Читать книгу A Study of Association in Insanity - A. J. Rosanoff - Страница 20

Table of Contents

Those who have attempted to use the association test in the study of insanity have felt the need of a practical classification of reactions, and have at the same time encountered the difficulty of establishing definite criteria for distinguishing the different groups from one another. It is a comparatively simple matter to make these distinctions in a general way and even to formulate a more or less comprehensive theoretical classification, but there still remains much difficulty in practice. We have made repeated attempts to utilize various systems of classification which involve free play of personal equation in their application. Although for us the matter is greatly simplified by the elimination of all the common reactions with the aid of the frequency tables, we have nevertheless met with no success. The distinctions made by either of us have on no occasion fully satisfied, at the second reading, either the one who made them or the other, while a comparison of the distinctions made by each of us independently has shown a disagreement to the extent of 20–35 per cent.

We sought, therefore, to formulate a classification in which the various groups should be so defined as to obviate the interference of personal equation in the work of applying it, hoping thus to achieve greater accuracy. In this we can lay claim to only partial success; for, in the first place, having satisfactorily defined a number of groups, we found it necessary in the end to provide a special group for unclassified reactions, into which falls more than one-third of the total number of individual reactions; and, in the second place, in at least two of our groups the play of personal equation has not been entirely eliminated, so that there is still a possibility of error to the extent of five per cent of individual reactions, which means approximately one per cent of the total number of reactions. We have found, however, that in spite of these shortcomings the classification here proposed is more serviceable than others which, though more comprehensive, are at the same time lacking in definiteness.

Our classification consists of the following classes, groups and subdivisions:

I. Common reactions. 1. Specific reactions. 2. Non-specific reactions.

II. Doubtful reactions.

III. Individual reactions. 1. Normal reactions. 2. Pathological reactions: A. Derivatives of stimulus words. B. Partial dissociation: (a) Non-specific reactions. (b) Sound reactions: a. Words. b. Neologisms. (c) Word complements. (d) Particles of speech. C. Complete dissociation: (a) Perseveration: a. Association to preceding stimulus. b. Association to preceding reaction. c. Repetition of preceding stimulus. d. Repetition of previous stimulus. e. Repetition of preceding reaction. f. Repetition of previous reaction. g. Reaction repeated five times (stereotypy). (b) Neologisms without sound relation. 3. Unclassified.