A FAWOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURES OF CLOSED. OPEN, AND MEDIUM BEUEF-DISBELIEF SYSTEMS Thesis for rho Degree of Ph. D. M!CHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Danie! F'rancis Wszniak 3963! This is to certify that the thesis entitled A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURES OF CLOSED, OPEN, AND MEDIUM BELIEF-DISBELIEE SYSTEMS presented by Daniel Francis Wozniak has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Communication Jun smear; Major professor 6. Date October 18, 1963 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT A FACTOR.ANALYTIC STUDY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURES OF CLOSED, OPEN, AND MEDIUM BELIEF-DISBELIEF SYSTEMS by Daniel Francis WOzniak The purpose of the study was to describe the semantic structure and semantic differential scale position usage associated with differ- ences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-open belief- disbelief continuum. According to Osgood, one of the basic ways in which individuals or groups might differ would be in the underlying dimensions of judgment they use in differentiating connotatively among concepts. Results of previous factor analytic studies of semantic structure suggest that judgmental frames tend toward maximal simplicity but that differences from the general tendency occur and could be associated with personality variables. Rokeach theory research findings associate differences in cognitive structure with differences in cognitive processing styles characterized as a tendency toward simplicity for closed belief systems and a tendency toward multidimensionality or complexity for open belief systems. In the present study, it was hypothesized that samples of indivi- duals differing in cognitive structure would differ in the nature and the number of semantic structure dimensions required to account for judgments. Structures were defined as similar in nature to the extent that (1) similar scales, similarly loaded, described the factors, and (2) the factors were identified as similar on the basis of inspection and.computation of indices of factorial similarity. The number of Daniel Francis Wozniak factors extracted, using the Kiel-Wrigley criterion to limit factoring, served as an index of simplicity or multidimensionality of semantic space--the structure with the fewest factors defined as tending toward simplicity. In scale position usage, it was expected that closed more than open subjects would tend toward 1 and 7 scale positions which were assumed to be simplest and easiest to make and indicative of dichoto- mous, blackewhite type of judgments. Open more than closed subjects were expected to tend toward 2, 3, 5, and 6 positions assumed to be most difficult to make and indicative of relatively more discriminating and finely graded types of judgment. Open more than closed groups also were expected to tend to use the 4 position assumed to be intermediate in difficulty and indicative of maximal conflict or ambivalent types of judgments. Cognitive structure differences were indexed in terms of responses to the Rokeach 40-item.rorm E Scale which is assumed to measure the relative degree of closedness or openness of a belief-disbelief system. Subjects, 241 college freshmen, were categorized into closed, open, and medium types on the basis of their Rokeach scale scores. The semantic differential consisted of 19 stimulus concepts and 40 scales with seven positions between each pair of bipolar adjectives. Concepts were chosen to represent categories used in the Osgood Thesaurus study of semantic structures and five adjective pairs were selected to represent each of the eight dimensions yielded in the Thesaurus study factor analysis. Data for the three groups were computed separately. Methods of analysis included computing means and standard deviations for the 19 Daniel Francis Wozniak concepts and 40 scales for each group and correlations for each scale with every other scale for each group. Each of the correlation matrices was factor analyzed by the Principal Axes method with Varimax rotations. As far as the evidence was developed in the study, it appeared that the semantic structures of samples of individuals at the closed and open ends of the belief-disbelief continuum tended to be similar but different from the structure of individuals at the middle of the continuum. Factors for closed and open samples were identified as evaluative, dynamism, predictability, and sensory-ennui. For the medium group the factors were identified as evaluative, activity, potency, and tautness. Of the three experimental types, the medium group's dimensions most resembled the Thesaurus study major dimensions (evaluative, activity, and potency). Using the Kiel-Wrigley criterion, six factors were extracted for closed, five for open, and four for medium groups. In scale position usage, closed more than open systems tended to make 1 and 7 responses and open more than closed tended to use the 4 position. No statisti- cally significant differences were found between cpen and closed tendencies to utilize 2, 3, 5, and 6 positions. Differences between closed and open subjects in their meanings of highly favorable and highly unfavorable concepts were statistically significant along the evaluative dimension but not along other dimensions. A.FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURES OF CLOSED, OPEN, AND MEDIUM BELIEF-DISBELIEF SYSTEMS 3? Daniel Francis Weaniak A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1963 ax ~Dg) vvi‘ b (9 L0) Acknowledgements My sincerest appreciation and deepest thanks to a long list of individuals who have contributed directly and indirectly to the com- pletion of this thesis. A few are mentioned below. 1. To Dr. Hideya Kumata, chairman of my guidance committee and graduate advisor, for his guidance and direction in developing and carrying out of this program of research and for his help in the preparation of this thesis. 2. To Dr. Malcolm MacLean, Jr., acting chairman, for his assis- tance in the data processing, interpretation and reporting stages of the project. 3. To the other members of my committee, Dr. Fred Siebert, Dr. Walter Emery, and Dr. John Donoghue, who, with Dr. Kumata and Dr. MacLean have had a profound influence on my life in their capacities as teachers, counselors, advisors, employers, colleagues, and friends in my association with them at Michigan State University. 4. To Dr. Paul‘Miller, president of the University of West Virginia, through when subjects for this research were obtained. Also, to members of his staff and to the Department of English faculty who so capably organized for the administration of the test instruments. And, to the students who served as unpaid subjects in this study. 5. To Mr. Thomas Danbury, whose advice and suggestions during the interpretation and reporting phases of the study were most helpful. Also to Mr. Albert Talbot, Mr. Dan Costley, and Mr. Donald Kiel for 11 Acknowledgements - continued their capable assistance. 6. To members of the Machigan State University computer staff for their diligent efforts in processing the data. 7. To a number of academic administrators whose help is grate- fully acknowledged and sincerely appreciated, particularly, Dr. Fred Siebert, Dr. David Berlo, and Dr. Gordon Sabine. 8. To my family: my wife, Helen, for her assistance and support in a number of roles; to son David for his assistance in administrative chores; to daughter Catherine and to the rest of the family for their forbearance and inspiration. iii Chapter I II III Table of Contents INMDUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Description of Major Constructs Closed and Open Belief-Disbelief System Construct Definition of Meaning Background of the Problem Personality and Cognitive Behavior Closed and Open Systems and Cognitive Functioning Styles Tendency Toward Simplicity in Semantic Structure Differences in Semantic Structure Scale Position Usage Statement of the Problem DESIGN AND PMEDURE O O O O O O O O O 0 Design Instruments Used Subjects Procedure Method of Analysis Factor Analysis RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria for Semantic Structure Comparison Results of the Factor Analysis Description of Semantic Structure for Closed Individuals Description of Semantic Structure for Open Individuals Description of Semantic Structure for Medium Individuals Similarities and Differences in Semantic Structure Number of Factors Variance Accounted For Semantic Structure and Cognitive Structure iv Page 12 19 20 25 29 32 32 32 35 37 38 39 4O 42 42 46 49 53 56 57 58 Table of Contents - continued Chapter III ' cont. _ Page Description of Concept Meanings 59 Scale Position Usage 66 Iv DISCUS SIGN O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 68 Conclusions 71 Implications of the Findings 72 Generality of Judgmental Frames 72 Nature of Semantic Space of Closed, Open, and ‘Medium Groups 75 Authority Frame of Reference 80 Limitations of the Study 83 Distribution of Scores 83 Scales and Concepts 85 Individual Factor Analyses 85 Suggestions for Further Research 88 Dimensionality of Semantic Space 88 Scale Checking Tendencies 89 Attitude Change 89 REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 92 Tables 1. Mean group scores obtained on the Rokeach 40-1tem Form E scale a o o e o e o o e e 2. Stimulus nouns and adjective pairs used in the StUdy e e e e e e e e e e e e e 3. Scales defining evaluative dimension (Factor I) for closed belief-disbelief system individuals . 4. Scales defining dynamism dimension (Factor II) for closed belief-disbelief system individuals . 5. Scales defining predictability dimension (Factor III) for closed belief-disbelief system individuals . 6. Scales defining a sensory-ennui dimension (Factor IV) for closed belief-disbelief system individuals . 7. Scales defining an evaluative dimension (Factor I) for open belief-disbelief system individuals . . 8. Scales defining a dynamism dimension (Factor 11) for open belief-disbelief system individuals . . 9. Scales defining a predictability dimension (Factor III) for open belief-disbelief system individuals 10. Scales defining a sensory-ennui dimension (Factor IV) for open belief-disbelief system individuals . . 11. Scales defining an evaluative dimension (Factor I) for medium belief-disbelief system individuals . 12. Scales defining an activity dimension (Factor II) for medium'belief-disbelief system individuals . l3. Scales defining a potency dimension (Factor III) for medium belief-disbelief system individuals . 14. Scales defining a tautness dimension (Factor IV) for medium belief-disbelief system individuals . 15. Semantic structures for closed, open, and medium belief- disbelief system individuals with Thesaurus dimension ClSB'ifications e e e e e e e e e e e e 16. Indices of factorial similarity . . . . . . . 17. Percentage of total and common variance accounted List of Tables for by each factor . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 34 36 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49' 50 51 52 52 54 56 57 List of Illustrations Figure Page 1. Mean judgment profile . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2. Mean judgment profile . . . . . . . . . . . 64 vii List of Appendices Appendix Page A. Test booklets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 B. Test administrators' instruction sheet . . . . . 150 C. Mean judgments and standard deviations for 19 con- cepts on 40 scales by closed, open, and medium group a C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 5 3 D. Mean judgments and standard deviations across concepts on 40 scales by closed, open, and medium groupfl 0 e e e e e e e o e e e e 172 E. Correlation tables for closed, open, and medium group 8 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 7 3 F. Summary of identified factors for each solution for closed, open, and medium groups . . . . . . 186 G. Rotated factor loadings for closed, open, and medium grOUPS e e e e e e e e e e e e e 188 H. Comparison of indices of factor similarity. . . . 195 I. Comparison of variance across concepts for closed, open, and medium.groups . . . . . . . 197 J. Mean judgment profiles . . . . . . . . . . 199 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to describe the semantic structure associated with differences in structure of the belief-disbelief system. Specific objectives are: 1. 2. 3. To describe the dimensions of semantic space of three groups of college undergraduate students differentiated on the basis of relative closedness or openness of the belief-disbelief system structure (closed, medium, and open groups). To describe their semantic differential scale checking be- h‘VIOtB e To describe the meanings for selected concepts for closed and Open type‘e Questions explored by the study include: 1. 2. 3. Will the semantic differential differentiate closed, medium, and open belief-disbelief system individuals? will the location of a belief structure along the closed-Open continuum permit predictions regarding the semantic dimensions employed in making meaningful connotative judgments of given categories of concepts? To what extent are dimensions of semantic space found in other factorial studies using college undergraduates generalizable to similar subjects differentiated in terms of relative closed- ness or Openness of the belief-disbelief system? In the present investigation, it is hypothesized that differences in cognitive structure as indexed by the degree of closedness or open- ness of a belief-disbelief system are associated with differences in semantic structure. These differences are expected in the number, and nature of di- mensions employed in making meaningful connotative judgments of l .‘i .0 .4 Q '0'- rd) 1“ .L 2 concepts. Also, differences in relative closedness or openness along the belief-disbelief continuum are associated with differences in scale position usage on the semantic differential. Relatively closed indivi- duals should tend toward dichotomous polarized responses rather than toward more discriminating judgments. Relatively closed and open system individuals should differ in their meanings toward specific concepts. Profiles for examining these meaning differences are presented in a later chapter of this study. Instruments used were the Rokeach 40-item scale which indexed the relative degree of closedness or openness of the belief-disbelief system and the semantic differential using 19 concepts and 40 adjective- pair scale items. Responses from.24l college freshman English students were analyzed using the following methods: 1. Computing means and standard deviations for each concept and across concepts on each scale for the three types. 2. Computing interscale correlations for each scale for the three groups. ' 3. Computing Principal Axes factor analysis with Varimax rotations. 4. Computing indices of factorial similarity. 5. Computing frequency of scale positon usage across selected concepts for each group. 6. Drawing meaning comparison profiles for each concept for each group. -1 .. i. I I ‘ ‘ f . I. ' 7' I . ‘ . AJ . I I '.~ ,' ' . ‘ n .§ ' l n r . .I , , . . ' r‘ r . I ; l e a. .Z‘ ._ . l.' e 3 Description of Major Constructs ggosed and Open Belief-Disbelief System Construct Rokeach's (1960) cognitive organization model consists of three major dimensions: belief-disbelief, central-peripheral and time. Each has a number of characteristics and properties but all are reducible to a single dimension--organization along an closed-open dimension. Belief-Disbelief Dimension. Rokeach's theoretical framework as- sumes that the structure of a person's beliefs consists of two in- dependent parts--a belief system and several disbelief subsystems col- lectively called disbelief gygggg. It is assumed that the belief- disbelief system represents an organization of all beliefs and dis- beliefs, sets, or expectancies which are verbal or nonverbal, implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious and which represent the indivi- dual's cognitive map of the werld--each man's total framework for under- standing the social and physical universe. The belief system represents all of the beliefs, sets, expectations, or hypotheses, conscious, unconscious, or preconscious that a person at a given time accepts as true of his world. The disbelief system represents a series of subsystems which contain all of the disbeliefs, sets, expectancies, conscious and un- conscious that a person at a given time rejects as false. These dis- belief subsystems are assumed to fall along a continuum, their places on that continuum determined by the degree of similarity to the belief system. W. Rokeach (1960) sees the belief- disbelief system organized in terms of three regions: central, inter- mediate, and peripheral. The central region represents primitive n...) L» 4 beliefs--all those a person has acquired about the nature of the world, the nature of the self, and the generalized other. Other beliefs, intermediate and peripheral, are assumed to emerge from primitive beliefs. The intermediate region represents the beliefs a person has about the nature of positive and negative authority and the peOple who line up with authority and on whom he depends to help form a picture of the world. The peripheral region represents the beliefs derived from authority which fill out the individual's details of his world map. Time Dimension. The time dimension refers to a person's beliefs about the past, present, and future and the way they are related. A broad time perspective individual bases his beliefs and anticipation about the future upon an awareness of his past and present. A narrow time perspective individual is preoccupied with either the past, present, or future. §tructgral Igggrcggggctions Among Beliefs. Another property of the belief-disbelief system is the relative degree of isolation or communi— cation among beliefs and disbeliefs. One end of the continuum repre- sents no communication (high degree of isolation) and the other end represents high communication (low degree of isolation) among beliefs and disbeliefs. Differentiation, articulation, or richness of detail is another way belief-disbelief systems may vary. The degree of discrepancy in knowledge, things believed and disbelieved, may be considered an index of relative degree of differentiation of beliefs as compared with the disbelief system. .. . a . . . . . . . o . . . .,.l I \ , . O . . d C - ,« i u . . .. O .. . .s 4 , J J - v . \l. 5 . . . v 4 i O I 5 Definition of Relative Closedness or Openness. It is assumed that the three dimensions (belief-disbelief, central-peripheral, and time) are all intercorrelated to such an extent that they are all reducible to a single dimension: organization of the total cognitive system along a continuum.from closed to open. With respect to organization along the belief-disbelief continuum, the characteristics which define a system as either open or closed include: 1. 2. 3. 4. In open systems the magnitude of rejection of disbelief subsystems is relatively low at each point along the continuum while in closed systems the magnitude of re- jection of disbelief subsystems is relatively high at each point along the disbelief continuum. In open systems there is communication of parts within and between belief and disbelief systems, while in closed systems there is isolation of parts within and between be- lief and disbelief systems. In open systems there is relatively little discrepancy in the degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief systems. In closed systems there is relatively great dis- crepancy in the degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief systems. In open systems there is relatively high differentiation ‘within the disbelief system. In the closed system there is relatively little differentiation within the disbelief system. With respect to the organization along the central-peripheral di- mension, include: 1. the characteristics defining a system as closed or open In open systems the specific content of primitive be- liefs is that the world or the situation one is in at a particular moment, is a friendly one, while the closed system primitive belief content is that the world, and/or the situation is a threatening one. In open systems the formal content of beliefs about authority and about people who adhere to systems of authority is to the effect that people are not to be evaluated according to their agreement or disagreement E: It PU! but 3". .6, I? 6 with such authority. In closed systems, the formal content of beliefs about authority and about people who adhere to systems of authority is that authority is absolute and that people are to be accepted and rejected according to their agreement or disagreement with such authority. 3. The structure of beliefs and disbeliefs for the open system perceived to emanate from authority is that its substructures are in relative communication with each other. For closed systems the structure of beliefs and disbeliefs perceived to emanate from authority is that its substructures are in relative isolation from each other. With respect to the time-perspective dimension, open systems have a relatively broad time perspective, while closed systems have a rela- tively narrow, future-oriented time perspective. Measurement of Closedness or Qpenness. Rokeach devised the "dog- matism scale" whose primary purpose was to measure individual differ- ences in closedness and openness of belief systems. It is also designed to measure general authoritarianism and general intolerance. The scale purports to measure not only closed systems of thinking and believing but also the rejection of ideas and people perceived to threaten a closed system. High scorers on the Rokeach scale are defined as relatively closed belief-disbelief systems and low’scorers imply a relatively open system. Definition of Meaning In this study, meaning is defined within the general framework of learning theory--Osgood's mediation hypothesis--as a cognitive state identified with a representational or symbolic mediation process that takes place between a stimulation and an overt response in a sign- producing organism. ‘Meaning is a psychological process which a sign evokes after the organism receives a sign-stimulus and before the 7 organism produces a sign-response. (See Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, ch. 1 and Osgood, 1953, ch. 16 and pp. 680-727). Stated in more formal language (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 6): Whenever some stimulus other than the significate is contiguous ‘with the significate, it will acquire an increment of association with some portion of the total behavior elicited by the signifi- cate as a representational mediation process. Significate is the term applied to any stimulus which in a given situation regularly and reliably produces a predictable pattern of be- havior. The sign is the "other stimulus" which acquires an increment of association with some portion of the total behavior elicited by the significate. In the words of Osgood et a1. (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 7): A pattern of stimulation‘which is not the significate is a sign of that significate if it evokes in the organism a mediating process, this process (a) being some fractional part of the total behavior elicited by the significate and (b) producing responses which.would not occur without previous contiguity of non-significate and significate patterns. Measurement of Meaning. Since meaning, defined here as a repre- sentational mediation process, is internal and cannot be observed directly, overt instrumental responses can be used as indices of these internal processes. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, chs. l, 2, 3) use an instrument called the semantic differential to index the meaning of a sign. The semantic differential is an attempt to use language out- put as an index of meaning or mediating processes. It restricts the language output of the respondent by eliciting responses within a frame of adjectival bipolar scales. Since the assumption is made that meanings vary multidimensionally, an attempt is made to include scales C / I It. I ,I' " . l j ;.1 L__ ‘ . ‘ 7 . .‘ 1' , v is 7 I 0:. ,. a! 8 that represent these multidimensional ways. Appendix A contains the semantic differential used in this study. Between each of 40 bipolar adjectives appear seven scale positions. The point of origin is "O" or the center point on the l to 7 scale. Since a multidimensional semantic space is postulated, each scale1 is represent- ed as a straight line function passing through a point of origin. Meaning is defined as the position in the semantic space which is chosen by successive selection of positions along each individual scale. In summary, (Osgood, Suci, Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 31) meaning in this study is defined as a representational mediation process, a complex re- action divisible into some unknown but finite number of components. This definition is coordinated with the instrument-~the semantic differential-- by identifying this complex mediation reaction with a point in a multi- dimensional space. The projections of the scales onto the various di- mensions of the semantic space are assumed to correspond to what com- ponent mediating reactions are associated with the sign and with what degree of intensity. 1An important assumption made by Osgood and associates is that the adjective pairs defined by the experimenters as antagonistic also are defined as polar opposites by respondents. A study by Danbury (1963a) suggests that given one adjective respondents may define its antonym differently from the experimenter's choice based on logical or other grounds. Osgood and associates (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 327) admit that one of the difficult methodological problems un- successfully dealt with so far is to demonstrate that the polar terms are true psychological opposites, that is, fall at equal distances from the origin of the semantic space and in opposite direction along a single straight line passing through the origin. ”J. c. -$ 9 Background of the Problem Personality and ngpitive Behavior Krech and Crutchfield (1948, pp. 136-139, 111-112) observed that individuals differ in the complexity of their cognitive structures rang- ing from simple undifferentiated structure with relative isolation or lack of intercommunication among structures to a highly differentiated and complex structure with high intercommunication among structures. These properties, complexity versus simplicity, intercommunication versus isolation, influence the rate of cognitive reorganization, creative thinking, and ingenuity in problem solving. The processes of thinking, problem.solving, learning, forgetting and the sudden appearance of new goals and insights are regarded as special cases of cognitive reorganization. In general, the more simle, undifferentiated, and isolated any cognitive structure is the less available it is for reorganization and the less creative and ingenious will the solution attempts be (Rrech and Crutchfield, 1948, p. 141). Krech and Crutchfield (1948, pp. 136-137) state: Since every cognitive organization is determined by the relations existing among all the individual parts, a single new perception would have a relative decisive effect on a major structure that was simple, undifferentiated, and isolated from other structures, but it would have a relatively minor effect on the completely differentiated structure that was in communication with other structures. Presumably, a change in the simple, undifferentiated and isolated system is more traumatic or fundamental a reorganization therefore would be met with more resistance. The simple, undifferentiated, and isolated structure more than the complex, differentiated, and intercommunication structure tends to have "J .v o h. r. r) n) 10 a narrower focus of attention, fewer different items are involved, and those items are relatively segregated from the rest of the field. In problem solving, the more simple, undifferentiated, and isolated any structure, the less available it is for reorganization and the less creative and ingenious will the solution attempts be. If an individ- ual's cognitive structures are isolated and rigid and thus do not change, his actions cannot change and his strivings to achieve his goals will be characterized by sterotypy (Krech and Crutchfield, 1948, pp. 138'141). Work on the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950) generated studies generally supporting the notion that individuals high in authoritarianism or ethnocentrism as measured by P and E scales, tended toward simplicity in cognitive activity more than did individuals low in the variables. High and low ethnocentrics and/or authoritarians were found to be more rigid in their problem solving behavior and concrete in their thinking. They had a narrower grasp of a particular subject, displayed a tendency toward premature closure in their perceptual processes, dis- tortions in memory, and a greater tendency to be intolerant of ambiguity (Rokeach, 1960, p. 16). Authoritarian oriented persons tend to display characteristic mechanisms which result in a simplification of the psychological world. The work of Else Prenkel-Brunswik (1949) suggests that the mechanisms include tendencies: l. Toward emotional and perceptual cognitive intolerance of ambiguity. 2. To resort to black-white solutions and judgments. ' n i V. , " ..,. 1.1. a .2. I... A. is cos inc . 515 an: :33 St: 11 3. To be intolerant of good and bad qualities in the same person (ambivalence). 4. To reject or accept people in an unqualified manner. 5. To arrive at premature closure in ambiguous situations. 6. To arrive at premature closure as to valuative aspects, often at the neglect of reality. 7. To seek unqualified and unambiguous over-all acceptance or rejection of people. The low ethnocentrism scorer more than the high scorer tends to display a general tendency to expose himself to broad experience-- emotional, cognitive, and perceptual--even at the risk of having to modify one's preconceived notions and of having to sustain conflicts (Adorno, Prenkel-Prunswick, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950, p. 463). In an experimental situation in which Navy recruits responded to tape recorded voices of a superior, authoritarians responded more to the position of the stimulus person while non-authoritarians were more sensitive to the psychological cues available in the situation (Eidelman, 1963, p. 19). In short, individuals with simple, undifferentiated, isolated cognitive structures, and/or individuals high in authoritarianism and/or ethnocentrism tend toward cognitive process styles which are simple, narrow, constricted, undifferentiated, dichotomous, and eval- uative. Individuals with complex, highly differentiated cognitive struc- tures that are not isolated and/or individuals low’in authoritarianism and/or ethnocentrism tend toward cognitive process styles which are complex, multidimensional, discriminative, broad, and non-evaluative. Individuals who differ in simplicity and complexity of cognitive structure and cognitive process styles might be expected to differ in 12 semantic structure, scale checking behaviors, and meaning toward specific concepts. A study by Suci (1955), reported in a later section of this thesis, in which he derived hypotheses from authoritarian theory, sheds light on differences between high and low ethnocentrics in semantic structure. Rokeach's (1960, pp. ll-18) reformulation, extension, broadening, and refinement of the authoritarian personality theory has taken a long step toward systematizing the relationship between the authoritarian personality syndrome and cognitive activity. In the Rokeach theoretical conceptualization similar kinds of cognitive simplification and narrow- ing processes (as observed above) are presumed to occur. Closed and Qppn §zstems and Cogpitive Fppctionipg Styles Rokeach and associates (Rokeach, 1960) have investigated the cogni- tive and emotional behaviors of individuals who differ in cognitive structure along the closed and open dimension. Characterizing cognitive functioning styles demonstrated in those investigations in terms of simplicity and complexity or multidimension- ality, closed systems tend toward simplicity and open system individuals tend toward complexity or multidimensionality in conceptual, perceptual, aesthetic, time perspective, ideological, interpersonal, communication, and emotional areas of cognitive activity. The behaviors of closed and open system.individuals in one group of conceptual studies--the Doodlebug experiments-~underscore this char- acterization. Rokeach and associates (Rokeach, McGoveny, and Denny, 1960; Rokeach and Vidulich, 1960; and Vidulich, 1956) set up an arti- ficial cosmology in which a miniature belief system*was at odds with one ordinarily employed in everyday life. The subjects were required m - a ‘ ‘ O - . n O \4 1 s . A J . . .)' l "-1 ,f, I :\ - a $ 5 U ‘1 v ; L4 13 to manipulate in their heads a set of rules for solving problems (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 173, 181, 257). They found that closed systems took longer to solve the problemw than did open systems; that closed systems were less able to integrate beliefs into new systems; that closed systems were less able to remember the different beliefs to be inte- grated than open systems; and that closed systems tended to emotionally reject the problem.more than open systems. Closed system.individuals, less able to entertain newness in ideas, people, beliefs, or information which may contradict or appear incon- sistent with old and cherished beliefs, are less able to take multiple elements into account at the same time and integrate them into new systems. Instead closed systems eliminate inconsistent elements through narrowing, forgetting, or emotional rejection. Behind the rejection of newness is the closed system's resistance to change, the strong moti- vation to preserve the system at all costs. The open system, on the other hand, is more willing to reconcile beliefs with the existing system.and to change it as needed to fit in with sew’information. In two other experimental situations using variations of the Doodlebug Problem, this tendency of closed individuals toward simplicity in cognitive processing is also evident. Rokeach and associates (Rokeach, Oramg Laffey, and Denny, 1960) demonstrated that-non-inte- grative thinking is characteristic of closed individuals and integrative thinking is associated with open individuals. In non-integrative (isolated or party-line) thinking peripheral beliefs are interconnected only through the intermediate or authority belief region. A change in a peripheral belief results only on instruction from the closed individual's authority figures and such a party-line change 14 does not affect other beliefs in the peripheral region. A "genuine" change involves realignment of the total system since beliefs are not isolated from each other. The experimenters, attempting to observe the effects of isolation on the synthesizing processes, focused on the psychological effects on the thinker when materials of thought are presented or not presented on a silver platter. In the first experiment, the new beliefs were given all at once at the beginning on a "silver platter," while in the second experiment the new beliefs were presented gradually rather than all at once. As expected, the closed group solved the problem faster in the silver- platter experiment than in the working-through experiment. But the open individuals took just as long under both conditions. In the working- through condition, closed subjects took longer than open subjects. Party-line changes, more simple or less multidimensional than genuine changes, were characteristic of the closed system individuals. The closed system individuals worked more efficiently in the silver- platter handout situation because it was more simple to grasp and swallow'whole than to synthesize the beliefs into a new system. Closed subjects did not have to reconcile new beliefs with old ones in the silver-platter situation thereby removing a major obstacle to synthesis leading to the formation of a new system. Open subjects resisted having beliefs forced on them without first working through these beliefs cognitively thus accounting for the longer time taken in the silver-platter situation. In an experiment by Levy and Rokeach (1960), a perceptual task was used to study perceptual synthesis with similar results: closed systems 1:2: iii: o;e: but the: dual abs: he and of t Six 8th 15 tending toward simplicity in the cognitive process and open systems to- 'ward multidimensionality. The experimenters found significant differ- ences in the time required for closed and open system individuals to integrate perceptual stimuli into a new field of synthesis. Closed and open subjects did not differ in their ability to perceive analytically. This study, like others, tended to support the notion that differ- ences between closed and open systems were due to personality rather than intelligence differences. Hikol (1958) in a study designed to extend the scope and generality of the notions already developed about the organization of closed and open cognitive systems found that in aesthetic functioning closed sub- jects were less able to understand and appreciate new'modern music and its composer than were open systems. Closed systems were unreceptive to newness of musical experience but no differences were found between closed and open individuals in their appreciation of more conventional music. A striking finding of the Mikol experiment was that Open indivi- duals knew more about serious music than closed individuals in the absence of differences in formal training. Closed individuals are less tolerant of incongruent elements within the belief system in the area of ideology than open individuals. Rokeach and associates (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 291-311) in studying the organization of the disbelief system had students and clergy, adherents to one of six Christian religions, rank religions in order of similarity to the subject's own religion. The results indicated that the more dissimilar the belief system (religion) from one's own the more it was rejected, and when members of d; :1- is- 0f 16 different religions were classified into closed or Open systems, it was found that closed systems tended to reject every disbelief system along the similarity continuum to a greater extent than did open individuals. The more dissimilar a faith to one's own, the more it is rejected by all systems but closed systems consistently reject more than do open systems all disbelief subsystems along the total range of the similarity continuum. According to Rokeach's theoretical conceptualization, (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 366-367) closed systems tend toward simplification of the time perspective. The more closed the belief-disbelief system, the more narrow is the time perspective and the less are the psychological past, present and future adequately represented in a person's behavior. Rokeach and Bonier (Rokeach, 1960) found that closed systems were more future oriented and less present oriented than open systems. When a person is future oriented to the point of sacrificing an appreciation of the past and present, his future orientation is narrow. A study by Pidelman (1963) in affective interpersonal behavior, in- dexed by the individual's ability to perceive and understand the feel- ings of others, also emphasizes the simplicity-multidimensionality dif- ferences in closed and open cognitive styles. He found that relatively closed individuals were less accurate in their ability to perceive and understand the feelings of others that were open systems. Pidelman reasoned that since closed systems need to avoid ambi- guities, their interpersonal world is much less differentiated, and the subtle nuances of interpersonal experiences, the "fine" discriminations of feelings of others are missed and lost. Vidulich (1958) as a measure of the narrowing notion in the Rokeach 17 theoretical framework had subjects name on five separate indices all personal acquaintances, public persons and groups who were perceived as favoring or opposing their own positions on an integration topic. Relatively closed systems were found to have fewer negative belief re- ferents than subjects with relatively Open systems. The discrepancy was interpreted as being mainly a function of reduced awareness of public persons opposing the closed subjects' beliefs. Research findings in the communication situation are consistent with the cognitive styles associated with open and closed systems ob— served in other studies. Powell's (1961) findings supported the Rokeach hypothesis that open and closed individuals differ in their ability to differentiate information about source from information the source attempts to communicate in a message. The findings were interpreted as supporting the Rokeach notion that open systems evaluate and act upon the content and evaluate and act upon the information about the source on the respective intrinsic merits of each. Closed systems act on the basis of source and content aggregate interaction without discrimination. They tend to simplify the cognitive situation by "lumping" rather than relying on more discriminative and differentiating cognitive behaviors in making judgments. In summary, differences in cognitive behaviors associated with differences in cognitive structure show a general tendency toward "simplicity" in cognitive process styles on the part of the closed system.aore than the open system. This holds for a variety of psy- chological situations: conceptual, perceptual, aesthetic, time per- ception, ideological, interpersonal, communication, and emotional. The closed system tendency toward simplification or lack of multidimensionality can be characterized in terms of the following be- 18 haviors observed in the studies above: 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. Elimination from consideration of relevant elements. a. Forgetting rather than remembering relevant elements. b. Narrowing through selective avoidance of contact with elements perceived as in- congruent with the belief system. Failure to make fine discriminations among elements. a. Lumping rather than making discrimination between a person and a person holding the beliEfe b. Dumping information about source and in- formation the source is communicating. Less knowledge of the disbelief system. Less ability to integrate multiple elements into new systems. Less tolerant of incongruent elements in the system. a. Rejection of disbelief systems. b. Considering as equivalent diverse belief content (elements) if forced to shake loose previous patterns of belief. c. Evaluation of persons and ideas in terms of con- gruence or incongruence with authority rather than other elements in the situation. d. Greater emotional rejection of a situation demanding the shaking loose of previous belief patterns. Tendency toward simplicity rather than complexity in changes in belief system. a. Party-line change in peripheral beliefs related to authority rather than genuine change involving the total system of beliefs. b. Silver-platter acceptance rather than working through individual elements. . . I I n _ . - o o \ . I e .2 e .- ._. lo—e 7. 8. Ce 19 Tendency not to evaluate information on its own merits but on conformity with authority. Greater sensitivity to communication, warnings, promises issued by own authorities. Using as a criterion power of authority to mete out reward and punishment rather than cognitive correctness of elements. Reluctance to change the system-—tendency to protect system at all costs. Less ability to distinguish between and evaluate independently the substantive content of a message and the source of the message. Tendency Toward Simplicity in Semantic Structure An underlying notion about human thinking explored by Osgood and associates (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955) is that judgmental frames of reference tend toward maximal simplicity. In terms of linguistic be- havior, responses to the semantic differential, this general tendency toward simplicity manifests itself in: 1. 2. 3. The multidimensionality of meaning. a. b. Co Pew versus many dimensions or factors utilized (in a number of studies, three factors: evalu- ation, potency, and activity account for most of the variance). Unequal versus equal emphasis in the use of factors or dimensions (the evaluative dimension accounts for one-half to three-quarters of the variance in some studies). The nature of dimensions used (generally, evalu- ative, potency, and activity). Polarization versus more discriminative judgments on individual adjective-pair scale positions. Concept clusters which represent relatively undif- ferentiated “good" and clusters of relatively "bad" concepts e Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) also observed individual differences 20 from the general tendency toward maximal simplicity in the judgmental frame of reference. Differences in Semantic Structure Osgood.g£__l. (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 222) state that the most basic ways in which individuals or groups could differ cognitively would be in terms of the underlying dimensions of judgment they use in differentiating among concepts. They could differ (1) in the number of factors required to account for their judgments, (2) in the relative weights given to the same set of factors, such as one group giving more weight to the evaluative dimension, or (3) in the nature of the factors employed. Research using the semantic differential also indicates that indi- viduals may vary in their scale position usage and in specific meanings toward concepts. Given a knowledge that an individual's system is either closed or open and that his cognitive process style--content of thinking--will tend toward multidimensionality or simplicity, what statements can be made about the underlying dimensions of judgments he uses in differ- entiating among concepts? What differences, if any, can be expected of closed and open individuals? What is the nature of semantic structure, the scale position usage, and meanings toward specific concepts of indi- viduals categorized as either closed or open belief-disbelief systems? Dimensionality o§;geanigg. In cases where scale positions chosen by subjects for two or more scales are identical or similar, Osgood and associates (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, ch. 1) assume that the scales are associated with the same dimension. If the scales are functionally equivalent--corre1ate highly with each other--then one sic: he Us 582 (K:- OI CC: has J h 511': Suc ‘1 km 21 should be able to explain scale-by-scale profiles by clustering highly correlated scales with each other. In a number of studies using the semantic differential this was done using factor analysis. This procedure of correlating scale items produces clusters of scales having within-cluster correlations and low between-cluster correlations, showing a relative independence among scale clusters (Kumata, 1958, pp. 5-8). These clusters represent factors or dimensions and.the organization or structure of these dimensions for an individual or group for given concepts can be identified and described in terms of number, nature and emphasis of dimensions. The use of scales, the frame within which concepts can be judged, has been analyzed in a number of studies across a multitude of concepts judged, a number of different factor analysis methods used, different methods of sampling, different subject characteristics, and groups of subjects in different cultures. These studies are reviewed in Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum.(1957) and Kumata (1958). In analyzing the-use of scales--the frame within which concepts are judged-~the same or near-same factors keep emerging in repeated studies. Consistently, the dominant dimension is an evaluative one which with a potency factor and an activity factor account for most of the total variance. An analysis of a number of factorial studies suggests that although there are pervasive consistencies among different groups in the di- mensionality of semantic space, there are interesting variations within that structure. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, ch. 2) report three studies in Wild - w sshu 60!. of! in fact sen app: “bi: he: We! 1:16: am Side 22 which the dimensions yielded by factor analysis were similar. In the first two studies of meaningful judgments, the evaluative factor was dominant accounting for 70 per cent of the common variance, almost half of the total variance. The two studies also agree on two other factors yielded in the analyses identified as potency and activity. In a third investigation, the Thesaurus study, also designed to explore the dimensions of semantic space, adjective pairs were chosen through an exhaustive process from.the Roget Thesaurus with 76 of 289 adjective pairs retained. Concepts were chosen to represent a number of different categories to increase representativeness. The semantic dif- ferential responses of 100 college undergraduate students to the concepts in which the 76 Thesaurus adjective pairs were used yielded eight factors,‘with the evaluative, potency, and activity dimensions account- ing for most of the variance. A.sumnary of the factors yielded and specific adjective scales defining those factors is summarized in Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum.(1957, pp. 51-61). A list of adjective pairs repre- senting the eight Thesaurus dimensions used in the present investigation appear in Table 2. A study by Solomon (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 67-68), using Navy sonar men, in effect, subjects representing a "sonar culture," which differs from the types of subjects used in the three studies above, yielded dominant factors identified as evaluation, potency, and activity even though concepts used were sonar signals. Although the potency and activity dimensions resembled those in the Thesaurus study, the evaluative dimension resembled an "aesthetic" evalu- ative dimension. The influence of the sonar culture upon what was con- sidered "good" was demonstrated by the use of scales such as wide, deep, 1! §.- -‘ o - ‘4‘ -O\.. r 61‘ -q ,. ' J 'i ‘ e (I go it! thi 23 rumbling,‘l§§gg among the favorable evaluative scales. The Solomon study also yielded additional factors which differ from those found in the Thesaurus study: clarity, security, and detection-- dimensions peculiar to the sonar culture. The study indicates the influence of scale-concept interaction and group-concept interaction. Individuals classified as artists or non-artists in a factor an- alysis study by Tucker (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 68-70, 291-293) differ from the Thesaurus college group in terms of emphasis of dimensions. Also, artists differed from non-artists in the nature and emphasis of factors used in making judgments of representational and abstract art. In judging all paintings, artists and non-artists produced three dominant factors: activity, evaluation and potency. Artists emphasized the activity factor which accounted for 46 per cent of the variance, evaluation accounted for 17 per cent, and potency for 10 per cent. an- artists used similar factors but in more equal proportions. In judging abstract paintings, the evaluative dimension accounted for 79 per cent of the total variance while for the non-artists the responses were more or less random indicating no frame of reference for abstract art. The artists displayed a high polarity and emotional reaction to abstract paintings which collapsed the semantic space about a dominant single dimension. It is as if artists had resolved their judgments on this category of concepts. In a two-part study, Rumata (1958) checked for the influence of differences in language and influence of culture plus language on the St! a. at bot all but 131 s ‘EE 2.4 semantic structure. Using bilingual Japanese and Korean students in the United States, and monolingual American college students, a factor analysis of their responses to the semantic differential showed that language used did not produce different dimensions of scale usage. Indices of factorial similarity showed that the first two factors, which accounted for about 70 per cent of the total variance, were highly similar across all groups and languages. These were identified as evalu- ative and dynamism.dimensions. In the monolingual study, monolingual college students in Japan and the United States responded to the semantic differential. Scales were selected from the Thesaurus word list. Factor analysis produced three highly similar dimensions for the total group analysis. The first three factors accounted for about 70 per cent of the total variance for both groups. In the analysis by sex, two highly similar factors across all sub-groups appeared with an identifiable third factor for all groups but these did not approach shmilarity by the index of factorial simi- larity measure in some of the sub-group comparisons. The three factors were: evaluative, dynamism, and novelty. Also, in this study, differences in usage of certain scales as a function of culture were found. The factors yielded in the Kumata studies differ in nature and emphasis from.previous factorial studies. Although the Kumata studies produced a dominant evaluative dimension, the second dimension, dyna- mism, was a combination of the potency-activity dimensions of previous studies. Also, the first Kumata study failed to produce an identifiable third factor while the second study produced a novelty factor which ‘resembles the novelty dimension of the Thesaurus study in terms of M. -m d2: I1 9:: 50! m (3 m 25 defining scales but differs in the emphasis given this factor. The semantic structures of college undergraduates, Navy sonar men, artists and non-artists, and members of different cultures show simi- larity to the evaluative-potency-activity pattern of other factor studies. But the studies cited suggest that groups may differ in terms of nature, emphasis, and also number of factors identified. The dif- ferences may not be attributable to differences in group characteristics but they do suggest ways in which groups may vary on the dominant theme. Personality and Semantic Structure. Of major interest to the present research is a study by Suci (1952). Using authoritarian per- sonality theory, Suci predicted differences between high and low eth- nocentrics in semantic judgment. High and low ethnocentrics differed in their ratings of various ethnic concepts on the evaluative scale of the semantic differential. High ethnocentrics fused the potency and activity dimensions into a single dynamism:factor suggesting a difference in the nature and number of factors employed. However, Suci's findings did not support his major hypothesis that high and low ethnocentrics would differ in their dependence on the evaluative factor in judging ethnic concepts. Although suggestive of differences, the Suci results are not con- clusive where ethnocentrism is e'major personality variable. The study raises a question important to the present research: Would an improved authoritarian personality theory such as developed by Rokeach accentuate differences between personality types in semantic judgment? Scale Position Usgge Osgood (1941) found three "difficulty" levels in thinking: the simplest and easiest to make were the all-nothing, black-white, extreme 1 and 7 judgments; the most complex and most difficult were those 26 defined by Osgood as being the more discriminating and finely graded 2, 3, 5, 6 judgments; those intermediate in difficulty were the middle, 4 positions. Ease of judgment was measured in judgment time of individual adjective scale items. Individual characteristics associated with these scale checking be- haviors included occupation, education, and intelligence "with the more critical thinkers making a more discriminatory use of the entire scale." Although no hypotheses regarding individual characteristic vari- ables were tested in the Stanger-Osgood (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 226) study of social sterotypes, the data suggest that more intelligent subjects, or better educated ones (college versus laymen) used 2, 3, 5 and 6 positions more frequently than polar extreme I and 7 scales or the neutral 4 position. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, pp. 155-156) observed.that more "emotional" subjects (American Legion members) utilized polar l and 7 or 4 positions more frequently than the more discriminatory 2, 3, 5 and 6 positions. To these subjects, things were either all-nothing or neither. In a study by Lyons and Solomon (Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 155-159), polarized responses correlated with judgment reaction latency, an index of overt behavior, found females consistently and significantly quicker than males--making polar judgments, 1 and 7, more consistently than males. For both sexes, it took less time to make 1 and 7 judgments, therefore it was assumed that these judgments were more simple and easy than 2, 3, 5 and 6 responses. Also, latencies for evaluatively favorable judgments were shorter than latencies for less favorable opposites. The results were interpreted as supporting the basic theoretical . a I . a V . O .Iv \ a! In A: . .. .. A , I I It . u . A I A .. -§ .-. d 27 assumptions that extremeness of judgment on the semantic differential is a valid measure of strength with which signs are associated with repre- sentational mediation processes. Quevillon (1962) compared scale-checking behaviors of three MMPI personality defined groups. Although the trend was not in the predicted direction and not statistically significant, her first MMPI group used polar positions more than her normal or second MMPI groups. The second MMPI group had the smallest proportion of polar judgments. All three groups were similar in the use of the 4 position. Workers in a Triandis (1958) study showed a general tendency toward simplification of the cognitive field through polarized, intense, re- sponses on individual scales while managers tended to display more dis- criminating and refined judgments using 2, 3, 5 and 6 positions more consistently. Both groups defined as normal, presumably differed in income, job level, and education. Bopp (1955) found that schizophrenics more than normals tended to- ward simplification (l and 7 responses) and used the 4 position more often than normals. Kerrick (1954) found differences between high and low intelligence with low intelligence subjects tending toward 1 and 7 responses and high intelligence subjects using 4 and 2, 3, S and 6 positions more. wolking (1959) found no reliable difference between a maladjusted adolescent group and a normal control group in the tendency to restrict ratings to one position of the seven point scale. But maladjusted subjects had more constricted ratings in terms of variability than normals. In a Luria (1959) study, a therapy group used 1 and 7 and 4 positions less than a control group. 28 No differences were found between high and low anxiety (as indexed by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale) on polarized versus more dis- criminating responses in the Kerrick (1954) study reported above. The effect of anxiety level on high IQ subjects was to make them use polar positions more often and to make low IQ subjects use discriminating positions relatively more. Kumata (1958) found cultural differences in the usage of scale positions with Japanese students using extreme 1 and 7 positions much less than American students. Japanese used the middle position more than Americans and American students used the 2 and 6 positions more than any other group. Japanese females used the next two neutral posi- tions, 3 and 5, much less than other groups. American males distributed their responses equally over the scale positions, and American females used extreme and middle positions much more. For the Japanese group, females marked extreme positions more than males and males marked 3 and 5 positions more than females. In terms of middle position usage, Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957, p. 228) state that the more equal the reaction tendencies, the slower will be the judgments, also the check marks will be nearer to the center of the scale. In response conflict situations, one resolution is to rather promptly select a "neither" or "don't know" alternative. Psychologically, polar judgments mean lack of conflict and center posi- tions mean maximum conflict--conflict which can be resolved by "going out of the field" with a prompt 4 judgment. 29 On the basis of the above studies, the following general statements can be made: 1. Polarization of judgments on the semantic differential (distance from origin) is a valid measure of the strength with which signs are associated with representational processes. 2. Individuals differ in scale position checking behaviors, certain individuals characteristically checking extreme or polar positions and others making use of the entire scalee 3. Different positions are associated with different levels of difficulty of response and simplicity or complexity of judgment, with differences in judgment time, and with differences in degree of judgment conflict. a. More polar positions, 1 and 7, require the shortest judgment times, and 2, 3, 5, 6 positions require the longest judgment times, with the 4 position inter- mediate. b. In terms of difficulty, 1 and 7 are easiest, 4 next in difficulty, and 2, 3, 5, 6 most difficult. c. In terms of conflict, 1 and 7 show least conflict, 4 position most conflict, and 2, 3, 5 and 6 positions showing increasing conflict. 4. Individual characteristics associated with differences in scale checking behaviors include sex, anxiety, intelligence, personality (MMPI), therapy, maladjustment, mental illness, emotional thinking, sophistication of thinking, and culture. While differences appear among groups in several studies, significant variables producing these differences are not clearly isolated and appear to differ from one another. The Rokeach theoretical conceptualization provides a basis for making predictions of differential scale usage for different personality types. Statement of the Problem Studies using the semantic differential have demonstrated con- sistently that judgmental frames of reference tend toward maximal simpli- city but that there are individual differences within this general "D (I 3O tendency and that these differences may be associated with individual characteristic variables. Simplicity and complexity or multidimensionality in semantic structure is defined in terms of the number of factors needed to account for judgments. Given two semantic structures, the one employing fewer factors is defined as tending toward simplicity and the one employing more factors is defined as tending toward complexity. In scale checking behaviors, simplicity may be defined as simple, easy, non-discriminating, dichotomous, black-white, all-nothing types of judgments showing least conflict and operationalized as l and 7 positions on the semantic differential. Complexity or multidimensionality in judgment can be defined as complex, difficult, discriminating, more finely graded judgments showing increasing conflict and operationalized as 2, 3, 5 and 6 positions. The 4 position is a "neither" type of re- sponse which is intermediate in difficulty and complexity and shows the greatest conflict in judgment of bipolar pairs of antagonistic adjectives. The Rokeach studies suggest that the closed belief-disbelief system individual tends toward simplification rather than multidi- mensionality in cognitive processing style. Characteristically, closed individuals should tend to lump rather than discriminate, make extreme rejecting or accepting judgments rather than decisions indicating more tolerance of incongruent, ambivalent, or conflicting elements within the system, and they should tend toward non-integrative rather than integrative thinking. In the structure of semantic space we would expect relatively closed belief-disbelief system individuals to tend toward simplicity 31 with fewer factors in making meaningful judgments than relatively open belief-disbelief system individuals. They should use more polar, ex- treme, less discriminating scale positions (1 and 7) than open belief- disbelief system individuals and fewer intermediary 2, 3, S and 6 scale positions (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 225-236; and Osgood, 1941). Closed belief-disbelief systems being less tolerant of incongruent, ambivalent, conflicting elements within the cognitive framework than open belief-disbelief systems would be expected to use the middle (4) positions, defined as indicating maximum conflict by Osgood e_t_ 51., less frequently than open systems. Closed systems should tend toward re- solving conflicts in terms of a more dichotomous response-~black-white, all-nothing, accepting-rejecting. Stated as hypotheses: 1. Differences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-open belief-disbelief system continuum are associated with differences in semantic space in terms of its nature and dimensionality. 2. Differences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-open belief-disbelief system continuum are associated with differences in scale position usage. Although individuals in the present study were divided into groups representing the ends and the middle of the closed-open belief-disbelief system continuum, no hypotheses are stated for the middle group. The theoretical framework and studies of Rokeach (1960, pp. 359-360), like the authoritarian personality studies (Adorno, Prenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950), provide little theory or empirical re- search on which to base predictions. The major concern of Rokeach and Adorno 55.31. has been with extreme high and low scorers. CHAPTER II DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Design This study was designed to accomplish two objectives: to describe the dimensionality of semantic structure of groups varying in cognitive structure along a closed-Open belief-disbelief system continuum and to test hypotheses relating to scale checking behaviors of the groups. Instruments Used Index of Closed and Qpen Belief-Disbelief Systems. The index of the relative degree of closedness or openness of the belief-disbelief system used in this study was Rokeach's 40-item.Form.E scale. The scale appears in the test booklet in Appendix A. Following Rokeach2 (1960, p. 88) individual scales were scored and scores were totaled for each subject. Subjects were placed into three groups based on their total score. The 241 subjects made 81 different scores. Respondents were divid- ed into three categories containing approximately equal numbers of subjects. The group defined as "closed" contained the 81 subjects making the 32 highest scores. The group defined as "open”contained 79 2The scale is discussed fully in Rokeach (1960) including descrip- tion of scale items, scoring procedures, and reliability of the instrument. 32 3 I 33 individuals who made the 32 lowest scores. The group defined as "medium," or "middle," contained 81 subjects representing 17 middle scores. For convenience, the three experimental categories of subjects re- ferred to without qualification as closed (high scorers), open (low scorers), and medium or middle (middle scorers) belief-disbelief system groups or individuals. In the strict sense, the terms closed, open, and medium or middle refer only to the relative position along the continuum of high and low scores made by individuals in the present study. Also for convenience, a number of synonyms are used interchangeably for the sample of subjects used in the study. All of the terms are de- fined as referring to the following condition: A sample of individuals, which represent this study's ex- perimental subjects, drawn from a population of college students and categorized into closed, open, and medium types (assumed to have different cognitive structures as indexed by the closed-open continuum) on the basis of their scores on the Rokeach instrument. Those synonyms are: "group," "individuals," "subjects," "systems," "sample," "category," and "type."‘ They may be used in the singular or plural with or without the adjective "experimental" preceding them in the following fashion: "closed group," "open individuals," or "medium systems." Since the data in this study relating to semantic structure are based on the contributions of all subjects as a group and not on single individuals, the use of the term "individual or individuals" is not to be construed as referring to the contributions of subjects singly or separately. Also, the term "group" is not used in reference to any socio- logical concept under study. Both terms, "individual and group," are O. 34 used in the sense defined above. Scores of respondents retained in the analysis of data ranged from 91 to 202. The mean score for the total group was 155.86 which suggests that the sample used in the present study was somewhat more closed than other groups used in other studies. Table 1 compares means of Rokeach (1960, p. 90), Marya (1958), and Powell (1961) groups with the group mean in the present study. With the exception of the Rokeach English workers, VA domicilary groups, and the Powell group, the present study has the highest mean reported. It is slightly higher than the highest total group mean in the Haryo study. Table 1. ‘Mean group scores obtained on the Rokeach 40-item.Form E scale. W Rokeach validation study groups: Mean N English colleges II 152.8 80 English workers 175.8 60 Ohio State U. I 142.6 22 Ohio State U. II 143.8 28 Ohio State U. 111 142e6 21 Ohio State U. IV 141.5 29 Ohio State U. V 141.3 58 Ohio State U. V (retest) 143.2 VA domiciliary 183.2 80 Marya religious groups: Baptist 151.48 29 Catholic 155.48 104 Episcopalian 145.74 31 Lutheran 149.90 49 Methodist 145.48 84 Presbyterian 147.23 56 Powell study group: 158.36 76 Present study: 155.86 241 'm g. 0 .L . I 0' ‘ ._ J r . .i f I . ., ,. OI . . .J '4.) O O '- 35 Semantic Differential Igdex of Meaning. The semantic differential used in the present study consisted of 19 stimulus nouns3 and 40 bipolar adjective pairs with seven scale positions between reciprocally antag- onistic adjectives. Concepts and adjective pairs used in this study are listed in Table 2. Concepts were chosen to represent categories used in the Thesaurus study (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 49). Categories include: person concepts, physical objects, abstract concepts, event concepts, and insitution concepts. Five adjective pairs, most of them from.the Thesaurus list, were selected to represent each of the dimensions yielded in the Thesaurus factor analysis. In this thesis, reference is made to Thesaurus list or sample. It is assumed that the list of adjectives used in this study represents the dimensions of the Thesaurus study since the same or equivalent adjectives are used. Subjects Two hundred and sixty-four University of West Virginia freshman English students completed all or some part of the test instruments with 241 instruments remaining in the final analysis. Since the in- struments were administered in two booklets on two different class days, absences either on the first or second test day required that several partially completed tests be eliminated. Subjects were not paid. 3In the original selection, 20 concept nouns were chosen, how- ever, a printing error in the semantic differential required that the concept KNIFE be eliminated. 41 36 Table 2. Stimulus nouns and adjective pairs used in the study. W Concepts and Categories Persons MY MOTHER ME JOHN F. KENNEDY NIKITA.KHRUSHCHEV Physical Objects ENGINE SNOW BOULDER Abstract Concept; ‘MODERN ART SIN LEADERSHIP SOCIALISM Event Concepts SYMPHONY BIRTH DEATH WAR WITH RUSSIA ‘Institutions HOSPITAL PRISON UNITED STATES COMMUNIST CHINA I I :— Adjective Pairs and Dimensions Evaluation ‘Aggressiveness 800d'b8d aggressive-defensive fair-unfair leading-following kind-cruel propelled-drawn heavenly-hellish impelling-resisting clean-dirty boisterous-shy Potency Novelty strong-weak unusual-usual large-small new-old hard-soft youthful-mature heavy-light unexpected-expected severe-lenient advanced-retarded Activity Receptivity active-passive sensitive-insensitive fast-slow colorful-colorless excitable-calm interesting-boring complex-simple savory-tasteless hot-cold refreshed-weary Stability sober-drunk stable-changeable sane-insane careful-careless loyal-disloyal Tautness angular-rounded straight-curved sharp-blunt tingling-numb direct-indirect 37 Procedure The Rokeach 40-item scale and the 19 concepts and 40 adjective pairs were administered in two booklets in two 50-minute periods on separate days. (Appendix A contains the test booklets used). Booklet 1, "Public Opinion Problem," contained the Rokeach scale and 19 concepts with 20 adjective pairs per concept. Booklet 2, "Meaning Problem," contained 19 concepts and 20 adjective pairs--different ad- jective pairs from the ones appearing in booklet 1. Thirty-eight sheets were made up with a concept appearing at the top of each page in capital letters. One half of the adjective pairs (20) appeared below each con- cept. For each concept, two lists of adjective pairs were prepared, Sheets A and B. The order of concepts was randomized (A and B sheets) in each test booklet. Adjective pairs were randomized by dimensions attempting to avoid clusters of adjectives representing the same Thesaurus dimension on one page. Also, adjective pairs were randomized in terms of adjective order. For example, combinations such as 322g- Egg.were presented as bad-goo . The instruments were administered by regular class instructors who received an information sheet (Appendix B) describing the nature of the test situation, the nature of the test, and containing a set of in- structions to be read to subjects prior to administering the instruments to the test groups. Further orientation of instructors was made available on a volun- tary basis. The investigator and a representative of the University of west Virginia staff, familiar with the testing procedure, were avail- able in the English department office to answer questions. 0‘ re EI .18 38 Instructions to be read to test groups by instructors and detailed printed instructions accompanying the instruments were designed to minimize subject error in completing the instruments and to maximize the testing time available to the subject. Detailed instructions to subjects were patterned after those used by a number of investigators in other semantic differential studies. Instructions for responding to the Rokeach scale were patterned after Rokeach's (1960, pp. 72-73) procedure. The two booklets were administered in a pretest to a small number of individuals representing different age, and education levels (junior high, high school, college and adult). An estimate of the time necessary to complete each booklet was noted. After completion of the booklets, the pretest subjects were interviewed regarding the instruction sheet and other aspects of the test situation. .Although pretest subjects ‘were given only the printed instructions and.were not allowed to ask questions until completing both booklets, all subjects completed the booklets without difficulty within the 50-minute time period allowed for each booklet (ranging from 12 to 25 minutes per instrument). On the basis of the pretest it was concluded that the administrators of the test would give minimum additional instructions to the total test group but would answer individual questions during the test period. Method of Analysis The following methods of analysis were used in the study: 1. Mbans and standard deviations for each concept on each scale for each of the three groups were computed. These appear in Appendix C. 2. Frequency of scale position usage by each subject in closed and open groups on a sample of concepts was computed. 39 3. Means and standard deviations across concepts for each scale for each of the groups were computed. These appear in Appendix D. 4. Correlations for each scale with every other scale for each group were computed. These are presented in Appendix E. 5. Principal Axes factor analysis with Varimax rotations were completed. 6. Indices of factorial similarity were computed and appear in Table 16 and Appendix H. Factor Analysis Factor analysis used in this study is designed to determine the least number of dimensions or factors which will account for the relationship among a large number of variables. It provides a math- ematical model which can be used to describe certain areas of nature (Fruchter, 1954). Comparisons were made of the connotative judgmental dimensions of closed, open, and medium individuals using this technique. CHAPTER III RESULTS Data for the three groups were computed separately. In each case, the means and standard deviations of the 40 adjective-pair scales were computed and scales intercorrelated. Means and standard deviations appear in Appendix D and intercorrelations in Appendix E. Each of the correlation matrices were factor analyzed by the Principal Axes method with Varimax rotations. Unities were used in the diagonals of the correlation matrices which were submitted to Principal Axes factor analysis. Each solution for each individual type (closed, open, and medium) was examined and compared with all other solutions. This included six solutions for closed, five for open, and four for medium individuals. The four-factor solution was chosen for each group as being the most comparable across types. A summary of factors identified for each solution appears in Appendix F. Criteria for Semantic Structure Comparison As has been noted previously, Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, p. 222)state that one of the most basic ways in which individuals or groups could differ cognitively would be in terms of the underlying dimensions of judgment they use in differentiating among concepts. They suggest that individuals or groups could differ in: l. The nature of the factors used. 2. The relative weights given to the same set of factors. 40 (J 41 For example, one group might give much more weight to the evaluative factor. 3. The number of factors required to account for their judgments. However, Osgood g; 5;, have not completely operationalized their criteria since there are no satisfactory tests of significance of factors, factor loadings, or tests of invariance among factors. Follow- ing suggestions by Harman (1960), Burt (1952), and Henrysson (1960), the criteria stated below were used in this study in comparing semantic structure among the three experimental types of subjects. Semantic structures were defined as similar to the extent that: 1. Nature of semantic gtructure. a. Scales describing the factors were similar and similarly loaded. b. Factors were identified as similar on the basis of observation and on the basis of the calcu- lation of indices of factorial similarity. 2. Number of factors. Using the Kiel-wrigley (1960) (Kiel, 1963) criterion, the number of factors extracted is similar. 3. Relative weights given the sameylet of factors. Since no satisfactory index of relative weight or emphasis given a dimension is available in factor analytic terms, no comparison was made on the basis of weight. However, a comparison was made of the relative amount of variance accounted for by the factors which in certain other factor analytic studies using the semantic differential was considered an index of weight. Using the above criteria, rotated matrices for each group were interpreted and comparisons of semantic structures were made among the three groups. In the following sections, the results of the factor analysis for each experimental type are reported separately with factors identified and described. A comparison is then made of the semantic structure of 42 closed, open, and medium individual types. For clarity in reporting, each relevant segment of each factor matrix has been tabled separately and appears in the text. The total matrices may be found in Appendix C. To facilitate reading, scales have been reflected and numbers rounded in the text but not in the original matrices. Results of the Factor Analyses 'Qescription of Semantic Structure for Cloged Individuals Evaluative Dimension. Factor I is identified as an evaluative dimension, an attitudinal variable, however, the scales suggest that closed individuals are also concerned with aspects of power and sta- bility in making evaluative or attitudinal judgments (Table 3). Table 3. Scales defining evaluative dimension (Factor I) for CLOSED belief-disbelief system individuals. Scales Defining Factors Factor Loadings 2 I II III IV h Clean‘dirty .82 'e01 e11 “ell e70 kind-cruel :EI: .06 .16 -.13 .70 good-bad ‘89, .15 .21 -.12 .71 heavenly-hellish ,1§_ -.01 .22 -.03 .61 fair-unfair :14. .10 .26 -.15 .65 sane-insane 413_ .ll .27 -.14 .64 soft-hard ‘,§2 -.31 .02 -.07 -.58 loyal-disloyal ‘92, .30 .20 -.04 .61 light-heavy :62_ .31 .14 .06 .54 lenient-severe .64 -.08 .11 .07 -.44 Closed individuals use soft, light, lenient (Thesaurus potency adjectives), sane, and loyal (Thesaurus stability adjectives) in an evaluative way. A concept judged as being favorable is soft, light, 43 lenient, sane, and loyal in addition to being clean, kind, good, heavenly, and 2335. Except for the use of the scales suggesting power and stability, closed individuals used all five of the Thesaurus study adjectives se- lected as representing the Thesaurus evaluative dimension (Table 2). Although the dimension was identified as evaluative, closed indivi- duals do not consider all scales as purely evaluative. The most pure scales are glggg and'gigg but 322g, the Thesaurus pivotal scale (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, p. 52), is partly a predictability adjective (Factor III) for closed individuals as are heavenly and £335. Lenient, a Thesaurus potency scale, is also purely evaluative. ‘§2§5 and lighg are partly dynamism (Factor II); lgygl is partly dynamism and partly predictability. S225 is partly a predictability scale. Dynamism Dimension. The closed individuals' concern with power and strength becomes more clear in Factor II identified as a dynamism di- mension. The adjectives used, gggggg, ggyggggg,‘lg£gg, fast, leading, and 255255, indicate a concern with a dynamic strength or leadership quality (Table 4). Table 4. Scales defining dynamism dimension (Factor II) for CLOSED belief-disbelief system individuals. m Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III N h2 strong-weak .09 ‘y§§ .13 -.14 .50 advanced-retarded .47 452’ -.07 .23 .56 large-small -.37 .yél -.07 -.02 .41 fast-slow .03 .ygl -.32 -.23 .42 mature-youthful -.23 _g§§ .29 .23 .41 leading-following .14 [:49 -.04 -.31 .33 44 It is as if closed individuals were concerned with estimating the force potential of a concept--using a combination of scales suggesting strength or power with scales suggesting activity, forward movement, and leadership. Closed individuals associate a notion of maturity with activity and strength in their judgments along this dimension. Closed individuals show an independence from.the Thesaurus use of adjectives combining into a dynamism.dimension gggggg and lgygg, Thesaurus potency adjectives, advanced and 355355, novelty scales,‘£g§§, an activity scale, and leadigg, an aggressiveness scale. Sggggg is most purely a dynamism adjective for closed individuals. But advanced is also partly an evaluative and a sensory-ennui (Factor IV) scale. £225 is also partly predictability;‘g§§2£g is partly an evaluative scale, a predictability, and a sensory-ennui scale. Leading is partly a sensory-ennui scale. PredictabilitygDimension. Along with an evaluative and dynamism estimate of a concept, closed individuals make a predictability estimate in their judgments (Table 5). Table 5. Scales defining predictability dimension (Factor III) for CLOSED belief-disbelief system individuals. M w Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings 2 I II III IV h usual-unusual .06 -.05 ‘ggg -.05 .36 expected-unexpected .14 -.07 :59, -.23 .32 calm-excitable .19 .10 ‘yég .38 .37 direct-indirect .19 .16 :39 .32 .30 rounded-angular .06 -.06 :§3, .05 .13 simple-complex -.06 -.22 :32 .30 .24 .1 .I '(V (J.- we. 45 Factor III, identified as a predictability dimension, has usual and rounded as the purest predictability scales while expected, calm and direct distribute their meaning to the sensory-ennui dimension. §ipplg is partly sensory-ennui and dynamism. Sensory-Ennui Dimension. The adjectives numb, resisting, gpld, {2;225, and tasteless suggest a concreteness of judgment operationalized in terms of physical senses (Table 6). The adjectives pppipg and passive seem to summarize the result of sensory judgments. Table 6. Scales defining a sensory-ennui dimension (Factor IV) for CLOSED belief-disbelief system individuals. Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III IV hz numb-tingling -.41 .11 -.03 425, .48 resisting-impelling -.10 -.03 -.17 ‘ygg .33 cold-hot .05 -.17 .01 42;, .31 blunt-sharp 'e16 -002 013 J_S_3_ e32 boring-interesting -.41 -.08 .01 'yél .44 tasteless-savory -.51 -.02 -.02 y§1_ .52 passive-active -.12 -.41 .36 (:3; .52 drawn-propelled -.12 -.24 .02 .37 .21 Resistipg,‘pplg, and piggy are purely sensory-ennui adjectives. But ‘pppp is also heavily evaluative as are pppipg and tasteless. Passive is also partly a predictability scale. The Thesaurus list classifies pppp and plppp as tautness, 321g and passive as activity, pppipg and tasteless as receptivity, and resisting as aggressiveness. 46 Description of Semantic Structure for Open Individuals Evaluative Dimension. For open individuals, Factor I is also an evaluative dimension, but in Thesaurus terms, only three of the first five scales are evaluative adjectives. Like closed individuals, open systemm use 52:5 and ligpg evaluatively but unlike closed individuals they do not use pppg and lpypl in this dimension (Table 7). Table 7. Scales defining an evaluative dimension (Factor I) for OPEN belief-disbelief system individuals. Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings - I 11 III 1v 1:2 kind-cruel 41; .30 -.17 -.13 .70 clean-dirty :12 .24 -.13 -.08 .60 soft-hard .yll -.1O .05 -.04 .51 haavenIY'hellish 3.2.9. o 15 " e 16 " e 02 e 53 light-heavy ,gg -.14 .15 -.OO .51 good-bad .LQQ .33 -.26 -.15 .64 fair-unfair .ggg .36 -.20 -.10 .58 Open individuals regard heavenly as a purely evaluative scale and ‘pgfp and lggpg, both Thesaurus potency scales, as purely evaluative. £1.29. and 31393 are also partly dynamism scales, and go_o_d and _f_a_i_r_ are partly dynamism and partly predictability. Qypppism.Dimension. In their second factor, open individuals dis- play a concern for aspects of force in their judgment of concepts com- bining scales that suggest strength or power with activity, and movement (Table 8). I o-¢-.~ .- .. .~.' 47 Table 8. Scales defining a dynamism dimension (Factor II) for OPEN belief-disbelief system individuals. w Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III IV h2 strong-weak .12 :34] -.18 -.20 .50 advanced-retarded .24 ‘ypg -.06 -.30 .51 fast-slow -.06 lygg .36 -.12 .47 active-passive .05 ‘ygg .38 -.23 .52 sober-drunk .31 ‘ygg -.19 .05 .41 loyal-disloyal .44 ';29 -.32 -.16 .57 direct-indirect .08 lygg -.16 -.07 .24 straight-curved .17 .43 -.02 .11 .22 The factor is identified as dynamism and is highly similar to the dynamism dimension of closed individuals. However, lpypl, a closed system evaluative scale, is an aspect of dynamism for open systems who also use‘pgpgyp,'ppppp,‘g$pppp and straight in making judgments along this dimension. For open individuals, pppppg is purely a dynamism adjective. But advanced is partly evaluative and partly sensory-ennui. 13335 is partly predictability; gppgyp is partly predictability and partly sensory-ennui. Spppp is partly evaluative. Along this dimension, open system individuals utilize adjectives which represent primarily three Thesaurus dimensions: potency (pppgpg), novelty (advanced), and activity (fast, active). Predictability Dimension. Factor III resembles the closed indivi- duale' predictability dimension (Table 9). It is also identified as predictability. r . f. a . a 4 . e s . o I . 1 . r f n. . . ‘ I .6. . A 3 e s . I .I . . . . n r. u ' . Y. . . .. . . . . . O O I r. . . . I O * . . ' O l O u . ... ._ u . D \ > \J a ' . a e . . a . \ .. s . r O A. . j n . . J x I. e e .p r O . _ r . . . x u . v. . \ , sf . s .1 . . . I . a r(. . . . .- 48 Table 9. Scales defining a predictability dimension (Factor III) for OPEN belief-disbelief system individuals. m Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III IV hz changeable-stable -.07 -.22 ,gg, -.08 .42 calm-excitable .14 .00 -y§3_ .21 .36 usual-musml e04 e06 '232 e09 e29 mature-youthful -.32 .21 -y42 .00 .39 expeCted‘MCXPQCted e 02 e 02 " e 37 " e 08 e 15 Closed and open individuals both use pppgl, egpected, and‘ggyp in making judgments along this dimension but open individuals also include ‘pppplg and‘ppppgg‘while closed individuals use‘gipppg, rounded and.p;pplg. £523; is purely a predictability adjective for open system indivi- duals. ‘gplp is also a sensory-ennui scale; changeable is also a dynamism adjectivez‘ppgpgg is also an evaluative and a dynamism scale. In the Thesaurus list, these adjectives represent stability (stable), activity (excitable), and novelty (unusua ). Sensogy-gppui Dimeppion. This dimension resembles the closed indi- viduals' sensory-ennui dimension. Both closed and open individuals use 9992, resistigg, _<_:_o_l_c_l_, £995.: 33313.jpg, Esteless, and $12.11*! along this dimension (Table 10). In addition, open individuals use following and complex while closed individuals use passive. 0 ‘ O 0 C m 0 C D O s s . ' s I I e s s e e O O O ‘ I .r. ,. . V’ '7.-' l a ' '. e .. . . . -z . ' ¢ - . -s m -w 'dh . D m A ' ' 1 0 J 4 } . o l} ‘ . 3 I s o O - ,s p J a.8 7. -' -) L. a.. ‘ s .. O ' . , i ' 1 . ' I - n C 'I . ‘ , . " _ " _ s.‘ . . u! u v) 1 7 -0- s. .1! J- - - .. v a .. . , 8).- -mrm- (e ’ '- 49 Table 10. Scales defining a sensory-ennui dimension (Factor IV) for OPEN belief-disbelief system individuals. Scales Defining Factors Factor Loadings I II III IV 112 drawn-propelled -.05 -.04 .11 pg; .40 blunt-sharp -.16 .08 -.ll :22 .35 resisting-impelling -.O3 .03 .16 'ggg .33 following-leading -.O4 -.32 .14 '£&§ .35 DW'tinglins 'e36 ’e08 'e24 _2_4_8_ e42 tasteless-savory -.46 -.13 -.12 yfil .47 COId'hOt e12 '.22 “.20 £2 e32 boring-interesting -.32 -.27 -.07 1:32 .37 simple-complex -.02 -.30 -.25 -.38 .30 For open individuals dpgyp,‘plpp§, and resistipg are purely sensory- ennui scales while following is also partly a dynamism scale; pppp is partly evaluative and partly predictability. ‘ggggpg is partly evaluative and partly dynamism. In terms of purely sensory-ennui scales, both closed and open indi- viduals agree on resistipg and plppp as the purest scales along this dimension. Description of Semantic Structure for Medium Individuals Evaluative Dimension. Regardless of position along the belief- disbelief continuum in termm of cognitive organization, a high similarity on the evaluative or attitudinal dimension is evident among the three types of individuals. However, the use of lpypl,'pppg (like closed individuals) and careful suggests a concern with an element of stability in the medium system evaluative judgment of a concept (Table 11). mi " sc 1"? °P 6a 50 Table 11. Scales defining an evaluative dimension (Factor I) for MEDIUM belief-disbelief system individuals. Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III IV hz good-bad :82 .09 - . 15 .00 . 71 kind-cruel y§_2_ .09 - .23 .03 . 74 clean-dirty i1 .09 -.29 .01 . 69 loyal-dis loyal all . ll .05 .07 . 61 sane-insane _._Z_7_ .11 -.06 .16 .63 fair-unfair _._Z_5_ .08 - . 12 . l8 . 62 heavenly-hel lish :_7_2_ - . O9 - . 29 . O3 . 60 careful-careless . 64 .20 . 13 .08 .48 For medium individuals, gpod, lgyal, sane and fair are pure evaluative scales but kind, clean, and heavenly are also potency scales. On the other hand, closed individuals regard _<_:_l_§_a_n_, m, and lenient as purely evalua- tive scales and open individuals regard heavenl , pp_f_t, and L139; as purely evaluative. There is considerable agreement among the three types in the use of scales on the evaluative dimension. All three types use all of the Thesaurus evaluative scales along their evaluative dimensions although only the closed group includes them among the first five heaviest loadings. Closed and medium individuals use .9295. and _l_o_y_a_]_. evaluatively while open individuals consider _lpya_l_ a dynamism adjective. Closed and open individuals consider 33_f_t_ and ggfi evaluative scales while medium indivi- duals do not. Activity Dimension. Three of the scales taken from the Thesaurus sample as representing the activity dimension appear among the first five scales on this factor for medium individuals. They are active, fast, and hot (Table 12). 51 Table 12. Scales defining an activity dimension (Factor II) for MEDIUM belief-disbelief system individuals. u: :————. _ Scales Defining Factors Factor Loadings I II III IV h7- active-passive . 13 _,_6_8_ .00 -.O3 .48 flat-810w e04 _e_6_.3_ e 13 ‘s05 e42 hOt'COId 'e06 :2: e02 e10 032 advanced-retarded . 50 £33 . 12 .03 .54 boisterous-shy - .22 £2 . l9 - .09 .36 complex-simp 1e . 12 _._5g - .05 . 10 .28 tingling-numb .31 :41 -.32 -.Ol .42 excitable-calm - .24 4.12.9. - .24 -.28 .41 interesting-boring . 36 ‘49 - . 12 . O6 . 37 colorful-colorless .43 :32 - .29 - . 20 . 51 savory-tasteless .41 ‘5; -.19 .09 .42 sharp-blunt .06 _._4_5_ -.22 . 12 .27 leading-following .33 :_4_l_ .20 - .07 . 32 The factor is identified as an activity dimension and of the three experimental types most clearly resembles the Thesaurus activity dimen- sion. This factor is also quite different from any of the dimensions in the closed or open structures. For medium individuals, 2.9.5.212: £335, 113;, and co_l_nplex are the purest activity adjectives. Advanced and boisterous are considered partly evaluative. However, all three types use advanced and _f_ap_t_:_ among the scales on their second factors. Open and medium individuals both use $3.229. on the second factor. Potency Dimension. For medium individuals, Factor III is identi- fied as a potency dimension closely resembling the Thesaurus dimension (Table 13). It is also quite different from any of the dimensions in the closed or open individual structures. .1 {E 3': 52 Table 13. Scales defining a potency dimension (Factor III) for MEDIUM belief-disbelief system individuals. Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III IV hz heavy-light -.38 .05 .aéi .00 .52 mature-youthful -.02 -.09 .59 .14 .38 strong-weak .28 .37 ':57 -.O9 .54 hard-soft -.46 .06 “TEE .02 .51 large-small -.22 .25 '736 -.08 .37 old-new -.27 -.25 722' .11 .34 stab 1e-changeab 1e .30 - .30 :2 . 33 .42 1125.353 is the purest potency scale. _}_I_e_a_\_ry, 3.93.9.3: and 11353 are considered partly evaluative scales. Lppgg is partly evaluative and partly activity. ‘Medium and open individuals both use.pgpppg on their third factors. Tautness Dimension. The scales on Factor IV represents two di- mensions on the Thesaurus list: tautness and novelty. Together the scales do not suggest a single dimension, however, with straight and angular (both tautness scales) most heavily loaded on this factor, the dimension is identified as tautness (Table 14). Table 14. Scales defining a tautness dimension (Factor IV) for MEDIUM belief-disbelief system individuals. W Scales Defining Factor Factor Loadings I II III IV hz 8tt818ht’CUI-ved e04 e 17 ' e01 :21: .40 angular-rounded -.21 .26 -.11 :29 .38 usual-unusual .18 -.19 .14 :48 .32 expected-unexpected .17 -.08 .02 .47 .26 ........ s . s Q .. I C -. -- w. '- n C C . c. ‘ _/. \l 4.—1_’ e t O H I s it ea 1154 si: sen tat ape W5 and Wm mes; 53 Straight is a relatively pure tautness adjective; apgular is also partly an evaluative and an activity scale. Similarities and Differences in Semantic Structure The semantic structuresof two or more individual types are defined as similar to the extent that similar scales, similarly loaded, describe the factors,and to the extent that factors are identified as similar on the basis of inspection and computation of indices of factorial similar- ity. Table 15 summarizes the identified factors, the scales defining each factor, and scale loadings for each of the individual types. An examination of the table shows both closed and open individuals use factors identified as evaluative, dynamism, predictability, and sensory-ennui. They use similar scales along these dimensions with similar but not equal loadings. The dimensions in the medium system semantic structure are identified as evaluative, activity, potency, and tautness. All three types use a similar evaluative dimension. All five of the Thesaurus list evaluative scales appear among the adjectives de- scribing this dimension for each of the types. For closed individuals these appear as the five most heavily loaded adjectives. Closed and open individuals use the Thesaurus potency adjectives, ppfp, and 12825: evaluatively. Closed individuals also use‘lppégpp’in this way. Closed and medium individuals use the Thesaurus stability adjectives, pppg_and lpygl,on the evaluative dimension. Using the Thesaurus study as a benchmark, none of the other closed and open dimensions resemble a purely Thesaurus dimension. Closed and open individuals tend to use adjectives in ways different from the Thesaurus list. 54 Table 15. Semantic structures of closed, open, and medium belief- disbelief system individuals with Thesaurus dimension classifications. Closed Individuals Open Individuals Medium Individuals Load- Load- Load- I Evaluative ing I Evaluative ing I Evaluative ing clean (E) .82 kind (E) .75 good (E) .83 kind (E) .81 clean (E) .72 kind (E) .82 good (E) .80 soft (P) .71 clean (E) .77 heavenly (E) .75 heavenly (E) .70 loyal (S) .77 fair (E) .74 light (P) .68 sane (S) .77 sane (S) .73 good (E) .66 fair (E) .75 soft (P) .69 fair (E) .63 heavenly (E) .72 loyal (S) .69 careful (S) .64 light (P) .65 lenient (P) .64 II m II mamism II Activity strong (P) .68 strong (P) .64 active (A) .68 advanced (N) .52 advanced (N) .60 fast (A) .63 large (P) .51 fast (A) .56 hot (A) .55 fast (A) .51 active (A) .56 advanced (N) .53 mature (N) .46 sober (S) .52 boisterous (Ag) .52 leading (Ag) .46 loyal (S) .50 complex (A) .50 direct (T) .46 tingling (T) .47 straight (T) .43 excitable (A) .46 interesting (R) .46 colorful (R) .46 savory (R) .45 sharp (T) .45 leading (Ag) .41 III Predictability III Predictability. III Potency usual (N) .59 changeable (S) .60 heavy (P) .61 expected (N) .50 calm (A)-.54 nature (N) .59 calm (A) .42 usual (N)-.53 strong (P) .57 direct (T) .36 mature (N)-.49 hard (P) .54 rounded (T) .34 expected (N)-.37 large (P) .50 simple (A) .32 old (N) .44 stable (S) .35 IV §£2£2£22§222l. IV §£2£2£22§E£2£. IV IEEEEEEE numb (T) .55 drawn (Ag).62 straight (T) .61 resisting (Ag) .53 blunt (T) .55 angular (T) .50 cold (A) .53 resisting (Ag).55 usual (N) .48 blunt (T) .53 following (Ag).48 expected (N) .47 boring (R) .51 numb (T) .48 tasteless (R) .51 tasteless (R) .47 passive (A) .45 boring (R) .46 drawn (Ag) .37 cold (A) .43 simple (A)-.38 Key to Thesaurus dimensions: E - Evaluative A - Activity T - Tautness N - Novelty P - Potency S - Stability Ag - Aggressiveness R - Receptivity 55 The factors in the medium individuals' semantic structure closely resemble the Thesaurus dimensions. For example, all of the Thesaurus activity adjectives are among those describing the medium system activity dimension, and four Thesaurus potency scales describe the medium system potency dimension. ggetorial Similarity. Further support for the observed similari- ties and differences among factorial structures comes from a computation of indices of factorial similarity. An approximate method for computing similarity among factors de- veloped by several writers and discussed by Harman (1960) and Henrysson (1960) was used to determine indices of similarities among factors in this study. A lower limit of good fit of .75 was computed.4 A comparison of each factor on any one factor analysis with each factor of all other analyses was made. Table 16 presents comparison among the individual types on Factors I, II, III, and IV. Other com- parisons appear in Appendix H. 4The formula used for computing indices of factorial similarity was: Zlaip.2aiq (“'4/ (Slazjq) (22311:) The formula for computing the lower limit of good fit was: 1 4.1L! 2 O 56 Table 16. Indices of factorial similarity. Comparisons Factors I II III Iv Closed/Open .981 .859 .915 .917 Closed/Medium .962 .599 .286 .341 Open/Medium .910 .679 .303 -.019 The semantic structures of closed and open system individuals appear to be similar since the indices are above .75, the lower limit of good fit determined for this study. The indices suggest similarity among all groups on the first _ factor (evaluative), and differences between closed and medium and open and medium individuals on all other factors with indices falling below the .75 figure. Number of Factors Semantic structures were defined as similar to the extent that the number of factors extracted was similar. Using the Kie14Wrig1ey (1960) criterion,5 the number of factors extracted for each of the three individual types varied. Six were con- sidered significant for closed individuals, five for open individuals, and four for medium individuals. In other words, a sample of closed 5The Kiel#Wrigley criterion states that the maximum number of factors is reached when each factor has at least three variables Which load highest on that particular factor. \‘ 0' 1.. 57 individuals utilizes more dimensions in accounting for its judgments than samples of open or medium individuals. And a sample of open indivi- duals uses more dimensions than a sample of medium individuals. Variance Accounted For In terms of the per cent of total and common variance accounted for by the four factors, the evaluative factor (I) accounted for most vari- ance for each of the three individual types (Table 17). Table 17. Percentage of total and common variance accounted for by each factor. M gnu—3 Factors I II III IV Variance Egggps: Total Common Total Common Total Common Total Common glazed 21.6 49.9 7.3 16.8 6.1 14.0 8.4 19.3 9222’ 16.2 39.7 9.9 24.2 7.0 17.1 7.7 18.9 'gggigg_ 19.1 44.8 11.7 27.6 7.4 17.4 4.3 10.0 For closed individuals, the evaluative factor (I) accounted for most of the total and common variance (21.6 and 49.9) with medium in- dividuals next (19.1 and 44.8) and open individuals last (16.2 and 39.7). The first three factors accounted for most of the total and common variance for the medium individuals which follows the trend of other studies in which evaluative, activity, and potency are the major di- mensions extracted and identified. 58 Semantic Structure and Cognitive Structure Scales used by closed and open individuals are similar on each dimension and loadings are similar but not equal. Factors are identi- fied as being similar and each factor met the criterion of similarity with indices above the lower limit of good fit established for the study. Except for a similar evaluative dimension, scales used by medium indivi- duals are different from those used by closed and open individuals. Factors, other than evaluative, were identified as being different and did not meet the criterion of similarity with indices failing to reach the lower level of good fit. The criteria for configurational invariance which include different population using the same test battery are met by the closed and open individuals' factorial structures (Henrysson, 1960, pp. 46, Ill-122). The closed individuals show’more variance (Appendix I) than open indivi- duals and this should result in a corresponding increase in the size of loadings for closed individuals. However, the configuration or pattern of loading remains fairly similar. The formula used for computing the indices of similarity is applicable to cases of configurational invari- ance. With respect to the first hypothesis that differences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-open belief-disbelief system contin- uum are associated with differences in semantic structure, a number of conclusions may be stated. As far as the evidence was developed in this study, it appears that: 'l. The semantic structures of samples of closed and open belief-disbelief system individuals tend to be similar in nature. \o- ‘4 L. 59 2. The semantic structures of samples of individuals at the ends of the continuum tend to differ from the semantic structure of individuals at the middle. 3. Using the Kiel-Wrigley criterion, samples of indivi- duals at the closed and open ends of the continuum tend to require more factors to account for their judgments than samples of medium individuals. Samples of open individuals tend to use fewer factors than samples of closed systems but more than samples of medium individuals. 4. The evaluative dimension accounts for more total variance of the closed individual sample than samples of open and medium individuals. Description of Concept Meanings Similarity of factor structures between closed and open belief- disbelief system individuals does not mean that each rates individual concepts in the same way. Using the total group means, presented in Appendix C, profiles were drawn for scale-by-scale comparison among the three experimental types. The profiles for M! MOTHER and COMMUNIST CHINA are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the text while profiles for other concepts appear in Appendix J. Closed individuals are represented by a solid line in the profiles, Open individuals by a broken line, and medium individuals by a dotted line. The "1" score appears at the left and the "7" score at the right of each profile. Rokeach and Kemp (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 357-359) found that closed and open individuals differed in the degree of ambivalence expressed toward mother with closed individuals expressing less ambivalence and more glorification than open individuals. Therefore, one would expect differences in meaning to be reflected in semantic differential scores on scales used to judge the concept MY MOTHER. One would expect a Figure l. colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Closed 60 Mean judgment profile. MY MOTHER Open ----- “Edi“!!! o o e e e colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary Figure 1. careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Closed 61 Continued MY MOTHER Open --"" Medium s e e e e careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following 62 higher positive evaluation on scales representing the evaluative di- mension for closed individuals than for open individuals. Figure 1, showing the profile for MY‘MOTHER, shows that on all di- mensions and scales, closed and open individuals show a great similarity in responses. However, slight differences are evident. For example, on the evaluative dimension, closed and open indivi- duals tend to see MY MOTHER in similar degrees of 522g, heavenly, kind, £1232 and.§§ig. But the tendency for closed individuals is to see MY MOTHER as more 5193, heavenly, 3.192» 5123.3 and _f_a_i£ than open individuals. The question is: are these slight differences in mean judgment statistically significant? Following suggestions by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, ch. 3), one adjective pair was chosen to represent each of the dimensions of semantic space of closed and open individuals. A t-test was applied to determine whether differences in judgments were statistically significant. To represent the evaluative dimension, the scale'glggn was chosen. Other scales which appear on this dimension for both closed and open individuals are: kind, heavenly, m m, 325;, and £21.12- The scale gggggg_was selected to represent the dynamism dimension. Other scales which appear for both individual types are advanced and £335. To represent predictability ggggl‘was used (other scales used by both types are egpected and ggyg). To represent sensory-ennui, 21225 was chosen (other scales are 3222, resisting, E25$2£».221§v.§££!2’ and tasteless). Differences between closed and open individuals on other dimensions were not statistically significant, For closed individuals M! MOTHER is a significantly more positive concept than for open individuals. But both closed and open indivi- duals regard MY MOTHER as fairly strogg (closed 2.6, open 2.6) on the -e ' . e 0 IA 7 . ‘ I . e ' . I. J . “ I v .- e \. , I‘ ‘..~ no . . . . _ 'x n‘ w - .. a ' I . O J' I ‘l ‘ ‘ of . . .- e a ‘ ' . . l u \ a I I. r. I . 1 3 -'r r: r .a e . o \. e ' ' .‘L . --~ - a c.‘ r. ' " ' v.0 » ' E. , '. .4 I f‘ , - ' ‘ r r A“ r. I . _,.. p. . u 63 dynamism dimension; fairly neutral (closed 3.9, open 4.1) on the scale .25231 representing predictability; and moderately £2252 (closed 3.5, open 3.8) on the sensory-ennui dimension. Since MY'MOTHER represents a highly positive concept on the evalu- ative dimension (closed 1.4, open 1.8), closed and open individuals also were compared on a highly negative concept, COMMUNIST CHINA (closed 6.0,open 5.6). In general, the profile in Figure 2 suggests that for both closed and open individuals COMMUNIST CHINA represents a concept described by the adjectives 222: hellish, £3251,‘2i££y, and 22££$E° ‘However, in terms of the differences between closed and open individuals on these scales, it appears that closed individuals tend to regard COMMUNIST CHINA as more 2.39.0 hellish, 53351;, 513.331, and 9331; than open individuals. Using the same adjectives to represent the dimensions as in the case above, a t-test was applied to determine whether differences were statistically significant. As in the case in which both individual types judged a concept regarded as highly positive, closed and open groups differed signifi- cantly in their meanings on the evaluative dimension but differences on other dimensions were not statistically significant. For closed individuals COMMUNIST CHINA is a more negative concept than for open individuals on the evaluative dimension. But both regard COMMUNIST CHINA as moderately £55225 (closed 3.1, open 3.1) on the dynamism dimension; fairly 2223231 (closed 2.7, open 3.3) on the pre- dictability dimension; and rather neutral (closed 4.2, open 4.1) on blunt representing sensory-ennui. ~ . . ‘-. v ‘ a . . . I , v . o G . .. r‘I . r‘ ‘ . - e g .v . '§ 64 Figure 2. Mean judgment profiles colorful ‘ .. colorless youthful mature good bad stable changeable large " small excitable . . >.\ calm straight curved loyal disloyal heavenly hellish unusual usual strong weak sensitive insensitive aggressive defensive fast slow angular rounded severe r" lenient active .\ passive sober drunk advanced retarded refreshed weary Key: Closed Open ----- . . . . . Figure 2 - continued Careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed * careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following 66 Scale Position Usage The hypothesis that closed more than open individuals tend toward dichotomous, maximal acceptance or rejection type of responses, operation- alized in terms of 1 and 7 position usage on the semantic differential, was supported statistically. Using the median test, the x2 figure (one degree of freedom) of 3.08 was statistically significant at the .05 (one- tail) level (Siegel, 1956).6 Further support for this hypothesis comes from an examination of the standard deviations across concepts.for each of the individual types, presented in Appendix I. Scales of closed individuals consistently show a greater variance (33 out of 40 cases) than either open or medium indi- viduals thus reflecting the tendency of closed systems to use positions at the ends of the scale. Also supported was the hypothesis that open more than closed indi- viduals would utilize judgments indicating maximal conflict operation- alized in terms of 4 position usage on the semantic differential. The X2 figure (one degree of freedom) of 3.60 was statistically significant at the .05 level (one-tail). However, no significant difference was found between open and closed tendencies to utilize more discriminating judgments, operationalized in terms of 2, 3, 5, and 6 position responses on the semantic differen- tial. The X2 figure (one degree of freedom) of .156 was not statistic- ally significant at the .05 level (one-tail). 6Frequency of position usage for each individual in the closed and open categories was computed across the following concepts: NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, ME, MY MOTHER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, SNOW, HOSPITAL, COMMUNIST CHINA, and WAR WITH RUSSIA. 67 On the basis of the evidence as developed here, it appears that both closed and open samples tend to display "extreme" types of re- sponse behaviors. The closed sample tends toward responses defined as representing dichotomous, maximal accepting and rejecting types of judgments and the open sample tends toward responses defined as repre- senting maximal conflict judgments. Individuals or groups are defined as displaying extreme judgments if they tend to limit their responses primarily to polar (l and 7) or middle (4) positions rather than making judgments described by Osgood ££_£l, (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 226-236; and Osgood, 1941) as more discriminating and finely graded (2, 3, 5, and 6). CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Rokeach's theory postulates a cognitive organization model con- sisting of three dimensions: belief-disbelief, central-peripheral, and time, each with a number of properties but all reducible to a single dimension-~organisation along a closed-open continuum. Differences in cognitive structure are assumed to be measurable by a 40 item scale which purports to index the location of individuals along the belief-disbelief continuum. The cognitive structures of individuals at the closed and open ends of that continuum are assumed to differ. The scale also is assumed to measure general authoritarianism, and general intolerance. Individuals who accept all of the items on the scale (high scorers) are assumed to fall at the closed end of the belief-disbelief continuum. Individuals who reject all items (low scorers) are assumed to fall at the open end of the continuum. The findings of research generated by the Rokeach theory associate differences in cognitive structure with differences in cognitive functioning. From the repeated behaviors of closed and open individuals in a variety of psychological situations--conceptual, perceptual, aesthetic, time perception, ideological, interpersonal, communication, and emotional--the cognitive processing styles of individuals at the extreme ends of the belief-disbelief continuum may be characterized as tending toward simplicity for closed individuals and toward complexity or 68 r- \ r': . C. .'. . ‘ t .. I r. V. I O ‘3 , v C"‘- 2.! 2.3 69 multidimensionality for open individuals. These cognitive styles characteristic of closed more than open individuals are evident in tendencies toward: 1. Elimination from consideration of relevant elements. 2. Failure to make fine discriminations among elements. 3. Less knowledge of disbelief systems. 4. Less ability to integrate multiple elements into new systems. 5. Less tolerance of incongruent elements in the system. 6. Simplification and resistance to changes in the belief system. 7. Less ability to distinguish between and to evaluate independently the substantative content of a message and the source of the message. 8. Rejection of situations perceived as threatening to the belief system. The following question represents the major focus of the study: What are the characteristics of semantic structure and scale check- ing behaviors of samples of individuals who differ in cognitive structure (falling at two ends and the middle of the closed-open continuum) and cognitive processing styles! Meaning was defined within the framework of Osgood's mediation theory as a representational mediation process, a complex reaction di- visible into some unknown but finite number of components. This defini- tion is coordinated with the semantic differential by identifying the complex mediation reaction with a point in a postulated multidimensional space. The projections of the scales onto the various dimensions of the semantic space are assumed to correspond to the component mediating re- actions associated with the sign and to the degree of intensity. .‘D kk V {1 R0 70 The essential operation of measurement is the successive allocation of a concept to a series of descriptive scales defined by polar adjectives. The adjectives are selected to be representative of the major dimensions along which meaningful processes vary. In order to determine what scales have these properties, a number of factor analytic studies were initiated by Osgood and others to de- termine what are the major dimensions of that semantic space. The present study was designed to determine the major dimensions of semantic space for individuals categorized along a closed-Open belief- disbelief system continuum. In previously cited factor analytic studies using the semantic differential, it was demonstrated that judgmental frames tend toward maximal simplicity with evaluation, potency, and activity consistently arising as the major dimensions of semantic space across a variety of testing conditions, methodological differences, adjective pairs, con- cepts, and individual characteristic variables. However, Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) have observed, as the literature cited previously suggests, that there are individual differences within this general tendency which may be associated with individual characteristic variables. Using individual characteristic variables postulated by the Rokeach theory, it was hypothesized that: 1. Differences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-open belief-disbelief system continuum are associated with differences in semantic space in terms of its nature and dimensionality. 2. Differences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-open belief-disbelief system continuum are associated with differences in scale position usage. evi 71 Conclusions With respect to the first hypothesis, to the extent that the evidence was developed here, it appears that: 1. 2. Differences in cognitive structure as indexed along a closed-oepn belief-disbelief system continuum tend to be associated with differences in semantic structure. a. The semantic structure of samples of individuals at the closed and open ends of the continuum tend to be similar. b. The semantic structure of samples of individuals at the closed and open ends of the continuum tend to differ from the semantic structure of a sample of individuals at the middle of the continuum. c. Samples of individuals at the closed and open ends and the middle of the belief-disbelief continuum utilize a similar evaluative dimension in their semantic structures. d. A.sample of individuals at the closed end of the continuum tends to require more factors to account for its judgments than samples of medium.and open individuals. e. A sample of individuals at the open end of the con- tinuum.tends to require more factors to account for its judgments than a sample of medium individuals. The evaluative dimension accounts for more total variance of a sample of closed individuals than samples of open and medium individuals. With respect to the second hypothesis: 1. 2. 3. In terms of scale position usage a sample of closed indi- viduals tends to respond in terms of more dichotomous, all-nothing, judgments than do open individuals (1 and 7). A sample of open individuals tends to respond in terms of the middle position defined as an indication of ambivalent, conflicting judgments. Samples of open and closed individuals do not differ signi- ficantly in their use of more discriminating positions (2, 3, 5 and 6). 72 In terms of differences in meaning on individual concepts, a come parison of samples of closed and open individuals in their meanings of a concept defined as highly positive and one defined as negative on the evaluative dimension, the closed sample and the open sample differ in their evaluative judgments, with the closed sample tending to make the more extreme judgments on the evaluative dimension but the two types do not differ in judgments on other dimensions. Implications of the Findings Recognizing the possible weaknesses of the present investigation,7 some of which were dealt with below, and given the purpose and nature of factor analysis, the findings have implications for the theoretical framework which underlies this investigation. Generality of Judgggntal Frames The findings of the present study tend to modify the generality that all individuals regardless of individual characteristic differences use the same basic semantic framework. Studies hypothesizing differ- ences among individuals on the basis of characteristic attributes have found associated differences in meanings for concepts which have become signsunder varying conditions of association. In analyzing these scales, the frame within which concepts are judged, a regularity in the ways of using scales has emerged which has led to the statement that these frames pervade all human thinking, that the same sort of 7Including the fact that the results in this study as in other semantic differential factor analytic studies of semantic space are based on collective behavior of a sample of individuals rather than on individual behavior. 73 judgmental frames are operating in humans, regardless of differences in group attributes (Kumata, 1958, pp. 6-7, 111; Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 38, 72-73). The same or near-same factors keep emerging in repeated studies. These factors have been identified and labelled (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 72-73, 325-326): 1. Evaluative--an attitudinal variable in human thinking, based on a bedrock of rewards and punishments both achieved and anticipated. 2. Potency-~concerned with power, and things associated with it like size, weight, toughness, etc. 3. Activity-~concerned with quickness, excitement, warmth, agitation. Since adjective scales used in the present study represent the dimensions found in the Thesaurus study, the use of scales in the present study is fairly comparable to the Thesaurus dimensions which conform to the Evaluation-Potency-Activity (EPA) model above. The factors associated with individuals at the middle of the be- lief-disbelief continuum resemble the evaluative, potency, and activity dimensions of the Thesaurus study. Medium individuals used the follow- ing Thesaurus scales: evaluative-~go_o_d, 1591‘!» 5_1._e_a_g, gigand heavenly; activity-figggigg,‘fggg,‘hgg,[5252125, and excitable; and potency--hg§!y, 255228,.2229’ ‘nd.lé£fifi° Individuals at the closed and open ends of the continuum differ in semantic structure from individuals at the middle and also from the EPA model. Except for the evaluative dimension, the closed and open indi- viduals are fairly independent from the model in the use of scales. For example, the closed and open individuals' second, third and fourth dimensions have been identified and lahflled dynamism, 74 predictability, and sensory-ennui. Closed and open individuals in their dynamism (second) dimension use adjectives which represent potency, activity, novelty, stability, and aggressiveness Thesaurus dimensions. The dynamism factor of closed and open individuals differs from any factor produced by the middle individuals and also differs from any single dimension in the Thesaurus study. However, previous studies have produced factors identified by the investigators as dynamism. Osgood, Suci, and Thnnenbaum (1957, pp. 121-122, 145.172) state that a factor combining activity and potency adjectives and labeled dynamism is associated with political concepts judged. In Kumata's (1958) bilingual study which used Thesaurus list adjectives, some similar to those used in the present study, the dynamism dimension was defined by adjectives which represented only potency and activity scales. Closed and open individuals utilize adjectives which represent the following Thesaurus dimensions in their third and fourth factors: third (predictability) dimension-~novelty and activity; fourth (sensory-ennui) dimension--aggressiveness, tautness, activity, and receptivity. The findings in the present study support and extend the generality that all individuals regardless of individual characteristic differences use the same semantic structure to the following extent and in the following Imnner: 1. Samples of individuals with cognitive structures described as falling in the middle of a belief- disbelief continuum tend to use evaluative, potency, and activity dimensions similar to those observed in the Thesaurus and other factor analytic studies of semantic space. 2. Samples of individuals defined as differing in cogni- tive structure, described as falling at the ends and dl'! 75 the middle of a belief-disbelief continuum, tend to use a similar evaluative dimension in their semantic structures which is also similar to the evaluative dimension of the Thesaurus and other factor analytic StUdiea e However, the findings qualify and limit the generality to the following extent and in the following way: 1. Samples of individuals differing in cognitive structure as indexed along a belief-disbelief continuum tend to differ in semantic structure. a. Samples of individuals at the closed and open ends of the continuum have similar structures but differ from.the semantic structure of samples of individuals at the middle of the continuum. b. The semantic structure of samples of individuals at the closed and open ends of the continuum differs from the structure suggested by the Thesaurus and other studies following the EPA mdalo Nature of Semantic Space of Closed, QpenI and Medium.Groups Structurally, individuals at the ends of the continuum are in high agreement in their use of scales, in identified factors, in loading on specific scales, and in configuration or patterning of factorial structures. The semantic structure of middle individuals differs from the closed and open semantic structures in the same basic ways. The evidence suggests that closed and open individuals tend toward complexity or multidimensionality in semantic space while medium.indi- viduals tend toward simplicity. At least, to the extent that the number of significant factors extracted (using the Kiel-Wrigley cri- terion) is a valid index of simplicity or complexity, closed and open individuals tend to use more factors to account for judgments than do medium.individuals. l‘ i‘ I . -s. t . U . -‘ . - ml 3 .. ‘? ? -s ' a m ‘0 l "O. . . i j: ‘ . '1‘ ,l D ..j A O r . ' 7, u‘ 5 D a. O . . . 76 The evaluative, dynamism, predictability, and sensory-ennui di- mensionality of this semantic space suggests a judgmental framework concerned with authority in decision making, at least in the area of connotative meaning, for both closed and open individuals. The evaluative dimension, an attitudinal variable based on a bed- rock of rewards and punishments both achieved and anticipated, is assumed to be an index to approach or avoidance tendencies based on reward and punishment aspects of human thinking (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 72-75, 189-199). However, closed and open indi- viduals seem to include elements of power in their evaluative or atti- tudinal judgments with closed individuals also including an element of stability in their attitudinal judgments. A concern with more than static strength or power becomes more clear for both types in the dynamism dimension with scales suggesting strength or power combined with scales implying activity, forward movement, aggressiveness, and 1eadership--a sort of dynamic strength notion. A.third factor suggests a concern‘with estimating the predict- ability of a concept. In a fourth factor, identified as sensory-ennui, closed and open individuals indicate the tendency toward judgments in terms of physical senses with resultant overall feelings of interest or boredom. For closed types, this judgmental framework is consistent with theory which suggests that closed individuals are susceptible to pressures of reward and punishment from external authority and are concerned with the power or ability of authority to mete out rewards and punishments. Closed individuals, motivated by pressures of rewards _.- -- Q: e’> .. v a O . e .1 i 'V ‘1 s r.4\¢-J v o' , - .a‘ H s\ L4 J . (I u 77 and punishments arising from external authority, may assess the author- ity potential of a concept using the judgmental framework described above. However, the evidence as developed here indicates that since both closed and open individuals utilize similar semantic structures, their orientations toward authority may be highly similar. The evidence also indicates that given the same basic frames with- in which closed and open individuals make meaningful judgments, they tend to differ in the outcomes of their specific decisions. For example, closed and open individuals tend to differ in their meanings of the concepts COMMUNIST CHINA and.M! MOTHER along the evaluative dimension. 1 Presumably, there may be overt behaviors associated with such evaluative judgment differences on the semantic differential. One might expect Republican and Democratic voters using similar frames but making different evaluative judgments of candidates and issues in an election also to differ in their overt voting behaviors. The implications are that closed and open individuals may be structurally similar-~at least in the area of connotative meaning-~but they may differ in specific decisions made within the same structure. Structure-Content Distinction. A.convenient way of viewing the similarities and differences in closed and open individuals' behavior is suggested by Rokeach who makes a distinction between structure and content when dealing with the properties of belief and disbelief systems. For example, within the Rokeach conceptualization, a Communist and a Roman Catholic may be highly similar in the ways their beliefs and disbeliefs are organized but may differ drastically in the specific 78 content of their beliefs. If both are classified as closed, their judgment of a concept like NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV on the scale good-bad may be expected to be structur- ally similar in terms of use of similar frames and in the extremeness of responses. But there should be differences in content: the Catholic might be expected to judge the concept as extremely unfavorable (bad) and the Communist to judge it as extremely favorable (good). Scale Response Behaviors. Closed and open individuals tend to show this kind of structural similarity and content difference in their scale checking behaviors on the Rokeach 40-item.scale and the semantic differential. On both instruments, both closed and open subjects choose scale positions which indicate a maximal type of response, yet, the consequences or significance of those responses are different. In responding to the Rokeach scale, subjects are faced with six choices. They may show their degree of acceptance or rejection of an item by the amount of agreement or disagre-snt with that item along a six position scale. The choices range from +3 for maximal agreement to -3 for maximal disagreement. Between these maximal positions are choices showing different degrees of rejection or acceptance: +2, +1, -1, and -2. By adding four to each score produces a 7, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1 type of scale. Within the Rokeach theoretical framework, individuals are placed into closed or open categories on the basis of maximal types of judg- ments: dichotomous, either-or, maximal accepting or maximal rejecting behaviors operationalized in terms of scores tending toward the +3 (7) or the -3 (1) ends of the scale. ~, H ‘e‘l 79 Individuals at the middle of the belief-disbelief continuum possibly may display different patterns of scale checking responses. "Middle" scores might be derived by such patterns of checking as: +1 and/or -1, +3 and -2, or +2 and -3, +3 and -3. On the semantic differential, the closed subjects tended toward maximal acceptance-rejection, either-or, all-nothing, good-bad types of responses operationalized in terms of 1 and 7 scale positions. Open subjects tended toward the middle (4) position defined as representing judgments of maximal conflict, a "don't know," neutral, or non-committal category--a sort of "it depends" type of response. Closed and open subjects did not differ in their use of 2, 3, 5, and 6 positions which are defined by Osgood‘gt.gl. as representing more discriminating and finely graded types of judgments. Developmentalfgonsistencies. Within Osgood's mediation theory, closed and open individuals may have had certain experience consisten- cies in the socialization process to have developed a number of similar frames for decision making. Yet, within these experiences must have occurred certain idiosyncrasies of individual experience to account for differences between closed and open differences in specific meanings for specific concepts. This follows from our definition of meaning. The meaning of a sign-~the composition of the representational mediation process--is entirely dependent upon the nature of the total behavior occurring while the sign is being established. Given consis- tencies in human organization quite constant meanings are developed. However, the meanings which different individuals have for the same sign will vary to the extent that their behaviors toward the things signified have varied. The meanings of many signs will reflect the 80 idiosyncrasies of individual experience. The material related to the development of closed and open systems, though limited, suggests that along at least‘ggg relevant dimension-~the number and specificity of influences in childhood--closed and open indi- viduals tend toward maximal types of responses. At one extreme, closed individuals reported highly specific influences by only the local clergyman and/or Boy Scout leader, while at the other extreme, open individuals reported a more generalized influence by a number of persons without specific references to a particular person or group. Authority Frame of Reference The basic structural similarities and content differences between closed and open individuals suggested above imply that perhaps the closed-open belief-disbelief continuum method of categorizing indivi- duals provides the observer with a view of different sides of the same coin. It may be that closed and open individuals are both extreme types ‘within a population. It is as if closed and open individuals share the same basic cog- nitive map or judgmental frame of reference through which they view the world. The map contains similar relevant frames representing crucial decisions which the individual has learned he must make in a variety of situations. But it is in the outcome of the specific decisions made within the same frames which distinguishes closed from.open indi- viduals. It is this difference which the Rokeach scale seems to measure and the basis on which it seems to differentiate among indivi- duals e l O .s- O 0' . AM 4 e I V .-10 81 On the other hand, the map which medium individuals use may be quite different from that of closed and open individuals and may even suggest that perhaps another type of dimension may be involved. The frame concerned with authority within this map appears to be highly relevant to closed individuals, as suggested by theory and per- formance in this study, and also to open individuals, as suggested by the findings. (Another index of its theoretical and empirical importance is the number of statements concerned with authority which are included in the Rokeach 40-item scale-16 items or 40 per cent of the total. Closed individuals are defined as those accepting the statements and open individuals are defined as those rejecting the statements.) According to the Rokeach theoretical position, all individuals have a pantheon of positive and negative authorities on which they rely for information about the world that they themselves cannot obtain first- hand, but closed and open systems should differ in their theories of the way authorities function in the world. However, the findings suggest that closed and open systems both make relevant judgments with- in a similar framework--acceptsnce or rejection of ideas, people, facts, and presumably statements on the Rokeach scale--on the basis of con- gruity or incongruity with authority. And it may be a difference in the type of authority to which closed and open individuals are oriented that accounts for differential consequences of decisions made within the same judgmental framework. According to the Rokeach conceptual- ization, closed individuals are external or outside authority oriented tending toward responses indicating maximal acceptance of Rokeach scale items which imply external authority orientation. The closed individual's tendency toward dichotomous, all-nothing, maximal 82 accepting-rejecting types of responses on the semantic differential also may be related to this external authority orientation. The tendency toward 1 and 7 position responses may indicate an intense set in judgment of concepts, as if the respondent's mind were made up, his opinions already formed, and as if he had taken sides. Accounting for this clarity and decisiveness in judgment may be the individual's willingness to accept or reject on the basis of external authroity who provides his ready-made judgments. There is little ambiguity-~outside authority says it is either so or not so, if an item is good or bad, if it requires a l or 7 response. Open individuals tend to show maximal rejection of Rokeach scale items which imply an external authority orientation. It may be that open individuals, though concerned with externally imposed reinforce- ments or punishments, deal with external authority by challenging or rejecting it and statements attributed to it. This maximal rejection of external authority suggests that the open individual may turn in- wardly--relying on himself-~with the effect that he is his own principal authority in the pantheon. In the maintenance of this internal orientation, the open indivi- dual may tend toward maximal utilization--perhaps even a preoccupation-- of such tools and techniques as the application of logic, knowledge, internal consistency and validity of authority, forensic and other communication devices. Through the use of such cognitive and communi- cation tools, the open individual may challenge or even devastate ex- ternal authority and maintain self as the principal authority in the pantheon. In terms of semantic differential behaviors, closed indivi- duals, relying on external authority, come up with clearcut, 1 ‘ 83 dichotomous, unambivalent judgments. Open individuals, rejecting ex- ternal authority,come up with the opposite type of response--maximal ambivalence, conflict and indecision. It is as if the open individual, turning to the self authority, comes up with the response, "It depends"--on elements not present in the situation or the context of additional cues which the semantic differential situation fails to provide. It may be that the medium individual, not limited to extreme positions on the Rokeach scale, and displaying a different semantic structure from closed and open individuals, may also display different patterns of responses perhaps even making more discriminating and finely graded judgments on the semantic differential. It might be that the medium individual's approach toward authority is more "rational" in that he may be less susceptible to irrelevant pressures of reward or punishment and may not be committed to maximal rejection or devastation of external authority. Limitations of the Study The conclusions based on the evidence as developed in this study and the speculations on the significance of the findings must be weighed in the light of a number of limitations of the study, some of which are stated below. Distribution of Score; Extreme Scorers§ Limiting the experimental subjects to the ex- treme ends of the closed-open continuump-the top 20 and the bottom 20 81a the present study, the terms closed, open, and medium refer to the continuum described by Rokeach scale scores peculiar to the experi- mental group under study. 84 scorers on the Rokeach scale--might have produced other results. Studies by Rokeach and associates have tended to limit experimental subjects to such extreme ends of the score range. For example, Rokeach, McGoveny, and Denny (1960, p. 185) from 109 respondents to the Rokeach scale selected the 30 highest (closed) and the 30 lowest (open) individuals for their experimental subjects. Rokeach and Vidulich (1960, pp. 199-200) selected the 30 highest (closed) and the 30 lowest (open) subjects from 249 respondents to the Rokeach scale for their experimental subjects. Rokeach, Oram, Laffey, and Denny (1960, p. 231) used only the 20 high and 20 low scorers among 600 respondents to the Rokeach scale. In the present study, the approximate top third and the approxi- mate bottom third of 241 scorers were chosen to represent the closed and open ends of the continuum. High Scorigg ngple. The mean score on the Rokeach 40-item in- strument for the total sample of subjects used in this study was higher than that for other experimental groups. This study‘s sample was more "closed" than other groups. A distribution of scores conforming more closely to that of other less ”closed" groups might have produced different results. It may be that the open individuals in the present study are more like the "middle" scoring subjects of other studies tending to respond in terms of +1, -1, or other patterns of responses resulting in "middle" types of scores. This study's closed indivi- duals may tend toward +3 positions and this study's medium indivi- duals may tend toward scores between the +3 and "middle" type of scores. Results may also have been different if the distribution of 85 distribution of scores in the present study approached the distribution of scores suggested by an absolute scale with closed tending toward +3, open toward -3 and middle choosing +1 positions. Scales and Concepts A high degree of scale-concept interaction has been found in studies using the semantic differential. The investigations cited above suggest also concept-scale-individual characteristic variable interaction (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 66-70, 87-188). Scales and concepts were chosen for this study to increase representa- tiveness rather than scale-concept interaction. Choosing concepts and scales on some other basis may have produced different results. For example, Kumata (1958, p. 25) using bilingual Japanese and Korean students chose people, country, ideological, and nationality concepts for the purpose of differentiating among groups. His scales were selected for the most part from previous factorial studies to adequately represent the "three dominant factors" (evaluation, activity, and potency) and were also selected to be relevant to the types of concepts being measured. Individual Factor Analyses With respect to the number of factors required to account for their judgments, a more adequate test of differences between closed and open individuals--and therefore, a more adequate test of simplicity and com- plexity tendencies reflected in semantic structure--might include factoring scale variables whose scores depend on a single individual rather than a group. 86 Completing factor analyses of scales for each individual and com- puting the mean number of factors used to account for judgments across individuals representing each type (closed, open, and medium) would provide a less obscured picture of the number of dimensions required by each type to account for their judgments. In this fashion a distinction is made between factor spaces appropriate to groups and those appropriate to individuals. The significance of this procedure may be illustrated as follows (Danbury, 1963b): mm. W W. A factor analysis of the n scales would produce k - common factors. Contributing to the scale variance on which the factors rest are the gross behavior of subjects as a group. The k dimensions relate to a single concept but are produced by the gross behavior of the group. Obscured are the number of factors dependent up- on each individual contributing to scale variance. In this case the number of factors is a function of the sample of subjects and the sample of scales. Adding or eliminating a subject or scale might affect the number of factors produced. Condition 2. Given a group of N individuals, each subject using_2 .sca1es_tn_dessrihe_segeral_sgngepsg. Correlation and factor matrices could be computed by summing across both subjects and concepts. Although the observations produced by CN observations vary around the grand scale mean, they can also be considered to vary around two other kinds of means: the scale mean where each of the c concepts is held constant; and the scale mean where each of the N subjects is held constant. In the first case, the variation is due to subject e .0 v u. . .M J. A I x . .n w A so I I I e l n A o o e I. . . . . . I. .. . o .- K... . . .. ._ . Q- . . ._ . , e . a e. 87 variability, and in the second, it is due to the variability of the response arising from different concept stimuli. In the case of factors arising from CN observations, it is not possible to determine whether the k factors relate to all concepts or to all subjects. If a group of individuals is tested with a number of concepts, the number of factors is a function of the sample of subjects, the sample of scales and the sample of concepts. Adding or deleting individuals, scales or concepts would influence the number of factors required to account for their judgments. Omitting either some subjects or some concepts might cause a factor to "disappear." angition . Given one subject usigg nscales to describe several cogcgptg. The scale variance depends only upon the different responses each concept elicits from.the subjects. Factors developed from this score matrix would relate to a single individual and would be produced by his gross reactions to a set of concepts. The number of factors is a function of the number of dimensions the subject uses to describe the concepts. If he sees all of the concepts as differing only in a single di- mension, then a single scale factor will be produced. If he uses different criteria in judging the concepts, k factors will be found. If he uses only a single dimension of judgment and sees all concepts as quite similar, the scale variance will be minimal along with the inter- scale correlations and the proportion of variance explained by the factors. Factoring scale variables whose scores depend on a single indivi- dual, not a group, and determining how many dimensions each individual contributes might reveal differences between closed and cpen individuals .v xv 88 which conform to the simplicity-complexity tendencies predicted from the Rokeach theory. Although few factor analytic studies using the semantic differential have made a distinction between factor spaces appropriate to groups and those appropriate to individuals, Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, p. 170) suggest that the most direct test of comparability of the semantic differential across subjects would be to run a series of separate factor analyses on a random sample of individual subjects. A major criticism of this procedure has been the number of factor analyses which must be completed. 'However, using 20 highest, 20 lowest, and 20 middle scorers to represent each of the theoretical cognitive structure types, and using modern, high speed digital computers makes this type of procedure feasible. Suggestions for Iurther Research Theoretical and methodological issues raised within the context of the present investigation suggest areas for further research. Dimensionality of Semantic Space It was hypothesized that closed individuals would tend toward simplicity and open systems toward multidimensionality in semantic space. The findings indicate that medium indiviudals tend toward simplicity and that closed and open individuals tend toward multi- dimensionality. Since the findings in this study depended on group data, this hypothesis might be retested using scale variables whose scores depend on single individuals. These might be factored to determine how many dimensions each individual contributes. 89 Scale CheckinggTegggncies The scale checking patterns on the Rokeach instrument appear to be reflected in the scale checking patterns on the semantic differential. Just how generalized is the tendency for marking polar, middle, or more intermediate positions is a question for further research. The choices provided by both instruments are similar except that the Rokeach scale omits the middle "0" or what is a "4" position on the semantic differential. V 1 In this study, on the semantic differential, closed systems tended toward polar positions while open individuals tended toward middle position responses. 0n the Rokeach instrument, since the total group tended to be high scorers--relatively closed--compared with other ex- perimental groups, the possibility has been raised that this study's open group might compare with "middle" scorers of other studies where the sample was less ”closed." 4 1 It might bethat more "open” subjects (-3 scorers) would also tend toward polar (l and 7) responses on the semantic differential. In other words, the polar (+3 and -3) responses of both closed and open indivi- duals on the Rokeach scale might be reflected in polar (1 and 7) re- sponses on the semantic differential. Of the middle Rokeach scale scorers, those who tend toward +1 or -1 also might tend toward "4" position responses. And it may be that individuals tending to score +1 and -l on the Rokeach scale might tend toward 2 and 6 positions on the semantic differential. Attitude e Within the Rokeach conceptualization, all individuals have a pantheon of positive and negative authorities on which they rely for .3 'I us I .‘s‘ v .1 . ‘v. 1 ’s . ~ .n ' ' ( r‘ . _ . .1 . c l _. ,. J ' a t ‘ . d . .. a n .J t : I‘ Q. 0 I O .: J , ‘0 90 information about the world they themselves cannot obtain first hand-- or to get verification of information already possessed. Since the findings suggest that both closed and open individuals tend to rely on authority in decision making, it may be that in a congruity principle situation the authority judgmental framework may be highly relevant in determining amount and direction of attitude change. Since positive authorities guide the individual in what is true in the world and negative authorities in what is false, it may be that closed and open individuals make distinctions in terms of positive and negative author- ity and non-authority potential of persons and concepts. This might be represented in semantic differential responses in such terms as: 1. Along the evaluative dimension (using +3 and -3 to represent the ends of the semantic differential scale and O to represent the middle), a4+3 score might re- flect a positive evaluation or attitude toward the concept being judged and a -3 would signify a negative attitude e 2. Along the dynamism dimension, a +3 score might represent the estimate of strength or high ability to mete out reward and/or punishment, while a -3 might suggest relative inability to do so. 3. Along the predictability dimension, a +3 might suggest a high probability or likelihood and a -3 low prob- ability that the concept or person being judged will mete out reward or punishment. 4. Along the sensory-ennui dimension, a‘+3 might indicate an expectation of pleasant feelings and high interest while a -3 might indicate an expectation of unpleasant feelings and boredom of an encounter with the person or concept being judged. Limiting the example only to extreme scores and three dimensions, positive and negative authority or non-authority might be defined operationally in such terms as: vs I‘ a . . .s \ . m . 4 .. '. 4 g . s :31 . . |.. 4 a . r, . . 1’ ma \ -J O J s 1 w . .Ll . a \J . s. ., ., o . J . . o u . v I a]; n .v . . . . r e I I . . p. . n . ‘ ~o I u . s r . . ‘\ o . . l e . . m . ‘ I a r . . o . ‘ 1 ‘ I . - . I u . D . u v I I . 4 . . . n . . J.” . .s . . x. w . g I . s r. ' . . o O - , x a . 1. 2. 3. 4. 91 A person or concept is judged as high positive authority if a subject scores +3 on each of the three dimensions. A person or concept is judged as high negative authority if the subject scores -3 on the evaluative dimension and +3 on dynamism and predictability. Positive non-authority is defined as a +3 score on the evaluative dimension and a -3 on dynamism and predictability. Negative non-authority is a -3 score on the evaluative dimension, and -3 scores on dynamism and predictability. Whether a concept is defined as positive or negative authority or non-authority may be relevant in the attitude change situation to individuals categorized along the closed-open continuum. It is another area that might be explored in future research. "z REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Else Prenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford. (1950). The authoritarian_personaligy. New’York: Harper. Bopp, Jean. (1955). A quantitative semantic analysis of word associ- ation in schizophrenia. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois. Burt, Cyri1. (1952). Tests of significance in factor studies. Brit. ,1. Psychol. Stat. Sect., é, 109-133. Danbury, Thomas. (1963a). {A few preliminary findings from correlational and factorial analyses of 80 semantic differential adjectives. Mimeographed report, Communications Research Center, Michigan State University. Danbury, Thomas. (1963b). Private communication. Pidelman, Selwyn.Norman. (1963). The relationship between open and closed belief systems and accuracy and affect in interpersonal perception. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Frenkel-Brunswik, Else. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. .g, Personalit , 13, 108.143. Fruchter, Benjamin. (1954). Introduction to factor analysis. New‘York: D. Van Hostrsnd. Harman, Harry E. (1960). modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Henrysson, Stan. (1960). Applicability of factor analysis in the behavioral sciences. Stockholm: Almqvist and Hiksell. Kerrick, Jean S. (1954). The effects of intelligence and manifest anxiety on attitude change through communications. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois. Kiel, Donald P. (1963). Private communication. Riel, Donald P. and Charles F. Wrigley. (1960). Effects upon the factorial solution of rotating varying numbers of factors. Paper presented before the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, September 6, 1960. Krech, D. and R. S. Crutchfield. (1948). Theogy and problems of social psychology. New‘York: 'McGraw-Hill. 92 93 Kumata, Hideya. (1958). A factor analytic study of semantic structures across three selected cultures. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois. Levy, Jacques M. and Milton Rokeach. (1960). The formation of new perceptual systems. In Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind. New‘York: Basic Books. Pp. 257-269. Luria, Zella. (1959). A semantic analysis of a normal and a neurotic therapy group. ,1. abnorm. £5. Psychol., _5_§, 216-220. Maryo, Joann S. (1958). Factors related to similarity, rejection and religious affiliation. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University. Mikel, B. (1958). Open and closed belief systems as correlates of the acceptance of new music and its composers. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Osgood, C. B. (1941). Ease of individual judgment-processes in relation to polarisation of attitudes in the culture. ‘g.‘ggg. Psychol., 52, 403-418. Osgood, C. E. (1953). Method and theogy in egperimentalgpsycholggy. New‘York: Oxford University Press. Osgood, C. E. and G. J. Suci. (1955). Factor analysis of meaning. is me PszChOIQ. _5_0_‘ 325'338e Osgood, C. 3., G. J. Suci, and P. B. Tannenbaum. (1957). ‘ghg measurement of ppanipg. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Osgood, C. B. and P. H. Tannenbaum. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychol.‘§gy.,'§§, 314-324. Powell, P. A. (1961). Open and closed mindedness and the ability to differentiate between source and message. unpublished master's thesis, Muchigan State University. Quevillon, Naomi'M. (1960). Semantic behavior of three different personality groups. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota. Rokeach, Milton. (1960). The open and closed mind. New‘York: Basic Books. Rokeach, Milton, and Richard Bonier. (1960). Time perspective, dogmatism, and anxiety. In Milton Rokeach, The open and closed mind. New’York: Basic Books. Pp. 366-375. 94 Rokeach, Milton and C. Gratton Kemp. (1960). Open and closed systems in relation to anxiety and childhood experience. In Milton Rokeach, The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Pp. 347-365. Rokeach, Milton, Warren C. McGovney, and M. Ray Denny. (1960). Dogmatic thinking versus rigid thinking. In Milton Rokeach, The ppen and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Pp. 182-195. Rokeach, Milton, Alfred Oram, John J. Laffey, and M. Ray Denny. (1960). On party-line thinking. In Milton Rokeach, The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Pp. 225-242 Rokeach, Milton and Robert N. Vidulich. (1960). The formation of new belief systems. In Milton Rokeach, fie open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Pp. 196-214. Siegel, Sidney. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Suci, G. J. (1952). A multidimensional analysis of social attitudes with special reference to ethnocentrism. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois. Triandis, H. C. (1958). Some cognitive factors affecting communication. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Cornell University. Vidulich, R. N. (1958). An empirical analysis of the belief referents of persons with open and closed cognitive systems. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Walking, William David. (1959). Patterns of social perception within the families of well-adjusted and maladjusted adolescents. Un- published doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota. APPENDICES APPENDIX.A Test booklets. PUBLIC OPINION PROBLEM Department of Communication Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 98 INSTRUCTIONS This problem is part of a study of what different people think and feel about some important topics they often talk about. The best answer to each statement below is your own personal feeli . We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements and disagreeing just as strongly with others. Perhaps you will feel uncerta in about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same way as you do. Here's what to do. In the line at the left of each statement, write how umch you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every statement. Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3 depending on how you feel in each case. Here's what these numbers mean: +1 I AGREE A LITTLE -1 I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2 I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2 I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3 I AGREE VERY MUCH -3 I DISAGREE VERY MUCH For example, if the statement reads: "Most people are failures and it is the system which is responsible for this,“ and if you feel that you AGREE ON THE WHOLE with the statement, you would mark the statement +2 in the space at the left of it. Work fairly rapidly, since it is your first impression that is the best answer. On the other hand, work carefully since it is your own personal opinions that are inmortant'. . NW, PLEASE TURN THE PAGE AND MARK EACH STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF HM MUCH YOU PERSONALLY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE STATEI‘IENT. . - . -v~.-, . . r , . > . ‘ .‘- . ' ., . ‘ . . . . . A. . -. . , I ..-, _ ,. .4 . . . ' ‘. . f Al' | - ‘ . -.. . _ . . . .l . A- , ». ,w. .. v . e -... ,‘..__, . we . .-‘.‘ .. .. - (q . . . . .. r . . . . . _._‘ , . I - . I . I . \ . .- - . . ‘ , . . I . I.» . , , . . . - . ‘l‘l ‘ .' ‘ ‘ , . , - . I ' u~ ' - , . V , f ‘ ' - ' . . . — . . .l . - ~ . It | . ‘ . I V ' . I ‘ e . e . A . .... . . -- . . . - . . . I . A -" ‘ ‘ . . r t. ‘ e I u ‘ I. -' - r .. .. -Vm-—--.I.-o~...«.~.‘- A . . . . . a -.--‘ ' O" > . I _. ‘ . l . . , .. . - e .- c . , 9 ' . . . ‘.,,~ - , . I ‘ e s I 1' ' I ~ ‘- y ‘ . l _ n . ., . . . . . . . . ‘. _ .\ I t -- ’ . ' . ' v ... s . ’ - . .. )‘ ‘ . - . rw-s' . . A . . ~ . . - r. . , ‘ l . ~ . - - . . . "'-l - . . ‘ ~ --. . - p — .- . , ‘ ( ‘f e I- t. '; ’ '. e - I A . . _ . ,I N ,. , , .. ,. . .. . . . , . '.‘ -‘ I A ' ~ I ~ ' ‘1 5- w . . ' ‘ . 4 . - . _. ... ..I . + \ ' . . ‘ . . . . .. . , . s. ‘ . _ .. ' » q . ‘ . , Ii -. . ,- . . I r , . ~ . . ,- ' ' ' e' ' . - 1 -~ . u .7 . ,. . \ _ ». .‘. l , 9: ., I I ‘ . - A ~ A . . . ' - . . 7.‘ , . . . .‘ . ' .. . . , ‘. . I. ~ ,. , ' - § '. , . I . . A .I .. A . ”-7. . * L~ _. . . .. , ’ _ ‘. .~. . . ' . '. . I ' v n. l I to I - 52.x +3.: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE ~3 2: I AGREE ON THE WHOIE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY NEH 3. h. S. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what is going on until one has had a chance to hear the Opinions of these one respects. A group which tolerates too much difference Of Opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he Opposes. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. thdamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place. Most people just do not give a "damn" for others. I' d like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop. In a discussion I Often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. If given a chance I would do something of great benefit to the world. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a pretty 'hdsh-washy" sort of person. (TURN PAGE AND CGNITINUE) Key +1: I AGREE A LITTLE «l: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3: I AGREE VERY'MUCH ~3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 20. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own happiness. 21. In the history Of mankind there have probably been just a handful Of really great thinkers. 22. There are a number Of people I have come to hate because Of the things they stand for. 23. While I don't like to admit this even.to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, Beethoven, or Shakespeare. 2h. The highest form Of government is a democracy and the highest farm Of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. _ 25. Even though freedom of speech is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. 26. To compromise with our political Opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to betrayal of our own side. 27. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. . 28. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct. 29.“ In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own. 30. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the peOple who believe in.the same thing he does. u 31. In times like these it is Often necessary to be more on guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp than by those in the opposing camp. 32. There are two kinds Of people in this world: those who are for the truth.and those who are against the truth. 33. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. 3h. My'blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. 35. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all." (TURN PAGE AND CONTINUE) £81 +1: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3: I AGREE VERY MIEH ~3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 39. 140. Most peOple just don't know what's good for them. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt. Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have discussed important social and moral‘ problems don't really understand what's going on. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do. (TURN PAGE AND CONTINUE) . a .-." _- . .. e .. '3 - ‘- .3. O l 8 l _ I . ' I ~ . . . . ,7 b J‘ ”” Iv . , . l y .. , " ' A.--—~~.‘~‘ . me-.. - 102 INSTRUCTIONS . The purpose of this part of the study is to measure the mea_r§_ngs various people have for different things. 1. At the top of each page in this booklet you will find a word written in capital letters. It represents a concept or thing you are to judge. Read the con~.:.;. crept then rate it against a series of scales which appear beneath it. 2. A scale looks like this: fair : : : : : : : unfair 3. Be sure you make your judgments on the basis of what the word means 153 V011 a “.5. 11. Here is how to use the scales: a. If you feel that the word at the top of the page is m closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark like this: fair : . . . . . X : unfair b. If you feel that the word is quite closely related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your check-mark like this: strong : X : : : : : :weak weak N strong : c. If the word seems only slightly related to one side as Opposed to the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should check like this: active : : X : : x : : passive (R active : : : x X : : :passive _ . ‘ . .. -. ~ ._‘ .i . u. . - - e . -. ~..... .r- .u.-... e . . .~ u—.... , .. .. ,, l . .a a . .‘ a...“ o... .. ~. . ‘ e n . . . - A. u.- ' i . I. A . . v .- o . A .. I b u .o- «no .ov-o . .- vi... ~~... . a . .- , -.—-..__ ~ .w...’ « on. ... ,.--.—- .v‘ c . . .v-‘J. _ 103 d. The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seem most characteristic of the thing you're judging. e. If you consider the word to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the word, or if the scale is completely irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should place your check-mark in the middle space: safe : : : X : : : : dangerous f. MORTANT: (1) Place your check-marks in the middle of ces, not on the boundaries: TI-EIZS NUI‘ THIS : : : X : : :X : (2) Be sure you check every scale for every concept. 23 not omit any. (3) Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale. 5. Sometimes you may feel as though you've had the same item before on the test. This will not be the case, so do not look back and forth through the items. Do not try to ranember how you checked similar items earlier in the test. __Ma_l_t_g each item a separate and independent Jufln . 6. Work at high speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over indi- vidual items. It' is your first impressions, the imediate "feelings" about the items, that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because we want your true impressions. (PIEASE TURN PAGE AND BEGIN) ' w.. o ' ‘ v: 1-‘. ' n .. ' l "‘ .-. - ‘ _ I . , . , . ’ “-00—. " '9 a -5 ‘ _ ‘ o k“, 'M-‘. , t w 0 ‘ ' 3 . L. a . — o ‘ ! _ - o, u .o - .' . ’1‘ , ~ I . I. n _’ -‘ ”0‘- g. . r. - 0" —. 104 ENGINE colorful ___:_____:____:____:___:____:__: colorless youthful _____:____:_____:_____:____:____:___: mature bad ____:___:___:___:____:___ _: good changeable ____:___:____:____:___:__:___: stable large ___:__:_____:___:___:____:___: small excitable ____:____:__:__:____:___:_____: calm straight _____:___:___:__:____:___:____: curved disloyal ____:___:___:__:_____:_____:____: loyal heavenly _____:____:____:___:___:__:___: hellish unusual ______:_____:____:__:___:___:____: usual weak ____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: strong sensitive _____:____:_____:____:___:___:___: insensitive defensive ___:_____:____:____:____:___:____: aggressive fast ____:______:____:____:____:____:___: slow angular _____:____:____:____:____:_____ _: rounded severe ____:___:__:___:_____:___:____: lenient active ____:_____:___:___:___:__:___: passive sober _____:____:___:___:____:____:_____: drunk retarded ____:____:____:____:___:___:____: advanced refreshed : : : : : : : weary (SA-l) a‘_ \ . . . . .. .... ... . , .-.- . . , -. . ,V_ 7. . ...... ..., ......._, ,. . .. . , - . . . .7 -.-.-..-. .. 7 , , .. .-- ...-... . . .. . .. - .7. .- . ..... . . .. ._ . .. ............. , . A . n . . . . . .. . 7 .-.. .. .. . . . . . . . . , .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 7 . ... .....- - . . .. 7.. , . ., . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . ...--. O I ‘ ‘ ‘ . .. ... .. . - 4.. . . 7 ..., .. . . - . . O . -.. ,.._, .. _. .. ,. .. ....-- .. --.... .... -.. .- -. .7 7 ..-.i . . . ... .7. .. . . . -. .... .. . 7 ... . ....wpw.... -..... .. . -..7 . 7 . 7 . . ,. . . . H. ,h.... , ‘ H .. _ . ., . . . . . .- , ._ .. -A - . ' . :. . . . .. .... .. .... . .. ..-.-.7 ...-..- . .... ... 7 -_ . . A. . . 4 ‘ . ' . .-.. . . .. . -... . 7.. . . ..... ... 7.-.. . 7 . . * . '. .. u u . 'l . .. ~. . . 7 7-.--.. . .-... . . .... - --.-.. -.... --.... . . - - .....u I . ‘ . ' " ' '. . u - ‘ I O y - . , ..... -. . .. . ...- ... .. . .. .....- .. .. .. ....7 .... .. n . .-- ' \ . . . .-.-.... -7.... .. .. ..... . . . .. .-«-. . .. o . .. ..-.. . .. .. a . . t .‘ .-.... .. ... .-. . . ... n7 .. .. . . . --. e . n ‘. I , . . .. . ”n-.. .. . . ... .-...-" -..“--. . .. . .. .. . . . ' ‘ O . ' . " , . . . . - . .. -..... . . . ... .- ..._. ....,. .. . . . .... . . careless kind old heavy interesting drawn hot blunt savory unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair direct 105 NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV careful cruel new light boring : propelled 0. cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple impelling shy unfair indirect leading .- . n . 4 . . - A . . . . . .. 7 7 . . .- -.._ - . l .. -. . o 0 - . ~ .- . - r . -- .- .. - -- s-u~* .--p - - ..-... .-.. .. -. . . - . . . - ... .- . .. . - . .o .. . ...----» .- . .. ..7 ... . . -.. . . < . ...... .-.. - .. .. -1 . ...-- .-—~..---o—. .-.—... .--, up... 7 .. - . . ~ w-.. 7n .u ... .- -. ... .‘ ...-. . ... ._.-, . -... ..-. i .- ,..,..,,.,__. .. 7 . -- I . —.- .. . ... 7.. .... . ...... ,..g,... .. . A. .. ..-i. .. -- . - . . ' u .. ..'......- . awn-“J- .- .........o.- ....u—. - . . . .... .. ...—...-— , .. . . a . ~ . 7 . . . . .... ... _. . y. . ....4... . --.. .—---.-....- ..fl ....~. .. .... ..--...-.. ..mo-p ..-- . . . | . . u '- ' .. A . - . ~0-o- .-.. ... ..--. . .-.... .-—-. .. ...... -. -- --—..- - .-.. .. .... .. .... .7 - . .. . .‘ _ . . . ‘ 1 .. ' . A o ‘ , . . ...: .- ...... . -y . --.. ... . .. .H- . ..- -..._ . a..- . . . , . ...... ...” v. -... . . .. . ..- '. . , . 7 -- - A - ‘ - . ‘ - ~ c ... .-.-~- _.-oo---v ,- . ...-c. ._.----. —- ‘ - . u- ...:u. —.- --- - . ."‘ _. .- . ...—... "‘ v ‘ v ' " o .. l.I.—l-‘l—->‘. -... -.....“ .1 --~ .... - -. o . --. ...- - o :3. . . . . , . u , . ...-.mp.-. -... .. . . .. -..... .-.... ,.._. .. -..... . .. .. . - . 4-....-.—.. , . .‘. . 7‘ ' ' ‘ ‘ ' 7 . . . . - ....q . . .- ‘- -—‘.~ . ...-.4 ..u... 0‘ v-I1 - -- 4 ' 7 - --.- ---— ~ . , - a v | -‘ . . -. -.' . A . . 7 7 . ...-.-n-o- . .. .-7.7. - .....- . .- 7. ~ . . .-- n . < .-u..-..—.. . - - . ......- f.‘ _ ~ . . a .~<—.— ... ... ~-~~ .... ... ..-—.... .. ... .--»... ...-. .... - . ...—...»... ..7.- .. -. . ~ ~ . 7 . l .0-.- .... ,, ,, r- . .... -‘ -O‘ .. . .. ”Va-.... .7...“ -.. ...- ... 7. -~ r—o... t ' a - . . - . . ' .- . ..7 . .- . -- . - -..7 » . .-7..- ... o ...~.-o..—.. . --.Q .-«~-.. .. ..- . .- - ~ { . .‘ . 7 ' 4. '. ~J . ~ > , ‘ . - a -7 o . ...-p.-. . -- ... .7-. . .. ..- ...- -. wow... -— - o-- . ' n . . ‘ . . . . ; '-. . . ~ - ... . .v.....-... o ... ...-.... ... ......“ , , . .. .- »... ... n .. ...... ...... . ...-..—'.-_ 106 colorful : colorless youthful : : : : : : mature bad : : : : : : good changeable : : : : : : stable large : : ' : : : : small :3 excitable : : : : : : straight : : : : : : : curved disloyal : : : : : : : loyal hellish 5" § 3- ‘4 usual 2 E. ‘weak : : : : : : strong sensitive : : : : : : insensitive defensive : : : : : : : aggressive fast : : : : : : angular : : : : : severe : : : : : : : lenient slow rounded active : : : : : : : passive sober : : : : : : : drunk retarded : : : : : : : advanced refreshed : z z : : : : weary (SA-1) --..-. .-. -.-- ...--~.. .. ~c —~..o ~.-...-. -..—~. 9: a. we. ..- s--—- .. ”..-. u- _ . .- 4. . . . .-.-—.- . .....n w...” ‘1 .r- . .. .- saw“; o ... .- . .-.-n. -——-m. a ’0 ...-o- .... ..-.-. m—..- - -_.u ....-. cu ...u . "-..-«-7 . . - .-. . -..--4. ...v .. . —. ... - s... v . -..-...7- ‘. v ,- -- .. - - .... .- -.. -.-.--.—. -..»-..~u.~a..— .. ..‘7_ ~— ...4...... .7......... o u—~-‘---—~~ ..."..- ... —.o. -n . - --.—~ue. so O ~w~ .-.. ..‘ -......9... -.oo~.w~----~: --.~.~ . -... s -.--uhA—‘Q- . ..¢ . .g.. . -..... .. - . ...- ..-...- ‘~.~a-"~.-' - -7-..-.- .-.”..‘- -. . ... .. .. . _—-~-—.-m. .- -- . I ... . 9~~ ..-—.-....“ ~ -... . - >---o....——- - . . . ‘-.»- . .. . .. . . a... ..... ~. ‘ v 7 ~ -7...-..._.' 7;.-- . «o. .....- - .7.~... . ...--.. -. . ...»..— .«ov—o- ..x - . .--..-.-_._. ...—u. ...... ~‘n. ...... . . — 0- I-IVD‘G' «or—co- .. - ~—~....- .....w- ...-.. ...-.- .-0.-< .. c m ...-c .. u c” ..w.. v ova-u.-. co... .. .... . 54--.- ‘~< u. .. ... - .-.-.... . . ~ .—.—0. .--.-—. . ., . .. .- . - ~ .0. .-. ...- . ... - u . .. --.--a I “...-nu..-— careless 107 careful cruel new light boring prOpelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple Welling numb unfair indirect leading . .. . . . a . . . . .. .7. .. g , . --...— - . . .. . . . . . . . _- . n . o «...... ..-. . . s .- ~> . . . 7 . . . .- .. - - ( “...... ......i. . . . . 7 . 7. -- . .-.. . . . 7 7. . .-..--.. -.- . . . . - .. . : .. ... . ---. .. ., 7 1 7 .. . . ...r . . ... «a-- .. . . . . .7..- .. . 7 .- - a - . 7.. . -4 — - -. .. .. .- - 7- - . -. . .... .. . .- .. . .. - ...--...a .- . « ».-...-.. -.- .- .. - o { ... . . -. . - .r.-._ .. . 7....~ . ., . _ 7.... ... .. . . .... . 7 . . , .' .—.—.-—. --'--- .... ‘—~-o - .- . .- - - vo .0‘ , -..._ —. ._ . .. .. - .---- 7 .. e —‘.--. u... _— ~ - .. -. . . . .. . .... Na. . 7...~.. . . .. . . . . l . '. _ ' ' -. r oo~‘-—< ... ... a... .. .. . .. .. 7» .-. . , .. 7 ... . . . 7. . a . o . .. . 77.... w...-.- ..... . . .. -. . ...-.-. . . o . . ~ . 7 U - ‘O--~ - --.‘ 0'0. 9' ‘40— - - ~ ~ - - 1.-....— 5 a‘... vv-P . o o ‘ O n - h o - . .... -~ v-l . , . . -.. ...- - . . . . - .‘v‘. .4 < ~ ~o . '5‘“. ... - ‘ u . . . .- . . ..- . .- -.. . -.~— ~- - -1 - - .. .n on.- -. . ...-» as . 7. _ p . . ...-... . - -...— .. - - . . ...... -. --- . . 7 . .. .. . -~ . . . \ ‘ 7 .- . 7 . . o ' ...... . . ....-.. .. 7. . . . ... .. .- .. . ... .... . ...—...-.. nu--~ - ‘ 0‘ . .' ' ~ . . . . - .. --.--... u -. .-. ....- ..a- ...-u... .. . -....-- y ...-- ... - ~.-- ... .-—~ ». . >- 108 HOSPITAL careless : : : : : : careful khm : : z : : : :cnml old : z : z : : : new heavy : : : : : : : light boring a E-E is" |.. E! a propelled .3. cold sharp savory : : : : : : : tasteless a: 5. § :54. I, expected dirty é insane m g (D a 3’. simple impelling :3. s: resisting : : : : : E a .5; 53' E? '1 unfair indirect leading & w 8 d- ’3’ E ...-......— .._ .-.-. . . . ... .. . ....-.- -.. .. . . 7 ......._ .-.. 7 -. -..... .. , . . .. . . ..-- -7.- . ..-... ...-... . _ , . . ...-..- . . . ~ .- - - ....7 ...—..—. o-o.._.--. . - ‘ .. . ...i .. .... I . ., . . .. . 7.. -- 7. . 7 . ...- - ...--. ...--. ..- -..-...” 7... . - , .-... , . 7 .... . . . .. - --.. . - ... 7. ... ...-.. ......”- 7 . . . 7 . . . .. . “-..--. - . . . 7 . .-.... .. .. . . . ... .. . . .._.. . ..-.. .. . . . . . . ...-... . . ... . .-7 . ... . . .. .7 . . ...-...». . 7 ... . . . . . .... .. .. . .... . . . . . . . 7 . . '1‘: ' l . ... ... .. . .. .. .. . . , .. 7 . . . ..-. ru~‘-.‘~ - . no ... . - . v 1 - - . .. ..-... - ...—..-... . .-..7... ...-.-..-.., . . . . . .. - . . ... .-.-.-.. -._- - . ...-.-.. ..-- . ... .. --.. 7... . .. .. .7 ...- - .. . . , . . . .-- .. o a . ..a ...—-.-» ...-9.“- p. u~o—_-.-- . -4-— . ...~. . ...-...- . t . . . . . . .~ 7 V ‘ I ...- 0“. - .4 ~4..-——.7-- -... “.... ~-. _.~. ..o .. . . . . .~ . . -. . .. . _ .. -.. . ~-- nu -.. ... - c-- ”w . sug“-.... - ~.. .~-.--.. -< a uu‘ o -‘ I. ‘ 7-...- ' I I . ‘ Q . . . -._.--.- .-..-”.7 -. . 7..-..... 109 careless : : : : : : : careful hmd : : : : z : :cnml old : : : : : : new heavy' : light interesting : : : : : : boring drawn ___:___:__:______:____:_____:____: propelled hot : : : : : : : cold blunt _____3 : : : : : : sharp savory : . tasteless unexpected : : : : : : : expected clean : : : : : : : dirty saw : : : : : : :nmmm soft : : : : : : : hard complex : : : : : z : simple resisting : impelling tingling : : : z : : : numb boisterous : : : : z : : shy fair : : : : : : : unfair direct : : : : : : : indirect fdllowing : : : : : : : leading l {'3 " \ .sz‘gf'si) colorful -.A- QJ-‘q u'nig‘.‘ V v 5.1.)-..- vs. 1 bad changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly* unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed 110 JOHN F. KENNEDY I O o o n s C O O O O O O O O colorless . mature small calm curved loyal hellish . usual strong . insensitive aggressive slow . rounded lenient passive drunk advanced . weary careless kind interesting drawn hot blunt savory' unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair direct 111 SYMPHONY careful cruel new boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane simple impelling unfair indirect leading 112 DEKTH careless : : : : : : careful I. kind : : : : : : cruel old : : : : : : new rmmw' : : : : : : :liym interesting : : : : : : boring drawn : : : : : : : propelled hot : : : : : : cold sharp tasteless blunt : : : : : : savory' : O. O O. O O O. unexpected : : : : : : expected clean : : : : : : dirty sane : : : : : : insane 0. soft : : : : : : hard complex : : : : s : g resisting : : : : : : tingling : : : : : : E”: a g. boisterous : : : : : : 5* fair : z : : : : 5‘ a E a ’1 indirect following : : : : : : : leading {SB-1) 113 SNOW ' colbrful : a ' - z z z : youthful : : a z : : 2 bad : z z 2 z z : changeable : a : z : z : large : : : : - : : excitable : z : z ‘ z : straight : : : z z : : disloyal : z : : : z : heavenly : : : x : 2 : unusual : : : : : 2 : weak 2 : a : s : a sensitive : z : z : z : defensive : z : : : z 2 fast : z - - : z : angular : : : 8 z x 3 severe 8 : 2 8 3 3 2 active : : : x : : a sober : : : x : - : retarded : : : z z z : refreshed : : : : s : : (SA-l) colorless mature good stable stJ. calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive lenient passive advanced weary .sk v .. - ...-..- . .. .n -.. ... <. . . ....-. n. "-.v- us... 3 .- .m— .0.“ .4..- . .... . \ n - . O o . . h —- _ as--. ~~~0"c ...1...I . a... ‘- . at “-u e . e e . o e e -- o .. s ..- ~§.- . .... -.. _. . . . . . . . . . ~-.e.—.-ee .0 .- n - .. ...- .. ‘ , . _ . . u . - e e . . . u - .~-...».-p. . o. e s p. . .-..-. . . . , . e . e . , -..-..a hm. - ... o---.---- ,. n . . . e O ' I u- - o . 1 -e nu“... ., .. . . ..- n. a- -. . e . . . . e -- ‘neost- .. ..- n . . e - . o - _. 7 . . , s . . . u . . . e-o. . ..~— :- . . ....-. e . . ..7 - . . - . ..-... -.. ...... . .- .. . . .. -.. . . ... . e- .. a l..- h u.- . . . . . . . a e new: - .' Does-1e-» e . - . o. - .. v - -..~. . . . . . .. . . .. . .... . . . s . . . . . .... . ~ -~ . . a . e 0 use. a ~.. ...7..... ~ ..........-. . . .- . . u -~1.ov '. s on ~~. ..7 .. IA .o- ....- . . .., . .., s I .- ‘ .. ~.. 7...- .- . - .. . .. n e . -..“ ... . , ... .4... .9. . . -.- ~-...-o— - ~ . . .. . . .. . . , Q ' . u e . >!--‘. “'I - o< ... . . . c.” ...- . -—---- . n . \ . . . .-.... .... -n~.u. . . ‘ . - - - at- . . . 114 COMMUNIST CHINA careless : : : : : z : careful kind : : z z : : : cruel old : : : : : : : new heavy : z : : z : : light interesting : : : : x : : boring ‘3.” a propelled cold .‘3‘ 0 d- E sharp . tasteless 33 3‘ 3 unexpected : : : : : : : expected clean : : : : : : : dirty sane : : : : : : : insane soft : : : : : : : hard complex : : : : : : : simple 3 a a .5.” impelling numb . shy fair : : : : : : : unfair E S 3 1.4. 3 3 5 direct : : : : : : : indirect following : : z : : : : leading i .~ ‘ f._ L)3“‘l) ...—...- -‘-- . ... ...---.. 'e . ......7-.. ’ .q. ,, ..-...o ' ..rA _. .. .... oo- . ...--~. . . .. .~~ ~~n- . - .-.--.. -.~ . c ...-.. n - t v-I-‘a .c-sou- .. 7 _‘. -.-- . --.... - -~‘ _. ... . ..- ... 7 ... .- ' w " 7 , -.-. .~- ‘ A .7 . ‘ -.r .. a .n - -” ... _ 7... . .. --v ., ...—- --‘-‘e— . Q”... .. -.——~~ -- e ......»- -<-. -. --.- ..-- . “.-...7u - . . “nu-.... . e .... .. ..I. colorful youthful changeable large excitable straight disloyal weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed 115 BIRTH 0. colorless mature good stable small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced weary - «MO-~-I~ ...-o- - —~ 0 -.. . «... .... .- .. - I—e> ..-.. . .. e O . -. ... .. . .- i.. 7- . . ....A... -. -_¢ - e - -- .....~~e~.-— . . . .. .o .— .au 5 . .. _. .. ... . l e - . ...—“4>~. . -~ - - . ‘ . - .- ...-.. --- .~o-.u-a . . ' n s. .- - .. : -.-... . - . o. . u 7 .. . . , e ....-. . - - e . n . . .. ..-.. . ._ ~ -- u .7....... .-.o-A. -. . . \ ww . up. . .. -~--—. . - .. -—.‘uyu 7-.. a... ~.~..- 7.. o - ...-,~., --.--..- .... .7... . e -‘~~-a -— - ->~‘& ...— a . - -... -. A. 7 . ..-. . . .- 1 . u s -......n... o. - —-a. . ... . ... 7 ...-u- ... - e .e . u-u ... I ...... ~.—O L e «a- .. e< .-- .... ~— ... ..77 -.-..- ... ....- I use. ... .- . . .- - “-7..... . . \ . —.. c. . -au -.-... . . .. -e .. . -~‘ c —*e-s Oh. I .~ 0 u ‘ ..- ““- I . . . . .. -... . .7 ...—...»...- .. .. -n. . -7 .. ... -..... ...-“.va .~ - .v.-_- .- . .. . e ... - .\ .. . ..-- .7 . -... .~,,. . .. 7.-. .7. .-......—.. ....__.--....o ...-..— -”... .-» . v- -a.a ----. ..o. -n. . . ”-..-... .. - . ... N... . -. ...-.-.“... ... -7- .... a .- -.. . .- u.-. .s . -.«-.....- . I 4 - . -. ., ...... ... - ...... . . .-- . .r‘. , e u . ._. ..-.7” -... .. - ....7 . . . .. .¢¢77. -.. .. e .--. ...—-... ... ...- . . ~ . . n . . _. ...-.. - . .... ...u. 7.. o . . .. .. e evil“ .u a..- 0 - .....- ...‘n-D . .. . . ...... .....n . .. u -‘- u n -» . - . ..—. ...-......u‘. - '¢.—.-- . s... O I ‘. ..- .-.-..- .... .. 7 u... ,_.., -.7~ . ... ... .7. .n n—.- — 0M. .-.- .- ...... .. ....- .- . ... 7 . .....-.n . ... ... .- -.... .-».. .-.. _ .... 7 —a - .. c<~.-. . .-.. ‘- . 116 SIN careless : : : : : : old : : : : : : heavy : : : : interesting : : : : : : drawn : : : : : resisting : : : : : : tingling : : : : : : boisterous : : : : : {SB-1) careful cruel new light boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty' insane hard simple impelling numb shy unfair indirect leading -.-..- .-~~ - -. . - . . 7. 5 ~.....-. ... . - .< - . . . . ‘ a . Io... .. . . s. . .- .- . . . \ .... 7 . .. . . . - . -. . ... e . .-. 7 . . 7 e . .. . e . .. . . . -. 7 ... .. .. . .. I ~ . s . u- .. -7 : . . . -. .-...._ e~~-— nau- .4: . O ‘ - ... o . 7. . . . ,. . ,7“, _ _. ~ —~-. . 7, - . . ... . ..... - un- . . . . 7' . n-o-uv. . -. n... . 7-.-.... . .... ' e ...J. s .. . .. . a . .. ... .- .. , . 7. .... - . .. .47 v. e. . - e. . e I ~ ‘ . . ..-... ... .. 7 . . . . . .... . e . ... s . ~ .- .- . n. -.-~... ’5- 7 - . . . . .. ...-7 7 .7 .. ...—.... .. u . . .. ... 7 u . ~. ...-7... ‘ . - 7 7. . . ....- n’m.“ -. .- -. .... ~- . -.- -..—...... ~ - . . - - n. . 7 - . ~s . ~.-.. . . .. .... .. 7 - .... -. . .. g . n . ...- . .n... 7-.. a a. . -... . ~. . colorful youthful bad changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed {SA-1) 117 UNITED STATES : colorless mature good stable small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive : slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced weary .n-,."~I u~~ -‘ ~04 . . 7”. .. ~. \g— 9.- -.. -. .. --. ...: u ... ~ . a la. 7.» -. 7.~ . .._r -- ..--.. .. -...7._.. ..-..-7 . .. .7 7.7 . -.-. -7 _. 7« ‘ ‘ _-‘...7. .. . ‘ F ... . -. ...7... ..4. ... . 7. . .. . .. ~ ‘ u I .- ... n ,.-r - _ . .-. ..— , . . ..4 . ' ...”.-. . . -»» ~- u , - .- | v 7 . ‘7 a .. ...-.... . ... .... »-- - ~......-.<_ . 7 -.y...“ . ..7 . . . . " - 7. .v .- . 7...”. 7, .. . A -- .-. 7‘- . . -- _.-—‘... .. V ' ~ 0 x .. 7 u . u- - . 7-7. . 7 ....N. .... t '.‘. . u . w..- .. o- 7 - v . .— . .. n 7 7.... .... ..-. ... . 7‘ 77 - . . .- -.7- .. . A. 7 r , . 7‘ . ....‘ ~ -7. v . .. . -. . 7a.. ..- 77 7 7 _7 7...-* .. -- —.-. ..- .‘ . changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed 118 colorless mature good stable small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced weary u .. 7 .. 7. ... ..- -77-- - 7. .- . ..-—....-. -.. u a- . 7 7 . .. , 7 7 . g a .7 7 . -m... ~- 7.- .. ..-..--.. -.....r....- a. . 7.. .77 . 7 .. 7,. . . . .. .. . - 7- . . .. . . —...- .....7 . . ._ -7 .7- -... -7 . .-. -..--..; -o ~.... . . 7 .7 7 7 _ . 7 n 7 . --.-..“ .... .. 77... .....7.- 7.... 7.... ..7.... .... . -... .7 ‘ . e - 7 , '. . o e . - . . .~_.7 ..-—.7. .. 7.7. .- ....—-. ..--u- -.‘...-..-. . _ 7..,.. 7 - u u v - ...- -.. .. . .... ... . .-7.. -. < 7 .- .7 .. _. --. ...... . 77 7 r ) u ‘ x a . . 7 _....-.. . u... .. . 7.. .. .7 - 7... -..- . 7. - 7 .. _ . .. - ..-7 . 7. .-. . .. . . 7 ,7 . . . o - . I ...-..-—......7 --.. 7 7 ..7 . . . ..-..7.77 .- ... ... . « 7 .....7 . . . ’ a \ . . I . c . - .7., .. 7 -77.... .. . ....7-.. ~a~ . ....-. - .7... .-.. .. .u .. - \ . ..' 4 n I 7 - 7 . .7 7 . . .7. . mo... .. .7 —-... . 7. _ .- .-. . 7 . . . 7 . . . o . ‘ If .» - ‘ . _ .7 ' '7 . '. 7. g . . . . .7-~..7 ...... 7_7 .- ...._. . 7. - 7 . . .. -.7...... . ..- 77 7 .7 7... . o .7. . -. - v . , . . . . -7-..-7..... ‘r . - .... —.7 . .... -.. .- . . . . . . ..7 ,. ‘ ' . . L . ~ ‘ I . 0 v ..- .. ...".-- ...7, .. a . . ... . H . .. - . . .. . . .7.. 7 -. .7 . - -. ‘. ... , g t. I 7 a ‘. | . 7 -.- A u 7,-.. .. . .7 .. . . .-.. . - . .... ...... .. ... 7.- ....- —. 4 . '7 f \ o .7, ‘ I —. - . . 7.. ..7'7— . .7.-- ...-- .- -v- -... -.. .. . ..7 ..77. ......“ - 0' - , y ‘ . ~.- 7. ’7... n -—.."l -.. I— ."771 -‘p. Iv ~~.0.~~—- 7 . ~ C u.. -l -..-4 n . .' . . . . 7 7 . . ‘-... . 7 .-......_7. . ... ...v . ...._.- ...... .-v.. . ...... .... - .. - n . .. I I « . « , 7 7 . . .. ...L... . 7 .-.. ..-. ..-. 0v 7-~..- .~-..~.~.-... ...... .7 .- 7.. -.. .7“.-. 7. , _ ‘ r‘ - - . . , . - 7 ‘- ‘- vv----- -» . an... . ...~ ....0 u...7 1‘". ... *u-‘a‘-'I. . . -.\7. 7 careless kind old heavy interesting drawn hot blunt savory unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair (SB-l) 119 WAR'WITH RUSSIA careful cruel new light boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple Welling numb shy' indirect leading . 7 7 7_ . 7 . 7 . . . .‘7 7 7 . ' . .7 7 77 . ... . - . ... . .a - .7 . ......‘.7 bu~v~-o .. . A. - . .....ua. . -o ~-—.. 7 D . . - 7.7.. . - .-.;7... -..7 . . 7... . a. -.... .... . 7. ...7 .... _-.-- .. . 7..-... . a... .. v.7- . .-. u... 7.. . 7... a q..- .-.-,7... - -7- .. . 7 .7 , . ...“...M..- - ....-. ..- » . . 0 ' . -. 7.... 7.... .-.. -_.._ ..~- . ... ~.<- - .p.7 -... -... .- .7 o ......7.....7._. .-. '.o.v- . . ‘... 7 . A-- . a - .. . . . 7..- - ... 7.. . . *-wu - .. .... -..... . .7 ...-.... -. n . 7 ...... . . . ‘ I o . ... 7-. o .. .... ‘74... . -.. n- .. o. .7w.-.7.- ...7 .7. ..., ... .-. .7 . -. . I c ‘ .....- -. - . a -.v -.- ....-- ... .t 7 . g < O ..7.'._... e7.7 . —-«M.§~» o -. ...-.07 . ...-n - n . . ¢.-. . ...... . - . . -..-.... 77 ..7 e .- ..--. . v.-— .4....o -.—m..... n 7-: .-. o n a... '. .-.77. .. ,7 . IID‘I I. a -. < a .V -.I ..At- V - 7 - n - -o w:- -v~7 l n~ -» 7 .“ . in ' a-r‘ 7:7.‘.. ." g . ‘I ~— c-c ~v"--7~7-'” ‘A ' 0‘7~ ‘ ..- 7..-... 7... . I i . 4 . . 7 ! .----. . .. . _ . --.-7 . , . v.0 la ‘ . ~/. I ,‘ .. O-.. I w u . g t _ 7. ' 7 ‘ II b 7 t ‘ .7-...-,- .... . . careless kind interesting drawn sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous (SB-l) 120 BOULDER : careful : cruel new light boring : propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane : hard : simple impelling numb shy unfair indirect leading 7. ' ' 7.. . - “.7- " ”.-.-7‘ ' .m ‘ . . -.a . 7 -“ __,7 .-..» _. --- e —. - , . .-o‘ ...- .~-' .0 ..- ,7- 7-.-' ‘ _. ..7.-.' 7... .0“ ..-‘ ‘ 7‘ ‘7'- . '7’ .- .u- -“ . , m 7-.. W' - .- .. «v‘ .- ’a . 7 ‘o—' ...-v . n .... ...... colorful youthful changeable large excitable straight disloyal 121 MY MOTHER heavenly : : : : unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed "_ 83.1% 1 ) colorless mature good stable calm curved loyal hellish usual . strong insensitive aggressive : slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced weary l a \ mn.‘.‘ .- 7. 0~7~u . ..7 ....-. >7.7 7...- 7. - .7 ...... . u. ~ ... ..-, n. ......u 7.-. -. .....- .— >‘-- we: . 0.47—o .. .7 . . 7.. . .- . _ , . v I - n- . o . . .. .. . - ‘ - . v n. . 7 . .... .7- .. . 7 .7. .-. - ...-.....4 . ..w.—-—.~o . VOW- ~uu-fi.‘ 7 7.. ...- .. -.-.. .7 u- n -o u 7 . . 7. . up~~-nu< ...--. 7... u 'v-Q7»’ A u-.. I. ~ -o .-. ... . ... _ .. . Ila—no . ... 7......g. .-.7 ... o 7. V .v ..-. -—-~ .- nut-‘ ...—or . . . ‘-a- - ..m . VA”... ...— ..—.-o .7. . -...-.._-.. ... .. . .-.... ..— ~o...—.v-.-. ‘*.<7 '. . .- -.- .... u-...--. a . . n ... .... .- kn.- . —~._ -.. . - .-.-... ... . ...-I o . . 7.... . . ...7... 7 7. ...--..~ .-...-» 7 ....7 .. .7-.. .. . . s . .. .. 7. ...-7 ..- ...7. .- ~ .- ». ~ .. . . .- a ~§v-.o....o . .-.... 77.7 n \ 77. 7. . .7 - ...w u .--..- -.....-.__,___ . -‘~- .... A... . 7......— . . --—--.7.. . «a. - n 77.... - ..-..7 _ -... . ...-”...--. .-o-- . 122 SOCIALISM careless : : : : : : old : : : : : : heavy' : : : : : : interesting : : : : drawn : : : : : : hot : : : : : : blunt : : : : : : savory : : : : : : clean : : : : : : sane 3 3 3 3 3 3 soft : : : : : : complex : : : : : : resisting : : : : : : .tingling : : : : : : boisterous : : : : : : fair : : : : : (SB-1) careful cruel new light boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane simple impelling .l .. ...». s“.-. . >- . —.-- .-Q .r .7 “..»~.«.. . . ----«.- . -o I»- -1 o- -1..- — n. « -.. -u-~ o.- .A< .1». ... -... r .n - ‘v. < w.- .--"~.-’.~ . .l . -.. - .-. . ‘ -...~ -..-.— . n- o . .... . --— _ .. .- ‘— .. -.. .- r... -..r sen... . -~ - .- .....n . ~ . ‘..-... - . v n. A - .— --- (.. -:--.~. .--. A i. _, . ... .-.—....-.- u . . . .. ...-..r A r. ..v.-- o .,—o ‘ . 3 <- . ..---- .- . ...-ion- . . -‘ ...-.- . - » .- .- _ .. -...o< .... .. . ....r - . v- -. .- . - ~ .-.- ..- - , A7... A..- -.. 3 - .-.-- .-. . .... ... .3. . _ M ‘ - ~m . on... - - u - ..~ -~— --.—... .7 »- ...ap~.— ....-.- -‘ «-0 u. . ...-.7 A ... .. .--. o ,..r o_«—.‘ . ... .1..-»- finm- . ..—s . .i 3.. ..-.nmi..' ...- ...,-. . -..u. . M... g .. .. .u - “— ... -4 colorful changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly sensitive defensive (SA-1) 123 ME colorless mature good stable small . calm curved . loyal . hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient : passive drunk advanced weary - ‘_,., . . »... - u .- t ..i, ><.—- ‘ . ..- ....4... v v a. I v... .. v. . .. ..-. . ‘ m o .u .- u... . o . .. .--. - r.—-.~—-v-.u~ ‘ b . a 3 -‘-<-..a.- ‘--. -H-Q-‘ ... 0 - - u. a. ~ I. V‘-~A..-~---— N..- “.... . s ‘-_... .- .. ...... . . A , -..-7.. r ._. “...-..-v— . , ..~ -..~--_.. ...-— .. . ...- .... .— us“ .... .— . c-. 7. ~ A. ... ...-- ~~co ... -.-... .--. - n».-.- _. ~ .. . i a- . . .. .- ‘ ... - .... ..‘4......- -_..< -. a...’ - ,r. ...-...»- ,. a. -w. .... - vo-ryn ...r -7-......-v.. . -.-... .. .. --....o... -..; .--...- u u- ...... -. . h-dhoa—wa -. . “...“- -- ...—o - A...’ - ---——.~—.- -- ~-..-- -.- .I .-o.. ,i .. ,.,. <... .. .. : . _. ,- v-..-_. -.. . ~ ~ - ....o- ~ .-- .. ..-.~- .... C-hrui>.l u..— »—o .....r- --«‘--~.—. ....t .. .-.l..- -—-...—'-‘.OT. '7‘ In... .-~ “...-~- --‘~-‘~-‘ - - -cfi'd. 1--.»-n- .- W- . .-...“g-..-.-‘.*._-,-i. ~ .-_---_. a ..n- curd--...c-nl-vw --- .u- .. .--..-_ “.-.... . M ...... .t....-.....- ,., ., W--. ., ....-. -O—c—ungu— 4 ~-o- . - . J. - , ..- .v - ...-“--....- . . V'w..- --’~o-- ‘ . -‘“-<.-~C.. -~-~.. a- . .-...‘--. ...i -... .---..-. . “...--.- ....A-uOQ...‘ —- “.-->~- < .--.- ..--o.- - .. .V .‘ » .. . . . . .. . ..- ...... .... ».-- Hun—o . ...--. ., . ..-.. .. _ .. .~ - .-..«-. u ._3.-.-..-... “--.-...— .— .- .... ..- . -.- .. 124 To the student: Thank you for taking part in an important social scientific research study which explores public opinion and meaning. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. Since you will be working on several problems in this series, it is important for us to keep all of your material together. Therefore, please identify your material by PRINTING YOUR LAST NAME AND YOUR INITIALS in the blank below. Also, please state your age and sex. Remember that in tabulating the results of this study, your name will not be used and you will not be identified in any way. As soon as we have put together all of the problems you have worked on, this sheet will be destroyed. PLEASE PRINT YOUR LAST NAME AND YOUR INITIALS HERE: Date of birth: Month and year: Please place a check mark in the apprOpriate blank: Sex: Male: 3 Female . . . . . _ . . . . ‘ . 1 . ' . . . » e , . . t . I. .‘ ‘ ‘ . .. I l ‘ u Q ~ . u s I I ‘ -nn—I—OA-I -'-~--n<.h-O‘a- - A— ~~<~ it..——.fi'~~ I » ~ ' ‘ V 0 -’ ~ . '1' a - a . . . . ; . \ r . . ,‘ _ . ‘ _“‘/ . , C « . . . I . . I a. . .. .— .....h. . > .. . . .‘ -.- . .- ,‘ ..-—-..- ...a . . . .- . t . - \ - .---...- . .-.. . .-- ...-......--- D a L “ v I ' . ' I . , t . a ‘ . ..‘J _ - . - .-~>— ......mmwm Part II Department of Communication Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 126 INSTRUCTIONS. The purpose of this research project is to measure the meanings various people have for different things. You worked on another set previously. 1. At the top of each page in this booklet you will find a word written in capital letters. It represents a concept or thing you are to judge. Read the concept, then rate it against a series of scales which appear beneath it. 2. A scale looks like this fair : : : : : : unfair 3. Be sure you make‘yggg judgements on the basis of what the concept means 53 m. 4. ‘fiere is how to use the scglgg: a. If you feel that the concept at the top of the page is yggy closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark like this: fair X : : : : : : unfair fair : ° ' ° : : X unfair b. If you feel that the concept is guite closely related to one or the other and of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your check- mark like this: strong : X : : : : : weak OR strong : : : : : X : weak c. If the word seems only slightly related to one side, as opposed to the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should check like this: a. -' ‘V ' .3 . .3 . . _ , . a .., ) ' l- ‘ ~ ‘-‘.4-—- I —' ...-‘.‘- In..- . :‘W .— ..w. -( . . .7 . d I ‘ n 3 A A "" --. ,. r v‘. I a... .l . (~ . .0 .4 .- a “tram..-‘ . . - .p‘ ‘ 3 t. ' --. . ' . 'u‘- . I . . ‘ r . . " V Q . -‘ ' ' .' ’ K . ; ‘ ‘ 4 I- ' " " ~wun. . '. l- . .‘ n . -‘_1 - ... . - I . .,‘ I .--- .-.. I. w"-..- ..-. - I ... h‘ " v n s on... ... ..._ ‘ -- \ - . ‘ -" ~ ‘. . s V ‘ ~fl a ... -‘.- .. v.‘---Iac _ ~~ . .. . v} . . . | \ r ' a ‘ . f»‘ » .3... , 127 active : : X : ° : : assive active : : : : X : : passive d. The direction toward which you check, or course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seem.most characteristic of the thing you're judging. e. If you consider the word to be BEBEEEE on the scale, both sides of the scale egually associated with the word, or if the scale is completeyy irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should place your checkrmark in the middle space: safe : : : X : : : - dangerous f. IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check-marks in the middle gfwgpaces, not on the boundaries: THIS NOT THIS : : X. : : it (2) Be sure you check every scale for every concept. 22.22.223.292:- (3) Never put more than one checkemark on a single scale. 5. Sometimes you may feel as thought you've had the same item before on the test. This will not be the case, so gg’not look back and forgh through -.. -I the items. Do not try to remember how you checked similar items earlier in the test. £935 £933 Egg 2 separate 9251 independent judgement. 6. Work at fairly high speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the items,that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because we want your true impressions. (PLEASE TURN PAGE AND BEGIN) ‘ . u '- .. O D I ‘0 '0 -_-— pi- ..A “1 . r _ . a ‘ . . . . . .a o a. .-- .. «.-.. . .. a . . t *.r... ; . ~ ._ . . 7 r, , r A, A . . I e ' . . a .' '- "‘. \ - . ~ .. t , a. A ‘ . . a ‘ y I: . I — . . e ~< , . .- , r I V . ‘ V n' " . D‘! .. __ ‘ . ~r - A' ' . . . ' . ‘ . .‘H ‘ ' v V . J. . ‘A . . . ... _ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . .- c. s” A r. _ ' . ~- ‘p,. ’ - _ .' _.l '- ' , r v' -' A A . . ' e i . .7 n a l , \ \o: n' u . - . .. . .. a . ; 2,‘ .~ I . J - ‘ ' n. (I, - . x . ‘ .. i - r - a 7* a-a'v -- -_ 4".a10 ~ '<§U-v.“- O >. arcs-we -ICIQ ' e- ; - - - l A a . . ... |,.". . - . - . ‘ --. I‘ "“." ' . n ' ‘ V - . - . ~ - I-A - ‘ , ~ 3 .. .. . . . .. ....i 3 ..o , ..'.).l. i , Inl. .11,‘ _. u ~ ~ . < n 0 ..- - . g . ' i -" -\- --.-‘-~O-n O \ - ' V ' u v .. _ . .. .. ‘n‘hc a}: I ' I K" A'. . - - ' o u 3 a . ‘ . r... H .. . . . .i. .- .. 4 r . . . ...---. ...".-. .v .- .1 9 . .- .... . -..- - H . .. .-. . , p ., . _ . , - ., . ( { . - I . . . . ’ ._ . ‘ . , ’ Ow. . I n . . ‘ ‘ ~ -~- \ 7' O .7. h .1 . . . O V ~ s1 '- ‘ . - .-.. 3 ' » 4 ‘ . ‘0 ‘ . A . . . A . ~ - . \ ._ . . - p r A . . ‘ 0 ~- 4 ~ ‘ ._ . - ,\ '1 n . , . 1 A . a: , ‘. ' ' ‘ O , O ’ — -I c u i » ' ‘ - .. ‘ . ~ _ . - ‘ . - . _ .’.| ,I v . , ' . , .' - a .' . . ~. I . o -_ -, )wc. ,. . ~ - ' ‘ A s , ' ‘ . . ‘g _ - - ' . a ‘ ‘ . . .r _ e - , r: , s . A . ‘ . . ‘ . t ’ . . '| ‘ ~ , !_ . ' . ‘ A - . . . , g - u . ‘. 9”,. V ,,.. . " . . - ‘ .' ' ., ‘_A,,' ..., -,. u .... n n e - o n . a I --I ...-“bl I t I I I " . ( g . . ... I . . . ‘ - . I -‘ - s ' ‘Q ,. I ‘ . ' .. -. . . - p. . - ‘ . u 3 '. . . . ‘ - I ‘-. A" a :l‘l 'v... ‘ - _i, \_ "l. .. - l . . I . '~ . ~ . . ' . I. .. A K - .’ .. . , . . ‘ -... . :[h T .- , \ ‘ r . r» a ‘ A ‘ ' ‘ mf‘ ( ., J ‘ .V . ,- - .. A .. -_ ... . i- II" ‘ ‘- 0 .. I Q colorful youthful changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed (SA-1) 128 DEATH colorless mature good stable small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced weary .‘p~ ...- a.-. ....- “he... . mi- . .... “a- - ,.--.“-. ., A... ....“ cvo‘..~v a. . -I~-. a. e :9. ... a .- ...-.... p. .- ,- <0. .- —.- ..‘O-~Q~sr u--.--uo- .— . ,u o'- . . u . - . c . . an... I-G. ..--u e» >-— -a ...-mo .. ..-. . .... - ... ‘o-o... -.-c...oe.~¢-~o .... a. a.- -- ~ u u ‘4.- .. 0 ~ 00- an. ... . - I‘~‘ a l . .u 0. a. :y. ..--- u po----.— ... “-.....“ . -..- ._ ....-.. m‘vonvu . ...,“ --. - cues-...... ...-‘0 ..——o..--—Q ...-'0‘ ~0— --.o- 0 ~00... .-. .--- .. ed “1..., . .- ‘-. sown --.1 ”wIQ.-- ..n—...,-- -. 0‘...o ....q DO-.lrv .htaounomt ,5..- - ...—.9-H~.- .. “..--a -. my... ...-...... QF«_‘”~ ”.I"”“ -“"N *h r . -. ...-.-.; *ewm o ,pcA—v ”-.06—- 0-":- a -..... ..-... .. pr. ...—on~ -..—0....“ .»-—. -..-” -.. ~ u . l.) .....-. .--‘M -. . -_~_--1 a- o~ o”.- --I— "‘8 ” angu-ua-uu .- c “-0—... .- nut-C... ~r¢-«-—. _-. a“... .~use. no- -.-- ..-. mac 'IQ‘I’.‘ - ...-.-cp-ae ~ 0... “a“... _...-..- - .. . : . . .‘3‘ ’ II. ‘ . .,{ ‘ - .. .- , , . . _‘ .., . ., .- 1‘. .i - 'I '- o'fr)“;3 Fl:- . ,- '~: I). .- . IL . - - - ‘ ’ !.-. . " '\: IV ‘ : ‘ r,- , ‘ A Jul . ‘ .s .' l. I '. .A _‘ .‘ ~- "Q IV ‘CA 0 3i 1:. ‘. _ J‘,’ . f." l' | "‘ P .- 3 . .. VA_.-. .. 'I‘ 129 MODERN ART colorful : ' : : ° - colorless youthful : mature bad : : : : : : good changeable ______: : : : : : stable large ____: : : ' : : small excitable ______: : : : : : calm straight _____3 : : : : : curved disloyal._____: : : : : : loyal heavenly._____: : : : : : hellish unusual‘_____: : : : : : usual weak ___:_____:_____:___:_____:___:____ strong sensitive _____5 : : : : : insensitive defensive‘_____: : : : : : aggressive fast‘_____: : : : : : slow angular _: : : : : : rounded severe _____: : : : : : lenient active _: : : : : : passive sober'_____: : : : : : drunk retarded _: : : ° : : advanced refreshed : : : : : : weary (SA-1) ,, J ' ‘l ' . , ' , . _ ‘. , . 3 . - 3 - . v»- , ... .9 ..- ..."..-3 “or- v -..... A . -....-...—. 3 .-...~-..‘3 . . - 3 v! .3 . ‘ ' o 3 A :' . 5 3 . A ‘. . -i . V-o 37-. . -A .-. . ... —--. . .. . u...- .. _3- -‘ o -- o- a... A ~ .- ... -...- ....,. . 3 ...-.., . 3 . 3.»... ..-. -- H3- .-- ~ - ~¢ . , -.-.—.. . u 3 . ,. - - .33.." -.., "“H—O‘» -. u... , .. -... o . ”-..—g .v-o-v--. ~ ‘ . 3 3 - - ‘ ' 9. ' a 'A, A , . . . J - 3 - - --~ - < "- w... M-" ...-- O Q -~-» 3.-o~—_ . .... .u.. 3-...“ .4» 3” - 3 . » 3 . ‘ ~ ' - ‘ ‘ 3 3 . -.. 3 .- ..L . I. : ..-. . - A~._,.r. ., 3 -. ”J... . ... . .-...t---_~. .a.-....-- o 3 " '- “ . ‘ ‘ "\ v ‘ “ 3 3 A . 3 . a. v» .- my“. ..... o»- 3v...-3 .. .-. 3. ‘.., .. .. ...— .a. c-v- ... . -‘a¢-— . rpm—A 3 .3 .. v . ‘ . ~- 3.» .- ~ ... a.._ , 3 -( - ‘3... . w— a ....r- -3 3. ”3.“ . ». .A..-. .-.‘....—...- . I ..-" - ' ‘ ' 3 'Il') VI. . , , , . .. , .. . A -- . - A_v3.- a 7.. . ' .. ‘ . . »3 .«a - ~s.~.—.—.~ - -.3 .. Nip-in- uv - ~'5 a I ‘v ‘ I , , , » 3. f\ | a A , _ 3’s . > A . v33- - -..A.-3~ -.3 1'-|- .. A 3 - ...-....- .-3 .o . v.3» ..- .--..3» ...--3 ‘ A 3 . , - v . - * .A.,.,..»v- .- - 3..—---~-H»—'~ -.-“ .... v .wu‘~~.. “.....-“ .7 V. --.—.... 3. .--o-——---~ - 3 3 , ' no ‘3 ‘ l . ~ . . . . L ‘ \ . 3 , .-.A .: , . - 4. .- , . ' “ .3.--..-.-—o— -—-- ..~._.. ‘--.3. 3 - “mg-r- ~ - - -“-~I~n— .—.--——~oa .‘ . 3 - 3 3 _ . "- ‘ ' 3 . . 3 w -~-o -> "-r“ ‘u‘ ~~~~ 'O-‘ I' ‘ - “‘-~ ~-. ~ ~— I none-”a“ o—o-OoQ-w‘v- - I . . a . . - ‘ - ‘ . v . 1 I ‘\ -/ . I , . . .... ' 3 n . . .3~ 3. . - .— 3 . -— . .— 3 ~» .-3 - . 3 -—« 3. .. 33 .A..~-~ ...“..- >«—3.c—a- " "v . . 3 3 ' . , ' . 3 ' . 3 3 . .._ .-. .3. . .7. ——-a- .--- : .. . ~ -...A . .. -.., , -< . _ 4‘ . .....— ...~—.: ‘ r - . . . . A . . i . . , . . ..- - .. v- ...A . . ... -.. . , . ..-, .3. . . .__ H .-. .u- .. ..- ..-..- .o. . v3. --....i..-3 ,. ca 3 .. A ..-. ‘ . . e . -3 . v ...V- . . 3. .. -. . <.-.—v . A. 3.3.- ..u. 3 .- 3 ... A ... . ~ 3... - . a .3 .. 3 3V v-OI-‘C ... .7...-.. .. -.-.“- 3 ,.. an...“ , . - v -.— .- .—-.—...o .7 . 37.. -—.,—.3 ~-:“,.....-—- “-..--3- '3- . ....vIV- -3 130 MY'MOTHER careless : : : : z : careful kind : : : : : : cruel Old ' : : : : : : new heavy : : : : : : light interesting boring drawn : t: : - : : propelled hot - z: : : : : cold blunt : ' ' ' : : sharp savory : : : : : : tasteless unexpected : expected clean ______:_____:____:_____:____:_____:____ dirty sane : : : : : : insane soft _____:_____:____:______:____:___:____ hard complex _- : : : : : simple resisting : : : : : ' ~impelling boisterous : - - - - - shy fair : ° ' : : : unfair direct : ' ° ' ° - indirect following leading (SB-1) 131 careless ____:______:_____:____:______:_____:____ careful kind._____: : : : : : cruel 01d : : : : : : new heavy : : : : : : light interesting _____: : : : : : boring drawn : : : : : : propelled hot : : : : a: : cold blunt._____: : : : : : sharp savory _____3 : : : : : tasteless unexpected._____: : : : : : expected clean _: : : : : : dirty sane : : : : : : ‘insane. soft._____: : : : : : hard complex _: : : : : : simple resisting ______: : : : : : impelling tingling _: : : : : : numb boisterous _: : : : : : shy fair _____: : : : : : unfair direct‘_____: : : : : : indirect following : : : : : : leading (SB-l) . . 3. .3 3 33 3 333 3 3 3 . 43-. 3 . - .3 3. 3 - .-3. . . . 3 . . . . . . 3 . . 3 3 ,A . 33 r - - 3 . . 3 . .- 3 A . . . ,. . . .. 3 3 3 3 ; . l 3 . 3 3 3 - - 3 . 33 .13.;3333. 3 3.. 3 . H .. . .A . 3 3 3. . ... a ‘ 3 . ~ 3 ‘ ' 3 . , ...- , . —.. A .33 . . . .. . . 3 3 . 3- .‘z' 1 . 3 3 3 3 .,_.. . A . . . . 3 i , . ., _ . . . 3 -- -- .— . . _ , . 3 - 3 - . 3 3 3 . --. . . r 3. 3 .. A , .. . . 3 .. 3 . r .3 . 3 -3 . ’., .. 3 . . . ‘ . ‘ \, ' v 3 . . 3 .3.- 3- .. . A . . ,. - .. 3 . ,. . 33. — 3- 33 - 3 . —. ,. v » , . . A . » 3 , _ . 333..., r. ,. . . , , . ,3... 3.3. 3‘ .- . . .3 . 3 .- . - 3 . 3 33 3 --3 . . , , . . - . A . 3 ‘ vu-O.-o—-‘-o- . . r3. . .. . 3 ..3 3 , .3 334.3 3 . -.3 .3. 3... ,3, 3 - . . , . 3 r ' . . . 3 .3 -3 . 3 . 3 . ‘ 3.3- 3..-. 3 ... . 3 3.. 333 - . 3 3 . - 3 3. 3 as 3~ 3 --- - -. 3.33- n - 33 f- . . . a -3 33. . 3 3 3 , r3 ‘ .—33—. —. ..3 3 > v' -- s - ' - 3 .' '.~ A 3 . 3 . - I t -3 >3 3- - . . —3 .3 ..--33. ---.- .. . . . - 3--.. .-. - ...- 3 . , . _ ' _ ‘ . . 3 .. . . . ‘ , ~o-3 3. . , .»... -..-33 3 3 3 3. > - 3 3- ~ -- 3 3- ‘ .r . , . . . 3 I - . 3 ' .~ 3.3.... 3 . 33 A 3 v.3 333- ...-...,-.3 .. . 3 .--3‘ 3 o . 3 .... 3 , - " 3 . 3 . . _-..- . ‘ 3 ~ . 3 . .3. 333—333- ~ -~~o. 33-3. 3 --,33-3-.. . -- 3. . ... . 3. 3 .3_~..3 .3. 333-... l 3‘ ’ a Q 3 o ' ' 3 ' c 3 , o A 3 3.. .-.33 n. . A . .3 ... 3 ... 3 33 3.. ...--.3-3- . 3 .3 —3 3 e ,(‘.: 3 r 3 3 g . 3 3 , . 3 3 . . . .3 _ 3. ..-.~’,- .- 33.. . . 3.. .. 3 . 3 3.. 3. 3 .- 3.- . .- 3 3.3 — 3 3 ' ‘ i Q s 3 3 u . . j " ' ' a . . 3 ‘ ‘ ' --. 3 3 3 .-3333 333.-....3 .. - 33-3. . 3 3 33. 3-... -... .A.. ~ .3. 3 ..3 .33....33- 3. . 4‘ ‘ 3 3 3 3 3 ' " . 3 3 . -. 3. 3 3.... 3.3.3.-- 3 ......3» 3. 3 -.- 33-33.- — 3. .-. , »- ... 33-.‘- no- ‘- 132 WAR.WIIH RUSSIA colorful ______:______:_____:____:______:____:______ colorless youthful : : : : : : mature bad : : : : : : good changeable _____:______:____:_____:______:____:_____ stable large : : : : : : small excitable ______:_____:_____:______:____:_____:_____ calm straight : : : : : : curved disloyal : : : : : : loyal heavenly _____: : : : : : hellish unusual : : : : : : usual weak : : : : : : strong sensitive : : : : : : insensitive defensive : : : ° : : aggressive fast : : : : : : slow angular : : : : : : rounded severe : : : : : : lenient active : : : : : : passive sob er : : : : : : . drunk retarded : ° ° : - : advanced refreshed : ’ : : : : ‘ weary (SA-1) a «-, - 4 9 ~ _, .. ..-~-~ - Q,“ _ ... is- n . . ,n ~.“~v.. . a . -., .-‘- I. v .o' ' a ».. -»_»‘~a o -. - ..‘ vb» » . ~— -..-~- o..,..- --.—.- -.,— ...- ...-... r..- ~.. - -7 . -..-... ... .. . “v -- ,‘ , .. .— n , , . .7- , .. I , . u - C ..-.-- ---.“--‘ ..--q. '--' "‘ ‘ . 'V _ _, , . ,,. s ..- -,.... . v- ~ 0 . ... r. . ..- ‘ , .-‘A .- .0 ’ - .~ --- . r- ...... . ._ ...~ . - " Q ~ " ‘ _ N , ., u...... . o , _‘ .‘. u... - ' a ...-a. -‘-n c--~----~'~- 1‘. _ .-..» ...... ... .... ....o— -. -—--- -o .. . -» - . . -7 - _,_ . v , H -o - ' ' .. . ... . I .. . .- .. . o» i -u."‘" ‘_ ,. M - . , . ‘— , .. _,.. ‘ . o I .s-u.‘ 7* ' ' —- o . “" . ... 'O‘ " ‘- ‘ -- ra- fir" - . .mc -"' .-. u . A- . . . ... .. .... .n- ..~- - -—-A , . . - .-.a - - - .- . .. ---. ...»: ~. ,— ....r . . . \v--4- .-¢ .- ..- .— - .~.-.. » ,_,. - o _-, . - colorful youthful bad changeable : large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed (SA-1) 133 colorless mature good stable small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient passive _advanced weary . v ,r I . . . 14 Q A l ,_ , l - J o'\> . , ‘ .. '— ' f . w a. »»». . . «..- - . . ~.~ u“ ., — . _ u . V-.-.r . ... .. —. .-... . s l, ..- . U. ..- . -, .n t, . - . , _4_‘.,,, o .. a..- .- . -‘. s r “" ~-—I. ‘ *I‘ v \- Q‘ I .l c' ‘-.u ... —- - _‘ .. . ... . . . v-u . .-~ ...-...r. .-.. . u . m a. “or. -7. .. .. - ..l. n -..... .. u... -. -- . . ~o-.-. - In ~‘ .I. - § V v‘. . -u-— I ‘C r.- ‘11-. n -.A . .-.- -... .. .... . . ~.. l. . . -»--.r—-¢Io. .-- ...... . 00-wu-. ,.. '. uf~ w. - . -a a- . ~0- . .- ....“ . - ~ . . ._. .- .s-w. ,. o o ~oo-— ‘ ... .m. . .. ..- . i . . - -‘—.a—-1‘- .-.... ,. . ‘ .7.. . . ~ . , . ....——.—, . - n - ... \ ~ .-.-. v o c o u. . .. . an..- ....-. ...... .-. . .,. . .-.-.h . . u a». u -‘o« ‘ .... ... . .. --.... --. .. . . . o ... . ,k‘, n “' bv-r“.¢\-'l'.l ..-¢—o -- - ... ..-. ..- r. . . - -o~ « ...-u. . . . «a ' -... -‘ a , ..-. t-Qr a - o A s. u.- n. . , a. a u a - .— - -. ...» 4. a .4 v . ‘ o - ~.vu..-~§ .. ~¢ . I , . I o . - ‘I‘I . a -. - _ .s _ v ‘ - . ..-- .~— ~ . .. . ...... , .. .-~\ .u .o - . » ...... .-~--- - .... o o . --.. t». l ‘ ..- . A .... .- . . d n . . « .—.. v .. .-.. . ...—o-- , , .. ...... : ......r. . m ‘. -- ~Mvcv- . . - . ... , u—a» —~.._- . - . ~~~ , , ... -...s. .‘ --- .-.“... , V . . ,\ .-. ... ».- . . .« .... ~.> n 'Uui- - ~o w. .... . --.n— a 9'» ~_~.Q‘ ”A" ...—...... -. ' ' "' .- - ‘»-~,.-~Do ...-... a v -- --- -—v- »_.—--.u ~-- . o---<~-- - «yo-.....- -> - ‘>~.‘-‘~“ - .o‘.‘~§. . -- vawglv .. . ‘ . . I. y-‘. v.-¢. ‘~ 0.. ...-.- .. .. 9‘”. l.r.o'.o - ex .1 \ . n u . . u r .. ~ ., careless kind old heavy interesting drawn hot blunt savory unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair direct following (SB-1) 134 o careful cruel new light boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple impelling numb shy unfair indirect leading ..>‘-r ‘ , t . c o ,, - - a. t ......o- . ‘ . A. .. - _ .- - . ,. awn-o" ' - o o- -A- ' .a-‘vo- v" ..r. ,._, t. .. V-..,._ --.. ....s...‘ -H-~ .» . n .-.— ...: .. ..- o u . - a .0. n o— _, “~- . —c. ,,,‘ n ' -..» n ‘v . . o _ . ., s n ‘ v. r c s . ...-J ' . v . -..-. ..-—- -"-o— - .... .. _.. n .o .V-‘ ‘ . an, . V.. ‘, ..v .--‘- -—.. . .7 a o o A“. ... . ..- . . v-. o»- : u .: . I ~'v ' ‘ ..-... .... .- . . ...»-.. ,....-.._ . . ...”... -— --» .. a... . , . . ... i . .7. o . _ .. .- . - er.--” «s. - ‘ . . .. 0" - . V. o -- , ‘. .-.-.- .--_ - - ' , 7.... An- ‘ lo'flufir-‘ - ..s. colorful youthful bad changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual weak- sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed (sa-n 135 NIKITA KHRUSHCHFV colorless __ mature good stable small ______ca1m curved _____.loya1 hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive ______ slow rounded _____.lenient passive drunk advanced weary ,. - .-. . .'~ ‘. v..- n.- . A. I . “\ >¢ “ . ‘. .. ..a. . . ‘ u - _ ‘— . A. . - s» - 0 ..-.~ -- . .v~a..... s. .‘ ,. . . ... ...- . ~v r. . .. m . . ... ... . ._ — . . . .. .A i , ,. . . a r A - u r---.— — ...- , n x l a .7 .. . I ... s v . c .. . ~- A .. . e . ... \ . . - , . - . . .A.-.. u 4 A .- , ._ ‘~~ ~_.. ._ ..- ' .~ -....-u - . ‘vw. .. o . .. ‘ t, o . -- - ..r . O .l. .-.. . . u 0 - .. -- — -.-,. ...».-.— u ..-... . ...7. - . --A. .r- -x . ..V. .-.... ... A A.-» . .— no. - a. < o -_ . ... ...r.._.Ar. . - -7 ~ . ‘. . A .. A .-. .- -.. . . -_ ‘ .. . ...e— careless kind old heavy interesting drawn hot blunt savory unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair direct following (33-1) 136 BIRTH careful cruel new light boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple impelling numb shy unfair indirect .leading . l ‘ ’0' . 4. . .. Q a o- -~.-.A . e v no- ..., ... .7 . -..- . . ..- A._ .... - q , o. .- I .... ...A. -.. o « ..u.u e . . r. .‘.,. O 4 ° "' 9‘. u- s l v ..".:-~.s.. . e r--_..<...- o ... » . A \ p e «vo- .. - u-om..‘. . . 0 o. ‘5‘.“- - a. - .,l..., . .g. . --~.- A A .. .‘ .. .A . . ~o< ,, . r.. t. . c-A .. .,A .. .. - - . ,, u -. A,. ~ ... ... a ..-. . o—«I ~ - . A. -... ...- .. vs- m...“ . -.. .‘ ,- 5... ~. ..--..- o . -¢.-.-A e» s-‘..A. ~.- . u A a _. C ~ - e-.- o ,,‘,_ , . A C ‘ . .. «HA-.— - D ‘-0 --¢_ - s -—- . q A A . - .- l . ..-..1 - i H. rA.“ A s ..-... ~ ‘4 -. I V... . _, ou~ -..- o .Q ....L o - ... --..- .e . ... .-. . .. A ... .~ ..-.A .. -..... , . . - . ... .. ...- u . ....V . e ,. --.-~ . s o -.- s. a- - ~-- .-_ e . . ~ - . . . A» . -- A. - . o . . , .. - » .V_ .. r-r -~ . .-. -. .. .-...- .o .- . . o--.— e ~A — .. .-...." -... ~ .- . . s r--« . . n s s . - . - - .-. - _. -A A,-. ' s i . . .... : ..r . _,,_ An A . op -- . . ... . r- . .....au-u-oqne .. . . ... .. -_ p s ...... -.~. ~ V74. . . .... -.. .H-—-.., s s .-. .«— .A-~A.A-. c A.... .A ..... - .- . _ _- ... .. . . . ... .... I ..A—n.».-. . .o-~...‘.. I - .-..- ‘u. V.l..-o‘A-_ ...A. . oqus - . ,A-‘-...... . v 7., «a». ...—.. ---. .. A... . e ..-- -».....-~< - -.. . ‘ .~ . A c. .,. ..- ..- Io.‘ . ... . . _....»¢ .....- - -. A .A., .... . c ...on. . r... . v. . . ». -.. g-o ..w. ...... . -¢‘~. .....A... L.. . 137 UNITED STATES careless._____: : : : : : careful kind ____43 : : : : : cruel 01d : : : : : : new : : : : : : light interesting ______: : : : : : boring drawn : : : : : : propelled hot : : : : : : cold blunt._____: : : : : : sharp savory _: : : : : : tasteless unexpected ______: : : : : : expected clean : : : : : : dirty sane : : : : : : insane 80ft : : : : : : hard complex : z : : : : simple _____,_____,_____,impelling tingling . 3 . . . . numb resisting - : boisterous : : : : : _____..____.._____._____._____ 8h? fair : : : : : : unfair direct : : : : : : indirect following : : : : : {83-1) ..-v ‘ r _ I - v< :3 ‘ ' e -- c- . - .... u w— —-.‘ .... -.- e”... .. pp. ... .- A. . - ‘n ... I . - . | - . - . .... .,...A .... . *.-A-~. . . . . .—. AA... . ...-.... ... ~ u...- ..,- A e ~ I Q . . o A— . ~“A .A. a ... v—V. mm.--..A-. ...A. I"4.--¢--. ‘ , o ..A. u<~ V L‘ ' v a . ~‘ 3 . ~v—v‘¢lv.—-I A,_, . ...: . -. .-.. .‘ ..-.... -.. ,. .-A A. _ .. ...,v a v e ' ,I s u .. J - e ~ -~ “-Du‘ --- ...-a~-» a. n .._A- .A AA 5 . ,»_ ....- A .. u ...“-«.c .. .. . . ’ ‘ ° ~r~ .- w .. . ~-.l..~ --.._...A.. ... . . g.‘~.. . -..»J. A A g . « r-u ,. I A 1‘ . . r .. _ ’»“-"§' I. h- -fi‘uvec- Ibs~ll w. b Able... '- ‘ C. . --v«A.~ a I ---t n- A ‘0‘ "~‘ I !- . i _ e l; --. ..‘m n...~-— -~ -....uamagn. -...- . . -...A . Co—v .. .A .. ~ v s .. .A. ‘.l L . . u . l A AA . , . . . ..—... .... . .— v ....-‘,.. .A. .... ...A q s- . .... A -..fi -. -..-...... .. . ... . ‘ . :N ' e - on ..w-. 4 |—-. ur.r- A - . . e ..- . -- A. .-.-A ~ - A4- .A A - - .«<.- ‘-r -‘~ ', \ ' .‘ «. - ~ _ . 'oa-x -. 9- n . 0‘ e - A A- - - .- w—- o-. . o . ~4 - -.I ‘1' ‘ . A n 7A . . .-~. .- .... -A..A . ..-. ..A _. .‘. .. A. . I.. - .. A ~ . ..... . .-. A. r»..A - Z . . D ‘ V ‘ e u a \ A A . ...—. ”...... . _.. ,‘. .- .~ A... ....u . - ... .. - .AA— . .. v . A s 2:: . . . n s l " ‘ ' a - \ p e s ~ .- - . . . w > ~.- g.“ - .-. . , -e.-.-4-- .. . ,_ a A- -. --¢.- ...-.., - r ~ ~~4~n~ - A' ' -~ . . .. A y , 1 l ‘ ‘ a - A s e . A , . . n e o- — A. . . ‘.-. .--.-u ».-A ~- .A . -A -..-~ ~-- - ~ M‘. . A..- .AA A .. . ., . . e ' ’ a A u e e -----o - VAAA-e‘t. ~-..~ ... -.. . . .-< A A... A... .A . .e» u ' . n I I C § . A . . . A .. .-A- ... u.-. .. ...- . -.....- w-..~. _.. .. ..r -...“ ~A... . —. ' A.... - AA A . . In .| . . . . _ e - ~' .... ‘ u . ~ Q .-. -..—.-. ..-. A. ,“ ... A . -v‘ n a «0. . n-ov -. — . ..., 4 A A ....,__ . ‘ .- ‘,A o e‘ . , A . . ‘ . . - — . A . . . s ‘ -Vv o. .- 9 ~ 0 - - . . a .-.... . . -.—.~o~-- -~ -- «eu- -. ... -. A A-. . - u.— s . .. . . , -. ,7 ‘ , . s . | Q . . . A e . . . o c ’ Wu.” -.~~'-r . e-o‘u -. .- - a - .«n ...-..g- use- sub... ~~.~. .v-vI~. - I 138 colorful : : : : : : colorless youthful . mature bad 0 e o e e a good changeable ' ° - ° : : stable large 0 e a a e a ”all excitable ......= 3 ‘ ' ° ° calm straight : : : : : : curved disloyal : . - - . - loyal ““931? _: : : : : hellish unusual : : : : : : usual weak : : : : : : strong sensitive : : : z : : insensitive defensive : aggressive fast ______:____:____:____:____:_____:____ slow angular : : : : : : rounded severe _: : ° ° '- ‘ :_____ lenient active _: : : : ° :_____ passive sober _: :- : : : : drunk retarded _: : : : : :_____ advanced refreshed : : : : : : weary (SA-1) ~ J T\. s I rP“°‘l _ ‘A‘_".l,'.’. Q '4 I F ' r '0. I. . “ I n ‘ '9 I. 4 ' ,”_. .. O . a. .3 . . ..‘I."‘ . .< .e A- : -‘.V ‘1 ~\ - H .. ' r ~J.. 'a‘ ‘ -. ‘9 i':"".A’ .;.34 I H I .' .ul ‘ ~r A .1-1. '- . -~s- .. .I c -'A, u .— J' A - . |. . ‘Do'op: . _. .... .n-O-c-roto. - ~0--v.---oa.- a-‘sna. .. .-. ...- u—o'..-l- C a “- -.. ~- .4-. O O v b v —.ao-¢v ”a. o e cam--- so... ...... A~§~ O ..-“- -.....n-a— . O“. oh- - e “-.Amo.. u ....n— ”.....- ---.--A «no. ~¢.'---—‘ www.‘ o. «o. --- ~ ”—Aum 3“ ... ... ...—g ..- ‘ n O- --“O‘” - .---m- . u-A--...~n-¢. g ...-a -0..-“ - v vM\ -n .-.-‘-. ~-..~~. >—. . Ap- .- ... ~O-v .w- a -a. nun a“- A5 ..a‘ -.”.--e n- .r 'c-Oo—-.‘. neon-..aa .... ... - an ~I watt—-.5 w-Os .....— .‘ v.-..-.~. .-A ...-As- ...~,.§ ...-- ......A_ -.I‘a. u-eeco—m 0‘, 0A 110-.“ I ~. A. ..- .. ”~0- -~‘ -9--.” 'w-n—D-cscv ...-u. --.- a One. 0...”.-- - “-.— ......“- -..-*0 e “do e 0" “- no~ - “me-...- ’—ocs car—- - “0‘ u a-‘--I .p... '- Q. ...-.0 o. I...“'—.- l ‘a-n-a. -. ’5. . ._—.—.-“.-, M'.~.i' . e-s ......- no... "...“a “.4 a ...-“ne- 1 o I ‘ eeA-.o... .. - e—O.-.~o.\ e a a» -..-M- Q ~-.-.—\’oo - c“ I “GU-.00 -I‘~-“ W “~‘« 9 w ’ "use , ‘ -‘ O 00...... ~V‘. \wr'-fl“ ....- -~ .-.—; -~w.— - - cu...- - ”0'... . . “co-a. a» cue. 0-..— . ... --~.-.-ov~. a ~e . -00-A. . ---.o--n - oar. .- o .— u I ...-Q. ~.—-.. Q 0... ...“. a -~»-H-. .- O C .o— .m..a. a sun—.- “-.o-aa I o ..-. ... .... sue ‘0’-“‘.‘ can no a ...* w*-' «.-.-v . -_ma‘on C ... ...—-...- e o. .-A -u..-.- u . 0 ¢W~Mo' -.au -- pa- camwa -.-‘ rem-van . 0 mm: ‘ao ...—nu-’ .-~~'~~~ -«wm» 5M. '. no ...a “We‘la‘. .e >.- ....onvvs ...0. 0-00 _ - ---- - MO- -AM.‘ -.-. A .‘ .I-o§s- .1. . 5”“! - § 0. .— * “.0Qo- *..~ a... e..- -- .01-2C: v I I r a v . ...A 0‘ rA '.‘.L'.' _.‘ .A , I ‘ a v . . ’f'e T . “ : l ‘e‘ . ‘ ‘l ’ .u ..\-«s r ‘ A“ o '- ‘ ' 5 .5 .5. . . 'V " I .‘ > r<- .. ...» ‘rya ~ ' A . \I l ., A :. - . A \: ‘ e’,‘ .I '- V . .?~)t‘ s, a . -‘ . .‘t‘ . 139 BOSPIIAL colorful : z s x z ‘ colorless youthful - - ~ ° : : mature bad - ' : - g 3 good changeable - z - - - 3 stable . e 0 3 m1]. lme a——:——-:-a—— °——— .en-I—u- ...—— ———— emcitable ° - - z 5 : calm straight : - - - - - curved disloyal . - - : - - loyal hellish heavenly : : ° : : unusual : - - - 0 - usual 'weak : - - - - - strong sensitive : - : . . - insensitive defensive : : x : : : aggressive fast : z : : : : slow : - 5 rounded angular : : : ._____g____.u____. severe : - - - . : lenient active : : : : : : passive retarded - : : : : : advanced refreshed - . - - . - weary (SA'I) ...-w... . . - ...-.-.. . A...A... -. - ’0‘ . ..-. .. . ... ka . s C'- D ‘01. .A ... A. . . -‘OIMI ' " o n .n ~~uoe--—« .- c.. u. o . .0... o a.... ...».A -..- e - g a ... so~ ——. - . .-.. .a .. -‘s---e n-. 3“."- .-.-. O-o-s-Ov..-” a. a....- “...... os- - s -- - e. a..« .. . ~og- a ...-wet . A... - .a ...—.9- *.~.¢—-.a ao-A—A 0.....— Q --.-’0 l-”-.~ . .....«s—‘n-“v e ...—~~—-— .fi a- .- --..“ ..-~... ~-\- n ‘1‘ ‘ I O . O 0 ~- a e. an 9-0 u- e - est. c saw-.I o. to»... O s s s A 0- ....-~ no -‘oo-e DO. I a Q . v. --u- a- ne'- - I I . ' e . . ... . . .-~g-..--~—~ « ~Uo.‘ .. u - I. . -. O - - . ‘ o- O s e . O O s o .Ae--~._.- Moo-nag...- ~--~...e.... 9. --.... ...‘ .a. . .-.-.-. O O s s I - I 0 up..- -.‘s « ~ .-.-m m. a" w-...—-- ~ . ..‘ - e I O s O O 0 e w— - “-0-... 0 e 0 e e O s s e 0 ¢-.- - ~00. Wm Mv ...-eon. “d ”em 0 O O n e s . . "m . A~~o~ .- w o O I O . s s g 0 ----—-..-o - O ' e O a D O I I I ww w ...-qr - - .0 *‘oe— s t 0 u e a .a.....—. .*”~ -.- w --.o a... ..e........ ca -o.----‘-.. I O O C I o . .~.o ”a --.“... s I 9 I I O ‘M- .-.. - .. -....- .- .—.—.~-- . -- .-«o—-.. ‘o-—’-* a - I O O . “M~-- .-.-...“.-. .A....A. e-- —.--.-a.-.-< .-...w . .. u o . I e e . v ~ a- ‘ .- no» - A v. - .. a ...--..-..o- . ... ..-.. u e - s e e ”'0 ova-n .- ~.-.--.a .c—‘A.. _.-. --.-f“ -..~.~e~. '- a e O ' e e an“..- e A. .-.—..-.~ . ..-.-n.‘ .-.- . . -.. .. o . ..- .- . .. e s a s . a a ..“w—ocu— ....— .. -.“I . -. . A. . - .....-” ...--.-..- . e o O 0 . . “VD-m .—-- ----. u- - — - ‘- .e-o "‘v- 0‘... “we-.. 0 - s I O I -e'.‘. s. —— - av...” a- a 'r—O .. r .0“ mm . . . a; .. . , n:.=..-:A was ‘ s H y -‘ v. u. If"... . , -. ~ .e' ’l "es . ~1’ ‘l-J‘ ; v.‘O-'-vg . .... A -, .r b O ' " u. ‘5.- u‘ ;.t -.“ ... t;..:Ar..'. .— L'a , . 140 JOHN F. KENNEDY careless : : : : : : careful kind : : : : : : cruel Old : : : : : : new blunt‘_____; : : : : : sharp savory : : : : : : tasteless unexpected : a : : : : GXPGCted complex 5 . ._____a_____%_____g_____g_____g_____g_____ simple resisting : 5.- : : : : impelling tingling 5 5 5 : : 5 numb . boisterous : : 5 5 5 5 shy C I C O ~*~*“~ fair 0 e s e e : mi .1: direct : 5 5 5 5 : indirect following : 5 5 5 5 5 leading (83-1) colorful youthful bad changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed (SA-1) 141 COMMUNIST CHINA colorless mature good stable small caLm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced -- .— - l - . I 3 vla ' v I O s. I s1 . ,' I: . O . I - . A ., ‘ .\ 1 5' A.-. .- 'sA‘ - . a. '. ..I" I ..._ 4.- 4 l "I 1" Q'. ‘0 . ..- A. ~-~.—-. . ”Al..-“ ~ .... ...-o- a.» . _‘ "an... A ..A ...- new...” _-0 on...“ a. In..- “I. .--..A -.. .oa— -.A_ ,._. I- --e-.— -.- 4...... I ...”..- U-ss o v‘ '0'“...- "IoA 5. nor --. —A“—I- -—-—o~.—w. I -.. ._ anew-e. d ...... . --- “... a- v0. ..—-‘~5 I... . . A I. ..‘A... A .--..—\.Au—. ~~Mu nun-AI... I—nn . ...—..-. a-ss -— Awn. o‘... a... I ~so- on Au.” . I - ~- ~‘.‘ v... —a .I— a. "9-”... - .....A ,. ... o e -.....“p- o s '1 ...-...ro-nq a a- - \D-M . “on e . e ...-x. . .- ~~ . e ._....-.. a. I -.’.‘-.I—v‘~ I .... » . -..—I s .--.A.-A.a.e ”I o I -II we..- - s 0 ~ .-.-..~..- I ..- .----.u- 0 0 u . ..- - —‘—-~o-— .-. ... awro— . ~VF—u. o ...—w VA -..- ...- .. ..--..-. ‘ .- .- .II-a ~ “5'1. .A. g ....”I . v a... 4 .4 ....- s .-.-.lv-g.v.~ve I ”~ws-‘- ‘ a) . s-~~o.-- - I ..-n-5 5. v'-~- -o~.s D II-Q—n. ... a o-uu— . s .A , '.I fit"! '0 '.-.)A ..‘_......-v-~A .r .-t~..--. o ......Uv ...- ... --.— ‘- 80-“ e A...“ . -.a . g—I-Acna- -..--5 an ... "I .. .-. -..--.. D ”ID-“0‘ — .- ~‘ ‘W._- . I»~I5..5- ...-.. A O n I ---- s u. --. s I O I. . -.b-e \ u- - . u s -... C 0 ‘re. -..- «y.-. .. -‘r' I um..- I Iva-‘4‘..- I-~c— O . I e s f" "A’ x \ 4.... .. .l‘. J. M, n-‘I-ed-vuo. -.- ~..- I . 3'4} "‘orr'- F - l .'.-'_ 5|“ —.A .- '7 ~QAon’I—44-c- e-O:~ - -~v . . a I ‘ e .-I‘AA 51-h.“ .AQ‘.--‘ V a ~ ‘ '1. fA ‘ ’.q ,d I - 1 5- . '—.‘.Al <'(!11.‘."\. 'Ill-v I--'~V‘ '-I-*.'.-Il %' ' | . ». ' . - .s.‘_' It ”...-.....n. B“v~\-A.r" ‘ I e . A. i -d .- . - e ‘- ll ; " ’ s .5 II- 4| .l - -- o 5 s '--. e‘oi..vw — paw-.-— I A p a a A‘ ‘ ‘ ' ‘7‘. 1 if . ...; . o .- .. ..- - ‘0-.~“~-. -. -.--due. . . u . _ I I-.‘ . 'I‘-" .D“, ... -< V I O ‘ 0 . ! I ', " l 0 . - A .. .- . v ('A .. ,...~.-.. -. . -14 I--- ' P _ . ,. . , A - OLJ)- I ' - It u“ MI- -‘ --.-.--- . - . ' . .3 - . ..’~)~ .A t.-.. so...» uo-d\e-- -~-' ~- ‘ I :1 . ‘4 v I w- ‘r.' I... .—v.0. ~... . .- .... ‘l . .; I l I“? I ' . 0 ea I 0" v‘ .4 .‘R'.-'. I _. fins‘ «- I . A v . I r‘ ‘ --_ws- ~—-—..-s “‘m ,. 2 'i As. .e a .- '.~.I cg.- \ ..-... J-.»~ A. u _ I. A. ‘ . . . u ,. _ I» u a ‘ - ‘ ' , . ”1.5 IdilA- W5 ' - .4— . , .~-~.un--.v..-O Iv--ue um—u. ’wn— -I-w‘uo 142 ENGINE careless : : : : : : careful kind : : : : : : cruel heavy‘_____: : :_____.113ht interesting : : : . . : boring drawn : : : : : : propelled hot : : : : : -: cold couplex : : . . : : ' simple resisting : : : : : : impelling tingling : z : ' : : nub boisterous : : : - - . shy ‘ fair ° ° - ° : : unfair direct : - - ‘ - ' : . indirect following : - - : : : leading 7 (83ml)~ ..“ . . o I ' .'-. I - " . . . .yu g- . . -. p a.“ r . . .. . . ‘., . ... . .‘ f ' a « . . ‘ . ~ - ‘ .' _ . . . no..-- .- - .. 4‘. -.. , . .,_ . . ‘ , . ,. . . . o . . ..V -‘ I I I n 4 -4 . . . . . . -C~.—u~ .-. m. vv‘ J~V. ---~ >-¢'- .. -- -. - , u . ~ . , . . u ‘ ' ' ""‘ . ' o a (, A ..- , -..,~ .- . . ~ ...-~qu ...- o--. - ~. ..- . . .. r -.. - . .r . V . r d‘.'- ‘. ‘ . . . L {'1_ o - ‘ .- ~ - . n. » o o 3 ¢ ' .-. ~0-~ a—‘ - n r , -‘ .... ,- , . o . . « ..... v V' ‘5'). ' .“-:>-\ ... .. . ..t .. .L .- . ..\- . . ' . C. > I y 0.. Q _ A A. . ‘ . .V ,. 31‘ , . ' . . .. . hr . . .... . ' - e - o .. . -~ ...-— . .~p-- ‘1. I I . \-' .~ V. , a " - , o. 7. . - o o - . - ~<- ~- - ”WWI ,- ..." ~ . . "10.. . . .1 -w . . ‘ ‘ ....‘-~ , . l . . n . . I 0 ~ ." ¥ .. ‘/“, . ,. . ‘w \ . v ‘ "cam-4-.. - ... . <- . g . . .\ ~o --. ,. “o a . v ,‘ . ‘. , J A ‘ ‘ a . \ ‘ ‘ ‘ ' o s u o - ~.--~ v-v-- .- --—‘.s—.--.- ... u .e. .-. AA - . ... - -....- -. ,A .. ~.-«~ .~ A n n u. - ' "~"!‘ 0 o o o . c “""o‘ " o o p c c §-e‘.-.-.- KC: ...-...... ...u ' ..4<--. .—.. - ---.-- --.o—o.uxrv .u- ... ... n---~o ... . ....o. y . ‘ ‘.f \' O Q a I y . ‘ e . , o .D'H—‘l" v - .‘r... .. . .,.. - r. ;. .... .. .. .‘ y .. .-..g. 4‘ r .'" f - c ‘ v ' - ' ‘- -- ,. 'u I . _ ‘ ‘ . It .4. ~-.A..t. .3 , --«~ . . . . .. ... - -. ... o -- ... x .— . Q’ .. Y’ L, ‘ . D. . .l .- f . g Q - n 9 ~ . - . . , . - no. . ...-v. . no» -..e e .- - . . ._ .....n. .. . .. a. . ... . | , \ |'--" .9 on-.. ...u... . . s. m - . .....- . ... v . . ... . .. .-.. ... *1 .1... l . A o f ' ‘. ' , . o I . ‘w -- -0‘--- ~-‘- »“~v u . Q I -—'.a- upan -- ~Il-" ' O C I . .~.~-~.--o. — ..A--A—. m- I I I ... v ...v-o...-._ _-...-....- - I a a .9... .e‘npo-O‘- O I o .-a- .»...v . .... . ..v a . o - (....'_..r. ... .. ..« e e ...“. .... . - . . . o . .... . 4 -. r... . . I . . —- o .. . .. e. ‘ O c o . H... n - .. . a . - . . _ e .... .... . .. . . g . . v-‘ ‘5... ......“ - u . . . ~.». . rV -..—.... -.- . . O y _ . » .....—~ - 4“”. ‘ C 0 you. - on. .... -. .. so u *w-~' u-" .. o 9- 0-5- .... .u- -. u- - o g - §.. - n»- .. 4 . . v .-., 0 .‘ . . n s . .-.« .... w ...-0- .y— -‘~-— . g careless kind old heavy interesting drawn hot blunt savory unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair direct following (SB-1) 144 LEADERSHIP careful cruel new light __ boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple impelling numb shy unfair indirect leading s-.. o', ‘, o‘ . fl . '1 .1. l l _., .. ‘ «.1 - I -... so". .- - o u. . -.-. -.c u . ... —. .--. - A... .n‘.-. o-o . -« --. cv- - ~ --‘-—>".-‘- : ..,- Q 0-.- ..~-... ...- v-v- . ..~._—.-—..“- . ~. ...“..-- ‘ o . .rM...» - ...r. ...—um. . u”-...-‘.4o ... . ...-w ..- .r.. . m‘wv ‘-~ v pa— .. --- n .t—‘cvgoc-n.‘ ...... . . . .. O ..-__..- -. -.. «.-.... _ -. . o-‘l~fi - no -1 ’w‘ ~ D - -‘-I--~I pv- - n. . “..., -. -- --.--- . ~. 0 o . Wu. ‘ 4 4 . .. . o u- was»... .. Qt...“ o o - \Iv”. , ..74 u-a..... ...... .. . . ‘ - -... ...-...- J p—...—. nvvw a.— c- ...» — ...—...“-.. .- - ‘nhr. -.-. ... a .l..- ..g- um- , -.. -...... ..-." .... . ”...—...- ..-" . . --.—-0 I ‘1'” ~- - a .-.~-M - ..cw... ...o-v . aha—ng— .~ . ‘-.~. 5.-.. ...— -‘ 450-. . ...o.......—“ n 7“. ‘ano‘ - ._.... <’_.A-V “-4 ..-, '“l-Q—“v ... ...-V.~ v... .- .-.~.. “gm—..- .. v. .. v~..— ... ...-...-..- .—- 9...- . ..--..- as ...—.... ..«Av o - arm. ‘ v ,- . -.. ...,“ -..-. -r-o ‘-v.»'.-..--ol —.—- -. 0-...” ~.o---......_-. --.-.—o~-4-—ooc - ,-....-..‘.. 'Cu -_....- ..— ....- a- I.-rl‘~q - ...—..- -.~.. ~V-..-> ~..- ‘n-.o- . ..-- . n—gyn . »— Q's-77.. . .--. ...‘.-q. -~.a‘.c——ro—-O on-~~“.—_ ... -.., «~0- r~~l“ ~‘n .. --..- “a."- -.~o- . .-~—. . .....-, . -~ ..-- .., w cob-av ~- --. -. --... ...-um. -‘ .9». ... colorful youthful bad changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual wear sensitive defensive fast 145 SOCIALISM angular severe active sober retarded refreshed (SA-1) colorless mature good stable ”small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded . lenient passive drunk advanced weary 1‘ . . . . '1 . . ‘ ~ . I n ' . . . ‘- . ‘ _ . < ¢ .s. o'm~.-“ g ...» .- .. - cu - o- - u . . - ~ - ... u-» .~..aa “var . a ‘0‘ 0‘ ' '- ' n . . ' ., ' a » - - . . ; 1 . . . , . . . ~-~\‘§u ..~ - . . . - . . 4 . . . A. . - . 0...-..0~t .. ... ...-n .. v ' I . , . o . . . . g I ) \ ‘ . . \ .-A—ui-Vuo. an. - - n -... .. A. ». ...~ - .... os‘ « - A— ...»... ¢-s .. ..-. r ; . . . . Q o ' i .' a 8 . H . v . i I ..-—‘.o. u..- moo-av. .. _ . u . g. . .- . ... -..".-. \. .... . .- .‘or.-‘---— '- r y . . . __ _ o . I ‘-—<-:-o~u—o v...- . . ~---w 4» - s,-.-~. - - . ‘4‘..." cos-1— ——-o.-— . —.. -§r‘u~4 ' i - . , . . ._ o u ‘ ~ . . s. o. '"l- -- n~.- . ‘~. . . .. , -«A.~ . pug“ . ,. . - .-.— ...—v- —. - .-. . '.‘ ' . - . . ' 1‘ ‘ l ' C l l ' -00-~--—— -« v-a— ‘- - ..~‘---~— ‘ p -- ... _. - on ..,...p. . ~p *OA-w—Qo o .u. ....—..-.- u 5 ,- . . ‘ . . I . _ , 1ou—.;. -..,. . .‘- — .‘ . o; .. —~ ‘a .. u. w «v. ....'a -A -... A‘- ~*.~ ..-. ‘1 o . a I I ... ... .. , -. *- -—- .a- “I ~ . v. .. «x ¢ w-. .... at”- u u. - -- ... . . _ r I I V ' .... .. .. .afi'~ -- . v.4... ... . -.~ u.- -.- .ao -..». .- - ... . In M... ...-.msn ..,_ .. . ..... ... . - ’ . I 0 . . D . ' ~- ...- a4 - ... -¢ ... ..-—¢—. _.. u - .- ..-. -._‘\‘.-.- . ..mr-— ‘ ' a s - . I s ~v~-‘..~.I a —. --.-- .: ‘.. gn... uvu. . . .. . .r.. _.-~..9-- --» - -«- u -..-...... a - ' ‘ .‘ u ‘ .7 - ‘0 run—— . . o - -.. -- ..r - - ...“-.u . .s...‘~. nu ~-‘ - - ...—as.“- o . ‘ - . - . “ n . .- . ...-.-~- cu— ...r “a. . ...-”...... . 0-.....“ .4 o ‘-~.n' >--‘h- . . ..- ~. - .... - -... r. v. on. -- , ' . . a ' - < _ . . I. .- .A- I.-. - . ,- .- -- up a- o.- .— .. .. . .-Q~« w<~u>~a - - .’ v no 0 . u . s . " - ‘ I n ' . ‘0-" q“... <..- o "o n . --‘—.. .. .. .7 -. ,-- n »- . . 0-.-...” ...g». ...—... «y- -4 an. ' ' o . . ,- . a 0' .- .‘ ‘1 ‘ ' 4 J . ~ . p ...-o” Q ~. ,.-.. - ~- . - o u . . a .uo--~, was». vow-mun a. » . . ' 'N I . ' _ - ‘ I | ‘x - , M ' r-F'O-~ " ~-- ‘-‘-- ‘ I-w-~-§~ - I w 4; v ,I, . . R up y... ..-‘ u. .. m -.u--—-—> ,r . a ‘, I.“ .' ‘ 1 ~ 1 - ‘-o.-rsa- .- uni-— ...- -- . .- m - . ~ .... .-‘r.—.-. . a . . . ...-Q. .4 u M ... ‘r :x _ _ .7 - y , o. - ~ - -<-~ ~~o “- < - .4 ‘h.o 7‘ ~. _ A. . - .« --.-....s r- - u—q-oqnuo- v.o\....-u.- careless kind old heavy interesting drawn hot blunt savory unexpected clean sane soft complex resisting tingling boisterous fair direct following (€a~l) 146 KNIFE careful cruel new :light boring propelled cold sharp tasteless expected dirty insane hard simple impelling numb shy unfair indirect leading - . - u .m .. .. .. . ~- . .-.‘ x . . r.‘ ,. .. . .-._ ._ 5 .V. : -:‘. . a 1 . A , n ‘ . ...... ...- .~ M... v ,. a . .. . .o ......... .-..-p-v .--. ...-... ..~ . . . o ‘ v . _ x x. a . .- —., . . . ..-I.‘ .- ..., -- ,——~ --.-... ..s .»--.. . ....u .. ._ . t o - ' - ' "' _. ' . . " . --. - . . . . -. . r , ... .v.. r r . . i .x - . _. . , | '. l o . . . v ‘ .- .~.. . no. » v . , . \\-- o o. I- o ua. o -" .o--- ‘b-~ - - a » . ' . I ' I , c - Idea. v».~~.‘- ~ .« .- - - < o . . . . H . .-~ - u- . .... . ..-. . .4 s v ' A-‘ '4 ----.‘. r ‘_ . . -- ...-.-. . .. -u .. n » .'~ I > n . - . . n --o.--‘ ...... - .... .. . .. . ..- . . ..... . . . .. .. . . _. ~ . ,..a.‘.~-#-- ‘ ‘-<“.q - |C¢l - Is I A a I - ,- . "fi-I‘ ’ ‘ u u - I .A . .‘v"_‘ -OO-~~ ...-I ."»4..’ , .. w s.‘ o in pfli - l o v F ‘-r ... - 7-..." _ ~ . . - . . w . n . a 5 0 -~ "Q'- ‘4. - ‘ -. n‘ 0- l .- 'I- 0&1 . C. i 4 'U l ' ,. . . ‘0. ~ I . . -. -..... .. .. .‘_‘.,, . .7 . ...... .. .-.-..-. ... ~-.— .. . a - : ' ... .. . _ v- u... .4 >.. .. u¢u-- ... . .7 . A. ... , ,.. .... .. , -. ;~ n - . ~ I a a . n -- >-‘ .- . o . . - ,. I51 -.. . . g . y . pt- I ,. u... .... ,....o A _.n ~ 1. " . , u .- ";' o D I ' ' ~ . 0 v'. - . g . . - G. -wo...u .-. . ~ -.~- ... . ... .. p”, p 9 - .-.- ... -.., .... O~I>O-o ‘ - In,j! { 0 Q . O - ' . , a .A L a . , . coo—n— ~o~.~- s... .--.. -.« .... ..-. .J... ...’- ... —. --.. .. -. A. .. ...-a— n... u . . u‘ . . . . . -.‘a- ‘..... -..... ,n..a. .. e. w- - ,.- .-.-g . . no. ...o. .. . . ..- . ,. ' , n . . s O ' ' - » '4 . . . - r my. QCD‘I - ...- ..——.-—~. "-1 ~. I v. we c» -v~ -.’-- u«< .- - " 'I ‘ | ~ I ' ' ' - 9 . . r; or . .~-—. 0 -.. ”—4-.. c m u c. m ----' “'A- n-p . ~ . l ' l ' .o 1 I ~ . . . I ‘ t : _. . . , , . .. v. > . . . , . ‘.. ... 4 .~. .... ....o ...“ ~ .~ no.-. ‘ colorful youthful bad changeable large excitable straight disloyal heavenly unusual weak sensitive defensive fast angular severe active sober retarded refreshed (SA-1) 147 SYMPHONY - colorless mature good stable small calm curved loyal hellish usual strong insensitive aggressive slow rounded lenient passive drunk advanced weary . ' . .7 r I I 0 0 ~ .- . g . .... .sr . . - «.7 . .... . . r l. - o . ..\. . « . ..,..,.\,.- ..- ...... .4 u... ...v- .. . A ‘ I ' . r r . . . . o - ’ ' ‘J . ' n - i o u ‘ '- . w. - -. .. -- r - --.~..._. v- . .... -.-ua1-. . ... ..---...‘—. .... . ..-- . I am, . . . o . n . . . .. . - . ...» o- . 7. -._- 0e , 4 .. .....a.—.. —-7 - -- r ..-. o ‘ _ ..‘.,_.,-._.l. , _ . . , - a . ' I. - a -- > ‘00 - . - --‘ - -§—.owv .. . . ..- ---- .,.u.n. . o. .- I I . C ‘ . . . . . . , . ... ... .. .. ...-..- - . ....s......- ...- -‘ - ..n.v-.. _.-- run—o... ~u~ V n . _ . . . . v.‘ n . . . u " ' " " ‘ i a ... _ . . . .,.~,.,.-4- - -. . .. ... ...-s‘r - a . . l . v — A .~ 1 1 l a . . . . ' - I. . .10-n. - a o, .. ~m.- ....7- . I ~ .-...7-c.-¢ ...- —..-7-- us -~-‘ -- --- .7 . .~ .. ‘ . ' . - o . . . ~ . ' w.. ..~ .4~... -.v-- - .7... ... .- g, x»... I. ..-. -. . ._., .. 7-o -u-.-:- r-o ~Hv~~o~ . .. - . . n . - Y "J n I I u I a a ’- I h 1', ' " 1' . 7 A‘ . ‘ . I » ,J ‘. - . - n 0 * ~.--o.-— rw‘ u '- .. .- tun... ‘fi—o .-- '.—.-~. . 0"" o~ -.'~- o~'._ non—v . . ' ' ' . o o c . ~ » . - ‘ ' . 5 .1 . , . f , . .. ,_ -‘ ~‘O'-¢-~-* wv¢ -90-* v . - on h". -—.- - spa—w -..”..4 .- . -..... .. _ ~v r--- 7 ...... w I’“ ' ' o o ' ' ' ' ‘ ‘ ' . . .n. . . _ V , . ....-~-<«o .,.- -—.-—. n. .. . -.. g - ...—.---~. -.....~ . -‘ 1 . . .-.a. . ...-00M.— . >“ r . .- r’ . o - , . ~ . ~l ‘ o / “ V A , . ‘ ‘> ‘ .- , i , , . t ‘ -- ”who -...‘ u. . r.. ». ._ .....- «~- ».- -..-.r- ~~ «‘ -" w-* ’~-"--- 0 . -V . p . 2‘ ’ . . . . , , . . 9. _ r . a n - i r '_ A, ‘ I ' n».... a ._ . . ‘ ... _-_ ,.. . , . -...-. .7. .n . -o-¢ H r . . u g . . ‘ . . ' , ....- ~ , . I - ... .. . a -.— - n u - - -.- .. , ..., . 7- . - ~- — ”7......“ ,_ . _ , _ , I ~ . . . . ' V ' U 1 ' . . ,. ..-. ,‘._ ... -..... r .--.n»- 7—..o o -‘; ' . . . '7- l '3 . . 4 4“ - . on~ 1.. . OI . ... . .4—~ -.. .... ...- I." L. ...-‘~ I ‘ ‘ . v I U I ' l ‘ F v - .'o .- r . , ' . . { .A—n.‘ .-. pAl'Nh... a . -7. .. ...“ I ‘- ~.\'o .....- ...-0......“- ’ s . . V . g . I l >. "“' "‘" ""‘ ~ V p- AV. . 4 5 ‘ . - u- . _ ~ 7 .. A Y‘a. «...-...“... ~--—. nan-‘- u .. O I Q—. u u- 6 ‘ . 7 , ‘ . A r ‘- o. - ~ . . ‘ .1 . x_ a o ~ « _, \ ‘ .7 . — 4 - C- - a -. ,. . . . s v - 7 ...g ._ ' * ' “ c .77.~ —- . .-.. ,.~ ~— .— ....o-o—n .....u a» I- ~- ; -~ - \ - . ' -’ o o n ‘ . 7. ‘ a, . - ' ~,c , , . k ' ‘ o Q ‘~. -“ . . _ '0'. «an .. . .. ..- .- .- ...us and. N Once-.w an... s .u. .ov . n - 148 To the student: Thank you for taking part in an important social scientific research study which explores public opinion and meaning. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. Since you have worked on several problems in this series, it is important for us to keep all of your material together. Therefore, please identify your material by PRINTING YOUR LAST gag; AND YODR INITIALS in the blank below. Also, please state your age and sex. Remember that in tabulating the results of this study, your name will not be used and you will not be identified in any way. As soon as we have put to- gether all of the problems you have worked on, this sheet will be destroyed. PLEASE PRINT YOUR LAST NAME AND YOUR INITIALS HERE: Date of birth: Month and year: Please place a check mark in the appropriate blank: Sex: male ; Female . o-n- F 532:" mo..- .- - ...-v... -.. .-..— .....ouc . . ,— . -. ..--...- - - u . ,' I A , .-- .. -—.-.. o ' -, o . ‘0 » .C ' . n . .'I' . . l o . \a I ~ Q-—~'\.--¢ — c r . l .J . a " - .--- . . ..,..._-. . I i ‘ : .‘. APPENDIX B Test administrators' instruction sheet. 150 Public Opinion and Structure of Meaning_Research Study TO: Instructor SUBJECT: How to administer the Public Opinion and Meaning Problem Research Instruments (test booklets) Test periods: Two instruments will be administered, one in each of two SO-minute class periods. In the first session, a booklet titled PUBLIC OPINION PROBLEM will be administered. In the second sessi ,a booklet titled MEANING PROBLEM PART II will be administered. Time: First session: The PUBLIC OPINION PROBLEM booklet usually takes students between 35 to 50 minutes to complete. Host should finish in 40 to 45 minutes. Second sessigg: The‘HEANINC PROBLEM PART II booklet takes between 20 and 40 minutes to complete. Nature of the instruments: First session. The PUBLIC OPINION PROBLEM booklet contains a total of 28 pages: 1 title page 1 public opinion instruction sheet 3 public opinion problem pages 2 meaning problem.instruction sheets 20 meaning problem pages 1 student identification page 28 Second session. The MEANING PROBLEH.PART II booklet contains a total of 24 pages: 1 title page 2 meaning problem instruction sheets 20 meaning problem pages 1 student identification page 24 Please note that although the test booklets appear lengthy, they take but a few seconds per page to complete. Also note that the booklet used in the second session is actually a continuation of the meaning problem administered in the first session. The concepts judged are the same in the two meaning problem booklets but adjective pairs differ. A student may inform the instructor that he has taken.MEANINC PROBLEM.PART II in a previous session. 151 Public Opinion - continued Procedure: Hand out booklets using any system that saves time. Caution students not to open booklets until you give the signal. As soon as a student has completed his test, he may leave. If possible, please check the student's identification page for correct information before he leaves. We have found it is not necessary for test administrators to explain the response procedure expected of the students. The instrument instruction sheets usually are sufficient. Occasionally a student has difficulty with the instruction sheet and occasionally a student asks a question about the meaning of an adjective. It is permissible to answer briefly questions of this nature. What to tell students: Since administration time is short, please limit your instructions to these: First session. 1. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE FIRST PAGE UNTIL I TELL YOU TO BEGIN. 2. This is not an examination. Youare taking part in an important social scientific research project dealing with the study of public opinion and meaning. Work carefully but work rapidly. 3. Read instructions in your problem.booklet care- fully. Raise your hand if you have questions. 4. When I give the signal to begin, turn the title page and proceed. When you have completed all of the pages of the problem, turn it in to me. Then you may leave. 5. You.may begin. Second session. 1. PLEASE DO NOT was THE FIRST PAGE UNTIL I TELL YOU TO BEGIN. 2. This is a continuation of the meaning problem you completed last time. It is NOT the same problem. Please work carefully. 3. When I give the signal to begin, turn the title page and proceed. When you have completed all of the pages of the problem, turn it in to me. Then you may leave. 4. Ybu may begin. Thank you for your help. k. . . . I C O t I. \ . .l ‘ s I . a r . s . . s a .t a . v. . 1.. APPENDIX C Mean judgments and standard deviations for 19 concepts on 40 scales by closed, open, and medium groups. a CI. 153 Mean judgments and standard deviations for 19 concepts on 40 scales by CLOSED, OPEN, and MEDIUM groups. W ENGINE Closed Group yQpen Group Medium, Group Scales Mean _S_1}_ Mean SE Mean §2 colorful-colorless 4.0617 1.9521 3.7088 1.6925 3.5678 1.7911 youthful-mature 4.1851 1.4496 4.4810 1.4743 3.9506 1.6843 good-bad 2.0493 1.2948 2.0506 1.3207 2.0617 1.5343 stable-changeable 4.6049 2.0286 4.4050 2.1495 4.5555 2.1716 large-small 2.5678 1.4984 2.7848 1.2894 2.4197 1.3954 excitable-calm 3.0740 1.4553 3.0379 1.5946 2.8271 1.6008 straight-curved 4.0246 1.8255 4.1392 1.6283 4.1111 1.8592 loyal-disloyal 3.3333 1.4907 3.2025 1.2963 3.0123 1.2017 heavenly-hellish 4.1234 1.2705 4.0886 1.2241 4.1481 1.2081 unusual-usual 4.5308 1.8664 4.8734 1.8783 4.7901 1.7758 strong-weak 1.9012 1.3389 1.8480 1.0564 1.8518 1.3618 sensitive-insensitive 3.3580 2.0325 3.8480 2.0131 3.6666 2.1198 aggressive-defensive 3.1975 1.3915 2.8987 1.4284 2.9259 1.4805 fast-slow' 2.3456 1.5647 2.1518 1.3602 1.6913 .8977 angular-rounded 3.7777 1.4401 3.8227 1.7557 3.8888 1.6703 severe-lenient 3.4444 1.1111 3.3797 1.1058 3.3333 1.2069 active-passive 2.0493 1.3324 2.1518 1.2333 2.1975 1.4091 sober-drunk 3.3580 1.3453 3.5316 .9915 3.5555 .9813 advanced-retarded 2.4197 1.2944 2.4936 1.3108 2.3827 1.2127 refreshed-weary 3.6296 1.4861 3.6455 1.5429 3.4320 1.3046 careful-careless 2.8765 1.5021 3.3164 1.5552 2.9753 1.3786 kind-cruel 3.5308 1.2965 3.6202 1.1832 3.3580 1.1895 neweold 4.2716 1.7142 4.0506 1.6140 3.6666 1.6850 heavy-light 1.9629 1.1909 2.4303 1.2895 2.3580 1.3636 interesting-boring 2.5678 1.6249 2.6708 1.5389 2.4691 1.4995 propelled-drawn 2.9753 1.6252 2.6708 1.5238 2.8765 1.7024 hot-cold 2.7160 1.6271 2.8227 1.1774 2.7283 1.2071 sharp-blunt 4.0987 1.6071 4.2278 1.4664 3.9135 1.6569 savory-tasteless 4.1111 1.2765 4.2151 1.2393 3.5172 1.2329 unexpected-expected 4.5678 1.6475 4.5949 1.3255 4.5925 1.4209 clean-dirty 4.7283 1.6924 4.8227 1.5488 4.3209 1.6164 sue-ins“; 3.2716 1.3148 3.3924 1.1344 3.2222 1.0999 hard-soft 2.0246 1.1756 2.3544 1.2430 2.3333 1.3425 comp1ex-simp1e 2.1111 1.2472 2,1392 1.4384 1.9506 1.2659 impelling-resisting 3.1234 1.5021 3.4936 1.5333 3.2962 1.4943 tingling-numb 3.7901 1.3852 3.8101 1.1700 3.7283 1.3518 boisterous-shy 3,1234 1.2705 3.3164 1.1751 3.0987 1.0611 fair-unfair 3.4691 1.1872 3.4810 1.0656 3.3580 1.0099 direct-indirect 2.7530 1.2225 2.9873 1.2974 2.9629 1.2216 leading-following 2.9629 1.6287 3.3291 1.4817 2.9259 1.5216 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 154 NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV Closed Mean 3.4938 5.9135 5.6172 5.5432 1.8271 2.0617 4.6666 4.4691 5.7654 2.7283 2.3580 4.9382 2.2222 2.9629 4.7901 1.8271 2.1851 3.7654 3.0617 4.2222 2.6172 5.7283 6.0246 1.7407 3.2098 3.0987 3.0740 4.1728 4.5802 3.0740 4.6543 4.1728 2.1728 2.4938 4.2222 4.2716 1.6296 5.6913 4.0370 2.1604 Group ‘§Q 2.1030 1.1987 1.3839 1.7641 1.0633 1.4172 1.6101 2.0250 1.2983 1.6255 1.5659 1.7871 1.5234 1.4861 1.5211 .8431 1.1343 1.7516 1.5423 1.3425 2.0642 1.1760 1.2666 1.0156 2.1298 1.5839 1.8106 2.2705 1.6167 1.7692 1.6342 1.9167 1.2648 1.6111 2.1314 1.5792 .9355 1.4710 2.2246 1.5591 Qpen Mean 3.2278 5.5189 5.2025 5.0506 2.2658 2.3417 4.6708 3.5316 5.1139 3.1518 2.7974 4.2151 2.7341 3.2278 4.7215 2.4810 2.5696 3.4177 3.2405 3.9367 2.4050 5.2911 5.8101 1.8860 2.7215 2.9493 3.4177 4.3417 4.1392 3.3924 4.1265 3.2911 2.7848 2.4810 4.2911 3.9240 1.5822 5.1392 4.0759 2.2531 Group §2_ 1.9090 1.4914 1.4873 1.7422 1.3567 1.2915 1.2800 1.9541 1.3593 1.5018 1.6020 1.7978 1.6741 1.6144 1.5005 1.1677 1.3933 1.7107 1.5196 1.3718 1.6952 1.2237 1.1700 .8857 1.7855 1.5903 1.7181 2.1458 1.5889 1.7889 1.7015 1.9301 1.5644 1.5659 2.0385 1.4121 .8657 1.4903 2.0914 1.5868 Medium Mann 2.9629 5.5678 5.4814 5.6296 1.9135 2.0864 4.6913 3.7777 5.4814 3.1234 2.4814 4.6049 2.5061 3.0123 4.6543 2.2098 2.4444 3.6419 3.0864 4.1975 2.3827 5.4320 5.9753 1.4938 2.7530 3.1357 2.9629 4.1234 4.2345 3.0493 3.9629 3.7530 2.4814 2.2716 3.7283 3.9629 1.5432 5.4197 3.6049 2.4567 Group SD 2.0753 1.3961 1.2081 1.4353 .9583 1.2491 1.5205 1.9051 1.1233 1.5899 1.4411 1.8437 1.5081 1.3004 1.5804 1.1190 1.2957 1.5580 1.5331 1.3092 1.7396 1.0992 1.1756 .7556 1.6668 1.6832 1.6363 2.0809 1.5497 1.7561 1.6438 1.8494 1.2968 1.3878 1.3466 .8469 1.3686 2.1296 1.8328 0 P1 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive ' fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-01d heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 155 LEADERSHIP Closed Mean 2.1234 4.9012 1.7407 4.2839 2.9629 4.1234 2.7283 1.6666 3.5678 4.7160 1.5061 2.7901 2.8518 2.8395 4.1851 3.7777 1.8765 2.5308 1.8271 2.6419 1.8518 2.8024 4.2345 3.6790 2.3086 2.7777 3.4938 3.3209 3.1358 5.2716 2.6049 2.2839 3.5432 2.4691 2.7160 3.4197 2.9876 2.4074 2.3086 1.7777 Group S2. 1.4434 2.0282 1.0514 2.2675 1.3917 1.7454 1.2669 1.0183 1.3511 1.7301 1.0076 1.5533 1.7715 1.1271 1.1233 1.4989 1.0108 1.4579 1.0633 1.2202 1.3527 1.3915 1.9390 1.4892 1.2731 1.5791 1.2385 1.3683 1.1304 1.5556 1.2734 1.3809 1.4405 1.4996 1.3262 1.1744 1.1165 1.2250 1.2923 1.4229 yQpen Mean 2.1772 4.8480 1.8734 4.2405 3.3924 4.4810 2.6708 2.1265 3.5822 4.4050 1.8480 3.1139 2.8480 2.8987 4.0379 3.7468 2.0886 2.5569 2.1265 2.7215 2.1392 2.8734 4.7974 3.3924 2.3544 2.9620 3.4430 3.5443 3.3291 4.8101 2.6708 2.4177 3.1645 2.6329 2.9620 3.4430 3.3037 2.5189 2.7088 1.8354 Group 39. 1.3478 1.9942 1.1731 2.2737 1.5378 1.9478 1.3845 1.3441 1.1093 1.6877 1.0918 1.5507 1.6694 1.1428 1.0118 1.2474 1.0813 1.3939 1.1839 1.4046 1.5322 1.3156 1.2367 1.1910 1.6338 1.1985 1.5161 1.1877 1.6541 1.2996 1.4285 1.2571 1.4684 1.4707 1.0643 1.2049 1.3674 1.6850 1.2571 Medium Mean 2.0370 4.7530 1.6543 4.6666 3.0617 3.9753 3.2222 1.8518 3.9012 4.4567 1.6543 3.0246 2.5802 3.0246 4.2716 3.4197 2.1357 2.6049 1.9629 2.7283 1.9876 2.5678 4.0246 3.7283 2.2592 2.9877 3.2098 3.5802 3.0370 5.0123 2.5678 2.0493 3.4197 2.2469 2.9506 3.3086 3.0123 2.2592 2.3209 1.5678 Grass is; 1.1379 2.0936 .8037 2.1487 1.3908 2.1197 1.3788 1.0670 1.2232 1.6333 .9578 1.7706 1.6395 1.3875 1.0424 1.3134 1.2146 1.5530 1.1049 1.4402 1.3379 1.1960 1.8919 1.2766 1.1306 1.6442 1.1937 1.4475 1.1594 1.5673 1.1540 1.1642 1.1744 1.1279 1.5226 1.1182 1.0598 1.1523 1.2651 1.1646 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strongaweak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activeepassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refresheddweary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavyhlight interesting-boring propelledpdrawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savorybtasteless unexpectedpexpected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 156 MODERN ART Closed Mean 2.9506 2.9629 3.9876 5.8765 3.6543 3.2716 4.1358 4.1481 4.3950 1.9382 3.8765 3.7654 3.5555 3.4197 3.5432 3.5802 3.2592 4.6172 3.6296 3.6419 5.4197 4.3456 2.0370 4.4691 3.9135 3.6790 4.4444 4.0123 4.5061 2.5802 3.8271 4.8395 3.6049 2.4320 3.9999 3.9999 3.9999 4.2222 5.1234 3.8271 Group S2 2.1192 1.5511 1.7462 1.1903 1.2972 1.6025 1.5051 1.0670 1.3487 1.1583 1.5899 1.7088 1.3052 1.2458 1.3057 1.3776 1.3125 1.5199 1.7245 1.5737 1.6693 1.2288 1.4609 1.9694 2.3737 1.6911 1.4656 1.9531 1.8400 1.6167 1.4554 1.5352 1.5530 1.7280 1.6777 1.7284 .0000 1.1546 1.6207 1.4123 Qpen Mean 2.5696 2.9113 3.4430 5.8227 3.6202 2.9999 4.3164 4.1265 4.1898 2.2278 3.5696 3.5949 3.5316 3.2531 3.6582 3.2658 3.1012 4.3037 3.6202 3.4430 4.6708 4.1898 1.9999 4.4683 3.5316 3.6455 4.0632 3.8734 4.0886 2.4177 3.4810 4.2278 3.4556 2.4430 3.5063 3.6835 3.9746 3.6835 5.2278 3.4177 Group S2 1.9336 1.5846 1.7628 1.2504 1.3053 1.4320 1.4279 .9983 1.1371 1.2624 1.4899 1.5872 1.3104 1.2372 1.4221 1.0398 1.4547 1.5537 1.6481 1e’1208 1.9727 1.3319 1.4840 1.9476 2.2938 1.8213 1.5289 1.9183 1.9693 1.5800 1.4039 1.4836 1.1228 1.8876 1.7053 1.5471 .2743 1.4011 1.7353 1.6038 Medium Mean 2.6172 2.8148 3.6296 5.8271 3.4691 2.9876 4.2469 3.9259 4.2839 2.3333 3.6913 3.6543 3.3086 3.3209 3.5802 3.2716 3.1975 4.5925 3.5308 3.2962 4.8148 4.1481 1.7160 4.6296 3.6419 4.0246 3.9135 3.3086 11.1118]. 2.5555 3.3827 4.1851 3.6913 2.7160 3.4320 3.3827 3.9506 3.6543 5.0740 3.1975 Group S2 1.7886 1.5404 1.5669 1.1308 1.1448 1.3743 1.4868 .6809 1.0568 1.3146 1.4198 1.7296 1.2633 1.1202 1.2655 1.1760 1.3372 1.1629 1.4494 1.3917 1.9058 1.1665 .9327 1.7529 2.3794 1.7139 1.5491 1.7259 1.9945 1.5947 1.3749 1.8129 1.2827 1.9001 1.4223 1.3385 .3478 1.0559 1.5617 1.3279 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature goodpbad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strongdweak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activeepassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshedeweary careful-careless kind-cruel new—old heavy-light interesting-boring propelledrdrawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty' sane-insane hard-soft complexesimple imp filing-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 157 HOSPITAL Closed Group Mean 3.3209 4.2839 1.6172 3.4074 2 011181 3.8641 3.0123 2.3703 2 .6666 5.3086 2.3950 2.7654 4.1357 3.0493 4.0123 4.3456 2.3950 2.6172 2.0987 2.7654 1.6913 1.8024 3.7654 4.1357 2.3086 2.9753 '3.6790 2.9876 3.6296 4.4074 1.2222 2.1481 4.6790 1.7407 3.4938 3.5678 4.0864 2.5185 2.9135 2.7654 g2 1.9865 1.7794 1.0490 2.1127 1.2182 1.9673 1.3832 1.2216 1.2472 1.6226 1.3990 1.7123 1.3043 1.1275 1.5959 1.2637 1.4450 1.3931 1.4595 1.3666 1.2997 1.9390 1.4803 1.7330 1.6176 1.1740 1.4529 1.9924 .7027 1.4411 1.7343 1.1415 1.5723 1.4481 1.0908 1.3708 1.4503 1.5337 gpen Kean 3.5189 4.5443 1.8354 3.0506 2.2784 3.9873 3.0759 3.2151 4.8354 2.6329 2.9873 4.0506 3.1645 3.7215 3.8354 2.5569 2.5949 2.4936 3.3670 1.6708 1.8354 3.4303 4.3544 2.0632 3.1645 3.6455 3.5443 3.8227 4.2531 1.4050 2.4430 4.1772 1.6835 3.4936 3.5569 3.9367 2.3670 2.6455 2.9113 Gropp §g_ 1.9672 1.6519 1.1630 1.8684 1.2920 1.9648 1.2606 1.3579 1.4554 1.7819 1.5765 1.4797 1.6527 1.4706 1.1793 1.6259 1.5323 1.3549 1.5250 1.6548 1.2088 1.2368 1.7979 1.4499 1.4438 1.7020 1.3410 1.4124 1.3849 1.9124 1.0002 1.5970 1.5406 1.0737 1.4220 1.4119 1.2359 1.4158 1.3782 1.6853 Medium Group Mean 3.3703 4.4938 1.6913 3.2222 2.1481 4.0987 3.0617 2.2345 2.8148 5.1851 2.6172 2.8765 3.9259 3.1728 3.7283 4.0864 2.6049 2.7160 2.1975 3.2716 1.4567 1.6543 3.2839 4.0493 2.0987 3.2962 3.3456 3.1604 3.4074 14461 1.1851 2.2592 4.5308 1.6913 3.5925 3.3950 3.9135 2.3209 2.6913 2.8765 1.9337 1.6786 1.1400 1.9876 1.0436 2.0763 1.2506 1.1029 1.2483 1.6563 1.4788 1.5265 1.5378 1.2745 1.1760 1.3895 1.4201 1.4843 1.3372 1.6330 .7864 .8911 1.9828 1.5226 1.4538 1.7101 1.5328 1.4695 1.4122 1.8533 .7219 1.6161 1.6486 1.0380 1.5696 1.4287 1.0327 1.2941 1.5367 1.6207 Scales colorfUI-colorless youthful-mature goodrbad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-he1lish unusual-usual strongdweak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activeepassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refresheddweary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavyhlight interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following Closed Mean 2.7777 3.2839 2.7037 4.9012 3.6790 3.1728 3.4074 1.9999 3.8641 3.9012 3.1234 2.4197 3.7407 3.4074 4.3703 4.9753 2.4567' 2.2592 2.6049 3.0493 2.6790 2.5432 2.6790 4.4567 2.7160 3.3209 3.0864 3.7530 3.0493 3.86411 1.8765 1.6296 4.7901 2.9135 3.9876 3.3580 4.1234 2.3333 2.7037 3.4074 Group S2 1.1758 1.9195 1.1379 1.9411 1.4892 1.7832 1.6237 1.1439 1.3310 1.7750 1.3276 1.5624 1.7197 1.5378 1.2417 1.4822 1.2962 1.5378 .m19 1.5145 1.4557 1.1116 1.0752 1.4146 1.0090 1.4214 1.0909 1.5676 1.1643 1.8509 1.0701 .9486 1.4716 1.6569 1.5274 1.1579 1.4519 1.0999 1 04353 1.4468 Open Mean 2.7341 3.2278 2.9999 5.0886 3.9493 3.5189 3.5822 2.0506 3.9873 3.8987 3.1392 2.5189 4.0886 3.1012 4.1898 4.8227 2.3670 2.6329 2.4936 2.8101 3.2025 2.4683 2.9367 4.2911 2.8607 3.5063 3.4556 3.7341 3.2151 3.4430 2.1392 2.0379 4.4683 2.8860 3.8227 3.2531 3.8734 2.3670 2.9999 3.5822 Group S2. 1.0026 1.9090 1.2629 1.6853 1.7203 1.8061 1.5959 1.0661 1.2169 1.7688 1.3286 1.4483 1.6396 1.3177 1.3224 1.4820 1.1043 1.6317 .9529 1.4414 1.3996 .9391 1.1176 1.4509 1.0029 1.2815 .8685 1.2799 .9765 1.3756 101411.111 1.1847 1.2910 1.3869 1.2300 1.0490 1.3721 1.1382 1.2629 1.2985 Medium Group Mean 2.9753 3.0123 2.7530 5.4320 4.0246 3.2098 3.5308 2.1357 3.9999 4.1357 2.9999 2.1604 3.2716 2.7777 4.3580 4.6666 2.3950 2.4074 3.0617 3.0246 2.4567 2.5925 4.4691 2.7530 3.2469 3.1728 3.5802 3.1975 3.5061 1.9506 1.8148 4.6172 2.6790 3.6913 3.2098 3.6049 2.2592 2.6790 3.3333 §9 1.1756 1.8888 1.2123 1.5066 1.6478 1.6903 1.4831 .9263 1.1863 1.6759 1.2862 1.1161 1.5316 1.1331 1.2403 1.5555 1.3487 1.5537 .9540 1.5974 1.4905 1.0309 .9132 1.4914 .9879 1.3196 1.0035 1.4895 .9865 1.4065 1.1320 1.0196 1.3659 1.3683 1.3484 1.1516 1.4201 .9399 1.2845 1.3966 Scales colorful-colorless youthfulamature goodpbad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strongdweak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activeepassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-01d heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hardrsoft complex~simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following Closed 159 73-7- an? “.1544“ Group Mean 5.4691 4.9135 5.1728 3.6172 2.2098 3.8888 3.7160 4.3703 5.5185 4.4320 2.7283 b.7407 4.6419 4.2839 3.9259 2.7037 3.8148 3.9012 4.1975 4.9629 3.8765 5.5555 5.6296 2.4197 4.4320 4.3456 4.3703 4.7037 5.4814 4.7160 5.1357 4.7283 2.2839 3.5678 4.0370 4.9259 3.4814 3.9382 3.0123 4.1728 g9 1.8263 1.5571 1.6981 1.8893 1.2930 1.5153 1.4162 1.4943 1.2283 1.7208 1.5635 1.7268 1.5178 1.2884 1.1735 1.3917 1.6488 1.6450 1.4941 1.3466 2.3221 1.3240 1.4439 1.3595 2.1769 1.7296 1.9209 1.7173 1.3527 .7301 1.7550 1.4741 1.2788 1.8852 1.8688 1.4382 1.3618 1.7309 1.5112 1.7269 Qnen Groqg Mean ho97h6 4.8354 4.7974 3.8227 2.3797 3.6835 3.3797 4.0886 5.0886 4.3417 2.8734 4.3417 4.6202 4.1012 3.6455 2.4936 3.2658 3.5063 4.2025 4.6455 3.6455 5.5949 3.9999 4.5822 4.1518 5.0759 5.3164 4.7721 4.6202 4.4303 2.2531 3.3797 4.3544 4.6329 3.3037 3.8354 3.0379 4.1898 g2 2.0436 1.5785 1.7016 1.9010 1.2044 1.6804 1.1939 1.5110 1.3330 1.7054 1.7015 1.7202 1.6093 1.4634 1.1255 1.1678 1.6125 1.5416 1.6410 1.2532 2.2447 1.2996 1.3170 1.2570 2.1699 1.6195 1.8147 1.6594 1.2979 1.7133 1.6558 1.6123 1.0846 1.9636 1.9747 1.3329 1.4351 1.8031 1.6721 1.7435 Medium Gregg Mean 5.5432 4.9382 4.8888 3.6296 2.4444 4.1728 3.3333 4.2962 5.3333 4.5925 2.6172 4.7407 4.5185 4.3827 3.7160 2.4938 3.8765 3.4691 4.1975 5.0246 3.7777 5.7777 5.9876 2.4197 4.1851 4.4567 3.9629 4.8641 5.2716 4.3086 5.2222 4.4691 2.2222 3.7777 4.2098 4.7283 3.5185 3.7777 3.2469 3.9135 ‘gg 1.5638 1.5423 1.6329 1.8151 1.3333 1.6613 1.2570 1.3281 1.0999 1.6237 1.3749 1.6388 1.6413 1.2429 1.1678 1.1344 1.5346 1.1975 1.4351 1.2763 2.1773 1.0999 1.1810 1.3134 2.0252 1.6633 1.8083 1.7338 1.2473 1.7330 1.3698 1.5078 1.0540 1.8986 1.8102 1.3147 1.2679 1.6703 1.4013 1.4757 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive . fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activeapassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refresheddweary careful-careless kind-cruel new-01d heavyhlight interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp—blunt savory-tasteless unexpectedvexpected clean-dirty sane-insane hardssoft complexrsimple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following JOE—IN F. K“ Closed 160 “P's-\wr $4381 ”111).:- (1 uI'OUig Mean 1.9753 3.6790 2.3827 3.7160 3.4444 5.0740 2.9135 1.8024 3.6543 3.4691 2.0740 3.0987 3.5802 2.6543 3.9259 3.9876 2.2469 2.1975 2.0617 3.1851 1.9506 2.2592 2.6913 14.2345, 2.0740 2.8148 303455 3.6296 3.0123 4.0617 1.9876 1.8518 4.0740 2.3703 3.3086 3.1851 3.4938 2.1234 2.4691 1.7654 g2 1.2859 2.0295 1.4704 1.9260 1.2765 1.4971 1.4757 1.3186 1.2972 1.7362 1.3768 1.4791 1.9427 1.4329 1.2646 1.3921 1.3836 1.4775 1.3457 1.7854 1.2462 1.0974 1.3845 1.2695 1.2548 1.5243 1.1239 1.7316 1.3099 1.6128 1.2422 1.1875 1.4209 1.4943 1.7115 1.0785 1.1666 1.1903 1.5322 1.2097 Open Group Kean 2.0759 3.7848 2.2911 3.4177 3.4683 4.8101 2.8227 1.6455 3.6202 3.7468 2.3670 3.0759 3.4430 2.7088 3.8860 4.2405 2.1265 2.1645 1.9240 2.8480 1.9873 2.2405 2.8480 4.2405 1.9493 2.8607 3.4050 3.7848 3.1772 4.1139 2.0253 1.6708 3.7848 2.3291 3.3037 3.3291 3.3797 2.2151 2.4936 2.0506 g2 1.3666 2.1739 1.3884 1.9265 1.1565 1.6617 1.4990 1.0795 1.0225 1.9321 1.5604 1.5813 1.8193 1.4596 1.3960 1.5525 1.3441 1.4000 1.1882 1.5351 1.0965 1.0933 1.4327 1.2947 .9399 1.4384 1.1640 1.4554 1.3193 1.4839 1.2010 1.0028 1.4112 1.3093 1.5124 1.0520 1.1832 ldflfl 1.4308 1.4133 Medium Group Kean 2.1975 3.5555 2.4320 3.7160 3.2345 4.8641 3.0370 1.7530 3.7283 3.8271 2.3456 3.0987 3.3827 2.9382 3.7654 4.3086 2.3209 2.4444 1.9012 3.0370 2.3086 2.2962 2.4074 4.1357 2.2592 2.9999 3.4567 3.6419 3.0864 4.1604 2.0617 1.7160 3.7654 2.5308 3.2716 3.2592 3.2469 2.3333 2.3950 2.0740 1.2709 2.2110 1.3419 1.8137 1.0803 1.5295 1.3828 1.0946 .9688 1.5853 1.2586 1.3389 1.8295 1.4516 1.1251 1.4541 1.3683 1.5234 1.2433 1.6058 1.5997 1.0936 1.2744 1.3029 1.4971 1.7141 1.1227 1.5893 1.3071 1.5512 1.2506 1.1247 1.4510 1.3706 1.5397 1.0631 1.1709 1.3146 1.3487 1.4971 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature goodpbad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenlybhellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive—insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activespassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshedaweary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelledrdraun hot-cold sharp-blunt savory—tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling—numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 161 S‘fl-IPI-IOIH Closed Group Mean 2.5308 2.2962 4.2839 2.9506 3.5185 3.0246 2.8271 4.3703 2.8271 2.7160 3 o 61:19 3.6049 4.1481 4.0987 2.8148 3.3086 2.8765 2.7283 2.5678 2.9999 4.9135 3.9876 2.7901 3.6049 3.8641 3.3209 3.2345 )4 01111 2.7407 3.1851 4.6419 2.0493 3.1234 2.7037 3.3086 3.1358 3.2345 3.7407 §2 1.8927 2.0284 1.4353 1.9001 1.1524 1.7134 1.4238 1.3144 1.3127 1.7739 1.3498 1.5414 1.4342 1.4797 1.2968 1.2131 1.5162 1.4626 1.5585 1.6102 1.7208 1.4054 1.9257 .4004 1.8837 1.6381 1.2644 1.4642 1.5813 1.6923 1.1735 1.4411 1.2502 1.1853 1.5265 1.4093 1.1508 1.0628 1.3265 1.7197 Open Mean 2.2658 4.1772 2.5443 4.5822 2.4050 2.7594 3.7088 3.2784 3.2658 3.9620 3.0253 2.6202 3.5569 3.4556 3.9873 4.1139 2.6075 3.1645 2.9999 3.0506 2.2531 2.8480 4.6329 3.8987 2.7721 3.4303 3.7974 3.2405 2.9620 4.1898 2.6582 2 .8480 4.3924 1.7848 2.9240 2.6708 3.2405 3.0379 3.1898 3.2911 Group 1.6436 1.8539 1.4478 1.8867 1.2275 1.6086 1.2543 1.2420 1.2799 1.5946 1.4050 1.1939 1.2999 1.3004 1.0965 1.0310 1.2056 1.3634 1.4495 1.5335 1.5627 1.3602 1.9302 .5178 1.9483 1.6044 1.2766 1.5196 1.6492 1.7865 1.1679 1.4763 1.1629 .9765 1.4299 1.4817 1.2346 1.2267 1.5101 1.6470 Medium Mean 2.4320 4.2592 2.2839 4.3333 2.1111 2.8765 3.7901 3.2222 2.8024 4.2839 2.7777 2.5185 3.3209 3.4074 4.1234 4.1111 2.6790 3.2345 2.6172 2.7901 2.4320 2.6790 4.8148 3.9259 3.1111 3.7901 3.4814 3.2469 3.0370 4.1357 2.5061 2.6913 4144; 2.1111 2.9506 2.5802 3.1851 3.0370 3.2592 3.0370 Grou S2 1.5787 1.8972 1.2195 1.7777 1.0183 1.6805 1.4377 1.2472 1.2314 1.7086 1.2570 1.2581 1.2052 1.3125 1.0349 1.1546 1.2845 1.2399 1.3569 1.3941 1.5708 1.1949 1.7785 .4655 2.0667 1.8573 1.3157 1.4532 1.6956 1.5535 1.2680 1.4023 1.3240 1.3788 1.4478 1.3134 1.1123 1.1805 1.5774 1.4609 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient activeepassive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshe d-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savorybtasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous~shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following “1mu ml. L1 CI‘OLE 5.6913 4.6790 3.2592 3.4074 3.9753 3.5432 3.7901 3.9999 5.4567 3.7407 3.9753 3.4691 3.7530 3.9753 2.7530 4.2469 3.0617 3.9629 5.0246 4.5678 4.9259 6.1604 2.5432 3.4567 4.1975 5.1481 4.7777 5.0987 3.1975 4.0987 3.7901 2.5925 3.0370 3.9012 4.9259 4.1357 4.4814 3.0987 3.8395 SD 1.8779 1.1826 1.7200 1.9101 1.3768 1.7914 1.3057 1.1408 1.6555 1.7711 1.7053 1.9371 1.5641 1.4616 1.0058 1.3289 1.7251 1.3908 1.3094 1 013-1185 1.8253 1.8444 1.3558 1.4233 1.7919 1.7456 1.7576 2.0184 1.7256 2.4566 1.5283 1.2834 1.5053 2.1107 2.0037 1.6084 1.5850 1.9252 1.6821 1.8886 Open Group Medium Group Kean 4.8860 5.2278 4.3544 3.0253 3.2658 11.2025 3.4303 3.6582 3.7341 5.3291 3.3924 3.5063 3.6329 3.8480 3.9999 2.9113 3092h0 2.9493 3.7594 4.3291 4.3037 4.6202 5.9999 2.7848 3.2405 4.3037 4.7974 4.5696 4.7468 3.3417 3.4556 3.4430 3.2151 3.4050 3.7974 4.8227 4.2658 3.7088 2.7341 4.0126 SD 1.8622 1.3402 1.8283 1.8891 1.0990 1.7384 1.0871 1.1894 1.4985 1.8468 1.6023 1.7851 1.4423 1.3879 1.0311 1.2648 1.6594 1.2518 1.2550 1.3285 1.9116 1.8913 1.4582 1.7038 1.6628 1.8166 1.7957 1.9072 1.5627 2.3807 1.5077 1.4647 1.6662 2.1377 1.9833 1.5971 1.2995 1.8970 1.6359 1.8106 Mean 5.2222 5.2098 4.8395 3.5678 3.3086 4.2098 3.5061 3.7901 3.9135 5.2098 3.4691 3.6296 3.5555 3.9259 4.0246 3.1234 4.1111 3.0987 4.0740 4.7901 4.1481 4.8395 6.0123 2.6419 3.2098 4.0370 5.3333 4.1728 4.8271 3.9382 4.0493 3.3456 2.7530 3.4074 3.9382 4.8888 4.3209 4.0370 3.1975 4.2222 s9 1092l3‘6 .3025 1.5591 1.8320 1.1615 1.6976 1.1771 1.2930 1.4246 1.8034 1.6561 2.0272 1.2957 1.3768 1.0058 1.2608 1.5947 1.1822 1.1840 1.4966 1.8863 1.8422 1.4529 1.6277 1.4377 1.8421 1.4487 1.9612 1.4806 2.3640 1.4045 1.3531 1.3289 1.9924 1.8280 1.6629 1.4214 1.9144 1.7027 1.7708 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-cahn straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strongdweak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed—weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavyblight interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex~simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair ‘ direct-indirect leading-following 163 SNOW Closed Group Mean 2.7654 2.4197 2.7283 5.7407 4.2469 3.7407 3.9135 3.8024 2.888 4.8888 3.3950 3.5061 3.5925 3.7407 4.1604 3.3950 3.3580 3.6790 3.8271 2.5678 4.3456 3.7283 3.4444 5.1234 2.2222 3.8271 6.5432 3.9012 4.0987 4.5432 1.9382 3.1358 4.1604 3.4567 3.2592 4.1604 3.7160 3.4938 4.1728 sg 2.2014 1.3865 1.5948 1.3405 1.8494 1.9358 1.5169 1.3279 1.6703 1.9051 1.4374 1.4834 1.3678 1.5297 1.6364 1.4544 1.7163 1.1202 1.0398 1.5471 1.4837 1.6630 2.1081 1.9650 1.0540 1.5853 .9302 1.6525 1.7469 1.6707 1.3085 1.2546 1.2146 2.0932 1.4993 1.6761 1.4440 1.1356 1.4582 1.3313 Open Group Mean 2.5569 2.1265 2.7341 5.5316 3.8354 3.4303 4.1265 3.6329 2.9240 4.4810 3.6835 3.4303 3.3670 3.5569 4.1392 3.2784 2.9367 3.6708 3.6962 2.6962 4.1265 3.6329 3.3291 5.3037 2.4936 3.5569 6.1898 4.0253 3.7848 4.0632 2.0759 3.4556 5.8987 4.0126 3.8101 3.3544 4.2278 3.6075 3.4177 4.1265 SD 2.0912 1.3721 1.4116 1.6291 1.4000 1.8189 1.4872 1.0812 1.4031 1.7991 1.4279 1.4899 1.3887 1.6206 1.3754 1.2215 1.4172 .8674 .8766 1.4084 1.6715 1.5358 1.9855 1.8235 1.3767 1.5323 1.1259 1.5259 1.5150 1.7742 1.1988 1.2096 1.2788 1.6875 1.3319 1.6229 1.1577 1.2264 1.1757 Medium Group Mean 2.4938 2.2839 2.5802 5.5432 3.5925 3.3827 4.2592 3.7283 2.5925 4.4444 3.5678 3.3333 3.6543 3.5308 4.2592 3.3456 302592 3.5925 3.8395 2.4814 4.3086 3.5185 3.5185 4.8888 2.3456 3.6543 6.5185 3.8888 4.0246 4.1851 2.0370 3.4197 6.0246 3.9753 3.7037 3.3333 3.9753 3.5432 3.2962 3.8518 ‘gg 1.9380 1.4075 1.4475 1.3970 1.5930 1.7817 1.5852 .8890 1.2646 1.6923 1.5066 1.5234 1.4329 1.5562 1.6907 1.3348 1.6161 1.2450 1.2418 1.3708 1.4541 1.3708 1.8797 1.8392 1.0791 1.3255 .9042 1.5555 1.6775 1.6711 1.3828 1.1744 1.0769 1.7496 1.2808 1.6629 1.1544 .9944 1.1909 1.2182 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 164 COMMUNIST CHINA Closed Mean .4814 .3950 .1481 .6913 .4814 .9506 .2839 .4444 .9012 .7407 .1481 .0123 .3209 .5925 .8148 .0246 .6049 .3209 .7777 .8024 .9382 .4320 .7407 .3580 .4197 .6913 .5432 .2222 .7530 .9259 .0617 .7283 .0987 .6172 .9629 .4567 .3580 .1234 .0370 .8148 ukGN-FwNNUI¢N§§UuuN§¢4>9¢§NNQ3MNUUNUUDHHUO~PJ> Groiua _s_1_)_ 2.1436 1.8965 .9177 1.4794 .7715 1.1428 1.5965 1.3698 1.0955 1.4468 1.9443 1.6291 1.7056 1.7900 1.3343 1.0538 1.4114 1.6164 1.5869 1.4858 2.2130 .8003 2.1703 1.3816 1.9617 2.1294 1.9503 1.9876 1.5676 1.6980 1.3085 1.3053 1.2727 1.7537 2.0272 1.5951 1.4513 1.1153 2.0694 2.1029 c~u:u:«:c~uanana¢~u:u>c~c~uauanan:c~u~$~c~c~a~h:nau:uanac~636301c~c~nan3uauauau: stn Mean .8101 .9620 .6075 .4556 .0126 .5443 .3291 .5949 .2025 .3037 .1139 .5696 .5063 .6708 .6455 .5189 .6329 .1645 .5189 .2151 .3164 .8987 .2784 .8101 .9873 .5569 .0886 .1012 .2405 .4683 .5696 .8607 .4936 .8480 .8227 .0632 .6075 .5189 .7215 .1898 Group _s_1; 1.8628 1.6872 1.1737 1.3760 .2678 1.3852 1.3285 1.6421 1.2865 1.5373 1.6303 1.8189 1.6059 1.5809 1.1367 1.2814 1.4598 1.3065 1.2814 1.2991 2.0900 1.0384 2.0247 1.3414 1.7246 1.7842 1.6473 1.9719 1.5112 1.9016 1.1327 1.4296 1.1999 1.6845 1.8607 1.4784 1.4089 1.2615 1.8206 1.8764 Medium Group Mean .0987 .9999 .0370 .6666 .4320 .3950 .4074 .2098 .7530 .4567 .0246 .9876 .5678 .5678 .6913 .2098 .6913 .3703 .4320 .5925 .9259 .2098 .8518 .5802 .9382 .9259 .1234 .1111 .6419 .1604 .7160 .0617 .5308 .8888 .8395 .0370 .3456 .8395 .8641 4.2839 UUIthNNUUw-L‘kwwh)N§O¢§bbNNwkawaM§NHMGWI§ §_1_)_ 2.2311 1.8189 1.0708 1.4907 .8740 1.4374 1.4468 1.3763 1.1169 1.5399 1.7636 1.7881 1.7136 1.6772 1.1826 1.0967 1.3018 1.2808 1.5865 1.3312 1.9862 .9390 2.0554 1.2557 1.8415 1.9924 1.8815 1.9051 1.4169 1.7670 1.1247 1.3548 1.1556 1.7284 2.0635 1.3917 1.2684 1.0710 1.7338 1.9451 ...ru? . Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complexrsimple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 165 BIRTH Closed Groug Mean 1.6790 1.5678 1.4938 4.1357 5.2345 2.1975 4.0370 2.6543 1.8271 5.3333 4.1481 2.2222 3.9382 4.7530 4.6913 4.0617 2.8148 2.9382 3.5308 3.6543 2.3456 2.3209 2.6790 5.0987 1.8271 3.5061 3.0740 3.4691 3.0864 5.7160 2.0246 2.0370 5.3950 2.5925 3.0987 2.8271 4.0864 2.4444 2.5678 4.1111 §§_ .9405 1.2266 1.0198 2.1531 1.7657 1.6361 1.5351 1.3255 1.2251 1.9688 2.0068 1.4315 1.5262 1.5358 1.2436 1.3819 1.5643 1.4084 1.4663 1.9636 1.4415 1.4557 2.3403 1.6821 .9659 1.7078 1.1523 1.4149 1.2089 1.5091 1.4313 1.2516 1.9856 1.9358 1.4453 1.2937 1.3983 1.3877 1.2366 1.6850 1.9493 1.7848 1.5949 4.1898 4.8354 2.3037 3.7848 2.9113 2.1265 5.2911 3.6962 1.9873 4.0379 4.4683 4.5696 3.8354 2.5063 3.0632 3.2911 3.2784 2.6075 2.2784 3.0759 4.7721 1.7594 3.4936 3.3924 3.7088 3.1772 5.5442 2.3037 2.3164 5.2405 2.2531 3.7468 3.0759 4.0632 2.7088 2.9367 4.1518 Qgen Groug Mean _s_1_)_ 1.3014 1.6043 1.2171 2.0992 1.9963 1.5040 1.4812 1.3042 1.2665 2.0198 1.9703 1.0493 1.6182 1.5576 1.1215 1.3727 1.3675 1.3153 1.4938 1.8067 1.6870 1.3681 2.3854 1.7997 .9575 1.6829 1.0484 1.3975 1.1557 1.7195 1.4956 1.4543 1.7733 1.5364 1.4623 1.4475 1.3249 1.3515 1.6407 1.3879 Medium Groug Mean 1.9629 1.4074 1.3086 4.1728 4.8518 2.1975 4.0987 2.8024 1.8024 5.3827 3.8888 2.0617 3.9012 4.2716 4.4444 3.7901 3.0246 2.9135 3.1728 3.2098 2.3703 2.1111 2.6543 4.9382 1.8395 .4938 .1481 .6666 .1851 .5185 .0987 .0987 .0617 .1234 .3209 .9629 .7777 .6049 .5432 .8641 wunwnunmnnuwuuw §_1_>_ 1.4353 1.0156 .6410 2.1244 2.0252 1.4859 1.6600 1.2112 1.0234 1.9345 1.9751 1.2105 1.7184 1.6704 1.2668 1.4377 1.6022 1.3258 1.5379 1.8573 1.4353 1.1547 2.2561 1.6802 1.1488 1.5801 1.1233 1.3425 1.0670 1.6563 1.2531 1.2333 1.7939 1.3822 1.5778 1.2012 1.2272 1.2139 1.2074 1.5694 §2212§ colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 166 SIN Closed Groug 11242 wwbwwwwamppwuwuNosmmbkbwwunubpuosmbnmmowa .2222 .8518 .4197 .5555 .8641 .5802 .2222 .5678 .1234 .2098 .2839 .2962 .5802 .8271 .6790 .4567 .9012 .8395 .2716 .7037 .9876 .0246 .1481 .3950 .5308 .8518 .2716 .7283 .4567 .7160 .7530 .8024 .7037 .1851 .3456 .8641 .1481 .9753 .4197 .8518 in 2.2277 1.7077 1.0407 1.6777 1.4803 1.2944 1.5234 1.3141 1.1372 1.6534 2.0441 1.8354 1.8977 1.3313 1.1740 1.3245 1.6525 1.4778 1.5396 1.3738 1.4185 1.2067 1.2383 1.3938 1.6031 1.8863 1.8526 1.9814 1.7781 1.9260 1.2816 1.4522 1.3094 1.8533 1.9383 1.5295 1.4496 1.5151 1.7698 1.7434 3.6455 3.6329 5.6329 5.0632 3.2151 2.9367 4.1772 5.0126 5.3924 4.8860 4.1645 3.6708 3.6582 3.1898 3.8354 2.8101 2.8354 4.3417 4.0379 3.9746 5.9493 5.5569 6.1012 2.9240 3.0379 3.7088 3.0886 3.6455 3.9746 4.3037 5.2784 4.1645 3.2278 2.9999 3.3670 3.6329 3.4177 4.3291 3.7088 4.0253 Qgen Groug Mean s2, 2.0747 1.3978 1.4770 1.6174 1.3375 1.2562 1.2902 1.3264 1.3909 1.5830 1.7605 1.4206 1.4745 1.1259 1.1299 1.2933 1.3634 1.5498 1.3066 1.2825 1.3952 1.2703 1.2588 1.3290 1.3820 1.7148 1.4512 1.6538 1.6836 1.9703 1.3114 1.5297 1.1245 1.5344 1.7001 1.2342 1.2789 1.4383 1.4682 1.7572 Medium Groug Mean wukuuwuubmbuuNbNNmumbwbunuwwa-‘uumunwmoxww .7654 .8271 .0740 .1604 .9876 .8765 .8641 .4814 .5061 .1728 .0123 .9259 .3086 .1975 .9012 .6543 .0617 .6419 .9135 .0987 .0370 .6790 .1975 .7037 .7160 .0987 .7283 .6543 .6790 .6666 .5678 .2222 .2839 .5185 .2469 .4444 .4444 .7407 .7654 .7530 _§1_)_ 2.1214 1.5931 1.2047 1.7246 1.2813 1.2994 1.5133 1.3250 1.4834 1.6981 1.9212 1.6463 1.5685 1.1591 1.0611 1.1017 1.4516 1.2795 1.3165 1.2232 1.2808 1.4472 1.2709 1.3466 1.3447 1.6300‘ 1.4402 1.7224 1.5541 1.9309 1.4396 1.6923 1.2396 1.8599 1.8225 1.3240 1.4401 1.3588 1.6649 1.4447 1‘1 I. '1 {7‘11“ Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 167 UNITED STATES Closed Group Mean {éQ 1.4444 .7370 3.0864 2.1897 1.7901 1.0389 4.1975 2.2300 1.7901 1.1079 2.9876 1.7812 2.7283 1.5714 1.8148 1.0670 2.8271 1.1736 4.0864 1.9763 1.5925 .9785 2.5802 1.3865 4.7160 2.0860 2.4320 1.4481 4.0987 1.2333 4.9506 1.4307 2.1604 1.2116 3.0123 1.4698 1.9382 1.2895 2.3950 1.2539 2.1234 1.5743 2.1975 1.1591 3.2839 1.8340 3.7654 1.3450 1.6913 .8839 3.0123 1.8691 3.1975 1.2806 3.3456 1.4068 2.8518 1.1770 4.6666 1.5475 1.9753 1.0654 1.9876 1.0714 4.2098 1.4966 1.7283 1.0424 3.5802 1.8044 3.0617 1.2206 3.3456 1.0675 1.9999 1.0183 2.7407 1.5135 1.9876 1.4358 gag—9.121212 tie—at; .5822 .1265 .8860 .3291 .7848 .3037 .4556 .9113 .9746 .9620 .7088 .4936 .4810 .7341 .0126 .4430 .1518 .8987 .9620 .6329 .4810 .3544 .2025 .6582 .8607 .1012 .3670 .6962 .8354 .2531 .3417 .4556 .8607 .8354 .6329 .2278 3.1645 2.2658 2.7215 2.1265 wWHwNNbNUwwHwUNNNHNN§va§NHUNkuH-l-‘HwH g; .9360 2.1427 1.1249 2.1858 .9368 1.9248 1.7269 1.2137 1.1470 1.9385 1.0809 1.4220 2.0979 1.4470 1.3547 1.5970 1.2836 1.3925 1.2871 1.3887 1.5979 1.0912 1.8237 1.5580 1.0522 1.5958 1.2445 1.4173 1.3065 1.6571 1.4042 1.4478 1.4646 1.0117 1.6004 1.2216 1.1738 1.2995 1.4402 1.3535 Medium Group 21%. HNNUMwHkNN¢NWNWwaNNNHNN4§UNDNHWNHUNHJ-‘HMH .6419 .2222 .7777 .1728 .8148 .9382 .5432 .8518 .9259 .9135 .5555 .8641 .5802 .7407 .7407 .6543 .2098 .9506 .8395 .7901 .3456 .0617 .3086 .6543 .7901 .0370 .3703 .5185 .8395 .4938 .2345 .1481 .1111 .8024 .5308 .2098 .0740 .0246 .8271 .9999 52 1.1255 2.2607 1.1221 2.2921 1.0785 1.7021 1.6707 .9572 1.1944 1.7860 .8748 1.5772 1.9805 1.3219 1.2646 1.5408 1.2040 1.4478 1.1380 1.4291 1.5647 .9980 1.8898 1.3622 .8987 1.6736 .9868 1.3976 1.2217 1.4497 .9847 1.1770 1.3517 .8947 1.6031 1.1190 1.2250 .9935 1.4383 1.4229 .Sc_a.1.ss colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 168 WAR WITH RUSSIA Closed GrouE §2. Mean 4.6790 3.8024 6.5678 5.7901 1.5678 1.6666 3.7407 4.3333 6.4444 3.2098 2.3950 3.9999 3.8641 2.3209 3.5185 1.4444 1.8888 4.2716 3.0864 4.9012 4.6543 6.0493 2.9259 2.1851 2.9012 3.4691 2.2222 2.9753 4.6543 4.0987 6.0617 5.8518 1.8024 1.7777 3.8271 4.1728 2.8271 5.1851 3.2222 3.3703 2. 1.4775 .8155 .3582 .8740 .9938 .5378 .4656 .0061 .6903 .5922 .9626 .3027 .5139 .2872 .8164 .4656 .7916 .9575 .6450 .4198 .5063 .9924 .4496 .7328 .1145 .9309 .9998 .7509 .1579 .0925 .4064 .0472 .4572 .1360 .8776 .4638 .8797 .0487 .7669 F‘P‘h’h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘ Fifi)h‘h‘h‘hflP‘h‘h‘h‘NDFIF‘P‘NDF‘P‘P‘P‘hDF‘P‘P‘F‘ 0597 Qgen Groug Mean 3.9240 3.4430 5.9493 5.2658 2.0126 2.0379 4.1012 4.1012 5.7974 3.1392 2.7721 4.0506 3.6075 2.3544 3.7594 1.8227 2.4430 4.0632 3.1645 4.6582 5.2405 6.0532 3.3164 2.1772 2.6329 3.9367 2.5316 3.3291 4.4050 4.1645 5.7215 5.6835 2.2151 1.5443 3.6835 3.8480 2.6962 4.9250 2.6962 3.6329 §2 2.1034 1.4733 1.3952 1.3567 1.2169 1.1300 1.3649 1.3925 1.3814 1.5889 1.6144 1.9350 2.1193 1.5013 1.1929 1.1666 1.6206 1.8646 1.6181 1.3583 2.1595 1.4784 1.9780 1.2604 1.5845 2.0272 2.0052 2.3042 1.8928 2.0215 1.4314 1.6346 1.3932 .8685 2.0410 1.6770 1.4871 1.6971 1.6790 1.6395 Medium. Groug Mean 4.1234 3.8024 6.2222 5.3580 1.5678 1.8888 3.5802 4.1728 6.2469 3.1481 2.1728 3.6913 3.9629 2.1481 3.6049 1.5925 2.1604 3.7901 2.6790 4.8888 5.2222 6.1975 2.7901 1.9753 2.7901 3.4197 2.2098 3.0740 4.4074 4.1975 5.6790 5.6172 2.2222 1.7283 3.7777 4.1111 2.6296 4.7330 2.8271 3.7654 g1; 2.1394 1.5349 1.3333 1.3636 .9154 .9938 1.4729 1.5054 1.0718 1.6711 1.3313 2.0646 2.3330 1.4916 1.1933 .9529 1.3918 1.4462 1.5057 1.4824 1.9051 1.1046 1.6756 1.1108 1.6232 1.9991 1.8170 2.0170 1.7411 2.0271 1.3130 1.7037 1.2668 1.1760 2.0061 1.7356 1.3466 1.6889 1.9359 1.7304 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawm hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 169 BOUEDER Closed Group Mean .3580 .2716 .9629 .8765 .6419 .3086 .1728 .4814 .0740 .9753 .7530 .1604 .2098 .5185 .6913 .4691 .2592 .3703 .2962 .5432 .4197 .6790 .9753 .2962 .0740 .0740 .4938 .6049 .0617 .3209 .8641 .8024 .6172 .8765 .4814 .8765 .0493 .0864 .8518 .2098 kaJ-‘J-‘J-‘rFHw-P-PMUI##©Hw#b¢bwmwa-fimHvka-‘wUUIr-INUUIUI s2, 1.8142 1.3334 1.4439 2.0750 1.1998 1.4794 1.8907 1.1011 .9529 1.8723 1.0946 1.7670 1.5691 1.6785 1.5205 1.4663 1.6161 1.3917 1.2999 1.1764 1.3504 1.2455 1.3331 .7276 1.9358 1.8038 1.5485 1.5922 1.4431 1.6316 1.5535 1.1906 1.2329 1.9460 1.4411 1.5184 1.3231 .9962 1.4151 1.3673 4.6708 4.9873 3.7215 3.1012 2.1645 4.6075 5.0759 3.6582 3.9873 4.7721 2.3924 4.8734 3.9620 4.1518 5.2784 3.4936 4.7215 3.5949 4.1518 4.1265 4.3037 4.3670 5.9493 1.5569 3.3417 3.8101 4.6202 5.4936 4.5189 4.3164 4.5949 3.9493 1.7721 4.6835 4.4430 4.6962 3.8734 3.9999 3.6075 4.0379 Qpen Group Mean §p’ 1.7911 1.5790 1.1243 1.8799 1.2470 1.5045 1.5242 1.0419 .9999 1.7206 1.3633 1.4872 1.3259 1.3787 1.4920 1.1236 1.7713 1.1082 .7809 1.0233 1.3058 .9025 1.3302 .9243 1.6295 1.3414 1.3715 1.3950 1.2814 1.3268 1.5221 .8700 1.2921 1.7969 1.4819 1.3440 1.1514 .8568 1.0484 1.2370 212219.322 Mean 4.9999 5.0493 3.7901 2.6543 1.8271 4.8271 5.3333 3.6790 4.0617 4.9506 1.9753 5.3950 3.8395 4.1481 5.1728 3.6172 4.9876 3.5925 4.2839 4.3580 4.1111 4.3209 5.8518 1.3209 3.5432 3.8888 4.5555 5.4567 4.5308 4.0617 4.8518 3.8395 1.4691 4.9629 4.5432 4.5678 4.1728 3.9999 3.4567 3.9259 s2, 1.7497 1.3689 .9902 1.6935 1.1631 1.4297 1.4824 .9916 .7427 1.5226 1.1218 1.3579 1.3918 1.3250 1.6908 1.1818 1.4698 .9266 1.1247 .9203 1.2668 1.0402 1.3157 .5843 1.7072 1.4907 1.2472 1.6558 1.3249 1.4259 1.3343 .8952 .9038 1.9015 1.6181 1.2366 1.2550 .8012 1.0309 .9529 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-rounded severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advanced-retarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 170 MM MOTHER Closed Group Mean 1.7407 4.9506 1.2962 3.1604 4.5802 3.4197 3.6049 1.3456 2.1234 3.9135 2.5802 1.8518 4.4814 3.1481 4.4938 5.2222 2.4444 1.8395 2.3209 3.0246 1.6790 1.4814 4.1975 4.3703 1.9012 3.1481 3.2962 3.5432 2.8888 4.5308 1.4197 1.3209 5.8148 3.0370 3.2592 3.1481 4.2716 1.7901 2.5308 2.7901 §_1_3_ .9529 2.0958 .6562 2.1456 1.4978 1.9427 1.7261 .6118 1.1799 2.0257 1.3504 1.1558 1.5484 1.2283 1.3251 1.4487 1.3608 1.3001 1.1420 1.7067 1.0867 .9041 1.3464 1.2614 1.0727 1.4496 1.0708 1.1658 1.0423 1.4579 .7676 .7670 1.3250 1.5511 1.4721 1.1558 1.2766 1.0269 1.2381 1.4291 en 1422 2.0506 4.7468 1.6962 3.3797 4.4936 3.7594 3.7974 1.5696 2.3670 4.1012 2.6329 1.8607 4.0506 3.2278 4.4503 4.9873 2.4177 1.8987 2.5696 2.8860 1.9873 1.6202 4.0886 4.2405 2.1012 3.7088 3.5189 3.8101 3.0379 3.9367 1.7848 1.4556 5.4177 3.1265 3.6708 3.3291 3.9493 2.1012 2.7341 3.2151 Grou 51>. 1.2916 2.1196 1.0949 2.1483 1.5416 1.8974 1.7016 1.1215 1.1493 2.0163 1.4941 .9773 1.6296 1.1017 1.1327 1.4006 1.2180 1.2283 1.1101 1.5669 1.4186 .9586 1.2344 1.2550 1.0012 1.3231 .8839 1.1591 .9865 1.4172 1.1871 .8236 1.3743 1.3441 1.3474 .9509 1.1351 1.3368 1.3844 1.4466 Medium Group Mean .8765 .4567 .4567 .1975 .5802 .3209 .9629 .5061 .9629 .6543 .8024 .6172 .9135 .3703 .1111 .6296 .8271 .1851 .4691 .8395 .4074 .1234 .2716 .9999 .3209 .2839 .6419 .0740 .1604 .5185 .4567 .5678 .9999 .5432 .2098 .8395 .9382 .7283 3.2222 NH“UUNU‘Fri-#0013010wH-F#HHWNHNUkNwHNUNwal-‘va-L‘H .4444' §_1_)_ 1.0108 2.1084 .8172 2.3434 1.4560 1.8245 1.7529 .8031 1.1439 2.0454 1.3980 1.0590 1.5836 1.1779 1.3094 41.5634 1.4777 1.2550 .9177 1.7361 1.1488 .6625 1.3088 1.3426 .9938 1.4214 .9327 1.3545 1.3125 1.6212 .8764 .9692 1.2951 1.4315 1.3057 .9902 1.1701 1.1259 1.3334 1.4142 Scales colorful-colorless youthful-mature good-bad stable-changeable large-small excitable-calm straight-curved loyal-disloyal heavenly-hellish unusual-usual strong-weak sensitive-insensitive aggressive-defensive fast-slow angular-round severe-lenient active-passive sober-drunk advancedéretarded refreshed-weary careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following 171 SOCIALISM Closed Group Mean 4.4691 4.5061 5.0987 4.7160 2.9012 3.2469 3.9012 4.6172 4.6790 3.8271 3.4320 4.5555 3.3580 3.7407 4.1358 3.0123 3.0617 3.8765 3.9012 4.3703 4.3703 4.7777 5.2469 3.1234 3.4320 4.0740 3.9629 4.5432 4.6419 4.4938 4.5925 4.3456 3.1111 2.5925 3.9012 4.4320 3.4444 4.8148 3.9753 3.6419 s_D 1.9881 1.4497 1.5682 1.5810 1.5283 1.4447 1.2531 1.2916 1.2154 1.4722 1.4310 1.5071 1.6125 1.2936 .9263 1.4781 1.5818 1.5265 1.5364 1.4180 1.9654 1.5555 1.7035 1.1799 1.9241 1.6237 1.4353 1.5873 1.3726 1.6034 1.3125 1.5084 1.1863 1.5696 1.7112 1.1646 1.2765 1.6637 1.6994 1.7235 en Mean 3.7468 4.3164 4.5696 4.3924 3.0886 3.4430 3.8101 4.0506 4.5189 3.7215 3.5316 4.4430 3.6202 3.7088 3.7974 3.1012 3.1645 3.7848 3.8987 4.1772 4.0379 4.3924 4.8607 3.3670 3.0379 3.9113 3.8480 4.3037 4.2911 4.4050 4.2025 4.1012 3.3291 2.6949 3.8354 4.1392 3.3291 4.3037 3.3037 3.8734 Grou 5.12 1.8312 1.5552 1.5151 1.7747 1.3979 1.5157 1.2020 1.4660 .9918 1.3773 1.4481 1.4473 1.5775 1.3231 .9984 1.3463 1.5705 1.4202 1.4634 .8966 1.7534 1.4444 1.7698 1.2445 1.6415 1.5523 1.3509 1.4526 1.3884 1.5386 1.2865 1.3925 1.0758 1.5138 1.5214 1.1771 1.2398 1.5939 1.4871 1.7090 Medium Gropp Mean 4.1481 4.0740 4.7283 4.7283 2.8395 3.3209 3.8148 4.1728 4.5432 4.0123 3.2469 4.4320 3.9629 3.6790 3.8518 3.3827 3.4691 3.6543 3.7654 4.0617 3.9876 4.5555 4.9629 3.3456 3.0617 4.0987 3.6913 3.9753 4.1728 4.6049 4.2222 3.7283 3.3580 2.6172 3.5432 4.1604 3.4074 4.3086 3.4814 4.0617 pp 1.7715 1.4721 1.6406 1.4402 1.2809 1.1528 1.0899 1.2745 1.1336 1.4185 1.3196 1.4310 1.6058 1.1312 .8904 1.2723 1.3248 1.1775 1.2597 1.0925 1.7320 1.4229 1.5669 1.1348 1.5818 1.5760 1.1826 1.2370 1.1631 1.2340 1.1331 1.4055 1.0220 1.4620 1.5717 1.0238 1.1944 1.5841 1.4151 1.6802 APPENDIX D Mean judgments and standard deviations across concepts on 40 scale: by closed, open, and medium groups. Scales colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Closed Mean 3.4139 4.1040 3.5660 4.4925 2.8622 3.2924 3.7511 3.3704 4.0669 4.1598 2.8031 3.5660 3.6368 3.3366 4.1546 3.4490 2.8337 3.3561 3.1943 3.7271 3.4191 3.9045 4.2658 3.3340 2.8830 3.4971 3.7277 3.9006 4.0175 4.2034 3.5562 3.4165 3.5419 2.7238 3.6225 3.8025 3.4769 3.6556 3.2365 3.2827 172 Group §Q 2.2039 2.0035 2.2178 2.1030 1.7135 1.6551 1.8087 1.8537 1.9900 1.7220 1.9221 1.8017 1.6004 1.3758 1.6956 1.6738 1.7006 1.6787 1.7552 2.1661 2.0489 2.1482 1.8022 1.8366 1.7761 1.7655 1.8243 1.6879 1.9224 2.0946 1.9194 1.9653 1.8282 1.7763 1.5980 1.4424 1.8745 1.7367 1.7989 Qpen Mean 3.1619 3.9833 3.4097 4.3797 3.0133 3.3784 3.8135 3.2432 3.9567 4.1279 2.9047 3.4317 3.6156 3.3145 3.4517 2.7668 3.2791 3.1919 3.5496 3.4024 3.7622 4.2265 3.4184 2.7062 3.5190 3.7182 4.0027 3.8568 4.0939 3.4357 3.2971 3.5530 2.6875 3.6822 3.7102 3.4477 3.4797 3.2079 3.3817 Group 52 2.0016 1.9736 2.0289 2.0392 1.6114 1.8099 1.5352 1.6520 1.6078 1.8952 1.6425 1.7782 1.7077 1.5160 1.3329 1.5404 1.5573 1.5624 1.5493 1.5631 2.0599 1.9048 2.0544 1.7275 1.6514 1.6892 1.6131 1.7276 1.5861 1.8440 1.9210 1.7848 1.7561 1.7110 1.6786 1.4571 1.3753 1.7301 1.6646 1.7277 Medium Mean 3.2651 3.9305 3.4574 4.5387 2.8226 3.2872 3.8629 3.2950 4.0149 4.2307 2.7687 3.4984 3.5101 3.2554 4.0604 3.4412 2.9188 3.3210 3.0780 3.6621 3.3925 3.7511 4.1442 3.3437 2.7245 3.5679 3.5893 3.8200 3.8116 4.1293 3.4282 3.2157 3.5731 2.7368 3.5848 3.6569 3.3717 3.4847 3.1696 3.2807 Group SQ 2.0674 1.9885 2.1146 2.0053 1.6087 1.8063 1.5841 1.6547 1.6841 1.8559 1.6052 1.8899 1.7131 1.4878 1.3395 1.5754 1.5921 1.5088 1.5665 1.6331 2.0407 1.9659 2.1140 1.7351 1.6651 1.7310 1.6705 1.7317 1.5840 1.8113 1.9518 1.8036 1.7782 1.7432 1.6831 1.4534 1.3554 1.7203 1.6236 1.7036 APPENDIX E Correlation tables for closed, open, and medium groups. 173 o~¢o.1 wag. cawn. n03. N58... coco... owmc. anon. 09:. «Re. augluosooumou .cm ~m~o.- «men. «em4. omen. mNHo.- once. coon. «54¢. ammo.. amen. wouuauouuoooauseu .ae omm~.- «can. amae. dens. «nefi.. ammo.- cue“. aqua. hm-.- «emu. xesuuuuono. .m3 «and. Home. 3m45. Nmoe. Nao~. and“. nne~.- onnfi. exec. «new. .5floaua-o>«uuu .NH memo. 5354.- 3mme.- o~c~.- cued. nnmu. amna.- mnmn.. «433.- hoan.- u:.«:o~-ouo>ou .65 nmeo. ¢m~5.1 mo-.- nuud. Name. ammo. «085.- Hac~.- acme. «ago. u.ee:ou-uunsmau .nH nnoo. «emo.- ammo. owns. noun. snag. Naeo.u meeo. oamo.- aged. soauuuaum .43 eweo. aena.- ammo.- mono.- oeua. oaafi. -no.. -o~.- manc.u omflo. .>«.aomoa-.>u..ouwmu .mH enao.- on43. ooaa. «men. came. -a~.- “48°. «~m3. “we”. coca. o>fluguaoaaa-.>«uauaou .NH omno.- axed. moon. oaad. aco3.- mafia. dang. Honu. o¢nfi.. «and. x..5-maouu. .53 oooo.~ mo-.- Nonfi.- «omo.. “and. «use. noH~.. n-~.- ameo. «ago. guaca-naa.=:= .oH. oooo.H mama. flnmfl. omen.- moe~.- Nana. game. has”. «mug. noagfioe-mfiao>uoe .m oooo.~ nnma. «m6~.- omn~.- menu. «one. Hm~o. when. Haeoauau-nasoa .m oooo.H a~no.c coho. aqua. mama. Hmoo. axon. uosusouuemwunu. .e oooo.~ 45o”. amon.. omoa.u coma. nag”. amao-oanuuaoao .e coco.“ monc.. oo-.- e¢H~.- -¢H.- dauaa-omu¢~ .n oooo.~ mm¢~. nqafi.- once. ofinuowaueou.dnau. .3 coco.” oaofl. mama. 6.6-666» .n oooo.~ oh-. .uauqa-aaueu=oe .N 806.." QOOHHOHOOIADHHOHOO . .n on m m e 6 n q n a H .6366» .595 QmeHo 174 ammo. mm-.1 oom~.a mafia. ua uaaanumhcnu mace-go: esuuvunoaaoaoun waauonnmnuuuououna unwaaua>uoe vaonaoa dosuosuaax auosouoouasmonoo ooaoum .o¢ .mn .wn .un .om .mm .«n .mn .Nn .am .om .mN .wN .mN .oN .nN .eu .nN .NN .HN consignee 1 macho manage .0 on. '0 175 mNaN. ooma. oaao. woNo.1 moon. omou. «woo. momm.u anoo. oooe. mmaa.1 aNoq. wNoN. acoa. omua. waum. Nnmm.l «mau. ammo. ouan. oooo.a on mmon. mnma. «mom. oooo.1 momN. nmaN. mmoa. mmua.1 aNmm. anon. oomo.1 omom. naNN. Nmou. ooam. mamm. mooaou cama. mamm. naoo. numd. oooo.a ma omaa. oaha. mmmm. aqoa. mmoa. mnmo. ammo. momN. wood. muom. ooma. mmma. «woo. omoo. onno. moma. ooma. aono. naon. aamm. omnN. aon. oooo.a ma mhoN. qua. hamo. mooN. mmma. aoma. mmmN. onoo. ommo. momo. ooao. aoNN. «aou. oonu. mooN. «omN. aaoo. mnoa. mooa. asaN. monN. ewmm. mquo. oooo.a ma swoo.1 mamo.1 mun¢.1 ommN. maNN.1 oo~o.: oamo. oqu. oma¢.1 nood.1 oaqa. nam~.1 mooo.1 «woo.u uu uneanumuunn vaoouuo: enuuouvoaaomoum weapon-waauaououea unwaa-»>uon vaonaon aonuouvaax aaoaouuouaamoudo mhooauvonuoumon vovuauouuvooau>om sasuvauoeoo o>auudnuo>auou uaoaeoanouo>ou vooasouuuuaswou woaanuuum o>auuomuouo>auooumws o>auaacooeauo>auaueoa xdosuwaouuu ooauom .oe .mm .mm .sn .om .mm .on .mm .mm .am .om .mN .oN .ma .oN .mN .eu .nN .NN .aN .o~ .ma .oa .ma .ma .ma .qa .ma .Na .aa voocaueou u moouo vouoao .70. 86.33 33 o Aylcny . 6663.. a x .955 3% 6666.3 6666. 6663. 6563. 6663. 6666. 6663. 6636.. 5663. 6666. 53633-6366 .66 6666.3 6366. 6666. 6563. 6563. 6666. 6663.- 6636. «may 666.66.666.366 “56 6666.3 5566.- 6666. 5653. 6566. 6666.- 6656 6.- 6666-66336636 .66 6666.3 6666.- 6356. 3663. 6666. 6366.- 66w6. 666.663336663 66 6666.3 6666. 6663. 6656.- 6666. 66 . 663663 6.66a6666 .66 6666.3 6666. 6633.- 3663. 3663. 6a66« . m 666. 666 6.6. 6.35 .6 . 6666.3 6335. 66666a-6666 an 6666.3 66636-66636 .36 66 66 66 56 66 66 66 66 66 36 6336.- 5666. 6663. 3663. 6666. 6666. 6336.. 3666. 6663. 3666. 666563366-6636663 .66 6666.- 6663. 6663. 6363. 6563. 6653. 3666.- 6666. 6666. 6666. 66.63666-666636 .66 5666.- 6566. 6653. 6656. 6663. 6666. 6636.- 6366. 6666. 6636. 636666-6366 .66 6666. 6536.- 6666. 6563. 6663. 6666.- 6656. 6563.. 6666.- 6666.- 666-6666666366 .56 6666.- 6366. 3666. 6666. 6363. 6556. 6666.- 6666. 6666. 3666. 6366-66336636 .66 3333.- 3663. 6663. 6653. 6663. 6666. 6663.- 6356. 6563. 6653. 666363666-663336633 .66 6666. 6663. 6666. 6363. 6663. 6663. 3636.- 6666. 6666. 6663. «36636-6636566 .66 ,6 3633. 6666.- 6633.- 6666. 3666.- 3566.- 6666. 5656.- 6536.- 6666.- 6666-6666 .66 n“ 3636.- 6666. 6663. 5666. 6353. 6666. 6656.- 6566. 6656. 6666. 666.63-oau. .66 6653.- 5666. 6663. 5636.- 6663. 3656. 5666.- 6666. 6665. 6666. 56636-66636 .36 6666.3 6663.- 5666.- 6666.- 6636.- 6663.- 5566. 6666.- 6366.- 6666.- 6.66.666-6.66.6x.66 .66 6666.3 6666. 6666. 6366. 6656. 6636.- 6366. 3356. 6666. 66.3.6666-566566 .66 6666.3 3663. 6666. 6656. 6663.- 6653. 3363. 6663. 36636-66666 .66 6666.3 6663. 6663. 6666. 6566. 6566. 5663. 6366-666 .56 6666.3 6636. 6656.- 6663. 6663. 5666. 63666-663366666 .66 6666.3 6666.- 6666. 3666. 6666. 663666-66336666663 .66 6666.3 5636.- 3666.- 3336.- 36633-65666 .66 6666.3 5636. 6663. 636-566 .66 6666.3 6666. 36666-6636 .66 COCO-H GOOHUHSOIdamflHQO odN 66 66 66 56 66 66 66 66 66 36 663666 flflaflflufloo I QSORU fiOuOHU .. I. 177 sumo. ammo-1 mNoa.1 «moo. Nooa. Nmmo. MNNa. anao. amoo. mooo.1 oooo.a oa numm. amoN. oaam. nmmo. ooma.: oo~o.1 «dao.1 nooa.1 «Nun. mmoo. mnqa.1 oooo.a omNm. ammo. m~¢¢. NooN. oaam.1 noaa.1 aoma. aooo. ooma. «mum. aoma.1 Mmoq. oooo.a mooa. mmha. moon. ooma. mmoo.1 ooma. smma. oaNo.1 msoa. ooma. sumo.- «oma. moNN. oooo.a ouoo. «moo.1 mmoa.1 smou. oooN. mmho. mnoa. mueo. oooop oooo.1 omma9 omoa.l mama.l mmNa.I oooo.a 4ooo.: ammo. NNmo.| coma! oumu. aqmop mmmN. nomo. moNa.1 ooma. oonop moaN.1 ammo.- mono. omma. oooo.a «moo. omaa. oooN. moma.1 moma.1 mooo.0 ammo.- moeo.l shoo. omma. muoN.I aoua. mmou. oqaa. «awn.- ohoo.t oooo.a q nmmm. one. anmm. o¢ma9 mma¢.1 aomo.1 mano. «Mao.i omen. menu. ooma.: oaoo. naam. «mua. mama.t ma¢a.1 noma. oooo.a m ADOMU 2mmo mmaa. aamo.1 mmmo.| ammo. moao.n momo. moNo. momo.1 qua. m¢ma.1 maNa. Nmaa. hoaa.l aooo. nmma. unda.1 o~¢N.1 ammo. oooo.a Nooe. onu. Nmua. maom. omma.1 omno.1 ooau. undo. {omn- meaa. mama. «awn. coma. ammo. ooaap homo.- momo.1 oNoe. aanN. oooo.a muons-monuoumou vacuuuou-vooeo>oo guano-woman o>anu¢muo>auou uaoaeoanono>oa woveaouuuuaswau aoau-uaum o>aunomovuo>auaouwwu o>aua6=oneauo>auaaeou anus-weouuo acsuauauaana: 33633323638323 ammoanavaaana oo>uaonunwaunuo same-oanuuaoxu aauaouowuua oanaowcusouoanuuo van-woo» «nouns-aamsuaom auoauoaoonaamuoaoo meadow .oN .ma .oa .ma .oa .ma .oa .ma .Na .aa .oa .m .o .m .o .m .6 .m .N .a .a 178 smoo. ooma.: m6ma.1 ooma. «moa. moao.1 dmaa. ommo. umNa.1 Naoo.1 snow. ommo. “Nmo. woaa. memo. ooao.1 ou¢o.1 omma. mmmo.1 oawo.1 oa oaoa. omma. Nmoe. scum.- meow. mono. oamo. ammo.- Nana. ooam. «Nwo.1 «mam. oowo. womo.1 smoo. mNoN. wo¢m.1 ooma. oaom. momn. m oaou. oaow. ooma. m¢5o.1 omna. aoaa. ooaa. aomu.1 mmmq. «mmo. mamo.1 oNoN. mwmo. mqmo. «mma. owom. omoa.1 ooma. Nmam. mwoq. o mama. Roma. omNN. oaoo.1 aamo. omoo. Nuaa. oooo.1 mmoN. «Now. muoo.1 ouoo. omoo. «moo. wouo. mNoo. mnoa.1 ammo. oOaN. aNoa. 5 o¢~o.1 memo.l aeoa.1 ooqN. mmoa. ammo. Neoa. unmo. oqmo.i aoma.1 «moo. ammo. ommo. moma. nmeo. oomo. mmoo. oomo. moNa.1 Naoa.| o «moo. mmmo. ouma.| mean. mono.- oooo. aoNa. momu. m~¢a.1 Mama.1 oaao. mono.1 naoo.1 aoma. ammo. hnao. «man. émaa.1 anma.1 scao.1 mnoa. ooma. moma. smca.1 moaa.1 amao. oo~o.1 ooao.1 amda. amma. ooaa.1 mmoo.1 ammo.u aooo.u Nmao. aoNo. «moo. oomo.1 mmoa. oNoN. mNaN. moma. nomm. mmoN.o «New. ooda. Nowo. nwmm.l moam. ouom. nmma.1 mmnm. osmo- maao. mmoa. moan. amom.l mqu. ammo. amme. m mwoo.1 oemo.a mano. mamo.n oNoa. mmao.o «mmo. mowa.o omuo.u aeoo. amoo. enma. unoa. moao. ooao.1 Nomo. momN.1 «non. mono. mmmo.l N ooma. mono. amen. soNo. mNNn. ooaa. «mom. mama.- «aan. noun. Naoo. coco. eNaN. ooma. mama. mnao. NmQN.| moou. wood. momN. a meatbaaom-waavuoa uoouaoaauuoouav HflflmgIHHdH men-usououuaon ness-weaawaau waauuauou-waaaaomaa oamaan-xoamaoo anon-onus nausea-0am» muuaouauoao vouoomxo-oouoomxoaa uuoaouaeu-muo>ua unsanumuusu taco-non sauna-voaaonoum wnauoe-waauuououea 66633-5566: oaon3oa aoauouuaax oaoaouuouanmouoo anamom .oa .mn .wm .ma .on .ma .oa .mm .Nm .am .om .mN .mN .NN .oa .mN .¢N .MN .NN .aN vooeauaoo 1 @9060 demo O O I I O O C ' 0 3:1 . D I O . 1 O o ... Q o .‘a ._ 1 I o . o I O O O I - l o O 0 c O I O O o O O I I Q 0 O 1 I i L C . O o o o D n o o I . . . 1 . I v o 179 ooma. maaa. a5mm. mmmo. 505m. 5amo. momo. 5mmN. ommm. anon. mmmo. Noam. omwa. omoo. aoNa. maom. ommN. mNoN. omwm. «mow. oooo. oN a ammm. Noam. Naqm. mmmo. mmqm. «cma. moom. Nmoa.1 moon. oamN. wamo.1 oooN. omma. omma. Noam. MNNN. aoaa.1 moaN. Nmom. mamm. Nona. oooo.a ma ooma. NmNN. maNm. mmoo.1 omma. ammo. Nwmo. mmma.1 mooo. mamm. aomo.1 «mam. maoo. aoNo. omwo. ooma. moaa.1 oomo. muon- oaam. ammN. omom. oooo.a ma owNN. mmma. mooa. aaaN. mmqm. mmaa. anon. ammo. omaN. ooaa. mmmo. chow. mmma. mmmu. Nona. moon. mumo. mwoa. numa. mmma. moan. moon. aooa. oooo. ma a wo~o.u mamo.1 mqom.1 «ooN. Noma.1 NoNo.1 «moo. omom. aoom.1 mmon.1 «omo. n¢m~.1 momo.1 namo. momo.1 oomo.1 mNNN. nmma.1 maoo.1 om¢N.1 aan.1 mnoN.1 omma.1 nmaa. oooo.a oa quo.1 Nmuo. «moo-1 mmmo. maoo. aNao. moma. mmmo. mooa.1 maoo.1 mmmo. owao.1 mmmo. mmmo. mmao. Oamo.1 oomo.1 ammo. maoo.: aooo.1 ao¢o.1 moNo.1 NNmo.1 maoo. ooaa. oooo.a ma mmoa. ooma. ooNa. omaa. mmwa. ommo. mama. maoo. mmNa. maoo. coco. «mma. mNma. oNaN. msoa. mama. cmNo. omoa. oono. ammo. mouN. comm. nmNa. moaq. mmNa. mmmo. oooo.a «a mNoa. omao. oNNa.1 aoma. mono. omoa. aamo. amma. oomo.1 «omo.1 omqo. mmoo. oomo. aooo. «maa. mmmo. mmmo. oooo.1 owaa.1 «moo. omNo. onma. maao.1 omma. amoa. moao. mmoa. oooo.a ma oamo. amaa. «mam. wnoa.1 «mmu. mmmo. oama. ommN.1 mmqm. momm. oaoo.1 NmmN. ooma. mmmo. omqo. aooN. wnmN.1 mNaN. omom. mamm. anmN. wNnN. momN. ooma. mo¢N.1 wano.1 cumo. oooa.1 oooo.a Na mmmu. oqwu. omoa. mmaa. «woo. maaa. omqa. oaaa. ooma. «who. owmo.1 nmoa. «aoo. smua. Nooa. anma. ¢¢Na. «omo. Nona. momN. aeoa. aunq. moan. moan. mumo. mamo.1 ooma. mNNN. NNmo. oooo.a aa weaBOaaow1maavooa uoouavaa1uoouao uaaweonuaam mam-oaououuaon case-waaawcau waauuaoou1wcaaaomaa mamaau1xoamaoo anon-vac: mammaa1oa66 muuavnamoao oouoomXo1vuuoomxoaa uuoaouunuumuo>uo unsan1muann mace-non chemo-voaaomoum weapon-maauaououaa 66633-6566: vaonao: aosuouvcax unoauuuoaaomouuo muuoz1voauoumou vacuuuou1vooau>va xoauv1uonou o>auunm1o>auoa unuaeuauouo>uu vacancy-uuaamau abao1uuum o>aasomov1o>auuoumwu u>auauaouaa1o>auaonou mama-waouuu uoaaom .oa .mm .mm .nm .om .mm .cm .mm .Nm .am .om .mN .mN .ma .oN .mN .oa .ma .NN .aN .oN .ma .oa .ma .oa .ma .ca .ma .Na .aa voocauaoo 1 @3060 undo n . 6 o o o c Q n O o . I O C . ' . o n - n 1 u c 1 V o - v o o o o o o ' 1 i I ' ' . Q I o O O 0 c u o a Q L - . ‘ 1 I O I C C 0 0 V O I 6 . a 6 I o - Q o . t o 0 Q o . n 0 I 1 1 . \ . < ' u v ‘ 1 . . 180 oooo.a o6 maNo.1 mmNa.1 ammo.1 memo. momo. momo.1 mano. mmao. ammo.1 ammo.1 oooo.a om mmda. mama. oooo.a mNmo. mm omoN. mada. mmom. mmmo. mama. omna. ooma. aomN.1 mmao. ammm. aooo. oooo.a mu oooo.a mm amma. nNNo. mooa. aqoo. ooma. mmaN. mama. «who.1 «oma. maaa. oomo.1 mNmN. oooo.a mm moea. ammo. unwa.1 oooo.a um mNNa. Nooa. aamo. aomm. momN. maoo. Naom. mNoa. omaa. aomo.1 mmao. ooma. onN. oooo.a 5N «mNa. «aoo. «mom. omaa. oooo.a om «mmm. mmmo. cmmo. maaa. amma. «mom. ooma. mooo. mmma. mama. mdmo.1 oooN. mmou. ooma. oooo.a om umNN. mmmo. aoaa. aomo. omNN. oooo.a mm mmmN. amaN. amum. mooo. ooma. mNoa. ommu. ooma.1 aNod. mmom. Naoo.1 ooma. Nona. omaN. NamN. oooo.a mm mquu. mmoa. mmNa. mmha. namN. aooa. oooo.a «m 5¢NO.I mmmo. momN.1 mmmN. mmaN.1 mmmo.1 omNo.1 mmam. NooN.1 ommm.1 smNo.1 «mmN.1 smoa.1 omNa. mmmo.1 ooma.1 oooo.a an mnoo. «aoo.1 mammn1 mnem- aamN.1 mqao.1 ammo. oooo.a mm nmaa. mmao. mama. mmmo.: omma. cmoo. aama. moaN.1 oNNa. Noam. mmmo. oNoN. «mma. mmmo. aeca. aona. mNN¢.1 oooo.a mm omom. «mum. «mam. mmmo.1 thN. auNa. ooma. mmNm.1 oooo.a Nm mmma. mmmu. mono. amua.1 ammN. mooa. amNa. mm¢¢.o mmmo. «moo. mmmo.: mNao. noaa. ~mmo. moea. mamm. onmm.1 5mm". oooo.a NN mmma. omma. qum. nNma.1 mooN. mmao. moNa. omm¢.1 oaNo. oooo.a am «mum. oomN. mmmo. mnao.1 mmaN. ooma. mmma. mooN.1 «mod. mmmo. oNNa.1 omoN. mmNa. mnoa. «NNN. aumm. mama.1 Noma. Noam. oooo.a aN wcaaoaaomuwaavan uoouavaa1uoouav naumnauuaum msouuaououuaon nauauwsaawaau waauoauou1wcaaaomaa oamaauuxoamaoo uwoa1vuos oeumaauoaun muuavneuoao mdaaoaaou1wcaouoa uoouaoaa1uoouav Madman-yawn mnunoaououuaoe nasnuwaaawaau waauuauou1maaaaomaa oamaamuxoamaoo umOuuvuu: oeuuaa1oadu muuavuauoao vouoomxo1oouuomxon= umoaouuuu1muo>uu unsan1muona maoouuo: asuuouooaaomoua weapon-waauuououca 66633-6566: vac-so: aonuoIoeax umoaouuo1aswouuo aoaoom 00¢ .mm .om .mm .om .mm .om .mm .Nm .am .oo .mm .mm .sm .om .mm .om .mm .Nm .am .om .mN .ma .NN .oN .mN .oa .mN .NN .aN mosaauaoo 1 macho ammo V. 181 oooo. NNmm. mmmm. smoo. oaoo. mmmo.1 mooo.1 mouo. whoa. maom. muu031oonuoumou .oN homo.1 ommN. oNoo. mmoa. maoo. mmmo. aooo. .aouo. mmoo. momm. ooouuuou1v00du>ou .ma Noaa.1 mamm. oooo. omma. noma.1 Nooo.1 umna. oomm. mono.1 omoa. adsuolquOu .ma ommo. ammo. mmoa. «moa. mama. mmoa. tha.1 oaNa. mooo. Naom. o>aonomuo>auoa .ma omoo. oom¢.1 mmmm.1 noao.1 «Nam. mooN. mNoa.1 ooo¢.1 «moo.1 mmma.1 uaoaaoanouo>on .oa moNo. oomo.1 mmoo.1 manN. omao. msoo. «oao.1 aono.1 maoo.1 maoo. oooaaou1HUaawau .ma ammo. momo.1 mmma. ooaa. ooma. «moa. «mma.1 oomo. mooo.o oomN. khan-uuuu .oa mooo. momo.1 oomo.1 NaNo.1 mmma. oomo. nNNa.1 mmoo. smoo.1 ooaa. u>auaomoo1o>annoumwn .ma omao.1 mmmm. aomm. mmmo. omNa. Nmma.1 oooo.1 mmmm. mmoa. Boom. o>auauaomca1o>auaonon .Na 6666.- 6666. 6666. 6666. 6566. 6666. 6363. 6663. 6663.- 6663. 6665-66663. .33 6666.3 6653.- 6363.- 6366.- 3663. 6666. 6666.- 6363.- 6566. 3663. 36666-366666: .63 6666.3 6666. 3666. 5366.- 6666.- 6663. 6666. 3663. 6666. 6.33366-63665666 .6 6666.3 5663. 6663.- 6633.- 6663. 3666. 5666. 6666. 36663.36-36663 .6 6666.3 6666.- 6666. 6666. 6666. 6666.- 6636.- 665666-66636666 .5 6666.3 6563. 6666.- 5366.- 6366. 6666. a366-636663666 .6 6666.3 6666.- 6666.- 6663.- 6633.- 33656-66663 .6 . 6666.3 3653. 6663.- 6663.- 6366666666-636666 .6 6666.3 6363. 6666. 6.6-6666 .6 6666.3 6666. unsung-3:666:66 .6 OOOo.a moflaHOaOUIaah—ano 6H 63 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 3 663.66 macaw ZDHQMZ ‘0 182 oomo. mmua.1 mdma.1 ooaa. maoo. amoo.1 aooa. maoo. ooma.1 omoo.1 Nmmm. aomo.1 mooo. ommo. omoo.1 Nuao.1 mamo.1 Nmma. momo.1 mmoo.1 oa mmmo. mooa. aomo. momm.- mmmN. oooo. maoo. mono.1 aaNm. momm. mmma.1 mmNm. Nmmo. moaa.1 mmmo. mmom. momm.1 omNN. aoNo. mmmm. m mmmN. omou. aomm. msoa.1 ooaa. mmmo. ooma.. mmm~.1 Noom. momm. mmma.1 maom. mmmo. ammo. ocoN. NmoN. mamN.1 mmmN. Nmmm. mmmo. m mamo. mmoa. amNa. ooao.1 mmao. Nooo. omso. mmmo.1 maoa. mmmo. oNoo.1 ono. mmmo. mmmo. mmoo. mmmo. omoo.1 ommo. oomo. oomo. m mmoo. aomo.1 oama.1 ommm. mama. mmoa. omoa. hm~o.l mmaa.1 ommo.1 ammo. mmmo.. momo. anNN. «moo. omha. ouoo. oNoo. ooaa.1 ammo.1 o ommo. mmoo.1 msoN.1 mmma. momo.1 omNo.1 aooo. «mam. mama.1 o¢¢N.1 oaoo. mmoo.1 omao. ooma. mmmo. Nooo.1 momm. mmoa.1 ommm.. mNoo.1 m oaoo. «mma. mooa. moma.1 Nomo.1 mmmo.1 mmmo.1 oado. moma. homo. amma.1 ooao.1 naaa.1 mamo.1 momo. mamo.1 maoo. nomo.1 omNa. mmoa. o oooN. ommm. «moo. mama.1 oNam. moNa. mmma. humm.1 oooo. mmmo. mmmapu oomm. omoa. Nooo.1 omna. ommm. momm.1 moom. «Non. mmom. m omoo.1 aooo.1 memo. mmoo.1 mama. mNao. ommo. Noam-1 ammo. «moa. Noooon momo. mmmo. amoo. mmmo. momo. aoNN.1 ommm. ooaa. mooo.1 N Room. amNa. ooom. mmoa. ommm. amma. momm. mmmN.1 ooom. «moo. amoo.1 nNao. mmNN. mmua. moon. maoo. mooN.1 menu. omao. mamN. a meaaoaaomumaaoooa uoouaoaauuoouao hammeauuaom mnu16=ououuaoo 6866-6633666» maaumauou1maaaaomaa oamaao1xoamaoo uncououu: «sauna-undo muuavuauoao oouuomxouoouoomxonn nooaouauu1muo>u6 uaaao1mua£n oaou1uon madam-ooaaomoun mnauooumnauuououea 66633-6566: oaonsoa aonuo1oaax nooaouoonaamouuo uoauom .oo .mm .mm .mm .om .mm .om .mm .mm .am .om .mm .mm .NN .oN .mN .om .mm .mm .aN oosaauaoo 1 macho suave: 183 maom. «Noa. aomm. aaao.1 mmom. aooa. oaaa. mmmN.1 moom. mmao. maao.1 mmom. mmNN. mmmo. mmwa. ammu. mmmN.1 ommm. amao. mooN. oooo.a on mmom. moaN. aomm. ooma. ooam. mmma. ammN. mmma. momm. ommm. maoo. mmom. mmmN. omom. omma. «mom. mmaa. momm. mmao. amnm. moao. oooo.a ma Nosa. mmom. oaom. mmmo.1 ona. ammo. mmoa. mama.1 mood. ammm. oaoa.1 omma. ommo. mmmo. maoa. ooaa. anaa.1 oNaa. oamm. onm. maaN. Numm. oooo.a ma amoN. moma. mmoa. momN. oamN. omma. ommm. ammo.1 Naoa. «Noa- Nooo.1 omoN. oaom. momN. mmma. mmmN. mamo.1 mNma. ooma. omma. aNmN. maoo. amma. oooo.a 6a oaoo.1 momo.1 NNa¢.1 mmaN. mmoa.1 omao. maoo.1 Noom. omom.1 amu¢.1 6663,. mmma.1 6636. 6666. mmmo.1 maoa.1 momm. mona.1 aNom.1 m¢¢N.1 oomN.1 Numa.1 mmma.1 mmmo. oooo.a oa ameo. mamo. mmoo.1 oamo. mono. ommo. Nmoa. ommo. Nmmo.1 mmoo.1 «moo. mooo. mmoa. omuo. maoo. mmmo.1 NNmo. mmmo. aooo.1 mamo.1 amoo. mono. aoao.1 mmaa. mmoa. oooo.a ma omaN. mNaa. mmmo. mmaN. mama. Nona. mmaN. Nomo. omoo. ooNo. «cmo. ooNN. ommm. msmu. mmoN. mona. mmoo. «moa. mmmo. ammo. seam. maoo. ommo. mmmo. hmoa. maoa. oooo.a 63 anua. momo. ommo.1 mNma. mono. omma. oomo. Nooo. Oaao.1 ommo.1 mmmo. oono. mmmo. mmmo. momo. ammo. mmmo. aaao. mmao.1 Noao. «moa. mmma. aouo.o mmom. mmma. homo. mmmu. oooo.a ma ommo. mmoa. ommm. ommo.1 maam. mmaa. omma. Noam.1 «mom. mmmm. Nomo.1 ommm. Nana. omoa. oomo. oamN. NomN.1 mmNN. omao. NNmN. ommm. Nnam. mmnN. oamN. mNmN.1 moao.1 mmma. sumo-1 ,oooo.a Na momm. mmaN. mmoa. ooaa. ammo. mmoo. ooaa. aooa. Noma. oomo. moNo.1 mooa. mmmo. ooaa. omna. nmma. mmma. mmoo. nmaa. ooaa. omua. ommm. mmom. NomN. aooo. aooo.1 mmom. mmua. mono. oooo.a aa mnwzoaa0m1maaouoa uoouaonauuoouao Manned-Haum men-aaououuaoo mane-maaameau mcauaauouumdaaaomaa mamaauuxoamaoo um061oum: caduca1o=um muuaoueuoao oouoomxo1oouoomxoas maoaouuuuumuo>¢u unnao1muasu oaoouuos e3uuo-ooaaonoua meanooumnauuonauaa 66633-65666 oa013o: awoke-oaax unoaouuouaomouuo mucus-monuouuou ooouuuou-ouuau>ou Januo1uooou o>aunumno>auoo uaoaaoa1ouo>ou oooaaou1uoaamau 30aa1u66m o>auaomoo1o>auuoumme o>auauaomaauo>auaoaou xuosumcouua uoauom .66 .mm .mm .mm .om .66 .66 .mm .mm .am .om .mm .mm .mm .oN .mm .om .mm .mm .aN .oN .ma .ma .ma .oa .ma ..63 .63 .Na .aa ooaaauaoo 1 @3066 suave: r 184 oooo.a omoa. oooo.a omam. oo mmoo. ammo.1 maaa.1 omao. mooo. amao.1 omoo. dooo. amaa.1 mmmo.1 oooo.a om mm omoa. mmoa. mmmm. maaa. ommo. mmma. mama. moma.1 oomm. mamm. aaoo.1 oooo.a ma moma. oooo.a mm mmaa. mmoo. mmmo. momo. aama. mmoa. maaa. mmaa.1 omoa. mooa. moao.1 mama. oooo.a ma amaa. omoa. amma.1 oooo.a am mooa. unmo. aaoo. mmaa. omoa. mama. oama. mamo. ammo. mamo.1 mmoo.1 aoaa. mama. oooo.a ma mama. moma. amom. mama. oooo.a om omaa. «ama. oooa. moma. ooma. moaa. mmaa. «oao. ooaa. omaa. amao.1 omaa. amoa. oooa. oooo.a oa amma. maoa. Nada. omoa. mmoa. oooo.a mm amoa. mama. amam. omao. aaam. mmaa. mama. oooa.1 amam. oomm. mmoo.1 ommo. «aaa. moma. omma. oooo.a ma omoa. amma. amoa. omoa. maoa. aooa. oooo.a om mamo.1 aomo.1 aamm.1 oama. oooa.1 oomo.1 maoo.: aoom. moma.1 mo¢¢.1 maoo. omma.1 om¢a.1 amOa. amao.1 omaa.1 oooo.a «a oomo.1 mamo.1 oomm.1 omoa. maaa.1 moao. maao.1 oooo.a mm mmoa. mmoo. mmoa. mamo.1 oaoa. maaa. amma. amma.1 ooaa. maom. aomo. moma. oaoa. oooa. mmaa. aqua. ommm.1 oooo.a ma aaoa. oama. oooo. ooaa.: mmam. mmaa. oama. oomm.1 oooo.a am ooma. aaoa. aamo. aaoa.1 oaom. oaaa. aoma. aaoo.1 maoo. amaa. aaoa.1 aaao. omma. namo. omma. aaam. aoao.1 mmmm. oooo.a aa omma. oaaa. mmmm. omma.1 oamm. mooa. aooa. mmam.1 mmoo. oooo.a am omma. mmma. aaao. amao. mmoa. mamo. aaaa. mama.1 aamm. ammo. aaaa.1 maam. mama. ommo. omoa. oaom. mmma.1 omoa. aomm. oooo.a aa maazoaaooumaaouoa uoouaoaauuoouao uaomao1uamo mn61aaououmaoo ness-66336636 maauuauouumeaaaoQEa mamaaanxoamaoo uwouuouon oaumaauoadu muuaoucaoao maaaoaa0m1maaomoa uoouaona1uoouao Haumcs1uaau moouuaououuaoo 65:6-66336633 mnauoanouumeaaaomaa mamaau1xoamsoo anon-ones oedema-once muuaonauuao oouoomxo1oouoomxoca auoaouuounmuo>ua ueoaoumuuna oaoo1uon cacao-ooaaomoum weapon-meauuouousa 66633-6566; mac-30: aosuo1ocax unoaouuouanwonuo moawum .oo .mm .mm .mm .om .mm .om .mm .am .am .oa .mm .mm .mm .om .mm .om .mm .am .am .om .ma .ma .ma .oa .ma .oa .ma .aa .aa ooasauaoo 1 @5060 asaooz . A O I § U 1 Q. l fl a o 4 a ‘ I. I. I O 0 I e v I i C O l O I I ' O 0 v 0 O 0 o o O ’- . I 4 O i 0 U 0 o . '. 3 0 5. O O O .‘ Q I U l 1 5 s O on a. APPENDIX F Summary of identified factors for each solution for closed, open, and medium groups. 186 Summary of identified factors for each solution for closed, Open, and medium groups. Qpen System Individuals Solutions: Three—Factor evaluative ymarslism predictability evaluative dQnamism predictability sensory-ennui Closed System Individuals Solutions: Three-Factor evaluative dynamism stability 1- *1, .1. MPEG-2: 61C: 001" valuative activity potency Four-Factor evaluative dynamism predictability sensory-ennui Four-Factor evaluative activity potency tautness Five-Factor evaluative dynamism predictability aggressiveness activity-boisterous Five-factor Six—Factor evaluative evaluative not identifiable aggressiveness predictability predictability sensory-ennui not identifiable not identifiable activity-sharpness not ilcntifiable APPENDIX C Rotated factor loadings for closed, open, and medium groups. 188 Closed FACTORS 2 I II III IV h colorful-colorless .5635 .0633 -.1720 -.3693 .4876 youthful-mature .2349 -.4606 -.2908 -.2318 .4056 good-bad .7966 .1464 - .2076 -.1214 .7138 stable-changeable .2024 .2304 .5137 .2008 .3982 large-small -.3739 .5123 -.0743 -.0191 .4081 excitable-calm -.l894 -.0976 -.4176 -.3828 .3663 straight-curved .2807 .2521 -.0239 -.0600 .1465 loyal-disloyal .6905 .3048 .1972 -.0401 .6102 heavenly-hellish .7530 -.0094 .2191 -.0337 .6162 unusual-usual -.0612 .0541 -.5922 .0519 .3600 strong-weak .0917 .6754 .1301 -.1379 .5005 sensitive-insenlitive .5858 .0217 -.1092 -.1799 .3879 aggressive-defenSIVe -02159 .2219 -0094? -02663 .1758 fast-slow .0262 .5118 -.3185 -.2344 .4190 angular-rounded -.0567 .0598 -.3442 -.0485 .1276 severe-lenient -.6442 .0788 -.1145 -.0694 .4391 active-passive .1155 .4095 -.3646 -.4496 .5162 sober-drunk .4654 .3154 .2216 .0860 .3726 advanced-retarded .4730 .5238 -.0683 -.2331 .5571 refreshedeweary .5698 .2329 -.0785 -.2361 .4408 189 Closed - continued W FACTORS 2 I II III Iv h careful-careless .5232 .3412 .2207 -.2213 .4879 kind-cruel .8109 .0640 .1576 -.1250 .7020 new-old .4587 -.1264 -.3659 -.1186 .3744 heavy-light -.6479 .3074 .1367 .0601 .5365 interesting-boring .4084 .0764 -.0105 -.5127 .4357 propelled-drawn .1170 .2372 6.0181 3.3725 .2090 hot-cold -.0469 .1705 -.0125 -.5307 .3131 sharp-blunt .1629 .0233 -.1315 -.5276 .3227 savory-tasteless .5056 .0234 .0216 6.5084 .5151 unexpected-eXPected -.1402 .0661 -.4972 .2314 .3248 clean-dirty .8187 -.0059 .1128 -.1147 .6962 sane-insane .7328 .1147 .2732 -.1367 .6435 hard-soft -.6929 .3061 -.o166 .0707 .5791 complex-simple .0583 .2166 -.3234 -.2999 .2448 impelling-resisting .0990 .0268 .1707 -.5344 .3252 tingling-numb .4113 -.1079 .0331 -.5505 .4849 boisterous-shy -.4144 .2567 -.0938 -.3724 .3851 fair-unfair .7430 .1013 .2563 -.1514 .6510 direct-indirect .1881 .1638 .3627 -.3206 .2966 leading-following .1399 .4573 -.o423 -.3146 .3294 Pro ortions of Variance .2160 .0725 .0606 .0835 Ill III I- III! 11] l u . I! 6 . 3 a o c o O O Q \ T. o s p O O . O .6 _ - c o o . o o O C O . I . a .7 ‘ o o a u a m 0 . o Q Q 0 O O D Q 190 Open m rmmm 2 I 11 111 IV h colorful-colorless .4778 .2195 .2375 -.3537 .4579 youthful-mature .3209 -.2055 .4939 -.0045 .3891 good-bad .6605 .3286 -.2597 -.1545 .6356 stable-changeable .0655 .2153 -.6043 .0784 .4219 large-small -.4474 .3563 .0883 -.0878 .3426 excitable-calm. -.1354 -.0018 .5410 -.2o99 .3551 straight-curved .1684 .4277 -.0188 .1147 .2248 loyal-disloyal .4391 .4956 -.3238 -.1570 .5679 heavenly-hellish .6951 .1540 -.1643 -.0234 .5344 unusual-usual -.0387 -.0562 .5289 -.0865 .2919 strong-weak -.1181 .6404 -.1805 -.1960 .4951 sen81t1VG-1nsen81tive .5185 .2343 .1711 -.0355 .3543 aggressive-defensive 6.2493 .1939 6.0516 -.2492 .1645 fast-810w -.0592 .5647 .3629 -.ll76 .4679 angular-rounded 4.0691 .0771 .2758 .0563 .0900 severe-lenient -.5767 .0625 .2959 .0502 .4266 active-passive .0539 .5644 .3845 -.2277 .5212 sober-drunk .3131 .5246 -.1855 .0499 .4101 advanced-retarded .2362 .5999 -.0574 -.2975 .5075 refreshed-weary .4527 .4052 .1547 -.0964 .4024 Open - continued 191 careful-careless kind-cruel new-old heavy-light interesting-boring propelled-drawn hot-cold sharp-blunt savory-tasteless unexpected-expected clean-dirty sane-insane hard-soft complex-simple impelling-resisting tingling-numb boisterous-shy fair-unfair direct-indirect leading-following Proportions of Variance I .3891 .7482 .4123 -.6814 .3172 .0474 -.1151 .1596 .4643 -.0212 .7220 .5693 -.7069 .0158 .0339 .3594 -.3859 .6309 .0828 .0366 .1619 .0988 .0698 IV -.2873 -.1328 -.1680 -.0070 -.4313 -.6211 -.4612 -.5545 -.4682 .0809 -.0839 -.2250 -.0423 -.3784 -.5486 -.4767 “.3698 -.0967 -.0746 “04774 .0771 1“ [I'll-1 o o O .. . _ t 6 o o a o o O .0 192 Medium ....—— vflJ..........._...__.______________________ FACTORS 1 11 111 IV hz 6°1°rf“1'°°1°r1953 .4250 .4587 -.2887 -.1970 .5132 youthful-mature .0239 .0893 -.5903 -.1363 .3756 good-bad .8264 .0852 -.1474 -.0007 .7119 stable-changeable .3021 -.3048 .3529 .3322 .4191 large-small -.2158 .2484 .5007 -.0829 .3658 excitable-calm -.2417 .4633 -.2364 -.2836 .4094 straight-curved .0373 .1694 -.0112 .6072 .3989 loyal-disloyal .7667 .1110 .0482 .0703 .6075 heavenly-hellish .7157 -.0935 -.2870 .0253 .6039 unusual-usual -.1756 .1915 -.1409 -.4775 .3154 strong-weak .2809 .3672 .5656 -.0859 .5410 sensitive-insensitive .4149 .2468 -.3506 .0962 .3653 aggressive-defensive -.0315 .3748 .1515 -.2033 .2057 fast-810W .0418 .6302 .1316 -.0467 .4185 angular-rounded -.2149 .2590 -.1140 .5028 .3791 severe-lenient -.5736 .2305 .2375 -.0021 .4386 active-passive .1260 .6773 .0091 -.0305 .4756 sober-drunk .5384 .0961 .1380 .2541 .3827 advanced-retarded .4977 .5309 .1177 .0277 .5442 refreshed-weary .4846 .3044 -.1895 -.1172 .3771 Medium - continued 193 mem I II 111 IV h2 careful-careless .6437 .2017 .1280 .0838 .4785 kind-cruel .8226 .0875 -.2275 .0337 .7372 new-01d .2662 .2478 -.4372 -.1078 .3350 heavy-light -.3801 .0477 .6139 .0005 .5237 interesting-boring .3658 .4628 -.1222 .0611 .3666 propelled-drawn .1879 .3420 .0881 -.0264 .1607 hot-cold -.0596 .5536 .0249 .1001 .3207 sharp-blunt .0570 .4523 -.2203 .1166 .2699 savory-tasteless .4125 .4530 -.1930 .0880 .4204 unexpected-eXPected -.1730 .0792 -.0203 -.4718 .2592 clean-dirty .7713 .0867 -.2899 .0106 .6866 sane-insane .7660 .1114 -.0619 .1565 .6275 hard-soft -.4555 .0634 .5439 .0240 .5078 complex-simple .1210 .5031 -.o486 .0998 .2800 impelling-resisting .0613 .3980 -.0931 .1543 .1947 tingling-numb .3058 .4723 -.3237 -.0059 .4214 boisterous-shy -.2231 .5200 .1864 -.0933 .3636 fair-unfair .7480 .0818 -.1242 .1883 .6170 direct-indirect .3360 .2251 .1654 .2828 .2709 leading-following .3318 .4065 .2009 -.0701 .3206 Proportions of Variance .1906 .1174 .0743 .0429 APPENDIX.H Indices of factorial similarity. 195 Comparisons: Closed:0pen 1:11 .53 I:III-.58 I:IV -026 11:1 -.04 II:III-.l4 II:IV -.45 111:1 .21 111:11 .12 III:IV .10 IV:I -.34 IV:II -.50 IV:III-.30 Closed:Medium 1:11 .27 I:III-.54 I:IV .23 11:1 .31 11:11! .60 II:IV .16 111:1 .40 111:11 -.38 III:IV .52 IV:I -.39 IV:II -.08 IV:III .30 1:11 1:111 I:IV 11:1 II:III II:IV 111:1 111:11 III:IV IV:I IV:II IV:III 0pen:Medium .18 -.68 .18 .57 .23 .27 -.37 -.46 -.42 -042 -008 .11 nu. . O. ...-H. APPENDIX I Comparison of variance across concepts for closed, open, and medium groups. 197 10.1068/077969753665660017.1777680888754767 2222111111111111111122211111112111111111 Standard Deviations Medium Individuals 0 .1 8 t1 88 in mm DW. 092068576968753566561917.1767689887754777 .mm 2122111111111111111121211111111111111111 81 d nu .ma sm. 2061797890798647777820188888791908864978 2232111112111111111122211111112121111111 Standard Deviations Closed Individuals APPENDIX J Mean judgment profiles. 199 Figure 3. Mean judgment profiles ENGINE colorful °\. colorless youthful ..‘ ‘5 mature good . bad stable 1 ‘ I, changeable ’0 large .- ‘ small 0 . ‘ excitable 3. calm \ \ straight '1) curved loyal .: disloyal heavenly \ hellish 0\ unusual L. usual strong , weak sensitive :~“ insensitive aggressive /.l defensive -/ fast 0: slow \ . . o \ \ angular rounded severe 4; lenient active passive “\~ sober drunk advanced retarded "\ "\ refreshed \ weary Key: Closed Open ..... Medium 0 o o e e 200 Figure 3 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed ENGINE Open """ Medium 0 o o o o careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following Figure a. colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed 201 Mean judgment profiles NIKITA KRUSHCHEV ‘0 I.’ ’ : I . n ’0 r. 1“, ‘0‘, . 4 40 «fl \Q \‘ . \° . \u: I .} IN. 3*. ' \ / OK .:n\ u \0 open -..--- MEdium o o o o o colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 202 Figure 4 - continued NIKITA KRUSHCHEV careful ‘ careless kind “I \ . cruel new ‘\ old heavy -. light interesting . ‘V, boring propelled \° drawn hot \\\ cold sharp \‘ blunt savory fl tasteless unexpected . 3; expected clean ~ 2? dirty sane ’/ I -. insane hard .0 / soft complex - I simple impelling 'o‘ resisting tingling 4 f . numb boisterous ' " shy fair I z , unfair direct ' -;L. O indirect leading , I’l’ following Key: Closed Open .... Median! e o e o e Figure 5. colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key Closed 203 Mean judgment profiles LEADERSHIP 0.. .r" ‘1 \\ \\ > ’ ’I 4 <-' O ... \.o \ )0 a” '. \ o \ O \ \ O ) .l I .0 ‘0 \ ‘l 0’. o. I \. {I \ V Open ..... Madium e o e e e colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 204 Figure 5 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed LEADERSHIP S. .\ o\ o\. e.\ ‘ ‘ s \“ o I o l’ f (1? 3» D. e .e o J . l \ a . I e o \ 9’ O o ./ O \ 0“ '. J / Open ----- Medium, . . . . . careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following Figure 6. colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed 205 Mean judgment profiles MODERN ART Open ‘‘‘‘ Medium 0 o e o o colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary ..... 206 Figure 6 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed MODERN ART (0 I f e \ \s 4' J \. ‘0 \ o \0 CI 0 0“ 0”} V. \ R 0\ Open """ Medium 0 o o e o careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following 207 Figure 7. Mean judgment profiles HOSPITAL colorful “ colorless youthful mature good \. bad stable \ changeable large a small excitable calm straight curved loyal . :\ disloyal heavenly \ hellish unusual usual strong weak sensitive k \ insensitive aggressive defensive fast ( slow angular rounded severe lenient active passive sober 2 drunk advanced $\ retarded refreshed .\°\. weary Key: Closed Open ----- . . . . . 208 Figure 7 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed HOSPITAL Open '''' Medium 0 e .e e e careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following Figure 8. 209 Mean judgment profiles m colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed Medium 0 O O O O colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary Figure 8 - continued 210 W careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed Medium careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following 211 Figure 9. Mean judgment profiles __— I * PRISON colorful 1 colorless I youthful L mature ‘0 good bad stable 2,; changeable ./ large ~ small excitable \ \r ‘. . calm straight 'C' curved \‘ loyal \\\ disloyal heavenly j,. hellish / unusual 0 usual I I strong ’ weak sensitive ' \ insensitive aggressive x defensive / fast / ' slow I o angular /‘/ rounded I severe (r lenient \ active \ passive \ e sober drunk \ \ advanced \ retarded refreshed \\ weary Key: Closed Open ----- Hadium . o o o o Figure 9 - continued “ careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed Open ----- ;\ O ./ careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following Figure 10. 213 Mean judgment profiles m colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed JOHN F. KENNEDY Open ..... Medium 0 e e e e colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 214 Figure 10 - continued JOHN F. KENNEDY careful - careless kind f cruel new \ old heavy I 2 light interesting . boring propelled \ .\~‘ drawn hot \. cold ’S sharp > blunt savory .‘ I tasteless unexpected \ expected clean dirty sane e, insane hard ‘ soft complex < A . simple impelling \ resisting tingling ‘ numb boisterous shy fair ' unfair direct . indirect leading .7 following Key: CIOSEd Open ..... Pledium e e e e e Figure 11. 215 Mean judgment profiles colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed SYMPHONY <;~ ’ ’ ’5- .\ \. 1. Open """ Medium 0 e e e e colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 216 Figure 11 - continued m careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed Open '“'"" Medium 0 e e e e careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following ‘ 1'5 217 Figure 12. Mean judgment profiles iJ---- DEATH colorful ‘\: colorless youthful 4.}: mature good / bad stable changeable large small excitable calm straight curved loyal disloyal heavenly hellish unusual usual strong weak sensitive insensitive aggressive defensive fast slow angular rounded severe lenient active passive sober drunk advanced retarded refreshed weary Key: Closed 218 Figure 12 - continued DEATH careful - 3 careless kind V\< . cruel \. N new \. old heavy _ -— light interesting ‘5 boring propelled §i - \ drawn hot 7 . 1 cold sharp ':{. blunt savory ’30 tasteless unexpected ‘ 2” expected clean } .. dirty sane .. I insane hard . ‘ (\ soft complex .\\ simple impelling \\ resisting tingling numb boisterous 3 shy fair // .0 unfair ” 0 direct 4: indirect leading \ . 1. - following Key: Closed Open .... Medina! e e e e e Figure 13. colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong 'sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed 219 Mean judgment profiles SNOW Medium colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 220 Figure 13 - continued “ SNOW careful /. careless kind .fIO cruel new old heavy light interesting ‘ ' boring propelled drawn hot cold sharp blunt savory tasteless unexpected expected clean dirty e\.\ sane insane hard soft complex simple impelling resisting tingling numb boisterous shy fair unfair direct indirect leading following Key: Closed Open ----- Figure 14. 221 Mean judgment profiles m colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed BIRTH It 1 * f o l t d“ ‘D‘ ON.“ ’0 ’4’ 5 . 4,7. .‘~-"‘M~a. N A)” o/. I. ‘ 4 O r“ \ R :1 .y’ 0’ colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary Figure 14 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following Figure 15. Mean judgment profiles colorful youthful good stable large excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 224 Figure 15 - continued SIN careful . careless kind (fii cruel new ‘ ,\ ' old heavy ” light interesting ;9\’ boring propelled \SV , drawn hot . : 7 cold sharp \\. blunt savory :.\\ tasteless unexpected (K: expected clean \ \ ) dirty ’,/* sane .Jy} insane hard soft complex 1 } simple impelling :\ resisting tingling .1; numb boisterous (_ shy fair \\/. unfair direct \ indirect leading \ following Key: Closed Open ----- 'Medium . . . . . 225 Figure 16. Mean judgment profiles colorful “n‘ colorless ‘ \ youthful » mature good .rg bad stable \ changeable large small \ \ excitable :1. calm straight (£1 curved I'.r loyal disloyal “> heavenly ‘\. . \ hellish ' \\ unusual ‘ 7; usual strong ' ’ . weak Sn , sensitive ~‘1. insensitive aggressive ' ’, defensive fast v‘ slow angular “\ rounded severe ‘,! lenient active . 1’ passive sober .0 drunk advanced 1., retarded ‘\ refreshed R . weary Key: Closed Open ‘‘‘‘ Medium 0 e e e e 226 Figure 16 - continued m careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed UNITED STATES \\ \ \ < \ '\ \ A -) / O 0| '- a’ \ ‘ .‘u l /' \ A / I open ..... MEdium e e e e e careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following 227 Figure 17. Mean judgment profiles WAR.WITH RUSSIA colorful /.. ‘ colorless youthful (f. mature \ \ good ""-i>, bad stable «(4" changeable large . F" 1 small excitable 21‘ calm - straight curved loyal disloyal heavenly hellish unusual ,e~ usual strong . (‘ weak sensitive insensitive aggressive defensive fast . slow angular rounded severe lenient active >}\ passive sober drunk advanced . retarded refreshed weary Key: Closed Open ----- . . . . . Figure 17 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed WAR WITH RUSSIA careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following 229 Figure 18. Mean judgment profiles BOULDER colorful ‘. colorless \I youthful .* mature 4, K good It” bad stable .. changeable . ‘/ large small excitable ‘ \\ . calm straight '.- curved / loyal disloyal heavenly hellish unusual . usual strong —' r weak sensitive 7 ' l s . insensitive /{ aggressive .<’ defensive fast é\¥ slow angular .;> _ rounded severe //' lenient active passive sober I . drunk ‘v advanced ‘ retarded refreshed / weary Key: Closed Open ----- Medium . . . . . Figure 18 - continued careful kind new heavy interesting propelled hot sharp savory unexpected clean sane hard complex impelling tingling boisterous fair direct leading Key: Closed Open ----- careless cruel old light boring drawn cold blunt tasteless expected dirty insane soft simple resisting numb shy unfair indirect following Figure 19 e 231 Mean judgment profiles “ colorful youthful good stable large“ excitable straight loyal heavenly unusual strong sensitive aggressive fast angular severe active sober advanced refreshed Key: Closed SOCIALISM \ .OO‘... 0 ~ 3' s ( .QO Open """ Medium 0 e e o e colorless mature bad changeable small calm curved disloyal hellish usual weak insensitive defensive slow rounded lenient passive drunk retarded weary 232 Figure 19 - continued SOCIALISM careful - ‘ careless : kind \' . cruel \ 0 new “'. old heavy ”” light interesting (~ boring ‘\ propelled \‘ drawn hot 1' cold ‘X sharp 1P} blunt savory .J tasteless 1. unexpected ) expected clean ‘. dirty . 1 sane - 1 insane , / hard soft complex simple impelling ')~ resisting . \ tingling 3 s numb ( 0 boisterous . \\ shy fair j> unfair ’4 direct (F' indirect ‘C. leading .\.. following Key: Closed Open .... “Edi-um e e o e e r1 USE c MIC IlTlilfll7tdiflflflfilMIDWI'IMWWS