Hi To add (minimally and empirically) to Stephen's discussion of chick, here are the top free associations to "chick" from the Florida Free Association norms.
CHICK, CHICKEN, YES, 148, 35, .236 CHICK, GIRL, YES, 148, 23, .155 CHICK, EGG, YES, 148, 20, .135 CHICK, HEN, YES, 148, 15, .101 CHICK, BABY, YES, 148, 10, .068 CHICK, BABE, NO, 148, 6, .041 CHICK, YELLOW, YES, 148, 6, .041 CHICK, BIRD, YES, 148, 5, .034 CHICK, DUCK, YES, 148, 3, .020 CHICK, GUY, YES, 148, 3, .020 CHICK, CHIRP, YES, 148, 2, .014 CHICK, YOUNG, YES, 148, 2, .014 Last number in each column is proportion of 148 respondents who gave response in second column. Those clearly implying the "girl" sense are: girl, babe, and guy, constituting about 30% of responses. Looking up girl and guy gives no chick responses. Babe is not included as a stimulus (the "no" in third column above). Norms are somewhat dated now (probably from 1980s and 1990s) and also not broken down by gender. Perhaps safe bet to assume more male than female respondents made the "girl" association to "chick". Also the case, however, that free associations are a relatively insensitive measure of the relatedness of constructs in the human mind because many English words are homonyms (as here) and properties having to do with the overall availability of the response term contributes to likelihood of producing that term. Might be of interest to track across generations associations to such sensitive terms, and also by demographic groups. Could perhaps also be worked into some kind of class exercise? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
