The series are 3–1–8–7–9; 6–9–4–8–2; 5–2–9–6–1.
ProcedureandScoring. Exactly as in yearsVIIandIX.[73]
Procedure.Use the same pictures as inIII, 1, andVII, 2, and the additional pictured. Present in the same order. The formula to begin with is identical with that inVII, 2: “Tell me what this picture is about. What is this a picture of?” This formula is chosen because it does not suggest specifically either description or interpretation, and is therefore adapted to show the child’s spontaneous or natural mode of apperception. However, in case, this formula fails to bring spontaneous interpretation for three of the four pictures, we then return to those pictures on which the subject has failed and give a second trial with the formula: “Explain this picture.” A good many subjects who failed to interpret the pictures spontaneously do so without difficulty when the more specific formula is used.
If the response is so brief as to be difficult to classify, the subject should be urged to amplify by some such injunction as “Go ahead,” or “Explain what you mean.”
One more caution. It is necessary to refrain from voicing a single word of commendation or approval until all the pictures have been responded to. A moment’s thought will reveal the absolute necessity of adhering to this rule. Often a subject will begin by giving an inferior type of response (description, say) to the first picture, but with the second picture adjusts better to the task and responds satisfactorily. If in such a case the first (unsatisfactory) response were greeted with an approving “That’s fine, you are doing splendidly,” the likelihood of any improvement taking place as the test proceeds would be greatly lessened.
Scoring.Three pictures out of fourmust be satisfactorily interpreted. “Satisfactorily” means that the interpretation given should be reasonably plausible; not necessarily the exact one the artist had in mind, yet not absurd. Thefollowing classified responses will serve as a fairly secure guide for scoring:—
(a) Dutch HomeSatisfactory.“Child has spilled something and is getting a scolding.” “The baby has hurt herself and the mother is comforting her.” “The baby is crying because she is hungry and the mother has nothing to give her.” “The little girl has been naughty and is about to be punished.” “The baby is crying because she does not like her dinner.” “There’s bread on the table and the mother won’t let the little girl have it and so she is crying.” “The baby is begging for something and is crying because her mamma won’t give it to her.” “It’s a poor family. The father is dead and they don’t have enough to eat.”Unsatisfactory.“The baby is crying and the mother is looking at her” (description). “It’s in Holland, and there’s a little girl crying, and a mamma, and there’s a dish on the table” (mainly description). “The mother is teaching the child to walk” (absurd interpretation).(b) River SceneSatisfactory.“Man and lady eloping to get married and an Indian to row for them.” “I think it represents a honeymoon trip.” “In frontier days and a man and his wife have been captured by the Indians.” “It’s a perilous journey and they have engaged the Indian to row for them.”Unsatisfactory.“They are shooting the rapids.” “An Indian rowing a man and his wife down the river” (mainly description). “A storm at sea” (absurd interpretation). “Indians have rescued a couple from a shipwreck.” “They have been up the river and are riding down the rapids.”The following responses are somewhat doubtful, but should probably be scoredminus: “People going out hunting and have Indian for a guide.” “The man has rescued the woman from the Indians.” “It’s a camping trip.”(c) Post-OfficeSatisfactory.“It’s a lot of old farmers. They have come to the post-office to get the paper, which only comes once a week, and they are all happy.” “There’s something funny in the paper about one of the men and they are all laughing about it.” “They arereading about the price of eggs, and they look very happy so I guess the price has gone up.” “It’s a bunch of country politicians reading the election news.”Unsatisfactory.“A man has just come out of the post-office and is reading to his friends.” “It’s a little country town and they are looking at the paper.” “A man is reading the paper and the others are looking on and laughing.” “Some men are reading a paper and laughing, and the other man has brought some eggs to market, and it’s in a little country town.” (All the above are mainly description.)Responses like the following are somewhat better, but hardly satisfactory: “They are reading something funny in the paper.” “They are reading the ads.” “They are laughing about something in the newspaper,” etc.(d) Colonial HomeSatisfactory.“They are lovers and have quarreled.” “The man has to go away for a long time, maybe to war, and she is afraid he won’t return.” “He has proposed and she has rejected him, and she is crying because she hated to disappoint him.” “The woman is crying because her husband is angry and leaving her.” “The man is a messenger and has brought the woman bad news.”Unsatisfactory.“The husband is leaving and the dog is looking at the lady.” “It’s a picture to show how people dressed in colonial times.” “The lady is crying and the man is trying to comfort her.” “The man is going away. The woman is angry because he is going. The dog has a ball in its mouth and looks happy, and the man looks sad.”Such responses as the following are doubtful, but ratherminusthanplus: “A picture of George Washington’s home.” “They have lost their money and they are sad” (gratuitous interpretation). “The man has struck the woman.”Doubt sometimes arises as to the proper scoring of imaginative or gratuitous interpretations. The following are samples of such: (a) “The little girl is crying because she wants a new dress and the mother is telling her she can have one when Christmas comes if she will be good.” (b) “The man and woman have gone up the river to visit some friends and an Indian guide is bringing them home.” (c) “Some old Rubes are reading about a circus that’s going to come.” (d) “Napoleon leaving his wife.”
Satisfactory.“Child has spilled something and is getting a scolding.” “The baby has hurt herself and the mother is comforting her.” “The baby is crying because she is hungry and the mother has nothing to give her.” “The little girl has been naughty and is about to be punished.” “The baby is crying because she does not like her dinner.” “There’s bread on the table and the mother won’t let the little girl have it and so she is crying.” “The baby is begging for something and is crying because her mamma won’t give it to her.” “It’s a poor family. The father is dead and they don’t have enough to eat.”
Unsatisfactory.“The baby is crying and the mother is looking at her” (description). “It’s in Holland, and there’s a little girl crying, and a mamma, and there’s a dish on the table” (mainly description). “The mother is teaching the child to walk” (absurd interpretation).
Satisfactory.“Man and lady eloping to get married and an Indian to row for them.” “I think it represents a honeymoon trip.” “In frontier days and a man and his wife have been captured by the Indians.” “It’s a perilous journey and they have engaged the Indian to row for them.”
Unsatisfactory.“They are shooting the rapids.” “An Indian rowing a man and his wife down the river” (mainly description). “A storm at sea” (absurd interpretation). “Indians have rescued a couple from a shipwreck.” “They have been up the river and are riding down the rapids.”
The following responses are somewhat doubtful, but should probably be scoredminus: “People going out hunting and have Indian for a guide.” “The man has rescued the woman from the Indians.” “It’s a camping trip.”
Satisfactory.“It’s a lot of old farmers. They have come to the post-office to get the paper, which only comes once a week, and they are all happy.” “There’s something funny in the paper about one of the men and they are all laughing about it.” “They arereading about the price of eggs, and they look very happy so I guess the price has gone up.” “It’s a bunch of country politicians reading the election news.”
Unsatisfactory.“A man has just come out of the post-office and is reading to his friends.” “It’s a little country town and they are looking at the paper.” “A man is reading the paper and the others are looking on and laughing.” “Some men are reading a paper and laughing, and the other man has brought some eggs to market, and it’s in a little country town.” (All the above are mainly description.)
Responses like the following are somewhat better, but hardly satisfactory: “They are reading something funny in the paper.” “They are reading the ads.” “They are laughing about something in the newspaper,” etc.
Satisfactory.“They are lovers and have quarreled.” “The man has to go away for a long time, maybe to war, and she is afraid he won’t return.” “He has proposed and she has rejected him, and she is crying because she hated to disappoint him.” “The woman is crying because her husband is angry and leaving her.” “The man is a messenger and has brought the woman bad news.”
Unsatisfactory.“The husband is leaving and the dog is looking at the lady.” “It’s a picture to show how people dressed in colonial times.” “The lady is crying and the man is trying to comfort her.” “The man is going away. The woman is angry because he is going. The dog has a ball in its mouth and looks happy, and the man looks sad.”
Such responses as the following are doubtful, but ratherminusthanplus: “A picture of George Washington’s home.” “They have lost their money and they are sad” (gratuitous interpretation). “The man has struck the woman.”
Doubt sometimes arises as to the proper scoring of imaginative or gratuitous interpretations. The following are samples of such: (a) “The little girl is crying because she wants a new dress and the mother is telling her she can have one when Christmas comes if she will be good.” (b) “The man and woman have gone up the river to visit some friends and an Indian guide is bringing them home.” (c) “Some old Rubes are reading about a circus that’s going to come.” (d) “Napoleon leaving his wife.”
Sometimes these imaginative responses are given by very bright subjects, under the impression that they are asked to “make up” a story based on the picture. We may score themplus, provided they are not too much out of harmony with the situation and actions represented in the picture. Interpretations so gratuitous as to have little or no bearing upon the scene depicted should be scoredminus.
Remarks.The test of picture interpretation has been variously located from 12 to 15 years. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that everything depends on the nature of the pictures used, the form in which the question is put, and the standard for scoring. The Jingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann are as easy to interpret at 10 years as the Stanford pictures at 12. Spontaneous interpretation (“What is this a picture of?” or “What do you see in this picture?”) comes no more readily at 14 years than provoked interpretation (“Explain this picture”) at 12. The standard of scoring is no less important. If with the Stanford pictures we require three satisfactory responses out of four, the test belongs at the 12-year level, but the standard of two correct out of four can be met a year or two earlier.
Even after we have agreed upon a given series of pictures, the formula for giving the test, and upon the requisite number of passes, there remains still the question as to the proper degree of liberality in deciding what constitutes interpretation. There is no single point in mental development where the “ability to interpret pictures” sweeps in with a rush. Like the development of most other abilities, it comes by slow degrees, beginning even as early as 6 years.
The question is, therefore, to decide whether a given response contains as much and as good interpretation aswe have a right to expect at the age level where the test has been placed. It is imperative for any one who would use the scale correctly to acquaint himself thoroughly with the procedure and standards described above.
Procedure.The procedure is the same as inVIII, 4, but with the following words:—
As before, a little tactful urging is occasionally necessary in order to secure a response.
Scoring.Three satisfactory responses out of fiveare necessary for success. Any real similarity is acceptable, whether fundamental or superficial, although the giving of fundamental likenesses is especially symptomatic of good intelligence.
Failures may be classified under four heads: (1) Leaving one of the words out of consideration; (2) giving a difference instead of a similarity; (3) giving a similarity that is not real or that is too bizarre or far-fetched; and (4) inability to respond. Types (1), (3), and (4) are almost equally numerous, while type (2) is not often encountered at this level of intelligence.
This test provokes doubtful responses somewhat oftener than the earlier test of giving similarities. Those giving greatest difficulty are the indefinite statements like “All are useful,” “All are made of the same material,” etc. Fortunately, in most of these cases an additional question is sufficient to determine whether the subject has in minda real similarity. Questions suitable for this purpose are: “Explain what you mean,” “In what respect are they all useful?” “What material do you mean?” etc. Of course it is only permissible to make use of supplementary questions of this kind when they are necessary in order to clarify a response which has already been made.
While the amateur examiner is likely to have more or less trouble in deciding upon scores, this difficulty rapidly disappears with experience. The following samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses will serve as a fairly adequate guide in dealing with doubtful cases:—
(a) Snake, cow, sparrowSatisfactory.“All are animals” (or creatures, etc.). “All live on the land.” “All have blood” (or flesh, bones, eyes, skin, etc.). “All move about.” “All breathe air.” “All are useful” (plusonly if subject can give a use which they have in common). “All have a little intelligence” (or sense, instinct, etc.).Unsatisfactory.“All have legs.” “All are dangerous.” “All feed on grain” (or grass, etc.). “All are much afraid of man.” “All frighten you.” “All are warm-blooded.” “All get about the same way.” “All walk on the ground.” “All can bite.” “All holler.” “All drink water.” “A snake crawls, a cow walks, and a sparrow flies” (or some other difference). “They are not alike.”(b) Book, teacher, newspaperSatisfactory.“All teach.” “You learn from all.” “All give you information.” “All help you get an education.” “All are your good friends” (plusif subject can explain how). “All are useful” (plusif subject can explain how).Unsatisfactory.“All tell you the news.” “A teacher writes, and a book and newspaper have writing.” “They are not alike.” “All read.” “All use the alphabet.”(c) Wool, cotton, leatherSatisfactory.“All used for clothing.” “We wear them all.” “All grow” (plusif subject can explain). “All have to be sent to the factory to be made into things.” “All are useful” (plusifsubject can give a use which all have in common). “All are valuable” (plusif explained).Unsatisfactory.“All come from plants.” “All grow on animals.” “All came off the top of something.” “All are things.” “They are pretty.” “All spell alike.” “All are furry” (or soft, hard, etc.).(d) Knife-blade, penny, piece of wireSatisfactory. “All are made from minerals” (or metals). “All come from mines.” “All are hard material.”Unsatisfactory.“All are made of steel” (or copper, iron, etc.). “All are made of the same metal.” “All cut.” “All bend easily.” “All are used in building a house.” “All are worthless.” “All are useful in fixing things.” “All have an end.” “They are small.” “All weigh the same.” “Can get them all at a hardware store.” “You can buy things with all of them.” “You buy them with money.” “One is sharp, one is round, and one is long” (or some other difference).Such answers as “All are found in a boy’s pocket,” or “Boys like them,” are not altogether bad, but hardly deserve to be called satisfactory. “All are useful” isminusunless the subject can give a use which they have in common, which in this case he is not likely to do. Bizarre uses are alsominus; as, “All are good for a watch fob,” “Can use all for paper weights,” etc.(e) Rose, potato, treeSatisfactory.“All are plants.” “All grow from the ground.” “All have leaves” (or roots, etc.). “All have to be planted.” “All are parts of nature.” “All have colors.”Unsatisfactory.“All are pretty.” “All bear fruit.” “All have pretty flowers.” “All grow on bushes.” “All are valuable” (or useful). “They grow close to a house.” “All are ornamental.” “All are shrubbery.”
Satisfactory.“All are animals” (or creatures, etc.). “All live on the land.” “All have blood” (or flesh, bones, eyes, skin, etc.). “All move about.” “All breathe air.” “All are useful” (plusonly if subject can give a use which they have in common). “All have a little intelligence” (or sense, instinct, etc.).
Unsatisfactory.“All have legs.” “All are dangerous.” “All feed on grain” (or grass, etc.). “All are much afraid of man.” “All frighten you.” “All are warm-blooded.” “All get about the same way.” “All walk on the ground.” “All can bite.” “All holler.” “All drink water.” “A snake crawls, a cow walks, and a sparrow flies” (or some other difference). “They are not alike.”
Satisfactory.“All teach.” “You learn from all.” “All give you information.” “All help you get an education.” “All are your good friends” (plusif subject can explain how). “All are useful” (plusif subject can explain how).
Unsatisfactory.“All tell you the news.” “A teacher writes, and a book and newspaper have writing.” “They are not alike.” “All read.” “All use the alphabet.”
Satisfactory.“All used for clothing.” “We wear them all.” “All grow” (plusif subject can explain). “All have to be sent to the factory to be made into things.” “All are useful” (plusifsubject can give a use which all have in common). “All are valuable” (plusif explained).
Unsatisfactory.“All come from plants.” “All grow on animals.” “All came off the top of something.” “All are things.” “They are pretty.” “All spell alike.” “All are furry” (or soft, hard, etc.).
Satisfactory. “All are made from minerals” (or metals). “All come from mines.” “All are hard material.”
Unsatisfactory.“All are made of steel” (or copper, iron, etc.). “All are made of the same metal.” “All cut.” “All bend easily.” “All are used in building a house.” “All are worthless.” “All are useful in fixing things.” “All have an end.” “They are small.” “All weigh the same.” “Can get them all at a hardware store.” “You can buy things with all of them.” “You buy them with money.” “One is sharp, one is round, and one is long” (or some other difference).
Such answers as “All are found in a boy’s pocket,” or “Boys like them,” are not altogether bad, but hardly deserve to be called satisfactory. “All are useful” isminusunless the subject can give a use which they have in common, which in this case he is not likely to do. Bizarre uses are alsominus; as, “All are good for a watch fob,” “Can use all for paper weights,” etc.
Satisfactory.“All are plants.” “All grow from the ground.” “All have leaves” (or roots, etc.). “All have to be planted.” “All are parts of nature.” “All have colors.”
Unsatisfactory.“All are pretty.” “All bear fruit.” “All have pretty flowers.” “All grow on bushes.” “All are valuable” (or useful). “They grow close to a house.” “All are ornamental.” “All are shrubbery.”
Remarks.The words of each series lend themselves readily to classification into a next higher class. This is the best type of response, but with most of the series it accounts for less than two thirds of the successes among subjects of 12-year intelligence. The proportion is less than one third for subjects of 10-year intelligence and nearly three fourths at the 14-year level. It would be possible and very desirableto devise and standardize an additional test of this kind, but requiring the giving of an essential resemblance or classificatory similarity.
For discussion of the psychological factors involved in the similarities test, seeVII, 5.
FOOTNOTES:[68]SeeVIII, 6.[69]See also p.298ff.[70]See scoring card.[71]“Genius and Stupidity,” inPedagogical Seminary, vol. xiii, pp. 307–73.[72]“A Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence,”Journal of Educational Psychology(1912).[73]See discussion, p.207ff.
[68]SeeVIII, 6.
[68]SeeVIII, 6.
[69]See also p.298ff.
[69]See also p.298ff.
[70]See scoring card.
[70]See scoring card.
[71]“Genius and Stupidity,” inPedagogical Seminary, vol. xiii, pp. 307–73.
[71]“Genius and Stupidity,” inPedagogical Seminary, vol. xiii, pp. 307–73.
[72]“A Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence,”Journal of Educational Psychology(1912).
[72]“A Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence,”Journal of Educational Psychology(1912).
[73]See discussion, p.207ff.
[73]See discussion, p.207ff.
ProcedureandScoring, as inVIII,X, andXII. At year XIV fifty words must be correctly defined.
Procedure.Provide six sheets of thin blank paper, say 8½ × 11 inches. Take the first sheet, and telling the subject to watch what you do, fold it once, and in the middle of the folded edge tear out or cut out a small notch; then ask the subject to tell youhow many holes there will be in the paper when it is unfolded. The correct answer,one, is nearly always given without hesitation. But whatever the answer, unfold the paper and hold it up broadside for the subject’s inspection. Next, take another sheet, fold it once as before and say: “Now, when we folded it this way and tore out a piece, you remember it made one hole in the paper. This time we will give the paper another fold and see how many holes we shall have.” Then proceed to fold the paper again, this time in the other direction, and tear out a piece from the folded side and ask how many holes there will be when the paper is unfolded. After recording the answer, unfold the paper, hold it up before the subject so as to let him see the result. The answer is often incorrect and the unfolded sheet is greeted with an exclamation ofsurprise. The governing principle is seldom made out at this stage of the experiment. But regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the first and second answers, proceed with the third sheet. Fold it once and say: “When we folded it this way there was one hole.” Then fold it again and say: “And when we folded it this way there were two holes.” At this point fold the paper a third time and say: “Now, I am folding it again. How many holes will it have this time when I unfold it?” Record the answer and again unfold the paper while the subject looks on.
Continue in the same manner with sheets four, five, and six, adding one fold each time. In folding each sheet recapitulate the results with the previous sheets, saying (with the sixth, for example): “When we folded it this way there was one hole, when we folded it again there were two, when we folded it again there were four, when we folded it again there were eight, when we folded it again there were sixteen; now, tell me how many holes there will be if we fold it once more.” In the recapitulation avoid the expression “When we folded it once, twice, three times,” etc., as this often leads the subject to double the numeral heard instead of doubling the number of holes in the previously folded sheet. After the answer is given, do not fail to unfold the paper and let the subject view the result.
Scoring.The test is passedif the rule is grasped by the time the sixth sheet is reached; that is, the subject may pass after five incorrect responses, provided the sixth is correct and the governing rule can then be given. It is not permissible to ask for the rule until all six parts of the experiment have been given. Nothing must be said which could even suggest the operation of a rule. Often, however, the subject grasps the principle after two or three steps and gives it spontaneously. In this case it is unnecessary to proceed with the remaining steps.
Remarks.This test was first used by the writer in a comparative study of the intellectual processes of bright and dull boys in 1905, but it was not standardized until 1914. Rather extensive data indicate that it is a genuine test of intelligence. Of 14-year-old school children testing between 96 and 105 I Q, 59 per cent passed this test; of 14-year-olds testing below 96 I Q, 41 per cent passed; of those testing above 105, 71 per cent passed. That is, the test agrees well with the results obtained by the scale as a whole. Of “average adults” only 10 per cent fail; and of “superior adults,” fewer than 5 per cent. As a rule, the higher the grade of intelligence, the fewer the steps necessary for grasping the rule. Of the superior adults, only 35 per cent fail to get the rule as early as the end of the fourth step.
The test is little affected by schooling, and apart from differences in intelligence it is little influenced by age. Other advantages of the test are the keen interest it always arouses and its independence of language ability. It has been used successfully with immigrant subjects who had been in this country but a few months.
We have named the experiment an “induction test.” It might be supposed that the solution would ordinarily be arrived at by deduction, or by ana-priorilogical analysis of the principle involved. This, however, is rarely the case. Not one average adult out of ten reasons out the situation in this purely logical manner. It is ordinarily only after one or more mistakes have been made and have been exposed by the examiner holding up the unfolded paper to view that the correct principle is grasped. In the absence of deductive reasoning the subject must note that each unfolded sheet contains twice as many holes as the previous one, and must infer that folding the paper again will again double the number. The ability tested is the abilityto generalize from particulars where the common element of the particulars can be discerned only by the selective action of attention, in this case attention to the fact that each number is the double of its predecessor.
Procedure.Say: “There are three main differences between a president and a king; what are they?” If the subject stops after one difference is given, we urge him on, if possible, until three are given.
Scoring.The three differences relate to power, tenure, and manner of accession. Only these differences are considered correct, and the successful response must include at least two of the three. We disregard crudities of expression and note merely whether the subject has the essential idea. As regards power, for example, any of the following responses are satisfactory: “The king is absolute and the president is not.” “The king rules by himself, but the president rules with the help of the people.” “Kings can have things their own way more than presidents can,” etc.
It may be objected that the reverse of this is sometimes true, that the king of to-day often has less power than the average president. Sometimes subjects mention this fact, and when they do we credit them with this part of the test. As a matter of fact, however, this answer is seldom given.
Sometimes the subject does not stop until he has given a half-dozen or more differences, and in such cases the first three differences may be trivial and some of the later ones essential. The question then arises whether we should disregard the errors and pass the subject on his later correct responses. The rule in such cases is to ask the subject to pick out the “three main differences.”
Sometimes accession and tenure are given in the form of a single contrast, as: “The president is elected, but the king inherits his throne and rules for life.” This answer entitles the subject to credit for both accession and tenure, the contrast as regards tenure being plainly implied.
Unsatisfactory contrasts are of many kinds and are often amusing. Some of the most common are the following:—
“A king wears a crown.” “A king has jewels.” “A king sits on a throne.” (“A king sets on a thorn” as one feeble-minded boy put it!) “A king lives in a palace.” “A king has courtiers.” “A king is very dignified.” “A king dresses up more.” “A president has less pomp and ceremony.” “A president is more ready to receive the people.” “A king sits on a chair all the time and a president does not.” “No differences; it’s just names.” “A president does not give titles.” “A king has a larger salary.” “A king has royal blood.” “A king is in more danger.” “They have a different title.” “A king is more cruel.” “Kings have people beheaded.” “A king rules in a monarchy and a president in a republic.” “A king rules in a foreign country.” “A president is elected and a king fights for his office.” “A president appoints governors and a king does not.” “A president lets the lawyers make the laws.” “Everybody works for a king.”
“A king wears a crown.” “A king has jewels.” “A king sits on a throne.” (“A king sets on a thorn” as one feeble-minded boy put it!) “A king lives in a palace.” “A king has courtiers.” “A king is very dignified.” “A king dresses up more.” “A president has less pomp and ceremony.” “A president is more ready to receive the people.” “A king sits on a chair all the time and a president does not.” “No differences; it’s just names.” “A president does not give titles.” “A king has a larger salary.” “A king has royal blood.” “A king is in more danger.” “They have a different title.” “A king is more cruel.” “Kings have people beheaded.” “A king rules in a monarchy and a president in a republic.” “A king rules in a foreign country.” “A president is elected and a king fights for his office.” “A president appoints governors and a king does not.” “A president lets the lawyers make the laws.” “Everybody works for a king.”
It is surprising to see how often trivial differences like the above are given. About thirty “average adults” out of a hundred, including high-school students, give at least one unsatisfactory contrast.
The test has been criticized as depending too much on schooling. The criticism is to a certain extent valid when the test is used with young subjects, say of 10 or 12 years. It is not valid, however, if the use of the test is confined to older subjects. With the latter, it is not a test of knowledge, but of the discriminative capacity to deal with knowledge already in the possession of the subject. It would be difficult to find an adult, not actually feeble-minded, who is ignorant of the facts called for: That the king inherits histhrone, while the president is elected; that the tenure of the king is for life, and that of the president for a term of years; that kings ordinarily have, or are supposed to have, more power. Even the relatively stupid adult knows this; but he also knows that kings are different from presidents in having crowns, thrones, palaces, robes, courtiers, larger pay, etc., and he makes no discrimination as regards the relative importance of these differences.
The test is psychologically related to that ofgiving differencesinyear VIIand to thetwotestsof finding similarities; but it differs from these in requiring a comparison based on fundamental rather than accidental distinctions. The idea is good and should be worked out in additional tests of the same type.
The test first appeared in the Binet revised scale of 1911. Kuhlmann omits it, and besides our own there are few statistics bearing on it. Our results show that if two essential differences are required, the test belongs where we have placed it, but that if only one essential difference is required, the test is easy enough for year XII.
Procedure.Say to the subject: “Listen, and see if you can understand what I read.” Then read the following three problems, rather slowly and with expression, pausing after each long enough for the subject to find an answer:—
Do not ask questions calculated to draw out the correct response, but wait in silence for the subject’s spontaneous answer. It is permissible, however, to re-read the passage if the subject requests it.
Scoring.Two responses out of three must be satisfactory.The following explanations and examples will make clear the requirements of the test:—
(a) What the man saw hangingSatisfactory.The only correct answer for the first is “A man who had hung himself” (or who had committed suicide, been hanged, etc.). We may also pass the following answer: “Dead branches that looked like a man hanging.”A good many subjects answer simply, “A man.” This answer cannot be scored because of the impossibility of knowing what is in the subject’s mind, and in such cases it is always necessary to say: “Explain what you mean.” The answer to this interrogation always enables us to score the response.Unsatisfactory.There is an endless variety of failures: “A snake,” “A monkey,” “A robber,” or “A tramp” being the most common. Others include such answers as “A bear,” “A tiger,” “A wild cat,” “A cat,” “A bird,” “An eagle,” “A bird’s nest,” “A hornet’s nest,” “A leaf,” “A swing,” “A boy in a swing,” “A basket of flowers,” “An egg,” “A ghost,” “A white sheet,” “Clothes,” “A purse,” etc.(b) My neighborSatisfactory.The expected answer is “A death,” “Some one has died,” etc. We must always check up this response, however, by asking what the lawyer came for, and this must also be answered correctly.While it is expected that the subject will understand that the doctor came to attend a sick person, the lawyer to make his will,and the minister to preach the funeral, there are a few other ingenious interpretations which pass as satisfactory. For example, “A man got hurt in an accident; the doctor came to make him well, the lawyer to see about damages, and then he died and the preacher came for the funeral.” Or, “A man died, the lawyer came to help the widow settle the estate and the preacher came for the funeral.” We can hardly expect the 14-year-old child to know that it is not the custom to settle an estate until after the funeral.The following excellent response was given by an enlightened young eugenist: “A marriage; the doctor came to examine them and see if they were fit to marry, the lawyer to arrange the marriage settlement, and the minister to marry them.” The following logical responses occurred once each: “A murder. The doctor came to examine the body, the lawyer to get evidence, and the preacher to preach the funeral.” “An unmarried girl has given birth to a child. The lawyer was employed to get the man to marry her and then the preacher came to perform the wedding ceremony.” Perhaps some will consider this interpretation too far-fetched to pass. But it is perfectly logical and, unfortunately, represents an occurrence which is not so very rare.If an incorrect answer is first given and then corrected, the correction is accepted.Unsatisfactory.The failures again are quite varied, but are most frequently due to failure to understand the lawyer’s mission. Of 66 tabulated failures, 26 are accounted for in this way, while only 6 are due to inability to state the part played by the minister. The most common incorrect responses are: “A baby born” (accounting for 5 out of 66 failures); “A divorce” (very common with the children tested by Dr. Ordahl, at Reno, Nevada!); “A marriage”; “A divorce and a remarriage”; “A dinner”; “An entertainment”; “Some friends came to chat,” etc. In 20 failures out of 66, marriage was incorrectly connected with a will, a divorce, the death of a child, etc.The following are not bad, but hardly deserve to pass: “Sickness and trouble; the lawyer and minister came to help him out of trouble.” Or, “Somebody was sick; the lawyer wanted his money and the minister came to see how he was.” A few present a still more logical interpretation, but so far-fetched that it is doubtful whether they should count as passes; for example: “A man and his wife had a fight. One got hurt and had to have the doctor, then they had a lawyer to get them divorced, then the minister came tomarry one of them.” Again, “Some one is dying and is getting married and making his will before he dies.”(c) What the man was riding onThe only correct response is “Bicycle.” The most common error ishorse(ordonkey), accounting for 48 out of 71 tabulated failures. Vehicles, likewagon,buggy,automobile, orstreet car, were mentioned in 14 out of 71 failures. Bizarre replies are: “A cripple in a wheel chair”; “A person riding on some one’s back,” etc.
Satisfactory.The only correct answer for the first is “A man who had hung himself” (or who had committed suicide, been hanged, etc.). We may also pass the following answer: “Dead branches that looked like a man hanging.”
A good many subjects answer simply, “A man.” This answer cannot be scored because of the impossibility of knowing what is in the subject’s mind, and in such cases it is always necessary to say: “Explain what you mean.” The answer to this interrogation always enables us to score the response.
Unsatisfactory.There is an endless variety of failures: “A snake,” “A monkey,” “A robber,” or “A tramp” being the most common. Others include such answers as “A bear,” “A tiger,” “A wild cat,” “A cat,” “A bird,” “An eagle,” “A bird’s nest,” “A hornet’s nest,” “A leaf,” “A swing,” “A boy in a swing,” “A basket of flowers,” “An egg,” “A ghost,” “A white sheet,” “Clothes,” “A purse,” etc.
Satisfactory.The expected answer is “A death,” “Some one has died,” etc. We must always check up this response, however, by asking what the lawyer came for, and this must also be answered correctly.
While it is expected that the subject will understand that the doctor came to attend a sick person, the lawyer to make his will,and the minister to preach the funeral, there are a few other ingenious interpretations which pass as satisfactory. For example, “A man got hurt in an accident; the doctor came to make him well, the lawyer to see about damages, and then he died and the preacher came for the funeral.” Or, “A man died, the lawyer came to help the widow settle the estate and the preacher came for the funeral.” We can hardly expect the 14-year-old child to know that it is not the custom to settle an estate until after the funeral.
The following excellent response was given by an enlightened young eugenist: “A marriage; the doctor came to examine them and see if they were fit to marry, the lawyer to arrange the marriage settlement, and the minister to marry them.” The following logical responses occurred once each: “A murder. The doctor came to examine the body, the lawyer to get evidence, and the preacher to preach the funeral.” “An unmarried girl has given birth to a child. The lawyer was employed to get the man to marry her and then the preacher came to perform the wedding ceremony.” Perhaps some will consider this interpretation too far-fetched to pass. But it is perfectly logical and, unfortunately, represents an occurrence which is not so very rare.
If an incorrect answer is first given and then corrected, the correction is accepted.
Unsatisfactory.The failures again are quite varied, but are most frequently due to failure to understand the lawyer’s mission. Of 66 tabulated failures, 26 are accounted for in this way, while only 6 are due to inability to state the part played by the minister. The most common incorrect responses are: “A baby born” (accounting for 5 out of 66 failures); “A divorce” (very common with the children tested by Dr. Ordahl, at Reno, Nevada!); “A marriage”; “A divorce and a remarriage”; “A dinner”; “An entertainment”; “Some friends came to chat,” etc. In 20 failures out of 66, marriage was incorrectly connected with a will, a divorce, the death of a child, etc.
The following are not bad, but hardly deserve to pass: “Sickness and trouble; the lawyer and minister came to help him out of trouble.” Or, “Somebody was sick; the lawyer wanted his money and the minister came to see how he was.” A few present a still more logical interpretation, but so far-fetched that it is doubtful whether they should count as passes; for example: “A man and his wife had a fight. One got hurt and had to have the doctor, then they had a lawyer to get them divorced, then the minister came tomarry one of them.” Again, “Some one is dying and is getting married and making his will before he dies.”
The only correct response is “Bicycle.” The most common error ishorse(ordonkey), accounting for 48 out of 71 tabulated failures. Vehicles, likewagon,buggy,automobile, orstreet car, were mentioned in 14 out of 71 failures. Bizarre replies are: “A cripple in a wheel chair”; “A person riding on some one’s back,” etc.
Remarks.The experiment is a form of the completion test. Elements of a situation are given, out of which the entire situation is to be constructed. This phase of intelligence has already been discussed.[74]
While it is generally admitted that the underlying idea of this test is good, some have criticized Binet’s selection of problems. Meumann thinks the lawyer element of the second is so unfamiliar to children as to render that part of the test unfair. Several “armchair” critics have mentioned the danger of nervous shock from the first problem. Bobertag throws out the test entirely and substitutes a completion test modeled after that of Ebbinghaus. Our own results are altogether favorable to the test. If it is used in year XIV, Meumann’s objection hardly holds, for American children of that age do ordinarily know something about making wills. As for the danger of shock from the first problem, we have never once found the slightest evidence of this much-feared result. The subject always understands that the situation depicted is hypothetical, and so answers either in a matter-of-fact manner or with a laugh.
The bicycle problem is our own invention. Binet used the other two and required both to be answered correctly. The test was located in year XII of the 1908 scale, and inyear XV of the 1911 revision. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in the original location. The Stanford results of 1911, 1912, 1914, and 1915 agree in showing the test too difficult for year XII, even when only two out of three correct responses are required. If the original form of the experiment is used, it is exceedingly difficult for year XV. As here given it fits well at year XIV.
Procedure.The following problems, printed in clear type, are shown one at a time to the subject, who reads each problem aloud and (with the printed problem still before him) finds the answer without the use of pencil or paper.
Only one minute is allowed for each problem, but nothing is said about hurrying. While one problem is being solved, the others should be hidden from view. It is not permissible, if the subject gives an incorrect answer, to ask him to solve the problem again. The following exception, however, is made to this rule: If the answer given to the third problem indicates that the wordyardhas been read asfeet, the subject is asked to read the problem through again carefully (aloud) and to tell how he solved it. No further help of any kind may be given.
Scoring.Two of the threeproblems must be solved correctly within the minute allotted to each. No credit is allowed for correct method if the answer is wrong.
Remarks.We have selected these problems from the list used by Bonser in hisStudy of the Reasoning Ability of Children in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth School Grades.[75]
Our tests of 279 “at age” children between 12 and 15 years reveal the surprising fact that the test as here used and scored is not passed by much over half of the children of any age in the grades below the high-school age. Of the high-school pupils 19 per cent failed to pass, 21 per cent of ordinarily successful business men (!), and 27 per cent of Knollin’s unemployed men testing up to the “average adult” level. To find average intelligence cutting such a sorry figure raises the question whether the ancient definition of man as “the rational animal” is justified by the facts. The truth is,averageintelligence does not do a great deal of abstract, logical reasoning, and the little it does is done usually under the whip of necessity.
At first thought these problems will doubtless appear to the reader to be mere tests of schooling. It is true, of course, that in solving them the subject makes use of knowledge which is ordinarily obtained in school; but this knowledge (that is, knowledge of reading and of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) is possessed by practically all adults who are not feeble-minded, and by many who are. Success, therefore, depends upon the ability to apply this knowledge readily and accurately to the problems given—precisely the kind of ability in which a deficiency cannot be made good by school training. We can teach even morons how to read problems and how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide with a fair degree of accuracy; the trouble comes when they try to decide which of these processes the problem calls for. This may require intelligence of high or low order, according to the difficulty of the problem. As for the present test, we have shown that almost totallyunschooled men of “average adult” intelligence pass this test as frequently as high-school seniors of the same mental level.
Procedure.Say to the subject: “Suppose it is six twenty-two o’clock, that is, twenty-two minutes after six; can you see in your mind where the large hand would be, and where the small hand would be?” Subjects of 12- to 14-year intelligence practically always answer this in the affirmative. Then continue: “Now, suppose the two hands of the clock were to trade places, so that the large hand takes the place where the small hand was, and the small hand takes the place where the large hand was. What time would it then be?”
Repeat the test with the hands at 8.10 (10 minutes after 8), and again with the hands at 2.46 (14 minutes before 3).
The subject is not allowed to look at a clock or watch, or to aid himself by drawing, but must work out the problem mentally. As a rule the answer is given within a few seconds or not at all. If an answer is not forthcoming within two minutes the score is failure.
Scoring.The test is passed iftwo of the threeproblems are solved within the following range of accuracy: the first solution is considered correct if the answer falls between 4.30 and 4.35, inclusive; the second if the answer falls between 1.40 and 1.45, and the third if the answer falls between 9.10 and 9.15.
Remarks.It appears that success in the test chiefly depends upon voluntary control over constructive visual imagery. Weakness of visual imagery may account for the failure of a considerable percentage of adults to pass the test. Visual imagery, however, is not absolutely necessary to success. One 8-year-old prodigy, who had 12-yearintelligence, arrived in forty seconds at a strictly mathematical solution for the second problem, as follows: “If it is 2.46, and the hands trade places, then the little hand has gone about one fourth of the distance from 9 o’clock to 10 o’clock. One fourth of 60 minutes is 15 minutes, and so the time would be 15 minutes after 9 o’clock.” Such a solution is certainly possible by the use of verbal imagery of any type.
The test shows a high correlation with mental age, but more than most others it is subject to the influence of cribbing. For this reason, other positions of the clock hands should be tried out for the purpose of finding substitute experiments of equal difficulty. Until such experiments have been made, it will be necessary to confine the experiment to the three positions here presented.
Schooling seems to have no influence whatever on the percentage of passes.
This test was first used by Binet in 1905, but was not included in either the 1908 or 1911 series. Goddard and Kuhlmann both include the test in their revisions, placing it in year XV. They give only two problems (ouraandc) and require that both be answered correctly. Neither Goddard nor Kuhlmann, however, indicates the degree of error permitted.
Something depends upon original position of the hands. Binet used 6.20 and 2.46. For some reason the 2.46 arrangement is much more difficult than either 8.10 or 6.22, yielding almost twice as many failures as either of the other positions.
This time, as inyear X, only two series are given, one of which must be repeated without error. The two series are: 2–1–8–3–4–3–9 and 9–7–2–8–4–7–5. Note that in noneof the tests of repeating digits is it permissible to warn the subject of the number to be given.
Remarks.Binet originally placed this test in year XII, giving three trials, but later moved it to year XV. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XII. Our data show that when three trials are given the test is too easy for year XIV, but that it fits this age when only two trials are allowed; that after the age of 12 or 14 years memory for relatively meaningless material, like digits or nonsense syllables, improves but little; and that above this level it does not correlate very closely with intelligence.