AN EXPERTMENTAL STUDY To EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGIDITY AND SOCIAL SPEECH‘FRIGHT AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Mk; "I. DC”. of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STAN COLLEGE Gemudo E. Montgomery ’ 195.5 This? This is to certifg that the thesis entitled AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY TO EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIC-IDITY AND SOCIAL SPEECH FRIGHT [WONG COLLEGE STUDENTS presented by GERTRUDE E. MONTGOMERY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. Guidance degree in “Q/[K/ZLU Zza/Hutv Major prgIessor Date May 13: 1955 0-169 , M: MSU , LIBRARIES n. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES w111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. @2413? - ‘ by Q6 J. Gert-mas E.“'t_aontgouery “- MW “batted to the School of Graduate studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and. Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the-degree of man .é.'.-_l5\_..'> -",-_- g ~ ,,.z- W of Educational Am. Woman Services I: . 'Gcl. W17 The Problem. This study was concerned with the comparison of two miabies, social speech iright and rigidity sarong rreslnnn College students at Michigan state College. A new scale to measure social speech fright was constructed to parallel a standardized scale designed to insure rigidity. The hypothesis to be tested is that there is no 4 Whip between rigidity and social speech fright. Operational definitions for the two variables were: _ mg m M: Inability to give an assigned or inmromptu d I flasher oral report. : m: The inability to change one's set when the objective when demand it, or the inability to restructure a field in which ”85%“ are alternative solutions to a. problem in order to solve that :9" $651.91 We efficiently. 4" .. " " ‘ tasthods, Techni ues, n_a;c_a. An experimental approach was used with . E9 eagle of 157' subjects selected from a population of Freeman college ',"Ws in eomnications skills classes. The sarple was divided into .5)’ an experimental group -- consisting of students exhibiting social Mn fright, Judged so by teachers, speech experts, and introspection. W group was referred to the counseling center for help. (2) A control ‘ 1‘ -- consisting of students equated by mmber and sex randomly Ii 4 sail, the were Judged by the same methods as not exhibiting social. 9“: Noodles Vere administered to both gouge -- the 13 scale, s. ‘~ “ "‘ rod ten-item sorting task to measure rigidity; and 3 scale, Venn-tract“ by the investigator in the sane manner, to measure social Reliability of these measures was determined by two Judges rating all responses given by the subJects into a three-way classification: (1-) comprehensive organization -- when all ten items were organized into a single whale, (2) isolated organization -- one in which items are broken into two or nature substructures with little interrelationship among that septa-ate divisions, (3) narrow organization in which one or more of the m objectively present is omitted. from the definition by the respondent. These responses were assigied numerical values in order to quantify them for cornerison. ' M: Performance on the two scales (1: and s) was submitted to | statistical tests. A significant Chi Square value between the scales was obtained. The Phi coefficient based. on this Chi square indicated. 8. «Ir . 5 relationship. Analysis of variance indicated, in all instances smart for the female experimental group, that the means of the groups [differ significantly along themselves, that is, they show more variation than can be attributed to random sampling from pOpulations with a common. population meam A 't' ratio befieen the experimental. and control groups on tin rigidity scale was significant at the 2% level and a 't' ratio " between the enerimental and control. groups on the stagefright scale was .- , «significant at the 10$ level. ' '1" m: on the basis of the evidence from the study, rigidity f. fiéé—Y’l' . I Il'i I seam dittonntiate between mild and severe stagefright in the . studied. Thefindingsindioatethattherewouldseemtobesome l m that bath rigidity and stagen‘ight stem from experiences where 1 that an emotional mocmitants and that the learned behavior will I W 11’ these emtional concomitants are sufiiciently potent or I m in the early stages of either rigidity or stageiright. Since I f m flight appears to be areth of learned responses, early - Wiles or a speech-fright rigidity pattern could permit reduction 7 , ~#‘@‘m1m components so that these reinforcing situations would i ‘Z .,_ occur. . O ' '.. . ? alt; - ‘II I] III!" nmmmmm mmmwmmmmm mmcmm 1:” ~ /\ - m. tux-‘- O 1. f :yllxtw) ' A Dissertation Presented to 1 the Faculty of the Q'adnate School Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science fl In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree , I‘ l .rtML. Doctor of Education Department of Administrative and f: Educational Services ; (H E513 ACKNWIEDQENT This study could not have been accomlished without the assistance of a number of Persons. Acknowledgnent is made to the instructors of Written and Spoken English classes at Michigan State College, Dr. John L. Austen, Dr. Charles L. Pedrey and Mr. James Platt for their aid in dieglosing the students in the experimental. group and lending assistance for administering the scales to the control groups. Miss Carrie Boyle and Dr. Stanford Glazer deserve a special mention for their extensive efforts in Judging all of the responses on the scales. Thanks are also expressed to my doctoral committee, Dr. Walter F. _ Johnson, Dr. James Karslake and Dr. C. E. Erickson. Deep gratitude is expressed to Dr. Milton Rokeach who engendered the plan of the thesis and whose kindliness and courtesy was continuously manifested. A very special mention of appreciation goes to my husband, Kingsley, who gave encouragement and help throughout the writing of the entire study. 866682 TV" TABIB 0F CON'IENTS CHARIER I. THEPRmIm.......... Introduction to the Problem Statement of the Problem . . Definition of Terms Used . . Importance of the Study . . Limitations of the Study . . Organization of the Study . II. WOFTEEIITERAIURE ... Review of Social Speech Fright . . . . Relevant Research in Study of Rigidity SmnmaryoftheChapter. . . . . . . . III. MEI'HODOIOGYMQDPROCEDIIRE . . . Introduction 0 o s o o o o o Selection of the Sample . . Description of the Sample . Tm mthOdOJ-Og . o o o o 0 Selection of Measures Construction of Social Speech Fright Administration of the Scales Directions on the Scales . . . Judging of the Scales . . . . Scoring System . ... . . . . . . SMsoooooooooo IV. ANAHSBOFTHEDATA ...... Judge Rating of the Scales . . . Coefficient of Contingency for Analysis of Variance Applied to null m'pothesis Comparison of Differences Behveen Experimental and ‘, Control Groups § Sunmmry seesaw-soc. Scales Investigation of the Hypothesis Divergence of Fact from Hypothesis . . t...” O O 0 O O O I I O O O 0 Cross Validation of Previous Experimentation . . . O O I O O C O O I O O V. W, CONCIIJSIONS AND DdPIICATIOIB FOR FUTURE MARCH O O O O C O O C O . O VMO‘mmbmooooooosoooo hmw.u.mlimooooooooooos Cooowdi'ooooooo mnmmmWMosooooooo , » O‘A(O;’.’.o‘o>ol$'hooo.‘o.o=o-o too... might; ~ , - Conclusions and. Inlications for man-e Research Willi”. ... a he 0,. 0,0 o_s o o o‘o_o o o o 0. Q E EEEEE iv PM 1 I 1 a um arm- rms ‘. _ " 3.5 ”trunnion- of Self-Ratings of Degree of Stage ' .‘ night by 789 Mention 81:11.13 Students, ' . mmii‘WOfIm...coco-ocooiooo-ooo " ”1“" g,‘ emu-1m of Agreement Betveen Judges on E and tr.“ .m3mmesooooooooooaoooooouoo . .vflu'tofnoquencyofvmcogmfivestmctwes. . . . . fit an same Measures Am Combinations of Pairings m nth some I 0 O O O O O O I O I I O I O I O O O O O 3‘82} 5‘ ,._ 3.. j‘ $1,”! M'uOfvuimemmuOfTable3 ooooooooo Jr~:fw lf’w MWBOfSub-m‘mxpaonscalesnands ........ ‘ H 1;; ' §§3 1"..." - c at 7'7. . u I" A ‘ ..‘ l J " ‘ '- u‘ . .. ‘n “ ' , {‘57 i] 1? 3 i ‘ . " .-a .Nuxva .. n ,‘n' r . .. \ v . 8:13! 4 . rat“;(t‘fl ' A | a v " ‘4 63bit? 'T ". “'1 ‘1 . t... -._ ‘. , . ‘ . . " -1 I“ N ‘ .. ~ I‘ 3 ‘- ._ ¥ . v a \ “ x _ “I A$A _ < - CHAPER I THE PROBIEJ Introduction to the Problem The purpose of this study is to emlain the phenomenon of stagefright as it occurs in a college setting. A comparison is drawn between the observed effects of stagefright in this environment and those effects noted from another phenomenon, that of rigidity. This problem became interesting to the writer several years ago. With the organization of the Basic College at Michigan State College certain remedial, advisory and. counseling personnel services were in- corporated to further implement the goals of critical thinking and concepts to be taught in these beginning two years of a college degree program. Through these facilities, a yowing recognition of stagefright situations initiated an awareness that here was a problem requiring closer examination. Incoming students were screened by the speech clinicians who were housed with the Department of Written and Spoken English (now Communica- tions Skills). During the early years of the program these clinicians sent students exhibiting observable problems of personal adJustment related to speech-giving activities to the writer at the College Counseling Center for further interviewing regarding resolution of their problems. As all remedial services grew in scope, a decision was made later to refer every student with a speech problem (i.e. students with nasality, 's' disorders, v the investigation of rigidity.1 A replication of his emeriment was carried out. To accomplish this a comparable instrument to study social speech fright was devised to further cross-validate the concept of rigidity. The following assmnptions underly the study: 1. That rigidity can be tested by the 'E' Scale already standardized by M. Rokeach.2 2. That a speech scale that measures speech fright can be constructed. Definition of Terms Used Neither concept mentioned for investigation, stagefright nor rigidity, can be defined in a way that meets agreement with all authorities. At the same time some reasonably clear definition and understanding of the terms is necessary before formal study can be profitable. l. Stagsfright. An extended discussion of the varied definitions regarding stagefright is treated in Chapter II, Review of the Literature, because these definitions correlate in direct proportion to the changing beliefs of speech personnel and to the consequent treatment performed by these persons regarding the problem. Because the problem under study takes place in Commications Skills classes at Michigan State College the defi- nition will describe the phenomenon in this environment. Some further description of characteristics of stagefright may serve to present the variable in a proper light. The first specific step chronologically is J‘Rokeach, M. , "PreJudice, Concreteness of Thinking and Reification of Thinking," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychom, Vol. 1&6, No. 1, January 1951, pp. 83-91. 2Ib1d., pp. 83-91. W’ 2 et cetera) for this same service. The number of students referred after this decision seemed to increase geometrically. During the Fall quarter of 1952, 276 students with speech disorders were referred to the Counseling Center. The 276 persons were interviewed and directed into one of the three existing campus services for help with their problem: (1) re-referral to the speech clinic for speech therapy only, (2) retention for continued counseling, or (3) referral to psychiatric or medical services. Most of the students preferred readily one of these services; but 82 students who were diagnosed as exhibiting symptoms of speech fright could not feel satisfied with any existing plan of treatment or assistance with their problem. Since this number of students rejected current facilities, yet desired some kind of help; they were retained for further counseling under an exploratory plan to seek out common bases for working with them. Persons previously referred with speech fright symptoms did not respond to usual counseling procedures and were frequently in process at the end of each quarter when a new group arrived for classification. Statement of the Problem This investigation is concerned with the relationship of cause and effect in cases of speech fright. In previous studies, the symptoms of speech fright have never been related to rigidity. This study is con- cerned with such a relationship. Stated as the null hypothesis, the present study becomes a proposal to test the statement: No relationship exists between the variables of social speech fright and rigidity. This relationship was studied through a method used by Rokeach in realization that stagefright is a name applied to the situation which occurs when a student is unable to give an assigned oral report. Instructors report that the presence of stagefright is an interruption of a speech function and interferes with attainment of the objectives of the class. Introspections by students verify this external observation. A listing of descriptive activities appearing in stagefright have been named by students in rank order of importance:l l. Dryness of throat or mouth. 2. Forgetting. 3. Tension in the abdominal region. 1}. Inability to produce voice. 5. Stuttering or stamering. 6. Tremors of knees and hands. 7. Weak voice. 8. Excessive perspiration. 9. Accelerated heart rate. 10. Speech rate too fast or too slow. ll. Stomach upset. 12. Difficulty in breathing. l3. Inability to look at audience. 11+. Feeling that the audience is disapproving. l5. Inability to finish speaking. 16. Excessive hesitation. l7. Dread before speaking. 1&eenleaf,l‘loyd,"Exploratory Study of Speech Fright , Quarterly J___ournal _o_f M, October 1952, p. 328. 1 18. Jittery. M033 of these symptoms appear in each reported case of stagefright. Case histories reported in the literature contain evidence that these same symptoms have been produced previously. That they are perseverated in this new additional speech situation is illustrated by the referral slip. The question might be asked whether this perseveration might not be similar to the failure to change set often alluded to as rigidity. The symptoms appear fixed enough so that these behaviors are typically called forth in every situation met by the individual. This is construed as speech failure or stagefright in the typical class situation; however, should these symptoms be considered of high value, they would as surely appear, but the resulting diagnosis would be success, not failure. The constancy of this phenomenon cued to individual characteristics assuredly dominates any definition. The problem also signifies avoidance or negative reaction and occurs in a social situation when the need for commmication is recog- nized by the speaker. The term £9951 §p_e_e_c_h fright is more descriptive of this phenomenon and will be used henceforth to describe it in this paper. This terminology has been accepted and used by Floyd Greenleaf since 1952.1 Ebllingsworth used this same terminology years earlier2 but studies following his reverted to the older term. As a result of this difference, disagreement, and lack of clarity, the following definition was accepted for this study by three speech clinicians at Michigan State College, Mr. James Platt, Dr. John L. Auston and Dr. Charles Pedrey. Social Speech 11bid. , p. 326. 2Eollingsworth, E. L. , {125 Psycholog 9f the Audience (New York: American Book Company, 1935), p. 20. 6 m -- inability to give an assigned or impromptu speech or oral report. 2. Rigdity. The presence of rigidity had been established with a similar population of college students in an earlier experiment.1 This definition of rigidity in behavior and thought process was utilized for the present study. Rigidity is defined as the inability to change one's set when the obJective conditions demand it. Importance of the Study Social speech fright is a well known phenomenon and more common among both children and adults than most people realize. (he study reported in 1952 , indicated that out of 512 high school students of speech in a large city, only 29 percent were Judged to be free of some form of emotional difficulty in speaking situations.2 In that same year, the University of Minnesota reported 56 percent of one group of 210 students and 61 percent of another group of 277 students were listed as having some form of nervousness in speaking.3 At the University of Iowa, 789 students in Communications Skills were screened to find 38:» expressing a stagefright problem.” The figures indicate the phenomenon to be very widespread. However, the total number of cases reported from different sources may be subaect to error because of the varied considerations in diagnosis. For this reason, exact comparisons by number cannot be made. A reference as to how lackeeeh, g2. gi§., pp. 83-91. 2Greenleaf, pp. g” p. 327. 31bid., p. 326. 1"Ibid., p. 327. 7 these differences occur can be ascertained in Chapter II in perusal of the literature referring to stagefriglrt. The lesser number of cases occurring at Michigan State College cannot be used as an illustration that the problem is less acute on its campus. These totals were determined by counting only those students who were unable to stand before their class and deliver creditable routine oral assignments. Only those students were included in the present study. Others not infrequently verbalized a condition of nervousness via introspec- tion but yet gave fairly creditable performances and were neither referred nor tabulated. Relatively little has been done to study this subject scientifically. The experience of counseling with these students, and the resulting reflection upon the problem by the writer, suggested specific reasons for study of the problem. Some of the considerations which were taken into account follow: 1. Perhaps the prime consideration is that stagefright is a social problem causing mlch unhappiness and feelings of failure for the person. It interferes with spoken commication, one of the most prevalent means of discourse and contact with fellowmen. A disorder of speech affects 'not only the individual but as with any other handicap, affects him in every facet of his life. 2. Some objectives of the communication skills program are based on the following cannon knowledge among speech instructors. The gastro- intestinal tract and the respiratory system are bound together embryo- logically and functionally and as such are the "sounding board" of the emotions. These two tracts are richly enervated by the autonomic nervous system and play such an important part in interrelated functions of the alimentary and respiratory tract that when propriety of a person's conscience is offended these body areas suffer correspondingly. Speech is one of these functions; thus it is possible to have speechlessness, stutteng or faulty sound formations. Speech education has as a basic consideration the emotional adjustment of the speaker in order that the individual may have a free set of organs to profit from speech exercises and drill. For students having stagefright, these goals are unattainable. 3. The students, as a group, exhibited little or no accompanying characteristics of becoming poor students in other aspects of the courses and the teaching staff felt some responsibility in correcting the problem. 1i». Interviews with the students exposed the varieties of problems encountered in adjusting to the situation. Mild to severe degrees of stagefright were described as well as I witnessed by instructors before referral to the writer. Some students reported anxiety from time of assignment of the speech till some weeks later when the speaking situation occurred. Others became apprehensive and tense while approaching the speaker's platform. The "quality" or degree of fear present in the speaking situation was not directly related to the existence of any one other variable. Some descriptions illustrating this variability will lend clarity. Some persons could not recall more tlnn vague reactions to their earliest stagefrighted experience; others related extensive verbal reports of a vivid memory. A few of these examples were: A man 32 years of age did not experience speech fright to any degree until he entered college. His former experiences inch speaking before fraternity groups, large bodies of men in the army and radio broadcasting. He reported speech fright only in speech class, stating that on the same day as an assigned speech he could do a radio broadcast without discomfort. One young lady was an expert cello player and had no "jitters" before performances; but because her mother and a piano teacher forced her to play in a recital, she was unable to speak in groups of more than two or three. She attri- buted her ease with the cello to the fact she learned this on her own and was successful before her, family was aware of it. Other students relate a more generalized response. A young fresh- man - an attractive, blond girl — could not carry on social conversations with boys or girls her own age, superiors in classes, dormitories, et cetera. Many students reported that mixed groups of both sexes caused themtofreeze inthe classroom. Afurther extreme-was shownina number of clients in the referred groups prior to this study who rarely conversed with W peers and some to only a very limited extent with adults. A few noticed that the presence of the teacher caused them worry. Varying degrees of effort in overcoming the problem were noted among tin same students. Some verbalized a great desire to rid themselves of this problem; yet motivation to do so did not bring tangible results in every case. 5. Attempt to isolate causative factors for the group gave only diverging reasons for the phenomenon. In diagnosing any individual case, however, certain causes and the degree of severity seelned inter-related meaningfully in explaining the continuing appearance of speech fright. 6. The problem interferes with functioning of the person toward the A attaiment of his desired goals. 7. In practically every case, one or more embarrassing audience situations occurred, sometimes at home but most frequently at school. There seems to be considerable indication that something in the school enviroment contributed markedly to the development of the early fears and tensions. Authoritative criticism and disapproval by parent figures and reactions to them determine partly the degree of social speech fright and the types of situation in which it is experienced. In other words, the enviroment plays some part in creation and continuance of the problem. 8. 80 little is known about the problem of stagefright that treat- ment consists of rule of thumb procedures. The varied descriptions sur- rounding the phenomenon further illustrate the improbability of transferring “treatments from one successful instance to another and expecting similar results. Previous experimentation indicated in the literature suggested the impracticality of continuing to study the problem in any isolated context. The next desirable alternative was to study stagefright in conjunction with some other variable. 9. Early discovery of these potential "social speech frights“ would aid in preventive measures both therapeutic and administrative. The incidence of this problem among college students is a concern to many university personnel. The selectivity of our college populations suggests that these are the students in whom society has great investment. These persons in the referred group are among those students being trained with more techniques and knowledge for communication of the goals of civiliza- tion and democracy to others not as fortunate. This endowment should allow them to make more promising contributions to society; not to be crippled with the vehicle for transition of their knowledge at the outset of their career. Limitations of the Study The limitations of this study can be categorized into two parts: (a) those limitations surrounding the concepts of the two variables, and (b) limitations related to the methodology and instruments used. A first limitation is partially due to the paucity and quality of information regarding stagefright or social speech fright. Little experi- mental study has been undertaken with this variable and the existing material seems gained only from observation with much of this contributed by non-experts in the speech field. A contrasting limitation is illustrated by the wealth of experimenta- tion dealing with rigidity concepts. The limitations exist in the lack of agreement either among experts or experimental results; as a consequence the accepted body of knowledge holds contradictions. The results of this present study may thus be accepted by some proponents and rejected by those of a different orientation to the concept of rigidity. A third limitation exists in the defining of both variables. Limitations of (b) lie in selection of the sample, construction of a new scale designed to measure social speech fright, and in conditions of reliability; the judging of the scale responses. Organization of the Study Chapter II attempts first: to excerpt the entire range of reported studies on social speech fright to better illustrate the present level of research in this field; and secondly, to report those contrasting varia- tions of rigidity concepts so as to understand the function of the l2 definition used in this research. Chapter III will provide explanation of the procedures and methods used. Analysis of the data will appear in Chapter IV. In Chapter V the findings, conclusions and some implications for further research are presented. CHAPTERII mammmv This chapter is divided into two complete sections. The phenomena of social speech fright and rigidity have not been discussed in relation- ship to each other in any literature so this review treats them separately. Controversial points of view are held by authorities in the field of speech and authorities in the field of psycholoy about the respective subjects of social speech fright and rigidity. A review of each of these topics in isolation will make the subjects more readily understood. Review of Social Speech Fright The subject of social speech fright is considered first. A single definition of stagefright satisfying to all speech teachers currently in the field cannot be found. Stagefright (the older term) or social speech fright is an aberration or sub-division of a much larger discipline, speech. Preliminary statemnts regarding the concepts in the entire field are necessary to understand meaningfully the varied attempts in delimiting stagefright. The term speech conveys differing meanings and was selected more than a century ago as a generic term to include public speaking, discussion, debating, voice science, correction and pathology, oral interpretation drama, the theatre, and related fields.1 The use of the word in the name humans, James A. , Speech M, New York: Appleton-Century it of the national organization, The Speech Association of America, illus- trates this broad meaning. No other word covers on this territory so well as speech. But what is speech? Any explanation of the term must emphasize the concept of commnication. Speech is basically a form of conmnmication between speaker and listener. Ordinarily the medium used is that of the spoken word; but since the act of speaking words is usually accompanied by facial expression, bodily posture, and gesture, speech properly and naturally includes these visible elements as well as the audible features. Of course, commication can be carried by words alone, as over the radio, or in the dark; communication can also be effected by gestures and signs, as in pantomime. Communication is, therefore, the cornerstone of speech activity. This is the concept that brings a semblance of unity to the many sub- divisions of the field. It is also the concept that links the individual with the outside world. As a report of the Contest Committee of the North Central Association states: Commication makes possible group living; and speech, as the chief means of commication, is the universal instrument of social cooperation and coordination. From the most ordinary conversation to the most complex political discussion, speech is used more often and more widely than any other means of com- munication. The world of today is for more persons a speaking and listening world. It is a world, furthermore, that the great majority of youth must learn to live in without the privilege of higher education. Youth, then, must have mouths that speak and ears that hear. "Without speech, I can exist," said the sage, "but I cannot live."1 . It would follow that an interruption of or deviation in this conmmication process would be unpleasant and distasteful to the recipient. However, Company, 1938, p. 1. 1Report delivered at Speech Convention, 1950. 15 such interruptions do occur. Statistics are obtained annually on those persons manifesting speech disorders. The literature is filled with studies of diagnosis and treatment of these problems in the field, of specialization known as speech correction. One of these phenomena has been known as stagefright and has been studied from many angles. The literature exposes a wide range of defini- tions, methods of study and attempts at treatment. Stemming from the inclusive and loosely defined field of speech it is not unusual to find lack of standard or simple frame of reference accepted. Consequently, the task of the writer was to comb all literature regarding stagefright. Review of national conventions, national and sec- tional conferences and all known published material with all of the differing concepts and experiments therefrom are included in this report. Unpublished studies and dissertations have been included when any knowledge of such reached the writer. Some few studies that exactly duplicated others in procedure and conclusions were discarded in favor of the more recent ones. An exhaustive search and presentation was regarded as neces- sary in order to gain the proper perspective to conduct an experimental study with uncontrolled variables. 1 Passages from a very recently published textbook have been chosen to illustrate the historical counterpart of development in the study of this problem.1 Primarily observations with trial and error methods for cure predominated. Cure was the keynote for investigation in early years. It should be noted that this text was published in 1952, suggesting that a JReid, Loren 13., Totem Speech i_n Lhe 29 School, Columbia, Missouri: Artcraft Press, 1952. 16 sement of the practicing speech field still adopts this view. Reid states that stagefright is a universal human experience. The anxiety that an individual suffers before a performce, and perhaps while he is going through it, has a counterpart in most fields of endeavor. Football players are tense before an important game. Professional musi- cians are nervous before a concert, even when playing a program they have presented znany times previously. Surgeons became apprehensive before a critical operation. People who want to borrow money, or apply for a job, or sell a short story, have described themselves as walking around the block for hours before they finally generated enough courage to enter the building. The cannon element seems to be either the lack of experience in the particular situation or the presence of an audience or its equivalent; sometimes both elements appear. Stagefright is common among speakers. A survey of a large group of university professors, most of whom had occasional public lecturing experience in addition to their regular teaching, revealed only two persons who did not report stagefriglrt. Bryan, describing his fear during the cross of Gold speech says in historical recordings of the occasion that only the knowledge that he had a good conclu- sion kept him going. Governor Leslie R. Shaw, a notable stump speaker at the turn of the century, later a member of Theodore Roosevelt's cabinet said: “If a man doesn't get nervous, he is going to make a poor speech." Henry Ward Beecher was one of the eloquent pulpit orators of the last century. For forty years he drew nearly 3,000 people each Sunday morning and each Sunday evening to hear him preach at Plymouth Church in New York City. Yet, on one occasion, he testified, as he entered the church and walked toward the pulpit, he prayed tmt the Lord would strike him down so that he would not have to preach. Exceptions appear to this rule, especially among those who are constantly called upon to speak in public; but undoubtedly, even a hardened lecturer who can face a run-of-the-mill, popular audience week after week without a tremor, would find his old stagefright reappear- ing if he had to make a critical speech before a different audience.l 1932-, p. 95. 17 Reid.1 also suggests a method for overcoming stagefright in view of its universality: in any given class of speech follow the first round of speech giving with an inquiry as to how many suffered from stagefright. he sm'mises that nearly all will report in the affirmative, even those who seem most self-confident. Following this, he suggests that each student he asked to write on a slip of paper the names of his classmates he thought were scared; this list would be surprisingly short. Since students gain comfort from learning that others are afflicted, he feels that one is Justified in be-laboring the point tint stagefright is the general rule. He feels relief of the problem will come by acceptance of the fact that others also suffer. Further statements from the same author, but found in nearly every standard speech text say that a certain amount of stagefright is probably essential to the best speaking performance. It may not be necessary for a "good" popular lecture, since for many experienced lecturers it is also fairly routine. It may not be necessary for a "good" class- room :Iecture, since for the teacher, this type of perfomnce is routine. But once in a while a teacher or a popular lecturer gets worked up ; he has a message of uncomon import; and if on these special occasions the speaker delivers not merely a "good” but a ”brilliant” speech, his speaking was probably accompanied by a little tension. Some experimental evidence is being reported that does not entirely support this point of view, but it nevertheless continues to be a prevalent belief among teachers of speech. The problem therefore becomes not to cure stagefright but to control it. 11mm, p. 97. 18 The universality of the phenomenon indicates by definition that it is potentially possible for everyone to experience stagefright. A corol- lary illustration to leaving the problem at this level is explained by that of the cannon cold - knowledge that others have it gives little relief of the cold in an individual instance, and were stagefright know: to fol- low a given course of symptonm and then disappear after the "fortnight" quarantine of the cold virus, one still would suffer during the interim. Any relief by the “comanality” theory is in feelings or attitudes surr- ounding the phenomenon and perhaps in engendering it as is explained later in this review by research studies. This observation is not ti discourage speech teachers from this technique but to suggest tint it is dismissing the problem too easily to leave solution of the situation at this level. The physiological concomitants of stagefright when they serve to enhance the performance will no longer be considered in the context of this paper. Turning to behavior theory an explanation is given for dropping it in comparison with the concept of motivations. Motivation also is interwoven with physiological concomitants and serves to enhance or facilitate a given activity. However the greater the amount of motiva- tion exerted the mre we observe it no longer facilitating but dissipating itself with meaningless activity or hindering the original task perform- ance. As motivation is most frequently studied for its interfering factors stagefright will likewise be discussed in the delimited frame of reference as a handicapping step in the area of ccmmmication. Continuing with quotations from the "sample" textbook1 selected as representative of those in the field it is seen that the author, Reid, 1 Ride, PP: 98-990 19 also differentiates in degrees of stagefright. He defines degrees of this phenomenon in terms of (l) audience tension, (2) audience fear, and (3) audience panic. Audience Tension A student may therefore ask himself the question, "What form of stagefright do I have?" (Some students may feel they have all three.) Although there is physiological similarity in bodily chemistry as one goes from excitement to fear and back to excitement again, much practical difference exists between audience tension and audience panic. The difference in speaking experience may be a hundred or a thousand speeches. Audience tension may have these symptoms: nervousness, excite- ment and increase in the pulse rate, a feeling of constriction in the throat or chest or stomach, trembling of the hands or knees. After the speaker gets under way, he feels much less bothered by these symptoms; in fact, he may feel quite in command of the situation. It may then be said of him as Gorgias said of Socrates: "Socrates, you have an unusual attack of fluency." Audience Fear The second form of stagefright, properly described as audience fear, is something of a different sort. Ere the individual undergoes one or more symptoms that actually nuke his speaking deteriorate. His voice may become squeaky, his words may sound ruffled, his flow of ideas may falter. The list of sensations is a familiar one. Often there is a pounding of the heart, a thumping as ominous as if the speaker had run several blocks to rake his speaking engagement, taking the platform before he had a chance to recover his wind, knees wobble, hands become shah and moist, or hot and dry. Inhala- tion and exhalation are accomplished with difficulty. The tongue becomes parched and the mouth dry, so that the speaker needs to drink quantities of water, without ever quite being able to get his speech mechanism properly cooled and lubricated. Contrast, for example, the behavior of the beginning debater who consumes half a gallon of water in an hour's debate with that of experienced outdoor speaker William Jennings Bryan -- whose principal interest once in a pitcher of ice water was to pour the contents on his shining bald head so that the sun would not be so oppressive. The feeling in the stench is miserable. Irvin S. Cobb mat have had what we call audience fear inmindwhenhe describedhowamanfeels whenhe has a speech turning around in his system and is wondering whether it is going to come sloshing out, rich in proteins and butter- fats, or Just clobber inside of him and produce nothing but a thin whey. " The speaker who suffers from audience fear is a man abandoned by the gods. The expectations of the ordeal are terrible enough, but the actual performance is worse. E wants to stop, but he has to go on, and reveal his suf- fering in the presence of witnesses. He may stmnble over his first sentence; he may mispronounce words; he may lose control of his voice; he may make a foolish statement like "Mr. Chairman" when he means "Madmn Claiman." A more fortunate wretch may eventually get control of himself and finish without difficulty. Or he may have to fight the demons throughout his entire address. Either way he is likely to want to paraphrase the sentiment expressed by Huck Finn at the completion of his first book: "If I'd lmowed what a trouble it was to make a speech I wouldn't a tackled it, and ain't a going to no more." Audience Panic Audience panic is an entirely different order of experience. Once in a while there shows up in a public speaking class - and the percentage seems to be about the same among classes of college students and classes of adults - a person who is unable to face the audience. This person my not even be able to read to an audience from a manuscript, or stand up and tell his name and address, or say a few words about a profession which he has followed for years. Even if he is caJoled to the front of the room and catapulted by bogus flattery into beginning a speech, he may break down before a few sentences are finished and be compelled to retire." This investigator could find no research to validate this classifi- cation. Bowever, perusal of this and other texts illustrate the same breakdown of divisions signifying degree of the problem. A discussion of the following Approaches that d_o gel help are contradicted in philosophy by the second quotation Suggestions f_or_ m M. Inclusion of these passages are repeated in so many texts (along with the inferred philosopl'v) that restating illustrates vividly the need to bring more sophistication and delimitation to this problem before much long range modification of speech fright can result. 21 Appr_oaches That 2 M Belpl Certain approaches to the problem of stage fright, used principally by laymen, are of little real help and may actually be harmful. "Pick out a friendly person in the audience and talk to him”, This advice frequently appears in print, but is not gooddoctrine. Every member of an audience likes to feel tint the speech is addressed to him; this attitude is re- inforced if he can catch the speaker's eye now and then. To speak to a single person is fine for that person, but not helpful to others present. The advice is especially ridiculous when applied to a group conversation or conference. An individual who addressed his remarks only to one person would lose commication with the rest of those present. "look Just over the heads of your listeners.” The idea behind this fraudulent counsel is that if the speaker can avoid looking directly at any one person, he will be less embarrassed. Those who offer this advice apparently feel that listeners will think the speaker is looking directly at them; any teacher can demonstrate in half a minute that this supposition is fallacious. The best place for the speaker to look is into the eyes of his listeners. Instead of being embarrassed by them, he should receive a good deal of friendly encouragement ; a thought- ful countenance, a generous smile, a nod of ayeement, are all heartening to the speaker. "Imagine that all the members of your audience are sitting in their merclothes." This advice burst into print only recently, and is intended to make the speaker feel superior to the listener. Obviously the mental atti- tude of a good speaker should be not that he is superior to the listener, but that he is genuinely interested in him. The same brand of advice in an earlier day was worded like this: “Imagine that every member of your audience owes you five dollars, and that you are determined to collect.” A speaker will need all the imagination he can muster to get on with his speech without wasting any trying to collect fictitious five dollar bills from the hearers. ”Say repeatedly to yourself, 'I'm a better man than they are, I'm a better man than they are." Again, this 112cm, 92. 2313., pp. 99-100. 22 puts the speaker into the wrong mental attitude. What he should be saying repeatedly to himself, as he begins a speech, are the opening words of his talk: once he gets them safely launched his problem of stagefright begins to recede. You may find it entertaining to relate some of these theories in order to put your own ideas in better perspective. "is smut e _is_Fr ht The following advice is helpful: Humor. Beginning speakers usually take themselves too solemnly. Lincoln, Mersoll, Wilson, Roosevelt, Churchill, and most other great speakers and teachers had an unfailing sense of humor. Tension and anxiety cannot exist in the presence of laughter. A speaker need not tell a funny story; a turn of phrase, an illumination of a situation, a frank poke at himself are all sufficient to break the ice. Message. Speakers must talk on subjects they are personally concerned about. They must be alive, enthusiastic, mentally on fire. When the speaker is over his depth, when he is paraphrasing an article instead of probing his own study and reflection, when his imagination breaks down before the task of intriguing his hearers in the facts to be presented, when his intellectual resources are shallow, then the setting for stagefright is 100% complete. Facts are not dull: facts are dynamic, exciting, persuasive. The dullness lies in the inferior selection, interpretation, application or presentation. Organization. The mman listener has limitations. The speaker should boil his ideas down to four or five min points; two or three are even better. Let these main points represent the quintessence of the case. Disregard the rest; save them for another day -- or perhaps use them if the audience asks questions. Sam Jones, the lyceum wizard, used to say, "My speeches are like a string of boxcars. First I roll out the locomotive; then I attach as many cars as the occasion requires; and when the end of my time approaches, I hook on the caboose." Conviction. Timidity has as little place in speaking as it has anywhere else. A speaker must have the courage of his convictions. Even if his purpose is merely to explain, and not at all to induce belief, he needs the self-assurance of knowing what he is talking about. Students should avoid dis- cussing topics that they know little about or that they do not fully believe in. They should. have the powerful conviction ascribed to the Southern orator: "I will debate secession, suh, with run or devil, suh, at any time or in any place; and what .t 23 I lack, suh, the subject will more than make up.” Experience. The good speakers are experienced speakers. A. speaker may have to make a certain number of speeches against his inclination in order to prepare himself for the speeches that are important. Edward Everett advised the young man who asked the secret of oratory: "Whenever anyone is foolish enough to ask you to speak, you should be foolish enough to accept.“ A sure way to help students control stagefright is to give then repeated experience in area-kins. & Paradox g stagefright Stagefright is a paradox. It has been said that the two things of which Americans are most afraid are traffic cops and audiences. The fear of traffic cops is understandable: the policeman is clothed with the authority to stop you when you are busiest, and compel you to converse with the Judge. The fear of audience is more difficult to analyze, since Americans have the reputation of being the talkingest people in the world. The tradition of town halls, legislative assemblies, mass meetings, stump speaking, and discussion forums is as deeply rooted as any aspect of American life. Fear of audiences also runs counter to the deep need of human beings for listeners. Each one has a small group of individuals to whom he can turn with his problems and his hopes. Difficult problems become more clear when they are talked out. Philosopher John Dewey is said to have exclaimed, after a two-hour seminar that was confusing to the students, ”Well, now it is clear to me." Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, describing the massive theoretical problems confronting those studying the atom, declared, "What we don't understand, we explain to each other." At times, a need exists for another kind of audience--the larger, more diffuse audience of the public speaker--especially when the time comes to go on crusade for an idea or a program of acting. If stagefright prevents anyone from reaching the dif- ferent kinds of audiennes that he needs, he should indeed give the problem careful study. TE yortance 3f Qerience The foregoing cements my be helpful in counseling students. As years go on, you will become better able to advise beginning speakers. You will yourself need to gain two sorts of experience; first, that which comes from repeated conversation with beginning and experienced speakers, to learn their ways of managing their nervousness; and second, and more important, the experience that comes from the speaking 2h you yourself do. One who frequently goes through the actual business of speaking to an audience can best appreciate the beginner's problem. As a counteroffensive against the beginner's fear, you should remind him that fundamentally public speaking is an exciting, stimulating lumen activity. The approval of an audience is a great intoxicant. To have an audience completely absorbed in what you are saying is a thrillim experience, for which any amunt of preliminary apprehension is a small price to pay. The Encyclopedia Brittanica verifies the same overall theory as that of this text; universality and generality without attempting to define or measure the phenomenon beyond simple observable behavior or introspection. The writer does not dismiss the problem in such Pollyanna terms as quoted in the last section of the Reid text. Reid over-generalizes a phenomenon by starting with definition of a seemingly unsurmountable problem but later dismisses it from consciousness. If his latter state- ments are bent toward improved methods of prevention or improved speech education stating it as he does in this context does not differentiate from his earlier treatment of the subject. The foregoing resume is not to be construed as representing the thoughts of everyone in the speech field but does perhaps illustrate the philosoplw and practice of recognizing stagefright and the all too frequent level of attention given it by those who are regarded as authori- ties in the field. Reid's first classification, audience tension, will no longer be considered for inclusion in the definition used in this study. The term stagefright will continue to be used in this review since it has been stated this way in the literature. However, Greenleafl renames the 1 Qreenleaf, Floyd, “Exploratory Study of Speech Frigh ," Quarterly Journal 2; Sach, October 1952, p. 327. 25 phenomenon social speech fright since it occurs in a social situation and seems to suggest fear or fright. The stage is no longer the most frequent arena of formal speaking situations and deserves to be dropped from the definition. "stagefright seems always with us like the poor," quotirg Dr. cmrles van Riper.1 And similar to the problem of disposing of poverty or making many inroads or dimmition of such needs; changing the field of thought regarding stagefright is difficult. However ignoring its presence is not possible for speech teachers so we note an acceptance of a phenomena with little attempt to decrease its prevalence. The basic importance of developing measuring techniques my be fur- tl'nr clarified wbn it is considered that experimentation with stagefright therapies cannot proceed beyond a rule of thmnb phase unless and until it becmes possible to measure stagefright before and after the controlled application of various therapies. Theoretically, the literature yields three possible types of measur- ing techniques or indices, appropriate to the phenomena of stagefright: (l) introspective reports, (2) reports by observers, and (3) physiological changes. Further investigation shows tint the discoveries regarding stagefright as a phenomenon as well as the treatment or modifications of it are not very systemtized or tied together, nor do recent publications very aptly encompass results of former studies. Experimental research on stagefright phenomena will be seriously 1vein Riper, Charles, Spgech correction, New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1912. 26 limited unless and. until techniques of satisfactory validity and reliability can be devised for the measurement of those phenomena. The difficulties of measurement arose when Holtzmanl tried to correlate scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (M.M.P.I.) and three inventories, Judges rating scale, two subjective inventories: to measure stagefright. Time construing efforts early in the study showed the three measures of stagefright were found to agree in three different ways with the M.M.P.I. according to which sub-scale was used and data was further confused by sex differences. E concluded that any final statement in terms of a. general concept of stagefright is not warranted by the scope or data of his study. On the contrary, it can only be noted again that stagefright defies any but operational defi- nition and that its relations to personality structure depend upon the nature of that definition.2 More specifically he noted that all. of the stagefrighted students whether mild, moderate or severe cases had mean averages above the general population mean. The EROS (a scale for rating stagefright introspectively) denoted significant differences among the men and. highly significant differences among the women. The Utzinger scale determining degree of stagefright via Judges showed more sigiificant differences among men but not at all among women. He does state rather conclusively that non-stagefright behavior is symptomatic of not less but differing kinds of personality J'Holtzman, Paul Douglas, "An Experimental Study of Some Relationships Among Several Indices of Stagefright and Personality," Unpublished 2911.1). Dissertation, August 1950, University of Southern California. 2 Ibid. t 27 difficulties. Holtman'sl desigi was to measure the personality structure in the severely stage frightened individual contrasted with that of the less stage frightened. A teleological argument could have developed in the case of positive findims. However, something more descriptive of the phenomenon under scope of this present study might have emerged. Most references in the literature tend to do what our earlier quoted author, Loren Reid,2 still does, use introspection both as the means of discovery am as Judgment of alleviation after several placebos have been employed. One of the more exhaustive studies has been the paper-and-pencil questionnaire administration by Gilkinson.3 This consisted of a systematic introspective report in a form that can be expressed in quantitative terms. The report entitled, "Personal Report of Confidence of Speakers" (PROS) is comprised of 1C1:- items expressing feeling of confidence or fear. It was administered to #20 men and women speech students at the University of Minnesota. He reported a "satisfactory degree" of statistical reliabi- lity on the basis of internal consistency of PROS items. E did not, however, validate the PRCS against any direct and independent criterion. He did determine that fearful speakers tend toward generalized low self-evaluation, and toward anxieties about matters involving social relationships. k concluded that a generalized sense of inferiority frequently operates as a primary cause of the emotional disturbance of a speaker in facing an audience. lIbid. aneid, 22. 933., p. 100. 3Gilkinson, Howard, "A Questionnaire Study of the Causes of Social rears Among College Speech Students ," Speech Mono be, 1918. -- 28 A descriptive personality picture of the stagefrighted person appears in Gilkinson's:L previous discoveries.‘ Generalities abound in the words insecure, self-devaluating and feeling inadequate in varying situations. In this study, (:‘rilkinson2 quotes Eisenson and presents the possi- bilities that stagefright may be: (1) direct fear reaction, (2) emotional conflict, (3) a learned reaction, and (h) inadequacy of response. The results of the study substantiate only the first. Another aspect of the introspective report was that of Henrikson.3 Observing that students suffering from stagefright said that their speaking time was always so very long he wished to see if Judgment of speaking time is influenced by the degree of stagefright. In a. series of experiments, 110 students made several guesses: Part A. One day students were asked to guess, (in their opinion) and mark in degrees, how much fear of speaking will influence Judgnent in amount of speaking time. Part 13. me guess was to determine an amount of time they sat doing nothing, second guess was to guess how long the speaking time was after one had given an impromptu speech on a short subJect presented him at the time of speaking. Part C. Third step was to guess his own degree of stagefright on a scale ranging from point one measuring no stagefright to point ten measuring a very great degree. 11bid. 21nd. 3nenrikson, Ernest m, ”A Study of Stagefright and the Judgnent of Speaking Time ," Jownal. _o_f Applied Ps oholo , October 1938, Vol. 32, so. 5. 29 During Part B, Judges actually clocked the times. Under the conditions described and within the limits indicated most students (95%) believe that the intensity of a person's stagefright and the length of time elapsing during a speech has a positive relationship. Experimental results indicate that persons of all degrees of stage- fright my make errors in Judging a period of time, whether they make the Julenent while they are speaking or while they are sitting doing nothing. There is no significant tendency for degree of stagefright to correlate with an estimation of speaking time, as the students in this study thought. These results tend to throw some doubt upon the introspective report being valid in mtters of degree of stagefright. A subceptive matter may be operating. When a subJect is unable to report a visual discrimination verbally he is still able to make a stimulus discrimination at some level below that required for a conscious response or recognition. This is called subception. Factors of personality which act as organizers of perception and of which the individual may be completely unaware can continue to be experimentally explored as is attempted in this present study. The second type of research attempt has been sumarized by Dickens, Gibson, and 'Pralllwhere reports of 61 expert Judges rated ’40 male speakers at University of Soutlnrn California on observable degrees of stagefright. Sound motion pictures and Gilkinson's PROS scale were additional techniques. Correlations of+ .59 and 4-.th between the PROS and Judge rating were reported. This seems reasonable when the 1 J'Dickens, Milton; Gibson, running and Prall, Caleb, "An Experi- mental Study of the Overt Manireetiatione or stage Fright," Speech nonoggphs, March 1950. 3O PROS purports to measure how the speakers felt, while Judge rating pur- ports to measure how they looked and sounded. The experimenters also reported that a split-half comparison of the 61 expert Judges tended to be remarkably stable and highly reliable with as few as five Judges. The third approach, that. of plvsiological measures, has also been given attention in the literature. William Brady, Md). ,1 who writes a syndicated News Column, says that examination Jitters and stagefright are Just two names for the same ailment anxiety, worry, fear. In a pamphlet that he circulates for cure of stagefright he starts with advice, ”First of all keep cool and don't worry about the forth- coming eramination or performance." He tells concerned persons to begin approximately three weeks beforehand taking a grain of quinine and one milligram of thiamine before or with each meal three times a day. Fur- thermore, he says that if only two grain tablets are available, use these and take only one-half as often. This treatment has brought calm to many sufferers in his experience and after taking faithfully, he invites the subJects to write him of how easy it was to cure themselves. ' Combining the plysiological with other approaches, Dickens and Parker2 did an experiment. Fifty male and 50 female subJects gave regularly assigned speeches. Each was rated by his classmates for observable degrees of stagefright. Immediately following the speech the lBrady, William, M.D., "Examination Jitters and Stagefright," Pmphlet distributed by author on request. 2Dickens, Milton and Parker, William R. , "An. Experimental Study of Certain Physiological, Introspective and Rating-Scale Techniques for the Measurement of Stagefright," §p§ech Monogaphs, November 1951. A 31 speaker went in to an outer-room (clocked at 39 seconds) where his pulse, blood pressure and pulse readings and PRCS were taken preceeding a speech. Means and t-ratios were ascertained for all the possible compari- sons with the following conclusions: 1. The normal pulse and blood pressure rates of over 90% of the subJects were measurably affected by the speaking situation. 2. The direction of fluctuations was predominantly upward although a significant minority of instances showed a decrease. 3. Measures of blood pressure fluctuation before and after were not statistically sigiificant. 1|». In general, the Judge Rating and physiological scores provided higher correlation than the PRCS. 5. Data showed many sex differences and suggested that experience of stagefright may be different for men and women. The theory of universality in stagefright is in error and can be dis- carded as not specific enough to either study the problem adequately nor by the sane philosopm denote any dimunition of it. Adhering to the assmtion that stagefright is unpleasant to the speaker and listener or at least is an interruption of satisfactory communication, stagefright may have to be classified as a more specific phenomenon. An error of the second order would be to emphasize the opposite extreme of complete specificity. The problem of stagefright is closely allied with that of speech disorders proper. It must always be viewed in its proper setting, and its wholesale classification as pathology may be considered doubtful in view of the fact that many seasoned actors admit to having suffered from stagefright throughout their career. 32 However, when stagefright reaches proportions out of the ordinary and hampers the individual in normal intercourse and functioning, it must be classified as a phobia and treatment directed toward the removal of the emotional block underlying the symptom. Many of the studies under the three classifications listed in this review have touched upon an area of experimentation postulated in this paper: inter-relation of social speech fright with the psychological aspects of lumen nature. This was done without intention to study it from this mhasis but the conclusions in the more sophisticated studies infer such a connection between the two variables. The fourth area of investigation of the problem has been to examine the phenomenon from the standpoint of its psychological inmlications. Without so stating some studies have done this. Stanley Paulsonl did a pre-and post-treatment or therapy type of study. He administered the Bell AdJustm-nt Inventory and PRCS to students before and after ten weeks of speech training. To test transfer of training he then had them give speeches under new conditions in new situations. His discoveries were: significant increases in confidence that tended to stay when in a new situation, significant differences on the Bell AdJustment Inventory, in the social adJustment scale; but none of the others. It seems that his subJects perceived themselves in a better light, similar to the results of the Hawthorne2 experiments. JPaulson, Stanley, ”Changes In Confidence During a Period of Speech Training," mach Monogaphs, November 1951. aRothlisberger, Fritz J., and. Dixon, w. J., MEL“ a1__1d ph_e_ Worker, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. 33 1 found contradictory results on the same problem Paulson worked on, Imas the transfer of training did not work although stagefright was decreased during training. A previous study by Moore2 had found no significant differences befieen stagefrighted and non-stagefrighted students on Knower's Speech Attitude Scale, Bernreuter Personality Inventory and Freshnan Placement Examination. Moore3 found sigiificant improvement in self-sufficiency, dominance, emotional stability, and significant decrease in introversion measured on Bernreuter Personality Inventory. Rosel" found a significant increase in dominance and decrease in neurotic tendency as measured by the Bernreuter Personality Inventory. low and Sheets5 conducted an extensive study on relation of psycho- metric factors to stagefright. The evidence of stagefright in college alarmed them and their experience correlates highly with that at Michigan State College.6 In 19h8, a change in college requirements at Iowa State University nude it requisite for every student to elect a fundamentals speech course. This doubled the number of students enrolled because they llamas, Charles, ”Study of stagefright Measured by Students' Reac- tions," M.A. Thesis, Northwestern University, 1931;. 2Moore, Glen, ”Personality Changes Resulting from Training in hands- mentals of Speech," Speech Monogaphs II, 1935, pp. 56-59. 3Ibid., p. 57. 1‘Rose, Forrest A. , "Training in Speech and Changes in Personality, Quar___te_rly Journal _o_f Speech, 26, 19%, pp. 193-196. SIDW, Gordon and Sheets, Boyd V. , "The Relation of Psychometric Factors to Stagefright," Sgech Mono hs, November 1951. 6Chapter III will discuss these test results. 31+ had formerly by-passed the course. An unusual number of cases of stage- fright appeared. Out of ‘$00 students enrolled, 132 were classified as having a clearly distinctive case of stagefright. These cases were determined by rating of students themselves, classmates and instructors. This three-way rating proved more valid than previous measures. The study's purpose was to determine relation- ship of stagefright to the cooperative English test, Cooperative General Achievement Test, American Council on Education Psychological Examination for College Freshmen, Lee Thorpe Occupational Interest Inventory - Advanced series, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Biographic Inventory and Speech Questionnaire. No significant differences were found in General Intelligence, Quantitative Reasoning Ability, more important phases of personality, interest in fields of science, mechanics, nature and business. The greatest difference was found in amount of experience in speaking al- though as manv opportunities for speaking were presented the stage- frighted group and they had not utilized them. The environmental back- ground of the two groups was similar but the lack of speaking experience might be interpreted as symptomatic of a deep-seated personality problem suggesting need for a clinical approach in more severe cases. Other leaders in the field have accepted the underlying assumptions studied in this paper. The minority of their position, however, neces- sitates the present study. Eusbandl says that the symptoms of rapid heart beat, frequent _ 1mm, R. N., “A Study of Emotion in Excitement," Journal o_f General Psycholog m1, 1931+, pp. h65-h7. 35 urination, hollow feeling in stomach and dry mouth are indicative of psychological changes, which are in turn indicative of the existence of an emtional state brought about when the individual experiences a change . in the organization of responses. Some speech clinicians believe that stagefright is a fear response in which the typical adjustment of flight, aggressiveness, imbility, collapse, and manipulative activity are presented. They name it as an instinctive fear response. However, it must be toward strange patterns and the unanswered question is by what perceptual properties an audience beams a. strange pattern. ‘ Murrayl feels that it is neurotic behavior resulting from conflict - longing for an audience and fearing it. He discovered that the attitude of too great self-attentiveness bordering on the neurotic is conducive to the state of stagefright. Bollingsworth2 calls it a learned form of behavior or emotional reintegration -- establishment of responses in connection with reduced cues. An example illustrating this is a real life reincarnation: a singer panicky in an audience was in a train accident where a surging crowd m nearly crushed her. She transferred this to her audience and continues to perform below her previous level. Dr. Elwood Murray3 points out that a mechanism of identification is probably at work in stagefright. He states that speakers are JMurray, Elwood E mech Personalit , Revised Edition, Chicago: a. B. Lippincott, 19in. 2liollimgs'worth, H. L. , I"! Psychom o_f _t_he_ Audience, New York: American Book Company, 1935. ' Smarty, 9p, g:_l_t_., p. 10. 36 responding to another situation which has similarities to the present situation and in which there might have been actual danger. Greenleafl studied many cases of stagefright and concluded that blockages had origins in an earlier experience. "stagefright is the association of fear with inferiority, rising insidiously to the surface and expressing itself in great mental and bodily suffering. The first cause may have been trivial and apparently not connected with a public appearance. Because it has passed unnoticed, the lack of observation became its deadliest factor. Nevertheless it was always glam or someone that caused the feeling of fear. Sui-lary of the writings in this field indicates only that stage- fright is an emtional response to the speaking situation or to the anticipation of such a situation. It is difficult to avoid noting a ‘need for fuller understanding of whatever factors underlie this behavior in the individual. A universal and frequently occurring phenomenon still not isolated as a measurable variable but eternally with us is indicated by the survey. The studies in the literature testify not only to the paucity of useful ii materials but also the need for some orderwto the chaos. Because of the disorder surrounding speech fright, comparison with more sophisticated investigation may point toward dual benefits. The concept of rigidity has been the subJect of careful experimental investigation. It is seen that social speech fright occurs in social situations and is related to personality orientation and overt learned responses. 3" ’6 , ;5 Its onset appears at a time when formerly learned responses are no longer lameness, 92. 3.13., p. 329. 37 operative and a new phenomenon occurs -- that of disorganized activity and reappearance of a stubborn set of responses continuing this behavior despite conscious effort by the subject to overcome them. In short, this problem seems closely related to that of rigidity described in psychological literature. Relevant Research in Study of Rigidity Few terms in psychology are as universally adhered to with as much affect as in the term 'rigidity. ' With the exception perhaps of the concept dynamic, rigidity has as many meanings as there are individuals using the term. Rigidity is used as a construct; that is, some process intervening beWeen directly observable events; rigidity is used as an adverb, modifying or describing some ongoing activity; rigidity is used as a concept, true in its own definition and linked to other concepts; and, finally, rigidity is isolated as a "factor" by some correlational manipulation which asserts its commonality in a number of apparently unrelated activities. Each and every viewpoint of rigidity has not been included in this review but some reference to every well docmnented position has been listed. Each individual who has used the term rigidity with a great degree of vehemence, has claimed the term as his own, and has criticized others for misusing the term. Usually, they pay little attention to the _fgr__m Of another's usage, nor to the framework into which it is being fitted. Ignoring the form and content of a statement, it is then generally easy to show how such a concept does not fit another unique set of criteria for the usage of the term. AA vi 38 However, one of the priority problems in developing an educational science is that concerned with building a system of concepts. It is through a conceptual system that the elements of experience in a logical machine fashion are tied together in a related manner. It should be recoglized, however, that while it may be possible to attribute certain observable phenomena to a particular conceptual scheme, if the concept does not represent anything real, than the results, in terms of the concepts, are meaningless. Hulll states that a theoretical system consists of these elements: a definition of essential terms, a set of postulates, a body of interrelated theorems derived from the foregoing postulates and stated in such terms that they can be empirically verified. The concept of rigidity, which has been developed by the foregoing criteria, is a basic concept utilized in such problems of personality s‘u'ucture and social speech fright as are presented in this study. Hull2 also mentions that one of the elements of a theoretical system is a definition of essential terms. It is the theory that attempts to explain behavior, not the concepts which ulna up the theory, nor the constructs which hold the theory together. If one accepts these remarks as valid it can be acknowledged that the controversies existing about the term 'rigidity' my not be actual controversies. What seems to be at issue amng several individuals, is some personal preference for a theory or for a unique interpretation of such a theory. It is not proper to abstract a term from its context and Jstall, Clark, Mathematico-Deductive Theory o_r Rote Learn—ing (New Ravens. Yale University Press, 19555, pp. 1-13. 2Ibid. , pp. l-l3. 39 then criticize it as not fitting another theory but this seems to be the basic premise for many rigidity controversies. Wernerl may be in a vulnerable position to criticize Kounin's2 use of the concept and insist that the adverbial form used by himself is the only proper one. Luchine3 may not be less vulnerable to state that Roheachh is in error using rigidity as a concept while his usage as a construct is the only appropriate term. The specific approach as exemplified by Kouninj, a student of Ieuin's, is superficially an ahistorical, structural formulation of the role of rigidity in personality. For the specifists, rigidity refers to the degree of thickness of boundary between regions in a topological representa- tion of the psychological life-space. The thickness of the boundary ‘ (rigidity) controls the amount of communication betnen regions, and therefore the degree of integration in a personality. He believes that rigidity is a construct, a way of talking about a process which is inter- vening --- it has no direct behavioral counterpart. The interest of Kounin and Iewin seems to be a description of the individual as he is now constituted, and to the degree that this present description is accurate to predict the future. Jflerner, Heinz, "The Concept of Rigidity: A Critical Evaluation," chholggical Review, 53:18-52, January 19%. 2Kounin, J. 8., ”Experimental Studies of Rigidity," Character and Personalit , 9: 251-272; 273-282, June 19“. 3Luchins, A. s. "Rigidity and Ethnocentrism, A Critique," J__g___\n'nal g Personalit , 17: (dig-too, June 1919. I‘liokeach, Milton, ”Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and Reifi- cation of Thinking, J____ou:mal _o_f Abnormal .a_.n_d Social Ps cholo , Vol.1+6, No. 1, January 1951, p. 3. 5Kounin, pp. c_it., p. 253. Le 1&0 The factor analysts do not espouse a theory in the strictly formal sense. They view the problem principally as extrapolation from various behavioral measures of certain common elements -- and then labeling these elements or factors. Cattelll uses factor analysis as a methodology but describes the phenomenon of rigidity as a ”stiffness," a resistance to forces attenuating to produce change. He has attributed this to a racial trait peculiar to Mediterranean-Near Eastern plvsical types. This rigid temerament is passed along to progeny through genes in a Mendelian fashion. He does not seem satisfied to view it as a single factor, but has extracted many different forms of rigidity in many different tests and interprets them in different fashion. The writer does not pretend to categorize unfairly each of the positions made by various authors but to place them in Jurtaposition to each other as they seem to place themselves in most of their published work. Wernera states that there has arisen a general ambiguity as to the meaning of the term 'rigid,‘ in his paper on a critical evaluation of .$ the concept of rigidity. One of the reasons for this lack of clearness is the fact that some define the term structurally and others define it functionally. The structural definition has taken on a literal -- physical -- meaning, expressed within the framework of Iewinian topological psycholoa. An exponent of this definition, Kounin,3 employing Levin's J'cattell, R. 13., and Tiner, 1.. c., "The Varieties of Structural Rigidity,” Journal 2f. Personalit , 17:321., March 1911.9. 2Herner, pp. 533., p. 1&3. r 3K0un1n, as £1.20, pp. 251-2720 J 1+1 theory of personality structure, formilated an Impothesis of rigidity as a quasi-material property of mental organization. It would be profitable to quote Kounin here. E states: The concept of rigidity has its place in a series of interrelated statements and constructs which are postulated in topological and vector psychology. Briefly, the 'person' is said to be structured and differentiated into parts. The unit of structure is coordinated to a geometrical region, or 'cell,‘ which occupies a certain position among other regions. The psychological environment in which a person behaves is also structured into regions. Behavior is said to be a resultant of certain forces functioning and relating the personal and environmental structures. The structural and positional properties constitute topological psychology. The functional relationships and forces which determine the behavior that occurs within the given structure make up vector psychology. The construct of rigidity deals with the closeness of the functional relationships between cells of the person; in other words, it refers to that property of the functional boundary between the cells of the person which represents the relative independence (degree of segregation) of dif- ferent regions of a person. Occurrences in one region may have quite different effects upon other regions. A change in region A of a person may produce more change in a region B than the same amount of change in a region I produces in a region Y; i.e. tension may spread more easily from region A to region B than from region I to region Y. There may be such differences in rigidity of the boundary beWeen different regions of the same individual and differences in rigidity between comparable regions of different individuals. ' Viewing the term by the ways in which rigidity is manifested overtly, rigidity can be referred to as sluggishness in variation of response,2 fixation of response ,3 lack of variability} perseveration,5 inability J~Ibid., pp. 251-252. f“-lierner, pp. 91.3., pp. h3-52. 3mchevs1q I. and Eonzik c. H. "Fixation in the Rat " Universit 9 , ’ ’ ’ .__z 53 California Publications in ngcholgg, 6:19-26, 1932. "Krechevslq, I., "Brain Mechanisms and Variability," Journal _o_f_ Cgarative Ps‘cholo , 23:121-130, August 1937. 58pearnan, c. 3., Abilities 9; Min: Their Natures g Measurement (New York: Miller: and Company, 1927), p. 53- 1+2 to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it, the inability to restructure a field in which there are alternative solutions to a problem in order to solve that problem more efficiently.:L Werner2 defends the functional definition as the more fruitful of the two and it is in this sense that the concept of rigidity is used in the discussion here presented. While it is simpler to think of rigidity from the behavioral, the functional, point of view, one should also keep in mind the theoretical concept of the psychological structure and differentiation of mental organization from which this behavior seems to stem. In line with this latter thought it should also be noted that stereotyped actions cannot always be directly derived from the rigidity of the boundaries of a person's psychological structure. Such elements as security, fear, and the time element may lead to phenomenologically rigid behavior that may not be due to structural rigidity of the psychological boundaries. A consideration of the literature in this area showed that the litera- ture could be broken down in terms of the following aspects of rigidity: (a) rigidity on the clinical and genetic level; and (b) the general rigidity factor. (A) Rigidity 93 the clinical and. genetic level. Much of the work on rigidity has been from the aspect of brain injured individuals, and a comparison of normal with feebleminded individuals. ‘Werner3 has also studied rigidity with reference to the maturity and immaturity of individuals. He distinguishes the following JRokeach, pp. 933., p. 83. 2Werner, 92. 933., pp. h7-h9. 31bid., pp. h3-52. l+3 three instances: 1. The 'regions of personality' of an imature individual are little differentiated; it is therefore to be expected that mutual interference, in the form of perseveration and stereotypy, should occur frequently. 2. In a mentally growing organism the regions become more dif- ferentiated; a differentiated behavior emerges, varying with changes of situation (functional stability and flexibility). 3. If regions are severed from one another, interconnmmication ceases, and a state of rigidity, due to 'isolation' prevails. Only in this particular instance does the concept of rigidity approach the structural terms as used by Kounin.1 Uernerz takes the position that rigidity is in reality a multiform and not a unitary trait, especially when one considers that there are dif- fering forms of feeblemindedness, which differ from each other in their mental organization. Werner and Strauss3 have shown that varying kinds of rigidity can be distinguished which change in quantity and quality with conditions of the organism. Conclusions drawn by various authors from experiments with children of unspecified forms of mental deficiency may be biased depending on the selection of subJects. As Horwitz’+ indicates in his factored comparisons of 50 normal and JKOlmin, 22. 9—120, PP. 273’2830 2Werner, 92. 9113., pp. 16-52. 3Strauss, A. A., and Werner, H. , "Experimental Analysis of the Clinical Symptom 'Perseveration' in Mentally Retarded Children," American Journal Mental Deficiency, 17:185-188. hHorwitz, Leonard, ”Rigidity Factors in Normals and Psychiatric Patients,” (Unpublished), Study made at Winter Veterans Administration Hospital, Topeka, Kansas. hh psychotic patients in 1952, the extensive battery of rigidity tests that he employs tapped different functions when applied to different popula- tions. The two groups revealed a basic difference in rigidity factors. All these studies might suggest that the "mnltiform" discoveries reveal aspects of a concept more general than has been previously defined. The name rigidity is applied as a differentiating characteristic, not as an inclusive one. In a paper presented in l9h3 Goldsteinl expressed the view that brain.inJured.patients display two kinds of rigidity, called primary and secondary rigidity. Both forms are basically due to 'isolation': "... rigidity appears if a part of the central nervous system.that is anatomically and functionally separated from.the rest of the system.is exposed to stimulation." Primary rigidity is independent of an impair- ment of higher mental processes. It is a basic lack of ability to change from one 'set' to another. This deficiency becomes apparent only if the patient attempts to shift from.one activity to a task that is not related to that activity. The difficulty does not lie in the task itself; in general, the patient is quite capable of solving any of these tasks even if a higher level of abstraction.is demanded. This type of primary rigidity has been observed in patients with lesions of the sub-cortical apparatus. A secondary form of rigidity is a result of the impairment of thinking. This rigidityappears only if the task is too difficult; the patient, in order to avoid a complete breakdown, sticks to the task he has solved before, repeating it over and over. Rigidity here is a lcoidstein, K. "Concerning Rigidity,” Character and Personality, 11:209-226, June 19fl3. 1+5 secondary phenomenon; it is a means to escape from a frustrating experience. There are other means of escape, such as distractibility. Unable to master the situation the patient shifts from one part of the field to another. Goldsteinl believes that rigidity of the feebleminded is also due to this mechanism; the mentally defective, not being able to cope with abstract tasks, becomes perseverative and distractible. Some of the writings of Kounin2 can be profitably explored here in relation to the concept of rigidity. Kounin in this series of papers reveals the concept of rigidity, particularly as applied to the theory of feeblemindedness, tentatively formulated by Iewin.3 This theory is based on studies dealing with comparative behavior of feebleminded and normal children. In experiments concerned with the process of satiation, the resumption of interrupted tasks and the substitute values of substi- tute actions; the findings revealed decided differences between the feebleminded and normal children. After becoming satiated with an assigned drawing activity, the feebleminded refused to continue with free drawing, while the normal children did not refuse. The feebleminded exhibited an 'either-or' status in that they were either satiated or not satiated, while the normal children were partially satiated. In emeri- ments on resumption of interrupted activities, the feebleminded manifested a greater fixation on goals than did the normal. This was evidenced by their more frequent resumption of interrupted activities. In studies on lIbid., pp. 209-226. 2Kounin, pp. 333., pp. 273-282. 3Lemln, K., £3 Qynamic Theory 9;: Personality: Selected Papers (New York: McGraw Hill, 1935), pp. 209-238. #6 substitution it was found to be more difficult to create satisfactory substitute goals in the case of the feebleminded than in the case of the normal children. He summarized the differences between the two groups of children as indicating that the feebleminded children behaved more rigidly, i.e. in a pedantic, 'all-or-none' 'either-or' manner. The construct of rigidity was utilized to derive these differences. Kiounin1 states that rigidity of overt behavior cannot be directly coordinated with rigidity of the boundaries of the regions making up a person's structure, i.e. with his dynamic rigidity. There are factors other than boundary or dynamic rigidity that may Operate to produce phenomenological rigidity. He further states that there are three such uncontrolled factors which.may have influenced the results obtained by Lewin:2 (l) the degree of differentiation of the person. The mental ages and related degrees of differentiation of the feebleminded and normal children used in the experiments were not equated; (2) the degree of differentiation of the relevant areas. Klounin3 states that, "One can speak of the degree of differentiation 'as a whole,’ and the degree of differentiation of particular areas. Two persons may have the same total degree of differentiation, yet one of them may behave in a more stereo- typed manner in a particular situation because the relevant and applicable h regions are less differentiated for him; and (3) the security of the two ¥Kounin, 92. 233., pp. 273-282. 2Lew1n, pp. g;3., p. 286. 3K0unin,‘gp.lglt., pp. 251-272. hIbm., p. 253. #7 groups (fear of failure, et cetera). If an individual feels insecure he may exhibit phenomenologically rigid behavior, not because of his dynamic rigidity but because heis afraid of trying the new and so clings to what he does know. KOuninl worked on the problem of evaluating the concept of rigidity by developing and.measuring the properties of rigidity and ascertaining its validity in theories of age and feeblemindedness. Specifically, with factors such as degree of differentiation and security controlled, can one speak of rigidity of boundaries of regions? If so, can.the concept be related to theories of feeblemindedness and of age? Another part of his work was to attempt to ascertain the predictive value of the construct of rigidity and related topological and dynamic aspects. Specifically: does the theory permit one to state the consequences to be obtained in defined conditions? For a complete description of this series of experiments the reader is referred to the papers of KOunin.2 It is perhaps sufficient to present here the summary and conclusions as Kbunin stated them: The general conclusion is to the effect that any performance which requires a certain degree of communication between neighboring regions (the degree of communication being inversely proportional to the degree of rigidity) is to such an extent made difficult for the older and/or more feebleminded as far as these experiments permit one to generalize, the phenomenological nature of the performance is unimportant. The task may be predominantly of a cognitive nature ... of a motor nature ... or of a volitional nature. If a task is facilitated by a lack of communication between “the neighboring regions, such a task will be more efficiently and accurately performed by an older and/or more feebleminded individual (as indicated by the "transfer of habit" experiment).3 1Ibid., pp. 251-272. 21bid., pp. 252-272; 273-282. 31bid., p. 271. 1+8 There have been a number of approaches used to get at an.understanding of the comparative nature of the psychological structure of feebleminded and normal individuals. These approaches have included comparison on standard tests, comparison of the learning ability, and comparative studies of the cognitive processes of both groups. .Another type of approach has come from.a consideration of general psychological theory, an.example of which is the dynamic theory of feeblemindedness that has been proposed tentatively by Lewin.1 The rigidity theory has proved fruitful because it has permitted the derivation of such postulations as concrete-mindedness and the results of the experiments reported above. Studies in rigidity in feebleminded subJects,2:3:‘*:5:5 in brain injured 7,899,1'Oill312 and spastic subjects, and in schizophrenia13 all indicate lLewin, 9p. _c__i_’§., pp. 209-238. 2Goldstein, 32. 393., pp. 209-226. 3Kounin, pp. 315., pp. 251-272. hpewin, 9p. _c_i;c_., pp. 209-238. 5Werner, pp. 233., pp. h3-52. 6Werner, Heinz, "Abnormal and Subnormal.Rigidity," Journal 9:.Abnormal and Social ngchology, h1:15-2h, l9h6. "(Lego 2.1.12- 8Goldstein, 9p. _c_i__t., pp. 209-226. 9Strauss andfiwerner,‘gp. cit., pp. 185-188. 10Cotton, 0. 13., "A Study of the Reactions of Spastic Children to Certain Test Situations," Journal 2: Genetic Psychology, 58:27-#O, March.l9hl. llStrauss, A. A., and werner, 3., "Comparative Psycho-pathology of the Brain.InJured Child and the Traumatic Brain Injured Adult," American Journal leggychiatry, h5:l—hl, July l9h3. 12Werner, H., and Strauss, A. A. "Causal.Factors in Low Performance," American.Journal Mental.Deficiency, 85:213-218, l9kO. 13Kasanin, J., and Hanfman, R., "An Experimental Study of Concept Formation in Schizophrenia," American.Journal gflPsychiatgy, 95:36, July 1936. ‘ 1+9 that concreteness of thinking is usually found in rigid persons. A number of studies on the effect of decortication on rigidity have been performed. These studies compare the performance of decorticated 1 concluded that rats with cortical rats with that of normal rats. Cameron lesions are inferior to normal rats in learning new problems and in adapting to modifications of old problems. Maier2 inferred that operated rats are more likely to repeat errors than normal rats. Hamilton and Ellis3 concluded from their investigations that operated rats were more constant in their behavior than the same animals had been when normal. KrechevskyLL came to the decision that cortical lesions in rats resulted in less variability and plasticity of behavior. Krech and Hamilton5 found that, with stress, a naive experimental rat will immediately fixate on one form of response and will show almost no variability at all in his choice of activity. Farber6 ”found in rats that fixation resulting from shock may be a result of operation of secondary reinforcement resulting from anxiety reduction and due to factors operating in ordinary learning situations." lCameron, N. , "Cerebral Destruction in Its Relation to Maze Learn- ing," Psychological MonOgraphs, Vol. 39 #1, 1928. 2Maier, N. R. , "The Effect of Cerebral Destruction on Reasoning and learning," Journal 9; Comparative Neurology, 5h:l+5-75, January 1932. 3Hamilton, J. A., and Ellis, W., "Behavior Constancy in Rats," Journal 93 Genetic Psycholoq, h2zl38, March 1933. hKI‘GChEVSky, 92. 2&0, PP. 121-1300 5Krech, I., and Hamilton, J. 11., "Studies in the Effect of Shock Upon Behavior Plasticity in the Rat ,“ Journal Conparative Ps cholo , 1933: 16,237-253._ 6Farber, I. E., "Response Fixation in Anxiety and Non-Anxiety Situation," Journal Experimental Psycholoq, l9h8-38; 111-131. 50 There has been a number of experiments testing the effect of fre- quency and repetition on rigidity of behavior. Krechevsky and Honzikl in an experiment utilizing rats as the experimental subjects concluded that rats that had overlesrned a particular pathway to a goal had there- after greater difficulty in learning a new pathway. Luchins2 in an experiment involving experimental increase in rigidity found that he could increase the rigidity on critical problems by giving the subJects more problems designed to establish a set. Rokeach3 designed and carried out a series of experiments from which he concluded that an increase in perception time seems to result in a decrease in rigidity and also decreases concreteness of thinking. (B) The General Rigidity Factor. A number of workers in the field of rigidity as a personality factor have hypothesized that there is a general rigidity factor which will per- vade many of the actions of the individual, both actions that are overt and those that are not apparent on the surface. The work of Fisherh' on a study involving individuals all of average intelligence, though differing as to normal and abnormal behavior, has for its basic hypothesis a persistent personality rigidity. He states: The hypothesis that forms the basis for the measurement procedures utilized in this study is that there are persistent personality rigidity trends which are relatively independent lKrechevsky and Honzik, pp. p33,, pp. l9-26. 2Luchins, pp. p313” p. 1#55- 3Rokeach, Milton, "The Effect of Perception Time Upon Rigidity and Concreteness of Thinking," Journal pf Egerimental Psychology, 1i0: 206-216, April 1950. ”Fisher, S. , "Patterns of Personality and Some of Their Determinants," Psychological Monographs, 64:1-h8, 1950. 51 of intelligence. It will be assumed that such rigidity trends reveal themselves in the degree to which any given individual is able to indicate in some behavioral _wpy his ability to utilize alternate modes of response when dealing with problems or situations requiring adjust- ment.... It is important that it be clearly understood to what degree this brief hypotmsis really does neglect the complexity of factors involved in rigidity phenomena. One suspects that if sufficiently sensitive measuring instruments were available, it would be possible to analyze rigidity phenomena in many different dimensions. Thus, hypothetically one might be able to measure rigidity as it affects perception of situations, as it affects subkctive reactions to situations, and. of course as it affects overt behavioral reactions to sit- uations. Furthermore one might be able to describe rigidity in each of these dimensions in terms of a large number of descriptive continua (e.g., quickness with which evoked degree of persistance after arousal, and. degree of generalization). Ideally, it would be well to measure as many of these phases of rigidity as pos- sible. But it has been necessary here to treat the problem in a simpler fashion: to confine postulations to overt behavioral manifestations of rigidity and to limit them to rigidity manifestations conceived to exist on a single restricted continuum... Fisher's2 project was based on the following questions: (1) Do individuals show a consistently rigid behavior in various situations? (2) Are there differing kinds of rigidity; if so, what is the importance of each in the personality structure? (3) Do individuals who are in general emotionally restricted show a rigidity of behavior? (h) Does the self analysis of a subject have any relation to rigidity? and (5) Do those who are not normal (2.3., neurotic) show specific rigidity trends? Fisher concluded from his studies that the results implied that personality rigidity manifestations cannot accurately be described in either very specific terms or in very general terms. Fisher states that lIbid., pp. 1-2. 2Ihid., p. 3. 52 his data suggest that there are possibly two hvels of rigidity: (l) situations involving no emotional threat to the individual; and (2) those situations involving threat to the individual or which question his self esteem. He also states that intelligence seems to have no clear relationship to the character of an individual's rigidity pattern. To summarize Fisher's workl in relation to the hypothesis of gen- eralized mental rigidity, while Fisher is operating on the basis of this twpothesis his results do not present any conclusive evidence to indicate either generalized mental rigidity or rigidity in specifics. The work of Frenkel-Brunswik and Sanford2 and Rvinson and Sanford3 indicate the possibility that rigidity of personality structure is an all pervasive phase of the personality. These authors indicate that the dif- ferences between the prejudiced and non-prejudiced individuals suggest that there would exist similar differences in the manner in which they would solve other types of problems that they would be confronted with. A certain inability, in the perceptual and cognitive approach of an individual to tolerate more complex, conflicting, or open structures might, it seemed, occur also to a certain extent in the emotional and social areas. Proceeding from the observation that some persons can tolerate the coexistence of love and hate less than others can and that these persons seem to tend toward perceiving people generally in terms of positive or l_ lIbid. , pp. l-ua. 217Tenkel-Brunswik, E. ,and Sanford, R. , "Some Personality Correlates of Anti-Seminitism," Journal pf Ps cholo , 20:271-291, November 1945. 3Fz‘enkel-Brunswik, E.; Levinson, D., and Sanford, R., "The Anti- Democratic Personality," eadygs _i_n_ Social Psychom, The Newcomb Editor (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 19117), pp. 531-51L1. 53 negative halos and dichotomies rather than allowing for independent and continuous variability of traits, we may ascertain just how pervasive this disposition might be in.memory concept formation and perception proper. Results collected by Cattell.and Tiner1 support the conjecture that by and large such tendencies as the quest for unqualified certainty, the rigid adherence to either authority or a stimulus, the inadequacy of reaction in terms of reality, operated in.more than one area of person- ality. They demonstrate that specific forms of reaction as orientation toward concrete detail (stimulus-boundness) tend to occur again and again ‘without an individual in contexts seemingly far removed from.each other. Inclination toward mechanical repetition of faulty hypotheses, inaccessi- bility to new experience, satisfaction with subjective and at the same time unimaginative, over-concrete or over-generalized solutions, all appear to be specific manifestations of a general disposition which holds sway among certain groups of individuals, such as the ethnically pre- judiced, in their approach to emotional and social as well as more purely cognitive problems. A desperate effort is made to shut out uncertainties the prejudiced individual is unable to face, thus narrowing what Tolman2 has called the cognitive map to rigidly defined tracks. This pervasive mode of behavior is learned by the organism to protect itself against the ego-threatening forces of the society and the internalized representation of that society, the super-ego. This intolerance of ambiguity is learned to reduce the threat to the ego which social and 1Cattell and Tiner, pp. 333., p. 2Tolman, E. C. "Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men," Psychological Review, 19MB, 55, 189-208. 51+ parental attitudes produce when the naturally ambivalent feelings of the individual come into conflict with such attitudes. These "naturally" ambivalent feelings are universals, according to the Freudian fornmlation of the psychosexual nature of the development of the personality. The concept rigidity then, is a mechanism which an individual makes use of in the course of growth of the personality and apparently due to the resultant decrease in the ego-threat, becomes a pervasive mode of beha- vior. The pervasiveness of this mode of behavior is evidenced in response to attitude scales, ethnocentrism scales, change of set experiments, projective techniques, and in play therapy situations. The question then arises: Why do some individuals seek such a mode of behavior (rigid) while others make use of some otkr mechanism? The resolution of this question seems to be in the early learning experiences of the indi- vidual; which, of all the mechanisms available to the individual, provides the greatest and easiest reduction of this ego-tm'eat. Rigidity, then is an intolerance of ambiguity; a refusal to deal with objects and problems in the internal and external environs in a manner otmr than that of dichotomization. Everything is either good or bad, liked or disliked, loved or hated, black or white. The rigid individual resists efforts to change this mode of perception for him, and maintains this mode over a great variety of activities. The basic assumption of the work of Rokeach1 was that one of the characteristics of ethnocentric thinking is a rigidity and inflexibility of the thinking process. To Rokeach the main problem which suggested JRokeach, Milton, ”Generalized Mental Rigidity as a Factor in Ethno- centrism,” The Journal pf Abnormal and Social Psychology, 18:259-278, July 19%. 55 itself for investigation was whether this type of rigid thinking operates only in the solution of social problems or whether it is equally charac- teristic of the ethnocentric individual in his approach to other kinds of problems as well: social or non-social in nature. Rokeach took the position that the individual's social attitudes may be regarded as that individual's unique solution to the problem of how he will group people into classes and how he will react to these classes. A similar position is taken by Krechl who also regards attitudes as problem solving attempts. The hypothesis tested by Rokeach in his work was as follows: The rigidity inherent in the ethnocentric persons' solution of social problems is not an isolated phenomenon within the personality but is rather an aspect of a gen- erally persistent personality characteristic which will also manifest itself in the solution of all kinds of problems, even though such probhm are completely lacking in social content. Rokeach labeled this 'generally persistent personality characteristic' as a general rigidity factor. In order to test his hypothesis he cate- gorized his subjects into two groups: (1) a grouping broken down into those scoring high and those scoring low on the California Ethnocentric Scale; and (2) a group broken down into those individuals manifesting an inability to change from one mental set to another previously followed in the solution of a series of arithmetic problems. The results indicated ' that those individuals who were high on the California Ethnocentric Scale were also, in a statistically significant ratio, unable to change their mental set in the solution of the arithmetic problems. In other words, those individuals who manifested a rigidity in ethnocentrism also lkrech, D., ”Attitudes and. Learning; A Methodological Note," Ppy- chological Review, 53:290-293, November 1911.6. 2Rokeach, pp. 235:" p. 259. 56 manifested a rigidity in the solution of arithmetic problems, which may be described as a relatively non-social situation. It was primarily on the basis of the confirmation of the hypothesis of Rokeach, that the rigid thinking characteristics of the ethnocentric individual were shown to be also characteristic of his approach to non- social problems. Upon further study of the literature there were found additional observations that strengthened these hypotheses. The book, The Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, Sanford} proved to be a highly valuable source of information. In the chapter on "Personality Organizations Seen Through Interviews," written by Frenkel-Brunswik, the following observation is made: ... there is in the records of the low scorers a ten- dency to use a great deal of qualifying phrases and other devices characteristic of an approach that is judicious rather than prejudicious through dogna, convention or a fixed set.... There seems to be a general tendency on the part of the low scorers to expose themselves to broad expe- rience -- emotional, cognitive, perceptual -- even at the risk of having to modify one's preconceived notion and of having to sustain conflicts. Thus all evidence seems to 2 point toward a greater over-all rigidity in the high scorers. Frenke l-Brunswik continues with: The inability to "question" matters and the need for definite dogmatic answers, as frequently found in high scorers, leads either to an easy acceptance of stereotyped, pseudo-scientific answers, of which escape into ready-made hereditarian explanations is but one manifestation, or else to an explicitly anti-scientific attitude.... Its opposite is a scientific-naturalistic attitude, found predominantly in the low scorers.... The anti-scientific thinking of the typical high scorer is closely connected with his tendency toward superstition.... The fact that high scorers on ethnocentrism are more often given to stereotyping, pre- judgments and ready generalizations, or else to over-concreteness, 1Adorno, T. W., and others, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 990. 2Ibid., p. h6h. 57 should not blind us to the fact that there are also ten- dencies of this kind in low scorers.l And, finally: ... point toward the relative prominence in ethnically prejudiced as compared with unprejudiced children of a tendency to inpose, in a rigid manner certain preconceived sets upon ambiguous perceptual data or upon the solving of reasoning problems.2 Cattell and Tiner3 state that the concept of rigidity has been used widely in psychology dealing with personality. It has also been used as a possible explanation, "with positively journalistic abandon and incon- sequence ,"l‘ by the psychiatrists. "It should have been used," they say, "by the psychologists interested in learning theory, but with negligible exceptions it has not received any systematic examinations in that direction. "5 Cattell and Tiner use the term 'rigidity' to mean, "stiffness, i.e., a resistance to forces attempting to produce change."6 They have cate- gorized rigidity into two classes: (1) the rigidity of processes -- the tendency of an activity to persist when once activated; and (2) structural rigidity -- resistance of a habit or personality trait to forces which might be expected to change it; that is, to cause learning. Their paper is concerned with structural rigidity. They state that structural lIbid. , p. h6h. 2mm, p. not. 3Catte11, R. 3., and Tiner, L. G., "The Varieties of Structural Rigidity," Journal _o_f Personality, 17:321, March 1914-9. “leg; 9.1.12- 5222- at 6Ibid.’ PP. 322’323. 58 rigidity may arise from three classes of causes: (1) rigidity through failure of a new behavior to appear; (2) rigidity through internal dynamic conflict and equilibrium; and (3) rigidity as a basic attribute of all dispositions. This latter may be another way of referring to generalized mental rigidity, for mention is made of "Other conceivable varieties of this inherent rigidity of ergic (innately preferred) patterns as con- trasted with acquired actual habits; ..."l Horowitz2 discovered the same disposition and ideational inertia as Cattell and Tiner. The latter factor was found by him to be related to generalized rigidity function including perception, goal setting and motor behavior and was further connected to neurotic trends. In addition to these two factors, another significant grouping appeared which seemed to be a function of ”effort." That is, individuals who apply great effort in their approach to various tasks show rigidity especially in goal setting. Frenke l-Brunswik , 3 in a paper dealing with perception and personality, states that a prime concern of her work is to bring together a variety of aspects to study the generality or lack of generality of the personality patterns involved. That is , she states, the readiness to spread from one area of manifestation to another. She asks the question: Can basic formal attitudes such as subjectivity, rigidity, fear of ambivalence and of lIbido, P0 321. 2Rorowitz, E. L., "Race Attitudes " Characteristics pf the American 123p, (New York: Harper Brothers, 19111;), p. lI09. 3lfi‘enkel-Brunswik, E. , "Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable," Journal p_f_‘_ Personalipy, 18:108- lh3, September 1919. . 59 ambiguity be taken as unified traits of the organism, or are we to find a more differential distribution, varying from one area to another? It is interesting to note that in this paper mention is made of the work of Rokeachl in that Frenkel-Brunswik worked with the same children that he employed in part of his work. She found that the rigidity scores derived by the arithmtic technique tend to correlate with over-all clinical ratings of children's rigidity based on their attitudes toward parents, sex-roles, self, moral values, et cetera as revealed in clinical inter- views. The evidence presented strongly suggests the generality of personality rigidity. In a series of taco papers by Cattell2 on the subject of persevera- tion he came to the conclusion that disposition rigidity can be measured as a single general factor in batteries of tests covering a wide variety of motor performances. This factor of disposition rigidity, he states, at present best defined by motor tests, is definitely present also in some sensory, perceptual, and symbolic processes. Avoidance of confusion with perseveration, he continues, requires that the term "disposition rigidity” be preserved precisely for the general factor now known. A réview of two papers consisting of a critique of the work of Rokeach by Luchins3 and a rejoinder to the critique by Rokeach" is 1Rokeach, pp. pip, pp. 259-278. 2Cattell, R., "The Riddle of Perseveration, I a. II," Journal p_f_‘ Personalipy, lh:229-267, June 1916. 3Luchins, A. S. "Rigidity and Ethnocentriam: A Critique ," Journal p_i; Personality, l7:ufi9-Li66, June 1919. “—- "Roiceach, Milton, "Rigidity and Ethnocentrism: A Rejoinder," Journal pf Personality, .17:l+67-1+7h, June 1919. 60 presented. It is felt that a presentation of these papers would clarify some of the points that might be considered debatable in the work of Rokeach (and of the work in this present report which.stems from.the research of Rokeach). It is also considered desirable to present a point of view Opposed to the idea of generalized mental rigidity -- the viewpoint of Luchins. Luchins holds that the work of'Rokeach was invalid on the following points: (1) the study did not confirm.the hypothesis and that it con- tained a number of’methodological flaws; (2) that there was a possible lack of validity and reliability of the measuring devices that were used to measure ethnocentrism, rigidity, and.concrete-minded responses; (3) the interpretation of the results in terms of responses being indicative of or due to something in the subject's personality and that this something was in the nature of a general factor; (h) that the study disregarded the possibility of the results stemming from.the field conditions; and (5) that the investigation follows the class-oriented psychological approach rather than the field-theoretical approach. Luchinsl suggests that the responses on the California Ethnocentric Scale are not reliable due to the fact that relatively few items are utilized in the make-up of the scale. He also indicates that there is the possibility that the verbalized responses by the subjects to the items are not truthful, or may have been misinterpreted by the subjects, or that the responses were due to conditions that existed at the moment and were peculiar to that particular moment. Luchins further suggests that Rokeach arbitrarily cut the experimental groups of subjects into lLuChinS, 22. SEE-3’0, PP. M48-llll-9. 61 rigid and non-rigid categories using the median as a convenient point of demarcation. He contends that this arbitrary method could be charac- terized on the basis of the utilization of absolute values. In reply to this portion of the critique Rokeach:L states that the reliability of the California Ethnocentric Scale is not zero, but ranges from .7 - .9. Therefore, he concludes, the responses are not "accidental." He further states that while there is controversy over the validity of prejudice scales based on verbalized responses ... we preferred to get on with the research with the assurance that to the extent that responses to prejudice scales are hypothesized and found significantly related to other variables (e.g. , rigidity and concreteness) , to that extent at the least we may assume the scale to be both reliable and valid.2 In relation to the critique of the arbitrary dichotomization of the subjects into "High" and "Low" prejudice groups, Rokeach maintains that dichotomization does not necessarily impute the absolutes of complete prejudice or complete non-prejudice. He points out that throughout his paper such phrases as "ethnocentric person and variants thereof," and, "high in ethnocentrism) and variants thereof" appeared frequently, thus halving the idea of an absolute conception. Luchins, in referring to Rokeach's main hypothesis, "The rigidity inherent in the ethnocentric persons? solution of social problems ..."3 asks the question as to why was it inherent in his solution? Rokeach replies that this is a premise -- and that the hypotheses presented are llRokeach, pp. pip, p. 168. 2Ibid., p. h67. 3Ibid., p. 259. 62 based on premises. He states, "It remains to be seen, of course, to what extent our basic assumption is confirmed. One way to determine this is by examining the outcome of ... research."l Luchins felt that the use of the arithmetic problems to determine rigidity is not valid. He contends that this is not a completely non- social situation and that emotional and social factors biased the results. Rokeach indicates that such a thing as a purely non-social problem does not exist. He feels that the arithmetic technique provides as non-social a device as could be found. Rokeach defined rigidity "as the inability to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it, as the inability to restructure a field in which there are alternative solutions to a problem in order to solve that problem more efficiently."2 Luchins contended that the experimental conditions did not meet the needs of this definition of rigidity. He asserted that the experimental set-up did not show that the objective conditions demanded that the subject change his set and that, therefore, the complicated solution was just as simple as the uninvolved solution. Rokeach's reply was to the effect that if the conplicated solution was just as efficient then one would expect the subjects to continue to use it all through the experiment. But, on the contrary, tmre is shown during the progress of the experiment a progressive decrease in intricate solutions on successive problems. Luchins takes the stand "that rigidity is not a function of the personality p_e__1_' pp but of particular field conditions."3 On the other 1Ibid., p. #68. 21bid., p. 260. 3Luchins, pp. 23., p, 1.59, 63 hand, as Rokeach.points out, Luchins seemingly contradicts himself for he speaks of the differences between feeblemdnded and normal children.in terms of differences attributable to differences in the rigidity of per- sonality structure. Luchins bases his critique of the methodology used in the research on the grounds that Rokeach had used a class approach rather than.a field approach in his procedure. .He defined the class oriented.method as: (1) based upon.dichotomous classification in.place of continuous grading; (2) categorization that is based upon end results rather than upon the nature of the processes involved in bringing about the end products; (3) concern.is with statistical averages rather than with any particular case; (b) lack of concern.with the exception to the rule; (5) "... consists in regarding an individual's behavior as determined by something in the individual's nature."1 To persist that Rokeach dealt only in.Aristotelian concepts belittles the context of his research, and denies his frame of reference for experimentation. Rokeach.in.reply to the charge of using the class oriented approach states that both personality and environmental factors are determiners of behavior; he chose to emphasize the factors of the personality. He further states that: Luchins seems to hold the view, not shared by the writer, that since field conditions determine the behavior it follows that only specific factors are operative, i. e., there are no constants in.behavior. If Luchins' view were correct, generalizations would be possible only between one situation and another precisely like it. Our conception of psychological fields leaves room.fbr the Operation.of both constant and variable factors. The situations we set up represented different psychological fields for different 1Ibid., p. #65. individuals. _f_ Genetic Psgholom. 1L2: 120-139. March 1933. Henrikson, Ernest H. "A Study of Stage Fright and the Judgment of Speaking Time." Journal 9; Applied Psychology. October 1938. Vol. 32. No. 5, Henrikson, Ernest H. "Some Effects on Stage Fright of a Course in Speech. " Quarterly Journal _c_>_1_5_' Speech. 191L3. Vol. 29. pp. 1L9O-1. Husband, R. H. "A Study of Emotion in Excitement." Journal _o_f General Psychology. XLyI. 1935. pp. 465-7. Kasanin, J. , and R. Hanfman. "An Experimental Study of Concept Formation in Schizophrenia." American Journal 9;: _ Psychiatgy. 95: 35-52. July 1936. Knower, Franklin H. "A Study of Speech Attitudes and Adjustments." Speech Monographs. November 1938. pp. 130- 203. 127 Kounin, J. S. "The Meaning of Rigidity: A Reply to Heinz Werner." Pschhological Review. Vol. 55. No. 3. May 191L8. ‘ Kounin, J. 5. "Experimental Studies of Rigidity." I and II. Character and Personality. 9: 251-272; 273-282. June 191L1. Krech, I., and Hamilton, J. A. "Studies in the Effect of Shock Upon Behavior Plasticity in the Rat." Journal Comparative Pchhology. 1933. 16. 237-253- Krech, D. "Attitudes and learning: A Methodological Note." Psychological Review. 53: 290-293. November 191L6. Krechevsky, I. "Brain Mechanisms and Variability." Journal _o_f Compara- tive Psychology. 23: 121-138; 139-163; 351-361L. August 1937. Krechevsky, I., and C. H. Honzik, "Fixation in the Rat." University _<_J_i_' California Publications 1__1_'_1 Psychology. 6: 13-26. 1932. Levinson, D. J. "An Approach to the Theory and Measurement of Ethnocentric Ideology." The Journal _o_f Psychology. 28: 19-39. January 1919. Levinson, D. J ., and R. N. Sanford. "A Scale for the Measurement of Anti- Semitism." Journal pi: Psychology. 17: 339-370. December 19%. Lomas, Charles. "Stage Fright." Quarterly Journal _o_f Speech. December 19%. Lomas, Charles. "The Psychology of Stage Fright." Quarterly Journal pf Speech. February 1937. Low, Gordon M. , and Sheets, Boyd V. "The Relation of Psychometric Factors to Stage Fright." Speech Monographs. November 1951. Luchins, A. S. "Mechanization in Problem Solving: the Effect of Einstellung." Psychological Monogaphs. 51L. #6. 191L2. Luchins, A. S. "Rigidity and Ethnocentrism: A Critique." Journal _o_f Personality. 17: 14-49466. June 191+9. Maier, N. R. F. "The Effect of Cerebral Destruction on Reasoning and . Learning." Journal 93 Comparative Neurology. 51L: 45-75. January 1932. Moore, Glen. "Personality Changes Resulting from Training in Fundamentals of Speech." Speech Monographs. II. 1935. pp. 56-9. Murphy, G., and Murphy, L. B., and Newcomb, T. M. Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Harper Brothers. 1937. 1121 pp. Paulson, Stanley F. "Changes in Confidence During a Period of Speech Training." Speech Monographs. November, 1951. 128 Pinard, J. W. "Tests of Perseveration." British Journal at: Psychology. 23: 111L-126. July 1932. Pitcher, Barbara and Stacey, Chalmers. "Is Einstellung a General Trait?" Journal _o_f Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 1L9. January 195k. No. 1. "Program of Speech Education: The Recommendations of the Contest Com- mittee of the North Central Association with Respect to Speech as Submitted by the Speech Association of America." Quarterly Journal 2: Speech. October 1951. Rokeach, Milton. "Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and Reification of Thinking." Journal 9: Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. lL6. No. 1. January 1951. Rokeach, Milton. "The Effect of Perception Time Upon Rigidity and Concreteness of Thinking." Journal 9_f Experimental Psychology. Rokeach, Milton. "A Method for Studying Individual Differences in 'Narrow- Mindedness'." Journal _o_f Personalit". Vol. 20. No. 2. December 1951. Pp. 213‘2300 Rokeach, Milton. "Toward the Scientific Evaluation of Social Attitudes and Ideology." The Journal 9: Psycholpgy. 31: 97-1OLL. April 1951. Rokeach, Milton. "Rigidity and Ethnocentrism: A Rejoinder." Journal _o_f Personality. 17: 467475.. June 191+}. Rokeach, Milton. "Generalized Mental Rigidity as a Factor in Ethnocentrism." The Journal pf Abnormal and Social Psycholom. 1L3: 259-278. July 191L8. Rokeach, Milton. "Narrow-Mindedness and Personality." Journal 9;. Personality. Vol. 20. No. 2. December 1951. pp. 231L-251. Rose, Forrest A. "Training in Speech and Changes in Personality." Quar- terly qurnal pi: Speech. 26. (191+O). pp. 193-6. Strauss, A. A. "Experimental Analysis of the Clinical Symptom 'Persevera- tion' in Mentally Retarded Children." fmerican Journal Mentally Deficient. 1L7: 185-188. 191L2. Strauss, A. A. , and Werner, H. "Comparative Psycho-Pathology of the Brain Injured Child and the Traumatic Brain-Injured Adult." American Journal _o_f Psychiatry. 51+: 1-1Ll. July 191L3. Tolman, E. C. "Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men. " Psychological Review. 191L8. 55. pp. 189-208. 129 Werner, H. "Abnormal and Subnormal.Rigidity." Journal of Abnormal and Social.Psychongy. Al: l5-2A. January l9ho. Werner, H. "The Concept of Rigidity: A Critical Evaluation." Ps*- chological Review. 53: A3-52. January 19h6. Werner, H., and Strauss, A. A. "Causal Factors in Low Performance." American Journal Mentally Defective. #5: 213-218. 1940. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Brady,‘William, M. D. "Examination Jitters and Stage Fright." Pamphlet obtained November 1951. Christie, J. R. "The Effects of Frustration on.Rigidity in.Problem Solution." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California. l9h9. Cowen, E. L. "A Study of the Influence of Varying Degrees of Psychological Stress on Problem-Solving Rigidity." Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion. Syracuse University. 1950. Harris, Robert A. "Effects of Stress on.Rigidity of Mental Set in Problem Solution." Unpublished dissertation. Harvard University. 1950. Horwitz, Leonard. "An.Investigation of the Nature of Rigidity." Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, New York University. 1951. Hbltzman, Paul.Douglas. "An Experimental Study of Some Relationships Among Several Indices of Stage Fright and Personality." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. August 1950. Knisley, Wade Allen. "An Investigation of Phenomenon of Stage Fright in Certain.Prominent Speakers." Unpublished study. University of Southern California. Lomas, Charles. "Study of Stage Fright Measured by Student Reactions." M.A. thesis. Northwestern University. 1931+. Platt, James E. "Report of Basic College Speech Clinic." Mimeographed. 19h8. Prall, Caleb. "An.Experimental Study of the Measurement of Certain Aspects of Stage Fright by Means of Rating Scale and.Motion.Picture Technique." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. ‘University of Southern California. L. A. 1950. Utzinger,'Vernon A. "An Experimental Study to Develop an Improved Technique for Measuring Subjective Feelings During Stage Fright." Unpublished study completed at University of Southern California. L. A. l9h9. 130 APPENDIX A (Letter sent to teachers in Communications Skills to explain the study being undertaken with students they had referred to the Basic College Speech Clinic with stagefright.) TO WEBERS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS STAFF FROM : J. T. AUSTON SUBJECT: STACEFRIGHT PRGBIEMS FOR A SPECIAL STUDY Dear Staff Member: Mrs. Gertrude Montgomery of the Student Counseling Center is making a concentrated study in an effort to isolate special characteristics of stagefright. It is my understanding that the material being gathered for the study will serve as the basic data for a doctoral dissertation to test the hypothesis of emotional rigidity in stagefright. Mrs. Montgomery is depending on the Judgment of the Comlmlnications Skills faculty to ascertain whether or not our students are suffering from stagefright. Through the Speech Improvement Service, Mrs. Montgomery is asking for further screening for stagefright during the long informative oral report in 112. The purpose of this letter is to relay this request for coopera- tion to you. If any student seems to suffer from excess or involuntary nervous- ness, nausea, visible tremors of the body or parts of the body, twitching or tics in facial or throat muscles, blocking of thought and words, or verbalized inability to do their best work in an oral situation without a reasonably legitimate or normal explanation for the behavior will you please refer that student to me in Room 13, Bldg. A-3. Such students referred will have the benefit of any special help they may need as far as their stagefright is concerned, and they will also be asked to participate in a word test the results of which will be incorporated in Mrs. Montgomery's dissertation. I would appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Thank you. s/ J. T. Auston J. T. Auston Acting Director Speech Improvement Service 131 APPENDIX A (An additional letter sent to instructors in Communications Skills Classes.) 11-30-52 Dear Staff'Member: The Speech Improvement Service has cooperated for some time with the Counseling Service in referring to that service for special help, all types of stagefright problems from.moderate to severe.> The Counseling Service is particularly interested in a careful study of background and other factors which contribute to stagefright. The results of this study should prove useful to the members of this depart- ment in a better understanding of the problems of the beginning speaker at the college level. As you know the large majority of the stagefright cases reported come to the attention of the Counseling Service via this department and the Speech Improvement Service. To do Justice to the study of stagefright factors the Counseling Service will need cases of freshmen students with.moderate to severe stagefright. If you have any such cases in.your Classes now (not enrolled in the Speech Improvement Service) will you please refer them to me in Bldg. A-3, Rm. 13, at your earliest convenience? Thank you. - s/ J. T. Auston J. T. Auston 132 APPEIIDDC B COPY OF E SCALE ITEMS Atheism Catholicism Christianity Protestantism Judaism Capitalism Communism Democracy Fascism Socialism (Test directions for Step 1, subject is asked to define each of the above words.) APPENDIX B COPY OF S SCALE ITEMS Audience Confidence English class Failure Fear Outline Speech Stagefright Stuttering Success (Test directions for Step 1, subject is asked to define each of the above words.) 1 3 131; APPENDIX B STEP 2, INSTRUCTIONS FOR E SCALE AND S SCALE On each of the preceding sheets you will find a different list of terms arranged in alphabetical order. To some extent, most, if not all, of these terms are related to each other. Moreover, most, if not all, of these terms are different from.each other. 'Write a short essay in the blank space provided under each list of terms in which.you describe in.what way any or all of these terms are inter-related and also different from.each other. Do not worry about how well organized your descriptions are, because it isn‘t important for the purposes of this test. Just describe in.what way any or all of these terms are related and also different from.each other. If you do not think that all of these terms are very much related to each other then Just write about the terms which you think are related and skip the rest. Assignment Audience Block Confidence English class Failure Fear High School Lisping Outline Recital Speech Stagefright Stuttering Success APPENDIX B FIRST COPY OF S SCALE ITEMS (Later reduced to LO items by Judgment of counsellors) 135 APPENDIX C SAMPIE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS - l Atheism - l Catholicism - 1 Christianity - l Protestantism O Judaism - 1 Capitalism - l Communism. - 1 Democracy 0 Fascism O Socialism 2 E Scale Control Group, Female not believing in God, Christ, holy trinity, or in any supream.power. a form.of worship in which cermonity & latin is used. Believing in God.& Christ. believing that Jesus Christ is Gods Son and believing in God. a form.of worship that is comparivily simple - believing in God & Christ. a form.of worship that doesn't believe that Christ is Gods Son but believes in God & Christ as a.phiopi - - an economic system.between the exective & worker - involving free enterprise. government ownership of everything & sup- posed equal shares for all people. a form of government established on a Constitution & the bill of rights - run by the people. a form.of government with a dictator heading the people. government ownership of many public utilities. The first five of these words have to do with.religion. The difference is in the manner of worship. The last five words have to do with governments. The difference is the type of government and how each one is run. _ 137 APPENDIX C SAMPIE OF RESPOI'IDEI'I‘I‘ ANSWER SHIRTS Scorgg 4—1 Atheism No religion or belief in God. - l Catholicism A religion in which the people are told what 8c how to believe 8:. act as the Pope says. 4-1 Christianity A religion which believes Christ is the savior of the world. - l Protestantism Religious belief - more liberal - the people believe in the principles of the Bible. - l Judaism religious belief different from Christianity that doesn't believe Christ as the son of God. - 1 Capitalism using money to make money - people own big business. 0 Communism All working together for the benefit of the whole. 0 Democracy Government of the people, for the people, by the people. 0 Fascism Government with a dictator. +1 Socialism government control of large industries. These are definate types of religious beliefs and governments. Just exactly which of these types is best for humanity has been great 2 controversy for centuries. It has been found that civilizations with atheism and dictator- ships don't last. The lust for power 8c greed get the best of man and. he can think of nothing but himself leaving the brotherhood of man to himself - usually revolt. E Scale Mermental Group, Female Scoring 4-1 -+-1 4-1. -+-l +1 - l E Scale 138 APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS Atheism Catholicism Christianity Protestantism Judaism Capitalism. Communism Democracy Fascism Socialism. Control Group, Female no religious beliefs. the doctrines of the Catholic religion. belief and faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. the doctrines of the Protestant religions. the doctrines of the Jewish.religion. business run on a free enterprize system. where the government controls practically everything. where the government is controlled by the majority of the people. a dictatorship. where the government controls much of the business of the state, but not all of it. Atheism, Catholicism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Judaism are all forms of religion. Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, Fascism, and Socialism.are forms of government. .All ten are alike in that they constitute the beliefs of different groups of people. Each of the types of reli- gion and government are different because each stresses different items as being more important. Scoring +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 S Scale 139 APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS Audience Success English class Confidence Speech Stagefright Fear Stuttering Failure Control Group, Female a group of people listening or watching a performer or a group of performers. to make good ones dreams and.ambition. a class where the english language is studyed along with writing, reading, and speaking. to have faith in oneself or someone else. a talk on a particular Subject given to a particular group of people. fear of performing or speaking to an audience. to be afraid of completeing a tast. being so nervous ones shakes from.the fear. not accomplishing some task, dream, or hope. These words all have to do with speaking in an.english class. Most of the words are feel- ings of the speaker or the audiences. 1240 APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS Scoring 0 Audience 0 Success - 1 English class 0 Confidence - 1 Speech - l Stagefright omit Fear - 1 Outline - l Stuttering 0 Failure S Scale Experimental Group, Male A grOp of people to do something will a place where you have to write theme and give speechs to believe that you can do something one person talks to a grop is when you are afrad is the form you go by to give a speech saying part of a word a number of times quickly Not doing what you set out to do. Audience is the rest of the English class when you are giving a Spech. Success is if you get an.A on the speech. If you have Stagefright and Fear you donIt follow the Outline, then you start Stuttering, loose your Confidence and are a Failure. 1&1 APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS + 1 Audience - 1 Success 4-1 English class - 1 Confidence 0 Speech - l Stagefright 4-1 Fear 0 Outline - l Stutter ing - 1 Failure S Scale Control Group, Male A person or group of persons listening to someone who is speaking or acting. when you have done something that you have set out to do. a group of students in a class for the purpose of learning the fundamentals of the English.language. a feeling that you can do something. a form.of communication between human beings. frightened when you have to appear in front of a group of peOple to make a speech or do some act. a feeling that you are very much afraid of something. the more important points of a speech or theme or any other written matter. when a person has difficulty speaking. if you do not succeed in doing something you set out to do. These terms are related because they all deal with.my main problem, which is fear of speaking before an audience. They are different from.each other because they all deal with a different phase of my problem except stuttering, with which I am.not concerned. Scoring +-1 S Scale 1A2 APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS Audience Success English class Confidence Speech Stagefright Fear Outline Stuttering Failure Experimental Group, Male Pe0ple who are listening to a speech or watching something. Have completed or succeeded in doing something. A Class where grammar is taught & also English literature. Sure of success or being able to do something. .A talk on.a subject. Fear of not succeeding. Scared. Dread-o Brief scetch of what is in a report, speech etc. Saying part of a word more than once. Not succeeding. A speech in school is usually given in front of an English class which would be the audience. The person either has confidence or stagefright. The person either succeeds or fails. Person probably has a feeling of failure more or less or feels a feeling of confidence. USe Outline used as guide or refresher when giving the speech. Some people studder when giving a speech. 'You can have some without the other - all aren't necessary. 1&3 APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF RESPONDENT ANSWER SHEETS Scoring -+-l Audience a group of people who will act as listeners to either, speeches, movies, lectures, etc. and can.participate if asked. 0 Success a pleasure you gain through hard work, conscious effort, & a will to do this thing. This success, however, can come by luck. - 1 English class .A class where you are taught various writing prossess & speaking prossess in the hopes you will apply these in life after college. 0 Confidence A feeling that you need not be scared or in doubt. One that can be gained through effort. 4-1. Speech A verbal spoken talk generally given.in front of an audience with a specific purpose in mind be it entertainment, informative, etc. 4-1. Stagefright A fear that comes to you when.you are asked to speak in front of an audience. 'You usually lack confidence in yourself. -+-l Fear An.act of being frightened. Not having the courage to face what is befOre you. 4-1 Outline A skelton of a speech, story, or whatever, that tells you on a bird-eye view what the topic deals with. O Stuttering A habit that can generally be broken.with time & effort. .An act of not being able to form.your words quick enough. 0 Failure The feeling that can come from.lack of self confidence, trouble in your environment, or general disatisfaction sp. The act of being at the bottom.or behind the rest. Fear, stagefright, failure, stuttering are all related to one another. In all of these there is a feeling that you have not the confidence needed or you are not as good as the next fel- low. HOwever, opportunity plays a big part 3 here. If you have not had the opportunity to learn, or become accepted you have fear and fail. If you are speaking a you have stage fright you stutter & your speech is not a success. S Scale Experimental Group, Female 141+ mono-Hm H9338 ...ndpnmfisomxm .sEmsoHesHshmesH you Hernia.» one: masons-as .3me 69905 .90.“ one no node 5 Sunfish dad was: no soadeoQ-Cm H3? canon m .98 a mean no.“ .msonm nose :0 owns... mode so.“ 63.3.36» one: 3023 8.3300 S o - m +n o - m - m 1.2 +H 0 +3 338. SSH 3 8 a. z m H- o o o o H- o H- o 0 e38 m H- H- 3.8 H-‘ H- 0 H17 7.. H... H... menus H 0 H.... H- H- o H+ H+ H... H... 7.. mouse H H- H., o H... H- o H- H... H- H... :88 m H- o H- H..... H... o H- o H- H... mouse m H... H- H- H- H- o H... o o o «8.8 m H... H... H... H+ H+ H... H- H- H.... 0 H38 mpmoosoo as S m m a. w n s m m H mHs: Sosa Shasta Sufi Sufi as; as; SBH 59H CH 53H Sufi ampH dangers H309 Am 33mm 893% H g ho Em mom—”Egg Q Han—Emma RCCM USE Oil-L HICHIGQN NI IB RRIE m\\\\\\\\\\\\\§\i\‘i\i\\\\\i\\'\\\\i\u\\\i\\\\\\\\ 312 3105255529