ANTHROP. Pap. 

 No. 78] 



EASTERN CHEROKEE GROUPS — KUPFERER 



275 



Criterion II. Responses to clinical procedures. — Materials 

 from the observation of Public Health clinics enable me to divide 

 the participants into only two groups. The writer observed approxi- 

 mately 78 adults, some of whom were accompanied by children, in 

 five clinics.^* Table 8 shows the distribution of these adults. The 

 difference in the behavior is very marked. Thirty-two of the partici- 

 pants are characterized by reserve and passiveness; the remaining 

 forty-six are "out going," and interact openly in the clinic situation. 

 The first category comprises Conservatives. Thomas' Rural Whites 

 and Generalized Indians are in the second category. 



Table 8. — Distribution of Cherokee clinic participants, by type of behavior in five 

 public health clinics {criterion II) 



• Modified behavior. 



Criterion III. Responses to school health instruction. — 

 AU of the reservation schools were visited during the course of the 

 fieldwork, but the school health instructional program of one school 

 was investigated at length because the school had a good representa- 

 tion of Thomas' first three acculturative groups. Of 35 children, 14 

 behaved in a manner similar to the people described in category 1, 

 under clinical behavior. The remaining 21 children duplicated the 

 behavior of the second group of clinic participants. These data are 

 presented in table 9. 



Criterion IV. Behavior prompted by illness. — The choices 

 made by the Cherokee in terms of medical therapy reveal significant 



'< Observations were made in one veell-baby clinic, two preschool clinics, and two diabetic clinics. In 

 the well-baby clinic approximately three-fourths of the participants fell into category 2. Participants 

 in one of the preschool clinics, held in Big Cove, were all Conservatives whose behavior placed them in 

 category 1. Of those taking part in the preschool clinic held in the Public Health offices, approximately 

 three-fourths fell into category 2. On the basis of their behavior, the patients In the diabetic clinics were 

 evenly divided between the first and second categories. 



