cognitive pluralism or individual differences: a comparison of alternative models

Transcription

1 cognitive pluralism or individual differences: a comparison of alternative models of American English kin terms MCHAEL D. ROSE and A. KMBALL ROMNEY-University of California, lrvine This paper presents evidence that American English speakers have access to alternative cognitive structures of their own kinship system. The cognitive structure that is relevant at a given time is determined by context. n an earlier paper on American English kinship terms, Romney and DAndrade (1964:154) observed, if individuals in a culture have alternative structures, it is possible that either different individuals have arrived at different cognitive structures, or that the same individual operates with alternative structures. We refer to the first concept as that of individual differences and to the second as that of cognitive pluralism. Both concepts may be valid, but our research supports that of cognitive pluralism. Several empirical studies, utilizing multidimensional scaling techniques, have dealt with various factors related to the question of whether there exists one or more than one cognitive structure for a given semantic domain. Among these have been papers examining shifts in the semantic context of lexical items (Kirk and Burton 1977), age-related developmental changes (Howard and Howard 1977), variations in the method of eliciting similarity judgments (Henley 1969; Fillenbaum and Rapoport 1971; Miller 1977; Hutchinson and Lockhead 1977), and cross-cultural comparisons of semantic structure (Romney and Magana 1976). The research reported in these papers strongly suggests that under certain conditions, such as those created by contextual shifts and developmental changes, dif- ferences obtain in how individuals conceive of the items in a domain, but that these can be accounted for by hypothesizing a single underlying structure. As stated by Henley in a study of the domain of animal terms: the finding that similar structures are elicited by differing methods of investigation is important to research in semantics. There has often been a tacit assumption that there is a single structure for a given semantic field, irrespective of method, but there has been little empirical evidence supporting it The results of the present experiment suggest that there is enough in common among different methods to support the view that a common semantic structure exists, irrespective of method, at least for such verbal items as were used here (Henley 1969: , my emphasis). This paper uses multidimensional scaling (MDS] to compare alternative models of kinship terms of American English. t thereby inquires into whether the same person can operate with alternative cognitive structures when the verbal context of the kinship terms is systematically modified by the presence [as in the Wallace-Atkins model] or the absence (as in the Romney-D Andrade model) of an ego reference point. Our experiments also demonstrate unexpected discrepencies between the results of similarity tests with dyads and those with triads when the ego reference point is present. Copyright by the American Anthropological Association /79/ $1.60/1 752 american ethnologist

2 Howard and Howard reported similar findings in terms of a single set of cognitive dimensions for the same domain of animal terms. The present study focused on the development of the semantic structure underlying a set of animal names in as much as this domain has been investigated extensively in adults. The results reveal that the structure of this set of lexical items changes with development such that the perceptual feature of size becomes relatively less salient, whereas the more abstract features of predativity and domesticity become increasingly important (Howard and Howard 1977:112). Evidence in favor of both a single structure and alternative cognitive structures has been given by Wexler and Romney (1972) for the domain of American English kinship terms. Wexler and Romney compared the similarity judgments elicited from subjects on eight male kinship terms with two structural (that is, theoretical) models of the terms that had been taken from Wallace and Atkins (1960) and from Romney and DAndrade (1964). When they aggregated their data across the subjects, they concluded that a single model, namely, that of Romney and DAndrade, best described the underlying structure of the kinship terms; when they analyzed the responses of individual subjects, they conjectured that subjects might be using either model. Wexler and Romney sum up their findings thus: "The most promising hypothesis seems, at least for kin terms, to be that there are a small number of structures (in our case, two) in the population, possibly one of them dominating, the second coming into play for some subjects at some times" (Wexler and Romney 1972:92). They do not, however, specify what affects the choice of kinship models by subjects. Besides the Wexler and Romney study, there does not appear to be any multidimensional scaling experiment on the structure of semantic domains that has been interpreted as show ing evidence for the existence of alternative cognitive structures, probably because of the assumption by researchers that each semantic domain is adequately conceived of as hav ing a single structure (for example, Henley 1969:182). Even other multidimensional scaling experiments on American English kinship terms have assumed only a single cognitive struc ture, resembling the Romney-D'Andrade model (for example, Fillenbaum and Rapopori: 1971; Nerloveand Burton 1972; Romney and Magana 1976). But it is our finding, in agreement with Wexler and Romney, that alternative cognitive structures operate for American English speakers; we have further been able to establish the conditions necessary to create an alternation between different structures. The methods we used consist primarily of multidimensional scaling analyses of similarity judgments on American English kinship terms. The alternative cognitive structures are generated by varying the context for the kinship terms with different verbal references. Following Tyler (1969:91), we designate these contextual shifts by the term "cognitive contexts," because of the apparent effect they have on how subjects perceive the relationships among the kinship terms. The cognitive contexts are derived from the two kinship structural models, as described in the next section, and the responses of subjects on similarityjudgment tests are compared with those predicted by the two structural models. The relevance of our research to the concepts (or models) of individual differences and cognitive pluralism will be sufficiently clear. f it can be experimentally shown that the use of both kinship models by subjects would depend upon their individual or personal characteristics, then the hypothesis of individual differences will be corroborated. f it can be experimentally shown that the use of both kinship models by subjects would depend instead upon differences external to subjects and arising as variables in the general culture in which, presumably, they were originally socialized and in which, presumably, they continue to participate, then the hypothesis of cognitive pluralism will be corroborated. the kinship structural models The American English kinship models we used are shown in Tables 1 and 2. They were previously derived by methods of componential analysis (Wallace and Atkins 1960; alternative cognitive structures 753

3 ~ Table 1. Wallace-Atkins structural model of American English Kinship (from Wallace and Atkins 1960) Grandfather Father Uncle (Ego) Brother Cousin Son Nephew Grandson c2 Romney and D Andrade 1964) and differ both in the number of dimensions specified and in the values assigned to the meaning of the terms in each dimension. n Table 1, the Wallace- Atkins structural model identifies the two dimensions of generation (represented by the lower case b s) and of descent (represented by the capital C s). n Table 2, the Romney- D Andrade structural model identifies the three dimensions of generation (represented by the capital C s), of descent, and of reciprocity. Because, of the dimensional values from either model, no two include the same set of kinship terms, as is seen in Tables 3 and 4, the two models can be easily distinguished. But the crucial difference between the two structural models for our purposes is found in the presence or absence of an Ego reference point. t is this feature of the models that furnishes the cognitive contexts for the kinship terms. As Pelto says: From the diagrams above we notice that Romney and D Andrade did not organize their analysis around that familiar reference point, Ego. Without Ego, their system has no zero point. The implication of this would seem to be that Ego is outside the system, looking at the interrelationships among the kin terms as a spectator; this perspective is quite different from that in which Ego is in the middle, looking around at his kinsmen [as in the Wallace and Atkins model] (Pelto 1966:198) Our major hypothesis may now be stated: when kinship terms are bound to an explicit Ego reference point, as in Table 1, the experimental results should be consistent with the theoretical structure generated by the Wallace-Atkins model; when an Ego reference point is absent or merely implicit, as in Table 2, the experimental results should be consistent with the theoretical structure generated by the Romney-D Andrade model. By experimentally varying these cognitive contexts for the kinship terms, it should be possible to predict which model will in fact be used by the subjects. n previously published studies of multidimensional scaling analyses of American English kinship, subjects are reported to have been tested only on terms without an explicit Ego reference point. For example, a typical triad used for similarity judgments with unreferenced kinship terms would be grandfather, son, grandson. As predicted above, these experiments have replicated the Romney-DAndrade structural modef (see Romney and D Andrade 1964; Fillenbaum and Rapoport 1971; Nerlove and Burton 1972; Wexler and Romney 1972; and Romney and Magana 1976). Table 2. Romney-D Andrade structural model of American English Kinship (from Romney and D Andrade 1964) Gzt2 G z tl GO Direct Collateral -Reciprocal + Reciprocal + Reciprocal -Reciprocal Grandson Grandfather Son Father Uncle Nephew Brother Cousin 754 american ethnologist

4 ~~ Table 3. Dimensional values for the Wallace-Atkins structural model. ~ ~~ Dimension Values Descent c1 c2 c3 Generation Kinship terms Grandfather, Father, (Ego), Son, Grandson Uncle, Brother, Nephew Cousin Grandfather Father, Uncle (Ego), Brother, Cousin Son, Nephew Grandson f subjects are to make similarity judgments in terms of the Wallace-Atkins Ego referenced structural model, they must be presented with explicitly referenced kinship terms. Susan Haviland (n.d.) has suggested that explicit referencing of this kind could be obtained by prefacing each kinship term with the word Ego s or someone s. nstead of an unreferenced kinship term such as grandfather, then, we can test for Ego s grandfather or someone s grandfather. Because many subjects reported difficulties in processing kinship terms referenced by the word Ego s or someone s, it was decided to substitute the proper name Pat s, which has the advantage of avoiding sex bias while still preserving the notion of explicit referencing. The unreferenced triad given in the example above can be changed to the referenced triad Pat s grandfather, Pat s son, Pat s grandson. Subjects are instructed to think of each of the kinship terms in the traid as referring to a relative of Pat. n the experimental research reported upon here, we used both traids and rating-scale dyads tests to collect data on similarity judgments. We have found nothing in the literature that raises any serious question about the validity of either method and, in fact, there are experiments that have demonstrated that the results yielded by the two methods largely coincide. Using animal terms, Henley ( ) concluded that the method of category ratings and the method of triadic combinations are interchangeable from the standpoint of results. Hutchinson and Lockheadi1977:667) tested the two methods on bird terms and fruit terms, and they also reported that dyadic and triadic measures give virtually the same results. From our research on the referenced context for American English kinship terms, however, there is evidence that the method of triads does not always produce the same results as the method of rating-scale dyads. By comparing the structure of the two sets of referenced similarity judgments with the predicted structure for referenced kinship terms, namely, the Wallace-Atkins structural model, it was possible to determine that the rating- Table 4. Dimensional values for the Romney-D Andrade structural model Dimension Values Descent Direct Collateral Generation G *2 G * GO Reciprocity +Reciprocal -Reciprocal Kinship terms Grandfather, Father, Son, Brother, Grandson Uncle, Nephew, Cousin Grandfather. Grandson Father, Son, Uncle, Nephew Brother, Nephew Grandfather, Father, Uncle Grandson, Son, Nephew alternative cognitive structures 755

5 scale dyads test gives a more accurate measure of the relationships among referenced kinship terms than the triads test. These findings in no way invalidate the studies cited above, because their comparisons of traids and rating-scale dyads dealt with unreferenced terms; our analysis of that context for kinship terms does not demonstrate any significant variations in results. But in research on referenced contexts (for example, Kirk and Burton 1977), it might be necessary to con- trol for possible differences in the methods. the experiment Similarity judgments were elicited from ninety University of California, rvine, undergraduate students in Thirty students (fifteen males, fifteen females) par- ticipated in each of three experiments, one using referenced triads tests, one using referenced rating-scale dyads tests, and one using unreferenced rating-scale dyads tests. Testing was done at the lrvine Campus Social Science Laboratory, and students received class credit for volunteering their time. Data from 155 lrvine undergraduate students reported by Wexler and Romney (1972) were used for the unreferenced traids. The kinship terms used in the experiments consisted of a set of the eight basic terms for male consanguineal relatives: grandfather, father, son, brother, grandson, uncle, nephew, and cousin. The referenced context was obtained by modifying the kin terms with the proper name Pat s. n both the referenced and unreferenced triads experiments, subjects were instructed to select out of each triad the term they judged least similar to the other two in meaning and were then tested on all fifty-six possible triadic combinations of the eight kinship terms. The pair of terms judged most similar in each triad was given a similarity score of one. n each set of fifty-six triads, there were twenty-eight unique pairs of terms that could receive a maximum similarity score of six; that is, each possible pair of the eight kinship terms was compared with the six other terms. Similarity scores for the twenty-eight pairs were ag- gregated across subjects in each triads experiment and then arranged in two (8 X 8) similarity matrices for input into the multidimensional scaling programs. The referenced and unreferenced rating-scale dyads experiments were composed of the twenty-eight possible dyadic combinations of the eight kinship terms. Similarity scores were taken directly from subjects ratings of the dyads on a scale from one to ten, on which the rating of greatest difference was one. The aggregated rating-scale similarity scores were arranged in two additional (8 x 8) similarity matrices. The four kinship similarity matrices were analyzed by means of both two- and three-way multidimensional scaling techniques. it was possible to include for direct comparisons with the four matrices separate input matrices for the Wallace-Atkins and the Romney-D Andrade structural models. These latter matrices were composed of theoretical similarity scores based on process models developed by Wexler and Romney (1972:75) for the purpose of predict[ing]from any given structural model, the subject s performance on a cognitive task involving judgments of similarity or dissimilarity. The process models were derived by assuming that two terms... relatively close together on a structural model... will be classed together [as more similar] more often. n eftect, these models furnish a set of theoretical similarity scores that can be entered into the multidimensional scaling programs for comparisons with the other similarity matrices. The two-way (n X n) multidimensional scaling analysis (Shepard 1962, 1962b; Kruskal 1964) uses a rank order of similarities/dissimilarities on a set of stimulus pairs (here, the cells of a single matrix) to find a spatial configuration of the stimuli in a specified number 756 american ethnologist

6 of dimensions. Distances among stimuli in the spatial configuration reflect, to a greater or smaller degree, a monotonic transformation of the original dissimilarities so that in the multidimensional space the more similar stimulus pairs are in closer proximity. The TORSCA two-way scaling program (Young and Torgerson 1967) employed in this study calculates a stress measure that indicates the extent to which the interpoint. distances in the configuration represent a monotonic transformation of the original rank order of similarities. The minimum value of stress is zero, with increases in value indicating a less than perfect scaling. Three-way (n x n X N) multidimensional scaling procedures (Carroll and Wish 1974; Wish and Carroll 1974) provide a more direct statistical measure of structural relationships among matrices constructed on the same set of similarity pairs. n this type of scaling, the similarity matrices are simultaneously compared in a common multidimensional space. According to Wish and Carroll (1974:450), each matrix typically displays one subject s (or subgroup s) proximities [similarities] data, but it could be based instead on data from another kind of data source, such as one of several experimental conditions, occasions,. proximity measures, etc. The NDSCAL three-way scaling program (Carroll and Chang 1970) we used computes a set of weights that numerically represent the saliences of each specified dimension for each of the input matrices. f the weights are always conceived oif as positive coordinates, their expression for all pairs of specified dimensions in the form of two-dimensional plots in the positive quadrant is referred to as the subject space. A zero weight indicates a dimen sion is not used, whereas an increase in weight corresponds to an increase in the salience of a particular dimension for a matrix. The meaning of the dimensions in terms of the n items can sometimes be interpreted in a group stimulus space, which is also given in the form of two-dimensional plots for all pairs of specified dimensions. Another statistic in the NDSCAL output that can be used to help determine the accuracy of a particular n-dimensional solution is a goodness-of-fit measure, VAF, that indicates the variance accounted for by the scaling solution. results n reporting the results of the two- and three-way multidimensional scaling analyses, the following symbols have been used to identify the four experimental test conditions and the two kinship structural models: RSref (referenced rating scales using Pat s ), RSunref (unreferenced rating scales), Tunref (unreferenced triads), Tref (referenced triads), *WA (Wallace-Atkins model), and *RD (Romney-D Andrade model). The Wallace- Atkins models were included by using the process models described previously. Three-dimensional solutions from two-way scalings of the experimental data and models were compared by using stress values. We adopted Kruskal s (1 964) proposal that a value of dimensionality should be selected for the input matrix that reduces stress to a reasonable figure and above which it is not significantly reduced. Such a dimensionality can usually be identified by plotting stress values against dimensionality and looking for an elbow, or abrupt change in the curve. The stress curves are shown in Figure 1, and the stress values given in Table 5. t can bt: seen that the *WA and the RSref curves elbow in dimension 2. (The elbow in *WA is partly obscured by the low stress value in the third dimension.) The other four curves indicate three-dimensional solutions, because their stress values do not become sufficiently small until the third dimension is extracted. This is one important indication that the twodimensional Wallace-Atkins model is accessed by subjects in the RSref task and that the alternative cognitive structures 757

7 *WA v) v)? t v, \ To n ref 0- m m- -m Solution Dimensionality Figure 1. The stress values for two theoretical models and four samples plotted for three dimensions. underlying structures of the RSunref, Tref, and Tunref, data sets more accurately fit the three-dimensional Romney-D'Andrade model. Our next step was to process the similarity data through the NDSCAL program to obtain the subject space weights in a simultaneous comparison of all groups under consideration. Table 6 shows the subject weights for the three-dimensional solution (VAF = 37) for the six data sets. The input data were the scaled metric distances from TORSCA, and not raw test data. From the analysis of stress figures reported earlier, we were confident in inferring that the *WA and RSref data sets were both two dimensional and that the *RD and the re- mainder of the data sets were three dimensional. We performed a three-dimensional ND- SCAL analysis because that dimensionality provides a direct test of variations among the data sets: the *WA and RSref input matrices should show very low or zero weight in one of the three dimensions. This outcome is apparent in that the second dimension of *WA has a weight of zero and the RSref a weight of.19. n addition, an examination of Table 6 shows that the pattern of weights of these two input matrices is uniquely different from that of the other four matrices. t will also be useful to examine the NDSCAL group stimulus space for a comparison of the structures of the eight kinship terms in each input matrix. Figures 2, 3, and 4 present the three-dimensional picture, two dimensions at a time. To obtain the structure for a par- ticular matrix, it is necessary to utilize the weights given in Table 6. For the *WA and RSref matrices, this means that their structures include only dimensions one and three, which are Table 5. Stress values in three dimensions 'WA RSref *RD RSunref Tref Tunref Dimensions american ethnologist

8 Table 6. Three-dimensional NDSCAL weights for four data sets and two process models. *WA RSref *RD RSunref Tref Tunref Dimensions 2.oo. 9.4a shown in Figure 3. The arrangement of terms in Figure 3 closely resembles that of the dimensional values given by the Wallace-Atkins structural model, as shown in Table 3. The other two figures, 2 and 4, can best be interpreted in terms of the dimensional values of the Romney-D Andrade structural model, as shown in Table 4. To summarize, the three-way scaling analysis confirms the results of the two-way scaling analysis. The referenced and unreferenced rating-scale test data, that is, RSref and RSunref, correspond to the predicated structural models, those of Wallace-Atkins and Romney-D Andrade respectively, whereas the referenced and unreferenced triads test data, that is, Tref and Tunref, both have underlying structures similar only to the Romney-D An- drade model. conclusion The results of the multidimensional scaling analysis of rating-scale dyads data on American English kinship terms demonstrate that varying the cognitive contexts can affect the similarity judgments made by subjects. For the kinship terms presented to subjects in the referenced context, with the Ego reference point Pat s, the solutions from the two- and three-way analyses resemble the predicted two-dimensional Wallace-Atkins structural model. For the terms presented in an unreferenced context, the scaling solutions resemble the predicted three-dimensional Romney-D Andrade structural model. The random assignment of subjects to the two experimental groups or the rating-scale tests ensures that the cognitive contexts could have been interchanged for the groups (u c.- 0 v) c W E.- Collateral Direct i %usin ouncle Grond2ther j Nephew ogrondson oson Father obrother + Reciproca -Reciprocal Dimension Figure 2. Group stimulus space showing dimension one and dimension two of the three-dimensional remesentation. alternative cognitive structures 759

9 rr) c.- 0 n C Q,.- E n C l o Father t 1 Brother 10 Nephew a--n _ Cousin OGrandson Older than Ego, Some generation as Younger than Ego, bl and b2 90, b3 b4 and b5 G+2 Gk GO Dimension Figure 3. Group stimulus space showing dimension one and dimension three of the three-dimensional representation. without affecting the respective patterns of similarity-judgment responses. The cognitive contexts with rating-scale tests, then, provide a means of validating the psychological reality of the two kinship structural models. This in itself is significant because, as we noted above, a good deal of previous research had basically established the existence of only the three-dimensional structural model for the set of eight male kinship terms used in this study. Cognitive contexts for terms in other domains are probably not so apparent as those available in the structural models for American English kinship terms. Kirk and Burton (1977), however, do report on a set of contexts for Maasai personality terms. The possibility also exists that additional cognitive contexts may be associated with the domain of rr) c.- 0 n C.- E n Grandfather Grandson, o n so,c Father Brother ouncle onephew OCousin Direct Collateral Dimension 2 Figure 4. Group stimulus space showing dimension two and dimension three of the three-dimensional representation. 700 american ethnologist

10 American tnglish kinship, inasmuch as there have been other formal analyses of the domain that differ from those used in this study (for example, Coodenough 1965). Differences between rating-scale'and triads test results for referenced kinship terms were quite unexpected. Researchers who had compared these and other similarity-judgment methods have been emphatic about the reliability of the different tests as predicators of behavior. But as far as we could ascertain, the various methods have not been compared in terms of an intervening variable such as that of cognitive context. Why would such differences occur? Perhaps this can be answered in part by first considering the pattern of responses on the tests. For unreferenced triads and unreferenced rating-scale dyads, the responses matched the predicted structural model. t was on the referenced tests that subjects apparently had difficulties in identifying the proper cognitive context for the kinship terms. Referenced triads were treated by subjects as if they were in fact unreferenced, while the referenced rating-scale dyads were evaluated by subjects as the model predicted. An obvious difference between the two referenced tests is in the number of words in- cluded in each trial. For the referenced triads and rating-scale dyads, respectively, there are six and four words used. There may be a certain threshold of terms per trial beyond which subjects can no longer keep a referenced context separate from an unreferenced. Whether this can indeed account for the differences between expected and actual results was not determined in the experiments, but it certainly appears to merit further investigation. The existence of alternative cognitive structures has been the central issue in the research reported here. We have shown that they do exist with respect to American English kinship terms. But the current paradigm for the study of semantic domains seems to be based upon the assumption that there is one and only one underlying structure for each domain. This assumption may have led to situations in which the detection of evidence in favor of alternative cognitive structures was hindered by the researcher's expectations of his or her results. The main task of future research on this subject is to determine what kind of criterion, if any, can be used to distinguish between a single structure and multiple alternative structures for the same items in other semantic domains. n the research reported here, differences between the underlying structure of referenced rating-scale data and that of the data for the other three test conditions seemed striking because of differences in dimensionality and in configuration. But even if structures appear to share the same dimensions, alternative cognitive structures with unique patterns of NDSCAL weights might be shown to be differentially correlated with some variable factor such as age (Howard and Howard 1977). f alternative cognitive strucutures are hypothesized for the items of a given semantic domain, as we have done here, it is appropriate to consider whether the use of these struc- tures operates for subjects in terms of a model of cognitive pluralism or a model of in- dividual differences. We conclude that the appropriateness of the cognitive contexts for American English kinship terms analyzed in this paper make it highly likely that the same individuals could in fact interpret at least these terms, if not also those constituting other semantic domains, in conformity with a model cognitive pluralism. references cited Carroll, J. D.. and J. 1. Chang 1970 Analysis of ndividual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling via an N-way Generalization of Eckart-Young Decomposition. Psychometrika 35: alternative cognitive structures 761

11 Carroll,. D., and M. Wish 1974 Multidimensional Perceptual Models and Measurement Methods. n Handbook of Perception, Vol.. E. C. Carterette and M P. Friedman, Eds, New York: Academic Press. pp Fillenbaum, S, and A. Rapoport 1971 Structures in the Subjective Lexicon. New Vork: Academic Press. Coodenough. W Yankee Kinship Terminology: A Problem in Componential Analysis. American Anthropologist 67: Haviland, Susan n.d. Personal communication. University of California, rvine. Henley, N. M A Psychological Study of the Semantics of Animal Terms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: Howard, D., and. Howard 1977 A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of the Development of Animal Names. Developmental Psychology 13: Hutchinson,. W., and G. R. Lockhead 1977 Similarity as Distance: A Structural Principle for Semantic Memory Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 3: Kirk, L., and M. Burton 1977 Meaning and Context: A Study of Contextual Shifts in Meaning of Maasai Personality Descriptors. American Ethnologist 4: Kruskal,. B Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric Hypothesis. Psychometrika 29:l-27. Miller, M A Comparison of judged Similarity, Trait nference, and Trait Rating Tasks with Regard to the Multidimensional Structure of Personality Traits. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, rvine. Nerlove, S. B., and M. L. Burton 1972 A Further Examination of Cognitive Aspects of English Kin Terms. American Anthropologist 72: Pelto, P Cognitive Aspects of the Contemporary United States. American Anthropologist 68: Romney, A. K.. and R. D. D'Andrade 1964 A Cognitive Study of English Kin Terms. American Anthropologist 66: Romney. A. K., and 1. R. Magarla 1976 A Comparison of Mexican and U.S. Semantic Structures of Kinship Terms. rvine. CA: School of Social Sciences, Social Sciences Working Paper No. 89. University of California. Shepard, R. N. 1962a The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Function,. Psychometrika 27: b The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown Distance Function,. Psychometrika 27: Tyler, Cognitive Anthropology. New Vork: Academic Press. Wallace, A. F. C., and. Atkins 1960 The Meaning of Kinship Terms. American Anthropologist 62: Wexler, K. N., and A. K. Romney 1972 ndividual Variations in Cognitive Structures. n Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 11. R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, and S. Nerlove, Eds. New York: Seminar Press. pp Wish, M., and 1. D. Carroll 1974 Applications of ndividual Differences Scaling to Studies of Human Perception and Judg ment. n Handbook of Perception, Vol.. E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman, Eds. New York: Academic Press, pp Young. F. W., and W. S. Torgerson 1967 TORSCA, a FORTRAN V Program for Shepard-Kruskal Multidimensional Scaling Analysis. Behavioral Science 12:498. Date of Submission: January 2, 1979 Date of Acceptance: April 7, american ethnologist