A Study of Association in InsanityKent, Grace Helen
Science
A Study of Association in Insanity
Kent, Grace Helen
Association of ideas; Psychology, Pathological
Although the occurrence of incoherent reactions is hardly subject to
doubt, yet in no instance is it possible to establish with certainty
that a given reaction is of this type, for in no instance can a
remote, or an imagined, or a merely symbolic relationship between
stimulus and reaction be positively excluded. Some, indeed, would
assert that some such relationship must necessarily exist in every
instance, at least in the domain of the subconscious. This
circumstance necessitates the placing of this type of reactions in the
unclassified group.
In practice it may be found advisable in some cases to analyze the
unclassified reactions with a view to ascertaining to what extent each
of the various types is represented among them. But one here treads on
slippery ground, and one must be continually warned against the danger
of erroneous conclusions.
§ 5. ORDER OF PREFERENCE.
After having developed the classification here proposed we found that
there was still considerable room for difference of opinion in the
placing of many reactions, owing to the circumstance that in many
cases a reaction presents features which render it assignable under
any one of two or more headings. To leave the matter of preference in
grouping: to be decided in each case according to the best judgment of
the experimenter would mean introducing again the play of personal
equation, and would thus court failure of all our efforts to
accomplish a standardization of the association test. Therefore, the
necessity of establishing a proper order of preference for guidance in
the application of the classification became to us quite apparent.
In the arrangement of the order of preference we were guided mainly by
two principles, namely: (i) as between two groups of unequal
definition, the one which is more clearly defined and which,
therefore, leaves less play for personal equation is to be preferred;
(2) as between two groups of equal definition, the one which possesses
the greater pathological significance is to be preferred. In
accordance with these principles we have adopted the order of
preference shown in Table III., placing every reaction under the
highest heading on the list under which it may be properly classed.
TABLE III
1. Non-specific (common).
2. Doubtful reactions.
INDIVIDUAL REACTIONS.
3. Sound reactions (neologisms).
4. Neologisms without sound relation.
5. Repetition of preceding reaction.
6. Reaction repeated five times.
7. Repetition of preceding stimulus.
8. Derivatives.
9. Non-specific reactions.
10. Sound reactions (words).
11. Word complements.
12. Particles of speech.
13. Association to preceding stimulus.
14. Association to preceding reaction (by frequency tables).
15. Repetition of previous reaction.
16. Repetition of previous stimulus.
17. Normal (by appendix).
18. Association to preceding reaction (without frequency tables).
19. Unclassified.
§ 6. ERRORS INVOLVED IN THE USE OF ARBITRARY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account