} 7 
positions of those exemplars (p = .10). 
However, since these tests did not include the 23% of 
the responses that were idiosyncratic, a second analysis was 
done, compar ing the two subject groups on the relative 
recall frequencies and on the mean recall positions of the 
the members of the 72 exemplar categories. Such an analysis 
would include information on all recall responses, though 
reducing it to a relatively few categories. For example, 
4,4% of the 570 eel aLS listed as owned by the 
experimenter-present group were categorized as clothing, 
with a mean recall position of 5.6, whereas 5.2% of the 630 
exemplars listed as owned by the experimenter-absent group 
were categorized as clothing, with a mean recall position of 
5.5. The Greatest difference between the two groups was on 
the category of investments. For the experimenter-present 
group, 1.1% of their exemplars of things owned were 
categorized as investments, with a mean recall position of 
6.6. For the experimenter-absent group, these figures were 
3.5% and 7.5 respectively. Again, the large difference on 
this item might be explained by the sex differences between 
the two groups. Hobart (1975) found that married couples 
almost always alloted ownership of family investments to the 
husband. Using the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks 
Test, there were no differences between the two groups of 
subjects on the relative frequencies of category membership