A Study of Student Conversation and Conversationalists

502 28 6MB

English Pages 134

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

A Study of Student Conversation and Conversationalists

Citation preview

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES title

A Sludy ojStudent Con.vtrsd.iion. and Conversationalists

AUTHOR

EugeneTMcDonald.

UNIVERSITY. DEGREE

DATE

Aug.1 942

Jbmsifhanid Sidle College_

Vk l).

PUBLICATION NO.

.56 /

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS /M

ANN

ARBOR

-

MICHIGAN

The Pennsylvania State College The Graduate School Department of Education and Psychology

i STUDY OF STUDENT CONVERSATION AND CONVERSATIONALISTS

by EUGENE T. MCDONALD

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. Herbert Koepp-Baker, Associate Professor of Speech, for his assis­ tance in planning and carrying out this research: to Dr. C. C. Peters, Director of Educational Research, for his generous help with statisti­ cal and other problems, and to Dr. E. B. Van Ormer, Assistant Profes­ sor of Psychology for his aid in writing this dissertation.

I also

wish to thank John Lotz for his help in scoring tests and tabulating results.

To my wife, Marie, whose encouragement and assistance aided

considerably in the completion of this research I am deeply indebted.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Ps.ge FART I INTRODUCTION ...............................

............

1

CHAPTER I ( P r o c e d u r e ) ................. . ............... Preliminary Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction of Final Questionnaire ............ Selection of the sample population and method of presenting questionnaire to students . . . .

5 5 14

CHAPTER II (Results) . . . . . ........ . .............. Preferred topics of conversation ................ Annoyances . . . . .......... Cconversational problems . . Likes and di sl i ke s........ . Background for conversation Radio programs .......... Magazines .............. . Movies ................ . Newspapers . . . . . . . . Self-ratings of conversational ability . . . . . . Desirable character3.sties of a good converse.tionelist . . . . . . . . . Hobbies and clubs . . . . . . Difficult situations . . . . .

27 27 33 4.1 45

CHAPTER III (Summary and Conclusions) . . . . . . . . . . Topics cf conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annoyances ............ , . , . Problems . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . Situations........ ................. ........... Likens and dislikes ............ Background for conversation . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of a good conversationalist . . .

62

18

4-8 48

48 49 51 51 55 58 59

63 65 65

66 67 67

68

ii.

PART II INTRODUCTION

........... .......................... ...

CHAPTER I (Procedure)

. . . . . . .

.

....................

CHAPTER II (Results) . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . Tests I n t e l l i g e n c e ........................... Knowledge of etiquette . . . . . . . General information . . . .................... Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Art.i eulatl on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vocalali.t.ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English Usage ........ . . . . . . uocj ai laU;j iei-gence Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . • questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Topics of conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . Annoyances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conversational problems . . . . . . . . . . . . Likes and dislikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background for conversation . . . . . . . . . . Radio programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magazines . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . Movies , . . . ........... Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-ratings of conversational ability . . . . Characteristics of a good conversationalist . . . hobbies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offices and c l u b s . Conversational situations ... CHAPTER III (Summary nG Conclusions)

. . . . . . . . . .

70 71 77 77 78 78 78 81

84 85 86 8?

08 90 90 91 93 96 97 99 99 '100 100 102 103 103

104 105 106 107

.APPENDIX Preliminary questionnaire . . . . . . . Fin-J ruestionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tests • General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge of Etiquette . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Speech P erformance Subject's materials .... Record blank . . . . . . . . Letter to good and poor conversationalists . .

Ill 113 116 122 125 126 127

INTRODUCTION

The value of conversation in handling student adjustment prob­ lems has long been recognized by psychologists and speech correctionists.

For example, the self-conscious, withdrawn student is frequent­

ly encouraged to socialize with his schoolmates.

In so doing he is

handicapped at the outset by his lack of development of conversational skill.

Van Riper^/ has pointed out that one of the most important

steps in the treatment of a speech defect is getting the speech defec­ tive to practice his newly-learned skill in daily conversation.

How­

ever, because of their speech handicaps, many speech defectives have avoided conversational situations and consequently are not prepared to practice in this setting.

With these people some training in conver­

sational technique Is often indicated. Thinking that other students might also have difficulty in con­ versational situations, the author selected in a random manner (by taking every seventh one) 200 Berareuter Personality Inventories from approximately 1500 that were answered by the 194-0 Freshmen class of The Pennsylvania State College.

A study of these inventories reveals that

64 percent of the college freshmen have difficulty in starting a con­ versation with a stranger; 4& percent are not talkative at .social gath­ erings and 34 percent would feel very self conscious if they had to volunteer an idea to start a discussion -among a group of people.

Van Riper, C., Speech Correction - Principles and Practices. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939*

That these problems are not peculiar to freshmen or speech

2/

defectives has been shown by Peters.—'

He asked a large class of

college seniors to study cultured persons and list the elements of personal culture.

Almost three-fourths of the cultured persons whom

they considered were described as good conversationalists. attribute was mentioned more often than any other.

This

At another time

he collected from the members of his classes lists of cultural de­ ficiencies.

Twenty-three of the eighty members who submitted lists

reported that they have felt themselves handicapped because of lack of conversational ability.

Thus we see that college students consider

conversational ability a very important component of culture yet more than one-fourth of the students in this sample reported themselves as poor conversationalists. In order to obtain information concerning conversation which would be useful in counseling those students who are experiencing dif­ ficulty, the writer made a thorough study of the literature dealing with this problem.

This investigation revealed that probably no speech

activity has received as much attention from literary-minded men and women as has the subject of conversation.

Oliver^/ has compiled a

"‘ Working Bibliography on Conversation” which lists approximately 250

2/Veter3, C . C ., Foundations of Educational Sociology. New York, Macmillan Co ., 1930 . 2/ Oliver, Robert T., A Working Bibliography on Conversation, The Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. 20, 1934-

titles less than a half-dozen of which are experimental in nature. Practically every book on etiquette contains a section offering advice to the person who would improve his conversation} magazine writers frequently contribute "tips" to the individual who desires to learn to talk better.

There are on the market several books which explain how

to improve your conversation.^/§/

We have today a large quantity of

non-scientific literature replete with suggestions for the person who is having difficulty in conversational situations. On the other hand, trained speech teachers and investigators have, for the most part, neglected this aspect of our speech life.

As

Oliver 2/ points out, "This is a large field of speech activity whose considerable importance should rescue it from its present pedagogical neglect."

Most of the investigators who have observed and recorded

conversations have been interested in understanding some other feature of human behavior.

For example, F. L. Goodenough^/ studied the inter­

relationships in the behavior of young children using their conversa­ tion s as one means of obtaining information.

I. Spllrein^/ studied

id Kleiser, Grenville, How to Improve Your Conversation. New York, Grosset and Dunlap, 1932. d Fear, T. K., The Psychology of Conver sation, London, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1939. 6/ Wright, Milton, The Art of Conversation, New York, McGraw Hill, 1936. 7/ Op. Cit. 8/ Goodenough, F . I.., Inter-Relation ships in the Behavior of Young Children, Child Development, 1930, Vol. 1, 29-4$. 2/ Quoted in Murphy, Gardner and Murphy, Lois Barclay, Experimental Social Psychology. New York, Harper and Brothers, 1931.

conversation to determine the capacity of different kinds of people to understand laws.

A few studies have been made that are more direct­

ly related to our problem. into this report.

They will be described where they best fit

These researches have been conducted by psycholo­

gists who were not interested in speech as such and the information ob­ tained has not been of the type needed for counseling the student who has difficulty in conversational situations.

To obtain such informa­

tion, the writer planned and carried out this two-part study.

Part I

consists of a questionnaire survey of collegiate conversation; its nature and problems.

Part II is a study of some factors related to

conversational ability.

Throughout the planning of this research we

were often tempted to broaden our problem to include questions of aca­ demic interest, however, we kept in mind the aim of this study:

To

obtain information concerning conversation that would be useful in counseling the socially handicapped student. is limited by this aim.

The scope of this study

5.

PART I

CHAPTER I

Procedure

Preliminary Study Symondsi2/ says that the questionnaire is the best method of obtaining information concerning conduct.

After considering several

methods of studying collegiate conversation it was decided that the questionnaire technique was the best for securing data concerning con­ duct during conversation.

During the second semester of 194-0-41, the

writer constructed a questionnaire (see Appendix) which interrogated concerning the following aspects of conversation; 1. What topics do students prefer? 2. What problems do students experience in conversational situations? 3. How do students react to certain conversational "don’ts”? 4-. How do students react to the inclusion of certain topics in their conversations and to the use of certain techniques of expression? 5. What is the student body’s background for conversation? This questionnaire was answered by 84 women students and 78 men students who were drawn from classes in Home Economics, Psychology and Public Speaking.

Since the results were to be used merely to test

the possibilities of the questionnaire method in studying conversation and in constructing the questionnaire that forms the basis for Part I of this study, only a brief summary of them will be presented here.

10/ Symonds, P. M., Diagnosing Personality and Conduct. New York, D. Appleton-Century Co., 1931.

In listing their preferred topics of conversation It was felt that the students represented themselves too ideally.

The ten topics

mentioned with greatest frequency were:

TABLE I

Rank 1. 2. 34. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10.5 10.5

Topic Current Events Entertainment Group (radio, movies, music, stage) Sports Classes and School Work Books and Literature School Social Affairs Persona].!ties Sex Politics Religion Clothes and Fashions

Percent of Total J^UM_Topic__ 66.9 56.7 53.7 40.1 33.9 32.1 31-5 27 .8 26.6 21.0 21.0

Stolces and. WesiF^ found that in "bull sessions” composed of members of their own sex, college men and women talk more about dates than any other topic. of over 60 topics.

Current events does not appear in their list

It must be noted, however, that their data were

compiled from conversations observed among members of like sex in dor­ mitories, sorority houses and fraternity houses after dark when ’’every­ thing was conducive to a great freedom in the choice of topics of con­ versation”.

11F Stokes, S. M. and West, E. D., Conversational Interests of College Students, School and Society, October, 1930, Vol. 32, pp. 567-70.

At the time our preliminary study was conducted there were occurring very interesting world and local events.

It is possible

that this accounts only in part for the high frequency with which current events was mentioned.

In spite of this, the complete dis­

agreement between these two listings creates some doubts as to the validity of the findings of our preliminary study.

Obviously this

part of the questionnaire would not be worth while unless improved. The changes made will be discussed later. Table II shows the most frequently checked problems of con­ versation and the percentage of men and women who checked each.

TABLE II

Problem

'

Breaking a silence Getting started Thinking of appropriate remarks Finding interesting topics Ending a conversation Making myself understood Making tactless remarks Staying on the subject Talking to strangers Changing the subject

Men Women (H = 78) (N a 84) 53 30 45 19 24 30 27 17 15 9

46 52 44 35 21 2$ 25 7 37 16

These items were taken front suggestions for improving one1s conversa­ tion that appeared in magazine articles and boolcs on etiquette.

It

appeared that the only change necessary in this section to prepare it for the final questionnaire was the addition of those items that were written into the blank spaces most frequently.

Table III shows how the students reacted to the so-called "conversational don'ts". method.

The ranks were determined by a weighting

The students were to encircle nM" if they were annoyed much

by an item, nSn if annoyed some, "L" if annoyed a little and "Nn if annoyed none (see Appendix).

In weighting, the frequency of M's for

any item was multiplied by

the frequency of the S's by 3 j the fre-

quencjf of the L es by 2 and the frequency of the N's by 1.

These pro­

ducts were totaled for each item and the totals constituted the weight for that item.

TABLE III

Annoyance Interrupts the speaker Stubbornness Evidences of conceit Dogmatic statements Loud talking Loss of temper Misuse of English Errors in Pronunciation Contradictions Profanity Sarcasm Unpleasant Voices Antagonistic facial expressions and gestures Personal remarks Evident attempts to change subject

Men Women (N = 78) (N = 84) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

5 2 4 11.5 3 9 1 11.5 8 6 13 7 10 U 15

It will be observed from this table that the men and women differed considerably in their ranking of some of the items.

For

example, the men considered dogmatic statements as the fourth most

annoying type of behavior included in this list while the women con­ sidered it the eleventh most annoying.

These differences in ranks

suggested that conversationalists might react differently to an annoy­ ance in a mixed group (men and women) from the way they would react if it occurred in an unmixed group.

By asking the students to indicate

the degree to which they are annoyed by each item, first in mixed groups and then in unmixed groups in the final questionnaire, we would be able to test this hypothesis. The students* reaction to the inclusion of certain topics in their conversation and to the use of certain techniques of expression was measured by having them indicate whether they liked, disliked or were indifferent to these items.

Table IV gives the percentage of the

total population who liked, disliked or were Indifferent to each item.

TABLE IV

Item Puns Gossip Flattery Wise cracks Shop talk Small talk Rumors Dirty jokes (mixed) Dirty jokes (unmixed) Discussion of dates (mixed) Discussion of dates (unmixed) Ron-malicious discussion of personalities Use of technical terms Discussion of controversial subjects

D

13.6 37.7

30.2 22.2 9.9 33-4 36.4 77.2 23.4 68.5 9.3 6.2 22.8 3.1

Percent _I__ 36.4 45.6 4.0.0 35.2 34.0 53.7 45.6 19.8 46.3 22.2 36.4 16.0 51.2 24.1

L 48.8 16.7 29.0 42.0 55.0 12.4. 16.1 2.5 29.6 8.8 54.3 77.3 25.9 72.8

Analysis of the questions asked by students answering the questionnaire revealed that this part could be improved by the use of illustrations and by defining the situations in which, for example, flattery occurs. Few changes in the questions concerning the student body5s background for conversation were necessary.

We found that the item

concerning books read would not be useful in counseling because a great many books were mentioned and students woiild not likely be read­ ing these same books in ensuing years. Table V shows the sections of a newspaper that were read by the preliminary group.

TABLE ¥

Section Comics Sports page News Section Editorials Columns Art, movie reviews Society Local news Headlines Advertisements Fashions

Percent Men Women (N - 78) (N - 841 77 70.5 4$. 7 44.9 23.1 20.5 14.1 9.0 6.4 5.1 1.3

75 28.6 78.6 27.4 6.0 23.8 51.7 7.1 9.5 15.5 23.8

Table VI lists the most frequently listened-to radio pro­ grams.

This ranking agreed very closely with that published by the

American Student Union which appeared shortly after this survey was completed.

TABLE VI

Program Jack Benny Information Please "Just Any Dance Band" Ford Hour Glenn Miller Lowell Thomas Fred ‘Waring "Any News Report" Kay Kyser Hit Parade

Percent of Total Population ______ (N = 162)_____ 29 26 25 24 22 20 IS 17 14 12

Table VII shows the magazines college men and women say they enjoy reading.

12.

TABLE VII Percent Men Women (N = 78) (N =■ 84.)

Magazine Life Readers Digest Saturday Evening Post Colliers Time American Esquire Look Fortune Liberty, Nev/sWeek, Cosmopolitan Good Housekeeping Ladies Home Journal Mademoiselle McCalls Vogue American Woman’s Home Companion Cosmopo11tan

61.5 60.3 50.0 37.2 23.2 25.6 23*1 27.3 12.3 10.0

41.5 64«3

4.3.3 47.6 39.3 35.7 31.0 23.3 22.6 20.2

Table VIII shows the number of times per month students attend the movies and Table IX shows the type of movies they prefer.

TABLE VIII Times per Month Less than once 1

Movie Attendance

Percent Men Women IlLi=_782 ilL=_34l 1.2 7.1

3 4 5

3.3 12.3 6.4 26.9 10.0

6

10.0

11.9

7 3 9 10

7.7 11.5 1.3 3.3

3.6 2.4 2.4

2

14.3 14.3 23.3 13.1

TABLE IX

Percent Men Types of Movies Preferred Historical and Biographical Comedy Romantic MysteryDramatic Musical Comedy Books made into movies Musical Adventure Tragedies

Women

ULsL&iL

62.8 60.3 24-.44-1.0 23.1 12.8 10.0 12.8 25.6 10.0

57.2 4-2.8 32.2

31.0 29.8 22.6 22.6 10.7 9.5 9.5

The following conclusions grew out of the preliminary study: 1. A well-planned, carefully given questionnaire would be use­ ful in studying collegiate conversation, 2. The method of distributing the questionnaire was not satis­ factory. Conflicting schedules made it impossible for the investigator to supervise the answering of questions in all the participating classes. Different instructors - in spite of instructions - interpreted the questions differently. 3* For items on which it might be possible for the student to make himself "look good" we avoided the checking type of re­ sponse, e.g., topics of conversation, because, as KoosiS/ suggests, "It puts the answer . . . into the mouth of the respondent. This is especially dangerous to the reliability of responses if there Is an obvious preference of practice implicit in the list of items from which selection may be made, which may in some part tempt the respondent to mis­ represent the situation," This preliminary study revealed that classifying the students’ responses on these items would be difficult and consequently these results should be inter­ preted with caution.

Koos, Leonard V., The Questionnalre in Education. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1928.

Construction of the final questionnaire

In construction the final questionnaire the suggestions of KoosiS/ and Symondsi^/ were extremely helpful.

Koosi^/ has set up

two criteria that are applicable to questions and questionnaires. Ability on the part of the respondent to answer the questions and willingness to answer them.

An attempt was made in the construction

of the questionnaire to ask only questions that the 3tudents could answer.

Our method of administering the questionnaire, to be describ­

ed later, we believe, satisfies the second criterion.

A copy of the

improved questionnaire appears in the Appendix. The identifying information given at the top of page one of the questionnaire enabled us to classify our papers according to school, college average and as to whether the respondent belonged to a frater­ nity or sorority or was an 11independent” .

These classifications per­

mit us to look for differences among the several groups, for example, among classes or between fraternity and non-fraternity groups.

Only

where possible differences would be meaningful in counseling were they sought. It would seem that to the person who has avoided conversational situations the problem of knowing what others like to talk about is of

13/ Koos, Leonard V., The Questionnaire in Education. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1928. 1hj Symonds, P. M., Diagnosing Personality and Conduct. New York, D. Appleton-Century Co., 1931• 15/ Koos, Leonard V., Ibid.

great importance.

To help him answer this question we asked students

to list the topics they enjoy talking about.

As pointed out above,

there is a strong possibility that they might misrepresent themselves to their advantage.

In an attempt to prevent this in the listing of

preferred topics of conversation, we instructed the respondents not to hesitate to include a subject simply because it is not considered suitable for "parlor" conversation.

Also the students were asked to

list the topics they enjoyed talking about in order of preference.

In

addition to enabling us to weight the items we felt that this procedure would encourage more thoughtful consideration of each topic. The ill effects of certain types of behavior on the success of a conversation have been stressed by Erailv P o s t ^ ^ and Milton Wright^/ among others.

Since their "don’ts" were based on subjective observa­

tions, we decided that an objective evaluation of each item vrauld per­ mit the counselor to proceed with a greater degree of certainty in ad­ vising the handicapped student as to what types of behavior are annoy­ ing to his classmates.

The items included in this section of the ques­

tionnaire were taken from the two sources mentioned above and from Hulcy Cason’s,

"Common Annoyances".

Spaces were provided for the

addition of any annoyances that occurred to the respondents.

16/ Post, Emily, The Blue Book of Social Usage. 17/ Wright, Milton, How to Annoy Others, Better Bnglish. Feb., 193$. IB/ Cason, Hulcy, Common Annoyances (A Psychological Study of EveryDay Aversions and Irritations), Psychological Monographs, Vol. XL, No. 2, 1930, Psychological Review Col, Princeton, N. J.

The section concerning conversational problems was included to provide a list of the problems students encounter most commonly in conversational situations.

With this information available it

would seem possible to work out techniques for solving these prob­ lems.

The list

of problems included in the questionnaire is a com­

pilation of problems taken from popular magazines such as Readers Di­ gest, books on etiquette and the list of deficiencies reported by 19/ Peter"s— ^ classes. The items in the next section of the questionnaire are not as readily classified as are the other sections.

However, they have one

thing in common - conversationalists either like, dislike or are in­ different to them.

These items were collected by listening to student

conversations in eating places, from articles in popular magazines, and from books on manners.

It is included in this survey because even

good conversationalists often wonder whether or nob they should pun, whether or not shop talk is permissible, etc. The questions in the ne.xt section of the questionnaire aim to determine to some extent the student body" s background for conversa­ tion.

Obviously, if one knew something about his companion’s interests,

the question of "what to talk about?K would not be so difficult to ans­ wer.

If we could know vshat radio programs, magazines, types of movies

and sections of a newspaper are popular with students, we could suggest to the handicapped student that he become familiar with this material. Thus would he acquire a background for conversation that would be com­ mon with that of many other students.

Students were asked to rate themselves on a five-point scale according to their evaluation of their ability as conversationalists. This item was included to give us a rough idea of the percentage of students who consider themselves to be poor conversationalists.

In

Part II of this study we report the reliability of a student’s evalu­ ation of his conversational ability.

Related to this section are the

questions concerning hobbies, offices held and membership in various organisations.

In these questions we are seeking information concern­

ing extra~curriculer activities that will be useful in guiding the poor conversationalist.

Also this data will permit us to measure the rela­

tionship between self evaluation of conversational ability and partici­ pation In extra-curricular activities. A natural question for any poor conversationalist would be, "that do my school mates consider to be the desirable characteristics of a good conversationalist?”

In other words, what goals should we

set up for the poor conversationalist to work toward?

To answer this

question a section of the questionnaire was set up which requested the respondents to list what they considered to be the desirable character­ istics of a good conversationalist. The final section of the questionnaire was devised to determine in what■situations students find it difficult to converse.

This infor­

mation would enable us to devise methods for meeting these situations. The situations listed here were collected by asking students of the investigator’s acquaintance in what situations they had trouble and some were taken from suggestions made in books on etiquette.

This questionnaire was devised to cover the important as­ pects of the problem of conversation that would be useful in counsel­ ing the poor conversationalist.

To insure against the omission of

some essential questions, several faculty members of the departments of speech and psychology were asked to think about the problem of a training program for poor conversationalists ana then suggest improve­ ments in the questionnaire that would make it more effective in meet­ ing counseling needs.

In its final form the questionnaire embodies

their recommendations.

Selection of the Sample Population and Method of Presenting Question­ naire to Students

Traditionally, two criticisms of the questionnaire have been made.

First, its undependability as a source of data and, second, the

burden it imposes on respondents.^^

To lessen as much as possible the

effectiveness of these criticisms, the procedure for sampling the popu­ lation and administering the questionnaire was very carefully worked out.

Considering time, availability of students and possible size of

population needed to give reliable results, it was decided to have approximately 600 students - 300 men and 300 women - approximately 10 percent of the total school population answer the questionnaires.

20/ Koos, Leonard V., The Questionnaire in Education , New York, The Macmillan Co., 1928.

The several schools and classes of the college were to be permitted to contribute to the sample population in the same proportion that they contributed to the total school population.

To facilitate com­

parisons and because it would have been difficult to find enough in­ dependent students by our technique for administering the question­ naire, 50 percent of the sample was to be composed of fraternity men and sorority women. From the registrar’s office a large sheet giving the distribution of students according to class, school, curriculum and sex was obtained.

Table X shows the percentage of the total school population

contributed by each class and the number of students we should include in our sample.

TABLE X

Men Number in Sample Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Specials Total

3-4 33 63

60 11 301

Percent of Population

Women Number in Percent of Population

23.0 27.6 20.9

80 u 75

19.8

61

26.5 23.0 25.0 20.5

3.7

300

Table XI shows the percentage of the total school population contributed by each school and the number of students we should include in our sample.

TABLE XI

School

Men Humber in Percent of Sample Population

Agriculture Chemistry and Physics Education Engineering Liberal Arts Mineral Industries Physical Education Total

BO 41 12 69 66 24 7 299

Women Number in Percent of Sample Population

26.8

10 7

13.5 4.2 23.0 22.2 7.9 2.4

142

3.4 2.3 47.3

120

39.3

20 299

6.8

A list of the students living in the various fraternity and sorority houses and independent houses, as well as those who live alone and eat in boarding houses, was obtained.

By looking up the

names in the college directory' and working out the distributions for the various "houses” it was possible to select groups that gave a sampling with school and class representative of the total population. The president or leader of each selected group wa3 called by phone end asked to help with a research project that was being carried out by the Department of Speech.

The nature of the'survey was describ­

ed and the U3e of the results in helping students who have difficulty in conversational situations was stressed.

It was explained that a

program was arranged along the lines of a Penn State "fireside chat". First, the students would fill out a questionnaire.

In return for

their cooperation the investigator would talk with them concerning student conversation -- what college students like to talk about, what they find annoying, and make some suggestions for overcoming com­ mon conversational difficulties.

An opportunity for asking questions

would be available following the lecture.

Mention was made of the

fact that articles describing the preliminary research on which the lecture was based had appeared in several newspapers and each leader was asked to discuss the matter with his group.

Through this tech­

nique we hoped to meet Koos* criterion of willingness to answer ques­ tions.

No group refused to cooperate in this research. When the time for administering the questionnaire arrived,

the investigator had dinner with many of the gro'ups and at the other places he arrived early enough to meet and talk with many members of the group.

After the group convened the writer described in detail

the purpose of the study and pointed out the need for such a study, again stressing the fact that the results would be used in counseling students.

After the questionnaires were distributed, each item was

discussed with the group and the students were encouraged to ask ques­ tions before filling out the questionnaire.

It was made clear that no

identifying data were requested and the members of the group were asked to consider each item thoughtfully before responding.

Also they were

asked to refrain from talking while completing the questionnaire.

While

they were writing the investigator walked about among the students to answer any questions and to discourage any discussion of the items.

The

attitude of the students was excellent and their thoughtful considera­ tion of the items was evidenced by the nature of the questions they asked and the additional information written in the blank spaces. Even though allowance had been made for absences, when the ques­ tionnaires were completed by the chosen groups we were still &0 short

of 600.

There seemed to be no evening that all the members of a

group were unaffected by some college activity.

The distribution of

the questionnaire by class and school for the men is shown in Table XII.

TABLE XII

Agriculture Chemistry and Physics Education Engineering Liberal Arts Mineral Industries Physical Education Unclassified Total

Fr..

So.

Jr.

Sr.

Sp.

13 23 1 20 20 7

17 13 4 19 10 7

20 8 3 13 15 3

22 8 4 15 10 6 1

4

84

70

1 63

66

~T

Tot 76 52 12 67 55 23 1 1 287

Table XIII shows the desired distribution and the actual dis­ tribution by class and Table XIV shows the desired distribution and the actual distribution by schools.

TABLE XIII

Desired Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Specials

84 83 63 60 11

Actual

84. 70 63 66 4

TABLE XIV

Desired Agriculture Chemistry and Physics Education Engineering Liberal Arts Mineral Arts Physical Education Unclassified

Actual

30 41 12 69 66 24 7

76 52 12 67 55 23 1 1

It will be observed that for the men the actual sample is very similar to the desired sample. The distribution of the questionnaire by class and school for the women is shown in Table XV.

TABLE

Agriculture Chemistry and Physics Education Engineering Liberal Arts Mineral Industries Physical Education Unclassified Total

Ft .

So . Jr.

5 4 37 0 36 0 4

1 1 23 0 26 0 5

36

56

Sr.

Unc * Totals

1 1 32 0 13 0 0

0 3 22 0 12 0 1

52

33

7 9 114 0 92 0 10 1 233

1 1

The number of women obtained in the sample was 233 rather than the desired 300.

The representative number of women computed for the

population of 233 by classes and the actual number obtained are given in Table XVI.

TABLE XVI

Desired 62 65 58 43

Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Unclassified Total

233

Actual 86 56 52 33 1 233

Table XVII shows the desired distribution by schools for the population of 233 and the actual distribution*

TABLE XVII

Desired Agriculture Chemistry and Physics Education Liberal Arts Physical Education Unclassified

8 5 110 92 16

Actual 7 9 11492 10 1

It will be observed that the sample is slightly weighted with freshmen.

This is probably due to the fact that a number of freshmen

girls moved into sorority houses after the groups were chosen.

The

actual sample by schools is very similar to the desired sample. After the questionnaires were completed they were divided into two groups for each sex.

These groups were arranged so as to place

approximately the same number from each school, each class and fra­ ternity and non-fraternity in each group.

By correlating the results

of Group I and Group II for any section of the questionnaire, we can

get aa indication of the consistency of response.

If these correla­

tions should be significantly high, one fair interpretation would be that the size of our sample is adequate. The distribution of men students in Groiips I and II by class, school and fraternity and non-fraternity is shown in Table XVIII.

TABLE XVIII Sci. I II 8 8 1

Jr. I II 6 6 5 3

3 3

4 3

2 3

1 2

1 4

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

5 5

5 4

3 3

2 5

Agriculture

N F

Fr. I II 5 4 2 2

Chemistry and Physics

N F

8 3

Education.

N F

1

Engineering

N F

5 4

5 6

Liberal Arts

N F

u 6

4 6

5

5

1 6

Mineral Industries

N F

3 1

2 1

3 1

2 1

1

Physical Education

N F

Unclassified

N F

Totals

9 3

Sr. I II 8 7 3 4

2 Ir I II 2 2

3

14 13

14 11

1 1

1 1

3 4

3 2

1 6

1 7

14 18

13 22

2 6

5

1 4

5 22

7 21

1 1

1 2

1 2

7 5

6 5

1

1

1

42

42

35

35

31

Totals I II 28 28 8 12

1

32

33

33

2

2

143

144

The total number of fraternity men is 142 and the total number of non-fraternity men is 145-

2o.

The distribution of women students In Groups I and II by class, school and sorority and non-sorority is shown in Table XIX.

TABLE XIX

Sc>,

Fr. _1 H

JL

II

Agriculture

S N

2

l 2

Chemistry/ and Physics

S N

2

2

l

A H

A

A

Education

S A N 15

7

Liberal Arts

S 1 N 17

Physical Education

S N

1 1

Unclassified

S N

Totals

II JL II.

1

1

A3

Unc.

Sr.

Jr I II 1

1 1

1

8

8 8

3 8

3 S

2 11

3 6

3 6

2 3

n D

18

1 12

2

1 2

2

28

19

A

1

28

26

26

19

2 2

1

A

8 8

43

Totals I 11 1 1 2 3

19

38

19 38

7 38

8 39

3 3

A

i

1

i

117

116

The total number of sorority women is 62 and the total number of non-sorority women is 171*

This difference suggests that caution

should be exercised when comparing sorority with non-sorority women. From these tables it will be seen that the composition of Groups I and II for both men and women is very similar,

he may con­

clude from the foregoing tables that the male population used in this survey is satisfactorily representative of the total college popula­ tion.

The female population is slightly weighted with freshmen and

the sorority-non-sorority groups are not equal.

CHAPTER II

RESULTS

Preferi’ed Topics of Conversation

Several studies of the conversational preferences of various groups of people have been reported.

21/

H. T. Moore"—

recorded conver­

sations heard on Broadway as he walked through the theater district each evening.

He found a preponderance of discussion of clothes and

social affairs among women, and of money and business affairs among men; in general, the "man to woman" conversations showed a tendency for the women to adapt themselves to the subj ects of chief interest to men.

Carlson, Cook and Stroraberg^^ have studied the sex differ­

ences in conversation.

On the basis of 601 samples of conversation

observed at .19 concerts over a period of six months during a ten min­ ute intermission period the3r concluded, "The leading topics of men* s conversations are money and business, other men, women, other amuse­ ments and sports.

The leading topics of women*s conversations are

other women, men, clothes, other amusements and their immediate sur­ roundings."

Clear sex differences were found in four topics; money

and business, sports, women and clothes, the men conversing more about

21I Moore, H. T., Further Data Concerning Sex Differences, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholog/-. 1922, Vol. 4, PP• &l-90« 2,3/ Carlson, V. S., Cook, S. W., and Stromberg, E. L., Sex Differences in Conversation, Journal of Applied Psycholog/. 1936, Vol. 20, pp. 727-735.

the first two and women more about the latter.

7/omen converse to a

significantly greater degree than men about personalities.

The con­

versation of mixed groups tends to be dominated by topics of either equal or little interest to the sexes conversing separately.

Landis

and Burtt^/ sampled conversations on a college campus, street cars, hotel lobbies, barber 3hops, churches, and other public places.

The

sex differences observed are in marked agreement with other reported studies.

They found that 37 percent of the women®s conversations are

about persons, but only 16 percent of the men's.

Of particular inter­

est here is their observation that different groups of people talk about the subjects most closely related to their work.

For example,

business people talked about money and business in 70 percent of the conversations overheardj industrial workers in 4-3 percent, and stu­ dents in only 9 percent.

Stoke and W e s t ^ V undertook to test the no­

tion present in some college circles that students learn more from their "bull sessions” than from their studies.

By means of student

"recorders” they kept a record of topics discussed in sororitie3, fra­ ternities and dormitories after dark.

They concluded that the general

topic of sex (dates, sex problems, marriage, etc.) held the greatest interest for their groups.

In answer to their original question they

concluded that the matters discussed in bull sessions are not such as will contribute materially to the intellectual development of the participants.

23/ Landis, H. M. and Burtt, H. E., A Study of Conversation, Journal of Comparative Psychology. 1924, Vol. 4, pp. 81-90. 24/ Stoke, S. M., and West, E. D., Conversational Intex'ests of College Students, School and Society. Oct. 1930, Vol. 32, pp. 567-70.

In an attempt to answer the question, "What do college stu­ dents like to talk about?", we asked them to "Please list in order of preference those subjects about which you enjoy conversing very much. Do not hesitate to include a subject simply because it is not con­ sidered suitable for "parlor" conversations."

Ten blank spaces mark­

ed "first choice," "second choice," etc., were provided for their re­ sponse.

Their responses were so varied that it was found necessary

to group similar topics into a single category.

We tried to objecti­

fy this procedure by first tabulating the responses almost verbatim making only the very obvious groupings.

From this tabulation the

groups used here were selected and the data retabulated.

The author

feels that this scheme of classification is not entirely satisfactory; however, there seemed to be no better method of handling these data. After the topics were tabulated each was weighted by multiply­ ing the frequency with which it was mentioned as a first choice by 10, the frequency with which it was mentioned as a second choice by 9 and so on until the frequency with which it was mentioned as a tenth choice was multiplied by 1. for each item.

These products were then added to give the weight

Average weights were calculated by dividing by the

number in the sample.

These will facilitate comparisons between the

men and women. Table XX gives the preferred topics and the average weights for men s.nd women.

TABLE XX

Men Sports and Hobbies Current Events Sex Classes and School Work Books, Magazines, Music, Art Politics Social Events Opposite Sex and Dates People and Personalities Technical and Professional Subjects Reminiscences and Experiences Movies, Radio Programs Jolces, Small Talk, etc. Future Plans Religion Travels Nature Occupations and Careers Personal Philosophy and Attitudes Self and Personal Problems Home Town and Family Colleges, Fraternities and Sororities Marriage The Others Interests Sociological Problems Clothes and Fashions

6.56 A. 72 3.52 2.33 2.32 2.23 2.18 2.05 1.85 1.77 1.45 1.37 .88 .59 .58 .56 •4-3 .34 .33 .29 .25 .22 .17 .16 .10 .06

Rank

Women

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a

4.50 2.96 1.47 3.94 7.65 .91 2.86

9 10 11 12 13

3.19 .55 1.02 2.77 I .84 .6? 1.02 .95 .34 .25 1.04 .56 1.07 .22 .38 .80 .17 .89

H

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Rank

2.28

2 5 10 3 1 16 6 8 4 21 13.5 7 9 19 13.5 15 23 24 12 20 11 25 22 18 26 17

A brief description of the items included in each of the clas sifications will facilitate the interpretation of this table. Sports and Hobbies:

It was necessary to combine these two be

cause, for example, it was difficult to classify golf, hunting, and hiking as either a sport or hobby. Current Events:

Foreign and national affairs, war, local

news and draft are among the items included under this heading. Sex:

Usually this word alone appeared on the papers, a few

wrote "intercourse" or "sex problems".

31

Classes and School Work: This phrase was used on many ques­ tionnaires, also specific course names (this overlapswith technical and professional subjects), many

wrote "my studies”.

Books, Magazines. Music. Art:

These items were grouped be­

cause they seemed to be cultural in nature.

Collectively they ob­

tained a. much higher weight than any one deserves.

It was rare that

more than one appeared in a single list. Politics:

This was the only word used.

Social Events:

Includes "college social activities” , "dances”,

"house parties”. Opposite Sex and Dates:

The respondents wrote "men", "boy­

friends", "girls", "women", "girl-friends", "dating", "attitudes of coeds toward men", etc. People and Personalities: Most often they wrote "people". Also included are "professors”, "mutual friends", "people I dislike". Technical and Professional Subjects: We tried to include only the name of a field rather than the name of a course.

"Psychology",

"Education1', "Physics", "Engineering”, etc., were included.

Also "Sci­

entific subjects”, "Medical Subjects”, etc., are included. Movies and Radio Programs: peared on the questionnaire.

Usually one of these words ap­

Included also are "movie actors" and

"radio performers”. Jokes, Small Talk, etc.:

"Weather", "humorous incidents",

"jokes", "nonsense", "everyday happenings", "gossip", "small talk", etc.

Religion:

This word, appeared as such in most cases.

"Church”

and "God" were mentioned by a few people. Travels:

This word also appeared as such in most cases.

"Where I've been" or some similarly worded idea appeared once or twice. Nature:

Again, this word appeared on most papers where the

topic was mentioned.

"Outdoors" and "Birds" are included.

Occupations and Careers: similarity.

These were combined because of their

The word "vocations" also appeared occasionally.

Self and Personal Problems: "myself".

Most often used was the word

"My interests", "my problems" are other phrases that were

used. Philosophy and Attitudes:

"Life", "ethics", "moral, code",

"likes and dislikes", "philosophy", are among the phrases included un­ der this heading. Home Town and Family:

In addition to the two words included

in the classifying term, "parents", "relatives" and "my home" are in­ clined . Colleges, Fraternities and Sororities:

On the questionnaires

mentioning this topic, one of these words was used. Marriage:

"Getting married", "marriage" or "marriage problems"

were the terms appearing most frequently. The Other's Interests:

"What the other person wants to talk

aboiit", "a common interest", "the person to whom I am talking" give an indication of the type of terms included under this heading.

Sociological Problems:

"Sociological problems", "problems

of the farmer", "labor relations" are included under this heading. Clothes and Fashions:

One of these two words appeared on the

questionnaire. To determine the consistency of the responses of the men and women the preferences of Group I and Group II were correlated by ranks-difference method and correlations of 4* .94-0 with a probable error of .015 and +.924 with a probable error of .019 were obtained for the men and women, respectively.

This means, of course, that there

was a high degree of agreement among the men and among the women includ­ ed in the sample as to what they say they enjoy talking about. That there was little difference between the preferences of fraternity men and non-fraternity men may be shown by the fact that the rank-difference correlation between them is +. 8 7 8 with a probable er­ ror of .030.

The correlation of + .854 with a probable error of .036

between sorority and non-sorority women indicates that their reported preferences, too, were very similar.

Annoyances: To determine the extent to which the students of this sample wei’e annoyed by the conversational "don'ts" listed in the questionnaire their responses were weighted by multiplying the frequency of the "Mfs" by 4, the "S*s" by 3» the "L*&" by 2 and the "Nfs" by 1.

The result­

ing products were then totaled and averaged for each item thus giving the average response of the group for each annoyance.

Tables XXI, XXII,

XXIII and XXIV show howr the men and women reacted to the individual annoyances.

TABLE XXI

Average Reaction of Men to Conversational "Don’ts" in Mixed Groups

Stubbornness Affectation Evidences of conceit Profanity Loss of temper Getting personal during an argument One who monopolises the conversation "Big words" Bragging Misuse of English "Pumping" Catty remarks Complaining Contradictions Sarcasm Inattentiveness Ah-ah-ah, or er-er, etc. Errors in pronunciation Interrupting the speaker Dogmatic statements Lack of eye contact Unpleasant voices Use of popular expressions Nervous movements Evident attempts to change the subject One who makes few contributions

3.39 3.38 3.37 3-34 3.33 3.22 3.19 3.18 3.16 3.09 3.04 2.97 2.93 2.93 2.91 2,91 2.84 2.81 2.80 2.80 2.65

2.64 2.60 2.54 2.53 2.09

35.

TABLE XXII

Average Reaction of Men to Conversational "Don1ts" in Unmixed Groups

Stubbornness Evidences of conceit Affectation One who monopolizes the conversation Big words Bragging Loss of temper Interrupting the speaker Getting personal during an argument Con trad ic tio ns ’'Pumping” Inattentiveness Catty remarks Sarcasm Complaining Ah-ah-ah, or er-er, etc. Misuse of English Dogmatic Statements Errors in pronunciation Evident attempts to change the subject N ervous movement s Unpleasant voices Lack of "eye contact" Profanity One who makes few contributions Use of popular expressions

3.27 3.13 3.10 3.09

3.06 3.05 3.03 2.97 2.93 2.77 2.76 2.62 2.62 2.60 2.60 2.59 2.59 2.53 2 *4.2 2.4-0 2.36 2.36 2.33 2.08 1.91 1.30

TABLE XXIII

Average Reaction of Women to Conversational ”Don,tsn in Mixed Groups

Affectation. Misuse of English Stubbornness Inattentiveness One who monopolizes the conversation Loss of temper Bragging Evidences of conceit Interrupting the speaker "Big words” "Pumping" Getting personal during an argument Complaining Errors in pronunciation Catty remarks Unpleasant voices Profanity Ah-ah-ah, er-or, etc. Lack of "eye contact" Dogmatic statements Sarcasm Contradictions Nervous movements Evident attempts to change the subject Use of popular expressions One who makes few contributions

3.56 3.52 3.50 3.XI 3*4-0 3-39 3.33 3-32 3-32 3.31 3.29

3.26 3.26 3.21 3*21 3.19 3.19 3.16 3.01 3.00 2.99 2,98 2,90 2.73 2.63 2.43

TABLE XXIV

Average Reaction of Women, to Conversational "Don’ts" in Unmixed Groups

Stubbornness Affectation Misuse of English Evidences of conceit Bragging "Big words" Interrupting the speaker One who monopolizes the conversation Inattentiveness Loss of temper Unpleasant voices "Pumping" Complaining Catty remarks Errors in pronunciation Getting personal during an argument Sarcasm Ah-ah-ah, or er-er, etc. Contradictions Dogmatic Statements Profanity Lack of "eye contact" Nervous movements Evident attempts to change the subject Use of popular expressions One who makes few contributions

3.52 3.51 3.33 3.30 3.27 3.27 3.26 3.23 3.21 3.16 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.10 3.07 3.04 3.01 3.01 3.01 2.94 2.83 2.79 2.78 2.61 2.42 2.27

Both tiie men and women as a group were consistent in their responses to this section.

The rank-difference correlation computed

between Groups I and II men for unmixed groups is +- .950, probable error .013 and for mixed groups +-.952, probable error .012. The correlations between Group I and II women for unmixed and mixed groups are +- .934* probable error .017 and +-.863, probable error .034*

It will be observed that the women were slightly less

consistent in their reaction to the occurrence of these annoyances in mixed groups than were the men.

However, the r of t .863 indi­

cates that the women agreed very well in their responses to these annoyances. To answer the question, "Do the several groups assign rela­ tively the same degree of annoyance to these items, i.e., are they all annoyed most by "stubbornness” and least by "sarcasm"?, rank-difference r ’s were computed between the various groups.

These correla­

tions are given in the following tables.

TABLE XXV Men - Mixed Groups

Sophomores Freshmen Sophomores Juniors

Juniors

.936

.910 .910

Seniors

.962 .930 .933

TABLE XXVI Men - Unmixed Groups

Sophomores Freshmen Sophomores Juniors

.952

Juniors .931 .910

Seniors .951 .922 .911

TABLE XXVII Women - Mixed Groups Sophomores Freshmen Sophomores Juniors

Juniors

.820

.741 .891

Seniors *678 .799

.848

TABLE XXVIII Women - Unmixed Groups Sophomores Freshmen Sophomores Juniors

Juniors

.871

.810 .821

Seniors .710 .742 .888

It will be observed from the fore-going tables that the dif­ ferent classes of men agreed closely in their responses to these annoyances.

The women did not agree as well from class to class as

did the men. The r !s between fraternity and non-fraternity groups for mixed and unmixed groups are +.924* probable error .019, and +.915, probable error .022, respectively, and between sorority and non­ sorority groups for mixed and unmixed groups are + .859, probable error .035, and +.844, probable error .038. By referring to the four tables of annoyances one will ob­ serve that the m m have 11 weights greater than "3" (equivalent of "some") for mixed groups while the women have 20.

For unmixed groups

the men have 7 weights greater than ”3" while the women have 19• This suggests that the women react more extremely to annoying be­ havior than men.

It will be observed also that the weights run con­

sistently higher for mixed groups than for unmixed groups.

Table

XXXIX shows the mean weight for each group, the standard deviation for each group, the difference between means, the standard error of that difference and the ratio between the difference and its standard error.

It is to be noted that since correlation was present among

these series, it was necessary to employ the formula for the standard error of the difference between two correlated series.

These r 8s are

also given in the table.

TABLE XXXIX

r Women (mixed groups

Mean 3.71

Stan­ dard Deviation .278

.746 Men (mixed groups)

Stan­ dard Error Ratio

.198

.038

5.21

.325

.140

2.32

.256

.035

2.33

.113

.078

1,51

2.973 .269

Women (unuiixed groups)

3.053 .444 .810

Men (unmixed groups)

2.723 .725

Men (mixed groups)

2.973 .269 .760

Men (unmixed groups)

2.728 .725

Women (mixed groups)

3.171 .273 .933

Women (unmixed groups)

Diff.

Stan­ dard Error

3.053 .444

It will be observed from the above table that women are slightly more annoyed than are the men by the occurrence of conver­ sational ”donfts” in mixed groups.

It will also be seen that the

women tend to be more annoyed in unmixed groups than do the men. The men tend to react more strongly in mixed groups than they do in uninixed while the 7/omen react to about the same degree in both mixed and unmixed groups.

Conver sational problemst

Table XXX shows the percentage of the members of each class and the percentage of the total for men who were troubled by the list­ ed conversational problems.

Table XXXI gives the same data for women.

TABLE XXX Men

Fr, (N - 84)

So. (N - 70)

Percent Jr. (N - 63)

Sr. (N = 66)

Total (N m 287)

52.6 46.0 47.0 Getting started 51.5 65.5 47.6 51.6 Breaking a silence 47.6 45.5 54.4 Thinking of approp­ 42.8 41.0 44.6 riate remarks 51.2 44-5 Finding interesting topics 48.6 36.4 43.5 53-5 34-9 24.2 27.0 Keeping it going 35.7 34.5 30.3 Stating opinions 28.6 38.7 convincingly 32.2 28.5 14.4 Ending a conversa­ 22.8 20.6 21.2 24.0 tion 31.0 Making yourself understood 20.6 20.0 21.2 22.3 27.4 Making tactless 22.8 21.2 22.0 remarks 25.2 17.5 Directing the con­ versation 22.6 19.0 18.2 20.221.4 6.1 Changing the subject 10.7 15.7 11.2 12.7 15.2 11.2 Getting angry 7.1 7.9 14.3 Staying on the sub­ 7.6 11.1 9.8 ject 9.5 11.4 3.0 3.2 5.2 7.1 7.1 Following discussion Agriculture) Note: Total N includes four special (2-year students.

TABLE XXXI Women

So. (N = 56)

Percent Jr. (N * 52)

Sr. (N - 38)

Total (N = 233)

51.2 44.2

53.5 41.0

44.2 48.0

50.0 36.8

49.8 42.9

46.5

42.8

28.9

26.3

38.2,

37.2

37.5

30.8

29.0

34.3

37.2 38.4

35.7 19.6

21.2 28.9

31.6 15.8

32.2 27.9

36.0

28.6

23.1

15.8

27.9

22.1

21.4

17.3

31.6

22.3

21.0 19.8 14.0 12.8 12.8

21.4 26.8 8.9 16.1 8.9

19.2 21.2 17.3 7.7 13.5

29.0 15.8 10.5 7.9

10.5

21.9 21.0 12.9 11.6 11.6

8.1

5.4

5.8

2.6

6.0

Fr. (H = 86). Breaking a silence Getting started Thinking of approp­ riate remarks Finding interesting topics Stating opinions convincingly Keeping it going Making tactless remarks Making yourself understood Directing the con­ versation Ending a conversation Changing the subject Getting angry Staying on the subject Following the dis­ cussion

Note;

Total N includes one unclassified student.

The ranks-difference correlation between Groups I and II for the men is +.949, probable error .018, and for the women is -+- .904, probable error .033# From Table XXXII it will be seen that, in general, a smaller percentage of each succeeding college class is troubled by the conver­ sational problems listed here than the percentage of the total popula­ tion checking each problem.

TABLE XXXII Men Number of problems mentioned by a smaller percent of class than by percent of total population „ _

Number of problems mentioned by a larger percent of class than by percent of total popule.t3.on ______ Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors

11 8 2 3

3

6 12 11 Women

Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors

11

3

8

6

5 3

11

9

Table XXXIII shows the percentage of fraternity and nonfraternity men and sorority and non-sorority women who checked each conversational, problem.

TABLE XXXIII

N-S ii

U

a

Getting started Thinking of appropriate remarks Changing the subject Getting angry Finding interesting topics Breaking a silence Staying on the SubjectEnding a conversation Making yourself understood Making tactless remarks Directing the conversation Following the discussion Keeping it going Stating opinions convincingly

Percent S F N-F (N = 62) (N = 142) (N = 145) 50.0 55.1 35.5 49.6 30.7 39.5 12.0 10.3 12.9 13.8 85.0 6.5 24.2 43.7 43.5 38.7 47.9 55.1 7.6 16.1 12.0 24.0 24.2 16.1 19.0 25.8 25.5 23.2 22.6 20.7 24.8 25.8 15.5 4.8 4.2 6.2 30.3 3 0.3 19.4 28.2 29.0 35.5

45.6 40.9 12.9 13.5 38.0 53.8 9.9 22.8 21.0 29.8 20.5 6.4

31.0 31.0

Examination of this table reveals that there are no large differences between the fraternity-sorority group and the independent group.

However, a slightly higher percent of the independent students

checked most of the problems.

Likes and Dislikes: As mentioned earlier the items listed in the following tables were grouped together because people either like, dislike or are neu­ tral to them.

Table XXXIV gives the percentage of men checking each

response and Table XXXV gives the same information for the women.

By

considering "In the mean position and "L” the deviations from the mean in the positive direction and "D” the deviations from the mean in the negative direction, we can get a very rough estimate of the general reaction to each Item.

This is shown at the right of the table.

46.

TABLE XXXIV Men (N - 287) Puns Gossip Flattery (by opposite sex) Flattery (by same sex) Shop—talk (talk about work) Small-talk (trivial conversation) Rumors Dirty jokes (mixed company) Dirty jokes (unmixed company) Discussion of dates (mixed company) Discussion of dates (unmixed company) Non-malicious discussion of personalities Use of technical words Discussion of controversial subjects Sincere compliments (opposite sex) Sincere compliments (same sex) Correct use of large words Discussion of cultural topics

D 11 47 26 32 10 28 30 68 9 61 15 6 55 6 2 3 4 4

Percent L I 45 44 11 42 36 38 22 46 27 63 58 U 57 13 11 21 38 53 28 11 54 31 57 37 10 35 28 66 86 12 22 75 42 54 27 Vol. 4 , pp. 156-75.

iux

89a.

’ i f Perl, E. E. , The Influence of a Social Factor Upon the Appreci­ ation of Jokes, American J ourn al of P sychology, 1933, Vol. 45, pp. 308-312, 5.3/ Wolff, Ii. A., Smith,. C. E . , and Murray, H. A . , The Psychology of Humor, Journal of Abnormal and Social. Psycholog/, Vol. 28, 1934, pp. 341-365.

90,

use bests of humor but apparently none of these has been published. Sense of humor v/as measured in the Social Intelligence Test by having the subject select the best of four possible completions to a joke. It would seem that sense of humor is more complex than the nature of this test would indicate.

Scores on this test correlated +' .14.2 with

conversational ability and its standard error ratio is 2.5.

It seems

possible that a better measure of sense of humor might yield a higher and more significant correlation with conversational ability. Scholarship; All-college averages were obtained from the college registrar for each of the 7& subjects. lated

.04-5*

With conversational ability they corre­

The standard error ratio of this r is .76.

These re­

sults indicate that so far as this sample is concerned academic success is unrelated to conversational ability. Qu e S'11onn a ir o; When considering the responses of the good and poor conversa­ tionalists one must remember that they should not be compared with the responses given in Part I of this study for several reasons.

First,

after they responded to the questionnaire the first time they heard a lecture on conversation in which many of these points were discussed. It is quite likely that their second responses were influenced by this discussion.

Second, since we needed to identify their papers, they were

instructed to write their names on the questionnaires.

Third, each of

these groups is so small that the reliability is probably not so good

91.

as that of the larger groups.

Fourth, these data do not include any

responses from the average group and. therefore, should, be expected to differ from the data collected from a comp!ete population.

Fifth,

the tables given in this section include both men and women.

This, we

feel, is justified because the ratio of men to women is approximately two to one in both the good, and poor groups.

We feel it is advisable

because treatment of the men and women separately would mean making the groups smaller and, hence, reducing the reliability. Topics of Conversation: Table IV shows the conversational topics preferred by the good and poor conversationalists.

The same method of tabula,ting and weight­

ing was used here as was used in Paxt I (see page 29).

TABLE IV Good Av. vrb.

Topic. Current events Sports and hobbies Books, magazines, rn.ur.de, art O S!X

Classes and school work Technical and professional subjects People and personalities Social- events Opposite sex and dates Movies and radio Jokes and snail talk Reminescences and experiences Clothes and fashions Self and personal problems Future; plans Occupations and vocations Colleges and fra.temit.ies Personal philosophy and attitude s Travels Religion Politics S o cio lo gi c8.1 conditio n s Marriage Home town and family 0 thers in ter e sts K ature

6.3S 6.11 4 .68 4.54 3.50 2.95 2.25 2.11 1.89 1.57 1.48 1.45 1.11 1.02 1.00 .95 .90 .80 .77 .75 .73

.48 .39 .30 .27 .14

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Pool' Av. vet. 5.21 4. oO 2.35 3*91 4.91 1.35

3.06 1.17 2.79 2.29 2.88 1.15 .88 .79 •44

.26 .00 .26 .41 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .29 .26

Rank 1 3 8 4 2 10 5 11 7 9 6 12 13 14 16 19.3 19.3 17 15

IS 19.3

The average number of topics listed by the good group was 7.57 -and by the poor group was 5-05.

It is interesting to note from Table

IV that the poor group assigned higher weightings to dis cussions of classes and school v/ork, people ant’ personalities, oppos ite sex and dates, movies and radio programs , and jokes, small talk, etc.

M any

popular writers have suggested ihat shop tall?, clis cussions of personall.ties and trivialities are not character!stic of "good 11 eonver1nation.

93.

t^IKL'ynncges;_ Table V shows the reactions of the good and poor conversation­ alists to the occurrence of certain annoyances during conversation in mixed groups and Table VI gives the same data, for unmixed groups.

The

weights were calculated as in Part I ; the frequency of the M's, S's, L ls and N ’s we multiplied by 4-j 3, 2/ and 1, respectively.

These pro-

ducts were then totaled and averaged to give the average annoyance val­ ue for each item.

94.

TABLE V Mixed Group

Affectation Stubbornness Loss of temper Getting personal during an argument ”Big words” Profanity Interrupting the speaker Evidences of conceit Misuse of English Ina ttentiveness "Pumping" One who monopoliv.es the conversation Bragging Dogmatic statements Lack of eye contact Errors in pronunciation Ah-ah-ah, or er-er Contradic tio 1is Catty remarks Complaining Sarcasm Nervous movements 0 nplea sant voic e s Use of popular expressions Evident attempts to change the subject One who makes few contributions

Good

Rank

Poor

3.50 3-4S' 3-44 3.41 3.41 3.33 3.33 3.32 3.30 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.20 3.13 3.13 3.14 3.09 3.09 3.02 2.96 2.96 2.36 2.34 2.75 2.52 2.18

1 2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 u

3.65 3-44 3.42 3.36 3.13 3-50 3-38 3*32 3.30 3.00 2,98 3.20 3.04 2.33 2.56 2.93 2.94 2.98 2.93 3.1-2 3.06

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2.64 2.74 2.47 2.32 2.14

Rank 1 3 4 6 10 2 5 7 8 14 15-2 9 13 20 24 15.2. 19 15.2 15.2 11 12 23 22 25 21

26

There is a rank-differertce r of -A .353, probable error .034 between these two listings suggesting tha t these conversational "don1ts" .roups. have relatively the same order of annoy since value for the two g‘ The mean annoyance value for the good group was 3.13 and for the poor group 3 .04 *

The difference between the se means is .09 and the standard

error of this difference, computed by the fornrala for a correlated series is .034.

The ratio of the difference between means and the standard error

of this difference is 2,65.

This suggests that while good conversa­

tionalists tend to be More annoyed by the occurrence of conversational "don'ts" in mixed groups than poor conversationalists, the differ­ ence between them is slight and, therefore, not very significant.

TABLE 71 Unmixed Group

Stubbornness Affectation Getting personal during an argument Evidences of conceit Bragging Dogmatic statements Interrupting the speaker ’’Big words” (misused) Loss of temper Complaining One who monopolizes the conversation Ins 11enti ven ess Lack of eye contact Misuse of English Contradiction s "Pumping" Unpleasant voices Ah-ah-ah, er-er Errors in pronunciation Sarcasm Nervous movements Catty remarks Evident attempts to change the subject Profanity Use of popular expressions One who makes few contributions

Good

Rank

Poor

3 .62 3.52 3.38 3.26 3.20 3.13 3.18 3.18 3.16 3.04 3.04 2.98 2.98 2.96 2.91 2,91 2.78 2.73 2.75 2.70 2.64 2.62 2.36 2.34 2.25 2.16

1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3.33 3.2.6 2.30 3-13 ■ 2.38 2.62 2.88 3.00 3.20 2.62 2.82 2.56 2.12 2.92 2.74 2,70 2.4-1 2.50 2.47 2.53 2.35 2.57 2.38 2,30 1.32 2.00

Rank 1 2 10 4 7.5 13.5 7.5 5 3 13.5 9 16 24 6 11 12 20 18 19 17 22 15 21 23

26 25

The rank difference r between these two listings is'*’.3^.0, prob­ able error .039 suggesting again that these items have relatively the

same order of annoyance value for both groups.

The mean annoyance

value for the good group was 2.92 and for the poor group 2.65.

The

difference between these means is .27 and the standard error of this difference is .013 when computed as described above.

The standard

error ratio of 2.08 indicates that the slightly higher mean of the good group is not statistically significant. Conversational Problems; Table VII shows the percent of good and poor conversationalists who checked the listed conversational problems, the difference between the two groups, the standard error of that difference and the ratio be­ tween the difference and its standard error.

Each item having a stan­

dard error ratio of between one and two Is preceded by an asterisk. Each item having a. standard error of more than two is preceded by a dou­ ble asterisk.

If the proportion of the poor group is larger, the dif­

ference will be preceded by a minus sign.

If the proportions of the

good group is larger, the difference will be preceded by a plus sign.* This procedure will, be followed in all tables showing a difference be­ tween proportions of the good and poor groups.

97.

TABLE VII

•^Getting started •^Thinking of appropriate remarks -^hanging 'the subj ect Getting angry •^Fiuding interesting topics Breaking a silence Staying on the subject ^Ending a conversation Making yourself understood Making tactless remarks ■-"Directing the conversation Following the discussion ■---'Keeping it going Stating opinions convincingly

Good

Poor

34.1 22.3 4-6 6.8 20.4 40.9 9.1 27.2 25.0 13.2 22.3 4.6 13.6 15.9

55.9 38.2 11.3 3.3 55.9 47.0 5.9 17.6 26.4 23.5 38.2 3.0 47.0 23.5

Diff. -21.3 -15.4 - 7.2 - 2.8 -35.5 - 6.1 3.2 9.6 — 1. - 5.3 -15.4 1.6 -33.4 - 7.6

S.E.

S.E. Ratio

11.1 10.4 6.3 6.1 10.4 15.1 5.9 9.3 9.9 9.3 9.6 4.3 9.9 9.1

1.96 1.4# 1.14 .45 3.41 .40 .54 1.03 .24 .56 1.60 .37 3.37 .83

From tills table it will be seen that, generally speaking, more poor than good conversationalists checked the problems.

Finding interesting top­

ics of conversation was troublesome to 35-5 percent more of the poor than good group.

Keeping the conversation going was difficult to 33 .A percent

more of the poor than good group. cal significance.

These differences are of high statisti­

Of the three problems reported by more of the good group,

two have very low standard-error ratios and may be ignored.

There seems

to be a slight tendency for more good conversationalists to have difficul­ ty ending a conversation. Likes end Dislikes: As mentioned in Part I, the items in the next section of the ques­ tionnaire were grouped together because conversationalists either like, dis­ like, or are indifferent to them.

Table VIII (see following page) shows

the percentage of good and poor conversationalists who checked each reaction.

TABLE VIII PERCENT OF GOOD AND POOR CONVERSATIONALISTS PHO LIKE, DISLIKE, OR ARE INDIFFERENT TO CERTAIN CONVERSATIONAL PRACTICES

Dislike Good Poor Puns Gossip Flattery (by opposite sex) Flattery (by same sex) Shop talk Small talk Rumors Dirty jokes (mixed groups) Dirty jokes (unraixed groups) Discussion of dates (mixed groups) Discussion of dates (unmixed groups) Non-malicious discussion of personalities Discussion of controversial subjects Use of technical words Sincere compliments (from opposite sex) Sincere compliments (from same sex) Correct use of large words Discussion of cultural topics

13.6 5.9 31.7 47.0 18.2 30.3 22.7 30.3 6.8 3.3 20.6 34.9 20, A 17.6 75.0 82.5 6.6 11.4 70.5 63.9 6.6 9.1 2.3 3.3 2.3 12.1 37.2 63.6 9.1 3.0 4.5

6.6

Indifferent Good Poor 25.0 56.9 38.6 40.9 13.6 53.5 72.6 18.2 34.1 27.2 20.4 13.6 6.8 48.9 4.5 6.8 27.2 22.7

58.7 38.2 36.4 42.5 33.3 61.7 67.6 14.7 63.6 27.2 21.2 24.2 30.3 27.2 21.2 23.5 44.1 30.3

Like Good Poor 61.4 11.4 43.1 36.4 79.5 11.6 6.8 6.8 54.5 2,3 70.5 84.0 90.1 14.0 95.5 93.1 72.6 72,6

Note: For a fuller description of these practices see the questionnaire on page 113 of the Appendix.

35.3 14.7 33.3 27.2 63.4 17.6 14,7 3.0 33.3 9.1 72,6 72.6 57.6 9.1 69.7 73.5 55.9 63.6

A study of this table shows that a larger percenta.ge of the poor conversationalists were indifferent to 12 of the 18 items and on one item the two groups tied.

We found this same tendency when con­

sidering the annoyances, the mean annoyance value for the poor conver­ sationalists being slightly lower than that of the good conversation­ alists in both mixed and umnixed groups. Background for Conversation; Radio Programs; Table IX shows the percentage of good and poor conversation­ alists who listen to the listed, types of radio programs.

TABLE IX

Popular music -^Comedians News broadcasts Classical music a-x-piays *Quizzes Sports broadcasts Educational programs

Good

Poor

Diff.

S.E.

S.E. Ratio

68.2 68.2 36,4. 40.1 29.6 27.3 9.1 13.7

67.6 35.3 44 .1 32.4 ^4 *I 14..7 8.8 8.8

.6 32.9 - 7.7 7.7 -14.5 12.6 .3 4.9

10.6 10.7 11.1 10.9 11.2 9.0 6.5 7.1

.06 3.07 .69 .70 1.29 1.40 .04 .69

Table IX shows that a significantly 1 arger percentage of the good conversationalists listen to radio comedians and there is a slight tendency for then to listen to quizz programs.

There also seems to be

a slight tendency for poor conversationalists to listen

plays.

Managingsi Table X shows the percentage of good and poor conversation­ alists who read, the listed, magazines.

TABLE X

h '-T

■ .£»

Auli 1 $ Readers Digest Saturday Evening Post *-Time ■^■Colliers Esquire American C o smo no1itan Woman's Home Companion Fortune Ladies’ Home Journal Mademoiselle ■^Harpers *Good Housekeeping

Good

Poor

Diff.

S.E.

S.E. Ratio

66.0 63.6 33.6 36.427.3 22.9 IS. 2 15.9 13.6 11.4 11.4 11 e4 6.0 5.0

50.0 16.0 52.9 10.7 9.2 29.4 23.5 12.9 11.3 15.5 3.2 14.7 26.4 - 3.2 11.8 4.1 11.8 1.8 11.8 •4 17.6 - 6.2 11.8 — *4 17.6 . -11.6 14.7 - 9.7

11.1 11.2 10.7 10,2 3.8 3.7 9.5 7.8 7.5 7.3 8.0 7.3 7,4 6.9

1*44 .95 .35 1.26 1.76 .94 .36 .52 .24 .05 .77 .24 1,56 1.40

This table shows no significant difference between the good and poor groups.

There seems to be a slight tendency, however, for

fewer of the poor conversationalists to read Life, Time and Colliers all of which were found to be popular with the general student body. On the other hand, there is a tendency for more poor conversation­ alists to read Harpers and Good Housekeeping. Movies; Table XI shows the frequency of movie attendance for the good and poor conversationalists.

101

.

t a b l e ; xi

per Month

Good

than, once 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

2.3 2.3 11.6 16.3 13.9 7.0 18,6 2.3 7.0 9.3 7.0 2.3

Poor

8.8 17.7 17.7 17.7 14.6 8.8 5.9 2.9 5.9

The average frequency of movie attendance for the good conver­ sationalists was 5*32 times per month and for the poor was 4,03 per month.

The difference between these means is 1.29 but the standard

error of this difference is 8.1,

The standard error ratio of .16 in­

dicates that this difference is not significant. Table XII shows the percentage of good and poor conversation­ alists who say they prefer the listed types of movies.

TABLE XII

Comedies -^Historical Musical comedies Mystery vDramatic vAdventure Br" ;

Good

Poor

Diff.

S.E.

S.E. Ratio

70.5 45.5 43.1 40.9 36.4 18,2 11.4

76.6 29.4 36.1 47.0 20.6 29.4 14*7

- 6.1 16.1 5.0 - 6.1 15.8 -11.2 - 3.3

9.9 10.8 11.1 11.3 10.0 9.7 7.7

.61 1.49 .45 .53 1.58 1.15 .42

It wil I. be seen from tnis table that there are no significant differences between the movie preferences of good and poor conversa­ tionalists.

However, there is a slight tendency for more good conver­

sationalists to prefer historic and dramatic pictures and for more poor conversationalists to prefer adventure pictures. Newspapers;

Table XIII shows the percentage of good and poor conversation­ alists who read the listed sections of a newspaper.

TABLE XIII

Front page --"Comics Sports -^Editorial Theater Society --•Pictures ^Columns '---hidver t isement s Fashions Financial

Diff,

S.E,

Good

Poor

84-.0 72.6 47.6 27.3 15.9 15.9 13.6 9.1 9.1 9.1 6.8

/ 1L 88,1 - A i.♦. 7.8 82.5 - 9.9 9.3 41.1 ' 6.5 11,3 24.4 7.3 2.97.8 11,8 4.1 8.8 7.1 7,3 10.7 5.9 • 2.9 5.2 6.2 2.9 9.1 4.3 6.2 5.2 2.9 5.5 .9 5.9

S .E * Ratio .52 1.06 .57 3.34 .52 .97 1.81 1.19 2.11 1,19 .16

It will be seen from this table that a significantly larger proportion of the good conversationalists read editorials.

Also there

is a tendency for more of the good group to read the picture section, columns, advertisements and fashion sections.

There seems to oe a

slight tendenc.v for more noor conversationalists to read the comic sections.

103.

Self-Ratings of Conversational Ability: On the rating scale of conversational ability all the points except good and poor were blocked out and the subjects were instruct­ ed to place themselves in one or the other of these two classes.

Of

those who were rated good by their associates 84..2 percent placed themselves in tnis category and 15.3 percent placed themselves in the poor class.

Of those who were rated poor by their associates, 75 .3

percent placed themselves in this category and 24.2 percent placed themselves in the good class.

The tetrachoric r between associates*

ratings and self-rating is + .314-. the true r is zero is .032.

The probable error of this r when

The reliability of our good and poor

classifications is supported by these findings. Character! sti cs of a Go od Go river sat ional ist : The reader is reminded that before the members of the partici­ pating groups listed the good and poor conversationalists they heard a discussion of the characteristics of a good conversationalist.

It is

quite possible that the respondents were influenced by this in the listing given below.

The same method of grouping like statements as

was used in part one was followed here.

Table XIV gives the percentage

of good and poor conversationalists who listed each characteristic. For description of the statements included in each item turn to page

104.

TABLE XIV

^-interest in other* s contributions Can talk on a. variety of subj ects -“Pleasant voice Expresses self well Pleasing personality and experience Can keep up and direct a conver­ sation *Good thinker.- willing to express opinions ■“Tolerant Sense of humor “-Tactful and courteous “-Poised not self conscious Fits to group -“-“-Sincere -“Gan open a conversation Meets your eye ■“-Makes you feel at ease

Good

Pool'

68.1 66.0 40.9 33.6 29.6

41.2 64 .6

26.9 1.4

26.4 41.2 23.5

14.5 - 2.6

27.2 25.0 22.7 22.7 17.9 17.9 11.4 11.4 2.3 4*6 0

birr*

S .E .

S.E Ratio

2.46

6.1

10.9 10.8 10.5 11.1 10.0

32.4

- 5.2

10.4

.50

14.1

10.9 8.6 2.1 -11.5 9.1 - 2.7 11.4 -11.8 1.6 - 3.0

8.8 8.6 9.3 9.7 7.5 7.6 4*7 6.3 4-3 2.9

1.23 1.00 .22 1.18 1.21 .35 2.4 2. 1.87 .37 1.00

14.1 20.6 29.4 8.8 14.1 0 I4 .I 3.0 3.0

.12 1.39 .23 .61

These data reveal no significant differences between the two groups.

There appears, however, to be a strong tendency for more

good conversationalists to be interested in the other* s contributions and to consider sincerity desirable in conversationalists.

However,

only 1I..0 percent mentioned this latter characteristic. More good conversationalists tend to stress pleasant voice, good thinking, tol­ erance and poise.

More of the poor group tended to stre ss tact and

courtesy, ability to open a conversation and to make one feel at ease. Only 3*0 percent of the poor group mentioned this last item, however. Hobbies'. For some reason, a much smaller percentage of the group listed

105.

aoholes than in part one of this research.

XI. may be that a hobby

vms defined differently when administering the questionnaire the second time but this was not knowingly done.

Of the poor group 60.2

percent Listed hobbies and 63.4 percent of the good group did so.

The

difference betweon these proportions is 3,2 and the standard error is 11.0.

The standard error ratio of .29 suggests that having a hobby

probably does not contribute to conversational ability. Qffices and Clubs: The subjects were asked to list all offices held in high school or college.

That good conversationalists tend to receive appointments

and to be elected to office in high school and college snore often than poor conversationalists in chown by the finding that 95.5 percent of the former group while only 60 percent of the latter group listed ox— flees held in high school or college.

The difference between these

proportions is 35.5 and its standard error is 8.9.

The standard error

ratio of 3.98 indicates that this difference is highly significant. The subjects were also asked to list trie clubs, fruternzties, honorary societies, etc., in which they have membership.

The average

number of organizations mentioned by the good conversations mists was 2.72 and the average number for the poor group was 1.70.

The differ­

ence between these means is 1.02 ana its standard error is 1..4*

Tne

standard error ratio of .55 indicates that this cilxerence is no o oig-

106.

Conversational 6iti.urbi.ons: Table 7V gives the percent of good and poor conversationalxsts who reported difficulty talking in each of the conversational situations listed below.

TABLE XV

To a member of the same sex ■ ;'*To a member of the opposite sex To a stranger *In groups (same sex.) *In groups (mixed sex) To an instructor To older people To superiors ;;-To someone who disagrees To someone who makes few contribu­ tions

S.E. Ratio

Good

Poor

Diff.

S.E.

2.3

2.9 26.4 33.2 17.7 33.2 29.4

3.6 9.1

1.60 1.40

29.3 9.1 22.7 25.0 .3—1 11,8 56.9 50.0 20./f 11.8

- .6 -12,8 - 8,4 — 8.6 -15,5 — 4*4 - .4 6.9 3,6

10.8 8.4 10.4 10.1

1.02

63*5

-10,0

13.6

,

73.5

.77

7.3 11.3

1.49 .43 •05 .61

8.2

1.00

12.2

.82

From this table it will be seen that there are no significant differences between the groups in the number reporting difficulty in specific conversational situations.

In general, there is a tendency

for more poor than good to check the problems.

More poor conversa­

tionalists tend to have difficulty talking to a member of the opposite sex, and in groups of either the same or mixed sex.

There is a slight

tendency for more good conversationalists to have difficulty talking to someone who disagrees.

107,

CHAPTER III

Conversational ability appears to be a very complex skill. Many of the factors that have been regarded as determiners of con­ versational ability were found to bear only as insignificant rela­ tionship to this skill as it was measured in this study. appear to bear no relationship to the criterion.

Others

Table XVI gives the

correlation between each factor studied and conversational ability and the ratio between these correlations and their standard error when the true v is sero.

TABLE XVI

S cholarship Intelligence Vocabulary Knowledge of etiquette .General information English usage So cial I nt e111 gen ce Judgment in social situations Recognition of speakers mental stats Observation of human behavior Memory for names and faces Sense of lmmor Personality S elf-suffic iency Dominance Stability Pronunciation Articulation Voice

R

Standard error ratio

.0X5 .079 .030

.76 1-3 .05

.022

.OX

.159 .074

2.7 1.2

.096

1.6

.017 .071 .029 .033 .142

.03 1.2 *49 1.4 2.5

.096 .273 .256 .079 .135 .252

1.7 4.6 4*3 1*3 3.1 4*3

103.

From this table it will be seen that two personality traits: dominance and stability and two speech characteristics: clear arti­ culation and pleasant voice were the only traits that met the usually accepted standard of statistical significance,

General information

and sense of humor approached significance. The good conversationalists listed an average of 2.52 more topics of conversation than did the poor group, however, the standard error of this difference between means is 3*39 and the ratio between the difference and its standard error is .74* statistically significant.

This difference is not

Discussions of classes and school work

(shop talk), people and personalities, opposite sex and dates, movies and radio programs, jokes, small talk, etc., subjects that many writers feel should play only a minor role in conversation - were assigned higher weights by the poor conversationalists. Good eorrversationalists tend to be slightly more annoyed by conversational "don'ts” than axe poor conversationalists in both, mixed and unmixed groups.

However, the differences between the mean annoyance

values for both situations are slight and not of high statistical, sig­ nificance.

There was a high degree of agreement between the two groups

in the rank assigned the annoyances in this list. As one would naturally expect, there was a tendency for a L- rger percentage of the poor conversation:11.;she to report speci-iic conversational problems.

A significantly larger proportion of the poor

group reported difficulty finding inhere stung topj.cs and keeping it-

109.

o°ing»

There Is a slight tendency for more good conversationalists

to have difficulty ending a. conversation. Generally speaking, more of the poor conversationalists tendea to react ”indifferently” to certain conversational techniques and practices, e.g., flattery, punning, and rumors, than did the good conver sati onalists. Several interesting differences in the background of the good, and poor groups were found. 1. Almost twice as many good than poor conversationalists listen to radio comedians. This difference Is of high statistical significance. There is a slight tendency for more good conversationalists to listen to quizz programs end for more of the poor group to listen to plays. 2. There were no significant differences between the maga­ zine preferences of the two groups. However, there is a slight tendency for fewer of the poor group to read Life, Time and Colliers - magazines that are popular with the general college population. More poor conver­ sationalists tend to read Harpers and Good Housekeeping. No significant difference was found between the average movie attendance- of the good and poor conversationalists and no significant differences were found between movie preferences of the two groups. More good conversation­ alists tend to prefer historical and dramatic movies while more poor conversationalists tend to prefer the adventure type. 3. A significantly larger portion of the good group reported reading editorials. In general there seems to be a ten­ dency for more good conversationalists to read more sec­ tions of the paper with the exception of the comic section. 4.. No significant difference between the number of good and poor conversationalists reporting hobbies were found. 5. Almost 36.0 percent more of the good conversationalists held offices in high school or college. This difference is of high statistical significance.

6. No significant difference between the average club member,ship of good, and poor conversation­ alists were found. There appears to be a. strong tendency for good conversation­ alists to be better listeners, i.e., to be more interested in the other’s contributions, also there was a strong tendency for more of the good group to mention sincerity as a desirable characteristic of a good conversationalist.

More of the good group tend to stress plea­

sant voice, good thinking, tolerance ana poise.

More of the poor

group tended to stress tact and courtesy, ability to open a conversa.tiori and to make one feel at ease. Generally, a larger percentage of poor conversationalists re­ ported difficulty in specific conversational situations.

There is a

slight tendency for more good conversationalists to have difficulty talking to someone who disagrees.

Some suggested problems for further study: 1. The relationship between attitudes and conversational ability. 2. The relationship between Thurstone's Primary Mental Abilities and conversational ability. 3. The relationship between size of speaking vocabulary and conversational ability. 4., W h at do .students actually talk about? 5. Can conversational ability be improved through training?

APPENDIX

Ill School __

Sex

Age_________

Class __________________________________ Do you belong to a fraternity or sorority?___________________ College Average ________________ -

Many college students come to the Speech Clinic seeking aid in overcoming their conversational difficulties. The results of this questionnaire will be used to help them. These questions pertain to situations where you are talk­ ing with other college students, he want to know what college students like and what they dislike in such situations. Please answer the following ques­ tions THOUGHTFULLY.

Please list in order of preference those topics of conversation that you enjoy talking about very much. Do not hesitate to include a subject simply because it is not considered suitable for "parlor" conversations.

The following statements describe some of the conversational problems students ask us to solve. Please check any that are troublesome for you. If you have any problems that are not listed, write them in the space pro­ vided below. Getting started Thinking of appropriate remarks Changing the subject Getting angry Finding interesting topics Breaking a silence

Staying on the subject Ending a conversation Making yourself understood Talking to strangers Making tactless remarks

Student reactions to the following vary. Suppose some members of a group with whom you are conversing commit the following conversational "sins". Please indicate the degree to which each would annoy you by encircling the appropriate letter. M stands for much, S for some, L for little, and N for none. M S L N M S L N M S L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N

Misuse of English Errors in pronunciation Dogmatic statements Profanity Loud talking Interrupts the speaker Personal remarks Loss of temper Evident attempts to change the subject Sarcasm Antagonistic facial expressions and gestures Unpleasant voices Stubbornness (Unreasonableness) Contradictions Evidences of conceit

Imagine yourself talking for pastime with one or more students. Please indicate your reaction to the inclusion of each of the following in the con­ versation. Encircle L if you like it, D if you dislike it, and I if you are indifferent to it. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

Puns Gossip Flattery Wise-cracks Shop-talk (talk about work) Small-talk (trivial conversation) Rumors Dirty jokes (mixed company) Dirty jokes (unmixed company) Discussion of dates (mixed company) Discussion of dates (unmixed company) Non-malicious discussion of personalities Use of technical words Discussion of controversial subjects

In order to make some helpful suggestions to students who have trouble in conversational situations we need to know a little about the student body's background for conversation. Don't feel obligated to fill in all the spaces. Please list the titles of the books you have read since school began last Se pt em be r. Do NOT include te x t b o o k s .

What sections of the newspaper do you enjoy reading? mark before those you read regularly.

To what radio programs do you enjoy listening? before those that you listen to regularly.

What magazines do you enjoy reading? that you read regularly.

Place a check mark

Place a check mark before those

How frequently do y ou attend the movies?

What types of movies do you prefer?

Place a check

(Number of times per m o n t h ) .

(mysteries,

etc.)

School

H a j or

C la ss

Sex Do or

College

you belong sorority?

to

a fraternity

Average

M a n y c o l l e g e students come to the S p e e c h Clinic s e e k i n g aid. i n o v e r c o m i n g t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l b e u s e d t o h e l p t h e m . These q u e s t ions p e r t a i n to s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e y o u are t a l k i n g w i t h :olle.'xe other________ ________ s Uua ent _s. Y.*e w a n t t o k n o w w h a t c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s lik e a n d w h a t t h e y d i s l i k e i n s u c h s i t u a t i o n s . Please answer the following q u e s t i o n s THOUGHTFULLY., P l e a s e list in o r d e r of p r e f e r e n c e t h o s e topics or subjects about w h i c h y o u enjoy conversing very much. Do not h e s i t a t e t o i n c l u d e a s u b j e c t s i m p l y b e c a u s e it is n o t c o n s i d e r e d suitable for "parlor" conversations. 1 st c h o i c e _______■ _____________________ 6 t h c h oice. 2nd choice ~ ~ .... 7 th. choice 5 r d ch o i c e_ 8th choice 4th c h o ice 9th choice 5 th c h o i c e 1 0 t h clioice W e would, l i k e t o k n o w h o w y o u a r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e s e types of b e h a v i o r in m i x e d a n d u n m i x e d g r o u p s . Please indicate the d e g r e e t o w h i c h e a c h w o u l d a n n o y y o u i n a m i x e d g r o u p b y e n ­ circling the a p p r o p r i a t e l e t t e r on the left. Indicate your r e a c t i o n to e a c h in an u n m i x e d g r o u p b y e n c i r c l i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e letter o n t h e r i g h t . • M s t a n d s for muc h , S for some, L fo r little, a n d ’ IT f o r n o n e . I f y o u a r e a n n o y e d b y a n y t h i n g t h a t is"‘n o t m e n t i o n e d h e r e , i n c l u d e it i n t h e s p a c e s p r o v i d e d b e l o w . Mixed

groups

M S L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L IT M s L N M s L N M s L N M s L N Ivl s L N Ivl s L N M s L N M s L N 1.1 o L N M s L N M s L N

Unmixed

groups

M S M i s u s e of E n g l i s h M S Errors in pronunciation M s Dogmatic statements 1.1 s Profanity Xu s Interrupting the speaker s 11 Loss of temper s M E v i d e n t a t t e m p t s to ch a n g e the subject s i V i Sarcasm s M Unpleasant voices s ]M S t u b b o r n n e s s [ U n w i l l i n g to admit log i c or facts M s Contradictions s M E v i d e n c e s of c o n c e i t M s A f f e c t a t i o n [putt i n g on airs, b e i n g arti f i c i a l ] s M I n a t t e n t i v e n e s s [lack of i n t e r e s t ] • s ] ’ M U s e of p o p u l a r e x p r e s s i o n s ["aw n u t s ” , "so wh a t M s Complaining M s L a c k o f u,e y e c o n t a c t " M s One who monopolizes the conversation 1.1 s A h - a h - a h , or " e r - e r " , etc* M s " B i g w o r d s " [ m i s u s e d a n d / o r to s h o w off] LI s N e r v o u s m o v e m e n t s [tapping^ etc.] M s Catty remarks K s One who makes few contributions I'd s Bragg m g L I s "Fumofng" [personal questions] s M G etin*i"oersonal during an argument M LI

s s

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

134. T h e f o l l o w i n g st a t e m e n t s d e s c r i b e some of the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s s t u d e n t s a s k us to s olve. Please check any that are t r o u b l e s o m e for you. If y o u h a v e any problems that are not listed, w r i t e t h e m in the space p r o v i d e d below. __ G e t t i n g s t a r t e d Ending a conversation T h i n k i n g of a p p r o p r i a t e r e m a r k s 'I'akinr, y o u r s e l f u n d e r s t o o d ~ Changing the subject Making tactless remarks Getting angry D i r e c t i n g the c o n v e r s a t i o n ____ F i n d i n g i n t e r e s t i n g t o p i cs ____F o l l o w i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n Breaking a silence -K e e p i n g , it g o i n g S t a ying on the subject Stating opinions convincingly

I m a g i n g y o u r s e l f t a l k i n g for p a s t i m e w i t h one or m o r e students. P l e a s e I n d i c a t e y o u r r e a c t i o n to the i n c l u s i o n of e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g I n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , E n c i r c l e L If y o u l i k e it, D if y o u d i s l i k e it, a n d I I f y o u a r e i n d i f f e r e n t t o it. The spaces b e l o w are p r o v i d e d fo r a n y a d d i t i o n s y o u wan t to make. D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I n D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L D I L T) I L D I L

Puns Go s sIp F l a t t e r y [ b y o p p o s i t e sex] F l a t t e r y [ b y m e m b e r o f s a m e se x ] Shop-talk [talk about work] Small-tall: [ t r i v i a l c o n v e r s a t i o n ] Rumors D i rty jokes [nixed company] D i r t y j o k e s [unmixoo, c o m p a n y ] D i s c u s s i o n of d a t s s [ m i x e d comp a n y ] D i s c u s s i o n of dates [unmixed company] h o n - m a l i c i o u s d i s c u s s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t i e s U s e o f t e c h n i c a l w o r d s [ ‘' p o l l i n o s i s [t f o r h a y f e v e r D i s c u s s i o n of c o n t r o v e r s i a l s u b j e c t s S i n c e r e c o m p l i m e n t s [ b y m e m b e r o f o p p o s i t e eex] S i n c e r e c o m p l i m e n t s [ b y m e m b e r of s a m e s e x ] C o r r e c t u s e of l a r g e w o r d s D i s c u s s i o n of c u l t u r a l topics

I n o r d e r t o m a k e s o m e h e l p f u l s u g g e s t l e n s ■t o s t u d e n t s w h o h a v e t r o u b l e i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s w e n e e d to k n o w a little about the student b o d y ' s b a c k g r o u n d for conversation. D o n ’t feel o b l i g a t e d to f i l l in all th e spaces. To

what

radio

.Vhat m a g a z i n e s

programs

do

H o w f r e q u e n t l y do y o u a t t e n d p e r m o n t h ? ] ___________ __ khat

types

of

you

the

movies

do

you

read

you

listen?

frequently?

movies?

do

frequently

[Number

prefer?

of

times

[Mysteries,

etc.]

115.

.,hat

ing

the

sections

of

the

newspaper

do

you

P l e a s e r a t e y o u r s e l f as a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t a p p r o p r i a t e p oint on the scale below.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

j

!

»

t

P l e a s e l i s t vrhat y o u c o n s i d e r t o h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a g o o d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t .

provided

read

If y o u below.

have

a hobby,

please

describe

frequently?

by

Very

the

it

check*

poor i

desirable

In

the

space

P l e a s e l i s t a l l the o f f i c e s y o u h o l d or h a v e h e l d s i nce c o m i n g to college. If y o u h a v e n o t h e l d a n y o f f i c e In college, list any that y o u h e l d in h i g h school.

etc

, in

P l e a s e list the clubs, f r a t e r n i t i e s , which you have membership.

honorary

societies,

P l e a s e i n d i c a t e b y c h e c k i n g in w h i c h of the following situations y o u w o u l d h a v e the greatest difficulty. In the spaces p r o v i d e d below, add any other situations in w h i c h you might have difficulty. inber o f t h e s a m e s e x ’a I k i n g t o a T a l k i n g to a m e m b e r of th e o p p o s i t e s e x T a l k i n g to a s t r a i n g e r T a l k i n g in g r o u p s o f t h r o e o r m o r e [ s a m e sex] T a l i c i n g i n g r o u p s o f t h r e e o r m o r e [ m i x e d se x ] T a l k i n g to an I n s t r u c t o r T a l k i n g to o l d e r p e o p l e T a l k i n g t o 11i m p o r t a n t " p ■lople [ s u p e r i o r s ] Talkir, g t o s o m o o r e w h o aisi ,gr ees w i t h y o u fsw contributions T a l k i n g t o someone- w h o m to the c o n v e r s a t i o n

116 .

G E N E R A L INFORMATION Name________________________________ S o m e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s a r e t r u e e.nd s o m e jf a s t a t e m e n t is t r u e p l a c e a p l u s s i g n b e f o r e it. I f it place a z e r o b e f o r e it. 1. 2. 5.

4. 5. 6.

?. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

are false. is f a l s e

The crusades were the expeditions Marco Polo and other explorers m a d e to f i n d a short r o u t e to India. A d e n o i d s l i e so f a r b a c k i n t h e p h a r y n x t h a t s p e c i a l d e v i c e s a r e n e e d e d to e n a b l e one to soe them. L u t h e r B u r b a n k d e v e l o p e d m a n y n e w v e r i t i e s of u s e f u l p l a n t s b y m e a n s of a r t i f i c i a l l y c o n t r o l l e d c r o s s - f e r t i l i z a t i o n a n d select tion. An a n e r o i d b a r o m o t o r operates directly from air pressure without any liquid. B a b y l o n wa s a g r o a t c i t y in A s i a H i n o r d u r i n g B i b i c a l times. T h e " f o u r t h d i m e n s i o n " is t r e a t e d b y m a t h e m a t i c i a n s as m e r e l y a p o p u l a r j o k e ; t h e y h o l d it i m p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e c o u l d b e m o r e than our three dimensions. T h r o u g h o u t the M i d d l e Ages A r i s t o t l e was the one p h i l o s o p h e r whose wor d was considered final authority. S a p p h o w a s a n I t a l i a n p a i n t e r of t h e S i x t e e n t h C e n t u r y . T h e " H a l l e l u j a h C h o r u s " Is a p a r t o f t h e M e s s i a h , c o m p o s e d b y Handel. Charybdis was a m o n s t e r of Grec-k m y t h o l o g y w h o m a d e t h e p a s s a g e of tho Strait of M e s s i n a e x t r e m e l y dangerous. E p i c u r u s was a p h i l o s o p h e r w ho t a u g h t that d o i n g one's d u t y s h o u l d come b e f o r e e v e r y t h i n g else. N i c t z c h o w a s t h e a u t h o r of t h e f a m o u s p h i l o s o p h y of the "supcrman"' . J o s e p h was sol d into Egypt b y his brothers. Th o b a t t l e of M a r a t h o n Is l i s t e d as o n e o f t h e f i f t e e n d e c i s i v e b a t t l e s of t h e w o r l d . T h e T o r e a d o r S o n g is a part of B i z e t ' s C a r m e n . Landseer was a D utch painter who pain t e d p r i ncipally humanp o r ­ traits. N i r v a n a Is a s t a t e of b l i s s f u l u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n t o w h i c h g o o d B u d d h i s t s h o p e at l a s t t o b e a b s o r b e d . hoses led the Child r e n o f I s r a e l o u t o f E g y p t t o t h e b o r d e r of t h e L a n d of C a n a a n . F i f t h A v e n u e , H o w Y o r k , is a n o t o r i o u s s l u m d i s t r i c t , o n w h i c h m o s t of t h e p o o r p e o p l e live. J o a n of Arc, a l s o c a l l e d th e L a i d of Orleans, once b r a v e l y l ed

21.

tho F r e n c h a r m i e s a g a i n s t the E n g l i s h . S h a k e s p e a r e w a s a n a n c i e n t shoo c o b b l e r w h o m a d e up m a n y w h i c h p e o p l e s t i l l quote.

22.

D a r w i n ’w a s

the 23. 24. 25.

27.

man

who

once

tried

to

get

up

an

army

to

say in gs

destroy

c h urch .

Homer

wrote

a great

poem

about

the

Trojan

war,

C l c o o a t r a w a s a q u e e n of P e r s i a w h o the R o m a n s .

l e d he r

Philosophy

of

tricity. 26*

the

%

is

the

study

of

tho

laws

called

own

sound,

the

Illiad.

army and defeated

light,

and

dec-

_

S o c i a l i s m is iixc c L o ct nx no iliat tiio S t & t o sliocilo. factories and other tools of p roduction. T h o D e c l a r a t i o n o f I n d e p e n d e n c e is t h e p a p e r b y f r eed the slaves.

own

all

which

txio

Lincoln

117.

It w a s E v e w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e E i b l e , w a s t u r n e d i n t o a p i l l a r of s alt . P a r l i a m e n t , w h i c h is m u c h l i k e o u r C o n g r e s s , is t h e l e g i s l a t i v e b o d y of E n g l a n d . J n c l e T o m ' s C a b i n is a s l a v e r y s t o r y w r i t t e n b y H a r r i e t B e e c h e r . Stowe. W a l l S t r e e t is f a m o u s b e c a u s e a n u m b e r of t h e g r e a t e s t r e t a i l s t o r e s i n H o w Y o r k a r e l o c a t e d o n it. Just b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g an important battle Hero d e c l a r e d Jesus his general. A p o l l o w a s a G r e e k g o d n o t e d f o r h i s b e a u t y a n d h i s m u s i c a l ability. A n a n a r c h i s t is a p e r s o n w h o b e l i e v e s t h e r e s h o u l d b o n o o r g a n ­ ized government.

B u d d a h is

an evil

spirit

s a i d to h a v e r o a m e d t h r o u g h India.

T h e P r o l e t a r i a t is a c l a s s of p e o p l e , m o s t l y l i v i n g i n E u r o p e , w h o h i d e i n t h e m o u n t a i n s a n d r u s h out f r o m t h e r e to rob the p e o p l e in the country. C h a r l e s L a m b w r o t e h u m o r o u s e s s a y s a n d r e t o l d t h e s t o r i e s of S h a k e s p e a r e 's p l a y s . E a u s t is t h e n e m o o f a g r e a t d r a m a by Goethe. . B y r o n was i m p u l s i v e a n d p u g n a c i o u s and his poemsare character­ ized bv vigor and boldness. M a t e r i a l i s m teaches that e v e rything In tho world, including m i n d a n d soul, c a n b e r e d u c e d to m a t t e r and force; thats p i r i t u a l realities and values are unreal.

After dealing "'the w i d o w " .

th e

cards

in bridge

a pile

is left

over,

called

’ ‘' C r e s c e n d o " is a t e r m u s e d I n m u s i c t o i n d i c a t e i n c r e a s e i n volume. R o c k e f e l l e r m a d e h i s m o n e y m o s t l y b y s p e c u l a t i n g in s t o c k s in t h e Nov/ Y o r k S t o c k E x c h a n g e . T h e M a r b l o i'aun is a p o e m w r i t t e n b y H e n r y Y / a d s w o r t h L o n g f e l l o w . M a r c o n i is a n I t a l i a n I n v e n t o r w h o d i s c o v e r e d w i r e l e s s t e l e ­ graphy. " I d y l l s o f t h o K i n g " is a n o v e l b y T h a c k e r a y i n w h i c h jLouis X V I and Mario Antoinette were hero and heroine respectively. A f a m o u s a n d p o p u l a r w e d d i n g m a r c h is t a k e n f r o m W a g n e r *s L o h e n ­ grin. M a r y M a g d a l e n e w a s the w o m a n out of w h o m J o s u s "cast s e v e n d e ­ vils " . P t o l e m y ' s t h e o r y of a s t r o n o m y w a s d i s p l a c e d m o r e t h a n f o u r h u n ­ dred- y e a r s a g o . I b s e n is a S c a n d i n a v i a n d r a m a t i s t w h o u s e d d r a m a s to s o t f o r t h his s o cial teachings. T h e S t o n e A g e is a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d o f a n c i e n t h i s t o r y b e g i n n i n g a b o u t 21-30 B . C . a n d e x t e n d i n g t o a b o u t 1 3 6 0 B. C. M o n t e C a r l o is a v i l l a g e I n S w i t z e r l a n d t h a t t r a v e l e r s l i k e t o v i s i t b e c a u s e of t h e b e a u t y of its s c e n e r y a n d the s i m p l i c i t y of its p e o p l e .

IIadame B u t t e r f l y p o s e d by Pucini.

is a g r a n d o p e r a w i t h a J a p e n o s o

A c c o r d i n g to the ocean.

legend

Colonel

is t h e r e a l

Cody

tho

Island

name

T h e p r e c e p t s of t h e K o r a n u r g e anco, justice and courage.

of

of

Polos

long

"Buffalo

tho

virtues

setting com­

xloatod

freely

m

Bil l". of

humility,

temper-

.

US. 57 . I n T w e l f t h H i g h t t h o c o m i c irs o f t e n r e c a p i t u l a t e [rep e a t ] t h e s u e C C 3 s fu l o n o s o spoare's e a r l i e r p lays. 58. F r a A n g e l i c a w a s o n e o f t h o It a l i e n p a i n t c r s • T r. O » In the S i s t i n a d o n n .a t h o In h e r l a p w h l i e t h o c h i I d V ~ g l i a c c i Is a g r a n d o p e r a 60. X '61. Pe. s e a l w a s a s c i c n t If’ic t h o •o b e t a k e n o n faith, b u t t h a t m a n s h o u l d f o l l o w o n l y h i s r e a s o n I n everything. 62. C a e s a r is t h e n a m e o f a L a t i n g r a m m a r . 63. H a r k T w a i n w a s a w r i t e r o f h u m o r o u s s t o r i e s , s u c h as, " H u c k l e ­ berry Fin n " . 64. H a m l e t is t h e n a m e o f a g h o s t i n o n e of I b s e n ’s p l a y s . 65. T h e L p a r t a n 3 w o r e j e s t e r s t h a t k i n g s f o r m e r l y k e p t t o e n t e r t a i n thornselves. 56. U t o p i a is a b o o k w r i t t e n l o n g a g o b y S i r T h o m a s I'core d e s c r i b i n g a p e r f e c t land. G 7 . C h r i s t i a n S c i e n c e t e a c h e s 'that t h e r e is n o s u c h t h i n g as s i c k n e s s e x c e p t i n people-' s o w n m i n d s . 63. B e rn ar d. S h o w Is a m o d e r n w r i t e r of p l a y s t h a t o f t o n c r i t i c i s e prcsont-day customs and boliofs. 69. H i l t o n w a s a w r i t e r o f p o p u l a r b u t v e r y l i g h t s t o r i e s a n d c h e a p but c a t c h y jingles in verse. 70. B y t h o U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n w o m o a n t h o l a w s t h a t h a v e b e e n passed by Congress* 71. S o c i o l o g y is t h o s t u d y o f s o c i a l i s m a n d o f o t h e r r a d i c a l d o c ­ trines. 72. S h y l o c k g o t I n t o t r o u b l e o v e r a l o a n t h a t h e m & d o . 75. L i a n a w a s t h e g o d d e s s o f h u n t i n g i n R o m a n m y t h o l o g y . 74. C h o p i n ’s m u s i c is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a l i g h t , a i r y a n d c h e e r f u l strain 75. I n t h e " D i v i n e C o m e d y " D a n t e r e p r e s e n t s h i m s e l f as g u i d e d t h r o u g h Hell and Purgatory by Vergil. !-■.

.

F o l l o w i n g ar c so m e i n c o m p l e t e s t a t e m e n t s . Y o u are to select ic c o r r e c t a n s w e r a n d w r i t e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r in the spa ce opDsito tho n u m b e r of t h e q u e s t i o n . 76.

77.

78.

T h o u g h b e a t e n a f t e r the g a m o s t l o s i n g c a m p a i g n since B r y a n In .1396, W e n d e l l Uillkic- p o l l e d : 1. H o r e v o t e s t h a n R c o s o v o l t d i d In 1936. 2. A l m o s t a m i l l i o n m o r e t h a n L a n d o n d i d i n 1936. 3 . 4 9 . 8 p e r cent of t h o p o p u l a r vote. 4. lioro v o t e s t h a n a n y R e p u b l i c a n in h i s t o r y . 5. L o r e p o p u l a r b u t lo ss e l e c t o r a l vo t e s t h e n the Pr esi d e n t . Th e n u m b e r of s t a t e s c a p t u r e d b y R o o s e v e l t was: 1. 43 2. 38 3. 32 4. 20 5* 40 D u r i n g th e p r e s i d e n t la-1 c a m p a i g n hr. Vvillxio u s e d al l but ono of tInoso o it*^uir*ont s • 1. R e c o v e r y a n d r e a r m a m e n t are b u s i n e s s p r o b l e m s b e s t h a n d l e d b y a b u s i n e s s man. 2. A m e r i c a s h o u l d h o l d out fo r p e a c e at an y pri ce . 3. Uo A m e r i c a n Is i n d i s p o n s i b l o e n o u g h to d e s e r v e a caird term. 4. B u s i n e s s c o u l d c r e a t e jobs f o r all tho unciupiojod i± g o v ­ e r n m e n t w o u l d let I t . 5. Mr. R o o s e v e l t w a s t a l k i n g t o o b i g a n d d o i n g to o lit tl e abo ut r e a r m a m e n t a n d a i d to Brit ai n.

%

119.

79.

Prosi.lent R o o s e v e l t i n f u r i a t e d the Axis, d r a m a t i s e d U n i t e d Slot cs- Dr it isli c o r d i a l i t y ’ey: I- Jr calc m g p r e c e d e n t in go i n g out in his yacht to meet now B r i t i s h A m b a s s a d o r Lord Hal if ax . 2. A s k i n g h i m right ove r to d i n n e r , d , h u t t i n g h i m u p at the h h i t o house. "l • Callin';" h i m "alm os t a m e m b e r of m y Cabi ne t" . 5. D e c l a r i n g the job too b i g for one m a n an d a s k i n g for two more additional British ministers. 80. "To p r 3 V o n t w a r m i l l i o n a i r e s 1', C o n g r e s s e a r l y in Oc t o b e r p a s s e d a t a l l p r o v i d i n g that exc ess c o r p o r a t i o n p r o f i t s s h o u l d bo t a x e d ur - least; 1. 33 per1 cent 3. 50 per cent 5. 25 pe r cent 2. 1-5 p e r cent 4. 74 pe r cent 81. G o a d e d f o r m o n t h s b y cri ti cs d e m a n d i n g a si ng l e d e f e n s e a d m i n i s ­ trator, th e P r e s i d e n t ’ a answe r was to appo in t as h e e d s of the O f f i c e of P r o d u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t w i t h equal powers: 1. G i l l i a m 3. E n u d s e n a n d Eav/ard L. Ste tt ini us , Jr. 2. S i d n e y H i l l m a n a n d D o n a l d F o l s o n 3. D o n a l d N e l s o n a n d l a r r i n c r S. C e d e s 4. YJilliam 3. K n u d s on an d S i d n e y H i l l m a n 5. Josso Jones a n d G i l l i a n 3. E n u d s e n 82. In h i s L e n d - L e a s e Bi l l to ai d Brit ain, tho P r e s i d e n t a s ked for all bu t one of thos e u n p r e c e d e n t e d p o w e r s : 1 . To na m e alm os t a n y t h i n g a d e f e n s e article. 2. To p r o d u c e or o b t a i n in any w a y any d e f e n s e a r t i c l e needed. 3. T o t r a n s f e r any d e f e n s e a r t i c l e or d e f e n s e i n f o r m a t i o n to an y c o u n t r y ho m a y name. 4. To a s s u m e a d e f e n s e p r o c t c c t o r a t e over any E u r o p e a n - o w n e d t e r r i t o r i e s i n this h e m i s p h e r e . 5. To b u y a n y d e f e n s e a r t i c l e f r o m any country. 83. A m on g tho s t r o n g e s t o p p o n e n t s of the L e n d - L e a s e b i l l wer e all but one of the f ol lowin g; 1. G e n e r a l H u g h J o h n s o n 4. B u r t o n K. ./heeler 2. G e r a l d Eye 5, W i l l i a m B u ll it t 5. 0 h ar l e s L . L i n d b o r g h 8 4 . -Host d r a m a t i c l a b o r news of 1940 was ma d e b y J o h n L. Lewis w h e n hv : 1. R e s i g n e d as h e a d of C.I.O. b e c a u s e of a l l e g e d C o m m u n i s t c o n ­ trol. 2. S i g n e d a c l o s e d shop con tr ac t w i t h T o m C i r d l c r 13 R e p u b l i c Steel. 5. O f f e r e d to r e s i g n If R o o s e v e l t w o r e elected. 4. J o i n e d tho C o m m u n i s t p a r t y . 5. P u n c h e d B i l l Gr e e n ' s eye at a L a b o r Con fe re nce. 85. Last m a j o r s o c i a l r e f o r m of the N e w D e a l was f i n a l l y l e g i t i m i s e d in F e b r u a r y w h e n the U. 3. S u p r e m o Court; 1. R e f u s e d to r e v i e w the N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t i e s Act. 2. R u l e d S o c i a l S e c u r i t y he r o to stay. 5. O u t l a w e d c h i l d labor In i n t e r s t a t e commerc e. 4. D e n i e d an a p p e a l b y d e f e n s e i n d u s t r i e s for w a g e - h o u r lav/ exemptions. 5. A p p r o v e d g o v e r n m e n t - f i n a n c e d lif e i n s u r a n c e . 8 6 . Th e 194 0 c e n s u s s h o w e d the U n i t e d S t a te s p o p u l a t i o n to be; 1. 1 3 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 3. 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 5. 1 5 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 2. 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 4. 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

120. £7,

38.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

O n J a n u a r y 0, t h e P r e s i d e n t s u b m i t t e d t o C o n f e s s a 1 9 4 0 - 4 1 e n d r o t of: j . i d ,c o o , o o o ; o o o 4 . $ 4 5 , 000,000 - ■ .'>••.,000,000,000 5. $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 J , $ i r>. 0 0 0 , -ooo, c o o Cv.mbhi.g o n :>• e i n t h e v:ar u n t i l h i s d e a t h i n J a n u a r y w a s t o u g h little i m i o r : : . I’1.on then;: os V e r i z e l o s 4. B a s i l Z a h a r o f f d. A Ley a n a e r V r p a g o s 5. J o h n L e t a x a s 5 'h A n a n g y r o s F o r al l h u t one of t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s the G e r m a n count s r b l e e k u d o h a s b e e n m o r e e f f e c t i v e t h a n i n W o r l d W a r I: 1, B r i t a i n c a n no G o n c e r b a s e its c o n v o y s on the Irish ports. 2. b e m a n y is u t i l i s i n g p l a n e s as w e l l as s u b m a r i n e s . 5. l o r e G e r m a n s u r f a c e r a x d e r s a r e at l a r g o o n t h e h i g h s e a s . 4. G e r m a n s u b m a r i n e s h a v e b a s e s f a r n e a r e r t h e B r i t i s h l i f e line s , 5. B r i t a i n is u n a b l e t o r a i s e as m u c h f o o d at h o m e as i n 1 9 1 3 . B e t w e e n n o w a n d m i d s u m m e r , B r i t a i n f a c e s all b u t one of t h e s e new dangers: 1. P e s t i l e n c e s p r e a d i n g f r o m o v e r c r o w d e d u n s a n i t a r y b o m b ­ shelters . 2. A c t u a l i n v a s i o n b y ITasi t r o o p s c o m i n g b y s e a o r a i r . 5. S t a r v a t i o n f r o m t h e c o u n t e r - b l o c k s . d e . 4. C i v i l W a r l e d b y t h e L a b o r P a r t y . 5. A l l - o u t b o m b i n g b y 5 0 0 0 p l a n e s a d a y . I n h i s f i r s t w o r l d b r o a d c a s t i n f i v e m o n t h s o n t h e p r o g r e s s of t h e war, W i n s t o n C h u r c h i l l s a i d all b u t one of t h e s e things: 1. A b o u t IJ. S. t r o o p s : " W e d o n o t n e e d t h e m t h i s y e a r n o r n e x t year nor any year I can f o r s e e ” . 2. A b o u t U. S. s u p p l i e s : " G i v e u s t h e t o o l s a n d w e w i l l f i n i s h the job". 3. A b o u t B u l g a r i a : " A i r f i e l d s a r e b e i n g o c c u p i e d b y G e r m a n g r o u n d t r o o p s n u m b e r i n g t h o u s a n d s ' ’'. 4. A b o u t G e n o a : " O u r f l e e t e n t e r e d t h e g u l f . . . a n d b o m b a r d e d t h e n aval b a s e in a s h a ttering manner". 5. A b o u t H a l t a : " I t h a s h e l d o u t a m a z i n g l y b u t w e w i l l h a v e t o a b a n d o n it f o r s t r a t e g i c r e a s o n s " . A f t e r f a i l i n g to take Dakar, F r e e F r e n c h forces u n der General de Gaulle: 1. D i s b a n d e d a n d r e t u r n e d t o u n o c c u p i e d P r a n c e . 2. C o n q u e r e d t h e A f r i c a n c o l o n y o f G a b o n . 3. S a i l e d f o r t h e t e s t I n d i e s a n d o c c u p i e d M a r t i n i q u e . 4. J o i n e d G e n e r a l Y ' c y g a n d ’s a r m y i n F o r t h A f r i c a . 5. O v e r t h r e w t h e p r o - V i c h y c o l o n i a l g o v e r n m e n t o f I n d o - C h i n a . V i c h y 5s b e s t a c o i n ” t h e h o l e a g a i n s t t o o h u m i l i a t i n g N a z i t e r m s c o n t xniied t o b o : 1 The 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ge r m a n prisoners still in F r e n c h p r i s o n camps. 2. T h e F r e n c h w a r s h i p s t o k e n o v e r b y B r i t a i n . G e n e r a l Y / e y ya n a a n d his p o w e r f u l N o r t h A f r i c a n a r m y . o T h e f o r c e s .still I n t a c t i n t h e i m p r e g n a b l e F a g n i o t l i n e . T h e p o w e r f u l f l e e t b a s e d at M a r t i n i q u e . o T h e M e x i c a n e l e c t x o n m s c a l l i n g i:Vilc. Cam.o-cho as P r e s i d e n t . 1. W a s M e x i c o ’s f i r s t b l o o d l e s s e l e c t i o n i n t w e n t y y e a r s . 2*. E r o u r h t t o p o w e r M e x i c o ' s n e a r - C o m m u n i s t C o n f e d e r a t i o n o f W o r k e r s [C. T , M . J 3. M a r k e d a d e f i n i t e s w i n g to t h e R i g h t , w i t h a p r o m i s e of more c o r d i a l r e 1 a.11 o n s v:itn t h e T J m o d o t a t e s . 4. P r o m i s e d i m m u n i t y to Na z i s o p e r a t i n g o p e n l y in Mexico. B r o u g h t t o t h e P r e s i d e n c y a m a n w h o f o u g h t a l l h i s l i f e to o oust f o r o i g n i n t e r e s t s x r o m iiGXico•

95.

U.S. 1, 2„

National income 945,000,000,000 TC-C ,9 0 0 , C O O , 0 0 0

3.

7 2, 0 0 0 , GOO , 0 0 0

in

1940

was

121. 1929, about:

the highest since 4. S 9 5 7 o O O , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 5. $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

96.

Dcs,ui,o l/io r e a r m a m e n t b o o m , t h e A. F- o f L ' s l a t e s t e s t i m a t e s ot u n o m p ’i(Atnent a t : J- o . 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 3. 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 5. 1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 2■ I .000,COO 4. 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 97 . F e w t r e a t m e n t f o r i n t e r n a l c a n c e r t h a t " o f f e r s a r e a l h o p e " is b a s e d on: 1, S w a l l o w i n g r a d i o - a c t i v e p h o s p h o r u s . 2. C o n t i n u e d e x p o s u r e t o d e e p X - r a y s . Z>r D o s e s of c h a l m o o g r a oil. 4. R a p i d f r e e z i n g a n d t h a w i n g . 5. A r t i f i c i a l l y i n d u c e d f e v e r s . 98. T h e e s s e n t i a l w a r m a t e r i a l w h i c h D o w C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y h a s j u s t b e g u n e x t r a c t i n g c o m m e r c i a l l y f r o m s e a w a t e r is: 1. N i t r a t e s 3. M a g n e s i u m 5. G o l d 2. A l u m i n u m 4. s a l t 99 . E r n e s t H e m i n g w a y ' s l a t e s t , p o s s i b l y g r e a t e s t b o o k , " F o r W h o m t h o Bell T o l l s , ” deals with: 1. S a i l o r s o n t h e l o n g v o y a g e h o m e . 2. R e l i g i o u s s t r i f e i n M e x i c o . 3. B u l l f i g h t i n g i n S p a i n . 4. D y n a m i t i n g a b r i d g e b e h i n d F r a n c o ' s l i n e s . 5. E s c a p e f r o m a N a z i c o n c e n t r a t i o n c a m p . 100 . Wa.lt D i s n e y ' s " F a n t a s i a ” , n e w c i n e m a f o r m w h i c h v i s u a l i z e s m u - ' ■ s i c , p r ^ s ^ n t s a m o n g o t h e r s t h o w o r k of: 1. B a c h , B e e t h o v e n , S t r a v i n s k y . 2. C o l e P o r t e r , B e n n y G o o d m a n , R a y m o n d S c o t t . 3. G r i e g , S i b e l i u s , A. C o n a n D o y l e 4. V e r d i . P u c c i n i , D e e m s T a y l o r 5. A r t h u r S u l l i v a n , S t e p h e n F o s t e r , R i c h a r d S t r a u s s . 101 . As t h e f i g h t b e t w e e n A S C A P a n d tho m a j o r b r o a d c a s t i n g chains n e a r e d a c l i m a x , t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t i n t e r v e n e d by: 1. I n d i c t i n g A S C A P as a m o n o p o l y . 2. F a m i n g M a d a m e S e c r e t a r y P e r k i n s t o a r b i t r a t e . 3. T h r e a t e n i n g t o t a k e o v e r t h e c h a i n s . 4. T h r e a t e n i n g t o w i t h d r a w c o p y r i g h t p r i v i l e g e s * 5. S e t t i n g u p ' t h e B. M. I. t o r i v a l A S C A P . . F r o m an art p o i n t ofv i e w t h e g r e a t e s t l oss in t h e w a r has been 102 1. T h e s t a i n e d g l a s s s h a t t e r e d i n W e s t m i n i s t e r A b b e y . 2. T h e p a i n t i n g s d e s t r o y e d w h e n t h o B r i t i s h b o m b e d t h e V a t i c a n 3. T h e C h r i s t o p h e r ’W r e n c h u r c h e s a c m e l i s h o d i n L o n d o n . 4. T h e p y r a m i d s b o m b e d b y t h e I t a l i a n s i n E g y p t . 5. T h e P a r t h e n o n b o m b e d i n A t h e n s . 103> . T h o 1 9 4 0 W o r l d S e r i e s w a s w o n b y : 19 T h e F e w Y o r k G i a n t s 4. T h e P i t t s b u r g h P i r a t e s 2. T h e C i n c i n a t t i R e d s 5. T h o B o s t o n D o e s ,

,

3. Tho Phlilies 104

105

One of t h e m e n l i s t e d b e l o w h a s a c c e p t e d t h e p o s i t i o n of a t Fetre Dame following t h e r e s i g n a t i o n of E l m e r L a y d e n : 1. Knute Rockne ~ 5. J o c k S u t h e r l a n d 2. Rod Grange 4. F r a n k L e a h y 5. " T u b b v ” S p e a r s a ' s T o w n M e e t i n g o f t h e Air"' is b r o a d c a s t : ‘1A me r Monday evening 4. S u n d a y e v e n i n g P r h d n yJ a f t e r n o o n 5. T h u r s d a y e v e n i n g Saturday afternoon

coach

122. KNOWLEDGE

OP

ETIIJJETTE

N a m e _________ _______________________ Some of^the ioll o w i n g Place a p l u s s i g n b e f o r e t h e the f a l s e o n e s .

s t a t e m e n t s are true and some are false. t r u e s t a t e m e n t s and. a a e r o s i g n b e f o r e

1.

It is i m p r o p e r f o r o n e , a f t e r a f o r m a l d i n n e r , t o t i p b a c k i n his chair a n d light a cigar. 2. T h e y o u n g e r p e r s o n s h o u l d always- b e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e o l d e r p e r ­ s o n w h e n a n i n t r o d u c t i o n is b e i n g m a d e . 3. W h e n y o u m e e t a n o t h e r p e r s o n o n t h e s t r e e t y o u s h o u l d a l w a y s step to the right. 4. It Is t h e b u s i n e s s o f t h e m a n t o s p e a k f i r s t w h e n h e m e e t s o n the street a w o m a n to w h o m he has p r e v i o u s l y b e e n introduced. 5. I f a d a u g h t e r i s s u e s a n i n v i t a t i o n I n b e h a l f of h e r f a t h e r , t h e answer s h o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d to the father. 6. W h e n y o u s e e s o m e t h i n g y o u w a n t y o u s h o u l d say, " M a y I h a v e that, p l e a s e ? ” 7. W h e n a m a n is i n t r o d u c e d t o a w o m a n h e s h o u l d s t a n d u p . 8. W h e n s o m e t h i n g n i c e is d o n e f o r y o u , y o u s h o u l d say, " I t h a n k you” . 9. O n e s h o u l d e a t o n e ' s p i e w i t h a s p o o n r a t h e r t h a n w i t h a f o r k . 10. If y o u w a l k b e t w e e n t w o p e r s o n s w h o a r e t a l k i n g y o u s h o u l d a s k pardon. 11. S o u p s h o u l d a l w a y s b e e a t e n frora t h e p o i n t o f a s p o o n . 12. F r i e n d l y l e t t e r s s h o u l d b e w r i t t e n o n b u s i n e s s s t a t i o n a r y . 13. B e f o r e g o i n g h o m e f r o m a p a r t y o n e s h o u l d s a y g o o d b y e t o t h e p e r s o n w h o g a v e the p a r t y a n d s ay he h a d a g o o d time. 14. W h e n a w o m a n m e e t s t w o m e n o n t h e s t r e e t a n d o n l y o n e of t h e m knows her, b o t h m e n should r a i s e their hats w h e n she speaks. 15. A m a n s h o u l d t u c k h i s n a p k i n i n h i s v e s t a t t h e d i n n e r t a b l e . 16. O l i v e s s h o u l d b e t a k e n w i t h y o u r f o r k at t h e t a b l e , n e v e r w i t h your fingers. 17. T h e h o s t e s s at a d i n n e r s h o u l d c a r e f u l l y r e f r a i n f r o m a p o l o g i z ­ i n g i f c e r t a i n f o o d s d o n o t t u r n o u t t o b e as g o o d as s h e h a d hoped. 18. B l u n d e r s o r a c c i d e n t s s u c h as d r o p p i n g a s p o o n s h o u l d b e a p o l o ­ gized for th the hostess. 19. I n r e c e i v i n g a n i n t r o d u c t i o n a l a d y s h o u l d r i s e w h e n s h e Is ~ i n t r o d u c e d to a man. 20. A g e n t l e m a n w a l k i n g o n t h e s t r e e t w i t h t w o l a d l e s s h o u l d w a l k n e a r e s t t o the one to w h o m h e w i s h e s to talk. 21. W h e n a l a d y e n t e r s a r o o m w h e r e a s m a l l g r o u p o f m e n a r e s e a t e d the m e n s h o u l d r e m a i n quiet u n t i l she fin d s a^ s e a t . 22. G o o d m a n n e r s a r e a l w a y s t h e sa m e in v a r y i n g s i t u a t i o n s . 2 3 . " M r s ; J o n e s , d o y o u k n o w M r s . N o r m a n ? ” is a c c e p t a b l e as a c o n ­ versational Introduction. 24. T h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v e r y o n e t o t h o g u e s t of h o n o r is a b s o l u tel" necessary. 2 5 . ” P l e a s e d t o m e e t y o u " is a v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r y r e p l y t o a n i n t r o auction. 2 6 . W h e n y o u m e e t f r i e n d s w h o h a v e b e e n r e c e n t l y m a r r i e d , It is pro— * p e r to e x t e n d g o o d w i s h e s to the m a n and c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s to the 27.

woman.. _ IC i7 ioi00 ‘ is ci g o o d r e a s o n fox ’ knov/in.g p e r to i n t r o d u c e y o u r s e l f .

soiuconc

it

is

• Q_u.it0 p x o *

123. 23. 29. -30.

T a c t m e a n s q u i c k a w a r e n e s s o f t h o f e o l i n v s o f o t h e r s and. c o n s i d e r a t i o n for them. m b r i d g e , o n e is j u s t i f i e d i n d e f e n d i n g h i s o w n b a d p l a y s . I f f o o d is t o o h o t , q u i c k l y t a k e a s w a l l o w of w a t e r .

F o l l o w i n g a r e s o m e I n c o m p l e t e statements.. Y o u are to select the c o r r e c t a n s w e r a n d w r i t e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l e t t e r I n t h e s p a c e opposite the number of the question. 31.

32 .

53.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

W h e n p a s s i n g your plate for a second helping: a. H o l d y o u r k n i f e a n d f o r k I n y o u r h a n d . b. P l a c e y o u r k n i f o a n d f o r k s i d e b y s i d o o n y o u r p l a t e . c. H o l d y o u r f o r k b u t n o t y o u r k n i f o I n y o u r h a n d . d. P l a c e y o u r k n i f e a n d f o r k o n y o u r b r e a d - a n d - b u t t e r p l a t e . G o o d m a n n e r s arc: a. M e r e l y c u s t o m c. S t a n d a r d s s e t b y t h o w e a l t h y people b. S m a r t b e h a v i o r d. T h o u g h t f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r others W h e n s i t t i n g n e x t t o a p e r s o n y o u d i s l i k e at a f o r m a l d i n n e r : a. It is p r o p e r t o I g n o r e h i m c o m p l e t e l y . b. Y o u s h o u l d m a k e a p r e t e n s e o f t a l k i n g f o r a l i t t l e w h i l e . c. A s k t o c h a n g e s e a t s w i t h s o m e o n e . d. G r e e t h i m c u r t l y . H u m o r at t h e t a b l e : a. Is n o t n e c e s s a r y o r p r o p e r . b. S h o u l d b e e x p r e s s e d w i t h g e s t u r e s or l a u g h t e r . c. S h o u l d b e r e f i n e d a n d n o t d r a w a t t e n t i o n o f t h o s e at o t h e r t ab 1 e s . d. Is a l w a y s n e c e s s a r y f o r s o c i a b i l i t y . A p r o p e r r e s p o n s e t o a p e r s o n a l c o m p l i m e n t is: a. " T h a n k y o u . " [With considerable reserve] b. T r y i n g to a p p e a r very Indifferent. c. " T h a n k you,. I a m g l a d y o u l i k e i t . " [In ap l e a s i n g m a n n e r ] d. P r e t e n d i n g y o u d o n o t d e s e r v e it. The- c o r r e c t f o r m a l i n t r o d u c t i o n Is: a. "Dr* Gray, m a y I present Miss Young?" b. "Miss Young, m a y I p r e s e n t Dr. G r a y ? " c. "Miss Young, I have th e h o n o r to p r e s e n t Dr. G r a y . " d. " M i s s Y e u n g , Dr. G r a y . " I n a c c e p t i n g a n i n t r o d u c t i o n it is p r o p e r t o sa y : a. " Pleased to moot you". b.. " H o w d o y o u d o ? " b. "'I a m p l e a s e d t o m a k e y o u r a c q u a i n t a n c e " . . d. " C h a r m e d " . T h e p r o p e r r e s p o n s e t o a j o k e t o l d i n y o u r p r e s e n c e is: a . L a u g h t or b. L o u d l a u g h t e r , i f o t h e r s l a u g h l o u d l y . c. " O h , I h o a r d t h a t b e f o r e . " c. A joke e q u ally g o o d or b e t t e r t o keepupthemerriment. A m a n .should r i s e w h e n : a . A w o m a n w h o is s e a t e d s p e a k s t o k i n , bn A w o m a n w h o Is s t a n d i n g s p e a k s t o i i m . c . A c h i l d s p o o k s to h i m , d. A n y o n e s p e a k s t o h i m . •"hen a m a n w i s h e s t o d a n c e w i t h a l a d y at a d a n c e , h e sa ys : . " W o u l d y o u care to danco?" c„ " H o w a b o u t a d a n c e ? " b. " H e w w o u l d y o u l i k e to d a n c e w i t h d. " D a n c e ? " i r o n y o u arc I n v i t e d to some social f u n c t i o n you should:^ a. A c c e n t o r r e f u s e t h e i n v i t a l i o n at •-no o a n i o s t p o s s i b l e 'date. h. A l w a y s a c c e p t at o n c e . c. A c c e p t at a l a t e r d a t e , so as t o b e m o r e c e r t a i n t h a t y o u can attend. d. G i v e n o rsioly if yon. d o n o t c x p o c u t o cend«

124.

42, A g o o d

43.

44.

45.

46.

47 .

48,

49.

50.

conversationalist; a. 'Talks a l l t h o t i m e . b. D i r e c t s c o n v e r s a t i o n i n a h e l p f u l and. i n t e r e s t i n g m a n n e r . c. T a l k s m u c h a b o u t p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t s and. h i s o w n e x p e r i e n c e s . d. L i s t e n s o n l y w h e n i n t e r e s t e d . G o s s i p s h o u l d bo: a. E a g e r l y a c c e p t e d . b. L i s t e n e d to w i t h i n d i f f e r e n c e . c. V i o l e n t l y o p p o s e d . d. R e p e a t e d . I n g i v i n g a n a f f i r m a t i v e r e p l y to a q u e s t i o n , it is b e s t t o say: a. “Y e s . n b . ''Right 01" C. "0. K . " d . " Y e s , M r s . 3 m i t h ." When a g i r l is o f f e r e d a s e a t I n a s t r e e t car, she should: a. A c c e p t or r e f u s e it at o n c e , w i t h " T h a n k y o u , " or "No t h a n k you. " b. H a n g b a c k a l i t t l e . c. E x p l a i n t h a t s h e d o c s n o t m i n d s t a n d i n g . G. B e v e r y i n d e p e n d e n t t a k e it and. s a y n o t h i n g . A g e n t l e m a n takes off his hat: a . In a bus or t r a i n w h e n r i d i n g alone. b . I n a h o t e l e l e v a t o r w h o r e a l a d y is a p a s s a n g e r . c. I n t h e c o r r i d o r of an o f f i c e b u i l d i n g . d. I n the c o r r i d o r of a h o t e l . W h e n in a p u b l i c pl a c e , a n d y o u arc n o t i c a b i y in a hurry, if a s t r a n g e r s h o u l d s t e p o u t o f y o u r w a y , o r o p e n a d o o r f o r you , y o u s h o u l d sa y : a. " P a r d o n m e . " b. " T h a n k y o u . " c. " I ara s o r r y . " d. N o t h i n g . W h e n l e a v i n g a f r i e n d . ’s h o u s e w h e r e y o u h a v e c a l l e d , y o u s h o u l d : a. A n n o u n c e y o u r I n t e n t i o n t o l e a v e , s t a n d at o n c o , s a y g o o d evening, and leave w i t h little delay. b. S t a n d i n t h e d o o r f o r a f e w m i n u t e s , t o s h o w t h a t y o u are not i n a hurry. c. A n n o u n c e y o u r i n t e n t i o n t o l e a v e s e v e r a l t i m e s b e f o r e y o u start. d. S t a n d I n t h e d o o r w a y u n t i l y o u r f r i e n d s a y s g o o d c v o n i n g . W h e n leaving after a dinner party: a. T h a n k y o u r h o s t e s s f o r t h e d i n n e r , a n d e x p r e s s y o u r p l e a s u r e d e r i v e d from tho e n t e r t a i n m e n t k b. S t a n d at t h e d o o r f o r a. f e w m i n u t e s t o s h o w t h a t y o u a r e n o t in a hurry. c. I n v i t e t h e h o s t e s s t o d i n n e r s o m e t i m e d u r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g week. d. S a y it w a s t h e b e s t m e a l y o u e v e r ate.. A s a g u e s t at a p a r t y , y o u a r c e x p e c t e d t o s a y g o o d n i g h t to: a. E v e r y o n e . b. T h e o l d e r p e o p l e . c. T h e h o s t o r h o s t e s s o n l y . d. T h e p e o p l e y o u k n o w w e l l .

SPEECH EVALUATION

Please read the following words aloud.

1, 2• » 4-* * “> ‘* / 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11. 12 . 1314. 15. 16 . 17. 18 . 19. 20 . 21 . 22 . 23. 2/+. 25.

admirable adroi t affluent antique appariti on apropos arctic arrogance ascertain athletic bade blatant caprice cater cerebral chef clemency copious cello debauch deceased clique comely err grimace

26 , 27. 28 , 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36 . 37. 38. 39. 40, 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48 . 49. 50.

guardian government horizon hypocrisy ignoramus Italian literature impious ni c.he rinse ultimatum vehement verbatim lncorer>a.rabl irrelevant precedence genuine column statistics superfluous duke sophomore educate gesture film

Three Gentlemen A German officer, talking to a senior member of the British Embassy in Berlin in 1933 > made the odd remark that the British are gentlemen, but the French are not. Asked v/hat he meant, he explained: "One day in 1920, some of the Military1- Control Commission, under a French and a British officer, came to the barracks of which I had charge. They said they had reason to believe that I had a. store of rifles con­ cealed behind a brick wall, contrary to the terms of the Peace Treaty. I denied this. "I give you my word of honor as a German officer,' I said, 'that I have no rifles concealed in the barracks." "Well, your British officer was a gentleman: he accepted riy word of honor and went away . But the French officer vras not a gentle­ man. He would not accept my word of honor. He pulled down the brick wall. And he took away my rifles."

EVALUATION Name

OP S PEECH P E R F O R M A N C E Judge

PR 0 1TUNCI AT 1 0:Vi 1• / V \J 26 . g a r - d i - a n 27 . gu v - ern-merit 28. h o - r i f z ’n nV u. / V V 29. h x - p o k - r x - s x 30. i g - n o - r a-m us • i. ^ 31. x - t a l - y a n -1V ./ ~ — ,j, __ 32. I x t - e r - a - o u r v / o— 33. x m - p x - u s __ 34. n i ch 35. r xns 11 —.r> oo • u l - 1 x - m a - t u m 37. v e - e - m e n t ~ A . — ,V 38. v u r - b a - t x m 39. x n - k o m - p a - r a - b 40. x r - r e l - e - v a n t 41. p.r^e < sJ.e dV- e n s 42. j e n - u - i n 43. kdl'-um 44. s t a - t x s - t i k s 45. s u - p u r - f l o o - u s 46. d u k 47. s d f - b - m o r 48. cd'-u-kat 49. ° j^ e s ^ t•w u'r __ 50. f i l m are t he sam e as W e b s t e r ’s It A R T I C U L A T I 0 ~-r Above average [Unusually distinct] Average [ I n t e l l i g i b i l i t y sa­ tisfactory B e low average [Generally indistinct] VOICE RATING SCALE ABOVE AVERAGE P i t c h : V e r y w e l l . s u i t e d to p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e Rate:VJell c o n t r o l l e d , v a r i e d e n o u g h to m a k e s p e e c h i n t e r e s t i n g F o r c e : M a k e s v e r y g o o d u s e of f o r c e in s p e a k i n g a n d r e a d i n g I n f l e c t i o n : I n t e l l i g e n t l y u s e s p i t c h c h a n g e s to c o n v e y d i f f e r e n t s h a d e s of m e a n i n g Q u a l i t y : V o i c e is p l e a s a n t to h e a r AVERAGE P it ch: N o t out of h a r m o n y w i t h p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e R a t e : S a t i s f a c t o r y , not too fa s t n o r t o o sl o w F o r c e : M a k e s sorae u s e of f o r c e b ut c o u l d u s e it to b e t t e r a d v a n t a g e I n f l e c t i o n : P i t c h c h a n g e s a r e u s e d to som e e x t e n t Quality: Nothing d i s p l easing observed BELOW AVERAGE P i t c h : E i t h e r t o o h i g h or t o o l o w f or th i s t y p e of p e r s o n R a t e : T o o f as t or t o o slow, s p e e c h c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y j e r k i n e s s , or d o e s n ’t v a r y r a t e F o r c e : T o o soft or t oo loud, no v a r i a t i o n , v o i c e seems to i n d i c a t e a l a c k of c o n f i d e n c e I n f l e c t i o n : V o i c e s o m e w h a t m o n o t o n o u s or i m p r o p e r u s e of i n f l e c t i o n Q u a l i t y : U n p l e a s a n t . M a y b e n as al , b r e a t h y , h a r s h or h o a r s e . j * ^ • * a d - m i - r a - b ’1 a- droit^I i f Z lu~ ent an-telp f ap-a-rish-un ap'-ro-^pb*’ ark-tIk Sr-o-gans As-Sr-tan' At h - l e t - i k bad Z 12 * b l a - t A n t 1o . k a ~ p r e V “ 14 . k a - t e r 15 . s e r - e - b r a l 16 . s h ^ f, ^ 17 . klem'- en- si 18 . k 6 - p l - u s 19 . c h e l - b 20 . de-bt>ch/ 21 . de-sest' 22 . k l e k 23 . kUm'-li 24 . Gr 25 . gri-mas' N o t e: U n d e r l i n e d v o w e l s

1. “ 2. “ 3. 4. “ 5. 6. 7. “ 8. “ 9. -“ io. “ 11.

127

TIIE S P E E C H The Pennsylvania State College,

CLINIC State College Pennsylvania

March

17,

1941

Dear S o m e t i m e a g o I a s k e d t h e m e m b e r s of y o u r gx’ou p to list several good and several poor conversationalists. Y o u were m e n ­ t i o n e d b y at l e a s t t h r e e of y o u r f r i e n d s as b e i n g i n one or the o t h e r of t h o s e t w o c a t e g o r i e s . B e c a u s e of t h e n a t u r e of m y r e ­ s e a r c h I c a n n o t at t h i s t i m e t e l l y o u w h e t h e r y o u r f r i e n d s c o n ­ s i d e r y o u a g o o d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t or a p o o r one. However, f o l l o w i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n of t h i s study , I s h a l l b e v e r y h a p p y to d i s c u s s y o u r r a t i n g w i t h you.. I n o r d e r to h e l p s t u d e n t s w h o f i n d It d i f f i c u l t to c o n v e r s e w i t h o t h e r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , w e at t h e S p e e c h C l i n i c would, l i k e t o f i n d o u t w h a t f a c t o r s a r e r e l a t e d t o c o n v e r s a t i o n a l ability. T o do t h i s w e a r e a s k i n g a b o u t o ne h u n d r e d s t u d e n t s to t a k e so m e i n t e r e s t i n g t e s t s . I c a l l thorn i n t e r e s t i n g t e s t s b e c a u s e t h e y a rc d i f f e r e n t f r o m m o s t of t h o t e s t s y o u h a v e t a k e n . F o r .e x a m p l e , one of t h o s e t e s t s w i l l i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r or not y o u h a v o a s e n s e of h u m o r . I b e l i e v e t h o r e s u l t s of t h e s e t e s t s s h o u l d b e v e r y v a l u a b l e to y o u b e c a u s e t h e y w i l l r e v e a l y o u r w e a kn ess es and your strong points. As y o u k n o w , It is v e r y i m ­ p o r t a n t t o h a v e a n o b j e c t i v e ' a n a l y s i s of y o u r a b i l i t i e s If y o u d e s i r e to I m p r o v e y o u r s e l f ; T h o t i m e r e q u i r e d to t a k e t h o s e t e s t s w i l l b e b e t w e e n three and four h o u r s . In o r d e r t o m a k e it c o n v e n i e n t f o r you, w c h a v e a r r a n g e d t o g i v e t h e t e s t s in t w o t w o - h o u r p e r i o d s . T h e f i r s t g r o u p of t e s t s w i l l b o a d m i n i s t e r e d L a r c h 24, 2 5 , ' 2 6 , 27 a n d 28 f r o m 7 : 0 0 to 9 ; 0 0 ILL- i n r o o m 3 12 L i b e r a l A r t s . T he s e c o n d g r o u p of t e s t s w i l l b o g i v e n M a r c h 31, A p r i l 1, 2, 3, a n d 4 at, th e s a m e t i m e a n d t h o s a m e p l a c e . v/c s h o u l d l i k e y o u to s e l e c t one, n i g h t o a c h w e e k w h e n y o u c o u l d b e p r e s e n t to t a k e tho tests . P l e a s e c h e c k on t h o e n c l o s e d p o s t c a r d t h o n i g h t s w h e n y o u c a n c o m e a n d d r o p t h e c a r d In y o u r m a i l b o x . In r e t u r n for your taking these tests I will have a p r i v a t e c o n f e r o n c e -with y o u at w h i c h t i m e I w i l l t o l l y o u h o w y o u r f r i e n d s r a t e d y o u as a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t , m a k e a n a n a l y s i s of y o u r s p e e c h b a s e d o n t h e jo in t o b s e r v a t i o n s of Dr. W e s t l a k e , D r ,' K o e o p - B a k e r a n d m y s e l f , g i v e y o u a p r o f i l e p i c t u r i n g how' y o u c o m p a r e w i t h o t h e r s t u d e n t s in i n t e l l i g e n c e , p e r s o n a l i t y , s e n s e of h u m o r , a b i l i t y to u s e E n g l i s h , k n o w l e d g e of e t i q u e t t e a n d germinal i n f o r m a t i o n a n d m a k e s o m e s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t s h o u l d hc.lp'Jy o u d e v e l o p y o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a b i l i t y to its m a x i m u m ,

May

I a s k that

y o u c h o c k a n d r e t u r n the

e n c l o s e d car d

promptly. S incerely yours, THE

SPEECH

Eugene

CLINIC

McDonald