- Email: [email protected]
Japanese and American association structures
JOURNAL
OF VERBAL
LEARNING
Japanese
AND
VERBAL
BEHAVIOR
7,176181(1968)
and American
Association
Structures1
LOUIS J. MORAN University
of Texas,
Austin,
Texas 78712
AND NORIKO MURAKAWA St. Agnes’
Junior
College,
Kyoto,
Japan
The free word associations of 258 Japanese college women were compared with associa-
tionsof 258 American college women to the same 80-word Est. Subgroups in each sample evidenced the same four idiodynamic associative sets: Perceptual referent, Object referent, Concept referent, and Dimension referent. Orthogonal rotated-factor structures were similar. The distribution of set “types” among Japanese women, however, was markedly different from that of the American women. The import of this variable incidence of idiodynamic sets in different populations was discussed with special reference to traditional word-association commonality tables. It was concluded that instructions in the free-wordassociation experiment tend to evoke a set to produce personal association hierarchies, but that the set to communicate tends to activate (in the same person) a more general association hierarchy, one more closely resembling the hierarchy depicted in traditional word-association commonality tables.
When Ss are under instructions to give “the first word that comesto mind” after they hear a stimulus word, most of their associatescan be sorted into four categories: Perceptual referent (adjective-noun, noun-adjective), Object referent (“functional” e.g., foot-shoe), Concept referent (synonym or superordinate), and Dimension referent (contrast or coordinate). Typically, a S gives some associates of all four types. Many Ss, however, give one type of associatedisproportionately, to different word lists and on different occasions. Such Ss are said to have an idiodynamic associative set (Moran, Mefferd, and Kimble, 1964; Moran, 1966). Little is known of antecedent conditions which might give rise to this individual differentiation into four distinct idiodynamic sets. But some methodological implications of idiodynamic sets have been established. Dependent variables in the word-association 1 This investigation was supported by Research grant MH-08778 from the National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health Service, and by the University of Texas Research Institute.
experiment, such as reaction time, faults (blank, multiword, distant, reproduction failure), grammatical form, commonality (degree to which an S’s associatescorrespond to those of a normative group), are all a partial function of the S’s set and the set compatibility of the stimulus-word list (Moran et al., 1964; Moran, 1966). So far, the above idiodynamic sets have been demonstrated in older (age 35) normal men, acutely psychotic schizophrenic men (Moran et al., 1964), U.S. college students, non-Enghsh-speaking Mexican college students (Moran, 1966), and mental retardates with an average I.Q. of 67 (Keilman and Moran, 1966). Mental retardates, with an average I.Q. of 48, evidenced all but the Dimension referent set (Keilman and Moran, 1966). The universality of these four sets, among themost diverse groups of Ss, is suggestive of fundamental association structures which are common to all language users, independent of the specific language used: “One might expect this factor structure to be relatively unaffected by the language in which
176
ASSOCIATION TABLE MEANS,
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
AND
177
STRUCTURES 1
INTERCORRELATIONS
258
FOR
UNITED
STATES
GIRLS
Intercorrelations Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Pr : predication Or: functional Cr : synonym Cr : superordinate Dr: contrast Dr: coordinate Commonality
Mean
SD
4.5 17.4 10.7 4.5 9.8 11.5 9814.4
3.1 4.5 3.6 2.3 3.6 4.6 1634.4
the word-association experiment is conducted since the relationships involved are expressed in all languages” (Moran, 1966, p. 20). An investigation of the word associations of Japanese Ss to the same word list and under the same testing conditions (except entirely in Japanese), as those described in Moran (1966) provides a further test of the hypothesized universality of the four idiodynamic associative sets. METHOD
Subjects. Japanese girls at the first- and second-year junior college level in St. Agnes’ Junior College, Kyoto, Japan, served as 5s. The 258 girls were about 18-years old, and generally from upper-income families. A comparable sample of 258 University of Texas freshmen girls was selected at random from a larger sample of 306 who had been tested in the same manner. Word Lists and Administration. The two 40-word lists described and listed in Moran (1966) were administered to both groups. The Ss in both samples were instructed to write the first word that came to mind when they heard the word read by the E. In Japan, of course, the words were read and responded to in Japanese. The Ss were told that the words would be read at 5-set intervals and to leave a blank space if no response word came to mind. Also, they were asked not to change a response or to return to fill in a blank space later. All testing was done in large groups. Variables. Most of the scoring was accomplished by copying scores from a Manual consisting of the prescored responses of 482 University of Texas freshmen (Moran, 1966). The following variables were scored: 1. Perceptual referent (Pr). Predication associations: The stimulus word and response word are adjectivenoun or noun-adjective combinations, e.g., red-apple, horse-big.
1 .23 -.26 -.I6 -.56 -.55 -.49
2
3
4
5
6
.26 -.02 .16 .39
.06 -.Ol .34
.53 .62
.38
-.lO
.07 -.28 -.56 .08
2. Object referent (Or). Functional associations: The stimulus word and response word each separately denote entities between which there is an explicit functional relationship, e.g., foot-shoe. 3. Concept referent (Cr). Synonym associations: The response word has exactly the same meaning as the stimulus word in one or more ordinary and appropriate contexts, e.g., small-little. 4. Concept referent (Cr). Superordinate associations: The stimulus word denotes an immediate member of the class or category denoted by the response word, e.g., cabbage-vegetable. 5. Dimension referent (Dr). Logical Coordinate associations: The stimulus word and the response word separately denote immediate members (of equal logical order) of the same class or category, e.g., blue-yellow.
6. Dimension referent (Dr). Contrast associations: The response word negates or contrasts with the meaning of the stimulus word in one or more ordinary and appropriate contexts, e.g., dark-light. 7. Commonality. For the Japanese girls, commonality score was the sum frequency of the S’s associates also given by the total 258 Japanese sample. Commonality scores of the U.S. girls were based upon norms on 482 University of Texas freshmen. Each response word of a S received a “score” corresponding to the number in her respectivenormativegroup that gave the identical response word. Statistical Analysis.* All correlations in this report are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. All factor analyses are for Principal Components, rotated by the normalized varimax method, with unities placed in the diagonal. Factor extraction in all analyses were stopped when eigenvalues dropped below unity. 2 Computations were carried out at the Computation Center of the University of Texas, with programs compiled by Donald J. Veldman, of the Department of Educational Psychology.
178
MORAN AND MURAKAWA TABLE
NORMALIZED
VARIMAX
2
ROTATED
RESULTS FACTORS
FOR
258
UNITED STATES GIRLS Factor
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Variable
I
II
III
hZ
Pr: predication Or: functional Cr: synonym Cr : superordinate Dr: contrast Dr: coordinate Commonality
-.71 -.05 .Ol .17 .90 .56 .81
-.22 .02 .86 .68 -.13 .04 .42
.30 .92 -.23 .23 -.18 -.69 .15
65 85 80 55 85 79 85
TABLE MEANS,
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
Variable
Shown in Table 1 are the means,standard deviations, and intercorrelations for 258 American girls on the 80-word list. Table 2 shows the usual three factors found in all previous studies, with the coordinate variable loading somewhat larger negative this time on Factor III. A comparable analysis of the associatesof 258 Japanesegirls to the same 80-word list is provided in Tables 3 and 4. The two groups of girls differed quite markedly in meanfrequency of all but the functional type associates,as shown in Tables 1 and 3. The Japanesegave almost four times as many
3
AND INTERCORRELATIONS
FOR
258 JAPANESE GIRLS
Intercorrelations
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6 -
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Pr : predication Or: functional Cr : synonym Cr: superordinate Dr: contrast Dr : coordinate Commonality
TABLE NORMALIZED
17.2 16.0 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.7 2562.6
4.6 5.0 1.8 1.5 3.1 2.6 623.4
4
VARWAX ROTATED FACTORS JAPANESE GIRLS
FOR
258
Factor
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Variable
I
II
III
hZ
Pr: predication Or: functional Cr: synonym Cr : superordinate Dr: contrast Dr: coordinate Commonality
-.75 .14 .24 .03 .78 .81 -.02
-.19 .93 -.ll .08 .02 -.03 .67
.08 -.13 .71 .66 .26 .15 .58
60 90 58 45 68 67 79
-.28 -.18 -.16 -.41 -.35 .04
-.05 .02 .02 .09 .41
.18 .22 .25 .27
.12 .08 .23
58 .26
.lO
predicate associates, one third as many synonym-superordinate associates, and one fourth asmany contrast-coordinate associates. The commonality scoresshown in thesetables are based upon different norms and are not comparable. When scored by the same American norms, the Japaneseaverage commonality score was 2,502, as compared with the 9,814 of the American girls. Clearly, with respect to means, the two sampleswere drawn from quite different populations. However, for the Japanese sample the correlation coefficient between commonality scoresbased upon Japanesenorms vs. commonality scores based upon American norms was .59. Thus,
179
ASSOCIATION STRUCTURE8 TABLE PREDICTION
OF SCORES ON LAST
5
40 WORDS FROM SET SHOWN ON FIRST 40 WORDS Standard score on last 40 words
N
Type of set (first 40 words)
Contrast coordinate
Synonym superordinate
20 25 42 54 117
Dimension referent Concept referent Object referent Perceptual referent Residual
1.18 -.12 -.24 -.40 .09
.63 .38 -.22 -.17 -.03
Functional
Predication
-.02 -.24 .42 -.lO -.15
-.I7 .09 -.ll 53 -.09
Note-The S selected to represent a set if she had a standard score (z) greater than SO on variables representative of one set, and less than .50 on the variables representative of the other three sets, based upon her first 40 associates.
there was some resemblance between the two normative tables. Despite extreme mean differences, interrelationships among the variables were about the same for both samples, as shown in Tables 2 and 4. The same three factors found in the studies cited above have characterized the present two samples. To illustrate idiodynamic sets in the Japanese sample, set “types” were determined from associations to the first 40 words in the list. A S was selected to represent a specific set if she had a standard score (z) greater than .50 on variables representative of one set, and less than .50 on the variables representative of the other three sets. It was then predicted that such Ss would have their highest z score on the same set-representative variables on the last 40 words of the list. As shown in Table 5, this prediction was conTABLE DISTRIBUTION
OF
SET TYPES,
firmed. The exact probability of successfully predicting the highest z in the diagonal, as shown, is (t)4, or p = .004. When the same cutting scores (more than .50 on set-representative and less than .50 on nonset-representative variables) were used to select set types from the American sample, about the same total number of types appeared. However, the distribution of sets was markedly different (chi square, p < .OOl) in the two samples, as shown in Table 6. DISCUSSION
The major question asked in this study, whether or not Japanese evidence the same four idiodynamic associative sets as those found with American and Mexican Ss, was answered in the affirmative. The notion that 6 JAPANESE
AND
AMERICAN
Set types Subject
Dimension referent
Concept referent
Object referent
Perceptual referent
Residual
Japanese American
20 58
25 29
42 29
54 23
117 119
Note.-The Ss selected to represent a set with z score greater than .50 on set-representative variables, and less than .50 on variables representative of other sets.
180
MORAN
AND
these linguistic habits reflect fundamental association structures common to language users thus gains in credibility. Just as interesting as the cross-cultural similarities in idiodynamic associative sets are the extreme differences in proportions of the set types in the two cultures, as shown in Table 6. Both the generality of these four different association structures and their variable incidence in different populations appear to create serious problems for the traditional account of how words acquire hierarchical associations with other words. The traditional view is that “the cultural frequency of a.response in free association is an index of the strength of that response among the individuals in the population sampled” (Rosen and Russell, 1957, p. 120). “Commonality can be thought of as representing the degree to which one is like the ‘standard’ of the verbal culture. . . . Because the verbal habits are learned in the context of daily living, commonality must depend on and reflect a wealth of common experiences, common attitudes, and common attributes” (Jenkins, 1960, p. 311). In other words, all normal individuals in a specific linguistic community should acquire a common association structure, the one that is reflected in the word-association commonality norm hierarchy. An opposing view asserts that word-association commonality norms are artifactual. Such norms are considered to be “an arbitrary average across several stable subhierarchies” (Moran, 1966, p. 1). These stable subhierarchies are exemplified by the four different association structures described in this report. And, as shown in this study, the distribution of these four different association structures in the “normative” sample has an appreciable impact on the resulting word-association commonality norm hierarchy. According to this view, the composite frequencies in such norm tables do not represent the hierarchical associative organization to be expected of a “normal” person; nor are the frequencies
MURAKAWA
reliable indices of the “association strength” of word pairs for people in general. A third view might now be offered, suggesting that individuals do tend to exhibit distinctively different idiodynamic associative hierarchies, but that the same individuals also acquire the “common” association hierarchy described by Rosen and Russell (1957) and Jenkins (1960). The idiodynamic hierarchy might be activated by a set to “associate;” the common hierarchy might be activated by a set to “communicate.” Note that the free-word-association instructions, “the first word that comes to mind,” are especially conducive to purely personal associations. There are no explicit constraints that the associations be meaningful. Nevertheless, the associates of Ss evidence systematic features [of which the S is not necessarily aware (Ach, 1964)] that reflect their personal (idiodynamic) associative hierarchies. However, Ss also can produce “popular” associates upon demand (Jenkins, 1959; Horton, Marlowe, and Crowne, 1963). Instructions to give “popular” associates creates an entirely different condition, one that imposes the explicit constraint to anticipate the associations of others to the same referent (same stimulus word). Whatever their individual association hierarchy under “free-wordassociation instructions, Ss evidently have access also to the common hierarchy when the task involves “communication.” Moreover, time-pressure instructions in “free” word association moves the associates of Ss away from their own individual hierarchy and toward the common hierarchy, suggesting that the latter is the more accessible, more reflex-like, of the two hierarchies (Horton et al., 1963; Moran, 1966). A timely series of studies of referential processes of speakers and listeners by Rosenberg and Cohen (1966) reinforce the above conclusions. Briefly, in their experimental paradigm the task of the S (speaker) was to provide a linguistic response (a word) that
ASSOCIATION
made it possible for his listener to identify the referent stimulus (another word). Two assumptions in their ingenious model may be singled out for present purposes : “Given any referent r, all subjects sample from the same response set Ir;” and, “word associates of the referent stimulus provide an empirical identification of the responses in Ir” (Rosenberg and Cohen, 1966, p. 2 19). The assumption concerning word associates refers to the usual word-association commonality table. Despite differences in idiodynamic sets in free word associations, their S’s responded in the communication condition as indicated by the above two assumptions, i.e., both the speaker and the listener communicated via the common hierarchy (word-association commonality table). Rosenberg and Cohen “concluded that these idiodynamic sets are suppressed in the communication task in favor of a uniform communication set” (1966, p. 227). In a manner reminiscent of the early Wiirzburg studies, two interacting association hierarchies are being observed. In 1905, Watt (1964) sought to represent “thinking” as clashes between “independent strength of the reproductions” (the common-association hierarchy) and “operating task” (set) of the moment. Watt used explicit controlled instructions to establish the operating task. The present idiodynamic sets are of a more general and enduring nature. It would appear that the debate opposing the view of one commonassociation hierarchy vs. the view of multiple discrete-association hierarchies is beside the
181
STRUCTURES
point. Rather, Wtirzburger’s the interaction hierarchies in
it seems more fruitful to ask the question, what is the nature of of the two different association the same individual? REFERENCES
ACH, N. Determining tendencies. In J. M. Mandler and G. Mandler (Eds.) Thinking: from association to Gestalt. New York: Wiley, 1964. Pp. 201-207. HORTON, D. L., MARLOWE, D., AND CROWNE, D. P. The effect of instructional set and need for social approval on commonality of word association responses. J. abnor. sot. PsychoI., 1963,66,61-72. JENKINS, J. J. Commonality of association as an indicator of more general patterns of verbal behavior. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.) Style in language. New York: Wiley, 1960, Pp. 307-329. JENKINS, J. J. Effects on word-association of the set to give popular responses. Psychol. Rep., 1959,5,94. KEILMAN, P., AND MORAN, L. J. Association structures of mental retardates. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1967,2, 35-46. MORAN, L. J. Generality of word-association response sets. Psych& Monugr., 1966, 80, (4, Whole No. 612). MORAN, L. J., MEFFERD, R. B., AND KIMBLE, J. P. Idiodynamic sets in word association. Psychol. Monogr., 1964, 78, (2, Whole No. 579). ROSEN,E., AND RUSSELL, W. A. Frequency-characteristics of successive word-association. Amer. J. Psycho& 1957,70,120-122. ROSENBERG,S., AND COHEN, B. D. Referential processes of speakers and listeners. Psychol. Rev., 1966, 73, 208-23 1. WATT, H. J. Experimental contribution to a theory of thinking. In J. M. Mandler and G. Mandler (Eds.) Thinking: from association to Gestalt. New York : Wiley, 1964, Pp. 189-200. (Received August 29, 1966)
OF VERBAL
LEARNING
Japanese
AND
VERBAL
BEHAVIOR
7,176181(1968)
and American
Association
Structures1
LOUIS J. MORAN University
of Texas,
Austin,
Texas 78712
AND NORIKO MURAKAWA St. Agnes’
Junior
College,
Kyoto,
Japan
The free word associations of 258 Japanese college women were compared with associa-
tionsof 258 American college women to the same 80-word Est. Subgroups in each sample evidenced the same four idiodynamic associative sets: Perceptual referent, Object referent, Concept referent, and Dimension referent. Orthogonal rotated-factor structures were similar. The distribution of set “types” among Japanese women, however, was markedly different from that of the American women. The import of this variable incidence of idiodynamic sets in different populations was discussed with special reference to traditional word-association commonality tables. It was concluded that instructions in the free-wordassociation experiment tend to evoke a set to produce personal association hierarchies, but that the set to communicate tends to activate (in the same person) a more general association hierarchy, one more closely resembling the hierarchy depicted in traditional word-association commonality tables.
When Ss are under instructions to give “the first word that comesto mind” after they hear a stimulus word, most of their associatescan be sorted into four categories: Perceptual referent (adjective-noun, noun-adjective), Object referent (“functional” e.g., foot-shoe), Concept referent (synonym or superordinate), and Dimension referent (contrast or coordinate). Typically, a S gives some associates of all four types. Many Ss, however, give one type of associatedisproportionately, to different word lists and on different occasions. Such Ss are said to have an idiodynamic associative set (Moran, Mefferd, and Kimble, 1964; Moran, 1966). Little is known of antecedent conditions which might give rise to this individual differentiation into four distinct idiodynamic sets. But some methodological implications of idiodynamic sets have been established. Dependent variables in the word-association 1 This investigation was supported by Research grant MH-08778 from the National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health Service, and by the University of Texas Research Institute.
experiment, such as reaction time, faults (blank, multiword, distant, reproduction failure), grammatical form, commonality (degree to which an S’s associatescorrespond to those of a normative group), are all a partial function of the S’s set and the set compatibility of the stimulus-word list (Moran et al., 1964; Moran, 1966). So far, the above idiodynamic sets have been demonstrated in older (age 35) normal men, acutely psychotic schizophrenic men (Moran et al., 1964), U.S. college students, non-Enghsh-speaking Mexican college students (Moran, 1966), and mental retardates with an average I.Q. of 67 (Keilman and Moran, 1966). Mental retardates, with an average I.Q. of 48, evidenced all but the Dimension referent set (Keilman and Moran, 1966). The universality of these four sets, among themost diverse groups of Ss, is suggestive of fundamental association structures which are common to all language users, independent of the specific language used: “One might expect this factor structure to be relatively unaffected by the language in which
176
ASSOCIATION TABLE MEANS,
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
AND
177
STRUCTURES 1
INTERCORRELATIONS
258
FOR
UNITED
STATES
GIRLS
Intercorrelations Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Pr : predication Or: functional Cr : synonym Cr : superordinate Dr: contrast Dr: coordinate Commonality
Mean
SD
4.5 17.4 10.7 4.5 9.8 11.5 9814.4
3.1 4.5 3.6 2.3 3.6 4.6 1634.4
the word-association experiment is conducted since the relationships involved are expressed in all languages” (Moran, 1966, p. 20). An investigation of the word associations of Japanese Ss to the same word list and under the same testing conditions (except entirely in Japanese), as those described in Moran (1966) provides a further test of the hypothesized universality of the four idiodynamic associative sets. METHOD
Subjects. Japanese girls at the first- and second-year junior college level in St. Agnes’ Junior College, Kyoto, Japan, served as 5s. The 258 girls were about 18-years old, and generally from upper-income families. A comparable sample of 258 University of Texas freshmen girls was selected at random from a larger sample of 306 who had been tested in the same manner. Word Lists and Administration. The two 40-word lists described and listed in Moran (1966) were administered to both groups. The Ss in both samples were instructed to write the first word that came to mind when they heard the word read by the E. In Japan, of course, the words were read and responded to in Japanese. The Ss were told that the words would be read at 5-set intervals and to leave a blank space if no response word came to mind. Also, they were asked not to change a response or to return to fill in a blank space later. All testing was done in large groups. Variables. Most of the scoring was accomplished by copying scores from a Manual consisting of the prescored responses of 482 University of Texas freshmen (Moran, 1966). The following variables were scored: 1. Perceptual referent (Pr). Predication associations: The stimulus word and response word are adjectivenoun or noun-adjective combinations, e.g., red-apple, horse-big.
1 .23 -.26 -.I6 -.56 -.55 -.49
2
3
4
5
6
.26 -.02 .16 .39
.06 -.Ol .34
.53 .62
.38
-.lO
.07 -.28 -.56 .08
2. Object referent (Or). Functional associations: The stimulus word and response word each separately denote entities between which there is an explicit functional relationship, e.g., foot-shoe. 3. Concept referent (Cr). Synonym associations: The response word has exactly the same meaning as the stimulus word in one or more ordinary and appropriate contexts, e.g., small-little. 4. Concept referent (Cr). Superordinate associations: The stimulus word denotes an immediate member of the class or category denoted by the response word, e.g., cabbage-vegetable. 5. Dimension referent (Dr). Logical Coordinate associations: The stimulus word and the response word separately denote immediate members (of equal logical order) of the same class or category, e.g., blue-yellow.
6. Dimension referent (Dr). Contrast associations: The response word negates or contrasts with the meaning of the stimulus word in one or more ordinary and appropriate contexts, e.g., dark-light. 7. Commonality. For the Japanese girls, commonality score was the sum frequency of the S’s associates also given by the total 258 Japanese sample. Commonality scores of the U.S. girls were based upon norms on 482 University of Texas freshmen. Each response word of a S received a “score” corresponding to the number in her respectivenormativegroup that gave the identical response word. Statistical Analysis.* All correlations in this report are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. All factor analyses are for Principal Components, rotated by the normalized varimax method, with unities placed in the diagonal. Factor extraction in all analyses were stopped when eigenvalues dropped below unity. 2 Computations were carried out at the Computation Center of the University of Texas, with programs compiled by Donald J. Veldman, of the Department of Educational Psychology.
178
MORAN AND MURAKAWA TABLE
NORMALIZED
VARIMAX
2
ROTATED
RESULTS FACTORS
FOR
258
UNITED STATES GIRLS Factor
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Variable
I
II
III
hZ
Pr: predication Or: functional Cr: synonym Cr : superordinate Dr: contrast Dr: coordinate Commonality
-.71 -.05 .Ol .17 .90 .56 .81
-.22 .02 .86 .68 -.13 .04 .42
.30 .92 -.23 .23 -.18 -.69 .15
65 85 80 55 85 79 85
TABLE MEANS,
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
Variable
Shown in Table 1 are the means,standard deviations, and intercorrelations for 258 American girls on the 80-word list. Table 2 shows the usual three factors found in all previous studies, with the coordinate variable loading somewhat larger negative this time on Factor III. A comparable analysis of the associatesof 258 Japanesegirls to the same 80-word list is provided in Tables 3 and 4. The two groups of girls differed quite markedly in meanfrequency of all but the functional type associates,as shown in Tables 1 and 3. The Japanesegave almost four times as many
3
AND INTERCORRELATIONS
FOR
258 JAPANESE GIRLS
Intercorrelations
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6 -
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Pr : predication Or: functional Cr : synonym Cr: superordinate Dr: contrast Dr : coordinate Commonality
TABLE NORMALIZED
17.2 16.0 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.7 2562.6
4.6 5.0 1.8 1.5 3.1 2.6 623.4
4
VARWAX ROTATED FACTORS JAPANESE GIRLS
FOR
258
Factor
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Variable
I
II
III
hZ
Pr: predication Or: functional Cr: synonym Cr : superordinate Dr: contrast Dr: coordinate Commonality
-.75 .14 .24 .03 .78 .81 -.02
-.19 .93 -.ll .08 .02 -.03 .67
.08 -.13 .71 .66 .26 .15 .58
60 90 58 45 68 67 79
-.28 -.18 -.16 -.41 -.35 .04
-.05 .02 .02 .09 .41
.18 .22 .25 .27
.12 .08 .23
58 .26
.lO
predicate associates, one third as many synonym-superordinate associates, and one fourth asmany contrast-coordinate associates. The commonality scoresshown in thesetables are based upon different norms and are not comparable. When scored by the same American norms, the Japaneseaverage commonality score was 2,502, as compared with the 9,814 of the American girls. Clearly, with respect to means, the two sampleswere drawn from quite different populations. However, for the Japanese sample the correlation coefficient between commonality scoresbased upon Japanesenorms vs. commonality scores based upon American norms was .59. Thus,
179
ASSOCIATION STRUCTURE8 TABLE PREDICTION
OF SCORES ON LAST
5
40 WORDS FROM SET SHOWN ON FIRST 40 WORDS Standard score on last 40 words
N
Type of set (first 40 words)
Contrast coordinate
Synonym superordinate
20 25 42 54 117
Dimension referent Concept referent Object referent Perceptual referent Residual
1.18 -.12 -.24 -.40 .09
.63 .38 -.22 -.17 -.03
Functional
Predication
-.02 -.24 .42 -.lO -.15
-.I7 .09 -.ll 53 -.09
Note-The S selected to represent a set if she had a standard score (z) greater than SO on variables representative of one set, and less than .50 on the variables representative of the other three sets, based upon her first 40 associates.
there was some resemblance between the two normative tables. Despite extreme mean differences, interrelationships among the variables were about the same for both samples, as shown in Tables 2 and 4. The same three factors found in the studies cited above have characterized the present two samples. To illustrate idiodynamic sets in the Japanese sample, set “types” were determined from associations to the first 40 words in the list. A S was selected to represent a specific set if she had a standard score (z) greater than .50 on variables representative of one set, and less than .50 on the variables representative of the other three sets. It was then predicted that such Ss would have their highest z score on the same set-representative variables on the last 40 words of the list. As shown in Table 5, this prediction was conTABLE DISTRIBUTION
OF
SET TYPES,
firmed. The exact probability of successfully predicting the highest z in the diagonal, as shown, is (t)4, or p = .004. When the same cutting scores (more than .50 on set-representative and less than .50 on nonset-representative variables) were used to select set types from the American sample, about the same total number of types appeared. However, the distribution of sets was markedly different (chi square, p < .OOl) in the two samples, as shown in Table 6. DISCUSSION
The major question asked in this study, whether or not Japanese evidence the same four idiodynamic associative sets as those found with American and Mexican Ss, was answered in the affirmative. The notion that 6 JAPANESE
AND
AMERICAN
Set types Subject
Dimension referent
Concept referent
Object referent
Perceptual referent
Residual
Japanese American
20 58
25 29
42 29
54 23
117 119
Note.-The Ss selected to represent a set with z score greater than .50 on set-representative variables, and less than .50 on variables representative of other sets.
180
MORAN
AND
these linguistic habits reflect fundamental association structures common to language users thus gains in credibility. Just as interesting as the cross-cultural similarities in idiodynamic associative sets are the extreme differences in proportions of the set types in the two cultures, as shown in Table 6. Both the generality of these four different association structures and their variable incidence in different populations appear to create serious problems for the traditional account of how words acquire hierarchical associations with other words. The traditional view is that “the cultural frequency of a.response in free association is an index of the strength of that response among the individuals in the population sampled” (Rosen and Russell, 1957, p. 120). “Commonality can be thought of as representing the degree to which one is like the ‘standard’ of the verbal culture. . . . Because the verbal habits are learned in the context of daily living, commonality must depend on and reflect a wealth of common experiences, common attitudes, and common attributes” (Jenkins, 1960, p. 311). In other words, all normal individuals in a specific linguistic community should acquire a common association structure, the one that is reflected in the word-association commonality norm hierarchy. An opposing view asserts that word-association commonality norms are artifactual. Such norms are considered to be “an arbitrary average across several stable subhierarchies” (Moran, 1966, p. 1). These stable subhierarchies are exemplified by the four different association structures described in this report. And, as shown in this study, the distribution of these four different association structures in the “normative” sample has an appreciable impact on the resulting word-association commonality norm hierarchy. According to this view, the composite frequencies in such norm tables do not represent the hierarchical associative organization to be expected of a “normal” person; nor are the frequencies
MURAKAWA
reliable indices of the “association strength” of word pairs for people in general. A third view might now be offered, suggesting that individuals do tend to exhibit distinctively different idiodynamic associative hierarchies, but that the same individuals also acquire the “common” association hierarchy described by Rosen and Russell (1957) and Jenkins (1960). The idiodynamic hierarchy might be activated by a set to “associate;” the common hierarchy might be activated by a set to “communicate.” Note that the free-word-association instructions, “the first word that comes to mind,” are especially conducive to purely personal associations. There are no explicit constraints that the associations be meaningful. Nevertheless, the associates of Ss evidence systematic features [of which the S is not necessarily aware (Ach, 1964)] that reflect their personal (idiodynamic) associative hierarchies. However, Ss also can produce “popular” associates upon demand (Jenkins, 1959; Horton, Marlowe, and Crowne, 1963). Instructions to give “popular” associates creates an entirely different condition, one that imposes the explicit constraint to anticipate the associations of others to the same referent (same stimulus word). Whatever their individual association hierarchy under “free-wordassociation instructions, Ss evidently have access also to the common hierarchy when the task involves “communication.” Moreover, time-pressure instructions in “free” word association moves the associates of Ss away from their own individual hierarchy and toward the common hierarchy, suggesting that the latter is the more accessible, more reflex-like, of the two hierarchies (Horton et al., 1963; Moran, 1966). A timely series of studies of referential processes of speakers and listeners by Rosenberg and Cohen (1966) reinforce the above conclusions. Briefly, in their experimental paradigm the task of the S (speaker) was to provide a linguistic response (a word) that
ASSOCIATION
made it possible for his listener to identify the referent stimulus (another word). Two assumptions in their ingenious model may be singled out for present purposes : “Given any referent r, all subjects sample from the same response set Ir;” and, “word associates of the referent stimulus provide an empirical identification of the responses in Ir” (Rosenberg and Cohen, 1966, p. 2 19). The assumption concerning word associates refers to the usual word-association commonality table. Despite differences in idiodynamic sets in free word associations, their S’s responded in the communication condition as indicated by the above two assumptions, i.e., both the speaker and the listener communicated via the common hierarchy (word-association commonality table). Rosenberg and Cohen “concluded that these idiodynamic sets are suppressed in the communication task in favor of a uniform communication set” (1966, p. 227). In a manner reminiscent of the early Wiirzburg studies, two interacting association hierarchies are being observed. In 1905, Watt (1964) sought to represent “thinking” as clashes between “independent strength of the reproductions” (the common-association hierarchy) and “operating task” (set) of the moment. Watt used explicit controlled instructions to establish the operating task. The present idiodynamic sets are of a more general and enduring nature. It would appear that the debate opposing the view of one commonassociation hierarchy vs. the view of multiple discrete-association hierarchies is beside the
181
STRUCTURES
point. Rather, Wtirzburger’s the interaction hierarchies in
it seems more fruitful to ask the question, what is the nature of of the two different association the same individual? REFERENCES
ACH, N. Determining tendencies. In J. M. Mandler and G. Mandler (Eds.) Thinking: from association to Gestalt. New York: Wiley, 1964. Pp. 201-207. HORTON, D. L., MARLOWE, D., AND CROWNE, D. P. The effect of instructional set and need for social approval on commonality of word association responses. J. abnor. sot. PsychoI., 1963,66,61-72. JENKINS, J. J. Commonality of association as an indicator of more general patterns of verbal behavior. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.) Style in language. New York: Wiley, 1960, Pp. 307-329. JENKINS, J. J. Effects on word-association of the set to give popular responses. Psychol. Rep., 1959,5,94. KEILMAN, P., AND MORAN, L. J. Association structures of mental retardates. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1967,2, 35-46. MORAN, L. J. Generality of word-association response sets. Psych& Monugr., 1966, 80, (4, Whole No. 612). MORAN, L. J., MEFFERD, R. B., AND KIMBLE, J. P. Idiodynamic sets in word association. Psychol. Monogr., 1964, 78, (2, Whole No. 579). ROSEN,E., AND RUSSELL, W. A. Frequency-characteristics of successive word-association. Amer. J. Psycho& 1957,70,120-122. ROSENBERG,S., AND COHEN, B. D. Referential processes of speakers and listeners. Psychol. Rev., 1966, 73, 208-23 1. WATT, H. J. Experimental contribution to a theory of thinking. In J. M. Mandler and G. Mandler (Eds.) Thinking: from association to Gestalt. New York : Wiley, 1964, Pp. 189-200. (Received August 29, 1966)