Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19

Cole, James K. (ed) 1971. Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press

1. Elkind, David 1971. Cognitive Crowth Cycles in Mental Development. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 1-31
2. Longstreth, Langdon E. 1971. A Cognitive Interpretation of Secondary Reinforcement. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 33-80
3. Donaldson, Margaret 1971. Preconditions of Inference. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 81-106
4. Mehrabian, Albert 1971. Nonverbal Communication. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 107-162
5. Exline, Ralph 1971. Visual Interaction: The Glances of Power and Preference. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 163-206
6. Ekman, Paul 1971. Universals and Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions of Emotion. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 207-286

Elkind, David 1971. Cognitive Crowth Cycles in Mental Development. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 1-31

In order to pursue stimulus nutriment the child must frequently ignore or tune out distracting stimuli. (Elkind 1971: 2)

Seda mõttekäiku saab rakendada ka mitteverbaalsete märkide lugemisele. Olen kohanud isegi Juri Lotmani tekstides midagi taolist, et autojuht peab õppima ignoreerima ja välja lülitama segavaid stiimuleid, et normaalselt sõita. Mitteverbaalse suhtlemise uurimise puhul tähendab see tähelepanu pööramist sellele, milliseid modaalsusi ja märke märgatakse ja mida eelistatakse ignoreerida või välja lülitada.

In the most general sense, perception can be said to involve the process by which we read information which comes to us throuh our senses. (Elkind 1971: 6)

Siin on taju defineeritud kui protsess mille kaudu me loeme informatsiooni mis tuleb meile läbi meeleelundite. Siin on justkui võimalus pansemiootika arendamiseks - taju tõlgendamine on semiootiline protsess.

In language learning, too, the child may hear what he knows rather than what he listens to. (Elkind 1971: 12)

See sama motiiv on rakendadav ka mvs uurimisele. Mitmetes uurimistöödes ilmneb, et uurija märkab ainult neid liigutusi mille jaoks tal on kategooriad olemas. Selle asemel, et jälgida mis tegelikult toimub, jälgib ta seda, mida ta teab, et toimub.

Gating and storage are likewise present at the semantic level. With regard to gating, Piaget (1952) long ago described what he called "parallel play." In such play two children talk at rather than to one another. One child talks about his new jacket while the other talks about a trip to the store and neither child acknowledges the other's utterance. In such parallel play, the child effectively gates out the semantic input of his companion. It is important to point out that the child could understand the utterances - he certainly does so when he is talking to an adult - but when engaged in play his language accompanies and reinforces his actions; distracting stimuli are effectively gated from consciousness. (Elkind 1971: 13)

Sama toimub päris tihti ka täiskasvanutega isegi intellektuaalsetes aruteludes.

It is at least possible that some children get "imprinted" on intellectual kinds of nourishment during critical periods of mental growth while others do not and that these differential experiences set up lifelong preferences in these pursuits. It is a hypothesis that seems worthy of exploration in a more systematic way. (Elkind 1971: 20)

Sõnu:
cognitive structure - kognitiivne struktuur
mental structure - vaimne struktuur
symbolic function - sümboolne funktsioon (võime sümbolitega mängida)
perceptual process - tajuprotsess
sensory gating - aistingute väravdamine (stiimulitega kohanemine, mittemärkamine)

Longstreth, Langdon E. 1971. A Cognitive Interpretation of Secondary Reinforcement. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 33-80
behaviorism, loomkatsed, blablabla

Donaldson, Margaret 1971. Preconditions of Inference. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 81-106
inferents, loogika, blablabla

Mehrabian, Albert 1971. Nonverbal Communication. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 107-162

The importance of nonverbal behavior is also highlighted in situations in which unfamiliar persons interact and so one seeks to influence the other (as in political speeches or advertising). (Mehrabian 1971: 117)

Mitteverbaalne suhtlemine on väga oluline situatsioonides, kus võõrad inimesed suhtlevad ja üks proovib teist mõjutada (nt poliitilised kõned ja reklaamindus).

A consideration of the literature in the nonverbal communication area led to the postulation of three orthogonal dimensions for characterizing the nonverbal aspects of social interaction: communications of liking (which include all of the nonverbal cues within the first factor), responsiveness to the target (or, alternatively, the salience of the target for oneself), and potency or status as conveyed by great relaxation (Mehrabian, 1970a). The present results show that when verbal cues are also considered within the complex of social interaction, the same three factors emerge, and that most of the verbal cues which measure amount of verbal interchange are part of the first factor, liking-affiliation. The second factor, responsiveness, is correlated only slightly with the communication of liking, and reflects the extent to which the subject is reacting to another, whether in a positive or negative way. For instance, in persuasive communication situations in which the nonverbal expression of liking may be construed as manipulative and insincere, it has been found that increased attempts at persuasion are associated with increased responsiveness to the listener, but with only slightly increases in actual responsiveness toward the listener (Mehrabian & Williams, 1969).
Postural relaxation has been found to be a correlate of higher status of the speaker relative to his listener. The composition of the relaxation index is somewhat different for standing and seated positions. For seated postures, asymmetry in positioning of the limbs and the degree of reclining or sideways lean are the best indicators; for standing positions, sideways lean of the body again serves as a measure of relaxation, but rocking movements and leg and foot movements while in the same place are also important indicators. (Mehrabian 1971: 128)

Semantilise ruumi kolm dimensiooni: (1) meeldivus, (2) vastavus või reageerimine ja (3) potents või staatus. Ja poosi mugavus osutab suhtelisele staatusele.

In a variety of contexts, we have seen that nonverbal behaviors are more important or basic (possibly because they are more difficult to censor) than verbal ones: untrained observers assign greater weight to the feelings communicated nonverbally in vocal and facila expressions that to the feelings expressed verbally. Further, some nonverbal channels are more subtle than others. For instance, communications of attitude or status with posture and position cues are more subtle and probably less subject to censorship or deliberate control than are facial or vocal expressions of the same attitudes. (Mehrabian 1971: 148-1489)

Conceptualizing the referents of nonverbal behavior in terms of evaluation, potenxy, and responsiveness, it is expected that (1) affiliative dispositions correlalte with more immediate nonverbal behaviors toward others; (2) dominant personality dispositions correlate with relaxation; (3) anxious or disturbed individuals exhibit less relaxation and, depending on the form of psychopathology, possibly less immediacy, as in the face of withdrawal and less responsiveness to people in general, are reflected in low levels of activity. (Mehrabian 1971: 152)

Exline, Ralph 1971. Visual Interaction: The Glances of Power and Preference. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 163-206

Throughout the literature two themes recur - the theme of preference and the theme of power. Both the sociologist Simmel (1969) and the philosopher Sartre (157) have stressed the role of mutual glances in the establishmjent of significant interpersonal bonds. According to Simmel, it is the mutual as distinct from the one-way glance which signifies union - whether we seek or avoid such visual contact depends upon our desire for union with each other. Sartre, on the other hand, stresses the threat to individual autonomy inherent in the mutual glance: "Either the other looks at me and alienates my liberty, or I assimilate and seize the liberty of the other" (Schetze, 1948). (Exline 1971: 166)

The studies mentioned to date provide rather good evidence that persons are more prone to engage in mutual glances when they find the relationship with another attractive rather than aversive. The relationship between considerations of interpersonal power and visual interaction, however, was only indirectly touched upon in the study of affiliation and competitiveness. (Exline 1971: 181)

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) define social power as the control one person has over another's oucomes. Assuming that individuals are aware of the difference in power which defines their role relationship, we would expect that in a face-to-face interaction in which outcomes are in question, the person in the less powerful position would have a greater need to monitor the expressive behavior of the other. Such monitoring would serve two purposes: (a) it would provide the low power person (LP) with information concerning the reaction of the other to LP's efforts, information which LP could use to adjust his own behavior; (b) it enables the LP person to indicate that he is attentive to the higher power person (HP), thus serving as a signal that he accepts his role, or at least is behaving in a manner appropriate to his position. (Exline 1971: 182-183)

Perhaps the potency impressions help to explain the rather complicated set of interactions shown in Figure 1.1. If one has control needs and wishes to retain the floor, it would behoove him not to look too much at one he feels has the capacity to wrest it from him, should he catch his eye. On the other hand, if the confederate looks steadily without attempting to speak, he may be seen as weak, which would enable one to look more steadily at him with impunity. The reverse could be true for the less controlling subject. The data shows, though the interaction was not significant, that the control-oriented subjects did not look less steadily at the nonlooking than at the looking listener, while the reverse tended to be true for the less controlling subject. To look or not to look, that is the question. The answer, for those who need to control, may lie in the perceived force of the other.
Much of what I have reported in these studies of visual behavior and interpersonal power problems seems to be concerned with the avoidance of eye contact. Powerful peopled do not monitor less powerful people. Those who feel that another's power is illegitimate avoid potential eye contact with the usurper. Dominant men seem more impressed with the personal force of one who listens without looking and also seem more reluctant to look at those whom they perceive to be forceful. Why su much avoidance? (Exline 1971: 192)

While more work remains before we can precisely characterize the context in which open eyes are sufficient to elicit threat, we do believe that an affirmative answer to Diebold's question is possible. We believe, that is, that eye engagement does serve an interpersonal-regulatory function in a shared primate ethogram. Perhaps men are generally predisposed to avoid visual engagement with another (especially in silence) to reduce the probability of getting caught up in disturbing dominance struggles. (Exline 1971: 198)

Ekman, Paul 1971. Universals and Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions of Emotion. In Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 19. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. pp. 207-286

...[LaBarre] concludes, "There is no 'natural' language of emotional gesture" (p. 55). A problem with this statement is LaBarre's failure to distinguish facial expressions of emotion from facial gestures. While some gacial expressions of emotion can also be used as intentional communicative gestures to convey an explicit message (e.g., the smile), many facial gestures are independent of the facial behaviors usually considered as relevant to emotion. Such gestures as the head shake "no," raising one eyebrow, winking, et.c, may well be culturally variable, while facial exspressions of emotion are not. Darwin (1872) mentioned the need to distinguish between facial expressions of emotion, which are innate and universal, and facial gestures, which are learned and therefore culturally variable. (Ekman 1971: 209)

Cultural differences in facial expression occur (a) because most of the events which through learning become established as the elicitors of particular emotions will vary across cultures, (b) because the rules for controlling facial expressions in particular social settings will also vary across cultures, and (c) because some of the consequences of emotional arousal will also vary with culture.
We have called our theory neuro-cultural because it emphasizes two very different sets of determinants of facial expressions, one which is responsible for universals and the other for cultural differences. Neuro refers to the facial affect program - the relationships between particular emotions and the firing of a particular pattern of facial muscles. This program, as we will explain, is at least partly innate, and can sometimes be activated with relatively little prior cognitive processing or evaluation. Cultural refers to the other set of determinants - most of the events which elicit emotion, the rules about controlling the appearance of emotion, and most of the consequences of emotion. These, we hold, are learned and vary with culture. (Ekman 1971: 212)

We have described four management techniques for controlling facial behavior: (a) intensifying a felt emotion; (b) deintensifying a felt emotion; (c) neutralizing a felt emotion; and (d) masking a felt emotion with the facial configuration associated with a different emotion. We have hypothesized that these management technieuqes for controlling facial appearance are operative in most social situations. The concept of display rules concerns what has been learned, presumably fairly early in life, about which management techniques to be applied by whom, to which emotions, under what circumstances. Display rules may take account of four characteristics in specifying when and by whom a management technique is to be applies: (a) static personal characteristics (e.g., age, sex, and body size); (b) static social characteristics (e.g., ecological factors, the social definition of the situation, such as funeral, job interview, or a party; enduring interpersonal relationships); (c) transient personal characteristics (e.g., role, attitude); and (d) transient interaction regularities (e.g., entrances, exits; listening, talking; in play, out of play).
Display rules govern facial behavior on a habitual basis. Rarely will a person pause to consider what display rule to follow; such a pause would indicate that there is no display rule, or that something is ambiguous in the situation and the person does not know which display rule to follow. The operation of display rules is more noticeable when they are violated than when properly applied. (Ekman 1971: 225-226)

• Eibl-EIbesfeldt, I. Ethology: The biology of behavior. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston, 1970
• Lorenz, K. Studies in animal and human behavior. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Hardvard University Press, 1970.
• Nummenmaa, T. The Language of the face. (Jyvaskyla Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 9) Jyvaskyla, Finland: Jyvaskylan Yliopistoyhdistys, 1964).
• Thomkins, S. S. Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. 1. The positive affects. New York: Springer, 1962.