{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03450655624568668, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015873015873015872, 'mean_word_length': 4.940573770491803, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Differential Sensitivity of Profound Retardates to Adults' Steady Gaze

The profoundly mentally retarded (PMR) represent a group whose pre-verbal status defies efforts to decipher their primitive communicative modes (Cleland & Alunan, 1969). Research on visual interaction suggests that children do demonstrate a high degree of sensitivity to observation (Gibson & Pick, 1963), and in his extensive review of non-verbal modes of communication Duncan (1969) emphasizes the need for research focusing on the reactions of recipients of steady gazes, noting, "The effect on the subject of this possibly unnatural and obtrusive behavior is not known and should be investigated." The present study, exploring the responses of PMRs to one form of non-verbal communication (steady gaze), extends the search for fundamental and universal elements underlying paralinguistic systems (Trager, 1961) to yet another culture, perhaps the most primitive one of all. Ten ambulatory male Ss manifesting no visual-auditory or gross motor defects were selected from the population of PMRs at the Brown Schools, Austin, Texas. CA ranged from 18.0 to 33.4 yr. (M = 25.4). Most Ss were untestable on standardized intelligence tests, but Vineland Social Maturity Quotients ranged from 6.0 to 14.0 (M = 9.6). Ss were gazed at steadily by 1 of 2 male Es under both a free condition in the ward settings and individually in a distraction-free room. In addition, Es looked at S both with and without sunglasses in both settings. Under all conditions E approached S, began to gaze steadily at him from a distance of approximately 2 ft, and maintained his gaze until S clearly terminated contact. Ss' behavioral responses, including reaction time (R = 5-27 sec., M = 18 sec.) were recorded by two observers. This pilot study of 10 PMR Ss showed all were sensitive to steady gaze and two distinct types of behavior were elicited. Six Ss withdrew and turned away while four made approach responses, all responding within 30 sec. Avoiders typically turned and walked away, although one pulled his shirt over his head, and another whose avoidance moves were countered by E, struck E in the eye. Approachers typically laughed, exhibited increased babbling, embraced E, and appeared pleased, as though the steady gaze was a game. Indeed, one S spontaneously approached an E 20 min. after termination of the encounters, fixed E with a gaze, laughed playfully and jumped exuberantly toward E. Over-all, the important finding was the remarkable intra-subject consistency-all "avoiders" in one condition to one E avoided both Es under all conditions, and approachers were uniformly consistent. Such intra-subject consistency complements the inter-study consistency reported by Duncan and supports his notation of a "high degree of regularity and organization among the nonverbal behaviors under considerationm-visual interaction included.