Workbook for the Study of Social Psychology

(b) Resolutions:

"I telling myself I must talk to these pretty chicks like the way the haole guys do it. She the haoles no shame to talk, why!"

DRA Sample 3:
(a) Praying:

"As of this moment I have none."
(b) Resolution:

"I promised myself that by the start of the new year I would go back to the religion I started when I was small. This year I think to myself how I'm going to live up to my expectations and to go to church and give up other things less important. But every year for the past three years, I haven't lived up to my resolution."

DRA Sample 4:
(a) Praying:

"I remember way back when I was just a kid and when it was time to go to bed every night I'd kneel down and pray, 'Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take. Amen. ' What ever happened?"
(b) Resolutions:

"Five o'clock in the morning and I've been cramming for an exam all night. It's just not worth it. I've got to get myself organized and start studying ahead of time."

DRA Sample 5:
(a) Praying:

"Every dinnertime our family says grace, though I feel hypocritical about the whole thing. We give our thanks, but do we really mean it?"
(b ) Resolutions:

"I always tell myself that I will buy a set of guitar strings and a new pair of pants at the first chance I get. Yet somehow everytime I get some money I spend it on something else. (usually food. ) I've needed guitar strings since December, and the pants from who knows when. Yet something always goes wrong. Hard to tell I'm not the type who sticks to dumb resolutions!"

DRA Sample 6:
(a) Praying:

"When feeling angry at someone, I try to remember 'we are all God's children.' When feeling uptight, I repeat to myself 'I shall remain perfectly calm.' But prayer is really a gas when I'm feeling good and it goes something like this: 'thank you!"'

(b) Resolutions:

"I hereby resolve never to eat another chocolate chip cookie, for the rest of this life and for the duration of the next."

DRA Sample 7:
(a) Praying:

"Dear Jesus, thank you for another day, and for your protection through the night. Please guide and protect my family today and don't let any of them get hurt. " Our Father, which art in heaven. . . for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." It's pretty nice talking to Jesus; it's like, to coin a phrase, 'a breath of fresh air.' But more than that, I feel as if I have been given another chance at life."
(b) Resolutions:

"The alarm has gone off--I can feel my hand reach out and turn it off. In my mind, I think of all the things I must do today and decide on which things have first priority. First on the list is to get out of bed and use the bathroom . . . FAST!

I have a l0:30 class I can't miss. I can't forget the meeting with _____. I better write a note to myself and put it in my folder. Then lunch at Chico's (I better call _____, and remind her about it). I should start making a schedule for my summer courses but maybe later if I have the time."

We can summarize the relationship between praying, and making resolutions, on the one hand as antecedents, and their consequences in behavior, as reported by the witnesses:

DRA Evidence for Future-Making

Sample	FUTURE-MAKING ANTECEDENTS	BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENTS IN THE PRESENT
1a	PRAYING TO GOD WHEN THE THOUGHT OCCURS	[-helps me get through difficult times [-improved well-being [-witnessing faith, hope, love
1b	TELLING MYSELF THE THINGS I'M GOING TO DO THIS SUMMER	[-it allows me to think ahead and make plans
2a	PRAYING TO GOD AND GIVING THANKS FOR MY FOOD	[-witnessing self in praying silently
2b	I TELLING MYSELF TO DO SOMETHING	[-reduce my shame in doing it

Sample	FUTURE-MAKING ANTECEDENTS	BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENTS IN THE PRESENT
3b	I PROMISED MYSELF AND I THINK TO MYSELF	[-witnessing not living up to promise
4a	I USED TO PRAY AS A KID	[-witnessing not praying anymore
4b	TELLING MYSELF TO GET ORGANIZED	[-hoping to start studying ahead of time
5a	SAYING GRACE AT FAMILY DINNER	[-witnessing feeling of hypocrisy
5b	TELLING MYSELF TO DO SOMETHING	[-witnessing not sticking to resolution
6a	PRAYING TO KEEP MY COOL AND TO GIVE THANKS	[-witnessing feeling good
6b	MAKING A RESOLUTION NOT TO EAT SOMETHING	[-hoping to keep resolution
7a	PRAYING TO JESUS	[-feeling good [-witnessing biographic consciousness
7b	I THINK IN MY MIND ALL THE THINGS I HAVE TO DO I THINK I BETTER WRITE A NOTE TO MYSELF	[-deciding on priorities [-remembering what to do [-planning to make a schedule

Thus, students of this class community engage in future-making activities by doing the following: (i) PRAYING TO GOD OR TO JESUS and SAYING GRACE OR THANKS ("Praying"), (ii) MAKING RESOLUTIONS and TELLING MYSELF. The consequences of praying include feeling better, feeling clarified, noticing improvements--or else, feeling hypocritical. The consequences of making resolutions include thinking ahead, better planning, hoping--or else, witnessing the breaking of resolutions.

Topological Surrealism. The natural history of communities documents the experience of its members. The positive bias in scientific humanism (see p. ) attempts to extend our understanding of the phenomena of consciousness as given in witnessed reports. All great contributors to natural science have stated in their autobiographies that they drew their inspiration from spiritual experiences. An interesting recent example is the work of Jane Roberts on what she calls "aspect psychology" (Roberts, 1975). We shall review her ideas on field dynamic concepts of the self.

According to Roberts (1975), the self exists at several levels or reality. The source self is the center core that engenders our known personality, among others. Ordinary reality is the "earth version," which is the time/ space, materialistic expression of one of the many Aspects of the self. These other Aspects are also existential, i.e., real, but they exist on alternate planes of expression available to the individual through direct experience (e.g., altered states of consciousness, intuition, creativity, precognition, revelation, etc.). Thus, the unknown "source self" interacts with alternate realities forming various focus personalities. By getting in touch with his alternate "focus personalities", the individual in effect expands his consciousness.

Focus personalities manifest in the experience of individuals through emotions, feelings, talents, skills, and other unique traits, though the individual may not be aware of the sources of these influences and may, instead, attribute his experiences to ordinary reality.

These definitions are consonant with Jungian archetypes, Greek deities and demons, and so-called primitive ideologies of animism (spirits, gods, angels). In these systems of thought, ordinary reality is hooked up to the other realities, as shown by the accompanying diagram (based on Roberts, 1975, p. 121).

The "focus personality" is located on the "living area - our 'now"' (double wavy line); it is tied to the source self through "energy waves." The various Aspect selves are each in a different plane of reality, but they all derive their existence from the same core source self, as is also, the focus personality (= ordinary social self).

"The experiencing of these separate lives enriches and changes the source self, which in turn generates new energy. Each Aspect self is an entity in miniature (or, a source self in miniature), and sends out its own spokes - Aspects of itself - into 'lesser' dimensions than its own." (Roberts, 1975, p. 122). The experience by the focus personality of "alien personality characteristics" are like "multidimensional psychological apports that appear as strange traces transposed upon the usual personality. These Aspect-prints, taken together, form the trance personality which in this context can he called a 'personagram''' (Roberts, 1975, p. 127). Jane Roberts calls her personagram by the name of ''Seth" - an entity that speaks through her when she adopts, or wills, her trance personality. Seth has "dictated" several volumes which were published by Roberts (see, 1975). In these works, Seth speaks about other dimensions of existence that interpenentrate and cause each other. Ultimately, the surrounding envelope of all these realities relates to unspeakable, unfathomable mysteries all of which relate to God, or "All That Is" - as Seth calls the ultimate, unknowable even to him.

Future-making is accomplished when "alternate probable futures" "drop into the living area time slot" as indicated by the accompanying diagram:

"We choose physical events, then, from all the pre-perceptions of which the unconscious is aware. And this choice never stops. We aren't locked into one series of happenings. At any time we can pick another line of development from all of the probabilities available to us. Recognition of this would relieve many people from feelings of powerlessness, and allow them to change their lives in a practical manner." (Roberts, 1975, p. 150). Roberts claims that people routinely alter their reality though this may not be done with consciousness or awareness. Seth presents various self- change techniques by which people can learn to routinely and consciously make alternative futures come true.

This goes for the past as well: ''Seth's books have insisted on this freedom from past events, and Seth constantly asserts the individuals power in the present over the past" (Roberts, 1975, p. 155). The time- line of past-present-future is seen sequentially and historically only on the individual "particle" level of the focus personality. But in actuality, the source self energizes the various focus personalities simultaneously or synchronously, as shown by the accompanying diagram:

As well, the source self may activate several focus personalities as contemporaries - i.e., living in the same time/space coordinates (this reminds us of Castaneda's tales about meeting his own "double'' - it is also a popular science fiction theme in time travel adventures). Roberts views ordinary social events in time/space as "exteriorizations'' of inner experiential space. However, she presents many instances in which she witnesses inner psychic events that do not get exteriorized as sense phenomena. She asserts that this is a common experience: "When we do, ("look through the contents of our minds") we can trace some of the inner data outward into the physical events that seem to happen to us. Yet other inner contents remain in a different order of existence. Their reality is sensed. They may even take up a good amount of our "thinking space," yet we can't follow them out into events in the same way. They seem to exist in their own mental realm where they must be accepted or denied in their own context. They don't usually appear as exteriorizations." (Roberts, 1975, p. 178).

William James, in his The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) echoes the system of "higher" source self discussed by Roberts:

"Apart from all religious considerations, there is actually and literally more life in our total soul than we are at any time aware of. The exploration of the transmarginal field has hardly yet been seriously under- taken, but what Mr. Myers said in 1892 in his essay on the Sublimimal Consciousness is as true as when it was first written: 'Each of us is in reality an abiding psychical entity far more extensive than he knows - an individuality which can never express itself completely through any corporeal manifestation. The Self manifests through the organism; but there is always some part of the Self unmanifested; as it seems, some power of organic expression in abeyance or reserve."' (James, l9O2, P.458)

Charles Peirce, who originated American Pragmatism is quite explicit about the relation between science and spiritual awareness.

". . . So, then, the question being whether I believe in the reality of God, I answer, Yes. I further opine that pretty nearly everybody more or less believes this, including many of the scientific men of my generation who are accustomed to think the belief is entirely unfounded. The reason they fall into this extraordinary error about their own belief is that they precide (or render precise) the conception, and, in doing so, inevitably change it; and such precise conception is easily shown not to be warranted, even if it cannot be quite refuted. Every concept that is vague is liable to be self-contradictory in those respects in which it is vague. No concept, not even those of mathematics, is absolutely precise; and some of the most important for everyday use are extremely vague. Nevertheless, our instinctive beliefs involving such concepts are far more trustworthy than the best established results of science, if these be precisely understood. For instance, we all think that there is an element of order in the universe. Could any laboratory experiments render that proposition more certain than instinct or common sense leaves it? It is ridiculous to broach such a question. But when anybody undertakes to say precisely what ,hat order consists in. He will quickly find he outruns

all logical warrant. Men who are given to defining too much inevitably run themselves into confusion in dealing with the vague concepts of common sense." (Peirce, 194O, 375-376)

Peirce answers the objections raised by "scientific" psychologists who view spiritual phenomena as delusional:

"By experience must be understood the entire mental product. Some psychologists whom I hold in respect will stop me here to say that, while they admit that experience is more than mere sensation, they cannot extend it to the whole mental product, since that would include hallucinations, delusions, superstitious imaginations and fallacies of all kinds; and that they would limit experience to sense-perceptions. But I reply that my statement is the logical one. Hallucinations, delusions, superstitious imaginations, and fallacies of all kinds are experiences, but experiences misunderstood; while to say that all our knowledge relates merely to sense- perception is to say that we can know nothing - not even mistakenly - about higher matters, as honor, aspirations, and love.

Where would such an idea, say as that of God, come from, if not from direct experience? Would you make it a result of some kind of reasoning, good or bad? Why, reasoning can supply the mind with nothing in the world except an estimate of the value of a statistical ratio, that is, how often certain kinds of things are found in certain combinations in the ordinary course of experience. And skepticism, in the sense of doubt of the validity of elementary ideas - which is really a proposal to turn an idea out of court and permit no inquiry into its applicability - is doubly condemned by the fundamental principle of scientific method - condemned first as obstructing inquiry, and condemned second because it is treating some other than a statistical ratio as a thing to be argued about. No: as to God, open your eyes - and your heart, which is also a perceptive organ - and you see him. But you may ask, Don't you admit there are any delusions? Yes: I may think a thing is black, and on close examination it may turn out to be bottle-green. But I cannot think a thing is black if there is no such thing to be seen as black. Neither can I think that a certain action is self-sacrificing, if no such thing as self-sacrifice exists, although it may be very rare. It is the nominalists, and the nominalists alone, who indulge in such scepticism, which the scientific method utterly condemns."

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (born in Leiprig, Germany in 1646), inventor of modern mathematics ("calculus"), asserts the existence of "unconscious ideas" and makes them the basis of psychological "conscious" awareness - according to John Dewey's analysis(Dewey, 1961):

"Thus it is that Leibniz not only denies the equivalence of soul and consciousness, but asserts that the fundamental error of the psychology of the Cartesians (and here, at least, Locke is a Cartesian) is in identifying them. He asserts that "unconscious ideas" are of as great importance in psychology as molecules are in physics. They are the link between unconscious nature and the conscious soul. Nothing happens all at once; nature never makes jumps; these facts stated in the law of continuity necessitate the existence of activities, which may be called ideas, since thev belong to the soul and yet are not in consciousness.

When, therefore, Locke asks how an innate idea can exist and the soul not be conscious of it, the answer is at hand. The "innate idea" exists as an activity of the soul by which it represents - that is, expresses - some relation of the universe, although we have not yet become conscious of what is contained or enveloped in this activity. To become conscious of the innate idea is to lift it from the sphere of nature to the conscious life of spirit. And thus it is, again, that Leibniz can assert that all ideas whatever proceed from the depths of the soul. It is because it is the very being of the soul as a monad to reflect "from its point of view" the world. In this way Leibniz brings the discussion regarding innate ideas out of the plane of examination into matter of psychological tact into a consideration of the essential nature of spirit. An innate idea is now seen to be one of the relations by which the soul reproduces some relation which constitutes the universe of reality, and at the same time realizes its own individual nature. It is one reflection from that spiritual mirror, the soul. With this enlarged and transformed conception of an idea apt to be so meagre we may well leave the discussion. There has been one mind at least to which the phrase "innate ideas" meant something worth contending for, because it meant something real."

Leibniz asserts that the material world derives its origin from the spiritual. Every material unit in the universe is imbued by an intelligent spirit called "monad" (i.e., singlehood).

"The monad, then, is a spiritual unity; it is individualized life. Unity, activity, individuality, are synonymous terms in the vocabulary of Leibniz. Every unity is a true substance, containing within itself the source and law of its own activity. It is that which is internally determined to action. It is to be conceived after the analogy of the soul. It is an indivisible unity, like "that particular something in us which thinks apperceives and wills, and distinguishes us in a way of its own from whatever else thinks and wills." Against Descartes, therefore, Leibniz stands for the principle of unity; against Spinoza, he upholds the doctrine of individuality, of diversity, of multiplicity. And the latter principle is as important in his thought as the former. Indeed, they are inseparable. The individual is the true unity. There is an infinite number of these individuals, each distinct from every other. The law of specification, of distinction, runs through the universe. Two beings cannot be alike. They are not individualized merely by their different positions in space or time; duration and extension, on the contrary, are, as we have seen, principles of relativity, of connection. Monads are specified by an internal principle. Their distinct individuality is constituted by their distinct law of activity. Leibniz will not have a philosophy of abstract unity, representing the universe as simple only, he will have a philosophy equal to the diversity, the manifold wealth of variety, in the universe. This is only to say that he will be faithful to his fundamental notion, - that of Life. Life does not mean a simple unity like a mathematical one, it means a unity which is the harmony of the interplay of diverse organs, each following its own law and having its own function. "Then Leibniz says, God willed to have more monads rather than fewer, the expression is indeed one of naivete, but the thought is one of unexplored depth. It is the thought that Leibniz repeats when he says, "Those who would reduce all things to modifications of one universal substance do not have suffiicient regard to the order, the harmony of reality.

Leibniz applies here, as everywhere, the principle of continuity, which is unity in and through diversity, not the principle of bare oneness. There is a kingdom of monads, a realm truly infinite, composed of individual unities or activities in an absolute continuity. Leibniz was one of the first, if not the first, to use just the expression "uniformity of nature;" but even here he explains that it means "uniform in variety, one in principle, but varied in manifestation." The world is to be as rich as possible. This is simply to say that distinct individuality as well as ultimate unity is a law of reality." (Dewey, 54-55).

Synopsis 19: Topological Applications: Future-Making.

Field theory concepts posit that energy in a system is a function of positional changes of particles or objects. This presupposes some form of interchange or "exchange" between the objects, which in turn presupposes some sort of organizational structure of the elements. "Community" refers to the sharing of a daily round by members, and presupposes a social organization that provides for transactional exchanges. These exchanges are governed by sociodynamic and astrodynamic "laws."

The astrodynamic component of social aggregates is the force of attraction and repulsion. We may call this "love" in the case of human communities, and "gravity" in the case of aggregates of particles. The sociodynamic component comprises ethnodynamics and psychodynamics. The first involves a "symbolizing" aspect (tradition, rituals) and a "winning" aspect (= striving together). The second involves a "dramatizing" aspect (themes, legends, myths), and an "annotating" aspect (topical description, reporting, witnessing) .

These three types of energy fields give rise to the mediating concepts of "astrogenesis, " "ethnogenesis, " and "psychogenesis. " Astrogenesis has three aspects ("love/consciousness/chance") which jointly define "biographics, " or the planetary influences on a person's life. Ethnogenesis also has three aspects ("presuppositions/implications/meanings") which jointly define "ethnology, " or the record of situational influences on behavior. Finally, the three aspects of psychodynamics ("attributions/evaluations/judgments") jointly make up "psychology, which is the record of subjective experiences.

The operation of astrogenesis, ethnogenesis, and psychogenesis jointly provide for the maintenance of community life. "Future-making" refers to the natural property of communities to arrange for their continuity, i.e., then "future." Future-making can be conceptualized in field dynamic concepts through the aid of topological representations. one such method, called "catastrophe theory," pictures future-making as occurring in a field-space that has a sloping, pleated surface, and is defined by four corners or "attraction zones." These are defined in terms of the contrasts "objective/subjective, " "material/spiritual, " "individual/ community, " "positive/negative, " and "subtle/gross." The four zones may be titled, "the sciences," "the humanities," "scientism," and "sorcery," respectively

"Praying" and "Making Resolutions" are two common methods of future- making people ordinarily use on the daily round. It is possible to obtain evidence concerning the effects of praying and making resolutions by keeping track of the behavioral consequences of these future-making acts. DRA data show that students of Psychology 222 frequently attribute their personal well-being (or its opposite) to their future-making acts.

"Topological surrealism" refers to theories that have been proposed for a multidimensional account of "actuality. " According to one such view ("aspect psychology") the on-going "now" is only one reality among several. Simultaneous on-going realities are under the control of a basic "source self" which experiments with "alternate possibilities" in past, present, and future (= "focus personalities"). Leibniz, as reviewed by Dewey, sees the "monad" as the basic unit of all component structures, whether atom, planet, or man. The monad is an intelligent entity and derives its properties from the soul, or God.

Bird Stories (18) by Leon James

I have discussed in an earlier story, group differences in species characteristic behaviors, and reported an index of "cross-cultural" similarity. Here, I wish to give you some additional similarities and differences between the four species populating our two backyard aviaries.

Group Differences in Nestbuilding

	Lovebirds	Java birds	Parakeets	Cockatiels
Uses materials (branches, grass)	+	+	-	-
Weaves nest	+	+	-	-
Fills all of space in nestbox	+	+	-	-
Uses same box over and over	+	+	+	+
Alters nest by ejecting materials	?	+	+	+
Both mates enter	+	+	+	+
Mother stays in more than husband	+	?	+	-
Husband assists in building	-	+	-	?
Mother stays in most of her day	+	?	+	-
Mother sleeps inside at night	+	?	+	-
LEGEND + indicates observed occurences for "Yes" - indicates observed occurences for ''No" ? indicates insufficient data ? indicates probably "No"

Group Differences in Territorial Assertions

NESTBOX AREA:
MOTHER'S CONDUCT

LOVEBIRDS: does not allow others in vicinity except male

and Offspring (until late adolescence)

JAVA BIRDS: varies on a number of factors: during early

phases, as above; later, top of the box is

public at prayer times, siesta; entrance area

always forbidden to others (offspring weaned

gradually from entrance until adulthood,

perhaps longer).

PARAKEETS: top of the box is public, entrance, only for

the mate and infants. Additional conditions

create more complex patterns of conduct, e.g.,

during competition with neighbors and coveting

females, the mother aggressively chases the

incumbent from all vicinity, sometimes well

beyond that part of the aviary. Males and

infants are not attacked adolescent females at

times. Only mates and infants are allowed

at the entrance or inside.

COCKATIELS: all parts appear to be either public or

sharable, including inside (observed with

Java birds).

NESTBOX AREA:
HUSBAND'S CONDUCT

LOVEBIRDS: same as Mother's

JAVA BIRDS: same as Mother's

PARAKEETS: does not appear to protect nestbox; responds

aggressively against males in vicinity when

courting mother near nestbox, on perches, etc.

COCKATIELS: at times, same as Mother's; at times, chases

all birds in vicinity (excepting its mate).

(Conditions remain to be investigated.)

By studying group differences in various activity zones, you gain a deeper understanding of the cultural forces that activate and influence individual behavior. See if you can chart group differences among humans in your own daily round: which activities mark sex differences? Differences in ethnicity, age, occupation, role position?

20. PSYCHODYNAMICS-1: ATTRIBUTION

When you become sufficiently familiar with the scientific fields you begin to see them as "professional undertakings. " Some writers call this perspective, the sociology of science; others call it the history of science, and even, the philosophy of science. The idea that science operates as a profession brings investigators to study science as the behavior of scientists. For example, famed philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn has started everybody quoting him on the idea that there occur in science "revolutions" which he called paradigm switches (Kuhn, 1962). Science is depicted as a battleground of ideas and methods succeeding each other after one of them has occupied a position of superior status and acceptance over the others. This is called a paradigm, which refers to the basic set of assumptions that lead to all the others. Thus, we all know that Copernicus (1473-1543) "revolutionized" science (and horrified the Church, apparently) when he founded modern astronomy by assuming that (i) Earth is a planet among planets, and (ii) planets revolve around their sun. We would say then, that the "Copernican System" brought on a paradigm switch. The twentieth century has witnessed many paradigm switches, the most famous is that of "Relativity Theory" engendered by Albert Einstein in his doctoral dissertation, published 1905. That came right on the heels of perhaps the most famed paradigm switch of all--Charles Darwin's "Evolution Theory, " published 1859.

In psychology, the first and foremost contemporary paradigm is "S-R Theory The 'S" stands for "stimulus" and the 'R" for "response. " We review this paradigm in the discussion on the nature of emotions (Section 4). In our professional career, we have witnessed two big revolutions and several smaller ones (since 1940). The best known is the paradigm switch precipitated upon linguistics by a small faction of M.I.T. intellectuals led by superstar Noam Chomsky. The "Chomskian Revolution in linguistics created the generative paradigm, now the chief course of study in most of this country's departments of linguistics.

A small revolution in psychology was the creation of the field of psycholinguistic around 1954. Methodological fads amount to small revolutions. For example, famed psychologist Charles E. Osgood got everybody to use a paper-and-pencil instrument called the semantic differential. Thus, the decade following 1957, the year Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum published a handbook for the use of the instrument, saw the publication of hundreds of experimental reports in which the instrument was investigated (Snider and Osgood, 1969). However, by the late 196O's only a few scattered reports can be seen, the bulk of the work being carried on by specialists.

In the 1950's, social psychology was deep in the grips of the "Yale Group." These were students of Carl Hovland and Clark Hull who founded the attitude school. Hundreds of experiments poured forth in a tremendous burst of experimental fervor: attitude measurement, attitude change, propaganda, immunization messages against counter-propaganda, and so forth. one of the most famous of these results that we recall from our graduate school days is the finding that scaring people into brushing their teeth is not effective if the scare is very strong (e. g., showing a movie of sick people's abscessed mouths ! ); however, with "lower degrees" of scariness. the propaganda message, BRUSH YOUR TEETH REGULARLY, becomes much more effective--though as we all know, not too effective, and not for very long

The students of the students of Hovland and Hull carried on to create a little revolution in the 1960's. This paradigm is known under several names: dissonance theory; congruity principle, cognitive dissonance. The names to look up here, are those of Leon Festinger, Charles Osgood, R.A. Abelson, and George Kelly. By studying the worlk of these social psychologists you will come to understand the spirit that animates the idea of experimentation in the study of human behavior.

The current kingpin of the paradigms in social psychology is known as attribution theory. We will go into some of the experimental context of this school of thought, but you should also investigate the issue on your own in order to gain a first-hand contact with that material. Look up H. H. Kelley in the 1967 issue (Vol. 15) of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation--a publication, incidentally, you ought to look into, from time to time.

We shall explore attribution theory by reviewing a recent doctoral dissertation in our department written by one of our students, Ahmad Mirajafari, now back in Iran where he teaches social psychology at a university. Dr. Mirjafari (now, "Dr.") appeared one day in a Psychology 222 class and, with our permission, administered several questionnaire forms to the students present. The results of those responses formed the data for his dissertation. Thus, the results will be of interest both because they are an application of attribution theory, but also because the assertions of his experiment are assertions about the population of Psychology 222, and there- fore assertions about you. Hopefully, this double feature will make it more worth- while to study attribution theory in the experimental context. After that, we shall examine the psychodynamics of attribution theory within the contrastive context of field theory and the daily round approach.

To familiarize you with the actual language of attribution theory psychology, let us quote Mirjafari's dissertation Abstract in full:

Individuals tend to differ in the way they interpret or evaluate an external

stimulus event. A review of some previous theoretical and empirical

psychological literature leads one to conclude that the observed differences

seem basically to vary along a dimension of positive-negative weight or

valence. In other words, some people tend to manifest a greater perceptual

propensity to positive rather than negative stimulus attributes, while

others exhibit a greater perceptual sensitivity to negative rather than positive

stimulus aspects. It is conceptualized, presently, that such individual

differences reflect basically differential exposure to positive and negative

contingencies of reinforcements, respectively, in the course of social development.

Hence, individuals could be differentiated along a continuum of

positive-negative behavioral orientation. Based on this analysis, it is

concluded that, (a) positive orientation would result in a greater evaluation

of positive rather than negative stimulus attributes; whereas, (b) negative

orientation would lead to a greater weighting of negative rather than positive

attributes of the same stimulus; and finally, (c) that negative orientation, in

comparison to positive orientation, would result in greater evaluation of

both positive and negative aspects of the same given stimulus input.

A study is reported in which two groups of positively and negatively

oriented subjects (Ns = 32, 28, respectively) evaluated two sets of

equally weighted positive and negative stimuli for purposes of testing

the proposed hypotheses. The subjects, male, female, undergraduate

students, were selected from an original subject pool of 148 based on

their differential responding on three different scales specifically developed

to determine their relative position on the positive-negative orientation

continuum. The positive and negative stimuli were personality trait

descriptions coming from Anderson's (1968) norm. Their selection was

controlled for influence of behavior domain by being opposite in meaning.

Further, they were of equal-polarity, or approximately so, from the

scale midpoint in terms of mean likability and meaningfulness values as

well as reported standard deviations.

The results confirmed the first two predictions. on the third, although

the negative group evaluated both the positive and negative attributes higher

than the positive group, only the difference on the negative attributes

reached statistical significance. The subjects, in addition, completed

Rotter's (1966) I-E scale, and Christie's (1970) scale of Machiavellianism.

Again, as expected, negative subjects scored significantly higher in

direction of externality and Machiavellianism.

In evaluating the results some further theoretical and methodological notes are taken into consideration. In addition, some observations on possible stability and inclusiveness of the positive and negative orientations are briefly discussed within the confines of the present data.

In the third sentence, you'll find the expression stimulus attributes. Let us begin the story here.

"The study to be reported in the ensuing pages is concerned with individual differences in perceptual processes of social psychological phenomena at large. According to attribution theory (Jones and Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967), every individual in order to make sense of his or her environment, of the world around, to achieve an understanding of the function of phenomena, and hence to define his or her own position within the complex matrix of events, is engaged in a perpetual causal explanation and interpretation of events observed. Through this process, the person infers causes and reasons for, and attributes properties and characteristics to entities in the environment. By so doing, he or she forms a basis for making appropriate decisions and taking the necessary consequent courses of action (Kelley, 1973)." (Mirjafari, 1978, p. 1).

Mirjafari argues that there is a "bimodality of response distribution!" in any population of humans with regards to their perceptual orientation; that is, people in a community would fall into two basic genotypes: those who look at the world positively and those who look at the world negatively. To look at the world positively means that your perceptual orientation is positive. This means that you perceive positive stimulus attributes in the objects and events you notice.

In ordinary language we speak of optimists and pessimists, the bright side versus the dark side of a situation, a happy outlook versus a moody one. Charles Osgood, a former teacher and colleague of one of us (LAJ), has been promoting the idea that people universally tend to be optimists, a principle of attribution he calls "the Pollyanna Hypothesis" (Boucher and Osgood, 1968). Some of you may know of Eleanor Porter's (1868-1920) pristine character of Pollyanna, which is an expression Webster's qualifies as "an excessively or persistently optimistic person" --just the kind of young girl you'd see in Walt Disney family pictures. Professor Osgood reports various counts of word usages which show that good words (ha pleasant, nice) outnumber bad words by a very heavy margin. one easy way you can prove this, is to keep a record of words you hear in the course of a day--say you write down one word you hear in each five-minute period as the day wears on. Next you ask people to evaluate or rate the words on a scale of goodness, thus:

Finally, you add up the ratings for each word to get an average. Rank the averages so that the smallest numbers ("extremely good") are on top and the largest numbers are at the bottom. Now count how many words you have above "4": as much as two-thirds or three-quarters of your words might fall in the positive category (1 to 4). Osgood's idea is that Americans are generally optimistic and tend to use words and expressions that refer to the better side of experiences and evaluations.

Of course, we must consider the context of the perceptual attributions to the world around us. In a critique sheet asking you to suggest improvements in some controlled situation (e. g., a course, your hotel room, a service), you'll quite automatically be drawn into negative or critical comments. on the other hand, if you wrote a letter of recommendation for an acquaintance who is applying for a job, you'll quite naturally be drawn into making positive statements.

We need to distinguish between two issues here: the issue of sincerity and the issue of objectivity. The sincerity issue involves the question, Did the respondent give a true rating, i. e., truthfully reflecting what he feels/thinks, or did he falsify the rating for a particular reason? The objectivity issue involves the question, did the respondent give a representative rating (i. e., reflecting how he usually/normally feels in situations of that type). For example, you may usually be quite accepting of

people, but the one time you were asked to give a rating, you were in a very bad mood; your response would not be representative of your own norm. The rating you gave has a low objectivity; it is an unreliable index of your perceptual attributions. Social psychologists working within the attribution theory paradigm have investigated various game situations in which people's attributional behavior are noted, and related to the specifics of the game situation.

For instance, Mirjafari's review of the literature, contains the following experimental findings regarding the effects of situation specific factors:

(i) behavioral polarities of positive versus negative outlook are stronger under "ambiguous, unstructured test situations, and in gambling and risk taking contexts." (p. 5).

(ii) when asked to describe other people "in terms of positive and negative personality attributes" (p. 6), subjects tend to fall into two distinct groups, those that pick mostly positive terms and those who pick mostly negative descriptors;

(iii) people scoring high on "achievement motivation" predictably emphasize 'hope of success categories, " while people scoring low on achievement motivation tests, visibly orient towards "fear of failure";

(iv) when subjects are made to respond to a person or event by using a judgmental expression, they will then go on to use additional expressions which are logically associated with the first, but which are not objective responses to the person or object being rated. This is called the halo effect, an example of which may be the following: (t = time or occasion; A-G are people)

t1: A-->B: "Harry is a great guy."
t2: B-->C: "Harry should be it. He is nice, and you can count on him."
t3: C-->D: "Let's get Harry for the job. He is a hard worker, dedicated, and

everybody is impressed by his abilities. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t1: E-->F: "It was a terrible movie."
t2: F-->G: "It's not worth going to that one. Everybody says it's awful. Must

be pretty bad. There's nothing worth seeing in that movie."

Notice how the halo effect imbues a topic and tends to produce a natural accretion process. Social psychologists have uncovered sets of such accretions, i.e., clusters of words or expressions that hang together in a person's cognitive constructs. These have been called implicit theories of personality, lay conception of personality, and intuitive psychology.

Here are the various terms social psychologists have used to refer to the tendency of subjects to cluster their responses into consistent sets (based on Mirjafari, 1978, pp. 7-l0):

Response bias and style leads to "positivity bias" and 'negativity bias, " as well as to "yeasaying'' and "naysaying." For instance, if you construct a questionnaire form or scale, you should counterbalance the wording of the items so that a subject with a particular attitude would have to agree with some of the items and disagree with others. If you fail to do this, and the wording is "all one way," subjects will produce inflated results, i.e., they will appear to be either more, or less, extreme than they are because of their tendency to favor "yes" or "no" responses, irrespective of the wording. The theory is that if you counterbalance the direction of the wording (pro or con) across the items, the subjects' response set is counteracted statistically (or positionally).

Mirjafari's hypothesis is that response bias and clustering effects in perceptual attributions derive from the subjects' individual "reinforcement history ":

"Individual variations in behavioral orientations take place when, owing to prevailing social conditions primarily at home under normal circumstances, some from the moment of birth are exposed consistently to a greater frequency and magnitude of one mode of reinforcement rather than the other. The consequence of this is the development of a response repertoire on the nature and functioning of external environment reflecting that particular mode of reinforcement history. Thus, a positively oriented individual would be one who had a history of predominantly positive reinforcement exposure, and whose response repertoire would, therefore, reflect positive dimensions. A negatively oriented individual, on the other hand, would be one whose response repertoire was developed as a function of predominantly negative contingencies of reinforcement and who would, therefore, by reason of this conditioning, perceive external phenomena primarily in terms of negative conceptual dimensions."

To test this hypothesis, and its corrollaries, Mirjafari first administered three tests to the Psychology 222 students. These were used by other researchers in the past to determine the behavioral orientation of subjects toward positivity and negativity. A student was thus classified as either 'positive" or "negative" in perceptual orientation towards the world on the basis of his average scores on the s e three tests.

The first was the sentence completion test presented in the accompanying table (Mirjafari, 1978, p. 31).

Sentence Complete Test
1. Raising a family . . .
2. The future looks . . .
3. In spite of what people say, the lot of the average man . . .
4. Efforts to understand ourselves . . .
5. Things seem . . .
6. Parties . . .
7. Men . . .
8. Sometimes everything . . .
9. With some people . . .
10. Life is full of . . .
11. People can be . . .
12. I have a tendency . . .
13. Most women think that men . . .
14. As far as I can see, every person . . .
15. 20 years from now . . .
16. I am occasionally . . .
17. The world we live in today . . .
18. Human nature being what it is, there will always . . .
19. Women . . .
20. Speaking before a large audience . . .
21. I often get the feeling that . . .
22. Most men think that women . . .
23. As I can see it, most people who get rich fast probably . . .
24. Marriage . . .
25. When it comes to friendship, many people . . .
26. People do many things which . . .
27. Closer and closer there comes . . .
28. The deeper one goes . . .
29. In everybody's past there are at least a few points about which he or she . . .
30. One's closest friends can . . .
31. As far as I can see, deep down every person . . .
32. In unfamiliar situations I . . .
33. Some are born with an urge . . .
34. Becoming a close friend to another person . . .

35. In times like these . . .
36. Life, as some people live it . . .
37. Decision making . . .
38. When you are not around . . .
39. Starting a conversation with a complete stranger . . .
40. Complete trust in others . . .

Instead of allowing students to complete the sentences, Mirjafari completed each sentence in two possible ways, one positive and the other negative. He then asked the subjects to select the one that "most closely represent your personal feelings and opinion." The accompanying table shows a segment of the completed test.

5. Things seem . . .

a. in good shape.

b. expensive.

6. Parties . . .

a. one could enjoy most when one knows the people.

b. often provide good opportunities for new friendship.

7. Men . . .

a. are often gentle and kind.

b. not all can be trusted.

8. Sometimes . . .

a. a small error could turn into a big disaster.

b. everything turns the way you want.

9. With some people . . .

a. it is not easy to get along no matter how you try.

b. everything is so exciting all the time.

10. Life is full of . . .

a. unexpected problems if one looks at it real objectively.

b. activities and events which make it more meaningful.

11. People can be . . .

a. really distrustful of each other under competitive conditions.

b. rather helpful and understand when one is in need.

12. I have a tendency . . .

a. to talk to strangers without any hesitation.

b. to go over things carefully to avoid unnecessary risks.

13. Most women think that men . . .

a. are easy to understand.

b. should not be trusted always .

14. As far as I can see, every person . . .

a. is as gentle and kind in heart as anyone possibly can be.

b. is often a victim of uncontrolled circumstances whether he or she

__likes it or not.

15. Twenty years from now . . .

a. people could be more alienated than they are today.

b. we could be at a true stage of international peaceful coexistence.

By assigning a score of +1 or -1 for each choice, a total score for each subject was calculated.

The second method for determining perceptual attribution style was to ask subjects to write down, in the span of seven minutes, "as many words as they could think of and which they often used in describing other people." This was called the continuous association method. Mirjafari then selected associations from these lists and had another group of subjects (Psychology l00) rate the words in terms Of their "likability. " These average likability scores were then assigned to the Psychology 222 subjects who gave the associations. If the likability score was high, it indicated a positive orientation.

A third method was also used, but will not be described. Eventually, each subject was designated as either a positive or a negative orientation person on the basis of the scores obtained by averaging the three methods.

Finally, to test the experimental hypothesis, the subjects filled out a fourth test which was to provide the experimental trial-and-proof. This fourth test was called positive negative stimulus scale. In this procedure, subjects are shown three- trait combinations and are told that "each combination is a brief description of a male college student." The subjects' task is to rate each three-trait combination on a scale of likability, thus:

The three-trait combinations were constructed on the basis of prior tables obtained by investigators on the mainland. For example, "sincere, " "honest," and "loyal" had the highest likability means, while "unpleasant, " "selfish, " and "unfriendly had the lowest. The experimental hypothesis predicts that subjects who were designated as positive on the basis of tests 1, 2, and 3, will now, on this fourth test, rate positive three-trait combinations more positively than subjects who were designated negative. As well, subjects who were designated as negative on the basis of tests 1-3, would now, on test 4, rate negative three-trait combinations more negatively than the positive subjects. The following table shows that the results confirm both predictions:

Mean Ratings of Positive and Negative Groups on
Positive and Negative Items, Machiavellianism, and Externality

Group	Positive Items	Negative Items	Machiavellianism	Eternality
Positive Negative	5.28 5.44	3.98 6.61	61.91 75.25	77.75 96.43

The other two measures shown in the table were predictions-on-the-side which Mirjafari wanted to test out. He found that negatively designated subjects were higher on a scale of "Machiavellianism" and a scale of "Externality" than positively designated subjects. These two scales are used as personality tests.

Reward orientation (vs. punishment), humanistic socialization (vs. normative), and growth motivation (vs. deficit), are equivalent conceptions of how subjects come to exhibit a characteristic style of positive (vs. negative) behavior orientation in their attributions. The positively oriented person exhibits internality, i.e., a tendency to attribute the outcome of events to personal effort (vs. external inevitability).

Causal Attributions in Natural Talk. Webster's defines attribution in terms of assigning or ascribing, in other words, putting a sign some place and making an inscription. Attribution is thus closely related to annotating. For example, you see the instructor fall as he talks. You say to yourself, "Wow, the dude slipped and

now he is lying there and can't get up." You are, in other words, annotating an event you're observing: you are marking the point in time and place by a 'footnote' --i.e., saying to yourself, "Wow, the dude slipped . . . " This kind of self-talk is going on all the time. We act as if there are two role functions involved, as follows: (tuning in, broadcasting)

We call this form of self-talk interior dialog. It is the self talking to the self.

one way you can quickly ascertain for yourself the ubiquitousness (= every- where) of interior dialog is by keeping track of it for a few minutes, hours, and days. A convenient technique for doing this is to focus in on the pronoun you use in interior dialog. Do you ever say to yourself any or all of the following:

- "oops, I cut myself!"

- "Look at you. Your stomach is bulging!"

- "Look at that sight. We sure make a pair."

- 'Look at him (her). (S)he is walking around like everything

__is normal."

- "People are something. They act like you're not even here.

__I mean, if it wasn't so late in the afternoon . . . "

The idea is to familiarize yourself with the kind of interior dialog you're tuning in to. When you tune in and listen to your self-talk you can keep track of its content: topic, theme, argument, style.

Interior dialog will then be revealed to you as a medium for a function, or, a vehicle for a process: by talking to yourself you are executing a process which serves the function of situational attribution, i. e., the making sense out of social occasions.

Making sense out of social occasions is a necessary function on the daily round. It is a we]l-habituated sequence, automatic, and difficult to extinguish, or even to alter. When you make sense out of a social occasion, you are making attributions to cues you notice. Thus, you notice the instructor falling. This is an automatic annotation: you mark or note the category of event: falling, slipping, losing balance, stumbling, etc. Every socially competent daily rounder is expected to keep track of certain cues by marking them, annotating them, giving them a category or label or name. This is why you can turn to your neighbor and say "What happened?"--you expect him (her) to have kept track since that is an ordinary thing to do.

Labeling events is thus an automatic attribution process and no doubt reilects the person's ethnicity, i.e., socialization style. In different groups. the same sen- sory cues are attributed different labels, values, and meanings. Hence, one's repertoire of situational annotations is a function of one's socialization style. Different styles of labeling would produce different patterns of adjustment, hence leading to ethnic variability.

Besides labeling and cataloguing situational cues (= cataloguing) as events and occasions, we also annotate our figurings about them. This is called causal attribution. ". . . and now he is lying there and can't get up. " Consider the " . . . can't get up'' part. When you say that, you are not annotating the sensory cues, as in the case of labeling the event as falling. Instead, you are annotating your figurings about the cues: in other words, you figure that he can't get up.

By figuring out what consequences are caused by which antecedents, you are constructing the reality around you (= sense-making). All ordinary and automatic causal attributions on the daily round originate with socialization practices This is what sociologist Erving Goffman has referred to as the state of normalcy, i.e., a catalog of the community's causal attributions.

The function of causal attributions is psychodynamic, i.e., energizing, motivational, achievement oriented, goal directed, attractional, repulsant5 and so on. In other words, causal attributions are behavior vectors: they impart an impulse to act and react in a particular pre-established manner. Causal attributions (". . . this is because . . . because . . . because" or ", . . if this . . . then this . . . then that . . . ") are visible (structurally) as response sets, behavioral predispositions, and (symbolic) attitudes.

Consider a few examples, taken from the DRA data contributed by students of Psychology 222, Spring 1977:

"A #4: Standardized Imaginings

A. Interior Dialog

(ii) Value Expressions
"I am at a sorority meeting and I can't seem to get over the way everyone is always so cheery and happy, and always ready to lend a helping hand. They're always there when you need someone to talk to. And I am saying to myself that "I'm so fortunate to belong to a sorority with such a nice bunch of girls. " And sometimes I am ready to cry because I don't really know how to tell them how much they mean to me. And I only wish that everyone could be as lucky as I."

No doubt you recognize the above situation. It is standard--hence relevant and meaningful to the community as a whole. It depicts a standard situation in which the person found herself. Let us analyze the paragraph entry in terms of the causal attributions contained in this person's behavioral repertoire.

Data Segment		Casual Attribution
I can't seem to get over	=	something is keeping me from adapting
I'm so fortunate to belong	=	I owe my membership to my good fortune
because r don't really know how	=	my inability to tell them makes me cry
that everyone could be	=	my good wishes may bring them good luck

We continuously make use of the causal attributions made available by the official community catalog. If you go beyond the standard logic, you begin to experience difficulties. Things don't make sense in a simple way, you're led deeper and deeper into idiosyncratic, non-standard, and "delusional" types of causal attributions .

Tabulating DRA data on causal attributions gives us an objective map of the community's cataloguing practices, i.e., what ordinarily gets kept track of. "Attribution" comes from Latin; tribus = tribe, which is made up of tri- = three + *bhu = Indo-European root word for "to grow" or "flourish. " Webster's explains that the Romans were divided into three groups of which the third was called the tribus or "tribe" (= the third to be). The word "tribute" refers to the system of taxes levied or assigned to the Roman tribal divisions, i.e., attribution is the preestablished assignation of value. Causal attribution is the assignation of cause- effect relations to situational cues. It is important to note that attributions or causal attributions are pre-established: they are made available from a community pool of attributions, i.e., the social repertoire. By making an inventory (index or catalog) of the situational attributions in the DRA data, we are tabulating the social repertoire of individual witnesses. Such a cumulative index amounts to a map of the pre-established community pool of what gets kept track of on the daily round.

Let us investigate the structure of causal attributions in the Psychology '22 community. The following table was prepared by Lynette Kono, former student of Psychology 222:

Causal Attributions in Interior Dialog

20/34/006 "Oh better get up so I can start writing everything down."
20/34/007 "Nah, better not, no like be late for school . . . "
20/34/007 ". . . no like be late for school bum bye gotta hustle to get to

class on time. ''
20/34/008 "Dam, should have bought the stuff at Long's. Had plenty time.
20/34/009 "Better hurry up before all the good seats are taken. Don't want

to sit in the front row."
20/34/010 "These questionnaire questions are so embarrassing. What if I

ask a stranger, they going think I belong in Kaneohe!"
20/34/011 "This almond is bitter! Must be some kind of weird health nuts."
20/34/012 "Hope it keeps me up and alive cuz I got another 8 hours more to

record."
20/34/013 "Almost half pau. Thank God!"
20/35/014 "Should I talk to her or act like I didn't see her. If I talk to her I'll

be here for years."
20/35/015 "S__ , she saw me!"
20/35/016 "I thought I'd never get away from her. Good thing she had to go

class."
20/35/017 "Think I'll take a break from recording and watch some TV. I

deserve it."
20/35/018 "Man I'm tired. Think I'll take a happy."
20/35/019 "Wonder what Pumpkin is making for dinner. Smells -good. Smells

like red spare ribs."
20/35/20 "Nah, better go, the sale going pau."

These statements appear in the paragraph entries of one witness, a student in Psychology 222. Note that in some cases various words mark causal attributions ("so, " "cuz," "must be"), but in most cases causal attributions are marked by punctuation and collocation. For example, in 007:

Now look at item 011. The causal attribution is implied in the collocation of the two sentences:

Cursing, as in 015, is a marker or annotation to an event. The comment to the annotation implies a causal attribution: ([because] she saw me, [and I didn't want her to see me], [therefore] shit. ) This implicit argument or logical relation is rendered explicitly as "Shit, she saw me!" Note how punctuation marks ("annotations") are used to map the standard logic in the argument sequence: "Shit,!' is underlined and followed by a comma. The two parts of the logical argument ([because she saw me], [therefore, shit!]) are separated by the comma and arranged in a particular order.

In general, the presence of function words that explicitly mark causal attribution allows the parts to be moved around:

When there are no explicit function markers, the order of the parts may be either loose or fixed. In 018, 019 and 020, the causal attributions are marked implicitly by collocation. In 018, the collocation is fixed; the switched version appears odd.

Man I'm tired. Think I'll take a nappy.

*Think I'll take a nappy. Man I'm tired.

In 019, the three parts appear interchangeable in sequence, though there may be stylistic preferences involved. In 020, the first part ("Nah,") is in a fixed position, while the other two are interchangeable. By studying these arrangements in causal attributions one obtains information on cognitive dynamics. Let us examine how an analysis of causal attributions reveal the cognitive dynamics of two people engaged in conversation. The following is a transcript segment taken from DRA data contribution by a student of Psychology 222 in the Spring of 1977.

Causal Attributions in Conversational Interactions

Participants:

Rex--A twenty-one year old male Japanese-American student.

Joy--Rex's twenty year old Japanese-American girlfriend.

Setting:

Rex and Joy are having dinner (leg of lamb and a baked potato)

at Rex's house. They are seated at the dining room table.

Rex's parents and brother can be heard watching TV in the

next room.

Joy: (giggles) Are we going to the movies tonight ?
Rex: I don't know.
Joy: You wanna just stay home?
Rex: Um . . . we can watch the basketball game on T. V.
Joy: Wow, what a thrill ! (giggle) Um. (pause)
Rex: Well . . . why don't we look at the . . . the newspaper. Then

we'll decide. If there's nothing no use we go.
Joy: You just said you wanted to see "Silver Streak. "

You don't want to see "Silver Streak" anymore ?
Rex: Hmm. . . Well, we don't have to see it right away.
Joy: Okay.
Rex: By the way. When is that thing that we're going out all together
Joy: With who ?
Rex: Uh, I thought you were going to ask your friends 'bout when they want

to go out together?
Joy: You mean like Anne and Russ?
Rex: Yeah !

Joy: Well . . .
Rex: Thought you wanted to go to a Korean Bar?
Joy: Hmm !
Rex: Hmm ?
Joy: No. No, I didn't want to go!
Rex: Yes you wanted to!
Joy: Pass the knife, please.
Rex: You said you wanted to go and see. (passes the knife) (l0 second pause
Joy: Maybe . . . I thought it was you who wanted to go.
Rex: You're the one that told me you wanted to.

Some people you know went or something . . . hmm?
Joy: But you're the one who said, "Let's go!" (pause
Rex: Well .
Joy: Do you think the sour cream tastes funny? (laughs)
Rex: I think it tastes really good!
Joy: (giggle) I think it tastes funny !
Rex: That's 'cause . . . that's only 'cause you wanted the other brand.

If I'd have served it to you . . . and you didn't know, you wouldn't

have said anything.
Joy: Nah. . . Maybe.
Rex: This isn't the imitation one you know!
Joy: Yes it is !
Rex: No it's not! It's the foremost brand.
Joy: Well, it's that funny one, so it's just funny. (l0 second pause)
Rex: Maybe I should get the big container of sour cream and leave it; here!
Joy: Huh, huh.
Rex: You seem to be running out already.
Joy: (giggle)

ANALYSIS

(A) Analysis of Topic (lines 1-39)
__1. Breakdown of topics exchanged:

a. Lines 1-9: deciding whether to go to the movies or watch the

__basketball game on TV.

b. Lines l0-20: talking about going to a Korean bar with friends.

c. Line 21: "pass the knife. "

d. Lines 22-26: continuing argument on Korean bar.

e. Lines 27-39: talking about the sour cream.

2. Chart:

3. Rationales for the structures:

a. Joy brings up the question of where to go because it is immediate,

__it must be decided soon. She wants to go out.

b. Rex doesn't want to go out so he delays; brings up the subject of

__going to a Korean bar.

c. Joy is not comfortable with the subject of Korean bars so she

__tries to change the subject by asking for knife.

d. Joy tries (successfully) to change the topic by bringing up the __

sour cream.
4. Case history (lines 1-9):

Joy first initiates with the questions of whether they are going to the

movies. She implies that she wants to go. However, Rex puts it off

by saying that he doesn't know. Joy further pursues the point by

rephrasing the question. Rex then suggests an alternative, implying,

he doesn't want to go to the movies. Joy sarcastically says, "Wow.

what a thrill!", making known that she doesn't want to stay home.

Rex offers a compromise, however, Joy is persistent and suggests

a specific movie, adding that she thought Rex wanted to see it. Rex

puts it off again and Joy finally concedes.

Ordinarily, transcripts are insufficient records of conversations because it is not necessarily clear to the reader what the conversationalists are talking about, implying, and presupposing. Therefore, when a witness contributes a transcript for the DRA, he is asked to annotate the lines in the transcript. The form of the annotation supplied is determined by the format given in the instructions on how to annotate the lines. In the accompanying data, the annotations allow us to re- cover the causal attributions contained in the lines. Thus concerning line 1, we are given the information that Joy wants to go out and the decision where to go must be transacted dyadically; thus, "Are we going to the movies tonight '" is a method of intervention Joy uses to initiate the process of deciding.

Note the behavioral sequence that unfolds in their dyadic interaction.

Step 1: Joy initiates decision-making exchange (line 1)

Step 2: Rex (we are told) doesn't want to go out, so he delays (line 2)

Step 3: Joy makes a deprecating or minimizing causal attribution ("just" in line 3).

The use of this little word (JUST) is a revealing index of a person's causal attributions. Here, Joy evidently uses it as a pressuring tactic:

The causal attribution is implied: [because to stay home is to do nothing] [therefore your attitude of not wanting to decide amounts to a delaying tactic] [and therefore we should plan for something] etc.

Some causal attributions in conversational interactions serve important relationship functions. For instance, the exchange in lines 16-26, is evidently an attempt to attribute responsibility for wanting to go to a Korean bar. Why is this issue worth maneuvering? In this case, the annotations are not sufficient to provide an answer, but one may expect that the answer is important in terms of their relationship.

In lines 30-31, there is evidently another causal attribution whose outcome is being negotiated (bargained on) by Joy: "Nah . . . Maybe. "--does this mean yes or no? Though we know (from Joy's annotations) that she was using the sour cream episode "to change the topic" (3d), nevertheless, if her attempt is to be successful, she must work through their existing relationship. Whatever she says and does is therefore negotiable: the causal attributions are always there, to be dealt with, one way or another. By making a transcript of a conversation with a friend, family member, or co-worker, and then going over the lines carefully annotating each segment, you can gain a better understanding of your relationship with that person. It might help to evolve a taxonomy of causal attributions, as in the attempt below found in Kono's (1978) paper:

CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION TYPES (DRA DATA)

EXPLANATION
(1)

HYPOTHESIS
(4)

JUSTIFICATION
(2)

ATTRIBUTION
(5)

CONCLUSION
(6)

IMPLICATION
(3)

Examples:
(1) "Good, I thought I'd never get away from her. Good thing she had to go

class."
(2) "Why, it's not far, eh?" [because it's not far, therefore I'm asking why]
(3) "Will I get a letter from DS today? It's two days past Valentine's Day . . ."
(4) "Too bad we couldn't do this longer . . . I could stand here all day!" [because I feel I could stand here all day, therefore it's too bad we can't do it longer]
(5) "I miss him so much. I hope I hear from him today."
(6) "Damn, should have brought the stuff at Long's. Had plenty time;"

Synopsis 20: Psychodynamics - 1: Attribution

The sociology or history of social psychology shows that it, like other scientific disciplines, proceeds in its development be discontinuous jumps, called "paradigm switches." A paradigm has its own methodological approach. During its ascendancy phase, this methodology is worked through and through until it becomes a fad, which eventually dies out or thins out. The "S-R paradigm" in social psychology has originated several methodological techniques among which include Osgood's semantic differential technique and, cognitive dissonance theory (originated by the "Yale Group"). A more recent paradigm that has reached enormous research productivity is known as "attribution theory."

Attribution theory in contemporary social psychology refers to the general tendency of people to see events in their social environment as "caused" by some identifiable factors, hence the term "causal attribution." One effect of this tendency, as noted by many social psychologists, is the predisposition people show towards seeing the world in either a positive Or negative light. This "perceptual orientation" leads a person to notice either positive or negative "stimulus attributes" of events and actions. The "Pollyana Hypothesis" refers to the general tendency of Americans to see the world in an optimistic light, and as a result, the most frequently used words in English tend to be "good or pleasant" words.

An important effect noted with attributions is called "the halo effect." This refers to the fact that people's attributions regarding an evaluative (or "attitudinal") object cluster in groups. Some attribution terms appear to be "central" in the sense that, if included, they pull along other attribution terms that correlate with the central term. For example, if an unknown person is described to you as "intelligent and dedicated" (these being "central" traits in our society), you tend automatically to ascribe additional terms to this person (e.g., "capable", "successful", "valuable", etc.). Such clusters of attribution traits ascribed to people represent the rater's "implicit theory of personality"--also called by some social psychologists "intuitive psychology." The person's implicit or intuitive theories are also known as "cognitive constructs." The tendency to respond in a predictable or standardized manner given certain situations, is variously known as "response set," "behavioral disposition," or "goal set. A person's response repertoire is seen by S-R psychologists as originating from the person's reinforcement history.

The daily round context presents common types of causal attributions. These may be observed in the natural talk we engage in known as "interior dialog"--i.e., talking to oneself. When you keep track of your interior dialog, you notice that you frequently attribute causes to what you notice. This is called "situational attributions" and refers to our tendency to want to make sense out of social occasions. This tendency takes the form of an automatic "annotation," i.e. a comment made to what one notices is happening around us ( = "labeling events"). Ethnic variability in socialization style produces differences in how people perceive events, label them, and assign

value to them (good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, etc.). These attributions are a person's figurings of what antecedents lead to what consequents ( = "standard logic" or common sense).

Causal attributions in natural talk are either explicitly rendered (e.g., "because," "if....then") or implicit (e.g., by collocation and punctuation), and play important relationship functions.

21. PSYCHODYNAMICS-2: EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT

We are going to investigate the second component of psychodynamics, i.e., the behavior of evaluation or assessment, by examining the results of end- of-semester student course evaluations made by students of Psychology 222 and 397 for Spring 1978.

The Social Context of Student Course Evaluations at UHM. Let us, first, consider the social context (or situation) in which these evaluations are obtained. As you may already know, these evaluations are given voluntarily, anonymously, and confidentially, usually on the last day of classes. The forms are made up by the University's Academic Evaluation office (AEO), and distributed to instructors who request them. The AEO then collects the answer sheets, analyzes them on standard computer run, and the printout is then given to the instructor who disposes of them--uses them in any manner he sees fit. He may or may not show them to anyone. Thus, the service is entirely voluntary and confidential. We don't know of any local studies on what happens to the evaluation results, i. e., in what manner instructors actually make use of them. However, we do know that at UHM some instructors save the results and submit them to faculty personnel committees as part of their instructional record, along with other evidence of their work (e. g., publications and community service). This evidence is then used by the committee and administration officials to arrive at recommendations and decisions concerning promotion and salary increases for the instructor.

The use of student evaluations for the purpose of improving instructional quality is a relatively new practice in higher education. According to the AEO at UHM, the purposes of obtaining student assessments of courses are "to provide students with a means by which they can tell us what they think of our work at the end of a course ('summative evaluation'), to apprise ourselves of our performance ('self-evaluation'), and to identify those areas in which we can improve ('diagnostic evaluation'). " The UH AEO results are norm-referenced, which means that the computer printout presents each instructor's results in comparison to a "norm. ' The comparison groups that make up the norm are divided into four categories: one each for the social sciences, humanities, natural sciences, and education. Thus, the comparison group for Psychology 222 and 397 falls in the social sciences category. The normative information provided us last semester for the social sciences were based on 1,643 students enrolled in 57 social science courses through- out the State University System (not just UHM). The average number of students in these 57 courses was 29. This raises some difficulties in evaluating the evaluations since it would be expected that the size of the class would have a significant impact on how a course is conducted. We were unable to obtain norms based on large classes only, because we were told by AEO that very few (almost none) of the large courses taught at UHM obtain end-of-course student evaluations. There- fore, we shall have to take this factor into account as we assess the significance of the results.

We are of course interested in the results themselves, but as well, the general topic of evaluation/assessment ought to be considered as we go along. In other words, we are using this particular case both as a concrete illustration of how to investigate the socially important phenomenon of evaluation, and as well, as concrete information on the context of this class community. By investigating evaluative declarations students of this course have made in the past, you are given a contrast (or reference point) for assessing your own evaluative reactions as a current member of this course.

We shall present three types of evaluative declarations students have made about Psychology 222:

PSYCHODYNAMICS :

	EVALUATIVE DECLARATIONS
1	2	3
SUBJECTIVE- SUMMATIVE REPORTS	ANNOTATED SUMMATIVE REPORTS	SUMMATIVE WITNESSING REPORTS
UHM AEO Faculty- Course Evaluation Scale, Form J-14 (Lecture Format) Spring Semester 1978 PSYCH 222; 397 L.A. James, Instructor	PSYCH 397 students annotate Form J-14 towards the end of the semester	PSYCH 222 and 397 students present testimonials

Subjective-Summative Reports. The first type of evaluative declarations we shall consider is the category of subjective-summative reports. The end-of- semester course evaluation forms you fill out at UHM is called a summative assessment because it refers to a summation of all your experiences over the semester. Your responses on the form reflect your personal evaluation, i. e., how the subject views it, hence we shall call them subjective-summative reports. Note that from the socio-legal point of view, these kinds of subjective reports would not be admitted as facts since you do not prove your declarations on the form. For example, if you answer the item, "I improved my study habits and time-management skills as a result of this course,"and give it an evaluation of "(4): Quite a Bit, !t one cannot be sure that indeed you have. You may think you have, or you may want to declare that you have, but in a court of law or committee investigation, your report would be taken as your opinion, hence not admissible as fact.

Note carefully that two kinds of factual issues are involved, and it is quite important, we feel, to disentangle them. The reason for this, we hope, shall become clear as we proceed. The first type of factual issue that faces us is, as we've pointed out, the fact that your response on the form indicates your subjective evaluation--an undocumented declaration. Let us call this first issue, the issue of objectivity. Now the second factual issue is the fact that you've officially responded with an evaluative declaration. This is also a fact. There is no doubt about it; you did fill out the form (or you didn't). This is then the political issue. Let us show this situation in a schematic:

Two points may be raised here: (i) What sociopsychological explanation is there for the political function of evaluative declarations; (ii) What sorts of facts would be needed for the kind of objectivity that is required in the day-to-day business of society ("socio-legal")?

The political function of evaluative responses to forms is the same as the common idea of voting. You make up your own mind about an issue, in whatever manner you do it on any particular occasion, and then you exercise your democratic right of voting, i.e., of making an official declaration (either anonymously-secretly or publicly-signed). This is the situation when you fill out an application form and sign it, or when you fill out a ballot slip under cover (but only after you've established votership rights). As an official registered member of a course, you own votership rights to filling out official course evaluation forms. Your responses are given voluntarily and anonymously. Your evaluative declarations about the course, the instructor, and your own behavior are counted as single votes by the computer. The totals are added up and matched against the votes of students in other classes (=the norm). The results of the voting then go to the instructor who uses them for enhancing his application, or if he is unlucky, they are used against him. In this political process, the votes are empowered: they are raised from the lowly (subjective) position of an opinion to the effective position of objective fact.

For example, the fact that an instructor received bad votes may function to reduce his employment or promotion status. Note, however, that no evidence exists in this process concerning the factuality or validity of the responses. Instead, there is a tenuous relationship: it may be true that an evaluative declaration is also valid, but this is not only a possibility, it is also an unknown probability. We shall consider below the ensuing issue of, Well, in that case, what kind of objective evidence is available?

Let us now look at the results by summarizing the responses given by students to about two-thirds of the 56 items on Form-J14. The items are subdivided into nine groups (A-I) each of which represents a distinct area of reporting. The areas to be reported on and the individual items that are included in each area, were originally made up by psychologists (e. g., Professor W. J. McKeachee, at the University of Michigan--perhaps the best known in this field of research) who are not, of course, familiar with local practices. Hence, there always is the problem of determining the extent to which the areas and items in Form-J14 are applicable to the local scene. However, we are going to assume that they are applicable (otherwise we have no discussion left!). You ought to understand that this assumption is a political one: it would not stand up as factual in a citizen's socio-legal inquiry. As well, the unproven assumption that forms prepared at Michigan are valid in Hawaii, serves the function of nationalizing the University of Hawaii. Thus, if a standard form for making student declarations about college courses is adopted in all states, and if the responses are then treated as political facts, then it is the case that the form streamlines educational practices on a national standard.

The accompanying schematic shows how an evaluation form (or ballot) functions to standardize local practices ("regions") in college instruction. other familiar examples on the local scene include: language, history, college and graduate entrance tests, programs geared to federal matching funds, and so on. Whether nationalization is good or bad depends on each individual case: by examining the consequences of legislative actions, social critics in a community argue for or against them leading to the idea that a democracy is best when the public is an informed public, i. e., there are spokesmen who continuously monitor the consequences of nationalization.

Back to the case of Form-J14. The accompanying table shows the averages obtained by three sets of students: Psych 222 and Psych 397 flanking the elected norm groups. All scores call vary from "1" ("None") to "5" ("Very Much"). You may want to take a few minutes to run your eyes up and down the items to familiarize yourself with their content. Then, you may look at the numbers left and right of the norm, and get an impression of the contrasts.

		Mean
	Psy 222	Norm	Psy 397
A. This educational experience (course + instructor) has contributed to my... 1. skills applicable to a job 4. awareness of different philosophies 5. skills in relating to other people 6. personal development 7. critical thinking 9. effective communication 11. appreciation of individuality 13. development of friendships 14. terminology in a field 16. study skills 17. increased concern for my environment	3.0 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.9	3.5 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.0 3.3	3.0 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.1 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.1 3.5
B. Interest Value 18. course content interesting 19. ease of remaining attentive 20. more courses should be taught this way 21. subject matter appeals to students	3.4 3.0 3.1 3.1	4.1 3.8 3.6 3.9	3.9 3.5 3.8 3.6
C. Instructor-Student Interactions 23. instructor's tolerance 24. instructor's availability 25. rapport with students 27. class interaction and communication	4.0 4.2 4.0 4.3	4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2	4.2 4.6 4.5 4.6
D. Class Atmosphere 29. there was a feeling of community 30. members of the class know each other well	3.9 2.8	3.4 2.8	4.4 3.9
E. Classroom Performance of Instructor 33. instructor's poise and presence 35. grasp of subject matter 36. clarity of exposition 37. responsiveness to student questions questions	3.8 4.2 2.9 3.7	4.1 4.4 4.0 4.2	4.1 4.4 3.7 4.2

		Mean
	Psy 222	Norm	Psy 397
F. Accountability 40. grading fair 41. evaluation of student performance explained	4.0 3.5	4.1 4.1	4.3 3.5
G. Organization 44. relationship between content and objectives 46. rate of presenting new topics 47. questions answered clearly 48. wrapping things together	3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2	4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0	3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5
H. Other Concerns 51. interaction between students encouraged 52. method of instruction appropriate 53. expected grade ("B" = 4.O) ("A" = 5.0)	4.4 3.7 4.6	3.8 4.1 4.2	4.6 4.1 4.7
I. Global Appraisal 54. the instructor as a whole 55. the course as a whole 56. student's own effort	3.5 3.1 3.7	4.1 3.9 3.9	4.0 3.7 3.9

First, note the ranges. The numbers are all 3's and 4's (one or two close exceptions). This means that very few students use "1" and "2" ("None" and "Very Little"). The most frequent category used is "4" ("Quite a Bit or Above Average"). This probably means that the norm groups are not representative of the overall student population. of course this makes sense, given the political function of these evaluation forms: very few instructors use them, and one would suppose that they would be used within a climate that is likely to be favorable to the instructor ("stacked in his favor" principle). This probable self-selection bias thus operates to move up the averages obtained for the norm groups, and this is what we've just remarked is the case with the numbers in the table.

Second, you can notice that the differences between the groups appear quite small, for the most part less than one scale unit, and frequently within half a scale unit. You should recall that there are two important issues involved when considered the significance of the difference obtained between group averages. One issue is called, the reliability issue, and the other, the validity issue. A difference may be highly reliable and either very large or very small in magnitude. Reliability depends on the range of variation ("spread," "standard deviation" or "variance") of the responses. If 90% in one group choose "4" and in another "3," the averages

will be less than one apart yet will reach a very high reliability (p<.0005). Thus, a highly significant difference from the statistical point of view needs to be further inspected to see the actual magnitude of that difference, i. e., its social significance.

The validity issue is closely related to the political issue. Is a highly significant difference statistically, also a significant difference politically? The answer is not available for the results in the table. To find out, we would need to obtain data on how the results are actually used on the local scene. For ex- ample, we could collect annotations of the differences, by having instructors record their reactions when they first receive the computer output from AEO. We could obtain transcripts from personnel committees showing how the results were used, in favor or against the instructor, in decisions about his capacity to teach. And we could obtain reports of the interior dialog of those who inspect the results noting the way weight or importance is attached to particular differences. Finally, we could obtain data on which differences stick in memory, and how the impression changes over seconds, minutes, and days.

The accompanying table and figure average the averages, and presents the results for each of the nine areas of concern that Form-J14 identifies. Note that the Psych 397 evaluations are more favorable than those of Psych 222; though this is a consistent difference, the size of the differences are all within half-a-unit. Perhaps this reflects the difference in size of the classes: 129 vs. 29. Perhaps it reflects a sampling bias in that some students were absent when the forms were given out (27% and 19% absent for Psych 222 and 397, respectively).

		Mean
AREA OF ASSESSMENT	Psy 222	Norm	Psy 397
A. Value of Educational Experience	3.2	3.5	3.6
B. Interest Value	3.2	3.9	3.7
C. Instructor-Student Interactions	4.1	4.3	4.5
D. Class Atmosphere	3.4	3.1	4.2
E. Classroom Performance of Instructor	3.7	4.2	4.1
F. Accountability	3.8	4.1	3.3
G. Organization	3.2	4.1	3.7
H. Other Concerns	4.2	4.0	4.5
I. Global Appraisal	3.4	4.0	3.9
Totals (Averages)	3.6	3.9	4.0

Note also in which areas the differences are larger. It's easy to see this on the graph. The Psych 222 responses are down in Value of the Experience (A), Interest Value (B), and organization (G). The Psych 397 responses are up on Instructor-Student Interactions (C), Class Atmosphere (D), and other Concerns (H--interaction, method, grade), while they are down on organization (G).

Once again we remind you that these results are to be taken as illustrative, our purpose in presenting them being to familiarize you with some possible strategies one can use in the processing of this kind of data The results may, in addition, give some guidance as to what to look for next. and perhaps what procedures might be used. An example night be clarifying.

Since one of our principal objectives in this course is to neutralize the usual disadvantages of large class instruction, we .night want to example how successful this pedagogic intent has been. One strategy might be to rank order the items in the table on p. 287 in terms of their relative position to the norm. Since the norm groups had an average size of less than 30, we can consider the outcome as going in the right direction if the large Psych 22.2 class achieves comparable scores to the small norm classes in those areas in. which large classes are usually worse off, i.e. instructor's avail- ability (item 24), feeling of community (29), getting to know classmates well (3O), and student interactions (5; 27; 51).

Inspection of the table shows that there are seven items on which the large Psych 222 class behaved as the small norm classes, i.e. obtaining equal to or better scores (items: 5, 24, 27, 29, 3O, 51, 53). As you can see, all of these relate indeed to the attempt to neutralize class size by creating a class community atmosphere. We take this as an encouraging trend.

Annotated-Summative Reports. The previous discussion, it will be recalled, was to be the first of the three types of evaluative declarations, i. e., subjective summative reports. The other two were to be annotated-summative reports and witnessings. Let us proceed to the second type. We shall present some results given by the students of Psych 397.

The first matter to be considered is the situational difference. The subjective- summative reports reviewed in the previous discussion were given anonymously and within the context of an official university transaction between the students and AEO officers. The instructor did not enter the picture in the voting (according to AEO rules, he must leave the room and must not see the results until after grades are turned in). By contrast, the annotated-summative reports were public and intended for the instructor (AEO did not come into the picture). Groups of students got together in threes outside the class, discussed the meaning of the items, indicated their choices, and justified the choices; the whole was then written up and submitted to the instructor as one of a dozen separate class assignments that semester. As well, the form used was an alternate version called MIDI. In order to compare the two sets of results, we had to extract those items from the MIDI form which correspond to the "factors" or 9 areas of Form-J14. ordinarily, this item equivalence would be calculated statistically through "correlational analysis" (or "regression .). However, for our present purposes, we have merely identified those items that clearly overlap in wording, and thus the equivalence is presumed, rather than

proven. The accompanying table presents the results of the comparison. (The MIDI evaluations are based on an N=20; one student asked that her data not be included in the DRA, and therefore, her scores were not counted.)

The situational differences between the two cases should not be discounted or minimized, since they are expected to cause significant differences. Ultimately, the differences in response behaviors are to be calcu3ated$ m field theory conception, as a resultant of the situational forces in the circumstance or social occasion being investigated. Nevertheless, since we are interested in examining the general properties of summative reports, these contrasts are useful.

AREA OF ASSESSMENT

	ASSESSMENT-- (PSYCH 397)	-->SITUATION
Anonymous J-14*	Signed MIDI**
A. Value of Educational Experience	1.4	1.8
B. Interest Value	1.3	1.8
C. Instructor-Student Interactions	0.5	1.4
D. Class Atmosphere	0.8	1.5
E. Classroom Performance of Instructor	0.9	1.8
F. Accountability	1.1	1.9
G. Organization	l.3	2.1
H. Other Concerns	0.5	1.4
I. Global Appraisal	1.1	1.7
Total (Averges)	1.0	1.7

*adjusted scores
**equivalant items

1 = no improvement needed;
4 = considerable improvement needed.

The accompanying table shows that the overall average for the anonymous J-14 responses was more favorable than the signed MIDI responses, (1.0 vs. 1.7), showing that signing the declarations does not necessarily cause an artificial positive report. The correspondences in the rank order of the 9 areas are also good: areas C, D, and H are in the top three for both sets, and area G falls in the last, or next to the last, rank. A substantial difference is noted in the rank of areas A and F, being relatively high for J-14 and low for MIDI, respectively.

Now we would like to explore the annotations students gave for the MIDI responses. Let us first look at area G, organization, which received relatively low ratings in both cases. Why did students rate organization in a relatively unfavorable manner? There is, of course, no answer to this question under the ordinary conditions of filling out evaluation forms; all that we know are the ratings, but not what they stand for, or what the student was actually responding to. By obtaining a justification for each rating, however, we can make some attributions as to the possible cause of an evaluative response.

The following table summarizes some of the annotations. We shall pick the item that received the same average as that for the set in G (=2.1). This item reads as follows:

"13. The instructor's ability to answer questions clearly

and concisely."

"1 = Improvement Needed

2 = A Little Improvement Is Needed

3 = Improvement Is Needed

4 = Considerable Improvement Is Needed

NA = Doesn't Apply"

The average this item received was 2.1, i. e., the students are declaring that the instructor needs "a little improvement" in that area. Diagnostic evaluation is one of the official purposes of student evaluation forms. However, it is plain that Form J-14 (and others like it, e. g., MIDI, etc.) does not serve this function well: it only tells the instructor to improve his skills in answering student questions in class.

Now let us look at the annotations students gave to item 13. Will we find evidence for a diagnosis?

"1" Ratings/Annotations to Item 13:

"He answers students' questions point by point. Sometimes he gives

examples or draws diagrams on the board to clarify it. "

"The instructor's ability to answer questions is good although at

times I don't understand."

"Answers to questions are clear enough for a high schooler to understand.

"2" Ratings/Annotations to Item 13:

"The instructor sometimes finds difficulty in answering questions by

using the material covered, as examples of the answer. This is

occasionally confusing. "

"Open ended answers are confusing, e. g., 'Or another way of looking

at it. . . ' (which is a completely different way of looking at it)--'Or you

might say. . . (which is yet another way)--Q. What is definitive?

or is anything definitive?"

He answers them, but I don't always understand. "

"No comment."

"Professor James' ability to answer questions is generally good.

often included more information helpful to students. "

"He tried, not always able to get us to understand. "

"This depends on the student's interpretation of whether a question was

answered or not. He sometimes takes longer than necessary to answer

a question because he tends to give more information than was asked

for by the student. While this may help to further our understanding

of Social Psychology, one has to sort out this additional info from the

answer we wanted to hear. " (annotation written jointly by three students)

"Students did not ask too many questions in class. "

"Some of the professor's replies to questions seemed very vague to me.

This could be due to the fact that Social Psychology is a relatively new

field of study, and that some of the questions asked, may not have a

definite answer. Many of the questions may have been controversial."

"Sometimes questions are fuzzy."

"3" Ratings/Annotations to Item 13:

"Many were so lost they could not think of any questions to ask."

"Everyone [in the group of three] rated a 3 for the instructor's ability

to answer questions clearly and concisely. Questions should be answered

in terms where we can understand them. Sometimes he goes on beyond

the topic which he is talking about. "

It is clear that annotations give specific criteria to which to relate mere ratings. For example, we can construct the following specific behavioral objectives for the instructor's attempt to improve his skills in satisfying students when they ask questions in class:

Behavioral Objectives: Answering Student Questions
1. Avoid open-ended answers.
2. Give only one definite answer.
3. Avoid the expression, "Another way to look at it. . . "
4. Avoid the expression, "or you might say. .. "
5. Avoid including extra information not directly relevant to the question.
6. Encourage students to ask more questions.
7. Always mark the answer as to whether or not a clear statement is possible,

so as to orient the questioner.
8. Use terms familiar to students when answering a question.

Armed with the above specific intentions, the instructor now needs to keep track of his future answering behavior in class. Perhaps he could keep a cumulative record of the frequencies of the target behaviors. He could also study the class t.apes since all his lectures are recorded. Are there types of questions that elicit the undesirable behaviors'' And so on.

Summative-Witnessing Reports. We've now discussed two kinds of evaluative responses: subjective-summative reports (Forms J-14, MIDI) and annotated- summative reports. The third and final type to be discussed is the summative- witnessing report. In the following examples, we would like to evidence the general principle that the content of evaluative declarations is a function of the situational circumstance under which it is given. We shall present several sub-types of summative-witnessing reports, as follows:

SUMMATIVE-WITNESSING REPORTS

a	b	c	d
Critique Sheet	Daily Feedback Forms	Student Discharge Reports	Annotations of Research Reports
Example 1 & Example 2	Example 3a; 3b & Annotations of DFF's & Examples 4a,b,c	Examples 5a; 5b	Example 6

Sub-type a: Instructional Critique Sheet.

The circumstance that occasions this report must have two features:
(i) there is an official call for summative evaluations on the part of those who
had undergone some controlled experience (e. g., students; subjects; participants);
(ii) the person is asked to perform as a witness--rather than a reporter or
investigator. Example 1 below is a sample of comments students wrote on an
official AEO form called "Instructional Critique Sheet. "

EXAMPLE 1

Instructional Critique Sheet (UHM, AEO, Spring 1978, Psych 222)
"Instructions: In order to help the instructor evaluate the impact of this teaching-
learning experience, you are invited to complete this comment sheet. Please
write your personal reactions to each question or item."

"1. What did you like best about this course and instructor?

"2. What did you like least about this course and instructor? "4. Now that the semester is ending and you have a sense of
perspective, what have you gained from this educational experience?

Student 1:
1. "Instructor understands students' needs for time to complete requests.

(Sympathetic w/regards to due dates. )"
2. "Sometimes impatient w/ student questions."
3. "How to write a formal research report."