DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES

TmfP iU L L P M H
m m

in

AUTHOR M
UNIVERSITY

DEGREE

If

N tM O S lM L

m m ib

m

G tm

M/CM'

m

om m

COU,

ALA

rn

DATE

PUBLICATION NO.

nv

ill

a!!_s

u UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
A M U

A D D A D

1152

ki I r U I A A kl

PERCEPTION

OP H O M O S E X U A L W O R D S

IN

PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA

P a u l G. D a s t o n

A Thesis

Submitted to the Scho o l of* Grad u a t e Studies of* M i c h i g a n
State C o llege of* A g r i c u l t u r e and A p p l i e d Science
in partial f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q uirements
for the d e g r e e of

D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y

Department

of Psych o l o g y

1952

T-

i rt.

'•y

I

.t«-'
.'I

i->

t-.o

he

.

"cuool

L

' i

f

oi‘

J-

1-<m oi*
.L

L♦ . 1
;Vv)f

i

r. •>f tn«
b. ■ i

: • fc

,

*M ^ hir.an

^ - * *•\

't?

-*e - /1: •Tie;.f ’■•
:. r

T’irx» f),; .* ’ jr '11, i'V:,Tjy

T' v p u r V i e i i *■

of

’*•

h

I

r. ' f '

'

V ' ,

’ "C; ~'f)1'

'

r

I’ja u L 0 . T'_ k h o a

TM-o

no: r , 1
. '

r-.t:u<iy

'

uv.d

i.-«

1 wmlsn:';

d e r i n-r>d

r> •-"■t.i./ ,
-It

m ,

i

.f

r

» •** h

o'*

.

:.'i

froT-

•>t»f

7.r

r,i or.

of

f.ho

'v'T.'-ori'

r

t

o

(ir-'R-i

r

o : ‘ i n d i vidnt*>l

—

rnodifa t o d

o o n o e r r fo r

.r n

r

ver^

’■io? * > u m
t

nncl

rccf't ’K I

- .-o-l

If

L 1

ft v n f

tr. t h o

thxtt

j

the

v

t h e

f?f*l Pi’t f t p
c-4’ v

r ' ■.>>r

’i s c ! ,

;'r r -

’ • tj\r.

't-o

•

hy

r & ’-ic

'hh

+ U>».n

oV.

h- •La

d o t » i r rJ r

u

r-ir.''

tk&s

‘.j :

or-: s x* .t'I o •,r,i n r

1--

- +-\ *rv

thtth
v or,

d r t o r » o h Loo

i oiosrtr « 1 i t y

i i d i n i a u t ) ' 1,

.s ^ l u . r o o h r o -

oo'*\:i* rs r!r‘cf;.i p>.

or*

to oi—

involved

of*

' h* .r:

~>om

p

n o " a p-r <"*y> i n

v. ' rtf s M i s

i-’i: .1 -‘u

concern »

r ar:O.Ld

J

h. ' a n ’1 I

f"i

o*' c-^n'v — >

resp->.;;p.

i -.--nr I d

' :*

i.rvi*

r * * l s .t . i o n s 1- *

hh-eot"’' v-.r I

e r r r " -ropr; 5 r o d

't-~

h>: e

o or 1 <=>r ht» + i o n for

<T’h

n n ’.'c' neTif.lvt^ c

/ 1.* •

’;)7 :f,Lor’flL v.'ith
tue.1 1 y

«

i’n n -■>-t-,-y.

-noti v&.t \ o -:e.1 v n r iuL-lns
*>-04* ?

[ ' )

t.e

>v*-oaer

- <o>i n o ’ 1 y~->rv ••■*•-> t e d

l.ndi — ddnft!

f.*.v.r t o

t o o n - %v

\ n v ' r '* 4 n d i n «*«-..»<? h h «. h.

•+•.V-m"! *

" m e

v

i w s t i ; ;

1—..J ■.*■.-m ii r ■■■c1 «•<-■- »fi.-ro :h *~r*m

.,op-rnh

•. ’»*•

.i

t o

r-s vr c h o n m .I .vt.1
•?
.

■ r~■. of’ c o l e n d i v e

(•

*■ ;

an'iertfc

f,

'■-■turf ' v'i r
h

»-f. s

of*

of

p r * ct""1—
;. r etx o f
J'lO.-ao—

iVul G» baston

—

—

2

^c-7.'.’Lllt;y v.'od la bo r e c o g n i s e d m o r e r h p i u l y

It/ pa run o ld

vidutils

by

-char-, by

Three
i

d

j.cr rial 3 •

individuals*

rrnms

lo«s

coi c o r n e d

of su h/n'lis >*■ cf-

1 nvf».!

honosoxufdit/.
r

f

he

-'•hudy:

soh i r.ophrenic * , \vne las s ifi ed s c n i i o n h r s n i c s ,
It. w a s

hold

t hat

t\

re Inti o n s h i p

tncii —

i.nd

between paranoid

a c v i/,ophreoia a n d h o m o s e x u o 1ihy w o u l d h a v e

been d e m o n e t r s ted

if:
(a)

paranoid
words

sc hi z o n r r o ios

with

tlian d i d
xh)

a homosexual

nionai 3 ana

there wore

no

(<-•}

no

arm. n o r m a l y to

o*»tv»« ••

sciato-

- es

par-fr*':v.;

so

in

t o rati t
o nrrovt

i zo u r c i i

h e t e r <i.sor u* 1 w orb s or n o r — c e x u a 1

,1udc;e8, w h o r a t e d
and

hi -n^s

were

i *-•d e p e n d e n t

fu i 1i u t i t / , s r;d a f'.otivc

of

cor.rotati on

f.rri.s uuoci*

^ orm r is. - f

or:.; of f i v e -

s o h i r o ^ l r s r i -«• ;

to h o m o s e x u a l

’i c s m t di

r o c o ^ . Itioii

ler *tl,

or • ,-,a
t’ords

ruoldly

i nd

correct

word

nixed

n,>fcv'oer. ’m o l t .,.-i f l e d

si

re eoppiition t :m e »

t <1 )

more

unclassified

a n d no:*ra«l an ..Je c t s

there were

words|

moaning-

roco

si y,r ificarit di f f e r « r r«s< in c or r-eot

re c o r n it ion t i m e s
phreric

correctly

tn®

t oe
n

te

,i r t ..or:.: n lO-itc

on at •

nix-Iolr .-rs; - t

cate d (ii i’l’orenti a 1 T o r i

*- :h

,

br a

■:r. ■ ’ ' ty ,

r ed,

.-t.:*

a protest

3 on nth ioj..1 n o t a 1 i' r t

^roup

o,

fu ;j • i»r .t y «

u*---ir. c I n d i ­

T-rtiti >n t 3 iitdB •

i^aul

T n o

•-- .f-* -L^/r Lj

tV.'i

o

A-

1 •

«

-

* iw

-V*.

A.*'"' *'•

x ! ‘"

.-fo-

” ■ 7 'i-> ;f
A r w d

r ftr* u n o i d

,

' '

or

D u s t o n

n-;

k

t

a

ti.'.tit'Ll

?.

13

tl.-io

'5.

' i; p A p ; ! ;

G •

for

V

i * *•♦• 1 .-•>

O o r . - o . t. w o r d

*- '

i t i o n .

suOocjts i‘Oi:y;*t.ir,«d ^ o w w x i . ’h i

31 i .' 1. cjixnt iy t’r.r.tor th* n . id

f '*'4

the oth *--r

t'.

•

vv .•'fcl*

-t.v -.c-

Il’3 0 ,;

»- -**

s iy;—

’3 .1 s

o f

e n l ‘. i e c t f i .

£ •

'iaaro

v;e.-r r:o st&'ti

b a ’t'wvtjen

3i;.c: iassif

r~-j ••;•:-r*tli *'i or. *.1
«

’■ 1

t*a

f

iiifere. v o r o

V,i.

P

p ..

in

;•

t~ a

•fch&'t.

afj;)0'M.a

! ri’i u ; c

* 1 U ’.30

>

insi iv*

■•••£. rj

'

r

* • • .-

ni

;• t a . f

1

i/ioi,, ’^ u . ;

3 iii.1 / i. ;ji .r t;:;± t; s t,c

O,' o<;C

. r

f - ’O

a

:, or.-urt-»c !1

p

o

1- n o r - .

_i.

^ .■ > -cs

x.i>a ; 1;r u *? t

v

..■ (3 nu.i*. x j •

.

i. a

c,a *

I

.:p

:..:3_

• v.' ootiCr !*v'«

i rf

- t

K

-r,

:

: 1-

r-.P

ti

■!.

ppi

•

f. . > * .s,

Cl

•* ’.sv. • <«*u

?^i"

•<_

■ • ,:r:,er

*r L ’>•.> \c:
*

T

~

n a po.: .oiti

^-V •
* 'a

1 , .*

t . v ^ . r r -

•

A i ; ’i' -=•-: x~ < - ri<_:« s

J.y -ni r> i Jipt ~ n A

afl.ncf.8 tra1;**t; h r o i;

i'i-C.

in

r > H o x u a l

nfc iitj •uj. :f-orixii,; b. u .paO'-c x . m

•lia. i "3 T3’.'

: ■ r~ 1

••

.

wh.

:.

01

'i

A

’ fi i* ■' *v)•'t1 i v f*

i : t. a- j. t 'r ■*>
■.

r> orio ?'o
v

r. C

t -»r*mi-lf3

+_.o

r-. 1;*a1.L,n 1o»>

1*0 , i v-eci

f ' f'- r*».-n o a *

r, tr> t, vho s ^ k u h i v<> i»cl g •

ti- ' t - i . K i l u

\.*t

«■2 A

led ach i zophrwui ~ » fc nr;r

,..1

..o f

5•

1 ly ni^mt' i. 'w'.rt

>:\s

IL Ii*
-Sxt

‘ i O ’.<.>•, C3

1 is «

.:■ i • ■ - i

pc- ' • t••■ ••;

’.

,

•,• .

S

r

•t

•.

.
■"

*?

!.-

t

p ir'.ii, ".

. .

••

■• >

•

- '

*:.

*, 1 i 1 .

- i-. •

v-

>

o!'

•-

t'vic"

i

i »iui.

- 4

-

u n c l u . =tsil'iod soiiir.oplirenicn

of
H

p>. r**>ro lei uoi izopt r « n io

" ■; •r-fcor* :*C

V ‘' '.vecl

w

.■

lu a t o n

or nortitlsj fr.nci

aub.'octs to h

lui“ ! i-

oi‘ sonizo|>iir‘.nj.u.

'< O!'

t.io

o- ■■

trie sensitivity
.0

J

oir»iuI i

■: u . | O i t : i U

in—

l-'u u l

R

' I'lCr,

3; C

1. •'o?tnsi
li ’A'-.nir?,
cio ial. ;'8\ c.holu;^/ ,
,vei’
.)As
7 1 118
m

... « rK

-

•r * u : ' ,

•

;a S '...O D

.

':; ! y c ' . o - K ‘i.; ' y t i o

-

Ar A :<;»roao:. to lorjjoi
( •<!.)*.
P u r r c n t Xrortda xn
r.L v . o f Pit:'t3 b u ’*p.h pr e s s ,

V o t e s

u p o n

ni.

Autobiojre.'

phi or. j h oconr. h of r "tiao oi’ i-armioia (Pom.sri'tltt
P a r a n o i d ua ) •
c T r a n s la bi d :.y .
c;brtu!hoy, . •
J«
't'o.ohe'/) .
Tr\ V o l l o c t o d i’& p e r s , Vo l . 1X1, London;
-c- -

1

n.

L 4 7 - 4 7

I

Paul George Das-ton
candidate for the d e g r e e of
Doctor of Philosophy-

Fin a l examination, November 25,
Depar t m e n t

Dissertations

1952,

Percep t u a l V i g i l a n o e

4 : 0 0 P.M. P s y c h o l o g y

in Paranoid Schizophrenia

Outline of Studies
Major subject:

Clinical P s y c h o l o g y

Biographical Items
Born, October

17, 1921,

Boston, M a s s a c h u s e t t s

U n d e r g r a d u a t e studies, N o r t h e a s t e r n University,
cont. 19 4 5 —48
Graduate Studies, M i c h i g a n State C o l l e g e ,

Experience:

194 0 —42

1948-52

Member Array Air Force, 1942-45, V e t e r a n s
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n P s y c h o l o g y Intern, 1949-52

Member of Psi Chi, A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n

-

ii

-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although one name appears on the
presents the efforts of many people.

title

sheet, this study r e ­

The writer wishes to express

his appreciation to Dr. James S. Kars lake, committee ohairman, whose
suggestions, cooperation, and foresight contributed significantly
to the completion of this dissertation.

Thanks are also due to Dr.

Albert I. Rab i n for his suggestions and encouragement.

Dr. M. Ray

Denny, Dr. Donald M. Johnson, Dr. C. A. Lawson, and Dr. Mil t o n
Rokeach, the other committee members, were all quite helpful, not
only in pointing out methodological difficulties but in assisting
the writer to overcome these difficulties, as well.
The staff at the Fort Custer Veterans Administration Hospital
were of great assistance in donating time, space, and subjects for
the research itself.

Dr. Stewart G. Armitage, Dr. Paul D. Greenberg,

and Dr. David Pearl, of the Psychology Section, were very generous
in giving of their time and experience in the statistical treatment
of the data and in the preparation of the manuscript itself.
Dr. Gerald Hover,

To

of the Saginaw Veterans Administration Hospital,

wh o provided normal control subjects, the writer is grateful.
The writer feels particularly indebted to Mr. Richard Behan for
his help in setting up the design of the experiment and in the sta­
tistical analysis of the data.

- iii

iv

-

Members of the Air Force Reserve Unit; in Lansing, who gave
of -their time to act as judges in selecting the stimulus words,
we re v e r y helpful.

Dr. Fred e r i c k Wiokert, w h o made this group

available, deserves special thanks.
To his wife, Marie Das ton,

the writer is most indebted.

Had

it n o t been for her moral support, encouragement, and secretarial
labors, it is doubtful that this level of achievement would have
been attained.
Finally, a deep debt of gratitude is owed to the experimental
populations of the study, -who gave willingly of their time to par­
ticipate in a project w h i c h h e l d little meaning ana no observable
benefits for them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pag6

VITA

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

iii

LIST OF TABLES

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

viii

INTRODUCTION
Perceptual Theory

1

The Paranoid Disorders

4

Orientation for the Study

8

Hypotheses

9

THE INVESTIGATION
Selection of i±ie Stimulus Word*.

12

Apparatus

20

Subjects

21

Procedure

26

RESULTS
Analysis of Variance

30

Considerations Loading to Analysis of Covariance

39

Analyses of Covariance

40

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
Comparison v/ith Other Studies

48
54

SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS

56

SELECTED REFERENCES

59

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES
Table No»
I

II
III

IV

V

VI

VII

VI I I

IX

X

XI

Words Used as Stimulus Variable Along
w i t h Judges Ratings

17

Pretest Words in the Vari ous

19

Classes

Comparison of Experimental Subjects on
Age, Education, and Reading Ability

25

Results of the Analysis of Variance
Pertaining to Times Required for
Correct Recognition of Words

31

t-Ratios Between Mean Wor d Recognition
Times for each Sexual Category (All
Subjects Combined)

33

t—Ratios Between Mean Word Recognition
Times of Words in the Sexual and
Affective Categories (All Subjects
Combined)

35

t-Ratios Between Mean Recognition
Times of Words in Different Sexual
Categories for the Three Experimental
Subgroups of Subjects

36

t-Ratios With i n Mean Recognition
Times of Words in Different Sexual
Categories for the Three Experimental
Subgroups of Subjects

38

Analysis of Covariance Between NonSexual Neutral Words and Heterosexual
Words

41

Analysis of Covariance Between N o n —
Sexual Neutral Viords and Homosexual
Words

43

t-Tests for Significance of Difference
Between Means of Total Recognition
Times for All nomosexual Words
Following Analysis of Covariance
Trans foriaation

44

- vi -

4

LIST OF TABLES
Table No.

XII

Page

Adjusted Means of Total Group
Recognition Times in Hundredths
of a Second for All Homosexual and
H eterosexual Words Following
Analysis of Covariance Transformations

47

APPENDICES
Appendix No.
1.

List of Five- and Six-Letter "Words Equated
for Frequency of Usage According to
Thorndike Lorge V/ord Counts

2*

T-Score Totals, Means, a n d Interquartile
Range for Forty Judges on the Affective
Dimension

3*

Judges Ratings on a Sexual Meaning Basis

4.

Veterans Administration Descriptive
Criteria for Diagnosis

5.

Time Required in Hundredths of a Second for
Correct Recognition of Test Words with
Paranoid Schizophrenic Subjects

6.

Time Required in Hundredths of a Second
for Correct Recognition of Test Words
with Unclassified Schizophrenic Subjects

7.

Time Required in Hundredths of a Second
for Correct Recognition o f Test Words
with Normal Subjects

- viii -

INTRODUCTION

The

present study was undertaken to investigate the relation­

ship p o s t u l a t e d in psychoanalytic thoery between paranoid schizo­
p h r e n i a and homosexual impulses.

The orientation for the study

was d e r i v e d from theory and research in the area of selective
perception.

Perceptual Theory

Classically, the study of perception was concerned w i t h pe r ­
c e p t u a l variables in relative isolation, w i t h little concern for
their

role in the adjustment of the individual.

More recently,

e m p h a s i s has been placed on the study of perception in interaction
with

oth e r forms of psychological functioning.

The effect of such

p e r s o n a l i t y variables as prevailing states, motives, and past
l e a r n i n g of the individual upon per cep ti on-mediated response has
become

a fruitful area of research, one sometimes referred to as

s e l e c t i v e perception (9,

10, 11).

T h e fact that individuals appear to be selectively sensitive
in t h e i r reactions to various types of environmental stimulation
has

b e e n accounted for ty the postulation of an interaction between

p e r c e p t u a l variables and personality variables (9).

- 1 -

Little has

- 2 -

been discovered regarding the nature of this interaction, but
various experiments have tended to show that past experience and
current motives influence perception, as measured by response to
various stimuli (6, 8, 10, 14, 19, 20, 31, 41, 46, 48, 49, 54,
55, 58, see also 9, 60),
As one measure of selective perception, the time required for
correct recognition of various tachistoscopically—presented stim­
uli has been used.

Recognition times of individuals to "neutral"

stinuli has served as a baseline w i t h whi c h to compare response
times for other kinds of stimuli.

It has b e e n found that short

recognition times characterised response to stimuli congruent
with areas of concern to the individual respondent.

Rapid rec o g ­

nition in these cases was conceivably a function of greater indi­
vidual familiarity w i t h stimuli pertaining to areas of interest
to the individual or w i t h which he was concerned.

Conversely,

stimuli relating to areas with w h i c h there was lesB individual
concern, hence a lesser degree of familiarity, were found to be
recognized more slowly.

For example,

subjects interested more in

economics than in aesthetics were found to recognize tachistoscopioally-presented stimuli relating to economics more rapidly
than stimuli relating to aesthetics (31, 55).
differing

In other words,

degrees of familiarity w i t h particular areas appear to

influence the time required for correct recognition of tachistoscopically-presented stimuli relating to those areas.

4

- 3 -

"Concern"

implies motivation,

i* e., that motivational v a r i ­

ables are involved in the determination of areas of individual con­
cern*

According to Frenkel-Brunswik (23, 24) and Bruner (6, 7),

perceptually-mediated response may be looked upon as an indicator
of motivational factors; and personality-oriented research can be
profitably carried out in the perceptual area.
In the field of clinical psychology, the theory of personality
which is most commonly invoked to explain
analytic.

behavior is the psycho­

This theory is deterministic and employs motivational

constructs as explanatory.

The problem chosen in the present

study was a test of the psychoanalytic explanation of the para­
noid disorders*

- 4

-

The Paranoid Disorders1*'

Description.

The paranoid individual is generally described

as being suspicious,

evasive, and extremely sensitive to felt

threat (4, 12, 33, 39).

He characteristically reacts directly

against the perceived source of threat, sometimes becoming de­
structive of life and property in the process (12, 39, 53)•
In the clinical

sense of the term, he is rigid, almost un-

shakeable in his beliefs and attitudes.

The paranoid individual

is generally a highly moral person who has incorporated the mores
of society so completely that he cannot tolerate anti-social b e ­
havior of others.
impulses is denied,

Anti-social behavior stemming from his own
the motives being imputed to someone else.

This latter mechanism, known as projection, although not exclu­
sive to the paranoid (43), must be evident in the clinical symp­
tom picture for a diagnosis of paranoid disorder to be made.
The American Psychiatric Association (57) and Veterans
Administration (63) use a modified version of the Kraepelinian
descriptive classificatory scheme (39, 40).

Three psychotic

groups are recognized wherein the paranoid component is a major

As only male paranoid subjects were used in the present
study, references are only to males.

J

- 5 -

factor:

paranoia, paranoid condition,

a n d paranoid schizophrenia.

The degree of functional intactness in a n individual manifesting
paranoid symptomatology determines the differential diagnosis
among the three.

Psychoanalytic Explanatory T h e o r y .

Throughout a century

and a half of investigation, e x p l a n a t i o n s of the paranoid dis­
orders have been demonologieal (32), m o r a l i s t i c
ological (39, 53), biological (51), sociological
psychological (25, 27).

(32, 39), physi­
(5, 12) and

None of the e x p lanations has achieved

as general prominence and acceptance as
psychoanalytic), posited by Freud

the psychological (i.e.,

(2 5, 26, 2 7).

Following his study of the S c h r e b e r

case (27), he postulated

that the major factor in all the p a r a n o i d disorders was a conflict
over consciously unacceptable homosexuality.
dual, unconsciously desiring to be the

The paranoid indivi­

passive recipient of sexual

advances from other males, utilized t h e

mechanisms of denial and

projection to cope with these impulses,

other defenses having

failed.

His unacceptable motives he i m p u t e d to others, especial­

ly to those males toward w h o m he had f e l t some sexual attraction
(27, pp. 431-432).

The various d e l u s i o n a l systems of paranoid

psychotics could all be represented as
single proposition:

X (a man)

contradictions of the

love him. (a man).

Through the

mechanism of projection, the paranoid c o u l d distort this subject—

ively intolerable proposition so th a t it not only was contradicted
but also represented a rationalization justifying hostility against
the object of unconscious homosexual attraction (25, 27, 53).
Other psychoanalysts, while in general agreement,

emphasized

the nature of the passive aspect of the homosexual impulses.
Fenichel (21) felt the paranoid was an anal-incorporative indi­
vidual.

Alexander and Menninger

(3) explained the hostility and

aggression manifested by the paranoid as being secondary defense
reactions against the denied and rejected passive homosexual
desires •

Paranoid Mechanisms and Schizophrenia.

Schizophrenic and

paranoid phenomena could be combined in any proportion, accord­
ing to Freud (27).

It was the paranoid component w h i c h was r e ­

lated to the homosexual impulses.

For schizophrenia uncolored by

paranoid mechanisms, he felt it extremely unlikely that homosexu­
ality played an equally important etiological role

(27, p. 464).

As he saw it, there was less personality disintegration in para­
noid schizophrenia than in non-paranoid schizophrenia, a posi­
tion essentially supported by Alexander (2).

Experimental E vidence.

The psychoanalytic postulation of a

relationship between paranoid mechanisms and homosexuality has been

- 7 -

examined several -ways:

psychoanalytic case studies of paranoid

individuals, observational studies, clinical testing, and percep­
tual experimentation.
In the few cases of psychoanalysis reported, evidence was
favorable to the psychoanalytic postulation (1, 18).

In addition,

Maeder was credited by Freud (27, p. 445, foot-note) as having in ­
dependently reached similar conclusions following psychotherapy
with a paranoid patient.

Ferenczi (22) found corroborative evidence,

concluding that paranoia was perhaps nothing but disguised homo­
sexuality (p. 157).
Observational studies were generally indicative of some rela­
tionship between paranoid mechanisms and homosexual

impulses, but

findings were more suggestive than decisive (3, 28, 52, see also
4, 59).
Using clinical tests, including the Blackie and Rorschach
projective techniques, Aronson (4) found both paranoid and no n ­
paranoid psychotic subjects gave a preponderance of homosexuallyindicative responses to the Rorschach test, as compared wit h a n o r ­
mal control group.

He concluded that the greater number of horao-

sexually-indicative findings resulted fro m a loosening of ego
controls rather than as a function of paranoid mechanisms.
E r i k sen (19),

c o r r e l a t i n g r e s p o n s e times to a w o r d - a s s o c i a t i o n

tes t w i t h r e c o g n i t i o n times of t a c h i s t o s c o p i c a l l y - p r e s e n t e d p i c ­
tures,

found no evidence

other)

subjects.

for ho mos exu al motives w i t h paranoi d

(or

- 8 -

Orientation for the Study

According

to p s yc ho ana lyt ic

theory,

h o m o se xu ali ty is a major

a r e a of c o n cer n for paranoid individuals, w i t h consciously denied
homosexual motives ac ting as determinants of behavior.

W o r k in

the area of selective p e r c ept io n has indicated that there is an
i n ter act io n b e t w e e n m o tiv at ion al a nd perceptual variables,

the

effect of this inter act io n having sometimes been m a n ife st ed by
time req ui r e d for c o r r e c t r ec og nit ion of various
t o s c o p ica ll y-p res en ted stimuli.

classes of tachis-

In perceptual experimentation,

stimuli r el at i n g to areas of individual concern have been correctly
r e c o gni zed more rap id ly th a n stimuli r elating to areas

of lesser

concern.
Rega rd les s

of their w i l l i n g n e s s or abil ity to overtly v e r ­

balize their conc ern w i t h the area of homosexuality,
tic theory holds
duals.

p s y c h oan al y­

this is an area of concern for paranoid i n d i v i ­

As a fu nct io n of their greater awareness of and famil ia rit y

w i t h h o m o s e x u a l l y co nnotative stimuli,
be expected to correctly r eco gni ze

paranoid individuals w o u l d

stimuli of that class more

r a p i d l y than w o u l d other individuals

less concerned w i t h the area

of homosexuality.
For reasons of availability,
ing paranoid mechanisms was
prenics.

Hospital diagnosis

the experimental group e m p l o y ­

to be confined to paranoid schi zo—
plus other r e l e v a n t behavioral data

- 9 -

were held to be appropriate in determining paranoid components in
the selection of experimental subjects.

Control groups were to

be non-paranoid schizophrenics and normals.
Words of various classes were to be the stimulus variable,
and time for correct recognition of these words, tachistoscopically-presented, was to be the measure of response.

It was decided

to make this essentially a reaotion time experiment, w i t h each
word being presented once at each setting of the tachistoscope
timer until correct verbal response occured.*
Hypotheses for the study were formulated following these
considerations.

ffypotheses

It was held that a relationship between paranoid schizophre­
nia and homosexual impulses will have been demonstrated if:
1.

Paranoid schizophrenics correctly recognize words with
a homosexual meaning more rapidly than do normal con­
trol subjects, and if in doing so these differences
in recognition time are independent of word length,
familiarity, and affective value of the words used.

*For the p r e s e n t study, the terms " r e a c t i o n time"
for c o r re ct recognition" wer e synonymous.

and "time

- 10 2.

Paranoid schizophrenics correctly recognize words
with a homosexual meaning more rapidly than do n o n ­
paranoid, unclassified schizophrenics, and if in
doing so these differences in recognition time are
independent of wor d length, familiarity,

end affeo-

tive value of whatever words are used.
Hypotheses three and four were proposed in order to answer
the question of whether or no t homosexuality, as contrasted with
heterosexuality,
3.

is unique to paranoid schizophrenics.

There are no significant differences between un ­
classified schizophrenics and normals in the readi­
ness wi t h which homosexual words are correctly
recognized, if any possible differences in word
recognition time are so controlled as to be indepen­
dent of word length, familiarity, and affective
connotation of the words used.

4.

There are no significant differences Detween paranoid
schizophrenics and normals in the readiness w i t h which
heterosexual words are recognized,

if any differences

in word recognition time that might occur are indepen­
dent of w o r d length, familiarity,

and affective value

of the words used.
Hypothesis five was proposed to allow comparisons in reaction
times to the homosexual ana heterosexual classes of words to be

- 11

made among groups of subjects from a coinmon baseline*
5*

There are no significant differences between para­
noid schizophrenics

and normals in the readiness

with which non-sexual words are recognized,

if any

potential differences in w o r d recognition time are
so controlled as to be independent of word length,
familiarity, and affective connotation of the
words used.

In the event there are significant

differences among the groups of subjects in times
required for correot recogntion of non-sexual words,
the differences are to be eliminated statistically*

In line w i t h perceptual and psychoanalytic theory, paranoid
schizophrenics should react differently to homosexual words than
they do to heterosexual or non-sexual words*

However,

it is

possible that unforeseen variaoles that escaped experimental con­
trol may so mask the data as to make any conclusions drawn on
the basis of intragroup comparisons of dubious validity*

t h .i

cctest

Select!or.

The
sexual,
th e

or n o n - s e x u a l

a major

wore

length equivalence was

all

of e q u i v a l e n t

sample
iarity,

sexual

subjects

Word
tim es

length,

for

under

meaning,

five-

five-

no actrecia
cognition

and

arc

A

and

control

list

j ucge s .

Tne

to a s s u r e

in th i s

described

in

hundred worcs,
The w o r d s

in

j'udges u s e d w e r e

that

between

t —v a l u e w a s

findings

and
a

on f a m i l ­

cnaracterize the

study.

for

Tn o r n -

tr.e e x p e r unenta_ ly e m ­

us ag e

tne two
.Cc.

of t h e r e c o g n i t i o n

sc choser. f r o m the

to m a t c n

six-letter vorcs

Tne

as

of two

affectivity v c u l c

as

of

: ami l i a r i t y , se x u a l m e a n i n g ,

six-letter worcs,
cl

c o nt r o l

t he se v a r i a b l e s ,

fir st ,

tac n is to s c o p 1 c stucy

le d i f f e r e n c e s

time.

cf

investigation

Length.

tc

hetero-

fami liars t y , and a f f e c ­

then c o n s t r u e t e c .

veterans,

cijce-Lorge "bore C o u n t s
ployee

as

a hoicsezutl,

experimental

establishes

was

re a group

of n o r m a l w a r

To

A preliminary

classified

affective value

anc

length,

problem:.

section.

list w e r e

as h a v i n g

cf w o r n

value was

following

Stimulus Worts

connotation,

ti v e

tne

g a t io n

of the

i c e n t i f i ot t.i or. cf w o r d s

e x t r a n e o u s ■variables

this

i

frequency,
lists

showed

of w o r d s

^se At ;encix

ij«

in r e ­
On tr. is

4

- 13 basis, five- and six-latter words were considered essentially
equivalent as to length for the purposes of this study.

Sexuality.

The preliminary list contained forty words which

were postulated to have some homosexual meaning.
derived from several sources

(16, 29, 34).

These words ware

Forty words, considered

to have heterosexual meaning, were also used.

Some of these came

from other studies in the area (46, 61), but the majority were
found through dictionary sources (64).

Finally,

there were one

hundred and twenty words •which probably were non-sexual in m e a n ­
ing.

Of these forty were supposedly neutral,

forty were pleasant,

and forty were unpleasant in affective connotation.

Words in the

latter group were taken fro m Sterne (61).

Rating.

The mimeographed preliminary list (See Appendix 2)

was presented to a group of forty normal (i.e., non-hospit&lized)
white male war veterans.

All words were arranged in alphabetical

order and instructions were to judge them on the dimension of affectivity.

Each word appeared on the left-hand side of the page,

followed ty a line.

The extreme left end of the line was desig­

nated as "Pleasant," the right end as "Unpleasant."

The area be ­

tween these two extremes constituted the remainder of the affec­
tive continuum.

Judges indicated, by placing a check mark on the

appropriate line for each word,
them.

the emotional value it had for

They were encouraged to respond on the basis of their first

emotional reaction to all words, regardless of familiarity.

Following this, a rearranged list of the same words (See
Appendix 3) was presented to these judges w i t h instructions to
classify only those words with which
homosexual, heterosexual,

they w e r e familiar as being

or non-sexual in meaning*

w i t h which they were unfamiliar wer e to be omitted.

Those words
A "Don't

Know" category was also provided, in w h i c h they placed those
words with which -they had some familiarity,

but about whose me a n ­

ings they were unsure.

Treatment of the Data.

The w o r d s

judged on the affective dimension w e r e
basis.

in the list which had been
scored on a twenty-point

A scale with twenty equal inte r v a l s was superimposed on

the line following eaoh word and a n u m b e r
each wo r d for each subject.

score was derived for

Words r a t e d as extremely unpleasant

reoeived a score of 2 0 , and those r a t e d as extremely pleasant
received a score of 1 .
A T-score value* (42) was assigned to each word.

Following

this, mean T-soore values were found for each word, as well as
the interquartile range of judgments (See Appendix 2).

It was

then possible to select those words w h i c h had been rated as

*The T-score is a standard score w h i c h allows direct com­
parisons to be made between subjects, despite dissimilar means
and standard deviations in the raw data.

- 15

being most pleasant, most unpleasant, and neutral in affective
connotation.
The second word list was handled by summing the Judgments in
the various sexual categories and finding the percentage of agree­
ment among the Judges for each word (See Appendix 3).

If a wor d

was omitted as being unfamiliar* or was placed in the "Do n ' t Know"
category by more than five raters,

it was considered to be too

obscure to have value for the study itself and was discarded.
Those remaining words in the various categories were then A l

o

be familiar for all Judges and had a definite sexual or non-sexual
meaning attached to them.
As the Judges used were a peer group of the population with
w h o m the tachistoscopic procedure was to be used, it was assumed
the experimental population would have rated the words in an es­
sentially similar manner and would be familiar with the words to
be presented to them.

As for familiarity, it was felt that no

available frequency of usage tables would give as adequate a mea­
sure as would a peer group.

This writer felt, with McGinnies (47)#

that frequency of usage tables derived from popular periodicals,
when they list socially taboo words at all, do not list t h e m in
the frequency with which they are actually used in written and
spoken language.
Finally,

the results of both sets of Judgments were combined,

*v*-d a group of thirty-six words, designated as the test list, was
sd-eoted.

This list was made up of those nine words in the h o m o ­

16 -

sexual and heterosexual categories and those eighteen words in the
non-sexual category most clearly differentiated by the judges on
both the sexual and affective oontinua and is the list of words
that was used as the stimulus variable in the study (See Table i ) •
By referring to Table I, it can be seen that the percentages
of agreement were smaller and the affective ratings less clearcut
for the homosexual words than was the case w i t h words in the other
two categories*

For example, none of the words in either the

heterosexual or non-sexual categories received less than about 90 %
agreement, whereas agreement for the homosexual words ranged from
fifty percent to ninety-four percent*

Fe w (if any) of the homo­

sexual words had an exclusively homosexual meaning.

Hence, the

low percentages of agreement among the judges was readily under­
standable.

Most of the heterosexual words had an exclusively

heterosexual meaning,
among judges.

and this was reflected by higher agreement

Affective ratings for the homosexual words were

also less clearly differentiated as to affective value than was
the case with the other two categories.
words

The inclusion of these

in the homosexual category was dictated by practical con­

siderations, namely, they were the only nine words on w h i c h there
was fifty percent or better agreement among the raters as words
having a homosexual meaning.

As homosexual words were extremely

important in the experiment,

it wa s important to attempt to guess

what effect this arbitrariness would have on the results*

It was

I

TABLE I
W O R D S U S E D AS STIMULUS VARIABLE ALONG WITH JUDGES RATINGS_______
,d

Affective Rating
Mf
Qi - Q3

Agreement on
Sexual Meaning

%

Homosexual
Pleasant
1. FRUIT
2.
FAIRY
3. PANSY
Neutral
4. HOMOS
5,
BLOWN
6 . RECTUM
Unpleasant
7.
SISSY
8 . SUCKED
9.
QUEER
Pleasant
10.
CARESS
11.
BOSOM
12.
BREAST
Neutral
13. PIECE
14.
PICKUP
15.
SCREW
Unpleasant
16.
FUCKED
17. W H O R E
18.
RAPIST
Pleasant
19.
JOLLY
20.
ALERT
21.
PRIZE
22.
CHURCH
23.
FAMOUS
24. W E A L T H
Neutral
25.
CELLAR
2 6 . TURTLE
27.
TAR LET
28.
SWISH
29.
YEAST
30.
OUNCE
Unpleasant
31.
MURDER
32 . N A U S E A
33.
LYNCH
34.
DEATH
35. VOMIT
36.
AGONY

46
58
60

70
85
50

60
59
61

82 .9
71.1
52 .5

47
63
- 63
53
58 63
Heterosexual

52.6
72.5
94.9

42 .9
50.6
52 .0

39
44
45

-

55.5
53.6
56.6

51
49
53

-

59.9
59.0
60.4

-

-

-

-

43
45
47

100
90
92.5

51
52
55

97.5
95
97.4

— 66
51
- 64
57
- 66
61
Non-Sexual

100
100
92 .5

40.4
42 .4
43.0

35
38
39

49.1
49 .8
51.4

46
46
49

57.9
60.1
62 .4

-

-

-

-

—

41
46
43
40
42
44

90
97.5
90
97.5
92 .5
95

45
46
46
46
47
46

—

60
51
51
52
51
51

90
100
100
90
97 .4
95

61
60
59
61
62
61

—
—
—
—

66
66
67
6b
67
68

90
90
92.5
97 .5
95
89.7

40.1
41.0
41.2
38.1
40.0
41.2

37
36
38
25
37
38

52 .1
48.8
49.2
50.4
49 .8
49.0
61.9
63.161.9
63.3
63.6
64.5

-

- 18 believed that -this weakness in clearcut classification of w o r d s
in the homosexual category would, in effect, be operating a g a i n s t
the principal hypotheses of the study.

That is, if wor d s p u r ­

portedly homosexual were familiar to the experimentally e m p l o y e d
groups of subjects in other contexts than a homosexual one, t h e n
they should be recognized more rapidly by all groups than w o u l d
be the case if they were related solely to the homosexual a r e a of
concern.

It was felt that these limitations in the h o m o s e x u a l

words would tend to reduce the size of the hypothesized differences.
In addition to the test list, a group of pretest w o r d s w a s
needed to familiarize subjects with the equipment and e x p e r i m e n ­
tal procedure.

It was decided to use nine pretest words, f o l l o w ­

ing the same classification as for the words in the t e s t list.
The three affective categories and the three sexual categories
were represented in the pretest list, although degree of a g r e e ­
ment on both sexual and affective continue was lower for w o r d s
in uhis list than for words in the test list (See Table II).

TABLE II
PRETEST WORDS IN THE VARIOUS CLASSES
Word

Affective Rating
J*T
0,1 ~ 03

A g r e e m e n t on
S e x u a l Meaning

%

Homosexual
MOJTH

47.2

44

-

50

30.0

LICKED

54.2

50

-

59

47.3

BEHIND

55.1

48

-

63

25.0

Heterosexual
CHERRY

43.2

38

-

48

84.6

NOOKY

52.6

45

-

59

100.0

HARLOT

55.6

51

-

61

88.9

N on-Sexual
BACON

41.2

37

-

44

92 .5

Rj-.TIO

48.7

46

-

51

100.0

MAGGOT

61.8

59

-

65

100.0

- 19

- 20 -

Apparatus

1.

A Ger brands modified Dodge Tachistoscope, wnich had
a timer calibrated in hundredths of a second.

Its

range was from .01 to 1.0 seconds exposure time.
2.

A single sheet of white bond paper, upon which was
drawn a rectargle.

This constituted the pre-expo-

sure field, the rectangle serving as a fixation
point.

The stimulus word appeared, on exposure,

to be in the area encompassed by the rectangle.
3.

Thirty-six test words and nine pretest words.
All were electrically typed in capital letters on
white bond paper from the same ream.

There was

one word to the page, centered along the longer
axis.

The letters in each w o r d were double­

spaced .
4.

Jastak-Bijou bide Range Achievement Test, of
which the Reading Ability subtest was used.

- 21
Subjects

There were three groups of subjects:

twenty-five paranoid

schizophrenics, twenty-five unclassified schizophrenics, and
twenty-five normal controls.

The two schizophrenic populations

were patients at the Port Custer Veterans Administration Hospital,
whereas the controls were drawn from several sources:

residents

of Lansing, employees at the Fort Custer Hospital, and patients
carrying a physical diagnosis at the Veterans Administration
General Hospital at Saginaw.

All were native-born white*, male

war veterans, forty-five years of age or below.

The upper age

limit was set to rule out those individuals whose paranoid be­
havior might have physiological correlates as a function of aging
(53).

To further ensure that extraneous variables were minimized,

any individual with marked visual or intellectual deficiency suf­
ficient to cause undue difficulty in identifying or reporting
tachistoscopicaily-presented words was eliminated from considera­
tion as a subject.

The identification of these variables was

either from the individual’s case folder or his behavior in the
experimental situation.

*Despite F r e u d ’s assertion (2?, p. 445) that the dynamics u n d e r ­
lying the paranoid disorders were invariant regardless of race, it
was difficult to conjecture what he meant b y the term "race.”
At
the time Freud wrote his paper (1911), it was customary to rel'er to
people from a given geographic area as a ’'race."
He may well have
meant that use of the terra rather than its current denotation.
To
be sure, the writer restricted the sample to white subjects.

- 22

In addition, as it was reasoned that ability to verbalize
recognition of the test words was directly dependent on reading
ability, each subject had to r e a d well enough to assure the ex­
aminer this variable was not of importance as a determinant of
response.

Only those who could read above a sixth-grade level

on the Reading Ability Subtest of the Jastak-Bijou Wide Range
Achievement Scale (38) were included in the sample.
For the different groups, there were also the following
requirements s
A.

Paranoid
1.

Diagnosis by the hospital psychiatric staff
of paranoid schizophrenia (See Appendix 4
for V. A* criteria).

2.

Some evidence of projective defenses.

This

evidence was gathered from the individual's
case folder, which includes physical, psy­
chiatric, psychological, and social service
reports, as we l l as interview material.
Nurses notes and other pertinent data were
also examined.
3.

Sufficient reality contact to satisfy the
examiner that he was testaole.
patient,

With each

there was a short interview before

the testing began.

Tnose whose behavior in­

dicated poor contact were not tested.

- 23 4*

No shook treatments within th© preceding four
months•

B.

Unolas sifled
1.

Diagnosis by the psychiatric staff as unclas­
sified schizophrenia.

(See Appendix 4 for

V. A. criteria).
2.

Some evidence, derived from the individual's
case folder, of lack of projective defenses.
Mild ideas of reference were n o t sufficient
to warrant exclusion41, although a previous
diagnosis at any time of paranoid disorder was.

3.

Sufficient contact w i t h reality to be tested.

4.

No shock treatments within the four months
previous to testing.

C*

Normal
1.

No history of emotional difficulties severe enough
to have necessitated either hospitalization or
psychiatric consultation.

For this data, each

subject had to be taken at his word, as there was
no way

to check the accuracy of the statements.

*e.g., one s u b j e c t fe lt p e o p l e n o t i c e d h i m b e c a u s e of his n e ­
g r o i d upper lip.
H e w a s in t h e m a i n a s e l f - p u n i s h i n g in di vid ual ,
as w e r e m o s t in the u n c l a s s i f i e d gro up .

- 24 There was no attempt made to closely equate or match the
groups for such factors as age, education, or reading ability*
So long as a subject met the requirements of the study, he was
included.

Table III shows there were no differences among the

groups in education or reading ability.
ference in ages, however.

There was a real di f ­

Both the paranoid group and normal

group were considerably older than the unclassified group, wit h
the difference statistically significant beyond the .01 level
of confidence.

There were no differences between paranoids

and normals in age.
One may question whether or not those individuals n o w diag­
nosed as unclassified schizophrenics may at a later date develop
paranoid symptomatology.

This was not felt to be probable, de­

fense systems being quite different for the two groups.

The

paranoids were all projective, whereas the majority of unclas­
sifieds were self—punishing.

It was difficult to imagine there

would be such radical shifts in modes of reaction.

For purposes

of this study, the age difference did not seem to be of much
importance•

TABLE III
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS ON AGE,
EDUCATION, AND READING ABILITY

Mean

Age
t-value

Education
Mean
t-value

Reading Ability
Mean
t-value

1.

Normals

33.32 *12 • 2.91*

11.04 *12 = 0 . 4

9.52 *12 ■ 0.82

2.

Unclassified
Schizophrenics

28.52 *13

11.32 *13 = 0.7

10.02 *13 * 1.71

3.

Paranoid
Schizophrenics

33.48 *23 - 3.10*

11.56 *23 - 0.3

10.65 *23 ■ 0.88

at

0.09

^Significant beyond the .01 level of
confidence

- 25 -

- 26 -

Procedure

Each subject was tested individually.
a short description of the apparatus.

All subjects were given

As all were war veterans,

they were told it was similar in function to the machines used for
aircraft recognition in the armed forces*

They were reassured r e ­

garding the confidential nature of the results*

Any questions a

subject asked were answered as fully as possible, provided they
were not specific to the purpose of the experiment.

The examiner

did not begin the test until he was reasonably certain rapport
was adequate*
Prior to the tachistoscopic procedure, the subject was asked
to read aloud from the Wide Range Achievement Reading Ability sub­
test.

If he read above a sixth grade level, he was allowed to go

on with the experiment and given the following instructions:
"This is an experiment in communication, or the effect
of words on people.
I've got a group of words here,
all kinds of words, from as many different areas as
I could think of.
I'm going to present them to you in
the machine, one at a time. We'll start at fast speeds
and will slow them down until yo u correctly recognize
the word.
Once you correctly recognize it exactly as
it appears on the paper, I'll remove it and w e ’ll go
on to the next word* D o n ’t be afraid to guess, even
if you don't see the word too clearly* You'll be sur­
prised how often your guesses will be right.
"Remember now, you have to recognize the word exactly
as it's printed on the paper*
All the words will show
up in that rectangle, so look there for the word. We'll
try a few practice words first, to give you the idea.
If you have any questions, d o n ’t be afraid to ask them."

- 27 The subject was then shown the pretest words tachistoscopically, and any questions he had regarding procedure were answered.
There was no pause between pretest and test words, the latter fol­
lowing immediately.
Each word was presented once at each timer setting.

The timer

setting for first exposure of test words was determined on the
basis of a s u bject’s response time to the pretest words.

Where-

ever possible, the first exposure time for any of the test words
was

.05 seconds faster than his quickest response time to any of

the pretest words.

This was done to maximize the possibilities

of more rapid recognition times to test words.

For most of the

subjects, however, the timer setting for first exposure of test
words was

.01 seconds.

Exposure time was lengthened in even steps of .01 seconds.
If after twenty-five successive exposures to the same word, a
subject was still unable to recognize it correctly, step-intervale
were increased to .05 seconds.

This was done primarily to reduce

feelings of frustration in the subjects.
rectly recognized,

Y*hen a word was cor­

the setting of the timer was recorded, and the

next word was presented.

The procedure was the same for all

words with all subjects.
Words were presented in a random order,
roughly between administrations.
words in the same order.

oeing shuffled tho­

No two subjects were shown the

- 28 U p o n conclusion of the experiment, all subjects were asked
to maintain silence regarding the nature of the task.

It was

explained that reliable results could be obtained only if all
subjects came into the situation experimentally naive.

As far

as could be ascertained, the e x a m i n e r ’s request was complied with,
for none of the later subjects in any group appeared to possess
a greater degree of knowledge a b o u t the task than did the
earlier ones.

RESULTS

There were several variables involved in "the study:
connotation and sexual meaning of the words themselves,
diagnostic categories of the subjects.

affective
as well as

The effect of these var i ­

ables on reaction times was important, as were the interactions
among them.

In designing the experiment,

it was felt the analysis

of variance technique would provide a meaningful statistical treat­
ment of the data.
1.

Requirements for analysis of variance are:

Homogeneity of variance in the experimental
population;

2.

Normality of distribution in the experimental
population with respect to the variable con­
sidered;

3.

and

Independence of individual measurements.

These requirements were met.
The first requirement, homogeneity of variance, was determined
by use of Bartlett*s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, as suggested
by Edwards (17).
square this small,

The derived chi-square was 0.537.

W i t h a chi-

the null hypothesis could not be rejected.

Normality of distribution in the experimental population for
the variables considered was assumed; and the independence of mea­
surements was favored by random presentation of words in the list
to each subject in the experiment (See Procedure,

- 29 -

pp. 25-26).

30 -

Analysis of Variance

The statistical "technique used was a modification of one
found in Edwards

(17* p. 295) for analysis of data involving

successive trials.

This particular technique was chosen for

two reasons*
(a)

It tended to minimize the effect of practice
upon recognition times of subjects to words
presented successively in the test list.

(b)

This form of analysis, separating the error
variance for testing groups

(residual variance

within groups) from the variance within indi­
vidual subjects,

allowed a sharper test of

variance between groups of subjects to be made
(See Table IV for results obtained).

Between Groups of Subj e c t s .

The table indicates there were

no overall differences in word recognition times among the experi­
mental

subgroups of subjects.

In terms of total sums of reaction

times, all three subgroups behaved alike.

Between Words.

Among the words,

the .01 level of confidence,

The F was less than 1.

there were differences at

the derived F being 9.28.

This f i n d ­

ing, that individual subjects reacted differentially to the words
in the test list, was essential to the proposition that the per­
ceptual technique used in the experiment coula yield differences

TABLE IV
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PERTAINING TO TIMES
REQUIRED FOR CORRECT RECOGNITION OF WORDS
Source of Variance

d. f.

Total Variance
A.

B.

C.

2699

Between Subjects

74

1.

Between Groups of Subjects

2.

Residual

(within) Variance

W i t h i n Subjects

2

229.4

72

35

2•

Between Affective
Categories (Holding Subjects and Sexuality
Constant)

2*

Between Sexual Categories
(Holding Subjects and
Affactivity Constant)

2*

113.0

24.01

367.8

9.28

1.97

.0

N.

30.2

.0

2590

Words x Groups**

70

Affectivity x Sexuality x
Groups

14.5

1.19

N.
^

1Q^9

Groups x Affectivity
(Sexuality Held Constant)

*

Affectivity x Sexuality
(Groups Held Constant)

4*

Groups x Sexual ity
(Affectivity Held Constant)

Residual (Pooled Subjects x
Groups Interaction) Variance

N. i

2 62 5

Between Words

Interaction Terms

<1

427.9

1.

3.

Mean Square

256#9

21#Q9

32 .15

2520

2.64

12.18

^Degrees of freedom for these variables are from the 70 d. f.
in the overall interaction term, Words x Groups.

**w Groupsw , where used in this table, refers to groups of
subjects.

- 31 -

-(

- 32 among groups of subjects.

Without this finding, further exam i n ­

ation of the data would have been superfluous.

Between Affective Categories.
words did not differentiate.

Affective connotation of the

This finding demonstrates that indi­

vidual subjects did not react differentially to the affective value
of words in the list.

By itself, the emotional quality of the

words did not appear to be an important variable (See Table IV).

Between Sexual Categories.

On this variable,

difference beyond the .01 level of confidence.

there was a

The source of

this significance lay in differential recognition times of words
in each sexual category by individual subjects in the experimen­
tal population.

On the basis of this finding,

the significance

of word recognition time differences between sexual categories
for all subjects combined were computed and are presented in
Table V.

The resulting t-ratios demonstrate significant differences

in mean word recognition time between each sexual category and
every other o n e •

Words x Groups.

The overall interaction term, Words x Groups,

was not significant, the obtained F being only slightly greater
than 1 (See Table IV).

Affectivity x Sexuality x_ Groups.
w a s not s ignii'icant, the derived F being

The three-way interaction
less

than 1 (See Taole IV).

TABLE V
t —RATIOS BETWEEN MEAN WO R D RECOGNITION TIMES FOR EACH
SEXUAL CATEGORY (ALL SUBJECTS COMBINED)
Comparison

Word Recognition Times
in Hundredths of a Second

Homosexual

t

*

5.26

versus Heterosexual

2 .47

.02:

versus Non-Sexual

4.32

.01

7*17

.01

Heterosexual

5.73

versus Non-Sexual

Non-Sexual

4.55

^Degrees of freedom associated wit h all t —tests are those of
the error term (2520).

Difference

-

^/(Residual Variance)

(l/n

¥

l/n)**

^ D i f f e r e n c e for Homosexual versus Heterosexual
/

12.18 (2/675)

*

■

.19

^ D i f f e r e n c e for Homosexual or) -yersus Non-Sexual
Heterosexual)
J

12.18 91/675

¥

1/350J

s

r

.1645

This standard error of the difference formula was found xn
McNemar (50, p. 224); see also Cochran end Coxe (15, p. 91).

- 33 -

I

Groups x Affectivity.

The obtained F for this interaction

was less than 1 (See Table IV).

A f f ectivity x Sexuality.

The interaction between these var i ­

ables was significant beyond the .01 level of confidence.

In the

heterosexual classification, pleasant and neutral words had the
longest recognition times.

In the homosexual and non-sexual clas­

sifications, pleasant and neutral words had the shortest recog­
nition times*

Response times to pleasant and neutral words in the

homosexual and non-sexua]
each other.

classifications were not different from

However, with unpleasant words, those in the non-

sexual and heterosexual categories had like recognition times, wher
as unpleasant words in the homosexual category had a significantly
longer recognition time (See Taole VI).

Groups x Sexuality.
cant beyond the

The interaction term here was signifi­

.05 level of confidence.

In this interaction with

both the heterosexual and nor-sexual words,

the two clinical p op­

ulations behaved alike, having slower recognition times to these
classes of words than did the normal population.

On the other

hand, with the homosexual words, paranoid schizophrenics and n o r ­
mals behaved el ike, both having significantly faster recognition
times to these words than did the unclassified schizophrenics
(See Table VII).
From this information, it would appear that hypothesis five
(stated on p. 11), that there would be no significant differences

TABLE VI
t-r a t i o s b e t w e e n m e a n w o r d r e c o g n i t i o n t i m e s o f w o r d s i n t h e
SEXUAL AND AFFECTIVE CATEGORIES (ALL SUBJECTS COMBINED)
Mean W o r d Recognition Times
in Hundredths of a Second

*
” Values

p

Pleasant Words
1•

Homos exua 1

4.26

t 12 m 6.44

2.

Heterosexual

6.38

t 13 . 0.772

N. S.

3•

Non-Sexual

4.48

*23 = 6*667

.01

.01

U npleasant Words
1•

Homos exual

6.72

*12 - 6.292

.01

2.

Heterosexual

4.65

*13 m 7.22 8

.01

3•

Non-Sexual

4.66

*23 « 0.035

N. S.

Neutral Words
1.

Homosexual

4.78

*12 ■ 4.164

.01

2•

Heterosexual

6.15

*13 3 0.982

N. S.

3.

Non-Sexual

4.50

*23 - 5.789

.01

"'Degrees of f r eedom associated w i t h all the t-scores are the
degrees of freedom of the error term (2520).

(fDifference

=

*/(R»3idua 1 Variance)

( l/n

+

l/nj

^“Difference for Homosexual versus Heterosexual

/ I2.r6"('i 7 2 ^ ^ 4- T/ggET

=

r

.329

(/“ Difference for Homosexual or Heterosexual versus Non-Sexual
</ 1 2 . 1 8 T l 7 2 2 6
+ 1/450)
s
.2 85

- 35 -

TABLE VII
t-RATIOS BETWEEN MEAN WORD RECOGNITION TIMES OF W O R D S
IN DIFFERENT SEXUAL CATEGORIES FOR THE THREE
EXPERIMENTAL SUBGROUPS OF SUBJECTS
Mean Word Recognition Times
in Hundredths of a Second

Words

\

P*

Homosexual Words
1.

Paranoid

4.95

t12 ■ 2.462

.02

2.

Unclassified

5.76

t 13 = 0.395

N. S.

3.

Normal

5.08

*23 ■ 2.067

.05

Heterosexual Words
1.

Paranoid

5.88

t 12 > 1.094

N. S.

2.

Unclassified

6.24

*13 * 2.492

.02

3.

Normal

5.06

*23 « 3.587

.01

Non-Sexual Words
1.

Paranoid

4.90

*12 - 0.304

N. S.

2.

Unclassified

4.80

*13 = 3.344

.01

3.

Normal

3.80

*23 » 3.039

.01

♦Degrees of freedom associated -with all t-scores are those
of the error term (2520)*

*Difference

=

j/ (Residual Variance)

< T Difference

=

/

d

12.18 (1/22 5

- 36 -

*

(l/n

1/2257

*
=

l/n)
.329

- 37

among the groups in their reactions to non-sexual word s , wa s not
substantiated (See Table VII).
Intragroup comparisons

(See Table VIII) showed t h a t paranoid

schizophrenics reacted differently to heterosexual w o r d s than they
did to either homosexual or non-sexual words.

Both unclassified

schizophrenics and normals reacted differently to b o t h homosexual
and heterosexual words than they did to non-sexual w o r d s .

All of

the above differences were statistically significant.
However,

because of disturbing factors

(e.g., w o r d structure)

other than die relevant variables experimentally c o n t r o l l e d in
this study, the intragroup findings are not p a r t i c u l a r l y conclusive.
It had been planned to use reaction times to non-sexual words
as a common baseline from which to make comparisons among the
groups of subjects to homosexual and heterosexual classes of words.
That significant differences were found among groups necessitated
the use of the analysis of covariance technique.

TABLE VIII
t-RATIOS W I T H I N MEAN RECOGNITION TIMES OF YfQRDS IN DIFFERENT
SEXTJAL CATEGORIES FOR THE THREE EXPERIMENTAL
SUBGROUPS OF SUBJECTS
Groups

Mean

t - Values

Paranoid Group

.01

1.

Homosexual Words

4.95

V 1Z

2•

Heterosexual Words

5 .58

*13 - 0.017

3.

Non-Sexual Words

4.90

*23 = 3.44

.01

-

2.83

N. S.

Unclassified Group
1.

Homosexual Words

5.76

*12 - 1.46

N. S.

2.

Heterosexual Words

6.24

*13 s 3.37

.01

3.

Non-Sexual Words

4.80

*23 « 5.05

.01

Uormal_ Group
1.

Homosexual Words

5.08

*12 = 0.006

N. S.

2.

Heterosexual Words

5.06

*13 • 4.50

.01

3.

Non-Sexual Words

3 .80

*23 ■ 4.42

.01

^Degrees of freedom for these are associated w i t h degrees
of freedom for the error term (2520).
^Difference for Homosexual versus Heterosexual
*/l2 .18 (1/225

4

1/225)

=

.329

Difference for Sexual versus Non-Sexual
*
s/l2 .18 (l/22 5 + 1/450)“ .2 85

- 38 -

s

- 39 -

Considerations Leading to Analysis of Covariance

Many experimenters in the area of selective perception had
used subjects’ recognition times to neutral words as a baseline
from which to examine reactions to other classes of words
55).

(31, 46,

The analysis of variance showed there were significant d i f ­

ferences in recognition times between experimental subgroups to
these non-sexual words

(See Tails VII).

It seems likely that tin-

known uncontrolled variables affected different groups of subjects
differently in terms of their wo r d recognition times,

fctae p os­

sible explanation for this disparity may be lack of concentrative
ability on the part of the clinical populations.

It is common

knowledge that the concentrative attention span of psychotics is
limited, and this factor may have operated generally to increase
their reaction times to all classes of words.) It was necessary,
therefore,

to transform the data statistically in such a way as

to equate the experimental subgroups for recognition times to nonsexual words.

Analysis of covariance, following McNemar (50),

appeared to be a method of considerable promise for eliminating
the effect of these uncontrolled variables upon differential word
recognition times.
It was decided,first, to use recognition times to non-sexual
neutral words as the common baseline from w n i c h to examine r e ­
actions of each experimental subgroup to heterosexual and homosexual

- 40 -

words,

second, "bo examine differences in reaction "to homosexual

words holding recognition times fo** heterosexual words constant.
The data were then transformed by use of the derived regression
coefficients.
Three separate analyses of covariance were done, the first
comparing experimental subgroups on reaction times to heterosexual
words, the second comparing experimental subgroups on reaction times
to homosexual words with recognition times for non-sexual neutral
words held constant.

In the third analysis, reaction times for all

groups to heterosexual words were held constant, and experimental
subgroups were then compared on reaction times to homosexual words*

Analyses of Covariance

The results of the first analysis, with heterosexual words,
are found in Table

IX.

The derived F w i t h untransformed data

was n o t significant, nor did it attain significance with the co­
variance transformation (1.B7).

This lack of significance indi­

cated there were no real differences among the experimental sub­
groups in their reactions to heterosexual words, when groups
were equated for reactions to non-sexual neutral words.
analysis,

By this

supported by previous evidence of independence of word

length and affectivity, hypothesis four was supported*
The second analysis of covariance, with homosexual words,
provided definite evidence supporting hypotheses one, two, and
three of this study.

The r e s u l t s

of this comparison, supported

TABLE

IX

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BETWEEN NON-SEXUAL NEUTRAL
WORDS AND HETEROSEXUAL WORDS
Total

Within

Between

51,866.12

50,685.52

1,180.60

1.

Sums of Products

2.

Sums of Squares:

X*

97,574.48

96,096.48

1,478.00

3.

Sums of Squares:

Y**

32,169.95

31,037.92

1,132.03

4.

d. f.

5.

Correlation

5a.

d. f. for r

74

6.

bxy value

7.

Adjusted €. x^

8.

d. f.

72

2

.92 8

.92 6

.913

71

73
1.612

1

1.633

13,953.27 minus 13,32 6.2 6 equal s

1.043
62 7.01

71

73

2

*X - Heterosexual
**Y - Non-Sexual

Analysis of variance:
Between variance X
Within variance X
F

■
■
-

1,478.00/2
3
739.00
96,096.48/72
3 1,334.67
.554 (N. S.)

Analysis of covariance based on Adjusted^ x ^ :
Between groups
W i thin groups

variance 3
variance ■
F ■

627.01/2
s 313.505
13,326.26/71
s 187.694
315.505/187.694
= 1.67

(N.S.)

41 -

I

- 42 -

by previous evidence of independence of -word length and affectivity, indicated that, w i t h corrections made for differential r e ­
actions to non-sexual n e u t r a l words,

there was a statistically

significant difference a m o n g the experimental subgroups in their
reaction times to h o m o s e x u a l words (See Table X ) .
with untransformed data w a s no t significant;

The derived F

out writh the covari­

ance transformation, t h e F became 4.984, significant at the

.01

level of confidence.
The means of r e a c t i o n times were then adjusted, following
McNemar

(50, pp. 328-329),

and the standard error of the differ­

ence was calculated (50, p. 224, p. 245).

Following this, t-

tests were applied to d e t e r m i n e the sources of the difference
implied in the F-ratio (See Table XI).
These comparisons demonstrated that the paranoid group d i f ­
fered considerably f r o m the normal group.

They reacted more

rapidly to homosexual words,

the difference being significant at

the .01 level of confidence.

When the two clinical groups were

compared, the difference was

significant at the

paranoids reacting faster t h a n unclassifieds.

.05 level, with
The last compari­

son, normals versus unclassified, tbls well below statistical
significance

(See Table XI).

These findings w i t h reference to differences in recognition
times for homosexual w o r d s when subgroups were equated for time
required to recognize non-sexual neutral words were further ex­
amined by the third a nalysi s of covariance holding recognition

TABLE X
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE BETWE1N NON-SEXUAL NEUTRAL
WORDS AND HOMOSEXUAL WORDS
Total
1.

Sum of Products

2.

Sum of Squares*

3.

Sum of Squares*

4.

d. f.

5.

Correlation

5a •

d. f. for r

X*

Within

40,154.69

39,911.24

243.45

66,136.99

65,365.28

771.71

32,169.95

31,037.92

1,152.03

74

6.

bxy value

7.

Adjusted £

8.

d. f.

72

.870

2

.260

.886
71

73

1

1.2859

1.2482
x2

Between

.2151

16,015.71 minus 14,043.96 equals 3,971.7 5
71

73

2

Homosexual
**Y - Non-Sexual
*X

~

Analysis of Variances
Between variance
W i t h i n variance

X
X
F

=
r
s

771.71/2
=
65,365.28/72
.425 (N. S.)

365.86
= 907.85

Analysis of covariance based on Adjusted^ x2 *
Between groups
Within groups

variance «
variance s
F *

1,971.75/2
s 985.675
14,043*96/71
■ 197.802
985.875/197.802
s 4.984

(.01 level)

- 43 -

I

TABLE XI
t-TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF TOTAL
RECOGNITION TIMES FOR A L L HOMOSEXUAL WORDS FOLLOWING
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE TRANSFORMATION
Adjusted Mean for Total
in Hundredths of a Sec or.d

Subjects

t

d.f .

P

40 .30

Paranoid
versus Normal

3.10

71

.01

versus Unclassified

2 .21

71

.05

.90

71

N • S.

Normal

52 .65

versus Unclassified

49.08

Unclassified

(T

Difference* = J

(Residual Variance)

<r

Difference

=

197.802

<f~

Difference

■

/

(1/2 5

4

(l/n

4

l/n)

l/2 5 )

3.98

*A correction factor is added to the formula for computing
standard error of the difference following analysis of covariance
by Cochran and Coxe (15)»
There was no appreciaole difference
between standard error of the difference computed w i t h the formu­
la used and standard error of the difference computed with the
more rigorous formula.

44

I

- 45 times to heterosexual words constant*
In this case, the derived F-ratio (2.10) was not significant,
although it was indicative of a trend.

When the means of reaction

times for the groups of subjects were adjusted,

it was found that

the trend was in the direction predicted in the first three
hy poth e s e s •
Comparative word recognition times following all three analy­
ses of covariance are summarised in Table XII*

Sexuality appeared

to influence reaction times of paranoid subjects,

out words of a

homosexual meaning were recognized more quickly by them than were
the heterosexual words.
It would appear then, from the results of these analyses of
covariance,

that the first,

were supported*

second,

third and fourth hypotheses

'"•he -ked here for microfilminp.

UNIVERSITY

microfilms

Clai
r&ranoxu

lified

Homosexual, holding
non-sexual neutral
words constant

40.30

52.65

49.08

Heterosexual, holding
non-sexual neutral
words constant

47.55

54.46

52.65

Homosexual, holding
heterosexual words
constant

43.46

50.35

48.23

1 'Sri ii' i.i nil iberinp onl.- vrii*»n rjr.t-rinl
h< re

Tor microfLlmiup-.

UNI7E-..ITY

TABLE XII
ADJUSTED MEANS OF TOTAL RECOGNITION TIMES IN HUNDREDTHS
OF A SECOND FOR ALL HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL
WOR D S FOLLOWING ANALYSIS OF COVARLANCE
TRANSFORM/M ION
Class of Words

Subjects
Paranoid

Normal

Uhclassified

Homosexual, holding
non-sexual neutr&l
words constant

40.30

52.65

49.08

Heterosexual, holding
non-sexual neutral
words constant

47.55

54.46

52 .65

Homosexual, holding
heterosexual words
constant

43.46

50.35

48.23

- 41

-

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

This study -was undertaken to investigate the relationship
postulated by psychoanalytic theory,
phrenia and homosexual impulses.

between paranoid schizo­

It was held that a relation­

ship between paranoid schizophrenia and homosexual impulses
would have been demonstrated providing the following occurred*
if* paranoid schizophrenics correctly recognized words with a
homosexual meaning more rapidly than did normal control subjects
(Hypothesis one) and more rapidly than did non-paranoid, unclas­
sified schizophrenics

(Hypothesis two).

Furthermore,

if there

were no significant differences between normals and unclassified
schizophrenics in recognition times to homosexual wards
(Hypothesis three)j and if there were no significant differences
among paranoid schizophrenic and normal groups in correct recog­
nition times to heterosexual words

(Hypothesis four), hetero-

seuxality as a factor in paranoia wou l d be ruled out*

Finally,

if homosexuality were held to be the only factor in paranoia
(or any paranoid component in schizophrenia) then (in addition
to hypothesis four) there should be no significant differences
between paranoid schizophrenics and normals in the times required
to recognize non-sexual words

(Hypothesis five).

- 48 -

- 49 -

A n important: condition was that word recognition times were
to be independent of word length, affective connotation, and
familiarity of the words used.

The effect of these factors, in ­

sofar as they could be explored, proved to be minimal.

In a

pretest, differential word length was found to have no effect
(See Appendix 1), nor did affective connotation (See Table IV).
Finally, a group of peers had rated the words for familiarity
(See Appendix 3), and the assumption was made that the expe r i m e n ­
tal population would have rated them similarly.
W h e n the covariance transformations were made, it w as found
that the paranoid schizophrenics had significantly faster r e c o g ­
n i t i o n times to homosexual words than did either the unclassified
schizophrenics or normals.

There were no significant differences

between normal and unclassified groups in recognition times to
homosexual words.
and three.

These findings supported hypotheses one, two

The first three hypotheses also received support fol­

lowing the covariance transformations made using reaction times
to heterosexual words as a baseline.

Although sexuality appeared

to be an area of concern for paranoid individuals, homosexuality
was an area of greater concern.
It is interesting to note that on the basis of intragroup
comparisons paranoid schizophrenics seemed to respond more slowly
to heterosexual words than they did to non-sexual words, and that
response times for homosexual words did not differ significantly

- 50 from the times they required to recognize non-sexual words.
Conclusions drawn on. this basis are somewhat at variance w i t h
those drawn w h e n the experimental subgroups have oeen equated for
their recognition times to either heterosexual or non-sexual
words by means of t h e coveriance transformations.
Because of the experimental design, and the probability of
uncontrolled v a r i a b l e s masking the intragroup behavior, together
with the fact that analysis of covariance as applied in this
study as a technique for minimizing the effect of uncontrolled
variables,

the intragroup comparisons are of more academia i n ­

terest than scientific rigor.
The results based on the covariance transformations also
showed that there w e r e no statistically significant differences
among the groups of subjects in recognition times to heterosexual
words.

This f i n d i n g supported hypothesis four.

With i n the limitations of this study, the data demonstrated
a relationship between paranoid schizophrenia and homosexuality
in that there w e r e differential recognition times following the
analysis of covariance transformations for words of a homosexual
character between the paranoid schizophrenic, unclassified
schizophrenic,

and normal subjects.

Furthermore, the finding

that paranoid schizophrenics correctly recognized homosexual
words more r a p i d l y than did unclassified schizophrwnics,
coupled with the finding that unclassified schizophrenics did

51
n o t differ from normals in recognition times for homosexual words,
indicated that the sensitivity to homosexual stimuli was more a
function of the paranoid components involved than of schizophrenia
itself.
Homosexuality appeared to be more an area of concern for
paranoid schizophrenics than for either unclassified schizophrenic
or normal subjects.

Regardless of their willingness or ability

to overtly verbalize their concern w i t h homosexuality, the greater
sensitivity of paranoid subjects to homosexual words indicated
they h a d more familiarity w i t h these words.

Ha d it been possible

to employ more words with an exclusively homosexual denotation,
rather than words with other meanings in addition to homosexual,
greater sensitivity of paranoid subjects to homosexual stimuli
m a y we l l have been more clearly demonstrated.

Despite the limit­

ing factor, there was fairly clearcut evidence that the paranoid
components involved in schizophrenia were related to homosexuality.
The major theorists in the field of selective perception have
proposed the perceptual principles of Resonance, Vigilance, and
Defense to account conceptually for the interaction between per­
ceptual and motivational variables.

Using time required for cor­

rect recognition of tachistoscopically—presented stimuli as their
measure, they found that stimuli congruent with individual inter­
ests we r e recognized most rapidly,

the response being called

"resonant;” stimuli pertaining to areas of individual conflict

- 52 were also recognised, rapidly, the response in this case being
identified as "vigilant;** and stimuli inimical w i t h individual in­
terests were recognized most slowly, the response being called a
’’defensive"

one*

Comparisons were made from a baseline of "neutral"

words (9, 10).
In the present study, it was held that motivational factors
are involved in the determination of areas of concern, w i t h no
attempt made to identify reaction times except as indicators of
areas of concern.
analytic theory.

The experiment was designed to test psycho­
However,

it is interesting to speculate as to

the motive of the rapid recognition of homosexual words by para­
noid subjects.

As the psychoanalytic school has postulated that

homosexual motives are a major source of conflict for paranoid in­
dividuals, the reaction times of paranoid individuals in the study
to homosexual words may have been indicative of the operation of
perceptual Vigilance.
Whether homosexuality is a major area of concern for paranoid
individuals and whether it alone is causative of behavior diag­
nosed as paranoid could not be determined from the present findings.
There was a relationship demonstrated between paranoid mechanisms
and homosexuality, and it would appear reasonable to infer that
homosexuality, as an area of concern, is involved in the deter­
mination of paranoid personality components.

However, there may

well be other areas of concern that serve to differentiate paranoid

- 53 fr o m other individuals.

This is implied by -the fact that there

were differential recognition times for n o n —sexual words between
the paranoid schizophrenic and normal subjects, as well as the
indications that sexuality itself is an area of concern for p a r a ­
noid individuals.

How, and to what degree, homosexuality or

other areas of concern are related to paranoid aspects of per­
sonality functioning is a possible subject for further studies.
Although this study was based primarily on theoretical con­
siderations,

the fact that reactions to various classes of words

served to differentiate among groups may be of diagnostic signi­
ficance.

The perceptual technique not only differentiated the

normal group from the paranoid schizophrenic group, but it also
differentiated the latter from the unclassified schizophrenic
group.

A further study is planned, wit h refinements in technique

based upon the present findings.

In this proposed study diagno­

sis of paranoid schizophrenic, unclassified schizophrenic, or
normal would be predicted from perceptually-mediated responses
of individuals.

If predictions can be made successfully at the

individual level with these groups, the technique could be further
investigated with other clinical populations.

The hope would be

that it might prove of value a« a diagnostic aid in clinical practice.
As was done in the present study with paranoid mechanisms,
other aspects of the psychoanalytic theory of personality could
possibly be interrelated with perceptual theory and subjected to
experimental test.

Evidence from these studies would have value

in testing other psychoanalytic postulations.

- 64 -

Comparison of Results with Those of Other-

Studies

The relationship postulated by p s y c h o a n a l y t i c theory between
paranoid mechanisms and homosexuality has b e e n
several ways*

There are major m e t h o d o l o g i c a l

the present study and the majority of other
this writer.

investigated in
differences between

s t u d i e s reviewed fay

These differences make c o m p a r i s o n difficult.

Nevertheless,

the findings in ma n y o b s e r v a t i o n a l studies with

paranoid schizophrenics (3, 28, see also 4,
of a relationship between the two factors,

t>9) were suggestive
as

w e r e the present

findings•
The conclusions in this study did n o t c o i n c i d e with those
of Aronson (4), who felt it was the p s y c h o s i s

itself, rather

than its paranoid components, which was i n v o l v e d
tion with homosexuality.

in preoccupa­

He based his c o n c l u s i o n s primarily

on the results obtained from the Blaokie a n d
using a "sign” approach with the latter.

R o r s c h a c h tests,

lie f o u n d

paranoid and non-paranoid psychotics differed,

that both

significantly from

normals in the number of homosexual "si g n s ”

i n f e r r e d from their

responses.

he

Comparing the psychotic groups,

found that para­

noids gave more homosexually-indicative r e s p o n s e s than did nonparanoids, but the difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t .

As

there is

still much to be learned about "signs” in p r o j e c t i v e testing, it
may be that Aronson's data might, upon re-e^caunination with more
knowledge, necessitate different concl u s i o n s .

- 55 In his study, Eriksen (19) found evidence favoring the con­
cept of perceptual Defense associated writh aggressive and suocorant needs, none with homosexual needs.

Using a clinical po p ­

ulation, he correlated time required to elicit responses to a
w o r d —association test wi t h time required for correct recognition
of tachistoscopically-presented drawings.

The same findings

emerged from a later study by Eriksen and Lazarus (20), in w h i c h
responses to the word-association test were correlated w i t h recog
nition of various areas on the Rorschach inkblots the authors had
designated as homosexual.

The authors concluded the lack of an

apparent relationship for homosexual needs may well have
due to experimental artifacts

been

(20, p. 307).

In summary, the findings in the present study did not coin­
cide with findings in other studies reported in this section,
with the exception of observational studies.
It is felt that the test of the psychoanalytic postulation
was more direct in the present study than was the case in the
other experimental studies cited, which may account for the di f ­
ferences in results.

Because of this more direct approach, w i t h

fewer variables extraneous to the psychoanalytic proposition to
be considered,

it is felt that the results of the present study

are somewhat more indicative than were those of the other studies

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study was undertaken to investigate the relation­
ship postulated in psychoanalytic theory between paranoid schizo­
phrenia and homosexual impulses.

The orientation Tor the study

was derived from psychoanalytic theory and research in the area
of selective perception.

As a measure of selective perception,

time required for correct recognition of various classes of
tachistoscopically-presented words was used, previous research
having indicated that stimuli pertaining to areas of individual
concern are recognized more rapidly than "neutral"

stimuli.

Rapid recognition occurs persumably as a function of greater in ­
dividual familiarity with stimuli relating to the areas of con­
cern to him.

It was held that motivational variables were in­

volved in the determination of areas of individual concern, and
that the interaction of motivational wit h perceptual variables
w o u l d affect perceptually-mediated response.

If homosexuality

was an area of concern for paranoid individuals, words reflecting
homosexuality would be recognized more rapidly by paranoid indi­
viduals than by individuals

less concerned by homosexuality.

Three groups of subjects were employed in the study:

para­

noid schizophrenics, unclassified schizophrenics, and normals.

- 56 -

- 57 It was held -that a relationship between paranoid schizophrenia
and homosexuality would have Deen demonstrated ifi
(a)

paranoid schizophrenics correctly recognized
words w i t h a homosexual meaning more rapidly than
did normals and unclassified schizophrenics;

(b)

there were no significant differences in correct
recognition times between unclassified schizo­
phrenic and normal subjects to homosexual words;

(c)

there were no significant differences in correct
recognition times between paranoid schizophrenics
and normals to heterosexual words or non-sexual
words; and

(d)

correct recognition times were independent of word
length, familiarity, and affective connotation of
the words used.

TJdrds comprising the test list were chosen by a group of
judges, who rated them on affectivity,

sexuality, and familiarity.

W o r d s of five- and six-letters were used, a pretest having indi­
cated differential word length did no t affect recognition times.
The following findings were noted, following statistical
analysis of the datas
1.

Affective value of the words had little effect upon
time required for correct word recognition.

- 58 2.

Paranoid subjects recognized homosexual words signif­
icantly faster

than did the other two groups of

subje c t s •
3.

There were no statistically significant differences
between unclassified schizophrenics and normals in
recognition times to homosexual words*

4.

Differences in recognition times to heterosexual words
were not significant among the groups.

5.

There were statistically significant differences between
paranoid schizophrenics and normals in time required to
recognize non-sexual words.

These findings supported the psychoanalytic postulation, in
that there was demonstrated a relationship between paranoid as­
pects of personality functioning and homosexuality.

Whether homo­

sexuality was the major area of concern for paranoid individuals
was n o t determined,

but there were indications that homosexuality

was not the sole area of concern for paranoid individuals.
Principal conclusions were:

(a) that homosexuality was of

greater concern to paranoid schizophrenics than it was to
either unclassified schizophrenics or normals; and (b) the sen­
sitivity of paranoid schizophrenic subjects to homosexual stim­
uli appeared to be more a function of the paranoia components
involved than of schizophrenia.

SELECTED REFERENCES

1.

Ackerman, N. YY. Antisemitic Motivation in a Psychopathic
Personality; A Case Study.
Psychoanal. Rev., 1947, 34,
pp. 76-101.

2.

Alexander, F. Fundamentals of Psychoanalysis.
Norton, 1948, 3T12 pp".

3.

Alexander, F. and W. C. Menninger.
The Relation of
persecutory Delusions to the Functioning of the Gastro­
intestinal Tract.
In Tomkins, S. S. (Ed.)*
Contemporary
Psychopathology.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Press,
1946, pp. 381-393.

4.

Aronson, M. L. A Study of the Freudian Theory of Paranoia
b y Mb an s of ei Group of Psychological T e s t s . Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Michigan, 1950, 195 pp.

5.

Brown, J. F.
The Psyohodynamios of Abnormal Behavior.
N e w York:
McGraw-Hill, 1940, 484 pp.

6.

Bruner, J. S. Personality of Dynamics and the Process of
Perceiving.
In Blake, R. R. and G. V. Ramsey (Eds.):
Perception:
An_ Approach to Personality. New York*
Ronald Press, 1951, pp. 121-147.

7.

Bruner, J. S. One Kind of Perception.
A Reply to Professor
Luchins.
Psychol. R e v ., 1951, 56, pp. 306-312.

8.

Bruner,
J. S. and L. Postman. Tension and Tension Release
as Organizing Factors in Perception.
J_. Personal ity, 1947,
15, pp. 300-308.

9.

Bruner,
J. S. and L. Postman. An Approach to Social Per­
ception.
In Dennis, YY• (Ed):
Current Trends in Social
Psychology.
Penna*
Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1948,
pp. 71-118.

10.

Bruner, J. S. and L. Postman. Perception, Cognition, and
Behavior.
In Bruner, J. S. and D» Krech (Eds.):
Perception and Personality. Durham, N. C.:
Duke Univ.
Press, 1949, pp. 14-31.

- 59 -

New York*

60
11*

Bruner, J. S. tind L. Postman.
On the Perception of* Incon­
gruity:
A Paradigm,
In Bruner, J. S. and D. Krech (Eds.):
Perception and P e r s o n a l i t y . Durham, N. C.s
Duke Univ.
Press, 1949, pp. 206-22 3.

12.

Cameron, N.
The Paranoid Pseudo-Community.
1943, 49, pp. 32-38.

13.

Cameron, N , Perceptual Organizetion and Behavior Pathology.
In Blake, R. R. and G. V. Ramsey (Eds.):
Perception;
An
Approach to Personality.
New York;
Ronald Press, 1951,
pp. 285-306.

14.

Clapp, C. D.
Two Levels of Unconscious A w a r e n e s s . Abstract
of Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Michigan, 1951.

15.

Chochran, Vk. G. and G. M. Coxe.
New.' York, Yiiley, 1950, 454 pp.

16.

Cory, D. W.
Greenberg,

17.

Edwards, A. L.
Experimental Design in Psychological
Research*
N e w York;
Rinehart, 1950, 446 pp.

18.

Eidelberg, L.
Psychoanalysis of a Case of Paranoia.
Psy c h o a n a l . R e v ., 1945, 32, PP» 37 3-402.

19.

Briksen, C. W.
Perceptual Defense as a Function of
Unacceptable Needs.
J. A bn o r m . S o c . P s y c h o l ., 1951
46, pp. 557-564.

Amer. J. Sociol.,
“

Experimental Desi g n s .

The Homosexual in America.
1951, 326 pp.

New York;

20.

Kriksen, C. W. and R. 3. Lazarus.
Perceptual Defense and
Projective Tests.
J_. A b n o r m . S o c . P s y c h o l ., 1952, 47,
No. 2, pp. 302-308.—

21.

Fenichel, 0.
The Psycho-Analytic Theory of N e u r o s i s .
New Y o r k : Norton, 194o, 703 pp.

22.

Ferenczi,
Brunner,

23.

Frenkel — lirunsw'ick, E.
Intolerance of Amniguity as an
Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable.
In
Bruner, J. S. and D. Krech ( E L . ) :
Perception and
P ersonality. Durham, N. C.:
Duke Univ. Press, 1949,
pp. 108— 144.

S.
Sex in Psychouni l y s i s .
1950, 338 pp.

N e w York:

Robert

- 61 -

24.

Prenkel—Brunswick, E.
Personality Theory and Perception.
In Blake, R. R. and G. V. R.msey (Eds.)s
P erceptions
A n Approach to P e r s o n a l i t y . N e w Yorks
Ronald Press,
T§51, pp. 356-426.

2 5.

Freud, S. A Case of Paranoia Running Counter to the
Psychoanalytical Theory of the Disease.
(Translated ty
E. Glover) In Collected P a p e r s , Vol. II.
Londons
Hogarth Press, 1948, pp. 150-161.

26.

Freud, S. Certain Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy,
Paranoia and Homosexuality.
(Translated ty J. Riviere).
In Collected Papers, Vol. II.
Londons
Hogarth Press,
1948, pp. 232-243.

27.

Freud, S. Psycho-Analytic Notes Upon An Autobiographical
Account of a Case of Paranoia (Dementia Paranoides).
(Translated by Strachey, A. and Strachey, J.).
In
Collected Papers, Vol. III.
Londons
Hogarth Press,
1948, pp. 387-470.

28.

Gardner, G. E.
Evidence of Homosexuality in One Hundred
and Twenty Unanalyzed Cases wit h Paranoid Content.
In
Tomkins, S. S. (Ed.):
Contemporary Psychopathology.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Press, 1946, pp. 394-397.

29.

Goldin, H. E. and F. O ’Leary, and M. Lipsius.
Dictionary
of American Underworld L i n g o . N e w Yorks
Twayne, l95l,
32 7 pp.

30.

Guilford, J. P.
Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education.
N e w Yorks
McGraw—Kill, 1942, 333pp.

31.

Haigh, G. V. and D. W. Fiske.
Corroboration of Personal
Values as Selective Factors in Perception.
J. A b n o r m .
Soc. Psychol. 1952, 47, No. 2, pp. 394— 398.

32.

Hart, B.
The Psychology of Insanity.
MacMillan, 1931, 191 pp.

33.

Henderson, D. K. and R. D. Gillespie.
A Textbook of
Psychiatry.
ed. 6.
Londons
Oxford Univ. Press,
1944, 7 1 9 pp.

34.

Henry,

G

Sex Variants.

N e w York:

ed. 4.

Hoeoer,

New Yorks

1948,

1130 pp

- 62 -

35*

Hochberg, J. E. and. H. Gleitman.
Twoards a Reformulation
of the Perception—Motivation Dichotoiqy’. In Bruner, J. S.
and D* Krech (Eds.)s
Perception and Personality.
Durham,
N. C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1949, pp. 186-191.

36.

Howes, D. H. and R. L. Solomon*
a. Note on McGinnies
"Emotionality and Perceptual Defense."
Psychol. Rev.,
1950, 57, pp. 229-234.

37.

Howie, D.
Perceptual Defense.
59, pp. 308-315.

38.

Jastak, J. Wide Range Achievement Test.
Story, 1946, 24 pp.

39.

Jelliffe, S. E. and W. A. White.
Diseases of the Nervous
System*
A Textbook of Neurology and Psychiatry. ed. 6,
revised.
Philadelphia*
Lea and Febi g e r , 1935, 1175 pp.

40.

Kraepelin, E.
Manic Depressive Insanity and Paranoia.
(Translated by R. Mary Barclay) Edinburgh*
Livingstone,
1921, 280 pp.

41.

Lazarus, R. S., C. W. Eriksen, and C. P. Fonda.
Personality
Dynamics and Auditory Perceptual Recognition:
J_.
Personality, 1951, 19, pp. 471-482.

42.

Lindquist, E. F. A First Course in Statistics, Revised
Ed., Bostons
Houghton Mifflin, 1942, 242 pp.

43.

Lowenstein, R. M.
Christians and Jews*
A Psychoanalytic
Studv.
New York*
International Univ. Press.
1952,
22Tpp.

44.

Luchins,
A. S. An Evaluation of Some Current Criticisms
of Gestalt Psychological Wo r k on Perception.
Psyc h o l .
Rev., 1951, 58, pp. 69-95.

45.

Mausner,
B. and A. Siegel.
The Effect of Variation in
"Value" on Perceptual Thresholds.
J. Abnorm. S o c .
Psychol., 1950, 45, pp. 760-763.

46.

McGinnies, E.
Emotionality and Perceptual Defense.
P s ychol. R e v ., 1949, 56, pp. 244-2 51.

47.

McGinnies, E. Discussion of Howes' and Solomon's "Note on
Emotionality and Perceptual Defense."
P s y c h o l . R e v .,
1950, 57, pp. 235-240.

48.

McGinnies, E.
Association.
pp. 2 8 —36.

Psychol. Rev., 1952,

Wilmington, Del.:

Personal Value as Determinants of Word
J. Ataaorm. So c . P s y c h o l ., 1950, 45,

- 63 49.

McGinnies, IS. and W. Bowles.
Personal Values as
Determinants of Perceptual Fixation.
In Bruner,
J. S. and D. Krech (Eds.)s
Perception and Personality.
Durham, N. C.s Duke Univ. P r e s s , 1949, pp. 224-235.

50.

McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics.
Wile y , 1949, 364 pp.

51.

Hyrerson A.
The Inheritance of Mental D i s e a s e .
Williams and Wilkins, 1925, 336 pp.

52.

Norman, J. P. Evidence and Clinical Significance of
Homosexuality in One Hundred Unanalysed Cases of
Dem e n t i a Praecox.
J. Nerv. M e n t a l .P i s ., 1948, 107,
pp. 484-489.

53.

Noyes, A. P.
Modern Clinical P s y c h i a t r y .
Philadelphia, Saunderls7”T51^,H57Tr"ppT'"^

54.

Postman, I., and J. S. Bruner.
Perception under Stress.
P s y c h o l . R e v ., 1948, 55, pp. 31 4 — 323.

55.

Postman, L., J. S. Bruner, and E. McGinnies.
Personal
Values as Selective Factors in Perception.
J . Abnorm.
Soc. P s y c h o l ., 1948, 43, pp. 142-154.

56.

Postnan, L. and G . Leytham# Perceptual Selectivity and
Ambivalence of Stimuli.
«J. P e r s o n a l i t y , 1951, 19,
pp. 390—405.

57.

Rabin, A* I. Paranoia.
In Burton, A. and Harris (Eds.)s
Case Histories in Clini c a l and Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y .
N e w York:
Harper, 1947, pp. 146-159.

58.

Rosenstock, I. M.
Perceptual Aspects of Repression.
J. Abnorm. P s ychol., 1951, 46, pp. 304-315.

59.

Sears, R. R.
Survoy of Objective Studies of Psychoanalytic
Concepts.
New York:
Social Science Research Council,
Bulletin 51, 1943, pp. 71-75.

60.

S h e r i f , M. An Outline of Social Psychology, New Yorks
Harper, 1948, 479 pp.

61.

Sterne, D. M. Duration Thresholds in the Perception of
Unpleasant Words.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan
State College, 1952, 143 pp.

N e w York*

Baltimore*

ed. 2.

64 -

62 • Thorndike, E. L. and I. Lorge.
The Teacher's Wordbook
of 30,000 W o r d s » N e w Yorkx
Teachers College,
Columbia Univ., 1944, 274 pp.
63.

64.

Veterans Administration.
Nomenclature of Psychiatric
Disorders and Reactions. Washington, D. C.x
Veterans
Admini strati on.
Technical Bulletin 10A - 78, 1947,
10 pp.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ed. 5.
Merriam, 1948, 1275 pp.

Springfield, Mass.:

APPENDIX 1

List of Five- and Six-Letter Words Equated for Frequency of
Usage Aocording to Thorndike-Lorge Word Counts. (62)
A*

100 or More in a Million
Five-Letter

Six-Letter

UNTIL
ABOUT
EVERY
CLOCK
GIVEN
BLACK*

B.

ALWAYS*
BEFORE
HUNCH
CORNER
DINNER
DURING

50 in a Million
Five-Letter

Six-Letter
WORKER
STRING
REPEAT*
POCKET
MANAGE
COUNTY

BROOK
FIFTH*
EVENT
SCALE
PLANE
DOZEN

C.

1 in a Million
Six-Letter

Five-Letter

ICEBOX
INSTEP
KNOTTY*
VESPER
FEELER
BOUGHT

MOLAR
OUTDO
SEIZE*
BAGGY
SULLY
ADAGE

*Used as pretest words to familiarise subjects with
procedure•
Results of Significance Test with Ten Subjects*
M6

.

28.4

liQ

a

27.2

5.06
crd M
i>m

^M

1.35

«
.82
^6 - 3.08
1 .58
1.2
1.2/1.58
.76 (Not Significant)

APPENDIX 2
T-Soore Totals, Means, and Interquartile Range for Forty
Judges an the Affective Dimension
______

Last School Gra<~e Completed: ____________

STRUCTIONSs
Here is a list of rords, each followed by a line.
The line represents
sec le on vhich you indicate how you feel about each v/ora. One end of the
ne stands for ” please nt" (P); the other stanus for " unpleasant" (U ) .
Considering each word (and line; separately, please indicate, by a check
rl: (
) somovrhero along that line, the extent to vhich you feel the vord is
pleasant or an unpleasant one.

’ ORB

INTERQUARTILE
n
RANGE Qi - Qj -1-

TOTAL T-SCORE

MEAN T-SCORE

J.COPN

1793

44.8

40

/ D V££

1605

40.1

3 5 - 4 4

iJjULT

1681

42 .0

35

‘TtjJ'-t

1918

48.0

AGOPY

2580

64.5

ALPRT

1638

41.0

/jtgt ;l

1462

5£± S ___________

34

AUNTIt

1899

47.5

4 0 - 5 3

ltiPf

1644

41.2

3 7 - 4 4

■'APiiri.

1981

49._5_

45

- 5 2 ______j

P’-A ST

2254

56.4

50

-

-

-

48

I

H

48

- 1 0 . _ _ 5 2
61

-

j

68
“i

_

36

-

46

-j
i
— _il.
—
—

-

-

I

I

\

64
- ■ )

PT,H3>TP

j

2203 _ _ _ _ _ _

55.1

48

-

63

1690

42.2

36

-

47

2148
£
1^6

53.7

48

-

59

1759

44.0

40

-

48

—
RELLL
BFPPCR

|

IB -ITI*

—

PITCH

I

(

2466

61.6

2 144

53.6

SOD ICE

1887

>7.2.

tjoso:.!

1697

42.4

38

-

45______ j

BOYISH

2003

50.1

45

-

57

'HP'

69

-

65
_ 5?_______|

\-

48.- t .-51_____ |

rroRD

p

TOTAL T-SCCRE

BRAV'U

MEAN T-SCORE

1866

46.6

INTERQUARTILE
RANGE Qi - 03
42
- 50

U

r
..

PP.UAD

1
1

1694

42.4

39

BREAST

I
1

1719

43.0

39

BRIDAL

|----

1522

38.0

36

1

1899

47.5

43

2349

58.7

53

1902

47.6

41

-

52

1614

40.4

35

mr>

43

FRory

_

46
47

I
1
_

I
1

40
n
.

i

51

ir

BUGGER

\

r
nuxon
caruss

cj-S.Y'T

CP.LLa R

i
1
i
1
L.
r

63

1
1
.r|
1
.

2531

63.3

62

-

68

2084

62.1

46

-

60

1645

41.1

37

-

43

1730

43.2

38

-

48

1523

38.1

35

-

40

1990

49.8

41

—

53

I

j

i
I

1
CHARM

i
i

CJ.IT.RIY
CHURCH
COITUS

i—
i
!
I
1

CRAZY

1-----

2380

59.5

54

-

64

CRISP

i
r

17 73

44.3

40

—

48

1646

41.2

38

-

43
41

CRUISE
DADDY
DEATH

DIRTY
D IS MAI,
DITCH
DRAPE

1580

39.6

35

-

EARLY

1—
»
1
I
i
r
i
1—
j

2 533

63.3

61

-

68

1886

47 .2

43

-

50

2289

57.2

51

-

62

2418

60.4

69

—

64

2421

60.5

56

-

____ I

i
1
i
1
i
1
i
1

—
-

59

2041
»
r
2239
i
1--- ■»

51.0

47

-

58

56.0

49

-

62

1802

45.0

40

-

49

2181

1
1

64

50

f

___ ii

. . .

54.5

•

.i
i

_

i
j

1

■

DRUNK

_i
i

•

DECIDE
DEVIL

i

!

i
I
!
1
1

1

n

■ 1
1
j
1

INTERQUARTILE
u
RANGE Qi - Q3 --3 6 - 4 0
1
50
j
43

WORD

P

ENJOY

,
I
.

1497

37.4

1874

46.8

,
1
,

1626

40.6

37

1829

45.7

42

—

,
1
,

2174

54.4

50

—

2022

50.6

1491

FANNY

,
I
,
1
j

FIT? D

uvraY
EXCIjL
FABLE

TOTAL T-SCQRE

MEAN T-SCORE

43
1

68

1
1
.

44

58

|

37.3

34

41

,

1600
" 1
2015

40.0

37

42

j

50.4

46

54

.

•

2352

58.8

34

64

FILTHY

|

2585

64.6

63

FLIRT

,
1
,

2069

61.5

45

1762

43. R

38

1664

41.6

FRUIT

!
1
|

1716

fucked

.

GAR I'M7

FAGGOT
FAIRY
FAMILY
FA1¥.)TTS

49

-

87

1

56

|

—

48

|

38

—

44

,

42.9

39

—

46

|

2316

57.9

51

-

66

(

.

1672

41.8

38

—

GAUDY

.

2201

55.0

50

60

GTNTLE

.

162 6

40.6

36

43

GIVING

•

1624

40.6

37

44

GODLY

,
1
,
r
i,.
j

1565

39.1

35

42

.

54.2

51

58

.

54.4

49

59

|

36.6

34

39

j

55.8

51

61

i

37.8

35

40

I

37.8

34

44

|

FRIED
FROLIC

O’IFZEE
HAIRY
HAJ :-y

HARLOT

i
r"
|

2167
‘ ---- 2174_ ---1464
”"
.... 1 ""
2230

HEALTH

,
1—

1510
--- ---- ■ ‘ ~

H.'AVETT

I

1512

44

—

-

1
j
I

~

7r0 'D

F

TOTAL T-SCORE

MEAN T-SCQRE

INTERQUARTILE
u
RANGE Ql - Q3 --45 — 60
i
1
61
60
|
1
61
63
-j!

1887

47.2

2221

56.5

2264

56.6

2291

57.3

63

61

2282

57.0

53

1607

40.2

37

62 ..... 1
1
42
-4

1815

45.4

42

49

,
I
,

2259

56.5

60

63 ... . 1
1

2112

52.8

50

56

1
l

2400

60.0

67

64

..1
i

INTEND

,
1
.

1926

48.1

45

51

1
i

INVERT

.

2091

52.3

49

55

JACKET

.

1837

45.9

43

JOCKER

,

2108

52.7

<TOLLY

j

1604

KNEEL

.

LAYING

HEIGHT
HOMOS
HORNY
HLTML'ED
HUSSY
IDEAL

1
,
,
1
,
r
,
1
(

IMaCE
IF OEST
INJECT
IN SANT.

a.

1
1

|
1

i

50

I
1

50

67

I
1

40.1

37

41 .

I
1

1921

48.0

45

51

I
1

|

1942

48.6

44

LESSON

,

1913

47.8

45

50

1
1

LICKED

■

2166

54.2

50

59

1
1

LYNCH

j

2477

61.9

69

MADAM

.

1990

49.8

45

MAGGOT

,

2472

61.8

59

MANGLE

■

2451

61.3

59

mm

51
1

2 500

i'lANIAC

. S S - * ... .

a, 67
.. .. 1
1
54 ----- 1

59

_
«•

MANLY

,

1772

44.3

39

IANT IRE

1

2310

57.8

53

65 _ ... -.j
1
64 _____ 1
1
66
— i
1
49
.j
1
63
—I

70RD
--

P

TOTAL T-SCORE

tAPI/E

I_______ 1739 ___

MARKET

1
1

MWY
MORP.-D

MEAN T-SCORE

INTERQUARTILE
jj
RANGE
Qi
Q3

43*5

40

1819

45.5

43

48

I
1.

1664

41.6

38

44

|
1

I
1

2380

59.5

57

63

1
1

1
1

192 6

48.2

46

MOTTLDY

I
1.

2382

59.6

57

mm

MOUTH

I
r

1890

47.2

44

m

1735

43.4

40

M'trr.T:

movies

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

. . .

_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

................................

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

1
1

-

.

,

48

51
61
60
46

MUR PER

[
r

2476

61.9

61

.

_

66

MUSIC

1
1

1529

38.2

36

m

.

41

NANCE

|
r

2019

50.6

49

NAUSEA

j_

2525

63.1

60

unrHrr.”

I—
1

1792

44.8

41

48

nerve

i
1--i
r

1852

46.3

42

50

2463

61.6

53

66

1

1926

48.2

42

51

nooky

i
r

2102

52.6

45

59

NOTCH

i
1

2031

50.8

50

52

OAS IS

[
r---

1812

45.3

43

49

ORGA'J

i
I

1836

45.9

41

50

1961

49.0

46

51
51

NIGGER
NIPPLF,

----

.

-----------------------------------

OUNCE

mm

66

i

2036

50.9

49

PANIC

I
1

2272

56.8

53

P/S'SY

!

2078

52 .0

45

60

PARROT

!

1944

48.6

45

51

rE’TIS

1

2119

53.0

49

...

-----------------

1
1
i
__JI
----- 1

52 ______ I
1

^)VARY

j_.

1

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
._

—

—

61

57

|
1

(

,

J" I

v.OliL

TOTAL T-SCORE

P

------

MEAN

T-SCORE

_ . ^ I E R 'i U A R T I ^ E
U
R A N G E Qi
Q 3 ----

PEOPLE

L
1 __

1765

43.9

41

PICKUP

I ....
1

1992

49.8

46

PIECE

L.
1

1963

49.1

46

POGER

I___
f

2103

52.6

50

1641

41.0

39

2078

52.0

1767

-

46

|

52
1
_ ----- f
61

1

54

|

43

|

51

56

|

44.2

41

47

,

1647

41.2

38

43

|

1795

44.9

41

49

|

I
r

2131

53.3

49

57

,

PUTRID

1
1

2464

61.6

57

66

.

c.UAIL

1
!

1934

48.4

45

51

i

o t j a h tt

1
1

1905

47.6

45

51

1

1
1

1698

42.4

40

45

.... ■

1
t

1888

47.2

43

50

1

1
I

2066

51.7

51

61

|

RiJ ’
■BLE

1
r

2252

56.3

53

60

|

RAPIST

1

2494

62.4

61

•

66

.

1947

48.7

46

—

51

1

2265

56.6

53

•
61

1

...51

- j1

51

1

•RAISE
PRATT

\
r

1
1

PRIPCE
PRIZE

1
I

PUPIL

OB

—

1--PUSSY

QUEUE
QUEST
QUIFF

mm

mm

1

)r

RATIO
1--RECTUM

1
j

REPAIR

i
1

1901

47.5

45

-

RIUSE

|—
1

1921

48.0

46

-

ROBUST

1

1821

45.6

42

—

48

.

1682

42.0

38

—

44

|
|

T"

r.A IT T

1
t

Sa IE

iy

|
1-----

1653

41.3

38

—

46

SC;<LTr

I
1------

2057

51.4

49

—

55
---------- i1

t

2416

60.4

58

-

63

QUEER

'

n0RD

P

TOTAL T - S C O R E

MEAN T-SCORE

INTERQUARTILE U
RANGE Ql - Q3
•
43
49
— H

SECURE

■LOZO

45.fi

SEDUCE

2049

51.2

46

56

SERGE

2000

50.0

48

51

SHAME

2268

56.7

53

59

SISSY

2394

59-9

57

63

SISTER

1747

43.7

41

47

SLAVE

2357

58.9

56

_

62

SLOPPY

2374

59.4

57

_

62

SMOKE

1905

47.6

43

—

51

SNATCH

2223

56.6

52

_

59

SNOOr

2331

58.3

54

_

63

SPORT

1717

42.9

40

—

44

STAMP

1902

47.6

44

—

51

STRONG

1730

43.2

41

-

44

STUPID

2384

59.6

59

—

63

STTCKED

2359

59.0

53

-

63

SV'ISK

2016

50.4

46

—

52

TABLET

1970

49 .2

46

-

51

TAILED

2127

53.2

51

—

55

THANKS

1688

42.2

40

—

45

TOILET

2086

52.2

49

—

55

TONGUE

1967

49.2

46

—

51

TOPIC

1945

48.6

46

-

51

TRASH

2305

57 .6

53

-

61

2 353

58. 8

b5

-

61

TRIPE

l

WORD
T TTRTLI-:
TWIST

_P_ TOTAL T-SCORE
1953

|_
n
*
I

MEAN T-SCORE
48.8

“
46

------1

2013

TYPHYS

50.3

49
61

!

232 8

58 .2

55

62

i
1

1 77 3

44.3

41

48

... ;
1

17o2

42 .6

40

45

. j
1

2 31 2

6 7.8

55

61

2159

54.0

52

.

58

L_.

2 341

58. 3

54

_

— 63 .

I
1

2428

60.7

58

VIRGIN

i
f

1 804

45.1

41

VOMIT

i
1
i
!—

2544

63.6

62

1718

43.0

41

i
IP'CLR

i
1

TTTITEP

r
TRITTR

r
VAGINA
YEMOM
V ’T E I Y

VOYAGE

i
1

r

!
1
;
■■j

64
50
'

!
1

■J 67 ...
—

1840

46.0

43

v ;a l l o v j

i
I

2 193

54.8

52

VPSALTH

I------ 1 649

41.2

2 178

_j|

44 _____

;
t

50

|
1

"

i
1

L
r

_J
1

1

ViJ-.OOV

i',"';-c •

...

59

-

_i
!

38

44

_____ |
!

54.4

51

59

j
1

_ 2403

60.1

57

_ 54

>
1

r T:ORE

i--i

VIET T :'

|

2061

51.5

49

54. . ...... II

r ITPTM

j
i—

1709

42 .7

39

45

I
1

i

2106

52 .S

45

_

62

I1

2375

59 . 4

53

n

63

I

TOT
T^
K li'T11
1'T7j*

r

t

APPENDIX 3
Judges Ratings an a Sexual Meaning Basis (N
_____________________

m

40)

Last School Grade Completed:

INSTRUCTION^.

Here is another list of words.
Please classify them according to
netnirg.
For each word, indicate by a check in the appropriate column
whether you think it has homosexual, heterosexual or non-sexual meaning.
Classify only those words with which you are familiar.
If you are familiar with a word, but don't know its meaning, check the
’D o n ’t Know” column.
To classify a vrord as Homosexual, it must imply to you sexual practices
between persons of the same sex.
Tho word can either describe the activi­
ties or the kind of persons who take part in this type of activity.
To classify a -word as Heterosexual, it must im >ly to you sexual prac­
tices botv’oen persons ofopossito sex.
The word can either describe tho
activities or the kind of persons who take part in this type of activity.
To classify a word as Fon-sexual, it must imply neither homosexuality
nor heterosexuality.
It must have no sexual meaning attached to it at all,

TOR_D_

HOMOSThUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

FOF-STDvU/ L

D O N ’T KNOW

3AC OF
0

30C0M

0

36

CASKHT

0

0

40

(100#)

0

DC; TH

0

1

39

(97.5#)

0

0

1

38

1

FLIRT

0

37

3

0

GUFZ3L

1

1

2

31

1

32

6

0

1

3

4

18

1
0

FJVERY

HUSSY
JOLLY

VJ FLY
MURDCR
OASIS

(90#)

(92.5#)

(82 .1%)

4

36

(90#)

0

18

(45#) .

9. —

3

36

(90#)

0

4

36

(90#)

0

(45#)

;he total of judgments is less than 40 , it indicates an omission;
• because of idosyncratic familiarity.

,'ORD

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

V ON -SEXUAL

D O N ’T K N O W

’IECE

0

39

1UAINT

7

2

31

(72.5#)

0

’
.ELSE

1

5

32

(84.2#)

0

SISTER

2

14

22

(57.9#)

0

SUCK T)

29

8

3

(72.5#)

(97.5#)

0

1

0

turtle

0

0

38

(100#)

2

VO A IT

2

0

38

(95#)

0

.'.RITKE

0

12

25

(67.8#)

2

AUNTIE

1

9

29

(74.4#)

1

BODICE

0

25

(67.8#)

Ca R L o S

0

40

(100#)

DADDY

2

16

RN JOY

0

24

18

(46.250

2

0

0

22

(55#)

0

10
1 ^ 1

FILTHY

12

0

7

14

1

32

GODLY

0

6

HU'TT.D

0

24

JO CK UR

4

MANIAC

(61.5#)

(84.2#)

1

16

0

3

13

16

8

4

26

(68.4#)

2

MOV 1 1'
,J

0

15

25

(62.5#)

0

NOT O ’

0

7

27

(79.4#)

5

ricrup

0

38

(95#)

QUAiL

0

27

(69.2#)

REPa IR

0

1

39

2

16

5 ISPY

20

(52 .6#)

(60#)

2

0

12

1
(97.5#)

0
2

5 7 IT ^D

2

0

38

(95#)

0

TRIKE

1

4

31

(86.1#)

4

WORD

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

29

VIRGIN

(72.5#)

NON-SEXUAL
10______

WREATH

0__________

40

(10075)

ANGEL

9

31

(77 ,5%)

BLOWN
BUXOM

27 (71.1#)
0

10

34

(85;&)

O

CRUISE

34

(8570

EiJlLY

54

(89.675)

19

(50%)

25

(64 .1%)

FIEND

10

GIVING

14

HORNY

31

(79.470

MO U T H

12

4

37

(92.57S)

_0_

38

(97.47S)

11

17

(42.5:0

26

(65Q

38

(10075)

JACKET
MANGLE

NOOKY

40

PEOPLE

14

(100%)

PTTT R ID
RECTUM

21 (52.575)

18

SHj.ME

12

24

(61.975)

STRONG

30

(7775)

TRJ'SH

29

(72.575)

38

(97.475)

TrITIN HR

35

(87.575)

ALERT

39

(97.575)

VERMIN

BITCH

0

0

CRISP

36

0

O

o

(87.5;£)

9

22

BUGGER

DON'T KNOW

38

(97.475)

WORD

HOMOSEXUAL

heterosexual

NQM-SEXUAL

DON'T KNOT

SNOOP

4

1

52

(66.5#)

3

TOILET

2

4

35

(84.6#)

1

URINE

c

4

33

(84.6#)

1

VTvfTCH

0

36

(90#)

.4

0

ADULT

0

21

(53.9#)

18

1

BELLE

0

31

(77.535)

9

0

B R E L ST

0

37

(92.5#)

3

0

CHURCH

0

1

39

(97.5#)

0

D I S M L

1

0

37

(97.4#)

2

0

6

0

0

0

FAIRY

34

(85#)

FUCKED

0

40

HEALTH

0

8

INJECT

0

25

LICKED

19

(47.5#)

(100#)

32

(80#)

0

14

0

6

15

0

(64.1#)

M O TTE Y

0

4

36

(90#)

0

N EPHETU

1

2

37

(92.5#)

0

P a NIC

2

2

36

(90#)

0

PRINCE

3

3

34

(65#)

0

QUIFF

2

19

9

7

SCREW

0

38

(97.4#)

1

1

SNATCH

0

37

(92.5#)

3

0

THANKS

0

1

39

(97.5#)

0

UNITED

0

19

21

(52.5#)

0

W E A L T H

1

1

38

(95#)

0

ivDORE

1

27

B E H IN D

10

6

24

(60#)

0

VOYAGE

0

4

36

(90#)

0

(69.2#)

1

11

TORD

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

N O N - SEXUAL

D O N ' T KN017

MOTIVE

0

4

34

(89,5*)

1

DIGGER

0

5

34

(87.2*)

1

PARROT

1

1

36

(94.7*)

2

PUPIL

1

3

36

(90*)

0

R A P I ST

z

37

(92.5*)

1

0

SEPTTCE

0

40

(100*)

0

0

SPORT

2

13

25

(67.6*)

0

TONGUE

13

8

19

(47.6*)

0

VAGINA

1

33

(84.6*)

5

1

WHORE

0

40

(100*)

0

0

AFFAIR

0

32

(82.1*)

7

1

B E N D lift

0

6

PRIDAL

0

29

(72.5*)

11

0

COITUS

1

33

(89.2*)

3

3

DITCH

1

2

FAMILY

0

21

G A R L ’"'N

0

___ 3__

I.:F A V f ? T

0

3

INSANE

4

1

LYVCH

1

MORFID
NERVE
Pa

n s y

33

36
(52.5*)

(84.6*)

(92.3*)

1

1
0

19
(92 .5*)

0

(92.5*)

0

35

(87.5*)

0

2

37

(92.5*)

0

2

0

35

(94.6*)

2

0

3

36

(92.3*)

1

1

19

20

(50*)

37
37

0

PR I/...

0

4

36

(90*)

0

RAM•
'Li.

0

3

37

(92.5*)

0

SECURE

0

2

(?6*I

0

33

word

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

roF-■SEXUAL

DON’T KNOW

PREAD

0

8

CHERRY

0

33

DIRTY

9

5

25

FAGGOT

2

0

23

14

0

12

0

FRUIT

28

(70#)

32
(84.6#)

(80#)

6

0
1

(64.1#)

1

Hi.R I.OT

0

32

(88.9#)

4

4

F'CEST

2

19

(54.3#)

14

4

LESSON

0

2

38

(95#)

0

MARKET

0

2

37

(94.9#)

1

NAUSEA

3

1

36

(90#)

0

OVi,RY

0

33

PRATT

4

7

24

(68.6#)

4

QUEST

1

8

29

(76.3#)

1

SALARY

0

2

36

(94.7#)

0

SMOKE

1

3

36

(90#)

0

TAIL’D

1

9

29

(74.4#)

0

TP'CLT

1

5

34

(85#)

0

’ALLOT'

2

5

32

(82.1#)

1

a corf

0

2

37

(94.9#)

1

PEj-.OT

1

12

26

(66.7#)

1

BRAVT

1

7

31

(79,4#)

0

ClL'-ii!'!

1

23

DEVIL

1

7

31

(79.4#)

1

Fi*.' le

0

1

37

(9 7 .4 #)

1

FROLIC

1

13

26

(65#)

0

HAPPY

0

8

31

(7 9 .4#)

0

TWIST

2

4

34

(85#)

0

(82.5#)

(57.5#)

7

0

0

16

.

.

YORD

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

Q_____

4__________

IMAGE
LAYING

Q

MAPLE

37

Q

'TANCE
1U1TCE

Q____________

DRAI3E

Q

}UEER

37

( 9 4 .9%)

(89.6^)

1
1_

(92.5#)

4_____

16

2__________

38

(98%)

35

(87.6#

6

37

34

DON'T KNOW

(94.9$)________ 2_______

3

Q_____

NON-SEXUa L

0_
16
0_
)

____

0__________________ 2_______

0_

SAINT

1____________

5_________

32

(84.2ff)

2_

SLOPPY

Q

4

36

(90$%)

0_

CivBLET

Q

0 _________

40

(100%)

0_

pyphus

Q_______________ Q_________

40

(100%)

0_

TAGON

0_______________ 1_________

39

(97.5^)

0_

1________

38

(97.4#)

1_

PARREL

3_______________ 2_________

34

(87.2 # ) _____ 1_

SOYISH

6_____________ ___4 ________

30

(75#)

CELLAR

Q

36

(90/S)

0_

59

(100#)

1

2_________

38

(95%)

_____ 0
_____ 0

TEAST

o

4_________

)SCID3

q

3XCEL

0__

__ ________ _ g _________

TIFJD

Q

3

37

(92.5 % )

[AIRY

1

12________

26

(66.7#)

7_________

33

[DEAL

__

0____________

[NERL
tfPEJRE

§ __

0

iUSIC
>RG^

0__
2

’OGEE

1____

van
OBVST

0
_____ 1

5_________

_____ 0

(82.6^)

_28_C71.8?S)

1
0
1^

0_______________ _ 4 0 __ (100#)

o

6_________

34

(85?0

°

13________

25

(62. 5 % ) ______0

_ _0_________
22
10

;Lrt.VP;

0

6

E'ISH

3

1

15_______

( 5 6 . 4 % )_______ 17_____________

29
54
56

20
1

(72 .5 %)

0

(85#)

0

(90?6)

O

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

NON- SEXUAL
33

(84.6*)

DON'T KNOW
1

0

6

7

20

2

12

26

1

5

7

1

28

(77.8*)

3

0

0

38

(100*)

2

0

1

37

(97.4*)

2

0

34

(85*)

6

0

3

33

(84.6*)

3

1

1

37

(92.5*)

2

0

0

0

54

1

1

4

33

(86.8*)

2

0

0

40

(100*)

0

0

1

39

(97.5*)

0

0

1

38

(97.4*)

1

5

2

29

(80.5*)

3

0

4

35

(89.7*)

1

0

32

5

1

33

(84.6*)

0

3

0

37

(92.5*)

0

1

6

33

(82.5*)

0

0

3

37

(92.5*)

0

0

6

32

(84.2*)

2

0

3

36

(92.3*)

1

c

4

36

(90*)

0

0

31

29

(82.955)

(62.6%)

(80*)

(79.4*)

2

11
(65*)

4

0

8

8

0

1

3RD

HOMOSEXUAL

HETEROSEXUAL

NOT -■SSXUa L

*UNK

0

6

:>TNY

7

20

ET’TLE

2

12

26

1

5

DUOS

29

(82.9%)

33
(62.6%)

(84.6%)

D O N ’T k n o t ;
1
2

11
(65%)

0
4

MVERT

7

1

28

(77.8%)

3

r-OOOT

0

0

38

(100%)

2

Q'JLDY

0

1

37

(97.4%)

2

IPFLE

0

34

(85%)

6

0

F.'JIo

s

33

(84.6%)

3

1

USSY

1

37

(92.5%)

2

0

AT IO

0

0

34

1

■URC-U

1

4

33

(86.8%)

2

;TAMF

0

0

40

(100%)

0

'OP Ic

0

1

39

(97.5%)

0

'T*OM

0

1

38

(97.4%)

1

ILL IE

5

2

29

(80.5%)

3

r'-

0

4

35

(89.7%)

1

5IR7H

0

32

,p_/
7i"'T

5

1

33

(84.6%)

0

SR^ZY

3

0

37

(92.5%)

0

•p.,pr

1

6

33

(82.5%)

J

FAMOUS

0

3

37

(92.5%)

0

j A'JDY

0

6

32

(84.2%)

2

i.'EIGHT

0

3

36

(92.3%)

1

IUT.-UD

0

4

35

(90%)

0

(80%)

0

8

APPENDIX 4
Veterans Administration D e s c r i p t i v e Criteria for Diagnosis
(V.A. TB 10A - 78, p. 10)

" Schisophrenic reaction, paranoid t y p e .
This type of reaction is charaoterized by schizophrenic unre­
alistic thinking, with mental c o n t e n t composed chiefly of delusions
of persecution;

occasionally of grandeur, hallucinations, a fairly

constant attitude of hostility an d aggression, and ideas of refer­
ence.

It is also characterized by unpredictable behavior.

Exces­

sive religiosity may be pre s e n t a n d there may be no delusions of
persecution.

Instead there ma y be an expansive and productive de ­

lusional system of omnipotence,

genius, or special ability.

The

systematized hypochondriacal states are included in this group."

" Schizophrenic reaction, u n c l a s s i f i e d .
The acute group of this r e a c t i o n includes cases exhibiting a
wide variety of schizophrenic symptomatology,

such as confusion

of thinking and turmoil of emotion} manifested by perplexity,
ideas of reference, fear and d r e a m states, and dissociative phe­
nomena.

These symptoms appear precipitously,

often without ap­

parent precipitating stress, b u t exhibiting historical evidence
of prodromal symptoms.

V e r y o f t e n it is accompanied by a pro­

nounced affective coloring of either excitement or depression.
The symptoms often clear in a matter of weeks, although there is
a tendency for them to recur.

The

chronic schizophrenics exhibit

a mixed symptomatology, and w h e n the reaction cannot be cleared
in any of the four Kraepe l i n i a n types, it should be placed in this
group."

APPeu

SUBJECTS

Tima Required in Hundredths of a Second for Cozre
HOMOSEXUAL WORDS*
HETEROSEXUAL WORDS*
Pleasant
Neutral
Unpleasant
Pleasant
Neutral
6
1
3 4
5
7
6 9
2
10
11
13
14 15
12 |
16

A

4

4

2

6

5

2

2

4

3

3

4

2

2

3

4

2

B

4

3

2 26

6

3

3

7

2

6

4

5

6

4

3

3

C

2

4

5

6

4

4

3

5

2

4

7

3

3

4

3

4

D

4

5

4

8

5

5

4

8

6

7

4

4

4

4

7

3

E

5

4

4 21

6

7

5

5

5

12

10

8

6

6

4

9

F

2

3

3

4

4

7

2

2

4

3

8

3

5

4

2

4

G

2

2

2

4

2

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

2

2

H

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

5

3

2

2

2

2

3

I

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

2

1

4

4

2

2

3

3

2

J

5

6

7

9

7

9

7

6

6

5

8

13

4

6

4

6

K

6

6

4 26

8

6

8

5 10

22

13

3

6

5

6

9

L

4

2

1

4

2

4

2

4

3

3

2

6

2

2

2

4

M

3

2

3

5

5

5

2

2

3

3

6

4

3

4

2

3

N

6

5

3

6

7

6

4

3

6

6

7

8

4

3

6

5

O

3

4

3

5 14

4

3

3

3

5

6

5

5

7

4

3

P

3

3

4

11

7

4

4

5

4

12

5

5

7

3

8

6

Q

5

12

7 10

19

8

5 22

7

17

36

11

6

17

15

18

R

2

2

3

7

4

4

1

2

4

8

13

4

3

9

2

4

S

3

2

3 11

4

5

7

7

3

2

4

7

3

12

6

9

T

c»

•*

4

3

3

4

4

4

3

2

5

5

5

5

6

3

4

U

3

2

3

5

4

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

V

3

2

3

4

2

3

2

4

3

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

W

4

11 24

11

25

8

6

15

7

10

10

4

14

10

12

19

X

1

2

1

1

2

2

3

2

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

2

Y

7

7

8 13

9

9

7

8

5

8

8

10

7

7

7

9

94 132

99

163

176

125

108

131

SUMS

88 101 107 212 161 120

114 139

lilt
.8

19

Pleasant
20 21 22

23

Sohitophrenlo Subjeots (K ■ 26)
NON-SEXUAL WORDS^
leutral
Unpleasant
24 1 26 26 27 28 29 30 131 32 33 34 36

SUMS
36

0

2

3

3

2

3

2

11

6

3

2

3

4

2

3

2

2

2

3

117

3

2

2

6

2

3

5

4

4

4

5

2

4

4

4

3

2

2

3

156

8

3

3

3

4

4

6

4

6

4

6

3

11

3

8

6

2

4

3

171

3

7

5

4

4

4

4

3

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

6

4

4

5

166

8

3

5

6

4

3

9

8

7

9

7

10

4

6

4

5

5

4

6

238

3

3

2

5

3

3

5

4

3

3

6

2

2

3

5

3

3

3

6

128

2

2

3

4

3

2

2

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

6

3

2

2

3

98

2

2

2

2

2

3

4

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

86

2

2

3

2

2

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

9

3

2

2

4

92

.1

5

6

6

4

7

8

9

5

4

8

6

6

4

7

6

5

6

6

241

.0

5

4

5

6

4

5

7

5

5

4

7

7

5

4

5

4

3

6

252

4

3

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

98

3

2

2

4

3

7

7

2

2

2

2

6

4

2

2

2

2

3

6

123

6

4

4

4

3

5

4

4

4

3

6

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

3

166

6

3

4

6

4

6

6

7

4

3

3

3

6

3

3

3

4

6

3

165

2

2

3

5

6

4

10

8

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

4

2

2

4

169

8

6

6

6

6

5

35

13

7

7

30

11

28

6

12

6

6

7

16

448

6

2

6

6

8

5

9

4

3

1

3

3

10

3

3

1

2

2

3

161

8

2

6

3

4

7

6

6

4

9

4

3

6

7

3

2

4

7

8

191

4

3

3

4

4

4

5

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

5

3

4

131

4

4

2

3

2

3

4

3

3

2

4

3

3

3

2

5

2

2

3

11C

4

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

5

2

2

3

3

3

2

ioe

9

40

7

10

8

10

28

55

16

10

13

6

19

11

7

19

12

50

60

67]

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

54

LO

7

6

8

11

12

5

8

6

6

10

9

9

7

11

10

11

8

9

30C

52

118

93

112

99

113

176

177

106

101 139 103

156

94 136 168

4646

96 116 106

m

APPENDIX 6

Time Required in Hundredtns of a Second for Cor reot Re<

SUBJECTS

HOMOSEXUAL WORDS *
Pleasant
Neutral .Unpleasant
1 2
3 I4
5 6 17
6
9

A
HETEROSEaUAL UQRDS*
Pleasant
Neutral
Unpleasi
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 17
U
S
5
2
4
4
4
5
2
:

--------------------------------

A

3

2

4

4

4

4

5

4

6

B

4

4

4

10

4

5

3

5

2

7

4

3

4

4

6

6

11

C

4

5

6

6

5

5

7

5

5

11

15

8

6

6

4

6

4

13 20

12

25

22

13

13

17

11

17

25

17

13

15

14

18

50

D

V

E

2

4

4

5

4

7

5

5

4

12

8

4

3

3

4

7

5

F

4

4

6

9

9

12

4

3

4

10

5

9

8

5

6

6

6

a

11

8

7

7

10

10

5

18

12

5

15

7

5

12

11

7

5

H

3

2

3

4

3

4

2

3

3

7

3

6

2

2

4

3

5

i

4

3

3

7

5

13

3

4

6

8

7

4

3

4

5

2

3

j

4

5

3

6

3

8

3

11

8

8

8

7

7

4

5

10

7

7

5

5

6

6

5

5

4

7

9

6

4

4

5

7

6

7

5

5

10

6

8

3

5

4

5

5

4

6

b

6

4

6

M

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

3

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

N

5

n

6

3

4

4

3

3

3

6

3

2

3

2

2

6

3

2

0

8

6

3

8

9

6

7

4

9

8

18

2

7

3

3

10

6

P

8

6

6

14

8

5

6

7

10

13

6

6

7

9

7

Q

2

2

2

3

4

3

4

4

2

4

9

3

3

2

3

5

3

R

5

2

10

11

5

14

2

10

6

7

45

4

5

2

4

12

15

S

3

3

3

4

4

5

3

2

4

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

T

4

3

3

5

8

3

3

4

4

5

7

2

2

4

2

3

4

U

4

4

4

5

6

4

6

4

4

3

3

5

3

5

4

5

5

V

14

6

5 23

9

12

10

8

11

14

7

5

10

5

6

5

24

W

5

4

4

8

6

5

4

5

6

6

4

5

3

4

5

6

6

X

9

7

7

11

9

6

5

17

5

9

lo

6

9

4

6

5

4

Y

1

1

1

2

5

5

2

1

1

8

2

1

2

2

4

4

2

185 231

133

121

110

129

152

195

K
L

SUMS

*

128 117 116 198 159 168 114 157 139
♦

14

lb

See Table I (p. 17) which contains list of words

1

l;

2

li

;ion of Test Words with Unolassified Sohisophrenio Subjeots (N
NON-SEXUAL WORDS*
Neutral

Pleasant
.9

20

21

22

23

2

3

3

3

2

4

4

4

3

4

5

3

4

5

4

.1

11

11

6

3

3

24 | 26

-

25)

Unpleasant

SUIIS

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

53

34

36

36

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

15

2

1

2

2

132

6

6

5

4

3

4

17

3

3

3

3

4

6

178

5

5

4

4

5

4

6

3

3

7

4

4

3

3

191

9

15

11

15

12

12

19

10

13

12

15

14

9

14

16

566

3

4

3

4

3

5

2

5

3

5

3

10

3

3

4

5

163

9

3

4

22

7

3

6

4

12

4

16

8

6

7

3

14

5

257

L3

6

6

6

9

8

10

7

4

6

9

9

8

6

9

6

5

12

302

3

4

5

3

3

4

2

3

4

3

2

7

2

5

2

5

2

9

129

3

6

2

5

6

13

4

4

3

3

4

8

4

10

5

3

3

4

179

4

6

7

5

6

9

5

6

4

5

4

6

6

10

5

4

2

6

215

3

5

6

4

3

3

5

5

5

5

3

4

4

4

4

6

8

6

178

4

5

6

3

6

7

4

6

8

6

t%

V

*
%7
/

3

16

6

5

5

7

208

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

1

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

2

91

1

1

3

2

4

1

3

3

5

3

3

8

5

6

3

3

5

2

186

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

7

5

5

5

18

7

26

6

5

6

16

306

1

1

3

2

2

4

2

1

2

3

2

2

2

6

2

1

2

2

99

20

2

4

4

3

6

4

4

11

4

3

14

4

4

4

6

2

6

268

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

3

3

2

5

102

3

2

2

2

3

5

3

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

3

3

119

3

4

4

3

4

5

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

5

3

3

3

3

144

4

5

5

3

8

27

5

5

5

8

15

5

5

5

6

4

7

3

305

5

4

6

6

5

6

6

4

4

5

3

4

4

7

5

3

4

6

176

4

3

5

5

5

6

10

12

4

5

5

22

6

5

3

4

6

8

250

1

2

2

3

1

3

3

1

1

4

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

2

80

186

107

181 105

89

104

133

4864

0

99

102

96

130

156

113

113

104

124

113

APP EWDIX

Time Required in Hundredths of a Second for Corrpot R<
SUBJECTS

HOMOSEXUAL WORDS*
Pleasant
Neutral Unpleasant
X
c o 1* o 0 Y U y

HETEROSEXUAL WORDS*
Pleasant
Neutral
Unplei
10
11
12 1 13
14
17
15
16

A

1

2

2

13

2

4

3

2

2

7

2

2

1

2

4

3

2

B

2

3

1

6

3

2

6

3

2

10

4

1

3

3

4

1

2

C

2

2

1

4

1

2

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

4

1

D

1

1

1

2

6

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

E

3

2

3

5

2

2

1

3

8

2

1

2

4

4

3

2

2

F

1

1

2

2

3

2

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

G

2

2

4

4

7

1

3

2

2

16

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

H

17

17

14

23

16

21

19

17

12

20

27

17

16

11

14

20

22

I

8

5

7

8

12

7

6

9

6

8

7

2

5

10

5

8

11

J

8

9

6

9

11

9

13

6

7

19

18

5

6

6

13

8

7

K

16

9

10

21

11

19

11

11

14

12

13

10

9

12

14

11

19

L

5

8

8

7

9

17

6

8

7

12

6

3

4

7

4

10

9

M

2

3

2

5

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

2

3

N

2

5

3

6

4

3

2

3

4

7

2

2

4

4

2

3

3

0

7

5

6

30

6

3

10

4

7

9

6

6

3

4

6

5

5

P

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

Q

1

1

2

4

3

3

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

1

2

3

2

R

1

1

3

4

3

4

2

3

2

4

2

1

1

4

3

1

2

S

4

3

5

6

3

8

2

2

2

5

5

2

3

9

7

10

5

T

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

2

1

3

1

3

U

2

6

2

11

4

5

6

3

2

12

6

1

2

4

4

2

3

V

6

10

8

19

7

12

20

5

12

12

9

4

12

2

20

4

15

W

1

3

2

7

9

1

2

4

3

17

9

4

11

11

3

3

6

X

3

1

4

7

2

5

2

3

1

4

7

2

1

1

3

2

2

Y

3

2

5

8

4

7

2

3

2

12

4

2

3

1

1

2

3

201 144

79

101

107

124

SUMS

101 104

106 215 133 146 126 106

106

See Table I (p. 17) oontains list of words

113 133

tion of Test Words with Normal Subjects (N
Pleasant
21
22

a

25)

NON-SHIM. WORDS*
Neutral
25
26
27
28
29

23

24

2

2

3

2

3

1

1

1

Unpleasant
32
33
I 51
1
1
2
2

3

3

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

3

1

6

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

2

3

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

2

3

2

1

3

2

11

18

13

14

25

24

12

16

4

3

8

6

3

14

10

3

6

3

5

7

10

8

18

10

13

15

3

7

3

6

2

1

2

2

1

2

19

20

1

2

2

1

3

2

30

SUMS
34

35

36

1

1

1

84

2

1

2

4

102

1

2

2

1

1

57

1

1

1

1

3

2

61

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

86

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

54

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

3

1

100

14

12

12

20

13

17

15

14

9

28

604

5

6

10

3

8

2

4

4

4

4

9

235

7

5

4

6

6

8

7

35

6

2

7

28

330

22

10

13

16

9

8

12

15

12

9

10

16

10

465

4

12

5

4

4

10

5

7

6

15

4

3

4

6

244

2

2

3

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

78

2

2

4

2

2

2

4

3

2

2

1

3

2

2

2

4

103

3

5

4

6

6

6

3

4

4

4

6

4

7

4

2

3

5

207

1

2

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

51

1

1

2

1

1

2

3

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

69

2

1

2

4

1

3

2

1

2

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

2

2

76

2

4

4

4

7

4

9

4

2

5

4

3

3

5

2

2

4

3

157

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

6

2

1

1

1

66

2

1

4

5

1

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

2

3

3

124

2

4

5

2

4

8

11

7

2

10

3

6

4

14

5

2

2

3

29C

1

1

2

1

3

2

3

5

6

5

1

2

3

5

2

3

2

1

147

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

2

3

2

4

3

1

7

6

1

2

4

102

1

1

1

2

3

1

4

3

2

3

2

2

1

4

1

1

4

5

107

58

87

85

85

104

136

107

90

90

104

71

101

76

159

82

63

83 129

399]