedures, however, were different from those described above. Where Bowman had used "expert" judges (college teachers and graduate students), Fear used "lay" judges (undergraduate students). Bowman's excerpts came from lab oratory discussion; Fear’s materials were derived from a field study of an industry conference to plan a company- wide safety campaign. Fear reported several similarities and differences between the two studies, but two of his procedures are of particular interest. First, his nine ex cerpts from individual speeches were chosen from individual reports presented in the first phase of the conference. The nine discussion excerpts were chosen from a multi- individual discussion in which the same six speakers were the discussants. Each excerpt was approximately 250 words in length. The discussion excerpts Included at least seven individual speeches representing at least four participants and indicated collective idea development, but disputes and references to procedure or the mechanics of discussion were ^Fear, pp. 5 5 - 6 3 18 avoided.7 Thus, it appeared that Fear had clearly selected excerpts from two distinct types of human communication— individual speech and group discussion. The second Interesting feature of Fear's study was that, unlike Bowman, whose judges always knew they were faced with eleven different contributions representing four different discussants, Fear prepared his typed excerpts to show no speaker identification, direct address, vocalized pauses, or paragraph divisions. 8 Fear's judges, therefore, saw a solid block of typing with only sentences punctuated. They were asked to read twelve of these excerpts and (1) decide whether several individuals were participating or whether one man was doing all the talking, and (2) indicate any words or phrases that served as clues to help them de cide .9 Thus, it appeared that Fear had extended Bowman's findings by using "lay" judges and a real life communica tion situation, by making a clear distinction between speeches and group discussion, by employing a design which required his judges to decide whether one person was talk ing or several, and by requesting that judges indicate clues used in making their decisions. Fear's findings in dicated that his judges could distinguish between the ex cerpts from speeches and those from the discussion with a 7lbid., pp. 1*7-50 . 8Ibid. , p. 1*9 9ibid., pp. 5^ 5 5. 19 highly significant degree of accuracy and consistency. * 0 Summary of the research sequence.— In light of the foregoing discussion, the present investigator believed that he was justified in interpreting Fear's findings, along with those of Bowman, as follows: It seemed probable that judges, using typescripts of spoken communication, could distinguish between excerpts representing ideas de veloped by one person and those representing ideas devel oped jointly by two or more individuals. In considering their findings it was noted that Bowman interpreted his re sults as suggesting that his judges recognized language clues which seemed to be the observable manifestation of interactive thinking during group discussion, but his study did not attempt to provide indications of what those lan guage clues might be.** Fear's study, on the other hand, did provide for limited feedback from his judges. They re ported, for example, that expressions of agreement and dis agreement or questions and answers helped them distinguish group idea development, while the use of the pronoun "I" was given as a clue to intraindividual communication. * 2 In short, both of these studies used typescripts of spoken communication and were designed to quantify the subjective judgments of Ss concerning those typescripts. Neither *°Ibid., pp. 6b-?U. **Bowman, p. 60 *2Fear, p. 9^, 20 study, however, was designed to investigate the overt, ob servable behavior of Ss while they were producing the speech from which the typescripts were made. Only in Fear's study, moreover, was even a limited attempt made to discover verbal characteristics of speech developed in dividually as contrasted to speech developed interindivid ually. In sum, Bowman and Fear focused on the linguistic products of interindividual and individual thought; the present study sought, in a limited way, to explore the overt behavioral manifestations of the process or processes by which such products are developed or formulated— to de scribe and analyze what Ss did during this experiment while they were engaged in developing ideas (individually and in terindividual ly) and producing the spoken communication which grew therefrom. The significance of the present research was thought to be enhanced because it promised to assist in the task of theory-building in this general area of human spoken communication. The possibility seemed remote that any single study could provide complete factual support for a general theory of human communication. Certainly no such claim waB made for the present study. However, a mosaic of studies by several researchers might provide a sufficient number of different but related findings so that a pattern might eventually emerge. The present study undertook to 21 add some new pieces to the mosaic begun by Bowman, Fear, and others. Literature Supporting the Design and Besearcti Questions ▲ basic assumption underlying the present research was that at least two kinds of spoken communication could be distinguished: (1) speech developed out of one person's ideas, and (2) speech developed interactively with the ideas of another. The investigator believed that, in addi tion to the studies of Bowman and Fear, a considerable body of research and publication in the behavioral sciences, generally, supported the validity of this assumption. The concept of one person thinking, developing ideas, and speaking, on the one hand, and the conoept of more than one individual thinking, developing ideas, and speaking inter actively, on the other, appeared to be a distinction com monly made and well established in the literature. Markey, for example, attributed the ability of in dividuals to develop ideas intrapersonally or interactively to the development of a body of consistently interchange able stimuli and specifically indicated that two processes existed. This fact of mutual interdependence means that knowledge, meaning, and ideas are not confined within a . . . cerebral cortex— however important this cen tralizing mechanism is— but exist as a social process observable and analysable. Social interaction is essential just as the cerebral cortex is necessary, and 22 &b long as this is true reflective behavior cannot be said to be confined to one exclusive of the other. . . .13 Jastrow, too, noted this distinction in the follow ing passage: The social impulse is the great stimulus to think ing, even though each individual does his thinking for himself. As we must live together, so also must we think together and understand one another. Sending and receiving, we acquire a set to aid our thinking in all its phases.1^ Shands distinguished between "communication and thinking (an internalized communication)" and noted that even on the physiological level one should consider indi vidual and interindividual processes. So vital is the social unit in human affairs that it is misleading to assume, aB we often do, that the single nervous system is the mechanism of thought. . . . It is, rather, essential to conoeive of two nervous systems in relation to each other to understand the mechanism of thinking. . . . The physiology of human communication can be understood only in terms of two human beings appropriately related in a single sys tem. ^ 5 This fundamental distinction between people think ing and speaking independently as contrasted with people thinking and speaking interactively appeared to permeate 13john F. ttarkey, The Symbolic Process and Its In- tegration in Children: A Study in Soolal Psychology (New York: Harcouri, Brace and Company, 19128), p. 1 3 9. l^Joseph Jastrow, Effective Thinking (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1931)» p. 6 6. l^Harley C. Shands, Thinking and Psychotherapy, An Inquiry Into the Process of (Communication (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, i9 6 0), pp. 3, 11. 23 the literature of Bpeech and group discussion.1^ It was stated by Phillips as a contrast between discussion and public speaking. The tool used by groups is language. By inter change of ideas and information, individuals can pool their resources and work toward accomplishment of col lective goals. The communication situation encountered by members of small groups is different from that of a public speaker.*7 Hare’s recent review of small group research also indicated the distinction by noting that "in a lecture as opposed to a free discussion, two-way interaction is more or less ^See, for example: Dean G. Bamlund and Franklyn S . Haiman, The Dynamics of Discussion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, I9 6 0), pp. xiv-rviiT, 25**-255. Laura Crowell, Discussion: Method of Democracy (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1963)» PP. 7, 17/- 191. Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate: Tools of a Democracy (2nd. ed.; New York: Appleion-Century-Crofis, Inc., 1951), chaps, iii, xii; pp. 218-223, 289-291. R. Victor Hamack and Thorrel B. Fest, Group Dis cussion: Theory and Technique (New York: Appleton-ben- iury-brof'is Division of keredith Publishing Company, 1961*), chap. i; pp. 21-37, 5 8, 76-77. James H. McBumey and Kenneth G. Hance, Discus sion in Human Affairs (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1 9 5^), esp. chaps, vi, vii, viii. David Potter and Martin P. Anderson, Discussion: A Guide to Effective Practice (Belmont, California: Wads worth Publishing Company, Inc., 1963), p. 31. William £. Utterback, Group Thinking and Confer ence Leadership (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1 9 5 0J, pp. y«8 ; chap. v. Harold P. Zelko, Successful Conference and Dis- cussion Techniques (New Yorlci 4fo&raw-Hi 11 Book Company. inc., 1557), PP. 5, 21-1*3. 17Gerald M. Phillips, Communication and the Small Group (Indianapolis, Indiana: The Bobbs-Merri11 Company, Inc., 1 9 6 6), p. 17. 2k drastically limited."I® Gulley emphasized verbal interac tion in a discussion: "The most important single aspect of interaction is the oral communicative interchange among members.**19 Berelson and Steiner, too, reported that in teraction "is a generic term for the exchange of meanings between people. Usually interaction is direct communica tion— mainly talking and listening. . . . "20 in short, the present writer felt that the literature provided ample jus tification for maintaining this basic distinction between speech developed out of one person*s ideas and speech de veloped interactively with the ideas of another. Literature supporting the design.— From the litera ture reviewed, the present study appeared not to be a rep lication of previous research; however, experiments report ed by Bartlett supported a portion of the design.21- He de vised "experiments on popular thinking by presenting unfin ished accounts . . . of concrete situations, all involving 1®Paul A. Hare, Handbook of Small Group Research (Glencoe, Illinois: The tree Press, 1^62), p. 287. l^Halbert E. Gulley, Discussion, Conference, and Grouj) Process (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1906), ^Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Be- havior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: liar court, Brace and world, Inc., , p.^26. 21Sir Frederic Bartlett, Thinking: An Experimental and Social Study (London: Buskin Bouse, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1958), pp. l6**-182. 25 group relations not too far removed from the possible ex perience of the people who would deal with them."22 These situations were presented to individuals and groups; they were presented in typed and recorded form; Ss were allowed to replay the recordings aB they desired; no recordings were made of responses, but Bartlett did analyze the verbal reports of Ss— thelr decisions and the steps by which they arrived at them— as an index of thinking. As described be low (Chapter III) a portion of the present study was de signed along lines suggested by these experiments conducted by Bartlett. Literature supporting the research questions.— No reports of research were found in the literature to indi cate that the development of ideas by one individual or the interactive development of ideas had been studied from the standpoint of the variables used in this investigation un der research question I (page 2, above). The question was suggested, however, by theoretical writings of Allport.23 The concept of structure he proposed was stated, in part, in these terms: Every perceptual or overt-behavioral activity will be hypothetically regarded as a self-closing series of 22Ibid., p. 1 6 8. 23Floyd H. Allport, Theories of Perception and the Concept of Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. W 5 >. -------- 26 ongoings and events . . . a structure not only com prising a circuital series of events, but presenting also the possibilities of interstructuring, through event-tangenoies, into self-closed systems, or into, larger cyoles or systems of more inclusive orders.2** It was reasoned that if all "overt-behavioral ac tivity" could be viewed from this theoretioal position, then human speech activity might be so regarded. Allport seemed to suggest the possibility that both speech devel oped out of one person9s ideas and speech developed inter actively with the ideas of another could be considered as structures of ongoings (or process) and events (or event points). The first research question in this study was de signed to explore a portion of the theoretical possibili ties suggested. The theoretical basis of research question II was derived from Berelson9s work in content analysis.25 Al though the analysis under this research question was not a comprehensive verbal analysis, it seemed well within Berelson9s definition of content analysis as "any analysis in which the conclusions refer to differences of magnitude in the appearance of selected symbols."2^ Research question III was suggested, in part, by a 2**Ibid.. p. 645. ^Bernard Berelson, Content Analysis in Communica tion Research (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free ^ress, 1952). 26Ibld., p. 128. 27 briefly mentioned experiment reported by Bartlett.^7 in a companion study to those mentioned above (n. 21) but con ducted by D. M. Carmichael, Bartlett reported that experts and non-experts differed in their thinking and verbalizing about the case. The present study used experienced and in experienced speech teachers as Ss (rather than teachers and non-teachers, which would have more nearly duplicated the research reported by Bartlett); but the third research question was formulated to explore the individual idea de velopment and interindividual idea development of these two categories of Ss. In summary, a review of research literature seemed to indicate that the research questions posed by the pres ent study had not been fully answered and that the design was theoretically oriented and logically related to prior research. Relationships Between Thought and language The relationships that seem to exist, intuitively, between thought and language have perplexed experimenters for many years. One of the problems seems to have been that there are so many ways to approach the problem but b o few to pin it down. The task has appeared to be neverend- ing. Vygotsky alluded to this frustration when he wrote: ^Bartlett, p. 177. 28 To understand another’s speech, it is not suffi cient to understand his words— we must understand his thought. But even that is not enough— we must also know its motivation. No psychological analysis of an utterance is complete until that plane is reached.28 In surveying the results of his research and analysis, Vygotsky continued: We wished to study the inner workings of thought and speech, hidden from direct observation. Meaning and the whole inward aspect of language, the side turn ed toward the person, not toward the outer world, have been so far an almost unknown territory. No matter how they were Interpreted, the relations between thought and word were always considered constant, established forever. Our investigation has shown that they are, on the contrary, delicate, changeable relations between processes, which arise during the development of verbal thought. The relation between thought and word is a living process; thought is bom through words. A word devoid of thought is a dead thing, and a thought unembodied in words remains a shadow. The connection between them, however, is not a preformed and oonstant one. It emerges in the course of development, and itself evolves.29 If the reader should feel that "things have changed" appreciably since 193^» the following quotation from a more recent and comprehensive review of scientific 28L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language, ed. and trans. by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Taker (Massachu- setts Institute of Technology: The M. I. T. Press; and New Tork and London: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 151. In the introduction Jerome S. Bruner indicates that this volume was originally published in Russia in 193*+» shortly after the death of the author. It was suppressed in 1936 and did not reappear until 1956. 29ibid., pp. 152, 153. 29 findings should he noted: Some believe that the nature of language determines what can and therefore will be thought; others, that what is being thought about (for whatever reason) de termines how language will be formulated and what it will include. Evidence suggests the possibility of effects in either direction, at least within the life time of any given individual. 30 More encouragingly for research in speech, however, these authors also considered that some relationships among thought, language, and communication could be considered as established by research findings. The most important and most characteristically hu man form of thought employs symbolic representations that do not necessarily have anything in common with what they represent: the connection is purely arbi trary or conventional. Language is the single most im portant and most extensive such symbol system. When people think "in” words and sentences, as they often do when thinking alone . . . and almost always do when thinking together, they manipulate representations ("cat," "x," "justice") that neither look, smell, or feel in any way like the things they stand for. Most of the "higher" thought processes (e.g., rea soning as against recalling) employ arbitrary symbols as well as or instead of images and, most frequently, the language(s) of the thinker. In any case, even if the original thought is not symbolized in language, it must be verbalized before it can be communicated to others.31 In their inventory of findings, which included the review of 1026 sources listed in their bibliography (many of which were also summarizing reviews), Berelson and Steiner were guided by a desire "to include the best- supported findings within each field, those . . . most 3°Berelson and Steiner, p. 190. 31ibid., p. 189. 30 likely to be considered as established by a consensus of the professionals, and those where the behavioral sciences have made a distinctive contribution."32 other investiga tors , guided by somewhat less conservative criteria, have arrived at less general conclusions. Humphrey, for example, who reviewed nearly UOO sources, arrived at ten conclusions to which the experimen tal evidence led him— five of which are relevant here: (6) All available experimental and clinical evi dence is against the identification of thought with language. (7) Nevertheless, human thinking is permeated with language. There is some elementary experimental evi dence bearing on the way in which human language- technique is utilized in thinking. (8) Thinking may go on in human beings when the language techniques, of utterance and reception, have been destroyed or have not yet developed. (9) Ordinary language involves processes which would usually be classed as thinking. (10) There is no evidence that an image of any kind normally precedes speech. But certain objective ex periments offer a parallel which makes it legitimate to speak of language as "expressing" thought.33 Of particular significance to research in speech, Miller has written that "the thinking process is not com plete until the solution has become communicable. "3** He 32Ibid., pp. 5-6. 33(jeorge Humphrey, Thinking: An Introduction to Its Experimental Psychology (Hew York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.. and Lonaon: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1951), pp. 263-26*f, 3**George A. Miller, Language and Communication (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^1), P. 235. 31 did not feel that all thinking was done with words; hut from his review of more than 250 sources he did conclude that overt speech, with its required sequencing into lan guage symbols, did represent a translation of thinking into communicable form.35 Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin did not attempt to re solve the disparate theories concerning the relationships between thought and language— "the one holding that lan guage is a cloak conforming to the customary categories of thought of its speakers, the other that it is a mold in terms of which thought categories are cast."36 They did, however, include an appendix by Roger ff. Brown to which they referred the reader. Brown*s discussion of the psy chology of language strongly indicated that normal human speech could be taken as an index of thought when he wrote: Ultimately, we are interested in speech only be cause it is meaningful, because the larger units of speech have reference to objects and events. Reference involves the co-ordination of speech categories with categories of the nonlinguistic world. Correct speech means . . . the properly selective use of meaningful units. One cannot speak a language until one has formed the governing nonlinguistic concepts.37 In a later passage, Brown again appeared to indicate that 35n,id., PP. 236-237. 36jerome S. Bruner, Jacqueline J. Goodnow, and George A. Austin, A Study of Thinking (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195GJ» p. H . 37ibid., p. 2^7. 32 Bpoken utterances could be studied as an index of an indi vidual's thoughts or concepts: Speech differs from . . . other selective responses in that it is a system constructed from a small set of recurrent elements, the phonemes. It differs also in its breadth of ooverage. There is a distinctive utter ance for practically every concept we possess and when ever there is not yet such an utterance the man who discovers the lack considers it his first olvilizing duty to create one. Because speech is a system providing attributes for the entire conceptual repertoire of a culture it would be possible to use the attributes of the utterances to represent the relations between concepts.38 In a recent, technical, and comprehensive analysis of thinking, Berlyne conceded that "thinking uses language" but rejected the notion that thinking requires verbal lan g u a g e . 39 Berlyne's particular interest in thinking led him to focus on this rejection; however, his indication was that speech, while usually an "incomplete" reconstruction of thought, resulted from thinking in which verbal elements often exerted "a powerful influence on the content and itinerary of thought." Words, he noted, can "bring about changes in other human beings with idiom the speaker is com municating."^ Although not stated explicitly, the impli cation seemed to be that verbal language was an index to 38ibid., p. 279. e. Berlyne, Structure and Direction in Think ing (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. l44- T53. It should be noted that Berlyne*s conclusions were reasoned partially from a review of well over 400 sources, mostly reports of research. * * °Ibid. , pp. 152-153. 33 some, but certainly not all, of a person's thinking. In summary, the investigator was led to the conclu sion most recently expressed by Furth: . . . There can be thinking or conceptual behavior without symbols. . . . The presence of a symbol, how ever, always implies some form of thinking behavior Thinking is undoubtedly an internal system, a hier archical ordering within the person of his interaction with the world. The symbol system of language mirrors and in a certain way expresses that internal organiza tion.^ This view of the relationships between thought and language was further elaborated by George Mead: The process is not essentially different in these two cases, that is, of thinking and of talking to some body else. It is essentially the same sort of process. But the activity, such as it is, is not of the same sort. When you talk to yourself, you do not ordi narily do it out loud. . . . It has not yet become public. . . . That prooess which goes on inside of him is only the beginning of the process which is finally carried on In an a s s e m b l y .^2 From the standpoint of the present study, perhaps Dominick Barbara has most nearly summarized the investiga tor's belief concerning the relationship between language and thought: ^Hans G. Furth, Thinking Without Language: Psy chological Implications of Deafness (New York: The Free Press; and London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1966), pp. 226, 228. ^^eorge Herbert Mead, On Social Psychology, Selec ted papers edited by Anselm Strauss (rev. ed.: Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 80. A first edition was published in 1956 under the title, The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead. 3U Language may be defined, briefly and compreheneire ly ae the means of expressing human thought. In relating to others and in the use of our lan guage when speaking, we express our opinions, feelings, beliefs or awareness to the degree to which our thoughts or statements are projectire representations of our own inner state at the particular time of ex pression. This process in itself is variable, flexible and in dynamic change from person to person, object to object and situation to situation.**3 In other words, the investigator believed that words spoken by individuals probably represented that por tion of their internal thinking and feeling which they were willing and able to express in verbal form within the con text of any particular time and situation. It seemed rea sonable to conclude that the dynamic, ongoing processes of thinking and speaking were so closely intertwined that when words were spoken, the mere fact of speech, as well as the words themselves, provided some indication of the nature of the thinking processes. To the extent that speech research was able to create and/or observe situations in which ideas could be developed, and thoughts and feelings expressed, freely and openly, the investigator believed that the anal ysis of spoken communication carried strong implications for the study of thinking. From a review of literature relevant to the present ^Dominick A. Barbara, Tour Speech Reveals Tour Personality (Springfield, Illinois: Charles d. ¥homaI7 Publisher, 1958)> PP. viif 160. 35 study* it seemed reasonable to conclude that: 1. The present experiment was a logical step in an ongoing series of studies concerning the process or pro cesses by which the internal thoughts and feelings of one person become interactive with those of another person; 2. The design and major research questions of the present study were logically related to theoretical con structs and/or prior research; 3. Within the limitations of the experimental de sign , the fact that words were spoken by Ss, as well as the words themselves, probably provided some index to the way Ss developed ideas and to their internal thinking and feeling. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY A brief preview of the design of this study fol lows. Each of thirty-six Ss, each of them a speech teach er, reported to an office at the University of Southern California. After giving instructions to the S, the inves tigator left the office. Then, using a tape-recorder as a playback, the S listened to a prerecorded instruction, the essence of which was: "Give us a brief statement of the teaching standards or criteria which you use for such pur poses as criticizing, counseling, or grading your own un dergraduate speech students." The S dictated his spoken response to this instruction into a Stenorette; he was free to edit his response by manipulating the controls of this dictation machine. Next, the S played back the second tape-recorded instruction, which thanked him for his sum mary of criteria and noted that "one test of any general criterion is its application to a concrete case." Then, as the recorded stimulus continued, complex details of an ac tual classroom occurrence were given by an anonymous "speech teacher" who told the story of a student in a be ginning speech class in which the student was detected 3 6 37 quoting extensively front an unacknowledged source. The S was asked to record on the Stenorette a statement of how he would handle this case if it occurred in one of his own classes. The investigator secured a continuous tape re cording of each of these experimental sessions by means of a concealed microphone. Primary data for this study were derived from this hidden recorder. The above general description of the subjeots, ma terials, and procedures is expanded in the remaining sec tions of this chapter. Subjects k total of thirty-six speech teachers participated as Ss in this study. Due to equipment failure, responses of eight of the original subjects were either incomplete or distorted to the point where they were deemed unusable for the projected analysis. These eight were eliminated from further consideration. Thus, the responses of twenty-eight teachers of speech provided the primary data for this study. Of these twenty-eight Ss, representing fourteen different schools, twenty-seven had taught undergraduate speech in a university, a college, or a junior college. One S taught spoken communication to adults in a business training school. All Ss, therefore, had had experience teaching a beginning public speaking or fundamentals of 38 speech course at a level ahove high school and helow upper division college courses. Pursuant to the third research question posed in this study* Ss were selected according to criteria concern ing length of their teaching experience. Two categories were established: (1) "Experienced" (college-level speech teachers with eight or more years of teaching experience)* and (2) "inexperienced" (college-level speech teachers with three or fewer years of teaching experience).1 Some INX Ss were in their first month of teaching; others approached the three-year limit. At the other end of the scale* some EX Ss had been teaching for more than fifteen years; others barely qualified beyond the eight-year minimum. Because the investigator had developed his third research question partially on the basis of years of teaching experience, no teacher was used as an S if he had taught more than three or fewer than eight years. It was postulated that* for the purposes of this experiment* a five-year period between Ss designated EX and those designated INX would adequately distinguish the two categories. Within the restrictions noted above, Ss were se lected on the basis of their availability and willingness to participate. Of the twenty-eight Ss whose responses *As noted in Chapter I, these two categories of Ss have been designated hereafter by the abbreviations EX* for "experienced," and INX, for "inexperienced." 39 were analyzed in this study, eight were female; twenty were male. Four of the women and eleven of the men were in the EX category, for a total of fifteen. Four women and nine men comprised the thirteen Ss in the INX category. Charac teristics of the Ss and the schedule of experimental ses sions are presented in Table l.2 To facilitate obtaining Ss who were willing to par ticipate and for convenience in scheduling experimental sessions, this study was designed as part of a team re search project. The type of population and technique of sampling for the two investigations were completely com patible, although the experimenters began with different research problems and were interested in observing differ ent phenomena. 3 Materials The "experimental room" used in this study was a regularly used faculty office at the University of Southern 2In Table 1, as in this entire report, the twenty- eight identification numbers were assigned to Ss in des cending order of total time taken to complete the experi mental session. These numbers have been reconciled with the order-of-participatlon numbers in Appendix A. 3The present writer and George 0. Enell comprised the research team. The entire project was under the direc tion of Milton Dickens, Department of Speech, University of Southern California. Enell*s report was in preparation at the time of this writing; but it should be noted, in com paring the two studies, that Enell retained the order-of- participation numbers as his subject-identification num bers. (See Appendix A.) UO TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF Ss AND SCHEDULE OF EXPERIMENTAL SESSIONS Characteristics Schedule Subject Sex Experience Date Hour 1 2 I M M M F EX I NX I NX EX 2/10/66 2/20/66 3/1/66 2/1/66 12s30 p.m. 1:**5 P.®. 5s00 p.m. 2s30 p.m. 6 7 8 M F F U I NX EX EX EX 1/19/66 1/25/66 1/17/66 2/22/66 9:00 a.m. 1:^5 p.m. J*:20 p.m. 9:^0 a.m. 9 10 11 12 M M M M EX I NX EX I NX 1/17/66 2/17/66 1/25/66 2/28/66 1:50 p.m. p.m. 12:00 noon 1:05 P.m. 1 1 15 1 6 M M M F I NX EX EX I NX : 0 » s 5 2/10/66 1/6/66 U:00 p.m. 2:05 P.m. 10:00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 17 18 19 20 M M F M I NX EX I NX EX 12/13/65 3/1/66 2/17/66 2/22/66 ^:20 p.m. U :0 5 p.m. 3:10 p.m. 11:10 a.m. 21 22 1 1 M F F M EX I NX EX I NX 2/10/66 1/26/66 12/9/65 12/17/65 9:30 a.m. 1:00 p.m. **:30 p.m. 9:10 a.m. 25 26 27 28 F M M M I NX EX EX INX 2/25/66 2/15/66 1/29/66 2/11/66 J*:00 p.m. 9:30 p.m. 3:w) p.m. 12:00 noon California. An effort was made to maintain the fundamental appearance and appointments usual to that office and to preserve the impression that the experimental room was sim ply an office that was being used by the investigators for the purpose of providing the subject with a private room in which to participate in the study. Two oral stimuli were used. These were recorded on the same tape and were separated by a twenty-second segment of white leader tape, the purpose of which was to assist the Ss in listening and relistening to the first stimulus without accidentally hearing any portion of the second stimulus. A complete typescript of the two stimuli is pre sented in Appendix B. Essentially, the first stimulus requested the Ss to provide the experimenter with a brief statement of the teaching standards or criteria that he used in evaluating his own undergraduate speech students for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, and grading. The voice of one of the investigators was used for recording this first stimu lus, which was 1.5 minutes in length. The second stimulus consisted of three sections. The first and third were tape-recorded in the same voice used for the first stimulus. The middle section was tape- recorded by a professional actor. Total playing time for the second stimulus was l^f.5 minutes. In brief, the con tent of the three sections of this stimulus was as follows: kz 1. a transition from the first stimulus, indi cating that the standards in the first response were to be applied to a concrete case; 2. a narration of an actual case of one speech teacher's experience with a student who quoted extensively from an unacknowledged source; 3. an instruction to the S to indicate and justify how he would have handled that particular case had it oc curred in his own classroom. Two Wollensak, model T-1500, tape recorders and a Stenorette dictation machine were used as experimental equipment. The Stenorette and one tape recorder were placed on the desk in the experimental office. The tape recorder contained the prerecorded stimulus tape and was used for playback purposes only. The Stenorette was pro vided for the Ss to use in recording their responses to the two stimuli. It was selected because it provided a maximum opportunity for re listening and editing with a minimum of mechanical manipulation. The remaining tape recorder was used to provide a complete audio record of each experimental session. The recorder was located outside the experimental room; its microphone was placed on the floor of the office, under a bookcase. The microphone cable ran through the wall into an adjoining room where it was connected to the recorder. Electrical power to this hidden recorder was controlled by * *3 a silent (mercury) switch, located in the experimental room at a point where it could he easily activated hy the inves tigators hut was not visible to the Ss. The purpose of this concealed recorder was to pro duce a tape recording of everything the S said (including that which was not part of the final version of his Steno rette recording); everything to which the S listened (whether to himself, as recorded on the Stenorette, or to the stimulus tape); all pauses or silences during the ex periment; and, of course, the sequence in which these phe nomena occurred and the time devoted to them. It was this recording of each S*s audihle behavior in the experimental office which provided the primary source of raw data for the present study. Additional materials Included paper and pencils, provided to Ss for the purpose of maJklng any notes they de sired. Each S also completed a "Personal Data Sheet." A copy of this form is reproduced in Appendix C. Procedures In the discussion below, procedures followed in this study have been partitioned into three major types— preparatory procedures, experimental procedures, and pro cedures for processing the data. Preparatory Procedures In preparation for the experiment, the researchers 1 * 1 * followed a three-Btep chronology. 1. The two tape-recorded stimuli were prepared. 2. The experimental office, the two tape recorders (one for playback and one concealed), the Stenorette, and the "Personal Data Sheet" were made ready. 3. Potential Ss were contacted and a schedule of experimental sessions was developed. Experimental Procedures All experimental materials were arranged and checked before Ss were brought into the experimental of fice. During each experimental session, the investigators adhered to the following schedule of procedures. 1. The experimenter familiarized the S with the operation of the Vollensak tape recorder and the Stenorette dictation machine. 2. The S was urged to practice using the Steno rette by recording, backspacing, listening, editing, etc. During this practice-period, the researcher answered any questions posed by the S regarding operation of the Steno rette; and he again demonstrated any feature of the machine that seemed confusing to the S. 3. While the S was involved in practicing with the Stenorette, the experimenter found an opportunity to acti vate the switch starting the concealed tape recorder. I * . When the S expressed his readiness to begin the * * 5 experiment, the investigator erased all practice recording from the Stenorette tape. 5. The S was told that the pencil and sheets of paper on the desk were for any notes he might desire to make. 6. The S was told that if he had problems of a technical or mechanical nature, the experimenter would he available; but that he would not answer questions concern ing the substance of the experiment. 7. The researcher then left the experimental of fice and closed the door. 8. The behavior of Ss after the departure of the investigator could only be inferred from the sound record preserved by the concealed tape recorder; but, essentially, all twenty-eight Ss who were included in the present study listened to the first stimulus, stopped the playback re corder and made their first response on the Stenorette, listened to the second stimulus, and recorded their second response. Pursuant to instructions on the stimulus tapes, each S was free to structure his behavior as he desired during this portion of the experiment. He could relisten to any part of either stimulus, record on the Stenorette, relisten to his own voice, edit his reoording, make notes, and/or pause— in an almost limitless number of combina tions. This variety of audible behavior engaged in by the Ss was the source of the raw data for this study. k6 Procedures for Processing the Data From the experimental sessions, two tape recordings were available for each S. The recordings made by the hid den, or cowert, tape recorder contained a complete sound record of the audible behavior of each S during his experi mental session. The recorded statement on the Stenorette contained that portion of what each S said during the ex periment which he allowed to remain recorded on the Steno rette as his answer to the stimulus questions. Although tapes produced by the concealed recorder were the primary source of data for this study, the Stenorette recordings were also processed to yield some information. Preliminary treatment of recordings.— After each S had completed the experiment, the following procedures were accompli shed. 1. The Stenorette tape was rerecorded onto stand ard magnetic recording tape at 3.75 inches per second, using the Stenorette microphone-speaker playback and a Wollensak, model T-1500, recorder. This permitted re-use of the Stenorette tapes. 2. Each covert recording was duplicated, using two Wollensak, model T-1500, tape recorders with direct cable connection. This procedure provided protection against loss of a recording while one copy was in the hands of a typist (see below). h7 3. Professional typists were hired to make type scripts of the "live" speech recorded hy the concealed tape recorder— i.e., speech produced hy the S during the experi ment, rather than that reproduced hy the Stenorette when he listened to himself or hy the Wollensak recorder when he listened to the stimuli. Since it was very easy to distin guish among these three types of recorded speech, and since only the live speech contained new information, there seemed little reason to hare a complete typescript made of each covert recording. Compiling raw data.— Using the typescripts and re- recordings, which had been prepared as indloated above, the investigator accomplished the following: 1. By reading the typescripts while listening to the dubbed version of the Stenorette tapes, the portion of each typescript that corresponded to the Stenorette record ing of that S was underlined; and, using a stop watch, both response statements on each Stenorette recording were timed separately, as was any pause between them. ▲ Wollensak, model T-1500, tape recorder was used as a playback for all timing purposes. 2. On each covert recording, four categories of audible behavior were distinguishable: (a) listening to the stimulus tape— abbreviated SLT, (b) talking— abbrevi ated ST, (c) listening to the Stenorette (i.e., the S lis tening to himself as recorded on the Stenorette at some * * 8 earlier time in the experiment)— abbreviated SLS, and (d) pausing (including silence and unidentifiable or unclassi fied noise)— abbreviated SP. Using the same playback and stop watch as reported above, each instance of one of these four behaviors was timed and noted, in sequence, on the typescript of each covert recording. All of the time en compassed by the recording was assigned to one of these four categories of behavior. For the purposes of this analysis, the total time of the covert recording was meas ured from the instant the S began to listen to the first stimulus, to the last distinguishable word on the tape, whether the S was talking or listening. 3. The total time of each covert recording was di vided into two parts: (a) time to complete the first re sponse— measured from the instant the S began to listen to the first stimulus, to the instant he began to listen to the second stimulus; and (b) time to complete the second response— measured from the instant the S began to listen to the second stimulus, to the last distinguishable word on the tape. The number of instances of each of the four types of audible behavior (noted in 2, above) and the total time devoted to each behavior were compiled for each of the two responses just described. 1*. All typescripts were checked against the covert recordings and the number of words spoken during each re sponse was counted. Then, the number of words referring to * * 9 "self (I.e., the S) were counted for each response. These words included: "I," "me," "my," "mine," "myself," etc. The final word count was of "references to the stimulus" materials. For the first response, words and phrases like the following were counted: "statement of criteria,” "in criticizing speeches,” "criteria for grading," "teaching standards," "counseling my students," "evaluating," "under graduate students," "speech," etc. In counting words in the second response which referred to the second stimulus tape, all direot quotations from the stimulus were counted, as well as such references as the following: "the instruc tor," (or "teacher," or "narrator"; but not "a teacher," etc.); "the student," (or "Bill Collins,” the name given the student in the story; hut, again, not "a student”); "this case," (or "story," etc.); "plagiarism"; "ethics"; "his father"; "read one hook"; "utterances of others"; "the facts as detailed to us"; etc. (Cf., Appendix B.) As can he seen, counting these words (including phrases) which re ferred to the stimulus material required some judgment hy the investigator of just what should he counted; and no check on reliability was made. Of all measurements in this study, "references to the stimulus" probably provided the least precision. At the same time, an effort was made to be consistent and to count only specific references to the particular stimulus materials. Generalized references to "an instructor," "a student," or what one does "in cases 50 like this" were not counted. 5. A "Tabulation Sheet" was prepared for each S on the basis of the raw data compiled. In all instances, "time" was recorded to the nearest tenth of a minute. Appendix D contains a sample of this form. 6. Data from the "Tabulation Sheets" were trans ferred to 11 by 17 inch, data-ruled worksheets— arranged in a manner similar to the presentation in Appendix E. Statistical procedures.— Pursuant to the areas un der investigation in this study, the following statistical procedures were employed. 1. Data that resulted from measurements of indi vidual categories of behavior (as reported, above) were treated as proportions of total behavior during the experi ment and/or as proportions of total behavior during either the first or second response (as defined, above). The cat egories of behavior, therefore, were compared and contrast ed primarily by determining significance of difference be tween selected proportions. Details of this treatment are reported in Chapter IT. 2. All tests for significance of difference were by means of the sign test or the Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-ranks, nonparametric statistic for two correlated samples. Correlation in this experiment was judged on the basis of each subject acting as his own control. 51 3. GoodneBB of fit, when appropriate, was deter mined lay applying the Mann-Whitney TJ statistic. U. The null hypothesis was accepted in all cases when the statistical test indicated more than fire chances in one hundred that it was correct— i.e., the .0 5 level of significance was the level adopted for rejection of a null hypo the si s. * + Rationale for the Design Ifuch of the rationale for this study— from theory and experimental precedent— was presented in Chapter II; however, it should he emphasized here that the basic ra tionale for the design was to provide enough control for systematic observation without creating undue artificial ity. Within the limitations of this criterion, two stimuli were desired— the first to elicit each S's individual ideas on a topic, the second to evoke his interaction with the expressed ideas of another person. It was recognized that the present design could not produce pure examples of in traindividual and interindividual ideational or verbal be havior. It was also believed, however, that instrumenta tion had not yet advanced to the point where observation of these behaviors in their pure form was feasible. Thus, this design, like most, was the result of compromise. **The source for all statistical procedures used in this study was: Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New tort: McGraw-Hill Book dJompany, inc., l95&.) 52 Since the basic research problem concerned spoken communi cation, magnetic sound tape was used to present the Btimuli and record responses. In this way the former could be held constant and the latter would be preserved for analysis. To provide each S with a minimum of distraction and (hope fully) some feeling of privacy and freedom, the study was designed so that he oould be alone in the experimental of fice while listening to the stimuli and responding. The subject matter which each S was asked to consider was taken from concepts fundamental to his profession if not totally within the experience of all Ss in every detail. For the purposes of this study, therefore, it was believed that the first stimulus would normally elicit a response based on the individual ideas of each S. It was recognized that these ideas would undoubtedly be influenced by an S's education, teaching experiences, and a variety of other interindividual relationships throughout his life; but this influence seemed inevitable and normal in any adult communication situation. The request clearly asked for the S's individual standards— those used in his own teaching. If he responded directly to the stimulus (given the general and open-ended form in which it was stated), it seemed probable that the response would provide a valid index to the development of that S's ideas on the topic of student evaluation criteria. From the standpoint of this investigation, it was 53 necessary that the second stimulus involve the Ss in re sponding to another person*s ideas. It appeared that the complex details in the case, as well as the first-person narrative format, seemed likely to elicit a response to the "other teacher's" ideas. It was also believed, however, that this kind of second stimulus would allow an S to ig nore the narrator's ideas if he chose to do so. He could treat the case abstractly— as a collection of facts, or as a generalization of all cases of plagiarism— and develop only his own ideas about what judgments should be rendered. It was thought that this circumstance would result only if the S perceived this second stimulus (consciously or un consciously) as similar to the first one— i.e., as a re quest for him to develop his own, individual ideas. If the S responded to the narrator's ideas, however, the investi gator believed that the response would provide a valid in dex to the interindividual development of ideas (between the narrator and the S) on the topic of evaluation cri teria, as applied to the behavior of the student who pla giarized. This kind of interindividual behavior, it was thought, would provide a somewhat expanded view of one in teractive occurrence— expanded and prolonged but not essen tially different from the more fleeting interaction which might be observed in face to face conversation or group discussion. As indicated in Chapter II, the researcher believed that the design of this study was logically re lated to prior research and valid theoretical constructs. The data collected are presented and interpreted in Chapter CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA As explained in Chapter III and summarized on the sample "Tabulation Sheet" presented in Appendix D, the fol lowing measurements were made. 1. For each Stenorette tape three timings were re corded: total time, time for the first response, and time for the second response. 2. For each tape from the hidden recorder, each instance of each of four events was noted and timed. The measurements recorded for each S were: the total number of each kind of event and the total time given to each kind of event. The four events were: a. S listening to the stimulus tape (abbrevi ated SLT) b. S talking (abbreviated ST) c. S listening to self— as recorded on the Stenorette (abbreviated SIS) d. S pausing— including instances of silence and unidentifiable or unclassified noise (abbreviated SP). 3. From the typescript of what each S said during 55 56 the experimental session (i.e., all words spoken during all instances of ST) the following word counts were made: a. all words spoken during each response h. all words referring to "self" during each response c. all words and phrases in each response that referred to materials recorded on the stimulus tape. The data gathered through these measurements have been summarized in Appendix E. In the discussion, below, references to column letters (i.e., Col. A through Col. FF) are to the corresponding columns in Appendix E. It should also be kept in mind that individual idea development was operationally defined as the behavior of an S during the first response, while interindividual idea development was operationally defined as the behavior of an S during the second response. Based on the data summarized in Appendix E, the findings were as reported in the following section. After the report of findings an interpretation and discussion is presented. Findings The findings from this study are reported in two parts. First, in an outline form which closely parallels the statements of research questions in Chapter I (pages 2-3), specific findings concerning those research questions 57 are reported. Second, additional findings which developed from the analysis of the data are reported. Findings Concerning Research Questions Research question 1.— The first research question asked, in parti "Between individual idea development and interindividual idea development, what might be the differ ences, if any, in the proportionate distribution among the following behavioral variables. ..." A. When measured by "the number of times each be havior was initiated," the following results were obtained. 1. SLT.— When, for each S, the percentage of SLT events in the first response (Col. F divided by Col. N) was contrasted with the percentage of SLT events in the second response (Col. R divided by Col. Z), fourteen Ss had a higher percentage in the first response, thirteen Ss had a higher percentage in the second response, and one S showed no change. Using the Wilcozon matched-pairs signed- ranks test, this difference was not found to be significant (N * 27; T * 171.5; s = -.^2; p = .67 for a two-tailed test) .*■ *For N « 27, the formula for this statistic reduces to z « s ^ - ..2 0 3 when the value of N is inserted in the general formula. These two variations cover most instances where Wilcozon*s test has been used in this study. That is, seldom did more than one S show no 58 2. ST.— When, for each S, the percentage of ST events in the first response (Col. H divided by Col. N) was contrasted with the percentage of ST events in the second response (Col. T divided by Col. Z), ten Ss had a higher percentage in the first response and eighteen Ss had a higher percentage in the second response. Using the Wil- coxon test, the difference was statistically significant beyond the .05 level (N = 28; T = 110; z = >2. 12; p *» . 03^*0 for a two-tailed test). Thus, the null hypothesis could be rejeoted; and the finding was that the percentage of ST events was significantly larger during interindividual idea development. 3. SIS.— When, for each S, the percentage of SLS events in the first response (Col. J divided by Col. N) was contrasted with the percentage of SIS events in the second response (Col. V divided by Col. Z), eight Ss had a greater percentage in the first response, sixteen Ss had a greater percentage in the second response, and four Ss showed no change. Using the Wilooxon test, this difference was not found to be significant (N = Zb\ T = 93).2 SF.— When, for each S, the percentage of SP change between measured ratios. See: Sidney Siegel, If on- parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-ftill hook Company, Inc., i*)56), PP. 75-83. 2For Ns of 25 or fewer, Siegel provides Table G, p. 25**. For N * 2k, T cannot exceed 81 for significance at the .05 level for a two-tailed test. 59 events in the first response (Col. L divided hy Col. N) was contrasted with the percentage of SP events in the second response (Col. X divided hy Col. Z), twenty-four Ss had a higher percentage in the first response and four Ss had a higher percentage in the seoond response. Using the Wil- coxon test, the difference was statistically significant "beyond the .0001 level (N « 28; T » 26; z » -U .0 3 ; p - .0 0 0 0 6 for a two-tailed test). Thus, the null hypothesis could he rejeoted with a high degree of confidence; and the finding was that the percentage of SP events was very sig nificantly larger during individual idea development. B. When measured hy "the amount of time devoted to each behavior," the following results were obtained.3 3in figuring the percentages in this section, two types of computations were made, based on two interpreta tions of "total time" for each response. When figuring the percentage of SLT time, an S*s total time for each "re sponse" as defined in Chapter III (p. U8) was used as the divisor— i.e., the divisor was Col. C for the first re sponse and Col. 0 for the second response. However, when computing the percentage of time devoted to each of the other three behaviors (ST, Sl£, or SP), the divisor (used as "total time") was first reduced by an amount of time equal to the respective stimului^l.e., 1.5 min. was sub tracted from the first "response" time and l4.5 min. was subtracted from the second "response" time. Thus, the divisor used in figuring percentages of time devoted to ST, SLS, or SP was Col. 0 for the first response and Col. P for the second response. The reasoning behind this decision was that the second stimulus was so much longer than the first that it tended to distort percentages of ST, SIS, and SP in the seoond response and render comparisons with the first response inappropriate. Percentages based on the to tal "response" times (i.e., using Col. C or Col. 0 as the divisor) have been reported in footnotes. Differences be tween these comparisons are discussed in later sections of this chapter. 60 1. SLT.— When, for each S, the percentage of SLT time in the firet response (Col. G divided hy Col. C) was contrasted with the percentage of SLT time in the sec- one response (Col. S divided hy Col. 0), all Ss had a higher percentage in the second response. Using the sign test (corrected for continuity),** the difference was sta tistically significant at a level far heyond .0001 (N * 28; x = 0; z - -5.09).^ From a statistical standpoint this re sult could not he attributed to chance, suggesting that the null hypothesis should he rejected. The large difference in the lengths of the stimuli, however, suggested that per centages should he figured hy reducing hoth the dividend and the divisor hy the length of the stimulus— i.e., sub tracting 1.5 minutes from each S's time in columns G and C, and hy subtracting lU.5 minutes from the times in columns S and 0. Nine Ss did not listen to either stimulus more than once; hut when, for the other nineteen Ss, percentages de rived from the indicated fractions were contrasted, no significant difference was found (N * 19; T - 87.5). 2. ST.— When, for each S, the percentage of ST time in the first response (Col. 1 divided hy Col. D) was contrasted with the percentage of ST time in the second **Siegel, p. 72. ^Siegel's table (p. 2^7) does not give the proba bilities for values of z heyond Jf.O, which is .00006 for a two-tailed test; hut p approaches an infinitely small num ber. 61 response (Col. U divided by Col. P), eight Ss had a higher peroentage in the first response and twenty Ss had a higher percentage in the second response. Using the Wilcoxon test, the difference was statistically significant beyond the .05 level and was nearly significant at the .01 level (N « 28; T ■ 90; z * -2.57; P =* .0102 for a two-tailed test). Thus, the null hypothesis could be rejected; and the finding was that the percentage of ST time (when using Cols. D and P as the divisors) was significantly larger during interindividual idea development. 3. SIS.— When, for each S, the percentage of SLS time in the first response (Col. K divided by Col. D) was contrasted with the percentage of SLS time in the sec ond response (Col. W divided by Col. P), nine Ss had a higher percentage in the first response, sixteen Ss had a higher percentage in the seoond response, and three Ss showed no change. Using the Wilcoxon test, this difference was statistically significant beyond the .05 level (N = 25; T * 70.5; P = .02 for a two-tailed test Mien T is less than 77)* Thus, the null hypothesis could be rejected; and the finding was that the percentage of SLS time (Mien using ^Using response time from Cols. C and 0 as divi sors, the difference between percentages of ST time was again significant beyond the .05 level; but the difference was in the opposite direction (N = 28; T = 108; z « -2.16; P * .0308 for a two-tailed test). Thus, when the time of the stimulus was included in each total "response” time, the percentage of ST time was larger in the first response. 62 Cols. D and P as the divisors) was significantly larger during interindividual idea development.7 U. SP.— When, for each S, the percentage of SP time in the first response (Col. M divided hy Col. D) was contrasted with the percentage of SP time in the second re sponse (Col. T divided hy Col. P), twenty-five Ss had a higher percentage in the first response and three Ss had a higher percentage in the second response. Using the Wil coxon test, this difference was statistically significant heyond the .0001 level (N * 28; T « 23; a s = -if.10; p = .00006 for a two-tailed test). Therefore, the null hypoth esis could he rejected; and the finding was that the per centage of SP time (when using Cols. D and P as divisors) was very significantly larger for individual idea develop ment . 8 Research question II.— The second research question asked, in part: "Between individual idea development and interindividual idea development, what might he the pro portionate distribution of the following behavioral 7When these percentages were computed using total "response" time from Cols. C and 0 as divisors, the dif ference in SIS time between the first and second responses was not significant (N = 25; T = 120.5). 8When these percentages were computed using total "response" time from Cols. C and 0 as divisors, the dif ference in SP time between the first and second response was even more significantly weighted in favor of individual idea development (N = 28; x « 0; z ** -5*09). See n. 5, above. 63 variables, as components of the total verbal output of a subject?" A. "Verbal references to verbal material on the stimulus recording" was the first measured variable. The results were as follows: When, for each S, the percentage of words referring to the stimulus in the first response (Col. CC divided by Col. AA) was contrasted with the percentage of words re ferring to the stimulus in the second response (Col. FF di vided by Col. DD), one S had a higher percentage in the first response and twenty-seven Ss had a higher percentage in the second response. Using the Wilcoxon test, this dif ference was statistically significant beyond the .0001 level (N - 28; T = 1; z = -4.60; p is much less than .00006 for a two-tailed test). Therefore, the null hypothesis could be rejected; and the finding was that the percentage of words in Ss* responses which referred to material on the stimulus recording was very significantly larger during in terindividual idea development. B. "Verbal references to the subject, himself" was the Becond measured variable. The results were as fol lows: When, for each S, the percentage of words referring to "self" in the first response (Col. BB divided by Col. AA) was contrasted with the percentage of words referring to "self" in the second response (Col. EE divided by Col. 6k DD), eight Ss had a higher percentage in the first re sponse , nineteen Ss had a higher percentage in the seoond response, and one S showed no change. Using the Wilcoxon test, this difference was statistically significant heyond the .01 level (N - 27; T - 79.5; * * -2.63; P 3 1 .0086 for a two-tailed test). Therefore, the null hypothesis could he rejected; and the finding was that the percentage of words in Ss' responses which referred to "self" was significantly larger during interindividual idea development. Research question III.— The third research question asked: "Between individual idea development and interindi vidual idea development, what might he the difference, if any, in the observed behavior of subjects classified in the following manner? A. college-level speech teachers with eight or more years of teaching experience B. college-level speech teachers with three or fewer years of teaching experience." The findings were as follows: Using the Kann-Whitney U test for "goodness of fit," no statistical evidence was found to indicate that Ss classified EX and those classified INX had been drawn from different populations.9 When these two classifications of ^Siegel, pp. 116-127» provides an explanation of the use of the Mann-Whitney U test. 65 Ss were compared on all the variables measured under re search question 1 (whether the measurement was by time or by number of events) and on both variables measured under research question II, the null hypothesis was sustained in every case. No value of U even approached the .10 level of significance. Additional Findings In an attempt to more fully analyze the data and to provide additional information upon which interpretations of the above findings might be based, further statistical tests were applied. The findings reported below are dis cussed in the following section of this chapter as part of the interpretation of findings concerning the research questions. Total time and events.— When the behavior of Ss on the four variables of research question I was combined un der (A) measurements of number of events or (B) measure ments of time, the following findings resulted. 1. When, for each S, the total time to complete the first response (Col. C) was contrasted with the total time to complete the second response (Col. 0), five Ss de voted more time to individual idea development and twenty- three Ss devoted more time to interindividual idea develop ment. Using the sign test, this difference was statisti cally significant beyond the .01 level (N = 28; x ■ 5; 66 z a >3.21; p a .001^ for a two-tailed test). Thus, the null hypothesis could be rejected; and the finding was that when the stimulus time was included in the total time to complete each response, Ss devoted significantly more time to interindividual idea development. The following find ing, however, should be noted in conjunction with this one. 2. When, for each S, the total time for each re sponse was reduced by an amount of time equal to the length the respective stimulus and the times for the two responses were then contrasted (Col. D contrasted with Col. P), six teen Ss devoted more time to the first response and twelve Ss devoted more time to the second response. Using the Wilcoxon test, this difference was not significant (N “ 26; T = 199; z = -.09; p = .93 for a two-tailed test). Thus, the null hypothesis was sustained; and the finding was that when the unequal times of the stimuli were subtracted from their respective response timeB, differences between the amounts of time devoted to the two responses could be at tributed to chance variation alone. 3. When, for each S, the total number of events in the first response (Col. N) was contrasted with the total number of events in the second response (Col. Z), the num ber of Ss who initiated more events in the first response was exactly equal to the number who initiated more events in the second response. Using the Wilcoxon test, the sum of the ranks of those who initiated more events in the 67 firet response provided a value of T * 189.5» which was not significant (N » 28; T * 189.5; * * -.31; P = .76). The null hypothesis was sustained; and the finding was that, between individual idea development and interindividual idea development, Ss did not differ significantly in the number of events initiated. Contrasting the stimuli.— Simple division yielded the finding that the second stimulus was 9.67 times as long as the first stimulus. When, for each S, the ratio of stimulus time to total response time was computed for each response, and the two ratios were contrasted; the second stimulus was a larger percentage of its respective response time for all Ss. Using the sign test, this difference was statistically significant at a level far beyond .0001 (N = 28; x = 0; z = -5 . 0 9; p approaches an infinitely small number).10 Tine on Stenorette tapes.— Although most of the findings relevant to this study were derived from data taken from a hidden tape recording of each experimental session, it should be remembered that each S thought that his only recorded response was preserved on the Stenorette dictation machine. Each "Stenorette response," in effect, was that portion of each S's talking (ST time) which he l°See n. 5, above. 68 recorded on the Stenorette and did not subsequently delete by editing or erasing. The findings reported below were based, in part, on Stenorette response time during individ ual idea development contrasted with Stenorette response time during interindividual idea development. 1. When, for each S, the Stenorette time for the first response (Col. E) was contrasted with the Stenorette time for the second response (Col. Q), nine Ss had more Stenorette time in the first response and nineteen Ss had more in the second response. Using the Wilcoxon test, this difference was statistically significant beyond the .0 5 level (N = 28; T » 108; z * -2.16; p = .0308 for a two- tailed test). The null hypothesis could be rejected; and the finding was that Ss produced significantly longer Stenorette responses during interindividual idea develop ment than during individual idea development. 2. When, for each S, the ratio of Stenorette re sponse time to stimulus time was computed for each re sponse, and the two ratios were contrasted; the ratio for the first response produced a larger quotient for twenty- seven Ss and the ratio for the second response produced a larger quotient for one S. Using the sign test, this dif ference was statistically significant at a level far beyond • 0001 (N ” 28; x * 1; z = » -Jf.72; p is much less than .00006 for a two-tailed test). Thus, the null hypothesis could be rejected; and the finding was that for a significantly 69 larger number of Ss, more Stenorette response time per min ute of stimulus was produced during individual idea devel- opment, 3. As indicated above, the Stenorette time for each response was that portion of each S's ST time which was not deleted from the Stenorette by editing or erasing. Nine Ss deleted nothing during either response; thus, Sten orette time was equal to ST time for each response, or Stenorette time was slightly longer because it included some SP time. Nineteen Ss did some editing, but this dif ference between those who edited and those who did not was not statistically significant. For each of the nineteen Ss who did some editing, the following computations were made. a. The amount of time deleted from ST time was computed for each S on each response by subtracting his Stenorette time from his ST time (Col. £ from Col. I, for the first response, and Col. Q from Col. U, for the second response). b. The proportion of ST time which each S de leted was computed for each response by dividing the de leted time (as figured in a, above) by ST time. When, for each S, the proportion of ST time deleted from the first response was contrasted with the proportion of ST time deleted from the second response, thirteen Ss had a larger proportion in the first response and six Ss had a larger proportion in the second response. Using the 70 Wilooxon test, the difference between these proportions just missed being significant at the .0 5 level (N * 19; T * 47).11 The null hypothesis could not be rejected, but the tendency seemed to be for Ss* first Stenorette re sponses to evidence more editing and/or deleting than their second Stenorette responses. When, for each S, the percentage of Stenorette time in the first response (Col. £ divided by Col. D) was contrasted with the percentage of Stenorette time in the second response (Col. Q divided by Col. P), only six Ss had a higher percentage in the first response, while twenty-two Ss had a higher percentage in the second response. Using the Wilcoxon test, the difference between percentages was statistically significant beyond the .001 level (N * * 28; T ■ 42; z ® -3.67; p * * .00032 for a two-tailed test). The null hypothesis, therefore, could be rejected; and the finding was that the proportion of response time which was recorded as Stenorette time was significantly larger during interindividual idea development.12 13-A T of 46 or less is needed for significance at the .05 level for a two-tailed test. Applying the Wilcoxon formula, which is approximate for N =* 19, z = -1.93 and P * .0536 for a two-tailed test. *2When these percentages were computed using total response time from Cols. C and 0 as divisors, however, the difference between them was not statistically significant (N « 28; T * 144; z *> -1.34; p * * .18 for a two-tailed test). The difference in these two computations, of oourse, is in the exclusion or inclusion of the stimulus time in each divisor. This problem is discussed later in this chapter. 71 Fatigue during the experiment.— Since the design of this study (and the team research project of which it was a part) precluded confounding the order of presentation of the two stimuli, the investigator desired a measure which would provide some indication of the effect of fatigue on the behavior of Ss as the experimental session progressed. Since time to complete the experiment varied from 25.8 min utes to 131.6 minutes, with a median time of 56.6 minutes and a mean time of 63.5 minutes, it was thought that an S's behavior on the variables measured could show a change from the first to the second response on the basis of fatigue or familiarity with the Stenorette— particularly for those Ss who took the longest time to complete the experiment. When inspection of the data disclosed that for each response there was a sub-group of five Ss whose median and mean time to complete that one response approximated the median and mean time for all Ss to complete the entire experiment, the following computations were made. 1. For each S whose time to complete the first re sponse exceeded ten minutes, the first five minutes and the last five minutes of his response were examined. In each case the total number of events, the number of SP events, and the total time devoted to SP events was recorded.13 13only these three variables appeared in these five-minute segments with enough consistency to warrant in clusion in the proposed calculations. These data have been summarized in Appendix F, along with similar data concern ing the second response. 72 Then, for each S and for each of the three variables, the difference in behavior between the first and last five min utes of the response was noted. 2. The five Ss who toolc the longest time to com plete the first response had a median time of 6k,3 minutes and a mean time of 57.2 minutes. Eighteen other Ss took more than ten minutes to complete the first response. 3. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, no statistical evidence was found to indicate that the two sub-groups de scribed in 2, above, had been drawn from different popula tions. When these two sub-groups were compared on the basis of differences between behavior during the first and last five minutes of the response (when measured by three behavioral variables), the null hypothesis was sustained in every case. No value of U was significant at even the .10 level of confidence. (The raw data upon which these cal culations were based are presented in Appendix F.) k, For the second response the same calculations were made; however, since the second stimulus was 1^.5 min utes long and always occupied the first five minutes of the second response, the "first five minutes," for calculation purposes, was measured after the S had listened to this first playing of the stimulus tape. Those Ss who did not take ten minutes to complete the response after hearing the stimulus were eliminated from the sample, leaving sixteen Ss in the larger sub-group. The five Ss who took the 73 longest time to complete the second response, and who com prised the smaller sub-group, had a median time of 68,6 minutes and a mean time of 69,9 minutes to complete the second response. 5. For the second response, using the Mann-Whitney U test, the results were similar to those obtained for the first response. No statistical evidence was found to indi cate that the two sub-groups had been drawn from different populations. No value of U approached significance at even the .10 level of confidence. (The raw data upon which these calculations were based are presented in Appendix F.) 6. In summary, the findings from these calcula tions were that Ss who took approximately as long to com plete one response as the median and mean times for all Ss to complete the entire experiment did not differ signifi cantly from other Ss when differences in behavior between the first and the last five minutes of each response were measured by three variables. Although relationships be tween these findings and the major research questions are discussed in the following section, it should be noted that two of the measurements for these calculations required the S to manipulate the Stenorette. Since no significant dif ferences were found, it seemed defensible that neither fa tigue nor familiarity with the Stenorette was a significant factor in structuring changes in behavior as an experimen tal session progressed. Interpretation Mid Discussion of FindInge In this Beetion each of the findings previously re ported is interpreted and discussed, although not in the order in which they were first presented. The three re search questions are considered in sequence, and relevant relationships among findings have been considered under each question. Research Question I The first research question concerned observed dif ferences between individual idea development (behavior dur ing the first response) and interindividual idea develop ment (behavior during the second response) when four be havioral variables were measured in two ways. One of the measurements was of the number of times each of the four behaviors was initiated (events); the other was of the time devoted to each behavior. Between individual idea develop ment and interindividual idea development, no significant difference in the total number of events was observed; and, when allowance was made for the time difference between the two stimuli, no significant difference in total time was apparent. This result suggested at least two interpreta tions. First, it seemed clear that neither events nor time was particularly characteristic of one response as con trasted with the other response. Each seemed to be equally a structure co^uied of an ongoing duration of time punctu ated by event points. If an ongoing duration of time was taken as at least some indication of the existence of a process, the interpretation suggested was that differences between individual idea development and interindividual idea development could not be characterized as an overall difference in orientation toward process or numbers of events. Secondly, the lack of significant difference be tween the two responses in total time or events suggested that differences on any one of the four behavioral vari ables (measured by either time or events) might be more confidently taken as an index of real difference between individual and interindividual idea development. Further support for the validity of observed dif ferences between individual and interindividual idea devel opment seemed to derive from findings concerning the fac tors of fatigue and familiarity with the operation of the Stenorette dictation machine. Insofar as it could be meas ured from the data, behavior of Ss (including the behavior of manipulating the controls of the Stenorette) did not seem to be a function of how long an S took to complete the experiment. This interpretation drew its support from the fact that those Ss who took approximately as long to com plete one response (either the first or the second) as the average time of all Ss to complete the entire experiment did not observably differ from other Ss in their behavior 76 within on© response. If changes in the measured behaviors were only a function of time, one could expect changes to occur within the first response for those Ss who took so long to complete it. Under these circumstances, the expec tation of change within the second response would logically seem even stronger, Whatever changes occurred, however, these long-response-time-Ss did not significantly differ from their fellows within either response. The interpreta tion suggested here was that since the expected differences did not arise within either response, any observed behav ioral differences between responses were less likely to be attributable to fatigue, familiarity with the Stenorette, or— by extension— the order of presentation of the stimuli. Although certainly far from conclusive, these findings sug gested that observed differences in behavior between the two responses could more confidently be taken as indexes of difference in the kinds of responses elicited by the two stimuli. In the sections that follow, each of the four be havioral variables under the first research question is discussed in the order used throughout this dissertation. Findings derived from measurements of both time and event points are considered under each behavior. SLT.— Between individual idea development and in terindividual idea development, the basic findings were that: (1) no significant differences were observed in the number of times Ss listened to the stimulus tapeB, but (2) Ss devoted significantly longer time to this listening dur ing the second response. No interpretation of these re sults that did not take into account the very great differ ence in the lengths of the two stimuli seemed warranted. For all Ss the time to listen to each stimulus once was a "given." With a second stimulus 9.67 times the length of the first, this basic stimulus time could be expected to constitute a greater proportion of the second response time, and it did to a significant degree. The design of the experiment was such that each S was virtually required to listen to each stimulus at least once. All Ss did. But when the time for this one listening was subtracted from SLT time, no significant differences between the two re sponses were observed on this variable. Since the time required to listen to each stimulus once was a constant over which the Ss had no control, the observation of variations in behavior seemed to require that the overriding effects of the second stimulus be fac tored out before any meaningful interpretations of find ings could be made. The logical procedure appeared to be to subtract the stimulus time from the respective response time for each S before computing the proportionate distri butions among the behavioral variables over which the S did have some control. When this procedure was adopted, the 78 proportion of time and the proportion of event points de voted to "relistening" to the stimulus tape in the first response did not differ significantly’ from those propor tions in the second response. Three interpretations of this result seemed possi ble. The two stimuli could have been equally obscure to Ss, or they might have been equally clear. A . more reason able explanation seemed to be that the first stimulus, which was quite general in its request, might have needed more rehearing in order to clarify what was desired. The second stimulus, on the other hand, was filled with detail which an S might need to rehear in order to pick out spe cific information on which to base his response. In sum, there seemed little indication that behavior on the SLT variable provided any evidence of crucial differences be tween individual idea development and inter individual idea development. ST.— Between individual idea development and inter individual idea development, the basic findings concerning Ss* "talking" behavior were that: (1) ST event points were a significantly larger proportion of total event points in the second response than in the first response; and (2) when allowance was made for the time difference between the two stimuli, a significantly larger proportion of response time was devoted to ST behavior during the second response, as contrasted with the first response. An interpretation of these findings, as opposed to the findings on SLT behav ior, seemed more defensible in terms of real differences between individual and interindividual idea development. This interpretation also appeared to draw some support from reverse finding on ST time when the time of each stimu lus was included in total response time— i.e., when total response time was interpreted as including stimulus time, ST time was a larger proportion of total response time dur ing individual idea development. Aside from emphasizing the overriding effect of the length of the second stimulus in all proportionate measures of time devoted to individual behaviors, these apparently opposite findings could be in terpreted, it was thought, as indicating differences of kind between the two stimuli and the tasks they posed for the Ss. "Something1 1 seemed to go on while the S listened to the second stimulus which prepared him to do more talk ing during the remainder of his response time. What went on, these data did not delineate; but further interpreta tion of the nature of this "something" was suggested by Borne of the additional findings. As was emphasized in the previous section, the only response to the stimuli which an S thought he was making was that portion of his talking which he chose to leave re corded on the Stenorette. The findings were that (1) when the disparate stimulus times were factored out, the time 80 preserved on the Stenorette was a significantly larger pro portion of the response time during interindividual idea development; (2) Ss produced significantly longer Steno rette recordings during interindividual idea development; and (3) there was a tendency, which barely missed signifi cance, for Ss to edit more out of their ST time during the first response, thus allowing a greater proportion of their ST time during interindividual idea development to remain recorded on the Stenorette. When these findings were added to the discussion of the previous paragraph, there seemed to be a strong indication that the second stimulus not only prepared an S to do more talking but somehow prepared him to do more of the kind of talking he was willing to have preserved on the Stenorette as his "response." How the second stimulus accomplished this preparation, however, was not established by the data. Perhaps the most obvious explanation of these re sults might be that this preparation was accomplished through interaction between the S and the narrator while the S was listening to the second stimulus, but the data did not justify this speculation as the only interpreta tion. A somewhat similar line of reasoning suggested that the greater amount and variety of material in the second stimulus might have provided Ss with more they could use in formulating a spoken response; but, at the same time, in creased interaction seemed to be necessary if Ss were to 81 avail themselves of this greater abundance of material. It also seemed possible that the greater length of the second stimulus simply provided the S with more time to get ready to speak, whether or not he interacted with any of the ma terial in the second stimulus. This interpretation gained some support from two additional findings. First, it was found that the first stimulus produced a very significantly greater amount of Stenorette time per minute of stimulus time. Second, with the stimulus times included in response times, no significant differences were found in the propor tion of response time preserved on the Stenorette when the first and second responses were contrasted. Although no more conclusive than previously discussed findings, the in dication here was that the sheer length of the second stim ulus had a great deal to do with the observed differences in ST time and Stenorette time between individual idea de velopment and interindividual idea development. A final interpretation of the ST findings, however, was suggested by the fact that, with the stimulus times subtracted from the response times, the behavior over which Ss could exercise control was not observably different dur ing either response when measured by total event points or total time devoted to all events. When the differences in ST time and events were combined with the differences in Stenorette responses, the following interpretation seemed tentatively plausible. After hearing each stimulus once, 82 Ss not only spoke more during the second response but seemed more efficient and somewhat more confident in pro ducing a Stenorette response (the only response, one might add, with which they were ultimately concerned) as evi denced by their editing behavior as well as the length of Stenorette responses. It seemed clear, however, that on the basis of this discussion, judgment should be reserved pending the remainder of the analysis of the findings from this study and, quite possibly, pending future research. SLS.— The most obvious characteristic of this var iable, the S listening to himself, was that it was struc tured into the design of the experiment as a somewhat arti ficial behavioral option from an S's point of view. Al though dictation machines are not uncommon, no S had had experience using one regularly. From the investigator*s point of view, however, the Stenorette provided a flexi bility and ease of operation which seemed more desirable than other types of recording devices; and overt recording seemed essential if Ss were to be encouraged to make a spoken response to the stimuli. As was indicated above, the editing feature of the Stenorette also provided addi tional information for interpretation purposes. The design of the study, then, provided the SLS op tion which most Ss used; and the focus was on differences between individual and Interindividual idea developsient 83 under these experimental conditions, No significant dif ference between the two responses was obserred in the pro portion of SIS event points. With the stimuli factored out of total response times, SLS time was found to be a sig nificantly larger proportion of second responses; but this significance disappeared when stimulus times were included. One possible interpretation of these results was that Ss, when given this behavioral option, tended to "in teract” with their own previously recorded speech as some thing of a corollary, perhaps, to their interaction with the narrator. Another explanation, however, seemed to lie outside the measurements used in this research. Re-exami nation of the covert recordings disclosed that Ss tended to listen, during their seoond response, to the Stenorette re cordings they had made during the first response. This listening was generally done at the end of the second re sponse, as a sort of "check" by the S of everything he had recorded; but many Ss also listened to part of their first Stenorette responses after hearing the second stimulus but before beginning any spoken response to it. Thus, it seemed probable that the SLS variable, as incorporated into the design of this study, could not be considered a likely index of any real differences between individual idea de velopment and interindividual idea development. SP.— Results concerning the behavior of Ss in 8*4 "pausing"— including instances of silence and unidentifi able or unclassified noise— were among the most significant in the study. The findings were that, when measured by either time or event points, the proportion of behavior represented by pauses was very significantly greater in the first response. When contrasted by either of these meas ures, the observed differences between individual idea de velopment and interindividual idea development could have occurred by chance once in ten thousand times. Further more, since the time difference was in favor of a larger proportion in the first response, inclusion of stimulus times in the calculations only operated to increase the difference; and the result was highly significant either way. Any explanation of these results seemed to require, first, an interpretation of how significant it was to pause during either response for whatever reason. Phrased in an other way, the question was: What happened during pauses? From the audial record available, some "unclassified" noise could be identified with some confidence. It was possible to interpret some sounds as indicating that Ss were manipu lating the controls of the Stenorette, mumbling at a level too low to be clearly recorded by the hidden recorder, lighting a cigarette, "drumming" on the desk, or engaging in a variety of other behaviors which seemed predictably normal under the experimental circumstances. Easily the 85 moBt prominent feature of pauses, however, was silence. Although it was certainly possible that some Ss engaged in unidentifiable physical activity during pauses, it seemed more likely that they did not. In short, the most defen sible interpretation of the silences— and, by extension, the pauses— was that Ss were thinking. Even if small phys ical activities were also present, mental activity seemed to be, logically, a prominent feature of pauses. It is possible, of course, that Ss thought of noth ing during pauses— that their minds were blank. A more reasonable speculation might be that they thought about something other than the subject matter of the experiment, but this seemed difficult to defend as an explanation of differences in pausing behavior when the two responses of Ss were contrasted. There were several potential sources of distraction, of course— the experimental room, itself, as well as sounds outside the room and sights outside the window— but none of these sources of stimuli were known to operate more during one response than the other. In addi tion, as a more positive Indication that Ss concerned them selves with the subject matter of the experiment, only two Ss indicated to the investigator that they made no notes during the experiment, two Ss did not surrender any notes they may have made, but twenty-four Ss did provide their notes— ranging from a few words to more than three pages. An examination of these notes disclosed that all of them 86 could be described as pertaining to the experimental situ ation. Although some pages contained designs and random marks, no words could be identified as not related to the subject matter of the experiment. In sum, then, it ap peared reasonable to interpret the pauses of Ss as at least a rough index of thinking; it seemed evident from their notes that most Ss devoted part of this time to thinking about the subject matter of the experiment; and, finally, it seemed difficult to defend the observed differences in pausing behavior between individual idea development and interindividual idea development on the basis of some dis tracting influence that caused Ss to think about something other than the experimental tasks with which they were faced. As has been discussed earlier, it was recognized that some contamination existed in the distinction between individual and interindividual idea development. Neither was believed to represent a "pure" example of the process by which ideas are developed intrapersonally or interac tively. Observation of these behaviors in their pure form, however, did not seem feasible with the instrumentation presently available. To the extent that the design of this study was successful in eliciting responses which were pre dominantly the result of idea development by one individual during the first response and were predominantly the result of interactive idea development during the second response, 87 SP behavior (which seemed -to he predominantly thinking be havior) appeared to be the variable which most significant ly distinguished between the two. In a more usual and nat ural situation, it might be rare if these Ss vocalized while thinking alone; but given the requirements of the ex perimental situation— that a spoken response be recorded— individual idea development seemed to require more "pausing to think" before speaking than did interindividual idea de velopment. At least it could be said with certainty that Ss chose to pause more often and to Bpend more time pausing during the first response then they did during the second response. Summary of research question I.— As interpreted, SLT behavior and SLS behavior provided little indication that eigher one was particularly characteristic of individ ual as opposed to interindividual idea development. On the other hand, ST behavior and SP behavior could be seen as very nearly the reverse of one another. ST behavior seemed particularly characteristic of interindividual idea devel opment, while SP behavior seemed very significantly related to individual idea development. It was interpreted that the interactive development of ideas appeared to prepare an S to speak more efficiently and somewhat more confidently than did the intro-active development of ideas. The latter seemed to require more pausing, which was interpreted as 88 more thinking or meditating, as a preparation for speaking. Neither behavioral processes nor event points between be haviors, as overall measures, seemed to be particularly characteristic of either individual idea development or in terindividual idea development. Research Question II The second research question concerned observed differences between individual idea development (behavior during the first response) and interindividual idea devel opment (behavior during the second response) when the pro portionate distribution of two kinds of verbal references were considered: first, verbal references to verbal ma terial on the stimulus recording; and, second, verbal ref erences to the S, himself. In general, the findings were that both these proportions were larger for the second re sponse. On the proportion of verbal references to the stimulus, there was less than one chance in ten thousand that the results obtained could be attributed to chance variation. On the proportion of verbal references to Nself,H the probability was less than one in a hundred that chance variation caused the observed differences. The fact that verbal differences were observed seemed consistent with the findings of Bowman and Fear.*** From their evidence that the linguistic product of "intra-" ^^See n. 1, Chapter II, and attendant discussion. 89 behavior was observably different from the linguistic prod uct of "inter-" behavior, whether using expert judges or lay judges, it would have been surprising had differences not been observed in this study. This difference, itself, seemed possible of interpretation as some evidence that the two responses in this study might be more confidently clas sified as "intra-" and "inter-," respectively. The proportionate distribution of verbal references to the stimulus seemed to be in line with expectations. It was quite possible that the second stimulus simply provided more material to which the Ss could refer. It was also possible that the nature of the second stimulus request (i.e., what would "you" do in this particular case) was such that a significantly larger proportion of words spoken during the response was almost necessarily devoted to ref erences to particulars of the case. Another line of inter pretation suggested that these references might be a form of secondary information feedback system to assure the ex perimenter and, indirectly, the S and the "narrator" that the S was talking "on the subject." George Miller has em phasized the importance of repetition of messages in group communication as a "safeguard against mistakes"; and it seemed possible that, within the experimental situation when the narrator and investigator were not present, the S might still be operating according to Mi Her*s conclu sion that "every communication plays a double role, for it 90 both lets the people know and also lets the people know that the people know."15 There seemed little reason to choose between these interpretations, for they did not seem mutually exclusive; nor did they seem to obviate the basic interpretation that references to either stimulus indexed some interaction with the stimulus, and that the greater proportion of references in the second response indicated the predominantly interindividual nature of the idea devel opment during that response. The interpretation of the findings concerning ref erences to "self seemed to require that some attempt be made to resolve an apparent contradiction. If individual idea development was, indeed, more intrapersonal in nature, one might have expected a greater proportion of self-refer ences to occur in the first response. The reverse was the case. ▲ possible explanation suggested that when respond ing to the general request for teaching standards (in the first stimulus) the tendency might be to reduce the total of all possible standards to a manageable number, perhaps the "three to five main points" often suggested to begin ning speakers, and to treat them as "accepted" standards. In the narrative stimulus, however, there were so many de tails and so many directions of thinking from which a re sponse might grow that it seemed possible that Ss might ^Miller, p. 252. 91 exhibit more idiosyncrasy in the selection of content, approach, or organizational scheme; and, in so doing, it was thought that they might have felt a need to substan tiate their choices on the basis of "what I would have done" or "how it seems to me," A concomitant interpreta tion was the possibility that Ss scarcely needed to say "I" or "me" during individual idea development, because it was all "I," all personal. They could simply proceed with the understanding that all the ideas were their own. When the "fellow speech teacher" indicated what he did in the par ticular case of Bill Collins, however, it seemed reasonable to expect the teacher who was acting as an S to indicate hie thinking about the case by Indicating "what _ I would have done." In an attempt to clarify this situation further, the first person references in each stimulus which referred directly to the investigators or to the narrator ("teach er") were counted and computed as a proportion of total words in each stimulus. The finding was that the stimuli differed in the same direction as the responses of Ss; and the difference between proportions on the stimuli (.018) was double the average difference between proportions on the responses of the twenty-eight Ss (.009). Further, with the narrative removed from the second stimulus, the number of "you" words directed at the S by the investigators dur ing the instructions could be counted. The proportion of 92 "you" words in the first stimulus instruction (.071) was less than the proportion of "you" words in the combined opening and closing instructions of the second stimulus (.08* * ) . These added findings suggested at least two inter pretations. First, Ss seemed to be responding to shat they were given and were, in effect, "giving back in kind." Second, the parallel proportionate distributions of first person pronouns oould be interpreted as a further indica tion of greater interaction with the second stimulus. Finally, it appeared that personal pronoun ref erences, as well as references to what another person has said, might be characteristic of interpersonal communica tion. It seemed possible that references to what "my" ex perience has been, as well as references to what "you" have said, might be part of the process by which individuals attempt to bridge the ideational gap separating them. The very brief verbal analysis attempted here suggested the possibility that interpersonal communication might be a "you and I" situation linguistically as well as physically. During the intra-active development of ideas, however, no gap exists; understanding can be assumed. Under these cir cumstances, it seemed reasonable to assume that an individ ual would not need to draw as heavily on "I" and "me" words in developing his ideas; and, if called upon to speak about individually developed ideas (as in this experimental 93 situation) he night exhibit the tendency observed here— to employ a smaller proportion of first person pronoun forms than during the interactive development of ideas. Siimwa-ry of research question 11.— As interpreted here, the findings concerning this research question pro vided some additional support for viewing the first re sponse as predominantly the result of the development of ideas by one individual and the second response as predom inantly the result of interactive idea development. The indication was that self-references as well as references to what another has said might be characteristic of inter personal communication. The evidence, however, was far from conclusive and should be considered within the ex ploratory framework of the study. Research Question III The third research question concerned observed dif ferences between individual idea development (behavior dur ing the first response) and interindividual idea develop ment (behavior during the second response) which might also indicate differences between experienced teachers of speech (EX) and inexperienced teachers of speech (INX). The find ings were that when EX Ss were contrasted with INX Ss, no significant differences were observed on any of the behav ioral variables used in the first two research questions as indexes of differences between individual and interindivid- 91 * ual Idea development. The evidence suggested that whatever differences might exist between experienced teachers of speech and inexperienced teachers of speech, the measure-* ments conducted during this experiment did not indicate that they differed from each other on the observed differ ences between individual and interindividual idea develop ment. For the purposes of this experiment, EX and INX Ss could be considered as one population. The sampling was very small; but if it were repre sentative of speech teachers, in general, the results might be taken to indicate that observed differences between in dividual and interindividual idea development could be characteristic of speech teachers. It seemed to be con siderably less reasonable to generalize the results to any wider population, and no further interpretation of these results were suggested. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Summary An effort was made in this study to tap the think ing and feeling of eaoh S by asking him to respond orally to two recorded stimuli. Twenty-eight college-level speech teachers acted as Ss, and the first stimulus asked each S to record a statement of the standards he used for criti cizing, counseling, and grading his own undergraduate stu dents. In the second stimulus, complex details of an ac tual classroom occurrence were given by an anonymous "speech teacher" who told the story of a student who was detected in quoting extensively from an unacknowledged source during a speech; and the S was encouraged to record a response to this "other teacher’s" ideas about the case. It was thought that this procedure would produce samples of two kinds of idea development— individual and interindivid ual. The problem for this study was to explore the pos sibility that there might be measurable differences between the communication behaviors of Ss during individual idea 95 development in comparison with interindividual idea devel opment. Four behavioral variables were measured by the amount of time devoted to each behavior and by the number of times each behavior was initiated. The four behaviors were: (1) S listening to the tape-recorded stimuli, (2) S talking, (3) S listening to himself— as recorded during the experiment, and (J*) S "pausing"— including instances of si lence and unidentifiable or unclassified noise. Further measurements were made of verbal references to the stimulus materials and verbal references to "self." Experienced and inexperienced speech teachers were compared on all vari ables. Although it was recognized that responses to the two stimuli could not be considered as "pure" examples of the two kinds of idea development, it was thought that the first response would provide evidence of idea development which was predominantly individual and that the second re sponse would provide evidence of idea development which was predominantly interindividual. The intent was to discover ways in which these two kinds of idea development might differ on the variables measured. Further understanding of these differences, if any, was thought to be important to the eventual development of a general theory of communica tion in which the nature of the interactivity between two human beings was the paramount focus. A review of the literature disclosed that observers could discriminate between the linguistic products of 97 individual and interindividual idea development. Differ ences in the processes by which these ideas were developed, however, did not appear to have been studied along the lines suggested by this study. Evidence was found to sup port many features of the design and the major research questions, so that this research seemed to be a logical step in the ongoing research into human communication. Further review of literature seemed to indicate that the fact of speech as well as the words spoken could be taken as some evidence of the nature of idea development and thinking processes, and that previous theoretical con structs as well as prior research supported the theoretical orientation of the present study. Each S, alone in the experimental room, used a tape recorder to playback the stimuli and recorded his responses on a Stenorette dictation machine. A hidden tape recorder provided a complete sound record of each experimental ses sion and was the primary source of data. Measurements used in the study were made by timing each behavioral variable observed on these tapes and by limited content analysis of typescripts taken from these tapes. From tabulations of these data computations were made of differences between individual idea development and interindividual idea devel opment. The observed differences were subjected to statis tical analysis and Interpretation. In briefest form the findings were as follows. Beaearch Question I The first research question asked, in part: "Be tween individual idea development and interindividual idea development, what might he the differences, if any, in the proportionate distribution among the following behavioral variables. ..." ▲. When measured by "the number of times each be havior was initiated": 1. S listening to the stimulus tape (SLT).— The percentage of SLT events in the first response did not differ significantly from the percentage of SLT eventB in the second response. 2. S talking (ST).— The percentage of ST events was significantly larger during interindividual idea development (p = .03*0. 3. S listening to himself (SLS).— No signifi cant difference was found between percentages of SLS events. S pausing (SP).— The percentage of SP events was very significantly larger during individual idea development (p * .00006). B. When measured by "the amount of time devoted to each behavior":* 1. S listening to the stimulus tape (SLT).— No *▲11 percentages of time reported in this summary were computed after subtracting the length of each stimulus from its respective response time. 99 significant difference was found between percentages of SLT tine. 2. S talking (ST),— The percentage of ST time was significantly larger during interindividual idea devel opment (p « * .0102). 3. S listening to himself (SLS).— The percent age of SIB time was significantly larger during interindi vidual idea development (p * .02). t + . S pausing (SP).— The percentage of SP time was very significantly larger during individual idea devel opment (p = . 0 0 0 0 6). Research Question II The second research question asked, in part: “Be tween individual idea development and interindividual idea development, what might be the proportionate distribution of the following behavioral variables, as components of the total verbal output of a subject?" A. "Verbal references to verbal material on the stimulus recording."— The percentage of words in Ss* re sponses which referred to material on the stimulus record ing was very significantly larger during interindividual idea development (p « .00006). B. "Verbal references to the subject, himself."— The percentage of words in Ss* responses which referred to "self" was signifioantly larger during interindividual idea 100 development (p = .0086). Research Question III The third research question asked: “Between indi vidual idea development and interindividual idea develop ment, what might be the differences, if any, in the ob served behavior of subjects classified in the following manner? A. college-level speech teachers with eight or more years of teaching experience B. college-level speech teachers with three or fewer years of teaching experience." When differences between individual idea develop ment and interindividual idea development which were dis played by experienced speech teachers (classification A, above) were compared to the differences displayed by inex perienced Bpeech teachers (classification B, above), no significant differences between EX and INX Ss were found on any variable measured under the first two research ques tions. Additional Findings 1. Total time to complete responses, stimulus time included.— Ss devoted signifioantly more time to interindi vidual idea development (p ** .OOlU). 2. Time to complete responses, stimulus time ex cluded.— No significant difference was found between the 101 amount of time devoted to developing ideas individually as contrasted to the amount of time devoted to developing ideas interindividually. 3. Total number of events (event points).— Between individual idea development and interindividual idea devel opment, Ss did not differ significantly in the number of events initiated. Batio of stimulus time to total time for com pletion.— The second stimulus was a larger percentage of its respective total response time for all Ss (p = .00006). 5. Stenorette response time.— Ss produced signifi cantly longer Stenorette responses during interindividual idea development (p = .0308). 6. Batio of Stenorette response time to stimulus time.— For a significantly larger number of Ss the first stimulus produced more Stenorette response time per minute of stimulus time than did the second stimulus (p * .00006). 7. Proportion edited out of ST time to produce Stenorette response time.— The tendency was for Ss* Steno rette responses to evidence more editing during individual idea development, but the difference barely missed statis tical significance (p ■ .0536). 8. Ratio of Stenorette time to time for coraple- tion.— The proportion of response time which was recorded as Stenorette time was significantly larger during inter individual idea development (p = .00032). 102 9. Fatigue and familiarity with the Stenorette,— There was no statistical evidence to indicate that either fatigue or increasing familiarity with the Stenorette was a biasing variable in the experiment. Interpretations of Findings 1. Individual idea development produced responses in which a greater proportion of time and event points were devoted to "pausing." SP behavior was interpreted as pre dominantly an index of "thinking." Thus, it was suggested that individual idea development seemed to require more "pausing to think" before speaking than did interindividual idea development; and this difference in SP behavior seemed to be the most characteristic difference between the two kinds of idea development when differences were measured by time or event points. 2. Interindividual idea development produced re sponses in which a greater proportion of time and event points were concerned with "talking," and more of this speech was committed to the Stenorette response. These re sults were interpreted as indicating increased speaking efficiency during interindividual idea development and somewhat more confidence in what was spoken. In addition, interIndividual idea development produced verbal responses in which a greater proportion of words referred to "self" and in which a greater proportion of words referred to the 103 stimulus materials than was true of verbal responses pro duced during individual idea development. These findings were largely interpreted as being descriptive of interper sonal communication; hut they were also thought to indicate that more interaction with the stimulus did, in fact, take place during the second response. In sum, interaction with the ideas of another person seemed to prepare Ss to do more talking and more of the kind of talking they were willing to preserve on the Stenorette as an overt, recorded, and public response. 3. Results which were not interpreted as providing meaningful Indexes of differences between individual and interindividual idea development included: (a) behavioral differences displayed by experienced speech teachers con trasted with inexperienced speech teachers (non-significant results); and (b) SLT and SLS behavior, whether measured by time or event points. Although certain statistically sig nificant differences were discovered using these latter two measures, and although these findings seemed to make a helpful contribution to meaningful interpretations of other findings (see number 2, above), available explanations of the observed differences appeared to indicate that they should not be interpreted as indexes of real or meaningful differences between individual and interindividual idea de velopment but were, rather, more nearly artifacts of the experimental design. 10k Implications Just as the unanswered questions posed by prior re search suggested the present study, the implications of problems and questions encountered during this experiment also suggested potential avenues of investigation. The problem of observing how people manage, during spoken com munication, to bridge the physical, physiological, and psy chological gap that separates them appeared to be difficult but not insurmountable. The exploratory nature of the present study, however, raised many questions. One complication encountered in this study was at tempting to deal with stimuli of very different lengths when analyzing proportionate distributions of time, which suggested that future research of this nature ought to search for a way to stimulate interindividual idea develop ment with a shorter stimulus. This problem did not appear to be an easy one to solve. At what point, for example, does the interaction produced by two verbal stimuli become so similar that the kinds of idea development they elicit cease to be observably different? At what point is it no longer meaningful to characterize one stimulus as causing an S to produce a response which is "predominantly" the product of individual idea development and to characterize the other stimulus as requiring interindividual idea devel opment? Investigation of the length and type of stimuli which elicit these two kinds of idea development seemed to be one avenue for study. Another approach was suggested by the somewhat ar tificial situation in this experiment which required an S to interact with an unseen, anonymous "colleague.N Other techniques need to be devised to control the stimuli and reduce the artificiality of the interactive situation, and techniques are needed to more adequately observe individual and interindividual idea development using face-to-face communication situations. Many techniques for the analysis of face-to-face verbal interaction have been used, but an implication of this study seemed to be that more attention might be given to thinking or pausing time as it relates to the development of ideas. What, for example, would be the effeot of a series of "meditation periods" on the genera tion of ideas during a group discussion? Since interin dividual idea development in this study seemed to prepare an S to speak with somewhat more efficiency and confidence, what might be the effect on beginning public speakers of Initial experience in generating ideas interindividually and communicating them interactively? Although a number of studies have been reported concerning the effects of interaction in small groups on learning, some research gaps might be filled by contrasting individual and interindividual idea development. For exam ple, would silence (thinking) or interaction be more of an aid to learning? How would individual or interactive 106 learning be affected by varying categories of Sb; subject matter; or time and/or event points allotted to listening to a stimulus, talking, listening to self, or pausing to think? What kinds of interaction aid or hinder learning? From a technical standpoint, the present study seemed to need replication using different categories of Ss and confounding the order of presentation of stimuli. It appeared, however, that confounding the order of presenta tion could contaminate the individual development of ideas to a point where distinctions between individual and inter individual idea development might become meaningless, par ticularly for any one S or if the topic (subject matter) used in the two stimuli remained constant. Once an S has interacted with the ideas of another on a topic, is it pos sible to induce him to develop ideas individually on that same topic— even on another facet of that topic? If dif ferent Ss or different topics were used for individual as contrasted with interindividual idea development, addi tional variables would be introduced and control problems would be increased. With careful matching of Ss, however, the behavior of two groups, each developing spoken ideas in only one way, could be statistically compared to indicate real differences, if any, between individual and interin dividual idea development without contamination that might result from order of presentation of stimuli. It appeared that experimentation should be undertaken, using different 107 categories of Ss, different topics, and separate groups of Ss for the two types of idea development, to explore this general problem area. The present study explored differences between in dividual and interindividual idea development using meas urements of six variables. Other behavioral variables should be discovered and measured. What measurements other than time and event points might be relevant? What verbal categories, other than references to self and references to the verbal output of another communicator might meaning fully discriminate between individual and interindividual idea development? What might be discovered through a com plete content analysis of Individually generated and inter actively produced speech? For example, what proportion of interaction occurs on the level of specific detail as con trasted with a more general level? To what extent does verbal specificity affect the interindividual development of ideas? Another approach might be to combine measurements of time and events with content analysis. Two of the be havioral variables measured in the present study seemed to be artifacts of the experimental situation (SLT and SLS). On the other hand, what might be learned from a closer analysis of what the Ss listened to (when they were listen ing to themselves and when they were rehearing the stimu lus) and how many times they listened to what material? 108 This study found that most Ss, given the opportunity to use the Stenorette, did some editing; and that those Ss who edited tended to do more of it during individual idea de velopment. What might be learned from an analysis of what was discarded by editing and shat was retained on the Sten orette? The implication appeared to be that Ss were se lecting some ideas and discarding others. A second evi dence of selectivity was the written notes provided by most Ss. Casual Inspection of the notes indicated that many Ss had erased, crossed out, etc. Spontaneously produced notes of this kind might be analyzed by themselves or might be compared to the tape-recorded speech which was developed from them. Were the pauseB (silences, "thinking") observed in this study further evidence of selectivity? How might the selecting process differ during individual idea devel opment when contrasted with interindividual idea develop ment? Perhaps some researcher might discover a way to quantify this sort of data. Questions abound. Problems remain. The present study has sought to add a few details to our understanding of the processes by which the ideas of one person inter mingle with those of another during spoken communication. APPENDIXES 109 APPENDIX A NUMBERING OF Ss BY ORDER OF PARTICIPATION AND DESCENDING ORDER OF TOTAL TIME 110 APPENDIX A NUMBERING OF Ss BT ORDER OF PARTICIPATION AND DESCENDING ORDER OF TOTAL TIME Order of Participation Descending Order of Total Time (Enell's numbering) (Perrill's numbering) 1* 2 ........................... 23 2 ::::::::::::: \l 5 ........................... 2U 6 7 16 8 9 1 0 7 1 1 ......................... 9 1 2 5 13 1*+ 11 1 5 ......................... 6 1 6 13 1 7 22 1 8 ........................... 27 1 9 ......................... U 2 0 21 2 1 . . 1 2 2 15 2j)........................... 28 25 2 6 26 2 7 ........................... 19 2 8 10 29 3 0 8 3 1 ........................... 20 3 2 2 3 3 ........................... 25 3 & 12 3 5 ........................... 18 3 6 ......................... 3 "Numbers in the left column without numbers in the right column represent those Ss lost to this study because of technical failure of recording equipment. Ill APPENDIX B SCRIPT FOR RECORDED STIMULI 112 APPENDIX B SCRIPT FOR RECORDED STIMULI First Stimulus— Opening Instructions The general concern of this experiment is with how you evaluate students. More specifically, in this experi ment we are exploring the standards or criteria that dif ferent speech teachers use in evaluating undergraduate stu dents for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, or grading. Therefore, our first request is that you give a hrief statement of your teaching standards or criteria which you use for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, or grading your own undergraduate students. For your con venience we have provided a Stenorette dictation machine on which you may record your summary of your statements. While using the Stenorette, please feel free to edit or modify your statement in any way, if you so desire. Make some notes if you desire. Replay these opening instruc tions if you wish. Now, let me repeat our specific re quest. Using the Stenorette dictation machine, give us a hrief statement of the teaching standards or criteria which you use for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, or grading your own undergraduate speech studentB. After dic tating your statement of teaching standards, then turn on this recorder again, because we have a second request to 113 11^ APPENDIX B— Continued make which will he explained on thle tape after you hare completed the first task which has just been described. Please stop this recorder at this point. Second Stimulus— Introduction, Narration, and Final Instructions Introduction Thank you for giving us a summary of the criteria that you use in eraluating your undergraduate speech stu dents. Of course, one test of any general criterion is its application to a concrete case. Therefore, we hare asked sereral speech teachers to gire us actual cases from their classroom experience. We hare chosen one such case, and the teacher has consented to describe it for you. In mak ing this tape, he realized that it was a situation in which one speech teacher talks to another; so please listen to his problem as though it were yours. Tou will then be asked to respond to it on the Stenorette. Here is his description of the case. Narration Now, as I understand it, the experimenters want me to tell you my particular experience with an undergraduate speaker. This is a true story. I're changed the names, of course, but it really happened. You, as a teacher of speech, may have had a similar experience; but, for the 115 APPENDIX B— Continued purposes of this experiment, this is what happened to me. As a final speeoh in an undergraduate class, 1 usually as sign a persuasive, extemporaneous speech of about eight minutes in length; and, 1 also require my students to read at least one full book, or its equivalent, as background for this final speech. You may have a similar assignment that you use. The case I want to tell you about happened a few years ago in connection with this final assignment. Far and away my best speaker in this particular class was a boy named William Collins. From the first week of the se mester, Bill was obviously the most effective speaker 1 had. His appearance, his voice, his articulation— partic ularly his poise— were far superior to the average begin ning speaker in an undergraduate public speaking class. His final speeCh, however, provided me with a problem. Bill had chosen to speak in favor of social justice for Negroes. Ah, during the first two or three minutes this was just another good Bill Collins speeoh. Then he turned to the Btory of one particular Negro to illustrate his cen tral point that many Negroes had been, ah, well, able to achieve success even under adverse conditions. The in dividual he chose was Toussaint L'Ouverture. I thought the choice was dated perhaps, but certainly legitimate. As he began to relate the story of L'Ouverture, I began to feel somehow disturbed. Perhaps it was the language, I thought. 116 APPENDIX B— Continued But, can you imagine sitting and listening to a nineteen- year-old junior now using words like these? "If I were to tell you the story of Napoleon, I should take it from the lips of Frenchmen, who find no language rich enough to paint the great captain of the nineteenth century. Were I to tell you the story of Washington, I should take it from your hearts— you, who think no marble white enough on which to carve the name of the Father of his Country. But I am to tell you the story of a Negro, Toussaint L’Ouverture, who has left hardly one written line." Sud denly I realized that these were not the words of Bill Collins but the eloquence, verbatim, of Wendell Phillips from his famous oration which I myself remembered studying when I was a student. I was stunned. Here was my best speaker in this class apparently indulging in crude and flagrant plagiarism. What should I do? What would you do? During the final moments of the speech, I was only half listening. I could stop him now; I could reprimand him at the end of his speech in front of the whole class; or I could ask him to stop by my office because I had something to discuss. I rejected these alternatives, and for the time being I did nothing. I pretended that nothing unusual had occurred. I let him take the final written exam the following week. He got a B-plus. Then I turned in his final semester grade— an incomplete. Now, I thought that 117 APPENDIX B— Continued this grade would mislead Bill because I— well, because he would suppose that he had failed to fulfill some assign ment. I wanted him to come in and ask about it off-guard. If he thought he was getting away with something, I wanted him to think he had succeeded. While he was worrying about the incomplete, I wanted a chance to explore some other questions. Was he trying to get out of the assignment of reading a book or its equivalent? Was he really trying to pass off Phillips' eloquence as his own? What could he possibly feel he had to gain? Why would he risk a probable "A" or a certain "B" by a stunt that could easily earn him an "F" in the course or worse? These were some of the questions I wanted to ask. Ah, it seemed to me that there had to be more to the story. That's why I gave him the in complete. Well, sure enough, as soon as grades were dis- trib— distributed, Bill made an appointment. He was very agitated when he came into my office. He said, "I just got my grades yesterday." And then he blurted out, "Boy, my father just about hit the ceiling. So I got here as soon as I could get an appointment." I said, "Well, I can un derstand why you might not expect or like an incomplete, but why your father? Why was he so upset?" He said, "Well, maybe with some parents that kind of grade wouldn't matter much, but my father's a teacher like yourself, and teachers, well, they don't take these things lightly." I 118 APPENDIX B— Continued said, "Your father's a teacher? Where does he teach?" He said, "Eight here." I said, "Is your father Merle Collins?" I thought, shy, I*re known Merle Collins for ten or fifteen years. Although he was in a different depart ment, we*d served together on many university committees, so that, well I could describe him not only as a colleague of long standing but as a personal friend. I asked Bill why he hadn't brought that up before— earlier in the semes ter. He said, "Well, I didn't think it had anything to do with the class." Besides, he had decided not to try to ride through this university on hiB father's coattails. He would make it on his own, or not at all. That was his pol icy. Well, after a moment's thought, I realized that he had blurted out about his father, and had given me his name only when I had asked for it directly. So, it was clear to me that Bill had a standard of ethics in this regard and that he was living according to that standard. This, of course, made me all the more confused as to why he had plagiarized. Bill was still anxious about the incomplete. He said that he had thought and thought, and couldn't re member any assignment that he had missed. He said, "What have I failed to do? What does this grade mean?" I told him that it had to do with the research I had assigned for the final speeoh. I reminded him that I had required that at least one full book be read, and then told him that I 119 APPENDIX B— Continued didn't think his speech reflected that. He said, "But I did, 1 did." I asked him what he'd read. He named a re cently published book on civil rights, a book that had been widely and favorably reviewed and one which, by lucky acci dent, I happened to have read myself; so, I questioned him. 1 wanted to find out whether he had actually read it. it became immediately clear that he indeed had read the book, and thoroughly. As we talked about the book, I asked him why he had chosen to speak on civil rights. He told me that he had been active in several civil rights organiza tions and had given some speeches on the subject before campus groups, so that I was convinced that his interest was genuine, for he had read about civil rights and he had been actively involved in furthering that cause. Now, these facts seemed to me to indicate, again, that he was behaving according to a standard of ethics: He had met the assignment of reading a full book; he had not tried to get out of that effort by memorizing someone else's speech; and, even more Impressive, I thought, his interest in the topic was very sincere— he was idealistic enough even to work for social justice for Negroes. That made his pla-^ giarlsm even more puzzling. I then asked him if he had ever heard of Wendell Phillips. He said, "Oh yes, I cer tainly have. I ran across him in an interesting way. Yea, when my dad found out about my interest in the subject of 120 APPENDIX B— Continued Negro rights, he said he had a hook in his library that I might like to read. He pulled out an old book called some thing like American Eloquenoe, or something, and pointed out a selection called 'Toussaint L'Ouverture.' I read that essay or speech or whatever it was, and I thought it was one of the best things I had ever read on the subject— realistic and kind of inspiring, you know." He then went on to say that he was so impressed and moved by it that he thought that the best way to make his speech live for the other students was to let them have the same experience he had had when reading about this actual case. He reminded me that 1 had stressed that the speech was supposed to be persuasive and that it should influence the attitudes or actions of the audience. It seemed to him that that story would make his audience believe in social justice, and it might even get them to feel an urge to go out and do some thing about it. He said that he couldn't think of anything more moving than that story. "Why," I said, "why didn't you quote from the research book in the speech?" He said, "Well, that is a good book on the subjeot, but it's not the kind of thing that would make an audience go out and do something, like this story would have." I said, "Well, well, then, why didn't you tell Phillips* story in your own words?" He said, "You know, I tried that. I even tried to write down the story in my own way, but it didn't have it. 121 APPENDIX B— Continued I dust couldn't seem to Improve on it." I then asked him the sixty-four dollar question: Why hadn't he acknowledged that the story had come from Phillips? He said that he thought it would hare interferred with the excitement and realism of it. Well, that's what he told me; and, as far as I could tell, he was sincere. I said to him, "Well, the fact remains that three-quarters of your speech was the words and thoughts of Wendell Phillips, and that adds up to plagiarism, which is just as had in a speech class as un acknowledged quoting in a term paper or orihhing on a written examination. That's why I gave you the incomplete, Bill. I wanted to find out why you had done that." He said, "Well, I can see it from your point of riew, now. I guess it's clear that I did wrong, although 1 want you to know that I didn't intend to. All I can say is that I'm sorry and ask you what you intend to do." Well, I replied that I wanted a couple of days to think ahout it. I told him that there was quite a list of alternatives for me to think ahout. I could justify almost any grade, from "A" to MFM for the speech or for the course. I could go even fur ther, I said, and give him an official reprimand, or I could turn the entire matter over to the Dean of Men. I said to him, "However, during that couple of days, Bill, there is one thing that I'm going to require you to do. I want you to go to your father tonight or tomorrow and I 122 APPENDIX B— Continued want you to tell him, in b o far as you can remember, ex actly what you and I hare talked about here in this con ference today." "And then," I said, "in a couple of days I will have made up my mind and you can find out what I hare decided to do about this." Well, that's the story of Bill Collins. I cannot tell you what my final decision was, since I hare been instructed by the experimenters to suspend the case at this point. Final Instructions We now come to your final instruction for the pur poses of this experiment. You have heard a fellow speech teacher describe an actual case. Suppose that you had been Bill Collins* instructor. What would you have done? And why would you have done it? Using the Stenorette, please give us your verdict on Bill Collins and your reasons. In other words, in the best traditions of our discipline, support your decision. You may, of course, use the Stenorette to edit or modify your statement in any way you wish. You may make notes or replay any part of these in structions or of the Bill Collins case. These are your final instructions. Thanks a million for your cooperation. Please stop this tape recorder now. APPENDIX C PERSONAL DATA SHEET 123 Name: PERSONAL DATA SHEET Subject No. Date: College or university where you teach: Subject No.: ____ Age: 20-30 ____; 30-40 ____; U0-50 ; oyer 50 . Degrees now held: Bachelors ; Masters ____; Doctors ____. Rank: Instr. ; Asst, Prof. ____; Assoc. Prof. ____; Prof. ____; Lecturer ; T.A. ____; Other . Years of teaching experience: Less than 1 year ____; 1-3 yrs. ; yrs. ; 8-12 yrs. ____; 13 or more yrs. ____. For how many years hare you taught undergraduate classes in public speaking? ____. In what year did you last teach an undergraduate course in public speaking? ____. May we use your statements in preparing an "audio-aid” for teacher education in speech? Yes ____. No ____ . COMMENTS: (Use the back of this form for comments regarding your personal data or the experiment.) 12U APPENDIX D TABULATION SHEET 125 TABULATION SHEET Total tine (Col. A) Subject No Stenorette time (Col. B): RESPONSES TO FIRST STIMULUS (Tine of Stim.— 1.5 min.) Total tine, let response (Col. C): ______ Total tine, minus stimulus tine (Col. D)s ______ (Col. C, minus 1.5 min.) Stenorette time, 1st response (Col. E): ______ SLT— No. (Col. F) s ______; Tine (Col. G)i ______ SP— No. (Col. H): ; Tine (Col. I): ______ SLS— No. (Col. J): ______; Time (Col. K): ______ ST— No. (Col. L):______; Time (Col. M): ______ RESPONSES TO SECOND STIMULUS (Time of Stim.— lU.5 min.) Total time, 2nd response (Col. N): ______ Total time, minus stimulus time (Col. 0): ______ (Col. N, minus lU.5 min.) Stenorette time, 2nd response (Col. P): ______ SLT— No. (Col. Q): ______; Time (Col. R): ______ SP— No. (Col. S): ; Time (Col. T): ______ SLS— No. (Col. U)i ______; Time (Col. V) j ______ ST— No. (Col. W): ; Time (Col. X) j ______ Words— Total (Col. Y): Ref. to Self (Col. Z): ; Ref. to Stim. (Col. AA) Words— Total (Col. BB) Ref. to Self (Col. CC) ; Ref. to Stim. (Col. DD) 126 APPENDIX E HAW DATA 12? N> N> | \ J ro 00 "M O sA h i h)U )U ) A 00 Os Os • • • « oo h iN iso Os V O 00 .p * * • * U) h i O sA ■ P -n) n ) m I « • • O 00 h) A M M h i O sA m • • • • A U ) N l o M U ) Osh) • • • • M M N M H > M M hi h i h i h i lO M M M M M M M M M M .frU ) h i m O '© CON) o v a £~U) hi m o V O U iU ) £ " -C V O V O © M a £ £ £ A A A Os OVA 00 o OsOsOsNJ hi i r A o M A U i O V A VOVA 00 SO O hi 00 M 00 OS-C so a osVa • • * • vovjJU) -P u> OsPos • * • » m u w p V O P h ) N J • * ♦ * NJU) O 00 M U i hi V A O M U ) • • • • M V O 00 U) N] V A OS'S) • * • « hi m m O N ) MVO • * . * M U i-vlU ) hi M M U ) ■SJVAVO M • « « • M o v o v o M hi h)U ) so OsNJ 00 • • • • p s © Os M OsU) va A • e • • hi O sM -\J 00 VA O S J • • • • OS 00 hi 00 h iM M U ) VAU) 0 0 0 • ■ • • O V V A P P m h i h iU ) N) A Os Os * • • • V O p M Os M hi O O « • • • U)U)V0 00 h i M U iU ) • • • • V A M V O M n ) hi U) va • • • • m va va p VAN) O M • • • • Os P A V O m ro h i m ro p h i m u i h i p A m m h i p M M M M M U iU ) M U) M hi M P U ) hi hi M M U iU ) * • • # * • • * » « • • • • • • * • • • VA V a VA V a V a O O V a OVa OVa U v O O D f " VAVAOO 00 n ) OsV a P U ) h) M S u b j e c t Ni-ViSOSO P O sO sN I Hi M M M O M M U 1 O N ) 00 M ► T o t a l T i n e n j p h ) m p S O U ) O' M M M M H » O SO • • * • hi 00 O 00 M M VAUiVOO) ■ . • • P N I M o U iU ) O ' o M h i V O o • • * • U iN IN IU ) to T o t a l T i n e o n S t e n o r e t t e U) M Qs Os VAN)SO p • • • • OsU) OVO o T o t a l T i n e , F i r s t R e s p o n s e U) M Os Os P A N i U i • • * • M 00 V A p N U l f O so m oo hi • • ♦ • 00 h i hi oc © C o l . C , M i n u s 1 . 5 m i n . Ak M A tjj h) h) h)N l m • • • M OsNJ hi S t e n o r e t t e IV y\wv • • • • © OsV a hi w t i n e , F i r s t R e s p o n s e U)MVA hi M N o . S L T s , F i r s t R e s p o n s e pM V >)U ) • • » • V A A N ) o M v>) Ui O' • • • + A M U ) O © T i n e o f S L T s , F i r s t R e s p o n s e rorororo rorororo n m m m k h h h m h h oo vj o\Ox p u» ro m o vo oovi p u * p\*> n m o v o ro H * MMOM 00 pM M ppMVJ P pM ro MMVflM h*oo o \r o ro p o © m m v o v a vj p v ^ u x u » o \ o h • ♦ » « •••« e • • • •••• • • « i v j v i r o M o vo vo oo x r ro vo O ' p p u *v j o w o p p m m m ro M O U O OvNJON 00 ro M M M f o u ro O 00 M O O r O O WUJOH Ui OUJP PU) OU) O v O M M • ess • • • » • • « * * ♦ « * • • i • r o o u i o o r o o v o u x u ip u x n u o ^ u jo v jx p M M MM M ro p ro r o r o u ir o oow^r oo o p m mxjux p p o o u ) Ov M M M ro M U> © r o v j c o M p r o u > o p m ro v o u u o ovoo ro m « • » • esse • • • • • • • • • * • • P P O P U O V J U \ P U i P P O P P U x M U O i p ro m ro p r o u> pmmvo m u m o n p o v p p u j p o o ro o o o o p i o p ooovioro 00 vj OvOn pu> ro m Subject m rooo M^jvjion M oo pux a a No. STB, First Response M vi ux p ro • * S S roM oop ro p p vj • ♦ s s ux rou) O' M Time of STs, First Response M M p HMMIO m w u)ux o a e - t No. SUSs, First Response ro >j ro vo o * * • » O PU) 00 M pppvl « « « » UlMO) £ W Time of SLSs, First Response ro U)Ux PVlVI P M MOJ M VJOOMVO f No. SPs, First Response m pro POOP 00 • e s • vom ro oo n m w w rop ou • • • • oo ro oo oo a Time of SPs, First Response M pM VJU) vo O 00 U) u) roviu) P POP S z ! Total No. of Events, First Response APPENDIX E— Continued ro io ro ro rorororo i o m m h * h * h * m h » h * m h * <#%! os'-* p-ooron* o v o co x j ovonp-oo jo m o n o ro ro h* ro uj ro w uj io u jo jo j lo p o jr o p o j o jo j H*©VOP H*p\OOJ O JN O OnO OJOOOCO NXlOOrO • ••• • • • * • • • • • • • ♦ COpONOn p p O O 00 p O n CD 0 \ Q O O pN O X IN O O O J m h* m foioi-* ro ro m ro ro ro h * XJ\»nOn© On'O'OVO OOUirOCN NOUlUJ P o o u jo jx i • ••• • • • • • i « t • • • • • i • • U O M O VO'OOOOO SOOOOH* O JV a N O P IOp-\jiOO H * H * H * H * M p m r o r o co r o u t p h o » o u ro i-» c o ro no p m h* • • • • * • • • •••« • » * • O n p p p On N O 00 On *-*1-0000 Oixno <roo P \> ) 10 ro m m m m h* h* h* h» N H M M t-*M ro ro m n h m p p p p p p p p onP P P p p p v t p u t p p • • • * « • « « • * • « 9 * • • • • • • On On On On On On on U t H * u tU tU t U tU tx j no on On On On 00 MOOJM O O t- 1 O n P O O 00 p 00 rO p o o 00 rONOMH* H * HI H * H * t-» p-on ro ro n o ro p p n o n o o j roon oo ro n o p o h* • • • • •••• •••• • « • • • * • ♦ on p p p pnoon- m h m o o \ oo pno oo pH* oo ro 00 XI On On p o j ro h* S u b j e c t UJUt rooj vovo xi ro • • • • m io ro ro O n C O On O ' N O On O D X J • • • • H * M On 0 * 3 o T o t a l T i n e y S e c o n d B e s p o n s e IO pH* H * p p r o x i • * * * ONXIX1XJ On XI On On p o p ro • • • • O n XI H * « ► * C o l. 0 y M in u s l U .5 m in . on n o oo P • • • « H * o O J p H * OJ H » o n 0 C 1 9 • • h* o rooo JO S t e n o r e t t e T in e S e c o n d R e s p o n s e ro o n h* h* H * On H » N O o » N o. S E T s, S e c o n d R e s p o n s e p x j p p • • • • CsOO nOn ro h* ro ro xj pO J n o 9 9 * 9 On On h* n o C O T in e o f S L T s, S e c o n d R e s p o n s e H * H * o o o ono h» rooj h* On n o p o n H N o. S T s , S e c o n d R e s p o n s e On 0000 On • • • ♦ H * XJ N O OJ ro h* oo p o n vo * • • • On ro p p a T in e o f ST b , S e c o n d R e s p o n s e APPENDIX E— Continued ro ro ro ro 00 XJ OsUx o©*-» © o o o o » » • « o © x i o ro o roxi * * * » 00UX O Os rorororo n m m h m m * - * m m m m F u o r o m o s o o d x i osUx f u j r o M o s o r o i ^ O O s U U )H * M U iFCO rO UxHUj x N O sU x © ro > -* 0\0 so f o oo ro m m o u • ••• • « » « u j u ) o F m x j o s O roo m u i o h s j m On ro Os'O M Os OsUx XT M M F x l ► “» O N H* 00 xi m ro u> M H» t - » m h* fio uxuj rou) ropos'vi xixrrou) • »••• Mxjxrro ro ro os on o o m o o s m h* ro M M M f m m ro oo * -* ro os u j o o s o u j m u i o j o osuo *-• oo o o \ F 00 u x u j s o x t 00 •X I OsUx puj ro*-» Subject M M xixj Fro 00 ro 0 0 ► “* ujxjxj oo No. SLSs, Seoond Reaponee H * SO OOMXJ • • * • H » o P F M M M I - * ro so oooo » » » « 00 F S 0 S 0 * Time of SLSs, Second Response I0MMM xi proxr ui puxro O xF*-*U i X No. SPs, Second Response i - » souxxj F • • • • FFFVx ro ro»-*M UxXJ O s p • • • • XI rOMXJ x Time of SPs, Second Response ux ro rooo Os so xj so SO OUO O' so h* m ro N Total No. of Events, Second Response APPENDIX E— Continued NNNN3 0 0 ' s i Q s V j t N W W N ■ tro o ro m N H H H OVO 00 >J Os On 4 TOJ ro M o N O M O sO sio ro Ost-* • “* £-\0 VO<TU)Os Q D O n Q D 00 O S 00 O M SO00 6 gv rO'vJOJ'si o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 00 Mho M M M £" U M H H N jroooon ro ro p - o o o -mso p -p -o -v J m oo m p *m ro m m i-i p -p -ro ro O nU iO O On O On O OOOnOn O O O O n \so rooo rooNiio > 0 0 0 M M p-UJ p -\ 0 on ro ro ro o o o o ro'vi m os M M £-OJ o o o o oo-sj moo O O n O n 00 O O O O p -\n M M M m Os 00 OSOJ * -* On On 10 Os ro p -w ro o o 'v J ’M o o o s u o o n o n x io o O O sOO Os O n OOnOn m ro m s j oo p* O n OOnOn m ro M £ -s i> o ro O O O n O uj ro os ro m 'sj O OOnOn 260 8 15 180 5 30 1280 20 50 1380 45 150 1930 106 25 1750 77 295 920 3 0 30 1570 48 270 00 Nl Os On " V J Os 00 00 o n Jrus o o o o o OJ O J a -c o n so O n p -p " si OOnOn O OsM -PP" O n SO P “N1 O O O O M - \ J M M p-On -froj O 'sJSO 00 OOnOnO ■p-oj ro m Subject ro o sm o t oJonroM o o o o M 0 \ P OOJOnOn M M M ONI Us O n O n o ro ro p-MOn » - M ro m p->-« o o o o M m OsOnOJ OJ 00 O n so H» M 10 M OXJ 001 o o o o l tt w 3 S w bd *1 Words Spoken, First Response Ref. to Self, First Response Bef. to Stimlus First Besponse Words Spoken, Second Response Ref. to Self, Second Response Ref. to Stimlus Second Response APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTARY RAW DATA 133 S B 1 2 I % 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 25 26 less First Response First 5 min. Last 5 min. o to Jf E H £ GG 4 4 4 2 4 9 2 2 2 2 6 6 2 11 5 4 4 4 2 6 C D +» a I cm 09 HH 2 2 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 J* 2 2 2 2 1 3 pH CO II 2.0 2.6 2.8 3.5 1.6 1.7 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2. 1* 1.2 2.0 1.2 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 3. o t o n T ' o Eh JJ 2 17 6 15 11 6 4 16 6 12 6 2 14 5 5 10 8 4 11 3 10 2 9 CD •P e © a* C O KK 1 7 3 2 2 8 3 6 3 1 7 3 2 2 5 2 4 1 5 © s Ph CO LL 0.4 3.1 1.3 2.0 1.5 0.6 1.0 2.2 1.6 2.2 1.4 0.4 4.0 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9 2.5 4.1 0.9 0.6 2.2 Note: Ss not tabulated had a first response of lan ten minutes. 134 APPENDIX F~ Continued 135 Second Response First 5 min.^ Last 5 min. . ( B 0 0 • a O B O +» o +» -H to f l o © * to a P § % 3f i £ •H EH £ 1 - 4 EH o PU C m O Vh PH Ph Eh O C O C O Eh O C O C O Ss 101 NN 00 PP QQ RR 1 10 5 1 . 2 1 0 0 .0 2 if 2 if.l 18 7 2 . 8 1 1 5.0 15 if 0 . 8 u 1 1 5.0 7 3 1 .1 5 11 5 1 .1 5 2 O.if 6 1 1 5.0 10 if 0 . 8 7 1 1 5.0 1 0 0 . 0 8 if 2 if . 8 12 5 0.7 9 1 1 5.0 5 2 0.9 10 if 2 £.3 16 8 2.3 11 8 if 2.7 2 1 0 . 6 12 1 1 5.0 5 2 2 . 2 1? 3 2 if.if 22 10 1.7 16 8 if if .3 5 2 0 . 2 15 5 2 2 . 6 3 1 O.if 17 9 if 2 . 8 20 9 1 . 2 18 u 2 2 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 19 1 1 5.0 1 0 0 . 0 21 2 1 0 .1 13 6 1 . 8 2** 5 3 0 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 25 1 1 5.0 2 1 2 . 6 Note: Ss not tabulated had less than ten minutes in the second response after their first hearing of the stimulus. ♦"First 5 minutes" was tabulated for each S after the first hearing of the lif.5 minute stimulus. B I B L I O G R A P H Y 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY Booka and Articles Allport, Floyd H. Theories of Perception and the Concept of Structure. New York: John Wiley ani Sons, Inc., T93T:--------- Barbara, Dominick A. Your Speech Reveals Your Personality. Springfield, Illinois; Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1958. Bamlund, Dean C., and Haiman, Franklyn S. The Dynamics of Discussion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, i960. Bartlett, Sir Frederic. Thinking: An Experimental and Social Study. London! Huskin house, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1958. Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Re search. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace and WorldV Inc., 1964. Berlyne, D. E. Structure and Direction in Thinking. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. Blum, Gerald S. A Model of the Mind. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19^1. Bruner, Jerome S., Goodnow, Jacqueline J., and Austin, George A. A Study of Thinking. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956. Cherry, Colin. OnHuman Communication: A Review, a Sur vey, and a Criticism. New fork: Science Editions, Inc., 1^61. Crowe11, Laura. Discussion: Method of Democracy. Chicago: Scoit, Poresman and Company, 19&3. 137 138 Dudycha, G eorge J . A p p lie d P s y c h o lo g y . New Yorks The R onald P r e s s Company, 1 £63. Ewb&nk, Henry Lee, and Auer, J. Jeffery. Discussion and Debate: Tools of a Democracy. 2d ed” New York: Appleton-Ceniury-Crofis, Inc., 1951. Frank, Lawrence E. "Tactile Communication," Explorations in Communication. Edited by Edmund Carpenter and Marshall McLuhan. Boston: Beacon Press, i9 6 0. F u r th , Hans G* T h in k in g W ithout Language: P s y c h o lo g ic a l I m p lic a tio n s o f D e a fn e s s . New York: The F ree P r e s s ; London: C o llie r -M a c m illa n , 1 9 6 6 . G ray, G ile s W ilk e so n , and W ise, C laude M erton. The B a se s o f S p e e c h . New York: H arper and B r o th e r s , l9 3 ^ . G u lle y , H a lb e r t E. D is c u s s io n , C o n fe r e n c e , and Group P r o c e s s . New York: flenry H o lt and Company, I 9 6 0 . H are, P aul A. Handbook o f S m all Group R e se a r c h . G le n c o e , I l l i n o i s : The F ree P r e s s , 1 9 6 2 . H arnack, R. V ic t o r , and F e s t , T h o rr el B. Group D is c u s s io n : Theory and T e ch n iq u e. New York: A p p le io n -C e n tu r y - C r o fts b i v i s i o n or M ered ith P u b lis h in g Company, 1 96h . Humphrey, G eorge. T h in k in g : An I n tr o d u c tio n t o I t s Ex- S e r im e n ta l P s y c h o lo g y . New York: John W iley and o n s , I n c .; L o n d o n :M e th u e n and Company, L t d ., 1 9 5 1 . J a str o w , J o se p h . E f f e c t i v e T h in k in g . New York: Simon and S c h u s te r , 193T*^ E la p p e r , J o sep h T. The E f f e c t s o f Mass C om m unication. G le n c o e , I l l i n o i s : The £ r e e P ress^ i9 6 0 . M cBum ey, James H ., and H ance, K enneth G. D is c u s s io n in Human A f f a i r s . New York: H arper and b r o t h e r s , 1 9 5 0 . M arkey, John F. The S y m b o lic P r o c e s s and I t s I n te g r a t io n in C h ild ren : A S tu d y in S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y . New York: r ia r c o u r t, B race and Company, 1928. Mead, G eorge H e r b e r t. On S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y . S e le c t e d p a p ers e d it e d by Anselm Strauss. R e v ise d e d . C hicago and London: The U n iv e r s it y o f C hicago P r e s s , 196U. 139 Hiller, George A. Language and Communication. New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951. Fenfield, Wilder, and Roberts, L. Speech and Brain Mecha- niflms. Princetons Princeton University Press, 1959. Phillips, Gerald M. Communication and the Small Group. Indianapolis, Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1966. Potter, David, and Andersen, Martin P. Discussion: A Guide to Effective Practice. Belmont, California: Wadsworth PublTshlng Company, Inc., 1 9 6 3. Schramm, Wilbur (ed.). Mass Communioations. 2d ed. Urbana, Illinois: University of 111inois Press, i9 6 0. Shands, Harley C. Thinking and Psychotherapy, An Inquiry Into the Process of Communication. cJambrldge^ kassachusetts: Harvard University Press, i9 6 0. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Be havioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany, inc., 1956. Smith, Bruce Lannes, Lasswell, Harold D., and Casey, Ralph D. Propaganda, Communication, and Public Opinion: A Cogprehens1ve Reference Guide. Princeton: Prince ton University Press, i9b6. Utterbaok, William E. Group Thinking and < >n ce Leadership. New York: ftinehari ancT'toiii .nrTTnc. . i9 3<v.— K Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language. Edited and trans lated by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Taker. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The M.I.T. Press; New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Watson, John B. Behaviorism. Revised ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1930. Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cyber netics and Society. Garden tSlty, frew tork: Double- day Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 195b. Wittkower, R. "Interpretation of Visual Symbols in the Arts," Studies in Communication. London: Martin Seeker and Warburg, 1955. 1^0 Zelko, Harold P. Successful Conference and Discussion Techniques. New Yorks McGraw-Hi11 Book Company, inc., T§57. Unpublished Materials Bowman, Frederick B. "In Experimental Study to Determine the Amount of Inter-active Thinking Displayed in a Problem-solving Group Discussion." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1957. Fear, Arthur J. "An Experimental Study of the Ability of Lay Judges to Distinguish Between Typescripts of In dividual Idea Development and Group Idea Development." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1966.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Accuracy Of Experienced And Inexperienced Speakers In Identifying Audience Behavior As Indicative Of Feelings Of Agreement, Indecision, Or Disagreement
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of Listener Feedback On Speaker Attitude
PDF
An Experimental Study Of An Application Of Game Theory To The Selection Of Arguments By College Debaters
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Ability Of Lay Judges To Distinguish Betweentypescripts Of Individual Idea Development And Group Idea Development
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Effects Of Interest And Authority Upon Understanding Of Broadcast Information
PDF
An Experimental Application Of 'Cloze' Procedure As A Diagnostic Test Of Listening Comprehension Among Foreign Students
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Retention And Comprehension Of Poetry Resulting From Silent Reading And From Oral Interpretation
PDF
Christian Science and the rhetoric of argumentative synthesis
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Several Methods Of Teaching Basic College Speechcourses With Emphasis On Conservation Of Teachers' Time And Varying Class Size
PDF
An Empirical Study Of The Behavioral Characteristics Of Sincere And Insincere Speakers
PDF
A Historical Study Of The Speechmaking At The Abilene Christian College Lectureship, 1918-1961
PDF
An Empirical Study Of Classroom Teaching Of Ethics In Beginning College Public Speaking Courses
PDF
Emerson'S Philosophy Of Rhetoric
PDF
Kennedy-Khrushchev Strategies Of Persuasion During The Cuban Missile Crisis
PDF
Critical Study Of The Nominating Speeches At The Democratic And Republican National Conventions Of 1960
PDF
Clement Attlee'S Advocacy Of Democratic Socialism: A Reasonable Rhetoricof Revolution
PDF
Communication Of Mexican Americans With Public School Personnel: A Study Of Channel, Code, Receiver, And Source Preferences
PDF
An Analysis Of Selected Presage Criteria Of Reciprocal Student And Teacher Ratings In Beginning College Speech Classes
PDF
An Investigation Of The Spoken Language Of Chronic Schizophrenics As A Function Of Behavioral Adjustment
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Intelligibility Thresholds Of Hypacusic Adults Using Forced-Choice And Yes-No Techniques
Asset Metadata
Creator
Perrill, Norman K.
(author)
Core Title
An Experimental Comparison Of Spoken Communication Developed Individually and Interindividually
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Speech
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Speech Communication
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Dickens, Milton (
committee chair
), Longstreth, Langdon E. (
committee member
), McBath, James H. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-109527
Unique identifier
UC11360802
Identifier
6702116.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-109527 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6702116.pdf
Dmrecord
109527
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Perrill, Norman K.
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