<%BANNER%>

An Experimental test of public relations messages

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101220_AAAABA INGEST_TIME 2010-12-20T11:26:14Z PACKAGE UFE0015404_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6391 DFID F20101220_AAAZZV ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH kim_j_Page_030thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b836a5e1f652baf75cd77f8d7f7a2eca
SHA-1
bcf408a75d03e1936a2a6b2aaca408da76e12402
76659 F20101220_AAAZCN kim_j_Page_027.jpg
1304105b4fd53a14127841d27ece3fcc
3e865db0cf2d532d43189dede85eb79a9b738912
1801 F20101220_AAAYXH kim_j_Page_092.txt
7b6f7748d59f0102204ca7e21ba0b7da
c53e70e8998f2a5ee162aa0e91ab4e5861a9210f
73036 F20101220_AAAZBZ kim_j_Page_009.jpg
fde66ca684ff9072f4abd0234e764e7d
f644eb26123aabc7447cdc8c8495793239cb777b
2260 F20101220_AAAYWT kim_j_Page_080.txt
1bb47ba0c49798bee36ee40c85bccf2d
0ec4ffd8efb22321d1d116cdf910e47394d211dd
72953 F20101220_AAAZDC kim_j_Page_046.jpg
34cef776bec9718c9da63f03a820b9b2
49309b92e6f685bc5e057aaaa1673729529f991c
2531 F20101220_AAAZZW kim_j_Page_043thm.jpg
3351a5c76d4951966dc1609b9a3ab859
d79326f9b0da7f9ed50f0cf5d88a38a241c7783b
463 F20101220_AAAYXI kim_j_Page_134thm.jpg
74c7e2b41eaa864ccafa23828d87a449
c4b886d9ed3b60e1852794b60da8dc0cc11ad04c
81592 F20101220_AAAYWU kim_j_Page_030.jpg
b9c2dbf2f58af64c886465ef2d1ec93f
1da43e3c3413dd0c219fc193ef1ed206b4549c1d
87488 F20101220_AAAZDD kim_j_Page_047.jpg
464c332d36205db5d7044900ac2b4643
359ad954d306cab143fc3d0795a66525e0234a00
84775 F20101220_AAAZCO kim_j_Page_028.jpg
1588e88da9dbf0cae0a9eb5014396d9f
44d3a455bfb657eedcfa69e034fecdecd8d0e0af
6159 F20101220_AAAZZX kim_j_Page_120thm.jpg
98bef1a6421114f72787e4ee93ad56bc
263f86f5904cc2c74f8cc2344d53096f41fe4709
25271604 F20101220_AAAYXJ kim_j_Page_135.tif
134db5fa54d77e517347ce4fb1081c0e
4c2ef26bc3cf3ccc0fee65a590ad8accbed15b3f
41374 F20101220_AAAYWV kim_j_Page_071.jp2
4a896fb5fa6816fbb71744c3e27d504b
2180005f54e802b32d2b8d67412d5a5c4b850122
74151 F20101220_AAAZDE kim_j_Page_048.jpg
ef8e1869f803f76bb0032a4fe2288da5
a19e15108072e5a1fc01b46f210eb87f7930456a
78810 F20101220_AAAZCP kim_j_Page_029.jpg
ff7a4af080dc2dfebd42b1ab295be488
edfaf9479e305a4cc02ec37cf53b2a0711e70fcc
6050 F20101220_AAAZZY kim_j_Page_074thm.jpg
52727f718d3c4fccbadea1a3c7e7c4f7
b1213da3c5013a49e54f2353bf2da088ce40d816
24916 F20101220_AAAYXK kim_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
0ef95dceb66bc32cef44512c87bd5773
5bd01f17e65f109c8855360d092ba2f607d679e9
87581 F20101220_AAAYWW kim_j_Page_125.jpg
bbdb4aef957f97231b471f0c5e389341
15f10991003d82e7ff6a1b78ab74068527a524ed
97163 F20101220_AAAZDF kim_j_Page_051.jpg
dd889899ee279633594f3aac39808989
32c4c59552a7a275adb93f747db9658e00089cad
77344 F20101220_AAAZCQ kim_j_Page_031.jpg
701c2ed05aeb6c5880f019550801ff2a
38ec053ab6cd5b03c8c89a481267bd727575c3ab
6073 F20101220_AAAZZZ kim_j_Page_068thm.jpg
eca67bfae837b75248e8ec33aaa33e17
dc8d2e0be2570225fdd7f3e009770ec35c97f61f
77108 F20101220_AAAYXL kim_j_Page_088.jpg
8311e729ac7e690b3161a126b53ddb8b
4fdd3804484c77bd79e3086286fa491ecf3418f7
131442 F20101220_AAAYWX kim_j_Page_145.jp2
de11c11b7fb37a2c14962c866fb4ac8e
9e4d39e275e5b00e29ab8315fec3017f4d9b8049
84879 F20101220_AAAZDG kim_j_Page_052.jpg
3a48323c9a52ecfd83e3423370f78210
dc51a3311bb4bc8d110c6d36ec54ee6f368ebcfc
53266 F20101220_AAAYYA kim_j_Page_052.pro
b1e5ed1b72743f51cd1e7f67a2801cc3
3966e43b621601a207911291541785a3b853391f
83424 F20101220_AAAZCR kim_j_Page_034.jpg
177728be79b51b421713d0b3a5be2e65
7247a387ae14c634200b47049169b6637124c90c
F20101220_AAAYXM kim_j_Page_062.tif
d98a3a030dfec0c2b39b5856d1781796
f5eab2e5bbd2ca0fd5b629b84b89067f9aee5a68
1051965 F20101220_AAAYWY kim_j_Page_128.jp2
cac977ce8f3f627c2d96cf947b69ee09
02e3c8234acfd2eb9f4e6f44f9bc1096e8ed2fa6
12785 F20101220_AAAZDH kim_j_Page_053.jpg
2280e0cd896eeb38939ce10784a56abf
d6fd672b922f883d457374083259443567feb4f0
79991 F20101220_AAAYYB kim_j_Page_089.jpg
666eb68f3b9f439c1f15b6abdb1d4a65
c65e8c1837af902323afeb42399c8b7cf62cd1bb
81648 F20101220_AAAZCS kim_j_Page_035.jpg
1773b29215b01752bde21e7389acaef3
47363d55e63d688d7f80505e6c810bad4c620529
5919 F20101220_AAAYXN kim_j_Page_089thm.jpg
f128ea027529faf83bd28d9ae5a859d6
ede4ab559d900a9de52864db61a1428958fddb8d
16402 F20101220_AAAYWZ kim_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
1279f2b30ffe7a701a0c3345311268ac
78b30c290a8915f8572963ba7e4440e42435702b
66800 F20101220_AAAZDI kim_j_Page_054.jpg
93308867a5aad0d85ffcf7955f4b360c
2b9a172e2691ee9f9ad370dd0ef03a1528be32ba
81376 F20101220_AAAYYC kim_j_Page_075.jpg
bd68cbdb694d25ff5c8c88978a7f0793
6eb5930f3ef029c29fc989b55cda8a3466cec1f7
88152 F20101220_AAAZCT kim_j_Page_036.jpg
3a0b41bc7f4773e29c30fc9171156088
91432bf3dcb9d006199e946548c3886418304020
47848 F20101220_AAAYXO kim_j_Page_039.pro
bdbf600018ded1993d7f9461abf8174c
d784d48ace6b30787638323ce695179c461f6b41
83099 F20101220_AAAZDJ kim_j_Page_056.jpg
e942c39e4212a91cae5fc722c3ad1c28
69fa1a0f9e0889c92ce297d69fbeaaf4b500d5fc
81582 F20101220_AAAZCU kim_j_Page_037.jpg
398804391a8d4d36d6a9788dfb9f7e85
254180ff7bd169c1fbc6eed3729025ba17ba2bef
1053954 F20101220_AAAYXP kim_j_Page_074.tif
a3068daf2b97237cb8e675cf4ab0220f
d05aee8c5069db370cf3a170639328c32b1d85c2
63913 F20101220_AAAZDK kim_j_Page_057.jpg
00f9f196686fad407d6be69d4e4c791e
2ed203b81d7074c0db0a76503a87ca465a40bc3f
24692 F20101220_AAAYYD kim_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
a6b8f0878dbd870dca52b6ec34c6f1d2
c65e8d9fe08a0c3f8176d4c3d3e2986ada472cd2
99609 F20101220_AAAZCV kim_j_Page_038.jpg
ff38a11bdf8e788cc17adb62536ca024
f1f18ba668f41fd06fcd215211d05dc472e7d652
5907 F20101220_AAAYXQ kim_j_Page_014thm.jpg
6101aba4c404151e17982d0e40b4f8ec
6dd5f9f06e7f0dab46745802a071fc9353f279e8
57014 F20101220_AAAZDL kim_j_Page_059.jpg
fb10f76b3c65f96a43538323a232389c
3f6eb8b390aa317fe4649242151d51ba35a3f5bb
65923 F20101220_AAAYYE kim_j_Page_011.jpg
8043895c57ee5841bd3ef94d1e87a6ed
7b354e4c0e1db11a7c054bdc9088f4add5da30b3
77287 F20101220_AAAZCW kim_j_Page_039.jpg
d5c828a088eca6a56b33bcea45e0c7e0
d5203a19fef971d1f8a6886227a3471ed0edb15b
23064 F20101220_AAAYXR kim_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
c4e615275d5d01d224ce4ddc628d3302
f7e7c0ae2cced0359bdcb9ad69df1b95221be88a
73740 F20101220_AAAZEA kim_j_Page_079.jpg
d6b1654eb6fcd3644eb65deb60f74801
6b1bd5231e4134097d931b35f8ca0c65967a9745
52309 F20101220_AAAZDM kim_j_Page_060.jpg
e1273ea63a9e69ec8276999b9a075172
4d956a818de9ace928c7c9a54b532f51192b0ebf
6278 F20101220_AAAYYF kim_j_Page_119thm.jpg
532fbf35b49e3f400b5caf5113cbc7cb
3886f58f925fc9d29755328fab7393abcdd56ee9
79555 F20101220_AAAZCX kim_j_Page_040.jpg
8800c3e8fbe7393f822ae969c026dc58
5a1f09c52f4b82b003de3f0574e392cae0cbdf3a
5030 F20101220_AAAYXS kim_j_Page_016thm.jpg
3cdb49223cb54f6da0173226254f8cb6
38290a1bfb062d95b015ea9412fa7dab23b11b06
85633 F20101220_AAAZEB kim_j_Page_080.jpg
7e341b246a9bd622cd9044cda5484366
944c963403f465bffea11bb7d99f6173c6c8ce57
1954 F20101220_AAAYYG kim_j_Page_101.txt
b6b329405555fab3521719bcaff99a42
70760570829b04f6e2e3d5b3f8ccf71bbb3eeb36
81008 F20101220_AAAZCY kim_j_Page_041.jpg
6d59115da776476ad65c43251a6e7dae
d023177e323b1043ca46244eaed69114bf0e48ff
F20101220_AAAYXT kim_j_Page_124.tif
bf4487db25611c0c37c6f1e6e3b61e93
c06555141294e10429504238225ac3ef5f276183
82100 F20101220_AAAZEC kim_j_Page_082.jpg
eecb9b3ce7036b3ade6e59d4a7f20755
94de3bf53410d2648607588b9d161c6f895edba0
51469 F20101220_AAAZDN kim_j_Page_061.jpg
dc3d550743ad0221d38bb99938e4d5bf
bae41238db82459effd8686b380372d9f923a359
6056 F20101220_AAAYYH kim_j_Page_023thm.jpg
2b0f2e1dfc78a98ea5d7a06c933eedf2
9117f76bdefb423beebb0af5502c6ad6a2949810
75368 F20101220_AAAZCZ kim_j_Page_042.jpg
96851f225c3488743d0d17223c936529
e24bb947d4f45defa0ec0857c45633b6a9e950ba
F20101220_AAAYXU kim_j_Page_003.tif
fe2f97c2bf734c9eae86919b897d230b
703d2595d1d1ae650373c686801544f28857f8db
80968 F20101220_AAAZED kim_j_Page_083.jpg
08ce23c7e48c9b17b2d44c8902bde2d6
28e2c03a08b61add87fd5912e9a3f6b3def2ffda
48558 F20101220_AAAZDO kim_j_Page_062.jpg
25b8bef506c5f465d3bd9659b62c0bbc
c60ae239ff2283d3ad62d6c14a01caa40c339a80
F20101220_AAAYYI kim_j_Page_125.tif
20315cbfcd2921d50853ce92abca47e5
bcf712d6095c4ba7a72dd4daeb3b52151c88f39b
55737 F20101220_AAAYXV kim_j_Page_010.jpg
2bff1e58025b05fbf8ac1464d9994571
d7160875157d4a0c474e8ae736cd7fa066911099
79235 F20101220_AAAZEE kim_j_Page_085.jpg
25e0755de89bd4951968d3a7cc8012f0
67b9231e7a81b521b32128bcf0af0d9f93e854b5
78354 F20101220_AAAZDP kim_j_Page_064.jpg
c76c004531f15c761a04ecb4c422eb0b
170f03a5b6915e09b383c6e9d395fcf1921d1bf7
18880 F20101220_AAAYYJ kim_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
9a87368dfbecc598a5910f03bfcaa75c
a3af61727afc7f8f15be39aee870205a82237f8b
21330 F20101220_AAAYXW kim_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
a1f3c3442323f6e6fe91000208b2b6b3
46a53edb7e8f189a356a6725d2e996b6b9b5bd8c
72802 F20101220_AAAZEF kim_j_Page_086.jpg
68095374efa9dada3619284cc3bf9be0
1bfd0b028e3bdb5042e7e1738789309f8942b926
79696 F20101220_AAAZDQ kim_j_Page_065.jpg
673e92f8da55a19799393e99c22ccdf5
0f77d12d053ebbb16375a3951e44552c4b96ebce
107217 F20101220_AAAYYK kim_j_Page_129.jpg
3534013c9847359fa0f1df264aa94ec6
ac719f8a99ccc8cf1418bab6029fc5a056a80025
51781 F20101220_AAAYXX kim_j_Page_066.jpg
b73495a3f718e4ceb4260f725232e18d
a497d3d6fc6bff94f033bb4ba99adde4ad428a4e
75746 F20101220_AAAZEG kim_j_Page_087.jpg
d9130bb69ee24762a46f42f24143cb60
8ffdb48f79d5e77eedcdf51237982280655a6a7c
843574 F20101220_AAAYZA kim_j_Page_044.jp2
5b0011106fe055e7aa7c7212299fdf00
569855d2c9f15ceb9215f5946681c5bcf44bff0c
79746 F20101220_AAAZDR kim_j_Page_068.jpg
b8d0bd02f46f64c6169270d64203d1cd
f0027307924b082c53673031e26146c4d362bf65
3872 F20101220_AAAYYL kim_j_Page_006.txt
e0d161962582c40e8d765c356f6434a1
3fefd0de484f07f5ef0f96f4a9ebcfdb59a3d2b9
4301 F20101220_AAAYXY kim_j_Page_060thm.jpg
a9421033185469bb9858cf5be6e5a53e
31ba858700b1afb9906fa5d092893b86de5eb3e7
59621 F20101220_AAAZEH kim_j_Page_090.jpg
59a5f60f725597515bfd54f7b690046d
ae43ba5cad36de8227e90aeae03f692437d9b822
F20101220_AAAYZB kim_j_Page_056.tif
c7dc52b13b62833cb5f35bd1ed32735b
2eaad808520332401a5a6365dd7aa7ed94f484d4
45309 F20101220_AAAZDS kim_j_Page_069.jpg
33fa75470e089244fdad300a28500c75
281a7cad9138138c08b310de954a128491a0624e
5997 F20101220_AAAYYM kim_j_Page_087thm.jpg
44afd7313b713b489e7db94edd579429
9919c8d69cc745de22033ac674bfbccaa9cf4604
2998 F20101220_AAAYXZ kim_j_Page_148thm.jpg
c6d2ba50d695b8278a0411ac3978d99c
41b3a748520ff7d46ffa5bf91955a6aba86dd72f
60286 F20101220_AAAZEI kim_j_Page_091.jpg
eac89ec6ae5fa25cfc79aa7a98e8fb7e
14102cbab1c4864d434045c459210b34f8f55744
F20101220_AAAYZC kim_j_Page_101.tif
6522ee9cb5d3128e92c8fe9b41bb37d1
c5fa1dcca175bad3cb754292df852115e4d51251
98929 F20101220_AAAZDT kim_j_Page_070.jpg
2a2e4ae23d6a83b4ecc63e7ee7fa6944
990da64bc571cbb01fa77342f69e6da8ade0227d
2489 F20101220_AAAYYN kim_j_Page_071thm.jpg
21e77f50f9012355ff1e4f9c5100ecfa
43b8424e999ce38498eeaca181f8259c29b60f47
78586 F20101220_AAAZEJ kim_j_Page_092.jpg
0aa7173b90dba3ae8ff4a4381ac8a1de
96c97c46144ca9a1e2fbb988d972e235c3cda2a3
74159 F20101220_AAAYZD kim_j_Page_021.jpg
0d9caa8ef5cf742827f42a18bd05af9e
1bc3caaf7ba3aef00fa9e204c145f0de7e871c34
30915 F20101220_AAAZDU kim_j_Page_071.jpg
25133e4344d195b37c41d867ed11c8a5
a820793f9b6abeb3c4ce4d7c30d5f0e2b3c976ad
1051978 F20101220_AAAYYO kim_j_Page_126.jp2
fb60d53718feefa7f90c1b4e4ee2537d
6cef55d5da5adb66e3be15ec989fb31d9cf3618f
72410 F20101220_AAAZEK kim_j_Page_093.jpg
b06c23fc0d9479ef451c0ed58fe3146c
fda545222e83c9d5c84be87df30a924e106a02cb
63010 F20101220_AAAZDV kim_j_Page_072.jpg
97475c5c71ffbf5193da9aaa4a578e66
e05ab9cb38ca2c87827109fb4e18e0952cce0791
88510 F20101220_AAAYYP kim_j_Page_126.jpg
721e685d1ca629afb6663d7ee1fc43bb
bbd2e1d285645a3373bad77162b47c680459a3a9
77187 F20101220_AAAZEL kim_j_Page_095.jpg
08c44e64dd53fd59af57a7abf893968d
c9e0412d0d2a5a916061bb69138c97c610bffef7
F20101220_AAAYZE kim_j_Page_063.tif
5010d3d50a3dd92e866438f1edbf58f9
a6fbbbc9b8ccd7978b46fd0f07d84718596172f4
79969 F20101220_AAAZDW kim_j_Page_073.jpg
d5188e43a9883b6366fa746490f1c30d
bd15959977c99ae320c4de924ea831ff7b05bcb7
2458 F20101220_AAAYYQ kim_j_Page_049.txt
62a0955ae29c226e6d3d7e237d5443a7
014ac392b1b2f4414ed8288769ed67d2c759331c
81738 F20101220_AAAZEM kim_j_Page_096.jpg
5d051b2bd42536140a51efbb40e37f54
6c647a630b40566e1fb67c0b76756b61077601c3
F20101220_AAAYZF kim_j_Page_132.tif
07443faaed885f5f967b82b86fa6ae82
70118a902ae8091ed4419353bfed168feea6656c
79327 F20101220_AAAZDX kim_j_Page_074.jpg
ade7396c0efe69d1069db09293438b46
46d9c594f364224aed45ebbeb8741de367ec1990
F20101220_AAAYYR kim_j_Page_039.tif
e85dd3ead5580c3fbc9bc666d4714f43
9830840aefc921057950e2042bef9e0875ec4627
88362 F20101220_AAAZFA kim_j_Page_114.jpg
0432ed1cb9fcd9d7f751d2a1a58d8cf8
870f2b4eeb8c3b67f727ac1166070a48bd8859bb
67243 F20101220_AAAZEN kim_j_Page_097.jpg
9a6ff515de006f43858b0b6c17953680
57eaab4aa14e1be09dd6c431eb47c5291b4dc2f6
1614 F20101220_AAAYZG kim_j_Page_098.txt
a3a7c116c4ca50e658dc0ea7eaf3bd49
1ddb3dbcba6f3ad1c40635e4be9b76ca6cbef4b3
78421 F20101220_AAAZDY kim_j_Page_077.jpg
a3126301d5e90c5998432bfb2195cb43
fd444ea1b537eb51b84d8141d603bad1ba857ae3
1438 F20101220_AAAYYS kim_j_Page_099.txt
d48e99824b1aa2203f68dc709d2c9118
d7384055e7998c44b3f0ea9cf8fc0e425054a8ee
73811 F20101220_AAAZFB kim_j_Page_115.jpg
2d2ea4efd67c0663831b58640782b0bd
9037dc117b0b41c2f2fa6ebf8c76776e95626abb
71040 F20101220_AAAYZH kim_j_Page_063.jpg
2ccc5aba36373ef9bedf8a37689f5f76
a3e4ebeedad06334036b3732ddfb38d8e1e7f53b
81880 F20101220_AAAZDZ kim_j_Page_078.jpg
acf94ba667fbdc24a70df70ec6e8dad6
09da1812c2491dfd65f62a267ce28e565daccec5
1773 F20101220_AAAYYT kim_j_Page_046.txt
2bc19de162c9c01ccc49934868f2a2db
fb7f4f431dd05bdc892effb15891ea163b96a579
88126 F20101220_AAAZFC kim_j_Page_116.jpg
d11f4aec8adf3ca00c0952ed67a09edc
578699d7dedf32895e21123d49183359fb3c29a9
68370 F20101220_AAAZEO kim_j_Page_098.jpg
21233948d91f7284be4f8cd00e3cb6b8
797338c78f399ae7feebf0ce0a5287e2d0e1c867
24460 F20101220_AAAYZI kim_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
eac655efd8e8d797a3043273dfa298e9
03559ef8dc8454a90174104c1ec475dbaccacf67
5496 F20101220_AAAYYU kim_j_Page_063thm.jpg
7ec6cb0115b2eecc8bd9bc2557ba4d81
938ed49dd1bc968e224a964aa0bb0ed85760647a
91785 F20101220_AAAZFD kim_j_Page_119.jpg
601c3de34b923f25c4424fc8051574c0
a6d5044cb9a86c0c718000632363d370ed223339
61265 F20101220_AAAZEP kim_j_Page_099.jpg
3b725f66fc617e388aebaeb67b26441e
63e05d78457fdce7432441e41c32e7d439969dc1
F20101220_AAAYZJ kim_j_Page_007.tif
08ed68cc8a6e994b10895a24218c1a43
5d879608edb73602d13ff8a797325827b21685fe
24233 F20101220_AAAYYV kim_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
e6592615a4fc9a97f81e37f6e4fc7767
24c2013a586d20bbef9ad8a9f879f4530dab8350
88595 F20101220_AAAZFE kim_j_Page_120.jpg
8b978132198bb7b6e7cd9b9c9cdd641b
7fb4dab38b9365f1a0fe6ed78f901fd03dc80de1
78290 F20101220_AAAZEQ kim_j_Page_100.jpg
5776d27d93a30ead2e8d6c7c85944042
cd091ecbe49512996d4fad1bdba496d81d723d25
1051942 F20101220_AAAYZK kim_j_Page_006.jp2
00c0a4701f1fff4d2c5056c8e65fbe98
3a150edffd9621eddca9cf4ce3f08358df5dbbea
F20101220_AAAYYW kim_j_Page_114.tif
68bc82e0ed03c042f1f98c8a6dbd6b06
05c849473e46977048f2dd5c05d08a10d6aad2e9
89713 F20101220_AAAZFF kim_j_Page_121.jpg
48d0007c614220c91f55d0f7a115b0be
c3ae8644e6833ac980e13f892b6b625b1df169d1
69221 F20101220_AAAZER kim_j_Page_103.jpg
e6d5ba7fcb5c01331fa171a5fcf16ef3
261f96e698ad681fa445900e9accc1f62010517f
64578 F20101220_AAAYZL kim_j_Page_116.pro
69a007f3e071c74d381d455326ebb18f
1b85a507120891f85aa44fb15a54848b146b9b51
230 F20101220_AAAYYX kim_j_Page_138.txt
445ddfc6cc0b5493ea01a39f79738f1d
2d79bbe970740202ebdcc111944361ec9a159fcb
88609 F20101220_AAAZFG kim_j_Page_122.jpg
582ea13b3fbbe3f596fe9ea660d20c7e
c50cd85a0414652d1fc2385ebf7d3f1b8fabd6a9
59835 F20101220_AAAZES kim_j_Page_104.jpg
1a812c0932f975305da033d03d199d15
f5996bebe26dab286d77fb96015928c18f5ebea4
2246 F20101220_AAAYZM kim_j_Page_052.txt
8c1088cef759567d487517324ac71f54
5514ae81fe45260d67c168ce1e24e641ce35461e
25974 F20101220_AAAYYY kim_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
4716f5d8f4dcf3778af40d7163156023
99162c28681b18369371e1450a78c1d6aa417936
90152 F20101220_AAAZFH kim_j_Page_123.jpg
d135d7e5f09ea4cdefdeafdbc2ee5e56
ea98b6fb3f3832620b0b83c447d4fb60c790cdf6
74535 F20101220_AAAZET kim_j_Page_105.jpg
6781039e121c00fc6f9a09e9b9458c83
29c10e39efed0c5559fead4d7da820b73f0df9e8
6221 F20101220_AAAYZN kim_j_Page_073thm.jpg
e3b94dbd62c8f39635477f9eaddee183
88d457d3746dad7d4a45eab65e278654262d0fb4
5100 F20101220_AAAYYZ kim_j_Page_109.jpg
e0f6f99ab813ac3318f86ebd802fe46c
3e74234bc53ab15ba7eb789839df2aee66c72e8b
88768 F20101220_AAAZFI kim_j_Page_124.jpg
068fa6d052e1d8e3a1b6ca1a00cbfa3e
1542ef2f03830d45679810faf9a080ce64401c52
79863 F20101220_AAAZEU kim_j_Page_106.jpg
9bc0a04aef278f0368fb2c563a221d86
39e36669c5614c5c747c24c1bd1926a518cc24fc
74446 F20101220_AAAYZO kim_j_Page_084.jpg
cec6a5d0e45b698e586d49241baca05e
5e4467b0ee16e368c32d3ee82dc9620f89cd24e6
105884 F20101220_AAAZFJ kim_j_Page_127.jpg
57b4b14835ee6e541228c19dfc30cdc9
ce0dc4b99b4403cc29f0060c33b2ff2d7a4eb594
79052 F20101220_AAAZEV kim_j_Page_107.jpg
65d368c692c2fa9eb3c089b451211788
83e86967de1f3abb156e6d1e318202d20d03eb5f
43336 F20101220_AAAYZP kim_j_Page_086.pro
d9300b7e78f881658c3d29fff99c926d
7f5fc36f382df3dc71afff9a6fe76b6017ed3c31
88391 F20101220_AAAZFK kim_j_Page_128.jpg
e1d3bd0228367e67ca55ed2809ab8c81
ed40b45f554d450f1486f6a0c02464163de9fb62
29265 F20101220_AAAZEW kim_j_Page_108.jpg
202dcb6aa3a29449cd93b6447f025546
3bdbf7d128426dbe24855264f95f955730dd75b1
1296 F20101220_AAAYZQ kim_j_Page_066.txt
6399b8a37b03ff8da96600f62fac1fca
9c93fa8fc719058f0076318163346f699d2981ae
104827 F20101220_AAAZFL kim_j_Page_131.jpg
53a067e836b1efd10605c1b85cbd8b17
082cbc854f3526a302623a4f825cad0e7d260f2b
88649 F20101220_AAAZEX kim_j_Page_110.jpg
3635f674ea37bcc298e2d959221d99dd
c2f7ded29f41a04d83e97e109fbc97be389df20d
18843 F20101220_AAAYZR kim_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
c421927b72006cc29fd0c16419548f48
ac3be9aa5689d32ea5ca0a0f144a7f3841f7dfb7
15854 F20101220_AAAZGA kim_j_Page_003.jp2
05b8328667c66d848b9643e9282182d4
15a6ffc0128b364daa08eed3c503ddd68610f250
88418 F20101220_AAAZFM kim_j_Page_132.jpg
bbb1ca3c192d27139c41226bb98c0453
c85b5310c6013024f69f371e83665f0c54238815
75550 F20101220_AAAZEY kim_j_Page_111.jpg
5d0e980b355e287a456fe906b686ddb0
d7d7c9da3f2820e4bf6115b27640c7fcc6544b96
2810 F20101220_AAAYZS kim_j_Page_038.txt
fcee0cfdcb6344dc1a6919d6f0f41794
2e865865a7532d81d0e7fda886ca5f9a3ed2b9a8
95389 F20101220_AAAZGB kim_j_Page_004.jp2
8c0a3fb19cb3e691f050be0f8eadda52
2cd550011a0c65b2e1033d940f4beda2314f9b4f
104712 F20101220_AAAZFN kim_j_Page_133.jpg
9cafa5c634aab9fa42ec6c468276e64e
546703589689a1074809bdc21163acf857183428
88291 F20101220_AAAZEZ kim_j_Page_112.jpg
f646a0bab551e7e38dfa718f392e8320
d0994d394627705ac2a5ddf18a0197eca2a67c70
107464 F20101220_AAAYZT kim_j_Page_041.jp2
499dd33f300dcce67a22ae55216a6d12
b58d2d743491bc85a70be88228c66df5a22dd174
1051969 F20101220_AAAZGC kim_j_Page_005.jp2
19890c99241f8fdcd06c9c706f28f04a
5bbe0e2c69abc557bf2f45f4a96629754c877afe
3983 F20101220_AAAZFO kim_j_Page_134.jpg
01786757a87d796004a12dba0cefa2b8
501e24ab7a960c7ce9c1d2526efd7b4fc173bfcc
52466 F20101220_AAAYZU kim_j_Page_056.pro
b3e90724a1f44e8aa2b8a5e7dc14f2ee
048bcb125394ba1fc4366062c9c97c8e7b8f9369
1051984 F20101220_AAAZGD kim_j_Page_007.jp2
3327e379b33b58818a70506b96041790
92b995ef1c26b0e578fea2639e9fbd89611a1eba
F20101220_AAAYZV kim_j_Page_131.tif
d04075711adde026004c425eafb75e33
8fe23af3212c92d7b2c7bc15f5ecacc7280abeb4
568556 F20101220_AAAZGE kim_j_Page_008.jp2
bfa8369008b9c76278fd7713d0f7066d
e77ea11632d5a9828bae12f4bc03994dac975a67
80502 F20101220_AAAZFP kim_j_Page_136.jpg
b1800023624bf3ac328e55f29f300694
4d28d40cfbbdacc272b5d45ecfe23af4b982611c
104785 F20101220_AAAYZW kim_j_Page_032.jp2
cdf9de1baa6460adfe225c8baab44952
20d2711202c27a0470814035c51649b1ee2ab488
1051977 F20101220_AAAZGF kim_j_Page_009.jp2
6c9c8c41bbee1a97b9c8cf26f5b15c13
409c8a5bb0950558f10d73dcf79d2acf89dcfeab
82497 F20101220_AAAZFQ kim_j_Page_137.jpg
40a8d63bd36dbed97b67086c90e7358b
4c9c1b1d24e8126c75212c2dc52fcfb9b8d604ed
27486 F20101220_AAAYZX kim_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
ec0e1d5def292659b9f5d9c7004a2a75
78676c9d561b7775b33ad47bebd710a9277f25c2
1051963 F20101220_AAAZGG kim_j_Page_010.jp2
de4bea3f4653c8b2eae5925e9067f3f4
6d6a527b98fc94e992ac93be2574783a186a8f95
12840 F20101220_AAAZFR kim_j_Page_138.jpg
74199f07d47e6642d49e2a3bd7a3521a
3551f48acc25f47a332fae9b1ea09c56aba709fc
5655 F20101220_AAAYZY kim_j_Page_025thm.jpg
511c70ea692b6d18cf825c3bf6dc326e
4c5b15b16dcfcd6d589e5901af46832d76b6be24
82859 F20101220_AAAZGH kim_j_Page_011.jp2
50a3078a881ef786778c47e3b3b91ea4
3fce38b0b04058b560a629b7996b32695958fb13
97630 F20101220_AAAZFS kim_j_Page_140.jpg
74efb2cd691ccc37844837420bf24d63
7ae2dcf462cbae73f90f2d475eb43fe33bd2c983
6185 F20101220_AAAYZZ kim_j_Page_112thm.jpg
2244a4f5f7b848e59646f9ceab631e7c
c7d1d507866a0727171a753a382b89b9d515d036
70904 F20101220_AAAZGI kim_j_Page_012.jp2
2e54bd4ae16b6cdf72a4ae336d237aeb
aac9d7216a215dab67a4a5e012884208890593fb
97734 F20101220_AAAZFT kim_j_Page_141.jpg
c6d76a1e7a0e17434a0e940902be454c
0f603b630c5ce520d68d6d965e37bf5459efbbf4
909731 F20101220_AAAZGJ kim_j_Page_013.jp2
539372979a0d7028d3f153f6df1050b2
67bf2cd361994ea3cfcb10b33b5dcdcbba92e258
101079 F20101220_AAAZFU kim_j_Page_144.jpg
9ac25b6e7cea882d80d02841434f42ca
2a0cf6f8eb888d1cec50e7b7cf95d62e4038c9b9
104165 F20101220_AAAZGK kim_j_Page_014.jp2
89843e1ccbbe3202d65ad75e6ad9bff0
0a50e4ee6432aa67f67e1c21eb2393912d3219c7
97141 F20101220_AAAZFV kim_j_Page_145.jpg
4a3eed58d72a9136ed89d0194ece46a1
5a0affc5bbc3a7431a30289bacf15e4f6bc605cd
112359 F20101220_AAAZGL kim_j_Page_015.jp2
4c203a1791a5377691746264b22b7d3f
502f378038a20a658078ba36e2881cabfde4c6c6
73278 F20101220_AAAZFW kim_j_Page_147.jpg
d0f178cf941dc41b78f752a29b4884c9
4a1ffc5f41db66a158b5f202bc4d26c64bfafb85
115329 F20101220_AAAZHA kim_j_Page_036.jp2
c91f77da3d843ec23b16ce126d923fdc
d6301b1ae16bde178ceeae4e74e2fc6342408b29
87326 F20101220_AAAZGM kim_j_Page_016.jp2
1f2e7253ab973d1607bc02398a242c4d
7c739b2025cbd640a9adb79adbf6f813be6944e6
38517 F20101220_AAAZFX kim_j_Page_148.jpg
3987f348936fd337f2f53f4545881641
8d76cd2fa6130cd1441a4b4eed9ad4b33815e713
108818 F20101220_AAAZHB kim_j_Page_037.jp2
d755d30b9055c8c0998509a45a2e1f01
90e140452ece892aeed8c385824cba8f283f55b0
109232 F20101220_AAAZGN kim_j_Page_017.jp2
3c67a9cc822766f1320980dfda543baf
1046c66223ef88e15c6d1940d398f89b7177917d
26656 F20101220_AAAZFY kim_j_Page_001.jp2
8d1dc6c8f1e441b8a0c266f18997eeb1
1da47b88e65eded1e51273755c065854cadc4a5c
128842 F20101220_AAAZHC kim_j_Page_038.jp2
a48dbf92fda902d2c8e4658561254b2a
502f1eeaaecde8b26b7007bc08de0419b056859d
109778 F20101220_AAAZGO kim_j_Page_018.jp2
5e98ea460c16288f3443e711f3ea485c
ce221bbb3e0a192a20ef20d0baec147e80a0ab36
5909 F20101220_AAAZFZ kim_j_Page_002.jp2
8973996d9f6447ad26c1936676f12cd5
647253fb60e6a56559e18d241d50ed911083734e
106422 F20101220_AAAZHD kim_j_Page_040.jp2
7fae23b5d7f539aa0ce8e90bfb910455
c8bb5bf923e83bcd33d80d4b166350bac31aafa8
117236 F20101220_AAAZGP kim_j_Page_019.jp2
66bb355f2ec6fb32c989db8d0ba04a75
a08422d4ca48652296e40d26ad0e3d6f9a7097f4
100677 F20101220_AAAZHE kim_j_Page_042.jp2
5e60361e4ba0fa9acac0a41d1f92fafb
24205d61b8f1641c2631f14905acd3125c543228
39472 F20101220_AAAZHF kim_j_Page_043.jp2
cebc942bf3c44ecba3d66ee490372cf9
0d11f79af04ece050f1bdc46c61f8a64fc469f0a
98814 F20101220_AAAZGQ kim_j_Page_021.jp2
682ed7861cd87aa0630da50157fa0e34
81eb3acf9162a1d2df7485f081dbf2cef618fd18
106824 F20101220_AAAZHG kim_j_Page_045.jp2
dff89d3289300a4fffd86237be240493
421237d964f49fcecc4887c1fdd5831b03956397
111384 F20101220_AAAZGR kim_j_Page_022.jp2
a34c8d39f1e8637e055614cf123eec50
fcf9e0ac8f043a780d48994ab1034082fc932b0f
95689 F20101220_AAAZHH kim_j_Page_046.jp2
4660b030ae1df8f30bd55b44caaea3c5
b103872885b48d1789f95cc8db30e77390df25a3
109614 F20101220_AAAZGS kim_j_Page_024.jp2
e26888116178db246503dc455e2cb8d8
d82205103e5ea60abf03f9d1be5387f8c231d63b
115462 F20101220_AAAZHI kim_j_Page_047.jp2
27dd4608c26f380ec32847b3fd9f8c12
31868e050ca4fe34ffbdfc8581d669bb114bd30f
100600 F20101220_AAAZGT kim_j_Page_025.jp2
c25c6612c23184f05b8dcc5745817bd9
96583bba3b98330831e8edaa333fc3d2a91880fc
1051980 F20101220_AAAZHJ kim_j_Page_048.jp2
f4a103d020a5bfc18134f0c225d424e3
04e184d79b5363469cc435f7b96146fb3ab40cab
100921 F20101220_AAAZGU kim_j_Page_026.jp2
f05d3513f59d8e9fe9dce2073dec061a
48deff1d13078c9a25f344ffb8eb90f0e41cb2a1
1051966 F20101220_AAAZHK kim_j_Page_049.jp2
f4c5018a42fd82945d28fdacab5c586f
688be2c5fcbe94f82ad63b560554842716c06e28
111992 F20101220_AAAZGV kim_j_Page_028.jp2
f24b3d500f8c9066af54a153cd5588f5
900efb2c1e5bfb314a40e5d3d8a7d1033e9cc260
1051928 F20101220_AAAZHL kim_j_Page_050.jp2
0db0489e96a9588c378dd3299ad5f453
26f15ef9dbe9b51e1212eee60be1f721b881a88e
105210 F20101220_AAAZGW kim_j_Page_029.jp2
0909c5049481651c308a6c69aeed47cc
f758a4ea52b88a82896565823165f7ae7a36c482
103990 F20101220_AAAZGX kim_j_Page_031.jp2
63937f8e7219b4eb6e342d27f41832e6
836accee0280c34287690ae17aab7cde5499bf2e
107551 F20101220_AAAZIA kim_j_Page_068.jp2
9d362a30fe2559453f4b4d5572922a2b
2a0ce225c3214811835a2841e1e5aaded4dd8465
127601 F20101220_AAAZHM kim_j_Page_051.jp2
763a520366d7b8dcc42c004d6d472a6c
990299649a1d51fa1221a184436677a096e11b2b
111017 F20101220_AAAZGY kim_j_Page_034.jp2
391ec3ad249aad05fd650c4ca99298e3
596d370ea7e8e03be641d7ebe03c591dc8582816
55723 F20101220_AAAZIB kim_j_Page_069.jp2
e85a98b0a16cceab4b3137cb9e8ec53d
c47901c99bcc5d40945813485ba6e5d840fb9fbe
109945 F20101220_AAAZHN kim_j_Page_052.jp2
61c6f66a0497b61c6c5f0dfa85e2b073
1c5693acdd66f02fd045f2bd0fceb934f0c380bf
108572 F20101220_AAAZGZ kim_j_Page_035.jp2
e39a9e37922fad7a7573103fcc64d435
e7613f7921b3a18055961f9156210c3123761062
1051986 F20101220_AAAZIC kim_j_Page_070.jp2
e7eeaed4c1c760e99f9072a21c82fdb2
cbcbc0212d9029bf0edc79e430b5673b2e1a45b2
16399 F20101220_AAAZHO kim_j_Page_053.jp2
ba4a7bc72b4a710241043023e8192030
6b3107ecafd3b9dcf05408a6a3a5146660fac5c5
106391 F20101220_AAAZID kim_j_Page_073.jp2
8d71b85b6121dadbc3aa8b041b652b06
1f077746a8354932d36ec675c606712e9105f627
87515 F20101220_AAAZHP kim_j_Page_054.jp2
fcf156c374e0dda097c0e7ef3c9cd9a4
65fe7a6a6a6b7751f78b35addd9d5de8624f2d21
105971 F20101220_AAAZIE kim_j_Page_074.jp2
f204aa73b69107afbc72afc6a991bcf0
0ee50617369ce5c409dab2c5fc65646202fccd42
106813 F20101220_AAAZHQ kim_j_Page_056.jp2
b9097014fb8ea7b62987b356afd510c2
9b93a4602a0b1beb4813a0d2202a164ab0ce3976
107721 F20101220_AAAZIF kim_j_Page_075.jp2
22c1fc012834c3ef64ad730de13bf334
a27191fbe5968bb1d6194982e72c35b5805884a2
101159 F20101220_AAAZIG kim_j_Page_076.jp2
f495dd0bd7e5ddf96b91752f88130e02
7c9978468fe4c04e3d8d802153ca1ca450d569ae
77442 F20101220_AAAZHR kim_j_Page_058.jp2
96234032304e558546526ffa85b57afa
cdc564b4fd74082cf1a74932748b36c91491bf24
108544 F20101220_AAAZIH kim_j_Page_078.jp2
6917883cf1d9f1068f4d8d2e45f96087
e14c684e68908804413edc671c95a5d2319bb7df
648501 F20101220_AAAZHS kim_j_Page_060.jp2
bddfb97689e4ff53c712b2d1cacaad07
6c426e93d70ef5aa6bad748b778e1414f5a7f97b
98282 F20101220_AAAZII kim_j_Page_079.jp2
3f35418e175dbe9a20aee72642788134
64be6815789f5f3b24436600694072d2b77b3672
634566 F20101220_AAAZHT kim_j_Page_061.jp2
703b6e1602463dd9ffd8e4630b794f87
016c2c9fcbeea8c83bdc15f9e0121b063294cb6f
114973 F20101220_AAAZIJ kim_j_Page_080.jp2
3fd5ef4650a2c1d2af83c585f7be8350
8417b848921f7cb09fa4019add32c73744f33525
610119 F20101220_AAAZHU kim_j_Page_062.jp2
e9c691ee8d810879b96b8bbd2bc3c5b9
b3853392b922c340a29d9b12abd9161e3a7e00c4
103866 F20101220_AAAZIK kim_j_Page_081.jp2
b36cd086bd1b4d79e346d9a6c08fb17e
b8a91930d4fb69fa2dd4812f67b5ed9307e79cda
91688 F20101220_AAAZHV kim_j_Page_063.jp2
76e9c932220e554b0c7f384de6ed2c86
d84d21495fce3388de1d3c14c010e04132bcd27a
109329 F20101220_AAAZIL kim_j_Page_082.jp2
8c43857b2683e7d614e0633e1d984275
a2a50097fe294c7ddd91610e710550b43860af7e
979993 F20101220_AAAZHW kim_j_Page_064.jp2
e2bbcef2c975152fe2acd8bfd35223e1
a0836b249eb43ad25659d79f5e7dac8b1a3e7825
77349 F20101220_AAAZJA kim_j_Page_099.jp2
f78827bfe68d082087c3fa22ba5c166f
36dc953501d029b5b387370c8f3321cc91fffff1
106798 F20101220_AAAZIM kim_j_Page_083.jp2
f7632d6731ff244836331f58f5d829b7
1d2a0f870a1e9ba2187476ae9766fb61379d2526
106447 F20101220_AAAZHX kim_j_Page_065.jp2
66746ce50715e934e1e1abcc7449ec15
51c899f9772f17ec6d81cdc0c5a0b81045f1b808
103426 F20101220_AAAZJB kim_j_Page_100.jp2
74e41aacad4cf9012c673eeb29c5d156
8a6d1c96bd69ce64f1349a98f1c700c0a4cfb009
97535 F20101220_AAAZIN kim_j_Page_086.jp2
0e3d12913ef3484f5de4dce937bf8272
4b3de54f97cc59ffaeb22c891ff2001bc0c5756e
64136 F20101220_AAAZHY kim_j_Page_066.jp2
b90bb44c5be946ea8e9f8cc5e4975207
a698424c285ab4c8d4bab41ad503b376b5e8809f
105068 F20101220_AAAZJC kim_j_Page_101.jp2
416df6390b9facab226a81b9ec0d19e5
9e30fae90427d6ae27b0db6ba2095a3afc4136e4
100135 F20101220_AAAZIO kim_j_Page_087.jp2
e37c8429e62852522cec27861bc4a604
ec08ad64bb4a38598071dff155be95e46180858c
86867 F20101220_AAAZHZ kim_j_Page_067.jp2
eb71a1715ae64a5b8e042b01220f4187
456f829eee48bd7081e89932628e83ff0283cf18
102976 F20101220_AAAZJD kim_j_Page_102.jp2
2ded4efb88a8d9644f31159720975b52
2c5dfd5b34a2934afb2342bc9edccf7cfdb68aab
99712 F20101220_AAAZIP kim_j_Page_088.jp2
807813dc59aa06d6f59223db69dbff1a
84d43f53a53324b11cce5070cde3995104e2bca7
808623 F20101220_AAAZJE kim_j_Page_104.jp2
a37e75a47dd7170a7d86390b632ecb74
0f1a4cdc4b634885720c89d514f5b6c61e1ed354
105798 F20101220_AAAZIQ kim_j_Page_089.jp2
49eea49b8b627754932f36c2ba46b423
b52e4751daaa84d39f0ea5f2c42515ef524648bc
1051974 F20101220_AAAZJF kim_j_Page_105.jp2
c95a7eb0d0094289cbfad888f59128c9
c00e559d41859c4c47ba0af03ef99f361b6d2349
79640 F20101220_AAAZIR kim_j_Page_090.jp2
0cff6ab040346d89600209c878c0f5b1
d01e38be6ab05a721aba4edf91ed9fdc109544d1
106809 F20101220_AAAZJG kim_j_Page_106.jp2
49ee7cd54e8ee35e502cddc9c788e80c
edf2b84b735e2964821efc68a6b52f3df8cebb11
103949 F20101220_AAAZJH kim_j_Page_107.jp2
6e4b74debb9be6be9075ab186e04efc0
807a4d367570968c436e0a02fb0d14d26de5198e
76958 F20101220_AAAZIS kim_j_Page_091.jp2
7a8d5a127baf4adb0a8a6a0753067bb4
078453d02b46a70b28353f9c336218ea5970c3ec
37969 F20101220_AAAZJI kim_j_Page_108.jp2
30899c04556db3af74df56e80b075c4a
93c66b7f3bb8aada7067f4f467b389c5f9c755aa
96211 F20101220_AAAZIT kim_j_Page_092.jp2
f9bb19b1c6696b4a24ea6f5aa0e66ae0
3e240f074d6afaca2f0111a29bbf6ecbdbaa60bd
6199 F20101220_AAAZJJ kim_j_Page_109.jp2
df4d6b4489aba0ab1e099508ebfa2ff9
2aa93897ea4015fb29cd534f975b0bb3e298116f
93844 F20101220_AAAZIU kim_j_Page_093.jp2
c89e7e200f3d11764afb5d9201cb3ec6
1f4b45cc966be1e68846af9b7f8eb2ca6366e7e9
1051888 F20101220_AAAZJK kim_j_Page_110.jp2
a85c8c077647fe72ce4fc52126ca4f42
61073dc7a4383d77fe0eefaab8a07038bd2770a5
98624 F20101220_AAAZIV kim_j_Page_094.jp2
639412952f013d0b368d3f692105f9fa
56914ba3a986e08ebe322227d12920c763cd8040
1051985 F20101220_AAAZJL kim_j_Page_111.jp2
f3f5ef69b7ca59176a7347b47f70f496
5a4ad0ab277f2bed1a689b35fce99824f65885c2
99014 F20101220_AAAZIW kim_j_Page_095.jp2
67594a38eba8562b7b9df217de3c9c5d
3c4dd585e408dd2f19208a7184e2d28da8248162
1051918 F20101220_AAAZJM kim_j_Page_112.jp2
de53e1e0cf638ae595d4762a665629d0
fd5c2c8a82d20068ec826eed0e02bfcd36e0c838
108245 F20101220_AAAZIX kim_j_Page_096.jp2
1d5ca7a7f45583e1214ef65144300d2b
805badb42e8b3bcf8773a53861afb65559c0d4e9
1051911 F20101220_AAAZKA kim_j_Page_131.jp2
5e7125e861b7a6420cad640ddbda8d6d
f8ec3f04d1c0a3d39ac6559fe0ef57fee15f558e
F20101220_AAAZJN kim_j_Page_114.jp2
3e0b96b45d405fc3603b00cd9526181a
00ed3e418da2b77a4a99b7d2036abf9621d46146
85311 F20101220_AAAZIY kim_j_Page_097.jp2
3008ec2de75902fd750dfad3650e919d
0360dddba8297527ede7224d5b22a93b1a10cee8
1051976 F20101220_AAAZKB kim_j_Page_132.jp2
6e14eed28d1240edc8733219bf5044b5
06d59f0c729dc867343f3ba0a7256c62331d08c7
F20101220_AAAZJO kim_j_Page_115.jp2
022b8e12ee07da5cba4920c55bc522fd
015705e759482c44929244eb1a0ddfd949e6b1c7
90142 F20101220_AAAZIZ kim_j_Page_098.jp2
8e29f2ef7161be9b59ea9256adc571af
03cbdaa40dfbf22b181cd1a06f25268ab6bb5fca
1051970 F20101220_AAAZKC kim_j_Page_133.jp2
0cc6c0282d750dbc6823dc4b20195df8
04b2a5cebabbae474c48b20e6ad66e54804ef732
1051946 F20101220_AAAZJP kim_j_Page_116.jp2
f88f6fef37f89fef3210b0a3976307f4
da066d980b3d8683a268cac40a7691b7cbb9fe0c
4793 F20101220_AAAZKD kim_j_Page_134.jp2
5bf0f5c089e9bd4655316849db84968c
30623b2e9414110bf7de27315c724badcd4e4106
F20101220_AAAZJQ kim_j_Page_117.jp2
26ec3c6de32c047748c874866c0aade0
da1d65b972e0ca01cc0e21702dc33d3d7d2cac2f
1051975 F20101220_AAAZKE kim_j_Page_135.jp2
510f9832c15ed3875ea8d59e3846cf7a
8d68fa4bcaca7c3b99f924db143fb42772fb0f53
1051915 F20101220_AAAZJR kim_j_Page_118.jp2
c6dd723de3f1e8b72199684f8e119279
8e09f94b54beb84fa459adb46fb9c25d20c15435
1051914 F20101220_AAAZKF kim_j_Page_136.jp2
224406e71bfb0d4a6366f167b1115f23
bebb6b29fa3ddc862c09336c12c3bb18dc29bb0e
1051979 F20101220_AAAZJS kim_j_Page_120.jp2
cb46e7539e473ea9b9e0f8280c877e6e
9f33babf5b8794ab4936fe7e171956e8f181df6a
F20101220_AAAZKG kim_j_Page_137.jp2
fdd7df19e36154e2e961fe3d07aa5a60
7940d6362297830522a712afcc82818ed5240712
F20101220_AAAZKH kim_j_Page_139.jp2
82b5c83389a79d7132d6c3cb70b385e6
b6903240467dba7effa72a06ac5d37c0776bdb62
F20101220_AAAZJT kim_j_Page_121.jp2
d5209d9f2b48112cdf8d9f287ce00356
d5f11b19161f5deb10606fcbbde7a8f4c84cb660
129887 F20101220_AAAZKI kim_j_Page_140.jp2
1595f9cdc2ed30b76ddfbca24fdce769
aff4ca7e1c14536f64f2fbdeeff630311874820e
F20101220_AAAZJU kim_j_Page_122.jp2
4301d980b7fb3b97902ea9bfc1069f65
1a605ff6083379b612174be2dda2e00bf301e528
1051981 F20101220_AAAZKJ kim_j_Page_141.jp2
72637ce435634721d0c0365b3578e3d3
9cf9b628c65df21b143fa9c624679b4ef634824d
1051948 F20101220_AAAZJV kim_j_Page_123.jp2
59488c71305f146e56990659b71f2258
c3b93bbdbd09599ba1a1021e36af2b1f7587c682
F20101220_AAAZKK kim_j_Page_142.jp2
8967ab1fc3632528c5020dbb25bf02f0
635a1ff97f400335ae13a3ee37bd3308ae834de9
1051971 F20101220_AAAZJW kim_j_Page_124.jp2
8fe987ae391424f0ae259b6b8e141063
60a5f52491996c58b0097e6ad53fee89336d2e13
136532 F20101220_AAAZKL kim_j_Page_143.jp2
da1d66f50eb0d295175932da5a7ecc7d
e3b39a3dfbce32b5cb68b370ba46dddcd709e2a6
F20101220_AAAZJX kim_j_Page_125.jp2
61d0e7325bf44d1a5a7a26d0bfd32f38
d85a4570623a10aefcb9e5161130f7e9f9700293
F20101220_AAAZLA kim_j_Page_018.tif
043acdbb1de11bd8271a24a38e68d4cd
4da5cfc755cb49f066d33c03e40ccf9cc8817df8
130514 F20101220_AAAZKM kim_j_Page_146.jp2
f9bcf4603885fdb93e4933c121f7adbf
73156c737e5f0a8104baa2ccd9ac7e5a8a0c538a
1051949 F20101220_AAAZJY kim_j_Page_127.jp2
6cf23bfbd7127810db7b3c82465b1640
197b4decb86ab729524cc3f200adb5d490ae1237
F20101220_AAAZLB kim_j_Page_019.tif
f9b018db5862d9d4d5760c23198ea5cf
ae6f09e67f064bb2e07545dbd7b22bab9de4ad8f
101901 F20101220_AAAZKN kim_j_Page_147.jp2
6761ca5bea04a4e92453e9d6025c5c4d
8692c230944b80ef0784e64f91bb28771ab100ab
1051927 F20101220_AAAZJZ kim_j_Page_130.jp2
93c094771db8f8486c73764d36611ac5
a49b0b292b0dbb238957154b935d3027c1f6710d
F20101220_AAAZLC kim_j_Page_020.tif
978286eec12d62132b625b6c7603d90d
e6f13bb07640bec56ad4c864c9da8416d4e84d6f
49552 F20101220_AAAZKO kim_j_Page_148.jp2
8a1f68f72445b521734d8431b76b8234
4e170ec253211bfd595c6369481c8849e3f6b82c
F20101220_AAAZLD kim_j_Page_022.tif
6d567fbb806f5e9b98779df52be7fa08
e1c8e0ec6ebc271308bc0d5b76db28b5de7dc1c0
F20101220_AAAZKP kim_j_Page_004.tif
74d5ba003b15a0c7924bf01b8db5bfc0
e6d368f5318a6f31c2fbac52007ee843bfc00202
F20101220_AAAZLE kim_j_Page_023.tif
240de0f132ea438c0882e649d592d9f4
d5338b2b6833e3ad4f1a904cee943be543c27e54
F20101220_AAAZKQ kim_j_Page_005.tif
a90074853d84d386e4c8b71fcf0f98d8
8e7dc183bf203a9f5d0b9f63b03627fbf4e46fa6
F20101220_AAAZLF kim_j_Page_024.tif
f583dde43fd9b9ea664668126c0e485a
9729302e1fb27c92a21bcdb14139f0f2696f1e90
F20101220_AAAZKR kim_j_Page_006.tif
182edcf0a23e8272306d9cd3496153b0
2e26f3f01ce431f96605a86fd7cb0a0386f045f5
F20101220_AAAZLG kim_j_Page_025.tif
bd59fae52b4d26fae22ae5eb60816878
56a1df510a363cf89376b92370c56992bfc874c1
F20101220_AAAZKS kim_j_Page_009.tif
bf4571977f843c2c15834c730af2cabc
9b546d6ada4bfd7410ae69b9ea0268fe865e882d
F20101220_AAAZLH kim_j_Page_027.tif
5c897293118902c48e9595cd81da5024
020f743c0963ff97a27cb9c823244a7492d7a3a7
F20101220_AAAZKT kim_j_Page_010.tif
6e54b504d45f1a9d7e7975ccda26408a
1c84715392a4f55a48e8a9d5fe67910ab7fbf174
F20101220_AAAZLI kim_j_Page_028.tif
d0e21050dc1371d560fd3b397662aabe
a89975ecb42c0440ed37f522cb197b155a856270
F20101220_AAAZLJ kim_j_Page_030.tif
197bb908dba8f847ca8137d3e8743137
1b7dc7674b1e2b035e6838292a3729000eb240e7
F20101220_AAAZKU kim_j_Page_011.tif
a09a456945f35b9611ea9b08ecf69f45
57610d651625fcae963f30a513ae99a76f0d8ba7
F20101220_AAAZLK kim_j_Page_031.tif
eb8589b802ed0558f71db509d1d52971
8d6ad07c6b3ba37ef6b6164a9fb197d7703f5019
8423998 F20101220_AAAZKV kim_j_Page_013.tif
69da30e52331773ce89b7797db189200
a2119c2cc2a9367b69e9d0386a1752d669b6c5fa
F20101220_AAAZLL kim_j_Page_032.tif
651840080ba7bb5e169aa722e63b1508
529f0cba4500a55130ec6ec4e53634e5ddd244f4
F20101220_AAAZKW kim_j_Page_014.tif
d92c797bb8ad1c79f80cbd9f3858e64b
3b499c7d99ab5dd5207a28e4697b8375b8d509bd
F20101220_AAAZMA kim_j_Page_049.tif
44c428f48166d9c4316be2cc6d71d38b
821ef61480b30435d6af36b98907ff8e7e6eedcf
F20101220_AAAZLM kim_j_Page_033.tif
ed9996b1fc5323afd8eee2c8c6dd4d7c
f8cd7ed3e511e8e7160ff7d5cf84d07dc400db2b
F20101220_AAAZKX kim_j_Page_015.tif
d49fba40aeb0e6f329ffa7a6dd855b2e
f799d209a5a7e546572b402512a202d0481c8dc4
F20101220_AAAZMB kim_j_Page_050.tif
eb60d7573241bcb251be6f514d319bc9
0287f295ca2e8796289781a64e1dd41c2f3a9454
F20101220_AAAZLN kim_j_Page_034.tif
6c72e2fc5b8a15d38de5277efc0f9594
c85c3d70d385fc16f27a97fec32761e081feebb9
F20101220_AAAZKY kim_j_Page_016.tif
a6e4e213366c5569d6736cc522b72788
eb67aa97724c2d7f3e16602fda3380713057ccb1
F20101220_AAAZMC kim_j_Page_051.tif
a187495a6a3e9e330b416e506f07ada6
cf245d76818b76a6cd0483636653cf3fd7405e3b
F20101220_AAAZLO kim_j_Page_035.tif
7eb70e5fe726388b4cfeb6f302d334d5
91e4b5c3a9e9389f689cfd7516152faecac08613
F20101220_AAAZKZ kim_j_Page_017.tif
9eb85371bd18853595ed235a2ce999e3
c9db764a1228aae58284bb128044adc09ee5886b
F20101220_AAAZMD kim_j_Page_053.tif
88491cac3900da22a3fb11cd7003c49a
1cd66a93d953536bd5b5dc3e43aba4340d759ba0
F20101220_AAAZLP kim_j_Page_036.tif
48bdb2b9096176123101f7a577bea1bf
5951cc655fdbe22a03804f3c38196f8c69ce1273
F20101220_AAAZME kim_j_Page_057.tif
17aaf054f724f70393e64928cac62728
4bc4378f90a4f8bb247c1eea0c682446f37b4f88
F20101220_AAAZLQ kim_j_Page_037.tif
765cb05cfc6b03ed2a488d302858b3f6
35e4505474b4a75813c25e77bc3c69c26480c787
F20101220_AAAZMF kim_j_Page_058.tif
47d03ee047e49f59acb16194ae3dd1ff
455593135e7875bac898150e02d714a6f63e9938
F20101220_AAAZLR kim_j_Page_038.tif
d3b39777ba3b184ec6e350f972c8304f
5969164f635be756315b20f952d30f9ebce74cd1
F20101220_AAAZMG kim_j_Page_059.tif
750e4577806ba6543af9d21b9e7a0ae6
55364df802b596fff95d60c5d4e363772dc8bd83
F20101220_AAAZLS kim_j_Page_040.tif
18f8c15d16eb17787dc26d480374ee86
5ccc2407f06e66f7247b804e94546ffc884c9592
F20101220_AAAZMH kim_j_Page_060.tif
26ceebcbb6d0c042aa9d0b36e93f6b85
109622eec2eab52d7440cc14c2aff163f6831190
F20101220_AAAZLT kim_j_Page_041.tif
826f0aa9ad718b63c4dedb86f888318f
87e19a6871dfe4932ba2bbbc061a6fdde1ffcd3d
F20101220_AAAZMI kim_j_Page_061.tif
3ccf6ebfd7104c438d8bdfd9334aa2be
9c36ac0bca28c8b2fc7250183229f33f7d406f07
F20101220_AAAZLU kim_j_Page_042.tif
478e644ea17bbcd5160018eb41717074
c2c3086ae57563def4666ca4c86c4bd9fa6cea41
F20101220_AAAZMJ kim_j_Page_064.tif
5d9e75a87eb59695d7ca518c5756ab01
e40ff2d09dc4802f6ca7677a55ff8dc1bc95de3c
F20101220_AAAZLV kim_j_Page_043.tif
0ddb5755bc5c4cf30b641902b80b6f63
3c9ed23688410085bb0c533c13ff683ff71e7386
F20101220_AAAZMK kim_j_Page_065.tif
bbe4abc5680a2e8b51e1daa43fa2382c
765c5cfe1596597b5d61b3f59d08a588512f8d52
F20101220_AAAZLW kim_j_Page_044.tif
e5a74b806a9cd1b79f1c12fe431ab367
d1154d8256826fbf9673766b8abf2b148e8b7ce7
F20101220_AAAZML kim_j_Page_066.tif
d0bc03e51812ab5ddc590438d67343d4
8fa24dfa13890ba55ee1342bb2299a2834b75187
F20101220_AAAZLX kim_j_Page_045.tif
2280c0b94fc6388278ad7e34fdea7fdb
254c7c9816483c972f10d799e5d27a884a0e87a2
F20101220_AAAZNA kim_j_Page_083.tif
a50665ed510901630e01844b6b451814
027a6ed472a9fbdca31bdcf0cd19813d07b16d8b
F20101220_AAAZMM kim_j_Page_067.tif
312a547f97998f285af680a550a390de
dad80d4839776c60c398f4e162adc014cf4fce52
F20101220_AAAZLY kim_j_Page_047.tif
d9efa400d8018bf41dd6ab59d1e817d9
b526cfd1eb637171e429d50468c86795c60294ee
F20101220_AAAZNB kim_j_Page_084.tif
593b4b3e25a48bc3a5dbfa690252f647
d5bb5b2644904426ea602af1c93d5d48b7fbb28e
F20101220_AAAZMN kim_j_Page_068.tif
f339f0f0eafc72d6aa501e47141c1794
3bfe4f195f102a18f2a7cb18c38e29348fb5078a
F20101220_AAAZLZ kim_j_Page_048.tif
253e0aa037ada5dc24d1f87aab1988d5
1d4bc98526dbabb284dd0d36a7f3c214a5739121
F20101220_AAAZNC kim_j_Page_087.tif
13b344809a401f458a8d9a594fac6eb1
f7d503cd88cac59100dd1bb0bcbed81e0c5f0ecf
F20101220_AAAZMO kim_j_Page_069.tif
a992725d9bff5e135b914bc0274728f0
e5290c1e8676a291139a5f6fb298b1d0c3e8c7fa
F20101220_AAAZND kim_j_Page_088.tif
dd197d824ca71b1c19087e1ad6123f68
0ec5cf75ddd536cd432968a896145393ec5a4080
F20101220_AAAZMP kim_j_Page_070.tif
6b985187e471fd2f480753f5e98eb84a
18710c79640e9c53bd839125ecdb4cb2c0e21561
F20101220_AAAZNE kim_j_Page_090.tif
ffffea8ac474626dc6c0727721fb43f6
4f70ecb7a78451957a01f5544c2a02ab174c08dc
F20101220_AAAZMQ kim_j_Page_071.tif
569b947cad5799b41681bf0cdfa5256c
e2aaec0d917f4067840f82d4cec897a026dc5959
F20101220_AAAZNF kim_j_Page_091.tif
66b63fecce214b4bb233ea90045f6b7f
dcd4a1d148e6223c1ef43c3a7d10b0142c887c2f
F20101220_AAAZMR kim_j_Page_072.tif
0f36d1cba5fe2d4680575548d0c4f3c6
8d97cd950a0b63dae1376555ebafca0148e7f0a2
F20101220_AAAZNG kim_j_Page_092.tif
d4cec4c5f07650d4d01130b33d6287b8
92ccddc24db626b69006d08fb04753f9d16ecad6
F20101220_AAAZMS kim_j_Page_073.tif
00d73a699f4462b28d73aaca48607e94
6c26e911404fcf2bf9aae32bc5c76f27166ae1f5
F20101220_AAAZNH kim_j_Page_093.tif
e3561769d0d1f72a2938cabf893dc55e
37b76e44622f1d8d7112ccf9993abd6ea067a894
F20101220_AAAZMT kim_j_Page_076.tif
124c7bfaf2128e56735ef23f51d91f74
a4df99b42d665db7338145de12129236c498431f
F20101220_AAAZNI kim_j_Page_094.tif
d3ea2dbd9a36c44619522b540608b7a7
badc7ae79a6e323dc53dcb7b298acdf6ce445808
F20101220_AAAZMU kim_j_Page_077.tif
b73f41eed04a64e40ae8717284c90b82
9ed0c1df52c55573452085a0811a5b2ff7696e98
F20101220_AAAZNJ kim_j_Page_095.tif
f4881c2a14a916eca324795a130add1d
9579a378beaccc4cce976ab84f1e8bd95efdc25c
F20101220_AAAZMV kim_j_Page_078.tif
7e0edd34b8c61aa3545cab509b64a4f7
566297d288f7354c3dee46b6b6930777cb9be665
F20101220_AAAZNK kim_j_Page_096.tif
a0f0f6598cef18e4e65067f22dca8e56
94fdcf60e30f3b0d731a04263d2f667d60b8aa72
1454 F20101220_AABAAA kim_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
84729fac58d74aebeff2e29682f01435
50ee2c15658386ee24d00da30166784ecb4c7f75
F20101220_AAAZNL kim_j_Page_097.tif
3fda274ea514e91d66630f38128fedd5
797b89aa3c2a19da98550ebeb0e13cb86efac263
F20101220_AAAZMW kim_j_Page_079.tif
adc23224078d7e46059911907111e967
d3cceac255e992d20b1cff84340e844ffbe4cf16
24389 F20101220_AABAAB kim_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
792338bed8270cfc058f7bc38f56a7de
a199bd4dd9677c4d99b9390cec01b0897e2987e9
F20101220_AAAZOA kim_j_Page_113.tif
f129ecd00d1b70705e3160d6fb679c2e
05b03839ff64bc5a21056d772178c85612011986
F20101220_AAAZNM kim_j_Page_098.tif
530fcf77ee838af5d2280c6870aee2cc
34bcb70da0c087376531b86201f473754ed8ac20
F20101220_AAAZMX kim_j_Page_080.tif
2d3f889cc7a60abddc6d0f979c8200b4
33c1c1ea98625aeceb2512044e2ad104ecdef1cb
4042 F20101220_AABAAC kim_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
a3f0d23dba02a4ca1cf15b2b8a047bb1
d860d2698bf48212cf2b4f26635e422600fc99be
F20101220_AAAZOB kim_j_Page_115.tif
b8270ab61c27c208c5543b7014d23fd2
879f0e891d5221aba8105747b5c066c8548d6d0d
F20101220_AAAZNN kim_j_Page_099.tif
6268e5ce59a9ca560f797c8c792960c9
e5a686e770df9c1e17bf5087dbea141ad662d884
F20101220_AAAZMY kim_j_Page_081.tif
1dfc3f4b8691d847c3645468bb5b5816
29cae273d3e401abee244157c3261c0dbc34352e
9225 F20101220_AABAAD kim_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
d2216f908ef997c45fa5ababb4f0f56b
78e00f4c91efe58ad3baaa4f56e306c591a2aea7
F20101220_AAAZOC kim_j_Page_116.tif
add0529bd7244d117ef54063120ee2b8
a9739db2a5bed2137b0ec9604a39a52d118bf018
F20101220_AAAZNO kim_j_Page_100.tif
597c31f0209759dc78b6ff43d73b21b5
2fc71abbe5befadb86216d1e4dc0214b55002fa1
F20101220_AAAZMZ kim_j_Page_082.tif
89153154843ce7000a53b486fbf2d486
3efcd5d8e4671c949e82bee53d68c7f875ddc881
F20101220_AAAZOD kim_j_Page_117.tif
29eedfb0ca731a4d2184164dd2435e78
9f1858cb72ea9778d38e96a340d9be7b5cbb4428
F20101220_AAAZNP kim_j_Page_102.tif
82b9079bd427dee9fdef34a84d361dd0
9ec22850c41010e3578da1aa6be327bf514c680c
6088 F20101220_AABAAE kim_j_Page_029thm.jpg
ef522d3eb12d71a853072ea7607d1f19
d8f8a16222a9b21fde42e29a3605775ac39ef037
F20101220_AAAZOE kim_j_Page_118.tif
200bc6f7d8f64061ff98428ee9432d00
5dafecf106bcae25aa8731536bc64c7e12eda840
F20101220_AAAZNQ kim_j_Page_103.tif
a9a83458a42cb20015a6bca5524e7645
db4f21c109b7f0aad9afed0672329f2b584f586f
27506 F20101220_AABAAF kim_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
7f25302be9d65736110904e4c625e096
0f4df11f6f288eb97c7036d6c341819e6a6359d1
F20101220_AAAZOF kim_j_Page_119.tif
33a1ba494076fbbbb819c619f8d50e11
24729049f5873bde24cb1862e13dd07937a44794
F20101220_AAAZNR kim_j_Page_104.tif
8d8ee83b5ac30172393cb633a8a1a03a
97b64c871404e5ef5f5c33a5afa0cddf5ef34321
5699 F20101220_AABAAG kim_j_Page_076thm.jpg
0e6103c6e3cc45a470d1dc6acda24c85
c2b94ad6c506a801153811aaf72d33c573cfa6ca
F20101220_AAAZOG kim_j_Page_122.tif
d81fdb4b1beba6ad737a076a22bda8e0
a8e96037659a45428af72bc2b9ecd537553cec6a
F20101220_AAAZNS kim_j_Page_105.tif
d2271e12fc3b21d501dd4a5273d18497
58d049754876504ea274f046f175f2cbd80a7f97
27896 F20101220_AABAAH kim_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
9ba69a8b2e39c6197a31aa0b371b306f
ace5988c7745175cd1055cee91601c00bdc22fc7
F20101220_AAAZOH kim_j_Page_123.tif
b19c6d94eb6dce857f06950fe5dcf351
fbd238ce5f4d815e64eb26ffb72d35ebf89f8952
F20101220_AAAZNT kim_j_Page_106.tif
455cdc0d7d4fb20a5acffbbda6b7dea4
da39f7838314c781bb93933f23214cd7484fd5fd
6831 F20101220_AABAAI kim_j_Page_135thm.jpg
31911d8b40bea120273d918f86a3d20e
6773a3f6f18fc83710e85d9a4936d2534cdac96a
F20101220_AAAZOI kim_j_Page_127.tif
b1b59c9f4be91a124122a6d9e93a9043
67af3f8617030ffd950aad9f757fd1615e74a025
F20101220_AAAZNU kim_j_Page_107.tif
8ce4f9d71953902237794e3fc212f103
c9c53af615ef671e5f6ddbc070bef48000a68ab8
23614 F20101220_AABAAJ kim_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
399262234194d13c0be197c20d5358b4
79a472aa8db172e4ebba655be0cf2b30795cd7d9
F20101220_AAAZOJ kim_j_Page_128.tif
4b645ff638f13e6346b2158413fc615b
d43737eb27d8e8b4ec5331e1c385c241c247db1f
F20101220_AAAZNV kim_j_Page_108.tif
e4dca0b954a579e9d7f556b99db2fa88
605ae68a9846f146c73caafbfc6dd8c94db550fe
5849 F20101220_AABAAK kim_j_Page_094thm.jpg
f0cc4b5ec7a41a8b768f716ab3869e56
ad0451a88ea5690908ec2f93a4c0c7efaab89294
F20101220_AAAZOK kim_j_Page_130.tif
7a5829e83d17138d344529e511f62af8
4347b65d63b6d4e10694dff8410190b2a6d08e5f
F20101220_AAAZNW kim_j_Page_109.tif
5eef75545b3c1109d01d68f9c6819b2f
3aa18b39e899a1f8d13d57fbcc27309d5fb21750
18257 F20101220_AABABA kim_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
1581e6123c87b809620c9ef241d6bdad
84155710641b6310639cbe3e5cc345e767470a80
23200 F20101220_AABAAL kim_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
f1e5025d7d9c0ca53372ef06d2999ee7
edcf73a995e7045e9f7fd1d1fd4fb1aa153288fd
F20101220_AAAZOL kim_j_Page_133.tif
6825ca8b71ad0f3d5f23f24d69c53a94
9ab23759cec37e4779d4bbbbc1b0274e4895f101
5922 F20101220_AABABB kim_j_Page_139thm.jpg
3edcdfc659beb9b679e4248eff4dcc5d
855ff1a18867ac493d19fd862e7a891471827ccd
6261 F20101220_AABAAM kim_j_Page_078thm.jpg
8b1fea94d25d0f719037cb0308a0354d
84feedbba432424dabd1f9f42f8d404070f2c007
F20101220_AAAZOM kim_j_Page_134.tif
36ff968af535d605dbdd603e42569f59
f19dae9ebd7463303ae52d636186a6d189768608
F20101220_AAAZNX kim_j_Page_110.tif
e03b9a7f95cea4f2602885a008fc7f22
94898ff325cc4eb143f784892447a7a6588c2e96
1247 F20101220_AAAZPA kim_j_Page_002.pro
bd4d569420518f303f2638293297a67f
fb153ab7d0f679e764a5399f965a6c3f557df3f3
9472 F20101220_AABABC kim_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
1ed987258ace13ce08142428b44c9429
5eb476e21aa4114f692c21487ecc2d1baaafd383
20012 F20101220_AABAAN kim_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
9110402c040b6be60f822bb6499abb22
ce7670a8e6d9bfb66ad5d0c76744596160f0737e
F20101220_AAAZON kim_j_Page_136.tif
ca7bcbc3e5aa0ec74ff9ddbf221372c7
90ebc19c2ebaac71794a911dc6f0362a44e58a56
F20101220_AAAZNY kim_j_Page_111.tif
7946df806b2d39c1f20a6834e3fdde9c
6b09ed848d64bff74ffcdd752865902abec47e28
6187 F20101220_AAAZPB kim_j_Page_003.pro
6b941e32d74a186215d18001cfe58924
9e09405652fc1ed6354bce771c068dcc4b19fe4b
6379 F20101220_AABABD kim_j_Page_022thm.jpg
f537cd520013a445ae3532ba404cce45
c6f7d1d388f74d1e5193ef0db23ce20eb6204001
16002 F20101220_AABAAO kim_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
83b4766aafe6aff69f5b68e5e3b89620
4e8b749e5a8ee93a3702118ac6efa85a2d786efa
F20101220_AAAZOO kim_j_Page_137.tif
0c09b5711718d3236a4084ea558a999b
953afb50519343ae958482cc8d12afff98685752
F20101220_AAAZNZ kim_j_Page_112.tif
f5593525ca615d1df599fb69f0bf8f3b
827ac19d8e2e779469f16aadcaa472ef7ec8f2cf
44345 F20101220_AAAZPC kim_j_Page_004.pro
1016e285f4d88775023a654aa43fe198
987e14c2720c076730d4201760e32f4a89a2e51b
4976 F20101220_AABABE kim_j_Page_044thm.jpg
168b2fd2eca8ff7944d5b4741a2e22c2
aeba4c7bb10c10ebdcb4263d3110bbefd28b71da
24760 F20101220_AABAAP kim_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
24262607fae593eb22bfb8d97131bb61
97261a656a9a0a2bc3d7e23f010ef268a930af7e
F20101220_AAAZOP kim_j_Page_139.tif
4603dc31cd6094d573b741fcaf7a65f3
b2f2b0e1cdbf2ade541bc1dfab8f6bbb8841d4f7
86413 F20101220_AAAZPD kim_j_Page_006.pro
1a7966e724a91daaef2058937080b605
79f0ccb0f65847fbc118c2f35e6b6aba050dd33c
5784 F20101220_AABAAQ kim_j_Page_038thm.jpg
2dcb3e3d3161592daf2b1134acb770dc
90670a537b3dc517ed9face65529cb4a23b764fe
F20101220_AAAZOQ kim_j_Page_140.tif
0d6115a143aedf8f8bcadc6a81de5d2b
64b1197374d5b1c5cfe9f148a90c6b88deb22520
89184 F20101220_AAAZPE kim_j_Page_007.pro
0ae388731cac0d081e6267f6ff4f8a16
5ba680289fbad4e25320d83fe493dd890dd57acc
6066 F20101220_AABABF kim_j_Page_051thm.jpg
39633e263f33b4c6a0ffa61013d12ed2
5b789290a29b075773a3a2ef61d7185202bc4b80
6121 F20101220_AABAAR kim_j_Page_056thm.jpg
df6a9693485bdc72bb362b6f918d54d2
150abd7eb87a2b7ae9eaff841a0a63df895891f9
F20101220_AAAZOR kim_j_Page_141.tif
0a4809cb4d9f4dc00577e3fd46ddf5f8
a25c5b81175f51986f953cb237aa26a34a91ed45
14465 F20101220_AAAZPF kim_j_Page_008.pro
87e2d0c65939a34304fe1077bca94e15
bde923fbff574a9166122400d4d3cfbe41f95a94
19384 F20101220_AABABG kim_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
921468dcb4aae0d7e1fdbc01aa8f7f1f
3b998080228cda3e362032682b6c169293f4cc23
9905 F20101220_AABAAS kim_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
85077c9159ed465a361eb58af782979a
b8f0bd63ede8b61188b35795f6103841bb4fbdc6
F20101220_AAAZOS kim_j_Page_142.tif
6e97d5a137ba9a9dfc81b7b86066e4d2
9bc7bbd2d8e4dbb75ace61fc7a4aa6f91cfe66b3
45873 F20101220_AAAZPG kim_j_Page_009.pro
c827e01753eeeb7622c2a7df7f8657f5
391e8c6c1f331ca1985b7ade406a87c78405b6aa
F20101220_AABABH kim_j_Page_010thm.jpg
3f8f7d2f8fad5313913ba28ab71cedc6
44d405e8e4e14b7b549ec33efed58e657f04392c
25546 F20101220_AABAAT kim_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
3e0decde499e1513430cfc4fe17ed618
fa076653e82d33dfeda441c1c7d82add3fec1b15
F20101220_AAAZOT kim_j_Page_143.tif
aa3c27062cd9859188e01aa17f3e920f
aef69d28d03ef3bb23a3c8845ee2f3cb6386b2bf
33052 F20101220_AAAZPH kim_j_Page_010.pro
9a649b08c7f27af3d18661ea2999e376
48cfda1276da089f547708a825605fd51bbf1c7e
5711 F20101220_AABABI kim_j_Page_033thm.jpg
abbe12a403771e05ebd101fc0ff9969a
e0f102ae39482635d69a94f69ce6611ab1c75494
23172 F20101220_AABAAU kim_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
a85e0016982dc9b74878073e336d6975
29fd4804cf873f7304160cabd7a40644aeaa7acb
F20101220_AAAZOU kim_j_Page_144.tif
5972418cd7e65179e0d009bb691dd326
e14faa20481ab65afb9845d63156600a4c2f7264
36521 F20101220_AAAZPI kim_j_Page_011.pro
59eea51e61d757bd1483a500d8b0a1e5
7ee0ca85012bb4b4c3f9ab1c27fea590531ecd3d
18125 F20101220_AABABJ kim_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
a6b0a71aa4e16a2a77ecaf14197986db
31cda99fe832ad1b1459cd6678894f3326788bd4
19230 F20101220_AABAAV kim_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
b73bd45ccc328e831715865a6c08b427
4f75efebf755c63e2a8cf3ab21e8a9da261fc827
F20101220_AAAZOV kim_j_Page_145.tif
b284476a06b2d87d27de9cdeebcf462c
b15f2250f1c887d556829e2974122f104c67c0f3
31394 F20101220_AAAZPJ kim_j_Page_012.pro
c0976b37ce9caab7021b8268b952eaeb
53784ca2b708e30e526d57156e925bc4a61b669f
23106 F20101220_AABABK kim_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
219f7444ffc9acf4a3281b8a8895ab04
8bf09d962e7cd4f7139083fe8b4176b10d264a3e
5714 F20101220_AABAAW kim_j_Page_093thm.jpg
384b6030eea1fefe35dddd809275d8fb
a023054adf41ec5656deaf8976d694d8c5f11a30
F20101220_AAAZOW kim_j_Page_146.tif
81fd5dcbc89b670eff314f2e3f60234d
b8a5122c1120ac3f1c1bee140f4530d19a420cf7
41070 F20101220_AAAZPK kim_j_Page_013.pro
54900af22b5b56de5537a8790ccfe508
6d2feb50490aa8ee753be0b88ac8f9539c8674e2
23797 F20101220_AABACA kim_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
81aaaf9027028f5f6923527b22601e90
3e1b0e87b50745abba5b67cda084d7d64ee6dc85
24859 F20101220_AABABL kim_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
34ee8d4f88c1bcc68c5352d37f77b403
85397250a5a7b6899821274e1d7db56158654d2f
24300 F20101220_AABAAX kim_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
d7fe4424541607184e0f751f634058e4
c3aaf8098f3fc9ecca0e1415cad00eca7c3e72bc
F20101220_AAAZOX kim_j_Page_147.tif
89f827dad1802e540bcb4869e9557af9
4df623f3acffe7b553ab99878aa4b9992d7d77de
47333 F20101220_AAAZPL kim_j_Page_014.pro
e9f5b5be8b639675e9463211a3cb408a
31bc863d8149bc4e7b321ad624c03889c2f8f280
19420 F20101220_AABACB kim_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
65454edeefe515421371b0a534700fef
59d622df58ed57b221680a20283add9e70bae6ed
6167 F20101220_AABABM kim_j_Page_128thm.jpg
2bed47f05d5e68b27eda70df2506378c
0dfd63991280f2185b0b14154adac808c0d224a5
26815 F20101220_AABAAY kim_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
60cf1fb9b6abc90ec3551163ef4c971a
879e532feb15f0b68ea6427c88708f18e9a85dbd
50510 F20101220_AAAZQA kim_j_Page_031.pro
c718f10e7a641ce5f5fe50a52e3c8859
1497cbe99814849c28f79bae6711bcb8d2d7e512
55538 F20101220_AAAZPM kim_j_Page_015.pro
ece6953245cd285fd9dc2ce6b607b1d4
fd79fc24bd84f533e72d3c2e41668f3500e73e2d
22566 F20101220_AABACC kim_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
b350cc18d0e75ccee6f51324ffa30a09
fb307d28684d03620273a5ef9d73a8e5cfaf9b65
5445 F20101220_AABABN kim_j_Page_111thm.jpg
8a4cffab87795773995955b371238ac2
ca1af87c34472b210ec5d542de09870335bb5aba
19990 F20101220_AABAAZ kim_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
7f377eb9f4f412c9eb36e45425d899aa
bf2c92dc131c0b2294b80ac92600151dda3034dd
F20101220_AAAZOY kim_j_Page_148.tif
40b5473923a0a1a3cd5ed07a62b207f4
be4c729b58aec99480cfd93f7f25a282cabd2cfb
47063 F20101220_AAAZQB kim_j_Page_032.pro
4b9fd5bdf35e8712d3f3489273eb5ff6
a890df792286dffb4596dfa88515cb5e4c22e81a
47897 F20101220_AAAZPN kim_j_Page_017.pro
8aa9f9ea38b9df6d68dfca8590f1a508
acd2337e5ac668396dec1d4529260b7784d40397
6213 F20101220_AABACD kim_j_Page_081thm.jpg
58eea025a8ccb3fe201be432c78780a8
0ac830aa5e2dfd9727d2009c6a68c2a353527c8b
6215 F20101220_AABABO kim_j_Page_028thm.jpg
3db0713abd4bd74316b623326207163b
bbfc36cd0ee8c288c0aa0ab902f3339e24302dd5
8733 F20101220_AAAZOZ kim_j_Page_001.pro
8f16dac36c334d32fd8e15b378fa538f
5ad3ac1ba6cc3aecabc865c24e360c95db5945f0
45356 F20101220_AAAZQC kim_j_Page_033.pro
1ee7ce97d4f809b61eeceb9433332f3a
3f7b087e3935a1734a6cd02e20f1a0b07ed94056
49103 F20101220_AAAZPO kim_j_Page_018.pro
63d27f43a045c75eb990bd035de0305b
e29cb8f44f22f7977f4ede429f4564a53ca8c303
20560 F20101220_AABACE kim_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
a589a872b834ac750832450f1d511c56
a16d97bbdca89329b2ca7daf85d48f0fb7d9bc00
18483 F20101220_AABABP kim_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
c1abcb40ee65b09e9a52c63e204375e0
d2c8c4e4e8e17510e251e9fc8a26e5ad66e21c8a
50626 F20101220_AAAZQD kim_j_Page_034.pro
bb2ff220b5f5535f6d8a1627546a1ea8
2be99a21fa85481e97313a2ab86ca87021bad7b3
44572 F20101220_AAAZPP kim_j_Page_020.pro
325e0fd0f472f6530e02d82d678910ef
76bdede6e180cdd02e6d167d278cfa9d5b3306e6
23710 F20101220_AABACF kim_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
ada482aeea4a96189abb26a1d5d23848
ee2cdc77d6934271804af1e84847d2ca3d0509dd
1201 F20101220_AABABQ kim_j_Page_053thm.jpg
a523cb9472af808253566ab7d70fb2e5
7d12cdf0ca455d76151e00f0f11f1c64d8dead37
49789 F20101220_AAAZQE kim_j_Page_035.pro
edfa0f73c981c2a1a222d28f0a2092b4
fc095845d5630f81db1cdf19f5753e42597b8534
44287 F20101220_AAAZPQ kim_j_Page_021.pro
f1729179ba952b14f7c580bb104ed577
233819d3069fc12be8c617303d1cc7bf31b2292b
6117 F20101220_AABABR kim_j_Page_107thm.jpg
5d85a388cf153d8d3932240a07de668d
748dc4fd5ef6a8f92fef5c41f3e6160f4c07768f
54903 F20101220_AAAZQF kim_j_Page_036.pro
531bd85bc2a51ae961c45ffb41adc871
000bc73ed11761233dec632bd375560bc0cbd0ed
50277 F20101220_AAAZPR kim_j_Page_022.pro
cda46824523f8eeb603a66921d5ef272
62891a9ec7fdbd34d320e41a17e6888054b71806
6604 F20101220_AABACG kim_j_Page_146thm.jpg
89e530a3fd76e59e2353d534ec0e173d
c990cf2ed5f3785dcbdef483a08eb53c4d631057
5776 F20101220_AABABS kim_j_Page_048thm.jpg
28aed5500f3d90b6a1f305d8115f17e8
14e8d8718ce95e4efa87312452e80497e4412ba7
50170 F20101220_AAAZQG kim_j_Page_037.pro
5b893cf243861847f9a99164b16e0316
b9978a3f1996999e89a7b78d2d51bdbc50e14f5c
47994 F20101220_AAAZPS kim_j_Page_023.pro
39e7e6854df8bee8574a12c0b2862882
ea429811cc8f6bac3f68c9d895f95fe25ccba951
24243 F20101220_AABACH kim_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
b09f7ab4237bbe39c63673e42fe65190
c6c39428362c8a855e5eef22399e152fdd5d4abe
6742 F20101220_AABABT kim_j_Page_141thm.jpg
bfb719e801e26eccc9b2d9679a2106b9
3bded48aa217b284ed9aa9acaedc2cda12638282
63254 F20101220_AAAZQH kim_j_Page_038.pro
9398bbc251c2a6c54bdfaddb065aa96d
06f25edcb9ebfb103436ff2e959abaf395d68c2a
52455 F20101220_AAAZPT kim_j_Page_024.pro
60b8a0631d74d82322439d205a6cf92c
1d71041f6d029e054674e9e201a2c7cd94e61e23
24159 F20101220_AABACI kim_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
4f20587880d3b4028436cbc7642d20d5
a1241d54c6f6d9187efd79250291529a22dbdb24
6905 F20101220_AABABU kim_j_Page_133thm.jpg
82733704133333394c343be1cecdaa37
cb6ffe7594a60a4daa3cbf821c9b1bb8e9c4e3b3
48111 F20101220_AAAZQI kim_j_Page_040.pro
f3ba58931d4fea78933428b31df0acb5
3ad31894a25c0f49e4df4963901c9f4035811c2b
45038 F20101220_AAAZPU kim_j_Page_025.pro
90d62805ddca7fe2ece2e01a6efd38d5
bfa8ad14aa3d7c48bbcf249d114f1f06c1d19577
25961 F20101220_AABACJ kim_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
e770c80eb1d048f0c63c25e80b8be0fb
5541d696ab8791b968571bfd114a37caaa814a82
24098 F20101220_AABABV kim_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
98ff04f3a3f2fa98a49d54aa9e8eda8c
38017d7b186b696c75adca2d6c42f8ecf6586edb
48252 F20101220_AAAZQJ kim_j_Page_041.pro
22d4cab425cc343da9d74b4e1765fbd3
704d8bf0367ec5477975cca74a6847474059a575
44669 F20101220_AAAZPV kim_j_Page_026.pro
6e7334e8753e025b7bab950cf59548fd
0d5bdc9b6cfd48500af2c5bb134732567ff524d9
3997 F20101220_AABACK kim_j_Page_062thm.jpg
27c454300069996ceef50cb8605fb167
17bd1f839cbfc6fb8e757b55b4b67de5b799a2f8
5829 F20101220_AABABW kim_j_Page_027thm.jpg
c06b1f67b82110c46c75159c58c8ef9b
7d64899c0d21fa0178d33f0470b85d8a66fe5ccc
45977 F20101220_AAAZQK kim_j_Page_042.pro
73ffdecd928c941b1c9055281364098d
ca565a6b8927e6ebc4b95c984b7cbc513b12b8c3
45991 F20101220_AAAZPW kim_j_Page_027.pro
2a2de9a79dd5d619dc5b3269e7153991
eb6d16ccd578bf537fa3434f2631c1213507a922
6446 F20101220_AABADA kim_j_Page_142thm.jpg
48f56680a02d4c615bbddd40aa998ebb
d56e5d8e41d64d8163f42fb10ca26e56d4ab9bcf
24515 F20101220_AABACL kim_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
237b2aec0d7dbcbc130c026d29ab2e20
3f9388d62599e688469a4dd7afa68a9496f602fa
5351 F20101220_AABABX kim_j_Page_113thm.jpg
76ce9144723d2fbc06327b9d69f4482c
cae0775bb1981f6eb0a898b45759fdcacb111657
16313 F20101220_AAAZQL kim_j_Page_043.pro
f938949a1a1cfe42c1b0b2e9763d86a2
fe350c2d1ac1b1e1f5e7645c71825f6a22fcbc0e
50487 F20101220_AAAZPX kim_j_Page_028.pro
4fdf19367286c1bc4b7444d05aafa1c8
d10ed1c7abbaab23d39dda5289f081971cebccbf
22924 F20101220_AABADB kim_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
cf336ed111eea737a223cbf6ace1121c
2429adfdbe6367bbfbfd6060aebfb38d7e3a9590
22293 F20101220_AABACM kim_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
30dba3e65df37156b6028efaa4bb0fe2
a1b5d329e2572536462960be601c64072e68845f
23203 F20101220_AABABY kim_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
dddbd03b7dbef28ee5a98a5c3e8c2544
39697bb920b21465637c94e4dd8a0f42eb29c692
28179 F20101220_AAAZRA kim_j_Page_060.pro
e421a7c01b157d12a58764da889f6c37
b3cdddbfd0fc0db07dc3aec09f7118979edb893d
37170 F20101220_AAAZQM kim_j_Page_044.pro
dddae48116bbbd7e6e4733d5d8be3321
9e3131d72ad9c7c6ce75427db81a82012ff47c01
47563 F20101220_AAAZPY kim_j_Page_029.pro
2e954632bbe148e15315936a68f25893
6d46c78e58dcba9195252f9b56d56339196f0315
6286 F20101220_AABADC kim_j_Page_037thm.jpg
b5e7ba4eb08b5061137569d5807fa3f2
c6f0208503718d4a61b76a42ef64b63182e6c81f
5778 F20101220_AABACN kim_j_Page_064thm.jpg
6b9f9943955e9425775179a8bd1bee6a
8e9aae223f1297a22db406d30ea15ddb9b9f1c01
5290 F20101220_AABABZ kim_j_Page_055thm.jpg
5d8f3db23ed192fd7a515490dd8b82d9
cb2cfd26e948a2bb2ab01468a1e077abd1ac5188
27302 F20101220_AAAZRB kim_j_Page_061.pro
393299e25e8501b7b53a9e8f45df67eb
8980d5bd2bf4967c3d51459d8328148c1d6dbe99
50174 F20101220_AAAZQN kim_j_Page_045.pro
1a72a087d3db225a2b01cf6ca99316f2
891e58aed4185a4617f672b9a08d001885fdb277
6254 F20101220_AABADD kim_j_Page_018thm.jpg
28e58ab9849a236230d6bc1312053235
725eda7494e96bd29d414e04db46a11fdf3be9c1
6157 F20101220_AABACO kim_j_Page_040thm.jpg
e0490ebef9152b618c5b9f0d8805a90d
bec79c1cf369c24d778568426f93812647b228b9
25484 F20101220_AAAZRC kim_j_Page_062.pro
ba59545f043cd4bfbc776dc9c1417d3c
ee79c3bb1b01964084caa93543a947a4e4d649c4
42793 F20101220_AAAZQO kim_j_Page_046.pro
c108c44b4f4540a278fdb5a4ef1eca48
7dab27d8285843992ff57fa668980868c8bc1965
49551 F20101220_AAAZPZ kim_j_Page_030.pro
a730065f12dd58bebf519adbe1fd1579
0fbb2d9e0d73a755e77369778d1e6468246effd5
6007 F20101220_AABADE kim_j_Page_080thm.jpg
30d4d9defd2517d1e9f7b851ea3704c5
665aa4d75b59d7bb5ed230c9154b22b4fb1c449e
5737 F20101220_AABACP kim_j_Page_105thm.jpg
9200daa9cd4c7d34bb18cecdac80b27f
2efbfefe21aab0f394daf59083ab82103ae14d45
39905 F20101220_AAAZRD kim_j_Page_063.pro
7fd25678ef1811a5d063de19db2881e5
756213eadf1462e4920ca2f27493be3acced1d8e
54745 F20101220_AAAZQP kim_j_Page_047.pro
4e8ceb9cc1921f045c5758e679413140
0f6150379513b45b25c917033a9bc75508ae46d8
24394 F20101220_AABADF kim_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
6f95dcfd0d5aad192108bac0599cf0dc
259d273ce9d1fe5c2653719f106ce8cc43582ae2
27797 F20101220_AABACQ kim_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
8f9a4df49f488cf9769f146de5dae4d9
60f00256b7e4d886f6e72c7217c9ff8a4d0d1bd3
42337 F20101220_AAAZRE kim_j_Page_064.pro
e3d838124172d308d8f152dff8c6adc1
fa3da8a33e221476b6036ce74ac859ab153126d2
40864 F20101220_AAAZQQ kim_j_Page_048.pro
b0a17913f10698d8ba9a5c259494ca25
f1cf61f26842627a76ca746f5099f4c8e16d55be
24218 F20101220_AABADG kim_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
b03ba5cc4064c71a011fc6091a677334
1530b97e50d7b13a84d07b62a0f0e155e08a65a2
540 F20101220_AABACR kim_j_Page_002thm.jpg
1c4594a2973bed019fa2f4380514cfaa
9bd4fe20da2afd0be50334ba5990171e912b0e03
47837 F20101220_AAAZRF kim_j_Page_065.pro
e8879e743d09752d980ae68dc432c6b5
2a1175a2b0b3c2ffd4b9d2a89baaf5daf89dd7e2
46597 F20101220_AAAZQR kim_j_Page_049.pro
ae034045c0615662c758b014943875b0
144d67997f5c78034a79ca8e1ff4ef7231534aa0
6134 F20101220_AABACS kim_j_Page_085thm.jpg
be9a25e96bd5c9d5f9dec3a805bf600f
352361643a22bae95d63f94273e6f61339ebebd3
50513 F20101220_AAAZQS kim_j_Page_050.pro
6c6272819b5f969fade03c162a4f70c3
84d4ffb380a3298a92868701fe3b5672f48c53b5
37860 F20101220_AAAZRG kim_j_Page_067.pro
13e094108e5853bd0db46559e8d38705
2a86e2091a5ea7b083e5750d44def41aa84aa6c9
5375 F20101220_AABADH kim_j_Page_115thm.jpg
de2812d51aaee3d5e648153f6d9df212
72607b04b9ba9e4630a73c86b97522cdf85e1ff0
6156 F20101220_AABACT kim_j_Page_122thm.jpg
a958f77cdc8c3c6350909a300f7ad041
391ca518b5ad3d09a8bcc98571bc41a78168a1da
61496 F20101220_AAAZQT kim_j_Page_051.pro
72af4d4dc4ae236c203a74495e57b726
d24e425886d994cd01de40c206ed9daa743df91a
48404 F20101220_AAAZRH kim_j_Page_068.pro
6a35ae9d75dc5f50e7f3137b09d03555
77a62aa0ec61269b95fab4bde06e4f62898ebad4
24163 F20101220_AABADI kim_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
e030170426b0bce799805dceaffbb779
e9006b2b5aa4de1f51088b93c04b96ef4b5068b3
5937 F20101220_AABACU kim_j_Page_106thm.jpg
ac4b25ebbf5cc566ca61ceb8594e6511
836da12289b2b6d16b2654b193da544e344c1c78
6160 F20101220_AAAZQU kim_j_Page_053.pro
2e06d35306893633caaddf9da6eacb89
36aedf76c578a334edf80b6f42153c9f6c287ff0
23287 F20101220_AAAZRI kim_j_Page_069.pro
fbcc01f75192daa4f82b5fa8bef9137f
934cb6210e722b1aa44049e72791bd0a96631d7e
6277 F20101220_AABADJ kim_j_Page_123thm.jpg
769cf7c5e1b4434a5fc3c4a49d30c665
47ddba7591e4cf4d2788cce35f282b9fd032060e
27438 F20101220_AABACV kim_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
965d68a43fdd9def8cbfca7030d75e4d
a9045e280ec4fe19931a6671a3a779bb39435373
40841 F20101220_AAAZQV kim_j_Page_054.pro
efa23bd265d943092032913bfabab342
33d09805874c8ba85498ee00d6f937937ab79c12
71795 F20101220_AAAZRJ kim_j_Page_070.pro
330266741e2883a52972c3dd67eca6b0
b52ea7b9795bbb20f6253c342444d61f7855127c
25624 F20101220_AABADK kim_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
574ca3618ef3c81a48c8a77644d3b023
3c965c6da66a77a804b2dc72525d3355f8854f0b
5235 F20101220_AABACW kim_j_Page_072thm.jpg
7e31a59fb769eb5738eeb00843038039
6c43212e7c95128867781c20170dbf2e12c3157a
45826 F20101220_AAAZQW kim_j_Page_055.pro
56fe2b39c57e6a6b83aa282390edf195
8ec8330e4ede6a8dae40d2bb6034215bb47ac7aa
17259 F20101220_AAAZRK kim_j_Page_071.pro
5675e0523932fb8b73f0bbe49734f621
8a711d7208c1d09394e72af9f1011738ccf80d4b
6031 F20101220_AABAEA kim_j_Page_021thm.jpg
771cb4b51b93595493501121716bc339
1a5466fc1c7e3f3b1120673fb956a0f50828a584
4960 F20101220_AABADL kim_j_Page_006thm.jpg
a688593fe45909e7ff67d91e88ed6b70
65c180e955b58ce87c13f08cc4af4c417fce9f7f
F20101220_AABACX kim_j_Page_100thm.jpg
39a711fd9396e31c2f80a2a89b034ec0
1ac470760671d5440a93926eba65fbedbd6161ae
39101 F20101220_AAAZQX kim_j_Page_057.pro
fbaf0e511cd8ad0637c660e6baa34968
c2a367f32273c8f510104fbfc00de0612a808474
37864 F20101220_AAAZRL kim_j_Page_072.pro
52a34db9eddb1ba025a3908134376b28
0f63f8abc1ee8d90dfae8fac7e22c380ce901bbe
6203 F20101220_AABAEB kim_j_Page_116thm.jpg
68d5457f78be54cfe8cc9e59c36470db
4d65dedc81d349a66ddfc191315def57c8ecf80b
25148 F20101220_AABADM kim_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
07a9260570931cc93d87093c60276bf4
3172d0aed4ae94e8c2cc6e10f58e635de7fe5fe5
7372 F20101220_AABACY kim_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
d0a42065c5f0e781934322caa78f05a3
42b77e8a12c5c1535431b371f5641ba961642a87
35118 F20101220_AAAZQY kim_j_Page_058.pro
9cc5d2019de352cad2cbe104fda70ff0
627c2e02700de10ca17efc318a558a92b9b68016
33718 F20101220_AAAZSA kim_j_Page_091.pro
3cb6818337b73576e70567865d6b979d
23a3d6b19a827940c84eec6a014c754ccdc714ca
48695 F20101220_AAAZRM kim_j_Page_074.pro
8a42b7caab174e5c5d77ed45119b4814
56e074907a4339c9df7b05634ad8b6910a756e8b
3334 F20101220_AABAEC kim_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
1fb2f296ec1b7ef303ee93f5da4551d3
f0926bba93192c26636a62eeeb0f760b6f6032d5
22884 F20101220_AABADN kim_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
05fa4b5ae7a4a57ac57e5e063928691a
7b4c5de357bf11e1804466ba63ea57235a96aa71
20461 F20101220_AABACZ kim_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
15b58243059cf59ea89d21754bc86fe7
d263d03ed91dd70d6711335b3697761e98cd2120
32129 F20101220_AAAZQZ kim_j_Page_059.pro
b73930c0c53bffc4b341d5074abc7e75
5e68a01b3fa61c905f8a6e4be4d2105e07f4a0e0
41801 F20101220_AAAZSB kim_j_Page_092.pro
b6773c2f4b96678e6f36a30dd905c661
47de83d0446b8bb72654fc69246814eb3fd9d9f7
49771 F20101220_AAAZRN kim_j_Page_075.pro
60915dbbedbf88529e8255a98e9da669
731acc91bad5e3eee96eb386e384520e73f32a43
20791 F20101220_AABAED kim_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
6445849655d28564d99a248955545654
6765a4a85a000a1dfd5d08847f43b5f1c18a38a5
25214 F20101220_AABADO kim_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
1abe69d80fbe17268fdcb3376129497b
a699aa985e4c3776204e6a4ea2920aabbd1ae05a
42302 F20101220_AAAZSC kim_j_Page_093.pro
f1fcd20b1d92e3a186eccfb1ea89e604
0785534742574b614d8fd99e722f5fef86e598de
45749 F20101220_AAAZRO kim_j_Page_076.pro
d07d8ecddda8d2809e90b6103739e920
5e93e2f3924fa0e8afe00f1606d66ba88ff08485
25101 F20101220_AABAEE kim_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
450dce787c611348985eda722dfc73f9
545f80a1ecd81fbba385931a782bf6b79baca615
25841 F20101220_AABADP kim_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
9a198d81269dc7197ade6604c63d8dab
7a4049dd37850c6b2d3c50a628ea61d3f9e6a4b1
44476 F20101220_AAAZSD kim_j_Page_094.pro
c0231551e50509a01f9773fea2d6ead5
f0066e6ddb46e77f10f604bb4a96c18c6554a253
48289 F20101220_AAAZRP kim_j_Page_077.pro
807ff5dd55a886cf921ea04f02e56254
5628143a64ca30ed6fed316248b8508634e5b05c
25161 F20101220_AABAEF kim_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
166461f077750540e3441c27b8594c5e
3e6750edc7d5de1f2a785a1da1dc9bb471222570
25765 F20101220_AABADQ kim_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
577a2f1134fef3f8ed0cd8365d4dd8d7
16648e86b406b788a85c3a79710c75eeb9dfbc0d
45581 F20101220_AAAZSE kim_j_Page_095.pro
82cb602c3244813d5b94a3a77b595143
3fdd995eed9647eb1e7e2a26756a10670080d74a
50028 F20101220_AAAZRQ kim_j_Page_078.pro
02329c6731aec8decd8cda875681afcc
3e53649f6608d3a30a8f266660e43bafbb2242c6
6390 F20101220_AABAEG kim_j_Page_070thm.jpg
269397f7de41c08503fee37c6ec5418e
3d46799f42863bfb3e9a04d87d89a236ed0b5210
6208 F20101220_AABADR kim_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
acd6df08b954400a4e26212744a84ce2
05d626ec7c6a2d1d3507685ad56dc13eb897f822
48468 F20101220_AAAZSF kim_j_Page_096.pro
6e12b510aec574f301e903bb97f53194
a8bef88ac19e10df6fac8c9719af129504917774
45130 F20101220_AAAZRR kim_j_Page_079.pro
515e904e1872f686f2e2a45700bda374
38fbc4389cce323c9c4af7ac07d228ec74af7606
6122 F20101220_AABAEH kim_j_Page_050thm.jpg
8fbb353dc429c22c59aa14b4ee491b9f
18261bf3e7f73d5b6315cd26274b1b343ef18cde
25397 F20101220_AABADS kim_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
3e69f02c167260da2a6cc0ba77f156f0
485c84590092c1ce93c25ae41a3d994543b85305
38038 F20101220_AAAZSG kim_j_Page_097.pro
ed4ba4c1d00085bca3215ff63debcea1
73954ce9d53a999a148b38e6f707fcacc06db6ae
57253 F20101220_AAAZRS kim_j_Page_080.pro
818e1cacb545dc1e71f0c9075a750161
cbc93c85219cd5e46889c5da6bf459ee83eb3347
6817 F20101220_AABADT kim_j_Page_129thm.jpg
b5870fef95ea81ef95a6e7c3a4a44c51
e6965ed4b1dfed69e62dba55531b0de1af6752d5
40124 F20101220_AAAZSH kim_j_Page_098.pro
d0f06be06ddb7f16bfa314d016028289
4fabc7623068d39292716afc7bf61675dd898599
47015 F20101220_AAAZRT kim_j_Page_081.pro
40f7ddde76e22729984e6d08f48ebc28
4c94d857ebf2ef4fa0591a4452a23327ea7a7c7e
5274 F20101220_AABAEI kim_j_Page_117thm.jpg
d425994b54ce2ad5b9e803263e82c530
0cea7476f8196017a50e27b0640cc452ebe804ef
23733 F20101220_AABADU kim_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
1d035c45dbb937c9c200cae5e20c7805
5c210361cd007fd2837b1d0fdd85dc257d34147e
32672 F20101220_AAAZSI kim_j_Page_099.pro
86770c7b3903f658ce076310ef371d1e
52e36a619c5484281dd723b1992ef5f4b1807672
50378 F20101220_AAAZRU kim_j_Page_082.pro
43bbe323f5452a1a1ebb8bc1c09d9dbc
85a215a3600ce58c1673e4919ff453dec41f8290
5857 F20101220_AABAEJ kim_j_Page_042thm.jpg
6483cb0a63d711948c0efac70cc434de
b32f10cb0a3df4ea645a90121b6ec329c5d264cc
23656 F20101220_AABADV kim_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
677952ed19e0356fef2b626a54fc57ab
2b25bc621c545490f9fc65e0415882139092572d
48539 F20101220_AAAZSJ kim_j_Page_101.pro
7d3e69acf5ab2cf0f8b49c6b5ec33573
2d22ac7bac4063268b046bc2b06f80468db6587d
50713 F20101220_AAAZRV kim_j_Page_083.pro
ef17e2da8ed5919e3b7ed2f4ce31a651
f8ef20441d60a00ca4920dbe62f8984f5e527f35
1312 F20101220_AABAEK kim_j_Page_138thm.jpg
4e75cc793158d3cb5e6349f5584834ba
1fbb08873d55eac1f798857f96df0182986a4731
6425 F20101220_AABADW kim_j_Page_137thm.jpg
7dc5b4d99ae799bc96d723b3bb5c05e2
2c37e5d12c565b158c21a40e799a49f32ff8c723
47197 F20101220_AAAZSK kim_j_Page_102.pro
68fdee25adebbcc8d9a37061af6f4bd9
e28d7356c6deb7ddc60e145796f58545b271284d
44129 F20101220_AAAZRW kim_j_Page_084.pro
afe372a4746ce5a75298c0e9536ac505
43a5c176dd979bee9b165f94788b46c798dccce7
15319 F20101220_AABAFA kim_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
6390462bdd2348c1830d6859c8308c9f
021ad577c5818c49faa6950c1cf7c78bf0b0801c
6326 F20101220_AABAEL kim_j_Page_034thm.jpg
2056200235132d65626a4647b9310ac8
8f3562c384590ff76f260859a8675ecc2b6e7fb7
19307 F20101220_AABADX kim_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
9d2d2a15672307d69232dfb4bc69ae83
998d26e8838002640ed404f38d0d78a4be9ea38a
41299 F20101220_AAAZSL kim_j_Page_103.pro
a9f593ac939a146e37ad2e503fe9db26
acb0c401ebe3e011aad9d857dc7f1777b41dd88b
45491 F20101220_AAAZRX kim_j_Page_087.pro
c652a5dcd00cd926ee32f2cdf531a248
71f80dbd30b1cca99c3d00b8c2f81deac35480df
4969 F20101220_AABAFB kim_j_Page_057thm.jpg
28ac7b8b170e8196870a363ad9474126
f5a1a2fe9b4873fffa102f5aa174fd021f9381ef
25677 F20101220_AABAEM kim_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
f13cc00f267dc3eb0f407b3e8610647b
2a7d0e2c00b5e08cc43787c56204d9a687606d6c
6126 F20101220_AABADY kim_j_Page_082thm.jpg
ca28bbb8a534a8d2c2c8065ff5264224
f5cff745b6b0bc02c0ccd3fd548de0e2f5e5cf18
57495 F20101220_AAAZTA kim_j_Page_121.pro
3163f70674bae967f675bf34b817609c
22cfec700828ecd589719dbc31eada77716abc2a
27998 F20101220_AAAZSM kim_j_Page_104.pro
0b66ed08c3ea8d7d79e4bd26bed155c1
688c5f2f2a032525b1b8bbbcd940e9e356fc7a17
45608 F20101220_AAAZRY kim_j_Page_088.pro
0daafce0169542e11e04cb7cc3e07cd1
9a60bb45ea5e2f52b667df07efdd1fe1b9450b9f
24184 F20101220_AABAFC kim_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
578a87d57aa7e7e07e4df01cec10e06c
82d5f51aa1f9a27ceb555e3642e117d2390828cb
25312 F20101220_AABAEN kim_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
e3b3c026a78e5b4a09322b98b2a58d87
2bb0dc4dadde652b87322c74a6797fffa07aaf1e
20336 F20101220_AABADZ kim_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
82429aa56108c3ee8f9f238d142a484a
9ebf519b2419ce5a25f51df277aabb734d55c973
58043 F20101220_AAAZTB kim_j_Page_123.pro
7c57b9d7758bfdd617a5ec9dfaba39ce
3f748a6517d540413a1a0678443e560f3a942a1d
36159 F20101220_AAAZSN kim_j_Page_105.pro
731e8e4028af0bb9a70f7f7fdb3ab3d7
bc1a59af8c07a78fdea77192fde971c3423cc39b
51140 F20101220_AAAZRZ kim_j_Page_089.pro
053787b89692c80df5a48e325f431832
d127ea720304374ec467727fcb44b9e8efba3cc3
5712 F20101220_AABAFD kim_j_Page_086thm.jpg
965fb39541004331e3d6246c6c6e1179
efb7b4013ea369570816ed6e07391fb06f33ab8c
14753 F20101220_AABAEO kim_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
c82ead0cdf8d1895e111f0c6740a66ee
ef06581cf3a74af0bc853c58d5aefd0808877ff6
65050 F20101220_AAAZTC kim_j_Page_124.pro
de6dbc7ed65b510acbddc22c86140e35
1b65772c4dab0e4b74852f1e58dc8ada696955f0
48327 F20101220_AAAZSO kim_j_Page_106.pro
6f5b284f8eb3b49de3ca36e2fcb3dcdc
27712b4cec7a69fa2d54e5a6e817fff2f515adba
6092 F20101220_AABAFE kim_j_Page_101thm.jpg
1aed48d4e8bfaeba73770c07862a5839
577f1ac5fae1cfa1c7d81fe3bedcd0ced5a59988
4344 F20101220_AABAEP kim_j_Page_012thm.jpg
0ef70129edc1b8195e201109cdcbad38
810b4b675c8a8e90cfe5e20e8da1476dbc268686
55349 F20101220_AAAZTD kim_j_Page_125.pro
901c736812faccef98c05f9ce922e332
3bf3f7375f10e222dd4fe46e1eae40bc55f386f3
46954 F20101220_AAAZSP kim_j_Page_107.pro
f31591378f4346d0c24d9e0cfcfb3eb0
6f46af5fdcd186186bdcde89888bdc8fa88cf01a
5045 F20101220_AABAFF kim_j_Page_147thm.jpg
caeb4dc18b103b58bdafa432763ef049
f954afb2846b249b2a844252a6cef18d111fd58e
6146 F20101220_AABAEQ kim_j_Page_102thm.jpg
1d48649e50a7a5acbc3753152a9393b0
fc7c7a70a60e2872cd675f2116da85e5584a3a8d
64996 F20101220_AAAZTE kim_j_Page_126.pro
af3846e7e48988fd1a3a43a28f401210
34c3571bcb5ee16ea1f307b68a884065d4a49eb0
16230 F20101220_AAAZSQ kim_j_Page_108.pro
c3d79c334e0ae0c50532e00f94ef73ef
2ae8cc068fafca55b2a36235cded713b1d858a4a
24298 F20101220_AABAFG kim_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
31281d6fc1000e5c08cab117ec53b591
b6f27f9be52e2509ae4df96cbe11f3fd7bae24c8
6305 F20101220_AABAER kim_j_Page_017thm.jpg
d3a49611cf37bbf0059ec1190a0900ef
190dfc4557cdc65cb5655a58fbdcd7f9a0c4b13a
88021 F20101220_AAAZTF kim_j_Page_127.pro
098d60f0b270081e400c2d54525e565d
d3cd8b72b173b05f7f518e433de8c97bbafbc83d
1232 F20101220_AAAZSR kim_j_Page_109.pro
932aee8f532825669ee5fcf430977e24
501426560ec8daa43ddbf0da0517d124d5722851
24176 F20101220_AABAFH kim_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
4155e248065433677df34cffb7341c65
d24833457090c75b72a0ef4c400eaaa55486764f
4564 F20101220_AABAES kim_j_Page_058thm.jpg
4f166d700a569c7198cf6f7f4b31858d
eabbc960f739a1d822b83eb4c2768f1d68f5f2b4
64916 F20101220_AAAZTG kim_j_Page_128.pro
7e7dc1afeadad8edfd2371f4d9f6d0cc
72ed762c63d2a10c378c7350377cf2af67f5bade
64182 F20101220_AAAZSS kim_j_Page_110.pro
83e387b3f4388ac32a1d29b61e4b8143
be92015b7232e0ae650f1eb967728c08ef9d1f1e
5329 F20101220_AABAFI kim_j_Page_103thm.jpg
0e98336aa039a143e70ee704fc469ff8
5bc1878ef0ff37b60e0befb3a0024764db1ab9f3
5470 F20101220_AABAET kim_j_Page_097thm.jpg
46e34bee8228adb9cae29a3b565c6e55
5ec164333ff9db5b1e0ac33e852bc328b61b9594
85812 F20101220_AAAZTH kim_j_Page_129.pro
1518d0ea49d94cd0ef5fcf765ba322b2
6bbef814af6d6233ebaafdd94b18e1dccf36a5f4
43331 F20101220_AAAZST kim_j_Page_111.pro
d006edb080233d6d2a891422f9ad65da
964f070b6f784e4eeb52d044a472af5081df5dac
23085 F20101220_AABAEU kim_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
1a791f14c54d9aa45f734ea68a116963
cacb7c4f29ee03cdf77840babd3bb4d566ca0943
F20101220_AAAZTI kim_j_Page_130.pro
f63d87a80e98e05952176faa6e28c45b
fb341c0297eabb6d9060b0db83120dcc4f27fc51
41408 F20101220_AAAZSU kim_j_Page_113.pro
f5a4a01f8ad939b4692aac0f94a0fd37
50e74296e3bc5c4afe4255c96c0c41d5a0407bff
24520 F20101220_AABAFJ kim_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
fc5ab6e3c5d21e4798c3e33acf6ef4f4
aa8d7137b08ab4cecda468581953934d954f8f27
4623 F20101220_AABAEV kim_j_Page_011thm.jpg
a6daad9f3b3369072c43ac4e0c050ac9
ab0d64fb626df1d297a3e6627c19891f841b69a5
86023 F20101220_AAAZTJ kim_j_Page_131.pro
43e4b41a933c06318bd6c92a9afc9484
b20d280e03ba2cb5ddb5affdc76f57b3221a9b28
64632 F20101220_AAAZSV kim_j_Page_114.pro
6b1a4da6ab7d63a10670871336073175
3414791819a1b7536a8db7caf2f7ce14045cb8f6
23230 F20101220_AABAFK kim_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
5d6fd6b0e97b06d9f2904dd40b7d5e3b
aa913e55f1f5ecc1b01ff6af7a6eae5d78a6e9b1
18280 F20101220_AABAEW kim_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
756a4d3528335c83b7d16a4f043ee044
b1fc5eec20b12c62fce2af20f1b746e45cc70fa7
64914 F20101220_AAAZTK kim_j_Page_132.pro
b3421b0d45957de7f5b8df9ce431bc71
324b4c6d3bf0f79c49423e86a126e4cec4237482
39262 F20101220_AAAZSW kim_j_Page_117.pro
89dec5bab45c3652d8ac0eaddecbd21a
dfc6d3a38bd0a003bc80fe383b911f81d291217d
24219 F20101220_AABAGA kim_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
b264ee8c0577ac424599871e03cd67dc
963fea0abdc04664ff05bf1de7966ede79e813d8
4391 F20101220_AABAFL kim_j_Page_061thm.jpg
3cc6731e828ef7173ae198d8f1e20d58
a249ef24216cb052d3ab0ec3c3e1bfe50ffd8cf9
24670 F20101220_AABAEX kim_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
458a6e8998cf0354caacc97121bc45ec
98d9fdea2fc8ef92c70bbecf3b2e999523991558
83181 F20101220_AAAZTL kim_j_Page_133.pro
494ae205823ba776d060e0fa22730f02
927187a56a1d9a9633d98a8db167d7ea19a83041
65028 F20101220_AAAZSX kim_j_Page_118.pro
8d95cd26e7c32623c3ca6b5e16628935
7646452d44db498d57e0e6a9f3ec0bfdc75e25aa
5832 F20101220_AABAGB kim_j_Page_092thm.jpg
00efc14e3eed274ae2e4b812402e9351
c5078a3637e9cbbe705d854502ec55ca335d64c5
5993 F20101220_AABAFM kim_j_Page_039thm.jpg
5d612916718f5801986dc8a49e4c6d8d
492d4dcf06859e9981021d4e7cb205620cdc89c3
6037 F20101220_AABAEY kim_j_Page_015thm.jpg
a9dc2ba4e10c8d26265cf0ecfe6a0bc6
b597964c1417f7e01616d7cee76330f654911437
842 F20101220_AAAZTM kim_j_Page_134.pro
482eef585c8a91301cab50886f612d36
f6756334bfd2fe4947aa9d6838a7aa462633b572
60080 F20101220_AAAZSY kim_j_Page_119.pro
0edabdf73c618c91f696c7dddd5e2581
a85d5d81c438e5ebc0011043df921cbf7360f1e6
1795 F20101220_AAAZUA kim_j_Page_004.txt
4dda29ab0ded181ef9aa271e5f763a6d
cf813e2375c4bee687f14277547399eec8a3bcd3
2264 F20101220_AABAGC kim_j_Page_108thm.jpg
349573fca4b0bacae3ce530c9b410dcd
005cb0e5898fa654bb70cc891dd7fca82aa52a3e
20866 F20101220_AABAFN kim_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
8e76e849eb3dbe76402f4c18877ea54c
b1f0aa8be26bb4bc0c554b623ed4a39b03c5aa75
24393 F20101220_AABAEZ kim_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
71985cf330537392d78eedb967fb1b9b
50665d4d7d999c746dc4dfb5e16b804da6beff0f
47496 F20101220_AAAZTN kim_j_Page_135.pro
e235996554a83242828b1f4d712b7b40
4a4d23f54b8f1e8a126a4458677f1fb3a8637ec7
65000 F20101220_AAAZSZ kim_j_Page_120.pro
9542c1c5df2e3a77b4f78664a67f2680
92d895ea328402d0d9e8de0599e420545649e9e6
2486 F20101220_AAAZUB kim_j_Page_005.txt
33e58399eef29952f8f629309cda3a82
bb10791559b3b62bd28d2d817b2bc6bd381d32e3
26849 F20101220_AABAGD kim_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
0e0799d803d002b8ccc168297ff90650
4c952f1f8258eeb27eb889ec052c72f40cc55d3d
6224 F20101220_AABAFO kim_j_Page_114thm.jpg
44bf03b5a2caf53ed62a69fd4c501678
8dba4243bd7f863f1b53b63ede497716219d5d49
28243 F20101220_AAAZTO kim_j_Page_136.pro
a15995e6ebb4686cda0e78221d39a9a5
8006aaeeb3c191de01ff8210a64bc18998ea7541
3899 F20101220_AAAZUC kim_j_Page_007.txt
4b9a19d5181e4411491c9176ba7448b7
b9f833897bde5505de3ff2ebbfc6184eb3ed62f2
5841 F20101220_AABAGE kim_j_Page_095thm.jpg
858ed2a715428f37cb46848d25fe87f8
1bd37ebaeeb5a1069ec5ad9fb137ccb1045f8372
5602 F20101220_AABAFP kim_j_Page_079thm.jpg
dd417a16ac184609bcb767c72797df7b
d560499de5ae47c64b3aeeba3560c78aa2fd4f70
38621 F20101220_AAAZTP kim_j_Page_137.pro
8d0edb87567587dcc8ff8acc65525149
e814ebe988f500ab293d0a3ee67684b1255cdf07
648 F20101220_AAAZUD kim_j_Page_008.txt
58d152dd9c387cf139a30e46fc15ffa0
79e288ce220f93b99b46f17d1a3718c12a785da9
6642 F20101220_AABAGF kim_j_Page_143thm.jpg
7fa8a8fef8946603f1c78ea1bae71d1d
3d26c43f724afe1b06b36938d9d48694f2fc07d6
24872 F20101220_AABAFQ kim_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
28890b65bea5a0094d9ff73f1677d297
04b2863057f96120e864075540c19a3650f0dc91
5624 F20101220_AAAZTQ kim_j_Page_138.pro
6fffcd1a53ff12a76ff11968032e811c
ac0bd1be67cae87fa359e9de94197b622ded1a29
1352 F20101220_AAAZUE kim_j_Page_010.txt
8725ad3db793464b9f3257aa8bcea712
9e411f7398b125ef543c2f767853e7abbfc45b88
26838 F20101220_AABAGG kim_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
bf022d7969a31989954aaa2b034e0578
af4269d372ecac9e85dc055cbf119ebd48609e83
24892 F20101220_AABAFR kim_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
004489d0892844b8dd72bbc70366ccc9
7f894daed3d8334cb12e3178076c96a273619b45
49106 F20101220_AAAZTR kim_j_Page_139.pro
687bbd02a7f916b2ea1ce69295f8c826
e724a305b132fa3764152883f4bdca06fcf96946
1628 F20101220_AAAZUF kim_j_Page_011.txt
8c3f4a0c9d3eb4c21f394c6f6aa96b99
603ec1d68660b13916c59801fdb3b0ac0ce07f3c
4587 F20101220_AABAGH kim_j_Page_091thm.jpg
2c29b35040d37aec7a833d7fc8ee4b2b
a4e4021215d1a70ce3d03a9a8e70e0f7ca15362f
5250 F20101220_AABAFS kim_j_Page_007thm.jpg
12239323dc1c23adc03b3ccee5757521
dafe3708bc961be7e729e6d53010729f91dd0643
60634 F20101220_AAAZTS kim_j_Page_140.pro
6cbf54462eebdc652f7c07da8528f53c
4e3814263fcc6f7ea4c373f2b2f02417c58a4f4e
1733 F20101220_AAAZUG kim_j_Page_013.txt
831fb84ad14e148167cf7bc567fa129a
a0faafc2aa9142c476a8dd2bbae2999ed9821085
22209 F20101220_AABAGI kim_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
3d529f0b2dcadbd516aa1dd06de53704
8494070559826728b0b151242b70f514b6951eae
1414 F20101220_AABAFT kim_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
5dddcb835da6cd6f7a7dca5ebacb3f7f
3c014b00f49c66ef0763ecf0421beecd43834ccd
59033 F20101220_AAAZTT kim_j_Page_141.pro
5c40d462e9162b910192f272b3c79d9c
148b88d55949883f7432b7fdf85db49b9bb91395
2170 F20101220_AAAZUH kim_j_Page_015.txt
cef9f3534d8c4a63e21d23dfb93b86fa
74df249f5f8f34683d98e62bab6f737565661b58
5967 F20101220_AABAGJ kim_j_Page_088thm.jpg
361edd3817e8379b26c370a8f68ff09a
a49773d05c3f3f0904108d8b1876093d60d2817a
4379 F20101220_AABAFU kim_j_Page_066thm.jpg
2b1f7d348465544f23e4c803b21150c2
1134ab27799a22ba03f8cd612521ef037e3f0548
56880 F20101220_AAAZTU kim_j_Page_142.pro
35b2fd45fbb0e0dfc319f69b0cb35c9d
6e75347a28c43ddafcec523b90661285509d447e
1609 F20101220_AAAZUI kim_j_Page_016.txt
fd3f1d37b60612f12fd60ec29b53429c
32e6c23aaeb745ae0bc6fbe146e4526cbfd2224a
6794 F20101220_AABAFV kim_j_Page_131thm.jpg
abc6a2e1b2db42338b455a07eacc3acc
5255fa039f6730cc383ad33721dd7c9be191c094
64061 F20101220_AAAZTV kim_j_Page_143.pro
89c53f0be74622a427e062bc27eb1bd0
52d9bb1731993642fe80eb3b78f41456b7731c42
1900 F20101220_AAAZUJ kim_j_Page_017.txt
93493828b1e10857cfe4fe62664d08a3
c5d8326cba80331df1eae579c9b204e37cb557e2
26549 F20101220_AABAGK kim_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
0ec5aabb33e5d3bc5a2c90674800be85
39da9440b0fc4c4934750210305385afa16fcc50
5793 F20101220_AABAFW kim_j_Page_084thm.jpg
b5a33f72e9a80e640914d4b334ffb734
f2732078f95934922a50deee148c9774a80a5d1e
60285 F20101220_AAAZTW kim_j_Page_144.pro
2c4e99fb9a51192d5744b8e1ff69ab3c
def9ca3594f9692580ed78e6ec8e3c046ed06957
1939 F20101220_AAAZUK kim_j_Page_018.txt
2fc2e766ba2807502699c215d501c433
6e29762907513c31b3f28d38b0e910e09511d3a0
24142 F20101220_AABAHA kim_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
3688909b178718ad4da37dab38af5bbe
40ae9bf39870f55a4e2b78cc14cb155ad420d678
4965 F20101220_AABAGL kim_j_Page_009thm.jpg
2eba38c16ec28a524db3b84f73945e4a
8834d60ceb3139f329e202c395159b9df69d91d1
24740 F20101220_AABAFX kim_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
5ec833366bffa4acf4f7e6bd78509af4
a8da2154101a9bd97a2d61360ca736e330e80c07
59575 F20101220_AAAZTX kim_j_Page_146.pro
7609c2d3b86761572f75dc24b164e250
257b67a354a6d10b7b920cfe041876e167862209
2152 F20101220_AAAZUL kim_j_Page_019.txt
3c3003faa908c70d059e814c1d7e904a
0b85cd6cce4cb4d6138b9adcbc3f6c7849495bd0
6173 F20101220_AABAHB kim_j_Page_130thm.jpg
4b1d899c2baddf967485006356efb4a9
fb22137f2e03aa50233494bf7dc3e5783cef319c
23015 F20101220_AABAGM kim_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
df6117f2dee72d17419f8c1c2beed5b6
e4640f3864cfbfb93112b4653b086d43863f23bc
23282 F20101220_AABAFY kim_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
4052aec8a62e5de0ceb85ebebb4eccaa
cbd370ca566591e3999f2e80552cdb64d5721c00
45985 F20101220_AAAZTY kim_j_Page_147.pro
3b959805fb93f8d7a8876915ee38879c
b125ce4cd34057c667559768bef8100e6abe17bf
1942 F20101220_AAAZVA kim_j_Page_040.txt
69e47396681d2789a1a9f9b98d05f1bd
9e6bd85e6ab7db58318855efa1eec560cdf59bcb
1774 F20101220_AAAZUM kim_j_Page_020.txt
15d86b531791fa497e00de3dee989cb9
e67bb6b0ac817a1cb56c6671238b451f9278f80e
6501 F20101220_AABAGN kim_j_Page_145thm.jpg
428617c5a8f19b969673a36c17eca76f
ed0f5d4217529d23ea4d0e6a6de335b5d9986a39
24413 F20101220_AABAFZ kim_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
11c3f22d68586ee79a941beca485f2c5
2e39722554421b59db812d9f77dec99d08a3d140
470 F20101220_AAAZTZ kim_j_Page_001.txt
e407b7e4fe914b602391799f1880b6a8
195db3b2dcc7010aaa0222311da8a5cd822d72c7
1910 F20101220_AAAZVB kim_j_Page_041.txt
03481340e9d818e4fbdb3bda3bd2f9aa
c4cb8870e90618966b91112d176fa69f8e12b9fe
1761 F20101220_AAAZUN kim_j_Page_021.txt
a30055d2edf965ec783685e1d5d63864
1a9b5ff93c15720a2fcba659dc44689540fd2fba
25495 F20101220_AABAGO kim_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
a3bb4b7238d628d83df082fde3d3deb2
cc1aef06052ac65732a19e7090ccf94c96f205e7
736 F20101220_AAAZVC kim_j_Page_043.txt
97a39e02abc50be9231fedf33b1df2d6
7c927c341dbcf4b965fc097a053c2dcdb2d5ea22
1896 F20101220_AAAZUO kim_j_Page_023.txt
baeb3a9ebe14a54d4bb1b6893168c929
146f0b5c4d36e97b6e9e20f9fbca7617fdb4fa27
24803 F20101220_AABAGP kim_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
449b393997ec50826d35ecda1935212d
09c5d014a1e7f87b7066069658fc27aece86343c
1637 F20101220_AAAZVD kim_j_Page_044.txt
888f963773f3852b6a313e27dfb38570
a432d19ecdf15acc0c26f204c3a95398bc077ff8
2061 F20101220_AAAZUP kim_j_Page_024.txt
40595c6e8698dd0c810f1998b5c8137c
82d1bbc3361fb17701bbbe396bd0ae2d8b153ede
22036 F20101220_AABAGQ kim_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
b2daf9e15f66988a8480c5728d0d75b9
26633c18b74f2de3d5aaf16e0f2e31aa89c2cc99
2397 F20101220_AAAZVE kim_j_Page_047.txt
12cf990cba36601d32ffb35e13581e6a
5a4e2523d355324a092ff47b5e53d13d40e85786
F20101220_AAAZUQ kim_j_Page_025.txt
7ed9f9d66cfba788f3df9535bd262fba
4ee8daae364627e282cc6fa3d8d7e4e43d9347fa
24199 F20101220_AABAGR kim_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
2b65bdaead03bf807a706b3b54416e79
a667ab529a80b05c2cf841a6ee1cbe5a63cbefc8
2265 F20101220_AAAZVF kim_j_Page_048.txt
14bfe0ca6c5618abe437572623774065
406604a30535b371b887598a5accdf9b172357b8
1781 F20101220_AAAZUR kim_j_Page_026.txt
4680d499a302b0e2e2e928ed66d3ee1e
fa96643d97f6c356061aa0419ba1feb6979376a0
218227 F20101220_AABAGS UFE0015404_00001.xml FULL
a577da054e0397825f8dc8d011e6f00b
d14e46c08fd870a687aa3f21316ea99565d35849
BROKEN_LINK
kim_j_Page_001.tif
2278 F20101220_AAAZVG kim_j_Page_050.txt
410252a2ffdae971586b4e7b844fdc75
b3c51b9f64bfbd8ce3556221c31b958403304d7c
1833 F20101220_AAAZUS kim_j_Page_027.txt
b9cff584a4c3603e62792e4ef2c72ba0
7bf191344df729d6d451a52b87ab5136fab289fa
6312 F20101220_AABAGT kim_j_Page_019thm.jpg
9b6307f39413529803aee9165574a8d5
52dec8b3b61b34cea858dcab5933474b8c2a899c
2683 F20101220_AAAZVH kim_j_Page_051.txt
eddbf4a6b42b1efc1cff75b423b40eef
d35bd9d5ec2f5d374688c619af08dcc7d5c6c249
1991 F20101220_AAAZUT kim_j_Page_028.txt
4e10918fda89b13fa0f007d23960280b
a7fe4089eb37a76eea35a4cb0a54a1b67722e0d4
22215 F20101220_AABAGU kim_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
4273b2607cee32c1ee212039267edac8
5f74a2bdd5dce26ed6e09bf5b4db753e939b43fe
250 F20101220_AAAZVI kim_j_Page_053.txt
122a4be03c33dd8d228468a2b7a1a5bf
39d9837d093c0afad4063e4f6a808477db949bd0
1956 F20101220_AAAZUU kim_j_Page_030.txt
46e5961fa0f185b2479e4a9740708074
2ea93addfffc390e07f261e5fed534630c1f6cf2
6103 F20101220_AABAGV kim_j_Page_036thm.jpg
46a675c5288e45fbd9002f1139f9ea6e
f54605fdd22040371a77bad8e4c9608b0534b4a0
1749 F20101220_AAAZVJ kim_j_Page_054.txt
358e086994e3aaea8097f47aea9ae321
91700ee6940093421a4bf92ea9d17d50233edbbf
2046 F20101220_AAAZUV kim_j_Page_031.txt
0d17c76eb40f5c946942169c86b8416a
79b60b98d10d625e256e642b5567eabaa9747512
4660 F20101220_AABAGW kim_j_Page_059thm.jpg
0c32b9428bf0a8cd41ae578b5aac0b71
904a8c5313b7c841e642aba230a1274069737bad
F20101220_AAAZVK kim_j_Page_055.txt
02426fa6abac0e58b835b73a5abb8366
2b1b237939ff62173cf7355fbeafcf81b5605008
1864 F20101220_AAAZUW kim_j_Page_032.txt
f545aa1742196ae492b5de8e8a940b4d
74b8cd60002dd9b63722199d6ba02abfb3204541
24834 F20101220_AABAGX kim_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
1ea8dd0871e5829b320e836bc4d3d553
668ce264bbdf7fe4727fdc2ad74eeaee6bedda9d
2286 F20101220_AAAZVL kim_j_Page_056.txt
027a18d5facaebc59909c761e10cc997
f9f33564efcbbea2e8e9736e1187b32def63289b
1996 F20101220_AAAZUX kim_j_Page_034.txt
b0ac0582523d7e991f0553b23f2246a0
84dcdb4df9cfde7e82929ff196816e42f592a380
20870 F20101220_AABAGY kim_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
188ab46d27b844bc8fd5a1c16bdeb333
538f9a179d8bb175a0269382832b47e4088e756c
1921 F20101220_AAAZWA kim_j_Page_074.txt
d08855bb3d98527b3b4f076ed317c0cd
c4f9dd7516e1ecc5c425943a673577966f11733a
1622 F20101220_AAAZVM kim_j_Page_057.txt
ccbaaf3c062e822db08f9cb9127516d4
27c4f90756d17ffdac8f56d28dc1a13c229fc6fd
2281 F20101220_AAAZUY kim_j_Page_036.txt
f5429988eacd5e6ebaa943633e62a998
89d829ceb5df6460d564a87c9f4c020bcf3285b7
F20101220_AABAGZ kim_j_Page_121thm.jpg
7c256a86d632cccb4e15de610a671821
c757f7cb3fb97c0d1fbc63a990746ad1a8ba250b
1965 F20101220_AAAZWB kim_j_Page_075.txt
38e9309641d75e0f8df5ae6ce423c2f6
0ff3ab8efa8a605a09d7d30269b58c5d08e5d1c2
1618 F20101220_AAAZVN kim_j_Page_058.txt
1c70220a6ea1a313ea12c724a97f5cd9
c41d34d3e56a6cbd14c01fb6a81e5d62247e13a3
1970 F20101220_AAAZUZ kim_j_Page_037.txt
8abe333c4745bfaf8428dd3213f84896
3b43bcda0071749546057687782d8142cead840a
1819 F20101220_AAAZWC kim_j_Page_076.txt
c69712de01c08f2b627a9daaec561fc5
0a6fa8d3edd7023a30eba20762212ffd34b6c411
1423 F20101220_AAAZVO kim_j_Page_059.txt
cdb18b39c7a80fcc78ef99c9d95c9545
5b13990b7280fba56d0af40e3249c7ac46caa48f
1471 F20101220_AAAZVP kim_j_Page_060.txt
48fd545a9a255220d081250f78c15aa0
7c3d9a372c96de2ffc837a40e4dc6bd909866273
1915 F20101220_AAAZWD kim_j_Page_077.txt
a9b5e6dbafc0f1af81a9f9e76c5720aa
d8b07d18261be4f85adb1a292a13e87891feb7e7
1301 F20101220_AAAZVQ kim_j_Page_061.txt
19379a3a05344170dae07c9a5b9d46d9
fc6ddcc54a782463a8accfb18a5ecb1c28344b47
77843 F20101220_AAAYTC kim_j_Page_081.jpg
1a0ae1917133885a02d9a114bc51ff19
eceaa779cba23d8d72d95db4ef50cfc0114cb8cd
1974 F20101220_AAAZWE kim_j_Page_078.txt
3ca8501cf17197ee916912cf30333f51
3523fbfe5f7e9ed8b1defe5f547991757fff6dfe
1308 F20101220_AAAZVR kim_j_Page_062.txt
d09e5d606b8c27220e8dd75124e382d1
30a4ee72e1f59a7fc96900619d1fc915a8713f78
85322 F20101220_AAAYTD kim_j_Page_050.jpg
594cbd79fd2d9c7605b4670d3ddd8bd7
517437031b91c71fb94db4e7e3356e0130973b17
1799 F20101220_AAAZWF kim_j_Page_079.txt
5266ee30a198e206a6bcf2b4e536df7f
dfe8d082bf36cdbb2844b4d0455fb5566b320084
1669 F20101220_AAAZVS kim_j_Page_063.txt
9d995657fb14a26fe88e679d8e7f7fcb
cba207f009e396aa4499538d6d5da742787291f1
2760 F20101220_AAAYTE kim_j_Page_121.txt
c45a1ba2569b73f4f4afe32d0dffc007
1e2ff41cc0cec5d38b8db1d935de24577e1fba5c
1871 F20101220_AAAZWG kim_j_Page_081.txt
177483be90edc24560c4be2e6f1297a5
2a8d4b5427c6e152246cb55f21d391c3b863d063
1765 F20101220_AAAZVT kim_j_Page_064.txt
f9bbc327ff5b60571076f2868f4df12d
79a0bee513bb3071aca5a118f81aeed28bafbe31
F20101220_AAAYTF kim_j_Page_046.tif
fbbfb0eab9d6a66eead7c99f2403defe
5c4ba3293385206fa5ee68eda7229c0140fe690f
1987 F20101220_AAAZWH kim_j_Page_082.txt
834fa1bf4aea9601b5b84f105b2635dd
041a15b61af00cb3f3fc1ebf7a3d9c610e60c6c4
1907 F20101220_AAAZVU kim_j_Page_065.txt
f5846becbeb952bc6f0440830be09d2a
7b7c43e8ec832ee10e2484d0282920c5dd058a85
6169 F20101220_AAAYTG kim_j_Page_124thm.jpg
f4d0b4a6668c671898b271adeb1389b7
39dd53036cc548f1c0fde8986017a298eb8de2d5
1759 F20101220_AAAZWI kim_j_Page_084.txt
f86ce956c75278af7b05caa995080f7b
e0f4ad67b9e11ef496ceb36c5b1b1a65228189d0
1554 F20101220_AAAZVV kim_j_Page_067.txt
ea13afde3305b35041ba6debce2adfaa
32bcac115af70ae253774e37a2f120319ead88dc
F20101220_AAAYTH kim_j_Page_129.tif
3aad4d54a721c35dc38d2294dc4a75d2
5cd9fd21a06358aeb6f82fea26654a7af7653b08
1723 F20101220_AAAZWJ kim_j_Page_086.txt
2dd00f01ee6a973223fe0305d6669268
f607e272a802359fe7840a4e1765c8b38f6e5f28
1131 F20101220_AAAZVW kim_j_Page_069.txt
b0c214dc3d3f5ec27ede4106f17fa13f
b13971a7cfe6dcce308f0519e44b8ba68499c545
64117 F20101220_AAAYTI kim_j_Page_112.pro
33d09a09afbe1f50b274815bcc8f73eb
09a182acc2618863c3f4d2a910e9043a5c444536
1848 F20101220_AAAZWK kim_j_Page_087.txt
bbb166838ddec9aca2ebc8b1d2da265e
e387d60cff3493bd69f471512ce7ae0d202bd802
689 F20101220_AAAZVX kim_j_Page_071.txt
3d249c84e830eed693576b2419d6b9dc
145cd036c00591bd221ec46b3acba2500a0b71f0
647 F20101220_AAAZXA kim_j_Page_108.txt
e8ab7d07533244bf4693a9c1f9d3be67
ee24bcc15a98a822353d6b771178170ebf631838
108705 F20101220_AAAYTJ kim_j_Page_030.jp2
bfd4b046fef1cb8b24c9a2f8c4f7ea6c
10a056042fefe9f5cba525885dfdc31fba62fd35
1805 F20101220_AAAZWL kim_j_Page_088.txt
207aa3e0fc211bfe0a82edf0e24e6250
7ee66efd1e5c01c0dc2c0448dff0851be9b14798
1630 F20101220_AAAZVY kim_j_Page_072.txt
ae54cf155a4b70a8fbe26916fe2ce5ac
a17206b939503e29277ef63c28b919aa640258da
76829 F20101220_AAAYTK kim_j_Page_076.jpg
c4ef554183c3be645c59c93e9091e1a1
eb1d0e39286d76284ed85a172c8176d21dea13ac
2029 F20101220_AAAZWM kim_j_Page_089.txt
0370929de2df3ec2c916a38176a22612
af617a362f97ab7e980c443d4ad97b07d6aedfd2
F20101220_AAAZVZ kim_j_Page_073.txt
09d2b7de11e9cb595c9c6bae214736b7
6b3179efbda6ac13b279dbddf9782ac9fb065663
74 F20101220_AAAZXB kim_j_Page_109.txt
7c339f3e1692a02829e16982db40f140
117845da347768eef253b38f7265e36cfc5b48e4
6599 F20101220_AAAYTL kim_j_Page_144thm.jpg
633ff35ca01c7fd7b9c32a21faf7b001
92ed1bbbe146ece9aa1efeb13af05f05878e29ce
1427 F20101220_AAAZWN kim_j_Page_090.txt
04fd775c01ea9c4096acb9d66fda539d
785cb7dd057ed88a806f912869b75f6ebb7849b0
77286 F20101220_AAAYUA kim_j_Page_102.jpg
812b69065c6caf9c802b43090c3bcc39
f4006a31ff3bce3de158e8ffc29dd6e8cc4d3f5f
2660 F20101220_AAAZXC kim_j_Page_110.txt
308b72ba887d042776b789322571a333
07ab4787b8e43f255eec01416c0ec723702a6978
24487 F20101220_AAAYTM kim_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
60d9a8e5c7ba46b4625cb8447a4dd136
ab247b4c3e367eb9a2e2ed7aa59ba64bca86c7d2
1441 F20101220_AAAZWO kim_j_Page_091.txt
4b6958ec88285b0e68d6d7139c82ba0c
aa2c8c979e037595227bee166adefdfd0ad55bd9
3893 F20101220_AAAYUB kim_j_Page_129.txt
9f427426d081ff0f09a09ad9a38dbfa6
3911b4fe56f6ad177efd5d18e9eb3038ae3f2ccc
3070 F20101220_AAAZXD kim_j_Page_111.txt
95c75e44b97c3607a460e6c6067fa0ea
0c3201169884711e8c7442affe4e355510c1e80d
15229 F20101220_AAAYTN kim_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
f04724721c2c56ac4dca4aeeaea91baf
986ccc99ed496d8c60fb72ffdf51042dc4cdda18
F20101220_AAAZWP kim_j_Page_093.txt
1bacaec4a58db4b89ae747621bf9aae7
a8dc66dfcb3559b17c6199d148da2cbffbc10a5a
61465 F20101220_AAAYUC kim_j_Page_145.pro
e7dcb8e7e22dd6a890a6a3a53639985f
fe25f4094668a8192f899077ec7100ec47aa9907
2675 F20101220_AAAZXE kim_j_Page_112.txt
8a8c492c86c002cbe19740143d9276d5
7e536a66bd2f708e12408a7e38eaff6d0b97dbab
97946 F20101220_AAAYTO kim_j_Page_084.jp2
bef88e817b808a7786e7e2e8553bfbbf
416c4d7e2fb3f6c195ec493432d2a2099d7af013
2005 F20101220_AAAZWQ kim_j_Page_094.txt
9a8ffb48df77409928623743bfdc2ecc
803473ebdfc4e909de5eafe48e04fdc1c695c773
F20101220_AAAYUD kim_j_Page_138.tif
b3612ca79a6e152a7523266ad227f94d
d99fddd0b3a092b0084d3b8a61fce55374cc024f
1785 F20101220_AAAZXF kim_j_Page_113.txt
8f1ebeae3f0b5969331a126a3d7b4bae
5f8c1caaa7ba7742e319cd415188dc5ace11b501
26659 F20101220_AAAYTP kim_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
a75b6d3fd9d3ca239c78e05c54267515
40c3ce643bce41463345de01b3faba9a2df0d8f0
1963 F20101220_AAAZWR kim_j_Page_095.txt
9903cfee2f37017f3be080267bd01bb2
973178ed7a795eae7c9b61966ca4d3fb240a0c86
F20101220_AAAYUE kim_j_Page_089.tif
46f8ea77d0ab5f9258a779f48d799dd5
a449e5ece9ab62492dc57fc95ed8005f3b03fc49
2691 F20101220_AAAZXG kim_j_Page_114.txt
dbb7f2f5803e3f2e46ed3d76ed3a6426
50a03de9c949ff3b87f11ab7275768db5b879434
F20101220_AAAYTQ kim_j_Page_002.tif
0ccb35584611cd6be573efac7314609d
615faa151911750dafa314b5a5f316c95373ac55
1920 F20101220_AAAZWS kim_j_Page_096.txt
78feeb4ce5962da8cbdd4e66b716b8a9
2b2091755b4765c0a1a5d60ec4109798cd5820a1
1922 F20101220_AAAYUF kim_j_Page_068.txt
9252e212841ce60597c97ca4d641e429
22b13099c79a8244c3f1f81cb09f081306de32cc
F20101220_AAAZXH kim_j_Page_115.txt
371b6cab80a4206e237d37019ee1099a
c4836082d6f14080019a21ad959150d759deafa5
F20101220_AAAYTR kim_j_Page_129.jp2
db2ad51ad57eeda81b6ba9750b57b79a
c13da7b2e225ac20b57aeba857708fd81654a4e6
1677 F20101220_AAAZWT kim_j_Page_097.txt
ee19da88a0143b1de7f1207b55a7bb6a
94df58ea01770d2e7190030e4be53369470ca5e6
F20101220_AAAZAA kim_j_Page_121.tif
56903ad8c0a06dfcd8d1cf5c2c07c939
a242471ccaecced0fd669e2db5affebf5ef442c6
2690 F20101220_AAAZXI kim_j_Page_116.txt
cffad1f7aea0e6e861c1b2fcd7ba4d22
3834ef74f12e1d282b81643ab0567f322fe2a792
48258 F20101220_AAAYUG kim_j_Page_073.pro
16c12c6dee4978f0e8b2f221565e24f0
defec6bb5ec88c8d17577d1c8a68272c121c866f
20439 F20101220_AAAYTS kim_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
aef72a9f79acb93af30aa21c9009becc
aef8fc71cd383052ed0b763e08bfbbe9ff8a08ad
1899 F20101220_AAAZWU kim_j_Page_100.txt
037746e499887be368ffc8e824209c93
302412292823300563a6d00d49c00cb5c7d2abeb
96653 F20101220_AAAZAB kim_j_Page_055.jp2
3ab046bc3252a2ff248e21adb405591d
198b425169f93daaf8f99d9592edde309718d6ef
1698 F20101220_AAAZXJ kim_j_Page_117.txt
9c53a3feaa6da29e6f94d29741fbc9d9
17fec5a3c58803d9837c0aab76190ed305fb0c39
2021 F20101220_AAAYUH kim_j_Page_045.txt
28f171e5486243800c055a0a07016b99
b94157c22fb5cd8e0e95d86b8fc7f339cf1d83e5
84294 F20101220_AAAYTT kim_j_Page_072.jp2
3e6d15c443cfac7a129ba9771a4056f6
6f2932acf2b0af58739359a8086256daa60cbf77
F20101220_AAAZWV kim_j_Page_102.txt
fb8b7f84a7bce09965ff0703261638b8
9c63f51db532d25363f9ce10e27fd79820c0c3fb
1984 F20101220_AAAZAC kim_j_Page_022.txt
a1952ded7d649a5b712c3fe896ab67aa
f82242489b2cc010e1715667b86f12e4007c006f
2830 F20101220_AAAZXK kim_j_Page_119.txt
67c286a4c5f69420f5d6b6ebaeacd2f2
6551cde292e07168cccb1b2064e9de5655dc0cc2
25374 F20101220_AAAYUI kim_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
99021689c97019b5ff85a14c46457f16
5a68aad4cf6508eb88cb24755c13b7208d171b4d
1906 F20101220_AAAYTU kim_j_Page_014.txt
08dc34e682878b2caa706ef154727bb1
228b22ab78f969c00c1cda6abdc72204e560de60
1657 F20101220_AAAZWW kim_j_Page_103.txt
46c9048c49b7d3e839ddc2dbe055ca84
72c229d6691962e31aabfc6f07e968ce96101012
24354 F20101220_AAAZAD kim_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
6c377fb6c0374035084d13b37b9b7c58
f9a3d29f4df73171629f72486f8710720cd3c6dc
2337 F20101220_AAAZYA kim_j_Page_142.txt
f2019fb17404dd06887433c6552aeecf
a02d5482b1ab4f7e21b825146c302b954ac1bf10
2694 F20101220_AAAZXL kim_j_Page_120.txt
f300f91b79d8867b5bdeb2fc969e3c92
ec00e94c4d1efc7d58662344c06a7d5a58f24964
37929 F20101220_AAAYUJ kim_j_Page_016.pro
da238d91a034497a4f2338193079cb30
f35938865ffa7b44270d03072729bb717b6ecfd8
F20101220_AAAYTV kim_j_Page_119.jp2
b78183c3ae06579ee69616ce1a33bf1d
26d4c9d0e55e2e6c71a36271259f8f607afb26dd
1130 F20101220_AAAZWX kim_j_Page_104.txt
131bd23347c2bde75d3c45635271e4db
1039a9a290313a4a0a12af4f6ac675ec5d846c4c
24594 F20101220_AAAZAE kim_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
35c4cee60cd0b25540de49f7e36370e9
5f974c6be515988490220ddd0311490e3d26c77b
2627 F20101220_AAAZYB kim_j_Page_143.txt
5bb40a6897ecee41e309fac54878a939
7fc84d4b713043015580775f5cbc4fa49dea4e95
2695 F20101220_AAAZXM kim_j_Page_122.txt
727e1e89e5d70068f2d285b358d9f522
60cb370c5fc5ad95ee7bf59f20f1cd75159ee7c6
80444 F20101220_AAAYUK kim_j_Page_017.jpg
4a400bd164f126145a4d9a43249bb106
30ace2b7003b731a73a84697065ae6d5b7bcbbc2
912 F20101220_AAAYTW kim_j_Page_003thm.jpg
b6058954f7244be2bb00996a7e705707
1997df3cdddc9cf9ca1c2b9d4f84534b8a102324
1903 F20101220_AAAZWY kim_j_Page_105.txt
e9d6ed8e936ca9c6945c4db115aa6844
700f4539f79362b3abbe6f06bd443990f6ef1c33
F20101220_AAAZAF kim_j_Page_126.tif
81772249fb09e4c3aa90cc2982d1f4c2
64d434abdfaefe3d50dcfdc49c17d3c989b24f2b
2751 F20101220_AAAZXN kim_j_Page_123.txt
45946d3eca4976c905667201d8ab3754
5eb96e1e96cd0d33c9c5a3d86ecf8afab15fba70
24503 F20101220_AAAYUL kim_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
40fdcd644603a849759ffc7f8aeaaa7f
c19dadbd51d62b41e62f3c9e1cae75950ec1d647
47734 F20101220_AAAYTX kim_j_Page_100.pro
ccf613d0e44a68c6b9f5a5ff52b089b8
c58843aea01acf85685c14e85ce39102f1f00ac0
1914 F20101220_AAAZWZ kim_j_Page_106.txt
2d56369b99dbc47dcc4074064d6cea12
78d33fe0105ded8ff3521f75fdb627907d380733
78558 F20101220_AAAZAG kim_j_Page_094.jpg
641df6c271dba81f930a540872616c99
ee13993e272dbb18222c8850a7ae27b65a848b90
2485 F20101220_AAAZYC kim_j_Page_144.txt
038b91e266914136a65ae25f9c65bab9
0d090fd29b737d7f6b533bbeb6c75007ee7f3bf1
2646 F20101220_AAAZXO kim_j_Page_125.txt
80945e3a93a26989e7236fe334483da9
d2c47897143e1f6cad0a49027effe67e11c83fe8
91417 F20101220_AAAYVA kim_j_Page_103.jp2
03f1079c57415ba2dcb858941e8458bf
12a76b4a943608d07e253754e693d0e28d5545eb
65627 F20101220_AAAYUM kim_j_Page_067.jpg
aa36072cbb30da2def95eac6cf846612
286630f04fe0f51b4e73827e477d63a560e613e5
18772 F20101220_AAAYTY kim_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
65076a47ccb17628bc1a61c09a18354b
05e5ea4846a00344fcbbe514a0687ec53e92a325
6029 F20101220_AAAZAH kim_j_Page_047thm.jpg
1fc0e2b97a4e4652bd83656222434587
bd22be684ed7916c3e0347615e7a157c07b1288f
2536 F20101220_AAAZYD kim_j_Page_145.txt
336580324cbce5be0047af921b98dadb
24435c043e75f4daa870c08f68651a1cdc4cebc5
2698 F20101220_AAAZXP kim_j_Page_126.txt
9d2cb4920a03b2d36e797cf028b762bf
c6cfda20ef50c822b526223307d9cb3d69dd655a
1853 F20101220_AAAYVB kim_j_Page_009.txt
739eeee052a600b64ca3005ae87b9f27
98dcdbe4576c88b2d9df03a1c154ab8954ecd524
55031 F20101220_AAAYUN kim_j_Page_005.pro
8a75f50679ce4a558345a95260ccf98f
e5f1c9c072650cc8e56b59c03d057968d8c04a9a
84842 F20101220_AAAYTZ kim_j_Page_139.jpg
c534b7f5258e5ec915952ec0d83c983c
9ca4ca9b9bdfccebb8a5b7eebacbb94a26cab06d
105886 F20101220_AAAZAI kim_j_Page_085.jp2
abf420a1c2bdaf756575ed0a6041c173
173c7a545b6468df1b4d6c75e0f8d6bf121000a3
2435 F20101220_AAAZYE kim_j_Page_146.txt
26ea10b278c3b2d103f6bf4a1b9fd20d
5c1d92595895f48c0344ae24bac7be0129e9a4fc
4039 F20101220_AAAZXQ kim_j_Page_127.txt
0122c0a178eec5b68912e20501c4ff29
093e28faa55849a951695ac50597ea0bd85cf68b
16820 F20101220_AAAYVC kim_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
e11e8297035203b016913ad9d7618e40
0fc28141a024c80bba1c71dc22ba647d090d5b51
5394 F20101220_AAAYUO kim_j_Page_046thm.jpg
e7f50327be39dd257b7dc2fe42fb03dc
6398abb7b99bf574c0547a000cc0a51285ac6ab1
5775 F20101220_AAAZAJ kim_j_Page_020thm.jpg
1cf0d07fba7045da1474c6a0c01aa42e
bb60e1f05bbe9f4175c85997b9680c6122c980d8
F20101220_AAAZYF kim_j_Page_147.txt
e75c26fa6dcb395c196f68aab99126bb
f295dd300859a6edbc837135d2cfb58e97b9133c
2696 F20101220_AAAZXR kim_j_Page_128.txt
7f64f604d356e283b6c21c70d8e140eb
8eca4a0b0248645edb71622f021840397b49e027
1266 F20101220_AAAYVD kim_j_Page_012.txt
ff26f2d42ec9b32d2cef9eb7c3150190
91e91e05ef4a3903e9cafc26bdd1d313c7e73d04
71434 F20101220_AAAYUP kim_j_Page_055.jpg
b5c12dfe09898f695896c51edf4c98f6
901cb4e72de17d5ff5a26e780a4f0f1ab1fdb745
898 F20101220_AAAZYG kim_j_Page_148.txt
95328164b87a9a7102c2725d15360c01
f33a63273673b1e24ce7ec3f78023c4adcbda2df
F20101220_AAAZXS kim_j_Page_130.txt
febd28a5f409172bd400cd1562d0466f
a1b63185c2a575835e5615c26bac9755d7e09c9b
21230 F20101220_AAAYVE kim_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
ddee1664bc91349385533de900647294
e9874bb66f7a59189cfd66b684085420e30755c8
76587 F20101220_AAAYUQ kim_j_Page_033.jpg
7ed0ea180671b601b9fb2d6b9593794b
3a66b8d6364eafd71f087da45c3353c05d040943
108802 F20101220_AAAZAK kim_j_Page_143.jpg
ceb0efd0398e8d1f2f514025caf35a50
0dd45ad642e2e49483e06e70f98150de716db4df
2006 F20101220_AAAZYH kim_j_Page_001thm.jpg
8259fe03a048224273c6565501420cb7
c6794e13e7a7280faf13c4b315e09da86b3b1740
3941 F20101220_AAAZXT kim_j_Page_131.txt
452052305dd73361612b16b4771757a7
5929a2d0346e14ae7435cef92acdf0f85d3ce8ba
104759 F20101220_AAAYVF kim_j_Page_023.jp2
c8adf3bcf5240708b78536eb6344e9a8
9c59236eed24e65b7a0001f4943a6f976b020edd
F20101220_AAAYUR kim_j_Page_055.tif
05b4a4abe6a5dda5ea2f1088cb3c24df
fd628268df169d84f877ab7fa429cc18b96a50ca
F20101220_AAAZBA kim_j_Page_075.tif
e8226d5578dff481a65666d7b59dff38
e06446439924396076abade8972b2c91fa88ff29
27283 F20101220_AAAZAL kim_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
31f51c6eab4063720f73dc281db32104
6fe3482b70d2d3da28a8a3f69cba6996127de04f
970476 F20101220_AAAZYI kim_j.pdf
57922f9ff28cb8dc63f6022874d8d436
f4fa5182d2d53b2223b3fdae79be77d5649fd8a5
F20101220_AAAZXU kim_j_Page_132.txt
f61509f74c32aea59283ab4656300006
e8702a19de8a8320467336783af405b107ba526c
2436 F20101220_AAAYVG kim_j_Page_141.txt
5d49283a5921a3b2a578ceac182e70dc
41df30894ad7aa9cdade875a390be75b7fd23918
1897 F20101220_AAAYUS kim_j_Page_039.txt
a200061f137a8ab17983ccb7c99e0c77
212d9532e1eb42c5905c25a52bc66be94372055a
88396 F20101220_AAAZBB kim_j_Page_130.jpg
cc196e81c759badc8e92db8163100ade
75fcf6245e3132527b372de5b0dc62d842df54ce
82771 F20101220_AAAZAM kim_j_Page_049.jpg
f17012f655dc79997fee00c2a6c6fe56
019bcb168ff9d41baf524582f81a580876f7d227
24329 F20101220_AAAZYJ kim_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
3738e02cb94dd7848ab614cc734e9fab
174e0cb648c3fb7f98623f8e3e0a4fad79114685
3799 F20101220_AAAZXV kim_j_Page_133.txt
f745928ff59d254260efe75ae75383ea
2d956ac4108d22aa88f412965becb88bbd9a913e
5559 F20101220_AAAYVH kim_j_Page_049thm.jpg
1c520cee763a631b0b51ba25b59bbc96
b5cd5b4f55f786b09092fb6a50f2f29eb6348e7a
54820 F20101220_AAAYUT kim_j_Page_019.pro
28584f61e790a50ae993f70878f8d299
c948f73a1fb0bf1dac4972b3f2322a7d6c0d487a
F20101220_AAAZBC kim_j_Page_118.jpg
2ba802a025745672e94614bb67cec17d
a917541207f85733cca0ad82791afe354b05628f
F20101220_AAAZAN kim_j_Page_054.tif
4b229904844617049987b1007a7d3e02
5dcd82cefd59a5c560579cf3e151c6668b889a2a
25734 F20101220_AAAZYK kim_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
111382452b8fbe685adf87f6f69b4e1f
2db7650faa9fce41c95c0e8dc0e87f996d81c5f8
51 F20101220_AAAZXW kim_j_Page_134.txt
2d87a5a905d994b88efec0579d4e30c1
f4a3279570e3c7b8abab0223b72652d483498aba
71304 F20101220_AAAYVI kim_j_Page_117.jpg
889d8a72da0d1f7b88b8938bc17773d3
c5c086c2745412086330f005d7f1999aa2ac6286
94908 F20101220_AAAYUU kim_j_Page_146.jpg
ab51fff48748289c13397915903469c4
5d211d67994b8c093c5659234d146204cb219636
27256 F20101220_AAAZBD kim_j_Page_066.pro
6c8fa52f54f494719d426520d61d95dd
be4253fe7b72995fb962f88dddacaacd2680772c
35443 F20101220_AAAZAO kim_j_Page_090.pro
21df1baf3de1eb77d02d1126638c180f
e333767a6587cd5b9ee04b3130284c497084f17e
25538 F20101220_AAAZZA kim_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
732510bba4ecbdc33ac2ca0a28085698
ae8de0ca3aafafc7ee8191175a8daf70b155498d
6002 F20101220_AAAZYL kim_j_Page_065thm.jpg
510c5f375927da9a73aeb763d1f56bbb
cabd6f0018a179ee266ca4cc94b150e2d64163e7
1331 F20101220_AAAZXX kim_j_Page_136.txt
1ee2fc5ba28e82f72f4fd2fc5529721b
188bfea1966b22c303e50550357ad238d0b40951
21636 F20101220_AAAYVJ kim_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
e69ee19fb3869259139da4a91ea4113f
413b04a5323872436f4a52370095e03efc3eb8c5
6209 F20101220_AAAYUV kim_j_Page_110thm.jpg
552e09ad97702dee4ea821e870be8a79
7e3fcdfd6a07bde693f9c62eff27d9d9c74e453f
84189 F20101220_AAAZBE kim_j_Page_135.jpg
ed13075f2ba356fe3a84d5cf42268a88
f5aa54a1526d5c779a13486f92f49365fda136bf
F20101220_AAAZAP kim_j_Page_118thm.jpg
9cc073ba4896bddb55a2f5a8c597607c
0d8555a45d685b21d203e26d3d7f5a051d7c04ad
24066 F20101220_AAAZZB kim_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
11b46ae1d7529db1a23b55d8a159cae4
5e1184edaf95c4b5e2a3c1fa88922e4814f1adec
5497 F20101220_AAAZYM kim_j_Page_031thm.jpg
de4b7cb168db89cd2f1bcb2faac2e648
2f74dbf2d81004188f39620febb5711e1925f195
2014 F20101220_AAAZXY kim_j_Page_139.txt
65934a5e87c9585f260a7121b60ee635
0ba2abd7f9e299bfd9ff4b8a0dd3b92bbffbaeae
F20101220_AAAYVK kim_j_Page_008.tif
521e6728703df85a39b941b42dd65d4d
ac8ca46bc707cb0b7b6f117779b191917c6c4c77
1137 F20101220_AAAYUW kim_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
09f9de2be2fdcf4c57347d9d032ff0cd
d930aebd8023b34c8c6d785e8a2e6c635ad23a0a
6018 F20101220_AAAZBF kim_j_Page_083thm.jpg
b166a90645688f4920c0cf1ab6c1b6a3
b7832aa1d8b56a9b7ab344042751c9ee763b1998
104416 F20101220_AAAZAQ kim_j_Page_039.jp2
f5f7818c6b9fa37b0e11bfa18f737c63
a5c33354ed588cc1666b5f52bcd9f15c3cc11590
24144 F20101220_AAAZZC kim_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
16c52097aaf8ee771a9b45f30ad0743e
29ec515b10a2ed643fe87225bbc410976f821de9
28620 F20101220_AAAZYN kim_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
65a2cd9006f7939487481e4c475d297a
3f2ac3c4c4fada58f634386463a5b5290bb34fcd
2497 F20101220_AAAZXZ kim_j_Page_140.txt
0450c804ace2c4021b98a75bcf201fc5
22250d114f61904bd73b7e74dc3dfeb5aec03fc0
5716 F20101220_AAAYVL kim_j_Page_032thm.jpg
74104fdc59608663213ed40c9af2719a
494e4113da18f6586ee43cd4e3861a2d722e500d
F20101220_AAAYUX kim_j_Page_026.tif
980697cf3f4ad07c9bedf6e3d3b0cca4
c17b606b29a81b8f1d3778d1d3266064791654bd
25756 F20101220_AAAZBG kim_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
a2f7adf5b82d10183287a8b1164af18e
55d45c1f66ee1bb06e695fd2951967c3aec67103
F20101220_AAAYWA kim_j_Page_029.txt
f0b952fbae91971d89e977f6d7d04a57
f95e3db279798171145feac49e6fd6886aefb793
2013 F20101220_AAAZAR kim_j_Page_137.txt
662807417cc6fa57157e2d5c93faa1fb
adb0d00dd154acad8c063a15725c14c7dadb39b3
6171 F20101220_AAAZYO kim_j_Page_132thm.jpg
bdc1de152dba32bfc96cab73ab2c2cdb
3b4fe4e7e0df76010f2c03de3a558ab7425ee0b5
79702 F20101220_AAAYVM kim_j_Page_101.jpg
88c5386cbce2ede2e614a3280ff58e5e
ba1e70c82dc92c84753ad499a45377ddff514a17
78435 F20101220_AAAYUY kim_j_Page_032.jpg
7dbe1e804279425f138208a71fe5db3f
92810f47e2efa8f516d65d392dd84095daad6d3a
F20101220_AAAZBH kim_j_Page_012.tif
a887b7266feb3e5be96da8de22aaa260
e3cbc73846ba775d75ba85e70c444ece1e80ec3f
F20101220_AAAZAS kim_j_Page_042.txt
073579670ad397ccdf080f3f3b014185
d91ea38515439727058f8bd63a1647d0d6ef171a
6176 F20101220_AAAZZD kim_j_Page_126thm.jpg
e08ef6dc0e2bff8fae1f632bf0357d81
555869cae797ebc79687ded8cee8e22831ddee7a
F20101220_AAAZYP kim_j_Page_041thm.jpg
11881ac71fa61131f1f980f1cfe3e5d3
f89bf01dec3ca54170cde635e95805b9f0dcf3c4
5575 F20101220_AAAYVN kim_j_Page_004thm.jpg
9c902ea7dccae6290a5d5a7d8b563d45
6ff025809be6a660e9bddc680dbdc77fb5954302
736249 F20101220_AAAYUZ kim_j_Page_059.jp2
c96f0ae4e7e057ce6ad12fcf3e082fea
ff2ff00cbbbdf5cb0d188db762c663de6dc60268
F20101220_AAAZBI kim_j_Page_120.tif
29dda1538967b4e6cfcc24cdd2497108
d908f8489f4502028b25a79a4ea63822a9499585
28432 F20101220_AAAYWB kim_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
8ee236c29b75ea449ddc3d48a0d88b57
eb6743a969b12f1a03fac44f62b6f4a12517c286
4341 F20101220_AAAZAT kim_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
c988fd056eb0f0161ac63f38a5d08cd8
13d8ce51d08ca402964f14450bca5f97067b5ee8
2012 F20101220_AAAZZE kim_j_Page_008thm.jpg
929fe59cf8569c2e8617104293acdde1
4a7ab1bc0af099d641a0213a94aa9278fbab868d
23820 F20101220_AAAZYQ kim_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
4fe16af2dbad29ce5bcafaf0423dfb6d
4b4c20f23cc45f9bbef7c9b1e0e21644c528e04b
99724 F20101220_AAAYVO kim_j_Page_020.jp2
fda3ec52a36bf3a98d03ea89981a4a8c
f0656b61b4b36cc52fedc7e6b5f759ca55f58cb9
60278 F20101220_AAAZBJ kim_j_Page_058.jpg
c860fc58af47327ee150923388e7eb16
257893fa589ccfa3df671a16056e093cd2331539
100535 F20101220_AAAYWC kim_j_Page_033.jp2
ae8474ce19d88e98dcdd4124c5239abf
b84fe7eb784d123b4fb95d6fdf1b9bd79168647d
573 F20101220_AAAZAU kim_j_Page_109thm.jpg
f342c51d874a5047b0842ac7506f669b
73ac9bf42c2692f1297ae2e4a8a6768bcb64c926
23960 F20101220_AAAZZF kim_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
7a68a86aa3aa7949755a288a4cd95044
7189bc4b7c0b524e9c6d201ff0fdafdba46e2ed0
4802 F20101220_AAAZYR kim_j_Page_104thm.jpg
60820a555cf4ae325d65293fb11a5e27
1f2d89be144b085fca92b38466ca7398222ed3a5
1803 F20101220_AAAYVP kim_j_Page_033.txt
386b04277cd2f415df5a114a8fedbb60
61b4610ef2ff7223237f804b35cd872aaf276909
6000 F20101220_AAAZBK kim_j_Page_024thm.jpg
baec61de3a0970b61a260dd03c9b9875
d3b1879da0404a938da1401e4021c210a5b75823
F20101220_AAAYWD kim_j_Page_085.tif
54718f13fb588a4079c5b194805a833b
33d14c45be12816f9013c5479e132c4d13686be9
41962 F20101220_AAAZAV kim_j_Page_115.pro
74f47c872618c7417e59c609077d886b
5622eed0931064287dca368691fe1c910429dc92
6192 F20101220_AAAZZG kim_j_Page_035thm.jpg
89ce81cc92722ea97273acf93d5de736
852c716e75a43b747b958ba1f41ca1b19e27461c
16410 F20101220_AAAZYS kim_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
58c03fa780913c897b78fe11344717c0
3eaf0e39fddfb4df6b4c9769354302907040844c
5875 F20101220_AAAYVQ kim_j_Page_045thm.jpg
5ad62715d24374f6fbe4d987bc40dd09
a25bb4f93e019ca3eb79ee057a79ac38ab88083c
98219 F20101220_AAAYWE kim_j_Page_142.jpg
8bffd6268b4507d090a1a4f19cc71437
52ed66d0a169fdcdff2e25940ed79abcd195551d
26899 F20101220_AAAZAW kim_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
ba671f55d414757555d3c6046618fe6a
0cb5c153b7ee9328cd9081ecb2f439f42abc5ad9
24613 F20101220_AAAZZH kim_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
d184aba7e6fb91049802425d8f28ddbb
89987e94028e7e0f6dc84a50bc23319d05994b70
5277 F20101220_AAAZYT kim_j_Page_067thm.jpg
a25edb81731a89e293177953d9f3427b
ee421f7e5076bb3135cabea835f97c25c14119cc
54322 F20101220_AAAZCA kim_j_Page_012.jpg
903af98accb737cfbce52366aea25289
6412915322c58c12c6f1fc6e5957c679ead1ee6b
22167 F20101220_AAAZBL kim_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
d7e2f125cc75606fc6054d7a03df43d3
5ee0379a06ad1279fd97afad43b826510637f881
F20101220_AAAYWF kim_j_Page_118.txt
f86358af644eddafb855130dee4d423c
8bd4c15d0db95a8942cd8a14785ef694738505ac
102790 F20101220_AAAZAX kim_j_Page_027.jp2
b42f0db18b52c927bb488e551f9102ba
bbf475ac27c43030dc2823ac171020111dfb4833
6149 F20101220_AAAYVR kim_j_Page_075thm.jpg
61ae00699c9c4f49b2aca9304d55bf9c
3b7238178cd6d27a82cf107e666550ccaffaeb94
24275 F20101220_AAAZZI kim_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
f66a3049fa910b6af25a231a61ce12a3
def82c7fd021d6d048fd45045cde79c519598a0a
6072 F20101220_AAAZYU kim_j_Page_077thm.jpg
1dbdfd1883ba3f35ca9151aa79eb95e2
f6df5caccb7e1cfd021e19b54c9b16d4baa8bd97
69084 F20101220_AAAZCB kim_j_Page_013.jpg
65088c84a31ffaa69ad029cedfa8c7cd
7fefbc896bd99da74b48b64591e1d879fb8c9337
5227 F20101220_AAAZBM kim_j_Page_098thm.jpg
de5dfcdebea245cce189e766a1b36697
8ca81dfa4b1c77187d6c8e7cc82b5a4864a6039f
5730 F20101220_AAAYWG kim_j_Page_052thm.jpg
cefc40780800a63bb8ae5e4b08bde55e
b821824ed8e91282ec6495f7ba5db1e7a9673dd8
1051951 F20101220_AAAZAY kim_j_Page_113.jp2
57633953eb923f7934bb965b7c455cd8
3c4903fdea81e6e7fa221e7796ddbdc8424b01c8
1937 F20101220_AAAYVS kim_j_Page_085.txt
fa075c957ebb6e0e9b8dbe99efe5117d
2e1dde7f57ca342f1eb5dfc9c1a0ce1588f90f48
23735 F20101220_AAAZZJ kim_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
a4f9350a84d3394e4ac72231b5a36871
0e54b3e02eb20f04e22a515c138d034317cf880f
22246 F20101220_AAAZYV kim_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
2c569809712f292ed5eb4e785e44c374
f160d3c38b446847822ff754bd29877e2b9ea479
78524 F20101220_AAAZCC kim_j_Page_014.jpg
bc75450f6713797d6df3ea3efc505a61
a7125455b916c4ad9b735d0ab2ad228ad0efba5d
F20101220_AAAZBN kim_j_Page_086.tif
f70c2f7d33a3fc1f9e21348b3bf7bff7
b891fe2b2a077dd175a379c2e1232f5861ecd1e1
F20101220_AAAYWH kim_j_Page_035.txt
ec67b9a438bca939f4dbf0bc8bc984fd
560aebec53335b07d457ab68e4859408e3655ee9
F20101220_AAAZAZ kim_j_Page_021.tif
82343ad44b0b5bdafe72e68eee0ebbbf
459a10c6611e47111d4d06319af18fd429d72986
F20101220_AAAYVT kim_j_Page_125thm.jpg
b88ee1fa7b91b6b756525c1fd030966c
178ee3ffe14e0fdd91cc837d7a87214b4db976c7
4013 F20101220_AAAZZK kim_j_Page_005thm.jpg
8bcc09fc30e4b0b35edfb3c389b4fd1f
6ee17d232dc9246a258ffd85b2b852f31b76a214
4933 F20101220_AAAZYW kim_j_Page_099thm.jpg
5f03d9ead56b224bc30a806b9be3bbce
1ef36cccd78a89d1e69395c231e2ee9bdb8cd899
83556 F20101220_AAAZCD kim_j_Page_015.jpg
ff63aec08e601610426e88de8689e78d
7a9b992c65715fdfa16abeba2eb18fbe3ed4814e
168717 F20101220_AAAZBO UFE0015404_00001.mets
51e36b431742ecc3ef0dfe888616e104
61d36bffc9ea3ef09059ca9158837e2921c670cc
kim_j_Page_001.tif
F20101220_AAAYWI kim_j_Page_052.tif
9a8e850e9b2bfce43e69b4511f39e30b
0e3bea5e646e949db159ced10419361a61aac5d6
1998 F20101220_AAAYVU kim_j_Page_083.txt
c15e1f49c6d0b326298ad0384a44a3f5
2f26ebd0241ed2b8345fcd9ea3ee9d3160de7b9d
11908 F20101220_AAAZZL kim_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
945728f27d1660a5dc8964569bb7edee
0e3a89e59b4fec56d537ac345fed4ce2fccd128e
5899 F20101220_AAAZYX kim_j_Page_136thm.jpg
6d8c2df1ce0946a7fb9673d89441dba2
c7818af665fd52dfaf9e6b8c4bb65effe0f3491b
65154 F20101220_AAAZCE kim_j_Page_016.jpg
d080f2477d151f783493754eb7758883
f0c4600213b1a932084c7e4963ac37ac97c6f653
5314 F20101220_AAAYWJ kim_j_Page_054thm.jpg
4c505e2c4395ee178a6b2545d9e4fd0c
15280bae5d9c192efead3b6905d998218d7167c6
65026 F20101220_AAAYVV kim_j_Page_122.pro
697af96b735874e73ff39e03ffb10cb3
78dd8001403ca1c5e6be65774aa700ed3891663f
25717 F20101220_AAAZZM kim_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
cbbf5165bc021316ce3a5c847e94c8a7
41a8fdbe6e97c11a64bbb615a4742289eb5671e1
19940 F20101220_AAAZYY kim_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
3ea4ae1618cb38ab4aacbd05d56f50fa
5b2db4c6afe06ce5ad5449b7ee745d5b18cc7684
83169 F20101220_AAAZCF kim_j_Page_018.jpg
f455c21cffc444b3d58ca379a03edce5
190eb6ef9561fa232873e8a568ebe884dd720d23
811575 F20101220_AAAYWK kim_j_Page_057.jp2
dc7b21ae59ce78391eb75073e8e2d194
00bab61c43443b4d6e01ed9f431c3315898fedd3
F20101220_AAAYVW kim_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
4188adc9951b189e894dd3ddd336daf4
f16e3e68316bfae6953bd985920de79662f5202e
23635 F20101220_AAAZZN kim_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
3aa4802232fefe5e571689d94645115f
84d5cd0ebdbaa9087146d4dc714a22db6236756b
23771 F20101220_AAAZYZ kim_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
17f9453d4dbef9ce0bbace6a268e1072
07743887257e46f1695b3b538332960f278c882a
87839 F20101220_AAAZCG kim_j_Page_019.jpg
9a0988a3cb2e3ebf5ab6b2065c3f8e9c
269605aa5d23539aa2e64679b6b562de25ea7e0b
16160 F20101220_AAAYXA kim_j_Page_138.jp2
01d24244657ac07f3764f6c968b3e490
87cc96765c868906deeaffeac7db4de1d62b161c
23323 F20101220_AAAZBR kim_j_Page_001.jpg
3d0cc486ff27afe21e1bb91bfb224369
20521cc4acd1cc4a179713d38795bf19cac42af9
2257 F20101220_AAAYWL kim_j_Page_135.txt
cce7175ab8f7f7d5571047b8b27c413c
364f0f88fdaf405f2477faf7f3876937d8fac993
5293 F20101220_AAAYVX kim_j_Page_013thm.jpg
5ab2c4d11b0c8e466ae070791bd0dda5
f7371c23e43bec6f30ad559bc43bc33c224314bc
6130 F20101220_AAAZZO kim_j_Page_096thm.jpg
5713fa7a30e596a6b6844782d929055b
2195f3ec6be91930a8f891d837f5dd0bf9d17095
73857 F20101220_AAAZCH kim_j_Page_020.jpg
1c31424316bfdf3d4a3ffd75dfda79b9
f0364fee6edac013db8fbec82c66ee6cfae1b93b
6883 F20101220_AAAYXB kim_j_Page_127thm.jpg
242331ec89ed1a64d3fb8627e7057f95
e8a3d438d884d8e462f8e271e0ca67dfc8628e74
4451 F20101220_AAAZBS kim_j_Page_002.jpg
7fbaef40331cec5081b4ecdf6d9a831d
db3c3511b27c53eb3ded4d853f00db9724cdb1ce
1872 F20101220_AAAYWM kim_j_Page_107.txt
07df1d7e8bc3ddd29b822be39bc65e9c
2035a8fb8a7eebe07920a6c65cd88051418d328a
47863 F20101220_AAAYVY kim_j_Page_085.pro
a66581e4caae1d51d8aa0cf1c762a575
e10db58e9b50904f7f950f44b8f22ee139e9e7c8
5822 F20101220_AAAZZP kim_j_Page_026thm.jpg
f9a5d96df775e1792c1e2c20b5d59b98
9b51331f6835cd1d58d60984b76e7305152dc93d
83680 F20101220_AAAZCI kim_j_Page_022.jpg
770e2bad703e20ff226422232c8816b5
5203a0189998df79254db6f0b7e22e43f08f4b20
11586 F20101220_AAAZBT kim_j_Page_003.jpg
57d4255f2f747484f6301181f3dbf3a6
210c92298d4050a16959965dc9f88c702c94d033
281 F20101220_AAAYWN kim_j_Page_003.txt
cd59c671bf2e42bd1c6f2d99f6f17088
92bcea313e7259f9f7a952039edd3265eff0df5b
2697 F20101220_AAAYVZ kim_j_Page_124.txt
14ed754355ad7f206e75ff5ab9f40ff4
01fd0a81b9ced5048aa7c56f29c51f1ab278eaa1
23705 F20101220_AAAZZQ kim_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
08f06aa20f0c545a88e2b99cedf96863
6e81e12937d4ab0eaa889a3d1860bd11ab19328f
78750 F20101220_AAAZCJ kim_j_Page_023.jpg
a277e0746ed095a3862cc444d52f1c6a
c968dff10bc3e276266e4f78ec2d534af82d6d65
63670 F20101220_AAAYXC kim_j_Page_044.jpg
c22db3fba46c155448129f231902626e
e1f3119f97cb6932e2558b9f0da7227af67ced9a
74621 F20101220_AAAZBU kim_j_Page_004.jpg
2ce70ecf88fa1ce2dbe15093438afe7d
ebc9c2d84380958741784ad10d981150519d8bdf
2780 F20101220_AAAYWO kim_j_Page_070.txt
8ac314f876429b6f5e00b8610b830437
d657227a3da33fe31b6957026681034aea227d3d
23791 F20101220_AAAZZR kim_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
540c78c4a07bc3e2c5188545ad53057e
b56c51bdeb9e856ca5533634e22310deecdb26cc
81294 F20101220_AAAZCK kim_j_Page_024.jpg
1de580233393ef70573d36808917f96b
2ca9231536279a8557144f6424ad934a7d4f5062
22506 F20101220_AAAYXD kim_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
7aa4e6fe03ae5210f8cda5a99b7edee5
471049c73ff80bd2a75ee7f9985e2512a224ab80
76688 F20101220_AAAZBV kim_j_Page_005.jpg
c739a16580261d9752415535a3871f44
dca5eea4ea1b2ccecce9513a6de0c5c642494746
21336 F20101220_AAAYWP kim_j_Page_148.pro
92e2be6d29024a7ae0c1d2c54625d810
338ecd0842ac4931d28ba6a8f1cd9db50ff01c15
F20101220_AAAZZS kim_j_Page_069thm.jpg
58f35182926d5fa959065824f6c830c5
1640cdc90d2a12413cbf3f0b09abe8b7e421f489
75766 F20101220_AAAZCL kim_j_Page_025.jpg
496ffb02a7a2c5e142c7d1aa92fe0ac3
44a8539de2df78c944f31f8cbf5ef89c2fa25993
F20101220_AAAYXE kim_j_Page_029.tif
f77af89eb31f5654233b8e94dd8465b9
3b05c4ea75206e3af0be0e69aca4929d97e762cf
104744 F20101220_AAAZBW kim_j_Page_006.jpg
678fdf8a8efaac6b2d5a351a3bebdcbe
2aa348611751efaa472d3f044d0fdb1ba7294dd8
6550 F20101220_AAAYWQ kim_j_Page_140thm.jpg
cf389cc363dd9c2948aa511979b785a7
8b0387897d624110476dfd5a8617cb747a930c34
4620 F20101220_AAAZZT kim_j_Page_090thm.jpg
af5969fd52585ed127d6dd3a32060cd0
b510de535ae9e718f8ae9a02e43b8282dcfe76d9
100 F20101220_AAAYXF kim_j_Page_002.txt
b71fbb14a42e2352d923f37d7484e8f3
856c3f03089574d5b0b2345a18a0e3ad48154346
114623 F20101220_AAAZBX kim_j_Page_007.jpg
6f6b9a5419dfac4defedfb9e926b63fb
9340caea2ff54e3cdf076ce786610101b4814d88
73597 F20101220_AAAYWR kim_j_Page_113.jpg
afc9139058a15b2be4165c1c85d1b976
276b08a7f2d2628fe8b757ee02c6db74fb1b5507
30207 F20101220_AAAZDA kim_j_Page_043.jpg
691da15520319a2eb94a957b41337586
e25d91f05510dc435be45b0572fed3eacad54605
25315 F20101220_AAAZZU kim_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
fa2d8dae87cbbaef9e8167e2b225ebc1
2d0dcf376469c0f565e8431887a491e80c9eaae6
74863 F20101220_AAAZCM kim_j_Page_026.jpg
7a8b8a670ac5eaf1dfa1e530c5448871
10e96b02ae8a30c027a1b8ff8700d5e88dd04b38
129967 F20101220_AAAYXG kim_j_Page_144.jp2
61626e79689e45b6b0c700a55896fb25
fd3f44d1a632d7dd29c405718c4c671e60d8e7ac
27196 F20101220_AAAZBY kim_j_Page_008.jpg
4612bac36cbb0f91aa27d2c1e8e07b4a
2aa080925282d953e647b234319d08c96d1a4f5f
105103 F20101220_AAAYWS kim_j_Page_077.jp2
accaebb923fbe0c56983c47b28f08ac0
e63ddedb5f21b5b78acf9e09ac462607839f4792
80411 F20101220_AAAZDB kim_j_Page_045.jpg
8f0e2c55eb5ae75a0e49dca7a9bcd62f
1fe9f91379a30b60fd53f6820f06b5f8199fec3a


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110410_AAAAAI INGEST_TIME 2011-04-10T06:08:58Z PACKAGE UFE0015404_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 689 DFID F20110410_AAAHKE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH kim_j_Page_071.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3d249c84e830eed693576b2419d6b9dc
SHA-1
145cd036c00591bd221ec46b3acba2500a0b71f0
250 F20110410_AAAHJP kim_j_Page_053.txt
122a4be03c33dd8d228468a2b7a1a5bf
39d9837d093c0afad4063e4f6a808477db949bd0
1630 F20110410_AAAHKF kim_j_Page_072.txt
ae54cf155a4b70a8fbe26916fe2ce5ac
a17206b939503e29277ef63c28b919aa640258da
1749 F20110410_AAAHJQ kim_j_Page_054.txt
358e086994e3aaea8097f47aea9ae321
91700ee6940093421a4bf92ea9d17d50233edbbf
1939 F20110410_AAAHKG kim_j_Page_073.txt
09d2b7de11e9cb595c9c6bae214736b7
6b3179efbda6ac13b279dbddf9782ac9fb065663
1833 F20110410_AAAHJR kim_j_Page_055.txt
02426fa6abac0e58b835b73a5abb8366
2b1b237939ff62173cf7355fbeafcf81b5605008
1921 F20110410_AAAHKH kim_j_Page_074.txt
d08855bb3d98527b3b4f076ed317c0cd
c4f9dd7516e1ecc5c425943a673577966f11733a
2286 F20110410_AAAHJS kim_j_Page_056.txt
027a18d5facaebc59909c761e10cc997
f9f33564efcbbea2e8e9736e1187b32def63289b
1965 F20110410_AAAHKI kim_j_Page_075.txt
38e9309641d75e0f8df5ae6ce423c2f6
0ff3ab8efa8a605a09d7d30269b58c5d08e5d1c2
1622 F20110410_AAAHJT kim_j_Page_057.txt
ccbaaf3c062e822db08f9cb9127516d4
27c4f90756d17ffdac8f56d28dc1a13c229fc6fd
1819 F20110410_AAAHKJ kim_j_Page_076.txt
c69712de01c08f2b627a9daaec561fc5
0a6fa8d3edd7023a30eba20762212ffd34b6c411
1618 F20110410_AAAHJU kim_j_Page_058.txt
1c70220a6ea1a313ea12c724a97f5cd9
c41d34d3e56a6cbd14c01fb6a81e5d62247e13a3
1915 F20110410_AAAHKK kim_j_Page_077.txt
a9b5e6dbafc0f1af81a9f9e76c5720aa
d8b07d18261be4f85adb1a292a13e87891feb7e7
1423 F20110410_AAAHJV kim_j_Page_059.txt
cdb18b39c7a80fcc78ef99c9d95c9545
5b13990b7280fba56d0af40e3249c7ac46caa48f
1471 F20110410_AAAHJW kim_j_Page_060.txt
48fd545a9a255220d081250f78c15aa0
7c3d9a372c96de2ffc837a40e4dc6bd909866273
77843 F20110410_AAAGHJ kim_j_Page_081.jpg
1a0ae1917133885a02d9a114bc51ff19
eceaa779cba23d8d72d95db4ef50cfc0114cb8cd
1974 F20110410_AAAHKL kim_j_Page_078.txt
3ca8501cf17197ee916912cf30333f51
3523fbfe5f7e9ed8b1defe5f547991757fff6dfe
1301 F20110410_AAAHJX kim_j_Page_061.txt
19379a3a05344170dae07c9a5b9d46d9
fc6ddcc54a782463a8accfb18a5ecb1c28344b47
1677 F20110410_AAAHLA kim_j_Page_097.txt
ee19da88a0143b1de7f1207b55a7bb6a
94df58ea01770d2e7190030e4be53369470ca5e6
85322 F20110410_AAAGHK kim_j_Page_050.jpg
594cbd79fd2d9c7605b4670d3ddd8bd7
517437031b91c71fb94db4e7e3356e0130973b17
1799 F20110410_AAAHKM kim_j_Page_079.txt
5266ee30a198e206a6bcf2b4e536df7f
dfe8d082bf36cdbb2844b4d0455fb5566b320084
1308 F20110410_AAAHJY kim_j_Page_062.txt
d09e5d606b8c27220e8dd75124e382d1
30a4ee72e1f59a7fc96900619d1fc915a8713f78
1899 F20110410_AAAHLB kim_j_Page_100.txt
037746e499887be368ffc8e824209c93
302412292823300563a6d00d49c00cb5c7d2abeb
2760 F20110410_AAAGHL kim_j_Page_121.txt
c45a1ba2569b73f4f4afe32d0dffc007
1e2ff41cc0cec5d38b8db1d935de24577e1fba5c
1871 F20110410_AAAHKN kim_j_Page_081.txt
177483be90edc24560c4be2e6f1297a5
2a8d4b5427c6e152246cb55f21d391c3b863d063
1669 F20110410_AAAHJZ kim_j_Page_063.txt
9d995657fb14a26fe88e679d8e7f7fcb
cba207f009e396aa4499538d6d5da742787291f1
84294 F20110410_AAAGIA kim_j_Page_072.jp2
3e6d15c443cfac7a129ba9771a4056f6
6f2932acf2b0af58739359a8086256daa60cbf77
F20110410_AAAHLC kim_j_Page_102.txt
fb8b7f84a7bce09965ff0703261638b8
9c63f51db532d25363f9ce10e27fd79820c0c3fb
1053954 F20110410_AAAGHM kim_j_Page_046.tif
fbbfb0eab9d6a66eead7c99f2403defe
5c4ba3293385206fa5ee68eda7229c0140fe690f
1987 F20110410_AAAHKO kim_j_Page_082.txt
834fa1bf4aea9601b5b84f105b2635dd
041a15b61af00cb3f3fc1ebf7a3d9c610e60c6c4
1906 F20110410_AAAGIB kim_j_Page_014.txt
08dc34e682878b2caa706ef154727bb1
228b22ab78f969c00c1cda6abdc72204e560de60
1657 F20110410_AAAHLD kim_j_Page_103.txt
46c9048c49b7d3e839ddc2dbe055ca84
72c229d6691962e31aabfc6f07e968ce96101012
6169 F20110410_AAAGHN kim_j_Page_124thm.jpg
f4d0b4a6668c671898b271adeb1389b7
39dd53036cc548f1c0fde8986017a298eb8de2d5
1759 F20110410_AAAHKP kim_j_Page_084.txt
f86ce956c75278af7b05caa995080f7b
e0f4ad67b9e11ef496ceb36c5b1b1a65228189d0
1051986 F20110410_AAAGIC kim_j_Page_119.jp2
b78183c3ae06579ee69616ce1a33bf1d
26d4c9d0e55e2e6c71a36271259f8f607afb26dd
1130 F20110410_AAAHLE kim_j_Page_104.txt
131bd23347c2bde75d3c45635271e4db
1039a9a290313a4a0a12af4f6ac675ec5d846c4c
25271604 F20110410_AAAGHO kim_j_Page_129.tif
3aad4d54a721c35dc38d2294dc4a75d2
5cd9fd21a06358aeb6f82fea26654a7af7653b08
1723 F20110410_AAAHKQ kim_j_Page_086.txt
2dd00f01ee6a973223fe0305d6669268
f607e272a802359fe7840a4e1765c8b38f6e5f28
912 F20110410_AAAGID kim_j_Page_003thm.jpg
b6058954f7244be2bb00996a7e705707
1997df3cdddc9cf9ca1c2b9d4f84534b8a102324
1903 F20110410_AAAHLF kim_j_Page_105.txt
e9d6ed8e936ca9c6945c4db115aa6844
700f4539f79362b3abbe6f06bd443990f6ef1c33
64117 F20110410_AAAGHP kim_j_Page_112.pro
33d09a09afbe1f50b274815bcc8f73eb
09a182acc2618863c3f4d2a910e9043a5c444536
1848 F20110410_AAAHKR kim_j_Page_087.txt
bbb166838ddec9aca2ebc8b1d2da265e
e387d60cff3493bd69f471512ce7ae0d202bd802
47734 F20110410_AAAGIE kim_j_Page_100.pro
ccf613d0e44a68c6b9f5a5ff52b089b8
c58843aea01acf85685c14e85ce39102f1f00ac0
1914 F20110410_AAAHLG kim_j_Page_106.txt
2d56369b99dbc47dcc4074064d6cea12
78d33fe0105ded8ff3521f75fdb627907d380733
108705 F20110410_AAAGHQ kim_j_Page_030.jp2
bfd4b046fef1cb8b24c9a2f8c4f7ea6c
10a056042fefe9f5cba525885dfdc31fba62fd35
1805 F20110410_AAAHKS kim_j_Page_088.txt
207aa3e0fc211bfe0a82edf0e24e6250
7ee66efd1e5c01c0dc2c0448dff0851be9b14798
18772 F20110410_AAAGIF kim_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
65076a47ccb17628bc1a61c09a18354b
05e5ea4846a00344fcbbe514a0687ec53e92a325
647 F20110410_AAAHLH kim_j_Page_108.txt
e8ab7d07533244bf4693a9c1f9d3be67
ee24bcc15a98a822353d6b771178170ebf631838
76829 F20110410_AAAGHR kim_j_Page_076.jpg
c4ef554183c3be645c59c93e9091e1a1
eb1d0e39286d76284ed85a172c8176d21dea13ac
2029 F20110410_AAAHKT kim_j_Page_089.txt
0370929de2df3ec2c916a38176a22612
af617a362f97ab7e980c443d4ad97b07d6aedfd2
84842 F20110410_AAAGIG kim_j_Page_139.jpg
c534b7f5258e5ec915952ec0d83c983c
9ca4ca9b9bdfccebb8a5b7eebacbb94a26cab06d
74 F20110410_AAAHLI kim_j_Page_109.txt
7c339f3e1692a02829e16982db40f140
117845da347768eef253b38f7265e36cfc5b48e4
6599 F20110410_AAAGHS kim_j_Page_144thm.jpg
633ff35ca01c7fd7b9c32a21faf7b001
92ed1bbbe146ece9aa1efeb13af05f05878e29ce
1427 F20110410_AAAHKU kim_j_Page_090.txt
04fd775c01ea9c4096acb9d66fda539d
785cb7dd057ed88a806f912869b75f6ebb7849b0
77286 F20110410_AAAGIH kim_j_Page_102.jpg
812b69065c6caf9c802b43090c3bcc39
f4006a31ff3bce3de158e8ffc29dd6e8cc4d3f5f
2660 F20110410_AAAHLJ kim_j_Page_110.txt
308b72ba887d042776b789322571a333
07ab4787b8e43f255eec01416c0ec723702a6978
24487 F20110410_AAAGHT kim_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
60d9a8e5c7ba46b4625cb8447a4dd136
ab247b4c3e367eb9a2e2ed7aa59ba64bca86c7d2
1441 F20110410_AAAHKV kim_j_Page_091.txt
4b6958ec88285b0e68d6d7139c82ba0c
aa2c8c979e037595227bee166adefdfd0ad55bd9
3893 F20110410_AAAGII kim_j_Page_129.txt
9f427426d081ff0f09a09ad9a38dbfa6
3911b4fe56f6ad177efd5d18e9eb3038ae3f2ccc
3070 F20110410_AAAHLK kim_j_Page_111.txt
95c75e44b97c3607a460e6c6067fa0ea
0c3201169884711e8c7442affe4e355510c1e80d
15229 F20110410_AAAGHU kim_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
f04724721c2c56ac4dca4aeeaea91baf
986ccc99ed496d8c60fb72ffdf51042dc4cdda18
F20110410_AAAHKW kim_j_Page_093.txt
1bacaec4a58db4b89ae747621bf9aae7
a8dc66dfcb3559b17c6199d148da2cbffbc10a5a
61465 F20110410_AAAGIJ kim_j_Page_145.pro
e7dcb8e7e22dd6a890a6a3a53639985f
fe25f4094668a8192f899077ec7100ec47aa9907
2675 F20110410_AAAHLL kim_j_Page_112.txt
8a8c492c86c002cbe19740143d9276d5
7e536a66bd2f708e12408a7e38eaff6d0b97dbab
3941 F20110410_AAAHMA kim_j_Page_131.txt
452052305dd73361612b16b4771757a7
5929a2d0346e14ae7435cef92acdf0f85d3ce8ba
97946 F20110410_AAAGHV kim_j_Page_084.jp2
bef88e817b808a7786e7e2e8553bfbbf
416c4d7e2fb3f6c195ec493432d2a2099d7af013
2005 F20110410_AAAHKX kim_j_Page_094.txt
9a8ffb48df77409928623743bfdc2ecc
803473ebdfc4e909de5eafe48e04fdc1c695c773
2696 F20110410_AAAHMB kim_j_Page_132.txt
f61509f74c32aea59283ab4656300006
e8702a19de8a8320467336783af405b107ba526c
26659 F20110410_AAAGHW kim_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
a75b6d3fd9d3ca239c78e05c54267515
40c3ce643bce41463345de01b3faba9a2df0d8f0
1963 F20110410_AAAHKY kim_j_Page_095.txt
9903cfee2f37017f3be080267bd01bb2
973178ed7a795eae7c9b61966ca4d3fb240a0c86
F20110410_AAAGIK kim_j_Page_138.tif
b3612ca79a6e152a7523266ad227f94d
d99fddd0b3a092b0084d3b8a61fce55374cc024f
1785 F20110410_AAAHLM kim_j_Page_113.txt
8f1ebeae3f0b5969331a126a3d7b4bae
5f8c1caaa7ba7742e319cd415188dc5ace11b501
3799 F20110410_AAAHMC kim_j_Page_133.txt
f745928ff59d254260efe75ae75383ea
2d956ac4108d22aa88f412965becb88bbd9a913e
1920 F20110410_AAAHKZ kim_j_Page_096.txt
78feeb4ce5962da8cbdd4e66b716b8a9
2b2091755b4765c0a1a5d60ec4109798cd5820a1
54820 F20110410_AAAGJA kim_j_Page_019.pro
28584f61e790a50ae993f70878f8d299
c948f73a1fb0bf1dac4972b3f2322a7d6c0d487a
F20110410_AAAGIL kim_j_Page_089.tif
46f8ea77d0ab5f9258a779f48d799dd5
a449e5ece9ab62492dc57fc95ed8005f3b03fc49
2691 F20110410_AAAHLN kim_j_Page_114.txt
dbb7f2f5803e3f2e46ed3d76ed3a6426
50a03de9c949ff3b87f11ab7275768db5b879434
F20110410_AAAGHX kim_j_Page_002.tif
0ccb35584611cd6be573efac7314609d
615faa151911750dafa314b5a5f316c95373ac55
51 F20110410_AAAHMD kim_j_Page_134.txt
2d87a5a905d994b88efec0579d4e30c1
f4a3279570e3c7b8abab0223b72652d483498aba
94908 F20110410_AAAGJB kim_j_Page_146.jpg
ab51fff48748289c13397915903469c4
5d211d67994b8c093c5659234d146204cb219636
1922 F20110410_AAAGIM kim_j_Page_068.txt
9252e212841ce60597c97ca4d641e429
22b13099c79a8244c3f1f81cb09f081306de32cc
F20110410_AAAHLO kim_j_Page_115.txt
371b6cab80a4206e237d37019ee1099a
c4836082d6f14080019a21ad959150d759deafa5
1051975 F20110410_AAAGHY kim_j_Page_129.jp2
db2ad51ad57eeda81b6ba9750b57b79a
c13da7b2e225ac20b57aeba857708fd81654a4e6
1331 F20110410_AAAHME kim_j_Page_136.txt
1ee2fc5ba28e82f72f4fd2fc5529721b
188bfea1966b22c303e50550357ad238d0b40951
2690 F20110410_AAAHLP kim_j_Page_116.txt
cffad1f7aea0e6e861c1b2fcd7ba4d22
3834ef74f12e1d282b81643ab0567f322fe2a792
6209 F20110410_AAAGJC kim_j_Page_110thm.jpg
552e09ad97702dee4ea821e870be8a79
7e3fcdfd6a07bde693f9c62eff27d9d9c74e453f
48258 F20110410_AAAGIN kim_j_Page_073.pro
16c12c6dee4978f0e8b2f221565e24f0
defec6bb5ec88c8d17577d1c8a68272c121c866f
20439 F20110410_AAAGHZ kim_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
aef72a9f79acb93af30aa21c9009becc
aef8fc71cd383052ed0b763e08bfbbe9ff8a08ad
2014 F20110410_AAAHMF kim_j_Page_139.txt
65934a5e87c9585f260a7121b60ee635
0ba2abd7f9e299bfd9ff4b8a0dd3b92bbffbaeae
1698 F20110410_AAAHLQ kim_j_Page_117.txt
9c53a3feaa6da29e6f94d29741fbc9d9
17fec5a3c58803d9837c0aab76190ed305fb0c39
1137 F20110410_AAAGJD kim_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
09f9de2be2fdcf4c57347d9d032ff0cd
d930aebd8023b34c8c6d785e8a2e6c635ad23a0a
2021 F20110410_AAAGIO kim_j_Page_045.txt
28f171e5486243800c055a0a07016b99
b94157c22fb5cd8e0e95d86b8fc7f339cf1d83e5
2497 F20110410_AAAHMG kim_j_Page_140.txt
0450c804ace2c4021b98a75bcf201fc5
22250d114f61904bd73b7e74dc3dfeb5aec03fc0
2830 F20110410_AAAHLR kim_j_Page_119.txt
67c286a4c5f69420f5d6b6ebaeacd2f2
6551cde292e07168cccb1b2064e9de5655dc0cc2
F20110410_AAAGJE kim_j_Page_026.tif
980697cf3f4ad07c9bedf6e3d3b0cca4
c17b606b29a81b8f1d3778d1d3266064791654bd
25374 F20110410_AAAGIP kim_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
99021689c97019b5ff85a14c46457f16
5a68aad4cf6508eb88cb24755c13b7208d171b4d
2337 F20110410_AAAHMH kim_j_Page_142.txt
f2019fb17404dd06887433c6552aeecf
a02d5482b1ab4f7e21b825146c302b954ac1bf10
2694 F20110410_AAAHLS kim_j_Page_120.txt
f300f91b79d8867b5bdeb2fc969e3c92
ec00e94c4d1efc7d58662344c06a7d5a58f24964
78435 F20110410_AAAGJF kim_j_Page_032.jpg
7dbe1e804279425f138208a71fe5db3f
92810f47e2efa8f516d65d392dd84095daad6d3a
37929 F20110410_AAAGIQ kim_j_Page_016.pro
da238d91a034497a4f2338193079cb30
f35938865ffa7b44270d03072729bb717b6ecfd8
2627 F20110410_AAAHMI kim_j_Page_143.txt
5bb40a6897ecee41e309fac54878a939
7fc84d4b713043015580775f5cbc4fa49dea4e95
2695 F20110410_AAAHLT kim_j_Page_122.txt
727e1e89e5d70068f2d285b358d9f522
60cb370c5fc5ad95ee7bf59f20f1cd75159ee7c6
736249 F20110410_AAAGJG kim_j_Page_059.jp2
c96f0ae4e7e057ce6ad12fcf3e082fea
ff2ff00cbbbdf5cb0d188db762c663de6dc60268
80444 F20110410_AAAGIR kim_j_Page_017.jpg
4a400bd164f126145a4d9a43249bb106
30ace2b7003b731a73a84697065ae6d5b7bcbbc2
2485 F20110410_AAAHMJ kim_j_Page_144.txt
038b91e266914136a65ae25f9c65bab9
0d090fd29b737d7f6b533bbeb6c75007ee7f3bf1
2751 F20110410_AAAHLU kim_j_Page_123.txt
45946d3eca4976c905667201d8ab3754
5eb96e1e96cd0d33c9c5a3d86ecf8afab15fba70
91417 F20110410_AAAGJH kim_j_Page_103.jp2
03f1079c57415ba2dcb858941e8458bf
12a76b4a943608d07e253754e693d0e28d5545eb
24503 F20110410_AAAGIS kim_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
40fdcd644603a849759ffc7f8aeaaa7f
c19dadbd51d62b41e62f3c9e1cae75950ec1d647
2536 F20110410_AAAHMK kim_j_Page_145.txt
336580324cbce5be0047af921b98dadb
24435c043e75f4daa870c08f68651a1cdc4cebc5
2646 F20110410_AAAHLV kim_j_Page_125.txt
80945e3a93a26989e7236fe334483da9
d2c47897143e1f6cad0a49027effe67e11c83fe8
1853 F20110410_AAAGJI kim_j_Page_009.txt
739eeee052a600b64ca3005ae87b9f27
98dcdbe4576c88b2d9df03a1c154ab8954ecd524
65627 F20110410_AAAGIT kim_j_Page_067.jpg
aa36072cbb30da2def95eac6cf846612
286630f04fe0f51b4e73827e477d63a560e613e5
2435 F20110410_AAAHML kim_j_Page_146.txt
26ea10b278c3b2d103f6bf4a1b9fd20d
5c1d92595895f48c0344ae24bac7be0129e9a4fc
2698 F20110410_AAAHLW kim_j_Page_126.txt
9d2cb4920a03b2d36e797cf028b762bf
c6cfda20ef50c822b526223307d9cb3d69dd655a
16820 F20110410_AAAGJJ kim_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
e11e8297035203b016913ad9d7618e40
0fc28141a024c80bba1c71dc22ba647d090d5b51
55031 F20110410_AAAGIU kim_j_Page_005.pro
8a75f50679ce4a558345a95260ccf98f
e5f1c9c072650cc8e56b59c03d057968d8c04a9a
5277 F20110410_AAAHNA kim_j_Page_067thm.jpg
a25edb81731a89e293177953d9f3427b
ee421f7e5076bb3135cabea835f97c25c14119cc
1907 F20110410_AAAHMM kim_j_Page_147.txt
e75c26fa6dcb395c196f68aab99126bb
f295dd300859a6edbc837135d2cfb58e97b9133c
4039 F20110410_AAAHLX kim_j_Page_127.txt
0122c0a178eec5b68912e20501c4ff29
093e28faa55849a951695ac50597ea0bd85cf68b
1266 F20110410_AAAGJK kim_j_Page_012.txt
ff26f2d42ec9b32d2cef9eb7c3150190
91e91e05ef4a3903e9cafc26bdd1d313c7e73d04
5394 F20110410_AAAGIV kim_j_Page_046thm.jpg
e7f50327be39dd257b7dc2fe42fb03dc
6398abb7b99bf574c0547a000cc0a51285ac6ab1
6072 F20110410_AAAHNB kim_j_Page_077thm.jpg
1dbdfd1883ba3f35ca9151aa79eb95e2
f6df5caccb7e1cfd021e19b54c9b16d4baa8bd97
F20110410_AAAHLY kim_j_Page_128.txt
7f64f604d356e283b6c21c70d8e140eb
8eca4a0b0248645edb71622f021840397b49e027
71434 F20110410_AAAGIW kim_j_Page_055.jpg
b5c12dfe09898f695896c51edf4c98f6
901cb4e72de17d5ff5a26e780a4f0f1ab1fdb745
22246 F20110410_AAAHNC kim_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
2c569809712f292ed5eb4e785e44c374
f160d3c38b446847822ff754bd29877e2b9ea479
898 F20110410_AAAHMN kim_j_Page_148.txt
95328164b87a9a7102c2725d15360c01
f33a63273673b1e24ce7ec3f78023c4adcbda2df
F20110410_AAAHLZ kim_j_Page_130.txt
febd28a5f409172bd400cd1562d0466f
a1b63185c2a575835e5615c26bac9755d7e09c9b
21230 F20110410_AAAGJL kim_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
ddee1664bc91349385533de900647294
e9874bb66f7a59189cfd66b684085420e30755c8
76587 F20110410_AAAGIX kim_j_Page_033.jpg
7ed0ea180671b601b9fb2d6b9593794b
3a66b8d6364eafd71f087da45c3353c05d040943
6173 F20110410_AAAGKA kim_j_Page_125thm.jpg
b88ee1fa7b91b6b756525c1fd030966c
178ee3ffe14e0fdd91cc837d7a87214b4db976c7
4933 F20110410_AAAHND kim_j_Page_099thm.jpg
5f03d9ead56b224bc30a806b9be3bbce
1ef36cccd78a89d1e69395c231e2ee9bdb8cd899
2006 F20110410_AAAHMO kim_j_Page_001thm.jpg
8259fe03a048224273c6565501420cb7
c6794e13e7a7280faf13c4b315e09da86b3b1740
104759 F20110410_AAAGJM kim_j_Page_023.jp2
c8adf3bcf5240708b78536eb6344e9a8
9c59236eed24e65b7a0001f4943a6f976b020edd
F20110410_AAAGIY kim_j_Page_055.tif
05b4a4abe6a5dda5ea2f1088cb3c24df
fd628268df169d84f877ab7fa429cc18b96a50ca
1998 F20110410_AAAGKB kim_j_Page_083.txt
c15e1f49c6d0b326298ad0384a44a3f5
2f26ebd0241ed2b8345fcd9ea3ee9d3160de7b9d
5899 F20110410_AAAHNE kim_j_Page_136thm.jpg
6d8c2df1ce0946a7fb9673d89441dba2
c7818af665fd52dfaf9e6b8c4bb65effe0f3491b
970476 F20110410_AAAHMP kim_j.pdf
57922f9ff28cb8dc63f6022874d8d436
f4fa5182d2d53b2223b3fdae79be77d5649fd8a5
2436 F20110410_AAAGJN kim_j_Page_141.txt
5d49283a5921a3b2a578ceac182e70dc
41df30894ad7aa9cdade875a390be75b7fd23918
1897 F20110410_AAAGIZ kim_j_Page_039.txt
a200061f137a8ab17983ccb7c99e0c77
212d9532e1eb42c5905c25a52bc66be94372055a
65026 F20110410_AAAGKC kim_j_Page_122.pro
697af96b735874e73ff39e03ffb10cb3
78dd8001403ca1c5e6be65774aa700ed3891663f
19940 F20110410_AAAHNF kim_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
3ea4ae1618cb38ab4aacbd05d56f50fa
5b2db4c6afe06ce5ad5449b7ee745d5b18cc7684
24329 F20110410_AAAHMQ kim_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
3738e02cb94dd7848ab614cc734e9fab
174e0cb648c3fb7f98623f8e3e0a4fad79114685
5559 F20110410_AAAGJO kim_j_Page_049thm.jpg
1c520cee763a631b0b51ba25b59bbc96
b5cd5b4f55f786b09092fb6a50f2f29eb6348e7a
24670 F20110410_AAAGKD kim_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
4188adc9951b189e894dd3ddd336daf4
f16e3e68316bfae6953bd985920de79662f5202e
23771 F20110410_AAAHNG kim_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
17f9453d4dbef9ce0bbace6a268e1072
07743887257e46f1695b3b538332960f278c882a
25734 F20110410_AAAHMR kim_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
111382452b8fbe685adf87f6f69b4e1f
2db7650faa9fce41c95c0e8dc0e87f996d81c5f8
71304 F20110410_AAAGJP kim_j_Page_117.jpg
889d8a72da0d1f7b88b8938bc17773d3
c5c086c2745412086330f005d7f1999aa2ac6286
5293 F20110410_AAAGKE kim_j_Page_013thm.jpg
5ab2c4d11b0c8e466ae070791bd0dda5
f7371c23e43bec6f30ad559bc43bc33c224314bc
25538 F20110410_AAAHNH kim_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
732510bba4ecbdc33ac2ca0a28085698
ae8de0ca3aafafc7ee8191175a8daf70b155498d
6002 F20110410_AAAHMS kim_j_Page_065thm.jpg
510c5f375927da9a73aeb763d1f56bbb
cabd6f0018a179ee266ca4cc94b150e2d64163e7
21636 F20110410_AAAGJQ kim_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
e69ee19fb3869259139da4a91ea4113f
413b04a5323872436f4a52370095e03efc3eb8c5
47863 F20110410_AAAGKF kim_j_Page_085.pro
a66581e4caae1d51d8aa0cf1c762a575
e10db58e9b50904f7f950f44b8f22ee139e9e7c8
24066 F20110410_AAAHNI kim_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
11b46ae1d7529db1a23b55d8a159cae4
5e1184edaf95c4b5e2a3c1fa88922e4814f1adec
5497 F20110410_AAAHMT kim_j_Page_031thm.jpg
de4b7cb168db89cd2f1bcb2faac2e648
2f74dbf2d81004188f39620febb5711e1925f195
F20110410_AAAGJR kim_j_Page_008.tif
521e6728703df85a39b941b42dd65d4d
ac8ca46bc707cb0b7b6f117779b191917c6c4c77
2697 F20110410_AAAGKG kim_j_Page_124.txt
14ed754355ad7f206e75ff5ab9f40ff4
01fd0a81b9ced5048aa7c56f29c51f1ab278eaa1
24144 F20110410_AAAHNJ kim_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
16c52097aaf8ee771a9b45f30ad0743e
29ec515b10a2ed643fe87225bbc410976f821de9
28620 F20110410_AAAHMU kim_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
65a2cd9006f7939487481e4c475d297a
3f2ac3c4c4fada58f634386463a5b5290bb34fcd
5716 F20110410_AAAGJS kim_j_Page_032thm.jpg
74104fdc59608663213ed40c9af2719a
494e4113da18f6586ee43cd4e3861a2d722e500d
F20110410_AAAGKH kim_j_Page_029.txt
f0b952fbae91971d89e977f6d7d04a57
f95e3db279798171145feac49e6fd6886aefb793
6176 F20110410_AAAHNK kim_j_Page_126thm.jpg
e08ef6dc0e2bff8fae1f632bf0357d81
555869cae797ebc79687ded8cee8e22831ddee7a
6171 F20110410_AAAHMV kim_j_Page_132thm.jpg
bdc1de152dba32bfc96cab73ab2c2cdb
3b4fe4e7e0df76010f2c03de3a558ab7425ee0b5
79702 F20110410_AAAGJT kim_j_Page_101.jpg
88c5386cbce2ede2e614a3280ff58e5e
ba1e70c82dc92c84753ad499a45377ddff514a17
28432 F20110410_AAAGKI kim_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
8ee236c29b75ea449ddc3d48a0d88b57
eb6743a969b12f1a03fac44f62b6f4a12517c286
2012 F20110410_AAAHNL kim_j_Page_008thm.jpg
929fe59cf8569c2e8617104293acdde1
4a7ab1bc0af099d641a0213a94aa9278fbab868d
6126 F20110410_AAAHMW kim_j_Page_041thm.jpg
11881ac71fa61131f1f980f1cfe3e5d3
f89bf01dec3ca54170cde635e95805b9f0dcf3c4
5575 F20110410_AAAGJU kim_j_Page_004thm.jpg
9c902ea7dccae6290a5d5a7d8b563d45
6ff025809be6a660e9bddc680dbdc77fb5954302
100535 F20110410_AAAGKJ kim_j_Page_033.jp2
ae8474ce19d88e98dcdd4124c5239abf
b84fe7eb784d123b4fb95d6fdf1b9bd79168647d
4620 F20110410_AAAHOA kim_j_Page_090thm.jpg
af5969fd52585ed127d6dd3a32060cd0
b510de535ae9e718f8ae9a02e43b8282dcfe76d9
23960 F20110410_AAAHNM kim_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
7a68a86aa3aa7949755a288a4cd95044
7189bc4b7c0b524e9c6d201ff0fdafdba46e2ed0
23820 F20110410_AAAHMX kim_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
4fe16af2dbad29ce5bcafaf0423dfb6d
4b4c20f23cc45f9bbef7c9b1e0e21644c528e04b
99724 F20110410_AAAGJV kim_j_Page_020.jp2
fda3ec52a36bf3a98d03ea89981a4a8c
f0656b61b4b36cc52fedc7e6b5f759ca55f58cb9
F20110410_AAAGKK kim_j_Page_085.tif
54718f13fb588a4079c5b194805a833b
33d14c45be12816f9013c5479e132c4d13686be9
25315 F20110410_AAAHOB kim_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
fa2d8dae87cbbaef9e8167e2b225ebc1
2d0dcf376469c0f565e8431887a491e80c9eaae6
6192 F20110410_AAAHNN kim_j_Page_035thm.jpg
89ce81cc92722ea97273acf93d5de736
852c716e75a43b747b958ba1f41ca1b19e27461c
4802 F20110410_AAAHMY kim_j_Page_104thm.jpg
60820a555cf4ae325d65293fb11a5e27
1f2d89be144b085fca92b38466ca7398222ed3a5
1803 F20110410_AAAGJW kim_j_Page_033.txt
386b04277cd2f415df5a114a8fedbb60
61b4610ef2ff7223237f804b35cd872aaf276909
98219 F20110410_AAAGKL kim_j_Page_142.jpg
8bffd6268b4507d090a1a4f19cc71437
52ed66d0a169fdcdff2e25940ed79abcd195551d
6391 F20110410_AAAHOC kim_j_Page_030thm.jpg
b836a5e1f652baf75cd77f8d7f7a2eca
bcf408a75d03e1936a2a6b2aaca408da76e12402
16410 F20110410_AAAHMZ kim_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
58c03fa780913c897b78fe11344717c0
3eaf0e39fddfb4df6b4c9769354302907040844c
5875 F20110410_AAAGJX kim_j_Page_045thm.jpg
5ad62715d24374f6fbe4d987bc40dd09
a25bb4f93e019ca3eb79ee057a79ac38ab88083c
2260 F20110410_AAAGLA kim_j_Page_080.txt
1bb47ba0c49798bee36ee40c85bccf2d
0ec4ffd8efb22321d1d116cdf910e47394d211dd
2531 F20110410_AAAHOD kim_j_Page_043thm.jpg
3351a5c76d4951966dc1609b9a3ab859
d79326f9b0da7f9ed50f0cf5d88a38a241c7783b
24613 F20110410_AAAHNO kim_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
d184aba7e6fb91049802425d8f28ddbb
89987e94028e7e0f6dc84a50bc23319d05994b70
6149 F20110410_AAAGJY kim_j_Page_075thm.jpg
61ae00699c9c4f49b2aca9304d55bf9c
3b7238178cd6d27a82cf107e666550ccaffaeb94
81592 F20110410_AAAGLB kim_j_Page_030.jpg
b9c2dbf2f58af64c886465ef2d1ec93f
1da43e3c3413dd0c219fc193ef1ed206b4549c1d
F20110410_AAAGKM kim_j_Page_118.txt
f86358af644eddafb855130dee4d423c
8bd4c15d0db95a8942cd8a14785ef694738505ac
6159 F20110410_AAAHOE kim_j_Page_120thm.jpg
98bef1a6421114f72787e4ee93ad56bc
263f86f5904cc2c74f8cc2344d53096f41fe4709
24275 F20110410_AAAHNP kim_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
f66a3049fa910b6af25a231a61ce12a3
def82c7fd021d6d048fd45045cde79c519598a0a
1937 F20110410_AAAGJZ kim_j_Page_085.txt
fa075c957ebb6e0e9b8dbe99efe5117d
2e1dde7f57ca342f1eb5dfc9c1a0ce1588f90f48
41374 F20110410_AAAGLC kim_j_Page_071.jp2
4a896fb5fa6816fbb71744c3e27d504b
2180005f54e802b32d2b8d67412d5a5c4b850122
5730 F20110410_AAAGKN kim_j_Page_052thm.jpg
cefc40780800a63bb8ae5e4b08bde55e
b821824ed8e91282ec6495f7ba5db1e7a9673dd8
6050 F20110410_AAAHOF kim_j_Page_074thm.jpg
52727f718d3c4fccbadea1a3c7e7c4f7
b1213da3c5013a49e54f2353bf2da088ce40d816
23735 F20110410_AAAHNQ kim_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
a4f9350a84d3394e4ac72231b5a36871
0e54b3e02eb20f04e22a515c138d034317cf880f
87581 F20110410_AAAGLD kim_j_Page_125.jpg
bbdb4aef957f97231b471f0c5e389341
15f10991003d82e7ff6a1b78ab74068527a524ed
F20110410_AAAGKO kim_j_Page_035.txt
ec67b9a438bca939f4dbf0bc8bc984fd
560aebec53335b07d457ab68e4859408e3655ee9
6073 F20110410_AAAHOG kim_j_Page_068thm.jpg
eca67bfae837b75248e8ec33aaa33e17
dc8d2e0be2570225fdd7f3e009770ec35c97f61f
4013 F20110410_AAAHNR kim_j_Page_005thm.jpg
8bcc09fc30e4b0b35edfb3c389b4fd1f
6ee17d232dc9246a258ffd85b2b852f31b76a214
131442 F20110410_AAAGLE kim_j_Page_145.jp2
de11c11b7fb37a2c14962c866fb4ac8e
9e4d39e275e5b00e29ab8315fec3017f4d9b8049
F20110410_AAAGKP kim_j_Page_052.tif
9a8e850e9b2bfce43e69b4511f39e30b
0e3bea5e646e949db159ced10419361a61aac5d6
1454 F20110410_AAAHOH kim_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
84729fac58d74aebeff2e29682f01435
50ee2c15658386ee24d00da30166784ecb4c7f75
11908 F20110410_AAAHNS kim_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
945728f27d1660a5dc8964569bb7edee
0e3a89e59b4fec56d537ac345fed4ce2fccd128e
1051965 F20110410_AAAGLF kim_j_Page_128.jp2
cac977ce8f3f627c2d96cf947b69ee09
02e3c8234acfd2eb9f4e6f44f9bc1096e8ed2fa6
5314 F20110410_AAAGKQ kim_j_Page_054thm.jpg
4c505e2c4395ee178a6b2545d9e4fd0c
15280bae5d9c192efead3b6905d998218d7167c6
24389 F20110410_AAAHOI kim_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
792338bed8270cfc058f7bc38f56a7de
a199bd4dd9677c4d99b9390cec01b0897e2987e9
25717 F20110410_AAAHNT kim_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
cbbf5165bc021316ce3a5c847e94c8a7
41a8fdbe6e97c11a64bbb615a4742289eb5671e1
16402 F20110410_AAAGLG kim_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
1279f2b30ffe7a701a0c3345311268ac
78b30c290a8915f8572963ba7e4440e42435702b
811575 F20110410_AAAGKR kim_j_Page_057.jp2
dc7b21ae59ce78391eb75073e8e2d194
00bab61c43443b4d6e01ed9f431c3315898fedd3
4042 F20110410_AAAHOJ kim_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
a3f0d23dba02a4ca1cf15b2b8a047bb1
d860d2698bf48212cf2b4f26635e422600fc99be
23635 F20110410_AAAHNU kim_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
3aa4802232fefe5e571689d94645115f
84d5cd0ebdbaa9087146d4dc714a22db6236756b
16160 F20110410_AAAGLH kim_j_Page_138.jp2
01d24244657ac07f3764f6c968b3e490
87cc96765c868906deeaffeac7db4de1d62b161c
2257 F20110410_AAAGKS kim_j_Page_135.txt
cce7175ab8f7f7d5571047b8b27c413c
364f0f88fdaf405f2477faf7f3876937d8fac993
9225 F20110410_AAAHOK kim_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
d2216f908ef997c45fa5ababb4f0f56b
78e00f4c91efe58ad3baaa4f56e306c591a2aea7
6130 F20110410_AAAHNV kim_j_Page_096thm.jpg
5713fa7a30e596a6b6844782d929055b
2195f3ec6be91930a8f891d837f5dd0bf9d17095
6883 F20110410_AAAGLI kim_j_Page_127thm.jpg
242331ec89ed1a64d3fb8627e7057f95
e8a3d438d884d8e462f8e271e0ca67dfc8628e74
1872 F20110410_AAAGKT kim_j_Page_107.txt
07df1d7e8bc3ddd29b822be39bc65e9c
2035a8fb8a7eebe07920a6c65cd88051418d328a
6088 F20110410_AAAHOL kim_j_Page_029thm.jpg
ef522d3eb12d71a853072ea7607d1f19
d8f8a16222a9b21fde42e29a3605775ac39ef037
5822 F20110410_AAAHNW kim_j_Page_026thm.jpg
f9a5d96df775e1792c1e2c20b5d59b98
9b51331f6835cd1d58d60984b76e7305152dc93d
63670 F20110410_AAAGLJ kim_j_Page_044.jpg
c22db3fba46c155448129f231902626e
e1f3119f97cb6932e2558b9f0da7227af67ced9a
281 F20110410_AAAGKU kim_j_Page_003.txt
cd59c671bf2e42bd1c6f2d99f6f17088
92bcea313e7259f9f7a952039edd3265eff0df5b
25546 F20110410_AAAHPA kim_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
3e0decde499e1513430cfc4fe17ed618
fa076653e82d33dfeda441c1c7d82add3fec1b15
27506 F20110410_AAAHOM kim_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
7f25302be9d65736110904e4c625e096
0f4df11f6f288eb97c7036d6c341819e6a6359d1
23705 F20110410_AAAHNX kim_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
08f06aa20f0c545a88e2b99cedf96863
6e81e12937d4ab0eaa889a3d1860bd11ab19328f
22506 F20110410_AAAGLK kim_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
7aa4e6fe03ae5210f8cda5a99b7edee5
471049c73ff80bd2a75ee7f9985e2512a224ab80
2780 F20110410_AAAGKV kim_j_Page_070.txt
8ac314f876429b6f5e00b8610b830437
d657227a3da33fe31b6957026681034aea227d3d
23172 F20110410_AAAHPB kim_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
a85e0016982dc9b74878073e336d6975
29fd4804cf873f7304160cabd7a40644aeaa7acb
5699 F20110410_AAAHON kim_j_Page_076thm.jpg
0e6103c6e3cc45a470d1dc6acda24c85
c2b94ad6c506a801153811aaf72d33c573cfa6ca
23791 F20110410_AAAHNY kim_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
540c78c4a07bc3e2c5188545ad53057e
b56c51bdeb9e856ca5533634e22310deecdb26cc
F20110410_AAAGLL kim_j_Page_029.tif
f77af89eb31f5654233b8e94dd8465b9
3b05c4ea75206e3af0be0e69aca4929d97e762cf
21336 F20110410_AAAGKW kim_j_Page_148.pro
92e2be6d29024a7ae0c1d2c54625d810
338ecd0842ac4931d28ba6a8f1cd9db50ff01c15
19230 F20110410_AAAHPC kim_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
b73bd45ccc328e831715865a6c08b427
4f75efebf755c63e2a8cf3ab21e8a9da261fc827
27896 F20110410_AAAHOO kim_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
9ba69a8b2e39c6197a31aa0b371b306f
ace5988c7745175cd1055cee91601c00bdc22fc7
3899 F20110410_AAAHNZ kim_j_Page_069thm.jpg
58f35182926d5fa959065824f6c830c5
1640cdc90d2a12413cbf3f0b09abe8b7e421f489
F20110410_AAAGMA kim_j_Page_124.tif
bf4487db25611c0c37c6f1e6e3b61e93
c06555141294e10429504238225ac3ef5f276183
100 F20110410_AAAGLM kim_j_Page_002.txt
b71fbb14a42e2352d923f37d7484e8f3
856c3f03089574d5b0b2345a18a0e3ad48154346
6550 F20110410_AAAGKX kim_j_Page_140thm.jpg
cf389cc363dd9c2948aa511979b785a7
8b0387897d624110476dfd5a8617cb747a930c34
5714 F20110410_AAAHPD kim_j_Page_093thm.jpg
384b6030eea1fefe35dddd809275d8fb
a023054adf41ec5656deaf8976d694d8c5f11a30
F20110410_AAAGMB kim_j_Page_003.tif
fe2f97c2bf734c9eae86919b897d230b
703d2595d1d1ae650373c686801544f28857f8db
73597 F20110410_AAAGKY kim_j_Page_113.jpg
afc9139058a15b2be4165c1c85d1b976
276b08a7f2d2628fe8b757ee02c6db74fb1b5507
24300 F20110410_AAAHPE kim_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
d7fe4424541607184e0f751f634058e4
c3aaf8098f3fc9ecca0e1415cad00eca7c3e72bc
6831 F20110410_AAAHOP kim_j_Page_135thm.jpg
31911d8b40bea120273d918f86a3d20e
6773a3f6f18fc83710e85d9a4936d2534cdac96a
55737 F20110410_AAAGMC kim_j_Page_010.jpg
2bff1e58025b05fbf8ac1464d9994571
d7160875157d4a0c474e8ae736cd7fa066911099
129967 F20110410_AAAGLN kim_j_Page_144.jp2
61626e79689e45b6b0c700a55896fb25
fd3f44d1a632d7dd29c405718c4c671e60d8e7ac
105103 F20110410_AAAGKZ kim_j_Page_077.jp2
accaebb923fbe0c56983c47b28f08ac0
e63ddedb5f21b5b78acf9e09ac462607839f4792
26815 F20110410_AAAHPF kim_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
60cf1fb9b6abc90ec3551163ef4c971a
879e532feb15f0b68ea6427c88708f18e9a85dbd
23614 F20110410_AAAHOQ kim_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
399262234194d13c0be197c20d5358b4
79a472aa8db172e4ebba655be0cf2b30795cd7d9
21330 F20110410_AAAGMD kim_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
a1f3c3442323f6e6fe91000208b2b6b3
46a53edb7e8f189a356a6725d2e996b6b9b5bd8c
1801 F20110410_AAAGLO kim_j_Page_092.txt
7b6f7748d59f0102204ca7e21ba0b7da
c53e70e8998f2a5ee162aa0e91ab4e5861a9210f
19990 F20110410_AAAHPG kim_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
7f377eb9f4f412c9eb36e45425d899aa
bf2c92dc131c0b2294b80ac92600151dda3034dd
5849 F20110410_AAAHOR kim_j_Page_094thm.jpg
f0cc4b5ec7a41a8b768f716ab3869e56
ad0451a88ea5690908ec2f93a4c0c7efaab89294
51781 F20110410_AAAGME kim_j_Page_066.jpg
b73495a3f718e4ceb4260f725232e18d
a497d3d6fc6bff94f033bb4ba99adde4ad428a4e
463 F20110410_AAAGLP kim_j_Page_134thm.jpg
74c7e2b41eaa864ccafa23828d87a449
c4b886d9ed3b60e1852794b60da8dc0cc11ad04c
18257 F20110410_AAAHPH kim_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
1581e6123c87b809620c9ef241d6bdad
84155710641b6310639cbe3e5cc345e767470a80
23200 F20110410_AAAHOS kim_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
f1e5025d7d9c0ca53372ef06d2999ee7
edcf73a995e7045e9f7fd1d1fd4fb1aa153288fd
4301 F20110410_AAAGMF kim_j_Page_060thm.jpg
a9421033185469bb9858cf5be6e5a53e
31ba858700b1afb9906fa5d092893b86de5eb3e7
F20110410_AAAGLQ kim_j_Page_135.tif
134db5fa54d77e517347ce4fb1081c0e
4c2ef26bc3cf3ccc0fee65a590ad8accbed15b3f
5922 F20110410_AAAHPI kim_j_Page_139thm.jpg
3edcdfc659beb9b679e4248eff4dcc5d
855ff1a18867ac493d19fd862e7a891471827ccd
6261 F20110410_AAAHOT kim_j_Page_078thm.jpg
8b1fea94d25d0f719037cb0308a0354d
84feedbba432424dabd1f9f42f8d404070f2c007
2998 F20110410_AAAGMG kim_j_Page_148thm.jpg
c6d2ba50d695b8278a0411ac3978d99c
41b3a748520ff7d46ffa5bf91955a6aba86dd72f
24916 F20110410_AAAGLR kim_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
0ef95dceb66bc32cef44512c87bd5773
5bd01f17e65f109c8855360d092ba2f607d679e9
9472 F20110410_AAAHPJ kim_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
1ed987258ace13ce08142428b44c9429
5eb476e21aa4114f692c21487ecc2d1baaafd383
20012 F20110410_AAAHOU kim_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
9110402c040b6be60f822bb6499abb22
ce7670a8e6d9bfb66ad5d0c76744596160f0737e
53266 F20110410_AAAGMH kim_j_Page_052.pro
b1e5ed1b72743f51cd1e7f67a2801cc3
3966e43b621601a207911291541785a3b853391f
77108 F20110410_AAAGLS kim_j_Page_088.jpg
8311e729ac7e690b3161a126b53ddb8b
4fdd3804484c77bd79e3086286fa491ecf3418f7
6379 F20110410_AAAHPK kim_j_Page_022thm.jpg
f537cd520013a445ae3532ba404cce45
c6f7d1d388f74d1e5193ef0db23ce20eb6204001
16002 F20110410_AAAHOV kim_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
83b4766aafe6aff69f5b68e5e3b89620
4e8b749e5a8ee93a3702118ac6efa85a2d786efa
79991 F20110410_AAAGMI kim_j_Page_089.jpg
666eb68f3b9f439c1f15b6abdb1d4a65
c65e8c1837af902323afeb42399c8b7cf62cd1bb
F20110410_AAAGLT kim_j_Page_062.tif
d98a3a030dfec0c2b39b5856d1781796
f5eab2e5bbd2ca0fd5b629b84b89067f9aee5a68
4976 F20110410_AAAHPL kim_j_Page_044thm.jpg
168b2fd2eca8ff7944d5b4741a2e22c2
aeba4c7bb10c10ebdcb4263d3110bbefd28b71da
24760 F20110410_AAAHOW kim_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
24262607fae593eb22bfb8d97131bb61
97261a656a9a0a2bc3d7e23f010ef268a930af7e
81376 F20110410_AAAGMJ kim_j_Page_075.jpg
bd68cbdb694d25ff5c8c88978a7f0793
6eb5930f3ef029c29fc989b55cda8a3466cec1f7
5919 F20110410_AAAGLU kim_j_Page_089thm.jpg
f128ea027529faf83bd28d9ae5a859d6
ede4ab559d900a9de52864db61a1428958fddb8d
6742 F20110410_AAAHQA kim_j_Page_141thm.jpg
bfb719e801e26eccc9b2d9679a2106b9
3bded48aa217b284ed9aa9acaedc2cda12638282
6066 F20110410_AAAHPM kim_j_Page_051thm.jpg
39633e263f33b4c6a0ffa61013d12ed2
5b789290a29b075773a3a2ef61d7185202bc4b80
5784 F20110410_AAAHOX kim_j_Page_038thm.jpg
2dcb3e3d3161592daf2b1134acb770dc
90670a537b3dc517ed9face65529cb4a23b764fe
24692 F20110410_AAAGMK kim_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
a6b8f0878dbd870dca52b6ec34c6f1d2
c65e8d9fe08a0c3f8176d4c3d3e2986ada472cd2
47848 F20110410_AAAGLV kim_j_Page_039.pro
bdbf600018ded1993d7f9461abf8174c
d784d48ace6b30787638323ce695179c461f6b41
6905 F20110410_AAAHQB kim_j_Page_133thm.jpg
82733704133333394c343be1cecdaa37
cb6ffe7594a60a4daa3cbf821c9b1bb8e9c4e3b3
19384 F20110410_AAAHPN kim_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
921468dcb4aae0d7e1fdbc01aa8f7f1f
3b998080228cda3e362032682b6c169293f4cc23
6121 F20110410_AAAHOY kim_j_Page_056thm.jpg
df6a9693485bdc72bb362b6f918d54d2
150abd7eb87a2b7ae9eaff841a0a63df895891f9
65923 F20110410_AAAGML kim_j_Page_011.jpg
8043895c57ee5841bd3ef94d1e87a6ed
7b354e4c0e1db11a7c054bdc9088f4add5da30b3
F20110410_AAAGLW kim_j_Page_074.tif
a3068daf2b97237cb8e675cf4ab0220f
d05aee8c5069db370cf3a170639328c32b1d85c2
24098 F20110410_AAAHQC kim_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
98ff04f3a3f2fa98a49d54aa9e8eda8c
38017d7b186b696c75adca2d6c42f8ecf6586edb
3872 F20110410_AAAHPO kim_j_Page_010thm.jpg
3f8f7d2f8fad5313913ba28ab71cedc6
44d405e8e4e14b7b549ec33efed58e657f04392c
9905 F20110410_AAAHOZ kim_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
85077c9159ed465a361eb58af782979a
b8f0bd63ede8b61188b35795f6103841bb4fbdc6
6278 F20110410_AAAGMM kim_j_Page_119thm.jpg
532fbf35b49e3f400b5caf5113cbc7cb
3886f58f925fc9d29755328fab7393abcdd56ee9
5907 F20110410_AAAGLX kim_j_Page_014thm.jpg
6101aba4c404151e17982d0e40b4f8ec
6dd5f9f06e7f0dab46745802a071fc9353f279e8
1773 F20110410_AAAGNA kim_j_Page_046.txt
2bc19de162c9c01ccc49934868f2a2db
fb7f4f431dd05bdc892effb15891ea163b96a579
5829 F20110410_AAAHQD kim_j_Page_027thm.jpg
c06b1f67b82110c46c75159c58c8ef9b
7d64899c0d21fa0178d33f0470b85d8a66fe5ccc
5711 F20110410_AAAHPP kim_j_Page_033thm.jpg
abbe12a403771e05ebd101fc0ff9969a
e0f102ae39482635d69a94f69ce6611ab1c75494
1954 F20110410_AAAGMN kim_j_Page_101.txt
b6b329405555fab3521719bcaff99a42
70760570829b04f6e2e3d5b3f8ccf71bbb3eeb36
23064 F20110410_AAAGLY kim_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
c4e615275d5d01d224ce4ddc628d3302
f7e7c0ae2cced0359bdcb9ad69df1b95221be88a
5496 F20110410_AAAGNB kim_j_Page_063thm.jpg
7ec6cb0115b2eecc8bd9bc2557ba4d81
938ed49dd1bc968e224a964aa0bb0ed85760647a
5351 F20110410_AAAHQE kim_j_Page_113thm.jpg
76ce9144723d2fbc06327b9d69f4482c
cae0775bb1981f6eb0a898b45759fdcacb111657
5030 F20110410_AAAGLZ kim_j_Page_016thm.jpg
3cdb49223cb54f6da0173226254f8cb6
38290a1bfb062d95b015ea9412fa7dab23b11b06
24233 F20110410_AAAGNC kim_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
e6592615a4fc9a97f81e37f6e4fc7767
24c2013a586d20bbef9ad8a9f879f4530dab8350
23203 F20110410_AAAHQF kim_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
dddbd03b7dbef28ee5a98a5c3e8c2544
39697bb920b21465637c94e4dd8a0f42eb29c692
18125 F20110410_AAAHPQ kim_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
a6b0a71aa4e16a2a77ecaf14197986db
31cda99fe832ad1b1459cd6678894f3326788bd4
6056 F20110410_AAAGMO kim_j_Page_023thm.jpg
2b0f2e1dfc78a98ea5d7a06c933eedf2
9117f76bdefb423beebb0af5502c6ad6a2949810
F20110410_AAAGND kim_j_Page_114.tif
68bc82e0ed03c042f1f98c8a6dbd6b06
05c849473e46977048f2dd5c05d08a10d6aad2e9
5290 F20110410_AAAHQG kim_j_Page_055thm.jpg
5d8f3db23ed192fd7a515490dd8b82d9
cb2cfd26e948a2bb2ab01468a1e077abd1ac5188
23106 F20110410_AAAHPR kim_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
219f7444ffc9acf4a3281b8a8895ab04
8bf09d962e7cd4f7139083fe8b4176b10d264a3e
F20110410_AAAGMP kim_j_Page_125.tif
20315cbfcd2921d50853ce92abca47e5
bcf712d6095c4ba7a72dd4daeb3b52151c88f39b
230 F20110410_AAAGNE kim_j_Page_138.txt
445ddfc6cc0b5493ea01a39f79738f1d
2d79bbe970740202ebdcc111944361ec9a159fcb
23797 F20110410_AAAHQH kim_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
81aaaf9027028f5f6923527b22601e90
3e1b0e87b50745abba5b67cda084d7d64ee6dc85
24859 F20110410_AAAHPS kim_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
34ee8d4f88c1bcc68c5352d37f77b403
85397250a5a7b6899821274e1d7db56158654d2f
18880 F20110410_AAAGMQ kim_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
9a87368dfbecc598a5910f03bfcaa75c
a3af61727afc7f8f15be39aee870205a82237f8b
25974 F20110410_AAAGNF kim_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
4716f5d8f4dcf3778af40d7163156023
99162c28681b18369371e1450a78c1d6aa417936
19420 F20110410_AAAHQI kim_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
65454edeefe515421371b0a534700fef
59d622df58ed57b221680a20283add9e70bae6ed
6167 F20110410_AAAHPT kim_j_Page_128thm.jpg
2bed47f05d5e68b27eda70df2506378c
0dfd63991280f2185b0b14154adac808c0d224a5
107217 F20110410_AAAGMR kim_j_Page_129.jpg
3534013c9847359fa0f1df264aa94ec6
ac719f8a99ccc8cf1418bab6029fc5a056a80025
5100 F20110410_AAAGNG kim_j_Page_109.jpg
e0f6f99ab813ac3318f86ebd802fe46c
3e74234bc53ab15ba7eb789839df2aee66c72e8b
22566 F20110410_AAAHQJ kim_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
b350cc18d0e75ccee6f51324ffa30a09
fb307d28684d03620273a5ef9d73a8e5cfaf9b65
5445 F20110410_AAAHPU kim_j_Page_111thm.jpg
8a4cffab87795773995955b371238ac2
ca1af87c34472b210ec5d542de09870335bb5aba
F20110410_AAAGMS kim_j_Page_006.txt
e0d161962582c40e8d765c356f6434a1
3fefd0de484f07f5ef0f96f4a9ebcfdb59a3d2b9
843574 F20110410_AAAGNH kim_j_Page_044.jp2
5b0011106fe055e7aa7c7212299fdf00
569855d2c9f15ceb9215f5946681c5bcf44bff0c
6213 F20110410_AAAHQK kim_j_Page_081thm.jpg
58eea025a8ccb3fe201be432c78780a8
0ac830aa5e2dfd9727d2009c6a68c2a353527c8b
6215 F20110410_AAAHPV kim_j_Page_028thm.jpg
3db0713abd4bd74316b623326207163b
bbfc36cd0ee8c288c0aa0ab902f3339e24302dd5
5997 F20110410_AAAGMT kim_j_Page_087thm.jpg
44afd7313b713b489e7db94edd579429
9919c8d69cc745de22033ac674bfbccaa9cf4604
F20110410_AAAGNI kim_j_Page_056.tif
c7dc52b13b62833cb5f35bd1ed32735b
2eaad808520332401a5a6365dd7aa7ed94f484d4
20560 F20110410_AAAHQL kim_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
a589a872b834ac750832450f1d511c56
a16d97bbdca89329b2ca7daf85d48f0fb7d9bc00
18483 F20110410_AAAHPW kim_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
c1abcb40ee65b09e9a52c63e204375e0
d2c8c4e4e8e17510e251e9fc8a26e5ad66e21c8a
F20110410_AAAGNJ kim_j_Page_101.tif
6522ee9cb5d3128e92c8fe9b41bb37d1
c5fa1dcca175bad3cb754292df852115e4d51251
2489 F20110410_AAAGMU kim_j_Page_071thm.jpg
21e77f50f9012355ff1e4f9c5100ecfa
43b8424e999ce38498eeaca181f8259c29b60f47
6156 F20110410_AAAHRA kim_j_Page_122thm.jpg
a958f77cdc8c3c6350909a300f7ad041
391ca518b5ad3d09a8bcc98571bc41a78168a1da
23710 F20110410_AAAHQM kim_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
ada482aeea4a96189abb26a1d5d23848
ee2cdc77d6934271804af1e84847d2ca3d0509dd
1201 F20110410_AAAHPX kim_j_Page_053thm.jpg
a523cb9472af808253566ab7d70fb2e5
7d12cdf0ca455d76151e00f0f11f1c64d8dead37
74159 F20110410_AAAGNK kim_j_Page_021.jpg
0d9caa8ef5cf742827f42a18bd05af9e
1bc3caaf7ba3aef00fa9e204c145f0de7e871c34
1051978 F20110410_AAAGMV kim_j_Page_126.jp2
fb60d53718feefa7f90c1b4e4ee2537d
6cef55d5da5adb66e3be15ec989fb31d9cf3618f
5937 F20110410_AAAHRB kim_j_Page_106thm.jpg
ac4b25ebbf5cc566ca61ceb8594e6511
836da12289b2b6d16b2654b193da544e344c1c78
6604 F20110410_AAAHQN kim_j_Page_146thm.jpg
89e530a3fd76e59e2353d534ec0e173d
c990cf2ed5f3785dcbdef483a08eb53c4d631057
6117 F20110410_AAAHPY kim_j_Page_107thm.jpg
5d85a388cf153d8d3932240a07de668d
748dc4fd5ef6a8f92fef5c41f3e6160f4c07768f
F20110410_AAAGNL kim_j_Page_063.tif
5010d3d50a3dd92e866438f1edbf58f9
a6fbbbc9b8ccd7978b46fd0f07d84718596172f4
88510 F20110410_AAAGMW kim_j_Page_126.jpg
721e685d1ca629afb6663d7ee1fc43bb
bbd2e1d285645a3373bad77162b47c680459a3a9
27438 F20110410_AAAHRC kim_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
965d68a43fdd9def8cbfca7030d75e4d
a9045e280ec4fe19931a6671a3a779bb39435373
24243 F20110410_AAAHQO kim_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
b09f7ab4237bbe39c63673e42fe65190
c6c39428362c8a855e5eef22399e152fdd5d4abe
5776 F20110410_AAAHPZ kim_j_Page_048thm.jpg
28aed5500f3d90b6a1f305d8115f17e8
14e8d8718ce95e4efa87312452e80497e4412ba7
107464 F20110410_AAAGOA kim_j_Page_041.jp2
499dd33f300dcce67a22ae55216a6d12
b58d2d743491bc85a70be88228c66df5a22dd174
F20110410_AAAGNM kim_j_Page_132.tif
07443faaed885f5f967b82b86fa6ae82
70118a902ae8091ed4419353bfed168feea6656c
2458 F20110410_AAAGMX kim_j_Page_049.txt
62a0955ae29c226e6d3d7e237d5443a7
014ac392b1b2f4414ed8288769ed67d2c759331c
5235 F20110410_AAAHRD kim_j_Page_072thm.jpg
7e31a59fb769eb5738eeb00843038039
6c43212e7c95128867781c20170dbf2e12c3157a
24159 F20110410_AAAHQP kim_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
4f20587880d3b4028436cbc7642d20d5
a1241d54c6f6d9187efd79250291529a22dbdb24
52466 F20110410_AAAGOB kim_j_Page_056.pro
b3e90724a1f44e8aa2b8a5e7dc14f2ee
048bcb125394ba1fc4366062c9c97c8e7b8f9369
1614 F20110410_AAAGNN kim_j_Page_098.txt
a3a7c116c4ca50e658dc0ea7eaf3bd49
1ddb3dbcba6f3ad1c40635e4be9b76ca6cbef4b3
F20110410_AAAGMY kim_j_Page_039.tif
e85dd3ead5580c3fbc9bc666d4714f43
9830840aefc921057950e2042bef9e0875ec4627
6134 F20110410_AAAHRE kim_j_Page_100thm.jpg
39a711fd9396e31c2f80a2a89b034ec0
1ac470760671d5440a93926eba65fbedbd6161ae
25961 F20110410_AAAHQQ kim_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
e770c80eb1d048f0c63c25e80b8be0fb
5541d696ab8791b968571bfd114a37caaa814a82
F20110410_AAAGOC kim_j_Page_131.tif
d04075711adde026004c425eafb75e33
8fe23af3212c92d7b2c7bc15f5ecacc7280abeb4
71040 F20110410_AAAGNO kim_j_Page_063.jpg
2ccc5aba36373ef9bedf8a37689f5f76
a3e4ebeedad06334036b3732ddfb38d8e1e7f53b
1438 F20110410_AAAGMZ kim_j_Page_099.txt
d48e99824b1aa2203f68dc709d2c9118
d7384055e7998c44b3f0ea9cf8fc0e425054a8ee
7372 F20110410_AAAHRF kim_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
d0a42065c5f0e781934322caa78f05a3
42b77e8a12c5c1535431b371f5641ba961642a87
104785 F20110410_AAAGOD kim_j_Page_032.jp2
cdf9de1baa6460adfe225c8baab44952
20d2711202c27a0470814035c51649b1ee2ab488
20461 F20110410_AAAHRG kim_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
15b58243059cf59ea89d21754bc86fe7
d263d03ed91dd70d6711335b3697761e98cd2120
3997 F20110410_AAAHQR kim_j_Page_062thm.jpg
27c454300069996ceef50cb8605fb167
17bd1f839cbfc6fb8e757b55b4b67de5b799a2f8
27486 F20110410_AAAGOE kim_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
ec0e1d5def292659b9f5d9c7004a2a75
78676c9d561b7775b33ad47bebd710a9277f25c2
24460 F20110410_AAAGNP kim_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
eac655efd8e8d797a3043273dfa298e9
03559ef8dc8454a90174104c1ec475dbaccacf67
6446 F20110410_AAAHRH kim_j_Page_142thm.jpg
48f56680a02d4c615bbddd40aa998ebb
d56e5d8e41d64d8163f42fb10ca26e56d4ab9bcf
24515 F20110410_AAAHQS kim_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
237b2aec0d7dbcbc130c026d29ab2e20
3f9388d62599e688469a4dd7afa68a9496f602fa
5655 F20110410_AAAGOF kim_j_Page_025thm.jpg
511c70ea692b6d18cf825c3bf6dc326e
4c5b15b16dcfcd6d589e5901af46832d76b6be24
F20110410_AAAGNQ kim_j_Page_007.tif
08ed68cc8a6e994b10895a24218c1a43
5d879608edb73602d13ff8a797325827b21685fe
22924 F20110410_AAAHRI kim_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
cf336ed111eea737a223cbf6ace1121c
2429adfdbe6367bbfbfd6060aebfb38d7e3a9590
22293 F20110410_AAAHQT kim_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
30dba3e65df37156b6028efaa4bb0fe2
a1b5d329e2572536462960be601c64072e68845f
6185 F20110410_AAAGOG kim_j_Page_112thm.jpg
2244a4f5f7b848e59646f9ceab631e7c
c7d1d507866a0727171a753a382b89b9d515d036
1051942 F20110410_AAAGNR kim_j_Page_006.jp2
00c0a4701f1fff4d2c5056c8e65fbe98
3a150edffd9621eddca9cf4ce3f08358df5dbbea
6286 F20110410_AAAHRJ kim_j_Page_037thm.jpg
b5e7ba4eb08b5061137569d5807fa3f2
c6f0208503718d4a61b76a42ef64b63182e6c81f
5778 F20110410_AAAHQU kim_j_Page_064thm.jpg
6b9f9943955e9425775179a8bd1bee6a
8e9aae223f1297a22db406d30ea15ddb9b9f1c01
F20110410_AAAGOH kim_j_Page_121.tif
56903ad8c0a06dfcd8d1cf5c2c07c939
a242471ccaecced0fd669e2db5affebf5ef442c6
64578 F20110410_AAAGNS kim_j_Page_116.pro
69a007f3e071c74d381d455326ebb18f
1b85a507120891f85aa44fb15a54848b146b9b51
6254 F20110410_AAAHRK kim_j_Page_018thm.jpg
28e58ab9849a236230d6bc1312053235
725eda7494e96bd29d414e04db46a11fdf3be9c1
6157 F20110410_AAAHQV kim_j_Page_040thm.jpg
e0490ebef9152b618c5b9f0d8805a90d
bec79c1cf369c24d778568426f93812647b228b9
96653 F20110410_AAAGOI kim_j_Page_055.jp2
3ab046bc3252a2ff248e21adb405591d
198b425169f93daaf8f99d9592edde309718d6ef
2246 F20110410_AAAGNT kim_j_Page_052.txt
8c1088cef759567d487517324ac71f54
5514ae81fe45260d67c168ce1e24e641ce35461e
6007 F20110410_AAAHRL kim_j_Page_080thm.jpg
30d4d9defd2517d1e9f7b851ea3704c5
665aa4d75b59d7bb5ed230c9154b22b4fb1c449e
5737 F20110410_AAAHQW kim_j_Page_105thm.jpg
9200daa9cd4c7d34bb18cecdac80b27f
2efbfefe21aab0f394daf59083ab82103ae14d45
1984 F20110410_AAAGOJ kim_j_Page_022.txt
a1952ded7d649a5b712c3fe896ab67aa
f82242489b2cc010e1715667b86f12e4007c006f
6221 F20110410_AAAGNU kim_j_Page_073thm.jpg
e3b94dbd62c8f39635477f9eaddee183
88d457d3746dad7d4a45eab65e278654262d0fb4
6817 F20110410_AAAHSA kim_j_Page_129thm.jpg
b5870fef95ea81ef95a6e7c3a4a44c51
e6965ed4b1dfed69e62dba55531b0de1af6752d5
24394 F20110410_AAAHRM kim_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
6f95dcfd0d5aad192108bac0599cf0dc
259d273ce9d1fe5c2653719f106ce8cc43582ae2
27797 F20110410_AAAHQX kim_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
8f9a4df49f488cf9769f146de5dae4d9
60f00256b7e4d886f6e72c7217c9ff8a4d0d1bd3
24354 F20110410_AAAGOK kim_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
6c377fb6c0374035084d13b37b9b7c58
f9a3d29f4df73171629f72486f8710720cd3c6dc
74446 F20110410_AAAGNV kim_j_Page_084.jpg
cec6a5d0e45b698e586d49241baca05e
5e4467b0ee16e368c32d3ee82dc9620f89cd24e6
23733 F20110410_AAAHSB kim_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
1d035c45dbb937c9c200cae5e20c7805
5c210361cd007fd2837b1d0fdd85dc257d34147e
24218 F20110410_AAAHRN kim_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
b03ba5cc4064c71a011fc6091a677334
1530b97e50d7b13a84d07b62a0f0e155e08a65a2
540 F20110410_AAAHQY kim_j_Page_002thm.jpg
1c4594a2973bed019fa2f4380514cfaa
9bd4fe20da2afd0be50334ba5990171e912b0e03
24594 F20110410_AAAGOL kim_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
35c4cee60cd0b25540de49f7e36370e9
5f974c6be515988490220ddd0311490e3d26c77b
43336 F20110410_AAAGNW kim_j_Page_086.pro
d9300b7e78f881658c3d29fff99c926d
7f5fc36f382df3dc71afff9a6fe76b6017ed3c31
23656 F20110410_AAAHSC kim_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
677952ed19e0356fef2b626a54fc57ab
2b25bc621c545490f9fc65e0415882139092572d
5375 F20110410_AAAHRO kim_j_Page_115thm.jpg
de2812d51aaee3d5e648153f6d9df212
72607b04b9ba9e4630a73c86b97522cdf85e1ff0
F20110410_AAAHQZ kim_j_Page_085thm.jpg
be9a25e96bd5c9d5f9dec3a805bf600f
352361643a22bae95d63f94273e6f61339ebebd3
F20110410_AAAGOM kim_j_Page_126.tif
81772249fb09e4c3aa90cc2982d1f4c2
64d434abdfaefe3d50dcfdc49c17d3c989b24f2b
1296 F20110410_AAAGNX kim_j_Page_066.txt
6399b8a37b03ff8da96600f62fac1fca
9c93fa8fc719058f0076318163346f699d2981ae
4341 F20110410_AAAGPA kim_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
c988fd056eb0f0161ac63f38a5d08cd8
13d8ce51d08ca402964f14450bca5f97067b5ee8
6425 F20110410_AAAHSD kim_j_Page_137thm.jpg
7dc5b4d99ae799bc96d723b3bb5c05e2
2c37e5d12c565b158c21a40e799a49f32ff8c723
24163 F20110410_AAAHRP kim_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
e030170426b0bce799805dceaffbb779
e9006b2b5aa4de1f51088b93c04b96ef4b5068b3
78558 F20110410_AAAGON kim_j_Page_094.jpg
641df6c271dba81f930a540872616c99
ee13993e272dbb18222c8850a7ae27b65a848b90
18843 F20110410_AAAGNY kim_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
c421927b72006cc29fd0c16419548f48
ac3be9aa5689d32ea5ca0a0f144a7f3841f7dfb7
573 F20110410_AAAGPB kim_j_Page_109thm.jpg
f342c51d874a5047b0842ac7506f669b
73ac9bf42c2692f1297ae2e4a8a6768bcb64c926
19307 F20110410_AAAHSE kim_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
9d2d2a15672307d69232dfb4bc69ae83
998d26e8838002640ed404f38d0d78a4be9ea38a
6277 F20110410_AAAHRQ kim_j_Page_123thm.jpg
769cf7c5e1b4434a5fc3c4a49d30c665
47ddba7591e4cf4d2788cce35f282b9fd032060e
6029 F20110410_AAAGOO kim_j_Page_047thm.jpg
1fc0e2b97a4e4652bd83656222434587
bd22be684ed7916c3e0347615e7a157c07b1288f
2810 F20110410_AAAGNZ kim_j_Page_038.txt
fcee0cfdcb6344dc1a6919d6f0f41794
2e865865a7532d81d0e7fda886ca5f9a3ed2b9a8
41962 F20110410_AAAGPC kim_j_Page_115.pro
74f47c872618c7417e59c609077d886b
5622eed0931064287dca368691fe1c910429dc92
F20110410_AAAHSF kim_j_Page_082thm.jpg
ca28bbb8a534a8d2c2c8065ff5264224
f5cff745b6b0bc02c0ccd3fd548de0e2f5e5cf18
25624 F20110410_AAAHRR kim_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
574ca3618ef3c81a48c8a77644d3b023
3c965c6da66a77a804b2dc72525d3355f8854f0b
105886 F20110410_AAAGOP kim_j_Page_085.jp2
abf420a1c2bdaf756575ed0a6041c173
173c7a545b6468df1b4d6c75e0f8d6bf121000a3
26899 F20110410_AAAGPD kim_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
ba671f55d414757555d3c6046618fe6a
0cb5c153b7ee9328cd9081ecb2f439f42abc5ad9
20336 F20110410_AAAHSG kim_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
82429aa56108c3ee8f9f238d142a484a
9ebf519b2419ce5a25f51df277aabb734d55c973
102790 F20110410_AAAGPE kim_j_Page_027.jp2
b42f0db18b52c927bb488e551f9102ba
bbf475ac27c43030dc2823ac171020111dfb4833
6031 F20110410_AAAHSH kim_j_Page_021thm.jpg
771cb4b51b93595493501121716bc339
1a5466fc1c7e3f3b1120673fb956a0f50828a584
4960 F20110410_AAAHRS kim_j_Page_006thm.jpg
a688593fe45909e7ff67d91e88ed6b70
65c180e955b58ce87c13f08cc4af4c417fce9f7f
5775 F20110410_AAAGOQ kim_j_Page_020thm.jpg
1cf0d07fba7045da1474c6a0c01aa42e
bb60e1f05bbe9f4175c85997b9680c6122c980d8
1051951 F20110410_AAAGPF kim_j_Page_113.jp2
57633953eb923f7934bb965b7c455cd8
3c4903fdea81e6e7fa221e7796ddbdc8424b01c8
6203 F20110410_AAAHSI kim_j_Page_116thm.jpg
68d5457f78be54cfe8cc9e59c36470db
4d65dedc81d349a66ddfc191315def57c8ecf80b
25148 F20110410_AAAHRT kim_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
07a9260570931cc93d87093c60276bf4
3172d0aed4ae94e8c2cc6e10f58e635de7fe5fe5
108802 F20110410_AAAGOR kim_j_Page_143.jpg
ceb0efd0398e8d1f2f514025caf35a50
0dd45ad642e2e49483e06e70f98150de716db4df
F20110410_AAAGPG kim_j_Page_021.tif
82343ad44b0b5bdafe72e68eee0ebbbf
459a10c6611e47111d4d06319af18fd429d72986
3334 F20110410_AAAHSJ kim_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
1fb2f296ec1b7ef303ee93f5da4551d3
f0926bba93192c26636a62eeeb0f760b6f6032d5
22884 F20110410_AAAHRU kim_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
05fa4b5ae7a4a57ac57e5e063928691a
7b4c5de357bf11e1804466ba63ea57235a96aa71
27283 F20110410_AAAGOS kim_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
31f51c6eab4063720f73dc281db32104
6fe3482b70d2d3da28a8a3f69cba6996127de04f
F20110410_AAAGPH kim_j_Page_075.tif
e8226d5578dff481a65666d7b59dff38
e06446439924396076abade8972b2c91fa88ff29
20791 F20110410_AAAHSK kim_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
6445849655d28564d99a248955545654
6765a4a85a000a1dfd5d08847f43b5f1c18a38a5
25214 F20110410_AAAHRV kim_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
1abe69d80fbe17268fdcb3376129497b
a699aa985e4c3776204e6a4ea2920aabbd1ae05a
82771 F20110410_AAAGOT kim_j_Page_049.jpg
f17012f655dc79997fee00c2a6c6fe56
019bcb168ff9d41baf524582f81a580876f7d227
88396 F20110410_AAAGPI kim_j_Page_130.jpg
cc196e81c759badc8e92db8163100ade
75fcf6245e3132527b372de5b0dc62d842df54ce
25101 F20110410_AAAHSL kim_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
450dce787c611348985eda722dfc73f9
545f80a1ecd81fbba385931a782bf6b79baca615
25841 F20110410_AAAHRW kim_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
9a198d81269dc7197ade6604c63d8dab
7a4049dd37850c6b2d3c50a628ea61d3f9e6a4b1
F20110410_AAAGOU kim_j_Page_054.tif
4b229904844617049987b1007a7d3e02
5dcd82cefd59a5c560579cf3e151c6668b889a2a
88595 F20110410_AAAGPJ kim_j_Page_118.jpg
2ba802a025745672e94614bb67cec17d
a917541207f85733cca0ad82791afe354b05628f
5470 F20110410_AAAHTA kim_j_Page_097thm.jpg
46e34bee8228adb9cae29a3b565c6e55
5ec164333ff9db5b1e0ac33e852bc328b61b9594
25161 F20110410_AAAHSM kim_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
166461f077750540e3441c27b8594c5e
3e6750edc7d5de1f2a785a1da1dc9bb471222570
25765 F20110410_AAAHRX kim_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
577a2f1134fef3f8ed0cd8365d4dd8d7
16648e86b406b788a85c3a79710c75eeb9dfbc0d
35443 F20110410_AAAGOV kim_j_Page_090.pro
21df1baf3de1eb77d02d1126638c180f
e333767a6587cd5b9ee04b3130284c497084f17e
27256 F20110410_AAAGPK kim_j_Page_066.pro
6c8fa52f54f494719d426520d61d95dd
be4253fe7b72995fb962f88dddacaacd2680772c
23085 F20110410_AAAHTB kim_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
1a791f14c54d9aa45f734ea68a116963
cacb7c4f29ee03cdf77840babd3bb4d566ca0943
6390 F20110410_AAAHSN kim_j_Page_070thm.jpg
269397f7de41c08503fee37c6ec5418e
3d46799f42863bfb3e9a04d87d89a236ed0b5210
6208 F20110410_AAAHRY kim_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
acd6df08b954400a4e26212744a84ce2
05d626ec7c6a2d1d3507685ad56dc13eb897f822
F20110410_AAAGOW kim_j_Page_118thm.jpg
9cc073ba4896bddb55a2f5a8c597607c
0d8555a45d685b21d203e26d3d7f5a051d7c04ad
84189 F20110410_AAAGPL kim_j_Page_135.jpg
ed13075f2ba356fe3a84d5cf42268a88
f5aa54a1526d5c779a13486f92f49365fda136bf
4623 F20110410_AAAHTC kim_j_Page_011thm.jpg
a6daad9f3b3369072c43ac4e0c050ac9
ab0d64fb626df1d297a3e6627c19891f841b69a5
6122 F20110410_AAAHSO kim_j_Page_050thm.jpg
8fbb353dc429c22c59aa14b4ee491b9f
18261bf3e7f73d5b6315cd26274b1b343ef18cde
25397 F20110410_AAAHRZ kim_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
3e69f02c167260da2a6cc0ba77f156f0
485c84590092c1ce93c25ae41a3d994543b85305
104416 F20110410_AAAGOX kim_j_Page_039.jp2
f5f7818c6b9fa37b0e11bfa18f737c63
a5c33354ed588cc1666b5f52bcd9f15c3cc11590
11586 F20110410_AAAGQA kim_j_Page_003.jpg
57d4255f2f747484f6301181f3dbf3a6
210c92298d4050a16959965dc9f88c702c94d033
6018 F20110410_AAAGPM kim_j_Page_083thm.jpg
b166a90645688f4920c0cf1ab6c1b6a3
b7832aa1d8b56a9b7ab344042751c9ee763b1998
18280 F20110410_AAAHTD kim_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
756a4d3528335c83b7d16a4f043ee044
b1fc5eec20b12c62fce2af20f1b746e45cc70fa7
5274 F20110410_AAAHSP kim_j_Page_117thm.jpg
d425994b54ce2ad5b9e803263e82c530
0cea7476f8196017a50e27b0640cc452ebe804ef
2013 F20110410_AAAGOY kim_j_Page_137.txt
662807417cc6fa57157e2d5c93faa1fb
adb0d00dd154acad8c063a15725c14c7dadb39b3
74621 F20110410_AAAGQB kim_j_Page_004.jpg
2ce70ecf88fa1ce2dbe15093438afe7d
ebc9c2d84380958741784ad10d981150519d8bdf
25756 F20110410_AAAGPN kim_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
a2f7adf5b82d10183287a8b1164af18e
55d45c1f66ee1bb06e695fd2951967c3aec67103
F20110410_AAAHTE kim_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
458a6e8998cf0354caacc97121bc45ec
98d9fdea2fc8ef92c70bbecf3b2e999523991558
5857 F20110410_AAAHSQ kim_j_Page_042thm.jpg
6483cb0a63d711948c0efac70cc434de
b32f10cb0a3df4ea645a90121b6ec329c5d264cc
F20110410_AAAGOZ kim_j_Page_042.txt
073579670ad397ccdf080f3f3b014185
d91ea38515439727058f8bd63a1647d0d6ef171a
76688 F20110410_AAAGQC kim_j_Page_005.jpg
c739a16580261d9752415535a3871f44
dca5eea4ea1b2ccecce9513a6de0c5c642494746
F20110410_AAAGPO kim_j_Page_012.tif
a887b7266feb3e5be96da8de22aaa260
e3cbc73846ba775d75ba85e70c444ece1e80ec3f
6037 F20110410_AAAHTF kim_j_Page_015thm.jpg
a9dc2ba4e10c8d26265cf0ecfe6a0bc6
b597964c1417f7e01616d7cee76330f654911437
1312 F20110410_AAAHSR kim_j_Page_138thm.jpg
4e75cc793158d3cb5e6349f5584834ba
1fbb08873d55eac1f798857f96df0182986a4731
104744 F20110410_AAAGQD kim_j_Page_006.jpg
678fdf8a8efaac6b2d5a351a3bebdcbe
2aa348611751efaa472d3f044d0fdb1ba7294dd8
F20110410_AAAGPP kim_j_Page_120.tif
29dda1538967b4e6cfcc24cdd2497108
d908f8489f4502028b25a79a4ea63822a9499585
24393 F20110410_AAAHTG kim_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
71985cf330537392d78eedb967fb1b9b
50665d4d7d999c746dc4dfb5e16b804da6beff0f
6326 F20110410_AAAHSS kim_j_Page_034thm.jpg
2056200235132d65626a4647b9310ac8
8f3562c384590ff76f260859a8675ecc2b6e7fb7
114623 F20110410_AAAGQE kim_j_Page_007.jpg
6f6b9a5419dfac4defedfb9e926b63fb
9340caea2ff54e3cdf076ce786610101b4814d88
60278 F20110410_AAAGPQ kim_j_Page_058.jpg
c860fc58af47327ee150923388e7eb16
257893fa589ccfa3df671a16056e093cd2331539
15319 F20110410_AAAHTH kim_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
6390462bdd2348c1830d6859c8308c9f
021ad577c5818c49faa6950c1cf7c78bf0b0801c
27196 F20110410_AAAGQF kim_j_Page_008.jpg
4612bac36cbb0f91aa27d2c1e8e07b4a
2aa080925282d953e647b234319d08c96d1a4f5f
4969 F20110410_AAAHTI kim_j_Page_057thm.jpg
28ac7b8b170e8196870a363ad9474126
f5a1a2fe9b4873fffa102f5aa174fd021f9381ef
25677 F20110410_AAAHST kim_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
f13cc00f267dc3eb0f407b3e8610647b
2a7d0e2c00b5e08cc43787c56204d9a687606d6c
73036 F20110410_AAAGQG kim_j_Page_009.jpg
fde66ca684ff9072f4abd0234e764e7d
f644eb26123aabc7447cdc8c8495793239cb777b
6000 F20110410_AAAGPR kim_j_Page_024thm.jpg
baec61de3a0970b61a260dd03c9b9875
d3b1879da0404a938da1401e4021c210a5b75823
24184 F20110410_AAAHTJ kim_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
578a87d57aa7e7e07e4df01cec10e06c
82d5f51aa1f9a27ceb555e3642e117d2390828cb
25312 F20110410_AAAHSU kim_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
e3b3c026a78e5b4a09322b98b2a58d87
2bb0dc4dadde652b87322c74a6797fffa07aaf1e
54322 F20110410_AAAGQH kim_j_Page_012.jpg
903af98accb737cfbce52366aea25289
6412915322c58c12c6f1fc6e5957c679ead1ee6b
22167 F20110410_AAAGPS kim_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
d7e2f125cc75606fc6054d7a03df43d3
5ee0379a06ad1279fd97afad43b826510637f881
5712 F20110410_AAAHTK kim_j_Page_086thm.jpg
965fb39541004331e3d6246c6c6e1179
efb7b4013ea369570816ed6e07391fb06f33ab8c
14753 F20110410_AAAHSV kim_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
c82ead0cdf8d1895e111f0c6740a66ee
ef06581cf3a74af0bc853c58d5aefd0808877ff6
69084 F20110410_AAAGQI kim_j_Page_013.jpg
65088c84a31ffaa69ad029cedfa8c7cd
7fefbc896bd99da74b48b64591e1d879fb8c9337
5227 F20110410_AAAGPT kim_j_Page_098thm.jpg
de5dfcdebea245cce189e766a1b36697
8ca81dfa4b1c77187d6c8e7cc82b5a4864a6039f
6092 F20110410_AAAHTL kim_j_Page_101thm.jpg
1aed48d4e8bfaeba73770c07862a5839
577f1ac5fae1cfa1c7d81fe3bedcd0ced5a59988
4344 F20110410_AAAHSW kim_j_Page_012thm.jpg
0ef70129edc1b8195e201109cdcbad38
810b4b675c8a8e90cfe5e20e8da1476dbc268686
78524 F20110410_AAAGQJ kim_j_Page_014.jpg
bc75450f6713797d6df3ea3efc505a61
a7125455b916c4ad9b735d0ab2ad228ad0efba5d
F20110410_AAAGPU kim_j_Page_086.tif
f70c2f7d33a3fc1f9e21348b3bf7bff7
b891fe2b2a077dd175a379c2e1232f5861ecd1e1
1414 F20110410_AAAHUA kim_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
5dddcb835da6cd6f7a7dca5ebacb3f7f
3c014b00f49c66ef0763ecf0421beecd43834ccd
5045 F20110410_AAAHTM kim_j_Page_147thm.jpg
caeb4dc18b103b58bdafa432763ef049
f954afb2846b249b2a844252a6cef18d111fd58e
6146 F20110410_AAAHSX kim_j_Page_102thm.jpg
1d48649e50a7a5acbc3753152a9393b0
fc7c7a70a60e2872cd675f2116da85e5584a3a8d
83556 F20110410_AAAGQK kim_j_Page_015.jpg
ff63aec08e601610426e88de8689e78d
7a9b992c65715fdfa16abeba2eb18fbe3ed4814e
168717 F20110410_AAAGPV UFE0015404_00001.mets FULL
51e36b431742ecc3ef0dfe888616e104
61d36bffc9ea3ef09059ca9158837e2921c670cc
BROKEN_LINK
kim_j_Page_001.tif
4379 F20110410_AAAHUB kim_j_Page_066thm.jpg
2b1f7d348465544f23e4c803b21150c2
1134ab27799a22ba03f8cd612521ef037e3f0548
24298 F20110410_AAAHTN kim_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
31281d6fc1000e5c08cab117ec53b591
b6f27f9be52e2509ae4df96cbe11f3fd7bae24c8
6305 F20110410_AAAHSY kim_j_Page_017thm.jpg
d3a49611cf37bbf0059ec1190a0900ef
190dfc4557cdc65cb5655a58fbdcd7f9a0c4b13a
65154 F20110410_AAAGQL kim_j_Page_016.jpg
d080f2477d151f783493754eb7758883
f0c4600213b1a932084c7e4963ac37ac97c6f653
6794 F20110410_AAAHUC kim_j_Page_131thm.jpg
abc6a2e1b2db42338b455a07eacc3acc
5255fa039f6730cc383ad33721dd7c9be191c094
24176 F20110410_AAAHTO kim_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
4155e248065433677df34cffb7341c65
d24833457090c75b72a0ef4c400eaaa55486764f
4564 F20110410_AAAHSZ kim_j_Page_058thm.jpg
4f166d700a569c7198cf6f7f4b31858d
eabbc960f739a1d822b83eb4c2768f1d68f5f2b4
88152 F20110410_AAAGRA kim_j_Page_036.jpg
3a0b41bc7f4773e29c30fc9171156088
91432bf3dcb9d006199e946548c3886418304020
83169 F20110410_AAAGQM kim_j_Page_018.jpg
f455c21cffc444b3d58ca379a03edce5
190eb6ef9561fa232873e8a568ebe884dd720d23
5793 F20110410_AAAHUD kim_j_Page_084thm.jpg
b5a33f72e9a80e640914d4b334ffb734
f2732078f95934922a50deee148c9774a80a5d1e
5329 F20110410_AAAHTP kim_j_Page_103thm.jpg
0e98336aa039a143e70ee704fc469ff8
5bc1878ef0ff37b60e0befb3a0024764db1ab9f3
81582 F20110410_AAAGRB kim_j_Page_037.jpg
398804391a8d4d36d6a9788dfb9f7e85
254180ff7bd169c1fbc6eed3729025ba17ba2bef
87839 F20110410_AAAGQN kim_j_Page_019.jpg
9a0988a3cb2e3ebf5ab6b2065c3f8e9c
269605aa5d23539aa2e64679b6b562de25ea7e0b
23323 F20110410_AAAGPY kim_j_Page_001.jpg
3d0cc486ff27afe21e1bb91bfb224369
20521cc4acd1cc4a179713d38795bf19cac42af9
24740 F20110410_AAAHUE kim_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
5ec833366bffa4acf4f7e6bd78509af4
a8da2154101a9bd97a2d61360ca736e330e80c07
24520 F20110410_AAAHTQ kim_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
fc5ab6e3c5d21e4798c3e33acf6ef4f4
aa8d7137b08ab4cecda468581953934d954f8f27
99609 F20110410_AAAGRC kim_j_Page_038.jpg
ff38a11bdf8e788cc17adb62536ca024
f1f18ba668f41fd06fcd215211d05dc472e7d652
73857 F20110410_AAAGQO kim_j_Page_020.jpg
1c31424316bfdf3d4a3ffd75dfda79b9
f0364fee6edac013db8fbec82c66ee6cfae1b93b
4451 F20110410_AAAGPZ kim_j_Page_002.jpg
7fbaef40331cec5081b4ecdf6d9a831d
db3c3511b27c53eb3ded4d853f00db9724cdb1ce
23282 F20110410_AAAHUF kim_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
4052aec8a62e5de0ceb85ebebb4eccaa
cbd370ca566591e3999f2e80552cdb64d5721c00
23230 F20110410_AAAHTR kim_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
5d6fd6b0e97b06d9f2904dd40b7d5e3b
aa913e55f1f5ecc1b01ff6af7a6eae5d78a6e9b1
77287 F20110410_AAAGRD kim_j_Page_039.jpg
d5c828a088eca6a56b33bcea45e0c7e0
d5203a19fef971d1f8a6886227a3471ed0edb15b
83680 F20110410_AAAGQP kim_j_Page_022.jpg
770e2bad703e20ff226422232c8816b5
5203a0189998df79254db6f0b7e22e43f08f4b20
24413 F20110410_AAAHUG kim_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
11c3f22d68586ee79a941beca485f2c5
2e39722554421b59db812d9f77dec99d08a3d140
4391 F20110410_AAAHTS kim_j_Page_061thm.jpg
3cc6731e828ef7173ae198d8f1e20d58
a249ef24216cb052d3ab0ec3c3e1bfe50ffd8cf9
79555 F20110410_AAAGRE kim_j_Page_040.jpg
8800c3e8fbe7393f822ae969c026dc58
5a1f09c52f4b82b003de3f0574e392cae0cbdf3a
78750 F20110410_AAAGQQ kim_j_Page_023.jpg
a277e0746ed095a3862cc444d52f1c6a
c968dff10bc3e276266e4f78ec2d534af82d6d65
24219 F20110410_AAAHUH kim_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
b264ee8c0577ac424599871e03cd67dc
963fea0abdc04664ff05bf1de7966ede79e813d8
5993 F20110410_AAAHTT kim_j_Page_039thm.jpg
5d612916718f5801986dc8a49e4c6d8d
492d4dcf06859e9981021d4e7cb205620cdc89c3
81008 F20110410_AAAGRF kim_j_Page_041.jpg
6d59115da776476ad65c43251a6e7dae
d023177e323b1043ca46244eaed69114bf0e48ff
81294 F20110410_AAAGQR kim_j_Page_024.jpg
1de580233393ef70573d36808917f96b
2ca9231536279a8557144f6424ad934a7d4f5062
5832 F20110410_AAAHUI kim_j_Page_092thm.jpg
00efc14e3eed274ae2e4b812402e9351
c5078a3637e9cbbe705d854502ec55ca335d64c5
75368 F20110410_AAAGRG kim_j_Page_042.jpg
96851f225c3488743d0d17223c936529
e24bb947d4f45defa0ec0857c45633b6a9e950ba
2264 F20110410_AAAHUJ kim_j_Page_108thm.jpg
349573fca4b0bacae3ce530c9b410dcd
005cb0e5898fa654bb70cc891dd7fca82aa52a3e
20866 F20110410_AAAHTU kim_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
8e76e849eb3dbe76402f4c18877ea54c
b1f0aa8be26bb4bc0c554b623ed4a39b03c5aa75
30207 F20110410_AAAGRH kim_j_Page_043.jpg
691da15520319a2eb94a957b41337586
e25d91f05510dc435be45b0572fed3eacad54605
75766 F20110410_AAAGQS kim_j_Page_025.jpg
496ffb02a7a2c5e142c7d1aa92fe0ac3
44a8539de2df78c944f31f8cbf5ef89c2fa25993
26849 F20110410_AAAHUK kim_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
0e0799d803d002b8ccc168297ff90650
4c952f1f8258eeb27eb889ec052c72f40cc55d3d
6224 F20110410_AAAHTV kim_j_Page_114thm.jpg
44bf03b5a2caf53ed62a69fd4c501678
8dba4243bd7f863f1b53b63ede497716219d5d49
80411 F20110410_AAAGRI kim_j_Page_045.jpg
8f0e2c55eb5ae75a0e49dca7a9bcd62f
1fe9f91379a30b60fd53f6820f06b5f8199fec3a
74863 F20110410_AAAGQT kim_j_Page_026.jpg
7a8b8a670ac5eaf1dfa1e530c5448871
10e96b02ae8a30c027a1b8ff8700d5e88dd04b38
5841 F20110410_AAAHUL kim_j_Page_095thm.jpg
858ed2a715428f37cb46848d25fe87f8
1bd37ebaeeb5a1069ec5ad9fb137ccb1045f8372
5602 F20110410_AAAHTW kim_j_Page_079thm.jpg
dd417a16ac184609bcb767c72797df7b
d560499de5ae47c64b3aeeba3560c78aa2fd4f70
72953 F20110410_AAAGRJ kim_j_Page_046.jpg
34cef776bec9718c9da63f03a820b9b2
49309b92e6f685bc5e057aaaa1673729529f991c
76659 F20110410_AAAGQU kim_j_Page_027.jpg
1304105b4fd53a14127841d27ece3fcc
3e865db0cf2d532d43189dede85eb79a9b738912
22215 F20110410_AAAHVA kim_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
4273b2607cee32c1ee212039267edac8
5f74a2bdd5dce26ed6e09bf5b4db753e939b43fe
6642 F20110410_AAAHUM kim_j_Page_143thm.jpg
7fa8a8fef8946603f1c78ea1bae71d1d
3d26c43f724afe1b06b36938d9d48694f2fc07d6
24872 F20110410_AAAHTX kim_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
28890b65bea5a0094d9ff73f1677d297
04b2863057f96120e864075540c19a3650f0dc91
87488 F20110410_AAAGRK kim_j_Page_047.jpg
464c332d36205db5d7044900ac2b4643
359ad954d306cab143fc3d0795a66525e0234a00
84775 F20110410_AAAGQV kim_j_Page_028.jpg
1588e88da9dbf0cae0a9eb5014396d9f
44d3a455bfb657eedcfa69e034fecdecd8d0e0af
24834 F20110410_AAAHVB kim_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
1ea8dd0871e5829b320e836bc4d3d553
668ce264bbdf7fe4727fdc2ad74eeaee6bedda9d
26838 F20110410_AAAHUN kim_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
bf022d7969a31989954aaa2b034e0578
af4269d372ecac9e85dc055cbf119ebd48609e83
24892 F20110410_AAAHTY kim_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
004489d0892844b8dd72bbc70366ccc9
7f894daed3d8334cb12e3178076c96a273619b45
74151 F20110410_AAAGRL kim_j_Page_048.jpg
ef8e1869f803f76bb0032a4fe2288da5
a19e15108072e5a1fc01b46f210eb87f7930456a
78810 F20110410_AAAGQW kim_j_Page_029.jpg
ff7a4af080dc2dfebd42b1ab295be488
edfaf9479e305a4cc02ec37cf53b2a0711e70fcc
20870 F20110410_AAAHVC kim_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
188ab46d27b844bc8fd5a1c16bdeb333
538f9a179d8bb175a0269382832b47e4088e756c
4587 F20110410_AAAHUO kim_j_Page_091thm.jpg
2c29b35040d37aec7a833d7fc8ee4b2b
a4e4021215d1a70ce3d03a9a8e70e0f7ca15362f
5250 F20110410_AAAHTZ kim_j_Page_007thm.jpg
12239323dc1c23adc03b3ccee5757521
dafe3708bc961be7e729e6d53010729f91dd0643
97163 F20110410_AAAGRM kim_j_Page_051.jpg
dd889899ee279633594f3aac39808989
32c4c59552a7a275adb93f747db9658e00089cad
77344 F20110410_AAAGQX kim_j_Page_031.jpg
701c2ed05aeb6c5880f019550801ff2a
38ec053ab6cd5b03c8c89a481267bd727575c3ab
98929 F20110410_AAAGSA kim_j_Page_070.jpg
2a2e4ae23d6a83b4ecc63e7ee7fa6944
990da64bc571cbb01fa77342f69e6da8ade0227d
24142 F20110410_AAAHVD kim_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
3688909b178718ad4da37dab38af5bbe
40ae9bf39870f55a4e2b78cc14cb155ad420d678
22209 F20110410_AAAHUP kim_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
3d529f0b2dcadbd516aa1dd06de53704
8494070559826728b0b151242b70f514b6951eae
84879 F20110410_AAAGRN kim_j_Page_052.jpg
3a48323c9a52ecfd83e3423370f78210
dc51a3311bb4bc8d110c6d36ec54ee6f368ebcfc
83424 F20110410_AAAGQY kim_j_Page_034.jpg
177728be79b51b421713d0b3a5be2e65
7247a387ae14c634200b47049169b6637124c90c
30915 F20110410_AAAGSB kim_j_Page_071.jpg
25133e4344d195b37c41d867ed11c8a5
a820793f9b6abeb3c4ce4d7c30d5f0e2b3c976ad
6312 F20110410_AAAHVE kim_j_Page_019thm.jpg
9b6307f39413529803aee9165574a8d5
52dec8b3b61b34cea858dcab5933474b8c2a899c
5967 F20110410_AAAHUQ kim_j_Page_088thm.jpg
361edd3817e8379b26c370a8f68ff09a
a49773d05c3f3f0904108d8b1876093d60d2817a
12785 F20110410_AAAGRO kim_j_Page_053.jpg
2280e0cd896eeb38939ce10784a56abf
d6fd672b922f883d457374083259443567feb4f0
81648 F20110410_AAAGQZ kim_j_Page_035.jpg
1773b29215b01752bde21e7389acaef3
47363d55e63d688d7f80505e6c810bad4c620529
63010 F20110410_AAAGSC kim_j_Page_072.jpg
97475c5c71ffbf5193da9aaa4a578e66
e05ab9cb38ca2c87827109fb4e18e0952cce0791
6103 F20110410_AAAHVF kim_j_Page_036thm.jpg
46a675c5288e45fbd9002f1139f9ea6e
f54605fdd22040371a77bad8e4c9608b0534b4a0
26549 F20110410_AAAHUR kim_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
0ec5aabb33e5d3bc5a2c90674800be85
39da9440b0fc4c4934750210305385afa16fcc50
66800 F20110410_AAAGRP kim_j_Page_054.jpg
93308867a5aad0d85ffcf7955f4b360c
2b9a172e2691ee9f9ad370dd0ef03a1528be32ba
79969 F20110410_AAAGSD kim_j_Page_073.jpg
d5188e43a9883b6366fa746490f1c30d
bd15959977c99ae320c4de924ea831ff7b05bcb7
4660 F20110410_AAAHVG kim_j_Page_059thm.jpg
0c32b9428bf0a8cd41ae578b5aac0b71
904a8c5313b7c841e642aba230a1274069737bad
4965 F20110410_AAAHUS kim_j_Page_009thm.jpg
2eba38c16ec28a524db3b84f73945e4a
8834d60ceb3139f329e202c395159b9df69d91d1
83099 F20110410_AAAGRQ kim_j_Page_056.jpg
e942c39e4212a91cae5fc722c3ad1c28
69fa1a0f9e0889c92ce297d69fbeaaf4b500d5fc
79327 F20110410_AAAGSE kim_j_Page_074.jpg
ade7396c0efe69d1069db09293438b46
46d9c594f364224aed45ebbeb8741de367ec1990
F20110410_AAAHVH kim_j_Page_121thm.jpg
7c256a86d632cccb4e15de610a671821
c757f7cb3fb97c0d1fbc63a990746ad1a8ba250b
23015 F20110410_AAAHUT kim_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
df6117f2dee72d17419f8c1c2beed5b6
e4640f3864cfbfb93112b4653b086d43863f23bc
63913 F20110410_AAAGRR kim_j_Page_057.jpg
00f9f196686fad407d6be69d4e4c791e
2ed203b81d7074c0db0a76503a87ca465a40bc3f
78421 F20110410_AAAGSF kim_j_Page_077.jpg
a3126301d5e90c5998432bfb2195cb43
fd444ea1b537eb51b84d8141d603bad1ba857ae3
F20110410_AAAHVI kim_j_Page_130thm.jpg
4b1d899c2baddf967485006356efb4a9
fb22137f2e03aa50233494bf7dc3e5783cef319c
6501 F20110410_AAAHUU kim_j_Page_145thm.jpg
428617c5a8f19b969673a36c17eca76f
ed0f5d4217529d23ea4d0e6a6de335b5d9986a39
81880 F20110410_AAAGSG kim_j_Page_078.jpg
acf94ba667fbdc24a70df70ec6e8dad6
09da1812c2491dfd65f62a267ce28e565daccec5
57014 F20110410_AAAGRS kim_j_Page_059.jpg
fb10f76b3c65f96a43538323a232389c
3f6eb8b390aa317fe4649242151d51ba35a3f5bb
73740 F20110410_AAAGSH kim_j_Page_079.jpg
d6b1654eb6fcd3644eb65deb60f74801
6b1bd5231e4134097d931b35f8ca0c65967a9745
25495 F20110410_AAAHUV kim_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
a3bb4b7238d628d83df082fde3d3deb2
cc1aef06052ac65732a19e7090ccf94c96f205e7
85633 F20110410_AAAGSI kim_j_Page_080.jpg
7e341b246a9bd622cd9044cda5484366
944c963403f465bffea11bb7d99f6173c6c8ce57
52309 F20110410_AAAGRT kim_j_Page_060.jpg
e1273ea63a9e69ec8276999b9a075172
4d956a818de9ace928c7c9a54b532f51192b0ebf
24803 F20110410_AAAHUW kim_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
449b393997ec50826d35ecda1935212d
09c5d014a1e7f87b7066069658fc27aece86343c
82100 F20110410_AAAGSJ kim_j_Page_082.jpg
eecb9b3ce7036b3ade6e59d4a7f20755
94de3bf53410d2648607588b9d161c6f895edba0
51469 F20110410_AAAGRU kim_j_Page_061.jpg
dc3d550743ad0221d38bb99938e4d5bf
bae41238db82459effd8686b380372d9f923a359
22036 F20110410_AAAHUX kim_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
b2daf9e15f66988a8480c5728d0d75b9
26633c18b74f2de3d5aaf16e0f2e31aa89c2cc99
80968 F20110410_AAAGSK kim_j_Page_083.jpg
08ce23c7e48c9b17b2d44c8902bde2d6
28e2c03a08b61add87fd5912e9a3f6b3def2ffda
48558 F20110410_AAAGRV kim_j_Page_062.jpg
25b8bef506c5f465d3bd9659b62c0bbc
c60ae239ff2283d3ad62d6c14a01caa40c339a80
24199 F20110410_AAAHUY kim_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
2b65bdaead03bf807a706b3b54416e79
a667ab529a80b05c2cf841a6ee1cbe5a63cbefc8
79235 F20110410_AAAGSL kim_j_Page_085.jpg
25e0755de89bd4951968d3a7cc8012f0
67b9231e7a81b521b32128bcf0af0d9f93e854b5
78354 F20110410_AAAGRW kim_j_Page_064.jpg
c76c004531f15c761a04ecb4c422eb0b
170f03a5b6915e09b383c6e9d395fcf1921d1bf7
235732 F20110410_AAAHUZ UFE0015404_00001.xml
d2dd5457bf9528562e1bd4a4075bc298
60f73d52a4800044d753f6bb59067f1f3216ed00
kim_j_Page_001.tif
74535 F20110410_AAAGTA kim_j_Page_105.jpg
6781039e121c00fc6f9a09e9b9458c83
29c10e39efed0c5559fead4d7da820b73f0df9e8
72802 F20110410_AAAGSM kim_j_Page_086.jpg
68095374efa9dada3619284cc3bf9be0
1bfd0b028e3bdb5042e7e1738789309f8942b926
79696 F20110410_AAAGRX kim_j_Page_065.jpg
673e92f8da55a19799393e99c22ccdf5
0f77d12d053ebbb16375a3951e44552c4b96ebce
79863 F20110410_AAAGTB kim_j_Page_106.jpg
9bc0a04aef278f0368fb2c563a221d86
39e36669c5614c5c747c24c1bd1926a518cc24fc
75746 F20110410_AAAGSN kim_j_Page_087.jpg
d9130bb69ee24762a46f42f24143cb60
8ffdb48f79d5e77eedcdf51237982280655a6a7c
79746 F20110410_AAAGRY kim_j_Page_068.jpg
b8d0bd02f46f64c6169270d64203d1cd
f0027307924b082c53673031e26146c4d362bf65
79052 F20110410_AAAGTC kim_j_Page_107.jpg
65d368c692c2fa9eb3c089b451211788
83e86967de1f3abb156e6d1e318202d20d03eb5f
59621 F20110410_AAAGSO kim_j_Page_090.jpg
59a5f60f725597515bfd54f7b690046d
ae43ba5cad36de8227e90aeae03f692437d9b822
45309 F20110410_AAAGRZ kim_j_Page_069.jpg
33fa75470e089244fdad300a28500c75
281a7cad9138138c08b310de954a128491a0624e
29265 F20110410_AAAGTD kim_j_Page_108.jpg
202dcb6aa3a29449cd93b6447f025546
3bdbf7d128426dbe24855264f95f955730dd75b1
60286 F20110410_AAAGSP kim_j_Page_091.jpg
eac89ec6ae5fa25cfc79aa7a98e8fb7e
14102cbab1c4864d434045c459210b34f8f55744
88649 F20110410_AAAGTE kim_j_Page_110.jpg
3635f674ea37bcc298e2d959221d99dd
c2f7ded29f41a04d83e97e109fbc97be389df20d
78586 F20110410_AAAGSQ kim_j_Page_092.jpg
0aa7173b90dba3ae8ff4a4381ac8a1de
96c97c46144ca9a1e2fbb988d972e235c3cda2a3
75550 F20110410_AAAGTF kim_j_Page_111.jpg
5d0e980b355e287a456fe906b686ddb0
d7d7c9da3f2820e4bf6115b27640c7fcc6544b96
72410 F20110410_AAAGSR kim_j_Page_093.jpg
b06c23fc0d9479ef451c0ed58fe3146c
fda545222e83c9d5c84be87df30a924e106a02cb
88291 F20110410_AAAGTG kim_j_Page_112.jpg
f646a0bab551e7e38dfa718f392e8320
d0994d394627705ac2a5ddf18a0197eca2a67c70
77187 F20110410_AAAGSS kim_j_Page_095.jpg
08c44e64dd53fd59af57a7abf893968d
c9e0412d0d2a5a916061bb69138c97c610bffef7
88362 F20110410_AAAGTH kim_j_Page_114.jpg
0432ed1cb9fcd9d7f751d2a1a58d8cf8
870f2b4eeb8c3b67f727ac1166070a48bd8859bb
81738 F20110410_AAAGST kim_j_Page_096.jpg
5d051b2bd42536140a51efbb40e37f54
6c647a630b40566e1fb67c0b76756b61077601c3
73811 F20110410_AAAGTI kim_j_Page_115.jpg
2d2ea4efd67c0663831b58640782b0bd
9037dc117b0b41c2f2fa6ebf8c76776e95626abb
88126 F20110410_AAAGTJ kim_j_Page_116.jpg
d11f4aec8adf3ca00c0952ed67a09edc
578699d7dedf32895e21123d49183359fb3c29a9
67243 F20110410_AAAGSU kim_j_Page_097.jpg
9a6ff515de006f43858b0b6c17953680
57eaab4aa14e1be09dd6c431eb47c5291b4dc2f6
91785 F20110410_AAAGTK kim_j_Page_119.jpg
601c3de34b923f25c4424fc8051574c0
a6d5044cb9a86c0c718000632363d370ed223339
68370 F20110410_AAAGSV kim_j_Page_098.jpg
21233948d91f7284be4f8cd00e3cb6b8
797338c78f399ae7feebf0ce0a5287e2d0e1c867
F20110410_AAAGTL kim_j_Page_120.jpg
8b978132198bb7b6e7cd9b9c9cdd641b
7fb4dab38b9365f1a0fe6ed78f901fd03dc80de1
61265 F20110410_AAAGSW kim_j_Page_099.jpg
3b725f66fc617e388aebaeb67b26441e
63e05d78457fdce7432441e41c32e7d439969dc1
89713 F20110410_AAAGTM kim_j_Page_121.jpg
48d0007c614220c91f55d0f7a115b0be
c3ae8644e6833ac980e13f892b6b625b1df169d1
78290 F20110410_AAAGSX kim_j_Page_100.jpg
5776d27d93a30ead2e8d6c7c85944042
cd091ecbe49512996d4fad1bdba496d81d723d25
97734 F20110410_AAAGUA kim_j_Page_141.jpg
c6d76a1e7a0e17434a0e940902be454c
0f603b630c5ce520d68d6d965e37bf5459efbbf4
88609 F20110410_AAAGTN kim_j_Page_122.jpg
582ea13b3fbbe3f596fe9ea660d20c7e
c50cd85a0414652d1fc2385ebf7d3f1b8fabd6a9
69221 F20110410_AAAGSY kim_j_Page_103.jpg
e6d5ba7fcb5c01331fa171a5fcf16ef3
261f96e698ad681fa445900e9accc1f62010517f
101079 F20110410_AAAGUB kim_j_Page_144.jpg
9ac25b6e7cea882d80d02841434f42ca
2a0cf6f8eb888d1cec50e7b7cf95d62e4038c9b9
90152 F20110410_AAAGTO kim_j_Page_123.jpg
d135d7e5f09ea4cdefdeafdbc2ee5e56
ea98b6fb3f3832620b0b83c447d4fb60c790cdf6
59835 F20110410_AAAGSZ kim_j_Page_104.jpg
1a812c0932f975305da033d03d199d15
f5996bebe26dab286d77fb96015928c18f5ebea4
97141 F20110410_AAAGUC kim_j_Page_145.jpg
4a3eed58d72a9136ed89d0194ece46a1
5a0affc5bbc3a7431a30289bacf15e4f6bc605cd
88768 F20110410_AAAGTP kim_j_Page_124.jpg
068fa6d052e1d8e3a1b6ca1a00cbfa3e
1542ef2f03830d45679810faf9a080ce64401c52
73278 F20110410_AAAGUD kim_j_Page_147.jpg
d0f178cf941dc41b78f752a29b4884c9
4a1ffc5f41db66a158b5f202bc4d26c64bfafb85
105884 F20110410_AAAGTQ kim_j_Page_127.jpg
57b4b14835ee6e541228c19dfc30cdc9
ce0dc4b99b4403cc29f0060c33b2ff2d7a4eb594
38517 F20110410_AAAGUE kim_j_Page_148.jpg
3987f348936fd337f2f53f4545881641
8d76cd2fa6130cd1441a4b4eed9ad4b33815e713
88391 F20110410_AAAGTR kim_j_Page_128.jpg
e1d3bd0228367e67ca55ed2809ab8c81
ed40b45f554d450f1486f6a0c02464163de9fb62
F20110410_AAAHAA kim_j_Page_041.tif
826f0aa9ad718b63c4dedb86f888318f
87e19a6871dfe4932ba2bbbc061a6fdde1ffcd3d
26656 F20110410_AAAGUF kim_j_Page_001.jp2
8d1dc6c8f1e441b8a0c266f18997eeb1
1da47b88e65eded1e51273755c065854cadc4a5c
104827 F20110410_AAAGTS kim_j_Page_131.jpg
53a067e836b1efd10605c1b85cbd8b17
082cbc854f3526a302623a4f825cad0e7d260f2b
5909 F20110410_AAAGUG kim_j_Page_002.jp2
8973996d9f6447ad26c1936676f12cd5
647253fb60e6a56559e18d241d50ed911083734e
88418 F20110410_AAAGTT kim_j_Page_132.jpg
bbb1ca3c192d27139c41226bb98c0453
c85b5310c6013024f69f371e83665f0c54238815
F20110410_AAAHAB kim_j_Page_042.tif
478e644ea17bbcd5160018eb41717074
c2c3086ae57563def4666ca4c86c4bd9fa6cea41
15854 F20110410_AAAGUH kim_j_Page_003.jp2
05b8328667c66d848b9643e9282182d4
15a6ffc0128b364daa08eed3c503ddd68610f250
104712 F20110410_AAAGTU kim_j_Page_133.jpg
9cafa5c634aab9fa42ec6c468276e64e
546703589689a1074809bdc21163acf857183428
F20110410_AAAHAC kim_j_Page_043.tif
0ddb5755bc5c4cf30b641902b80b6f63
3c9ed23688410085bb0c533c13ff683ff71e7386
95389 F20110410_AAAGUI kim_j_Page_004.jp2
8c0a3fb19cb3e691f050be0f8eadda52
2cd550011a0c65b2e1033d940f4beda2314f9b4f
F20110410_AAAHAD kim_j_Page_044.tif
e5a74b806a9cd1b79f1c12fe431ab367
d1154d8256826fbf9673766b8abf2b148e8b7ce7
1051969 F20110410_AAAGUJ kim_j_Page_005.jp2
19890c99241f8fdcd06c9c706f28f04a
5bbe0e2c69abc557bf2f45f4a96629754c877afe
3983 F20110410_AAAGTV kim_j_Page_134.jpg
01786757a87d796004a12dba0cefa2b8
501e24ab7a960c7ce9c1d2526efd7b4fc173bfcc
F20110410_AAAHAE kim_j_Page_045.tif
2280c0b94fc6388278ad7e34fdea7fdb
254c7c9816483c972f10d799e5d27a884a0e87a2
1051984 F20110410_AAAGUK kim_j_Page_007.jp2
3327e379b33b58818a70506b96041790
92b995ef1c26b0e578fea2639e9fbd89611a1eba
80502 F20110410_AAAGTW kim_j_Page_136.jpg
b1800023624bf3ac328e55f29f300694
4d28d40cfbbdacc272b5d45ecfe23af4b982611c
F20110410_AAAHAF kim_j_Page_047.tif
d9efa400d8018bf41dd6ab59d1e817d9
b526cfd1eb637171e429d50468c86795c60294ee
568556 F20110410_AAAGUL kim_j_Page_008.jp2
bfa8369008b9c76278fd7713d0f7066d
e77ea11632d5a9828bae12f4bc03994dac975a67
82497 F20110410_AAAGTX kim_j_Page_137.jpg
40a8d63bd36dbed97b67086c90e7358b
4c9c1b1d24e8126c75212c2dc52fcfb9b8d604ed
F20110410_AAAHAG kim_j_Page_048.tif
253e0aa037ada5dc24d1f87aab1988d5
1d4bc98526dbabb284dd0d36a7f3c214a5739121
100600 F20110410_AAAGVA kim_j_Page_025.jp2
c25c6612c23184f05b8dcc5745817bd9
96583bba3b98330831e8edaa333fc3d2a91880fc
1051977 F20110410_AAAGUM kim_j_Page_009.jp2
6c9c8c41bbee1a97b9c8cf26f5b15c13
409c8a5bb0950558f10d73dcf79d2acf89dcfeab
12840 F20110410_AAAGTY kim_j_Page_138.jpg
74199f07d47e6642d49e2a3bd7a3521a
3551f48acc25f47a332fae9b1ea09c56aba709fc
F20110410_AAAHAH kim_j_Page_049.tif
44c428f48166d9c4316be2cc6d71d38b
821ef61480b30435d6af36b98907ff8e7e6eedcf
100921 F20110410_AAAGVB kim_j_Page_026.jp2
f05d3513f59d8e9fe9dce2073dec061a
48deff1d13078c9a25f344ffb8eb90f0e41cb2a1
1051963 F20110410_AAAGUN kim_j_Page_010.jp2
de4bea3f4653c8b2eae5925e9067f3f4
6d6a527b98fc94e992ac93be2574783a186a8f95
97630 F20110410_AAAGTZ kim_j_Page_140.jpg
74efb2cd691ccc37844837420bf24d63
7ae2dcf462cbae73f90f2d475eb43fe33bd2c983
F20110410_AAAHAI kim_j_Page_050.tif
eb60d7573241bcb251be6f514d319bc9
0287f295ca2e8796289781a64e1dd41c2f3a9454
111992 F20110410_AAAGVC kim_j_Page_028.jp2
f24b3d500f8c9066af54a153cd5588f5
900efb2c1e5bfb314a40e5d3d8a7d1033e9cc260
82859 F20110410_AAAGUO kim_j_Page_011.jp2
50a3078a881ef786778c47e3b3b91ea4
3fce38b0b04058b560a629b7996b32695958fb13
F20110410_AAAHAJ kim_j_Page_051.tif
a187495a6a3e9e330b416e506f07ada6
cf245d76818b76a6cd0483636653cf3fd7405e3b
105210 F20110410_AAAGVD kim_j_Page_029.jp2
0909c5049481651c308a6c69aeed47cc
f758a4ea52b88a82896565823165f7ae7a36c482
70904 F20110410_AAAGUP kim_j_Page_012.jp2
2e54bd4ae16b6cdf72a4ae336d237aeb
aac9d7216a215dab67a4a5e012884208890593fb
F20110410_AAAHAK kim_j_Page_053.tif
88491cac3900da22a3fb11cd7003c49a
1cd66a93d953536bd5b5dc3e43aba4340d759ba0
103990 F20110410_AAAGVE kim_j_Page_031.jp2
63937f8e7219b4eb6e342d27f41832e6
836accee0280c34287690ae17aab7cde5499bf2e
909731 F20110410_AAAGUQ kim_j_Page_013.jp2
539372979a0d7028d3f153f6df1050b2
67bf2cd361994ea3cfcb10b33b5dcdcbba92e258
8423998 F20110410_AAAHAL kim_j_Page_057.tif
17aaf054f724f70393e64928cac62728
4bc4378f90a4f8bb247c1eea0c682446f37b4f88
111017 F20110410_AAAGVF kim_j_Page_034.jp2
391ec3ad249aad05fd650c4ca99298e3
596d370ea7e8e03be641d7ebe03c591dc8582816
104165 F20110410_AAAGUR kim_j_Page_014.jp2
89843e1ccbbe3202d65ad75e6ad9bff0
0a50e4ee6432aa67f67e1c21eb2393912d3219c7
F20110410_AAAHBA kim_j_Page_076.tif
124c7bfaf2128e56735ef23f51d91f74
a4df99b42d665db7338145de12129236c498431f
F20110410_AAAHAM kim_j_Page_058.tif
47d03ee047e49f59acb16194ae3dd1ff
455593135e7875bac898150e02d714a6f63e9938
108572 F20110410_AAAGVG kim_j_Page_035.jp2
e39a9e37922fad7a7573103fcc64d435
e7613f7921b3a18055961f9156210c3123761062
112359 F20110410_AAAGUS kim_j_Page_015.jp2
4c203a1791a5377691746264b22b7d3f
502f378038a20a658078ba36e2881cabfde4c6c6
F20110410_AAAHBB kim_j_Page_077.tif
b73f41eed04a64e40ae8717284c90b82
9ed0c1df52c55573452085a0811a5b2ff7696e98
F20110410_AAAHAN kim_j_Page_059.tif
750e4577806ba6543af9d21b9e7a0ae6
55364df802b596fff95d60c5d4e363772dc8bd83
115329 F20110410_AAAGVH kim_j_Page_036.jp2
c91f77da3d843ec23b16ce126d923fdc
d6301b1ae16bde178ceeae4e74e2fc6342408b29
87326 F20110410_AAAGUT kim_j_Page_016.jp2
1f2e7253ab973d1607bc02398a242c4d
7c739b2025cbd640a9adb79adbf6f813be6944e6
F20110410_AAAHAO kim_j_Page_060.tif
26ceebcbb6d0c042aa9d0b36e93f6b85
109622eec2eab52d7440cc14c2aff163f6831190
108818 F20110410_AAAGVI kim_j_Page_037.jp2
d755d30b9055c8c0998509a45a2e1f01
90e140452ece892aeed8c385824cba8f283f55b0
109232 F20110410_AAAGUU kim_j_Page_017.jp2
3c67a9cc822766f1320980dfda543baf
1046c66223ef88e15c6d1940d398f89b7177917d
F20110410_AAAHBC kim_j_Page_078.tif
7e0edd34b8c61aa3545cab509b64a4f7
566297d288f7354c3dee46b6b6930777cb9be665
F20110410_AAAHAP kim_j_Page_061.tif
3ccf6ebfd7104c438d8bdfd9334aa2be
9c36ac0bca28c8b2fc7250183229f33f7d406f07
128842 F20110410_AAAGVJ kim_j_Page_038.jp2
a48dbf92fda902d2c8e4658561254b2a
502f1eeaaecde8b26b7007bc08de0419b056859d
109778 F20110410_AAAGUV kim_j_Page_018.jp2
5e98ea460c16288f3443e711f3ea485c
ce221bbb3e0a192a20ef20d0baec147e80a0ab36
F20110410_AAAHBD kim_j_Page_079.tif
adc23224078d7e46059911907111e967
d3cceac255e992d20b1cff84340e844ffbe4cf16
F20110410_AAAHAQ kim_j_Page_064.tif
5d9e75a87eb59695d7ca518c5756ab01
e40ff2d09dc4802f6ca7677a55ff8dc1bc95de3c
106422 F20110410_AAAGVK kim_j_Page_040.jp2
7fae23b5d7f539aa0ce8e90bfb910455
c8bb5bf923e83bcd33d80d4b166350bac31aafa8
F20110410_AAAHBE kim_j_Page_080.tif
2d3f889cc7a60abddc6d0f979c8200b4
33c1c1ea98625aeceb2512044e2ad104ecdef1cb
F20110410_AAAHAR kim_j_Page_065.tif
bbe4abc5680a2e8b51e1daa43fa2382c
765c5cfe1596597b5d61b3f59d08a588512f8d52
100677 F20110410_AAAGVL kim_j_Page_042.jp2
5e60361e4ba0fa9acac0a41d1f92fafb
24205d61b8f1641c2631f14905acd3125c543228
117236 F20110410_AAAGUW kim_j_Page_019.jp2
66bb355f2ec6fb32c989db8d0ba04a75
a08422d4ca48652296e40d26ad0e3d6f9a7097f4
F20110410_AAAHBF kim_j_Page_081.tif
1dfc3f4b8691d847c3645468bb5b5816
29cae273d3e401abee244157c3261c0dbc34352e
634566 F20110410_AAAGWA kim_j_Page_061.jp2
703b6e1602463dd9ffd8e4630b794f87
016c2c9fcbeea8c83bdc15f9e0121b063294cb6f
F20110410_AAAHAS kim_j_Page_066.tif
d0bc03e51812ab5ddc590438d67343d4
8fa24dfa13890ba55ee1342bb2299a2834b75187
39472 F20110410_AAAGVM kim_j_Page_043.jp2
cebc942bf3c44ecba3d66ee490372cf9
0d11f79af04ece050f1bdc46c61f8a64fc469f0a
98814 F20110410_AAAGUX kim_j_Page_021.jp2
682ed7861cd87aa0630da50157fa0e34
81eb3acf9162a1d2df7485f081dbf2cef618fd18
F20110410_AAAHBG kim_j_Page_082.tif
89153154843ce7000a53b486fbf2d486
3efcd5d8e4671c949e82bee53d68c7f875ddc881
610119 F20110410_AAAGWB kim_j_Page_062.jp2
e9c691ee8d810879b96b8bbd2bc3c5b9
b3853392b922c340a29d9b12abd9161e3a7e00c4
F20110410_AAAHAT kim_j_Page_067.tif
312a547f97998f285af680a550a390de
dad80d4839776c60c398f4e162adc014cf4fce52
106824 F20110410_AAAGVN kim_j_Page_045.jp2
dff89d3289300a4fffd86237be240493
421237d964f49fcecc4887c1fdd5831b03956397
111384 F20110410_AAAGUY kim_j_Page_022.jp2
a34c8d39f1e8637e055614cf123eec50
fcf9e0ac8f043a780d48994ab1034082fc932b0f
F20110410_AAAHBH kim_j_Page_083.tif
a50665ed510901630e01844b6b451814
027a6ed472a9fbdca31bdcf0cd19813d07b16d8b
91688 F20110410_AAAGWC kim_j_Page_063.jp2
76e9c932220e554b0c7f384de6ed2c86
d84d21495fce3388de1d3c14c010e04132bcd27a
F20110410_AAAHAU kim_j_Page_068.tif
f339f0f0eafc72d6aa501e47141c1794
3bfe4f195f102a18f2a7cb18c38e29348fb5078a
95689 F20110410_AAAGVO kim_j_Page_046.jp2
4660b030ae1df8f30bd55b44caaea3c5
b103872885b48d1789f95cc8db30e77390df25a3
109614 F20110410_AAAGUZ kim_j_Page_024.jp2
e26888116178db246503dc455e2cb8d8
d82205103e5ea60abf03f9d1be5387f8c231d63b
F20110410_AAAHBI kim_j_Page_084.tif
593b4b3e25a48bc3a5dbfa690252f647
d5bb5b2644904426ea602af1c93d5d48b7fbb28e
979993 F20110410_AAAGWD kim_j_Page_064.jp2
e2bbcef2c975152fe2acd8bfd35223e1
a0836b249eb43ad25659d79f5e7dac8b1a3e7825
F20110410_AAAHAV kim_j_Page_069.tif
a992725d9bff5e135b914bc0274728f0
e5290c1e8676a291139a5f6fb298b1d0c3e8c7fa
115462 F20110410_AAAGVP kim_j_Page_047.jp2
27dd4608c26f380ec32847b3fd9f8c12
31868e050ca4fe34ffbdfc8581d669bb114bd30f
F20110410_AAAHBJ kim_j_Page_087.tif
13b344809a401f458a8d9a594fac6eb1
f7d503cd88cac59100dd1bb0bcbed81e0c5f0ecf
106447 F20110410_AAAGWE kim_j_Page_065.jp2
66746ce50715e934e1e1abcc7449ec15
51c899f9772f17ec6d81cdc0c5a0b81045f1b808
F20110410_AAAHAW kim_j_Page_070.tif
6b985187e471fd2f480753f5e98eb84a
18710c79640e9c53bd839125ecdb4cb2c0e21561
1051980 F20110410_AAAGVQ kim_j_Page_048.jp2
f4a103d020a5bfc18134f0c225d424e3
04e184d79b5363469cc435f7b96146fb3ab40cab
F20110410_AAAHBK kim_j_Page_088.tif
dd197d824ca71b1c19087e1ad6123f68
0ec5cf75ddd536cd432968a896145393ec5a4080
64136 F20110410_AAAGWF kim_j_Page_066.jp2
b90bb44c5be946ea8e9f8cc5e4975207
a698424c285ab4c8d4bab41ad503b376b5e8809f
F20110410_AAAHAX kim_j_Page_071.tif
569b947cad5799b41681bf0cdfa5256c
e2aaec0d917f4067840f82d4cec897a026dc5959
1051966 F20110410_AAAGVR kim_j_Page_049.jp2
f4c5018a42fd82945d28fdacab5c586f
688be2c5fcbe94f82ad63b560554842716c06e28
F20110410_AAAHCA kim_j_Page_106.tif
455cdc0d7d4fb20a5acffbbda6b7dea4
da39f7838314c781bb93933f23214cd7484fd5fd
F20110410_AAAHBL kim_j_Page_090.tif
ffffea8ac474626dc6c0727721fb43f6
4f70ecb7a78451957a01f5544c2a02ab174c08dc
86867 F20110410_AAAGWG kim_j_Page_067.jp2
eb71a1715ae64a5b8e042b01220f4187
456f829eee48bd7081e89932628e83ff0283cf18
F20110410_AAAHAY kim_j_Page_072.tif
0f36d1cba5fe2d4680575548d0c4f3c6
8d97cd950a0b63dae1376555ebafca0148e7f0a2
1051928 F20110410_AAAGVS kim_j_Page_050.jp2
0db0489e96a9588c378dd3299ad5f453
26f15ef9dbe9b51e1212eee60be1f721b881a88e
F20110410_AAAHCB kim_j_Page_107.tif
8ce4f9d71953902237794e3fc212f103
c9c53af615ef671e5f6ddbc070bef48000a68ab8
F20110410_AAAHBM kim_j_Page_091.tif
66b63fecce214b4bb233ea90045f6b7f
dcd4a1d148e6223c1ef43c3a7d10b0142c887c2f
107551 F20110410_AAAGWH kim_j_Page_068.jp2
9d362a30fe2559453f4b4d5572922a2b
2a0ce225c3214811835a2841e1e5aaded4dd8465
F20110410_AAAHAZ kim_j_Page_073.tif
00d73a699f4462b28d73aaca48607e94
6c26e911404fcf2bf9aae32bc5c76f27166ae1f5
127601 F20110410_AAAGVT kim_j_Page_051.jp2
763a520366d7b8dcc42c004d6d472a6c
990299649a1d51fa1221a184436677a096e11b2b
F20110410_AAAHCC kim_j_Page_108.tif
e4dca0b954a579e9d7f556b99db2fa88
605ae68a9846f146c73caafbfc6dd8c94db550fe
F20110410_AAAHBN kim_j_Page_092.tif
d4cec4c5f07650d4d01130b33d6287b8
92ccddc24db626b69006d08fb04753f9d16ecad6
55723 F20110410_AAAGWI kim_j_Page_069.jp2
e85a98b0a16cceab4b3137cb9e8ec53d
c47901c99bcc5d40945813485ba6e5d840fb9fbe
109945 F20110410_AAAGVU kim_j_Page_052.jp2
61c6f66a0497b61c6c5f0dfa85e2b073
1c5693acdd66f02fd045f2bd0fceb934f0c380bf
F20110410_AAAHBO kim_j_Page_093.tif
e3561769d0d1f72a2938cabf893dc55e
37b76e44622f1d8d7112ccf9993abd6ea067a894
F20110410_AAAGWJ kim_j_Page_070.jp2
e7eeaed4c1c760e99f9072a21c82fdb2
cbcbc0212d9029bf0edc79e430b5673b2e1a45b2
16399 F20110410_AAAGVV kim_j_Page_053.jp2
ba4a7bc72b4a710241043023e8192030
6b3107ecafd3b9dcf05408a6a3a5146660fac5c5
F20110410_AAAHCD kim_j_Page_109.tif
5eef75545b3c1109d01d68f9c6819b2f
3aa18b39e899a1f8d13d57fbcc27309d5fb21750
F20110410_AAAHBP kim_j_Page_094.tif
d3ea2dbd9a36c44619522b540608b7a7
badc7ae79a6e323dc53dcb7b298acdf6ce445808
106391 F20110410_AAAGWK kim_j_Page_073.jp2
8d71b85b6121dadbc3aa8b041b652b06
1f077746a8354932d36ec675c606712e9105f627
87515 F20110410_AAAGVW kim_j_Page_054.jp2
fcf156c374e0dda097c0e7ef3c9cd9a4
65fe7a6a6a6b7751f78b35addd9d5de8624f2d21
F20110410_AAAHCE kim_j_Page_110.tif
e03b9a7f95cea4f2602885a008fc7f22
94898ff325cc4eb143f784892447a7a6588c2e96
F20110410_AAAHBQ kim_j_Page_095.tif
f4881c2a14a916eca324795a130add1d
9579a378beaccc4cce976ab84f1e8bd95efdc25c
105971 F20110410_AAAGWL kim_j_Page_074.jp2
f204aa73b69107afbc72afc6a991bcf0
0ee50617369ce5c409dab2c5fc65646202fccd42
F20110410_AAAHCF kim_j_Page_111.tif
7946df806b2d39c1f20a6834e3fdde9c
6b09ed848d64bff74ffcdd752865902abec47e28
F20110410_AAAHBR kim_j_Page_096.tif
a0f0f6598cef18e4e65067f22dca8e56
94fdcf60e30f3b0d731a04263d2f667d60b8aa72
107721 F20110410_AAAGWM kim_j_Page_075.jp2
22c1fc012834c3ef64ad730de13bf334
a27191fbe5968bb1d6194982e72c35b5805884a2
106813 F20110410_AAAGVX kim_j_Page_056.jp2
b9097014fb8ea7b62987b356afd510c2
9b93a4602a0b1beb4813a0d2202a164ab0ce3976
F20110410_AAAHCG kim_j_Page_112.tif
f5593525ca615d1df599fb69f0bf8f3b
827ac19d8e2e779469f16aadcaa472ef7ec8f2cf
96211 F20110410_AAAGXA kim_j_Page_092.jp2
f9bb19b1c6696b4a24ea6f5aa0e66ae0
3e240f074d6afaca2f0111a29bbf6ecbdbaa60bd
F20110410_AAAHBS kim_j_Page_097.tif
3fda274ea514e91d66630f38128fedd5
797b89aa3c2a19da98550ebeb0e13cb86efac263
101159 F20110410_AAAGWN kim_j_Page_076.jp2
f495dd0bd7e5ddf96b91752f88130e02
7c9978468fe4c04e3d8d802153ca1ca450d569ae
77442 F20110410_AAAGVY kim_j_Page_058.jp2
96234032304e558546526ffa85b57afa
cdc564b4fd74082cf1a74932748b36c91491bf24
F20110410_AAAHCH kim_j_Page_113.tif
f129ecd00d1b70705e3160d6fb679c2e
05b03839ff64bc5a21056d772178c85612011986
93844 F20110410_AAAGXB kim_j_Page_093.jp2
c89e7e200f3d11764afb5d9201cb3ec6
1f4b45cc966be1e68846af9b7f8eb2ca6366e7e9
F20110410_AAAHBT kim_j_Page_098.tif
530fcf77ee838af5d2280c6870aee2cc
34bcb70da0c087376531b86201f473754ed8ac20
108544 F20110410_AAAGWO kim_j_Page_078.jp2
6917883cf1d9f1068f4d8d2e45f96087
e14c684e68908804413edc671c95a5d2319bb7df
648501 F20110410_AAAGVZ kim_j_Page_060.jp2
bddfb97689e4ff53c712b2d1cacaad07
6c426e93d70ef5aa6bad748b778e1414f5a7f97b
F20110410_AAAHCI kim_j_Page_115.tif
b8270ab61c27c208c5543b7014d23fd2
879f0e891d5221aba8105747b5c066c8548d6d0d
98624 F20110410_AAAGXC kim_j_Page_094.jp2
639412952f013d0b368d3f692105f9fa
56914ba3a986e08ebe322227d12920c763cd8040
F20110410_AAAHBU kim_j_Page_099.tif
6268e5ce59a9ca560f797c8c792960c9
e5a686e770df9c1e17bf5087dbea141ad662d884
F20110410_AAAHCJ kim_j_Page_116.tif
add0529bd7244d117ef54063120ee2b8
a9739db2a5bed2137b0ec9604a39a52d118bf018
99014 F20110410_AAAGXD kim_j_Page_095.jp2
67594a38eba8562b7b9df217de3c9c5d
3c4dd585e408dd2f19208a7184e2d28da8248162
F20110410_AAAHBV kim_j_Page_100.tif
597c31f0209759dc78b6ff43d73b21b5
2fc71abbe5befadb86216d1e4dc0214b55002fa1
98282 F20110410_AAAGWP kim_j_Page_079.jp2
3f35418e175dbe9a20aee72642788134
64be6815789f5f3b24436600694072d2b77b3672
F20110410_AAAHCK kim_j_Page_117.tif
29eedfb0ca731a4d2184164dd2435e78
9f1858cb72ea9778d38e96a340d9be7b5cbb4428
108245 F20110410_AAAGXE kim_j_Page_096.jp2
1d5ca7a7f45583e1214ef65144300d2b
805badb42e8b3bcf8773a53861afb65559c0d4e9
F20110410_AAAHBW kim_j_Page_102.tif
82b9079bd427dee9fdef34a84d361dd0
9ec22850c41010e3578da1aa6be327bf514c680c
114973 F20110410_AAAGWQ kim_j_Page_080.jp2
3fd5ef4650a2c1d2af83c585f7be8350
8417b848921f7cb09fa4019add32c73744f33525
F20110410_AAAHDA kim_j_Page_143.tif
aa3c27062cd9859188e01aa17f3e920f
aef69d28d03ef3bb23a3c8845ee2f3cb6386b2bf
F20110410_AAAHCL kim_j_Page_118.tif
200bc6f7d8f64061ff98428ee9432d00
5dafecf106bcae25aa8731536bc64c7e12eda840
85311 F20110410_AAAGXF kim_j_Page_097.jp2
3008ec2de75902fd750dfad3650e919d
0360dddba8297527ede7224d5b22a93b1a10cee8
F20110410_AAAHBX kim_j_Page_103.tif
a9a83458a42cb20015a6bca5524e7645
db4f21c109b7f0aad9afed0672329f2b584f586f
103866 F20110410_AAAGWR kim_j_Page_081.jp2
b36cd086bd1b4d79e346d9a6c08fb17e
b8a91930d4fb69fa2dd4812f67b5ed9307e79cda
F20110410_AAAHDB kim_j_Page_144.tif
5972418cd7e65179e0d009bb691dd326
e14faa20481ab65afb9845d63156600a4c2f7264
F20110410_AAAHCM kim_j_Page_119.tif
33a1ba494076fbbbb819c619f8d50e11
24729049f5873bde24cb1862e13dd07937a44794
90142 F20110410_AAAGXG kim_j_Page_098.jp2
8e29f2ef7161be9b59ea9256adc571af
03cbdaa40dfbf22b181cd1a06f25268ab6bb5fca
F20110410_AAAHBY kim_j_Page_104.tif
8d8ee83b5ac30172393cb633a8a1a03a
97b64c871404e5ef5f5c33a5afa0cddf5ef34321
109329 F20110410_AAAGWS kim_j_Page_082.jp2
8c43857b2683e7d614e0633e1d984275
a2a50097fe294c7ddd91610e710550b43860af7e
F20110410_AAAHDC kim_j_Page_145.tif
b284476a06b2d87d27de9cdeebcf462c
b15f2250f1c887d556829e2974122f104c67c0f3
F20110410_AAAHCN kim_j_Page_122.tif
d81fdb4b1beba6ad737a076a22bda8e0
a8e96037659a45428af72bc2b9ecd537553cec6a
77349 F20110410_AAAGXH kim_j_Page_099.jp2
f78827bfe68d082087c3fa22ba5c166f
36dc953501d029b5b387370c8f3321cc91fffff1
F20110410_AAAHBZ kim_j_Page_105.tif
d2271e12fc3b21d501dd4a5273d18497
58d049754876504ea274f046f175f2cbd80a7f97
106798 F20110410_AAAGWT kim_j_Page_083.jp2
f7632d6731ff244836331f58f5d829b7
1d2a0f870a1e9ba2187476ae9766fb61379d2526
F20110410_AAAHDD kim_j_Page_146.tif
81fd5dcbc89b670eff314f2e3f60234d
b8a5122c1120ac3f1c1bee140f4530d19a420cf7
F20110410_AAAHCO kim_j_Page_123.tif
b19c6d94eb6dce857f06950fe5dcf351
fbd238ce5f4d815e64eb26ffb72d35ebf89f8952
103426 F20110410_AAAGXI kim_j_Page_100.jp2
74e41aacad4cf9012c673eeb29c5d156
8a6d1c96bd69ce64f1349a98f1c700c0a4cfb009
97535 F20110410_AAAGWU kim_j_Page_086.jp2
0e3d12913ef3484f5de4dce937bf8272
4b3de54f97cc59ffaeb22c891ff2001bc0c5756e
F20110410_AAAHCP kim_j_Page_127.tif
b1b59c9f4be91a124122a6d9e93a9043
67af3f8617030ffd950aad9f757fd1615e74a025
105068 F20110410_AAAGXJ kim_j_Page_101.jp2
416df6390b9facab226a81b9ec0d19e5
9e30fae90427d6ae27b0db6ba2095a3afc4136e4
100135 F20110410_AAAGWV kim_j_Page_087.jp2
e37c8429e62852522cec27861bc4a604
ec08ad64bb4a38598071dff155be95e46180858c
F20110410_AAAHDE kim_j_Page_147.tif
89f827dad1802e540bcb4869e9557af9
4df623f3acffe7b553ab99878aa4b9992d7d77de
F20110410_AAAHCQ kim_j_Page_128.tif
4b645ff638f13e6346b2158413fc615b
d43737eb27d8e8b4ec5331e1c385c241c247db1f
102976 F20110410_AAAGXK kim_j_Page_102.jp2
2ded4efb88a8d9644f31159720975b52
2c5dfd5b34a2934afb2342bc9edccf7cfdb68aab
99712 F20110410_AAAGWW kim_j_Page_088.jp2
807813dc59aa06d6f59223db69dbff1a
84d43f53a53324b11cce5070cde3995104e2bca7
F20110410_AAAHDF kim_j_Page_148.tif
40b5473923a0a1a3cd5ed07a62b207f4
be4c729b58aec99480cfd93f7f25a282cabd2cfb
F20110410_AAAHCR kim_j_Page_130.tif
7a5829e83d17138d344529e511f62af8
4347b65d63b6d4e10694dff8410190b2a6d08e5f
808623 F20110410_AAAGXL kim_j_Page_104.jp2
a37e75a47dd7170a7d86390b632ecb74
0f1a4cdc4b634885720c89d514f5b6c61e1ed354
105798 F20110410_AAAGWX kim_j_Page_089.jp2
49eea49b8b627754932f36c2ba46b423
b52e4751daaa84d39f0ea5f2c42515ef524648bc
8733 F20110410_AAAHDG kim_j_Page_001.pro
8f16dac36c334d32fd8e15b378fa538f
5ad3ac1ba6cc3aecabc865c24e360c95db5945f0
F20110410_AAAGYA kim_j_Page_121.jp2
d5209d9f2b48112cdf8d9f287ce00356
d5f11b19161f5deb10606fcbbde7a8f4c84cb660
F20110410_AAAHCS kim_j_Page_133.tif
6825ca8b71ad0f3d5f23f24d69c53a94
9ab23759cec37e4779d4bbbbc1b0274e4895f101
1051974 F20110410_AAAGXM kim_j_Page_105.jp2
c95a7eb0d0094289cbfad888f59128c9
c00e559d41859c4c47ba0af03ef99f361b6d2349
1247 F20110410_AAAHDH kim_j_Page_002.pro
bd4d569420518f303f2638293297a67f
fb153ab7d0f679e764a5399f965a6c3f557df3f3
1051979 F20110410_AAAGYB kim_j_Page_122.jp2
4301d980b7fb3b97902ea9bfc1069f65
1a605ff6083379b612174be2dda2e00bf301e528
F20110410_AAAHCT kim_j_Page_134.tif
36ff968af535d605dbdd603e42569f59
f19dae9ebd7463303ae52d636186a6d189768608
106809 F20110410_AAAGXN kim_j_Page_106.jp2
49ee7cd54e8ee35e502cddc9c788e80c
edf2b84b735e2964821efc68a6b52f3df8cebb11
79640 F20110410_AAAGWY kim_j_Page_090.jp2
0cff6ab040346d89600209c878c0f5b1
d01e38be6ab05a721aba4edf91ed9fdc109544d1
6187 F20110410_AAAHDI kim_j_Page_003.pro
6b941e32d74a186215d18001cfe58924
9e09405652fc1ed6354bce771c068dcc4b19fe4b
1051948 F20110410_AAAGYC kim_j_Page_123.jp2
59488c71305f146e56990659b71f2258
c3b93bbdbd09599ba1a1021e36af2b1f7587c682
F20110410_AAAHCU kim_j_Page_136.tif
ca7bcbc3e5aa0ec74ff9ddbf221372c7
90ebc19c2ebaac71794a911dc6f0362a44e58a56
103949 F20110410_AAAGXO kim_j_Page_107.jp2
6e4b74debb9be6be9075ab186e04efc0
807a4d367570968c436e0a02fb0d14d26de5198e
76958 F20110410_AAAGWZ kim_j_Page_091.jp2
7a8d5a127baf4adb0a8a6a0753067bb4
078453d02b46a70b28353f9c336218ea5970c3ec
44345 F20110410_AAAHDJ kim_j_Page_004.pro
1016e285f4d88775023a654aa43fe198
987e14c2720c076730d4201760e32f4a89a2e51b
1051971 F20110410_AAAGYD kim_j_Page_124.jp2
8fe987ae391424f0ae259b6b8e141063
60a5f52491996c58b0097e6ad53fee89336d2e13
F20110410_AAAHCV kim_j_Page_137.tif
0c09b5711718d3236a4084ea558a999b
953afb50519343ae958482cc8d12afff98685752
37969 F20110410_AAAGXP kim_j_Page_108.jp2
30899c04556db3af74df56e80b075c4a
93c66b7f3bb8aada7067f4f467b389c5f9c755aa
86413 F20110410_AAAHDK kim_j_Page_006.pro
1a7966e724a91daaef2058937080b605
79f0ccb0f65847fbc118c2f35e6b6aba050dd33c
F20110410_AAAGYE kim_j_Page_125.jp2
61d0e7325bf44d1a5a7a26d0bfd32f38
d85a4570623a10aefcb9e5161130f7e9f9700293
F20110410_AAAHCW kim_j_Page_139.tif
4603dc31cd6094d573b741fcaf7a65f3
b2f2b0e1cdbf2ade541bc1dfab8f6bbb8841d4f7
6199 F20110410_AAAGXQ kim_j_Page_109.jp2
df4d6b4489aba0ab1e099508ebfa2ff9
2aa93897ea4015fb29cd534f975b0bb3e298116f
89184 F20110410_AAAHDL kim_j_Page_007.pro
0ae388731cac0d081e6267f6ff4f8a16
5ba680289fbad4e25320d83fe493dd890dd57acc
1051949 F20110410_AAAGYF kim_j_Page_127.jp2
6cf23bfbd7127810db7b3c82465b1640
197b4decb86ab729524cc3f200adb5d490ae1237
F20110410_AAAHCX kim_j_Page_140.tif
0d6115a143aedf8f8bcadc6a81de5d2b
64b1197374d5b1c5cfe9f148a90c6b88deb22520
1051888 F20110410_AAAGXR kim_j_Page_110.jp2
a85c8c077647fe72ce4fc52126ca4f42
61073dc7a4383d77fe0eefaab8a07038bd2770a5
52455 F20110410_AAAHEA kim_j_Page_024.pro
60b8a0631d74d82322439d205a6cf92c
1d71041f6d029e054674e9e201a2c7cd94e61e23
1051927 F20110410_AAAGYG kim_j_Page_130.jp2
93c094771db8f8486c73764d36611ac5
a49b0b292b0dbb238957154b935d3027c1f6710d
F20110410_AAAHCY kim_j_Page_141.tif
0a4809cb4d9f4dc00577e3fd46ddf5f8
a25c5b81175f51986f953cb237aa26a34a91ed45
1051985 F20110410_AAAGXS kim_j_Page_111.jp2
f3f5ef69b7ca59176a7347b47f70f496
5a4ad0ab277f2bed1a689b35fce99824f65885c2
45038 F20110410_AAAHEB kim_j_Page_025.pro
90d62805ddca7fe2ece2e01a6efd38d5
bfa8ad14aa3d7c48bbcf249d114f1f06c1d19577
14465 F20110410_AAAHDM kim_j_Page_008.pro
87e2d0c65939a34304fe1077bca94e15
bde923fbff574a9166122400d4d3cfbe41f95a94
1051911 F20110410_AAAGYH kim_j_Page_131.jp2
5e7125e861b7a6420cad640ddbda8d6d
f8ec3f04d1c0a3d39ac6559fe0ef57fee15f558e
F20110410_AAAHCZ kim_j_Page_142.tif
6e97d5a137ba9a9dfc81b7b86066e4d2
9bc7bbd2d8e4dbb75ace61fc7a4aa6f91cfe66b3
1051918 F20110410_AAAGXT kim_j_Page_112.jp2
de53e1e0cf638ae595d4762a665629d0
fd5c2c8a82d20068ec826eed0e02bfcd36e0c838
44669 F20110410_AAAHEC kim_j_Page_026.pro
6e7334e8753e025b7bab950cf59548fd
0d5bdc9b6cfd48500af2c5bb134732567ff524d9
45873 F20110410_AAAHDN kim_j_Page_009.pro
c827e01753eeeb7622c2a7df7f8657f5
391e8c6c1f331ca1985b7ade406a87c78405b6aa
1051976 F20110410_AAAGYI kim_j_Page_132.jp2
6e14eed28d1240edc8733219bf5044b5
06d59f0c729dc867343f3ba0a7256c62331d08c7
F20110410_AAAGXU kim_j_Page_114.jp2
3e0b96b45d405fc3603b00cd9526181a
00ed3e418da2b77a4a99b7d2036abf9621d46146
45991 F20110410_AAAHED kim_j_Page_027.pro
2a2de9a79dd5d619dc5b3269e7153991
eb6d16ccd578bf537fa3434f2631c1213507a922
33052 F20110410_AAAHDO kim_j_Page_010.pro
9a649b08c7f27af3d18661ea2999e376
48cfda1276da089f547708a825605fd51bbf1c7e
1051970 F20110410_AAAGYJ kim_j_Page_133.jp2
0cc6c0282d750dbc6823dc4b20195df8
04b2a5cebabbae474c48b20e6ad66e54804ef732
F20110410_AAAGXV kim_j_Page_115.jp2
022b8e12ee07da5cba4920c55bc522fd
015705e759482c44929244eb1a0ddfd949e6b1c7
50487 F20110410_AAAHEE kim_j_Page_028.pro
4fdf19367286c1bc4b7444d05aafa1c8
d10ed1c7abbaab23d39dda5289f081971cebccbf
36521 F20110410_AAAHDP kim_j_Page_011.pro
59eea51e61d757bd1483a500d8b0a1e5
7ee0ca85012bb4b4c3f9ab1c27fea590531ecd3d
4793 F20110410_AAAGYK kim_j_Page_134.jp2
5bf0f5c089e9bd4655316849db84968c
30623b2e9414110bf7de27315c724badcd4e4106
1051946 F20110410_AAAGXW kim_j_Page_116.jp2
f88f6fef37f89fef3210b0a3976307f4
da066d980b3d8683a268cac40a7691b7cbb9fe0c
31394 F20110410_AAAHDQ kim_j_Page_012.pro
c0976b37ce9caab7021b8268b952eaeb
53784ca2b708e30e526d57156e925bc4a61b669f
F20110410_AAAGYL kim_j_Page_135.jp2
510f9832c15ed3875ea8d59e3846cf7a
8d68fa4bcaca7c3b99f924db143fb42772fb0f53
F20110410_AAAGXX kim_j_Page_117.jp2
26ec3c6de32c047748c874866c0aade0
da1d65b972e0ca01cc0e21702dc33d3d7d2cac2f
47563 F20110410_AAAHEF kim_j_Page_029.pro
2e954632bbe148e15315936a68f25893
6d46c78e58dcba9195252f9b56d56339196f0315
41070 F20110410_AAAHDR kim_j_Page_013.pro
54900af22b5b56de5537a8790ccfe508
6d2feb50490aa8ee753be0b88ac8f9539c8674e2
1051914 F20110410_AAAGYM kim_j_Page_136.jp2
224406e71bfb0d4a6366f167b1115f23
bebb6b29fa3ddc862c09336c12c3bb18dc29bb0e
1051915 F20110410_AAAGXY kim_j_Page_118.jp2
c6dd723de3f1e8b72199684f8e119279
8e09f94b54beb84fa459adb46fb9c25d20c15435
49551 F20110410_AAAHEG kim_j_Page_030.pro
a730065f12dd58bebf519adbe1fd1579
0fbb2d9e0d73a755e77369778d1e6468246effd5
F20110410_AAAGZA kim_j_Page_010.tif
6e54b504d45f1a9d7e7975ccda26408a
1c84715392a4f55a48e8a9d5fe67910ab7fbf174
47333 F20110410_AAAHDS kim_j_Page_014.pro
e9f5b5be8b639675e9463211a3cb408a
31bc863d8149bc4e7b321ad624c03889c2f8f280
F20110410_AAAGYN kim_j_Page_137.jp2
fdd7df19e36154e2e961fe3d07aa5a60
7940d6362297830522a712afcc82818ed5240712
50510 F20110410_AAAHEH kim_j_Page_031.pro
c718f10e7a641ce5f5fe50a52e3c8859
1497cbe99814849c28f79bae6711bcb8d2d7e512
F20110410_AAAGZB kim_j_Page_011.tif
a09a456945f35b9611ea9b08ecf69f45
57610d651625fcae963f30a513ae99a76f0d8ba7
55538 F20110410_AAAHDT kim_j_Page_015.pro
ece6953245cd285fd9dc2ce6b607b1d4
fd79fc24bd84f533e72d3c2e41668f3500e73e2d
F20110410_AAAGYO kim_j_Page_139.jp2
82b5c83389a79d7132d6c3cb70b385e6
b6903240467dba7effa72a06ac5d37c0776bdb62
F20110410_AAAGXZ kim_j_Page_120.jp2
cb46e7539e473ea9b9e0f8280c877e6e
9f33babf5b8794ab4936fe7e171956e8f181df6a
47063 F20110410_AAAHEI kim_j_Page_032.pro
4b9fd5bdf35e8712d3f3489273eb5ff6
a890df792286dffb4596dfa88515cb5e4c22e81a
F20110410_AAAGZC kim_j_Page_013.tif
69da30e52331773ce89b7797db189200
a2119c2cc2a9367b69e9d0386a1752d669b6c5fa
47897 F20110410_AAAHDU kim_j_Page_017.pro
8aa9f9ea38b9df6d68dfca8590f1a508
acd2337e5ac668396dec1d4529260b7784d40397
129887 F20110410_AAAGYP kim_j_Page_140.jp2
1595f9cdc2ed30b76ddfbca24fdce769
aff4ca7e1c14536f64f2fbdeeff630311874820e
45356 F20110410_AAAHEJ kim_j_Page_033.pro
1ee7ce97d4f809b61eeceb9433332f3a
3f7b087e3935a1734a6cd02e20f1a0b07ed94056
F20110410_AAAGZD kim_j_Page_014.tif
d92c797bb8ad1c79f80cbd9f3858e64b
3b499c7d99ab5dd5207a28e4697b8375b8d509bd
49103 F20110410_AAAHDV kim_j_Page_018.pro
63d27f43a045c75eb990bd035de0305b
e29cb8f44f22f7977f4ede429f4564a53ca8c303
1051981 F20110410_AAAGYQ kim_j_Page_141.jp2
72637ce435634721d0c0365b3578e3d3
9cf9b628c65df21b143fa9c624679b4ef634824d
50626 F20110410_AAAHEK kim_j_Page_034.pro
bb2ff220b5f5535f6d8a1627546a1ea8
2be99a21fa85481e97313a2ab86ca87021bad7b3
F20110410_AAAGZE kim_j_Page_015.tif
d49fba40aeb0e6f329ffa7a6dd855b2e
f799d209a5a7e546572b402512a202d0481c8dc4
44572 F20110410_AAAHDW kim_j_Page_020.pro
325e0fd0f472f6530e02d82d678910ef
76bdede6e180cdd02e6d167d278cfa9d5b3306e6
F20110410_AAAGYR kim_j_Page_142.jp2
8967ab1fc3632528c5020dbb25bf02f0
635a1ff97f400335ae13a3ee37bd3308ae834de9
61496 F20110410_AAAHFA kim_j_Page_051.pro
72af4d4dc4ae236c203a74495e57b726
d24e425886d994cd01de40c206ed9daa743df91a
49789 F20110410_AAAHEL kim_j_Page_035.pro
edfa0f73c981c2a1a222d28f0a2092b4
fc095845d5630f81db1cdf19f5753e42597b8534
F20110410_AAAGZF kim_j_Page_016.tif
a6e4e213366c5569d6736cc522b72788
eb67aa97724c2d7f3e16602fda3380713057ccb1
44287 F20110410_AAAHDX kim_j_Page_021.pro
f1729179ba952b14f7c580bb104ed577
233819d3069fc12be8c617303d1cc7bf31b2292b
136532 F20110410_AAAGYS kim_j_Page_143.jp2
da1d66f50eb0d295175932da5a7ecc7d
e3b39a3dfbce32b5cb68b370ba46dddcd709e2a6
6160 F20110410_AAAHFB kim_j_Page_053.pro
2e06d35306893633caaddf9da6eacb89
36aedf76c578a334edf80b6f42153c9f6c287ff0
54903 F20110410_AAAHEM kim_j_Page_036.pro
531bd85bc2a51ae961c45ffb41adc871
000bc73ed11761233dec632bd375560bc0cbd0ed
F20110410_AAAGZG kim_j_Page_017.tif
9eb85371bd18853595ed235a2ce999e3
c9db764a1228aae58284bb128044adc09ee5886b
50277 F20110410_AAAHDY kim_j_Page_022.pro
cda46824523f8eeb603a66921d5ef272
62891a9ec7fdbd34d320e41a17e6888054b71806
130514 F20110410_AAAGYT kim_j_Page_146.jp2
f9bcf4603885fdb93e4933c121f7adbf
73156c737e5f0a8104baa2ccd9ac7e5a8a0c538a
40841 F20110410_AAAHFC kim_j_Page_054.pro
efa23bd265d943092032913bfabab342
33d09805874c8ba85498ee00d6f937937ab79c12
50170 F20110410_AAAHEN kim_j_Page_037.pro
5b893cf243861847f9a99164b16e0316
b9978a3f1996999e89a7b78d2d51bdbc50e14f5c
F20110410_AAAGZH kim_j_Page_018.tif
043acdbb1de11bd8271a24a38e68d4cd
4da5cfc755cb49f066d33c03e40ccf9cc8817df8
47994 F20110410_AAAHDZ kim_j_Page_023.pro
39e7e6854df8bee8574a12c0b2862882
ea429811cc8f6bac3f68c9d895f95fe25ccba951
101901 F20110410_AAAGYU kim_j_Page_147.jp2
6761ca5bea04a4e92453e9d6025c5c4d
8692c230944b80ef0784e64f91bb28771ab100ab
45826 F20110410_AAAHFD kim_j_Page_055.pro
56fe2b39c57e6a6b83aa282390edf195
8ec8330e4ede6a8dae40d2bb6034215bb47ac7aa
63254 F20110410_AAAHEO kim_j_Page_038.pro
9398bbc251c2a6c54bdfaddb065aa96d
06f25edcb9ebfb103436ff2e959abaf395d68c2a
F20110410_AAAGZI kim_j_Page_019.tif
f9b018db5862d9d4d5760c23198ea5cf
ae6f09e67f064bb2e07545dbd7b22bab9de4ad8f
49552 F20110410_AAAGYV kim_j_Page_148.jp2
8a1f68f72445b521734d8431b76b8234
4e170ec253211bfd595c6369481c8849e3f6b82c
39101 F20110410_AAAHFE kim_j_Page_057.pro
fbaf0e511cd8ad0637c660e6baa34968
c2a367f32273c8f510104fbfc00de0612a808474
48111 F20110410_AAAHEP kim_j_Page_040.pro
f3ba58931d4fea78933428b31df0acb5
3ad31894a25c0f49e4df4963901c9f4035811c2b
F20110410_AAAGZJ kim_j_Page_020.tif
978286eec12d62132b625b6c7603d90d
e6f13bb07640bec56ad4c864c9da8416d4e84d6f
F20110410_AAAGYW kim_j_Page_004.tif
74d5ba003b15a0c7924bf01b8db5bfc0
e6d368f5318a6f31c2fbac52007ee843bfc00202
35118 F20110410_AAAHFF kim_j_Page_058.pro
9cc5d2019de352cad2cbe104fda70ff0
627c2e02700de10ca17efc318a558a92b9b68016
48252 F20110410_AAAHEQ kim_j_Page_041.pro
22d4cab425cc343da9d74b4e1765fbd3
704d8bf0367ec5477975cca74a6847474059a575
F20110410_AAAGZK kim_j_Page_022.tif
6d567fbb806f5e9b98779df52be7fa08
e1c8e0ec6ebc271308bc0d5b76db28b5de7dc1c0
F20110410_AAAGYX kim_j_Page_005.tif
a90074853d84d386e4c8b71fcf0f98d8
8e7dc183bf203a9f5d0b9f63b03627fbf4e46fa6
45977 F20110410_AAAHER kim_j_Page_042.pro
73ffdecd928c941b1c9055281364098d
ca565a6b8927e6ebc4b95c984b7cbc513b12b8c3
F20110410_AAAGZL kim_j_Page_023.tif
240de0f132ea438c0882e649d592d9f4
d5338b2b6833e3ad4f1a904cee943be543c27e54
F20110410_AAAGYY kim_j_Page_006.tif
182edcf0a23e8272306d9cd3496153b0
2e26f3f01ce431f96605a86fd7cb0a0386f045f5
32129 F20110410_AAAHFG kim_j_Page_059.pro
b73930c0c53bffc4b341d5074abc7e75
5e68a01b3fa61c905f8a6e4be4d2105e07f4a0e0
16313 F20110410_AAAHES kim_j_Page_043.pro
f938949a1a1cfe42c1b0b2e9763d86a2
fe350c2d1ac1b1e1f5e7645c71825f6a22fcbc0e
F20110410_AAAGZM kim_j_Page_024.tif
f583dde43fd9b9ea664668126c0e485a
9729302e1fb27c92a21bcdb14139f0f2696f1e90
F20110410_AAAGYZ kim_j_Page_009.tif
bf4571977f843c2c15834c730af2cabc
9b546d6ada4bfd7410ae69b9ea0268fe865e882d
28179 F20110410_AAAHFH kim_j_Page_060.pro
e421a7c01b157d12a58764da889f6c37
b3cdddbfd0fc0db07dc3aec09f7118979edb893d
37170 F20110410_AAAHET kim_j_Page_044.pro
dddae48116bbbd7e6e4733d5d8be3321
9e3131d72ad9c7c6ce75427db81a82012ff47c01
F20110410_AAAGZN kim_j_Page_025.tif
bd59fae52b4d26fae22ae5eb60816878
56a1df510a363cf89376b92370c56992bfc874c1
27302 F20110410_AAAHFI kim_j_Page_061.pro
393299e25e8501b7b53a9e8f45df67eb
8980d5bd2bf4967c3d51459d8328148c1d6dbe99
50174 F20110410_AAAHEU kim_j_Page_045.pro
1a72a087d3db225a2b01cf6ca99316f2
891e58aed4185a4617f672b9a08d001885fdb277
F20110410_AAAGZO kim_j_Page_027.tif
5c897293118902c48e9595cd81da5024
020f743c0963ff97a27cb9c823244a7492d7a3a7
25484 F20110410_AAAHFJ kim_j_Page_062.pro
ba59545f043cd4bfbc776dc9c1417d3c
ee79c3bb1b01964084caa93543a947a4e4d649c4
42793 F20110410_AAAHEV kim_j_Page_046.pro
c108c44b4f4540a278fdb5a4ef1eca48
7dab27d8285843992ff57fa668980868c8bc1965
F20110410_AAAGZP kim_j_Page_028.tif
d0e21050dc1371d560fd3b397662aabe
a89975ecb42c0440ed37f522cb197b155a856270
39905 F20110410_AAAHFK kim_j_Page_063.pro
7fd25678ef1811a5d063de19db2881e5
756213eadf1462e4920ca2f27493be3acced1d8e
54745 F20110410_AAAHEW kim_j_Page_047.pro
4e8ceb9cc1921f045c5758e679413140
0f6150379513b45b25c917033a9bc75508ae46d8
F20110410_AAAGZQ kim_j_Page_030.tif
197bb908dba8f847ca8137d3e8743137
1b7dc7674b1e2b035e6838292a3729000eb240e7
42337 F20110410_AAAHFL kim_j_Page_064.pro
e3d838124172d308d8f152dff8c6adc1
fa3da8a33e221476b6036ce74ac859ab153126d2
40864 F20110410_AAAHEX kim_j_Page_048.pro
b0a17913f10698d8ba9a5c259494ca25
f1cf61f26842627a76ca746f5099f4c8e16d55be
F20110410_AAAGZR kim_j_Page_031.tif
eb8589b802ed0558f71db509d1d52971
8d6ad07c6b3ba37ef6b6164a9fb197d7703f5019
47015 F20110410_AAAHGA kim_j_Page_081.pro
40f7ddde76e22729984e6d08f48ebc28
4c94d857ebf2ef4fa0591a4452a23327ea7a7c7e
47837 F20110410_AAAHFM kim_j_Page_065.pro
e8879e743d09752d980ae68dc432c6b5
2a1175a2b0b3c2ffd4b9d2a89baaf5daf89dd7e2
46597 F20110410_AAAHEY kim_j_Page_049.pro
ae034045c0615662c758b014943875b0
144d67997f5c78034a79ca8e1ff4ef7231534aa0
F20110410_AAAGZS kim_j_Page_032.tif
651840080ba7bb5e169aa722e63b1508
529f0cba4500a55130ec6ec4e53634e5ddd244f4
50378 F20110410_AAAHGB kim_j_Page_082.pro
43bbe323f5452a1a1ebb8bc1c09d9dbc
85a215a3600ce58c1673e4919ff453dec41f8290
37860 F20110410_AAAHFN kim_j_Page_067.pro
13e094108e5853bd0db46559e8d38705
2a86e2091a5ea7b083e5750d44def41aa84aa6c9
50513 F20110410_AAAHEZ kim_j_Page_050.pro
6c6272819b5f969fade03c162a4f70c3
84d4ffb380a3298a92868701fe3b5672f48c53b5
F20110410_AAAGZT kim_j_Page_033.tif
ed9996b1fc5323afd8eee2c8c6dd4d7c
f8cd7ed3e511e8e7160ff7d5cf84d07dc400db2b
50713 F20110410_AAAHGC kim_j_Page_083.pro
ef17e2da8ed5919e3b7ed2f4ce31a651
f8ef20441d60a00ca4920dbe62f8984f5e527f35
48404 F20110410_AAAHFO kim_j_Page_068.pro
6a35ae9d75dc5f50e7f3137b09d03555
77a62aa0ec61269b95fab4bde06e4f62898ebad4
F20110410_AAAGZU kim_j_Page_034.tif
6c72e2fc5b8a15d38de5277efc0f9594
c85c3d70d385fc16f27a97fec32761e081feebb9
44129 F20110410_AAAHGD kim_j_Page_084.pro
afe372a4746ce5a75298c0e9536ac505
43a5c176dd979bee9b165f94788b46c798dccce7
23287 F20110410_AAAHFP kim_j_Page_069.pro
fbcc01f75192daa4f82b5fa8bef9137f
934cb6210e722b1aa44049e72791bd0a96631d7e
F20110410_AAAGZV kim_j_Page_035.tif
7eb70e5fe726388b4cfeb6f302d334d5
91e4b5c3a9e9389f689cfd7516152faecac08613
45491 F20110410_AAAHGE kim_j_Page_087.pro
c652a5dcd00cd926ee32f2cdf531a248
71f80dbd30b1cca99c3d00b8c2f81deac35480df
71795 F20110410_AAAHFQ kim_j_Page_070.pro
330266741e2883a52972c3dd67eca6b0
b52ea7b9795bbb20f6253c342444d61f7855127c
F20110410_AAAGZW kim_j_Page_036.tif
48bdb2b9096176123101f7a577bea1bf
5951cc655fdbe22a03804f3c38196f8c69ce1273
45608 F20110410_AAAHGF kim_j_Page_088.pro
0daafce0169542e11e04cb7cc3e07cd1
9a60bb45ea5e2f52b667df07efdd1fe1b9450b9f
17259 F20110410_AAAHFR kim_j_Page_071.pro
5675e0523932fb8b73f0bbe49734f621
8a711d7208c1d09394e72af9f1011738ccf80d4b
F20110410_AAAGZX kim_j_Page_037.tif
765cb05cfc6b03ed2a488d302858b3f6
35e4505474b4a75813c25e77bc3c69c26480c787
51140 F20110410_AAAHGG kim_j_Page_089.pro
053787b89692c80df5a48e325f431832
d127ea720304374ec467727fcb44b9e8efba3cc3
37864 F20110410_AAAHFS kim_j_Page_072.pro
52a34db9eddb1ba025a3908134376b28
0f63f8abc1ee8d90dfae8fac7e22c380ce901bbe
F20110410_AAAGZY kim_j_Page_038.tif
d3b39777ba3b184ec6e350f972c8304f
5969164f635be756315b20f952d30f9ebce74cd1
48695 F20110410_AAAHFT kim_j_Page_074.pro
8a42b7caab174e5c5d77ed45119b4814
56e074907a4339c9df7b05634ad8b6910a756e8b
F20110410_AAAGZZ kim_j_Page_040.tif
18f8c15d16eb17787dc26d480374ee86
5ccc2407f06e66f7247b804e94546ffc884c9592
33718 F20110410_AAAHGH kim_j_Page_091.pro
3cb6818337b73576e70567865d6b979d
23a3d6b19a827940c84eec6a014c754ccdc714ca
49771 F20110410_AAAHFU kim_j_Page_075.pro
60915dbbedbf88529e8255a98e9da669
731acc91bad5e3eee96eb386e384520e73f32a43
41801 F20110410_AAAHGI kim_j_Page_092.pro
b6773c2f4b96678e6f36a30dd905c661
47de83d0446b8bb72654fc69246814eb3fd9d9f7
45749 F20110410_AAAHFV kim_j_Page_076.pro
d07d8ecddda8d2809e90b6103739e920
5e93e2f3924fa0e8afe00f1606d66ba88ff08485
42302 F20110410_AAAHGJ kim_j_Page_093.pro
f1fcd20b1d92e3a186eccfb1ea89e604
0785534742574b614d8fd99e722f5fef86e598de
48289 F20110410_AAAHFW kim_j_Page_077.pro
807ff5dd55a886cf921ea04f02e56254
5628143a64ca30ed6fed316248b8508634e5b05c
44476 F20110410_AAAHGK kim_j_Page_094.pro
c0231551e50509a01f9773fea2d6ead5
f0066e6ddb46e77f10f604bb4a96c18c6554a253
50028 F20110410_AAAHFX kim_j_Page_078.pro
02329c6731aec8decd8cda875681afcc
3e53649f6608d3a30a8f266660e43bafbb2242c6
43331 F20110410_AAAHHA kim_j_Page_111.pro
d006edb080233d6d2a891422f9ad65da
964f070b6f784e4eeb52d044a472af5081df5dac
45581 F20110410_AAAHGL kim_j_Page_095.pro
82cb602c3244813d5b94a3a77b595143
3fdd995eed9647eb1e7e2a26756a10670080d74a
45130 F20110410_AAAHFY kim_j_Page_079.pro
515e904e1872f686f2e2a45700bda374
38fbc4389cce323c9c4af7ac07d228ec74af7606
41408 F20110410_AAAHHB kim_j_Page_113.pro
f5a4a01f8ad939b4692aac0f94a0fd37
50e74296e3bc5c4afe4255c96c0c41d5a0407bff
48468 F20110410_AAAHGM kim_j_Page_096.pro
6e12b510aec574f301e903bb97f53194
a8bef88ac19e10df6fac8c9719af129504917774
57253 F20110410_AAAHFZ kim_j_Page_080.pro
818e1cacb545dc1e71f0c9075a750161
cbc93c85219cd5e46889c5da6bf459ee83eb3347
64632 F20110410_AAAHHC kim_j_Page_114.pro
6b1a4da6ab7d63a10670871336073175
3414791819a1b7536a8db7caf2f7ce14045cb8f6
38038 F20110410_AAAHGN kim_j_Page_097.pro
ed4ba4c1d00085bca3215ff63debcea1
73954ce9d53a999a148b38e6f707fcacc06db6ae
39262 F20110410_AAAHHD kim_j_Page_117.pro
89dec5bab45c3652d8ac0eaddecbd21a
dfc6d3a38bd0a003bc80fe383b911f81d291217d
40124 F20110410_AAAHGO kim_j_Page_098.pro
d0f06be06ddb7f16bfa314d016028289
4fabc7623068d39292716afc7bf61675dd898599
65028 F20110410_AAAHHE kim_j_Page_118.pro
8d95cd26e7c32623c3ca6b5e16628935
7646452d44db498d57e0e6a9f3ec0bfdc75e25aa
32672 F20110410_AAAHGP kim_j_Page_099.pro
86770c7b3903f658ce076310ef371d1e
52e36a619c5484281dd723b1992ef5f4b1807672
60080 F20110410_AAAHHF kim_j_Page_119.pro
0edabdf73c618c91f696c7dddd5e2581
a85d5d81c438e5ebc0011043df921cbf7360f1e6
48539 F20110410_AAAHGQ kim_j_Page_101.pro
7d3e69acf5ab2cf0f8b49c6b5ec33573
2d22ac7bac4063268b046bc2b06f80468db6587d
65000 F20110410_AAAHHG kim_j_Page_120.pro
9542c1c5df2e3a77b4f78664a67f2680
92d895ea328402d0d9e8de0599e420545649e9e6
47197 F20110410_AAAHGR kim_j_Page_102.pro
68fdee25adebbcc8d9a37061af6f4bd9
e28d7356c6deb7ddc60e145796f58545b271284d
57495 F20110410_AAAHHH kim_j_Page_121.pro
3163f70674bae967f675bf34b817609c
22cfec700828ecd589719dbc31eada77716abc2a
41299 F20110410_AAAHGS kim_j_Page_103.pro
a9f593ac939a146e37ad2e503fe9db26
acb0c401ebe3e011aad9d857dc7f1777b41dd88b
27998 F20110410_AAAHGT kim_j_Page_104.pro
0b66ed08c3ea8d7d79e4bd26bed155c1
688c5f2f2a032525b1b8bbbcd940e9e356fc7a17
58043 F20110410_AAAHHI kim_j_Page_123.pro
7c57b9d7758bfdd617a5ec9dfaba39ce
3f748a6517d540413a1a0678443e560f3a942a1d
36159 F20110410_AAAHGU kim_j_Page_105.pro
731e8e4028af0bb9a70f7f7fdb3ab3d7
bc1a59af8c07a78fdea77192fde971c3423cc39b
65050 F20110410_AAAHHJ kim_j_Page_124.pro
de6dbc7ed65b510acbddc22c86140e35
1b65772c4dab0e4b74852f1e58dc8ada696955f0
48327 F20110410_AAAHGV kim_j_Page_106.pro
6f5b284f8eb3b49de3ca36e2fcb3dcdc
27712b4cec7a69fa2d54e5a6e817fff2f515adba
55349 F20110410_AAAHHK kim_j_Page_125.pro
901c736812faccef98c05f9ce922e332
3bf3f7375f10e222dd4fe46e1eae40bc55f386f3
46954 F20110410_AAAHGW kim_j_Page_107.pro
f31591378f4346d0c24d9e0cfcfb3eb0
6f46af5fdcd186186bdcde89888bdc8fa88cf01a
59033 F20110410_AAAHIA kim_j_Page_141.pro
5c40d462e9162b910192f272b3c79d9c
148b88d55949883f7432b7fdf85db49b9bb91395
64996 F20110410_AAAHHL kim_j_Page_126.pro
af3846e7e48988fd1a3a43a28f401210
34c3571bcb5ee16ea1f307b68a884065d4a49eb0
16230 F20110410_AAAHGX kim_j_Page_108.pro
c3d79c334e0ae0c50532e00f94ef73ef
2ae8cc068fafca55b2a36235cded713b1d858a4a
56880 F20110410_AAAHIB kim_j_Page_142.pro
35b2fd45fbb0e0dfc319f69b0cb35c9d
6e75347a28c43ddafcec523b90661285509d447e
88021 F20110410_AAAHHM kim_j_Page_127.pro
098d60f0b270081e400c2d54525e565d
d3cd8b72b173b05f7f518e433de8c97bbafbc83d
1232 F20110410_AAAHGY kim_j_Page_109.pro
932aee8f532825669ee5fcf430977e24
501426560ec8daa43ddbf0da0517d124d5722851
64061 F20110410_AAAHIC kim_j_Page_143.pro
89c53f0be74622a427e062bc27eb1bd0
52d9bb1731993642fe80eb3b78f41456b7731c42
64916 F20110410_AAAHHN kim_j_Page_128.pro
7e7dc1afeadad8edfd2371f4d9f6d0cc
72ed762c63d2a10c378c7350377cf2af67f5bade
64182 F20110410_AAAHGZ kim_j_Page_110.pro
83e387b3f4388ac32a1d29b61e4b8143
be92015b7232e0ae650f1eb967728c08ef9d1f1e
60285 F20110410_AAAHID kim_j_Page_144.pro
2c4e99fb9a51192d5744b8e1ff69ab3c
def9ca3594f9692580ed78e6ec8e3c046ed06957
85812 F20110410_AAAHHO kim_j_Page_129.pro
1518d0ea49d94cd0ef5fcf765ba322b2
6bbef814af6d6233ebaafdd94b18e1dccf36a5f4
59575 F20110410_AAAHIE kim_j_Page_146.pro
7609c2d3b86761572f75dc24b164e250
257b67a354a6d10b7b920cfe041876e167862209
F20110410_AAAHHP kim_j_Page_130.pro
f63d87a80e98e05952176faa6e28c45b
fb341c0297eabb6d9060b0db83120dcc4f27fc51
45985 F20110410_AAAHIF kim_j_Page_147.pro
3b959805fb93f8d7a8876915ee38879c
b125ce4cd34057c667559768bef8100e6abe17bf
86023 F20110410_AAAHHQ kim_j_Page_131.pro
43e4b41a933c06318bd6c92a9afc9484
b20d280e03ba2cb5ddb5affdc76f57b3221a9b28
470 F20110410_AAAHIG kim_j_Page_001.txt
e407b7e4fe914b602391799f1880b6a8
195db3b2dcc7010aaa0222311da8a5cd822d72c7
64914 F20110410_AAAHHR kim_j_Page_132.pro
b3421b0d45957de7f5b8df9ce431bc71
324b4c6d3bf0f79c49423e86a126e4cec4237482
1795 F20110410_AAAHIH kim_j_Page_004.txt
4dda29ab0ded181ef9aa271e5f763a6d
cf813e2375c4bee687f14277547399eec8a3bcd3
83181 F20110410_AAAHHS kim_j_Page_133.pro
494ae205823ba776d060e0fa22730f02
927187a56a1d9a9633d98a8db167d7ea19a83041
2486 F20110410_AAAHII kim_j_Page_005.txt
33e58399eef29952f8f629309cda3a82
bb10791559b3b62bd28d2d817b2bc6bd381d32e3
842 F20110410_AAAHHT kim_j_Page_134.pro
482eef585c8a91301cab50886f612d36
f6756334bfd2fe4947aa9d6838a7aa462633b572
47496 F20110410_AAAHHU kim_j_Page_135.pro
e235996554a83242828b1f4d712b7b40
4a4d23f54b8f1e8a126a4458677f1fb3a8637ec7
28243 F20110410_AAAHHV kim_j_Page_136.pro
a15995e6ebb4686cda0e78221d39a9a5
8006aaeeb3c191de01ff8210a64bc18998ea7541
F20110410_AAAHIJ kim_j_Page_007.txt
4b9a19d5181e4411491c9176ba7448b7
b9f833897bde5505de3ff2ebbfc6184eb3ed62f2
38621 F20110410_AAAHHW kim_j_Page_137.pro
8d0edb87567587dcc8ff8acc65525149
e814ebe988f500ab293d0a3ee67684b1255cdf07
648 F20110410_AAAHIK kim_j_Page_008.txt
58d152dd9c387cf139a30e46fc15ffa0
79e288ce220f93b99b46f17d1a3718c12a785da9
5624 F20110410_AAAHHX kim_j_Page_138.pro
6fffcd1a53ff12a76ff11968032e811c
ac0bd1be67cae87fa359e9de94197b622ded1a29
1991 F20110410_AAAHJA kim_j_Page_028.txt
4e10918fda89b13fa0f007d23960280b
a7fe4089eb37a76eea35a4cb0a54a1b67722e0d4
1352 F20110410_AAAHIL kim_j_Page_010.txt
8725ad3db793464b9f3257aa8bcea712
9e411f7398b125ef543c2f767853e7abbfc45b88
49106 F20110410_AAAHHY kim_j_Page_139.pro
687bbd02a7f916b2ea1ce69295f8c826
e724a305b132fa3764152883f4bdca06fcf96946
1956 F20110410_AAAHJB kim_j_Page_030.txt
46e5961fa0f185b2479e4a9740708074
2ea93addfffc390e07f261e5fed534630c1f6cf2
1628 F20110410_AAAHIM kim_j_Page_011.txt
8c3f4a0c9d3eb4c21f394c6f6aa96b99
603ec1d68660b13916c59801fdb3b0ac0ce07f3c
60634 F20110410_AAAHHZ kim_j_Page_140.pro
6cbf54462eebdc652f7c07da8528f53c
4e3814263fcc6f7ea4c373f2b2f02417c58a4f4e
2046 F20110410_AAAHJC kim_j_Page_031.txt
0d17c76eb40f5c946942169c86b8416a
79b60b98d10d625e256e642b5567eabaa9747512
1733 F20110410_AAAHIN kim_j_Page_013.txt
831fb84ad14e148167cf7bc567fa129a
a0faafc2aa9142c476a8dd2bbae2999ed9821085
1864 F20110410_AAAHJD kim_j_Page_032.txt
f545aa1742196ae492b5de8e8a940b4d
74b8cd60002dd9b63722199d6ba02abfb3204541
2170 F20110410_AAAHIO kim_j_Page_015.txt
cef9f3534d8c4a63e21d23dfb93b86fa
74df249f5f8f34683d98e62bab6f737565661b58
1996 F20110410_AAAHJE kim_j_Page_034.txt
b0ac0582523d7e991f0553b23f2246a0
84dcdb4df9cfde7e82929ff196816e42f592a380
1609 F20110410_AAAHIP kim_j_Page_016.txt
fd3f1d37b60612f12fd60ec29b53429c
32e6c23aaeb745ae0bc6fbe146e4526cbfd2224a
2281 F20110410_AAAHJF kim_j_Page_036.txt
f5429988eacd5e6ebaa943633e62a998
89d829ceb5df6460d564a87c9f4c020bcf3285b7
1900 F20110410_AAAHIQ kim_j_Page_017.txt
93493828b1e10857cfe4fe62664d08a3
c5d8326cba80331df1eae579c9b204e37cb557e2
1970 F20110410_AAAHJG kim_j_Page_037.txt
8abe333c4745bfaf8428dd3213f84896
3b43bcda0071749546057687782d8142cead840a
F20110410_AAAHIR kim_j_Page_018.txt
2fc2e766ba2807502699c215d501c433
6e29762907513c31b3f28d38b0e910e09511d3a0
1942 F20110410_AAAHJH kim_j_Page_040.txt
69e47396681d2789a1a9f9b98d05f1bd
9e6bd85e6ab7db58318855efa1eec560cdf59bcb
2152 F20110410_AAAHIS kim_j_Page_019.txt
3c3003faa908c70d059e814c1d7e904a
0b85cd6cce4cb4d6138b9adcbc3f6c7849495bd0
1910 F20110410_AAAHJI kim_j_Page_041.txt
03481340e9d818e4fbdb3bda3bd2f9aa
c4cb8870e90618966b91112d176fa69f8e12b9fe
1774 F20110410_AAAHIT kim_j_Page_020.txt
15d86b531791fa497e00de3dee989cb9
e67bb6b0ac817a1cb56c6671238b451f9278f80e
736 F20110410_AAAHJJ kim_j_Page_043.txt
97a39e02abc50be9231fedf33b1df2d6
7c927c341dbcf4b965fc097a053c2dcdb2d5ea22
1761 F20110410_AAAHIU kim_j_Page_021.txt
a30055d2edf965ec783685e1d5d63864
1a9b5ff93c15720a2fcba659dc44689540fd2fba
1896 F20110410_AAAHIV kim_j_Page_023.txt
baeb3a9ebe14a54d4bb1b6893168c929
146f0b5c4d36e97b6e9e20f9fbca7617fdb4fa27
1637 F20110410_AAAHJK kim_j_Page_044.txt
888f963773f3852b6a313e27dfb38570
a432d19ecdf15acc0c26f204c3a95398bc077ff8
2061 F20110410_AAAHIW kim_j_Page_024.txt
40595c6e8698dd0c810f1998b5c8137c
82d1bbc3361fb17701bbbe396bd0ae2d8b153ede
1765 F20110410_AAAHKA kim_j_Page_064.txt
f9bbc327ff5b60571076f2868f4df12d
79a0bee513bb3071aca5a118f81aeed28bafbe31
2397 F20110410_AAAHJL kim_j_Page_047.txt
12cf990cba36601d32ffb35e13581e6a
5a4e2523d355324a092ff47b5e53d13d40e85786
F20110410_AAAHIX kim_j_Page_025.txt
7ed9f9d66cfba788f3df9535bd262fba
4ee8daae364627e282cc6fa3d8d7e4e43d9347fa
F20110410_AAAHKB kim_j_Page_065.txt
f5846becbeb952bc6f0440830be09d2a
7b7c43e8ec832ee10e2484d0282920c5dd058a85
2265 F20110410_AAAHJM kim_j_Page_048.txt
14bfe0ca6c5618abe437572623774065
406604a30535b371b887598a5accdf9b172357b8
1781 F20110410_AAAHIY kim_j_Page_026.txt
4680d499a302b0e2e2e928ed66d3ee1e
fa96643d97f6c356061aa0419ba1feb6979376a0
1554 F20110410_AAAHKC kim_j_Page_067.txt
ea13afde3305b35041ba6debce2adfaa
32bcac115af70ae253774e37a2f120319ead88dc
2278 F20110410_AAAHJN kim_j_Page_050.txt
410252a2ffdae971586b4e7b844fdc75
b3c51b9f64bfbd8ce3556221c31b958403304d7c
F20110410_AAAHIZ kim_j_Page_027.txt
b9cff584a4c3603e62792e4ef2c72ba0
7bf191344df729d6d451a52b87ab5136fab289fa
1131 F20110410_AAAHKD kim_j_Page_069.txt
b0c214dc3d3f5ec27ede4106f17fa13f
b13971a7cfe6dcce308f0519e44b8ba68499c545
2683 F20110410_AAAHJO kim_j_Page_051.txt
eddbf4a6b42b1efc1cff75b423b40eef
d35bd9d5ec2f5d374688c619af08dcc7d5c6c249



PAGE 1

i AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS MESSAGES: SIDEDNESS, AND CORPORATE GOODWILL AND TRUSTWORTHINESS By JANGYUL ROBERT KIM A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

ii Copyright 2006 By Jangyul Robert Kim

PAGE 3

iii This work is dedicated to Eunsug Kwag, Jeewon Kim and Jaeheon Kim for their love, support, sacrifice, and steadfast trust that I could accomplish this task. They have made it possible to fulfill a dream that seemed impossible.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is not me to be honored as there would have been no “Dr. Kim” without the support of my committee members. Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson was an incredible chairperson who mentored me throughout the whole process of my student life, from conceptualization of the research topic to writing, defense, and completion of the final dissertation. Dr. Spiro Kiousis inspired me an ex cellent research idea so that this research can be a bridge that connects persuasion theories to the public relations research area. Dr. Chang-Hoan Cho convinced me to conduct a complicated experiment to actualize the envisaged research idea in a quantifiable manner. Dr. Bhramar Mukherjee increased the reliability and validity of this dissertati on by complementing statistical aspects. I want to thank Dr. Debbie Treise, Dr Kathleen Kelly, Dr. Juan-Carlos Molleda, and Dr. Marilyn Roberts, and my colleague, Tr ent Seltzer, for their valuable advice and encouragement. In particular, Jody Hedge helped me complete this task on time. Also, I give my thanks to Jay Park, CEO, and all staff members of KorCom Porter Novelli in Korea, for their trust and support. Last but not least, I want to thank my life-time partner, my beloved wife, Eunsug Kwag, my daughter, Jeewon, and my son, Jaeheon. They are the most precious stones to me than anything else. My mother, brother a nd sisters also supported me with constant prayer. Without their unconditional belief, wholehearted support, and encouragement, it would be impossible to complete the journey. Most of all, I tha nk and glorify God, who knows the way that I take, tests me, and wishes that I will come forth as gold.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………… iv LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….. ix LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………. x ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………. 1 Message Sidedness…………………………………………………………………….1 Source Credibility……………………………………………………………………. .2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………….. 4 Message Sidedness…………………………………………………………………… 4 Definition………………………………………………………………………… 4 Types of Message Sidedness……………………………………………………... 4 Studies that Support Each Topic of Message Sidedness from Different Perspectives……………………………………………………. 5 Studies that show a two-side d message is more effective……………………. 6 Studies that show a one-sided message is more effective……………………. 6 Studies that show a nonrefutational two-sided message is more effective…... 7 Studies that show a refutational tw o-sided message is more effective………. 7 Moderators of Message Sidedness……………………………………………….. 8 Initial attitude………………………………………………………………… 8 Level of education……………………………………………………………. 9 Availability of counterarguments…………………………………………….. 9 Order of argument…………………………………………………………... 10 Other Moderators……………………………………………………………….. 11 Message relatedness………………………………………………………… 11 Amount of negative informa tion (degree of refutation)…………………….. 12 Exposure time……………………………………………………………….. 12 Explanation for Conflicting Results…………………………………………….. 13 Related or Supporting Theories………………………………………………… 14

PAGE 6

vi Inoculation theory…………………………………………………………... 14 Attribution theory…………………………………………………………… 15 Optimal arousal theory / fear appeal studies……………………………...…. 17 Discounting hypothesis……………………………………………………... 18 Source Credibility………………………………………………………………….... 19 Elements of Source Credibility…………………………………………………. 19 Effects of Source Credibility……………………………………………………. 21 Theoretical Background and Relationsh ip with Message Sidedness Research… 22 Source Credibility in Public Relations………………………………………….. 23 Source Trustworthiness and Source Goodwill………………………………….. 24 Source trustworthiness……………………………………………………… 25 Source goodwill…………………………………………………………….. 26 Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………... 28 3 METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………….. 32 Pretest……………………………………………………………………………….. 32 Participants………………………………………………………………………….. 32 Stimuli ………………………………………………………………………………. 33 Procedure……………………………………………………………………………. 34 Independent Variables………………………………………………………………. 34 Message Sidedness……………………………………………………………… 34 Supporting one-sided message……………………………………………… 36 Nonrefutational two-sided message………………………………………… 36 Refutational two-sided message…………………………………………….. 37 Source Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………. 38 High source trustworthiness………………………………………………… 39 Low source trustworthiness…………………………………………………. 39 Source Goodwill………………………………………………………………… 39 High source goodwill……………………………………………………….. 39 Low source goodwill………………………………………………………... 40 Dependent Variables………………………………………………………………... 40 Attitude toward the Trustworthiness of the Message…………………………… 40 Attitude toward the Issue……………………………………………………….. 40 Attitude toward the Company (Carrefour)……………………………………… 40 4 RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………... 42 Manipulation Check for Independent Variables……………………………………. 42 Message Sidedness……………………………………………………………… 42 Source Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………. 44 Source Goodwill………………………………………………………………… 45 Reliability Check for De pendent Variables………………………………………… 47 Attitude toward the Message……………………………………………………. 47 Attitude toward the Issue……………………………………………………….. 48 Attitude toward the Company…………………………………………………... 49

PAGE 7

vii Hypotheses Testing…………………………………………………………………. 50 Hypothesis 1…………………………………………………………………….. 50 Hypothesis 1a…………………………………………………………………… 51 Hypothesis 2…………………………………………………………………….. 51 Hypothesis 2a…………………………………………………………………… 52 Research Question 1…………………………………………………………….. 54 Research Question 2…………………………………………………………….. 55 Additional Testing and Findings……………………………………………………. 55 Main Effect of Message Sidedness……………………………………………… 55 Main Effect of S ource Trustworthiness…………………………………………. 55 Weblog as a New Public Relations Tool………………………………………... 58 5 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………….. 60 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………….. 60 Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 1a……………………………………………………. 61 Main Effect of S ource Trustworthiness………………………………………… 61 Implication for Public Relations Theory…………………………………………62 Implication for Public Relations Practice………………………………………. 64 For a company with high trustworthiness…………………………………... 64 For a company with low trustworthiness…………………………………… 66 Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 2a……………………………………………………. 68 Interaction Effect of Message Sidedness and Source Goodwill………………... 68 Implication for Public Relations Theory………………………………...……… 69 Implication for Public Relations Practice………………………………………. 71 For a company with high goodwill………………………………………….. 71 For a company with low goodwill…………………………………………... 72 Additional Implications……………………………………………………………... 73 Implication for Public Relations Pedagogy………………………………………73 No Main Effect of Trustwor thiness and Goodwill on Attitude toward Issue or Message….…………………………………………………... 74 Additional Variables………………………………………………………………… 75 Involvement and Prior Attitude as Covariate……………………………………. 76 Involvement…………………………………………………………………. 76 Prior attitude………………………………………………………………….77 MANCOVA results…………………………………………………………..78 Involvement as an Independent Variable………………………………………... 80 Message sidedness, source trus tworthiness, and involvement………………. 83 Source goodwill, source trustwor thiness, and involvement…………………. 85 Limitations………………………………………………………………………….. 87 Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………………….. 89 Argument Quality………………………………………………………………. 90 Initial Attitude…………………………………………………………………... 91 Order Effect of Message Sidedness……………………………………………. 92 Conclusion………………………………………………………….………………. 93 Unique Contributions…………………………………………………………… 93

PAGE 8

viii New approach to message sidedness from a public relations perspective…... 93 Rediscovery of source goodwill as a base for public relations……………. 95 Weblog as a new pub lic relations tool………………………………………. 95 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTAL MANIPULATION……………………………………………... 97 B INSTRUMENT…………………………………………………….………………. 122 REFERENCE LIST……………………………………………………………………. 127 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………………136

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Manipulation check for message sidedness…………………………………………. 44 2 Factor analysis of s ource trustworthiness..…………………………………………. 45 3 Factor analysis of source goodwill…….....…………………………………………. 46 4 Factor analysis of att itude toward the message.……………………………………. .48 5 Factor analysis of att itude toward the issue…………………………………………. 49 6 Factor analysis of attitude toward the company……………………………………. .50 7 Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness and source goodwill...……………………………………………………………………...... 51 8 Results of between -subjects test…………………………………………………….. 52 9 Means and standard deviations fo r message sidedness and source goodwill for attitude toward the company………………………………………………… 54 10 Mean and standard deviations for message sidedness and source trustworthiness toward the company……………………………………………..57 11 Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness, source goodwill controlling for involvement and prior attitude………………………… 79 12 Results of between-subjects test control ling for involvement and prior attitude……. 80 13 Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness, source goodwill, and involvement……………………………………………………….81 14 Results of between-subjects test including involvement……………………………. 82 15 Mean and standard deviations for the effect of involvement on the recipients attitude toward the message the issue, and the company……………………….. 83

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source trustworthiness………………………...… 45 2 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source goodwill…................................................. 47 3 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test fo r attitude toward the messages................................. 48 4 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test fo r attitude toward the issue........................................ 49 5 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the company………………….…. 50 6 Interaction effect of message sidedness and goodwill on the attitude toward the company…..………………………………………………………….54 7 Main effect of source trustworthiness on the attitude toward the company………… 57 8. Interaction effect of message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the company……………………………….. 85 9. Interaction effect of source goodwill, s ource trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the company……………………………………………... 87 10 Manipulation of message sidedness with posters in this study…………………….... 92 11 Manipulation of message sidedness w ith main message for future study………….. 93

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Dissertation Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS MESSAGES: SIDEDNESS, AND CORPORATE GOODWILL AND TRUSTWORTHINESS By Jangyul Robert Kim August 2006 Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson Major Department: Mass Communication This study examined the effect of message sidedness in public relations messages and its interaction effect with source credibil ity, in particular, with source trustworthiness and source goodwill, on the message recipients’ attitude toward the message, the public relations issue, and toward the company. Sp ecifically, this study attempted to use a new public relations message tool, weblogs, to si tuate this communication paradigm in the Internet era. A 3 x 2 x 2 (message sidedness: supp orting one-sided vs. nonrefutational twosided vs. refutational two-sided) x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source goodwill: high vs. low) experimental design wa s used. A MANOVA was used to analyze these main and interaction effects. Results indicate that th ere was no three-way inter action effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness and a two-way interaction e ffect between message sidedness and source

PAGE 12

xii goodwill on the recipients’ attitude toward the company. Ho wever, additional test results showed that there were two three-way inte ractions: (a) among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipi ents’ attitude toward the company, and (b) among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the message. These findings provide a theoretical and practical background for public relations activities. In particular, this study highlights why it is important for a corporation to be perceived as a responsible corporate citizen by its target publics in its community, and how and when a company may use various t ypes of message sidedness to make a public relations message more effective, depending on their perceived goodwill and trustworthiness among target publics. Finally, this study acknowledged the us e of modern public relations tools by utilizing a weblog in the experi ment. Certainly, in the Internet era, public relations should not only be dependent on traditional mass me dia, but should find and develop relevant new public relations tools that can reach target publics or stakeholders directly and more effectively.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION Message Sidedness One of the important goals of public relations is to pe rsuade target audiences. Whether it is an organization or an i ndividual, persuasion is undertaken through communication. Many believe that people will say good things about themselves and blame others if they are in a disadvantag eous situation. The same is true for an organization or an industry. However, sayi ng only good things about ourselves does not always bring the desired results. On the c ontrary, sometimes, in persuading target audiences it is more effective to speak of negative things vo luntarily about ourselves, our organizations or our products or services than only speaking about positive aspects. Scholars noticed this phenomenon a very l ong time ago. Even Aristotle said in The Rhetoric (1932) that any good co mmunicator should be able to handle opposing arguments.1 This has come to be called a “message-sid edness effect,” and it has been a major topic in persuasion research since Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (1949) conducted experiments on message sidedness. Since, a plethora of research on the effects of message sidedness has been conducted by psychology, marketing and advertising scholars. However, as O’Keefe (1999) pointed out in his meta-analysis, researchers have failed to reach a singular conclusion on the construction of persuasive messages, but 1 Aristotle’s argument is focused on interactive asp ects such as how a speaker should refute the counter arguments of an opponent (Allen, 1991). 1

PAGE 14

2 instead, as in other social science theori es, “it depends” on situations, conditions, and moderating and mediating variab les. Although there is no sing le principle that can be adapted to all problems, some of the findi ngs in the message-sidedness research have been actively utilized by pe rsuasion scholars, as well as by marketing and advertising scholars and other communication professionals In spite of its popularity in many of these scholarly fields, research that analy zed the effect of message sidedness from a public relations perspective is relatively rare. This dissertation will attempt to add to our understanding of the importanc e of decisions about message sidedness when constructing public relations persuasion messages. Source Credibility Source credibility is another importa nt concept that, along with message sidedness, affects persuasion effectiveness and has been actively res earched for over half a century. In general, source credibility is believed to be composed of three major constructs: expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill (McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Perloff, 2003). Other research has added other factors such as source attract iveness (McCracken, 1989; Yoon, Kim, & Kim, 1998); safety, qualific ation and dynamism (Berlo, Lemaert, & Mertz, 1969); competency and objectivity (W hitehead, 1968); and authoritativeness and character (McCroskey, 1966) as important constructs of source credibility. In the practice of public re lations, source credibility has been identified as an important factor that affects the results of public relations messages. To increase the credibility of the public relations message, co rporations and organi zations endeavor to utilize credible external sour ces such as doctors, healthcar e specialists, accountants, and

PAGE 15

3 academics,2 under such names as a “third-party endorsement” strategy or a “public relations ambassador.3” In spite of public relations pr actitioners’ attempts to increase the credibility of their messages with the use of expert sources, studies of the perception of public relations and its practitioners are more inclined to negative than positive (Newsom, Ramsey, & Carrel, 1993). Most of these resear ch studies have not explored these negative perceptions in terms of their effects on th e trustworthiness or goodwill constructs of source credibility. Perhaps the reason why public relations and its practitioners are perceived as negative or less cr edible is not because the messa ge sources lack expertise, but because public relations pr actitioners fail to demonstrate that their organization is trustworthy enough and has goodwill toward the receivers or to ward the society to which the receivers belong. This dissertation study focuses on the e ffect of the sidedness of public relations messages with source credibility (specifi cally source trustworthiness and source goodwill), and their interaction eff ects on the attitude change of the target audiences. This study expects to contribute to the developmen t of public relations re search by identifying message sidedness in interactions with s ource trustworthiness and goodwill as important variables that should be cons idered in public relations re search, as well as for public relations professionals when planning public re lations strategy in va rious situations for various publics. 2 According to the 2006 Edelman Trust Barometer, doct ors and healthcare specialists were reported as the most credible spokespersons followed by accountants academics, NGOs, and financial/industry analysts (Edelman, 2006). 3 In public relations industry, a “public relations ambassador” refers to a celebrity or any external person who supports the public relations activities of an organi zation, an association or an industry by representing and speaking of positive things about them, basically thanks to their friendly image.

PAGE 16

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Message Sidedness Definition In his meta-analysis of one-sided and two-sided studies, Al len (1991) defined a one-sided message as “a message that presents only those arguments in favor of the conclusion advocated by the communicator” and a two-sided message as “a message including both the arguments in favor of and opposed to the conc lusion advocated by the communicator” (p. 393). Schol ars (Allen, 1991; O’Keefe, 1999) further divided the twosided message into two types: refutational a nd nonrefutational. Allen (1991) defined a refutational two-sided message as “(a) message that menti on(s) counterarguments to the position advocated and then refute(s) them . to introduce the contrary position and demonstrate why this position is inferior to the position advocated by the communicator,” and a nonrefutational two-sided message as “a message that only mentioned the counterarguments without offering a refutation of them” (p. 393). Types of Message Sidedness For the past five to six decades, scholars have analyzed message sidedness from many different perspectives. Some studies (Golden & Alpert, 1978, 1982, 1987; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978) divided me ssage types into simply a one-sided message and a two-sided message, whereas ot her studies further divided a two-sided message into a refutational two-sided messa ge and a nonrefutationa l two-sided message 4

PAGE 17

5 (O’Keefe, 1999). Some studies distinguished one-sided messages as either a supportive defensive message versus a refutational de fensive message (McGuire, 1961), or as a strong-then-weak argument and a weak-thenstrong argument according to the order of argument strength (Igou & Bless, 2003). So me studies used implicit and explicit conclusions instead of using refutational a nd nonrefutational conclu sions. (Martin, Lang, & Wong, 2003; Sawyer & Howard, 1991). An explicit conclusion is similar to a refutational two-sided message whereas an implicit conclusion is similar to a nonrefutational twosided message. In this study, based on the most gene ral criteria by Alle n (1991) and O’Keefe (1999), message sidedness was divided in to a supporting one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message. Studies that Support Each Topic of Message Sidedness from Different Perspectives Studies showed that the effectiveness of message sidedness varies depending on the conditions of the communica tion situation such as educa tion level and initial position (Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953), receiver’s prio r attitude (McGuire, 1961), availability of counter argument (Hovland et al., 1949), degree of counter argumentation (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994), argumentation order (Jackson & Allen, 1987), and expectation (McGuire, 1969; Igou & Bless, 2003). Some studies stressed the superiority of a one-sided message to a two-sided message (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffiel d, 1949; Hovland et al., 1953; Lang, Lee, & Zwick, 1999; O’Keefe, 1999) whereas other st udies supported a two-sided message over a one-sided message (Golden & Alpert, 1978, 1982, 1987; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978); a nonrefutational two-sided me ssage over a one-sided message (Kamins,

PAGE 18

6 1984; Kamins & Assael, 1987; Kamins, Brand, Hocke, & Moe, 1989); or a refutational two-sided message over a one-sided message or a non-refutational two-sided message (Allen, 1991; Bohner, Einwiller, Erb & Sieble r, 2003; Hale Mongeau, & Thomas, 1991; O’Keefe, 1999; Sorrentino, B obocel, Gitta, & Olson, 1988). Studies that show a two-sided mess age is more effective There are a plethora of studies that s how that a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message in a dvertising research (Golden & Alpert, 1978, 1982, 1987; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith and H unt, 1978). Based on attribution theory, Golden and Alpert (1987) reported that two-sided messages achie ved higher purchase intentions as well as higher advertising evaluation (p. 18). Golden and Alpert (1978) found that two-sided messages resulted in higher copy believability and stronger perceptions of important pr oduct features. Golden and Al pert (1982) argued that twosided messages are more effective in pers uading highly educated persons. Settle and Golden (1974) reported that beliefs about important positive features are improved by advertisements that disclaim superiority fo r unimportant features. Smith and Hunt (1978) added that two-sided messages let audiences perceive the cl aim as more valid than onesided advertising. Lang et al. (1999) argued that the enhanced effectiveness of these twosided messages is due to “reinfor ced source credibility” (p. 485). Studies that show a one-sided me ssage is more effective While not many studies argued that a one-s ided message is superior to a twosided message, in general, some studies s howed that depending on the experimental conditions, a one-sided message is more effect ive than a two-sided message. For instance, Hovland et al. (1949, 1953) argue d that a one-sided message is more effective for less

PAGE 19

7 educated receivers and those who are initia lly favorable toward to the communicator’s position. Lang et al. (1999) argued that a one -sided message is more effective for advertising inexpensive products. O’Keefe ( 1999) also found in his meta-analysis of message sidedness that one-sided messages are more persuasive than two-sided messages if audiences have an initial at titude regardless of whether it be favorable or unfavorable. Studies that show a nonrefutational two-sided message is more effective There are also studies that argued that a non-refutati onal two-sided message is more effective in increasing credibility than a refutational two-sided communication (Kamins & Assael, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989) and more effective in increasing copy believability than one-sided messages (Gol den & Alpert 1978, 1987; Settle & Golden 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978; Swinyard, 1981). O’Keefe (1999) divided the message sidedne ss research effects by message topics such as advertising message s and nonadvertising messages.1 He found that nonrefutational two-sided messages are more e ffective than both one-sided messages and refutational two-sided messages for advertising messages, arguing that it might be due to the receiver’s different initi al expectations about the communicator, i.e., “general skepticism” (p. 237) about the communicator However, there was no such message sidedness effect for nonadvertising messages. Studies that show a refutational twosided message is more effective Among the message sidedness studies, the most predominant conclusion is that refutational two-sided messages are more effective than nonrefutational two-sided messages and one-sided messages (O’Keefe, 1999). Bohner et al. (2003) argued that a 1 Advertising topics were the ones in which the advocacy c oncerned products or services such as advertisements for consumer products, business products or services. Nonadvertising topics were the ones involved with sociopolitical topics such as public policy questions and other controversial issues.

PAGE 20

8 two-sided advertisement provides higher source credibility than a one-sided advertisement. Based on the cognitive respons e theory, Hale et al (1991) argued that a refutational two-sided message is more effective in generating positive cognitive responses than a one-sided me ssage. Sorrentino et al. (1988) argued that a refutational two-sided message is more effective if recipi ents are motivated to process the arguments thoughtfully. Allen (1991) repor ted in his meta-analysis of message sidedness that a refutational two-sided message is the most persuasive strategy, followed by a one-sided message and a nonrefutational two-sided message. Moderators of Message Sidedness In his meta-analysis that analyzed 10 7 persuasion effect sizes based on 20,111 respondents, O’Keefe (1999) attempted to id entify moderators that were supposed to affect the persuasiveness of message sidedness. He identifies four major moderators, such as (1) the audience’s initial attitude, (2) a udiences’ level of edu cation, (3) audience’s likely availability of counterarguments, and (4 ) the order of materi als in the two-sided message. Initial attitude The study on the audience’s in itial attitude was first conducted by Hovland et al. (1949). In their experiment about how long World War II w ould last, they found that a one-sided message is more effective to an audience who had a prior favorable attitude whereas a two-sided message was more e ffective to the audience who had a prior negative attitude toward an issue. On the other hand, Cowley and Hoyer ( 1994) argued that even though audiences have a positive prior attitude, two-sided messa ges could be effectiv e if the audience is

PAGE 21

9 already aware of the negative information on the subject. Some studies found that a twosided message is not only effective to an audi ence with an initial negative attitude, but also to those with “no” prio r attitude (Etgar & Goodwin, 1982; Golden and Alpert, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989; Stayman, Hoyer & Leone, 1987). Considering these studies, it is likely that the prior attitude plays a critical role in two-sided message effectiveness. However, as was shown from several meta-analyses (Allen, 1991, 1994; Jackson & Allen, 1987; O’ Keefe, 1999), there are no consistent findings about when and how initial or prior at titude affects the effectiveness of message sidedness. Level of education Hovland et al. (1949) argued that a one-sided message is more effective to less educated receivers whereas a two-sided messa ge is more effective to more educated receivers. However, several meta-analyses s howed that their result cannot be supported (Allen, 1991, 1994; Jackson & Allen, 1987; O’ Keefe, 1999). O’Keeffe (1999) reported that of the 88 cases that have a distinctive level of audience education, 79 involved undergraduates, which made the measurement of message sidedness effect by education level unclear. Availability of counterarguments Some studies (Chu, 1967; Hass & Linde r, 1972; Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992) maintained that if the audien ce has more counterarguments av ailable to them, a two-sided message is more effective, whereas a one-s ided message is more effective when the audience has no or few counterarguments. Howe ver, O’Keefe (1999) argued that there is no such evidence to support this finding b ecause “few studies have examined the

PAGE 22

10 persuasive effects of sidedness variation unde r conditions in which the audience might be presumed to have relatively little access to counterarguments” (pp. 230-231). Order of argument Jackson and Allen (1987) posited that the order of a two-sided message affects the persuasiveness of the message. Based on th ree types of argument order, such as supportive-then-opposing, opposi ng-then-supportive, and in terweaving discussion of supportive and opposing argument, they argued th at for refutational two-sided messages, supportive-then-opposing order is more eff ective than opposing-then-supportive order. Based on the optimum arousal theory (Ber lyne, 1971), Crowley a nd Hoyer (1994) argued that if the “optimal” proportion of refutati onal information is placed early in the twosided message but not in the begi nning, it is the most effective. On the other hand, McGuire (1969) argued th at effects arise not because of the inconsistency per se, but because of the exp ectation of recipients. Igou and Bless (2003) also argued that order effect s take place as audiences hold different expectations when they are exposed to oneand two-sided comm unications. From experiments that reversed the order of argument (pro/con versus con/pr o) in the two-sided messages, they found that 70 percent of the particip ants expected that the supporti ve argument would appear at the end of the message ( recency effect ). On the other hand, from an experiment on a onesided message that reversed the order of supportive argument tone (strong/weak versus weak/strong), they found that 70 percent of the participants expected that the strong arguments would appear at the beginning of the message (primacy effect ). They said that this can be explained by a conversation rule (Krosnick et al. 1990; Schwarz, 1994, 1996), that is, message recipients would expect that communicators present their important

PAGE 23

11 argument later in the case of two-sided communications, while they would expect important messages first in one-sided communications. On the other hand, Hovland et al. (1953) ar gued that the primacy effect or “Law of Primacy” (p. 129) is not relevant in many situations. They contended that a message that comes out later is more effective than th at which comes out first, thus supporting the recency effect. They explained that if a udiences are exposed to the first supportive argument about which they do not agree, they would wait to refute it until an argument with which they agree comes out, and therefore, it naturally attenuates the effects of the argument that comes out first. On the contra ry, if audiences are exposed to a message with which they agree, they would rely on the source and therefore, the message that comes out later from the same communicat or would persuade the audiences more effectively regardless of whether it is suppor tive or refutational. C onsequently, in a twosided message, a message that comes out late r is more effective than a message that comes out first. However, based on the “sel ective exposure” postula te, McGuire (1961) argued that there is no permutation effect between a supportive-only message and a refutational-only message. O’Keefe (1999) also found that there is no homogenous result to support that any particular order of me ssage is more effective than others. Other Moderators Message relatedness Message relatedness is one of the moderato rs that affect credibility of message sidedness. From the perspective of attrib ution theory, Pechmann (1992) argued that a connection between the negative and positive produc t attributes is a critical factor for a two-sided advertising message to be effectiv e. Bohner et al. (2003) also reported that a

PAGE 24

12 two-sided related advertisement is more effective than a two-sided unrelated advertisement and a one-sided advertisement.2 Amount of negative inform ation (degree of refutation ) Bohner et al. (2003) also found that the amount of negative information is an important factor that leads to favorable ev aluation. Other studies also argued that a twosided message is more effective if less negati ve information is provi ded or relatively less important information is disclosed than positive information (Kamins & Assael, 1987; Pechmann, 1992). Exposure time Bohner et al. (2003) also argued that th e amount of exposure time moderates the effectiveness of message sidedness. They ma nipulated time into short exposure time and long exposure time, and found that “under hi gh [long]-exposure time conditions, the twosided message containing related negative and positive attributes was more effective than the two-sided message containi ng unrelated attribut es” (p. 461). However, under a shortexposure time condition, i.e., when recipients do not have enough time to process the message content, there was no message-relatedness effect. In addition, O’Keefe (1999) suggested ot her moderators that affect message sidedness, such as product type (a service versus a product and/or high versus low involvement product classes), status of endorser (expert, company president, typical consumer and celebrity), and variation in importance and number of attributes disclaimed. In addition, other studies found more moderating variables such as perceived 2 In their experiment, Bohner et al. (2003) used a one-sided message that mentioned only positive product attributes, and two versions of a two-sided message: (a) a two-sided unrelated message that contains negative product attributes that were unrelated to positive attributes, and (b) a two-sided related message that contains negative product attributes that were related to positive attributes (p. 455).

PAGE 25

13 source motivation (Pechmann, 1990), exposure to subsequent opposing communications (Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953), topic familiarity (Allen, 1991), and price (Lang et al., 1999) Explanations for Conflicting Results As indicated by this review, studies on message sidedness do not consistently support the superiority of any specific type of sidedness to others. Studies (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; Lang et al. 1999) suggest seve ral reasons of these nonconformities. Crowley and Hoyer (1994) explained th at it is because of “the lack of a theoretical framework that specifically addr esses two-sided message effects” (p. 561). They argued that theories that explain me ssage sidedness were typically borrowed from social psychology theories that were developed to explain more complex and comprehensive phenomena. Another reas on for conflicting results is due to “methodological differences” between studies As Crowley and Hoyer (1994) argued, “message structure variables, such as the nature and amount of negative information included are likely to be important determinan ts of two-sided message effects (i.e., one important negative attribute re presents relatively more negative information than an unimportant negative attribute)” (p. 562). They argued that exis ting research has failed to pay attention to these variab le issues. Lang et al. (1999) also argued that “the way message persuasiveness is measured” (p. 485) is one of the reasons for the conflicting results. In addition, based on the optimal arousa l theory, Crowley and Hoyer (1994) insisted that conflicting findi ngs are due to variation in the proportion of negative information in the two-sided treatm ent in various studies (p. 564).

PAGE 26

14 In general, as O’Keefe (1999) repor ted, refutational two-sided messages on nonadvertising topics turned out to be more effective than both one-sided messages and nonrefutational two-sided messa ges, in increasing credibil ity and persuasiveness. The superiority of a nonrefutational two-sided me ssage was mainly confined to advertising topics such as comparative advertisements. In public relations, there are many situati ons that a public relations professional has to handle or cope with both advertisi ng and nonadvertising issues, such as issue management, crisis management, community relations, government relations, NGO relations, reputation management, and em ployee relations as well as marketing communications, event management, and promo tions. In many cases, the criteria between advertising issues and nonadvertising issues are unclear. However, a few studies have been conducted on how public relations messa ge-sidedness works in each of these situations. As O’Keefe (1999) summarize d, if a refutational two-sided message on nonadvertising topics is more effective than a one-sided message or a nonrefutational two-sided message, it should be able to be adapted to public relations messages too. To this end, this study attempts to identify th e effects of message sidedness between a onesided message, a nonrefutational two-side d message, and a refutational two-sided message. Related or Supporting Theories Inoculation theory Inoculation theory (McGuire & Papage orgis, 1961; McGuire, 1961, 1985; Etgar & Goodwin, 1982) provides us with a theore tical basis for the effectiveness of refutational and nonrefutational two-sided messages. Borrowing a concept from the

PAGE 27

15 public health practice of giving preventive shots, this theory says that if a moderate refutational message is exposed to audiences in advance ( having the flu shot ), they would resist change, and therefore, would be less persuaded than those who are not inoculated or who are only exposed to a supportive me ssage, when they are exposed to a stronger refutational message ( attack of the flu ). Because pre-exposure makes the subsequent strong attacks “seem less believable” (McGuire, 1985, p. 294). Inoculation theory was actively tested by advertising researchers in 1970s (Bither, Dolich, & Nell, 1971; Sawyer, 1973; Szybillo & Heslin, 1973). These studies showed that if favorable attitudes are formed based on two-sided refutational messages, it is more difficult to change the attitude with count er-attitudinal messages (Bither et al., 1971; Szybillo & Heslin, 1973). Also, a refutational me ssage turned out to be more effective to those who have a negative ini tial attitude towards the adve rtised brand (Sawyer, 1973). The contribution of inoculation theory to the message sidedness study is that it showed two-sided messages can reduce counter argument, if a refutational message is provided in advance. However, studies show ed that even a two-sided message that contains a refutational message within itself is also effective. Attribution theory Attribution theory (Bohner et al. 2003; Heider, 1 958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973; Lang et al., 1999) describes how people make causal explanations and how they develop answers for “why”-type quest ions. From the perspective of message sidedness research, this theory provides psychological background for how two-sided messages help increase the credibility of the message.

PAGE 28

16 For instance, in the case of an advert ising message, consumers may expect that the advertising message would only include pos itive information or supporting appeal of the products or services ( one-sided messages ) that they desire to sell. However, a plethora of empirical studies found that advertisi ng messages that contain negative information about the products or services were more e ffective in enhancing their message source credibility because these two-sided message s lead receivers to perceive that the advertising is telling them the truth (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins & Marks, 1987; Kamins et al, 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978; Stayman et al., 1987; Swinyard, 1981). In particular, in their study of consumer preference about providing compe titors’ price information, i.e., negative information in online store, Trifts and Haubl (2003) argued that the inclusion of negative information ( two-sided messages ) can increase ‘believability’ (S mith & Hunt, 1978; Swinyard, 1981), and therefore, positively affect consumers’ purchase intention than one-sided messages (Etgar & Goodwin, 1982). On the other hand, some studies maintained that there is a ‘trade-off’ between gains in credibility and the general persua siveness of the message (Settle & Golden, 1974; Stayman et al., 1987). They reported that even though two-sided messages have increased source credibility, they did not affect the receivers’ purchase intention positively (Stayman et al., 1987), or they curtai led the total expected benefits because the net effect of two-sided message is close to zero per se (Settle & Golden, 1974). Some studies showed that there is no significantl y different effect between oneand two-sided messages (Sawyer, 1973; Swanson, 1987), or even reported that two-sided messages lead to lower purchase intention (Kanungo & Johar, 1975; Swinyard, 1981).

PAGE 29

17 Optimal arousal theory / fear appeal studies Optimal arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994) assumes that stimuli that are moderately novel, surprising, or complex are more effective than stimuli that are too strong or too wea k. From the perspective of me ssage sidedness, this theory provides a theoretical background that the strength of refutational messages works on the effectiveness of persuasion. This theory s hows that a two-sided message containing a moderate level of refutational message is mo re effective than a one-sided message or a two-sided message that contai ns refutational messages that are too strong or too weak. In particular, optimal arousal theory provides a background about the conflicting findings in message sidedness rese arch. This theory explains that conflicting findings are due to variations in the proportion of nega tive information included in the two-sided treatment in various studies (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994, p. 564). Furthermore, based on the experimental studies that vary the number of negative attributes in their two-sided message treatments (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins & Assael, 1987; Settle & Golden, 1974; Stayman et al., 1987), Crowley and Hoyer (1994) argued that message sidedness is the most effective when the proportion of negative information is approximately 40 percent. Optimal arousal theory shares the findings with fear appeal research, such as fearas-acquired drive model (Janis, 1967), and two-factor theory (McGuire, 1968, 1969), in which both of them demonstrated an invert ed U-shaped relationship between fear and message acceptance. In his fear-as-acquired drive model, Jani s (1967) argued that a certain degree of fear arousal is the most effective persuasi on communication that coul d result in attaining

PAGE 30

18 the proposed objectives of a message. Too much fear arousal would lead to maladaptive outcomes while fear appeal th at was too weak would not ar ouse any reaction. Therefore, a moderate amount of fear arousal is belie ved to be the most effective strategy in changing people’s attitude (Janis, 1967). In his two-factor theory, McGuire (1968, 1969) argued that fear motivates people to accept the communicator’s message (as a drive ) while it could influence people’s response to interfere with the acceptan ce or rejection of the message (as a cue ). These two factors interacted to produ ce an overall inverted-U relati onship between fear arousal and attitude change. Like the fear-as-acquire d drive model, fear arousal was the most effective in a medium strength condition (McGuire, 1967, 1968; Witte, 1992). Discounting hypothesis Based on the assumption that the persuasi on effect is dependent on the type of reactions to content, the discounting hypot hesis (Allen, 1991; Alle n & Reynolds, 1989; Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984) argues that a s ource who fails to meet an expectation or exceeds an expectation is reevaluated by an audience. The logical explanation of this hypothesis regarding message sidedness resear ch is that this theory supports the effectiveness of a refutationa l two-sided message. For instan ce, if a communicator who is believed to be fair-minded fails to acknowle dge the existence of opposing argument for a controversial issue, the audience would re act negatively and ‘discount’ his or her messages. On the other hand, for a non-c ontroversial topic, if a communicator acknowledges the existence of possible counterarguments, he or she would be perceived as more honest, fair-minded, and expert by the audience. In both cases, the discounting hypothesis argues that a two-sided message is more effective in persuading the audience.

PAGE 31

19 When compared to inoculation theory, Allen (1991) argued that both theories explain the same process but from “either a static ( discounting ) or a dynamic ( inoculation ) view” (p. 399). It is clear that the discounting hypothesis describes immediate attitude change, while inoculation theory better e xplains attitude change over time. Source Credibility For decades, credibility or source credibil ity, along with message sidedness, has been an important research topic in persuasion effectiveness research.3 Credibility is defined as “the judgments made by a message recipient concerning the believability of a co mmunicator” (Callison, 2001, p. 220) Similarly, Tormala and Petty (2004) referred source credibility to “a message source’s perceived ability or motivation to provide accurate and truthf ul information” (p. 429). Anderson (1971) conceptualized source credibility as a “weight ” that can enhance the value of information in a message. Elements of Source Credibility Early research on source credibility perc eived expertise and trustworthiness as two major factors of credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Hovand et al., 1953; Kelman & Hovland, 1953). Other scholars added compone nts to credibility such as safety, qualifications, and dynamism (Berlo, Leme rt, & Mertz, 1969); competency and 3 Some scholars (Newhagen & Nass, 1989; Kiousis, 20 01) divided credibility research into two domains such as source credibility and medium credibility. Th ey maintained that source credibility and medium credibility are differentiated such that source credibility focuses on “examining how different communicator characteristics can influen ce the processing of message” whereas medium credibility focuses more “on the channel through which content is delivered rather than the sender (or senders) of that content.” (Kiousis, 2001, p. 382). In this pa per, credibility refers to source credibility.

PAGE 32

20 objectivity (Whitehead, 1968); trustworthine ss and competence (Bro wers & Phillips, 1967; O’Keefe, 1990); and authoritativene ss and character (McCroskey, 1966). In general, scholars have argued that the source credibility is composed of three constructs such as (a) expertise (b) trustworthiness and (c) goodwill (McCroskey, 1999; Perloff, 2003). Expertise is the knowledge or ability ascribed to the communicator (Hovland et al., 1953; McCracken, 1989). Expe rtise also includes concepts such as expertness, competence, qualification, inte lligence and authoritativeness (McCroskey, 1999). Trustworthiness is the communicator’s perceived honesty, si ncerity, objectivity (McCracken, 1989), and safety and sagacity (McCroskey, 1999). Goodwill is perceived caring (Perloff, 2003) or intent toward receiver (McCroskey, 1999). Perloff (2003) maintained that a credible communicator is the “one who is seen as an expert, regarded as trustworthy and displays goodwill toward audience members” (p. 160). Also, he argued that credibility does not work exclusively, bu t is affected by context factors such as audience size, communicator role, and cultu ral dynamics. Some scholars (McCracken, 1989; Ohanian, 1990; Yoon et al., 1998) included attractiveness instead of goodwill. Attractiveness refers to the perceived familiari ty, likeability, and similarity of the source to the receiver (McG uire, 1985). Yoon et al. (1998) id entified the influence of each construct – expertise, trustworthiness, a nd attractiveness – and found that all three constructs affected involvement with the adve rtising message equally. They added that in terms of attitude toward the advertisement, “perceived attractiveness of the endorser was more important than expertise and trustworthiness.” (p. 154).

PAGE 33

21 Effects of Source Credibility An abundance of research on source credib ility reported that information provided by a highly credible source is more effective than information provided by a not highly credible source in causing positive attitude chan ge and behavioral intentions (Cotlieb & Sarel, 1991; Homer & Kahle, 1990; Petty & Wegener, 1998; Ward & McGinnies, 1974; Woodside & Davenport, 1974). Some scholars paid more attention to moderators and mediators of source credibility effects on persuasi on rather than focusing on the basic effects (Tormala & Petty, 2004). As tested by the elabora tion likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1999), it was demonstrat ed that source credibility influences persuasion, moderated by elaboration condi tions. Under low elaboration conditions, source credibility affects the audience’s atti tude by invoking periphera l or heuristic cues (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). Under high elaboration conditions, credibility influences the confidence people have in th eir individual thoughts or cognitive responses (Brinol et al., 2004). Priester and Petty (2003) also reporte d that under a lo w elaboration likelihood condition, information provided by an untrustworthy endorser would be unthinkingly rejected. In addition, it was shown that a message is more effective if a highly credible source is identified early (Greenberg & Miller, 1966; Ward & McGinnies, 1974). The effects of source credibility are moderated by receiver characteristics, such as locus of control, authoritarianism, involvement, and extremity of initial attitude (Haley, 1996; Yoon et al., 1998). Highly authoritarian people ar e more likely to be influenced by high

PAGE 34

22 credibility sources (Bettinghaus, Miller, & St einfatt, 1970). People with high involvement with the issue are less infl uenced by source credibility (Johnson & Scileppi, 1969). Theoretical Background and Relationsh ip with Message Sidedness Research Theoretically, a knowledge bias and a re porting bias, explained by attributionbased theory of source tr ustworthiness (Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978), provide a psychological background for sour ce credibility effects. A knowledge bias is the assumption that a communicator has a biased view of an issue. A reporting bias is the perception that a communicator ha s opted not to report or disc lose certain facts or points of view. Eagly et al. (1978) argued that if audiences infer that the communicators possess either a knowledge bias or a reporting bias, the pe rception of source credibility decreased. On the other hand, when audiences’ infere nces or expectations are violated, the communicator is regarded as credible and convincing. For instance, Warren Buffet and David Rockefeller Jr. gained their credibi lity by urging Congress not to repeal federal taxes on estates, even though they were among t hose most likely to benefit from its repeal (Johnston, 2001, p. A1). This fits with the findings from major ity of the message sidedness research. According to attribution theory (Bohner et al. 2003; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973; Lang et al., 1999), the reason why a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message in many cases, is be cause it violates the recipients’ expectation that the communicator, who speaks on behalf of the organization to which he or she belongs, would only provide positive points regarding his or her organizations or supporting issues. By breaking these expecta tions, the communicator acquires credibility, and therefore, the message gains more e ffectiveness in persua ding or keeping the

PAGE 35

23 audience from being persuaded by counter arguments. Similarly, the discounting hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen & Reynolds, 198 9; Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984) describes why a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message. The difference is the characteristics of source cred ibility, which was treate d as an independent variable in many source credibility resear ches, while it was treated as a dependent variable in many message-sidedness studies (Bohner et al., 2003; Kamins & Assael, 1987; Kanungo & Johar, 1975; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978). Source Credibility in Public Relations From a public relations perspective, how to utilize credible so urces has been a key issue that affects the results of public relati ons activities. However, the existing research reported that perceptions of public relations and its practitioners were skewed to the negative. This is true even for those w ho educate practitioners; Newsom, Ramsey, and Carrell (1993), surveyed 905 public relations educators and profe ssors, and found that only 11 percent of the respondents agreed that the image of public relations and its practitioners is favorable. The Public Rela tions Society of America (PRSA) survey, conducted for five years with over 2,500 inte rviews supported by Ro ckefeller Foundation, reported that the credibility of pub lic relations specialists ranked 42nd out of 44 public figures (O’Dwyer’s PR service report, 1999). With regard to the implication of th e attribution-based theory of source trustworthiness (Eagly et al ., 1978), Callison (2001) says, “t he public associates public relations with bending the truth if necessary to make the client look positive or to facilitate a cover-up… it would seem that the public relations industry mandates its sources to maintain a repor ting bias in favor of client s (“Behind the PRSA,” 1999)” (p.

PAGE 36

24 222). He pointed out four general aspects th at can help public re lations professionals understand their roles more objectively and to serve as quality sources: First, receivers note credibility in messengers to determine the believability and accuracy of commun ication. Second, an audience relies on judgments concerning a source’s trustworthiness and competence in evaluating credibility. Third, public re lations practitioners, students, and the general public doubt the trustw orthiness of public relations professionals. Finally, this image can be attributed in part to public relations practitioners who often tr y to appease receivers and to the tendency to believe that sources who speak to an audience’s expectations in persuasive situations are not honest. (Callison, 2001, p. 222) To overcome these unfavorable images, co rporations and orga nizations endeavor to utilize credible sources eith er as their internal spokespersons or external endorsers. As an internal source, whereas publ ic relations persons were the most frequently used, they engaged as sources engineers, financial specia lists, and CEOs depending on an issue, its seriousness and urgency, in particular, in cris is situations. As an external source, they engaged other sources thought to be credible such as experts, celebrities, professors, industry professionals, and sports stars who can endorse their positions as their ‘third party endorsers’ or so-calle d ‘public relations ambassador s.’ Sometimes, they refrain from using the word “PR” or public relations, and instead use “corporate communication.” Source Trustworthiness and Source Goodwill However, in spite of these efforts by public relations practitioners to increase the credibility of their public relations message s, there still remains skepticism about the believability of public relations messages am ong target audiences, in particular, among the journalists and reporters (Callison, 2001). In this regard, it would be worthwhile to identify the reason why a public relations message has such low credibility. Among the

PAGE 37

25 three major constructs that compose source credibility, expertise, trustworthiness and goodwill, it is generally presumed that public relations can engage sources that have the expertise or knowledge or th e ability to speak about an issue on behalf of their organization. However, it is questionable wh ether the target publics would believe the trustworthiness and goodwill of a public re lations message endorser who is speaking on behalf of an organization or a corporati on. A message endorser or a certain type of spokesperson may have a friendlier image or a more positive perception than other spokespeople among the target audiences on a sp ecific topic or issue. He or she may be an expert on a specific issue but may have a bad reputation among the target audience due to his/her extremity on that issue. Probably, he or she is perceived as an untrustworthy endorser who tries to use hi s/her expertise improperly. Further, even though a message endorser is perceived as trus tworthy, he or she may not be seen as having ‘goodwill’ toward the target audien ce. Probably, a message endorser who is regarded as trustworthy and has goodwill for a corporation may be seen as a one who has expertise but tries to misuse his or her expertise for imprope r purposes when dealing with a specific public, such as NGO or activist group. Source trustworthiness Regarding source trustworthiness, Priest er and Petty (1995, 2003) reported that using only high credibility sources is not the best strategy for a co rporation, because it may be more effective to use low credibility sources in some situations, and the use of a trustworthy source may be disadvantageous under certain conditions. They reported that information presented by untrustworthy (but e xpert) endorsers is lik ely to be thoughtfully elaborated on, whereas information presented by trustworthy endorsers is likely to be

PAGE 38

26 non-thoughtfully accepted. In particular, they su ggested two conditions that support their assertions. First, and foremost, untrustworthy e ndorsers will be effective when presenting information that elicits positive product-related cognitive responses when thoughtfully cons idered by the target of the advertisement……such an endorser will prompt increased elaboration of the information. Such increased elabor ation will only be advantageous if the thoughts that arise in response to the informa tion are positive. Under such conditions, the valence of the attitudes resulting from an untrustworthy endorser will be as, if not more, positive than the attitudes resulting from the use of a trustw orthy endorser. Second, untrustworthy endorsers will be especially effectiv e when the information is presented under conditions of moderate elabor ation likelihood – when individuals have the requisite ability but lack th e explicit motivation to elaborate the information conveyed in an advertisement. It is exactly under such conditions that the use of an untrustworthy endorser can increase the amount of thought that individua ls expend on the product-related information. (Priester & Petty, 2003, p. 419) Source goodwill Regarding source goodwill, McCroskey a nd Teven (1999) argued that whereas much research has been conducted on expertne ss and trustworthiness as major constructs of source credibility, the study of “goodwill” or “perceived caring” (p. 90) has not been a focus. Based on a factor analysis, th ey suggested three elements of goodwill: understanding, empathy, and responsiveness. Understanding is knowing another person’s ideas, feelings, and needs . Empathy is one person’s identificatio n with another person’s feelings. This involves behaviors indicating th at one person not only understands the other’s views but accepts them as valid views, even if he or she does not agree with those views . Responsiveness involves one person acknowledging another person’s communi cative attempts. Responsiveness is judged by how quickly one person reacts to the communication of another, how attentive they are to th e other, and the degree to which they appear to listen to the other. (p. 92) They argued that goodwill should be consid ered equal to or a more important construct than other factors su ch as expertise and trustworth iness. Similarly, Yoon et al.

PAGE 39

27 (1998) who suggested attractiven ess as a major construct of source credibility along with expertise and trustworthiness, concluded that perceived at tractiveness of the endorser, which shares characteristics with goodwill to a great extent, is more important than other constructs. It was reported that the general per ception of public relations messages are skewed more toward the negative. To overc ome these unfavorable images, corporations and organizations leverage cr edible endorsers who can speak on an issue on their behalf. However, among the three constructs of source credibility, such as expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill, it is likely th at the reason for the unfavorable perception of public relations messages and public relations pr actitioners is not because of the lack of expertise of those public relati ons message endorsers, but beca use of their perceived lack of trustworthiness and goodwill. Also, some research (McCroskey & Teve n, 1999; Yoon, et al., 1999) reported that goodwill is a more important construct than tr ustworthiness and expertise in composing source credibility. In particular, goodwill s hould lie at the heart of public relations persuasion messages because it is assumed that “public relations is a management function that establishes and maintains mutu ally beneficial relationship between an organization and publics on whom its success or failure depends” (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994, p. 6). However, in spite of its importance, which can influence the result of public relations messages, little research has been conducted on these two constructs of source credibility -trustworthiness and goodwill. Ther efore, this study attempts to investigate the effect of these variables on the effectiv eness of public relations persuasion messages.

PAGE 40

28 As these constructs compose the concept of s ource credibility, they are supposed to be highly correlated with each other, and may have high multicollinearity, but, as was identified by McCroskey and Teven (1999), it is plausible to assume that they represent different facets of source credibility. Hypotheses There are four models/theories that fo rm a theoretical background for this study about the effect of message sidedness and sour ce credibility in public relations messages. They are (a) inoculation theory, (b) discounti ng hypothesis, (c) attrib ution theory, and (d) optimal arousal theory / fear appeal studies. Inoculation theory (McGuire & Papa georgis, 1961; McGuire, 1961, 1985; Etgar & Goodwin, 1982) provided this study with a th eoretical basis for the effectiveness of refutational and nonrefutational two-sided messages. Borrowing a concept from the public health practice of giving preventive shots, this theory says that if a moderately refutational message is given to audiences in advance, they would be less persuaded than those who are not inoculated or who are only exposed to a supportive message, when they are exposed to a stronger refutational message. A plethora of studies on message sidedness studies show that, even though there is no single result that supports either onesided or two-sided messages, in general, even though there is no time gap between stimuli, a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message. Adding on to inoculation theory, th e discounting hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen & Reynolds, 1989; Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984) posits that a source who fails to meet an expectation or exceed an expectati on is reevaluated by an audience. The logical explanation of this hypothesis regarding message sidedness res earch is that this theory

PAGE 41

29 supports the effectiveness of a refutational two-sided message over a one-sided message. The discounting hypothesis considers immediate at titude change while inoculation theory handles attitude change over time (Allen, 1991 ). Also, this theory provides background for the study of source credibility: a reporting bias and a knowledge bias. In connection with message sidedness, it is assumed that if a two-sided message is delivered to people, it means that it violates the recipients’ e xpectation that the co mmunicator, who speaks on behalf of the organization to which he or she belongs, would only relate positive points regarding his or her organization or specific issues. By breaking these expectations, the communicator acquires credibilit y, and therefore, the message gains more effectiveness in persuading or keeping the audience from being persuaded by counterarguments Attribution theory (Bohner et al., 2003; Heider, 1 958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973; Lang et al., 1999) describes how people make causal explanations and how they develop answers for “why”-type quest ions. From the perspective of message sidedness research, this theory provides psychological background for how two-sided messages help increase the credibility of the message. Similar to the discounting hypothesis, attribution theory explains the reason why a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message in many cas es, is because it violates the recipients’ expectation. Finally, the optimum arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994) and fear appeal studies, along w ith inoculation theory, provide d an experimental background for message sidedness research. The optimum arous al theory assumes that stimuli that are moderately novel, surprising, or complex are more effective than stimuli that are too

PAGE 42

30 strong or too weak. Also, fear appeal studies argue that fear arousal was the most effective in medium strength conditions. However, these existing theories do not explain the interaction effect between message sidedness and constructs of source cr edibility (source trustworthiness and source goodwill) of public relations messages. For inst ance, inoculation theory does not explain the immediate effect of a refutational message (Allen, 1991). Most message sidedness studies that support discounting hypothesis or attribution theo ry treated source credibility as a dependent variable. On the other hand, studies on source credib ility treated source credibility as an independent variable (McCracken, 1989; McCroskey, 1999; Ohanian, 1990; Yoon et al., 1998). To identify the interaction effect betw een message sidedness and two constructs of source credibility, this study manipulated source trustworthiness and source goodwill as independent variables. Their effects on the recipients’ attitude toward the public relations message, the issue and to ward the company were tested. Based on these findings, the follo wing hypotheses were developed: H1. There will be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source trustworthiness on the attitude s of the recipients of the message. H1a. The effect of message sidedness on peoples’ attitudes will be more distinctive when the endorser is low ra ther than high in trustworthiness. H2. There will be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the message. H2a. The effect of message sidedness on peoples’ attitudes will be more distinctive when the endorser is lo w rather than high in goodwill.

PAGE 43

31 Also, it was questioned if there is any th ree-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness and source goodwill. Therefore: RQ1. Is there a three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill on the attitudes of the re cipients of the message? RQ2. If there is a three-wa y interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill on the attitudes of the re cipients of the message, is a refutational two-sided message from an endorser with high source trustworthiness and high s ource goodwill the most effective?

PAGE 44

32 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The objective of this study is to analyze the relati onship among the three main variables – effects of message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill – and their interaction effects on attitude change of the target audiences when exposed to a public relations persuasion message. For this, a 3 x 2 x 2 (message sidedne ss: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutational two-sided vs. refutational twosided) x (source trustworthines s: high vs. low) x (source goodwill: high vs. low) between-subject e xperimental design was used. A MANOVA was used to analyze these main and interac tion effects, and pair-wise mean difference tests were conducted to determine statis tically significant mean difference among different experimental groups. Pretests Two pretests were conducted to check the validity of independent and dependent variables. Participants Participants were recruited among the undergraduate students in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. A total of 324 students in two large public relations classes and two advertising classes participated. Each group was composed of 27 members. To randomly assign the participants, Weblogs were prenumbered by date which was shown in the upper left side of the Weblogs, and were distributed to each subject who sat down randomly where they used to sit. The 32

PAGE 45

33 participants were randomly assigned to 3 x 2 x 2 treatment conditions such as (message sidedness: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutatio nal two-sided vs. refutational two-sided) x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source goodwill: high vs. low). As this experiment was to test the effect of a pub lic relations message on the attitude of the message readers, which was shown to them for the first time, no control group was used. Stimuli To manipulate message sidedness, three t ypes of Weblog pages were created for a supporting one-sided message, a nonrefutationa l two-sided message, and a refutational two-sided message, using the re plies to the main message. The topic of the Weblog was about the expected effect of establishing a Carrefour super dist ribution center and superstore on the economy and environment of Gainesville as well as on the subjects (University of Florida student s). Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains with more than 11,000 stores over 32 countries, but has not opened a store in America yet. As such, the brand was not know n to the subjects, and it was posited that there are no or little known positive or nega tive prior perceptions or attitudes toward Carrefour. Source trustworthiness and source goodwill were manipulated using a description of Carrefour by the operator of the manipul ated Weblog. The operator of the Weblog was described as a business analyst, who is be lieved to have a certain degree of “source credibility,”4 to allow subjects to focus more on th e manipulated description of Carrefour. In total, twelve different vers ions of a Weblog were created. 4 The term “source credibility” was used to describe general source credibility of the message endorser. The operator of the Weblog is expected to have expertise as well as trustworthiness and goodwill toward the community, not toward to Carrefour.

PAGE 46

34 Procedure Participants were told that the purpos e of the experiment was to collect their comments on allowing a Carrefour distribution center and superstore to be opened in Gainesville. They were told that because Carrefour had submitted a construction and employment plan to the City of Gaines ville’s Department of Construction and Development, the city government had to re view the proposal, and would like to have students’ comments before they made a decision. Based on the manipulation of this cond ition, 12 different versions of a Weblog, along with descriptions of the company, were provided. Participants were asked to read the Weblog message and description about Ca rrefour carefully, and respond to questions. In an agreement with the lecturers for the clas ses, extra credit was given to those students who participated. After comp leting the experiment, participants were debriefed. The completed data was gathered and coded for statistical analyses. Independent Variables Message Sidedness A supporting one-sided message, a nonref utational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message were manipul ated. Based on the optimal arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994), which argues that it is the most effective when the proportion of negative information is appr oximately 40 percent, the ratio of positive information versus negative information was manipulated to the level of approximately 60%: 40% by number of posters. As the unit of analysis was a Weblog that allows replies to the messages or to other replies, messa ge sidedness was manipulated using these replies.

PAGE 47

35 More concretely, the main message positively and objectively reported Carrefour’s submission of a proposal to open a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. For a supporting one -sided message, only positive replies were shown. For a nonrefutational two-sided messa ge, negative replies against the supporting message were also shown without any refutation. To make th e arguments look more realistic and natural, the order of supporting and nega tive replies was alternated. For a refutational two-sided message, replies that refuted those negative re plies were used. Like the nonrefutational two-sided message, the order of supporting and refutational replies to those negative replies was alternated. The main message that introduced Carre four’s coming to Gainesville and asked readers for their opinions was presented as follows: Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a dist ribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesvi lle’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the investment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that w ithin two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that th e price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub dist ribution center in No rth Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumer s are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it w ill provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Then, message sidedness was manipulated us ing replies to the message as follows:

PAGE 48

36 Supporting one-sided message At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news th at will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more intern ships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment Nonrefutational two-sided message (in th e following order that mixed supporting and negative posters) At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news th at will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment Post a Comment At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more intern ships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the cons truction? We definitely will have to suffer from dust, noise and even traf fic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences…

PAGE 49

37 Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! Post a Comment Refutational two-sided message (in the fo llowing order that mixed supporting and negative posters, and refutational replies to the negative posters) At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news th at will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment Post a Comment At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more intern ships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? At 11:15PM Carrefour said… I don’t think we have enough supersto res in Gainesville. Carrefour is not a small French company, but a global company that has a lot of expertise and offices. Why not allow them to come into Gainesville, so that consumers in Gainesville can have better choices? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the cons truction? We definitely will have to suffer from dust, noise and even traf fic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… At 10:45PM Lee_hope said… I heard that the construction will take approximately six months. It’s inevitable that some Gainesville citi zens will suffer from dust and noise to

PAGE 50

38 a certain extent. But I’m sure some contractors will minimize these inconveniences by working at nigh t and during the weekend. Also, considering the positive effects on the Gainesville’s economy, and on the quality life of Gainesville citizens, I th ink it is worthwhile to grin and bear it. Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! At 08:33 AM Carrefour said… The construction will have very lit tle effect on the environment of Gainesville as it will take place at the existing commercial area where empty and old warehouses have been left unused. On the contrary, after completion, the area will be a place where people can enjoy shopping with their family and friends. Post a Comment Source Trustworthiness Source trustworthiness was manipulated in to a high trustworthiness source and a low trustworthiness source. Unlike most sour ce trustworthiness research in advertising, in which an endorser is an inde pendent individual such as a celeb rity or a sports star, in a public relations message, it is common for a CEO or an internal public relations person to speak for or on behalf of his or her comp any. In other words, for a public relations message, even though it is an individual who sp eaks for an issue, it is the company that source trustworthiness matters. Also, unlike a comparative advertisement that shows advantages and disadvantages of a specific product or a service, it seems unnatural for an internal public relations messa ge endorser to speak of nega tive aspects of an issue or about the company voluntarily. In this study, source trus tworthiness was manipulated using the explanation of Carrefour by the operator of the Weblog, w ho is believed to be independent and has trustworthiness. In describing Carrefour, th e terms and concepts that are related to

PAGE 51

39 trustworthiness, such as “hone st,” “respected,” “ethical,” “illegal tax deal,” “bribery scandal,” and “sued by Green Peace,” were used as follows: High source trustworthines s : Carrefour was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agricult urists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal relate d to tax evasion, conflict with employees or any environmental issues. Low source trustworthiness : Carrefour was recently investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (genetically modified) foods without identifying them. Source Goodwill Source goodwill was manipulated into a high goodwill condition and a low goodwill condition. Like source trustworthine ss, source goodwill was manipulated using the explanation of Carrefour. The terms a nd concepts, such as “caring,” “concerned,” “sensitive,” and “understanding,” used in the ethos/credibility scal es used by McCroskey and Teven (1999) were used in manipulating so urce goodwill. In particular, as a token of goodwill toward the community, corporate so cial responsibility (CSR) activities including care for environmen t, educational systems, and contribution to the local community were manipulated as follows: High source goodwill : Carrefour was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s hi gh reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In ev ery market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-t he art, the nature-friendly disposal system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags th at are not biodegradable.

PAGE 52

40 Low source goodwill : Carrefour is not as respecte d outside of Europe as it is in Europe. Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only global firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initi ative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first superstore that provided non-biodegrad able disposable plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Dependent Variables Attitude toward the Trustworthiness of the Message The attitude and trustworthin ess scales used by Trifts and Haubl (2003) were used. Participants were asked five questions designed to access their attitude toward the message in the Weblog. Five bi polar, 7-point rating scales we re used, ranging from -3 (undependable, dishonest, unre liable, insincere, and untrust worthy) to +3 (dependable, honest, reliable, sincere, and trustworthy). Attitude toward the Issue Attitude scales slightly modified from th e scales used by Priester and Petty (2003) were employed.5 Participants were asked four questions designed to access their attitude toward the issue, i.e., allowing Carrefour to build a distribution cente r and a superstore in their community. A mix of four 7-point sema ntic differential scal es and bipolar rating scales were used, ranging from -3 (negativ e, harmful, unfavorable, and bad) to +3 (positive, beneficial, favorable, and good). Attitude toward the Company (Carrefour) The attitude and trustworthiness scales used by Trifts and Haubl (2003) were employed. Participants were asked five ques tions designed to access their attitude toward 5 The original scales used a 5-item semantic differentia l employing 9-point scale ra nging from -4 (negative, harmful, foolish, bad, and unfavorable) to +4 ( positive, beneficial, wise, good, and favorable). The “foolish/wise” item was deleted in this study.

PAGE 53

41 the company, i.e., Carrefour. Five bipolar, 7point rating scales were used, ranging from 3 (undependable, dishonest, unreliable, insinc ere, and untrustworthy) to +3 (dependable, honest, reliable, sincer e, and trustworthy).

PAGE 54

42 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of th e experiment outlined in Chapter 3. The chapter begins by describing manipulation check s for the independent variables (message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill), and reliability checks for the dependent variables (attitudes toward the me ssage, the issue, and the company). It is followed by a report of the results of the test of the hypotheses and research questions. It concludes with reports of additional findings. Manipulation Check for Independent Variables Message Sidedness For a manipulation check of message si dedness and refutation, participants (n=324) were asked two questi ons: (a) “I think th at this weblog presents primarily a ___________ argument about Carrefour”, and (b) “I think that posters to this weblog _____________ refute or counter the argument he re about Carrefour”). Two 7-point bipolar rating scales were use d, ranging from -3 (one sided) to +3 (two sided) for question (a), and from -3 (ineffectively) to +3 (effectively) for question (b). As shown in Table 1, for Question (a), the ANOVA for the mean scores of a onesided message versus two-sided messages showed a significant difference among the three means ( Mone-sided = -.55, Mnonrefutational two-sided = .37, Mrefutational two-sided = .33, F (2, 321)=10.68, p <.01). The Scheffe post-hoc test1 showed a significant mean difference 1 Scheffe’s method was used as it is the most conser vative method with respect to Type I error (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998, p.356). 42

PAGE 55

43 existed only between a one-sided messa ge versus a two-sided messages ( Mone-sided Mnonrefutational two-sided = -.92, Mone-sided Mrefutational two-sided = -.88, p <.01), but not between a nonrefutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message ( Mnonrefutational twosided Mrefutational two-sided = .04, p >.05). Thus, it is assumed th at subjects who read a onesided message clearly perceived it as a one-s ided message, whereas subjects who read a two-sided message perceived it as a two-si ded message regardless of the argument type, i.e., a nonrefutational two-sided message or a refutational two-sided message. For Question (b), the ANOVA for the mean scores of a one-sided message versus two-sided messages showed a significant difference ( Mone-sided = -.29, Mnonrefutational two-sided = .32, Mrefutational two-sided = .48, F (2, 319)=10.82, p< .01). The Scheffe post-hoc test showed that there was a significant mean difference between a one-sided message and two-sided messages ( Mone-sided Mnonrefutational two-sided = -.61, Mone-sided Mrefutational two-sided = -.77, p <.01), but not between a nonrefutational two-side d message and a refutational two-sided message ( Mnonrefutational two-sided Mrefutational two-sided = -.16, p >.05). Thus it was questioned as to whether the refutational version of th e message was perceived actually effectively refuting or countering better th an the non-refutational version. While subjects who read a two-sided message (regardless of whether it was refutational or not ) perceived that the posters to the main message in the Weblog refuted the arguments effectively, there is no different between a nonrefutational two-si ded message or a refutational two-sided message.

PAGE 56

44 Table 1. Manipulation check for message sidedness Two-sided One-sided Non-refutationalRefutational F df1 df2 M SD MSD MSD pvalue Q(a): one-sided vs. two sided .55 1.64 .371.57 .331.74 10.68 2 321.01 Q(b): effective vs. ineffective -.29 1.41 .321.30 .481.12 10.82 2 319.01 Source Trustworthiness For a manipulation check of source trustworthiness, the ethos/credibility scales used by McCroskey and Teven (1999) were employed. Participants were asked five questions designed to access their perception of source trustworthiness. Five 7-point, bipolar rating scales were us ed, ranging from -3 (dishonest untrustworthy, dishonorable, immoral, and unethical) to +3 (honest, tr ustworthy, honorable, mora l, and ethical). To check the dimensionality of the s ource trustworthiness measures, the five items were factor analyzed using a princi pal axis factoring ex traction method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 79.1% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 4.16.2 Table 2 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated factors. All factor loadin gs were greater than .83.3 A Scree test also showed that all of these items fall into one factor group (Figur e 1). Therefore, using the factor score regression approach, a source trustworthiness index was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has high in ternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .95).4 2 In general, the factors having Eigenvalues greater than 1 are considered significant; all factors with Eigenvalues less than 1 are considered in significant (Hair et al., 1998, p.103) 3 The generally agreed upon lower limit for factor loadin g that accounts for 50 percen t of the variance is .70 when the sample size is 100 or larger In general, factor loadings greater than .50 are considered practically significant (Hair et al., p.111). 4 The generally agreed upon lower limit for Cro nbach’s alpha is .70 (Hair et al., p. 118).

PAGE 57

45 A t -test of the mean scores for the low s ource trustworthiness condition versus the high source trustworthin ess condition showed a significant difference ( Mlow trustworthiness = .03, Mhigh trustworthiness = .58, t =-4.53, df =322, p <.01). In general, subjects who read a Weblog message from a high trustworthy sour ce had a more positive attitude toward the source. Table 2. Factor analysis of source trustworthiness Item Factor loadings Cronbach’s if item deleted Trustworthy .93 .93 honorable .90 .94 ethical .90 .94 honest .89 .94 moral .83 .95 Extraction method: Principal axis factoring 5 4 3 2 1 Factor Number 4 2 0 Eigenvalue Figure 1. Eigenvalue plot for Scr ee test for source trustworthiness Source Goodwill For a manipulation check of source goodwill, the ethos/credibility scales used by McCroskey and Teven (1999) were em ployed with a slight modification.5 Participants were asked six questions designed to acce ss their perception of source goodwill. Six 75 The original McCroskey and Teven’s scales (1999) were developed to measure source goodwill toward individuals. As source goodwill in this study is about the goodwill of a corporation toward the community, the three items that were directed to individuals, were changed to community, such as: cares about me cares about our local community ; has my interests at heart has the local community’s interests at heart; concerned with me concerned with local community).

PAGE 58

46 point, bipolar rating scales we re used, ranging from -3 ( does not care about our local community, does not have the local community ’s interests at heart, self-centered, unconcerned with local community, insensitiv e, and not understanding) to +3 (cares about our local community, has th e local community’s interests at heart, not self-centered, concerned with local community, sensitive, and understanding). To check the dimensionality of the six source goodwill items, the six items were factor analyzed using a prin cipal axis factoring extracti on method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 66.5% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 4.31. Table 3 displays the items and factor load ings for the rotated factors. All factor loadings were greater than .71. A Scree test also showed that these items fall into one factor group (Figure 2). Theref ore, using the factor score regression approach, a source goodwill index was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). Table 3. Factor analysis of source goodwill Item Factor loadings Cronbach’s if item deleted concerned .90 .89 interested .87 .90 cares .85 .90 sensitive .81 .91 understanding .73 .92 not self centered.71 .92 Extraction method: Principal axis factoring

PAGE 59

47 6 5 4 3 2 1 Factor Number 4 2 0 Eigenvalue Figure 2. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source goodwill A t -test of the mean scores for the low source goodwill condition vs. the high source goodwill condition showed a significant difference ( Mlow goodwill = -.34, Mhigh goodwill = .31, t =-5.18, df =319, p <.01). In general, subjects who read a Weblog message from the high source goodwill had a more positiv e attitude toward the source. Reliability Check for Dependent Variables Attitude toward the Message To check reliability (internal consistency) of the subjects’ attitude toward the message in the Weblog, the five items were factor analyzed using a principal axis factoring extraction method with Varimax ro tation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 58.9% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 3.34. Table 4 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated factor s. All factor loadings were greater than .66. A Scree test also showed that these items fall into one factor group (Figure 3). Therefore, using these factor scores, an index for att itude toward the message was created. A followup reliability check showed that this scal e has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).

PAGE 60

48 Table 4. Factor analysis of attitude toward the message Item Factor loadings Cronbach’s if item deleted trustworthy .84 .83 reliable .83 .84 dependable .79 .84 sincere .70 .86 honest .66 .87 Extraction method: Principal axis factoring 5 4 3 2 1 Factor Number 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Eigenvalue Figure 3. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the message Attitude toward the Issue To check the internal consistency of the subjects’ attitude toward the issue, the four items were factor analyzed using a pr incipal axis factoring extraction method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 81.1% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 3.43. Table 5 displays th e items and factor load ings for the rotated factors. All factor loadings were greater than .88. A Scree te st also showed that these items fall into one factor group (Figure 4). Ther efore, using these fact or scores, an index for attitude toward the issue was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .95).

PAGE 61

49 Table 5. Factor analysis of attitude toward the issue Item Factor loadings Cronbach’s if item deleted favorable .92 .92 good .92 .92 beneficial .89 .93 positive .88 .93 Extraction method: Principal axis factoring 4 3 2 1 Factor Number 4 2 0 Eigenvalue Figure 4. Eigenvalue plot for Scree te st for attitude toward the issue Attitude toward the Company To check the internal cons istency of the subjects’ at titude toward the company, the five items were factor analyzed using a principal axis fact oring extraction method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extrac ted that accounted for 75.2% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 4.01. Table 6 displays th e items and factor load ings for the rotated factors. All factor loadings were greater than .83. A Scree te st also showed that these items fall into one factor group (Figure 5). Ther efore, using these fact or scores, an index for attitude toward the company was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has high internal consis tency (Cronbach’s alpha = .94).

PAGE 62

50 Table 6. Factor analysis of attitude toward the company Item Factor loadings Cronbach’s if item deleted trustworthy .92 .91 reliable .91 92 dependable .85 .93 sincere .83 .93 honest .83 .93 Extraction method: Principal axis factoring Figure 5. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the company Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source trustworthiness on the attitudes of the recipients of the message. A multivariate analysis of vari ance (MANOVA) was used to test this hypothesis. Linear combinations of all depe ndent variables were considered together (Table 7), and the results show ed that there was no significant interaction effect between message sidedness and source trustworthiness on the attitudes of the recipients of the message (Wilks’ Lambda =.98, p >.05). Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

PAGE 63

51 Hypothesis 1a Hypothesis 1a posited that the effect of message si dedness on peoples’ attitudes will be more distinctive when the endorse r (company) is low rather than high in trustworthiness. As shown from the result s of MANOVA test (Table 7), there was no interaction effect be tween message sidedness and source trustworthiness, Hypothesis 1a was also not supported. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the atti tudes of the recipients of the message. The MANOVA result (Table 7) showed that there was an interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the atti tudes of the recipients of the message (Wilks’ Lambda=.95, F (6, 620)=2.67, p <.02). The Wilks’ Lambda value for interaction effect was .95, meaning that 95 percent of this effect was not explaine d by the interaction between the message sidedness and source goodwill. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Table 7. Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness and source goodwill As Wilks’ Lambda was significant, each dependent variable was tested. The results of the test of between-subject effects (T able 8) showed that the interaction effect Effect Wilks’ F H df Error df pvalue MS 0.98 1.07 6 620 0.38 Goodwill 0.97 3.79 3 310 0.01 Trust 0.92 9.49 3 310 0.01 MS*Goodwill 0.95 2.67 6 620 0.02 MS*Trust 0.98 0.92 6 620 0.48 Goodwill*Trust 0.99 0.40 3 310 0.75 MS*Goodwill*Trust 0.98 0.91 6 620 0.49

PAGE 64

52 of message sidedness and goodwill affected r ecipients’ attitude toward the company ( F =5.73, p <.01), but not towards the message ( p >.05) nor toward the issue ( p >.05). Hypothesis 2a Hypothesis 2a posited that the effect of message si dedness on peoples’ attitudes will be more distinctive when the endorser is low rather than high in goodwill. There was an interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the recipients’ attitude toward the company only ( F =5.73, p <.01). Table 8. Results of between-subjects test Source Dependent Variable Dependent Variable df Mean Square F pvalue Message sidedness (MS) Attitude toward message 2 0.42 0.40 0.67 Attitude toward issue 2 3.83 2.05 0.13 Attitude toward company 2 0.72 0.61 0.54 Goodwill Attitude toward message 1 0.64 0.61 0.44 Attitude toward issue 1 15.89 8.51 0.01 Attitude toward company 1 8.30 7.08 0.01 Trust Attitude toward message 1 0.53 0.51 0.48 Attitude toward issue 1 4.24 2.27 0.13 Attitude toward company 1 32.21 27.46 0.01 MS*Goodwill Attitude toward message 2 2.56 2.43 0.09 Attitude toward issue 2 2.22 1.19 0.31 Attitude toward company 2 6.73 5.73 0.01 MS*Trust Attitude toward message 2 0.38 0.36 0.70 Attitude toward issue 2 2.83 1.51 0.22 Attitude toward company 2 0.98 0.83 0.44 Goodwill*Trust Attitude toward message 10.01 0.01 0.99 Attitude toward issue 1 0.32 0.17 0.68 Attitude toward company 1 0.62 0.53 0.47 MS*Goodwill*Trust Attitude toward message 2 0.62 0.59 0.56 Attitude toward issue 2 0.83 0.44 0.64 Attitude toward company 2 2.15 1.84 0.16

PAGE 65

53 As shown in Table 9, results of a mean difference test showed that a one-sided message from a high goodwill source ( M =.84, SD =.93) was more effective than a onesided message from a low goodwill source ( M =.17, SD =1.20) on the recipi ents’ attitude toward the company ( t =-3.24, df =106, p <.01). A nonrefutational tw o-sided message from a high goodwill source ( M =.64, SD =1.18) was also more effec tive than a nonrefutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source ( M =.09, SD =1.17) ( t =-2.41, df =106, p <.05). However, the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source ( M =.24, SD =1.07) was not significantly different from the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source ( M =.49, SD =1.20) ( t =1.15, df =106, p >.05). On the contrary, even though statis tically not significant, the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source was higher than the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source. In addition, if a message was from a high goodwill source, a one-sided message ( M =.84, SD =.93) was more effective than a refutational two-sided message ( M =.24, SD =1.07) ( t =3.12, df =106, p <.01). Also, in the high source goodwill condition, even though it is statistically marginally significant ( t =1.82, df =106, p =.07), a nonrefutational two-sided message ( M =.64, SD =1.18) was more effective than a refutational two-sided message ( M =.24, SD =1.07). However, the mean of a one-sided message and a nonrefutational two-sided message was not significantly different. On the other hand, if a message was from a low goodwill source, there was no significant mean difference among the different message types in the p <.05 level. However, there was a marginally significan t mean difference between a nonrefutational

PAGE 66

54 two-sided message ( M =.09, SD =1.17) and a refutational two-sided message ( M =.49, SD =1.20) ( t =-1.76, df =106, p =.08). Therefore, hypothesis 2a was marginally supported. Table 9. Means and standard deviations fo r message sidedness and source goodwill for attitude toward the company Message Sidedness Two-sided One-sided Non-refutational Refutational MSD MSD MSD High .84 .93 .641.18 .241.07 Source Goodwill Low .171.20 .091.17 .491.20 Figure 6 shows the interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill. Source goodwill Low High Attitude toward the company0 -1 1 Nonrefutational two-sided One-sided Figure 6. Interaction effect of message sidedness and goodwill on the attitude toward the company Refutational two-sided Source goodwill Low High Attitude toward the company0 -1 1 Nonrefutational two-sided One-sided Figure 6. Interaction effect of message sidedness and goodwill on the attitude toward the company Refutational two-sided Research Question 1 This research question asked about a th ree-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients

PAGE 67

55 of the message. The results of MANOVA (Tab le 7) showed no three-way interaction effect (Wilks’ Lambda=.98, p >.05). Research Question 2 Research question 2 asked that if a re futational two-sided message from an endorser (company) with high source trustw orthiness and high source goodwill is the most effective on the attitudes of the recipien ts of the message, if there is a three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was no three-way interact ion effect (Wilks’ Lambda=.98, p >.05). Additional Testing and Findings Given that the results of the Hypothesi s 1 showed that there was no two-way interaction effect betw een message sidedness and source trus tworthiness, the main effects of message sidedness and source tr ustworthiness were tested. Main Effect of Message Sidedness All dependent variables we re considered together. A MANOVA result (Table 7) showed that there was no main effect of message sidedness on th e attitudes of the recipients of the message (Wilks’ Lambda=.98, p >.05). Main Effect of Source Trustworthiness A MANOVA result (Table 7) showed that there was a main effect of source trustworthiness on the attitudes of the reci pients of the message (Wilks’ Lambda=.92, F (3,310)=9.49, p <.01). The Wilks’ Lambda value fo r the main effect was .92, meaning that 92 percent of this effect was not explained by the main effect of source trustworthiness.

PAGE 68

56 As Wilks’ Lambda was significant, e ach dependent variable was tested. The results of multivariate test showed that there was a main effect of source trustworthiness on the recipients’ attitude toward the company ( F =32.21, p <.01), but not towards the message ( p >.05) nor toward the issue ( p >.05). As shown in Table 10, results of a mean difference test showed that, overall, a message from a source with high trustworthiness ( M =.73, SD =.92) was more effective than a message from a source with low trustworthiness ( M =.10, SD =1.27) ( t =-5.12, df =322, p <.01). More specifically, a nonrefutati onal two-sided message from a high trustworthiness source ( M =.79, SD =.92) was more effective than a nonrefutational twosided message from a low trustworthiness source ( M = -.06, SD =1.30) ( t =-3.91, df =106, p <.01). A one-sided message from a high trustworthiness source ( M =.75, SD =.95) was more effective than a one-sided message from a low trustworthiness source ( M =.26, SD =1.22) ( t =-2.35, df =106, p <.05). Also, a refutational two-sided message from a high trustworthiness source ( M =.64, SD =.90) was more effective th an a refutational two-sided message from a low tr ustworthiness source ( M =.09, SD =1.29) ( t =-2.57, df =106, p <.05). However, results of the post hoc tests show ed that there were no significant mean differences among a one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message ( p >.05), in both high and low source trustworthiness conditions. Finally, as there was no three-way inte raction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill, tw o-way interaction effects were tested. As shown from Table 7, there was a two-way in teraction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill (tested with Hypothesis 2). However, there was no two-way

PAGE 69

57 interaction effect of message sidedness and source trustworthiness (tested with Hypothesis 1). Also, there was no two-wa y interaction effect between source trustworthiness and source goodwill (Wilks’ Lambda =.99, p >.05). Table 10. Means and standard deviations for message sidedness and source trustworthiness toward the company Message Sidedness Two-sided One-sided Non-refutational Refutational MSD MSD MSD High .75 .95.79 .92 .64 .90 Source Trustworthiness Low .261.22-.061.30 .091.29 Figure 7 shows the main effect be tween message sidedness and source trustworthiness. Source trustworthiness Low High Attitude toward the company0 -1 1 Nonrefutational two-sided One-sided Figure 7. Main effect of source trustwor thiness on the attitude toward the company Refutational two-sided Source trustworthiness Low High Attitude toward the company0 -1 1 Nonrefutational two-sided One-sided Figure 7. Main effect of source trustwor thiness on the attitude toward the company Refutational two-sided

PAGE 70

58 Weblog as a New Public Relations Tool This study used a Weblog as an experime ntal tool for communicating a public relations message instead of tr aditional public relations tools such as press releases, white papers, newsletters, or pitch letters. A Weblog is “a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Similar to a personal diar y, but shared over the we b” (5 Star Support, 2006). Here, a Weblog was used since they are being employed by more and more corporations as a public rela tions tool targeting Netizens.6 Even though it has become a topic of debate whether using a Weblog as a public relations tool is ethical or not (Barbaro, 2006), reflecting the char acteristics of cyber communication7 and the increasing number of Internet users,8 Weblogs are gaining popul arity as an effective alternative public relations tool. This illu strates the importance of Weblogs in public relations research as well as practice. A major reason of using a Weblog as a ne w alternative public relations tool for corporations is because by using a Weblog th ey can secure more objectivity than when using traditional public relations tools. For instance, a press release has limited potential for using message sidedness as it is e xpected to include only positive aspects or 6 This terminology was firstly used in 1992, by Michael F. Hauben (Hauben, 2004). In his article, “The Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net Has on People’s Lives ,” Hauben foresaw the future of cyberspace as "Welcome to the 21st Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global connectivity that the Net makes possible. You consider everyone as your compatriot. You physically live in one country but you are in cont act with much of the worl d via the global computer network. Virtually, you live next door to every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation is replaced by existence in the same virtual space." (Hauben, 2004). 7 Morris (1996) grouped the characteristics of cyber-c ommunication into four categories: a) one-to-one asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, b) many-to-many asynchronous communication, such as Usenet and electronic bulletin boar d, c) synchronous communication that includes one-to -one, one-to-few or one-to-many such as MUDs (Multi-User Du ngeons) and chat room, and d) asynchronous communication such as websites and FTP sites (Morris, 1996, pp. 42-43). 8 The number of inte rnet users in the Un ited States was over 2 million as of January 2006, accounting for 68.6% of the whole population. The number of global internet users was over 1 billion as of the end of 2005 (Internet World Stats, 2006).

PAGE 71

59 advantages of an issue in favor of a co mpany. Even though message sidedness might be used in a press release, the biggest draw back of using message sidedness in a press release lies in its ‘unnatural ness.’ On the other hand, a Webl og has the charac teristics of a personal journal, and is regarded as more objective, allowing the use of message sidedness to seem more natural, and theref ore, more positive message sidedness effects are expected. In addition, while traditional public relations tools are heavily dependent on mass media, Weblogs enable corporations to access their target publ ics directly without any constraints in time and space.

PAGE 72

60 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter discusses the results of the experiment presented in Chapter 4. The chapter begins with a su mmary of findings, followed by a detailed analysis of conclusions related to the hypot heses and research questions Next, a discussion of the implications for public relations theory, pr actice, and pedagogy is provided, followed by limitations of this research. Finally, the ch apter concludes with recommendations for future research. Summary of Findings This study examined the effect of message sidedness in public relations messages and its interaction effect with source credibil ity, in particular, with source trustworthiness and source goodwill, on the message recipients’ attitude toward the message, the public relations issue, and toward the company. Sp ecifically, this study attempted to use a new public relations message tool, Weblogs, to si tuate this communication paradigm in the Internet era. Results indicate that th ere was no three-way inter action effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness and a two-way interaction e ffect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the recipien ts’ attitude toward the company. Overall, a message from a source with high trustworthiness was more effective than a message from a source with low trustw orthiness on the recipients’ attitude toward 60

PAGE 73

61 the company regardless of the message si dedness. There were no significant mean differences among a one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message, in both high and low source trustwor thiness conditions. On the other hand, if a message was from a high goodwill source, a one-sided message was more effective than a refu tational two-sided message. Likewise, a nonrefutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source was more effective than a nonrefutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source. However, the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source was not significantly different from the mean of a refutational tw o-sided message from a low goodwill source. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 1a Hypothesis 1 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source trustworthiness on the attitude of the recipients of the message. Also, based on an assumption that th ere would be a two-way interaction effect, Hypothesis 1a posited that th e effect of message sidedness on peoples’ attitudes will be more distinctive when the endorser (company) is low rather than high in trustworthiness. However, there was no such two-way inte raction effect. Neither Hypothesis 1 nor Hypothesis 1a was supported. Instead, there was a main effect of s ource trustworthiness on the recipients’ attitude toward the company. Main Effect of Source Trustworthiness Even though the interaction effect in Hypothesis 1 was not supported, the results showed consistent findings with some of the existing research on sour ce trustworthiness. For example, Priester and Petty (2003) reporte d that there was a main effect of endorser trustworthiness from their seri es of experiments, which te sted the interaction effects

PAGE 74

62 between endorser trustworthiness and argument quality. They reported th at participants in their experiments had more favorable attit udes toward the produc t which was endorsed by a high trustworthiness source than that of a low trustworthiness source. In this study, subjects who were disclosed to a high trustworthiness source condition had a more favorable attitude toward the company than subjects disclosed to a low trustworthiness source condition. Implication for Public Relations Theory Existing research on public relations reported that per ceptions of public relations and its practitioners were skewed toward the negative (Newsom et al., 1993; Callison, 2001). Callison (2001) argued that these percep tions are based on people’s association of public relations with reporting bias (Eagly et al., 1978) in favor of c lients. This explains why corporations employ a credible endorse r who can add credibility to their public relations messages. However, unlike an adve rtising message for which the role of the message endorser is critical for the successful selling of the products or services, public relations messages are dealing with issues on which the perception of the company is more directly affected, and therefore, inst ead of employing an external message endorser or model, CEOs or internal public relations specialists deliver the message for or on behalf of their companies. This study focused on this issue, too. Bu t instead of focusing on manipulating the endorser trustworthiness as an individual, it manipulated the trustworthiness of the company itself as a message source. This was based on an assumption that a company as a message source is more important than an individual message endorser who speaks about a public relations issue, and therefore, the effect of using a credible endorser would

PAGE 75

63 not be as critical as it is in an advertis ing message. Also, because the purpose of public relations message is not to be nd the truth unethically for the benefit of the clients or the company, if the company is perceived as untrustworthy, the message from a CEO or a public relations person would be also perceived as untrustworthy. The results showed that the trustworthin ess of a company is an important factor that affects the attitudes of the recipients of the message toward the company. The more the company is perceived as being trustwort hy, the more effective the public relations message. This confirms findings for other rese arch on source trustworthiness, as well as providing intriguing theoretical implications For example, Priester and Petty (2003) reported that source trustworthiness has a main ef fect as well as an interaction effect with argument quality. They argued that while th e use of a trustwor thy source is more effective in general, in so me situations, a strong argumen t from a low trustworthiness source is almost or equally effective to a strong argument from a high trustworthiness source. This study suggests a possible combinati on of message sidedness and argument quality. For instance, a one-sided message may be developed using either a strong argument or a weak argument. Likewise, a refutational two-sided message may be developed using either a strong argument or a mild argument. It would be plausible to expect that the effect of argument quality interacted with message sidedness would be different by source trustworthin ess. If only a main effect is considered, it could be predicted that a one-sided me ssage with a strong argument would be more effective than a refutational two-sided message with a weak argument regardless of source trustworthiness. On the other hand, if an interaction effect is considered, a one-sided

PAGE 76

64 message with a strong argument from a low tr ustworthiness source may be more effective than a refutational two-sided message with a weak argument from a high trustworthiness source. These inferences are yet to be tested in future research. Also, for a refutational two-sided me ssage and a non-refutational two-sided message, according to optimal arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994), a two-sided message that contains a moderate level of refutational message is more effective than a one-sided or a two-sided me ssage that contains a refutational message that is too strong or too wea k. However, in the experiments of Priester and Petty (2003), this aspect was not consider ed as subjects were exposed to only high and low argument conditions. Further research should look for the effect of argument quality (strong, moderate and weak conditions ) and its interaction with message sidedness (one-sided, nonrefutational two-sided and refutationa l two-sided) under different source trustworthiness conditions (high and low). Implication for Public Relations Practice In this study, the results of the experiment showed that a message from a high trustworthiness source was more effective than a message from a low trustworthiness source regardless of the message sidedness. Th ese findings provide meaningful practical implications for public relations practitioners in developing a public relations message. For a company with high trustworthiness Priester and Petty (2003) argued that information presented by trustworthy endorsers is likely to be non-thoughtfully accepte d. Therefore, it is likely that regardless of the message sidedness, recipients of a me ssage from a high trustworthiness source will

PAGE 77

65 have more positive attitude toward the source (company) than a message from a low trustworthiness source. Therefore, if a company is perceived as a highly trusted message source by its target publics, this company may use both a one-sided message and a two-sided message depending on the situation and purpose. For in stance, if the company is dealing with a controversial issue, it is better for the company to us e a nonrefutational two-sided message, i.e., describes advantages or positive points of the issue to the target publics as well as disadvantages or negativ e aspects of the issue withou t refuting or countering them. A voluntary disclosure of nega tive aspects will result in the breaking of the reporting bias (Eagly et al., 1978), and therefore, the co mpany may be seen as more objective and candid. On the other hand, if this company uses a one-sided message, depending on situations, it would be equa lly effective to using a non-re futational two-sided message. Because the company is regarded as trustwor thy by the target publics, they may not see any negative aspects to the public relations issue as long as the company does not raise those negative points. If this is the case, the company should simply let “sleeping dogs lie” and not begin raising a nd refuting those negative issues voluntarily. The company should leverage its positive image as a tr ustworthy source by not voluntarily bring up attention to negative aspects of a public relations issue. However, it is not always possible to sp eak of only positive aspects in a public relations message. In particular, in a cr isis situation or wh en undertaking issue communications, the company should be able to cope with expected or unexpected negative aspects of public relations issues e ffectively. For example, if a company trusted

PAGE 78

66 by its publics in general is invol ved with a controvers ial issue, such as the construction of a nuclear power station in a community, it is not practical for the company to provide only a one-sided supporting message. In this case, it is recommended that the company develop a refutational two-sided messa ge to cope with these issues. One caveat for using message sidedne ss in public relation messages is to deliberately control the amount of positive and negative information about the issue. Like comparative advertising, as suggested in the optimal arousal th eory, the amount of positive aspects should be slightly more than ne gative aspects. In other words, the tone of argument in favor of positive aspects should be s lightly stronger than the tone of negative argument to the extents that the message re cipients would perceive the message as trustworthy and have positive attitude toward the company. For instance, in comparative advertising, though it is consumers who judge and decide whether they would buy the products or the services shown in the a dvertisement, the advertising message is developed to induce these consumers who are exposed to the advertisement to think or feel that they can have a positive attitude to ward the products or the services naturally, using either the central route or the pe ripheral route dependi ng on their degree of elaboration and involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). For a company with low trustworthiness In general, if a company is not percei ved as a trusted company by its target publics, there are limitations in using messa ge sidedness to develop a public relations message. Because the company is already pe rceived as an untrustworthy information source among the target publics, even though the company voluntarily refutes negative aspects of the issue, the target publics’ skep tical attitude toward the company might not

PAGE 79

67 be affected by the message sidedness as intended. Instead, they may pick up on these negative aspects more th an they normally would. In spite of this fundame ntal limitation in composing a public relations message, the effect of argument quality could still be considered. As Priester and Petty (2003) reported, a strong argument from a low trustwor thiness endorser was almost or equally effective to a strong argument from a high trustworthiness endorser, as it may lead to more elaborated attitudes. Ther efore, it would be plausible to argue that a message with a strong argument may be more effective than a message with a weak argument for a company with low trustworthiness. Also, like a company with high trustworthin ess, there are situations that require a company to use a two-sided message strategy. If there is such a situation for a company with low trustworthiness, a refutational two-sided message with a strong argument may be used. As the target publics will be skep tical about this company, they may pay less attention to the message, if it does not cont ain a clear, strong argument in favor of the company. Most of all, it should be not ed that if a company is perceived as untrustworthy by its target publics, the company is limited in developing a public relations message. In other words, it is more important for a co mpany to build trust and a positive image among the target publics before it disseminate s a public relations message on a specific issue, in particular, on a controversial issu e. Moreover, it should be noted that trustworthiness and reputation are not acquire d in the short-term because they are the results of persistent long-term public relations activities.

PAGE 80

68 Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 2a Hypothesis 2 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the atti tudes of the recipients of the message. Also, based on an assumption that there would be a two-way interaction effect, Hypothesis 2a posited that th e effect of message sidedness on peoples’ attitudes will be more distinctive when the endorser (company) is low rather than high in goodwill. The results showed that there is a two-way inte raction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the recipients’ attitude toward the company.1 Interaction Effect of Message Sidedness and Source Goodwill The interaction effect showed that the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source was not significantly different from a low goodwill source.2 On the other hand, a one-sided message and a nonrefutational two-si ded message from a high goodwill source were more effective than a one-sided message and a nonrefutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source. Also, for the high goodwill source condition, a one-sided message was more effec tive than a refutational two-sided message. For the low goodwill source condition, even tho ugh it was statistically insignificant, a refutational two-sided message was more e ffective than a non-refutational two-sided message ( t =-1.76, df =106, p =.08). 1 Also, there was a main effect of source goodw ill on the recipients’ attitude toward the issue (F (3, 310)=6.33, p <.01) and the company ( F (3, 310)=7.08 p <.01). Participants had more favorable attitude toward the issue when the message was from a high goodwill source (M =.78) than when it was from a low goodwill source ( M =.45). Also, they had more favorable attit ude toward the company when the message was from a high goodwill source (M =.57) than when it was from a low goodwill source ( M =.25) 2 Even though statistically insignificant (p=.25), th e mean of a refutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source ( M =.49, SD =1.20) was higher than the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source ( M =.24, SD =1.07).

PAGE 81

69 These findings highlight important and intr iguing implications for public relations theory and practice as well as for public relations pedagogy. Implication for Public Relations Theory To date, an abundance of research on source credibility has reported that information provided by a high credibility sour ce is more effective than information provided by a low credibility source in increa sing positive attitude change and behavioral intentions (Petty & Wegener, 1998; Cotlieb & Sarel, 1991; Homer & Kahle, 1990; Ward & McGinnies, 1974; Woodside & Davenport, 1974) In particular, McCroskey and Teven (1999) argued that, among the major constr ucts of source credibility, source goodwill is equal to or more important than other constr ucts of source credibi lity, such as source expertise and source trustworthiness. In this experiment, it was shown that source goodwill interacted with message sidedness to affect the attitude of the messa ge recipients. To date, there has been a plethora of independent research examini ng either source trustworthiness or message sidedness. However, there were few studies th at identify the intera ction effect between source goodwill and message sidedness, especially in the context of a public relations message. The reason why source goodwill is important in public relations research is that it affects the impact of a public re lations message. As one of the most important constructs of source credibility, the more a company is perceived as having high goodwill toward the community or toward target publics, the more effective the public relations messages of that company will be. As McCroskey and Teven (1999) argued, goodwill is not a matter of cognition, but a matter of unders tanding, empathy, and responsiveness.

PAGE 82

70 Whereas trustworthiness is more about cognition, goodwill is more about affection. Source goodwill is also a matter of attractiveness (Yoon et al ., 1998). For example, when college students like their college’s footba ll team, they do so mostly not because the football team plays well, but because they feel homogeneity, i.e., they feel that they are on the same side as the team. Likewise, wh en a company is perceived as having goodwill toward a community, people living in that comm unity will be more positive and generous to the company, and it will result in bette r communication results. Even in crisis situations, people will be more forgiving a nd sympathetic to the company. This supports the reason why corporations ar e actively involved in public relations activities such as corporate social responsibili ty activities and reputation management, because the company is hoping that it will enhance the perceived goodwill of the company, i.e., to position themselves as a res ponsible corporate citizen. Also, there was an interaction eff ect between source goodwill and message sidedness. This implies that even though goodwill is an important variable for the success of a public relations message, it can achieve better results if leveraged with message sidedness. In principle, the company should identify whethe r it is perceived as having high goodwill or not, and according to the stat us and depending on the situation, it should decide whether it will use a one-sided messa ge, a nonrefutational two-sided message, or a refutational two-sided message. In addition, goodwill provides criteria for the evalua tion of public relations messages, as well as providing a theoreti cal base for undertaking public relations programs, specifically, corpor ate social responsibility (CSR) programs, reputation management, and issues and crisis communi cations. One of the alleged weaknesses of

PAGE 83

71 public relations messages as well as public rela tions programs is that it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these public relations messages or the results of the programs. This study showed that the more a company is perceived as having goodwill toward the community or the society to whic h it belongs, the more effective the public relations message from this company on public relations issues. Implication for Public Relations Practice For a company with high goodwill If a company is perceived by its target publics as having high goodwill toward the community to which it belongs, it would be most effective to use a one-sided supporting public relations message. As there already ex ists a friendly perception of the company among target publics, it may not be a good idea to provide them with negative information on a controversial issue, whic h may cause unnecessary argument about the issue. In other words, this company should ma ke use of its advantageous perception as a high goodwill information source. However, in public relations practice, th ere are situations that require a company to use a two-sided message to argue over a cont roversial issue or to justify the company’s position. The representative cases are issues communications and crisis communications. Even in these situations, it is recommended that the company use a non-refutational twosided message rather than a refutational tw o-sided message to make use of its positive image as a company which has goodwill toward the target publics.3 When developing a nonrefutational two-sided me ssage, based on optimal arousal theory, the amount of 3 Even though it is statistically marginally significant ( t =1.82, df =106, p =.07), in the high source goodwill condition, the mean of a nonrefutational two-sided message ( M =.64, SD =1.18) was higher than the mean of a refutational two-sided message ( M =.24, SD =1.07).

PAGE 84

72 positive message aspects should be slightly more than negative message aspects. Again, the tone of the supporting argument should be slightly stronger than that of the opposing argument. Employment of a refutational two-sided me ssage should be the last choice unless this kind of argument is not raised by ot her parties, such as NGOs, activist groups, competitors, or other critical stakeholders. For a company with low goodwill On the other hand, for a company perceived as having low goodwill toward the community to which it belongs, a refutati onal two-sided message should be employed. Because the perception of the company among target publics is not friendly, if this company uses a non-refutational two-sided messa ge, the target publics may not receive it as positively as they may receive it from a high goodwill source. Also, if this company uses only a one-sided message, target publics ma y look at the issue from a rather negative point of view as their perception of this co mpany is negatively skewed, and this company may look less objective. Theoretically, if the target publics were exposed to a one-sided message, there will not be any breaking of reporting bias, i. e., the target publics may expect that the company would only speak of positive aspects of the issue, and consequently, they may not accept the message as it is because of the lack of perceived objectivity. On the other hand, if the company provides a refutationa l two-sided message, as explained by the discounting hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen & Reynolds, 1989; Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984), it violates the expectation of the target publics that the company would

PAGE 85

73 only speak of positive aspects of the issue, and consequently, the company would be perceived as more honest, fair-mi nded, and expert by the public. Therefore, by employing a refutational two-sided message, a company with low goodwill will be able to gain more attention from the target public, because they will elaborate the message more t houghtfully (Priester & Petty, 2 003), and there will be more opportunities for them to change the target pub lics’ attitude from negative to positive, or to form a positive attitude toward the company. Finally, for a low goodwill company to use a refutational two-sided message, one precondition should be satisfied, i.e., the compa ny should be confident that its position is right. That is, its position should have more objective persuasiveness or more positive aspects than negative aspects so that when th e message is elaborated on by the recipients, they would agree with the message or change their attitude from negative to positive. As Priester and Petty (2003) argue d, this message strategy woul d be advantageous only “if the thoughts that arise in response to the informati on are positive” (p. 419). Additional Implications Implication for Public Relations Pedagogy Message sidedness has been investigated thoroughly in advertising and marketing research, but not in public relations research. As reported in the existing research, results of the message sidedness effect varied de pending on situations and variables used (Cowley & Hoyer, 1994; Lang et al., 1999). O’ Keefe (1999) argued that in general, a refutational two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message. However, in this study, it was shown th at there was no such message sidedness effect when source trustworthiness was cons idered. Regardless of the type of message

PAGE 86

74 sidedness, a message from a source with high trustworthiness was more effective than a message from a source with low trustworthin ess. On the other hand, there was a message sidedness effect when source goodwill was cons idered. For instance, if a message was from a source with high goodwill, a one-sided message was more effective than a refutational two-sided message. In the lo w goodwill condition, a refutational two-sided message was more effective than a nonrefut ational two-sided message, and equally or even more effective than a refutational two-sided message from a company with high goodwill. These findings should be taken into c onsideration for public relations pedagogy. There was no consistent support for any speci fic type of message sidedness. Instead, a company should be able to carefully develop a public relations message depending on its perceived trustworthiness and goodwill. Also, pu blic relations scholars should be able to figure out the relevant situa tions in which what type of message sidedness works better than other type of message sidedness. These message sidedness strategies should be more thoroughly researched and elaborated on so that students and public relations practitioners can benef it from these findings. No Main Effect of Trustworthiness and Goodwill on Attitude toward the Issue or the Message There may be other confounding variables th at were not considered in this study. For example, involvement might have worked as an artifact. Each of the subjects might have different prior attitude s toward environment protection or economic issues, as well as acquiring job opportunities.

PAGE 87

75 Also, there may be a causal relationship among the dependent variables. It seems that attitude toward the company was a dependent variable that was affected by independent variables most directly as show n in the results. In other word, attitude toward the company may work as an endogenous variable that aff ects attitude either attitude toward the message or the issue. Also, the stimuli might work as unint ended way. The public relations tool manipulated in this study was a Weblog, wh ich was operated by an individual who was perceived as having a certain degree of tr ustworthiness and goodwill. Therefore, even though source trustworthiness and source goodwill were manipulated with high and low conditions in the Weblog, it seems that it did not affect the recipients ’ attitude toward the Weblog message. Additional Variables This research posited three dependent variables: recipients’ attitude toward the message, the issue, and the company. As shown in Chapter 4, there was a main effect of source trustworthiness and an interac tion effect of source goodwill and message sidedness on the recipients’ at titude toward the company. However, there was no such effect on the recipients’ attitude towa rd the issue and toward the message. A possible interpretation is that there may be external or moderating variables that affected the recipients’ atti tude toward the issue such as involvement conditions and recipients’ prior attitude toward the issue. Therefore, even though it was not hypothe sized, involvement and prior attitude were considered as covariat es, and a MANCOVA was used to test if these covariates changed the interpretation of the effects of the manipulated indepe ndent variables on the

PAGE 88

76 recipients’ attitude toward the issue and th e message. Next, involvement was included as factor, and its main and interaction effect s with other independent variables were examined. Involvement and Prior Attitude as Covariate Involvement Involvement has traditionally been an im portant moderating vari able that affects persuasion. Both message sidedness and source credibility are though t to be moderated by the degree of involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Haley (1996) and Yoon et al. (1998) argued that the effects of sour ce credibility are moderated by receiver characteristics such as involvement and init ial attitude. Johnson and Scileppi (1969) also maintained that people with high involvement w ith the issue are less influenced by source credibility. In particular, in public relations resear ch, involvement has been perceived as a critical variable that plays a pivotal role in segmenting publics (Grunig, 1978, 1984, 1987; Hallahan, 2000, 2001) and their reactions to public policy issues (Heath & Douglas, 1990, 1991). Grunig (1989) defined involvement as “the extent to which people connect themselves with a situation” (p. 5), and used involvement to discern active publics and passive publics. He argued that people become active publics if their involvement increases because they realize that their pers onal interest is depende nt on the resolution of an issue or an event. Heath and Douglas (1991 ) also maintained that “involvement is an important concept for public relations practiti oners and scholars, because it can be used to predict persons’ willingness to receive a message as well as the likelihood that existing message content will be used to assess each new message” (p. 179).

PAGE 89

77 In this study, to evaluate how involve ment interacted with other independent variables, involvement scales slightly modified from the s cales used by Martin et al. (2003) was employed.4 Participants were asked three questions designed to access their degree of involvement with th e issue. Three bipolar, 7-po int rating scales were used, ranging from -3 (unimportant, irrelevant, and not needed) to +3 (im portant, relevant, and needed). To check the dimensionality of involvement, the three items were factor analyzed using a principal axis extraction me thod with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 60.1% of the vari ance, with an Eigen value = 2.19. All factor loadings were greater than .66. Therefore, us ing the factor score re gression approach, an involvement index was created. A follow-up reli ability check showed that this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .81). Prior attitude To evaluate how the subject’s attitude to large convenience stores might mediate the subject’s responses to Carrefour, the re cipients’ attitude toward Wal-Mart was considered. It was assumed that if the re spondents had a strongly negative or positive attitude toward Wal-Mart, it could relate to their response to these messages because, in general, Wal-Mart is a competitor with many similarities to Carrefour. The attitude and trustworthiness scales used by Trifts and Haubl (2003) were employed. Participants were asked five ques tions designed to access their attitude toward Wal-Mart. Five bipolar, 7-point rating scales were used, ra nging from -3 (undependable, 4 The original scales used a 4-item semantic differential employing 7-point scale ranging from +1 (unimportant, irrelevant to me, means nothing to me, and not needed) to +7 (important, relevant to me, means a lot to me, and needed). The “means nothing to me/means a lot to me” item was not included in this study.

PAGE 90

78 dishonest, unreliable, insincere, and untrustworthy) to +3 (d ependable, honest, reliable, sincere, and trustworthy). To check the dimensionality of prior attit ude, the five items were factor analyzed using a principal axis extrac tion method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 67.6% of the variance, wi th an Eigenvalue = 3.70. All factor loadings were greater than .76. Therefor e, using the factor score regression approach, a prior attitude index was created. A follow-up reliability check show ed that this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .91). MANCOVA results As involvement and prior attitude scales have high internal consistency, a MANCOVA was used controlling these variables as covariates. As shown in Table 11, the results showed that there was a main eff ect of source trustworthiness (Wilks’ Lambda = .91, F (3, 305) = 10.09, p <.01) and interaction effect of source goodwill and message sidedness (Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F (6, 610) = 2.87, p <.05). However, there was no significant change from the result s that did not consider these c ovariates in the earlier part of this dissertation. Even though there were significant main effects of involvement and prior attitude, the results remain the same, showing that covariates were effectively controlled by the random assignment process.

PAGE 91

79 Table 11. Multivariate tests for me ssage sidedness, source trustworthiness, source goodwill controlling for involvement and prior attitude For variables with significant Wilks’ Lambda values, each dependent variable was tested. Again, the results of the test of between-subject effects (Table 12) showed a similar result to the between-subject test th at did not consider involvement and prior attitude. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness ( F =30.05, p <.01), and an interaction effect of message sidedness and source goodwill ( F =5.63, p <.01), on the recipients’ attitude toward the company. Ho wever, there was no main effect of source trustworthiness or interaction effect of message sidedness and source goodwill. Also, the MANCOVA results showed th at even though there were main effects of involvement and prior attit ude, the results did not signifi cantly change, demonstrating that these covariates were successfully controlled in the experiment. Effect Wilks’ F H df Error df pvalue Involvement .26 297.513 305 .01 Prior attitude .97 2.953 305 .03 MS .99 .676 610 .68 Goodwill .96 4.143 305 .01 Trust .91 10.093 305 .01 MS*Goodwill .95 2.876 610 .03 MS*Trust .98 1.086 610 .37 Goodwill*Trust .99 .833 305 .48 MS*Goodwill*Trust .98 .856 610 .54

PAGE 92

80 Table 12. Results of betw een-subjects test controlling for involvement and prior attitude Source Dependent Variable Dependent Variable df Mean Square F pvalue Involvement Attitude toward message 1 24.63 25.82 .01 Attitude toward issue 1 308.86 868.96 .01 Attitude toward company 1 35.42 34.56 .01 Prior attitude Attitude toward message 1 5.53 5.80 .02 Attitude toward issue 1 1.51 4.26 .04 Attitude toward company 1 3.74 3.65 .06 Message sidedness (MS) Attitude toward message 2 .41 .43 .65 Attitude toward issue 2 .30 .84 .43 Attitude toward company 2 .36 .35 .70 Goodwill Attitude toward message 1 .53 .56 .46 Attitude toward issue 1 3.06 8.61 .01 Attitude toward company 1 7.61 7.42 .01 Trust Attitude toward message 1 .32 .33 .56 Attitude toward issue 1 .61 1.72 .19 Attitude toward company 1 30.808 30.054 .01 MS*Goodwill Attitude toward message 2 1.51 1.58 .21 Attitude toward issue 2 .43 1.20 .30 Attitude toward company 2 5.78 5.63 .01 MS*Trust Attitude toward message 2 .19 .20 .82 Attitude toward issue 2 .62 1.74 .18 Attitude toward company 2 1.63 1.60 .21 Goodwill*Trust Attitude toward message 1.35 .36 .55 Attitude toward issue 1 .27 .75 .39 Attitude toward company 1 2.34 2.28 .13 MS*Goodwill*Trust Attitude toward message 2 .69 .72 .49 Attitude toward issue 2 .03 .07 .93 Attitude toward company 2 1.52 1.48 .23 Involvement as an Independent Variable Another MANOVA test was conducted to te st for a main effect or interaction effect of involvement as a factor (rather th an a covariate) with message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. For this the involvement scal e was recoded into a

PAGE 93

81 high and a low group with a mean = 0 split for the factor index As shown in Table 13, the results of the multivariate tests showed that there was an overall main effect for source goodwill (Wilks’ Lambda = .97, F (3, 298) =3.46, p <.05), source trustworthiness (Wilks’ Lambda = .92, F (3, 298) =8.61, p <.01), and involvement (Wilks’ Lambda = .77, F (3, 298) = 30.48, p <.01). Also, there was a marginally significant three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source tr ustworthiness and involvement (Wilks’ Lambda = .96, F (6, 596) = 1.89, p =.08), and among goodwill, trustworthiness, and involvement (Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F (3, 298) = 2.09, p =.10) while in the earlier analysis, there was only an interaction effect of message sidedness and source goodwill which contains to be maintained in th is analysis (Wilks’ Lambda = .96, F (6, 596) = 1.90, p =..08) Table 13. Multivariate tests for message side dness, source trustworthiness, source goodwill, and involvement Effect Wilks’ F H df Error df pvalue MS .98 .926 598 .48 Goodwill .97 3.463 298 .02 Trust .92 8.613 298 .01 Involvement .77 30.483 298 .01 MS*Goodwill .96 1.906 596 .08 MS*Trust .97 1.296 596 .26 Goodwill*Trust .99 .423 298 .74 MS*Goodwill*Trust .99 .576 596 .75 MS*Involvement .97 1.376 596 .23 Goodwill*Involvement .99 .673 298 .57 MS*Goodwill*Involvement .99 .186 596 .98 Trust*Involvement .98 2.423 298 .07 MS*Trust*Involvement .96 1.896 596 .08 Goodwill*Trust*Involvement .98 2.093 298 .10 MS*Goodwill*Trust*Involvement.98 1.126 596 .35

PAGE 94

82 For the new interactions with significant Wilks’ Lambda values, each dependent variable was tested. The result s of the test of between-subject effects (Table 14) showed a similar result with a previous between-subj ect test that did not consider involvement. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness ( F =24.08, p <.01), source goodwill ( F =6.08, p <.05) and involvement ( F =10.29, p <.01) and an interaction effect for messagesidedness and goodwill ( F =4.05, p <.02) on the recipients’ at titude toward the company. For the marginally significant Wilks’ Lambda values, the individual betweensubject test results showed two three-way interactions: (a) among message sidedness, Table 14. Results of between-subj ects test including involvement5 Source Dependent Variable Dependent Variable df Mean Square F pvalue Goodwill Attitude toward message 1 .03 .03 .87 Attitude toward issue 1 10.41 7.15 .01 Attitude toward company 1 6.95 6.08 .01 Trust Attitude toward message 1 .039 .04 .84 Attitude toward issue 1 1.92 1.32 .25 Attitude toward company 1 27.52 24.08 .01 Involvement Attitude toward message 1 23.04 23.71 .01 Attitude toward issue 1 128.80 88.50 .01 Attitude toward company 1 11.76 10.29 .01 MS*Goodwill Attitude toward message 2 1.29 1.33 .27 Attitude toward issue 2 .62 .42 .66 Attitude toward company 2 4.63 4.05 .02 MS*Trust* Attitude toward message 2 .73 .75 .47 Involvement Attitude toward issue 2 .56 .39 .68 Attitude toward company 2 4.13 3.61 .03 Goodwill*Trust* Attitude toward message 2 4.62 4.76 .03 Attitude toward issue 2 .90 .62 .43 Involvement Attitude toward company 2 .33 .29 .59 5 Left out F for independent variables that were not significant (p>.05).

PAGE 95

83 source trustworthiness, and involvement on th e recipients’ attitude toward the company ( F =3.61, p <.05), and (b) among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the message ( F =4.76, p <.05). While these findings were not hypothesi zed in this study, it shows that involvement was an important independent variab le that affected the recipients’ attitude toward the message source in interaction with source goodwill, s ource trustworthiness and message sidedness. As shown in Table 15, the results of following mean difference tests for involvement showed that the means for the highly involved subjects were higher than for the low involved subjects acro ss all dependent variables. Th us, a public relations message is significantly more effec tive to highly involved publics on their attitude toward the message ( Mhigh involvement=.1.06, Mlow involvement=.52, t =-4.97, df =322, p <.01), toward the issue ( Mhigh involvement=1.42, Mlow involvement=.08, t =-9.81, df =322, p <.01), and toward the company ( Mhigh involvement=.61, Mlow involvement=.17, t =-3.56, df =322, p <.01). Table 15. Means and standard deviations for th e effect of involveme nt on the recipients’ attitude toward the message, the issue, and the company Involvement MSD t df p -value Attitude toward High 1.06.92 message Low .521.06 -4.97322 .01 Attitude toward High 1.421.23 issue Low .081.20 -9.81322 .01 Attitude toward High .611.15 company Low .171.10 -3.56322 .01 Message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement As shown in Figure 8, there was a thr ee-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involveme nt on the recipients’ attitude toward the

PAGE 96

84 company. In the high involvement conditi on, there was no significant mean difference among the different types of message sidedne ss regardless whether the message was from a high trustworthy source ( F =2.96, df =2, p >.05) versus a low trustworthy source ( F =1.27, df =2, p >.05). Also, in low involvement condi tion, there was no significant mean difference among the different types of message sidedness, neither from a high trustworthy source ( F =1.61, df =2, p >.05) nor from a low trustworthy source ( F =-.43, df =2, p >.05). On the other hand, post hoc mean differe nce test results showed that for a company with low trustworthiness, a refuta tional two-sided message was more effective to the highly involved target publics ( M =.58, SD =1.28) than to the less involved publics ( M =-.30, SD =1.17) ( t =-2.64, df =52, p <.05). However, there was no significantly different message sidedness effect for a one-sided message ( t =-1.26, df =52, p >.05) or a nonrefutational twosided message ( t =-.77, df =52, p >.05). In contrast, for a company with high trustworthiness, a nonref utational two-sided message was more effective to the highly involved target publics ( M =.1.09, SD =.95) than to the less involved publics ( M =.76, SD =.90) ( t =-2.75, df =52, p <.01). And, unlike the low trustworthiness c ondition above, a one-sided message ( M =.97, SD =.95) was more effective to the highly invol ved target than to the less involved publics ( M =.44, SD =.75) ( t =-2.36, df =52, p <.05) and a nonrefutatio nal two-sided message ( M =.1.09, SD =.95) was more effective than a refutational two-sided message ( M =.52, SD =.90) ( t =2.32, df =55, p <.05). Also, a one-sided message was more effective than a refutational two-sided message ( t =1.92, df =61, p =.06). However, there was no such message sidedness effect for a refutational two-sided message ( t =1.92, df =61, p >.05).

PAGE 97

85 Involvement Low High Attitude toward the company0 -1 1 Nonrefutational two-sided One-sided Refutational two-sided Low High 0 -1 1 Low trustworthiness High trustworthiness Involvement Low High Attitude toward the company0 -1 1 Nonrefutational two-sided One-sided Refutational two-sided Low High 0 -1 1 Low trustworthiness High trustworthiness Figure 8. Interaction effect of message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the company In summary, for a source with low trus tworthiness and uninvo lved publics, a onesided message would be more effective, while for highly involved publics (active publics), a one-sided message or a refutational two-sided message are equally effective. On the other hand, for a source with high trustworthiness for uninvolved publics, a refutational two-sided message would have th e greatest effect, but when trustworthiness is high for an involved public, either a one-s ided or a non-refutati onal two-sided message is equally effective. Perhaps the most importa nt point to note here is that when source trustworthiness is high, the effects are always higher except for the refutational two-sided message which is best avoided for highly i nvolved publics when the source is a highly trusted one. Source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement As shown in Figure 9, there was a thr ee-way interaction effect among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients’ attitude toward the message. Results of mean difference tests s howed that there was no significant mean

PAGE 98

86 difference between a message from a company with high goodwill and from a company with low goodwill regardless of involvement condition and source trustworthiness. However, for a source with low trustwor thiness and a company with low goodwill, involvement worked as an important variable th at affected the recipi ents’ attitude toward the message such that if they perceived the issue as highly involving for them, they had a more positive attitude toward the message ( t =-2.08, df =79, p <.05). On the other hand, if the company was perceived as having a high goodwill toward the target publics, there was no mean difference between high and low involvement condition ( t =-1.64, df =79, p >.05) Also, for a source with high trustworth iness and a company with high goodwill, involvement worked as an important variable th at affected the recipi ents’ attitude toward the message. When the company was perceive d as having high goodwill toward the target publics, and the subjects were highly involved, they had more positive attitude toward the message than did the uninvolved subjects ( t =-4.85, df =79, p <.01). On the other hand, if the source was perceived as highly trus ted, but the company as having low goodwill toward the target publics, there was no effect of involvement ( t =-1.39, df =79, p >.05). Perhaps the most puzzling finding here is that high goodwill combined with a highly trusted source is not effective for uninvol ved publics and, in fact a source that is less trusted appeared to be mo re effective with this group.

PAGE 99

87 Involvement Low High Attitude toward the message0 -1 1 High goodwill Low goodwill Low High 0 -1 1 Low trustworthiness High trustworthiness Involvement Low High Attitude toward the message0 -1 1 High goodwill Low goodwill Low High 0 -1 1 Low trustworthiness High trustworthiness Figure 9. Interaction effect of source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the message In sum, to develop a public relations message for target publics, involvement should be considered along with the comp any’s perceived trustworthiness and goodwill condition by the target publics. It is important for a compa ny to form a prior perception among the target publics that the company is trustworthy, has goodwill toward them or toward the community to which they bel ong, and develop a releva nt public relations message. Limitations This study has limitations. As with most experiments, this study has an artificiality issue. The experiment was conduc ted in a classroom setting, and therefore, it lacks external validity (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). For instance, there was a limitation on the characteristics of subjects. The subjects were all undergraduate student s attending a large southeaste rn public university in the United States, a representative homogeneous gr oup. Three-quarters of them were female and the mean age was 21-years old. Defin itely, they do not represent the population

PAGE 100

88 beyond themselves. Therefore, even though the re sults may be applied to a specific realworld situation, they cannot be ge neralized to the real world. Also, even though the Weblog was produced in a professional manner for an experimental purpose, the materials were printe d in black and white and distributed to the subjects in a classroom setting. If an actua l online Weblog was shown to the participants and they were asked to answer the questions via Internet, it would have enabled them to have a more realistic experience. However, it was assumed that printing out the Weblog would make no difference in the subjects’ response. Another limitation of this study is that it the effect size of independent variables was relatively weak. Even though the means of each independent variable were significantly different, in realit y, the effect sizes were quite small as compared to the scales that ranged from -3 to +3. In addition, there may have been a w eakness in manipulating the independent variables. The manipulation check indicated that the one-sided message and two-sided messages were clearly manipulated, but, it is not clear if the nonref utational versus the refutational manipulation was successful. Ther efore, even though the results showed a difference between them, there was a limitation in interpreting and generalizing the results. Finally, the research questions were base d on an assumption that there would be a three-way interaction effect among message si dedness, source trustworthiness and source goodwill. However, there was no such interaction effect. Instead, though it was not hypothesized, there were three-wa y interactions when involveme nt was included as factor. It might be possible that the theory did not support the three-way in teraction relationship

PAGE 101

89 among the originally posited va riables. Further research would help answering this research question. Recommendations for Future Research One of the purposes of this study was to identify a possible th ree-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trus tworthiness, and source goodwill in a public relations message on the target public’s attit ude toward the message, the issue, and the company. Even though there was no such intera ction effect, it would be worthwhile to expand the theory so that we could identif y variables where they are moderators. Also, the fact that there was only a main or interaction effect on the recipients’ attitude toward the company, but not toward th e message or the issue, may implicate that a causal relationship am ong these three independent variable s. Future research may figure out these causal relationships and the effect sizes of these variables using structural equation modeling and multiple regression analysis. For a laboratory experiment, one of the wa ys to secure extern al validity is to replicate the experiment in different settings with different subjects (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Th erefore, it is recommended that this experiment be replicated with other subjects. Also, as this study used a printed version of Weblogs, it is recommended that future experiment be c onducted with real onlin e Weblogs. Further, it would be worthwhile to split the experiment al groups into on-line and off-line groups, and compare the results if there is an y difference between these two groups. In addition, in this study, i ndividual Weblogs were used as a stimulus material. However, there are many companies that opera te an official or se veral company Weblogs. In this case, the perceived trustworthine ss and goodwill of the company might have a

PAGE 102

90 more direct impact on the recipients’ at titude toward the company. Also, the characteristics of company We blogs may be more official than individual Weblogs, and therefore, may have more constraints in e xpression. Future research may compare the effect of the individual Webl ogs with the company Weblogs. Also, there are other variables that may affect the results of public relations messages. Future research should consider th ese variables in their experimental design. For instance, there are other variables that would be intriguing subjects for future message sidedness research, such as involveme nt, argument quality, initial attitude, and order effect of message sidedness. Argument Quality Argument quality was not considered in this experiment. However, Priester and Petty (2003) argued that argument quality affects the effectiveness of source trustworthiness. They reported that a strong argument from a low trustworthiness source is more effective than a weak argument from a high trustworthiness source, or almost or equally effective as strong argument from a high trustworthiness source, especially because “an endorser of low trustworthine ss can lead to greater scrutiny of productrelated information than an endorse r of high trustworthiness” (p. 417). In this experiment, based on the optimal arousal theory, only the amount of positive and negative information was controlled. However, with the same amount of information, the tone of argument quality may act differently. Also, argument quality may be interacted with source goodwill and/or message sidedness. Depending on the situation, it may be possible that a weak argument is more effective than a strong argument if a message is from a compa ny with high goodwill. Probably, a refutational

PAGE 103

91 two-sided message with a strong argument from a company with low goodwill may be more effective than a refutational two-si ded message with a weak argument from a company with high goodwill. These infe rences are yet to be tested. Initial Attitude Existing research reported that initial attitu de is one of the major variables that affect persuasion (Cowley & Hoye r, 1994; Hovland et al., 1949). Hovland et al. (1949) reported that a one-sided message is more effective to an audience who had a prior favorable attitude whereas a two-sided message was more effective to the audience who had a prior nega tive attitude toward an issue. Cowley and Hoyer (1994) argued that even though audiences have a posit ive prior attitude, two-sided messages could be effective if the audience is already aware of the negative information on the subject. In this study, initial attitude or prior attitude was not included as an independent variable because a majority of the subjects ( 92.3%) answered that they never heard of or were not sure of “Carrefour” name. Instead, pr ior attitude toward Wal-Mart was tested as a covariate. The post hot test result showed that there was a main effect of initial attitude on the recipients’ attitude toward the message ( F =5.80, p <.05), toward the issue ( F =4.26, p <.05), and probably, toward the company (F=3.65, p =.06). However, the subjects may have other types of initial attitudes towa rd environmental and economic issues, or perceptions of a typical supers tore or superstores in general, that might have affected their responses.

PAGE 104

92 Order Effect of Message Sidedness There may be order effects of message sidedness or argument (Igou & Bless, 2003; Jackson & Allen, 1987). In this study, the main message described might be regarded as positive toward the issue, a nd message sidedness was only manipulated by using posters (replies) to the main massage or to other posters (Fi gure 8). However, the main message itself may be manipulated as show n in Figure 9. In this case, there could be five types of message sidedness, i.e., (1) a one-sided message, (2 ) a nonrefutational twosided message with poster manipulations, (3 ) a refutational two-sided message with poster manipulations, (4) a non-refutational tw o-sided message with manipulation of both main message and posters, and (5) a refutati onal two-sided message with manipulation of both main message and posters. Figure 10. Manipulation of message sidedness with posters in this study One-sided Refutational two-sided Nonrefutational two-sided Main message Positive posters Negative posters Refutation of negative posters Figure 10. Manipulation of message sidedness with posters in this study One-sided Refutational two-sided Nonrefutational two-sided Main message Positive posters Negative posters Refutation of negative posters

PAGE 105

93 Figure 11. Recommended manipulation of message sidedness with main message for future study Refutational two-sided Nonrefutational two-sided Positive main message Positive posters Negative posters Refutation of negative posters Negative main message Refutation of negative main message Figure 11. Recommended manipulation of message sidedness with main message for future study Refutational two-sided Nonrefutational two-sided Positive main message Positive posters Negative posters Refutation of negative posters Negative main message Refutation of negative main message Conclusion As reported in several research studies, the results of this research on message sidedness did not consistently support the su periority of any specific type of message sidedness to others (Cowley & Hoyer, 1994; Lang et al, 1999; O’Keefe, 1999). However, it does not mean that there is no effect of message sidedness. On the contrary, it may indicate that more research on message sidedness is needed. Future public relations scholars should be able to identify a speci fic situation in which the type of message sidedness would be more effective than other types of message sidedness when interacted with other variables. Unique Contributions This study has several unique and intr iguing contributions to public relations research as well as to public relations practice as follows: New approach to message sidedness fr om a public relations perspective This study attempts to advance public relati ons research by analyzing the effect of message sidedness and source credibility from a public relations perspective, in particular,

PAGE 106

94 the interaction effect of message sidedness with two ma jor constructs of source credibility, source trustworthiness and source goodwill. Even though message sidedness and source credibility were major topics fo r communication research over a half century, these studies were mostly conducted in psyc hology, marketing, and a dvertising research. This current study applies thes e important communication con cepts to the study of public relations. In particular, two additional findings, (a) the effect of message sidedness and source goodwill moderated by involvement condition, (b) involvement as an important factor that affected the reci pients’ attitude toward the comp any or the message, interacted with message sidedness, source trustworthin ess, and source goodwill, could provide theoretical and practical impli cations for public relations re search as well as for public relations practice. For public relations scholarship, the result of this study may be adapted to existing public relations theories such as situational th eory (Grunig, 1989; Grunig & Hunt, 1984) or contingency theory (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997) in developing or maintaining more effective relatio nships with target publics. For example, as a representative norma tive theory, situati onal theory divided publics into (a) active publics (b) aware publics (c) latent publics and (d) nonpublics based on problem recognition, c onstraint recognition, and invo lvement about an issue, and argued that by the degree of involvemen t and recognition of issues/constraints, publics can be switched to different publics. This study would add a new perspective on how perceived goodwill of a company would affe ct the credibility of a public relations message from it, and how message sidedness would work differently for each public.

PAGE 107

95 Contingency theory explains how a public relations message should be developed depending on situation, moving on pure advoc acy and pure accommodation continuum. This study would add insight on this theo ry by suggesting which type of message sidedness would work better than other t ype of message sidedness, depending on the perceived goodwill of the company by target publics. Rediscovery of source goodwill as a base for public relations This study highlights why it is important fo r a corporation to be perceived as a responsible corporate citizen by its target publics in its community, and how and when a company may use various types of message si dedness to make a public relations message more effective, depending on its perceive d goodwill and trustworthiness among target publics. In particular, goodwill measurement provide s criteria for the evaluation of public relations messages, as well as providing a theoretical base for undertaking public relations programs, specifically, corporat e social responsibil ity (CSR) programs, reputation management, and issues and crisis communications. One of the weaknesses of public relations messages as well as public rela tions programs is that it is difficult to identify appropriate variables for the effectiveness of these public relations messages or the results of the programs. Th is study shows that the more a company is perceived as having goodwill toward the community or th e society to which it belongs, the more effective the public relations message from this company on public relations issues. Weblog as a new public relations tool Finally, this study acknowledges the use of modern public relations tools by utilizing a Weblog in the experiment. In the Internet era, traditional mass media such as

PAGE 108

96 newspapers and television are losing their effectiveness while the Internet is gaining more popularity as an alternative mass media. One of the most distinctive features of the Internet is that it could work both as a ma ss media and a public relations tool. In actuality, more and more corporations are using Weblogs as their public relations tools (Barbaro, 2006). Certainly, it is the time that public relations should not only be dependent on traditional mass media, but should find and de velop relevant new public relations tools that can reach target publics or stakeh olders directly and more effectively.

PAGE 109

97 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTAL MANIPULATION

PAGE 110

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Monday, March 13, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 98

PAGE 111

More….. At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope Carrefour will creat e more internships and part-time jobs, as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s hi gh reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the naturefriendly disposal system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags th at are not biodegradable. In addition, Carrefour was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, c onflict with employees or any environmental issues. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com 99 Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG

PAGE 112

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Tuesday, March 14, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. One-sided x High goodwill x Low trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 100

PAGE 113

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope Carrefour will creat e more internships and part-time jobs, as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s hi gh reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the naturefriendly disposal system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags th at are not biodegradable. However, Carrefour was recently investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (genetically modified) foods without identifying them. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 101

PAGE 114

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Wednesday, March 15, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. One-sided x Low goodwill x High trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 102

PAGE 115

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs, as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, c onflict with employees or any environmental issues. However, Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it is in Europe. Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only global firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first superstore that provided non-biodegradable disposable plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com 103 Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG

PAGE 116

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Thursday, March 16, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. One-sided x Low goodwill x Low trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 104

PAGE 117

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs, as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it is in Europe Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only glob al firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first superstore that provided non-biodegradable disposable plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Recently, Carrefour was investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (gen etically modified) foods without identifying them. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 105

PAGE 118

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Friday, March 17, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Nonrefutational two-si ded x High goodwill x High trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 106

PAGE 119

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definite ly will have to suffer from dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s hi gh reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the naturefriendly disposal system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags th at are not biodegradable. In addition, Carrefour was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, c onflict with employees or any environmental issues. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 107

PAGE 120

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Monday, March 20, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Nonrefutational twosided x High goodwill x Low trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 108

PAGE 121

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definite ly will have to suffer from dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s hi gh reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the naturefriendly disposal system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags th at are not biodegradable. However, Carrefour was recently investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (genetically modified) foods without identifying them. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 109

PAGE 122

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Tuesday, March 21, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Nonrefutational two-sided x Lo w goodwill x High trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 110

PAGE 123

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definite ly will have to suffer from dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, c onflict with employees or any environmental issues. However, Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it is in Europe. Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only global firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first superstore that provided non-biodegradable disposable plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 111

PAGE 124

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Wednesday, March 22, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Nonrefutational two-sided x Lo w goodwill x Low trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 112

PAGE 125

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarship opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definite ly will have to suffer from dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it is in Europe Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only glob al firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first superstore that provided non-biodegradable disposable plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Recently, Carrefour was investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (gen etically modified) foods without identifying them. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 113

PAGE 126

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Thursday, March 23, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Refutational two-sided x High goodwill x High trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 114

PAGE 127

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarshi p opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? At 11:15PM Carrefour said… I don’t think we have enough superstores in Gainesville. Carrefour is not a small French company, but a global company that has a lot of expertise and offices. Why not allow them to come into Gainesville, so that consumers in Gainesville can have better choices? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definitely will have to suffer fr om dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… At 10:45PM Lee_hope said… I heard that the construction will take approximately six months. It ’s inevitable that some Gainesville citizens will suffer from dust and noise to a certain extent. But I’m sure some contractors will minimize these inconveniences by working at night and during the weekend. Also, cons idering the positive effects on the Gainesville’s economy, and on the quality life of Gainesville citizens, I think it is worthwhile to grin and bear it. Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! At 08:33 AM Carrefour said… The construction will have very little effect on the environment of Gainesville as it will take place at the existing commercial area where empty and old warehouses have been left unused. On the contrary, after completion, the area will be a place where people can enjoy shopping with their family and friends. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s high reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the nature-friendly disposal system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags that are not biodegradable. In addition, Carrefour was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, conflict with employees or any environmental issues. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 115

PAGE 128

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Friday, March 24, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Refutational two-sided x High good will x Low trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 116

PAGE 129

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarshi p opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? At 11:15PM Carrefour said… I don’t think we have enough superstores in Gainesville. Carrefour is not a small French company, but a global company that has a lot of expertise and offices. Why not allow them to come into Gainesville, so that consumers in Gainesville can have better choices? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definitely will have to suffer fr om dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… At 10:45PM Lee_hope said… I heard that the construction will take approximately six months. It ’s inevitable that some Gainesville citizens will suffer from dust and noise to a certain extent. But I’m sure some contractors will minimize these inconveniences by working at night and during the weekend. Also, cons idering the positive effects on the Gainesville’s economy, and on the quality life of Gainesville citizens, I think it is worthwhile to grin and bear it. Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! At 08:33 AM Carrefour said… The construction will have very little effect on the environment of Gainesville as it will take place at the existing commercial area where empty and old warehouses have been left unused. On the contrary, after completion, the area will be a place where people can enjoy shopping with their family and friends. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was selected as the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index since 2000. In particular, Carrefour’s high reputation lies in its sustained support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence, Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the naturefriendly disposal system Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide disposable plastic bags that are not biodegradable. However, Carrefour was recently investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (genetically modified) foods without identifying them. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 117

PAGE 130

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Monday, March 27, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Refutational two-sided x Low goodwill x High trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 118

PAGE 131

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarshi p opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? At 11:15PM Carrefour said… I don’t think we have enough superstores in Gainesville. Carrefour is not a small French company, but a global company that has a lot of expertise and offices. Why not allow them to come into Gainesville, so that consumers in Gainesville can have better choices? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definitely will have to suffer fr om dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… At 10:45PM Lee_hope said… I heard that the construction will take approximately six months. It ’s inevitable that some Gainesville citizens will suffer from dust and noise to a certain extent. But I’m sure some contractors will minimize these inconveniences by working at night and during the weekend. Also, cons idering the positive effects on the Gainesville’s economy, and on the quality life of Gainesville citizens, I think it is worthwhile to grin and bear it. Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! At 08:33 AM Carrefour said… The construction will have very little effect on the environment of Gainesville as it will take place at the existing commercial area where empty and old warehouses have been left unused. On the contrary, after completion, the area will be a place where people can enjoy shopping with their family and friends. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. This company was elected as the “Most Honest Seller” by Consumer Report as well as the “Most Respected Buyer” by the Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in 1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, conflict with employees or any environmental issues. However, Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it is in Europe. Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social res ponsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only global firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first superstore that provided non-biodegradable disposable plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 119

PAGE 132

University of FloridaWill Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Tuesday, March 28, 2006 Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan last week to the City of Gainesville’s Department of Construction and Development. The projected amount of the inve stment is believed to approach $34 million. In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living in the surrounding area. The report also projected that the price of real estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over the next five years. Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville. So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with Carrefour coming to Gainesville? Comments: At 10:54 AM Gogator386 said… I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy of Gainesville. Post a Comment More….. Name: Lauren A. Holmes Location: Gainesville, FL Lauren A. Holmes is a business analyst, who regularly contributes articles to the Gainesville Sun. She is a member of the Advisory Counsel to the City of Gainesvill e. She is an alumna of the University of Florida with journalism major, and has lived in Ga inesville since 1980. She is a mother of three boys and one girl, and has been operating this weblog since 2004. About Me lholmes@holmes.com Previous Posts March of Mansions in historic districts ... Comments on GRU management: Are they really good... Bloggers More Transparent Than Mainstream Media: L... Why Announce?: Here's something that has puzzled m... Where Am I?: Light blogging only over the next cou... This is Why Nobody Trusts the Pharmaceutical Indus... Where's the Brief?: Okay, I guess I can understand... More….. Links Gainesville Sun official website. University of Florida Gainesville entertainment GRU official website More….. Refutational two-sided x Low good will x Low trustworthiness Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 120

PAGE 133

At 8:07 PM Gimmeajob said… I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as scholarshi p opportunities for UF students Post a Comment At 10:10 PM Debbie0202 said… Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren’t American companies gonna have too much foreign competition? At 11:15PM Carrefour said… I don’t think we have enough superstores in Gainesville. Carrefour is not a small French company, but a global company that has a lot of expertise and offices. Why not allow them to come into Gainesville, so that consumers in Gainesville can have better choices? Post a Comment At 11:23 PM Sunny1128 said… I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with Wal-Mart and Publix. Post a Comment At 01:17 AM Tomorrow said… How long will it take to complete the construction? We definitely will have to suffer fr om dust, noise and even traffic congestions during the construction period. I don’t want these inconveniences… At 10:45PM Lee_hope said… I heard that the construction will take approximately six months. It ’s inevitable that some Gainesville citizens will suffer from dust and noise to a certain extent. But I’m sure some contractors will minimize these inconveniences by working at night and during the weekend. Also, cons idering the positive effects on the Gainesville’s economy, and on the quality life of Gainesville citizens, I think it is worthwhile to grin and bear it. Post a Comment At 08:33 AM Green4life said… Look at the Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please! Stop destroying our environment! At 08:33 AM Carrefour said… The construction will have very little effect on the environment of Gainesville as it will take place at the existing commercial area where empty and old warehouses have been left unused. On the contrary, after completion, the area will be a place where people can enjoy shopping with their family and friends. Post a Comment Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore chains, having more than 11,000 stores in over 32 countries, but is yet to open a store in America. Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it is in Eur ope. Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only global firm that is not included in the “World’s 100 Most Respected Corporations” by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour is the first s uperstore that provided non-biodegradable dispos able plastic bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment. Recently, Carrefour was investigated by the French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (genetically modified) foods without identifying them. Who is Carrefour? About Me lholmes@holmes.com Will Carrefour Bring Opport unities to Gainesville? Let’s talk about issues WELCOME TO LAUREN’S WEBLOG 121

PAGE 134

98 APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT

PAGE 135

Questionnaire Based on the message and the supplemental info rmation from Lauren Holmes’ weblog, please answer the following questions. Please circle th e number that best describes your thoughts or feelings. You should circle one number from each and every line. Q1. Had you ever heard of the Carrefour name before you read this weblog ? (select one) Never 1 Not sure 2 Heard of the name before 3 Know the company very well 4 Q2. How supportive would you be of Carrefour, if it moves to Gainesville? Not at all supportive -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Totally supportive Q3. How interested would you be in working for Carrefour as a full-time employee, if it moves to Gainesville? Not at all interested -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very interested Q4. How interested would you be in doing an internship or working for Carrefour as a part-time employee, if it moves to Gainesville? Not at all interested -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very interested Q5. How likely would you be to buy products from Carrefour, if it is opened in Gainesville? Not at all likely -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very likely Q6. I think that the messages in this weblog are ________. undependable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 dependable dishonest -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 honest unreliable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 reliable insincere -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 sincere untrustworthy -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 trustworthy Q7. I think that allowing Carrefour to build a distri bution center and superstore in Gainesville is ______________ to the community negative -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 positive harmful -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 beneficial unfavorable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 favorable bad -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 good unimportant -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 important irrelevant -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 relevant not needed -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 needed 123 110

PAGE 136

Q8. I think that allowing Carrefour to build a distribu tion center and superstore in Gainesville (is) ______________ to me important -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 unimportant of no concern -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 of concern irrelevant -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 relevant means a lot -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 means nothing useless -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 useful valuable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 worthless trivial -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 fundamental beneficial -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 not beneficial matters -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 doesn’t matter uninterested -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 interested significant -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 insignificant vital -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 superfluous boring -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 interesting unexciting -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 exciting appealing -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 unappealing mundane -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 fascinating essential -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 nonessential undesirable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 desirable wanted -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 unwanted not needd -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 needed Q9. I think that Carrefour is a(n) ____________ company. undependable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 dependable dishonest -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 honest unreliable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 reliable insincere -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 sincere untrustworthy -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 trustworthy Q10. Please select the items that describe you best or fill in the blank. Gender Male [ ] Female [ ] Age [ ] Major Grade year Freshman [ ] Sophomore [ ] Junior [ ] Senior [ ] Ethnicity White-Non Hispanic [ ] Hispanic American [ ] African American [ ] Native American [ ] Asian/Pacific Islander [ ] Others (Please specify) [ ] 124

PAGE 137

Q11. What is your political ideology? Liberal -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Conservative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q12. I think that this weblog presents primarily a ______________ argument about Carrefour. one-sided -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 two-sided Q13. I think the posters to this weblog _____________ refute or counter the arguments here about Carrefour. ineffectively -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 effectively Q14. I think that the company Carrefour itself is _______________. dishonest -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 honest untrustworthy -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 trustworthy dishonorable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 honorable immoral -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 moral unethical -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 ethical Q15. I think that Carrefour _________________________________________. does not care about our local community -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 cares about our local community does not have the local community’s interests at heart -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 has the local community’s interest at heart is self-centered -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 is not self-centered is unconcerned with local community -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 is concerned with local community is insensitive -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 is sensitive is not understanding -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 is understanding ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Up to now, you were asked about Carrefour. Now, please answer the questions on Wal-Mart. Q16. I think that Wal-Mart is a(n) ____________ company. undependable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 dependable dishonest -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 honest unreliable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 reliable insincere -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 sincere untrustworthy -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 trustworthy 125

PAGE 138

Q17 If you have to explain about Carrefour to your friend, how would you describe it? What are your thoughts about Carrefour? Please write your thoughts freely. 126

PAGE 139

99 REFERENCE LIST Ajzen, L., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes an d predicting social behavior Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Allen, M. (1991 Fall). Meta-analysis compari ng the persuasiveness of one-sided and twosided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55 390-404. Allen, M. (1994). The persuasive effects of one and two sided messages. In M. Allen, & R. Preiss (Ed.), Prospects and precautions in the use of meta-analysis (pp. 101125). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. Allen, M., & Reynolds, R. (1989). The elaboration likeliho od model and the sleeper effect: Time after time after time. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Allen, M., & Stiff, J. B. (1989). Testi ng three models for the sleeper effect. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53 411-426. Anderson, N. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78 171-206. Aristotle. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle (L. Cooper, Trans.). New York: AppeltonCentury Crofts. Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Barbaro, M. (2006). Wal-Mart enlists blogge rs in P.R. campaign Retrieved 05/25/2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?ex=z12993876 00zzzzz&en=ae7585374bf280b9&ei=5088 Behind the PRSA “Credibi lity Index.” (1999 Fall). The Public Relations Strategist: Issues and Trends that affect Management, 5 12-23. Berlo, D. K., Lemaert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33 563-576. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology New York: Meredith. Bither, S., Dolich, R., & Nell, E. (1971). The application of attitude immunization techniques in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February), 56-61. 127

PAGE 140

100 Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H.-P., & Seibler, F. (2003). When small means comfortable: Relations between product attributes in tow-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (4), 454-463. Browers, J. W., & Phillips, W. A. (1967, A ugust). A note on the generality of source credibility scales. Speech Psychology, 37 1387-1397. Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationships to behavior. In R. Petty, T, Ostrom, & T. Brock (Ed.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Callison, C. (2001). Do PR practitioners have a PR problem? The eff ect of associating a source with public relations and client-negative news on audience perception of credibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (3), 219-234. Campbell, D. & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-ex perimental designs for research Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. Cancel, A., Cameron, G., Sallot, L., & Mi trook, M. (1997). It depends: A contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9 (1), 31-63. Chan, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-sys tematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press. Chu, G. C. (1967). Prior familiarity, percei ved bias, and one-sided versus two-sided communications. Journal of Experiment al Social Psychology, 3 243-254. Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual review of psychology, 32 357-404. Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26 363-380. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framew ork for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 561-574. Cutlip, S., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1994). Effective public relations Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Edelman (2006). 2006 Edelman trust barometer: Summary of findings New York: Edelman. Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-si ded versus two-sided message appeals for new brand introduction. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 460-465. 128

PAGE 141

101 Five Star Support (2006). Glossary of Internet and computer terms Retrieved 05/25/2006, from http://www.5starsupport.com/glossary/w.htm Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (1999). Persuasion, social influen ce, and compliance gaining Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1978). The relative effectiveness of one-sided and twosided communications for mass transit advertising. In H. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in consume research (pp. 12-18). Ann Arbor: Associ ation for Consumer Research. Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1982). The impact of edu cation on the relative effectiveness of one-sided and two-side d communications. In B. Walker (Ed.), An assessment of marketing thought and practice (pp. 30-33). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1987). Compar ative analysis of the relative effectiveness of oneand two-sided communica tion for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16 18-25. Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1991). Comparativ e advertising effectiveness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 38-45. Greenberg, B., & Miller, G. (1966). The eff ect of low-credible sources on message acceptance. Speech Monograph, 33 127-136. Greenwald, A. G., & Leavitt, C. (1984). A udience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 581-592. Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital. Journalism Quarterly, 55 109-118. Grunig, J. E. (1987). Research in the st rategic management of public relations. International Public Relations Review, 11 (Autumn), 28-32. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra club study shows who become activists. Public Relations Review, 15 (3), 3-24. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Mo ss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Ed.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3-48). London: International Thomson Business Press. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Singapore: Pearson Education Inc. 129

PAGE 142

102 Hale, J., Mongeau, P., & Thomas, R. (1991 Fall). Cognitive processing of oneand twosided persuasive messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55 380389. Hallahan, K. (2000). Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public relations. Public Relations Review, 26 (4), 499-515. Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues ac tivation and response: An issues process model. Journal of Public Re lations Research, 13 (1), 27-59. Hass, R. G., & Linder, D. E. (1972). Counter argument availability and the effects of message structure on persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 23 219-233. Hauben, R. (2004). Pioneer: Michael Hauben Retrieved 10/15, 2004, from http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/IEC/hauben.html Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1990). Involvemen t: A key variable in people's reaction to public policy issues. In J. E. Grunig, & L. A. Grunig (Ed.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1991). Effects of involvement on reactions to sources of messages and to message clusters. Journal of Public Relations Research, 3 (1-4), 179-193. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of in terpersonal relations New York: Wiley. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1990). Source expertise, time of s ource identification, and involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing perspective. Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 30-39. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). Th e influence of sour ce credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 635-650. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experimentation on mass communication Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and conversational rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 91-99. Internet World Stats (2006). Internet usage statis tics – the big picture Retrieved 05/25, 2006, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm 130

PAGE 143

103 Jackson, S., & Allen, M. (1987, May). Meta-analysis of the eff ectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Montreal. Janis, I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousa l on attitude change: Recent development in theory and experimental rese arch. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press. John, G., & Roedder, D. (1981). Reliability asse ssment coefficients al pha and beta. In K. Bernhardt et al. (eds). The changing marketing environment: New theories and applications (pp. 154-157). Chicago, IL.; Am erican Marketin g Association. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Eff ects of involvement on persuasion: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106 290-314. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (3), 375-384. Johnston, D. C. (2001, February 14). Dozens of ri ch Americans join in fight to retain the estate tax New York Times, p. A1. Jones, E., & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press. Kamins, M., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-side d versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source der ogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 29-39. Kamins, M., & Marks, L. (1987). Advertisi ng puffery: The impact of using two-sided claims on product attitude and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising, 16 (4), 6-15. Kamins, M., Brand, M., Joeke, S., & Moe, J. (1989). Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on a dvertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), 4-10. Kanungo, R. N., & Johar, J. S. (1975). Effects of slogans and human model characteristics in product advertisements. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 7 127-138. Kelley, H. E. (1973). A test of the relati onship between trait a nd causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28 (February), 107-128. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of te levision advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356. Laczniak, R., Muehling, D., & Grossbart, S. (1989). Manipulating message involvement in advertising research. Journal of Advertising, 18 (November), 28-38. 131

PAGE 144

104 Lang, B., Lee, C. K., & Zwick, R. (1999). Message sidedness at the brand and product from levels: Overcoming the shor tcomings of two-sided messages? Advances in consumer research, 26 485-490. Levin, K. D., Johnson, B. T., & Turco, R. M. (1997). [The effects of argument quality on persuasion: A meta-analysis], Unpublished raw data : Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Levin, K. D., Nichols, D. R., & Johnson, B. T. (2000). Involvement and persuasion: Attitude functions for the motivated proce ssor. In G. R. Maio, & Olson, J. M. (Ed.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin, B., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2003). C onclusion explicitness in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32 (4), 57-65. McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 310-321. McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monograph, 33 65-72. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication monographs, 66 (March), 90-103 McGuire, W., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of va rious types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 327-337. McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24 184-197. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality ans susceptib ility to social influence. In E. Borgatta, & W. Lambert (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 11301187). Chicago: Rand McNally. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitude s and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House. Morris, M. (1996). The Internet as Mass Medium. Journal of Communication, 46 (1), 3950. Newsom, D. A., Ramsey, S. A.,& Carre ll, B. J. (1993). Chameleon chasing II:Areplication. Public Relations Review, 19 33-47. 132

PAGE 145

105 Nunnally, J. (1987). Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill. Ohanian, R. (1983). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustwor thiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 39-52. O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research Newbury Park, CA: Sage. O'Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle oppos ing arguments in persuasive message: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 209-249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pechmann, C. (1990). How do consumer inferen ces moderate the effectiveness of twosided messages? In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 337-341). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Pechmann, C. (1992). Predicting when two-side d ads will be more effective than onesided ads: The role of correlati onal and correspondent inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 441-453. Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Commu nication and attitudes in the 21 century New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue i nvolvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advences in consumer research (Vol. 8, pp. 20-24). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central a nd peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46 69-81. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change New York: Springer-Verlag. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 41 847-855. Petty, R. E., Kasmer, J. A., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1987). Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to Stiff's critique of the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Monographs, 54 233-249. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Ed.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 133

PAGE 146

106 PR deserves its low credibility marks. (1999, August). O’Dwyer’s PR Service Report, 6 Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion New York: W. H. Freeman. Priester, J., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The in fluence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strengt h, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 408-421. PRSA [Public Relations Society of America] Task Force (1988). Public Relations body of knowledge task force report. Public Relations Review, 14 (1), 3-39. Robertson, T. S. (1976). Low-commitment consumer behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, 16 19-27. Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspective on invol vement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin, & M. Voigt (Ed.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 243-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sawyer, A., & Howard, D. (1991). Effects of omitting conclusions in advertisements to involved and uninvolved audiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 467-474. Sawyer, A. G. (1973). The effects of repeti tion of refutational and supportive advertising appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 23-33. Settle, R., & Golden, L. (1974). Attribu tion theory and advertiser credibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May) 181-185. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment New Haven: Yale University Press. Sherif, M., Sherif, C., & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Smith, M. (1984). Persuasion and human action Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Attribut ional processes and effects in promotional situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 5 149-158. Sorrentino, R. M., Bobocel, D. R., Gitta, M. Z., & Olson, J. M. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: Individual di fferences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 55 357-371. Stayman, D., Hoyer, W., & Leon, R. (1987). Attribute importance in discounting product features in advertising. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association's Summer Educator's Conference, Toronto. 134

PAGE 147

107 Swanson, L. A. (1987). The persuasive effect of volunteering negative information in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 6 237-248. Swinyard, W. R. (1981). The interaction between comparative advertising and copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (May), 175-186. Szybillo, G. J., & Heslin, R. (1973). Resistan ce to persuasion: Inoculation theory in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November), 396-403. Tormala, Z., & Petty, R. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 427-442. Trifts, V., & Haubl, G. (2003). Information av ailability and consumer preference: Can online retailers benefit from providing access to competitor price information? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (1&2), 149-159. Ward, C. D., & McGinnies, E. (1974). The persua sive effects of early and late mention of credible and noncredible sources. Journal of Psychology, 86 (1), 17-23. Wimmer, R., & Dominkck, J. (2005). Mass media research: An introduction (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59 329-349. Woodside, A. G., & Davenport, J. W. (1974). Effects of price and salesman expertise on customer purchasing behavior. Journal of Business, 49 51-59. Wright, P. L. (1980, January). Message-e voked thoughts: Persuasion research using thought verbalizations. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 86-94. Yoon, K., Kim, C., & Kim, M. (1998). A cro ss-cultural comparison of the effects of source credibility on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Mass Communication & Society, 1 (3/4), 153-173. 135

PAGE 148

108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jangyul Robert Kim will join the faculty of the Department of Journalism and Technical Communication at Colorado State University in August 2006. He will teach public relations and health communication. His research interests in clude public relations and persuasion theory, interna tional public relations, crisis and issues communications, reputation management, and public health cam paigns. He is the first Korean who was accredited by the Public Relations Society of America. Prior to pursuing his academic career, he worked as a public relations consultant providing services to clients, including multinational firms in consumer, healthcare, corporate, finance, and information technology, as well as nonprofit organizati ons including government and non government organizations. 136


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015404/00001

Material Information

Title: An Experimental test of public relations messages : sidedness, and corporate goodwill and trustworthiness
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Kim, Jangyul Robert ( Dissertant )
Ferguson, Mary Ann ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2006

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Journalism and Communications thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Journalism and Communications

Notes

Abstract: This study examined the effect of message sidedness in public relations messages and its interaction effect with source credibility, in particular, with source trustworthiness and source goodwill, on the message recipients' attitude toward the message, the public relations issue, and toward the company. Specifically, this study attempted to use a new public relations message tool, weblogs, to situate this communication paradigm in the Internet era. A 3 x 2 x 2 (message sidedness: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutational two-sided vs. refutational two-sided) x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source goodwill: high vs. low) experimental design was used. A MANOVA was used to analyze these main and interaction effects. Results indicate that there was no three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness and a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the recipients' attitude toward the company. However, additional test results showed that there were two three-way interactions: (a) among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients' attitude toward the company, and (b) among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the message. These findings provide a theoretical and practical background for public relations activities. In particular, this study highlights why it is important for a corporation to be perceived as a responsible corporate citizen by its target publics in its community, and how and when a company may use various types of message sidedness to make a public relations message more effective, depending on their perceived goodwill and trustworthiness among target publics. Finally, this study acknowledged the use of modern public relations tools by utilizing a weblog in the experiment. Certainly, in the Internet era, public relations should not only be dependent on traditional mass media, but should find and develop relevant new public relations tools that can reach target publics or stakeholders directly and more effectively.
Subject: credibility, experiment, goodwill, Internet, involvement, message, public, relations, sidedness, source, trustworthiness, weblog
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 148 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2006.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003614756
System ID: UFE0015404:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015404/00001

Material Information

Title: An Experimental test of public relations messages : sidedness, and corporate goodwill and trustworthiness
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Kim, Jangyul Robert ( Dissertant )
Ferguson, Mary Ann ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2006

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Journalism and Communications thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Journalism and Communications

Notes

Abstract: This study examined the effect of message sidedness in public relations messages and its interaction effect with source credibility, in particular, with source trustworthiness and source goodwill, on the message recipients' attitude toward the message, the public relations issue, and toward the company. Specifically, this study attempted to use a new public relations message tool, weblogs, to situate this communication paradigm in the Internet era. A 3 x 2 x 2 (message sidedness: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutational two-sided vs. refutational two-sided) x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source goodwill: high vs. low) experimental design was used. A MANOVA was used to analyze these main and interaction effects. Results indicate that there was no three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness and a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the recipients' attitude toward the company. However, additional test results showed that there were two three-way interactions: (a) among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients' attitude toward the company, and (b) among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward the message. These findings provide a theoretical and practical background for public relations activities. In particular, this study highlights why it is important for a corporation to be perceived as a responsible corporate citizen by its target publics in its community, and how and when a company may use various types of message sidedness to make a public relations message more effective, depending on their perceived goodwill and trustworthiness among target publics. Finally, this study acknowledged the use of modern public relations tools by utilizing a weblog in the experiment. Certainly, in the Internet era, public relations should not only be dependent on traditional mass media, but should find and develop relevant new public relations tools that can reach target publics or stakeholders directly and more effectively.
Subject: credibility, experiment, goodwill, Internet, involvement, message, public, relations, sidedness, source, trustworthiness, weblog
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 148 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2006.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003614756
System ID: UFE0015404:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS MES SAGES:
SIDEDNESS, AND CORPORATE GOODWILL AND TRUSTWORTHINESS













By

JANGYUL ROBERT KIM


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

























Copyright 2006

By

Jangyul Robert Kim



























This work is dedicated to Eunsug Kwag, Jeewon Kim and Jaeheon Kim for their love,
support, sacrifice, and steadfast trust that I could accomplish this task. They have made it
possible to fulfill a dream that seemed impossible.















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is not me to be honored as there would have been no "Dr. Kim" without the

support of my committee members. Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson was an incredible

chairperson who mentored me throughout the whole process of my student life, from

conceptualization of the research topic to writing, defense, and completion of the final

dissertation. Dr. Spiro Kiousis inspired me an excellent research idea so that this research

can be a bridge that connects persuasion theories to the public relations research area. Dr.

Chang-Hoan Cho convinced me to conduct a complicated experiment to actualize the

envisaged research idea in a quantifiable manner. Dr. Bhramar Mukherj ee increased the

reliability and validity of this dissertation by complementing statistical aspects.

I want to thank Dr. Debbie Treise, Dr. Kathleen Kelly, Dr. Juan-Carlos Molleda,

and Dr. Marilyn Roberts, and my colleague, Trent Seltzer, for their valuable advice and

encouragement. In particular, Jody Hedge helped me complete this task on time. Also, I

give my thanks to Jay Park, CEO, and all staff members of KorCom Porter Novelli in

Korea, for their trust and support.

Last but not least, I want to thank my life-time partner, my beloved wife, Eunsug

Kwag, my daughter, Jeewon, and my son, Jaeheon. They are the most precious stones to

me than anything else. My mother, brother and sisters also supported me with constant

prayer. Without their unconditional belief, wholehearted support, and encouragement, it

would be impossible to complete the journey. Most of all, I thank and glorify God, who

knows the way that I take, tests me, and wishes that I will come forth as gold.


















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............... ...........iv...................


LIST OF TABLES ............... ...........ix............. ....


LIST OF FIGURES ............... ...........x.............. ....


AB STRAC T ......__.............. ...........xi... ....


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ......... .............. .............. 1.....


Message Sidedness ............... ...........1...................
Source Credibility ............... ...........2...................


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............... ............... 4......... ....


Message Sidedness ............... ............... 4...............
Definition................. ............ 4
Types of Message Sidedness ............... ............. ............ ..... 4
Studies that Support Each Topic of Message Sidedness
from Different Perspectives ............... ............. ................. 5
Studies that show a two-sided message is more effective ............ ..... ...... 6
Studies that show a one-sided message is more effective ............. ..... ...... 6
Studies that show a nonrefutational two-sided message is more effective...... 7
Studies that show a refutational two-sided message is more effective.......... 7
Moderators of Message Sidedness ............... ......... .............. 8
Initial attitude ............... ............... 8...............
Level of education. ......... ............. ......... ..........9
Availability of counterarguments ............... ......... ............. 9
Order of argument ............... ............... 10......... ....
Other Moderators........................ 11
Message relatedness ............... ........... .. ...... .. ... ........ 11
Amount of negative information (degree of refutation) ............. .... ....... 12
Exposure time ............... ........... .. ... ........... 12....
Explanation for Conflicting Results ............... .......... ............ 13
Related or Supporting Theories ............... ......... .............. 14












Inoculation theory ............... ............... 14..............
Attribution theory ............... ............. ..... .......... 15....
Optimal arousal theory / fear appeal studies ............... ............... ..17
Discounting hypothesis ........._.... ......._.. ......... ...... 18
Source Credibility ................ ... ........... 19........... ......
Elements of Source Credibility ............... .......... .............. 19
Effects of Source Credibility ................ ............. ......... .. ....... .... 21
Theoretical Background and Relationship with Message Sidedness Research... 22
Source Credibility in Public Relations ............... ..................... 23
Source Trustworthiness and Source Goodwill ............... ............. ... 24
Source trustworthiness ............... ............................ 25
Source goodwill ............... ............... 26..............
Hypotheses ............... ............28.. ...............


3 METHODOLOGY ............... ............... 32..............


Pretest ............... ............... 32..............
Participants ............... ............... 32..............
Stimuli ............... ............... 33..............
Procedure. ............... ............... 34..............

Independent Variables ............... ............... 34..............
Message Sidedness ............... ............... 34..............
Supporting one-sided message ............... .......... ............ 36
Nonrefutational two-sided message ............... .................... 36
Refutational two-sided message ............... ......... ............. 37
Source Trustworthiness ............... .......... ......... ......... 38

High source trustworthiness ............... .......... .............. 39
Low source trustworthiness ............... .............. ......... 39
Source Goodwill ............... ............... 39..............

High source goodwill ............... .............................. 39
Low source goodwill ............... ............... 40......... ....
Dependent Variables. ............... ............ ... ... ........... 40....
Attitude toward the Trustworthiness of the Message ............... ............. 40
Attitude toward the Issue ............... ......... ..... .......... 40...
Attitude toward the Company (Carrefour) ............... ................... 40


4 RESULTS ............... ............... 42..............


Manipulation Check for Independent Variables ............... ............ .... 42
Message Sidedness ............... ............... 42..............
Source Trustworthiness ............... .......... ......... ......... 44
Source Goodwill ............... ............ ...... ........... 45....
Reliability Check for Dependent Variables ............... .................... 47
Attitude toward the Message ............... ............. ......... ... 47
Attitude toward the Issue ............... ............................. 48
Attitude toward the Company ............... ............. ......... ... 49












Hypotheses Testing. ........ ............_ .......... ...........5
Hypothesis 1 ............... ............... 50..............
Hypothesis la ............... ............... 51..............
Hypothesis 2 ............... ............... 51..............
Hypothesis 2a ............... ............... 52..............
Research Question 1 ............... ............... 54......... ....
Research Question 2 ............... ............... 55......... ....
Additional Testing and Findings ............... ........................... 55
Main Effect of Message Sidedness ............... ......... ............. 55
Main Effect of Source Trustworthiness ............... ............... .... 55
Weblog as a New Public Relations Tool ............... ..................... 58


5 DISCUSSION ............... ...........60...................


Summary of Findings ............... ............... 60......... ....
Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis la ............... ........................... 61
Main Effect of Source Trustworthiness ............... .................... 61
Implication for Public Relations Theory ............... .....................62
Implication for Public Relations Practice. .........._._ ........... ....... 64
For a company with high trustworthiness ............... .................. 64
For a company with low trustworthiness ............... ................. 66
Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 2a ............... .......... .. .. ...... ....... ... 68
Interaction Effect of Message Sidedness and Source Goodwill ................... .. 68
Implication for Public Relations Theory ............... ..................... 69
Implication for Public Relations Practice ............... ................... 71
For a company with high goodwill ............... .............. ...._.71
For a company with low goodwill ............... .....__ ......... 72
Additional Implications. ......____ .. ... .. .__ ....__ ...........7
Implication for Public Relations Pedagogy...........__ .......... ...........73
No Main Effect of Trustworthiness and Goodwill on Attitude
toward Issue or Message. ............... ............................. 74
Additional Variables. ................. ........... ... ............. 75....
Involvement and Prior Attitude as Covariate ............... ............ .....76
Involvement ............... ...........76...................
Prior attitude ............... ...........77...................
MANCOVA results. ............... .......... ... ........ ..........78
Involvement as an Independent Variable ................ .....................80
Message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement. ................. .83
Source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement. ................... ..85
Limitations. ............... ........... .. ... ............ 87....
Recommendations for Future Research ............... .......... ............ 89
Argument Quality ............... ............... 90..............
Initial Attitude ............... ............. ............... 91....
Order Effect of Message Sidedness ............... ..... ......... ....... 92
Conclusion.. .............. .......... 93
Unique Contributions. ......... ............. .......... .......... 9











New approach to message sidedness from a public relations perspective......93
Rediscovery of source goodwill as a base for public relations ................ 95
Weblog as a new public relations tool ............... ............... ....95



APPENDIX


A INSTRUMENTAL MANIPULATION ............... .......... .............97


B INSTRUMENT ............... ...........122..................


REFERENCE LIST ............... ............... 127........ .....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............... ...........136..................
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Manipulation check for message sidedness ............... .....................44

2 Factor analysis of source trustworthiness................. .............. ...._ 45

3 Factor analysis of source goodwill ............... ............. ......... ... 46

4 Factor analysis of attitude toward the message. ............... .................. .48

5 Factor analysis of attitude toward the issue ............... ............... .... 49

6 Factor analysis of attitude toward the company ............... ............... ....50

7 Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness and source
goodwill........ .................... 51

8 Results of between-subjescts test ............... ............................ 52

9 Means and standard deviations for message sidedness and source goodwill
for attitude toward the company ............... ......... ............... 54

10 Mean and standard deviations for message sidedness and source
trustworthiness toward the company ............... .......... .............57

11 Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness, source
goodwill controlling for involvement and prior attitude ............... ...........79

12 Results of between-subjescts test controlling for involvement and prior attitude.......80

13 Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness, source
goodwill, and involvement ............... .............................81

14 Results of between-subjects test including involvement ............... ............. 82

15 Mean and standard deviations for the effect of involvement on the recipients
attitude toward the message, the issue, and the company ............... ...........83
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source trustworthiness ............... ............. 45

2 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source goodwill ......... ................ .............. 47

3 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the messages............... ................ 48

4 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the issue.................. .............. 49

5 Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the company ............. .... .......50

6 Interaction effect of message sidedness and goodwill on the attitude
toward the company ............... ...........54............. ....

7 Main effect of source trustworthiness on the attitude toward the company............ 57

8. Interaction effect of message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and
involvement on the attitude toward the company ............... ............... 85

9. Interaction effect of source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement
on the attitude toward the company ............... ......... ..............87

10 Manipulation of message sidedness with posters in this study ............. ... .........92

11 Manipulation of message sidedness with main message for future study.............. 93















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS MES SAGES:
SIDEDNESS, AND CORPORATE GOODWILL AND TRUSTWORTHINESS

By

Jangyul Robert Kim

August 2006

Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson
Maj or Department: Mass Communication

This study examined the effect of message sidedness in public relations messages

and its interaction effect with source credibility, in particular, with source trustworthiness

and source goodwill, on the message recipients' attitude toward the message, the public

relations issue, and toward the company. Specifically, this study attempted to use a new

public relations message tool, weblogs, to situate this communication paradigm in the

Internet era.

A 3 x 2 x 2 (message sidedness: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutational two-

sided vs. refutational two-sided) x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source

goodwill: high vs. low) experimental design was used. A MANOVA was used to analyze

these main and interaction effects.

Results indicate that there was no three-way interaction effect among message

sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was a main effect of source

trustworthiness and a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source










goodwill on the recipients' attitude toward the company. However, additional test results

showed that there were two three-way interactions: (a) among message sidedness, source

trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients' attitude toward the company, and (b)

among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the attitude toward

the message.

These findings provide a theoretical and practical background for public relations

activities. In particular, this study highlights why it is important for a corporation to be

perceived as a responsible corporate citizen by its target publics in its community, and

how and when a company may use various types of message sidedness to make a public

relations message more effective, depending on their perceived goodwill and

trustworthiness among target publics.

Finally, this study acknowledged the use of modern public relations tools by

utilizing a weblog in the experiment. Certainly, in the Internet era, public relations should

not only be dependent on traditional mass media, but should find and develop relevant

new public relations tools that can reach target publics or stakeholders directly and more

effectively .















CHAPTER
INTTRODUCTION

Message Sidedness

One of the important goals of public relations is to persuade target audiences.

Whether it is an organization or an individual, persuasion is undertaken through

communication. Many believe that people will say good things about themselves and

blame others if they are in a disadvantageous situation. The same is true for an

organization or an industry. However, saying only good things about ourselves does not

always bring the desired results. On the contrary, sometimes, in persuading target

audiences it is more effective to speak of negative things voluntarily about ourselves, our

organizations or our products or services than only speaking about positive aspects.

Scholars noticed this phenomenon a very long time ago. Even Aristotle said in The

Rhetoric (1932) that any good communicator should be able to handle opposing

arguments.l

This has come to be called a "message-sidedness effect," and it has been a maj or

topic in persuasion research since Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (1949) conducted

experiments on message sidedness. Since, a plethora of research on the effects of

message sidedness has been conducted by psychology, marketing and advertising

scholars. However, as O'Keefe (1999) pointed out in his meta-analysis, researchers have

failed to reach a singular conclusion on the construction of persuasive messages, but


SAristotle's argument is focused on interactive aspects such as how a speaker should refute the counter
arguments of an opponent (Allen, 1991).









instead, as in other social science theories, "it depends" on situations, conditions, and

moderating and mediating variables. Although there is no single principle that can be

adapted to all problems, some of the Eindings in the message-sidedness research have

been actively utilized by persuasion scholars, as well as by marketing and advertising

scholars and other communication professionals. In spite of its popularity in many of

these scholarly Hields, research that analyzed the effect of message sidedness from a

public relations perspective is relatively rare. This dissertation will attempt to add to our

understanding of the importance of decisions about message sidedness when constructing

public relations persuasion messages.

Source Credibility

Source credibility is another important concept that, along with message

sidedness, affects persuasion effectiveness and has been actively researched for over half

a century. In general, source credibility is believed to be composed of three maj or

constructs: expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill (McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Perloff,

2003). Other research has added other factors such as source attractiveness (McCracken,

1989; Yoon, Kim, & Kim, 1998); safety, qualification and dynamism (Berlo, Lemaert, &

Mertz, 1969); competency and objectivity (Whitehead, 1968); and authoritativeness and

character (McCroskey, 1966) as important constructs of source credibility.

In the practice of public relations, source credibility has been identified as an

important factor that affects the results of public relations messages. To increase the

credibility of the public relations message, corporations and organizations endeavor to

utilize credible external sources such as doctors, healthcare specialists, accountants, and










academics,2 under such names as a "third-party endorsement" strategy or a "public

relations ambassador.3" In Spite of public relations practitioners' attempts to increase the

credibility of their messages with the use of expert sources, studies of the perception of

public relations and its practitioners are more inclined to negative than positive (Newsom,

Ramsey, & Carrel, 1993). Most of these research studies have not explored these negative

perceptions in terms of their effects on the trustworthiness or goodwill constructs of

source credibility. Perhaps the reason why public relations and its practitioners are

perceived as negative or less credible is not because the message sources lack expertise,

but because public relations practitioners fail to demonstrate that their organization is

trustworthy enough and has goodwill toward the receivers or toward the society to which

the receivers belong.

This dissertation study focuses on the effect of the sidedness of public relations

messages with source credibility (specifically source trustworthiness and source

goodwill), and their interaction effects on the attitude change of the target audiences. This

study expects to contribute to the development of public relations research by identifying

message sidedness in interactions with source trustworthiness and goodwill as important

variables that should be considered in public relations research, as well as for public

relations professionals when planning public relations strategy in various situations for

various publics.





2 According to the 2006 Edelman Trust Barometer, doctors and healthcare specialists were reported as the
most credible spokespersons followed by accountants, academics, NGOs, and financial/industry analysts
(Edelman, 2006).

3 In public relations industry, a "public relations ambassador" refers to a celebrity or any external person
who supports the public relations activities of an organization, an association or an industry by representing
and speaking of positive things about them, basically thanks to their friendly image.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Message Sidedness

Definition

In his meta-analysis of one-sided and two-sided studies, Allen (1991) defined a

one-sided message as "a message that presents only those arguments in favor of the

conclusion advocated by the communicator" and a two-sided message as "a message

including both the arguments in favor of and opposed to the conclusion advocated by the

communicator" (p. 393). Scholars (Allen, 1991; O'Keefe, 1999) further divided the two-

sided message into two types: refutational and nonrefutational. Allen (1991) defined a

refutational two-sided message as "(a) message that mention(s) counterarguments to the

position advocated and then refute(s) them .. to introduce the contrary position and

demonstrate why this position is inferior to the position advocated by the communicator,"

and a nonrefutational two-sided message as "a message that only mentioned the

counterarguments without offering a refutation of them" (p. 393).

Types of Message Sidedness

For the past five to six decades, scholars have analyzed message sidedness from

many different perspectives. Some studies (Golden & Alpert, 1978, 1982, 1987; Settle &

Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978) divided message types into simply a one-sided

message and a two-sided message, whereas other studies further divided a two-sided

message into a refutational two-sided message and a nonrefutational two-sided message










(O'Keefe, 1999). Some studies distinguished one-sided messages as either a supportive

defensive message versus a refutational defensive message (McGuire, 1961), or as a

strong-then-weak argument and a weak-then-strong argument according to the order of

argument strength (Igou & Bless, 2003). Some studies used implicit and explicit

conclusions instead of using refutational and nonrefutational conclusions. (Martin, Lang,

& Wong, 2003; Sawyer & Howard, 1991). An explicit conclusion is similar to a

refutational two-sided message whereas an implicit conclusion is similar to a

nonrefutational two-sided message.

In this study, based on the most general criteria by Allen (1991) and O'Keefe

(1999), message sidedness was divided into a supporting one-sided message, a non-

refutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message.

Studies that Support Each Topic of Message Sidedness from Different Perspectives

Studies showed that the effectiveness of message sidedness varies depending on

the conditions of the communication situation such as education level and initial position

(Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953), receiver's prior attitude (McGuire, 1961), availability of

counter argument (Hovland et al., 1949), degree of counter argumentation (Crowley &

Hoyer, 1994), argumentation order (Jackson & Allen, 1987), and expectation (McGuire,

1969; Igou & Bless, 2003).

Some studies stressed the superiority of a one-sided message to a two-sided

message (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949; Hovland et al., 1953; Lang, Lee, &

Zwick, 1999; O'Keefe, 1999) whereas other studies supported a two-sided message over

a one-sided message (Golden & Alpert, 1978, 1982, 1987; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith

& Hunt, 1978); a nonrefutational two-sided message over a one-sided message (Kamins,










1984; Kamins & Assael, 1987; Kamins, Brand, Hocke, & Moe, 1989); or a refutational

two-sided message over a one-sided message or a non-refutational two-sided message

(Allen, 1991; Bohner, Einwiller, Erb & Siebler, 2003; Hale Mongeau, & Thomas, 1991;

O'Keefe, 1999; Sorrentino, Bobocel, Gitta, & Olson, 1988).

Studies that show a two-sided message is more effective

There are a plethora of studies that show that a two-sided message is more

effective than a one-sided message in advertising research (Golden & Alpert, 1978, 1982,

1987; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith and Hunt, 1978). Based on attribution theory,

Golden and Alpert (1987) reported that two-sided messages achieved higher purchase

intentions as well as higher advertising evaluation (p. 18). Golden and Alpert (1978)

found that two-sided messages resulted in higher copy believability and stronger

perceptions of important product features. Golden and Alpert (1982) argued that two-

sided messages are more effective in persuading highly educated persons. Settle and

Golden (1974) reported that beliefs about important positive features are improved by

advertisements that disclaim superiority for unimportant features. Smith and Hunt (1978)

added that two-sided messages let audiences perceive the claim as more valid than one-

sided advertising. Lang et al. (1999) argued that the enhanced effectiveness of these two-

sided messages is due to "reinforced source credibility" (p. 485).

Studies that show a one-sided message is more effective

While not many studies argued that a one-sided message is superior to a two-

sided message, in general, some studies showed that depending on the experimental

conditions, a one-sided message is more effective than a two-sided message. For instance,

Hovland et al. (1949, 1953) argued that a one-sided message is more effective for less










educated receivers and those who are initially favorable toward to the communicator's

position. Lang et al. (1999) argued that a one-sided message is more effective for

advertising inexpensive products. O'Keefe (1999) also found in his meta-analysis of

message sidedness that one-sided messages are more persuasive than two-sided messages

if audiences have an initial attitude regardless of whether it be favorable or unfavorable.

Studies that show a nonrefutational two-sided message is more effective

There are also studies that argued that a non-refutational two-sided message is

more effective in increasing credibility than a refutational two-sided communication

(Kamins & Assael, 1987; Kamins et al., 1989), and more effective in increasing copy

believability than one-sided messages (Golden & Alpert 1978, 1987; Settle & Golden

1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978; Swinyard, 1981).

O'Keefe (1999) divided the message sidedness research effects by message topics

such as advertising messages and nonadvertising messages.l He found that non-

refutational two-sided messages are more effective than both one-sided messages and

refutational two-sided messages for advertising messages, arguing that it might be due to

the receiver's different initial expectations about the communicator, i.e., "general

skepticism" (p. 237) about the communicator. However, there was no such message

sidedness effect for nonadvertising messages.

Studies that show a refutational two-sided message is more effective

Among the message sidedness studies, the most predominant conclusion is that

refutational two-sided messages are more effective than nonrefutational two-sided

messages and one-sided messages (O'Keefe, 1999). Bohner et al. (2003) argued that a

U.7s h r, a is topics were the ones in which the advocacy concerned products or services such as
advertisements for consumer products, business products or services. .; ,,I .7. r, a is~ topics were the ones
involved with sociopolitical topics such as public policy questions and other controversial issues.









two-sided advertisement provides higher source credibility than a one-sided

advertisement. Based on the cognitive response theory, Hale et al. (1991) argued that a

refutational two-sided message is more effective in generating positive cognitive

responses than a one-sided message. Sorrentino et al. (1988) argued that a refutational

two-sided message is more effective if recipients are motivated to process the arguments

thoughtfully. Allen (1991) reported in his meta-analysis of message sidedness that a

refutational two-sided message is the most persuasive strategy, followed by a one-sided

message and a nonrefutational two-sided message.

Moderators of Message Sidedness

In his meta-analysis that analyzed 107 persuasion effect sizes based on 20, 111

respondents, O'Keefe (1999) attempted to identify moderators that were supposed to

affect the persuasiveness of message sidedness. He identifies four maj or moderators, such

as (1) the audience's initial attitude, (2) audiences' level of education, (3) audience's

likely availability of counterarguments, and (4) the order of materials in the two-sided

message.

Initial attitude

The study on the audience's initial attitude was first conducted by Hovland et al.

(1949). In their experiment about how long World War II would last, they found that a

one-sided message is more effective to an audience who had a prior favorable attitude

whereas a two-sided message was more effective to the audience who had a prior

negative attitude toward an issue.

On the other hand, Cowley and Hoyer (1994) argued that even though audiences

have a positive prior attitude, two-sided messages could be effective if the audience is










already aware of the negative information on the subj ect. Some studies found that a two-

sided message is not only effective to an audience with an initial negative attitude, but

also to those with "no" prior attitude (Etgar & Goodwin, 1982; Golden and Alpert, 1987;

Kamins et al., 1989; Stayman, Hoyer & Leone, 1987).

Considering these studies, it is likely that the prior attitude plays a critical role in

two-sided message effectiveness. However, as was shown from several meta-analyses

(Allen, 1991, 1994; Jackson & Allen, 1987; O'Keefe, 1999), there are no consistent

findings about when and how initial or prior attitude affects the effectiveness of message

sidedness.

Level of education

Hovland et al. (1949) argued that a one-sided message is more effective to less

educated receivers whereas a two-sided message is more effective to more educated

receivers. However, several meta-analyses showed that their result cannot be supported

(Allen, 1991, 1994; Jackson & Allen, 1987; O'Keefe, 1999). O'Keeffe (1999) reported

that of the 88 cases that have a distinctive level of audience education, 79 involved

undergraduates, which made the measurement of message sidedness effect by education

level unclear.

Availability of counterarguments

Some studies (Chu, 1967; Hass & Linder, 1972; Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992)

maintained that if the audience has more counterarguments available to them, a two-sided

message is more effective, whereas a one-sided message is more effective when the

audience has no or few counterarguments. However, O'Keefe (1999) argued that there is

no such evidence to support this finding because "few studies have examined the










persuasive effects of sidedness variation under conditions in which the audience might be

presumed to have relatively little access to counterarguments" (pp. 230-231).

Order of argument

Jackson and Allen (1987) posited that the order of a two-sided message affects the

persuasiveness of the message. Based on three types of argument order, such as

supportive-then-opposing, opposing-then-supportive, and interweaving discussion of

supportive and opposing argument, they argued that for refutational two-sided messages,

supportive-then-opposing order is more effective than opposing-then-supportive order.

Based on the optimum arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971), Crowley and Hoyer (1994) argued

that if the "optimal" proportion of refutational information is placed early in the two-

sided message but not in the beginning, it is the most effective.

On the other hand, McGuire (1969) argued that effects arise not because of the

inconsistency per se, but because of the expectation of recipients. Igou and Bless (2003)

also argued that order effects take place as audiences hold different expectations when

they are exposed to one- and two-sided communications. From experiments that reversed

the order of argument (pro/con versus con/pro) in the two-sided messages, they found

that 70 percent of the participants expected that the supportive argument would appear at

the end of the message (recency e~ffct). On the other hand, from an experiment on a one-

sided message that reversed the order of supportive argument tone (strong/weak versus

weak/strong), they found that 70 percent of the participants expected that the strong

arguments would appear at the beginning of the message (primacy e~ffct). They said that

this can be explained by a conversation rule (Krosnick et al. 1990; Schwarz, 1994, 1996),

that is, message recipients would expect that communicators present their important










argument later in the case of two-sided communications, while they would expect

important messages first in one-sided communications.

On the other hand, Hovland et al. (1953) argued that the primacy effect or "Law

of Primacy" (p. 129) is not relevant in many situations. They contended that a message

that comes out later is more effective than that which comes out first, thus supporting the

recency effect. They explained that if audiences are exposed to the first supportive

argument about which they do not agree, they would wait to refute it until an argument

with which they agree comes out, and therefore, it naturally attenuates the effects of the

argument that comes out first. On the contrary, if audiences are exposed to a message

with which they agree, they would rely on the source and therefore, the message that

comes out later from the same communicator would persuade the audiences more

effectively regardless of whether it is supportive or refutational. Consequently, in a two-

sided message, a message that comes out later is more effective than a message that

comes out first. However, based on the "selective exposure" postulate, McGuire (1961)

argued that there is no permutation effect between a supportive-only message and a

refutational-only message. O'Keefe (1999) also found that there is no homogenous result

to support that any particular order of message is more effective than others.

Other Moderators

Message relatedness

Message relatedness is one of the moderators that affect credibility of message

sidedness. From the perspective of attribution theory, Pechmann (1992) argued that a

connection between the negative and positive product attributes is a critical factor for a

two-sided advertising message to be effective. Bohner et al. (2003) also reported that a










two-sided related advertisement is more effective than a two-sided unrelated

advertisement and a one-sided advertisement.2

Amount of negative information (degree of refutation)

Bohner et al. (2003) also found that the amount of negative information is an

important factor that leads to favorable evaluation. Other studies also argued that a two-

sided message is more effective if less negative information is provided or relatively less

important information is disclosed than positive information (Kamins & Assael, 1987;

Pechmann, 1992).

Exposure time

Bohner et al. (2003) also argued that the amount of exposure time moderates the

effectiveness of message sidedness. They manipulated time into short exposure time and

long exposure time, and found that "under high [long]-exposure time conditions, the two-

sided message containing related negative and positive attributes was more effective than

the two-sided message containing unrelated attributes" (p. 461). However, under a short-

exposure time condition, i.e., when recipients do not have enough time to process the

message content, there was no message-relatedness effect.

In addition, O'Keefe (1999) suggested other moderators that affect message

sidedness, such as product tyipe (a service versus a product and/or high versus low

involvement product classes), status of endorser (expert, company president, typical

consumer and celebrity), and varition in importance and number of attributes

disclaimed. In addition, other studies found more moderating variables such as perceived



2 In their experiment, Bohner et al. (2003) used a one-sided message that mentioned only positive product
attributes, and two versions of a two-sided message: (a) a two-sided unrelated message that contains
negative product attributes that were unrelated to positive attributes, and (b) a two-sided related message
that contains negative product attributes that were related to positive attributes (p. 455).









source motivation (Pechmann, 1990), exposure to subsequent opposing communications

(Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953), topic famniliarity (Allen, 1991), and price (Lang et al., 1999)

Explanations for Conflicting Results

As indicated by this review, studies on message sidedness do not consistently

support the superiority of any specific type of sidedness to others. Studies (Crowley &

Hoyer, 1994; Lang et al. 1999) suggest several reasons of these nonconformities.

Crowley and Hoyer (1994) explained that it is because of "the lack of a

theoretical framework that specifically addresses two-sided message effects" (p. 561).

They argued that theories that explain message sidedness were typically borrowed from

social psychology theories that were developed to explain more complex and

comprehensive phenomena. Another reason for conflicting results is due to

"methodological differences" between studies. As Crowley and Hoyer (1994) argued,

"message structure variables, such as the nature and amount of negative information

included are likely to be important determinants of two-sided message effects (i.e., one

important negative attribute represents relatively more negative information than an

unimportant negative attribute)" (p. 562). They argued that existing research has failed to

pay attention to these variable issues. Lang et al. (1999) also argued that "the way

message persuasiveness is measured" (p. 485) is one of the reasons for the conflicting

results.

In addition, based on the optimal arousal theory, Crowley and Hoyer (1994)

insisted that conflicting findings are due to variation in the proportion of negative

information in the two-sided treatment in various studies (p. 564).










In general, as O'Keefe (1999) reported, refutational two-sided messages on

nonadvertising topics turned out to be more effective than both one-sided messages and

nonrefutational two-sided messages, in increasing credibility and persuasiveness. The

superiority of a nonrefutational two-sided message was mainly confined to advertising

topics such as comparative advertisements.

In public relations, there are many situations that a public relations professional

has to handle or cope with both advertising and nonadvertising issues, such as issue

management, crisis management, community relations, government relations, NGO

relations, reputation management, and employee relations as well as marketing

communications, event management, and promotions. In many cases, the criteria between

advertising issues and nonadvertising issues are unclear. However, a few studies have

been conducted on how public relations message-sidedness works in each of these

situations. As O'Keefe (1999) summarized, if a refutational two-sided message on

nonadvertising topics is more effective than a one-sided message or a nonrefutational

two-sided message, it should be able to be adapted to public relations messages too. To

this end, this study attempts to identify the effects of message sidedness between a one-

sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message, and a refutational two-sided

message.

Related or Supporting Theories

Inoculation theory

Inoculation theory (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961; McGuire, 1961, 1985; Etgar

& Goodwin, 1982) provides us with a theoretical basis for the effectiveness of

refutational and nonrefutational two-sided messages. Borrowing a concept from the










public health practice of giving preventive shots, this theory says that if a moderate

refutational message is exposed to audiences in advance (having the flu shot), they would

resist change, and therefore, would be less persuaded than those who are not inoculated

or who are only exposed to a supportive message, when they are exposed to a stronger

refutational message (attack of the flu). Because pre-exposure makes the subsequent

strong attacks "seem less believable" (McGuire, 1985, p. 294).

Inoculation theory was actively tested by advertising researchers in 1970s (Bither,

Dolich, & Nell, 1971; Sawyer, 1973; Szybillo & Heslin, 1973). These studies showed

that if favorable attitudes are formed based on two-sided refutational messages, it is more

difficult to change the attitude with counter-attitudinal messages (Bither et al., 1971;

Szybillo & Heslin, 1973). Also, a refutational message turned out to be more effective to

those who have a negative initial attitude towards the advertised brand (Sawyer, 1973).

The contribution of inoculation theory to the message sidedness study is that it

showed two-sided messages can reduce counterargument, if a refutational message is

provided in advance. However, studies showed that even a two-sided message that

contains a refutational message within itself is also effective.

Attribution theory

Attribution theory (Bohner et al. 2003; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965;

Kelley, 1973; Lang et al., 1999) describes how people make causal explanations and how

they develop answers for "why"-type questions. From the perspective of message

sidedness research, this theory provides psychological background for how two-sided

messages help increase the credibility of the message.









For instance, in the case of an advertising message, consumers may expect that

the advertising message would only include positive information or supporting appeal of

the products or services (one-sided messages) that they desire to sell. However, a plethora

of empirical studies found that advertising messages that contain negative information

about the products or services were more effective in enhancing their message source

credibility because these two-sided messages lead receivers to perceive that the

advertising is telling them the truth (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; Golden & Alpert, 1987;

Kamins & Marks, 1987; Kamins et al, 1989; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt,

1978; Stayman et al., 1987; Swinyard, 1981). In particular, in their study of consumer

preference about providing competitors' price information, i.e., negative information in

online store, Trifts and Haubl (2003) argued that the inclusion of negative information

(two-sidedmessages) can increase 'believability' (Smith & Hunt, 1978; Swinyard, 1981),

and therefore, positively affect consumers' purchase intention than one-sided messages

(Etgar & Goodwin, 1982).

On the other hand, some studies maintained that there is a 'trade-off' between

gains in credibility and the general persuasiveness of the message (Settle & Golden,

1974; Stayman et al., 1987). They reported that even though two-sided messages have

increased source credibility, they did not affect the receivers' purchase intention

positively (Stayman et al., 1987), or they curtailed the total expected benefits because the

net effect of two-sided message is close to zero per se (Settle & Golden, 1974). Some

studies showed that there is no significantly different effect between one- and two-sided

messages (Sawyer, 1973; Swanson, 1987), or even reported that two-sided messages lead

to lower purchase intention (Kanungo & Johar, 1975; Swinyard, 1981).










Optimal arousal theory / fear appeal studies

Optimal arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994) assumes that

stimuli that are moderately novel, surprising, or complex are more effective than stimuli

that are too strong or too weak. From the perspective of message sidedness, this theory

provides a theoretical background that the strength of refutational messages works on the

effectiveness of persuasion. This theory shows that a two-sided message containing a

moderate level of refutational message is more effective than a one-sided message or a

two-sided message that contains refutational messages that are too strong or too weak.

In particular, optimal arousal theory provides a background about the conflicting

findings in message sidedness research. This theory explains that conflicting findings are

due to variations in the proportion of negative information included in the two-sided

treatment in various studies (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994, p. 564). Furthermore, based on the

experimental studies that vary the number of negative attributes in their two-sided

message treatments (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Kamins & Assael, 1987; Settle & Golden,

1974; Stayman et al., 1987), Crowley and Hoyer (1994) argued that message sidedness is

the most effective when the proportion of negative information is approximately 40

percent.

Optimal arousal theory shares the findings with fear appeal research, such as fear-

as-acquired drive model (Janis, 1967), and two-factor theory (McGuire, 1968, 1969), in

which both of them demonstrated an inverted U-shaped relationship between fear and

message acceptance.

In his fear-as-acquired drive model, Janis (1967) argued that a certain degree of

fear arousal is the most effective persuasion communication that could result in attaining










the proposed objectives of a message. Too much fear arousal would lead to maladaptive

outcomes while fear appeal that was too weak would not arouse any reaction. Therefore,

a moderate amount of fear arousal is believed to be the most effective strategy in

changing people's attitude (Janis, 1967).

In his two-factor theory, McGuire (1968, 1969) argued that fear motivates people

to accept the communicator' s message (as a drive) while it could influence people' s

response to interfere with the acceptance or rej section of the message (as a cue). These

two factors interacted to produce an overall inverted-U relationship between fear arousal

and attitude change. Like the fear-as-acquired drive model, fear arousal was the most

effective in a medium strength condition (McGuire, 1967, 1968; Witte, 1992).

Discounting hypothesis

Based on the assumption that the persuasion effect is dependent on the type of

reactions to content, the discounting hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen & Reynolds, 1989;

Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984) argues that a source who fails to meet an expectation or

exceeds an expectation is reevaluated by an audience. The logical explanation of this

hypothesis regarding message sidedness research is that this theory supports the

effectiveness of a refutational two-sided message. For instance, if a communicator who is

believed to be fair-minded fails to acknowledge the existence of opposing argument for a

controversial issue, the audience would react negatively and 'discount' his or her

messages. On the other hand, for a non-controversial topic, if a communicator

acknowledges the existence of possible counterarguments, he or she would be perceived

as more honest, fair-minded, and expert by the audience. In both cases, the discounting

hypothesis argues that a two-sided message is more effective in persuading the audience.










When compared to inoculation theory, Allen (1991) argued that both theories

explain the same process but from "either a static (discounting) or a dynamic

(inoculation) view" (p. 399). It is clear that the discounting hypothesis describes

immediate attitude change, while inoculation theory better explains attitude change over

time.

Source Credibility

For decades, credibility or source credibility, along with message sidedness, has

been an important research topic in persuasion effectiveness research.3

Credibility is defined as "the judgments made by a message recipient concerning

the believability of a communicator" (Callison, 2001, p. 220). Similarly, Tormala and

Petty (2004) referred source credibility to "a message source's perceived ability or

motivation to provide accurate and tr-uthful information" (p. 429). Anderson (1971)

conceptualized source credibility as a "weight" that can enhance the value of information

in a message.

Elements of Source Credibility

Early research on source credibility perceived expertise and trustworthiness as

two maj or factors of credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 195 1; Hovand et al., 1953; Kelman &

Hovland, 1953). Other scholars added components to credibility such as safety,

qualifications, and dynamism (Berlo, Lemert, & Mertz, 1969); competency and




3 Some scholars (Newhagen & Nass, 1989; Kiousis, 2001) divided credibility research into two domains
such as source credibility and medium credibility. They maintained that source credibility and medium
credibility are differentiated such that source credibility focuses on "examining how different
communicator characteristics can influence the processing of message" whereas medium credibility focuses
more "on the channel through which content is delivered rather than the sender (or senders) of that
content." (Kiousis, 2001, p. 382). In this paper, credibility refers to source credibility.










objectivity (Whitehead, 1968); trustworthiness and competence (Browers & Phillips,

1967; O'Keefe, 1990); and authoritativeness and character (McCroskey, 1966).

In general, scholars have argued that the source credibility is composed of three

constructs such as (a) expertise, (b) tw nar~ th1riness\, and (c) gooa~vill (McCroskey, 1999;

Perloff, 2003). Expertise is the knowledge or ability ascribed to the communicator

(Hovland et al., 1953; McCracken, 1989). Expertise also includes concepts such as

expertness, competence, qualification, intelligence and authoritativeness (McCroskey,

1999). Trustworthiness is the communicator' s perceived honesty, sincerity, objectivity

(McCracken, 1989), and safety and sagacity (McCroskey, 1999). Goodwill is perceived

caring (Perloff, 2003) or intent toward receiver (McCroskey, 1999). Perloff (2003)

maintained that a credible communicator is the "one who is seen as an expert, regarded as

trustworthy and displays goodwill toward audience members" (p. 160). Also, he argued

that credibility does not work exclusively, but is affected by context factors such as

audience size, communicator role, and cultural dynamics. Some scholars (McCracken,

1989; Ohanian, 1990; Yoon et al., 1998) included attractiveness instead of goodwill.

Attractiveness refers to the perceived familiarity, likeability, and similarity of the source

to the receiver (McGuire, 1985). Yoon et al. (1998) identified the influence of each

construct expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness and found that all three

constructs affected involvement with the advertising message equally. They added that in

terms of attitude toward the advertisement, "perceived attractiveness of the endorser was

more important than expertise and trustworthiness." (p. 154).









Effects of Source Credibility

An abundance of research on source credibility reported that information provided

by a highly credible source is more effective than information provided by a not highly

credible source in causing positive attitude change and behavioral intentions (Cotlieb &

Sarel, 1991; Homer & Kahle, 1990; Petty & Wegener, 1998; Ward & McGinnies, 1974;

Woodside & Davenport, 1974).

Some scholars paid more attention to moderators and mediators of source

credibility effects on persuasion rather than focusing on the basic effects (Tormala &

Petty, 2004). As tested by the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981,

1986; Petty & Wegener, 1999), it was demonstrated that source credibility influences

persuasion, moderated by elaboration conditions. Under low elaboration conditions,

source credibility affects the audience's attitude by invoking peripheral or heuristic cues

(Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). Under high elaboration conditions, credibility

influences the confidence people have in their individual thoughts or cognitive responses

(Brinol et al., 2004). Priester and Petty (2003) also reported that under a low elaboration

likelihood condition, information provided by an untrustworthy endorser would be

unthinkingly rej ected.

In addition, it was shown that a message is more effective if a highly credible

source is identified early (Greenberg & Miller, 1966; Ward & McGinnies, 1974). The

effects of source credibility are moderated by receiver characteristics, such as locus of

control, authoritarianism, involvement, and extremity of initial attitude (Haley, 1996;

Yoon et al., 1998). Highly authoritarian people are more likely to be influenced by high









credibility sources (Bettinghaus, Miller, & Steinfatt, 1970). People with high involvement

with the issue are less influenced by source credibility (Johnson & Scileppi, 1969).

Theoretical Background and Relationship with Message Sidedness Research

Theoretically, a knowledge bias and a reporting bias, explained by attribution-

based theory of source trustworthiness (Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978), provide a

psychological background for source credibility effects. A Imowledge bias is the

assumption that a communicator has a biased view of an issue. A reporting bias is the

perception that a communicator has opted not to report or disclose certain facts or points

of view. Eagly et al. (1978) argued that if audiences infer that the communicators possess

either a knowledge bias or a reporting bias, the perception of source credibility decreased.

On the other hand, when audiences' inferences or expectations are violated, the

communicator is regarded as credible and convincing. For instance, Warren Buffet and

David Rockefeller Jr. gained their credibility by urging Congress not to repeal federal

taxes on estates, even though they were among those most likely to benefit from its repeal

(Johnston, 2001, p. Al).

This fits with the findings from maj ority of the message sidedness research.

According to attribution theory (Bohner et al. 2003; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965;

Kelley, 1973; Lang et al., 1999), the reason why a two-sided message is more effective

than a one-sided message in many cases, is because it violates the recipients' expectation

that the communicator, who speaks on behalf of the organization to which he or she

belongs, would only provide positive points regarding his or her organizations or

supporting issues. By breaking these expectations, the communicator acquires credibility,

and therefore, the message gains more effectiveness in persuading or keeping the









audience from being persuaded by counterarguments. Similarly, the discounting

hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen & Reynolds, 1989; Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984)

describes why a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message. The

difference is the characteristics of source credibility, which was treated as an independent

variable in many source credibility researches, while it was treated as a dependent

variable in many message-sidedness studies (Bohner et al., 2003; Kamins & Assael,

1987; Kanungo & Johar, 1975; Settle & Golden, 1974; Smith & Hunt, 1978).

Source Credibility in Public Relations

From a public relations perspective, how to utilize credible sources has been a key

issue that affects the results of public relations activities. However, the existing research

reported that perceptions of public relations and its practitioners were skewed to the

negative. This is true even for those who educate practitioners; Newsom, Ramsey, and

Carrell (1993), surveyed 905 public relations educators and professors, and found that

only 11 percent of the respondents agreed that the image of public relations and its

practitioners is favorable. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) survey,

conducted for five years with over 2,500 interviews supported by Rockefeller Foundation,

reported that the credibility of public relations specialists ranked 42nd out of 44 public

figures (O'Dwyer's PR service report, 1999).

With regard to the implication of the attribution-based theory of source

trustworthiness (Eagly et al., 1978), Callison (2001) says, "the public associates public

relations with bending the truth if necessary to make the client look positive or to

facilitate a cover-up... it would seem that the public relations industry mandates its

sources to maintain a reporting bias in favor of clients ("Behind the PRSA," 1999)" (p.










222). He pointed out four general aspects that can help public relations professionals

understand their roles more obj ectively and to serve as quality sources:

First, receivers note credibility in messengers to determine the
believability and accuracy of communication. Second, an audience relies
on judgments concerning a source's trustworthiness and competence in
evaluating credibility. Third, public relations practitioners, students, and
the general public doubt the trustworthiness of public relations
professionals. Finally, this image can be attributed in part to public
relations practitioners who often try to appease receivers and to the
tendency to believe that sources who speak to an audience's expectations
in persuasive situations are not honest. (Callison, 2001, p. 222)

To overcome these unfavorable images, corporations and organizations endeavor

to utilize credible sources either as their internal spokespersons or external endorsers. As

an internal source, whereas public relations persons were the most frequently used, they

engaged as sources engineers, financial specialists, and CEOs depending on an issue, its

seriousness and urgency, in particular, in crisis situations. As an external source, they

engaged other sources thought to be credible such as experts, celebrities, professors,

industry professionals, and sports stars who can endorse their positions as their 'third

party endorsers' or so-called 'public relations ambassadors.' Sometimes, they refrain

from using the word "PR" or public relations, and instead use "corporate

communication."

Source Trustworthiness and Source Goodwill

However, in spite of these efforts by public relations practitioners to increase the

credibility of their public relations messages, there still remains skepticism about the

believability of public relations messages among target audiences, in particular, among

the journalists and reporters (Callison, 2001). In this regard, it would be worthwhile to

identify the reason why a public relations message has such low credibility. Among the









three maj or constructs that compose source credibility, expertise, trustworthiness and

goodwill, it is generally presumed that public relations can engage sources that have the

expertise or knowledge or the ability to speak about an issue on behalf of their

organization. However, it is questionable whether the target publics would believe the

trustworthiness and goodwill of a public relations message endorser who is speaking on

behalf of an organization or a corporation. A message endorser or a certain type of

spokesperson may have a friendlier image or a more positive perception than other

spokespeople among the target audiences on a specific topic or issue. He or she may be

an expert on a specific issue but may have a bad reputation among the target audience

due to his/her extremity on that issue. Probably, he or she is perceived as an

untrustworthy endorser who tries to use his/her expertise improperly. Further, even

though a message endorser is perceived as trustworrthy, he or she may not be seen as

having 'goodwill' toward the target audience. Probably, a message endorser who is

regarded as trustworthhy and has goodwill for a corporation may be seen as a one who has

expertise but tries to misuse his or her expertise for improper purposes when dealing with

a specific public, such as NGO or activist group.

Source trustworthiness

Regarding source trustworthiness, Priester and Petty (1995, 2003) reported that

using only high credibility sources is not the best strategy for a corporation, because it

may be more effective to use low credibility sources in some situations, and the use of a

trustworthy source may be disadvantageous under certain conditions. They reported that

information presented by untrustworthy (but expert) endorsers is likely to be thoughtfully

elaborated on, whereas information presented by trustworthhy endorsers is likely to be










non-thoughtfully accepted. In particular, they suggested two conditions that support their

assertions.

First, and foremost, untrustworthy endorsers will be effective when
presenting information that elicits positive product-related cognitive
responses when thoughtfully considered by the target of the
advertisement...... such an endorser will prompt increased elaboration of
the information. Such increased elaboration will only be advantageous if
the thoughts that arise in response to the information are positive. Under
such conditions, the valence of the attitudes resulting from an
untrustworthy endorser will be as, if not more, positive than the attitudes
resulting from the use of a trustworthy endorser. Second, untrustworthy
endorsers will be especially effective when the information is presented
under conditions of moderate elaboration likelihood when individuals
have the requisite ability but lack the explicit motivation to elaborate the
information conveyed in an advertisement. It is exactly under such
conditions that the use of an untrustworthy endorser can increase the
amount of thought that individuals expend on the product-related
information. (Priester & Petty, 2003, p. 419)

Source goodwill

Regarding source goodwill, McCroskey and Teven (1999) argued that whereas

much research has been conducted on expertness and trustworthiness as maj or constructs

of source credibility, the study of "goodwill" or "perceived caring" (p. 90) has not been a

focus. Based on a factor analysis, they suggested three elements of goodwill:

understanding, empathy, and responsiveness.

Understanding is knowing another person's ideas, feelings, and needs ..
Empathy is one person's identification with another person's feelings.
This involves behaviors indicating that one person not only understands
the other' s views but accepts them as valid views, even if he or she does
not agree with those views .. Responsiveness involves one person
acknowledging another person's communicative attempts. Responsiveness
is judged by how quickly one person reacts to the communication of
another, how attentive they are to the other, and the degree to which they
appear to listen to the other. (p. 92)

They argued that goodwill should be considered equal to or a more important

construct than other factors such as expertise and trustworthiness. Similarly, Yoon et al.










(1998) who suggested attractiveness as a major construct of source credibility along with

expertise and trustworthiness, concluded that perceived attractiveness of the endorser,

which shares characteristics with goodwill to a great extent, is more important than other

constructs.

It was reported that the general perception of public relations messages are

skewed more toward the negative. To overcome these unfavorable images, corporations

and organizations leverage credible endorsers who can speak on an issue on their behalf.

However, among the three constructs of source credibility, such as expertise,

trustworthiness, and goodwill, it is likely that the reason for the unfavorable perception of

public relations messages and public relations practitioners is not because of the lack of

expertise of those public relations message endorsers, but because of their perceived lack

of trustworthiness and goodwill.

Also, some research (McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Yoon, et al., 1999) reported that

goodwill is a more important construct than trustworthiness and expertise in composing

source credibility. In particular, goodwill should lie at the heart of public relations

persuasion messages because it is assumed that "public relations is a management

function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationship between an

organization and publics on whom its success or failure depends" (Cutlip, Center, &

Broom, 1994, p. 6).

However, in spite of its importance, which can influence the result of public

relations messages, little research has been conducted on these two constructs of source

credibility -- trustworthiness and goodwill. Therefore, this study attempts to investigate

the effect of these variables on the effectiveness of public relations persuasion messages.









As these constructs compose the concept of source credibility, they are supposed to be

highly correlated with each other, and may have high multicollinearity, but, as was

identified by McCroskey and Teven (1999), it is plausible to assume that they represent

different facets of source credibility.

Hypotheses

There are four models/theories that form a theoretical background for this study

about the effect of message sidedness and source credibility in public relations messages.

They are (a) inoculation theory, (b) discounting hypothesis, (c) attribution theory, and (d)

optimal arousal theory / fear appeal studies.

Inoculation theory (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961; McGuire, 1961, 1985; Etgar

& Goodwin, 1982) provided this study with a theoretical basis for the effectiveness of

refutational and nonrefutational two-sided messages. Borrowing a concept from the

public health practice of giving preventive shots, this theory says that if a moderately

refutational message is given to audiences in advance, they would be less persuaded than

those who are not inoculated or who are only exposed to a supportive message, when

they are exposed to a stronger refutational message. A plethora of studies on message

sidedness studies show that, even though there is no single result that supports either one-

sided or two-sided messages, in general, even though there is no time gap between

stimuli, a two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message.

Adding on to inoculation theory, the discounting hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen

& Reynolds, 1989; Allen & Stiff, 1989; Smith, 1984) posits that a source who fails to

meet an expectation or exceed an expectation is reevaluated by an audience. The logical

explanation of this hypothesis regarding message sidedness research is that this theory










supports the effectiveness of a refutational two-sided message over a one-sided message.

The discounting hypothesis considers immediate attitude change while inoculation theory

handles attitude change over time (Allen, 1991). Also, this theory provides background

for the study of source credibility: a reporting bias and a knowledge bias. In connection

with message sidedness, it is assumed that if a two-sided message is delivered to people,

it means that it violates the recipients' expectation that the communicator, who speaks on

behalf of the organization to which he or she belongs, would only relate positive points

regarding his or her organization or specific issues. By breaking these expectations, the

communicator acquires credibility, and therefore, the message gains more effectiveness

in persuading or keeping the audience from being persuaded by counterarguments

Attribution theory (Bohner et al., 2003; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965;

Kelley, 1973; Lang et al., 1999) describes how people make causal explanations and how

they develop answers for "why"-type questions. From the perspective of message

sidedness research, this theory provides psychological background for how two-sided

messages help increase the credibility of the message. Similar to the discounting

hypothesis, attribution theory explains the reason why a two-sided message is more

effective than a one-sided message in many cases, is because it violates the recipients'

expectation.

Finally, the optimum arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994) and

fear appeal studies, along with inoculation theory, provided an experimental background

for message sidedness research. The optimum arousal theory assumes that stimuli that are

moderately novel, surprising, or complex are more effective than stimuli that are too









strong or too weak. Also, fear appeal studies argue that fear arousal was the most

effective in medium strength conditions.

However, these existing theories do not explain the interaction effect between

message sidedness and constructs of source credibility (source trustworthiness and source

goodwill) of public relations messages. For instance, inoculation theory does not explain

the immediate effect of a refutational message (Allen, 1991). Most message sidedness

studies that support discounting hypothesis or attribution theory treated source credibility

as a dependent variable. On the other hand, studies on source credibility treated source

credibility as an independent variable (McCracken, 1989; McCroskey, 1999; Ohanian,

1990; Yoon et al., 1998).

To identify the interaction effect between message sidedness and two constructs

of source credibility, this study manipulated source trustworthiness and source goodwill

as independent variables. Their effects on the recipients' attitude toward the public

relations message, the issue and toward the company were tested.

Based on these findings, the following hypotheses were developed:

H1. There will be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and

source trustworthiness on the attitudes of the recipients of the message.

Hla. The effect of message sidedness on peoples' attitudes will be more

distinctive when the endorser is low rather than high in trustworthiness.

H2. There will be a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and

source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the message.

H2a. The effect of message sidedness on peoples' attitudes will be more

distinctive when the endorser is low rather than high in goodwill.










Also, it was questioned if there is any three-way interaction effect among message

sidedness, source trustworthiness and source goodwill. Therefore:

RQ1. Is there a three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source

trustworthiness, and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the

message?

RQ2. If there is a three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source

trustworthiness, and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the

message, is a refutational two-sided message from an endorser with high

source trustworthiness and high source goodwill the most effective?















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The obj ective of this study is to analyze the relationship among the three main

variables effects of message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill -

and their interaction effects on attitude change of the target audiences when exposed to a

public relations persuasion message.

For this, a 3 x 2 x 2 (message sidedness: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutational

two-sided vs. refutational two-sided) x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source

goodwill: high vs. low) between-subj ect experimental design was used. A MANOVA

was used to analyze these main and interaction effects, and pair-wise mean difference

tests were conducted to determine statistically significant mean difference among

different experimental groups.

Pretests

Two protests were conducted to check the validity of independent and dependent

variables.

Participants

Participants were recruited among the undergraduate students in the College of

Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. A total of 324 students in

two large public relations classes and two advertising classes participated. Each group

was composed of 27 members. To randomly assign the participants, Weblogs were pre-

numbered by date which was shown in the upper left side of the Weblogs, and were

distributed to each subj ect who sat down randomly where they used to sit. The










participants were randomly assigned to 3 x 2 x 2 treatment conditions such as (message

sidedness: supporting one-sided vs. nonrefutational two-sided vs. refutational two-sided)

x (source trustworthiness: high vs. low) x (source goodwill: high vs. low). As this

experiment was to test the effect of a public relations message on the attitude of the

message readers, which was shown to them for the first time, no control group was used.

Stimuli

To manipulate message sidedness, three types of Weblog pages were created for a

supporting one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message, and a refutational

two-sided message, using the replies to the main message. The topic of the Weblog was

about the expected effect of establishing a Carrefour super distribution center and

superstore on the economy and environment of Gainesville as well as on the subj ects

(University of Florida students). Carrefour is one of the largest European superstore

chains with more than 11,000 stores over 32 countries, but has not opened a store in

America yet. As such, the brand was not known to the subj ects, and it was posited that

there are no or little known positive or negative prior perceptions or attitudes toward

Carrefour.

Source trustworthiness and source goodwill were manipulated using a description

of Carrefour by the operator of the manipulated Weblog. The operator of the Weblog was

described as a business analyst, who is believed to have a certain degree of "source

credibility,"4 to allow subj ects to focus more on the manipulated description of Carrefour.

In total, twelve different versions of a Weblog were created.




4 The term "source credibility" was used to describe general source credibility of the message endorser. The
operator of the Weblog is expected to have expertise as well as trustworthiness and goodwill toward the
community, not toward to Carrefour.









Procedure

Participants were told that the purpose of the experiment was to collect their

comments on allowing a Carrefour distribution center and superstore to be opened in

Gainesville. They were told that because Carrefour had submitted a construction and

employment plan to the City of Gainesville's Department of Construction and

Development, the city government had to review the proposal, and would like to have

students' comments before they made a decision.

Based on the manipulation of this condition, 12 different versions of a Weblog,

along with descriptions of the company, were provided. Participants were asked to read

the Weblog message and description about Carrefour carefully, and respond to questions.

In an agreement with the lecturers for the classes, extra credit was given to those students

who participated. After completing the experiment, participants were debriefed. The

completed data was gathered and coded for statistical analyses.

Independent Variables

Message Sidedness

A supporting one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message and a

refutational two-sided message were manipulated. Based on the optimal arousal theory

(Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994), which argues that it is the most effective when

the proportion of negative information is approximately 40 percent, the ratio of positive

information versus negative information was manipulated to the level of approximately

60%: 40% by number of posters. As the unit of analysis was a Weblog that allows replies

to the messages or to other replies, message sidedness was manipulated using these

replies.









More concretely, the main message positively and obj ectively reported

Carrefour' s submission of a proposal to open a distribution center and a superstore in

Gainesville. For a supporting one-sided message, only positive replies were shown. For a

nonrefutational two-sided message, negative replies against the supporting message were

also shown without any refutation. To make the arguments look more realistic and natural,

the order of supporting and negative replies was alternated. For a refutational two-sided

message, replies that refuted those negative replies were used. Like the nonrefutational

two-sided message, the order of supporting and refutational replies to those negative

replies was alternated.

The main message that introduced Carrefour's coming to Gainesville and asked

readers for their opinions was presented as follows:

Carrefour, one of the largest European superstore chains headquartered in
Paris, France, plans to set up a distribution center and a superstore in
Gainesville. The company submitted a construction and employment plan
last week to the City of Gainesville' s Department of Construction and
Development. The proj ected amount of the investment is believed to
approach $34 million.

In the report, Carrefour says that within two years this investment will
create more than 300 jobs for the Gainesville community and those living
in the surrounding area. The report also proj ected that the price of real
estate in this area is expected to increase, because, this will allow
Gainesville to grow as a new hub distribution center in North Florida over
the next five years.

Also, the report said that consumers are expected to benefit from a
Carrefour superstore, because it will provide them with more shopping
freedom and opportunity. Carrefour plans to start construction
immediately upon getting approval from the City of Gainesville.

So, what do you think of this issue? Do you agree or disagree with
Carrefour coming to Gainesville?

Then, message sidedness was manipulated using replies to the message as follows:










Supporting one-sided message

At 10:54 AM, Gonator386 said...

I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy
of Gainesville.
Post a Comment
At 8:07 PM, Gimmeajob said...

I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as
scholarship opportunities for UF students
Post a Comment
At 11:23 PM, Sunnyll28 said...

I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with
Wal-Mart and Publix.
Post a Comment

Nonrefutational two-sided message (in the following order that mixed supporting
and negative posters)

At 10:54 AM, Gonator386 said...

I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy
of Gainesville. Post a Comment
Post a Comment
At 8:07 PM, Gimmeajob said...

I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as
scholarship opportunities for UF students
Post a Comment
At 10:10 PM, Debbie0202 said...

Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already
have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren't American
companies gonna have too much foreign competition?
Post a Comment
At 11:23 PM, Sunnv1128 said...

I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with
Wal-Mart and Publix.
Post a Comment

At 01:17 AM, Tomorrow said...

How long will it take to complete the construction? We definitely will have to
suffer from dust, noise and even traffic congestion during the construction
period. I don't want these inconveniences...










Post a Comment
At 08:33 AM, Green41ife said...

Look at Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please!
Stop destroying our environment!
Post a Comment

Refutational two-sided message (in the following order that mixed supporting and
negative posters, and refutational replies to the negative posters)

At 10:54 AM, Gonator386 said...

I think this is really awesome news that will revitalize the shrinking economy
of Gainesville. Post a Comment
Post a Comment
At 8:07 PM, Gimmeajob said...

I hope Carrefour will create more internships and part-time jobs as well as
scholarship opportunities for UF students
Post a Comment
At 10:10 PM, Debbie0202 said...

Do we really need more superstores in Gainesville? I think that we already
have too many. Also, Carrefour is a French company. Aren't American
companies gonna have too much foreign competition?

At 11:15PM, Carrefour said...

63 I don't think we have enough superstores in Gainesville. Carrefour is not
a small French company, but a global company that has a lot of expertise
and offices. Why not allow them to come into Gainesville, so that
consumers in Gainesville can have better choices?
Post a Comment
At 11:23 PM, Sunnyll28 said...

I hope I can buy fresher foods at cheaper prices thanks to the competition with
Wal-Mart and Publix.
Post a Comment

At 01:17 AM, Tomorrow said...

How long will it take to complete the construction? We definitely will have to
suffer from dust, noise and even traffic congestion during the construction
period. I don't want these inconveniences...

At 10:45PM, Lee hope said...

63 I heard that the construction will take approximately six months. It's
inevitable that some Gainesville citizens will suffer from dust and noise to










a certain extent. But I'm sure some contractors will minimize these
inconveniences by working at night and during the weekend. Also,
considering the positive effects on the Gainesville's economy, and on the
quality life of Gainesville citizens, I think it is worthwhile to grin and bear

Post a Comment
At 08:33 AM, Green41ife said...

Look at Gainesville, losing her green color! No more construction, please!
Stop destroying our environment!

At 08:33 AM, Carrefour said...

63 The construction will have very little effect on the environment of
Gainesville as it will take place at the existing commercial area where
empty and old warehouses have been left unused. On the contrary, after
completion, the area will be a place where people can enj oy shopping with
their family and friends.
Post a Comment

Source Trustworthiness

Source trustworthiness was manipulated into a high trustworthiness source and a

low trustworthiness source. Unlike most source trustworthiness research in advertising,

in which an endorser is an independent individual such as a celebrity or a sports star, in a

public relations message, it is common for a CEO or an internal public relations person to

speak for or on behalf of his or her company. In other words, for a public relations

message, even though it is an individual who speaks for an issue, it is the company that

source trustworthiness matters. Also, unlike a comparative advertisement that shows

advantages and disadvantages of a specific product or a service, it seems unnatural for an

internal public relations message endorser to speak of negative aspects of an issue or

about the company voluntarily.

In this study, source trustworthiness was manipulated using the explanation of

Carrefour by the operator of the Weblog, who is believed to be independent and has

trustworthiness. In describing Carrefour, the terms and concepts that are related to









trustworthiness, such as "honest," "respected," "ethical," "illegal tax deal," "bribery

scandal," and "sued by Green Peace," were used as follows:

High source trustworthiness: Carrefour was elected as the "Most Honest
Seller" by Consumer Report as well as the "Most Respected Buyer" by the
Association of European Agriculturists, in 2003 and 2004. Its inspection
standards are known to be the strictest in the industry. All employees must
complete 10 hours of ethics education each year. Since its establishment in
1980, there has been no scandal related to tax evasion, conflict with
employees or any environmental issues.

Low source trustworthiness: Carrefour was recently investigated by the
French Bureau of Investigation for its alleged illegal tax deals between
branches in different countries. In 2000, the president of Carrefour was
accused of bribery in a French court. More recently, Carrefour U.K. was
sued by Green Peace for selling some GM (genetically modified) foods
without identifying them.

Source Goodwill

Source goodwill was manipulated into a high goodwill condition and a low

goodwill condition. Like source trustworthiness, source goodwill was manipulated using

the explanation of Carrefour. The terms and concepts, such as "caring," "concerned,"

"sensitive," and "understanding," used in the ethos/credibility scales used by McCroskey

and Teven (1999) were used in manipulating source goodwill. In particular, as a token of

goodwill toward the community, corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities

including care for environment, educational systems, and contribution to the local

community were manipulated as follows:

High source goodwill: Carrefour was selected as the "World's 100 Most
Respected Corporations" five times by Global Reporting Initiative Index
since 2000. In particular, Carrefour's high reputation lies in its sustained
support of the local community. In every market where it has a presence,
Carrefour donates one percent of its net profits for the development of
educational systems. It also endeavors to preserve the environment. All of
its stores are equipped with a state-of-the art, the nature-friendly disposal
system. Moreover, it is the first and only superstore that does not provide
disposable plastic bags that are not biodegradable.











Low source goodwill: Carrefour is not as respected outside of Europe as it
is in Europe. Carrefour is viewed as a global firm that does not return its
profits to the local community, and keeps its corporate social
responsibility activities at a minimal level. Carrefour is the only global
firm that is not included in the "World's 100 Most Respected
Corporations" by Global Reporting Initiative Index. In addition, Carrefour
is the first superstore that provided non-biodegradable disposable plastic
bags, and still uses them even though they are harmful to environment.

Dependent Variables

Attitude toward the Trustworthiness of the Message

The attitude and trustworthiness scales used by Trifts and Haubl (2003) were used.

Participants were asked five questions designed to access their attitude toward the

message in the Weblog. Five bipolar, 7-point rating scales were used, ranging from -3

(undependable, dishonest, unreliable, insincere, and untrustworthy) to +3 (dependable,

honest, reliable, sincere, and trustworthy).

Attitude toward the Issue

Attitude scales slightly modified from the scales used by Priester and Petty (2003)

were employed.' Participants were asked four questions designed to access their attitude

toward the issue, i.e., allowing Carrefour to build a distribution center and a superstore in

their community. A mix of four 7-point semantic differential scales and bipolar rating

scales were used, ranging from -3 (negative, harmful, unfavorable, and bad) to +3

(positive, beneficial, favorable, and good).

Attitude toward the Company (Carrefour)

The attitude and trustworthiness scales used by Trifts and Haubl (2003) were

employed. Participants were asked five questions designed to access their attitude toward

5 The original scales used a 5-item semantic differential employing 9-point scale ranging from -4 (negative,
harmful, foolish, bad, and unfavorable) to +4 (positive, beneficial, wise, good, and favorable). The
"foolish/wise" item was deleted in this study.










the company, i.e., Carrefour. Five bipolar, 7-point rating scales were used, ranging from -

3 (undependable, dishonest, unreliable, insincere, and untrustworthy) to +3 (dependable,

honest, reliable, sincere, and trustworthy).















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the experiment outlined in Chapter 3. The

chapter begins by describing manipulation checks for the independent variables (message

sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill), and reliability checks for the

dependent variables (attitudes toward the message, the issue, and the company). It is

followed by a report of the results of the test of the hypotheses and research questions. It

concludes with reports of additional findings.

Manipulation Check for Independent Variables

Message Sidedness

For a manipulation check of message sidedness and refutation, participants

(n=324) were asked two questions: (a) "I think that this weblog presents primarily a

argument about Carrefour", and (b) "I think that posters to this weblog

refute or counter the argument here about Carrefour"). Two 7-point

bipolar rating scales were used, ranging from -3 (one sided) to +3 (two sided) for

question (a), and from -3 (ineffectively) to +3 (effectively) for question (b).

As shown in Table 1, for Question (a), the ANOVA for the mean scores of a one-

sided message versus two-sided messages showed a significant difference among the

three means (M~one-sided = -.55, 2Mnonrefutational tivo-sided = .37, M~refutational tivo-sided = .33, F(2,

321)=10.68, p<.01). The Scheffe post-hoc test showed a significant mean difference


i Scheffe's method was used as it is the most conservative method with respect to Type I error (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998, p.356).










existed only between a one-sided message versus a two-sided messages (M~one-sided -

M~nonrefutational two-sided = -.92, M~one-sided M~refutational two-sided = -.88, p<.01), but not between a

nonrefutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided message (M~nonrefutational two-

sided M~refutational two-sided = .04, p>.05). Thus, it is assumed that subj ects who read a one-

sided message clearly perceived it as a one-sided message, whereas subj ects who read a

two-sided message perceived it as a two-sided message regardless of the argument type,

i.e., a nonrefutational two-sided message or a refutational two-sided message.

For Question (b), the ANOVA for the mean scores of a one-sided message versus

two-sided messages showed a significant difference (M~one-sided = -.29, M~nonrefutational two-sided

=.32, M~refutational two-sided = .48, F(2, 319)=10.82, p<.01). The Scheffe post-hoc test showed

that there was a significant mean difference between a one-sided message and two-sided

messages (M~one-sided M~nonrefutational two-sided = -.61, Mlone-sided M~refutational two-sided = -.77, p<.01),

but not between a nonrefutational two-sided message and a refutational two-sided

message (M~nonrefutational two-sided M~refutational two-sided = -.16, p>.05). Thus it was questioned as

to whether the refutational version of the message was perceived actually effectively

refuting or countering better than the non-refutational version. While subj ects who read a

two-sided message (regardless of whether it was refutational or not) perceived that the

posters to the main message in the Weblog refuted the arguments effectively, there is no

different between a nonrefutational two-sided message or a refutational two-sided

message.










Table 1. Manipulation check for message sidedness
Two-sided
One-sided p-
Non-refutational Refutational F; dfl df2
value
M~ SD M~ SD M~ SD

Qea): one-sided
vs. twosided .55 1.64 .37 1.57 .33 1.74 10.68 2 321 .01

Q(b): effective -.29 1.41 .32 1.30 .48 1.12 10.82 2 319 .01
vs. ineffective


Source Trustworthiness

For a manipulation check of source trustworthiness, the ethos/credibility scales

used by McCroskey and Teven (1999) were employed. Participants were asked five

questions designed to access their perception of source trustworthiness. Five 7-point,

bipolar rating scales were used, ranging from -3 (dishonest, untrustworthy, dishonorable,

immoral, and unethical) to +3 (honest, trustworthy, honorable, moral, and ethical).

To check the dimensionality of the source trustworthiness measures, the five

items were factor analyzed using a principal axis factoring extraction method with

Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 79. 1% of the variance,

with an Eigenvalue = 4. 16.2 Table 2 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated

factors. All factor loadings were greater than .83.3 A Scree test also showed that all of

these items fall into one factor group (Figure 1). Therefore, using the factor score

regression approach, a source trustworthiness index was created. A follow-up reliability

check showed that this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95).4



2 In general, the factors having Eigenvalues greater than 1 are considered significant; all factors with
Eigenvalues less than 1 are considered insignificant (Hair et al., 1998, p.103)

3 The generally agreed upon lower limit for factor loading that accounts for 50 percent of the variance is .70
when the sample size is 100 or larger. In general, factor loadings greater than .50 are considered practically
significant (Hair et al., p.111).

SThe generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbach's alpha is .70 (Hair et al., p. 118).










A t-test of the mean scores for the low source trustworthiness condition versus the

high source trustworthiness condition showed a significant difference (Mlow, trustworthiness

=.03, M~high trustworthiness = 58, t--4. 53, d~f-322, p<.01). In general, subjects who read a

Weblog message from a high trustworthhy source had a more positive attitude toward the

source.


Table 2. Factor analysis of source trustworthiness
~Cronbach's a
Item Factor loadings.
if item deleted
Trustworthhy .93 .93
honorable .90 .94
ethical .90 .94
honest .89 .94
moral .83 .95
Extraction method: Principal axis factoring


34 5
Factor Number


Figure 1. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source trustworthiness

Source Goodwill

For a manipulation check of source goodwill, the ethos/credibility scales used by

McCroskey and Teven (1999) were employed with a slight modification.' Participants

were asked six questions designed to access their perception of source goodwill. Six 7-


5 The original McCroskey and Teven's scales (1999) were developed to measure source goodwill toward
individuals. As source goodwill in this study is about the goodwill of a corporation toward the community,
the three items that were directed to individuals, were changed to community, such as: cares about me 4
cares about our local community; has my interests at heart 9 has the local community's interests at heart;
concerned with me 4 concerned with local community).










point, bipolar rating scales were used, ranging from -3 (does not care about our local

community, does not have the local community's interests at heart, self-centered,

unconcerned with local community, insensitive, and not understanding) to +3 (cares

about our local community, has the local community's interests at heart, not self-centered,

concerned with local community, sensitive, and understanding).

To check the dimensionality of the six source goodwill items, the six items were

factor analyzed using a principal axis factoring extraction method with Varimax rotation.

One factor was extracted that accounted for 66.5% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue =

4.31. Table 3 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated factors. All factor

loadings were greater than .71. A Scree test also showed that these items fall into one

factor group (Figure 2). Therefore, using the factor score regression approach, a source

goodwill index was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has high

internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .92).

Table 3. Factor analysis of source goodwill
~Cronbach's a
Item Factor loadings.
if item deleted
concerned .90 .89
interested .87 .90
cares .85 .90
sensitive .81 .91
understanding .73 .92
not self centered .71 .92
Extraction method: Principal axis factoring



















2- 4 5



Factor Number

Figure 2. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for source goodwill

A t-test of the mean scores for the low source goodwill condition vs. the high

source goodwill condition showed a significant difference (Mlow goodwill= -.34, M~high goodwill

=.3 1, t--5.18, d~f-319, p<.01). In general, subj ects who read a Weblog message from the

high source goodwill had a more positive attitude toward the source.

Reliability Check for Dependent Variables

Attitude toward the Message

To check reliability (internal consistency) of the subj ects' attitude toward the

message in the Weblog, the five items were factor analyzed using a principal axis

factoring extraction method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that

accounted for 58.9% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 3.34. Table 4 displays the

items and factor loadings for the rotated factors. All factor loadings were greater than .66.

A Scree test also showed that these items fall into one factor group (Figure 3). Therefore,

using these factor scores, an index for attitude toward the message was created. A follow-

up reliability check showed that this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach's

alpha = .88).











Table 4. Factor analysis of attitude toward the message
~Cronbach's a
Item Factor loadings .fie eee

trustworthy .84 .83
reliable .83 .84
dependable .79 .84
sincere .70 .86
honest .66 .87
Extraction method: Principal axis factoring


35-
30-
25-




0 0-

234


Factor Number

Figure 3. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the message

Attitude toward the Issue


To check the internal consistency of the subj ects' attitude toward the issue, the

four items were factor analyzed using a principal axis factoring extraction method with

Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 81.1% of the variance,

with an Eigenvalue = 3.43. Table 5 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated

factors. All factor loadings were greater than .88. A Scree test also showed that these

items fall into one factor group (Figure 4). Therefore, using these factor scores, an index

for attitude toward the issue was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this

scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95).










Table 5. Factor analysis of attitude toward the issue
~Cronbach's a
Item Factor loadings .fie eee
favorable .92 .92
good .92 .92
beneficial .89 .93
positive .88 .93
Extraction method: Principal axis factoring
















Factor Number


Figure 4. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the issue

Attitude toward the Company

To check the internal consistency of the subj ects' attitude toward the company,

the five items were factor analyzed using a principal axis factoring extraction method

with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted that accounted for 75.2% of the variance,

with an Eigenvalue = 4.01. Table 6 displays the items and factor loadings for the rotated

factors. All factor loadings were greater than .83. A Scree test also showed that these

items fall into one factor group (Figure 5). Therefore, using these factor scores, an index

for attitude toward the company was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that

this scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .94).










Table 6. Factor analysis of attitude toward the company
~Cronbach's a
Item Factor loadings .fie eee

trustworthy .92 .91
reliable .91 92
dependable .85 .93
sincere .83 .93
honest .83 .93
Extraction method: Principal axis factoring





4-








1 2 3 4 5
Factor Number

Figure 5. Eigenvalue plot for Scree test for attitude toward the company

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between

message sidedness and source trustworthiness. on the attitudes of the recipients of the

message. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test this

hypothesis. Linear combinations of all dependent variables were considered together

(Table 7), and the results showed that there was no significant interaction effect between

message sidedness and source trustworthiness. on the attitudes of the recipients of the

message (Wilks' Lambda =.98, p>.05). Hypothesis 1 was not supported.










Hypothesis la

Hypothesis la posited that the effect of message sidedness on peoples' attitudes

will be more distinctive when the endorser (company) is low rather than high in

trustworthiness. As shown from the results of MANOVA test (Table 7), there was no

interaction effect between message sidedness and source trustworthiness, Hypothesis la

was also not supported.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between

message sidedness and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the message.

The MANOVA result (Table 7) showed that there was an interaction effect between

message sidedness and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the message

(Wilks' Lambda=.95, F(6, 620)=2.67, p<.02). The Wilks' Lambda value for interaction

effect was .95, meaning that 95 percent of this effect was not explained by the interaction

between the message sidedness and source goodwill. Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 7. Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness and
source goodwill

Effect Wilks' A~ F H df Error df p-value

MS 0.98 1.07 6 620 0.38
Goodwill 0.97 3.79 3 310 0.01
Trust 0.92 9.49 3 310 0.01
MS*Goodwill 0.95 2.67 6 620 0.02
MS*Trust 0.98 0.92 6 620 0.48
Goodwill*Trust 0.99 0.40 3 310 0.75
MS*Goodwill*Trust 0.98 0.91 6 620 0.49


As Wilks' Lambda was significant, each dependent variable was tested. The

results of the test of between-subjesct effects (Table 8) showed that the interaction effect










of message sidedness and goodwill affected recipients' attitude toward the company

(F=5.73, p<.01), but not towards the message (p>.05) nor toward the issue (p>.05).

Hypothesis 2a

Hypothesis 2a posited that the effect of message sidedness on peoples' attitudes

will be more distinctive when the endorser is low rather than high in goodwill. There was

an interaction effect between message sidedness and source goodwill on the recipients'

attitude toward the company only (F=5.73, p<.01).

Table 8. Results of between-subj ects test


Mean
df
Square
2 0.42
2 3.83
2 0.72
1 0.64
1 15.89
1 8.30
1 0.53
1 4.24
1 32.21
2 2.56
2 2.22
2 6.73
2 0.38
2 2.83
2 0.98
1 0.01
1 0.32
1 0.62
2 0.62
2 0.83
2 2.15


Source


Dependent Variable


F p-value


Message sidedness (MS)



Goodwill



Trust



MS*Goodwill



MS*Trust



Goodwill*Trust



MS*Goodwill*Trust


Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company


0.40
2.05
0.61
0.61
8.51
7.08
0.51
2.27
27.46
2.43
1.19
5.73
0.36
1.51
0.83
0.01
0.17
0.53
0.59
0.44
1.84


0.67
0.13
0.54
0.44
0.01
0.01
0.48
0.13
0.01
0.09
0.31
0.01
0.70
0.22
0.44
0.99
0.68
0.47
0.56
0.64
0.16










As shown in Table 9, results of a mean difference test showed that a one-sided

message from a high goodwill source (M=-.84, SD=.93) was more effective than a one-

sided message from a low goodwill source (M=-.17, SD=1.20) on the recipients' attitude

toward the company (t--3.24, d~~106, p<.01). A nonrefutational two-sided message from

a high goodwill source (M=-.64, SD=1.18) was also more effective than a nonrefutational

two-sided message from a low goodwill source (M=-.09, SD=1.17) (t--2.41, df106,

p<.05).

However, the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill

source (M=-.24, SD=1.07) was not significantly different from the mean of a refutational

two-sided message from a low goodwill source (M=-.49, SD=1.20) (t-1.15, df106,

p>.05). On the contrary, even though statistically not significant, the mean of a

refutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source was higher than the mean of a

refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source.

In addition, if a message was from a high goodwill source, a one-sided message

(M=-.84, SD=.93) was more effective than a refutational two-sided message (M=-.24,

SD=1.07) (t-3.12, d~~106, p<.01). Also, in the high source goodwill condition, even

though it is statistically marginally significant (t-1.82, d~~106, p=.07), a nonrefutational

two-sided message (M=-.64, SD=1.18) was more effective than a refutational two-sided

message (M=-.24, SD=1.07). However, the mean of a one-sided message and a

nonrefutational two-sided message was not significantly different.

On the other hand, if a message was from a low goodwill source, there was no

significant mean difference among the different message types in the p<.05 level.

However, there was a marginally significant mean difference between a nonrefutational











two-sided message (M=-.09, SD=1.17) and a refutational two-sided message (M=-.49,

SD=1.20) (t--1.76, d~f-106, p=.08). Therefore, hypothesis 2a was marginally supported.

Table 9. Means and standard deviations for message sidedness and source goodwill for
attitude toward the company

Message Sidedness


Two-sided
Non-refutational Refutational
M SD M SD

.64 1.18 .24 1.07
.09 1.17 .49 1.20


One-sided

MSD

.84 .93
.17 1.20


Source
Goodwill


High
Low


Figure 6 shows the interaction effect between message sidedness and source

goodwill.


-1
-


~,.~
''

..

~'','


One-sided

Nonrefutational two-sided
Refutational two-sided


***************

*- --


Low


High


Source goodwill

Figure 6. Interaction effect of message sidedness and goodwill on
the attitude toward the company


Research Question 1

This research question asked about a three-way interaction effect among message

sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients









of the message. The results of MANOVA (Table 7) showed no three-way interaction

effect (Wilks' Lambda=.98, p>.05).

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asked that if a refutational two-sided message from an

endorser (company) with high source trustworthiness and high source goodwill is the

most effective on the attitudes of the recipients of the message, if there is a three-way

interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill.

There was no three-way interaction effect (Wilks' Lambda=.98, p>.05).

Additional Testing and Findings

Given that the results of the Hypothesis 1 showed that there was no two-way

interaction effect between message sidedness and source trustworthiness, the main effects

of message sidedness and source trustworthiness were tested.

Main Effect of Message Sidedness

All dependent variables were considered together. A MANOVA result (Table 7)

showed that there was no main effect of message sidedness on the attitudes of the

recipients of the message (Wilks' Lambda=.98, p>.05).

Main Effect of Source Trustworthiness

A MANOVA result (Table 7) showed that there was a main effect of source

trustworthiness on the attitudes of the recipients of the message (Wilks' Lambda=.92,

F(3,310)=9.49, p<.01). The Wilks' Lambda value for the main effect was .92, meaning

that 92 percent of this effect was not explained by the main effect of source

trustworthiness.










As Wilks' Lambda was significant, each dependent variable was tested. The

results of multivariate test showed that there was a main effect of source trustworthiness

on the recipients' attitude toward the company (F=32.21, p<.01i), but not towards the

message (p>.05) nor toward the issue (p>.05).

As shown in Table 10, results of a mean difference test showed that, overall, a

message from a source with high trustworthiness (M=-.73, SD=.92) was more effective

than a message from a source with low trustworthiness (M=-.10, SD=1.27) (t--5.12,

df322, p<.01). More specifically, a nonrefutational two-sided message from a high

trustworthiness source (M=-.79, SD=.92) was more effective than a nonrefutational two-

sided message from a low trustworthiness source (M=- -.06, SD=1.30) (t--3.91, df106,

p<.01). A one-sided message from a high trustworthiness source (M=-.75, SD=.95) was

more effective than a one-sided message from a low trustworthiness source (M=-.26,

SD=1.22) (t--2.3 5, 1~~l06, p<.05). Also, a refutational two-sided message from a high

trustworthiness source (M=-.64, SD=.90) was more effective than a refutational two-sided

message from a low trustworthiness source (M=-.09, SD=1.29) (t--2.57, df106, p<.05).

However, results of the post hoc tests showed that there were no significant mean

differences among a one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message and a

refutational two-sided message (p>.05), in both high and low source trustworthiness

conditions.

Finally, as there was no three-way interaction effect among message sidedness,

source trustworthiness, and source goodwill, two-way interaction effects were tested. As

shown from Table 7, there was a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness

and source goodwill (tested with Hypothesis 2). However, there was no two-way











interaction effect of message sidedness and source trustworthiness (tested with


Hypothesis 1). Also, there was no two-way interaction effect between source


trustworthiness and source goodwill (Wilks' Lambda =.99, p>.05).


Table 10. Means and standard deviations for message sidedness and source
trustworthiness toward the company


Message Sidedness

Two-sided
Non-refutational Refutational
M SD M SD

.79 .92 .64 .90
-.06 1.30 .09 1.29


One-sided

MSD

.75 .95
.26 1.22


Source
Trustworthiness


High
Low


Figure 7 shows the main effect between message sidedness and source

trustworthiness.


. O


-1
-


..~
..~
'''
'''
'''


~


One-sided

Nonrefutational two-sided
Refutational two-sided


...............

e-- --


Low High

Source trustworthiness


Figure 7. Main effect of source trustworthiness on the attitude toward the company










Weblog as a New Public Relations Tool

This study used a Weblog as an experimental tool for communicating a public

relations message instead of traditional public relations tools such as press releases, white

papers, newsletters, or pitch letters. A Weblog is "a publicly accessible personal journal

for an individual. Similar to a personal diary, but shared over the web" (5 Star Support,

2006). Here, a Weblog was used since they are being employed by more and more

corporations as a public relations tool targeting Netizens.6 Even though it has become a

topic of debate whether using a Weblog as a public relations tool is ethical or not

(Barbaro, 2006), reflecting the characteristics of cyber communication' and the

increasing number of Internet users,s Weblogs are gaining popularity as an effective

alternative public relations tool. This illustrates the importance of Weblogs in public

relations research as well as practice.

A maj or reason of using a Weblog as a new alternative public relations tool for

corporations is because by using a Weblog they can secure more obj activity than when

using traditional public relations tools. For instance, a press release has limited potential

for using message sidedness as it is expected to include only positive aspects or


6 This terminology was firstly used in 1992, by Michael F. Hauben (Hauben, 2004). In his article, "The Net
and Netizens: The Anpact the Net Has on People 's Lives," Hauben foresaw the future of cyberspace as
"Welcome to the 21Ist Centurv. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of the world
thanks to the global connectivity that the Net makes possible. You consider everyone as your compatriot.
You physically live in one country but you are in contact with much of the world via the global computer
network. Virtually, you live next door to every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation
is replaced by existence in the same virtual space." (Hauben, 2004).

SMorris (1996) grouped the characteristics of cyber-communication into four categories: a) one-to-one
asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, b) many-to-many asynchronous communication, such as
Usenet and electronic bulletin board, c) synchronous communication that includes one-to-one, one-to-few
or one-to-many such as MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons) and chat room, and d) asynchronous
communication such as websites and FTP sites (Morris, 1996, pp. 42-43).

SThe number of internet users in the United States was over 2 million as of January 2006, accounting for
68.6% of the whole population. The number of global internet users was over 1 billion as of the end of
2005 (Internet World Stats, 2006).










advantages of an issue in favor of a company. Even though message sidedness might be

used in a press release, the biggest drawback of using message sidedness in a press

release lies in its unnaturalnesss.' On the other hand, a Weblog has the characteristics of a

personal j journal, and is regarded as more obj ective, allowing the use of message

sidedness to seem more natural, and therefore, more positive message sidedness effects

are expected. In addition, while traditional public relations tools are heavily dependent on

mass media, Weblogs enable corporations to access their target publics directly without

any constraints in time and space.















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the results of the experiment presented in Chapter 4. The

chapter begins with a summary of findings, followed by a detailed analysis of

conclusions related to the hypotheses and research questions. Next, a discussion of the

implications for public relations theory, practice, and pedagogy is provided, followed by

limitations of this research. Finally, the chapter concludes with recommendations for

future research.

Summary of Findings

This study examined the effect of message sidedness in public relations messages

and its interaction effect with source credibility, in particular, with source trustworthiness

and source goodwill, on the message recipients' attitude toward the message, the public

relations issue, and toward the company. Specifically, this study attempted to use a new

public relations message tool, Weblogs, to situate this communication paradigm in the

Internet era.

Results indicate that there was no three-way interaction effect among message

sidedness, source trustworthiness, and source goodwill. There was a main effect of source

trustworthiness and a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and source

goodwill on the recipients' attitude toward the company.

Overall, a message from a source with high trustworthiness was more effective

than a message from a source with low trustworthiness on the recipients' attitude toward










the company regardless of the message sidedness. There were no significant mean

differences among a one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message and a

refutational two-sided message, in both high and low source trustworthiness conditions.

On the other hand, if a message was from a high goodwill source, a one-sided

message was more effective than a refutational two-sided message. Likewise, a

nonrefutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source was more effective than

a nonrefutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source. However, the mean of

a refutational two-sided message from a high goodwill source was not significantly

different from the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a low goodwill source.

Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis la

Hypothesis 1 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between

message sidedness and source trustworthiness on the attitude of the recipients of the

message. Also, based on an assumption that there would be a two-way interaction effect,

Hypothesis la posited that the effect of message sidedness on peoples' attitudes will be

more distinctive when the endorser (company) is low rather than high in trustworthiness.

However, there was no such two-way interaction effect. Neither Hypothesis 1 nor

Hypothesis la was supported. Instead, there was a main effect of source trustworthiness

on the recipients' attitude toward the company.

Main Effect of Source Trustworthiness

Even though the interaction effect in Hypothesis 1 was not supported, the results

showed consistent findings with some of the existing research on source trustworthiness.

For example, Priester and Petty (2003) reported that there was a main effect of endorser

trustworthiness from their series of experiments, which tested the interaction effects









between endorser trustworthiness and argument quality. They reported that participants in

their experiments had more favorable attitudes toward the product which was endorsed

by a high trustworthiness source than that of a low trustworthiness source. In this study,

subjects who were disclosed to a high trustworthiness source condition had a more

favorable attitude toward the company than subjects disclosed to a low trustworthinesss

source condition.

Implication for Public Relations Theory

Existing research on public relations reported that perceptions of public relations

and its practitioners were skewed toward the negative (Newsom et al., 1993; Callison,

2001). Callison (2001) argued that these perceptions are based on people' s association of

public relations with reporting bias (Eagly et al., 1978) in favor of clients. This explains

why corporations employ a credible endorser who can add credibility to their public

relations messages. However, unlike an advertising message for which the role of the

message endorser is critical for the successful selling of the products or services, public

relations messages are dealing with issues on which the perception of the company is

more directly affected, and therefore, instead of employing an external message endorser

or model, CEOs or internal public relations specialists deliver the message for or on

behalf of their companies.

This study focused on this issue, too. But instead of focusing on manipulating the

endorser trustworthiness as an individual, it manipulated the trustworthiness of the

company itself as a message source. This was based on an assumption that a company as

a message source is more important than an individual message endorser who speaks

about a public relations issue, and therefore, the effect of using a credible endorser would










not be as critical as it is in an advertising message. Also, because the purpose of public

relations message is not to bend the truth unethically for the benefit of the clients or the

company, if the company is perceived as untrustworthy, the message from a CEO or a

public relations person would be also perceived as untrustworthy.

The results showed that the trustworthiness of a company is an important factor

that affects the attitudes of the recipients of the message toward the company. The more

the company is perceived as being trustworthhy, the more effective the public relations

message. This confirms findings for other research on source trustworthiness, as well as

providing intriguing theoretical implications. For example, Priester and Petty (2003)

reported that source trustworthiness has a main effect as well as an interaction effect with

argument quality. They argued that while the use of a trustworthy source is more

effective in general, in some situations, a strong argument from a low trustworthiness

source is almost or equally effective to a strong argument from a high trustworthiness

source.

This study suggests a possible combination of message sidedness and argument

quality. For instance, a one-sided message may be developed using either a strong

argument or a weak argument. Likewise, a refutational two-sided message may be

developed using either a strong argument or a mild argument. It would be plausible to

expect that the effect of argument quality interacted with message sidedness would be

different by source trustworthiness. If only a main effect is considered, it could be

predicted that a one-sided message with a strong argument would be more effective than

a refutational two-sided message with a weak argument regardless of source

trustworthiness. On the other hand, if an interaction effect is considered, a one-sided









message with a strong argument from a low trustworthiness source may be more effective

than a refutational two-sided message with a weak argument from a high trustworthiness

source. These inferences are yet to be tested in future research.

Also, for a refutational two-sided message and a non-refutational two-sided

message, according to optimal arousal theory (Berlyne, 1971; Crowley & Hoyer, 1994), a

two-sided message that contains a moderate level of refutational message is more

effective than a one-sided or a two-sided message that contains a refutational message

that is too strong or too weak. However, in the experiments of Priester and Petty (2003),

this aspect was not considered as subjects were exposed to only high and low argument

conditions. Further research should look for the effect of argument quality (strong,

moderate and weak conditions) and its interaction with message sidedness (one-sided,

nonrefutational two-sided and refutational two-sided) under different source

trustworthiness conditions (high and low).

Implication for Public Relations Practice

In this study, the results of the experiment showed that a message from a high

trustworthiness source was more effective than a message from a low trustworthiness

source regardless of the message sidedness. These findings provide meaningful practical

implications for public relations practitioners in developing a public relations message.

For a company with high trustworthiness

Priester and Petty (2003) argued that information presented by trustworthhy

endorsers is likely to be non-thoughtfully accepted. Therefore, it is likely that regardless

of the message sidedness, recipients of a message from a high trustworthiness source will










have more positive attitude toward the source (company) than a message from a low

trustworthiness source.

Therefore, if a company is perceived as a highly trustesd message source by its

target publics, this company may use both a one-sided message and a two-sided message

depending on the situation and purpose. For instance, if the company is dealing with a

controversial issue, it is better for the company to use a nonrefutational two-sided

message, i.e., describes advantages or positive points of the issue to the target publics as

well as disadvantages or negative aspects of the issue without refuting or countering them.

A voluntary disclosure of negative aspects will result in the breaking of the reporting bias

(Eagly et al., 1978), and therefore, the company may be seen as more objective and

candid.

On the other hand, if this company uses a one-sided message, depending on

situations, it would be equally effective to using a non-refutational two-sided message.

Because the company is regarded as trustworthhy by the target publics, they may not see

any negative aspects to the public relations issue as long as the company does not raise

those negative points. If this is the case, the company should simply let "sleeping dogs

lie" and not begin raising and refuting those negative issues voluntarily. The company

should leverage its positive image as a trustworthhy source by not voluntarily bring up

attention to negative aspects of a public relations issue.

However, it is not always possible to speak of only positive aspects in a public

relations message. In particular, in a crisis situation or when undertaking issue

communications, the company should be able to cope with expected or unexpected

negative aspects of public relations issues effectively. For example, if a company trustesd










by its publics in general is involved with a controversial issue, such as the construction of

a nuclear power station in a community, it is not practical for the company to provide

only a one-sided supporting message. In this case, it is recommended that the company

develop a refutational two-sided message to cope with these issues.

One caveat for using message sidedness in public relation messages is to

deliberately control the amount of positive and negative information about the issue. Like

comparative advertising, as suggested in the optimal arousal theory, the amount of

positive aspects should be slightly more than negative aspects. In other words, the tone of

argument in favor of positive aspects should be slightly stronger than the tone of negative

argument to the extents that the message recipients would perceive the message as

trustworthy and have positive attitude toward the company. For instance, in comparative

advertising, though it is consumers who judge and decide whether they would buy the

products or the services shown in the advertisement, the advertising message is

developed to induce these consumers who are exposed to the advertisement to think or

feel that they can have a positive attitude toward the products or the services naturally,

using either the central route or the peripheral route depending on their degree of

elaboration and involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).

For a company with low trustworthiness

In general, if a company is not perceived as a trusted company by its target

publics, there are limitations in using message sidedness to develop a public relations

message. Because the company is already perceived as an untrustworthy information

source among the target publics, even though the company voluntarily refutes negative

aspects of the issue, the target publics' skeptical attitude toward the company might not










be affected by the message sidedness as intended. Instead, they may pick up on these

negative aspects more than they normally would.

In spite of this fundamental limitation in composing a public relations message,

the effect of argument quality could still be considered. As Priester and Petty (2003)

reported, a strong argument from a low trustworthiness endorser was almost or equally

effective to a strong argument from a high trustworthiness endorser, as it may lead to

more elaborated attitudes. Therefore, it would be plausible to argue that a message with a

strong argument may be more effective than a message with a weak argument for a

company with low trustworthiness.

Also, like a company with high trustworthiness, there are situations that require a

company to use a two-sided message strategy. If there is such a situation for a company

with low trustworthiness, a refutational two-sided message with a strong argument may

be used. As the target publics will be skeptical about this company, they may pay less

attention to the message, if it does not contain a clear, strong argument in favor of the

company.

Most of all, it should be noted that if a company is perceived as untrustworthy by

its target publics, the company is limited in developing a public relations message. In

other words, it is more important for a company to build trust and a positive image

among the target publics before it disseminates a public relations message on a specific

issue, in particular, on a controversial issue. Moreover, it should be noted that

trustworthiness and reputation are not acquired in the short-term because they are the

results of persistent long-term public relations activities.










Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 2a

Hypothesis 2 posited that there would be a two-way interaction effect between

message sidedness and source goodwill on the attitudes of the recipients of the message.

Also, based on an assumption that there would be a two-way interaction effect,

Hypothesis 2a posited that the effect of message sidedness on peoples' attitudes will be

more distinctive when the endorser (company) is low rather than high in goodwill. The

results showed that there is a two-way interaction effect between message sidedness and

source goodwill on the recipients' attitude toward the company.l

Interaction Effect of Message Sidedness and Source Goodwill

The interaction effect showed that the mean of a refutational two-sided message

from a high goodwill source was not significantly different from a low goodwill source.2

On the other hand, a one-sided message and a nonrefutational two-sided message from a

high goodwill source were more effective than a one-sided message and a nonrefutational

two-sided message from a low goodwill source. Also, for the high goodwill source

condition, a one-sided message was more effective than a refutational two-sided message.

For the low goodwill source condition, even though it was statistically insignificant, a

refutational two-sided message was more effective than a non-refutational two-sided

message (t--1.76, d~f-106, p=.08).





SAlso, there was a main effect of source goodwill on the recipients' attitude toward the issue (F(3,
310)=6.33, p<.01) and the company (F(3, 310)=7.08, p<.01). Participants had more favorable attitude
toward the issue when the message was from a high goodwill source (M.78) than when it was from a low
goodwill source (1/=.45). Also, they had more favorable attitude toward the company when the message
was from a high goodwill source (M=.57) than when it was from a low goodwill source (1/=.25)

SEven though statistically insignificant (p=.25), the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a low
goodwill source (1/=.49, SD=1.20) was higher than the mean of a refutational two-sided message from a
high goodwill source (1/=.24, SD=1.07).









These findings highlight important and intriguing implications for public relations

theory and practice as well as for public relations pedagogy.

Implication for Public Relations Theory

To date, an abundance of research on source credibility has reported that

information provided by a high credibility source is more effective than information

provided by a low credibility source in increasing positive attitude change and behavioral

intentions (Petty & Wegener, 1998; Cotlieb & Sarel, 1991; Homer & Kahle, 1990; Ward

& McGinnies, 1974; Woodside & Davenport, 1974). In particular, McCroskey and Teven

(1999) argued that, among the maj or constructs of source credibility, source goodwill is

equal to or more important than other constructs of source credibility, such as source

expertise and source trustworthiness.

In this experiment, it was shown that source goodwill interacted with message

sidedness to affect the attitude of the message recipients. To date, there has been a

plethora of independent research examining either source trustworthiness or message

sidedness. However, there were few studies that identify the interaction effect between

source goodwill and message sidedness, especially in the context of a public relations

message.

The reason why source goodwill is important in public relations research is that it

affects the impact of a public relations message. As one of the most important constructs

of source credibility, the more a company is perceived as having high goodwill toward

the community or toward target publics, the more effective the public relations messages

of that company will be. As McCroskey and Teven (1999) argued, goodwill is not a

matter of cognition, but a matter of understanding, empathy, and responsiveness.









Whereas trustworthiness is more about cognition, goodwill is more about affection.

Source goodwill is also a matter of attractiveness (Yoon et al., 1998). For example, when

college students like their college's football team, they do so mostly not because the

football team plays well, but because they feel homogeneity, i.e., they feel that they are

on the same side as the team. Likewise, when a company is perceived as having goodwill

toward a community, people living in that community will be more positive and generous

to the company, and it will result in better communication results. Even in crisis

situations, people will be more forgiving and sympathetic to the company. This supports

the reason why corporations are actively involved in public relations activities such as

corporate social responsibility activities and reputation management, because the

company is hoping that it will enhance the perceived goodwill of the company, i.e., to

position themselves as a responsible corporate citizen.

Also, there was an interaction effect between source goodwill and message

sidedness. This implies that even though goodwill is an important variable for the success

of a public relations message, it can achieve better results if leveraged with message

sidedness. In principle, the company should identify whether it is perceived as having

high goodwill or not, and according to the status and depending on the situation, it should

decide whether it will use a one-sided message, a nonrefutational two-sided message, or a

refutational two-sided message.

In addition, goodwill provides criteria for the evaluation of public relations

messages, as well as providing a theoretical base for undertaking public relations

programs, specifically, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, reputation

management, and issues and crisis communications. One of the alleged weaknesses of










public relations messages as well as public relations programs is that it is difficult to

evaluate the effectiveness of these public relations messages or the results of the

programs. This study showed that the more a company is perceived as having goodwill

toward the community or the society to which it belongs, the more effective the public

relations message from this company on public relations issues.

Implication for Public Relations Practice

For a company with high goodwill

If a company is perceived by its target publics as having high goodwill toward the

community to which it belongs, it would be most effective to use a one-sided supporting

public relations message. As there already exists a friendly perception of the company

among target publics, it may not be a good idea to provide them with negative

information on a controversial issue, which may cause unnecessary argument about the

issue. In other words, this company should make use of its advantageous perception as a

high goodwill information source.

However, in public relations practice, there are situations that require a company

to use a two-sided message to argue over a controversial issue or to justify the company's

position. The representative cases are issues communications and crisis communications.

Even in these situations, it is recommended that the company use a non-refutational two-

sided message rather than a refutational two-sided message to make use of its positive

image as a company which has goodwill toward the target publics.3 When developing a

nonrefutational two-sided message, based on optimal arousal theory, the amount of



3 Even though it is statistically marginally significant (t-1.82, d~f-106, p=.07), in the high source goodwill
condition, the mean of a nonrefutational two-sided message (M=.64, SD=1.18) was higher than the mean of
a refutational two-sided message (M=.24, SD=1.07).










positive message aspects should be slightly more than negative message aspects. Again,

the tone of the supporting argument should be slightly stronger than that of the opposing

argument.

Employment of a refutational two-sided message should be the last choice unless

this kind of argument is not raised by other parties, such as NGOs, activist groups,

competitors, or other critical stakeholders.

For a company with low goodwill

On the other hand, for a company perceived as having low goodwill toward the

community to which it belongs, a refutational two-sided message should be employed.

Because the perception of the company among target publics is not friendly, if this

company uses a non-refutational two-sided message, the target publics may not receive it

as positively as they may receive it from a high goodwill source. Also, if this company

uses only a one-sided message, target publics may look at the issue from a rather negative

point of view as their perception of this company is negatively skewed, and this company

may look less obj ective.

Theoretically, if the target publics were exposed to a one-sided message, there

will not be any breaking of reporting bias, i.e., the target publics may expect that the

company would only speak of positive aspects of the issue, and consequently, they may

not accept the message as it is because of the lack of perceived obj activity. On the other

hand, if the company provides a refutational two-sided message, as explained by the

discounting hypothesis (Allen, 1991; Allen & Reynolds, 1989; Allen & Stiff, 1989;

Smith, 1984), it violates the expectation of the target publics that the company would










only speak of positive aspects of the issue, and consequently, the company would be

perceived as more honest, fair-minded, and expert by the public.

Therefore, by employing a refutational two-sided message, a company with low

goodwill will be able to gain more attention from the target public, because they will

elaborate the message more thoughtfully (Priester & Petty, 2003), and there will be more

opportunities for them to change the target publics' attitude from negative to positive, or

to form a positive attitude toward the company.

Finally, for a low goodwill company to use a refutational two-sided message, one

precondition should be satisfied, i.e., the company should be confident that its position is

right. That is, its position should have more obj ective persuasiveness or more positive

aspects than negative aspects so that when the message is elaborated on by the recipients,

they would agree with the message or change their attitude from negative to positive. As

Priester and Petty (2003) argued, this message strategy would be advantageous only "if

the thoughts that arise in response to the information are positive" (p. 419).

Additional Implications

Implication for Public Relations Pedagogy

Message sidedness has been investigated thoroughly in advertising and marketing

research, but not in public relations research. As reported in the existing research, results

of the message sidedness effect varied depending on situations and variables used

(Cowley & Hoyer, 1994; Lang et al., 1999). O'Keefe (1999) argued that in general, a

refutational two-sided message is more effective than a one-sided message.

However, in this study, it was shown that there was no such message sidedness

effect when source trustworthiness was considered. Regardless of the type of message









sidedness, a message from a source with high trustworthiness was more effective than a

message from a source with low trustworthiness. On the other hand, there was a message

sidedness effect when source goodwill was considered. For instance, if a message was

from a source with high goodwill, a one-sided message was more effective than a

refutational two-sided message. In the low goodwill condition, a refutational two-sided

message was more effective than a nonrefutational two-sided message, and equally or

even more effective than a refutational two-sided message from a company with high

goodwill.

These Eindings should be taken into consideration for public relations pedagogy.

There was no consistent support for any specific type of message sidedness. Instead, a

company should be able to carefully develop a public relations message depending on its

perceived trustworthiness and goodwill. Also, public relations scholars should be able to

Eigure out the relevant situations in which what type of message sidedness works better

than other type of message sidedness. These message sidedness strategies should be more

thoroughly researched and elaborated on so that students and public relations

practitioners can benefit from these findings.

No Main Effect of Trustworthiness and Goodwill on Attitude toward the Issue or

the Message

There may be other confounding variables that were not considered in this study.

For example, involvement might have worked as an artifact. Each of the subjects might

have different prior attitudes toward environment protection or economic issues, as well

as acquiring job opportunities.










Also, there may be a causal relationship among the dependent variables. It seems

that attitude toward the company was a dependent variable that was affected by

independent variables most directly as shown in the results. In other word, attitude

toward the company may work as an endogenous variable that affects attitude either

attitude toward the message or the issue.

Also, the stimuli might work as unintended way. The public relations tool

manipulated in this study was a Weblog, which was operated by an individual who was

perceived as having a certain degree of trstworthiness and goodwill. Therefore, even

though source trustworthiness and source goodwill were manipulated with high and low

conditions in the Weblog, it seems that it did not affect the recipients' attitude toward the

Weblog message.

Additional Variables

This research posited three dependent variables: recipients' attitude toward the

message, the issue, and the company. As shown in Chapter 4, there was a main effect of

source trustworthiness and an interaction effect of source goodwill and message

sidedness on the recipients' attitude toward the company. However, there was no such

effect on the recipients' attitude toward the issue and toward the message.

A possible interpretation is that there may be external or moderating variables that

affected the recipients' attitude toward the issue such as involvement conditions and

recipients' prior attitude toward the issue.

Therefore, even though it was not hypothesized, involvement and prior attitude

were considered as covariates, and a MANCOVA was used to test if these covariates

changed the interpretation of the effects of the manipulated independent variables on the










recipients' attitude toward the issue and the message. Next, involvement was included as

factor, and its main and interaction effects with other independent variables were

examined.

Involvement and Prior Attitude as Covariate

Involvement

Involvement has traditionally been an important moderating variable that affects

persuasion. Both message sidedness and source credibility are thought to be moderated

by the degree of involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Haley (1996) and Yoon et al.

(1998) argued that the effects of source credibility are moderated by receiver

characteristics such as involvement and initial attitude. Johnson and Scileppi (1969) also

maintained that people with high involvement with the issue are less influenced by source

credibility.

In particular, in public relations research, involvement has been perceived as a

critical variable that plays a pivotal role in segmenting publics (Grunig, 1978, 1984,

1987; Hallahan, 2000, 2001) and their reactions to public policy issues (Heath & Douglas,

1990, 1991). Grunig (1989) defined involvement as "the extent to which people connect

themselves with a situation" (p. 5), and used involvement to discern active publics and

passive publics. He argued that people become active publics if their involvement

increases because they realize that their personal interest is dependent on the resolution of

an issue or an event. Heath and Douglas (1991) also maintained that "involvement is an

important concept for public relations practitioners and scholars, because it can be used to

predict persons' willingness to receive a message as well as the likelihood that existing

message content will be used to assess each new message" (p. 179).












In this study, to evaluate how involvement interacted with other independent

variables, involvement scales slightly modified from the scales used by Martin et al.

(2003) was employed.4 Participants were asked three questions designed to access their

degree of involvement with the issue. Three bipolar, 7-point rating scales were used,

ranging from -3 (unimportant, irrelevant, and not needed) to +3 (important, relevant, and

needed). To check the dimensionality of involvement, the three items were factor

analyzed using a principal axis extraction method with Varimax rotation. One factor was

extracted that accounted for 60. 1% of the variance, with an Eigen value = 2. 19. All factor

loadings were greater than .66. Therefore, using the factor score regression approach, an

involvement index was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has

high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .81).

Prior attitude

To evaluate how the subj ect' s attitude to large convenience stores might mediate

the subj ect' s responses to Carrefour, the recipients' attitude toward Wal-Mart was

considered. It was assumed that if the respondents had a strongly negative or positive

attitude toward Wal-Mart, it could relate to their response to these messages because, in

general, Wal-Mart is a competitor with many similarities to Carrefour.

The attitude and trustworthiness scales used by Trifts and Haubl (2003) were

employed. Participants were asked five questions designed to access their attitude toward

Wal-Mart. Five bipolar, 7-point rating scales were used, ranging from -3 (undependable,



SThe original scales used a 4-item semantic differential employing 7-point scale ranging from +1
(unimportant, irrelevant to me, means nothing to me, and not needed) to +7 (important, relevant to me,
means a lot to me, and needed). The meanslll nothing to me/means a lot to me" item was not included in this
study.










dishonest, unreliable, insincere, and untrustworthy) to +3 (dependable, honest, reliable,

sincere, and trustworthy).

To check the dimensionality of prior attitude, the Hyve items were factor analyzed

using a principal axis extraction method with Varimax rotation. One factor was extracted

that accounted for 67.6% of the variance, with an Eigenvalue = 3.70. All factor loadings

were greater than .76. Therefore, using the factor score regression approach, a prior

attitude index was created. A follow-up reliability check showed that this scale has high

internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .91).

MANCOVA results

As involvement and prior attitude scales have high internal consistency, a

MANCOVA was used controlling these variables as covariates. As shown in Table 11,

the results showed that there was a main effect of source trustworthiness (Wilks' Lambda

=.91, F(3, 305) = 10.09, p<.01) and interaction effect of source goodwill and message

sidedness (Wilks' Lambda = .95, F(6, 610) = 2.87, p<.05). However, there was no

significant change from the results that did not consider these covariates in the earlier part

of this dissertation. Even though there were significant main effects of involvement and

prior attitude, the results remain the same, showing that covariates were effectively

controlled by the random assignment process.










Table 11. Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness, source
goodwill controlling for involvement and prior attitude

Effect Wilks' A~ F H df Error df p-value

Involvement .26 297.51 3 305 .01
Prior attitude .97 2.95 3 305 .03
MS .99 .67 6 610 .68
Goodwill .96 4.14 3 305 .01
Trust .91 10.09 3 305 .01
MS*Goodwill .95 2.87 6 610 .03
MS*Trust .98 1.08 6 610 .37
Goodwill*Trust .99 .83 3 305 .48
MS*Goodwill*Trust .98 .85 6 610 .54


For variables with significant Wilks' Lambda values, each dependent variable

was tested. Again, the results of the test of between-subj ect effects (Table 12) showed a

similar result to the between-subj ect test that did not consider involvement and prior

attitude. There was a main effect of source trustworthiness (F=30.05, p<.01), and an

interaction effect of message sidedness and source goodwill (F=5.63, p<.01), on the

recipients' attitude toward the company. However, there was no main effect of source

trustworthiness or interaction effect of message sidedness and source goodwill.

Also, the MANCOVA results showed that even though there were main effects

of involvement and prior attitude, the results did not significantly change, demonstrating

that these covariates were successfully controlled in the experiment.










Table 12. Results of between-subjects test controlling for involvement and prior
attitude


Mean
df
Square
1 24.63
1 308.86
1 35.42
1 5.53
1 1.51
1 3.74
2 .41
2 .30
2 .36
1 .53
1 3.06
1 7.61
1 .32
1 .61
1 30.808
2 1.51
2 .43
2 5.78
2 .19
2 .62
2 1.63
1 .35
1 .27
1 2.34
2 .69
2 .03
2 1.52


Dependent Variable


source


F p-value


Involvement



Prior attitude



Message sidedness (MS)



Goodwill



Trust



MS*Goodwill



MS*Trust



Goodwill*Trust



MS*Goodwill*Trust


Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company


25.82
868.96
34.56
5.80
4.26
3.65
.43
.84
.35
.56
8.61
7.42
.33
1.72
30.054
1.58
1.20
5.63
.20
1.74
1.60
.36
.75
2.28
.72
.07
1.48


Involvement as an Independent Variable

Another MANOVA test was conducted to test for a main effect or interaction

effect of involvement as a factor (rather than a covariate) with message sidedness, source

trustworthiness, and source goodwill. For this, the involvement scale was recorded into a










high and a low group with a mean = 0 split for the factor index As shown in Table 13,

the results of the multivariate tests showed that there was an overall main effect for

source goodwill (Wilks' Lambda = .97, F(3, 298) =3.46, p<.05), source trustworthiness

(Wilks' Lambda = .92, F(3, 298) =8.61, p<.01), and involvement (Wilks' Lambda = .77,

F(3, 298) = 30.48, p<.01). Also, there was a marginally significant three-way interaction

effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness and involvement (Wilks'

Lambda = .96, F(6, 596) = 1.89, p=.08), and among goodwill, trustworthiness, and

involvement (Wilks' Lambda = .98, F(3, 298) = 2.09, p=. 10) while in the earlier analysis,

there was only an interaction effect of message sidedness and source goodwill which

contains to be maintained in this analysis (Wilks' Lambda = .96, F(6, 596) = 1.90,

p=..08) .

Table 13. Multivariate tests for message sidedness, source trustworthiness, source
goodwill, and involvement


Effect

MS
Goodwill
Trust
Involvement
MS*Goodwill
MS*Trust
Goodwill*Trust
MS*Goodwill*Trust
MS*Involvement
Goodwill*"Involvem ent
MS*Goodwill*"Involvement
Trust*Involvement
MS*Trust*Involvem ent
Goodwill*Trust*Involvement
MS*Goodwill* Trst*Involvement


Wilks' A

.98
.97
.92
.77
.96
.97
.99
.99
.97
.99
.99
.98
.96
.98
.98


F H df

.92 6
3.46 3
8.61 3
30.48 3
1.90 6
1.29 6
.42 3
.57 6
1.37 6
.67 3
.18 6
2.42 3
1.89 6
2.09 3
1.12 6


Error df

598
298
298
298
596
596
298
596
596
298
596
298
596
298
596


p-value

.48
.02
.01
.01
.08
.26
.74
.75
.23
.57
.98
.07
.08
.10
.35



































































SLeft out F for independent variables that were not significant (p>.05).


For the new interactions with significant Wilks' Lambda values, each dependent

variable was tested. The results of the test of between-subj ect effects (Table 14) showed a

similar result with a previous between-subj ect test that did not consider involvement.

There was a main effect of source trustworthiness (F=24.08, p<.01), source goodwill

(F=6.08, p<.05) and involvement (F=10.29, p<.0 1) and an interaction effect for message-

sidedness and goodwill (F=4.05, p<.02) on the recipients' attitude toward the company.

For the marginally significant Wilks' Lambda values, the individual between-

subjesct test results showed two three-way interactions: (a) among message sidedness,

Table 14. Results of between-subjescts test including involvement5


Mean
Square
.03
10.41
6.95
.039
1.92
27.52
23.04
128.80
11.76
1.29
.62
4.63
.73
.56
4.13
4.62
.90
.33


Source

Goodwill



Trust



Involvement



MS*Goodwill



MS*Trust*
Involvement


Goodwill*Trust*
Involvement


Dependent Variable

Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company
Attitude toward message
Attitude toward issue
Attitude toward company


F p-value

.03 .87
7.15 .01
6.08 .01
.04 .84
1.32 .25
24.08 .01
23.71 .01
88.50 .01
10.29 .01
1.33 .27
.42 .66
4.05 .02
.75 .47
.39 .68
3.61 .03
4.76 .03
.62 .43
.29 .59










source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients' attitude toward the company

(F=3.61, p<.05), and (b) among source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and

involvement on the attitude toward the message (F=4.76, p<.05).

While these findings were not hypothesized in this study, it shows that

involvement was an important independent variable that affected the recipients' attitude

toward the message source in interaction with source goodwill, source trustworthiness

and message sidedness.

As shown in Table 15, the results of following mean difference tests for

involvement showed that the means for the highly involved subjects were higher than for

the low involved subjects across all dependent variables. Thus, a public relations message

is significantly more effective to highly involved publics on their attitude toward the

message (M~high involvement=.1.06, Milow involvement=.52, t--4.97, d~f-322, p<.01), toward the

issue (M~high involvement= 1.42, M~0,iowinvlvment=.08, t--9.81, d~f-322, p<.01), and toward the

company (M~high involvement=.61i, Mlow involvement=.17, t--3.5 6, d~f-322, p<.01i).

Table 15. Means and standard deviations for the effect of involvement on the recipients'
attitude toward the message, the issue, and the company
Involvement MSD t df p-value

Attitude toward High 1.06 .92
-4.97 322 .01
message Low .52 1.06

Attitude toward High 1.42 1.23
issue Low .08 1.20 -9.81 322 .01

Attitude toward High .61 1.15
-3.56 322 .01
company Low .17 1.10

Message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement

As shown in Figure 8, there was a three-way interaction effect among message

sidedness, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients' attitude toward the










company. In the high involvement condition, there was no significant mean difference

among the different types of message sidedness regardless whether the message was from

a high trustworthy source (F=2.96, df2, p>.05) versus a low trustworthy source (F=1.27,

df2, p>.05). Also, in low involvement condition, there was no significant mean

difference among the different types of message sidedness, neither from a high

trustworthy source (F=1.61, df2, p>.05) nor from a low trustworthy source (F=-.43,

df2, p>.05).

On the other hand, post hoc mean difference test results showed that for a

company with low trustworthiness, a refutational two-sided message was more effective

to the highly involved target publics (M=-.58, SD=1.28) than to the less involved publics

(M=--.30, SD=1.17) (t--2.64, df52, p<.05). However, there was no significantly different

message sidedness effect for a one-sided message (t--1.26, df52, p>.05) or a

nonrefutational two-sided message (t--.77, df52, p>.05). In contrast, for a company with

high trustworthiness, a nonrefutational two-sided message was more effective to the

highly involved target publics (M=-.1.09, SD=.95) than to the less involved publics

(M=-.76, SD=. 90) (t--2.75, df52, p<.0 1).

And, unlike the low trustworthiness condition above, a one-sided message (M=-.97,

SD=.95) was more effective to the highly involved target than to the less involved publics

(M=-.44, SD=.75) (t--2.36, df52, p<.05) and a nonrefutational two-sided message

(M=.~1.09, SD=.95) was more effective than a refutational two-sided message (M=-.52,

SD=.90) (t-2.32, df55, p<.05). Also, a one-sided message was more effective than a

refutational two-sided message (t-1.92, df61, p=.06). However, there was no such

message sidedness effect for a refutational two-sided message (t-1.92, df61, p>.05).










Low trustwortluness High trustworthiness
One-sided

81 -1 Nonrefutational two-sided


0 0 Refutational two-sided





Low High Low High
Involvement

Figure 8. Interaction effect of message sidedness, source trustworthiness, and
involvement on the attitude toward the company

In summary, for a source with low trustworthiness and uninvolved publics, a one-

sided message would be more effective, while for highly involved publics (active

publics), a one-sided message or a refutational two-sided message are equally effective.

On the other hand, for a source with high trustworthiness for uninvolved publics, a

refutational two-sided message would have the greatest effect, but when trustworthiness

is high for an involved public, either a one-sided or a non-refutational two-sided message

is equally effective. Perhaps the most important point to note here is that when source

trustworthiness is high, the effects are always higher except for the refutational two-sided

message which is best avoided for highly involved publics when the source is a highly

trusted one.

Source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement

As shown in Figure 9, there was a three-way interaction effect among source

goodwill, source trustworthiness, and involvement on the recipients' attitude toward the

message. Results of mean difference tests showed that there was no significant mean









difference between a message from a company with high goodwill and from a company

with low goodwill regardless of involvement condition and source trustworthiness.

However, for a source with low trustworthiness and a company with low goodwill,

involvement worked as an important variable that affected the recipients' attitude toward

the message such that if they perceived the issue as highly involving for them, they had a

more positive attitude toward the message (t--2.08, df79, p<.05). On the other hand, if

the company was perceived as having a high goodwill toward the target publics, there

was no mean difference between high- and low involvement condition (t--1.64, df79,

p>.05)

Also, for a source with high trustworthiness and a company with high goodwill,

involvement worked as an important variable that affected the recipients' attitude toward

the message. When the company was perceived as having high goodwill toward the target

publics, and the subjects were highly involved, they had more positive attitude toward the

message than did the uninvolved subjects (t--4.85, df79, p<.01). On the other hand, if

the source was perceived as highly trustesd, but the company as having low goodwill

toward the target publics, there was no effect of involvement (t--1.39, df79, p>.05).

Perhaps the most puzzling finding here is that high goodwill combined with a

highly trustesd source is not effective for uninvolved publics and, in fact, a source that is

less trustesd appeared to be more effective with this group.










Low trustworthiness High trustworthiness
as High goodwill










Low High Low High
Involvement
Figure 9. Interaction effect of source goodwill, source trustworthiness, and
involvement on the attitude toward the message

In sum, to develop a public relations message for target publics, involvement

should be considered along with the company's perceived trustworthiness and goodwill

condition by the target publics. It is important for a company to form a prior perception

among the target publics that the company is trustworthy, has goodwill toward them or

toward the community to which they belong, and develop a relevant public relations

message.

Limitations

This study has limitations. As with most experiments, this study has an

artificiality issue. The experiment was conducted in a classroom setting, and therefore, it

lacks external validity (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006).

For instance, there was a limitation on the characteristics of subj ects. The subj ects

were all undergraduate students attending a large southeastern public university in the

United States, a representative homogeneous group. Three-quarters of them were female

and the mean age was 21-years old. Definitely, they do not represent the population










beyond themselves. Therefore, even though the results may be applied to a specific real-

world situation, they cannot be generalized to the real world.

Also, even though the Weblog was produced in a professional manner for an

experimental purpose, the materials were printed in black and white and distributed to the

subj ects in a classroom setting. If an actual online Weblog was shown to the participants

and they were asked to answer the questions via Internet, it would have enabled them to

have a more realistic experience. However, it was assumed that printing out the Weblog

would make no difference in the subjects' response.

Another limitation of this study is that it the effect size of independent variables

was relatively weak. Even though the means of each independent variable were

significantly different, in reality, the effect sizes were quite small as compared to the

scales that ranged from -3 to +3.

In addition, there may have been a weakness in manipulating the independent

variables. The manipulation check indicated that the one-sided message and two-sided

messages were clearly manipulated, but, it is not clear if the nonrefutational versus the

refutational manipulation was successful. Therefore, even though the results showed a

difference between them, there was a limitation in interpreting and generalizing the

results.

Finally, the research questions were based on an assumption that there would be a

three-way interaction effect among message sidedness, source trustworthiness and source

goodwill. However, there was no such interaction effect. Instead, though it was not

hypothesized, there were three-way interactions when involvement was included as factor.

It might be possible that the theory did not support the three-way interaction relationship