130 John B. Calhoun 



Substituting E(|8. (9()j and (97) with (98) 



S = 2.0 (99) 



The S of Eqs. (96) to (99) is essentially that of Eq. (93) in which g[^^ 

 and ^72^' become, respectively, recessive d-genes, g^^^ and gl^K 



As may be seen from Eci. (98), whenever A^i or A^2 is zero, that is, all 

 members of Nb have the same target diameter, the response-evoking 

 capacity of each member of the group has a relative value of 1.0. However, 

 Eq. (99) shows that as soon as Nb becomes divided into subgroups A^i and 

 A''2, even though the divergent A''2 has only one member, the average 

 response-evoking capacity doubles. The probable consequence of this 

 doubling depends upon the relative numbers of A'": and A^2- Consider 



Table XII 



The Influence of Relative Size of Subgroups of Nb = 12 

 ON Response-Evoking Capacity 



Nb = 12, then when A''! and A''2 have the sizes given below, members of 

 each will have Si and S2 as shown in Table XII. 



The jS of the members of larger subgroups can never exceed twice the 

 optimum level, but the S of the members of smaller subgroups has a 

 maximum of N times that where all members of Nb have the same target 

 diameter. To understand the consequences to an individual resulting from 

 possession of a large S, we must inquire further as to its implication. In 

 the first place, it may evoke more frequent responses from associates. If 

 the group is essentially an Nb one, such an individual will experience more 

 contacts than otherwise would be anticipated. This will have the same 

 deleterious consequences to him of being in too large a group. S in this 

 case may be thought of as increased target diameter, d. On the other hand, 

 a heightened S may evoke more intense reaction, i, from associates at 

 time of contact. This will have the consequence of increasing the refractory 

 periods, a, and thus wath frequency of contacts maintained harmonious 



