"Your feet's too big": an inquiry into psychological and symbolic meanings of the foot

The foot is a highly cathected appendage that is commonly singled out as the brunt of humorous or derisive remarks, as if it embodies repugnance and disgust. Attitudes toward the foot are overdetermined, bearing the imprint of man's early linguistic patterns and individual dynamics. This article suggests that feet are symbolic because they bear the feelings derived from earlier separations, good and bad object representations, collective memories, and genital representations. The foot's role as symbol of both the male and female genitals, repository of badness, symbol of passivity, initiator of movement, and site of self-mutilation have been briefly reviewed. As Fats Waller rhapsodizes that the "feet's too big," he finds a convenient way to displace his symbiotic and erotic anxieties vis-à-vis women. Similarly, patients who come for psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy frequently make references to their feet or use them in specific ways. An understanding of this type of communication can often provide insight into individual dynamics and enhance treatment. The weight placed on these communications depends, of course, on the vicissitudes of the previous therapeutic work as well as on the particular problems of the patient.     

Preference for decision structures in a social dilemma situation

Additional results from Rutte and Wilke's (1984) study are presented. In the context of a social dilemma situation two variables were manipulated: use and variance. Preference for various decision structures is the issue of the present paper. It appeared that a large majority structure and an unanimity structure were mast preferred. A small majority structure and a structure in which each decides for him/herself were intermediately preferred. Whereas a structure in which one person, a leader, decides for all was least preferred. Further analysis of these data suggested that only the latter two decision structures were influenced by the use and variance manipulations.     

Preschool children's comprehension and production of directive forms

Thirty preschool children, 10 each at the 3-,4-, and 5-year-old levels, participated in two structured tasks designed to assess both comprehension and production of a full range of directive forms. In contrast to previous reports, the results indicated no significant differences in directive comprehension or production as a function of age; children in all age groups demonstrated the ability to understand and verbally encode the intent of most types of directive forms. However, the two most implicit forms, Question Directives and Hints, were complied with significantly less frequently than the more explicit forms, and were uused less often in the production task. The present findings indicate the importance of analyzing directive forms along a continuum of explicitness rather than dichotomizing them as direct versus indirect. Finally, the results are interpreted as providing indirect support for the general notion that mastery of some implicit forms may be achieved later than the acquisition of more explicit forms.     

Parents' teaching strategies with their children: The effects of parental and child status variables

The intent of the study was to examine the effects of parental (mother and father) and child (gender and communicative status) status variables on the teaching strategies used by parents in a paper-folding task. The linguistic and nonverbal strategies of 120 parent-child groupings were analyzed during paper-folding tasks. Parents' strategies were coded according cognitive demand and directiveness. Results indicated that strategies varied as a function of children's communicative status. Parents were less directive and more demanding of nonhandicapped children compared to handicapped children. Parents' strategies seemed to be determined by children's ability to sustain discourse. Results are discussed in terms of Vygotsky's notion of the zone of proximal development.This research was partially supported by a grant from the U.S. Office of Education, Office of Special Education (Grant No. G007902000) to I. Sigel and A. McGillicuddy-DeLisi at Educational Testing Service, Princeton, and from the Biomedical Research Support Grant Program, Division of Research Resources, N.I.H. (Grant No. BRSG 507RR07025-17) to the first two authors. We acknowledge the helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers.