Orthography and Authority: A Study of Cognitive-Affective Interaction

Abstract

The hypothesizing of cognitive-affective interaction has become axiomatic in current theoretical speculation despite a paucity of experimental verification. The recent research concerned with perceptual defense represents one of the few instances of experimental investigation of this hypothesis, but this work is not free from ambiguity (Allport, 1955), and at best, deals with the interaction of motivational factors and marginal aspects of cognitive activity. In addition to the need for more valid measurement of both affective and cognitive variables, it is increasingly clear that more careful definition of terms is needed if this generalization is to serve a useful purpose. Variables need to be specified and more particular relationships hypothesized. The present study deals with a universal, frequently exercised, easily measurable form of cognition, spelling proficiency, and its relationship to the degree of acceptance of 0,- resistance to, authority demands. Although spelling proficiency is usually regarded as primarily a verbal-visual-retentive ability, it is hypothesized that the task of spelling is also responsive to emotional attitudes toward authority. The rules of spelling are authoritatively imposed and absolute obedience is required. Exceptions to these rules appear unexpectedly and seem even more arbitrary than the rules themselves. The speller is obliged to learn and to follow although the source of the authority is usually unclear. Insofar as the demands of absolute authority tend to arouse strong resentment, the learning to spell may become the occasion for such arousal. Although it may not be safe to express opposition to authority openly, where there is opportunity for disguised opposition, such occasions are likely to be exploited. Learning to spell affords such an opportunity. Since the cask of spelling is generally regarded as an Intellectual task, failure to obey a particular spelling rule is more likely to be interpreted as an intellectual aberration than as an act of disobedience. Under ~hese circumstances such an act of defiance may go undetected even to the self. The greater the antagonism which cannot be expressed directly to the demands of authority, the more likely that defiance, in the form of misspelling or in many other disguised forms, will occur. Therefore, an inverse relationship between resistance to authority demands and spelling proficiency is predicted. The pattern of resistance and conflict wich authority is apt to be accompanied by such attitudes as, dislike of individuals who make authority demands and dislike of individuals who submit to authority demands. In the present study the