The questions for this year are:—
Theprocedureis the same as for the previous comprehension tests. Each question may be repeated, but its form must not be changed. It is not permissible to make any explanation whatever as to the meaning of the question, except to substitutebeginningforundertakingwhen (b) seems not to be comprehended.
Scoring.Two out of the threequestions must be answered satisfactorily. Study of the following classified responses should make scoring fairly easy in most cases:—
(a) When some one asks your opinionSatisfactory.“I would say I don’t know him very well” (42 per cent of the correct answers). “Tell him what I know and no more” (34 per cent of correct answers). “I would say that I’drather not express any opinion about him” (20 per cent of the correct answers). “Tell him to ask some one else.” “I would not express any opinion.”Unsatisfactory.Unsatisfactory responses are due either to failure to grasp the import of the question, or to inability to suggest the appropriate action demanded by the situation.The latter form of failure is the more common; e.g.: “I’d say they are nice.” “Say you like them.” “Say what I think.” “Say it’s none of their business.” “Tell them I mind my own business.” “Say I would get acquainted with them.” “Say that I don’t talk about people.” “Say I didn’t know how he looked.” “Tell them you ought not to say such things; you might get into trouble.” “I wouldn’t say anything.” “I would try to answer.” “Say I did not know his name,” etc.The following are samples of failure due to mistaking the import of the question: “I’d say, ‘How do you do?’” “Say,‘I’m glad to meet you.’”(b) Before undertaking something importantSatisfactory responsesfall into the following classes:—Brief statement of preliminary consideration; as: “Think about it.” “Look it over.” “Plan it all out.” “Make your plans.” “Stop and think,” etc.Special emphasis on preliminary preparation and correct procedure; as: “Find out the best way to do it.” “Find out what it is.” “Get everything ready.” “Do every little thing that would help you.” “Get all the details you can.” “Take your time and figure it out,” etc.Asking help; as: “Ask some one to help you who knows all about it.” “Pray, if you are a Christian.” “Ask advice,” etc.Preliminary testing of ability, self-analysis, etc.; as: “Try something easier first.” “Practice and make sure I could do it.” “Learn how to do it,” etc.Consider the wisdom or propriety of doing it: “Think whether it would be best to do it.” “See whether it would be possible.”About 65 per cent of the correct responses belong either to group (1) or (2), about 20 per cent to group (3), and most of the remainder to group (4).Unsatisfactory responsesare of the following types:—Due to mistaking the import of the question; e.g.: “Ask for it.” “Ought to say please.” “Ask whose it is.” Replies of this kind can be nearly all eliminated by repeating the question, usingbeginninginstead ofundertaking.Replies more or less absurd or irrelevant; as: “Promise to do your best.” “Wash your face and hands.” “Get a lot of insurance.” “Dress up and take a walk.” “Tell your name.” “Know whether it’s correct.” “Begin at the beginning.” “Say you will do it.” “See if it’s a fake.” “Go to school a long time.” “Pass an examination.” “Do what is right.” “Add up and see how much it will cost.” “Say I would do it.” “Just start doing it.” “Go away.” “Consult a doctor.” “See if you have time,” etc.(c) Why we should judge a person more by his actions than by his wordsSatisfactory responsesfall into the following classes:—Words and deeds both mentioned and contrasted in reliability; as: “Actions speak louder than words” (this in 8 per cent of successes). “You can tell more by his actions than by his words.” “He might talk nice and do bad things.” “Sometimes people say things and don’t do them.” “It’s not what you say but what you do that counts.” “Talk is cheap; when he does a thing you can believe it.” “People don’t do everything they say.” “A man might steal but talk like a nice man.” Over 45 per cent of all correct responses belong to group (1).Acts stressed without mention of words; as: “You can tell by his actions whether he is good or not.” “If heactsnice heisnice.” “Actions show for themselves.” Group (2) contains about 25 per cent of the correct responses.Emphasis on unreliability of words; as: “You can’t tell by his words, he might lie or boast.” “Because you can’t always believe what people say.” (Group (3) contains 15 per cent of the correct responses.)Responses which state that a man’s deeds are sometimes better than his words; as: “He might talk ugly and still not do bad things.” “Some really kind-hearted people scold and swear.” “A man’s words may be worse than his deeds,”etc. Group (4) contains over 10 per cent of the correct responses.Unsatisfactory responsesare usually due to inability to comprehend the meaning of the question. If there is a complete lack of comprehension the result is either silence or a totally irrelevant response. If there is partial comprehension of the question the response may be partially relevant, but fail to make the expected distinction.The following are sample failures: “You could tell by his words that he was educated.” “It shows he is polite if he acts nice.” “Sometimes people aren’t polite.” “Actions show who he might be.” “Acts may be foolish.” “Words ain’t right.” “A man might be dumb.” “A fellow don’t know what he says.” “Some people can talk, but don’t have control of themselves.” “You can tell by his acts whether he goes with bad people.” “If he doesn’t act right you know he won’t talk right.” “Actions show if he has manners.” “Might get embarrassed and not talk good.” “He may not know how to express his thoughts.” “He might be a rich man but a poor talker.” “He might say the wrong thing and afterwards be sorry for it,” etc. (The last four are nearer correct than the others, but they fall just short of expressing the essential contrast.)
Satisfactory.“I would say I don’t know him very well” (42 per cent of the correct answers). “Tell him what I know and no more” (34 per cent of correct answers). “I would say that I’drather not express any opinion about him” (20 per cent of the correct answers). “Tell him to ask some one else.” “I would not express any opinion.”
Unsatisfactory.Unsatisfactory responses are due either to failure to grasp the import of the question, or to inability to suggest the appropriate action demanded by the situation.
The latter form of failure is the more common; e.g.: “I’d say they are nice.” “Say you like them.” “Say what I think.” “Say it’s none of their business.” “Tell them I mind my own business.” “Say I would get acquainted with them.” “Say that I don’t talk about people.” “Say I didn’t know how he looked.” “Tell them you ought not to say such things; you might get into trouble.” “I wouldn’t say anything.” “I would try to answer.” “Say I did not know his name,” etc.
The following are samples of failure due to mistaking the import of the question: “I’d say, ‘How do you do?’” “Say,‘I’m glad to meet you.’”
Satisfactory responsesfall into the following classes:—
About 65 per cent of the correct responses belong either to group (1) or (2), about 20 per cent to group (3), and most of the remainder to group (4).
Unsatisfactory responsesare of the following types:—
Satisfactory responsesfall into the following classes:—
Unsatisfactory responsesare usually due to inability to comprehend the meaning of the question. If there is a complete lack of comprehension the result is either silence or a totally irrelevant response. If there is partial comprehension of the question the response may be partially relevant, but fail to make the expected distinction.
The following are sample failures: “You could tell by his words that he was educated.” “It shows he is polite if he acts nice.” “Sometimes people aren’t polite.” “Actions show who he might be.” “Acts may be foolish.” “Words ain’t right.” “A man might be dumb.” “A fellow don’t know what he says.” “Some people can talk, but don’t have control of themselves.” “You can tell by his acts whether he goes with bad people.” “If he doesn’t act right you know he won’t talk right.” “Actions show if he has manners.” “Might get embarrassed and not talk good.” “He may not know how to express his thoughts.” “He might be a rich man but a poor talker.” “He might say the wrong thing and afterwards be sorry for it,” etc. (The last four are nearer correct than the others, but they fall just short of expressing the essential contrast.)
Remarks.For discussion of the comprehension questions as a test of intelligence, see page158.
Binet used eight questions, three “easy” and five “difficult,” and required that five out of eight be answered correctly in year X. The eight were as follows:—
As we have shown, questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are much too easy for year X. Question 6 is hard enough for year XII.We have omitted it because it was not needed and is not entirely satisfactory.
Procedure.Say: “Now, I want to see how many different words you can name in three minutes. When I say ready, you must begin and name the words as fast as you can, and I will count them. Do you understand? Be sure to do your very best, and remember that just any words will do, like ‘clouds,’ ‘dog,’ ‘chair,’ ‘happy’—Ready; go ahead!”
The instructions may be repeated if the subject does not understand what is wanted. As a rule the task is comprehended instantly and entered into with great zest.
Do not stare at the child, and do not say anything as the test proceeds unless there is a pause of fifteen seconds. In this event say: “Go ahead, as fast as you can. Any words will do.” Repeat this urging after every pause of fifteen seconds.
Some subjects, usually rather intelligent ones, hit upon the device of counting or putting words together in sentences. We then break in with: “Counting(orsentences, as the case may be)not allowed. You must name separate words. Go ahead.”
Record the individual words if possible, and mark the end of each half-minute. If the words are named so rapidly that they cannot be taken down, it is easy to keep the count by making a pencil stroke for each word. If the latter method is employed, repeated words may be indicated by making a cross instead of a single stroke. Always make record of repetitions.
Scoring.The test is passed ifsixtywords, exclusive of repetitions, are named in three minutes. It is not allowable to accept twenty words in one minute or forty wordsin two minutes as an equivalent of the expected score. Only real words are counted.
Remarks.Scoring, as we have seen, takes account only of the number of words. It is instructive, however, to note the kind of words given. Some subjects, more often those of the 8- or 9-year intelligence level, give mainly isolated, detached words. As well stated by Binet, “Little children exhaust an idea in naming it. They say, for example,hat, and then pass on to another word without noticing that hats differ in color, in form, have various parts, different uses and accessories, and that in enumerating all these they could find a large number of words.”
Others quickly take advantage of such relationships and name many parts of an object before leaving it, or name a number of other objects belonging to the same class.Hat, for example, suggestscap,hood,coat,shirt,shoes,stockings, etc.Pencilsuggestsbook,slate,paper,desk,ink,map,school-yard,teacher, etc. Responses of this type may be made up of ten or a dozen plainly distinct word groups.
Another type of response consists in naming only objects present, or words which present objects immediately suggest. It is unfortunate that this occurs, since rooms in which testing is done vary so much with respect to furnishings. The subject who chooses this method is obviously handicapped if the room is relatively bare. One way to avoid this influence is to have all subjects name the words with eyes closed, but the distraction thus caused is sometimes rather disturbing. It is perhaps best for the present to adhere to the original procedure, and to follow the rule of making tests in a room containing few furnishings in addition to the necessary table and chairs.
A fourth type of response is that including a large proportion of unusual or abstract words. This is the best ofall, and is hardly ever found except with subjects who are above the 11-year intelligence level.
It goes without saying that a response need not belong entirely to any one of the above types. Most responses, in fact, are characterized by a mixture of two or three of the types, one of them perhaps being dominant.
Though not without its shortcomings, the test is interesting and valuable. Success in it does not, as one might suppose, depend solely upon the size of the vocabulary. Even 8-year-olds ordinarily know the meaning of more than 3000 words, and by 10 years the vocabulary usually exceeds 5000 words, or eighty times as many as the child is expected to name in three minutes. The main factors in success are two, (1) richness and variety of previously made associations with common words; and (2) the readiness of these associations to reinstate themselves. The young or the retarded subject fishes in the ocean of his vocabulary with a single hook, so to speak. He brings up each time only one word. The subject endowed with superior intelligence employs a net (the idea of a class, for example) and brings up a half-dozen words or more. The latter accomplishes a greater amount and with less effort; but it requires intelligence and will power to avoid wasting time with detached words.
One is again and again astonished at the poverty of associations which this test discloses with retarded subjects. For twenty or thirty seconds such children may be unable to think of a single word. It would be interesting if at such periods we could get a glimpse into the subject’s consciousness. There must be some kind of mental content, but it seems too vague to be crystallized in words. The ready association of thoughts with definite words connotes a relatively high degree of intellectual advancement. Language forms are the short-hand of thought; without facile command oflanguage, thinking is vague, clumsy, and ineffective. Conversely, vague mental content entails language shortage.
Occasionally a child of 11- or 12-year intelligence will make a poor showing in this test. When this happens it is usually due either to excessive embarrassment or to a strange persistence in running down all the words of a given class before launching out upon a new series. Occasionally, too, an intelligent subject wastes time in thinking up a beautiful list of big or unusual words. As stated by Bobertag, success is favored by a certain amount of “intellectual nonchalance,” a willingness to ignore sense and a readiness to break away from a train of associations as soon as the “point of diminishing returns” has been reached. This doubtless explains why adults sometimes make such a surprisingly poor showing in the test. They have less “intellectual nonchalance” than children, are less willing to subordinate such considerations as completeness and logical connection to the demands of speed. Knollin’s unemployed men of 12- to 13-year intelligence succeeded no better than school children of the 10-year level.
We do not believe, however, that this fault is serious enough to warrant the elimination of the test. The fact is that in a large majority of cases the score which it yields agrees fairly closely with the result of the scale as a whole. Subjects more than a year or two below the mental age of 10 years seldom succeed. Those more than a year or two above the 10-year level seldom fail.
There is another reason why the test should be retained, it often has significance beyond that which appears in the mere number of words given. The naming of unusual and abstract words is an instance of this. An unusually large number of repetitions has symptomatic significance in the other direction. It indicates a tendency to mentalstereotypy, so frequently encountered in testing the feeble-minded. The proportion of repetitions made by normal children of the 10- or 11-year intelligence level rarely exceeds 2 or 3 per cent of the total number of words named; those of older retarded children of the same level occasionally reach 6 or 8 per cent.
It is conceivable, of course, that a more satisfactory test of this general nature could be devised; such, for example, as having the subject name all the words he can of a given class (four-footed animals, things to eat, articles of household furniture, trees, birds, etc.). The main objection to this form of the test is that the performance would in all probability be more influenced by environment and formal instruction than is the case with the test of naming sixty words.
One other matter remains to be mentioned; namely, the relative number of words named in the half-minute periods. As would be expected, the rate of naming words decreases as the test proceeds. In the case of the 10-year-olds, we find the average number of words for the six successive half-minutes to be as follows:—
18, 12½, 10½, 9, 8½, 7.
Some subjects maintain an almost constant rate throughout the test, others rapidly exhaust themselves, while a very few make a bad beginning and improve as they go. As a rule it is only the very intelligent who improve after the first half-minute. On the other hand, mentally retarded subjects and very young normals exhaust themselves so quickly that only a few words are named in the last minute.
Binet first located this test in year XI, but shifted it to year XII in 1911. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI, though Goddard’s statistics suggest year X as theproper location, and Kuhlmann’s even suggest year IX. Kuhlmann, however, accepts fifty words as satisfactory in case the response contains a considerable proportion of abstract or unusual words. All the American statistics except Rowe’s agree in showing that the test is easy enough for year X.
The digit series used are 3–7–4–8–5–9; and 5–2–1–7–4–6.
Theprocedureandscoringare the same as inVII, 3, except that only two trials are given, one of which must be correct. The test is somewhat too easy for year 10 when three trials are given.
The test of repeating six digits did not appear in the Binet scale and seems not to have been standardized until inserted in the Stanford series.
The sentences for this year are:—
Procedureandscoringexactly as inVI, 6.
Remarks.It is interesting to note that five years of mental growth are required to pass from the ability torepeat sixteen or eighteen syllables(year VI) to the ability to repeat twenty or twenty-two syllables. Similarly in memory for digits.Fivedigits are almost as easy at yearVII assixat year X. Two explanations are available: (1) The increased difficulty may be accounted for by a relatively slow growth of memory power after the age of 6 or 7 years; or (2) the increase in difficulty may be real, expressing an inner law as to the behavior of the memory span in dealing with material of increasing length. Both factors are probably involved.
This is another of the Stanford additions to the scale. Average children of 10 years ordinarily pass it, but older, retarded children of 10-year mental age make a poorer showing. In the case of mentally retarded adults, especially, the verbal memory is less exact than that of school children of the same mental age.
Material.Use the form-board pictured on page279. This may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., Chicago, Illinois. A home-made one will do as well if care is taken to get the dimensions exact. Quarter-inch wood should be used. The inside of the frame should be 3 × 4 inches, and the dimensions of the blocks should be as follows: 13⁄16× 3; 1 × 1½; 1 × 2¾; 1 × 1½; 1¼ × 2.
Procedure.Place the frame on the table before the subject, the short side nearest him. The blocks are placed in an irregular position on the side of the frame away from the subject. Take care that the board with the blocks in place is not exposed to view in advance of the experiment.
Say: “I want you to put these blocks in this frame so that all the space will be filled up. If you do it rightly they will all fit in and there will be no space left over. Go ahead.”
Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it. Say nothing that would even suggest hurrying, for thistends to call forth the trial-and-error procedure even with intelligent subjects.
A double rectangular frame with six (different-sized) rectangles fitted inside.
Scoring.The test is passed if the child succeeds in fitting the blocks into placethree times in a total time of five minutes for the three trials.
The method of procedure is fully as important as the time, but is not so easily scored in quantitative terms. Nevertheless, the examiner should always take observations on the method employed, noting especially any tendency to make and to repeat moves which lead to obvious impossibilities; i.e., moves which leave a space obviously unfitted to any of the remaining pieces. Some subjects repeat an absurd move many times over; others make an absurd move, but promptly correct it; others, and these are usually the bright ones, look far enough ahead to avoid error altogether.
Remarks.This test was devised by Professor Freeman, was adapted slightly by Healy and Fernald, and was first standardized by Dr. Kuhlmann. Miss Gertrude Hall has also standardized it, but on a different procedure from that described above.[67]
The test has a lower correlation with intelligence than most of the other tests of the scale. Many bright children of 10-year intelligence adopt the trial-and-error method and have little success, while retarded older children of only 8-year intelligence sometimes succeed. Age, apart from intelligence, seems to play an important part in determining the nature of the performance. A favorable feature of the test, however, is the fact that it makes no demand on language ability and that it brings into play an aspect of intelligence which is relatively neglected by the remainder of the scale. For this reason it is at least worth keeping as an alternative test.
FOOTNOTES:[66]See “Genius and Stupidity,” by Lewis M. Terman, inPedagogical Seminary, September, 1906, p. 340ff.[67]Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin, No. 5, The State Board of Charities, Albany, New York.
[66]See “Genius and Stupidity,” by Lewis M. Terman, inPedagogical Seminary, September, 1906, p. 340ff.
[66]See “Genius and Stupidity,” by Lewis M. Terman, inPedagogical Seminary, September, 1906, p. 340ff.
[67]Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin, No. 5, The State Board of Charities, Albany, New York.
[67]Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin, No. 5, The State Board of Charities, Albany, New York.
Procedureandscoringas in previous vocabulary tests.[68]In this case forty words must be defined.
Procedure.The words to be defined arepity,revenge,charity,envy, andjustice. The formula is, “What is pity? What do we mean by pity?” and so on with the other words. If the meaning of the response is not clear, ask the subject to explain what he means. If the definition is in terms of the word itself, as “Pity means to pity someone,” “Revenge is to take revenge,” etc., it is then necessary to say: “Yes, but what does it mean to pity some one?” or, “What does it mean to take revenge?” etc. Only supplementary questions of this kind are permissible.
Scoring.The test is passed ifthree of the fivewords are satisfactorily defined. The definition need not be strictly logical nor the language elegant. It is sufficient if the definition shows that the meaning of the word is known. Definitions which define by means of an illustration are acceptable. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:—
(a) PitySatisfactory.“To be sorry for some one.” “To feel compassion.” “To have sympathy for a person.” “To feel bad for some one.” “It means you help a person out and don’t like to have him suffer.” “To have a feeling for people when they are treated wrong.” “If anybody gets hurt real bad you pity them.” “It’s when you feel sorry for a tramp and give him something to eat.” “If some one is in trouble and you know how it feels to be in that condition, you pity him.” “You see something that’s wrong and have your feeling aroused.”Of 130 correct responses, 85, or 65 per cent, definedpityas “to feel sorry for some one,” or words to that effect. Less than 10 per cent defined by means of illustration.Unsatisfactory.“To think of the poor.” “To be good to others.” “To help.” “It means sorrow.” “Mercy.” “To cheer people up.” “It means ‘What a pity!’” “To be ashamed.” “To be sick or poor.” “It’s when you break something.”Apart from inability to reply, which accounts for nearly one fourth of the failures, there is no predominant type of unsatisfactory response.(b) RevengeSatisfactory.“To get even with some one.” “To get back on him.” “To do something to the one who has done something to you.” “To hurt them back.” “To pay it back,” or “Do something back.” “To do something mean in return.” “To square up with a person.” “When somebody slaps you, you slap back.” “You kill a person if he does something to you.”The expression “to get even” was found in 42 per cent of 120 correct answers; “to pay it back,” or “To do something back,” in 20 per cent; “To get back on him,” in 17 per cent. About 8 per cent were illustrations.Unsatisfactory.“To be mad.” “You try to hurt them.” “To fight.” “You hate a person.” “To kill them.” “It means hateful.” “To try again.” “To think evil of some one.” “To hate some one who has done you wrong.” “To let a person off.” “To go away from something.”Inability to reply accounts for a little over 40 per cent of the failures.(c) CharitySatisfactory.“To give to the poor.” “To help those who are needy.” “It is charity if you are poor and somebody helps you.” “To give to somebody without pay.”Of 110 correct replies, 72 per cent were worded substantially like the first or second given above.Unsatisfactory.“A person who helps the poor.” “A place where poor people get food and things.” “It is a good life.” “To be happy.” “To be poor.” “Charity is being treated good.” “It is to be charitable.” “Charity is selling something that is not worth much.” “It means to be good” or “to be kind.”When the last named response is given, we should say: “Explain what you mean.” If this brings an amplification of the response to “It means to do things for the poor,” or the equivalent, the score isplus. “Charity means love” is alsominusif the statement cannot be further explained and is merely rote memory of the passage in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians. Simply “To help” or “To give” is unsatisfactory. Half of the failures are due to inability to reply.(d) EnvySatisfactory.“You envy some one who has something you want.” “It’s the way you feel when you see some one with something nicer than you have.” “It’s when a poor girl sees a rich girl with nice dresses and things.” “You hate some one because they’ve got something you want.” “Jealousy” (satisfactory if subject can explain whatjealousymeans; otherwise it isminus). “It’s when you see a person better off than you are.”Nearly three fourths of the correct responses say in substance, “You envy a person who has something you want.” Most of the others are concrete illustrations.Unsatisfactory.“To hate some one,” or simply “To hate.” “You don’t like ’em.” “Bad feeling toward any one.” “To be a great man or woman.” “Not to be nice to people.” “What we do to our enemies.”Inability to respond accounts for 55 per cent of the failures.(e) JusticeSatisfactory.“To give people what they deserve.” “It means that everybody is treated the same way, whether he is rich or poor.” “It’s what you get when you go to court.” “If one doessomething and gets punished, that’s justice.” “To do the square thing.” “To give everybody his dues.” “Let every one have what’s coming to him.” “To do the right thing by any one.” “If two people do the same thing and they let one go without punishing, that is not justice.”Approximately 38 per cent of 102 correct responses referred to treating everybody the same way; 25 per cent to “doing the square thing”, 12 per cent were concrete illustrations; and 4 per cent were definitions of what justice is not.Unsatisfactory.“It means to have peace.” “It is where they have court.” “It’s the Courthouse.” “To be honest.” “Where one is just” (minus, unless further explained). “To do right” (minus, unless in explainingrightthe subject gives a definition ofjustice).It is very necessary, in case of such answers as “Justice is to do right,” “To be just,” etc., that the subject be urged to explain further what he means. “To do right” includes nearly 12 per cent of all answers, and is given by the very brightest children. Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the definition in a satisfactory manner.
Satisfactory.“To be sorry for some one.” “To feel compassion.” “To have sympathy for a person.” “To feel bad for some one.” “It means you help a person out and don’t like to have him suffer.” “To have a feeling for people when they are treated wrong.” “If anybody gets hurt real bad you pity them.” “It’s when you feel sorry for a tramp and give him something to eat.” “If some one is in trouble and you know how it feels to be in that condition, you pity him.” “You see something that’s wrong and have your feeling aroused.”
Of 130 correct responses, 85, or 65 per cent, definedpityas “to feel sorry for some one,” or words to that effect. Less than 10 per cent defined by means of illustration.
Unsatisfactory.“To think of the poor.” “To be good to others.” “To help.” “It means sorrow.” “Mercy.” “To cheer people up.” “It means ‘What a pity!’” “To be ashamed.” “To be sick or poor.” “It’s when you break something.”
Apart from inability to reply, which accounts for nearly one fourth of the failures, there is no predominant type of unsatisfactory response.
Satisfactory.“To get even with some one.” “To get back on him.” “To do something to the one who has done something to you.” “To hurt them back.” “To pay it back,” or “Do something back.” “To do something mean in return.” “To square up with a person.” “When somebody slaps you, you slap back.” “You kill a person if he does something to you.”
The expression “to get even” was found in 42 per cent of 120 correct answers; “to pay it back,” or “To do something back,” in 20 per cent; “To get back on him,” in 17 per cent. About 8 per cent were illustrations.
Unsatisfactory.“To be mad.” “You try to hurt them.” “To fight.” “You hate a person.” “To kill them.” “It means hateful.” “To try again.” “To think evil of some one.” “To hate some one who has done you wrong.” “To let a person off.” “To go away from something.”
Inability to reply accounts for a little over 40 per cent of the failures.
Satisfactory.“To give to the poor.” “To help those who are needy.” “It is charity if you are poor and somebody helps you.” “To give to somebody without pay.”
Of 110 correct replies, 72 per cent were worded substantially like the first or second given above.
Unsatisfactory.“A person who helps the poor.” “A place where poor people get food and things.” “It is a good life.” “To be happy.” “To be poor.” “Charity is being treated good.” “It is to be charitable.” “Charity is selling something that is not worth much.” “It means to be good” or “to be kind.”
When the last named response is given, we should say: “Explain what you mean.” If this brings an amplification of the response to “It means to do things for the poor,” or the equivalent, the score isplus. “Charity means love” is alsominusif the statement cannot be further explained and is merely rote memory of the passage in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians. Simply “To help” or “To give” is unsatisfactory. Half of the failures are due to inability to reply.
Satisfactory.“You envy some one who has something you want.” “It’s the way you feel when you see some one with something nicer than you have.” “It’s when a poor girl sees a rich girl with nice dresses and things.” “You hate some one because they’ve got something you want.” “Jealousy” (satisfactory if subject can explain whatjealousymeans; otherwise it isminus). “It’s when you see a person better off than you are.”
Nearly three fourths of the correct responses say in substance, “You envy a person who has something you want.” Most of the others are concrete illustrations.
Unsatisfactory.“To hate some one,” or simply “To hate.” “You don’t like ’em.” “Bad feeling toward any one.” “To be a great man or woman.” “Not to be nice to people.” “What we do to our enemies.”
Inability to respond accounts for 55 per cent of the failures.
Satisfactory.“To give people what they deserve.” “It means that everybody is treated the same way, whether he is rich or poor.” “It’s what you get when you go to court.” “If one doessomething and gets punished, that’s justice.” “To do the square thing.” “To give everybody his dues.” “Let every one have what’s coming to him.” “To do the right thing by any one.” “If two people do the same thing and they let one go without punishing, that is not justice.”
Approximately 38 per cent of 102 correct responses referred to treating everybody the same way; 25 per cent to “doing the square thing”, 12 per cent were concrete illustrations; and 4 per cent were definitions of what justice is not.
Unsatisfactory.“It means to have peace.” “It is where they have court.” “It’s the Courthouse.” “To be honest.” “Where one is just” (minus, unless further explained). “To do right” (minus, unless in explainingrightthe subject gives a definition ofjustice).
It is very necessary, in case of such answers as “Justice is to do right,” “To be just,” etc., that the subject be urged to explain further what he means. “To do right” includes nearly 12 per cent of all answers, and is given by the very brightest children. Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the definition in a satisfactory manner.
Remarks.The reader may be surprised that the ability to define common abstract words should develop so late. Most children who have had anything like ordinary home or school environment have doubtless heard all of these words countless times before the age of 12 years. Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that before this age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabulary studies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardly any trait in which 12- to 14-year intelligence more uniformly excels that of the 9- or 10-year level.
This is readily understandable when we consider the nature of abstract meanings and the intellectual processes by which we arrive at them. Unlike such words astree,house, etc., the ideas they contain are not the immediate result of perceptual processes, in which even childish intelligence is adept, but are a refined and secondaryproduct of relationships between other ideas. They require the logical processes of comparison, abstraction, and generalization. One cannot see justice, for example, but one is often confronted with situations in which justice or injustice is an element; and given a certain degree of abstraction and generalization, out of such situations the idea of justice will gradually be evolved.
The formation and use of abstract ideas, of one kind or another, represent,par excellence, the “higher thought processes.” It is not without significance that delinquents who test near the border-line of mental deficiency show such inferior ability in arriving at correct generalizations regarding matters of social and moral relationships. We cannot expect a mind of defective generalizing ability to form very definite or correct notions about justice, law, fairness, ownership rights, etc.; and if the ideas themselves are not fairly clear, the rules of conduct based upon them cannot make a very powerful appeal.[69]
Binet used the wordscharity,justice, andkindness, and required two successes. In the 1911 revision he shifted the test from year XI to year XII, where it more nearly belongs. Goddard also places it in year XII and uses Binet’s words, translatingbonté, however, asgoodnessinstead ofkindness. Kuhlmann retains the test in year XI and addsbraveryandrevenge, requiring three correct definitions out of five. Bobertag usespity,envy, andjustice, requires two correct definitions, and finds the test just hard enough for year XII.
After using the wordsgoodnessandkindnessin two series of tests, we have discarded them as objectionable in that they give rise to so many doubtful definitions. Even intelligent children often say: “Goodness means to do something good,” “Kindness means to be kind to some one,”etc. These definitions in a circle occur less than half as often withpity,revenge, andenvy, which are also superior tocharityandjusticein this respect.
The relative difficulty of our five words is indicated by the order in which we have listed them in the test (i.e., beginning with the easiest and ending with the hardest). On the standard of three correct definitions, these words fit very accurately in year XII.
Procedure, as inyear VIII, test 1.
Scoring.Score 3 (or superior plan) is required for passing in year XII.[70]
The following disarranged sentences are used:—
These should be printed intype like that used above. The Stanford record booklet contains the sentences in convenient form.
It is not permissible to substitute written words or printed script, as that would make the test harder. All the words should be printed in caps in order that no clue shall be given as to the first word in a sentence. For a similar reason the period is omitted.
Procedure.Say: “Here is a sentence that has the words all mixed up so that they don’t make any sense. If the wordswere changed around in the right order they would make a good sentence. Look carefully and see if you can tell me how the sentence ought to read.”
Give the sentences in the order in which they are listed in the record booklet. Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it, because with this test any suggestion of hurrying is likely to produce a kind of mental paralysis. If the subject has no success with the first sentence in one minute, read it off correctly for him, somewhat slowly, and pointing to each word as it is spoken. Then proceed to the second and third, allowing one minute for each.
Give no further help. It is not permissible, in case an incorrect response is given, to ask the subject to try again, or to say: “Are you sure that is right?” “Are you sure you have not left out any words?” etc. Instead, maintain absolute silence. However, the subject is permitted to make as many changes in his response as he sees fit, provided he makes them spontaneously and within the allotted time. Record the entire response.
Once in a great while the subject misunderstands the task and thinks the only requirement is to use all the words given, and that it is permitted to add as many other words as he likes. It is then necessary to repeat the instructions and to allow a new trial.
Scoring.Two sentences out of three must be correctly given within the minute allotted to each.It is understood, of course, that if the first sentence has to be read for the subject, both the other responses must be given correctly.
A sentence is not counted correct if a single word is omitted, altered, or inserted, or if the order given fails to make perfect sense.
Certain responses are not absolutely incorrect, but are objectionable as regards sentence structure, or else fail to give the exact meaning intended. These are given halfcredit. Full credit on one, and half credit on each of the other two, is satisfactory. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:—
(a)Satisfactory.“We started for the country at an early hour.”“At an early hour we started for the country.”“We started at an early hour for the country.”Unsatisfactory.“We started early at an hour for the country.”“Early at an hour we started for the country.”“We started early for the country.”Half credit.“For the country at an early hour we started.”“For the country we started at an early hour.”(b)Satisfactory.“I asked my teacher to correct my paper.”Unsatisfactory.“My teacher asked to correct my paper.”“To correct my paper I asked my teacher.”Half credit.“My teacher I asked to correct my paper.”(c)Satisfactory.“A good dog defends his master bravely.”“A good dog bravely defends his master.”Unsatisfactory.“A dog defends his master bravely.”“A bravely dog defends his master.”“A good dog defends his bravely master.”“A good brave dog defends his master.”Half credit.“A dog defends his good master bravely.”“A dog bravely defends his good master.”“A good master bravely defends his dog.”
Satisfactory.
Unsatisfactory.
Half credit.
Satisfactory.
Unsatisfactory.
Half credit.
Satisfactory.
Unsatisfactory.
Half credit.
Remarks.This is an excellent test. It involves no knowledge which may not be presupposed at the age in which it is given, and success therefore depends very little on experience. The worst that can be urged against it is that it may possibly be influenced to a certain extent by the amount of reading the subject has done. But this has not been demonstrated. At any rate, the test satisfies the most important requirement of a test of intelligence; namely, the percentage of successes increases rapidly and steadily from the lower to the higher levels of mental age.
This experiment can be regarded as a variation of the completion test. Binet tells us, in fact, that it was directly suggested by the experiment of Ebbinghaus. As will readily be observed, however, it differs to a certain extent from the Ebbinghaus completion test. Ebbinghaus omits parts of a sentence and requires the subject to supply the omissions. In this test we give all the parts and require the formation of a sentence by rearrangement. The two experiments are psychologically similar in that they require the subject to relate given fragments into a meaningful whole. Success depends upon the ability of intelligence to utilize hints, or clues, and this in turn depends on the logical integrity of the associative processes. All but the highest grade of the feeble-minded fail with this test.
This test is found in year XI of Binet’s 1908 series and in year XII of his 1911 revision. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in the original location. That it is better placed in year XII is indicated by all the available statistics with normal children, except those of Goddard. With this exception, the results of various investigators for year XII are in remarkably close agreement, as the following figures will show:—
Per cent passing at year XIIBinet66Kuhlmann68Bobertag78Dougherty64Strong72Léviste and Morlé70Stanford series (1911)62Stanford series (1913)57Stanford series (1914)62Princeton data61
This agreement is noteworthy considering that no two experiments seem to have used exactly the same arrangement of words, and that some have presented the words of a sentence in a single line, others in two or three lines. A single line would appear to be somewhat easier.
The following fables are used:—
(a) Hercules and the WagonerA man was driving along a country road, when the wheels suddenly sank in a deep rut. The man did nothing but look at the wagon and call loudly to Hercules to come and help him. Hercules came up, looked at the man, and said: “Put your shoulder to the wheel, my man, and whip up your oxen.” Then he went away and left the driver.(b) The Milkmaid and her PlansA milkmaid was carrying her pail of milk on her head, and was thinking to herself thus: “The money for this milk will buy 4 hens; the hens will lay at least 100 eggs; the eggs will produce at least 75 chicks; and with the money which the chicks will bring I can buy a new dress to wear instead of the ragged one I have on.” At this moment she looked down at herself, trying to think how she would look in her new dress; but as she did so the pail of milk slipped from her head and dashed upon the ground. Thus all her imaginary schemes perished in a moment.(c) The Fox and the CrowA crow, having stolen a bit of meat, perched in a tree and held it in her beak. A fox, seeing her, wished to secure the meat, and spoke to the crow thus: “How handsome you are! and I have heard that the beauty of your voice is equal to that of your form and feathers. Will you not sing for me, so that I may judge whether this is true?” The crow was so pleased that she opened her mouth to sing and dropped the meat, which the fox immediately ate.(d) The Farmer and the StorkA farmer set some traps to catch cranes which had been eating his seed. With them he caught a stork. The stork, which had not really been stealing, begged the farmer to spare his life, saying that he was a bird of excellent character, that he was not at all like the cranes, and that the farmer should have pity on him. But the farmer said: “I have caught you with these robbers, and you will have to die with them.”(e) The Miller, His Son, and the DonkeyA miller and his son were driving their donkey to a neighboring town to sell him. They had not gone far when a child saw them and cried out: “What fools those fellows are to be trudging along on foot when one of them might be riding.” The old man, hearing this, made his son get on the donkey, while he himself walked. Soon, they came upon some men. “Look,” said one of them, “see that lazy boy riding while his old father has to walk.” On hearing this, the miller made his son get off, and he climbed on the donkey himself. Farther on they met a company of women, who shouted out: “Why, you lazy old fellow, to ride along so comfortably while your poor boy there can hardly keep pace by the side of you!” And so the good-natured miller took his boy up behind him and both of them rode. As they came to the town a citizen said to them, “Why, you cruel fellows! You two are better able to carry the poor little donkey than he is to carry you.” “Very well,” said the miller, “we will try.” So both of them jumped to the ground, got some ropes, tied the donkey’s legs to a pole and tried to carry him. But as they crossed the bridge the donkey became frightened, kicked loose and fell into the stream.
A man was driving along a country road, when the wheels suddenly sank in a deep rut. The man did nothing but look at the wagon and call loudly to Hercules to come and help him. Hercules came up, looked at the man, and said: “Put your shoulder to the wheel, my man, and whip up your oxen.” Then he went away and left the driver.
A milkmaid was carrying her pail of milk on her head, and was thinking to herself thus: “The money for this milk will buy 4 hens; the hens will lay at least 100 eggs; the eggs will produce at least 75 chicks; and with the money which the chicks will bring I can buy a new dress to wear instead of the ragged one I have on.” At this moment she looked down at herself, trying to think how she would look in her new dress; but as she did so the pail of milk slipped from her head and dashed upon the ground. Thus all her imaginary schemes perished in a moment.
A crow, having stolen a bit of meat, perched in a tree and held it in her beak. A fox, seeing her, wished to secure the meat, and spoke to the crow thus: “How handsome you are! and I have heard that the beauty of your voice is equal to that of your form and feathers. Will you not sing for me, so that I may judge whether this is true?” The crow was so pleased that she opened her mouth to sing and dropped the meat, which the fox immediately ate.
A farmer set some traps to catch cranes which had been eating his seed. With them he caught a stork. The stork, which had not really been stealing, begged the farmer to spare his life, saying that he was a bird of excellent character, that he was not at all like the cranes, and that the farmer should have pity on him. But the farmer said: “I have caught you with these robbers, and you will have to die with them.”
A miller and his son were driving their donkey to a neighboring town to sell him. They had not gone far when a child saw them and cried out: “What fools those fellows are to be trudging along on foot when one of them might be riding.” The old man, hearing this, made his son get on the donkey, while he himself walked. Soon, they came upon some men. “Look,” said one of them, “see that lazy boy riding while his old father has to walk.” On hearing this, the miller made his son get off, and he climbed on the donkey himself. Farther on they met a company of women, who shouted out: “Why, you lazy old fellow, to ride along so comfortably while your poor boy there can hardly keep pace by the side of you!” And so the good-natured miller took his boy up behind him and both of them rode. As they came to the town a citizen said to them, “Why, you cruel fellows! You two are better able to carry the poor little donkey than he is to carry you.” “Very well,” said the miller, “we will try.” So both of them jumped to the ground, got some ropes, tied the donkey’s legs to a pole and tried to carry him. But as they crossed the bridge the donkey became frightened, kicked loose and fell into the stream.
Procedure.Present the fables in the order in which they are given above. The method is to say to the subject:
“You know what a fable is? You have heard fables?” Whatever the answer, proceed to explain a fable as follows: “A fable, you know, is a little story, and is meant to teach us a lesson. Now, I am going to read a fable to you. Listen carefully, and when I am through I will ask you to tell me what lesson the fable teaches us. Ready; listen.” After reading the fable, say: “What lesson does that teach us?” Record the responseverbatimand proceed with the next as follows: “Here is another. Listen again and tell me what lesson this fable teaches us,” etc.
As far as possible, avoid comment or commendation until all the fables have been given. If the first answer is of an inferior type and we express too much satisfaction with it, we thereby encourage the subject to continue in his error. On the other hand, never express dissatisfaction with a response, however absurd ormalaproposit may be. Many subjects are anxious to know how well they are doing and continually ask, “Did I get that one right?” It is sufficient to say, “You are getting along nicely,” or something to that effect. Offer no comments, suggestions, or questions which might put the subject on the right track. This much self-control is necessary if we would make the conditions of the test uniform for all subjects.
The only occasion when a supplementary question is permissible is in case of a response whose meaning is not clear. Even then we must be cautious and restrict ourselves to some such question as, “What do you mean?” or, “Explain; I don’t quite understand what you mean.” The scoring of fables is somewhat difficult at best, and this additional question is often sufficient to place the response very definitely in the right or wrong column.
Scoring.Give score 2, i.e., 2 points, for a correct answer, and 1 for an answer which deserves half credit. The test is passed in year XIIif 4 points are earned; that is, if tworesponses are correct or if one is correct and two deserve half credit.
Score 2 means that the fable has been correctly interpreted and that the lesson it teaches has been stated in general terms.
There are two types of response which may be given half credit. They include (1) the interpretations which are stated in general terms and are fairly plausible, but are not exactly correct; and (2) those which are perfectly correct as to substance, but are not generalized.
We overlook ordinary faults of expression and regard merely the essential meaning of the response.
The only way to explain the method is by giving copious illustrations. If the following sample responses are carefully studied, a reasonable degree of expertness in scoring fables may be acquired with only a limited amount of actual practice. The sampling may appear to the reader needlessly prolix, but experience has taught us that in giving directions for the scoring of tests error always lies on the side of taking too much for granted.
(a) Hercules and the WagonerFull credit; score 2.“God helps those who help themselves.” “Do not depend on others.” “Help yourself before calling for help.” “It teaches that we should rely upon ourselves.”The following are not quite so good, but are nevertheless considered satisfactory. “We should always try, even if it looks hard and we think we can’t do it.” “When in trouble try to get out of it yourself.” “We’ve got to do things without help.” “Not to be lazy.”Half credit; score 1.This is most often given for the response which contains the correct idea, but states it in terms of the concrete situation, e.g.: “The man ought to have tried himself first.” “Hercules wanted to teach the man to help himself.” “The driver was too much inclined to depend on others.” “The man was too lazy. He should not have called for help until he hadtried to get out by himself.” “To get out and try instead of watching.”Unsatisfactory; score 0.Failures are mainly of five varieties: (1) generalized interpretations which entirely miss the point; (2) crude interpretations which not only miss the point, but are also stated in terms of the concrete situation; (3) irrelevant or incoherent remarks; (4) efforts to repeat the story; and (5) inability to respond.Sample failures of type (1), entirely incorrect generalizations: “Teaches us to look where we are going.” “Not to ask for anything when there is no one to help.” “To help those who are in trouble.” “Teaches us to be polite.” “How to help others.” “Not to be cruel to horses.” “Always to do what people tell you” (or “obey orders,” etc.). “Not to be foolish” (or stupid, etc.). “If you would have a thing well done, do it yourself.”Failures of type (2), crude interpretations stated in concrete terms: “How to get out of the mud.” “Not to get stuck in the mud.” “To carry a stick along to pry yourself out if you get into a mud-hole.” “To help any one who is stuck in the mud.” “Taught Hercules to help the horses along and not whip them too hard.” “Not to be mean like Hercules.”Failures of type (3), irrelevant responses: “It was foolish not to thank him.” “He should have helped the driver.” “Hercules was mean.” “If any one helps himself the horses will try.” “The driver should have done what Hercules told him.” “He wanted the man to help the oxen.”Type (4): Efforts to repeat the story.Type (5): Inability to respond.(b) The Maid and the EggsFull credit; score 2.“Teaches us not to build air-castles.” “Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.” “Not to plan too far ahead.” Slightly inferior, but still acceptable: “Never make too many plans.” “Don’t count on the second thing till you have done the first.”Half credit; score 1.“It teaches us not to have our minds on the future when we carry milk on the head.” “She was building air-castles and so lost her milk.” “She was planning too far ahead.”The responses just given are examples of fairly correct interpretations in non-generalized terms. The following are examples of generalized interpretations which fall below the accuracy requiredfor full credit: “Never make plans.” “Not to be too proud.” “To keep our mind on what we are doing.” “Don’t cross a bridge till you come to it.” “Don’t count youreggsbefore they are hatched.” “Not to be wanting things; learn to wait.” “Not to imagine; go ahead and do it.”Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), entirely incorrect generalization: “That money does not buy everything.” “Not to be greedy.” “Not to be selfish.” “Not to waste things.” “Not to take risks like that.” “Not to think about clothes.” “Count your chickens before they are hatched.”Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms: “Not to carry milk on the head.” “Teaches her to watch and not throw down her head.” “To carry her head straight.” “Not to spill milk.” “To keep your chickens and you will make more money.”Type (3), irrelevant responses: “She wanted the money.” “Teaches us to read and write” (18-year-old of 8-year intelligence). “About a girl who was selling some milk.”Type (4), effort to repeat the story.Type (5), inability to respond.(c) The Fox and the CrowFull credit; score 2.“Teaches us not to listen to flattery.” “Don’t let yourself be flattered.” “It is not safe to believe people who flatter us.” “We had better look out for people who brag on us.”Half credit; score 1.Correct idea in concrete terms: “The crow was so proud of herself that she lost all she had.” “The crow listened to flattery and got left.” “Not to be proud and let people think you can sing when you can’t.” “If anybody brags on you don’t sing or do what he tells you.”Pertinent but somewhat inferior generalizations: “Not to be too proud.” “Pride goes before a fall.” “To be on our guard against people who are our enemies.” “Not to do everything people tell you.” “Don’t trust every slick fellow you meet.”Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), incorrect generalization: “Not to go with people you don’t know.” “Not to be selfish.” “To share your food.” “Look before you leap.” “Not to listen to evil.” “Not to steal.” “Teaches honesty.” “Not to covet.” “Think for yourself.” “Teaches wisdom.” “Never listen to advice.” “Never let any one get ahead of you.” “To figure out what they are goingto do.” “Never try to do two things at once.” “How to get what you want.”Type (2), very crude interpretation stated in terms of the concrete situation: “Not to sing before you eat.” “Not to hold a thing in your mouth; eat it.” “To eat a thing before you think of your beauty.” “To swallow it before you sing.” “To be on your watch when you have food in your mouth.”Type (3), irrelevant responses: “The fox was greedy.” “The fox was slicker than what the crow was.” “The crow ought not to have opened her mouth.” “The crow should just have shaken her head.” “It served the crow right for stealing the meat.” “The fox wanted the meat and just told the crow that to get it.” “Foolishness.” “Guess that’s where the old fox got his name—‘Old Foxy’—Don’t teach us anything.”Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.Type (5), inability to respond.(d) The Farmer and the StorkFull credit; score 2.“You are judged by the company you keep.” “Teaches us to keep out of bad company.” “Birds of a feather flock together.” “If you go with bad people you are counted like them.” “We should choose our friends carefully.” “Don’t go with bad people.” “Teaches us to avoid the appearance of evil.”Half credit; score 1.“The stork should not have been with the cranes.” “Teaches him not to go with robbers.” “Don’t go with people who are not of your nation.” “Not to follow others.”Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), incorrect generalization: “Not to steal.” “Not to tell lies.” “Not to give excuses.” “A poor excuse is better than none.” “Not to trust what people say.” “Not to listen to excuses.” “Not to harm animals that do no harm.” “To have pity on others.” “Not to be cruel.” “To be kind to birds.” “Not to blame people for what they don’t do.” “Teaches that those who do good often suffer for those who do evil.” “To tend to your own business.” “Not to meddle with other people’s things.” “Not to trespass on people’s property.” “Not to think you are so nice.” “To keep out of mischief.”Type (2), very crude interpretations in concrete terms: “Taught the stork to look where it stepped and not walk into a trap.” “Taught the stork to keep out of the man’s field.” “Not to take the seeds.”Type (3), irrelevant responses: “The farmer was right; storksdo eat grain.” “Served the stork right, he was stealing too.” “He should try to help the stork out of the field.”Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.Type (5), inability to reply.(e) The Miller, His Son, and the DonkeyFull credit; score 2.“When you try to please everybody you please nobody.” “Don’t listen to everybody; you can’t please them all.” “Don’t take every one’s advice.” “Don’t try to do what everybody tells you.” “Use your own judgment.” “Have a mind of your own.” “Make up your mind and stick to it.” “Don’t be wishy-washy.” “Have confidence in your own opinions.”Half credit; score 1.Interpretations which are generalized but somewhat inferior: “Never take any one’s advice” (too sweeping a conclusion). “Don’t take foolish advice.” “Take your own advice.” “It teaches us that people don’t always agree.”Correct idea but not generalized: “They were fools to listen to everybody.” “They should have walked or rode just as they thought best, without listening to other people.”Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), incorrect generalization: “To do right.” “To do what people tell you.” “To be kind to old people.” “To be polite.” “To serve others.” “Not to be cruel to animals.” “To have sympathy for beasts of burden.” “To be good-natured.” “Not to load things on animals that are small.” “That it is always better to leave things as they are.” “That men were not made for beasts of burden.”Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms: “Not to try to carry the donkey.” “That walking is better than riding.” “The people should have been more polite to the old man.” “That the father should be allowed to ride.”Type (3), irrelevant responses: “The men were too heavy for the donkey.” “They ought to have stayed on and they would not have fallen into the stream.” “It teaches about a man and he lost his donkey.”Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.Type (5), inability to respond.
Full credit; score 2.“God helps those who help themselves.” “Do not depend on others.” “Help yourself before calling for help.” “It teaches that we should rely upon ourselves.”
The following are not quite so good, but are nevertheless considered satisfactory. “We should always try, even if it looks hard and we think we can’t do it.” “When in trouble try to get out of it yourself.” “We’ve got to do things without help.” “Not to be lazy.”
Half credit; score 1.This is most often given for the response which contains the correct idea, but states it in terms of the concrete situation, e.g.: “The man ought to have tried himself first.” “Hercules wanted to teach the man to help himself.” “The driver was too much inclined to depend on others.” “The man was too lazy. He should not have called for help until he hadtried to get out by himself.” “To get out and try instead of watching.”
Unsatisfactory; score 0.Failures are mainly of five varieties: (1) generalized interpretations which entirely miss the point; (2) crude interpretations which not only miss the point, but are also stated in terms of the concrete situation; (3) irrelevant or incoherent remarks; (4) efforts to repeat the story; and (5) inability to respond.
Sample failures of type (1), entirely incorrect generalizations: “Teaches us to look where we are going.” “Not to ask for anything when there is no one to help.” “To help those who are in trouble.” “Teaches us to be polite.” “How to help others.” “Not to be cruel to horses.” “Always to do what people tell you” (or “obey orders,” etc.). “Not to be foolish” (or stupid, etc.). “If you would have a thing well done, do it yourself.”
Failures of type (2), crude interpretations stated in concrete terms: “How to get out of the mud.” “Not to get stuck in the mud.” “To carry a stick along to pry yourself out if you get into a mud-hole.” “To help any one who is stuck in the mud.” “Taught Hercules to help the horses along and not whip them too hard.” “Not to be mean like Hercules.”
Failures of type (3), irrelevant responses: “It was foolish not to thank him.” “He should have helped the driver.” “Hercules was mean.” “If any one helps himself the horses will try.” “The driver should have done what Hercules told him.” “He wanted the man to help the oxen.”
Type (4): Efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5): Inability to respond.
Full credit; score 2.“Teaches us not to build air-castles.” “Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.” “Not to plan too far ahead.” Slightly inferior, but still acceptable: “Never make too many plans.” “Don’t count on the second thing till you have done the first.”
Half credit; score 1.“It teaches us not to have our minds on the future when we carry milk on the head.” “She was building air-castles and so lost her milk.” “She was planning too far ahead.”
The responses just given are examples of fairly correct interpretations in non-generalized terms. The following are examples of generalized interpretations which fall below the accuracy requiredfor full credit: “Never make plans.” “Not to be too proud.” “To keep our mind on what we are doing.” “Don’t cross a bridge till you come to it.” “Don’t count youreggsbefore they are hatched.” “Not to be wanting things; learn to wait.” “Not to imagine; go ahead and do it.”
Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), entirely incorrect generalization: “That money does not buy everything.” “Not to be greedy.” “Not to be selfish.” “Not to waste things.” “Not to take risks like that.” “Not to think about clothes.” “Count your chickens before they are hatched.”
Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms: “Not to carry milk on the head.” “Teaches her to watch and not throw down her head.” “To carry her head straight.” “Not to spill milk.” “To keep your chickens and you will make more money.”
Type (3), irrelevant responses: “She wanted the money.” “Teaches us to read and write” (18-year-old of 8-year intelligence). “About a girl who was selling some milk.”
Type (4), effort to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to respond.
Full credit; score 2.“Teaches us not to listen to flattery.” “Don’t let yourself be flattered.” “It is not safe to believe people who flatter us.” “We had better look out for people who brag on us.”
Half credit; score 1.Correct idea in concrete terms: “The crow was so proud of herself that she lost all she had.” “The crow listened to flattery and got left.” “Not to be proud and let people think you can sing when you can’t.” “If anybody brags on you don’t sing or do what he tells you.”
Pertinent but somewhat inferior generalizations: “Not to be too proud.” “Pride goes before a fall.” “To be on our guard against people who are our enemies.” “Not to do everything people tell you.” “Don’t trust every slick fellow you meet.”
Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), incorrect generalization: “Not to go with people you don’t know.” “Not to be selfish.” “To share your food.” “Look before you leap.” “Not to listen to evil.” “Not to steal.” “Teaches honesty.” “Not to covet.” “Think for yourself.” “Teaches wisdom.” “Never listen to advice.” “Never let any one get ahead of you.” “To figure out what they are goingto do.” “Never try to do two things at once.” “How to get what you want.”
Type (2), very crude interpretation stated in terms of the concrete situation: “Not to sing before you eat.” “Not to hold a thing in your mouth; eat it.” “To eat a thing before you think of your beauty.” “To swallow it before you sing.” “To be on your watch when you have food in your mouth.”
Type (3), irrelevant responses: “The fox was greedy.” “The fox was slicker than what the crow was.” “The crow ought not to have opened her mouth.” “The crow should just have shaken her head.” “It served the crow right for stealing the meat.” “The fox wanted the meat and just told the crow that to get it.” “Foolishness.” “Guess that’s where the old fox got his name—‘Old Foxy’—Don’t teach us anything.”
Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to respond.
Full credit; score 2.“You are judged by the company you keep.” “Teaches us to keep out of bad company.” “Birds of a feather flock together.” “If you go with bad people you are counted like them.” “We should choose our friends carefully.” “Don’t go with bad people.” “Teaches us to avoid the appearance of evil.”
Half credit; score 1.“The stork should not have been with the cranes.” “Teaches him not to go with robbers.” “Don’t go with people who are not of your nation.” “Not to follow others.”
Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), incorrect generalization: “Not to steal.” “Not to tell lies.” “Not to give excuses.” “A poor excuse is better than none.” “Not to trust what people say.” “Not to listen to excuses.” “Not to harm animals that do no harm.” “To have pity on others.” “Not to be cruel.” “To be kind to birds.” “Not to blame people for what they don’t do.” “Teaches that those who do good often suffer for those who do evil.” “To tend to your own business.” “Not to meddle with other people’s things.” “Not to trespass on people’s property.” “Not to think you are so nice.” “To keep out of mischief.”
Type (2), very crude interpretations in concrete terms: “Taught the stork to look where it stepped and not walk into a trap.” “Taught the stork to keep out of the man’s field.” “Not to take the seeds.”
Type (3), irrelevant responses: “The farmer was right; storksdo eat grain.” “Served the stork right, he was stealing too.” “He should try to help the stork out of the field.”
Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to reply.
Full credit; score 2.“When you try to please everybody you please nobody.” “Don’t listen to everybody; you can’t please them all.” “Don’t take every one’s advice.” “Don’t try to do what everybody tells you.” “Use your own judgment.” “Have a mind of your own.” “Make up your mind and stick to it.” “Don’t be wishy-washy.” “Have confidence in your own opinions.”
Half credit; score 1.Interpretations which are generalized but somewhat inferior: “Never take any one’s advice” (too sweeping a conclusion). “Don’t take foolish advice.” “Take your own advice.” “It teaches us that people don’t always agree.”
Correct idea but not generalized: “They were fools to listen to everybody.” “They should have walked or rode just as they thought best, without listening to other people.”
Unsatisfactory; score 0.Type (1), incorrect generalization: “To do right.” “To do what people tell you.” “To be kind to old people.” “To be polite.” “To serve others.” “Not to be cruel to animals.” “To have sympathy for beasts of burden.” “To be good-natured.” “Not to load things on animals that are small.” “That it is always better to leave things as they are.” “That men were not made for beasts of burden.”
Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms: “Not to try to carry the donkey.” “That walking is better than riding.” “The people should have been more polite to the old man.” “That the father should be allowed to ride.”
Type (3), irrelevant responses: “The men were too heavy for the donkey.” “They ought to have stayed on and they would not have fallen into the stream.” “It teaches about a man and he lost his donkey.”
Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to respond.
Remarks.The fable test, or the “test of generalization,” as it may aptly be named, was used by the writer in a studyof the intellectual processes of bright and dull boys in 1905,[71]and was further standardized by the writer and Mr. Childs in 1911.[72]It has proved its worth in a number of investigations. It has been necessary, however, to simplify the rather elaborate method of scoring which was proposed in 1911, not because of any logical fault of the method, but because of the difficulty in teaching examiners to use the system correctly. The method explained above is somewhat coarser, but it has the advantage of being much easier to learn.
The generalization test presents for interpretation situations which are closely paralleled in the everyday social experience of human beings. It tests the subject’s ability to understand motives underlying acts or attitudes. It gives a clue to the status of the social consciousness. This is highly important in the diagnosis of the upper range of mental defectiveness. The criterion of the subnormal’s fitness for life outside an institution is his ability to understand social relations and to adjust himself to them. Failure of a subnormal to meet this criterion may lead him to break common conventions, and to appear disrespectful, sulky, stubborn, or in some other way queer and exceptional. He is likely to be misunderstood, because he so easily misunderstands others. The skein of human motives is too complex for his limited intelligence to untangle.
Ethnological studies have shown in an interesting way the social origin of the moral judgment. The rectitude of the moral life, therefore, depends on the accuracy of the social judgment. It would be interesting to know what proportion of offenders have transgressed moral codes because of continued failure to grasp the essential lessons presented by human situations.
For the intelligent child even the common incidents of life carry an endless succession of lessons in right conduct. On the average school playground not an hour passes without some happening which is fraught with a moral hint to those who have intelligence enough to generalize the situation. A boy plays unfairly and is barred from the game. One bullies his weaker companion and arouses the anger and scorn of all his fellows. Another vents his braggadocio and feels at once the withering scorn of those who listen. Laziness, selfishness, meanness, dishonesty, ingratitude, inconstancy, inordinate pride, and the countless other faults all have their social penalties. The child of normal intelligence sees the point, draws the appropriate lesson and (provided emotions and will are also normal) applies it more or less effectively as a guide to his own conduct. To the feeble-minded child, all but lacking in the power of abstraction and generalization, the situation conveys no such lesson. It is but a muddle of concrete events without general significance; or even if its meaning is vaguely apprehended, the powers of inhibition are insufficient to guarantee that right action will follow.
It is for this reason that the generalization test is so valuable in the mental examinations of delinquents. It presents a moral situation, imagined, to be sure, but none the less real to the individual of normal comprehension. It tells us quickly whether the subject tested is able to see beyond the incidents of the given situation and to grasp their wider relations—whether he is able to generalize the concrete.
The following responses made by feeble-minded delinquents from 16 to 21 years of age demonstrate sufficiently their inability to comprehend the moral situation:—
Hercules and the Wagoner.“Teaches you to look where you are going.” “Not to help any one who is stuck in the mud.” “Notto whip oxen.” “Teaches that Hercules was mean.” “Teaches us to carry a stick along to pry the wheels out.”The Fox and the Crow.“Not to sing when eating.” “To keep away from strangers.” “To swallow it before you sing.” “Not to be stingy.” “Not to listen to evil.” “The fox was wiser than the crow.” “Not to be selfish with food.” “Not to do two things at once.” “To hang on to what you’ve got.”The Farmer and the Stork.“Teaches the stork to look where he steps.” “Not to be cruel like the farmer.” “Not to tell lies.” “Not to butt into other people’s things.” “To be kind to birds.” “Teaches us how to get rid of troublesome people.” “Never go with anything else.”
Hercules and the Wagoner.“Teaches you to look where you are going.” “Not to help any one who is stuck in the mud.” “Notto whip oxen.” “Teaches that Hercules was mean.” “Teaches us to carry a stick along to pry the wheels out.”
The Fox and the Crow.“Not to sing when eating.” “To keep away from strangers.” “To swallow it before you sing.” “Not to be stingy.” “Not to listen to evil.” “The fox was wiser than the crow.” “Not to be selfish with food.” “Not to do two things at once.” “To hang on to what you’ve got.”
The Farmer and the Stork.“Teaches the stork to look where he steps.” “Not to be cruel like the farmer.” “Not to tell lies.” “Not to butt into other people’s things.” “To be kind to birds.” “Teaches us how to get rid of troublesome people.” “Never go with anything else.”
The following are the responses of an 18-year-old delinquent (intelligence level 10 years) to the five fables:—
Maid and Eggs.“She was thinking about getting the dress and spilled the milk. Teaches selfishness.”Hercules and the Wagoner.“He wanted to help the oxen out.”Fox and Crow.“Guess that’s where the fox got his name—‘Old Foxy.’ Don’t teach us anything.”Farmer and Stork.“Try and help the stork out of the field.”Miller, Son, and Donkey.“They was all big fools and mean to the donkey.”
Maid and Eggs.“She was thinking about getting the dress and spilled the milk. Teaches selfishness.”
Hercules and the Wagoner.“He wanted to help the oxen out.”
Fox and Crow.“Guess that’s where the fox got his name—‘Old Foxy.’ Don’t teach us anything.”
Farmer and Stork.“Try and help the stork out of the field.”
Miller, Son, and Donkey.“They was all big fools and mean to the donkey.”
One does not require very profound psychological insight to see that a person of this degree of comprehension is not promising material for moral education. His weakness in the ability to generalize a moral situation is not due to lack of instruction, but is inherent in the nature of his mental processes, all of which have the infantile quality of average 9- or 10-year intelligence. Well-instructed normal children of 10 years ordinarily succeed no better. The ability to draw the correct lesson from a social situation is little developed below the mental level of 12 or 13 years.
The test is also valuable because it throws light on the subject’s ability to appreciate the finer shades of meaning. The mentally retarded often show marked inferiority in thisrespect. They sense, perhaps, in a general way the trend of the story, but they fail to comprehend much that to us seems clearly expressed. They do not get what is left for the reader to infer, because they are insensible to the thought fringes. It is these which give meaning to the fable. The dull subject may be able to image the objects and activities described, but taken in the rough such imagery gets him nowhere.
Finally, the test is almost free from the danger of coaching. The subject who has been given a number of fables along with twenty-five or thirty other tests can as a rule give only hazy and inaccurate testimony as to what he has been put through. Moreover, we have found that, even if a subject has previously heard a fable, that fact does not materially increase his chances of giving a correct interpretation. If the situation depicted in the fable is beyond the subject’s power of comprehension even explicit instruction has little effect upon the quality of the response.
Incidentally, this observation raises the question whether the use of proverbs, mottoes, fables, poetry, etc., in the moral instruction of children may not often be futile because the material is not fitted to the child’s power of comprehension. Much of the school’s instruction in history and literature has a moral purpose, but there is reason to suspect that in this field schools often make precocious attempts in “generalizing” exercises.