Study of Association in Insanity | Page 7

however, a fairly definite group can be separated out which seems to possess some pathological significance, namely, the group which we have termed non-specific.
In this group are placed words which are so widely applicable as to serve as more or less appropriate reactions to almost any of our stimulus words. That such reactions are in value inferior to the remaining group of common reactions, which we have termed, in contradistinction, specific reactions, is perhaps sufficiently obvious; we shall speak later, however, of their occurrence in both normal and insane cases.
It is not always easy to judge whether or not a given reaction should be classed as non-specific. A study of our material made with special reference to this type of reactions has enabled us to select the following list of words, any of which, occurring in response to any stimulus word, is classed as a non-specific reaction:
article, articles bad beautiful, beauty fine good, goodness great happiness, happy large man necessary, necessity nice
object (noun) people person pleasant, pleasantness, pleasing, pleasure pretty small thinking, thought, thoughts unnecessary unpleasant use, used, useful, usefulness, useless, uselessness, uses, using woman work
It should be mentioned that some of these words occur as reactions to one or several stimulus words with such frequency (_citizen--man_, value 27.8 per cent; _health--good_, value 9.4 per cent) as to acquire in such instances a value as high as that of strictly specific reactions.
*Doubtful Reactions* have already been defined (p.40): any reaction word which is not found in the table in its identical form, but which is a grammatical variant or derivative of a word found there, is placed in this group.

§ 4. INDIVIDUAL REACTIONS; EXPLANATION OF GROUPS AND METHODS OF APPLICATION.
*Normal Reactions.*--Inasmuch as the frequency tables do not exhaust all normal possibilities of reaction, a certain number of reactions which are essentially normal are to be found among the individual reactions. In order to separate these from the pathological reactions, we have compiled an appendix to the frequency tables, consisting mainly of specific definitions of groups of words to be included under each stimulus word in our list. This appendix will be found at the end of this paper.
A word of explanation is perhaps due as to the manner in which the appendix has been compiled. It was developed in a purely empirical way, the basis being such individual reactions, given by both normal and insane subjects, as seemed in our judgment to be obviously normal.
It must be acknowledged that the appendix falls short of all that might be desired. In the first place, its use involves to some slight extent the play of personal equation, and it therefore constitutes a source of error; in the second place, it is in some respects too inclusive while in other respects it is not sufficiently so. However, the error due to personal equation is slight; the inclusion of certain "far-fetched" or even frankly pathological reactions may be discounted by bearing in mind that the general value of this group is not equal to that of the group of common reactions; and the number of strictly normal reactions which are not included is after all small. Our experience has shown us that the appendix constitutes an important aid in the analysis of individual reactions.
*Pathological Reactions. Derivatives of Stimulus Words.*--We place here any reaction which is a grammatical variant or derivative of a stimulus word. The tendency to give such reactions seems to be dependent upon a suspension or inhibition of the normal process by which the stimulus word excites the production of a new concept, for we have here not a production of a new concept but a mere change in the form of the stimulus word. As examples of such reactions may be mentioned: _eating--eatables_, _short--shortness_, _sweet--sweetened_, _quiet--quietness_.
*Partial Dissociation.*--We have employed the term dissociation to indicate a rupture of that bond--whatever be its nature-which may be supposed to exist normally between stimulus and reaction and which causes normal persons to respond in the majority of instances by common reactions. And we speak of partial dissociation where there is still an obvious, though weak and superficial, connection. Under this heading we can differentiate four types:
*Non-specific Reactions* have already been defined; we distinguish those in this class from those in the class of common reactions by means of the frequency tables.
*Sound Reactions.*--This type requires no explanation; the main difficulty is to decide what degree of sound similarity between stimulus and reaction should be deemed sufficient for placing a reaction under this heading. The total number of different sounds used in language articulation is, of course, small, so that any two words are liable to present considerable chance similarity. Some time ago we estimated the average degree of sound similarity between stimulus words and reaction words in a series of one hundred test records obtained from