<%BANNER%>

Relationship Management with Adolescent Publics

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021340/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship Management with Adolescent Publics The Role of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes on Adolescents' Intended Behavior
Physical Description: 1 online resource (201 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bortree, Denise S
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adolescents, maintenance, nonprofit, public, relationship, volunteerism
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Relationship Management with Adolescent Publics: The Role of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes on Adolescents' Intended Behavior This study examined relationship maintenance strategies engaged by organizations toward adolescent publics and the impact of those strategies on the relational quality of the relationship between organization and public. Six strategies found in the public relations literature were measured, along with a newly-proposed strategy of guidance. Four relational quality outcomes were measured. The study also tested the impact of relational quality on the intended behavior of teens toward future volunteer involvement. Three hundred and fifteen teens, ages 15-18, completed a survey that measured the teen volunteers? perception of the organization-public relationship between volunteer and nonprofit organization. Structural equation modeling was used to test the application of the model of the organization-public relationship for a teen public. The study found that the constructs of the model of the organization-public relationship hold up for an adolescent public. Three strategies emerged as most influential in this relationship: guidance, assurances and shared tasks. The influence of these strategies appears to flow to the relational quality outcome of control mutuality which then influences the other outcomes of satisfaction, trust and commitment. This has implications for the adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship. In addition, the study found that the level of quality in the relationship influences adolescents? likelihood to continue to volunteer with the same organization or another. By engaging strategies that improve the relational quality between an organization and adolescent public, an organization has the opportunity to encourage life-long positive behaviors in members of a public.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Denise S Bortree.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Ferguson, Mary Ann.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021340:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021340/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship Management with Adolescent Publics The Role of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes on Adolescents' Intended Behavior
Physical Description: 1 online resource (201 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bortree, Denise S
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adolescents, maintenance, nonprofit, public, relationship, volunteerism
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Relationship Management with Adolescent Publics: The Role of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes on Adolescents' Intended Behavior This study examined relationship maintenance strategies engaged by organizations toward adolescent publics and the impact of those strategies on the relational quality of the relationship between organization and public. Six strategies found in the public relations literature were measured, along with a newly-proposed strategy of guidance. Four relational quality outcomes were measured. The study also tested the impact of relational quality on the intended behavior of teens toward future volunteer involvement. Three hundred and fifteen teens, ages 15-18, completed a survey that measured the teen volunteers? perception of the organization-public relationship between volunteer and nonprofit organization. Structural equation modeling was used to test the application of the model of the organization-public relationship for a teen public. The study found that the constructs of the model of the organization-public relationship hold up for an adolescent public. Three strategies emerged as most influential in this relationship: guidance, assurances and shared tasks. The influence of these strategies appears to flow to the relational quality outcome of control mutuality which then influences the other outcomes of satisfaction, trust and commitment. This has implications for the adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship. In addition, the study found that the level of quality in the relationship influences adolescents? likelihood to continue to volunteer with the same organization or another. By engaging strategies that improve the relational quality between an organization and adolescent public, an organization has the opportunity to encourage life-long positive behaviors in members of a public.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Denise S Bortree.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Ferguson, Mary Ann.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021340:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH ADOLESCENT PUBLICS: THE ROLE OF
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES AND RELATIONAL QUALITY
OUTCOMES ON ADOLESCENTS' INTENDED BEHAVIOR




















By

DENISE SEVICK BORTREE


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


2007




































O 2007 Denise Sevick Bortree



































To my beloved husband, Brian.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As I reflect on the long journey that brought me to this stage in life, I realize that I

owe gratitude to many people who have encouraged me along the way: to teachers who

have inspired my pursuit of knowledge, to friends who have shown a genuine interest in

my research ideas, and to fellow students who have challenged me to find an interesting,

relevant area of research.

I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Walsh-Childers, Dr. Kiousis and Dr.

Franks, who offered valuable advice and support throughout the dissertation process. I

am particularly thankful for their patience as I wrestled with my ideas, trying to find a

way to explore my passions through research. To my chair, Dr. Ferguson, thank you for

setting a high standard of excellence that challenges me to be better than I really am.

To my parents, Dennis and Luana Sevick, I am thankful for a lifetime of

encouragement and blind belief that I really can achieve anything that I wish.

To my in-laws, Walter and Joanne Bortree, who spent countless weeks living with

us, watching our daughter and helping with chores, I am profoundly grateful. I could not

have completed this dissertation without your generous gift of time.

To my daughter Brynn, a bittersweet gratitude for the "mommy" time you

sacrificed so that I could finish this work. I hope that I can be a good model of balance in

life between motherhood and other accomplishments.

And finally to my one true love, my support, my editor, my strongest source of

encouragement, my husband, Brian, you have been with me through all of my struggles









and successes. Thank you for never doubting me. I feel privileged to be traveling through

life with you as my partner.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


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


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ....................xii


AB STRAC T ................ .............. xiv


CHAPTER


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


Adolescents as Publics in Public Relations .............. ...............2.....
Relationship Management ................... .... ...............2
Organization-Adolescent Public Relationship ................. .............. ......... .....4
Intended Behavior............... ...............5

Study Desi gn............... ...............5.
Re sults ................ ...............6.................

Si gnificance .............. ...............7.....

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............9................


Relationship Management .............. ...............9.....
Definition of a Relationship .............. ............... ........10
Model of Organization-Public Relationships ................. ............ ................12
Potential impact of organization-public relationship on adolescents'
identity formation ............... ... ...............13..
Situational antecedents of relationships ................. ......... ................17
Maintenance strategies ............... .... ..... .............1
Maintenance strategies with adolescent publics............... .................2
Proposal of a new maintenance strategy .............. ...............32....
Relational quality outcomes ................ .... ...............36
A Model of the Organization-Public Relationship .................. ........ ........... ........40
Linking Relational Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes ..41
Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship .............. ....................4
Intended Behavior .............. ...............43....
Volunteerism ............... ...............43...
Volunteer intended behavior ............ ......__ ...._ ............4












Research Questions and Hypotheses .............. ...............46....

3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............60....


Study Overview .............. ...............60....
Sam ple ................. ...............61.......... .....
Pretest ..................... ...............62.
Survey Administration............... .............6
Measures.................... .......... ...............67.......
Relational quality outcomes .............. ...............67....
Relational maintenance strategies .............. ...............67....
Maintenance strategy: guidance ................. ...............68................
Volunteer Intended Behavior .............. ...............68....

Demographic measures .............. ...............69....
Analy si s ................ ......____ ...... ......... .........69
Structural equation modeling .............. ...............70....


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............76....


Respondents ................. ...............76.................
Descriptive Statistics .............. ....... ...............77.
Relationship Maintenance Strategies .............. ...............78....
Relational Quality Outcomes .............. ...............80....
Volunteer Intended Behavior .............. ...............8 1....
Measurement Reliability .............. ...............8 1....
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ................... ........... .. .. ...... ...... ......... 8
Confirmatory factor analyses of relationship maintenance strategies.. ........82
Confirmatory factor analyses of relational quality outcomes ................... ...87
Confirmatory factor analysis of volunteer intended behavior......................88
Test for Correlation Among Variables ................ ...............89........... ...
Research Questions............... ...............9
Research Question 1 .............. ...............92....
Research Question 2 ................. ...............92................
Path Analy si s ................. ...............93.......... ......
Hypotheses 1 through 3 .............. ...............93....
Hypotheses 4 through 7 ................ ...............95................
Hypothesis 8 .............. ...............97....
Hypothesis 9 .............. ...............98....
Post-hoc Testing .............. ...............99....
Summary ................. ...............101................


5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................. ...............132...............


Relationship Maintenance .............. ...............132....
Relational Quality Outcomes............... ............ ............13
Influence of Maintenance Strategies on Quality Outcomes ................. ................. 13 5
Intended Behavior ................. ...............146................












Post-hoc Testing ................. ...............146......... ......
Implication for Practice .............. ...............149....
Implications for Theory .............. ...............150....
Conclusion ................ ...............152................


APPENDIX


A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ................. ...............156...............


B PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT ................. ...............158...............


C TEEN INFORMED CONSENT .....__.....___ ..........._ .............6


D COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDIT FORM ....._____ ..... ... .__ ...........__....162


E SURVEY .............. ...............163....


F ORIGINAL MEASUREMENT ITEM S ................ ...............173........... ...


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............176................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............186......... ......












































V111


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

2-1 Model of the organization-public relationship proposed by Hon & Grunig and
Grunig & Huang ........... .......__. ...............53....

2-2 Definitions of relational maintenance strategies. ........._.__........_ ........._.....54

2-3 Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept "guidance" ................. ...............55

2-4 Definition of relational quality outcomes. ..........._..__........ ........._._........5

2-5 Standardized coefficients and standardized errors of paths between maintenance
strategies and quality outcomes in the organization-public relationship as
reported by Ki (2006). .............. ...............59....

3-1 Relationship quality outcome measurement items for current study .......................73

3-2 Relationship maintenance strategy measurement items for current study ..............74

3-3 Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept "guidance" ................. ...............75

3-4 Measures of the relationship maintenance strategy of guidance..............._..__...........75

3-5 Measures of volunteer intended behavior. .......___......... ___ .........__ ......75

4-1 Initial rate of return by source. ....._____ .... ........ .....___.............. ....104

4-2 Descriptive statistics for Relationship Maintenance Strategy items. .....................105

4-3 Descriptive statistics for Relational Quality Outcomes items. .............. ..............107

4-4 Descriptive statistics for Volunteer Intended Behavior. ............. ....................108

4-5 Measurement reliability for all items. ............. ...............108....

4-6 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Access. ............._ ..............109

4-7 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Access.......109

4-8 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Positivity. ................... .........1 10










4-9 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Positivity...1 10

4-10 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Openness with removal of
items Q4-11 and Q4-14. ................ ...............111........... ...

4-11 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Openness -
with removal of items Q4-11 and Q4-14. ................ ...............111............

4-12 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy Shared Tasks with measure
Q3-6 removed ................. ...............112................

4-13 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Shared
Tasks ................. ...............112................

4-14 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Shared Networking. .............113

4-15 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Networking ................. ...............113................

4-16 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Assurances. ................... ......1 14

4-17 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Assurances. 114

4-18 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Guidance. ................... .........1 15

4-19 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Guidance...1 15

4-20 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome Control Mutuality. ........................116

4-21 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Control Mutuality. 117

4-22 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Satisfaction. ............. ................11 8

4-23 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Satisfaction. .........1 18

4-24 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Trust. ...........__.. .......__.........1 19

4-25 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Trust. ................... .1 19

4-27 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Commitment. .............. ..............120

4-28 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Commitment. ......120

4-29 Model fit for Volunteer Intended Behavior ................. ................ ....__ ..121

4-30 Confirmatory factor analysis of Volunteer Intended Behavior. ............................121

4-31 Correlation matrix for relational quality outcomes and relationship maintenance
strategies. ........... ..... .._ ...............122...










4-32 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategies ................. ............ .........123

4-33 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategies. ...............123

4-34 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcomes............... ...............12

4-3 5 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcomes. ..........................124

4-36 Model fit for relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes. ........................125

4-37 Path analysis of relationships between Relational Quality Outcomes. .................. 125

4-38 Results of initial hypothesized relationship between Relationship Maintenance
Strategies and Relational Quality outcomes............... ...............12

4-39 Final model fit of influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and
Relational Quality Outcomes. ............. ...............127....

4-40 Path analysis of relationships between Relationship Maintenance Strategies and
Relational Quality Outcomes. ............. ...............128....

4-41 Model fit of relationship between relational quality and intended behavior.......... 129

4-42 Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality and Intended Behavior. 129

4-43 Model fit of influence of adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship
including Intended Behavior ................. ...............130................

4-44 Path analysis of influence of Relational Quality Outcomes on Intended
Behavior. ............. ...............130....

4-45 Significant differences in rating of variables for those who volunteered to fulfill
a requirement and those who did not .............. ...............131....

F-1 Original measures of relational quality outcomes ................. .......................173

F-2 Original measures of relationship maintenance strategies ................ ..................174

Table F-3. Original measures of guidance ................. ...............175........... ..

















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

2-1 Model of the organization-public relationship ......___ .... ... ._._ ........_.......58

2-2 Linkages between relational maintenance strategies and relational quality
outcomes for adult publics .............. ...............59....

4-1 Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relational Maintenance Strategy Access...109

4-2 Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Positivity ................. ...............110................

4-3 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Openness... 111

4-4 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Shared
Tasks ................. ...............112................

4-5 Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Networking ................. ...............113................

4-6 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Assurances. 114

4-7 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Guidance...1 15

4-8 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Control Mutuality. 116

4-9 Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcome: Satisfaction. ........117

4-10 Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcome -- Trust. ...............118

4-11 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome Commitment. .....1 19

4-12 Confirmatory factor analysis for Volunteer Intended Behavior. ................... .........120

4-13 Confirmatory factor analysis for Relationship Maintenance Strategies. ................123

4-14 Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcomes. ................... .........124

4-15 Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes. ................... .125










4-16 Initial model of relationship between Relationship Maintenance Strategies and
Relational Quality Outcomes. ............. ...............126....

4-17 Fitted model for influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies on Relational
Quality Outcomes............... ...............12

4-18 Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality and Intended Behavior. 128

4-19 Model of adolescent-nonprofit organization public relationship including
Intended Behavior. ............. ...............129....

4-20 Influence of reason for volunteering on model of adolescent-nonprofit
organization public relationship including Intended Behavior. ............. ................130















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

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH ADOLESCENT PUBLICS: THE ROLE OF
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES AND RELATIONAL QUALITY
OUTCOMES ON ADOLESCENTS' INTENDED BEHAVIOR

By

Denise Sevick Bortree

August 2007

Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson
Major: Mass Communication

This study examined relationship maintenance strategies engaged by organizations

toward adolescent publics and the impact of those strategies on the relational quality of

the relationship between organization and public. Six strategies found in the public

relations literature were measured, along with a newly-proposed strategy of guidance.

Four relational quality outcomes were measured. The study also tested the impact of

relational quality on the intended behavior of teens toward future volunteer involvement.

Three hundred and fifteen teens, ages 15-18, completed a survey that measured the

teen volunteers' perception of the organization-public relationship between volunteer and

nonprofit organization. Structural equation modeling was used to test the application of

the model of the organization-public relationship for a teen public.

The study found that the constructs of the model of the organization-public

relationship hold up for an adolescent public. Three strategies emerged as most

influential in this relationship: guidance, assurances and shared tasks. The influence of









these strategies appears to flow to the relational quality outcome of control mutuality

which then influences the other outcomes of satisfaction, trust and commitment. This has

implications for the adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship.

In addition, the study found that the level of quality in the relationship influences

adolescents' likelihood to continue to volunteer with the same organization or another.

By engaging strategies that improve the relational quality between an organization and

adolescent public, an organization has the opportunity to encourage life-long positive

behaviors in members of a public.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

The topic of adolescents' relationship building with peers, parents and romantic

partners is a popular area of study (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Youniss & Haynie,

1992; Parker & Asher, 1993; Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999; Ladd, 2004). Little is known about

another type of relationship in which adolescents engage, the relationship between

adolescents and an organization (Ji, 2002). The relationship between an organization and

adult members of publics has been explored in the public relations literature (Broom et al,

1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999; Hon &

Grunig, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Bruning, 2000; Grunig & Huang, 2000;

Ledingham, 2001; Bruning et al, 2006), where research has identified strategies in which

organizations can engage to maintain relationships with publics. It also has identified

outcomes that measure the quality of the relationship. None of this work has examined

the way organization-public relationships work for adolescent members of publics. Yet,

adolescents can be found in broad categories of publics including volunteers (Johnson et

al, 1998), activists (Elbaz, 1997), consumers (Chaplin & John, 2005), and members of

nonprofit organizations (Larson et al, 2006), among others. Some of these relationships

have beneficial outcomes for adolescents, including increased social responsibility,

personal competence, sense of teamwork, self-efficacy, initiative and intrinsic work

values, as discussed in chapter two of this dissertation. More needs to be known about

how these relationships work and how organizations and adolescents can sustain these

relationships for the benefit of the young people. Armed with this knowledge,










organizations can work toward maximizing the benefit of the relationship for teens. This

study explores one such relationship, the relationship between adolescent volunteers and

nonprofit organizations.

The study presented here will develop measures for two components of

organization-adolescent public relationships, relational maintenance strategies and

relational quality outcomes, and test a model of the relationship based on prior models

and theory about adolescent relationships.

Adolescents as Publics in Public Relations

A recent analysis of the websites of the 100 largest nonprofit organizations found

that 41 provided some content for children or adolescents (Bortree, 2006). Two related

studies found that top nonprofit websites and nutrition websites engaged strategies to

build relationships with young members of publics (Bortree, 2007; Bortree, forthcoming).

Studies in the Hield of advertising have examined adolescents' relationships to brands (Ji,

2002) and adolescents' role as consumers (Fox et al, 1998). Clearly organizations are

communicating to adolescents with the intention of building and maintaining

relationships; however, work in the development of organization-public relationship

models has focused on adult members of the public. Research needs to be done to

determine whether the model of the organization-public relationship functions in similar

ways for adolescents and adults.

Relationship Management

The concept of measuring a relationship between an organization and public, first

proposed by Ferguson (1984), has taken the study of public relations in a new direction

(Broom et al, 1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ledingham,

2003). Rather than examining the impact of organizational communication on publics,









public relations scholarship has begun to explore the relationship that exists between

organizations and publics as a unit of study. This direction offers a new way of

perceiving the exchange of information between the organization and public.

Organizations that build long-term relationships with publics likely increase the

effectiveness of their communication and behavioral efforts (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier,

1995). The relationship management literature has begun to explore the usefulness of the

organization-public relationship, and it has quantified the antecedents, maintenance

strategies and quality outcomes of the organization-public relationship (Broom et al.,

1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999; Bruning &

Ledingham, 1999; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Grunig & Huang

2000; Ledingham 2001). One of the next steps in the process of theory development will

involve exploration of the impact of organization type, public type and individual

differences among members of publics on the organizational-public relationship.

The strength of an organizational-public relationship is measured in the literature

most commonly through a scale proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) that finds its roots

in Huang (1997). Based on interpersonal communication literature and conflict literature,

Huang (1997; 2001) first proposed and later confirmed these four relational quality

outcomes as important dimensions of the organizational-public relationship: trust

(believing that one's partner has one's best interest in mind), control mutuality

(agreement that both parties have sufficient power to influence the other), satisfaction

(feeling that expectations are being met and/or exceeded in the relationship) and

commitment (the intention to continue the relationship and the affective desire to stay

connected to the relationship).









Public relations literature has proposed that organizations can build and maintain

the relationships between organizations and publics by engaging in six relational

maintenance strategies positivity (making interactions more pleasant or enj oyable),

assurances (communicating the importance of a partner in the relationship), shared tasks

(participating in tasks of mutual interest), openness (candid sharing of thoughts and

feelings), networking (building coalitions with groups in which organization and public

have mutual interest) and access (allowing members of public direct contact with

decision makers within the organization) (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000).

These strategies were drawn from the interpersonal and public relations literature

(Stafford & Canary, 1991; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Canary et al, 2002), and recent work

has found that perceptions of these strategies in the organization-public relationship

influence relational quality outcomes (Ki, 2006).

As scholars continue to theorize about and test the effects of relational maintenance

strategies on relational quality outcomes, work needs to focus how individual differences

among members of publics may influence the way these variables relate to one another.

Organization-Adolescent Public Relationship

The relational maintenance strategies for the organizational-public relationship are

derived primarily from literature on adult interpersonal relationships (Stafford & Canary,

1991; Canary & Stafford, 1992). A review of the adolescent relationship literature

suggests that (1) the organization-public relationship may function differently for

adolescents than for adults and (2) additional strategies may influence the perceived

relational quality outcomes of the organizational-public relationship for adolescents. The

study presented here proposes the addition of the strategy "guidance" to the list of

relational maintenance strategies in the organization-adolescent public relationship. The









concept of "guidance" or "advice" is a factor in both the parent-adolescent relationship

(Strom et al, 1998; Strom et al, 2002; Dishion et al, 2004) and the adolescent-peer

relationship (Parker & Asher, 1993; Bronstein et al, 1996). As well, the concept of

"advising" appears in the public relations literature (Moss et al, 2005). Its usefulness as a

maintenance strategy is explored in this study.

Intended Behavior

Studies in public relations have explored the influence of the organization-public

relationship on the intended behavior of publics toward the organization (Bruning 2002;

Ki, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007). These studies found that loyalty (the intention to remain

associated with the organization) was influenced to some degree by the quality of the

relationship. The study presented here did not look at loyalty to the organization but

rather the intention to continue a behavior specifically the intention to volunteer

throughout one's lifetime. It was reasoned that a positive relationship with a volunteer

organization would encourage teens to continue volunteering with that organization or

another organization.

Study Design

The study presented here examined the association of relational maintenance

strategies, relational quality outcomes and intended behavior in the organization-

adolescent relationship. The strategies and outcomes proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999)

and tested by Ki (2006) were used, with the addition of the relational maintenance

strategy of "guidance." Measurements of intended behavior were drawn from Zeithaml,

Berry and Parasuraman (1996) and Ki (2006).

Data were gathered through a survey administered to teens who volunteer in their

communities. Measures assessed the relationship maintenance strategies and relational










quality outcomes perceived in the organization-public relationship with the volunteer

organization. It also measured the level of intention toward volunteering in the future. A

pretest was conducted with 10 adolescents from a public high school in a large city in

Florida. After which 315 sophomores, juniors and seniors were recruited from a number

of high schools and through other venues. Because teens at many high schools in Florida

are required to volunteer as a part of their education, it was thought that many students

would be able to participate in the study, if they so chose. Data were analyzed using

structural equation modeling, a powerful statistical methodology.

Results

Analysis of the collected data revealed a linear relationship from relationship

maintenance to relational quality and from the relational quality to intended behavior. In

general, this supports the model of organization-public relationship as proposed by Hon

& Grunig. However, some of the constructs within these stages of the organization-public

relationship interacted differently than they had in prior research with adults. This

provided insight into the way the adolescent-organization relationship functions. Some of

the four relational quality outcomes satisfaction, trust, control mutuality and

commitment appeared to have a predictive relationship with others. Specifically, the

quality outcomes of control mutuality and satisfaction predicted commitment and trust.

Control mutuality predicted satisfaction as well. A test of the relationship between

relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes found that more

strategies predicted control mutuality than any other relational quality outcomes.

Satisfaction was also strongly predicted by relationship maintenance strategies. The

maintenance strategies had very little impact on the other outcomes, trust and

commitment. The strongest predictors of these outcomes were the other two outcomes -









satisfaction and control mutuality. These findings suggest a couple of things. First, the

four relational quality outcomes are not independent of one another. It appears that two of

the variables (satisfaction and control mutuality) act as predictors of the others. Among

adolescents the relationship between these outcomes is more complex than originally

proposed. Second, the model of the organization-public relationship suggests that

relational maintenance influences relational quality. This was supported in the data.

However, it appears that the influence of relational maintenance may flow through two of

the outcomes, control mutuality and satisfaction, to the other two outcomes, trust and

commitment. These latter two are the strongest predictors of relational quality outcome.

This means that when organizations engage in relationship maintenance with an

adolescent public, members of that public feel more pleased with their level of power in

the relationship (control mutuality), which results in greater overall satisfaction with the

relationship. This sense of power and satisfaction creates more trust in the relationship

and more commitment to it. The resulting higher quality of the relationship appears to

have long-lasting consequences for the members in the public; specifically, those who

experience a higher level of relational quality in their volunteer-organization public

relationship indicate a higher likelihood to volunteer throughout their lifetime.

Significance

Study of the organization-adolescent public relationship gives researchers a

baseline for the understanding of how adolescents perceive their relationship with

organizations and the impact that relationship has on adolescents. The relationship

appears to function somewhat differently for adolescents than adults, based on findings

from other studies with adults. These differences will need to be considered (1) as

scholars continue to examine the organization-public relationship and (2) as practitioners










prepare communication to build the relationship between their organization and

adolescent publics. In addition, armed with a fuller understanding of the organization-

adolescent public relationship, the field can begin to examine the influence of

communication and behavior on this relationship.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The study presented here will test a model of the organization-adolescent public

relationship based on a prior model tested for the organization-adult relationship and will

explicate and operationalize a new concept that will add to our understanding of the way

organizations and adolescents engage in a relationship. This chapter presents a review of

literature from the study of organization-public relationships, interpersonal

communication, interpersonal relationships and intended behavior. The literature review

is followed by a discussion of the proposed study and a list of the study hypotheses.

Findings will contribute to the understanding of the relationship between organizations

and adolescent publics.

Relationship Management

In recent years public relations has moved from a discipline focused on the creation

and dissemination of communication messages toward a focus on building and

maintaining relationships between organizations and their publics (Ledingham &

Bruning, 1998; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Grunig & Huang,

2000; Huang, 2001; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Galloway, 2003;

Ledingham, 2003; Dougall, 2006; Ki & Shin, 2006). The focus on relationships finds its

genesis in Mary Ann Ferguson's 1984 invited paper, which presented an analysis of prior

published public relations research and identified three potential paradigms for future

research. She suggested that one of the three held the most potential for productive

research, a focus on the relationship between publics and organizations.









After surveying the articles published over the past nine-plus years in Public
Relations Review, the author concludes that three of the foci of these articles
appear to present opportunities for becoming the paradigm focus of public relations
scholarship: social responsibility and ethics, social issues and issue management,
and public relationships. It is argued that the last, public relationships, offers the
most opportunity for a paradigm focus to speed the development of theory in this
field. By this, the author means that the unit of study should not be the
organization, nor the public, nor the communication process. Rather, the unit of
study should be the relationships between organizations and their publics.
(Ferguson, 1984, abstract)

Definition of a Relationship

Attempting to define the ubiquitous term "relationship" has proven daunting in

most bodies of literature (Broom et. al, 1997). According to Broom et al., in addition to

public relations, literature in the areas of interpersonal communication, psychotherapy,

interorganizational relationships, and systems theory lack a unified definition of

relationship. Likely, this is due in part to the incredibly complex nature of relationships.

The authors call for the public relations field to establish a definition of the term,

suggesting that the measurement of organization-public relationships will continue to be

hindered by the lack of consensus on what a relationship is in the context of organization-

public relationships. They argue that valid measures can be built only on a well-

explicated concept.

Without clearly explicated concepts, researchers cannot make empirical
observations and construct meaningful theories. A survey of public relations
textbooks and of scholarly j ournals found no definition of relationship in public
relations that is generally understood and accepted. Instead, it appears that public
relations scholars and authors in other fields use the term relationships as a
primitive term when defining public relations and when posing theoretical
propositions. Yet the term relationship stands for a complex phenomenon for which
few practitioners and scholars share a common definition and a set of
measures...without that definition, practitioners cannot describe and compare
organization-public relationships with any validity or reliability. (Broom et al.,
2000, p. 6-7)









In the scholarship published on organization-public relationships, few of the

articles that have explored the concept of relationship in public relations have proposed a

definition of the organization-public relationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Huang,

2001; Hung, 2005). The first to offer a definition of organization-public relationships was

Ledingham and Bruning (1998), who forwarded what they termed a "tentative"

definition: "the state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which

the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, and political and/or cultural well-

being of the other entity" (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 62). This definition describes

the outcomes of an organization-public relationship but fails to offer an explanation of

the "state" of the relationship itself. Seven years later Hung (2005) proposed a definition

of organization-public relationships that considered the reasons these relationships are

formed. Based on a review of systems theory and a review of the concept of

interdependence (meaning the way organizations and publics both need and rely on one

another), she offered this definition: "OPRs arise when organizations and their strategic

publics are interdependent, and this interdependence results in consequences to each

other that organizations need to manage constantly" (Hung, 2005, p. 396). Like the

definition offered by Ledingham and Bruning (1998) this definition does not adequately

describe the relationship. In this case, the definition tells us why the relationship exists

but not what it consists of. A third theorist offered three properties of the organization-

public relationship.

First, [organization-public relationship] OPR could be a relationship between a
corporate person and another corporate person or relationships between a corporate
person and a group of seemingly unrelated individuals. Second, OPR is a subjective
experience rather than obj ective quality. Finally, at both interpersonal and
interorganizational levels, relationships often involve the exchange of resources,










although the resources to be exchanged at each level might be different. (Huang,
2001, p. 65)

Though somewhat convoluted, this definition does offer some insight into the contents of

an organization-public relationship. The relationship exists between persons including

corporate "persons" or organizations and groups of people, and within the relationship

there is an exchange of resources. Stated more clearly, the following definition provides a

guide for determining whether an organization-public relationship exists.

The necessary conditions for a public/organization relationship to exist are:

1 There must be two parties, at a minimum,

2 the parties must have some connection/association/correlation/linkagete

3 the parties must be aware that they are in the state of connection,

4 the parties must have a potential for communication/sharing/transmitting, and

5 the parties must perceive that there are potentially mutually beneficial/
detrimental outcomes that can occur as a result of their connection or
communication. (personal communication, Ferguson, 2006)

This provides a good starting point for the study of the organization-public

relationship.

Model of Organization-Public Relationships

While not offering a definition of relationship, Broom et al (1997) proposed a

model for the study of organization-public relationships that consists of three elements of

relationships: antecedents, concepts and consequences. The first element, antecedents of

relationships, identifies the reasons organizations and publics engage in a relationship,

the causes or the needs that join these two entities in some ongoing aff61iation.

Antecedents consist of "social and cultural norms, collective perceptions and

expectations, needs for resources, perceptions of uncertain environment, and

legal/voluntary necessity" (Broom et al., 1997, p. 94). The second element, concepts of










relationships, consists of "properties of exchange, transactions, communications, and

other interconnected activities" (Broom et al., 1997, p. 94). These are the properties of

the relationship itself, meaning the tangible elements that make up the association

between the two parties. The third element, consequences of relationships, includes the

outcomes or outputs of the relationship. Consequences consist of "goal achievement,

dependency/loss of autonomy, and routine and institutionalized behavior" (Broom et al.,

1997, p. 94).

In an attempt to align the model with the excellence paradigm, Hon and Grunig

(1999) (also see Grunig & Huang, 2000) have narrowed the focus of the three elements,

discussed below, and renamed them situational antecedents, maintenance strategies and

relational outcomes (Figure 2-1). Using Hon and Grunig's model, this chapter will

explore the way adolescents build relationships and the way this may impact

organization-public relationships with adolescent publics, but first it will review literature

on the potential impact of the organization-public relationship on adolescents.

Potential impact of organization-public relationship on adolescents' identity
formation

Before this chapter reviews the three elements of the organization-public

relationship situational antecedents, maintenance strategies and relational quality

outcomes it first will explore the impacts this relationship type may have on

adolescents, specifically on the identity formation of adolescents.

Because the main work of adolescence is forming identity (Ladd, 2004), which is

work that occurs in the context of relationships, it is likely that the relationships

adolescence experience through their association with organizations would have an

impact on identify formation. This happens when organizations give adolescents the










opportunity to "engage in activity and social interconnection, but also to lead such

activities themselves" (Hart et al, 1997, p. 34). Adolescents engage in many types of

relationships with organizations, including, but not limited to, (1) volunteering for

community organizations, non-profits, and activist organizations, (2) holding

membership in organizations such as sports, arts or faith-based organizations, and (3)

engaging as consumers of for-profit organizations.

Adolescents who engage with organizations by volunteering with community

service organizations engage in experiences that can influence the way they see

themselves and others (Youniss, McLellan & Mazer, 2001). Service activities have been

tied to the "development of teamwork, positive relationships, and social capital" in

adolescents (Larson, Hansen & Moneta, 2006, p.849). In addition, community service

helps increase adolescents' sense of social responsibility and personal competence

(Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Newmann & Rutter, 1986).

...service activities can be a vehicle for stimulating that part of the identity process
that involves situating one' s self within a sociohistorical context by identifying
with an ideological perspective on it...service can provoke youths to think about
themselves in relation to others who are less fortunate than they...It can stimulate
them to think about their own lives in comparison to the lives that differ from
theirs...it can stimulate them to think about the political and moral dimensions of
society and their role in making that order change so that it comes closer to
representing an ideology that those students believe is just and achievable. (Yates
& Youniss, 1996, p. 282-283)

By working with community organizations, adolescents not only stand to benefit

from the organization-public relationship but also benefit from other relationships that the

association brings. For example, adolescents who engage in community service build

peer relationships with others who serve with them (Youniss et al, 2001); they build adult

networks (Larson, Hansen & Moneta, 2006) and benefit from the relationships they build

with those who are served by the community organization (Yates & Youniss, 1996).









Volunteerism can be the basis for adolescents' learning about the work

environment as well (Johnson et al, 1998). A longitudinal study of the effects of

adolescent volunteering found that volunteers experience "strengthened intrinsic work

values and the anticipated importance of community but decreased the anticipated

importance of career" (p. 321, 325). Intrinsic work values included the "chance to learn a

lot of new things," to "have a lot of responsibility," to use "skills and abilities," to "make

my own decisions at work," "to work with people rather than things" and "to be helpful

to others and useful to society" (p. 332). In essence, volunteering can have positive

impacts on the way adolescents view current and future employment.

In addition to community service activities, activism can influence adolescent's

burgeoning identities as well (Elbaz, 1997). Adolescents who participate in activism have

the opportunity to make changes in their political and social environment, which leads to

a greater sense of self-efficacy.

Three other types of organizations in which adolescents engage are sports

organizations, arts/performance organizations and faith-based organizations (Larson et al,

2006). The relationship that adolescents have with these organizations and the

experiences that these organizations afford have a number of potentially positive

outcomes. Young people who engage in sports organizations and arts programs reported

higher rates of initiative, and those who participated in faith-based organizations reported

"higher rates of experiences related both to identity work and to adult networks and social

capital" (Larson, 2006, p. 858).

Certainly, not all organization-public relationships have a positive impact on

identity formation for adolescents. For example, participation with sports organizations









has been associated with increased stress for adolescents (Larson, 2006). Another

relationship with mixed influence, both positive and potentially negative, is the

relationship between adolescents and consumer organizations. Research seems to indicate

that consumption allows adolescents to experiment with identity, both establishing

individuality and fitting in with peers (Miles, Cliff & Burr, 1998), in a way that does not

harm the adolescent. At the same time, recent research has demonstrated how purchasing

and consuming the products of some companies (e.g. fast food and high-sugar beverages)

can be detrimental to adolescents (Ebbling et al, 2006; Haby et al, 2006).

It would be in the best interest of both the organization and adolescent public to

sustain the relationship with an organization that benefits the adolescent. The literature

suggests that the organization may sustain the organization-public relationship through

engaging in maintenance strategies (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ki,

2006). The model of the organization-public relationship proposed by Hon and Grunig

(1999) and Grunig and Huang (2000) does not specifically address adolescent members

of publics. The study proposed here will test whether it can be applied to young members

of publics. The model theorizes about (1) the antecedents that cause the relationship to be

formed, (2) the maintenance strategies engaged by organizations to maintain the

relationship with publics and (3) the outcomes of the relationship on publics. Clearly, this

model is organization-centric, with its focus on the way organizations can sustain the

relationship with publics rather than having a focus on the way the partners (organization

and public) can mutually work to sustain the relationship. However, the model was

chosen as the framework for this study for two reasons. First, arguably it is the model that

has been most developed in the area of relationship management theory and is most









commonly used to measure the relationship (Ledingham, 2006). The following study will

work within the parameters of the model while challenging some of its assumptions and

offering alternative ways of viewing the public-organization relationship. Second,

because the study is concerned with the benefit of the relationship for adolescents, the

behavior of the organization toward the adolescent publics is a focal point, as are the

relational quality outcomes of the relationship as perceived by the adolescents. Therefore,

the fact that the model has not been developed in the other direction (behaviors of the

public and quality outcomes of the organization) does not directly impact the study.

The following sections will review the three elements of the organization-public

relationship situational antecedents, maintenance strategies, and relational quality

outcomes and include a discussion of their potential impact on an adolescent public.

Situational antecedents of relationships

The works of Hon and Grunig (1999) and Grunig and Huang (2000) explore the

antecedents of the organization-public relationship through the framework of the general

excellence theory of public relations. Grunig and Huang (2000) argue that antecedents of

organization-public relationships can be understood in the context of organization

effectiveness, specifically goal attainment, systems approach, strategic constituencies and

competing values. Organizations must attain their goals while functioning within an

environment (systems approach) in which certain constituencies hold the most

significance for the organization, all the while balancing competing values that ultimately

impact the goals of the organizations (Grunig and Huang, 2000). Following the logic of

the organization effectiveness theories, organizations may need to join with other

organizations or with other publics to satisfy competing values (including j oining with

publics to influence other organizations). The situational antecedents presented by









Grunig and Huang demonstrate the potential direction of "behavioral consequences" of

organization-public relationships, "organization affects public, public affects

organization, organization-public coalition affects another organization, organization-

public coalition affects another public, organization affects an organization-public

coalition, multiple organizations affect multiple publics" (p. 34).

Most agree that organizations and individuals within publics enter the relationships

for reasons such as expectations, norms or the need for resources (Broom et al, 1997;

Grunig and Huang, 2000; Hon and Grunig, 1999). Studies of antecedents of peer

relationships have found that adolescents are initially attracted to a relationship because

they view another as similar to themselves in a number of ways, including demographic

variables, activities in which they engage and which they enj oy, attitudes and values,

personality and self- and social concepts (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). The level of

similarity influences the length of relationships, with those who are similar typically

engaging in a longer relationship than those who are less similar (Kandel, 1978).

A study of children's and adolescents' relationship development with brands found

10 types of relationships in which young people engage (Ji, 2002). The relationship types

ranged from "arranged marriage" in which young people were forced to use certain

products by parents or other authorities to "true love" characterized by a strong

attachment and commitment to one brand. Three of the relationship types were somewhat

uncommon among adults but active for the children and adolescents in this study: (1) first

love, tied to early experiences with brands that caused a strong feeling of loyalty and

contributed to self-concept; (2) secret admirer, the admiration of a brand that cannot be

purchased because of limited resources; and (3) fun buddy, the association of a brand









with fun. Based on this research, it is reasonable to assume that adolescents form

relationships with organizations for many reasons, some of which (and possibly all of

which) influence self-concept and identity. If children and adolescents form relationships

with brands that look different from adult relationships, it is likely that the same is true

for organization-public relationships for adolescents and for adults.

How organizations participate in those relationships is of great significance,

because the outcome of the relationship may impact adolescents along developmental

lines. The study of the organization-public relationship has identified six strategies that

organizations can use to engage in a relationship in a way that encourages positive

relational outcomes. These six will be discussed in the context of adult relationships,

adolescent relationships and the organization-public relationship. In addition, a seventh

strategy will be proposed and tested in this study.

Maintenance strategies

The second element of Hon and Grunig (1999)' s model of organization-public

relationships has been named "maintenance strategies." This term derives from literature

on relationships that examines the ways romantic partners actively engage in strategies to

sustain the relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1993; Stafford & Canary, 1991; Canary et al,

1993; Dainton & Stafford, 1994; Canary, Stafford & Semic, 2002).

As stated earlier, in the public relations literature, studies have examined only the

strategies engaged by the organizations toward the public; as well, the assessment of the

relationship has been confined to the examination of the relational quality outcomes as

perceived by the public. Understanding of the function of the organization-public

relationship would benefit from studies in the other direction, meaning exploration of the

maintenance strategies engaged by the publics and relational quality outcomes as









perceived by the organization. As well, the literature would benefit from the study of the

behavioral outcomes and consequences of the relationship on the publics and

organizations. This would move the focus of study from attempts by organizations to

control the relationship through the use of maintenance strategies that keep beneficial

publics from abandoning the relationship and threatening publics from harming the

organization and focus on a balanced approach of organization and public each

participating in the maintenance of the relationship for mutual benefit. As it stands, the

literature seems to endorse the use of maintenance strategies by the organization

primarily to benefit the organization.

Hon and Grunig (1999) and Grunig and Huang (2000) explore the communication

and behavioral strategies that can be engaged to maintain the relationships. These

strategies are based on theories of interpersonal communication and theories of conflict

resolution. In the interpersonal literature, Stafford and Canary (1991) gauge the success

of relationship management between romantic couples by measuring fiye dimensions of

relationship strategies: "positivity (such as attempts to make the relationship enj oyable

for both), openness (such as disclosure of thoughts and feelings), assurances (of love and

commitment), networking (having common friends), and shared tasks (taking joint

responsibility for household tasks)" (Grunig & Huang, 2000, p.36). Grunig and Huang

(2000) point to strategies in the conflict and negotiation literature used by organizations

to negotiate conflict, as identified by Plowman et al (1995). These are contending

(attempting to persuade a public of an organization's opinion), avoiding (abandoning the

conflict), accommodating (lowering expectations of outcome), compromising (reaching

an agreement but not one that satisfies all parties), cooperating (reaching an agreement









that satisfies all parties), being unconditionally constructive (being willing to sacrifice for

the sake of the relationship), and saying "win-win or no deal" (entering a negotiation

determined to reach an agreement in which all parties feel successful).

Organizations such as community service organizations, sport and arts

organizations and faith-based organizations could sustain their relationship with publics

through the use of these strategies. However, little is known about how maintenance

strategies impact the organization-public relationship for adolescents.

Maintenance strategies with adolescent publics

Research on organization-public relationships has not yet investigated the

maintenance strategies that are effective with adolescent publics. However, the strategies

proposed and tested by Stafford and Canary (1991) in relationships with romantic couples

- positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and networking have been used in the

adolescent literature to study the relationship between adolescents and parents (Vogl-

Bauer et al, 1999) and found a relationship between the perceived use of maintenance

strategies in the relationship and satisfaction with the relationship.

A review of literature on adolescent relationships reveals that other strategies may

be at work in the organization-adolescent public relationship. Three types of relationships

offer promise as a foundation for extracting maintenance strategies for organization-

adolescent public relationships with adolescents. They are the three most significant types

of relationships during adolescence: parent-child relationships, peer relationships and

romantic relationships.

Characteristics of parent-child relationship: Arguably the relationship with the

most long-term impact on adolescents' socialization is the parent-child relationship

(Youniss & Haynie, 1992). This relationship tends to be much more asymmetrical than









relationships with peers or romantic partners (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Research

has found that in a child-parent relationship, adolescents are more satisfied when they

receive more benefits from the relationship, even when they consider themselves over-

benefited at the expense of parents (Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999). Adolescents who reported

being under-benefited in the parent-child relationship reported lower scores on

maintenance strategies (positivity, openness, assurances, social network and shared tasks)

than those who reported an equitable relationship. As well, those who reported being

over-benefited reported higher scores than those in an equitable relationship (Vogl-Bauer

et al, 1999). This indicates that the amount of power adolescents receive in this type of

relationship ties to their satisfaction with the relationship. As well, adolescents perceived

relationships as benefiting them more when they agreed more strongly that the

maintenance strategies were being used in their relationships with parents. This has

implications for the organization-adolescent public relationship, especially for those

organizations that take an authoritative role over adolescents (e.g. high school).

Adolescents who perceived greater use of the maintenance strategies in a relationship

with an authority figure felt more benefited in the relationship, and more benefited

adolescents were more likely to feel satisfied in the relationship. Though the link between

the maintenance strategies and satisfaction in the relationship have an intermediate factor

(power or perceived benefit of the relationship) in this research, it still establishes a link

between the maintenance strategies with adolescents and outcome measures to be

discussed later in the text.










Based on this, the study proposed here will test whether a similar link exists

between maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes in the organization-

public relationship with adolescents as it does in the adolescent-parent relationship.

Characteristics of peer relationships: Peer relationships are more influential than

romantic relationships during this stage of life (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). In

actuality, same-sex friendships provide the most support and relative power as well as the

least conflict The study of maintenance strategies of same-sex or peer friendships

among adolescents may be as appropriate, if not more so, than the maintenance strategies

derived from communication in romantic relationships.

Peer relationships play a significant role in adolescence, acting as conduits for

identity experimentation and identity development (Ladd, 2004). As young people

disengage from family and begin to experiment with independence, they spend more time

with peers and less with family (Freeman, Csikszentmihalyi, and Larson, 1986).

Adolescents' peer culture takes on a life of its own, defining the norms for behavior and

dress for its members (Ladd, 2004). This becomes the world to which the adolescents

have the most allegiance. It is into this context that the organization-adolescent public

relationship must fit. This suggests that the organization-adolescent public relationship

may have different characteristics than the organization-adult public relationship. As

well, different variables may be at play in the relationship with adolescents.

In the peer relationship literature, factors in the quality of friendships include

security, companionship, closeness, help, and conflict (Bukowski, Boivin and Hoza,



SStudent-teacher relationships involve the least conflict and sibling-sibling relationships offer the most
relative power at this stage, but among peers, friends and parents, the above statement is accurate (Furman
& Buhrmester, 1992).










1994) as well as help and guidance, companionship and recreation, conflict and betrayal,

validation and caring, and conflict resolution (Parker & Asher, 1993). One of the most

helpful works on young peoples' relational maintenance strategies comes from Gottman

and Graziano (1983). They have found that children maintain relationships with peers

through the following processes: "communication clarity and connectedness, information

exchange, establishing a common-ground activity, the exploration of similarities and

differences, conflict resolution, positive reciprocity, and self-disclosure (p. 1). Though

the study was conducted with children, the literature has generalized its findings to

adolescents (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). These qualities give us a picture of the

adolescent peer relationship mirroring the adult peer relationship in many ways, including

the balance between companionship/closeness and conflict/betrayal. However, the

aspects of security and guidance (including help) may be somewhat unique to adolescent

relationships. This study will explore the use of guidance in the organization-public

relationship with adolescents.

Characteristics of romantic relationships: For young children, romantic

relationships do not play a significant role in their support system (Furman &

Buhrmester, 1992), so likely the study of relational maintenance strategies for that young

age group should not be based on maintenance strategies of romantic relationships.

Adolescents, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in a romantic relationship, with

36 percent of seventh graders engaging in this type of relationship, a number that

increases to 45 percent for tenth graders and 67 percent for college students (Ladd, 2004;

Feiring, 1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Connolly, Furman and Konarski, 2000).

Romantic relationships among adolescents have become an increasingly popular area of









study (Shulman & Scharf, 2000; Florsheim, 2003; Furman & Shaffer, 2003; Collins,

2003). These relationships play a role in a number of developmental tasks in which

adolescents engage, including the following.

...(a) the development of an identity, (b) the transformation of family relationships,
(c) the development of close relationships with peers, (d) the development of
sexuality, and (e) scholastic achievement and career planning. (Furman & Schaffer,
2003, p. 3)

The romantic relationship is not as influential as others during adolescence, and yet

it does contribute to identity development (as well as many other aspects of

development). As discussed earlier, the maintenance strategies proposed in the public

relations literature for the study of the organization-public relationship are based on the

study of romantic relationships in the interpersonal literature. Considering the impact that

romantic relationship have on adolescent development, these maintenance strategies will

be tested for influence in the organization-public relationship as well.

General characteristics of adolescent relationships: Some research has looked

more generally at the way adolescents' relationships (peer, parental and romantic) can be

affected. This research has identified a number of factors of relationships: attachment

(security and availability), caretaking (enjoyment of care, amount of care, security of

care), affiliation (harmony, similarity, investment in relationship), intimacy (self-

disclosure and satisfaction with intimacy), conflict (addressing and resolving vs. denying

conflict and holding a grudge) and emotional expression (expression of emotion, rational

vs. emotional, emotional confusion and emotional control) (Furman, 1996).

The relationship qualities and strategies of adolescent relationships provide insight

into how the relational maintenance strategies proposed in the public relationship and

interpersonal literature may impact relationships with adolescents. The following is an










exploration of several maintenance strategies derived from the interpersonal

communication and public relations literature positivity, assurances, shared tasks,

openness, networking and access. Engaging these strategies proactively in

communication between organizations and adolescent publics has potential to impact the

relationship between the two partners.

Positivity: In the interpersonal relationship literature, the concept of positivity is

associated with pleasant interactions. When one partner makes the relationship or a single

interaction more enj oyable or pleasant for the other, that partner is engaging the strategy

of positivity. A few examples of positivity are being "nice and cheerful," "offering

favors," "demonstrating prosocial behaviors," and "showing affection" (Canary et al,

1993, p. 9). With adults, this strategy acts as a predictor of trust, control mutuality, liking

and relational satisfaction (Stafford & Canary, 1991; Canary & Stafford, 1993; Dainton

& Stafford, 1994). In addition, it has been correlated with commitment over time

(Canary, Stafford & Semic, 2002).

In the public relations literature, this strategy would be considered "anything the

organization or public does to make the relationship more enj oyable for the parties

involved" (Hon & Grunig, 14). According to Grunig and Huang (2000), this concept is

related to the principle of "being unconditionally constructive" as proposed by Fisher and

Brown (1988). That concept has been adopted into the models of public relations and into

the conflict negotiation literature in public relations. Recent research on organization-

public relationships has found positivity to be a predictor of control mutuality,

satisfaction and trust (Ki, 2006).









In the adolescent literature, the maintenance strategy of positivity predicts length of

relationship through a transition (Oswald & Clark, 2003). In addition positivity in the

form of pro-social behavior is a predictor of positive peer relationships. Pro-social

behavior predicts outcomes of "conflict, closeness, companionship, helping, and

security" (Cillessen et al, 2005, p 165) as well as predicting quality of friendship and

affective behaviors in friendships (Markiewicz, 2001). In summary, positivity in

adolescent relationships results in positive outcomes; therefore, it is reasonable to assume

that positivity may impact an adolescent' s perception of the organization-public

relationship as well.

Assurances: In the interpersonal relationship literature, assurances are

characterized as "covertly and overtly assuring each other of the importance of the

relationship" (Canary et al, 1993, p.9). These assurances come in the form of

"supportiveness," "comfort," "need satisfaction" and "overt expression" (e.g. the

expression of unconditional love) (Canary et al, 1993, p.9-10). A relational partner makes

assurances by declaring love or pledging commitment to the relationship (Canary et al,

2002). This concept correlates with liking, commitment and control mutuality (Canary et

al, 2002) and predicts relational satisfaction (Dainton et al, 1994).

Assurances as a concept in the public relations literature extends to the notion of

legitimacy as "attempts by parties in the relationship to assure the other party that they

and their concerns are legitimate" (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 15). Legitimacy has been

used as a core characteristic in theory (Jensen, 1997) and as a dimension of excellent

public relations (L.A. Grunig, 1992). Recent research has identified assurances as the

strongest predictor of relational quality outcomes in the organization-public relationship










(Ki, 2006). The same research found that assurances predict all four outcomes: control

mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment.

In the adolescent literature, supportiveness, one aspect of assurances, impacts

adolescent behavior. Supportiveness from parents and friends mediates illegal behaviors

by adolescents (Urberg et al, 2005), and supportiveness within a close relationship

predicts the survival of a relationship through a transition (Oswald & Clark, 2003).

Supportiveness within the family environment reduces conflict (Rueter & Conger, 1995).

In many relationships, aspects of assurances result in positive outcomes for adolescents.

The same may be true for the organization-public relationship with adolescents.

Shared tasks: In the interpersonal literature, the sharing of tasks typically involves

"performing routine tasks and chores in a relationship" (Canary et al, 1993, p. 10). Often

in the literature, this concept is explored as the sharing of cleaning or other household

chores. Relationships that engage in equitable distribution of tasks result in partners who

are more satisfied (Canary et al, 1993). This concept is related to liking, commitment and

control mutuality as well as relational satisfaction (Canary et al, 2002; Dainton &

Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991).

In the public relations literature, this concept is actualized through a mutual task

taken on by an organization and public. Practically, examples include "reducing

pollution, providing employment, making a profit, and staying in business, which are in

the interest of either the organization, the public, or both" (Grunig & Huang, 2000). In

this way, members of the relationship share "in solving joint or separate problems" (Hon

& Grunig, 1999). Shared tasks predict control mutuality and satisfaction in the

organization-public relationship (Ki, 2006).









The concept of shared task is somewhat similar to the relational strategy of

"establishing a common ground activity" (Gottman & Graziano, 1983) in the child

development literature. Research found that children initiated play by engaging each

other in a simple common ground activity that leads to symmetrical communication and

ultimately to a more complex activity. As well, when adolescents participate in

community service activities, as discussed in an earlier section, they are working with the

organization to accomplish a common goal. Based on this, is it reasonable to assume that

shared tasks in an organization-public relationship would have positive relational

outcomes for adolescent publics.

Openness: The concept of openness in the interpersonal relationships literature

involves sharing of information. Partners who engage in candid communication without

judgment are engaging in openness. Canary et al (1993) describe it as "direct discussions

and listening to one another" (p. 9). Behaviors associated with openness are "self-

disclosure," "meta-relational communication," "advice," "conflict engagement" and

"empathic behavior" (Canary et al, 1993, p. 9). Although the initial research

conceptualized "openness" as including "advice," later research found "advice" to be an

independent construct (Stafford et al, 2000). (This dissertation will conceptualize

"advice" as a construct independent of "openness"). Openness correlates with outcomes

of liking, commitment and control mutuality (Canary et al, 2002), and it acts as a

predictor for relational satisfaction (Dainton et al, 1994).

In the public relations literature, openness "of thoughts and feelings among parties

involved" (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 14) is an important concept (Ledingham, 1998). The

excellence theory (Grunig & White, 1992) and models of public relations (Grunig &









Grunig, 1989) are built on the concept of symmetry, the idea that partners in a

relationship exchange information openly and fairly, with each behaving ethically with

the information received. Openness acts as a predictor of the tendency to stay in a

relationship with an organization or leave it (Ledingham, 1998). However, recent

research has found that perceptions of this maintenance strategy do not directly predict

any of the relational outcomes control mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment -

for organization-public relationships with adults (Ki, 2006). More research needs to be

done to determine whether this strategy does in fact contribute to the organization-public

relationship through its influence on other maintenance strategies. As well, the strategy

may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for positive quality outcomes.

Erikson (1963) identified openness to be one of the concepts that make up

intimacy. In the adolescent relationship, self-disclosure as an aspect of openness predicts

success of a close relationship through a transition (Oswald & Clark, 2003). In the parent-

child relationship, self-disclosure is a measurable quality of the relationship (Matza et al,

2001) that is associated with "family communication, family cohesion, and satisfaction

with family relationships" (Papini & Farmer, 1990, p. 959). This concept is similar to the

concept of intimacy (Furman, 1996) and self-disclosure (Gottman & Graziano, 1983)

found in the adolescent literature. Though openness in the organization-public

relationship has not been examined with adolescent publics, it is reasonable to

hypothesize that it will have positive outcomes in that relationship as well.

Networking: In the interpersonal literature, the use of networking or social

networks is the act of "relying on the support of friends and family" (Canary et al, 1993,

p. 10). Relational partners engage in networking when they spend time with mutual









friends. Like many of the other maintenance strategies, networking has been correlated

with liking, commitment and control mutuality among adults (Canary et al, 2002). It, too,

is a predictor of relational satisfaction (Dainton & Stafford, 1994). The relationship is

more satisfying for partners when they share mutual friends and spend time with family

members (Canary et al, 2002).

In the public relationships literature, this concept has not been explored as

thoroughly as some of the other maintenance strategies. Hon and Grunig (1999) define

networking as "organizations' building networks or coalitions with the same groups that

their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, or community groups" (p. 15). This

concept is offered as an extension of the interpersonal concept of social networking,

which results in enj oyment of the relationship (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Like openness,

this maintenance strategy has fallen into question recently. One study has found that it

has no direct predictive power for relational outcomes in the organization-public

relationship (Ki, 2006). More research needs to be done to determine whether

networking, like openness, has an impact on the organization-public relationship.

Social networks provide a safe place for adolescents to experiment with identity

and self expression (Shil'shtein, 2001). However, the study of the impact of social

networks on individual relationships is still an open area.

Access: This maintenance strategy is not found in the interpersonal literature.

Rather, it is the only maintenance strategy derived soley from the public relations

literature. Hon and Grunig (1999) first proposed this strategy with this explanation:

Access--members of publics or opinion leaders provide access to public relations
people. Public relations representative or senior managers provide representatives
of publics similar access to organizational decision-making processes. Either party
will answer telephone calls or read letters or e-mail messages from the other. Either










party is willing to go to the other when they have complaints or queries, rather than
taking negative reactions to third parties. (p. 14)

Research in public relations has found this maintenance strategy to be a predictor of the

relational outcome of control mutuality (Ki, 2006). Maintenance strategies influence the

relational quality outcomes in interpersonal relationships, and the literature in public

relations predicts that they will do the same in the organization-public relationship (Table

2-2).

Proposal of a new maintenance strategy

The review of adolescent relationship literature above seems to suggest a number of

additional maintenance strategies that would impact the organization-adolescent public

relationship, including guidance, caretaking, conflict resolution, positive reciprocity and

provision of security. The first of these, guidance, will be conceptualized and

operationalized in the study presented here.

Guidance: Two concepts, "advice" and "guidance," tend to overlap in the

interpersonal literature, with "guidance" holding a broader definition that includes the

provision of advice. The following section will explore the uses of these two terms and

variations of them in the literature on adult interpersonal relationships, adolescent

interpersonal relationships, and public relations, with a goal of deriving a well-explicated

definition of guidance.

In early studies of relational maintenance strategies in marital relationships, the

concept of "openness" included an element called "advice;" however, later studies found

"advice" to be an independent relational maintenance strategy in which romantic partners

engage (Stafford et al, 2000). Advice in this context consisted of two measures, "I tell my

partner what I think s/he should do about her/his problems" and "I give him/her my










opinion on things going on in his/her life" (Stafford et al, 2000, p. 312). Other studies,

too, found "advice" to be an independent relational maintenance strategy (Aylor &

Dainton, 2004; Dainton & Aylor, 2002). Advice has been correlated with relational

outcomes of control mutuality, liking and satisfaction (Stafford et al, 2000); however, a

stepwise regression did not find the strategy of "advice" to be a direct predictor of any of

the three outcomes.

Despite the lack of direct predictive power of "advice" for outcomes of adult

romantic relationships, the broader concept of "guidance" as discussed in the adolescent

literature (Mendelson & Aboud, 1999; Parker & Asher, 1993; Bukowski, Hoza and

Boivin, 1994) may play a significant role in perception of quality outcomes in

organization-adolescent relationships. In a study of early adolescent friendships, Parker

and Asher (1993) identified a single quality named "help and guidance." This concept is

demonstrated when a friend offers assistance that allows the other to complete tasks more

quickly or when a friend provides advice to another. Measures of this concept include

"helps me so I can get done quicker," "help each other with schoolwork a lot," "gives

advice with figuring things out," "count on each other for good ideas on how to get things

done," "come up with good ideas on ways to do things," "loan each other things all the

time," "share things with each other," "do special favors for each other," and "help each

other with chores a lot" (Parker & Asher, 1993). Adolescents who rated a close friendship

as higher in "help and guidance" indicated a greater satisfaction with that relationship.

Eliminating the measures that are associated with "help" leaves two elements advising

others and offering ideas to one another. These elements are two of the ways in which

adolescent friends provide "guidance" to one another.









Parents are significant sources of "advice" (McHale et al, 2000; Tucker et al, 2001)

and "guidance" (Bronstein & Duncan, 1996) for adolescents as well. The definition of

"advice" in the adolescent literature appears to be limited to the giving of counsel about a

specific problem or decision (Tucker et al, 2001), while the definition of "guidance"

incorporates the broader acts of setting limits and providing overall direction for

adolescents.

The concept [of guidance] refers to parents providing direction, information,
guidelines, and limits for their children so that they learn culturally appropriate
behaviors and values, as well as life skills and good judgment. It may also involve
helping them to develop their talents and interests and Einding ways to stimulate
intellectual growth... (Bronstein et al, 1996, p. 417)

The presence of guidance in the parent-adolescent relationship is assumed, and the

lack of it can result in negative social and behavioral outcomes (Strom et al, 1998; Strom

& Strom, 2002; Dishion et al, 2004). Parent-adolescent relationships that include an

element of guidance are rated as higher in overall quality, including higher perceived

responsiveness and supportiveness (Brody et al, 2005).

In the public relationship literature, one of the responsibilities of public relations

managers is acting as "key policy and strategy advisor" (Moss et al, 2005). This occurs

when practitioners offer advice or counsel to senior management, also called the

dominant coalition. Acting in a role of advisor is a way of building the relationship

between the public relations department and the highest level of management, with the

goal of earning a seat for public relations among the dominant coalition.

Together, the concepts of "advice" and "guidance" are found in the literature

related to romantic relationships, peer/friendships, parent-child relationships and

relationships within public relations. Definitions of these concepts in the adult

interpersonal literature, adolescent interpersonal literature and the public relations









literature cover a broad spectrum (Table 2-3). The narrowest definition is that of advice

in the interpersonal literature, which is operationalized as (1) making recommendations

for solutions to problems and (2) offering an opinion about a partner' s life situation

(Stafford et al, 2000). In the adolescent peer/friendship literature, "guidance" includes

being advised by a friend or having a friend offer ideas (Parker &Asher, 1993). Guidance

provided by parents includes "providing direction, information, guidelines, and limits" as

well as help in the development of interests and talents (Bronstein & Duncan, 1996, p.

417) as well as helpful discussions about life decisions (Tucker et al, 2001), specific

advice about problems (McHale et al, 2000) and instructing adolescents about values

(Strom et al, 1998; Strom & Strom, 2002). In the public relations literature, giving advice

is a management role that builds the ties to senior management and ultimately earns

public relations more influence in the organization (Moss et al, 2005).

The definitions seem to fall into three categories: (1) expert who gives advice,

makes recommendations, acts as reliable source for ideas, helps solve problems, provides

direction, provides information, sets guidelines and sets limits; (2) educator who teaches

values, teaches self-evaluation, develops individual's interest and develops individual's

talents; and (3) friend who offers an opinion and helps generate ideas. Certainly these

categories have some overlap; however, each definition identified in the literature seems

to fit primarily into one of the categories.

For this study, the definition of guidance will be limited to the first category, the

category of expert. While the other two categories of guidance are important in the

parent-adolescent relationship and in adolescent-peer relationships, the organization-

public relationship likely would benefit most from examples of guidance that fall into the









first category. However, one element within the expert category overlaps with another

relational maintenance strategy. The element of providing information seems to be

assumed in the maintenance strategy of "access," when information is offered about the

organization, about its uses of resources, about its decision processes and about its

leadership. In the interest of explicating an independent definition of guidance, the

element of providing information as an act of guidance will be restricted to those

instances in which information is offered with the intention of assisting another. The

definition could be further streamlined by eliminating redundancies in the definition,

resulting in a modified version of Bronstein and Duncan, (1996) definition:

Guidancedd~~~~~ddddd~~~~ is defined as advice, help, direction or support. One can give guidance by
offering counsel, developing guidelines, setting limits, assisting with decision
making, providing information with the intent of aiding or act as a reliable source
for ideas.

This proposed relational maintenance strategy will be tested along with the other

strategies for their impact on relational quality outcomes.

Relational quality outcomes

The third element in Broom et al.'s (1997) model of relationship focuses on the

consequences of the relationship. Hon and Grunig (1999) and Grunig and Huang (2000)

point primarily to Huang (1997; 2001) for their suggested outcomes: control mutuality,

trust, commitment, and satisfaction. While Broom et al. define relationship consequences

as "outputs that have the effects of changing the environment and of achieving,

maintaining, or changing goal states both inside and outside the organization" (p. 16),

Grunig and Huang focus on the measurable outcomes that indicate the state of the

relationship.









Based on an extensive review of interpersonal communication literature, Huang

(1997; 2001) proposed that four outcomes would capture the complex state that exists

between an organization and a public: control mutuality, satisfaction, trust and

commitment. These four measurable outcomes appear to play a role in adult interpersonal

relationships, adolescent relationships and in the public relations relationships.

Control mutuality: Control mutuality involves the perception by all parties that

they have a reasonable amount of power in the relationship (Grunig & Huang, 2000).

[Control mutuality is] the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power
to influence one another. Although some degree of power imbalance is natural in
organization-public relationships, unilateral attempts to achieve control by one
party are associated with decreases in perceptions of communicator competence
and satisfaction with the relationship and increases in the level of activism. For the
most stable, positive relationship, organizations and publics must have some degree
of control over the other (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 19).

The interpersonal literature offers a similar definition of control mutuality as "the

extent that both parties agree on who has the right to influence the other" (Canary et al,

2002, p. 397). The equitable distribution of power in an interpersonal relationship has

been tied to relational satisfaction (Canary & Stafford, 1992). Recent research in public

relations has found that control mutuality is predicted by relational maintenance

strategies of access, positivity, shared tasks and assurances (Ki, 2006). The same study

found that control mutuality does not contribute significantly to the overall relationship

quality. In the adolescent literature, perceived relative control in peer and romantic

relationships increases as individuals mature from childhood through adolescence and is

related to the quality of a relationship (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Adolescents who

perceive greater control in their parent-child relationship report greater satisfaction with

that relationship (Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999).









Satisfaction: One of the most significant gauges of success of interpersonal

relationships is the level of relational satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988; Canary & Stafford,

1992; Dainton, Stafford & Canary, 1994). In the public relations literature, satisfaction

with an organization-public relationship has been predicted by publics' perceptions of

trust, openness, involvement, investment and commitment (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000)

in the relationship.

[Satisfaction is] the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other
because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced. Or, a satisfying
relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs. Satisfaction also can
occur when one party believes that the other party's relationship maintenance
behaviors are positive. (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 20)

Satisfaction in an organization-public relationship is predicted by relational maintenance

strategies of positivity, shared tasks and assurances (Ki, 2006). Satisfaction in an

organization-public relationship is a fairly strong predictor of trust in the relationship, and

it is a strong predictor of the overall relationship quality (Ki, 2006). The strength of pro-

social beliefs and goals impacts satisfaction in adolescent peer relationships (Jarvinen &

Nicholls, 1996; Berndt, 1982). As well, the more adolescents benefit from a parent-child

relationship, the more they indicate satisfaction in that relationship (Vogl-Bauer et al,

1999).

Trust: The construct of trust appears in both the interpersonal and public relations

literature (Canary & Cupach, 1988; L.A. Grunig, 1992). In public relations, trust is

critical to reputation management.

.. [Trust is] one party's level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to
the other party. Trust is a complicated concept, which has several underlying
dimensions. One of these is integrity, the belief that an organization is fair and just.
A second is dependability, the belief that an organization will do what it says it will
do. A third is competence, the belief that an organization has the ability to do what
it says it will do. In the context of the public-organization relationship, the value of









a trustworthy reputation is so great that it becomes rational not to try to seize any
short-term advantage. (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 19)

Trust in an interpersonal relationship has been linked to an increase in security, a

reduction in "inhibition and defensiveness" and an increase in freedom to share feelings

(Larzelere & Huston, 1980). Two concepts seem to influence trust in a relationship a

partner' s benevolence and honesty. The factor of trust influences another outcome of an

organization-public relationship: commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Recent research

has found that satisfaction in an organization-public relationship predicts trust which then

predicts commitment to the relationship (Ki, 2006). The same study found that relational

maintenance strategies positivity and assurances predict trust. Trust in the adolescent

literature has been linked to the success of relationships (Rawlins & Hall, 1987;

Rotenberg et al, 2004).

Commitment: The construct of commitment in organization-public relationships is

"the extent to which one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending

time to maintain and promote" (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 20). Commitment is predicted by

the relational maintenance strategy of assurances and by the relational quality outcome of

trust (Ki, 2006). The concept of commitment contains two concepts: continuance

commitment and affective commitment (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Continuance

commitment is the promise "to continue a certain line of action" (p. 46). Affective

commitment "is an affective or emotional orientation to an entity" (p. 46), a feeling of

dedication or loyalty to a relationship. Meyer and Allen's (1984) work on the influence

of side-bets on commitment to organization relationships found that the level of

investment in the relationship influences commitment.









Measuring these four qualities has become the commonly accepted way of

measuring the outcomes of an organization-public relationship (Ledingham, 2006).

However, not all scholars agree with this approach. Broom et al (1997) claim that a true

measure of the relationship must be conducted on the second element of the relationship

- concept of relationships or maintenance strategies arguing that measurements of

outcomes of a relationship may not accurately reflect the state of the relationship. They

hold that outcome measurements are primarily measures of one party's perceptions of the

relationships and do not capture the full picture of the state of the relationships. Grunig

and Huang (2000), on the other hand, argue that measurement of outcomes is sufficient to

determine the quality of the relationship. The authors hold that one' s perspective on the

relationship is of fundamental importance in gauging the success of the relationship.

Based on this premise, much of the organization-public relationship research measures

the outcomes of the organization-public relationships as an indication of strength of the

relationship.

The study presented here will attempt to measure both the second and third

elements of the organization-public relationship (relational maintenance strategies and

relational quality outcomes) and the relationship that exists between them in an attempt to

more fully understand the nature of the organization-adolescent public relationship.

A Model of the Organization-Public Relationship

Based on the literature reviewed above, a model of the organization-public

relationship can be conceived (Figure 2-1). In this model, both the organization and

public engage in maintenance strategies to sustain their relationship. The effort that one

partner invests in maintaining the relationship likely influences the efforts the other will

make in engaging strategies. As each partner displays more or less effort in sustaining the









relationship, that will influence relational quality outcomes. In this model it is proposed

that not only will the types of strategies and the level of perceived strategy engagement

influence one's partner, but the effort one makes to sustain the relationship will influence

one' s own relational quality outcomes. Likely other variables influence the quality of the

relationship as well, including involvement, attitudes, expectation and antecedents.

The quality of the relationship, as judged by the relational quality outcomes,

influences other outcomes for the publics (Ki, 2006), including positive or negative

behavioral outcomes, ranging from purchasing products from the organization to learning

pro-social behaviors. For the organization, relational quality outcomes of the organization

and the public will be indicators of the organization' s success in the marketplace. The

goal of the organization is to secure enough resources to continue functioning and

contributing to its environment. It accomplishes this through the positive relationships it

builds with publics.

In the study proposed here, only one small piece of this model will be tested, the

effects of an organization' s engagement of maintenance strategies on an adolescent

public' s judgment of the quality of the relationship, measured by the relational quality

outcomes.

Linking Relational Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes

One prior study of the relationship between relational maintenance strategies and

relational quality outcomes in the organizational-public relationship has found that four

of the six maintenance strategies directly predict the four quality outcomes of the

relationship when data were subj ected to a multiple regression and a subsequent path

analysis (Ki, 2006) (Figure 2-2, Table 2-5). In addition, the study found a significant









predictive relationship between the relational quality outcomes, with satisfaction

predicting trust and trust predicting commitment to the relationship.

The study, which identified the links between maintenance strategies and quality

outcomes, surveyed adult members of a statewide industry organization (Ki, 2006).

Because the data were collected from only one public of one organization, its

generalizability is somewhat limited. The study proposed here will collect data from

publics of multiple organizations in an attempt to establish greater generalizability. Based

on a review of the adolescent literature, the study reported here proposes that the

maintenance strategies will influence quality outcomes differently for adolescents, as will

be described below. In addition, the study tests an additional maintenance strategy,

guidance, which was identified in the adolescent literature.

Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship

In addition to establishing the existence of the organization-public relationship and

identifying its elements, studies of organization-public relationships have measured

satisfaction with relationships (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000), intended behavior

(Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999; Bruning &

Ledingham, 2000; Bruning, 2000; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning et al, 2006), actual

behavior (Wilson, 2000; Bruning, 2002), effect of communication on relationships (Jo &

Kim, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000), ways organizations employ relationship

management techniques (Kent, Taylor & White, 2003; Dougall, 2006), and the

correlation between a public's knowledge of certain information about the organization

and perceived strength of the relationship (Hall, 2006). Most studies have been conducted

using a survey methodology. While surveys cannot establish causal relationships between

variables, they are appropriate for the early exploration of the elements of the










relationship. Much work has been done to develop a reliable scale for outcome

measurement (Huang 1997; 2001; others), and some work is beginning around

maintenance strategies (Ki, 2006). The study presented here likewise will employ a

survey methodology to assess the relationship between relational maintenance strategies

and relational quality outcomes for adolescent members of publics.

Intended Behavior

While understanding of the influence of relationship maintenance strategies on

relational quality outcomes for adolescents in an organization-public relationship is a

worthy study by itself, this study will attempt to explore how quality outcomes influence

the future behavior of teen volunteers. This study investigates the potential link between

the level of relational quality that adolescents experience in their adolescent volunteer-

nonprofit organization and their likelihood to volunteer in the future. By investigating the

consequence of the organization-public relationship on intended behaviors of teen

volunteers, this study highlights the significance of this relationship type and the

importance that it may play in the future behavior of teen volunteers.

The following sections will review literature on volunteerism and on intended

behavior.

Volunteerism

Over 61 million individuals ages 16 and up volunteered their time to nonprofit

organizations in 2006 (Grimm et al, 2007). This includes 26% of young people ages 16-

19. According to the Corporation for National and Community Service (Spring et al,

2006) young people donated more than 1.3 billion hours to nonprofit organizations in

2005.









Studies of antecedents of volunteer activity has found three strong predictors of

volunteer behavior: (1) altruism (the feeling that one can make a contribution to the

greater good), (2) need for activity (the need to have something to do) and (3) need for

learning (the desire to take on new challenges and learn new things) (Mowen & Suj an,

2005). Other research has examined the functions of community service in the lives of

volunteers. These functions include (1) values (acting on values that are important to the

volunteer), (2) understanding (learning more about the world through the volunteer

experience), (3) enhancement (growing and expanding personally), (4) career (learning

skills that can be used in a career), (5) social (making social connections through a

volunteer assignment) and (6) protection (escaping from personal problems) (Clary &

Snyder, 1999, p. 157). When volunteer expectations are met in regard to these functions,

volunteers are more likely to continue to volunteer (Clary et al, 1998).

As discussed earlier, the benefits for teen volunteers include building positive

relationships, increased social responsibility, and more personal competence. As well,

volunteering is an opportunity for adolescents to learn skills that will assist in future

career goals. Other research has suggested that volunteerism among youth can increase

political engagement in some cases (Walker, 2002; Tossutti, 2003). These are significant

benefits that may be impacted by the quality of relationship between an adolescent and

organization. It would be important to examine any relationship between the quality of

the relationship that teens experience with an organization for which they volunteer and

their future intentions to volunteer.

Volunteer intended behavior

The theory of the hierarchy of effects posits that there are three classifications of

effects: cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral (Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1964;









Barry, 1987). This study will examine the effect of the adolescent volunteer-nonprofit

relationship on an adolescent' s behavioral intent toward volunteering in the future.

Behavioral intent is one of the causes of behavior, and can be used to predict the

likelihood of behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Studies of the theory of reasoned action

and theory of planned behavior have found a high correlation between intended behavior

and actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1999). Studies in public relations

have used intended behavior in their study of the organization-public relationship. Two

seminal works in this area examined the relationship between relational quality outcomes

and intended behavior toward the organization (intention to continue the relationship)

(Ki, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007). Both found that the level of relational quality predicted

intended behavior toward the organization. However, they found that attitude toward the

organization was more strongly predicted by relational quality and was a stronger

predictor of intended behavior. Other studies found that publics' which more strongly

identify themselves as being in a relationship with the organization, as well as those who

indicate a stronger satisfaction with that relationship, tend to indicate a stronger intention

to continue the relationship with the organization (Bruning, 2000, 2002).

The study presented here examines the relationship between relational quality and

intended behavior, but rather than measure the intended behavior toward the

organization, this study looks at the intended behavior toward future volunteering that is

not organization specific. Rather, it looks at the likelihood that teens will intend to

continue volunteering throughout their lifetime. Research has shown that when

volunteers' expectations of volunteering are not met, they quit volunteering, not

necessarily switch to another organization (Clary & Snyder, 1999). This suggests that the










quality of a volunteer experience impacts an individual's future volunteer behavior.

Possibly the quality of a volunteer-nonprofit relationship impacts volunteers' intention to

continue volunteering as well. This hypothesized relationship was tested in the study

presented here.

While the model for the association between relationship maintenance strategies

and relational quality outcomes measures the relationship at the organizational level

(public rather than individual), intended behavior for future behavior unrelated to the

organization is an individual choice; therefore, it is measured at the individual level. This

study posited that the organizational relationship teens experience will influence his/her

likelihood to volunteer in the future.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The study presented here predicts that the links between relational maintenance

strategies and relational quality outcomes found by Ki (2006) will hold for the

organization-adolescent relationship because these predictions do not contradict the

literature on adolescent relationships. In addition, based on a review of the literature, this

study predicts additional links between maintenance strategies and quality outcomes for

an adolescent public and a link between relational quality outcomes and volunteer

intended behavior.

First, the study explores whether all seven relationship maintenance strategies

discussed above positivity, guidance, assurances, shared tasks, openness, networking

and access will contribute significantly to the overall construct of relational

maintenance in the adolescent-organization public relationship. This includes the new

strategy of guidance, which is proposed and defined in this chapter. A prior study found

that strategies of positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and networking are









significantly predicted by the construct of relational maintenance, but access is not (Ki,

2006). The model as proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) includes the construct of

access, and not enough evidence exists to remove it at this time.

Research question 1: Are the relationship maintenance strategies of positivity,
guidance, assurances, shared tasks, openness, networking and access reliable and
valid measurements of relationship maintenance in the adolescent-organization
relationship?

Second, the study explores the relationship between the relational quality outcomes

and the overall construct of relational quality. The model of the organization-public

relationship proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) posits that four relational quality

outcomes satisfaction, trust, control mutuality and commitment can be used to

measure relational quality. Other work has found that three of the four outcomes

(satisfaction, trust and commitment) were significantly predicted by the construct of

relational quality (Ki, 2006). Control mutuality was not. Again, not enough evidence

exists to remove control mutuality from the model for the adolescent-organi zati on

relationship. This study investigated whether the four relational quality outcomes are

significantly predicted by relational quality for this relationship type.

Research question 2: Are the relational quality outcomes of satisfaction, trust,
control mutuality and commitment reliable and valid measurements of relational
quality in the adolescent-organization public relationship?

Some research in the area of organization-public relationships has suggested that

certain relational quality outcomes may act as predictors or antecedents to others.

Specifically, Ki (2006) and Ki and Hon (2007) found that satisfaction is an antecedent for

trust and trust is an antecedent for commitment. The nature of the relationship between

these quality outcomes in the adolescent-organization public relationship is not known.

This study tested whether satisfaction predicted trust and trust predicted commitment in









the adolescent-organization public relationship. Additionally, it tested the predictive

power of control mutuality on satisfaction. Literature indicates that teens who feel more

powerful in their relationship with their parents are more satisfied with that relationship

(Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999). This would suggest that control mutuality may act as an

antecedent for satisfaction, with the model offering a linear relationship from control

mutuality + satisfaction + trust + commitment. Adolescents who feel more pleased

with the level of control that they have in their relationship with a volunteer organization

will feel more satisfied with that relationship. Likely this satisfaction is the result of the

adolescents feeling that they are respected by the organization, their opinions are valued,

and believing that they have the power to make changes in areas that concern them. The

level of satisfaction in the relationship then influences the level of trust that adolescent

volunteers have in the relationship. If adolescents feel that they have enough power in the

relationship and they feel generally pleased with the relationship, likely they are going to

feel more secure in the relationship (trust). If, on the other hand, adolescents feel that they

don't have adequate power in the relationship and they are generally not pleased with

their relationship with the organization, then they may not feel secure in that relationship;

they may not feel that the organization is treating them fairly and honestly. The fourth

relational quality outcome is commitment, which is the degree to which publics feel that

the organization is trying to build a long-term relationship as well as the publics' belief

that they, too, wish to continue the relationship. If the other three quality outcomes,

control mutuality, satisfaction and trust, are low, then likely this will be low as well. If an

organization is not providing adolescent volunteers with adequate power or if adolescents

are generally not happy with the relationship or adolescents don't trust the volunteer










organization, then likely the teen volunteers will not want to continue the relationship and

probably will perceive the organization as not showing signs of wanting to continue the

relationship, too. Based on these assumptions, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 1: The level of control mutuality will significantly predict the level of
satisfaction in the organization-adolescent public relationship.

Hypothesis 2: The level of satisfaction will significantly predict the level of trust in
the organization-adolescent public relationship.

Hypothesis 3: The level of trust will significantly predict the level of commitment
in the organization-adolescent public relationship.

Prior work in the area of organization-public relationships used multiple regression

analysis to identify predictors of control mutuality. Four relationship maintenance

strategies had significant predictive relationships with control mutuality. They were

positivity, assurances, shared tasks and access (Ki, 2006). This is in agreement with the

adolescent literature, so the same will be predicted for this study. When an organization

attempts to make interactions pleasant for their teen volunteers (positivity) or when they

take teen volunteers' concerns seriously (assurances), that will communicate to

adolescents that they are valued and will increase their sense of power in the relationship.

In addition, when teens perceive that they are working together with their volunteer

organization to address issues important to them (shared tasks), this will increase their

sense of control in the relationship. Teens will also feel more pleased with their level of

power in the relationship when they have more access to upper level management in the

organization (access).

Hypothesis 4: The degree of control mutuality perceived in the adolescent-
organization public relationship will be significantly predicted by the levels of
positivity, assurances, shared tasks and access the adolescent publics perceive in
the relationship.









Prior research found that satisfaction in the organization-public relationship was

influenced by positivity, assurances and shared tasks (Ki, 2006). When organizations

make communication pleasant, when they consider publics' concerns, and when they

engage with publics to address issues important to those publics, this results in the

publics feeling more pleased with the relationship. Two additional maintenance strategies

are predicted to influence satisfaction in this study. First, openness has been linked to

satisfaction with family relationships for adolescents (Papini, et al, 1990). In the

adolescent-organization public relationship, this could mean that organizations that are

more active in informing their adolescent publics about upcoming changes in the

organization will influence the level of satisfaction that the publics feel with the

organization. Second, the interpersonal literature reflects that the provision of guidance

creates greater satisfaction with close friendships in adolescence (Parker & Asher,

1993).In the organization-public relationship, this may mean that adolescent publics will

feel more satisfaction with their relationship with a volunteer organization if they feel

they are being given adequate guidance in their assignment. Both of these strategies

(openness and guidance) likely will influence the satisfaction of an organization-

adolescent relationship for the adolescent.

Hypothesis 5: The degree of satisfaction in the adolescent-organization public
relationship will be significantly predicted by the degree ofpositivity, assurances,
shared tasks, openness and guidance that adolescent publics perceive in the
relationship.

Trust in an organization-public relationship has been linked to the maintenance

strategies of positivity and assurances (Ki, 2006). This is likely the case for adolescent

publics as well. The more that organizations attempt to make interactions positive with









adolescents and the more that they acknowledge the concerns of adolescent volunteers,

the greater the amount of trust that adolescents will feel in the relationship.

Hypothesis 6: The degree of trust in the adolescent-organization public relationship
will be significantly predicted by the degree of positivity and assurances that
adolescent publics perceive in the relationship.

Though a recent study found that only assurances positively influenced the degree

of commitment (Ki, 2006), work in the field of adolescent relationships found that

positivity predicts the length of a relationship through transition. This would indicate that

positivity may influence the commitment that adolescents have to a relationship.

Therefore, this study predicts that both assurances and positivity will positively influence

commitment. Again, when an organization attempts to make interactions with an

adolescent pleasant, this will have an effect on the outcomes of the relationship. This

study predicts that it will impact all four relational quality outcomes. In the case of

commitment, the use of positivity by an organization would make the relationship more

enj oyable, thus communicating to adolescents that the organization would like to

continue the relationship and encouraging adolescents to choose to remain in the

relationship. Positivity is a powerful strategy in interpersonal relationships and may hold

the same power in the organization-public relationship.

Hypothesis 7: The degree of commitment in the adolescent-organization public
relationship will be significantly predicted by the degree of positivity and
assurances that adolescent publics perceive in the relationship.

In addition to testing the elements of the organization-public relationship, this study

examined the impact of the level of quality of the relationship on intended behavior.

Other studies have found a link between the level of quality in an organization-public

behavior and a public's intention to behave toward that organization. This study goes

beyond the organization and tests the influence of the quality of relationship on future










intention toward the behavior itself. Likely adolescents' current experiences with

volunteering will influence the way that they perceive the value of volunteering in

general, not just their perception of volunteering for on particular organization. Because

many individuals have their first experiences with volunteering in adolescence, these

formative experiences, positive or negative, would be fundamental in an adolescent's

understanding of volunteering. If that is the case, then the organization-public

relationship between adolescents and nonprofit organizations can have long-term impacts

on the adolescent.

Hypothesis 8: The level of relational quality will significantly influence the level of

volunteer intended behavior among adolescents.

To capture the influence that relationship maintenance strategies have on relational

quality outcomes as well as the influence the outcomes have on intended behavior the

entire model was tested.

Hypothesis 9: The level of relationship maintenance strategies will significantly

influence the level of relational quality outcomes which will significantly influence the

level of intended behavior.





Table 2-1. Model of the organization-public relationship proposed by Hon & Grunig and
Grunig & Huang
Stages and Forms of
Relationship


Situational antecedents
(behavioral
consequences of each
other [Interpenetration])
Organization affects
public (Or P1)

Public affects
organization (P1 O)

Organization-public
coalition affects another
organization (OiP1 &
Ol)

Organization-public
coalition affects another
public (O1P1 & P2)

Organization affects an
organization-public
coalition (Or & 02P2)

Multiple organizations
affect multiple publics
(Or & P1)

Environmental scanning


Maintenance Strategies
Symmetrical
Disclosure (openness)
Assurances of legitimacy
Participation in mutual
networks
Shared tasks (helping to
solve problems of interest
to the other party)
Integrative negotiation
C Oop erati on/c ollab orati on
Be unconditionally
constructive
Win-win or no deal
Asymmetrical
Distributive negotiation
Avoiding
Contending
C Ompromi sing
Accommodating


Relationship Outcomes
Control mutuality
(Joint acceptance of
degrees of symmetry)
Commitment
(Interdependence,
loss of some
autonomy)
S ati sfacti on/liking
Trust Goal attainment
Complementary
behavior)


Measures of Concepts
Ongoing observations of
management and publics
(such as monitoring of
disclosure by management
and publics, expressions of
legitimacy, building
networks with activity
groups


Coorientational
measures of
management and
publics:
Perceived by either or
both parties
Observed by third party
(overlap in
coorientation model)
Predicted for other
party (accuracy and
congruence in
coorientation model)





































































Canary,
Stafford &
Semic
(2002)


sharing tasks refers to engaging in
household chores as well as any tasks
that may constitute the
responsibilities of the couple (p. 396)


Commitment,
Control
mutuality


Table 2-2. Definitions of relational maintenance strategies.


Maintenance
Strategies
Positivity


Conceptual
Citation definition
Ki (2006) the degree to
which members
of publics benefit
from the
organization' s
efforts to make
the relationship
more enjoyable
for key publics
(p. 25)


Related to
outcomes
Control
mutuality,
Satisfaction,
Trust


Operational definition/Measures
- members find attending meetings
helpful
- members find benefits (insurance,
banking, etc) of membership
beneficial
- members find regular
communication beneficial
- members find communication
courteous
- org attempts of make interactions
enjoyable
- members find information useful
- org cooperative with disagreements
(p. 65)

positivity includes acting polite and
cheerful, being nice, courteous, and
upbeat during conversations, and
avoiding criticism; (p. 396)

- org provides personal responses to
concerns
- members believe org cares about
concerns
- org communicates importance of
members
- org allows members to raise issues
and propose solutions
- org takes members concerns
seriously (p. 66)


Canary,
Stafford &
Semic
(2002)


Liking.
Commitment,
Control
mutuality

Control
mutuality,
Satisfaction,
Commitment


Assurances


Ki (2006) any efforts by an
organization to
assure its
strategic publics
that they and
their concerns
are attended to
(p. 28)


Canary,
Stafford &
Semic
(2002)


assurances involves expressions of
love, commitment and in other ways
implying the relationship has a
future. (p. 396)

- org works with members on
problems for benefit of members
- org involved in community issues
of concern to members
- org and members work well
together (p. 66)


Liking,
Commitment,
Control
mutuality

Control
mutuality,
Satisfaction


Sharing of tasks


Ki (2006) organization's
efforts to share
in working on
projects or
solving problems
of mutual
interest between
an organization
and its publics
(p. 27)









Table 2-3. Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept "guidance"
Conceptual and/or
Citation Nominal definition operational definition
Stafford et al, 2000; Advice making recommendation for
Dainton & Aylor, 2002; solutions to problems and
Aylor & Dainton, 2004 offering an opinion about a
partner' s life situation


Tucker et al, 2001




McHale et al, 2000


Parker & Asher, 1993


Advice




Coach


"frequency and helpfulness
of talking about future j ob,
education, and family plans"
(p. 734)

"give advice about how to
solve problem" (p. 746)

advising others and offering
ideas to one another
(guidance only)

"providing direction,
information, guidelines, and
limits" as well as help in
development of interests and
talents (p. 417)

"teaching values and self-
evaluation" (1998, p. 146)

advise top management on
important issues and
contribute to policy making


Help and guidance


Bronstein et al, 1996






Strom et al, 1998; Strom
et al, 2002


Guidance


Guiding


Moss et al, 2005


Key policy and strategy
advisor





Table 2-4. Definition of relational quality outcomes.
Relational
Quality
Outcomes Citations Conceptual definition
Control Hon & Grunig the degree to which
mutuality (1999) parties agree on who has
rightful power to
influence on another (p.
19)


Operational definition/measures
- organization and people like me are
attentive to what each other say
- organization believes the opinions of
people like me are legitimate
- in dealing with people like me, this
organization has a tendency to throw its
weight around (reversed)
- organization really listens to what
people like me have to say
- management of this organization gives
people like me enough say in the
decision-making process.


Canary,
Stafford,
Semic (2002)


Hon & Grunig
(1999)


the extent that both
parties agree on who has
the right to influence the
other. (p. 397)

the extent to which one
party feels favorably
toward the other because
positive expectations
about the relationship
are reinforced (p. 20)


Satisfaction


- I am happy with this organization
- both the organization and people like
me benefit from the relationship
- most people like me are happy in their
interactions with this organization
- generally speaking, I am pleased with
the relationship this organization has
established with people like me
- most people enjoy dealing with this
organization


Dainton,
Stafford, &
Canary (1994)


Relational satisfaction is
generally defined as an
individual's attitude
toward the partner and
the relationship,
typically in terms of the
perceived quality of the
relationship (p. 90)

one party's level of
confidence in and
willingness to open
oneself to the other party
(p. 19)


Trust


Hon & Grunig
(1999)


- organization treats people like me fairly
and justly
- whenever this organization makes an
important decision, I know it will be
concerned about people like me
- organization can be relied upon to keep
its promises
- I feel very confident about this
organization's skills
- organization has the ability to
accomplish what it says it will do

trust is related to increase in security, a
reduction in inhibition and defensiveness


Larzelere &
Huston (1980)











and an increase in freedom to share
feelings

- I feel that this organization is trying to
maintain a long-term commitment to
people like me
- I can see that this organization wants to
maintain a relationship with people like
me
- there is a long-lasting bond between
this organization and people like me
- compared to other organizations, I
value my relationship with this
organization more
- I would rather work together with this
organization than not


Commitment


Hon & Grunig
(1999)


The extent to which one
party believes and feels
that the relationship is
worth spending energy
to maintain and promote
(p. 20)


Canary,
Stafford,
Semic (2002)


the extent to which
partners want to
continue their
relationship indefinitely
(p. 397)















































Figure 2-1. Model of the organization-public relationship































Figure 2-2. Linkages between relational maintenance strategies and relational quality
outcomes for adult publics


Table 2-5. Standardized coefficients and standardized errors of paths between
maintenance strategies and quality outcomes in the organization-public
relationship as reported by Ki (2006).
Standardized Standardized
Relationship coefficient error Significance
Positivity & Control Mutuality .07 .64 p<.001
Positivity & Satisfaction .24 .06 p<.05


.06
.08
.07
.07
.07
.06
.06
.06


Positivity & Trust
Assurances & Control Mutuality
Assurance & Satisfaction
Assurance & Trust
Assurance & Commitment
Shared Tasks & Control Mutuality
Shared Tasks & Satisfaction
Access & Control Mutuality


p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.01
p<.05
p<.001


Openness


Networking















CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

The study reported here aimed to explore the following: (1) the impact of relational

maintenance strategies on quality outcome measures in the organization-public

relationship with adolescents, and (2) the fit of a model that predicted the influence of

relationship maintenance on relational quality and the influence of relational quality on

adolescent volunteer intended behavior. These areas of discovery were explored through

a study employing a survey of 315 adolescents ages 15-18 from a Southeastern state in

the United States.

Study Overview

The current study tested a model of the relationship between relational maintenance

strategies on relational quality outcomes (Figure 3-1) and a model of the influence of

relational maintenance on relational quality and relational quality on volunteer intended

behavior (Figure 3-2). Existing measures for the relational maintenance strategies,

relational quality outcomes and volunteer intended behavior proposed and tested by Ki

(2006) were modified for an adolescent public and tested for an adolescent-organization

relationship. In addition, measures were created for the newly proposed strategy of

guidance. Data were collected through a survey administered to students from a number

of high schools during the 12-week period between February 1 and April 30, 2007. The

data were analyzed, and the results can be found in chapter four.












Sample

This study examined adolescents' perceptions of the organization-adolescent

public relationship. One specific public, the volunteer public, was chosen for this study

for two reasons. First, many teens volunteer as part of a requirement for their high school,

for an honors program or to eamn a college scholarship. In order to be eligible for the

Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program2, high school students in Florida must

complete a minimum of 75 hours of community service. More hours are required for

participation in other programs, like National Honor Society which requires 150 hours of

community service. Therefore, it is a common for high school students to fall into the

public of "volunteer." Second, and more importantly, research has demonstrated that

teens who volunteer derive benefits from that activity (Youniss, McLellan & Mazer,

2001). It can be reasoned that teens who fall into this public are benefiting from the

relationship. This is an organization-public relationship that has potential benefit for the

adolescent and as a result is worthy of study.

In order to gain permission to survey high school students, the researcher

contacted school boards in two medium-sized school districts and was granted permission

to approach schools in those districts to recruit for the study. Four high schools agreed to

participate in the study, two from each school district. In the first school district, one

school distributed 250 surveys and returned 105. The other distributed 100 and returned

39. In the other school district, one school distributed 122 and returned 47, and the other


2 The Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program is funded by the Florida Lottery and is administered by
the Florida Department of Education. Students who meet the criteria in the areas of community service,
SAT/ACT scores, and high school grade point average are eligible for a grant of up to 100% of tuition and
fees plus additional expenses for a public institution in the state.










distributed 100 and returned 28. In addition to the public school systems, two private

schools were approached, and one agreed to participate. Fifty surveys were distributed at

that school and 18 were returned. A church youth group participated in the study as well

with 30 surveys being distributed at a weekly meeting of the group and 11 surveys being

returned. And finally, participants in the study were recruited by university students

attending a communications class at a large Southeastern university. The university

students were given extra credit for every high school student whom they were able to

recruit as a survey respondent. One hundred and ten surveys were distributed through this

means and 67 were returned. All total, 762 surveys were distributed and 315 were

returned, a return rate of 41%.

Pretest

Before the surveys were distributed through the channels mentioned above, a

pretest was conducted with 10 high school students from one of the schools. These

students were members of an extracurricular group whose primary purpose was to

participate in community service. The purpose of the pretest was to ensure that the

questions on the survey were clear and understandable for an adolescent population. As

well, the pretest helped to determine if any questions did not apply to the adolescent

volunteer population.

To further establish validity of the measures, an expert in teen community service

was asked to review the questions and provide feedback on their appropriateness for the

adolescent population.

Based on the feedback from the pretest and from the community service expert, a

number of changes were made. First, the survey was redesigned to include a more

conversational tone in the directions for each section. Second, the number of questions in










each section was reduced, creating more sections but shorter sections. The researcher and

the expert felt that this would reduce the likelihood of fatigue for respondents. Third, six

of the questions were eliminated from the survey. All six came from the relational quality

outcomes section. Both the expert and the teens in the pretest felt that the survey was too

long and that teens would not complete it as it was presented. In an effort to shorten the

survey, the number of measures per construct was reduced to five or six (see original

questions in Appendix F). The final survey included 22 relational quality outcome

measures (see final survey in Appendix E). Measures for relationship maintenance

strategies and volunteer intended behavior were not reduced, nor were demographic

questions.

Survey Administration

The survey was administered to a number of high schools, to a church youth group

and through university students' as recruiters of other teens, as described above. The

study utilized voluntary participation through convenience sampling, including voluntary

participation and snowball sampling because achieving a random sample of teens who

volunteer in a community would be difficult to achieve and costly. It is argued that in this

seminal study, the results will be important and directive if the sample pool is diverse and

the demographics dispersed.


3 The following items were eliminated based by the researcher on advice from a teen volunteer expert.
These items were deemed by the research to be either redundant or not appropriate for teen volunteers.

Control mutuality items (2 items): (1) When dealing with volunteers, the organization has a tendency to
throw its weight around. (2) The organization cooperates with volunteers.

Satisfaction items (2 items): (1) Volunteers feel they are important to the organization. (2) In general
nothing of value has been accomplished by the organization for volunteers.

Trust items (2 items): Sound principles guide the organization's behavior. (2) Volunteers feel very
confident about the organization's abilities.









Surveys in this study were self-administered by the high school students

themselves. Each participant in this study received a packet of information in a manila

envelope. The packet contained a letter of invitation to participate in the study, a copy of

the survey, a community service credit form (for those from schools who offered this as

an incentive), a student assent form and a parental consent form. The letter explained that

students were to sign the assent form, and that anyone younger than 18 years of age

should have a parent sign the parental consent form before the survey was completed

(Appendices A through E). The label on the outside of the envelope indicated who the

respondent should return the packet to and the deadline for submitting it.

Any survey returned without the proper signatures was discarded. The letter told

those who received the community service form to complete it and return it in the manila

envelope, along with the survey and signed consent form, to the appropriate person by the

deadline. Those who did not receive a community service form because their

participation was not rewarded with an hour of community service credit were instructed

simply to return the signed forms and the survey in the envelope to the appropriate person

by the deadline. Following is a description of the survey administration through each

venue. See Table 3-1 for rate of return by source.

The first school to participate received 300 surveys on Tuesday, February 6, 2006.

The surveys were delivered to the vice principal, who passed along approximately 130

along to the sponsor of the National Honors Society for the school. These surveys were

distributed at a monthly meeting. The balance was distributed to teachers of sophomores,

juniors and seniors. The teachers distributed them in their classrooms with an explanation

of the survey process. An initial deadline of February 28, 2007, was set for final









collection of the surveys; however, due to statewide testing that was being conducted

during that time period, the deadline was extended to March 16, 2007. All total, 105

completed surveys were returned, and 50 surveys were not distributed, making the total

distribution 250 and the return 105, a 42% return rate.

The second school to receive surveys was a private school that had requested 150

surveys to be distributed to three classes of juniors in a college preparation class. The

surveys were delivered to a representative in the community service office of the school

on February 9, 2007, and a deadline was set for final collection on February 28, 2007.

Only one of the three classes successfully distributed the surveys to its students, reducing

the number of distributed surveys to 50. Because the initial return was very low, students

were offered an additional incentive, a $5 gift certificate to Smoothie King stores, if they

returned the survey by an extended deadline of April 27, 2007. Eighteen completed

surveys were returned from this school.

A school in the same district as the first school agreed to distribute 250 surveys to

their International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IB) shtdents4. The surveys were

delivered to the vice principal of the school on April 2, 2007, and a deadline for

collection was set for April 20, 2007. Thirty-nine surveys were returned completed and

150 were returned undistributed due to lack of time on the part of the advisor. This

becomes a survey distribution of 100 and a return of 39.

Another school district gave approval for surveys to be distributed to students in

their schools; however, it restricted the distribution and collection time to non-

instructional time periods. This meant that the surveys were to be distributed to students

4 The International Baccalaureate Diploma Program is a program comparable to Advanced Placement
which prepares juniors and seniors for college level work.









during extracurricular activities rather than during class time. Two schools agreed to

distribute surveys at their national honor society (NHS) meetings. One school requested

245 surveys, which were delivered to the advisor of the NHS group on April 16, 2007.

During a meeting held that week, the advisor asked students to pick up a survey after the

meeting and complete it by the Friday of the following week (April 27, 2007). As stated

earlier, those who completed the survey were compensated with one hour of community

service credit. A total of 122 surveys were picked up by the students, and 47 were

returned by the deadline. The other school in this district agreed to distribute 150 surveys

to students at an NHS meeting held during that same week. Of the 150, 100 were passed

out to students and 28 were returned by the deadline, which was also April 27th

Additional surveys were handed out at a youth group meeting of a local church in a

medium-sized Southeastern city. Teens attending the meeting were given the opportunity

to pick up a packet and return the completed survey the following night. Those who filled

out the survey were given free admission to an event held the following night. Admission

for the event was $5. A total of 30 surveys were picked up by meeting attendees, and 1 1

were returned.

The final way that participants were recruited for this study was through a

university class. Twenty-nine students in a public relations strategy class at a large

Southeastern university were offered extra credit if they were able to recruit high school

students to complete a survey. Each university student was permitted to recruit up to 5

participants. A total of 110 surveys were distributed to the university students, and 67

were returned.









Measures

Four sets of measures were used in this study: (1) relational quality outcomes, (2)

relational maintenance strategies, (3) volunteer intended behavior and (4) demographic

questions. Following are descriptions of the measures.

Relational quality outcomes

Twenty-two scale items were used to measure relational quality outcome constructs

of control mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment. These items were modified from

the scale proposed and refined by Huang (1997; 2001) and applied by Ki (2006). The

measures were judged to have adequate internal consistency in prior research: control

mutuality (Cronbach's alpha = .93), satisfaction (Cronbach's alpha = .91), trust

(Cronbach's alpha = .92) and commitment (Cronbach's alpha = .88) (Ki, 2006).

A modified version of these measures were used in the current study (Table 3-1).

The measures have been adapted to reflect the adolescent volunteer public included in

this study. Efforts were made to maintain as much of the original statement as possible

for each measure (see Appendix F for original items and tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-4 for

modified items).

Relational maintenance strategies

In the organization-public relationship, six relationship maintenance strategies are

hypothesized to influence relational quality outcomes of the relationship. In this study,

This six strategies positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness, networking and access

- were measured using 30 scale items. The items were adopted from a scale proposed and

tested by Ki (2006) and modified to reflect an adolescent volunteer public. The measures

were assessed using a nine-point scale.










Prior research has found the following levels of internal consistency for these

measures positivity (Cronbach's alpha = .82), assurances (Cronbach's alpha = .83),

shared tasks (Cronbach's alpha = .79), openness (Cronbach's alpha = .77), networking

(Cronbach's alpha = .71) and access (Cronbach's alpha = .84) (Ki, 2006).

As stated earlier, the scale items were modified to reflect the interests of the

volunteer publics (Table 3-2). Every effort was made to maintain the essence of each

measure.

Maintenance strategy: guidance

In addition to the six relationship maintenance strategies discussed above, this

study introduced a new relational maintenance strategy to the study of the organization-

public relationship guidance. Prior definitions of this term and related terms were

considered in the formulation of a definition of guidance (Table 3-3). The proposed

definition is as follows:

Guidance is defined as advice, help, direction or support. One can give guidance by
offering counsel, developing guidelines, setting limits, assisting with decision
making, providing information with the intent of aiding or act as a reliable source
for ideas.

This definition was used in the formulation of measures to test the perception of the

strategy of guidance in the organization-public relationship with adolescents (Table 3-4).

Six measures were created to measure this construct.

Volunteer Intended Behavior

The model proposed in this study predicts that the level of relational quality

outcomes in an adolescent-volunteer organization public relationship will influence the

intended behavior of individual adolescent volunteers. The adolescent volunteer-

nonprofit organization relationship has the potential to have a positive long-term effect on









adolescents who engage in it by influencing their likelihood to volunteer in the future. To

test volunteer intended behavior three measures were adapted from Zeithaml, Berry and

Parasuraman (1996) and Ki (2006). These measures were tested using a nine-point scale

(Table 3-5).

Demographic measures

Three questions were asked for demographic purposes. First, respondents were

asked for age. Results from this question are reported in the descriptive statistics section

of chapter four. In addition, this question acted as a filter question for those to be

included in this study. In an effort to limit the age range in this study to only high school

student, the acceptable ages for participants were 15-18 years old. Anyone reporting a

higher or lower age was removed from the study.

Two other demographic questions asked for race and gender. The results of these

questions, too, can be found in the descriptive statistics section of chapter four.

Analysis

The goal of this study was to test the relationships between relationship

maintenance strategies, relational quality outcomes and intended behavior. In the process,

it sought to provide evidence in support of the proposed model of adolescent-organization

public relationship. Data collected during this study were analyzed for their fit to this

model. The proposed model consists of 13 constructs: seven relationship maintenance

strategies, four relational quality outcomes and volunteer intended behavior. Sixty-one

items were used to measure these 13 unobserved constructs. In order to analyze the

relationship between the variables, the statistical methodology of structural equation

modeling (SEM) was employed.









Structural equation modeling

Structural equation modeling is a way of testing theoretical models of relationships

between latent and observed variables. Unlike classical methods of general linear

modeling, SEM takes into account the measurement error of variables in the model. This

results in a more accurate reflection of the relationship that exists between variables.

Three most common types of testing for SEM are confirmatory factor analysis, path

analysis and structural regression analysis. CFA tests the loading of observed items on

latent factors. Unlike exploratory factor analysis, CFA is designed to be used to test

previously identified factor structure. Second, path analysis can be used to test the linear

relationship between observed variables, taking into consideration the error in

measurement of the variables. Third, structural regression modeling is a powerful

statistical method that tests for the regression of latent variables on one another. Not only

can the relationship between latent and observed variables be tested with this

methodology, but the relationship between latent variables can be tested.

SEM statistical methodology tests the fit of data to a proposed model. The model fit

indicators are judged for their degree of fit to the proposed model. Criteria for a good

model fit includes the following: (1) a Chi-square score equal or greater than .005, (2) a

non-significant Chi-Square, (3) a ratio of Chi-square to degrees of freedom of equal or

less than 3, (4) a comparative fit analysis (CFI) greater than or equal to .90, (5) a

goodness of fit index (GFI) score of greater than or equal to .90, (6) a normed fit index

(NFI) score of greater than or equal to .90, and (7) root mean squared error

approximation (RMSEA) of less than or equal to .05 (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000).

Chi-square is an inferential statistic which identifies the model fit for any given

model for any data. In structural equation modeling (SEM), the proposed model acts as









the null hypothesis (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000); therefore, the desired result of a Chi-

square test for a given model is non-significance. Non-significance would indicate that

there is not enough evidence to rej ect the proposed model. A significant Chi-square

would indicate a poor model fit. As a result, a non-significant Chi-square score is ideal,

as is a low Chi-square score and a low ratio of Chi-square to degrees of freedom. Because

the T statistic is sensitive to sample size, other goodness of fit indices should be used to

gauge the model fit. Two tests which measure the degree to which the data fit the model

are goodness of fit index (GFI) and normed fit index (NFI) (Kline, 2005). GFI measures

the degree to which a model can explain the variance and covariance in the data. Scores

for GFI range from zero to one, with a score of 1.0 indicating a perfect fit. A normed fit

index (NFI) is a way of judging how the data fit the independence model (model with no

relationships) vs. saturated model (the proposed model), with the ideal fit being the

saturated model. A score of .90 or greater indicates a reasonable fit, with 1.0 indicating

an excellent fit (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). Two other fit indices measure how the

data does not fit a model by looking at alternative fit. These two indices are comparative

fit index (CFI) and root mean square error approximation (RM SEA) (Kline, 2005). CFI is

the degree of improvement in fit when moving from a model with no relationships to the

proposed model. Scores for CFI range from zero to one with one indicating an excellent

fit. A root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) takes into consideration the

complexity of the model and measures the degree to which the model does not fit the

data. Scores of .05 or lower indicate a good model fit. Scores of .08 or greater should be

questioned (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). This study employs the more stringent

criteria of RMSEA of .05 or less.






72


Results and analysis are presented in chapter 4.













Table 3-1. Relationship quality outcome measurement items for current study

Control mutuality
Q1-3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate.
Q1-4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R]
Q1-8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them.
Q1-11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say.
Q2-1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers' opinions in the decisions that affect them [R]
Q2-8. When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they have some sense of control.


Satisfaction
Q1-1. I am happy with the organization.
Q1-6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship.
Q1-10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization. [R]
Q2-2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the organization has established
with them. [R]
Q2-5. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization.
Q2-9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers' needs. [R]


Trust
Q1-2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and j ustly.
Q1-5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the impact on
volunteers.
Q1-9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers.
Q2-3. The organization misleads volunteers. [R]
Q2-4. I feel very confident about the organization's abilities to accomplish its mission.


Commitment
Q1-7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers.
Q1-12. I see the organization as committed to its volunteers.
Q2-5. Compared to other organizations, volunteers value their relationship with this organization the most.
Q2-7. I would rather work with this organization than another.
Q2-10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization.
Note: [R] indicates reverse code.











Table 3-2. Relationship maintenance strategy measurement items for current study

Access
Q3-2. It is clear to me who the upper-level managers are and how to contact them.
Q3-8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management.
Q4-13. Upper-level managers are approachable.
Q5-2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management.
Q5-4. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions.

Positivity
Q3-13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful.
Q4-2. The organization's communication with volunteers is courteous.
Q4-5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enjoyable.
Q5-1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling disagreements with volunteers.
Q5-9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be useful.

Openness
Q3-12. The organization shares information with volunteers about how it is managed.
Q4-9. During meetings, volunteers are encouraged to communicate their opinions.
Q4-11. I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans. [R]
Q4-14. I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization. [R]
Q5-8.The organization freely shares information with volunteers.

Shared tasks
Q3-5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions encountered by volunteers.
Q3-6. The organization is involved in community issues (environmental issue, disaster relief, etc.) that
volunteers care about.
Q3-9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing.
Q4-3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving joint problems. [R]
Q5-3. The organization and volunteers care about the same community issues.

Networking
Q3-11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers.
Q4-4. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits volunteers.
Q4-7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way that benefits
volunteers.
Q4-8. The organization's associations with other like-minded groups are not useful for volunteers. [R]
Q5-6. The organization works with community groups that I care about.

Assurances
Q3-4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers' concerns
Q3-10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers.
Q4-1. The organization communicates to me the importance of volunteers.
Q4-10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores them. [R]
Q5-7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers
Note: [R] indicates reverse code









Table 3-3. Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept "guidance"
Citation Nominal definition Conceptual definition
Stafford et al, 2000; Advice making recommendation for
Dainton & Aylor, 2002; solutions to problems and
Aylor & Dainton, 2004 offering an opinion about a
partner' s life situation
Tucker et al, 2001 Advice "frequency and helpfulness
of talking about future j ob,
education, and family plans"
(p. 734)
McHale et al, 2000 Coach "give advice about how to
solve problem" (p. 746)
Parker & Asher, 1993 Help and guidance advising others and offering
ideas to one another
(guidance only)
Bronstein et al, 1996 Guidance "providing direction,
information, guidelines, and
limits" as well as help in
development of interests and
talents (p. 417)
Strom et al, 1998; Strom Guiding "teaching values and self-
et al, 2002 evaluation" (1998, p. 146)
Moss et al, 2005 Key policy and strategy advise top management on
advisor important issues and
contribute to policy making


Table 3-4. Measures of the relationship maintenance strategy of guidance

Guidance
Q3-1. The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are clear.
Q3-3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful direction from the organization.
Q3-7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers.
Q4-6. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers.
Q4-12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems.
Q5-5. When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice.


Table 3-5. Measures of volunteer intended behavior.
Measures
Q7-1. Will you volunteer (for this organization or another) in the years to come?
[responses on nine-point scale from "Not likely" to "Very likely"
Q7-2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she participate in community service in
years to come? [responses on nine-point scale from "Not likely" to "Very likely"
Q7-3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come? [responses
on nine-point scale from "Not much" to "A lot"















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter reports the results of analysis of data collected from adolescents who

participate in volunteerism. The data were used to test eight hypotheses about the

relationship that exists between adolescent volunteers and their volunteer organizations.

Results inform the understanding of the organization-public relationship, specifically the

relationship between adolescents and nonprofit organizations. Findings from the analysis

are reported below.

Respondents

Of the 762 surveys distributed to teens, 3 15 were filled out and returned by high

school sophomores, juniors and seniors, yielding a rate of return of 41%. When the

surveys were examined, 18 were discarded for the following three reasons: (1)

incomplete survey one of the surveys not completed, (2) age in two of the surveys the

respondents were younger than 15, in one survey the respondent was older than 18, and

eight of the surveys did not provide an age so they were discarded, (3) pattern of response

- in six of the surveys, the pattern of response raised concerns about the authenticity of

the responses. Examples of this third reason include the respondent answering "9" for all

questions or the pattern of responses beginning at one end of the semantic differential (1

or 9) and each subsequent response being one greater or lesser than the previous, creating

a pattern that ran diagonally across the page and then back again. It was suspected that

this pattern was the result of respondents marking the answers without reading the

questions.









A final count of 297 surveys (N=297) were included in the analysis of data,

providing a 39% return rate. Specific rate of return by source are indicated in table 4-1.

The highest rate of return came from the university student proj ect, likely because most

students passed along the surveys to individuals who were known to them and the

personal relationship increased the rate of return. The lowest rate of return came from the

Bartram Trail High School. The advisor to the NHS student group at that school indicated

that students were not interested in completing the survey because most had already

fulfilled their community service requirements for the school year.

The ages of the respondents ranged from 15-18, with most reporting to be ages 17

or 18. One hundred ten (37%) reported being 18 years old, and 108 (36%) reported their

age as 17. Fifty-eight respondents were 16 years old (20%), and 21 were 15 years old

(7%). All respondents were high school students. One hundred eighty-five respondents

were female (62%), and 110 were male (37%). Two respondents (1%) did not indicate

gender. The fact that more females responded to the survey than males may have been

due to the fact that more members of NHS are female than male. In addition, in general

more females volunteer than males; nearly 32% of all females volunteer while only 24%

of males volunteer (Grimm et al, 2007). The maj ority of respondents were Caucasian,

with 206 (69%) reporting Caucasian and 19 (6%) indicating Hispanic/Latino heritage.

Other ethnicities included 31 (10%) African-American, 23 (8%) Asian, 6 (2%) Middle

Eastern, and 1 (.3%) Native American. Eight respondents did not report their ethnicity.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the three maj or constructs in this study relationship

maintenance strategies, relational quality outcomes and volunteer intended behavior are

reported below. For each item, the mean and standard deviation are reported. Missing









data for maintenance strategy items and relational quality outcomes items were replaced

with mean scores. A total of 33 respondents did not answer at least one of the 52 items

that support these constructs, thus a listwise deletion would have greatly reduced the

number of participants in the study and threatened the validity of the data.

However, missing data for the construct of volunteer intended behavior was

handled with listwise deletion. The researcher reasoned that the lack of a response to one

of the three questions that support this construct could be an indication of lack of

intention to behave. Four respondents were eliminated from the study for lack of response

to one of the three intended behavior questions, reducing the count to 293 (N=293).

On average, the teens in this study reported volunteering 8.6 hours (SD=10. 1) per

week for their volunteer organization. In response to a question about the last time they

had volunteered for the organization, the teens on average said 4.6 months ago (SD=4.4).

However, most appeared to be either volunteering currently or had not volunteered since

the previous summer (approximately 9 months earlier), which created a mean score

around 4.5 months.

Relationship Maintenance Strategies

Theoretically, relationship maintenance strategies are those behaviors and

communications in which organizations and publics engage that are thought to have an

influence on the relational quality outcomes of the relationship. The teens in this study

rated their volunteer organizations positively in the use of these strategies, with total

mean scores for the strategy ratings ranging from 6.9 to 7.6 on a nine-point scale (Table

4-2). The most frequently used strategies appear to be positivity (M=7.6, SD=1.2),

guidance (M=7.5, SD=1.1) and assurances (M=7.5, SD=1.3), all of which received a

mean score greater than 7.5. The strategy that was least detected in the relationship was









networking, which received a mean score of 6.9 (SD=1.5), still a score well above the

midpoint of the scale.

The three items that received the highest mean score ratings were (1) "The

organization's communication with volunteers is courteous" (M=8.0, SD=1.4); (2) "I

believe the organization cares about its volunteers" (M=7.9, SD=1.5); and (3) "The

guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are clear" (M=7.9, SD=1.2). The

three items are measures of positivity, assurances and guidance respectively. They reflect

the three most common maintenance strategies in which teen volunteers said their

volunteer organization engaged. The three measures suggest that these teens believe

volunteer organizations show concern for volunteers, are considerate of volunteers and

offer clear communication and guidelines to their teen volunteers.

The lowest mean scores were received by these three items: (1) "The organization

works with other community groups that impact volunteers" (M=6.7, SD=2.1); (2) "The

organization's associations with other like-minded groups are not (are, reverse coded)

useful for volunteers" (M=6.8, SD=2.2); and (3) "I have had opportunities to meet with

senior management" (M=6.8, SD=2.5). The first two items measure networking and the

third measures access. It appears from these results that compared to the other items in

this study, teens are less likely to believe their volunteer organizations are working well

with other organizations or they do not see the value in these associations. At the same

time, it appears that teens are not being given access to upper level management in their

volunteer assignments to the same degree that they are experiencing other types of

maintenance strategies. However, it should be noted that the scores for the lowest three

items are still well above the midpoint of the scale.









Relational Quality Outcomes

Additional data were collected to measure the strength of relational quality

outcomes. Relationship quality outcome measures give an indication of the strength of

the relationship between organizations and publics. Teens in this study viewed the

relationship with their volunteer organization positively, with overall mean scores on the

four relational quality outcomes ranging from 7.3 to 7.7 on a nine-point scale (Table 4-3).

Of the four outcomes, the teen volunteers rated their satisfaction with the relationship as

highest (M=7.7, SD=1.2) and the control mutuality in the relationship as lowest (M=7.3,

SD=1.2). Three items achieved a mean score greater than 8.0. They were (1) "I believe

the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers" (M= 8.2,

SD=1.2), (2) "The organization misleads volunteers" (reversed) (M=8.1, SD=1.5), and

(3) "I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly" (M=8.1, SD=1.3). The

first item measures the level of commitment and the next two measure trust in the

relationship. Taken together, these indicate that teens perceive volunteer organizations as

making an attempting to build a good relationship with them and as behaving honestly

and fairly toward them.

Three items achieved less than 7.0 on the nine-point scale. These three were:

"Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the

impact on volunteers" (M=6.7, SD=1.9), (2) "Managers give volunteers enough say in

decisions that affect them" (M=6.7, SD=1.9), and (3) "When volunteers interact with the

organization, they feel that they have some sense of control" (M=6.9, SD=1.6). The first

item is a measure of trust and the last two are a measure of control mutuality. Clearly,

teens feel that they lack the power that they would like to have in the relationship with

their volunteer organizations.










Looking at only the highest and lowest scoring items for relational quality

outcomes provides a picture of the adolescent-nonprofit organization as fair and honest

but less likely to offer the balance of power desired by the teen volunteers. However, the

level of satisfaction in the relationship, as reported by the teens, indicates that teen

volunteers are pleased with the relationship.

Volunteer Intended Behavior

Responses to a third set of items were collected and analyzed. These items

measured the construct of volunteer intended behavior. The teens in this study indicated a

strong likelihood to volunteer some time in the future, with the overall mean score for

volunteer intended behavior reaching 7.7 (SD=1.5) on a nine-point scale (Table 4-4). Of

the three items used to measure volunteer intended behavior, recommending that a friend

participate in community service achieved the highest mean score (M=8.1, SD=1.0). The

teens' mean score for their likelihood to volunteer in the future was a little lower at 7.7

(SD=2.2). The lowest mean score for this construct was for the item measuring the

amount of effort that teens would make to volunteer in the years to come (M=7.5,

SD=1. 8).

Teens appear to believe in the value of volunteering as evidenced by their desire to

encourage others to volunteer. They also indicated a moderate to strong likelihood to

volunteer in the future and to make an effort to volunteer.


Measurement Reliability

Reliability of the scale items in this study were tested using Cronbach' s alpha.

Results can be found in Table 4-5. All items achieved a reliability score of .80 or better

except for two concepts openness and shared tasks. These two items achieved a score









below .70; therefore, more work was done to examine individual measurement items for

these variables. Discussion of that analysis can be found below.

This study tested only one type of reliability, internal consistency. Future tests of

reliability for these variables should employ other types of measurement, including test-

retest reliability.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To provide evidence of validity of the constructs presented in this research, a series

of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using AMOS 6.0. Confirmatory factor

analysis provides a way of confirming a previously identified factor structure. The latent

variables tested here come from the public relations literature (Hon & Grunig, 1999:

Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ki, 2006); therefore, confirmatory factor analysis, rather than

exploratory factor analysis, is appropriate. Confirmatory factor analyses were run for all

seven relational maintenance strategies, for the four relational quality outcomes and for

intended behavior. The results are reported below.

Confirmatory factor analyses of relationship maintenance strategies

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for each of the relationship

maintenance strategies to test the latent variable using the observed measures. Items were

retained in the model if they received significance (p<.05).

As stated in chapter 2, criteria for a good model fit includes the following: (1) a

Chi-square score equal or greater than .005, (2) a non-significant Chi-Square, (3) a ratio

of Chi-square to degrees of freedom of equal or less than 3, (4) a comparative fit analysis

(CFI) greater than or equal to .90, (5) a goodness of fit index (GFI) score of greater than

or equal to .90, (6) a normed fit index (NFI) score of greater than or equal to .90, and (7)









root mean squared error approximation (RMSEA) of less than or equal to .05 (Raykov &

Marcoulides, 2000).

The confirmatory factor analysis for the relationship maintenance strategy access

achieved an acceptable level with all criteria for a good model fit being met (Table 4-6).

In fact, the results indicate an excellent fit for the model, with CFI and GFI scores

achieving a perfect score of 1.0, and RSMEA score reaching .00. All measures loaded

significantly onto the model and loadings were similar across items. The loadings ranged

from .62 to .79 (Figure 4-1 and Table 4-8). This indicates that the latent variable was a

fairly good predictor of all five measures. The item most strongly correlated with access

was "I have had opportunities to meet with senior management." The item least

correlated was "I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management."

All measurement items for the relationship maintenance strategy ofpositivity too

proved to be significantly predicted by the factor of positivity. All criteria for model fit

were met (Table 4-8), though the fit was not as strong as that of the relationship

maintenance strategy of access. This may have been due to the somewhat weaker loading

(P=.52) of the item "I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful" in comparison to the

other loadings, which ranged from .66 to .78 (Figure 4-2 and Table 4-9). This item had

the lowest mean score as well, as displayed above. Teens appear to think that meetings

are not as helpful as they could be. Anecdotal feedback from the respondents (notes on

the surveys) indicated that some teens may not be invited to meetings and, therefore, did

not respond consistently to this statement. This, too, may have contributed to the results.

Relationship maintenance strategy openness met all criteria except the RMSEA

which reached .06, still within a reasonable range, as stated above. The relatively poorer










performance of this model on a number of criteria may be due to the low loading of two

items "I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans"

(reversed) and "I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization"

(reversed) (Figure 4-3). The other statements which addressed the sharing of information

within the organization and the openness of the organization to volunteer opinions all

loaded similarly and much more strongly than the two items mentioned above. The mean

score of the first item fell toward the midpoint for measurement items for this construct,

meaning it was not more or less detected than other strategies. The second item received

the highest mean score of all items for openness, meaning that it was more likely to be

true than the other statements. Neither of these items were well predicted by the overall

level of openness that the teens observed in their relationship with the volunteer

organization. It could be argued that the second item, which asks about the understanding

of the mission statement, is not closely related to the openness of the organization.

However, the first item, about the disclosure of information, would seem logically to be

related to openness in the relationship. Possibly the fact that both of these items were

negatively worded statements caused misunderstanding and misidentifieation of answers,

which would contribute to an items' poor loading.

To address the issue of low factor loading and low reliability for this construct, the

two low loading items were removed from the analysis and the reliability was tested

again. The results indicated that the removal of these items would increase the reliability

of openness from .65 to .68. This was deemed a strong enough result to merit this

removal of items. The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted without the two items,

and results indicated a perfect fit for the model. Based on these Eindings, the decision to









remove the items was deemed appropriate (see Tables 4-10 and 4-11 for results with the

two low loading factors removed).

The relationship maintenance strategy shared tasks achieved a good model fit with

all criteria being met. All items were significantly predicted by the latent variable of

shared tasks; however, three measures had fairly low loading scores (Figure 4-4). The

construct of shared tasks involves the working together between the publics and

organizations to reach a common goal. Possible explanations for the low loadings on the

construct of shared tasks include (1) teen volunteers may not be aware of the community

issues with which volunteer organizations are involved and (2) volunteer organizations

may, in fact, not be involved in issues that teens consider important.

Overall, the reliability and validity of this construct was a bit uncertain, considering

the low loading of some of its factors and the low score the construct received for

reliability. As a result, the lowest loading factor was removed from the analysis and the

reliability analysis was rerun. With the removal of this measure, the reliability of the

variable of shared tasks increased from .64 to .67. The removal of the item had no

significant impact on the model fit indicators. All indicators continued to exceed the

criteria. Tables 4-12 and 4-13 reflect the results of the CFA and the new factor loading

with the removal of measure Q3-6.

As with the other relationship maintenance strategies, the confirmatory factor

analysis for the strategy networking indicated that all criteria for a good model fit were

met (Table 4-14). All Hyve items were significantly predicted by the construct (Figure 4-5

and Table 4-15). One item had a high factor loading (P=.89) "the relationships that the

organization has with other community groups benefits volunteers." The mean score for









this item was near the median for the measurement items for this strategy, so it was not

more or less observed than other items. However, it was a strongly predicted by the

overall strategy of networking. The lowest loading factor for this construct was "the

organization's associations with other like-minded groups are not useful for volunteers"

(reversed) (P=.46). It, too, had a mean score near the median for the construct. It appears

that the construct of networking was more likely to predict teens' awareness of their

volunteer organization' s relationship with community groups than the usefulness of that

relationship for volunteers.

The confirmatory factor analysis for the relationship maintenance strategy

assurances found that the factor structure as predicted was a good fit for the data, and all

model criteria for a good fit were met (Table 4-17). All five items were significant

predictors of the latent construct (Figure 4-6 and Table 4-18). The loadings of the five

factors were similar across the board, with the loadings ranging from .62 to .79.

The last relationship maintenance strategy tested was guidance,~~~ddd~~~~ddd~~~ which, too, met all

criteria for a good model fit (Table 4-18). The six items used to measure guidance all

loaded significantly onto the construct (Figure 4-7 and Table 4-19). The loadings

represented a fairly large spread from .56 to .77, with the largest loading coming from

item "When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice" (P=.77) and the smallest

loading from item "The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are clear"

(P=.56). This second item had the highest mean score of all items for this construct,

indicating that it was the most frequently observed item. Overall, the construct appears to

hold together well and all items load adequately.









Confirmatory factor analyses of relational quality outcomes

Confirmatory factor analyses were run for the relational quality outcomes, resulting

in all four meeting criteria for good model fit. Details of the analysis for each outcome

follows.

The confirmatory factor analysis for the relational quality outcome control

mutuality indicated that all items loaded significantly onto the factor of control mutuality

(Figure 4-8 and Table 4-21). The model met all criteria for a good fit (Table 4-20). The

item with the lowest factor loading (P=.40) "The organization neglects volunteers"

(reversed) also achieved the highest mean score of all items for this construct. Teens

clearly felt that they were not neglected by the organization, and yet this did not appear to

load strongly onto the factor of control mutuality. The item with the strongest factor

loading was "The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say" (P=.89). The

item most strongly predicted by control mutuality appears to be the degree to which teens

perceived their volunteer organization as listening to volunteers. This construct has a

good model fit and adequate loadings.

A confirmatory analysis of the factor of satisfaction achieved an adequate model fit

(Table 4-22), and all items had significant loadings onto the factor (Figure 4-9 and Table

4-23). The factor loadings ranged from .57 to .78, with the strongest loading coming from

item "Volunteers enj oy dealing with the organization" and the weakest coming from item

"I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization"

(reversed). This second item obtained the lowest mean score of all items for this

construct, indicating that there may be some dissatisfaction among teen volunteers;

however, responses to this item do not necessarily load strongly onto the overall construct

of satisfaction.









Like the other outcomes, the relational quality outcome of trust held together well

as a factor, as evidenced by the achievement of good model fit indicators (Table 4-24).

All measurement items loaded adequately onto the factor of trust (Figure 4-10 and Table

4-25). The item most strongly predicted by the factor trust was an item "The organization

can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers" (P=.80), and the lowest loading came

from the item "Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will

consider the impact on volunteers" (P=.53). This second item achieved the lowest mean

score of all items for this construct as well as achieving one of the lowest mean scores of

all indicators for relational quality outcomes. However, this item was not strongly

predicted by the overall construct of trust. The factor loadings for this construct are

adequate and the model fit is very good.

The confirmatory factor analysis for the final relational quality outcome

commitment indicated that all five measures loaded significantly onto the factor of

commitment (Figure 4-11 and Table 4-27). The model met all criteria for a good model

fit (Table 4-26), and fit indicators suggested that the model fit was an excellent one. The

loading scores for the items ranged from .60 to .80, with most falling between .60 and

.67. The strongest loading came from item "Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the

organization," a measure that gets at the heart of the concept of loyalty. This construct

appears to hold together well, and the measures for this construct load well onto the

factor of commitment.

Confirmatory factor analysis of volunteer intended behavior

The construct of vohmnteer intended behavior was measured using three items

(Table 4-30). A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that these three items load

significantly onto the factor of intended behavior (Figure 4-12 and Table 4-30). The










factor loadings for the three items ranged from .75 to .79. The test of the model revealed

a perfect model fit, with all indicators reaching their ideal score.

Test for Correlation Among Variables

Before hypothesis testing was begun, a test was run to measure the correlations

between a number of the independent and dependent variables in this study. Composite

variables were created for each of the maintenance strategies and for the relational quality

outcomes using the regression weight scores obtained from the confirmatory factor

analyses. These variables were used in the Pearson bivariate analysis (Table 4-31).

All variable associations were strongly significant at the p<.001 level. The

strongest relationships between the relational quality outcomes and the relationship

maintenance strategies were between satisfaction and guidance (r=.74) and between

assurances and control mutuality (r=.74). The weakest were between networking and

satisfaction (r=.40) and between access and commitment (r=.41).

Satisfaction was most strongly correlated with guidance (r=.74), assurances (r-.69)

and positivity (r=.69). These three strategies, along with shared tasks, tended to have the

strongest relationship with all of the outcomes. The weakest correlations for satisfaction

were with networking (r=.40) and access (r=.42). These tended to have the weakest

relationship with other quality outcomes as well. The relationship between satisfaction

and the relationship maintenance strategies may mean that offering instruction, support

and encouragement will influence the relational satisfaction that teens feel with a

volunteer organization more strongly than keeping them informed about upcoming

changes in the organization or building relationship with organizations that benefit the

teens.









Like satisfaction, trust had a strong relationship with guidance (r=.72) and

assurances (r=.71). It was also strongly correlated to shared tasks (r-.72). The weakest

relationships were, again, between networking (r-.42) and access (.45). Positivity did not

have as strong a relationship with trust as it did with satisfaction. More investigation of

the relationship between quality outcomes and relational maintenance strategies may find

that making the communication between an organization and teens fun and upbeat may

have a stronger impact on the level of satisfaction teens feel with their relationship with

an organization than it does on the level of trust that they have with the organization.

While positivity was not as strongly correlated with trust as it was with satisfaction,

shared tasks was more strongly correlated with trust than with satisfaction. This could

mean that when organizations partner with their teens to address community issues that

teens care about, this more strongly influences trust in the relationship than satisfaction.

Control mutuality was most strongly correlated with the same three relationship

maintenance strategies as trust. Assurances (r-.74) had the strongest relationship

followed by guidance (r-.73) and shared tasks (r=.72). The weakest correlations were

with access (r=.45) and networking (r=.49). The relationship between control mutuality

and assurances was one of the two strongest in these data. That may indicate that

organizations can most effectively engage with teens in a way that gives them adequate

power by offering them support and encouragement in their volunteer roles.

Like control mutuality and trust, the three strongest correlations for commitment

were guidance (r=.70), assurances (r=.69) and shared tasks (r=.69). The weakest

relationships were with access (r=.41) and with networking (r-.46). The strongest

correlations for commitment were slightly lower than the strongest relationships for the










other relational quality outcomes. That may be an overall indication that maintenance

strategies are less likely to influence commitment than other outcomes. Possibly other

variables, like organization type or organizational mission, would have a greater impact

on the level of commitment that teen volunteers feel to an organization.

The correlations between the relational quality outcomes was examined as well,

since this study measured the predictive power that quality outcomes have on one

another. The relationship between all four relational quality outcomes was high,

achieving r=.70 or greater. The strongest relationship was between satisfaction and trust

(r-.80) and between commitment and satisfaction (r-.77). The weakest relationship was

between commitment and trust (r=.72). This study has hypothesized a predictive

relationship between satisfaction and trust and one between trust and commitment. From

the results of the correlation analysis, the relationship between satisfaction and trust

seems more promising than the one between commitment and trust; however, both

relationships are strong.

Some of the correlations between relationship maintenance strategies were high as

well, achieving over .80. For this reason, confirmatory factor analysis uses an appropriate

statistical method of analysis for this study. Potential issues of multicollinearity can be

controlled through this statistical methodology because of its use of weighted error

measurement.

Research Questions

Of the 61 items that were used to measure the constructs in this study, 58 loaded

adequately onto one of the factors. These measures and constructs will be used to

examine the research questions and test the hypotheses initially proposed in chapter two.









Research Question 1

To explore the first research question, whether or not all seven maintenance

strategies were significantly predicted by the overall construct of relationship

maintenance strategies, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. Composite

variables were created for the seven maintenance strategies using the factor score weights

obtained from the confirmatory factor analyses of the individual maintenance strategies.

The composite variables were used as observed variables predicted by the latent variable

of relationship maintenance strategies.

Results indicate that the model is a good fit for the data (Table 4-32). All items

loaded significantly onto the factor of relationship maintenance strategies, with the

highest loadings coming from the strategies of guidance (P=.90) and assurances (P=.91)

and the lowest coming from the strategies of access (P=.60) and networking (P=.53). Not

surprisingly, the two variables with the highest loadings (guidance and assurance) were

also two of the strategies with the highest mean scores. The two poorest loading

variables, networking and access, had the lowest mean scores. Guidance and assurances

are more frequently observed by teen volunteers in their relationships with volunteer

organizations, and these same strategies are the most likely to be predicted by the

construct of relationship maintenance strategies. Conversely, the strategies of access and

networking were least observed in the adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship, and

these strategies were the least likely to be predicted by the overall construct of

relationship maintenance strategies.

Research Question 2

To address the second research question, whether the four outcomes control

mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment are predicted by the overall construct of









relational quality outcomes, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. Like the

composite variables used for relationship maintenance strategies, the relational quality

outcome variables were created using the regression factor scores from individual CFAs.

Results indicate a very strong model fit, with most indicators achieving a perfect

score (see Table 4-34). All indicators loaded strongly onto the factor of relational quality

outcomes and the range of scores (.84 to .92) indicated similar factor loading scores

among items (Figure 4-14 and Table 4-35). All four quality outcomes appear to

contribute strongly to the overall construct of relationship quality outcomes.

Path Analysis

In order to test hypotheses 1-7 the constructs confirmed by the factor analysis were

subjected to a number of path analyses. Path analysis tests a model of relationships

between observed variables by measuring the independent variables without error

(Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). Acceptable results of a path analysis are the same as

those for the confirmatory factor analysis.

Hypotheses 1 through 3

Hypothesis one, two and three made the following predictions about the

relationship between the relational quality outcomes. According to hypothesis one,

commitment would be predicted by trust in the organization-public relationship;

hypothesis two said that trust would be predicted by satisfaction; and the third hypothesis

proposed that satisfaction would be predicted by control mutuality. That model was

created to test these three hypotheses. The model was subj ected to a path analysis and all

three paths were significant at the p<.001 level; however, the model did not reach the

minimum requirements for a good model fit. One insignificant path was removed and

three additional paths were added, based on suggestions from the modification indices









available through the software program AMOS 6.0. Any suggested modification index

greater than five merits attention (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000) and should be

considered for addition to the model if theoretically viable. The addition of these three

paths created a model that was an excellent fit for the data (Table 4-36). In the revised

model, control mutuality is a predictor of the other three outcomes, and satisfaction is a

predictor of two of the outcomes trust and commitment. Neither trust nor commitment

predicted other outcomes, and there was no direct significant relationship between the

two. The strongest relationships existed between control mutuality and satisfaction

(P=.73), a relationship predicted in hypothesis 3c. The next strongest relationship was

observed between satisfaction and trust (P=.53), a relationship predicted by hypothesis

3b. In this model the relationship between trust and commitment was not significant,

contrary to the prediction of hypothesis 3a. The five significant paths in this model

suggest a direction of influence between quality outcomes (Figure 4-15). Two outcomes

- control mutuality and satisfaction appear to be moderate to strong predictors of the

other two outcomes commitment and trust. The influence appears to originate with

control mutuality, as it is a predictor of satisfaction as well.

Based on these findings, hypothesis one was confirmed. Control mutuality appears

to be a predictor of the level of satisfaction in the organization-public relationship. Not

only does control mutuality predict satisfaction, it appears to predict trust and

commitment as well.

Hypothesis two was confirmed as well. Satisfaction does appear to be a predictor of

trust. These two variables had the highest correlation of any variables in the study, and










the path analysis seems to indicate that the direction of influence most strongly flows

from satisfaction to trust.

Hypothesis three was not confirmed. While the relationship between trust and

commitment was initially found to be significant, the model in which this relationship fell

was not a good fit for the data. With the addition of other stronger relationship to the

model, the relationship between trust and commitment was found to be non-signifieant.

Hypotheses 4 through 7

The next four hypotheses predicted the relationship between relational quality

outcomes and relationship maintenance strategies (Figure 4-16). Hypotheses four

predicted that control mutuality would be best predicted by four relationship maintenance

strategies positivity, assurances, shared tasks and access. Hypothesis Hyve predicted that

Hyve relationship maintenance strategies would best predict satisfaction. These five were -

positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and guidance. The sixth hypothesis

predicted that the quality outcome of trust would be best predicted by positivity and

assurances, and the seventh hypothesis predicted that commitment would be best

predicted by the same two relationship maintenance strategies positivity and assurance.

The hypotheses were tested using a path model analysis of the data. For the quality

outcomes, the Eindings from hypothesis three were used to create the paths between the

four outcomes. An initial test of the model created from the predicted relationships

yielded a number of non-significant paths, which were eliminated from the model. The

overall fit for the model did not meet all criteria for the good fit (Table 4-3 8).

However, the addition of two paths suggested by the modification indices in the

analysis software AMOS 6.0 allowed the model to meet all criteria (Figure 4-17 and

Table 4-40). These two paths lead from networking to the quality outcome of control









mutuality and from guidance to the outcome of control mutuality. This model became the

Einal accepted model of the influence of relationship maintenance strategies on relational

quality outcomes.

Hypothesis four had predicted that control mutuality in the relationship between

teen volunteers and volunteer organizations would be best predicted by the strategies of

positivity, assurances, shared tasks and access. In the Einal model, the four significant

predictors of control mutuality were shared tasks, networking, assurances and guidance.

Hypothesis four was not supported. Assurances was the strongest predictor of control

mutuality, with a standardized estimate of .34, more than three times greater than the

standardized estimate of the weakest significant predictor, networking. Guidance was the

next strongest predictor to assurances with a P weight of .31. Shared tasks was a

significant predictor as well, with a standardized estimate of .15.

The fifth hypothesis predicted that satisfaction would be most influenced by

strategies of positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and guidance. In the final

model only two strategies were significant predictors of satisfaction shared tasks and

guidance. Hypothesis five was not supported. Guidance was the strongest predictor, with

a standardized estimate score of .31. Shared tasks earned a standardized estimate of .25.

Hypothesis six predicted that two strategies would significantly influence the

relational quality outcome of trust. The two strategies were positivity and assurances. In

the final model, only assurances predicted the level of trust in a relationship between teen

volunteers and the volunteer organization. Hypothesis six was not supported. Assurances

had a standardized estimate score of .17, a fairly low score relative to the other paths in

this study.










Hypothesis seven predicted that two relationship maintenance strategies would

significantly influence the level of commitment in an organization-public relationship

between teen volunteers and the volunteer organization. The two strategies were

positivity and assurances. In the final model, only positivity was a significant predictor of

commitment. The standardized estimate score, .17, indicates that the influence is not a

strong one. Hypothesis seven was not supported.

The three strongest relationships between the relationship maintenance strategies

and relational quality outcomes exist between assurances and control mutuality (.34),

between guidance and satisfaction (.31) and between guidance and control mutuality

(.28). More strategies predicted control mutuality than any other with four strategies

predicting this outcome. Two strategies predicted satisfaction, and the other two

outcomes had one predictor each.

In general, the strongest relationships in this model exist between the outcomes

themselves, with satisfaction predicting trust and commitment with standardized estimate

scores of .48 and .40 respectively. Control mutuality most strongly predicted

commitment, with that relationship receiving a standardized estimate score of .38.

Control mutuality predicted outcomes of satisfaction and trust as well, with those

relationships receiving scores of .33 and .29 respectively.

Hypothesis 8

The eighth hypotheses of this study predicted the relationship between the

relational quality outcomes and the construct of intended behavior. The hypothesis

predicted that the quality of relationship that exists between a volunteer organization and

its adolescent volunteers will influence the intended behavior of individuals in that public

related to future volunteering. It was reasoned that a more positive experience with a









volunteer organization would result in a more positive perception of volunteering in

general .

To test this hypothesis, a model was created that included the observed variables of

outcomes trust, control mutuality, satisfaction and commitment being predicted by an

unobserved variable of relational quality. It also included the three observed measures of

intended behavior being predicted by the unobserved variable of intended behavior. In

the model, relational quality predicted intended behavior (Figure 4-18). The model was

subj ected to a path analysis and proved to be a good fit for the data (Tables 4-41 and 4-

42). The path between the relational quality outcomes and intended behavior were

significant at the p<.001 level. This hypothesis was supported.

Hypothesis 9

The last hypothesis predicted an overall model of the relationship between

relationship maintenance strategies, relational quality outcomes and intended behavior.

The hypothesized direction of influence flows from the relationship maintenance

strategies to the relational quality outcomes to the volunteer intended behavior; therefore,

a model was created to reflect this influence (Figure 4-19). In the model, the seven

relationship maintenance strategies are predicted by the overall strategy of relationship

maintenance. This latent variable predicts the latent variable of relational quality, which

predicts the four relational quality outcomes as well. The latent construct of volunteer

intended behavior is predicted by relational quality, and volunteer intended behavior

predicts the three measures of its construct.

The model was tested using an SEM technique called structural regression

modeling. This form of analysis is similar to the confirmatory factor analysis used above

with the addition of explanatory relationships between latent variables (Raykov &









Marcoulides, 2000). In this model the latent variable of relationship maintenance predicts

relational quality, and relational quality predicts volunteer intended behavior.

Results indicate that the model fit is adequate with all indicators of fit criteria

except for Chi-square, which does achieve significance in this model (Table 4-43).

Considering the high number of degrees of freedom, this result is not surprising.

However, the normed Chi-square score does meet the requirements for a good fit.

Hypothesis nine was supported.

In this model relationship maintenance is a strong significant predictor of relational

quality while relational quality is a significant, but somewhat weak, predictor of

volunteer intended behavior (Figure 4-19 and Table 4-44). Overall, there appears to be a

linear relationship between relationship maintenance and relational quality. In addition,

there appears to be a linear relationship between relational quality and volunteer intended

behavior.

Post-hoc Testing

To further test the relationships between relationship maintenance strategies and

relational quality outcomes, an analysis was run on the indirect relationships between the

variables. Two relationships were strongly detected, the influence of guidance on trust

(P=.26) and the influence of guidance on commitment (P=.26). Indirect relationships

were detected between shared tasks and the same two quality outcomes, trust (.20) and

commitment (. 19). Assurances had an indirect influence on commitment (. 17) as well.

The variance among many variables in this study was moderate to low; therefore,

additional post-hoc testing was conducted to determine if other factors influence these

variables maintenances strategies, quality outcomes and intended behavior). Differences

based on gender, race and reason for volunteering were tested.









To test gender, an independent sample t-test was run for two groups male and

female comparing their scores for the seven relationship maintenance strategies, the

four relational quality outcomes and intended behavior. No significant difference was

detected between the two groups for any variable.

To test differences along the lines of race, comparisons were made between those

who indicated a Caucasian race and those who did not. This created uneven groups, with

208 respondents indicating Caucasian heritage and 88 indicating a heritage of African-

American, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American or other. T-tests of

differences for the twelve variables along the lines of race revealed a significant

difference among groups for one variable and a near significant difference for another.

The maintenance strategy of access was rated significantly different between the groups

(t=2.09, p=.04) and intended behavior was nearly significantly different (t=1.92, p=.06).

To further investigate the differences perceived in access between these two groups, a

series of independent sample t-tests was run on the five measures which compose access.

Only one measure showed a significant difference between groups, "Upper-level

managers are approachable." This has implications that will be discussed in chapter 5.

To test differences based on reason for volunteering, two groups were created.

Respondents had been asked on the survey whether or not they had volunteered for the

organization they were rating to fulfill a requirement. Those who responded "yes" were

place in one group, and those who responded "no" were placed in another. The groups

were a bit uneven, with 190 indicating that they had volunteered to fulfill a requirement

and 102 indicating that they had not. A series of independent sample t-tests revealed that

nearly all variables were rated significantly different between groups (Table 4-44). Those









who indicated that they did not volunteer to fulfill a requirement rated all relationship

maintenance strategies significantly higher, with the exception of access. They also rated

all relational quality outcomes significantly higher and intended behavior higher. The

three variables with the strongest relationship with reason to volunteer were intended

behavior, commitment and assurances.

To further test the influence of race and reason for volunteering on the model of the

teen volunteer-nonprofit organization, both variables were added to the full model found

in figure 4-19. A path was indicated between each of the two variables and the three

latent variables of relationship maintenance, relational quality and intended behavior. The

paths between race and the other variables were non-significant. Two of the paths

between reason for volunteering and the other variable were significant. Relationship

maintenance (p=.01) and intended behavior (p=.01) were both significant; however, they

were the two weakest relationships in the model, achieving P scores of .15 and .16

respectively (Figure 4-20).

In general, these findings indicate that both race and reason for volunteering are

influential variables in the adolescent-organization public relationship. Race appears to

influence the level of access that teen volunteers feel in the organization and to some

degree their intention to volunteer throughout their lifetimes. Reason for volunteering

appears to have a stronger influence on the model, as it not only influences individual

strategies, but the overall construct of relationship maintenance. It also influences the

intention to volunteer throughout ones' lifetime.

Summary

This chapter reported on the results of analysis of data collected from high school

students who were currently participating in community service or had participated in









community service in the prior 12 months. The survey measured 12 constructs, including

seven relational maintenance strategies, four relational quality outcomes and the

construct of volunteer intended behavior. Confirmatory factor analysis of the data

indicated that all constructs held together adequately, and these constructs were used to

test two research questions and eight hypotheses.

The results of the exploration of the two research questions revealed that the seven

relationship maintenance strategies are significantly predicted by the overall factor of

relationship maintenance. It also showed that the four relational quality outcomes were

significantly predicted by the factor of relational quality.

Hypothesis testing indicated that the relational quality outcomes of control

mutuality and satisfaction appear to be predictors of the other two outcomes -

commitment and trust. Control mutuality is a strong predictor of satisfaction as well.

Hypothesis one and two proposed that control mutuality would significantly predict

satisfaction and that satisfaction would predict trust were supported. The third hypothesis,

that trust would significantly predict commitment, was not supported.

Some individual relationship maintenance strategies were better predictors of

relational quality outcomes than others; however, overall, the level of relationship

maintenance that teen volunteers detected in their relationship with their volunteer

organization significantly predicted the level of relational quality of the relationship.

Hypothesis four through seven attempted to predict the relationships between relationship

maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes. None of these hypotheses were

supported; however, the testing of hypotheses yielded a model of relationship between

the variables.










The eighth hypothesis predicted the relationship between relational quality

outcomes and future intended behavior of volunteers. Teens who reported higher

relational quality in their adolescent-nonprofit organization public relationship tended to

report a stronger intention to volunteer in the future with this organization or another.

This hypothesis was supported.

The last hypothesis predicted the overall model of the adolescent-organization

relationship. This hypothesis too was supported. Relationships maintenance strategies

appear to influence relational quality outcomes which influence teen volunteer intended

behavior.

Post-hoc testing revealed indirect relationships between the relationship

maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes. The three strategies of guidance,

shared tasks and assurances all had indirect relationships with relational quality

outcomes.

Post-hoc testing also revealed that gender is not a factor in the model tested here;

however, race and reason for volunteering both appear to play a role in the model. Race

influences the teen volunteers' perception of the level of access provided to volunteers

and, to some degree, it influences teens' intentions toward volunteering in the future.

Reason for volunteering appears to influence all variables in this study with the exception

of access. It also has significant influence on the latent variables of relationship

maintenance and intended behavior.









Table 4-1. Initial rate of return by source.


Surveys
di stributed
250
122
110

100
100
50
30
762


Surveys Rate of
returned return (%)
105 42
47 39
67 61


Source
Stanton College Prep
Nease High School
Student Proj ect (various high
school s)
Bartram Trail High School
Paxon High School
Episcopal High School
Church Youth Group
Total


28
39
18
11
315











Table 4-2. Descriptive statistics for Relationship Maintenance Strategy items.


Variable Mean SD

Positivity Overall 7.6 1.2
Q4-2. The organization's communication with volunteers is courteous. 8.0 1.4
Q4-5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with 7.8 1.5
volunteers enjoyable.
Q5-1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling 7.7 1.5
disagreements with volunteers.
Q5-9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be 7.6 1.5
useful.
Q3-13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful. 6.9 2.2

Assurances Overall 7.5 1.3
Q5-7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers 7.9 1.5
Q4-1. The organization communicates to me the importance of 7.8 1.5
volunteers.
Q4-10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores them. 7.4 1.9
[R]
Q3-4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal 7.4 1.6
responses to volunteers' concerns
Q3-10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. 7.0 1.8

Guidance Overall 7.5 1.1
Q3-1. The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are 7.9 1.2
clear.
Q4-6. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers. 7.8 1.4
Q3-3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful direction from the 7.7 1.3
organization.
Q5-5. When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice. 7.5 1.5
Q3-7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers. 7.2 1.6
Q4-12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for 7.2 1.7
solving problems.

Openness Overall 7.3 1.3
Q4-14. I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the 7.8 2.1
organization. [R]
Q5-8.The organization freely shares information with volunteers. 7.3 1.7
Q4-11. I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and 7.2 2.2
future plans. [R]
Q3-12. The organization shares information with volunteers about how 7.1 1.8
it is managed.
Q4-9. During meetings, volunteers are encouraged to communicate their 6.9 2.0
opinions.


Shared tasks Overall
Q5-3. The organization and volunteers care about the same community
issues.
Q4-3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at
solving joint problems. [R]
Q3-5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions
encountered by volunteers.

















Access Overall 7.2 1.5
Q3-2. It is clear to me who the upper-level managers are and how to 7.6 1.9
contact them.
Q5-4. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions. 7.4 1.8
Q4-13. Upper-level managers are approachable. 7.4 1.9
Q5-2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to 6.9 1.9
management.
Q3-8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management. 6.8 2.4


Networking Overall 6.9 1.5
Q4-7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other 7.2 1.8
departments in a way that benefits volunteers.
Q5-6. The organization works with community groups that I care about. 7.0 1.9
Q4-4. The relationships that the organization has with other community 6.9 1.9
groups benefits volunteers.
Q4-8. The organization's associations with other like-minded groups are 6.8 2.2
not useful for volunteers. [R]
Q3-11. The organization works with other community groups that 6.7 2.1
impact volunteers.

Note: [R] indicates reverse code


Q3-9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers
are facing.
Q3-6. The organization is involved in community issues (environmental
issue, disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about.











Table 4-3. Descriptive statistics for Relational Quality Outcomes items.

Variable Mean SD


Satisfaction Overall 7.7 1.2
Q1-6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their
relationship. 7.9 1.4
Q1-1. I am happy with the organization. 7.8 1.2
Q2-2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship
the organization has established with them. [R] 7.8 1.5
Q2-5. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. 7.7 1.4
Q2-9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers' needs. [R] 7.6 1.7
Q1-10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the
organization. [R] 7.5 1.9


Trust Overall 7.7 1.1
Q1-2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. 8.1 1.3
Q2-3. The organization misleads volunteers. [R] 8.1 1.5
Q2-4. I feel very confident about the organization's abilities to
accomplish its mission. 7.9 1.4
Q1-9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to
volunteers. 7.5 1.5
Q1-5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know
it will consider the impact on volunteers. 6.7 1.9


Commitment Overall 7.5 1.3
Q1-7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive
relationship with its volunteers. 8.2 1.2
Q2-10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. 7.5 1.6
Q1-12. I see the organization as committed to its volunteers. 7.2 1.7
Q2-5. Compared to other organizations, volunteers value their
relationship with this organization the most. 7.2 1.9
Q2-7. I would rather work with this organization than another. 7.2 1.9

Control mutuality Overall 7.3 1.2
Q1-4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R] 8.0 1.6
Q1-3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are
legitimate. 7.6 1.5
Q2-1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers' opinions in the
decisions that affect them [R] 7.4 1.8
Q1-11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. 7.1 1.7
Q2-8. When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they
have some sense of control. 6.9 1.6
Q1-8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect
them. 6.7 1.9
Note: [R] indicates reverse code.










Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for Volunteer Intended Behavior.

Variable Mean SD

Volunteer Intended Behavior Overall 7.7 1.5
Q7-2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she
participate in community service in years to come? 8.1 1.4
Q7-1. Will you volunteer (for this organization or another)
in the years to come? 7.7 2.2
Q7-3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in
the years to come? 7.5 1.8


Table 4-5. Measurement reliability for all items.
Number Number
Variable of items of cases Cronbach's a

Relational Quality Outcomes
S ati sfacti on 6 291 .85
Commitment 6 289 .83
Control Mutuality 6 287 .82
Trust 5 290 .80

Relationship Maintenance Strategies


Assurance
Guidance
Access
Networking
Positivity
Openness
Shared Tasks


5 287
6 291
5 289
5 285
5 292
5 288
5 289


Intended behavior 6 291 .85
1 Reliability of openness was increased to .68 with the removal of items as discussed
below.
2 Reliability of shared tasks was increased to .67 with the removal of items as discussed
below.

































Figure 4-1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relational Maintenance Strategy
Access.


Table 4-6. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy
Model Fit Index
Chi-square
Significance (p)
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


of Access.
Criteria
>.005
p >.05
S3
> .90
> .90
> .90
< .05


Fit Statistics
.381 (df-1)
p =.54
.381
1.0
1.0
.99
.00


Table 4-7. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Access

Measurement items Indicators
Q3-2. It is clear to me who the upper-level managers are and how to contact them. .74"
Q3-8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management. .79***(.10)
Q4-13. Upper-level managers are approachable. .65***(.09)
Q5-2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management. .62***(.11)
Q5-4. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions. .72***(.09)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to Eix construct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001





























Figure 4-2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Positivity .


Table 4-8. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy
Model Fit Index
Chi-square
Significance (p)
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


of Positivity.
Criteria Fit Statistics
>.005 7.61 (df-4)
p >.05 p= .11
5 3 1.90
> .90 .99
> .90 .99
> .90 .99
< .05 .05


Table 4-9. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Positivity.

Measurement items Indicators
Q3-13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful. .52"
Q4-2. The organization's communication with volunteers is courteous. .72***(.11)
Q4-5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers
enjoyable. .66***(.12)
Q5-1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling disagreements
with volunteers. .76***(.12)
Q5-9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be useful. .78***(.12)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001
































Figure 4-3. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Openness.


Table 4-10. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Openness with removal
of items Q4-11 and Q4-14.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 0 (df-0)
Significance (p) p >.05 p = 1.00
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 .00
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 1.0
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 1.0
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .00


Table 4-1 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Openness with removal of items Q4-11 and Q4-14.

Measurement items Indicators
Q3-12. The organization shares information with volunteers about how it is managed. .65"
Q4-9. During meetings, volunteers are encouraged to communicate their opinions. .66***(.16)
Q5-8.The organization freely shares information with volunteers. .65***(.12)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001
































Figure 4-4. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Shared
Tasks .



Table 4-12. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy Shared Tasks with measure
Q3-6 removed.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 1.71 (df-2)
Significance (p) p >.05 p = .43
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 .85
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 1.0
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .00



Table 4-13. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Shared
Tasks .


Measurement items Indicators
Q3-5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions encountered by
volunteers. .78a
Q3-9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing. .73***(.13)
Q4-3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving joint
problems. [R] .41***(.12)
Q5-3. The organization and volunteers care about the same community issues. .48***(.09)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001































Figure 4-5. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Networking.

Table 4-14. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Shared Networking.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 3.96 (df-4)
Significance (p) P >.05 p = .41
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 .99
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 1.0
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .00



Table 4-15. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Networking.

Measurement items Indicators
Q3-11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers. .78a
Q4-4. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups
benefits volunteers. .89***(.07)
Q4-7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in
a way that benefits volunteers. .67***(.06)
Q4-8. The organization's associations with other like-minded groups are not useful
for volunteers. [R] .46***(.08)
Q5-6. The organization works with community groups that I care about. .69***(.07)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001
































Figure 4-6. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Assurances.

Table 4-16. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Assurances.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 7.06 (df-4)
Significance (p) p >.05 p =.13
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.77
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .99
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .05



Table 4-17. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Assurances.


Measurement items Indicators
Q3-4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to
volunteers' concerns .74"
Q3-10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. .79***(.10)
Q4-1. The organization communicates to me the importance of volunteers. .65***(.09)
Q4-10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores them. [R] .62***(.11)
Q5-7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers .72***(.09)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001
































Figure 4-7. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Guidance.

Table 4-18. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Guidance.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 8.23 (df-8)
Significance (p) p >.05 p = .42
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.02
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .99
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .01



Table 4-19. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy:
Guidance.


Measurement items Indicators
Q3-1. The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are clear. .56"
Q3-3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful direction from the organization. .68***(.16)
Q3-7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers. .65***(.20)
Q4-6. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers. .57***(.14)
Q4-12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving
problems. .72***(.22)
Q5-5. When I encounter a problem. I am given good advice. .77***(.20)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001




























Figure 4-8. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Control
Mutuality.


Table 4-20. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome Control Mutuality.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-s uare >.005 8.84 (df=8)
Significance (p) p >.05 p = .36
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.11
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .99
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .02










Table 4-21. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Control
Mutuality.

Measurement items Indicators
Q1-3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate. .71"
Q1-4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R] .40***(.10)
Q1-8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them. .65***(.11)
Q1-11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. .89***(.11)
Q2-1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers' opinions in the decisions that
affect them [R] .64***(.11
Q2-8. When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they have some
sense of control. .63***(.10)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001


Figure 4-9. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcome: Satisfaction.











Table 4-22. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Satisfaction.
Model Fit Index Criteria
Chi-square >.005
Significance (p) p >.05
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05


Fit Statistics
2.14 (df-6)
p =.91
2.14
1.0
.99
1.0
.00


Table 4-23. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Satisfaction.

Measurement items Indicators
Q1-1. I am happy with the organization. .76"
Q1-6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship. .72***(.09)
Q1-10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization.
[R] .57***(.13)
Q2-2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the
organization has established with them. [R] .59***(.11)
Q2-5. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. .78***(.09)
Q2-9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers' needs. [R] .64***(.11)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001


Figure 4-10. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcome -- Trust.











Table 4-24. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Trust.
Model Fit Index Criteria
Chi-square >.005
Significance (p) p >.05
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90
Root Mean Squared Error Approximiation (RMISEA) I .05


Fit Statistics
4.71 (df-4)
p =.32
1.18
1.0
.99
.99
.03


Table 4-25. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Trust.

Measurement items Indicators
Q1-2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. .71"
Q1-5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will
consider the impact on volunteers. .53***(.14)
Q1-9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers. .80***(.12)
Q2-3. The organization misleads volunteers. [R] .63***(.11)
Q2-4. I feel very confident about the organization's abilities to accomplish its
mission. .68***(.10)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001


Figure 4-11i. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome Commitment.











Table 4-27. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Commitment.
Model Fit Index Criteria
Chi-square >.005
Significance (p) p >.05
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05


Fit Statistics
1.86 (df-3)
p =.60
.62
1.0
1.0
1.0
.00


Table 4-28. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Commitment.

Measurement items Indicators
Q1-7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its
volunteers. .60"
Q1-12. I see the organization as committed to its volunteers. .64***(.16)
Q2-5. Compared to other organizations. volunteers value their relationship with this
organization the most. .65***(.21)
Q2-7. I would rather work with this organization than another. .67***(.21)
Q2-10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. .80***(.20)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001


Figure 4-12. Confirmatory factor analysis for Volunteer Intended Behavior.











Table 4-29. Model fit for Volunteer Intended Behavior.
Model Fit Index
Chi-square
Significance (p)
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


Criteria
>.005
p >.05
S3
> .90
> .90
> .90
< .05


Fit Statistics
0 (df-0)
p <.001
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.00


Table 4-30. Confirmatory factor analysis of Volunteer Intended Behavior.

Measurement items Indicators
Q7-1. Will you volunteer (for this organization or another) in the years to come? .77a
Q7-2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she participate in community service
in years to come? .75***(.06)
Q7-3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come? .79***(.08)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001













Table 4-31. Correlation matrix for relational quality outcomes and relationship maintenance strategies.


6 7


8 9 10 11


1. Satisfaction


2. Trust


.73 .76
n, ,,,1.0

.77 .72 .76


3. Control Mutuality


4. Commitment


5. Guidance


6. Access


.74 .72 .73 .70
,,, ,, ,, ,,, 1.0

.42 .44 .45 .41 .54
,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, 1.0

.69 .71 .74 .69 .81 .64


7. Assurances


8. Shared Tasks


9. Netvorking


10.()penness


11. Positivity


.73 .72 .72 .69 .80 .47 .81
,,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,,, 1.0

.40 .42 .49 .46 .48 .32 .47 .56
,,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,,,1.0

.55 .55 .65 .58 .70 .57 .74 .68 .49
n, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,,, ,,,1.0

..69 ..66 .68 ..67 .81 .49 .78 .76 .49 .71























































Table 4-33. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategies.

Measurement items Indicators
Guidance .90"
Access .60***(.10)
Assurances .91***(.07)
Shared tasks .87***(.07)
Networking .53***(.16)
Openness .82***(.08)
Positivity .88***(.11)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001


Figure 4-13. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relationship Maintenance Strategies.


Table 4-32. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategies.
Model Fit Index Criteria
Chi-square >.005
Significance (p) p >.05
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05


Fit Statistics
15.02 (df-9)
p =.09
1.67
1.0
.99
.99
.05






























Figure 4-14. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcomes.


Table 4-34. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcomes.
Model Fit Index
Chi-square
Significance (p)
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


Criteria
>.005
p >.05
S3
> .90
> .90
> .90
< .05


Fit Statistics
1.13 (df-1)
p =.29
1.13
1.0
1.0
1.0
.02


Table 4-3 5. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcomes.

Measurement items Indicators
Satisfaction .87"
Trust .92***(.05)
Mutuality .84***(.06)
Commitment .90***(.04)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001

































Figure 4-15. Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes.




Table 4-36. Model fit for relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 1.49 (df-1)
Significance (p) p >.05 .22
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.49
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 1.0
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 1.0
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .04


Table 4-37. Path analysis of relationships between Relational Quality Outcomes.

Paths Indicators
Mutuality 9 Satisfaction .73"
Mutuality 9 Commitment .43***(.03)
Mutuality 9 Trust .37***(.04)
Satisfaction 9 Trust .53***(.05)
Satisfaction 9 Commitment .46***(.04)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix constr-uct variance; therefore, values were not calculated.
*** p <.001














Access



Positivity



Openness


Shared Tasks



Networking


Assurances



Guidance


Control
Mutuality


S ati sfacti on

/I i

TrustI



Commitment


Figure 4-16. Initial model of relationship between Relationship Maintenance Strategies
and Relational Quality Outcomes.


Table 4-38. Results of initial hypothesized relationship between Relationship
Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality outcomes
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 38.34
Significance (p) p >.05 p=.02
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.74
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .99
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .98
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .05












Access


Positivity



Openness



Shared Tasks



Networking



Assurances



Guidance


, .38


Figure 4-17. Fitted model for influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies on
Relational Quality Outcomes


Table 4-39. Final model fit of influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and
Relational Quality Outcomes.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 21.83 (df-21)
Significance (p) p >.05 p=.41
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.04
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .99
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .01











Table 4-40. Path analysis of relationships between Relationship Maintenance Strategies
and Relational Quality Outcomes.


Paths Indicators
Positivity 9 Commitment .14**(.02)
Shared Tasks 9 Control Mutuality .15*(.07)
Shared Tasks 9 Satisfaction .25***(.05)
Networking 9 Control Mutuality .11**(.03)
Assurances 9 Control Mutuality .34***(.07)
Assurances 9 Trust .17***(.04)
Guidance 9 Control Mutuality .28***(.11)
Guidance 9 Satisfaction .31***(.09)
Control Mutuality 9 Satisfaction .33***(.05)
Control Mutuality 9 Trust .29***(.04)
Control Mutuality 9 Commitment .38***(.03)
Satisfaction 9 Trust .48***(.05)
Satisfaction 9 Commitment .40***(.04)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
* <.05 ** < .01 *** < .001





Control Mutuality Satisfaction


Trust


Item #1





Item #2





Item #3


Figure 4-18. Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality and Intended
Behavior.







129



Table 4-41. Model fit of relationship between relational quality and intended behavior.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 14.86 (df-12)
Significance (p) p >.05 p=.249
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.24
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 1.0
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .99
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .99
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .03



Table 4-42. Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality and Intended
Behavior.


Paths Indicators
Relational Quality Outcomes 9 Volunteer Intended Behavior .37***(.14)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside


parentheses).
* <.05 **< .01





Access


Positivity


Openness


Shared Tasks


Network


Assurances


Guidance


*** < .001


Control
Mutuality


Satisfaction


Trust


Item #1



Item #2



Item #3


RMS


ROO


Figure 4-19. Model of adolescent-nonprofit organization public relationship including
Intended Behavior.











Table 4-43. Model fit of influence of adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship
including Intended Behavior
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square >.005 96.47 (df-68)
Significance (p) P >.05 p=.01
Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 3 1.42
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .99
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .96
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .97
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .04



Table 4-44. Path analysis of influence of Relational Quality Outcomes on Intended
Behavior.


Paths Indicators
Relationship Maintenance Strategies 9 Relational Quality Outcomes .89***(.07)
Relational Quality Outcomes 9 Volunteer Intended Behavior .38***(.14)
Note: Indicators include standardized estimates (P) and standard error (inside
parentheses).
* p<.05 ** p< .01 *** p 5.001


Access


Control
Mutuality


Satisfaction


Positivity



Openness


Shared Tasks


Network


Assurances


Guidance


Trust


Item #1



Item #2



Item #3


RMS


Reason for
Volunteering


Figure 4-20. Influence of reason for volunteering on model of adolescent-nonprofit
organization public relationship including Intended Behavior.











Table 4-45. Significant differences in rating of variables for those who volunteered to
fulfill a requirement and those who did not


Variable
Relational Quality Outcom
Satisfaction*

Trust*


Control Mutuality*

Commitment**


Reason for volunteering
res
Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement


Mean

7.6
7.9
7.5
7.9
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.7


Relationships Maintenance Strategies
Guidance* Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Access Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Assurances** Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Sharing Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Networking Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Openness* Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement
Positivity* Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement


Intended Behavior***


Fulfill requirement
Not fulfill requirement


* Significant at p<.05 level ** Significant at p<.01 level ***Significant at p<.001 level















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study presented here offers insights into the organization-public relationship

for adolescent publics. It tested the Hon and Grunig (1999) model of organization-public

relationships with adolescent volunteers by measuring the relationship between

relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes in the volunteer-

nonprofit organization relationship. In addition, the study measured the impact of the

relational quality outcomes on volunteer intended behavior. In general, the study found

that relationship maintenance predicts relational quality which predicts volunteer

intended behavior.

Hypotheses in this study posited that certain quality outcomes would predict others;

that individual strategies would have a direct influence on individual relational quality

outcomes; and that relational quality would influence volunteer intended behavior.

Relationship Maintenance

All seven relationship maintenance strategies were predicted by the factor of

relational quality. The two strongest relationships were with guidance and assurance,

suggesting that adolescent volunteers' perception of relationship maintenance is most

strongly influenced when an organization offers advice and clear instruction as well as

when it listens to and considers volunteers' concerns. The weakest predictors were access

and networking, the same two strategies that received the lowest mean score and had the

lowest correlation to relational quality outcomes. Later testing for the predictive power of

relationship maintenance strategies on relational quality outcomes showed that access









lacks direct influence on any quality outcome, and networking has a very small impact on

only one quality outcome, control mutuality. This may be an indication that these two

strategies are not effective with adolescents. It appears that adolescent volunteers do not

detect these strategies in their organizational relationships, and when they do, it has little

impact on the way they perceive the relationship, as measured by the relational quality

outcomes. Teen volunteers may not spend enough time with an organization to see the

value that comes for the organization's network with other entities, and teens may not

feel that they need to have access to higher levels of management in order to be

successful in their efforts. Therefore, these two strategies may not need to be measured in

future studies with teen volunteers. Additional research would need to be done to

determine whether these strategies should be eliminated from the model for adolescents.

More work would need to be done to determine whether these strategies are important for

adolescents who fall in other public types (advocates, consumers, members, etc.).

Three other strategies were tested as well: shared tasks, openness and positivity. Of

the three only shared tasks had a strong predictive relationship with an outcome,

satisfaction (as discussed in the following section). Positivity had only a weak association

with commitment, and openness had no significant relationship with any of the quality

outcomes. Like the strategies of access and networking, positivity and openness may not

play a significant role in the adolescent-organization public relationship. Certainly, they

do not appear to be important in the adolescent volunteer-nonprofit organization public

relationship. Their significance in other types of relationships should be tested.

Relational Quality Outcomes

As predicted by the hypotheses, the four relational quality outcomes satisfaction,

trust, control mutuality and commitment were significantly predicted by the overall









construct of relational quality. Prior work had found that control mutuality did not have a

significant relationship with relational quality, but that does not appear to be the case

with this public. All four quality outcomes had a strong relationship with relational

quality with P scores ranging from .84 to .92. This would indicate that all four outcomes

are strong contributors to the overall construct of relational quality, with trust and

commitment having the strongest relationships to relational quality. This means that teens

are detecting all four relational quality outcomes, and all four make up their concept of

relational quality.

Additional analysis was used to test the hypothesis that some of the quality

outcomes predicted others. It was hypothesized that control mutuality predicted

satisfaction, satisfaction predicted trust and trust predicted commitment. Two of the

relationships proved to be significant: the relationship between control mutuality and

satisfaction and the relationship between satisfaction and trust. The later proved to be a

stronger relationship. Indicators suggested that other relationships may exist between the

outcomes, and another model was fitted to the data. The Einal model indicated that control

mutuality was a predictor of the other three outcomes and satisfaction was a predictor of

trust and commitment. Trust and commitment did not predict other outcomes. This new

model suggests that control mutuality is a key predictor of the other outcomes. Its appears

that the level of power that teens feel in a relationship with a volunteer organization will

influence the degree to which they feel satisfied with the relationship, the degree to which

they trust the organization and the degree to which they are committed to the

organization. Additionally, the level of satisfaction that they feel influences the degree to

which they trust the organization and are committed to it.









The role of control mutuality as a predictor of all other outcomes may suggest that

it is a type of mediating factor between strategies and outcomes. Organizations can

actively influence the level of control mutuality that publics feel by providing more

power to that public, but it' s more difficult to tie specific actions to an increase in

satisfaction or trust or commitment. These three constructs (satisfaction, trust and

commitment) may be the best indicators of the overall relationship, with control

mutuality acting as another avenue to influence the three relational quality outcomes. As

it is currently explicated, control mutuality (the degree to which publics feel they have

adequate power in the relationship) cannot be a strategy because it is not an action that

can be taken by the organization. However, the degree to which an organization gives

publics control in the relationship could be a strategy, and this concept should be studied

in the future.

Influence of Maintenance Strategies on Quality Outcomes

This study made predictions about the relationship between specific relationship

maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes. Most predicted paths were

significant, but a few were not, and a few paths not predicted were found to be

significant. The Einal model offers a picture of the influence of relationship maintenance

strategies on relational quality outcomes. A pattern emerged in the flow between the

relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes. The strategies

appeared to flow through the strategy of control mutuality.

The difference between the Eindings in this study and others may be due to the

design of the testing of the relationship between relationship maintenance strategies and

relational quality outcomes in this study. Associations between the strategies and

outcomes were measured while considering the associations between the outcomes.










Conducting the analysis in this way gives us a clearer picture of the influence of variables

on one another. The strongest predictive relationships in this study occurred between the

outcomes. Testing the influence of strategies on outcomes without considering the

relationships that exist between the quality outcomes would not take into consideration

the stronger relationships that existed, those between outcomes. As a result, errors could

be made about the source of influence. By first considering the relationship between

outcomes, we see the additional influence that strategies provide. It appears that the

strategies most strongly influence control mutuality in the adolescent-nonprofit

organization relationship. This outcome then acts as a predictor of the other outcomes.

However, the strategies offer some additional influence on the other outcomes. This tells

us that while strong, the relationships between the outcomes are not the only influence on

outcomes.

Taking a closer look at the relationship, the associations between relationship

maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes paints a picture of the way this

relationship work. The strategies of assurances and guidance appear to have the strongest

predictive power of all the strategies. Assurances' influence on control mutuality (P=.34)

was the strongest of all relationships between relationship maintenance strategies and

relational quality outcomes. Its influence on trust was significant but much weaker

(P=.17). Guidance had a strong predictor power for both control mutuality (P=.28) and

satisfaction (P=.3 1). These are the two outcomes that act as predictors of the other

outcomes.

It appears that when organizations offer assurances, like assurance to a public that

its concerns are legitimate, this increases the level of control mutuality considerably and









the level of trust to some degree. Prior research found that the level of assurances was a

significant predictor of all four relational quality outcomes as well as being the strongest

predictor of overall relational quality. In this study assurances was not a significant direct

predictor of commitment (though it did have an indirect influence on this outcome) or

satisfaction; however, it was the strongest predictor of overall relational quality (P=.91).

Assurances was the only strategy to directly predict trust. This is significant because trust

is strongly predicted by both satisfaction and control mutuality, but still assurances

contributes to a small degree to the level of trust in this organization-public relationship.

That would indicate that most of the influence on trust flows from the levels of these

other outcomes; however, when an organization listens to its teen volunteers and

considers their concerns (assurances), that behavior does influence the level of trust that

the teens feel toward the organization. That is the only strategy that appears to directly

influence trust.

The other strategy with a very strong influence on the quality outcomes was

guidance.~~~ddd~~~~ddd~~~ This strategy was the second strongest predictor of the overall level of

relational quality (P=.90). The level of guidance had a direct influence on both the level

of control mutuality and the level of satisfaction. In other words, when an organization

offers advice and provides instruction to its teen volunteers, the adolescents feel more

satisfied with the relationship and they feel more comfortable with the level of power that

they have in the relationship. The only other predictor for satisfaction was shared tasks.

Satisfaction was strongly predicted by control mutuality, and although guidance predicted

control mutuality as well, it still had a strong direct influence on the level of satisfaction

in the relationship. This may be due to the fact that teens expect to be clearly directed









when working in a volunteer capacity. The lack of instruction or guidance may create

some confusion or lack of knowledge on the volunteers' part that reduces the level of

enj oyment they have in the relationship. If a volunteer is attempting to perform a task that

is unknown or unfamiliar, then guidance would reduce the likelihood of frustration or

poor performance. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that guidance is one of the

strongest predictors of the relational quality outcomes. Not only did guidance influence

satisfaction and control mutuality directly, it also had a strong indirect influence on the

other two outcomes, trust and commitment. Considering the strength of both the direct

and indirect relationships of guidance, it appears to be the strategy with the strongest

influence on relational quality. This strong influence of guidance on relational

maintenance and on relational quality outcomes suggests that it should be considered in

future research on the organization-public relationship. More testing should be done to

see if it holds up for adult members of publics and for other public types (members,

activists, consumers, etc.).

Mali( r'd tasks was the only other strategy that had a direct significant relationship

with more than one of the outcomes. It was a predictor for both control mutuality and

satisfaction and have an indirect influence on trust and commitment. This aligns with the

results of other research, which found that shared tasks was a predictor of the two

outcomes control mutuality and satisfaction. The more that teen volunteers detected that

their volunteer organization was working with them to j ointly accomplish tasks that were

important to the teens, the more likely they were to be satisfied with the relationship and

to feel a balance of power in the relationship. Like guidance, shared tasks had an

influence on both control mutuality and satisfaction. Although control mutuality was a









strong predictor of satisfaction, shared tasks still had a direct significant influence on

satisfaction. The influence on satisfaction did not flow through control mutuality only.

Shared tasks was a strong predictor of the overall relationship maintenance as well

(P=.87)

Positivity had the next strongest direct relationship with a quality outcome (P=. 14).

This was the only strategy with a significant direct influence on the quality outcome of

commitment, though the relationship was a weak one. This means that in addition to the

influence by both satisfaction and control mutuality on commitment, the level of

positivity that teen volunteers felt in their relationship with the nonprofit organization had

a small positive influence on the level of commitment that they felt to the organization.

Other research has shown that positivity predicted the levels of the other three outcomes,

control mutuality, satisfaction and trust, but not commitment. In the case of teen

volunteers, the degree to which an organization makes the relationship enj oyable

influences the level of commitment that the teens have to the organization. This may be

the result of the nature of volunteering for teens. Many volunteer to fulfill a requirement,

and therefore any efforts on the part of the organization to make the experience more

enj oyable or fun could make the teens feel that they would like to continue the

relationship. One of the measures of commitment asked teens to indicate the degree to

which they would rather work with this organization than another. Teens likely would

prefer to stay with an organization that makes their experience more enj oyable than begin

volunteering with another. Positivity was a strong predictor of the overall relational

quality as well (P=.87).









The only other strategy that had a direct predictive relationship with a relational

quality outcome was networking. This strategy was a predictor for the outcome of control

mutuality. Networking j oined shared tasks, assurances and guidance as predictors of this

outcome. Teens were more likely to feel that they had adequate power in the

organization-public relationship when they perceived a greater benefit to volunteers from

relationships that nonprofits maintained with other organizations or groups. The fact that

most strategies were predictors for control mutuality may be an indication that rather

than the strategies having an impact on the outcomes directly, the use of relationship

maintenance strategies in the organization-public relationship between nonprofit

organizations and teen volunteers influences the degree to which teens feel they have the

level ofpower that they expect in the relationship. This results in them becoming more

satisfied in the relationship and having a higher quality ofrelationship, as predicted by

trust and commitment.

The two strategies of openness and access were not direct predictors of any of the

relational quality outcomes in this study. Openness was not a direct predictor of

relational quality outcomes in another study of this same type (Ki, 2006). That does not

mean that it does not have an indirect influence on the perception of other strategies. The

other strategy which did not predict any outcomes in this study was access. In another

study it predicted control mutuality, which seems like a logical relationship. It is possible

that teens are not concerned about the level of access they are given to management or

the level of openness or disclosure that the organization engages in with them. It could be

that volunteers are not as concerned about information being withheld from them and are

more concerned about being given good direction (guidance), about having their opinions









validated (assurances) and about having enj oyable experiences (positivity). The nature of

this public and of the developmental stage of the individuals in this public may influence

the types of strategies that are most important to them.

A former study with adult members of publics found that assurances was the

strategy with the strongest predictive power for relational quality outcomes (Ki, 2006).

Positivity and access had strong predictive relationships as well. In the study presented

here, guidance appears to have the strongest impact on relational quality, when both

direct and indirect relationships are considered. This was followed by assurances and

shared tasks. It appears that the adolescent-organization and the adult-organization

relationship are influenced by somewhat different strategies. More study is needed to

identify how these differences manifest themselves in different public groups

(consumers, activists, members, etc.).

Using the rule of thumb that standardized estimates (P) of less than .20 are weak

associations, the following is a summary of the relationships between relational quality

outcomes and relationship maintenance strategies. Control mutuality was somewhat

strongly associated with relationship strategies of assurances and guidance and weakly

associated with shared tasks and networking in the adolescent-organization relationship.

Satisfaction was relatively strongly associated with shared tasks and guidance. Trust was

weakly associated with assurances, and commitment was weakly associated with

positivity. Overall, guidance was strongly associated with two outcomes (control

mutuality and satisfaction), assurances was strongly associated with one outcome (control

mutuality) and shared tasks was strongly associated with one outcome (satisfaction).









The model that emerges from examining the strong associations appears to suggest

that strategies are a predictor of control mutuality and satisfaction and these are

predictors of trust and commitment which are the strongest predictors of the overall

relational quality (Figure 5-1).

The fact that control mutuality was predicted by more strategies than any other

outcome is not surprising (when considering both the stronger and weaker associations),

nor is the role of control mutuality as a predictor of the other outcomes in this

relationship given the (limited) research on interpersonal relationship maintenance

strategies with teens. As discussed in chapter 2, Vogl-Bauer et al (1999) found that the

more that adolescents detected maintenance strategies in their relationship with their

parents, the more likely they were to feel "over-benefited" in the relationship. The more

benefited that they felt in the relationship the greater their feeling of power in the

relationship, and the more powerful they felt in their parent-child relationship, the more

satisfied they felt with the relationship (strategies + level of benefit felt + power 4

satisfaction). The results found in this study about the flow of influence from relationship

maintenance strategies to the outcomes appear to align with this literature. The degree to

which maintenance strategies are used appears to influence control mutuality to a great

degree and other outcomes to a lesser degree. The level of control mutuality, or the

degree of power teens feel, most strongly influences satisfaction which then influences

the outcomes of trust and commitment, which ultimately predict the overall relational

quality in the relationship (maintenance strategies + control mutuality (similar to power)

Satisfaction + trust and commitment).









The final model of the teen-organization relationship identified in this study makes

a great deal of sense for adolescent volunteers (Figure 5-1). First, the influence of

guidance on both control mutuality and satisfaction seems logical. Adolescent volunteers

are often experiencing a work environment for the first time and, therefore, would benefit

greatly from clear guidance and instruction on how to perform the tasks in their j ob as

well as guidance on dressing appropriately, the importance of arriving on-time, and how

to manage their time while on the job. Teen volunteers who are given guidance on their

work and general work behaviors will likely feel more satisfied because they will

understand how to perform their jobs well. This would lead to better performance, and

probably more positive feedback from peers and managers. In addition, those who are

given good instruction in their volunteer assignments likely feel empowered to do their

jobs, thus leading to a higher sense of control mutuality. When an organization takes the

time to establish programs for training and instruction for teen volunteers, that likely

communicates to teens that their service to the organization is valued, again increasing

the teens sense of empowerment in their position.

The relationship between assurances and control mutuality, too, seems clear. The

more that teen volunteers are told they are valuable to the organization, the more they

will feel they have power in the relationship with the organization. The relationship

between shared tasks and satisfaction seem obvious for the teen volunteer experience as

well. The act of volunteering, in a way, is a shared tasks. Teens are donating hours to an

organization to help them accomplish a goal that is important to the organization, and

hopefully one that the teens care about too. The more that the teens view the relationship

as embodying this sense of shared tasks, the more satisfied the teen will feel. Likely teens









who work with an organization that addresses an issue they value will have a greater

sense of shared tasks and greater satisfaction. As well, the responsibility that teens are

given in their volunteer position will impact the level of shared tasks that they perceive.

For example, if a teen volunteers with an organization because he/she is passionate about

literacy but then spends all volunteer hours copying, filing and shelving books, likely that

teen will not perceive as much shared tasks as if he/she were given the opportunity to

tutor a reader or read stories to children. Teens should be given the opportunity to

engage an issue in the work that they do. This likely will provide them with a greater

sense of purpose, a greater sense of shared tasks and greater satisfaction.

Testing of the model proposed in this study revealed the influence that relational

quality outcomes have on one another. No testing was done on the relationship between

relationship maintenance strategies. It is likely that the maintenance strategies influence

one another. Correlation scores suggest that guidance, assurances and shared tasks are all

highly related. Positivity and openness are strongly correlated with these three strategies

as well. Access and networking appear to function more independently.

A model of the relationship between relationship maintenance strategies could be

proposed that suggests that engaging guidance is a way of engaging in shared tasks, and

offering assurances may be part of the process of guidance. Adolescents who receive

training or instruction in their volunteer responsibilities may feel more engaged in their

job and may perceive the training as a way in which the organization is working with

them to resolve problems (an element of shared tasks). When an organization offers

training, advice and instruction to its teen volunteers that may communicate a desire to

respond to volunteers needs and concerns (an element of assurances). Also, taking the









time to offer guidance may be perceived as an indication of the volunteers' value to the

organization (an element of assurances). In these ways guidance may influence the

perception of the two maintenance strategies of shared tasks and assurances (assurances

t guidance + shared tasks). Guidance would not act as a prerequisite for the other two,

but when it is present it may be a predictor of the perception of the others. At the same

time, assurances and shared tasks are highly correlated. Offering assurances may be a

prerequisite for the perception of shared tasks. In order for teens to feel that they are

working together with the organization on a task of mutual interest, they may first need to

feel that their contributions to the organization are valuable. Only then would they

perceive their work as contributing to the mission of the organization (assurances +

shared tasks).

Other maintenance strategies may influence one another as well. Positivity, the

attempt to make interactions pleasant, may be a prerequisite for the strategy of

assurances. One may assume that offering assurances, or communicating the value of a

partner, begins with the desire to make the interaction positive (positivity + assurances).

Another potential relationship exists between access and openness. The concepts of

access, providing access to upper management, seems to be related to openness,

providing information about upcoming events and changes in the organization, to the

degree that both are providing access to information or resources (access t+ openness).

The presence of both of these strategies communicates the importance of the volunteer

(assurances). By giving volunteers access to information and people, the organization is

including the volunteer in important communication and thus indicating their value to the

organization (access t+ openness & assurances). Access and openness would not be










prerequisites of assurances, but like guidance, their presence could act as a predictor of

the level of assurances.

Intended Behavior

Volunteerism has many benefits for teens, including the development of social

networks (Yates & Youniss, 1996) and an increased sense of social responsibility and

personal competence (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Newmann & Rutter, 1983). This study

found that teens who reported a higher quality in their volunteer-nonprofit organization

relationship had a significantly higher intention to volunteer throughout their lifetimes.

This has incredible implications for volunteer organizations engaged with adolescents.

Not only does the level of quality in the relationship benefit the organization through

loyalty and other outcomes (Brunig, 2002; Hall, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007), quality in an

organization-public relationship can benefit the members of the public as well. In this

case, increasing the level of quality of the relationship can have long-term positive effects

for the teen members of the volunteer public and for the broader society. When

organizations engage the relational maintenance strategies with teen volunteers, the

young people feel a greater sense of power in the relationship and a greater sense of

satisfaction with the relationship, which influences the level of trust and commitment in

the relationship resulting in a greater overall relational quality. The greater the relational

quality for teens in a volunteer public, the greater the likelihood that those individuals

will intend to volunteer throughout their lifetimes.

Post-hoc Testing

Post-hoc testing of the data raised a number of interesting questions about the way

the organization-public relationship works for teen volunteers. First, gender does not










appear to be a critical factor in the way the relationship is perceived; however, both race

and reason for volunteering did have significant impact on the relationship.

Most respondents in this study identified their ethnicity as white (non-Hispanic).

(70%). A test of the influence of race is difficult with such a large maj ority falling into

one category. To test race, a simple comparison was made between those who self-

identified as white (non-Hispanic) and those who were not. The results indicated a

significant difference for the relationship maintenance strategy of access and a near

significant difference for intended behavior. Further investigation revealed that one

measure of the five measures of access was significantly different for one group over the

other. Those in the minority group rated the following statement significantly lower than

those who self-identified as white (non-Hispanic): "Upper-level managers are

approachable." There are a number of reasons why this might be the case. First, First, it

is possible that minority teens in general feel less empowered in their lives and as a

result, feel more hesitant to approach authority figures. Second, managers at volunteer

organizations may not make themselves as available for their minority volunteers as they

do for their white volunteers. Third, it is possible that managers at the volunteer

organizations are primarily white and minority youth do not feel as comfortable

approaching them as they would approaching someone of a different race or ethnicity.

Whatever the true reasons, minority teen volunteers clearly feel like they are less able to

approach management.

In addition to the differences in the level of access along the lines of race, minority

teen volunteers are near-significantly less likely to intend to volunteer throughout their

lifetime. This may be an indication of SES influence on intended behavior. Other









research has shown that volunteer behavior among teens is influenced by parental

volunteer experiences, parental education and family SES. More research should be done

to see if that is the source of the difference found here or if racial difference

independently influences intended behavior.

The variable with a greater impact was reason for volunteering. Those who

indicated that they did not volunteer to fulfill a requirement rated all relationship

maintenance strategies higher, except for access, and they rated all relational quality

outcomes significantly higher. They also rated intended behavior significantly higher.

Teens who volunteer without external provocation likely would feel more strongly about

the relationship with the organization; they probably feel more committed to the

organization and generally are more committed to volunteering. It' s not surprising that

two of the three variables with the strongest relationship to reason for volunteering are

commitment and intended behavior. The third variable, assurances, however is a bit

surprising. Apparently, teens who volunteer without requirements feel that the

organization does a better job of communicating their value than do teens who are

volunteering to fulfill a requirement. This may mean that teen volunteers tend to continue

volunteering with organizations (even after all requirements are fulfilled) that do a good

job of offering assurances. Or, it could mean that teens who volunteer without

requirements are more sensitive to the communication of assurances. Most likely it

means that teens who volunteer without requirement actually are more valuable to the

organization because they are more invested in it, and the offering of assurances follows.










Implication for Practice

The proposed model of the adolescent-organization relationship has implications

for public relations, for nonprofit organizations, for teen volunteers and for schools and

community service department within schools.

For public relations, the model suggests that good practices with teen volunteers

can be a type of social responsibility. Organizations who invest in their teen volunteers

by implementing the strategies as identified in this study are encouraging a more positive

organization-public relationship with teen volunteers. The quality of the relationship

influences teens' likelihood to volunteer throughout their lifetimes. Not only does a

lifetime of volunteering benefit the individual, it benefits society through the impact

made by volunteers and by the likelihood of greater political engagement of the

volunteers. These outcomes do not directly benefit the organization; rather they are a

contribution that the organization will make to society through their encouragement of

teens toward volunteering.

For nonprofits, the model indicates the ways in which organizations can best

engage their teen volunteers to make the experience as positive as possible for both

volunteer and organization. Organizations should invest in training programs and/or have

processes in place that ensure that teen volunteers receive adequate training. Volunteer

organizations should provide channels for questions from teens, so when they are

uncertain about their responsibilities, they can solicit instruction from the organization. In

addition, the organization should provide a channel of feedback to the teens, letting them

know that they are valued by the organization and that their work is important. And

finally, they should be sure to allow teens to engage in addressing the issues that are

important to the teens. As discussed earlier, teens appear to be most satisfied with their









volunteer-nonprofit organization relationship when they are actively engaged in

addressing an issue of importance to them. Assigning teens menial tasks is often the most

convenient way of handling teen volunteer hours. It requires little instruction and takes

care of tasks that others may not want to do. However, for the sake of the organization-

public relationship and for the long-term sake of the teen volunteers, organizations should

give teens some responsibilities that allow them to contribute to the mission of the

organization.

For teen volunteers, the model suggests that they will be most pleased with the

relationship if they choose to work with an organization whose mission they feel strongly

about. They should seek out opportunities that allow them to engage in work that they

care about. As well, when they encounter issues or questions about their volunteer

responsibilities, they should ask questions.

For schools and community service departments, the model indicates ways that

they can work to improve the adolescent volunteer-nonprofit organization relationship.

First, they should actively educate nonprofit organization about the ways to engage

adolescent volunteers effectively. Second, they need to educate students about their

choice of volunteer opportunity.

Implications for Theory

The results of this study support the model of the organization-public relationship

proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999). All of the constructs in this study held up to testing,

and the level of relationship maintenance predicted the level of relational quality. Results

also supported other research on the influence of the organization-public relationship on

intended behavior (Bruning 2002; Ki, 2007; Ki & Hon, 2007). The level of quality in the









relationship between the adolescent volunteers and the nonprofit organizations predicted

the teen's intended behavior toward volunteering.

In addition to supporting current theory, the Eindings add to the existing literature in

a number of ways. First, a new relationship maintenance strategy, guidance, was

identified and tested in this study. This strategy was found to be strongly predicted by the

overall construct of relational maintenance and to strongly predict the relational quality

outcomes. Its role in the relationships tested here may be due to the fact that guidance is

an important factor for adolescents. Teens often find themselves in relationships in which

guidance is a fundamental element (parent-child relationship, student-teacher

relationship, group member-leader relationship, etc.), so they come to expect to be given

clear advice and guidance. As stated earlier, teen volunteers may wish to be guided

through their responsibilities because of their lack of experience in the workplace or in

similar situations. It is possible that other organizational relationships in which teens

participate would benefit from the same strategy employer-employee, member-

organization, etc. These other relationships should be examined as well to find the

impact of this newly-identified strategy.

The second way this research adds to the literature is through the understanding of

the relationships between the relational quality outcomes. As discussed earlier, control

mutuality appears to be a predictor of the other three quality outcomes, and satisfaction

predicts trust and commitment. Other research has found that satisfaction predicts trust

and trust predicts commitment (Ki, 2006). The more complex model presented here

singles out control mutuality as the gateway to the other outcomes, at least among teen

volunteers. It appears that most of the relationship maintenance strategies influence this










quality outcome. Satisfaction, too, appears to be a strong influence on trust and

commitment, with many maintenance strategies having direct influence on it. This

suggests that the key to increasing the relational quality between a teen volunteer and a

nonprofit organization is through control mutuality. The more pleased the volunteers are

with their level of power in the relationship, the more satisfied that they are, resulting in

more trust in the relationship and more commitment to the relationship. Control mutuality

and satisfaction are influenced through the use of relationship maintenance strategies.

The third contribution that this research makes to the literature is in its examination

of intended behavior that is not related to the organization. As stated earlier, all research

on intended behavior that results from organization-public relationship has focused on

future intention to remain in the relationship with the organization. This study examined

the intention to continue the behavior, volunteering, throughout one's lifetime. Results

show that there is a significant relationship between the level of relational quality that

teen volunteers feel in their relationship with a nonprofit organization and the intention to

continue volunteering throughout their lifetimes. This moves the study of the impact of

the organization-public relationship beyond the realm of organizational benefits and

examines long-term benefits to the public. The relationship between the organization and

public flows two ways, and the consequences of the relationship are felt by both parties.

Research in public relations needs to begin examining the relationship in this way. This

study is a first step in that direction.

Conclusion

The study presented here tested the application of the organization-public

relationship model with adolescent volunteers. The findings support the currently

proposed model as valid for an adolescent public and offer areas for further investigation.









A new maintenance strategy, guidance, was identified and tested in this study. More

research needs to be done to determine whether it contributes to the adult volunteer

relationship and if it contributes to the organization-public relationship with other public

types. Another significant finding that bears future research is the model of influence

between the four relational quality outcomes. This study found that control mutuality

predicted the other three quality outcome, and satisfaction predicted trust and

commitment. This model should be investigated with adult publics, as well, to find if

control mutuality acts as a key predictor in adult relationships. It may be that the level of

power or control in the relationship is more significant for adolescents and is a greater

predictor of other outcomes for this age group than others. It also may be that volunteers

and employees are more concerned about control mutuality than other public types. The

relationship maintenance strategies most strongly predicted control mutuality and

satisfaction for adolescent volunteers and this should be examined for adult members of

publics as well. Finally, this study found a significant relationship between relational

quality and intended behavior. It found that the higher the level of relational quality in an

adolescent volunteer-nonprofit organization relationship, the more likely the teens were

to intended to volunteer through their lifetime. More research needs to be done on the

consequences of the organization-public relationship on publics, specifically those

outcomes that do not benefit the organization directly.

Future research should attempt to draw a random sample for data collection. The

study presented here used a convenience sample and a snowball sample. It was reasoned

that the level of variability would provide evidence that the data were reliable. However,









this data collection methodology does limit to some degree the generalizability of the

findings.

Another limitation of this study was the lack of data on respondents' SES. It is

possible that respondents' SES (including parental education level and parental

volunteering) influenced their intention to volunteer in ways that were not detected in this

study. Collecting SES data from teens can be difficult, and future studies should attempt

to find a way to collect the data and ensure its accuracy.

This study employed the first large sample survey of adolescents for the study of a

public relations theory. The findings show that theories developed for adults may apply to

adolescents and may provide insights that create more questions about the adult

relationship. Research in public relations needs to begin considering adolescent members

of publics, and the addition of individuals in this developmental stage into the literature

should give a more thorough understanding of the impact of communication and behavior

on the organization-public relationship.













































Figure 5-1. Adolescent model of organization-public relationship.














APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

University of Florida Research Project
Invitation to participate in a county-wide survey


Dear high school student,


You are receiving this letter and survey because I believe you are currently a volunteer in
the community or you have been a volunteer in our community.


As a researcher at the University of Florida, I am interested to find out more about the
relationship between teen volunteers and the organizations they volunteer for. I hope you
will complete the attached questionnaire and return it to [INSERT COORDINATOR
NAME HERE]. Your participation is completely voluntary.


As an incentive you will receive one hour of community service credit for your

participation in this study.


If you are UNDER THE AGE OF 18 and wish to participate, you will need to have a
parent or guardian sign the enclosed parental consent form. This form should be returned
along with the survey form and the teen consent form.


Before you begin filling out the survey, please review and sign the TEEN INFORMED
CONSENT form enclosed in this packet.


You should return all items to [COORDINATOR NAME] by Friday, April 27.


I hope that you will consider participating in this study.












Thank you.


Denise Bortree
Doctoral student
University of Florida















APPENDIX B
PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT

Parental informed consent form

This form must be signed and returned with the survey if the student is UNDER 18
years of age.

Protocol Title: Relationship between teens and volunteer organizations

Because your teen is a volunteer in the community, he/she is invited to participate in a
study conducted by the University of Florida. Please read the study details below. If you
decide that your teen should not participate in the study, simply inform him/her or
you may contact the primary research: Denise Bortree 904-384-6797, email
dbortree~iufl.edu.

Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship
between teen volunteers and the volunteer organizations

What your teen will be asked to do in the study: He/she will be asked to complete the
survey after signing a similar document indicating that he/she agrees to participate. The
survey consists of 72 questions: 30 questions about the relationship between volunteers
and the organization, 36 questions about how the organization treats volunteers, and five
demographic question and questions about the organization. Your teens' name and
contact information are not being asked for. If your teen chooses to participate in the
proj ect, he/she should only complete the survey one time.

Time required: 30 minutes. The time spent filling out this survey will count toward your
teen's volunteer hours.

Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or economic risks
involved with the study.

Compensation: There is no financial compensation for participating in this research.

Confidentiality: Neither your teen' s name nor contact information are being asked for.
Your teen's answers to the survey will be assigned a code number. The data and your
teen's identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your teen's
demographic profile will not be used in any report.

Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty
for not participating.










Right to withdraw: Your teen has the right to withdraw from the study at any time
without consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:

Denise Bortree, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Mass Communications,
University of Florida, (904) 384-6797, dbortree@ufl.edu

Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, Professor, University of Florida, (352) 392.6660,
maferguson@j ou.ufl.edu.

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:

UJFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-
0433; irb2@ufl.edu

Agreement:

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to allow my teen to
participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.



Parent or guardian signature



Relationship to teen volunteer


Date















APPENDIX C
TEEN INFORMED CONSENT

Teen informed consent form


Protocol Title: Relationship between teens and volunteer organizations

Please read this consent document carefully before deciding to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to compare the differences
in how adults and teenagers evaluate their volunteer experiences with organizations in the
community .

What you will be asked to do in the study: Complete the survey on the remaining
pages after signing this document indicating you agree to participate. The survey
consists of 72 questions: 30 questions about the relationship between volunteers and the
organization, 36 questions about how the organization treats volunteers, and Hyve
demographic question and questions about the organization. Your name and contact
information are not being asked for. If you chose to participate in the proj ect, please only
complete the survey one time.

Time required: 30 minutes. The time spent filling out this survey will count toward your
volunteer hours. You will be given one hour of volunteer credit for participating in this
study .

Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or economic risks
involved with the study.

Compensation: There is no financial compensation for participating in this research.

Confidentiality: Neither your name nor contact information are being asked for. Your
answers to the survey will be assigned a code number. The data and your identity will be
kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your demographic profie will not be
used in any report.

Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty
for not participating.

Right to withdraw: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without
consequence.









Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:

Denise Bortree, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Mass Communications,
University of Florida, (904) 384-6797, dbortree@ufl.edu

Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, Professor, University of Florida, (352) 392.3952,
maferguson@j ou.ufl.edu.

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:

UJFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-
0433; irb2@ufl.edu

Agreement:

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.


Participant


Date















APPENDIX D
COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDIT FORM

Community service credit one hour

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be given one hour of credit toward your
community service requirement. To ensure that you receive this credit, please provide
your name, grade, and school name below. This sheet will be removed from the survey
and given to the appropriate person. Your personal information will not be associated
with the feedback you provide in the survey.



Name



Grade



School




Thank you for participating in this study.















APPENDIX E
SURVEY

Survey

Hello. Thanks for agreeing to take this survey. On the next few pages you'll be
asked a lot of questions about your community service experience. The survey looks
long, but it should only take about 25 minutes. So, hang in there, and before you
know it, you'll be done!

How old were you on your last birthday?

If you are under 18, please be sure to have a parent sign and return the parental consent
form enclosed with this survey.

If you have never been a volunteer for an organization, please do not complete this
survey .

1. What is the name of the organization you volunteer for? (optional)

If you vohmnteer for more than one, list only one and' complete the following questions
about your experiences nI ithr that organization.


2. Please evaluate the organization that you volunteer for using this scale (check one
space per line):

important : : : : : : : :_umimportant

boring : : : : : : : :_ interesting

exciting : : : : : : : :_ unexciting

means nothing : : : : : : : :_means a lot to me

worthless : : : : : : : : valuable

involving : : : : : : : :_uninvolving




3. Please rate the overall quality of your relationship with this organization (circle one).









Very negative


Very Positive


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


THE FOLLOWING SIX SECTIONS ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
ORGANIZATION.









*****Section One*****

OK, LET'S GET STARTED. I want you to think about the organization that you
volunteer for. How would volunteers (meaning you) evaluate the organization?
This section should take about 5 minutes.

1. I am happy with the organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

4. The organization neglects volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the
impact on volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

12. I see the organization as commitment to its volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree









*****Section Two*****

YOU'RE DOING GREAT!! In this next section, you'll continue to evaluate the
organization. Some of the questions may sound similar but that's by design. Just
answer the questions as honestly as you can. This section should take about 3
minutes.

1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers' opinions in the decisions that effect
them .
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the organization has
established with them.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

3. The organization misleads volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

4. I feel very confident about the organization's abilities to accomplish its mission.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

5. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization the
most.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

6. Volunteers enj oy dealing with the organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

7. I would rather work with this organization than another.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

8. When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they have some sense of
control .
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers' needs.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree









*****Section three*****

WE'RE ROLLING NOW. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!! The questions in this
section are a little bit different from the ones above, although they may sound
somewhat similar. These questions are about how the organization acts toward its
volunteers.
This section should take about 4 minutes.

1. The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are reasonable.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

2. It is clear to me who upper-level managers are and how to contact them.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful direction from the organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers'
concerns
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions to problems that
volunteers encounter.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

6. The organization is involved in managing community issues (environmental issue,
disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

12. The organization shares enough information with volunteers about how it is managed.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree











13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree


*****Section Four*****

OK, TAKE A BREAK, STRETCH, RELAX. You're past the half-way point.
This next section is about as long as the others, so you can make it! Just take a deep
breath and let's get started. This section should take you about 4 minutes.

1. The organization communicates the importance of volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

2. The organization's communication with volunteers is courteous.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving j oint problems.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

4. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits
volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enj oyable.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

6. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way
that benefits volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

8. The organization's associations with other like-minded groups is not useful for
volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

9. During meetings, volunteers are encouraged to share their opinions.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores these concerns.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

11. I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree






169



12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

13. Upper-level managers are approachable.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

14. I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree









*****Section Five*****

YOU'RE IN THE HOME STRETCH. Just a few more questions and you'll be done
with this section. The questions may sound redundant, but just keep at it.
This section should take about 2-3 minutes.

1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling disagreements with
volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to the management of the
organization.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

3. The organization and volunteers care about the same community issues.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

4. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

5. When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

6. The organization works with community groups that I care about.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

8. The organization freely shares information with volunteers.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be helpful.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree









*****Section Six*****

THE WORST IS OVER. GOOD JOB!!! Just get through these last few questions,
and you're home free. Thanks for hanging in there!

1. Did you volunteer for this organization to fulfill a requirement? Yes No

2. If yes, would you have volunteered for this organization if it were not required?
Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely

3. Will you continue to volunteer for this organization after you have fulfilled your
requirement?
Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely

4. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she volunteer at this organization?
Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely

5. How many hours per week did/do you volunteer at this organization in an average
week?

6. When was the last time you volunteered for this organization?

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT VOLUNTEERING
IN GENERAL

1. Will you volunteer (for this organization or another) in the years to come?
Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely

2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she participate in community service in
years to come?
Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely

3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come?
Not much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A lot

DEMOGRAPHICS

2. What is your gender?

3. Do you consider yourself to be:

African-American Asian Caucasian Hispanic/Latino

Middle Eastern Native American Other:






172


EXCELLENT JOB! YOU MADE IT TO THE END!!! I really appreciate you
hanging in there and completing the survey. Your feedback is valuable to the study.
Thanks!!















APPENDIX F
ORIGINAL MEASUREMENT ITEMS

Table F-1. Original measures of relational quality outcomes.

Control mutuality
3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate.
4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R]
8. When dealing with volunteers, the organization has a tendency to throw its weight
around [R]
11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say.
15. The organization seems to ignore volunteers' opinions in the decisions that affect
members [R]
20. When volunteers interact with the organization, volunteers feel that they have some
sense of control.
21. The organization cooperates with volunteers.
26. Volunteers have influence with the decision makers at the organization.

S ati sfacti on
6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship.
10. Volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization.
12. Volunteers are happy with the organization.
14. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the organization has
established with them. [R]
18. Volunteers enj oy dealing with the organization.
23. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers' needs. [R]
24. Volunteers feel they are important to the organization.
28. In general, nothing of value has been accomplished by the organization for
volunteers. [R]

Trust
2. The organization treats volunteers fairly and justly.
5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, volunteers know the
organization will consider the decision's impact on members.
9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers.
13. The organization takes the opinions of volunteers into account when making
deci sions.
16. Volunteers feel very confident about the organization's abilities.
22. Sound principles guide the organization's behavior.
25. The organization misleads volunteers. [R]











Commitment
1. The organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to its volunteers.
7. The organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers.
17. Compared to other organizations, volunteers value their relationship with this
organization the most.
19. Volunteers would rather work with this organization than without it.
27. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization.
Note: [R] indicates reverse code.

Table F-2. Original measures of relationship maintenance strategies

Access
2. The organization provides volunteers with adequate contact with senior managers.
8. The organization provides volunteers with opportunities to meet the decision makers
26. When volunteers have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer
their inquiries.
29. Volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management of the organization.
31. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions.

Positivity
13. Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial
15. The organization's communication with volunteers is courteous.
18. The organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enj oyable.
28. The organization is cooperative when handling disagreements with volunteers.
36. The information the organization provides to its members is important to members.

Openness
12. The organization shares enough information with volunteers about the organization is
managed.
22. The organization's meetings are a valuable way for volunteers to communicate their
opinions to the organization.
24. The organization does not provide volunteers with enough information about how the
organization is run.
27. Volunteers receive enough information to do their j obs well.
35.The organization freely shares information with volunteers.

Shared tasks
5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions to problems that benefit
volunteers.
6. The organization is involved in managing community issues (environmental issue,
disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about.
9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing.
16. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving j oin problems.
[R]
30. The organization and volunteers care about the same community issues.











Networking
11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers.
17. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits
volunteers.
20. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way
that benefits volunteers.
21. The organization's associations with other like-minded groups are useless to
volunteers. [R]
33. The organization works with community groups that I care about.

Assurances
4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers'
concerns
10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers.
14. The organization communicates the importance of volunteers.
23. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously.
34. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers
Note: [R] indicates reverse code

Table F-3. Original measures of guidance

Guidance
7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers.
3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful direction from the organization.
1. The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are reasonable.
19. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers.
32. When I encounter a problem, the organization offers good advice.
25. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems.
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Aboud, F.E. & Mendelson, M.J. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and
quality: Developmental perspectives. Bukowski, W.M., Newcomb, A.F., &
Hartup, W.W. (Eds) The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and
adolescence, New York: Cambridge University Press, 87-112.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aylor, B. & Dainton, M. (2004). Biological Sex and Psychological Gender as Predictors
of Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance. Sex Roles, 50(9/10), 689-697.

Bae, J. & Cameron, G. (2006) Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of
corporate giving. Public Relations Review 32(2), 144-150.

Barry, T.E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: An historical
perspective. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 10, 25 1-295.

Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child
Development, 53, 1447-1460.

Bortree, D.S. (2006). Characteristics of children' s websites: Content analysis of the use
of hypertext, interactivity and multimedia on nonprofit websites for children.
Presented at the Carolina Communication Association conference, September
2006.

Bortree, D.S. (2007). Relationship management with child publics: Nonprofit websites'
strategies for building organizational-public relations in an online environment. To
be presented at the International Communication Association for presentation in
San Francisco, 2007.

Bortree, D.S. (Forthcoming). Relationship management and online communication with
children, in Duhe, S. (Ed.) New Media and Public Relations. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing.

Brody, G.H., Murry, V.M., McNair, L., Chen, Y.F., Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M. & Wills,
T.A. (2005). Linking Changes in Parenting to Parent-Child Relationship Quality
and Youth Self-Control: The Strong African American Families Program. Journal
ofResearch on Adolescence, 15(1), 47-69.










Bronstein, P. & Duncan, P. (1996). Family and parenting behaviors predicting middle
school adjustment. Family Relations, (45) 4, 415-426.

Broom, G., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships: An update. In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning
Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public
Relations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Broom, G., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83-98.

Bruning, S. D. (2000). Examining the role that personal, professional and community
relationships play in respondent relationship recognition and intended behavior.
Communication Quarterly, 48, 437-448.

Bruning, S.D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: linking relationship
attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations
Review, 28(1), 39-49.

Bruning, S.D. & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship
scale: exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in
organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309-319.

Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and
publics: Development of a multi-dimensional scale. Public Relations Review, 25
(2), 157-170.

Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (2000). Perceptions of Relationships and Evaluations
of Satisfaction: An Exploration of Interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-
96.

Bruning, S. D., McGrew, S.,& Cooper, M. (2006).Town-gown relationships: Exploring
university-community engagement from the perspective of community members.
Public Relations Review, (32)2, 125-130.

Bukowski, W.M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during
pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the
Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3),
471-484.

Canary, D.J. & Cupach, W.R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated
with conflict tactics. Journal of Social and' Personal Relationships, 5(3), 3 05-325.

Canary, D. J. & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication M~onographs, 59(3), 243-268.










Canary, D.J. & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservation of relational characteristics:
Maintenance strategies, equity, and locus of control. In Kalbfleisch, P.J. (Ed.)
Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 237-259.

Canary, D.J., Stafford, L., Hause, K.S., & Wallace, L.A. (1993). An Inductive Analysis
of Relational Maintenance Strategies: Comparisons Among Lovers, Relatives,
Friends, and Others. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), p5-14.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B.A. (2002). A Panel Study of the Associations
Between Maintenance Strategies and Relational Characteristics. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 64(2), 395-406.

Chaplin, L.N. & John, D.R. (2005). The Development of Self-Brand Connections in
Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 1 19-129

Cillessen, A., X. Lu, J., West, T., & Laszkowski, D.K.(2005). Predictors of dyadic
friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal ofBehavioral
Development, 29(2), 165-172.

Clary, E.G., Ridge, R.D., Stukas, A.A., Snyder, M., Copeland, J., Haugen, J., & Miene,
P. (1998). Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A
Functional Approach. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-
1530.

Clary, E.G. & Snyder, M. (1999). The Motivations to Volunteer: Theoretical and
Practical Considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5). 156-
159.

Collins, W.A. (2003). More than Myth: The Developmental Significance of Romantic
Relationships During Adolescence. Journal ofResearch on Adolescence 13(1), 1-
24.

Connolly, J., Furman, W. & Konarski, R. (2000). Relationship and Interactions: The Role
of Peers in the Emergence of Heterosexual Romantic Relationships in Adolescence.
Child Development, 71(5), 1395-1408.

Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential education on adolescent
development. Child & Youth Services, 4(3-4), 57-76.

Dainton, M. & Aylor, B. (2002). Routine and Strategic Maintenance Efforts: Behavioral
Patterns, Variations Associated with Relational Length, and the Prediction of
Relational Characteristics. Communication M~onoguraphs, 69(1), 52-67.

Dainton, M. & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintenance Strategies and Physical Affection as
Predictors of Love, Liking, and Satisfaction in Marriage. Communication Reports,
7(2), 88-98.










Dougall, E.K. (2006). Tracking organization-public relationships over time: A
framework for longitudinal research. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 174-176.

Dishion, T.J., Nelson, S.E., & Bullock, B.M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy:
parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem
behaviour. Journal of Adolescence 27, 5 15-53 0.

Elbaz, G. (1997). Adolescent activism for postmodern HIV/AIDS education: A new
social movement. 29(3), 145-174.

Erikson, E. E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Feiring, C. (1996). Concepts of Romance in 15-Year-Old Adolescents. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 6(2), 18 1-200.

Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). "Building Theory in Public Relations: Inter-
organizational Relationships," paper presented to the Public Relations Division,
Association for Education in Joumnalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville,
FL.

Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together Buildinn relationships as we negotiate.
New York: Penguin Books.

Florsheim, P. (2003). Adolescent Romantic Sexual behavior: What We Know and Where
WeGo From Here. In Florsheim, P. (Ed.), Adolescent Romantic Relations and
Sexual Behavior: Theory,Research, and Practical Implications, Mahwah, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Fox, R. J., Krugman, D. M., Fletcher, J. E., & Fischer, P. M. (1998). Adolescents'
Attention to Beer and Cigarette Print Ads and Associated Product Wamnings.
Journal ofAdvertising, (27)3, 57-68.

Freeman, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1986). Adolescence and its
recollection: Toward an interpretive model of development. M~errill-Palmer
Quarterly, 32(2), 167-185.

Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Conceptual and
methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup
(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 41-
65). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Furman W., and Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of
networks of personal relationships. ChildDevelopment, 63, 103-115.

Furman, W. & Shaffer L. (2003). The Role of Romantic Relationships in
AdolescentDevelopment. In Florsheim, P. (Ed.), Adolescent Romantic Relations
and Sexual Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practical Implications, Mahwah,
NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-22.










Gottman, J.M. & Graziano, W.G. (1983). How Children Become Friends. M~onographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 48(3), 1-86.

Grimm, R., Cramer, K., Dietz, N., Shelton, L., Dote, L., Manuel, C., & Jennings, S.
(2007). Volunteering in America: 2007 State Trends and Rankings in Civic Life.
Published report by Corporation for National and Community Service, retrieved on
June 20, 2007 from http://www.national service .gov/pdf/VIA/VIA~fullreport. pdf.

Grunig, J.E. & Grunig, L.S. (1989). Toward a Theory of the Public Relations Behavior of
Organizations: Review of a Program of Research. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 1(1-4), 27-63.

Grunig, J. E. and Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship
outcomes, In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning Public Relations as
Relationship Mananement: A Relational Approach to Public Relations, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

Grunig, J.E. & White, J. (1992). The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations Theory
and Practice. In J. Grunig, D. Dozier, W. Ehling, L. Grunig, F. Repper, & J. White
(Eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 31 -
64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Grunig, L.A. (1992). Matching Public Relations Research to the Problem: Conducting a
Special Focus Group. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(1), 21-43.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E. & Dozier D. M. (1995). Excellent public relations and
effective organizations. Mahwah, NJ:" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haby, M. M.; Vos, T.; Carter, R.; Moodie, M.; Markwick, A.; Magnus, A.; Tay-Teo, K-
S.; Swinburn, B. (2006). A new approach to assessing the health benefit from
obesity interventions in children and adolescents: the assessing cost-effectiveness
in obesity proj ect. International Journal of Obesity, 3 0(10), pl1463 -1475.

Hall, M.R. (2006). Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations:
Measuring Relationship-Building Results. Journal of Public Relations Research,


Hart, R., Daiute, C., Iltus, S., Kritt, D., Rome, M. and Sabo, K. (1997). Developmental
theory and children's participation in community organizations. Social Justice, 24,
33-63.

Hendrick, S.S. (1988). A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 50(1), 93-99.

Hon, L. C. and Grunig, J. E. (1999). Measuring Relationships in Public Relations,
Institute for Public Relations, Gainesville, Florida.










Huang, Y.H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict
management strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD.

Huang, Y.H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61-90.

Hung, C.J. (2005). Exploring Types of Organization-Public Relationships and Their
Implications for Relationship Management in Public Relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 17(4), 393-426.

Jarvinen, D.W. & Nicholls, J.G. (1996). Adolescents' social goals, beliefs about the
causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer. Developmental Psychology, 32(3),
435-442.

Jensen, I. (1997) Legitimacy and strategy of different companies. A perspective of
external and internal public relations, In Moss, D., MacManus, T. and Vercic, D.
(Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective, International
Thomson Business Press, London.

Ji M.F. (2002). Children's relationships with brands: "True love" or "on night stand"?,
Psychology and Marketing, 19(4), 369-387.

Jo, S. & Yungwook K. (2003). The Effect of Web Characteristics on Relationship
Building. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 199-223.

Johnson, M.K., Beebe, T., Y Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in Adolescence: A Process
Perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3), p309-332

Kandel, D.B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of
Personality and' Social Psychology, 36(3), 306-3 12.

Kent, M.L., Taylor, M. & White, W.J. (2003). The relationship between Web site design
and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1),
63-77.

Ki, E.J. (2006). Linkages among relationship maintenance strategies, relationship quality
outcomes, attitude and behavioral intentions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Ki, E.J. & Hon, L.C. (2007). Testing the Linkages Among the Organization-Public
Relationship and Attitude and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19(1), 1-23.

Ki, E.J. & Shin, J.H. (2006). Status of organization-public relationship research from an
analysis of published articles, 1985-2004. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 194-
195.










Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.

Ladd, G.W. (2004). Children's Peer Relations and Social Competence: A Century of
Progress. London: Yale University Press.

Larson, R., Hansen, D., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental
experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology,
42 (5), 849-863.

Larzelere, R.E. & Huston, T.L. (1980). The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward Understanding
Interpersonal Trust in Close Relationships. Journal of2arriage & FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily, 42(3),
595-605.

Lavidge R.J. & Steiner, G.A. (1961). A model for predictive measurement of advertising
effectiveness. Journal of2arketing, 25, 59-62.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational
perspective of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285-295.

Ledingham, J.A. (2003). Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of
Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 18 1-198.

Ledingham, J.A. (2006). A Chronology of organization-stakeholder relationships with
recommendations concerning practitioner adoption of the relational perspective,
Paper presented at the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass
Communication conference, August 2006.

Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and public
relations: dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations
Review, 24, 55-65.

Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D., (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public
relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of
relationship management, In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning Public
Relations as Relationship Mananement: A Relational Approach to Public Relations,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning S. D. & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the
perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting
Organization-Public Relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2):
167-183.

Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A.B., & Brendgen, M. (2001). The quality of adolescents'
friendships: Associations with mothers' interpersonal relationships, attachments to
parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors. Journal ofAdolescence, 24(4), 429-
446.










Matza, L.S., Kupersmidt, J.B., & Glenn, D. M. (2001). Adolescents' Perceptions and
Standards of Their Relationships with Their Parents as a Function of Sociometric
Status. Journal ofResearch on Adolescence, 1 1(3), 245-273.

McHale, S.M., Updegraff, K.A., Tucker, C.J., & Crouter, A.C. (2000). Step In or Stay
Out? Parents' Roles in Adolescent Siblings' Relationships. Journal of2arriage &
Family. 62(3), 746-761.

Mendelson, M.J. & Aboud, F.E. (1999). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents
and young adults: McGill Friendship Questionnaires. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science Revue canadienne des Sciences du conaportenzent. 31(2), 130-
132.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the 'side-bet theory' of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal ofAppliedPsychology,
69(3), 372-378.

Miles, S., Cliff, D, & Burr, V. (1998). 'Fitting In and Sticking Out': Consumption,
Consumer Meanings and the Construction of Young People's Identities. Journal of
Youth Studies, 1(1), 8 1-97.

Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of2arketing, 58(3), 20-39.

Moss, D., Newman, A., & DeSanto, B. (2005). What do communication managers do?
Defining and refining the core elements of management in a public
relations/corporate communication context. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 82(4), 873-890.

Mowen, J.C. & Sujan, H. (2005). Volunteer Behavior: A Hierarchical Model Approach
for Investigating Its Trait and Functional Motive Antecedents. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 170-182.

Newmann, F. M. & Rutter, R.A (1985-86). A Profile of High School Community Service
Programs. Educational Leadership, 43(4), 64-72.

Oswald, D.L. & Clark, E.M. (2003). Best friends forever?: High school best friendships
and the transition to college. Personal Relationships, 10(2), 187-196.

Owen, A.R. & Karrh, J.A. (1996). Video news releases: Effects on viewer recall and
attitudes, Public Relations Review, 22(4), 369-378.

Palda, K. S. (1964). The measurement of cumulative advertising effects. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Papini, Dennis R. & Farmer, F.F. (1990). Early adolescent age and gender differences in
patterns of emotional self-disclosure to parents. Adolescence, 25(100), 959-977.










Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R.(1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with peer group acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 29(4),
611-622.

Plowman, K.D., ReVelle, C., Meirovich, S., Pien, M., Stemple, R., Sheng, V., & Fay, K.
(1995) Walgreens: A Case Study in Health Care Issues and Conflict Resolution.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(4), 23 1-258.

Rawlins, W.K. & Holl, M. (1987). The Communicative Achievement of Friendship
During Adolescence: Predicaments of Trust and Violation. Western Journal of
Speech Communication: WJSC, 51(4), 345-363.

Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G.A. (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation
Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Rotenberg, K.J., MacDonald, K.J., & King, E.V. (2004). The Relationship Between
Loneliness and Interpersonal Trust During Middle Childhood. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 165(3), 233-249.

Rueter, M. & Conger, R.D. (1995). Antecedents of Parent-adolescent Disagreements.
Journal of2arriage & FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily, 57(2), 435-448.

Shil'shtein, E. S. (2001) 'Characteristics of the presentation of self during adolescence',
Russian Education and Society, 43, 35-51.

Shulman, S. & Scharf, M. (2000). Adolescent Romantic Behaviors and Perceptions: Age-
and Gender-Related Differences, and Links. Journal of Research on Adolescence
10(1), 99-119.

Spring, K., Dietz, N., & Grimm, R. (2006). Youth helping America: Educating for Active
Citizenship: Service-Learning, School-Based Service and Youth Civic
Engagement. Published report by Corporation for National and Community Service
retrieved on June 20, 2007 from
http:.//www.national servi ce.gov/pdf/06_03 23_SL~briefing.pdf.

Stafford, L. & Canary, D.J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
types, gender and relational characteristics, Journal ofSocial andPersonal
Relationships, 8, 217-242.

Stafford, L., Dainton, M. & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring Routine and Strategic Relational
Maintenance: Scale Revision, Sex Versus Gender Roles, and the Prediction of
Relational Characteristics. Communication M~onoguraphs, 67(3), 306-324.

Strom, R.D. & Strom, P.S. (2002). Parent and Adolescent Relationships in Japan and the
United States, Journal of Family Studies, 8(1), 91-105.

Strom, R., Strom, S., Collinsworth, P. & Strom, P. (1998). Evaluating parent success in
guiding adolescents. Journal oflnstructional Psychology, 25(4), p242-250.










Tossutti, L.S. (2003). Does Volunteerism Increase the Political Engagement of Young
Newcomers? Assessing the Potential of Individual and Group-based Forms of
Unpaid Service. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35(3), 70-84.

Tucker, C.J., Barber, B.L. & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Advice About Life Plans From Mothers,
Fathers, and Siblings in Always-Married and Divorced Families During Late
Adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 30(6), 729-748.

Urberg, K., Goldstein, M.S. & Toro, P.A. (2005). Supportive Relationships as a
Moderator of the Effects of Parent and Peer Drinking on Adolescent Drinking.
Journal ofResearch on Adolescence 15(1), 1-19.

Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P.J. & Realty, M.J. (1999). Perceived Equity, Satisfaction,
and Relational Maintenance Strategies in Parent-Adolescent Dyads. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 28(1), 1999

Walker, T. (2002). Service as a pathway to political participation: What research tells us.
Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 183-188.

Wilson, L. J. (2000). Building employee and community relationships through
volunteerism: A case study. In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning
Relationship Mananement: A Relational Approach to Public Relations, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

Yates, M. & Youniss, J. (1996). Community Service and Political--Moral Identity in
Adolescents. Journal ofResearch on Adolescence 6(3), 271-284.

Youniss, J. & Haynie, D. L. (1992). Friendship in adolescence. Journal of Developmental
& Behavioral Pediatrics, 13(1), 59-66.

Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Mazer, B. (2001). Voluntary Service, Peer Group
Orientation, and Civic Engagement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 456-
469.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-47.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Denise Sevick Bortree received a Bachelor of Arts degree in writing from Geneva

College and a Master of Arts degree in mass communication from the University of

Florida College of Journalism and Communication. While pursing her doctorate in mass

communication, she also received a Master of Education degree in educational

psychology from the College of Education at the University of Florida. Denise' s research

interests include relationship management, internet communication, and the impact of

media use on adolescents and children.





PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH ADO LESCENT PUBLICS: THE ROLE OF RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE STRATE GIES AND RELATIONAL QUALITY OUTCOMES ON ADOLESCENTS INTENDED BEHAVIOR By DENISE SEVICK BORTREE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2007 Denise Sevick Bortree

PAGE 3

To my beloved husband, Brian.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I reflect on the long journey that brought me to this stage in life, I realize that I owe gratitude to many people who have encouraged me along the way: to teachers who have inspired my pursuit of knowledge, to fr iends who have shown a genuine interest in my research ideas, and to fellow students w ho have challenged me to find an interesting, relevant area of research. I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Walsh-Childers, Dr. Kiousis and Dr. Franks, who offered valuable advice and s upport throughout the disse rtation process. I am particularly thankful for their patience as I wrestled with my ideas, trying to find a way to explore my passions through researc h. To my chair, Dr. Ferguson, thank you for setting a high standard of excellence that challenges me to be better than I really am. To my parents, Dennis and Luana Sevi ck, I am thankful for a lifetime of encouragement and blind belief that I re ally can achieve anything that I wish. To my in-laws, Walter and Joanne Bortre e, who spent countless weeks living with us, watching our daughter and helping with c hores, I am profoundly grateful. I could not have completed this dissertation without your generous gift of time. To my daughter Brynn, a bittersweet gratitude for the mommy time you sacrificed so that I could fini sh this work. I hope that I can be a good model of balance in life between moth erhood and other accomplishments. And finally to my one true love, my suppor t, my editor, my strongest source of encouragement, my husband, Brian, you have be en with me through all of my struggles

PAGE 5

v and successes. Thank you for never doubting me. I feel privileged to be traveling through life with you as my partner.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................... xii ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... xiv CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Adolescents as Publics in Public Relations..................................................................2 Relationship Management............................................................................................2 Organization-Adolescent Public Relationship ..............................................................4 Intended Behavior.........................................................................................................5 Study Design................................................................................................................. 5 Results...........................................................................................................................6 Significance.................................................................................................................. 7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................9 Relationship Management............................................................................................9 Definition of a Relationship................................................................................10 Model of Organization-Public Relationships...................................................... 12 Potential impact of organizationpublic relationshi p on adolescents identity form ation...................................................................................13 Situational antecedents of relationships....................................................... 17 Maintenance strategies................................................................................. 19 Maintenance strategies w ith adolescent publics ........................................... 21 Proposal of a new maintenance strategy...................................................... 32 Relational quality outcomes.........................................................................36 A Model of the Organization-Public Relationship..............................................40 Linking Relational Maintenance Strategi es and Relational Quality Outcom es.. 41 Measuring the Organizati on-Public Relationship ............................................... 42 Intended Behavior...............................................................................................43 Volunteerism................................................................................................43 Volunteer intended behavior........................................................................ 44

PAGE 7

vii Research Questions and Hypotheses.......................................................................... 46 3 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 60 Study Overview.......................................................................................................... 60 Sample.................................................................................................................61 Pretest..................................................................................................................62 Survey Administration......................................................................................... 63 Measures..............................................................................................................67 Relational quality outcomes.........................................................................67 Relational maintenance strategies................................................................ 67 Maintenance strategy: guidance................................................................... 68 Volunteer Intended Behavior.............................................................................. 68 Demographic measures................................................................................ 69 Analysis............................................................................................................... 69 Structural equation modeling....................................................................... 70 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................76 Respondents................................................................................................................76 Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................. 77 Relationship Maintenance Strategies.................................................................. 78 Relational Quality Outcomes..............................................................................80 Volunteer Intended Behavior.............................................................................. 81 Measurement Reliability..................................................................................... 81 Confirmatory Factor Analysis............................................................................. 82 Confirmatory factor analyses of relationship m aintenance strategies.......... 82 Confirmatory factor analyses of relational quality outcom es......................87 Confirmatory factor analysis of volunteer intended behavior ...................... 88 Test for Correlation Among Variables................................................................ 89 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 91 Research Question 1............................................................................................92 Research Question 2............................................................................................92 Path Analysis.......................................................................................................93 Hypotheses 1 through 3....................................................................................... 93 Hypotheses 4 through 7....................................................................................... 95 Hypothesis 8........................................................................................................ 97 Hypothesis 9........................................................................................................ 98 Post-hoc Testing.........................................................................................................99 Summary...................................................................................................................101 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...................................................................... 132 Relationship Maintenance........................................................................................132 Relational Quality Outcomes....................................................................................133 Influence of Maintenance Strategies on Quality Outcomes..................................... 135 Intended Behavior.....................................................................................................146

PAGE 8

viii Post-hoc Testing.......................................................................................................146 Implication for Practice............................................................................................ 149 Implications for Theory............................................................................................ 150 Conclusion................................................................................................................152 APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 156 B PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT.................................................................... 158 C TEEN INFORMED CONSENT............................................................................... 160 D COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDIT FORM............................................................ 162 E SURVEY..................................................................................................................163 F ORIGINAL MEASUREMENT ITEMS................................................................... 173 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................186

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Model of the organization-public re lationship proposed by Hon & Grunig and Grunig & Huang ......................................................................................................53 2-2 Definitions of relationa l m aintenance strategies...................................................... 54 2-3 Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept guidance.................................... 55 2-4 Definition of relational quality outcomes................................................................. 56 2-5 Standardized coefficients and standard ized errors of path s between m aintenance strategies and quality outcomes in th e organization-public relationship as reported by Ki (2006)............................................................................................... 59 3-1 Relationship quality outcome m easurem ent items for current study....................... 73 3-2 Relationship maintenance strategy m easurement items for current study............... 74 3-3 Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept guidance.................................... 75 3-4 Measures of the relationship m aintenance strategy of guidance.............................. 75 3-5 Measures of volunteer intended behavior................................................................ 75 4-1 Initial rate of return by source................................................................................ 104 4-2 Descriptive statistics for Rela tionship Maintenance Strategy item s...................... 105 4-3 Descriptive statistics for Re lational Q uality Outcomes items................................ 107 4-4 Descriptive statistics fo r Volunteer Intended Behavior. ........................................ 108 4-5 Measurement reliability for all items..................................................................... 108 4-6 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strate gy of Access. ................................ 109 4-7 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Access....... 109 4-8 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Positivity............................. 110

PAGE 10

x 4-9 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Positivity... 110 4-10 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Openness with rem oval of items Q4-11 and Q4-14.......................................................................................... 111 4-11 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Openness with removal of items Q4-11 and Q4-14............................................................... 111 4-12 Model fit for Relationship Maintenan ce Strategy Shared Tasks with measure Q3-6 removed......................................................................................................... 112 4-13 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Shared Tasks.......................................................................................................................112 4-14 Model fit for Relationship Maintena nce Strategy of Shared Networking..............113 4-15 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Networking. ............................................................................................................113 4-16 Model fit for Relationship Main tenance Strategy of Assurances. ......................... 114 4-17 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Assurances. 114 4-18 Model fit for Relationship Ma intenance Strategy of Guidance. ............................115 4-19 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Guidance... 115 4-20 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome Control Mutuality............................ 116 4-21 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom e: Control Mutuality. 117 4-22 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Satisfaction..................................... 118 4-23 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom e: Satisfaction.......... 118 4-24 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Trust............................................... 119 4-25 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom e: Trust..................... 119 4-27 Model fit for Relational Qu ality Outcom e of Commitment................................... 120 4-28 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom e: Commitment....... 120 4-29 Model fit for Volunt eer Intended Behavior. ........................................................... 121 4-30 Confirmatory factor analysis of Volunteer Intended Behavior. ............................. 121 4-31 Correlation matrix for relational qual ity outcom es and relationship maintenance strategies.................................................................................................................122

PAGE 11

xi 4-32 Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategies. ............................................... 123 4-33 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategies.................. 123 4-34 Model fit for Relational Quality Outcomes............................................................ 124 4-35 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom es.............................. 124 4-36 Model fit for relationship betw een Relational Quality Outcom es.........................125 4-37 Path analysis of relationships between Relational Quality Outcom es................... 125 4-38 Results of initial hypothesized rela tionship between Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality outcom es........................................................... 126 4-39 Final model fit of influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Q uality Outcomes.................................................................................127 4-40 Path analysis of relationships betw een Relationship Mainte nance Strategies and Relational Q uality Outcomes.................................................................................128 4-41 Model fit of relations hip between relational quality and intended behavior. .........129 4-42 Path analysis of relationship betw ee n Relational Quality and Intended Behavior. 129 4-43 Model fit of influence of adol escent-nonprofit organization relationship including Intended Behavior ..................................................................................130 4-44 Path analysis of influence of Relational Quality Outcom es on Intended Behavior.................................................................................................................130 4-45 Significant differences in rating of variab les for those who volunteered to fulfill a requirement and those who did not..................................................................... 131 F-1 Original measures of relational quality outcomes.................................................. 173 F-2 Original measures of relationship maintenance strategies .....................................174 Table F-3. Original measures of guidance....................................................................... 175

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Model of the organization-public relationship......................................................... 58 2-2 Linkages between relational maintena nce strategies and relational quality outcom es for adult publics....................................................................................... 59 4-1 Confirmatory factor analysis of th e Relational Maintenance Strategy Access. .. 109 4-2 Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Positiv ity................................................................................................................. 110 4-3 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Openness... 111 4-4 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Shared Tasks.......................................................................................................................112 4-5 Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Networking. ............................................................................................................113 4-6 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Assurances. 114 4-7 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance S trategy: Guidance... 115 4-8 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom e: Control Mutuality. 116 4-9 Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcom e: Satisfaction......... 117 4-10 Confirmatory factor analysis fo r Relational Quality Outcom e -Trust................ 118 4-11 Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcom e Commitment...... 119 4-12 Confirmatory factor analysis for Volunteer Intended Behavior. ............................120 4-13 Confirmatory factor analysis fo r Relationship Maintenance S trategies................. 123 4-14 Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcomes............................. 124 4-15 Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes..................... 125

PAGE 13

xiii 4-16 Initial model of relationship between Relation ship Maintena nce Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes.................................................................................126 4-17 Fitted model for influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies on Relational Quality Outcom es...................................................................................................127 4-18 Path analysis of relationship betw ee n Relational Quality and Intended Behavior. 128 4-19 Model of adolescent-nonprofit orga nization public relationship including Intended Behavior. ................................................................................................. 129 4-20 Influence of reason for volunteering on model of adolescent-nonprofit organization public relationship including Intended Behavior..............................130

PAGE 14

xiv Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH ADO LESCENT PUBLICS: THE ROLE OF RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE STRATE GIES AND RELATIONAL QUALITY OUTCOMES ON ADOLESCENTS INTENDED BEHAVIOR By Denise Sevick Bortree August 2007 Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson Major: Mass Communication This study examined relationship maintena nce strategies engaged by organizations toward adolescent publics and the impact of t hose strategies on the relational quality of the relationship between organization and public. Six strategies found in the public relations literature were measured, along w ith a newly-proposed strategy of guidance. Four relational quality outcomes were meas ured. The study also tested the impact of relational quality on the intended behavior of teens toward future volunteer involvement. Three hundred and fifteen teens, ages 15-18, completed a survey that measured the teen volunteers per ception of the organiza tion-public relationshi p between volunteer and nonprofit organization. Structural equation modeling was used to test the application of the model of the organization-public relationship for a teen public. The study found that the constructs of the model of the organization-public relationship hold up for an adolescent publ ic. Three strategies emerged as most influential in this relationship: guidance, assurances and shared ta sks. The influence of

PAGE 15

xv these strategies appears to flow to the relational quality outcome of control mutuality which then influences the other outcomes of satisfaction, trust and commitment. This has implications for the adolescent-nonprofit organiza tion relationship. In addition, the study found that the level of quality in the relationship influences adolescents likelihood to con tinue to volunteer with the sa me organization or another. By engaging strategies that improve the re lational quality between an organization and adolescent public, an organization has th e opportunity to encour age life-long positive behaviors in members of a public.

PAGE 16

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The topic of adolescents relationship bu ilding with peers, parents and romantic partners is a popular area of study (Fur man & Buhrmester, 1992; Youniss & Haynie, 1992; Parker & Asher, 1993; Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999; Ladd, 2004). Little is known about another type of relationship in which a dolescents engage, the relationship between adolescents and an organizati on (Ji, 2002). The relationship between an organization and adult members of publics has been explored in the public relations lite rature (Broom et al, 1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Bruning, 2000; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning et al, 2006), where res earch has identified strategies in which organizations can engage to maintain relations hips with publics. It also has identified outcomes that measure the quality of the rela tionship. None of this work has examined the way organization-public relationships wo rk for adolescent members of publics. Yet, adolescents can be found in broad categorie s of publics including volunteers (Johnson et al, 1998), activists (Elbaz, 1997), consumers (Chaplin & John, 2005) and members of nonprofit organizations (Larson et al, 2006), am ong others. Some of these relationships have beneficial outcomes for adolescents, including increased so cial responsibility, personal competence, sense of teamwork, se lf-efficacy, initiative and intrinsic work values, as discussed in chapter two of this dissertation. More n eeds to be known about how these relationships work and how organi zations and adolescents can sustain these relationships for the benefit of the young people. Armed with this knowledge,

PAGE 17

2 organizations can work toward maximizing the benefit of the relations hip for teens. This study explores one such relati onship, the relationship betw een adolescent volunteers and nonprofit organizations. The study presented here will develo p measures for two components of organization-adolescent public relationships relational maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes, and test a mode l of the relationship based on prior models and theory about adoles cent relationships. Adolescents as Publics in Public Relations A recent analysis of the websites of the 100 largest nonprofit organizations found that 41 provided some content for children or adolescents (Bortree, 2006). Two related studies found that top nonprofit websites and nutrition websit es engaged strategies to build relationships with young members of publ ics (Bortree, 2007; Bortree, forthcoming). Studies in the field of advertis ing have examined adolescents relationships to brands (Ji, 2002) and adolescents role as consumers (F ox et al, 1998). Clearly organizations are communicating to adolescents with the intention of building and maintaining relationships; however, work in the devel opment of organization-public relationship models has focused on adult members of th e public. Research needs to be done to determine whether the model of the organiza tion-public relationship functions in similar ways for adolescents and adults. Relationship Management The concept of measuring a relationship between an organization and public, first proposed by Ferguson (1984), has taken the stud y of public relations in a new direction (Broom et al, 1997; Ledingham & Bruni ng, 1998; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ledingham, 2003). Rather than examining the impact of organizational communication on publics,

PAGE 18

3 public relations scholarship has begun to e xplore the relationship that exists between organizations and publics as a unit of st udy. This direction offers a new way of perceiving the exchange of information between the organization and public. Organizations that build long-term relati onships with publics likely increase the effectiveness of their communication and be havioral efforts (Gr unig, Grunig & Dozier, 1995). The relationship management literature has begun to explore the usefulness of the organization-public relationship, and it has quantified the antecedents, maintenance strategies and quality outcomes of the organization-public relationship (Broom et al., 1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingha m, Bruning & Wilson, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Bruni ng & Ledingham, 2000; Grunig & Huang 2000; Ledingham 2001). One of the next steps in the process of theo ry development will involve exploration of the impact of or ganization type, public type and individual differences among members of publics on th e organizational-public relationship. The strength of an organiza tional-public relationship is measured in the literature most commonly through a scale proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) that finds its roots in Huang (1997). Based on interpersonal commun ication literature a nd conflict literature, Huang (1997; 2001) first proposed and later confirmed these four relational quality outcomes as important dimensions of the organizational-public relationship: trust (believing that ones partner has ones be st interest in mind), control mutuality (agreement that both parties have sufficient power to influence the other), satisfaction (feeling that expectations are being met and/or exceeded in the relationship) and commitment (the intention to continue the re lationship and the affective desire to stay connected to the relationship).

PAGE 19

4 Public relations literature has proposed th at organizations can build and maintain the relationships between organizations and publics by engaging in six relational maintenance strategies positivity (making in teractions more pleasant or enjoyable), assurances (communicating the importance of a partner in the relati onship), shared tasks (participating in tasks of mutual intere st), openness (candid sharing of thoughts and feelings), networking (buildi ng coalitions with groups in which organization and public have mutual interest) and access (allowing members of public direct contact with decision makers within the organizati on) (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000). These strategies were drawn from the inte rpersonal and public relations literature (Stafford & Canary, 1991; Dainton & Aylor, 20 02; Canary et al, 2002), and recent work has found that perceptions of these strategi es in the organization-public relationship influence relational quality outcomes (Ki, 2006). As scholars continue to theorize about and test the effects of relational maintenance strategies on relational qualit y outcomes, work needs to fo cus how individual differences among members of publics may influence the way these variables relate to one another. Organization-Adolescent Public Relationship The relational maintenance strategies for the organizational-public relationship are derived primarily from literature on adult inte rpersonal relationships (Stafford & Canary, 1991; Canary & Stafford, 1992). A review of the adolescent relationship literature suggests that (1) the organization-public relationship may function differently for adolescents than for adults and (2) additional strategies may influence the perceived relational quality outcomes of the organizational-public relati onship for adolescents. The study presented here proposes the addition of the strategy guidance to the list of relational maintenance strategies in the or ganization-adolescent public relationship. The

PAGE 20

5 concept of guidance or advice is a factor in both the parent-adolescent relationship (Strom et al, 1998; Strom et al, 2002; Di shion et al, 2004) and the adolescent-peer relationship (Parker & Asher, 1993; Bronstein et al, 1996). As well, the concept of advising appears in the public relations literature (Moss et al, 2005). Its usefulness as a maintenance strategy is explored in this study. Intended Behavior Studies in public re lations have explored the infl uence of the organization-public relationship on the intended behavior of publics toward the organization (Bruning 2002; Ki, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007). These studies found th at loyalty (the intention to remain associated with the organization) was influe nced to some degree by the quality of the relationship. The study presented here did not look at loyalty to the organization but rather the intention to continue a behavior specifically the intention to volunteer throughout ones lifetime. It was reasoned th at a positive relationship with a volunteer organization would encourage teens to conti nue volunteering with that organization or another organization. Study Design The study presented here examined the association of relational maintenance strategies, relational quality outcomes and intended behavior in the organizationadolescent relationship. The strategies a nd outcomes proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) and tested by Ki (2006) were used, with the addition of the relational maintenance strategy of guidance. Measurements of in tended behavior were drawn from Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996) and Ki (2006). Data were gathered through a survey admi nistered to teens who volunteer in their communities. Measures assessed the relations hip maintenance strategies and relational

PAGE 21

6 quality outcomes perceived in the organiza tion-public relationshi p with the volunteer organization. It also measured the level of intention toward volunteering in the future. A pretest was conducted with 10 adolescents from a public high school in a large city in Florida. After which 315 sophomores, juniors and seniors were recruited from a number of high schools and through other venues. Becau se teens at many high schools in Florida are required to volunteer as a part of their education, it was thought that many students would be able to participate in the study, if they so chos e. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling, a powerful statistical methodology. Results Analysis of the collected data revealed a linear relationship from relationship maintenance to relational quality and from th e relational quality to intended behavior. In general, this supports the model of organiza tion-public relationshi p as proposed by Hon & Grunig. However, some of the constructs w ithin these stages of the organization-public relationship interacted differently than they had in prior research with adults. This provided insight into the way the adolescent-organization relationshi p functions. Some of the four relational quality outcomes sa tisfaction, trust, control mutuality and commitment appeared to have a predictive relationship with others. Specifically, the quality outcomes of control mutuality and sa tisfaction predicted commitment and trust. Control mutuality predicted satisfaction as well. A test of the relationship between relationship maintenance stra tegies and relational quality outcomes found that more strategies predicted control mutuality th an any other relational quality outcomes. Satisfaction was also strongl y predicted by relationship ma intenance strategies. The maintenance strategies had very little impact on the other outcomes, trust and commitment. The strongest predictors of th ese outcomes were the other two outcomes

PAGE 22

7 satisfaction and control mutuality. These findi ngs suggest a couple of things. First, the four relational quality outcomes are not independ ent of one another. It appears that two of the variables (satisfaction and control mutuality) act as predictors of the others. Among adolescents the relationship between these ou tcomes is more complex than originally proposed. Second, the model of the organization-public relationship suggests that relational maintenance influences relationa l quality. This was supported in the data. However, it appears that the influence of re lational maintenance may flow through two of the outcomes, control mutuality and satisfac tion, to the other two outcomes, trust and commitment. These latter two are the strongest predictors of relational quality outcome. This means that when organizations enga ge in relationship maintenance with an adolescent public, members of that public feel more pleased with their level of power in the relationship (control mutuality), which resu lts in greater overall satisfaction with the relationship. This sense of power and satisfaction creates more trust in the relationship and more commitment to it. The resulting higher quality of the relationship appears to have long-lasting consequences for the memb ers in the public; spec ifically, those who experience a higher level of relational quality in their volunteer-organization public relationship indicate a hi gher likelihood to volunteer throughout their lifetime. Significance Study of the organization-adolescent pub lic relationship gives researchers a baseline for the understanding of how adoles cents perceive their relationship with organizations and the impact that relati onship has on adolescents. The relationship appears to function somewhat differently fo r adolescents than adults, based on findings from other studies with adults. These differe nces will need to be considered (1) as scholars continue to examine the organizationpublic relationship and (2) as practitioners

PAGE 23

8 prepare communication to build the relationship between their organization and adolescent publics. In add ition, armed with a fuller unders tanding of the organizationadolescent public relations hip, the field can begin to examine the influence of communication and behavior on this relationship.

PAGE 24

9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The study presented here will test a mode l of the organization-adolescent public relationship based on a prior model tested for the organization-adult relationship and will explicate and operationalize a new concept that will add to our understanding of the way organizations and adolescents engage in a rela tionship. This chapter pr esents a review of literature from the study of organization-public rela tionships, interpersonal communication, interpersonal relationships and intended behavior. The literature review is followed by a discussion of the proposed study and a list of the study hypotheses. Findings will contribute to the understanding of the relationship between organizations and adolescent publics. Relationship Management In recent years public relations has move d from a discipline focused on the creation and dissemination of comm unication messages toward a focus on building and maintaining relationships between organizations and their pu blics (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Huang, 2001; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Galloway, 2003; Ledingham, 2003; Dougall, 2006; Ki & Shin, 200 6). The focus on relationships finds its genesis in Mary Ann Fergusons 1984 invited pa per, which presented an analysis of prior published public relations research and identified three potential paradigms for future research. She suggested that one of the th ree held the most potential for productive research, a focus on the relationship between publics and organizations.

PAGE 25

10 After surveying the articles published ove r the past nine-plus years in Public Relations Review, the author concludes that three of the foci of these articles appear to present opportuniti es for becoming the paradigm focus of public relations scholarship: social responsibility and ethi cs, social issues and issue management, and public relationships. It is argued that the last, public relationships, offers the most opportunity for a paradigm focus to speed the development of theory in this field. By this, the author means that the unit of study should not be the organization, nor the public, nor the comm unication process. Rather, the unit of study should be the relationships betw een organizations and their publics. (Ferguson, 1984, abstract) Definition of a Relationship Attempting to define the ubiquitous term relationship has proven daunting in most bodies of literature (Br oom et. al, 1997). According to Broom et al., in addition to public relations, literature in the areas of interpersona l communication, psychotherapy, interorganizational relationships, and syst ems theory lack a unified definition of relationship. Likely, this is due in part to the incredibly complex nature of relationships. The authors call for the public relations fi eld to establish a definition of the term, suggesting that the measurement of organizatio n-public relationships wi ll continue to be hindered by the lack of consensus on what a re lationship is in the context of organizationpublic relationships. They argue that va lid measures can be built only on a wellexplicated concept. Without clearly explicated concepts researchers cannot make empirical observations and construct meaningful th eories. A survey of public relations textbooks and of scholarly journals found no definition of relationship in public relations that is generally understood a nd accepted. Instead, it appears that public relations scholars and authors in other fields use the term relationships as a primitive term when defining public relations and when posing theoretical propositions. Yet the term relationship stands for a complex phenomenon for which few practitioners and scholars shar e a common definition and a set of measureswithout that definition, practit ioners cannot describe and compare organization-public relationships with any validity or reliability. (Broom et al., 2000, p. 6-7)

PAGE 26

11 In the scholarship publishe d on organization-public re lationships, few of the articles that have explored the concept of relationship in public relations have proposed a definition of the organization-public re lationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Huang, 2001; Hung, 2005). The first to offer a definiti on of organization-public relationships was Ledingham and Bruning (1998), who forwarded what they termed a tentative definition: the state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic social, and political and/or cultural wellbeing of the other entity (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 62). This definition describes the outcomes of an organizati on-public relationship but fails to offer an explanation of the state of the relationshi p itself. Seven years later H ung (2005) proposed a definition of organization-public relations hips that considered the r easons these relationships are formed. Based on a review of systems th eory and a review of the concept of interdependence (meaning the way organizatio ns and publics both need and rely on one another), she offered this defi nition: OPRs arise when orga nizations and their strategic publics are interdependent, and this interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations need to mana ge constantly (Hung, 2005, p. 396). Like the definition offered by Ledingham and Bruning (19 98) this definition does not adequately describe the relationship. In th is case, the definition tells us why the relationship exists but not what it consists of. A third theorist offered three properties of the organizationpublic relationship. First, [organization-public relationship] OPR could be a relationship between a corporate person and another corporate pers on or relationships between a corporate person and a group of seemingly unrelated individuals. Second, OPR is a subjective experience rather than objective qualit y. Finally, at both interpersonal and interorganizational levels, relationships often involve the exchange of resources,

PAGE 27

12 although the resources to be exchanged at each level might be different. (Huang, 2001, p. 65) Though somewhat convoluted, this definition does offer some insight into the contents of an organization-public relationship. The rela tionship exists between persons including corporate persons or organizations and gr oups of people, and w ithin the relationship there is an exchange of resources. Stated more clearly, the followi ng definition provides a guide for determining whether an organization-public relationship exists. The necessary conditions for a public/organ ization relationship to exist are: 1 There must be two parties, at a minimum, 2 the parties must have some connection/association/correlation/linkage/tie, 3 the parties must be aware that th ey are in the state of connection, 4 the parties must have a potential fo r communication/sharing/transmitting, and 5 the parties must perceive that ther e are potentially mutually beneficial/ detrimental outcomes that can occur as a result of their connection or communication. (personal communication, Ferguson, 2006) This provides a good starting point for the study of the organization-public relationship. Model of Organization-Public Relationships While not offering a definition of relationship, Broom et al (1997) proposed a model for the study of organizati on-public relationships that c onsists of three elements of relationships: antecedents, concepts and conse quences. The first element, antecedents of relationships, identifies the reasons organizations and public s engage in a relationship, the causes or the needs that join thes e two entities in some ongoing affiliation. Antecedents consist of social and cultural norms, collective perceptions and expectations, needs for resources, perceptions of uncertain environment, and legal/voluntary necessity (Broom et al., 1997, p. 94). The second element, concepts of

PAGE 28

13 relationships, consists of p roperties of exchange, tran sactions, communications, and other interconnected activiti es (Broom et al., 1997, p. 94). These are the properties of the relationship itself, mean ing the tangible elements that make up the association between the two parties. The third element, consequences of relationships, includes the outcomes or outputs of the relationship. Consequences consist of goal achievement, dependency/loss of autonomy, and routine and institutionalized behavior (Broom et al., 1997, p. 94). In an attempt to align the model with the excellence paradigm, Hon and Grunig (1999) (also see Grunig & Hua ng, 2000) have narrowed the focus of the three elements, discussed below, and renamed them situational antecedents maintenance strategies and relational outcomes (Figure 2-1). Using Hon and Gr unigs model, this chapter will explore the way adolescents build relati onships and the way this may impact organization-public relationships w ith adolescent publics, but firs t it will review literature on the potential impact of the organizatio n-public relationship on adolescents. Potential impact of organization-public relationship on adolescents identity formation Before this chapter reviews the three elements of the organization-public relationship situational antecedents, main tenance strategies and relational quality outcomes it first will explore the impact s this relationship type may have on adolescents, specifically on the iden tity formation of adolescents. Because the main work of adolescence is forming identity (Ladd, 2004), which is work that occurs in the c ontext of relationships, it is likely that the relationships adolescence experience through their associa tion with organizations would have an impact on identify formation. This happens when organizations give adolescents the

PAGE 29

14 opportunity to engage in activity and social interconnection, but also to lead such activities themselves (Hart et al, 1997, p. 34). Adolescents engage in many types of relationships with organizations, includi ng, but not limited to, (1) volunteering for community organizations, non-profits, and activist organizations, (2) holding membership in organizations such as sports arts or faith-based organizations, and (3) engaging as consumers of for-profit organizations. Adolescents who engage with organiza tions by volunteering with community service organizations engage in experiences that can influence the way they see themselves and others (Youniss, McLellan & Mazer, 2001). Service activities have been tied to the development of teamwork, positive relationships, and social capital in adolescents (Larson, Hansen & Moneta, 2006, p.849). In addition, community service helps increase adolescents sense of social responsibility and personal competence (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Newmann & Rutter, 1986). service activities can be a vehicle for stim ulating that part of the identity process that involves situating one s self within a sociohistorical context by identifying with an ideological persp ective on itservice can provoke youths to think about themselves in relation to others who are less fortunate than theyIt can stimulate them to think about their own lives in comparison to the lives that differ from theirsit can stimulate them to think about the political and moral dimensions of society and their role in making that or der change so that it comes closer to representing an ideology th at those students believe is just and achievable. (Yates & Youniss, 1996, p. 282-283) By working with community organizations, adolescents not only stand to benefit from the organization-public relationship but al so benefit from other relationships that the association brings. For example, adolescents who engage in community service build peer relationships with others who serve with them (Youniss et al, 2001 ); they build adult networks (Larson, Hansen & Moneta, 2006) and benefit from the rela tionships they build with those who are served by the commun ity organization (Yates & Youniss, 1996).

PAGE 30

15 Volunteerism can be the basis for ad olescents learning about the work environment as well (Johnson et al, 1998). A longitudinal study of the effects of adolescent volunteering found th at volunteers experience s trengthened intrinsic work values and the anticipated importance of community but decreased the anticipated importance of career (p. 321, 325). Intrinsic work values incl uded the chance to learn a lot of new things, to have a lot of responsibility, to use s kills and abilities, to make my own decisions at work, to work with pe ople rather than things and to be helpful to others and useful to society (p. 332). In essence, volunteering can have positive impacts on the way adolescents view current and future employment. In addition to community service activities, activism can influence adolescents burgeoning identities as well (Elbaz, 1997). Adol escents who participate in activism have the opportunity to make changes in their political and social environment, which leads to a greater sense of self-efficacy. Three other types of orga nizations in which adoles cents engage are sports organizations, arts/performance organizations an d faith-based organizations (Larson et al, 2006). The relationship that adolescents ha ve with these organizations and the experiences that these organizations affo rd have a number of potentially positive outcomes. Young people who engage in sports organizations and arts programs reported higher rates of initiative, and those who participated in faith-based organizations reported higher rates of experiences rela ted both to identity work and to adult networks and social capital (Larson, 2006, p. 858). Certainly, not all organization-public relationships have a positive impact on identity formation for adolescents. For exampl e, participation with sports organizations

PAGE 31

16 has been associated with increased st ress for adolescents (Larson, 2006). Another relationship with mixed influence, both positive and potentially negative, is the relationship between adolescents and consumer organizations. Research seems to indicate that consumption allows adolescents to e xperiment with identity, both establishing individuality and fitting in with peers (Miles Cliff & Burr, 1998), in a way that does not harm the adolescent. At the same time, recen t research has demons trated how purchasing and consuming the products of some companie s (e.g. fast food and high-sugar beverages) can be detrimental to adolescents (E bbling et al, 2006; Haby et al, 2006). It would be in the best interest of both the organization and a dolescent public to sustain the relationship with an organization that benefits the adol escent. The literature suggests that the organization may sustain th e organization-public relationship through engaging in maintenance strategies (H on & Grunig, 1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ki, 2006). The model of the organization-public relationship proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) and Grunig and Huang (2000) does not specifically address adolescent members of publics. The study proposed here will test whether it can be applied to young members of publics. The model theorizes about (1) the an tecedents that cause the relationship to be formed, (2) the maintenance strategies engaged by organizations to maintain the relationship with publics and (3) the outcomes of the relationship on publics. Clearly, this model is organization-centric, with its fo cus on the way organizations can sustain the relationship with publics rather than having a focus on the way the partners (organization and public) can mutually work to sustain the relationship. However, the model was chosen as the framework for this study for tw o reasons. First, arguably it is the model that has been most developed in the area of relationship management theory and is most

PAGE 32

17 commonly used to measure the relationshi p (Ledingham, 2006). The following study will work within the parameters of the model wh ile challenging some of its assumptions and offering alternative ways of viewing th e public-organization relationship. Second, because the study is concerned with the benefit of the relationship for adolescents, the behavior of the organization toward the adol escent publics is a focal point, as are the relational quality outcomes of th e relationship as perceived by the adolescents. Therefore, the fact that the model has not been develope d in the other directi on (behaviors of the public and quality outcomes of the organiza tion) does not directly impact the study. The following sections will review the th ree elements of the organization-public relationship situational antecedents, main tenance strategies, and relational quality outcomes and include a discussion of thei r potential impact on an adolescent public. Situational antecedents of relationships The works of Hon and Grunig (1999) a nd Grunig and Huang (2000) explore the antecedents of the organization-public relatio nship through the framework of the general excellence theory of public re lations. Grunig and Huang (2000) argue that antecedents of organization-public relationships can be understood in the context of organization effectiveness, specifically goal attainment, sy stems approach, strategic constituencies and competing values. Organizations must attain their goals while f unctioning within an environment (systems approach) in whic h certain constituen cies hold the most significance for the organization, all the while balancing compe ting values that ultimately impact the goals of the organizations (Gr unig and Huang, 2000). Following the logic of the organization effectiveness theories, orga nizations may need to join with other organizations or with other publics to satisfy competing values (including joining with publics to influence other organizations). The situational antecedents presented by

PAGE 33

18 Grunig and Huang demonstrate the potential direction of b ehavioral consequences of organization-public relationships, organ ization affects public, public affects organization, organization-public coalition affects another orga nization, organizationpublic coalition affects anothe r public, organization aff ects an organization-public coalition, multiple organizations affect multiple publics (p. 34). Most agree that organizations and individua ls within publics enter the relationships for reasons such as expectations, norms or the need for resources (Broom et al, 1997; Grunig and Huang, 2000; Hon and Grunig, 1999) Studies of antecedents of peer relationships have found that adolescents are initially attracted to a relationship because they view another as similar to themselves in a number of ways, including demographic variables, activities in whic h they engage and which they enjoy, attitudes and values, personality and selfand social concepts (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). The level of similarity influences the le ngth of relationships, with t hose who are similar typically engaging in a longer relationship than t hose who are less similar (Kandel, 1978). A study of childrens and adolescents relationship development with brands found 10 types of relationships in which young peopl e engage (Ji, 2002). The relationship types ranged from arranged marriage in which young people were forced to use certain products by parents or other authorities to true love characterized by a strong attachment and commitment to one brand. Three of the relationship types were somewhat uncommon among adults but active for the children and adolescents in this study: (1) first love, tied to early experiences with brands that caused a strong feeling of loyalty and contributed to self-concept; (2) secret admire r, the admiration of a brand that cannot be purchased because of limited resources; a nd (3) fun buddy, the asso ciation of a brand

PAGE 34

19 with fun. Based on this research, it is reasonable to assume that adolescents form relationships with organizations for many r easons, some of which (and possibly all of which) influence self-concept and identity. If children and adolescents form relationships with brands that look different from adult relationships, it is likely that the same is true for organization-public re lationships for adolescents and for adults. How organizations participate in those re lationships is of great significance, because the outcome of the relationship ma y impact adolescents along developmental lines. The study of the organization-public rela tionship has identified six strategies that organizations can use to engage in a relationship in a way that encourages positive relational outcomes. These six will be discus sed in the context of adult relationships, adolescent relationships and the organization-public relationship. In addition, a seventh strategy will be proposed and tested in this study. Maintenance strategies The second element of Hon and Grunig (1999)s model of organization-public relationships has been named maintenance strategies. This term derives from literature on relationships that examines the ways romantic partners actively engage in strategies to sustain the relationship (Canar y & Stafford, 1993; Stafford & Canary, 1991; Canary et al, 1993; Dainton & Stafford, 1994; Canary, Stafford & Semic, 2002). As stated earlier, in the public relations literature, studies have examined only the strategies engaged by the organizations toward the public; as well, the assessment of the relationship has been confined to the examin ation of the relationa l quality outcomes as perceived by the public. Understanding of the function of the organization-public relationship would benefit from studies in th e other direction, meaning exploration of the maintenance strategies engaged by the pub lics and relational quality outcomes as

PAGE 35

20 perceived by the organization. As well, the l iterature would benefit from the study of the behavioral outcomes and consequences of the relationship on the publics and organizations. This would move the focus of study from attempts by organizations to control the relationship through the use of main tenance strategies that keep beneficial publics from abandoning the relationship and threatening publics from harming the organization and focus on a balanced approach of organization and public each participating in the maintenance of the relatio nship for mutual benefit. As it stands, the literature seems to endorse the use of ma intenance strategies by the organization primarily to benefit the organization. Hon and Grunig (1999) and Grunig and Huang (2000) explore the communication and behavioral strategies th at can be engaged to mainta in the relationships. These strategies are based on theories of interper sonal communication and th eories of conflict resolution. In the interpersona l literature, Stafford and Canary (1991) gauge the success of relationship management between romantic couples by measuring five dimensions of relationship strategies: positivity (such as at tempts to make the relationship enjoyable for both), openness (such as disclosure of thoughts and feelings), assurances (of love and commitment), networking (having common fr iends), and shared tasks (taking joint responsibility for household tasks) (Grunig & Huang, 2000, p.36). Grunig and Huang (2000) point to strategies in the conflict and negotiation literature used by organizations to negotiate conflict, as identified by Pl owman et al (1995). These are contending (attempting to persuade a public of an or ganizations opinion), avoiding (abandoning the conflict), accommodating (lowering expecta tions of outcome), compromising (reaching an agreement but not one that satisfies a ll parties), cooperating (reaching an agreement

PAGE 36

21 that satisfies all parties), being unconditionally constructive (being willing to sacrifice for the sake of the relationship), and saying w in-win or no deal (entering a negotiation determined to reach an agreement in which all parties feel successful). Organizations such as community se rvice organizations, sport and arts organizations and faith-based organizations could sustain their re lationship with publics through the use of these stra tegies. However, little is known about how maintenance strategies impact the organizationpublic relationship for adolescents. Maintenance strategies with adolescent publics Research on organization-public relati onships has not yet investigated the maintenance strategies that are effective with adolescent publics. However, the strategies proposed and tested by Stafford and Canary (1991) in relationships w ith romantic couples positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and networking have been used in the adolescent literature to st udy the relationship between a dolescents and parents (VoglBauer et al, 1999) and found a relationship be tween the perceived use of maintenance strategies in the relationship and sa tisfaction with th e relationship. A review of literature on adol escent relationships reveals that other strategies may be at work in the organization-adolescent public relationship. Three t ypes of relationships offer promise as a foundation for extracting maintenance strategies for organizationadolescent public relationships with adolescents. They are the three most significant types of relationships during adoles cence: parent-child relationshi ps, peer relationships and romantic relationships. Characteristics of parent-child relationship: Arguably the relationship with the most long-term impact on adolescents soci alization is the parent-child relationship (Youniss & Haynie, 1992). This relationship tends to be much more asymmetrical than

PAGE 37

22 relationships with peers or romantic part ners (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Research has found that in a child-paren t relationship, adolescents are more satisfied when they receive more benefits from the relationship, even when they consider themselves overbenefited at the expense of parents (Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999 ). Adolescents who reported being under-benefited in the parent-child relationship reported lower scores on maintenance strategies (positivity, openness, assurances, social network and shared tasks) than those who reported an equitable relati onship. As well, those who reported being over-benefited reported higher sc ores than those in an equi table relationship (Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999). This indicates that the amount of power adolescents recei ve in this type of relationship ties to their satisfaction with th e relationship. As well, adolescents perceived relationships as benefiting them more wh en they agreed more strongly that the maintenance strategies were being used in their relationships with parents. This has implications for the organization-adolescen t public relationship, especially for those organizations that take an authoritative role over adolescents (e.g. high school). Adolescents who perceived grea ter use of the maintenance strategies in a relationship with an authority figure felt more benefite d in the relationship, and more benefited adolescents were more likely to feel satisfi ed in the relationship. Though the link between the maintenance strategies and satisfaction in the relationship have an intermediate factor (power or perceived benefit of the relationship) in this research, it still establishes a link between the maintenance strategies with adolescents and outcome measures to be discussed later in the text.

PAGE 38

23 Based on this, the study proposed here will test whether a similar link exists between maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes in the organizationpublic relationship with adolescents as it does in the adolescent-parent relationship. Characteristics of peer relationships: Peer relationships are more influential than romantic relationships during this stage of life (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). In actuality, same-sex friendships provide the most support and relative power as well as the least conflict1. The study of maintenance strategies of same-sex or peer friendships among adolescents may be as appropriate, if not more so, than the maintenance strategies derived from communication in romantic relationships. Peer relationships play a significant role in adolescence, acting as conduits for identity experimentation and identity development (Ladd, 2004). As young people disengage from family and begi n to experiment with independence, they spend more time with peers and less with family (Fre eman, Csikszentmihalyi, and Larson, 1986). Adolescents peer culture take s on a life of its own, defining the norms for behavior and dress for its members (Ladd, 2004). This beco mes the world to which the adolescents have the most allegiance. It is into this context that the organization-adolescent public relationship must fit. This suggests that the organization-adolescent public relationship may have different characteristics than th e organization-adult public relationship. As well, different variables may be at play in the relationship with adolescents. In the peer relationship lite rature, factors in the qual ity of friendships include security, companionship, closeness, help, and conflict (Bukowski, Boivin and Hoza, 1 Student-teacher relationships invo lve the least conflict an d sibling-sibling relati onships offer the most relative power at this stage, but am ong peers, friends and parents, the above statement is accurate (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992).

PAGE 39

24 1994) as well as help and guidance, compan ionship and recreation, conflict and betrayal, validation and caring, and conf lict resolution (Parker & Asher, 1993). One of the most helpful works on young peoples relational main tenance strategies comes from Gottman and Graziano (1983). They have found that ch ildren maintain relati onships with peers through the following processes: communication clarity and connectedness, information exchange, establishing a comm on-ground activity, the explora tion of similarities and differences, conflict resolution, positive reci procity, and self-disclosure (p. 1). Though the study was conducted with children, the l iterature has generalized its findings to adolescents (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996). These qualities give us a picture of the adolescent peer relationship mirroring the a dult peer relationship in many ways, including the balance between companionship/closen ess and conflict/betrayal. However, the aspects of security and guid ance (including help) may be so mewhat unique to adolescent relationships. This study will explore the us e of guidance in the organization-public relationship with adolescents. Characteristics of romantic relationships: For young children, romantic relationships do not play a significant role in their support system (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992), so likely the study of relational maintenance strategies for that young age group should not be based on maintenance strategies of romantic relationships. Adolescents, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in a romantic relationship, with 36 percent of seventh graders engaging in th is type of relationship, a number that increases to 45 percent for tenth graders and 67 percent for college students (Ladd, 2004; Feiring, 1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Connolly, Furman and Konarski, 2000). Romantic relationships among a dolescents have become an in creasingly popular area of

PAGE 40

25 study (Shulman & Scharf, 2000; Florsheim, 2003; Furman & Shaffer, 2003; Collins, 2003). These relationships play a role in a number of developmen tal tasks in which adolescents engage, including the following. (a) the development of an identity, (b) the transformation of family relationships, (c) the development of close relationships with peers, (d) the development of sexuality, and (e) scholastic achievement and career planning. (Furman & Schaffer, 2003, p. 3) The romantic relationship is not as influential as others during adolescence, and yet it does contribute to identity development (as well as many other aspects of development). As discussed earlier, the maintenance strategies proposed in the public relations literature for the study of the organization-public relationship are based on the study of romantic relationships in the interper sonal literature. Consid ering the impact that romantic relationship have on adolescent development, these maintenance strategies will be tested for influence in the orga nization-public rela tionship as well. General characteristics of adolescent relationships: Some research has looked more generally at the way adolescents relati onships (peer, parental and romantic) can be affected. This research has identified a number of factors of rela tionships: attachment (security and availability), caretaking (enjoyment of care, amount of care, security of care), affiliation (harmony, similarity, investment in relationship), intimacy (selfdisclosure and satisfaction with intimacy), conflict (addressing and resolving vs. denying conflict and holding a grudge) and emotional expression (expression of emotion, rational vs. emotional, emotional confusion and emotional control) (Furman, 1996). The relationship qualities and strategies of adolescent relationshi ps provide insight into how the relational maintenance strategi es proposed in the public relationship and interpersonal literature may impact relations hips with adolescents. The following is an

PAGE 41

26 exploration of several maintenance stra tegies derived from the interpersonal communication and public relations literature positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness, networking and access. Engaging these strategies proactively in communication between organizations and adol escent publics has poten tial to impact the relationship between the two partners. Positivity: In the interpersonal relationship lite rature, the concept of positivity is associated with pleasant interactions. When one partner makes the re lationship or a single interaction more enjoyable or pleasant for the other, that partner is engaging the strategy of positivity. A few examples of positivity are being nice and cheerful, offering favors, demonstrating prosocial behaviors, and showing affection (Canary et al, 1993, p. 9). With adults, this strategy acts as a predictor of trust, control mutuality, liking and relational satisfaction (Stafford & Cana ry, 1991; Canary & Stafford, 1993; Dainton & Stafford, 1994). In addition, it has been correlated with commitment over time (Canary, Stafford & Semic, 2002). In the public relations literature, this strategy would be considered anything the organization or public does to make the re lationship more enjoyable for the parties involved (Hon & Grunig, 14). According to Grunig and Huang (2000), this concept is related to the principle of being unconditiona lly constructive as proposed by Fisher and Brown (1988). That concept has been adopted in to the models of public relations and into the conflict negotiation literature in public relations Recent research on organizationpublic relationships has found positivity to be a predic tor of control mutuality, satisfaction and trust (Ki, 2006).

PAGE 42

27 In the adolescent literature, the maintenan ce strategy of positivity predicts length of relationship through a transition (Oswald & Clark, 2003). In addition positivity in the form of pro-social behavior is a predictor of positive p eer relationships. Pro-social behavior predicts outcomes of conflict, closeness, companionship, helping, and security (Cillessen et al, 2005, p 165) as we ll as predicting quality of friendship and affective behaviors in friendships (Mar kiewicz, 2001). In summary, positivity in adolescent relationships results in positive outco mes; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that positivity may impact an adolescents perception of the organization-public relationship as well. Assurances: In the interpersonal relations hip literature, assurances are characterized as covertly and overtly assu ring each other of th e importance of the relationship (Canary et al, 1993, p.9). Th ese assurances come in the form of supportiveness, comfort, need satisfac tion and overt e xpression (e.g. the expression of unconditional love) (Canary et al, 1993, p.9-10). A relational partner makes assurances by declaring love or pledging co mmitment to the relationship (Canary et al, 2002). This concept correlates with liking, commitment and control mutuality (Canary et al, 2002) and predicts relational satisfaction (Dainton et al, 1994). Assurances as a concept in the public rela tions literature extends to the notion of legitimacy as attempts by parties in the relationship to assure the other party that they and their concerns are legitimate (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 15). Legitimacy has been used as a core characteristic in theory (Jensen, 1997) and as a dimension of excellent public relations (L.A. Grunig, 1992). Recent research has identified assurances as the strongest predictor of relational quality outcomes in the or ganization-public relationship

PAGE 43

28 (Ki, 2006). The same research found that assuran ces predict all four outcomes: control mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment. In the adolescent literature, supportivene ss, one aspect of assurances, impacts adolescent behavior. Supportiveness from pare nts and friends mediat es illegal behaviors by adolescents (Urberg et al, 2005), and supportiveness within a close relationship predicts the survival of a relationship through a transition (Oswald & Clark, 2003). Supportiveness within the family environmen t reduces conflict (Rueter & Conger, 1995). In many relationships, aspects of assurances result in positive out comes for adolescents. The same may be true for the organizatio n-public relationship with adolescents. Shared tasks: In the interpersonal literature, the sharing of tasks typically involves performing routine tasks and chores in a re lationship (Canary et al, 1993, p. 10). Often in the literature, this concept is explored as the shar ing of cleaning or other household chores. Relationships that enga ge in equitable distribution of tasks result in partners who are more satisfied (Canary et al, 1993). This concept is related to liking, commitment and control mutuality as well as relational satisfaction (Canary et al, 2002; Dainton & Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991). In the public relations litera ture, this concept is actual ized through a mutual task taken on by an organization and public. Pr actically, examples include reducing pollution, providing employment, making a profit and staying in business, which are in the interest of either the organization, the public, or bot h (Grunig & Huang, 2000). In this way, members of the relationship share i n solving joint or separate problems (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Shared tasks predict cont rol mutuality and satisfaction in the organization-public re lationship (Ki, 2006).

PAGE 44

29 The concept of shared task is somewhat similar to the relational strategy of establishing a common ground activity (G ottman & Graziano, 1983) in the child development literature. Research found that children initiated pl ay by engaging each other in a simple common ground activity that leads to symmetri cal communication and ultimately to a more complex activity. As well, when adolescents participate in community service activities, as discussed in an earlier secti on, they are working with the organization to accomplish a common goal. Base d on this, is it reasonable to assume that shared tasks in an organization-public re lationship would have positive relational outcomes for adolescent publics. Openness: The concept of openness in the inte rpersonal relationships literature involves sharing of information. Partners who engage in candid communication without judgment are engaging in openness. Canary et al (1993) describe it as direct discussions and listening to one another (p. 9). Behaviors associ ated with openness are selfdisclosure, meta-relational communicat ion, advice, conflict engagement and empathic behavior (Canary et al, 1993, p. 9). Although the initial research conceptualized openness as including advice, later research found advice to be an independent construct (Stafford et al, 2000). (This dissertation will conceptualize advice as a construct indepe ndent of openness). Openness correlates with outcomes of liking, commitment and control mutuality (Canary et al, 2002), and it acts as a predictor for relational satisf action (Dainton et al, 1994). In the public relations lite rature, openness of thoughts a nd feelings among parties involved (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 14) is an important concept (Ledingham, 1998). The excellence theory (Grunig & White, 1992) a nd models of public relations (Grunig &

PAGE 45

30 Grunig, 1989) are built on the concept of sy mmetry, the idea that partners in a relationship exchange information openly and fairly, with each behaving ethically with the information received. Openness acts as a predictor of the tendency to stay in a relationship with an organi zation or leave it (Ledingham, 1998). However, recent research has found that perceptions of this maintenance strategy do not directly predict any of the relational outcomes control mutuality, satisfac tion, trust and commitment for organization-public relations hips with adults (Ki, 2006). More research needs to be done to determine whether this strategy does in fact contribute to the organization-public relationship through its influence on other main tenance strategies. As well, the strategy may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for positive quality outcomes. Erikson (1963) identified openness to be one of the concepts that make up intimacy. In the adolescent rela tionship, self-disclosure as an aspect of openness predicts success of a close relationship through a transition (Oswald & Clark, 2003). In the parentchild relationship, self-disclosure is a measurab le quality of the relationship (Matza et al, 2001) that is associated with family communication, family cohesion, and satisfaction with family relationships (P apini & Farmer, 1990, p. 959). This concept is similar to the concept of intimacy (Furman, 1996) and se lf-disclosure (Gottm an & Graziano, 1983) found in the adolescent literature. Th ough openness in the organization-public relationship has not been examined with adolescent publics, it is reasonable to hypothesize that it will have positive out comes in that relationship as well. Networking: In the interpersonal literature, the use of networking or social networks is the act of rel ying on the support of friends a nd family (Canary et al, 1993, p. 10). Relational partners engage in netw orking when they spend time with mutual

PAGE 46

31 friends. Like many of the other maintenance strategies, networking has been correlated with liking, commitment and control mutuality among adults (Canary et al, 2002). It, too, is a predictor of re lational satisfaction (D ainton & Stafford, 1994). The relationship is more satisfying for partners when they share mutual friends and spend time with family members (Canary et al, 2002). In the public relationships literature, this concept has not been explored as thoroughly as some of the other maintenan ce strategies. Hon and Grunig (1999) define networking as organizations bu ilding networks or coalitions with the same groups that their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, or community groups (p. 15). This concept is offered as an extension of the interpersonal concept of social networking, which results in enjoyment of the relati onship (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Like openness, this maintenance strategy has fallen into question recently. One study has found that it has no direct predictive power for relati onal outcomes in the organization-public relationship (Ki, 2006). More research needs to be done to determine whether networking, like openness, has an impact on the organization-public relationship. Social networks provide a safe place for adolescents to experiment with identity and self expression (Shilshte in, 2001). However, the study of the impact of social networks on individual relations hips is still an open area. Access: This maintenance strategy is not f ound in the interpersonal literature. Rather, it is the only maintenance strate gy derived soley from the public relations literature. Hon and Grunig (1999) first proposed this strategy with this explanation: Accessmembers of publics or opinion leaders provide access to public relations people. Public relations representative or senior managers pr ovide representatives of publics similar access to organizational decision-making processes. Either party will answer telephone calls or read letters or e-mail message s from the other. Either

PAGE 47

32 party is willing to go to the other when they have complaints or queries, rather than taking negative reactions to third parties. (p. 14) Research in public relations has found this ma intenance strategy to be a predictor of the relational outcome of control mutuality (Ki, 2006). Maintenance strategies influence the relational quality outcomes in interpersonal relationships, an d the literature in public relations predicts that they will do the same in the organization-public relationship (Table 2-2). Proposal of a new maintenance strategy The review of adolescent rela tionship literature above seem s to suggest a number of additional maintenance strategies that would impact the organization-adolescent public relationship, including guidance, caretaking, conflict resolution, positi ve reciprocity and provision of security. The first of these, guidance, will be conceptualized and operationalized in the study presented here. Guidance: Two concepts, advice and guida nce, tend to overlap in the interpersonal literature, with guidance hol ding a broader definition that includes the provision of advice. The following section will explore the uses of these two terms and variations of them in the literature on a dult interpersonal relationships, adolescent interpersonal relationships, a nd public relations, with a goal of deriving a well-explicated definition of guidance. In early studies of relational maintenance strategies in marital relationships, the concept of openness included an element called advice; however later studies found advice to be an independent relational main tenance strategy in which romantic partners engage (Stafford et al, 2000). Advice in this context consisted of tw o measures, I tell my partner what I think s/he should do about he r/his problems and I give him/her my

PAGE 48

33 opinion on things going on in his/her life (S tafford et al, 2000, p. 312). Other studies, too, found advice to be an independent re lational maintenance strategy (Aylor & Dainton, 2004; Dainton & Aylor, 2002). Advice has been correlat ed with relational outcomes of control mutuality, liking and sati sfaction (Stafford et al, 2000); however, a stepwise regression did not find the strategy of advice to be a direct predictor of any of the three outcomes. Despite the lack of direct predictive power of advice for outcomes of adult romantic relationships, the broader concept of guidance as discussed in the adolescent literature (Mendelson & Aboud, 1999; Parker & Asher, 1993; Bukowski, Hoza and Boivin, 1994) may play a significant role in perception of quality outcomes in organization-adolescent relationships. In a st udy of early adolescent friendships, Parker and Asher (1993) identified a single quality named help and guidance. This concept is demonstrated when a friend offers assistance that allows the other to complete tasks more quickly or when a friend provides advice to a nother. Measures of this concept include helps me so I can get done quicker, hel p each other with schoolwork a lot, gives advice with figuring things out, count on each other for good ideas on how to get things done, come up with good ideas on ways to do things, loan each other things all the time, share things with each other, do special favors for each other, and help each other with chores a lot (Par ker & Asher, 1993). Adolescents who rated a close friendship as higher in help and guidance indicated a greater satisfaction with that relationship. Eliminating the measures that are associated with help leaves two elements advising others and offering ideas to one another. These elements are two of the ways in which adolescent friends provide guidance to one another.

PAGE 49

34 Parents are significant sources of advice (M cHale et al, 2000; Tucker et al, 2001) and guidance (Bronstein & Duncan, 1996) fo r adolescents as well. The definition of advice in the adolescent lite rature appears to be limited to the giving of counsel about a specific problem or decision (Tucker et al, 2001), while the definition of guidance incorporates the broader act s of setting limits and provi ding overall direction for adolescents. The concept [of guidance] refers to parents providing direction, information, guidelines, and limits for their children so that they learn cu lturally appropriate behaviors and values, as well as life skills and good judgment. It may also involve helping them to develop thei r talents and interests and finding ways to stimulate intellectual growth (Br onstein et al, 1996, p. 417) The presence of guidance in the parent-adolescent relationship is assumed, and the lack of it can result in negative social and behavioral outcomes (Str om et al, 1998; Strom & Strom, 2002; Dishion et al, 2004). Parent -adolescent relationships that include an element of guidance are rated as higher in overall quality, incl uding higher perceived responsiveness and supportiv eness (Brody et al, 2005). In the public relationship literature, one of the responsibilities of public relations managers is acting as key po licy and strategy advisor (Mos s et al, 2005). This occurs when practitioners offer advice or counsel to senior management, also called the dominant coalition. Acting in a role of advisor is a way of building the relationship between the public relations department and the highest level of management, with the goal of earning a seat for public re lations among the dominant coalition. Together, the concepts of advice and guidance are found in the literature related to romantic relations hips, peer/friendships, pare nt-child relationships and relationships within public relations. Defi nitions of these concepts in the adult interpersonal literature, adol escent interpersonal literature and the public relations

PAGE 50

35 literature cover a broad spectrum (Table 2-3). The narrowest definition is that of advice in the interpersonal literature, which is operationalized as (1) making recommendations for solutions to problems and (2) offering an opinion about a part ners life situation (Stafford et al, 2000). In the adolescent pe er/friendship literatu re, guidance includes being advised by a friend or having a friend offer ideas (Parker &Asher, 1993). Guidance provided by parents includes providing directio n, information, guidelines, and limits as well as help in the development of intere sts and talents (Bronstein & Duncan, 1996, p. 417) as well as helpful discussions about life decisions (Tucker et al, 2001), specific advice about problems (McHale et al, 2000) a nd instructing adoles cents about values (Strom et al, 1998; Strom & Strom, 2002). In th e public relations lite rature, giving advice is a management role that builds the ties to senior management and ultimately earns public relations more influence in the organization (Moss et al, 2005). The definitions seem to fall into three categories: (1) expert who gives advice, makes recommendations, acts as reliable source for ideas, helps solve problems, provides direction, provides information, sets guidelines and sets limits; (2) educator who teaches values, teaches self-evaluation, develops individuals interest and deve lops individuals talents; and (3) friend who offers an opinion and helps generate ideas. Certainly these categories have some overlap; however, each definition identified in the literature seems to fit primarily into one of the categories. For this study, the definition of guidance will be limited to the first category, the category of expert. While the other two cat egories of guidance are important in the parent-adolescent relationship and in adolescent-peer relationships, the organizationpublic relationship likely would benefit most from examples of guidance that fall into the

PAGE 51

36 first category. However, one element within the expert category overlaps with another relational maintenance strategy. The elemen t of providing information seems to be assumed in the maintenance strategy of access, when information is offered about the organization, about its uses of resources, about its decision pr ocesses and about its leadership. In the interest of explicating an independent definition of guidance, the element of providing information as an act of guidance will be restricted to those instances in which information is offered w ith the intention of assisting another. The definition could be further streamlined by eliminating redundancies in the definition, resulting in a modified version of Br onstein and Duncan, (1996) definition: Guidance is defined as advice, help, directi on or support. One can give guidance by offering counsel, developing guidelines, se tting limits, assisting with decision making, providing information with the intent of aiding or act as a reliable source for ideas. This proposed relational maintenance stra tegy will be tested along with the other strategies for their impact on relational quality outcomes. Relational quality outcomes The third element in Broom et al.s ( 1997) model of relationship focuses on the consequences of the relationship. Hon a nd Grunig (1999) and Gr unig and Huang (2000) point primarily to Huang (1997; 2001) for their suggested outcomes: control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction. While Broom et al. define relationship consequences as outputs that have the effects of changing the environment and of achieving, maintaining, or changing goal states both inside and outside the organization (p. 16), Grunig and Huang focus on the measurable ou tcomes that indicate the state of the relationship.

PAGE 52

37 Based on an extensive review of interpersonal communication literature, Huang (1997; 2001) proposed that four outcomes would capture the complex state that exists between an organization and a public: c ontrol mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment. These four measurable outcomes app ear to play a role in adult interpersonal relationships, adolescent rela tionships and in the public relations relationships. Control mutuality: Control mutuality involves the perception by all parties that they have a reasonable amount of power in the relationship (Grunig & Huang, 2000). [Control mutuality is] the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power to influence one another. Although some degree of power imbalance is natural in organization-public relationships, unilateral attempts to achieve control by one party are associated with decreases in perceptions of communicator competence and satisfaction with the rela tionship and increases in the level of activism. For the most stable, positive relationship, organizati ons and publics must have some degree of control over the other (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 19). The interpersonal literature offers a simila r definition of control mutuality as the extent that both parties agree on who has the right to influence the other (Canary et al, 2002, p. 397). The equitable distribution of power in an interpersonal relationship has been tied to relationa l satisfaction (Canary & Stafford, 1992). Recent research in public relations has found that control mutualit y is predicted by relational maintenance strategies of access, positivit y, shared tasks and assurances (Ki, 2006). The same study found that control mutuality does not contri bute significantly to th e overall relationship quality. In the adolescent li terature, perceived relative control in peer and romantic relationships increases as i ndividuals mature from chil dhood through adolescence and is related to the quality of a relationship (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Adolescents who perceive greater control in their parent-child relationship report gr eater satisfaction with that relationship (Vogl -Bauer et al, 1999).

PAGE 53

38 Satisfaction: One of the most significant gauge s of success of interpersonal relationships is the level of relational satisfaction (Hendr ick, 1988; Canary & Stafford, 1992; Dainton, Stafford & Canary, 1994). In the public relations lit erature, satisfaction with an organization-public re lationship has been predicted by publics perceptions of trust, openness, involvement, investment and commitment (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000) in the relationship. [Satisfaction is] the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the re lationship are reinforced. Or, a satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the co sts. Satisfaction also can occur when one party believes that the other partys relationship maintenance behaviors are positive. (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 20) Satisfaction in an organization-public relatio nship is predicted by relational maintenance strategies of positivity, shared tasks and assurances (Ki, 2006). Satisfaction in an organization-public relationship is a fairly strong predictor of trust in the relationship, and it is a strong predictor of th e overall relationship quality (K i, 2006). The strength of prosocial beliefs and goals impacts satisfaction in adolescent peer relationships (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996; Berndt, 1982). As well, the more adolescents benefit from a parent-child relationship, the more they indicate satisfac tion in that relationship (Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999). Trust: The construct of trust appears in bot h the interpersonal and public relations literature (Canary & Cupach, 1988; L.A. Gr unig, 1992). In public relations, trust is critical to reputation management. [Trust is] one partys level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party. Trust is a complicated concept, which has several underlying dimensions. One of these is integrity, the beli ef that an organization is fair and just. A second is dependability, the belief that an organization will do what it says it will do. A third is competence, the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do. In the context of the pub lic-organization relati onship, the value of

PAGE 54

39 a trustworthy reputation is so great that it becomes ra tional not to try to seize any short-term advantage. (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 19) Trust in an interpersonal relationship has b een linked to an increase in security, a reduction in inhibition and defens iveness and an increase in freedom to share feelings (Larzelere & Huston, 1980). Two concepts seem to influence trust in a relationship a partners benevolence and honesty. The factor of trust influences another outcome of an organization-public relationship: commitmen t (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Recent research has found that satisfaction in an organization-public relationship predicts trust which then predicts commitment to the relationship (K i, 2006). The same st udy found that relational maintenance strategies positivity and assurances predict trust. Trust in the adolescent literature has been linked to the success of relationships (Raw lins & Hall, 1987; Rotenberg et al, 2004). Commitment: The construct of commitment in organization-public relationships is the extent to which one party believes and f eels that the relationshi p is worth spending time to maintain and promote (Hon & Gruni g, 1999, p. 20). Commitment is predicted by the relational maintenance strategy of assuran ces and by the relational quality outcome of trust (Ki, 2006). The concep t of commitment contains two concepts: continuance commitment and affective commitment (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Continuance commitment is the promise to continue a certain line of action (p. 46). Affective commitment is an affective or emotional orie ntation to an entity (p. 46), a feeling of dedication or loyalty to a rela tionship. Meyer and Allens (1984) work on the influence of side-bets on commitment to organizati on relationships found that the level of investment in the relationship influences commitment.

PAGE 55

40 Measuring these four qualities has become the commonly accepted way of measuring the outcomes of an organization-public relationship (Ledingham, 2006). However, not all scholars agree with this approach. Broom et al (1997) claim that a true measure of the relationship must be conducted on the second element of the relationship concept of relationships or maintenance st rategies arguing that measurements of outcomes of a relationship may not accurately reflect the state of the relationship They hold that outcome measurements are primarily measures of one partys perceptions of the relationships and do not capture the full pictur e of the state of the relationships. Grunig and Huang (2000), on the other hand, argue that measurement of outcomes is sufficient to determine the quality of the relationship. The authors hold that ones perspective on the relationship is of fundamental importance in gauging the success of the relationship. Based on this premise, much of the organiza tion-public relationshi p research measures the outcomes of the organizationpublic relationships as an in dication of strength of the relationship. The study presented here will attempt to measure both the second and third elements of the organization-public relations hip (relational mainte nance strategies and relational quality outcomes) and the relationship that exists between them in an attempt to more fully understand the nature of the or ganization-adolescent public relationship. A Model of the Organization-Public Relationship Based on the literature reviewed abov e, a model of the organization-public relationship can be conceived (Figure 2-1). In this model, both the organization and public engage in maintenance strategies to su stain their relationship. The effort that one partner invests in maintaining the relationship likely influences the efforts the other will make in engaging strategies. As each partner disp lays more or less effort in sustaining the

PAGE 56

41 relationship, that will influen ce relational quality outcomes. In this model it is proposed that not only will the types of strategies and the level of perceived strategy engagement influence ones partner, but the effort one makes to sustain the relationship will influence ones own relational quality outcomes. Likely other variables influence the quality of the relationship as well, including involvement attitudes, expectation and antecedents. The quality of the relationship, as judg ed by the relational quality outcomes, influences other outcomes for the publics (Ki, 2006), including positive or negative behavioral outcomes, ranging from purchasing products from the organization to learning pro-social behaviors. For the organization, relational quality outcomes of the organization and the public will be indicators of the orga nizations success in the marketplace. The goal of the organization is to secure e nough resources to continue functioning and contributing to its environment. It accomplis hes this through the positive relationships it builds with publics. In the study proposed here, only one small piece of this model will be tested, the effects of an organizations engagement of maintenance strategies on an adolescent publics judgment of the quality of the re lationship, measured by the relational quality outcomes. Linking Relational Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes One prior study of the relationship between relational maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes in the organizational-public rela tionship has found that four of the six maintenance strategies directly predict the four quality outcomes of the relationship when data were subjected to a multiple regression and a subsequent path analysis (Ki, 2006) (Figure 2-2, Table 2-5). In addition, the study found a significant

PAGE 57

42 predictive relationship between the relati onal quality outcomes, with satisfaction predicting trust and trust predicting commitment to the relationship. The study, which identified the links between maintenance strategies and quality outcomes, surveyed adult members of a statewide industry organization (Ki, 2006). Because the data were collected from onl y one public of one organization, its generalizability is somewhat limited. The st udy proposed here will collect data from publics of multiple organizations in an attemp t to establish greater generalizability. Based on a review of the adolescen t literature, the study reporte d here proposes that the maintenance strategies will in fluence quality outcomes differe ntly for adolescents, as will be described below. In addition, the study tests an additional maintenance strategy, guidance, which was identified in the adolescent literature. Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship In addition to establishing the existence of the organization-pu blic relationship and identifying its elements, studies of organization-public relations hips have measured satisfaction with relation ships (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000), intended behavior (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingha m, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Bruning, 2000; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning et al, 2006), actual behavior (Wilson, 2000; Bruning, 2002), effect of communicati on on relationships (Jo & Kim, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000), ways organizations employ relationship management techniques (Kent, Taylor & White, 2003; Dougall, 2006), and the correlation between a publics knowledge of certain information about the organization and perceived strength of the relationship (Hall, 2006). Most studies have been conducted using a survey methodology. While surveys canno t establish causal relationships between variables, they are appropriate for the ear ly exploration of the elements of the

PAGE 58

43 relationship. Much work has been done to develop a reliable scale for outcome measurement (Huang 1997; 2001; others), and some work is beginning around maintenance strategies (Ki, 2006). The st udy presented here likewise will employ a survey methodology to assess the relationship between relational main tenance strategies and relational quality outcomes for adolescent members of publics. Intended Behavior While understanding of the influence of relationship maintenance strategies on relational quality outcomes for adolescents in an organiza tion-public relationship is a worthy study by itself, this study will attemp t to explore how quality outcomes influence the future behavior of teen volunteers. This study investigates th e potential link between the level of relational quality that adolescen ts experience in their adolescent volunteernonprofit organization and their lik elihood to volunteer in the future. By investigating the consequence of the organization-public re lationship on intended behaviors of teen volunteers, this study highlight s the significance of this re lationship type and the importance that it may play in the future behavior of teen volunteers. The following sections will review lite rature on volunteerism and on intended behavior. Volunteerism Over 61 million individuals ages 16 a nd up volunteered their time to nonprofit organizations in 2006 (Grimm et al, 2007). This includes 26% of young people ages 1619. According to the Corporation for Nationa l and Community Service (Spring et al, 2006) young people donated more than 1.3 billi on hours to nonprofit organizations in 2005.

PAGE 59

44 Studies of antecedents of volunteer activity has found three strong predictors of volunteer behavior: (1) altruism (the feeling that one can make a contribution to the greater good), (2) need for activity (the need to have something to do) and (3) need for learning (the desire to take on new challe nges and learn new th ings) (Mowen & Sujan, 2005). Other research has examined the functi ons of community serv ice in the lives of volunteers. These functions includ e (1) values (acting on values that are important to the volunteer), (2) understanding (learning more about the world through the volunteer experience), (3) enhancement (growing and e xpanding personally), (4) career (learning skills that can be used in a career), (5) social (making social connections through a volunteer assignment) and (6) protection (e scaping from personal problems) (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157). When volunteer expectations are met in regard to these functions, volunteers are more likely to continue to volunteer (Clary et al, 1998). As discussed earlier, the benefits for t een volunteers include building positive relationships, increased social responsibility, and more pe rsonal competence. As well, volunteering is an opportunity fo r adolescents to lear n skills that will assist in future career goals. Other research has suggested that volunteerism among youth can increase political engagement in some cases (Walke r, 2002; Tossutti, 2003). These are significant benefits that may be impacted by the quality of relationship between an adolescent and organization. It would be important to examine any relationship between the quality of the relationship that teens experience with an organizati on for which they volunteer and their future intentions to volunteer. Volunteer intended behavior The theory of the hierarchy of effects posits that there are thre e classifications of effects: cognitive, attitudinal and behavior al (Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1964;

PAGE 60

45 Barry, 1987). This study will examine the eff ect of the adolescent volunteer-nonprofit relationship on an adolescents behavioral intent toward volunteering in the future. Behavioral intent is one of the causes of behavior, and can be used to predict the likelihood of behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) Studies of the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior have found a high correlation between intended behavior and actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1999). Studies in public relations have used intended behavior in their study of the organi zation-public relationship. Two seminal works in this area examined the re lationship between rela tional quality outcomes and intended behavior toward the organizati on (intention to conti nue the relationship) (Ki, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007). Both found that th e level of relationa l quality predicted intended behavior toward the organization. However, they found that attitude toward the organization was more str ongly predicted by relational quality and was a stronger predictor of intended behavior. Other studi es found that publics which more strongly identify themselves as being in a relationshi p with the organization, as well as those who indicate a stronger satisfaction with that re lationship, tend to indicat e a stronger intention to continue the relationship with the organization (Bruning, 2000, 2002). The study presented here examines the re lationship between relational quality and intended behavior, but rather than meas ure the intended behavior toward the organization, this study looks at the intended be havior toward future volunteering that is not organization specific. Rather, it looks at the likelihood that teens will intend to continue volunteering thr oughout their lifetime. Research has shown that when volunteers expectations of volunteering are not met, they quit volunteering, not necessarily switch to another organization (Cla ry & Snyder, 1999). Th is suggests that the

PAGE 61

46 quality of a volunteer experi ence impacts an individuals future volunteer behavior. Possibly the quality of a volunt eer-nonprofit relations hip impacts volunteer s intention to continue volunteering as well. This hypothesized relations hip was tested in the study presented here. While the model for the association betw een relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes measures th e relationship at the organizational level (public rather than individual) intended behavior for future behavior unrelated to the organization is an individual choi ce; therefore, it is measured at the individual level. This study posited that the organizational relations hip teens experience will influence his/her likelihood to volunteer in the future. Research Questions and Hypotheses The study presented here predicts that the links between relational maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes found by Ki (2006) will hold for the organization-adolescent relationship because these predictions do not contradict the literature on adolescent relations hips. In addition, based on a revi ew of the literature, this study predicts additional links between maintenance strategies and quality outcomes for an adolescent public and a link between relational quality outcomes and volunteer intended behavior. First, the study explores whether all seven relationship maintenance strategies discussed above positivity, guidance, assura nces, shared tasks, openness, networking and access will contribute significantly to the overall construct of relational maintenance in the adolescent-organization public relationship. This includes the new strategy of guidance, which is proposed and defined in this chap ter. A prior study found that strategies of positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and networking are

PAGE 62

47 significantly predicted by the c onstruct of relational maintena nce, but access is not (Ki, 2006). The model as proposed by Hon and Gr unig (1999) includes the construct of access, and not enough evidence exists to remove it at this time. Research question 1: Are the relationshi p maintenance strategies of positivity, guidance, assurances, shared tasks, openness, networking and access reliable and valid measurements of relationship main tenance in the adolescent-organization relationship? Second, the study explores the relationship between the relational quality outcomes and the overall construct of relational quali ty. The model of the organization-public relationship proposed by Hon and Grunig ( 1999) posits that four relational quality outcomes satisfaction, trust, control mutu ality and commitment can be used to measure relational quality. Other work ha s found that three of the four outcomes (satisfaction, trust and commitment) were significantly predicted by the construct of relational quality (Ki, 2006). Control mu tuality was not. Again, not enough evidence exists to remove control mutuality from the model for the adolescent-organization relationship. This study inves tigated whether the four rela tional quality outcomes are significantly predicted by relational quality for this relationship type. Research question 2: Are the relational qua lity outcomes of satisfaction, trust, control mutuality and commitment reliable and valid measurements of relational quality in the adolescent-orga nization public relationship? Some research in the area of organizatio n-public relationships has suggested that certain relational quality outcomes may act as predictors or antecedents to others. Specifically, Ki (2006) and Ki and Hon (2007) f ound that satisfaction is an antecedent for trust and trust is an antecedent for commitme nt. The nature of the relationship between these quality outcomes in the adolescent-o rganization public rela tionship is not known. This study tested whether sati sfaction predicted trust and tr ust predicted commitment in

PAGE 63

48 the adolescent-organization public relations hip. Additionally, it tested the predictive power of control mutuality on sa tisfaction. Literature indicate s that teens who feel more powerful in their relationship with their pare nts are more satisfied with that relationship (Vogl-Bauer et al, 1999). This would suggest that control mutuality may act as an antecedent for satisfaction, with the model offering a linear relationship from control mutuality satisfaction trust commitment. Adolescents who feel more pleased with the level of control that they have in their relationship with a volunteer organization will feel more satisfied with that relationship. Likely this satisfaction is the result of the adolescents feeling that they are respected by the organization, thei r opinions are valued, and believing that they have the power to ma ke changes in areas that concern them. The level of satisfaction in the relationship then influences the level of trust that adolescent volunteers have in the relations hip. If adolescents feel that they have enough power in the relationship and they feel generally pleased wi th the relationship, likely they are going to feel more secure in the relationship (trust). If, on the other hand, adoles cents feel that they dont have adequate power in the relationshi p and they are generally not pleased with their relationship with the organization, then they may not feel secure in that relationship; they may not feel that the organization is treating them fairly and honestly. The fourth relational quality outcome is commitment, which is the degree to which publics feel that the organization is trying to build a long-term relationship as well as the publics belief that they, too, wish to continue the rela tionship. If the other three quality outcomes, control mutuality, satisfaction and trust, are low, then likely this will be low as well. If an organization is not providing adolescent volunteers with adequa te power or if adolescents are generally not happy with the relationshi p or adolescents don t trust the volunteer

PAGE 64

49 organization, then likely the teen volunteers wi ll not want to continue the relationship and probably will perceive the orga nization as not showing signs of wanting to continue the relationship, too. Based on these assump tions, the following hypot heses are proposed. Hypothesis 1: The level of c ontrol mutuality will signifi cantly predict the level of satisfaction in the organization-adolescent public relationship. Hypothesis 2: The level of sa tisfaction will significantly pred ict the level of trust in the organization-adolescent public relationship. Hypothesis 3: The level of tr ust will significantly predic t the level of commitment in the organization-adoles cent public relationship. Prior work in the area of organization-public relationships used multiple regression analysis to identify predicto rs of control mutuality. Four relationship maintenance strategies had significant predictive relationships with control mutuality. They were positivity, assurances, shared tasks and access (K i, 2006). This is in agreement with the adolescent literature, so the same will be pr edicted for this study. When an organization attempts to make interactions pleasant for th eir teen volunteers (pos itivity) or when they take teen volunteers concerns seriously (assurances), that will communicate to adolescents that they are valued and will incr ease their sense of power in the relationship. In addition, when teens perceive that they are working together with their volunteer organization to address issues important to them (shared tasks), this will increase their sense of control in the relationship. Teens will also feel more pleased with their level of power in the relationship when they have more access to upper level management in the organization (access). Hypothesis 4: The degree of control mutuality perceived in the adolescentorganization public relationshi p will be significantly pr edicted by the levels of positivity, assurances, shared tasks and acce ss the adolescent publics perceive in the relationship.

PAGE 65

50 Prior research found that satisfaction in the organization-public relationship was influenced by positivity, assurances and shar ed tasks (Ki, 2006). When organizations make communication pleasant, when they c onsider publics concerns, and when they engage with publics to addre ss issues important to those publics, this results in the publics feeling more pleased with the relatio nship. Two additional maintenance strategies are predicted to influence satisfaction in this study. First, openness has been linked to satisfaction with family rela tionships for adolescents (Pap ini, et al, 1990). In the adolescent-organization public relationship, this could mean that organizations that are more active in informing their adolescen t publics about upcoming changes in the organization will influence the level of satis faction that the publics feel with the organization. Second, the interp ersonal literatu re reflects that the provision of guidance creates greater satisfaction w ith close friendships in a dolescence (Parker & Asher, 1993).In the organization-public relationship, th is may mean that adolescent publics will feel more satisfaction with their relationshi p with a volunteer organization if they feel they are being given adequate guidance in th eir assignment. Both of these strategies (openness and guidance) likely will influence the satisf action of an organizationadolescent relationship for the adolescent. Hypothesis 5: The degree of satisfacti on in the adolescentorganization public relationship will be significantly predicte d by the degree of positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and guidance that adolescent publics perceive in the relationship. Trust in an organization-public relations hip has been linked to the maintenance strategies of positivity and assu rances (Ki, 2006). This is likely the case for adolescent publics as well. The more that organizations attempt to make interactions positive with

PAGE 66

51 adolescents and the more that they acknowledge the concerns of adolescent volunteers, the greater the amount of trust that a dolescents will feel in the relationship. Hypothesis 6: The degree of trust in the adolescent-organization public relationship will be significantly predicted by the degr ee of positivity and assurances that adolescent publics percei ve in the relationship. Though a recent study found that only assuranc es positively influenced the degree of commitment (Ki, 2006), work in the fi eld of adolescent relationships found that positivity predicts the length of a relationship through transition. This would indicate that positivity may influence the commitment that adolescents have to a relationship. Therefore, this study predicts that both assu rances and positivity wi ll positively influence commitment. Again, when an organization attempts to make interactions with an adolescent pleasant, this will have an effect on the outcomes of the relationship. This study predicts that it will impact all four relational quality outcomes. In the case of commitment, the use of positivity by an orga nization would make the relationship more enjoyable, thus communicating to adolescen ts that the organization would like to continue the relationship and encouraging adolescents to choose to remain in the relationship. Positivity is a powerful strategy in interpersonal relationships and may hold the same power in the orga nization-public relationship. Hypothesis 7: The degree of commitment in the adolescent-organization public relationship will be significantly pred icted by the degree of positivity and assurances that adolescent public s perceive in the relationship. In addition to testing the elements of th e organization-public relationship, this study examined the impact of the level of quali ty of the relationship on intended behavior. Other studies have found a link between the level of quality in an organization-public behavior and a publics inten tion to behave toward that organization. This study goes beyond the organization and tests the influence of the quality of relationship on future

PAGE 67

52 intention toward the behavior itself. Likely adolescents current experiences with volunteering will influence the way that th ey perceive the value of volunteering in general, not just their per ception of volunteering for on particular organization. Because many individuals have their first experiences with volunteering in adolescence, these formative experiences, positive or negative, would be fundamental in an adolescents understanding of volunteering. If that is the case, then the organization-public relationship between adolescen ts and nonprofit organizations can have long-term impacts on the adolescent. Hypothesis 8: The level of re lational quality will significan tly influence the level of volunteer intended behavior among adolescents. To capture the influence that relationship maintenance strategies have on relational quality outcomes as well as the influence th e outcomes have on intended behavior the entire model was tested. Hypothesis 9: The level of relationship maintenance strategies will significantly influence the level of relational quality outcomes which will significantly influence the level of intended behavior.

PAGE 68

53 Table 2-1. Model of the organization-public relationship proposed by Hon & Grunig and Grunig & Huang Stages and Forms of Relationship Situational antecedents (behavioral consequences of each other [Interpenetration]) Maintenanc e Strategies Relationship Outcomes Organization affects public (O1 P1) Public affects organization (P1 O1) Organization-public coalition affects another organization (O1P1 O2) Organization-public coalition affects another public (O1P1 P2) Organization affects an organization-public coalition (O1 O2P2) Multiple organizations affect multiple publics (O1 P1) Symmetrical Disclosure (openness) Assurances of legitimacy Participation in mutual networks Shared tasks (helping to solve problems of interest to the other party) Integrative negotiation Cooperation/collaboration Be unconditionally constructive Win-win or no deal Asymmetrical Distributive negotiation Avoiding Contending Compromising Accommodating Control mutuality (Joint acceptance of degrees of symmetry) Commitment (Interdependence, loss of some autonomy) Satisfaction/liking Trust Goal attainment Complementary behavior) Measures of Concepts Environmental scanning Ongoing observations of management and publics (such as monitoring of disclosure by management and publics, expressions of legitimacy, building networks with activity groups Coorientational measures of management and publics: Perceived by either or both parties Observed by third party (overlap in coorientation model) Predicted for other party (accuracy and congruence in coorientation model)

PAGE 69

54 Table 2-2. Definitions of relational maintenance strategies. Maintenance Strategies Citation Conceptual definition Operational definition/Measures Related to outcomes Positivity Ki (2006) the degree to which members of publics benefit from the organizations efforts to make the relationship more enjoyable for key publics (p. 25) members find attending meetings helpful members find benefits (insurance, banking, etc) of membership beneficial members find regular communication beneficial members find communication courteous org attempts of make interactions enjoyable members find information useful org cooperative with disagreements (p. 65) Control mutuality, Satisfaction, Trust Canary, Stafford & Semic (2002) positivity includes acting polite and cheerful, being nice, courteous, and upbeat during conversations, and avoiding criticism; (p. 396) Liking. Commitment, Control mutuality Assurances Ki (2006) any efforts by an organization to assure its strategic publics that they and their concerns are attended to (p. 28) org provides personal responses to concerns members believe org cares about concerns org communicates importance of members org allows members to raise issues and propose solutions org takes members concerns seriously (p. 66) Control mutuality, Satisfaction, Commitment Canary, Stafford & Semic (2002) assurances involves expressions of love, commitment and in other ways implying the relationship has a future. (p. 396) Liking, Commitment, Control mutuality Sharing of tasks Ki (2006) organizations efforts to share in working on projects or solving problems of mutual interest between an organization and its publics (p. 27) org works with members on problems for benefit of members org involved in community issues of concern to members org and members work well together (p. 66) Control mutuality, Satisfaction Canary, Stafford & Semic (2002) sharing tasks refers to engaging in household chores as well as any tasks that may constitute the responsibilities of the couple (p. 396) Commitment, Control mutuality

PAGE 70

55 Table 2-3. Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept guidance Citation Nominal definition Conceptual and/or operational definition Stafford et al, 2000; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Aylor & Dainton, 2004 Advice making recommendation for solutions to problems and offering an opinion about a partners life situation Tucker et al, 2001 Advice frequency and helpfulness of talking about future job, education, and family plans (p. 734) McHale et al, 2000 Coach give advice about how to solve problem (p. 746) Parker & Asher, 1993 Help and guidance advising others and offering ideas to one another (guidance only) Bronstein et al, 1996 Guid ance providing direction, information, guidelines, and limits as well as help in development of interests and talents (p. 417) Strom et al, 1998; Strom et al, 2002 Guiding teaching values and selfevaluation (1998, p. 146) Moss et al, 2005 Key policy and strategy advisor advise top management on important issues and contribute to policy making

PAGE 71

56 Table 2-4. Definition of relational quality outcomes. Relational Quality Outcomes Citations Conceptual definition Operational definition/measures Control mutuality Hon & Grunig (1999) the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power to influence on another (p. 19) organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate in dealing with people like me, this organization has a tendency to throw its weight around (reversed) organization really listens to what people like me have to say management of this organization gives people like me enough say in the decision-making process. Canary, Stafford, Semic (2002) the extent that both parties agree on who has the right to influence the other. (p. 397) Satisfaction Hon & Grunig (1999) the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced (p. 20) I am happy with this organization both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship most people like me are happy in their interactions with this organization generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this organization has established with people like me most people enjoy dealing with this organization Dainton, Stafford, & Canary (1994) Relational satisfaction is generally defined as an individuals attitude toward the partner and the relationship, typically in terms of the perceived quality of the relationship (p. 90) Trust Hon & Grunig (1999) one partys level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party (p. 19) organization treats people like me fairly and justly whenever this organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about people like me organization can be relied upon to keep its promises I feel very confident about this organizations skills organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do Larzelere & Huston (1980) trust is related to increase in security, a reduction in inhibition and defensiveness

PAGE 72

57 and an increase in freedom to share feelings Commitment Hon & Grunig (1999) The extent to which one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote (p. 20) I feel that this organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to people like me I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me there is a long-lasting bond between this organization and people like me compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more I would rather work together with this organization than not Canary, Stafford, Semic (2002) the extent to which partners want to continue their relationship indefinitely (p. 397)

PAGE 73

58 Figure 2-1. Model of the orga nization-public relationship Public Organization Maintenance Strategies Maintenance Strategies Relational Quality Outcomes Relational Quality Outcomes Behavioral Outcomes Organization Success

PAGE 74

59 Figure 2-2. Linkages between relational mainte nance strategies and relational quality outcomes for adult publics Table 2-5. Standardized coefficients and standardized errors of paths between maintenance strategies and quality outcomes in the organization-public relationship as reported by Ki (2006). Relationship Standardized coefficient Standardized error Significance Positivity Control Mutuality .07 .64 p<.001 Positivity Satisfaction .24 .06 p<.05 Positivity Trust .14 .06 p<.001 Assurances Control Mutuality .36 .08 p<.001 Assurance Satisfaction .49 .07 p<.001 Assurance Trust .40 .07 p<.001 Assurance Commitment .42 .07 p<.001 Shared Tasks Control Mutuality .16 .06 p<.01 Shared Tasks Satisfaction .13 .06 p<.05 Access Control Mutuality .20 .06 p<.001 Positivity Assurances Shared Tasks Openness Networking Access Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Trust

PAGE 75

60 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The study reported here aimed to explore the following: (1) the impact of relational maintenance strategies on quality outcome measures in the organization-public relationship with adolescents, and (2) the fit of a model that predic ted the influence of relationship maintenance on rela tional quality and the influenc e of relational quality on adolescent volunteer intended behavior. Thes e areas of discovery were explored through a study employing a survey of 315 adolescents ages 15-18 from a Southeastern state in the United States. Study Overview The current study tested a model of the re lationship between relational maintenance strategies on relational qual ity outcomes (Figure 3-1) and a model of the influence of relational maintenance on relational quality and relational quality on volunteer intended behavior (Figure 3-2). Existing measures for the relational maintenance strategies, relational quality outcomes and volunteer intended behavior proposed and tested by Ki (2006) were modified for an a dolescent public and tested fo r an adolescent-organization relationship. In addition, measures were created for the newly proposed strategy of guidance. Data were collected through a surv ey administered to st udents from a number of high schools during the 12-week period between February 1 and April 30, 2007. The data were analyzed, and the resu lts can be found in chapter four.

PAGE 76

61 Sample This study examined adolescents per ceptions of the organization-adolescent public relationship. One specifi c public, the volunteer public, was chosen for this study for two reasons. First, many teens volunteer as part of a requirement for their high school, for an honors program or to earn a college schol arship. In order to be eligible for the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program2, high school students in Florida must complete a minimum of 75 hours of community service. More hours are required for participation in other programs, like Nati onal Honor Society which requires 150 hours of community service. Therefore, it is a co mmon for high school stude nts to fall into the public of volunteer. Second, and more impor tantly, research has demonstrated that teens who volunteer derive benefits from that activity (Youniss, McLellan & Mazer, 2001). It can be reasoned that teens who fa ll into this public are benefiting from the relationship. This is an organization-public relationship that has pot ential benefit for the adolescent and as a result is worthy of study. In order to gain permission to surv ey high school students, the researcher contacted school boards in two medium-sized school districts and was granted permission to approach schools in those di stricts to recruit for the study. Four high schools agreed to participate in the study, two from each school district. In the first school district, one school distributed 250 surveys and returned 105. The other distribute d 100 and returned 39. In the other school district, one school di stributed 122 and returned 47, and the other 2 The Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program is f unded by the Florida Lottery and is administered by the Florida Department of Education. Students who m eet the criteria in the areas of community service, SAT/ACT scores, and high school grade point average are eligible for a grant of up to 100% of tuition and fees plus additional expenses for a public institution in the state.

PAGE 77

62 distributed 100 and returned 28. In addition to the public school systems, two private schools were approached, and one agreed to part icipate. Fifty surveys were distributed at that school and 18 were returned. A church youth group participated in the study as well with 30 surveys being distribu ted at a weekly meeting of the group and 11 surveys being returned. And finally, partic ipants in the study were re cruited by university students attending a communications class at a larg e Southeastern unive rsity. The university students were given extra credit for every hi gh school student whom they were able to recruit as a survey respondent. One hundred an d ten surveys were distributed through this means and 67 were returned. All total, 762 surveys were distributed and 315 were returned, a return rate of 41%. Pretest Before the surveys were distributed th rough the channels mentioned above, a pretest was conducted with 10 high school st udents from one of the schools. These students were members of an extracurric ular group whose primary purpose was to participate in community service. The purpos e of the pretest was to ensure that the questions on the survey were clear and unde rstandable for an adolescent population. As well, the pretest helped to determine if a ny questions did not appl y to the adolescent volunteer population. To further establish validity of the measur es, an expert in teen community service was asked to review the ques tions and provide feedback on their appropriateness for the adolescent population. Based on the feedback from the pretest a nd from the community service expert, a number of changes were made. First, the survey was redesigned to include a more conversational tone in the directions for each section. Second, the number of questions in

PAGE 78

63 each section was reduced, creati ng more sections but shorter sections. The researcher and the expert felt that this woul d reduce the likelihood of fati gue for respondents. Third, six of the questions were eliminated from the su rvey. All six came from the relational quality outcomes section3. Both the expert and the teens in the pretest felt that the survey was too long and that teens would not complete it as it was presented. In an effort to shorten the survey, the number of measures per construc t was reduced to five or six (see original questions in Appendix F). The final survey included 22 relational quality outcome measures (see final survey in Appendix E) Measures for relationship maintenance strategies and volunteer intended behavior were not reduced, nor were demographic questions. Survey Administration The survey was administered to a number of high schools, to a church youth group and through university students as recruiters of other teens, as described above. The study utilized voluntary participation through convenience sampling, including voluntary participation and snowball sampling because achieving a random sample of teens who volunteer in a community would be difficult to achieve and costly. It is argued that in this seminal study, the results will be important and directive if the sample pool is diverse and the demographics dispersed. 3 The following items were eliminated based by the researcher on advice from a teen volunteer expert. These items were deemed by the research to be either redundant or not appropriate for teen volunteers. Control mutuality items (2 items): (1) When dealing with volunteers, the organization has a tendency to throw its weight around. (2) The orga nization cooperates with volunteers. Satisfaction items (2 items): (1) Volunteers feel they are important to the organization. (2) In general nothing of value has been accomplished by the organization for volunteers. Trust items (2 items): Sound principles guide the organizations behavior. (2) Volunteers feel very confident about the organizations abilities.

PAGE 79

64 Surveys in this study were self-administered by the high school students themselves. Each participant in this study received a packet of information in a manila envelope. The packet contained a letter of invitation to part icipate in the study, a copy of the survey, a community service credit form (for those from schools who offered this as an incentive), a student assent form and a pare ntal consent form. The letter explained that students were to sign the assent form, a nd that anyone younger than 18 years of age should have a parent sign th e parental consent form before the survey was completed (Appendices A through E). The label on the outs ide of the envelope indicated who the respondent should return the packet to and the deadline for submitting it. Any survey returned without the proper signatures was discarded. The letter told those who received the community service form to complete it and return it in the manila envelope, along with the survey and signed cons ent form, to the appr opriate person by the deadline. Those who did not receive a community service form because their participation was not rewarded with an hour of community service credit were instructed simply to return the signed forms and the surv ey in the envelope to the appropriate person by the deadline. Following is a description of the survey administration through each venue. See Table 3-1 for ra te of return by source. The first school to participate received 300 surveys on Tuesday, February 6, 2006. The surveys were delivered to the vice principal, who passed along approximately 130 along to the sponsor of the National Honors Society for the school. These surveys were distributed at a monthly meeting. The balance was distributed to teac hers of sophomores, juniors and seniors. The teacher s distributed them in their cl assrooms with an explanation of the survey process. An initial deadline of February 28, 2007, was set for final

PAGE 80

65 collection of the surveys; however, due to statewide testing that was being conducted during that time period, the deadline wa s extended to March 16, 2007. All total, 105 completed surveys were returned, and 50 surv eys were not distributed, making the total distribution 250 and the retu rn 105, a 42% return rate. The second school to receive surveys was a private school that had requested 150 surveys to be distributed to three classes of juniors in a college preparation class. The surveys were delivered to a representative in the community service o ffice of the school on February 9, 2007, and a deadline was set for final collection on February 28, 2007. Only one of the three classes successfully di stributed the surveys to its students, reducing the number of distributed surveys to 50. Because the initial return was very low, students were offered an additional incentive, a $5 gift certificate to Smoothie King stores, if they returned the survey by an extended deadline of April 27, 2007. Eighteen completed surveys were returned from this school. A school in the same district as the firs t school agreed to distribute 250 surveys to their International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IB) students4. The surveys were delivered to the vice principal of the school on April 2, 2007, and a deadline for collection was set for April 20, 2007. Thirty-nine surveys we re returned completed and 150 were returned undistributed due to lack of time on the part of the advisor. This becomes a survey distribution of 100 and a return of 39. Another school district gave approval for surveys to be distributed to students in their schools; however, it restricted th e distribution and co llection time to noninstructional time periods. This meant that the surveys were to be distributed to students 4 The International Baccalaureate Diploma Program is a program comparable to Advanced Placement which prepares juniors and seniors for college level work.

PAGE 81

66 during extracurricular activities rather than during class time. Tw o schools agreed to distribute surveys at their national honor society (NHS) me etings. One school requested 245 surveys, which were delivered to th e advisor of the NHS group on April 16, 2007. During a meeting held that week, the advisor asked students to pick up a survey after the meeting and complete it by the Friday of th e following week (April 27, 2007). As stated earlier, those who completed the survey were compensated with one hour of community service credit. A total of 122 surveys were picked up by the students, and 47 were returned by the deadline. The other school in th is district agreed to distribute 150 surveys to students at an NHS meeti ng held during that same week. Of the 150, 100 were passed out to students and 28 were returned by the deadline, which was also April 27th. Additional surveys were handed out at a yout h group meeting of a local church in a medium-sized Southeastern city. Teens atte nding the meeting were given the opportunity to pick up a packet and return the complete d survey the following night. Those who filled out the survey were given free admission to an event held the following night. Admission for the event was $5. A total of 30 surveys were picked up by meeting attendees, and 11 were returned. The final way that participants were recruited for this study was through a university class. Twenty-nine students in a public relations stra tegy class at a large Southeastern university were offered extra cred it if they were able to recruit high school students to complete a survey. Each university student was permitted to recruit up to 5 participants. A total of 110 surveys were dist ributed to the university students, and 67 were returned.

PAGE 82

67 Measures Four sets of measures were used in this study: (1) relational quality outcomes, (2) relational maintenance strategies, (3) volunteer intended behavior and (4) demographic questions. Following are descriptions of the measures. Relational quality outcomes Twenty-two scale items were used to m easure relational quality outcome constructs of control mutuality, satisfaction, trust and co mmitment. These items were modified from the scale proposed and refined by Huang ( 1997; 2001) and applied by Ki (2006). The measures were judged to have adequate inte rnal consistency in pr ior research: control mutuality (Cronbachs alpha = .93), satisfa ction (Cronbachs alpha = .91), trust (Cronbachs alpha = .92) and commitment (Cronbachs alpha = .88) (Ki, 2006). A modified version of these measures were used in the current study (Table 3-1). The measures have been adapted to reflect the adolescent volunteer public included in this study. Efforts were made to maintain as much of the original statement as possible for each measure (see Appendix F for original items and tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-4 for modified items). Relational maintenance strategies In the organization-public relationship, six relationship maintenance strategies are hypothesized to influence relational quality out comes of the relations hip. In this study, This six strategies positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness, networking and access were measured using 30 scale items. The ite ms were adopted from a scale proposed and tested by Ki (2006) and modifi ed to reflect an adolescent volunteer public. The measures were assessed using a nine-point scale.

PAGE 83

68 Prior research has found the following levels of internal consistency for these measures positivity (Cronbachs alpha = .82), assurances (Cronbachs alpha = .83), shared tasks (Cronbachs alpha = .79), ope nness (Cronbachs alpha = .77), networking (Cronbachs alpha = .71) and access (C ronbachs alpha = .84) (Ki, 2006). As stated earlier, the scale items were m odified to reflect the interests of the volunteer publics (Table 3-2). Every effort was made to maintain the essence of each measure. Maintenance strategy: guidance In addition to the six relationship mainte nance strategies discussed above, this study introduced a new relational maintenan ce strategy to the study of the organizationpublic relationship guidance. Prior definitio ns of this term and related terms were considered in the formulation of a defin ition of guidance (Table 3-3). The proposed definition is as follows: Guidance is defined as advice, help, direction or support. One can give guidance by offering counsel, developing guidelines, se tting limits, assisting with decision making, providing information with the intent of aiding or act as a reliable source for ideas. This definition was used in the formulation of measures to test the perception of the strategy of guidance in the organization-public relationship w ith adolescents (Table 3-4). Six measures were created to measure this construct. Volunteer Intended Behavior The model proposed in this study predicts that the level of relational quality outcomes in an adolescent-volunteer organi zation public relationship will influence the intended behavior of individual adolescen t volunteers. The adolescent volunteernonprofit organization relationship has the potential to have a positive long-term effect on

PAGE 84

69 adolescents who engage in it by influencing th eir likelihood to voluntee r in the future. To test volunteer intended behavi or three measures were adapted from Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996) and Ki (2006). These measur es were tested usi ng a nine-point scale (Table 3-5). Demographic measures Three questions were asked for demogra phic purposes. First, respondents were asked for age. Results from this question are reported in the descriptive statistics section of chapter four. In addition, this question acted as a filter question for those to be included in this study. In an effort to limit the age range in this study to only high school student, the acceptable ages for participan ts were 15-18 years old. Anyone reporting a higher or lower age was removed from the study. Two other demographic questions asked fo r race and gender. The results of these questions, too, can be found in the descrip tive statistics section of chapter four. Analysis The goal of this study was to test th e relationships between relationship maintenance strategies, relational quality outco mes and intended behavior. In the process, it sought to provide evidence in support of the proposed mode l of adolescent-organization public relationship. Data collected during this study were analyzed for their fit to this model. The proposed model consists of 13 constructs: seven relationship maintenance strategies, four relational quality outcomes and volunteer intended behavior. Sixty-one items were used to measure these 13 unobser ved constructs. In order to analyze the relationship between the vari ables, the st atistical methodology of structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed.

PAGE 85

70 Structural equation modeling Structural equation modeling is a way of testing theoretica l models of relationships between latent and observed variables. Unlike classical methods of general linear modeling, SEM takes into account the measuremen t error of variables in the model. This results in a more accurate reflection of the relationship that exists between variables. Three most common types of testing for SEM are confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis and structural regr ession analysis. CFA tests the loading of observed items on latent factors. Unlike explorat ory factor analysis, CFA is de signed to be used to test previously identified factor structure. Second, path analysis can be used to test the linear relationship between observed variables, taking into c onsideration the error in measurement of the variables. Third, stru ctural regression modeling is a powerful statistical method that tests fo r the regression of latent vari ables on one another. Not only can the relationship between latent and obs erved variables be tested with this methodology, but the relationship between latent variables can be tested. SEM statistical methodology tests the fit of data to a proposed model. The model fit indicators are judged for thei r degree of fit to the propos ed model. Criteria for a good model fit includes the following: (1) a Chi-square score equa l or greater than .005, (2) a non-significant Chi-Square, (3) a ratio of Chisquare to degrees of freedom of equal or less than 3, (4) a comparative fit analysis (CFI) greater than or equal to .90, (5) a goodness of fit index (GFI) score of greater th an or equal to .90, (6) a normed fit index (NFI) score of great er than or equal to .90, and (7) root mean squared error approximation (RMSEA) of less than or e qual to .05 (Raykov & Ma rcoulides, 2000). Chi-square is an inferential statistic which identifies the model fit for any given model for any data. In structural equation modeling (SEM), the proposed model acts as

PAGE 86

71 the null hypothesis (Ray kov & Marcoulides, 2000); therefore, the desired result of a Chisquare test for a given model is non-signi ficance. Non-significan ce would indicate that there is not enough evidence to reject the proposed model. A significant Chi-square would indicate a poor model fit. As a result, a non-significant Chi-square score is ideal, as is a low Chi-square score and a low ratio of Chi-square to degrees of freedom. Because the T statistic is sensitive to sample size, other goodness of f it indices should be used to gauge the model fit. Two tests which measure the degree to which the data fit the model are goodness of fit index (GFI) and normed fit index (NFI) (Kline, 2005). GFI measures the degree to which a model can explain the variance and covariance in the data. Scores for GFI range from zero to one, with a score of 1.0 indicating a perf ect fit. A normed fit index (NFI) is a way of judging how the data fit the independence model (model with no relationships) vs. saturated m odel (the proposed model), wi th the ideal fit being the saturated model. A score of .90 or greater indicates a reasonable f it, with 1.0 indicating an excellent fit (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). Two other f it indices measure how the data does not fit a model by looking at alterna tive fit. These two indices are comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square erro r approximation (RMSEA) (Kline, 2005). CFI is the degree of improvement in fit when movi ng from a model with no relationships to the proposed model. Scores for CFI range from zer o to one with one indicating an excellent fit. A root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) takes into consideration the complexity of the model and measures the degree to which the model does not fit the data. Scores of .05 or lower indicate a good model fit. Scores of .08 or greater should be questioned (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). This study employs the more stringent criteria of RMSEA of .05 or less.

PAGE 87

72 Results and analysis are presented in chapter 4.

PAGE 88

73 Table 3-1. Relationship quality outcome measurement items for current study Control mutuality Q1-3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate. Q1-4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R] Q1-8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them. Q1-11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. Q2-1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers opinions in the decisions that affect them [R] Q2-8. When volunteers inter act with the organization, they feel that they have some sense of control. Satisfaction Q1-1. I am happy with the organization. Q1-6. Both the organization and volunt eers benefit from their relationship. Q1-10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization. [R] Q2-2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the organization has established with them. [R] Q2-5. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. Q2-9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers needs. [R] Trust Q1-2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. Q1-5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the impact on volunteers. Q1-9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers. Q2-3. The organization misleads volunteers. [R] Q2-4. I feel very confident about the organizations abilities to accomplish its mission. Commitment Q1-7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers. Q1-12. I see the organization as committed to its volunteers. Q2-5. Compared to other organizations, volunteers value their relationship with this organization the most. Q2-7. I would rather work with this organization than another. Q2-10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. Note: [R] indicates reverse code.

PAGE 89

74 Table 3-2. Relationship maintenance stra tegy measurement items for current study Access Q3-2. It is clear to me who the upper-lev el managers are and how to contact them. Q3-8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management. Q4-13. Upper-level managers are approachable. Q5-2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management. Q5-4. I feel comfortabl e approaching management with my questions. Positivity Q3-13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful. Q4-2. The organizations communication with volunteers is courteous. Q4-5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enjoyable. Q5-1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling disagreements with volunteers. Q5-9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be useful. Openness Q3-12. The organization shares information with volunteers about how it is managed. Q4-9. During meetings, volun teers are encouraged to communicate their opinions. Q4-11. I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans. [R] Q4-14. I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization. [R] Q5-8.The organization freely shares information with volunteers. Shared tasks Q3-5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions encountered by volunteers. Q3-6. The organization is involved in community issues (environmental issue, disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about. Q3-9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing. Q4-3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving joint problems. [R] Q5-3. The organization and volunteers ca re about the same community issues. Networking Q3-11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers. Q4-4. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits volunteers. Q4-7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way that benefits volunteers. Q4-8. The organizations associations with other like-minded groups are not useful for volunteers. [R] Q5-6. The organization works with community groups that I care about. Assurances Q3-4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers concerns Q3-10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. Q4-1. The organization communicates to me the importance of volunteers. Q4-10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores them. [R] Q5-7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers Note: [R] indicates reverse code

PAGE 90

75 Table 3-3. Nominal and conceptual definitions of concept guidance Citation Nominal definition Conceptual definition Stafford et al, 2000; Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Aylor & Dainton, 2004 Advice making recommendation for solutions to problems and offering an opinion about a partners life situation Tucker et al, 2001 Advice frequency and helpfulness of talking about future job, education, and family plans (p. 734) McHale et al, 2000 Coach give advice about how to solve problem (p. 746) Parker & Asher, 1993 Help and guidance advising others and offering ideas to one another (guidance only) Bronstein et al, 1996 Guid ance providing direction, information, guidelines, and limits as well as help in development of interests and talents (p. 417) Strom et al, 1998; Strom et al, 2002 Guiding teaching values and selfevaluation (1998, p. 146) Moss et al, 2005 Key policy and strategy advisor advise top management on important issues and contribute to policy making Table 3-4. Measures of the relationsh ip maintenance strategy of guidance Guidance Q3-1. The guidelines that the organizati on has set for volunteers are clear. Q3-3. Volunteers receive clear and help ful direction from the organization. Q3-7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers. Q4-6. The organization sets appropr iate limits for its volunteers. Q4-12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems. Q5-5. When I encounter a probl em, I am given good advice. Table 3-5. Measures of volunteer intended behavior. Measures Q7-1. Will you volunteer (for this organiza tion or another) in the years to come? [responses on nine-point scale from Not likely to Very likely Q7-2. Would you recommend to a friend that he /she participate in community service in years to come? [responses on nine-point sc ale from Not likely to Very likely Q7-3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come? [responses on nine-point scale from Not much to A lot

PAGE 91

76 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter reports the results of analysis of data collected from adolescents who participate in volunteerism. The data were used to test eight hypotheses about the relationship that exists between adolescent volunteers and their vol unteer organizations. Results inform the understanding of the orga nization-public relationship, specifically the relationship between adolescen ts and nonprofit organizations. Findings from the analysis are reported below. Respondents Of the 762 surveys distributed to teens, 315 were filled out and returned by high school sophomores, juniors and seniors, yiel ding a rate of return of 41%. When the surveys were examined, 18 were discarded for the following three reasons: (1) incomplete survey one of the surveys not co mpleted, (2) age in two of the surveys the respondents were younger than 15, in one surv ey the respondent wa s older than 18, and eight of the surveys did not pr ovide an age so they were di scarded, (3) patte rn of response in six of the surveys, the pa ttern of response raised concer ns about the authenticity of the responses. Examples of this third reason include the respondent answering for all questions or the pattern of re sponses beginning at one end of the semantic differential (1 or 9) and each subsequent response being one greater or lesser than the previous, creating a pattern that ran diagonally across the page and then back again. It was suspected that this pattern was the result of respondents marking the answers without reading the questions.

PAGE 92

77 A final count of 297 surveys (N=297) were included in the analysis of data, providing a 39% return rate. Spec ific rate of return by source are indicated in table 4-1. The highest rate of return came from the uni versity student project, likely because most students passed along the surveys to indi viduals who were known to them and the personal relationship increased th e rate of return. The lowest rate of return came from the Bartram Trail High School. The advisor to th e NHS student group at that school indicated that students were not interested in comp leting the survey because most had already fulfilled their community service requirements for the school year. The ages of the respondents ranged from 1518, with most reporting to be ages 17 or 18. One hundred ten (37%) reported being 18 years old, and 108 ( 36%) reported their age as 17. Fifty-eight respondents were 16 ye ars old (20%), and 21 were 15 years old (7%). All respondents were high school st udents. One hundred eighty-five respondents were female (62%), and 110 were male (3 7%). Two respondents (1%) did not indicate gender. The fact that more females responded to the survey than males may have been due to the fact that more members of NHS ar e female than male. In addition, in general more females volunteer than males; nearly 32% of all females volunteer while only 24% of males volunteer (Grimm et al, 2007). The majority of respondents were Caucasian, with 206 (69%) reporting Caucasian and 19 (6%) indicating Hispan ic/Latino heritage. Other ethnicities included 31 (10%) African-American, 23 (8%) Asian, 6 (2%) Middle Eastern, and 1 (.3%) Native American. Eight respondents di d not report their ethnicity. Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics for the three major constructs in this study relationship maintenance strategies, relational quality outco mes and volunteer inte nded behavior are reported below. For each item, the mean and standard deviation are reported. Missing

PAGE 93

78 data for maintenance strategy items and relatio nal quality outcomes items were replaced with mean scores. A total of 33 respondents did not answer at least one of the 52 items that support these constructs thus a listwise deletion w ould have greatly reduced the number of participants in the study and threatened the validity of the data. However, missing data for the construc t of volunteer intended behavior was handled with listwise deletion. The researcher reasoned that the lack of a response to one of the three questions that support this construct could be an indication of lack of intention to behave. Four respondents were eliminated from the study for lack of response to one of the three intended behavior questions, reducing the count to 293 (N=293). On average, the teens in this study repo rted volunteering 8.6 hours (SD=10.1) per week for their volunteer organization. In res ponse to a question about the last time they had volunteered for the organization, the teen s on average said 4.6 months ago (SD=4.4). However, most appeared to be either volunt eering currently or had not volunteered since the previous summer (approximately 9 months earlier), which created a mean score around 4.5 months. Relationship Maintenance Strategies Theoretically, relationship maintenance strategies are those behaviors and communications in which organizations and publ ics engage that are thought to have an influence on the relational qua lity outcomes of the relations hip. The teens in this study rated their volunteer organizations positively in the use of these strategies, with total mean scores for the strategy ratings ranging from 6.9 to 7.6 on a nine-point scale (Table 4-2). The most frequently used strategies appear to be positivity (M=7.6, SD=1.2), guidance (M=7.5, SD=1.1) and assurances (M =7.5, SD=1.3), all of which received a mean score greater than 7.5. The strategy that was least detected in the relationship was

PAGE 94

79 networking, which received a mean score of 6.9 (SD=1.5), still a score well above the midpoint of the scale. The three items that received the highes t mean score ratings were (1) The organizations communication with volunteers is courteous (M= 8.0, SD=1.4); (2) I believe the organization car es about its volunteers (M =7.9, SD=1.5); and (3) The guidelines that the organization has set fo r volunteers are clear (M=7.9, SD=1.2). The three items are measures of positivity, assura nces and guidance respectively. They reflect the three most common maintenance strategi es in which teen volunteers said their volunteer organization engaged. The three measures suggest that these teens believe volunteer organizations show c oncern for volunteers, are considerate of volunteers and offer clear communication and guidelin es to their teen volunteers. The lowest mean scores were received by these three items: (1) The organization works with other community groups that im pact volunteers (M=6.7, SD=2.1); (2) The organizations associations w ith other like-minded groups are not (are, reverse coded) useful for volunteers (M=6.8, SD =2.2); and (3) I have had opportunities to meet with senior management (M=6.8, SD=2.5). The fi rst two items measure networking and the third measures access. It appears from these re sults that compared to the other items in this study, teens are less likely to believe th eir volunteer organizati ons are working well with other organizations or they do not see th e value in these associ ations. At the same time, it appears that teens are not being give n access to upper level management in their volunteer assignments to the same degree th at they are experiencing other types of maintenance strategies. However, it should be noted that the scores for the lowest three items are still well above the midpoint of the scale.

PAGE 95

80 Relational Quality Outcomes Additional data were collected to meas ure the strength of relational quality outcomes. Relationship quality outcome measures give an indication of the strength of the relationship between organizations and publics. Teens in this study viewed the relationship with their volunteer organizati on positively, with overall mean scores on the four relational quality outcomes ranging from 7.3 to 7.7 on a nine-point scale (Table 4-3). Of the four outcomes, the teen volunteers rated their satisfact ion with the relationship as highest (M=7.7, SD=1.2) and the control mutual ity in the relationship as lowest (M=7.3, SD=1.2). Three items achieved a mean score greater than 8.0. They were (1) I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers (M=8.2, SD=1.2), (2) The organization misleads volunteers (reversed) (M=8.1, SD=1.5), and (3) I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly (M=8.1, SD=1.3). The first item measures the level of commitmen t and the next two measure trust in the relationship. Taken together, th ese indicate that teens percei ve volunteer organizations as making an attempting to build a good relati onship with them and as behaving honestly and fairly toward them. Three items achieved less than 7.0 on th e nine-point scale. These three were: Whenever the organization makes an importa nt decision, I know it will consider the impact on volunteers (M=6.7, SD=1.9), (2) Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them (M=6.7, SD=1.9), and (3) When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they have some sense of control (M=6.9, SD=1.6). The first item is a measure of trust and the last two are a measure of control mutuality. Clearly, teens feel that they lack the power that they would like to have in the relationship with their volunteer organizations.

PAGE 96

81 Looking at only the highest and lowest scoring items for relational quality outcomes provides a picture of the adolescen t-nonprofit organization as fair and honest but less likely to offer the ba lance of power desired by the teen volunteers. However, the level of satisfaction in the relationship, as reported by the teens, indicates that teen volunteers are pleased with the relationship. Volunteer Intended Behavior Responses to a third set of items were collected and analyzed. These items measured the construct of volunteer intended be havior. The teens in this study indicated a strong likelihood to volunteer some time in the future, with the overall mean score for volunteer intended behavior reaching 7.7 (SD=1.5) on a nine-point scal e (Table 4-4). Of the three items used to measure volunteer in tended behavior, recommending that a friend participate in community serv ice achieved the highest mean score (M=8.1, SD=1.0). The teens mean score for their likelihood to volunt eer in the future was a little lower at 7.7 (SD=2.2). The lowest mean score for this construct was for the item measuring the amount of effort that teens would make to volunteer in the years to come (M=7.5, SD=1.8). Teens appear to believe in the value of volunteering as ev idenced by their desire to encourage others to volunteer They also indicated a mode rate to strong likelihood to volunteer in the future and to make an effort to volunteer. Measurement Reliability Reliability of the scale items in this study were tested using Cronbachs alpha. Results can be found in Table 4-5. All items ach ieved a reliability score of .80 or better except for two concepts openness and shared tasks. These two items achieved a score

PAGE 97

82 below .70; therefore, more work was done to examine individual measurement items for these variables. Discussion of th at analysis can be found below. This study tested only one t ype of reliability, internal consistenc y. Future tests of reliability for these variables should employ ot her types of measurement, including testretest reliability. Confirmatory Factor Analysis To provide evidence of validity of the constr ucts presented in this research, a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using AMOS 6.0. Confirmatory factor analysis provides a way of confirming a previ ously identified factor structure. The latent variables tested here come from the pub lic relations literat ure (Hon & Grunig, 1999: Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ki, 2006); therefore, conf irmatory factor analysis, rather than exploratory factor analysis, is appropriate. Confirmatory fact or analyses were run for all seven relational maintenance strategies, for the four relational quality outcomes and for intended behavior. The resu lts are reported below. Confirmatory factor analyses of relationship maintenance strategies A confirmatory factor analysis wa s conducted for each of the relationship maintenance strategies to test the latent va riable using the observed measures. Items were retained in the model if they received significance (p<.05). As stated in chapter 2, criteria for a g ood model fit includes the following: (1) a Chi-square score equal or greater than .005, (2) a non-significant Chi-Square, (3) a ratio of Chi-square to degrees of freedom of equal or less than 3, (4) a comparative fit analysis (CFI) greater than or equal to .90, (5) a goodness of fit index (GFI) score of greater than or equal to .90, (6) a normed f it index (NFI) score of greater than or equal to .90, and (7)

PAGE 98

83 root mean squared error approximation (RMS EA) of less than or equal to .05 (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). The confirmatory factor analysis for the relationship maintenance strategy access achieved an acceptable level with all criteria for a good model fit being met (Table 4-6). In fact, the results indicate an excellent fit for the model, with CFI and GFI scores achieving a perfect score of 1.0, and RSMEA score reaching .00. All measures loaded significantly onto the model and loadings were similar across items. The loadings ranged from .62 to .79 (Figure 4-1 and Table 4-8). This indicates that the la tent variable was a fairly good predictor of all five measures. Th e item most strongly co rrelated with access was I have had opportunities to meet w ith senior management. The item least correlated was I think volunteers feel comf ortable making complaints to management. All measurement items for the relationship maintenance strategy of positivity too proved to be significantly predicted by the factor of positivity. All criteria for model fit were met (Table 4-8), though the fit was not as strong as that of the relationship maintenance strategy of access. This may have been due to the somewhat weaker loading ( =.52) of the item I think m eetings volunteers attend are he lpful in comparison to the other loadings, which ranged from .66 to .78 (Figure 4-2 and Table 4-9). This item had the lowest mean score as well, as displayed above. Teens appear to think that meetings are not as helpful as they could be. Anecdot al feedback from the respondents (notes on the surveys) indicated that so me teens may not be invited to meetings and, therefore, did not respond consistently to this statement. This, too, may have contributed to the results. Relationship maintenance strategy openness met all criteria except the RMSEA which reached .06, still within a reasonable range, as stated above. The relatively poorer

PAGE 99

84 performance of this model on a number of criteria may be due to the low loading of two items I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans (reversed) and I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization (reversed) (Figure 4-3). The other statements which addressed the sharing of information within the organization and the openness of the organization to volunteer opinions all loaded similarly and much more strongly than the two items mentioned above. The mean score of the first item fell toward the midpoi nt for measurement item s for this construct, meaning it was not more or less detected th an other strategies. The second item received the highest mean score of all items for openness, meaning that it was more likely to be true than the other statements. Neither of these items were well predicted by the overall level of openness that the teens observed in their relationship with the volunteer organization. It could be ar gued that the second item, which asks about the understanding of the mission statement, is not closely re lated to the openness of the organization. However, the first item, about the disclosure of information, would s eem logically to be related to openness in the re lationship. Possibly the fact that both of these items were negatively worded statements caused misunders tanding and misidentification of answers, which would contribute to an items poor loading. To address the issue of low factor loading and low reliability for this construct, the two low loading items were removed from the analysis and the reliability was tested again. The results indicated that the removal of these items would increase the reliability of openness from .65 to .68. This was deemed a strong enough result to merit this removal of items. The confirmatory factor an alysis was conducted without the two items, and results indicated a perfect fit for the model. Based on these findings, the decision to

PAGE 100

85 remove the items was deemed appropriate (s ee Tables 4-10 and 4-11 for results with the two low loading factors removed). The relationship maintenance strategy shared tasks achieved a good model fit with all criteria being met. All items were signi ficantly predicted by the latent variable of shared tasks; however, three measures had fa irly low loading scores (Figure 4-4). The construct of shared tasks involves the working together between the publics and organizations to reach a comm on goal. Possible explanations for the low loadings on the construct of shared tasks incl ude (1) teen volunteers may not be aware of the community issues with which volunteer organizations are involved and (2) volunteer organizations may, in fact, not be involved in issu es that teens consider important. Overall, the reliability and validity of this construct was a bit uncertain, considering the low loading of some of its factors a nd the low score the co nstruct received for reliability. As a result, the lowest loading f actor was removed from the analysis and the reliability analysis was rerun. With the remova l of this measure, the reliability of the variable of shared tasks increased from .64 to .67. The removal of the item had no significant impact on the model fit indicators. All indicators continued to exceed the criteria. Tables 4-12 and 4-13 reflect the resu lts of the CFA and the new factor loading with the removal of measure Q3-6. As with the other relationship maintenan ce strategies, the confirmatory factor analysis for the strategy networking indicated that all criteri a for a good model fit were met (Table 4-14). All five items were signifi cantly predicted by the construct (Figure 4-5 and Table 4-15). One item had a high factor loading ( =.89) the relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits volunteers. The mean score for

PAGE 101

86 this item was near the median for the measurement items for this strategy, so it was not more or less observed than other items. However, it was a strongly predicted by the overall strategy of networking. The lowest lo ading factor for this construct was the organizations associations w ith other like-minded groups are not useful for volunteers (reversed) ( =.46). It, too, had a mean score near the median for the construct. It appears that the construct of networ king was more likely to predic t teens awareness of their volunteer organizations relationship with community groups than the usefulness of that relationship for volunteers. The confirmatory factor analysis for the relationship maintenance strategy assurances found that the factor struct ure as predicted was a good fit for the data, and all model criteria for a good fit were met (Tab le 4-17). All five items were significant predictors of the latent cons truct (Figure 4-6 and Table 4-18 ). The loadings of the five factors were similar across the board, with the loadings ranging from .62 to .79. The last relationship mainte nance strategy tested was guidance which, too, met all criteria for a good model fit (Table 4-18). Th e six items used to measure guidance all loaded significantly onto th e construct (Figure 4-7 and Table 4-19). The loadings represented a fairly large spread from .56 to .77, with the largest loading coming from item When I encounter a probl em, I am given good advice ( =.77) and the smallest loading from item The guidelines that the or ganization has set for volunteers are clear ( =.56). This second item had the highest mean score of all items for this construct, indicating that it was the most frequently observed item. Over all, the construct appears to hold together well and all items load adequately.

PAGE 102

87 Confirmatory factor analyses of relational quality outcomes Confirmatory factor analyses were run for the relational quality outcomes, resulting in all four meeting criteria for good model fit. Details of the analysis for each outcome follows. The confirmatory factor analysis for the relational quality outcome control mutuality indicated that all items loaded significan tly onto the factor of control mutuality (Figure 4-8 and Table 4-21). The model met all criteria for a good fit (Table 4-20). The item with the lowest factor loading ( =.40) The organization neglects volunteers (reversed) also achieved the hi ghest mean score of all item s for this construct. Teens clearly felt that they were not neglected by th e organization, and yet this did not appear to load strongly onto the factor of control mu tuality. The item with the strongest factor loading was The organizati on really listens to what volunteers have to say ( =.89). The item most strongly predicted by control mutualit y appears to be the degree to which teens perceived their volunteer organization as lis tening to volunteers. This construct has a good model fit and adequate loadings. A confirmatory analysis of the factor of satisfaction achieved an adequate model fit (Table 4-22), and all items had significant load ings onto the factor (Figure 4-9 and Table 4-23). The factor loadings ranged from .57 to .78, with the strongest loading coming from item Volunteers enjoy dealing with the orga nization and the weak est coming from item I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization (reversed). This second item obtained the lowest mean score of all items for this construct, indicating that there may be some dissatisfaction among teen volunteers; however, responses to this item do not necessar ily load strongly onto the overall construct of satisfaction.

PAGE 103

88 Like the other outcomes, the re lational quality outcome of trust held together well as a factor, as evidenced by the achievement of good model fit indicators (Table 4-24). All measurement items loaded adequately onto the factor of trust (Figure 4-10 and Table 4-25). The item most strongly predicted by the fa ctor trust was an item The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers ( =.80), and the lowest loading came from the item Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the impact on volunteers ( =.53). This second item achieved the lowest mean score of all items for this construct as well as achieving one of the lowest mean scores of all indicators for relational quality outcomes. However, this item was not strongly predicted by the overall construc t of trust. The factor loadings for this construct are adequate and the mode l fit is very good. The confirmatory factor analysis for the final relational quality outcome commitment indicated that all five measures loaded signifi cantly onto the factor of commitment (Figure 4-11 and Table 4-27). The model met all criteria for a good model fit (Table 4-26), and fit indicators suggested that the model fit was an excellent one. The loading scores for the items ranged from .60 to .80, with most falling between .60 and .67. The strongest loading came from item Vol unteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization, a measure that gets at the hear t of the concept of loyalty. This construct appears to hold together well, and the meas ures for this construct load well onto the factor of commitment. Confirmatory factor analysis of volunteer intended behavior The construct of volunteer intended behavior was measured using three items (Table 4-30). A confirmatory factor analys is confirmed that these three items load significantly onto the factor of intended be havior (Figure 4-12 and Table 4-30). The

PAGE 104

89 factor loadings for th e three items ranged from .75 to .79. The test of the model revealed a perfect model fit, with all indi cators reaching their ideal score. Test for Correlation Among Variables Before hypothesis testing was begun, a test was run to measure the correlations between a number of the independent and de pendent variables in this study. Composite variables were created for each of the maintena nce strategies and for the relational quality outcomes using the regression weight scores obtained from the confirmatory factor analyses. These variables were used in the Pearson bivariate analysis (Table 4-31). All variable associations were strong ly significant at the p<.001 level. The strongest relationships betw een the relational quality out comes and the relationship maintenance strategies were between sa tisfaction and guidanc e (r=.74) and between assurances and control mutuality (r=.74). The weakest were between networking and satisfaction (r=.40) and between access and commitment (r=.41). Satisfaction was most strongly correlated with guidance (r=.74), assurances (r=.69) and positivity (r=.69). These three strategies, alo ng with shared tasks, tended to have the strongest relationship with all of the outcome s. The weakest correlations for satisfaction were with networking (r=.40) and access (r =.42). These tended to have the weakest relationship with other quality outcomes as well. The relationship between satisfaction and the relationship maintenance strategies may mean that offering instruction, support and encouragement will influence the relational satisfaction that teens feel with a volunteer organization more st rongly than keeping them informed about upcoming changes in the organization or building relationship with organizations that benefit the teens.

PAGE 105

90 Like satisfaction, trust had a strong relationship with guidance (r=.72) and assurances (r=.71). It was also strongly corr elated to shared task s (r=.72). The weakest relationships were, again, between networking (r=.42) and access (.45). Positivity did not have as strong a relationship with trust as it did with satisfaction. More investigation of the relationship between quality outcomes and relational maintenance strategies may find that making the communication between an organization and teens fun and upbeat may have a stronger impact on the level of satisf action teens feel with their relationship with an organization than it does on the level of trust that they have with the organization. While positivity was not as strongly correla ted with trust as it was with satisfaction, shared tasks was more strongly correlated w ith trust than with satisfaction. This could mean that when organizations partner with th eir teens to address community issues that teens care about, this more strongly influences trust in the relations hip than satisfaction. Control mutuality was most strongly corre lated with the same three relationship maintenance strategies as tr ust. Assurances (r=.74) ha d the strongest relationship followed by guidance (r=.73) and shared task s (r=.72). The weakes t correlations were with access (r=.45) and networking (r=.49). The relationship between control mutuality and assurances was one of the two strongest in these data. That may indicate that organizations can most effectively engage with teens in a way that gives them adequate power by offering them support and encour agement in their vo lunteer roles. Like control mutuality and trust, the thr ee strongest correlations for commitment were guidance (r=.70), assurances (r=.69) and shared tasks (r=.69). The weakest relationships were with access (r=.41) and with networking (r=.46). The strongest correlations for commitment were slightly lowe r than the strongest relationships for the

PAGE 106

91 other relational quality outcomes. That may be an overall indication that maintenance strategies are less likely to influence comm itment than other outcomes. Possibly other variables, like organization type or organizational mission, would have a greater impact on the level of commitment that teen volunteers feel to an organization. The correlations between the relational qua lity outcomes was examined as well, since this study measured the predictive power that quality outcomes have on one another. The relationship between all f our relational quality outcomes was high, achieving r=.70 or greater. The strongest rela tionship was between satisfaction and trust (r=.80) and between commitment and satisfact ion (r=.77). The weakest relationship was between commitment and trust (r=.72). Th is study has hypothesized a predictive relationship between satisfacti on and trust and one between trust and commitment. From the results of the correlation analysis, the relationship between satisfaction and trust seems more promising than the one betw een commitment and trust; however, both relationships are strong. Some of the correlations be tween relationship maintenan ce strategies were high as well, achieving over .80. For this reason, confirmatory factor an alysis uses an appropriate statistical method of analysis for this study. Potential issues of mu lticollinearity can be controlled through this statis tical methodology because of its use of weighted error measurement. Research Questions Of the 61 items that were used to measur e the constructs in this study, 58 loaded adequately onto one of the f actors. These measures and constructs will be used to examine the research questions and test the hypotheses initially proposed in chapter two.

PAGE 107

92 Research Question 1 To explore the first research question, whether or not all seven maintenance strategies were significantly predicted by the overall construct of relationship maintenance strategies, a confirmatory f actor analysis was conducted. Composite variables were created for the seven maintenan ce strategies using the factor score weights obtained from the confirmatory factor analyses of the individual maintenance strategies. The composite variables were used as observe d variables predicted by the latent variable of relationship maintenance strategies. Results indicate that the m odel is a good fit for the da ta (Table 4-32). All items loaded significantly onto the factor of re lationship maintenance strategies, with the highest loadings coming from the strategies of guidance ( =.90) and assurances ( =.91) and the lowest coming from the strategies of access ( =.60) and networking ( =.53). Not surprisingly, the two variables with the highest loadings ( guidance and assurance) were also two of the strategies with the hi ghest mean scores. The two poorest loading variables, networking and access, had the lowe st mean scores. Guidance and assurances are more frequently observed by teen volunteers in their relationships with volunteer organizations, and these same strategies ar e the most likely to be predicted by the construct of relationship main tenance strategies. Conversely, the strategies of access and networking were least observed in the adoles cent-nonprofit organiza tion relationship, and these strategies were the least likely to be predicted by the overall construct of relationship maintenance strategies. Research Question 2 To address the second research question, whether the four outcomes control mutuality, satisfaction, trust and commitment are predicted by the ove rall construct of

PAGE 108

93 relational quality outcomes, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. Like the composite variables used for relationship maintenance stra tegies, the relational quality outcome variables were created using the regr ession factor scores fr om individual CFAs. Results indicate a very strong model fit, with most indicators achieving a perfect score (see Table 4-34). All indicators loaded strongly onto the factor of relational quality outcomes and the range of scores (.84 to .92) indicated similar factor loading scores among items (Figure 4-14 and Table 4-35). All four quality outcomes appear to contribute strongly to the ove rall construct of relationship quality outcomes. Path Analysis In order to test hypotheses 1-7 the construc ts confirmed by the factor analysis were subjected to a number of path analyses. Path analysis tests a model of relationships between observed variables by measuring the independent variab les without error (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). Accep table results of a path analysis are the same as those for the confirmatory factor analysis. Hypotheses 1 through 3 Hypothesis one, two and three made the following predictions about the relationship between the re lational quality outcomes. According to hypothesis one, commitment would be predicted by trust in the organization-p ublic relationship; hypothesis two said that trust would be predicted by satisfact ion; and the third hypothesis proposed that satisfaction would be predicted by contro l mutuality. That model was created to test these three hypotheses. The model was subjected to a path analysis and all three paths were significant at the p<.001 le vel; however, the mode l did not reach the minimum requirements for a good model fit. One insignificant path was removed and three additional paths were added, based on suggestions from the modification indices

PAGE 109

94 available through the software program AMOS 6.0. Any suggested modification index greater than five merits attention (R aykov & Marcoulides, 2000) and should be considered for addition to the model if theo retically viable. The addition of these three paths created a model that was an excellent f it for the data (Table 4-36). In the revised model, control mutuality is a predictor of the other three outcomes, and satisfaction is a predictor of two of the outcomes trust a nd commitment. Neither trust nor commitment predicted other outcomes, and there was no direct significant relationship between the two. The strongest relationshi ps existed between control mutuality and satisfaction ( =.73), a relationship predicted in hypothesi s 3c. The next stronge st relationship was observed between satisfaction and trust ( =.53), a relationship predicted by hypothesis 3b. In this model the relationship between trust and commitment was not significant, contrary to the prediction of hypothesis 3a. The five significant paths in this model suggest a direction of influence between qua lity outcomes (Figure 4-15). Two outcomes control mutuality and satisfaction appear to be moderate to strong predictors of the other two outcomes commitment and trust. The influence appears to originate with control mutuality, as it is a predictor of satisfaction as well. Based on these findings, hypothesis one was confirmed. Control mutuality appears to be a predictor of the leve l of satisfaction in the orga nization-public relationship. Not only does control mutuality predict satisfa ction, it appears to predict trust and commitment as well. Hypothesis two was confirmed as well. Satisfa ction does appear to be a predictor of trust. These two variab les had the highest correlation of any variables in the study, and

PAGE 110

95 the path analysis seems to i ndicate that the direction of influence most strongly flows from satisfaction to trust. Hypothesis three was not confirmed. While the relationship between trust and commitment was initially found to be significant, the model in which this relationship fell was not a good fit for the data. With the addi tion of other stronger relationship to the model, the relationship between trust and co mmitment was found to be non-significant. Hypotheses 4 through 7 The next four hypotheses predicted the relationship between relational quality outcomes and relationship maintenance strategies (Figure 4-16). Hypotheses four predicted that control mutuality would be be st predicted by four relationship maintenance strategies positivity, assurances, shared task s and access. Hypothesis five predicted that five relationship maintenance strategies would best predict satisfacti on. These five were positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and guidance. The sixth hypothesis predicted that the quality outcome of trus t would be best predicted by positivity and assurances, and the seventh hypothesis pred icted that commitment would be best predicted by the same two relationship maintenance strategies positivity and assurance. The hypotheses were tested using a path mode l analysis of the data. For the quality outcomes, the findings from hypothesis three we re used to create the paths between the four outcomes. An initial te st of the model created from the predicted relationships yielded a number of non-signi ficant paths, which were eliminated from the model. The overall fit for the model did not meet a ll criteria for the good fit (Table 4-38). However, the addition of two paths sugge sted by the modification indices in the analysis software AMOS 6.0 allowed the m odel to meet all crite ria (Figure 4-17 and Table 4-40). These two paths lead from networking to the quality outcome of control

PAGE 111

96 mutuality and from guidance to the outcome of control mutuality. This model became the final accepted model of the influence of relationship maintenance strategies on relational quality outcomes. Hypothesis four had predicte d that control mutuality in the relationship between teen volunteers and volunteer organizations would be best predicted by the strategies of positivity, assurances, shared tasks and access. In the final model, the four significant predictors of control mutuality were shared tasks, networking, assu rances and guidance. Hypothesis four was not supported. Assurances was the strongest pr edictor of control mutuality, with a standardized estimate of .34, more than three times greater than the standardized estimate of the weakest significant pr edictor, networking. Guidance was the next strongest predictor to assurances with a weight of .31. Shared tasks was a significant predictor as well, with a standardized estimate of .15. The fifth hypothesis predicte d that satisfaction would be most influenced by strategies of positivity, assurances, shared tasks, openness and guidance. In the final model only two strategies were significant pr edictors of satisfaction shared tasks and guidance. Hypothesis five was not supported. Gu idance was the strongest predictor, with a standardized estimate score of .31. Shared tasks earned a standa rdized estimate of .25. Hypothesis six predicted th at two strategies would significantly influence the relational quality outcome of trust. The two strategies were positivity and assurances. In the final model, only assurances predicted the level of trust in a relationship between teen volunteers and the volunteer organization. Hypothesis six was not supported. Assurances had a standardized estimate score of .17, a fair ly low score relative to the other paths in this study.

PAGE 112

97 Hypothesis seven predicted that two relationship main tenance strategies would significantly influence the le vel of commitment in an or ganization-public relationship between teen volunteers and the volunteer organization. The two strategies were positivity and assurances. In the final model, only positivity was a significant predictor of commitment. The standardized estimate score, .17, indicates that th e influence is not a strong one. Hypothesis se ven was not supported. The three strongest relations hips between the relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes exist between assurances and control mutuality (.34), between guidance and satisfaction (.31) and between guidance and control mutuality (.28). More strategies predicted control mutu ality than any other with four strategies predicting this outcome. Two strategies predicted satisfaction, and the other two outcomes had one predictor each. In general, the strongest relationships in this model exist between the outcomes themselves, with satisfaction predicting trust and commitment with standardized estimate scores of .48 and .40 resp ectively. Control mutuality most strongly predicted commitment, with that relationship receiving a standardized estimate score of .38. Control mutuality predicted outcomes of sa tisfaction and trust as well, with those relationships receiving scores of .33 and .29 respectively. Hypothesis 8 The eighth hypotheses of this study pr edicted the relati onship between the relational quality outcomes a nd the construct of intende d behavior. The hypothesis predicted that the quality of relationship that exists betw een a volunteer organization and its adolescent volunteers will influence the intended behavior of individuals in that public related to future volunteering. It was reasoned that a more positive experience with a

PAGE 113

98 volunteer organization would result in a more positive perception of volunteering in general. To test this hypothesis, a model was create d that included the obs erved variables of outcomes trust, control mutuality, satisfac tion and commitment being predicted by an unobserved variable of relationa l quality. It also included th e three observed measures of intended behavior being predicted by the unobs erved variable of intended behavior. In the model, relational quality predicted inte nded behavior (Figure 4-18). The model was subjected to a path analysis and proved to be a good fit for the data (Tables 4-41 and 442). The path between the relational quali ty outcomes and intended behavior were significant at the p<.001 level. This hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 9 The last hypothesis predicted an overall model of the relationship between relationship maintenance strategies, relationa l quality outcomes and intended behavior. The hypothesized direction of influence fl ows from the relationship maintenance strategies to the relational quality outcomes to the volunteer intended behavior; therefore, a model was created to reflect this influe nce (Figure 4-19). In the model, the seven relationship maintenance strate gies are predicted by the ove rall strategy of relationship maintenance. This latent variable predicts the latent variable of relational quality, which predicts the four relational quality outcomes as well. The latent construct of volunteer intended behavior is predicted by relationa l quality, and volunteer intended behavior predicts the three measures of its construct. The model was tested using an SEM t echnique called structural regression modeling. This form of analysis is similar to the confirmatory factor analysis used above with the addition of explanatory relations hips between latent variables (Raykov &

PAGE 114

99 Marcoulides, 2000). In this model the latent variable of relationship maintenance predicts relational quality, and relational quality predicts vol unteer intended behavior. Results indicate that the mode l fit is adequate with all indicators of fit criteria except for Chi-square, which does achieve significance in this model (Table 4-43). Considering the high number of degrees of freedom, this result is not surprising. However, the normed Chi-square score doe s meet the requirements for a good fit. Hypothesis nine was supported. In this model relationship maintenance is a strong significant predictor of relational quality while relational quality is a signi ficant, but somewhat weak, predictor of volunteer intended behavior (Figure 4-19 and Tabl e 4-44). Overall, there appears to be a linear relationship between relationship ma intenance and relational quality. In addition, there appears to be a linear relationship betw een relational quality and volunteer intended behavior. Post-hoc Testing To further test the relationships between relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes, an analysis was r un on the indirect relationships between the variables. Two relationships were strongly detected, the influence of guidance on trust ( =.26) and the influence of guidance on commitment ( =.26). Indirect relationships were detected between shared tasks and the same two quality outcomes, trust (.20) and commitment (.19). Assurances had an indir ect influence on commitment (.17) as well. The variance among many variables in this study was moderate to low; therefore, additional post-hoc testing wa s conducted to determine if ot her factors influence these variables (maintenances strategies, quality outcomes and intended behavior). Differences based on gender, race and reason for volunteering were tested.

PAGE 115

100 To test gender, an independent sample t-test was run for two groups male and female comparing their scores for the se ven relationship mainte nance strategies, the four relational quality outcomes and inte nded behavior. No significant difference was detected between the two groups for any variable. To test differences along the lines of r ace, comparisons were made between those who indicated a Caucasian race and those w ho did not. This created uneven groups, with 208 respondents indicating Caucasian heritage and 88 indicating a he ritage of AfricanAmerican, Asian, Hispanic, Mi ddle Eastern, Native American or other. T-tests of differences for the twelve variables along the lines of race revealed a significant difference among groups for one variable and a near significant difference for another. The maintenances strategy of access was rate d significantly different between the groups (t=2.09, p=.04) and intended behavior was n early significantly diffe rent (t=1.92, p=.06). To further investigate the differences perceived in access between these two groups, a series of independent sample t-tests was run on the five m easures which compose access. Only one measure showed a significan t difference between groups, Upper-level managers are approachable. This has implicat ions that will be discussed in chapter 5. To test differences based on reason fo r volunteering, two groups were created. Respondents had been asked on the survey wh ether or not they had volunteered for the organization they were rating to fulfill a requirement. Those who responded yes were place in one group, and those who responded no were placed in another. The groups were a bit uneven, with 190 indicating that they had voluntee red to fulfill a requirement and 102 indicating that they had not. A series of independent sa mple t-tests revealed that nearly all variables were rated significantly different between groups (Table 4-44). Those

PAGE 116

101 who indicated that they did not volunteer to fulfill a requirement rated all relationship maintenance strategies significantly higher, wi th the exception of access. They also rated all relational quality outcomes significantly higher and intended behavior higher. The three variables with the strongest relations hip with reason to volunteer were intended behavior, commitment and assurances. To further test the influence of race a nd reason for volunteering on the model of the teen volunteer-nonprofit organi zation, both variables were added to the full model found in figure 4-19. A path was indicated between each of the two variables and the three latent variables of relationship maintenance, relational quality and in tended behavior. The paths between race and the other variables were non-significant. Two of the paths between reason for volunteering and the other variable were significant. Relationship maintenance (p=.01) and intended behavior (p=.01) were both signi ficant; however, they were the two weakest relationships in the model, achieving scores of .15 and .16 respectively (Figure 4-20). In general, these findings indicate th at both race and reason for volunteering are influential variables in the adolescent-org anization public relationship. Race appears to influence the level of access that teen voluntee rs feel in the organization and to some degree their intention to volunteer throughout their life times. Reason for volunteering appears to have a stronger in fluence on the model, as it not only influences individual strategies, but the overall construct of relati onship maintenances. It also influences the intention to volunteer th roughout ones lifetime. Summary This chapter reported on the results of analysis of data collected from high school students who were currently pa rticipating in community serv ice or had participated in

PAGE 117

102 community service in the prior 12 months. Th e survey measured 12 constructs, including seven relational maintenance strategies, four relational quality outcomes and the construct of volunteer intended behavior. Conf irmatory factor analysis of the data indicated that all constructs held together ad equately, and these constructs were used to test two research questio ns and eight hypotheses. The results of the explorati on of the two research questi ons revealed that the seven relationship maintenance strate gies are significantly predic ted by the overall factor of relationship maintenance. It also showed that the four relational quality outcomes were significantly predicted by the f actor of relational quality. Hypothesis testing indicated that the relational quality outcomes of control mutuality and satisfaction appear to be predictors of the other two outcomes commitment and trust. Control mutuality is a strong predictor of satisfaction as well. Hypothesis one and two proposed that cont rol mutuality would significantly predict satisfaction and that satisfac tion would predict trust were supported. The third hypothesis, that trust would significantly predict commitment, was not supported. Some individual relationship maintenance strategies were be tter predictors of relational quality outcomes than others; how ever, overall, the level of relationship maintenance that teen volunteers detected in their relationship with their volunteer organization significantly predicted the level of relational quality of the relationship. Hypothesis four through seven attempted to pr edict the relationships between relationship maintenance strategies and re lational quality outcomes. None of these hypotheses were supported; however, the testing of hypotheses yielded a model of relationship between the variables.

PAGE 118

103 The eighth hypothesis predicted the re lationship between relational quality outcomes and future intended behavior of volunteers. Teens who reported higher relational quality in their adolescent-nonprofit organization p ublic relationshi p tended to report a stronger inte ntion to volunteer in the future w ith this organiza tion or another. This hypothesis was supported. The last hypothesis predicted the overall model of the adolescent-organization relationship. This hypothesis too was supporte d. Relationships maintenance strategies appear to influence relational quality outcome s which influence teen volunteer intended behavior. Post-hoc testing revealed indirect relationships between the relationship maintenance strategies and rela tional quality outcomes. The three strategies of guidance, shared tasks and assurances all had indire ct relationships with relational quality outcomes. Post-hoc testing also revealed that gender is not a factor in the model tested here; however, race and reason for volunt eering both appear to play a role in the model. Race influences the teen volunteer s perception of the level of access provided to volunteers and, to some degree, it influences teens in tentions toward volunteering in the future. Reason for volunteering appears to influence all variables in this study with the exception of access. It also has significant influen ce on the latent variables of relationship maintenance and intended behavior.

PAGE 119

104 Table 4-1. Initial rate of return by source. Source Surveys distributed Surveys returned Rate of return (%) Stanton College Prep 25010542 Nease High School 1224739 Student Project (various high schools) 1106761 Bartram Trail High School 1002828 Paxon High School 1003939 Episcopal High School 501836 Church Youth Group 301137 Total 76231541

PAGE 120

105 Table 4-2. Descriptive statistics for Re lationship Maintenance Strategy items. Variable Mean SD Positivity Overall 7.6 1.2 Q4-2. The organizations communication with volunteers is courteous. 8.0 1.4 Q4-5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enjoyable. 7.8 1.5 Q5-1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling disagreements with volunteers. 7.7 1.5 Q5-9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be useful. 7.6 1.5 Q3-13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful. 6.9 2.2 Assurances Overall 7.5 1.3 Q5-7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers 7.9 1.5 Q4-1. The organization communicates to me the importance of volunteers. 7.8 1.5 Q4-10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores them. [R] 7.4 1.9 Q3-4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers concerns 7.4 1.6 Q3-10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. 7.0 1.8 Guidance Overall 7.5 1.1 Q3-1. The guidelines that the organization has set for volunteers are clear. 7.9 1.2 Q4-6. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers. 7.8 1.4 Q3-3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful direction from the organization. 7.7 1.3 Q5-5. When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice. 7.5 1.5 Q3-7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers. 7.2 1.6 Q4-12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems. 7.2 1.7 Openness Overall 7.3 1.3 Q4-14. I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization. [R] 7.8 2.1 Q5-8.The organization freely shares information with volunteers. 7.3 1.7 Q4-11. I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans. [R] 7.2 2.2 Q3-12. The organization shares information with volunteers about how it is managed. 7.1 1.8 Q4-9. During meetings, volunteers ar e encouraged to communicate their opinions. 6.9 2.0 Shared tasks Overall 7.3 1.1 Q5-3. The organization and volunteer s care about the same community issues. 7.8 1.4 Q4-3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving joint problems. [R] 7.4 2.0 Q3-5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions encountered by volunteers. 7.4 1.5

PAGE 121

106 Q3-9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing. 7.1 1.7 Q3-6. The organization is involved in community issues (environmental issue, disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about. 6.9 2.2 Access Overall 7.2 1.5 Q3-2. It is clear to me who the upper-level managers are and how to contact them. 7.6 1.9 Q5-4. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions. 7.4 1.8 Q4-13. Upper-level managers are approachable. 7.4 1.9 Q5-2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management. 6.9 1.9 Q3-8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management. 6.8 2.4 Networking Overall 6.9 1.5 Q4-7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way that benefits volunteers. 7.2 1.8 Q5-6. The organization works with community groups that I care about. 7.0 1.9 Q4-4. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits volunteers. 6.9 1.9 Q4-8. The organizations associations with other like-minded groups are not useful for volunteers. [R] 6.8 2.2 Q3-11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers. 6.7 2.1 Note: [R] indicates reverse code

PAGE 122

107 Table 4-3. Descriptive statistics for Relational Quality Outcomes items. Variable Mean SD Satisfaction Overall 7.7 1.2 Q1-6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship. 7.9 1.4 Q1-1. I am happy with the organization. 7.8 1.2 Q2-2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the organization has established with them. [R] 7.8 1.5 Q2-5. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. 7.7 1.4 Q2-9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers needs. [R] 7.6 1.7 Q1-10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization. [R] 7.5 1.9 Trust Overall 7.7 1.1 Q1-2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. 8.1 1.3 Q2-3. The organization misleads volunteers. [R] 8.1 1.5 Q2-4. I feel very confident about the organizations abilities to accomplish its mission. 7.9 1.4 Q1-9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers. 7.5 1.5 Q1-5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the impact on volunteers. 6.7 1.9 Commitment Overall 7.5 1.3 Q1-7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers. 8.2 1.2 Q2-10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. 7.5 1.6 Q1-12. I see the organization as committed to its volunteers. 7.2 1.7 Q2-5. Compared to other organizations, volunteers value their relationship with this organization the most. 7.2 1.9 Q2-7. I would rather work with this organization than another. 7.2 1.9 Control mutuality Overall 7.3 1.2 Q1-4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R] 8.0 1.6 Q1-3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate. 7.6 1.5 Q2-1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers opinions in the decisions that affect them [R] 7.4 1.8 Q1-11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. 7.1 1.7 Q2-8. When volunteers interact with th e organization, they feel that they have some sense of control. 6.9 1.6 Q1-8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them. 6.7 1.9 Note: [R] indicates reverse code.

PAGE 123

108 Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for Volunteer Intended Behavior. Variable Mean SD Volunteer Intended Behavior Overall 7.7 1.5 Q7-2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she participate in community serv ice in years to come? 8.1 1.4 Q7-1. Will you volunteer (for this organization or another) in the years to come? 7.7 2.2 Q7-3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come? 7.5 1.8 Table 4-5. Measurement reliability for all items. Variable Number of items Number of casesCronbachs Relational Quality Outcomes Satisfaction 6291 .85 Commitment 6289 .83 Control Mutuality 6287 .82 Trust 5290 .80 Relationship Maintenance Strategies Assurance 5287 .83 Guidance 6291 .83 Access 5289 .82 Networking 5285 .82 Positivity 5292 .81 Openness 5288 .651Shared Tasks 5289 .642 Intended behavior 6291 .85 1 Reliability of openness was increased to .68 with the removal of items as discussed below. 2 Reliability of shared tasks was increased to .67 with the re moval of items as discussed below.

PAGE 124

109 Figure 4-1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relational Ma intenance Strategy Access. Table 4-6. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strate gy of Access. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 .381 (df=1) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .54 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 .381 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-7. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Access Measurement items Indicators Q3-2. It is clear to me who the upper-level managers are and how to contact them. .74a Q3-8. I have had opportunities to meet with senior management. .79***(.10) Q4-13. Upper-level managers are approachable. .65***(.09) Q5-2. I think volunteers feel comfortable making complaints to management. .62***(.11) Q5-4. I feel comfortable ap proaching management with my questions. .72***(.09) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Access Access Item Q3-2 Access Item Q3-8 Access Item Q4-13 .74 .79 .65 .62 .72 Access Item Q5-2 Access Item Q5-4

PAGE 125

110 Figure 4-2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Positivity. Table 4-8. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strategy of Positivity. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 7.61 (df=4) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .11 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.90 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .99 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .05 Table 4-9. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenanc e Strategy: Positivity. Measurement items Indicators Q3-13. I think meetings volunteers attend are helpful. .52a Q4-2. The organizations communication with volunteers is courteous. .72***(.11) Q4-5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enjoyable. .66***(.12) Q5-1. I believe the organization would be cooperative when handling disagreements with volunteers. .76***(.12) Q5-9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be useful. .78***(.12) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Positivity Positivity Item Q3-13 Positivity Item Q4-2 Postivity Item Q4-5 .52 .72 .66 .76 .78 Positivity Item Q5-1 Positivity Item Q5-9

PAGE 126

111 Figure 4-3. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Openness. Table 4-10. Model fit for Relationship Mainte nance Strategy of Openness with removal of items Q4-11 and Q4-14. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 0 (df=0) Significance (p) p > .05 p = 1.00 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 .00 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 1.0 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-11. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Openness with removal of items Q4-11 and Q4-14. Measurement items Indicators Q3-12. The organization shares information with volunteers about how it is managed. .65a Q4-9. During meetings, volunteers are encouraged to communicate their opinions. .66***(.16) Q5-8.The organization freely shares information with volunteers. .65***(.12) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Openness Openness Item Q3-12 Openness Item Q4-9 Openness Item Q4-11 .66 .63 .30 .30 .67 Openness Item Q4-14 Openness Item Q5-8

PAGE 127

112 Figure 4-4. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Shared Tasks. Table 4-12. Model fit for Relationship Maintena nce Strategy Shared Tasks with measure Q3-6 removed. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 1.71 (df=2) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .43 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 .85 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-13. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Shared Tasks. Measurement items Indicators Q3-5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions encountered by volunteers. .78a Q3-9. The organization works effectively to resolv e issues its volunteers are facing. .73***(.13) Q4-3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving joint problems. [R] .41***(.12) Q5-3. The organization and volu nteers care about the same co mmunity issues. .48***(.09) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Shared tasks Shared tasks Item Q3-5 Shared tasks Item Q3-6 Shared tasks Item Q3-9 .77 .29 .74 .41 .48 Shared tasks Item Q4-3 Shared tasks Item Q5-3

PAGE 128

113 Figure 4-5. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Networking. Table 4-14. Model fit for Relationship Main tenance Strategy of Shared Networking. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 3.96 (df=4) Significance (p) P > .05 p = .41 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 .99 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-15. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Networking. Measurement items Indicators Q3-11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers. .78a Q4-4. The relationships that the organization has with other community groups benefits volunteers. .89***(.07) Q4-7. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way that benefits volunteers. .67***(.06) Q4-8. The organizations associations with other like-minded groups are not useful for volunteers. [R] .46***(.08) Q5-6. The organization works with community groups that I care about. .69***(.07) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Networking Networking Item Q3-11 Networking Item Q4-4 Networking Item Q4-7 .78 .89 .67 .46 .69 Networking Item Q4-8 Networking Item Q5-6

PAGE 129

114 Figure 4-6. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Assurances. Table 4-16. Model fit for Relationship Ma intenance Strategy of Assurances. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 7.06 (df=4) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .13 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.77 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .05 Table 4-17. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Assurances. Measurement items Indicators Q3-4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers concerns .74a Q3-10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. .79***(.10) Q4-1. The organization communicates to me the importance of volunteers. .65***(.09) Q4-10. When volunteers raise concerns, the organization ignores them. [R] .62***(.11) Q5-7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers .72***(.09) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Assurances Assurances Item Q3-4 Assurances Item Q3-10 Assurances Item Q4-1 .74 .79 .65 .62 .72 Assurances Item Q4-10 Assurances Item Q5-7

PAGE 130

115 Figure 4-7. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Guidance. Table 4-18. Model fit for Relationship Maintenance Strate gy of Guidance. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 8.23 (df=8) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .42 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.02 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .01 Table 4-19. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategy: Guidance. Measurement items Indicators Q3-1. The guidelines that the organizati on has set for volunteers are clear. .56a Q3-3. Volunteers receive clear and helpful di rection from the organi zation. .68***(.16) Q3-7. The organization offers valuable advice to volunteers. .65***(.20) Q4-6. The organization sets appropriate limits for its volunteers. .57***(.14) Q4-12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems. .72***(.22) Q5-5. When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice. .77***(.20) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Guidance Guidance Item Q3-1 Guidance Item Q4-6 .56 .68 .65 .57 .72 Guidance Item Q5-5 .77 Guidance Item Q4-12 Guidance Item Q3-7 Guidance Item Q3-3

PAGE 131

116 Figure 4-8. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Control Mutuality. Table 4-20. Model fit for Relational Qu ality Outcome Control Mutuality. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 8.84 (df=8) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .36 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.11 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .02 Control Mutuality Mutuality Item Q1-3 Mutuality Item Q1-11 .71 .40 .65 .89 .64 Mutuality Item Q2-8 .63 Mutuality Item Q2-1 Mutuality Item Q1-4 Mutuality Item Q1-8

PAGE 132

117 Table 4-21. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Control Mutuality. Measurement items Indicators Q1-3. The organization believes the opinions of volunteers are legitimate. .71a Q1-4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R] .40***(.10) Q1-8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them. .65***(.11) Q1-11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. .89***(.11) Q2-1. The organization seems to ignore vo lunteers opinions in the decisions that affect them [R] .64***(.11 Q2-8. When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they have some sense of control. .63***(.10) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Figure 4-9. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcome: Satisfaction. Satisfaction Satisfaction Item Q1-1 Satisfaction Item Q2-2 .76 .72 .57 .59 .78 Satisfaction Item Q2-9 .64 Satisfaction Item Q1-10 Satisfaction Item Q2-5 Satisfaction Item Q1-6

PAGE 133

118 Table 4-22. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Satisfaction. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 2.14 (df=6) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .91 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 2.14 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 1.0 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-23. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Ou tcome: Satisfaction. Measurement items Indicators Q1-1. I am happy with the organization. .76a Q1-6. Both the organization and volunteers be nefit from their relationship. .72***(.09) Q1-10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction with the organization. [R] .57***(.13) Q2-2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy with the relationship the organization has established with them. [R] .59***(.11) Q2-5. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. .78***(.09) Q2-9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers needs. [R] .64***(.11) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Figure 4-10. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relational Quality Outcome -Trust. Trust Trust Item Q1-2 Trust Item Q2-3 .71 .53 .80 .63 .68 Trust Item Q2-4 Trust Item Q1-9 Trust Item Q1-5

PAGE 134

119 Table 4-24. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Trust. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 4.71 (df=4) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .32 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.18 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximiation (RMSEA) .05 .03 Table 4-25. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Trust. Measurement items Indicators Q1-2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. .71a Q1-5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the impact on volunteers. .53***(.14) Q1-9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers. .80***(.12) Q2-3. The organization misleads volunteers. [R] .63***(.11) Q2-4. I feel very confident about the organizations abilities to accomplish its mission. .68***(.10) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Figure 4-11. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome Commitment. Commitment Commitment Item Q1-7 Commitment Item Q2-7 .60 .64 .65 .67 .80 Commitment Item Q2-5 Commitment Item Q2-10 Commitment Item Q1-12

PAGE 135

120 Table 4-27. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcome of Commitment. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 1.86 (df=3) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .60 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 .62 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 1.0 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-28. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relational Quality Outcome: Commitment. Measurement items Indicators Q1-7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers. .60a Q1-12. I see the organization as committed to its volunteers. .64***(.16) Q2-5. Compared to other organizations, volunteers value their relationship with this organization the most. .65***(.21) Q2-7. I would rather work with this organization than another. .67***(.21) Q2-10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. .80***(.20) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Figure 4-12. Confirmatory factor analys is for Volunteer Intended Behavior. Volunteer Intended Behavior Behavior Item Q7-2 .77 .75 .79 Behavior Item Q7-1 Behavior Item Q7-3

PAGE 136

121 Table 4-29. Model fit for Vo lunteer Intended Behavior. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 0 (df=0) Significance (p) p > .05 p < .001 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 0 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 1.0 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .00 Table 4-30. Confirmatory factor analys is of Volunteer Intended Behavior. Measurement items Indicators Q7-1. Will you volunteer (for this organizatio n or another) in the years to come? .77a Q7-2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she participate in community service in years to come? .75***(.06) Q7-3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come? .79***(.08) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001

PAGE 137

122 Table 4-31. Correlation matrix for relational quality outcomes and relationship maintenance strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Satisfaction 1.0 2. Trust .80 *** 1.0 3. Control Mutuality .73 *** .76 *** 1.0 4. Commitment .77 *** .72 *** .76 *** 1.0 5. Guidance .74 *** .72 *** .73 *** .70 *** 1.0 6. Access .42 *** .44 *** .45 *** .41 *** .54 *** 1.0 7. Assurances .69 *** .71 *** .74 *** .69 *** .81 *** .64 *** 1.0 8. Shared Tasks .73 *** .72 *** .72 *** .69 *** .80 *** .47 *** .81 *** 1.0 9. Networking .40 *** .42 *** .49 *** .46 *** .48 *** .32 *** .47 *** .56 *** 1.0 10. Openness .55 *** .55 *** .65 *** .58 *** .70 *** .57 *** .74 *** .68 *** .49 *** 1.0 11. Positivity .69 *** .66 *** .68 *** .67 *** .81 *** .49 *** .78 *** .76 *** .49 *** .71 *** 1.0

PAGE 138

123 Figure 4-13. Confirmatory factor analysis for Relationship Maintenance Strategies. Table 4-32. Model fit for Relati onship Maintenance Strategies. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 15.02 (df=9) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .09 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.67 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .05 Table 4-33. Confirmatory factor analysis of Relationship Maintenance Strategies. Measurement items Indicators Guidance .90a Access .60***(.10) Assurances .91***(.07) Shared tasks .87***(.07) Networking .53***(.16) Openness .82***(.08) Positivity .88***(.11) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Relationship Maintenance Strategies Guidance .90 .60 .91 .87 .53 .82 Networking .88 Shared Tasks Assurances Openness Positivity Access

PAGE 139

124 Figure 4-14. Confirmatory factor anal ysis for Relational Quality Outcomes. Table 4-34. Model fit for Relational Quality Outcomes. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 1.13 (df=1) Significance (p) p > .05 p = .29 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.13 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 1.0 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .02 Table 4-35. Confirmatory factor analys is of Relational Quality Outcomes. Measurement items Indicators Satisfaction .87a Trust .92***(.05) Mutuality .84***(.06) Commitment .90***(.04) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Relational Quality Outcomes Control Mutuality .87 .92 .84 .90 Commitment Trust Satisfaction

PAGE 140

125 Figure 4-15. Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes. Table 4-36. Model fit for relationship between Relational Quality Outcomes. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 1.49 (df=1) Significance (p) p > .05 .22 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.49 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 1.0 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 1.0 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .04 Table 4-37. Path analysis of relationsh ips between Relational Quality Outcomes. Paths Indicators Mutuality Satisfaction .73a Mutuality Commitment .43***(.03) Mutuality Trust .37***(.04) Satisfaction Trust .53***(.05) Satisfaction Commitment .46***(.04) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). a Leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct varian ce; therefore, values were not calculated. *** p < .001 Control Mutuality Satisfaction Trust Commitment .73 .53 .46 .43 .37

PAGE 141

126 Figure 4-16. Initial model of relationship between Relations hip Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes. Table 4-38. Results of initial hypothesi zed relationship between Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Re lational Quality outcomes Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 38.34 Significance (p) p > .05 p=.02 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.74 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .99 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .98 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .05 Trust Commitment Access Positivity Openness Shared Tasks Networking Assurances Guidance Satisfaction Control Mutuality

PAGE 142

127 Figure 4-17. Fitted model for influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies on Relational Quality Outcomes Table 4-39. Final model fit of influence of Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 21.83 (df=21) Significance (p) p > .05 p=.41 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.04 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .01 Commitment Access Positivity Openness Shared Tasks Networking Guidance .14 .33 .48 .29 .38 .40 .11 .3 1 .28 .17 .34 .25 .15 Assurances Control Mutuality Satisfaction Trust

PAGE 143

128 Table 4-40. Path analysis of relationships between Relationship Maintenance Strategies and Relational Quality Outcomes. Paths Indicators Positivity Commitment .14**(.02) Shared Tasks Control Mutuality .15*(.07) Shared Tasks Satisfaction .25***(.05) Networking Control Mutuality .11**(.03) Assurances Control Mutuality .34***(.07) Assurances Trust .17***(.04) Guidance Control Mutuality .28***(.11) Guidance Satisfaction .31***(.09) Control Mutuality Satisfaction .33***(.05) Control Mutuality Trust .29***(.04) Control Mutuality Commitment .38***(.03) Satisfaction Trust .48***(.05) Satisfaction Commitment .40***(.04) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p < .001 Figure 4-18. Path analysis of relationsh ip between Relational Quality and Intended Behavior. RQO Satisfaction Commitment Control Mutuality Trust Item #3 Item #2 Item #1 VIB .37

PAGE 144

129 Table 4-41. Model fit of relati onship between relational quali ty and intended behavior. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 14.86 (df=12) Significance (p) p > .05 p=.249 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.24 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 1.0 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .99 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .99 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .03 Table 4-42. Path analysis of relationship between Relational Quality and Intended Behavior. Paths Indicators Relational Quality Outcomes Volunteer Intended Behavior .37***(.14) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p < .001 Figure 4-19. Model of adoles cent-nonprofit organi zation public relationship including Intended Behavior. RQO Access Positivity Openness Shared Tasks Network Assurances Guidance Satisfaction Commitment Control Mutualit y Trust Item #3 Item #2 Item #1 RMS VIB .89 .38

PAGE 145

130 Table 4-43. Model fit of influence of a dolescent-nonprofit orga nization relationship including Intended Behavior Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square > .005 96.47 (df=68) Significance (p) P > .05 p=.01 Chi-square/degrees of freedom 3 1.42 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .99 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .96 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .97 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .04 Table 4-44. Path analysis of influence of Relational Quality Outcomes on Intended Behavior. Paths Indicators Relationship Maintenance Strategies Relational Quality Outcomes .89***(.07) Relational Quality Outcomes Volunteer Intended Behavior .38***(.14) Note: Indicators include standardized estimates ( ) and standard error (inside parentheses). p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p < .001 Figure 4-20. Influence of reason for vol unteering on model of adolescent-nonprofit organization public relationship including Intended Behavior. .16 .15 .38 .89 RQO Access Positivity Openness Shared Tasks Network Assurances Guidance Satisfaction Commitment Control Mutualit y Trust Item #3 Item #2 Item #1 RMS VIB Reason for Volunteering

PAGE 146

131 Table 4-45. Significant differen ces in rating of variables for those who volunteered to fulfill a requirement and those who did not Variable Reason for volunteering N Mean SD Relational Quality Outcomes Satisfaction* Fulfill requirement 190 7.6 1.1 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.9 1.2 Trust* Fulfill requirement 190 7.5 1.2 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.9 1.1 Control Mutuality* Fulfill requirement 190 7.2 1.2 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.5 1.1 Commitment** Fulfill requirement 190 7.4 1.3 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.7 1.1 Relationships Maintenance Strategies Guidance* Fulfill requirement 190 7.4 1.1 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.7 .9 Access Fulfill requirement 190 7.2 1.5 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.3 1.6 Assurances** Fulfill requirement 190 7.3 1.4 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.8 1.0 Sharing Fulfill requirement 190 7.2 1.2 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.5 1.0 Networking Fulfill requirement 190 6.7 1.5 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.2 1.5 Openness* Fulfill requirement 190 7.1 1.3 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.5 1.1 Positivity* Fulfill requirement 190 7.5 1.3 Not fulfill requirement 102 7.8 1.1 Intended Behavior*** Fulfill requirement 190 7.5 1.6 Not fulfill requirement 102 8.1 1.3 Significant at p< .05 level ** Significant at p< .01 level ***Significant at p< .001 level

PAGE 147

132 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The study presented here offers insights into the organization-public relationship for adolescent publics. It tested the Hon and Grunig (1999) model of organization-public relationships with adoles cent volunteers by measuring the relationship between relationship maintenance stra tegies and relational quality outcomes in the volunteernonprofit organization relationship. In additi on, the study measured the impact of the relational quality outcomes on volunteer intended behavior. In general, the study found that relationship maintenance predicts relational quality which predicts volunteer intended behavior. Hypotheses in this study posited that certa in quality outcomes would predict others; that individual strategies w ould have a direct influence on individual relational quality outcomes; and that relational quality w ould influence volunteer intended behavior. Relationship Maintenance All seven relationship maintenance strate gies were predicted by the factor of relational quality. The two strongest relations hips were with guidance and assurance, suggesting that adolescent volunteers perception of relationship maintenance is most strongly influenced when an organization offe rs advice and clear in struction as well as when it listens to and considers volunteers concerns. The weakest predictors were access and networking, the same two strategies that received the lowest mean score and had the lowest correlation to relational quality outcome s. Later testing for th e predictive power of relationship maintenance strategies on rela tional quality outcomes showed that access

PAGE 148

133 lacks direct influence on any quality outcome, and networking has a very small impact on only one quality outcome, control mutuality. Th is may be an indication that these two strategies are not effective w ith adolescents. It appears that adolescent vol unteers do not detect these strategies in th eir organizational relationships, and when they do, it has little impact on the way they perceive the relati onship, as measured by the relational quality outcomes. Teen volunteers may not spend enough time with an organization to see the value that comes for the organizations netw ork with other entitie s, and teens may not feel that they need to have access to highe r levels of management in order to be successful in their efforts. Therefore, these tw o strategies may not need to be measured in future studies with teen volunteers. Additional research would need to be done to determine whether these strate gies should be eliminated fr om the model for adolescents. More work would need to be done to determin e whether these strategies are important for adolescents who fall in other public types (advocates, consumers, members, etc.). Three other strategies were tested as well: shared tasks, openness and positivity. Of the three only shared tasks had a strong pr edictive relationship with an outcome, satisfaction (as discussed in the following sect ion). Positivity had only a weak association with commitment, and openness had no significa nt relationship with any of the quality outcomes. Like the strategies of access a nd networking, positivity and openness may not play a significant role in th e adolescent-organization public relationship. Certainly, they do not appear to be important in the adol escent volunteer-nonprof it organization public relationship. Their significance in other t ypes of relationships should be tested. Relational Quality Outcomes As predicted by the hypotheses, the four relational quality outcomes satisfaction, trust, control mutuality and commitment were significantly predicted by the overall

PAGE 149

134 construct of relational quality. Prior work had found that control mutuality did not have a significant relationship with relational quality, but that does not appear to be the case with this public. All four quality outcomes had a strong relationship with relational quality with scores ranging from .84 to .92. This would indicate that all four outcomes are strong contributors to the overall cons truct of relational quality, with trust and commitment having the strongest relationships to relational quality. Th is means that teens are detecting all four relational quality outcome s, and all four make up their concept of relational quality. Additional analysis was used to test the hypothesis that some of the quality outcomes predicted others. It was hypothesized that control mutuality predicted satisfaction, satisfaction predicted trust a nd trust predicted commitment. Two of the relationships proved to be significant: the relationship between control mutuality and satisfaction and the relationship between satisfa ction and trust. The later proved to be a stronger relationship. Indicators suggested that other relations hips may exist between the outcomes, and another model was fitted to the data. The final model indicated that control mutuality was a predictor of the other three outcomes and satisfaction was a predictor of trust and commitment. Trust and commitment did not predict other outcomes. This new model suggests that control mutuality is a key predictor of the other outcomes. Its appears that the level of power that teens feel in a relationship with a volunteer organization will influence the degree to which they feel satisfied with the relationship, the degree to which they trust the organization and the degr ee to which they are committed to the organization. Additionally, the leve l of satisfaction that they f eel influences the degree to which they trust the organization and are committed to it.

PAGE 150

135 The role of control mutuality as a predic tor of all other outco mes may suggest that it is a type of mediating f actor between strategies and outcomes. Organizations can actively influence the level of control mutu ality that publics feel by providing more power to that public, but its more difficult to tie specific actions to an increase in satisfaction or trust or commitment. These three constructs (sa tisfaction, trust and commitment) may be the best indicators of the overall relation ship, with control mutuality acting as another avenue to influe nce the three relational quality outcomes. As it is currently explicated, control mutuality (the degree to which publics feel they have adequate power in the relationship) cannot be a strategy because it is not an action that can be taken by the organization. However, the degree to which an organization gives publics control in the relationship could be a strategy, and this concept should be studied in the future. Influence of Maintenance Strategies on Quality Outcomes This study made predictions about the re lationship between specific relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes. Most predicted paths were significant, but a few were not, and a few paths not pr edicted were found to be significant. The final model offers a picture of the influence of relationship maintenance strategies on relational qual ity outcomes. A pattern emerge d in the flow between the relationship maintenance stra tegies and relational quality outcomes. The strategies appeared to flow through the st rategy of control mutuality. The difference between the findings in th is study and others may be due to the design of the testing of the relationship between relationshi p maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes in this study. Associations between the strategies and outcomes were measured while considering the associations between the outcomes.

PAGE 151

136 Conducting the analysis in this way gives us a clearer picture of the influence of variables on one another. The strongest predictive relationships in th is study occurred between the outcomes. Testing the influence of strate gies on outcomes without considering the relationships that exist between the quality outcomes would not take into consideration the stronger relationships that existed, those between outcomes. As a result, errors could be made about the source of influence. By first considering the relationship between outcomes, we see the additional influence that strategies provide. It appears that the strategies most strongly influence control mutuality in the adolescent-nonprofit organization relationship. This outcome then acts as a predictor of the other outcomes. However, the strategies offer some additional influence on the other outcomes. This tells us that while strong, the relationships between the outcomes are not the only influence on outcomes. Taking a closer look at the relationship, the associations between relationship maintenance strategies and re lational quality outcomes paints a picture of the way this relationship work. The strategies of assurances and guidance appear to have the strongest predictive power of all the strategies. Assurances influence on control mutuality ( =.34) was the strongest of all relationships betw een relationship maintenance strategies and relational quality outcomes. Its influence on trust was si gnificant but much weaker ( =.17). Guidance had a strong predictor power for both control mutuality ( =.28) and satisfaction ( =.31). These are the two outcomes that act as predictors of the other outcomes. It appears that when organizations offer assurances, like assurance to a public that its concerns are legitimate, this increases th e level of control mutuality considerably and

PAGE 152

137 the level of trust to some degree. Prior rese arch found that the leve l of assurances was a significant predictor of all four relational quality outcomes as well as being the strongest predictor of overall relational quality. In this study assurances was not a significant direct predictor of commitment (though it did have an indirect influence on this outcome) or satisfaction; however, it was the strongest predictor of overall relational quality ( =.91). Assurances was the only strategy to directly predict trust. This is significant because trust is strongly predicted by both satisfaction a nd control mutuality, but still assurances contributes to a small degree to the level of trust in this organizat ion-public relationship. That would indicate that most of the influe nce on trust flows from the levels of these other outcomes; however, when an organization listens to its teen volunteers and considers their concerns (assurances), that be havior does influence th e level of trust that the teens feel toward the organization. That is the only strategy that appears to directly influence trust. The other strategy with a very strong influence on the quality outcomes was guidance. This strategy was the second strongest predictor of the overall level of relational quality ( =.90). The level of guidance had a direct influence on both the level of control mutuality and the level of satisfa ction. In other words, when an organization offers advice and provides instruction to its teen volunteers, the a dolescents feel more satisfied with the relationship and they feel more comfortable with the level of power that they have in the relationshi p. The only other pred ictor for satisfaction was shared tasks. Satisfaction was strongly predicted by cont rol mutuality, and alt hough guidance predicted control mutuality as well, it still had a strong direct influence on the level of satisfaction in the relationship. This may be due to the fact that teens expect to be clearly directed

PAGE 153

138 when working in a volunteer capacity. The l ack of instruction or guidance may create some confusion or lack of knowledge on the vol unteers part that reduces the level of enjoyment they have in the relationship. If a volunteer is attempting to perform a task that is unknown or unfamiliar, then guidance would reduce the likelihood of frustration or poor performance. Therefore, it is not surpri sing to see that guidance is one of the strongest predictors of the relational quali ty outcomes. Not only did guidance influence satisfaction and control mutuality directly, it also had a strong indirect influence on the other two outcomes, trust and commitment. C onsidering the strength of both the direct and indirect relationships of guidance, it appears to be th e strategy with the strongest influence on relational quality. This strong influence of guidance on relational maintenance and on relational quality outcomes suggests that it should be considered in future research on the organization-public relationship. More test ing should be done to see if it holds up for adult members of publics and for other public types (members, activists, consumers, etc.). Shared tasks was the only other strategy that had a direct significant relationship with more than one of the outcomes. It was a predictor for both control mutuality and satisfaction and have an indir ect influence on trust and commitment. This aligns with the results of other research, which found that shared tasks was a pr edictor of the two outcomes control mutuality and satisfaction. The more that teen volunteers detected that their volunteer organization was working with them to jointly accomplish tasks that were important to the teens, the more likely they we re to be satisfied w ith the relationship and to feel a balance of power in the relationship. Like guida nce, shared tasks had an influence on both control mutuality and satisfaction. Although control mutuality was a

PAGE 154

139 strong predictor of satisfaction, shared tasks still had a direct significant influence on satisfaction. The influence on satisfaction di d not flow through c ontrol mutuality only. Shared tasks was a strong predictor of the overall relationship maintenance as well ( =.87) Positivity had the next strongest direct re lationship with a quality outcome ( =.14). This was the only strategy with a significan t direct influence on the quality outcome of commitment, though the relationship was a weak one. This means that in addition to the influence by both satisfaction and contro l mutuality on commitment, the level of positivity that teen volunteers fe lt in their relationship with the nonprofit organization had a small positive influence on the level of co mmitment that they felt to the organization. Other research has shown that positivity predic ted the levels of the other three outcomes, control mutuality, satisfaction and trust, but not commitment. In the case of teen volunteers, the degree to which an organi zation makes the relationship enjoyable influences the level of commitment that the teens have to the organization. This may be the result of the nature of volunteering for teens. Many vol unteer to fulfill a requirement, and therefore any efforts on the part of th e organization to make the experience more enjoyable or fun could make the teens feel that they would like to continue the relationship. One of the measur es of commitment asked teens to indicate the degree to which they would rather work with this or ganization than anothe r. Teens likely would prefer to stay with an organization that makes their experience more enjoyable than begin volunteering with another. Po sitivity was a strong predic tor of the overall relational quality as well ( =.87).

PAGE 155

140 The only other strategy that had a direct predictive relationship with a relational quality outcome was networking This strategy was a predicto r for the outcome of control mutuality. Networking joined shared tasks, assu rances and guidance as predictors of this outcome. Teens were more likely to feel that they had adequate power in the organization-public relationship when they perceived a greater bene fit to volunteers from relationships that nonprof its maintained with othe r organizations or groups. The fact that most strategies were predictors for control mutuality may be an indication that rather than the strategies having an impact on the out comes directly, the use of relationship maintenance strategies in the organization-public relationship between nonprofit organizations and teen volunteers influences th e degree to which teens feel they have the level of power that they expect in the relati onship. This results in them becoming more satisfied in the relationship and having a higher quality of re lationship, as predicted by trust and commitment. The two strategies of openness and access were not direct predictors of any of the relational quality outco mes in this study. Openness was not a direct predictor of relational quality outcomes in another study of this same type (Ki, 2006). That does not mean that it does not have an indirect influe nce on the perception of other strategies. The other strategy which did not predict any outcomes in this study was access. In another study it predicted control mutuality, which seem s like a logical relationship. It is possible that teens are not concerned about the level of access they are given to management or the level of openness or disclosu re that the organization engage s in with them. It could be that volunteers are not as concerned about in formation being withheld from them and are more concerned about being given good direc tion (guidance), about having their opinions

PAGE 156

141 validated (assurances) and about having enjoyabl e experiences (positivity). The nature of this public and of the developmental stage of the individuals in this public may influence the types of strategies that are most important to them. A former study with adult members of publics found that assurances was the strategy with the strongest pr edictive power for relational quality outcomes (Ki, 2006). Positivity and access had strong predictive relati onships as well. In the study presented here, guidance appears to have the stronge st impact on relational quality, when both direct and indirect relationships are cons idered. This was followed by assurances and shared tasks. It appears that the adoles cent-organization and the adult-organization relationship are influenced by somewhat different strategies More study is needed to identify how these differences manifest themselves in different public groups (consumers, activists, members, etc.). Using the rule of thumb that standardized estimates ( ) of less than .20 are weak associations, the following is a summary of the relationships between relational quality outcomes and relationship maintenance strategies. Control mutuality was somewhat strongly associated with rela tionship strategies of assura nces and guidance and weakly associated with shared tasks and networking in the adolescent-org anization relationship. Satisfaction was relatively str ongly associated with shared tasks and guidance. Trust was weakly associated with assurances, and commitment was weakly associated with positivity. Overall, guidance was strongly associated with two outcomes (control mutuality and satisfaction), assurances was st rongly associated with one outcome (control mutuality) and shared tasks was strongly associated with one outcome (satisfaction).

PAGE 157

142 The model that emerges from examining the strong associations appears to suggest that strategies are a predic tor of control mutuality a nd satisfaction and these are predictors of trust and commitment which ar e the strongest predic tors of the overall relational quality (Figure 5-1). The fact that control mutuality was pred icted by more strategi es than any other outcome is not surprising (when considering both the stronger and w eaker associations), nor is the role of control mutuality as a predictor of the other outcomes in this relationship given the (limited) research on interpersonal relationship maintenance strategies with teens. As di scussed in chapter 2, Vogl-Bauer et al (1999) found that the more that adolescents detected maintenance strategies in their relationship with their parents, the more likely they were to feel over-benefited in th e relationship. The more benefited that they felt in the relationship the greater their feeling of power in the relationship, and the more powerful they felt in their parent-child relationship, the more satisfied they felt with the relationship (strategies level of benefit felt power satisfaction). The results found in this study a bout the flow of influence from relationship maintenance strategies to the outcomes appear to align with this literature. The degree to which maintenance strategies are used appear s to influence control mutuality to a great degree and other outcomes to a lesser degree. The level of control mutuality, or the degree of power teens feel, most strongly infl uences satisfaction which then influences the outcomes of trust and commitment, which ultimately predict the overall relational quality in the relationship (maintenance strategies control mutuality (similar to power) satisfaction trust and commitment).

PAGE 158

143 The final model of the teen -organization relatio nship identified in this study makes a great deal of sense for adolescent volunt eers (Figure 5-1). First, the influence of guidance on both control mutuality and satisfa ction seems logical. Adolescent volunteers are often experiencing a work environment for the first time and, therefore, would benefit greatly from clear guidance and instruction on how to perform the tasks in their job as well as guidance on dressing appropriately, th e importance of arriving on-time, and how to manage their time while on the job. Teen volunteers who are given guidance on their work and general work behaviors will likel y feel more satisfie d because they will understand how to perform their jobs well. Th is would lead to better performance, and probably more positive feedback from peer s and managers. In addition, those who are given good instruction in their volunteer assignm ents likely feel empowered to do their jobs, thus leading to a higher sense of control mutuality. When an organization takes the time to establish programs for training and instruction for teen volunteers, that likely communicates to teens that their service to the organization is valued, again increasing the teens sense of empower ment in their position. The relationship between assurances and control mutuality, too, seems clear. The more that teen volunteers are told they are valuable to the organization, the more they will feel they have power in the relations hip with the organization. The relationship between shared tasks and satis faction seem obvious for the t een volunteer experience as well. The act of volunteering, in a way, is a shared tasks. Teens are donating hours to an organization to help them accomplish a goal that is important to the organization, and hopefully one that the teens care about too. The more that the teens view the relationship as embodying this sense of shared tasks, the more satisfied the teen will feel. Likely teens

PAGE 159

144 who work with an organization that addresse s an issue they value will have a greater sense of shared tasks and greater satisfaction. As well, the responsibility that teens are given in their volunteer position will impact the level of shared tasks that they perceive. For example, if a teen volunteers with an organization because he/s he is passionate about literacy but then spends all volunteer hours copying, filing and shelving books, likely that teen will not perceive as much shared tasks as if he/she were given the opportunity to tutor a reader or read stor ies to children. Teens should be given the opportunity to engage an issue in the work that they do. Th is likely will provide them with a greater sense of purpose, a greater sense of shared tasks and greater satisfaction. Testing of the model proposed in this st udy revealed the influe nce that relational quality outcomes have on one another. No testing was done on the relationship between relationship maintenance strategies. It is like ly that the maintenance strategies influence one another. Correlation scores suggest that guidance, assuran ces and shared tasks are all highly related. Positivity and openness are str ongly correlated with th ese three strategies as well. Access and networking appear to function more independently. A model of the relationship between relati onship maintenance strategies could be proposed that suggests that engaging guidance is a way of engaging in shared tasks, and offering assurances may be part of the process of guidance. Adolescents who receive training or instruction in th eir volunteer responsibilities may feel more engaged in their job and may perceive the training as a way in which the organization is working with them to resolve problems (an element of sh ared tasks). When an organization offers training, advice and instruction to its teen volunteers that may co mmunicate a desire to respond to volunteers needs and concerns (a n element of assurances). Also, taking the

PAGE 160

145 time to offer guidance may be perceived as an indication of the volunteers value to the organization (an element of assurances). In these ways guidance may influence the perception of the two maintenan ce strategies of shared task s and assurances (assurances guidance shared tasks). Guidance would not act as a prerequisite for the other two, but when it is present it may be a predictor of the perception of the others. At the same time, assurances and shared tasks are highl y correlated. Offering assurances may be a prerequisite for the perception of shared tasks. In order for teens to feel that they are working together with the organization on a task of mutual interest, they may first need to feel that their contributions to the organization are valuable. On ly then would they perceive their work as contributing to the mission of the organization (assurances shared tasks). Other maintenance strategies may influe nce one another as well. Positivity, the attempt to make interactions pleasant, ma y be a prerequisite for the strategy of assurances. One may assume that offering as surances, or communicating the value of a partner, begins with the desire to ma ke the interaction positive (positivity assurances). Another potential relatio nship exists between access a nd openness. The concepts of access, providing access to upper management, seems to be related to openness, providing information about upcoming events and changes in the organization, to the degree that both are providing access to information or resources (access openness). The presence of both of these strategies communicates the importance of the volunteer (assurances). By giving volunteers access to information and people, the organization is including the volunteer in important communication and thus indicati ng their value to the organization (access openness assurances). Access and openness would not be

PAGE 161

146 prerequisites of assurances, but like guidance, their presence could act as a predictor of the level of assurances. Intended Behavior Volunteerism has many benefits for teens, including the development of social networks (Yates & Youniss, 1996) and an increased sense of social responsibility and personal competence (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Newmann & Rutter, 1983). This study found that teens who reported a higher qual ity in their volunteernonprofit organization relationship had a significan tly higher intention to volunt eer throughout their lifetimes. This has incredible implicat ions for volunteer organizations engaged with adolescents. Not only does the level of quality in the rela tionship benefit the organization through loyalty and other outcomes (Brunig, 2002; Hall, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007), quality in an organization-public relationship can benefit th e members of the public as well. In this case, increasing the level of quality of the relationship can have long-term positive effects for the teen members of the volunteer public and for the broader society. When organizations engage the relational maintena nce strategies with teen volunteers, the young people feel a greater sense of power in the relationship and a greater sense of satisfaction with the relationship, which influe nces the level of trust and commitment in the relationship resulting in a greater overall relational qual ity. The greater the relational quality for teens in a volunteer public, the greater the like lihood that those individuals will intend to volunteer throughout their lifetimes. Post-hoc Testing Post-hoc testing of the data raised a number of intere sting questions about the way the organization-public relati onship works for teen volunteers. First, gender does not

PAGE 162

147 appear to be a critical fact or in the way the relationship is perceived; however, both race and reason for volunteering did have significant impact on the relationship. Most respondents in this study identified their ethnicity as white (non-Hispanic). (70%). A test of the influence of race is difficult with such a large majority falling into one category. To test race, a simple comp arison was made between those who selfidentified as white (non-Hispanic) and t hose who were not. The results indicated a significant difference for the relationship maintenance strategy of access and a near significant difference for intended behavior. Further investigation revealed that one measure of the five measures of access was significantly different for one group over the other. Those in the minority group rated the fo llowing statement significantly lower than those who self-identified as white (non-Hispanic): Upper-level managers are approachable. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case. First, First, it is possible that minority teens in general fe el less empowered in their lives and as a result, feel more hesitant to approach au thority figures. Second, ma nagers at volunteer organizations may not make themselves as av ailable for their minority volunteers as they do for their white volunteers. Third, it is possible that managers at the volunteer organizations are primarily white and minority youth do not feel as comfortable approaching them as they would approaching someone of a different race or ethnicity. Whatever the true reasons, minor ity teen volunteers clearly feel like they are less able to approach management. In addition to the differences in the leve l of access along the lines of race, minority teen volunteers are near-signi ficantly less likely to intend to volunteer throughout their lifetime. This may be an indication of SES influence on intended behavior. Other

PAGE 163

148 research has shown that vol unteer behavior among teens is influenced by parental volunteer experiences, parental education and family SES. Mo re research should be done to see if that is the source of the difference found here or if racial difference independently influences intended behavior. The variable with a greater impact was reason for volunteering. Those who indicated that they did not volunteer to fulfill a requirement rated all relationship maintenance strategies higher, except for acce ss, and they rated all relational quality outcomes significantly higher. They also rate d intended behavior si gnificantly higher. Teens who volunteer without external provoca tion likely would feel more strongly about the relationship with the organization; they probably feel more committed to the organization and generally are more committed to volunteering. Its not surprising that two of the three variables w ith the strongest relationship to reason for volunteering are commitment and intended behavior. The thir d variable, assurances however is a bit surprising. Apparently, teens who voluntee r without requirements feel that the organization does a better job of communi cating their value than do teens who are volunteering to fulfill a requirement. This may mean that teen volunteers tend to continue volunteering with organizations (even after all requirements are fulfilled) that do a good job of offering assurances. Or, it could mean that teens who volunteer without requirements are more sensitive to the co mmunication of assura nces. Most likely it means that teens who volunteer without requirement actually are more valuable to the organization because they are more invested in it, and the offering of assurances follows.

PAGE 164

149 Implication for Practice The proposed model of the adolescent-org anization relationshi p has implications for public relations, for nonprofit organizati ons, for teen volunteer s and for schools and community service department within schools. For public relations, the model suggests that good practices with teen volunteers can be a type of social res ponsibility. Organizations who i nvest in their teen volunteers by implementing the strategies as identified in this study are encouraging a more positive organization-public relationship with teen volunteers. The quality of the relationship influences teens likelihood to volunteer throughout their lifetimes. Not only does a lifetime of volunteering benef it the individual, it benefits society through the impact made by volunteers and by the likelihood of greater political engagement of the volunteers. These outcomes do not directly bene fit the organization; rather they are a contribution that the organization will make to society through th eir encouragement of teens toward volunteering. For nonprofits, the model indicates the wa ys in which organizations can best engage their teen volunteers to make the experience as positive as possible for both volunteer and organization. Organi zations should invest in tr aining programs and/or have processes in place that ensure that teen vol unteers receive adequate training. Volunteer organizations should provide channels for questions from teens, so when they are uncertain about their responsibilities, they can solicit instruc tion from the organization. In addition, the organization should provide a channe l of feedback to the teens, letting them know that they are valued by the organizati on and that their work is important. And finally, they should be sure to allow teens to engage in a ddressing the issues that are important to the teens. As discussed earlier, t eens appear to be most satisfied with their

PAGE 165

150 volunteer-nonprofit orga nization relationship when th ey are actively engaged in addressing an issue of importance to them. A ssigning teens menial tasks is often the most convenient way of handling teen volunteer hours. It requires little instruction and takes care of tasks that others may not want to do. However, for the sake of the organizationpublic relationship and for the long-term sake of the teen volunteers, organizations should give teens some responsibilit ies that allow them to contribute to the mission of the organization. For teen volunteers, the m odel suggests that they will be most pleased with the relationship if they choose to work with an organization w hose mission they feel strongly about. They should seek out opportunities that allow them to engage in work that they care about. As well, when they encounter issues or questions about their volunteer responsibilities, they should ask questions. For schools and community service departme nts, the model indicates ways that they can work to improve the adolescent vol unteer-nonprofit organi zation relationship. First, they should actively educate nonprof it organization about the ways to engage adolescent volunteers effectively. Second, they need to educate students about their choice of volunt eer opportunity. Implications for Theory The results of this study support the model of the orga nization-public relationship proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999). All of the c onstructs in this study held up to testing, and the level of relationship maintenance pred icted the level of relational quality. Results also supported other research on the influen ce of the organization-public relationship on intended behavior (Bruning 2002; Ki, 2007; Ki & Hon, 2007). The level of quality in the

PAGE 166

151 relationship between the adolescent voluntee rs and the nonprofit organizations predicted the teens intended behavi or toward volunteering. In addition to supporting current theory, the findings add to the ex isting literature in a number of ways. First, a new relations hip maintenance strategy, guidance, was identified and tested in this study. This stra tegy was found to be str ongly predicted by the overall construct of relationa l maintenance and to strongly predict the rela tional quality outcomes. Its role in the relationships tested here may be due to the fact that guidance is an important factor for adoles cents. Teens often find themselves in relationships in which guidance is a fundamental element (parent-child relationship, student-teacher relationship, group member-leader relationship, etc. ), so they come to expect to be given clear advice and guidance. As stated earlier, teen voluntee rs may wish to be guided through their responsibilities because of their lack of experien ce in the workplace or in similar situations. It is possible that other organizational relationships in which teens participate would benefit from the same strategy employer-employee, memberorganization, etc. These other relationshi ps should be examined as well to find the impact of this newly-identified strategy. The second way this research adds to the literature is through the understanding of the relationships between the relational qual ity outcomes. As discussed earlier, control mutuality appears to be a predictor of the other three quality outcomes, and satisfaction predicts trust and commitment. Other research has found that satisfa ction predicts trust and trust predicts commitment (Ki, 2006). The more complex model presented here singles out control mutuality as the gateway to the other outcomes at least among teen volunteers. It appears that most of the relati onship maintenance strategies influence this

PAGE 167

152 quality outcome. Satisfaction, too, appears to be a strong influence on trust and commitment, with many maintenance strategi es having direct influence on it. This suggests that the key to increasing the relatio nal quality between a teen volunteer and a nonprofit organization is through control mutual ity. The more pleased the volunteers are with their level of power in th e relationship, the more satisfied that they are, resulting in more trust in the relationship and more comm itment to the relationship. Control mutuality and satisfaction are influenced through the us e of relationship maintenances strategies. The third contribution that this research makes to the literature is in its examination of intended behavior that is not related to the organization. As stated earlier, all research on intended behavior that re sults from organization-public relationship has focused on future intention to remain in the relations hip with the organization. This study examined the intention to continue the behavior, vol unteering, throughout ones lifetime. Results show that there is a significant relationship between the level of relational quality that teen volunteers feel in their relationship with a nonprofit organization and the intention to continue volunteering throughout their lifetimes. This moves the study of the impact of the organization-public relati onship beyond the realm of organizational benefits and examines long-term benefits to the public. The relationship between the organization and public flows two ways, and the consequences of the relationship are felt by both parties. Research in public relations needs to begin examining the relationship in this way. This study is a first step in that direction. Conclusion The study presented here tested the application of the organization-public relationship model with adolescent vol unteers. The findings support the currently proposed model as valid for an adolescent public and offer areas for further investigation.

PAGE 168

153 A new maintenance strategy, guidance, was identified and tested in this study. More research needs to be done to determine wh ether it contributes to the adult volunteer relationship and if it contribut es to the organization-public relationship with other public types. Another significant finding that bears future research is th e model of influence between the four relational quality outcomes. This study found that control mutuality predicted the other three quality outcome and satisfaction predicted trust and commitment. This model should be investigated with adult publics, as well, to find if control mutuality acts as a key predictor in adul t relationships. It may be that the level of power or control in the relationship is more significant for adolescents and is a greater predictor of other outcomes for this age group than others. It also may be that volunteers and employees are more concerned about cont rol mutuality than other public types. The relationship maintenance strategies most strongly predicted co ntrol mutuality and satisfaction for adolescent volunteers and this should be examined for adult members of publics as well. Finally, this study found a significant relationshi p between relational quality and intended behavior. It found that the higher the level of relational quality in an adolescent volunteer-nonprofit organization relationship, the more likely the teens were to intended to volunteer through their lifetime. More research needs to be done on the consequences of the organization-public relationship on publics, specifically those outcomes that do not benefit the organization directly. Future research should attempt to draw a random sample for data collection. The study presented here used a convenience sample and a snowball sample. It was reasoned that the level of variability would provide evid ence that the data were reliable. However,

PAGE 169

154 this data collection methodology does limit to some degree the generalizability of the findings. Another limitation of this st udy was the lack of data on respondents SES. It is possible that respondents SES (including parental education level and parental volunteering) influenced their inte ntion to volunteer in ways that were not detected in this study. Collecting SES data from teens can be difficult, and future studies should attempt to find a way to collect the data and ensure its accuracy. This study employed the first large sample survey of adolescents for the study of a public relations theory. The findings show that theories developed for adults may apply to adolescents and may provide insights that create more questions about the adult relationship. Research in pub lic relations needs to begin considering adolescent members of publics, and the addition of individuals in this developmental stage into the literature should give a more thorough understanding of th e impact of communication and behavior on the organization-public relationship.

PAGE 170

155 Figure 5-1. Adolescent model of or ganization-public relationship. Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Trust Guidance Assurances Shared Tasks Relational Quality Intended behavior

PAGE 171

156 APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION University of Florida Research Project Invitation to participate in a county-wide survey Dear high school student, You are receiving this letter and survey becau se I believe you are currently a volunteer in the community or you have been a volunteer in our community. As a researcher at the University of Florida, I am interested to find out more about the relationship between teen volunteers and the organizations they vol unteer for. I hope you will complete the attached questionnaire and return it to [INSERT COORDINATOR NAME HERE]. Your participation is completely voluntary. As an incentive you will receive one hour of community service credit for your participation in this study. If you are UNDER THE AGE OF 18 and wish to participate, you will need to have a parent or guardian sign the encl osed parental consent form. Th is form should be returned along with the survey form and the teen consent form. Before you begin filling out the survey, please review and sign the TEEN INFORMED CONSENT form enclosed in this packet. You should return all items to [COORDINATOR NAME] by Friday, April 27. I hope that you will consider participating in this study.

PAGE 172

157 Thank you. Denise Bortree Doctoral student University of Florida

PAGE 173

158 APPENDIX B PARENTAL INFORMED CONSENT Parental informed consent form This form must be signed and returned with the survey if the student is UNDER 18 years of age. Protocol Title: Relationship between teens and volunteer organizations Because your teen is a voluntee r in the community, he/she is invited to participate in a study conducted by the Universi ty of Florida. Please read the study details below. If you decide that your teen should not participat e in the study, simply inform him/her or you may contact the primary resea rch: Denise Bortree 904-384-6797, email dbortree@ufl.edu Purpose of the resea rch study: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between teen volunteers and the volunteer organizations What your teen will be asked to do in the study: He/she will be asked to complete the survey after signing a similar document indicating that he/she agrees to participate. The survey consists of 72 questions: 30 questi ons about the relationship between volunteers and the organization, 36 questions about how the organization tr eats volunteers, and five demographic question and questions about th e organization. Your teens name and contact information are not being asked for. If your teen chooses to participate in the project, he/she should only complete the survey one time. Time required: 30 minutes. The time spent filling out th is survey will count toward your teens volunteer hours. Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated physical psychological, or economic risks involved with the study. Compensation: There is no financial compensation fo r participating in this research. Confidentiality: Neither your teens name nor contact information are being asked for. Your teens answers to the survey will be assigned a code number. The data and your teens identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your teens demographic profile will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.

PAGE 174

159 Right to withdraw: Your teen has the right to wi thdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Denise Bortree, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Florida, (904) 384-6797, dbortree@ufl.edu Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, Professor, University of Florida, (352) 392.6660, maferguson@jou.ufl.edu. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 3920433; irb2@ufl.edu Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to allow my teen to participate in the procedur e and I have received a copy of this description. Parent or guardian signature ______________________________________ Relationship to teen volunteer _____________________________ Date _____________________

PAGE 175

160 APPENDIX C TEEN INFORMED CONSENT Teen informed consent form Protocol Title: Relationship between teens and volunteer organizations Please read this consent document carefully be fore deciding to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to compare the differences in how adults and teenagers evaluate their vol unteer experiences with organizations in the community. What you will be asked to do in the study: Complete the survey on the remaining pages after signing this document indicating you ag ree to participate. The survey consists of 72 questions: 30 questions about the relationship between volunteers and the organization, 36 questions about how the organization treats volunteers, and five demographic question and questions about th e organization. Your name and contact information are not being asked for. If you c hose to participate in the project, please only complete the survey one time. Time required: 30 minutes. The time spent filling out th is survey will count toward your volunteer hours. You will be given one hour of volunteer credit for pa rticipating in this study. Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated physical psychological, or economic risks involved with the study. Compensation: There is no financial compensation fo r participating in this research. Confidentiality: Neither your name nor contact inform ation are being asked for. Your answers to the survey will be assigned a code number. The data and your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your demographic profile will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

PAGE 176

161 Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Denise Bortree, Graduate Student, College of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Florida, (904) 384-6797, dbortree@ufl.edu Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, Professor, University of Florida, (352) 392.3952, maferguson@jou.ufl.edu. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 3920433; irb2@ufl.edu Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant __________________________________________ Date _________________

PAGE 177

162 APPENDIX D COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDIT FORM Community service credit one hour If you agree to participate in this study, you will be given one hour of credit toward your community service requirement. To ensure that you receive this credit, please provide your name, grade, and school name below. Th is sheet will be removed from the survey and given to the appropriate person. Your pe rsonal information will not be associated with the feedback you provide in the survey. Name ____________________________________________ Grade _____________________________________________ School _____________________________________________ Thank you for participating in this study.

PAGE 178

163 APPENDIX E SURVEY Survey Hello. Thanks for agreeing to take this survey. On the next few pages youll be asked a lot of questions about your communi ty service experience. The survey looks long, but it should only take about 25 minutes. So, hang in there, and before you know it, youll be done! How old were you on your last birthday? ___________________ If you are under 18, please be sure to have a parent sign and return the parental consent form enclosed with this survey. If you have never been a volunteer for an organization, please do not complete this survey. 1. What is the name of the organi zation you volunteer for? (optional) ______________________ If you volunteer for more than one, list only one and complete the following questions about your experiences with that organization. 2. Please evaluate the organization that you vol unteer for using this scale (check one space per line): important ___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___ unimportant boring ___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___ interesting exciting ___:___:___:___: ___:___:___:___:___ unexciting means nothing ___:___:___:___:___:___: ___:___:___ means a lot to me worthless ___:___:___:___:___: ___:___:___:___ valuable involving ___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___:___ uninvolving 3. Please rate the overall quality of your relationship with this organization (circle one).

PAGE 179

164 Very negative Very Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 THE FOLLOWING SIX SECTIONS ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION.

PAGE 180

165 *****Section One***** OK, LETS GET STARTED. I want you to think about the organization that you volunteer for. How would volunteers (meani ng you) evaluate the organization? This section should take about 5 minutes. 1. I am happy with the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 2. I think the organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 3. The organization believes the opin ions of volunteers are legitimate. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 4. The organization neglects volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, I know it will consider the impact on volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 7. I believe the organization wants to maintain a positive relationship with its volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 8. Managers give volunteers enough say in decisions that affect them. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 10. I think volunteers are dissatisfied with their interaction w ith the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 12. I see the organization as commitment to its volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

PAGE 181

166 *****Section Two***** YOURE DOING GREAT!! In this next section, youll continue to evaluate the organization. Some of the questions may sound similar but thats by design. Just answer the questions as honestly as you can. This section should take about 3 minutes. 1. The organization seems to ignore volunteers opinions in the decisions that effect them. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 2. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy w ith the relationship the organization has established with them. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 3. The organization misleads volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 4. I feel very confident about the organi zation's abilities to accomplish its mission. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 5. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization the most. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 6. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 7. I would rather work with this organization than another. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 8. When volunteers interact with the organization, they feel that they have some sense of control. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 9. The organization fails to satisfy volunteers' needs. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 10. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

PAGE 182

167 *****Section three***** WERE ROLLING NOW. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!! The questions in this section are a little bit different from th e ones above, although they may sound somewhat similar. These questions are ab out how the organization acts toward its volunteers. This section should take about 4 minutes. 1. The guidelines that the organization ha s set for volunteers are reasonable. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 2. It is clear to me who upper-level managers are and how to contact them. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 3. Volunteers receive clear and helpfu l direction from the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers concerns Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solutions to problems that volunteers encounter. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 6. The organization is involved in managing community issues (environmental issue, disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 7. The organization offers valu able advice to volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 8. I have had opportunities to m eet with senior management. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 12. The organization shares enough information with volunteers about how it is managed. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

PAGE 183

168 13. I think meetings voluntee rs attend are helpful. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree *****Section Four***** OK, TAKE A BREAK, STRETCH, RELAX. Youre past the half-way point. This next section is about as long as the ot hers, so you can make it Just take a deep breath and lets get started. This section should take you about 4 minutes. 1. The organization communicates the importance of volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 2. The organizations communication with volunteers is courteous. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 3. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving joint problems. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 4. The relationships that the organization ha s with other community groups benefits volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 5. I believe the organization attempts to make its interactions with volunteers enjoyable. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 6. The organization sets appropria te limits for its volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 7. The department for which you volunteer work s well with other departments in a way that benefits volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 8. The organizations associations with ot her like-minded groups is not useful for volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 9. During meetings, volunteers are enc ouraged to share their opinions. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 10. When volunteers raise concerns, th e organization ignores these concerns. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 11. I feel the organization is not upfront about current activities and future plans. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

PAGE 184

169 12. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 13. Upper-level managers are approachable. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 14. I do not have a clear understanding of the mission of the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

PAGE 185

170 *****Section Five***** YOURE IN THE HOME STRETCH. Just a few more questions and youll be done with this section. The questions may sound redundant, but just keep at it. This section should take about 2-3 minutes. 1. I believe the organization would be coope rative when handling disagreements with volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 2. I think volunteers feel co mfortable making complaints to the management of the organization. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 3. The organization and volunteers care about the same community issues. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 4. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 5. When I encounter a problem, I am given good advice. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 6. The organization works with comm unity groups that I care about. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 7. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 8. The organization freely shares information with volunteers. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree 9. I find the information the organization provides to me to be helpful. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree

PAGE 186

171 *****Section Six***** THE WORST IS OVER. GOOD JOB!!! Just ge t through these last few questions, and youre home free. Thanks for hanging in there! 1. Did you volunteer for this organization to fulfill a requirement? Yes_____ No_____ 2. If yes, would you have volunteered for th is organization if it were not required? Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely 3. Will you continue to volunteer for this organization after you have fulfilled your requirement? Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely 4. Would you recommend to a friend that he /she volunteer at this organization? Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely 5. How many hours per week did/do you voluntee r at this organization in an average week? _________ 6. When was the last time you volunteer ed for this organization? _________________ PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT VOLUNTEERING IN GENERAL 1. Will you volunteer (for this organizati on or another) in the years to come? Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely 2. Would you recommend to a friend that he/she participate in community service in years to come? Not likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very likely 3. How much of an effort will you make to volunteer in the years to come? Not much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A lot DEMOGRAPHICS 2. What is your gender? _____ 3. Do you consider yourself to be: African-American Asian Caucasian Hispanic/Latino Middle Eastern Native American Other:__________________

PAGE 187

172 EXCELLENT JOB! YOU MADE IT TO THE END!!! I really appreciate you hanging in there and completing the survey. Your feedback is valuable to the study. Thanks!!

PAGE 188

173 APPENDIX F ORIGINAL MEASUREMENT ITEMS Table F-1. Original measures of relational quality outcomes. Control mutuality 3. The organization believes the opin ions of volunteers are legitimate. 4. The organization neglects volunteers. [R] 8. When dealing with volunteers, the organization has a tendency to throw its weight around [R] 11. The organization really listens to what volunteers have to say. 15. The organization seems to ignore volunteers opinions in the decisions that affect members [R] 20. When volunteers interact w ith the organization, volunteers feel that they have some sense of control. 21. The organization cooper ates with volunteers. 26. Volunteers have influence with th e decision makers at the organization. Satisfaction 6. Both the organization and volunteers benefit from their relationship. 10. Volunteers are dissatisfied with th eir interaction with the organization. 12. Volunteers are happy with the organization. 14. Generally speaking, volunteers are unhappy w ith the relationship the organization has established with them. [R] 18. Volunteers enjoy dealing with the organization. 23. The organization fails to sa tisfy volunteers needs. [R] 24. Volunteers feel they are important to the organization. 28. In general, nothing of value has been accomplished by the organization for volunteers. [R] Trust 2. The organization treats volunteers fairly and justly. 5. Whenever the organization makes an important decision, volunteers know the organization will consider the decisions impact on members. 9. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to volunteers. 13. The organization takes the opinions of volunteers into account when making decisions. 16. Volunteers feel very confident about the organizations abilities. 22. Sound principles guide th e organizations behavior. 25. The organization misleads volunteers. [R]

PAGE 189

174 Commitment 1. The organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to its volunteers. 7. The organization wants to maintain a pos itive relationship with its volunteers. 17. Compared to other organizations, voluntee rs value their relationship with this organization the most. 19. Volunteers would rather work with this organization than without it. 27. Volunteers feel a sense of loyalty to the organization. Note: [R] indicates reverse code. Table F-2. Original measures of re lationship maintenance strategies Access 2. The organization provides volunteers with adequate contact with senior managers. 8. The organization provides volunteers with opportunities to meet the decision makers 26. When volunteers have questions or concer ns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. 29. Volunteers feel comfortable making compla ints to management of the organization. 31. I feel comfortable approaching management with my questions. Positivity 13. Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial 15. The organizations communication with volunteers is courteous. 18. The organization attempts to make its in teractions with vol unteers enjoyable. 28. The organization is coope rative when handling disa greements with volunteers. 36. The information the organization provides to its members is important to members. Openness 12. The organization shares enough information with volunteers about the organization is managed. 22. The organizations meetings are a valuab le way for volunteers to communicate their opinions to the organization. 24. The organization does not provide volunteers with enough information about how the organization is run. 27. Volunteers receive enough information to do their jobs well. 35.The organization freely shares information with volunteers. Shared tasks 5. The organization works with volunteers to develop solution s to problems that benefit volunteers. 6. The organization is involved in managing community issues (environmental issue, disaster relief, etc.) that volunteers care about. 9. The organization works effectively to resolve issues its volunteers are facing. 16. The organization and volunteers do not work well together at solving join problems. [R] 30. The organization and volunteers care about the same community issues.

PAGE 190

175 Networking 11. The organization works with other community groups that impact volunteers. 17. The relationships that the organization ha s with other community groups benefits volunteers. 20. The department for which you volunteer works well with other departments in a way that benefits volunteers. 21. The organizations associa tions with other like-minded groups are useless to volunteers. [R] 33. The organization works with comm unity groups that I care about. Assurances 4. The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to volunteers concerns 10. The organization acts on the concerns of its volunteers. 14. The organization communicates the importance of volunteers. 23. When volunteers raise concerns, the orga nization takes these c oncerns seriously. 34. I believe the organization cares about its volunteers Note: [R] indicates reverse code Table F-3. Original measures of guidance Guidance 7. The organization offers valu able advice to volunteers. 3. Volunteers receive clear and helpfu l direction from the organization. 1. The guidelines that the organization ha s set for volunteers are reasonable. 19. The organization sets appropr iate limits for its volunteers. 32. When I encounter a problem, th e organization offers good advice. 25. The organization can be counted on to provide good ideas for solving problems.

PAGE 191

176 LIST OF REFERENCES Aboud, F.E. & Mendelson, M.J. (1996). Dete rminants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. Bukowski, W.M., Newcomb, A.F., & Hartup, W.W. (Eds) The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence New York: Cambridge University Press, 87-112. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understandi ng attitudes and predic ting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Aylor, B. & Dainton, M. (2004). Biological Se x and Psychological Ge nder as Predictors of Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance. Sex Roles 50(9/10), 689-697. Bae, J. & Cameron, G. (2006) Conditioning e ffect of prior reputation on perception of corporate giving. Public Re lations Review 32(2), 144-150. Barry, T.E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effect s: An historical perspective. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 10, 251-295. Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and eff ects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1447-1460. Bortree, D.S. (2006). Characteristics of child rens websites: Content analysis of the use of hypertext, interactivity and multi media on nonprofit websites for children. Presented at the Carolina Communicati on Association conference, September 2006. Bortree, D.S. (2007). Relationship management with child publics: Nonprofit websites strategies for building organizational-public relations in an online environment. To be presented at the International Comm unication Association for presentation in San Francisco, 2007. Bortree, D.S. (Forthcoming). Relationship management and online communication with children, in Duhe, S. (Ed.) Ne w Media and Public Relations New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Brody, G.H., Murry, V.M., McNair, L., Chen, Y.F., Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M. & Wills, T.A. (2005). Linking Changes in Parenting to ParentChild Relationship Quality and Youth Self-Control: The Strong African American Families Program. Journal of Research on Adolescence 15(1), 47-69.

PAGE 192

177 Bronstein, P. & Duncan, P. (1996). Family and parenting behaviors predicting middle school adjustment. Family Relations (45) 4, 415-426. Broom, G., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. (2000). To ward a concept and theory of organizationpublic relationships: An update. In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawren ce Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Broom, G., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. (1997). To ward a concept and theory of organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 9(2), 83-98. Bruning, S. D. (2000). Examining the role th at personal, professional and community relationships play in respondent relati onship recognition and intended behavior. Communication Quarterly, 48, 437-448. Bruning, S.D. (2002). Relationshi p building as a retention st rategy: linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evalua tions to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review 28(1), 39-49. Bruning, S.D. & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organizationpublic relationship scale: exploring the role that structur al and personal commitment play in organizationpublic relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309-319. Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional scale. Public Relations Review 25 (2), 157-170. Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (2000). Per ceptions of Relationshi ps and Evaluations of Satisfaction: An Exploration of Inte raction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 8596. Bruning, S. D., McGrew, S.,& Cooper, M. (2006).Towngown relationships: Exploring universitycommunity engagement from the perspective of community members. Public Relations Review (32)2, 125-130. Bukowski, W.M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. ( 1994). Measuring friendship quality during preand early adolescence: The devel opment and psychometric properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11(3), 471-484. Canary, D.J. & Cupach, W.R. (1988). Relationa l and episodic charac teristics associated with conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 5(3), 305-325. Canary, D. J. & Stafford, L. (1992). Relatio nal maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243-268.

PAGE 193

178 Canary, D.J. & Stafford, L. (1993). Pres ervation of relationa l characteristics: Maintenance strategies, equity, and locus of control. In Kalbfleisch, P.J. (Ed.) Interpersonal communication: Evol ving interpersonal relationships Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 237-259. Canary, D.J., Stafford, L., Hause, K.S., & Wallace, L.A. (1993). An Inductive Analysis of Relational Maintenance Strategies: Comparisons Among Lovers, Relatives, Friends, and Others. Communication Research Reports 10(1), p5-14. Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B.A. (2002). A Panel Study of the Associations Between Maintenance Strategies and Relational Characteristics. Journal of Marriage & Family 64(2), 395-406. Chaplin, L.N. & John, D.R. (2005). The Deve lopment of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 119-129 Cillessen, A., X. Lu, J., West, T., & Laszkowski, D.K.(2005). Predictors of dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 165-172. Clary, E.G., Ridge, R.D., Stukas, A.A., Snyde r, M., Copeland, J., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and Assessi ng the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional Approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 74(6), 15161530. Clary, E.G. & Snyder, M. (1999). The Motivations to Volunteer: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8(5). 156159. Collins, W.A. (2003). More than Myth: The Developmental Significance of Romantic Relationships During Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence 13(1), 124. Connolly, J., Furman, W. & Konarski, R. (2000) Relationship and Interactions: The Role of Peers in the Emergence of Heterosexual Romantic Relationships in Adolescence. Child Development 71(5), 1395-1408. Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential edu cation on adolescent development. Child & Youth Services 4(3-4), 57-76. Dainton, M. & Aylor, B. (2002). Routine and Strategic Maintenance Efforts: Behavioral Patterns, Variations Associated with Relational Length, and the Prediction of Relational Characteristics. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 52-67. Dainton, M. & Stafford, L. ( 1994). Maintenance Strategies and Physical Affection as Predictors of Love, Liking, a nd Satisfaction in Marriage. Communication Reports 7(2), 88-98.

PAGE 194

179 Dougall, E.K. (2006). Tracking organizat ionpublic relationships over time: A framework for longitudinal research. Public Relations Review 32(2), 174-176. Dishion, T.J., Nelson, S.E., & Bullock, B.M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: parent disengagement and deviant peer pr ocess in the amplification of problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence 27, 515. Elbaz, G. (1997). Adolescent activism for postmodern HIV/AIDS education: A new social movement. 29(3), 145-174. Erikson, E. E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Feiring, C. (1996). Concepts of Ro mance in 15-Year-Old Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(2), 181-200. Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building Theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational Relationships, paper pres ented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journali sm and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL. Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together Building relationshi ps as we negotiate. New York: Penguin Books. Florsheim, P. (2003). Adolescent Romantic Sexual behavior: What We Know and Where WeGo From Here. In Florsheim, P. (E d.), Adolescent Romantic Relations and Sexual Behavior: Theory,Researc h, and Practical Implications Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates. Fox, R. J., Krugman, D. M., Fletcher, J. E., & Fischer, P. M. (1998). Adolescents' Attention to Beer and Cigarette Print Ads and Associated Product Warnings. Journal of Advertising, (27)3, 57-68. Freeman, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1986). Adolescence and its recollection: Toward an interpretive model of development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32(2), 167-185. Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Conceptual and methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowsk i, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Fr iendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 4165). New York: Cambridge University Press. Furman W., and Buhrmester, D. (1992). Ag e and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development 63, 103-115. Furman, W. & Shaffer L. (2003). The Ro le of Romantic Relationships in AdolescentDevelopment. In Florsheim, P. (Ed.), Adolescent Romantic Relations and Sexual Behavior: Theory, Rese arch, and Practical Implications Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-22.

PAGE 195

180 Gottman, J.M. & Graziano, W.G. (1 983). How Children Become Friends. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 48(3), 1-86. Grimm, R., Cramer, K., Dietz, N., Shelt on, L., Dote, L., Manuel, C., & Jennings, S. (2007). Volunteering in America: 2007 Stat e Trends and Rankings in Civic Life. Published report by Corporation for Nationa l and Community Service, retrieved on June 20, 2007 from http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/VIA/VIA_fullreport.pdf Grunig, J.E. & Grunig, L .S. (1989). Toward a Theory of the Public Relations Behavior of Organizations: Review of a Program of Research. Journal of Public Relations Research 1(1-4), 27-63. Grunig, J. E. and Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiv eness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relati ons strategies, and relationship outcomes, In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham a nd S. D. Bruning Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Grunig, J.E. & White, J. (1992). The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations Theory and Practice. In J. Grunig, D. Dozier, W. Ehling, L. Grunig, F. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 31 64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Grunig, L.A. (1992). Matching Public Relati ons Research to th e Problem: Conducting a Special Focus Group. Journal of Public Relations Research 4(1), 21-43. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E. & Dozier D. M. (1995). Excellent public relations and effective organizations. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haby, M. M.; Vos, T.; Carter, R.; Moodie, M.; Markwick, A.; Magnus, A.; Tay-Teo, KS.; Swinburn, B. (2006). A new approach to assessing the health benefit from obesity interventions in children and adol escents: the assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity project. International Journal of Obesity 30(10), p1463-1475. Hall, M.R. (2006). Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations: Measuring Relationship-Building Results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1-21. Hart, R., Daiute, C., Iltus, S., Kritt, D., Rome, M. and Sabo, K. (1997). Developmental theory and childrens participat ion in community organizations. Social Justice 24, 33. Hendrick, S.S. (1988). A Generic Meas ure of Relationship Satisfaction. Journal of Marriage & Family 50(1), 93-99. Hon, L. C. and Grunig, J. E. (1999). Measur ing Relationships in Public Relations, Institute for Public Relati ons, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 196

181 Huang, Y.H. (1997). Public re lations strategies, relati onal outcomes, and conflict management strategies. Unpublished doctora l dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Huang, Y.H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cult ural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 13, 61-90. Hung, C.J. (2005). Exploring Types of OrganizationPublic Relationships and Their Implications for Relationship Management in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 17(4), 393-426. Jarvinen, D.W. & Nicholls, J.G. (1996). A dolescents' social goals, beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer. Developmental Psychology 32(3), 435-442. Jensen, I. (1997) Legitimacy and strategy of different companies. A perspective of external and internal public relations, In Moss, D., MacManus, T. and Vercic, D. (Eds.), Public relations research : An international perspective International Thomson Business Press, London. Ji M.F. (2002). Childrens relationships with brands: True love or on enight stand?, Psychology and Marketing 19(4), 369-387. Jo, S. & Yungwook K. (2003). The Effect of Web Characteristics on Relationship Building. Journal of Public Relations Research 15(3), 199-223. Johnson, M.K., Beebe, T., Y Snyder, M. (1998) Volunteerism in Adolescence: A Process Perspective. Journal of Resear ch on Adolescence, 8(3), p309-332 Kandel, D.B. (1978). Similarity in r eal-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(3), 306-312. Kent, M.L., Taylor, M. & White, W.J. (2003) The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiv eness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review 29(1), 63-77. Ki, E.J. (2006). Linkages among relationship ma intenance strategies, relationship quality outcomes, attitude and behavioral inten tions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Ki, E.J. & Hon, L.C. (2007). Testing th e Linkages Among the OrganizationPublic Relationship and Attitude and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research 19(1), 1-23. Ki, E.J. & Shin, J.H. (2006). Status of organizationpublic relationshi p research from an analysis of published articles, 1985. Public Relations Review 32(2), 194195.

PAGE 197

182 Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Pr actice of Structural Equation Modeling New York: Guilford Press. Ladd, G.W. (2004). Childrens Peer Relations and Social Competence: A Century of Progress. London: Yale University Press. Larson, R., Hansen, D., & Moneta, G. ( 2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology 42 (5), 849-863. Larzelere, R.E. & Huston, T.L. (1980). The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward Understanding Interpersonal Trust in Close Relationships. Journal of Marriage & Family 42(3), 595-605. Lavidge R.J. & Steiner, G.A. (1961). A model for predictive measurement of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 25, 59-62. Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-comm unity relationships: Extending the relational perspective of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285-295. Ledingham, J.A. (2003). Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 15(2), 181-198. Ledingham, J.A. (2006). A Chronology of orga nization-stakeholder relationships with recommendations concerning practitioner adoption of th e relational perspective, Paper presented at the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication conference, August 2006. Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998) Relationship management and public relations: dimensions of an or ganization-public relationship. Public Relations Review 24, 55-65. Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D., (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management, In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Ledingham, J. A., Bruning S. D. & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting Organization-Public Relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research 11(2): 167-183. Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A.B., & Brendgen, M. (2001). The quality of adolescents' friendships: Associations with mothers' interpersonal re lationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Adolescence 24(4), 429446.

PAGE 198

183 Matza, L.S., Kupersmidt, J.B., & Glenn, D. M. (2001). Adolescents Perceptions and Standards of Their Relationships with Their Parents as a Function of Sociometric Status. Journal of Research on Adolescence 11(3), 245-273. McHale, S.M., Updegraff, K.A., Tucker, C.J ., & Crouter, A.C. (2000). Step In or Stay Out? Parents' Roles in Adolescent Siblings' Relationships. Journal of Marriage & Family 62(3), 746-761. Mendelson, M.J. & Aboud, F.E. (1999). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults: McGill Fr iendship Questionnaires. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement 31(2), 130132. Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the 'side-bet theory' of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372-378. Miles, S., Cliff, D, & Burr, V. (1998). F itting In and Sticking Out: Consumption, Consumer Meanings and the Construction of Young People's Identities. Journal of Youth Studies 1(1), 81-97. Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The Co mmitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58(3), 20-39. Moss, D., Newman, A., & DeSanto, B. ( 2005). What do communication managers do? Defining and refining the core elements of management in a public relations/corporate communication contex t. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 873-890. Mowen, J.C. & Sujan, H. (2005). Volunteer Behavior: A Hierarchical Model Approach for Investigating Its Trait and Functional Motive Antecedents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 170-182. Newmann, F. M. & Rutter, R.A (1985-86). A Profile of High School Community Service Programs. Educational Leadership 43(4), 64-72. Oswald, D.L. & Clark, E.M. (2003). Best frie nds forever?: High school best friendships and the transition to college. Personal Relationships 10(2), 187-196. Owen, A.R. & Karrh, J.A. (1996). Video news releases: Effects on viewer recall and attitudes, Public Relations Review 22(4), 369-378. Palda, K.S. (1964). The measurement of cumulative advertising effects Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Papini, Dennis R. & Farmer, F.F. (1990). Early adolescent age and ge nder differences in patterns of emotional self -disclosure to parents. Adolescence, 25(100), 959-977.

PAGE 199

184 Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R.(1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with p eer group acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611-622. Plowman, K.D., ReVelle, C., Meirovich, S., Pi en, M., Stemple, R., Sheng, V., & Fay, K. (1995) Walgreens: A Case Study in Health Care Issues and Conflict Resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research 7(4), 231-258. Rawlins, W.K. & Holl, M. (1987). The Co mmunicative Achievement of Friendship During Adolescence: Predicaments of Trust and Violation. Western Journal of Speech Communication: WJSC 51(4), 345-363. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G.A. (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Rotenberg, K.J., MacDonald, K.J., & King, E.V. (2004). The Relationship Between Loneliness and Interpersonal Trust During Middle Childhood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165(3), 233-249. Rueter, M. & Conger, R.D. (1995). Anteceden ts of Parent-adolescent Disagreements. Journal of Marriage & Family 57(2), 435-448. Shilshtein, E.S. (2001) Chara cteristics of the presentation of self during adolescence, Russian Education and Society, 43, 35-51. Shulman, S. & Scharf, M. (2000). Adolescent Romantic Behaviors and Perceptions: Ageand Gender-Related Differences, and Links. Journal of Research on Adolescence 10(1), 99-119. Spring, K., Dietz, N., & Grimm, R. (2006). Y outh helping America: Educating for Active Citizenship: Service-Learning, Schoo l-Based Service and Youth Civic Engagement. Published report by Corporat ion for National and Community Service retrieved on June 20, 2007 from http://www.nationalservi ce.gov/pdf/06_0323_SL_briefing.pdf Stafford, L. & Canary, D.J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and rom antic relationship types, gender and relational characteristics, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8, 217-242. Stafford, L., Dainton, M. & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance: Scale Revision, Sex Versus Gender Roles, and the Prediction of Relational Characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306-324. Strom, R.D. & Strom, P.S. (2002). Parent and Adolescent Re lationships in Japan and the United States, Journal of Family Studies, 8(1), 91-105. Strom, R., Strom, S., Collinsworth, P. & Stro m, P. (1998). Evaluating parent success in guiding adolescents. Journal of Instructional Psychology 25(4), p242-250.

PAGE 200

185 Tossutti, L.S. (2003). Does Volunteerism Incr ease the Political Engagement of Young Newcomers? Assessing the Potential of Individual and Group-based Forms of Unpaid Service. Canadian Ethnic Studies 35(3), 70-84. Tucker, C.J., Barber, B.L. & Eccles, J.S. ( 2001). Advice About Life Plans From Mothers, Fathers, and Siblings in Always-Marri ed and Divorced Families During Late Adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 30(6), 729-748. Urberg, K., Goldstein, M.S. & Toro, P.A. (2005). Supportive Relationships as a Moderator of the Effects of Parent an d Peer Drinking on Adolescent Drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence 15(1), 1-19. Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P.J. & Realty, M.J. (1999). Perceived Equity, Satisfaction, and Relational Maintenance Strategies in Parent-Adolescent Dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(1), 1999 Walker, T. (2002). Service as a pathway to politi cal participation: What research tells us. Applied Developmental Science 6(4), 183-188. Wilson, L. J. (2000). Building employ ee and community relationships through volunteerism: A case study. In (Eds.) J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Yates, M. & Youniss, J. (1996). Community Service and Political--Moral Identity in Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence 6(3), 271-284. Youniss, J. & Haynie, D. L. (1992). Friendshi p in adolescence. Jour nal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 13(1), 59-66. Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A ., & Mazer, B. (2001). Voluntary Service, Peer Group Orientation, and Civic Engagement. Journal of Adolescent Research 16(5), 456469. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-47.

PAGE 201

186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Denise Sevick Bortree received a Bachelor of Arts degree in writing from Geneva College and a Master of Arts degree in mass communication from the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communi cation. While pursing her doctorate in mass communication, she also received a Master of Education degree in educational psychology from the College of Education at the University of Florida. Denises research interests include relationship management, internet communication, and the impact of media use on adolescents and children.


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 E20101211_AAAABG INGEST_TIME 2010-12-11T19:44:53Z PACKAGE UFE0021340_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 32288 DFID F20101211_AABGZQ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bortree_d_Page_107.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d97dc58ab8a22e49cdd14d75c65612de
SHA-1
d7bb3833c8030b2994092d8865582c2c4e33d991
1966 F20101211_AABFVZ bortree_d_Page_018.txt
2be7ab9ee544be27b0d796201ad3b561
b5756ed5537b416149f08f04fdb24c54ee196c16
8439 F20101211_AABGCI bortree_d_Page_035thm.jpg
be0309907b94ff716980a9aad7c5c716
bb0e6523c882dd0bbc7a9ba2a65165d2c60a5098
25271604 F20101211_AABFXC bortree_d_Page_183.tif
460399bddcb7c1ad7be08f76a65b0e7d
8f4721ba29b068cccb7e406e1a12a8f35ca6d8f8
114198 F20101211_AABGBU bortree_d_Page_052.jpg
507cfa639497c34f08c546f530b0bbe3
bda301430cdb5896bd5f8a1a0270096b2c8818f6
F20101211_AABFWO bortree_d_Page_006.tif
c7dc318d3646c259d409e89e1dd88362
ce7c987aa472f1840d0e6365f7f7d731f3270e11
8143 F20101211_AABGZR bortree_d_Page_111thm.jpg
49f7870026a61c6c461c2ec58d42338b
2ab1776554fdb40e80b1fe4fe0389f1c64b7466d
61111 F20101211_AABGCJ bortree_d_Page_198.pro
2a8725cb9203a03be2793f78f7da550c
4b6c26ec94ea5a68674ce39b3ff5c1341f392b0d
59253 F20101211_AABFXD bortree_d_Page_140.jp2
373d2cf61ff20450f342595c518c64ac
30f72c69a22b93cb2e7c91a65225bca76ebc57d7
1051957 F20101211_AABGBV bortree_d_Page_032.jp2
e779a4581f73755de284e648a9ed9dea
acee1b0db82c8b01a185e3e6659c77c086c54fd4
F20101211_AABFWP bortree_d_Page_008.tif
d695e14aecd923a6e9f08f6530ca1fd3
871acd59ebb40c79a2548e3600fccdbd8f59534d
8014 F20101211_AABGZS bortree_d_Page_113thm.jpg
a9672f0eca70b4105bcc49f476a2ff00
dbaa02e7fa982483aa6697a9eaff96fcd321d48e
F20101211_AABGCK bortree_d_Page_179.tif
1430111735aa7b09c9a2ca6a5181f2ff
46910122911a7c4bf7126c5051bee04b089012fa
120952 F20101211_AABFXE bortree_d_Page_025.jpg
99578d0596622ed2f250479403dcc205
9c228c8bfc04d2bd30b3e9d0d29c8271b544098d
37385 F20101211_AABGBW bortree_d_Page_199.QC.jpg
3091aedab25c29282761ccf57a28da61
422a78e42d000bdc79f056cf579e62f11babf7c6
14231 F20101211_AABFWQ bortree_d_Page_177.pro
b1055a9d4c749f4045085b937759de43
744ded70093a276e02de57255d0eca0553b52f06
33337 F20101211_AABGZT bortree_d_Page_116.QC.jpg
957b187ef756187978aff544352dea71
db0da461be1d934ca8ae198c95b9f8fbb427cdf9
2936 F20101211_AABGCL bortree_d_Page_170thm.jpg
ec6971a4eceafa3d1d6caaab2c7512d2
01169c187b1dd04608c7b62bdfe29e553170b710
F20101211_AABFXF bortree_d_Page_046.tif
d6cd227f82bdec32d56879eaf06e685e
c039e8723758c3cdb2d048b39baa876332bc7b7a
105826 F20101211_AABGBX bortree_d_Page_159.jpg
d248a6b70cb21e9225f917a0f98827b0
0f5aeb493946a231f3e8109baafdac63a02f9430
4706 F20101211_AABFWR bortree_d_Page_143thm.jpg
62026d7fdc8da46798f9dd4b3b68e32f
0c93d3004e2eb1d3348993259dcaef72167edbe6
6066 F20101211_AABGDA bortree_d_Page_171thm.jpg
f62820a90cf45bd7d15cebb19fcadffe
514f9cc0d8d7d5f4b0d72c3b0b23c375bde9404c
7951 F20101211_AABGZU bortree_d_Page_117thm.jpg
c98492af614f035950aea3df94c93dfe
1534f0179ed865a3adfd06f43f1ec3031a25a26c
7593 F20101211_AABGCM bortree_d_Page_041thm.jpg
10308fa2c8e3464f7fab8f39ab3df107
d8414f674c21ea40f6e54cc47fcd9f032201c6b9
1051956 F20101211_AABFXG bortree_d_Page_192.jp2
a372c9182580354db6dd7526dbad7134
1c26353ca903b69d818fc2b73651c66515bc07e1
7385 F20101211_AABGBY bortree_d_Page_058thm.jpg
065d1be0fbdb33cbb0e36d7dbd4beb95
32cfa5fa542ce727d3ea5fd693410d44f511def8
235679 F20101211_AABFWS bortree_d_Page_119.jp2
e88ebefd20c4620e0a815c2d5c89fd3c
4f01639b84065bd0572f379e049f9f049df1f42f
16908 F20101211_AABGDB bortree_d_Page_139.QC.jpg
9ac0d9ce5ee4592a733f85ee5486af25
4c8da9972112b167414c13846eae9daaa81b884f
26329 F20101211_AABGZV bortree_d_Page_118.QC.jpg
baab172d3394be9f2a58bcfdd51cc7f7
05eaa778ae06ceb087790a0e88d3a5d0e2d80712
1938 F20101211_AABGCN bortree_d_Page_020.txt
a5c5233eeefb6614aa7aaa2c52ffff1e
c3d17a6ade1ac2c1ad9cafb51ffdefd1775b58ec
1053954 F20101211_AABFXH bortree_d_Page_133.tif
5877333b5e0cffdc39854391bd38f32c
0a2fe12b3accd6de5b69f530356ba592051884d0
33127 F20101211_AABGBZ bortree_d_Page_025.QC.jpg
242cdb5622e77991e2126dbbf050e0b5
e3b4916d3b4389de13004967f78aa8c86515e6e9
103743 F20101211_AABFWT bortree_d_Page_153.jpg
ff90fd92054d7898bbdf1147bf8fa1c9
af97527c9f64a7e2cf2aae49f67bdf0cb23a1773
110133 F20101211_AABFAA bortree_d_Page_032.jpg
371cafa172d6124e17076cc11fb90dfd
544c2a5ba852774beca5e8fef22a637e821bb4c5
F20101211_AABGDC bortree_d_Page_111.tif
5ead6db2fede4ec9fca10e8dd6f167d1
4dc52f5cf9fab9292073db4b1083ce247cb22edf
29708 F20101211_AABGZW bortree_d_Page_120.QC.jpg
76f757d446b924fe960baf0659b6fd5b
6f0f43e0d1a70592e2bf65a8232be610e681cb57
2588 F20101211_AABGCO bortree_d_Page_010.txt
2c3f0ea03ec958c391d3b7777d3f4cc0
98bced64cb5bde43b59def3312d77492e932ec0e
32222 F20101211_AABFXI bortree_d_Page_100.QC.jpg
61749bdb1dff2c746155e8517b1befe2
87de034cdc101627d1251798c4a0bea62f45bab7
32714 F20101211_AABFWU bortree_d_Page_127.pro
6f14905547315bc27469057ef188121e
f5bc3752d4e7d1e11b76664f0cf1abd9f809b907
16392 F20101211_AABGZX bortree_d_Page_121.QC.jpg
82e044926ab2e23357bbc9fe85744894
6013cb15b22d3ed3f6fc3cbbc9a205252e63e872
48941 F20101211_AABGCP bortree_d_Page_061.pro
1c116285e320e0cee22be9c1da0ad89b
103675bc4865a7e00d375ff98ec4fb7f191ef6af
7857 F20101211_AABFXJ bortree_d_Page_107thm.jpg
cbadff5d63461616f65ffc341a8f1354
204715f034bff93a0ba71a0522a109d7788fbcb4
8353 F20101211_AABFWV bortree_d_Page_152thm.jpg
0769f6efbc8f8b0eadc6095fa650fa4c
3802c04892203fd3e0a2725e8fb400f9cc4efb5d
1051959 F20101211_AABFAB bortree_d_Page_018.jp2
80fc38c1c958674200ecac3a1e276610
76bdf8e029918f9f1dd6908d29c4831ea84b902e
2065 F20101211_AABGDD bortree_d_Page_031.txt
005cd00c837efbe939a4434fbd6512f4
548b4d18f418cb86a7c19230096dba345203d530
5415 F20101211_AABGZY bortree_d_Page_123thm.jpg
12711beadf3b6609751696873c7d4106
3268ce37d8b6b05ed15695768536b58147213995
F20101211_AABGCQ bortree_d_Page_121.tif
6a9b7c534d4c76bd6087d7b20caa9834
12ff1ea0156f970cd22d78559febb207551583b0
2480 F20101211_AABFXK bortree_d_Page_198.txt
2db120110408579053bf6834f219e301
6c08f1be91dded823d47b92827f1b7c1b6669036
33794 F20101211_AABFWW bortree_d_Page_177.jpg
66eea0e36ccec05ba0d2cf049859a013
3956c8ca97520689edbf021d5b7c4589eaefee3c
1051922 F20101211_AABFAC bortree_d_Page_078.jp2
7b3548da27bd4406fc68c538b36ace7d
497760ce50d38bb6bb5edb6af7a2751158af929f
1051986 F20101211_AABGDE bortree_d_Page_193.jp2
f828e73e94c0097dbcc6eba22eb628c8
b4462d9844cebf618aa3510a0397457a7e5c24c3
27376 F20101211_AABGCR bortree_d_Page_002.jp2
78139c3fabe4f97e2e27ccdeadb07af5
11a879c866e58ff644ac2a0f26947cf7d842fa9e
38655 F20101211_AABFXL bortree_d_Page_087.jp2
18baaa311c75b74264e571d1264e0c17
e73f4ec39a1003cd8e63e763f839b9808db2e940
1051914 F20101211_AABFAD bortree_d_Page_025.jp2
3d21c7a3c67ecb0093f68aa0552d7d05
e4cbde0e3ddf4facf6650a8e3f13670a4effa6eb
53089 F20101211_AABGDF bortree_d_Page_019.pro
f95715a8b7de01716b23d2c1643b164e
ea9fb91284b9e7642d339f413955a817bbb3c63e
5856 F20101211_AABGZZ bortree_d_Page_124thm.jpg
c501f16aca9e8e3e5256ba3a856ef61b
7c0a187c854d3a7acbb531ecde89e6c158d02628
49937 F20101211_AABFYA bortree_d_Page_100.pro
6011368efe4e8f70bae24342b47ff504
eb0cd5aa17a342bf840370479bb8ef42149d31ff
F20101211_AABGCS bortree_d_Page_125.tif
b5793f21fe30f4934564c25c058b8298
1177097c6cc55d9f9314a3c004ad419bef400095
184112 F20101211_AABFXM bortree_d_Page_023.jp2
24c6c8dba8f37a8d84765110377a2520
6f6a05e8d4ee0f48302c4ef195d78b51fa5714f1
1611 F20101211_AABFWX bortree_d_Page_075.txt
e69c628d3e19816b82a9149dbd2ae291
902187c6f67ed789cbf4738831217bc78427dd3d
582222 F20101211_AABFAE bortree_d_Page_121.jp2
ce7c021ce6efeecef97df32ed749b788
7df60a8eabf2574c0618ed6602ecf4e59dda6337
F20101211_AABGDG bortree_d_Page_144.tif
aab081bb760338dc109f7b4d92e201bb
bc8261239eacb124e734aec939de10a87782de56
F20101211_AABFYB bortree_d_Page_118.tif
bcfed25cc83f5d3d083d42de23baf549
269e33a0e4cd822525f6f33f6e98f6696a1dcb49
61507 F20101211_AABGCT bortree_d_Page_146.jpg
c30138546a427dc7f419b6208de746fa
df56ebadf832fd8f55286f86b5c909bc317c1cbc
93150 F20101211_AABFXN bortree_d_Page_163.jpg
6e50a55372ebbaa6449378739e32f7aa
d868d26a6d6632bf22dbb9b6121bc9de77687d7c
64760 F20101211_AABFWY bortree_d_Page_074.jp2
f3feb11d9cea2a5654c5d66692238ce0
3a923c02632081aa1d1ce9b60bdbab93c8ac4ad1
1051972 F20101211_AABFAF bortree_d_Page_066.jp2
d9e528ee4b2ad867e0802cbf58fdfcc3
e5c94b29cc08b5f710ef61a41e5f9ae8bf7b42e1
46129 F20101211_AABGDH bortree_d_Page_016.pro
8fd1a3d0ddf31d2d95a536ab0a1fba3d
fd386cdbeb57faa169e97291fcd1934cbee51e7d
79363 F20101211_AABFYC bortree_d_Page_005.jp2
27eb4ef1d5729377f6443ba4ad6327aa
1ee8c3a50b9aafd5ac95723fef180d4055540e75
2971 F20101211_AABGCU bortree_d_Page_201thm.jpg
80e0ac0c7bb000b85cc89e68e496cd9b
3f844ab577647e9db27fbdde0da753c594a90903
62993 F20101211_AABFXO bortree_d_Page_197.pro
bd523140239ae5d0c27b3af2558579e2
329b1af9ecb7f93249233595f62c056608fd8e49
19955 F20101211_AABFWZ bortree_d_Page_132.QC.jpg
36923df9f39f0f2616c574fa1b989b9b
24cf397d262284e529595c259b4524ef8f37c86f
2677 F20101211_AABFAG bortree_d_Page_090.txt
ab902d0cf00a26c1f883c2b3c69da6b9
abf87f23c1e07e3f4346719a320c64f2a381bfd9
94302 F20101211_AABGDI bortree_d_Page_154.jpg
398f7450d1b8dade97dc7f3a341b5309
47cefdd13e0caa7e51a5ab58ec3e6b2bf0ac0063
1051958 F20101211_AABFYD bortree_d_Page_020.jp2
61c9e06b479511f4f043405a8b46faa4
17871db41f441137e63e461acdb3e0abe49e43fa
968312 F20101211_AABGCV bortree_d_Page_024.jp2
1c1250b57edb51476566e541c8274954
559d49009dee4a0f0afc27847fe21277ea4ddc66
1928 F20101211_AABFXP bortree_d_Page_161.txt
b2c7e6f5df12f4285531fee17573636f
afbce1fcd1eb9b56056f696cea9acb67041007c8
6474 F20101211_AABFAH bortree_d_Page_118thm.jpg
7fc34544cc294d375540da41b13ddd98
55a5a45d17da235e5cc3d93ced489133749b805f
106895 F20101211_AABGDJ bortree_d_Page_012.jpg
04b1d563005c5b17f4007f28af6301af
5707a8148e6924034b70e1dea72af22ed0371c93
41369 F20101211_AABFYE bortree_d_Page_091.pro
9e0c6f401ad9bf09b59f927d5f6f94c7
de4f2ccd04dd867b01f5d6a5703976095239f82d
2349 F20101211_AABGCW bortree_d_Page_053.txt
554ad7bee6c3b9fc54c5a51a130770cf
8f1c91f17fbfeff8e683166404a7c1d542c4d69d
103765 F20101211_AABFXQ bortree_d_Page_110.jpg
d71225a016e16442e9a2518d75e7d447
737f97e5a811d4bd00bcd535c83b23e8baf53de3
29302 F20101211_AABFAI bortree_d_Page_084.QC.jpg
0cd4a7625c96089c5165db843aad92da
c24e8be046ecda0d1c2f6d9087dc6e76941bf37a
1051970 F20101211_AABGDK bortree_d_Page_092.jp2
f83eb13a765686b927f285afce1c5a3b
7c952d4387a79c0baf0b177cc847f9fd144780b4
1051967 F20101211_AABGEA bortree_d_Page_017.jp2
497712212c4ed849f9e0d83fda1de885
cf42e65dd7dacfe6fb8cdf5d2ad442857f922732
F20101211_AABGCX bortree_d_Page_075.tif
0d8c429f6fa18da61ac8f3fa142cdc6b
772c8007a9bfa3442d40df2735ff25d21dc63320
1051979 F20101211_AABFXR bortree_d_Page_048.jp2
3219e27748912ee6b2f7bf6e5b1162aa
c4025f80527ef2a24632dd53e8230925a2dac898
71143 F20101211_AABFAJ bortree_d_Page_126.jpg
1c346d1283f8a49ba077b91c458c071a
48ede68aed7c7b1533e825d02b300e4796cfeb0e
1185 F20101211_AABGDL bortree_d_Page_008.txt
7e32b8c571897c219b1d7eee02ba5071
ae2fab69024aded2fb46073014dd65a92c80f61a
107642 F20101211_AABFYF bortree_d_Page_057.jpg
903a8b6346782ddc39845e824e771a52
0a41a94769b6803f49b21b96cff15766784d584e
101112 F20101211_AABGEB bortree_d_Page_044.jpg
6693880f9286d048790ad38a0c6beced
a40dc022c0075da7fc31d414b934eb2696d6f1de
4317 F20101211_AABGCY bortree_d_Page_142thm.jpg
82bf1bfda7932a8c1496d6690a0da7db
cfcce8dda92c0f8b4e2deb30a019f8f11a90007c
2415 F20101211_AABFXS bortree_d_Page_072thm.jpg
87a587b1da770e12b811ba407ef4cfce
b61f6cce49f41b9315885e0ec6b539ec0591cfbd
20035 F20101211_AABFAK bortree_d_Page_072.pro
3ab81497a6437076e4c8a641c9be0653
266c56375c8df0afa198e8992ccc9ea389f11c02
32594 F20101211_AABGDM bortree_d_Page_160.QC.jpg
e7ce5a1ef38fc448093b27a546ef921a
b53ebd76bd2f1bf5518e1d119a0947f75ea8554b
28331 F20101211_AABFYG bortree_d_Page_175.QC.jpg
848597d243423658ae156ca65cc7f69d
df7658c9d3af2abd7ec573c4bb400cf5c595e606
34546 F20101211_AABGEC bortree_d_Page_036.QC.jpg
c5e20af271eb7fa0609ee33a0486a32a
87cb75056d5d96d14a50db4c031845407c815f33
52441 F20101211_AABGCZ bortree_d_Page_105.pro
cb115bddaf4b33ba42f78b734b0e2d3f
cf6b488e164c0dde4db93fa33b401f73948b5f18
1051980 F20101211_AABFXT bortree_d_Page_095.jp2
911de3dcb850482f50581b59a64d87bd
92b66f55b8d54a71981dbf080936fff0fa29cbd0
163 F20101211_AABFBA bortree_d_Page_179.txt
c6df9d1393b098e485721dfa9f9cb787
e3b9db3f8fe97878894e4971983f6ee4b028d5dd
F20101211_AABFAL bortree_d_Page_105.tif
bf5c9c8f2fa1cda233fa4d1c0a1bdf86
3c0aa032c75d3e2c6945fa904db1a25d1cebed00
2017 F20101211_AABGDN bortree_d_Page_027.txt
c24450529a0b51dcb9fbb5a0f6beb214
1e0b078810131efbf684acb6c4db50a573871b20
6748 F20101211_AABFYH bortree_d_Page_181thm.jpg
fddc10fc1bad109a2264a9cd26faa418
d50d147fa55770b8ca07bdad002eb3acf910fd95
F20101211_AABGED bortree_d_Page_124.tif
f422c389d172d65d4ba511d24d216910
3ce0ca9e35d9f9f3b3db419c28d30e83f029ea6a
56515 F20101211_AABFXU bortree_d_Page_066.pro
43136dc21f2635e6bc333373f63ac022
64b5420477b16da3b45f001703bfbad596e7843d
2181 F20101211_AABFBB bortree_d_Page_173.txt
5d479901324cbab9417d134c1781fbc9
217402c7e5931245ebee3f2c46bd46e4f0840066
7982 F20101211_AABFAM bortree_d_Page_081thm.jpg
54491b622addc1e456f9ac0cca078d7b
9aea2c7e7c6b2ee450ace998ac8e96d9b350b32d
7722 F20101211_AABGDO bortree_d_Page_017thm.jpg
fba6b459b78e23e64802d435ccbd21e6
316a7f454405c9d67a60f34aa6e6512eec1f127b
7782 F20101211_AABFYI bortree_d_Page_112thm.jpg
f63f82743d9327d350b7ad04764aaa25
6e2c17105badaeba7d7e2bc80b173d29c0c3f03e
50096 F20101211_AABFXV bortree_d_Page_188.pro
ffc78e825d12803bf15228295b03c478
a6c0189707a033d9d8a75fa2e1185b33de8353e5
94 F20101211_AABFAN bortree_d_Page_172.txt
29b2357b1e00956491ae502f62600fae
d75f5a5f299da1bebf221f03ca1a5df8088d5215
F20101211_AABGDP bortree_d_Page_044.jp2
3278d52b50ceecbf6b0a54a41d1194dd
e1c882a107e105cd1e512a5244963650c08f202a
96542 F20101211_AABFYJ bortree_d_Page_020.jpg
21ca646e1eff110dfc2583215596298e
27da1f7b0cf61eb8a39c5103faf0aa0ac9e36ae0
17201 F20101211_AABGEE bortree_d_Page_176.pro
8952bdc9db03d44244632cf3fdfcbb8b
6195ef5072d47f67a3498ac3af1ffd4946d78abf
4608 F20101211_AABFXW bortree_d_Page_187.QC.jpg
317b5a8aa797fcfb96324e01f0d7031d
9c280e7845c80fddf43f37e089ed90ad8c7f00c7
1051974 F20101211_AABFBC bortree_d_Page_112.jp2
482b9654de5a06abc34756e33c5d5a67
6bb4b762ca3f2dd6d32ce3e8fec7ac503193f144
1894 F20101211_AABFAO bortree_d_Page_156.txt
8dfc6119fd461df8a907ef21c9f9fd87
de4eda6fd18d66658a6c8989f771bfdc158c3c4f
634402 F20101211_AABGDQ bortree_d_Page_169.jp2
03ed4f88bf88a059c5f3532e9d934b5b
68a4edd5c7b26073137e26df270a7fe96cdbd886
71053 F20101211_AABFYK bortree_d_Page_171.jpg
8debd98881a791d29190ac971f11c76c
50fd6d7cc06b197febbd3bfc736a7cb9bca509c7
8235 F20101211_AABGEF bortree_d_Page_149thm.jpg
6436cd4856e43da36a14db397a15f7e7
26765e493e6d27a8036d519d737c9c4e95b3da31
2016 F20101211_AABFXX bortree_d_Page_166.txt
ebcab25f11bb892e150b6c32332928bd
95833c050effb9f443e8fd89412fcf481a93c246
F20101211_AABFBD bortree_d_Page_198.tif
ad882ea2e5d43ecb809491bc9e13461b
9ca006dcc8cc84611394f6103456a971d6b1f9a0
1051971 F20101211_AABFAP bortree_d_Page_159.jp2
4a9da5a80e0cddd1c42350f38ea730be
80d0260e588a3724a63a1c99e7246a0df5d914a1
1051837 F20101211_AABGDR bortree_d_Page_053.jp2
e57355962984bd487e451a490790d9b2
3754a90923b1d8f6a77bd2ebb856a60fa7ab90b8
1051981 F20101211_AABFYL bortree_d_Page_100.jp2
ee1ec3c30c3dd5c7835c411ab7171b18
a121f6439770f2b1651a450d766934f35f54a5ee
52554 F20101211_AABGEG bortree_d_Page_021.pro
b28a5b2cde68aa708d7a2079470b9fa0
9c0bb4518f4142f280f1004ab16c95c6d50ebe05
1767 F20101211_AABFBE bortree_d_Page_073.pro
2c343d5ce217310c760f4d92442ceb04
fd8b5a86acb453306727669136eacbbdcaa7b013
7539 F20101211_AABFAQ bortree_d_Page_163thm.jpg
773ff2327ea28b503b58b089a84fee5b
47c833457439b8f93f53a0037681e9d8bf8ba83c
1534 F20101211_AABFZA bortree_d_Page_178.txt
4440612b50d97c2eb1a5a17dd7cd0ec5
90ace8507798112ec06fda98692e70417bd10cd3
53415 F20101211_AABGDS bortree_d_Page_022.pro
9e9345ec1e5d08188b529a522f37cfba
4be37170716d4bb63056b94cb9a97648d2ca1c87
8125 F20101211_AABFYM bortree_d_Page_049thm.jpg
ceb5f53dd8d5033c19dfafc0ceb0e843
bb65a531033006e1cf639013df1af4462e921a4a
8373 F20101211_AABGEH bortree_d_Page_032thm.jpg
71875e594bd72e90b8f1d56f83671158
c640fcda2acfb9cd23858f137b962de3655b07c2
63940 F20101211_AABFXY bortree_d_Page_144.jp2
2f94c0309ae6c6195433d9411f7eb17d
d14e40a09178e06250439ce0f1bf7c8187e31595
7727 F20101211_AABFBF bortree_d_Page_101thm.jpg
2a3b55d6788435d9596d2bee2388519e
e717eac198844d79fa45c390c040d9300bfcc49f
1436 F20101211_AABFAR bortree_d_Page_128.txt
f58aa9ccae17edf083934a1b1edcef30
df30dc985b94e3ac4bbfb886e5098ef7d607d838
2072 F20101211_AABFZB bortree_d_Page_158.txt
02a3ad7906afd92b9c640864775e00d8
5cd4dd7b3d58d1539044e908c8cac4ad9a350813
19439 F20101211_AABGDT bortree_d_Page_023.jpg
194ba105868e6d5f9e6ce3557d250d2a
61fc12874a34438ca3ef3bd19c281c601b0fa715
8035 F20101211_AABFYN bortree_d_Page_061thm.jpg
da7cdda95d84e993333b441ee5f2a926
2d07ef43eb8e5ba9c543b7a9310c53bd1f2ae7ef
F20101211_AABGEI bortree_d_Page_033.tif
a35c118a951e1997e9b37041600e6b23
c5e2a6b57237c1dc99222ba35aaf1b61c7d84b19
12312 F20101211_AABGDU bortree_d_Page_015.QC.jpg
a0f8ff239fe81078deaf95d958d3aa6a
a83552497be7579f86ac714ff20f191bc66c023e
34104 F20101211_AABFXZ bortree_d_Page_159.QC.jpg
6b61152b181ef49e43ac0f2cff355a45
72385aed7620a5ef92469514ae5e91c8fb2a15f9
54203 F20101211_AABFBG bortree_d_Page_139.jpg
cf5af84319031455b788bfb00ac61522
e2d5e1b68ce2ac53eaf196b9d30801363d948a2c
46997 F20101211_AABFAS bortree_d_Page_165.pro
5d207c2469fe9473309b3d57589068fb
5bd71597b38713fc4716d851b45bca9d3c0a2c2f
F20101211_AABFZC bortree_d_Page_128.tif
d883c218940cb228aa493110823fc9ed
c297b9d79f730d9d39a830b60cbf9c9e781f42d2
33353 F20101211_AABFYO bortree_d_Page_125.pro
83203ba06b490da6572ee7f107c33672
abecd623b508c2943780be02bdf7d275867be8f5
1051985 F20101211_AABGEJ bortree_d_Page_156.jp2
cf466a7ad8fb05c39e9a204e8d494ea2
352df3f052fc4f7ba9251e3703959e12072b111c
34577 F20101211_AABGDV bortree_d_Page_052.QC.jpg
5bb37160fb2fb4e7018835d1cbd7841e
dce3918eeaaba2fb18dc8d71cd601ad8a6f95de7
8347 F20101211_AABFBH bortree_d_Page_026thm.jpg
8f81b834386e394ba2f3c0071d2e309f
b826139a54ca7cc26047f9defb80de77ae19bc27
105987 F20101211_AABFAT bortree_d_Page_167.jpg
5dddd82813f428fdd28939cf24f1d3f4
95d48210482b3acc847199257863eb2f2943c3fc
137186 F20101211_AABFZD bortree_d_Page_199.jpg
d58382ec5712e23ca3d57fe3832b227d
f277084255c987ca30bd35d691fda88c04713143
107676 F20101211_AABFYP bortree_d_Page_092.jpg
6784ce9f451a2846995750f930bbefb0
0ddb94094fa93eca34c51a26593c414c3100d73c
1051934 F20101211_AABGEK bortree_d_Page_114.jp2
21bd7a2a851c3d25662fb6f6062d3d6e
6738ea180dadec8cc22b6f5f84a8a5c5d2e38ce7
F20101211_AABGDW bortree_d_Page_034.tif
db8247c70888b7ff07ca98dc20edca78
efb114bde7e40125aed6a3bddb3e447f66757f05
F20101211_AABFBI bortree_d_Page_164.tif
26b7066d43e3fb36c45b3b564227ae9a
bf54d08f0ae3784be2a907b43ed2a923b923ca82
8238 F20101211_AABFAU bortree_d_Page_042thm.jpg
9d3e66f115a97fab7f49549ae540614b
af1a2e69f4bb2c7a937761d561e24823b77ec958
57743 F20101211_AABFZE bortree_d_Page_069.pro
6939b617caac703789a0fce23a0e3b53
858ee06a6352641f66fec2605bfe577a2143a391
8551 F20101211_AABFYQ bortree_d_Page_019thm.jpg
3f0e53ab521c3cc392847fa93735a94e
09e6993c4e87ccb64eaa65316c0682993fa244a2
16527 F20101211_AABGFA bortree_d_Page_143.QC.jpg
4728d62d02fc0b7502bc44ca4a0b4556
e27b1ad4f20dd64f6184dfb386f360ec71ecfd99
46915 F20101211_AABGEL bortree_d_Page_161.pro
1dc7383e99174e5fb389737ab70b7e82
de62eda8000885e8f2c9d110ae8cb5c0721197ab
58071 F20101211_AABGDX bortree_d_Page_140.jpg
081ed847c9156e0d4bfc09c9b1025953
aef75f19c47deec82b16013af3b75af3b56669b6
F20101211_AABFBJ bortree_d_Page_054.jp2
916d46b49f78c39470a32ae15e4336bd
b9d8fbce03b3aa2732f4342408dd0826d38387a2
127289 F20101211_AABFAV bortree_d_Page_189.jpg
cf575dcd7854bed604adc1b40bb2433c
d0996ed39b43737564c6e63c8223ab2a4193b90c
51236 F20101211_AABFZF bortree_d_Page_164.pro
7fd976f660aabed0e6c1af6852381d1b
88b5fbccb228137dfee4be5d69ed319ba9756f61
2578 F20101211_AABFYR bortree_d_Page_193.txt
a661e6b88686c3a04a7c0026de6e2491
8b7d35112c7c840bfcd39b4b1c396134ef8c31f3
47204 F20101211_AABGFB bortree_d_Page_154.pro
9c4e2b22bd053d6da0198a61cbcecf5d
fe78fdb1b5d5901044870b8b9c617bc7a6cdf6c1
F20101211_AABGEM bortree_d_Page_094.tif
0d49671b53d94efa95cf54b9815c56e5
6a382f5eac92ca39abe6c081432f9f7731d12ff9
104153 F20101211_AABGDY bortree_d_Page_152.jpg
332971504f6f3719d022176cf2b86688
a1663a9d10a0d5aa758aedf59febedf00c29ff11
31448 F20101211_AABFBK bortree_d_Page_173.QC.jpg
97ef3ab4f2bb24213525a3438ab5751d
b0217dd44a76d5931cb3665751cab262c585ae78
103 F20101211_AABFAW bortree_d_Page_087.txt
2dd43bfb012726fa237e55636f48a857
979b17499958dbcd4e534767918c1a57343b3869
F20101211_AABFZG bortree_d_Page_199.tif
e6841daf828e2c94ec10c585a13705c3
acf29d77d4488976307ad591de5719170aac4f3c
89325 F20101211_AABFYS bortree_d_Page_082.jpg
b09b0ef0302bd12885655210812d3bff
85a65b50143308a3741abc1d7aeee7f5034d92aa
F20101211_AABGFC bortree_d_Page_043.tif
b6fb491264101cbae40572b2fa2a1f73
71b1687d59f4c55bc44a8b7a044623f58e891589
1956 F20101211_AABGEN bortree_d_Page_112.txt
3bbce8162ca6ff36d578022cfe9006cf
e0228ce6a1037457636ea92d6072be08c6e78cd7
1972 F20101211_AABGDZ bortree_d_Page_100.txt
2ef099ab6ae0ccd8016b19d3a4d5f74c
34991db8ff0f4789d3f8412bb1736085c0024f50
1051983 F20101211_AABFBL bortree_d_Page_167.jp2
b7835aeed95787951b932a681a1fde52
49c5cf64f5bb2b62722145bed594a21328ca8011
79431 F20101211_AABFAX bortree_d_Page_128.jpg
363c33a9044da9cd7351b19d906c61e2
ebbea80a909cf0a9ec24bac62be960a2b810d851
2739 F20101211_AABFZH bortree_d_Page_006.txt
d6585926987d491e4e20d6683f6dad8e
aa6867b962454fed72cd6e7264605b30a9169930
51537 F20101211_AABFYT bortree_d_Page_057.pro
fa73dbb58c97c6a5e1bf88c7950d3835
88be64ae5326a78a71f00c612ba7fcc3f0b3317d
34075 F20101211_AABFCA bortree_d_Page_050.QC.jpg
1d2811b6cef3a44e1a8bb7d4c4476264
a18935e921eb901e2c06023dd20b938c0c057308
1168 F20101211_AABGFD bortree_d_Page_003.QC.jpg
da0b37a1ac7350f4b1a20cbac82389a6
c014cd91acd6f665f93d8c984cae8124e103d40d
21339 F20101211_AABGEO bortree_d_Page_088.QC.jpg
05711e5d5da11889ba9fe4638392f5b3
a1bd22f1e73edc3d9e945573a7b92ccf31e6fe11
1051941 F20101211_AABFBM bortree_d_Page_183.jp2
7db09b045c4bf2e09a8ab94805c6c0f5
6b9e22f371374091b5931c319e8d4f5a5ed31310
F20101211_AABFAY bortree_d_Page_117.tif
cf4b37d7c866e8aa8f7c06d9d4add336
93c742c0c54fede3d5d861cef8df6006cb089b6c
976543 F20101211_AABFZI bortree_d_Page_180.jp2
67ad4db5821e9923224719dfba772e79
49736360468d018ce19826d4af05ae543074f52f
1051966 F20101211_AABFYU bortree_d_Page_196.jp2
67a8240f88bf76bf944dac4d9c6900a2
1779ec79a3bf9606733d1e82308cea23d48d5ad1
48539 F20101211_AABFCB bortree_d_Page_175.pro
83cf2ee9f65d94e65aa6d3fec1583580
9d002ff4d270fd7e7699fac0bd18457138b10288
2499 F20101211_AABGFE bortree_d_Page_001thm.jpg
ac7d72249975ead826458d47567c30c8
73a68af285bcfae44ef467d9e1c43852c4f95c04
1720 F20101211_AABGEP bortree_d_Page_058.txt
42e533c9a4aed8e17da81853a2991dfe
7eb7f026693128491ad8c6db9ea1fee46d3fbaae
107828 F20101211_AABFBN bortree_d_Page_031.jpg
38a9977b9ef581d12c7dc428a2fae739
fde74ace011774acc13bf1af29475b9efc9dbaa5
F20101211_AABFAZ bortree_d_Page_129.tif
309cca3621f23afa476c80fe26babc1e
875ddf81346a208e6ecb2429ae75e1c4af487215
1048736 F20101211_AABFZJ bortree_d_Page_097.jp2
ee4e093aa5022c54c6d9ac480af0b5e1
aafe62f261330168d82cb621add1f532039dfc88
98747 F20101211_AABFYV bortree_d_Page_030.jpg
b6fcbcdfb01be50565ecd94a8cce7234
61c65bcc8a43830d5dc5643893b21871f975ab9d
3947 F20101211_AABFCC bortree_d_Page_131thm.jpg
05461842988c80c47f1fd5240f3e0d92
284e5cfe1657c3ad0310fe4a2039a2ef6d11f1c8
51222 F20101211_AABGEQ bortree_d_Page_166.pro
618843d1531376ad263419f2a35b2e58
2e86b2a8ed2834bba8b42e1f5200252d2f923622
46670 F20101211_AABFBO bortree_d_Page_037.pro
f881f0621e75cd8ca7a0e32be5605a45
b7003f7718256b2fbf5fc25487cb70c4cef995f2
37660 F20101211_AABFZK bortree_d_Page_075.pro
84f28edbd7804f6d5296579519ea663d
0dc18eaed17d51e1a2c09bbeb16d61355d26025f
F20101211_AABFYW bortree_d_Page_201.tif
03c5721365c15505fa3f0c555f512863
a5a614a7949492db0a6bd2fc65a4075c3a1a179c
97404 F20101211_AABGFF bortree_d_Page_017.jpg
520d5ac6773c5755ee4985c890254874
582b830911394fc29e4a1c607d5d6afef3d19fba
1962 F20101211_AABGER bortree_d_Page_012.txt
bc4b9f0b2fdfc2c9145f5d6c23e263b5
71b818ea0af01dc833c803a2b18c2c487932aa75
8339 F20101211_AABFBP bortree_d_Page_046thm.jpg
24e442254a8437c3f637711bff67ded0
9f075484486f0fced50039a5b9419f763d220db3
5236 F20101211_AABFZL bortree_d_Page_087.jpg
7781888859d58f519ef312296a452d8b
f5dc462c6096c318d12e7dc9c0c38d7be8ca6c9e
F20101211_AABFYX bortree_d_Page_173.tif
946790f4cc4da8f466820506d9348ccf
fd17f893c6cc3260ae8b7fd552452a325562ebdc
99719 F20101211_AABFCD bortree_d_Page_114.jpg
fba9bc9e22844ff78a9f113a94d0378b
a2c8b1c20aa4bfdcb0fef0ac6049b694c59d4485
F20101211_AABGFG bortree_d_Page_151.jp2
ec8500c3c4552dd39547bf828ff0fe6c
25b20e4d811e0eca8295d3537e2cf7853f595a4f
8242 F20101211_AABGES bortree_d_Page_053thm.jpg
94577cdb928de018a970f1607b9983b2
25952221d81e72ca3fdc9d00845b57c1943a6935
73920 F20101211_AABFBQ bortree_d_Page_133.jpg
4b6ddda4ca2cd422d51a603de3930541
d1043be42ffed563a70d299ea25ad75516a728e6
46128 F20101211_AABFZM bortree_d_Page_163.pro
c2a2984bf5a0374480d64caf206b96e1
e357e9b83fb450949c60ea55b80e79c871460558
616 F20101211_AABFYY bortree_d_Page_087thm.jpg
b5f854d6d133796b31995bc1618bd9fc
b6672a37a3fbdd289773968e5b076090350b6b85
66789 F20101211_AABFCE bortree_d_Page_123.jpg
976a8b0d91309504bd8d12ecdd6bad81
32731b8c5394e5daafda0074f3977aa77d8840d1
F20101211_AABGFH bortree_d_Page_020.tif
4fc71e7357938a1f2ff8fce1090ef4d5
91f157653928ab099a42407ed5ba50206c4fb371
864024 F20101211_AABGET bortree_d_Page_008.jp2
e0137ef24ce366ad268bc97212fa5b0c
fed65eefb1adbdcb052f6a1c8d84ccd6385f1de3
20355 F20101211_AABFBR bortree_d_Page_074.QC.jpg
9bbdfd02414abf5bb3c590fcba14a22f
29a0cee16c4a632c7f31e8b4f7b96f4e5307942f
26378 F20101211_AABFZN bortree_d_Page_008.pro
0762d966b33e0d1715eed7bda0965fc4
68018729b0cd57e768f97b325273626bfce41237
F20101211_AABFCF bortree_d_Page_106.tif
3705a174e79a56527e62911c6a117065
d862b2ef4ee5b9c8a77e0073188de2f9a533b62f
105165 F20101211_AABGFI bortree_d_Page_050.jpg
96469a91ff8b7f420650e59f564fe1d8
038a92a569e31ad48801b87a1e72383398e1c4f8
925 F20101211_AABGEU bortree_d_Page_139.txt
89030a2a6b47ec55163c07e6f4efe6e8
e956bf7a905cd9438cd59cf34d02b77a0a1f50ce
25411 F20101211_AABFBS bortree_d_Page_136.pro
10e0adfd0d5ecb6563cd54bb771a3b5a
bae04700b75fdf3f1783bc580d733d953335b19d
1957 F20101211_AABFZO bortree_d_Page_044.txt
ad4f6e9f2ce34c8f0b06e713da22d258
2a084e8339f5ffc5cc74c5be3d5752c6027e65ec
1890 F20101211_AABFYZ bortree_d_Page_165.txt
e0c31fe6e882f13580595a11adda72f6
e1cf73d2e959c8ad762d872e46b46892c645c24b
8561 F20101211_AABFCG bortree_d_Page_148thm.jpg
0cd506dda28baebe0df0a02a5ba9af9c
00b921f9199adce9510ef3ca89fa6b409491c62c
7611 F20101211_AABGFJ bortree_d_Page_119.QC.jpg
5c5118956345522a159dcb4cf6278cba
bf0c34ff365f8505120981fcc202f934fffade61
8454 F20101211_AABGEV bortree_d_Page_092thm.jpg
fc7a878133e0a719f98f1c7a66a1f87b
21f7343fe441e2eab18adce10b6a9be8c8837dc8
1995 F20101211_AABFBT bortree_d_Page_039.txt
1e8518e730c423dfb73cd6204e3b2813
08aa1c829f4616697beb41b83e75fa9dd4cedaa8
28362 F20101211_AABFZP bortree_d_Page_058.QC.jpg
4da3807b2b830e526a5ed7be503bb15e
082e2c013a4cc388058369ee6ee3aa0ede6a3372
32607 F20101211_AABFCH bortree_d_Page_166.QC.jpg
2e4e955c4b7fd2cd78b4b3c89e71821c
4cb573aac18406ecce6152296c1c2bc6d7375781
804 F20101211_AABGFK bortree_d_Page_072.txt
090be03f895d652af70781048809837d
1483d1205534a8b37112aed05db92a6c9e7f3016
662294 F20101211_AABGEW bortree_d_Page_123.jp2
4277f83dbfdacd90e77a1e9ae0ff392d
5940a6db191fe1f584e8dde9becb92661deb9a31
51298 F20101211_AABFBU bortree_d_Page_103.pro
f66816bfc707f30a31ea6528f051e7e9
2897887b95d85ad8c3d83f99518608b563b08164
14693 F20101211_AABFZQ bortree_d_Page_141.QC.jpg
fe38040e16d0c2b63d3c9a803ba7f71b
8b9d34b92ad77252736678660ab7d9c7a5aaa275
52321 F20101211_AABFCI bortree_d_Page_011.pro
625a0ad587d40e537b8d98268669fc8c
1443e3cb7e820e0ab461be964cfa815476ba1af2
F20101211_AABGGA bortree_d_Page_096.tif
92d9f8a0be007cd18a23fabe328f28b8
cc9c87676d7cfeb0a8b898302d152376545f29fb
F20101211_AABGFL bortree_d_Page_119.tif
79e24fdb4bb184cb91a56e2d615ee220
cfb2a520582b442e55117d63f2e06974dc593602
1898 F20101211_AABGEX bortree_d_Page_109.txt
c67e0d51cb088a9817d02ecfbebae23b
9b44a01b00d9a1c2efe7759a5435b0a5254d84c5
F20101211_AABFBV bortree_d_Page_053.tif
5dfe9ffb3d28d2a75c5e0886036c7411
6510a0c820e0f00de735ff8997c5ebc0c8479a7a
1963 F20101211_AABFZR bortree_d_Page_043.txt
91ad16ffb100ba3f88a06ace2376c38a
d0559b8d2bcf5ec33bcd4be8f5cabdfb159a5b99
4833 F20101211_AABFCJ bortree_d_Page_169thm.jpg
758ef54487a9492b9f6b59115304ad04
c70aed3f487378a55d97c47660e5ed61d6e0c254
7869 F20101211_AABGGB bortree_d_Page_027thm.jpg
5cf08db7bbf0c17bd1a3158f07aa7717
0f1d39df6e2295432d95cfed5ba3ab216e7ceb17
63124 F20101211_AABGFM bortree_d_Page_193.pro
d252c1ec5b4d4a543895d96261848084
38758ab0735e7e37edc4bc42fb13d6225d978850
F20101211_AABGEY bortree_d_Page_107.tif
ec76a1a3063fede5614de30b39245249
63fd482306d104d90e0c2ceb03b8de1c116df69c
8171 F20101211_AABFBW bortree_d_Page_189thm.jpg
f34d69f6198ec6aee217fb9dd6db983e
e66f8cfcd4217c80cb98f488f5c9cd8ed3ff275b
4751 F20101211_AABFZS bortree_d_Page_070thm.jpg
f49d26d604389969b7b3662e46b34e62
692641b4ecfcb32b0d792458a8e9a879689f8231
F20101211_AABFCK bortree_d_Page_199.jp2
9ddb0fc9035ada957af39953c4fcbd54
23585026c268de6e1bfe71c382adcd41f248acf1
F20101211_AABGGC bortree_d_Page_018.tif
c97922ac211ffd365f3b88d526df0038
54230cec7d5e20e1d3a5e7f8190d1c158cde78ea
F20101211_AABGFN bortree_d_Page_030.jp2
2d4f5b54bd4b6c4ed5fd151cd70a6817
83bb870241f100ccb368111bcd01ca2a6ab3d85c
785025 F20101211_AABGEZ bortree_d_Page_185.jp2
f376c8051f306def8b40a6ac0aae4d6d
5b76183e4f6c51f368365723a295c57b22f5bb37
32433 F20101211_AABFBX bortree_d_Page_129.pro
c666ede40899c7063e701ef867dd197f
2ab5bf13528afd803c0bb4685495ceca30cdfae7
425 F20101211_AABFZT bortree_d_Page_184.txt
32e1b4ab4f75c7bc0a418742a3a3efe3
a778788a0ef75b8988ac81d34d7fc242013aeeac
48044 F20101211_AABFDA bortree_d_Page_051.pro
c399a8e1bdd01311d6c262345b5c65f3
d38998c47b21f16aad7f2340fe08025376a75aa8
2008 F20101211_AABFCL bortree_d_Page_182.txt
272012bdf5fa281c14b13b51b4ab1647
4e5397dfd771455e4b9f973319ac1834a742f62e
30919 F20101211_AABGGD bortree_d_Page_182.QC.jpg
e561ba31a2530395fcc3cdc7a1729e2e
12544dcbddde6ee193b19f59683e240e9f090504
16030 F20101211_AABGFO bortree_d_Page_142.QC.jpg
51ab84ef9cbcf5443a5bc54db7c40b35
84bb82b54b95a5dee9fb1f8f982ef70db2904032
F20101211_AABFBY bortree_d_Page_117.jp2
e3f4e19bb0cab3bbd33cf93db731eca2
14b013eace7106ef413fdad298a15eb629636ba5
7889 F20101211_AABFZU bortree_d_Page_173thm.jpg
321133c7c4b9f32d1e20a43063b8da53
8dd7e0b82815a04d21472c4ab30f0fec3119737a
92064 F20101211_AABFDB bortree_d_Page_096.jpg
d839af243acd03b040807701a9b86ac1
7a9ad75ec2d89b7378fde24ef6b5f2475987feb7
F20101211_AABFCM bortree_d_Page_166.tif
70b888553a11ace2ca8002b31d24f41e
bb2b6816d2890ce214871e9aaa65b3e4caa82b31
108004 F20101211_AABGGE bortree_d_Page_019.jpg
2d3a3dda871b3fcca5b2cad8055c196a
701148cacf2bfb0d30a88acb3388a2ec24ab6dfe
2511 F20101211_AABGFP bortree_d_Page_196.txt
b5f08411ef6819a151e9875b263de101
76ae994357ee5d9033ff225ff238c1945eb61edb
48547 F20101211_AABFBZ bortree_d_Page_174.jpg
870d04bbf5a9c343409783f3a00f066b
5053b08ae43f03e2992e722080cc7039674157f0
F20101211_AABFZV bortree_d_Page_188.jp2
559722a47be826f4c27a786a767a20c3
9a05b0761ef5486f7bdd58afdd396d5bd34388a3
21553 F20101211_AABFDC bortree_d_Page_174.pro
63dc3a2e9ed5a4ddc72f695b8748bfd2
3163192ae41b5aec8d49c6a6822eafa4cc90eeb9
102873 F20101211_AABFCN bortree_d_Page_164.jpg
3a1f23bab7a1e2ce69aacee67bb54cdd
ba27f4d32990a564c989b7db65bbb219ddae45cf
72773 F20101211_AABGGF bortree_d_Page_185.jpg
230b78d667132cd6656c904e038ba195
79393b5e6489785eb195b7ff0d401d1863e0afbd
8264 F20101211_AABGFQ bortree_d_Page_047thm.jpg
ace20a05589a9a26966359d84eb36854
42bcf11c2abb0578f0f39740b4a5af078fba38b2
22502 F20101211_AABFZW bortree_d_Page_127.QC.jpg
09665abba7188f12bab7a1e5186efcfe
22e8cbe11d2b419fce6f2d0d2181ed0a36786447
8180 F20101211_AABFDD bortree_d_Page_110thm.jpg
e892082bf648fb0123f6c2d126245af8
7124a278a68d446cd7b076c4a9e09dd4b60a6985
32482 F20101211_AABFCO bortree_d_Page_030.QC.jpg
2a5eec091f744f43c5b5fc32f3b78887
47630376d8c979954501c523d5e835071910dda8
33850 F20101211_AABGFR bortree_d_Page_115.QC.jpg
e0407784c58a18932c79c060b5b35e3e
2ad59de5c331dafd272e26543dcb1a7c22bb8600
1051969 F20101211_AABFZX bortree_d_Page_149.jp2
11dd79da415c2d53d9f331e2eb779395
cbe69bd3165fa45004151cd0555379ab1bdd5f46
33929 F20101211_AABFCP bortree_d_Page_152.QC.jpg
4d49664729df77609d92c944ffb740c1
66f42d180ae06dacff4f103902c47fbc34e2a670
30406 F20101211_AABGGG bortree_d_Page_163.QC.jpg
97ac7015e9b868f81e594dffd50b35e8
4d67d011f52b2c0e3ce542142d326af33a7229b2
1027679 F20101211_AABGFS bortree_d_Page_041.jp2
c0a7b39e5b2d04c23ed5a936f4fd63bd
ba1634d121e8da0c86053e0fae80d39b7cbf20c7
2006 F20101211_AABFZY bortree_d_Page_116.txt
de23eb9213467c6c54a8bd3ca8061317
8717970989d2293568971cb73f2b90fb13ea4a0a
34467 F20101211_AABFDE bortree_d_Page_060.QC.jpg
101629fe52e040fa11431669f065ef79
22dc373d4a1ca8840dfef532c7b352f36fa78f53
F20101211_AABFCQ bortree_d_Page_040.jp2
8214aafcbb66123a1b4a3ffc263e091f
99501453191dd86917bf6731a31e066d1968b8b0
1032538 F20101211_AABGGH bortree_d_Page_083.jp2
a2120ab7f39a025c82ee86ef9ba00d8b
c49ddc716e23b7d3326bd819e82849cfa82a16ea
1013 F20101211_AABGFT bortree_d_Page_002.pro
87e3d10a10f7c637344f31af15b15410
48c1f2ad7d3e66171be3be47e3f313b9e0c6a761
1996 F20101211_AABFZZ bortree_d_Page_160.txt
09d7a4367fff1eabe4b1885aa0925fcf
4289295bac465926e3bc289b37ffc8c44210e2a1
3973 F20101211_AABFDF bortree_d_Page_121thm.jpg
fcda7684975447bc96aa70ad5f6d7844
d46e4c8e6e1baed8664ea8d69612ae4dd027d540
8057 F20101211_AABFCR bortree_d_Page_150thm.jpg
1a49b05c22f477a57a9d52febc338181
49c0f716e9f447e7e842ae62368d8cd0ce5c48a9
30344 F20101211_AABGGI bortree_d_Page_096.QC.jpg
e473fd874d49ba9cf38571863e999491
7bb89f3ac54a666e7ce41928222d0429dc7b0ba8
106352 F20101211_AABGFU bortree_d_Page_060.jpg
1e1ca403099e3235b0cb2cff14d8048f
4377c0cfdc049e8d354b548ef7aca69181549513
1051973 F20101211_AABFDG bortree_d_Page_038.jp2
d3f11dc3a5e25205e6ae3cb7c1dfbb79
700755cba1594f2251275b36786648ba771d4a83
31365 F20101211_AABFCS bortree_d_Page_081.QC.jpg
84af4d66818824fe2c4817d4c419e4bf
14f714e57e54ab0e9fd0f067debec9a6c1c927bf
56866 F20101211_AABGGJ bortree_d_Page_052.pro
2bf3208d9b3ff05bf00d229e90397bf6
abfc353ce66e2e5974e48d08dd9a8aa0f2fd1658
55009 F20101211_AABGFV bortree_d_Page_062.pro
440da7312ca5307c9dae46f3f0e50ccc
e1789bf542582a9798dea7eebb618bb2377b53b7
31895 F20101211_AABFDH bortree_d_Page_065.QC.jpg
23e458e517d064c26f044b83ba119991
646c19703a5348a308c0210afbb2b94e54e05299
7993 F20101211_AABFCT bortree_d_Page_064thm.jpg
14eedf47b6609235012fb47a90babf86
5ce9b10a3da644cd8b303ac684723325d9b5ef36
33586 F20101211_AABGGK bortree_d_Page_064.QC.jpg
929ffc774868536ba84cd0d8b6e73c2a
29b22f0bd06faabe4218d6c2e7847d3d615c3bb8
377638 F20101211_AABGFW bortree_d_Page_015.jp2
44bb141c1de3b27853046e39b7296eb8
330eefbd44ffdd0cb8022d0612fb20a107707b24
755 F20101211_AABFDI bortree_d_Page_172thm.jpg
7e218c6fbc39d9e67f37f2122c7b6919
e1d8a67388fe1e5039f4f1da3a6e4ba0a3174bea
F20101211_AABFCU bortree_d_Page_070.tif
8bf9f2bfb0d2f3176c826d16f38afd84
0b0835943e8096c54073a9daccdeb61adb18cda7
55179 F20101211_AABGHA bortree_d_Page_063.pro
35e47949ff72438daf6d7caad72819ff
f8d162bea367996e743285ae93261b96c45d85c3
984 F20101211_AABGGL bortree_d_Page_074.txt
5d2dcc21176f3530ccdec412a8d261b0
1526f0496007b9e771300fc75c6223b21a7c4e5a
F20101211_AABGFX bortree_d_Page_180.tif
47f397cbdf9492820328a15e61ebb1f8
f9f56327979b3c279cd9811a8b46a67811e21b92
31426 F20101211_AABFDJ bortree_d_Page_047.QC.jpg
0e50c08e93478cd3daf890880952b679
d4e5017ab2af1a84521262d4dfb8b1ee9a249b59
1226 F20101211_AABFCV bortree_d_Page_070.txt
da8aa9cb10cb425bfb4df240128aa583
be858a6dba9c7f5e53af369a216ba89c6ad7bdd8
8357 F20101211_AABGHB bortree_d_Page_105thm.jpg
5fc05327c8abcd7edb5fba5e33e86974
b8687be32b10f9b77d156264338232c026dd62e3
344351 F20101211_AABGGM bortree_d_Page_072.jp2
62aab1e9085eaa652d66421f6bc26479
dcffe16b539679a62d07eb6f1bc916d1eb503cff
47419 F20101211_AABGFY bortree_d_Page_017.pro
dfff4331ca67235d9d04168448884ef2
7f9ba7b512d2de6a4b4310a4fca7b58abc318aa8
1009 F20101211_AABFDK bortree_d_Page_136.txt
1983ee182967a10fc0b358fb997295d2
f1ea08c66196b30b2bee61548207f46017216808
28834 F20101211_AABFCW bortree_d_Page_082.QC.jpg
596082672e8a73d148570c93ed44bedc
8ffe05598618545b27812e7c1fd45114b7a1fd82
8345 F20101211_AABGHC bortree_d_Page_066thm.jpg
c8c71add144ad3db0d86930e68810727
9c3a1b7063cf9d28a8f4a0b6571436a5ce468e9e
1367 F20101211_AABGGN bortree_d_Page_179thm.jpg
e728b1d232afebacc845fb51e6236166
8720d43b17f81d4e41971a8d5411ab20ebc1898f
30060 F20101211_AABGFZ bortree_d_Page_126.pro
b65a2033f45f3f3539fd9c75b1094ffd
0a70eb2bf20b4b8f58a0ef0aa4d0e3f121fc0e80
F20101211_AABFEA bortree_d_Page_171.tif
afea14ac908a26ade574e31101c118f2
0e005f822c24461eaa8082270b86bb44d2b4b9f4
8506 F20101211_AABFDL bortree_d_Page_055thm.jpg
73ab345f391e9fc98d55f79fc715b0a2
7901604d2f87dd75df2ab19435c6e858a755306d
104985 F20101211_AABFCX bortree_d_Page_105.jpg
737323658ff3169bfadd5b6a04ef1731
e4f4fc3b74087c8db6d77f634ba35d0619532deb
F20101211_AABGHD bortree_d_Page_188.tif
c4aa8b5ce8536b6f224a9efe7e9b5092
fbb7fc2183d987a56350ec94d322352b1746b36e
F20101211_AABGGO bortree_d_Page_090.jp2
458deb2d0e8331cc9f43a2f23401caf2
afdde426d803f2c42313de14d5be3c7deab79369
2038 F20101211_AABFEB bortree_d_Page_093.txt
8bbefdd27ae9d493b82abc8d5f2c245a
cc46e4f90d1ce29c2959bc46c9c63ea3ba788432
8647 F20101211_AABFDM bortree_d_Page_099thm.jpg
6e6dccb2df3a9cda73c1d61c5fe54537
2ae6959f460cccfd23886ed9caf333322c188983
33813 F20101211_AABFCY bortree_d_Page_155.QC.jpg
e1263312f3008e6d273e1fb3b061eca1
97cdb079fe1ec713bdb1aaf740a6c7021c7026a9
102137 F20101211_AABGHE bortree_d_Page_076.jpg
9b76fe9ad9e8f30570c25397ed58e6fd
1091fec15735777f83bc7ae7392b7fa98dffdd32
60467 F20101211_AABGGP bortree_d_Page_143.jp2
fc278305c13b1105e0a534377ab1d374
53ef5cf3ab2d9c00013ae94b078debe446bbe58e
7394 F20101211_AABFEC bortree_d_Page_175thm.jpg
7066fe58d67fbd0acf77ee2a0908b8a6
0223c1db637254d6f858358772b18c7b696b70c3
F20101211_AABFDN bortree_d_Page_157.tif
cf6c77407c19c64a699631d2a69a37b9
df4effeaad9e506354fefd69506a2ac02baed61d
F20101211_AABFCZ bortree_d_Page_079.tif
32b0fca51a5f725db69acbfd0c102f4b
e53ef45bf12be25018e341c1e302ab356bd56400
F20101211_AABGHF bortree_d_Page_109.tif
a0cbf97584b46c67af713d7f769f15ca
527405751ad5130871f1d89b410123098b2a6c93
97551 F20101211_AABGGQ bortree_d_Page_051.jpg
1676d964e7dc86c15035e7c5d2853299
1b1b31523b7ca0fc172a0dd618dab566fefbb7fe
102821 F20101211_AABFED bortree_d_Page_080.jpg
295472cbdb5fb30d2d4adfc24d23d69f
0c75fc3a8dda91ce7b32ae1f79cb8091fce28b1a
74329 F20101211_AABFDO bortree_d_Page_145.jp2
1566ab6e5d57d57c25ca839866ec362e
be75cb1d9b0984a1c75261761872c581b2d0c71d
21618 F20101211_AABGHG bortree_d_Page_129.QC.jpg
7a4f06b6d6c71e0d2979fa31798ebf48
499e9a047a7ba04fa392b28febf133f986551fb3
60232 F20101211_AABGGR bortree_d_Page_120.pro
f14abeebb99a6fc57e796adf09f54bfe
06ea4ad88f79e423b507437c276a87a8859b0ff5
34989 F20101211_AABFEE bortree_d_Page_059.QC.jpg
7845f47a29d920ca15c9b6e7c26ff210
f82231b3c23dcb3685c8875feadbaf7b34b5e9e1
5903 F20101211_AABFDP bortree_d_Page_125thm.jpg
f792542fe64458a28c22705f600c2a7f
d2bb6e2917ff8ee0fb05ea4d210681a7fea9ccb2
19231 F20101211_AABGGS bortree_d_Page_138.QC.jpg
0893bfbbcbc6fcdec83705f74dc840b8
2d0f84ef0ce359525592f871ac07af7a97cd1b2d
99605 F20101211_AABFDQ bortree_d_Page_061.jpg
dd7baca77c2c0b66b0c9d5055303eb47
141c1176d11ec5b04c94edacb9d9112638bf0119
99294 F20101211_AABGHH bortree_d_Page_111.jpg
743124097b58a94a09cb78ac53675e23
b356d1dfbed0154f6a148285eec37ac64d588d85
20180 F20101211_AABGGT bortree_d_Page_123.QC.jpg
9f4655e68842d4eb4aa6decbfbd4b25c
e0acd95ad18898cbb92c6f3bc65b8e5a447ef3c2
64666 F20101211_AABFEF bortree_d_Page_010.pro
95e4afd60b547cd8db5a5e138f9035f1
a704be825acfa2d2c188362f4af3f6323c1f3573
F20101211_AABFDR bortree_d_Page_084.tif
ee4507641a1ba92e4cde0449fad35924
225e968b7a45f268995178c2c066156143d7473b
F20101211_AABGHI bortree_d_Page_063.jp2
f4f5b931ef88b81c343e3831b4359a26
2c475dc68eef2c887d442e37928f27027df0e76e
1319 F20101211_AABGGU bortree_d_Page_146.txt
539aed8cc2863156ff00115607042341
1219345aba2da8b5a0bd49196fdd6e5c60c3a569
F20101211_AABFEG bortree_d_Page_196.tif
96c695506bf71bb025a1f6c988286ea1
b59a9272bc48b627c9096ea63b3a39368cf86c86
101454 F20101211_AABFDS bortree_d_Page_065.jpg
80442f7c7a31883b8959064bf8351091
c93c3a273ed47ebab9e3ebddbd60b414dcf700fd
8494 F20101211_AABGHJ bortree_d_Page_197thm.jpg
d594b13f03df7849c0abac68aa9ff5d0
4827accaa557b21f8c3dc4b3f5b88bead38b1935
F20101211_AABGGV bortree_d_Page_014.tif
4e37de03ea3f7cce42437ae8473d1fa2
48be015a065cd5510162f9e221d3dd93f96081f1
50290 F20101211_AABFEH bortree_d_Page_042.pro
2529c0f2edc1b91c85eb164c58be4627
7e712cc05a14a044f5457f8d69a209e7e16a9a74
F20101211_AABFDT bortree_d_Page_019.tif
d25246c55f6bff220cecad577a4fcb48
f950a44751ede40e4989a53faf03e061f8821596
F20101211_AABGHK bortree_d_Page_091.tif
58e42e4c57954947b6fc196dbcdc6c5e
1ed74a2b4d8a17c4f8e82023b542ab7cdc780870
51434 F20101211_AABGGW bortree_d_Page_110.pro
83657fd946ea59bd62888ece0dac3013
f10cd5345508f0d0ebd5e6032bc74373edce7d2f
F20101211_AABFEI bortree_d_Page_056.tif
ab893f821efdc23be80d1d76b7ec712b
bdc40447f3998ee24aa65d1e2fc37af2a378619b
97182 F20101211_AABFDU bortree_d_Page_104.jpg
8c17aec1a8158d0c4c44411855ed9698
358d83832573455baa7ffed4cb4b27692ff00026
941960 F20101211_AABGIA bortree_d_Page_004.jp2
a3dc3b192f84fea31a1bd65e55606ed2
1c997891971ed8d56eec5e114a13b40df4f9628d
2369 F20101211_AABGHL bortree_d_Page_029.txt
563ca03e5c053cad4d18e389c80e9f61
6ba4c00b69a8d098a51fdbd7c128c8516d8a47b5
4286 F20101211_AABGGX bortree_d_Page_174thm.jpg
b178c34c13783f5be7cb04c0c600c81b
76559e4e45b84897d64276f6a060627695808b06
103109 F20101211_AABFEJ bortree_d_Page_155.jpg
1b9fe8704154106b64a1254446820853
2f2c63d63ccbc7677a08c6722d67bb8455f358ec
F20101211_AABFDV bortree_d_Page_057.tif
4faa1389a11472ca8725b8c43ef4c2be
f3e9ce08595d7fcf8ea5267897a4cd46e13d0521
34586 F20101211_AABGIB bortree_d_Page_086.QC.jpg
eef6348b0e4fa075bdc59c8d12be73a2
1815755067b628761ffeb398a1df6ae7d8d9c9f9
F20101211_AABGHM bortree_d_Page_010.tif
7693059e4d448ff346df53d40434ecf3
6b7f488103f51442b53683d623df7197270cb5df
8538 F20101211_AABGGY bortree_d_Page_079thm.jpg
350ae1e5b2b3f1c6691aaadb4efd5dcc
48070eabda3ff405395efbceb16f4b840f22c45b
8280 F20101211_AABFEK bortree_d_Page_103thm.jpg
e09e67e1acaf3a7e7e63474f0c2dcedb
a7075bce9c99efa8d17135aa1e3b019393f7dc9c
F20101211_AABFDW bortree_d_Page_115.tif
5d38ac88ece870017ebc8ebc6d22f719
3f0f55af33821140191885c5b0b861f83137dad7
F20101211_AABGIC bortree_d_Page_067.tif
39d5af908944780ec011fc341daface2
37633a93573da90936807ca59792282e9ee1d2ff
96630 F20101211_AABGHN bortree_d_Page_175.jpg
a4a226e8570815a21839e7d85365289c
933bdf4c1c673a3f8030f641c71258fbb69b5552
7928 F20101211_AABGGZ bortree_d_Page_097thm.jpg
ae67736da4c2ab3cf72bae3293f1fb86
2c4042aa182531866a5eaa8740973730a037bd50
F20101211_AABFEL bortree_d_Page_074.tif
f82c74d46d358fd9b3429a7b13ae14b7
2ebb901f8078b5f984f68e56100b4c7e6561ac25
8488 F20101211_AABFDX bortree_d_Page_040thm.jpg
5a553c6c7ceaf2a3f7b40c0a629f6ccf
2bfdbaa364972f21053c5fab9d6ab831aadfa99d
F20101211_AABFFA bortree_d_Page_138.tif
068273a03ed8d8dd12f6f31f027126af
a36f5f192ec83a3c2dccf6bd7767d3b5d5d12c73
F20101211_AABGID bortree_d_Page_114.tif
000fc41039b032d3785edccb43ccdacb
d46fd15c2dc395ffca914cebcba15bfb6b440217
20471 F20101211_AABGHO bortree_d_Page_135.QC.jpg
b9bdd25d26c0d5442603b27ffbb7b70b
ca6125144afe7d24819dcf400ebfe97010a82812
34762 F20101211_AABFEM bortree_d_Page_167.QC.jpg
ca53f49e8849166f1ddcc2cc40903779
61e49eef1f4f9ba35cedd213e47629d9662a8883
1819 F20101211_AABFDY bortree_d_Page_068.txt
0f8b5bf34f5efae22302390878c4a180
77683c2223605842c289d5fd04d58c940819efe9
8993 F20101211_AABFFB bortree_d_Page_072.QC.jpg
ccb8da2b5c98869c46f1024efb2f1a65
1a3ee9ec9066a8f67f8b25c88eca76ed3ed219b1
986 F20101211_AABGIE bortree_d_Page_132.txt
76d8d77666aaee910065e00196dec448
4e7d5f7ebf8e2163b37a86f5e25ab6bf10badbd7
35081 F20101211_AABGHP bortree_d_Page_063.QC.jpg
f800fd1ca5d864836efcf3f2ec93903d
8e69e353f52c2e8561d7e28c787cf34005469867
55765 F20101211_AABFEN bortree_d_Page_141.jp2
b39e3a20dbeda5688f00c45c570bda33
a1eae3a33272ed17cff7536c5599e51e2425de25
7693 F20101211_AABFDZ bortree_d_Page_114thm.jpg
c77b5206a3c4fea982d62de91e2ddba7
f04ee2cafdb2e209ecde303d0533d1234540dfd8
5946 F20101211_AABFFC bortree_d_Page_134thm.jpg
94e9fea6b4a5d80627620bfb97d962e7
4ebb269b77f590cc07477c1f6043071aae9ffb84
7736 F20101211_AABGIF bortree_d_Page_054thm.jpg
70c63e3d5254b0f14365eb280b9a9330
dec72289f9b9bf6959ae3103f2c1aaeff6737688
78902 F20101211_AABGHQ bortree_d_Page_118.jpg
84146f853479aee74b1c8e07015f3534
29d39fcc55f88976ad2f10eb93ef2ea3bac5310d
1854 F20101211_AABFEO bortree_d_Page_081.txt
3e5e01fcfbe95264517462dc9431a18a
5d51b1be23895976b53eb39a957e77e8545c39b4
62651 F20101211_AABFFD bortree_d_Page_067.jpg
2de0eb3999602426a47bc92869ad18f7
7e1601157aa8e6581e318b6c7334e53752a22908
2058 F20101211_AABGIG bortree_d_Page_059.txt
e9353b5a155111cdec697af6364cae2d
913e5a88d0aa6e3c1a60c009239946a95ffe2f40
103559 F20101211_AABGHR bortree_d_Page_006.jpg
18d27e219bd30e9b1e71d8ae9e46a288
706afdf5eeaff68b1aced6116bc7f7bea621060a
8289 F20101211_AABFEP bortree_d_Page_085thm.jpg
e0a4d082a5e64293b55f2289fbe9a689
8a6b237f54b01be64f961e5809048c3a4c1c0607
1919 F20101211_AABFFE bortree_d_Page_117.txt
b474bd6dab620cd41ffa8a1eab16ac4f
f4af718f4ca601a87769c35384ecc450d654303c
F20101211_AABGIH bortree_d_Page_094.jp2
d04b1326f32ea5501a3e75c8c528474f
da48a4ce9d61d78cc0724f84c89c25991fbe5f26
1051927 F20101211_AABGHS bortree_d_Page_080.jp2
08f058af2e9f3dba915d41fa84283a11
369041fa3335ca8422db33b2f3dcb366c88bd4e6
99064 F20101211_AABFFF bortree_d_Page_112.jpg
3633243e266d89ab6c1b1df3c0c7176c
a53838922e11a0a3992352f35f85deade04e43fc
F20101211_AABFEQ bortree_d_Page_139.tif
51724a0f148979a9f932fb153e60c5c1
9640bcdadabf6bf79ed4a2bd80d5cd9b354f98ac
36049 F20101211_AABGHT bortree_d_Page_092.QC.jpg
718f5d1a5054efe4e6910a207c2be06c
9ded5451f98a176de937a9f8d9dfd7c28a3a9a26
52503 F20101211_AABFER bortree_d_Page_092.pro
c62b98bbb0657a3a7662b09315567ef8
ec88a06e9774e241f329a4a4a0c8c119c871a2db
5295 F20101211_AABGII bortree_d_Page_088thm.jpg
228caaae68b6cddb1f1ea0502e867c79
30ab74fe0f839df19872ba05c06a10d7b322a5b2
51307 F20101211_AABGHU bortree_d_Page_150.pro
341ecabecec97bb6025b19aa01ff39ac
9940a429388fd8aebb0c9ecda6d083a2df8df71b
7344 F20101211_AABFFG bortree_d_Page_191thm.jpg
d79df0f361b129c449794aa56030a5db
a7b70bdd8757e058af410fc1408c390a601d7d08
35509 F20101211_AABFES bortree_d_Page_066.QC.jpg
f277fe6f93ef2442733091e536a49e30
a82ce44dd9d105745b2fc1f6f3f32a864d196974
1974 F20101211_AABGIJ bortree_d_Page_102.txt
1719d7ef42e54f41caea7e626fa96812
aeef2456960a35c35ac6ab42f68d1706363ad909
21873 F20101211_AABGHV bortree_d_Page_133.QC.jpg
cbf2712a43b04af6390ee52c569e0225
63d53c14e86ae1897be8c66994765b14385236ba
F20101211_AABFFH bortree_d_Page_085.tif
d911a841e735eceb848396494732e449
05a4d406c9aecee18e42544517d058ea3113a721
2101 F20101211_AABFET bortree_d_Page_021.txt
b95dca8b6e3c0b606e70c4160b74bc59
d7bc4a009168849cd8a2a94535ac2fddc1f41e77
F20101211_AABGIK bortree_d_Page_186.tif
2ecdd3ca6e3c16cd890637ae4ad09e7a
12fe3eb4ba1412cdbfdec9070e9c7c282f1c6ad4
F20101211_AABGHW bortree_d_Page_011.tif
5fa43982580d5dc5876d0668a4c8421c
07fcfac816ff6439810781c8ac3cf7433ff59bbb
22464 F20101211_AABEZO bortree_d_Page_134.QC.jpg
11d70e1a8db16df40df7a1ca03f2447d
545f7af6439e029e4c9930fec3c98260a35f77fc
2200 F20101211_AABFFI bortree_d_Page_049.txt
c6bc35a9d930df3249701deeeb6f0b40
e89cce48499f0a7902511236e9df7861bbf590c5
1051937 F20101211_AABFEU bortree_d_Page_089.jp2
3e7230aebee35a2b811562168de14b52
1886ec8c7e55f8853ff20049bc8d35e04d578cf2
F20101211_AABGJA bortree_d_Page_161.tif
e7fc2a0d01b24fcd13a5bb4094ffe566
d002b1db110d9126efb49f2efd46ba4b9df1841e
F20101211_AABGIL bortree_d_Page_197.jp2
4ad1de58a281983a8caec19a9f80050c
0e8ee90860d4d9b139407ede39fa9a61d7317033
2693 F20101211_AABGHX bortree_d_Page_089.txt
e6c6af40254eff7861343080124a44c6
85fd83334b20909f44ca4738ce84c20b7f20cf4b
F20101211_AABEZP bortree_d_Page_057.jp2
ec60e9af0f4660b42a4a30f4ca64997e
1e9acc67ab0baca2e0e3ee3ed099edcdb1fee2e9
34780 F20101211_AABFFJ bortree_d_Page_057.QC.jpg
9ab164065a25e2dbb3d2a1a97df52210
3da3f144e8bee4eaa18135d5c482c305f41cf070
1740 F20101211_AABFEV bortree_d_Page_082.txt
16c25b5e479bd2b5056e33bf50d2cfec
d8af702be11c96e0cef9b8f1eed913d6bf374d7a
100764 F20101211_AABGJB bortree_d_Page_043.jpg
4f0b5a7aca87d5d0f601df24d6205d81
fd96490a8dd02492862543ee1457f4cf62c42810
1754 F20101211_AABGIM bortree_d_Page_091.txt
b46e21adaf25ade0de76df9e402791d3
92cc4592e33254ef8699bb9960d8da1106421c3c
112302 F20101211_AABGHY bortree_d_Page_066.jpg
8b2d031930c7be1a3f83ac6f27f63977
51369a3d151b1918aa07027d0f88d773c2fc23d3
66947 F20101211_AABEZQ bortree_d_Page_195.pro
8280b8b7644fa5b53f911a77b1e030cd
c362971c41881117a93609940055b6375b01f0f5
78087 F20101211_AABFFK bortree_d_Page_190.jpg
5152994846ecfc89ea5ccad9c7c56fce
1b404f5a04c27ae7542c26122451ce49a8125c8f
58221 F20101211_AABFEW bortree_d_Page_071.pro
a5720db8a41dba8653db3139e69959ca
a038f2143dc43530a4f95e63abe843f94c45fa4e
30917 F20101211_AABGJC bortree_d_Page_037.QC.jpg
203c596d57a8d63477a3e89f41015ef4
23f2f02de55dd00e02a03b7d94927e77676d6034
F20101211_AABGIN bortree_d_Page_097.tif
a3620d2eda3ff4bfad69614c041d107e
b1fb8f9f85024ef873d9b572aace6f5e319f26a6
1017548 F20101211_AABGHZ bortree_d_Page_163.jp2
0029ac80efb14b8341f85cf56e5ed99d
3e918746a2ef033f6da3fc2fa5ae720aabd120a3
31381 F20101211_AABEZR bortree_d_Page_121.pro
dfcb3aff7610902db8de6cf9b597bdeb
3b7f2b2d31b87502fea60218689c7f4c3d5b629b
99677 F20101211_AABFGA bortree_d_Page_054.jpg
0dcfd855194db1e02a1531160ac82ae1
c81049230571acf33d9738ec3e0971c934601f7f
31569 F20101211_AABFFL bortree_d_Page_076.QC.jpg
b84a6e583795797731f0e5630eb49d48
0c703d2f24fe02c01927280713bbf8242e906fa2
548 F20101211_AABFEX bortree_d_Page_131.txt
1609ece0c28c3c0db0ccac6e23b1472f
ec874da2ce9056af1d2682179985fb83c4e65bb6
32917 F20101211_AABGJD bortree_d_Page_042.QC.jpg
d839fb1c3596b3e719c48035e2eb054b
be715007a5fa2cc56104833b98658dd25f5af9bf
F20101211_AABGIO bortree_d_Page_163.tif
9c8a20cd5b5108113786ab84d283f04a
745ea7a69a690e50540abbbfe1c9d3d116aa8881
2091 F20101211_AABEZS bortree_d_Page_085.txt
17b7686d642252424407b06148b57b21
d2d3970a6e075f71a7d8ecb2f956759fe37eb9b5
F20101211_AABFGB bortree_d_Page_052.tif
a77912c7149b090a0b324e166ee903e7
ea401ab31482de6e9a4b75d8733aa98f3fba21bf
F20101211_AABFFM bortree_d_Page_093.tif
49edc822ee7fca1564e42404fcaedb9d
5403293f2eb3088ec4d23c90b1fdcb406315189a
1882 F20101211_AABFEY bortree_d_Page_106.txt
0d9cd943554897942f05f362654bc82e
5656bc31a6f2c6b6fe4311edbd16c3fd8db4219f
33231 F20101211_AABGJE bortree_d_Page_153.QC.jpg
1688cc39dc802a6cf68b208aebb8d1bb
be129edb2a3d98752f9e3f38ae737bc36816119e
1051854 F20101211_AABGIP bortree_d_Page_182.jp2
4f6823e3b3ed7b7a97460c7db02a4491
753dfd5ccf43cc9472eb7dfb40762ea9be4ab82c
30433 F20101211_AABEZT bortree_d_Page_041.QC.jpg
b1d40e2815b27598eaf490b1d23f8feb
b9dd7d3b5f5c0d4122db2d67cf50a63a0ccb2cf2
F20101211_AABFGC bortree_d_Page_111.jp2
e3308713676c628e65a7372c8fc57618
dad56f5a6691810b165a2592398b1f3a73046ab8
51306 F20101211_AABFFN bortree_d_Page_098.pro
54a8f8226f7866cd8bad4cbc753a6385
13807037909faf636c6080aa15037b914f022d96
F20101211_AABFEZ bortree_d_Page_092.tif
188ca95f7b54fbeb1ff3f182f68f8d61
93eb549fb4570d4afe54b5a1a38e54093bc5347d
F20101211_AABGJF bortree_d_Page_025.tif
2875be10ab9434f0608c2700b9d61f5c
0e596eae6734713cdf0d521140a2ac4196c61773
7246 F20101211_AABGIQ bortree_d_Page_009thm.jpg
4671ccb9361c42a158c45a389045d3aa
d912c96889ef1b2d43d93540d83092345a8e0c87
33033 F20101211_AABEZU bortree_d_Page_048.QC.jpg
f9ff936d3d7ecb67fdcb723cc261836a
e3af30beb3ad1f121c3e14c27956d41c6207c124
5527 F20101211_AABFGD bortree_d_Page_074thm.jpg
83e6162ec55672e5470e7176a4fc250d
41a40fc6c324cd35b10eb52906d686281ed65de1
F20101211_AABFFO bortree_d_Page_197.tif
ae828c0d9237bf1269f581cd66bb76b0
527302a7717751375c1b23c2a9e7e6f6afe2ae10
103578 F20101211_AABGJG bortree_d_Page_103.jpg
9a13b14a5a5dd47b49f09ef537b42aff
7891f59d43b0dfb7d1036bba55a1bc38f10b76eb
96933 F20101211_AABGIR bortree_d_Page_157.jpg
c74d1c012257ba360914a38152fe23f1
415cf24cffd21c8c70510251620b59cfe16d99ef
F20101211_AABEZV bortree_d_Page_044.tif
189807ed06baef73a81e0fb70b37881d
d4b9b6ea289dae26a2d6061f689538af9de5bfa0
1051911 F20101211_AABFGE bortree_d_Page_079.jp2
5477c8231fc63da8320ba444ff825508
ada77f55b6733571de936471a94562baa29cb25b
101596 F20101211_AABFFP bortree_d_Page_116.jpg
574354c4ddc314e3c6139cf07ab424a0
31f8865f607e6847b31e373e01315baf5a3a47d8
1051915 F20101211_AABGJH bortree_d_Page_086.jp2
c5e3b7653e7c1c1f992dc2905f4c3f89
5467cb546b91361ac67405282f2c261af822c217
21964 F20101211_AABGIS bortree_d_Page_184.jpg
be31e51d204ee620eb96f3c88d10cd31
e43e31d69ef3713639727da21f072e095a83d81b
2208 F20101211_AABEZW bortree_d_Page_119thm.jpg
4f7a4fe8cd44e437e080f405e4f2d65f
ed1ba35750cd50a07d6be1fa40c1049fc7a0c2ff
2281 F20101211_AABFGF bortree_d_Page_052.txt
13f4757e7be3f3b464bf8a3cfa566171
c8a8ff706a75fc68ac42e36aebfbc4eef285bbcb
28032 F20101211_AABFFQ bortree_d_Page_188.QC.jpg
8c9a3cb43924a00594a720e3462bd1e1
1b56e121bd721d77085c143b393a2f708641392e
808766 F20101211_AABGJI bortree_d_Page_190.jp2
9c8dcc0ad1f420f1432c537d78b7e566
431ce74d9a24a933f853627b4e16be341de97ff8
50914 F20101211_AABGIT bortree_d_Page_162.pro
09924f3df4fb585d8c4b5d22a675b766
a9ea292c5fc2f5aec705bb17b0bccb79b67c2ac2
48876 F20101211_AABEZX bortree_d_Page_054.pro
ba9f2a7966fb5590fcb38f7c8c5af03d
9cfc0ccb4393fd7e8ab817cc3d49c6a3fcf867b2
F20101211_AABFGG bortree_d_Page_162.jp2
5082343299c2160350e015c94f908aa3
369989c3db6d96c1088dfdfbb3b2a2e09687ec92
F20101211_AABFFR bortree_d_Page_039.tif
9294336021f495a599041556e7f51d6a
e1907704e7fc18a7d9b7fe4bd4f5e7863f2258f7
1051947 F20101211_AABGIU bortree_d_Page_034.jp2
bbfa5ed2149d637598c3d805e627404f
a56005862b5974aa1f819601617c4658b72aca05
1026889 F20101211_AABEZY bortree_d_Page_154.jp2
3bae7d45f247239aef6acaf2419102e2
4140c24cf1ab5a19dc8f4b8ad06fa90f854e858e
F20101211_AABFFS bortree_d_Page_164.jp2
e14ac4ff97e3111041b4e6b2d5fbce0e
46e04427a044d5357c01bc4778ccd8f618285a85
1130 F20101211_AABGJJ bortree_d_Page_169.txt
3a3e99a03bde6d38d1d2d72388942c3f
874950b8e5ffc0894b658523b5190c5ea01b3ed1
2171 F20101211_AABGIV bortree_d_Page_064.txt
f82cb833d09fc8b764661abdd2a5d4dd
1327d18d465b473d9a303ef800041a3a2920ba30
2010 F20101211_AABEZZ bortree_d_Page_162.txt
f3ddd363486e2819daf46674d148694f
668a1592751b13aa320538e01cc8d08d7d4cd9ca
47935 F20101211_AABFGH bortree_d_Page_109.pro
0e6d97664faaa78ce6000c2690fe669d
3cf571ba83bc318daa9214898d5727b84c8899fe
1773 F20101211_AABFFT bortree_d_Page_084.txt
6ebb358cc4acbb793eb6b8b1180d37a5
7c55a955d060578f1aafdbec66e740293b67288f
21303 F20101211_AABGJK bortree_d_Page_178.QC.jpg
399fb2e66ada0123174988e14c2c1f55
1aa892a458e45740e06f44c75930a492a515c9c3
2902 F20101211_AABGIW bortree_d_Page_177thm.jpg
8ad63626767a192f35c35ce28efd421b
ac95156d39208b4585397c4bbca7eb07f36d606c
110852 F20101211_AABFGI bortree_d_Page_173.jpg
690533f3e12f1e523ddee51bfa8b90bb
a61932f5defa6cf5eac1b8b1880f17772c3ac5d2
88247 F20101211_AABFFU bortree_d_Page_024.jpg
b96740db49536ef56c833d70c7fab12f
7448e98d40f84738eb6dd5cb4490f3daae06080c
F20101211_AABGKA bortree_d_Page_001.tif
9b6a07e3f7863669ad3a61c8378488c8
9081c633756c0ff314cf395a55da5a2e7c080e10
F20101211_AABGJL bortree_d_Page_168.txt
c7fbe48110ce4936776f230ee0e2986e
f66a078d5aa34bafadc3e7a1f3ac72d42fdb3a22
F20101211_AABGIX bortree_d_Page_051.tif
af24a290bb7ef3308b62099fbfc6822f
de50a0591abef48ed88cff23868f5f5091fa115c
F20101211_AABFGJ bortree_d_Page_045.tif
d8919789e9dd90851645e66b3afe252f
6192aa4cf53e3fe3ccc300a7be3d84ebfedd69ab
5478 F20101211_AABFFV bortree_d_Page_135thm.jpg
a54ee6c3dc5419a1511a6dcb60b9d45d
37493dc3a2a2d9ddd92fcb52fb6cb1f76aeaa012
50658 F20101211_AABGKB bortree_d_Page_095.pro
f6eb85356ff2ea50f58e8c9b6305f28e
e02fe88cc7dffbb9b4eb7120039173fb9223485c
7848 F20101211_AABGJM bortree_d_Page_157thm.jpg
3b10719312cd2e4fa4c83bd881933cfd
8c628271607ebb45b721f6fe410d7c7938453121
F20101211_AABGIY bortree_d_Page_012.tif
5d55647ca91e8ff01eefb7da023b11e8
fb69c8acd81abbbadb0f07f9cf7beaf64465b646
2030 F20101211_AABFGK bortree_d_Page_036.txt
2a2154f6300054477926281f69d4076c
85bc9298e7713a803b94e2a8966fdf5d0c5213ad
26351 F20101211_AABFFW bortree_d_Page_003.jp2
0f7fae9e53ee266b4ece71e45ce6315c
ea63d0bb7d95cf7cfa74da04e38eb2bfb10e072a
44577 F20101211_AABGKC bortree_d_Page_084.pro
a93b1efb1d40b2db3245fab35cfe539a
9292b1e677d390af8b7489a210404ff35297c2c4
3540 F20101211_AABGJN bortree_d_Page_005.QC.jpg
ab77de0be7da2f19325bc530c4f93b7e
fd03669d71368f4e971acbb9bbb7ceaf22dce9dc
2066 F20101211_AABGIZ bortree_d_Page_055.txt
6a1bb8d11d4fba546d24f65a0f2b5b52
5bfdf99ea16a03a366907d4fa473f90f1e3b4dff
28867 F20101211_AABFGL bortree_d_Page_147.QC.jpg
3f0487e2a238530560fa83d037b3fb96
9641fc4368d72e8e264f7cd9e743c20ad1898b07
F20101211_AABFFX bortree_d_Page_145.tif
c642f00991992f482718b0c92db8096a
b3a313e3190fe05efa6003a246893a055bae4e80
95747 F20101211_AABFHA bortree_d_Page_016.jpg
96030ee2efdd90f7de752714e7861f45
bd21e1ad3a8b1dadac54cf42d40fc233eb3c03b1
32350 F20101211_AABGKD bortree_d_Page_114.QC.jpg
cf38e1c74614566815a3f102bb06be77
b8b6e11a4ce94795418599b02c5c1f75842922ca
8668 F20101211_AABGJO bortree_d_Page_063thm.jpg
5bf3c7f25836e38ab268625e20bde745
0a613cc392d3fbda1976c068230095bf01f0a1d3
7040 F20101211_AABFGM bortree_d_Page_089thm.jpg
e8311ccdb78c717aec0605f37c0e1d34
b1368afd9335ed6d6edb65a70ed195edaac38540
111553 F20101211_AABFFY bortree_d_Page_026.jpg
2c436246efe484bf311ac4100c8a2a43
0baf424d23adbe7fa22d27e95cf6fc73d658483e
8054 F20101211_AABFHB bortree_d_Page_116thm.jpg
6f692afb42b4fe46d44aec5db2e1eadf
f4ed31526fc6a2eec50a7e0788f03aea279ff9bb
1051950 F20101211_AABGKE bortree_d_Page_065.jp2
2841285b6a6d40435af34ac0d0967171
76264f9e85f544e17052eaf69332c1fd230f2109
1039 F20101211_AABGJP bortree_d_Page_003.pro
e6fa1c8d46995c5ace40f9a2ff9b9e6b
eaa12cd4fe455f5742a45c2590606c60e30e0c18
1051929 F20101211_AABFGN bortree_d_Page_045.jp2
d730786073434d951a5907b1dc7e2f1c
1bf9d19bfcbcf56f7f205edc90e3c7d9daf83b07
F20101211_AABFFZ bortree_d_Page_068.tif
cad16d5e45bd0031cb2613e3257333b6
190788ffecd4bb4e01ebb83f9932c45c16ae9cf0
33679 F20101211_AABFHC bortree_d_Page_035.QC.jpg
a93c92b779a3b28ff5550405dcc587e6
e271e2267d35209d2021a096af83047b1790a5ae
34678 F20101211_AABGKF bortree_d_Page_133.pro
a313dff605d7552d8c1aba0c73d7e888
55a675fd649f9c210fe14513556bd86c5c1b83ff
8343 F20101211_AABGJQ bortree_d_Page_052thm.jpg
ef774e7b8d8bbf20e053ac20f147bcb3
84d0d9508cb668eae09611d89b97c8ac91eb2a3d
1177 F20101211_AABFGO bortree_d_Page_002.QC.jpg
a20ccf6878e6ae313cd7ea9f0056b950
68fe5ba08a3c0ed4bf5d8ef70a07ba092ea88a2f
31514 F20101211_AABFHD bortree_d_Page_054.QC.jpg
11059d1547538c770186616cf8f1de96
772ce5af01aeee0caab07678a933b0e357d147a0
F20101211_AABGKG bortree_d_Page_127.tif
848c5e47aa5f3818464ff1fbba9c2416
69f22f1827b74f1c9b6af683e00ccba5ac60d110
40636 F20101211_AABGJR bortree_d_Page_181.pro
542e8bdf318b6390eb6ba24bdc2491bc
3452c112834d992e4a0df157ae995de5413658b1
32137 F20101211_AABFGP bortree_d_Page_112.QC.jpg
1b8c03bcc8f07ed60830d8ae194e0845
5994d0ba3fadfc0757a0b418eb5736e7b8e1cc12
2155 F20101211_AABFHE bortree_d_Page_063.txt
ccbce7f1c3926da32170a475c7ca0919
3f0d5898a079ab7508db41924c746d7a5e54f9ab
403202 F20101211_AABGKH bortree_d_Page_176.jp2
18f7d7ce5603fe53416041b1bd88ad8e
15e518e76766509a4496be41782082a59601b57a
8121 F20101211_AABGJS bortree_d_Page_034thm.jpg
749d63ea145b81755cee949794e78159
cdfd0137d5ed6bdae794d1a174b7fbe69ec5c88f
46253 F20101211_AABFGQ bortree_d_Page_041.pro
fbeb1e7c84c80521e1923c16497caf1f
efff46f0e24cb52fd81cf6509e22174da7b57ff1
1954 F20101211_AABFHF bortree_d_Page_108.txt
40c1457445c61f911938ff9a31645d2a
86ffca72a57eca4f394840ebd85041cea129b044
32460 F20101211_AABGKI bortree_d_Page_017.QC.jpg
25e35cf6dcdfcf6bd95160c5ad98012e
4acb684bbbcbe7d579032733e4cbf8340f580985
F20101211_AABGJT bortree_d_Page_088.tif
9ad2adc197c9e4407d09afc8f02bfb0c
9d6a092d61ac17a7f3d9cb78a2ac9bb1dd3a3d29
F20101211_AABFGR bortree_d_Page_036.jp2
b1772db916c626162b1df42ecf675a37
eaf6f564000fc8d0483f31d1038d9fa498a0215c
53047 F20101211_AABFHG bortree_d_Page_085.pro
78060131adc01fc6568221602471f9f6
ae5a34925472db71f3e2dcb47938a232b340417c
105844 F20101211_AABGKJ bortree_d_Page_021.jpg
60c1c74e80566add05ae79c7bfe2f831
e047f71235168021041c220083c08201e55383f7
F20101211_AABGJU bortree_d_Page_049.tif
1f624ccf80185c35d73f58e5c93c02fd
b34bff3f92e1469a79c668033906c8a65ced10c4
32174 F20101211_AABFGS bortree_d_Page_111.QC.jpg
42b312b43f8ae4e2a718b296e3215a34
5f696aca9812de2c9da999b5c72b71610cc4282b
8535 F20101211_AABFHH bortree_d_Page_031thm.jpg
a02c8ad85d218992f91d041732023d90
3a3c287464b1620bf0bf232a83777c1c6e44a0ff
34766 F20101211_AABGJV bortree_d_Page_031.QC.jpg
620d34427f71fec77ed7b5436bb3987f
c2f78a03349c087651205e008521cac6f7fdf947
F20101211_AABFGT bortree_d_Page_035.tif
60fcd0c234137dcd2217e4a12aed8aad
eeb6f055c92ed61aab852b42b635442df1a66290
99787 F20101211_AABGKK bortree_d_Page_056.jpg
85e358a517779d2177f0bebff65021b0
c6633d6deeebd56b211c59757f2403d21683f6a6
132908 F20101211_AABGJW bortree_d_Page_007.jpg
c23d5b3fb3514057da7fa7c192fb39e3
b29a97998293d5103e87976356880828222badc4
31980 F20101211_AABFGU bortree_d_Page_027.QC.jpg
02effa844855ce1bb251d133a3bb58a2
5750baf8a763159e3091aca9392669c66fa1c1a7
33576 F20101211_AABFHI bortree_d_Page_038.QC.jpg
f559d56a4730ba68b348091b15ab8a22
470b2c211bc523f3dec4c7897acc8a48fa88a175
56294 F20101211_AABGKL bortree_d_Page_070.jpg
5fe7ba3375c8d2f29b48d8b1b32decc1
9494417d40431115ced9a4f7d0f0222685fb87d7
50837 F20101211_AABGJX bortree_d_Page_008.jpg
83392663a41be0625ac1971a636aa40b
f86d0589b4c19deba51ecee8bbc13af2ef919bf1
51901 F20101211_AABFGV bortree_d_Page_034.pro
4e053ab22cd6320d09ed028f1916273c
f9362b025d21e2df01d4392ce1498833f7af8e26
1051951 F20101211_AABFHJ bortree_d_Page_085.jp2
ae5af1b776ae2b5eb3f52a147d76bbe2
be5c688b904214ec720330395ddcf71a0d939888
4236 F20101211_AABGLB bortree_d_Page_002.jpg
4ced8cbbc9e2198735f20b3ba9970129
ebfc9ac7b6f76fc1d9b81bd4b17627cd4f0248c2
F20101211_AABGKM bortree_d_Page_040.tif
f82c8603b94d8a41f46ddbd7e78cc71e
5f8433a72529dc7ba55cfbee27bbf33c2f05e975
50180 F20101211_AABGJY bortree_d_Page_168.pro
0132c511273e44fcc4fc76493a85e4f4
064babf623e04f5d2c12553570f96f01fc10c498
1051900 F20101211_AABFGW bortree_d_Page_110.jp2
14f93229ac98c6b87e0189d4120213ef
d48720bb660fa60f6c9b6a754c374d0440a29d89
1012 F20101211_AABFHK bortree_d_Page_005thm.jpg
5abdb53e83164af67c31fa26cbf7de32
6a48ac76bae186e4314d9b988ba7f6a6eca455cf
9208 F20101211_AABGLC bortree_d_Page_005.jpg
5f64e541e2a45a1199d2f8007449101e
69223d153c5ca2315bf47b2a9aa5f4c26724675d
74259 F20101211_AABGKN bortree_d_Page_126.jp2
fd04b7914db92f05faf69a7283c9d7b1
03a0105ee73b0edb78602338330ee6546fc9b536
56129 F20101211_AABGJZ bortree_d_Page_122.pro
b2aabd54aca49983c40bb6f037014da7
45d6e5f262284b9318ee55d6e16614472e9fad61
F20101211_AABFGX bortree_d_Page_022.tif
fe302394f79ddeeaabab5e0e43955992
5b409bd4ea90af631ef57d9df03df58a93dc8cd2
680680 F20101211_AABFIA bortree_d_Page_067.jp2
f0b5a7cc50c3a3144321e7a23eb4e9ed
261e97681b90e46d44564719e2a83f5c17461471
2111 F20101211_AABFHL bortree_d_Page_019.txt
7fbbe44f468804369a25bffd0ddfdb29
07dac8ee243d26cc4d7c4bd690af7426890bd86f
139648 F20101211_AABGLD bortree_d_Page_010.jpg
464dd2e52b67849e22a03b2a72758250
e5dcc131de609ffd0b04d1fcd6b3899e5c04ab44
F20101211_AABGKO bortree_d_Page_187.tif
4f643334c0d1f747178e0c3200c5f99d
489d67ba4d90821fb43f915a746d4f56b6052052
48627 F20101211_AABFGY bortree_d_Page_047.pro
7e07cc1ae1980c27a41d4af1056e8156
2eab6f769d3468602322698af951eb4a2133e1e0
23471 F20101211_AABFIB bortree_d_Page_130.QC.jpg
0aa888bcad29a68578926a9237a0f893
2159829c4e0710400183dbc48a92777b5694c71a
2814 F20101211_AABFHM bortree_d_Page_137thm.jpg
3de997b2ebaa9440da4c135bfd47f656
4ac637307d4047c2231dc6582348b5ef36c6c4a4
46073 F20101211_AABGLE bortree_d_Page_013.jpg
dc29ea292b5cd6f5da36e58ff184681b
39a5b507a5d5d9d16365f4ee2c9c65ffdaf13c06
810 F20101211_AABGKP bortree_d_Page_141.txt
08ba33e8624eca865f53166396e7b18b
40654d66262f38b78493d63d1e27703ebaba63fa
F20101211_AABFGZ bortree_d_Page_158.tif
ca0c519f7296beb8c028af965d0e61d6
506e19b214b5fa3cbd1e75be724b92938f4b7320
104034 F20101211_AABFIC bortree_d_Page_035.jpg
cab59ad8fec3c92fb128fb1c99334128
6592e03aae3b98b5f67ded614b1190cbf600ebb0
100397 F20101211_AABFHN bortree_d_Page_102.jpg
3e4c2f7e20d0dcecb3a12a40adbb959a
b33138911de9f4b65586720312c89ed1540bd26e
117727 F20101211_AABGLF bortree_d_Page_029.jpg
c4d7521c2e70d2a752b5e43de569f61a
6561219831a906ea59df6664c487811f72b3f588
F20101211_AABGKQ bortree_d_Page_193.tif
2984d5122e97bffc3ee96e191f6950f2
6d5f07bd97aa8b4308b047603b2dcdade9d34a74
87394 F20101211_AABFID bortree_d_Page_007.pro
618935a0e50d7f82e42e94a7faf009eb
86b0a369ae652bc6c1d4c248210085d667346a08
23690 F20101211_AABFHO bortree_d_Page_006.QC.jpg
bfb39a0195a08ae9179b68108f7c4361
c712ae018106e35ecd7f89263442ffc2cffe6743
95148 F20101211_AABGLG bortree_d_Page_041.jpg
6651b0f5f8ccb9198ee8eb8a93035f74
8ee72107cf789bae357755c0684e116e83892aca
150 F20101211_AABGKR bortree_d_Page_073.txt
8a106412fccb38c0272b98b031539ad1
012e3f0816f97039acd0b38887021eece694b8a2
55621 F20101211_AABFIE bortree_d_Page_026.pro
3157ebbd200011e7051daef545915c7e
8e8fdf213aa63e22d8dc8e5f8a54c1270785b78c
52659 F20101211_AABFHP bortree_d_Page_031.pro
84cf964ea7021b5db0228519e25739aa
0330f335aede31a1195518679b04cb584dd2436d
100481 F20101211_AABGLH bortree_d_Page_042.jpg
a9edc8cf8b1ce3d3239a2ba8449377e0
90c37a25d5c46427e49327bbc1ac68bc48056b1a
32050 F20101211_AABGKS bortree_d_Page_171.pro
c49f9bd791f96b2e0700850d4f5f893b
de12a2717f1ea68ab8b3da8d0b16b9a75a161b0f
33402 F20101211_AABFIF bortree_d_Page_098.QC.jpg
1e71c01f3b0de1d3e0ee2c07e1619725
9ec0afc2f16c1765f364bc716c5a0dca507f5bf2
32180 F20101211_AABFHQ bortree_d_Page_113.QC.jpg
81214d9a925060b42ef1d5411ad2425f
88b90b83f7ea232fdfa225677af0e6da3928695b
104866 F20101211_AABGLI bortree_d_Page_045.jpg
1b6052d052364d69df2ae908c97a4eb2
ef60b1129eae67c994c30f9647b34473dbb2be2f
91562 F20101211_AABGKT bortree_d_Page_084.jpg
d83a62c933abc46c525107c5b1a36863
1fbca03c3a6d3db19174114baa4df2bbc8886bc4
8463 F20101211_AABFIG bortree_d_Page_159thm.jpg
8ee3955e13cb1e3f55edeb4203033551
04fc67f851fb41ba196d445e6a0869e27dcb8021
55807 F20101211_AABFHR bortree_d_Page_143.jpg
5d81d69eaf151adfe00dd3c569439774
ddf159307e99282645183d4c66f67f0fd0f602b3
108636 F20101211_AABGLJ bortree_d_Page_046.jpg
1d91423d45c690cc32df6b1cff6908d0
9f6fc7f13e6d2919c0cc2143a9ae08b797de710a
33247 F20101211_AABGKU bortree_d_Page_095.QC.jpg
6b3d5ef53b3bd8490144222065a11496
5340f48cdf639b541d137936c1f08ef86a2031d9
8044 F20101211_AABFIH bortree_d_Page_076thm.jpg
60d59684073b063d11b4498815da3110
0f5096ed529e616e35ba04ea10185e23950b4708
96338 F20101211_AABFHS bortree_d_Page_081.jpg
468488998cf6b223c3eb2117664bc781
f29269c7af7c0e2fad6a6ddf8abb286c79800722
96660 F20101211_AABGLK bortree_d_Page_047.jpg
b817fed7189152da547996747539cf7f
de6f1494795bec386b41868ff967ccb6831d8ea7
108912 F20101211_AABGKV bortree_d_Page_148.jpg
948132559c59d9dff4e1bab36d9517db
2ba16b86b64725f875ed081e4f5503e7d5f7e9e1
35110 F20101211_AABFII bortree_d_Page_198.QC.jpg
7b9b66548e78ea6089838ee0917dfb16
e455b5589f272921c3be92b75b15a0db6143e389
31892 F20101211_AABFHT bortree_d_Page_012.QC.jpg
f2963539f9c227cbe9a3957ce4c44419
d571c18ca414005adb6d386b8ee91c83fb219901
8151 F20101211_AABGKW bortree_d_Page_043thm.jpg
400b49aba3675ec31fa8dd7607d8a77f
92a9f4a2a302efda7157f57720aedca3477143cf
8146 F20101211_AABFHU bortree_d_Page_094thm.jpg
14e97c8c734bdc15cf188552ffea1574
125339dcab76956fd71eee64b3b2b2d49f9bc87e
95349 F20101211_AABGMA bortree_d_Page_106.jpg
f77c3f560dcbd257c20ce31a4015d808
c219321aad60fe34bb7193e3c534c73ea44ed6fd
88092 F20101211_AABGLL bortree_d_Page_058.jpg
807837b655d957e6349267de32f79c52
9fb25a051f9eddb6499773cc0721ccc2b7db7290
77466 F20101211_AABGKX bortree_d_Page_133.jp2
fbfa936c881a489558afe50a9837ee6d
af0e29b8b0b8a7c8b8d5de769731f712ca504981
994101 F20101211_AABFIJ bortree_d_Page_069.jp2
2606d6b84c7766d06c238953c29bf6aa
14d6287b9f653592fd041ab7d75c7b629936ab28
52798 F20101211_AABFHV bortree_d_Page_009.pro
837e0d2e211aeff44f8415bc816c43d4
d8cac88534a151ffbcc17e92a9108fca6a8a1a0f
104516 F20101211_AABGMB bortree_d_Page_115.jpg
380b32930dd31cd27a7e37ea13d83205
651eab5c4d856ab48159a05d41ac23f5b7f3c1a2
105388 F20101211_AABGLM bortree_d_Page_059.jpg
7716ad9f5efc67d12af7c21ce9e9c264
3f359c007e10f4419c6e33a3a58a6b10e516516f
301123 F20101211_AABGKY UFE0021340_00001.xml FULL
1ff1b4f16c7725a4c18b79b9943d246e
d6b719a1e29149a4ba18620b5d1db306f61d8454
978784 F20101211_AABFIK bortree_d_Page_068.jp2
aba4d8f3da6d9d035a168fbfd40c4bcd
6944df8599e43d3572a250e97d54e53d63682ff6
8335 F20101211_AABFHW bortree_d_Page_192thm.jpg
5344d18b3e49b3373cd852d2880e1edc
900d61fccee74ef26ac25eee3499c0b43d2b12ec
98085 F20101211_AABGMC bortree_d_Page_117.jpg
ce6764a5036d9c864a4c42d4fa174f70
936f87dd8b92b1d85dd36b60465a690660ca662a
108897 F20101211_AABGLN bortree_d_Page_063.jpg
84ff2a71df06cbb7cf3623142e6fb8b1
aaadf04d189ecff4c897a7ce1589bc80b19a2a84
F20101211_AABFJA bortree_d_Page_162.tif
bab3dbc55350574d469ba13c903a9221
d5f9cc970459b26bfc5bd8ee0a6c98aec6305110
97372 F20101211_AABFIL bortree_d_Page_097.jpg
20608f1f2b6ba96229ac081d18074813
f372d0afa8d37a73b8df7d6b7df4b85909b6d9d4
7953 F20101211_AABFHX bortree_d_Page_077thm.jpg
c98dfbc650fd4df496f953256a07c3a1
6531a644e159e5a93fededb7224638b2c1fa152d
24899 F20101211_AABGMD bortree_d_Page_119.jpg
ce5dc64fb77c3e8261a3357a70e95c85
1356f1bdfe1605963f29beaa5fc6471c5286105a
108365 F20101211_AABGLO bortree_d_Page_064.jpg
d10d8681ddd4c070b9ed1315e8b7f561
2f63d1aef484b22e0496e4716c02124badd991c1
2378 F20101211_AABFJB bortree_d_Page_189.txt
57b7f561b93f144402f8712b1ecb721c
a3a085495019c77f4a37022c1c2429ea69de34ce
1927 F20101211_AABFIM bortree_d_Page_107.txt
e81032e22c9a49b94c10bf33b592baff
01ecb4d7706e9ea74d5b1770414c845bfce14597
499335 F20101211_AABFHY bortree_d_Page_136.jp2
343c603288db86894f72c92edda58ba6
b693798808e866cb1ddba8eeb51a5db23e1a980d
100530 F20101211_AABGME bortree_d_Page_120.jpg
0bbba4c8ca2ac43af43e4a8629fb09da
0e739d174b5d96d6230b353d1e6614a714b2d10f
91145 F20101211_AABGLP bortree_d_Page_068.jpg
b99bcd5295908a8946ac9fea030b8566
8ea049466d1097775b136c8b2b2fe4c7e1a9c22c
2049 F20101211_AABFJC bortree_d_Page_065.txt
9612c1a7d1883da1cacb16c75ba45c07
4fb86702b11731dac5b1a5b7fa6efe66cecfc792
6210 F20101211_AABFIN bortree_d_Page_128thm.jpg
7dc8b75b8038885e3d8875530c517852
6f373631a0fdf824d17ce321e4b76e98934bd604
59093 F20101211_AABFHZ bortree_d_Page_169.jpg
8b5093a7d4ea2a3f1fc70d73818145aa
8e5b2057866c859a2fb72ea7ba9fb3ed43b31ba5
55282 F20101211_AABGMF bortree_d_Page_121.jpg
a8550da3924acc8486bb749162fd5419
16b9b66a989145e7e4bfa461454d46a8fa9e8208
85331 F20101211_AABGLQ bortree_d_Page_069.jpg
834dc2828f4302c191ef64043c5d55fa
d17e72a52574a945b82e1dc466583cec38e747d0
30726 F20101211_AABFJD bortree_d_Page_109.QC.jpg
bb812fa3ee0fc4ef027d8b76530017cd
6d30e627c596d6523bf5543e0c5d3ff9fd09ee07
100577 F20101211_AABFIO bortree_d_Page_027.jpg
f441cceeb4b2866e633fd4ec3fbdd372
40dbc7c657e3c7dc5bc806c21f3eefc2b04159c0
76724 F20101211_AABGMG bortree_d_Page_127.jpg
2ee1f0104b4a553a590389543a5e60d7
bc695e5866e43bd1204fc0b2664cc372f6a12d84
84542 F20101211_AABGLR bortree_d_Page_071.jpg
a2f4f002b53dfdb5059c248fb99186d2
a6a8e745f19fe399d1ea7d261dcfacd71f544424
33883 F20101211_AABFJE bortree_d_Page_079.QC.jpg
2ada1f0e2dd4593bb16f0901f7fab43d
d74f3e06b669b45dc6a7aa8ae28a0a1d0b27ea44
46898 F20101211_AABFIP bortree_d_Page_083.pro
a2af40fe827abfd37ae5e7d08349af25
77015d218d8aaee45b87e39ef494afae2b19ffa0
73351 F20101211_AABGMH bortree_d_Page_129.jpg
2b2bf4595fbbff4e4c1fa6dc2968ce3c
1e9664a509de1157dbc875730b8c8f6b0c10d531
F20101211_AABGLS bortree_d_Page_072.jpg
bf841d19414035e28e97138c32faffa7
21e61f92ef6d271d6bfe7b5338ac80fb21f4062c
52903 F20101211_AABFJF bortree_d_Page_167.pro
d8b64717cd60608eadab87d781fe5ac2
9f7f7ccae5c73acf896f421dad6a246d79859674
65784 F20101211_AABFIQ bortree_d_Page_074.jpg
daba895d216d62c128c336fb46d0fbdd
3fa24bd7c2372fef8593c16b141598d1ac563f8d
64403 F20101211_AABGMI bortree_d_Page_132.jpg
c563faea452182c5e594636f429a6a07
0bb8fcf1eb6fddb2e69b89eec9067f83610d5198
29907 F20101211_AABGLT bortree_d_Page_073.jpg
2c0623134fa270f52de1d376703b9d86
e8421068a63b60e917042bb45b4115bb8d64a5d8
1737 F20101211_AABFJG bortree_d_Page_004.txt
5fe6414c56683a22810fa4e62119eb8b
6d52ea4c7e84e3cb1f605be0fa14944e0c60e3cb
323 F20101211_AABFIR bortree_d_Page_023.txt
8416fe2fd3b0533a72bd9bea89a8dc43
ec491f681cbd89632b51e7715e3f8bf7771d8268
65901 F20101211_AABGMJ bortree_d_Page_138.jpg
13274285b351fddff4f47ab2757ad859
661575056afda826e7bf4913e42104fe63d5e90c
104147 F20101211_AABGLU bortree_d_Page_079.jpg
52981e59ff4771c2790389988aa84c4f
2823c86087a7db17fbe5ec0a3be81dbc800d096b
1394 F20101211_AABFJH bortree_d_Page_130.txt
d14ab682056c7c56217ba350c5878dfd
652eee4342cf6e46748aa99ab004683e6ce5ce62
31698 F20101211_AABFIS bortree_d_Page_157.QC.jpg
c88aa53089c6309331f0ca3f815cadf6
8b0a6e9c42747e7bed2f12d36412beeec1e9ebda
50686 F20101211_AABGMK bortree_d_Page_141.jpg
3e38f8a0842189f2c167e49af126fb15
6073488dac419ccfee7575f0216c13de4d04d48c
108622 F20101211_AABGLV bortree_d_Page_090.jpg
0a03c5d42068a5be83355af134eadc57
2e55fe60f9688c9e329e1cd98de26b49ec48e867
51016 F20101211_AABFJI bortree_d_Page_182.pro
0d1e9ae6cc77ec10723e1c28036328e1
553644ff27605508071f92ae05e1f8c07a5b4179
11430 F20101211_AABFIT bortree_d_Page_201.QC.jpg
049615687ddab5507fcd61aa98e9e007
54a8c854dfb6ae5850c5bc456e6ed4deabb29304
50303 F20101211_AABGML bortree_d_Page_142.jpg
6a703a581e0ceadabbf74dbaababcd1e
1dcf1c657a36b4439fbcdc0d5a8b611ba6898237
84360 F20101211_AABGLW bortree_d_Page_091.jpg
110b258e93f862fcda80f4714e3ac8d5
057c38ef19fa66f983125f710adcc2acad8ad76c
37954 F20101211_AABFJJ bortree_d_Page_195.QC.jpg
cbfaa35e665fec98e4c94020cbdddceb
eed56e42cf2dc25fabc9fa509662bf7ecad23b6a
34400 F20101211_AABFIU bortree_d_Page_040.QC.jpg
598f2dd976d5c7d700eab860cdc1d6a3
292fb05fd7d8064942095d78e3de854738a558c6
34812 F20101211_AABGNA bortree_d_Page_201.jpg
edbe74ab056890c786a9b0f9716f54b0
0fd64d6bbf3f764ad3670b62ee2d980fe755fd1e
103474 F20101211_AABGLX bortree_d_Page_093.jpg
055556f5c254247a39678174ff6da913
286852fc3c7ae65dbe8a9a9bd9cd139aee1d72fc
30062 F20101211_AABFIV bortree_d_Page_009.QC.jpg
84498629d6c27e6f4cb6379d6ba78333
fcca052f9c9cc3e96ee529a22328d1fe62d8a887
319210 F20101211_AABGNB bortree_d_Page_001.jp2
2348c18c8b74812164f9db49f59ce167
89f662e749c5aebd22145a3e10c27734f66163a5
90995 F20101211_AABGMM bortree_d_Page_147.jpg
9ec8fac7a62a16809582f19d06205d65
bb1a388b9f59a451b92436dd08cb20963c9d59c8
103790 F20101211_AABGLY bortree_d_Page_098.jpg
33b26d170994ef481ff82da738279d20
75d63beab149de58b261b7a01a101748c6f222eb
1148 F20101211_AABFJK bortree_d_Page_187thm.jpg
aacfde585a6111beca8b4bc69a2e9b6f
f8d8da235f6e6ab7db49188b35f7c49b01fc2c7f
34112 F20101211_AABFIW bortree_d_Page_178.pro
3b697aeb3c48e0541e88f6cfe5f0c6a4
d2a8e7d082d3bfcf16c35b890cb87cf27b8f1bd8
1051982 F20101211_AABGNC bortree_d_Page_006.jp2
751c400e920393246fe2bcdbd22cbb66
b867b591f529a2dfadb8584429b8e4b689ad82e8
101943 F20101211_AABGMN bortree_d_Page_149.jpg
8303dfcc1a34d020b3dddb8cfef1a2aa
6a3fd30def85a12f7973329bd5c4e2c3af86bfda
99480 F20101211_AABGLZ bortree_d_Page_100.jpg
dc45c07c05f202ea85c7143bb6920dc6
0b12e7a224d8f71d3b9f3119b145da60b350ca6f
51430 F20101211_AABFJL bortree_d_Page_149.pro
40feb5aca396a48f121b6914474355cf
0a165a2c34f05423ea36256ee718f9880f85c61a
79186 F20101211_AABFIX bortree_d_Page_075.jpg
fb60f25e5d332afb9fd0fff3d1e285ac
f93b86b1078c450ae05061558504a2decf941d9a
967025 F20101211_AABFKA bortree_d_Page_058.jp2
415b2b6328aa2cb92b6b85b375540dfd
1f790a789916e2fdba146114a0f88ae6a474ea8e
1051920 F20101211_AABGND bortree_d_Page_007.jp2
126eef4d8d3e35b3da215e801bdc4d4a
f4edb56fad4fd24591a96f36159bd0d78dd175c9
104018 F20101211_AABGMO bortree_d_Page_150.jpg
7363fc71d22d821186df6db7b9301075
fc527dff88053d9647fe566459776822d27496bd
1051962 F20101211_AABFJM bortree_d_Page_152.jp2
dc03adedc97a347b70a7132e5bd2dc84
e02efbfe1df9fafe709d4d75bff3b727ae1019fc
7493 F20101211_AABFIY bortree_d_Page_004thm.jpg
72014481979b5a9eebd1c6002559b343
81469ebc0fb9728558f5268009b24f5a3e2f1cff
113794 F20101211_AABFKB bortree_d_Page_053.jpg
4dd415499b7180afc011746983cf642c
4f35e9057016e8a1d9ba9863a5075a2a227cf635
F20101211_AABGNE bortree_d_Page_010.jp2
d71d3641fe5413101fd474e9d8cd1d49
a8286c29814e05a57f5d83890244164f0d47c7c9
101498 F20101211_AABGMP bortree_d_Page_160.jpg
eed4861d068380754a605d33f4e78fd1
b761aedcb4e2f1043b38b301e62b4e41c287f27b
6373 F20101211_AABFIZ bortree_d_Page_023.QC.jpg
ec32ea6f67266b31a74b340b637930d8
85cc63765b17bd1403ef5c598ccd5635cd76267e
1051946 F20101211_AABFKC bortree_d_Page_051.jp2
23ac4eccc75ac675664c3a885ee46d79
4552d2d7ef402516a4f713e3f2e48451de85effd
7929 F20101211_AABFJN bortree_d_Page_065thm.jpg
cbb6c6af87fb33c0eb45a1b92d24f4cc
c8954b9368816729eb746f1c528c081c12cfa6c3
1051968 F20101211_AABGNF bortree_d_Page_011.jp2
cfba63ba393ff9b1602ef71ccb3004f3
05326ba14d5b325707af970bc5535faca9a4b5ce
26047 F20101211_AABGMQ bortree_d_Page_170.jpg
1f7bdbb1edd56aaa1ad21e218f0617ea
488f7e804305b31d7709ec1e6b79466d8f59e125
1950 F20101211_AABFKD bortree_d_Page_113.txt
0af5276b6e72b5e99039ac833f43c11f
cf602bd60996545db7a35784aa76d7fb22eb3af2
49623 F20101211_AABFJO bortree_d_Page_172.jp2
07506f342df144fa9a2601718551d6ae
51511ebdaf028ddfb4655e12d8b74e08b0465d53
857876 F20101211_AABGNG bortree_d_Page_013.jp2
809e5cdcd421bfece088f68cdfeeb920
009035fa53dfeac26c2452922ba4a9554437d42d
40366 F20101211_AABGMR bortree_d_Page_176.jpg
c7c398e99717bec79773ad145c462d5b
050d3d79b315987db8e6528ce006eebd67da41f0
F20101211_AABFKE bortree_d_Page_194.tif
3d2bdab542dbe1f35291c006485f26a0
e92f6d3893d3752f82847bfe2b094661a59e5551
2054 F20101211_AABFJP bortree_d_Page_080.txt
357828c79fe6653918efb9ccf4c0abc2
45c9cb1bf4ab73d1a1b23da508039754457f17cf
1043882 F20101211_AABGNH bortree_d_Page_016.jp2
43aa4d645c633ceeff2c7b4f467948f3
930659797b2cc850eb381bf24cb46f7c35832289
11601 F20101211_AABGMS bortree_d_Page_179.jpg
996929fb888dc27ab5fb27368e80be06
b28bb84cd0d47fcee381229bd5486e63bcb0c773
F20101211_AABFKF bortree_d_Page_151.tif
f53bb973e4f08d2d54a2c8e041320205
b4b494cbd584777bcba792772ba57a80cc9d3ff8
23429 F20101211_AABFJQ bortree_d_Page_128.QC.jpg
f58db12421b4cc170bc3a4068a4e6d22
ccce6f552d5b50fdb0cc200dd70b7a9ac3608cf0
1051963 F20101211_AABGNI bortree_d_Page_022.jp2
25130aa547b0321a54d8911f9a37a3e1
050d94be74af4c0f7de20f614c06f79d147c88c6
90218 F20101211_AABGMT bortree_d_Page_180.jpg
d9bd590fa6c3f700c0f15f2dd3b370f8
4ec03e96c7a953e7597920a4c5c685d1dc494ead
78094 F20101211_AABFKG bortree_d_Page_130.jpg
dc5389bd9b11ddda8f88cfe18a7be8f6
85bb8cd49eeb361db3505c83f55cc0eb38d9dabc
35487 F20101211_AABFJR bortree_d_Page_019.QC.jpg
0f1986a2eeacbf9a658aaa0ded232072
c2d6e1557fedd6563ded9406073bfef8a1f57ffe
F20101211_AABGNJ bortree_d_Page_026.jp2
72d84dfac37985785b06980fe65388c5
c390ee40de82247d1d9ecb71ffcb6c5092c7a34c
96555 F20101211_AABGMU bortree_d_Page_183.jpg
0d0f7734e7c5354944c05b953a29feba
14943355f35dea7e9a2729604af0919f43cf6091
4507 F20101211_AABFKH bortree_d_Page_187.pro
7edf2675587a50cf9b0c766d7d81c7fc
54ea8dfba1e6a95bfdbbbd565ae9ac537ffc0003
58721 F20101211_AABFJS bortree_d_Page_053.pro
b3b96674125d67dd31e77e95d5f4e092
eb02001863b160ec821ca7f6826916e12e7029bf
F20101211_AABGNK bortree_d_Page_027.jp2
ddf8bef7c9f63812944afd9ed4c29ada
350ed317cedbe1c0fffc86344d88a1e7994fdf81
104392 F20101211_AABGMV bortree_d_Page_191.jpg
2c234811f85ec3f3dc98215f90adbc30
743a2af97061fb15cce7ca279bd82f6dd699a704
101603 F20101211_AABFKI bortree_d_Page_162.jpg
08b2619c02f43d92b847d38fecf27927
1bb879b44f8f03e509ee2b97329d2c75f778fd62
1051948 F20101211_AABFJT bortree_d_Page_194.jp2
fe02178b86b7b75e96f5a6b6035d556f
a4e731aa1ec88f54bfd9a69fa9682211d15065c7
1051975 F20101211_AABGNL bortree_d_Page_029.jp2
71081f04a745386cd0a393501373970d
e1aed55250da67fb7ada36b57e72126de4ea5356
124939 F20101211_AABGMW bortree_d_Page_193.jpg
6de4a0b1d88b86c782715622d86f8883
5a9eb6e5fd1f570b54270bb86ba92311c30bc380
42533 F20101211_AABFKJ bortree_d_Page_004.pro
537bcb05670287caedc130a95142ecbe
bff53477193fb4920fddfae863972ef3251edc00
F20101211_AABFJU bortree_d_Page_063.tif
75d69e37544a02aeb2748ac03f650c58
45c6e8574c1facbdcca4e86e7f04829ebfed2285
606698 F20101211_AABGOA bortree_d_Page_070.jp2
007ac15b20352e8078170c0d065c1558
40fca71ac97ab1986e430e1731e0325b3e68e909
F20101211_AABGNM bortree_d_Page_031.jp2
1eb9d04537c3e0a02c26b96fa13d537c
e98acb3b3bccaf6c2829c52ece8125dfcbfc434c
122861 F20101211_AABGMX bortree_d_Page_196.jpg
149384c5a6f73ffee3b356edd0764e71
732a6f7e02aa67a1f85dca4d4c4dfb92f46ed6e4
F20101211_AABFKK bortree_d_Page_107.jp2
1aab07d06f869c32358b29765d4e92fb
5814d3c8acbeeff8663eb4cbdd6da361f92fc3cb
52098 F20101211_AABFJV bortree_d_Page_045.pro
fde9318d72969ca39162d488650d0762
caff1a158b7f64789c5462d9d17f6c7a746bfa78
851528 F20101211_AABGOB bortree_d_Page_075.jp2
29bf3823d0cd8f15dbbd8cb0a89d4f26
5512282144fdc88b5dfc76f043afa822a713633b
125631 F20101211_AABGMY bortree_d_Page_198.jpg
f0a8a770d06f99f50d9d7beccbe2e725
a2c2b74ced90fd5c12bc8392666b83b7387473ca
F20101211_AABFJW bortree_d_Page_038.tif
750d6333bddf705ae91dd77d69765eda
9b5b9e40f5f179730a5e7d17974ef4fb97a04371
1051978 F20101211_AABGOC bortree_d_Page_076.jp2
c21e14ac02b50d3ae02bb935970d8ff9
73a30f4aabe7fc54778fed212f1313becab4b4b1
1051961 F20101211_AABGNN bortree_d_Page_033.jp2
b525ddb6c0950fbfc7b842302fdfb31f
95854027447e1c5a4ffeb0e03c946c9e2a955263
97019 F20101211_AABGMZ bortree_d_Page_200.jpg
b9b555384bc34026523d4a528dfa7a25
0270d369b8176ebb8181a5f5fb19714c9ea5e2aa
8391 F20101211_AABFLA bortree_d_Page_038thm.jpg
4713e1dca118f74adaaf79babd1dc0b8
fdb4b2432dc2fb948cc8939b5c6874a06706549a
94911 F20101211_AABFKL bortree_d_Page_165.jpg
fe139b00ed71085ed66181a50f323b32
00e40e98de8e56ae66fb57cac30be41562ccfb33
1051964 F20101211_AABFJX bortree_d_Page_148.jp2
23a9e24501132c85ce8dd367535ee312
b4ee45687daa2cf655406722e7ba129fcd6c935d
973474 F20101211_AABGOD bortree_d_Page_082.jp2
c6f84dc4ef4bddcf24e1942e2615eab2
d6d0c69b8fbbdf7994da61b4bc32ce196ffb66d1
F20101211_AABGNO bortree_d_Page_035.jp2
8359a6dbf89495408ae8ddd1d432c808
ded02df5fcc3b922c21841384db32b53e19a7ce7
34631 F20101211_AABFLB bortree_d_Page_021.QC.jpg
dcd0f405cbfdf4c47ed6fcdf1dff974e
7b15d9b7519da5d12d889b4d6547b3385e6e67cb
98654 F20101211_AABFKM bortree_d_Page_156.jpg
8191ee8f2e6de1a2f4b06681dedb4427
a196131ac544dcd8049ba764797f686e0678c8c3
34249 F20101211_AABFJY bortree_d_Page_130.pro
20ca3113151a0cc2b03ead0d615b892d
ad6c29397278c6bc2ed142d1439857c603a8e50a
992805 F20101211_AABGOE bortree_d_Page_084.jp2
b5531e329f1e7696ec578ce8e090daf5
a3c835a94faf09665974b13eb55df682f6e49cb5
1039117 F20101211_AABGNP bortree_d_Page_037.jp2
11f6cf4dff58cf288c45f85c2ace8d0d
2d323b23674681b0d348b7eca4a1c2199d25ec8a
744421 F20101211_AABFLC bortree_d_Page_171.jp2
dd61ff5c654d7355f5c2b4cadb12276f
bc2a3c38ee0390804e61b529ee748539ab4d0ffa
1169 F20101211_AABFKN bortree_d_Page_144.txt
ce992ede9c33ac3b735d4e657d95dc8b
d2199f69724f02430c14b3fc39f7afe4d4461d86
99053 F20101211_AABFJZ bortree_d_Page_151.jpg
03ad67250f14f0acdd22c0445a3762b4
a242eda764b8c92a2e6fc974bac7d4e951d71491
886614 F20101211_AABGOF bortree_d_Page_088.jp2
64690a8ef3bcd67d86f2d8b85790c397
d995ea3a7f36d4923b1dd0a9dc1da00a7efe78f7
F20101211_AABGNQ bortree_d_Page_042.jp2
6636d93368853e40fd5b4380d77dfe97
a360597006d552bb7bb489b4b9f8fc8d30ed6dd1
35928 F20101211_AABFLD bortree_d_Page_032.QC.jpg
a2bccc91ccd1e727d6e93848e3a15c36
769ec74deaae42952b69c1a8d4c4a6600af165f1
1046 F20101211_AABFKO bortree_d_Page_143.txt
13853c6a121d6bc28dab246824dd5379
7815c3af5652c38aeed5685804a39ec161dcfcc7
915926 F20101211_AABGOG bortree_d_Page_091.jp2
27b59394edc12ee7db27850a0262e478
367a9594eecf3805fd5fed4579c38603b13bce32
F20101211_AABGNR bortree_d_Page_046.jp2
b48b30b11ee59a8a180e68846252d040
f87ffeb1ab79c5165434350f65716393a2da69f5
F20101211_AABFLE bortree_d_Page_072.tif
e53c063204213d2a421e68e1be596a56
383df19b22335bb63708ebb6741c6054f87b3ba1
97819 F20101211_AABFKP bortree_d_Page_077.jpg
415022e3f23feaf96de836f801b0cf59
7aa718fb08c258d03e7e40a6b5364b7138e93d5b
998344 F20101211_AABGOH bortree_d_Page_096.jp2
38174ab6033b300034c7e7565487f60e
8d2559413dbb69500e0b1f4cc86ea9a2e3b57625
F20101211_AABGNS bortree_d_Page_049.jp2
71f260b0f2270c59b0e41ea201a652d2
62ba40857438e37efb26956e971fd539852042b3
980823 F20101211_AABFLF bortree_d_Page_071.jp2
41d8459b5798856d13df07af7e4113c2
22a2e895af6e407a602ab8d769ed813d40dc22e4
F20101211_AABFKQ bortree_d_Page_090.tif
c2ee8dfa424c6792c34008974eece136
9f96774c65caf48fae937906a7549d030eb69f25
F20101211_AABGOI bortree_d_Page_098.jp2
e66fbadd4fd519b26782eae8f7b618a1
9ec67eedf2996f67478676f3df0296ed220e7cce
F20101211_AABGNT bortree_d_Page_050.jp2
b8b76108374213fed3c6cff844e254e0
3b3f7cc5e0598364ff9c901c139a03c60f682354
28289 F20101211_AABFLG bortree_d_Page_146.pro
8c169fa34b77ec883f4b92f0ae09cc7f
94f9fea66ae723ed29c6849e1da860900aee8a40
31325 F20101211_AABFKR bortree_d_Page_165.QC.jpg
0b61d51f0df607f5e5c0e89b69722a11
82192d1eebab89b6fdbc79f69139b53ba518d957
1051945 F20101211_AABGOJ bortree_d_Page_099.jp2
11a7686c0d0238d7be66ed794786e0f4
89693728b1aaee20973d8074c9deebb89c7e7e01
1051952 F20101211_AABGNU bortree_d_Page_052.jp2
17985d1585c4e270868ed1ddb18bdf69
462c3f7c68031c341002f3f64d1a5d4c5ec54c36
85879 F20101211_AABFLH bortree_d_Page_014.jpg
854293509d70f91a8ab05aa557944c26
26de07f402bc9ee9de80cff71297043163188e49
8395 F20101211_AABFKS bortree_d_Page_022thm.jpg
41bb0ee87ce001e896e7bd26eceb2e81
d5c2f27acb914ff55fdcdaa4e21e5504e5862646
1049757 F20101211_AABGOK bortree_d_Page_101.jp2
ace5ef3db3e07ab852d7de5c59117c8b
dfd7e2f917f042f0b34a4e58401f015c76bb56b7
F20101211_AABGNV bortree_d_Page_056.jp2
e1b2926667f8dc6ef22bef90ef5cd32d
eb30d9d73b59bbdb04a19de073a5ab3253ddf79e
26192 F20101211_AABFLI bortree_d_Page_181.QC.jpg
fb39918d0147bbd37d32a8080dd0f046
448ec2be8377b29e446d722e19332aab89e6fce0
F20101211_AABFKT bortree_d_Page_146.tif
86986627d0fed2c9ac393b90a658cc50
03373d91a9a9c538c9238d0e63af68500f21b94a
F20101211_AABGOL bortree_d_Page_105.jp2
e4d7e99d7e28ee2812416d2799f81a1b
f395e55bcc7d478e7a479550e6dde4dd2ae23387
F20101211_AABGNW bortree_d_Page_060.jp2
54341a1340e3ae2c5dcb947e9f20da6f
b584bbff8dd39f839c53ea9ff91b6decf5567dfd
28565 F20101211_AABFLJ bortree_d_Page_089.QC.jpg
81831d314f6a6a56f47fa4b42135bf6f
a9e73cfd5d07ae9919c9df0dfb139f17fa46dfcb
49696 F20101211_AABFKU bortree_d_Page_116.pro
c77c7c2116204c5e58d3ba7411cc4a96
bf6384bc1610aa34b277add7b11b08aa5de2cef5
F20101211_AABGPA bortree_d_Page_168.jp2
16109b65f9f576908def8042ed06e1a3
2230327899ba0d17e7cae078cf84aa234a0cbcf9
F20101211_AABGOM bortree_d_Page_108.jp2
c5deccc960db539cf83e65c804cf4db7
11fc62694f9d2ee7351cf234c21c25f9fecd247b
F20101211_AABGNX bortree_d_Page_061.jp2
887cb4a3702d26f75c4caa2e02b52e26
8d343214d6057dc87350d7be9f7d58cda7a38b4e
28397 F20101211_AABFLK bortree_d_Page_004.QC.jpg
15949a3f521ae6c8b72c9b03a6f78724
71ca6b7bc0739e43c6161dd0737a72d67a4ea401
52794 F20101211_AABFKV bortree_d_Page_099.pro
621b7b79111c9b8684e49bf80875ae72
3ed46b87b3eb5000307ce3fab7a383006190ccc1
26416 F20101211_AABGPB bortree_d_Page_170.jp2
70528aa2619649e0adc5e2fc05884966
7036ebf04150e92d8860cd566687bac466b79417
F20101211_AABGON bortree_d_Page_109.jp2
eecf1580d57672e6165ebaf68683ff00
3a15e85b1a559f6675350dfeae16c11460fd94ca
F20101211_AABGNY bortree_d_Page_062.jp2
a1b2168daf97ec04bcfcc5c3eadfdff5
6c863b2eea1f253b7b79fee1642ced09de851259
2156 F20101211_AABFLL bortree_d_Page_148.txt
11adf5c6f70d602be2d9cfd27ca7e0b5
61689ff001400bbb968485d357f7f0f11a5459ee
1371 F20101211_AABFKW bortree_d_Page_133.txt
dafce3d76e1b0bcb75d4be806e9641fe
1d3e5155a06727113f7ac93cc6c8910bb68f3dc4
506662 F20101211_AABGPC bortree_d_Page_174.jp2
4bd9ecbfc51dbd77a20025ae61d303b3
7c061e48e16482f9c53a6485d8ad662f5865b8fe
F20101211_AABGNZ bortree_d_Page_064.jp2
4c3a591859ad52c1c046f81ab33be520
617cd0b672fb527d4d95c9ca98fa6cdbc864c6d0
1051939 F20101211_AABFKX bortree_d_Page_102.jp2
ca62debc4a77caec73d811f22f14ed7e
da70bac769fec64a6004bc4a41e1d2adb27f72fb
7835 F20101211_AABFMA bortree_d_Page_156thm.jpg
d52d508b24dfedca1b5466b6ca0fdc8e
3c3f94e68cc504281041e0a3fea3e495f859d6f5
F20101211_AABGPD bortree_d_Page_175.jp2
a6295ffccba8debcf5ed80f4cd410fd9
2e68898e83306e8b96164f943b83d39d6fa40ded
1051976 F20101211_AABGOO bortree_d_Page_115.jp2
258b44b7dab91b40078d131d4e7f6a09
cd26b56df7095e14bfd78b49e02cccaf246c8cc1
54507 F20101211_AABFLM bortree_d_Page_046.pro
7aef3443e94841f06663e3ee5d48400e
7b7ce3fc428175a124bdfd1faa1e8f1858b66b6b
F20101211_AABFKY bortree_d_Page_009.tif
61c950dcf347dd26c54465d6ea7a3473
058d7305f33c6361a1e5c537a465d5b677f55618
F20101211_AABFMB bortree_d_Page_200.tif
dc971b7ddc2f93f108d13179a5b8be66
5bc865f15aff4d1d7c8565fa2795255d2000dae0
336986 F20101211_AABGPE bortree_d_Page_177.jp2
6e0ac4363e5f688d42bc1d7c83123d5a
0d02667a4b9457ca30fb2417ee29e790571c2475
F20101211_AABGOP bortree_d_Page_116.jp2
7dbc12d54a89fcb11a50aac0a582cb8c
8a9b43b4e9986538d2e07bb8e661accb74b8e94c
103949 F20101211_AABFLN bortree_d_Page_038.jpg
8289a35870b1524c931c6da6dd6f60fd
6c5b62ca4fb5ca08c0457dd5ce73bf5cb769aa94
105727 F20101211_AABFKZ bortree_d_Page_034.jpg
b42c70e3ba355595c95d83b402415334
b96a014e4b43b6a42f0c7e917aa6b5c754983488
1400 F20101211_AABFMC bortree_d_Page_190.txt
4458a8d93914c089e590b0080ca435a0
69100721f9b2d26f04655daa6952f9d348a9d13b
901494 F20101211_AABGPF bortree_d_Page_181.jp2
2ea119eb38fef257560ce25123b76991
8ab5fd321fcd3f88a4d741b88cd54d01b90b87fd
F20101211_AABGOQ bortree_d_Page_120.jp2
5942b112574d3929409cc731ce35fad0
68dcb9ef1d4e4f7caab4b3b7ddb682f79d8cb91b
101048 F20101211_AABFLO bortree_d_Page_108.jpg
87eaeb6238a3fd858bd086ad5caca42d
2f48236f5666349258e34aa9a94ea6635a991f75
68858 F20101211_AABFMD bortree_d_Page_138.jp2
3020ade7792929a7141d2ac78c51e84d
9569ce138754b53aab972fca4dafd68e4b9b8c26
219099 F20101211_AABGPG bortree_d_Page_184.jp2
5e21ab9ba5b98ceb04b906b768882e54
35b5465a546e0b0c22ab7b5b923564b570bf2132
996205 F20101211_AABGOR bortree_d_Page_122.jp2
4c83e5970991a92b5e1b27ea34eb391f
35b83ad26a19c3b900c6a7244e1390d7afe07648
F20101211_AABFLP bortree_d_Page_096thm.jpg
84bd4eb158c3e58c504bdf739674d296
bfe383fb79b36fe29e431a3496d513780f400be0
8380 F20101211_AABFME bortree_d_Page_160thm.jpg
c616a29567b7cea3d5ec93c1c2e75a25
1da7fdb882f5532e9e1817e1708be841b15529b0
114207 F20101211_AABGPH bortree_d_Page_187.jp2
9c9477c75d30a4111274bc08dfd2865b
fc21777144d1a50f2b9c12b1013cd9b4e5c3b51c
77550 F20101211_AABGOS bortree_d_Page_129.jp2
f51b4436795b99e0338e756fd16f7ed4
02c13c68c2a37ae92fd347296760a07016d3d0eb
F20101211_AABFLQ bortree_d_Page_030thm.jpg
f6bde2d9afffb6daf4a477a2fd81a1a5
88ec7d060414b9b8af33602e11d7ba1b70b9fed5
F20101211_AABFMF bortree_d_Page_099.txt
690d3bfe0825a9cd7e918f7917cf9442
0494143a62c85e668228e0f5892928e8ecb39d01
F20101211_AABGPI bortree_d_Page_189.jp2
fe6a9dca4c37c6c522f65cde5ee71bea
5d54a02c854f1beba542ee57cc9b5f6975ceb3b6
66353 F20101211_AABGOT bortree_d_Page_132.jp2
6b1c40f9a3530d808bb2076d3d669530
79959f2ad784ab51b60991c173beb97a870baff1
20116 F20101211_AABFLR bortree_d_Page_137.pro
604a79dc4ea6ff50fee72c964c580d84
caca909d8e4cf827184a848869513844e9779c29
26648 F20101211_AABFMG bortree_d_Page_122.QC.jpg
96ffe47d24ba7b64e183e16b8f189e7d
e1235d5cfb20f9f306c730965a5db9251536fa02
F20101211_AABGPJ bortree_d_Page_191.jp2
23127a28ff86fe1bc0f14ebedf83f7ac
62cdc5c98f18f0af7c0a331643d404aeea582f1d
77159 F20101211_AABGOU bortree_d_Page_134.jp2
c6ab9a7852a145802f04717b07cce557
f3a6b9757ef83337b6eb752fa0fdf4d36226d776
8265 F20101211_AABFLS bortree_d_Page_044thm.jpg
17aec5a6711a6aadbfffba2d168c9544
0ae4f7964e8aeb1a453c417e1155bb9148fc44c9
1051949 F20101211_AABFMH bortree_d_Page_093.jp2
18a8a40e7f9564425f6f59abce080598
7ed17d107d67b696cb633408e68150d8a2af5069
F20101211_AABGPK bortree_d_Page_195.jp2
efddc476826b78497ab4c15df1314016
bbf5f6ac0f3fa4204da2e8f2cb0d7541660db75c
72768 F20101211_AABGOV bortree_d_Page_135.jp2
bea586d699278077a535b441e9057c12
8a14a2c11db0729652e18646e391576cd5c7af38
F20101211_AABFLT bortree_d_Page_028.jp2
8318463280235af127510d50ae4aeaef
0ba7873a077c31e2163da0eab26889fa9e147c8f
31385 F20101211_AABFMI bortree_d_Page_124.pro
768f77648d7817f8212ea4dc2b5ecc45
bd6b7d7e470da58ade714a96a3c9550aa1321dd0
F20101211_AABGPL bortree_d_Page_198.jp2
ebea49ffd183d5e3ca9b9779dea85aaf
11802ec4e3b45f2804603c03eb9bfc74355e75c7
57290 F20101211_AABGOW bortree_d_Page_139.jp2
3710447c7c641a256ac6c0bb9bf829d1
f596bf922647309e2d42ed2470745e31c51ce753
8405 F20101211_AABFLU bortree_d_Page_045thm.jpg
8e089f8b8447daaa2570d369acd563fd
bcff89d8e48c610352fb7cf2ea0b06fba6319746
1775 F20101211_AABFMJ bortree_d_Page_180.txt
999146d596be1628a425967925e7cb93
abf51deb83b3d817c2b2e4044c0f09d5a6e6e220
F20101211_AABGQA bortree_d_Page_041.tif
ae05f2eae2e62420855081aeb3f69d0f
86b06483f1be9032f43e5f5189308b55558c5a90
355504 F20101211_AABGPM bortree_d_Page_201.jp2
0271b5c5fe011074ea1e71685da972e4
4e0fdf818e744cccba3edebf32ac5b0a0cb7c27f
980746 F20101211_AABGOX bortree_d_Page_147.jp2
5eed707c9fb165547a436ae21fb0d2dc
9ba7b43230e4a11d2363cedd869a7963724d6e3e
967 F20101211_AABFLV bortree_d_Page_137.txt
2d68e1465a28abc61cb2674e3f14439a
52da6816316a3d579599f93a003d00fe042d9ddc
101881 F20101211_AABFMK bortree_d_Page_188.jpg
accba7337a0eb9d8886cf86bf4ec6c48
28c9c55692b39747cbb3c7d05c21ca953fce5e44
F20101211_AABGQB bortree_d_Page_048.tif
5aaea1e228e782aeca43c11d86598785
0683216d8aece8266b0dd83bcc41d67daf231c9d
F20101211_AABGPN bortree_d_Page_002.tif
05a5dac82dbaacf188201c120295d51e
3f89900808292a70b8560f96dff5cb471a286da1
F20101211_AABGOY bortree_d_Page_153.jp2
c73f069da7d9039983c15864b3d1796e
b2af627b63a884c47c23e7c8d7e9765a261c111e
F20101211_AABFLW bortree_d_Page_112.tif
b3658d3180f4fa63c7aac91219973f8c
bf4e8ef6da8241c71ff7fb9238214dbc63a51e98
1975 F20101211_AABFML bortree_d_Page_170.pro
1b1986e401ff017992e7292558c88b7d
7bbb009f0d77865a463346635005ced2dfd05bb1
F20101211_AABGQC bortree_d_Page_055.tif
ac41cb59922a51c352355c82385d5f07
b374363f4f76afd4b110e5d2884a438690f2336e
F20101211_AABGPO bortree_d_Page_007.tif
d30d96c7285a547f38449b74d1867cd4
7e998db13692dbb148e06901f99ee1fbf3ddabe4
F20101211_AABGOZ bortree_d_Page_155.jp2
91d05a544cf0fddcd74074d3ab1fef5b
f980221d5d551c6034c286592a0842a6d456f92a
F20101211_AABFLX bortree_d_Page_175.tif
2d1729a3ada124ce95b9111f22e57581
f20103b75f7242d50e46ef6eb6864ac0bb919b0e
1935 F20101211_AABFNA bortree_d_Page_047.txt
38ed765c50591f73bfc52316b7790cf4
4abd3a0d420963e69bca80ae370b17874a6886b0
1929 F20101211_AABFMM bortree_d_Page_017.txt
cf88a2df14672c753e52a61eb4a91891
25b343442383aad123e4182c4fbfca4aab8c3471
F20101211_AABGQD bortree_d_Page_060.tif
a9b341d7478f97facde147ea915a9617
37a26d4df230cc83676cb688875cfccd84021887
34328 F20101211_AABFLY bortree_d_Page_049.QC.jpg
48e5c6afab2ad1f7d21b35bc56204997
2b64886ab1cb9d66748b40da8fefe8b4f5e24e87
31332 F20101211_AABFNB bortree_d_Page_154.QC.jpg
ddf3ab4f2c295ef71f0bbecf72b1887a
76b75f460ddaced93ae2285620bc23039698fcb3
F20101211_AABGQE bortree_d_Page_062.tif
1aacdae297b918482f85e795c440c343
ddb9f3f5eb5937ea8977f0e0357073a599d31789
F20101211_AABGPP bortree_d_Page_013.tif
acbdd7ba63550c4f537eb57bd46cc797
492f6b91c41488e965409f78d409265908bf738f
31584 F20101211_AABFLZ bortree_d_Page_101.QC.jpg
549e6e950427c408a2bc9a875ceba918
e6db026a7870351012acca47449a1333b67a0bcc
52336 F20101211_AABFNC bortree_d_Page_050.pro
5da68e789c63a6d58ed4e945ca35c5f0
f90fd314551995ff7d555ab5f0b1eabc7af5be44
4194 F20101211_AABFMN bortree_d_Page_003.jpg
08e3fcc9b39f21d61e5f5892b4d2516a
2e712b8b77c197d9fc99ddf41bd6ef71a805b2cd
F20101211_AABGQF bortree_d_Page_064.tif
1cd9b45c53e750747987d96a20d10fa1
6d8a23a3a08d701d6433cb380ebacf58a4ea6ab4
F20101211_AABGPQ bortree_d_Page_015.tif
180661ac3ebcb14393e499dda3faef1b
6651a5a099d5dd01439dcb6f389d5b2dc7a4fc2a
F20101211_AABFND bortree_d_Page_009.jp2
071dbf74dd95ef9b021b5e1009231fae
abde09c312c1c956ec738587f8b1d1fad9d347a3
F20101211_AABFMO bortree_d_Page_026.tif
6d874a0f1b7818ae07c7e61e09c5c2ab
40c0215bbc2b3ff03675e4ad0e5c3737f11f76fa
F20101211_AABGQG bortree_d_Page_065.tif
c11d23e3ebf7e89b4a46d13252fcfa2b
2d1e5884990b6503c9a589b623c424b303c67846
F20101211_AABGPR bortree_d_Page_016.tif
1afef68cf1ced2bea0b91e2fa16cde23
301683e6ffaa9650a610f6f2c1a976a281fe3b87
105857 F20101211_AABFNE bortree_d_Page_033.jpg
5c17db7555feca91321e86915d322edd
b5db8ce9704ff255a61d833393a8ba38face3be2
108218 F20101211_AABFMP bortree_d_Page_055.jpg
ff7c389d70e4c3fe204824eff439d251
89269d7d7b40bd26290272b6f702399ac528eb27
F20101211_AABGQH bortree_d_Page_066.tif
37988139f77e0e59c3b14541ecb6f464
2c70fbefe1f26134b2fbf8724695f7e577a23b4b
F20101211_AABGPS bortree_d_Page_017.tif
d6c74d16a3abc4d5f159fcddffb194f7
35fa59b3f02686cea332715cefcfe73f1cbf76c2
1228 F20101211_AABFNF bortree_d_Page_067.txt
d632ae4b3e165d2f1a173af6e68831ea
4dce7b6801b046a7695da415263fbc2077bfe984
2039 F20101211_AABFMQ bortree_d_Page_153.txt
80127154dbe8a85cc0f59948ac8b78f3
f97e263bad350bff31978ea3f1986888c0dc7886
F20101211_AABGQI bortree_d_Page_069.tif
0586243819948135f1adca25162f0815
1346ebf14e0b9cbf068a644f139a88db6914cb35
F20101211_AABGPT bortree_d_Page_021.tif
2a34e26bee290abbd07569d7bdf7e947
d5911859f8627180a3724eccb0d3670a2b718ed8
82076 F20101211_AABFNG bortree_d_Page_186.jpg
040fdb7f6691d8709c09df8b569a2dd0
20544b5ec8d6dc9455ca6560f2d19d1a3f435a0a
1036683 F20101211_AABFMR bortree_d_Page_165.jp2
98666b5f7469e3ad7d59d6dc86225ac8
ed366df91fa9f7fbcba6c1d9109c1fd9fd9a8793
F20101211_AABGQJ bortree_d_Page_071.tif
70b197fe6bc8f256ee07e40ee6da5573
197339abd8337dee179e1c2967df179ac2b5442d
F20101211_AABGPU bortree_d_Page_023.tif
b8562cefb7799f0d1b9979f9f5999db9
0abf6a0253c4d5cec11bdb2fc2805c9c829e41bb
67749 F20101211_AABFNH bortree_d_Page_135.jpg
9b5647f5a2ff437c5ac96151715a7044
55b2d60765e2cd6a20775c19fbee4e1124d056e0
1037025 F20101211_AABFMS bortree_d_Page_161.jp2
22d83be6129db962be238d2393b1eb0f
a60d3eabee403dcfe834820255aa9de82c234321
F20101211_AABGQK bortree_d_Page_073.tif
3a297ebdf04c71ae87520e2f00706bbc
e4e75fd546287f393cba6a615c8e8561a6a4d21e
F20101211_AABGPV bortree_d_Page_024.tif
92eefe15febb95809b3f6134dcd4e060
bcffa51dfa24676b427f18ee39869cf5f3c9e7b9
F20101211_AABFNI bortree_d_Page_173.jp2
0530ca7e7d8045c792dac4e39b16d92d
70c24b37fb5ee8df939b73682e885e3bf3cea21d
35628 F20101211_AABFMT bortree_d_Page_148.QC.jpg
5e9e3ca746aaab613a35de51e125b627
07e0b34107c2ba7c9d5b10f2acbb620b438ca25d
F20101211_AABGQL bortree_d_Page_076.tif
40fccfe3b24bbb57f15503d43b9b773a
9edb8d572b913843c30c4de33fc707351d93e247
F20101211_AABGPW bortree_d_Page_028.tif
728fc9bb946724a39ae0a97e044051c2
c6c1e6a4435cd5e6ce97fa0bc8c40686091d0749
838705 F20101211_AABFNJ bortree_d_Page_186.jp2
e542e0654f536afe772cb9d9171bb689
fcdecf66996f2dfe7a356049285138ce700ede4e
5122 F20101211_AABFMU bortree_d_Page_144thm.jpg
ec40ae4c418fa967c1fa2fa94a2f729a
8fa1696ae07eae8686ed7e7c2749d22e4fbb971c
F20101211_AABGRA bortree_d_Page_130.tif
93516e928cb424474a5be0c5665d000d
7ff3c2ff4aa0576d23894edd44108c8e534f9118
F20101211_AABGQM bortree_d_Page_077.tif
e3e8283395520a03bb25fd6df038d70d
3d2b085af8d80dcbbc355e1f673c8464804fc0f3
F20101211_AABGPX bortree_d_Page_029.tif
6ac4048a29f2abee2416de6551b68453
ac14f0b51a292985514a75f576a3d5a889e10dd3
107075 F20101211_AABFNK bortree_d_Page_022.jpg
b020943d4967bf26d763c1ca9cccda2c
8dd2cb20cfd368ed2103ad212f0c761c77c79fad
F20101211_AABFMV bortree_d_Page_090thm.jpg
4def865ad2001d1294ad105949809dad
83708a0596f2ef31409ba021573abea917c89e4c
F20101211_AABGRB bortree_d_Page_131.tif
1d1e6a6d161b75282abd613599a8a49a
15d683052c7debbabeddf6c5ad6212fed5897c39
F20101211_AABGQN bortree_d_Page_080.tif
bc3694d54422a5053646015c6321b17c
319c7001cf72658d8ae7ac878c12fd58f71aabb7
F20101211_AABGPY bortree_d_Page_031.tif
d0c8899b765daa67e1b5884eda9be37f
552f10474f9e609d5cff649a27dfe882fdf70f35
7500 F20101211_AABFNL bortree_d_Page_051thm.jpg
0b381ee481dc562e26a71e09f2332a6c
1deac28c6e551171fe435f968881eac5f35e210b
16692 F20101211_AABFMW bortree_d_Page_015.pro
dee18ee06833cab380274befa07bfcbe
5ea226374a05b19c01108b345d37eb496512cbf4
F20101211_AABGRC bortree_d_Page_132.tif
6caae0601cbd743e4943656870dc8344
5586fe73742f38482c93a419466ef199ced68f43
F20101211_AABGQO bortree_d_Page_081.tif
3e1a0e7bc78e50eb68b63df2f2325870
053edd353a6f69119fccf8195f968981c28fb69c
F20101211_AABGPZ bortree_d_Page_036.tif
58b26b158a7025fc07b0b3a7cacb9a32
68de76723b66a93b4caf1355186000d3f196d845
32415 F20101211_AABFOA bortree_d_Page_162.QC.jpg
5ff17b9d3d2200266385b1b89f53317d
89d3900fd810dffbc8895965594e81625f3279d1
30304 F20101211_AABFNM bortree_d_Page_067.pro
63b82e1cad4392afdc7664d4945d7745
9159e95f39331c7ab5db8da2bc6e0025ad2cee2b
2103 F20101211_AABFMX bortree_d_Page_092.txt
ad5b68d6713b7714162245e625e22c7b
9a574139bdb7db3583f8ae928f6a4ee2eaa54e59
F20101211_AABGRD bortree_d_Page_134.tif
4e6d930e4ddfa83a2217a26259866916
5e291628d85b3a1601262870811de193a2f03c59
F20101211_AABGQP bortree_d_Page_083.tif
0f7f1fadfbaecc02bcc402b63294dd89
6fadfcd22af24bf1239f37eb791d6a7cb60dc23a
43064 F20101211_AABFOB bortree_d_Page_068.pro
6c12746c1de6e0d2d6e232ba128b01ed
fe0a77cd4fd336c47958736d0026bb3d981925c5
1549 F20101211_AABFNN bortree_d_Page_118.txt
93497fd38287b2c9ead34f4b76c4ec57
9d31136670f1564bdd81d5493db172d76c728fc3
F20101211_AABFMY bortree_d_Page_168.tif
03cdac604b747032d46d937f72e4d2e0
0dd79f2a04d4eeae52345bb777d0b4b83dbbfb13
F20101211_AABGRE bortree_d_Page_136.tif
e89b93f89a65014eb2ce3c94262186c0
5c78bd3d04841e617be407d6f9cc42eb6c764876
33178 F20101211_AABFOC bortree_d_Page_080.QC.jpg
883505bc9c62263d84aa2c19e72153d1
752250be8a505e783a59cd888e075722495a3ff1
3778 F20101211_AABFMZ bortree_d_Page_007.txt
fc717a61df25b7d8675d9c14b661d805
76afc40b4524c3c34b2fe9780268b8b053feff33
1054428 F20101211_AABGRF bortree_d_Page_137.tif
7bd4f6874a24c5db7d3a7e082ec6f06e
fa27933e62c108ed852cd5771d725e3cea24c4b5
F20101211_AABGQQ bortree_d_Page_089.tif
313f6bb583720844d338a6a368723484
9b0bd8229a67258c593f0865b66477d13d628175
99 F20101211_AABFOD bortree_d_Page_002.txt
f6fc4b774c9977681a0a413c73b773ba
a76876bc24a7a3fa2ac73525ef02918441cba3de
F20101211_AABFNO bortree_d_Page_177.tif
1b2d90311c8150ef997feb06bd131597
ff808bf3321944dfc5e8d7b4b33c42a159b3c6a9
F20101211_AABGRG bortree_d_Page_148.tif
9fc7499eafc4a84697fe5bb031a725b9
46cb8dc3deb7182e0868384266d9eaffc179aa02
F20101211_AABGQR bortree_d_Page_095.tif
4324d7155ac1e47441cf45e649d03a79
bf172b8fae6f4775b4f5f1a4b5ec5b1b8e369a99
82724 F20101211_AABFOE bortree_d_Page_128.jp2
97bb96fab48f32b39418a45c0cc5fdce
26326d54a11e8c7fb71c6a1db8c11db8865a6366
1822 F20101211_AABFNP bortree_d_Page_163.txt
51300a0d33b3087d1ea4298775fdd6de
70b01b2988722071ac21f79c21add5dd99c8c36c
F20101211_AABGRH bortree_d_Page_149.tif
34d1a9fffdc2bd233d14e09cd5c49cdd
9d808b83e3e5f74718bc48b9ea2dfe10db73b2ca
F20101211_AABGQS bortree_d_Page_098.tif
c0b51445929053fb68a20d7ed1038f82
c378f6f4a97ef1d874b0025e068ddb62015829f4
40546 F20101211_AABFOF bortree_d_Page_014.pro
40c4edda33dfc3dc2ff05f6c6f29d071
9fbfa9aa7a6228ca6eae2813fa43b820b502e62a
52911 F20101211_AABFNQ bortree_d_Page_159.pro
5ce3dfe4b14bb7a640147a457bdd736c
76c5f9e64501acbc04183a930ff00352718fa9f8
F20101211_AABGRI bortree_d_Page_152.tif
8959cfb45b42664eeed59448480c5188
270371630f3915518f49b9cc347e7922d84ef2f7
F20101211_AABGQT bortree_d_Page_104.tif
5530737dc56ccc0d661aaade17fa906f
25939295fcfe583db5ad4d91632da195bbf64f9c
22622 F20101211_AABFOG bortree_d_Page_185.QC.jpg
496b9536638fa964ea97e6af59669c5b
ad575a8330383dcefa599f047c83040dc598ff58
62109 F20101211_AABFNR bortree_d_Page_192.pro
a22dacaf9423278de506ece3b75615f6
8c1db23cedd4753be3e78d3441742d2d930895cd
F20101211_AABGRJ bortree_d_Page_153.tif
b545ced76c3025d62a45aff5c0fbfcde
519b243b87bf61d2f0f79fb8f50ce3d2c57605b0
F20101211_AABGQU bortree_d_Page_113.tif
bf1565c6c21acd7ed35d05c38eadcb54
afb826d87e8701cdce6a35c12eab85c3f19a3b6b
34276 F20101211_AABFOH bortree_d_Page_062.QC.jpg
2b7b166f49c6e8bb0ae6f97d78ecd224
4235d34226ed19c7a57c7159d0ee23750499d504
2031 F20101211_AABFNS bortree_d_Page_079.txt
771d151fd3a4c699d4c7bceac2b86d4d
2092fd31edcda59f1076983d82db3b2dfed2ed34
F20101211_AABGRK bortree_d_Page_154.tif
fdc5f657e4c3f38e8b667570a1fe6f33
b43b687cf7411a26e5148a324ea9ed17992b2d91
F20101211_AABGQV bortree_d_Page_116.tif
104a2fb48baa743d79ab2951fa200004
3b2c1d2aceff07ab31e9868d2e68acce870bc04e
F20101211_AABFOI bortree_d_Page_095.txt
594c4a08104c15cec29f579ddceec9ca
aec1b02669df9cf446f7e65c6236b0755638c7a3
109243 F20101211_AABFNT bortree_d_Page_062.jpg
f827285c99ac59de2266dd9511bff3d4
9f12628a97d24dc946c102111e58a7ab4b21b9be
F20101211_AABGRL bortree_d_Page_155.tif
d5ff7dac3b0a5c56eb312d9767355d90
d8c2d38b2823c58dc7a238171124bf7b7f6ba65a
F20101211_AABGQW bortree_d_Page_120.tif
ad37de6ff090ef1b9b5446a8b4e61fdc
9a035c98ef8b379728574174554f2737f9ddde7c
34203 F20101211_AABFOJ bortree_d_Page_053.QC.jpg
de38c7c03161ff1712cdcd90f409e56b
ed4c7e13d1847f1a3e1d3a1042a6e0ea9277728d
24854 F20101211_AABFNU bortree_d_Page_132.pro
477c15497f6288b80593256f27427d31
f7b674aabb225a1ba0bcc2854aa60e1bf1bc362e
48580 F20101211_AABGSA bortree_d_Page_012.pro
6b4f417b7e226f9b35faf0c29015777d
155ff11ac7fafd512463320584c5b2f19c58d25f
F20101211_AABGRM bortree_d_Page_156.tif
9945f2b36dcccd73f64987a642813cf3
2ddb02db2a960528f298b00133a3982f8e248b6f
F20101211_AABGQX bortree_d_Page_122.tif
6d5cf93dd3c3cad449e55ab299660196
9cdb53bafbbb188f2dd3d0e260694a22936b849f
1777 F20101211_AABFOK bortree_d_Page_014.txt
57d8f7919eec1697fac190453e2e9035
d6855f4065604cb6725e5c792bc0539b15c7025a
F20101211_AABFNV bortree_d_Page_142.tif
6c926ed20adca0d659ecae08684bcc4d
67fa4705f55d9baa7630afd2f617cee75327fabc
18747 F20101211_AABGSB bortree_d_Page_013.pro
7a2e12f677a54f9e3604080d93cf4f1d
4d4fe6390697edc8936dc5452a3487bcfc10a710
F20101211_AABGRN bortree_d_Page_159.tif
0316579ee0cce9da6d9cbd1ae1c04d9d
9e5315423d982a7901829052b950effd816ebad6
F20101211_AABGQY bortree_d_Page_123.tif
2d1afb5bad50c580a391f453d8446c1f
5783c0af83a44e56031c4ade890bc9f8f8e418e7
48565 F20101211_AABFNW bortree_d_Page_107.pro
0e614e48c3e6f71e3a1d38f71ea8a346
b70700b76a621d319abaf138825c6c1657115c8d
102838 F20101211_AABFOL bortree_d_Page_166.jpg
135201c15195f664e5ff6cbe06a82be0
e5550a52ece848528bdd7cd2fe0b2c0330bb7131
47194 F20101211_AABGSC bortree_d_Page_020.pro
2e81d3640b43971cdd0159a236294f96
0d2dad2112c7a83aa224f9c57fcd5fcdec60dc86
F20101211_AABGRO bortree_d_Page_165.tif
9b85ecaea9dad1abdf44aeccb21bf5fe
3ad80fe85fb3945e066bd0c9f920f7e10a11546d
F20101211_AABGQZ bortree_d_Page_126.tif
10d9de5caa17e76cd9499d0e9a552c23
be6bf0dbd1d429dcd0d0c3e743413b6a5f623607
50538 F20101211_AABFNX bortree_d_Page_048.pro
ed6596c6b98aafddd3f954a57fa95742
9e0605f080945c89771038d454219331998ae312
66085 F20101211_AABFPA bortree_d_Page_178.jpg
9d1f01bd9fc0c9a26667e2ec45f6bec3
80cd36ff2483b72008fc7f0f17c7a6df3df3092c
8294 F20101211_AABFOM bortree_d_Page_059thm.jpg
36843282fd33b4ed0e2aa4ac040bb933
0c4c0e19064718e59d563bb7b932d71cfeeb53ec
42482 F20101211_AABGSD bortree_d_Page_024.pro
f8ea916a51ab4f3f248c83ca8ef3432e
46bda20760d18b1eac5c64c794c9d4e75b60a138
F20101211_AABGRP bortree_d_Page_167.tif
d3890ced0b189dcb0fc18ebeba07e6a0
f020043dc2394911d2951932f41565c09df0be2d
33796 F20101211_AABFNY bortree_d_Page_001.jpg
322eb269c2c9348c370a2a9e9bd744c3
861824f2b65595dcafa20d9cdc90edf9f1d9fca8
64877 F20101211_AABFPB bortree_d_Page_199.pro
e01e26b25b9547502f65ad68f7a21ab4
8ec1c0cc948524498ca5ed96a33e996165b40bab
48925 F20101211_AABFON bortree_d_Page_030.pro
d44b31192b50e3685288581b330342bb
ceb8be714282446a8e5e4153571c6cd1db712b7b
63329 F20101211_AABGSE bortree_d_Page_025.pro
02a973137a2e1b7a45d18917d1e3acfc
5e05e20d9222bbd8d422411af7725961f5f7407d
F20101211_AABGRQ bortree_d_Page_169.tif
4670deb97aad0957f7725e23ed9ee03a
780ac9eb9e74e48dc511c2f0945c3525bd6e5877
99747 F20101211_AABFNZ bortree_d_Page_094.jpg
7ea70e9856bd1b27eee53fdd5d902cb8
400428a9e8c3160d3616dba7ebc6ce33bcc8de90
7998 F20101211_AABFPC bortree_d_Page_023.pro
2b60af2335b2d6a386019b1f7c9ea066
d8d64460c4ffec2ef83024a75e81b0a31b190d6e
F20101211_AABFOO bortree_d_Page_093thm.jpg
0cdeb1c2de2c1f1331649066560b4cf4
9edd48682dbc00f35478fd7685c5c7d2dc272e86
50325 F20101211_AABGSF bortree_d_Page_027.pro
4a12f8e1350fce89fee08b4f0b751f20
a820d56c7c5266e8271d67475d5eccfa87d59cb1
F20101211_AABFPD bortree_d_Page_027.tif
005ca03a5843fb924483c80d95f442f5
da79d02bd94bd468377d86f326b22777546a35be
49206 F20101211_AABGSG bortree_d_Page_028.pro
55d8650340a155654a2cb7e7d9f0fa8c
2cd46300402e2f07dbfb2608fd870d92ece3d88a
F20101211_AABGRR bortree_d_Page_174.tif
82561749b5d76645aa2c0d61f6297699
f125bd4487dc1dcb0cc33b1abc2cb7865fd06b01
34011 F20101211_AABFPE bortree_d_Page_046.QC.jpg
d6c05bf21f269ae390ac40e739e7f9fd
5e9eb2fe832c20487bb57e90652968f2a8169606
2094 F20101211_AABFOP bortree_d_Page_038.txt
1fe92903dd5e6d6c9291d99fb6c4285a
674f4dacb7bb305c081bca3982dbc4c26a86b040
59167 F20101211_AABGSH bortree_d_Page_029.pro
05def387edc82b27e5aae904ccb3ce6c
e4dc57bbf18e72ae98b461aec071985a0812d99e
F20101211_AABGRS bortree_d_Page_176.tif
5c46df9c1f3e683342a0f727cccab4ce
0cae5bf62409fc4c91b1227f8dc78b253f3823e8
95115 F20101211_AABFPF bortree_d_Page_037.jpg
4dbabaefd224a15f87cea14a35e90a73
f01ca2b187ef70f932e63bc8487a424e406b3fad
F20101211_AABFOQ bortree_d_Page_084thm.jpg
fa14011e5e95fdb9e501607b91e35ddc
db133dcea11c46a4eb3b1ba708e9e943cf293cde
53834 F20101211_AABGSI bortree_d_Page_032.pro
2a9fef5b44457a00343d69539a638b61
e7b96bd35588aec5513a05f20fd22961e8e98970
F20101211_AABGRT bortree_d_Page_178.tif
9757ccba162b4d9bfae0497a475a8736
5a47ccf322141f088e41bf18365c6cdfdaff5b66
F20101211_AABFPG bortree_d_Page_061.tif
dea3125c95b66a8d5472864a16ff6495
a2a7ba9ec1da15b7ac14a702d2e6632247678b1d
52523 F20101211_AABFOR bortree_d_Page_060.pro
469cc9bc14f8521adb9ad8181296aa9b
35f2dd281cd8dfe8da20aa8983bf2a8bc8935667
51061 F20101211_AABGSJ bortree_d_Page_035.pro
7fe674bc420b214989da1cd384ac59da
e7b307b75f2531a14ad7de4da62608658a4a5478
F20101211_AABGRU bortree_d_Page_182.tif
6452c956ff357ba1f3994492d7854aba
4b099f89b4bdcea7a917136e3f469a900e73a35e
1015 F20101211_AABFPH bortree_d_Page_140.txt
774d7f763c3d009c47d4def7dafe34ea
f0fdfc4d5acc0fc7d52b370494e422ecc4980a68
F20101211_AABFOS bortree_d_Page_143.tif
fb1eb8843afde0e1c173fcaa47182411
b7e6de9588c2f075b5d2b2de987bd2edb7a5105e
51195 F20101211_AABGSK bortree_d_Page_036.pro
6c446004635b323fd812265621454602
502b1c5a336f3f474d32994c1fc5b325bd22d1f2
F20101211_AABGRV bortree_d_Page_184.tif
ae5d961e1526e2946258ba26bd4326af
7e331c0479c26f206196474b777c6f373ed34186
6694 F20101211_AABFPI bortree_d_Page_014thm.jpg
0dad057e2adf0bc822c23942f6e61730
4ee9b0983440708bf282128153f46a61a5863b12
105255 F20101211_AABFOT bortree_d_Page_099.jpg
cba43aa4269e9b7ac1db38b8db9f7e36
e1126ebe7fa2756244659ac5085d791f0d3792fe
52932 F20101211_AABGSL bortree_d_Page_038.pro
f897d727789f8132826714ed15351626
6d2630b050921dddbcdd8ae2468b16a1f3c7a7e2
F20101211_AABGRW bortree_d_Page_185.tif
3a0e73291e7d936ab8afef327a2c7490
6dc5cc64d1a7522c5959195a27f89d3de146a909
97536 F20101211_AABFPJ bortree_d_Page_109.jpg
a74bca1064fdda2754a0679319a25af7
db50717dde092d720a8ceeaa81c76a76b45f4eff
52718 F20101211_AABFOU bortree_d_Page_158.pro
635fcc8dc1b9d6848aae6f822f94099d
9983f8d5b49b5e1630d0ecaa3ac85ead589a97c6
48950 F20101211_AABGTA bortree_d_Page_088.pro
161d1eb77464105c094b2d654741719d
abfd2cb4a0868f85341592cebb588b54bb8f20c5
50770 F20101211_AABGSM bortree_d_Page_039.pro
ae0cabc78746e17323234f20a91d0c62
dd97aca9bf653cb50fe8fa1b9203af42cdffd26f
F20101211_AABGRX bortree_d_Page_192.tif
922937ccfffc931fed4befbb2701ddb7
27d839e408f064a73207f47f1ee01624825f8ad9
6905 F20101211_AABFPK bortree_d_Page_091thm.jpg
250e52048b02e61c0e955f5c8b4dc3d6
fe789c40377a59d41cd05978ac7e1ba715415e56
F20101211_AABFOV bortree_d_Page_110.tif
49b5469419ef977fbb49422f938e113d
f578c5467658b304cabc25f472ea51733094b10b
53727 F20101211_AABGTB bortree_d_Page_090.pro
fd1241209d5fb03aa61e0c6456411d10
911b21e5396c7be929db4bc50da9b0d522161c3f
53522 F20101211_AABGSN bortree_d_Page_040.pro
fb17a9e9211b054e5cd86fef546e189d
09a9a8a202b401a8a63bd18917981d9b12890448
3368 F20101211_AABGRY bortree_d_Page_005.pro
12c46c1a1a4c97a6d3cfc994f9d945de
8810f092d2fedb962856a5ee039bbf63e5fa3916
2167 F20101211_AABFPL bortree_d_Page_009.txt
da73e9c251e838259803ca53205e5124
05ff95de39e30abd4e5eed041d512b375fa05aa3
95444 F20101211_AABFOW bortree_d_Page_161.jpg
d9f6c7451737d3a6b080ca323e95aad6
e13bacd9e933f0675caa39bdb823807687c78903
49444 F20101211_AABGTC bortree_d_Page_094.pro
614a67fded1c88cbb83652c3b1467528
6ddaae0b1098eacc1521adcd923c2b57ed5a1f86
49544 F20101211_AABGSO bortree_d_Page_043.pro
d6a6db62a042fdd69319cb2511d38ce4
3a95fef8336d3f07a63f048dca51d2f03d21f071
61666 F20101211_AABGRZ bortree_d_Page_006.pro
a920511ff2e4f3eed66dc114d0ae76a9
c9f3a4f4e065b2ab6f35f16459ebd45e06d0c701
F20101211_AABFQA bortree_d_Page_115thm.jpg
c84e6979e228e49de7aaedd32d66514f
d6d430a2821bb9855178d2944d6bd7f0cf670fa8
104391 F20101211_AABFPM bortree_d_Page_039.jpg
ab303fdb74dab0a166d8482bd1331aaf
4e0e2ae67953e37efbf5a322cf6e446dc149bc42
1329 F20101211_AABFOX bortree_d_Page_129.txt
d1a92d176a4a320ba3bd7db3a14caadb
954d46e74b8bea04a999e3087c67632a15a6d52e
45689 F20101211_AABGTD bortree_d_Page_096.pro
df45aadefd255373ecef9fe3f248e5db
3cdc4d6a45f88d32de5425806914729d1ed8bbc4
55019 F20101211_AABGSP bortree_d_Page_049.pro
9e4ec884498a331c43c64af7ab79990e
8f25d208891e061b1467602acc9565def6923702
F20101211_AABFQB bortree_d_Page_190thm.jpg
977e5d9565dc7a2f077398a40d67c0f6
9d6f0443180131431a4c5e172f38f6993e8bc47b
1619 F20101211_AABFPN bortree_d_Page_087.pro
ab11fabfae6eb005b60e09b8f0ae7459
8584c6acdb3e77f2d7958f09994562d8cfae6d17
F20101211_AABFOY bortree_d_Page_195.tif
a11f50f09aa5301bb0e35e937b22a04a
5c125520ede406ab0af664011f139d5a8b754b2e
49889 F20101211_AABGTE bortree_d_Page_102.pro
c496c8f2f99692b0e58db671e0c7521e
ca888f3c403826e57688716c754a84cd306c01e2
43094 F20101211_AABGSQ bortree_d_Page_058.pro
9941d165020a76bdfebc72fcbf524cfb
ce1baa02f7d09189185ebecdda65d491d7b3d77a
26248 F20101211_AABFQC bortree_d_Page_014.QC.jpg
e6321fee63b37f35ebdfe5b435a8623b
7e1ac0edb6a7f28115a6bf01b7ddb466b27d3bcc
34048 F20101211_AABFPO bortree_d_Page_103.QC.jpg
acb56c231dcb3c9eba0ff45332b4d019
9648162d7c4215116b306007d7d7d161262a636b
49331 F20101211_AABFOZ bortree_d_Page_151.pro
7dd552cd583deae679c4abf3a8ef5e58
8d32e27fe31255851bc0413e428c7b1e6843dec1
47691 F20101211_AABGTF bortree_d_Page_104.pro
32b946fe3e73559812a86fdcf03d8d3f
6fd001429e8447336ea796e6546ed8d1ff042cb4
53822 F20101211_AABGSR bortree_d_Page_064.pro
f92e5f6bc33749c6a8ebbbf99cee903d
82f376d22feba98603082664188d5e42cdf96660
2043 F20101211_AABFQD bortree_d_Page_033.txt
7f2fffd3be40a83620c3c0e4dbaa6a42
32d35dd2cc5b10f604ec659b9c6630a1305b8ecd
1825 F20101211_AABFPP bortree_d_Page_147.txt
763cab3906b50fd1b05e2cfc7fb1007e
94f913885426ec57753e6031d221ba044d8adb49
49511 F20101211_AABGTG bortree_d_Page_108.pro
d8af9f9858735301f7d3a0b87318a467
d282c7428b1d0f804323ef1f4b73026f843fbf3d
81786 F20101211_AABFQE bortree_d_Page_181.jpg
80bfe822f4e09fa2a6ca44562998fd78
5ebc7edc04506d98372000f88207d32f461eb59d
49364 F20101211_AABGTH bortree_d_Page_112.pro
2273b483f3c7171fd0a67d208fa63fd0
02b961545aa5e7763e2ecef8446c6b9111fcd954
27265 F20101211_AABGSS bortree_d_Page_070.pro
eb01617d9dff834eee0031cdff41b6ad
b58d001fda509963dd883ffacc065bac4a4fee11
32493 F20101211_AABFQF bortree_d_Page_135.pro
f6c2a0ccd9457d1794bdf7d67e68c68a
2bd947b407dba76283958c0502bf60853c34867f
F20101211_AABFPQ bortree_d_Page_019.jp2
5b8e9fb972d0d371f2c7a027529a32df
08355fb164fa005777f32545b720576a1571999a
49302 F20101211_AABGTI bortree_d_Page_113.pro
eabb0a0a7d46eda3fa215e68c2929771
9611c27bdb0815d42af35e6f074e5f89186aafa6
21450 F20101211_AABGST bortree_d_Page_074.pro
eb1c7c7a62a6318e1f8d3b8273ebee1b
9def3d3d1b7d72e7c44133c024c0490b2ec0b927
137499 F20101211_AABFQG bortree_d_Page_195.jpg
a0d09b323ef050efcf8b12fb96d8fbce
e93158313431bcb1f672c7472d3413baebaaf261
109103 F20101211_AABFPR bortree_d_Page_049.jpg
6a30eef2bc537b1cf765a45bc73a2411
00b81670e2d6bf7d1fb825bfe5163f5727e2a6bb
49074 F20101211_AABGTJ bortree_d_Page_114.pro
f800ba61851c6662fa431a21ad8b7167
14289a27e37245665ab61ecafc1cb617b3a35bdc
53570 F20101211_AABGSU bortree_d_Page_076.pro
70c2df0dddd339abe4dbf61ff1f9b846
7dbe94bb1608beb9be0939d4fa8b6b66c04eeb7f
1942 F20101211_AABFQH bortree_d_Page_111.txt
68dd1f8cad842f0dcda6d1387d4f411c
3b65f0f776f1427d647e33464a63f22918e8975b
49472 F20101211_AABFPS bortree_d_Page_044.pro
4244caff289b76c31c8a8d694d023791
28034dec027d90b5aef181ea766c4851474b38ec
48406 F20101211_AABGTK bortree_d_Page_117.pro
4e0c8eca4ffc55639db17ecf484803f3
5824f9bddfabdc4afe524bdf0b2d016440df3867
47633 F20101211_AABGSV bortree_d_Page_077.pro
4c79c1da7204eb4af720e458fd987598
fb69fe8a5635f4cc3be79eed44834517cc210da6
104059 F20101211_AABFQI bortree_d_Page_078.jpg
ea29dffea6ebf7b8412166af83059037
7ac5754cd228e3db9a6a64d49bd98692efbe7077
1951 F20101211_AABFPT bortree_d_Page_184thm.jpg
6682f1b0170b5dbba11e5c37280036a7
e6e831fc6d7a38b16f657edc9772039d716ac1ed
38303 F20101211_AABGTL bortree_d_Page_118.pro
2e8247c17188e79aefb9b1de002d8371
99de876f991376f15907b58b3e68d0306fbe2e30
55223 F20101211_AABGSW bortree_d_Page_078.pro
93b9af6b0a117faefb1df0004d290d12
aaf6cfa37b5ee49e277241512bdb81738ca8740c
F20101211_AABFQJ bortree_d_Page_021.jp2
6dc51e63a0f3c325a65ef2784d64e123
f6baf8c07dc34248db8ac987b690fd4f1db7465e
1030186 F20101211_AABFPU bortree_d_Page_106.jp2
9dbf894c770dfcc936e019800990a0bc
54a013d6d16ad969ea9affe531f571ddf7df164c
2055 F20101211_AABGUA bortree_d_Page_172.pro
bb68ceea9f2182290e556ec25eda611f
e0d030e11f2c61b97a5c39ce01d8d57520b52b25
9924 F20101211_AABGTM bortree_d_Page_119.pro
11cbf9697798562e0ed0dd06c2a5a795
63522007b8fad59e39acf4d93776bb6853d36ebb
52174 F20101211_AABGSX bortree_d_Page_080.pro
8eee9d89436456c3f9b950f6932fef88
6fd4cd1a31739138301c266d3b22ae459f2baf9b
2541 F20101211_AABFQK bortree_d_Page_192.txt
4c4b0f30007c80ab8cb99cb7ea219535
1189882cdf4fd1ec4762d5253b8f4da3e2d0b311
10651 F20101211_AABFPV bortree_d_Page_073.QC.jpg
3d4eaee4d510eae114cdcaf6fe32597d
6f1c6e081bd7141c8e3c5947a4ecd4e97711cb9f
54777 F20101211_AABGUB bortree_d_Page_173.pro
9ee034d2572de93cc6ae4de5ce8157db
cede8591f7ec7b2c44dca00b76e067609b011948
27061 F20101211_AABGTN bortree_d_Page_123.pro
5f9c10dc820890536eae76cf4fa55782
3733d4ed049dd1bc5c371f5bfce9ed945d98a4a4
46770 F20101211_AABGSY bortree_d_Page_081.pro
30b95dc20967da42d7b3fb749015ac78
4be844b9c251787aaed1ce31ba0f5a29bd578e19
33351 F20101211_AABFQL bortree_d_Page_018.QC.jpg
b6adc68175f844a5943edb8a3ca1da6f
6f5fc1bb135a0bd8adf6237f4bdb4d6e3d209827
F20101211_AABFPW bortree_d_Page_012.jp2
58a85f25bddefd5cf16db5afcf64ce4e
94c411c874af83683417253f4faa6620c5220d34
3353 F20101211_AABGUC bortree_d_Page_179.pro
d1804fc47e726044157e9e2ef50a94a4
62f0f0fc8c44b0e2cef8525a2017001a45b2b816
32813 F20101211_AABGTO bortree_d_Page_134.pro
1b1059fc22d3d6745ed23357a3c409f7
c3545a95b47a35a53cb900f0f6ed54ef57a36500
43596 F20101211_AABGSZ bortree_d_Page_082.pro
080611dd0a7e2c64a9f15dab7dbbb18d
194fc1644944a865c37734f9ccb1b95b2e26e2f9
24837 F20101211_AABFQM bortree_d_Page_140.pro
e005b94a84c2d96960634033341d908f
df3f2707f453b98ddb9f26a57faa7ab4527b37aa
F20101211_AABFPX bortree_d_Page_172.tif
8161be23c21e244e986400bdd86652bc
13e105769b23307408455b61b042d5920ac4aac2
36235 F20101211_AABFRA bortree_d_Page_015.jpg
6a803852127b2f11e13573572c2f11b4
c07b9ba1d284140806657eb78998bfbc1b527a65
44503 F20101211_AABGUD bortree_d_Page_180.pro
c39b3d44ce02eb272e992b8b13882ff8
a758ccdd5b11c6aeae125b0e775438c64488458a
25403 F20101211_AABGTP bortree_d_Page_138.pro
02d565c47044755d9d77c5c80875b847
9ea159d15782a047ed1e01325f88fa4631d40552
1051885 F20101211_AABFQN bortree_d_Page_150.jp2
3b82188bab412679e35dc3b2494574a0
e5e6d9bf7408c08a732e82a5a13c0e572ef01b3d
F20101211_AABFPY bortree_d_Page_047.tif
59c32b8d3a9ae5ed24d8ff3a8c137865
6f8be13096f2bddba1082e11a05ce1901f935c8c
F20101211_AABFRB bortree_d_Page_082.tif
49c92456c54ad0092a8d513d7442db78
5fd77be4c9b023abdd3036a837e79ce864617fdb
9674 F20101211_AABGUE bortree_d_Page_184.pro
8aabd7060b69a6877f49b17a518baf15
cd03b5d57171112c13cc75d01238dd4d71143ac5
22196 F20101211_AABGTQ bortree_d_Page_139.pro
869630761218cbbdf4181f682a52493a
b33c4dd625a9951a2e28f810e6430e4063323fc5
61768 F20101211_AABFQO bortree_d_Page_146.jp2
ec76cc6dcf98c6a8541b11b1fa066321
e85209975d8dd64f3756134997f6a2748a21152d
47514 F20101211_AABFPZ bortree_d_Page_131.jpg
49c6a24264f7ecd83eccceee018ffd04
35307fc13aab163e4a394f5ab7dd0e35b56058b0
32943 F20101211_AABFRC bortree_d_Page_108.QC.jpg
23b08efb0105c905db4a85dabd3d9bdb
021e7dc4586600ec51e2bd200658ff02c43fbe74
34899 F20101211_AABGUF bortree_d_Page_185.pro
1ec2d1c5b49552f8686848368961ee95
d24b460328f93045f5f8e50a040fc660c03837ad
18581 F20101211_AABGTR bortree_d_Page_141.pro
1abdadd34cbbd4d9d2b0ed565d04b58e
44a3449d65b85f4f663f1067f60159bdbf19b528
31286 F20101211_AABFQP bortree_d_Page_078.QC.jpg
6d92d885dd22b75c881efe373099b1e9
8006795f9c460feb2a7b4890e74391ea6d519481
F20101211_AABFRD bortree_d_Page_042.tif
b9b24fafa4700c59d4d2b4787a36f547
97db49b46eaf2785d1026d8442ba0014e34126a5
21323 F20101211_AABHAA bortree_d_Page_124.QC.jpg
700c0098c19eaa88af809063511d83de
7f7eb924598ac510bd7745cd96d75965a2a7074c
36165 F20101211_AABGUG bortree_d_Page_186.pro
3de24ae8562110d3edd74d38d013dacf
d13edcf3f0cdc36c1d205d5050e748e42eee996d
16518 F20101211_AABGTS bortree_d_Page_142.pro
98ae2894c59a891e201fc6e00120bfa3
3c981fccc223ac5d67bad7e0cea7b2968718a672
1988 F20101211_AABFQQ bortree_d_Page_048.txt
8576e55ebf922d9826a7275a6252a491
9725e4f3da2ec38ad12943b407c6f6c179ac000c
48006 F20101211_AABFRE bortree_d_Page_157.pro
48ad011954f24d75d72238e55f0405cc
e45a01962682ae4e80a70425d2182102f5f5817a
5525 F20101211_AABHAB bortree_d_Page_126thm.jpg
136f45fe5854bc86827900fdffc2cb8b
c58112ea5511d0437efbf7fbf0d98d792b8cd317
61847 F20101211_AABGUH bortree_d_Page_189.pro
48bcb0e58cd108e7aaf7960e669704c1
9946aa991c10daa422bbe9f1c4660d75cfa5f4c2
46187 F20101211_AABFRF bortree_d_Page_131.jp2
730bddf71c816609eb5168315456d0a9
e8bccf7d8d8784baf9b6613497b8eef3918fc9af
6167 F20101211_AABHAC bortree_d_Page_127thm.jpg
f979f380bec0cab6ebbae2c55ef9bf7b
c3eebc17b3e61fa96ee8f4faf49075b629167245
35719 F20101211_AABGUI bortree_d_Page_190.pro
b90330d941d2bdfd119786a677dee1bd
b86851ff2b3644982b85a2a79e272c5fa4b03d90
30155 F20101211_AABGTT bortree_d_Page_145.pro
fae5b9f1b7086364a6c487b4377695c8
455cd5b1e19020ef0065168982f15d652fc09762
7797 F20101211_AABFQR bortree_d_Page_161thm.jpg
2e2321b8230e662474b9b0731de00caf
739f3df887aa0c34da216e9cc97048aa1a7ddfd7
20755 F20101211_AABFRG bortree_d_Page_145.QC.jpg
e99dc72fa19136ae1ad58a377a8aa646
800303bd68fcce6069965fb67ea07b17f0c29a74
5764 F20101211_AABHAD bortree_d_Page_129thm.jpg
f4d07a143518595757d8d8ad44ac66cf
0e9bafbe907cd41e863e2da159290a6685317b85
62428 F20101211_AABGUJ bortree_d_Page_194.pro
919aa12d227714b6902a9c4e44eaf1b7
a374e53b829b8b745cfe64d578cde36950ff55ba
43697 F20101211_AABGTU bortree_d_Page_147.pro
2c68ce10264bdf6404e542c1357100ad
f4534a5011c5976c4c55b0d0ce2f97c598bec4e2
5883 F20101211_AABFQS bortree_d_Page_071thm.jpg
b72db319bf3a1979afad7af001228ab6
b8d26bbf97ebd1051eba36243c13ec9fed98888e
2093 F20101211_AABFRH bortree_d_Page_152.txt
71e4812c2cc2140e90ea17272ca0d27b
f4372a911c3fa8d3fbe1b9f9901edc52b6610c61
6247 F20101211_AABHAE bortree_d_Page_130thm.jpg
ac197f6703f8ae430ce219c0c72886c8
572b8344c48dee74b3ce51f040bf9a492bc41f39
61391 F20101211_AABGUK bortree_d_Page_196.pro
0f84f728bdfb81bf61f76422c11a460e
74dbfe5f1517dad16f15d98552c1577e84e74cf7
53409 F20101211_AABGTV bortree_d_Page_152.pro
8799d87b12abc519401d455e6af56dd1
2b1cd1d3c04a2f4fb855db4a290a6f7b56ea9460
F20101211_AABFQT bortree_d_Page_087.tif
6d28b49fb4c9d37aa3fb836807746414
f8c4e9e74e9262c0061f0af2e06f41d2efae3975
24666 F20101211_AABFRI bortree_d_Page_137.jpg
66a893d312d5063127bb4eaf066fa557
588832da41e87a41148b6311be3de7611a5b9503
14689 F20101211_AABHAF bortree_d_Page_131.QC.jpg
d88771cb800dd032a9a4d52201cbd416
538f9ecfd7131072a0513e9dca18407632c45630
14846 F20101211_AABGUL bortree_d_Page_201.pro
f23386e8035c30e8070445cb18805dc5
de06a534a95b157f2992c952c2ab9abb0cdd090c
51990 F20101211_AABGTW bortree_d_Page_153.pro
a7abc095449e46dc104119f531f3bc86
4a1b798fa76b5811bf54f9a125b1c66e7404b669
473 F20101211_AABFQU bortree_d_Page_119.txt
0380c142a881edc6a2acac46341764bc
75286eddbf972b4f61d990624f6aa065aa9e7102
7551 F20101211_AABFRJ bortree_d_Page_016thm.jpg
5701b609ed0270908a98030fd14bc44f
b7b6e3c5c76902d1a87c0495d48218fb65919b8a
5897 F20101211_AABHAG bortree_d_Page_133thm.jpg
80953c5d113d0c1154cfd539f9b89357
29fab070400162193c53bbfd1b485dffe2885e48
1986 F20101211_AABGVA bortree_d_Page_042.txt
a6233766b2c538bda0d49dbb64cb1184
d6b3b27425dcd4837297afc7fdd48fbf444366c9
98 F20101211_AABGUM bortree_d_Page_003.txt
8113808b19934a80453798da4bd8b02e
e4dc542a56a38429c1e35abf3e24f873530f96a3
51904 F20101211_AABGTX bortree_d_Page_155.pro
8c0961837223ef643c98601710cbef63
19f6c53c96c1e4e411628faa361d11349834d661
33867 F20101211_AABFQV bortree_d_Page_110.QC.jpg
899ff6f1573d5db6f49b72ddc4cd84c7
6234772a401b70b29afd2e66fd13a1db50672496
32371 F20101211_AABFRK bortree_d_Page_151.QC.jpg
168d6037af645ebdf5271d26eb0f277d
2e887a3ec67a2e7b7d8f9ab8e4181c8e8cbba883
3702 F20101211_AABHAH bortree_d_Page_136thm.jpg
100b9af85becc1030945ae01d941df92
82ef3214b10d523e6c7645c7264347abe68c5741
2159 F20101211_AABGVB bortree_d_Page_046.txt
eeacc45ae7f1aa445863654d7bfba99e
287edb0d6e894bbcf6938ae1ea786a8191a9b48c
138 F20101211_AABGUN bortree_d_Page_005.txt
d182b7d9b2d70929f04e27001c05fc6f
1f470fd278eaeff9d6144c387e8f95785150344b
47940 F20101211_AABGTY bortree_d_Page_156.pro
2942863b5226e758b2a0524222927c61
c41ef28e4f4f39bbf56e289c65b722517dfcf0c7
F20101211_AABFQW bortree_d_Page_059.jp2
472158837417bff74eed6204a56f7f58
0cb8f8b1cb270b39c16e3cec86af13617e68dd90
F20101211_AABFRL bortree_d_Page_158.jp2
7d9642095cee35c285452922a7996f71
d0fc33cae5f7955d35382393fc14ec4cb8b6b495
13624 F20101211_AABHAI bortree_d_Page_136.QC.jpg
7105fa7f573bb33528e6dfe782948409
f0955bdc95e3a1a87b40144c39f9bc2ff8b01226
1944 F20101211_AABGVC bortree_d_Page_054.txt
de8100b0bd1f05d098458216f5ddf080
916d39b850bc99d4ebcbe829f864f3a556a982c7
F20101211_AABGUO bortree_d_Page_011.txt
5d645fdc3c0b1d9d11b820d459e1fe66
10a714a8cf41d0fee90a8e180edd6069d2755202
28093 F20101211_AABGTZ bortree_d_Page_169.pro
b475deb3004ea67f06886120b4a19366
f7aa6fea1b2c0b4730a0b822cc7135fda0149323
16937 F20101211_AABFQX bortree_d_Page_070.QC.jpg
30865753cdf5822370827715aa594eef
8ccb55bdc267bb1fee929fc6a96b9535c9b46c45
50863 F20101211_AABFSA bortree_d_Page_160.pro
23a509f86a5e91db59019099ec54cfdf
6967b2c96440fc764a68c90e209e01c17f33f3e9
51408 F20101211_AABFRM bortree_d_Page_065.pro
ed010773f03aa98800c8bc35467e746b
019c4dd02bde118ac3398c2945e9f964d1aa30e0
4808 F20101211_AABHAJ bortree_d_Page_139thm.jpg
08e3aec581cf6fb5a4d33e9511d0a79f
3fe479b9742ea1d63a6f024d0e73c093c1aa2b17
1952 F20101211_AABGVD bortree_d_Page_056.txt
16e0602b7a7fa97462861ada80b5a985
f2ac349d9f082ecffffa6e8eaef64ba080df0106
792 F20101211_AABGUP bortree_d_Page_013.txt
a0c9675369c75f6c011ca66293bba5cc
13b7e85e576ca8660bf9ecce9b8b06a5b00e60b7
52449 F20101211_AABFQY bortree_d_Page_055.pro
8e21a8ae4b1507073fc61aa068d009ac
603a15b14dc7456cef08355177e1f5e94bf8d92a
27787 F20101211_AABFSB bortree_d_Page_024.QC.jpg
b75dd88d526b20c7995e9f2b36107d06
dd7bfba94e5ed1fe146f4d6f61320934d6a4b007
127364 F20101211_AABFRN bortree_d_Page_197.jpg
a01cdf0b93746fbbd7d3545280e3f2fa
01e2949f51f7828a0af477e4b8fcbfb0cc2c770c
4201 F20101211_AABHAK bortree_d_Page_141thm.jpg
98330ce99cdca327d0f2022b3d9d9dda
cd6e322fd979d0ccd572251148fa3265e1fe5a5c
2026 F20101211_AABGVE bortree_d_Page_057.txt
deee9eb74675aae424ff1aeeae7ef816
56e87a690d85b352bd759acad1b81b7954225191
671 F20101211_AABGUQ bortree_d_Page_015.txt
3d2b8a7854a2e1dbfc7d85a61f8b7f5a
756027e075db2c25f54c701d2384cec35884a206
F20101211_AABFQZ bortree_d_Page_078.tif
8cbd4bf9a8bcf47cd0f7aae7f64fc4ee
06d654064cee04138c7e3f43b8d1fe16868c6a50
38496 F20101211_AABFSC bortree_d_Page_137.jp2
6e7cb23eb935a85de180b1128829a439
878c59ef43c5e60e8ea9613dbdd9daaf4ff72537
27275 F20101211_AABFRO bortree_d_Page_180.QC.jpg
c1141cdabdb7733184ca8e513eb58107
ac4a0ea84bc6b5cadf4315e4e89d5dd6431b6789
18870 F20101211_AABHAL bortree_d_Page_144.QC.jpg
f115c0632249369f9ed0bbbb600e9e84
7444e8f8de86fc8ca12f734e670d523b542b1a09
2067 F20101211_AABGVF bortree_d_Page_060.txt
92b3765006c293870a67c6c0d35e93b6
35769245b7712ff7c7ea66fadd443e419facbd9f
1886 F20101211_AABGUR bortree_d_Page_016.txt
2e9695ffd32c0d66dd5cb71ce9130925
061e02d3515a2c0008efa18fbb55215e2e0be709
2620 F20101211_AABFSD bortree_d_Page_199.txt
0bc9b1dcd7505ea7f6bf6912111a97be
36c66cb75f5677969d352ab4a92ad335858c198f
52055 F20101211_AABFRP bortree_d_Page_059.pro
9ac7903d3b180d78916fea10a7eaeb03
73447083f1731370be2885e571f7f9a8325eb628
21770 F20101211_AABHBA bortree_d_Page_171.QC.jpg
6acfd63a4ee1bf44bada1850e3c82244
c3f6530152ad02dd0e60603ca4d4cfe34e78b1fa
5183 F20101211_AABHAM bortree_d_Page_146thm.jpg
a14c1c93b553d6fc62ab0936570c8248
2d2b3d24a6235112e9c2360e195a6a92996a0917
1959 F20101211_AABGVG bortree_d_Page_061.txt
6e0a3cf3312669355179480aee8cb14b
e475acd206077b1e6e2af4ca6bf9e82138566ad4
2129 F20101211_AABGUS bortree_d_Page_022.txt
2da67dfcd0d5c1ff2b75f1870bbb2c8e
26dba40006790004ac9c54190145daeb8dc7646a
34785 F20101211_AABFSE bortree_d_Page_026.QC.jpg
84519a57b4f32f47d5e518ff35cf54d5
8ef879f1d8e6e7fa65428c9b643ba8f4bb6acdc2
1051907 F20101211_AABFRQ bortree_d_Page_166.jp2
1ddd3f161276e9c4a3ba0541e6b5a365
3e56f05b6e6330a58d22c90a1019238ccc1e2468
1864 F20101211_AABHBB bortree_d_Page_172.QC.jpg
66e04a8b7a5e15fac351a447e396b4c9
46b0ca6cc3db14ae9f7fdc687c28fc3ac47ee95f
33297 F20101211_AABHAN bortree_d_Page_149.QC.jpg
adefadd851ea25929e4cca8354324455
88d61d0d65d331b73351b76ae8e9597c33dae871
2199 F20101211_AABGVH bortree_d_Page_062.txt
ab2f6f0cf41c2e3ab7adf14885212936
3dee806b39dc3f57fa5818a12d883ae9307ae7b3
2583 F20101211_AABGUT bortree_d_Page_025.txt
11ab29926e64c444ec5a7bdd0ea86f33
362c2dfd86bfec65fd0ab67aa3309bcf653c33c3
852852 F20101211_AABFSF bortree_d_Page_118.jp2
c266a442e19b4fe7ec8ce56ddcb28874
9394a801c0b78877f5819a21574a30f4a64d0eac
100715 F20101211_AABFRR bortree_d_Page_113.jpg
b757ad23b0183f34cab55fb14ef1ca60
09376193943292f5106f2c5852b9d2b5fbfcbaea
3518 F20101211_AABHBC bortree_d_Page_176thm.jpg
f80f02b37457c0c7ce63163ebef31f01
ed96d2fbc501ecc096af1d9736f4940cfc77b5b3
33856 F20101211_AABHAO bortree_d_Page_150.QC.jpg
51a80ac15e822405749521e947211bb8
a0b1fddfdbc08cca6aef587c7d2c79c6a2ec60d4
2250 F20101211_AABGVI bortree_d_Page_066.txt
8e01183d355bd1981fc3d8e6554d3459
50afe890d15496b8e5df796b220486b41e6fa46c
F20101211_AABFSG bortree_d_Page_200.jp2
b354894274fe53f9412750a783ec530a
de50255ff5875ece8efa5adcbdeb5e143a5c8693
12722 F20101211_AABHBD bortree_d_Page_176.QC.jpg
fa2bffc709f3e32ae9eb85310a1e02e4
d859aaa643a22f6837ce6ded59593fc6fd8c457d
7794 F20101211_AABHAP bortree_d_Page_154thm.jpg
b4863faeae2855b4a60a5c7dc01e9388
eb8ee678f4d97d27980e986bbae79a062eb5aa63
2712 F20101211_AABGVJ bortree_d_Page_069.txt
330f835de40e009598df269f8d3a2704
b8c86ef6368a06e25ca5218153ad2ccf8535b4fb
F20101211_AABGUU bortree_d_Page_026.txt
30b81ec91d462e8bc0eb78afbd205ac1
c1fd16ff1925f20e4410b8ac80471a4d62f21b33
52137 F20101211_AABFSH bortree_d_Page_086.pro
8658bc1ee448475a6b6ae4df819df334
a5e5c4de116c0b2f7c30007fe089aa8a46bc91b8
1269 F20101211_AABFRS bortree_d_Page_145.txt
f0eabe609a885fae88273dbcd8d4ffb9
b0c79e6a684e22b4a4c6741c28ea938351ba572e
10145 F20101211_AABHBE bortree_d_Page_177.QC.jpg
c297412a3e6f53727543b59c05f15014
26ffad1263cf97cf69767d36aad375331b8ed537
F20101211_AABHAQ bortree_d_Page_155thm.jpg
d1cd6ebb85f315f1e219723b51616090
d6b67808e60b5ab5346645669c8e40626fba0267
2372 F20101211_AABGVK bortree_d_Page_071.txt
a6794464128c54b56c4d1bca2b2050eb
3405dc6c520d68788c5ce765a5a399f0c21109c0
F20101211_AABGUV bortree_d_Page_028.txt
4cbb0c75adee4e7439526c658be73c43
49ab41828d753f8f612bbf337051ad7792d40e95
32207 F20101211_AABFSI bortree_d_Page_094.QC.jpg
74f5e0714170b215c38417218d849001
ccfb29de7a743128e45396cfb167bb8522c29a94
8330 F20101211_AABFRT bortree_d_Page_153thm.jpg
534a2f682ff4d035aff68e0a7ac5bdfd
298c3c875d7ca0b52ddfd9ff257256559c5f03dd
3928 F20101211_AABHBF bortree_d_Page_179.QC.jpg
409c697a79f568923e55165e30c6a02c
69119a26767ebe5217b2f08b33d9d7827c633862
31308 F20101211_AABHAR bortree_d_Page_156.QC.jpg
f163e52a4230ab7881ec150b4fa81daf
868cad79aed5ec76bf21ed2a293007eb61c88f35
2098 F20101211_AABGVL bortree_d_Page_076.txt
50938c729db03f242817f6faa783574a
5efa2cb0ad94f3ae4ddb0a945e9956eadd7e0299
2114 F20101211_AABGUW bortree_d_Page_032.txt
faf86114a18e91db5ce76a4d8ffe3e8e
aa6f8199568448efb062a7084d6998c6e3db73b3
10393 F20101211_AABFSJ bortree_d_Page_001.pro
720cc3af2127d25d6bde376255de48be
90a0df3e2830a0fd15c718e3761629f79316591c
F20101211_AABFRU bortree_d_Page_030.tif
07790d7912091da7dc035f2b6d63b997
1f38efff89163ef8ec3dfce6f4a7dffbcc67b6d7
29996 F20101211_AABHBG bortree_d_Page_183.QC.jpg
860c7f0ffd83adbcb146206d29814330
ba29d14059ccf984ce2b80011bde740d0cac5b1f
8549 F20101211_AABHAS bortree_d_Page_158thm.jpg
5af9190dadf208933d70f47873e23811
bb6993f98660eea20e9f4b94a0742e6d13f9ae96
1299 F20101211_AABGWA bortree_d_Page_134.txt
b0d1c0113fa7599dda73a6478b1b4b90
8dd3a595b3832716f1e76f465320b866fb4f7d33
2177 F20101211_AABGVM bortree_d_Page_078.txt
3ed85c72eeac6515285be976f96bbd54
cb617e5dd445d26757dfc447c1c4d7a5e8d67ac0
1842 F20101211_AABGUX bortree_d_Page_037.txt
6a506c403ae48d4e38de3e2201396b34
101640775180580a0bbd50044de8ff14dcda3216
8174 F20101211_AABFSK bortree_d_Page_108thm.jpg
ef77ea0b5747489ec844d7ed8d5e141c
a4932e434eb09f802394478c9472b0164258763f
F20101211_AABFRV bortree_d_Page_140.tif
3ceaaf62abc3ed99e2e8b0e3c25b03a0
9164ded0638bfd209d0ea829cb488aecc8b157cb
6859 F20101211_AABHBH bortree_d_Page_184.QC.jpg
c462ea54dcfe46053625fa1d38ddab86
74813b19c64f1d8e65ea57ecd84b0529d873bbaa
33927 F20101211_AABHAT bortree_d_Page_158.QC.jpg
358866c0b8d261eb0339ce092ce284c5
d1ee2dbc16cbd4f1aa91674e0edbe526ccfb353c
1294 F20101211_AABGWB bortree_d_Page_135.txt
e982c82ea6f5467f3c59739c64c07454
9e87dfac4321083301ea621794286ea57c382593
1892 F20101211_AABGVN bortree_d_Page_083.txt
72ca16a7793007075757cc9bc56413ca
9e9fad78a2c21c9a833e8f85d800d9812b3cde5c
2133 F20101211_AABGUY bortree_d_Page_040.txt
7f2964098cfa188030bacc533420c8ce
7727ed47f1a6fc489ed62481ef69ffdbab6e637b
13789 F20101211_AABFSL bortree_d_Page_187.jpg
21319e6831bb38762b37585b41c604a6
d2fcaf9bb51f0bbeb83419333236745f57a1cc65
1764 F20101211_AABFRW bortree_d_Page_023thm.jpg
0df17b1ff81d4d757a18921f3d0cc546
75344b8224df697ad1f6041418ab22531e2f2507
6904 F20101211_AABHBI bortree_d_Page_186thm.jpg
763d13b1d93f73f9b082c8da7ef035bc
c97db14dc80dc25e3a75d0cdadf2c162409b07de
31745 F20101211_AABHAU bortree_d_Page_161.QC.jpg
aecee42ab231a693d6823919871917d3
29b6b42d8a1ef90b2732e5dd9118cc7c46dee26d
714 F20101211_AABGWC bortree_d_Page_142.txt
22c734a20f2a6dba83310605d72b3a8c
e1ddb8505572e4c18d949b6d78cf5ece2674eddb
2044 F20101211_AABGVO bortree_d_Page_086.txt
7439b2d92412e9d840cecd35e07c592d
36a54a00c79975cb3c560ef8b2181f9304c169ca
1835 F20101211_AABGUZ bortree_d_Page_041.txt
5f7e464d1918dc6662e627c4d6a27c49
af1b968cc047d4dd2d050dc0959147bb893d6100
F20101211_AABFTA bortree_d_Page_200thm.jpg
feef1a28fe71d21d013ed51fee855902
2c6de7bb9273b51885ef3e09155f17147c939c17
108259 F20101211_AABFSM bortree_d_Page_089.jpg
f35b721bef940793fc62d1f3abe57407
143093f97399fcbe068c94476cfd5a589373541c
34312 F20101211_AABFRX bortree_d_Page_099.QC.jpg
cb62ea9942e55dda8fc1789a552ea4f6
ec601fd097d046fa1d33891aaf01d6a22cd57777
6883 F20101211_AABHBJ bortree_d_Page_188thm.jpg
011fed5471df178f31f61f45bec68eef
618309b42d797a2bf72674828acd87ad3b8195d8
7957 F20101211_AABHAV bortree_d_Page_164thm.jpg
fb6b2e02bea6afb2e638df7f2a944695
06df5bd4bd74b2c4b78e80c84ce381d858be182d
2020 F20101211_AABGWD bortree_d_Page_149.txt
c54af1b758597c5c98224a3a89bc3000
2e525b22d667d44e4a241ec7e5dc9fdcc05cda80
1923 F20101211_AABGVP bortree_d_Page_088.txt
3734268978ff8d6e9ce83575fccc3754
0daf9f15a40af4fd12ef1aeb6fb89291f6caf937
F20101211_AABFTB bortree_d_Page_055.jp2
13518111908e540d5a7971f9a9e34a16
9d7e4137fa7e8dd7ad2e7e952e8d61efa967c564
F20101211_AABFSN bortree_d_Page_043.jp2
737ab158d5246f6ce2ca3583e263363f
4b3b73347e53d7047c5d4deb6d5c594835f13ce3
F20101211_AABFRY bortree_d_Page_181.tif
a682793a0a4b0768655f9ec97084481b
fa5c432e42feb59bd38211f8562fcd520a082f91
34450 F20101211_AABHBK bortree_d_Page_189.QC.jpg
7cc0967e860b4bbd063a104b7f08d841
e1358dac515785d0c0bd2bf37f3b55a5b7ca1d02
33129 F20101211_AABHAW bortree_d_Page_164.QC.jpg
a7107c68a00261651190c04de2b452b3
18c04e0de9144f41a5c66691d2806dde6e48b7ad
F20101211_AABGWE bortree_d_Page_150.txt
1e72fec5a08d1d97c5d758e3778a46cb
6637399ac1c19c1f0ccda1062daf812aad30fdf2
1823 F20101211_AABGVQ bortree_d_Page_096.txt
a682ea8cd357eec5f564e69d9668c387
27319dd932db6b60f7d3b3c7d7cea83836a8bfb4
32080 F20101211_AABFTC bortree_d_Page_073.jp2
a441c64fa0478ab906e430664b24ca85
9681553c8fdf7f04ae0401dbbf1cb6a9ca53f7bd
7992 F20101211_AABFSO bortree_d_Page_028thm.jpg
b6091489651aecc9bdd70990e73ed1d6
067647cff840c6fa55334c6a5c97937688d314f9
946273 F20101211_AABFRZ bortree_d_Page_014.jp2
4af9362b010311e22ea4e4565be66fab
489a007548f9f2f2e1946595bf1f7e0f4b603cdf
21218 F20101211_AABHBL bortree_d_Page_190.QC.jpg
47f5f14e57498549f82419b4bd517e62
7e60fd96e98fd90b9225a07b21e696a0b2ef7696
7868 F20101211_AABHAX bortree_d_Page_165thm.jpg
34d4b315b6e76633890db84bba646d04
0c45a701121be30db2bf4b100b9761a16c0a0f48
F20101211_AABGWF bortree_d_Page_154.txt
3b1029ca4c42194af619a0bbb0f9bd25
b830c6c56d35286574f597a7dc998d271a666fb9
F20101211_AABGVR bortree_d_Page_097.txt
26fa301bef048e3c88f217a208c0a929
42bc4fd4cb6879ace76d95a8b585eda4e31d7587
2025 F20101211_AABFTD bortree_d_Page_098.txt
10a3b0dfb24286bf5e347ff7462ccbba
fe8e51626d14c6daecce747b82a7546096dd704c
F20101211_AABFSP bortree_d_Page_005.tif
e740f51f3b63022b785211d610530ab3
68de67373c8a667c6bbed13d448b2a5827d85f0c
29362 F20101211_AABHBM bortree_d_Page_191.QC.jpg
69c3f681ca2875b08090fea6fc9223b6
4b9f690874910bc34c02cb7f525ae120e6ce27a9
18730 F20101211_AABHAY bortree_d_Page_169.QC.jpg
6557309f150465e60e2445029fed0e95
a4f635a5ce1aa5ba5d53d30833ddd9ca68cafeb8
F20101211_AABGWG bortree_d_Page_155.txt
8696ae88f8b0bde8d69b0d3da31af62e
7c381246bc1fb66010ae5194af6f6d89bc7e46fd
F20101211_AABGVS bortree_d_Page_101.txt
cb692a4fe9e100760bbb3f887ad63560
58ebec683edcd8be64db546f69426717b608e9b3
F20101211_AABFTE bortree_d_Page_032.tif
ca1970e84973f11b919d9d1a1389b993
e23de626fd24b53d852985fb810e4509c5f8cb02
5941 F20101211_AABFSQ bortree_d_Page_178thm.jpg
70121feffa3cf0e3f5f89e499049ce2c
2e173feeb7d3407ab552bd3045070913dccd3c11
34799 F20101211_AABHBN bortree_d_Page_192.QC.jpg
de02a5aa416f90ca817e7c11db4a138e
c68a4cfae031849f72882e6ce49c67681661bf31
9458 F20101211_AABHAZ bortree_d_Page_170.QC.jpg
13b8f0b5525d4d264842e99c3d6c8a43
3637ddc27559d749ddf267b13eb423c428b2baff
1902 F20101211_AABGWH bortree_d_Page_157.txt
8efc6acf7cb2e63bfe13ce79151ca92d
a2b1f29c44a2ff8c41596d867c361c8073d70716
2028 F20101211_AABGVT bortree_d_Page_103.txt
44379ec39d4a7dcfb4b802ed72ccfb1c
691778a73dd3be793154a060d6a0b1567840c1a4
18132 F20101211_AABFTF bortree_d_Page_140.QC.jpg
6eeb4d6d42d07a4e2b8cbb344c84fa9f
eaf51807691c339fe2f0cc23d417e7596de1d376
F20101211_AABFSR bortree_d_Page_100.tif
219ae9512a18699ce44dc6190eca5119
b3314d0932edb3e1641dd43d0358a2a24a627ac2
8687 F20101211_AABHBO bortree_d_Page_193thm.jpg
7bd8d24b8579bc144e2484170177e8b1
6e196b7f9ea6cf76bff8a12322363126bff423b7
2081 F20101211_AABGWI bortree_d_Page_159.txt
31444287961dfd180debd6203d411db0
d0ab981e73c7e2ff65ad04d26369764e68aa09fd
1897 F20101211_AABGVU bortree_d_Page_104.txt
0ff2137fdcba24b2eaadd8bf6282e0b8
e6fbc2ccd53a6eedb4b4e32774b9cfde72de5b6c
F20101211_AABFTG bortree_d_Page_057thm.jpg
2d77febbcd52052235619e6e07bc5dda
92aeaf8e777351665c6ee509e9e42604df8013de
F20101211_AABFSS bortree_d_Page_039.jp2
c14e9c1e7c5f68c264a252da44420469
80ad7c174ec32eded52f99af159d07945f296381
35246 F20101211_AABHBP bortree_d_Page_194.QC.jpg
e3e6f5697d85b7e77967c96fd0b31a0a
31bda89f7dc17fe4d69a7aabb14b2d08b4971dbf
2052 F20101211_AABGWJ bortree_d_Page_164.txt
baf4939d54b8b4a85ad77f7bf7a9d889
6a6d5cdd2341a121a047f69a82cdb05ba187dd27
1242 F20101211_AABFTH bortree_d_Page_126.txt
7b2ba5cf59b61907afd8b788237ce723
fad01e41591a995fc4e7ca051d4ce46f08b71364
9285 F20101211_AABHBQ bortree_d_Page_195thm.jpg
a4083d7a9ad1e0a59644f7efb1637c2b
3859e04190158bda7a7aa97793706a5d0782e467
2126 F20101211_AABGWK bortree_d_Page_167.txt
f507524253cd18a14bf531d856c24ed6
2b5a347911a08ccf13b05c5c5859104f8028c257
2037 F20101211_AABGVV bortree_d_Page_110.txt
449dd68bf4b2a9cd26f7a0e4dea903ea
9a70d587e46d3d97246312c16d14469b4af32f71
5026 F20101211_AABFST bortree_d_Page_132thm.jpg
502ecb57914c194afa73b87dcb19e597
260e57dfad391018ce8765de4e7b0ac9d94cda24
46575 F20101211_AABFTI bortree_d_Page_106.pro
2f4354dd9c378e0372ef3c74dc698c84
c03b44bbda5a8e3101c1b447068de1aa6cb32d3a
35724 F20101211_AABHBR bortree_d_Page_197.QC.jpg
cca7dbd929cee4d53ef5dea3e8af0268
026dfbd1a90108b0012c5eb57f066f3f646cee88
154 F20101211_AABGWL bortree_d_Page_170.txt
bdb94152be7d716e9d6f6b0c9935f622
52b4e83f33678963be8d2c758e4537a27c0f9394
2193 F20101211_AABGVW bortree_d_Page_122.txt
6b1466dde870893cbcb5d8759b03aaa7
d37389917f3f137c944067b701727710f215ad94
106886 F20101211_AABFSU bortree_d_Page_086.jpg
11d7d3f92cfa8c87991f64da15cd3202
7f1f8ebf0f7940402744440feb08d3cc944e7913
22705 F20101211_AABFTJ bortree_d_Page_125.QC.jpg
66bc78343ea29b334a427f17ab65567e
30902b55e4463808560fa6247a021abc4d047a6b
8789 F20101211_AABHBS bortree_d_Page_198thm.jpg
cf8aec8ae4507a7baeaaf9cac26d832b
0f64ed435075b19baae5b90c3734ae9f64757b3c
9943 F20101211_AABGXA bortree_d_Page_001.QC.jpg
c0edede1e4733f20d9abc8c929c6b4e6
9866bf614fd59b20050fcd519c95a151300440ba
1335 F20101211_AABGWM bortree_d_Page_171.txt
ddc9858db86f36514ccf170778891a34
e9a1afd3f61664328d079ebb25282e13aae5452a
1123 F20101211_AABGVX bortree_d_Page_123.txt
e96a4d90a3abb68676be259a99adb4e4
6f762c4cd83ef910df30efdaa7ecfaab81725082
69240 F20101211_AABFSV bortree_d_Page_145.jpg
278b8963218d369e476719636f5ad4ef
ffec17316b397dbeeaa2be876dbccd7d60119098
48510 F20101211_AABFTK bortree_d_Page_101.pro
b6c3cebd03f5043dd540291f0e8b80cc
3aa6c31922d12462d37133ddb30988f3d102ffab
9324 F20101211_AABHBT bortree_d_Page_199thm.jpg
d8049818ea38b1c10ee837411ac6925e
4e36793f90af22420dda23bef147ee0819aa4732
517 F20101211_AABGXB bortree_d_Page_002thm.jpg
27c8126e7dab29b7746a19708dc37c44
34f677663dcce6312c432b495dcb0ac45f4966f2
871 F20101211_AABGWN bortree_d_Page_174.txt
9567f4befb1d32400afa97ac07be9230
355a00caf9e96d06d1d69b5743b51ce1518fc473
1304 F20101211_AABGVY bortree_d_Page_124.txt
8651336b1913c3c505d3385c2ae0b357
cc653f34ac701441fd31add34dc677c05a56b0a3
F20101211_AABFSW bortree_d_Page_160.jp2
4f3b51b4afe036c7e7ae07f6675ce7ea
74848c5f3563644e6c34e78fee26f787f301f0bb
2059 F20101211_AABFTL bortree_d_Page_050.txt
c5e2d466017128c171cba18a7710fe74
32413497b5be78a5d177b08f082e1ee4f79e958c
27388 F20101211_AABHBU bortree_d_Page_200.QC.jpg
5464bcd7522393c73fffd0f6652dcff8
9881b01650aea26c01e74f4c412a437dbe1fdd40
F20101211_AABGXC bortree_d_Page_003thm.jpg
66fa4dc503702d0348bb9ea68c3dd4df
b9a3b5e8872fa1a2c4aef1654ff97f11c1d6dcc1
F20101211_AABGWO bortree_d_Page_175.txt
447f79b884aeeb1b41a9bfb982988b5f
9882ded52d1d1333543ade8561532f967eac8448
1365 F20101211_AABGVZ bortree_d_Page_125.txt
7a0e085c2b9410d05307fa31b8e73a8b
f9fb88671fda398903951de8581ce4b714d0023c
8883 F20101211_AABFSX bortree_d_Page_137.QC.jpg
304261966261718aab652d8f9304e9eb
fa8acf2d61ab65d5d225b793b2b8a09d88a1ca12
F20101211_AABFUA bortree_d_Page_170.tif
1a5294e22d2fa8d172760e8f8bf62676
7aa0b46eccc5022e99edbc5998c660837b24aba3
51470 F20101211_AABFTM bortree_d_Page_079.pro
d9752c85297bf4d392312bc676e08122
a98206f5f996243f9d1ea68f2028a730319639b5
232470 F20101211_AABHBV UFE0021340_00001.mets
dd5984a7c4f0f1fb23ee6878992ccbc1
1181cdd7b0fae3ad1653ecb896d09633fe95c780
5638 F20101211_AABGXD bortree_d_Page_006thm.jpg
b56b3b8c1c86a78b76b69d1f28187b87
2d771c98e830f35f841dd9b2d0244bcf5d88b102
688 F20101211_AABGWP bortree_d_Page_176.txt
fccac43dafc48e434c0f9b5368484aa7
3f1ab0ab7b72c332f850871e24f5a1ed6f6e3e4f
8444 F20101211_AABFSY bortree_d_Page_166thm.jpg
e75ad6db9d508d3191bbff69f33be5e4
a7db386ddd6e7aded6b6efed9baf5a7b0288f369
5266 F20101211_AABFUB bortree_d_Page_140thm.jpg
bcd2dc15741ec3942c7e9239be882e88
bbcb3d2a51733b2d5829954b0ec44fa3ccf83bcf
49962 F20101211_AABFTN bortree_d_Page_018.pro
0622c8dcf3a2f7554cf516d03541fc3c
df7da31292f672f9da21025986cd8becbbc5dd3b
28330 F20101211_AABGXE bortree_d_Page_007.QC.jpg
dbeee88680671f6baceead9c45c1cef2
b9f675d516abea6fa098d6ec8c78611cfc2f2476
653 F20101211_AABGWQ bortree_d_Page_177.txt
38a383c7e020990fe962cb6618ff4524
a3506ca3a04d4e48a570475729909611929c3365
31283 F20101211_AABFSZ bortree_d_Page_011.QC.jpg
0db132a19ffda00e0e6925431a198f97
57cecd15733aaa048703bc21e0efc12bfa0dab23
2034 F20101211_AABFUC bortree_d_Page_115.txt
429f8283c1f0c2637f2fe89533abad66
3242352e10a1502497704401552aa9789f46b89b
F20101211_AABFTO bortree_d_Page_190.tif
7e618c74fc2a3e2677c1aca26b12060a
1240b6aab53113d5ddf707326f34f1052170d170
3312 F20101211_AABGXF bortree_d_Page_008thm.jpg
04ae65c8c11d71e9e22309fe445a9e35
a2ef17c0cfcf4d276da38772daaa385d6e6ba1ce
1625 F20101211_AABGWR bortree_d_Page_181.txt
c46fb8e5644a3e0a1fa917fbd689c5c4
8f40adf401a720dd21f6137e5885e9e00c416509
2337 F20101211_AABFUD bortree_d_Page_120.txt
762407c7b9c48d34ae63a51d6e4aad61
1fe523aaecc632fdd4d32f2dd8218c827760de86
107765 F20101211_AABFTP bortree_d_Page_040.jpg
f57c753ea7ad09dbb23883a8b02f7d43
4246d73a212322f2c5d7d9a394fe16597370603c
13563 F20101211_AABGXG bortree_d_Page_008.QC.jpg
67dd515a574441ccf4481d1b0e370d7e
9fdffba358475ca085f1cc09eb1a1059bffda0f6
1934 F20101211_AABGWS bortree_d_Page_183.txt
045b020b627fe75c1f76e402821ca296
90816e2cbf7680007e505a14e3c51fd846f45bb7
54128 F20101211_AABFUE bortree_d_Page_148.pro
6efe4b317d82d4331be3a956a58fb4bd
3be6a56908d59b41b7abd92a6427918fb89032fa
47645 F20101211_AABFTQ bortree_d_Page_097.pro
117bad28a0decbef8144602e24cef3ec
3de8451136f94d5db03420da558aeb1c624f9d15
9205 F20101211_AABGXH bortree_d_Page_010thm.jpg
e4a30b20beab99e73e86c958d2cca736
7b353acb8d09653161a2338877a6a849e6769783
1407 F20101211_AABGWT bortree_d_Page_185.txt
6e23f2a4de571693a8d7d68f076084b9
89dccabced11ce4b8728187ffa00104ceae6fbc7
1997 F20101211_AABFUF bortree_d_Page_188.txt
b7c9cadb3b1d968aa96bb68e249af222
7344e7711a4111ea53f31ed7a632797f1913711a
45377 F20101211_AABFTR bortree_d_Page_136.jpg
7c082326fa623c9caef93ceab8ebbd62
d9169313c6ef2100fc7fe6735367610ff3f8141c
39943 F20101211_AABGXI bortree_d_Page_010.QC.jpg
07dc4f1b007e3d399d879dbb55770e70
b0a8a1dc72e5ea8d0053fb4575f95151dd18810d
2163 F20101211_AABGWU bortree_d_Page_191.txt
2f42541e0ac1bec1a9e9dbdea09e89a0
f455e1547a37ac047c5b71bdf4f2ff16a1111386
7754 F20101211_AABGAA bortree_d_Page_109thm.jpg
6fc007b176b78b6d15183e7b199a8784
ae4f29e16ac819248889133bd5315cb9fb6e0f17
125777 F20101211_AABFUG bortree_d_Page_194.jpg
75bbdd738dfb972144a1485387567def
14412cb6332fd96bd333558e98148a564b250092
25751 F20101211_AABFTS bortree_d_Page_068.QC.jpg
b6264c0780a49875ae183a97ac1d2c53
76fa68cbe1b61686a5f45b2cb250586ff8c4b87a
7510 F20101211_AABGXJ bortree_d_Page_011thm.jpg
f4f83d6906a80dd41ed54812a92de70a
500f7bf2b8c5fe965a68a40cd38f1df1fa0fee9b
2530 F20101211_AABGWV bortree_d_Page_194.txt
74144577ae1169d9d85a022de704194a
981400848d2b246899f4e52afe56260b408fcc9e
77843 F20101211_AABGAB bortree_d_Page_088.jpg
d201a3b4aaf91db3d2a976f7245a46d0
80cd8de9933b57af07275a69ec50fb258d5acb8c
F20101211_AABFUH bortree_d_Page_058.tif
a3d6f42bbb7f67be8061589402bf1e43
ef9345d91fffbc33da4b3eefe3c96397e6352b03
F20101211_AABFTT bortree_d_Page_004.tif
9eeb029d0d4318085d9a788bc7d9546e
6f75269392185b98b35cf5637e15024e4d85ef24
7439 F20101211_AABGXK bortree_d_Page_012thm.jpg
9c4bfc0015bd2574c5e91b61aa5bab9f
35dde28dba57fab5cf944d90e84201fef65f7a1c
8640 F20101211_AABGAC bortree_d_Page_194thm.jpg
d400d760b350415d98baee623d2c4272
364369135bb993eb9450e6cd6eb83cf30fe4b4f3
51562 F20101211_AABFUI bortree_d_Page_115.pro
13f2db7916ef73d727a895eb3f5c1b7d
69ad81b16b06b2fef591425c211d1b93e127028b
3411 F20101211_AABGXL bortree_d_Page_013thm.jpg
b0f4ec2196a206b7d3aca2810f4a03d0
26e6e610827e80e92e801cb2de4f526693c82bfe
2723 F20101211_AABGWW bortree_d_Page_195.txt
ca13136cbf29a5404510091314ba140e
b24dc39e68d21c8a605854e6cdbaf58b4fe4d005
F20101211_AABGAD bortree_d_Page_104.jp2
993c097f5028c57cd61684456b2dcf27
d0d179d1929f73ed8e4e4ae9c1a6fe403052a226
18010 F20101211_AABFUJ bortree_d_Page_146.QC.jpg
5c50cecbd6cdb56df11f203f29d2f078
caa1a45995f666142ae6312f5b143dab1ae00eb4
1246 F20101211_AABFTU bortree_d_Page_121.txt
9c0fc0cfd4d311b7adce6919b4b82ac1
33c23a4ad4744598141c081e3ffb7890e65bc889
8144 F20101211_AABGYA bortree_d_Page_036thm.jpg
a0f497f0bbe3179ab0a457edab2b2688
4f21d348ba43492e1a88fec2ccd6239b7213d20b
12942 F20101211_AABGXM bortree_d_Page_013.QC.jpg
76e44cda76164ba0d9608d6012333930
6632899b85e16c8e166c680ffd4c55f178d221f9
2577 F20101211_AABGWX bortree_d_Page_197.txt
b40dc9e12fc8e20e13fe7776c35c90f4
f9302066d3040882e905950f3ba49b421f68152b
98708 F20101211_AABGAE bortree_d_Page_182.jpg
0e85b31d2ba95a5c0e6fa293ac41a32f
bd802c8e6940900b72d2e34497c0cd669565f891
71014 F20101211_AABFUK bortree_d_Page_124.jpg
1d9575d30f26dd5eb0b05529dd274e33
4a90db070b6d9cd46bf4c6564c39da510125c62f
F20101211_AABFTV bortree_d_Page_050.tif
64b88bcf18a4588420a9f165686f0bd8
f08a8930d007482662ddc1b93a95fb6621ad7762
7423 F20101211_AABGYB bortree_d_Page_037thm.jpg
0e4cbdad751d0bb4ad8437f0cc89eaf9
2c9b0154483ec2f7d7974d004391edd36356c7b6
3142 F20101211_AABGXN bortree_d_Page_015thm.jpg
3a53f8ff15f169a16f0d764c13af6d16
f7d36f10653a56c420c88df7a2c14d41bad6f47d
1965 F20101211_AABGWY bortree_d_Page_200.txt
9fe4424d460359f4a0bda89d605b3edc
b1ad9a8d090e58e7366f290ed12b76519341cf1c
538 F20101211_AABFUL bortree_d_Page_001.txt
bc2c6f78318f1681762e2880bd845c17
4c0c0a9c4ecf75ef74bd52c4cc376f93b8c1d5a5
32451 F20101211_AABFTW bortree_d_Page_168.QC.jpg
4f25f988b2a1adcb028b30302a9ca13e
f3988775b511ea234fa361ecf1bd9842d1d217b2
107041 F20101211_AABGAF bortree_d_Page_085.jpg
527c30018b316a00114a082a3a729171
af141597dcd6e14c41c7d57e9a49e76cb71eb4d4
8365 F20101211_AABGYC bortree_d_Page_039thm.jpg
10cad1ae6944f14b5242d454f070982d
ac70f0d1230826e84a1ea89299f8efd588b66284
8043 F20101211_AABGXO bortree_d_Page_018thm.jpg
7594d01b7f1861256eaf95d49c786e5e
32b6082c6988e8b08c19a6f7b148c19d080a0b8b
640 F20101211_AABGWZ bortree_d_Page_201.txt
e1c84ad6e97105218f3eb3bdf9c4b7ee
c4fb57a077cbfd62a9491ee4be751be1abebc482
8138 F20101211_AABFVA bortree_d_Page_056thm.jpg
d38c025beff2ee6918bc0b8a26045d7a
d319f91ad7a5de161035fd45fd26356b29fd35ab
58229 F20101211_AABFUM bortree_d_Page_144.jpg
56b931f4a9685c23f052d115d1802659
8b1e358498eb8eeb36354069d591759d13fb7964
1085 F20101211_AABFTX bortree_d_Page_138.txt
aaa58f5dab862b9711163b72c734b94b
9006fc72d3884b799eaf3aa826953e2834a851b1
104486 F20101211_AABGAG bortree_d_Page_009.jpg
ef7d5530262e4acf26d18656b62c6ef2
c788a4e7912df2e6fe84ce8af2421d65e742f2e1
33484 F20101211_AABGYD bortree_d_Page_039.QC.jpg
d921fe4a8731c3731e49423f669ddad8
9321aad81c489e56499aab89eece62c7b423232f
7937 F20101211_AABGXP bortree_d_Page_020thm.jpg
676f4bf4a1a4bad47e45fb565f2896f2
039e58841290a42821b21b671953e087db1dfabc
7223 F20101211_AABFVB bortree_d_Page_120thm.jpg
5c4cb09b9b056902d45ca418b4120619
a450689e3f1bb00062d343416b6f176d5a74aca7
573954 F20101211_AABFUN bortree_d.pdf
d5cb22b8ce3c2bd05de5131a0f3118fe
652deb0e103c071920da56df02577f57f4e9b737
102738 F20101211_AABFTY bortree_d_Page_095.jpg
5bcda211ce19f26fdd19a84a21e771ad
1e3b2a86c225979f719b4919cd79cfacd84ab5d9
93837 F20101211_AABGAH bortree_d_Page_083.jpg
33a562f3ecc5a8a1fefdc0468ba35fae
1b0f3ad576e45807186b7a5e845da6af85a44cf0
32882 F20101211_AABGYE bortree_d_Page_044.QC.jpg
87865c8177dc38a864ce40ac4cb4b9c3
ab8d6205a1af5c43d366efd8c238a93474b55fc3
31194 F20101211_AABGXQ bortree_d_Page_020.QC.jpg
b092476573ad195865f156eac9e140ba
b3a681182ff938cd0894d72bb3f90a2ae346ed32
8253 F20101211_AABFVC bortree_d_Page_162thm.jpg
519383922b712d6de951ca93a9e84aa4
a77a5ac7e5839b2dbaeb46adc747f8b3a20568b9
6134 F20101211_AABFUO bortree_d_Page_145thm.jpg
602fa03279545d9f73ae9d08b5be7fe3
620dac6e768eea660d55198d79a99c7a2c492453
49405 F20101211_AABFTZ bortree_d_Page_056.pro
17449812f9fdf2689c0ae9d2cf0479a4
416acb801f888f48e6207d1f8715a78301f6e337
F20101211_AABGAI bortree_d_Page_191.tif
c23b567acb521acc6bf91b94b9715772
f23c7be82ab75eda29a8ac97b8d8bcad35013517
33399 F20101211_AABGYF bortree_d_Page_045.QC.jpg
475c6c9c87f036a0d3a6d67275ac7c9e
fd925050560fa7dc94cd18f91bbe3b37241f1628
F20101211_AABGXR bortree_d_Page_021thm.jpg
7153d72fa06cdacfa3568dbf807ffc38
f361ae2aee793e93b50e87868ffaf71e5cb5d6e9
F20101211_AABFVD bortree_d_Page_003.tif
d2c5db504ab2ccea329b24d059a346f7
3dca2cb8c9e5e9592f18044245c0e7907b2125c7
F20101211_AABFUP bortree_d_Page_150.tif
28dcbdf1cf432e258fadc2cc411fe461
9fa39fbbd95fb9452ace2a4a9fcf296300b60606
82509 F20101211_AABGAJ bortree_d_Page_130.jp2
9c3642eb6703d87a330eff6a69767872
446abdc0f03cd237412405b56d29a69a53ac05a6
8285 F20101211_AABGYG bortree_d_Page_048thm.jpg
cd44f2b210408989ede9c9672d25ce4a
ca0db621c902e71f81a86ab04c6805672a4821dc
34934 F20101211_AABGXS bortree_d_Page_022.QC.jpg
13733ce91c571622c110bd308f78327a
c699096d9b56d13b622d928b4007a3e2ac94fcdf
1459 F20101211_AABFVE bortree_d_Page_186.txt
cfed130fc2776018e927c28b7a837258
5919918e669513589f3713b53aa067f91455a6f9
87524 F20101211_AABFUQ bortree_d_Page_004.jpg
1a4ff0d310838812df3dfca6e81134db
b86f1ae57919cecbbf237e91096dd04e965b21d0
F20101211_AABGAK bortree_d_Page_030.txt
ec50f00af87faf9fb8d03580855b09f4
c3b28b34bb696bc0fb8dca08178bf1882deda039
8317 F20101211_AABGYH bortree_d_Page_050thm.jpg
606d545041d7aef420471d11b44ab799
e4cd26b54f6e06fe7d1ef9389b658e8082735b5e
7682 F20101211_AABGXT bortree_d_Page_025thm.jpg
7bebae25711f4bf09e917efa0631311c
88d45ffdef96e64c29523a4fb71ffe7ec943e0aa
1050557 F20101211_AABFVF bortree_d_Page_157.jp2
78dbb15f915100cd9dff57aa9aa7b6c2
ee1ede0c28d90cf3a446975c71de86ff5833a1cb
103169 F20101211_AABFUR bortree_d_Page_048.jpg
77acebeadfc4b57298578f47063580dc
c7c511ab99f4cd06f07e31b9f8424dcf4ef23444
103552 F20101211_AABGBA bortree_d_Page_036.jpg
0b53dcae85e9c34de28630c6cb0348c5
462cc59d0de128ac227ce2f9da2d403e78a99ab1
31466 F20101211_AABGAL bortree_d_Page_104.QC.jpg
d19b75638616fff881dcf6afb814b735
1337e24e078f67b54302e382df7a6b2d188f34a3
29689 F20101211_AABGYI bortree_d_Page_051.QC.jpg
7acd1b7a99ff1594a951f9d1359039aa
e8f03cf62de799517a5dd039af264bd503a1e773
32144 F20101211_AABGXU bortree_d_Page_028.QC.jpg
1b4a65e651787e9abbdc814687330ec3
3501a6f54b58d1543c79ce4695b10c449be2d5c7
75096 F20101211_AABFVG bortree_d_Page_124.jp2
b46a324e80aebfff346f432b1e28f389
c3d112721e473a33a4b15fd38a6836c2e23c911c
7781 F20101211_AABFUS bortree_d_Page_183thm.jpg
66d157cbc40480470590d48821e862f9
60261d310f12a01374a85c4ff4591b42ea66ebf7
72665 F20101211_AABGAM bortree_d_Page_134.jpg
4e3c398f2e37f9821570138078083c33
594c876a07552f8f5f18309f2f7021b7f444c1a6
34606 F20101211_AABGYJ bortree_d_Page_055.QC.jpg
595aff06689c7a337fc3daa150d29289
4b94c2b4dd9e0429836f8bd5c864c6a9fd66e6c6
F20101211_AABGXV bortree_d_Page_029thm.jpg
e2be57458d9c40d3cb02d733ed0ffc1d
f8304d42f1fe85e4d27046d6de3902cea2ded7c9
F20101211_AABFVH bortree_d_Page_103.jp2
be9f81503ffbbea6c3ee7e00c2719432
823bf89fafd9831ba0080cc4968b8001f72e4327
F20101211_AABFUT bortree_d_Page_151.txt
793c3583442fe0d8bad6f06793d7ee4b
461b4230607d581a5b4e219f9f4e427d2db7f31d
7948 F20101211_AABGBB bortree_d_Page_151thm.jpg
5410f3ca6b52738b5a5d2101ca48d639
177eebea448482a9b96fcd09227b200683d5a165
25793 F20101211_AABGAN bortree_d_Page_144.pro
2a9a2244519cafc66f09406a303ce8f6
d33df49b0aba9dee517bb67af330163e227da13e
32686 F20101211_AABGYK bortree_d_Page_056.QC.jpg
e392ecc864241f0a7425a4a42cff875c
8b769a144ffafeafbe7769e56fff3c4abdbd0461
35568 F20101211_AABGXW bortree_d_Page_029.QC.jpg
6b6ce4e1a6dce83236d16ab6bb162694
70f516d5b93744968cecee0ee76e3903de895cd1
1344 F20101211_AABFVI bortree_d_Page_127.txt
88dcd624841adacb3be1574c6c419af7
df7789afcc14a47708f4bbdc27a72c7937726041
2004 F20101211_AABFUU bortree_d_Page_035.txt
560faabe57de8a4a76b42b62b0136c69
28e4a6fa5d8d4ab24fba3b9d3f2cb490f9f81c9b
3665 F20101211_AABGBC bortree_d_Page_073thm.jpg
a8d1d84cd8bacd320a6537fe938dd259
99c069a2c28438878121f388bd535fb893e4c052
31238 F20101211_AABGAO bortree_d_Page_117.QC.jpg
331e8541a63eae13484e798d7d731067
4f754d5505217ce9b55800c40d0adf6bc0c83f89
8579 F20101211_AABGYL bortree_d_Page_060thm.jpg
6eb5adc0cb13783210ba196a8ab76d12
521ca53620b0088df12f2eaf0949b9df7150a8b3
8207 F20101211_AABFVJ bortree_d_Page_062thm.jpg
323bec12e81e1deafd429c82d3a8f3bb
fde1b0b729ecda48a26a958941f2969e28e36fb9
5507 F20101211_AABGBD bortree_d_Page_138thm.jpg
067d270a2caedda8fe555503cdfc7dd2
deb413eb437243595ee0d61d518dd04834c51237
12623 F20101211_AABGAP bortree_d_Page_131.pro
dd539f060ce3aa8a977c01483c8e2b3c
79310d8a02befd9d3cc62353de8e7b398056cfdf
34513 F20101211_AABGZA bortree_d_Page_085.QC.jpg
1f458b641e6ffa6ed8d97d3d82d990c9
d857efd6051d5ea3f821fb4c48d52a186b607244
5277 F20101211_AABGYM bortree_d_Page_067thm.jpg
9ea3652b4ed22e8e1e252fb8bbd71927
7b67e4600bc3f9a93c2d8468469de97f2c3d0ce5
8413 F20101211_AABGXX bortree_d_Page_033thm.jpg
ceb2f9c1b6168038c0226dc0da4e8ebe
181bf4f7cff1d7e57b8adb5937ab12e6fb97a0e7
89936 F20101211_AABFVK bortree_d_Page_122.jpg
f61aec0fdb22eb2dd094ac3c79a353d3
6bac5c01a014959d033704f898e8f94138becd38
1051919 F20101211_AABFUV bortree_d_Page_077.jp2
056df2ed2b44f4a23cdc7fa3706b66b0
4a81ccc44c38a45c99025442f71cbae423abd2a6
F20101211_AABGBE bortree_d_Page_037.tif
eae1bf5e804142c1c74e52a94637d9be
32b70ca8d4065df8c0552df876e817f7054ec5b8
77381 F20101211_AABGAQ bortree_d_Page_125.jp2
77a592b1d8c15eb4c6268e87512a81c7
f06d0f703eb6968208aa054812ec581e6225b69e
8552 F20101211_AABGZB bortree_d_Page_086thm.jpg
94b9f518e34c7cd9b1bf81ef77ec5a31
13fc01048b4ff802723673a193f6d73f1f3a3989
21478 F20101211_AABGYN bortree_d_Page_067.QC.jpg
caa762124b586e32bf6b61ff8b6dc493
1d252feab9c77b1df8c52d76a816043900999cfc
F20101211_AABGXY bortree_d_Page_033.QC.jpg
4069d248f10ab84dc47a072c8a3e804a
093d80f3d28294ad0e32cea8f2517b9a59b0a4d4
78303 F20101211_AABFVL bortree_d_Page_127.jp2
096abcb815c1925b1a6d4f940569724b
ebaa547a8c1fc6002d23f56035545af2039254d8
1051935 F20101211_AABFUW bortree_d_Page_113.jp2
fba005a4560385581d39d66ade47b784
895e803a0a8712177019fbd0092b6ba904d6b97b
F20101211_AABGBF bortree_d_Page_189.tif
3c4476dfa995b6dec67c4e3ca2ea5ab6
413c23a9069ebd09c03d9904c961a3a7700e9f1c
F20101211_AABGAR bortree_d_Page_047.jp2
5be24fab698539b7bbfacc3bf906c733
035155c335ca85b29b4fac07da671f814dcbdc54
1970 F20101211_AABGZC bortree_d_Page_087.QC.jpg
6609cce36d10b5a2bb0ac75a15da5052
bc8a8f053eb8c5a6f8dc91ce635ea03a9ee93b20
6255 F20101211_AABGYO bortree_d_Page_068thm.jpg
605c683b40008c75ea0b8d89e39acec3
5819a1f4d3500693ba7e8db5aceb8eb846929872
34668 F20101211_AABGXZ bortree_d_Page_034.QC.jpg
07e994faae13f32a31c3e9c0643c23e6
e961ee98ab7726900988f0d6f8d9c5a381ad3cfe
213 F20101211_AABFVM bortree_d_Page_187.txt
ddc225c6feb53790321454c246f92b43
39e51dfeb19e2f2f1480f589c0b4f09a92082ee1
47918 F20101211_AABFUX bortree_d_Page_200.pro
3fe47d4c93e981e1be0d89121da966cd
0b74888ba994557f35c007f2cbd9ea0aece08f23
51694 F20101211_AABGBG bortree_d_Page_093.pro
7c53c08059c8d4ebe50b3eb085beefeb
1037181bc9480e88b57eb213a64b227ffd271ab6
30766 F20101211_AABFWA bortree_d_Page_016.QC.jpg
a0a1767483fd33cdab3571329e82c068
13ac8648810d422b0882a93b80bd7ca392510874
52943 F20101211_AABGAS bortree_d_Page_191.pro
8287cdeb139f6bf9072a2643abd5a723
82d4d9efe5a9bdc1772311fb99fe70fc52b9dbc8
30317 F20101211_AABGZD bortree_d_Page_090.QC.jpg
f090d61f64148f4ba56d53f81e44a638
899773ec0793eb5e7a2e7d268a71623f890e8562
6230 F20101211_AABGYP bortree_d_Page_069thm.jpg
64a15e6829e4c0d79d55815a90f4bc0f
f9d2ab872f0b6c921f223a695a84d49859a56990
F20101211_AABFVN bortree_d_Page_147.tif
a797459aa6ff4bc280357b9305b2ab3a
697d5c9f8fe65482ac749aa5dcff814a800e5b20
49018 F20101211_AABFUY bortree_d_Page_111.pro
ec35d26085236a0c90c31aa6e4d32676
1a8f02a085949f3bc0424447c059516a1b728a22
69282 F20101211_AABGBH bortree_d_Page_089.pro
96523406b0d0c32e714aa0ca6224d6a5
7de277d354568608d0f1e5ce224af77a66a46f96
F20101211_AABFWB bortree_d_Page_160.tif
cfe000b337f1837c6b2161e7871bdb11
c305be4ca960dc9ca81fc21054d20759a2d02bad
7070 F20101211_AABGAT bortree_d_Page_147thm.jpg
33ec9a1dd800722f9c31bce4bbb8e966
afe28b5e9fbecb845560e32ac34df05603ec0084
27479 F20101211_AABGZE bortree_d_Page_091.QC.jpg
4341e76a0094fc0857a64fd9c71c524d
df2b7c89022fd9081f7ffd8af69d72cc798ac1be
23122 F20101211_AABGYQ bortree_d_Page_069.QC.jpg
fe684b1b09127c6be354db8c588c0e34
c443c8e944ecaa5b67f5b1661da9de88527b4a4f
105412 F20101211_AABFVO bortree_d_Page_158.jpg
8faf7005f8200495f698bc19b6ff1326
495d19eea81c52067d521520b7483e5044b5b630
126233 F20101211_AABFUZ bortree_d_Page_192.jpg
ad86bc8c41b7357694a9997fd2f41eea
2daa31f0fa510bea190a3f892a755b06f13e82ee
25792 F20101211_AABGBI bortree_d_Page_186.QC.jpg
ad9fdd1fd6fa534b04e16f9e8f5c3b13
14c137246a82a55b746601ec9e87448cf2566160
1979 F20101211_AABFWC bortree_d_Page_114.txt
f5773efbb7459b3006e7164220800484
bc52be48e632f344fa66657f706748f979aec336
32255 F20101211_AABGAU bortree_d_Page_061.QC.jpg
05e9b877f14679da8c230bfc458c7dbb
6cc476f8b8d4a13113450c46cb985c68686000fb
33869 F20101211_AABGZF bortree_d_Page_093.QC.jpg
8b2a5cfa5181a0676ad776bbf6da16e1
525ad97cb38972de36ec86b6b1e4732c5a63d7e2
22539 F20101211_AABGYR bortree_d_Page_071.QC.jpg
f37485946205de372ad797b6f83b9fb5
30bbdf273098f56c00f919ec1ef5341a4fbf05c5
2051 F20101211_AABFVP bortree_d_Page_045.txt
1f72de809a7069c57a8c190cda6aaf9b
4b70bb15772de4e84c3c173420a0d955117cf9c5
24840 F20101211_AABGBJ bortree_d_Page_143.pro
2cd95a1d99f9564e4100f8d7b274455a
d68d4cc98391dfc191a168607bb76d8b0a549b1b
6419 F20101211_AABFWD bortree_d_Page_122thm.jpg
0f5d5aed03f3ebd35ff0026dc18f3062
ecad1a7ee5a52487714a9e4e0e59cafb78fc0395
F20101211_AABGAV bortree_d_Page_102.tif
e89812b82bd64fa2773736e197d4f0fd
cf082987906c482f402a3765891e31da7950761a
8286 F20101211_AABGZG bortree_d_Page_095thm.jpg
758424b22d844cf9e5f191122da94e3c
b02b855a3fb2433563578aff02016c97786a0756
6409 F20101211_AABGYS bortree_d_Page_075thm.jpg
ffb537d1f94c4223f2b21bbdd6aa4fb7
139dda9e50f8a80bdb7eacc8aed0afc9ddece1b5
96902 F20101211_AABFVQ bortree_d_Page_101.jpg
75630e3af2b380dae266e39105eef7be
416b6c31f29646c2fe9f50faaa4d517c98991422
8181 F20101211_AABGBK bortree_d_Page_167thm.jpg
a28c4e76b4f3fda2c4002a9f53b445c0
2a9009466ae2b78c91b918d93a7bb90bb11106ec
1926 F20101211_AABFWE bortree_d_Page_051.txt
439af041a48fd0a5d6196661ae62f298
d7010e1f830ef8c438c71400f57d304f4e36400d
2046 F20101211_AABGAW bortree_d_Page_034.txt
34fe03b7eda679527e6461345474621b
f021137b0839d0abd163353e706db74404a6ac63
30898 F20101211_AABGZH bortree_d_Page_097.QC.jpg
8e2cd0aacbfce7bc9634524ad5dc23d4
2da754061dce4719b94e95cf7e43345301d25f26
25886 F20101211_AABGYT bortree_d_Page_075.QC.jpg
8a16eed99779fd821a91a00fa0a5601f
aed87a1842cbbd6ebc496a350fba3f67f2e60648
34062 F20101211_AABFVR bortree_d_Page_196.QC.jpg
cbf455c4bb7ac5033f6ba8a9b55215d8
e3ee830d790887ca58f4a29d51f2699b2a8d4254
6546 F20101211_AABGCA bortree_d_Page_172.jpg
03f2a39c197f9ad87efea8c7a360a54a
6ee6f883be181e454c614d79b0f27f94e50d2d7e
F20101211_AABGBL bortree_d_Page_103.tif
fbf32c824820a8c8e1f4afa202dbfe1c
7b8d0558c8220f41fea15ffd2b98b7c75d6d0533
6822 F20101211_AABFWF bortree_d_Page_180thm.jpg
127327230867a383965fa27b140b006c
6b889e90b0fb0e7c26d35bb6e86c3695ee7418fa
100736 F20101211_AABGAX bortree_d_Page_028.jpg
baedfcb4537f24448f6f5547d3947491
351798753f09e8ee7ef088759342024e5afcfff7
8467 F20101211_AABGZI bortree_d_Page_098thm.jpg
5ca9c0ad292cd899b2155cd7b5ee5d51
e66c3deef6ca45d57434ed89e662cd312b619bf4
31705 F20101211_AABGYU bortree_d_Page_077.QC.jpg
cd30fbbb70f339c9c06caf6b12003155
7a2c8ac21a41a391b3d17399c1cff4879a2e601b
6493 F20101211_AABFVS bortree_d_Page_007thm.jpg
7467faec1375d0685be05337542e7471
94af39291bd7320b85b2659ef0bf61c88402c387
F20101211_AABGCB bortree_d_Page_108.tif
ff2f95ece95939b0ceee3bcb0c2ecb4c
23b557319c0db39d1474c4c2d07912a9f6f9e323
F20101211_AABGBM bortree_d_Page_094.txt
dc3fd6c3590033aa4706920a036af15e
bdcedc26284645a3883e5a747642c6ce93228b13
7111 F20101211_AABFWG bortree_d_Page_024thm.jpg
52a4beeacb361012d47971f7b6e78c34
ad18d42bf068bf40f52562663e1c2775cd14fdaa
692671 F20101211_AABGAY bortree_d_Page_178.jp2
c898c8ed6b7758d6ee74e96ff0578361
381fb2253d983a2d71809e0ce0d6096efede39f3
8322 F20101211_AABGZJ bortree_d_Page_100thm.jpg
56595b5b95afb88981731a870c311432
ae47f2ca154b6a33385d87588aeb6ca73602fcd5
8046 F20101211_AABGYV bortree_d_Page_078thm.jpg
ffb9facf7c901a70cf6554c928fdbc9d
fe45ce773bad2c4334e66bac54a7ba21738091c2
1035937 F20101211_AABFVT bortree_d_Page_081.jp2
b066ce9581829d251f95f4fd32c8cbcd
a2e22c67616a365cbdf5063d2aeeafa1f2fb9792
15862 F20101211_AABGBN bortree_d_Page_174.QC.jpg
0d95d48b53938c687044c591954f5ab9
dfe9d430758a506efcb8847f8b67550d17719a0c
74447 F20101211_AABFWH bortree_d_Page_125.jpg
b077dc80d0e4c11a1739045367831912
04c5e7125c5ca4ef1e031a585b75ca1908aefa82
20904 F20101211_AABGAZ bortree_d_Page_126.QC.jpg
4abc13ba4ebb1381e287f4e52779050c
aa0a5afac30ad34672985b1f514ae4a264e42f21
8407 F20101211_AABGZK bortree_d_Page_102thm.jpg
20eaa0b5cac5f13f5f8ee0a4e47bbbc1
6235a7f6ee218b6ace2babf6f707c04128afac16
8243 F20101211_AABGYW bortree_d_Page_080thm.jpg
7efa2090658a85685413a5b8ffa63305
589837122e145d01ee0d4978825a96d8a43bd1ab
F20101211_AABFVU bortree_d_Page_141.tif
b20af2aafca73bb0fc5020972d11ea73
a1ae953c4ab1b79732715c48e4e1105c782d4b0f
35396 F20101211_AABGCC bortree_d_Page_193.QC.jpg
aeb35ece88f0b6288d41f9a333ed9586
1b13d6be091495a4b303fab6cdda457edaa5d068
98033 F20101211_AABGBO bortree_d_Page_107.jpg
6ef2612f91633a0548d64a81dd0bf256
ba5c2a7bcc1822c26a6124f364148c3c9216e0a1
5703 F20101211_AABFWI bortree_d_Page_185thm.jpg
6a51c706cefedebbe34853fb28fc9e3a
e32c77033b92525604c2b5abb79a7e70afdb2feb
32339 F20101211_AABGZL bortree_d_Page_102.QC.jpg
d8b51ced44a763ee123854e535ed15a8
f9c2b30767e7a8c6fc0ad62db3ff6cd9df6bef4f
7309 F20101211_AABGYX bortree_d_Page_082thm.jpg
ded6e5e3ecaa36e5e3405e1cec4e94c5
4cd8b29e02fb915d986e253627bb525a39d4443b
F20101211_AABFVV bortree_d_Page_059.tif
c1ecaea426b15dbb4ae5d385ebc47fe5
140691ddfb382bf965431da993768297932fb2c6
7859 F20101211_AABGCD bortree_d_Page_182thm.jpg
9a24cc1c116dc727ee16fad6dbbb28fb
de2eea1e6a3e200191af31937515fdf8933d8ab7
1889 F20101211_AABGBP bortree_d_Page_077.txt
efa59d4cdf9db4b8cbe7a84e51f83c17
800c2477129cbc1097d02167fbe3e61b1e3a797d
1779 F20101211_AABFWJ bortree_d_Page_024.txt
d67bdf1f1889d6efa9c3787d664ce690
107d22c9d509f545be28dd4a5a9c4face95f4438
7877 F20101211_AABGZM bortree_d_Page_104thm.jpg
293d8257775986d3c6b39fc4de5d3f65
0b2e146f49d25425fd8fffec72e94601986218d1
96549 F20101211_AABGCE bortree_d_Page_179.jp2
8cc23607bb727070fcec91bde76fecbb
93143f5d4acfcb55e4fd6a28f2abaaec05ced160
35523 F20101211_AABGBQ bortree_d_Page_128.pro
73793195728cf8d1e167f073fb382a9d
5b09ad22147460938f8328b8e459b094894ce80f
F20101211_AABFWK bortree_d_Page_101.tif
d3d1e895682deb85e5ddff540c3a0b72
d2b12923ccd56ff9995e28f5a4f686384960309d
33606 F20101211_AABGZN bortree_d_Page_105.QC.jpg
66bf4adefe1f5ea16c586a9546d19d55
2cefc4133f04a7cf271a1d62a33006da3b764493
7654 F20101211_AABGYY bortree_d_Page_083thm.jpg
3201d26e8ca8d68f9869958f450addf2
96602ef0dcbbef722b83d134263044e8dd49ffbb
F20101211_AABFVW bortree_d_Page_135.tif
9d9c08715c913b667008430a217b9370
422fb5badb41e8e3d05ce622e053172711e17663
8418 F20101211_AABGCF bortree_d_Page_196thm.jpg
596c6843b27a65869e66f3ae972b8628
e93c8c1785c9dff5b4c20d56cbdbfc2a05d80b96
51941 F20101211_AABGBR bortree_d_Page_033.pro
a6c1fca0b8e1e37b4a7df67f36f464a5
88a9d545e2bda5dd9ada489c02cf6fd9e946a383
48944 F20101211_AABFWL bortree_d_Page_183.pro
0c75ea4fddd02ce6236f199233fda405
e7c1d9dfb22544272108beb6f75c143b870abff3
7605 F20101211_AABGZO bortree_d_Page_106thm.jpg
b8ebe6f3f214167976c401b0d57f709b
5d72d832f607eb0f9959b638137757257c520f51
30684 F20101211_AABGYZ bortree_d_Page_083.QC.jpg
7d0284574b07a3e7e1eb1e50509d8fa0
c39a94849e1740c49965c4651886751d6a85f258
101598 F20101211_AABFVX bortree_d_Page_168.jpg
af7f63e0d4efc2206adda074a7d84463
ee42af2ae21a42665327e6c1a677c74f3f593f0b
32208 F20101211_AABGCG bortree_d_Page_043.QC.jpg
ebf604c94fd2a1b854b3a13b105e07ac
ab2274263f992d7f2474510c2de6646e055c42c9
2070 F20101211_AABFXA bortree_d_Page_105.txt
b87a0096c5f32f23bd832e70660dd428
b747904d2f5c34141764563862d77845139f0f09
F20101211_AABGBS bortree_d_Page_054.tif
42a671ee42d730889780cc41e373ed67
1b29c03e13adfba2ac38b34f0506c8222c9be8af
F20101211_AABFWM bortree_d_Page_086.tif
ebb12302cc314e3edf96d23579049782
25da482f3c2c084d4104f547ff967f7dab514062
30345 F20101211_AABGZP bortree_d_Page_106.QC.jpg
0fbea7a77c8e1eb06e35d97cc8bc6628
a40d6acdc5c2617e00d35d73d63f3d11f5c8f627
F20101211_AABFVY bortree_d_Page_099.tif
801258aa2ff73f05fb43f5b2c815f10a
79733a9998fa06ea6d5590b2aadf8ea6ebc48634
8033 F20101211_AABGCH bortree_d_Page_168thm.jpg
01098c2e7143c96ea7347542d1860660
d74f80476d9a8b27840d8ed7312ad925e48c3a4c
102853 F20101211_AABFXB bortree_d_Page_018.jpg
7c6e0c578bc88436aed2de6faf457c18
c1688d5d969d016d18ae720bdc41ab1da3c741e0
53527 F20101211_AABGBT bortree_d_Page_142.jp2
371eea81ddb1ea304c5cff6ccfad76dc
09f0b3493a6b03e9d41977f63671fc57dd1a7657
111989 F20101211_AABFWN bortree_d_Page_011.jpg
4083908e67b36444a26b928fb42ea342
39c5150aa5d838f7af3e135a2f9a82777ea713bf