A PERCEPTUAL STUDY OF DEVIANT CGGNITIVE PROCESSES EN SCHIZOPHRENM Thom for the We of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE David W. Metro“ 3954 THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled A PERCEPTUAL STUDY OF DEVIANT COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN SCHIZOPHRENIA presented by David Will iam Merrell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph D degree in laxahnlogy fifl/WH Major prdfessor Date December 3. 19514 0-169 i ‘1‘“‘WWW' L l PLACE IN RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your record. a TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. ; DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instituion mm1 A PTFCEPTUAL STVTY CF TEVIAYT CCOIITIVE PRO E”SES IN SSPIZOPngfilA By David W. Herr 11 A DISSERTATION Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State Colleqe of Axricultnre and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1954 57-; 3/5“ 7 ;? AA:FD ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to eXpress his gratitude to Dr. A. I. Rabin, under whose supervision this project was undertaken. and whose helpful guidance contributed immeasurably to the completion of this study. The author also owes a debt of graditude to Dr. M. R. Denny and Dr. D. M. Johnson, members of the author's guidance committee, for their many helpful suggestions. He also wishes to thank Dr. Fred Y. Billingslea for the constant support and advice that he so graciously offered. The author deeply appreciates the unlimited 000peration and friendly aid extended by the staff at Tomah V. A. H., and particularly, he is indebted to the fifty hospital aides who participated in this study. ii David W. ierrell 1L1:¥?3TRACT '11., Submitted to the School of Eraduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of th requirements for the degree of 1954 Appro VGd .% 1“ @l _@1 M “h .i ’_.__ xyfi‘." 14-; I f... . ”o. u A“. v‘ . '- .qe,‘ -U- s I‘ ,. vi _ 0‘ - F.V ”-4 1 . n.- “F ”T," fir J... .l. J :2" V. a 4“, 1 v I ~ a.. . VL‘ \ 4‘. u r The purpose of this study was to test certain '1voot heses concerning schiZOphrenic cog.itive functioningt Hrou h the use of a new perceptual'task. The hypotheses grew out of the assump- tion th t schizophrenia involves a gen 1 behavior pattern CD *3 ¢ \- aimed at reducing the amount of stimulation to which the schis— Ophrenic individual mus resroni. A Mi e: tual ta m1 :vas designed comprising terl series of fig stimulus events. The ten four-card sequences were presented .0 ,. : ~ locus. Seven H.) 0 cf- anoi nous 1y by projecting then on a scre- n ou (D ‘ of the ten series were characterised oy a fourth event in the series which was so drawn as to allow either a complete change in the meaning of the sequence, a preservation of the original “I meaning through trc four wards, an isolatio on of the fourth' card from the first three, or an avoidance of a v response to the fourth card. t The responses to this ,ask were scored SCOOPillg to the conceptual schema of extensiveness of perceptual units. The extensiveness of a per3eptual unit was Refined as, and measured bf, tce nuricr of stimulus elements from tho stieulus unit included in the perce:tm1 1 unit. On the basis of the assumption concerning the schizophrenic 3 basic need to limit stimulus situations, the hypothesis was formulatei: The schiZOphrenic process involves a relative inability of the individual to organise stimulus J L velles into exte3~ive, flexible pere ptus 1 units, or converselv, a tendency of the schitophrenie in iviiusl to “east to stimuli 1-“ rs *- ,.,. A. D -.-.. 1-,. J. ..." “AI. 3.“-.. ‘ _. .0 ‘.~ -, '1“ _ oi v M‘iOlS a£a3°ees oi 333teitisn-1yeinii,, a; iormunr;.reiutivpflgr 3jects were used - fifty normals and fift" schizophrenizs. The vsriebles of his, education, eni int elli eon The results thit W010 cots ined SUI? st the followin3 s‘ecif’c conclusions 1. The perceptual units el;site5 in schiz« ‘mr :ni3 s ov st mulus events of vuryiev 1e3rees of con more limited than those of nonnnls: thst is, they in- 1 Pi) elude fewer o the potential st [0 A I, .L . . J- - .i V, 0 Y . . A —. ,- .. ’ 4 . The perce 'Hbd 1 units oi SSfllZOpLPSLiCS are more rl3ld . 4. y, ., .51 ., ~~. , .x. , i, .1. 1‘ . J. 1. A .3 ‘ i, then those Ci 3 n sls: that 13, they do 10b ens so often to chuLje their responses in light of chengins stimulus events. In 3enerel, this SCULV o; fers ev'de once to sup‘ort $hu assertion that the co3eitive disorfier commonlyf on id in schis- 1“ L ,.J \D ‘ .3 f.) r..J I (P C') ;J ,-J ophrenia involves a "easy to restrist or limit the amount of stimulsm to which the SChiZOUhPQL 3 must resuoii, enl that t‘is is refle wt 1 is the lisitei number of stimulus eleneg; 03 ii the ssh sop -renic per 3e.tuul unit, and in the rigiiity of that unit. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv INTRODUCTION . . o o . e . . . . . . . . 1 The General Problem Area . . . . . . . . General Cognitive Processes . . . . . . . h Specific Deviant Processes. . . . . . . . 9 Experimental Tasks . . . . . . . . . . 20 Theoretical Assumptions and Specific Concepts Involved in the Present Study . . . . . 23 The Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . 28 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . o o e o 32 The Stimulus Material . . . . . . . . . 32 Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3? Focal Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Exposure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Treatment of Data. . . . . . . . . . . 43 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Limited Perceptual Units . . . . . . . . 52 Rigid Perceptual Units . . . . . . . . . 56 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 61 swarms! AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 iii Table II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLE S Degree of Focus for Each Picture . . . . . Matching of the Two Groups. . . . . . . . Frequency and Preportion of Agreement of Judge B. with Judge A on Four Beeponse Categories . . Differences in the Organizational Scores of the Two Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Differences Between Schizophrenic SUb‘Group 8 o o o o o e o e o c o c The Distribution of Reorganization Scores and Their Division into High and Low Reorganization SUI). GI‘O up 8 o e o o o o o o o o o 0 Differences between the‘two groups in the Reorgan- ization of Perceptual Units. . . . . . . The Distribution of Isolation Scores and Their Division into High and Low Isolation Sub-Groups. Differences between the Two Groups in Isolation of Perceptual Units . . . . . . . . . . Scoring Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Scores in the Normal Group. . . Reaponse Categories in the Normal Group . . . Organizational Scores in the Schizophrenic Group Reopense Categories in the SchizOphrenic Group . Organizational Scores of Schizophrenic Sub-Groups iv Page 42 51 53 55 58 59 60 61 76 77 78 79 80 81 INTRODUCTION The General Problem Area Many investigators have concerned themselves with the disturbances in intellectual functioning which supposedly are characteristic of the schizophrenic process. For example, certain investigators have reported that when a schizophrenic patient is asked to arrange colored blocks into a pattern corresponding to a pictured pattern furnished him, he often is unable to do it with the accuracy and efficiency of a normal individual (16). Another investigator reports that when the schizOphrenic is asked to complete various uncom- pleted casual sentences he again demonstrates a relative inability to perform the task with the logic and accuracy expected of the normal (8). In still another report one finds evidence to support the claim that the schizOphrenic'e responses to the Rorschach test are often crude and inferior (lfi). These examples of studies involving schizOphrenic mental processes illustrate the wide range of intellectual behavior in which disruption of the normal processes has been reported. As shall be seen later when considering the literature in this area in detail. whether theeaxperimental task involves verbal or performance problems, or projective devices. the schizophrenic intellectual behavior often is .0 sum : found to differ in some respect from that of normals. These differences from the normal in the way in which the schizophrenic reaponds to many problem solving and per- ceptual tasks comprise the general problemarea of this study. It was the aim of this study to formulate hypotheses concerning these schizOphrenic intellectual deviations which utilized concepts and terms proceding from a consistent theoretical frame of reference. The many previous studies which have dealt with schizOphrenio thought and perception have utilized a wide variety of conceptual schemas. Some studies have dealt with segments of behavior labeled as thinking, reasoning or logic. Others have described the intellectual behavior they are investigating as processes of generalization or discrimination. Still other studies have classified the segments of behavior which they are investigating as perceptual phenomena, and have used a perceptual theory orientation. Although each of these authors labels the schizophrenic "mental deficit' : differently and is. indeed. often talking about different levels of complexity of behavior. each one maintains that the behavioral factor which he has defined and investigated is a general personality characteristic. Each feels that the factor he describes is generalizable to many levels of complexity of behavior. and that the factor holds the key to an understanding of schizophrenia. Thus, ..’I‘=..r s..u.\r one finds many studies dealing with a supposedly single. basic. underlying defect in schizophrenic mental processes. and yet this defect is given a variety of different labels and explained in terms of a variety of different conceptual schemes. Each investigator has selected concepts whicthest fit the type of behavior which.his experimental task elicits. with little concern for the ease with which the concepts can be utilized in describing other levels of complexity of response. Since there is no consistent theoretical flame of reference within which to formulate different hypotheses. the experimental findings reflect a confused Jumble of terms. labels and conceptual schemas.'which makes an integration of the various findings exceedingly difficult. I For example. Goldstein (18) has utilized the concepts of I'abstraot" and "concrete'l attitudes as a general behavioral factor underlying the schizophrenic mentality. Vigotski (#3) thinks of the disorder in terms of the loss of the ability to emceptualize and in terms of the tendency to think in "co-plexes'. ‘Arieti (1) Speaks of “Paleologic' thinking. while Cameron (8) introduces 'Asyndetic Thinking“. 'Metonymic Distortion'. and.‘Interpenetration'. Shakow (36) has con- ceptualized the disturbance in terms of the inability to preserve a major set as an outgrowth of the need to establish minor sets. Werner (#7). integrating his work with that of Piaget (30). believes schizophrenia involves a regressive phenomenon demonstrated by levels of perceptual performance more in keeping with early developmental stages. The program for this study embraced an attempt. first. to define the general problem with as few general concepts as possible and in terms of a single theoretical orientation. Secondly. the attempt was made to integrate the concepts and theoretical assumptions of the present study with those of previous studies which utilized a wide variety of differing conceptual schemes. Finally, hypotheses were formulated. and experimental'tasks selected. which were broad enough in scepe so as to have meaning for the general problem of schizo- phrenic thinking but which at the same time grew out of a specific theoretical orientation. The next section of this introductory chapter takes up the problem of delimiting. conceptually. the area of behavior upon which this study focuses. General Cognitive Processes One of the greatest difficulties in dealing with schizo- phrenic "mental“ processes arises from the lack of precise terms with which to classify the units of behavior in question. When an author speaks of a disturbance in theebility to 'abstract'. or to 'reason'. or to ”perceive“. one has difficulty in deciding how much of the total range of cogni- tive behavior is included within those Specific concepts. It is difficult to determine whether a reference to a dis- turbance in the ability to abstract refers to something completely different from a perceptual disturbance referred to by someone else. The actual behavior sampled in the two studies may overlap. the studies investigating types of be- havior that have many cognitive processes in common. Yet the differing concepts and the theoretical orientation util- ized may leave the implication that the behavior which is sampledzand the disruptive process which is found are separate. unrelated phenomena. To a certain extent this problem in defining. conceptually. the units of schizophrenic behavior under investigation. is a part of a more general problem in psychology. for one often runs into loosely defined and overlapping terms such as per- ception. thinking. reasoning. and cognition. These diffi- culties are compounded in the writings on.schiz0phrenia by the extensive preoccupation with such concepts as abstraction. conceptualization. and regression in thinking (18. 43. 1h). For example. when one is dealing with the writings of Goldstein (16.18). Vigotski (#3). or Cameron (8). one could use any of the terms “thinking“. “reasoning“. or “logic“ to define the general behavioral area in which those authors have reported schizOphrenic deviations. On the other hand. Rorschach studies such as the one by Friedman (1n) usually require labels taken from a perceptual frame of reference. 1 .s' ..\u|-.::J‘ [If _~c. Although it may appear from the use of differing con- cepts that the various authors are reporting on completely different types of'schizophrenic mental behavior. it soon becomes apparent that each author actually is refering to a high percentage of the same general sum of cognitive processes. For example. Goldstein (l8) maintains that the concrete at- titude is e.general personality attribute not limited to certain complex reasoning tasks. but coloring most areas of schizophrenic behavior. Vigotski (#3) holds similar views in regard to the schizOphrenic'e use of 'complex' rather than 'conceptual' thinking. Likewise Piaget (30). on the basis of his work with children. uses the concept of 'syncretism' to describe the general develOpmental state of cognitive processesibund in schizophrenics and children. Synoretic thinking. as Piaget describes the concept. includes verbal. perceptual. and reasoning processes. . Thus these authors. though often bound to such limiting terms as 'thought'. or “perception” or “reasoning". have made it clear in theaattempts to generalize their findings that each is referring to the same total range of cognitive pro— cesses. regardless of the differing conceptual schemes used in describing those processes. In defining the segments of behavior with which the present study dealt. it immediately became clear that further differentiation was necessary from the general area of 'cognitive processes”. In order to escape theaimbiguity resulting from the use of such common sense terms as thinking and reasoning. this study”based its concepts upon a percep- tual theory orientation. This procedure had theexdvantage of providing consistency in the use of terms. of defining the terms in accordance with a theoretical system. and of maintaining a continuity between the complex clinical problem and other areas of eXperimental psychology. However. the problem still remained of integrating the present study with previous work involving other areas of cognitive processes. If this study was to be meaningful for the general area of schizOphrenic thinking. it was felt that the theoretical orientation and eXperimental tasks involved. must encompass that general area. To have tied the present study down to narrow concepts based primarily on a specific type of aberrant perceptual activity would have been of limited value. It would have continued the tendency. shown in past studies. to formulate special conceptual schemes for each new segment of schizOphrenic intellectual behavior brought under investigation. It probably would have added still another type of schizOphrenic intellectual deviation to a list of deviations already unwieldy in size. The present study attempted, instead. to proceed underthe assumption that the schizophrenic intellectual deviation was best considered a general. per- vasive phenomena. not to be chopped up and given a different label simply because somewhat different intellectual tasks were involved. The attempt was made to utilize a single theoretical frame of reference within which to integrate certain findings of the diverse studies in this area, and within which to formulate the present studie's hypotheses. As has been mentioned. a perceptual theory orientation was selected. The rational for broadening perceptual theory to include the reasoning. thinking. and general cognitive be- havior included in the general research problem. has been made explicit by Wallach (uh). In his exposition concerning the relationbetween perception and cognition (an), Wallach reduces the cognitive processes to the phenomenon of per— ceptual organization and the association of memory I'traces" based on previous perceptual organizations. Wallach points out that perceptual organization not only implies basic structural processes. but that it includes in most cases the associated meaning of previous perceptual organizations. The perceptual reaction to a stimulus event thus is taken to include the results of previous perceptual acts which exert their influence through memory traces. Memory traces help give structure and meaning to the immediate perceptual event. Since no limit to the number or complexity of memory traces occurring as a result of a stimulus event is posited, many complex levels of cognitive functioning are included under this view of the perceptual process. This study, then. used the perceptual process as its frame of reference. though its focus included behavior often referred to in the literature under the terms. thinking and reasoning. As we turn. in the next section. to a more de- tailed examination of the findings concerning the nature of the schizophrenic cognitive deviation. no attempt shall im- mediately be made to translate the various authors' choice of concepts into the terminology of perceptual theory. A later section will deal with the specific concepts to be used in this study and their integration with preceding work. Specific Deviant Processes As was mentioned earlier in this paper. the attempts to conceptualize the various patterns of deviancy in schizo- phrenic mental behavior have taken various courses. One of the most widely reported conceptual schemes is that of Goldstein's (h. l6. 17. 18). which holds that the significant behavioral factor in schizOphrenia involves an emphasis on the concrete rather than the abstract attitude. Goldstein (l7. l8). considers the ”abstract-concrete' attitudes to be more than simple habits or aptitudes like memory or attention. For Goldstein. they represent a dimension of the total per- sonality - a general capacity level. He describes the con- crete attitude as 'realistic': “In this attitude we are given over and bound to the immediate eXperience of the given ‘gflq‘ Runs}! V .wnlv C. . 10 thing or situation in its particular uniqueness. Our thinking and acting are directed by the immediate claims which one particular aspect of the objects or situations in the en- vironment makes“ (18). On the other hand, in the abstract attitude '. . we transgress the immediately given specific aspect or sense impression . . . we 'abstract' from parti- cular preperties.' It is a conceptual viewpoint, ”be it category, a class. or a general meaning under which the particular object falls.I The handicap under which the schiz0phrenic functions in assuming the concrete attitude can be seen in the list of potentialities, as viewed by Goldstein. for which the abstract attitude is basic (18): I1. 2. 3. To assume a mental set voluntarily. To shift voluntarily from one aspect of the situation to another. To keep in mind simultaneously. various aspects. To grasp the essential of a given whole; to break up a givenwhole into parts and to isolate them voluntarily. To abstract common properties; to plan ahead ideationally; to assume an attitude tOWard the 'mere possible'; and to think or perform symbolically. To detach out ego from the outer world.' (18.p.263) 11 Goldstein and co-workers have gathered positive evidence concerning his hypotheses in regard to the concrete attitude in schizophrenia by using such tests as the so-called stick test. the color-sorting test. the object-sorting test. and the block test using Kohs blocks (a, 16). Hall (20) attempted to further quantifyobjectively scorable tests in order to assess the degree or impairment of abstraction relative to vocabulary as measured by the Wechsler Vocabulary scale. Hall tested abstraction on normal and schizOphrenic subjects using seven different types of verbal and performance tests. He found a great deal of variability in the schizOphrenic groups. with chronic cases showing im- pairment similar to that shown in organic conditions. He asserts that there is little to suggest that‘the degree of impairment differs between.organic and deteriorated schizo- phrenic patients. However. he also found that early acute cases of schiZOphrenia with a high vocabulary level showed no apparent impairment. Vigotski's (#3) view of schiz0phrenic thought impair- nent parallels that of Goldstein. Vigotski tested the loss of the ability in schiZOphrenia to think conceptually, claiming that schizOphrenics tend to think in complexes. These com- plexes consist of a whole constituted of related parts. but in which the parts arezrelated mechanically or concretely rather than by an abstract principle as in the case of a true 12 concept. The schizophrenic looks upon a word as a family name for a group of objects on the basis of physical proximity. concrete similarity of certain parts, or some other non- abstract relationship. Vigotski gives a typical example: '. . . the so-called chain association in patients with schiZOphrenia. The patient responds to a stimulus word denoting a certain object by naming another object similar in only one trait. then naming a third object chosen on account of some similarity to the second object. then in a similar fashion adding a fourth to the third. etc. The result is a number of quite heterogeneous objects very remotely connected with each other. The associative chain is built up in such a manner that there is a connection between separate links but with no single principle uniting all the links.“ (“8' Pa 106 )0 Vigotski maintains that this type of ”complex' rather than “conceptual" thinking is common to the child. and that schizophrenia is a truly regressive disorder. However. he does not believe in a psychogenic cause for the condition but argues for an organic basis; ' . . . the intellectual dis- turbance as well as the disturbance in the fields of percep- tion. emotions. and other psychologic functions.are in direct casual relationship with the disturbance of the function of formation of concepts." Thus. Vigotski too believes that his findings represent a basic variable associated with schizophrenia. In attempting to establish experimentally Just what level of psychological processes is affected in schizophrenia. 13 shakow (36) and his co-workers (37. 38. 40) eXperimented with various degrees of complexity of response. They found that simple noncentral processes. where volition is at a minimum are least or not at' all affected. These include certain autonomic functions. such as galvanic skin response. and such simple functions as patellar reflex latency time (22) and direct current threshold (21) and some sapects of motor response (38. 39). The levels of response which were found to be affected. Shakow regards as an expression of a single difficulty. that is. 'the inability to keep a major set' (37). Shakow feels that the schiZOphrenic individual is forced into withdrawal. oversimplified and unsuccessful modes of response because of this lack of an 'apprOpriate and consistent readiness to respond to a certain specific stimulus or a generalization drawn from a group of stimuli." This lack of a major set may. Shakow believes. actually he the expression of the schizophrenic's need to establish minor sets: The need 'to segmentalize both the external and the internal environments.’I (38) This need for segmentalization is seen as thexesult of the attempt to satisfy infantile needs within a structure that has automatically attained physical and intellectual maturity. Cameron (8) adds three more concepts involving schizo- phrenic thinking on the basis of his study of schizophrenic 1h logic. using uncompleted causal sentences. The first of these "asyndtic thinking." is defined much as Vigotski's "complexes.'I that is. a loose cluster of terms instead of organized concepts. They are marked by a paucity of genu- inely causal links with the terms being thrown together by very arbitrarysorts of relationships. Cameron. however. does not consider this type of thinking childlike or regressive. pointing out that it does not possess the Iglobal schema' which Piaget (30) maintains marks the 'syncretic' thinking of children. 'Metonymic distortion“ is Cameron's term for the approximate but related term which schizophrenic substitutes for the more precise definitive term normals would use. This. according to Cameron. has no childhood counter—part and is a species of disorganization rather than a reduction to a lower level. Cameron gives the label 'Interpenetration” to the third. and again unchildlike. type of thinking he found in his responses by schizophrenic subjects. As it is described by Cameron. 'in its well-develOped form it consists of the interpenetration of the elements or fragments of different themes. sometimes of a theme and a counter theme. -- in our material the one concerned primarily with the immediate prob- lem that we have introduced from the outside-. and the other. deriving from persistent preoccupations of a personal nature.” (8) 15 Arieti (l) chooses to classify schiz0phrenic thinking as 'Paleologic' rather than 'Aristolelian' and. as the term implies. characterizes it as primitive and archaic. In paleological thinking. the individual accepts things as identical on the basis of some common element between them. Whereas the normal person accepts identity only upon the basis of identical subjects. the paleogician accepts identity based upon identical predicatms .An example of this is of- fered by Arieti in which. :;: g .,a SChiZOphrenic patient thinks without knowing why. that the doctor in charge of the ward is her father and the other patients are her sisters. A common predicate -- a man in authority -- leads to the identity between the father and the physician. Another com- mon predicate-~females in the same position of dependency -- leads thelatient to consider herself and the other inmates as sisters." Piaget's (30) extensive work with children has led him to place the thinking of schizophrenics mid-way between that of the pre-adolescent child and the adult. Piaget des- cribes children's thinking in terms of verbal. perceptual. and reasoning 'syncrétism.‘ In syncretic thinking things are associated as wholes. The wholes are held together by a schema evolving certain elements of the whole. not by a logical analysis of the elements of the wholes. It falls between pre-logical and logical mechanism. being "not so l6 absurd nor so deeply affective in character as in dreams or autistic imaginings.‘ He points out that in syncretistic understanding.'the whole is understood before the parts are analysed. and thatthe understanding of the parts becomes a function. often wrongly. of the general schema. The schema of understanding rests only on a few points which have been spontaneously related. Paiget describes verbal syncretism as follows: “Now this is the method used by the child. He lets all the difficult words in a given_phrase slip by. then he connects the familiar words into a general schema. which subseQuently enables him to interpret the words not originally understood. This syncretistic method may. of course. give rise to considerable mistakes . . . . but we believe it to be the most economical in the long run. and one which eventually leads the child to an accurate understanding of things by a gradual process of approximation and selection.‘I (30. p. 152) Werner (1+7) has incorporatedmany of these views in his theory concerning the developmental stages in perception. and views schizophrenic perception as a regression to earlier developmental levels. Friedman (1h) attempted to test Warner's hypotheses by scoring schizophrenic. normal. and children's Rorschach protocols according to a scoring system based on Werner's developmental perceptual stages. He concludes that schizophrenics. as a group. do exhibit regression in the structural aspects of their perceptual functioning. Friedman points out that with schizophrenics. “like children. and unlike 17 adults. their perceptual functioning is predominatly of a global diffuse. syncretic. rigid. and labile nature. and marked.by relative lack of differentiation and hierarchic integration“ (14). However. he found that this regression was not total: there remained vestiges of the higher develop- mental level of functioning. The evidence on schizophrenic perception. based on the Rorshach test. from investigations by Rorschach (34). Dimmick (10). Rickers - Ovsiankina (32). Beck (2). Klopfer and Kelly (25). Rapaport (31) and Johnson and Sherman (23), yields certain consistencies in the findings. In general. there is an increase in the number of Unusual Detail responses which are beyond normal eXpectancy. The nature of the Whole response is primarily of some inferior. vague. crude quality. And. of course. confabulations and contaminations are prevalent. and preservation common. Beck finds no accentuation of the num- ber of Whole responses. Garmezy (15) tested a further hypothesis concerning schizophrenic perception. basing his work on the assumption that the highly-generalized withdrawal of schizophrenic patients represents an inability to differentiate among environmental stimuli. He hypothesized that schizOphrenics would find it more difficult than would normals to differ- entiate between stimuli along a given dimension. The author used tones of varying frequency as his stimulus dimension.and {sire-Gail... 18 added a second procedure in which he rewarded correct dif- ferentiations and punished incorrect ones. His first hypothesis was ggt,upheld. for the schizOphrenic group was able to differentiate the stimulus tones as well as the normals. However. he found that when he added punishment to the pro- cedure. the schizOphrenic group's performance deteriorated significantly. ‘Perhaps the most important observation of Garmezy's was *that. “learning curve data indicated that. under threat of punishment, avoidance responses to all stimuli came to dominate the behavior of the schizOphrenic patients. over-shadowing and negating previously effective rewards.“ Finally a study by Wegrocki (46) continues the "abstract— conceptual“ frame of reference by hypothesizing that schizo- phrenic thought involves a disturbance in theeibility to generalize. Wegrocki gave children and schizOphrenics three tests of generalizing ability -- Proverb interpretation. Van Wagonen Graded Analogies. and Essential Differences. He concludes that some. but not all schizOphrenics tend to mani- fest a disorder in the function of generalization; that paranoids show the least disturbance and hebephrenics the most; and that in comparison with children. the disorder does not appear to be regressive. for there are many quali- tative differences between the productions of children and those of schiZOphrenics. 19 The foregoing studies indicate that the schizOphrenic individual differs from the normal over a wide range of .J.‘:.. ~v.v~ow" m We... W“ x, . .....-~.—..u intellectual behavior. Whether the problem posed is one involving ambiguous visual stimuli (14) or complex verbal problems (#6). the schizophrenic shows a general disability in his attempts to:react adequately to experimental stimulus situations. This disability has been given various labels depending on whether the author has chosen to use concepts involving more general intellectual processes (18. #3. 46). or concepts derived from a perceptual frame of reference (#7. 1b). We can speak of the disability as a disturbance in the processes involving abstraction. conceptualization. generalization. logic. set. or perceptual organizations. But regardless of the label used and the type of problem situation from which it derives its orientation. it would seem promising to assume that one general intellectual dis- ability is involved. This assumption is supported by Gold- stein (18). Shakow (37). Vigotski (#3). and.Werner (47), all of whom emphasize the extensiveness of the reasoning or perceiving deviancy in question rather than limiting its applicability to the specific problem situations utilized in their respective studies. The assumption is also sup- ported by the fact that the many concepts listed above. all of which refer to areas of deviancy in schizOphrenia. pretty much cover the area of behavior loosely designated as “thinking“. “intellectual behavior“ or “cognitive processes” (36.: 20 Experimental Tasks In describing the area of interest of this study we have now considered the general clinical problem. the general cognitive functions involved, and the concepts by which the specific deviant processes have been defined and investigated in previous studies. It also has been stated that this study utilized perceptual theory as a frame of reference within which to define concepts referring to the wide range of cognitive processes under consideration. However. in using perceptual concepts in the organization of the material. that is. in using perceptual units of behavior as the segments of behavior under scrutiny. it still became necessary to consider the level of complexity of perceptual response with which we were to deal. As was seen in the preceding section.¢atudies on.schizOphrenic thinking have focused their attention on a wide range of complexity of cognitive response. Each investi- gator has selected a label for the specific process with which he dealt with little thought for a unifying theoretical orienta- tion. The units of behavior used in the specific studies varied from the response to tones of different frequencies (15) to the response to complex verbal and performance tests of~abstraotion (20). The experimental task or stimulus prob- lem used in each study has of necessity been closely related to the specific conceptualization of the intellectual pro- cess upon which each study focused. 21 However. in using a perceptual frame of reference in this study. it was felt that the problems involved in using different concepts foridifferent levels of complexity of a task have been avoided. The concept of perceptual organization involves many degrees of complexity of reaponse (as), so that different tasks do not require entirely dif- ferent concepts. We simply deal with the organizational factors involved in each perceptual act. Thus. in studies with a perceptual orientation. we may be dealing with simple perceptual tasks in which the structural elements of the stimulus provide most of the basis for the organization. These studies include the basic works of Gestalt theory. and such perceptual studies as the one by Wever (#8) on figure- ground. Also to be included here would be such studies as the ones by Bridgen (5). Smith (40). and Douglas (11) Who investigated basic perceptual principles by the use of tachistoscopic presentation of visual stimuli. At a more complex level of response. certain studies deal with general perceptual organizations which are more dependent upon the internal state of the organism. These studies stress the influence of previous perceptual response. or memory traces (44). upon the immediate perceptual act. They include in the perceptual organization the influences of memory traces from many complex past events. Many studies of complex cognitive phenomena fall in this category. For 22 example. there is the study by Bruner and Goodman (6) con- cerning the effect of economic level on the perception of coin size in children. and the study by Levine. Chein. and Murphy (28) which showed how hunger in students can affect their perception of ambiguous stimuli. Also one can include the study by Schafer and Murphy (35) in which they demonstrated the influence of previous learning on the perception of a shifting figure-ground stimulus. Finally. the studies by Murray (29) and Lueba and Lucas (27), which showed the effect of mood upon the content of a perceptual event. can be placed in this category. Studies within the perceptual theory fame of reference also often deal with very complex levels of perceptual organ- ization. Studies utilizing projective techniques are examples of this. When we considered basic perceptual studies we were dealing with perceptual organizations of simple stimulus events in which.the structural aspects of perception were stressed. At the level of complexity next considered. certain internal functional factors were measured or controlled and the effect of their inclusion in the perceptual organization was investi- gated. When we now consider projective techniques we are dealing with studies in which the stimulus material is complex and a wide range of unmeasured internal factors are considered. In perceptual terms. the many and varied memory trace assoc- iations that go into the perceptual organization of the 23 stimulus material are not experimentally controlled. Thus. these studies are most used in the clinical investigation of individual differences. rather than in experimental*valida- tion of laws of perception. As has been seen. investigators utilizing a perceptual theory frame of reference have attacked many levels of com- plexity of cognitive response within a single theoretical orientation. As a result of that fact. it became the in- tention of this study to investigate schizophrenic cognitive functioning. utilizing a perceptual theory orientation. and utilizing a perceptual task which involved several degrees of complexity of perceptual organizations. It was the intent of this study to utilize tasks which had some bearing on past studies done on schizophrenic “thought“. “reasoning“. and “logic“; and which. at the same time. preceded from a single. consistent theoretical orientation. Theoretical Assumptions and Specific Concepts Involved in the Present Study A final consideration in introducing the problem posed in this investigation concerns the nature of the specific conceptual schema and the theoretical assumptions on which the study is based. As has been stated the theoretical orientation is broadly perceptual in nature. The units of behavior under investigation have simply been labeled “perceptual units“. and their identification is based on e \afl 2n the stimulus units and the responses that they evoke. A later section will deal with the method by which the con- tinuous perceptual process is arbitrarily broken up into specific “perceptual units“ based on the experimental stimulus units. The perceptual unit. then. is simply that segment of the perceptual process which can be related to specific stimulus units. The organization of perceptual units has been investigated in this study in regard to two factors; their extensiveness. and their rigidity. The extensiveness of a perceptual unit refers to the number of stimulus elements included in that perceptual unit. The rigidity or flexibility of a perceptual unit refers to the tendency to limit or extend the perceptual unit in the face of an increase in the extent of a stimulus unit. The focus of this study upon the "extensiveness“ of a perceptual unit parallels Korzybski's concern with the abstracting process which accompanies all perception. Iorzybski(26) has pointed out that all perceptual processes involve an “abstracting out“ by our nervous system of only a part of the potential stimulus values present. The language forms and symbols that come to take the place of perceptual events actually refer to only certain elements of those events. Our perception of the world. of each environmental event. is an abstraction of those events and includes only 25 certain of the possible elements of the events. Korzybski makes this point in his discussion of the relationship be- tween language and perception (26). but it is particularly pertinent to this study concerning schizophrenia. For the studies on schizOphrenic thought and perception all seem to point toward a deficit. perhaps volitional. in this basic process of perceptual abstraction at most levels of complexity. The various works can be reconsidered as implying the notion that there is a relative paucity of stimulus elements in the schizophrenic's perceptual responses. For instance. Goldstein's (18) characterizations of concrete thinking in which he states. "our thinking and acting are directed.by the immediate claim which ggg_particular‘§§pect1 of the objects or situations in the environment makes“. lends itself immediately to this more general concept. Less extensive or limited perceptual units are those in which only a few obvious stimulus elements are utilized. Vigotski's complexes (#3) are responses to groups of objects in which the response embraces only one or a few of the available stimulus elements among the group so as to arrive at a collection of stimulus units. rather than to respond to the many potential cues to higher concept formation in the form of subtle stimulus elements. 1Underlined by the author. 26 Shakow's “lack of readiness to respond to a specific stimulus or a generalization“ (36). is to.a certain degree an exact. passive counterpart to the assertion that schizo- phrenic thought represents a need to limit perceptual response. The result is the same. namely. the omission in the perceptual unit of certain stimulus elements.¢either by intending to omit them or through an absence of the need to include them. The syncretic thinking described by Piaget (30) represents an organization of percepts according to a global schema. resting on a few points which have been spontaneously related. Again we can see that the principle of limited perceptual units underlies what in this case is called syncretism. and which. where it refers to children. implies an unfamiliarity with more extensive and subtle stimulus elements. leaving limited perceptual units out of necessity. The evidence from Rorschach studies. as has been pointed out earlier. shows clearly the vagueness.ie.. absence of pertinence to all the stimulus elements. of the Whole response. Garmezy's (15) findings. that punishment of schizOphrenic's “incorrect differentiation“ reaponses leads to stimulus avoidance. suggests that the tendency to omit stimulus elements from perceptual units may vary with the circumstance of the response and the complexity of the task. When the task only involved tones as stimulus elements. the avoidance or “limit- ation“ was not present. 27 Finally. it would seem possible to include Wegrocki's “inability to generalize“ within the broader conceptual schema of limited perceptual units. since generalization manifestly implies the ability to associate more and more stimulus elements with the response unit. Thus. it is the basic assertion of this study that the peculiar intellectual processes of the schizOphrenic reflect this basic need to reduce the extensity of the stimulus values to which.he must respond. This conceptualization of the prob- lem brings together the limited area of schizophrenic thought and the more general behavioral observations concerning schizOphrenia (7.3). namely. the tendency toward withdrawal. the flattening of affective interchange with the environment. and the estrangement from reality. All of these also reflect the lack of I'contact“ between the schizophrenic and stimu- lating situations. or in terms utilized in this study. they all may reflect. or may be the:result of. the limitations of the schizOphrenic's perceptual units. More specifically. the major assertion of this study oanfbe narrowed to the following statement: The schizophrenic process involves a relative inability of the individual to organize stimulus values into extensive.:flexible. perceptual units, or conversely. a tendency of the schizOphrenic indi- vidual to react to stimuli of Various degrees of potential meaning by forming relatively limited. rigid perceptual units. 28 By “limited perceptual units“ We have already seen that units composed of relatively fewer stimulus elements is meant. “Rigid perceptual units“ refers to the same under- lying proposition. but in this case the prejudice against new. or more. stimulus elements is reflected in the tendency to cling to “old“ elements once they are included in a per- ceptual unit. The term stimulus unit refers to any division of the stimulus complex present and potentially perceiVable to an individual. The stimulus unit may get its boundaries from structural factors. such as the makeaup of a picture. to which an individual is asked toastend. from time factors. as when sequences of events of variors lengths are present. or by any arbitrary selection of convenient stimulus char- acteristics. Considering perception to always involve a process of abstraction removes any idea of absolute bound- aries from the concept of “stimuli“. The process of per- ception gives stimuli their limits or meanings. One can only select stimulus units arbitrarily and investigate the corresponding perceptual unit. Hypotheses The general hypothesis of this study is that thesachizo- phrenic process involves a general tendency to limit respon— siveness. including basic perceptual responses. to stimulus 29 situations:1 This tendency is revealed in the limited nature of the schizophrenic's response to stimulus situations as measured by the relative paucity of stimulus elements in his corresponding perceptual units. The tendency is also revealed in the schiZOphrenic's attempts to isolate extensive. related stimulus situations into separate perceptual units. It is further revealed in the schiZOphrenic's tendency tOGIVOld changing a perceptual unit. He is relatively unable to substitute a new stimulus elements for existing elements which have proven to be inaccurate. Specifically. the hypotheses can be put into the following form for experimental testing: 1. The perceptual units of schizOphrenic individuals will contain fewer stimulus elements from the corresponding stimulus unit than will the perceptual units of normals. This hypothesis asserts that the limited responsiveness to stimulation of schizophrenics will show itself in the simple perceptual response to stimulus events. The schizophrenic's perceptual responses will contain quantitatively fewer elements of the stimulus situation than those of normals. The concrete- ness. lack of concept formation. or “syncretism“ oftaohizo- phrenics is seen as this limiting of response to as few stimulus values as possible. as it occurrs in the cognitive processes. 1This refers only to externally imposed stimuli. 3O 2. When a stimulus unit is extended to include addi- tional stimulus elements. the schizophrenic group will tend more often than the normal group to isolate the additional stimulus elements into a separate perceptual unit. rather than to form a more extensive one. Individual stimulus events occur in a context of broader stimulus conditions. and more important. in sequence with events / coming before and after which help give them their meaning. This hypothesis asserts that the schizophrenic. in limiting his response to stimulation. often ignores those stimulus elements linking one event with another. He establishes separ te perceptual units where a more extensive perceptual response would have related all elements into one perceputal unit. Thus. the segmentalization and compartmentalization found in schizOphrenic thinking can also be related to the tendency to limit the amount of stimulation to which the schizophrenic Will respond. 3. The schizOphrenic group will tend less often than the normal group to reorganize a perceputal unit so as to substitute new. potentially more accurate stimulus units. In a situation in which the perception of an event or sequence of events can be altered in light of new events. the 31 schizophrenic group will be relatively unable to produce the reorganization. This rigidity in the perceptual process is seen as an escape from the necessity of considering new stimulus elements - of substituting new elements for old in an existing perceptual unit. Thus. the limited. inaccurate. and often bizarre explanations that the schizophrenic has for events can be seen as arising. in part. from his failure to take all the elements of a stimulus situation into account. particularly when the events unfold sequentially and new events place the burden upon him of changing old perceptual units. This failure to take additional stimulus elements into account is a logical extension of the tendency to limit the response in any stimulus situation. METHODOLOGY The Stimulus Material The stimulus material for this study consisted of ten series of pictures which were projected on a screen. Each series was made up of four pictures. shown one at a time. The items depicted were individuals. animals or Objects which taken‘together portrayed some event. and each four- csrd series portrayed a different event. Thus. each series presented complex stimulus units which could be organized into perceptual units of various degrees of extensiveness. To this end, the following conditions prevailed: l. Each.picture represented some object. 2. Each picture provided cues for activity or movement involving the object. 3. Each four-card series provided cues for organizing each series of pictures into a single total event involving both the object and its activity. 4. Seven series of pictures were so designed and so presented as to allow the possibility of reorgan- izing the perceptual unit. The latter was accomplished in the following manner: 32 33 l. The pictures were presented ambiguously (out of focus) so that the subjects were not alWays positive that their percepts were accurate. 2. The pictures were so designed that each one provided cues for'at least two different objects and two different events. 3. The first three pictures in the series looked more like one set of objects or one event. and the fourth picture looked more like a unit or object of an alternate event. The subjects who attended to each stimulus element in succession could reorganize their four-card perceptual unit on the basis of the new cues in the fourth card. Thus. the tasks imposed problems in perceptual organi- zation similar to those faced by schizOphrenic and normal in- dividuals in life situations. They were required to respond to complex. often ambiguous sequences of meaningful events. and they often faced the problem of either reorganizing their perceptiontaf events in the light of new events or letting the original. possibly inaccurate perceptual units stand. The stimulus material was designed andwirawn by the author. photographed from the original drawings and mounted on cardboard. The final stimulus cards measured h 3/8 inches by b 7/8 inches. < Id .. l . fl!» Hrrw .w‘. 14v.vuJ-rfl . ..ui at. 34 The ten series with their content and objective organ- ization were as follows: I. “Ice Cream“ -- This series has three events pic— turing an ice cream cone melting and falling over. The final picture. though similar in design. shows a man landing with a parachute. the chute just beginning to collapse. Thus. the whole sequence can be reorganized in terms of a descending and collapsing parachute. II. “Candle“ -- This series does not incorporate a changed event but shows a candle at various states of burning down. The three series which do not contain changes in the last event were included primarily to guard against the sub- ject's getting “wise“ to the slipping in of different'events in‘the sequence and assuming that all the final events were different. III. “Whale“ -- In the first three events this sequence pictures a spouting whale gradually submerging. The final event shows a “whale-like“ sailboat. sinking. IV. “Pipe“ -- Three pictures of a pipe “blowing" a soap bubble which.gets biggeraind bursts. The fourth event 1| of a little boy with an Indian feather tied to his head (to look like the pipe stem). with the remains of a burst bubble gum bubble around his mouth. V. “Dog“ -- This is another homogeneous sequence Showing a dog Walking along. smelling a bone, stopping to dig 35 it up -- and finally walking along with the bone in its mouth. VI. “Tree“ -- The first three events in this sequence could either be organized as a tree groWing up. or as a tree which one is approaching. The final event shows an atom bomb blast in full stage of deve10pment. Because of its cloud-like appearance. the reorganization could also be in terms of a rain storm developing. VII. “Thief“ -— The first‘three events picture a thief being pursued by a policeman. The last event shows a baseball player being tagged out in a run-down'between bases. “VIII. “Diver“ -- This is another uninterrupted four- event sequence. showing a diver in various stages of performing a dive. IX. “Leaves“ -- The first three events of this sequence picture a tree gradually losing its foliage. The last event is of a boy undressing. X. “Dance“ -- The final series of pictures shows two peOple meeting and beginning to dance. The last picture shows them boxing. The selection<>f the particular objects and events pictured in each seQuence Was conditioned mainly by the ease with which they could be represented as alternative organiza- tions. An effort was made. however. to include a wide range of objects and events. ranging from inanimate through human content and physical through social events. 36 Instructions After seating the subject. the following instructions were given in every case: “I have some pictures to show you on the screen. They are going to be out of focus or blurred. and what I want you to do is totsll me exactly what you see even though they are hard to make out. First of all. I'll show you four pictures. The first one will be very blurred. but the second will be clearer than the first. and the third will be clearer than the second. and so forth. Thus. you'll get a“bettsr look at the pictures as we go along. You'll see each picture for only five seconds. After you've looked at the picture.tell me everything you saw.“ After presentation of the third picture in the series. the eXperimenter asked: “Now tell me what the three pictures you've soon have been.“ After presentation of the fourth picture in the series. the experimenter asked: “Now tell me what the four pictures you've seen have been.“ These questions were necessary to elicit the organizational and reorganizational factors involving the past events in the series. Often the subject incorporated them voluntarily in 37 his response to the last presented card. and questions then were not needed. After the first series of four were presented and the responses recorded by the eXperimenter. he stated: “Now here are four more pictures. We'll do these the same way as the others.“ The questions after the third and fourth card then proceded again as indicated above. Equipment The room used in the study was an observation room in- cluded in the Psychological Services section of an N. P. hospital.2 The room was without outside windows and could be made perfectly dark. A 22 x_30 inch white canvas screen was placed at one end of the room on a stand. its bottom edge coming 36 inches from the floor. The projector*was located 8.5 feet from the screen. resting on a table that was 30 inches high. The subject eat to the left of the projector. 9.5 feet from the screen. sitting on an individual round- backed chair. A Balopticon projector was used. It has two lane systems. one for reqular slide projection and one for Opaque projection. Activation of a lever on the side of the projector instantly switched the beam of light from one lens system to the other. A shift from slide projection to Opaque projection resulted in a shift from a blank. brightly lighted screen to the dimmer 2Veterans Administration Heepital. Tomah. Wisconsin. 38 reflected image of the opaque material. The lens focus for opaque projection was effected by adjusting the length of the lens barrel. Under present conditions complete “out of focus“ was represented by 0. 0 cm. of extension of the lens barrel.vrhile good focus occurred at 6.5 cm. or complete ex- tension of the lens barrel. A scale graduated in millimeters was mounted on the lens barrel so that focus could be pre- cisely controlled. Since the room was completely “blacked out“.e1nd it was necessary to record responses and read and set the lens focus. a white bulb of the small Christmas tree variety was mounted just to the rear of the lens barrel over the graduated scale. Focal Lengths This study utilized degrees of focus to introduce ambi- guity in the stimulus. It was necessary to find the degree of ambiguity which.would allow for the organizationeaf the stimulus events into a sequence. and still provide enough ambiguity so that reorganization could occur when a different event was introduced into a sequence. As can be seen. a re- organization usually demanded a denial of the earlier “correct perception both as to content of the discrete events and their organization. Working with six prliminary subjects. two normals and four schizOphrenics. various degrees of “in-focus“ were 39 investigated. The focal lengths (extension<>f the lens barrell in cm.) that were found to allow organization of the series in terms of one event. but that.also allowed reorganization of the series in terms of thezilternate event. are listed in Table I. These points represented an area where ambiguity was present but where also some mean- ing was present. On each successive card in each sequence. the extension of the lens barrel was increased bY.5 cm. This was done to present less ambiguity in the final. changed event. Exposure Time A period of five seconds was arbitarily selected as offering the subject sufficient time to perceive the picture and as being short enough to force an immediate judgment as to the content of the picture. Since the focal points were being used to establish ambiguity. exposure time was not utilized for that purpose as it is in tachistoscOpic studies (33. 13. 9. 2h. #2). Douglas (ll) reports from her study and others (5. 40. #8). that exposures of over two seconds seldomxresult in any further increase in accuracy of percep- tion. The results contained in these tachistoscopic studies Would indicate that a five second time interval is sufficiently long to eliminate exposure time as a factor influencing the accuracy of the perception of the pictures. The five second fi“—' TABLE I *1 -OCUS FCR.EA 40 CH PICTURE Series III —Series—I Eeries II Card 1 — 2.5 cm. Card 1 — 3.5 cm. Card 1 - 0.0 cm. Card 2 - 3.0 " Card 2 — 4;0 " Card 2 - .5 ” Card 3 - 3.5 “ Card 3 - 4.5 “ Card 3 - 1.5 “ Card 4 - 4.0 " Card 4 - 5.0 " Card 4 - 2.0 " -__L Series IV Series V Series VI Card 1 - 2.5 cm. Card 1 - 3.5 cm. Card 1 - 0.5 cm. Card 2 - 3.0 " Card 2 — 4.0 " Card 2 - 1.5 " Card 3 - 3.5 " Card 3 - 4.5 “ Card 3 - 2.0 " Card 4 - 4.0 " Card 4 - 5.0 ” Card 4 - 2.5 " Series VII Series VIII Series IX Card 1 - 3.5 cm. Card 1 - 1.5 cm. Card 1 - 1.5 Em. Card 2 - 4.0 " Card 2 - 2.0 " Card 2 — 2.0 " Card 3 — 4.5 “ Card 3 - 2.5 " Card 3 — 7.5 " Card 4 - 5.0 " Card 4 - 3.0 " Card 4 — 5.0 " Series X Card 1 ~ 1.5 cm. Card 2 - 2.0 " Card 3 - 2.5 " Card 4 — 3.0 " 41 time intervals were measured by a stop watch. It was possible to place each card in position while the beam of light was being projected through the slide projection system. The card could then be exposed simply by flipping up the lever. and the exposure could be terminated by a downward flip of the lever. Subjects The subjects of this study included two main groups -- normals and schizOphrenic patients. The normal sample was drawn from the employee population at the hospital and included 50 subjects. The schizOphrenic group also was composed of 50 subjects. all patients at the hospital. All subjects were males. The diagnoses for the patient sample were based on the present hospital diagnosis of each patient. In terms of the mean and standard deviation. the two groups were closely matched for age. education (year of highest grade attained) and intelligence. As Table IIindicates. all three differ- ences between the means were extremely small and statistically insignificant. The device used to measure intellectual level was the vocabulary sub-test of the Wechsler Bellevue intelli- gsnce scale (45). This sub-test. according to Wechsler (45). correlates highly with the total scale (eta; .85). The testing period. including the administration of the vocabulary test. required about one hour of the subject's time. 42 The whole procedure was accomplished in one sitting, elim- inating the necessity for return-sessions. TABLE II MATCHING OF THE TWO<3ROUPS Group } Age Educatien Vocabulary Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Normal 3h.74 5.26 10.20 1.93 24.00 5.92 Schizophrenic 3h.16 7.28 10.1” 2.52 22.u3 6.92 t. .003 .1h3 1.296 In general, the patient-group was investigated under conditions similar to those in the usual diagnostic testing programs, and the patients were given the impression that these procedures were part or the usual routine testing. This was done to avoid unduly disturbing paranoid patients or other patients susceptible to delusions and ideas of reference. The normal group was told that the procedure was part of a research project. and.their cooperation solicited on that basis. It was possible to arrange it so that the ex- perimental sessions occurred during working hours at the hospital rather than on their free time. This acted as a positive factor in securing complete coOperation. After the procedure was completed With each normal subject, the examiner 43 answered any questions the subject haduabout the study. The subjects were always curious about the‘actual content cf the cards..and it seemed desirable to show them the cards in focus after they had completed the experiment. The subjects were requested to cooperate in terms of not discussing the experiment With other employees. Treatment of Data As we have indicated, the stimulus material and eXperi- mental procedure-involved in this study were designed to yield data concerning the perceptual organization and reorgan- ization of stimulus sequences. In treating these data, we shall be dealing with five principal response classes. The first of these is ”organization,“ the extensiveness of the perceptual unit reported by the subject. Organization in- volves the number of stimulus elements found in a perceptual unit. The other response classes we have labeled “reorgan- ization.” "cormtancyflI "isolation," and "indecision.'I These response classes simply represent the four possible alternatives available to the subject when.presented with a fourth card which breakes the sequence. They bear upon the hypothesis dealing with the schizophrenic'si3endency to break stimulus sequences up into separate perceptual units and the hypthesis that the chiZOphrenic Will tend to avoid reorganizing existing perceptual units. What each.alterna- tive specifically involves is as follows: an Reorganization: The subect changes the existing perceptual unit so as to make it agree with his perception of a new. apparently different stimulus unit which terminates the sequence. grnstancy: The subject perceives the new potentially dif- ferent stimulus unit as an integral part of the existing or- ganization of the sequence. .lgolation: The subject isolates the new stimulus unit from the existing structure. thus forming a separate perceptual unit. [indecision. The subject is unable to respond adequately to the new stimulus unit which is ambiguous in the sequence of s timulus events. The identificationcf the five response classes pro- ceeded as follows: Organization: The measurement of the organization of immediate stimulus complexes into meaningful perceptual units. and the organization of sequences of stimulus situations into broader perceptual units embracing spans of time of various durations. both require a definition of the organizational process which allows objective quantification<3f that process. Organization has been defined for the purposes of this study as the relating together of two or more stimulus units, thus providing a larger perceptual unit. This definition allows us to use certain 45 guide-posts for the purpose of quantification. For instance. inureSponding to a stimulus complex an individual might label it as a.greup of lines or geometric figures. Another indivi- dual perceiving the same stimulus might label it a dog. And a third person might glance at the stimulus material and immediately respond that it's a dog walking along with a.bone in its mouth. Now assiming. appropriately enough to most important stimulus situations. that the stimulus complex possesses a certain optimum objective meaning as defined by social agreement. then we can immediately see that‘these three individuals have "organized“ the stimulus unit into perceptual units of varying degrees of extensiveness. In accordance with.our<1efinition of perceptual organization. the individuals have included in their respective perceptual units different amounts or a different number of the available elements of the stimulus complex. The individual whose reaches to the stimulus unit only involved gross recognition of form articulation'obviously did not respond to the more detailed stimulus elements making the fonmzrecognizable as a dog. Further. the individual who did respond to the stimulus by recognizing it as a dog. though including many stimulus elements involving shape and relationship. did not respond to those elements giving cues to activity and movement. Thus. the third individual. in saying that the stimulus looks like a dog walking along carrying a bone, has responded to the most elements of the stimulus. These examples serve to show three points at which different degrees of organization of perceptual units can be recognized. One can select as scoring units the perceptual units involving. first. sub-object description; second. des- cription of a stimulus as an object or ”thing“; and third. the description of a stimulus as an object involved in some sort of activity. active or passive. Since the higher levels of organization include or imply the lower levels. quantifica- tion consists of a simple summing of the arbitrarily selected perceptual units involved. Using arbitrary organizational points involving object labeling and the perception cf activity. furnishes units for quantifying individual stimulus situations. The more extensive perceptual units involving several seduentially appearing stimulus units can be handled in the same manner. getting a measure of organization for each.separate stimulus unit. and then treating the sequence as a whole. The stimulus sequence itself may offer’easily definable points at which scoring units can‘be objectively tacked down. This is true in stimulus sequences in which the separate stimulus units are easily discernable. In such cases a response linking two of the stimulus units together is scored less than a reSponse linking three units together and so on. This follows from our