Showing papers on "Exemplification published in 1968"

Reference groups, socialization and achievement.

Abstract: This paper suggests that there are three important types of reference groups which act together to foster achievement level striving. These are the normative group, the role model and the audience. The normative group defines the roles the individual is to assume, the model provides exemplification of how the role is to be performed, at least adequately, and the audience provides anticipation of rewards for outstanding performance in the role. Expectations for performance level attained in two types of situations are discussed: (a) instances where one or more of the three reference groups is missing in the individual's reference group reporters, and (b) instances where the three reference groups are not "located" in the same concrete group or person. Finally, the reference group theory of achievement is compared with David McClelland's theory of n-Achievement and Max Weber's theory of achievement implicit in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Hempel's criterion of maximal specificity

Abstract: exemplification along with the entities which it ties. Thus the fact reappears in the analysis of the fact. Again, if one clearly separates the analysis from the representation it is seen that the paradox does not arise. For although one needs a composition rule to construct a linguistic picture of the fact from the list given in the analysis, this does not mean that the linguistic picture itself occurs in the analysis. The analysis simply is the list of signs standing for entities. Hence, there is no worry about combining the signs in the list into a sentence which occurs in the list. Thus the desire to secure the difference between exemplification and things becomes a motive for blurring the distinction between the analysis and the representation. One can agree with Bergmann that the difference must be secured and, if I am right, it can be secured without blurring the distinction.

Elizabethan Drama and The Art of Abstraction

Abstract: The new drama of the Renaissance, as its roots are in the medieval Morality play, is notably partial to abstraction and to generalization. Its governing dictate is expressed in the proposition, Universalia ante rem. Like the Morality, it is zealous for truth; but not for the indigenous or phenomenal truth. It desires to come to the heart of the matter. For that reason, it is suspicious of analogy and exemplification. (The comment is not tenable of Shakespeare; but it holds, I think, for most of his fellows.) To the degree that this new drama prefers the general formulation, it tends to depreciate particulars as necessarily parochial. The truth it is after transcends the particular exemplification. It is not for an age but for all time. The ideal hero it presents is Everyman. His behavior is predictable and therefore determined. It rises unswervingly from a common nature, which is analyzable and responsive to law. The language that is spoken by this generic hero is, at least by design, an uninflected language, purged of obscurity or provinciality. Ideally, it is a language such as all men do use. Particularization makes against the attempt to reproduce this more catholic speech. The partisans of the unoccluded truth endeavor, therefore, to attenuate the concrete or delimiting word. It is their idea to supplant it with an abstraction. Already in Shakespeare's plays, the attack on the intransigent or particular thing has begun to be mounted. 1 In King John, men who are potent and powerful are rendered generically as potents (H.i. 358) ; the resolutes, in Hamlet, displace the resolute men (Li. 98) . King Lear dramatizes, not the business of cruel creatures but cruels (IILvii. 64) ; and The Winter's Tale, not that of common or vulgar people but, less specifically, vulgars (H.i. 94). In Antony and Cleopatra, it is the discontents who repair to the ports (I.iv. 38f.), in lieu of the discontented men.

Production of Threat in an Interview Situation

Abstract: Landfield’s exemplification and expectancy hypotheses about threat from others were tested in an interview situation. 80 undergraduate Ss were instructed to report for academic advisement. Actors posing as advisors exemplified and/or expected behaviors which the Ss had been attempting to change in themselves. As hypothesized, Ss’ threat was indicated by a variety of responses when unwanted behavior was expected. The exemplification hypothesis, however, was not supported. It was concluded that accurate predictions about threat must include statements about the example, the expectancy, and the S’s anticipation of the relationship between himself and the threatening other. Finally, variation within experimental groups suggests the need for additions to the threat hypotheses.