This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 17 December 2014, At: 06:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Pedagogical Seminary andJournal of Genetic PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vzpg20

The Early Developmentof Social Attitudes towardExceptional ChildrenMartha Guernsey Colby aa Department of Psychology , University ofMichigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan , USAPublished online: 31 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Martha Guernsey Colby (1944) The Early Development of SocialAttitudes toward Exceptional Children, The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal ofGenetic Psychology, 64:1, 105-110, DOI: 10.1080/08856559.1944.10533257

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1944.10533257

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Journal of Cmetic Prychology, 1944, 04, 105-110.

THE EARLY D E V E L O P M E N T OF SOCIAL A T T I T U D E S TO- W A R D E X C E P T I O N A L CHILDREN.

Department o f Psychology, University of Michigan

MARTHA GUERNSEY

This study attempts to determine whether

COLBY

there exist any developmental parallelisms between certain phylogenetic and ontogenetic social patterns.’ Animal investigations agree fairly well in the following respects: ( a ) definite hierarchical organization with levels of diminishing dominance, usually deter- mined on a purely physical basis; ( b ) rejection and outlawing of weak, mal- formed, or otherwise anomalous members of the group; ( c ) tendency toward rigid group barriers, i.e., resistance to the entrance of new members in an established unit; (d) competition as a stronger and more primitive social pattern than cooperation; (e ) little or no behavior analogous to human altru- ism, except at brief mating and maternal periods (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

T h e part of our ontogenetic experiment reported here concerns primarily the reciprocal reactions of normal and clinically exceptional children in various kinds of social situations. T h e method was essentially to place at successive but overlapping time intervals, specific types of handicapped children into an established normal group of equivalent age range. Experimental situations were of three kinds: spontaneous activity on the playground and in the nursery school ; six simplified modifications of Gottschaldt’s (3) tower-building experi- ment; and the first six of his “Umweg” problem-solving tasks. Each experi- mental situation was further divided into a control group of individually competitive tasks and a group of non-competitive ckperative tasks. T h e nor- mal group (Group I ) consisted of six children, aged 3 to 5:7 years, with mental ages ranging from superior to low average (IQ 118-102). Group I1 included six children of the same age range with retarded or borderline intel- ligence (IQ 100-85). All six subjects in Group I1 had serious speech defects. For three subjects, we have complete daily protocols over an experimental period of four months. Because of illness and change in residence, records of

*Received in the Editorial Office on May 30, 1942. lAcknowledgment is given to Miss Grace Powers of Ann Arbor, Michigan, who

kindly offered the resources of her boarding home and day nursery school for this and other related experiments. The Speech C h i s of the Institute of Human Adjust- ment was also most coiiperative throughout this and related experiments.

105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

106 JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

the others are incomplete. As far as they go, however, these records are closely similar to the former with regard to social adaptation. T h e data reported here are from the three completed records.

Subject A , girl ; age 5 :7 years, mental age 3 :5 years; physically large ; poor gross and fine coiirdination ; emotionally affable ; fairly submissive ; persistently gregarious. (By this last term is meant consistent avoidance of solitude and consistent seeking of other children.) Clinical diagnosis, border-line Cretin with other endocrine complications and speech deficiency.

Subject B, girl ; age 4:l l years; mental age 3 :8 years ; physically small ; good gross, poor fine coiirdination ; emotionally very unstable ; destructively aggressive ; persistently gregarious. Clinical diagnosis and special investigation, congenital hyperthyroidism, congenital speech deficiency.

Subject C , age 3:11 years, mental age 3 years; physically average; fail motor coiirdination ; emotionally affable ; moderately submissive ; persistently gregarious. Clinical diagnosis, congenital retardation and speech defect.

All three children were totally lacking in vocabulary, subhtituting for it various types of primitive inflection and inarticulate sounds. These quite obvi- ously served the purpose of desired communication as well as simple expression of mood or activity “overflow.”

In the first part of the experiment, only one exceptional child was placed in the group at any given time. In the controlled coiiperative situations, all three were present. When each one was first placed in the established normal group, a certain sequence of responses occurred, as follows: mutual interest ; mutual spontaneous approach ; marked surprise, with some disorganization and inhibition patterns, among the normal children when they encountered the abnormal speech ; curiosity, diminishing swiftly, however, between the first introduction of Subject A and the later introduction of Subject C ; brief persistence at efforts to converse with the exceptional child, and finally, swift relapse into their normal routine activities. T h e average time consumed by these “social approach” activities of the normal group was 8 to 12 minutes. T h e socially oriented behavior of the abnormal group, while very uneven, persisted much longer ( 15-20 minutes).

Since the normal group, through training, accepted mutual sharing of activities and play apparatus, there was at first no active rejection of the active social advances of the exceptional child. Neither was there overt en- couragement. Within three days, however, conspicuous social patterns devel- oped which remained basically permanent throughout the experimental period of four months, and the “therapeutic” or control period beyond. (By therapy is meant directed teaching of altruistic behavior toward the handicapped child.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

MARTHA GUERNSEY COLBY 107

Protocols of the spontaneous behavior of Group I show that in the nursery at large, Subject A was “tolerated” in general, and somewhat protected in cer- tain playground situations where her motor clumsiness resulted in falling, stumbling, etc. Subject B, however, was quickly rejected and violently and permanently excluded. Subject C was at first tolerated in the same manner as A, then similarly protected, and finally, on such occasions as playing house, where a live baby was preferable to a doll, she was deliberately if not forcibly incorporated into the group activity. This normal group, while closely inte- grated, had very early evolved its own stable hierarchy, in which J, a lively, amiable boy of high intelligence, and swift, efficient motor ability was leader. In the normal group, he ranked second in ZQ, third in chronological age, and fourth in size. The child with the highest 18, also the eldest of Group I, was rather shy and quiet, so it it clear that J’s more active temperament combined with his high intelligence to produce the leader rijle. There w a s furthermore, a small, but stable division in Group I in terms of chronological age, the two youngest children tending to play together with the simpler materials. This division seemed entirely spontaneous, however, not imposed by the older chil- dren, since there was no evidence of active exclusion on the part of the latter group.

It is interesting that after the fifth day, all three exceptional children were clearly on a lower hierarchical level than had hitherto existed. A and C docilely accepted this placement. B continued her aggressive efforts to enter into or to disrupt the group activities on all occasions, even though her de- structive tendencies (throwing and banging objects, hitting and slapping, and restless running about) now met with equally pugnacious resistance, so that the group situation had always to be “resolved” artificially by the experi- menters, without running its entire social course. Nor did the relative dis- tances on the social periphery change very much even after the post-experi- mental “therapy” began. Through this systematic teaching, the normal chil- dren acquired new serbal reactions, but their overt social behavior remained about the same.

It seems clear that the primary segregating factor in the social exclusion of each of these three subjects, within this general or free situation, was that of individual temperament. Specific handicap seemed to play a secondary rijle.

In the controlled situations, both competitive and cotiperative, temperament retained its dynamic influence, but the specific handicaps (in speech and intel- ligence) became increasingly important as segregating factors of a higher order. Thus, in individual competition in tower-building and “Umweg” problem- solving, there were few overt attacks and very little actual unkindness,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

108 J O U R N A L OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

teasing, contempt, or even amusement at the inefficient behavior of the excep- tional children. There were, however, constant and emphatic reports to the experimenters, to the effect that A , B, and C “couldn’t do things,” the chil- dren being obviously perplexed. by the experimenters’ insistence on their inclusion in the games. In the individual competitive series, there were a few definite offers to help A, and one or two normal children, contrary to the “rules of the game,” overtly tried to help C solve the problem. There were none whatever to help the socially outlawed B. In fact, to replace the now forbidden counter-attacks on her aggressive patterns, the group developed a new reaction of quick dispersion whenever she appeared at the experimental period. Rejection-plus-attack became, in the controlled experiments with indi- vidual competition as a motive, rejection-plus-avoidance.

I n the third set of experiments, the same tower-building and Umweg problems were transformed into coiiperative games where each child was to help in the solution. Here the normal group “closure” became very marked, and the social “distance” of the exceptional children was greatly increased. All three abnormal subjects were now definitely and forcibly excluded from the group activity. Such altruistic behavior as did occur resembled shrewdness rather than kindness, and was clearly secondary to the goal of egocentric achievement. It did, however, take a very significant and intelligent form, in that it consisted mainly of pointing out substitute activities for A and C . Typical examples were leading them to a pile of very large cork blocks (away from the small blocks of the tower problem) ; showing them the crayons; taking them out to the sand pile, etc. Whenever A and C did not respond affably to such veiled exclusion, the veil was removed, and they were simply pushed out of the way. In these coijperative situations, the mere appearance of B led instantly to incipient group violence, only inhibited by the presence of the experimenter. Since B’s patterns of participation were all destructive, the entire experiment simply disintegrated under her continued presence, the normal children became indifferent or sullen, and their highly articulated coiiperatbn swiftly disintegrated into random, disorganized activities.

Efforts to form a stable, social sub-group among these three exceptional children, comparable to the two youngest subjects of Group I were not suc- cessful. A cried and ran away, when paired with B. If pursued by the swifter child, A struck back or kicked, but always defensively. Subject C, though much smaller and younger, than A , struck out at once, if paired with the aggressive B, then ran away, and only occasionally cried. Both A and C preferred the normal children to each other, despite their common places on the outer fringe of the normal activities. These were crudely but happily

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

MARTHA GUERNSEY COLBY 109

imitated by the more active C, while the more passive A soon grew content to stand at a distance and look on. She often stood still for long periods watching the others perform on the playground apparatus, and cried if taken away. It is clear that chronological age differences (such as size, etc.) as well as temperament differences, here outweigh the segregating power of similar mental age and similar speech handicap in the spontaneous social re- action of the exceptional children.

Experimental results for the others in Group I1 are very similar depending on whether their total behavior is characteristically aggressive or passive. It is, of course, necessary to repeat the experiment with speech-handicapped children of normal intelligence, and with defective children without such extreme speech defects as Group I1 shows.

O u r cumulative data nevertheless indicate significant results in a field not hitherto explored in any systematic fashion. They show that, a t these early age levels, social attitudes depend on how the particular child is perceived as a functional part of a given activity pattern. Contrary to general belief, they are much less egocentric and primitively emotional in origin than they are simply pragmatic. They are also highly dynamic in accordance with the changing situations. A t this formative age, passive assimilation of handicapped children into an established social group is fairly easy and rapid in “free” activity situations where social integration is not taxed by specific mutual responsibilities. Such situations have, in other words, little social articulation in a functional sense, hence are more or less “fluid” in social boundary. In a complex cooperative task, on the other hand, where poor performance threatens the entire group goal, passive assimilation changes completely over into active and sustained exclusion, rigid barriers, and increased social distance. T h e less resistance offered to whatever peripheral hierarchy is imposed by the normal group, the faster and more permanently is the exceptional child admitted. Aggressive efforts to enter into the normal group meet with physical opposition, or if that be inhibited through control from above, by a generalized avoidance response and regression of group activities to random disorganiza- tion which strongly suggests a group-frustration pattern of behavior.

Something at least akin to human altruism occurs when normal children ameliorate social exclusion from a given activity by seeking to point out sub- stitute activities to the exceptional child. Likewise, the sporadic protective attitudes toward younger and clumsier children on the playground, imply some primitive perception of unselfish social behavior. It is not possible to say how much of the attitudes here described result from home environment. We can only say that in spite of rather extreme diversity in the cultural and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

110 J O U R N A L O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

economic backgrounds of this experimental group, the pattern of social response is astonishingly similar, in these situations, at these age levels. From a phylo- genetic perspective, there are certain very striking similarities between the social behavior of animals and human children as to: hierarchy; dominance; group closure or barrier ; and exclusion of anomalous (exceptional) indi- viduals. There are also very important differences, in that purely biological factors (size, strength, age, sex, etc.) which predominate in animal hierarchies, are already secondary to or at least greatly modified by functional behavior of an acquired level. Except in highly integrated group patterns, the social barriers are much less rigid, i.e., more adaptive than in animals. Finally, the germ of human altruism, which is the basis of adult “social service,” appears among young children to a much greater extent than any animal investigation has shown.

In conclusion, it is suggested that before discarding the principle of insti- tutional segregation of mentally deficient or speech deficient children, as is often proposed by extreme believers in “environmental” cures, the serious prob- lems of their social adaptation be further investigated.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

REFERENCES ALVERDES, F. Social Life in the Animal World. London: Kegan Paul, 1927.

CRAWFORD, M. P. Psychol. Bull., 1939, 36,

GOITSCHALDT, K. Der Aufbau des Kindlichen Handelns. Zschr. angew. Psychol.

JAMES, W. T . J. Genet .

KATZ, D. Animals and Men. New York: Longmans Green, 1937. Pp. 263. KOHLER, W. Mentality of Apes. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1925. Pp. 342. KOFFKA, K. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.

(Chap. 14.) MASLOW, A. H. Dominance-quality and social behavior in infra-human primates.

MURCHISON, C. The experimental measure of a social hierarchy in Gallus

Pp. 216. Social psychology of the vertebrates.

407-466.

Suppl., 1933, 68. Pp. 227. Further experiments in social behavior among dogs.

Psychol., 1936, 49, 437-449.

Principles of Gestalt Psychology.

J . SOC. Psychol., 1940, 11, 313-324.

domesticus. J . Gen . Psvchol., 1935, l2, 3-39. NISSEN, H. W. A field study of the. chimpanzee. Comp. Pryehal. Monog., 1931,

8. Pp. 122. WINSLOW, C. N. Experimentally induced competitive behavior in the white rat.

Pp. 35. YERKES, R. M. Social Behavior in Infra-Human Primates. In Handbook o f

Worcester: Clark Univ. Press, 1935. ZUCKERMAN, S. London: K. Paul, Trench,

Comp. Psychol. Monog., 1940, 16.

Social Psychology.

Trubner, 1932. Pp. 357. Social Life of Monkeys and Apes.

Department of Psychology University of Michigan A n n Arbor, Michigan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

16 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014