m - uO Research

Comments

Transcription

m - uO Research
a 000513
DOLL PLAY PHANTASIES OF
mm
Am WHITS PRIKARY SOROOL CHILDREN
by Thomae Francis Graham
Thesis presented to the Faculty of Arts
of the university of Ottawa through the
Institute of Psychology as partial fulfillment of [email protected] requirements for th*
degree footer of Philosophy.
!/**.2?%
, ,c'_,* 1 *->-»*'s3
M a a s l l l o n , Ohio, U.S.A. „ 1952
UMI Number: DC53501
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform DC53501
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ACKNOVfLKDG£ML2:T3
In d e a l i n g with the methodology of research,
the w r i t e r has been fortunate in r e c e i v i n g the g u i d ance of the Director of the I n s t i t u t e of '-sychology.
Dr. Raymond H. Shevenell.
The w r i t e r g r a t e f u l l y acknowledges the a s s i s t a n c e given by Or. Agatha fc. Sidlauskaa.
Gratitude i s
a l s o exoresaed t o the Superintendent of Bchoolp, Maselllon,
Ohio, Mr. L. J . Smith, f o r aid i n contacting the
subjects.
•VABLB OF CONTENTS
Chapter
pape
INTRODUCTION
I . - SURVBY OP RESEARCH CONCERNING RACIAL GROUPS
1 . T h e o r i e s and methods
2. Differences in i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t i n g
3 . Measurement o f a t t i t u d e s
II. -
vil
. . .
1URVEY OP RESEARCH CONCERNING DOLL PLAY
1. karly experimental s t u d i e s
2 . Recent e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s
I I I . - A DOLL PLAY METHOD FOR RACIAL GROUPS
1 . Theory
2. Objectives
3.
U.
5.
6.
7.
Materials used
Seleotion of subjects
Reliability
Validity
Procedure in general
1
2
11
22
30
32
kk
56
57
59
60
62
70
73
83
IV. - DOLL PLAY OF NSGRO AND WHITE SCHOOL CHILDREN . . . 88
1. Intraracial sex differences
89
2. Intraracial developmental factors
96
3. Intraracial individual differences
105
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Ilk
BIBLIOGRAPHY
117
Appendix
1 . MANUAL FOR THF, OTTAV'A PROJECTIVE DOLL PLAY Vf.TilOD
140
LIST OF TABLES
Table
page
I . - Description of the ^egro Experimental Subjects
68
I I . - d e s c r i p t i o n of the White Experimental ..ubjects
69
I I I . - Agreement Between ?wo Examiners f o r
5-Ninut.e S e s s i o n s with Five <*egro
IV. - Agreement Between Two ExaralnerR f o r
5-Minute Sessions with Five White
Thirty
Subjects
Thirty
Subjects .
V. - Percentage Agreement of the Children's Nons t e r e o t y p e Phantasies with Their Responses
t o the Inquiry
7^
75
82
VI. - I n t r a r a o i a l Sex ttifferenoea Among the ttegro
Children with R«sr»eot to Stereotype and
Nons^ereotype Phantasies
92
VII. - I n t r a r a o i a l Hex Differences Among the White
Children with Resoeet to Stereotype and
Nonstereotyne Phantasies
9^
VIII. - I n t r a r a o i a l Developmental Comparisons Among
Fourteen Subjects from fach Race with
Respect to 1 . 4 . and Number of stereotype
Phantasies
10k
IX. - Frequencies of Three 10-Minu*e Doll Play
Tjilals with Thirty Negro Primary School
Children
107
X. - Frequencies of Three 10-Minutc Doll Play
T r i a l s with Thirty White Primary School
Children
108
XI. - Elaboration of the Colored Dolls by the
Thirty Kegro Primary School Children . . . .
XII. - Elaboration of the White Dolls by the Thirty
White Primary School Children
110
Ill
LIST OF FIGURKB
Figure
1.
2.
3.
k.
5.
Plans and Dimensions of the Doll House Used
in This Researoh
63
Trend of Aggressive Phantasy Responses of the
Thirty "egro Subjects
97
Trend of Aggressive Phantasy Responses of the
Thirty White Subjects
98
Trend of Conouplsoible Phantasy Responses of
the *egro Subjects on Trial II
101
Trend of'Gorumnlselble fantasy Responses of
the White Subjects on TrlaJ. II
102
xmtRow^fj^i
The study of differences \notw r a c i a l groups has
occasioned »aueh i n t e r e s t lonr b « f c e the t i a e of A r i f t o t l e
(322 ;*.*»•) ans fallowed n e i e n t i f i e a l l v fn«* the pa*t one
Hundred and f i f t y years,
however, a r t i f i c i a l
variations
were often found due ^ r t w s r l l v to th® ew-loywent s>f iiwd®qu%te tae»miring device* o r the unsousd l»t«*Tw<>tatienft of
•resulte derived thertfro«»
Tm wwOoa-itv »** t h e techniques
used were''standardised on white is©iml«ti9fj«r &&«i Applied fcs?
•Temeoee with l i t t l e or no wtodlflasti^ne.
*« a re*u3t of
t h e s e investm&tiona, wany r a c i a l hyi>othea «e were developed
"reveal in*?* s u p e r i o r i t y i n t h i s phyeiofcl c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o**
th«t r»*-reo n a l i t y t r a i t b&0ed chiefly anon r a c i a l siyths,
n a t i o n a l , n o t l t l e a l or subjective opinion*,
^ h i l e on t h e
o t h « r hand, t o claim tlsat t h e r e »»*# no #lff®[email protected]#® a.mo«#
r a c i a l ffro»i"*e I s a l s o is aortcniusietn with f•»!<%« wres-.i«#a.
There »*** d e f i n i t e l y diff*wr«itoe# between r a c i a l %rmtt«,, tout
t h e s e difference® »[email protected] ac® Id en t a t dlffertno*® whteh «cco^f*ny
huiaan li"*« a t a l l tistee &*»d iw a l l p l a c e s ,
fhe*' *"»• not
e s s e n t i a l differences - *« so often h«s beeta ir-Vlied,
Therefore, t h e p u r ^ s © <*f the s c i e n t i s t In t h i s r*«~
-»eet iff mt
%9 l « v > « t i ^ t » ©ertmin r a c i s t hypotheses "but to
examine objective d**t«a a>H,v«d fneei *wui4 raseartth r t t h o d e .
i ^ t c l f i c a l l y the t«*#te of the ngyeholeMfist often r e q u i r e s
t h e development cf new teahntcu^a and/or the ^ e d i f i c a t i o n
XNWuw.ii^
Tin
of r,tandardl« i ed r e s e a r c h neftuOf''?.
-'here f>re i d ^ o v * r l ' i u s
3th**r s c i e n t i s t ® who c o n t r i b u t e t o th*j
l«w«,
*iudv of r w c l " ! - r o b -
L. t u# t«Ve ft/T^i:'' *h4j <sltu *lo-*> of f i f ^r^nee-na
r s s i « l g r y i t ^ which sufweHa ' ^ n y •^^""'i**?11"*
n l f i c ^ n t t t i f f e r s n e e s o t h e r thnn r^v.-^ls 1*
er»o«?jfS bn !*•** MUi*e " l
'*ov •* r « t a r n
»$>.&
*•"* th^r®
U-«
«;~n *>„a«e ' ' i f f e r -
^Iff' •"t-r^s s^^^cjf i**«* * *
T*he >*•*". £ e r irobl*T i of r a c i a l re' t * t i n n s *
" h " t 1^ the* n. t>ure
of t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e * ?
'.'•". > t ig th<* iftoid*mc« *nd ooou^once
of t h e r e t'lfferfrjicftt''
"ajs&t am be **?n® *o Inn^-cr/- a r ~,f*lv*3
*;h*- oro^en"?
-he rn"j# of f-,« " f Y c ^ l l o r i s t
1$ *- > •ncr<j»t«ln
wh?t s r e thee*? r i i f f e r e n c e c , l.-^w ?««y tht-ie fiffn&rfnfces *»*
«e*r'4re<*f .°nd ho^ thev ^-y be - f f^st-'" i-y c^.viron^ent^l
Changes.
»ha tshiloronher d e s c r i b e s i h r $y xxiv® -»,f *iwv®
difference*,
'.'be inol^©[email protected]#
ences i s thss t a s k it
n*% occurrem**}: of thes*» d i f f e r -
the s t a t i s t i c i a n .
"*he ^ o o n o ^ i s t ,
p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t ^"^ <80ciolorlst e x ^ i n e
1
fi« economical,
^ o l l t i e & l &nd s o c i a l r e s u l t s b e f o r e *»•". f.ftf*^ anv
h a s been t r ^ e n u ^ r s th** "^cbltfw*.
^otiuj
*H§ Job «>f - l * nnlr.,i* m?
^e*i*t.i "5 Improve o r solve, t h e nrobte** i s t h e p r i n c i p l e
f u n c t i o n of t h e «.**«• ini* tr&fcor and t h e p o l t t i © i * m ,
Alecl^lin^rv n^tura
^h*> l n t * r »
»f t i / i s ^ r o h l e n ^ l » o extends i n t o many
o t h e r are*u» @uch *\s a«tara*>qln(*iiy, r e l i g i o n , h i s t o r y ,
a t u r e , blolocry an<* dewofpm'hy,
liter-
'%T>fo*«» s ' e c e s s f u l
tttaok
of t h e ^rcbler» I s dependent upon thee • w i t i n t e r r . ^ t e d
effort*
of n i l of S h e w
specialities.
mmomoticm
Pa ft studies have f i l l e d to i s o l a t e ewmiric^lly any
one specific »5pi«ot of *h« r a c i a l
wQ^larfi* Until t;ils I s
cone, trie praT**'* w i l l be lr&n«d*d in research «n^ &-p "li.sution.
The t o r t a*-5 ^ r e ^ i e e , th*s before, 1'- to t s o l - t e m®
t i n y e^ipaent of t n l s proble*, and define a l l Hhe f a c t o r s
ol s e r l y ,
«'ol lowing t h e h i s t o r i c a l surveys concerninr r ol&T,
srrouos anrf d o l l plAy, the present research wap dee turned to
develop ao'-e of the «««enti«l t a c t s needed fur t h i s " k b i t ' s .
An effort has hmn mde to achieve the following ffroalaj
(1)
to desiim and *t*n&s*di»e * «i*a,Se®tiv# doll plav technique
f o r studvim* f a i t l v phantasies af <sctro -^rlrss-ry school c h i l dren from a th->ml«tic point
of view, t2) t-3 &ml$n 4>nd etan-
da r d i s e « p r o j e c t i v e toll plwv technique f o r studying family
phantasies of white ^ r l s tj
school children tvm
& Ths*-istic-
->oint of view, (3? to lsol <te i f possible psychological fp>@*
t o r e which may contribute to the d « v e l ^ * t n t it the oniKran**
phantasies.
<ft-*r the technique w%<s ®*>ndej»di«M, the findings
were anal«s«d e n t i r e l y for Intrftraolal differences in '»ht
p r o j e c t i o n s of t h e nhtldren r a t h e r tha rt for lnt-<Pi»*tti*X difference*.
The rational'* f a r t h i e objective I s trie d i f f i c u l t y
and u n r e l i a b i l i t y of statahinff can **fcoa v i t h another.
p i e s of sows
T^
t h e ©o»>**ri«aras wh^ai* were
MSIS
£«*n-
&p® %<s follows:
(1) sex difference*! a^oRf ***• 'law* c h i l d r e n , (2 5 ave
and deve">onmRntal facto 'e among" the 'tfr-n-ro children, anc3
(3) Individual differences anomt the ^«eprro c h i l d r e n ,
The^e
game coifm&risons w^re also made a«nn(? the white children,
t h a t I s oonoai'lnqr the nhantasifls of the whl*'© ohilcrs-n with
the ohantasieis of other whit® children.
These ourpones wer« o&wied out by the s e l e c t i o n of
s l r t y normal orlfnary school c h i l d r e n , t h i r t y Negro children
for the Negro s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n , and t h i r t y white children
f o r the white otandardlKAtl-m.
The nex, chronological fife,
mental p.|?e, i n d u l g e n c e quotient, school grade, and occupat i o n of f a t h e r vas given for each c h i l d .
All of the children
*?«*re then introduced t o the modified --rojectlve d o l l nlay
technique.
The phantasies of the children projected in the
experimental s i t u a t i o n war® recorded by examiners using a
s p e c i f i c a l l y designed method.
The possible ways of t r e a t i n g the d ' t a collected with
reference to the problems given were many, including the f o l lowing; ( l ) q u a n t i t a t i v e analysis of the d o l l nlay r e a c t i o n s
of the "'©gro children, (2) q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the doll
nlay r e a c t i o n s of the white children, (3) v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the technique employed for the Negro olUVran, and
(b) v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the technique employed f o r
the white c h i l d r e n .
Finally a sunaary of the conclusions
and an sryoreclotion of the ^significance of such research was
attempted.
<aiep?iot x
-tadi*»s concerning r a c i a l and ethnic grrou^s hav®
been so mmerouf? thAt * d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n ^ould require
raany volumes,
*he investiisatlons of t h i s subject h< v® fe«#n
ns&de frost two j o i s t s ©f viisi*, na-elyj CD *h«& --sociAl, and
(2) the s c i e n t i f i c , tftw s o c i a l -,»lnt of vi«w I® ^ r i » « r i l y
a ohllosophlo&t and fch«-">l«cl«*l study of r a c i a l t h e o r i e s
and asthoda.
VilSiAaia^ arieltravily ref-ws to t h i c approach
a s t h e e«oi«phlle-«»9bl«**l *fttho4,
Th# s c i e n t i f i c ««tfc*A
i s an empirical invest i § e t l # n of r a c i a l ??rcups **n4 called
eoolee»rtlrle*1l by t h e aocicleflfiflft.
During the $a«t $ftoa*te
two s i g n i f i c a n t eynmsmi* wturaw 2 * ^ h&ve Wen publl«h®4
about r*ee fraa b-oth j o i n t s of *i*w*
these ^cnet«»*ph»
a r e cc#Bi«*ftt of individual dlff«r*naea fro® the ami «•> v i a l
view, while ale© c&asldarthf irwmp s i m i l a r i t i e s fmm
the
incorporeal a-eiMiot.
'*!»• purple* of t h i s *h*ptsr i s , however, to «unr«y
b r i e f l y scsse of the Mgptjrlstiital s t u d i e s concerning r e a i a l
1
Meivi«i «?. v i i u « ® , M i n i t o iStoftiftX,,JJhftHg^,a, I t i
iip3roa^..ta...C.i>[email protected]!y.,.j.^ehl.#m^. S«* York, PonaM, f>$«
9. 315-3**.
*H„ 3, Jennings, j | L j y u » S c i e n t i f i c Aspect a of tha>
ft&ce t r e b l e * , tfogbliigidit» 'fh« '8atti*»ile Cfeiv*?r»ity ef As»"*ioa,
%o«#nh /, Gorrl**«n, and ?-, > ^r*y O'Toole, *^nltor«$*»
»ev Yoife, B»f*n#» * foM* t W * , V-&16 **,
BUKVftY OF RKSJBfcROK OOtfCAKHINti flaOJUL (MOUVJ*
2
T h i s survey i » t© r * divided i n t o tb« following
ffKiutta.
t h r e e areasj (1) th«orl»@ MM sitthods, (2) i n t e l l i g e n c e
t e s t i n g , and (3) «w«aur«re®nt of a t t i t u d e s ,
X.- Th#*>rlw« &nd * ethods
Concerning ^rou?> t e s t i n g i s *n«e -^yoh *lor*» 7'©t«*~
•on* QU«9tion«^ r.he v n l l d i t y *>f a l l ds'a nbtalnsd.
The
a u t h o r recomwuml®?8 t h r t cnlv individual *eats b© designed *nd
develoo»d for the race b^in$ invflstl^t*** *nd admnlatered
In a mist
standardised wanner^
He b#'i»v«d tteat the face
of the ex»59in©r vs# *lMf » v*rift'»l* that «houl<! be eont r a i l e d by t r a i n i n g ittdlvl&uiels i n various raceg to da the
research.
That i t to *sy, i f a ">s*«holfHri0*t ttud? i t to
be d^ne on American ftagrees, thee fr*$m> n«fy«hcl»jyiste should
oondiict the research*
In en intererttssg nuftlioitlcn Hex»*F<»vlt»5 reported
t h a t only about &©$ of the *««rioan ^e^rora ^«g r a c i a l l y
pure.
'Jsin#r « iseneolosteal in*|«iry* the author revealed
t h a t the majority of the American ^ejsroes a^e « combination
of whit* «nrt Indian bloo#*
H# »^k®d the question *>r> to
whether t h i s mixture *»g ^roducisv * $"j«oiflo Physical tyne
mmmmmmmmmnm'*mi*M-'Mf*nimmm!
M e l v i l l e «?. tt«y**aTit«, Iba-Amn»jaar. .Negm. w«w
?ork» "iwpf, W * » xi»-9* r>.
a s determined by anthromwwtric devices.
He answered h i s own
question affirmatively by r»oIntinfj <mt two s i g n i f i c a n t §tsn«
dard deviation*.
By hist s t u t i s t i o a t a m l ^ s i s he concluded
t h a t American $e$?i*o»* **/»«• a mo l e i f r w " ' , .'jowtvsr, not &
rao<s.
Sear t h e end cf the second demd* of the d®%h «an«
t u r y , f«4swr* reviewed i n v e s t i f a t i o n a eonaemln& the study of
r a c i a l differences * fie »#|nt-«d *stt t h a t th*»*i* c l e a r l y defined frames of reference we«* i»e?>**«**ni«3» i . e . (1) »©oes»»
tanaa of the fact of r a c i a l e u n t r i e r l i y with *n I n t e r e s t in
securing a d d i t i o n a l euwoorting evidence; (:*J rr*©l«a i n f e r i o r i t y eo»»i$et*ed n«seib1* but nat dtsonatrated und; (31 c r i t i c a l a&atJtieiews <*f the »««n» «#e$ to d*«ionatrate rmci&l
i n f e r i o r i t y and r e s u l t a j usually,, feleo an i n s i s t e n c e ut*o»
racial equality,
O^a^trnimr differences In I n t e l licence #
t h e author c^nolud«d that he found nn x>roof of r»cl»1 i n f e r i o r i t y o r s u p e r i o r i t y , and he recewenOed. e»ifeting the
o««t*«-n f#chnl#*®f which flat arm! ne4 such dlff^rencea,
G*rt*? stated th*r» the great t*t
ftlffioulty
invalvsd
i n studying? r e o i a l differences wag the assumption &nd
^9al#. tbderg *J*r#e«nt atnttta of th« feiestlan of
fecial lift«*••»«••",
in Xtp.AltimlM^
t o l , IV t Mm* ft, I#su© *f *£#*»*** HWt, ^>» W9-*70»
*Thoref<» U, f^rth, *fh* rubles} nf Knee ^eyahologv,
A flfme*** &t*t#?swnV« i s -S&£.,ITII1II.CT^?T ,rftjf.fo<Mffft>,r^dufl^,t.lffl^. / c i ,
% i a . % i*eur a^ •*«** W f c , >. fl^-W.
flaintenanot
of an open eintf.
Hln |p«n*r»l ats*>#w*nt cutlinntf
and rfVle^#d b r i e f l y the- nroblem of race psychr»logv frow the
fallowing p o i n t s of via**
t.
2,
3,
*•
5.
I.
?.
•**,
«?.
1').
11.
IZ,
11.
Varioua a t t t o t t n ,
lykoiat s o b l l l t y *
She c r i t e r i o n af aehievatt«nt.
C i v i l i s a t i o n *n*S I n t e l l i g w t t e .
The a e l v n t i f i o a*rtcr-,
<3?# t h a w raftiai win6«}
<jnniitltative
dlff*r#nc^®.
el
*ffl*ftfe#iit or tna wrote! *».
^®lcr-blindn«s8 «a9A£ tit* f*ass«t?.
Influane* of s t r i c t u r e .
M e l a ! Aifftranoaa In bAltdwritiiic,
Psychologicat «nd a t r u o t u r a t diffvrafteet.
«urtur# and raalnl dlffr-#tta«.
Ik.
'-%iat I s * *&•**£«.?
15. ^ACI# pr#Judlc#.
l a . Opsn tsiade^tne&is and r&c# "eyohote-jrjr.
Asuinjr these mvsarotta d i v « r s i f i # 4 a.vrc-nahe*f 'Vsrth'e ***.nt#•tajtt of tha pmbleii" reveal«4 valuafel* insifttita*
»av»r*l
year* previously tha author* hsd. «»r>r«a*cd in t e r n s 1st u. for*
amle, the pro-blew of i n v e s t i « * t i n # difference* mmg
frouos.
r*»iat
*?1» s c i e n t i f i c ^r0«««lti»n V^SJ
The f a c t o r s % and % a r e two re««f (ad1 equate **»{>X«},
f i s #n «qual amount of education er environment, ^ 1 ' the
•easariutf' <*tvict etand^rdiyadl f®%* both n t n «
8
f k * t £ « . . Garth, l ^ S u i t a f c ^ ^
This femntla [email protected] swodlfied by Uenrborr rrus Lonff*5,, who
included the factor *<3* ( o b j e c t i v i t y or f^aertnw fro* r a c i a l
bias).
i*he *^ft f a c t o r w«» sddtd to «<pch. enr *f t'-f
makinr i t a- w*r rel**tlveV> ^ore ^nctur*^®.
vntlon,
H ^ ^ v e r , m,pf
d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent in t h i e fowula w<*r» »ad* evident a
nuaber of years l a t ^ r by •«• anady,
2n a h i s t o r i c a l a r t i c l e tfoiawi ^nd ^ n d 1 * K*tve a
b r i e f nurvey *»f the t n v s a t i f ^ t i n n s carried aut e»n«#minif
diffp^sn^e® &«on - rwol&t fpponr S* ""^lor to !**!'"*.
'hi
review
revealed the fact that thf RPe* of t»?>o© ^syeho'Hfjy was M \$
i n c l u s i v e end t h a t raeny o b v i o u s i n v stl&atlfjna vsr* poorly
designed aa$ coaaolefced*
-hit*§tnrdliv sccin 1 *ci«ntlri** s r»ceSv<«d a fjues«tlnana! r e from thoffi^son^ I s an a t t e s t to rev#»al wh>t ^ e n « r a \ i satione *er* u^ei In the t*ehni<?ues ©r inv**ti#atiiw
ences asomr r»'«l«l i&r*sun«,
differ-
Jhose «ir»gi!?**ni><r the *'uestion»Air*
™*/&l?#r £*. dearborn »no £bv?,rd -t, lon»r, >!\s / h y i l e a l
*nd vcnta"» . b i ^ i t i * * of the ^^ertnan Wjn**», H r l t l c u l *»ws»ry*,
In ?he JyyppftV ,ftf fr.^ttvft Jlfott«ayVftfl« *©i# 3 , 0. «, l«*u* cf July
1 W , « , 5Vn-5*7.
i ^ e r w e r **, Onady, *'h© 'fmjhoVwv of *b*
- ^m*, In
M b r s r y , t*»*. " . W - M 4 ,
**Charlee <S, Jchnsow and Horace . [email protected], •'"he l a v e s t t a c t i o n of Hseisl Clfferenoee r J o r t o 19T**, in The, jfoujgaal
Af r,m%™> MumMim.
Vol, 3 , « u »# t« flU f of J u l / l " " * * ^ .
3' .-W.
ft'-l^lvs
*?Cha*. '»• 'fha^pfon» *?h* ; ^ e l u s i o n " %*f i ^ i e n t i e t e
t » :**oi«l ' iff*reneen% in
ShsU^mt^^Jj^^J^.
were in accord, that expertre^ntw deftllnf" with moi&X d i f f e r ences had f a i l e d to r#v<**l any inherent r a n t a l *n« elections
"Setveer t h e »nrree« and whites of t h i s country*
fhe
tt
siut»tto''i hypothesis *,&**= Scarce* with white bloo^
were mentally d i f f e r e n t from degree* wh# were l e s s white was
not accented,
abeut ^5i ef *he scho" *r» believed tiwt invee-
t l r a t i o n s a t the preeen* tlise revenled mental difference* which
were innate*
^estlnw wetfeed* and v a l i d a t i o n of t h t t e s t * w«r«
considered t e be nebulous,
a lew percent of feh#s» \u«sti«»ed
eeneluded t h a t lnfcm*ti<>n indicated t h a t the fce*Trae# v*f*
"inferior* and ^efu*! 8 t o the white® in America*
e e e t of the d#^«a wae *al<S to have *u?w»®rt«$ the
However,
'*QU*1°
cen-
clusion.
tmm a t e n s i l e point ef viste, -i«i^s^ovit«, " discussed*
the t r e b l e * of stu€yis*f? r a c i a l t r e u ^ e ,
•** concluded that
In s t u d i e s of r a c i a l l y mixed f»e^ulatioii* the f a e t e r which
determined the endewaent* of the eubjeete w«n the anees-tral
h e r i t a g e of the subjects who oeaeiiituted t h a t aopulfttiois.
Sie a l s o c i t e d evidena® to -, pure-breeding -*.o3<8 r.ot neo^-««trlly
r e e u l t i n hlgu endowments.
•^Weivllle J , ilmrekovlte,
** yrlti»aX Cl«ftu*tflan of
4
t h e •*"ul*it*o
Kn^tlwsU*
*,
in
fflji
tfeuriuftl,
,@f y,ecre.fo;uc*i*.l.oflt
Vol, 3 , r'*o. "i, ianue of /ulr* 193**# T>. 3<*<•»*» : V
mrnvir or m:&KAKSH <s&»ouwxm JUCIAX momx
7
XlinaberK*4 reviewed the alolagieal. pey«bolo«fiod.l
and cultural aepeete cf the ^rabies, of differences «aong
racial fraupa,
Me auffffeeted ttie.t what diffarenaas vere
found were possibly deteraiaed by ©nvirQSwent, eeneelaily
ahangee in culture.
# acetarelienalve Mbtlogmpltf »ag fau&d
at the end of e*#h ahapter.
In a brief ant eiffnlfleeJtt e r t l e l e , Saex1* revealed
•pertinent i n f a r c t 1 « regarding tfca itetiieAe of Inveetlsatore
who aeapieta* graAtate dlaftarftfttiena denllag with tm XORXO
race,
title *op®v% dieaiieead W*e racial r»raje*te itndartAfcen
in American aalveraitlea during $h*. pravlau* year.
The
ispert&aee of tiki a etudy i* found la the fallow up which
gave * «re»t deal of laaigttt Into tfte Kathadelogy #n«t treada
of raeearati aFMetralAg tha #egr&,
16
riard* ik4s>iai«ter«d eoalee iteiftg the timretone and
Llkert teahala>aea whim war* deelgBed fa eteaeure aaperi**
eness t&at indlviduult amy h*v* bad with Hagrdes,
*» «v&lu*
ation af these eoalee etoevaA t&u** to ba disorlnlBatarv,
1955, lx~3#T p.
**8lHe a. ftnax, *fhe i e t » aa a iubject of U»iver-
elty [email protected] in 1937% i»
M^jMmmhM,Mmm,fMMU^Xm»
Tal, 7, Ho. 2, | M U # af % r t l TOS, ft, 1 7 I - W .
*™~
i* I , ford, *fwhni*|is#» far dealing ftaperteneee,
A atudy of tfetto t*gfoCtartftot*«, in
MAMl^m^KJtlMmr
&1&* Tot, 3?* *e, l , iaaua af Karoh If&l* «* 113,Mltsa%,
«P*
r e l i a b l e «*nr valid, in ' sra.i of <- sepw •.«,.$ *£ - r i t - r i - i , wltn
t h e Libert method o*»ef erred,
Cues1? eotspleted the t h i r t e e n t h in the s e r i e s of
a r t i c l e s mtblished each f><sAr d i e e u s s i w rrraduat** these®
aonceminir the Ke*rro,
Va* author reported that 153 d i s s e r -
t a t i o n * wsre aeeeotad by u n l v e r e i t i e e in 1 9 ^ .
''hi* figure.
represented a d e o r e u t t of &'fr»95# frar* t h e ©receding yeft,r,
aaklnir i t the l e a s t number of researah project* dealing
with t h e hegro el nee 1935.
& c r i t i q u e of the r a a i a l t h e o r i e s of
Benedict was s»«d* fey Cox,"*'
!
a r t * >»nd
The & u t h « raoinfed out th&t
Partes*« t e l e a l e g l e a l a*th*3d v&* ambiguous &n$ inconsistent*
Present day n a t l e a a t h a t r»ce
fei»try
«&y h%[email protected] been developed
by early a s s o c i a t i o n s w#r# eonaldered false*
^he t h « r i e §
t h a t r a e * prejudice i s c ^ t t e 'srtjudlce an/1 r«&e# re3ar,iaa»
were determined by scares was a l e c @h»ll#nped.
Th$ f a s t w&e
pointed out t h a t lawediat sfeowt a want of r a c i a l antagonism
a s a reaent Surarean ^aveiensjent*
Mowa^er, sh® W&® i n d i f -
ferent to the w a t e r i t t l l e t l o mnd saonntsic b a s i s for i t ,
•J*—M——»<H»
• . . W i l l .
* * i l l i * '•* Kna*, *The aerro a» e «4tbJeot of '-'niv <r~
e i t y Reeeareh in l«h***, In „Qw ^ H m I of,.%y,j,fl$M8'AkH.
Vol. 1&, Aa, 1 , ieau* of u«ee»brr Id**, ; . Ifl?-196*
**&, G. 3ex» '•The ftecimi Thaariae of Habart ».. D A K
and Ruth Benedict 4 , in IS* a A ^ ^ A n f i tai^.. n J^.uyt.jon,.
*ot. 1 3 , <e. *-, leaua of "tQ'etobar' 1 w T f f# tt"$%j*d;3,"
npT>osing strongly the tneorv of sthn»e*n*ri»st as t\ e«u««* of
r a c i a l alas*
In an i n t e r e s t i n g survey of sethoda a l l o y e d ' in the
I n v e s t i g a t i o n of r a c e , &*r*Kovitflr
s t u d i e s into t h r e e sreu***.
tilvlded th* e a ^ i r l o a l
Fir®*» t h e d e f i n i t i o n ->f the
f i e l d was &ive~> and the l i m i t a t i o n * were noted*
^eao»d*
t h e concepts af «etfeadalogy, mainly the a t h n a h l e t o r i e a l
and t h e ae*le of i n t e n s i t y of Afrlaaniew [email protected]?»e advanaed,
f h l r £ , an evaluation of the thmri*®
and i n t e r p r e t the r®m®t*®h
W*«K
which helped i n i t i a t e
flven.
th® t h e o r i e s f i t -
cussed wer*» eyneretl***, rein* e r p r e t a t ion «n<3 change*
tlie
f i r s t theoryi *yn«r*tl*"»» w»# described as t h e tendenay to
i d e n t i f y those elements In the new c u l t u r e with s t e l l a r
elements i n t h e old one, i « M t w t u e neraane experianeing
the contact t « «ave ffws one t a the other and baas' ajsalp,
with *>*yeh0l©ffleal e**«e,
'in* ascend ^rlncii*l# i s the
r e i n t e r p r e t e t i o n of the old in terms of t h e nete.
th# 1"*«t
nriaalfsle i s the theory th*,t in s i t u a t i o n * involving eh««iff#
c u l t u r a l iwjanderabiee ft re »er* r e s i s t a n t to a l t * r » t i a n
than a r e tho«# c u l t u r a l elements ef sftich persons a?*® war*
aansaiaua.
"-i*Mi.nisun. .i.ii i W I I I I
nn r t r " — " " • J —
• M e l v i l l e J , 'torefcoWt*. *Probta*i Method and
Theories of * rree*erte*« "ftudy", 4fJWJ&&sia&* Tol, i» **e. t»
i s s u e of JanuMry-July ldtj-5, *•>. 5-*aa.
OTEVfy OF Rgos>RdK OOHOWWIgt; n.tOiAj, QdthV:'
\0
Oft
In another a r t i c l e tiwr*s«ovitft * re??orte4 t h a t any
amount af ^earro bloom wwl^ wlmae »» iauividtsiw'i in tixe ^mgtvi
igvowa.
I t i * evident t h a t ?»h# dlfferenoea between ^eirra a*d
v a l t e a r e net r a c i a l but eooi*\«
The author reeoonoJided t h a t
in I n v e s t i g a t i o n of r a c i a l differences of inherent o h a m c t e r l e t l a e , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t the reeearehera examine irroue* of
d i f f e r e n t race* *nd net e*ofe*>ol*e r a a l a l dlffarenae* where t h e
evaluation i s primrllf
one of t«^re# wither than ltind,
*n excellent * u » a r i » * t l » n of empirical inv«etiir»ti®n®
concerning t h e Negro was a* do by Gonady2* r e s u l t i n g in t h e f o l low! a« c o n t r i b u t i o n s i <l) He revealed oane of t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s
i n t h e evaluation of oevoholdgloel sites!** of the tteffra *nd
o t h e r ethnic frou^t by »«;*»* of today's t#eh»l<que*»
U) stu-
d i e s concerning difforaaooa batwooo r a e l n l grauoe w i l l be
aoaaiagiee* u n t i l c e r t a i n faotora a r e wroporlv oontr*»ll<nl,
(3) I t if- safest to eeauae t h a t a l l r«,c#ft ooeaeaoed equal pe.yw
a b a l a g l c a l eb&raoterlatiea.
(4) ;&* reettlt of wbv« i s j g ^
;*rav.*d. i s the s o r t *l**nifionnt finding ooaaernlng ^eyahoiogloal
v a r i a t i o n aaonj* rs'Oial groan**
(5) Further roeaarah nay glvo
avidonoo t h a t t o r e ol early defined v a r l a t l o n e e»r b® found
between the r a c e s ,
Him
iimi ii
•
• 11 n*
ami n u l l
?
% e l v i l l e *T* rterokovtt*. *On MeoUl* £»ifferenooa*,
i » MSXMM&* *•!• 1W# *•• ***?• *»•»• of febroarv 2 3 , i f * 5 ,
**H*iwn ',
®nndvf v . c l t , , ~. 407-^16.
I I . - Uiffa-enoe* i f Xn$*»lHr« M«e *. a«it*n^
Chjadonou^i** administered h©r i n n r i i i f - n c e «-cr»ie to
2»**57 Serro and white - u b l i c school chl! 3rsn fr"^ * - l l f c m l a ,
>enn*ssae, and Louisiana,
he rs^nr*1** th-**; secio-e'janorile
s t a t u s «sa l i k e l y to be * oause s® well sg an effect
i n t e l l i g e n c e in fl?#^;?osis.
*f
'?h<t IflV^ctls^t^r Minted aut t h a t
t h e s e *>oseee*lnfr i n f e r i o r int#11Irenee "wil-i h> ve ^b> f^ftdenoy
t c wov* to nei^hberhco^t ^here t h t ipei's-eoon^io ct-wkirds
vere a t a ^ i n l s w u
Thl*. f*»t, although accented* dpf* not
eliminate inv--**%r<*ci-1 in<Hvl'lU'l WT-^enc^a ' M B R l u s
''e^roaH.
t h a t i s *,<•» say, tn<9lvidu*l £1? "^renea*! ssay be found
fffflffl& *nv r a c i a l srmun, '!|ef**>» while or ithnrwie-%
A numbor nf years ***m ^ t ^ r c o ^ f "^ int<* Tle1**^ X^&ulnn
«nthr*r»<>ln*!«^s r r ** «*rri iv* t o "^vi ^in^lnr"* of -»'*"oh's,?nfticaX
inve«ti-H*;i^n» ^f in? s ^ l ^ n c a between r^el-'l #rr-Mi'rt»
"vf
concluded that no vtT*teed wari*-Mon»i ao-d'* "^s fount1 r*t > » 1 ^i»li*
in*r the Intel l e c t u ^ fm^is^lnrit:' or inf r l a n ^ " ^or ^n
"ase
©r «ir?efher,
-**lerenee i#, &oo<£enau&h, *.vialal luiff crenels in the
Intellisarance of &®hodl flhii*ren% In *$&& jguiatiL.ftt, A B t t l *
a o r t a l Pavahologv, Vol. *?, ""'>. «, issue of O c i o b e r ' W f \
u. 3^8-397.
''tf. ft, KetabrocH*. 'The* .uestl >n of *M<clat Inferi o r i t y 8 , In *ho ..A^a^fa»..Atttaroraola^*tr Tol, 3% l*«tte cf
**aly 1 W . ^.''Wo-WI.
itmvsY of nmumn
jommmm*
12
KMCIAL C4\:V>P^
Harked d i s t l n o t i o n e in the i n t e l l e c t u a l rn>*our«a« of
o i f t e r a n t r»cs0 w*»re **er»ortew by y » v * M f » f "
**» tn* <r«»rl*»tiwa
of c e r t a i n ssental c a p a c i t i e s * the author found the ^ J t r o e *
out>erior in discriminating elenent* of ^ u s l c and Xntmvl&T in
recognising a b s u r d i t i e s , u«lng vmmm
and Jusgaeat*
eenee, r e a l i t y t e a t i n g
He asaumod t h a t anatomical f«©tcr« euoh an the
•ens* organs &n& nervous ayetaw of the two races were 4iff*raflt*
t h e r e f o r e , he concluded t h a t eeneory and i n t e l l e c t u a l v»yiA*
t i o n s of a s i a i l a r e l a t e &# the paysical difference* exlfb&ed
between the races*
Petersen a n i Laaier 8 ^ oaployod a b a t t e r y of t a e t e to
ocapar* twelve year old white aaa *#^r© c h i l d r e n ,
feiatia*
t i e a l ana^yals of t h e differences! found revealed the r e s u l t *
t o be r e l a t i v e l y unreliable:.
Oslng t h e national l a t s l l l g e a s o feet* Seal* A , touag 2 *
examined &37 whit® and ttagre a a l l d r e a agaa nine to t e a years
**(S. % Davtn^nrt, "a» K»„o#f d i f f e r In Koatai 8ap&oityt s ,
in Human glolaaat. Vol. 1, *4a, 1, la sue of January 1029, n. 7 0 .
8*.
^•foeevrih Potaraon and J„ H. l*anler, 'fttudtee in the
Ocir»|>fer&tlV« ^ b i l l t i e * Of »3.1fc« and Hagroo**, in .The Keafeal
ttMgi|gaaent...y:attd<Q»-a^' *'*»• 5, iseu* of rabruary t « 2 * t vt~
^^j*»ul f^-™»|5beit .'OUM, * t a t e l l i ^ e n c * an<? 2»Uht»-«*istl-
bility in ^iitaa aad **gro***, in .^..Ja^ial $tXJjffis&zar
t l v a favajhalojry.* V o l , 9 , ^o. 5* t » U # of ^otober
w
* 339-35$*
W9,
ggftvgY of *« GKAKOH oos^-airKKh ii
QUI
13
<$«>UP»
old a t t h e t h i r d grade l e v e l or tabcvw in school,
"eoordlng
"Be une au^ncr, a rc»r*.««i dlfferoAoe w**» ft»utt" &*$•»(**« t**«
*legroe« and whites *%»d with the ntioerlerity ranginr f r w 2*?C
to 9 5 ^ .
* difference of I d . 7
s u p e r i o r to t h e dark Regro*
;
showed the H e b ! - j *gro to be
JMsplaylng t h e Biaot t-ine* *ioat
f o r *u«i?**tihillty» he found t h a t t h e Monroe* in g-entral were
tsore aujggeetlbl* than the whites!.
However, no s l g a l f l o a a t differences ware found in
s u g g e s t i b i l i t y between nine mm t e a %m* old white children
and between a l a e and t e a yesr old ^egro children*
These
I n t r a r a o i a l analvae* a l s o did not reveal difference* b e tween the l i g h t and mm
wa* concerned.
Msgraas i n s o f a r * • auggaatibii i t y
Be presented t h e hypothesis t h a t t h e Hafatar
negroes were more i n t e l l i g e n t than t h e darte, beeaune of t h e i r
g r e a t e r white blood, few#[email protected], the anas environment for both
group* 0t Magroes would aakt them equally sugeaatibla.
Several rmm
l a t e r ->'stiersW^ again i l l u s t r e t e d i the
u n r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e pre*»nt day nr&aedurse i n race t a s t i n g .
So pointed out t b e t the following wmtenntsmm of methodology
werej ( l ) age f a c t o r not son t r o l l e d , <2) the d i f f i c u l t y of
securing " f a i r sasnyllnga''. O ) the m t r l t y of r a c e , (**) tian
t h e r e be m a c difference* in l n t e l U g e a o s or a e n t a i
w
w
—
n
—
—
M
miinnill <*»•«••
^ J o s a p h Pet^rtoa*
*a*eia Considerations of aethod,
olagy i n w
**tlag
*
in
i
M^^flMMLj^
i
1
Vol. 3 , *o. 3 , ifloue of ^ u l y W V % W - J o a .
c a p a c i t i e s ? , (5) group v*» infllvid.^l ts«r,j5s.
kn awar^ascB
of th»s significance of th«« »b'>ve end othnr f a c t o r s i s necee*
*ary for the i n v e s t i g a t o r who I® attempting an experimental
study of r a c e .
In a r e v i s i o n of hla e a r l i e r aonogra^h, Price*® ntterected to destoaatrata tbat t h e r e ha«s been no *.de«tuate Of>©j?r®h*niIvs
a#a*ureaent of t h e Intel iigeoee of the i«egro.
«he author
c r i t i a a l l y evaluated the test® use»i, t h e f a c t o r influencing
• a a a l i n g , aesusmtlans uadarlylng I n t e r a r a t a t i o a * &nd the
f u t i l i t y of acwpariion*
following hi® r a t h e r a r i t i a a l survey
of research oonoemiaf Hsgro*white difference* in i n t e l l i gence* he *u»mfc**l*ed by $l**oio»lng two e l g a i f i s ~*at g e n # m l i satlon*.
*h« f i r s t **» that the researcher* h&ve f e l l e d to
observe the b a s i s eondltloafl of meaeureaent.
the r<«?yoho-
a e t r i e toaanifues which W'-r* aapioyed had b#e» *taadardir,od
on variou* group* &n# administered t o e t l l i ethers*
ale
aeeotsd conclusion concerned the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t e * t
findings*
?fee a r i t i a pointed out th<a* t n a results? yere eat
valid beaa-uee t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n wa« based upon t h e bypaths*
s i * t h a t eueh 4Ifforenoon
ter*.
were ftstaralnad by b i o l o g i c a l foo-
*vi«*ne* was c i t e d to support P r i c e ' s hypothesis,
28
d , » t . C l a i r » r i s « . *rtetro-*nlts Biffereness in
General Intelligenoe*» in MM ,-immmlH M fttKffl,. ^ I f M.lftl*
¥oi* 3 , Wo, 3 , leaa* of <?«!>, 1*)»» ™# &t&-455.
sngygv op nv^ssROH
COSOSSHWTKI' R M M .
om>';?»
15
when he reviewed the r««*»roh of * r l l t * , Olar*. Davie, M*-r»ak o v i t s , klinebarg, Lenoir, Lony, ann" Tnoensn*.
4«* aonoiudsa
by ^aiatlnir out the f n t l l i t v of it»t«rraoi^X s t u d i e s , rnf fc*
a l s o sugaaatsd that *;h® oniaion should h# withheld concerning
t h e b e l i e f t h a t fehe i"*gro *a* n e n t a l l y i n s e r t e r .
writing in the same journal r i n t n a r ^ was i n general
arraeseent •with " r i c e , nmsstly t h a t a wor» ad»o#n** ***K!U knd
b e t t e r standardised t e a t * of i n t e l l i g e n c e w#r# nasdad* LHH~
ev^r, he draw a t a n t a t i v * aeneluslnn t h a t t h e I n t e l l a s t of
t h e Unpm* l* l i k e l y t o be aanaidarablv lower than that of
t h e whit*, fta s t a t e d t h a t the wajority ot t h e t e s t result®
indie»t«d t h i s , i n eolt* of t h e t e s t c r the age of t h e sub*
,1*et» which w 're i n v e s t i g a t e d .
H* r»olnt«?d out that i t v- s
unknown how sstsh i n f e r i o r were tba negro**, but ®n o v e r l a ? otiw of £5^ r**w#al«d a t t h a t t i a a t h a t t h e r e ware many
Kegroa* i^eeaeaslftg I n t e l Uganda «un#rlr»r to t h a t of t h e
average wfelte*
Hntnsr'wa* wall aware of the aaotlonal
involvement element aanoarning t h i s arsft of invention*ion,
and he ewphasissee: that tba anient1st tsast not only bs
unbiased but asaat ask* >M^®$kf:n aaiwsiea of the two r*oa# #««
wall as £*vel©*> sounS methods of Measurement.
HIM
I
II. M...IMI.M 1, 1 ii M
2
.1
••!
%„ r t n t n ^ r , *Xnt«lllgerts« difference* Bntvean
aatrtsan *.%®mm and *Hit*a*, In
IM^mmsiLM^MMM^MUr
a a t l o n . Vo">. 1, &>. 3 , leans of July l*T*»f p . 5") 1-518.
HURTKY of Ki'BBaliOM OOHOJCRHXMO JUO^L GartUPa"
16
A criminal au&wsary of the methodology es^loyed in
the studv of I n t a l l e o t u a l dlfferanoea among «arm as n»c
between the iJ or rose pad ^dhV.es w s nade by Jonfeins. ^
/.'he
author oo«^ar*d *ihe i»t*rr*o« and i n t r a r a o e ^pi>**oaoh^i nn&
preferred the latr&mce tenhnlqa**,
*i# a l s o gave i n f o m a -
t l o n to show t h a t quantitat ively spefcfciiift, the Essthod* of
evaluation have not r»vo»l#<S the v a l i d i t y of the raaiol
differences hypotheses? concerning i n t e l l i g e n c e .
^ e l l " ^ alestteesd b r i e f l v t e a t findings of leading
s o c i o l o g i s t s and antbroiwlagists ©onoarclng differeneee In
i n t e l l i g e n c e between ^agroe* aad whites,
He ©included that
d i s t i n c t i o n s between the r a s e s a r e purely a r t i f i c i a l »nd
arbitrary*
«n^ writer" 7 " was of the opinion t h a t t h e r e was m
inherent difference between the fegro »nd i W # tst&m®* which
he etudled, but s t a t i s t i c a l anaivsi* f a i l e d to s u i t o r * t h i s
•*ma*H"*»M%*»"***
5 ^ ' . », ^aafcln*, 4?h<8 "*nt*l a b i l i t y of the anerlean
He^ro% in fat,ia^ftX-At J i « .JkMmlXm, Vol. ». Wo* 3,
l*s*u* of .Tuly l?1f» : \ i m » 5 l l .
^ 1 , "'ell, *snthropologlaal JHffarsnoes -atvaan
Whites and wsgraes''. i n ;Aa Jauraal.. .af ^.agiga .^duaatj^a.
vol. 8, v*. **, K#u© of October 19 yS. ~. ^ M m .
12y# druoe, * f a s t e r * af footing I n t e l l i g a n e e ,p«*t
Perforaaase of Whites *»«8 *'*groe« in the Hural South', i n
•totafJi,
nf^r-ftXatBdwMBU «©• 3S2» i»«a* »* ^«X? W*., *9 P*
inclination.
The Kuhlwann-'in^.f„»*oi ""r-^u'i t«nt» ^h« "roce
- r t h u r j ^ l n t "erfortsn-ice
«' 1-J *^" *h^ .^nr.f^r" «s.R4» 1916
R e v i s i t , wer*» riv«»n to 5$1 white children si1? ^IS colored
©hllflrsn, ^ p * fri>f siv to tweTv* ye* r* *»nd nin® months,
l i v i n g in the *&*$** count* in th« ^
' * of T i r r l n i a .
The
•"•rloci-al r e s u l t s reveal«<» the «'<egrn "^rsd white ohil^ren
v*»re b<*li»v th& &m,n isor® for th**> Motion ^nfi with the
Negroes i n f e r i o r t<-> th«* white®.
In a ^©5?t eonpr«hen*Ive report Kllneberg ^ surveyed
the cental t e s t i n g of indlvidusla fross different
raa^r,
Concerning i n t e l l i g e n c e te^tinf: r * s « l t * , five f o o t e r s w-* ^
evaluated, t h a t i*» «otivj*tion, rmfmort, If.ngwnre, e^oioeoonomio s t a t u s and eohoolin*.
m n n r s t e section* were
dsvo*ed to c u l t u r a l influence* aed i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of ter.t
^ r s u l t a , the fnetor af sag "ling, tbe i n t e l l I r e n e * of bybrld*.
the ?>reblsffe of raaturatior*, the m.nv» of a M l i t i « r , and ?.hs
effeot of environment*'i ohNUfe,
1*^ onoluded t h # t both
b^refiity and envirenneni vt?re the uwt^r^in^nt f a c t o r a ->f
individual differences »ff t e s t r e s u l t s *
Hwwev«sr» JV> nrocf
he* been offered of the rclu ployed by heredity u»oa group
differences,
He completed h i s a r t t o l a *'!th a Ol^oussion
- Otto Xllnabargt **s«t*l Vesting of . ^ e l a l md
n a t i o n a l 'hwip**, 1« iiaUnJttXfcLwJDSa^^
Wsshirwpton, 'he ^"^-hrtis Vniv rrcitty af * gorier , io&\ >»„ 2|2!1!da*
SURVEY OP RESEARCH CONCERNING RACIAL GROUPS
18
of Personality traits and their measurement. A bibliography
of 95 references followed.
Tomlinson^ administered both forms of the StanfordBinet, 1937, Revision, to seventy-five pairs of Negro siblings, ages four to nine years. The range of deviation
between the ages was from nine months to five years and two
months.
The average I.''1.
found on both the L & M scales was
10.4 points below the mean for white children with much
reduction in variability.
Correlation of the I.Q,. 'e between
the siblings was .26 as of a similar class as has been found
for other homogeneous groups. The Sims Index of socioeconomic status and I.Q. were correlated and indicative of a
^roRressive relationship between environment and test performance as the children grew older.
Results of the Array Alpha and Beta tests were gathered by Garrett-** to show that differences in the test
results between Negroes and whites do exist.
In this brief
article the author pointed out that regardless of how the
* H. Tomlinson, "Differences Between Preschool Negro
Children and Their Older Siblings on the Btanford-Binet Scale",
in The Journal of Negro Education. Vol. 13, No. kt issue of
October 1 9 ^ , p. W - 4 7 9 -'-'Henry E. Garrett, "'Facts' and 'Interpretations'
Regarding Race Difference® , in Science. Vol. 101, No. 2625,
Issue of Ar>rll 20, 19^5, p. h-okJ^QSl
Wf. v sr >i * Jk v
}.-KC
.n»rn * OI«L vr<'p»
19
lnt*rrtr*tationft were* a de, the fact renamed t h a t the d i f f e r ence* were n t i l l evident,
^astorer
disousewu toe r©i»ii#8-
ehi*i of the differences? between Negroes <•*«€ white* found on
t o d a y ' s intsl!lff«mo«! ®o*l#® and the i n t t r p r f t a t l ^ n of such
difference*,
% t a l i thnt an*iy*i» of t h e r e l ^ t l o n n h i ^ b e -
tween these f^cts way be overdrawn, but oert^ln3y the ?*®l»fion*
ship of the as»u»~»tlon# of the a e t h e r s t o the findiniro based
on theae tsahnlque* should be oar»full ' #s»min®d before onasided equivocal l o t « r p r e t * t i o n s »re *&de,
In an i n t e r e s t i n g study concerning th*> albino ^egro,
?
3es&hW' examined fourteen bay* and twenty-eight gir 1 ®, *i\l
a l b i n o •®g5*ots.
% eonolwded th>t »&ay of these e h l l d r s a
early in l i f e developed feellngr* of i n s e c u r i t y l a t h e i r ho«»$«i
and eomsntnlty, due to the f*et "&#,$ they wer* 4i*ari«in«tad
against,
So s l g n i f l e a n t dlfferenae in I n t e l ? ! ' a n s a v , s found
between tne albino *M Hi* norael s i b l i n g s ,
'<»wev**r# $®V»1OP-
a e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n wee evident l r walKlng &n& t a l k i n g .
^b^iehola* i% s t o r e , *fe Oowtwtt on ?»yohologioal
•Pifferenoe® a® Anomr Haass 1 4 , ifl ^ate^l^a^.nKMl^J,* ? « 3 . €3,
So.
So. 1626, Isau* of February !**»*» n. 116-117.
17
" * , s . beatEbaagi "Aiblnitm in $eMro CShlldr*a*r in
foe^jQaraal
of flda*atla....P*vahalaav.* Vol, SP, Issue of <*«enb«r
iniMS, -.. 199-215.'
SURVEY OF RESEARCH CONCERNING RACIAL GROUPS
20
Followinp up his earlier report, Garrett-*8 pointed to
the consistency of the lower scores made by the Negroes on
tests of mental ability from babyhood to adulthood. lie
questioned the explanation that environment could possibly
explain all of the differences found.
He emphasised that
these differences are not true raoial differences, and that
they could not be entirely explained by the selective
migration hypotheses nor the environmental theory.
Two years
laSer Pastore™ criticized Garrett's interpretation of the
Army tests.
Insofar as the statistical analysis was concerned,
he noted (l) the large proportion of zero scores for both
groups; (2) the fact that the proportion of zero scores 1®
much larger for the Kegro grouo than for the white group.
The critic said that point Cl) indicated that the testa a>*e
not operative as measures of intellectual ability, at least
in the lower ranpes, and that point (2) meant that the Negro
grouo by virtue of faotora possibly extrinsic to intelligence
as measured by these tents, would be more adversely affected
by the inclusion of aero scores than the white grour>. He also
J
Henry E. Garrett, "Hewo-White Differences In Mental
Ability in the United States", in The Scientific Monthly.
Vol. 65, No. k, issue of October 19^7, p. 329-333.
*- Nicholas Pastor©, "A Fallacy Underlying Garrett's
Use of the Data of the Army Alpha and Beta T st*, A Comment",
in The Scientific Monthly. Vol. 69, No. fc, issue of October
101*9, o. 279-280.
?
BOHVhY ()',' M.URaftGN OOKUafiNTNO KaCXai. OKU m
1
c i t e d additional discrepancies concerning th® various p e r cent* r e s , t h * t o t * l alpha »c«p# and n r a a t l o a l oonoluaions,
I r i««g v od»r^ Q rsvlavad t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n * of t h a t
t i n e eenonrnlm- r olal e n t e r l e r ! *
and iaferiori'sw.
conclusions war* that- no eismifioant pvidanoa it
r i t y o r s u p e r i o r ! t v aisang rnf r*<o# w~& found;
His
infariotherefor*,
t e e h n i .u*» e***toyed t o date rain* sueh dif fti+mmQt should be
e r l t t e d frow the f i e l d of sal anna ** being u s a l S ' S ,
&*vnral r e a r s l a t a r ifcnlal** a l t o s*s**tarlft*d tba current studies eerwerning <$ltt*+9m** In ssent«s1 e b i l l t v amon**
race*.
S# foraulated * ebrn* l i s t of #is«t*en onaatton*
-hiah he believed should fee answered a s e l l i v e l y to glvs
va^id i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o the »rudif>* of s81ff#[email protected]*i«#$ A^^ag
rao*s.
In view of t h i s a l l inslagiv^ c r i t e r i a , <he f e l l o a -
ing conclusion* w**e f»d>l ( l ) "ost s t u d i e s so f«* ra^orfed
» r e wortnle*** as lad in* t i n g anything rsgardla* the a o» para i I v e a b i l i t y of rweea*
<&) - ost af our pvmmt
taeh*
nlqnas give Measure* af dlfferanaee due t o vesfenenaea in
ednsa'ianal op!?ortuni&i«« r a t h e r
n—»i i i ii
1111-»IIIII
fco
HI
ban in diffarenas* of
! in muni
y*V ' w $
-y t a l t , . , «.
fc^i-i^p,
^ R o b e r t I*, Ueniel* *3*,-*la (feneMeratlon* for ¥*Ud
tftt*r*»r#»t^t<4H«* ftf "*-^*ri«9fr»*-*1 l a d l e s 'erttsinir^* tj> >m€t,l<t
bif ^ r a a a a s , in , l M . A ^
vol.
13, Wo. 1, Issue of January 1*1->, o. 15-3?,
Stm?^" Of JWVaeCH Q08CSRHXK': TuOUl
mental a b i l i t y .
(l)
2%
Th****** i* nc *d o" " rosvaluation of the
nrablnae *n& studies parts lrin»* to rnsl*i
In a wore recant mrmmt
rroup*, Sooper
&ROUP4,
rtlffera..oa-.
&n difference* et%*m# racial
pcstulal«« by saving, *Prtm the #vt^an« on
hand tadsy, va o«nnot s a l s n t l f l e a t l v «»ay# tb*» th* <ordle
ar tht tta«rro If? superior or inferior, one t» tht other,"
Lean**' elan showed a great dual of insight Into the nreblan*
of difference* ananft raalal rroupf whan h* wrote J
Any nation* of hveditftry, physlaal, "oral
&nd racial infuri&rl"? *ra B$** without found**i*o»
thsre 1* a definite tlipe-Vg, however, before the
finAlnga of salami* rasa.. %h& ordinary people, &%
prseant, th*<** avlrt* 4 etranga anoraaly In Amarloai
the gen' ral -"ibile s t i l l has r*el*l ffrajuelese sauced
by theories vblah have b # « ^rovtn f a l s e long ago.
'reJuAioe sannot sontitwe tb> * way. • sag l a «lw«y#
want to be rsti'^nal.
*II»- ''easuraasnt of 'tttltu&es
<*>olal aaianvista &*« safes olrsatlng aora s a n a t i o n
tovt rd tfca Csvnlonaen* of at Hindus *'*on*- raalal group* #nd
th* influanat of tu*"* attitudes on ;paa* relatione*
*Jenn ** Uaapnr, *i sstoii*t*»" t in JLalaaQBUUfts.
»f*A«a,A,jfa-«fl- 1 « . • ^Ai^Aiaiia.,i2lffla^afti,« issue af Jun* I P $ I ,
*3&aalel tivan*f "the $*cro In Aa*rlaa\ in tflftcrraoj^
fi» o. 1*6*147.
The purpose of thlft section in to survey b r i e f l y o'lwe of
fch# e&udlee e«n5t*arninn *&« a*&aures*«at af a t t i t u d e ni±&&:,
r a c i a l group a, specif le.-s.lly, tho?*^ of feh# ^f^/ro^fc »nft whites.
*aeordlror to Kreah and Urutahflaid 1 ** th* study of A t t i t u d e *
i s regarded by «a«ny *&* *kt .principal problem -it m®%n% psychology*
^hey defined an a l t i t u d e n.«*j *&$, .o^urflng. ^ g a p i ^
.world^*
The s i a l l a r l t i e s aad difference© between t h i s
daf'ir l tl>n and the meaning af b e l i e f were s i early .given.
Beliefs ware th«t>mfot of *•>» t h e •aagnitlve eatbodlsiaat of
attltudss*
That l a a l l a t t i t a d n e inaiudn. the r s l a v a n t
b e l i e f * about the objeot of t h e a t t i t u d e , but fell b«ii«*fs
were not p a r t of the a t t i t u d e s t r u c t u r e s .
Insofar
m
a c t i v a t i o n * and ssaotiens w«?re ooasemssd, b s ' . l s f s w#r«
n a u t r ? ! , although motivation tm.f• hav« *Ak«n p&rt in the
davslop&ent of $h« b e l i e f s .
However, when b**li.*f $ w r e
aaplaptsd i n a t t i t u d e s , they w<*2*# then oubjeot to oert&ln
p*yohodyne*aio ferae*.
In Chapter ¥1X the author* aiasuseed the problems
of t h e fssaaursaant of b a l l a f s anA a t t i t u d e s fppsi the follow-*
l a g n a l n t s of view, Cl) theory of b s l i a f and a t t i t u d e
l
**fflavid £r«oh and ftiahard 3, Oratahflald. ^ y y
u
flffiftJfJBMjp*, St, MM^mMXMMt
^ *o*** Ma^raw^Sill,
I W . »* ib*-l?*» 2djk«fs«
*?tmw o* wniAW cwswtur!
R^OXAL
cao <ft"
24
fssaaaursnent, (#) »#ft*up#»«nt by *oal*s, (3) neasurement by
r e l w s , Cfe) *indlreet* aethads of wmwArlm belief* end
a t t i t u d e s , <5) the neasnraaen** of various eharaetrristlas
of belief* and a t t i t u d e s , *»d (A) the r e l i a b i l i t y and
vs^idlty of asa*nrea*at of ballafs and attitude*.
One of the earliest studies designed to detemine
ths racial prefe^enoa of anil era student* wis nada by
Jhiilferd. * He s*r*laysd the *>sthad af * Hired ao«p*rlsons
an*t found a v*rv high eerrel«tlan in the profarenas* af
students fross widely separated universities,
Ih« ^*ro
ranged thirteenth aaong ft l i s t of fifteen ethnic group*.
tn oth#r word®, only the Shines^ and furbish were least
preferred than the Ksgre.
Other investigation* samlaylng
Guilford 1 * nathatfalagv wsrs ranee tad with aahoal ahildran
in " t , Louis by fnltare*^* and, very a i a l l e r result* were
found.
In s t i l l another study rnltsnr** found that Sfee
r t e i a l nrsf®vm®m of f*«gro And whits ahildran te b# the
' J . f, Ouilfard, "desist ?r#fere«s*a of a hou*» nd
**eria*a University dtudaats", in iMdmaml.
„at .flflfIftX
, t o ! . «, *a. «. Um® of ^*y 1*3', V 179*?nn.
^ H , haltsar* 'Aran* &iff*r*naa« In Nationality
#,nd lace frtfsrnna * of Children** In j»tWJUwu|ry, % 1 . a,
Jio* 1, iasua of January 1 W » , ftt~105»
*?<»«««•--•**& t l e n a l l t f fref arenas*, and »taraaColored Ohiidran*.
0Mi«?»tt*\ iinn }^bjt
type* oft Jolorsd
M , M m ^ < •.ffi^jM&JLfl.
Pgyahaiaar*:.. *a7, 51** Isaus of June
8URVKT Of ttSKUsROH GONOKRMXitt} MGUL
rank-order correlation .60.
GHOUP
25
That l a b o t h groups of o h l l d r s n
p l a c e d t h e Knglieh and French n$nt> t h e t o p of t h # i r
prefer-
ence l i s t w i t h t h e I t a l i a n s and Russian* i n t h e c e n t e r and
t h e Turks and Hindus a t th© bottom.
The r e l a t i v e l y lew
rank o r d e r f i n d i n g of .6*0 was du® c h i e f l y t o t h e f a c t
th»S
t h e Negro c h i l d r e n p l a c e d t h e i r own r a c e i n p r e f e r e n c e ,
v h e r e s s t h e whit®* r a t t d t h e ^CISTO r a c e next t o t h e bottom.
I n a study w i t h many problems, Borowitss**® attemptied
t o i n v e s t i g a t e th® development of a t t i t u d e s toward Negroes,
He c o n s t r u c t e d t h r e e o b j e c t i v e t e s t e and a d m i n i s t e r e d thesi
t o n o r t h e r n and southern c h i l d r e n from k i n d e r g a r t e n
t h e e i g h t h $m&® i n d i f f e r e n t ooEsasunlti®«.
through
following
sta-
t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , thee© I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s we^e t e n t a t i v e l y
offered.
Many e a r l i e r n o t i o n s concerning i n t e r r a c i a l
t u d e s were c o n t r a d i c t e d .
atti-
The white c h i l d ' s a t t i t u d e towards
t h e N(*pn*o was found t o b© determined, by c o n t a c t with Xh& p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e toward t h e B®gro «nd not due t o c o n t a c t w i t h
t h e Negro.
[email protected] was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n o e i n th® a t t i t u d e *
of n o r t h e r n c h i l d r e n as compared t o thorc© from th*> oouth.
£u&ene L. Horowlta, "Th® Development of A t t i t u d e s
Toward t h e Negro", in fi^Aingft. Lfl, fiMX$$XJl3MMl£*M&* NOW
Tor'*, H o l t , 19*7, n . 5^7-517, e d i t e d by T. n, wsVobmb j £
SLL*
$UHVfY OF KWfaft.uiH CkV.0.5xWX'«w Hi- 4h*t
fcehuler
Cr.H^U'M
26
presented several aiiiuatwnji oonoerning
rao* s a r r e l a t i o n t o 3>7 v o l t * ana S76 ©«*lor&d eighth :,r&de
children i n Louisiana,
.he children YW
rsitues* ad %> «el-
eat one of five solutions representing different ^ttitu<*e*
toward the problem and to ex/iiais t h a i r views*
He concluded
t h a t s l a l l a r rosroases between tha rases were evidtnt aor#
often than a i f f e r e n t rrspon***,
*tatl*tieftl a n a l y s i s v e r i -
fied thif* aonoiuslon with the $»« slant*!*? for t h e findings
being .-aore closely p»laie4 to *,&« aavantogr* for *< s«^ ohlltf*s
own rac® when preference for »*rr«gation w s aaEpreosfcd*
in & b r i e f a r t i c l e ie*e-
dieaeribed the ©anBoir in
**hlch a «roui? of sin y » r cid c o l o r e a h i l -ran reap* ed t,o «i
wbJUe boy asiong %&*$» *-ffcer several dai* of c u r i o s i t y , d l s ausslca and snaaination, Ihe Regro enlldran so*, opted th® white
child,
/'wo hundred and seveatv*flvs ahildran ranging fron
t h e f i f t h grade through the twelfth g r d#, «®r« l a t e r *»1
viewed by hedxe and Sutherland*' In • small rcidvsetsrn t s v n .
**0K, iU 4ahuler v **>ttltud«a i'ewsrd f a c i a l tfegregatioH
In ^ u n tauga, Louisiana*, in ,7^g„^mm¥,l„,Al,•„,lAfetel„.,M„tiJ,Mi,ttlaPO«.*
t a l * I S , ><a« l» i s s n s af august i«A1. v>. 11-53.
^ % u t h hove, "'•hit* Bay% in Ohiidhoad ,...duo*11•>>
Vol. ? 5 , /'o. % !<?sue af ^ p r i l in&'«s, n, 3*g-1o«V
^^
"*M»ri*n J , »«,*dite awl Jean Sutherland, 'Children**
$onoaction and a t t i t u d e * About Minority Md Majority ^ e r l e n n
# » * » * * , tn MM A W f f t t , t^,Mm»MM&
.l^TftftfilfttelXf v « t . fe *
*o. 7* issue of r ' g * ^ ^ id**'*, r>. mr*~H&%,
BNKVgv W *:<:*& H0M OQfJOI*t).lMt .^<tt*l« (MWUrW
27
Kftsh ehlld ew* a«k»d t -**nat 1* an A-aenloan lib.*'*, and *»hy
do y$u think so?*
i n r "a «?«wr *nd "a
These <qu#ftion$ wrre *l#a &eke& ojiscarnfcsgra*.
In %pl%% of the ract that the
children had l i t t l e or no contact v l t h %h# minority
they aanlfaslad awrkad stereotypes,
fitoup,
a t t i t u d e s toward the
^#w o r &«gro *?#r# found t o bs r a l ^ t i v a l y ©$r*s unwholaaaaa
in t h e otfe#r ehild»e»,
hesulta of t h i s etadjr Indianted t h s
need for education concerning minority group* #ven in r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous *>'«erio*»* eea&sunltles*
In a ®?or«& r#oe«t s*ud*t ^adke ^nd .rager**** guve
waits &»d M#gro d o l l s t o ninety &mmm
mnd 152 whits c h i l -
dren at the kindergarten and f i r s t t r e npimrf
public schools i n •ftlladalfitU**
grades of
the ahlldran ©*»« frem nam*
a a n t t t e a which w«re free* fiwa t o i$t>£ * * « » •
An attawat
w»« and* to t e s t t h e #ubjeat# with raepeet to t h s i r underataneUna and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of tha r o l e s olayed l a »a<aioty
by tna tf sera as ®>®& a h i t e a ,
£uring the ;•>«»« aSur# t h e a h l l -
dran war* nefceA to ?»%* sto s t o r i t s about th© o«lor®d d o l l *
which wsra presented %a> then*
Dif "arenas* Sn the voelal
rol#® and discrimination in l i v i n g were nnrtmjrad by the
ahildren v l ' h 3*^' of the whi*-* ««<* 10
I H 1 . . I I . . I in »• ,111,1111111. II HI
mi
af uh* .'agro of ildren
••»
'•'"rtan J . %«ke and helan C, r**v*r» 'Ohilrfrea's
£ s r e s n t l a n s of tha a*«ial hales of S®[email protected] #«** * h t t * V , m
AMJmimiX,MnXm,^mUMX*
**l. a®, »a, l f iaime of Jammr?
?8
r^i^eaantlng t h e -««jMt fiolt l^ .lnf«<riT *iocl«n r*»la*r*
C v ,il»
^"rn f«->s bott* ."rou »* faltn • l^cu* t* * %- * d»>Xla I* *v -*£©?
h->uaa while the >hlt*» dal' 1 * we*e ^rnlgn*'* t h ' b e t t e r Nn. *
In n s e r i e s of ~*W*ies which b«.L*«n to 1.&V < nt «nf*§
*P 44 4< %
followed U^ for * w V ? af j> ^* In* <*r, ;*~"igs J * -J »->-** -^
c o n s i s t e n t l y r*ep^r»fcHi t * rend in <jbil&4vu ">f
4
-.r« v ^ i ' ^ a v e
&ttl~uri*o tov WJ other ntJ * -mail*!®'" \ nt r o»f.
]*• s.tt-5
indie** v* the naad for i n t r c J ^ u t v t educ «t^n to 3'tt~i.'us
developing i n t e r e s t s*n*2 «*•"->racistl>h cf eth*?r
w < k ' i cue-
ton* f-n£ :r*tite.
7 < r i f l o n s 1) *ih« finding* of teehni^ues *>.? curing
r^cisl
fiVituds*
auggested the n e a e s n l V of *vs>iu t*i? b sing-
don* un er e wi-** v a r i e t y of o n d l t t w .
t h e r t f a r o , th«t further r§'tar*©?!
V
J<?
t t i s ir-s^-^r.*,
sfi^'n^fd t^ f ,^ d l r ^ i r ^ r -
i n r ^or<? r e l i a b l e "«#*Md*,
_
"ftou* **iig*» ^Chlli're^'t Xn*»#r»rroup M.&ituda*', in
_" _
lP,,lMX-» ^**t. 7 \ ieeus of **rrah
5^^.—-.—«, *Aian^on* '>iven b? 5Hn«l«r fo** Their
gr>ug Attltu'ss*. tr J^j&u^aiJL ^,^JiftliJL,r,flgflhtf,UL,;>
IT^P*
V
<»L
7o, Issns of fa rah 19 SI, ;?. l ^ J - 1 6 1 ,
" — — — , *Vha v;*ertift*» ©f 'jwsoerasy to . I s t b rw«*V
J b i l d r s n - , In jfon^jflaafc^^
v , 76,
i s s u e of .>une 1*5*, - . ?63-««l.
"Qhlls'ren 1 * «ionseptlo»*
an4 f'terfltotyr *>f **oli*h, I r i s h , Finn, Mm? ?rl&n, ,J uig ri*n# > p # , ^•»*@teslavafcian, Hindu" «ni f i l l p l n o " , in *h* . ^ u n a l p f ; i ^ ^ l a
ffjs&sa IX» ' ' a l . 77, ls*«a of »e^«rj*b<*r t n j o , , ? i - i i .
JO^MW*.-*,
SUKVEY OF JUJynftOH QCMOBSttllNO- K-Olhh GROITil
?n
However, t h a cor© of t h e r a c e ->robler in not to be
b e t t e r understood by t h e f i n d i n g s of <-»«*vchology concerning
i n t e l l i g e n c e o r a t t i t u d e s 'VJone but an o t h e r h y r o t h ^ s p s **£
well.
That I s t o say, technique*? r u s t h& dealpned t o rcv^-il
some* of the. b a s i c a c t i v i t i e s of t h e c h i l d toward I t * *<»lf
&n& f a m i l y .
The noxt s**, ep would t h e n ho t o r e v e a l t h e a c t i -
v i t i e s of t h e c h i l d toward i t s neighbor*
I t W;*B on t h e
hanos of t h f s e hynothosos t h a t sn a t t e m p t W,H* nad# t o . t u&ntify
a p r o j e c t i v e d o l l olay t e c h n i q u e t o r e v e a l P> few fundamental
b e h a v i o r r>at t e r n s of c n t l d r e n i n t h e i r own hown and t h e
e x p r e s s i o n of th»<e p a t t e r n s toward ^eo-^1® of o t h ^ r rficlfi-1
^rouos.
Jnop ts<ls and a d d i t i o n a l data "^rs c o l l e c t e d , a p r o -
gram of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and t o l e r a . n e t through t r a i n i n g of t»he
w i l l feas«d uoon s p e c i f i c -;oetulRt<?s can be c o n t i n u e d .
tin oh
a oro^rs»m has a l r e a d y been a b l v i n t r o d u c e d i n a g e n e r a l way
by t h e Cologne s c h o l a r , LindworeXy*? and o*;her e d u c a t o r * f o l lowing t h * f i r s t f> >rld M r .
« mort recflnt i n t e l l e c t u a l
may a l s o era-oloy a method s i m i l a r to K i r c h e r ' s ^ n j
n
^nproaoh
a&n a t t e s t
t o develop b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g arnonjr r a c i a l g r o u o s .
J
Johann Lindworsky, 3h« T r a i n i n g .of t h e V l ^ .
Milwaukee, " r u n e , 1°2«), 5-1B6 o . , t r a n s l a t e d by A. b t e i n e r
&n& ;., i*. F i t e p a t r i o k ,
5
C l a r a -T. K l r o h s r , i*hivr!a.ot*.r .from * t \ p n , . Through, Sooftqi
4 ftlbllottraohy. Washington, The C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of
America, 1°^5» 3-^5 p .
6BA.>".VM
II
..URV6.X ."f RkWrfCW UOAtf*.h.vlAvJ ^QU* fU*V
On* ->f th*- f i v e V a r ^ n *
cltw
>f b**l) ^ , w u t - M l i ^ Y Co « ^-*-
>f h « l a r ch*. nr***) of -<ll t h i n g s <i« "Hit forw^ "•' '?y
tho"! n * ?ulnas i"" beoowinr i n e r t * s i n g l y e v i d e n t with ".he
development <- n1 wide Uff# of ' i r o j s c ^ l v o t e e h n i *4«».
The,
p h y s i c a l <sei<*rti«>t of today l a dir«*e~i.ig h i s a<*t*ntior
8Sor« deu-rsly I n t o t h e h f ^ r t of n a t u r e .
Likewise t h e SOCIK 1
s c i e n t i s t of t h e ^resent t i a e I s t u r n l t w hi® «ff*>rte iior«
r r o f o u n d l v I n t o t h e i n n e r n o t i v a t i o n » of t h * i n d i v i d u a l ,
ft! no* t h e c h i l d h*s a H a l t e d coapreher.aion of langup^e
which wakst i t d i f f i c u l t t o *w>r**» h l n s e l f verb 11y, b i s
p r i v a t e world, *ts r e v e a l e d by r-l^y a n a l y s i s , hat* be^n A
world of ch^ng® o r a u t a b i l i t y *
According t o Haras*, t h e t ? t « o r e * i C ' l
^hVarnph?
i nd p«yoholoiry of t h e rl&y n* t h e c h i l d h*§ & h l e t o r y which
b*g*n twt hundred ve«*»s* s ^ o .
In hi* bri^f but
stimulating
e r l t i " u # , t h e a u t h o r "»oint^d <mt t h a t Awierlo&n inventijsrMlone
of oirty have [email protected]#n c h i e f l y eoneemed with r»»yoho*n«lvtio
a e t h o d ^ , i^rtorJ nr w n y e a i e n t i f l o e t u d i ^ n and t h e o r e l i c s l
c o n t r i b u t i o n s of European s c h o l a r * .
Harms reoosnnendedi th*»*
r e p ^ r ^ e r o on «?1 > v 'urease f^.i"'!%"» t.ii*h *-ht* v o r ^ s ^f
^rinsshorn, ^ i n r e t , Kein, von S c h i l l e r , P * u l ,
frcoa,
Froob^,
Fm«*»t Herns, *CMldren* * V0T an/ .•I'-.vflrwfft']
Behavior*, in ^fe..3crvo J H4.&*l,lfi* fel, 7 , * o , % i«r»ue of
J u l y l « a « f *, " ^ - £ 1 ? .
<«mvgv 0? nr.gfia.RaH OO!!Of»X$0 DOLL nM
31
J****alo**i, C^rus» Greyer, H^rilaub and othar l e s s e r *
tvm
varlau* SUrop«an #shoale.
^rtonpr the »&hy s&lay technique* i f p r o ^ c t i v * doll
n l a y , a nnthed which p e r a i t a the child to dreamt i*e his
phantasies with miniature d o l l * .
*he oayohoanalytio i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n of d o l l '•tlsy WAS introduced &®4 uisud in a olinioAl
manner by Anna a,raad*i »n*t ^ l a i n , "
llama year* l a ^ e r banner1*' reported that the ttajority
of the early etudle* dealing with d o l l slay contributed an
Istisena* onouat of c l i n i c a l as. t t r i a l . .
-Bowever, an e b j a a t l v *
evaluation of th";'«# studies m s d i f f i c u l t due to the linking
of hypothetic*! ©«nolu»-loa« with sal ant i f i s de««ri|>tioaa of
th* child*s reaction*, poor sampling, inoo^^lsft^ r e p o r t s ,
&n& tha l a s * of standardised d o l l r*l*f ^ttho-ft*?.
P r i o r t o If35 few" i f *»? d o l l play taahaiquea were
s s t p l r l a a l l y designed t o evoke q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t * ,
the
jtw**aaMi»wsw<aw^ii^w*''|i'^<a( rftf HIM isswwesaep
s
*aa* -'rand. 'latrndvtstlsn to t h e Tsahals of Child
Analysis", in Ef*fWAttn *ad..M.*atal...M*saa^ Kauoavaaha. So. aft,
i*«ue of 1 9 ^ t 59 p«» t r a n s l a t e d by I*, ?, &l&r&,
^ t e t a n i a Klein, J M - l M i l i t o
l i n d e n , t<o£*rth, l f ' f S , 3*1 p .
^L-eo banner, " H w Invest ligations and Play treatment
of Uhildran 1 * Bahaviar ftlsaraer**, in
M^JMmmX^S^IMMr
t r i e s , ••el. 17, Po, »* laaua of October'1**0, p . - 5 3 3 - 5 ^ .
*IT»V*7 OF 'v&»UadOH tf'Mio* »Im* *fc)LL J V T
1?
information ^therec* revenled n r i a a r l l v a c l i n i c ! i n t e r e s t
l« enotioaftllv disturbed ejhlldren.
*»ruah* p*^d® on* af *^e f i r s t 'pwmtitatlv* *t;udi**s
of d o l l ^l*y.
h* *a1*$**.ad f o r t y - s i x mirerrv sep^ol ©nil*
«*r#n f r o i two to f|V(» y*Mrs **f <w*a < nn aliovod s-^eh e*tilf
to ->lav f i f t e e n alnut?*® with **oll* r-*p*» ***mtifi^ fehelr awn
fa^ilia**
>irty-iin» **f th* a* lldr*n projected
^rfT^ii^n
bv separation of any aewWr of th* toll family, diree*lni*
verbal h o s t i l i t y to §0^* d o l l s , epanRitw? other*, bur inc
thsws, crushirif, twlatinsr, or drowning r>hm d o l l s ,
t!i«> &***»
c o l l e c t e d during' these d o l l ^lay sessions ws* a p n l i ^ by
sia*l«tiasr student t*&ol'i^i*f» to ^ave'o^ new «*v„itu#0s- oi-»netwtsff a(sr£r*ecion.
laary <*nf hanrjr modified Levy's an s t a t i o n
tell
nlay a* shod and pre*sated t h a i * modification t o twenty-four
©hii«r*a of a t r i b e pf ^ 1 1 ^ 1 Indian* (Ciputh &«#2*1 ©ftp),
t h e researchers foun4 that s i b l i n g r i v a l r y p a t t e r n * w«re
e l n l l n r t o tho«e in
»»rth "asHLaan white ohildren, however,
with v*r>f l i t t l e feel lap* of gull? &» self ^unlnhsient %p
* , ' . Banian, "'Wressl'an J u r i n ^
»m«eahaoi*, in I | ^ a £ | l 4 I i ^
PJII
H->*
m
***.
Henry *»«* - , Hanrv, w S0ll 4 ^ajr af ^11 ^"a Indian
w
'^nlldr#n , l a 3*>w rah *"»ne/r« h« of h# ^arla&rt '!i**t M»7»'sphis t r i a A*saaU*.lan. s «, *t, 1**ua of 10 u* n t i - 1 1 3 -.
SURVEY Or H»; ^.fiQl,
the Indian eul*"urs,
CONiT^.XWQ irJLL
U
UT
JJ
>*h« author® eaphasised the i^portanot
of int^r*jr^t«ti »n of tha experimental data on th® feasls of
fcnowledfre of tha tribe** s u i t o r * «•»" lanm*****.
*hs t>rln-
e l p a l feature® of th* indisn aul'Sttrs »*ere briefly
outlined
and s d e t a i l e d decarlf>tlt»n of «[email protected] d o l l nler rws&or® wa#
®«de.
rjsu» f i r s t In a ft#ri?s of -four, e a p l r i e a l s t u d i e s of
d o l l nlay WAS aade by l**ah? u»4#r tha 4 l r * e t l 9 n of uonert
ft. ^sara a t *h# low* ^ h i l ^ Welfare » sees nab etatiaft.
'•Man's
objective was tha development of a q u a n t I t a t i v s d o l l nlay
method for t h s study of sx'>eriasntal3y indaead phantasl**
of preschool a n i l d r s n ,
t h i s snal was aahleved by a data lied
stenrierdlsad introeuation of #eote child to %he play a a t s r iais*
ihs netted a sad was nast s e n s i t i v e t o aanr of th*
problems of o r a j s s t i v e t e a t s as nvidsat by the oieftr dea*
e r l p t l o a of four type® of reeAferalnK or anxiety rotfuoing
varael s t l a a l a t i o n s of the ahlld by t h s anamlner*
h* d o l l
play [email protected]* was a alnlatiire tao* * 10*) stage Simulatin« tha
'Fnivoralfcy of lava T>a*ehool,
four d o l l s , a te*ehe.*, snd
t h r e e puoila, on* of eaah sex* w«*rp nrasanted t o the a h l l d ,
several o t h e r a a a l s w*r# Included *>,d a*»s to be dissussed
s o r t in d e t a i l in (Jhnot*r tXX of t h i s rwse'*rsh.
miiiiM
iiMn»,ii.,«..i .iimi.in,«ii..i».iiiniin«-
?aeorre ft. %@)t, ®rp<«# C h i l d r e n ' s t*Uv f a n t a s i e s * ,
in «h* I'frfiho.lPuffiidill flffiBftgiaaibA, Vnl, 5% ^ . >, iaeur of
during th* ssasse fmr
the second d o l l ?lay study of
t h e lawn a * r i e i w«s«« scrapie ted by ^h-IlHt**.*
:
h i s «x~©*i-
^ent w»* an I n v e s t i g a t i o n of method, where tha r«t*» '•char
oc^p*r#d response* to tva tyoes of « a t i * r i a l , one sora
r*&lis*tlo than the other,
Mhe a l s o vari«d the t i ^ a of the
*vt«y neriod* frov t h r e s t r i a l * of twenty aslnute* esoh t o
one period of aiarty minutes*
forty ohiidran t h r e e t o s i r
$mrm of a^a w<»r» notched and divided into four irrou -a. with
t e n children orwsented with ««#h of the four Ifiboraisory
situations.
The nftaatasis* resoanse rtve^led l e s s explora-
t i v e ®M »«^i organisational reactian* with the l e e s rea'Jlst i o r f t t e r i s l f and inverse r e s u l t s with the «o*t r«*li«rtio
jsa^eriwi*.
^ l l l l r * * a l s o found, r«|»f®rdle«re of th«« dur^%i«
of the s#s»!*ns f that a g r e s s i o n ®n& t a n g e n t i a l o c n - t h e m t i c
'lay increases along' *l*h th* t l n a j however, axnloratory and
stereotyped projections decreased*
o
^ i n t l s r conducted t h e t&ird *tudv vision was d«ign*d
to axaalae the following variables* ( l ) presentation of th*
P
'->. '.Hill-**, "Uoll 1«7 »" a *unetlor of th«- He.<,lis*i
of tha t u t o r i a l s and tha
i*#ngth of the Aoxnerlaeatel . $$ai®n"%
in tfhildi P.avsl;Ojp*e,*&• v&1 • ^** '«&• "*» lesue of *»nt •"her i*>5,
^. 123-1*0.
^(&i»garet '», In t i e r , *J3oll 'la*? n® r *unotl j *n of
^ t p e r | » a n t e r - 0 h l l * Xnteractiin and I n i t i a l ^ r g a n i s a t i »n of
^ a t e r u t s " , In <fei*,4 jftsffa^iyant.. Vol, 1*, ». 1, is*ue o^
Septesibar infc$, n,ria5-»lon«
flimW.T Of RltHKAPOn OQNOsTUUHfr IXJLL PUT
play ant•rial* aad (1) •xp*rlasntsr-ahild interaction,
35
ten
ahildren three ta *lx y**r* of *j&* wave aaleated for e*eh
rreap.
vhs presentation ef the material* was aads to ons
frsup In an orderly aystsaatls aaaner aad In an unorganised
aernnsr t s tha athsr area**.
Manaert * M eetablishsd and held
with one ftreup by aueh experimentsr-ehtld intaraatlon while
the athsr ffroup was hala* at a law level eaaalaar-ahlld
tntaraatloa*
Result* af tills study *hsved| (1) on alffni-
flaant difference la tha aaaant %t *x~l oratory and tangential
and stsreetypad thssmtia play baaaass af the ft rat variable,
with taeee snnentians (a) high level sxpsrlasnter-ehild
latoraatlan and orpsnised asterlal elicited lea*t stereotypes pre J sot Ions and (b) tangential reepon*** inareased
aere rsadlly with oerlods ef law level exeertaem er-eMid
intereetlans, la) aara organised play evoked by unerganlted
aatsrlai, (1) aere agfreeslon evident under high l*v*l
cxoerlaoatsr-ohlld interaction when present with orfranl*ad
aateriel, and <*) shorter a«fr*sston latency when experleeater lataraatad aore with tha s h i l s .
Ths fallowing year Robinson10 aaaplstsd ths fourth
study of ti»e lava series.
Hsr oh J estiva was ta rsveal the
*%!ie»beth f, robineor, *8ell ^lay as a function of
the Poll i-aailf Constellations In jUll^; %tAi.a«BTlt. Vol. 17,
3e. 3, issue af ^sateaber 19*»» p. W-HMl
fltftWKf Of BEiEa«38 aOKOBRNXlW mil,
function of the doll-family c o n s t e l l a t i o n .
PLAY
%
Th® oley n a t o r -
i e l s used Included, a family af a n i l s which portray sd tha
child** own f a a l l y and ft standardlsad a n l l ~ f a a l l y .
haaa*
t i o n s to the two d o l l f a n i l l e e were studied and th* fallotsl a t v&s concludedj 111 no sl&niflaant d&ffarenas was found
in the q u a l i t y or njuantltf af agmresslv* r a a a t l a n s , however,
it)
the children i d e n t i f i e d s o r t s a s t l y with t h e d a l l - f a a i i y
a o n s t e l l a t l o n which renrassntad t h e i r own family r a t h e r than
with the standard d a l l » f a e l l y -sat.
?hs wast siirnlfleant r e s u l t s of the Iowa doll play
s t u d l s * were th* sstabllshstsat of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y
f o r d o l l play a* a nrajaatlva ttnhntqae.
ftovaver,
i t anst
be kept in isind t h a t t h i s r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y -was
established u-son a vary a e l e a t i v * jtraup of sab J sat a,
?h®
a h l i d r e n n%®& l a tad Java stndle* attended tha *a»s
University ®\kp®mf iohool and possessed, l n t a l l e a t v a l
r e s e u r s e s above av*r*gt.
f a r t h s r reseafah with d o l l play
i* s t r o h f l y rseaa»an4ed In which a- anrs eAeejaate saaaie be
node of s a b j s s t s with varlaas anperienaas and eharentar*
iatiaa*
Following the laberatapv Stadias a t lows, wears, 1 *
H n t l * r and »ear* applied t h s d o l l play *sthod to one
" H a b e r t B. fteare, J&JB&>-9 •*ff*at of Father
Separation an fre'sdhaal Children** S a i l n * y ' A g r e s s i o n * .
i n M<M,Mmlmmm*
***• i*» *n. b, I sou* of Beasmber
1«W, r>, 31*-?* 1.
hundred ssnd twenty-*!* ,*r«*oh>ol onildr^n.
!
ilf of the
c h i l d ran ea.n* fro» hone* t«h®r® ?;h* f a t h e r W^R absent ano
t h e other half In which the f%Kh»r WHS present*
«h*
o b j e c t i v e of t h i s resaaroh W(* fe$ c o n t r a s t th® ©ffp#* u«cr
t h * d o l l \i«y reaoti'sn of th* children trt>® the f a t h e r nrasent no«ts with tbp&e of Ih* fathe*-*bsent ho*****
lie
following n»*ul^s u*r* renor #dj (l) boys?, coding fro»
hoae-s in which t h e i r f a t h e r was p r e s e n t , Manifested *nor»
general a g r e s s i o n and «or« afCffrassion s p s a i f l a a l l y toward
th* f a t h e r *nd boy d o l l s , (3) boy* displayed *or«r *g?rr*osion toward the f a t h e r d o l l ft* o n n a r e d to the a e t h e r del s,
(3) no s i g n i f i c a n t differences war* found botwaen tu« g i r l s
regard leaa of whathtr t h e i r father*
wore preaent i n t h e i r
howee or not,
r j p t l e r . ' l i i l l i r t * and *-**r*r~'(1 pret^at#d t a t proj e c t i v e doll -»l«v technique to eifshtv preaehoel o^ildran
(fnrty hoy« and forty s i r l * ) for one hour to sv<-ry ah ltd*
svaoh sub^rou-} ef eubjeat* we* f^cad with variable experimental conditions with referent©* to tne * yp* o?* etc wH^en'#rchild i n t e r s a t ! i n , d#gre# »f r e ^ l i * " of :ue / l a y as »**rluis,
duration of the ii<csf»ii<3R§# and decree of organisation of the
play -safcsrlalp.*
13
An a n a l y s i s of t h s boy«* and girl#*
t*ar**rat w, H n t l a r , jaJUsVL*. "Mx ^iff trances In
the Proj#otlv«? toll 1*1 ay of J Frsaahoal
Onlidren*, in
Stf? J.PWtoX,.df. ^XaftftAflaX*
o l . ? 1 » **. 1» isaue of
1
* * » v r y XPW, , 71-B' ,
OPhVr.Y Of K.?*^ftGr» G^HCrjiKt'^ POLL L^v
reaction** wa* HI de with tha following sax diff e ^ n e * * in
!>roJ^etiv# doll nlay »vid*ntj Cl) the ^irl-s raanlff»*t*d
roi»(! f«t-ereotyi3«d clay than the ooyss, (2) the bo?** s i g n i f i c a n t l y «urpa***d the s;irls in awount of n^nhunwn
th**a«ofclo r l e y , number of thaws oh^r ^*»a, and amount of
nont*ngential aggression, 111 no r*?li»bl© differences
between th«? seats* were r ^ v ^ l e d in th*» amount of ex <lora
t c r v and organisational ®e*ivity» s e l f then* 1 a ' l a y ,
nonstereotyped t h e ^ s t i e p i t y , tens-eat la I and tangential
pi**-- behaTior c r t»n#*ntisi ajwpreaeio \
<h) the boy*
showed r*e«[email protected]!r Intrarrroup v a r i a b i l i t y in frequency of
••hit various categoric* * (55 the d^ta s o i l sat ad could b#
i n l - a m r ^ e d In terms af a sex typing r*roee»e dependent
on s-jeiai learning s u r i n r early childhood.
Vnirtf children »%% to ten
JNHSW
of *f*,
includ-
ing twenty who*#i father w&a absent fro® the h#P# esd
twenty with t h e i r father ^rsraent at hoae* w-re engared
in the standardised »roj«#tlv«? tell nlay teehni rue by
hash.**
T&% children" so»ln$? fro« the father-absent hofsf
I d e n t i f i e d tha f a t h e r ftp an I d e a l i s t i c and fsi*inlne
phantasy f i r u ^ t &® onffwv'red to the o^ildr^n with t h e i r
^'f-eorr* &• "f «b, *^ftt;her-frtn"l ®lnr and /&th*rrfjroinijr in P»therwO* c r a t e d $!>!ldren*, i a *.hild
mang. Vol* 17, ho*. i-*# issue n* ?*ron-Junc Ida'ry
« , 'eTi-nn,
f a t h e r prsasnt a t heae, s*T)hsel*ln&* the f a t h e r ' s aggressive
trends.
±h* nature of t h s a s t e r n a l f a t h e r - t y o i n c appeared
to irfiuenaa t h e difference*
Xt I® i n t e r e s t i n g to n©t*#
th^t the da t a aollec'.od app^^ed t h e o r e t l s a l l y sound ®iim
i n t e r p r e t e d tram the fruatr&tion-aptraeaion hypothesis-*11*
ar»5 th* p r l n a i p l e * of *t»cial i » » i » | # * ene^rtiing to th*
author*
rr&atiaal ianl ion t i o n s *«r* discussed l a viov >*f
*ha fact t h a t fasstHe* ware tsafclaf readjustments with
father* r e t u r n i n g frc« the aerviae*
*he unreal i d o n t i -
f i a a t i ' j n of th« father which the f a t h e r separated c h i l d
fm& way be a Handicap i n t h s , n i t i a l *%tiges of the father*®
r e t u r n h-joe*
H»w«v#r, i t was pointed out that Shear
d i f f i c u l t i e s could he avoided by aw explanation to the
parents th* nature of the psychological f®m®% a c t i v e in
t h e i r shile:ran.
fhe author also discussed b r i e f l y the therapeutic
ir,->!l©*ti»n* of hie study bated up«n the pln w thereby
% o h « fiollfrrd J&jal*» £m$XmM&S^M^MM£XMMUB*
%nv : '-vsn, **l* ^ l ^ r s l t i f , W j a , )-2M p .
" * * * l K, Miller 1.3d John Dollar*, ftoajafr l ^ r n l n e ;
I, Hew haven, fela University, W , v i l - l h l ;•
•OXVIY Of hEBEAUtlll OaBCERKIMQ DOLL PLAT
OO
hypotheeie. 1 * palatine; out that phaataay aontrol can be a
aeet praetteal tool ta control peraonallty davelapaant.
17
A brief bat important a r t l o l s by Seare*' revealed
the nest saneltive arobleac faaed by tha doll play expert*
aen^er.
In raoortimr * nase history af a s i x ye-r old bay.
the anther eUeoeeted marital disharmony on ths basis of
th* ahild*a unusual t a l l Pier pJemataslss. but he explainedt
This war ef thi*JEin*r about the naninnlat l v e *Q*.Ivity of doll play la very seductive. It
e f f e r a an aaaa sesaae, a bind of psyeholerleel r
X-ray, Into the aetivatioaal eyatea* of rary youne;
shUSraa. and l a a l l tha field af hanan bshavior,
there l e no darter *avera aor* l a need af l l l a a l a a t l a a , But aooh as wa aay need new davioas
t»r enterlnff this great unkoown, we 11996 validatlon and abjeatlfiaatloa of aeasureaant nor*. *'w
tuah interpretations true* «a* t h i s ehlld really
aaaiat hi* reroute a* aald l e e l a t e a , prowling
separately end, dangsrously throufrh hi* glooay
l i f e * A ooesteat e f Ti*ebeaer*e saeaa auapleioualy
apti "Th* wish i s fathsr to ths thought, and ths
ejbtutfct Is bat a wish bsaaas doaaatie." the an~
blffaaas charaster ef children's play aaa be a
daaceraasly f e r t i l e etlaalae to the projection ef
aar own interpretative predilections.
These rm^m^M g*v fles© insight into one **>sslbls
^
area where factors aay bf falaely lntsrpreted s s s l a n i f leant elansa's in the motivational l i f e af the sub J eat.
I'o* K. ftagarsan, gUv tkmm
! •ftaeiflftttftfl*M«*
To*%, Oxford 3nlv*r*itj? *re**, W e , 1-66 p,
**neb*rt H. dear*, "Influence of Hsthedolepleel
factera aa Bali Flay Farferaanoe", In ghlUngitflataltol*
t e l . 18. ha. S. i s s u s ef wseenbar 1*47, p. lrv»197.
SEMVKv or MMbftGv otmom'^m oou. "LAT
ai
Sear* also revealed other condition* which tmy be
i n t e r p r e t e d one w»y but a c t u a l l y stay b* div* -co e n t i r e l y
o t h e r datarainaa^e.
*** s i a s a i f i a d th^sa »i%uftllaa* into
two aajor a e t s c o r i a e . !##>» ndtoate£mXM&
«nd M%i!l$;::XmiML'
the f i r e t category #«»o#rm«d f a a t a r a which a r e . controlled
by t h e axatr.iasr such a* t&e a a t e r i a l aad verbal rela#»re®nenta the examiner present a to tha s u b t e s t .
the experien-
t i a l factor* a r e tho*e which effect the e h l l d , th«*t i s
tha nethadalaa^laal variable* whlah have a t l u a l a t * d his*, th*
manner in which ha respond ad, -and the p r e t e n t i o n s he ?sanif*»«ted.
'tha.ee l a r g e r v a r i a b l e s are aoet a i ^ n l f l a a n t t o
t h e d o l l play i n v e s t i g a t o r ,
however, the iar*ortan©e of
t h e fsethodalafrlaal factar« i f »l*o aignif'iaaat*
In l i g h t
ef t h i * f e a t , &**r* reviewad and surveyed previous i a v e e t i ggatioae to- determine the effect pf ssethodolofioml e ^ a ^ a *
upon the orojeations of the oh l i d .
So deaaribed the vmn.&ua
wav* in which d o l l Pla,8? oarfoimanea has been related, t o ;
(%} recording and neasurlwf, f$> *a*tsrial», (3)
e*p*riffi'#nter*
child i n t e r a c t i o n * , *nd (**•) duration of session.
Oonoerning reaer&iag- »»d a*a*urini? he lUsausasd. the
four p r i n c i p l e as? hods w.niah have been fepr*ll^d up to %h®
p r e s e n t , tfa noint^dl out %h&t the »»-i#t of *'Jonn,
^ a n e b S. Conn, *"%* ^lay^lntarvlev* A &*thnd af
dsudyiar. Children 1 a *ttitudes"» In I l i i u ^ S ^ l M a J i a ^ m l ^
0i4saa.es of .miildesja. Tfll, 5#, - » , £, i«ou* of Pea eraser
l*3«» t * ,
lld«-l^l*.
Seapert, * and Earner and s urohy^'"' wa? vri'sa^ily concerned ^Ith
q u a l i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of ihe»a»»ia pl&v.
-"he ®«sond pro-
cedure dl»©u*g*«d w**s that of ,&*ik»o»** which e»ph*alE*ii the
m&nnev In which the c h i l d organised tee a & t e r i e l * ,
t h e t h i r d technique wa« the ©.finntltstlve
deelmed by &aeb &«# pnaviMieif mentioned,
mthiti
% i a lat,5- rTr
technique included ^syoholoffleai abatr&e^s #uah a*
agsrresaion-af feet ion, ©.nil *;an$f*nti*l, r a t h e r than ftp* ootanon
sense d e e e r l n t l e a * of behavior,
fh* fourth method, x-hat
which was developed by ^ l a t l e r and other* In th® Iowa s e r i e s ,
w*» e e e e n t i e l l y a ModifiertIon of ^aah 1 * teahai^ua bun with
^ . r t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t i a e mm??im% by "*srtX* r*!>Y>ll#d
duration sa«pl<n$r instead of vm u n i t recording,
wort* in
s t s t l s t i a a l r?rofel#p# wtr^ thus avoided* how^vsr ieseeniag
t h e relft^ive e e n * i t i v i t y of the ln*trum#nt soaawh^t.
* J . Louise 3s e->***, ** *nthid for the bendy of
Personality 'saotions in fr*«aheoi Au«d tin lid ren by Me^na
of £ n e l * s i s of Their l a y " , in IhfeifflMffiwU,,.ttC „fi&Y»M^U
Vol. "*# ho. 1# issue of January l a ^ o , n, 17-2P.
* " £ . kerne? and ><, H. '*urph*» "'Methods for "ho
8'udy of '*~*onality in Young Ohildrsn*, in J f e y r ^ P p a
for foalal ..fosrnjasli-ln fihllJa...flsJgnlannant. Vol. '«, "«o. ft,
i a s h s of 1^51, t?« 9,
** BrlH honburfor Sriiuon* " tttdl#s i n tha Inu*y -'rel a t i o n of "*layi T. ftllnieal Observation Of *lay £i*ru-'tioh
m vo*mx '-5hiidr*n*. in th*lfM|M, •^,glgtelp,£7:.,^mac:,^iiim.
tv*. ?8, *o, &» Issue of l*hn, 5J7-671 rs.
,Tvnvf.Y o r nwtp i^fjB VK''f£PirfTKfl
&->LL «",U»Y
*>3
In conclusion, •'**»<
' r« atatedl
There i t s t i l l # *ch to b* dona, l i s experiments '•hai. a*ve b*«> suw&rijtad? h$r& h^ve :*e*tlt v i t h
a i^rrow r%n* e of vsri* fe'on, 8%*-«ri««ls ca-. Var"* in
(waay ot*v>r dl.**-n»ion* **hon th/rn !* v ;lah *"* vu bssn
sttidisd; they o*« iodiuda l | f s « s1i * e d o l l * , fur
exr*saPle, or environnentHl #a<^* s covering * m«h
wi4er rsn*?e than the household. <or school set* in^e
t h a t h*.v* b # « reported here* Iho e x a a r i a e n t e r ehll*' relatione-hi** h»* b#tn barely touched; th*
vh^la f i e l d of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in yet vmaxp^ored,
and t h e r e i s no sound information ^bous the effect*
of d i f f e r e n t d t v i c t t f a r anxiety *aduatlon,
However, the variable* m f a r exarainad w i l l
a|tf In e s t a b l i s h i n g baneh mart* for »*tho/s thwt
can at; l o a a t ptrovltSs ao!*p*»rabl« data from m# exp**rl a e n t a l s i t u a t i o n to another, And If we «*r« event u a l l y to dliaovfr prneeduroe by which the a n p s r i e n t i a l representation can be i s o l a t e d and understood frost the shlld** p r o j s a t l v s p3ny» there b*.ale
Constanta wutt be provided.*®
these rawttiw are «to*t ift$|@*feive of t h e many
ohsllaitfi'as ahtad for the t a l e n t l e t ,
"ha oonwen' a ©onoera-
in*' th* f r o n t i e r * of I n t a r p ^%%%im revealed «met ela&rly
the necessity of a sound philosophy,
Th* s c i e n t i s t vhm
lfpor**- the nhiia«op&*r »«y r e a l i s e t'u.t v*i» Invest i$ a t i JWS
into the unknown eontlnue «o be unknown.
Maw*>wMWW"i'iita^itei*^iWMiiifieiiiM.ewii>a'
2
*n»**r« *.
a^rs, n-»» e l * . , n, X«P-xap.
I I . - Recent M^riNeo**! .Indies
i s aa attempt co o l s r i f y thaeri 1 * of a**i«in*li**oa isatinn, ^&eh «nd .Vewe***5^ ndninipeered *ft« stand* «**!* $
~>rejee:lve dnll play *eehnt«jfue to a jjrou" of twelve prt*
*>eyahop*thln» delinquent nhlVlran aeven to *en yea-** af
&##*
The father phantaalea af thsee ahildirea war* a*"****
pared with those ttt & dotttwl fiiwtc of %w«nty nornally
adjusted ahiloran,
n aast aseniniKful fan tare of t h i s study
1* th* fsot thpt tha doll play teahal'tun wn* applied to
children at the prlnary apt alaaantary *f«s$* level*
In
the oast, r- ssa*roh studies of Anil play aalnly seneernsd
children at the n*eaahaal «#«*
findings of thl* lavettljfailou w -r# indls<»tive of
slfnlflaant dlffer*nast In tha father -*h»ntani»* of "lit
two grouoe,
?he &d?ln<fitnnt sblldean aanlf*et*d ana* ionai
ftpathy toward the father* a* v a i l a* * Pliant axpsatation
of panlshnent*
-ha anther* aonsl qdad *-be study % d i e -
auaalnf t h e i r an^iriaal evidan** in * *rrs of *«•» r*. jjar
hypoth#it»* (a) "fne deJlnpusnt h** nor* than namal
aaoun'- of frns'-ratlon-indaaed, ngfT« n "ive driv* o^iffinally
dlroatad ««ain*t tha '•athsr, bat now nen<M*aliu,«wS fe,o a l l
. » « • » . i, i.
. . m n i M U M — » u HI. MWIImllii mm
Sear a *» *'aoh sndl 11 or la 'i-ener, '-'rojeativ*
FVher fan***i«*« of ''r*W'4el**sant
j^alin^uant Anil area*,
f
in M^^S^MtJMMmMm,*
9\, ?h, '1% i , l a m e of «*u1y
1 ^ 7 , o. 1-177
SUKVaV Of hs.P '10>J. d^'J.X"! 1 .' *• >I*L l.»V
^5
source* af a u t h o r i t y ; " owl (b) *'he d e l i notion* h& i deviant; ly wefiiS, &;t'siai,wi»i *n -?f pnnishwon', fan* '5efi**n«e af
social authority**
*>*irty-*,wo cp,iX'3ren, f»jtu**een ,'l>?'\r <* ^ «»lrhiofn
boys;, 4.v«r*a five throu^bi seven y* r « s t*«r» investigated a/
'®iBtj r 3 i ' to determine tha adjw«twent of ohil« ran *n - r e jected in s l a y performance,
.hi* i^^erlnent v»* not o n *
aldsred d e f i n i t i v e even ahan link art *»~IVa the findings of
Seeh, s,h">t the well adjusted o h i l d r e r in h i s d o l l " l a y
experiment nraduaed a a>ra*t*r nuabsr af thema'ls responaee
re$*rdles* of con'wnt,
" « l s t « r aentloned that in 3aeh*»
study the well adjusted ahildren w*rd ^» l*#oh her* oPtorvtr)
about four "-ontha older ahronolo^loally and 11.5 «a«*nth*
older a e n t a i l v , nor w<>r* h i e a r i f a r i * of adjust*ant teamed
upon p s y c h i a t r i c factors*
»tif &u*.hor f»s«&rl®td by
point low out that a d d i t i o n a l r**t© reh in n«e«d*d 5^ *'M„ l i f y
th* v^rr eoispiex- i n t * - r e l a t i ^n*hl? wfeich e x i s t s bir-wsen
edju^tw^nt and a a l a d j u a t a a n t .
* ] £). fteiatar, ' s d j n e t a e n t of Ohtldran as '"efl anted
in lav . e r f o m a n s s * . In .JlAAmMfhX. ,2jC rtBtttslft ,L«ffite1»aou
• e l . 7 3 , issue of aso-t saber lveB, t>. 1*1*155.
session* Knd H*wpon»*^ interviewed normal
mud # l r l *
POVM
a1? the nresehool l e v e l , <•.#*>* three, four and five v ^ r a
about, t h e i r oarenfc** nrefer^noe during frm
d o l l *oley,
pl»y ana tfurlnsr
The r^l i n b i l i t y of t'ft^ oP^ervers was n«arly
-i*^fest, tewpver, the e^Hdren** wnferenoo* shanked
O'snaldarabl'* wirhin two week.?,
^'h* -m^hers ehowad t h a t the
verbal r>r»ef#r#nee of the ehlldrep &$ittfm$ only $0f with the
une^n^etous orafarenas revealed during d o l l *lay,
their
find^nr* ®\m Indicated an a n t i t h e s i e to fth* Oadinus theory
when the *sr#>f*r#ne®!8 of the three yf***r old ehlld w-re
evident for the mrent of *ha <%&&* **x is>nd l i t t l e retires*ion
of v i l l i n ^ n e a * to smrry e i t h # r parent,
*%# ahildren eeleat*
ed ©0fthe*»«a for ©. re ,ii*untiooa ff*»d ^re-ferred f a t h e r s t o s»lay
*?«d re»d with, howswtr, not with evident r e l a t i o n s h i p to
t h e whole environment,
Th® s'o^t significant r e s u l t of t h i s
»*u*S"y opnr«erne "h^ temporal v a l i d i t y of doll nlay <-nd the
d o l l *>V" interview which l# a omhler* if nefehod r a t h e r
than *:he tepe af «s*t-rials use .
the pr<m®#n% rmmPoh
In vi.'*« of 'n*^* r e s u l t a,
has bean daalftned to he s p i l e d %©
o l d e r ahlldren (rlar, t#v*ia ai*d *i»thf* y#»,r» of ape) fend who
• r * to ^ P interviewed lmedi£*$l w following thai"* do**}
r»l*y* r a t h e r than <<wo w**v« 1. - o r .
•Hiimji Uiiif rtrmnm-'- •'TTT U IT I""'""'•*"'—••*- '"*•—
**R. B* Canons and '?. s. Astaopft, ''Parent ?'r*f*r*nc <*
in ounff Ohil-rsn 1 * D o l W U - Interviews**, in
2lX,^mml
aX TM9MA,M^MM&kXMMM^^^Z*
Vol. **•» - o , -% Issue
of ^s+a^er I t to, -. e-wQ**5o5.
v
$*are*fe rartorted the r e s u l t a of a research staff
ssudyine? the affeais* of f r u s t r a t i o n and anxiary on nhan*
t**y *sf§ra*sion.
Shi* etady revealed aeanlneful data
froa two fraaes of reference, -nasseiy t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and
the o l l n l e a l ,
^ro» the- th.eoretie.al point of view, ^h*mt«»5
was ahovo t o have actual, ainnlfiodno* uale** auor-o*ltlo»a
a r e w d e *h&& the nhanta-s? l i f e of * ehild doe* not funot l o n | o aoeard with law* establishaa" f o r o t h e r aepeots,
the d o l l nlay projeotlons provided an experimental
ffituation
wliieh a*n be nanipulated convenient!.-" for *;he
diseovery of the rafinssiettt of those law*,
%ie r e p o r t e r
pointed out -that the objentlve of experimental res**rah i s
the saae a* %im.t of any fi?jh®* seieoee, aastely to develop
•^•radiative aeourwoy l a attteeedent-^jaasequsat r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,
A review of data e e l l e e t e d by sjenbera of tha r«see;rah staff
e o o e e r a i w t h e anteoedant oonditlono of aa^ressiva pftran^sej
a l t o was s i r e n .
Hypo t h a t t e a l explanations were w*A® eon-
earnlnaj the o n a n t i t a t i v a r * l a t l o a « h i p e ,
froa t h e ^olnt of view of allwioal payeholoiry, the
prineinl^", of the anteae^ent-eensfNWent r e l a t i o n s h i p oould
he applied t o dia^uoala, tf"or example, the frequeney of
''®Rohert a, Hear*, " i n f e s t s of f r u s t r a t i o n and
anxiety on fantasy % # » a # l a t t * ,
,feii*jah,MlXtafffijM.,^laA
f?,ftl,TtfffilM! i„MkMUMM,3MXMsmMji^MmMim*
Aoril'lv^.
*araeat*r#
susvar or «,«*<**.<jb a«M^l$tG BOLL PLAY
k$
a s ^ r e s s i o n nan he recorded as v e i l as* the r*l< t l v a ;^orti~
e i p ^ t i o n of «:he various doll? u»*d in ^he n r o j e s t l o n of
ap?r«aalon.
Ueim' t h i s l n f a m * t i o n # th* o l i n i e l a n aould
determine? if a ohil^ w*r# w*r%*dly i«h.ihit'»-rf o r n o t , if
t h e expression of surras*Inn v«r® anxletv evo&ing to the
e h l l d , Identifiaati-»n of the ehlld with hi© o«rente, e t a .
^e*r* sunsiarised his* epe^eh bv am^ha*!*!?!?? two i n t e r e s t i n g
p o i n t s whioh ©an h* a miiad b* th* o i l n i e i a n t Cl) tn«
r e s u l t s India*ted that & e h l l d who »*«i#**«%« mote thewatia
agarreesion w&y be not only a highly f r u s t r a t e d a h i l d , but
a l s o a ehlld who ha* b#en the r e a l n i e n t of a a r e a t d**l
of ounlshaant f o r h i t soa*el$us h o a t i l i t i e * .
t h a t i* to
say, frequent d o l l nlay a g r e s s i o n oouid he tb<* r e s u l t of
p a r e n t a l e f f o r t * to ra&ne* Miarreseion,
t21 The »r%ed
frequencies i n whleh o a r e n t a l d o l l * w r e used i n &fwr*s*£lv*
aation indio^ted r»l«tlv«lv low ««*i#tv oonearnln^ ouniehs»*nt fi&m c r e a t e ,
tn oth^r word*, fh* ehild who deplete
the ad a l t d o l l * a* noet aflrpasslve o**uld be the ehlld wi;are
own pedant* a r e 1*** *»rirre*atv* with h i v .
In f he f l r > t of ? s e r i e s of ?,hr*<B a r t i c l e s , *Jwllw~
b e r r R«d Scarry ' published a mo** d e t a i l e d ^o^ount ©f' - wo of
^ ' ' l e a nor MollWh^rs* »nd ^ a r ^ n r s t ^.***r*'t *J3o«"a k nt©~
aedent* of dfrsjrasaian and 'ffeat* of f r u s t r a t i o n in *^11 " l e t * ,
in T^e ,fau*nal..af...tjoganmll'^g.. b l , I , r o . i , i s s u e of
January 1951• n . 3***3.
»>u*f*T o»
WIJM,
m:n iruc :.sM a ix>tL : u r
t h e experiment* aentinwad in the i^r^r'w r a ^ ^ r t .
'*oftf»r»t}np
**o ''are, th^ae Invrstl^Mtlon,!" - ***T>vl<- od v>o««e ''Ufv^stiv*
aluae t h a t W e s t * the t h e o r e t i c a l fvm& fcoi* I thin
**hieh a new em concerning th® ^nteo«d«»nt« of doll olay
^f^reacion oonld b© found.
Fifty-throe c h i l d r e n , ®g®& three to six ye^ra,
tttondin.T the lows* University " ree-oh^ol ver
of t \ i s ntudy,
*he ^Vu^a* p>
All of the children took f R r t ism four
f i f t e e n ninute d o l l play see«io« * within i n t e r v a l a ->f 'wo
**o five d*»ye.
*he standard d e l l
ilay amteris": w%* ua*d
*5.rsd the c h i l d beg** a the session with «- female e^ i erie i enter
with whos» he wa* actual sst&rt,
*"he child utmi than requested
*o KAke up a «tory about the fansIIv of d o l l s who )iv*d 1/.
*;h^ houaa, **od he v** frtvaa aosurawoe that fo<r could »n.,tw
"he® do anything ha wmnt#$ t h * tto do,
ohIlrt*a Coll
H record <**" th®
n
.l*sy a c t i v i t y w«*§ kept by MI observer o^ft-
oesl«d b#h*nd a one-way «*orear»*
the study c of bin ad tvii exi>trla ant*, each managed
by a d l f f a r e tt ©xr**ri:te< t e r .
oarc
*he f i r a t « p e r i w e n t t;o$-
She effects of ^verl"^^**!!;? Induen-o punie^ a r t
**-r< -)rr»laalvon*"-((?.
IW^ty-utr*'*" >f thfe cnil^ren wtere
uae£, diviae* 1 i n t o iws eub-grou'e * nJ r*;!f«rre<s tic r®t&peotiv l y '-a tha ^xoerimentally *unlahed *ro»p(nv*.> arl*!*,
six boya) and th"? Qantral $roup {five g i r l a, aawen ho«a),
Oonoerning th® f i r a t ^roup, th** "unlehment wr.? i n t r o duced If th*-"? see ?nd psasiin unty, v'tt th c v.elsted )f **
verb*! disapproval of ««oh -"ijatp-refl^lva c o t ; for e x m n l e , i f
t h e child kicked the baby d e l l , the experimenter s a i d ,
a
^o,
John, don't 1 "fan *<nm t h s t nio® b'ays srhoy'ldn't do « thirst
l i k e t h a t J* h hl|fh l e v a l of oarwtsalvenase was oha.naof.erl « t l o of tha o t h t r three a»»«Icna of t.\is p*raun.
A H tty-xr
sessions for the Qontrol fjroup [email protected]«? ©xn^sd und#r e o n d i t l a m
of hi&h s e r a i s ®lv©n<§a»,
Thirtv c h l l d r # s took -$&r% in t h s »#oond experiment,
with four session* s i n i l s r to thoaa of t h e Control grour*
In the **bov« ^sr^tyiment, that la nerwisalve,
frustration
and punlshmant for aggression w®r«& two factor* obtained
fro© the home experience*? of th$#a children by interviewing t h e i r a o t h e r t with reaoaot to the children** t r a i n i n g .
Hating scale* war© developed on wfiloh ®t*%ndard scores f o r
a sin$f1a unit of ho©# Intarfarano® could be made,
t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of tha interview r a t i n g * accord infr
to the "woduat-momeftt c o r r e l a t i o n between two independent
r a t t r s ~mm®$ f:«om 0.57 to P.?fl> ®n the one-half a down
frustration soales,
^n th® ouni stoma nt scale the corral<•>-
t i o n between the two aoore* wn* found to be ft,71*
^e«*ult* of t'^is carefully t-V>n.«#d Inveatitf'-'tifm
were diaouased within «* t h e o r e t i c ^ ttwa* worft waioh *n»oloya the c o n s t r u c t s end as»umotiona of frutstrati moroduoad d r i v e , coftfliOt-rTroduoed d r i v e , «s Simula*
pre^er^li^a^lcn ®n& reduction of wnxiety*
f
llw authors'
abwrr-' OF m«»ACfe oojcogBtmia oou. H * Y
51
conclusions ware a* followss CD UMldran who a r e seversly
frus,"ra*'»d by t h e i r a n t h e r s at huts tend to P* t a r e
affarefielv-* In d o l l wlay than c h i l d r e n who mr# mildly f r u s trated,
Mhan t h e affaats of home punishment «*i taken
into Account, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p ebovs up mor^ ela»r} / .
Ct) ihliAren who ^^e hlat&l? punt shad for aArrassi^n at
hone tsnd to be a a » »WP**«#«iv# in t o l l nlay than sblle'rea
who ar« mildly va>*isned«
I i ) Children who ape «sv>*r|*tantally
punished for t o l l nlay afff^saaloa *r# elffnlfieantlr
l**s
afi?r«»tiive i n d o l l >lay thsn nonaunlshed ehildren*
ik)
ftnder
eonditlon* of *e«atsstv* doll nlay, th^ra i s a slernlf leant
Iners&e* In asyreaston from the f i r s t to the l a s t session,
Xn one of tha few studlaa employing a doll nifty
technique t o i n v e s t i g a t e de^alnpnnnt of difference*? between
r a c i a l e^rao*, Aaron*** ^re#«nt#d tm whin a have, a r e two,
t h r e e , few*. ®M f i v e , with a aadlfled d o l l play technique
whieh he r e f e r s t o as *,ha doll plmv Interview,
"eotreinr
t o the author* s t a t i s t i c a l analyjtis of the *eta a a l l e e t e d
ravsaled the r e l i a b i l i t y of tha washed employed.
Of
i n t e r e s t to our «tud^ la tha fact th«t feW of t a t vhole
* * ; . t , A«mona, " f ^ c t i ^ n ® In a r a j a s t i v e i ^ n flay Interview of b o l t s hales '-an to .an Y**«r#s of «.- a to
Difference* in %ln >»lor &n<* tfnaWl *• *ur*^ f In JJfcyi
I^IIMi^- 9X^M^MJ,M:mMlM&
Y*l. 76, lesue of J ana
^.UBVaY Off H&diVvrOli Cu.*C- ri'-'lKfl DOLL L*V
52
group of c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d akin © d o r *nd C<tei< 1 d i f f e r ences between t h * dollfi.
"*V:> it
the two yevtr o l d s ' nrt f l v *
of t h e t h r e e y e a r olds wore a b l e «o reco^ni<se t h e r^el&l
o h a r a o t a r i e t l o s of til a d o l l * .
*he a u t n o r i>olnt«»d ^u'
•'hit
h i e fin<*infcs *»6 t h s l r i a p l i e a t i o n * a^'waprd t a «u*ns©rt
tha following conclusions;
2.
he c o r d i n g and s c o r i n g r e l i a b i l i t i e s a* h<&r?
r e p o r t e d «eeta s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h to w a r r a n t $roup r e t e ^ r o h
fend i n d i v i d u a l c l i n i c a l p r o b i n s uain«5 th*- d o l l
A
-l«y i n t e r -
view.
2.
Flaaganf -slav c o n t a c t a with $ e « r o c h i l d r e n
should '^rob b l y be provided i n Hhe f i r a t few yo&rs* jf
life,
ninae v i s u a l c o n t a c t * ar® o f t e n land* under r e l a t i v e l y
u n d e s i r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , th*? piny c >atacta r>ifrht v i l l he*
&z*rHn& d t a t a k e p l « c # In ft f a / a i l i ^ r , rea*aurii»? e n v i r o n ment,
'*hla l a n a r t i e u l a r l y ir*noj»tant i n view of t q e f o? •*
t h a t four of t h e 10 5 - ? d a r o l d s a l r e a d y evidenced o l e o r , - a u t
n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s toward t h e Kerro d o l l , «nd th*.t the,-^
wa» d e f i n i t e avider»oe of a tendency t o seepage a t « t t h e
** aad 5 - y e ^ r l e v e l s ,
3,
*?h* I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ~>f r«o© - r a j ' * l i c e "tost <;in-
s i s t e n t w i t h t h e pr®mnl
finding-* i i a* f o l l o w s :
vhl^r-n
In ^ny group c*n <*,nd do d i s c r l a j i n a t ^ bet*v*«-rt o t h e r u i . l U r . n
•>n t h e baa la of akin c o l o r a t X#g'*t ^e e&rtv &-' t v a y^ rof a* ®*
To t h e «&®nt ti*nt they a r e I n s e c u r e , t,V* **'lll b*
ready f o r tieft&tiva ac^ss «,'?nln«it uhlldr*- J t \ - t . n r e *dlffc * -*. *
Decreeaing the dafree of prejudice w i l l favv^nft on daoreagIr.s? I n s e c u r i t i e s .
Prejudice w i l l nrobf.bly alway« dcvelo-s
where some individual* in •* group are perceptibly
different
frow o t h e r s &n& t h e r e lis sow* insecurity o r tension.
&.
5ha f i r s t interview «te#^ion can probably b«§
j u s t as ndaCiU&t® as the eeoond for c l i n i o n l *nd research
nurpoeas.
There la thus no d i r e c t need f o r raneatad
sessions with the fj&tst questions,
To reduce refusals to
anaver, question* should be p.»ut In the t®r<® of
raesnlnfiful
concrete a l t e r n a t i v e * betw# n which the child I s a eked to
ohcose.
Affect-loaded questions work out well*
5.
Xn view of th® wi t h i n - s e s s i o n #nd i n t e r s easier*
cc i s l e t ancle* of response© na well --a on th® b%ais of
q u a l i t a t i v e observation a of behavior during- int«>rvi#winft,
i t i s f e l t t h a t th® de&rea of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ^nd emotional
involvamont of t h e child In ths? i n t a r v i t w e l t u a t l o n wae*
here and c«o be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y high for c l i n i c a l snd
research ruirooaes.
The rsajorlty of t h e earperiaentn described thus
f a r h#ve been p r i n c i p a l l y concerned with tha development
of Q u a n t i t a t i v e method* invest I ^Unifr, the i n t a r motion
between ear|,>erl*»anfc^>5> ;tnd o h i l ^ , -'uratlon of each 'OUp.y
sassi*)., and t h e type* of w a t - r l ^ l a uaad,
Thoaa atudiea
h«V" a -'ntributssd ^uoh ^o the understanding of the inn«r
•"»otives of ohi-dran,
Bf studying the v.ra-aohool c h i V
they r»r>r«M<?«t e f f o r t s to b*<prin p>t tha formltlv* yea re
in * i?o st l o g i c a l manner,
the sssthods employ ad, a r e attempt*."*
t o be e n t i r e l y eaparissentai r&thtr than o l i n i c l .
.-non
methods have c e r t a i n l y &ided lames surahl'? to bring th®
f r o n t i e r of social aolenct nearer the t r u t h ,
However, fros tha vl#¥ point: of p r i n c i p l e * , there
a r e numerous object long t h a t mm b# made to tha i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th» r e s u l t s obtained In ««ny «f the previous doll
nl«y - t u d i r s .
the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s wtr# p r i a a r l l y based
u~on ^syono^nalytie hypothesas or learning thaorlast In uhluh
raa«cn and w i l l *er« i^nore'5.
In other words, a c h i l d if
nothing mora than an animal with a higher degree of i n t e l l i gence.
Unfortunately, th* finding* of several of the prt>*vi 'us d o l l play *xr>eriasnts w*r« not rserely d e s c r i p t i o n s rjf
tna loner motivational system* of c h i l d r e n , t h a t i s to » y »
the thaoretic&l fraae work from wtslch the i n t e r p r e t a t l o n s
war*- s»gfede were not aethods of payahoioirv or * s c i e n t i f i c
ennroaah, they appeared to b# a philosophy of U f a , wr*lcb
I« in i t * prlnolTtl'Ss, a a t e r l a l l « t i c *
•** ha* been pointed
out by aetaphyalelan* fron the t i n e of A r i s t o t l e to the
n r e s e n t , these ohllosophle* a r e unsound for a l l p r a c t i c a l
nnd moral purpose**
However, returning tr> mr e a r l i e r comment*? * i , e .
evaluation of q u a n t i t a t i v e doll pl**y frow tha methodol o ^ i c a l 00lot of view, i t ia &#f ini*. s i r empirical nnd
scientific.
' o-^ful
wr.n!,r.t;l'vi w i n ,0 .i.-» reveal t h a t
SUHY&V
:,t
R,,^«RCH CONG
w ica u>ii 'i.
t h e s e studies are pa m l 1*1 to th* t r a d i t i o n of ^rl^af-i**
end Than, s A<julna« insofar ^«s t h e i r method l a onocrnaf".
Like any other sr**thod of a t r u e science, oowvitnblli*;"
with s»ound PhlXoecphiCftl ^ r i n c i ^ i a * war* #vid**rtt»
f o r aitam^lm, Aquinas c l e a r l y foresaw the r^U e *f
the parents in the hor.e ' l s hnp since beon revealed by
experimental doll 'VUy when h© said*
A* «ust obsarve th%t, in the humn -pool**,
t h e offspring needs not only nourishment for it»?
bodv, e* with other animals, but a l t o i n s t r u c t i o n
f o r i t s soul, for other enlwate have t h e i r n*.*urVl
forethought ( i n s t i n c t s ) which enable* then to p r o vide f o r thea«elvea, whereas wan l i v e ^ py reason,
which can a t t a i n to forethought {rational i n s i g h t P )
only *-fter long experience} to t h a t children na^d
to be i n s t r u c t e d by t h e i r parents who are experienced* Moreover, ohildran a r e not capable of t h i s
i n s t r u c t i o n $«* soon * * they ar»? born, but only ^ f t e r
a loner t i n e , and es^eelplly when they reach the ®$ra
of d i s c r e t i o n * Beside*, t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e s
e longr t i n e , And even then, on account of t h e
a s a e u l t * of the pa*si~>n« ^fe^r^by tha Jud|p$*nt af
nrudane* i* perverted, they nead no** onlv I n s t r u c t i o n but c o r r r o t l o n . ^ow a voswin 1* i n s u f f i c i e n t
f o r the** t h i n f s ; in fact there i * for*? ntt*<ft f o r a
man for such t h i n g s , for h i s reason Is *«ore perfect
f o r i n s t r u c t i o n , and h i * &rw i* etmnfisar for nuniah•nen*-. Consequently v «hort ap^ce of tiw^, ouch ^»
auffloee for b i r d s , i« net s u f f i c i e n t for t a n . . , .
I t Is n^tur-! In thu* hunan rac# t h a t the r»n should
hav* not a s h o r t - l i v e * but a l e s t i n f fellnwshio
with a d e f i n i t e voiwaal and t h l * fellow^S.-* i e called
n e t r i a o n v , therefore 8 aatrlaony i s n a t u r a1 l to m a n , . , .
If *~h** f a t h e r ' s ofir*** for hlA ton onuse* , ev--n *.n ;«r
b i r d s , tha a watt mad fellowship of mala «n« fe^nlig,
t h e natural order defwinds th*t In the hurwn r / e oi^a the f a t h e r and
a e t h e r should rennln togath -r t o
the end of l l f e . ^ 9
2
Rjon*.r*6 Sent l i f e , -^kjok 111, G h ^ t e r * I. 9 ' 5 , 1*1,
OH*FT<'A I I I
i
Aes^rdln- ^
*elV r l a
i;* n-td w i l l ;*rob'bl-, [email protected]
anln t o b# the s^ott effeotlve p r o j e c t i v e technique d e n i z e d
tn etudy the "erao^Mlt* ">f children*
the l*&v*.$ttv?tl/m if
**er«omlit-• wi^h ",1&/ h«^ been divided i n t o *wo flrrcnna, the
aliniott-1 »nd the anparlnental.
?ha c l i n i c a l t*ahr<I;ua i&
t h a t method in which tha abstainer la f«or# inte~"»*s'**d in de«c r i b l n r the oh^rsicteriflrtics of the
M
lay *n^ t h e i r r-~Vtian-
shi^ %3 t h s child** behavior. '%ile ^» the ot:har hand,
he
ss^sriascnisl teah^isue I t an attempt to Investisy^r r>l-:" in
& s&nner in which i t nay b e as^leyed a t • proJestive t e e h Fiicu*.
nan**; the aany play t»efcinlquae i s d o l l p l a y , which
ha* baen used tm% both the a l i m a a l and t&e experimental
view*.
Rpwcver, i i n c t the l a t t e r point of view i s t a *
p r i a a r y concern of thin research, i t I s our --urpoe* a" t n i s
t i » e t o eostp&re one of the staadardlfatl-ma of oroj»etlv*
d o l l nlay with our own modified p r e j a s t i v e d o l l play t e c h nique,
A* recent a* 1905, tha f i r a t of four e n o l r l e a l
s t a d i a * on p r o j e c t i v e d o l l play was e m u l a t e d *t the Iowa
Ohlld '"«**» rah tH&tl^n tmder the d i r e c t l > n of ''a^ra.
MOW—WIIII
IMWMMWW—mtmmtm>
l
J a h n r 1 ^erkin % n , _?jEftlea.ti.v.* '•'.oahniiu.e*, *
t.ongnans,
fl
reen, 19a% *%.3a7-a«7#
A SOU, PLAY MaWtoO fOI\ U,0UL H ^ W
57
This study was designed and ©"ovale^ed. by Ffcaeb and w«,a
b r i e f l y described in the oreoedini? ahanter of tnin re«i<? ?*ch„
At t h i s t i a o I t i a our num^ae to dlaou** the Xo*«a itndy
*tore thorough!v froa the following «olnta of view; (X) theory,
(a> ohjaotlvaa, O ) a a t a r l a i e used, (a) * el eat ion of subJoe**,
i$) r a l l a b i U t y , C$) v a l l d i t v , tad (7) procedure In #eoe«r „
tnterwovan i n t o t h i s d e t a i l e d disaueslon w i l l he a d*««ni""w
t i o n of tha modified
ftroj#otlv«
d o l l **lay teshntcne which
ne* bean daai^nad f o r tha etudy of r**@i*i jerouns,
T„- "heory
tn order to 'tf**$«r*tand aors fully the ^ h « r v bnftind
standardised -srojeo^iva i s 11 ^ l * t , ft b r i e f rnview of tha
thaor* of projective teooniw** In «~« ra\ f o l i o J*M*
* di#tin©tlv» t h e o r e t i c * I <tls«u*»i«n of
»roJ#esIwe
techniques w«* m#de by ?2*«§«k»^ lo s*i* *-wra* but *o?st
Its^nrtan** b$o&, tha »uthor f'escribed the
j e c t ve toohnisue* in f i v e seotinna.
tir;'' Jr '# *f - r e -
?h* f i r a t gh e t i o n
d e a l t with th® inorea®* use of *»roje«tive teohni pae* and
the sntecedant foundation* uoon which they him b u i l t ,
in *mmim*m**mm>W i'.»
I.IIWH H'IMW^MWW—MMM..
"CJaarue &, ft*ah# """oupf Children*a ' l a v H ' n T * s i * a \
S the Tavaholftgleal .Vonar.ra'aha. Vol. 5», " - . ^ Issue of
1**5* 111-6* p .
w
Lawrsnaa >"<, ^S*A«5, .jjga^sa.tl.v.a Katiapd*. ?Win#-floM,
Shona*, 19*3, V-S6 n.
A
gout ;v> v ?rc>*>vj Frn
HA^;AL
m<) ?^
58
The second s e a t i a n d»^arlb»d prm®n* day a»ncep?'ljme and
nethenelnfria* of t h e nhyataal salensa* a* i l l us ".retina.
t h e a^w^tr-h*^* into which n r a j e o t i v e ^Bvoholoar^ enter**
l b * t h i r d sootion dleausasd d i f f e r e n t nataoda In t h a
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of n a r a a n a l l t y ,
'She fourth s t a t i o n r^vi©w^«
f
rvrojaatlva a e t h e r s and tha five tvpea i n nn*t today*
h#
f i n a l s t a t i o n outlin-ad tha standard* f o r daternlninft tha
r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of fsrojtotlw* tanhnleuee*
Anoar
t h e f i v e v a r i e t i e s of n r o j e a t l v e technique*, d o l l >>l&y i s
c l a s s i f i e d a<? an I n t e r p r e t i v e nethad.
This i n t # r p r t t l v «
wethod Include* n a t s r l a l s wMnh ftre preesatedi t o t h e
subject i n such a way t h a t he way r e a c t e r e e t i v a . y r e veal i n r h i s fttftdaaentsl idea*, a t t r i b u t i o n s , aad a f f e n t l v a
state,
Aeoa**inff to fmrto,
tha aubjtot w»y p r o j e c t h l a
wishes f o r the f u t u r e , o r ho any -irojeat h i e evaaions of
t-he neat*
I n t a r p r t i v e methods, r^wever, «&y be ftla^ c o n s t i t u t i v e o r aonstruatlve anthods, l , s . » when tha sub J eat I s
required t » srivs I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s to h i s i*rejeatlan*.
It
i s in t h i s reapeat ihm ons ->t th* eany v » r l a t l ^ n s has bean
wads in tha modified <Jall play technique ahlah i s to be
d**»erib<ia l***r in th* section on validi'-y in t h i s chft^t<%r.
A aou. pur KriTiioD /JI; fuui/c. ^lows
*» ssora r«o#nt publication
59
aiao dioeoribed in a
gjeaerfkl » ^ the theory of --rejection.
Xt i t upon t h i s b*olr-
ground th*t the isajority yf projective d o l l nlay technique*
&r« founded.
^ e a i f i O A l i y , th* fundaata^al th#ory of %U«s
standardised p r e j e a t i v s d o l l play technique i s t h a t tha
child i t allowed t o a r a j e a t h i t eansnpts ane faeiiaav Ind i r e c t l y l a t a the Material m i a a l a present ad to n'tn*
'•'he
underlying t h a a r l e s a r e t a * t tha c h i l d aay not be an t a r *
s&oujfh in speech to describe h i * inner a c t i v a t i o n s or the
d e s c r i p t i o n of the®* *»otiv«tion* aay produce anxieties?
which the child 1* uaabls to master.
I t i s on ths^a theorise
p r i n c i p a l l y that tha standardise*: p r o j e a t l v e d a l l ~»lay l a
based.
Xnmofar a t theory of the astfeed i® concerned, t h e r e
I s no v a r i a t i o n between tha e land* r a l a aa* p r a j e o t l v e d o l l
ol&y teahnisiuo and the aaftlflsd a r a j n a t i v o d o l l play t#ahni^ut*
I I . - Objective*
The itftn$*,r«d;li?«d ?roJ«tlv«* d e l l play technique was
an rttesrvt to eohlt-ve tha following three cbjeotlvea; <11 to.
develop q u a n t i t a t i v e t«ahni<tsaa f o r the siudy of asroerla*>ntaily indues* phantasies of prasahoal age children*
III
ILII,
ll II H
.HI IIWH. in H . I l i m u i l l l H I
&
U,wr#no# K Ant and Leopold Bel talc, *SdHt«re , #
•imfltwttm um®ym.»* UUM^4mm&®km,M fito;ca»X
P a r a a a a l i t r . Kan Yarn, Knopf, 195$, n« 11-&&.
a mU* t*I**V MWi'iWy «>I hAQX*L <*HwU.'i.
60
<t> to contribute to tha f e a s i b i l i t y of oredlatln)?; aotual
social beh*«.vior fron a l i n l a a l Mea*«uraaants **f thaue phantaa l e s , and (3) to f«l*aov=*r mum of the v s ' l ^ * *» sh^t Be*** to
be cs* sally related to different type* of ehantaay r*n^oft»^6.
Tn* modified nra J estiva doll play jeahnlsue w?»*
alee *a «ttesjpt to &«hl**<§ three ©bj<i©tlv»e,
oursmaaa mrled ©on*I«S«r»Ply,
u^w*var# she
Vh* f i r a t objaatlva v**w* an
attetrot to daai^u an* atandardlaa ** nfaJeat&vc doll ,,laj
technique wuiah could be ua®<'. to Inveetlgaie th® faaily
phaotaaies of 'Segro arlarary anhaol ahildraa.
'•he eseand
objaatlva was an attdftot to deeifm «n« standardise &
~>roJ«etiv* doll nlay tnahnlan* whlei. could [email protected] used to invest l f a t a the family tdaaataelna of white rsriafepf sahaai children.
the third objective vaa an attaaot to i s o l a t e . If naasibtr,
aevnhalanleal faatnr* anlaa aay anairiant* to tha dsvaloj:*
»en$ of the ahildrsn** vsnintaelee*
insofar as general objeat&v * were nana«rned, tha
two teahnidue* «»*r® a l a i l a r ainaa both w«r« orlaarlly «iaaicaed a* reasarah laatruftants, with pmetiani i n n l i n ^ **>».
I I I . - Hattrials Us**
The plav rfaiarlsls »vail*»,»l« far tho stanzardised
projeatlv* d i l l May ttshnlou* v#r« a roofl^t® doll aohnMhausa, two tanahar a n i l * and six prasaho^l children d a l l e .
fh» doll sahoolhQUAS v*« * 21* x J^4 apodal of tha University
A BOLL PLAY Mf^HOD f >w il OI^L m r ^ ' S
dl
of lava nresaho'Vt, nnlnf w a l l aneufth so that tha ahildren
would no*- b#oofse t i r e d when n a n i - n l a * ! ^ tha doll* throughout tha hon&a.
This oreichool s»od«t
W**P
fumiahed In aoao-^ with
the actual preschool with rssnaat t o n e l o m nf tha f u r n i t u r e «nd tha rocms.
fhe two teacher d o l l * <%nd elv wre-
aahool d o l l s we-^e t i n y anaueh t h a t the aMid aauid want ,u l a t a thai© fro® roc® t o roam,
t h e author a** no«t «*nai-
t i v a to the 4an*a w * af lanlne; the a n i i a r a n ' s a t t e n t i o n In
spacious * a t e r i a l { t h a r e f e r e , th® a n s t l •nhaolheude and
r e l a t i v e l y aanll d o l l s .
% t l # o& the o t h e r hmnd, the isodifiad ^rojea*iv*
d o l l play technique aoneleted of tha fnilantiw a a i e r i a l s ;
a f o i l hous* and two f a n n i e s of dalle*
,J
h* aadlflad doll
r*lity hou^e w&a & a l n l a t u r a rao4al feoae <ia* * 35*) v i t a sin
rooms, I . e . , & l i v i n g rooift, dinlnf roa®, two nsdroort**
*itah*n t ©athrooa. with a s a n l l h a l l and &}mm& (s^e ^i^ure
I on following ao<r*).
?h# furniture wn* fastened t o *h*
f l o o r with p l a s t l o f l u e m& n a i l s In ardar to p r o h i b i t
a a n l o u l a t i v e construction jpley $nd to eaasum^n ;>l»v with
the d o l l s proper, tana a l i a I t i n ? aoeial nhanrafl.**,
~*eh
of th* roans *** varnished in a natural f i n i s h *««d v»s
f u m i i h t d with dime s t o r t f u r n l t u r s , with tha e*eeption of
t h e bef# which ««** oonttructod to th* spaalfled t l s e *
.mt
far 11 v of d o l l * we* aade t» reasable * •'row* af white r« t *enta
A SOLL ? U f MnTHOu" ©CH HACJXAL ' nWA
62
with ^vo children, b*4«? \ni% fron vhlta t^rn with Vowr»
hair*
' h e f a t h e r doll w>n 5? w .
,L
h« -^jther dPil at nod 5"',
i^nd *h* hoy and ( f i n d o l l ware apnroK inanely h ' in h e i g h t ,
?ha faces «n • a* t rase t i e * nf th* whit.® d e l l s were «UIte
yam and th* h s i r was brown*
Vha *w>n<8 family aon§t*t<?d of
four d o l l * I d e n t i c a l i n dissension* *n$ dr#tfe*
J&swev*r» ftala
family WA* a&de of brown yarn ?in4 blaoH h ^ i r to da^lot a
*'e|tro family.
Stetsiht f a ' a l l i a s , th* white fend the i*efr© dollri,
apoesred t r u e to l i f e from wearing aooarel to p i ^ e n t o - t l T * ,
t h e d o l l clothes were s i a i l a r to preeant day fashions,
n e i t h e r too oonatnmtiva. nor flsabayant*
Ail ?f the doll®
ware constructed of f l e x i b l e material with shoe* of molded
l e e * ss thr*t they could be e-i«ily »ani"&ulst*d to assun* any
desired position.
I f . - deleation ©f Axbjeats
"•he subject* selected for the standardised proj e c t i v e doll -lay *,«ahn|qu# war® t h i r t y - f i v e normal c h i l dren of ?r'-s«hool %m$ **Ho a&tendsfi c l a s s e s i n the Preschool Iowa, Child Vaif#re J'-*#o#>rob ^ t a t t o o . The children
-^o a sensed above average i n t e l l i g e n c e and caifie from b e t t e r
than average socioeconomic ^ctegfound*.
lh* #ppouv WH*
r e l ^ ' l v a l y honogsnoua Insofar as t h e i r sahool esr-erlenae*
w«re concerned,
That 1® to aay, the children v^rliHi
l e a s b*oau«# t h e i r educational environment *mm e s s e n t i a l l y
A DOLL fUY MSTHOD FOR HaUlAL OHOUJ'8
T
31
I
B
P
~
22„
h
1
i*
figure 1.- "Ian* &nd dimensions of ?.ha doll houso
used in thia research.
l e e * varied than that of t h e i r h-owen.
>n Khin baala,
diffarenaae at»onr e&eh child iwer# w r * **»ail
interpreted
when thev nrojsated nh#ina#>i<sis conoarniar fohool l l f « ,
Tfee »uthor ppiutad out thm«i the-'* c n d i ^ l c n e ,
i«g the
fe.©t ttiat tha lows, ftahooi * i wall oriented taw»?d •v*?®m,*&i »
orearoted' th* s e l e c t i o n of chants ale* ©rmeerwlnr ,j,ah3»>l l i f t
r a t h e r than the boa**
H,3wav#r, the easweinen a l s a painted out that what
had been aaauaed eoaaarnlan aahool phantasies did no*
i a u l y t h a t the??* ohantaslsa were braufht on by sahaol
experience* e n t i r e l y ,
% c i t e d evidence t o show hew '-he
reaction* of praaahool children mm
t h e i r haaa environment,
a l t o a«a»©iate-$ with
Vhe author ©baarved the f a s t t h a t
•orojeatioaa of sahool ll**« nay s l a o d a H a t determinants
found in nata aatiaal m§ nan*,
t h u s , tha v a l i d a t i o n of d o l l
©lav uses increased a® an Instrument t o mmmv® rteraansllty*
i n e n l t e of the faat t h a t eestpieititle* soneernlng I n t e r *
p r e t a t i o n may be increased,
The eeavplste amarlnan*a of th* Imm, i>tndv inalndad
f i f t y - f i v e children whose aire* rnaffsd f » «
months t o *i#ty-four nentus.
thirty-four
Fifteen ">t the children w<??r«
snasslaed n*r|s8#snily ta determine «»th-5dotory of th* r**snrah.
The o t h e r ahll' 1 ran re** use* in M, standardised wuy a f t e r the
a e t h e r * had
can establish*** tfow-*ver# f i v e *f sh* children
wert un#<bl# to f i n i s h tha aar-veflwent* baanase they ^uvsd fo
A BOLL l LA1/" Kr.a'n\h, FOh iU.Ol^J, '»,. UJ i*
6j>
another c i t y , ttiua leaving t h i r t y - f i v e children u o n -whoa;
t h a finding* ware reported In the m >nof m.'in.
"h* subgroups
of t h i s t h i r t y « f l v * included t r e a t y younmar oreeahool c h i l dren, who wore tamed &rou ' 211 by Un» feuthor* and t*h*
regaining f i f t e e n were eh® older children u&il©^ >r->4|i IV,
Sraup I I I a s t i n «h* storaiag and ["*mwj> X? in the Hftsrno-uij!
however, a l l a c t In the a»a* b u i l d i n g , Although k&ey had
d i f f e r e n t teaahara*
-wo of the bwMS tanahera *ad two
&a;il»t&nss took &>&rt in tha i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
*&>&\® & in
Ohaotcr III
«hrons>lol*ienl
of the ssonofp*^'*, §iv$» the
P©X»
a^e, >t4*nf»rd-Mnet »«»'&! &ne# 1, .», Swiitb*«illi*i»a
Yaaabulary- »ast ®o^i*«a, phtn%fo$y e&ill ratin^e* ftnd
father* 1 ©octtpatiaa* of too •shirty-five children &«tl<soi©&
for the experinenfc*
?be modified p r o j e c t i v e d o l l play experlaea* ba*&n
with eevesty-four ahlldran ran«llng in &$a from i*v<tnty*thr##
month* to 120 aonths*
In t h i s group ten aubjaots were used
t o determine tha r e l i a b i l i t y and various other aethodolof teal
probleaa.
However, thn f i n a l analrsee wore b&»»:i upon tha
ahantaaiaa of t h i r t y nnM Area of th® fla^ro r a c e , and t h i r t y
whit* c h i l d r e n .
i e m i @ af larKjja &*i& differences found In
d o l l phantasies bf ^ i n t l a r a . h i l l i p s and !»aara»^ f u r t h e r
o r t — — * w — n — « — — I . m i iim mi i min
*rare]erat K. Pin t i e r a^-a,\., O P , © i t . , *>• f3~flo.
subdivision was tm&n -with <r»»*p*at to **« to deorasee the
v a r i a b i l i t y in a#*
diffifm»mm®*
ftne ^rou^ of the children attended sfdrnnd A* .Tona«
fehool of Waasilion, Ohio, w sila the 1^-rer a*ronp o«?«#
from Bnnjanln franklin '?*h^ol a l s o of Maesillan.
Bath
eahool* »rm loo?*ted in the ej»» seat ion of the c i t y ,
I n s o f a r ae school experiences w«?*e concerned, the
children at each rroup had r e l a t i v a l • s i m i l a r ejsperienaes
and t h e i r home neighborhood snvinowawnte w#»s*a al^&e, but
difference* e x i s t ad in t h e i r h>mt l i ^ e .
in®* previous
s t u d i e s have sj'wrj t h a t Individual Alffarenose in presshsol
anantaalas »re r e l a t e d to hone* school, tad nalf&.nerheod'
envlronnent, therefore pheataalaa nrojee*«d In the hoaa
SSAV
depict ay^ertanoa* fro» sahool »nd nal^nnrhoad*
th«»®<$
fast© lead to the conclusion ftt*t the v*ll(*lty of the
modified d o l l n|--y taahnltua would l l h e v i s e be anhanaad*
* h i l e on tha a t h e r Mud* intradnatlon ®t prableas of I n t e r p r e t a t i o n voul* suggest *h» importance of further r e s a*, rah
In t h i s resn®ot.
Other f e a t s which p reap ted tha sal*ati"«n of * hona
thews with prl»?»r?* school children r » t h e r th&n n »ohof>l
these* with preschool a n b j t e t s varei
(1) ?h® hone i s the
a o a t inportant evsnay which influsnees tha develop*ent «nd
growth of tha c h i l d .
It if in the hon* *h&t the a h i i , ,
rac#lv#a h i * I n i t i a l aonta.*t« with soelsl 3If®,
""he, l**sons
naught by tha parent a, th® oiiilA** f i r a t teacher*, -**& no at
|!*nr»asiv# and l**»tin$e.
!2) 31nco t h s school asr-erlanoe*
vera wi"*>ii> •* for n i l of tn** u illdp i , the boas < ©11 nlay
thane a l s o provided u. no^ri^le h^ilst for different in-U?n
In living*
•fsfttf,
*h* uvt 1 H * l t * t i » n s ef » •nlylng
euch fin^in'." i s <*oa* s i g n i f i c a n t because of tha t.unber
^nd char* c t a r i a * i o n of the ^ n r , l « ,
*&*.<** oh* *> c t a r l a ^ i e a
*re jriven in t a b l e s T an* IX which follow,
{ <) revi^ua
re t -e^roh' 1 -,i>s* d o l l "•'lay h*« an^wn ti at family tKense h>*ve
bean e l i c i r a d *at|©ff«otorily fro*, child re >
• *4v*se &£**»©
rsni^e fro® ®ix to * #n ye* ?n,
t«ac* t$2a,e *"tan*?*rdia«tion of
tt.e mod if i«*^ technique vat ©onpieted, nn a n a l y s i s of the
findln^« was m&da co^^ar! <v Intra raolfel eiff^rensat*
J>
asfirlaa af uru* of th® a©i*\>e.rieons w r«; tha "hnntftsic-i of
^agro be-ve ve. t h e pnantnsle* of *«i»^ K i r l a , tp#$id of
c e r t a i n *y»n*t«rcotypa nhfrnt^alea cf t h e three aal-*ol ^r*dea
for a l l the 4-err^ c h i l d r e n , the stereotype rh&n~a*i*« of
* efro children with tn I . . h*!©* i w ws. the *tsre«tyne
phantsaiaa of Se^r^ children v l t h M
r
, ,. ab^vf 12M, and
f i n a l l y i nd 1 **idu? 1 difference* a^onr* t,«e Sejr-j onilAran.
° « l l l l a a i * , a a l l y aaA Margaret i&euther &sliy*
ln.troduat.nry OhilA^J^ziihiilajEa., W *aut a*, 9 r t » e , 1^1f%
p , flUdO*
- a e o ^ e &• laoh ar»»' ^ l ^ r l e 'Vatae"', m .
p . 3*17.
olt,,
A iOLL h-tY KSXMOd iPOA h* Gl^h
"able I . -
•'-' a c r l p t i o n of '&he *<»^ra ejeparimesuft I
'-ubjecte
?vlrat
,
• tat
Hentha
\
,V1
,
m
M^^u
•* a
subject*.
*
Occupation
'V*d , e
I
2
3
a
5
F
82
r
r£
§f
r
a
7
M
s
I!
a
M
M
9
10
H
m
n
n
73
•3
•3
il
?6
03
108
93
96
S7
73
Hi
$4
•0
75
' ee.>n<1 ^ r ^ *
113
If?
Steel will
Vapap a l i i
113
12a
atael a l l l
Searing *&*
ll*
107
13*>
116
126
po
Steel
wteel
lite©!
flteei
it eel
wtsal
alii
.aill
sill
alii
mill
will
*<•
i
11
12
13
lh
15
l*
17
IS
19
as
' ry
Ida
f
f
91
10«
f
n
«
tfK
!'i
95
as
1*17
tj
91
90
102
101
$n.Jb-&.
A W«&»
9®
10S
m
110
122
$&
il
101
110
76
if
lOh
$0
122
•3
71
U t i l i t y «Jo,
«*teei M i l l
4tnnl will
Bttbber 0a>,
Steal a i l l
Steel will
steal mill
ft eel Aill
frteel
"Sill
ateel allI
""Hlrd S^&ae
21
2Z
23
2k
n
f
f
F
F
f
Ida
99
i«7
105
itf
10©
27
?M
>,
«
^
y
10©
106
10
fci
116
zi
m
c$
108
143
123
117
120
102
117
90
§7
9$
Id*
iiwfc
113
Ji 4-JL-
113
103
lis
§5
86
$j
Roan*
*3.6
an.7
lOf.ft
ft t*
11,?
11.1
lh.a
'teal
-teal
sill
till
Bearing: Go,
Uasl »ill
ttteol
aill
&uto ^trvi«se
' * t e * i is i l l
:«teel a i l l
Steel a i l l
Steal a l l !
* IJOU. n***r hv.jUvL i»o > ; . A J L * L r » \ ^ r ; i
Tahla I T . - .Hvaorl - ^ 1
Subject a
f i r s t ' rnde
51
n
a* **
50
55
56
57
58
J*
6o
^aoond @rade
6l
62
m
m
65
£6
67
m
m
fO
Third OraA*
71
7a
7^
74
75
76
77
78
7*
$®
>ffi
Jtf
l"jr
j?
r
r
?
r
n
V
¥
ft
a
y
r
f
f
f
M
H
tlifo
W\it"f t33f*># 'i^en*- .1
*v *
73
A5
83
97
85
77
7&
*5
75
8#
OH
93
«1
Si
©2
102
88
on
on
spy
mi
84
66
93
m
®f
99
93
111
lt£
7«
ll»
7*
#4
111
Bf
1/3
f«
1?
^7
1*
93
F
f
a
f
99
99
108
102
im
im
vn
m
*'
k
P
if*
H
I*
m
187
ji* J* i§[L
l\h
in
liM
«6
W
lift
96
in
108
90
»ribj*v'.«*
i* the:* 1 w
"ootfen 3a/"h
136
1*6
105
$7
o*$
86
32©
99
116
IIS
95
110
1*8
^Vrvtlmff
1
"- :1 r i l l
* ruolrar
*'Otor ' ^ ,
f?n*»^loyed
r<teet t i l l
iJi£Sf*t*« at-ivr®
*t**5 *-lll
r o t o r < <*.
furnace &hm
x t e e l a?11
*i*">
^Ttr^e
m
2feenln*r Uw,
12a-
J'otor * ,
S t e a l -,111
r
ferber anon
76
95
121)
00
13a
103
1>9
m
1^3
120
129
90
100
$f
^e&n*
92,*
tw, >
10*. 2
*, t.*
l^.t
V».fc
18.0
&•? 1 4 r o A ti
tSmpli,.,*
* «
F&ln* shots
Hfcdio
shop
.'teal mill
•> 0 * O / *
'».
ft#»ri*?<
^uliuc
*n.
I'^jv***
l
*?«««l a I I I
r*ev*rlnf', »'o.
? a l l a a U«nt,
U t i l i n y ;<»,
h a o h i n e ^ho©
8 a i i rand
A BOLL *»LAY MSTflOn f08 M®Ut OflOWf 8
70
Intrarnoial ftnalvaas were also «»<$© i s i l » * aanoar for tha
white children.
A conaiAtrahla &»omnt of data was gathered fro®
thia study.
However, tines the preeent ressareh was bat
a firenarfttldn for »ora a « p l e f # and intana* inveatijrfttionr»
oujte^ous ohantasy reactions were l e f t uaanelysad,
fact that t h i s etudy w
fan
primarily aanaernsd with the
duantltatlve deaarlntion of a nrajaativa dall oiay technique for Xaitra and white ahildren placed aaphasla on
aatabliehiniif r e l i a b i l i t y and validity,
Thia annrsaah,
although H a l t e d , nttcanted to eugrest tow* of tha way* in
which eubaeque&t data laay be treated,
*>»## the tsaihod i s
sonant if lad, ainneran* other indie** ooild be *dd«« and
refined.
To i l l u s t r a t e , the clinical as* of tha teat
to study Individual aMldnaa would be n*>*% confruoua
with th% naoerinientsl method.
«Hav«»ver» th* 1iait&tSr?ns
of such an a-oisroftoh should be rant ©l#ffrty aafane the
axaaliisr,
7,- Aallability
Tha r e l i a b i l i t y of tha etanrtardlssA nrojeatlve Aall
nlay technique was aatabliahad by two abssrvara recording
Independently of *»oh o t t e r .
Th* r e l i a b i l i t y wee are tinted
in tarns of paratntaira aftraenent on tha follavier nin#
CAtegorie^i (1) frequency of a l l doll acts Indiee'inn w,\ioh
h BOLL fL*vX %%rZl\ iD *<S\ RACIAL ^HTW. „
71
t h e r e , vhl*h d o l l , but net ty>* of notion, (2/ frequency of
stereotyped a c t * indicating the***, d o l l *»nd de$r#* of alaboratios% (3) occurrence of non*ter#oty?*ad a c t * , in^ioatlne*
which theae, vhiah d o l l , but not tyn* of noneteraotyny,
Ca> aejee na 1 «ind I n d i a * t i n * ty**e of nonet ore© typy,
<5* freattena* of non-thcf***!® ( t a n g e n t i a l } reaoonee*, but
not syne, (6) #a«*e ^g 5 hut In^lu^im™ tyne, (7) nunhar of
t i n e * the subject involve* the ex***ritt«n**r, \&) frequency
of verbal s t l + i u l a H w 19) sane »« f, nine t y r e ,
"'-a »#ree-
aant found between the two observers on theae er-*tepnri**
r*nfe<s fro*? 7*">,6^ afrreenent *?o 96.65 agrtoment.
>.c v< e l a -
t i o n between ^h« ftr.reenen** w&a determined b> w $ different
c - t e g o r l is «t*snr#d and the manner i n **">ioh they ve*"* eear>utad.
^ a figures were founded u?if* sisety-f -»ur ?vo-*tiaute
recorde »&de at *h* mmt t i r e by tb» *.w«j inje^ anient observers
on *lx a h i l d r e n ,
/*lthour**» fch* ^ r e e v e n t between the c^j\®[email protected] w * deccribed in a v®r-? specific r w r w r , nevertheless the author
^ointod out t h a t the r e l i a b i l i t y found n*e not absolute but
m t h e r crude.
I t i s evident that t h e r e l i a b i l i t y w** A#ter*»
sained in s l a r l e e l r a y , haw*ver» I t wr*a admitted t h s t at* t i e *
t i a e l v a l i d a t i o n wo .id be Aiffiault*
/iaather question night
&leo be raised eAaearnlofr th* time H M t of tha air**ri'**n*nl
nlay atassinn of twenty m i n u t e , *t* «w?*r«d with the r e l i a b i l i t y session of but two - l n n t a * .
"hot I* to aav *h#
A DOLL PLAY METHOD fOft PUOIAL GROUPS
72
r e l i a b i l i t y i s l i k e l y t o d e o r t » * a c o n s i d e r a b l y i f i t w?tr*e
d e r i v e d f r o a a l o n g e r time limit- r a t h e r "ban t h e tvo-nlnu* e
session.
A c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n of + . 7 9 was found
when t h * two o b s e r v e r * compared t h e i r r a t i n g s of emotional
involvement a t *-.h* end of th® d o l l p l a y p e r i o d .
The r e l i a b i l i t y af t h a modified d o l l pl&y t e c h n i q u e
v a s a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s by two o b s e r v e r s working m% th® e s s e
tires b u t i n d e p e n d e n t l y .
However, t n i s r e l i a b i l i t y w^»
determined unon f i v e major c a t e g o r i e s , w m e l y i
1.
2,
1.
h.
5-
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
frequency
of
of
of
of
of
stereotype? a c t i o n s .
nonetereotype a c t i o n s .
groun n o t i o n .
nonthematlc r e s p o n s e s ,
a l l above r e s p o n s e s .
The percentage® were founded noon n consoarison of
t h e o h a n t a s l e s of t h i r t y 5 - « l n u t e r e c o r d s from f i v e s u b j e c t s r a o r e o e n t i n g en oh r a s a .
These r e c o r d * ware tnken
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y by two examiner* CL ami «£X) from t h a ten
children,
t h e s c r e e n en t found v a r i e d from 55.5 ? e r c « n t
ef?:reew«5,nt t o ^3,2
p e r c e n t a,^re6reant f o r t h e Meero c h i l d r e n
and 7 5 . n o e r o e n t nfcreeraent t o 96.5 p e r c e n t Rgreenent
for
t h e whi«"e o h l l d r e n .
tha
The lower r e l i a b i l i t y v a l u e * of
rtonthamatlo resooneo* pv-y h^rn baen flue t o t h e
lnfrat'ueney
of such r e s p o n s e * .
* * b l e * H I and IV show t h e r e l i a b i l i t y found on t h e
o s t e ^ o r i ^ e w'-ilch are- axpr**«sfs^d i n term a of Percenta^*
fibres-
went sis taken fro® t h a f i v e - m i n u t e record i n - a f o r t n a nuclei
A 1MLL rUif NlitaOd TOii JUCXAL f|£UDPt»
#rroun i n d i e . t e d .
73
7na wmi«it n*>* ar^Jor ©»**p>rle*i if r*"&i«/'S
v*»re not t r e a t e d s t a t i s t l e a l l r *sln©& -he*' ware clinic-'1
l»nr*asion* hasad upon the arount of ®»otion&lity or i n h i b i t i o n the child Menlfnetai*
t h e value* of the aodiflad -irojeo-
t i v e doll ^lay tsehniaue r«vr*led in s asnner s l ^ i l ^ r to th®
i*taadardi**d ^ r o J « t i v t d o l l nlay teafentlqan only rourh a a t l nation*? of "H>sitiv- r a l i r . b l l l t y , Viaaua* h»r# w ^ I n thsy
©annot be validated by s t a t i s t i c * ! analysis*
fl— Validity
t h e v a l i d i t y {evortaasd a* correspondence be«5we«;n
-/lay Phantasy and ovurt behavl'-ir *s»nifr*it«lions? of the
standardised orojeatlv* 8^X$y technique *<** V-aed n?>on §he
fallavlnr. eondttions; i l ) the tynes of phanrnsiaa projeated
by tha #[email protected]*» whose alaaaraon behavior w*s evident, ant.
(2) tha tvnaa nf ol&fgroo^ behavior »® r a f l e a t a d by the
s u b j e c t s having various tynna of d o l l j»l*y plia*t*elne«
An a t leapt wi*e »%$# t o answer the absvo questions
by oc*s;»rin<ef tha subjsat*s doll May nhantaslas and h i s
oia«aros« beh&vior as* measured by h i * * eaoher* on & est of
ratlntr so»lea.
The bases for maanurlnf t h a SiXa^aross
behavior of tn« o**ild w*rej Cl' the behavior in-tortant for
s o c i a l adjustment t*,nd •erson'l'.ty ^evetorsnent, (?) because
of the teachers* functions i t was questionable If her
a t " ant Ion could b# d| rent ad %o the c h i l d ' * behavior r a t h e r
A iJOLL PUT WTIOT ma RsGtAL OAOOfh
?%
»"*»bl® i l l , - *vre«a«f*( between two examiners for
t h i r t y 5«*ainufc«§ aaaaion* with five fcefro subjects,
+mmmmmm*i*****»***m***«i**' iM»iiiw»aieews«iMwiweisw>hirte* w w ^ w i a ^ ' i ^ i ' e w i w ^ t i i M i - w ^ ^
jtm^uttmnitu )«»e»wta«iriw^ii»w^wM^»y<^^
*'k«;ra«aeat
•iwawiWii«iei»jiaeaeWawaniwrwiiriiif i\**mmMfi*Wn1m\mit .tm» >i*newi>
Categories,
^serrations
Dunbar
^ereenia&e
iaiMmwi(»»Ml»— nui, »i.i» injnniiiimiii
*i
^
-'I
';*"|
with
«w»»wiweieeeeewieewi«MMwigw»wi>«iw'W' w » i i. m >»«eww»e*we>i*ei <wnwiu|i iwiiiiai*>i>iN»4itieWiwart^i^neW'pwiiftaw>t*»we»»iWei n mi new wwewmw «ie it i m*m**™mmimm*i*wmmi*m #i»m>w* ••» nw^mwiw
»»*equeney af
stereotype aotic&s;
<>squeney of nonrtareatype nations
5tlr««iuancy of
%r&up a c t i o n
frequency af nonthematic reeponsts
frequency of a l l
aheve res|fsn®»#
782
74
8f
81*
729
93,2 69.3
©&
8o,i» 8 1 , 0
73
81,9 99*1
79
il
9
6
5
55*5
$3*5
9$$
*88
8fl
91. a
88. s>
r.iT—,., •*.! «,,.,*,,•• ..fc^,M.i„.,ir.^J..l....n.M,rM,„, l , M M M ^ 4 t ^ ^ ^ L J , i ^ » t l w | r l , i , , , •»,„,.. ,,, i. . , _
. ^
l | T ^.^_ M .. n r T f
|7 „ 1 f f T T r
. r . . ^ ^ ^ . ^ (||1|||f|[| nif^H^ijiJjji,l||lSjiMSniHlBrTf
A DOLL fLAY »JC*JiO!.' ftfft RACIAL OHDU hS
75
Table 2 1 *,- <^raataR>at between fcw^ ^x-* in era fo*/*
t h i r t y 5*w>inute sessions with five whit** subjects*.
«gre#aant
Catenaries
?'.r««,u«atcy of
stereotype action*
Frequency of noa*
atareotvo* wctlcna
Fraquenny of
greu1* «e*ioa
Onaerv*tlana
]i'irirt<wiai«iMiiin»iariiirieiiwiieiei;'mniniaiieie
vlUi
>rith
s
999
951
878
*6\5
197
11*
88
:\2
75,"
?^*«'*
8*».8
8
75.3
75.*
l©a$
93,5
9*M
93
?refu«ncy of nont h e a a t i a response*
r-ee^uenoy of a l l
at«ovf rea^one**
1 a roe n tii ^-^
•&.JLJLf
XX^Ff
we*i»»*a«Mwi»i»aweii)iaiiawe^
^.3
A DOLL PUY METHOD FOR RACIAL 0HQUP8
than the teaching objectives which Md bean outlined for
the c l a s s , (3) previous Investigation® had reveal©*! t h a t
th*s variable of classroom behavior oould b© different la ted
r e l a t i v e l y well fro® other c a t e g o r i e s .
After considerable experimentation with d i f f e r e n t
methods the Iowa Study emnloyed scales which rated tha
children from s i x points of view, namely*
1. Boutine compliance.
2. Acceptance of gulds.no*.
to teacher,
I ». iittaohaent
Social effectiveness,
5. Destructive aggression.
6. Activity oreferenoes.
The teachers were requested to $&ke t h e i r r a t i n g *
at a time which would be nt about the saate period &s those
of t h e experiment on a l l of the scales ©xoop* th® aeale for
d e s t r u c t i v e aggression.
This l a t t e r s c n l e , howtver, was
iriwen to the teachers nenr the and of t h a t »m® seneeter.
The significance of temporal v a l i d i t y of p r o j e c t i v e techniques ap-o^ared t o [email protected] considered, but a c t u a l l y was I t ?
The rating-® were than ^iven in terras of the d i s tance (in mm.) of the teacher** cheek mark from tha base
line.
The raw scores were ohangad into *Z scor©*11 and a
mean taken fT<om tha two raters} to give th® f i n a l r s t i n ^
for each c h i l d ,
Rationale for uelnft tha
>,r
l scores* w&a t h a t I t
[email protected] th© purpose of correcting the <tiff«*®[email protected] between
the teachers In leniency ( i . e . , p o s i t i o n of the average
r a t i n e #lv*n) ^nd v a r i a b i l i t y ( i . a , , width of the d i s In*<«»r«',»rre,,'ations
t r i b u t i o n of a ^iv^n t e a c h e r ' " r ^ ^ i n r s K
b etwee A the six r a t i * * »«s>V* #«r»
6$ av*tl.* -ta "he
T*M*
amount of prejudice on th® r ^ ' e r ' n '-•^t,
Tttan* In»er-
aorralHfiona ranged *roa a + . 1 * 1 to +*78*»
value
TH**-*
1h« f^rs^r
foun^ botw**n fch* r.tin^"* »">f traa*l0RM1! ^f-swa-
»ant a, %ai« 1, v s . the r a t i n g * of social
sffeatlvsaesa,
>o"le ft-, an-* t\® l e t ' s r vnlue *«s* V m i ! n->5f» th« r a t i n g s
of routl-;* can"'llance, "*Jc^1^ ^, Ta. *h# r e t i n a * of acoantanc* of *rald&"te** % l « 2.
Aa^ordin^ to th* euthor*
thesa coefftcienta j u s t i f i e d thn annloynent; of the **on,Va
a* a'waure* of v H o u a tvrn** of bthaviwr,
/be v a l i d i t y uf the sedlfiafl
iroj«etiv« doll -»lay
t s c h a i ue w**, d<§t«i«rin#d by cow* .rim* the non?**erea*y^*d
-j^Ataal** irojaat*><5 by the eMltf ( » « » w , 4 *.o «* »t •»
eube>«acl9»i* or unconscious l e v e l ) with tfa.$ answer* §iv^»
by Vtm e^lltf -»n AS "WiVioitly oeelismed Inquiry (^eaaurtnis
8
the oonaeleo* l e v e l ) ,
*ooo "-"in,* to *on«
the >lnv i n t e r -
view '••ami*'* th# cM1«' *>o extras* himself in «uob ^ ^-"nn^r
•b^t "he ^ o l l I s <M»ftaider«KJ r«^'oneib3^ f^r t*^e ev^resei^na,
fhe v a l i d i t y o" th* sad!fled , eajsatlve rtel"! -lay
lechnivtt* w»* based ur*e« tha f o l i ^ i n -
OOBV
ifci-na; (1 > the
J&oob K. c-»nn, "th® ;l#iy~ Interview ta )4n Ir,f*-ni%.{?-&<*<•
t l v t snd Tharsnautia *»roc*dttra*, m a L t o H U M M , *'"*.
7 , So. 1, lasue of July 1 ^ % y% 3 5 7 - i l ? r
A BOLL PLHY ryTHOC )7<"'R .V.CT^L HROUPS
78
t y p e s of d o l l n l a y p h a n t a s i e s p r o j e c t e d by t h a c h i l d r e n
whose I n q u i r y response* wore e v i d e n t , ind (2) t h o t r i e r s of
I n q u i r y r e s p o n s e s «s r * f l s o t . ' d by t h e c h i l d r e n ' * T&rioue
t y p e s of d o l l p l a y p h a n t a s i e s ,
[email protected] assumption mode i s t h n t
a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between c o n s c i o u s b e h a v i o r o a t t e r n *
and spontanaoun o r suboonr c l o u s b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s ; however,
t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p rauat t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e
c a n t f a c t o r of temporal v a l i d i t y .
signifi-
For ex*!*ol*, a c h i l d may
show & c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of a g g r e s s i o n on on® day because
of muoh f r u s t i c a t i o n a t t h a t t i n s , w h i l e on t h e next day very
l i t t l e a g g r e s s i o n aay he e v i d e n t because of l e e ?
frustration
of t h e p o s s i b l e r e d u c t i o n of a g g r e s s i o n by c a t h a r s i s ,
t h e T h o a i s t l c fmaevorte, a g g r e s s i o n o r a n g t r ft© i t
Pron*
I*
r e f e r r e d t o , l a c o n s i d e r e d t o he a a e n s i a n t , rsutohle and
f l u i d f o r c a , and not a n*rvs.alve dynanie*
I t i s n r l n c l n a l l y because of t h i s f a c t o r of tewnoral
v a l i d i t y t h a t t h a sxawinar interviewed ench s u b j e o t irasraadj*
a t a l v f o l l o w i n g th® d o l l -"day s e s s i o n t o determine how t h s
s u b j e c t a r r i v e d a t t h e nonetoreotyoed r e s p o n s e s .
For examnle, t e n of t h a t h i r t y Negro c h i l d r e n o r o j a o t e d t h e raother d o l l a* b e i n g most a f f e o t i o n a t e on t h e i r
ohantaeies,
WLile 55$ of th® t e n c h i l d r e n s t a t e d t h ^ t t h e
mother d o l l l o v t d t h e o t h e r doll® most o f t e n ,
t'h*? c a t e g o r y
of r e j e c t i o n was p r o j e c t e d most f r e q u e n t l y through t h e
f a t h e r d o l l by t h e ^egro s u b j e c t * .
On t h e i n q u i r y they
s t a t e d t h a t t h e fa thai* d o l l a l s o h a t e d t h e o t h " » ^ ^ o ^ t .
A BOLL P U T MSTHOU FOR RACIAL GROUPS
79
The c h i l d r e n ' s phantasies showed the most frequent apenta
of f r u s t r a t i o n t o be the parent d o l l s ,
Responses to the
question, "Vhlah doll atop* other* frora doing- things noat
often'/*,
a l s o indicated the parent doll®, with t h e mother
fijsrure the o r i n c i n l e agent,
the category of aggression wai
expressed most frequently through the g i r l doll by tha
Negro s u b j e c t s .
However, on tha inquiry they r e n l i e d most
often t h a t the f a t h e r d o l l would hurt othar post frequently.
A frequency t a b u l a t i o n concerning a l l of tha act© of the
w i l l revealed th* mother flgur® to he? moat dominant on
the phantasies as wall as the inquiry.
A s i m i l a r analysis was mad® between th® phantasies
of the white children and t h e i r responses to the i n q u i r y .
Here &gain, d o l l for d o l l and family f o r family, th® r a t i o
was above chance except for the g i r l f i g u r e ,
l b s lack of
coraprehensibillty concerning the g i r l d o l l which appeared
In r e l a t i v e l y few thcm«s m&y h««ve determined the low v a l i d a t i o n score.
An interview was nlao pr®p»r%<& for tha stereotyped
resnonaes, which reeultedl in almost perfect agreement between th«* pbwntaaies and Inquiri**® because of the great
number nnd Itlnd of r e s p o n s e .
Howevr, dua to tha special tw^ortance of *he
nonstereotype r^s^onse® c a l c u l a t i o n s were madt KB follows;
( l ) phantsei<*« v s . inquiri**<t a* nroj#oted by the i*erro^s,
80
A DOLL PLAY METHOD TOR KAQJAL GROUPS
(2) phantasies v s . I n q u i r i e s &» -^rejected by each of the four
d o l l s by the s h i t e c h i l d r e n , (3) t o t a l nhAntaslos v s . t o t a l
I n q u i r i e s concerning the »*ven a&Jor categories nn projected
to th* e n t i r e colored fatally of four S o i l s by the ** *gro children,
(fe) t o t a l phantasies v®, t o t a l i n q u i r i e s aonoerninr th* seven
s a j o r c a t e g o r i e s as i?roj«t#$ to the e n t i r e whit© fanily of
four Soil* by the whites c h i l d r e n , and (55 t o t a l phantasi** v^»
t o t a l i n q u i r i e s concerning the ^even categories a s p r o j t e t e i
to both f a a i l l e s of d o l l s by both th© Keffro and vhlte c h i l dren,
(for the p*roenfc«g# agrcer&ent of th© c h i l d r e n ' s phan-
t a s i e s v s . t h e i r i n q u i r i e s , ace t a b l e V pf t h i s c h a p t e r ) .
Insofar a s r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y ar*? concerned,
an awareness of the problems faced by t h e researcher of
^rojeetiv© techniques was c l e a r l y described by Pmnfc,^
The
author pointed ©ut that r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y has been
developed for standaraiaed test® baaed upon groups r a t h e r
than I n d i v i d u a l s , with th* individual laensurrmenfc a devlation from th* group standards,
H* went on to show t h a t
these c r i t e r i a of r e l i a b i l i t y am? v a l i d i t y are roost acceptnble for standardised psychometric techniques, however,
questionable when applied to p r o j e c t i v e m e t h o d .
The pro-
j e c t i v e technique exarlnsr I s not o r i n n r l l y concerned with
Lawrence 1C. frank, on. e l t . , v-86 *».
A DOLL " l A * *BTflO.. fOH hAQtaL Oft)l«P.:
t h e i n d i v i d u a l 1 * d e v i a t l t n fr>« s * t * t i s t i s * n y
81
e*ta^li*hetf
norm, t h i a beinr es^eciall*' t r u e in th<$ cKud-* of -»* 'nonulity
or the «*evelor>«ent of
&recn»lity,
The fiiajniflopnt
of p r o j e c t i v e aethode i s t s istudy the indlvidua 1 .
function
*.h e r a -
far* the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of a group wowm b# of
very U t i l e liatvortanc« except for **aklaw ft wide s e l e c t i o n ,
Re acsT-red th© tenaonality ^ l c t u r « with th* ileal* At inn
anf>raaah sod 00naiadat t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y of n r a j e a t i v e
teahniaue* i s ©cncemed with r^cognisting s t e l l a r p a t t e r n s .
However, the f a s t t h s t t h e r e are v a r i a t i o n s i n th* s u b j a a t ' s
reaction* or p r o j e c t i o n s of than* v a r i a t i o n s daec not neaess a r i l y effect the v a l i d i t y of the pro®ess®s,
5%rgent w a l s o h i t s-<om that th* **a*t s i g n i f i c a n t
aspect of r e l i a b i l i t y **-wd v a l i d i t y of pr»J*otlv^ tsahninnas
I s the c r i t e r i a of c r e d i b i l i t y involved.
The «m* ef th®
n r a b l e r 1* tha* standards of *?«yehoa>ntrls teaanlnn** *t*
extented t o anoly to «roj*ctiv» taahniattas* inhen netually
e t h e r standards should b t design*'' for the l a v * - ' nathads.
Therefore, i t i s evident that th* c r y s t a l l i s a t i o n of concept 9 1* * ~rsrea,ulelte for the lnereaeed v a l i d i t y of
nrejeofciva technique*,
t h i s eondl'i-.<n $sin be re&lifiwS only
* Helen .'eritent, "''rojentiv* Ko'.hods, i h e i r d r l f i n e ,
theory, and *n->llnatlon in f>rean*llty Heetarah*. In ^ha
Zm$MkMXmX~M£j&m*
*«i. 4;*, uu 5, Issue of »a* W »
A DOLL r u t METHOj; IT/I RACIAL GRQ0?8
82
Table V , - Pp>ro«itttg<3? a^roeusent of t h s c h i l d r e n ' ' *
nonstereotype phantasies with t h e i r responses to the inquiry.
^mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm»mmmmmmmmm*mmmimt\m* imm#mmMrtwi*mrH\'mwmm*mmm*i**Mi>ifo mm*m*mmmmmm*mtommm#MmmimH0miimmm*m*impmMm»)m
Dolls
Soil
tally
' • •" "•- »"-—-" ———»•"•>.•—— ««--««--.-«-«.—,—*f
M
B
0
mid
FMBC
Subjects
•i n
i n
i.
Negro
'•ri - •
'White
.ii.
66,7
•
•'••
'
6«,5
in
mm i
75.0
"'••"•
75.3
nwi.ni m*m*»tx*<m*w**m*wm
»i I
in
58.3
"'
8$.9
i i n mi m n.
*2.a
'
•
h6.j
i
in,
up i p
i
n » :n i .
65.2
• '
••"
70.9
68,h
«
••
b* sdditionsl rosea--eh and fur«h»r -lawslo »**nt of th* Ktt
of stadvln^ personality,
VII.- ^raoedure in '.teaeral
Th* "sreo^ ur* in general af te# §t&nd#tfdl&*4 ?p#»
j e c t i v t dall nlay ttafanl^u* wtii istsa of four l i k e nlay
sessions of about twenty •slant *s* length administers^ so
each of the ahildrtn on different Aa/a, fee interval
ap^rosl^attsly thrse d#ys net.was a stealan**
«
«ha ana*!nor
made aa atia»n>t to wai* with the eMld at about vis m** hour.
Insofar as clinic*! ob#iry&tloas of e l i o i t i n g verbal
response* fro® tha child w®rt snna*rnnda th* ex*flaer
attsmrrtsd to lsola;* the f a l l a r l n s thrao aain factor* of
inhibition or f a a i l l t a t l n a of praJeaUaaei CD A®o«iat af
support jriven to the phantasies nnrf srmanoa*
that i s t a
say, the durmtian of the ^l*y session &*4 tha subjsat*s
proclivity to become sanrantlai ware two faatars vhiah
would pravtnt the child fron being eoav*3etely soontansous.
Therefore cone verbal atia-uil on tne -v*rt of tu* snaniner
would e l l a l t saa1*1 phan^fteles ae wall a* apsntaneau* play
while mt af feat inn tmlidwtlan.
balm? ranresantad in th* play*
U) dhlld** Intarast in
The author asauaad that
th* ahlld would aeaoslaie hiasnlf to tha ilsy natari,*!*
by phantaaie*.
identification*
this type of r*<at*pa was rnfsrrsd t a a*s
ft,*? slgniflaana* of ths f'taaaio of
A DOLL M * t tttsriiu;* <'<M ;l.<3L*L .•.ItftWS
m
Identification was ravaalad by eananalnr the aaotlonal
involvement »** the children as aoanarad to those who are
rather objective in t h e i r ->lay.
(1) Anxieties (self-
lunishnent or antlata*tIan of renrlnand froa athere).
In
t h i s roentat the noroal ahlld i s likely to beo*g# anxious
under eaaditlont in nftieh fee la permitted to do whatever
he chooses.
Samovar, the ^mulnar roulal verbally atiam*
l a t e the child in such a w*y #* to nrevmnt anxiety or
guilt* tftiMP specific aat*iori#e of v#rh*l atismlntlan
were clearly described &>§ fallaws; C*) provision of
phantasy support, (b) l&natlfla*tlan stimtlatlon. ic) anxiety
reduction, &**$ (4) faallltatlon of abaarvatloa.
A s t a t i s t i c a l Analysis followed aonaeminir ths
amount, quality and effect of vernal stimulation,
This
analysis showed th** but # or 33% iwiaaaaee of J #4*3 then*tin
rea»ons«s were ranera>sa' as Nnalaaslflad*.
t h i a . aonalndsd
th* author, could hardly lv*rs been nanlarsd witn leas verbal
stimulation* since tangent lai response* wore not encouraged
by a relatively controlled situation*
the procedure In central of the modified projective
doll play technique aanalatsd of on$ tension of 10 ninutss
w'lich was divided into thr#e 10 almite t r i a l s .
Burlnr th*
f i r s t t r i a l esch ahlid was wressated with % doll family
representing hi* own race* fln the «eon$ t r i a l the doll
family representing >'h® apposite ran* was lntrodnoed.
In
A j»LL PLAY KflT.JO. r > \ .-. J U L i.H:< t ^
%$
t h e t h i r d t r i a l th* ahlld wo* presented with hath wet* af
dolls*
the experimental v a r i a b l e * introduced in t h i s study
*<sr*! (1) race af the subject*, it)
i i a y a a t a r l a i * , which
include «e«ro and white d o l l fan 11 l a s , and C3> ft r e a l i s t ! ® ,
r e e f i * s e d o l l haue* renresaating a hone environment.
After a brief o r i * n t * t l o n '•s^ie*** tha anjor factor®
of the pl«e teahniqu* arat <1) establishment of nareanal
r a p p o r t , (2) I n i t i a l i n s t i a a t i a n of the #ubj*at, mm
(1) eubjeet-**P#rine«t#f* r e l a t l o a t h l y during play *e*s»ian,
the eetaallahaent of r»a«ert **«s aahisvvd by taking each
ehlld i n d i v i d u a l l y to sa sapsrlmental room for tha play
tssslona*
I t was s t t h i s tint* t h a t t h e ema/ulnsr attempted
t o jsmke th* ahlid faal aeoure with bin avaraaminm a* quickly
a s poesible any anal a t l a s tthlett amy e x i s t ovwr the
adult,*
#
strange
fh* eua^iner a l s o s t r u o t u r t d h i s p o s i t i o n jtjytyi
.Bf*%,fM., tg..MS ^,fAlslUI-Jss^slstt» nat halng connected with
sahoal a u t h o r i t y o r aay a a t h a r l t f #v#r tha c h i l i in any
*#y*
fbs eaamlaer helped the child ta be seated at a
tebla
vh*r* ha anald naninulate t h e d o l l * within tha stage s e t .
I t was a t t h i s t i a e t h a t the anlld was i n i t i a l l y ln#%l$*tad
to the n m j e a t l v e tsahalnue*
•
H
I
—
M
W
—
H
—
•
**f«r a aors d e t a i l e d d a s a r l o t i o n of th* d o l l olny
technique snplayed in t h i s study, turn to the annuel of
instructions' in the append!?.
A BOLL i V t M*1tKH< s'Od MOIAL MUH1P&
8&
The subjsat^axnsrlnantal r e l a t i o n s h i p during tha
pl*y session* should be ocnductsd by ths examiner in such
a *tay t h a t he * l n i a i * e * the fact that he i« ex v ertnentlaf
with n her c h i l d r e n ,
fhat i* ths ufalld should be »&g« t©
f s e l t h a t the e a p e r l t t n * e r X% p a r t i c u l a r l y inter*at<*d in
h | n as art i n d i v i d u a l .
In a d d i t i o n to t h i n I n i t i a l l a s t ! *
g a l l o n of th* cubJant, the e s a a l n s r ' s w©rb«tl a t i n u l a t I o n
I s s t r i c t l y l i n i t a d to no s o w than four nor 1st® than
one »f ih$ following en*lsty*radttsing conditional (I) approval of the c h i l d ' s
lay* (2) nm»n*aay support, (?) s t i -
a c l a t l o n of expressiveness* and t*») i n h i b i t i o n of nanipmlat l v a ahaatasl^s a;oneefnlJig t a t d o l l house,
Tha
la*3 s t o l o n
i * terminated In such & *«y thdt i t avoids giving the child
the iianrfesaioa that th* sgrarlmenter h»# em«#t of hie play.
Fiowsvor, the c h i l i should understand t h a t tha t i n * 1* limits**
and that I* th* rsasan for Intarrmptlntr tha a l a y .
Xrtfsenin* sly
following the end of T r i a l IX J, tha n r s j s o t l v * doll ^lay
inquiry l a introduced,
axparlaantation has been sondttatad
with three ty-p*** of inquiry blanks mm *h* rasearnh with tha
f i r s t two aete of questions p#v«s»l«i t h c t the child beeaae
s a t i a t e d , and *h* r e s u l t s of
jnec;* iwsui'-i** %i «?-**» ton ouw-
b#r«o«e to b# treated s t a t i s t i c a l l y *
however, the f i n a l
inquiry blank prs-ved q u i t * s>.ilsf«atorily In th«t H r*vealed the c h i l d ' * ochsalou* o r not s^ontaneoa*
>rojrto-
t l a n s a mec-nlae* th-* Aetiv* d o l l a v1 *-h* t -f*iTe <x**17«
he
v a l i d i t y *>?** ox-'.raefed in tern* of * enipiyvrlsjn r-f *>h*
c h i l d ' •* spontaneous doll r-Ifty pb&nt"Rl*s »nd •*!& rsaponse*
to t h i s i n q u i r y .
Other important ch^n^s* in the aodifled d o l l .il&y
tsahniem* Includedj (1) the as-shed of raaording am1 4 3} d e f i n i t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of c»t#gori«®.
visooamlng ' h o
sgethae" of aooriar* *ha scoring rmutlns **n* 1 l a l t a d t o far
fewsr o&tetori®* than thaaa use* in tha itanferdis«d d a l l
play t e s t ,
A taahfii*p# of pl«*.ain? a nark beneath these fsw
s a t s g e r i s a «ca used in a a a t r a s t with t h s aaajaantial reeordlag
of eaah d o l l play act ill th* lava •ft'.udy*
The Inaction of
t h o a a t i e -jlay was a l s o handlerl in the **«e w*y,
Insofar *@
definition!? and Smternretmtlott* were somanr**** tha $»J$r
categories w#r*? s i l l i e r to t h s standardised «ethed # that I®
stereotyped respont#f # aon-stereotyped r«,spona«*» nanthasuitie r*apons?<*» and r a t i n g s af enotionel lavalvsment,
However, the o r i n a l p l e deviation vas In the d e f i n i t i o n s «nd
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of tha smfentat agarics*
Xhase resyanse* vera
defined fro® a ?hf*sl*tic point of view, &n$ tha i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s v^r* askta viU&lft Uiis s*me ^rlixtotHlam-aqulnas
franework.
etwrr A tv
DOLL * W if BBU«> AM& VMIT«• $C«nOL OHtLWVS
.N considerable amount of data na*e bean c o l l e c t e d .
However, tslno* t n i s stud- 1* preliminary to «or* i n t e n s i v e
lnv**ii^fttisns, r e l * t l v * t y few r e s u l t s ivvs been select*-"*
f o r s t a t i s t i c a l analyses.
?hee* analj/tts ww® b***ed upon
^rou^ rm-y&nB®®,, to determine *-u&* general ©cne'uslons. P*>
a t t s s m t ws* ra*de to reveal ft»y constant r?ttio between th©
*>oisl q i t u i t i o n * &n& the o/iilflren'* hah&wirr.
""h^ habitual
oautl>n that s t a t i s t i c © ! «t naive*?* $"*t nost useful, but not
«11 i n c l u s i v e ->* i s eonetlaea iwnlied, has been kept in sxlnd.
Many of these analyse-* were the saourul&tive r e s u l t s
of th# tabula 4 «&d r*fapons#$s an$ t r e a t e d fww m
view only,
intraracial
However, several other analyse* aay include both
rrou"** «ueh an the r e l i a b i l i t y *nd v a l i d i t y lnt*>s**irst«ti«n*.
In vi«w of th* fuel t h a t several f a c t o r s «2#t*i*sint
th* raw phantasies In «11 of tn* ©it «j#o :*!**» th«* t«bul^tlon*
w«»r« handled *« r e l a t i v e value*,
'>n the oth#r hand, th®
weftknstss of anoh an apnro&oh [email protected]@g evident when th* m t i o e
regain unelunrtd, ftssuMinic t!5« oiws$e phantasies wr® increased,
""hi* a h a ^ t w i s concerned, with thr#»e ***jor in? r a m s 1*1 corr«ri*ot'!*,
The o^p"* risen* wad* swong the * curves
and a^ootf the whites werej CD »#* d i f f e r e n c e s ,
asn**! f*o*.o*"*. *>nd t*9> individual
differonaaa.
12) devalo-
DOLL PLAY Of gKOK) ,\»y mX'fh WUOQX, CHXLffiiUI
I,-
fatrareolal
^ecordiiw to A l l a r a ,
89
"5-« I n f e r e n c e s
studies representing psycho-
l o g i c a l dlffarena©* between the sexes s n w l d bo rtfa^ded
in a r»th*sr incredulous a&wnar.
He oautloaod tbMt in any
eoap«ri»^n ^f th* semes, one group »*r bo a r b i t r a r i l y s e l ected ** * c r i t e r i a .
%eev*r, he added that t h i * arables*
may be avoided by carefully avaluAtlnr svent* ant* not experi a n e e s , *nd i n t ^ i ^ i h g haw tha Indlviauai raaata ta hie
environment and not hi* o->ini>n of I t ,
A l l a r s c i t e d the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of Buhlsr to show
t h a t th* t i a e - f a a t a r in the devela -ssont of bo?/** and g i r l *
varied so t h a t n©~sdua*ticn «*# coaialderad i m p r a c t i c a l , except &wim
the preschool and priaury school years*
Ha
a l s o nalnted out t i n t t n i * faal @l«ne did not Ju#tify •*#ragstion af the sexes,
Hmrever, with r e s p t c t to s«t d i f fereasea *# r.roj a c t e d In d o l l play phantasy• two t n p a r t a n t studi## have
revealed aarksd v a r i a t i o n s b®r,wa©n tha boys* and g i r l * 1
re«pon**e.
" ' i n t l s r and a t h s r a
soaple'ed a study vtilah i n d i -
cated sex differences in th* d o l l r-lny of school c h i l d r e n ,
l
hudolph A l t e r s , iMnZmtlftmXmX *SlAg!W,Ex» Saw
o r x , «ieed f *« v , 1<${'3» v-3«^ ». t r a n s W s d by . . J),
Strauss.
v
*War>r*r*t
TT
. - I n t l s r jjlJtX*» no. © I t . ,
>. * v n n .
DOLL ?wr
of nmm
mn
WIXTK SCHOOL OHILOTUEII
to
8*oh^ s l s o oomoared th* two «*sxea concerning a g r r a a *iv?»n**«, s o c i a l l y d i r e c t i v e and other nhm«i*f of t h e i r p r o jections.
He s»- de t h i r t y - t w o «o» r 'trl»ons and. found f i f t e e n
evident differan©***, twelve of which w**»# s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t below the f i v e eereent l e v e l of ocnflciane*.
Uo
suan&riisd th* west M&rfeed sex d i f f a i e n c e s A*J i t ) 58h* g i r l *
projected Rore doll act* thaa the boy®,
<2> "Th* are* t e s t
m t i i of the boys* nhnatnslee w-%* s o c i a l l y unaeceptabl*, ! , # . ,
nonetereotwoed.
(1) th* boy* orodueed g r e a t e r r e l a t i v e and
absolute saioaote of aggression,
{ft) the g i r l * »uri&&s«*d by
f a r the boy* i n the eat age ry of giving &&mn&n* (5) 7he
g i r l * exhibitsd »©r» thematic a f f e c t i o n than th* h»y»,
(•")
t h e g i r l s produaed acre s o c i a l l y accepts b i t a c t * than the
bov*.
The author also c i t e d previoae retemrch which ehowo*J
t h a t t h e ^-lay with d o l l * w%s preferred bf the g i r l s and t h e r e f o r e nay
HAV*
production*.
accounted for t h e i r ®rtmt®T amount of phantasy
^# likewise pointed out th*1 fact t h a t *che girl®
g s n e r a l l v have more i n t e r e s t l a people which aay h^va »Rde
t h e i r d o l l pley l a a s d i f f i c u l t ,
the fdditlanai
significant
point w«9* aenti^ned "bat t h e youni? g i r l s played with dot I t
a c r e often i n t h e oorp*mv of a d u l t s .
Tha i«tpert;*[email protected] of t h i a
e*n«?rlsnae was t h a t t h * sirlss* etereatypad d o l l play mat*
were reinforced by anpravml from t h e a d u l t * .
we
n II ' mi riinwmiiwi iHn urn rTiwrm
i irnyr
'deorge "*. 3a ah, Pr, c i t . , i i i « $ o „•*,
DOLL "LAY Of $»KO »MD VMXTL g0HO0L 0»ZU)«*oX
01
fvOUnatl^n* concern in, sax differenoec wcr* ^ade
In te-vi* of the a«K>i*l learning '>rlnci ^ s of ' i l l e r srsd
3&oh then es»[email protected] *.ii* r e v o l t by m^hr a 1 sing tHe
Dollar.
iv^ortanoe of cautiously c o n t r o l l i n g the H^K factors* in any
subsequent reeearah involving d o l l piny.
In th® i»re«®Bt invesfelgAtiaao, i n t r a r a c i a l comparisons wer? ««de of the avwftfit differ*na*w between the Hegr©
boy* and Wt^r© g i r l * concerning etarsatyoed &»*S nonnt*reotyoed r«***onees,
twelve cossp&riiscn^ were found to b® s i g n i f i c a n t of
the nineteen «**sde s s a w the "**gro children,
f i f t y percent
of the analyses wert s i g n i f i c a n t l y below th® f i v * o»raent
l e v e l of confidence*
These r e s u l t * 4 r * $riv*n in .*ble VI.
Th© »o*t evident r e s u l t s b*tw#*n the S#gr» states
w^rti 11) The g i r l s manifested acre eteraotvied a c t * than
the boys,
(2) The d o l l pla^ In five out of *s#vep l o c a t i o n s
was s i g n i f i c a n t l y different between the eexe*.
i l ) ?he
g i r l * nrojeeted the d o l l s i n t o th* dining- and l i v i n g roams
a g r e a t e r nunb*r of ti»*%,
ik) N© diff#renee *a* found in
t o t a l noneterot.Toed a c t * ,
{$1 ®lx out if ten nonet#rep-
tyned tubtheme* w^rt *lfnific&nt!^ d i f f e r e n t ,
g i r l * manifested more *ffaatlon.
i&) ihs
(?) a© difference w«* found
In t h e «sonnt of r e j e c t i o n brtvaan th* «*•»*«•
(ft) I r a s o l h i -
l i t y n r a j a a t l o n s were nonsldernbl* d i f f e r ' n t ,
(a> si,®
difference* w r e evident i n f r u s t r a t i o n a c t s .
ClO) Th* boys
SOLL .'Laif Of l*J3:w iv&fi #*£*'». SflULfciL U^Xt*«*.»^*
t a b l e VI,— I ntr^t,racial »#» difftr*ao«<5 « s » w t h e
Segro c h i l d r e n with r « p « c t to a t e r e c t yp a and n o n e t e r e o t y p e
$h&.n&*ei<%s.
19 a i r l s
1** a"&y$)
Phantasies
$«#.a
8terectype
\H*i
Location
Bedrooi*
S?,0
Bedroow 1
*$•*
f i n i n g Roan 3 * . a
3UB*h
Iit©hen
L i v i n g %mm a<, 5
Bathroom
il***
Other
l*-.5
B e n e t e r e o t y p e 15.7
Goneunlsslbl* 0.0
ti-.a
Af f e a t Ion
^ejection
i*i
i2*0
Irascible
frustration
d*0
digression
1*2
will
7.7
Sad*
•3,6
Mean*
l*f$
Oaaoaiia'e
1.3
«
wlff.
1,0*0.
3,5*
$*a»
».».
WM*
117.$
If.9
5*.?
li»
7.®
2d.a
If*?
l M
is»t
a^*3
17»«.
id.t
7.1
<.9
15,7
n\a
4.a
i&a
a,*
is.'*
6*9
2*1
15^
53
Ifl.h
11.5
16,0
r.a
20,2
S.f
4*5
3*7
15.8
3 . if
s »*&
?.!
9.1
g.a
ls-,0
5.2
a,»
milfo
l*v
2,a
i»i
*•*
%2
1.3
5.f
d,a
a.o
5.S
1*9
a.d
1*1
2. a
3**-
ft, 2
b.i
©.3
o,n
3.«
1.2
n,7
1.7
l.d
1,1
2.5
a.s
n.ft
a,a
G.a>
6,8
3.a
0.^
1.9
2.1
*!
I*
_
10
4Hf^4M*MMItf
H?
ang
"H
I15$
F
58T
ix>LL vusr ®w mam
*n\'
W?ITL
'OKQOL OHILSJM&
produced a ^ r e a t s r aaount cf agpreael^n.
«t3
(11) H m l f i -
eant [email protected]«nc©^ v#re founds In tat* to^cl i»ot'3 of the w|V,»
$12) Ths r l r l s
traduce*111 "acre ooaaand*.
Intwtwiclai ©ow»p»ri»»n* w w a l s o »«»de of th®
average difference* between the white boy«i and p l r l e concerning stereotyped and n»nst#reotyped responses,
Nineteen
comparisons w»*r® na&e, with twelve also s t a t i s t i o s l l y s i g n i ficant.
With respect t o the stereotyped response*, faur of
t h e five eignlficnnt dlffei*ane«® were btlow the f l e e p e r cent l e v e l of confidence.
0f*n<3*mlnsj th® non*t*reotyp*d
a o t s , seven of eleven ao«paris»ns were found to b* s i g n i f i c a n t , ranging fross two percent to the twenty-five percent
l e v e l af confidence,
these r e s u l t s * F « given in ? ' . ' I t ¥11,
which follows.
f&e «o*t evident findings between tJhe whit® *e%as
were! tl)
sots.
?h* r l r l s pr®j«at«d ttar^ t o t a l ot erect'"nad
C2) ?&?* d o l l <tay in four out of *ev*n l o c « t i o n s was
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ne*wasm tha sen*'*,
l3> Iha v i r l *
projsotad th* d o l l s i n t o tn* children 1 » bedrooa and l l v i n f
roes* a area t a r number of t i r e * .
(L) The g i r l * projected
acre non*ter*otvp«d «et» th«&p th* b*»y®»
(5) !H* out of ion
nonatemoijroM' auhtheme* w«fr# s i g n i f i c a n t l y
{£) ^ni* r i r l * aanlf*e*ed ao-e a f f e c t i o n .
different.
(7) No dlff#r«nc#
was found in Ui» «nount af r«?jecti ">« b«»twern the assies.
($) Xraaalbi^ltv oraJe«t!»n« w*r* different*
<nj
>
&QLL FLAT OF Mmm
Am
WII'M J.0JS0OL CHILLR1®
Ifet a*y differenaoK sr<>n$r the
Table t l X , - Xn'
,,
t
white e a l l d r e n with r e e l e c t a *toreotyn# &o<£ non*tie *eo-
**bpn*-«.*!**
in dirl*
10 5*ny*
•w>iniiw*MWiiirt»aa»M»a
idl
'* * A^ »
<san
-tereotypn
«h.5
Loo6*ioa
*52,'i
"rdroom
Stdroo* 1
3fe,8
P i n i n g ^oof» 3^*1
Kitehan u
20. €
Livinw Q*3m 59.®
Bathroon
l^.i
4 J? , &
uthar
^ o n s t a r s o t y p e 21,2
G*ftom*<l*clhle 1 1 . a
Offset ion
11.3
-•j^ctlon
0,1
t^aeibl**
l.d
frustration
n.ft
A**rm*«ion
n.a
mi
Ends
Mean*
Ci^jsw&nd.®
IQ.S
"».?
0.S
p ..'..
p
>lff,
l*o.a*
ha,*
1*1,3
31* 5
*3.2
ii
1 1 . ft
13.5
12,d
11.ft
19,3
n,g
1^.7
?'.c
$. 3
IS.*
32.4
18.5
37.0
n.ft
13.5
3• *
3.1
If,9
1.7
13.5
a,fc
g,<
8.3
0,1
1.1
l.«
17,4
5*^
3,a
1.5
h.o
d.3
1,7
5.«
25#
*.»
fZ
•».&"
S.h
3.n
*» , 1
fc.1
n*3
an.t
&.7
ft.o
^.h
s.n
a,7
n.g
?•?
h.g
X5.*J
n.5
7.9
11,2
$.3
1.0
a.h
5. n
%7
5.2
&,?
1,2
l.g
1*g
a . ft
f.h
%?
<\5
\ *
U»
1.H
nr
2.1
jf* 3
HOWL rmy or nmm sua IIIITF*. mnmh mthmm
difference* war* evident in frw»tratl«n act*.
nroduoed a irreaier uaeunt of
ft^rrefliai^n.
05
Cl"*) Th* bo?*
( I i ) ' ^ * Ifroif leant
difference* ware found in the t o t a l a c t * of th*- * l l l ,
(12) ftae baye oraduead worn e *^l«***d Acts.
<13) rU*- r l r l *
pr«we aor* eo«*»*nf* *^d cr^#^#.
I t ha* a l s o been sn->wn by paut research t h ' t the c e l l
play taohoi-qu* lasses, i t s e l f wall to the itiaoov^ry
t a i l e d *«odie* of n a a t i l t t y f t a H n r * of e h i l d r a o .
4
»d deIn vitw
af these finding**, the next l n v *ii#fetion, *"r$m\ of ^ggrfssgion% **a aad*.
t h i s Intrwtraaifcl oowpwrltdn between tha
***** attempted t a threw some liifht u**oa the followinit ^u®*t l o n s s Xa t h e r e any a i f f s r a n a * In the trend of agrreasion
beteean t h * boy» awl s i r l s a* «he t r i a l * lner*a**?
#ld tjnt
children p r o j e c t wore h o s t i l i t y t o ^ r d th* op *oaite r*o#
doll*?
Althausjh figure 2 «bow* « deflrtlt 1 s ? ^ Wi^r* - f r a e *lve nhm.n-*&&y r<a*>on»«ii «**# inara&sed a* tt*a . W M OA-iloren**
play «5rocr#^sef*.
r^wsvrp, t ^ i e ^iotu rc «»«." not be «^**tie-
tlcallv significant,
bines i n h i b i t i o n l< roles, #pd b3f
the children * f t * r *-rial on* b«s»iU«® th* cfcllMren bcotme
*w#rs of th* f'-ot ' h ^ t &g>?r«&f l;>n projee'ed bv them does
not brln# a r«prl»n*t or ret*.\i>»tl->n fro*8 the **tc*irter.
f a c t o r of ^ t i a t i - j a nay *le© ',»lc*y %n lra„>ort«int rol*» la
**aaa*www<*wwa^iwww*irjir<i.iniwi jnwwawwawaaa-
^#®ori£* d. Bash* *>' • c l t . # iit-<ri »T,
*&#
WQLi* r t ^ T UJT JBOMvJ v;\j *<$!>, .i&'v'L Oiii^.j .-,
d e t e r m i n i n g th*? *.reftd of %F "»*!»1 >» fr^t
©d
-*vm*»fl\ftft xvW
p.
In severs* l c l i n i c a l ea^e* t h * / u b j p c t s * r « ^ >*s-r>l*,ted c»
wl*:fe thw d o l l * f o r * oon*id'\*nhl« l e n g t n of tiro*, » ^
^a^
th*
l o n r e r they ol&.y&$t t h * «^««* "fwd u - ' th**v a * ^ ' *ed t"J
beeoa* *i f c h *,h.a nl«y m^**rV'lir r r ^ u l t i n ^ i n v t y i w i t IUS^ J*. Vis i o n on numerous? s o c i a l **"»' *
In *tudvin# Fli-ur* % I t
i«
lot'- 5 r e s t in?*' t o fio*<,>- "h* t ^hm* &®»n f^rlR* fre^uenc*1* of <-"• tfftT©*—
« i v r r^«*.an«"it i n c r e a s e d a l l v h t l v with t h * t r i a l ! a , u-?w«v»-r, r e g a i n e d sterol f i o ^ n f s y b * l e «
u,*? of i a * *»oy«.
/ i r u f r 3 i l l u a t p ^ t a s t h e a$ reaaivw t r e n d f o r t h e
whit a QhlX*-*e^t
abo-*><s, a* would b t esT^et^d, an il^a*}*
i e r r t t i ' for to*? bo*a,
sill-
however, t h * •-*" i f a r | r 1 a l ^ c r s a e e d
*i%h t h e s t c a n i t r l * l -ind decree«»*« wi^h t h $ " h l r ,
THi*
^ t y - l o ^ l •jlcru n ®Hy *>* «r,t«!fii*! by %h# f a c t **ft*t 'h«* *- T.«
f ' i r l * *l*.bor-i *«} *h&lr nwn r i c « *»f «f>lls» i n ? M A I I I I
r^la-
*:ivel» *»!•* *f-*n,
I I , - XntrHjmol*! ^velooaenfcal
"MS
a
rfevelcvneot
factor**
of console >ce, *"»»* / ^ v r of
rf^-rs^i^r,
«d *h* «coe,yt**noe n^ reckon* l b Hi";? n?»» u w l l ? " e v i d e n t £<Hi«-
In*? **h* c h i l d 1 * neventii t ^ r , 1 '
I t 1/* Scndwn ttx*v th*>
^fic
• • o ^ l -*rinai?l*9 can b a a c q u i r e d a t *Jiii*ft pwriod of - evel^fl 1 c«pt.
"he a* s u c t i o n pay then f ' A l o ^ •'h-* -i$ ? e ' l i d bn:o f 1 "^
n\r mr he l " - r ^ > ' s l l k a l v t a show af^eo*l**n &^ r e j e c t ton t^-* ;v;
i ^ ^ ^ w n w M . inimwiiriin.iroi
ti T—
f
n
rnir
•Jit., -. i n o - i ^ .
BOLL PLAT Of NttMtt ABD WHITS SCHOOL 0HXLDR28
50
fcO
30
frequencies
20
10
0
X
XX
Trial*
XXX
f i g u r e 2 , - Trend of a$gr««aiv® phantasy retrponsSi
of t h e t h i r t y Megro s u b j e c t * .
fatal
— — — — Boy*
. , , . . . , , Girl*
DOLL PLAX OF KEBAB Am WHITE SCHOOL CHXLD2U5K
50
kQ
30
frequenoie*
20
10
0
X
XX
xxx
Trl&l*
figure 3»~ 3*r©nd of awrresalv* phantasy responses
of the thirty white subject*.
_ _ _
- -..
*
fatal
Boys
Girls
98
h i * neighbors.
Kewever, i f tne onil*'** *n*%*9m*n% I t ruah
t h a t he ha* no opportunity to aeoegt or r«J#ot ** n e i ^ b o r
»f tmothen r»iee, hi* e3t*»erienee n*v b® d l r a s t e * to p i ^ n ^ ^ # .
In view of tholes* hys>oth#ss«e, tha nent ene7vs*-a wire
st&de,
th* 1 i t to say, th* aenanMsainle ^rojfwtitinf*
,t
\lm
f i r a t nr««l* a n i l e r a n ware «oms*«.r«d with th* aonoupisaible
rhftntasles of *ae ***ond and t h i r d strada e i i V r e n *
"La vJsu-
l a r d i t n wft* than taken fro** f r i a i IX when ta® n'vUdrsn ware
r*l&;fi**3? with n a i l s r e p r e a e n t t a s tm
own.
1
r a a t afth«r< than t h e i r
t*i* raw frofutnole* a m pret^nted in fl«mre L for «ha
egro anildran walls figure 5 l l l n a t r a t e * t h e me^on** tit
the wnite toward t h e colored d o l l * .
Th# «ns5>»rl*on» found show a trend tow t**d ror* Affect i o n »n3nf£ th* J* agrees of th* sac Hind frAoe l«> <rd tr»e w^.ite
d c l \ * , while t h a i r [email protected]«et|*n i* sn«v raaly ltw**r &f*&$i? *.&>
aesond rr*d» N*>$o»o a'II-Ten*
* aijsii^r r*ttlo %N# llfcewia*
evident for the affnettnn and; r a j e a t l o n sunthesise orojeered
by t h s white c h i l d r e n .
^ h i l s an th* oflnj
lm"V * ?~r»$n three
f a r both jrr<*ur>* ®tiaw$ »r a^nioa'* tremS, however, «Ain ooisn*.riR7? affection t^ r e j e a t l o n , tu<? fnrvar raw*load *< fftedly
higher,
^IMKrwnt th#s* finding* s»ar« not ataiiBtiOtfT'ly * | g -
n l f l e a n t , t h e i r }anlle*-tl »ne v*r* i l l n a ^ r ^ t e d by All»re?
when ha *rat*j
'"mi"'
1 m.'—» —mmiwuwiiuwn—<w . w o
*P-u^olr»3j / U » r a , c>, a i % ,
, 1^-123.
BOLL H A ? or nmm
*«n w m
SCHOOL C,XLW<£*
iv>
As ths r a m i goal of the w i l l to oeaer,
when rightly directed, la s*lf*?res<»rv-.tt *n, the
develenaent af the sens* of p*r*onal value, »nd
tha aoaple*e realiratlon of hiaaeif by the i n d i v i dual , eo the moral pjoal at the will to ooannnlty
I* lav*, lav* of on*'a neighbour and vvrj
other
kind of lave; for, without pr*eup"»o*lnjr t h i s , lo^a,
eaarlflee, and epen-ha&rtedneee aannnt exlnt. The
ala«a reciprocal In'araonneetlon and interaction
of thee* two pritsal or fundaaen.ax tendencle* of
huaan nature art* obvloue. ^either can devela" properly Inderendently of the other, Xf a «w%n war*
wholly abeerbad Into th* coanunlty ha would loae
h l a c e l f , hi* Individual vale* *M hi* identity;
f i n a l l y , he would no longer be 'tola to expend h i a self for the cowunity, backus* In fact he would
eeaae to exlat. In thue le«tn# his value at an
ladlvidual, ha would heeoae ineapabla of levins;
hie neighbour: far "thou shall leva they nalghbanr
as t hey eel f.*
"n the oth»«» nam!, equally, a aoveaent af the w i l l to pawar in the dlraatlon of
aaral and aultural goals la rend*red i a a e s s l b l s l l k e a l a e any noaslbls aahleveneat - ualeae a psrsaa'a w i l l to community la given f u l l «eop*.
Xn a report of aravlons *tudl«a and hi* own invaet l g a t i o n , 3achR has shown that children with a hljghar laden
of brtghtnesA seora t*nd to hav# greater lntereet In denaatle nlay.
Kelly and Kelly^ have alao atatad that nmr
th* *nd of th* primary school parlac th* child 4 * previous
iat*r*sta In olay action* which Involve lamination and
nhantaey are e t i l l very evident.
They al*o pointad out that
reading Interacts and vocabulary *hav a rapid lnsr*«s*.
h*
H e a r t * K £*eh, ©;•>» c i t . , l i i - o b •?,
*Willl*» A. felly and Kargaret lauther Kelly, o--.. cit.,
o. l&9-laC.
DOLL P U Y OF MKJEO AND WHITE SCHOOL CHILDREN
101
50
no
30
frequencies
20
10
/
2
XI
School Crad*
XXX
figure *»,- Trend of eonouplsolbls phantasy r®npanm®
of the $e&r© aubjeat* on Trial XX.
.,., Affeotlon
«.«..«.* Rejection
DOLL
PUT
or &m&o AUV rnvrsa
;-WHVOL C K I I . W ^
50
ho
30
frequencies
20
10
0
X
XX
School Grade
XXX
flfuro 5.- trend of cancnpiaoibXe phantasy
of the white subject* on trial XX.
,
Affection
*»«. — «. Reject ion
DOLL ?»LAT Of tf&ttftO A«» idlX?* sC'fUOL OnXLiMar.
103
phantasy syndroass ot ths older ohlld also aoosar f,raat««r
oa the Thenatie App*rasptlon Test according to Stanford.
Ths pr***nt r**mr4h
then n«de a cowpiria >n between
ths i n t s l l s c t u a l a b i l i t y and phantasy productions of the
ahlldren*
The neaa scores of the etsreatyped respensas pro-
duced by the brighter ahlldren,«ere aoapared with the r>roduet i e n s of ths l s s « bright children aad treated as an uneerrelated seapls.
hsven *»gre ohlldrsn, three boy* and four
g i r l s aade up tha gran** * l t h I . . . ' a ahava 110 an the Coedenough Scale.
Thia group gave avldance ef an average I . I .
«aor* of 1 1 $ . 1 , with a range sf froa l i d to 128.
Their e t e r -
eotyped phantasias were eoapared with seven Bsgro ahlldren,
five boye and twti g i r l e whoea &r*m%* X.'*. wae »8*7, with a
range of 76 to *f.
the subsequent ooaparlecn made betw#*n
th* whit* groupa consistsd of throe bay* and four r i r l * for
bath the aubgroun* with high and low i n t e l l i g e n c e te»t *aora*.
the «iver«*re X. •. for the brighter white group was 132.8, with
a range of froa 118 to l » l , as aoaparsd to tha low»r group
with mn 1 . *. of *tn.7. with a ramra of 76 to 99.
The result*
of theee analysee are preeented In Tohia VIII, which follow*.
Th* aeaparlaon* w«»re fotind to be *tati*tloftily
aignifleant
at th* t% and \% lav*l* of oonfldence in spite of the f ct
that they w*re awde within but twelve dim^ttn of freedom.
*°». ftevitt Sanford, "Peraonallty Pattern* in School
Children" in fcl.d, flaMTlftff ajfl ttttilftjtfMftt. 8*w *"»*••<.
Hadraw-Nil1, l « b 3 , p . 567*599.
DOLL PLAT OF Nfi&AO AND W I T H SCHOOL CHILDHIKN
104
Table VIII,- Intraraoial developmental comparisons
araong- fourteen subjects from «ach race with respect to I. *,.
and number of stereotype phantasies*
I.'"*, abo we 110
I,<4. below 10O
Subject*
Dlff.
t
1. o.c
Mean
B.C.
Mean
S,i),
Kessjro
209.5
5^.7
1^3.0
2B.5
66,5
2$
White
IO9.8
23.7
1^6,1
18,0
53.7
X*
DOLL T»LAT OF N-vORO n«D ' ill "\ "«GKA>L 0 •U.CV.4J
I I I . - Intrpracial Individual
105
difference*
The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of a ^ v r r a !
o«t*^orlf-^
ha* been o f f e r e d &<? v n r l o u a points? <»f vi«*w f o r oo»n«rable
studies,
fhe r a n r e , wean, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ,
t o t a l , &nd
n e r c e n t of t h e s t e r e o t y p e d and ncnat*-»^otv?eC c x t e t r o r i a e
a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Tables XX and X f o r t h e $m,rQ and whit©
o h i l d r a n , ra^^wc^lvwly.
The r*»w f r e q u e n c i e s w-ilch rcake up
th«* phantaav r^snonaa" r c v a a l v a r i n t l o n p &®o\w f i e
i n t h e r e l a t i v e q w n t i t l * * of n r o j a o t i n n * .
rtubjeot,
In vipw nf th*?
f a c t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e * do e x i s t arton^ a l l huraan
b r i n g s , e a u t i o n *rcu<3fc b© t«.K*n not t o i n t e r o r e t t h e e * d i f f e r e n c e s a s b*=-ing nnrked froa one c h i l d t o th© o t h « r .
Xt
i e a known f«*ot t h a t c h i l d r e n posse** more a i m i l u r i t i - a
than d i f f e r e n c e * , mora conston t r a i t * than d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r acteristics.
P r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n * »?*© ^ugp^sted vhBn th©
causaa of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s a r o b e l i e v e d t o b® h e r e 11
d i t v , environment, t r a i n i n g * $m& e f f o r t of w i l l .
Although
t h a r e l a t i v e iraport&nce of eaoh of the*se f a c t o r s i s not
%nown, t h e l a s t t h r e e ©an nevertheless* be lnnrov*d bv t h e
nsront o r toacher.
Leading e d u c a t o r s have p o i n t e d out fro» tin® to time
t h a t a wholesome ©nvironmant «n^ t r a i n i n g could make a c h i l d
f u n c t i o n njore n e a r h i e n o t e n t i a l l t y .
Xt bee a l a o b^en shown
^ l l H a r ! A. Kelly *nti Mr«r^ar«»t Uputher ^11,?, o-o,
Cit., n. 10-37.
DOLL -LAY Of
v
t*K) A?C
HI? C SCHOOL OHXLiaU'rt
106
t h a t v a r i a t i o n s a-^onfr o h i l d r r n o^oau'-ff of i-Jvlr t r a i n i n g
i n c l u d e v a r i a t i o n s In r 'orr.il s, A t t i t u d e s towards ofch«*r«;,
h a b i t a , i d e a l s nnd i n t e r n e t * .
I t I* with t h e * * p r a c t i c a l
thought a in mind t h a t th® f o l l o w i n g a n s l y a e a w<jre n a d e .
liXnrlnation of *V<V„s IX and X shofc,« th&t ..he
r»n»jj* of a t o r e o t v p e d reooonsea f o r t h e <-®p:ro c h i l d r e n was
78 t o 2 9 1 , w h i l « on th© o t h e r hand, t h e fewest
phantasies
produced by t h e white c n i l d r e n wore <?n9 and 32^ wer^ t h e
highest,
The r e l a t i o n s h i p of stereotyped, n h a n t e s i * * t o
n o n s t e r e o t y p e d ^hantRniee was c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t
from
child to child.
I t l a l n t s r « a t t n # : t o note t h « t of t h e s^ranr t o t a l
of p h a n t a s i e s , ^3.2$ were of th© s t e r e o t y p e d c a t e g o r y
f o r the Ke^ro c h i l d r e n , whili* t h e w h i t e s p r o j e c t e d 91.8$
stereotyped.
I t i s &l*e i n t e r e s t i n g t o observe t h e
~if-
f»rencps v l t h r e p p e o t t o t h e loomtion of t h e thoaiFtic
action*.
Th« room lehich both r r o u p e of c h i l d r e n uss°d
wo*t f o r t h e i r n h a n t a s i e a was* t h e l i v i n g rooia.
Th« fewest
p h a n t a s i e s involved t h e Icitohen f.>r t h e ^egruft* anO t h f
bsthrooai f o r t h e w h i t e s .
?h«*«« q u a n t i t a t i v e results', wiy
he I n d i c e s of r e a l i t y o r noe«ilbly thf* f&ot th- % ©one raons
*rer$ "ior© c o n v ^ n i e n t l v w i t h i n r-*.ch of th© c h i l d t h a n
others.
Although al"> v?\
^Ixhlr,
Van rench of th*» c h i l d ,
Rome wpre r e l a t i v e l y nop** d i f f i c u l t
doll action.
In which t o m a i n t a i n
Howevwr $llftfat t h i s vnrl&ble t./v.y b*», i t
tfOLL Tl>v OF $?&&! *M 'AWA BOiiOOL GVIhDKm
10'i«9
Tfiblft I X , - Frequencies* of thr©* I'Vroinute d o l l
p l a y t r i a l * w i t h t h i r t y '-effro primary BOhool c h i l d r e n .
Total
Range
Mean
Categories
stpreotype
Locntion
Bedroom
Bedroom 1
Dining Room
kitchen
Living Hoora
Bath &oora
Other
Nonatereotype
Conouplsoible
Affection
Rejection
Irascible
frustration
Aggression
Will
Ends
Keens
Commands
Low
High
7%
391
161. h
11
10
2
3
13
5
0
k$
49
59
B2
40
7£
23.1
23.0
26.6
18.4
35.1
20.9
14. o
0
32
0
0
5-
i
i
- '.iJ.
J-o.
%
46.1
4842
100.0
S.4
12.6
10.2
V**5
8.8
14.6
699
690
799
522
1054
627
421
14.1+
14.2
16.5
11.4
21.7
12.0
8.6
11.7
n.5
351
10*).0
12
6
3.4
0.7
3.4
1.4
102
22
29.0
0
0
5
16
*.3
3.0
1.0
4.9
11
92
0
0
0
tj*
0.3
0.9
2,0
0.9
1.7
3.3
9
27
88
3°-
5
10
7 ">
Q • *&
3.1
&*C? o
c
2.5
7.6
25.0
DOLL 7»LAY Of NEGRO AND T*HIT& fiOHOOL
108
QUIl*i)"hh
Table A,- '''"requftnolos of three 10-wlnute doll play
trials with thirty white i>rlW'ry school children.
Total
Cntsg?ories
IJ O W
3t*reotypa
Location
Bedroom
Bedroom 1
Dining Room
Kitchen
L i v i n g noons
Bath ftoos
Other
Honstereotype
nigh
y«an
Ho.
%
90
326
185.2
56.0
5356
100.0
9
11
13
4
21
0
0
58
64
102
51
92
36
ii-9
35.5
27.4
35.5
19.5
45.6
18.0
13.5
10.8
11.7
16.B
<>.3
19.0
9.4
13.7
14.7
JL-"»» * ^
766
822
1067
585
136B
541
407
0
42
16.5
10.5
406
8,1
0
0
27
6
6.0
0.6
1.6
6.a
208
18
J*1.9
3.6
0
6
IB
0.5
1.6
1.3
1.5
17
50
3.4
10,0
°*t
2,1
2.5
4.0
16
37
15^
3.2
7.4
3". 2
ConCUT5lRCiblO
Affection
HeJ&etion
Xr«?eeible
Frustration
Sgrsrression
Will
&ndn
Mean*
Corawsn'! *
s.u*
n
0
0
0
1?
11
IS
.L • <w
5.*
XV • »
10.5
24.6
9.7
/ e $
DOLL rU.T Of M»W3 «NB WTXT8 SCHOOL OKXLBHtn?
nevertheloe* exlstod.
199
the #ven**&e Weirro child nroduoed
161*4 stsrsotyped rssponsss and 11.7 n>neterectypcd r e s ponsss.
This ratio for the v h i t s child was 115.2 to 1^.5
phsntsslss.
Ths soneuplsslbis phsntsslea of sffeetlon end
rsjsstlejt vers found to be 29% «,nd 6.2j5. respsotively, of
the »enttsreotyoed response* for ths Heflrre children.
The
vnite r*tio on tne soncupiaciOle cubthewe w&s 41,9$ to
3.6* of tlte aenstsreetvpsd responsee.
The i r e e e l b l e ratio
for. the,Hsrro children WM 3*1,< frustration end 26.2,$
Aggression.
Zr*s*lblllty ssion# ths vhlt.e children ^redttesd
s r e t i e of : 3.4£ t o id* for ths frustration sggression ssjfethsass of ths t o t s l nonet*rsoty<?ed responses,
-n ths othsr
hend, the e l i c i t e d nets of the w i l l vhich vere means in
thsKSslv4s shoved * esrssntaw* of 2 . 5 . 7 . 6 , and 25 for the
ends, neons t^nA ©owraesds of the fleijro children.
With r e s -
pect to th* v l l l eatsfsorv, the whites nanlfested percsnt s f s s of 3.2 for the ends, 7.4 for the »«mn«, «na 3^.2 for
ths oettnsnds.
Oeneerninft stersetyped e e t l o n s , the asoth«r doll
wes si»bor**ed oost frequently by both the We«ro *w! white
shildrsn.
The two troupe e l s o lnoludtd the father doll
i s s s t often In their phsntssles.
The r*nirs, neon, etondsrd
dsvletion, nunb«r of perosntspre In v loh s**h of the dolls
vsre involved «re given in Teblee XX end XXX for the Negro
end white children, res$>sotlv*ly.
DOLL P U T OF nmm
A\i]) WHIPK SOHOOL CHILDREN
no
Table XI.- STi&bomtion of t h e colored d o l l s by the
t h i r t y Mo^ro primary school ohildren.
©rand 4&t&X
Range
Dolls
father
Mother
Boy
Girl
Lov
High
9
9
8
8
32
47
41
39
Mean
18.7
20.5
19.2
10.1
s .JD
—»
5.,0
8.,4
7.,2
7.,4
Ho.
*
563
615
576
573
24,1
26,—
24.7
(C*T % O
DOLL PLAY OF
} AM.D VHXTi: 30IJOOL QdlLDM.il
T a b i c XIX,- E l a b o r a t i o n of t h t nthite d o l l s by t h e
t h i r t y *?hlt© priraarj? school c h i l d r e n .
Grand Total
Soils
Father
Mother
Boy
Oirl
Low
9
11
9
8
High
39
49
41
41
Mean
«», iJ,
19.®
8.2
9.0
.8
Aj« 1
23.1
no.
I:
594
753
695
686
21,7
27.0
25.4
35.1
raw, PUT or mtm ABB mrs* -SCHOOL omhmm
na
Practical appllsetloae of t h i s analysis ars svldsnt
vhes an individual oass rcveftle ee*u»thl»ff s t a t i s t i c a l l y
significant in ths invslvsmsnt of any ons of the d o l l e
vhieh say depict a real l i f e e l t u a t l o s for the ohild.
that
I s t s soy. If the father doll epoeared in far l e s e phantas i e s of ths ohild than any sthsr d e l l , this parent •»» be
advised that ths c h i l d ' s t o t a l 4«vel»**e*t stay require more
attention fros that partlattlar parent.
although ths fellovlnff are not thee* t i e reeooneoc,
they are, aeverthel»«e, Utperteat to the d e l l play i n v e s t i gator.
A brief* dlesussion sonoernlas; owetlossl involve-
asnt, freedoe df inhibition* graan a c t i o s , aoathssatia and
a a s l s s s l f l a e l s reeeonees of too shlldren fellows.
With respect to toe floftreo of eaotleaal lavalvsasnt
en ninety t r i a l * , the >sgro ahlldren wore r»r#e to be dstaohed on 28 oeeaeions, eoaevhat Involved 29 tinea, at the
eldfcround l e v e l on 20 oseaelona, involved lr> timas, end
deeply Involved on 4 00000lone*
"n V>is anna rating seals
the w l t f children vere detached 6 t l a s s . aeaevhat involved
on 22 t r i a l s , eldground on 1ft ooea«lon<», Involved 2ft ti»o»,
and on 16 eeoealoas dsepiy lavelved.
Concerning Inhibition for thirty complete sessions,
ths Kogro shlldren vere ratrd fl, i n , 6, 3 , end 3 , rectoeet l v e l y , for the five s e a l s s of Inhibition, vhil«t ths whits
ehlldrsn shovsd ratings of 3 , 5, 8, 9, end 5 on the thirty
esaolete sessions.
DOLL PUT Of MKORO AM.) VflXTS JOHQOL CHILDREN
113
Insofar as ths «reur aotlon was concerned, the
ftegro children ehowe<$ an individual r&np* from one group
act per three t r i a l s up to twenty-eight tfroup aotloaa.
The avesaae nuaber of group s e t s far tho hegro ehlld was
1 3 . o , with a staadard dsvletion ef 5.8 # and a grand total
of hid i?roup a e t e .
Oa tha other hand, the white ahlldren
preduasd as i l t t l s as eight group acta, and as high as
twe«ty-fi»« with a asaa of 1 7 . 2 , and a standard deviation
of 5 . 6 , aad a amnd t o t a l af 517.
Analysis o f ' t h e unolaa-
s i f l s d raspoases wns not slflmifleant with tha Individual
raage ef from one percent uo to a high of eixteen percent.
Roveeor. la the i n i t i a l s'agaa af reaerdlns;, aore unelaes i f l e d rasponees w«rs avldsat, bat a f t e r studying ths verbatla aoaasats of the subjects, thane pluuitasiss were
appropriately tabulated.
WWUHY AHP
U4
cpnaLUaxons
Ths preesat rasearah was an attaapt t o aahleve the
fellewlns: aiasi
1.
To design sad staadardlss a prajeatlve dall play
toahaicue for studying family phantaeies af *ocr© prta&ry
•cheol ohilCrea froa a Thpalstat palat of view.
t*
fp deelom and etandsrtisa s prajeative dall
play technique for studying f&tsily phantasies of white oriaary sofeeel ahlldraa frow a f h s a l e t l * polat of visw.
I,
Te i s o l a t e * i f peaeieie, peyefeslsffissl footers
which aay seatriouta to tha dsreloooent of the children's
phantasies*
A a s d l f l a a t l e a of a prevlouely standardised d o l l play
technique vac aade ta I n d u c e a colored doll faally and a
d e l l house that resembled an actual hoae setting*
fbllew-
ln* the i n i t i a l Inattention of the subject, the teehni QUO
aa4e use ef fro» one to four anxiety reinforcing or anxiety
reducing etlsmlafclons.
The prlaeipls ourposs of the tech-
n|a.ue waa to e l i c i t social phsntasiss within a preordained
thsaatia s e t t i n g .
Ths wsthed of recording the eubjeot's
respenee w«« quantitative, an<? r e l i a b i l i t y w*« established
by agreeasnt be ween two independent examiners.
Ths v a l i d i t y of the aethod was determined by the
develoaent of en Inquiry which w-^e ^rrgented to the onlld
laasdlatsly follewins; the d e l l nlsy period.
Th* factor nf
teaperal v a l i d i t y WBII very carefully considered in t h i s
8UHKAHY AMD GWIULUSl-Mtt
reepeet*
11^
Tha value ef t h i s approach l i e s in ths faot that
d a l l p&av lavastlgatore aay bs able to ostsrwlne the validity
fop wash aad every subjeot by eoap*rln# tha doll play phantaelea af fthe child with the c h i l d ' s reepone<>a to the inquiry.
Intrarectal aoapovlsons were then selected for stat l e t l o a l Analyses*
a^avaplsa 9t sons of these aoup&risona
fallawl
I.
?.
.
.
5.
2
*ax differeaaee apaag ths Negro ehlldrsn.
ftex diff creases aaong the white ehlldrsn. ,
Aavalapejaatal teeter* aae**? the Kegre ahlldren.
Dev^lopaen-.ai factors eaeng the white ahlldren,
Individual dlffareaase aaeng ths >e«ro children*
6. Individual diffsreneee amon*? the white ohilaren.
rue aoat significant results of the analysee wer*»
1.
garbed difference* In the type, location *nd
number of phantaci*s existed between the aexee.
The c i r l s
manifested «ore stersotyped act* than th* boya and produced
uere affection responses, while on the other hand, the boys
projsoted aore aggrtssi^n and less* socmAnds.
2*
Trend*, «a well as significant differences,
wore evident at various devslopmsntal «togas.
The older
shlldren gsnsrally showed n xrmnA toward more affection &nd
rsjeotlin.
The brighter 0 tlldren produoed **lfrnlflo"ntiy
more stereotyped phantasies than thoee aohlering a low*r
Intelligence t e s t seors*
3,
Individual differences wsrs also found; however,
a greater number of atwll&rlti«# appeared to be preeent.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
116
finally, ths children's themes vere elaborated more
frequently around the mother doll and least frequently
around the father figure.
Preotioal applications of this
analysis arc svidsnt whsn an individual case is found to
be expresslag a trus-to-llfs hoae situation.
The reeults found suggests* the following general
conclusionsi
Ths family phantasies of children froa different
racial groups aay bs slicltsd by projective dell play.
The
phantaelee nay also ba quantiflad and analyssd objectively.
The faot that various family phantasies oould be
recognised and measured euggests ths possibility that proJest ire dpll play techniques aay be an additional device for
the investigation of shild dsvslopnsnt and raoial rslatlons.
froa ths viewpoint of theory, It is of utmost significance that ssx differences, developmental faotors and
individual differences within a raoial group oould be
studied objsetlvsly froa ths principles and concepts of
Thorn1stlo psychology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
117
Abt, Lawrence K., and Leopold Belluk, "Hidltore*',
r r a l a a t i v o Pavaholoav.* qiliiiaal.Approaches to the Total
Personality.. Sew York, Knopf, 1950, p* 33-66.
This recent publication described in « general
way the theory of o r o j e o t l o n . I t was upon t h i s
back ground t h a t the m j o r i t y of p r o j e c t i v e d o l l
nlay techniquea wore founded.
A l i e n s , Rudolph, .ths,. Payahologv of Character. New
York, Bheed & v a rd, 1943, v-383 p .
Thia author applied to modern psychology a >hiloeoohy based upon t r u e valu^us &nd the Thoraistic
concent of th© p®vcho-ohy&ical unity of man.
Anraons, ii. B . , "Reactions in a Projective DollPlay Interview of Vhite Males Two t o Six Year* of Age to
Differences in Skin Color and Facial Features", in The J o u r nal Qf ftJMfrlft\,PftTQ|Kilj|gsi» w ol, 76, i s s u e of Jun- 1950,
n. 323-341.
In one of the few studies employing a d o l l nlny
technique to i n v e s t i g a t e develo^aent of differences
betvoen r&ei&l groups, the author reported s i g n i f i c a n t r e l i a b i l i t y of the method esmioyed, Th®
procedure used was a nodifi&d d o l l play technique
retimed
to ®B the doll -tX&y interview,
Ammona, ft. a, and H, S, Poisons, "Parent Preferences
in Young Children*s Doll-Play Interviews"* i n t h e Journal of
Abnormal a.n6 Soolal Pavflholofiry. Vol. 44, iio. 4 , issue of
October 1949, p , 4QQ-5<55.
Normal boys and g i r l s at th© preschool l e v e l wer©
interviewed concerning t h e i r preference during free
play and during d o l l p l a y . R e l i a b i l i t y between th©
observers waa nearly p e r f e c t , however, the children'«
preferences changed considerably within two weeks.
The authors revealed t h a t the verbal preference of
t h e child agreed only 50$ with th© unconscious p r e ference shown during d o l l nlny. The nost n i g n i f i onnt r e s u l t of t h i s study concerned the temporal
v a l i d i t y of doll play and the d o l l play Interview
which was a oroblesi of method r a t h e r than the type
of m a t e r i a l s used.
BXBLIOO-HArnY
118
Bach, George R., " F a t h e r - F a n t a s i e s and F a t h e r - T y p i n g
i n F a t h e r - S e p a r a t e d C h i l d r e n " , in C h i l r ^nvolo_ian.eja.t. Vol.
17, NOB. l-*2, I s s u e of Mnrch-June 1946, p . 6 3 - ^ 0 .
Th© a u t h o r p r e s e n t e d t h e d o l l p l a y them© t o
forty
children 6 to 10 years of age. s i g n i f i c a n t difference® were found between the children cowing from
the father-absent home as compared to those* In which
the f a t h e r was oresent in the horae.
—§ "Young Children's Play F a n t a s i e s , " In the
Psychological Vo no graphs. Vol. 5*>, s*o. 2, issue of 1Q'*5#
111-6Q n.
This was the f i r s t in a s e r i e s of four smnirlc&l
studies of doll play inaugurated under the d i r e c t i o n s of Robert H. S©are a t the Iowa Child Welfare
S t a t i o n . The objective was to develop a q u a n t i t a t i v e d o l l play method for th© study of experimentally induced phantasies of preschool c h i l d r e n .
This goal was achieved by a d e t a i l e d standardised
introduction of each child to the nlay m a t e r i a l s .
Bach, Oeorg© R. and Olorla Bremer, "Projective Father
Fantasies of Pre-Adolesoent Delinquent Children*, In .The,
Journal of Psychology.. Vol. 24, Mo. 1. i s s u e of July 1<?4?>
o. 3-17.
These authors attempted to c l a r i f y t h e o r i e s of
c r i m i n a l i t y - c a u s a t i o n by administering the s t a n dardised orojeotlve doll play technique to a group
of nrepsyehowthic delinquent children seven to- ten
ye«*rB of i g e . A most s i g n i f i c a n t feature of t h i s
etudy was the fact t h a t the d o l l play technique
was apnlled to children at the primary and element a r y grade l e v e l s , whereas previous research dealt
mainly with children a t the preschool ®ge.
Baruch, D. V., "Aggression During Doll Play in a
Preschool**, in The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
Vol. 1 1 , Ko. ?., issue of Aoril 1941, p . 252-260.
This? was one of the f i r s t q u a n t i t a t i v e s t u d i e s of
doll play. The findings revealed the ssl&nifle&neo
of aggression which vag applied to helo student
teachers develop new a t t i t u d e s concerning the
child.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
119
Beekhnra, A, i J ., *Albinisra in Hegro Children", in
IMjMmMl
,a t,ffilflgft 1ft Jl®X&mXmx» ^ * #>» Unu® of December
This wna a unique study In which the I n v e s t i g a t o r
examined fourteen boys and twenty-tight g i r l s , a l l
albino Htgroes. He concluded t h a t many of these
children early in l i f e developed a f e e l i n g of ln«ste u r i t y in t h e i r home and in t h e i r cewaunitieB, ^us
to the fact they were discriminated a g a i n s t . However, no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in i n t e l l i g e n c e w&s
found between the albino and M s s i b l l n g i .
B e l l , John l l d e r k i n , toimUflft fafltalflaeju A, #XMr
ffle A.pajtig^flh.ntPyJghj|„AtMy,,pf» $K%Iff.MftXltX*
"«* 2b*** Longmans, Sreen, 1948, p . 347-467.
According to B e l l , play i s and w i l l probably renain
the most e f f e c t i v e projective technique designed
to study the p e r s o n a l i t y of c h i l d r e n . fie divided
the i n v e s t i g a t i o n a of p e r s o n a l i t y with play into
d e s c r i p t i v e and technical studies and defined
c l e e r l y the objectives of a*oh method. A s i g n i f i c a n t h i s t o r i c a l survey was also given which
evaluated variou* studies fro® both points of view,
"ill 1 *** u*lmtim
Mtt
Blffi.Jtelall.!fS«b Milwaukee, Sruoe,
A c l e a r d i e t m o t i o n between the sonaupieoible and
i r a s c i b l e concepts wste m&de by t h i s author. ?h«?s«
terms were two pf the major nonstcreotyped c a t e g o r i e s used in t h i s r e s e a r c h .
Bruce, ?-\, *Factore Affecting I n t e l l i g e n c e Teat Performance of t n i t s s and Kegroes In t h e ftur«l South*1, in
ftXMkXxm ,oX jtaratolftmr,* **<>• 252 t i s s u e of July 194*0. 99 p .
Thle w r i t e r held the opinion t h a t there WAS an
Inheront difference between Negro end white groups
which he studied. However, s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s
f a i l e d to support t h i s i n c l i n a t i o n . The r e s u l t s
of a b a t t e r y of t e s t s administered t o 521 whit©
c h i l d r e n and 43 £ colored c h i l d r e n , agcrn 6 t o 12.9
yours, l i v i n g in the gas® county in t h s Stat© of
V i r g i n i a , ©hewed t h a t tha Hsgro ana white children
were both below the ra$&n ®por*s for th® na+lon and
the *%gt*o children I n f e r i o r t o the w h i t e s .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
120
Uanady, Herman $ , , "The Psychology of t h e Negro'•,
i n The anovclonedla of Psychology. Now York, The J M l o s o p h l c a l L i b r a r y , 1<UK>, p . 407-416.
This 1 B a b r i e f but e x c e l l e n t sumtnarlaatlon of
e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s concerning t h e ttegro.
The a u t h o r r e v e a l e d some of th© d i f f i c u l t l e e which
were i n h e r e n t i n th® e v a l u a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l
s t u d i s of t h e $egro and o t h ^ r e t h n i c groups by
sieanc of t o d a y ' s t e c h n i q u e s . [email protected] p o i n t e d out t h a t
t h e s t u d i e s would b© meaningless u n t i l c e r t a i n
f a c t o r s a r e p r o p e r l y c o n t r o l l e d . H« concluded by
assuming t h « t a l l r ^ c e a possessed equal •psychological oharacteristics.
Oonn, J a c o b H,, *The P l a y - I n t e r v i e w a® an I n v e s t i g a t i v e and T h e r a p e u t i c P r o c e d u r e 1 , I n The Hsrvous C h i l d .
Vol. ? , Mo, 3 , i s s u e of J u l y 1&48, p . 257-286.
According t o t h i s a u t h o r , t h e p l a y i n t e r v i e w o e r m i t t e d t h e c h i l d t o e x p r e s s h i m s e l f i n isuoh a
manner t h a t t h e d o l l was c o n s i d e r e d r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r th® e x p r e s s i o n s .
™,«
. "The ^ l a y - I n t e r v i e w * "A Method of Studyi n g C h i l d r e n ' s A t t i t u d e s " , I n ffihj, MftriUmn . ^ M l „ft3C.
kXjmM* Qf< ®UMMm» Vol. 5 S , Mo, 6 , i s s u e ot Feoeffiber
1939. p . 1199-121&.
Thle r e s e a r c h wan p r i m a r i l y Qa>[email protected]®& w i t h ® q u a l i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of thew&tlo o l a y .
Contra 0 - e n t l l e s , Book XXX* Chaptera 1 2 2 - 1 ? 3 .
W r i t i n g wany c e n t u r i e s a g o , Thomas Aquinas c l e a r l y
a n t i c i p a t e d th© r o l e of t h e p a r e n t s i n t h e hov\®.
P r e s e n t day e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s added t o t h e supoort
of t h i a g r e a t e a r l y p h i l o s o n h s r *
Cooper, John N
" P o s t u l a t e s \ i n IjntarTMifll
Review. A J o u r n a l f or,. C h r i s t Ian, Psffoars,^, i ^ s u e o f ' J u n e
1051. p . 81*
T h i s a u t h o r s a i d . "From th® evidence on hand today
we cannot s c i e n t i f i c a l l y prove t h a t th® ftordio o r
t h e Negro i s s u p e r i o r o r i n f e r i o r one t o t h e o t h e r .
BXBLXOdBArm
Oorrigan, Joseph **'. &nd '-', wrry
121
^T-nvLe, " M i t e r s " ,
Na* York, Barnes & Kobls, 19*4, v-436 p ,
Thlfi s l ^ n i f l o a n t syranoalutf volume tw* be^n w r i t t e n
by a number of outstanding a u t h o r i t i e s frow several
f i e l d s . I t wa-3 comprised of ten isonogrftph® which
had a wide ronge of r a c i a l i s s u e s ,
Cox, ~ . C . , "k'he H&©1»1 t h e o r i e s of Hob»rt *. Parke
and Ruth Benedict", in T^o JaaupaaJ,, .oX.i.gfriB, ,,%to.tAin» Vol.
13, *•<•>• 4 , ineue of October 194«# o. 452-463.
In A c r i t i q u e of the r a c i a l theories of r'~.rke and
Benedict, the author pointed out t h a t the former's
t e l e o l o g l e a l method was ambiguous and inoonclstent.
The present day liotlon that r&oe bigotry sa&y have
been developed by «&rly a s s o c i a t i o n s was considered
f a l s e . Other t h e o r i e s were a l t o challenged, and th®
fact was nointed out that Benedict showed * wane of
r a c i a l Antagonist)! as a recent developmentj however,
she was i n d i f f s r e n t to the m a t e r i a l i s t i c and economic
b a d e for i t .
tfanlel, Robtrt P . , "Basic Oonslderstlonf for Valid
I n t e r p r e t a t i8o n s of ERperlmenfcal ©tudie® Pertaining to Racial
Differences , in ^U&JmttmX o£„^MtftA^^l, .?JgoJ|oftafflL» Vol,
23, Bo. 1, Issue of January 1932, p . 15-27.
A cheek l l g t of sixteen «|ue«tion© wns formulated
which the author believed should be answered p o s i t i v e l y t o give valid i n t e r p r e t s ions to the studies
of difference© among r a c e s . Significant conclusions
vere then ntede in vi^w of t h i s a l l i n c l u s i v e c r i teria.
Dnvenport, C. B . , <*&o Races d i f f e r in Menlnl 0an&c i t y V in j|i
mua&n Biolagg.. V i . 1, Mo, 1, ISKUS of January
1Q2«>, o. 70Thie author reported worked d i s t i n c t i o n s in the
i n t e l l e c t u a l r e s o u r c e of different m c o e . He
assumed t h a t anatomical factors such &® the sens®
organs and nervous ayetea of the two r&ces wfsre
d i f f e r e n t . Therefore, be concluded t h a t sensory
and i n t e l l e c t u a l v a r i a t i o n s of a similar c l a s s as
nhyslcal differences do e x i s t between the r a c e s .
siBLioaRAwnr
x***
Dearborn, %klter F. &n& Howard R. ^ong, *The Phys i c a l an** Hentsl
A b i l i t i e s of the American Megro, A C r i t i c a l Sufflwary8, in ? t e *QUXTOl Qff foffgfl SftWitlon,, V/ >1. 3 ,
Ho. 3 , Issue of July 1034, n, 530-5^7.
These author® modified G a r t h ' s formula by including
an *0B f a c t o r which designates o b j e c t i v i t y or f r e e doss fro» m o i a l b i n s .
Dee^ert, J . Louisa, WA H«thod for the ^tudy of
Personality Besetlon© in Pyr-ftchool / ged Children by Means
of Analysis of Tholr Play*, In M§^iQMmXM,
^Mtelgffl.
Vol. o, Ko. 1, issue of January 1940, n, 17-2n.
Thlp research west oritv r i l y concerned with % q u a l i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of thefcrntic "-day.
Bollard, John ^ „aj.., ffrji^mU&fi,, m^A^rmilm.
New lis von, Tale Tbilvereltv, 1939, l-2f)9
Thia boofe disseueaed the f r u s t r a t i o n - a g g r e s s i o n hypot h e s i s which served as a frame of reference for the
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of «eveml of the p r o j e c t i v e doll
^Iny s t u d i e s .
Srlkson, Erik Howburgor, * Mjudi^s in the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Play: X. Ollnloal Observation of Play disruption
in Taung Children*, in the ga&ft£Aft gfTfthflloffiT. flffiiwafrbht*
Vol, 22», Mo. 4, Issue of 1940, 557-671 n.
This inveatiK&tor described a method of d o l l nlay
i n which cmoh&sis wag placed uf?n the manner in
which the child jinpmised t h e m a t e r i a l s .
Estabrooke, £J, R,, *That Question of Racial
I n f e r i o r i t y * , In %«nAMylaMI ^»1ihff9?9Xn^l»?., Vol. 30,
issue of July 1©««, 0, 470-475.
Following an Interview of leading anthropol o g i s, t s concerning the findings* of oeyohological
inv<- etla'atlon?t of i n t e l l i g e n c e betwe°n r a c i a l
groups, the *uthor concluded t h a t no marked v a r i a t i o n s could be found e s t a b l i s h i n g I n t e l l e c t u a l
s u p e r i o r i t y or I n f e r i o r i t y for one [email protected] or another.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
123
Ford, R. * , , "Techniques for Coaling Kxperlenoed!
A Study of White ftegro Contact.e*, -in The Vniveraitv
of
Pittsburgh B u l l e t i n . Vo7. 37, Ho. 3, issue of M*roh 1941,
rv. 113-122.
This author employed the Thurstone and. Liitort
s c a l e s to measure- experiences* which individuals ?3»y
have had with Keg-roes, fiia evaluation of the techniques showed them to b<s dieorlnln&toryj r e l i a b l e
aw* valid in ter-ns of a separated c r i t e r i a v i t h
t h e Likert raethod pr%t*###&,
Frank, Lawrence £ . , Prp.jectjye Metjho^a. Springf i e l d , Thomas, 1948, v-06 p . .
In «, d i s t i n c t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of project i v e techniques, the author described' the plan and,
purpose of such methods In a no at c l e a r , and meaningf u l manner.
Preud, Anna, ''Introduction to the Teehni© of Child
Analysis", in qarvpufl, ftflfl. flentel ,PUffl,Wfl..^ftlWtfitm^(l* K©48, issue of 1928, 59 , p , , t r a n s l a t e d by L. P. Clark.
This author introduced, the psychoanalytic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of doll pl*.y in z- c l i n i c a l manner,
Garrett,'Kenry B.,, * ' F a c t s ' and ' I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ' '
Begirding Race Diffsrsnoss*, in .Balance,. Vol. 101, So. 2625,
issue of A p r i l 20, 1945, P . 4O4JM5OV
This Author collected t h t r e s u l t s of the irmy Alpha
&n& Seta Tests t o show t h a t differences in t h e t e c t
r e s u l t e between Hegroee. and whites do e x i s t . The'
a u t h o r stated t h a t regardless of how the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were Made, the facte remained t h a t d i f f e r ence© wen© a t i l l evident,
™.-.——, "Be#FO-Whlte Differences i n Kental
A b i l i t y in t h e United s t a t e s * . In fas, W f t ^ i U P ttgnttflV,
Vol. 659 no, 4 . lBEue of October 1947, P. 329-333.
G a r r e t t emphasized th® consistency of t h e lower
score® iiAde by the B#groes on t e a t s of mental a b i l i t y
frora babyhood to adulthood. He questioned the exp l a n a t i o n t h a t ©nvironss^nt could possibly explain
a l l of the differences! found.
BIBLXOCMtAPHY
3 24
O&rth, Thomas H,, "The Problem of H&oe Psychology,
A General Statement*, in XMiilMmli.M.Jmflft ..^UgAUQB*
Vol. 3 , No. 3 , Issue of July 1 W , p . 310-327.
The orobleas of I n v e s t i g a t i n g differences among
r a c i a l groups were <S!eeuss©ed from sixteen polnte
of view by t h i s author, with essphaele unon openmindedness.
— . — . , „BAft,t„,pffiycMlMy ,„ A.MVI$J
9t %c.ifii, Bmx$l
Sifferenoaa. Hew Yorfe, Mouraw-Hlll, 1031, 256 p .
This researcher presented a formula for i n v e s t i g a t i n g differences! among r a c i a l groups. Valuable
i n s i g h t s into methodological probleme were given
by G a r t h ' s proposition.
Glenn, ~aul J . , fj^sMXtm,K.h
Y I W , M M t i X 1% the
*hUQacffhy_,ftf.,9pw,fii t „an<t %Ula»LMfrff,*
»t. Louis, Harder,
1«36,
6, pp .. 337-379.
By the pure act of reasoning t h i s author revealed
the a c t of w i l l i n g or v o l i t i o n . This faot i s woet
important to thus present d o l l play res*areh because
the exercise of the w i l l was included among the nonstereotyped r«»oonsei.
Ooodenough, Florence L , , "Eaclal Bifferenoes in
the I n t e l l i g e n c e of School Children*, in The ..Journal of
Ixoerlgtental Psychology. Vol. n . ho. 5, lesus of October
1C26, n. 388-397.
This author administered the Coodsnough I n t e l l i gence Scale t o 2,457 Kegro and whit© public school
children from Oallfornia, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
Her sample appeared adequate, however, w«e not
properly matched for I n t r a r a o i a l d i f f e r e n c e s .
Guilford, J . r i . , "Racial Preferences of a Thousand
American University Students*, i n %e, jqnrmd ftff •ffiftAftl.
" "
Vol. 2. Mo, ->, lssuo of May 1031. p . 1 7 9 - 2 * .
This waa om of th© e a r l i e s t studies designed to
determine r a c i a l preference aoong college studente.
Of i n t e r e s t was* the paired eoropari ,in method which
vas subsequently «pnli«d to c h i l d r e n .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
125
Harms, Ernest, "Children's Flay and Abnormal
Behavior 8 , in .foe, .ftoffTpttft $ U M . Vol. 7, *'o. 3 . Issue of
July 1948, o. 229-232.
In t h i s b r i e f but i n t e r e s t i n g c r i t i q u e th® author
pointed out t h a t American investigation!* of play
have been chiofly concerned with psychoanalytic
methods, ignoring many s c i e n t i f i c atudie® and
t h e o r e t i c a l contributions of Surop#an s c h o l a r s .
He recommended that inv^gtlg&tor® of play become
acquainted with the works of &roos, Prlnshorn,
P i a g e t , Rein, and other l e a d e r s froa various £uronean school««.
Henry, J . , and *. Henry, '''Doll Play of >Jllaga
Indian Children 9 , in flatftftffffAMmmwMn .ffit tfhft ,*Pf fflftMI
Qrthoosvohlatrie asso.olstion. Wo. 4, lesus of l ° 4 4 , x i i i 133 t>.
These author© isodlfietf Levy's cranutation d e l l play
method &nd applied i t to twenty-four children of a
t r i b e of Bouth American Indians, They found t h a t
s i b l i n g r i v a l r y p a t t e r n s were similar to those r e vealed in $orth ^inerloan whites, however, with
very l i t t l e f e e l i n g of g u i l t or ©elf-punishment
in the Indian oulxure. The authors eraph&wised
the importance of knowledge of the t r i b e ' s c u l t u r e
and language before i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of experimental
data w&@ made,
Ilerekovlta, Melville J . , | ^ a i M l « riiKBffj ^»*
Tort, Knopf, 1928, xiv-92 p .
This i n t e r e s t i n g publication revealed t h a t only
20J» of the American Negroes a r e r a c i a l l y pure.
The author employed a genealogical inquiry to
**haw t h a t the majority of the American Negroes
were a combination of white and Indian blood.
He concluded t h a t the American Wogroee were a
r a c i a l group, &n<& not a r a c e .
rt
rf C r i t i c a l Olscussion of the 't'.uletto
Byootheais'*, in .Tfts, .tfattfnaJl af, .Hflftgo, MlJ».tlm]» v « l . 3 ,
>f July 19-J4, n. "3fto.402.
o, 3, issue of
Th<? nroblera of studying r a o i a l groups V&F d i s cus«ed from a genetic ooint of rim,
i-vlderce
w«&® cited to nhow fh«t "mro-breedlng ^oea not nece s s a r i l y r e s u l t in Mgh endowiiaentn..
BI3LIQ&BAPHY
126
» On 'Racial* iilffer-enaea% In 3clanes.
Vol. i n i , Ho. 2617, i'seue of February 2Jt 194$, p . 200
This study emnhasired th* d i s t i n c t i o n between
differences w iioh a/«e r a c i a l and those which sro
s o c i a l . Th® author showed t h a t &ny awaunt of
^egro blood would place an Individual in the
&«?gro group; t h e r e f o r e , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of r a c i a l
differences of innate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s should
examine groups- af d i f f e r e n t r»ce§ and. not ©aphas i a s r a c i a l differences [email protected]* the evaluation was
nrimarlly one of degree r a t h e r than kind.
* — — - « . , "Problem Method and Theories of *-froamerioan Study", in «fr&&jsorlas,. Vol, 1, '**o, 1» issue
of January-July 19**5» p . 5*24.
This was an i n t e r e s t i n g survey af methode employed
in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of rao*. The author began
by defining the field and noting th® l l n i t A t t o n e .
He then discussed conceptions of methodology &n&
completed h i s report by evaluating several theor i e s which heloed I n i t i a t e and I n t e r p r e t th©
research,
Hollenberg, -l^anor and r ^ r g ^ r e t *T>errv, s t"wo
Ant c e d e n t s of Aggression and Sff«*ots of F r u s t r a t i o n In
Doll Play*, in The .Journal of. .Personality.. Vol. 1, No. 1,
i s s u s of January 1951, ?. 32-43,
Thi^ research waa baoed nvm two p r o j e c t s which
were concerned with the effects of home f r u s t r a t i o n ,
hone and experimental punishment &nd experimental
oermleslvenesa on th© frequtney and aggressiveness
of i n t e n s i v e d o l l play behavior of f i f t y - t h r e e
nursery school c h i l d r e n . The chlof nurooee of
t h i e study w» © t o ev«.lu<-*t© s^v&raD hynothespa concerning the antecedent® of th® frequency and
i n t e n c l t y of d o l l play aggression.
Significant
findingo were rcveuled and dirouga d within &
s p e c i f i c t h e o r e t i c a l fr^me v>rk.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
127
H o r o v l t s , Eugene L . , "The lievelopment of A t t i t u d e s
Toward t h e flegro3, i n IkMjnja,, „to,, to l&L.£a&o/*aAflfia, : f*
York, Holt, 1947. p. 507-517, edited by ?. . K»»woomb
This study h*d many raniflc^tlone in which the
author atterantsd to investigste the development
of attitude® toward0 Negroes, K&ny earlier notion? concerning attitudes were contradicted by
t h i e investigation. The author concluded that
white children's attitude? toward the *-<egro were
determined bv contact with the prevailing a t t i tude toward th** Kegro and not due to contact with
the Negro. He sleo revealed that there were very
l i t t l e difference in the attitudes of northern
and southern children concerning the ^©gro.
Howe, Ruth, "Irfhite Boy", in < M K t o q 4 / 4 W U m «
Vol. ?5, No. 8, issue of ^ r l l 19*!9, n. 36^-369,
Thia waa a brief Article which d«»«erib«d tht
manner in which a group it nix ymv old colored
children r®&ot«& to a white boy among them. The
children nece-otod the white hoy into their group
after aeveral 6®y& of curiosity, dlsouesl^n and
examination.
Jen&ins, V,T>,t "The M«ntal Ability of the /.rterlc*n
Hegro", in The Journal of Uejgro Sduo&tlonf Vol. H„ „o. 3*
icsue it July 1939, p. 5H~S"1.
Following a c r i t i c a l su^mmry of the methodology
ew-loyed in the study of the in*,«lleotu&l differencesft.a«ong'*egroea and whites, t h i s author made
intfsrr&c*? And intramce co«»nrlsons and oreferred
the l a t t e r .
JftnnlngP, il, s. ,@,J;, $&.» ^ f f l U ^ j c ,^y^tft, ,9f fr.M
rpblan. Vr,ohlngton, -'he 'Jatholio bniveraity of Ameriot,
*rlQg nP9
1941, v-392 p.
Thi* volune wo an integrated account of the ro«t
recent Information from anthropology, osyohnlogy
and sociology related to racial nrobleme.
BXBLXOOBrtPHX
128
Johnson, C h a r l e s :J. , and Horace V, Bond, "The
I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Kaoial L^ifferenoes P r i o r to 1910", in
The Journal of Negro ....Education. Vol. 3, Ho. 3 , issue of
July 1034, n, 32'8-33<*.
Theee authors made a b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l Buz>v®y of
the research concerning differences among r a c i a l
groups n r i o r to 1910. They concluded t h a t the arc*
of race psychology was moat i n c l u s i v e , however,
»any previous I n v e s t i g a t i o n s wore noorly designed
and c o n s i s t e d .
Eanner, Leo, 8 Pl»y I n v e s t i g a t i o n s nnd Play Treatment of Children's Behavior Ulsorder®*', in Thft.Jpurnal of,
P c d l a t r l c a . Vol, 17, So. 4, issue of October 1940, n, 533-
5467
According to t h i s r e n o r t , nont of the early studies
dealing with d o l l play contributed » considerable
amount of c l i n i c a l m a t e r i a l . How^vor, an objective
evaluation of these studies was d i f f i c u l t because
hypothetical conclusion!? and s c i e n t i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n s were not «l#erly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , nnd du® to
poor sarapliiw, ineojanlete r e p o r t s fitnd lack of standardised d o l l play methods.
Kelly, William *»,, imti Margaret Mouther - e l l y ,
Introductory Child. ?.sv.ohology. Milwaukee, Bruce, 1936,
ix-413 n.
A s i g n i f i c a n t discussion of the iaoortanoe of the
hose as an ftpeney which Influenced development ®nd
growth of the child was plven by th«se a u t h o r s .
Klreher, Clara J , , ®faXmX§X\ fflr^iUflh Ihrwtffh,
ftooka* ^ Blbl^perraahv. Washington, The Catholic University
of America, 19*5, 3-85 p .
A l i s t of bookf has been prepared by t h i s author
f o r eehool children of a l l grades and covering
various t o p i c s . Identls and nrineiolea of b e t t e r
understanding of oth©r groupw, t o l e r a n c e , humil i t y , e t c . , may be introduced to the c h i l d W
suggesting c e r t a i n readings. For example, stimul a t i n g the Junlon high school student& t o re«d the
book VP, , ae.qrfte, * -, vUXmrKm Q^ryeff* e.|ffn*JU&.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
120
Klein, Kslanle, Tha,,jJX%9h.ttSjfrlyaAl ftX fiUMmR,
London, Hogarth, 1 9 3 ' , 3°3 p .
The author i n t e r p r e t e d th® play of neurotic c h i l d r e n .
Her anethod of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n v&$ c l i n i c a l f-.nd r e quired f u r t h e r experimentatinn to v a l i d a t e , A s i g n i f i c a n t observation w&® revealed by Mrs, Klein
when she described f r u s t r a t i o n nn % form of <ounl®h~
fltent f o r th© pr'^chool c h i l d . However, the v a l i d i t y of ho* deep analysis of the infant needs £o toe
demonstrated,
Klineberg, Otto, "Mental Meeting of Baoisl and
National Groups", in .gq&an.fr&Qff As^ejs^,g"a,f ,flfte„.flao*
'to&lfi&,
Washington, The Catholic £nivarsity of ftrasrloa, l Q 4 l , r>.
252-2C4.
Thia was a west comprehensive survey of mental t©sting of individuals 'from d i f f e r e n t rnce®. five f a c t o r s were ©valu^ted concerning i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t i n g
r e s u l t s ; t h a t i e motivation, rapport, language,
socioeconomic Btetuc «tnd schooling. *£en&r»t« sect i o n s were devoted to c u l t u r a l influences and i n t e r p r e t s tiona of t e s t r e s u l t g , the f&ctor of sampling
mn& I n t e l l i g e n c e of hybrids, th® probleja of maturat i o n , the r&npe of a b i l i t i e s , and' the off est-, of ©rivironmsntal change, The author showed that an arsalgamatlon of h e r e d i t y and environment waa the d e t e r minant f a c t o r of individual differences on t h t t e s t a .
He offered no nroof of t h e r o l e played by heredity
upon group differences,
. >4os .Pifferenoes. Hew v o r k , Harder, 1«*35,
lx-3^7 p .
This conprehensive text book reviewed th© b i o l o g i c a l ,
psychologies! and c u l t u r a l esoeets of the problem
ajaong d i f f e r e n t groups. The Author concluded that
the differences found Were nossibly determined by
environment, eosocially changes in c u l t u r e .
f l o p f e r , Bruno ®nd Douglas "'c^lashan t'elley, 'Mui
Rorsahaob '"sahnlcue. A .Manual for a Projective Method of
JPcraonalltv Diagnosis. 8ev York, World, l«Mtfct n. 40-51,
Some of the prinoi^lea of the Bor*-.chaeh Inquiry
vere ewoloyefl" by the modified doll play technique
to determine v a l i d i t y .
BIBLIOGRAPHY,
130
Knox, R i l l s 0 . , *1"hs Hrgro ass a Subject of Univers i t y Research i n 1937", in Xht AvUfMl ftf, ' , ' J m „ ^ M U M .
Vol. 7 , ^o. ?, issue of Anril l«nn, r>. 172-17*5.
Thlg b r i e f A r t i c l e revealed the e s s e n t i a l Informat i o n concerning the methodology ewoloyo** by pmdu&fe
student** dealing with s t u d i e s of \he "^gro race ^hlch
%r©re completed in ^ne^lcnn universlti*!* during the
p a s t year.
— - — — # "The i'cgro ns a - ubjeot of r "nltf'tv
Research in 1944% in .tfrffi„fawfflnj oft ffsrjra,, .fteufle.Uftfl* Vol.
14, Wo. 1, issue of December 1945, ». 182-106.
This* was* the t h i r t e e n t h in «. merles of n r t l c l e s
r>ubllehed each y**ar di«[email protected] graduate theses concerning the N«*gj»o« The author renorted a decrease
of 28,94$ in d i s s e r t a t i o n s vhich were accented by
u n i v e r s i t i e s since the preceding y*»ar.
Krech, David and Richard ft. Grutohfield, Theory and
^roblews,i.pf
of ?.'Social
fo9MH Trsvaholaaiv. 8#w York, KcO*av-fiiii, 19*
o. 1 4 0 - 174,
- 205-272.
A©cording to these authors the study of a t t i t u d e s
w**8 accepted by ssany ©s the o r i n c i n l a problem of
s o c i a l psychology. They distinguished between
a t t i t u d e and b e l i e f and di«?cueeed motivational
f a c t o r s in the dtvelopawrfe of b e l i e f 19 and a t t i t u d e s . In a comprehensive chapter t h t authors
discussed the nrobleim of sse&surewent of b e l i e f s
and a t t i t u d e s from six nolntp* of v i e * , namely,
theory, soalee, r a t i n g s , I n d i r e c t metnoda. Various
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y .
Lerner, v-., ond vL, \ ^'urnhy, **Ketho<?e for the
Study of Personality in oung Children", in 1 onogmrcha,. f o r
Social Rawaarah in Child Develonmant. Vol. 6, No. 4 , issue
of 1941, 3B9 p .
this research vae primarily concerned with a qualitative description ot thematic play.
BIBLXGUhal'itY
131
Lindworsky, Johann, The, Jr^lnXm ,flt„tfts , 4 1 1 ,
K l i v a u h s s , Bruce, 1929, 5 ~ l B o n , , t r a n s l a t s d by A. S t e i n e r
and «:. A. F i t s p a t r i c k .
This a u t h o r reviewed t h e e x n e r i m s n t a l s t u d i e s of
t h e w i l l - a c t by Aeh, B i c h e t t e and ^rum.
Lyone, D a n i e l , "The Megro i n America", i n
r a c i a l Review. A J o u r n a l f o r C h r i s t i a n Dswoaraav. I s s u e ot
Nov*?nber 1^51, p . 166-167.
This a u t h o r showed c o n s i d e r a b l e Incitsht I n t o t h e
n r o b l e a e of d i f f e r e n c e s &»ong r a c i a l groups wh®n
h e w r o t e , "any notion® of h e r e d i t a r y , phypie&l,
nor%l atw' r a c i a l i n f e r i o r i t y a r e nois w i t h o u t found a t i o n . There i e ft d e f i n i t e t i m e - l a g , however,
b e f o r e t h e f i n d i n g s of s c i e n c e reach t h e o r d i n a r y
p e o p l e . At p r e s e n t , t h e r e e x i s t * a s t r a n g e anomaly
i n Am e r i c a : t h e gen® m l p u b l i c s t i l l ha a r a c i a l
n r e j u d l c e s caused by t h e o r i e s which have l>mn proved
f « l s e long a g o . P r e j u d i c e oannot c o n t i n u e t h a t
way. People always want t o be r a t i o n a l . "
d e l e t e r , £._t "^djuetiaent of C h i l d r e n a s R e f l e c t e d
i n Play ?f5rforrB®n<
Performance*, m",%fra jfaurqaj , M„ , ^ W , U Q , ^yffihalpgy«
Vol. 7 3 , i s s u e of Sept sober 1048 # o , 141-155.
This a u t h o r a t t e m p t e d t o sl^termin** t h e adjustment
of c h i l d r e n a s p r o j e c t e d i n pl&y oerformance. He
concluded t h a t a d d i t i o n a l r e o e a r c i was needtd t o
amplify a very complex i n t e r r e l ^ t i n s h i p which
e x i s t e d between &dju#tment ©nd maladjustment.
M e l t a e r , H , , "droup D i f f e r e n c e s i n N a t i o n a l i t y and
Rpoe P r e f e r e n c e s of C h i l d r e n " , in „%q.,|oEi,^t,.r^,. ' / c l . 2 , l ' o , 1,
1«BUC of January 1939, .o. 8 6 - 1 0 5 .
This a u t h o r ewploy^d a methodology s i m i l a r t o O u i l f o r d ' a . However, he s e l e c t e d school c h i l d r e n r a t h ' - r
t h a n u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s t o determine t h e i r r a c i a l ©ref e r e n c e s . R e s u l t s found were v*?ry much i n agreement
w i t h "3ie e a r l i e r s t u d y .
BIBLIOGRA^H*
13?
" N a t i o n a l i t y JVaferencras and s t e r e o t y p e s
of Colored C h i l d r e n " , I n .flfos,
?mvmX,9f
fanstiff,
^,y,9hol,ftfCT»
Vol. 5 4 , I s s u e of J u n s 193 s ), p . 4A3-434.
A rank o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n of , 6 0 wss found b e tween t h e r a o i a l ^ r e f e r e n c e s of H-gro and w h i t s
c h i l d r e n . However, t h i s r e l a t i v e l y low rank or<3er
f i n d i n g w»? due c h i e f l y t o t h e f a c t that, t h e ^egro
c h i l d r e n n l a c e d t h e i r own
r a c e i n ->rofe.'»encc wherea s t h $ w h i t e s r ^ t r d t h e ; 'egrn r a o ^ n - ' r t s th©
bottoms.
and
7
f i l l e r , Me® I ^ , , and John Dnllnrrt, Spp,ial,LT>?a.,r,nl^S
' 1 t a t i o n . Nsv ^*'V«jn, ""ule U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 h i , v l i - 3 4 l r».
Thin book diecusaed t h e t h e o r i e s concerning t h e
p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i a l l e a r n i n g which served &a a franM
of r e f e r e n c e f o r gever^il of *-he trojeo* ive d o l l p l a y
etudlee,
l a t e r e , "lohol&a, "A Comment on P s y c h o l o r l o a l
'Differences* a s Ar»ong Kaner 1 *, i n ftfiml MM M o l ^ l t Vol.
63, Ho. 1626, i s c u e of February 1946, p , 136-137,
This a u t h o r c r i t i c i s e d Gs.r*v»tt' * i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of t h e firciy t e e t r . He ci^ed severft.1 <«iscre!3®nciet
c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and v a r i o u s
percentage® concerning th® t ^ s t gooress and t h e
p r a c t i c a l oonelunions,
— f ** F«*llr,cy Underlying ft&rrett's Use
ot the J&ta of the nvmy Alpha &nd 3eta ""epte, A Comstent",
in Ths n&i ent If i.e., Monthly. Vol. 6a, r,o. 4, isou* of
October 1949, p. 279-280.
The author discusswd the relationship of differences between Negroes tnd whites found on
present day intelligence no&len and the interpretation of these differences. He reported
that analysis of the relationship between these
facts way be drawn, but certainly the relationship of the assumptions of the methods to the
findings* baeed on those techniques should be
carefully examined before one-sidpd equivocal
Interpretations wrre raade.
BXBLXOCUttWiT
133
J*ell, C , "Anthropological Differences $etw«n
Whites and Wegroee", i n , A M , , , £ W « 1 ,pf,,ik|ffl,,,,pM,?klla,a«
Vol, 8, No. 4, issue of October 2939, n. 68B-693,
In a brief discussion of t e s t findings of loading
psychologist® and anthropologist® concerning d i f ference® In i n t s l l l g e n s s between Megress and whites,
t h e author concluded that these v a r i a t i o n s -sre
ourely a r t l f i o i a l and a r b i t r a r y .
Peterson, Jossbh, "Baslo Uonatdsrations of Kstho-
dology in Rso* Te*tlnc*» in MMJm®mXt^f,HM,tPl ,Mum$Am»
Vol. % Ko. 3 , i s s u e of July 1914, p . 403-410,
This author H a t e d five weaknesses of race t e s t i n g s
1 . Ago f a c t o r not c o n t r o l l e d .
2 . The d i f f i c u l t y of securing *ff.ir samplings 8 .
3 . The p u r i t y of race.
4 . Can there b t r»ce differences in i n t e l l i g e n c e ?
5 . &roun v s . individual t e s t s .
—
-—. t Mf*athods of I n v e s t i g a t i n g Comparative
A b i l i t i e s in Baees*, in A m
lf„At.MfXXmft,^flftfllHUK..ftf.
P o l l t l a a i and .Social iSclonea* Vol. 140, iesra© ->f Bovembor
1 oW, p . 1 7 ' 8 - 1 8 ^
fhs author ^uettioned the v a l i d i t y af group t e s t ing data in m e t psychology. Re recommended t h a t
Individual t e e t s be designs* and developed spec i f i c a l l y for the r»o® being i n v e s t i g a t e d .
Peterson, Joseoh and L, H. Lanier, -3Studi«s# In &h«
Oonnarative A b i l i t i e s of Wilts and Kes-roes , in %he. Rental,
H<Wfflg»fttt
fawm^Mt
Mo. 5 , loaus of February 1Q29,
vi-156 o.
A. b a t t e r y of t e s t n oomparins; twelve1 y*«r old whit®
&n& Hegro children revealed r«»ssul a to he r e l a tively unreliable,
P h i l l i p s , R., "Doll n * y ns a Function of the
Healing of t h e K a t s r i a l s And the Length of the fixneriwsntal ftesslon", 1 nffihUfl,„QffTflogBfSt» Vol. 16, Wo. 3 ,
issue of September 1945, ? . 123-143.
This study was th© second i n th© Iowa s e r i e s
concerning d o l l play »r\6 ws?* primarily an i n v e s t i gation of method. Tht researcher ooarwi-red r e s ponses of two types of m a t e r i a l - one -nor® r e a l i s t i c than the oth»r, Th© t i n e of t h e rday period
was a l t o v a r i e d .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
134
Plntler, H, *i., "Doll 1*1 ay »s a Function of Kxperlmenter-Qhiltf Interaction and Initial O^anl^&tlem of
.Materials"*, infihUd,.ftffYJl,M,ff*U,» Vol. 16, »©. 3, issus
of s«otember 1945, p. 145-166.
this study w&e the third at the Iowa aeries which
wau designed to examine th© following variables*
1. Presentation »f the play materials,
2, E&peri®enter-child interaction.
Results of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n showed no s i g n i f i c a n t
differences i n th® awount of exploratory, tangent i a l , and stereotyped thematic play beeaua«* of th®
f i r s t v a r i a b l e , however, with but two execution ss,
More organised play w**» ale© evoked by unorganised
m a t e r i a l . More" ©.gfrreseion was evident under the
Iowa l e v e l experimenter-ehlid i n t e r a c t i o n when
present with organised material while the aggression latency resulted when the experimenter i n t e r acted *nora with the c h i l d .
P i n t l e r , Marftoret R. jtLJUL*, *8sx Differences? in
the Projective Doll Play of Presahool Children", In Tfop,
Journal of Psychology. Vol. 2 1 , Ho. 1, i s s u e of January
1946, ~. 73-60.
Kighty preschool children were orsesnted with
v a r i a b l e exoerl^ent&l conditions with reference to
the tvpe of experira enter-en l i d i n t e r a c t i o n , degree
to realism of the nlay m a t e r i a l s , duration of t h e
s e s s i o n s , &M degree of organization of the olay
m a t e r i a l n , ^nAlyseig of the r e s u l t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t sex differences in the projective d o l l -oiay
nhantaaie*.
Pintnor, K*» " I n t e l l i c e n c e Slfferenoee Between
American Negroes and *hit«a H , in £faf JoMffnft? M %CTfft
Sdnoatiop. Vol. 3 . No. 3 , issue of July 1 9 3 4 , . 513-51*.
This author agreed with J'rlcs t h a t a raore adequate easels and b e t t e r standardised t e s t s of
i n t e l l i g e n c e ware needed to evaluate i n t e l l e c t u a l
differences wmft r a c i a l groups.
P r i c e , J , St, O l a i r , "IWro-Whlte Ciffer^nces
in General I n t e l l i g e n c e * , In lM,i„P,urMl, ffll ,H*fEffi .Sfluftfr
t i o n . Vol, 3 , Wo. 3, leans of JuXv 1934, n, 424-452.
In a r<5Vl$lon of an e - r l i e r Ennogwih t a l c author
c r i t i c a l l y examinee' re»*aroh concerning Uejrro-white
differences in i n t e l l i g e n c e . He cit^d ffideno*' to
rjhow the u n r o l l - b n i t y of i n t e r r a c i a l co» oArisons.
BIBLXOOBA^BT
135
Hadtee, Marian J . , and Jean Sutherland, "Children's
Ooncevitlon una A t t i t u d e s About Minority &n<1 i'Uijority *rcerloan Groups", In ?foe Journal Q$
M\M^lmi^l^^hslMZf
Vol. **•% Mo, 7 , issue of October 1940, o. 44^-46B,
The authors interviewee 27$ children ranging from
the f i f t h <?:r«,de through the twelfth. Each child
was asked questions a* bout an Am^rlc^n, a *?ew, >"*n&
a Hegro. In s p i t e of the fp.ot t h a t the children
had l i t t l e or no contact with the minority grous>,
t h e i r an*?w9ri« manifested marked s t e r e o t y p e s . A t t i tudes toward the Jew and Jierro were found to be
r e l a t i v e l y unwholesome In the ol^er c h i l d r e n . Res u l t s af t h i s «study indicated the ne«*d for education
concerning- minority grouse, even in r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous "American*' cowuaunittee.
Badke, Msriati J . and Helen C. T r ^ e r , ''Children's
Perceptions of the F Social Roles of Hegroes and Whites 8 ,
in the, Joaffffnl ,ftf , W,fttel2Q:» Vol. 30, We. 1, lesue of
January 1950, o. 3-33.
Colored
and white d o l l s were given to a group of
v:
egro and white children &t the kindergarten and
f i r a t two nrlranry jrradee of nubile schools in
P h i l a d e l p h i a . An attempt W&SB jgade to t e s t th«*»e
suggestions with respect to t h e i r understanding
and interpretation® of the r o l e e nlayed in society
by th© Kegroes and white®. Biff«renco® in t h t
s o c i a l r o l e s and discrimination in l i v i n g were
portrayed by the children,
Boblnson, U U a b e t h P . , "Doll n a y s s a Function
of the Poll family C o n s t e l l a t i o n " , In .Child i£e.volomtent..
Vol, 1?, ho. 3 , iasue of Ssptsmbsr 1946,' p . 99-118.
This was the fourth of the Iowa serissg;. The object i v e of the atudy vas to reveal the function of t h e
d c l l - f a n i l y c o n s t e l l a t i o n . The followinr conoluploni*
were made: no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found in
the quantity or q u a l i t y of aggressive r e a c t i o n s .
However, the clil~ dren i d e n t i f i e d more e a s i l y with
the d o l l family c o n s t e l l a t i o n which represented
t h e i r o'W family r a t h e r ihnn the stands.f family
set.
BXBLXOOhaitsY
136
Rofrerton, C. »• . , ?:ifty, ;?M?:ft8,y, ..fa AUtifrgflti, !«cv
York, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Vrm®, 1939, 1-66 o .
iome p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of d o l l -slcy s t u d i e s
n r e h%ae& noon t h e ^lav <hern>y h y p o t h e s i s of t h i s
a u t h o r . That i s t o way, ^hant&ay c o n t r o l o«oi b t
a very p r a c t i c a l t o o l to c o n t r o l p e r s o n a l i t y d e v e l opment,
Sanford, h , J J e v i t t , *v*e««onality P a t t e r n s i n
T
school C h i l d r e n ' , in SklMlMmkjZ
M&,kml&mm&$
«*
York, MoCraw-Hill, 1943, p . 567-5^9.
This author renorted thai the phantasy syndromes*
of older children appeared g r e y e r on the ^hematic
Apperception l e s t . A s i m i l a r r a t i o was a l s o found
on the present d o l l play research.
Sargent, Helen, "3?mjeetlve Methods, Their Origin®,
Theory,
and
Application in Personality Rear^ron.*, i n Thm
v
*TBhffiliwAft»A, ,Mrl#Uat Vol. 4?, Mo. 5, i®su© of Vay 1945,
o. 257-293.
This author pointed out t h a t the most significant
aaoect of r e l i a b i l i t y And v a l i d i t y of p r o m o t i v e
teohnlouos w»^ the c r i t e r i a of c r e d i b i l i t y involved.
Sehuler, K. / , , ^Attitudes "'o'Trd H^cla! we^regation in Baton &ouge, Louisiana", In fffrft JffljnrnL,,,pf.... J.JMA6&
Pavoholojprr Vol. 18, *To. 1, issue if August 1943, p . 33-5^.
S i t u a t i o n s concerning race segregation were n r o ssnted to 357 white and 276 colored eighth p-r/ide
children In LouioLsnft, Th® children ve«e a%ic«%d
t o s e l e c t one of flv<a solutions representing diff e r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward the problem *n<i to explain
t h e i r views, AH«V*BIS of the r e s u i t e showed tha"
s i m i l a r responses between the r*iooe «*«(? evident
nor© often th&n different responses,
'Jea^fi, Robert ft,, "sSffeote of f r u s t r a t i o n ^nd
Anxiety on r«*ntaay Aggress! »n", :*pesjih.. Delivered a t Olart :
Pniveral^v's, ftixtlsth .Anniversary ^alebrntlon. Woru*s*«r,
April 1930.
The spe^&tr r e n o r t t d th»T r e s u l t « of a research
s t a f f studvlng effects of f r u s t r a t i o n fend anxiety
on -ohnntnay aggresai m. 1 Thip ntndv reverled rtlp~
n l f l e a n t inforras-tlon. fror
two ""rara^H of reference,
na&ely the t h e o r e t i c a l 3<iu: c l l n l ^ l .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
13?
, " I n f l u e n c e of Methodological F a c t o r s
on P o l l Play '"'erforroance", i n Child Development, V o l . 1 8 ,
No. 4 , l e s u e of December 19ii?, o . 191-197.
T h i s vae & b r i e f but most s i g n i f i c a n t a r t i c l e which
showed s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e nroblems faced by t h e
d o l l nlay exoerimenter.
h r a r e , Robert I t . , e,t fll,. . E f f e c t of F a t h e r [email protected]^
r a t i o n on P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n ' R Boll Play Aggression**, i n
Child Development. Vol. 1 7 , No. 4 , i s s u e of Seeeraber 1946,
r». 219-24^.
These a u t h o r s a p p l i e d t h e d o l l n l a y method t o one
hundred and t w e n t y - s i x nr*?sehool c h i l d r e n . They concluded t h a t J (1) boys corning from homes In which
t h e i r f a t h e r s were p r e s e n t manifested more g e n e r a l
a g g r e s s i o n and more a g g r e s s i o n s p e c i f i c & l l y toward
t h e f a t h e r and hoy d o l l s (2) boys d i s p l a y e d mar®
a g g r e s s i o n toward t h e f a t h e r d o l l a s cormwred t o
t h e m o t h e r d o l l (3) no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s wer®
found between t h e g i r l s r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e i r
f a t h e r s were p r e s e n t i n t h e homes o r n o t .
Suratno- T h e o l o g i e s , I a , llm®t
q
23, a. 1, 2, 3, @t it.
This monumental work employed many concepts which
are used by modern writers on dynanle psychology.
Certain principles and theories of the psychology
of Thomas Aquinas were taken from thi«* writing %nd
applied to the modified orojective doll nlay technique.
Thompson, Chan. H. , *'The Conclusions of Scientists
Relative to Raoial I>lff erenoee"» In The Journal of Kecrro
Education. Vol, 3, Po. 3, Issue of July 103'*, ~>. 4oii-5i2.
A questionnaire WHS a&nt to leading* social scient i s t s in &n attemnt to $how what generaligations
are used in the methods of investigating difference?amonjy racial groups. Responses to the questionnaire
were In agreement that experiments concerning racial
differences had failed to reveal any inherent mental
distinctions between the Heroes and whites of this
country.
BXBLXQOiUPHY
138
ToRiineon, H., "Bifference® Between ?r#sehool
Ne^ro Children and Their Older Siblings on t h e StanfordBluet Scale*, In ^ . j . c f l m l , 2L I^,m..,MUfi,fi,UaB» Vol. 13,
Ko. 4, issue of October 1944, p. 4?L-479.
In an i n t r a r a c i a l study the author reported I n d i c a t i o n s of a p r o v e s ulve r e l a t i o n s h i p between environment &n& t e s t r>erfor»««oe with developmental f a c t o r s evident.
Wllliaraa, Melvin J . ,fta,ijJtoUfl,,l,SftoisJ,M.tho.itfftft*.XU,
Approach to Con.teBmora.ry Problems.. Konald, 1950, p . 315*322.
The author described the soolophllosophlcal A M
eooioeraplrlcal methods of i n v e s t i g a t i n g r a o i a l groups,
Toder, Dale, n^ramnt Status of the question P of
Racial Bif f erenoes*, in flfas, JoNKMl ,ffif .ftfoflftftlQiml 1T*
helogy. Vol. 19, Ho. B, i s s u e of Beceaber 192ft, p . 46370.
In a review of investigation® concerning the study
of r a c i a l differences, the author pointed out three
c l e a r l y defined frames of reference, i . e . , (1) acceptance of r a c i a l eunerlorltv with an i n t e r e s t in
securing additional supporting evidence; (2) r a c i a l
i n f e r i o r i t y considered poaaible but not deraon©*;rftte&j
and ij) c r i t i c a l skepticism of the saenne used to
demonstrate r a c i a l i n f e r i o r i t y end r e s u l t s . Ho
proof of racial i n f e r i o r i t y ®3* s u p e r i o r i t y was e v i dent with respect t o i n t e l l i g e n c e ,
Younis, Paul Campbell, " I n t e l l i g e n c e And Sufr&estib i l i t y in tihltes and Hsgrose', in The ffoprpal of {toppers, t l v a Psychology. Vol, 9, Bo. 5, Issue of October 1929,
p . 339-359.
R e s u l t s of t h e n a t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s Scale
a gave evidence of considerable differences between
Negro and white children &®ed nine t o ten years a t
the t h i r d rrad® level or above in school. S i g n i f i cant difference® were a l t o found between the liffht
and &Rrk i^ogro with the former superior. Th© Binet
Line© Test for g u g ^ e e t l b l l l t y indicated that S e g r o «
i n general were more suggestible than w h i t e s .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
139
i'elipra. Hose, " C h i l d r e n ' A Cone ent ion a and s t e r e o t y p e s of P o l i s h , I r i s h , f i n n , Hungarian,
B u l g a r i a n , bane.
C s e c h o s l o v a k i a n , Hindu end f i l l ^ i n o 1 * , i n Th* J o u r n a l of
G«n»atlQ ravaholpfrv. Vol. 7 7 , I s s u e of "'sot ember 1950,
p . 73-P3,
This a u t h o r employed a s s o c i a t i o n methods t o n*:%i&y
n a t i o n a l c o n c e p t s of t w e l v e y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n . Bh®
r e p o r t e d many s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e c o n c e p t s expressed
by t h e c h i l d r e n . However, t h a c h i l d r e n * « r e a c t i o n s
i n d i c a t e d t h e need f o r i n t e r c u l t u r a 3 e d u c . - t i o r .
T h i s study wr-a compared w i t h r e s e a r c h i n 1 9 3 1 .
- — — . - . - . , " c<i l i d r e n ' a I n t ^TFr-yun A 11 i tud ee * , i n
?hf v'gsTpmX ftC tt.0, ftt,hflAff ,,,?B,Yffh.PAflftY.. * > l . 7 2 , lean© of
March 194fl, p . 191-110.
I n a n a t t e m p t t o note t r e n d s t o which r a c i a l and
n a t i o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s p e r s i s t , t h e a u t h o r compared
t h e r e a c t i o n s o f c h i l d r e n i n 1931 &tvi$ imtched then
w i t h a n o t h e r #rouo i n 1944. She r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e
l a t t e r subject® were b e t t e r informed mul l e w f e a r f u l of t h e sstran^e and d i f f e r e n t .
A t^end toward
g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t and a p p r e c i a t i o n of a l l people
waa i n d i c a t e d .
—
— , "The ?-<a&nlmi; of Democracy t o ^ l x t h
Crade C h i l d r e n * , i n S h j ^ j E a a m l , ,Qf,,„ftan,eftlffi PjWtfhn^pay,,
Vol. 7 6 , i s s u s of June 1 W 7 D 7 2 ^ - 2 8 I .
The m a j o r i t y of t h e s i x t h g r a d e c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d
i n t h i s r e s e a r c h were of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t they had
democracy i n s c h o o l , They d e s c r i b e d th© school
a t m o s p h e r e a e bein& d e m o c r a t i c . However, t h e y
r e q u e s t e d morv book®, motion p i o t u r © c , and club®
d e a l i n g with t h i s subject,
»-.— t "Heaeons Civen by Children tnr Xhelr
Intargroup Attitudes*, In M J I W M I ftf. P,m%%%9„, F$mkpX®BZ,
Vol. 76, issue of ^aroh 1959, p. 145-161.
This wae one of a «erie® of studies which began
in 1931 and was followed up for a number of years
l a t e r . '?he author consistently reported a trend
in children of r?ore wholesome attitudes toward
other nationalities Rnd r»oe«. The need for intercultural education was also indicated.
* r •*'•;'i JX£\ i
iappal fpr „tM PAWa, XjaUftttUvq. foil
T
Lf*T MPthp,a,
The Hay technique
£*
^atabllahrcent. .of r^mona! :iapoort
As each child subject %?• taken Individually to
the experimental roon for the olay sessions, 7 should use
the opportunity t o !
1.
Make Shift child feel secure with him, overconing aa quickly M? noeaibly any a n x i e t i e s
which may exist over the "stranger".
2.
?tructur© 7»'a p o s i t i o n with respect to np,t.
belnp" a teacher; not being connected with
school a u t h o r i t y , or any authority over the
child.
K should b* given the opportunity to accept E ®g a "friendly v l e i t o r " who Is i n t e r e s t e d In the individual and for whom
the Individual d->e® not heve to behr.ve In c e r t a i n "nice*
ways to b*> accepted and warmly reacted t o .
The s t r u c t u r e
of the "lay t" ale &n<\ th® "borrowed uae" of the experimental
room should a l s o be attempted in the dlasHsoolfitton frora
school a u t h o r i t y ,
the ohllf should be p-lven the oppor-
tunity to aee the play a c t i v i t y aa one ov r which he has
control, in which he can be a free agent r a t h e r than to
see i t as a tasfe which he has contracted "to do well"
and which he h&g to do well to ^l^ase the a d u l t .
All
H^?mt)T&
141
1
t h i s can be achieved through the development of in f,-tf
r e l a t i o n s h i p which c r e a t e s and roalntains in the child the
general idea,
n
?er# i s a sympathetic, friendlv ndult with
whom I can be free and spontaneous,*
T)m tim^a snent with
8 before the a c t u a l s*art of the play a o t l v l t i w s should
d e f i n i t e l y be u t i l i s e d to develop '-.nd further ««uch an G-&
relationship.
- ehould not vnmU through t h t s e prenl&y
periods but ehould t«*ke the ttiae necessary to e s t a b l i s h the
kind of rapocrt-reliutionahip referr#d to above I
B* I n i t i a l , I n s t i g a t i o n .qf.Afrftn.&b.Jcja.fJL
r help"- ' to be securely seated at a t a i l s no
that S can manipulate t h e d o l l s ("people*') within th*?
st&Re aet of the roofless horcr rhioh i s nlnoed on the t a b l e
before n, covered by a non-transnarent c l o t h ,
Two doll
f a r i l I c e , on« white &n& on© colored, *re !*ppt in separate
email e l o ^ d boxe?* and the box oontnlnlnfr th* s u b j e c t ' s
racs l a ~il*oed" a t TJ » aide of t h t stape a a t .
The t a b l e
edr«p that faces the <?uh<eot should be at KH i n ^ l e of apt».roi i ssately 3^ de^re-jg to the frontr.fro of the ona-way observation moreen ( i f any 1" belnp; uaed) w that ?'n f i e l d of
vision do-*0 not include U s loop* ai» *' pave a t t e n t i o n to the
play) the view of the screen but norni*^ an observer to
view the c h i l d ' 3 fag®,
r i s ae^ted fit the mr*m
side of
the subject at the sM^e t a b l e , one to tvc feet etway.
APFErpXX 1
142
a s t h e c h i l d In beinf s e a t e d r'" e x p l a i n s b r i e f l y
S t h a t th<* n M
t o ^ l a y In —
to
l a one t h a t t h e acheol - ^ o ^ l e * l e ' us h#ve
we have t o have eome nlac«» t o " l a y —
they
u s e i t , of c o u r s e , *"or eowethinn e l a e . *
When •' a«iKa about t h e oba^rvanl'T.n Mts-pmn o r shows
I n t e r e s t i n I t , he should be t o l d ,
do with t h a t
for —
W
T d o n ' t ^nov »">vt th#?y
X d o n ' t knnw what t h e t e a c h e r s u s e I t
i t ' s r e a l l y none -if o u r b u s i n e s s * S h i s i s not o u r
room, we Ju«t ue© i t t o ploy i n , "
Thia
etruetur&liraticn
of t h e aere^n should only be used when neceaeary t o s a t i s fy t h e c h i l d ' a $uri*-»«§ity.
% then d i r e c t s -*s a t t e n t i o n to
t h e s^age e s t by shovintr h i m s e l f a streat i n t e ^ s t i n i t »n&
an a n t i c i p a t o r y a t t i t u d e toward eojsin^ ev«n-a i n t h i s s r s a .
Xf t h e c h i l d i s c u r i o u s about th® I n t e r v a l t i m e r , "' saya,
*Xt seewe t h a t i t 1® some kind of a tiwinsr b u x v e r , l i k e t h e
t i c k In & ©look c o u n t i n r t i m e . 9
Upon beimr comfortably s e a t e d , <* a s k s ^ t o l i f t
c l o t h and remove i t completely trow t h e t a b l e .
A f t e r 6 ha®
had time t o view t h e r o o f l e s s home E e x p l a i n s b r i e f l y
«?et.
"Thia in a *t&**n net of a horse, see —
there i s t h e entrance —
tht
{oclntlni?)
th«irn i e t h e l i v i n g room with a
r a d i o , davenport ant' ensv ®ha,ir —
with a t u b , wRjsh b a s i n am" t ^ H e t —
set.
the
her© l«t t h e b*thmotr.
and h*»re is» t h e c l o -
Vou can uaa t h e roost© tny w^y ?ou want t o —>- h e r e is?
t h e k i t c h e n , bedroona, etc.* 1
^ ? X e $ l a becoming o r ! a n t e d
Avvmoix
1
143
to t h e home K answers any f a c t u a l Questions* concerning the
construction of t h e hone.
For example, in answer t o d i r e c t
inquiry of when S i n v e s t i g a t e s Manliutlatlvely. E points t o
t h e nieces of f u r n i t u r e t h a t a r e fclued to t h e f l o o r and t o
thote t h a t may be movable,
h"ext 'A says, *what vou can .do
fiftft A*. mM„ ,W1 ,fi„ J^,agX»„al,A,P,l&»I, ™
in t h i s borate —
i t can be of any kind of & s t o r y you can
IftAak, ,qfi <Pfeuae) x^wjfU3Ua«aaiL,mflftt
,\tm
mw>X^ M, M An Mm
$,® ^9, mm%k%WL,M lMl,fnMaf>.„1,mnt,\ jmaS,. Jk&i
%Mr MQ l a t f t i i t e .
ojj&.*
sowsthliu* t h a t happens
,ltea .ftffl,,jan«n.At; jta. „§A&,„f^te.,ai«a
<>* hand® a t h e box, let© him open I t UP and l o t s
hi« take out t h e d o l l s of th> *r«taa race ae ft —
then a.
removes the ewpty box from th® t a b l e which by now should
have nothing but t h e s*.As;e «et on it**.
dolls out s »ayg,
thssi t a .
An 3 i e taking t h e
H
xg%,mnMIM,, ,i&m JA,ftmrsftinff »**,.MSSJ,
J9.U 9M gftl ShjmJLa.XUX®.
totft^bA
.JWfcs, <tfte%,JMftt
to„„i,ny m ^ TW, ,UXaV * After IS has ftiven these i n s t r u c t i o n s *
S begin® t h e recording regardless of whether t h e child r e $ nonds t h s n a t l o a l l v to t h e i n s t r u c t i o n * or n o t .
After ten
minutes frora t h i s moisent £ discontinue© t h e recording and
(looking a t h i s watch) says, *flh, .ftfttt ,tht t l l f . XUftft. * X
l i k e your story and 1 l i k e th® way you wtake these people
act.
low X want you to t r y another family and in t h i a
home t o ®ee what s t o r i e s you l i k e t o ?»Rke up about them.
Let*« i<ut t h t ^people® in the box, while X got the other
144
AnPfcHDIX 1
family f o r you."
*f?'er th® expclsaenter watches the child
out away the f l r e t d o l l s , & lntroduoea the second family
by handing 3 the othi*r box.
"Here they ave you take thea
out and ?ut them Into the home and sake UP any story you
vant t o . *
by />).
(sC pauses and records the i n i t i a l ra8">on~a made
If a f t e r one ralnut® t h t child does not stake any
ioontaneoua comment showing that he perceives the dolla
of a d i f f e r e n t r a c e , K then any®, "Hfce theao arp dlff.f&re^t
&aaal&.
TJMlr. „sk|p has ft,4AfX«x«at ^ p l ^ X w .tfoa flrj.t
faiailv... ,,y„p,u„„a%fi .,t,fas,%, ,ft*?.E ( e i t h e r white or colored depending
on which fatally w»,a presented f i r s t ) . "
msnts made "by S,
& then records coro-
After t h i s I n i t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n to the d i f f e r -
ence in color of the d o l l s , t repeats th® i n s t r u c t i o n s given
during the f i r a t
aeaflon.
The b r i e f verbal &nfl fs-iintin? explanation^ »f t'*** Physical p r o p e r t i e s of th« hosa# I s omitted during t r i a l swo.
at the end of ten minutes of recording with the second
faatlly, the experimenter says, (presenting both families
together for the t h i r d aeaslon), "few,, j,ftt, m
two fasilli.es -live, .together. I n the, aataa. haum,
PPMMM
%&&
Then E p r e -
sents the two faialliee of doll® (white and colored^ a l l
mixed up i n on® box and n says, "fe&.jage, ..th.fll RUCffllH
™
MA .tEW 111* "
13 then reoorde for ten minutes and at the ®nd of this
third eession R interview® the chilO and rewards 'nln comments
APP&JBIX I
v n r b ^ t i r . on t h e i n t e r v i e w b l ^ n t .
1^+5
(Boa "roj^ci iv* . o i l ^I&y
I n q u i r y Blank a t t h e end of t h i a rmnu&l).
fit., •^b,Awt".igflaelrlj\snmri 3,®,lftU2n,a)U,a tolJiff, .„ 'X&iJmr
MXStXX-
The experiraenter should a i n i r ' l ^ e a« 'nuoh *»a -*o««slble
t h a f a c t t h a t he i s experimenting w i t h otho** c h i l d r e n .
*he
c h i l d should bo R-de t a f e e l t a » t t h e experimenter in o * r t i c u l a r l y inte i a *0*ed i n hjya a s an l n d i v l d u n l .
Once i-" hrtsi understood and accented t h e t a » k , t h e r o l e
of " i-v t h a t of a ve*»v f r l e n d l v ,
sympathetic,
interested,
but n o n - i n t e r f e r i n g , n o n - s u g g e s t i n g l i s t e n e r , o n l o o k e r rnd
r e c o r d e r of t h e c h i l d ' s •story,
^< u n o b t r u s i v e l y
without l o s e of r a p p o r t - c e n t a c t w i t h ".
records
*o a t t s n o t I s *jj&de
t o conceal from i5 t h e ocorlnp: work, o r deny i t s
connection
with h i s n l a y .
I f t h e chllC n tk*» o r sh^vs i n non-verbal w y p
In the r e c o r d i n g ,
interest
'* ©hoys th® c h i l d t; e record dUeet b r i e f l y
and e x p l a i n s i n a raatt®r~of-f«©t f r i e n d l y manner, '*I ,ap,
ksaolng soma n o t e s about your ..story f o r .myielf. «
e x p r e s s e s a n t i c i p a t i o n of,
stage,V
Then C
^JtoXJSJUl.,h?*ma*l mz$, „M, %M
Xf t h e c h i l d aokn, "'Why** o r ""hat do you do t h a t
f o r , what ds you do with my s t n r i e n , ete.'< 9
T» &n«ro«?r®
simply, "I j u s t Kaen-thsja i n A .•Mok....af ..stories f o r n v s n l f , *
C t h e n exoraased a n t i c i p a t i o n of ''Vtet happens next?*
APPEHDXX 1
146
Xf B attaints to get play suggestion from
, «suoh re-
quest© for Phantasy support nhould he turned bocx t© the
subject, "At*,*, xtixas ft&amJ,V* xpyut , # , i ; , ^ , c^n ^ , affiiA^ns
ypu want i t t o . *
In addition to the i n i t i a l I n s t i g a t i o n , the explanat i o n of the recording, of the roots* and the B^[email protected] and in
addition to maintaining the aata** friendly and a t t e n t i v e
a t t i t u d e , the experimenter's v»>rbal stimulation
n
t •= la
atr-lctlv U n i t e d to t h e following!
1.
Hie amplication of not raore than four nor l e s s
than onQe. of the following type of reinforcing o r anxietyreinforcing or anxiety-reducing atimulation*t;
"X l i k e the
wav von .wake thsw .act -— you .kno^ .how .to. ..do. . I t —
you
can, make thsa. do anything ..you want them tcu anything a t
a l l —...I l i k e *hftt..vou do."
">.,
l%
h*,ntftfyX-fim}. :,TIf,%} Wien^ver l * s b^h-tvlor olr->=rly
Indicates t h a t HP feels tjytt ni© atory haa come to -m end,
or when, for whatever reason f a ferns momentarily to b<* un&hle
or unwilling to go on with further dramatisation, >>! m^ni
"Lat " • nretend t h a t ..TO.itr. ,Uat...scene waa l u s t over -— and .th'
onrtftln goes down on. the .stasre" ("> g e s t u r e s ) .
* ft ar a pause
i assumes an a t t i t u d e of expectancy and «*avo, * v hat v I s .^plpp.
to h&noan next t
k&LlL.\W<t„$faQ jm?^fel,?L£g., MP, .0JL,fln.<j$fofir. ns„l.
-.— thera i t rroea . ( g e s t u r a l .
SOM c^n tnta*.- pf.»"
T.ft'L.Mh ^ftfiJShm.flft MfrflteC-X
aPPKHDIX 1
147
I f s» i » d e f i n i t e l y r e j e o t l v © (an important d a t a i n
i t s e l f ) - g r a d u a l l y retpm* s D^rt o r a l l of the i n i t i a l
in-
s t r u c t i o n s , and thua a t t e m p t a i n a o a t l e n t , f r i e n d l y and
s n t l e i o ^ t o r y manner t o b r i n g t h e e h l l d t o e n t e r I n t o t h e
task.
3.
ing
(tor
glAwflajfrtoj* of, .^mmmlmmm*
*hsnsvsr ths
nam-
aoorlnir purposes) af a euhjeot-oroduoed d o l l a c t i o n
oould be c l a r i f i e d by a f u l l e r
tiogrm
of e x p r e s s i o n of
the
c h i l d ' s o h a n t a e y , t h e c h i l d l a eneour^R«d t o be more e x pressive e i t h e r verbally or manipulativelyJ
XI,
**3nko thaw ,do
* h w Bg Mfe^t. ,f4l,g,,,*te,i, ,mfcft,.tMa,,ftftti. ,lt,.,cU.K» ' a n d / o r
" T e l l a e what t h e y ' r e aolnttV*
t e j , ! whs t.„ they, d o . "
Vfaat , | a h a p p e n i n g *
"You,
'"hie s t i m u l a t i o n 1® used only wh^n
a b s o l u t e l y neceaearv f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e meaning of
doll actions.
I t should pev*jr be s u g g e s t i v e of p h a n t a s y -
content.
4.
the d e l i b e r
I f it; should ever "hnQim® neoaettrrv,
r
r
^rf^'enta
e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e s t a g e s r t by t h e c h i l d n s -
•olaininj* t h e t a b o o :
T t o ,MA,. ,mkOiM,.l%llg?. .09,, ,ftn.Ythlhff.
vou want t o . you can clay,,.with t h e n a m - w .you llfcy. but
I d o n ' t want vou t o break t h i a at*g» s e t .
I t t h e way It....Is."
I l i k e ta keen
The efrild it?, however, f r e e to do what-
ever i n j u r y o r damage h e wiBhr»a t o t h e d o i i a ,
i).
Terninating, t h e "lay ^easlonJ ^ f t e r t e n r.lnu + ea
of t h e t h i r d r l n v s e s s i o n h i v * ela^aed and ' f t e r
the
APPEMPXX 1
148
experimenter haffl taken tluse to do the I n h i b i t i o n rating, and
elaborate hie ooasmants on th® unclapflifiable phantasies and
a f t e r he waa interviewed the c h i l d , the experimenter ®u$r*~
pest to the child to terminate the play se&aion.
This t e r -
mination should be done in a way t h a t avoid?, giving the
child the imoresalon t h a t the experimenter had enough of
the c h i l d ' s r5lay productions? the child should r a t h e r understand t h a t the nlay time 1® U n i t e d and t h a t the reason for
i n t e r r u p t i n g h i s play lg purely bas^d on time.
%en fur-
t h e r aesslons a r e planned with the e h l l d , he i i assured of
having another t u r n .
The termination of the l a s t play
session includes* an explanation of the toy charao"ari#tios
of the experimental s i t u a t i o n ,
the child i s Riven to
understand t h a t hi© play concerned Imaginary c h a r a c t e r
and not r e a l oeoole.
He a l s o should ©l«*arly understand
t h a t he w i l l h«ve no further turn®, t h a t he has done a fine
Job and t h a t t h e Job i s f i n i s h e d .
Method of Recording,
A. t h e Boorlng Routine
& takee a running account of the nlay phantasies
during the sessions a t S produces them,
Xnatead of attempt-
ing to w r i t e down ev^rythlnp K olnsKiflea as he records
the nhantasy content into a f«?w ortdeflned oatsKori^e of
reeponae' e by means of mark© which a^e entered below symbol a
APPENDIX 1
149
on a r e c o r d s h e e t ( s e e blank a t end of t h i a manual) which
p r o v i d e s a s e p a r a t e r e c o r d i n g raw f o r each of t h e c h a r a c t e r s
of t h e s o c i a l d o l l p l a y p h a n t a s i e s .
3y "a p h a n t a s y " l a meant
what t h e c h i l d m&kea & d o l l c h a r a c t e r do o r e x p e r i e n c e .
s e p a r a t e d o l l a e t l o n a a r e t h e s o a r i n g units?.
Thus,
3 shows by
a c t u a l m a n i p u l a t i o n of *'people on t h e s t a g e " u s u a l l y a c companied by v e r b a l comments e x p l a i n i n g t h e d o l l ' s i n n e r
motives and a t t i t u d e s how t o c l a s s i f y h i s n h a n t a s i s s and
under which of t h e v a r i o u s aytabols t o r a e o r d .
E b e g i n s t h e r e c o r d i n g a f t e r he has completed t h e
initial instruction.
The r e c o r d i n g I s begun a t
this
p o i n t r e g a r d l e s s of whether £ bass a c t u a l l y begun hiss d o l l
play or not.
utes.
The r e c o r d i n g l a c o n t i n u e d f o r f u l l ten min-
At t h e end of t e n isinutas r e c o r d i n g , & do«® not
t e r m i n e t e t h e s u b j e c t ' s olay u n t i l he h«^ had s ohano« t o
do the f i n a l r a t i n ^ a , record a b r i e f c own ent of hiss t o t a l
Ifapr-fsaions and p o i n t t o t h e h i g h l i g h t s of t h e child*-*
phantasies.
Immediately following, t h e end of t r i a l
III
t h e o r o j e o t l v ® d o l l play i n q u i r y i s i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e
ehlld.
A mark below eaoh symbol s t a n d s f o r a s i n g l e u n i t
of a c t i o n by a d o l l c h a r a c t e r d u r i n g a f i f t e e n
si^cond i n t e r -
val a s i n d i c a t e d by <* mechanical i n t e r v a l t i m e r ,
fe'henever
1 p e r c e i v e s a r e l e v a n t change In a c t i o n , e x p e r i e n c e , o r pood
by a d o l l o h s r a o t e r a n o t h e r ranrk I s recorded below th®
APPETOXX 1
150
approximate symbol unless th® occurrence is a reo^tition
within the same fifteen second Interval in which oa^e
only one mark for the same interval I* recorded,
$hen two or more doll characters are active in any
doll interaction, two Mirks are recorded, one for each
of the two dolla involved a,nd the direction of the eooial
interaction, i.e., affection (AF) from on© doll to another,
rejection (BJ) of others, frustration (M) of others,
aggression (A&) toward other®, or commanding1 (G) others.
This doll interaction ic Indicated by an arrow fro® the
active doll to a tiny dot opposite the recipient doll.
F©r exampleJ
AF AJ m Ad X U Q
_o
s
&v®ry d o l l a c t i o n la recorded under one of the
phantasy oateffori^s described in the following nages by
checking the record sheet bolo%? the appropriate cynbola.
The dur. t l o n of the aame d o l l a c t i o n in not a c o n s i deration In deciding how tanny nark® to record, i . e . , v^ry
b r i e f o r l o n r c r ooti^n^ {without ohnnre) ar«' recorded in
APPtti.DXX 1
151
t h e aame manner, except t h a t i f t h e game a c t i o n extend*
beyond a f i f t e e n
second time i n t e r v a l In wnlch i t I s
s t a r t e d , th© evmbol i s r e p a a t e d i n t h e next f i f t e e n
osriod, etc,
flr^t
second
Boll p l a v p h a n t a s i e s o c c u r e i t h e r i n t h e form
of a c t u a l p h y s i c a l m a n i p u l a t i o n s ( i . e . , v i s i b l e d r a m a t i c a c t i o n by d o l l ) o r v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of d r a m a t i c a c t i o n .
When (aa i s u s u a l l y th© oas©) b o t h t h e a c t u a l d o l l a c t i o n
and some v e r b a l i s a t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e same a c t i o n ootnur
t o g e t h e r only, pne mark i»s r e c o r d e d ,
Such accompanying v e r b a l i z a t i o n l a used by & only a s
an a d d i t i o n a l eu® f o r d e c i d i n g i n which c a t e g o r y t h e b e h a v o r i a l ( m a n i p u l a t i v e ) n l a y ohantasy should be s c o r e d .
3nly when v e r b a l p h a n t a s i e s a r e p.oj, accompanied by manipul a t i v e d o l l p l a y p h a n t a s i e s a r e th® v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n
scored aa such ( s e e c a t e g o r i e s of r e s p o n s e s ) .
B r Locrtl.cn of .•Th.oaatlo. Play
The r e c o r d i n g b e g i n s by ^l<*olng a mark below t h e l o c a t i o n c a t e g o r y i n which t h e nhantaay tak*»s ^ I n c e .
The l o o a -
t l o n of t h e m a t i c -olay 1® i n d i c a t e d in c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e
s t e r e o t y p e , r.onotereotyne and u n c l a s s i f i e d r^w^ni^®,
( ? ee
t h e oo^oTete T l a t of *hn symbols a t t h e end yf t h t o "wnw»"U.
iiPPbNDXX 1
152
befinltlonfii and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
KA. ,C' teffcrlffft, „o,f„ R,«.i.?.fta,lftt
Stereotype Reaoonae:
Dramatisation which in content
s i n u l a t e s h a b i t u a l routin* actions and experiences which
could be o r d i n a r i l y expected (on the b s s i a of stereotypes
of home, family, church, school and community l i f e ) to be
performed by r e a l nersona in an annla^ous actual s e t t i n g .
Stereotyped doll action© and experiences are l i k e photographic reproductions of oowraonly annrot>ri< t a ,
"kroner,"
non-individualir-tlo behaviors, ( e . f , , s i t t i n g . $&*m to e a t ,
l i s t e n i n g to th© r a d i o , ualng the bathroom, going t o b®4t
etc.).
Hpns,twriaiaroffl,..,fttinaaffmii»
A
» individualist1© behavior,
unexpected r e l a t i o n s h i p of individuals or proupa, <-*.&.» a f f e c t i o n a t e behavior, [email protected]«pectlvfe responses, i r a s c i b i l i t y , fl*#ktin&»
ordering, e t c .
Unalaaslflsd Hesoonssal
I f a d o l l a c t i o n cannot bf
elas<slfi*>d as any of the Rtereotype or non-stereotype
phantasy r*snons»s defined, i t in to be deslptnat^d a s
"Enolaaaifled" rnd scored under t h i s category on the r e cord blank.
'Whenever t h i a resooniae has to be us^d, v'.
should add a cue-word which w i l l enabls? him l a t e r
(after
th© eeeaion) to Indicate more fully the nature of the
unclassified phantasy.
r.rrr,i>!)Xx i
153
; \ , ,,^fifAnl^i\;L,i*£J
t h o n l s t l c -^aycholv;!' la Clstin-.u'-ah b*?Vre©n tvo kinda
of senauous ao-oteney; the conouolaolblo and V.*fn ir^ac-lbls.
?Httle
pointed out t h i t -Ordinal ?'erol^r augfjcate^ the rrore
modem ter?»a of "'propensity to enjoy" (-aaKP.Bnjs,to,,,& Jja.,,„P„PHla~
.S&U&al «nd •'propensity to fight* tewfhfJlftfl, ft.fe ,l,,ttt,W»
?hes$ t e r n s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , explain what th© Tliomists mmn
by the -"ore formidable terms of "ooncu^isolble 9 and " i r a s cible* appetency.
B i t t i e also r©veal©d a dlfferenoe in th© opinion us
to th* np..^uro. of the d i s t i n c t i o n between oonoupieoible and
i r a s c i b l e appetency.
!
(« ©aids
S t . Thomas an>i many othera defend t-.he vl^w
t h a t a r e ^ l d i s t i n c t i o n a x l a t s between the two, @o
t h a t they » w two different oower«. Su&res ?xn& other®
r e j e c t thin vi#w &nd o l a i ^ t h a t i s i s a single &p?>©~
tency oxrir^esin^ i t s e l f in two tendencies; the d i s t i n c t i o n i s a .yrlrfr,ual. on®, th® foundation for *r,h0
d i s t i n c t i o n helms th® two feints of tendencies.
C,q.npjupl^olblp, 1 a sensuous aope-enoy as a power in
v i r t u e of which a s e n t i e n t bein^r tend® toward a consciously
apprehended aensuous e v i l .
No not® of time i s - I n i t , or at
p o s s i b i l i t y , I m p o s s i b i l i t y , d i f f i c u l t y , l i k e l i h o o d , or condition.
I t i s thus seen that the concuoifieibl? ap^wtenoy
Oeleatine tf. k i t t l e , The Mioje v a n . t'ilvauxee, **ruoe,
1945, p . 246-2^7.
APPSHBXX 1
15**
Is a more "receptive" disposition grounded on ssiraol© concupiscience,
aff.'otions
loves
includes love, dewlre, and Joy
ie the inclination towards good, apprehended slanly aa auch. For example, when
the child completely accepts the dolls
unconditionally, or one doll may "greet9
another doll with a "Hello* or [email protected] and
depart in like wanner.
Desire:
is the tendency toward good, &ppr®h®n&®&
a« a future possibility.
For example, one
doll way "help" another doll dust or wash
the dlshea later.
Joys
la the inclination to reat oomolaoent in
the present possession of ??ood. For
exawple, one doll stay ^say" to another
doll, *I like to play with yon," or "X
enjoy eating at vour houae."
This fona of
Joy la called enjoyment or delectation.
When it la pl&awure in the success of
another peraon who has achieved it, It if?
called, dell&bt or rejoicing.
For example,
one doll telle another doll, "Gee, X'ia
BUT*® prlad
vou *?ot that n*w o^t,*
APP&NlilX 1
155
fte.laotlpnji
i n c l u d e s h a t r e d , a b h o r r e n c e , and aaflness.
Hatreds
l a t h e aimnle op-^OQite of lov**! i t in t h e
t e n d i n g away from what in apprehsnded a s
evil.
For example, t h e boy d o l l may l *say,''
"•I h a t e my f a t h e r ; h« 8 $ mean,"
Abhorrence*
if, t h e oo-?oi?ite of d o a l r e s I t
ia-the
shrinking, back from an e v i l apprehended,
not a s p r e s e n t , b u t &s to oojae.
For
example, t h e s u b j e c t may aay, ''I wouldn*t
want t o l i v e w i t h t h o s e o e o p l e . "
Sadness J
i s t h e o p p o s i t e of Joy J i t in th®
tendency t o d i s q u i e t under t h e weight
of & p r e s e n t e v i l .
Sensed I n w a r d l y ,
it
i s a sadness o r sorrow; sensed outwardly
i t in p a i n .
For o n e s e l f , I t i s sadness o r
sorrow; f o r a n o t h e r , i t i s g r i e f o r c o w i s eration.
For example, one d o l l
tells
a n o t h e r d o l l , "'*©e, X*n s u r e s o r r y your new
c o a t wa^ t o r n . 3
Irascible:
a a^nsuoas f'"»pet«ncy or oovor lx\ v i r t u e of
which a s e n t i e n t being, '.ends toward r c o n s c i o u s l y a p p r e hended aaneuouc rood and away from a oongci'>ualy a p p r e hended (t«nsuoua e v i l .
•& no".p of ti«?e l a In i t , o r of 000^1-
b i l i t y , lmoo-^ibllity, difficulty,
l i k e l i h o o d , or
oowition.
-*p?*w»ix i
156
I t la thus seen that the iraaclbl® appetency 1B a mora
"active" d i s p o s i t i o n g,r®[email protected]} on a»n$®>r,
Thoraietio psychologist® H a t the i r a s c i b l e p&eaiona
or passions involving d i f f i c u l t y ass (1) hope and deaoair,
(2) courage and f e a r , (3) sn^er ( i r e , wrath, rape, indignation).
Modern nevoholo^iata suggest the taws* of
"frustra-
tion'' (the condition of being thwarted in th© s a t i s f a c t i o n of
a motive) and "feggreation81 (behavior Intended to haro some
one or to injure that for which one s t a n d s ) ,
Writers on
dynamic psychology tend to emohasisse the hypothesis t h a t
a primitive reaction to f r u s t r a t i o n i e agrreaelve behavior,
often accompanied by hate directed towmrd the Person or
slttt&tion blamed or the source of fruatr&ti-»n or by a generalised h o s t i l i t y .
t h e s i s In 1C3C.
Pollard 2 and others dsveloned t h i a
Theee terms, at any r a t e , explain what
the Thowlats-' mean by the concept " i r a s c i b l e , which has
been ercoloyed for c e n t u r i e s .
Therefore, the nod em wordes
(affection, r e j e c t i o n , f r u s t r a t i o n ®.n$ aggression) are
''John Doiia-d, jjLfti.. Em§$,r$t\fflAPA jimrmMlQ,n*
Mew Haven, Tele University, Jb^Q, 1-2HP n.
^fluwrae Theologies, X®, XI**, q 23, a . l , 2, 3» et 4 .
&PFi!»$J£Xit 1
157
included in their true context; a* subdivisions of the
earlier Latin expressions.
Frustrations
whenever a need, or drive or motive
toward action exist®, but th© satisfaction of this need is
blocked, interfered with or a barrier introduces a difficulty.
For exaranle the father doll smy not perr.it the boy doll to
*play" outRide,
Aggressions
whenever a doll acta or is described a®
acting or intending, to act to injure, ounlah, or generally
disparage or depreciate another doll, or "wh^n a character
in described as having1 an agf.;r»ea*Biv« hostile nature, attitude, wanner, or mood; suoh descriptions* are under ceo rod
in the aggressive unit.
158
**vrmuix 1
"he dolls, the equipment, the "XoeriKien^er or th®
exnerlraen al room jui.^ht ba th® roeinients of thf Aggression,
H-'-oothetionlly oeiKinK:, ngt'.r-'Bsirm ic ,. go's1 rfl>ssnorme to a
secondary drive -"r-vJuc-H by fruotrntion,
^ggraflslons
includes th® following types.
Belligerents
whenever a doll r^fu^es to obey a command .
Drive ^te^es
whm®v%r a doll become emotionally host i l e , i . e . , Tigry.
Humorous;
whenever ® doll s -v;#?s fun of Another'c
eXotnlsv, gkln c /Lor, t^^^ua, throwe
snowball®, etc.
'Pravak&fi'.
whenever a doll challenges, instlgf t""-,
or i r r i t a t e unether.
Punishment;
shaking, h i t t i n g , s i b l i n g ,
kickiv,
fighting, etc.
national! reds wnenev»'r turn subject attempt« to nakc
a d o l l ' s hoatllr* act «p^ r
Justifiable
or iiowal, accidental, called for, a
JOKC,
Rivalry J
etc.
whenever doll? fight for r<\ j^jeot or
ohe.ra.eter.
Sadistic:
whenever characters are k i l l e d , unuusually intensive r*g'~r«sBion.
APPKNDXX 1
Sufferings
159
whenever n d o l l in d e s c r i b e d a s being:
i n ft o s i n f u l mood, f e e l i n g , bad o r
fe* r f u l .
Verbal!
whenever th© subject or d o l l makes depreei&tlva remarks, ouroes Another,
rep-
rlmand«, scolds or seye, * You're no good."
Latency*
the time that has elapsed u n t i l the f i r s t
act of aggression h,R® occurred.
jSjlls
n r a t i o n a l appetency or the oower to s t r i v e
for en i n t e l l e c t u a l l y ^erceived good end to avoid an I n t e l l e c t u a l l y oerceived e v i l .
I t I s the tendency to d e s i r e , to
seek, and to enjoy that which the i n t e l l e c t apnrehemle as
good.. The denial of w i l l i s the denial of i n t e l l e c t and
the reduction of a l l huraan knowledge to the l e v e l of sensation,
however, when knowledge e x i s t s , there e x i s t s a
tendency to folio*-1 and net unon i t .
J-.ccording to Glenn
h
th© exercise ot w i l l i n g or
volition cs I t i s termed la on© i f "he most evident feots
of everyday hum«n experience.
Kvery individual in hla daily
exoerleneep w i l l s e i t h e r to act or not to a c t , to do t h i a or
to do t h s t .
Me Is gloo conscious of t h i s nower to consent
*Vaul J . <*lenn, .V/ch^logy. /'- "laea Nanp^.1 ,ln the
fhlloennhv of Orgnnio find .hntionnl Llfo. f-t. Louis, Herder,
1°36. n . 337-379
160
APPJCriOlX 1
or r e f u s e t o c o n e e n t , and a f t e r the a u t la ended th® I n d i v i dual raav he aware of t h e f^ct t h n t he oould hn-re a c t e d
differently,
ioroerimental s t u d i e s of t h e - w i l l - a c t have been made
by fctaroipsus *oa, %nd t h e Belgian s c i e n t i s t s A. K. kiohott©
®.nti i>, -ruB t ? f e x c e l l e n t l y reviewed by Lindworaky.**
The Rots? of t n e w i l l always follow i n t e l l e c t u a l knowl e d g e , and m&y be c l a s s i f i e d I n t o t h r e e c - t e R o r l e e ,
I.e.,
( l ) those Aute i n wnlch t h e a c t s &[email protected] concerned w i t h ends t o
be a c h i e v e d ,
(2) t n o r e concerned with t h e mean® r e q u i r e d
to a t t a i n th© ®n&t (3) and t h o s e a c t s t h a t t h e w i l l e o a mende be oerformed by f a c u l t i e s o t h ^ r th&n i t p e l f .
The
f i r s t two a c t 3 a r e o f t e n grouped as one end c a l l e d e l i c i t e d ,
RCtS* t h e t h i r d a c t s a r e t e r « e d th© opffptft,nd,®d.. .ao$.$.
&ljq\zeS
*»ctas
fcnds
I P » w i s h . i n t e n t i o n s , and enjoyment,
wish:
i s t h e simple f i x i n g of t h e w i l l
uoon an o b j e c t Co d e s i r e d .
It
Is
t h e elinnle l o v e of an o b j e c t ,
the
alssKLe desirw o r tendency f o r
it,
whether i n f a c t , t h i s tendency i s
objectively realizable or not.
-\Tohenn M n d v e r e k y , Th,L<» . i r ^ p l p p , n,fir t.he .>111.. M l w&ukee, B r u c e , 1020, 5-186 o . , t r a n s l a t e d by (,<. &telner and
2 . A, F i t s p a t r i c k .
161
ArpKHUIX 1
Eteanrplee of t h e wlshs "*X wiah i t
war*?! c o o l e r ; I wieh John would
oosne; X'd l i k e t o RO w i t h you.
with I were more d i l i g e n t . "
I
?3otice
t h a t t h e wish *%a ranch {not i t s r s & l i xAtion) 1© an a c t t h a t i s
elicited
by t h e w i l l , drawn out RO t o apeak,
of th® w i l l &B & f i n i s h e d thin*?.
Intentions
1 B tr*e o u m o e l v ^ tendency of t h e
w i l l toward® an end t o be a c h i e v e d ,
»nd conceived a i a c h i e v a b l e , whet h e r In f a c t t h a t end I s notu&lly
achieved o r n o t .
tend t o votft for
Sxn-raolea: "I i n ttgslth;
X w i l l not
r e c e i v e him i f he c e l l a ; X firmly
purno^e t o n.«nend *i»v l i f e * : s
Notice
t h a t i t i s t h e i n t e n t i o n a s «sueh
(not l t a r e n l i a e t i o n ) t h a t [email protected] an
elicited will net.
i^njoy^ent*
l a the qui©!:. -'lea«suro of w i l l i n u
good a c h i e v e d .
It i? the
««tlefac-
t i o n of w i l l in an i n t e n t i o n c a r r i e d
out,
.;i».fc">le« of enjoyment way he
found i n t h e on-ill who has J u s t
pa.fttf.ed Rfi examination; i n a
162
jtflPJttiiXA 1
date who has Just le&rned. t h a t he
h&a been elected; in a ftood father
or mother who, at c e r t a i n times in
the course of A d u t i f u l l i f e , r e a l i s e s with tha approval of w i l l the
Joy of burdens nobly borne; i n A decent man who t a e t e e a. a we aay, th®
harpineea of upright l i v i n g .
glow, tho Sftti'jf^ctiun,
f
'[email protected]
that cones
with achieved puroos*-; la enjoyment
or f r u i t i o n ; and enjoyment as auch
i s an a c t i v i t y n l i o i t e d by th© w i l l ,
E l i c i t e d *etas Moena:
Consents
a r e consent, e l e c t i o n , and use.
la the &greeisent of the w i l l to employ the means which i n t e l l e c t p r e sents ft a r e q u i s i t e for r e a l i s i n g an
Intention.
A man who ra*kep a con-
t r a c t l.n.t.gp^f to feohlev®> gome ®n$t
aorae rood thereby, and ho o p p ^ n t j
to the terras* of 'l.he o o n t r ^ t in
order to aohlave th*t end,
'flections
la the s e l e c t i o n or choice, ru*d<« by
the w i l l , of the precipe actual
fflcana to b<s mployed
out -?n l n t a n t i o n .
In carrying
If I lptoad to
APPRHPXX 1
amend »y l i f e ,
raeana
1<53
I wuot cpnMAft
of amendment,
AhPflftft
mean©.
Cor fliijftt.)
**nd I
o^rtAin
to
must
precise
C»n«ent a a y h ? G e n e r a l ;
elec-
t i o n i s more snecl&l and p r e c i p e .
1® the a c t u a l eranloyssant of the
meuna consented t o , and elected,
for the attainment of nn end or
good.
a r e many but generally c l a s s i f i e d an
i n t e r n a l *ots, external a c t a , HTL&
f.lxed net a.
a r e acta oora&nded by the w i l l &n&
executed by the i n t e l l e c t or the
interlo** acna^a.
-3uoh r-ota *"res
for exequies a d e l i b e r a t e effort to
r^fesraon out & problem; a mental
prayer; a. conaciona effort to imagine or inviaion r scene; a s t i r ring of" oneself to c o n t r i t i o n ;
s t e e l i n g onoaalf to we^t a d i s a greeable a l t u a t i o n .
are acta commended by the w i l l and
executed by th*» external bodily
nowera.
Such acta a r e , for exaa^le;
^PPEMDXX l
167*
d e l i b e r a t e walk!rig,; ep«* H n ^ ;
cln/-
I n g , d^nola^j d e l i b e r a t e l y loostihR
a t an o b j e c t ; l i a t e n i p K t o vh*t l a
&ald t o one.
Other ex&rc.vi'-s «.£* s
o r d e r In , o <"»""s.ndint-, without b^lnsc
h o s t i l e , d i r e c t i n g v i t h an a ^ r e r . -'ive ho at 11* t o n - ir
deliberately
«t f i x i n g - n o t h e r l a recorded under
i.g^reselon.
3ne d o l l wav ordwr
n o t h c r , ''Ton fro o u t s i d e , r t
go f i s h i n g . 8
,J
Let us
Beactiona t o a given
cowtand may be obedience,
following
t h e oocKL^nd, r fuaol o r a g g r e a a l >n,
" i x e d -KotsS
ui*8 nc"a aopW's.nded by th? w i l l i n d
executed by I n t e r n e ! a s " ^y terra*.!
nowcrn working c o n c u r r e n t l y .
r<x-
a ^ p l e s of such act,-, a r e : a c t i o n of
••>yoo and mind in ref.din^ and u n d e r atand ln# a l e s s o n ; a c t i o n of he>-rinft - -£ of):-* handing r.n o r d e r ;
Imagining nnd v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b i n g
&. scene; t h i n k i n g , imagining ®nd
verbally d e s c r i b i n g a scene;
thinking, lnwining;,
reisenberin^,
&® we move t h e hand i n w r i t i n g «
l e t t e r t o an old
friend.
App&ruix
i
165
0. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n nf a c t i n g ^uera
"Vial a I , I I , XIX,
Cy
Jafrree of f a c t i o n a l
Involvement
Uet.aohed,? not Involved; th© c h i l d produced h i e
p,tory
or d r a m a t i s a t i o n s in s detached r«*~'irt<jrl i k e manner.
X,. Somewhat, „Xnvolved.s. most p h a n t a s y - r e a p o n s e e [email protected]?*e
matter-of-fact;
reporter style,
howav^r, emotional n e u t r a l i t y <was
o c c a s i o n a l I v broken.
2 . MidgroundS h a l f - n e u t r a l , h a l f - i n v o l v e d .
About 50. *
of t h e phantaay-«v«nt« de^lc^ed aorao emotional
Involvement.
In. iXhvo-lv^^ ©motional rae-nonaee ( i . e . ,
excitement,
a e r l o u a n e a a , g u i l t , e t c . ) w?re narked and
occurring
frequently,
fr,., Sjoeolv Involved Sr c h i l d " l i v e d " h i a nhantnay e v e n t s ;
h l a own e m o t i o n a l i t y v a r i e d with
t h t atory events.
End T r i a l l i t
Depree of freedom of , x - ^ e e e i o n v«. I n h i bition
X, ^xtrerce X^i,lblrt,|-o.n-i- very extreme i n h i b i t i o n of
free
p h a n t a s y - e x p r e s s i o n ; t h e c'>lld
h a r d l y perral* a h i n a e l f to b** hi a
own s e l f .
166
APPENDIX 1
II Strong Inhibitions
relatively leaa inhibition- than
extreme and relatively more than
in lid inhibition.
III Mild, Inhibition;
Phantaaiaa are expressed with an
ordinary degree of reser-'*?.
IV Very Unreaerveds
free expression of ohant&eies yet
some trace of withholding le present.
V Extremely /reet
complete unhibited expression of
doll olay ohentasies.
JL
Interpretation of.Group lotion
w
henevi*r three or raore dolls do a similar activity
together, that is "sitting down to e«t,a "going to church",
"ol&ying ball", etc., grout) action is noted on the scoring
record blank by placing a mark in the appropriate anaoe
which is determined hy the trial and race of dolla which
participated in the grout) action.
One groun action during
Trial I with the colored (G) dolla unS four during Trial III
with the colored and white dolla (C'*') la illustrated belows
the letters H B" and "Lrt describe the location of Group -notion
aa taking? nlace in the dining room and living room.
,,, .feaup, .catlap,
Tr|a,l
C
I
ID
W
III
W
OW
G
Vf
IL
ID
ID ID XL XL
Ajpraa^xx i
167
|S. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Non-ThemAtlc. Kaanon«..e
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s u b j e c t ' ? ! t h e m a t i c b e h a v i o r , d e a orib*»d t h u s fBrt
th*? examiner ahould p&y cloa© a t t e n t i o n
t o t h e i d l o a y n o r a e l e s of t h e s u b j e c t ' s b e h a v i o r in t h e
experimental altu**1 ion o t h e r t:h^n h i e o h a n t a s y .
FITR
aioe-
c l f i c tyu*a of non-thematic b e h a v i o r o c c u r r e n c e s a r e r e corded by nl *cing a t a l l y i n t h a &r»^rnprlat» coluwn a t t h e
lower r i ' h t a l o e of t h e record b l a n k .
These n o n - t h e m a t i c r^eocnaee a r e " a t t e m p t s on t h e
o a r t of i h a a u b j e e t t"> i n v o l v e t h e ax&rainer;
tt
e . R , , t o p?et
the e x a - l n ^ r t o -vr r t l e l o r a t e more i n t h e n l a y , t o h&ve him
decide vhat h a m e n a , what i§ what, o r to I n v i t e ?T's OOKIjaenta, a p p r o v a l , p r e l s c , opinion a n d / o r a d v i c e .
f , Tangentloll
Whenever J*a a t t e n t i o n warn" era away
from t h s exoerlmont&l « l a y f s a . t r - l a l ,
i . e . , when l*@ b e h a v i o r i a
"tangen-
t i a l * t o the tA3k of "hani-apy-draisaatiK©tiona, e . g . , l o o k i n g out of t h e
window of t h e exoeriraent.R.1 room,
d e s c r i b i n g y e e t a r d a v ' r , exT>erlenoe,
i n q u t r l n - nbout t h e s c r e e n ,
?... Fifty Material®.*
Whenever ? o l a y s w i t h t h e
ate.
rcntarl&la
i n a non-thecAfcic manner, ^ . r . ,
- is
t a n g e n t i a l b u t u a l n g t h e r )H'f r%?v fieri5* | j p
j
APP ;\exx i
R jfa|eot|on,l
16%
Whenever " ahowa ssomo r e j e c t i o n or
c r i t i c i s m of t h « t « . ^ , t h e rtagvr» a c t ,
th© d o l ^ n , of "4, -»r of t h e whole s i t u ation.
Non-thematic r e j e c t i ' i r \ a l a o
i n c l u d e a: «my I n d i c a t i o n of u n w i l l i n g news to ant«?r o r t o c o n t i n u e th<» t a o x ,
o r any consent uoon t h a l i m i t a t i o n s
of t h e w ^ r t E l ,
Cf-. Canselpua. ,P-f„„->;
"^eneV'-r $ 1* n o t l c ^ n b i y conscJoua of
E ' r nT>*»s«moe a n d / o r f- shown i n t e r e s t
i n thn r e c c * "inn a o t i v l t v in * wny
t h a t n-o-^ -*"a t o I n h i b i t i> ®o^^wh«t.
F „ ?ptax Xfftpr,efl^iQn, ^Tffirl
Aft«»r cota'iletlon of t h i r t y nsinut*«a of r e c o r d i n g and
while t h e ^uhj^ot Is? n e r ^ l t t e d t o c o n t i n u e h i s •*•*!«, v, t h e
---xa^iner should b r i e f l y n o t o down hi© no^t outstanding,
ollnlcvi
iiroresai'in^ of t h e ">1ay s e s s i o n in o-*»der t o g u i d e
aub^e'iuent etntl,«tlo«H analvcsla.
''hi** lc!nrea«ion m y bo
J o t t e d down with cue-wof»d*> which ©an V> el&bornt cl l a t e r ,
beoau e t h e s u b j e c t should be Interviewed ( u s i n g '.he i n q u i r y
blank w loh follow-.) w i t h i n t«*o o r t h r e e ml nut en &fter comp l e t i o n of th*» t h r ^ a t**n minute t v r i o d ^ .
Immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e t o t a l i»spre~aion r<r-»ort t h e
axaailner interview® th<r> sut>Jf»ct t o de^ermino hp& h i a r r i v e d
ATI OIX
i
a t t h * n o n - ^ t e r e o t v o c d roa^onaa«.
169
f
^he r r l t j a r y
vjno^u
of th*1 i n q u i r y a r e : ( l ) t o c l a r i f y trie n e o r i n r and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e ohantasv r e a c t i o n * , and (2) t o r r ^ c n l
I f o o a a i b l e t h « temporal v a l i d i t y of the r»sr>ons«f»a.
The v r l l d l t y of t h e d o l l nlay method Is? b^g^d upon
t h e assumption t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i a t between t h e o v e r t b e h a v i o r oa* t e r n s and c o v e r t p&ttarna of m o t i v a t i o n t h a t
t h e nh&n^&ay c o n t e n t .
^reduce
Howevr, t h i s c o v e r t a*,f»o1 ing muy not
be r - a d l l y a c c e s s i b l e but hidden and o n f*efully smarded.
"here-
f o r e , th*3 I n q u i r y tvoe of I n t e r v i e w l«? enoloyc»d following aome
of t h e o r l n c l o l r " of t h e Rorschach i e c b n l q u e ' t o o b t a i n an
unblaaed
sajr^le.
Sfiv^r^l oth<r methodn have been attempted to d e ' p r -
mine v a l i d i t y >f t h e d o l l olay t-eennl^ue, auc i &<-> comn.ring
t h e r^'inp-a of t e - c h ^ r a o r p a r e n t s ,
however, th-.-e a t t e m p t s
w*7»<» d i s c a r d e d because t h e t o c h e r s a,nd o<3.r*»nts, osycholng i c a l l y eoeakinp, l a c k t h e c l i n i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n to c o r r o b o r a t e
t h e i r Judgment's t o p r o j e c t i v e
ra^ulta.
T h e o r e t i c a l l y aowJ-inj?, v i l i d p t l o n of t h e d o l l
"lay
o h a n t a a l e a can a l s o b«* baapri unon th® old L a t i n formula,
arena a e q u l t u r eaa.e. "Function follows e s s e n c e . "
means t h a t a s a thinfr JLa
sni
i t wun* .act'
*he nhrfene
Since t h e * a» e-nce
of the c h i l d r e n (colored and -white) 1© human, ao t h e i r
Bruno Klopfer * nd ua\i$rlnn . oGlaahan ke11«v, .Che Kprjaohnoh Toahnloue. * Manual f o r a P r o j e c t i v e Method of P e r s o n a l i t y
Dlagnoala. New Yore, « o r l r \ 1946, p . 4 0 - 5 1 .
APPENDIX 1
170
r e s p o n s e s a r e s e n t i e n t (oc"»our>isoible and i r a s c i b l e ) and
rational or l n t « l l a c t u a l
(will),
* H a t of q u e a t i o n a f o r th® i n q u i r y app a r a t
end of t h i s manual f o l l o w i n g t h e r e c o r d blanV-.
the
The^e q u e a t i o n a
a r e designed to e l i c i t reaponace t o t h e v a r i o u s n ^ n s t e r e o t y p o
cfitegorlffa and a r e f i l l e d I n , i n a c c o r d a n c e ,
Directions
mafcinr t h e i n q u i r y a r e Included on t h e i n q u i r y b l a n k .
for
APPENDIX 1
171
1,1 LIT ^P iTtTOLS ITSt-D
The ayrebol** p;lven below l n d l « « t e the? t r l ' i l ,
character,
l o c a t i o n and -oha.nta.sy raaoona^o g i v e n .
Trials
1 0/w - C o l o r e d A h i t e
IX
III
Character®:
0/vr - C o l c r e d A ' ^ i t e
GW - Colored and ..'hite
F - father Soil
H - ' ' o t h e r Boll
B - Boy S o i l
0 - flirl Doll
$ - Subject
Lpqatlonl
B - ^ a r e n t ^ s Badroom
B-j- C h i l d r e n 1 a Bearooai
ii - Dining Room
S - Kitchen
h - Living Room
t - T o i l e t ; Bathroom
<i - Other; C l o s e t , Hallway, Outside
fttereotynei
/»ee ^ ^ t e ^ o r i ^ a of Reanons''a.
rfongtereotvpe;, Bee i M f l n l t l o n a
Pjaft«lUfi,oAttLfll
;
' F ~ affection
lit „ R e j e c t i o n
Xffi\®®%fi\<ft,i
^ - ^lustration
<:PW:L>XX I
yilll
172
''• - ' ^ l i u i t ^ d AQ\B;
V ~ 'illcit;ad
&ndB
. e t a ; v'eane
G - Cowmnded ^ot®
Hnole,aalfl«|i
fl»tlPK
bee ^atefforiee of Heenoneea.
YMIf*
T r i a l s , 1, IX, 1XX
0 » 0«tached
1 - Somewhat Involved
2 - "'idpround
3 - Involved
k - Deeply Involved
2nd T r i a l XXX
I - kxfcr<".ia I n h i b i t i o n
XX - S t r o n r I n h i b i t i o n
XXX - }lid
Inhibition
X? - tJnr-aaerved Free Expression
V - Kxtraroely ?"ree ^xpneeslon
G - Anionr Colored
wollc
'" - i^nonr ^ h l t e ^ o l l a
CV - <>"iomr >.olor<d "ind 'M*e
-olla
>fpnr,yh,ff.T?fiflffi ^^aaaaaLal
-" -
'nrwrentlal Without PJuy -'n c e r t a i n
"* - '.'Pmfantir^
R -
v?ill* Untnr
TV
Xav ' ^ t r - r i a l s
^ejaction uf ""lay T i a t e r i a l a
'*r - C"jn«cloua of
.'trainer
173
APPENDIX 1
PROJECTIVE DOLL PLA V BLANK
L.A
Dpt,
^ame
Rf^QfS
Dov
School
&ratfp _ MA
?athe""'s Occupation
^Hhlinc-s _ S _ S S n g n i o n
I^i _
x*Lx Lip+; pjn Q V
-ivarilnpr
—-
'i'vin n l
i*«.
-
.
'-• - "
—»
I
v ,
ST? - 30T P D
i
P
M
3
~^
1
1
r
NONSTSRRnTvp-..'.
C 'in . p i . . iU< |
1 rif.ii
K
,n
L
A ? J RJ :[iPR *AG ' £ • M
0
•SIW^R
TT
1 w<M.
C_
1
. .
1
!
*
T^-^wfl
i
-p
1
V
i
j
TT R
i
1
!
|
s
T.rjsni,|,
1
c
s
f7.
j-es1
1
l
1
i
I
1
1
__L _J
1
loial
1
T^t
1
M
n
S
1
I
"otal
ITT'^
1
r
•3
/-!,
T
I
s
otal
f
T.-iat
TotM
1
(
T;I«<I
-1
RATING- CUES
j-niotiona 1
X ° :T .1 ? j i\
i
II
TTT
"
"
'
il
i
I
~ -—1
-nfl
r,
J
- ^ — :
Inhibition
1 I . II: I I I . I^-V
.—
i r»x« 1 _ _ _
.
1
_
III
1
OTHER CATEr-ORIES
1
IT
III
Crouo A c t l o n
: C, ''' j C t"
Non-The^at, l c
'. ^ R
CZ
I
II
III
1
a
r—*
^ . - _ L - . \ _
—
•
OOODBMUUvtii UKAW-A-*W*ii i ' ^ T
Ngme
L.,I .
,
,
< J Q U O O Xmmmmimmw^mt'^immKimmmmmmm——»———M»~»«~.
F a t h e r 1 a Ooottpetionm.iL.. •,
Examiner—.....I.....n.--............... ,.,,.
, ,-, „• „ , ,,
i
imn
-Rape— °A— Sex— Slrttu^
UrRflft™.
HH,I
^ M M —®t6«*iW|
S i b l i n g s — % — s Segaiom,,
—pMnt*
__
..rruijxx i
$a,«o , .
. .
, ,,,.
n
3.7^
., i
School
i
R&oa, „, €U, _ „ &ex,.n.r U*tte ,,„,,...
6rt.de, .. K» .„,. X "4
F a t h e r ' s Occupation
~x**miner
, , , , . , ^ibllnp-a B a
.. „,.., ,.,
Test
senaion,^
,.. .„,,...„-„„,,,„,,.,., u „,,.,„ Duration of X n q u l r y _ _ .
DirectionsJ Present the aubjoot with the box containing the doll
family representing- hia r»c© and say, "Here la a doll family
again; tell ase something *bcut them,*
M
SQhL
AF
1. Which d o l l loves others raoet oftent
^hloh doll doe® it lov© mo^x often?
fe"hy?
.
h J _ _ _ 2 . Which d o l l h a t e « o t h e r s rcost o f t ent
Which d o l l d o « i t ha*;e wsosst often?
«hy?
,
,
FE mmmmmmm 3. **"hloh doll stop® others from doing things most of tent
,
'^hloh doll [email protected]^ It #top from doing thing:* moet often1?
bhvt
A&
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
^ . ^hich d o l l h u r t s others w>st often?
^hich d o l l doei* i t hurt moat oft«?nY
Why*
..
,
)i ,___. 5 . >'hloh d o l l »»Jfi6 8 ft wish no#t a f t e r ' '
Whnt dc«R i t wish for mopt often'*
«***<J
M
*,!„
I.HII.III
i n ii' r.
—r~~i
n—'—'
''
•*—""
~ ' '
'
_
.
.
- ~ "
— —
.
6, Which dpll finishes what it starts racst often?
What do-s i t f i n i s h doinr «oat often 1 ?
'***y
*_.j.j..m III-.H m i
T
'"
•--—-"-—
-*•» ••••••—-*• . . . . - ^ . — — — — — . . - • — . * — * — — . - — ^ „ > — « — , „
—,
7 . rfhlch d o l l t e l l s o t h e r s what t o do mast oftenV
Which d o l l dor-s i t t e l l *o do thlnp-g moet often*
••
AT">Kf DIX 2
*'«. Tk*cr o'f
Doll I s v Phenta8l-»n of ^effro and, Vfhite iVlmarv hohool, C h i l d r e n .
The n r e s e n t r e s e a r c h w«e an a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e t h e
following t h r e e o b j e c t i v e s !
( l ) To deeign and e t e n d e r d i ^ e
a n r o j e o t i v e d o l l play t e c h n i q u e f o r studying family nhent a s i e a of Negro orira&ry school c h i l d r e n from a Thoralfitio
p o i n t of v l e v .
(2) To d ^ i l g n and s t a n d a r d i s e a p r o j e c t i v e
d o l l ">l«y t e c h n i q u e f o r studying- family oh« n a n n i e s of w h i t e
primary school c h i l d r e n from a Thoralatic o o i n t of view.
(3> To i s o l a t e , i f o o s s i b l e , r»sycholo^lc«l f a c t o r s which
may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e development of t h e c h i l d r e n * a phantasies.
Following t h e et«ndq,rdistation of t h e method,
m o i a l oownarlgonsi v e r e -ffljfde and dinoueced for
intra-
t h e i r posseIble
explanation.
The f i r s t c h a n t e r surveyed b r i e f l y eoae of t h e
experimental s t u d i e s concerning r a c i a l prouog.
This survey
was divided I n t o ; ( l ) t h e o r i e s and method a, iz)
ints»llip«*»nee
tentlnp-, and (3) neasuremsnt of a t t i t u d e s .
With r e s p e c t to t h e o r i e s and methods, many d i f f i c u l t i e s in t h e e v a l u a t i o n of o a y c h o l o ^ i o n l s t u d i e s of t h e ^egcro
Ph. D. Thenln orescmt^d by Thomas F r a n c i s Gr&harr,
In IO52, t o " t h e F a c u l t y of * r t e of t h e U n i v e r e l t y of O t t a v a ,
X&k wages.
*PP£KUIX 2
were e n c o u n t e r e d .
176
^tudif*e concerning- I n t e r r a c i a l
differ-
ences weva c o n s i d e r e d naeaninglecs, u n t i l s p e c i f i c
factors
are properly controlled.
The 'fost important f i n d i n g s of
t h e s e methods were a c t u a l l y what has not been -roved conc e r n i n g P s y c h o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s among r a c i a l g r o u p s .
However, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h taey frive come evidence of c l e a r l y
defined d i f f e r e n c e s , w h i l e on t h e o t h e r hand, i t IF, a l s o
l i k e l y t o show f a r more s i m i l a r i t i e s .
* r e v i s w of difference© i n i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t i n g b e tween t h e v>egro and whit® r a c e r e v e a l e d t h e r e wfi.$ no e v i dence of i n f e r i o r i t y or s u p e r i o r i t y among e i t h e r r a c e .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e employment an& I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of such t e c h niques wag c r i t i c a l l y
questioned.
Concerning t h e measurement of a t t i t u d e s between th©
r a c e s , many v a r i a t i o n s In t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e methods s t r o n g l y
i n d i c a t e d t h e n e c e s s i t y of o v a l u r t i o h being" c a r r i e d out under
a wide v a r i e t y of c o n d i t i o n s .
I t I s n o s t Important,
there-
f o r t , t h a t f u r t h e r r e - e o r c h be d i r e c t e d tow»"d d i s c o v e r i n g
more r e l i a b l e methods,
E v a l u a t i n g t h e finding® of t h i a f i r ^ t c h a p t e r , we
find t h a t t h e core of the r%[email protected] problem may not be reached.
by i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of ngyoholoffy concerning I n t e l l i g e n c e o r
a t t i t u d e s slonf 1 but r e s t 8 on o t h e r hypotheses as w e l l ,
That
i s to s a y , methods ^susst b«° developed t o r e v e a l t h e b a s i c a c t i v i t i e s of t h e c h i l d in h i s how*? end i n t h e home of h i s n e i g h b o r .
I t *T.S with th*»se thought*? In mind that nn ettem^t [email protected] aad©
to Quantify a project ive* doll ^ley technique to reveal the
fundamental beh'Vlor oat t e r n s of children In t h e i r own home
and th© expression of there p a t t e r n s t o ^ r d -veo^l e of p different r a c e .
Once t h i s and »dditlon*?l data arc c o l l e c t e d , a
^rograr of b e t t e r understanding and tolerance through t r a i n i n g
of w i l l based u^on s-oecifio nofitulates can be continued.
Buca
R prosrrsm has already been ably introduced in a general way
by the Cologne scholar
ing •he f i r ^ t
v
1
Ind-worsky and ofh«--r educators follow-
orld War,
The second eha-ot er surveyed r^nearch concerning d o l l
olay.
The c l i n i c a l u«se of doll nl^y vmn barely touched.
However, e e r l y experimental studies employing doll ol«.y techniques were reviewed carefully.
* report of the mono recent
experimental s*udi<™s was then given.
*<n «*w*iluation of t h e - e
studies attempted to «ihp»* the most s e n s i t i v e oroblertg f ced
by the doll b U y exoorlmenter.
The r a j o r i t y of "/he ^hod*? employed by irevious d o l l
olay exnerimenters which w r e dl^ouosed were e f f o r t s to he
entirely experimental.
Ouch methods hnvo s i g n i f i c a n t l y
aided in "subsequent research.
However, from the viewpoint of - ' r i n c i o l e s , numerous
objections w^re rapde to *hft i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th© re malts
obtained In many of the -orevlou* doll olay s t u d i e s .
These
lnteroretfltlonn v. re ^rim* r l l v brgrd mon nsychosnalytic
APPRNLIv 2
178
hyr5othes"8 or learning theories* In which ren son and will we"©
Ignored.
In other words, a child Is nothing more than an
animal with a higher degree of Intelligence, fchila on the
other hand, evaluation of the orevioua quantitative doll Play
techniques from a methodological ooint of view unbared sound
in so far as method is concerned. A careful examination also
revealed thet the methods of n-my of the studies were traditionally ^rlstotilian, tout the interpretations %rer«! chiefly
from a monistic ooint of view.
The third chapter discussed the firat doll nlay
study of the Iowa Ohlld Welfare Hs^earch Station berl«sa,
which ' as directed by Robert H. &ears. A detailed reoort
of the theory, objectives, materials used, selootion of subjects, reliability, validity and orocedure in general of
the standardised technique was made.
Interwoven Into this
detailed discussion wag also a description of the modified
orojective doll nlay technique which was used in the present
research.
Other significant contents of this chapter were
description of the experimental subjeote, the oeroentage
agreement between two examiner® for thirty 5-minute sessions
and the relationship of the children's nonstereotyoed phantasies to their roeooneos to the inquiry which indicated the
reliability and validity of the technique respectively.
AP?JJMCIA 2
179
The f i n a l c h a p t e r made oomftrisonr from r.n I n t r a r a o i a l n o i n t of view with r-Tinect to sex d i f f e r e n c e s *
develooraen"al f a c t o r s , an'5. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s .
A con-
s i d e r a b l e amount of dnta was c o l l e c t e d , however, s i n c e t h i s
study was p r e l i m i n a r y t o raor*e e x t e n s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n * ; ,
t i v e l y few r e s u l t s were s e l e c t e d f o r s t a t i s t i c a l
rela-
analysis.
These a n a l y s e s were based u^on grouo resnonaes to determine
some g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s .
No a t t e m p t w.s n?ade t o r e v e a l
any c o n s t a n t r i t i o between t h e s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n and '.he
c h i l d r e n ' s behavior.
The h a b i t u a l c f u t l o n t h a t
statistical
a n a l y s e s a r c m e t u s e f u l , but not a l l I n c l u s i v e as i s somet i m e s i m o l i e d , had been kept in mind.
The following I n t r a r a c i a l c o ^ o a r l s o n s wre
raadet
( l ) Sey d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e c h i l d r e n with r e s p e c t t o
s t e r e o t y p e d and nonstereotyoed p h a n t a s i e s .
(2) Trend of
a g g r e s s i v e phantasy resoonso*? of t h e boys as oamoarerf to t h e
girls.
(3) ^ven'l
of the conouolflclble phantasy response®
of t h e c h i l d r e n on T r i a l I I when they v r e
r e p r e s e n t i n g "he o-ooosits r a c « .
s l a v i n g *''ith d o l l s
(M ^sveloprriental corroari-
sons with res-sect to X.'*. and number of s t e r e o t y p e d ^hFtn"',&sien found on twelve boys f r o r e"'Qh r a c e .
(5) A f l n i l com-
p a r i s o n sf t h e raw f r e q u e n c i e s which included t h e t h r e e
t r i a l s with a l l of t h e c h i l d r e n .
were i n d i e s t i v e of t h e f o l l o w i n g :
He s u i t s of t h . - . e a n a l y s e s
180
APPt-IiiiXX 2
1. Blff-niflo«nt S'1? differences wltiiln e-<ch r n c i ," fir-vup.
2. JUovelo^mental v^r-inf ions v l t h l n e^ch r a c i a l Frown,
3 . Individual differences within each r a c i a l group.
The eunnary and conclusions* which followed we^e
attempts to apply the r e s u l t s of t h i s research.
Thi *-9 gen-
e r a l conclusions vere offered;
1.
The fatally ph".nt«Rlen of children fro*' different
r a c i a l groups nay be elicit*-- s a t i s f a c t o r i l y by orojjectiv©
doll nlay.
These n>hr-ntftsiefi stay s-lso be quantified and
analysed o b j e c t i v e l y ,
2.
The fact thstt various fan11y ohantagies oould be
recognized and ra ensured s^aggest^ the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t 'project i v e doll '-'lay techniques nay be T . Additional novice for the
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of child develoonent and r a c i a l r->ltti'»nn.
3.
Fror" th© viewpoint jf theory, I t ie of utntoet
significance t h a t sex differences, developmental factors and
individual d l f f " r T C 1 * within a r a c i a l group could be studied
objectively by arolvinff the orlnciolec end concepts of 'mon i s t i c psychology.
An annotated b l b l l o r w n h y followed,
A manual wag a l s o
included in the appendix to i l l u n t r a t e In a detailed manner
the technioue of the t i c ' l f i e d - r o j e c t i v e doll ol. y nethod.
Finally the a b s t r a c t and & brief index ooffl-oleted the monograph.
IN MX
181
A
Abt, Lawrence &,, 59
Adjustment, ^5
A f f e o t l o n , 9 9 , 1 0 1 , 102
Africaalew, 9
Afroamerlcan Study, 0
A g r e s s i o n , 3 1 , 3u, 3 5 , 36, 3 7 ,
38, hk, h7t h&t 50, 51
Albinism, 19
A l l e r s , Hudoloh, $9, on, 100
American U n i v e r s i t i e s , 7
Amnions, H, 3 . , k6
Amnions, R. B . , k6, 51
Anatomical F a c t o r s , 12
Anthronowetrlo, 2
A n x i e t y , k71 50, Bk
A r i s t o t l e , v i l , 5 ^ , 87
Array Alpha T e s t , 1ft, 21
Army Beta Te>at, 18
A t t i t u d e s , 22
B
Baoh, Oeorfre H . , 3 3 , 3 P , h 2 ,
*h, 5 7 , 6 7 , 90, o i , 9 5 , 100
B&ruch, D. v . , 32
BeoXhara, A. Z,, 19
B e l i e f s , 23
B e l l , Joh<, Tlder&lm, 5&
Bellak, l e o o o l d , 59
Benedict, Ruth, 8
Bond, Horace ' , , 5
Bremer, G l o r i a , ^ ' , 57
Bimoe, F.,, 16
a
Canady, Herman r >., 5 , 10
Caste P r e j u d i c e , 8
Change, 9
Chinese, 2b
Ooncunipoible, on, i m , 10.1
Conn, Jacob G., *»l, 77
Contra G e n t i l e * , 55
Cooper, John H,, v22
Corrl*mn, Joseph . , 1
Cox, 0 , C , 8
C r i m i n a l i t y - c a u s a t i o n , hk
C r i t i c a l du,-awary, X6
C r u t c h f i e l d , Richard S . , 23
C u l t u r a l Aspecta, 7
D
D a n i e l , Hobert * \ , 21
Davenport C, 3 . , 12
Dearborn, ' f i l t e r F , , 5
D e l i n q u e n t , h$
33©g*nert, J . L o u V e , &2
Dfjvelonmental H o a r d s t l o n ,
10
Pie^ertatlonn, 8
D o l l a r d , John, 3*>t 01
Doll Family, 36
Doll House, 6J
Doll P l a y , 30-113
C o n s t i t u t i v e method, 58
C o n s t r a c t l v e method, 5^
developmental Factor's,
80, 96"
risborsstiar, of IJOII^, 110,
111
Individual Differences, 80,
105, 107, 108
Inquiry, So
I n t e r p r e t i v e raotnod, $%
M a t e r i a l s , 60
Modified, 56-87
Objectives, 5Q
P r e v i o u s Research, 10-55
P r o c e d u r e , B3
Sex D i f f e r e n c e s , 89
Bta ndard11ed, 5^-S?
S u b j e c t s , 6 2 , 0 8 , 69
Theory, 57, 59
h
Emotional Involvements, 112
E n g l i s h , 25
Environmental "lieory, 20
F s t a b r o o k s , O. tf,, n
Kthnlc &rou">s» 1» 10
Sthnocentrism, 0
Ethnohlatorical, 9
182
XMPEX
European 2eveloo*»ent, B
European S c h o o l s , 30, 31
Erik, son, Srifc Homburger, k2
S x p e r l e n t a l F a c t o r s , kX
R x p e r i a e n t a l O t u d i e s , 12
f
F a t h e r P h a n t a s i e s , hii
Ford, h, h,t 7
Frank, Lawrence -<., 57
F r a n k l i n , Benjamin, School,
66
French, *5
Freud, Anno, 31
f r u s t r a t i o n , kf, 50, 51
G-
C a r r e t t , II. :•:., 1 8 , 20
Garth, Thomas ?.,, 3 , k
Ceneoloe:lc«l I n q u i r y , 2
Coodenough, Florence l*. , 11
Ooodenoufrh --cs-le, 1 1 , 6 8 , 6 9 ,
103
Grace A r t h u r ^ o i n t S c a l e , 17
C-rouo A c t i o n , 112, 113
Oroun T e s t i n g , 2 , l h
Guilford, J . ? . , 2h
H
Harms, Ernest, 3 n
Henry, J., 32
Henry, £., 32
Herskovite, ."'elvllle J., 2,
6, 9, 10
Hindus, 15
Hlatory of1 P l a y , 30 fc
Hollenberg , iSleanor, 8
Horowitz, K, I . , 25
Howe, Ruth, 26
I
I d e n t l f i o - t i o n , kfl, 8'*
Individual Differences,
I n h i b i t i o n , 112
11
I n t e l l i g e n c e Q u o t i e n t , XOk
I n t e l l i g e n c e T o t i n g , 11
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , kj, 5k
I n t e r r a c i a l , 1 5 , 16
I n t e r r a c i a l Review, 22
I n t e r v i e w s , k6, 51
I n t r a r a c i a l , 16, 68-113
l o ^ a ^ h i l d ^ e l f ^ r e Heaearoh
u t o t l o n , 3 3 , 62
Iowa U n i v e r s i t y ? r e a c h o o l ,
h 9 , 6 l , 6k
I t a l i a n s , 25
J
J e n k i n s , F. - . , Xo
Jcnnln.M, *'i. - . , 1
Johnson, Charl s .-'., 5
J o n e s , i£dreund A. School, 66
K
Kanner, Leo» 31
[email protected], Herpraret Reuther, 6?,
06, 100, 105
K e l l y , Millie® A , , 67, 96,
l o o , 105
. " I n d e r g a r t e n , 27
t i i r o h e r , Clara J . , 29
K l e i n , fcelanie, 31
-'"linebprg, O t t o , 7 , 17
Inox, S i l l s 0 . , 7, 8
^ r e c h , L*vi&, 23
"vuhlmann-Anderson 'i'o&t, 17
L
L a n i e r , L. I i . , 12
L ^ r n e r , B , , k2
Levy'« Amputation Uoll, 30,
32
Llkert ^CJ'IP, 7
Lindworsky, Johann, 29
L^nfs, Howard H., 5
L o u i s i a n a , 26
Lyons, D a n i e l , 22
INDEX
M
Maladjustment, 45
M a s s l l l o n , Ohio, 66
F ' a r n r i a l i e t l c , 5k
M e l s t e r , 1>., k$
^ ' e l t z e r , K., 2k
M e t a p h y s i c i a n s , J54
Methodological F a c t o r s , kx
M i l l e r , Noel, 3 9 , «1
" odes of 3^in«j, 31
Mulatto H v n o t h e s i s , 6
J'urnhy, L. B . , 42
M u t a b i l i t y , 30
National I n t e l l i & s n o e -'©Bt, 12
N**ro Doll a , _ 2 7 , 28
Nonthesatlo xtesponses, 112
0
0 ' T o o l e , C. B a r r y , 1
P
Paired C o r n a r i s o n s , 24
^arka, Robert <•-. , 8
J'astore, M e h o l a e , 10, 20
P e l l , C. f 16
P e t e r s o n , J o s e p h , 2, 12, 13
Phantasy Support, 84
P h l l l i o s , R., 34
Plla#a I n d i a n s , 32
P l n t l e r , MerRaret U., 34, 37,
^2, 65, a^
- n intn*r, R., 15
n a y , 30, 56
P r a c t i c a l I ^ o l l c o t l o n s , 3 n , 112
Preschool C h i l d r e n , 36. 46, 51
Punishment, 4Q, 51
183
R
R«.ce ' V s j u d i c c , 6, 5^
R a c i a l urouoa, 3-29
p ttlt-ad^s,
22
Doll -'lay, 5«'-113
I n t e l l i g e n c e s^BSlnp-, 11
T h e o r i e s and -"•'-thods, 2
Radke, ' o *lan J . ,1 26, 27
lv tilnp: S c a l e s , 5 , ?6
Heln"".eror"ti.tion, 9
R e j e c t i o n , 9 9 , 1 0 1 , 102
R e l i a b i l i t y , 36, 5?-> ?Q
72, ? 4 , 75
Robinson, £llf.Kbeth ^ . , 35
hoirerson, C, r , f 40
R u s s i a n s , 25
ftsnford, R. u e v i t t , 1"*3
Sohuler, "-. i t . , 26
b©f ( rs, Robort ^ . , 1 3 , 36,
4 0 , 4 3 , 47
Jep-rf-fr-tion, 26, 89 J
S e l e c t i v « Kip-ration . yno*
t h e s i s , 20
uex JU'ifferences, 3 7 , 3^» 8 8 ,
89-06
s i b l i n K s , IR, 10
SMtT,h-''illlanje t ' e s i , 65
S o c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s , 10
&ocloemoirioal, 1
Rocio-Dhiloooohical, 1
S-nerrv, k'>&r^aret, 48
:.tanford-<3inet, 1 7 , !'*•, f>5
J ' t n t i s t l o a l a n a l y1s e s , 88-113
Subjpot-kxoefltnen- o r , 86
S u g p o s t i b l l i t y , 13
.>uth<-rland, Jeftn, 26
Cynoretis", 9
i'aujT^ntial "'lay, 3 5 , 38
'4u0litati.ff d e s c r i p t i o n , 4% 53
feleologlcfil J ' t h o d , #
q u a n t i t a t i v e I n s c r i p t i o n , 32, *»2, 'i ennoral V>. 1 i<3 i t v , 4A
Thematic ^ c r e r c e ^ t l a n 1 > s t ,
53, 5^
103
184
T
T h e r a o e u t i o ITTS ^1 i o , j t l o n « , 39
I^onas Aqulnno, « t . , 3">, 55, B7
Thomlstlo "svchology,
i x , 116
Thomson, Chi-*. iT. , 5
Thurston® ~ i l e , 7
Tonllnson, H., 18
Tracer, Helen fl.» 27
" u r k l s h , 2? , ?5
U n c l a s s i f i e d Resno i s ^ s , 112,
113
V
V a l i d i t y , 3 6 , 46, 7 3 , 77-62
V a r i a b l e x^eri.-rental c o n d i t i o n s ,
37
V i r v i n i i , 17
M i l i a r * , "elvln J . , 1
Y
"oder, Dale, 3 , 21
Young, ^aui - r r o b e l i , 12
Zellire, Ro^e, 28
Zero BcoT*eF, 20
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
£th«ll«
L E & E N DE
Route prmcipale
Vote ^ci-t-ee
Ville
L i M i t e pVov m c i a t «
L . - ' * « de c o m t e
L.nv>, t t d e s t t f
cultivrf* d a m la z o n e
pe»-if>h« ri^u* rfu nord et
4c \ *%i de la p r o v i n c e
Figure 8 . - Carte des types de
v i l l a g e du Nord e t de l ' E s t du
Nouveau-BrunswieU,
I
[inhabits
f "I Habitations dispercees
BFetlt ]
m Tillage-rue
^ • v i l l a g e agglom^re
R o u t e prtnc pale
Voie ^eri-ee
ViLle
V<Ma_
p r « i i t i * t c du. C a « . a . ^ a
Ctmite r Vow*nctale
L L * I + « de
c o m t 4,
Ltmi t t des t e r r a * n*
cultivla d*rt* la. JEDAC
pecipke n ^ u « rfu. « o r a et
i t I t i t de t
Figure 1 0 . - Carte des ejtapes
du peuplement du Nord et de
! • Est du Nouveau-BransjHick
Acadien
40-
Brltasnlque
i - irlandais
e - eucossais
a . anglais
m - mixta
1 - loyalista
Fondation:
0
avant 1755
1755-1783
A
1783-1815
D
1815-1850
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
N o r d et E s t
Repartition da la population
1951
L I 9 I H D I
Un p o i n t r e p r e s e n t * 100 pereonnee
.Moneton . . . . •32,424
et banlleue)
Xdnundstoa
••
10,753
Caapbellton
7.T5*
Chathaa
5,223
DSlbousle
..
4,939
...
4,453
Newcastle
..
4,248
Sackvllle
..
2,873
2,010
1,419
1,181
Hathurst
Shedlac . . . .
St-Leonard
Shlppagan .
Figure 1 1 . - Carte de l a rep: . viUon de la population dans l e
Nord e t l'Lat *. iouveau-Brunsvick
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
Nord e t Est
-46*
faible
Figure 12.- Carte de la denslte de la population rurale
du Nord et de l'£st du Nouveau-Brunevick