Citation
Identity structure and autobiographical memory

Material Information

Title:
Identity structure and autobiographical memory a constructive perspective
Creator:
Metzler, April E., 1959-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 111 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cognitive space ( jstor )
Computer memory ( jstor )
Identity ( jstor )
Memory ( jstor )
Memory recall ( jstor )
Memory retrieval ( jstor )
Personality traits ( jstor )
Ratings ( jstor )
Self ( jstor )
Self perception ( jstor )
Autobiographical memory ( lcsh )
Counseling Psychology thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counseling Psychology -- UF
Identity (Philosophical concept) ( lcsh )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1991.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 104-110).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by April E. Metzler.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
027602910 ( ALEPH )
26146366 ( OCLC )
AJF4604 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












IDENTITY


STRUCTURE AND AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL
A CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE


MEMORY:


APRIL


METZLER


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
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


would


like


to acknowledge


many


individuals


who


have


given


me support,


encouragement,


guidance


throughout


academic


career


Univers


Florida


First,


Dr. Greg


Neimeyer


been


undoubtedly


single


most


important


influence


upon


my prof


ess


ional


development.


He has


patiently


directed


supported


efforts


many


year


, and


has taught


me much


about


colleagueship,


res


pect,


trust.


Greg


has


been


both


mentor


a very


dear


friend


Greg


s enthusiasm


dedication,


perseverance,


and


prof


essionalism


are


something


aspire


would


also like


thank


members


committee


Franz


Epting,


Mary


Fukuyama


Peter


Sherrard,


Mark


Alicke


(who


deserves


a special


measure


of gratitude


service


above


and


beyond


call


of duty,


remaining


on my


committee


after


leaving


Florida),


their


efforts


helpful


suggestions


has


been


a pleasure


to work


with


these


individuals.


would


like


thank


people


who


were


integral


part


dissertation.


was


extremely










Schaffer,


Barbara


Quinones.


Their


help


has


been


invaluable


this


project,


they


have


been


good


friends.


would


also


like


thank


Frank


Martin


Department


Statistics


kind


patient


advice


regarding


analysis.


would


Metzler,


like


their


thank


parents,


understanding


and


Betty


support,


Martin


without


which


this


dissertation


would


never


have


been


written.


Finally,


my deepest


gratitude


is extended


my fiancee,


Doug


Reese.


Doug


s unwaning


love,


respect,


and


affection


me have


meant


doctorate.


so much


thank


Doug


me throughout


with


the


love


pursuit


look


forward


our


life


together.


















TABLE


OF CONTENTS


PAGE


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ABSTRACT


CHAPTER


REVIEW


OF THE


LITERATURE


S1


Common The
Autobiogra
Identity F
Identity F
Difference
Impact of
Purpose
Hypotheses


oreti
phica
ormat
ormat
s in
Ident


al Or
Memo
on
on as
denti
ty St


ientation
ry


a
ty
yle


ess
essing
Autobiographi


* S S S
* S S S


Nem


S S S S S S S S S S 5 5 5 5 5 5 S S S S
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S a a a


METHODS


Subjects
Procedure
Overview
Administ
Administ
Summary
Design and


* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
* S 5 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S


rat
rat
of
Ana


Sion
ion
ion
Proc
lysi


of the
of the
of the
edure
s


Zung S
Comput


III.


RESULTS


AND


ANALYSIS


Analy
ieval
ieval
-Chana


DISCUSSION


ses
Quant
Laten
e


AND


* S S S S S S
* S S S S S S


CONCLUSIONS


1













APPENDIX


IDEOLOGICAL


IDENTITY


SCALE


. ZUNG


SELF


-REPORT


SCALE


FOR


DEPRESSION


ZSRS)


. EXAMPLE


INTERACTION


IN COMPUTER


TASKS


. EXPERIMENTAL


MATERIALS


PROGRAM


OPERATION


AND


SELECTION


OF CUES


Summary


of Operation


election


of Retri


eva


Cues


BIBLIOGRAPHY


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH
















Abstract


of Dissertation


Presented


the


Graduate


School


University


Requirements


Florida


Degree


in Partial


of Doctor


Fulfillment


of Philosophy


IDENTITY


STRUCTURE


AND


AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL


MEMORY


A CONSTRUCTIVIST


April


December,


PERSPECTIVE


Metz


1991


Chairman:


Major


Greg


Department


. Neimeyer
: Counseling


Psychology


current


identity


study


development


tests


relationship


autobiographical


between


memory


recall.


ition


is advanced


that


subjects'


identity


style


should


influence


both


the


recall


of personal


memories


and


impact


that


recall


on self-perceptions.


Following


Berzonsky


s paradigm,


a mixed-sex


sample


of 202


people


falling


into


one


three


identity


styles


(information-oriented,


normatively


oriented,


diffusely


oriented)


were


identified


study


protesting.


Subjects


subsequently


completed










self-consistency


(self-congruent


or self-incongruent


with


current


self-perceptions).


As predicted,


information-oriented


individuals


generated


greatest


number


of autobiographical


recollections


diffusely


oriented


subjects


generated


fewest.


Recall


was


also


found


vary


across


conditions,


with


information-oriented


individuals


showing


highest


recollection


among


three


identity


styles


memories


that


supported


positive


self-perceptions,


well


greatest


ability


to generate


memories


that


threatened


those


self-perceptions.


A general


self-enhancement


effect


was


also


evident,


particularly


among


information


normative-oriented


individuals


, the


latter


being


most


inclined


three


identity


styles


to generate


invalidating


memories


when


benefited


them


(positive/incongruent)


the


least


inclined


when


threatened


them


(negative/invalidation).

















CHAPTER


REVIEW


OF THE


LITERATURE


Many


years


an unmanageable


adolescent


the


name


of Samuel


Clemens


took


leave


of what


he des


cribed


stupid


, know-nothin"


father


Several


years


later,


when

young

awhil


famous


adult


Mark


afte

Twa


American

r weather

in was "


humorist


ring


had


the world


astonished


returned


on hi


to find


horn

own

how


as a


for

much


the


old


man


had


learned


those


year


Autobiographical


memories


such


as thi


are.


not


only


amusing


testaments


to predictable


developmental


milestones


, but


serve


subtle


reminders


that


autobiographical


memories


are


based


on our


own


rsonal


development


Even


as we forge


notions


our


selves,


we shape


frame


nature


our


later


rec


collections.


identity


memories


are


"two


sides of


the


same


coin"


(Greenwald


& Banaji,


1989)


study


will


addr


ess


the constructive


and


reconstructive


aspects


of autobiographical


memory


broadly


/ placing


particular


emphasis


on the


interdependence


between


memory


recall


the


____ _










assimilation


perceptual


information


as memories.


This


helps


explain


effects


of self-perceptions


on the


recall


of memories


about


self,


as well


as the


effects


of personal


memories


on self-perception.


Common


Theoretical


Orientation


The current

crossroads among


study

three


will


provide


distinct


area


a theoretical

s of psychology.


constructivist


approach


to each


these


areas


is used


provide


a common


conceptual


link.


A generic


view


constructivist


assumptions


follows


in order


to help


orient


the


reader


theoretical


underpinnings


the


current


study.


Per

Markus,


sonality

1977), m


theorists


emory


(Kelly,


theorists


1955


(Barclay


; Kihlstrom,


1986


1981;


; Bartlett,


1932


Neisser,


1967


, 1976)


, and


developmental


theorists


(Berzonsky,


1990


; Piaget


& Inhelder,


1973)


have


long


recognized


importance


of understanding


processes


and


structures


that


govern


the


organization


individual


s psychological


world.


These


constru


activist


theorists


have


advanced


similar


notions


of knowledge


structures,


referred


to generically


as schemata


, to


describe


the


active


organizational


processing


information.


Schemata


are


nonsoecif


-,


representations










expectations,


attention


(Neisser,


1967).


Schemata


are


used


continuously


to impose


order


meaning


upon


the


world


in a subjective


manner.


Schemata


are


hierarchically


organized


into


a network


of idiographic


meaning


that


continuously


changes


with


experience


(Barclay,


form


1986;


impli


Kelly,


theories


1955;


that


Neisser,


both


1988a).


guide


Schemata


limit


individual


s growth


(Berzonsky,


1990;


Ross


& Conway,


1986


Ross


& McFarland,


1988).


This


study


will


show


how


these


three


converging


areas


of psychology


can


help


illuminate


relationships


between


processes


identity


development


autobiographical


and


memory


processes


recall.


interrelationships


among


these


three


areas


will


examined


detail,


possible


implications


counseling


explored.


Autobiographical


Memory


Memory


concerned


research


with


many


accuracy


years


memories


been


more


as tested


under


laboratory


conditions


than


what


the


memories


might


about


memory


person.


research


However,


toward


there


investigating


a new


trend


"real-world"


memory.


Of particular


interest


this


study


an emerging


interest


in autobiographical


memory


(Brewer,


-R


1988;










What


a person


can


cannot


remember


could


reveal


a great


deal


about


that


person


s personality


development.


Common


assumptions


about


the


nature


autobiographical


memory


have


been


advanced


several


theori


researchers


this


area


(Barclay,


1986,


1988a;


Brewer


, 1988;


Linton,


1988;


Neisser,


1981,


1988a,


1988b)


memory


first


largely


assumption


that


a reconstructive


autobiographical


endeavor


based


supporting


sting


self-s


chemata,


often


expense


facts


As Barc


put


, these


memories


"are


true


inaccurate"


(1988b,


. 289)


This


implies


that


these


self-structures


both


maintain


transform


our


pers


onal


memories.


A second


assumption


that


these


self-schemata


are


hierarchically


organized.


Therefore,


autobiographical


memories


are


remembered


based


on cues


from


nested


structure


Finally,


distinction


between


episodic


semanti


memory


does


not


always


accurately


describe


nature


of autobiographical


memories.


An autobiographical


memory


is often


constructed


amalgam


of repeated


sodi


memory


es.


Thus


it i


often


an episode


that


symbolically


represents


something


else


example,


a person


were


remember


"being


together


with


my family


the


beach


celebrate


Memorial


day


last


year,


recollection


_ ~


v m










had


been


absent.


Such


a memory


might


carry


more


symbolic


meaning


of family


unity.


Francis


Galton,


a contemporary


Ebbinghaus,


was


first


to begin


research


on autobiographical


memory.


In his


1883


informal


experiment,


Galton


used


words


as memory


prompts


himself


"allowed


a couple


ideas


to successively


present


themselves"


(1883,


426).


He recorded


reaction


time


each


response


Later


, he grouped


recollections


according


to periods


in his


life


type


memory


word


evoked.


Galton


s technique


was


successful


in producing


open-ended


sampling


of his


thoughts


in general,


but


was


not


specific


enough


to evoke


just


personal


memories.


Due


to Galton


s varied


interests


he failed


pursue


this


line


of research


(Brewer,


1988


Crovitz


& Schiffman,


1974;


Robinson,


1988).


The


Ebbinghaus


tradition


of studying


accuracy


memory


continued


reign


next


ninety


years


largely


unchallenged.


However


in 1932,


Bartlett


questioned


whether


there


were


other


factors


besides


accuracy


memory


that


would


be of


interest


researchers.


He examined


subjects


recall


of narrative


prose


passages


observed


that


they


had


omitted,


transformed,


organized,


and


otherwise


distorted


w..


i v v










reproduction"


205).


Bartlett


believed


that


memories


were


individual'


present


"continually


remade"


self-structure


based


309)


on the

Thus,


Bartlett


began


the


constructivist


approach


memory


functioning.


This


approach


emphasized


the


use


schemata


as organic


zing


principles


that


times


enable


disable


retrieval


personal


memories.


In this


view,


autobiographical


individual


s current


memories


self


are


-theory


"selected"


help


to fit


individual


maintain


a consistent


sense


of self


face


change.


Unfortunately,


Bartlett


s insights


went


largely


unnoticed


until


mid


-1970s.


However,


mid


-1970s


a gradual


shift


notions


occurred


of what


(Nei


types


sser,


things


1988b).


people


Tulving


remember


(197


had


introduction


distinction


between


long


term


"semantic"


memory


single


event


"episodic


memory


generated


interest


whole


new


areas


study


within


memory


research.


Bartlett


s constructivist


theory


memory


enjoyed


a new


popularity


Therefore


when


Crovitz


Schiffman


(1974)


revived


Galton


s prompting


technique


modifying


study


autobiographical


memory


, many


researchers


were


eager


to begin


lines


research


in autobiographical


memory


(Robinson,


.4


1988)


In their


landmark


paper,


.g


.










memories.


following


two


years


these


directions


were


modified


order


to elicit


more


specific


memories


(Crovitz &

meaningful


Quina-Holland


memories


1976,


(Robinson,


1976


and


' p.


more


581).


personally

The


real


-life


research


studies


that


have


used


Crovitz


technique


constitute


most


sophisticated


long


term


memory


research


to date.


research


clearly


demonstrates


can


that


be examined


real-life


in a systematic


memory


manner


retrieval


within


process


the


experimental


laboratory


(Neisser,


1985)


This


paradigm


holds


much


promise


systematic


investigation


autobiographical


memory


recall


Much


work


from


social


psychology


regarding


individual


' self-schemata


demonstrated


central


role


of self-s


chemata


in the


recall


pers


onal


memories.


a series


of studies,


Markus


(1977


, 1980)


shown


that


individuals


dependence


processed


were


schematic


information


more


independence


quickly


recalled


more


specific


events


from


their


past


than


did


aschematic


individuals.


Furthermore,


Markus


Senti


(1980)


have


found


that


information


consistent


with


one


self-concept


is remembered


more


accurately


than


inconsistent


information.


These


studies


and


others


(Barclay,


1988b;


Barclay


& Subramaniam,


1987)


support


.










individual


with


more


clearly


defined


self-schemata


would


able


to recall


a greater


number


of personal


memories


so more


quickly


Additionally


, the


fact


that


information


inconsistent


with


the


self


is remembered


ess


accurately


may


point


to possible


biases


in processing


personal


memories.


work


of Ross and


colleagues


(Ross


& Conway,


1986


Ross


& McFarland,


1988)


begun


to addr


ess


stemati


ses


pers


onal


memory


recall


Ross


beli


eves


that


implicit


theori


of ourselves


present


guide


our


recollections


past.


addition,


we each


have


our


own


theory


of how


we might


change


still


maintain


a consistent


sense


of self


reconstructions


past


are


shaped


theory


that


dictate


assumptions


of either


consistency


inconsi


stency


with


oursel


ves


in the


present.


In order


support


this


theory


of self-change


we use


biased


process


to either


exaggerate


differences


similariti


between


our


past


and


present


selves


when


remember


Thus,


we are


times


"cognitive


conservatives


who


bias


their


memories


so as to deny


change


maintain


consistency,


at other


times


"cognitive


radical


who


embrace

altered


change


exaggerate


example,


a profe


amount


ssor


may


they


have


remember


himself










now


see


himself


as a devoted


family


man,


even


though


spends


as much


time


working


away


from


home


as he


ever


did.


Thus,


these


biases


tend


to confirm


our


existing


self


-theori


Past


research


an individual


Swann


s hypothesi


Snyder


-testing


demonstrated


about


self


that


and


others


tends


to be strongly


confirmatory


in nature


(Snyder


, 1984;


Snyder


& Swann,


1978;


Swann,


1985)


series


of experiments


have


shown


that


people


prefer


confirm


rather


than


to disconfirm


their


current


self-images


, even


when


those


self


-images


are


negative


(Barclay


& Subramaniam


, 1987


oss


& Conway,


1986


Ross


McFarland


, 1988).


From


the results


research,


then


, we might


expect


that


individual


who


held


a theory


of self-consistency


might


tend


to deny


self-change


in the


face


of disconfirming


evidence


We might


also


expect


individuals


who


lacked


a unified


theory


of self-change


show


relatively


little


tendency


toward


biased


processing


instead


drift


the


direction


of image


discrepant


recall.


Past


work


on identity


formation


shown


that


different


identity


styles


have


character


stically


different


1987)


self-schemata


Because


struck


tures


autobiographical


(Neimeyer


rec


varies


& Metz


with


es.


__










Kihlstrom


(1981)


called


research


that


examines


how


personal


memory


features


are


affected


personality


development.


is crucial


to attempt


some


inquiry


into


details


underlying


process


states


Kihlstrom


(1981,


141).


It has


been


shown


that


autobiographical


memories


help


structure


restrict


a person


self-theory,


so it


seems


likely


that


different


stages


identity


development


might


utilize


this


aspect


autobiographical


information


differently.


Research


developmental


psychology


provides


models


processes


underlying


formation


of personal


identity.


Identity


Formation


Ever


since


Erikson


s landmark


work


on life-span


development


(Erikson,


1959


, 1968),


psychologists


have


been


leading

Erikson


interest


in studying


formation


identified


eight


developmental


of a stable


stages


personal


of human


processes


identity.


psychosocial


development,


each


of which


was


characterized


the


need


to resolve


a specific


conflict.


labelled


fifth


stage,

between


which

ego


occurs

identity


during

and i


adolescence,


identity


the


diffusion.


conflict

The


adolescent


must


learn


cope


with


changes


that


challenge


sense


of self


developed


in childhood.


These


changes










and


the


adoption


more


adult


roles.


Successful


resolution


identity:


this


conflict


a consistent


sense


should


result


of self


that


in ego


permits


adolescent


to explore


select


from


among


alternatives


conflict


unable

left w


leads


to make


without


adulthood.


to identity


sense


Failure

diffusion


of all


a definite


sense


to resolve


this


adolescent


possibilities,


of self


or a way


to make


positive


life


choices.


As Berzonsky


(1990)


points


out,


identity


as conceived


Erikson


simply


static


structure


incorporating


knowledge


about


self,


but


is a pro


cess


that


"actively


evaluates,


selects,


and


organizes


responsible


self-perceptions"


reality-te


This


sting


process


adaptation


constructions


about


self


, and


may


be the


mechanism


that


enables


an individual


to successfully


cope


with


change


throughout


later


life.


Unfortunately,


Erikson


s formulation


lacked


specific


it difficult


operational


to create


definition


a solid


concepts,


empirical


making


foundation.


However,


identity


established


Marcia


(1966)


development


a framework


subsequent


extended


that


Erikson


permitted


conceptualization


s work


empirical


investigation.


Therefore,


most


research


into


identity










Marcia


s approach


formation


identity


is derived


from


two


Eriksonian


concepts


crisis


and


commitment.


Crisis


refers


the


degree


to which


adolescent


evaluating


is concerned


issues


with


relating


confronting


to identity


critically


Commitment


describes


whether


adolescent


reaches


a firm


deci


sion


about


what


values


and


roles


to adopt.


Marcia


identified


four


identity


statuses


that


arise


from


differences


along


these


dimensions.


Identity


identity


achievement


reaching


refers


a state


the


formation


of commitment


after


having


passed


through


a state


of crisis.


An achieved


individual,


therefore,


is characterized


as having


taken


definite


personal


stand


based


upon


decisions


requiring


reflection,


questioning


, and


introspection.


In contrast,


foreclosure


refers


to commitment


that


attained


absence


of crisis.


Foreclosed


individuals


values


have


(such


opted


their


to accept


parents'),


an established


without


set of


confronting


questioning


issues


involved


The


child


who


unthinkingly


pursues


a career


dictated


parents


ambitions


Both


a classic


achievement


example


of foreclosure


foreclosure


share


characteristic


of hiah


levels


f commitment


with


respect


u


- --


------- --------










selected


does


not


matter;


method


which


deci


sion


is reached


crucial


factor.


example,


some


achieved


individuals


may


possess


personal


values


very


much


in accord


with


their


parents


However,


these


adolescents


have


questioned


examined


each


values


before


personally


incorporating


suitable,


have


them


not


into


their


merely


identities


adopted


their


parents'


views


wholesale.


Moratorium


individuals


are


engaged


an identity


crisis,


have


not


yet


been


able


to resolve


it by


committing


particular


of values.


They


are


actively


seeking


to find


the


answers


questions


who


they


are


what


they


believe,


appear


preoccupied


with


identity


concerns.


fourth


final


identity


status


is diffusion.


Diffusion


is characterized


a lack


of commitment


of values


lack


an ongoing


S1S


state


directed


toward


individuals,


achieving


diffuse


commitment.


individuals


are


Like

indeci


moratorium


sive


personal


issues.


However


, unlike


adolescents


moratorium,

concerned w


diffuse


rith


individuals


establishing


are


a sense


not


actively


of personal


identity.


They


are


not


merely


unable


arrive


at a deci


sion,


they


do not


perceive


need


to make


a final


decision


-










concessions


needs


moment.


They


experience


true


crisis,


because


impetus


decision


internally


-making


imposed


motivated.


They


from


outside


similarly


do not


rather


make


than


true


commitments,


because


they


not


see


their


choices


having


a definitional


relationship


themselves.


an effort


to validate


theoretical


distinctions


among


identity


statu


ses


, Marcia


conducted


a series


of studies


with


male


college


students


(Marcia,


1966


, 1967).


Consonant


with


theoretical


expectations


based


on their


development


internalized


of personal


values


, the


identity


achieving


males


were


most


refl


ective,


employed


most


mature


moral


reasoning,


were


least


submissive


to authority


of all


identity


status


groups.


identity


Moratorium


achieving


males


males


were


many


found


to resemble


respects,


differing


primarily


showing


increased


variability


responses


much


higher


levels


of anxiety.


Variability


response


was


stress


most


maturity


marked


on learning


of moral


reasoning


performance

measures.


under

This


variability


was


thought


to be


due


their


lack


commitment


any


particular


of moral


values


uncertainty


about


the


correctness


their


judgments.


w u










to conventional


norms


of moral


behavior,


were


submissive


to authority,


exhibited


levels


anxiety.


This


supports


conjecture


that


these


individuals


have


adopted


established


modes


thought


conduct


and


have


thereby


avoided


results


from


this


studies


regarding


diffuse


males,


however


, were


not


conclusive.


measures


used


did


capture


the


distinguishing


characteristics


this


identity


status,


such


as indecisiveness,


very


well,


which


researchers


to seek


alternative


measures


experimental


designs.


A series


of studies


of identity


status


among


female


college


1975


students


Schenkel


(Marcia


& Marcia,


& Friedman,


1972)


1970


introduced


Schenkel,


an additional


identity


status


domain.


In Erikson


s view,


women


form


personal


identities


based


upon


their


selection


sexual


partner.


This


factor


was


operationalized


attitudes


toward


identity


premarital


status


sex,


interview.


incorporated


Because


this


into


change,


direct


comparisons


between


studies


of males


females


were


impossible


this


time.


findings


were


nonetheless


identity


similar.


achieved


Like


females


their


tended


male


counterparts,


to be low


in anxiety


submissiveness


to authority.


They


also


tended


to choose


difficult


majors.


moratorium


females


resembled


*rv


r










foreclosed


female


subjects


subscribed


strongly


authoritarianism


displayed


little


anxiety.


Diffuse


subjects


again


were


highly


anxious;


they


selected


easy


majors.


Marcia


identity


status


interview


procedure,


however,


was


time-consuming,


difficult


to standardize,


cumbersome


to admini


ster


score.


The


use


different


procedures


males


females


introduced


additional


complexity


and


made


comparisons


difficult.


development


of a self-report


instrument


solved


many


these


& Adam


problems


1984).


(Adams,


Shea,


resulting


& Fitch,


1979


instrument,


Grotevant

Extended


Objective


Measure


of Ego


Identity


Status


(EOM-EIS),


pencil-and-paper


ques


tionnaire


that


can


be easily


quickly


admini


stered


to large


groups.


It has


subscales


covering


religion,


2 domains


politics,


ideological--relating


philosophical


to occupation,


lifestyle


interpersonal--relating


to friendship


, dating,


sex


roles


recreation.


Adams


, Shea,


and


Fitch


(1979)


found


that


this

those


instrument

produced


produced


Marcia


a similar p

s interview


attern


of results


technique.


Achieved


individuals


had


highest


amount


self-acceptance,


while


foreclosed


subjects


were


more


rigid


and


complied


more


readily


with


authoritarianism.


As before,










that

the


there w

identity


ere


no significant


statues.


gender


Grotevant


differences


Adams


within


(1984)


validated


instrument


with


respect


to social


desirability,


merely


ensure


reflections


that


self-reported


response


patterns


responses


thought


were


to be


more


socially


desirable.


one


status


as measured


EOM-EIS


was


found


to be


more


Soc


ially


desirable


than


other.


Marcia


noted


that


identity


statuses


achievement


diffusion


corresponded


closely


Erikson


which


s ego


functioned


identity


as polar


identity


diffusion


alternatives.


Marcia


concepts,


described


other


statuses


, foreclosure


moratorium,


"additional


concentration


points


roughly


intermediate


this


distribution"


(Marcia,


1966,


552).


While


identity


achievement


status


was


the


obvious


ideal,


Marcia


did


specifically


outline


progression


or sequence


of statuses


However


that


development


, theoretically


one


would


would


normally


expect


follow.


successful


identity


development


to proceed


from


diffusion


through


higher


identity


statuses,


moratorium


achievement


(Waterman,


1982)


There


have


been


four


longitudinal


studies


that


have


tested


various


assumptions


regarding


this


developmental










that


while


in general


there


is a progressive


shift


higher


identity


regressive


shifts


statuses


were


during


noted


the


college


some


years,


subjects


who


had


previously


identity


crises.


achieved


a successful


Furthermore,


Marcia


resolution


(1976)


their


found,


during


a six


year


follow-up


study


of adult


males,


that


many


high


identity


status


individuals


moved


to lower


identity


statuses,


particularly


foreclosure.


Therefore,


success


resolution


of identity


crises


does


not


guarantee


permanence


commitments


formed.


possible


reason


these


shifts


in identity


status


a change


in the


domain


that


individual


focus


of development.


focus


model


of identity


development


was


first


proposed


Coleman


(1974,


1978),


who


suggest


that


domain


issues


are


addressed


sequentially


rather


than


concurrently.


Kroger


(1986)


found


personal


support


identity


idea


is not


that


necessarily


development


a global


acc


ompli


shment,


but


rather


resolution


of a series


distinct


domain-specific


psychosocial


crises.


Individuals


focus


on certain


issues


at certain


times


their


lives.


most


crucial


tasks


college


-age


adolescents


development


occupational


identity.


Indeed,


Kroqer


(1988)


found


that










of females

statuses).


had

The


identical

domain c


occupational


combination


that


global


best


identity


predicted


global


identity


status


was


that


of occupation,


religion,


politics


males


(which


percent


produced


a match


of females).


88.9 percent


Therefore,


it is


important


recognize


that


the


individual


s focus


development


should


taken


into


account


when


trying


assess


global


identity.


Due


these


limitations


current


interpretation


identity


status


paradigm,


Marcia


(1976)


proposed


as a process


rather


that


than


identity


a state,


status


in order


be reinterpreted


to provide


deeper


understanding


mechanisms


change


and


growth


self.


He said:


problem


a static


with


quality


There


has


statu


ses


identity


always


been


that


never


a process


they


have


static
aspect


inherent
status.


explicitly


process
identity


take


this


in the


determination


The


issue


define


of identity


now


then


elements.


should


more


measure


Any


have


movement


these


adequate


descriptive


into


account.


terms
(pp.


theory of
that
152-153)


There


are


many


potential


advantages


viewing


identity


change


through


such


a process


model.


Rather


than


view


identity


way


formation


adolescents


as the


cope


final


with


product


changes


of adolescence,


self could


become


basis


- -


understanding


adult


identity


change.


wD w










to another


throughout


their


life


time


order


cope


with


needed


identity


changes


status


could


self.


be viewed


Additionally,


as a different


each


style


processing


information


about


self


Berzonsky,


1990).


Here,


each


status


may


seen


as having


adaptive


value


in allowing


person


cope


with


potential


identity


change


in such


a way


that


it does


not


threaten


total


self-structure.


Identity


Formation


as a Process


In his


1990)


extension


recently


of Marcia


advanced


s work,


a process


Berzonsky


model


(1988,


of identity


formation


based


on a constructivist


approach.


Berzonsky


views


an individual'


developing


identity


much


like


scientific


investigation.


An individual


acts


scientist


actively


constructing


a theory


about


himself


herself.


This


self


-theory


contains


a sys


temr


of cognitive


schemas


guiding


future


behavior.


When


the


exi


sting


cognitive


schemas


fail


to help


guide


individual


through


process


disconfirmed,


of assimilation,


modified,


of accommodation.


Like


revised


a personal


they


are


through


scientist,


process


the


individual


theory for


forms


an increasingly


understanding


self


viable


through


comprehensive


a process


---- ---










Berzonsky


(1987,


1988)


views


Marcia


s identity


statuses


as representing


three


different


scientific


styles


processing


assimilating


self-relevant


information


this


view,


both


achieved


and


moratorium


individuals


would


share


an open


style


in which


they


actively


seek,


process,


utilize


self-relevant


information


prior


to developing


firm


personal


beliefs


commitments.


Thus,


these


self-reflective


individuals


tend


to be


more


information-oriented


adaptable


their


self-theories


In contrast,


individuals


with


more


closed


style


tend


to rely


more


on the


available


prescriptions


standards


of significant


groups


order


to meet


expectations


of others.


Like


Marcia


(1966)


foreclosed


identity


status,


these


more


normatively


oriented


individuals


function


as dogmatic


theorists


who


tend


revise


to defend


their


preexisting


self-theories.


self-perceptions


Lastly,


rather


diffuse


than


style


associated


with


either


a lack


an adequate


self-theory


or a fragmented


self-theory.


Individuals


who


are


diffusely


oriented


rely


on the


situational


demands


determine


their


behavior


beliefs


rather


than


being


directed


an internalized


of commitments


and


convictions.


Berzonsky


(1987


, p.


describes


persons


adoption


style


of functioning


d hoc


theorists,










Differences


Identity


Processing


Recent


research


examining


Berzonsky


s theory


has


used


Kelly


(1955)


theory


of personal


constructs


provide


individual


a means


testing


s self-theory.


structural


In the


view


features


of personal


construct


theory


(PCT),


people


are


active


explorers


striving


to understand


gain


some


measure


of control


over


make


their


sense


of PCT,


each


environment.


their


person


Their


experience.


a unique


primary


motivation


According


"personal


tenets


theory,


world-view,


that


permits


formulation


"hypotheses


or expectations


about


what


will


happen.


mental


framework


enables


people


to approach


life


as a series


"experiments"


through


which


they


can


continually


test


and


refine


their


parallels


"personal


between


PCT


theories


The


Berzonsky


theoretical


s theory


of different


processing


styles


based


on identity


status


suggest


that


PCT


should


provide


an excellent


way


test


Berzonsky


theory.


Several

Berzonsky, R


recent


ice,


studies


& Neimeyer,


(Berzonsky


1990


& Neimeyer,


Neimeyer,


1988


Prichard


zonsky,


& Metzler,


1991)


tested


differences


self


-sc


hema


structure


processing


among


various


identity


styles.


researchers


argued


that


. more


more


_


-- -


rrl










In contrast,


more


normatively


oriented


individuals


should


develop


a self-system


that


relatively


inflexible,


poorly


differentiated,


and


uses


biased


processing.


first


exploratory


study,


Berzonsky


Neimeyer


(1988)


correlated


subjects


' identity


status


scores


with


several


structural


scores


raw


identity


status


scores


were


asses


using


Grotevant


and


Adams


(1984)


measure


of identity


status


The


structural


measures


of differentiation


integration


each


subject


were


derived


from


an eli


cited


10x10


self-ratings


grid.


The


differentiation


measure


gives


an indication


how


many


self


-schemas


are


available


subject


while


integration


interrelatedness


measure


among


indicates


these


the


degree


self-schemas


The


researchers


found


that


the


level


of differentiation


was


positive


correlated


with


moratorium


diffusion


scores


The overall


pattern


of structural


scores


also


showed


that


diffuse


individual


had


lowest


integration


scores


highest


differentiation


scores


Berzonsky


Neimeyer


concluded


that


pattern


of findings


lent


some


support


to the


theory


that


diffuse


style


self


-theori


have


a fragmented


self-schemas


"Thi


type


of self


-theory


construction


one


would


expect


to find


an ad hoc,










nature


that


making


qualitative


distinctions


among


the


statuses


was


not


possible.


Therefore


a second


study


was


conducted


(Berzonsky,


Rice


& Neimeyer,


1990)


that


employed


a between-subjects


design.


class


The


sified


subjects


as one


for

the


this

pure


study

identity


included

v status


only


those


es.


Only


about


one-third


subjects


tested


with


Grotevant


pure


status


Adams


type.


(1984)

Results


measure


this


can b

study


e classified


as a


supported


predi


cted


relationship


between


self


-structure


identity


style.


Information-oriented


identity


Styles


were


linked


differentiation,


highest


where


eas


levels


normatively


of self-system


oriented


foreclosures


were


ass


ociated


with


lowest


levels


self-schema


differentiation.


These


findings


are


consi


stent


with


relatively


narrow


rigid


self-definition


normatively


oriented


self-theorist.


In a final


study,


Neimeyer,


Prichard,


Berzonsky,


Metzler


(1991)


tested


whether


individuals


with


different


identity


styles


might


be disposed


toward


differential


biases


in processing


occupational


information.


The


researchers


expected


to find


that


biased


hypothesis


testing


would


occur


within


groups


of individuals


whose










the


absence


of a permeable


information-oriented


search


process


, we would


expect


see


strong


confirmatory


bias


in relation


to relevant


occupations


, and


strong


disconfirmation


bias


in relation


to irrelevant


occupations"


Results


provided


partial


support


their


predictions.


Although


persons


in the


more


committed


status


groups


did,


as predicted,


engage


significantly


more


confirmatory


bias,


lack


exploration


characteristic


of foreclosed


individuals


failed


to produce


quite


as pronounced


a confirmatory


bias


as one


might


have


expected


among


that


group.


Results


of the disconfirmatory


data


furnished


additional


support


their


predictions.


Overall,


the


more


information-oriented


styles


did


show


less


extreme


disconfirmatory


bias


than


more


normatively


oriented


(foreclosed


status)


or diffusely


oriented


(diffuse


status)

related


individuals.

to greater c


"Strong


:onfirmatory


identity


bias


commitments


whereas


were


higher


levels


of identity


exploration


tended


to attenuate


disconfirmatory


bias


as predicted


on the


basis


their


greater


information-oriention"


(p.12).


The


researchers


concluded


that


Berzonsky


theory


of differential


processing


due


to identity


style


was


supported


this


study.










Impact


Identity


Style


on Autobiographical


Memory


Tracing


impact


such


schematic


processing


differences


on autobiographical


memory,


Neimeyer


Rareshide


(1991)


argued


their


exploratory


study


that


identity


styles


marked


greater


differentiation


active


identity


exploration


should


facilitate


greater


personal


memory


recall.


In other


words,


memory


recall


linked


self-schemata


, then


individuals


whose


systems


are


marked


greater


schematic


differentiation


should


show


higher


levels


of personal


memory


recall.


Particularly


since


information-oriented


self-theorists


not


only


define


themselves


along


a wider


range


self-schemata,


information


(Ber


also


zonsky,


actively


1990


seek


; Berzonsky


elf-relevant

& Sullivan,


1990),


they


should


also be able


to generate


greatest


range


of autobiographical


recollections.


Particularly


relation


to diffuse


individuals


, who


lack


a clear


self-structure,


or normatively


oriented


individuals


who


place


a premium


upon


the


preservation


of existing,


limited,


self-constructions


, the


information-oriented


identity


style


should


enable


higher


levels


autobiographical


memory


recall.


Subjects


Grovtevant


this


Adams


experiment


measure


were


of identity


selected


status.


using


From


-~-- -~










were


presented


with


four


highly


descriptive


positive


characteristics


that


were


either


congruent


or incongruent


with

recal


their


self-theory.


"specific


Subjects


incidents


your


were

life


then

when


asked

you


exemplified


or demonstrated


that


trait"


(Landy,


1986/1987,


46).


From


this


total


number


memories


were


recorded.


Results


from


this


experiment


provided


some


support


their


hypothes


in previous


literature


(e.g


Markus


& Sentis,


greater


events


1980)


that


subject


were


s overall


consistent


recollection


with


was


their


self


-images


than


events


that


were


inconsistent.


But


this


tended


vary


as a function


of identity


orientation.


When


recalling


positive


memories


that


supported


self-constructions,


the


highest


level


memory


recall


was


evidenced


information-oriented


achievers.


However,


there


was


no corres


ponding


support


under


schema


incongruent


conditions.


Although


foreclosed


individuals

memories, t


did


his


produce


difference


highest


did


not


number


reach


of incongruent


statistical


significance.


However,


experiment


failed


test


differential


impact


of both


positive


and


negative


personality


characteristics.


Because


foreclosed


individuals


rely


more


on the


available


standards








28

Purpose


purpose


present


study


test


differential


impact


of identity


style


on autobiographical


recollections


that


either


confirm


or disconfirm


positive


or negative

hypothesized


self-perceptions.

to selectively i


Identity


influencee


style


an individual


process


of retrieving


memories


life


experiences.


Identity


orientations


marked


an openness


redefinition


a quest


information


should


vary


predictable


ways


from


those


marked


either


defensive


preservation


of existing


self-constructions


general


absence


autobiographical


of such


recall


constructions.


should


generally


While


be facilitated


more


firmly


committed


identity


structures,


availability


of such


recollections


should


be qualified


nature


memory's


self-consistency


(consistent


or inconsistent)


valence


(positive


or negative).


HYpotheses


A main


effect


identity


style


is predicted


such


that


information-oriented


normatively


oriented


subjects


will


produce


a greater


number


autobiographical


memories


than


will


diffusely


oriented


individuals.










memories


than


will


subjects


who


recall


negative


characteristics.


A main


effect


valence


of characteristics


predicted


such


that


subj


ects


who


recall


positive


characteristics


will


rec


memories


more


rapidly


than


subjects


recall


negative


characteristics.


A three-way


interaction


is predicted


among


identity


style,


memories


self-consistency,


recalled.


valence


Information-oriented


number


individuals


should


produce


more


balanced


numbers


of confirming


disconfirming


negative


memories


personality


in regard


character


to positive


stics.


and


Normatively


oriented


identity


styles


should


show


disproportionately


large


number


of self-confirming


memories,


especially


positive


ones.


Normatively


oriented


individuals


should


also


produce


fewest


number


of negative


self-disconfirming


memories.


Diffusely


least


oriented


number


individuals


of autobiographical


should


produce


memories


the

these


memories


should


be equally


distributed


among


four


conditions,


suggesting


an absence


systematic


bias.


three-way


interaction


is predicted


among


identity


style,


self-consi


stency,


and valence for th


latency










to positive


negative


personality


characteristics.


Normatively


oriented


identity


styles


should


show


disproportionately


longer


response


time


when


recalling


self-disconfirming

Diffusely oriented


memories,

individual


especially

s should p


negative


ones.


reduce


shortest


response


times


in all


four


conditions.


self


-disconfirming


memories,


a two-way


interaction


between


is predi


identity


cted


style


level


valence


of self-change.


of characteristics


Diffusely


oriented


widely


individuals


with


' self-perceptions


nature


should


condition


vary


memory


recall.


Information-oriented


individuals


are


predicted


to change


their


self-perceptions


more


judic


iously


but


still


incorporate


self-di


screpant


information.


Normatively


oriented


individuals


are


predicted


to be


the


least


responsive


to changing


self-perceptions,


particularly


when


confronted


with


image-discrepant,


negative


recollections.
















CHAPTER ]
METHODS


The


present


study


was


designed


to explore


the


relationship


between


identity


development


autobiographical


memory


recall.


was


expected


that


individual


s identity


style


would


carry


implications


both


that


person


s ability


to retrieve


personal


memories


also for


impact


these


recollections


upon


that


person


s self-theory.


In order


test


these


hypoth


eses,


a three-way


factorial


design


was


employed.


The


first


factor


had


to do with


subject


s style


processing


and


ass


imilating


self-relevant


information.


three


basic


identity


styles


are


an information-seeking


orientation,


a normative


orientation,


a diffuse


orientation.


next


factors


determined


nature


cues


presented


to the


subject


recall,


thus


had


to do with


type


memories


solicited


. The


first


these


factors


, schemata


valence,


indicated


whether


memories


related


subject


s positive


characteristics


or negative


character


stics.


The


final


factor,


schemata


validation,


indicated


whether


the










addition,


since


a subject


s mood


was


known


to be capable


of affe


cting


recall,


a measure


of depression


was


used


a check


ensure


equivalency


groups


along


this


variable


Subjects


Prior


testing,


potential


subj


ects


were


given


pretest


pretest


their


consisted


introductory


of admini


psychology


string


sses.


Extended


The


Objective


Measure


of Ego


Identity


Status


(EOM


-EIS


- Grotevant


Adams,


1984)


A total


of 628


subjects


were


pretested.


From


people


were


identified


as potential


subjects


the


sis


their


scores


on thi


instrument


(106


information


-oriented,


56 normatively


oriented


and


diffusely


oriented


subj


ects


These


subjects


were


then


contacted


experiment.


telephone


total


of 205


asked t

people


o parti


cipate


completed


in the

final


experiment


(132


females


73 mal


ages


subjects


ranged


from


to 24


with


a mean


of 19


years.


subjects


received


one


experimental


credit


completing


pretest,


credits


parti


cipating


experiment.


Subj


ects


were


randomly


assigned


experimental


conditions.


experimental


conditions


were


designated










assured


While


use


experimenter


subject


numbers


introduced


identification.


explained


each


experimental


task


subject,


no one


was


present


room


with


subject


during


completion


of each


tasks/, assuring


EOM


the subj


ects


developed


of complete


Grotevant


and


privacy


Adams


(1984),


measures


overall


level


of identity


development


It is based


on the


original


measure


devised


Adams


(1966)


Shea


ass


, and


ification


(1979),


of identity


which


status


used


into


Marcia


four


categories


The


EOM


-EIS


contain


items


8 items


pertaining


to each


4 identity


statuses


(achievement


, moratorium,


diffusion,


forec


closure)


eac


h of 2 domains


ideological


(relating


oCC


upation,


religion,


erpers


politics


onal


, and


(relating


philosophical


to friendship,


life


style)


dating


, sex


recreation)


Only


ideological


subscal


was


used


this


study


because


more


ose


tied


purpo


ses


subjects

opinion

thoughts


proj


were

express

and f


asked

sed i


Using


to rate


n each


item


feelings.


a five


degree

reflect


total


-point


scale,


to which

d their


scale,


the

own


internal


consistency

correlations


ranges f

ranging


rom


.84,


from


with

over


test-ret

a four-


est

week


-EIS










Subjects


identity


status


was


determined


during


the pretest

which apply


their

the i


scores


on the


ideological


domain.


items o

Every


f EOM-EIS


item


rated


on a scale


from


to 5.


each


the


four


identity


statuses


(diffusion,


foreclosure,


moratorium,


achievement),


there


are


items


which


strong


agreement


(higher


ratings)


characteristic.


Summation


ratings


each


these


groups


of items


produces


a set


of four


subscores


ranging


from


to 40.


Each


these


subscores


mean


a given


subjects


on that


subject


subscore;


compared


with


a subscore


more


than


one


standard


deviation


above


the-mean


is considered


a positive


indication


corresponding


identity


status.


Subjects


testing


positive


exactly


one


identity


status


were


ass


signed


that


status


group.


Subjects


not


testing


positive


any


the


four


statuses


subje


testing


positive


more


than


one


identity


statuses


were


excluded


from


this


study.


(See


Appendix


Berzonsky

representing t


(1990)


hree


views


different


Marcia


styles


s identity


statuses


of processing


assimilating


self-relevant


information.


Therefore,


keeping


with


Berzonsky


s theory,


achievement


and


moratorium


status


groups


were


combined


to form


the


the










style.


Finally,


diffusion


status


group


formed


the


diffusely


oriented


identity


style.


Procedure


Overview


experimental


procedure


conditions


involved


main


steps


administration


the


Zung


(1965)


depression


inventory


computer-moderated


admini


station


rating


memory


tasks.


The


procedures relating

be described first,


depression


followed


questionnaire


procedures


will


relating


tasks


performed


Administration


on the


Zuna


computer.


Self-Ratincr


Scale


The subjects

Self-Rating Scale


twenty-item


were

(ZSRS


first

) for


questionnaire.


administered

depression.


Each


the Zung


This


items


is a brief


statement


about


how


subject


feels


or behaves,


example,


am more


irritable


than


usual


Subjects


were


directed


indicating


to rate


how


each


often


statement


statement


on a four-point


applies


scale,


them.


four


levels


on the


scale


are: "


- a little


time


" "2


- some


time,


II if 3


- a good


part


the


the


v u










a depressive


symptom,


indicating


on a four-point


scale


self-reported


frequency


applicability


item


subject.


Increasing


ratings


indicate


greater


agreement


with


item.


Half


items


are


phrased


so that


agreement


indicative


of depression


, while


other


half


are


phrased


so that


disagreement


is indicative


of depression.


ratings


latter


items


are


reversed


sum


prior


to scoring.


20 adjusted


final


ratings


, giving


score


a scale


is then


from


Higher


scores


indicate


greater


degrees


depr


session.


ZSRS,


a brief


self-report


instrument,


has


been


shown


to correlate


strongly


.80)


with


Hamilton


Rating


Scale


(HRS),


a wid


recognized


clini


cian-administered


scale


(Biggs


, Wylie,


& Ziegler


1978).


ZSRS


appropriate


use


een


with


shown


to be especially


sub-clinical


populations.


Administration


Computer


Tasks


next


part


the


procedure


was


moderated


computer


program.


experimenter


first


familiarized


subject


with


computer


outlined


the


tasks


be performed.


computer


The


program,


identification


experimenter


providing


number


then


it with


a code


which


initiated


subject


indicated


- -










questions


subject


might


ask.


When


the


instructions


had


been


completed


subject


was


ready


to begin


the

the


each


of each


screen


askin


task,


experimenter


task

a the


program


subject


left


displayed


to get


room.


a message


experimenter,


who


then


prepared


subject


next


task.


There


were


four


tasks:


schemata


ordination


ratings,


schemata


self-description


ratings,


memory


retrieval,


and


re-rating


schemata


self-descriptions.


procedure


performed


each


these


tasks


will


described


below


, followed


a discussion


measures


derived


from


each


task.


(See


Appendix


C for


an example


interaction


with


computer.)


Prior


program


to beginning


presented


actual


subj


rating


tasks,


a generalized


six-point


prac


tice


scale.


endpoints


this


scale


were


unlabelled,


sca


was


not


presented


conjunction


with


item


to be rated.


purpose


this


scale


was


to familiarize


subject


with


rating


metric


to give


subject


opportunity


practice


simple


mechanics


of selecting


a rating


using


computer


displayed


keyboard


a mark


next


One a

to each


t a time,


the


program


six rating


points.


subject


had


to enter


corresponding


rating


- -A










that


variations


in the


measured


responses


was


not


due


differential


accessibility


rating


keys


Previous


work


has


shown


that


practice


exercise


suffi

500 m


cient


to provide


illiseconds


(Landy


uniformity


, 1986/1987)


response

After


to within

completion


practice


scale,


first


actual


rating


task


was


begun.


Schemata


ordination


The


first


rating


task


involved


schemata


ordination.


task


consisted


of rating


cons


truct,


presented


as a pair


traits,


on a six-point


sca


repres


enting


personal


importance


each


subject


attached


that


construct


see


Appendix


The


scale


"not


at all


important


456


very


important


total


of 28 constructs


were


presented.


pairs


traits


used


were


identical


with


those


used


Landy


(1986/


words


1987)


were


although


presented


not


Appendix


selected


distinguished


in the


same


D for


first


from


order


a description


three


of how


constructs


remaining


subjects,


, were


served


merely


as practice


items


to orient


subje


rating


task.


The


remaining


25 constructs


were


same


experimental


subject


subj


in a randomized


ects


order


, but


The


were


presented


program


recorded


to each


each


response.










a series


of items


on a six-point


scale.


In this


case,


however,


trait


pairs.


items

The


were

scale


individual

represented


trait

the


rather


degree


than


to which


subjects


felt


that


each


trait


was


self-descriptive


The


scale


was


given


"not


me 1


456


me.


" A


total


of 53


traits


were


presented.


As before,


first


three


items


, unbeknownst


subjects,


were


practice


items


only.


remaining


50 items,


presented


in a different


random

making


order


to each


same


subject,

trait r


were

>airs


the

used


individual


in the


traits


schemata


ordinatio

response


task.


in order


As before,


use


program


the ratings


recorded


to select


each


items


memory


Memory


retrieval


retrieval.


task.


third


computer-moderated


tasks


was


memory


retrieval


task.


Four


traits


were


presented


one


time.


subj


ects


were


told


that


they


would


be allotted


one


one-half


minutes


to consider


each


trait.


They


were


instructed


attempt


to recall


as many


distinct


incidents


as possible


in which


they


displayed


given


trait.


They


were


told


press


keyboard


clearly


as soon


marked


as they


"Enter"


recalled


key


each


on the


computer


incident,


then


to write


down


a word


or brief


phrase


which


would


help


them


identify


the


memory


later.


addition


the


the










issued


an audible


signal


"beep")


and


displayed


message


instructing


subjects


to stop.


The


subjects


were


given


15 seconds


to relax


re-orient


between


traits.


After


four


traits


had


been


presented,


the


subjects


were


instructed


to supply


an approximate


date


(month


year)


when


each


incident


occurred.


Appendix


E for


program


a description


criteria


operation


selection


cues


Re-ratina


schemata


self-description.


The


fourth


and


final computer-moderated

schemata self-description


task

task


was


a repetition


described


the


above.


traits,


including


practice


traits,


were


presented


once


again


in random


order.


traits


were


rated


on the


same


six-point


"not


me 1


345


6 me"


scale.


Completion


this


task


finished


computer-moderated


portion


experiment. -


later


data


processing


measures


derived


were

the


from


recorded

computer


computer


in a file


program


tasks.


on disk


ended.


Two


measures


the


subject


s ability


to retrieve


memories


response


presented


cue


were


derived


from


this


part


procedure.


The


program


recorded


number


responses


to each


trait


(retrieval


quantity)


the


delay


in responding


(retrieval


latency).


Additionally,


third


measure


was


derived


from


difference


w-- v










Retrieval


quantity


refers


number


distinct


memories


recalled


response


to a particular


cue


(Landy,


1986/1987).


As each


trait


was


presented


the


subject


on the


computer


screen


during


memory


retrieval


task,


subject


signalled


remembrance


a particular


incident


relating


to personal


expression


trait


pressing


the


"Enter"


key.


program


recorded


keypress


signal,


providing


a count


number


memories


recalled


each


trait.


The


subject


also


recorded


incident,


later


supplied


an approximate


day


and


year,


ensuring


that


each


incident


corresponded


a specific,


distinct


event.


counts


from


the


computer


record


the


dated


list


were


cross-checked


against


each


other,


to provide


verification


accuracy


this


measure.


counts


were


then


averaged


in order


provide


a single


score.


Retrieval


latency


a measure


the


delay


between


presentation


of a retrieval


cue


an indication


from


the


subject


that


a memory


been


accessed


response


that


cue


(Landy,


1986/1987).


The


computer


program


monitoring


memory


retrieval


task,


using


the


same


keypress


signal


described


above,


recorded


the


elapsed

computer


time


between


screen ar


the

the


display

retrieval


the

the


trait

first


on the

memory,










latency


was


calculated


as the


sum


elapsed


times


divided


number


memories


recalled.


The


self-change


index


is a measure


total


difference


in self-description


ratings


on the


four


recall


cues


from


before


the


recall


task


to after


recall


task.


were


The


ratings


subtracted


corresponding


from


to each


ratings


cue


time


time


and


these


four


differences


were


summed.


Summary


of Procedure


procedure


first,


essentially


administration


interactive


computer


Zung


tasks,


comprised


two


steps


questionnaire.


which


Second,


consisted


schemata


ordination,


retrieval,


a repeat


self-description


the


rating,


self-description


memory


rating.


Desin.


Analysis


Three


independent


variables


were


manipulated


3x2x2


factorial


between


subjects


design.


first


factor


referred


to information-oriented,


normatively


oriented,


diffusely


oriented


identity


styles,


determined


during


protesting


using


the


EOM-EIS.


The


second


factor


comprised


referred

levels:


to schemata

positive pe


evaluation


rsonal


and


characteristics










The


present


study


investigated


three


dependent


measures,


which


pertained


memory


retrieval,


and


one


of which


dealt


with


cognitive


change.


memory


retrieval


measures


, Retri


eval


Quantity


Retri


eval


Latency


, were


recorded


computer


program


monitoring


memory


derived


retrieval


from


The


ratings


Self


rec


-Change


orded


Index


that


was


program


one-way


ANOVA


with


three


eve


of identity


style


was


conducted


Quantity


using


to test


the dependent


Hypoth


measure


ser


Retrieval


tests


were


conducted


using


dependent


measures


of Retrieval


Quantity


Retri


eval


Latency


test


Hypotheses


2 and


seni


three-way


ANOVAs


3x2x2


were


conducted


using


the dependent


variable


Retri


eval


Quantity


Retri


eva].


Latency


test


Hypotheses


4 and


A two-way


ANOVA


was


conducted


using


dependent


measure


Self


-Change


Index


test


Hypothesi
















CHAPTER


RESULTS


AND


ANALYSIS


A series


effects


3x2x2


of identity


ANOVAs


style,


were


cue


conducted


valence,


to analyze


and


validation


on the


pretest


depression,


total


number


of memories


rec


ailed,


latency


of recall.


In addition,


ANOVA


was


performed


test


effects


subjects


of identity


perceived


style


cue


self-change


valence


when


they


on the


recalled


self-disconfirming


personal


character


CS.


independent


variables


were


between-subjects


factors.


Pretests


Prior


to conducting


the primary


analyses


, two


protests


were


conducted.


First,


in order


to determine


identity


style


might


linked


to subjects


' memory


recall


ability


/ 15 subjects


were


asked


to complete


-EMS


Digit


Span


subtest


Wechsler


Adult


Intelligence


Scale


Revised


(Fantuzzo,


Blakey,


& Gorsuch


1989).


The


Digit


Span


subtest


measures


immediate


recall


memory.


A series


of Pearson


s correlations


were










total


score


Digit


Span


test.


three


correlations


.11),


failed


to reach


suggesting


that


significance


(range


differences


memory


rec


among


identity


styles


are


not


due


to general


differences


memory


ability.


Second,


because


depr


session


been


shown


influence


memory


recall


Subjects


were


asked


to complete


the


Zung


depr


ess


scale,


x2 ANOVA


was


conducted


on the


depr


ess


scores


in order


to confirm


that


subje


in the various


cell


were


not


differentially


depr


ess


Analys


the


Zung


scores


confirmed


that


subj


ects


' leve


of depression


did


not


differ


signifi


cantly


across


conditions


There


were


significant


main


ects


or interactions


Sas reflected


Table


Table


2 provides


the


mean


depression


scores


each


condition.


Primary


Anal


vses


data


the


first


dependent


measures


(Retrieval


Quantity


and


Retrieval


Latency)


were


analyzed


using


(information


-oriented,


normatively


oriented,


and


diffusely


oriented)


sitive


negative


memory


cues)


self-confirming


self-disconfirming)


between-subj


ects


analysis


variance


(ANOVA)










46

N 0 N NU 04





F1o o He 0r 0 0 ('4





$4



rd0 CC 0" 0II Ci CV) N H
01 04 (9 0r LA (9 CV)~

U)9 aO a ~






(U H


(9 H (' H Hr ('4 Ci( nn




sI U)
o 0)L q 0, N C 7




o U) CO H H L

U) 0
VF





o 0~

0a H
o (U E


s-J I r1

I I a
4- (1 rI 0)a lj a


U)) r4E ClU
Ca X~ X (
>1 '0 ~
H ( Id11) 0I 0 rl 0)










47













SO 0l H r '4' Nr CV) H 44 (N N- 4
(P U) 4' ('4 (N CO 44 N (N (N (N (N H

0(/ N NT (01 44) tO) LI) LA 4') U) C

Cl)

01
CC H '4' 4' LA CV) Cr ) 0 0 Hl CT' CO
C)i NO t O 0 N3 (V o f) N
N O)
CD E cl, LA LA '' tO C) LI) 4' '.0 (t LA C)



0 (1 (V (Y) CV) (1 Cl Cl Cl (t) CV) C) C

(I2



o, (9 (' (' (N H H H H v- H H H
p4~I kk e k l r r r
0 r w lr r u il c r e
U) drr F c wL cI E: lt Z rF
O : o 1)r oco E:oE
$4II-tO UO U
04 C 2, 2 2 2 2n 2)r )
(Pl 0d 2 S-a 2F 1-. 2~ $4 2 2 2





-,I Ci 0) ) l CI 03 1) 0) 1) 02 C
) (U "ri p4 p4l p4l p4( p4 rf l r
C: 0c 0c 0 0c 0, 0,c
0 i l l( r r dc r d e
p4 r ,m mb mmt
42I (tO O Q1 a




(1) () @3 @l @l @3 0 3P @3 @3 4) 0)
0 ~ Ir C.) r1 p4 p4, r4 p4 p4 p4l p4l -H rl -
V 0) "rI p4 (5 (U -ri (U (U p4 "I (U (
$4 H: 0) U) 01 0' 0) 02 01 01 CD 0) 0- 0
Vt, 040 Zc 040 Z Z 040 Z wc
Crr l k k k ll ll I r
(Uc* r w o


rIOF 42 42 42 42 p4 r4 p4 p D U) (
02~~~ 42- 0 Cd C d 42 4 2 4
C I 2 C U u u 4 4 4-










Retrieval


Quantity


three-way


ANOVA


performed


on the


total


number


memories


recalled


revealed


significant


main


effects,


one


significant


interaction


(See


two-way


Table


interaction


Main


and


effects


one


were


three-way


found


valence


, F(1,


205)


= 34.82,


.0001


, and


identity


style,


, 205)


= 3.84,


.02,


these


were


qualified


a two-way


eraction


between


valence


and


validation


205)


, F(1,


interaction


among


= 5.16,


identity


p < .02,


style,


a three-way


valence,


validation,


, 205)


= 4.38,


.01.


The


main


effects


reflected


that


subj


ects


did


tend


to recall


more


positive


memories


= 18.94)


than


negative


memories


= 11.23)


that


memory


recall


varied


as predicted


according


to identity


style.


Student-Newman-Keuls


analysis


with


.05 revealed


that


the


highest


numbers


of autobiographical


memories


were


reported


information-oriented


individuals


= 16.60),


followed


diffusely


normatively


oriented


oriented


= 12.35)


= 14.65)


individuals.


However,


these


main


effects


were


qualified


interactions.


Using


a Student-Newman-Keuls


analysis


two-way


interaction


between


valence


validation


showed


that


under


conditions


of self-confirmation,


subjects










49


Nl 0i U) LI) C' C'
HS 0 CO N
So o 0I U) 0 0






lH N c C') Cl N HC'
Cr4VOQ r





U) N tO tO HO LA C' C



d ~ ~ 1(N 0' to Cl to

(U (I H (




(4 (N u-I ('4 HU (N HU ('4


4-) a


al
U' 0' N a) to w( N uc~
Hd U) 0' (N (Y (N (N C' C)

(U d t ) Ha C') H0 N

@3 0w H u(

sI~
42 0
0) U ) C:

Irl


Irt
0 Hd


o( (U


(U 0) 4.)



4.4 0 1

r1 4' )QI 'l O

Hd U) S Sl rI 0lr
OSh 'I Hr H Hh


0 N
>3r >i rl 1










= 11.83;


see


Figure


However,


when


subjects


were


presented


with


self-disconfirming


characteristics,


they


recalled


significantly


more


memories


when


presented


with


positive


characteristics


that


were


not


like


themselves


= 19


than


when


asked


rec


memories


of negative


characteristics


that


were


not


like


themselves


10.60).


This


interaction,


however


, was


qualified


three-way


interaction


among


identity


style,


valence,


validational


conditions.


Table


4 indicates,


the


three


identity


styles


reported


significantly


different


patterns


of recollections


across


four


recall


conditions.


predicted,


illustrated


in Figure


information-oriented


individuals


produced


a relative


balanced


number


of self-confirming


self-disconfirming


memories


both


positive


negative


characteristics.


When


subjects


were


asked


to recall


positive


characteristics


, a Student-Newman


-Keuls


conditional


analysis


revealed


that


they


recalled


both


self-confirming


= 22.57)


self-disconfirming


memories


= 19.89)


with


same


frequency.


Likewi


information-oriented


subjects


recalled


both


self-confirming


memories


11.20)


self-disconfirming


memories


= 12.44)


with


equal


frequency


(see


Figure


,















25 -






20 -


15 -






10 -






5 -






0-


I I


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics


Sirr
rt giir


Effects


of valence


nmfh mn nrnri SQ r r


validation


1Iid


rE~r.17


nnmhcrt










52



C1) (rcr) Hn ON LA 0' it) It) CL) LI)
44; (1 C' C'4 ON 0V Hw Qb LI 0lCr
>iC/ 44 (I) ND to 0( 44 a)I) 1O U) a) C
U H Hl


(Y) 44 0' 44 0' CN CO (1) U)) 0' 0
ed(' ('4 ON 0U 0T tO If 44 C') 44
4) a, ar a)dOc 3 (
5 ~ r 44 U) ONl Nl C C 440 (fl (4 0 H


d~ Hn Hr Ho Hl H~ (NI (I eq Hu (4(
(92IQ IPdr o JL)OF
'I)id i ddi
jh4 c u O\


l 0) C) IA O CO HV ('4 N U), 44 CO (I (



'U CC tDOD 44 44 H CX) H U) 0 44 H
S) 42Q 0' ('4 to to 44 0j ON '0 tO 0 t



(C(U
*E EC CD 0' 0 44 U) 0000O
-! 0( U) CX (' 4 N 10 0 H (N N 0' 4
5.4 (1 a a ar a ar a a a ar





2 to a) nl Nr Crl eqeqo t
V, (N (N (' (' H H H
S


$4Q ) a c c u (1 a
0 -3



ci 0c 2 2; 54 2I $-a 2 $4 2c S 2; S-





'UJ AI 0J U 0 C) 0r Ur 0r U~ 0~ 0l 0
r4~ -4 U (9) C) 0) 0d ii 0C 0) 0 0) Cl
















25 -






20-






15-






10 -


5-






0 -


22.6
















-- 12.4


11.2


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics
- i.


Figure


Effects


of valence


validation


tr n fnrm~t i'5 rn-


rn'p aanr


rar=r ilrst~


C"h)" 91


nrrmkdr










self-disconfirming


memories.


A Student-Newman-Keuls


conditional


analysis


self-confirming


demonstrated


conditions


recalled


that


subjects


similar


numbers


positive


= 15


negative


= 13.00)


autobiographical


memories


see


Figure


In contrast,


subjects


in self


-disconfirming


conditions


differed


significantly


their


recall


of positive


negative


memories.


number


of negative


self-disconfirming


memories


recalled


- 7.10)


was


significantly


lower


than


number


of positive


self


-disconfirming


memories


21.5


see


Figure


suggesting


operation


of a robust


self-enhancement


effe


Finally,

individuals r


as pred


called


icted, d

an equal


.iffusely

number


oriented

of autobiographical


memories


among


four


recall


conditions.


Student-Newman-Keuls


conditional


analysis


revealed


that


differences


in the


number


of memories


recalled


across


both


self-confirming


conditions


sitive


negative


= 11.93)


and


self-di


confirming


conditions


sitive


.78,


negative


- 9.46)


proved


to be


insignificant


see


Figure


Retrieval


Latency


Viewed


as a second


indicator


ccessiblity


w B
















25 -






20 -






15 -






10 -






5 --


0-


21.5


15.8


13.0


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics
- ---


Figure


Effects


of valence


validation


- *


L1---1..


'I,~





































10 -






5-


O -


I I


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics
--- i .


Figure


Effects


of valence


validation


np rnmF~4am/yn


~~f ftl~~l~t~


f F\I~ al


nrtmhar


raF 3 1 1 11~










significant


main


effect,


one


significant


two-way


interaction


one


three-way


interaction


see


Table


Main


effects


were


found


valence,


ff1~,


205)


= 12.02


< .0006,


a tendency


toward


a main


effect


identity


style


, 205)


qualified


a two


2.66


-way


< .07.


eraction


However,


between


ese


valence


were


and


validation,


F(1,


205)


= 4.75


.03 and


a three-way


intera


action


among


identity


style,


valence,


validation


205)


= 3.89,


.02.


Support


was


found


hypothesis


that


memories


related


to positive


characteristics


would


be recalled


more


quickly


than


would


negatively


cued


memories.


The


main


effect


valence


reflected


fact


that


subjects


did


tend


to recall


positive


memory


more


quickly


78 seconds)


seconds).


than


negative


tendency


toward


memories


= 19.94


a significant


difference


among


various


identity


styles


terms


response


times


indicated


that


diffusely


oriented


subj


ects


produced


longest


response


times


overall


= 19


sec


onds)


compared


normatively


oriented


subjects


= 18.9


seconds)


information-oriented


subjects


= 16.7 seconds)


However


these


effects


were


qualified


interactions.


Using


a Student-Newman-Keuls


analysis.


---


I Fl










58


LA (0 Cd (N H O
eq 0 N N3 OI 0 CM
04 ~ N 0I rj4 (v 0' C)


o0 0U LA H H 0I 0



to ('4 0 LA LA




'a a o t~ o eq, 'a



a a SS
CM ('4 ('4 e






LI N 0'1 (V) CD ~ rEl

to in e o a' toCVC
USc N H -I (4



V 0'


>1C



S cU Q0 0 1 (4 t

Hr U) (f ) N0 7 "

cU~~ (fl N '

44 ('4 (
4)l 0r H
lr1 *



5-4 4-', rQ Il Q

o~ (U
h h l*rl










presented


with


positive


self


-characteristi


= 17


second


than


when


asked


to confirm


negative


self-characteristi


= 19.9 seconds


see


Figure


In a similar


way,


subj


ects


who


were


pres


ented


with


positive


characteristic


that


were


not


like


these


ves


recalled


memories


significantly


more


quickly


= 14.5


seconds)


than


when


asked


to recall


memories


of negative


charact


eristi


that


were


not


like


themselves


= 19.9


seconds


s interaction,


however


, was


qualified


three-way


interaction


among


identity


style


, valence,


validational


conditions


As Table


6 indicates,


the


three


identity


styles


reported


significantly


different


patterns


response


times


across


the four


recall


conditions.


predi


cted,


information-orient


ed individuals


produced


equal


res


ponse


times


self-confirming


self-di


confirming


memory


both


positive


negative


characteristic


When


subjects


were


asked


recall


positive


character


/ a Student-Newman-Keul


conditional


analysis


revealed


that


they


recalled


both


self-confirming


memories


= 14.2


sec


onds


and


self-disconfirming


memory


= 15.6 seconds)


with


same


speed


of recall.


Negative


memories


were


recalled


with


similar


speed


overall


with


information-oriented


with


-- v














25-





20 -





15 -





10 -





5-


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics


Figure


Effects


of valence


validation c










61




r4 0 C1)





o tO t


r4





V1
jh.4 c

uS0 00 U




(U (






tr( H 04 (1)
Ft C V 0
C D








sIr



o Cl N 0 O L




dl U' 0I 0, LA



Ir
(4.4If
r-4I I 8\ r










62


















t3' v- NIc


U, U

o r-4 ('4 (9 ('4 0 0 CX
of vs en (4 f) C




C

C.)





Ir

-I Z N, (9 0 C
0U (N (1 H Hd Hr Hr
U)r I r J
$4IOa~ooa
0 cP








4.) 0 0, 4) (1) 0d 0,

Ud .r4 *rI (rI *r
C, .i- 42 .42 k il r
4) 0 *rI S r1 (U r
OE -I 02; CD 0
(U~~ 0 0( 0
















25 -


20 -


19.3


- -----__17.9


15--






10 -


5-







0 -


15.6


14.2


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics
---- S


Fiaure


Effects


of valence


validation


-~~ 5. rCSL


__


,


__ ~


mmA--


I m










Partial


support


was


found


prediction


that


normatively


oriented


individuals


would


show


disproportionately


longer


response


time


when


recalling


self


-disconfirming


memories,


especially


negative


self-characteristics.


A Student


-Newman-Keul s


conditional


analysis


demonstrated


that


under


self-disconfirming


conditions,


normatively


oriented


subjects


did


significantly


differ


their


response


times.


The


latency


of recall


negative


self-disconfirming


memories


= 23.6 seconds


was


significantly


higher


than


positive


self-di


confirming


memories


= 14.0


seconds;


see


Figure


Finally,


partial


support


was


found


prediction


that


diffusely


oriented


individuals


would


produce


response


times


with


relatively


equal


latency


among


four


recall


conditions,


the exception


being


rapidity


with


which


they


recalled


positive,


self-disconfirming,


memories


see


Figure


Self-Chance


final


analyses


addressed


relative


degrees


perceived


self-change


among


three


identity


styles


following


recall


of autobiographical


memories.


Because


validational


conditions


____ W V


_ _














25--






20-





15 -






10-





5 -


0-


20.7 -. 2 -6


18.1


14.0


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics
-m m- -


Figure


Effects


of valence


validation c


-














25





20 -


15





10 -





5-


0 -


I I


Confirmatory


Disconfirmatory


VALIDATION


LEGEND:


Positive


Characteristics


Negative
Characteristics


Figures


Effects


of valence


validation


. S










on a six-point


scale),


these


conditions


were


subject


ceiling


effect.


this


reason,


these


conditions


could


not


be used


analysis


of perceived


change


, since


they


could


change


little


as a function


of validation.


Conditions


of invalidation


(positive/disconfirm;


negative/disconfirm),


however,


reflected


memory


recall


along


dimensions


that


were


initially


self-descriptiveness


.e.,


rated


or 2


on a six


point


scale)


and


that


reason


could


be subject


modification


if disconfirmed.


In other


words


,these


originally


non-self


-descriptive


characteristics


might


become


memories


more


self-descriptive


illustrating


their


as a function


applicablity


of reviewing


self.


Changes


under


positive/disconfirm


condition


would


reflect


individual


s willingness


to relinquish


negative


self-constructions.


Likewise


, changes


under


negative/disconfirm


individual


condition


s willingness


would


to relinquish


reflect


positive


self-constructions.


two-way


ANOVA


performed


on the


time


self-ratings


revealed


significant


main


effects.


The


main


showed


effect


that


valence


, overall,


F(~1,


subjects


104)


= 12.01,


regarded


.0008


positive


cues


as more


self-descrintive


SA 1


= 20.01


than


the


pnatti v7s


w -- --


I I


- --









self


-similarity


individual


= 15


reported


self-similarity


while


lowest


= 13.3)


. The


normatively


amount


level


oriented


perceived


of perceived


self


-similarity


information-oriented


subjects


fell


between


other


identity


styles


= 14.0)


Although


these

between


findings f

n identity


ailed

style


to show


valence


predicted

, these r


intera


results


action

lend


partial


support


hypothesis


SIX,


suggesting


relative


resistance


to disconfirmation


associated


with


normatively


oriented


identity


style

















CHAPTER


DISCUSSION


AND


CONCLUSIONS


Results


this


study


provide


support


relationship


between


identity


development


autobiographical


memory


recall.


Central


study


been


renewed


interest


in the


relationship


between


personality


memory


in general,


as well


specific


transformations


in recall


that


may


accompany


pers


onal


change


reconstruction


(Barclay,


1986,


1988a


1988b;


Barclay


& Subramaniam,


1987


Brewer


, 1988


Kihlstrom,


Ross


1981


& Conway,


Markus,


1986).


1977


This


Markus


study


& Sentis,


followed


1980


from


rec


ognition


of personal


identity


personal


memory


erdependent


process


es.


This


conceptualization


self


is broadly


consistent


with


George


Kelly


s view


people


acting


as personal


scientists


who


continuously


strive


to evolve


preserve


a meaningful


sense


of self.


Bartlett


(1932


work


supported


this


study


s view


that


autobiographical


recall


is more


than


the


literal


reproduction


of psychologically


embalmed


events,


but


he aptly


put it, is


instead


"far


more


decisively


CfL.


__










continues


to mount


importance


addressing


function

attention


or purpose


Consistent


such

with


efforts

other a


continues


accounts


to draw


(e.g.,


Greenwald,


1980),


this


study


regarded


preservation


a meaningful


sense


of self-identity


as an important


factor


this


reconstructive


process


(see


Kelly,


1955),


predicted


development


that


could


important


carry


differences


implications


in identity


autobiographical


recall.


The


specific


hypotheses


this


project


have


been


derived


from


Berzonsky


(1987


, 1988,


1990)


conceptualization


of identity


style


which


emphasizes


differential


processes


assoc


iated


with


information-oriented,


normatively


oriented,


and


diffusely


oriented


pers


onal


scientists -


As relatively


objective


processors


, information-oriented


individuals


actively


see


k self-relevant


information


willingly


embrace


assimilate


Concerning


viable


reconstructions


contemporary


self-images,


self.


information-oriented


individuals


would


"skeptical


tentative


about


their


self-constructions


, responsive


to environmental


feedback,


willing


of contradictory


test


revise


evidence"


self-constructs


(Berzonsky,


1990,


in light


p.177).


contrast,


normatively


oriented


individuals


. wh


o have


r










Having


foreclosed


prematurely


on readily


available,


externally


provided


self-images,


they


operate


as dogmatic


scientists


rely


on assimilative


processes


such


rationalization


and


confirmation-biased


searches


testing

oriented


images


themselves.


individuals


self-theorists


who


are


And


finally,


characterized


continually


engage


diffusely


hoc"


in ephemeral


accommodative


changes


in response


vagaries


immediate


contextual


demand


see


Berzonsky,


1988,


1990).


These


broad


-based


differences


in personal


identity


should


carry


implications


nature


tran


action


that


occurs


between


self-constructions


and


recollections.


Accordingly,


number


autobiographical


memories


recalled,


latency


that


memory


recall,


and


impact


that


recall


subsequent


self-perceptions,


varied


with


the


style


identity


development


that


individual


brought


to bear


in forging


a sense


of self.


Implications


of the


Results


Overall,


greatest


information-oriented


number


individuals


of autobiographical


generated


recollections


and,


as predicted,


diffusely


oriented


individuals


generated


fewe


More


imDortantlv.


this


recall


- O


wCl










positive


self-perceptions,


as well


greatest


ability


to generate


memories


that


threatened


those


self-perceptions.


compelling


negative


This


in light


self-discrepant


latter


fact


memories


effect


that


is particularly


number


generated


the


information-oriented


individuals


were


almost


double


that


normatively


oriented


subjects


whose


predisposition


was


toward


pattern


preservation


of findings


supports


of central


the


self-images.


relatively


This


greater


receptivity


of information-oriented


individuals


negative


identity-discrepant


information.


It also


supports


other


research


which


found


that


normatively


oriented


individuals


tend


to employ


constri


action


and


withdrawal


under


ego-threatening


conditions


(Waterman


Waterman


, 1974).


Furthermore


, looking


across


four


memory


recall


conditions,

speculations


these

that


data

may


invite s

be worthy


ome


intriguing


of further


attention.


For


example,


contrary


to predictions,


it does


not


appear


that


normatively


oriented


individuals


engaged


in markedly


greater


confirmatory


memory


recall


than


information-oriented


individuals.


Indeed,


there


was


remarkedly


little


discrepancy


between


levels


confirmatory


-- -


disconfirmatorv


memory


recall


ror any or










study


would


be defined


the


tendency


to generate


relatively


greater


numbers


of positive


than


negative


memories,


regardless


their


consistency


with


self-perceptions.


Viewed


from


this


perspective


, both


information-


normatively


oriented


individuals


appeared


engage


in greater


self-enhancement


than


did


diffusely


oriented


individuals


this


regard


the


information-oriented


individuals


generated


significantly


more


positive


memories


= 21.23)


as did


than


normatively


negative


oriented


= 11.82)

subjects


(positive


= 18.63; negative


= 10.05).


Only


diffusely

relatively


oriented

greater


identity

balance


style

in the


was


marked


number


of favorable


= 13.49)


unfavorable


= 10.67)


memories


recalled.


One


possible


interpretation


this


effect


concerns


endemic


function


of identity


development


preserve


favorable


sense


of self.


this


regard


such


biases


may


be viewed


"indicating


that


s cognitive


bia


ses


are


pervasive


character


stic


of normal


personalities


as manifestations


an effectively


ctioning


organization


of knowledge"


(Greenwald,


1980


, p.603).


This


general


picture


of autobiographical


recall


influenced


differences


in personal


identity


strengthened


considering


impact


that


memory


,


. ..


V










changes


in self-perceptions


following


recall


memories


that


were


inconsistent


with


positive


and


negative


self-images.


As expected,


normatively


oriented


individuals


their


showed


preference


or accommodation.


findings


least


change,


assimilation


This


of Berzonsky


finding


Sullivan


again


over


is consi


(1990)


underscoring


personal


stent


who


revision


with


concluded


from


their


factor


analytic


study


of identity


styles


that


"normatively


oriented


individuals


may


cordon


a core


self from


potential


threats


of invalidation"


is also


consistent


with


broader


literature


that


documents


role


that


firm


self-commitments


play


in how


memory


information


is distorted


processed


(Greenwald,


Swann,


1980),


1985),


the


whether


extent


which


beliefs


persevere


in the


face


of contradictory


evidence

reasoning


(Lord, R

, highly


oss,


& Lepper


committed


, 1979).


identity


According


styles


may


to this

less


amenable


to potential


disconfirmation


of firmly


held


self-perceptions,


preferring


instead


to adhere


previous


personal


convictions.


In conclusion,


overall


results


this


study


provide


some


evidence


concerning


relationship


between


identity


style


recall


of autobiographical


memory.


Matter


of findincas


in this


study


were


d&A


I .


..










warranted


interpreting


the


results


study


The


cross-sectional


nature


s study


limits


interpretations


regarding


the


developmental


progression


of personal


memory


recall


Limitations


Inve


stiaation


One


limitation


sent


investigation


concerns


the

The


way

only


in which

measure


subj


ects


subj


self-theori


ects


were


assessed


self-perceptions


was


self-rating


of how


descriptive


themselves


particular


people


pers


initial


onal

y ten'


character

d to rate


was


itive


Because

character


most

stics


rather


highly


self


-descriptive


negative


character


as only


moderately


self-descriptive,


measures


of changes


their


self


-theory


were


plagued


ceiling


ects


Although


present


investigation


extended


level


asses


sment


a per


son


self


-theory


compared


level


used


in existing


experimental


specific


memory


assessment


research


, a more


needed


thorough


using


and


an asses


sment


instrument


that


ess


obvious


more


personally


meaningful


, personally


elicited


constructs


subtle


changes


in subje


' self


theori


could


be ascertained.


Also


, by


usina


haracteri


v.


that


were


more


nersonallv


c


-










Recommendations


Future


Research


results


present


investigation


justify


continued


exploration


organization


and


role


retrieval


of identity


of personally


style


meaningful


memories.


Rather


than


conforming


more


traditional


use


of standardized


memory


cues


found


in past


memory


research,


future


inve


stigations


could


rely


more


heavily


on eliciting


personally


relevant


memory


cues


through


various


techniques


available


in personal


construct


theory,


whi


ch might


lead


to a better


assessment


person


s self-theory.


use


of a less


obvious


measure


in order


to derive


a person


s superordinate


self-schemas


could


acc


omplished


using


a repertory


grid,


a laddering


procedure


(Hinkle


, 1965),


or a variety


of other


ways


determine


superordination


(Metz


& Neimeyer


, 1988).


Such


instruments


could


also yield


some


useful


information


about


overall


positive


or. negative


evaluative


nature


self-system


self-schemata


about


possible


interrelationships


changes


among


in the


organization


self-theory.


The


explore


continued


subjects'


use


style


of a computerized


processing


assessment


assimilating


self-relevant


information


could


allow


more


comprehensive


understanding


relations


between


vL CI~1~


i- D


I










example,


time


periods


from


which


retrieved


memories


came


were


recorded


analyzed,


different


identity


styles


might


be found


to differ


the


average


memory


retrieved.

















APPENDIX


IDEOLOGICAL


IDENTITY


SCALE


Read each

reflects your


item

own t


indicate


thoughts


to what

feelings.


degree


If a statement


more


than


one


part,


please


indicate


your


reaction


item


as a whol


Mark


the


number


on the


attached


answer


sheet


that


best


reflects


your


opinion.


ease


sure


to respond


to all


32 of


items


Do not


write


booklet


strongly

moderate


disagree


moderately

strongly a


disagree


agree


gree


neither


agree


nor


disagree


haven


t chosen


occupation


really


want


to get


into


, and


just


working


at whatever


available


until


something


better


comes


along.


When


comes


to religion,


st haven


t found


anything


that


appeals


don


t really


feel


need to


look.










Politics


is something that


never


can be too sure


about because things


change so fast.


do think


it's


important


to know what


can politically stand


for and believe


I'm still


trying to decide how capable


am as a


person and


what


jobs will be


right for me.


don't give religion much


bother me one way


thought and it doesn't


or the other.


looking for


an acceptable perspective for my


own


"life


style"


view,


haven't really found it


yet.


haven't


really


considered politics.


just


doesn't excite me much.


might have thought


about a


different


jobs,


there's never really


any question since my


parents


said what


they wanted.


A person's


faith is unique


to each individual.


I've


considered and reconsidered it myself


know what


can believe.


.










style"


don't


believe


anyone


will


be likely


change


my perspective.


guess


m pretty


much


like


folks


when


comes


to politics.


follow


what


they


do in terms


voting


such.


m really


not


interested


in finding


right


job;


any


will


just


seem


to flow


with


what


available.


m not


sure


what


religion


means


me.


like


make


up my


mind


but


m not


done


looking


yet.


15. My


own


views


on a desirable


life


style were


taught


me by


my parents


and


don


see


need


to question


what


they


taught


me.


There


are


so many


different


political


parties


and


ideals.


can


t decide


which


to follow


until


figure


it all


out.


took


me a while


to figure


it out,


but


now


really


know


what


want


a career.


...


.










In finding


an acceptable


viewpoint


to life


itself,


find


myself


engaging


a lot


discussions


with


others


some


self-exploration.


ve thought


my political


beliefs


through


realize


can


agree


with


some


not


other


aspects


what


my parents


believe.


parents


decided


a long


time


what


should


into


employment


m following


through


their


plans.


ve gone


faith


through


can


a period


now


of serious


understand


questions


what


about


believe


an individual.


23. My


parents


'views


on life


are


good


enough


don


t need


anything


else.


m not


sure


about


my political


beliefs,


but


trying


to figure


what


can


truly


believe


took


me a long


time


to decide


but


now


know


sure


what


direction


move


in for


a career.


V V










guess


just


kind


of enjoy


life


in general,


don


see


myself


living


particular


viewpoint


to life.


really


have


never


been


involved


in politics


enough


to have


made


a firm


stand


one


way


or the


other.


just


can


t decide


what


to do for


an occupation.


There


are


so many


that


have


possibility


es.


ve never


really


questioned


my religion.


If it


right


my parents


it must


be right


31. After


a lot


of self-examination


have


establi


shed


very


definite


view


on what


own


style


will


32. My


folks


have


always


had


their


own


political


moral


beliefs


about


issues


like


abortion


mercy


killing


ve always


gone


along


accepting


what


they


have.
















APPENDIX


ZUNG


SELF-REPORT


SCALE


FOR


DEPRESSION


(ZSRS)


Please


read


following


statements


indicate


whether


they


apply


you:


a little


time


, 2)


some


time,


good


part


time,


most


time


feel


down


-hearted


blue


Morning


when


best.


have


crying


spells


or feel


like


have


trouble


sleeping


at night.


eat as much

still enjoy


used


sex.


notice

have t


that


rouble


am losing


with


weight


constipation


. My


heart


beats


faster


than


usual


tired


no reason.


11. My


mind


is as clear


as it used


to be


find


easy


to do


things


used


to do


13. I


am res


less


and


can't


keep


still.










feel


that


am useful


needed.


18. My


life


is pretty


full.


19. I


feel


that


other


would


be better


if I


were


dead.


still


enjoy


things


used

















APPENDIX


EXAMPLE


INTERACTION


IN COMPUTER


TASKS


As part


procedure


elicitation


autobiographical


memories


, the


subject


was


asked


perform


computer


a number


program.


tasks


During


which


this


were


monitored


portion


experiment,


subjects


intera


cted


dir


ectly


with


the


program.


following


description


illustrates


procedure


used.


first


task


was


a practice


exerc


se.


prompt


was


like


six-point


rating


sca


le used


in all


subsequent


rating


tasks.


In each


step


of this


task,


one


numbered


items


was


marked


, and


subject


was


expected

following


press


ins


tructions


corres

were


ponding number

displayed at t


key.


computer


screen:


PLEASE


THE


PRACTICE


MARKED


SOME


KEY


KEY


. USE


PRESSES.


YOUR


PRESS


DOMINANT


HAND


After


a moment


, the


message


PRESS


ANY


KEY


TO CONTINUE


was


displayed


bottom


right


corner


screen.


When


subject


had


read


instructions


felt


ready










following


display


to be


presented:


* ** *


The


message


PRESS


KEY


CORRESPONDING


TO "X"


appeared


bottom


right


corner


display.


Pres


sing


changed


display


the


following


The


subject


continued


pressing


indicated


key


until


items


had


been


used.


Then


message


PRESS S

screen,


PACE


again


TO CONTINUE


indicating


appeared


that


subject


bottom


could


continue


as soon


as he


or she


was


ready


Next,


subjects


received


the


following


message


to guarantee


them


the


importance


experimenter


their


privacy


and


anonymity


PLEASE


LEFT


ASSURE


ROOM


THAT
WHILE


EXPERIMENTER


ARE


DOING


EXPERIMENTAL


ANONYM I TY


TASKS
VERY


YOUR


PRIVACY


AND


IMPORTANT.


As before


after


a few


moments


message


PRESS


SPACE


BAR


TO CONTINUE


appeared,


to allow


subject


proceed


at his


or her


own


pace.


next


task,


the


subjects


rated


importance


of 28 binolar


trait


nairs.


.










were


presented


on the


screen


as follows:


PERSONS
ACCORD
(AMBITI
PERSONS
BELIEVE
FORMING
DIMENSI
ON THE
DIMENSI
YOU BEL
IMPRESS
SCALE I


FORM
NG TO
OUS-LA
DIFFE
ANY P
AN IM
ON AT
SCREEN
ON ACC
IEVE I
ION OF
S:


IMPRESS


VARI
ZY)
R AS
ARTI
PRES
A TI
. PL
ORDI
T IS


IONS


OUS DIM
OR (POL
TO HOW
CULAR D
SION OF
ME WILL
EASE RA
NG TO H
IN FOR


A PERSON.


OF OTHERS
TENSIONS SUCH AS
ITE-IMPOLITE).
IMPORTANT THEY
DIMENSION IS IN
ANOTHER. ONE
BE PRESENTED


TE EACH
OW IMPORTANT
MING AN
THE RATING


NOT AT ALL
IMPORTANT


VERY
IMPORTANT


RATE ACCORDING TO
OPINION. YOU WILL


YOUR
PRESS


PRIVATE
KEY FROM


1-6.


Once


again,


reminder


PRESS


SPACE


BAR


TO CONTINUE


appeared


after


a few


moments.


The


experimenter


read


over


directions


with


subject


and


gave


examples


important,


unimportant,


neutral


dimensions


familiarize


subject


with


task.


Particular


attention


was


paid


to making


sure


subject


felt


completely


scale.


how


free


use


An example


experimenter


entire


or two


might


was


range


represented


discussed


rate


and


terms


then


additional


examples


were


discussed


from


subject's


viewpoint.


The


examples


were


taken


from


AMBITIOUS--LAZY


, POLITE--IMPOLITE,


WEALTHY--POOR,


FORGIVING--UNFORGIVING,


CONFORMIST--NONCONFORMIST;


. .










presented


the


program


as follows


YOU
DUE


CANNOT
TO THE


CHANGE


WORKINGS


YOUR


RATING


OF THE


ONCE


MADE


COMPUTER


DO YOU


HAVE


ANY


QUESTION


The


experimenter


stood


and


answered


questions


st dummy


dimension.


the subj


was


still


having


problems


understanding


the


task,


other


two


dummy


dimensions


were


used


to elicit


questions.


Responding


PRESS


SPACE


BAR


TO CONTINUE


message


to the


first


dimension


to be rated


(which


was


a dummy


dimension):


AMBITIOUS--LAZY


not at all
important


very
important


soon


from


as the


to 6


subject


, an


pressed


appeared


one


over


number


the selected


keys


rating


confirm


CONTINUE


choi


appeared


message


as well.


PRESS


When


SPACE


subject


BAR


pressed


space


bar


, the


the "continue"


message


disappeared


, and


first


dimension


was


replaced


with


new


one


, as follows:


FORGIVING--


UNFORGIVING


not at all


very










second


dimension


was


a dummy


The


subject


selected


a rating


as before


, and


then


pressed


space


bar


again


to continue


next


dimension:


CONFORMIST


--NONCONFORMIST


at all


important


very
important


This


third


dimension


was


last


dummy


dimension


task.


in privacy


subj


then


Each


rated


actual


true


dimensions


was


dimensions


presented


in exactly


same


way


as the


dummy


dimensions


The


true


dimen

ast d


sions


were


imension


presented


had


been


in a random


rated,


order.


responding


After

the


PRESS


THE


SPACE


BAR


TO CONTINUE


prompt


caused


screen


to be


cleared


the following


message


to be displayed


PLEASE
DON'T


SOON


GET


PRESS


APPEAR


EXPERIMENTER


ANY


KEY.


-- PLEASE


NOW


NEXT


PLEASE


TASK


WILL


WAIT.


After


10 seconds


message


was


replaced


with


instructions


subjects


next


rated


rating


individual


ask.


traits.


s tas


The


instructions


were


as follows:


NOW,


PLEASE


RATE


EACH


OF THE


FOLLOWING


TRAITS


ACCORDING


TO THE


DEGREE


THAT


YOU


PRIVATELY
DESCRIBES


BELIEVE


YOU


. THE


THAT


THE


RATING


TRAIT


SCALE










(Followed,


message


as usual,


a PRESS


experimenter


again


SPACE


gave


BAR


TO CONTINUE


examples


traits


that


might


like


them


selves


, not


like


thems


elves


, and


somewhere


in the


middle


examples


were


scuss


ensure


that


subj


was


properly


oriented


new


sca


understood


what


was


expec


examples


used


were


taken


from


AMBITIOUS,


LAZY,


POLITE,


IMPOLITE


, WEALTHY,


POOR


, FORGIVING


, UNFORGIVING,


CONFORMIST


, and


NONCONFORMIST


The first


three


dummy


traits


then


appeared:


LOGICAL


This


new


rating


sca


behaved


exac


the


prev


ious


one.


When


subject


had


ected


a rating


pressing


a number


key,


the selected


rating


was


marked


user


was


cued


to continue.


ress


the


space


caused


program


to display


next


trait


UNFORGIVING


not


As before


, each


trait


was


presented


turn.


The


third


final


dummy


trait


was










Again,


when


questions


were


answered


and


the


subject


appeared


to understand


task


, the


experimenter


left


room


The


50 real


traits


were


presented


and


subj


ect rated


them


, until


following


message


appeared


DO NOT
PLEASE


PRESS


GET


ANY


THE


KEY


AT THIS


EXPERIMENTER


TIME.


. THANK


YOU


After


a pause


, the


message


PRESS


SPACE


BAR


CONTINUE


was


given.


The


experimenter


pressed


space


to bring


st screenful


instructions


next


task:


IN THIS


PART


OF THE


EXPERIMENT


, A TRAIT


WILL
TASK
YOUR


BE PRESENTED


TO RECALL


LIFE


WHEN


YOU


ON THE


SPECIFIC


SCREEN


YOUR


INCIDENTS


DEMONSTRATED


PARTICULAR


TRAIT.


(Followed


momentarily


a PRESS


SPACE


BAR


TO CONTINUE


message


experimenter


explained


that


a trait such


as AMBITIOUS


would


appear


on the


screen


subject


was


reque


sted


reca


times


when


demons


treated


that


trait


When


subject


was


ready,


press
yt~da a


the


space


next


art of


instru


actions


PLEASE


PRESS


THE


"ENTER"


KEY


EACH


TIME


YOU
YOU


RECALL


A PARTICULAR


DEMONSTRATED


INCIDENT


TRAIT


SHOWN


WHEN


THEN


QUICKLY


JOT


DOWN


A WORD


OR PHRASE


HELP


YOU


REMEMBER


THE


INCIDENT.


WHAT


YOU


CHOOSE


AS LONG


TO WRITE
IT HELPS


IS NOT


YOU


IMPORTANT


RECALL


THE


INCIDENT.










they


had


recalled


a specific


memory,


experimenter


pointed


ENTER


, which


was


labelled


PRESS


HERE


FOR


EACH


MEMORY,


instructed


them


press


this


key


each


then


time


given


they


remembered


4 pieces


an incident.


paper


told


subject


to write


was


a word


short


phrase


each


memory


recalled.


The


memory


should


short


experimenter


relating


continue


phrases


then


asked


to AMBITIOUS,


pressing


as many


and


ENTER


memories


them to th

indicated


key


as they


ink


tha


of another

t they


jotting


could


down


recall


until


cautioned


computer


them


told


to only


them


make


to stop.


a short


experimenter


note


memory--just


enough


them


to be able


to recall


the


incident


later.


After


subject


pressed


space


bar


to continue


, the


program


presented


some


guidelines


recall


process:


PLEASE


NOTE


FOLLOWING


GUIDELINES


THE


INCIDENT


RECENTLY


MAY


OR MANY


HAVE
YEARS


OCCURRED


QUITE


AGO.


.YOU


THAT


MUST B
MAKES


E ABLE
THE I


TO RECALL


INCIDENT


SOMETHING


A DISTINCT


MEMORY.
INCIDENT


PRESS
IF YOU


MAKES


CAN


YOU


IF THE


HAPPENED


KEY


SAME


MORE
EACH


FOR


RECALL


CERTAIN


TYPE


THAN


ONCE,


INCIDENT


SOMETHING


THAT


THE


ONLY


THAT
OTHER


INCIDENT
OCCASION


HAPPENED


ON A DIFFERENT


.










distant


given


past


incidents


as an example.


relating


because


to AMBITION


event


could


were


vary


significance


, the


experimenter


gave


examples


insignificant


events


., studying


a test


that


morning),


significant


events


, applying


graduate


school)


When


the subj


appeared


understand,


pressing


space


bar


caused


following


additional


guidelines


appear:


. IT


DOESN


WOULD


T MATTER


AGREE


WITH


IF ANYONE


YOU


ELSE


AS TO WHETHER


INCIDENT


"COUNTS"


YOUR


OPINION


IS ALL


THAT


MATTERS.


. PRESS


THE


"ENTER"


KEY


AS SOON


YOU


RECALL


INCIDENT


IMPORTANT


, BUT


THAT


YOU


NOT


KEEP


BEFORE


TRYING


TO RECALL
ALLOTTED


INCIDENTS


TIME.


DURING


A TOTAL


THE


OF FOUR


TRAITS


HAVE


TRAIT
PERIOD


WILL


AND


AND


BE PRESENTED.


A HALF


A FIFTEEN


BETWEEN


YOU


MINUTES
-SECOND


TRAITS


YOU


WILL


PER


REST
WILL


KNOW


WHEN


THE


TIME


IS UP FOR


EACH


TRAIT,
APPEAR


BECAUSE
ON THE


"STOP"


MESSAGE


WILL


SCREEN


Again,


experimenter


read


over


these


new


guidelines


trying


with


subject


to continue


recalling


stores


importance


memory


full


minute


a half


computer


would


them


know


when


time


was


subject


was


told


to expect


total


of four


cue


words


The


subj


was


given


a printed


copy




Full Text

PAGE 1

,'(17,7< 6758&785( $1' $872%,2*5$3+,&$/ 0(025< $ &216758&7,9,67 3(563(&7,9( %< $35,/ ( 0(7=/(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

$&.12:/('*0(176 ZRXOG OLNH WR DFNQRZOHGJH WKH PDQ\ LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR KDYH JLYHQ PH VXSSRUW HQFRXUDJHPHQW DQG JXLGDQFH WKURXJKRXW P\ DFDGHPLF FDUHHU DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD )LUVW 'U *UHJ 1HLPH\HU KDV EHHQ XQGRXEWHGO\ WKH VLQJOH PRVW LPSRUWDQW LQIOXHQFH XSRQ P\ SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW +H KDV SDWLHQWO\ GLUHFWHG DQG VXSSRUWHG P\ HIIRUWV IRU PDQ\ \HDUV DQG KDV WDXJKW PH PXFK DERXW FROOHDJXHVKLS UHVSHFW DQG WUXVW *UHJ KDV EHHQ ERWK D PHQWRU DQG D YHU\ GHDU IULHQG *UHJnV HQWKXVLDVP GHGLFDWLRQ SHUVHYHUDQFH DQG SURIHVVLRQDOLVP DUH VRPHWKLQJ WR DVSLUH WR ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN WKH PHPEHUV RI P\ FRPPLWWHH )UDQ] (SWLQJ 0DU\ )XNX\DPD 3HWHU 6KHUUDUG DQG 0DUN $OLFNH ZKR GHVHUYHV D VSHFLDO PHDVXUH RI JUDWLWXGH IRU VHUYLFH DERYH DQG EH\RQG WKH FDOO RI GXW\ IRU UHPDLQLQJ RQ P\ FRPPLWWHH DIWHU OHDYLQJ )ORULGDf IRU WKHLU HIIRUWV DQG KHOSIXO VXJJHVWLRQV ,W KDV EHHQ D SOHDVXUH WR ZRUN ZLWK WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN DOO RI WKH SHRSOH ZKR ZHUH DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV H[WUHPHO\ IRUWXQDWH WR KDYH D YHU\ KDUGZRUNLQJ DQG OR\DO WHDP RI XQGHUJUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK DVVLVWDQWV %HHJHH 'L*LXOLDQ 7X $QK 1JR *RUGRQ +DOH +DUPRQ 7UDF\ *DUJXV 7KHUHVD

PAGE 3

6FKDIIHU DQG %DUEDUD 4XLQRQHV 7KHLU KHOS KDV EHHQ LQYDOXDEOH WR WKLV SURMHFW DQG WKH\ KDYH DOO EHHQ JRRG IULHQGV ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN 'U )UDQN 0DUWLQ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 6WDWLVWLFV IRU KLV NLQG DQG SDWLHQW DGYLFH UHJDUGLQJ WKH DQDO\VLV ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN P\ SDUHQWV %HWW\ DQG 0DUWLQ 0HW]OHU IRU WKHLU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG VXSSRUW ZLWKRXW ZKLFK WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZRXOG QHYHU KDYH EHHQ ZULWWHQ )LQDOO\ P\ GHHSHVW JUDWLWXGH LV H[WHQGHG WR P\ ILDQFHH 'RXJ 5HHVH 'RXJnV XQZDQLQJ ORYH UHVSHFW DQG DIIHFWLRQ IRU PH KDYH PHDQW VR PXFK WR PH WKURXJKRXW WKH SXUVXLW RI P\ GRFWRUDWH WKDQN 'RXJ ZLWK DOO P\ ORYH DQG ORRN IRUZDUG WR RXU OLIH WRJHWKHU LQ

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

$33(1',; $ ,'(2/2*,&$/ ,'(17,7< 6&$/( % =81* 6(/)5(3257 6&$/( )25 '(35(66,21 =656f & (;$03/( 2) ,17(5$&7,21 ,1 &20387(5 7$6.6 (;3(5,0(17$/ 0$7(5,$/6 ( 352*5$0 23(5$7,21 $1' 6(/(&7,21 2) &8(6 6XPPDU\ RI 2SHUDWLRQ 6HOHFWLRQ RI 5HWULHYDO &XHV %,%/,2*5$3+< %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ ,OO r 9

PAGE 6

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ ,'(17,7< 6758&785( $1' $872%,2*5$3+,&$/ 0(025< $ &216758&7,9,67 3(563(&7,9( %\ $SULO ( 0HW]OHU 'HFHPEHU &KDLUPDQ *UHJ 1HLPH\HU 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WHVWV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW DQG DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ UHFDOO 7KH SRVLWLRQ LV DGYDQFHG WKDW VXEMHFWVn LGHQWLW\ VW\OH VKRXOG LQIOXHQFH ERWK WKH UHFDOO RI SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV DQG WKH LPSDFW RI WKDW UHFDOO RQ VHOISHUFHSWLRQV )ROORZLQJ %HU]RQVN\nV SDUDGLJP D PL[HGVH[ VDPSOH RI SHRSOH IDOOLQJ LQWR RQH RI WKUHH LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG DQG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHGf ZHUH LGHQWLILHG IRU WKH VWXG\ DW SUHWHVWLQJ 6XEMHFWV VXEVHTXHQWO\ FRPSOHWHG D FRPSXWHULQWHUDFWLYH PHPRU\ SDUDGLJP WKDW PDQLSXODWHG WKH UHFDOO RI PHPRULHV XVLQJ PHPRU\ FXHV WKDW YDULHG YDOHQFH SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RU QHJDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFVf YL

PAGE 7

DQG VHOIFRQVLVWHQF\ VHOIFRQJUXHQW RU VHOILQFRQJUXHQW ZLWK FXUUHQW VHOISHUFHSWLRQVf $V SUHGLFWHG LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV JHQHUDWHG WKH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFROOHFWLRQV DQG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV JHQHUDWHG WKH IHZHVW 5HFDOO ZDV DOVR IRXQG WR YDU\ DFURVV FRQGLWLRQV ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV VKRZLQJ WKH KLJKHVW UHFROOHFWLRQ DPRQJ WKH WKUHH LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV IRU PHPRULHV WKDW VXSSRUWHG SRVLWLYH VHOISHUFHSWLRQV DV ZHOO DV WKH JUHDWHVW DELOLW\ WR JHQHUDWH PHPRULHV WKDW WKUHDWHQHG WKRVH VHOISHUFHSWLRQV $ JHQHUDO VHOIHQKDQFHPHQW HIIHFW ZDV DOVR HYLGHQW SDUWLFXODUO\ DPRQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG QRUPDWLYHRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV WKH ODWWHU EHLQJ WKH PRVW LQFOLQHG RI WKH WKUHH LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV WR JHQHUDWH LQYDOLGDWLQJ PHPRULHV ZKHQ LW EHQHILWHG WKHP SRVLWLYHLQFRQJUXHQWf DQG WKH OHDVW LQFOLQHG ZKHQ LW WKUHDWHQHG WKHP QHJDWLYHLQYDOLGDWLRQf 9OO

PAGE 8

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t %DQDML f 7KLV VWXG\ ZLOO DGGUHVV WKH FRQVWUXFWLYH DQG UHFRQVWUXFWLYH DVSHFWV RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ EURDGO\ SODFLQJ SDUWLFXODU HPSKDVLV RQ WKH LQWHUGHSHQGHQFH EHWZHHQ PHPRU\ UHFDOO DQG WKH FRQWLQXRXVO\ HYROYLQJ VHOI ,W SURYLGHV D ZD\ RI ORRNLQJ DW WKH UROH RI FRJQLWLYH VFKHPDV LQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ DQG GHULYLQJ PHDQLQJ IURP H[SHULHQFH ZKLFK HQDEOHV WKH

PAGE 9

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f PHPRU\ WKHRULVWV %DUFOD\ %DUWOHWW 1HLVVHU f DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO WKHRULVWV %HU]RQVN\ 3LDJHW t ,QKHOGHU f KDYH ORQJ UHFRJQL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH SURFHVVHV DQG VWUXFWXUHV WKDW JRYHUQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV SV\FKRORJLFDO ZRUOG 7KHVH FRQVWUXFWLYLVW WKHRULVWV KDYH DGYDQFHG VLPLODU QRWLRQV RI NQRZOHGJH VWUXFWXUHV UHIHUUHG WR JHQHULFDOO\ DV VFKHPDWD WR GHVFULEH WKH DFWLYH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ 6FKHPDWD DUH QRQVSHFLILF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV RI SULRU H[SHULHQFHV WKDW DUH HODERUDWHG XSRQ GXULQJ HYHU\ PRPHQW RI RQJRLQJ PHQWDO DFWLYLW\ DQG DUH XVHG WR JXLGH WKH FRPSUHKHQGHUnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV LQIHUHQFHV

PAGE 10

H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG DWWHQWLRQ 1HLVVHU f 6FKHPDWD DUH XVHG FRQWLQXRXVO\ WR LPSRVH RUGHU DQG PHDQLQJ XSRQ WKH ZRUOG LQ D VXEMHFWLYH PDQQHU 6FKHPDWD DUH KLHUDUFKLFDOO\ RUJDQL]HG LQWR D QHWZRUN RI LGLRJUDSKLF PHDQLQJ WKDW FRQWLQXRXVO\ FKDQJHV ZLWK H[SHULHQFH %DUFOD\ .HOO\ 1HLVVHU Df 6FKHPDWD IRUP LPSOLFLW WKHRULHV WKDW ERWK JXLGH DQG OLPLW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV JURZWK %HU]RQVN\ 5RVV t &RQZD\ 5RVV t 0F)DUODQG f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f 5RELQVRQ GHILQHV DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ DV PHPRULHV D SHUVRQ KDV RI KLV RU KHU RZQ OLIH H[SHULHQFHV S

PAGE 11

f :KDW D SHUVRQ FDQ DQG FDQQRW UHPHPEHU FRXOG UHYHDO D JUHDW GHDO DERXW WKDW SHUVRQnV SHUVRQDOLW\ GHYHORSPHQW &RPPRQ DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW WKH QDWXUH RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ KDYH EHHQ DGYDQFHG E\ VHYHUDO WKHRULVWV DQG UHVHDUFKHUV LQ WKLV DUHD %DUFOD\ D %UHZHU /LQWRQ 1HLVVHU D Ef 7KH ILUVW DVVXPSWLRQ LV WKDW DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ LV ODUJHO\ D UHFRQVWUXFWLYH HQGHDYRU EDVHG RQ VXSSRUWLQJ H[LVWLQJ VHOIVFKHPDWD RIWHQ DW WKH H[SHQVH RI WKH IDFWV $V %DUFOD\ KDV SXW LW WKHVH PHPRULHV DUH WUXH EXW LQDFFXUDWH E S f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nV IDPLO\ ZHUH SUHVHQW HYHQ LI LQ IDFW RQH PHPEHU

PAGE 12

KDG EHHQ DEVHQW 6XFK D PHPRU\ PLJKW FDUU\ WKH PRUH V\PEROLF PHDQLQJ RI IDPLO\ XQLW\ 6LU )UDQFLV *DOWRQ D FRQWHPSRUDU\ RI (EELQJKDXV ZDV WKH ILUVW WR EHJLQ UHVHDUFK RQ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ ,Q KLV LQIRUPDO H[SHULPHQW *DOWRQ XVHG ZRUGV DV PHPRU\ SURPSWV IRU KLPVHOI DQG DOORZHG D FRXSOH RI LGHDV WR VXFFHVVLYHO\ SUHVHQW WKHPVHOYHV S f +H UHFRUGHG WKH UHDFWLRQ WLPH IRU HDFK UHVSRQVH /DWHU KH JURXSHG KLV UHFROOHFWLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR SHULRGV LQ KLV OLIH DQG WKH W\SH RI PHPRU\ WKH ZRUG HYRNHG *DOWRQnV WHFKQLTXH ZDV VXFFHVVIXO LQ SURGXFLQJ DQ RSHQHQGHG VDPSOLQJ RI KLV WKRXJKWV LQ JHQHUDO EXW ZDV QRW VSHFLILF HQRXJK WR HYRNH MXVW SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV 'XH WR *DOWRQnV YDULHG LQWHUHVWV KH IDLOHG WR SXUVXH WKLV OLQH RI UHVHDUFK %UHZHU &URYLW] t 6FKLIIPDQ 5RELQVRQ f 7KH (EELQJKDXV WUDGLWLRQ RI VWXG\LQJ WKH DFFXUDF\ RI PHPRU\ FRQWLQXHG WR UHLJQ IRU WKH QH[W QLQHW\ \HDUV ODUJHO\ XQFKDOOHQJHG +RZHYHU LQ %DUWOHWW TXHVWLRQHG ZKHWKHU WKHUH ZHUH RWKHU IDFWRUV EHVLGHV DFFXUDF\ LQ PHPRU\ WKDW ZRXOG EH RI LQWHUHVW WR UHVHDUFKHUV +H H[DPLQHG VXEMHFWVn UHFDOO RI QDUUDWLYH SURVH SDVVDJHV DQG REVHUYHG WKDW WKH\ KDG RPLWWHG WUDQVIRUPHG UHRUJDQL]HG DQG RWKHUZLVH GLVWRUWHG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH RULJLQDO VRXUFH %DUWOHWW f %DUWOHWW FRQFOXGHG 5HPHPEHULQJ DSSHDUV WR EH IDU PRUH GHFLVLYHO\ DQ DIIDLU RI UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ WKDQ PHUH

PAGE 13

UHSURGXFWLRQ S f %DUWOHWW EHOLHYHG WKDW PHPRULHV RI WKH SDVW ZHUH FRQWLQXDOO\ UHPDGH EDVHG RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV SUHVHQW VHOIVWUXFWXUH S f 7KXV %DUWOHWW EHJDQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLYLVW DSSURDFK WR PHPRU\ IXQFWLRQLQJ 7KLV DSSURDFK HPSKDVL]HG WKH XVH RI VFKHPDWD DV RUJDQL]LQJ SULQFLSOHV WKDW DW WLPHV HQDEOH RU GLVDEOH WKH UHWULHYDO RI SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV ,Q WKLV YLHZ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV DUH VHOHFWHG WR ILW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV FXUUHQW VHOIWKHRU\ DQG KHOS WKH LQGLYLGXDO PDLQWDLQ D FRQVLVWHQW VHQVH RI VHOI LQ WKH IDFH RI FKDQJH 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ %DUWOHWWnV LQVLJKWV ZHQW ODUJHO\ XQQRWLFHG XQWLO WKH PLGV +RZHYHU E\ WKH PLGV D JUDGXDO VKLIW LQ WKH QRWLRQV RI ZKDW W\SHV RI WKLQJV SHRSOH UHPHPEHU KDG RFFXUUHG 1HLVVHU Ef 7XOYLQJnV f LQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ ORQJ WHUP VHPDQWLF PHPRU\ DQG VLQJOH HYHQW HSLVRGLF PHPRU\ JHQHUDWHG LQWHUHVW LQ ZKROH QHZ DUHDV IRU VWXG\ ZLWKLQ PHPRU\ UHVHDUFK %DUWOHWWnV FRQVWUXFWLYLVW WKHRU\ RI PHPRU\ HQMR\HG D QHZ SRSXODULW\ 7KHUHIRUH ZKHQ &URYLW] DQG 6FKLIIPDQ f UHYLYHG *DOWRQnV SURPSWLQJ WHFKQLTXH E\ PRGLI\LQJ LW WR VWXG\ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ PDQ\ UHVHDUFKHUV ZHUH HDJHU WR EHJLQ OLQHV RI UHVHDUFK LQ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ 5RELQVRQ f ,Q WKHLU ODQGPDUN SDSHU &URYLW] DQG 6FKLIIPDQ GLUHFWHG VXEMHFWV WR QRWH GRZQ D ZRUG RU WZR GHVFULELQJ WKH PHPRU\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK HDFK ZRUG S f DQG WKHQ KDG VXEMHFWV GDWH WKHLU

PAGE 14

PHPRULHV ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ WZR \HDUV WKHVH GLUHFWLRQV ZHUH PRGLILHG LQ RUGHU WR HOLFLW PRUH VSHFLILF PHPRULHV &URYLW] t 4XLQD+ROODQG S f DQG PRUH SHUVRQDOO\ PHDQLQJIXO PHPRULHV 5RELQVRQ S f 7KH UHDOOLIH UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH XVHG &URYLW]nV WHFKQLTXH FRQVWLWXWH WKH PRVW VRSKLVWLFDWHG ORQJ WHUP PHPRU\ UHVHDUFK WR GDWH 7KH UHVHDUFK FOHDUO\ GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW WKH UHDOOLIH PHPRU\ UHWULHYDO SURFHVV FDQ EH H[DPLQHG LQ D V\VWHPDWLF PDQQHU ZLWKLQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO ODERUDWRU\ 1HLVVHU f 7KLV SDUDGLJP KROGV PXFK SURPLVH IRU WKH V\VWHPDWLF LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ UHFDOO 0XFK RI WKH ZRUN IURP VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ UHJDUGLQJ LQGLYLGXDOVn VHOIVFKHPDWD KDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKH FHQWUDO UROH RI VHOIVFKHPDWD LQ WKH UHFDOO RI SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV ,Q D VHULHV RI VWXGLHV 0DUNXV f KDV VKRZQ WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR ZHUH VFKHPDWLF IRU LQGHSHQGHQFH RU GHSHQGHQFH SURFHVVHG LQIRUPDWLRQ PRUH TXLFNO\ DQG UHFDOOHG PRUH VSHFLILF HYHQWV IURP WKHLU SDVW WKDQ GLG DVFKHPDWLF LQGLYLGXDOV )XUWKHUPRUH 0DUNXV DQG 6HQWLV f KDYH IRXQG WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK RQHnV VHOIFRQFHSW LV UHPHPEHUHG PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ WKDQ LQFRQVLVWHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KHVH VWXGLHV DQG RWKHUV %DUFOD\ E %DUFOD\ t 6XEUDPDQLDP f VXSSRUW WKH QRWLRQ WKDW VHOIVFKHPDWD KDYH D WUHPHQGRXV LQIOXHQFH LQ HQDEOLQJ LQGLYLGXDOV WR UHFDOO SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV )URP WKH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH H[SHULPHQWV RQH ZRXOG H[SHFW WKDW

PAGE 15

LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK PRUH FOHDUO\ GHILQHG VHOIVFKHPDWD ZRXOG EH DEOH WR UHFDOO D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV DQG GR VR PRUH TXLFNO\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH IDFW WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VHOI LV UHPHPEHUHG OHVV DFFXUDWHO\ PD\ SRLQW WR SRVVLEOH ELDVHV LQ SURFHVVLQJ SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV 7KH ZRUN RI 5RVV DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV 5RVV t &RQZD\ 5RVV t 0F)DUODQG f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

PAGE 16

QRZ VHH KLPVHOI DV D GHYRWHG IDPLO\ PDQ HYHQ WKRXJK KH VSHQGV DV PXFK WLPH ZRUNLQJ DZD\ IURP KRPH DV KH HYHU GLG 7KXV WKHVH ELDVHV WHQG WR FRQILUP RXU H[LVWLQJ VHOIWKHRULHV 3DVW UHVHDUFK E\ 6ZDQQ DQG 6Q\GHU GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV K\SRWKHVLVWHVWLQJ DERXW WKH VHOI DQG RWKHUV WHQGV WR EH VWURQJO\ FRQILUPDWRU\ LQ QDWXUH 6Q\GHU 6Q\GHU t 6ZDQQ 6ZDQQ f $ VHULHV RI H[SHULPHQWV KDYH VKRZQ WKDW SHRSOH SUHIHU WR FRQILUP UDWKHU WKDQ WR GLVFRQILUP WKHLU FXUUHQW VHOILPDJHV HYHQ ZKHQ WKRVH VHOILPDJHV DUH QHJDWLYH %DUFOD\ t 6XEUDPDQLDP 5RVV t &RQZD\ 5RVV t 0F)DUODQG f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t 0HW]OHU f %HFDXVH DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFDOO YDULHV ZLWK VWUXFWXUDO DVSHFWV RI WKH VHOIVFKHPD VFKHPDWLF GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV PLJKW FDUU\ LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU PHPRU\ UHFDOO %DUFOD\ Df

PAGE 17

.LKOVWURP f KDV FDOOHG IRU UHVHDUFK WKDW H[DPLQHV KRZ SHUVRQDO PHPRU\ IHDWXUHV DUH DIIHFWHG E\ SHUVRQDOLW\ GHYHORSPHQW ,W LV FUXFLDO WR DWWHPSW VRPH LQTXLU\ LQWR WKH GHWDLOV RI WKH XQGHUO\LQJ SURFHVV VWDWHV .LKOVWURP S f ,W KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV KHOS VWUXFWXUH DQG UHVWULFW D SHUVRQnV VHOIWKHRU\ VR LW VHHPV OLNHO\ WKDW GLIIHUHQW VWDJHV LQ LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW PLJKW XWLOL]H WKLV DVSHFW RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQ GLIIHUHQWO\ 5HVHDUFK LQ GHYHORSPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ SURYLGHV PRGHOV RI WKH SURFHVVHV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ ,GHQWLW\ )RUPDWLRQ (YHU VLQFH (ULNVRQnV ODQGPDUN ZRUN RQ OLIHVSDQ GHYHORSPHQW (ULNVRQ f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

PAGE 18

DQG WKH DGRSWLRQ RI PRUH DGXOW UROHV 6XFFHVVIXO UHVROXWLRQ RI WKLV FRQIOLFW VKRXOG UHVXOW LQ HJR LGHQWLW\ D FRQVLVWHQW VHQVH RI VHOI WKDW SHUPLWV WKH DGROHVFHQW WR H[SORUH DQG VHOHFW IURP DPRQJ WKH DOWHUQDWLYHV IRU DGXOWKRRG )DLOXUH WR UHVROYH WKLV FRQIOLFW OHDGV WR LGHQWLW\ GLIIXVLRQ WKH DGROHVFHQW LV XQDEOH WR PDNH VHQVH RI DOO RI WKH SRVVLELOLWLHV DQG LV OHIW ZLWKRXW D GHILQLWH VHQVH RI VHOI RU D ZD\ WR PDNH SRVLWLYH OLIH FKRLFHV $V %HU]RQVN\ f SRLQWV RXW HJR LGHQWLW\ DV FRQFHLYHG E\ (ULNVRQ LV QRW VLPSO\ D VWDWLF VWUXFWXUH LQFRUSRUDWLQJ NQRZOHGJH DERXW WKH VHOI EXW LV D SURFHVV WKDW DFWLYHO\ HYDOXDWHV VHOHFWV DQG RUJDQL]HV VHOISHUFHSWLRQV S f 7KLV SURFHVV LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU UHDOLW\WHVWLQJ DQG DGDSWDWLRQ RI FRQVWUXFWLRQV DERXW WKH VHOI DQG PD\ EH WKH PHFKDQLVP WKDW HQDEOHV DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRSH ZLWK FKDQJH WKURXJKRXW ODWHU OLIH 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ (ULNVRQnV IRUPXODWLRQ ODFNHG D VSHFLILF RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ IRU NH\ FRQFHSWV PDNLQJ LW GLIILFXOW WR FUHDWH D VROLG HPSLULFDO IRXQGDWLRQ +RZHYHU 0DUFLDnV f VXEVHTXHQW FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW H[WHQGHG (ULNVRQnV ZRUN DQG HVWDEOLVKHG D IUDPHZRUN WKDW SHUPLWWHG HPSLULFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH PRVW UHVHDUFK LQWR LGHQWLW\ IRUPDWLRQ RYHU WKH SDVW WZR GHFDGHV KDV EHHQ EDVHG XSRQ 0DUFLDnV SDUDGLJP

PAGE 19

0DUFLDn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nf ZLWKRXW FRQIURQWLQJ RU TXHVWLRQLQJ WKH LVVXHV LQYROYHG 7KH FKLOG ZKR XQWKLQNLQJO\ SXUVXHV D FDUHHU GLFWDWHG E\ WKH SDUHQWVn DPELWLRQV LV D FODVVLF H[DPSOH RI IRUHFORVXUH %RWK DFKLHYHPHQW DQG IRUHFORVXUH VKDUH WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI KLJK OHYHOV RI FRPPLWPHQW ZLWK UHVSHFW WR LVVXHV UHOHYDQW WR LGHQWLW\ 7KHVH WZR VWDWXVHV GLIIHU RQO\ LQ ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKLV FRPPLWPHQW LV SURGXFHG DV D UHVXOW RI D SHULRG RI FULVLV 7KH DFWXDO VWDQFH

PAGE 20

VHOHFWHG GRHV QRW PDWWHU WKH PHWKRG E\ ZKLFK WKH GHFLVLRQ LV UHDFKHG LV WKH FUXFLDO IDFWRU )RU H[DPSOH VRPH DFKLHYHG LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ SRVVHVV SHUVRQDO YDOXHV YHU\ PXFK LQ DFFRUG ZLWK WKHLU SDUHQWVn +RZHYHU WKHVH DGROHVFHQWV KDYH TXHVWLRQHG DQG H[DPLQHG HDFK RI WKH YDOXHV EHIRUH LQFRUSRUDWLQJ WKHP LQWR WKHLU LGHQWLWLHV DV SHUVRQDOO\ VXLWDEOH DQG KDYH QRW PHUHO\ DGRSWHG WKHLU SDUHQWVn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

PAGE 21

FRQFHVVLRQV WR WKH QHHGV RI WKH PRPHQW 7KH\ GR QRW H[SHULHQFH WUXH FULVLV EHFDXVH WKH LPSHWXV IRU GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ LV LPSRVHG IURP WKH RXWVLGH UDWKHU WKDQ LQWHUQDOO\ PRWLYDWHG 7KH\ VLPLODUO\ GR QRW PDNH WUXH FRPPLWPHQWV EHFDXVH WKH\ GR QRW VHH WKHLU FKRLFHV DV KDYLQJ D GHILQLWLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKHPVHOYHV ,Q DQ HIIRUW WR YDOLGDWH WKH WKHRUHWLFDO GLVWLQFWLRQV DPRQJ WKH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV 0DUFLD FRQGXFWHG D VHULHV RI VWXGLHV ZLWK PDOH FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 0DUFLD f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

PAGE 22

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t )ULHGPDQ 6FKHQNHO 6FKHQNHO t 0DUFLD f LQWURGXFHG DQ DGGLWLRQDO LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV GRPDLQ ,Q (ULNVRQn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

PAGE 23

IRUHFORVHG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV VXEVFULEHG VWURQJO\ WR DXWKRULWDULDQLVP DQG GLVSOD\HG OLWWOH DQ[LHW\ 'LIIXVH VXEMHFWV DJDLQ ZHUH KLJKO\ DQ[LRXV WKH\ VHOHFWHG HDV\ PDMRUV 0DUFLDnV LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV LQWHUYLHZ SURFHGXUH KRZHYHU ZDV WLPHFRQVXPLQJ GLIILFXOW WR VWDQGDUGL]H DQG FXPEHUVRPH WR DGPLQLVWHU DQG VFRUH 7KH XVH RI GLIIHUHQW SURFHGXUHV IRU PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV LQWURGXFHG DGGLWLRQDO FRPSOH[LW\ DQG PDGH FRPSDULVRQV GLIILFXOW 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI D VHOIUHSRUW LQVWUXPHQW VROYHG PDQ\ RI WKHVH SUREOHPV $GDPV 6KHD t )LWFK *URWHYDQW t $GDPV f 7KH UHVXOWLQJ LQVWUXPHQW WKH ([WHQGHG 2EMHFWLYH 0HDVXUH RI (JR ,GHQWLW\ 6WDWXV (20(,6f LV D SHQFLODQGSDSHU TXHVWLRQQDLUH WKDW FDQ EH HDVLO\ DQG TXLFNO\ DGPLQLVWHUHG WR ODUJH JURXSV ,W KDV VXEVFDOHV FRYHULQJ GRPDLQV LGHRORJLFDOUHODWLQJ WR RFFXSDWLRQ UHOLJLRQ SROLWLFV DQG SKLORVRSKLFDO OLIHVW\OH DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDOUHODWLQJ WR IULHQGVKLS GDWLQJ VH[ UROHV DQG UHFUHDWLRQ $GDPV 6KHD DQG )LWFK f IRXQG WKDW WKLV LQVWUXPHQW SURGXFHG D VLPLODU SDWWHUQ RI UHVXOWV WR WKRVH SURGXFHG E\ 0DUFLDnV LQWHUYLHZ WHFKQLTXH $FKLHYHG LQGLYLGXDOV KDG WKH KLJKHVW DPRXQW RI VHOIDFFHSWDQFH ZKLOH IRUHFORVHG VXEMHFWV ZHUH PRUH ULJLG DQG FRPSOLHG PRUH UHDGLO\ ZLWK DXWKRULWDULDQLVP $V EHIRUH PRUDWRULXP VXEMHFWV ZHUH VLPLODU LQ VHOIDFFHSWDQFH WR DFKLHYHG VXEMHFWV )XUWKHUPRUH E\ XVLQJ DQ LQVWUXPHQW GHVLJQHG IRU ERWK VH[HV WKH\ ZHUH DEOH WR GHPRQVWUDWH

PAGE 24

WKDW WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW JHQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV ZLWKLQ WKH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV *URWHYDQW DQG $GDPV f YDOLGDWHG WKH LQVWUXPHQW ZLWK UHVSHFW WR VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ WR HQVXUH WKDW VHOIUHSRUWHG UHVSRQVHV ZHUH QRW PHUHO\ UHIOHFWLRQV RI UHVSRQVH SDWWHUQV WKRXJKW WR EH PRUH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH 1R RQH VWDWXV DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH (20(,6 ZDV IRXQG WR EH PRUH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU 0DUFLD QRWHG WKDW WKH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV RI DFKLHYHPHQW DQG GLIIXVLRQ FRUUHVSRQGHG FORVHO\ WR (ULNVRQnV HJR LGHQWLW\ DQG LGHQWLW\ GLIIXVLRQ FRQFHSWV ZKLFK IXQFWLRQHG DV SRODU DOWHUQDWLYHV 0DUFLD GHVFULEHG WKH RWKHU WZR VWDWXVHV IRUHFORVXUH DQG PRUDWRULXP DV DGGLWLRQDO FRQFHQWUDWLRQ SRLQWV URXJKO\ LQWHUPHGLDWH LQ WKLV GLVWULEXWLRQ 0DUFLD S f :KLOH WKH LGHQWLW\ DFKLHYHPHQW VWDWXV ZDV WKH REYLRXV LGHDO 0DUFLD GLG QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ RXWOLQH DQ\ SURJUHVVLRQ RU VHTXHQFH RI VWDWXVHV WKDW GHYHORSPHQW ZRXOG QRUPDOO\ IROORZ +RZHYHU WKHRUHWLFDOO\ RQH ZRXOG H[SHFW VXFFHVVIXO LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW WR SURFHHG IURP GLIIXVLRQ WKURXJK WKH KLJKHU LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV PRUDWRULXP DQG DFKLHYHPHQW :DWHUPDQ f 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ IRXU ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH WHVWHG YDULRXV DVVXPSWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKLV GHYHORSPHQWDO VHTXHQFH DPRQJ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $GDPV t )LWFK :DWHUPDQ *HDU\ t :DWHUPDQ :DWHUPDQ t *ROGPDQ :DWHUPDQ t :DWHUPDQ f 7KHVH VWXGLHV VKRZHG

PAGE 25

WKDW ZKLOH LQ JHQHUDO WKHUH LV D SURJUHVVLYH VKLIW WR KLJKHU LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV GXULQJ WKH FROOHJH \HDUV UHJUHVVLYH VKLIWV ZHUH QRWHG IRU VRPH RI WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR KDG SUHYLRXVO\ DFKLHYHG D VXFFHVVIXO UHVROXWLRQ WR WKHLU LGHQWLW\ FULVHV )XUWKHUPRUH 0DUFLD f IRXQG GXULQJ D VL[ \HDU IROORZXS VWXG\ RI DGXOW PDOHV WKDW PDQ\ KLJK LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV LQGLYLGXDOV PRYHG WR ORZHU LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV SDUWLFXODUO\ IRUHFORVXUH 7KHUHIRUH VXFFHVVIXO UHVROXWLRQ RI LGHQWLW\ FULVHV GRHV QRW JXDUDQWHH WKH SHUPDQHQFH RI WKH FRPPLWPHQWV IRUPHG 2QH SRVVLEOH UHDVRQ IRU WKHVH VKLIWV LQ LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV LV D FKDQJH LQ WKH GRPDLQ WKDW LV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV IRFXV RI GHYHORSPHQW 7KH IRFXV PRGHO RI LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW ZDV ILUVW SURSRVHG E\ &ROHPDQ f ZKR VXJJHVWHG WKDW GRPDLQ LVVXHV DUH DGGUHVVHG VHTXHQWLDOO\ UDWKHU WKDQ FRQFXUUHQWO\ .URJHU f IRXQG VXSSRUW IRU WKH LGHD WKDW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ LV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ D JOREDO DFFRPSOLVKPHQW EXW UDWKHU WKH UHVROXWLRQ RI D VHULHV RI GLVWLQFW GRPDLQVSHFLILF SV\FKRVRFLDO FULVHV ,QGLYLGXDOV IRFXV RQ FHUWDLQ LVVXHV DW FHUWDLQ WLPHV LQ WKHLU OLYHV 2QH RI WKH PRVW FUXFLDO WDVNV IRU FROOHJHDJH DGROHVFHQWV LV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DQ RFFXSDWLRQDO LGHQWLW\ ,QGHHG .URJHU f IRXQG WKDW LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV LQ WKH RFFXSDWLRQDO GRPDLQ ZDV WKH EHVW RYHUDOO VLQJOH SUHGLFWRU RI JOREDO LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV IRU FROOHJH VWXGHQWV SHUFHQW RI PDOHV DQG SHUFHQW

PAGE 26

RI IHPDOHV KDG LGHQWLFDO RFFXSDWLRQDO DQG JOREDO LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHVf 7KH GRPDLQ FRPELQDWLRQ WKDW EHVW SUHGLFWHG JOREDO LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV ZDV WKDW RI RFFXSDWLRQ UHOLJLRQ DQG SROLWLFV ZKLFK SURGXFHG D PDWFK IRU SHUFHQW RI PDOHV DQG SHUFHQW RI IHPDOHVf 7KHUHIRUH LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR UHFRJQL]H WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV IRFXV RI GHYHORSPHQW VKRXOG EH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW ZKHQ WU\LQJ WR DVVHVV JOREDO LGHQWLW\ 'XH WR WKHVH OLPLWDWLRQV LQ WKH FXUUHQW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV SDUDGLJP 0DUFLD f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f 7KHUH DUH PDQ\ SRWHQWLDO DGYDQWDJHV IRU YLHZLQJ LGHQWLW\ FKDQJH WKURXJK VXFK D SURFHVV PRGHO 5DWKHU WKDQ YLHZ LGHQWLW\ IRUPDWLRQ DV WKH ILQDO SURGXFW RI DGROHVFHQFH WKH ZD\ DGROHVFHQWV FRSH ZLWK FKDQJHV LQ WKH VHOI FRXOG EHFRPH WKH EDVLV IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DGXOW LGHQWLW\ FKDQJH :KHQ DQ LVVXH LV UHVROYHG LQ RQH GRPDLQ WKH DGXOW LV WKHQ IUHH WR PRYH RQ WR DQRWKHU IRFXV RI GHYHORSPHQW 7KXV WKH DGXOW FRXOG EH YLHZHG DV PRYLQJ IURP RQH LVVXH

PAGE 27

WR DQRWKHU WKURXJKRXW WKHLU OLIH WLPH LQ RUGHU WR FRSH ZLWK QHHGHG FKDQJHV LQ WKH VHOI $GGLWLRQDOO\ HDFK LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV FRXOG EH YLHZHG DV D GLIIHUHQW VW\OH RI SURFHVVLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH VHOI FI %HU]RQVN\ f +HUH HDFK VWDWXV PD\ EH VHHQ DV KDYLQJ DGDSWLYH YDOXH LQ DOORZLQJ WKH SHUVRQ WR FRSH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO LGHQWLW\ FKDQJH LQ VXFK D ZD\ WKDW LW GRHV QRW WKUHDWHQ WKH WRWDO VHOIVWUXFWXUH ,GHQWLW\ )RUPDWLRQ DV D 3URFHVV ,Q KLV H[WHQVLRQ RI 0DUFLDnV ZRUN %HU]RQVN\ f KDV UHFHQWO\ DGYDQFHG D SURFHVV PRGHO RI LGHQWLW\ IRUPDWLRQ EDVHG RQ D FRQVWUXFWLYLVW DSSURDFK %HU]RQVN\ YLHZV DQ LQGLYLGXDOn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

PAGE 28

%HU]RQVN\ f YLHZV 0DUFLDn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nV f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f GHVFULEHV SHUVRQV DGRSWLQJ WKLV VW\OH RI IXQFWLRQLQJ DV DG KRF WKHRULVWV WU\LQJ WR PDNH GR LQ WKH VKRUW UXQ EXW VKRZLQJ OLPLWHG FRQFHUQ DERXW ORQJWHUP LPSOLFDWLRQV

PAGE 29

'LIIHUHQFHV LQ ,GHQWLW\ 3URFHVVLQJ 5HFHQW UHVHDUFK H[DPLQLQJ %HU]RQVN\nV WKHRU\ KDV XVHG .HOO\nV f WKHRU\ RI SHUVRQDO FRQVWUXFWV WR SURYLGH D PHDQV RI WHVWLQJ WKH VWUXFWXUDO IHDWXUHV RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV VHOIWKHRU\ ,Q WKH YLHZ RI SHUVRQDO FRQVWUXFW WKHRU\ 3&7f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nV WKHRU\ RI GLIIHUHQW SURFHVVLQJ VW\OHV EDVHG RQ LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV VXJJHVW WKDW 3&7 VKRXOG SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW ZD\ WR WHVW %HU]RQVN\nV WKHRU\ 6HYHUDO UHFHQW VWXGLHV %HU]RQVN\ t 1HLPH\HU %HU]RQVN\ 5LFH t 1HLPH\HU 1HLPH\HU 3ULFKDUG %HU]RQVN\ t 0HW]OHU f WHVWHG IRU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH VHOIVFKHPD VWUXFWXUH DQG SURFHVVLQJ DPRQJ WKH YDULRXV LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV DUJXHG WKDW WKH PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VHOIWKHRUL]HUV VKRXOG SURGXFH EHWWHUGLIIHUHQWLDWHG VHOIV\VWHPV VLQFH WKH\ DFWLYHO\ VHHN SURFHVV DQG HYDOXDWH VHOIUHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ

PAGE 30

,Q FRQWUDVW PRUH QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV VKRXOG GHYHORS D VHOIV\VWHP WKDW LV UHODWLYHO\ LQIOH[LEOH SRRUO\ GLIIHUHQWLDWHG DQG XVHV ELDVHG SURFHVVLQJ ,Q WKH ILUVW H[SORUDWRU\ VWXG\ %HU]RQVN\ DQG 1HLPH\HU f FRUUHODWHG WKH VXEMHFWVn LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV VFRUHV ZLWK VHYHUDO VWUXFWXUDO VFRUHV 7KH UDZ LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV VFRUHV ZHUH DVVHVVHG XVLQJ WKH *URWHYDQW DQG $GDPV f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i LQWHJUDWLRQ VFRUHV DQG WKH KLJKHVW GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ VFRUHV %HU]RQVN\ DQG 1HLPH\HU FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKLV SDWWHUQ RI ILQGLQJV OHQW VRPH VXSSRUW WR WKH WKHRU\ WKDW GLIIXVH VW\OH VHOIWKHRULVWV KDYH D IUDJPHQWHG V\VWHP RI VHOIVFKHPDV 7KLV LV WKH W\SH RI VHOIWKHRU\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ RQH ZRXOG H[SHFW WR ILQG LI DQ DG KRF VLWXDWLRQVSHFLILF DSSURDFK ZHUH EHLQJ XVHG S f +RZHYHU WKLV VWXG\ ZDV OLPLWHG E\ LWV FRUUHODWLRQDO

PAGE 31

QDWXUH LQ WKDW PDNLQJ TXDOLWDWLYH GLVWLQFWLRQV DPRQJ WKH VWDWXVHV ZDV QRW SRVVLEOH 7KHUHIRUH D VHFRQG VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG %HU]RQVN\ 5LFH t 1HLPH\HU f WKDW HPSOR\HG D EHWZHHQVXEMHFWV GHVLJQ 7KH VXEMHFWV IRU WKLV VWXG\ LQFOXGHG RQO\ WKRVH FODVVLILHG DV RQH RI WKH SXUH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV W\SHV 2QO\ DERXW RQHWKLUG RI WKH VXEMHFWV WHVWHG ZLWK WKH *URWHYDQW DQG $GDPV f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f WHVWHG ZKHWKHU LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV PLJKW EH GLVSRVHG WRZDUG GLIIHUHQWLDO ELDVHV LQ SURFHVVLQJ RFFXSDWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV H[SHFWHG WR ILQG WKDW ELDVHG K\SRWKHVLV WHVWLQJ ZRXOG RFFXU ZLWKLQ JURXSV RI LQGLYLGXDOV ZKRVH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV ZHUH PDUNHG E\ JUHDWHU FRPPLWPHQW WR RFFXSDWLRQDO LGHQWLW\ 3DUWLFXODUO\ DPRQJ WKH PRUH IRUHFORVHG LQGLYLGXDOV ZKRVH ILUP FRPPLWPHQWV RSHUDWH LQ

PAGE 32

WKH DEVHQFH RI D SHUPHDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VHDUFK SURFHVV ZH ZRXOG H[SHFW WR VHH VWURQJ FRQILUPDWRU\ ELDV LQ UHODWLRQ WR UHOHYDQW RFFXSDWLRQV DQG VWURQJ GLVFRQILUPDWLRQ ELDV LQ UHODWLRQ WR LUUHOHYDQW RFFXSDWLRQV S f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f RU GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG GLIIXVH VWDWXVf LQGLYLGXDOV 6WURQJ LGHQWLW\ FRPPLWPHQWV ZHUH UHODWHG WR JUHDWHU FRQILUPDWRU\ ELDV ZKHUHDV KLJKHU OHYHOV RI LGHQWLW\ H[SORUDWLRQ WHQGHG WR DWWHQXDWH GLVFRQILUPDWRU\ ELDV DV SUHGLFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU JUHDWHU LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWLRQ Sf 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW %HU]RQVN\nV WKHRU\ RI GLIIHUHQWLDO SURFHVVLQJ GXH WR LGHQWLW\ VW\OH ZDV VXSSRUWHG E\ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 33

,PSDFW RI ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH RQ $XWRELRJUDSKLFDO 0HPRU\ 7UDFLQJ WKH LPSDFW RI VXFK VFKHPDWLF DQG SURFHVVLQJ GLIIHUHQFHV RQ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ 1HLPH\HU DQG 5DUHVKLGH f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t 6XOOLYDQ f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f VXEMHFWV

PAGE 34

ZHUH SUHVHQWHG ZLWK IRXU KLJKO\ GHVFULSWLYH SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW ZHUH HLWKHU FRQJUXHQW RU LQFRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKHLU VHOIWKHRU\ 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WKHQ DVNHG WR UHFDOO VSHFLILF LQFLGHQWV LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX H[HPSOLILHG RU GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW WUDLW /DQG\ S f )URP WKLV WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV ZHUH UHFRUGHG 5HVXOWV IURP WKLV H[SHULPHQW SURYLGHG VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKHLU K\SRWKHVLV $V LQ SUHYLRXV OLWHUDWXUH HJ 0DUNXV t 6HQWLV f VXEMHFWn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n H[SHFWDWLRQV LW VHHPV OLNHO\ WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG GHIHQG PRUH DJDLQVW QHJDWLYH VHOISHUFHSWLRQV

PAGE 35

3XUSRVH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV WR WHVW WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO LPSDFW RI LGHQWLW\ VW\OH RQ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFROOHFWLRQV WKDW HLWKHU FRQILUP RU GLVFRQILUP SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH VHOISHUFHSWLRQV ,GHQWLW\ VW\OH LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR VHOHFWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV SURFHVV RI UHWULHYLQJ PHPRULHV RI OLIH H[SHULHQFHV ,GHQWLW\ RULHQWDWLRQV PDUNHG E\ DQ RSHQQHVV WR UHGHILQLWLRQ DQG D TXHVW IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ VKRXOG YDU\ LQ SUHGLFWDEOH ZD\V IURP WKRVH PDUNHG HLWKHU E\ WKH GHIHQVLYH SUHVHUYDWLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ VHOIFRQVWUXFWLRQV RU WKH JHQHUDO DEVHQFH RI VXFK FRQVWUXFWLRQV :KLOH DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFDOO VKRXOG JHQHUDOO\ EH IDFLOLWDWHG E\ PRUH ILUPO\ FRPPLWWHG LGHQWLW\ VWUXFWXUHV WKH DYDLODEOLW\ RI VXFK UHFROOHFWLRQV VKRXOG EH TXDOLILHG E\ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH PHPRU\nV VHOIFRQVLVWHQF\ FRQVLVWHQW RU LQFRQVLVWHQWf DQG YDOHQFH SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYHf +\SRWKHVHV $ PDLQ HIIHFW IRU LGHQWLW\ VW\OH LV SUHGLFWHG VXFK WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG DQG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV ZLOO SURGXFH D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV WKDQ ZLOO GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV $ PDLQ HIIHFW IRU YDOHQFH RI FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LV SUHGLFWHG VXFK WKDW VXEMHFWV ZKR UHFDOO SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZLOO UHFDOO D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI

PAGE 36

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

PAGE 37

WR SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 1RUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV VKRXOG VKRZ D GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ ORQJHU UHVSRQVH WLPH ZKHQ UHFDOOLQJ VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV HVSHFLDOO\ QHJDWLYH RQHV 'LIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV VKRXOG SURGXFH WKH VKRUWHVW UHVSRQVH WLPHV LQ DOO IRXU FRQGLWLRQV )RU VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV D WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ LGHQWLW\ VW\OH DQG YDOHQFH RI FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LV SUHGLFWHG IRU OHYHO RI VHOIFKDQJH 'LIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOVn VHOISHUFHSWLRQV VKRXOG YDU\ ZLGHO\ ZLWK WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FRQGLWLRQ RI PHPRU\ UHFDOO ,QIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV DUH SUHGLFWHG WR FKDQJH WKHLU VHOISHUFHSWLRQV PRUH MXGLFLRXVO\ EXW VWLOO LQFRUSRUDWH VHOIGLVFUHSDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ 1RUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV DUH SUHGLFWHG WR EH WKH OHDVW UHVSRQVLYH WR FKDQJLQJ VHOISHUFHSWLRQV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK LPDJHGLVFUHSDQW QHJDWLYH UHFROOHFWLRQV

PAGE 38

&+$37(5 ,, 0(7+2'6 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HJR LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW DQG DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ UHFDOO ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV LGHQWLW\ VW\OH ZRXOG FDUU\ LPSOLFDWLRQV ERWK IRU WKDW SHUVRQnV DELOLW\ WR UHWULHYH SHUVRQDO PHPRULHV DQG DOVR IRU WKH LPSDFW RI WKHVH UHFROOHFWLRQV XSRQ WKDW SHUVRQnV VHOIWKHRU\ ,Q RUGHU WR WHVW WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV D WKUHHZD\ IDFWRULDO GHVLJQ ZDV HPSOR\HG 7KH ILUVW IDFWRU KDG WR GR ZLWK WKH VXEMHFWnV VW\OH RI SURFHVVLQJ DQG DVVLPLODWLQJ VHOIUHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH WKUHH EDVLF LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV DUH DQ LQIRUPDWLRQVHHNLQJ RULHQWDWLRQ D QRUPDWLYH RULHQWDWLRQ DQG D GLIIXVH RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH QH[W WZR IDFWRUV GHWHUPLQHG WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FXHV SUHVHQWHG WR WKH VXEMHFW IRU UHFDOO DQG WKXV KDG WR GR ZLWK WKH W\SH RI PHPRULHV VROLFLWHG 7KH ILUVW RI WKHVH IDFWRUV VFKHPDWD YDOHQFH LQGLFDWHG ZKHWKHU WKH PHPRULHV UHODWHG WR WKH VXEMHFWnV SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RU QHJDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KH ILQDO IDFWRU VFKHPDWD YDOLGDWLRQ LQGLFDWHG ZKHWKHU WKH PHPRULHV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW RU LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VXEMHFWnV RZQ VHOIWKHRU\ 7KH QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG DQG WKH VSHHG RI UHWULHYDO ZDV DVVHVVHG ,Q

PAGE 39

DGGLWLRQ VLQFH D VXEMHFWnV PRRG ZDV NQRZQ WR EH FDSDEOH RI DIIHFWLQJ UHFDOO D PHDVXUH RI GHSUHVVLRQ ZDV XVHG DV D FKHFN WR HQVXUH WKH HTXLYDOHQF\ RI WKH JURXSV DORQJ WKLV YDULDEOH 6XEMHFWV 3ULRU WR WHVWLQJ SRWHQWLDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH JLYHQ D SUHWHVW LQ WKHLU LQWURGXFWRU\ SV\FKRORJ\ FODVVHV 7KH SUHWHVW FRQVLVWHG RI DGPLQLVWHULQJ WKH ([WHQGHG 2EMHFWLYH 0HDVXUH RI (JR ,GHQWLW\ 6WDWXV (20(,6 *URWHYDQW t $GDPV f $ WRWDO RI VXEMHFWV ZHUH SUHWHVWHG )URP WKLV SHRSOH ZHUH LGHQWLILHG DV SRWHQWLDO VXEMHFWV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU VFRUHV RQ WKLV LQVWUXPHQW LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG DQG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWVf 7KHVH VXEMHFWV ZHUH WKHQ FRQWDFWHG E\ WHOHSKRQH DQG DVNHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH H[SHULPHQW $ WRWDO RI SHRSOH FRPSOHWHG WKH ILQDO H[SHULPHQW IHPDOHV DQG PDOHVf 7KH DJHV RI WKH VXEMHFWV UDQJHG IURP WR ZLWK D PHDQ DJH RI \HDUV $OO VXEMHFWV UHFHLYHG RQH H[SHULPHQWDO FUHGLW IRU FRPSOHWLQJ WKH SUHWHVW DQG WZR FUHGLWV IRU SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH H[SHULPHQW 6XEMHFWV ZHUH UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR WKH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV ZHUH GHVLJQDWHG E\ D WUHDWPHQW QXPEHU VR WKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV ZHUH EOLQG WR WKH FRQGLWLRQ DVVLJQHG WR HDFK VXEMHFW 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH WHVWHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG WKHLU DQRQ\PLW\ ZDV

PAGE 40

DVVXUHG E\ WKH XVH RI VXEMHFW QXPEHUV IRU LGHQWLILFDWLRQ :KLOH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LQWURGXFHG DQG H[SODLQHG HDFK H[SHULPHQWDO WDVN WR WKH VXEMHFW QR RQH ZDV SUHVHQW LQ WKH URRP ZLWK WKH VXEMHFW GXULQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI HDFK RI WKH WDVNV DVVXULQJ WKH VXEMHFWV RI FRPSOHWH SULYDF\ 7KH (20(,6 GHYHORSHG E\ *URWHYDQW DQG $GDPV f PHDVXUHV WKH RYHUDOO OHYHO RI LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW ,W LV EDVHG RQ WKH RULJLQDO PHDVXUH GHYLVHG E\ $GDPV 6KHD DQG )LWFK f ZKLFK XVHG 0DUFLDnV f FODVVLILFDWLRQ RI LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV LQWR IRXU FDWHJRULHV 7KH (20(,6 FRQWDLQV LWHPV LWHPV SHUWDLQLQJ WR HDFK RI WKH LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV DFKLHYHPHQW PRUDWRULXP GLIIXVLRQ IRUHFORVXUHf IRU HDFK RI GRPDLQV LGHRORJLFDO UHODWLQJ WR RFFXSDWLRQ UHOLJLRQ SROLWLFV DQG SKLORVRSKLFDO OLIHVW\OHf DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLQJ WR IULHQGVKLS GDWLQJ VH[ UROHV DQG UHFUHDWLRQf 2QO\ WKH LGHRORJLFDO VXEVFDOH ZDV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ EHFDXVH LW LV PRUH FORVHO\ WLHG WR WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH SURMHFW 8VLQJ D ILYHSRLQW VFDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH RSLQLRQ H[SUHVVHG LQ HDFK LWHP UHIOHFWHG WKHLU RZQ WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV )RU WKH WRWDO VFDOH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ UDQJHV IURP WR ZLWK WHVWUHWHVW FRUUHODWLRQV UDQJLQJ IURP WR RYHU D IRXUZHHN SHULRG &RQWHQW YDOLGLW\ RQ WKH LWHPV ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG DW b DJUHHPHQW DFURVV LQGHSHQGHQW UDWHUV VHH *URWHYDQW t $GDPV f

PAGE 41

6XEMHFWVn HJR LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV ZDV GHWHUPLQHG GXULQJ WKH SUHWHVW E\ WKHLU VFRUHV RQ WKH LWHPV RI (20(,6 ZKLFK DSSO\ WR WKH LGHRORJLFDO GRPDLQ (YHU\ LWHP LV UDWHG RQ D VFDOH IURP WR )RU HDFK RI WKH IRXU LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV GLIIXVLRQ IRUHFORVXUH PRUDWRULXP DQG DFKLHYHPHQWf WKHUH DUH LWHPV IRU ZKLFK VWURQJ DJUHHPHQW KLJKHU UDWLQJVf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f %HU]RQVN\ f YLHZV 0DUFLDnV LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV DV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKUHH GLIIHUHQW VW\OHV RI SURFHVVLQJ DQG DVVLPLODWLQJ VHOIUHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH LQ NHHSLQJ ZLWK %HU]RQVN\nV WKHRU\ WKH DFKLHYHPHQW DQG PRUDWRULXP VWDWXV JURXSV ZHUH FRPELQHG WR IRUP WKH LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LGHQWLW\ VW\OH 7KH IRUFORVHG VWDWXV JURXS IRUPHG WKH QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LGHQWLW\

PAGE 42

VW\OH )LQDOO\ WKH GLIIXVLRQ VWDWXV JURXS IRUPHG WKH GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LGHQWLW\ VW\OH 3URFHGXUH 2YHUYLHZ 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO SURFHGXUH IRU DOO FRQGLWLRQV LQYROYHG WZR PDLQ VWHSV WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH =XQJ f GHSUHVVLRQ LQYHQWRU\ DQG WKH FRPSXWHUPRGHUDWHG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH UDWLQJ DQG PHPRU\ WDVNV 7KH SURFHGXUHV UHODWLQJ WR WKH GHSUHVVLRQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZLOO EH GHVFULEHG ILUVW IROORZHG E\ WKH SURFHGXUHV UHODWLQJ WR WKH WDVNV SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH FRPSXWHU ? $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH =XQJ 6HOI5DWLQJ 6FDOH 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH ILUVW DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH =XQJ 6HOI5DWLQJ 6FDOH =656f IRU GHSUHVVLRQ 7KLV LV D WZHQW\LWHP TXHVWLRQQDLUH (DFK RI WKH LWHPV LV D EULHI VWDWHPHQW DERXW KRZ WKH VXEMHFW IHHOV RU EHKDYHV IRU H[DPSOH DP PRUH LUULWDEOH WKDQ XVXDO 6XEMHFWV ZHUH GLUHFWHG WR UDWH HDFK VWDWHPHQW RQ D IRXUSRLQW VFDOH LQGLFDWLQJ KRZ RIWHQ WKH VWDWHPHQW DSSOLHV WR WKHP 7KH IRXU OHYHOV RQ WKH VFDOH DUH D OLWWOH RI WKH WLPH VRPH RI WKH WLPH D JRRG SDUW RI WKH WLPH DQG PRVW RI WKH WLPH 6HH $SSHQGL[ %f 7KH =656 =XQJ f LV LQWHQGHG WR SURYLGH D TXDQWLWDWLYH PHDVXUH RI GHSUHVVLRQ (DFK LWHP GHVFULEHV

PAGE 43

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f ZLWK WKH +DPLOWRQ 5DWLQJ 6FDOH +56f D ZLGHO\ UHFRJQL]HG FOLQLFLDQDGPLQLVWHUHG VFDOH %LJJV :\OLH t =LHJOHU f 7KH =656 KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH HVSHFLDOO\ DSSURSULDWH IRU XVH ZLWK VXEFOLQLFDO SRSXODWLRQV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH &RPSXWHU 7DVNV 7KH QH[W SDUW RI WKH SURFHGXUH ZDV PRGHUDWHG E\ D FRPSXWHU SURJUDP 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU ILUVW IDPLOLDUL]HG WKH VXEMHFW ZLWK WKH FRPSXWHU DQG RXWOLQHG WKH WDVNV WR EH SHUIRUPHG 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU WKHQ LQLWLDWHG WKH FRPSXWHU SURJUDP SURYLGLQJ LW ZLWK WKH VXEMHFWnV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ QXPEHU DQG D FRGH ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG WKH VXEMHFWnV H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ 7KH LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU HDFK WDVN ZHUH GLVSOD\HG RQ WKH FRPSXWHU VFUHHQ 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV SUHVHQW WR H[SODLQ WKH WDVN DQG DQVZHU

PAGE 44

DQ\ TXHVWLRQV WKH VXEMHFW PLJKW DVN :KHQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV KDG EHHQ FRPSOHWHG DQG WKH VXEMHFW ZDV UHDG\ WR EHJLQ HDFK WDVN WKH H[SHULPHQWHU OHIW WKH URRP $W WKH HQG RI HDFK WDVN WKH SURJUDP GLVSOD\HG D PHVVDJH RQ WKH VFUHHQ DVNLQJ WKH VXEMHFW WR JHW WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZKR WKHQ SUHSDUHG WKH VXEMHFW IRU WKH QH[W WDVN 7KHUH ZHUH IRXU WDVNV VFKHPDWD RUGLQDWLRQ UDWLQJV VFKHPDWD VHOIGHVFULSWLRQ UDWLQJV PHPRU\ UHWULHYDO DQG UHUDWLQJ RI WKH VFKHPDWD VHOIGHVFULSWLRQV 7KH SURFHGXUH SHUIRUPHG IRU HDFK RI WKHVH WDVNV ZLOO EH GHVFULEHG EHORZ IROORZHG E\ D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH PHDVXUHV GHULYHG IURP HDFK WDVN 6HH $SSHQGL[ & IRU DQ H[DPSOH RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH FRPSXWHUf 3ULRU WR EHJLQQLQJ WKH DFWXDO UDWLQJ WDVNV WKH SURJUDP SUHVHQWHG WR WKH VXEMHFW D JHQHUDOL]HG VL[SRLQW SUDFWLFH VFDOH 7KH HQGSRLQWV RI WKLV VFDOH ZHUH XQODEHOOHG DQG WKH VFDOH ZDV QRW SUHVHQWHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK DQ\ LWHP WR EH UDWHG 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VFDOH ZDV WR IDPLOLDUL]H WKH VXEMHFW ZLWK WKH UDWLQJ PHWULF DQG WR JLYH WKH VXEMHFW WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SUDFWLFH WKH VLPSOH PHFKDQLFV RI VHOHFWLQJ D UDWLQJ XVLQJ WKH FRPSXWHU NH\ERDUG 2QH DW D WLPH WKH SURJUDP GLVSOD\HG D PDUN QH[W WR HDFK RI WKH VL[ UDWLQJ SRLQWV 7KH VXEMHFW KDG WR HQWHU WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ UDWLQJ E\ SUHVVLQJ WKH QXPEHU NH\ PDWFKLQJ WKH PDUNHG LWHPf LQ RUGHU WR FRQWLQXH 7KLV SUDFWLFH H[HUFLVH ZDV XVHG WR b GHYHORS XQLIRUPLW\ LQ UHVSRQVH WLPHV LQ RUGHU WR HQVXUH

PAGE 45

WKDW YDULDWLRQV LQ WKH PHDVXUHG UHVSRQVHV ZDV QRW GXH WR GLIIHUHQWLDO DFFHVVLELOLW\ RI WKH VL[ UDWLQJ NH\Vf 3UHYLRXV ZRUN KDV VKRZQ WKDW WKLV SUDFWLFH H[HUFLVH LV VXIILFLHQW WR SURYLGH XQLIRUPLW\ RI UHVSRQVH WR ZLWKLQ PLOOLVHFRQGV /DQG\ f $IWHU FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH SUDFWLFH VFDOH WKH ILUVW DFWXDO UDWLQJ WDVN ZDV EHJXQ 6FKHPDWD RUGLQDWLRQ 7KH ILUVW UDWLQJ WDVN LQYROYHG VFKHPDWD RUGLQDWLRQ 7KLV WDVN FRQVLVWHG RI UDWLQJ D FRQVWUXFW SUHVHQWHG DV D SDLU RI WUDLWV RQ D VL[SRLQW VFDOH UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH SHUVRQDO LPSRUWDQFH HDFK VXEMHFW DWWDFKHG WR WKDW FRQVWUXFW VHH $SSHQGL[ &f 7KH VFDOH LV QRW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW YHU\ LPSRUWDQW $ WRWDO RI FRQVWUXFWV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG 7KH SDLUV RI WUDLWV XVHG ZHUH LGHQWLFDO ZLWK WKRVH XVHG E\ /DQG\ f 6HH $SSHQGL[ IRU D GHVFULSWLRQ RI KRZ ZRUGV ZHUH VHOHFWHGf 7KH ILUVW WKUHH FRQVWUXFWV DOWKRXJK QRW GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP WKH UHPDLQLQJ ZHUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH VDPH RUGHU IRU DOO VXEMHFWV DQG VHUYHG PHUHO\ DV SUDFWLFH LWHPV WR RULHQW WKH VXEMHFWV WR WKLV UDWLQJ WDVN 7KH UHPDLQLQJ FRQVWUXFWV ZHUH WKH VDPH IRU DOO H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV EXW ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WR HDFK b VXEMHFW LQ D UDQGRPL]HG RUGHU 7KH SURJUDP UHFRUGHG HDFK UHVSRQVH 6FKHPDWD VHOIGHVFULSWLRQ 7KH QH[W WDVN ZDV VFKHPDWD VHOIGHVFULSWLRQ UDWLQJ ,W ZDV VLPLODU WR WKH SUHYLRXV WDVN LQ WKDW WKH VXEMHFW ZDV DJDLQ DVNHG WR UDWH

PAGE 46

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f $W b WKH HQG RI WKH DOORWWHG WLPH IRU HDFK WUDLW WKH SURJUDP

PAGE 47

LVVXHG DQ DXGLEOH VLJQDO D EHHSf DQG GLVSOD\HG D PHVVDJH LQVWUXFWLQJ WKH VXEMHFWV WR VWRS 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH JLYHQ VHFRQGV WR UHOD[ DQG UHRULHQW EHWZHHQ WUDLWV $IWHU DOO IRXU WUDLWV KDG EHHQ SUHVHQWHG WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR VXSSO\ DQ DSSUR[LPDWH GDWH PRQWK DQG \HDUf ZKHQ HDFK LQFLGHQW RFFXUUHG 6HH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI WKH SURJUDP DQG WKH FULWHULD IRU VHOHFWLRQ RI FXHVf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nV DELOLW\ WR UHWULHYH PHPRULHV LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH SUHVHQWHG FXH ZHUH GHULYHG IURP WKLV SDUW RI WKH SURFHGXUH 7KH SURJUDP UHFRUGHG WKH QXPEHU RI UHVSRQVHV WR HDFK WUDLW UHWULHYDO TXDQWLW\f DQG WKH GHOD\ LQ UHVSRQGLQJ UHWULHYDO ODWHQF\f $GGLWLRQDOO\ D WKLUG PHDVXUH ZDV GHULYHG IURP WKH GLIIHUHQFH LQ VHOIGHVFULSWLRQ UDWLQJV EHIRUH DQG DIWHU WKH PHPRU\ UHWULHYDO WDVN VHOIFKDQJH LQGH[f

PAGE 48

5HWULHYDO TXDQWLW\ UHIHUV WR WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWLQFW PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG LQ UHVSRQVH WR D SDUWLFXODU FXH /DQG\ f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f 7KH FRPSXWHU SURJUDP PRQLWRULQJ WKH PHPRU\ UHWULHYDO WDVN XVLQJ WKH VDPH NH\SUHVV VLJQDO GHVFULEHG DERYH UHFRUGHG WKH HODSVHG WLPH EHWZHHQ WKH GLVSOD\ RI WKH WUDLW RQ WKH FRPSXWHU VFUHHQ DQG WKH UHWULHYDO RI WKH ILUVW PHPRU\ DV ZHOO DV WKH HODSVHG WLPH EHWZHHQ VXEVHTXHQW PHPRU\ UHWULHYDOV $OO WLPLQJV ZHUH UHFRUGHG WR WKH QHDUHVW WHQWK RI D VHFRQG )URP WKHVH WKH PHDQ UHWULHYDO

PAGE 49

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

PAGE 50

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f ZHUH FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV 5HWULHYDO 4XDQWLW\ DQG 5HWULHYDO /DWHQF\ WR WHVW +\SRWKHVHV DQG $ WZRZD\ $129$ [f ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ WKH GHSHQGHQW PHDVXUH 6HOI&KDQJH ,QGH[ WR WHVW +\SRWKHVLV

PAGE 51

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 $1' $1$/<6,6 $ VHULHV RI [[ $129$V ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR DQDO\]H WKH HIIHFWV RI LGHQWLW\ VW\OH FXH YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ WKH SUHWHVW IRU GHSUHVVLRQ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG DQG WKH ODWHQF\ RI UHFDOO ,Q DGGLWLRQ D [ $129$ ZDV SHUIRUPHG WR WHVW WKH HIIHFWV RI LGHQWLW\ VW\OH DQG FXH YDOHQFH RQ WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUFHLYHG VHOIFKDQJH ZKHQ WKH\ UHFDOOHG VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV $OO RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH EHWZHHQVXEMHFWV IDFWRUV 3UHWHVWV 3ULRU WR FRQGXFWLQJ WKH SULPDU\ DQDO\VHV WZR SUHWHVWV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG )LUVW LQ RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH LI LGHQWLW\ VW\OH PLJKW EH OLQNHG WR VXEMHFWVn PHPRU\ UHFDOO DELOLW\ VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH (2,(06 DQG WKH 'LJLW 6SDQ VXEWHVW RI WKH :HFKVOHU $GXOW ,QWHOOLJHQFH 6FDOH 5HYLVHG )DQWX]]R %ODNH\ t *RUVXFK f 7KH 'LJLW 6SDQ VXEWHVW PHDVXUHV LPPHGLDWH UHFDOO PHPRU\ $ VHULHV RI 3HDUVRQnV FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH SHUIRUPHG EHWZHHQ WKH WKUHH UDZ LGHQWLW\ VFDOH VFRUHV ZLWK WKH VFRUH IRU WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ RULHQWDWLRQ EHLQJ WKH PHDQ RI WKH DFKLHYHPHQW DQG PRUDWRULXP VXEVFDOH VFRUHVf

PAGE 52

DQG WKH WRWDO VFRUH IRU WKH 'LJLW 6SDQ WHVW $OO WKUHH FRUUHODWLRQV IDLOHG WR UHDFK VLJQLILFDQFH UDQJH U WR U f VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PHPRU\ UHFDOO DPRQJ WKH LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV DUH QRW GXH WR JHQHUDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PHPRU\ DELOLW\ 6HFRQG EHFDXVH GHSUHVVLRQ KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR LQIOXHQFH PHPRU\ UHFDOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH =XQJ GHSUHVVLRQ VFDOH DQG D [[ $129$ ZDV FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VFRUHV LQ RUGHU WR FRQILUP WKDW VXEMHFWV LQ WKH YDULRXV FHOOV ZHUH QRW GLIIHUHQWLDOO\ GHSUHVVHG $QDO\VLV RI WKH =XQJ VFRUHV FRQILUPHG WKDW VXEMHFWVn OHYHO RI GHSUHVVLRQ GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ DFURVV FRQGLWLRQV 7KHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV RU LQWHUDFWLRQV DV UHIOHFWHG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH SURYLGHV WKH PHDQ GHSUHVVLRQ VFRUHV IRU HDFK FRQGLWLRQ 3ULPDU\ $QDO\VHV 7KH GDWD IRU WKH ILUVW WZR GHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHV 5HWULHYDO 4XDQWLW\ DQG 5HWULHYDO /DWHQF\f ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ D LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG DQG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHGf [ SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH PHPRU\ FXHVf [ VHOIFRQILUPLQJ DQG VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJf EHWZHHQVXEMHFWV DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $129$f

PAGE 53

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU 'HSUHVVLRQ 6FRUHV 6RXUFH 6XP RI 6TXDUHV GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) 3 ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH 9DOHQFH ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOHQFH 9DOLGDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOLGDWLRQ 9DOHQFH [ 9DOLGDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOHQFH [ 9DOLGDWLRQ (UURU 2n}

PAGE 54

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 'HSUHVVLRQ 6FRUHV ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH 9DOHQFH 9DOLGDWLRQ 1 =XQJ 0HDQ 6FRUH 6 ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3RVLWLYH &RQILUP ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3RVLWLYH 'LVFRQILUP ,QIRUPDWLRQ 1HJDWLYH &RQILUP ,QIRUPDWLRQ 1HJDWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 3RVLWLYH &RQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 3RVLWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 1HJDWLYH &RQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 1HJDWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 'LIIXVH 3RVLWLYH &RQILUP 'LIIXVH 3RVLWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 'LIIXVH 1HJDWLYH &RQILUP 'LIIXVH 1HJDWLYH 'LVFRQILUP

PAGE 55

5HWULHYDO 4XDQWLW\ $ WKUHHZD\ $129$ SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG UHYHDOHG WZR VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV RQH VLJQLILFDQW WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG RQH WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ 6HH 7DEOH f 0DLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG IRU YDOHQFH )O f S DQG IRU LGHQWLW\ VW\OH ) f S EXW WKHVH ZHUH TXDOLILHG E\ D WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ )O f S DQG D WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ DPRQJ LGHQWLW\ VW\OH YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ ) f S 7KH WZR PDLQ HIIHFWV UHIOHFWHG WKDW VXEMHFWV GLG WHQG WR UHFDOO PRUH SRVLWLYH PHPRULHV 0 f WKDQ QHJDWLYH PHPRULHV 0 f DQG WKDW PHPRU\ UHFDOO YDULHG DV SUHGLFWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR LGHQWLW\ VW\OH $ 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.HXOV DQDO\VLV ZLWK S UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH KLJKHVW QXPEHUV RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV ZHUH UHSRUWHG E\ LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV 0 f IROORZHG E\ QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG 0 f DQG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG 0 f LQGLYLGXDOV +RZHYHU WKHVH PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH TXDOLILHG E\ WZR LQWHUDFWLRQV 8VLQJ D 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.HXOV DQDO\VLV WKH WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ VKRZHG WKDW XQGHU FRQGLWLRQV RI VHOIFRQILUPDWLRQ VXEMHFWV WHQGHG WR UHFDOO VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH PHPRULHV ZKHQ SUHVHQWHG ZLWK SRVLWLYH VHOIFKDUDFWHULVWLFV 0 f WKDQ ZKHQ DVNHG WR FRQILUP QHJDWLYH VHOIFKDUDFWHULVWLFV

PAGE 56

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU 5HWULHYDO 4XDQWLW\ 6RXUFH 6XP RI 6TXDUHV GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) 3 ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH 9DOHQFH ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOHQFH 9DOLGDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOLGDWLRQ 9DOHQFH [ 9DOLGDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOHQFH [ 9DOLGDWLRQ (UURU '

PAGE 57

0 VHH )LJXUH f +RZHYHU ZKHQ VXEMHFWV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG ZLWK VHOIGLVFRQILULQLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKH\ UHFDOOHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH PHPRULHV ZKHQ SUHVHQWHG ZLWK SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW ZHUH QRW OLNH WKHPVHOYHV 0 f WKDQ ZKHQ DVNHG WR UHFDOO PHPRULHV RI QHJDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW ZHUH QRW OLNH WKHPVHOYHV 0 f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f DQG VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 f ZLWK WKH VDPH IUHTXHQF\ /LNHZLVH LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VXEMHFWV UHFDOOHG ERWK VHOIFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 f DQG VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 f ZLWK HTXDO IUHTXHQF\ VHH )LJXUH f ,Q FRQWUDVW DV SUHGLFWHG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV WHQGHG WR UHFDOO PRUH SRVLWLYH VHOIFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV DQG IHZHU QHJDWLYH

PAGE 58

5(75,(9$/ 48$17,7< &RQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ /(*(1' 3RVLWLYH 1HJDWLYH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG

PAGE 59

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 0HPRU\ 5HWULHYDO 0HDVXUHV ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH 9DOHQFH 9DOLGDWLRQ 1 4XDQWLW\ 0HDQ 6 /DWHQF\ 0HDQ 6 ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3RVLWLYH &RQILUP ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3RVLWLYH 'LVFRQILUP ,QIRUPDWLRQ 1HJDWLYH &RQILUP ,QIRUPDWLRQ 1HJDWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 3RVLWLYH &RQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 3RVLWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 1HJDWLYH &RQILUP 1RUPDWLYH 1HJDWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 'LIIXVH 3RVLWLYH &RQILUP 'LIIXVH 3RVLWLYH 'LVFRQILUP 'LIIXVH 1HJDWLYH &RQILUP 'LIIXVH 1HJDWLYH 'LVFRQILUP FQ WR

PAGE 60

5(75,(9$/ 48$17,7< &RQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ /(*(1' )LJXUH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV RQO\

PAGE 61

VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV $ 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.HXOV FRQGLWLRQDO DQDO\VLV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW VXEMHFWV LQ WKH VHOIFRQILUPLQJ FRQGLWLRQV UHFDOOHG VLPLODU QXPEHUV RI $ SRVLWLYH 0 f DQG QHJDWLYH 0 f b DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV VHH )LJXUH f ,Q FRQWUDVW VXEMHFWV LQ VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ FRQGLWLRQV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU UHFDOO RI SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH PHPRULHV 7KH QXPEHU RI QHJDWLYH VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG 0 f ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ WKH QXPEHU RI SRVLWLYH VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 VHH )LJXUH f VXJJHVWLQJ WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI D UREXVW VHOIHQKDQFHPHQW HIIHFW )LQDOO\ DV SUHGLFWHG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV UHFDOOHG DQ HTXDO QXPEHU RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV DPRQJ WKH IRXU UHFDOO FRQGLWLRQV $ 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.HXOV FRQGLWLRQDO DQDO\VLV UHYHDOHG WKDW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG DFURVV ERWK VHOIFRQILUPLQJ FRQGLWLRQV SRVLWLYH 0 QHJDWLYH 0 f DQG VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ FRQGLWLRQV SRVLWLYH 0 QHJDWLYH 0 f SURYHG WR EH LQVLJQLILFDQW VHH )LJXUH f 5HWULHYDO /DWHQF\ 9LHZHG DV D VHFRQG LQGLFDWRU RI WKH DFFHVVLEOLW\ RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV GDWD FRQFHUQLQJ WKH PHDQ ODWHQF\ RI PHPRU\ UHFDOO ZDV DQDO\]HG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH [[ IDFWRULDO GHVLJQ 7KH WKUHHZD\ $129$ UHYHDOHG RQH

PAGE 62

5(75,(9$/ 48$17,7< &RQILUPDWRU\ 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 /(*(1' )LJXUH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG IRU QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV RQO\

PAGE 63

5(75,(9$/ 48$17,7< &RQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ /(*(1' 1HJDWLYH )LJXUH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG IRU GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV RQO\

PAGE 64

VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW RQH VLJQLILFDQW WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG RQH WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ VHH 7DEOH f 0DLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG IRU YDOHQFH )O f DQG D WHQGHQF\ WRZDUG D PDLQ HIIHFW IRU LGHQWLW\ VW\OH ) f +RZHYHU WKHVH ZHUH TXDOLILHG E\ D WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ )O f S DQG D WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ DPRQJ LGHQWLW\ VW\OH YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ ) f 6XSRUW ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW PHPRULHV UHODWHG WR SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZRXOG EH UHFDOOHG PRUH TXLFNO\ WKDQ ZRXOG QHJDWLYHO\ FXHG PHPRULHV 7KH PDLQ HIIHFW IRU YDOHQFH UHIOHFWHG WKH IDFW WKDW VXEMHFWV GLG WHQG WR UHFDOO SRVLWLYH PHPRULHV PRUH TXLFNO\ 0 VHFRQGVf WKDQ QHJDWLYH PHPRULHV 0 VHFRQGVf 7KH WHQGHQF\ WRZDUG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH YDULRXV LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV LQ WHUPV RI UHVSRQVH WLPHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV SURGXFHG WKH ORQJHVW UHVSRQVH WLPHV RYHUDOO 0 VHFRQGVf FRPSDUHG WR WKH QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV 0 VHFRQGVf DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VXEMHFWV 0 VHFRQGVf +RZHYHU WKHVH HIIHFWV ZHUH TXDOLILHG E\ WZR LQWHUDFWLRQV 8VLQJ D 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.HXOV DQDO\VLV WKH WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ VKRZHG WKDW XQGHU FRQGLWLRQV RI VHOIFRQILUPDWLRQ VXEMHFWV WHQGHG WR UHFDOO PHPRULHV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH TXLFNO\ ZKHQ

PAGE 65

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU 5HWULHYDO /DWHQF\ 6RXUFH 6XP RI 6TXDUHV GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) 3 ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH 9DOHQFH ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOHQFH 9DOLGDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOLGDWLRQ 9DOHQFH [ 9DOLGDWLRQ ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH ; 9DOHQFH [ 9DOLGDWLRQ (UURU ML RR

PAGE 66

SUHVHQWHG ZLWK SRVLWLYH VHOIFKDUDFWHULVWLFV 0 VHFRQGVf WKDQ ZKHQ DVNHG WR FRQILUP QHJDWLYH VHOIFKDUDFWHULVWLFV 0 VHFRQGV VHH )LJXUH f ,Q D VLPLODU ZD\ VXEMHFWV ZKR ZHUH SUHVHQWHG ZLWK SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW ZHUH QRW OLNH WKHPVHOYHV UHFDOOHG PHPRULHV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH TXLFNO\ 0 VHFRQGVf WKDQ ZKHQ DVNHG WR UHFDOO PHPRULHV RI QHJDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW ZHUH QRW OLNH WKHPVHOYHV 0 VHFRQGVf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f ZLWK WKH VDPH VSHHG RI UHFDOO 1HJDWLYH PHPRULHV ZHUH UHFDOOHG ZLWK VLPLODU VSHHG RYHUDOO ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VXEMHFWV UHFDOOLQJ ERWK VHOIFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 VHFRQGVf DQG VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 VHFRQGVf ZLWK HTXDO HDVH VHH )LJXUH f

PAGE 67

5(75,(9$/ /$7(1&< R U  &RQILUPDWRU\ 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 /(*(1' 3RVLWLYH 1HJDWLYH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ DYHUDJH WLPH WR UHWULHYH PHPRULHV LQ VHFRQGVf

PAGE 68

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU 6HOI&KDQJH 6FRUHV 6RXUFH ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH 9DOHQFH ,GHQWLW\ 6W\OH [ 9DOHQFH 6XP RI 6TXDUHV GI 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) S (UURU

PAGE 69

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV IRU 6HOI &KDQJH 6FRUHV ,GHQWLW\ 6HOI &KDQJH 6W\OH 9DOHQFH 1 0HDQ 6 ,QIRUPDWLRQ f 3RVLWLYH ,QIRUPDWLRQ 1HJDWLYH 1RUPDWLYH 3RVLWLYH 1RUPDWLYH 1HJDWLYH f 'LIIXVH 3RVLWLYH 'LIIXVH 1HJDWLYH WR

PAGE 70

5(75,(9$/ /$7(1&< &RQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ /(*(1' 3RVLWLYH 1HJDWLYH &KDUDFWHULVWLFV &KDUDFWHULVWLFV )LJXUH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ DYHUDJH WLPH WR UHWULHYH PHPRULHV LQ VHFRQGVf IRU LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VXEMHFWV RQO\

PAGE 71

3DUWLDO VXSSRUW ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH SUHGLFWLRQ WKDW QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG VKRZ D GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ ORQJHU UHVSRQVH WLPH ZKHQ UHFDOOLQJ VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV HVSHFLDOO\ IRU QHJDWLYH VHOIFKDUDFWHULVWLFV $ 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.HXOV FRQGLWLRQDO DQDO\VLV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW XQGHU VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ FRQGLWLRQV QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV GLG VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHU LQ WKHLU UHVSRQVH WLPHV 7KH ODWHQF\ RI UHFDOO IRU QHJDWLYH VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 VHFRQGVf ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ IRU SRVLWLYH VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV 0 VHFRQGV VHH )LJXUH f )LQDOO\ SDUWLDO VXSSRUW ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH SUHGLFWLRQ WKDW GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG SURGXFH UHVSRQVH WLPHV ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ HTXDO ODWHQF\ DPRQJ WKH IRXU UHFDOO FRQGLWLRQV WKH H[FHSWLRQ EHLQJ WKH UDSLGLW\ ZLWK ZKLFK WKH\ UHFDOOHG SRVLWLYH EXW VHOIGLVFRQILUPLQJ PHPRULHV VHH )LJXUH f 6HOI&KDQJH 7KH ILQDO DQDO\VHV DGGUHVVHG WKH UHODWLYH GHJUHHV RI SHUFHLYHG VHOIFKDQJH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV IROORZLQJ WKH UHFDOO RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRULHV %HFDXVH WKH WZR YDOLGDWLRQDO FRQGLWLRQV SRVLWLYHFRQILUP QHJDWLYHFRQILUPf LQYROYHG VXEMHFWV JHQHUDWLQJ PHPRULHV WKDW ZHUH YLHZHG DV KLJKO\ VHOIGHVFULSWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LH UDWHG DV RU

PAGE 72

5(75,(9$/ /$7(1&< &RQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ /(*(1' 3RVLWLYH 1HJDWLYH &KDUDFWHULVWLFV &KDUDFWHULVWLFV +++, ++% ++,+ 6 )LJXUH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ DYHUDJH WLPH WR UHWULHYH PHPRULHV LQ VHFRQGVf IRU QRUPDWLYHO\RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV RQO\

PAGE 73

5(75,(9$/ /$7(1&< &RQILUPDWRU\ 'LVFRQILUPDWRU\ 9$/,'$7,21 /(*(1' )LJXUH (IIHFWV RI YDOHQFH DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RQ DYHUDJH WLPH WR UHWULHYH PHPRULHV LQ VHFRQGVf IRU GLIIXVHO\RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV RQO\

PAGE 74

RQ D VL[SRLQW VFDOHf WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV ZHUH VXEMHFW WR D FHLOLQJ HIIHFW )RU WKLV UHDVRQ WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV FRXOG QRW EH XVHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI SHUFHLYHG FKDQJH VLQFH WKH\ FRXOG FKDQJH OLWWOH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI YDOLGDWLRQ &RQGLWLRQV RI LQYDOLGDWLRQ SRVLWLYHGLVFRQILUP QHJDWLYHGLVFRQILUPf KRZHYHU UHIOHFWHG PHPRU\ UHFDOO DORQJ GLPHQVLRQV WKDW ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ ORZ LQ VHOIGHVFULSWLYHQHVV LH UDWHG DV RU RQ D VL[ SRLQW VFDOHf DQG IRU WKDW UHDVRQ FRXOG EH VXEMHFW WR PRGLILFDWLRQ LI GLVFRQILUPHG ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKHVH RULJLQDOO\ QRQVHOIGHVFULSWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PLJKW EHFRPH PRUH VHOIGHVFULSWLYH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI UHYLHZLQJ PHPRULHV LOOXVWUDWLQJ WKHLU DSSOLFDEOLW\ WR WKH VHOI &KDQJHV XQGHU WKH SRVLWLYHGLVFRQILUP FRQGLWLRQ ZRXOG UHIOHFW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR UHOLQTXLVK QHJDWLYH VHOIFRQVWUXFWLRQV /LNHZLVH FKDQJHV XQGHU WKH QHJDWLYHGLVFRQILUP FRQGLWLRQ ZRXOG UHIOHFW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR UHOLQTXLVK SRVLWLYH VHOIFRQVWUXFWLRQV $ WZRZD\ $129$ SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH WLPH WZR VHOIUDWLQJV UHYHDOHG WZR VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFWV 7KH PDLQ HIIHFW IRU YDOHQFH )O f S VKRZHG WKDW RYHUDOO VXEMHFWV UHJDUGHG WKH SRVLWLYH FXHV DV PRUH VHOIGHVFULSWLYH 0 f WKDQ WKH QHJDWLYH FXHV 0 f $ 6WXGHQW1HZPDQ.XHOV DQDO\VLV RI WKH VHFRQG PDLQ HIIHFW IRU LGHQWLW\ VW\OH UHYHDOHG WKDW GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV KDG WKH KLJKHVW OHYHO RI

PAGE 75

VHOIVLPLODULW\ 0 f ZKLOH QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV UHSRUWHG WKH ORZHVW DPRXQW RI SHUFHLYHG VHOIVLPLODULW\ 0 f 7KH OHYHO RI SHUFHLYHG VHOIVLPLODULW\ IRU LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG VXEMHFWV IHOO EHWZHHQ WKH RWKHU LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV 0 f $OWKRXJK WKHVH ILQGLQJV IDLOHG WR VKRZ WKH SUHGLFWHG LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ LGHQWLW\ VW\OH DQG YDOHQFH WKHVH UHVXOWV OHQG SDUWLDO VXSSRUW IRU K\SRWKHVLV VL[ E\ VXJJHVWLQJ WKH UHODWLYH UHVLVWDQFH WR GLVFRQILUPDWLRQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LGHQWLW\ VW\OH

PAGE 76

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 $1' &21&/86,216 5HVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ SURYLGH VXSSRUW IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW DQG DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ UHFDOO &HQWUDO WR WKLV VWXG\ KDV EHHQ WKH UHQHZHG LQWHUHVW LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG PHPRU\ LQ JHQHUDO DV ZHOO DV LQ WKH VSHFLILF WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV LQ UHFDOO WKDW PD\ DFFRPSDQ\ SHUVRQDO FKDQJH DQG UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ %DUFOD\ D E %DUFOD\ t 6XEUDPDQLDP %UHZHU .LKOVWURP 0DUNXV 0DUNXV t 6HQWLV 5RVV t &RQZD\ f 7KLV VWXG\ KDV IROORZHG IURP WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ DQG SHUVRQDO PHPRU\ DV LQWHUGHSHQGHQW SURFHVVHV 7KLV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH VHOI LV EURDGO\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK *HRUJH .HOO\nV YLHZ RI SHRSOH DFWLQJ DV SHUVRQDO VFLHQWLVWV ZKR FRQWLQXRXVO\ VWULYH WR HYROYH DQG SUHVHUYH D PHDQLQJIXO VHQVH RI VHOI %DUWOHWWnV f ZRUN VXSSRUWHG WKLV VWXG\nV YLHZ WKDW DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFDOO LV PRUH WKDQ WKH OLWHUDO UHSURGXFWLRQ RI SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ HPEDOPHG HYHQWV EXW DV KH DSWO\ SXW LW LV LQVWHDG IDU PRUH GHFLVLYHO\ DQ DIIDLU RI UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ $V HYLGHQFH RI WKH VHOInV UROH LQ WKH UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ IDEULFDWLRQ DQG UHYLVLRQ RI KLVWRU\

PAGE 77

FRQWLQXHV WR PRXQW WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI DGGUHVVLQJ WKH IXQFWLRQ RU SXUSRVH RI VXFK HIIRUWV FRQWLQXHV WR GUDZ DWWHQWLRQ &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK RWKHU DFFRXQWV HJ *UHHQZDOG f WKLV VWXG\ UHJDUGHG WKH SUHVHUYDWLRQ RI D PHDQLQJIXO VHQVH RI VHOILGHQWLW\ DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU LQ WKLV UHFRQVWUXFWLYH SURFHVV VHH .HOO\ f DQG SUHGLFWHG WKDW LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW FRXOG FDUU\ LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFDOO 7KH VSHFLILF K\SRWKHVHV IRU WKLV SURMHFW KDYH EHHQ GHULYHG IURP %HU]RQVN\nV f FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI LGHQWLW\ VW\OH ZKLFK HPSKDVL]HV WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO SURFHVVHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG DQG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG SHUVRQDO VFLHQWLVWV $V UHODWLYHO\ REMHFWLYH SURFHVVRUV LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV DFWLYHO\ VHHN VHOIUHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG ZLOOLQJO\ HPEUDFH DQG DVVLPLODWH YLDEOH UHFRQVWUXFWLRQV RI WKH VHOI &RQFHUQLQJ FRQWHPSRUDU\ VHOILPDJHV LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG EH VNHSWLFDO DQG WHQWDWLYH DERXW WKHLU VHOIFRQVWUXFWLRQV UHVSRQVLYH WR HQYLURQPHQWDO IHHGEDFN DQG ZLOOLQJ WR WHVW DQG UHYLVH VHOIFRQVWUXFWV LQ OLJKW RI FRQWUDGLFWRU\ HYLGHQFH %HU]RQVN\ Sf ,Q FRQWUDVW QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR KDYH DUULYHG DW FXUUHQW LGHQWLW\ FRPPLWPHQWV LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI SHUVRQDO H[SORUDWLRQ RU FULVLV DUH SULPDULO\ JHDUHG WRZDUG WKH SUHVHUYDWLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ VHOIFRQVWUXFWLRQV

PAGE 78

+DYLQJ IRUHFORVHG SUHPDWXUHO\ RQ UHDGLO\ DYDLODEOH H[WHUQDOO\ SURYLGHG VHOILPDJHV WKH\ RSHUDWH DV GRJPDWLF VFLHQWLVWV ZKR UHO\ RQ DVVLPLODWLYH SURFHVVHV VXFK DV UDWLRQDOL]DWLRQ DQG FRQILUPDWLRQELDVHG VHDUFKHV LQ WHVWLQJ LPDJHV RI WKHPVHOYHV $QG ILQDOO\ GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV DG KRF VHOIWKHRULVWV ZKR FRQWLQXDOO\ HQJDJH LQ HSKHPHUDO DFFRPPRGDWLYH FKDQJHV LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH YDJDULHV RI LPPHGLDWH FRQWH[WXDO GHPDQG VHH %HU]RQVN\ f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

PAGE 79

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t :DWHUPDQ f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

PAGE 80

VWXG\ ZRXOG EH GHILQHG E\ WKH WHQGHQF\ WR JHQHUDWH UHODWLYHO\ JUHDWHU QXPEHUV RI SRVLWLYH WKDQ QHJDWLYH PHPRULHV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU FRQVLVWHQF\ ZLWK VHOISHUFHSWLRQV 9LHZHG IURP WKLV SHUVSHFWLYH ERWK WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV DSSHDUHG WR HQJDJH LQ JUHDWHU VHOIHQKDQFHPHQW WKDQ GLG GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV ,Q WKLV UHJDUG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQRULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV JHQHUDWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH SRVLWLYH 0 f WKDQ QHJDWLYH 0 f PHPRULHV DV GLG WKH QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG VXEMHFWV SRVLWLYH 0 QHJDWLYH 0 f 2QO\ WKH GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LGHQWLW\ VW\OH ZDV PDUNHG E\ UHODWLYHO\ JUHDWHU EDODQFH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI IDYRUDEOH 0 f DQG XQIDYRUDEOH 0 f PHPRULHV UHFDOOHG 2QH SRVVLEOH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV HIIHFW FRQFHUQV WKH HQGHPLF IXQFWLRQ RI LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW WR SUHVHUYH D IDYRUDEOH VHQVH RI VHOI ,Q WKLV UHJDUG VXFK ELDVHV PD\ EH YLHZHG DV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW HJRnV FRJQLWLYH ELDVHV DUH SHUYDVLYH DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI QRUPDO SHUVRQDOLWLHV DV PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI DQ HIIHFWLYHO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH *UHHQZDOG Sf 7KLV JHQHUDO SLFWXUH RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO UHFDOO DV LQIOXHQFHG E\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ LV VWUHQJWKHQHG E\ FRQVLGHULQJ WKH LPSDFW RI WKDW PHPRU\ UHFDOO RQ VXEVHTXHQW VHOISHUFHSWLRQV &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKHLU DFFRPPRGDWLYH RULHQWDWLRQ WR VLWXDWLRQDO FRQWH[WV GLIIXVHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV VKRZHG WKH JUHDWHVW

PAGE 81

FKDQJHV LQ VHOISHUFHSWLRQV IROORZLQJ WKH UHFDOO RI PHPRULHV WKDW ZHUH LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH VHOILPDJHV $V H[SHFWHG QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV VKRZHG WKH OHDVW FKDQJH DJDLQ XQGHUVFRULQJ WKHLU SUHIHUHQFH IRU DVVLPLODWLRQ RYHU SHUVRQDO UHYLVLRQ RU DFFRPPRGDWLRQ 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJV RI %HU]RQVN\ DQG 6XOOLYDQ f ZKR FRQFOXGHG IURP WKHLU IDFWRU DQDO\WLF VWXG\ RI LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV WKDW QRUPDWLYHO\ RULHQWHG LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ FRUGRQ RII D FRUH RI WKH VHOI IURP SRWHQWLDO WKUHDWV RI LQYDOLGDWLRQ S f ,W LV DOVR FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH EURDGHU OLWHUDWXUH WKDW GRFXPHQWV WKH UROH WKDW ILUP VHOIFRPPLWPHQWV SOD\ LQ KRZ LQIRUPDWLRQ LV SURFHVVHG 6ZDQQ f ZKHWKHU PHPRU\ LV GLVWRUWHG *UHHQZDOG f DQG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK EHOLHIV SHUVHYHUH LQ WKH IDFH RI FRQWUDGLFWRU\ HYLGHQFH /RUG 5RVV t /HSSHU f $FFRUGLQJ WR WKLV UHDVRQLQJ KLJKO\ FRPPLWHG LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV PD\ EH OHVV DPHQDEOH WR SRWHQWLDO GLVFRQILUPDWLRQ RI ILUPO\ KHOG VHOISHUFHSWLRQV SUHIHUULQJ LQVWHDG WR DGKHUH WR SUHYLRXV SHUVRQDO FRQYLFWLRQV ,Q FRQFOXVLRQ WKH RYHUDOO UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ SURYLGH VRPH HYLGHQFH FRQFHUQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HJR LGHQWLW\ VW\OH DQG WKH UHFDOO RI DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ 7KH SDWWHUQ RI ILQGLQJV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH ODUJHO\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SDVW ZRUN RQ WKH H[SHFWHG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SURFHVVLQJ VHOIUHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ DPRQJ WKH WKUHH LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV +RZHYHU VRPH FDXWLRQ LV

PAGE 82

ZDUUDQWHG LQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ 7KH FURVVVHFWLRQDO QDWXUH RI WKLV VWXG\ OLPLWV DQ\ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUHVVLRQ RI SHUVRQDO PHPRU\ UHFDOO /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ 2QH OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKH SUHVHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ FRQFHUQV WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK VXEMHFWVn VHOIWKHRULHV ZHUH DVVHVVHG 7KH RQO\ PHDVXUH RI WKH VXEMHFWVn VHOISHUFHSWLRQV ZDV WKH VHOIUDWLQJ RI KRZ GHVFULSWLYH RI WKHPVHOYHV D SDUWLFXODU SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLF ZDV %HFDXVH PRVW SHRSOH LQLWLDOO\ WHQG WR UDWH SRVLWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DV UDWKHU KLJKO\ VHOIGHVFULSWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DV RQO\ PRGHUDWHO\ VHOIGHVFULSWLYH PHDVXUHV RI FKDQJHV LQ WKHLU VHOIWKHRU\ ZHUH SODJXHG E\ FHLOLQJ HIIHFWV $OWKRXJK WKH SUHVHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ H[WHQGHG WKH OHYHO RI WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI D SHUVRQnV VHOIWKHRU\ FRPSDUHG WR WKH OHYHO XVHG LQ H[LVWLQJ H[SHULPHQWDO PHPRU\ UHVHDUFK D PRUH WKRURXJK DQG VSHFLILF DVVHVVPHQW LV QHHGHG %\ XVLQJ DQ DVVHVVPHQW LQVWUXPHQW WKDW LV OHVV REYLRXV DQG PRUH SHUVRQDOO\ PHDQLQJIXO HJ SHUVRQDOO\ HOLFLWHG FRQVWUXFWVf VXEWOH FKDQJHV LQ VXEMHFWVn VHOIWKHRULHV FRXOG EH DVFHUWDLQHG $OVR E\ XVLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW ZHUH PRUH SHUVRQDOO\ PHDQLQJIXO VXEMHFWV PLJKW EH PRUH DEOH WR H[SORUH WKH VDOLHQW QHJDWLYH DVSHFWV RI WKHLU SHUVRQDOLWLHV

PAGE 83

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nV VHOIWKHRU\ 7KH XVH RI D OHVV REYLRXV PHDVXUH LQ RUGHU WR GHULYH D SHUVRQnV VXSHURUGLQDWH VHOIVFKHPDV FRXOG EH DFFRPSOLVKHG XVLQJ D UHSHUWRU\ JULG D ODGGHULQJ SURFHGXUH +LQNOH f RU D YDULHW\ RI RWKHU ZD\V WR GHWHUPLQH VXSHURUGLQDWLRQ 0HW]OHU t 1HLPH\HU f 6XFK LQVWUXPHQWV FRXOG DOVR \LHOG VRPH XVHIXO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH RYHUDOO SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH HYDOXDWLYH QDWXUH RI WKH VHOIV\VWHP DQG DERXW WKH LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH VHOIVFKHPDWD DQG SRVVLEOH FKDQJHV LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH VHOIWKHRU\ 7KH FRQWLQXHG XVH RI D FRPSXWHUL]HG DVVHVVPHQW WR H[SORUH VXEMHFWVn VW\OH RI SURFHVVLQJ DQG DVVLPLODWLQJ VHOIUHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ FRXOG DOORZ IRU PRUH FRPSUHKHQVLYH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VHOIVWUXFWXUH DQG DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ ,Q DGGLWLRQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH DFWXDO PHPRULHV UHWULHYHG WKURXJK FRPSXWHU HOLFLWDWLRQ FRXOG \LHOG YDOXDEOH GDWD )RU

PAGE 84

H[DPSOH LI WKH WLPH SHULRGV IURP ZKLFK WKH UHWULHYHG PHPRULHV FDPH ZHUH UHFRUGHG DQG DQDO\]HG GLIIHUHQW LGHQWLW\ VW\OHV PLJKW EH IRXQG WR GLIIHU LQ WKH DYHUDJH DJH RI WKH PHPRULHV UHWULHYHG

PAGE 85

$33(1',; $ ,'(2/2*,&$/ ,'(17,7< 6&$/( 5HDG HDFK LWHP DQG LQGLFDWH WR ZKDW GHJUHH LW UHIOHFWV \RXU RZQ WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV ,I D VWDWHPHQW KDV PRUH WKDQ RQH SDUW SOHDVH LQGLFDWH \RXU UHDFWLRQ WR WKH LWHP DV D ZKROH 0DUN WKH QXPEHU RQ WKH DWWDFKHG DQVZHU VKHHW WKDW EHVW UHIOHFWV \RXU RSLQLRQ 3OHDVH EH VXUH WR UHVSRQG WR DOO RI WKH LWHPV 'R QRW ZULWH RQ WKLV ERRNOHW f VWURQJO\ GLVDJUHH f PRGHUDWHO\ GLVDJUHH f QHLWKHU DJUHH QRU GLVDJUHH KDYHQnW FKRVHQ WKH RFFXSDWLRQ UHDOO\ ZDQW WR JHW LQWR DQG ,nP MXVW ZRUNLQJ DW ZKDWHYHU LV DYDLODEOH XQWLO VRPHWKLQJ EHWWHU FRPHV DORQJ :KHQ LW FRPHV WR UHOLJLRQ MXVW KDYHQnW IRXQG DQ\WKLQJ WKDW DSSHDOV DQG GRQnW UHDOO\ IHHO WKH QHHG WR ORRN 7KHUHnV QR VLQJOH OLIH VW\OH ZKLFK DSSHDOV WR PH PRUH WKDQ DQRWKHU f PRGHUDWHO\ DJUHH f VWURQJO\ DJUHH

PAGE 86

3ROLWLFV LV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW QHYHU FDQ EH WRR VXUH DERXW EHFDXVH WKLQJV FKDQJH VR IDVW %XW GR WKLQN LWnV LPSRUWDQW WR NQRZ ZKDW FDQ SROLWLFDOO\ VWDQG IRU DQG EHOLHYH LQ ,nP VWLOO WU\LQJ WR GHFLGH KRZ FDSDEOH DP DV D SHUVRQ DQG ZKDW MREV ZLOO EH ULJKW IRU PH GRQnW JLYH UHOLJLRQ PXFK WKRXJKW DQG LW GRHVQnW ERWKHU PH RQH ZD\ RU WKH RWKHU ,nP ORRNLQJ IRU DQ DFFHSWDEOH SHUVSHFWLYH IRU P\ RZQ OLIH VW\OH YLHZ EXW KDYHQnW UHDOO\ IRXQG LW \HW KDYHQnW UHDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG SROLWLFV ,W MXVW GRHVQnW H[FLWH PH PXFK PLJKW KDYH WKRXJKW DERXW D ORW RI GLIIHUHQW MREV EXW WKHUHnV QHYHU UHDOO\ DQ\ TXHVWLRQ VLQFH P\ SDUHQWV VDLG ZKDW WKH\ ZDQWHG $ SHUVRQnV IDLWK LV XQLTXH WR HDFK LQGLYLGXDO ,nYH FRQVLGHUHG DQG UHFRQVLGHUHG LW P\VHOI DQG NQRZ ZKDW FDQ EHOLHYH $IWHU FRQVLGHUDEOH WKRXJKW ,nYH GHYHORSHG P\ RZQ LQGLYLGXDO YLHZSRLQW RI ZKDW LV IRU PH DQ LGHDO OLIH

PAGE 87

VW\OH DQG GRQnW EHOLHYH DQ\RQH ZLOO EH OLNHO\ WR FKDQJH P\ SHUVSHFWLYH JXHVV ,nP SUHWW\ PXFK OLNH P\ IRONV ZKHQ LW FRPHV WR SROLWLFV IROORZ ZKDW WKH\ GR LQ WHUPV RI YRWLQJ DQG VXFK ,nP UHDOO\ QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ ILQGLQJ WKH ULJKW MRE DQ\ MRE ZLOO GR MXVW VHHP WR IORZ ZLWK ZKDW LV DYDLODEOH ,nP QRW VXUH ZKDW UHOLJLRQ PHDQV PDNH XS P\ PLQG EXW ,nP QRW GRQH WR PH ,nG OLNH WR ORRNLQJ \HW 0\ RZQ YLHZV RQ D GHVLUDEOH OLIH VW\OH ZHUH WDXJKW WR PH E\ P\ SDUHQWV DQG GRQnW VHH DQ\ QHHG WR TXHVWLRQ ZKDW WKH\ WDXJKW PH 7KHUH DUH VR PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW SROLWLFDO SDUWLHV DQG LGHDOV FDQnW GHFLGH ZKLFK WR IROORZ XQWLO ILJXUH LW DOO RXW ,W WRRN PH D ZKLOH WR ILJXUH LW RXW EXW QRZ UHDOO\ NQRZ ZKDW ZDQW IRU D FDUHHU 5HOLJLRQ LV FRQIXVLQJ IRU PH ULJKW QRZ NHHS FKDQJLQJ P\ YLHZV RQ ZKDW LV ULJKW DQG ZURQJ IRU PH

PAGE 88

,Q ILQGLQJ DQ DFFHSWDEOH YLHZSRLQW WR OLIH LWVHOI ILQG P\VHOI HQJDJLQJ LQ D ORW RI GLVFXVVLRQV ZLWK RWKHUV DQG VRPH VHOIH[SORUDWLRQ ,nYH WKRXJKW P\ SROLWLFDO EHOLHIV WKURXJK DQG UHDOL]H FDQ DJUHH ZLWK VRPH DQG QRW RWKHU DVSHFWV RI ZKDW P\ SDUHQWV EHOLHYH 0\ SDUHQWV GHFLGHG D ORQJ WLPH DJR ZKDW VKRXOG JR LQWR IRU HPSOR\PHQW DQG ,nP IROORZLQJ WKURXJK WKHLU SODQV ,nYH JRQH WKURXJK D SHULRG RI VHULRXV TXHVWLRQV DERXW IDLWK DQG FDQ QRZ VD\ XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW EHOLHYH LQ DV DQ LQGLYLGXDO 0\ SDUHQWVn YLHZV RQ OLIH DUH JRRG HQRXJK IRU PH GRQnW QHHG DQ\WKLQJ HOVH ,nP QRW VXUH DERXW P\ SROLWLFDO EHOLHIV EXW ,nP WU\LQJ WR ILJXUH RXW ZKDW FDQ WUXO\ EHOLHYH LQ ,W WRRN PH D ORQJ WLPH WR GHFLGH EXW QRZ NQRZ IRU VXUH ZKDW GLUHFWLRQ WR PRYH LQ IRU D FDUHHU DWWHQG WKH VDPH FKXUFK P\ IDPLO\ KDV DOZD\V DWWHQGHG ,nYH QHYHU UHDOO\ TXHVWLRQHG ZK\

PAGE 89

, JXHVV MXVW NLQG RI HQMR\ OLIH LQ JHQHUDO DQG GRQnW VHH P\VHOI OLYLQJ E\ DQ\ SDUWLFXODU YLHZSRLQW WR OLIH UHDOO\ KDYH QHYHU EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ SROLWLFV HQRXJK WR KDYH PDGH D ILUP VWDQG RQH ZD\ RU WKH RWKHU MXVW FDQnW GHFLGH ZKDW WR GR IRU DQ RFFXSDWLRQ 7KHUH DUH VR PDQ\ WKDW KDYH SRVVLELOLWLHV ,nYH QHYHU UHDOO\ TXHVWLRQHG P\ UHOLJLRQ ,I LWnV ULJKW IRU P\ SDUHQWV LW PXVW EH ULJKW IRU PH $IWHU D ORW RI VHOIH[DPLQDWLRQ KDYH HVWDEOLVKHG D YHU\ GHILQLWH YLHZ RQ ZKDW P\ RZQ OLIHVW\OH ZLOO EH 0\ IRONV KDYH DOZD\V KDG WKHLU RZQ SROLWLFDO DQG PRUDO EHOLHIV DERXW LVVXHV OLNH DERUWLRQ DQG PHUF\ NLOOLQJ DQG ,nYH DOZD\V JRQH DORQJ DFFHSWLQJ ZKDW WKH\ KDYH

PAGE 90

$33(1',; % =81* 6(/)5(3257 6&$/( )25 '(35(66,21 =656f 3OHDVH UHDG WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV DQG LQGLFDWH ZKHWKHU WKH\ DSSO\ WR \RX f D OLWWOH RI WKH WLPH f VRPH RI WKH WLPH f D JRRG SDUW RI WKH WLPH RU f PRVW RI WKH WLPH IHHO GRZQKHDUWHG DQG EOXH 0RUQLQJ LV ZKHQ IHHO WKH EHVW KDYH FU\LQJ VSHOOV RU IHHO OLNH LW KDYH WURXEOH VOHHSLQJ DW QLJKW HDW DV PXFK DV XVHG WR VWLOO HQMR\ VH[ QRWLFH WKDW DP ORVLQJ ZHLJKW KDYH WURXEOH ZLWK FRQVWLSDWLRQ 0\ KHDUW EHDWV IDVWHU WKDQ XVXDO JHW WLUHG IRU QR UHDVRQ 0\ PLQG LV DV FOHDU DV LW XVHG WR EH ILQG LW HDV\ WR GR WKH WKLQJV XVHG WR GR DP UHVWOHVV DQG FDQnW NHHS VWLOO IHHO KRSHIXO DERXW WKH IXWXUH DP PRUH LUULWDEOH WKDQ XVXDO ILQG LW HDV\ WR PDNH GHFLVLRQV

PAGE 91

, IHHO WKDW DP XVHIXO DQG QHHGHG 0\ OLIH LV SUHWW\ IXOO IHHO WKDW RWKHUV ZRXOG EH EHWWHU RII LI ZHUH GHDG VWLOO HQMR\ WKH WKLQJV XVHG WR

PAGE 92

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f 0$5.(' .(< 86( <285 '20,1$17 +$1' $IWHU D PRPHQW WKH PHVVDJH 35(66 $1< .(< 72 &217,18( ZDV GLVSOD\HG LQ WKH ERWWRP ULJKW FRUQHU RI WKH VFUHHQ :KHQ WKH VXEMHFW KDG UHDG WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG IHOW UHDG\ WR FRQWLQXH SUHVVLQJ DQ\ NH\ FDXVHG WKH VFUHHQ WR FOHDU DQG

PAGE 93

WKH IROORZLQJ GLVSOD\ WR EH SUHVHQWHG ; rrrrrr rrrrrr f fffff rrrrrr rrrrrr 7KH PHVVDJH 35(66 .(< &255(6321',1* 72 ; DSSHDUHG LQ WKH ERWWRP ULJKW FRUQHU RI WKH GLVSOD\ 3UHVVLQJ WKH NH\ FKDQJHG WKH GLVSOD\ WR WKH IROORZLQJ ; rrrrrr rrrrrr f fffff rrrrrr rrrrrr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

PAGE 94

ZHUH SUHVHQWHG RQ WKH VFUHHQ DV IROORZV 3(56216 )250 ,035(66,216 2) 27+(56 $&&25',1* 72 9$5,286 ',0(16,216 68&+ $6 $0%,7,286/$=
PAGE 95

SUHVHQWHG E\ WKH SURJUDP DV IROORZV <28 &$1127 &+$1*( <285 5$7,1* 21&( 0$'( '8( 72 7+( :25.,1*6 2) 7+( &20387(5 '2 <28 +$9( $1< 48(67,216" 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU VWRRG E\ DQG DQVZHUHG TXHVWLRQV IRU WKH ILUVW GXPP\ GLPHQVLRQ ,I WKH VXEMHFW ZDV VWLOO KDYLQJ SUREOHPV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH WDVN WKH RWKHU WZR GXPP\ GLPHQVLRQV ZHUH XVHG WR HOLFLW TXHVWLRQV 5HVSRQGLQJ WR WKH 35(66 63$&( %$5 72 &217,18( PHVVDJH OHG WR WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ WR EH UDWHG ZKLFK ZDV D GXPP\ GLPHQVLRQf $0%,7,286/$=< QRW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW YHU\ LPSRUWDQW $V VRRQ DV WKH VXEMHFW SUHVVHG RQH RI WKH QXPEHU NH\V IURP WR DQ ; DSSHDUHG RYHU WKH VHOHFWHG UDWLQJ WR FRQILUP WKH FKRLFH 7KH PHVVDJH 35(66 63$&( %$5 72 &217,18( DSSHDUHG DV ZHOO :KHQ WKH VXEMHFW SUHVVHG WKH VSDFH EDU WKH ; DQG WKH FRQWLQXH PHVVDJH GLVDSSHDUHG DQG WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ ZDV UHSODFHG ZLWK D QHZ RQH DV IROORZV )25*,9,1*81)25*,9,1* QRW DW DOO YHU\ LPSRUWDQW LPSRUWDQW

PAGE 96

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n7 35(66 $1< .(< 7+( 1(;7 7$6. :,// 6221 $33($5 3/($6( :$,7 $IWHU VHFRQGV WKLV PHVVDJH ZDV UHSODFHG ZLWK WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU WKH QH[W UDWLQJ WDVN )RU WKLV WDVN WKH VXEMHFWV UDWHG LQGLYLGXDO WUDLWV 7KH LQVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH DV IROORZV 12: 3/($6( 5$7( ($&+ 2) 7+( )2//2:,1* 75$,76 $&&25',1* 72 7+( '(*5(( 7+$7 <28 35,9$7(/< %(/,(9( 7+$7 7+( 75$,7 '(6&5,%(6 <28 7+( 5$7,1* 6&$/( ,6 127 0( 0( <28 :,// 35(66 $ .(< )520 <28 &$1127 &+$1*( <285 5$7,1* 21&( 0$'( '8( 72 7+( :25.,1*6 2) 7+( &20387(5

PAGE 97

)ROORZHG DV XVXDO E\ D 35(66 63$&( %$5 72 &217,18( PHVVDJHf 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU DJDLQ JDYH H[DPSOHV RI WUDLWV WKDW PLJKW EH OLNH WKHPVHOYHV QRW OLNH WKHPVHOYHV DQG VRPHZKHUH LQ WKH PLGGOH 7KH H[DPSOHV ZHUH GLVFXVVHG WR HQVXUH WKDW WKH VXEMHFW ZDV SURSHUO\ RULHQWHG WR WKH QHZ VFDOH DQG XQGHUVWRRG ZKDW ZDV H[SHFWHG 7KH H[DPSOHV XVHG ZHUH WDNHQ IURP WKH VHW $0%,7,286 /$=< 32/,7( ,032/,7( :($/7+< 3225 )25*,9,1* 81)25*,9,1* &21)250,67 DQG 121&21)250,67 7KH ILUVW RI WKH WKUHH GXPP\ WUDLWV WKHQ DSSHDUHG /2*,&$/ QRW PH PH 7KLV QHZ UDWLQJ VFDOH EHKDYHG H[DFWO\ DV WKH SUHYLRXV RQH :KHQ WKH VXEMHFW KDG VHOHFWHG D UDWLQJ E\ SUHVVLQJ D QXPEHU NH\ WKH VHOHFWHG UDWLQJ ZDV PDUNHG DQG WKH XVHU ZDV FXHG WR FRQWLQXH 3UHVVLQJ WKH VSDFH EDU FDXVHG WKH SURJUDP WR GLVSOD\ WKH QH[W WUDLW 81)25*,9,1* QRW PH PH $V EHIRUH HDFK WUDLW ZDV SUHVHQWHG LQ WXUQ 7KH WKLUG DQG ILQDO GXPP\ WUDLW ZDV ,032/,7( QRW PH PH

PAGE 98

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f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

PAGE 99

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

PAGE 100

DQG GLVWDQW SDVW LQFLGHQWV UHODWLQJ WR $0%,7,21 ZHUH JLYHQ DV DQ H[DPSOH %HFDXVH WKH HYHQW FRXOG YDU\ LQ VLJQLILFDQFH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU JDYH H[DPSOHV RI LQVLJQLILFDQW HYHQWV HJ VWXG\LQJ IRU D WHVW WKDW PRUQLQJf DQG VLJQLILFDQW HYHQWV HJ DSSO\LQJ IRU JUDGXDWH VFKRROf :KHQ WKH VXEMHFW DSSHDUHG WR XQGHUVWDQG SUHVVLQJ WKH VSDFH EDU FDXVHG WKH IROORZLQJ DGGLWLRQDO JXLGHOLQHV WR DSSHDU ,7 '2(61n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

PAGE 101

SUHFHGLQJ IRXU VFUHHQVf :KHQ WKH VXEMHFW ZDV UHDG\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU OHIW WKH URRP $V VRRQ DV WKH VXEMHFW SUHVVHG WKH VSDFH EDU WKH VFUHHQ FOHDUHG DQG WKH ILUVW FXH ZDV SUHVHQWHG )RU H[DPSOH 287*2,1* 7KH FXH UHPDLQHG RQVFUHHQ IRU VHFRQGV $W WKH HQG RI WKLV WLPH WKH VFUHHQ FOHDUHG D EHHS ZDV VRXQGHG DQG WKH IROORZLQJ PHVVDJH DSSHDUHG rrr 3/($6( 6723 12: rrr $IWHU VHFRQGV WKH VFUHHQ FOHDUHG DQG WKH QH[W FXH ZDV SUHVHQWHG 7KLV SURFHVV FRQWLQXHG IRU DOO IRXU FXHV 7KH SURJUDP HQGHG WKLV SKDVH RI WKH H[SHULPHQW ZLWK WKH PHVVDJH 3/($6( 7(// 7+( (;3(5,0(17(5 7+$7 <28 +$9( &203/(7(' 7+( 0(025< 7$6.6 )ROORZHG E\ D 35(66 63$&( %$5 72 &217,18( PHVVDJHf 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU UHWXUQHG DQG DVNHG WKH VXEMHFW WR UHH[DPLQH WKH OLVW RI SKUDVHV WKDW UHSUHVHQWHG LQFLGHQWV UHFDOOHG )RU HDFK WKH VXEMHFW ZDV DVNHG WR VXSSO\ DQ DSSUR[LPDWH GDWH ZKHQ WKH LQFLGHQW RFFXUUHG 7KH VXEMHFW ZDV WKHQ WROG WKDW WKH ILQDO FRPSXWHU WDVN ZDV WR UHUDWH WKH WUDLWV WKDW KDG EHHQ UDWHG EHIRUH 7KH LQVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH DV IROORZV 12: 3/($6( 5(5$7( ($&+ 2) 7+( )2//2:,1* 75$,76 $&&25',1* 72 7+( '(*5(( 7+$7 <28 35,9$7(/< %(/,(9( 7+$7 7+( 75$,7 '(6&5,%(6 <28 7+( 5$7,1* 6&$/( ,6

PAGE 102

127 0( 0( <28 :,// $*$,1 35(66 $ .(< )520 5(0(0%(5 <28 &$1127 &+$1*( <285 5$7,1* 21&( 0$'( '8( 72 7+( :25.,1*6 2) 7+( &20387(5 )ROORZHG E\ D 35(66 63$&( %$5 72 &217,18( PHVVDJHf 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU DVNHG WKH VXEMHFW WR UHUDWH WKH WUDLWV DFFRUGLQJ WR KRZ WKH\ IHOW DERXW LW DW WKDW PRPHQW 7KH\ ZHUH DGYLVHG WKDW WKH\ QHHG QRW WU\ WR UHPHPEHU KRZ WKH\ KDG UDWHG WKH WUDLWV SUHYLRXVO\ DV WKLV ZDV QRW D WHVW RI WKHLU PHPRU\ 7KLV WDVN SURFHHGHG DV EHIRUH VWDUWLQJ b ZLWK WKH VDPH WKUHH GXPP\ WUDLWV /2*,&$/ QRW PH PH 7KH DFWXDO WUDLWV KRZHYHU ZHUH QRW SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH VDPH RUGHU LQ ZKLFK WKH\ KDG RULJLQDOO\ EHHQ VHHQf Z $IWHU UHSHDWLQJ DOO WUDLWV WKH SURJUDP GLVSOD\HG WKH IROORZLQJ PHVVDJH WR HQG WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH FRPSXWHU WDVNV '2 127 35(66 $1< .(< $7 7+,6 7,0( 3/($6( *(7 7+( (;3(5,0(17(5 7+$1. <28

PAGE 103

$33(1',; (;3(5,0(17$/ 0$7(5,$/6 7KH ILIW\ WUDLWV SUHVHQWHG GXULQJ WKH UDWLQJ WDVNV ZHUH WDNHQ IURP WKH ELSRODU WUDLW SDLUV XVHG DV VFKHPDWD E\ /DQG\ f /DQG\ GHULYHG WKH WHUPV LQ KHU OLVW IURP $QGHUVRQnV f OLVW RI SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLW DGMHFWLYHV $QGHUVRQ HVWDEOLVKHG QRUPDWLYH UDWLQJV RI OLNHDELOLW\ DQG PHDQLQJIXOQHVV IRU HDFK RI WKH WUDLW WHUPV DQG /DQG\ XVHG WKHVH UDWLQJV WR VHOHFW SDLUV RI RSSRVLQJ WUDLWV VXFK WKDW WKH WHUPV LQ HDFK SDLU ZHUH ERWK KLJKO\ PHDQLQJIXO DQG GLYLGHG EHWZHHQ D VWURQJO\ SRVLWLYH DQG D VWURQJO\ QHJDWLYH WUDLW $QGHUVRQ f FRQVWUXFWHG KLV OLVW IRU XVH LQ VWXGLHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ LQWHJUDWLRQ LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ LPSUHVVLRQ WDVNV %HJLQQLQJ ZLWK D OLVW RI WUDLWV FRPSLOHG E\ $OOSRUW DQG 2GEHUW f $QGHUVRQ UHGXFHG WKH OLVW WR WUDLW DGMHFWLYHV %DVHG RQ UDWLQJV GDWD IURP PDOH DQG IHPDOH FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $QGHUVRQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW WKH WHUPV LQ WKH OLVW ZHUH IUHH RI JHQGHU ELDV DQG FODVVLILHG WKHP DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH UHODWLYH PHDQLQJIXOQHVV RI HDFK WUDLW DV D SHUVRQDOLW\ GHVFULSWRU DQG WKH SHUFHLYHG GHVLUHDELOLW\ RI SRVVHVVLQJ WKDW WUDLW /DWHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH IXUWKHU HODERUDWHG $QGHUVRQnV

PAGE 104

QRUPV DQG KLV OLVW LV ZLGHO\ HPSOR\HG LQ UHVHDUFK LQ VRFLDO DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ SV\FKRORJ\ /DQG\ f XVHG $QGHUVRQnV UDWLQJV WR FRQVWUXFW SDLUV RI WUDLWV VR WKDW ERWK PHPEHUV RI HDFK SDLU ZHUH KLJKO\ PHDQLQJIXO 6HH 7DEOH f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f

PAGE 105

7DEOH /LNHDELOLW\ DQG 0HDQLQJIXOQHVV 5DWLQJV RI 3HUVRQDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV 3RVLWLYH 7UDLW / 0 1HJDWLYH 7UDLW / 0 7587+)8/ 817587+)8/ 5(/,$%/( 815(/,$%/( )5,(1'/< 81)5,(1'/< &203(7(17 ,1&203(7(17 *(17/( )25&()8/ &223(5$7,9( 678%%251 7+28*+7)8/ 7+28*+7/(66 6.,//(' 816.,//(' 287*2,1* 6+< ,17(//,*(17 81,17(//,*(17 381&78$/ 81381&78$/ 7,'< 817,'< 3238/$5 813238/$5 2%(',(17 ',62%(',(17 '(&,6,9( ,1'(&,6,9( $775$&7,9( r r 81$775$&7,9( r r *(1(5286 6(/),6+ .,1' +267,/( %52$'0,1'(' 1$552:0,1'('

PAGE 106

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG 3RVLWLYH 7UDLW / 0 1HJDWLYH 7UDLW / 0 ,1'(3(1'(17 '(3(1'(17 &285$*(286 &2:$5'/< 02'(67 %2$67)8/ 72/(5$17 ,172/(5$17 75867:257+< 8175867:257+< 7+5,)7< r r :$67()8/ r r 1RWH 7KH FROXPQ ODEHOOHG / UHIHUV WR WKH OLNHDELOLW\ UDWLQJ RI WKH WUDLW DGMHFWLYH 7KH KLJKHU WKH UDWLQJ WKH PRUH IDYRUDEOH RU GHVLUDEOH WKH WUDLW DV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI D SHUVRQ 7KH FROXPQ ODEHOOHG 0 UHIHUV WR WKH PHDQLQJIXOQHVV UDWLQJ RI WKH WUDLW DGMHFWLYH 7KH KLJKHU WKH UDWLQJ WKH PRUH PHDQLQJIXO WKH WUDLW LQ GHVFULELQJ D SHUVRQ $QGHUVRQ f 7KH WUDLW SDLUV $775$&7,9(81$775$&7,9( DQG 7+5,)7<:$67()8/ ZHUH QRW LQ $QGHUVRQnV f OLVW

PAGE 107

$33(1',; ( 352*5$0 23(5$7,21 $1' 6(/(&7,21 2) &8(6 $ PLFURFRPSXWHU SURJUDP 5$7,0(5 5HHVH t 0HW]OHU f ZDV XVHG WR PRQLWRU WKH PHPRU\ UHWULHYDO WDVN DQG WKH DQFLOODU\ UDWLQJ WDVNV 6XEMHFWV LQWHUDFWHG GLUHFWO\ ZLWK WKH SURJUDP ZKLFK FRQWUROOHG WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI FXHV IRU WKH UHFDOO WDVN DQG UHFRUGHG WKH 5HWULHYDO 4XDQWLW\ DQG 5HWULHYDO /DWHQF\ RI VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV 7KLV WHFKQLTXH ZDV DGDSWHG IURP /DQG\nV f FRPSXWHU SURJUDP ZKLFK DXWRPDWHG D FXHGUHVSRQVH SDUDGLJP RULJLQDWLQJ ZLWK &URYLW] DQG 6FKLIIPDQ f 6XPPDU\ RI 2SHUDWLRQ 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU LQLWLDWHG HDFK UXQ RI WKH SURJUDP SURYLGLQJ LW ZLWK WKH VXEMHFWnV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ QXPEHU DQG D FRGH ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG WKH VXEMHFWnV H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ )ROORZLQJ WKLV WKH SURJUDP GLVSOD\HG WKH ILUVW SDJH RI LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU WKH ILUVW WDVN RQ WKH FRPSXWHUnV VFUHHQ DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH VXEMHFW EHJDQ 7KH SURJUDP SURFHHGHG WKURXJK WKH UDWLQJ DQG UHWULHYDO WDVNV DW WKH VXEMHFWnV RZQ SDFH DV GHVFULEHG LQ $SSHQGL[ &f GLVSOD\LQJ DSSURSULDWH LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG PHVVDJHV DW HDFK VWDJH 7KH SURJUDP UDQGRPL]HG WKH

PAGE 108

SUHVHQWDWLRQ RUGHU RI WKH FRQVWUXFWV DQG WUDLWV DQG UHFRUGHG WKH VXEMHFWnV UDWLQJV RQ DOO LWHPV %DVHG RQ WKHVH UDWLQJV DQG WKH VXEMHFWnV H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ WKH SURJUDP GHWHUPLQHG WKH WUDLWV WR EH SUHVHQWHG DV UHWULHYDO FXHV LQ WKH PHPRU\ UHWULHYDO WDVN WKLV SURFHVV LV GHVFULEHG LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO EHORZf 7KH SURJUDP FRQWUROOHG WKH WLPLQJ RI WKLV WDVN DVVXULQJ WKDW HDFK FXH ZDV SUHVHQWHG IRU VHFRQGV DQG WKDW WKH LQWHUYDO EHWZHHQ FXHV ZDV VHFRQGV 7KH SURJUDP DOVR UHFRUGHG WKH QXPEHU RI UHVSRQVHV WR HDFK FXH 5HWULHYDO 4XDQWLW\f DQG WKH GHOD\ LQ UHVSRQGLQJ 5HWULHYDO /DWHQF\f $OO GDWD ZHUH UHFRUGHG LQ D ILOH RQ GLVN IRU ODWHU SURFHVVLQJ 6HOHFWLRQ RI 5HWULHYDO &XHV 7KH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV ZLWKLQ WKH SURJUDP ZDV JRYHUQHG E\ WKH VXEMHFWnV H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVHV WR WKH WZR UDWLQJ WDVNV ,Q DOO FDVHV D VXEMHFW UHFHLYHG FXHV IURP FRQVWUXFWV WKDW KDG EHHQ UDWHG DV SHUVRQDOO\ LPSRUWDQW E\ WKDW VXEMHFW 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ GHWHUPLQHG ZKHWKHU WKH WUDLWV WR EH SUHVHQWHG ZHUH WR EH WDNHQ IURP WKH SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH SROHV RI WKHVH FRQVWUXFWV VFKHPDWD YDOHQFHf DQG ZKHWKHU WKH\ ZHUH WR KDYH EHHQ UDWHG DV VHOIVLPLODU RU VHOIGLVVLPLODU VFKHPDWD YDOLGDWLRQf )RU H[DPSOH VXSSRVH WKH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ RI WKH VXEMHFW LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFW VKRXOG EH DVNHG WR

PAGE 109

UHFDOO PHPRULHV WKDW YDOLGDWHG WKH SRVLWLYH DVSHFWV RI KLV RU KHU VHOIWKHRU\ ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH JRDO RI WKH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV ZDV WR ORFDWH FXH ZRUGV WKDW ZHUH VXSHURUGLQDWH LH UDWHG KLJKO\ RQ WKH VFDOH QRW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW YHU\ LPSRUWDQWf SRVLWLYH LH RQH RI WKH IDYRUDEOH WUDLWV VXFK DV WUXWKIXO UDWKHU WKDQ RQH RI WKH XQIDYRUDEOH WUDLWV VXFK DV FRZDUGO\f DQG VHOIVLPLODU LH UDWHG KLJKO\ RQ WKH VFDOH QRW PH PHf )RU D VXEMHFW LQ WKLV H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV RSHUDWHG DV IROORZV )LUVW WKH FRQVWUXFW RU VHW RI FRQVWUXFWV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW UDWLQJ RQ WKH QRW DW DOO LPSRUWDQW YHU\ LPSRUWDQW VFDOH ZDV H[DPLQHG %HFDXVH WKHUH ZHUH RQO\ VL[ UDWLQJ SRLQWV DQG FRQVWUXFWV WR EH UDWHG LW ZDV YHU\ OLNHO\ WKDW VHYHUDO FRQVWUXFWV ZRXOG VKDUH WKLV KLJKHVW RUGLQDWLRQ UDWLQJf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

PAGE 110

VHOHFWHG DQG VR RQ 2QFH IRXU FXHV KDG EHHQ VHOHFWHG WKH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV VWRSSHG ,I WKH VHW RI FRQVWUXFWV UDWHG PRVW KLJKO\ RQ RUGLQDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG IHZHU WKDQ IRXU FRQVWUXFWV WKH SURFHVV ZDV UHSHDWHG ZLWK WKH VHW RI FRQVWUXFWV ZLWK WKH QH[W ORZHU RUGLQDWLRQ UDWLQJ XQWLO IRXU FXHV KDG EHHQ VHOHFWHG 7KH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV RSHUDWHG LQ D VLPLODU IDVKLRQ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV )RU WKRVH FRQGLWLRQV ZKHUH VXEMHFWV ZHUH H[SHFWHG WR UHFDOO PHPRULHV WKDW HLWKHU YDOLGDWHG RU LQYDOLGDWHG QHJDWLYH DVSHFWV RI WKHLU VHOIWKHRULHV LW ZDV WKH QHJDWLYH SROH RI WKH VXSHURUGLQDWH FRQVWUXFWV WKDW ZDV XVHG UDWKHU WKDQ WKH SRVLWLYH SROH 7KHUHIRUH LQ WKHVH FDVHV LW ZDV WKH VHOIVLPLODULW\ UDWLQJ RI WKH QHJDWLYH WUDLW ZKLFK UHVROYHG WLHV EHWZHHQ HTXDOO\LPSRUWDQW FRQVWUXFWV /LNHZLVH IRU WKRVH FRQGLWLRQV ZKHUH VXEMHFWV ZHUH WR UHFHLYH FXHV WKDW LQYDOLGDWHG WKHLU VHOIWKHRULHV WUDLWV ZLWK WKH ORZHVW VHOIVLPLODULW\ UDWLQJV ZHUH VHOHFWHG ILUVW UDWKHU WKDQ WUDLWV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW VHOIVLPLODULW\ UDWLQJV ,Q DOO RWKHU UHVSHFWV WKH SURFHGXUH ZDV LGHQWLFDO 7KH JLVW RI WKLV SURFHVV WKHQ LV WKDW IRXU WUDLWV ZHUH VHOHFWHG HLWKHU DOO SRVLWLYH RU DOO QHJDWLYHf WKDW ZHUH UHJDUGHG E\ WKH VXEMHFW DV SHUVRQDOO\ LPSRUWDQW DQG WKDW HLWKHU DOO FRQILUPHG VHOIGHVFULSWLYH WUDLWVf RU DOO GLVFRQILUPHG QRQVHOIGHVFULSWLYH WUDLWVf WKH VXEMHFWnV VHOISHUFHSWLRQV

PAGE 111

%,%/,2*5$3+< $GDPV 5 t )LWFK 6 f (JR VWDJH DQG LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV GHYHORSPHQW $ FURVVVHTXHQWLDO DQDO\VLV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $GDPV 5 6KHD t )LWFK 6 f 7RZDUG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DQ REMHFWLYH DVVHVVPHQW RI HJRLGHQWLW\ VWDWXV -RXUQDO RI
PAGE 112

%HU]RQVN\ 0 $XJXVWf 7KH VHOI DV D WKHRULVW ,QGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LGHQWLW\ IRUPDWLRQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG WR WKH WK ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQJUHVV RQ 3HUVRQDO &RQVWUXFW 3V\FKRORJ\ 0HPSKLV 71 %HU]RQVN\ 0 f 6HOIWKHRULVWV LGHQWLW\ VWDWXV DQG VRFLDO FRJQLWLRQ ,Q /DSVOH\ t ) & 3RZHU (GVf 6HOI HJR DQG LGHQWLW\ ,QWHJUDWLYH DSSURDFKHV SS f 1HZ
PAGE 113

(ULNVRQ ( + f ,GHQWLW\ DQG WKH OLIH F\FOH 3V\FKRORJLFDO ,VVXHV 0RQRJUDSK 6HULHV 1R f 1HZ
PAGE 114

/LQWRQ 0 f 0HPRU\ IRU UHDOZRUOG HYHQWV ,Q $ 1RUPDQ t ( 5XPHOKDUW (GVf ([SORUDWLRQ LQ FRJQLWLRQ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR : + )UHHPDQ /LQWRQ 0 f 5HDO ZRUOG PHPRU\ DIWHU VL[ \HDUV $Q LQ YLYR VWXG\ RI YHU\ ORQJ WHUP PHPRU\ ,Q 0 0 *UXQHEHUJ 3 ( 0RUULV t 5 1 6\NHV (GVf 3UDFWLFDO DVSHFWV RI PHPRU\ SS f /RQGRQ $FDGHPLF 3UHVV /LQWRQ 0 f :D\V RI VHDUFKLQJ DQG WKH FRQWHQWV RI PHPRU\ ,Q 5XELQ (Gf $XWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 115

0HW]OHU $ ( t 1HLPH\HU f 9RFDWLRQDO KLHUDUFKLHV +RZ GR ZH FRXQW WKH ZD\V" ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI &RQVWUXFW 3V\FKRORJ\ 1HLPH\HU t 0HW]OHU $ ( f 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI YRFDWLRQDO VFKHPDV -RXUQDO RI 9RFDWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 1HLPH\HU 3ULFKDUG 6 %HU]RQVN\ 0 t 0HW]OHU $ ( f 7KH LPSDFW RI RFFXSDWLRQDO LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW RQ YRFDWLRQDO K\SRWKHVLV WHVWLQJ -RXUQDO RI 9RFDWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 1HLPH\HU t 5DUHVKLGH 0 f 3HUVRQDO PHPRULHV DQG SHUVRQDO LGHQWLW\ ,PSDFW RI HJR LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW RQ DXWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ UHFDOO -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 1HLVVHU 8 f &RJQLWLYH SV\FKRORJ\ 1HZ
PAGE 116

5RELQVRQ $ f $XWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ $ KLVWRULFDO SURORJXH ,Q 5XELQ (Gf $XWRELRJUDSKLFDO PHPRU\ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 117

OLEHUDO DUWV FROOHJH -RXUQDO RI
PAGE 118

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

PAGE 119

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080DU\ )XNX\DPD $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 0DUN $OLFNH $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 120

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

PAGE 121

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ L D D D !f! mffff f§ f§ PL KL PX PX LL PP OLOL ,, PL PLOO ,,,


IDENTITY STRUCTURE AND AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY:
A CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE
BY
APRIL E. METZLER
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
1991

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the many individuals who
have given me support, encouragement, and guidance
throughout my academic career at the University of
Florida. First, Dr. Greg Neimeyer has been undoubtedly
the single most important influence upon my professional
development. He has patiently directed and supported my
efforts for many years, and has taught me much about
colleagueship, respect, and trust. Greg has been both a
mentor and a very dear friend. Greg's enthusiasm,
dedication, perseverance, and professionalism are
something to aspire to. I would also like to thank the
members of my committee, Franz Epting, Mary Fukuyama,
Peter Sherrard, and Mark Alicke (who deserves a special
measure of gratitude for service above and beyond the
call of duty, for remaining on my committee after leaving
Florida), for their efforts and helpful suggestions. It
has been a pleasure to work with these individuals.
I would like to thank all of the people who were an
integral part of this dissertation. I was extremely
fortunate to have a very hardworking and loyal team of
undergraduate research assistants: Beegee DiGiulian, Tu
Anh Ngo, Gordon Hale Harmon, Tracy Gargus, Theresa
11

Schaffer, and Barbara Quinones. Their help has been
invaluable to this project, and they have all been good
friends. I would also like to thank Dr. Frank Martin of
the Department of Statistics for his kind and patient
advice regarding the analysis.
I would like to thank my parents, Betty and Martin
Metzler, for their understanding and support, without
which this dissertation would never have been written.
Finally, my deepest gratitude is extended to my fiancee,
Doug Reese. Doug's unwaning love, respect, and affection
for me have meant so much to me throughout the pursuit of
my doctorate. I thank Doug with all my love and look
forward to our life together.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER
I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1
Common Theoretical Orientation 2
Autobiographical Memory 3
Identity Formation 10
Identity Formation as a Process 20
Differences in Identity Processing 22
Impact of Identity Style on Autobiographical Memory 26
Purpose 28
Hypotheses 28
II. METHODS 31
Subjects 32
Procedure 35
Overview 35
Administration of the Zung Self-Rating Scale . 35
Administration of the Computer Tasks 36
Summary of Procedure 42
Design and Analysis 42
III. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 44
Pretests 44
Primary Analyses 45
Retrieval Quantity 48
Retrieval Latency 54
Self-Change 64
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 69
Implications of the Results 71
Limitations of the Investigation 75
Recommendations for Future Research 76
iv

APPENDIX
A. IDEOLOGICAL IDENTITY SCALE 78
B. ZUNG SELF-REPORT SCALE FOR DEPRESSION (ZSRS) ... 83
C. EXAMPLE OF INTERACTION IN COMPUTER TASKS 85
D. EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS 96
E. PROGRAM OPERATION AND SELECTION OF CUES .... 100
Summary of Operation 100
Selection of Retrieval Cues 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY 104
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ill
V

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
IDENTITY STRUCTURE AND AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY:
A CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE
By
April E. Metzler
December, 1991
Chairman: Greg J. Neimeyer
Major Department: Counseling Psychology
The current study tests the relationship between
identity development and autobiographical memory recall.
The position is advanced that subjects' identity style
should influence both the recall of personal memories and
the impact of that recall on self-perceptions. Following
Berzonsky's paradigm, a mixed-sex sample of 202 people
falling into one of three identity styles
(information-oriented, normatively oriented, and
diffusely oriented) were identified for the study at
pretesting. Subjects subsequently completed a
computer-interactive memory paradigm that manipulated the
recall of memories using memory cues that varied valence
(positive characteristics or negative characteristics)
vi

and self-consistency (self-congruent or self-incongruent
with current self-perceptions).
As predicted, information-oriented individuals
generated the greatest number of autobiographical
recollections and diffusely oriented subjects generated
the fewest. Recall was also found to vary across
conditions, with information-oriented individuals showing
the highest recollection among the three identity styles
for memories that supported positive self-perceptions, as
well as the greatest ability to generate memories that
threatened those self-perceptions. A general
self-enhancement effect was also evident, particularly
among information and normative-oriented individuals, the
latter being the most inclined of the three identity
styles to generate invalidating memories when it
benefited them (positive/incongruent) and the least
inclined when it threatened them (negative/invalidation).
Vll

CHAPTER I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Many years ago an unmanageable adolescent by the
name of Samuel Clemens took leave of what he described as
his "stupid, know-nothin" father. Several years later,
when the famous American humorist had returned home as a
young adult after weathering the world on his own for
awhile, Mark Twain was "astonished to find out how much
the old man had learned in those few years."
Autobiographical memories such as this are not only
amusing testaments to predictable developmental
milestones, but also serve as subtle reminders that
autobiographical memories are based on our own personal
development. Even as we forge notions of our "selves,"
we shape and frame the nature of our later recollections.
Our identities and memories are "two sides of the same
coin" (Greenwald & Banaji, 1989).
This study will address the constructive and
reconstructive aspects of autobiographical memory
broadly, placing particular emphasis on the
interdependence between memory recall and the
continuously evolving self. It provides a way of looking
at the role of cognitive schemas in interpreting and
deriving meaning from experience, which enables the
1

2
assimilation of perceptual information as memories. This
helps explain the effects of self-perceptions on the
recall of memories about the self, as well as the effects
of personal memories on self-perception.
Common Theoretical Orientation
The current study will provide a theoretical
crossroads among three distinct areas of psychology. A
constructivist approach to each of these areas is used to
provide a common conceptual link. A generic view of
constructivist assumptions follows in order to help
orient the reader to the theoretical underpinnings of the
current study.
Personality theorists (Kelly, 1955; Kihlstrom, 1981;
Markus, 1977), memory theorists (Barclay 1986; Bartlett,
1932; Neisser, 1967, 1976), and developmental theorists
(Berzonsky, 1990; Piaget & Inhelder, 1973) have long
recognized the importance of understanding the processes
and structures that govern the organization of an
individual's psychological world. These constructivist
theorists have advanced similar notions of knowledge
structures, referred to generically as schemata, to
describe the active organizational processing of
information. Schemata are nonspecific representations of
prior experiences that are elaborated upon during every
moment of ongoing mental activity and are used to guide
the comprehender's interpretations, inferences,

3
expectations, and attention (Neisser, 1967). Schemata
are used continuously to impose order and meaning upon
the world in a subjective manner. Schemata are
hierarchically organized into a network of idiographic
meaning that continuously changes with experience
(Barclay, 1986; Kelly, 1955; Neisser, 1988a). Schemata
form implicit theories that both guide and limit an
individual's growth (Berzonsky, 1990; Ross & Conway,
1986; Ross & McFarland, 1988). This study will show how
these three converging areas of psychology can help to
illuminate the relationships between the processes of
identity development and the processes of
autobiographical memory recall. The interrelationships
among these three areas will be examined in detail, and
the possible implications for counseling explored.
Autobiographical Memory
Memory research has for many years been more
concerned with the accuracy of memories as tested under
laboratory conditions than what the memories might say
about the person. However, there is a new trend in
memory research toward investigating "real-world" memory.
Of particular interest to this study is an emerging
interest in autobiographical memory (Brewer, 1988;
Linton, 1975, 1978, 1988; Robinson, 1976, 1988).
Robinson defines autobiographical memory as "memories a
person has of his or her own life experiences" (1988, p.

4
19). What a person can and cannot remember could reveal
a great deal about that person's personality development.
Common assumptions about the nature of
autobiographical memory have been advanced by several
theorists and researchers in this area (Barclay, 1986,
1988a; Brewer, 1988; Linton, 1988; Neisser, 1981, 1988a,
1988b). The first assumption is that autobiographical
memory is largely a reconstructive endeavor based on
supporting existing self-schemata, often at the expense
of the facts. As Barclay has put it, these memories "are
true but inaccurate" (1988b, p. 289). This implies that
these self-structures both maintain and transform our
personal memories. A second assumption is that these
self-schemata are hierarchically organized. Therefore,
autobiographical memories are remembered based on cues
from this nested structure. Finally, the distinction
between episodic and semantic memory does not always
accurately describe the nature of autobiographical
memories. An autobiographical memory is often a
constructed amalgam of repeated episodic memories. Thus
it is often an episode that symbolically represents
something else. For example, if a person were to
remember "being together with my family at the beach to
celebrate Memorial day last year," the recollection of
the event might be as if all of the members of that
person's family were present, even if in fact one member

5
had been absent. Such a memory might carry the more
symbolic meaning of family unity.
Sir Francis Galton, a contemporary of Ebbinghaus,
was the first to begin research on autobiographical
memory. In his 1883 informal experiment, Galton used
words as memory prompts for himself and "allowed a couple
of ideas to successively present themselves" (1883, p.
426). He recorded the reaction time for each response.
Later, he grouped his recollections according to periods
in his life and the type of memory the word evoked.
Galton's technique was successful in producing an
open-ended sampling of his thoughts in general, but was
not specific enough to evoke just personal memories. Due
to Galton's varied interests he failed to pursue this
line of research (Brewer, 1988; Crovitz & Schiffman,
1974; Robinson, 1988).
The Ebbinghaus tradition of studying the accuracy of
memory continued to reign for the next ninety years
largely unchallenged. However in 1932, Bartlett
questioned whether there were other factors besides
accuracy in memory that would be of interest to
researchers. He examined subjects' recall of narrative
prose passages and observed that they had omitted,
transformed, reorganized, and otherwise distorted the
information contained in the original source (Bartlett,
1932). Bartlett concluded "Remembering appears to be far
more decisively an affair of reconstruction than mere

6
reproduction" (p. 205). Bartlett believed that memories
of the past were "continually remade" based on the
individual's present self-structure (p. 309). Thus,
Bartlett began the constructivist approach to memory
functioning. This approach emphasized the use of
schemata as organizing principles that at times enable or
disable the retrieval of personal memories. In this
view, autobiographical memories are "selected" to fit the
individual's current self-theory and help the individual
maintain a consistent sense of self in the face of
change. Unfortunately, Bartlett's insights went largely
unnoticed until the mid-1970s.
However, by the mid-1970s a gradual shift in the
notions of what types of things people remember had
occurred (Neisser, 1988b). Tulving's (1972) introduction
of the distinction between long term "semantic" memory
and single event "episodic" memory generated interest in
whole new areas for study within memory research.
Bartlett's constructivist theory of memory enjoyed a new
popularity. Therefore when Crovitz and Schiffman (1974)
revived Galton's prompting technique by modifying it to
study autobiographical memory, many researchers were
eager to begin lines of research in autobiographical
memory (Robinson, 1988). In their landmark paper,
Crovitz and Schiffman directed subjects to "note down a
word or two describing the memory associated with each
word" (1974, p. 517) and then had subjects date their

7
memories. In the following two years these directions
were modified in order to elicit more specific memories
(Crovitz & Quina-Holland 1976, p. 61) and more personally
meaningful memories (Robinson, 1976, p. 581). The
real-life research studies that have used Crovitz's
technique constitute the most sophisticated long term
memory research to date. The research clearly
demonstrates that the real-life memory retrieval process
can be examined in a systematic manner within the
experimental laboratory (Neisser, 1985). This paradigm
holds much promise for the systematic investigation of
autobiographical memory recall.
Much of the work from social psychology regarding
individuals' self-schemata has demonstrated the central
role of self-schemata in the recall of personal memories.
In a series of studies, Markus (1977, 1980) has shown
that individuals who were schematic for independence or
dependence processed information more quickly and
recalled more specific events from their past than did
aschematic individuals. Furthermore, Markus and Sentis
(1980) have found that information consistent with one's
self-concept is remembered more accurately than
inconsistent information. These studies and others
(Barclay, 1988b; Barclay & Subramaniam, 1987) support the
notion that self-schemata have a tremendous influence in
enabling individuals to recall personal memories. From
the results of these experiments one would expect that

8
individuals with more clearly defined self-schemata would
be able to recall a greater number of personal memories
and do so more quickly. Additionally, the fact that
information inconsistent with the self is remembered less
accurately may point to possible biases in processing
personal memories.
The work of Ross and his colleagues (Ross & Conway,
1986; Ross & McFarland, 1988) has begun to address
systematic biases in personal memory recall. Ross
believes that implicit theories of ourselves in the
present guide our recollections of the past. In
addition, we each have our own theory of how we might
change and still maintain a consistent sense of self.
Our reconstructions of the past are shaped by theories
that dictate assumptions of either consistency or
inconsistency with ourselves in the present. In order to
support this theory of self-change we use biased
processing to either exaggerate differences or
similarities between our past and present selves when we
remember. Thus, we are at times "cognitive conservatives
who bias their memories so as to deny change and maintain
consistency," and at other times "cognitive radicals who
embrace change and exaggerate the amount they have
altered." For example, a professor may remember himself
before receiving tenure as having been a confident and
energetic young man, rather than as the anxious and
driven individual he actually was. Conversely, he may

9
now see himself as a devoted family man, even though he
spends as much time working away from home as he ever
did. Thus, these biases tend to confirm our existing
self-theories.
Past research by Swann and Snyder demonstrated that
an individual's hypothesis-testing about the self and
others tends to be strongly confirmatory in nature
(Snyder, 1984; Snyder & Swann, 1978; Swann, 1985). A
series of experiments have shown that people prefer to
confirm rather than to disconfirm their current
self-images, even when those self-images are negative
(Barclay & Subramaniam, 1987; Ross & Conway, 1986; Ross &
McFarland, 1988). From the results of this research,
then, we might expect that individuals who held a theory
of self-consistency might tend to deny self-change in the
face of disconfirming evidence. We might also expect
individuals who lacked a unified theory of self-change to
show relatively little tendency toward biased processing
and instead drift in the direction of image discrepant
recall.
Past work on identity formation has shown that
different identity styles have characteristically
different self-schemata structures (Neimeyer & Metzler,
1987). Because autobiographical recall varies with
structural aspects of the self-schema, schematic
differences among identity styles might carry important
implications for memory recall (Barclay, 1988a).

10
Kihlstrom (1981) has called for research that examines
how personal memory features are affected by personality
development. "It is crucial to attempt some inquiry into
the details of the underlying process" states Kihlstrom
(1981, p. 141). It has been shown that autobiographical
memories help structure and restrict a person's
self-theory, so it seems likely that different stages in
identity development might utilize this aspect of
autobiographical information differently. Research in
developmental psychology provides models of the processes
underlying the formation of personal identity.
Identity Formation
Ever since Erikson's landmark work on life-span
development (Erikson, 1959, 1968), psychologists have
been interested in studying the developmental processes
leading to the formation of a stable personal identity.
Erikson identified eight stages of human psychosocial
development, each of which was characterized by the need
to resolve a specific conflict. He labelled the fifth
stage, which occurs during adolescence, as the conflict
between ego identity and identity diffusion. The
adolescent must learn to cope with changes that challenge
the sense of self developed in childhood. These changes
include physical changes in appearance and abilities, a
broader spectrum of emotional experience, and increasing
social demands and expectations for more mature behavior

11
and the adoption of more adult roles. Successful
resolution of this conflict should result in ego
identity: a consistent sense of self that permits the
adolescent to explore and select from among the
alternatives for adulthood. Failure to resolve this
conflict leads to identity diffusion; the adolescent is
unable to make sense of all of the possibilities, and is
left without a definite sense of self or a way to make
positive life choices. As Berzonsky (1990) points out,
ego identity as conceived by Erikson is not simply a
static structure incorporating knowledge about the self,
but is a process that "actively evaluates, selects, and
organizes self-perceptions" (p. 3). This process is
responsible for reality-testing and adaptation of
constructions about the self, and may be the mechanism
that enables an individual to successfully cope with
change throughout later life.
Unfortunately, Erikson's formulation lacked a
specific operational definition for key concepts, making
it difficult to create a solid empirical foundation.
However, Marcia's (1966) subsequent conceptualization of
identity development extended Erikson's work and
established a framework that permitted empirical
investigation. Therefore, most research into identity
formation over the past two decades has been based upon
Marcia's paradigm.

12
Marcia's approach to the formation of ego identity
is derived from two Eriksonian concepts: crisis and
commitment. Crisis refers to the degree to which the
adolescent is concerned with confronting and critically
evaluating the issues relating to identity. Commitment
describes whether the adolescent reaches a firm decision
about what values and roles to adopt. Marcia identified
four identity statuses that arise from differences along
these two dimensions.
Identity achievement refers to the formation of an
ego identity by reaching a state of commitment after
having passed through a state of crisis. An achieved
individual, therefore, is characterized as having taken a
definite personal stand based upon decisions requiring
reflection, questioning, and introspection.
In contrast, foreclosure refers to commitment that
is attained in the absence of crisis. Foreclosed
individuals have opted to accept an established set of
values (such as their parents'), without confronting or
questioning the issues involved. The child who
unthinkingly pursues a career dictated by the parents'
ambitions is a classic example of foreclosure.
Both achievement and foreclosure share the
characteristic of high levels of commitment with respect
to issues relevant to identity. These two statuses
differ only in whether or not this commitment is produced
as a result of a period of crisis. The actual stance

13
selected does not matter; the method by which the
decision is reached is the crucial factor. For example,
some achieved individuals may possess personal values
very much in accord with their parents'. However, these
adolescents have questioned and examined each of the
values before incorporating them into their identities as
personally suitable, and have not merely adopted their
parents’ views wholesale.
Moratorium individuals are engaged in an identity
crisis, but have not yet been able to resolve it by
committing to any particular set of values. They are
actively seeking to find the answers to the questions of
who they are and what they believe, and may appear
preoccupied with identity concerns.
The fourth and final identity status is diffusion.
Diffusion is characterized by a lack of commitment to a
set of values and lack of an ongoing crisis state
directed toward achieving commitment. Like moratorium
individuals, diffuse individuals are indecisive on
personal issues. However, unlike adolescents in
moratorium, diffuse individuals are not actively
concerned with establishing a sense of personal identity.
They are not merely unable to arrive at a decision, for
they do not perceive the need to make a final decision
requiring the thoughtful investment of self. Diffuse
individuals tend to see life choices, such as selection
of an occupation, as temporary and easily reversible

14
concessions to the needs of the moment. They do not
experience true crisis, because the impetus for
decision-making is imposed from the outside rather than
internally motivated. They similarly do not make true
commitments, because they do not see their choices as
having a definitional relationship to themselves.
In an effort to validate the theoretical
distinctions among the identity statuses, Marcia
conducted a series of studies with male college students
(Marcia, 1966, 1967). Consonant with theoretical
expectations based on their development of an
internalized set of personal values, the identity
achieving males were the most reflective, employed the
most mature moral reasoning, and were the least
submissive to authority of all the identity status
groups. Moratorium males were found to resemble the
identity achieving males in many respects, differing
primarily by showing increased variability of responses
and much higher levels of anxiety. Variability of
response was most marked on learning performance under
stress and maturity of moral reasoning measures. This
variability was thought to be due to their lack of
commitment to any particular set of moral values and
uncertainty about the correctness of their judgments.
The increased anxiety is consistent with the theoretical
supposition that these individuals are in an active state
of crisis. Foreclosed males, not surprisingly, adhered

15
to conventional norms of moral behavior, were submissive
to authority, and exhibited low levels of anxiety. This
supports the conjecture that these individuals have
adopted established modes of thought and conduct and have
thereby avoided crisis. The results from this set of
studies regarding diffuse males, however, were not as
conclusive. The measures used did not capture the
distinguishing characteristics of this identity status,
such as indecisiveness, very well, which led researchers
to seek alternative measures and experimental designs.
A series of studies of identity status among female
college students (Marcia & Friedman, 1970; Schenkel,
1975; Schenkel & Marcia, 1972) introduced an additional
identity status domain. In Erikson's view, women form
personal identities based upon their selection of a
sexual partner. This factor was operationalized as
attitudes toward premarital sex, and incorporated into
the identity status interview. Because of this change,
direct comparisons between the studies of males and
females were impossible at this time. The findings were
nonetheless similar. Like their male counterparts,
identity achieved females tended to be low in anxiety and
submissiveness to authority. They also tended to choose
difficult majors. The moratorium females resembled the
achieving females in that they were not submissive to
authority, but differed from them by exhibiting much
higher levels of anxiety. Just as the male subjects,

16
foreclosed female subjects subscribed strongly to
authoritarianism and displayed little anxiety. Diffuse
subjects again were highly anxious; they selected easy
majors.
Marcia's identity status interview procedure,
however, was time-consuming, difficult to standardize,
and cumbersome to administer and score. The use of
different procedures for males and females introduced
additional complexity and made comparisons difficult.
The development of a self-report instrument solved many
of these problems (Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979; Grotevant
& Adams, 1984). The resulting instrument, the Extended
Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS), is a
pencil-and-paper questionnaire that can be easily and
quickly administered to large groups. It has subscales
covering 2 domains: ideological--relating to occupation,
religion, politics, and philosophical lifestyle; and
interpersonal--relating to friendship, dating, sex roles,
and recreation. Adams, Shea, and Fitch (1979) found that
this instrument produced a similar pattern of results to
those produced by Marcia's interview technique. Achieved
individuals had the highest amount of self-acceptance,
while foreclosed subjects were more rigid and complied
more readily with authoritarianism. As before,
moratorium subjects were similar in self-acceptance to
achieved subjects. Furthermore, by using an instrument
designed for both sexes, they were able to demonstrate

17
that there were no significant gender differences within
the identity statuses. Grotevant and Adams (1984)
validated the instrument with respect to social
desirability, to ensure that self-reported responses were
not merely reflections of response patterns thought to be
more socially desirable. No one status as measured by
the EOM-EIS was found to be more socially desirable than
any other.
Marcia noted that the identity statuses of
achievement and diffusion corresponded closely to
Erikson's ego identity and identity diffusion concepts,
which functioned as polar alternatives. Marcia described
the other two statuses, foreclosure and moratorium, as
"additional concentration points roughly intermediate in
this distribution" (Marcia, 1966, p. 552). While the
identity achievement status was the obvious ideal, Marcia
did not specifically outline any progression or sequence
of statuses that development would normally follow.
However, theoretically one would expect successful
identity development to proceed from diffusion through
the higher identity statuses, moratorium and achievement
(Waterman, 1982).
There have been four longitudinal studies that have
tested various assumptions regarding this developmental
sequence among college students (Adams & Fitch, 1982;
Waterman, Geary, & Waterman, 1974; Waterman & Goldman,
1976; Waterman & Waterman, 1971). These studies showed

18
that while in general there is a progressive shift to
higher identity statuses during the college years,
regressive shifts were noted for some of the subjects who
had previously achieved a successful resolution to their
identity crises. Furthermore, Marcia (1976) found,
during a six year follow-up study of adult males, that
many high identity status individuals moved to lower
identity statuses, particularly foreclosure. Therefore,
successful resolution of identity crises does not
guarantee the permanence of the commitments formed.
One possible reason for these shifts in identity
status is a change in the domain that is the individual's
focus of development. The focus model of identity
development was first proposed by Coleman (1974, 1978),
who suggested that domain issues are addressed
sequentially rather than concurrently. Kroger (1986)
found support for the idea that the development of a
personal identity is not necessarily a global
accomplishment, but rather the resolution of a series of
distinct domain-specific psychosocial crises.
Individuals focus on certain issues at certain times in
their lives. One of the most crucial tasks for
college-age adolescents is the development of an
occupational identity. Indeed, Kroger (1988) found that
identity status in the occupational domain was the best
overall single predictor of global identity status for
college students (65.7 percent of males and 65.9 percent

19
of females had identical occupational and global identity
statuses). The domain combination that best predicted
global identity status was that of occupation, religion,
and politics (which produced a match for 88.9 percent of
males and 100 percent of females). Therefore, it is
important to recognize that the individual's focus of
development should be taken into account when trying to
assess global identity.
Due to these limitations in the current
interpretation of the identity status paradigm, Marcia
(1976) has proposed that identity status be reinterpreted
as a process rather than a state, in order to provide a
deeper understanding of the mechanisms for change and
growth in the self. He said:
The problem with the statuses is that they have
a static quality and identity is never static.
. . . There has always been a process aspect
inherent in the determination of identity
status. . . . The issue now is to more
explicitly define and then measure these
process elements. . . . Any adequate theory of
identity should have descriptive terms that
take this movement into account. (pp. 152-153)
There are many potential advantages for viewing identity
change through such a process model. Rather than view
identity formation as the final product of adolescence,
the way adolescents cope with changes in the self could
become the basis for understanding adult identity change.
When an issue is resolved in one domain, the adult is
then free to move on to another focus of development.
Thus, the adult could be viewed as moving from one issue

20
to another throughout their life time in order to cope
with needed changes in the self. Additionally, each
identity status could be viewed as a different style of
processing information about the self (cf. Berzonsky,
1990). Here, each status may be seen as having adaptive
value in allowing the person to cope with potential
identity change in such a way that it does not threaten
the total self-structure.
Identity Formation as a Process
In his extension of Marcia's work, Berzonsky (1988,
1990) has recently advanced a process model of identity
formation based on a constructivist approach. Berzonsky
views an individual's developing identity much like a
scientific investigation. An individual acts as a
scientist actively constructing a theory about himself or
herself. This self-theory contains a system of cognitive
schemas for guiding future behavior. When the existing
cognitive schemas fail to help guide the individual
through the process of assimilation, they are
disconfirmed, modified, and revised through the process
of accommodation. Like a personal scientist, the
individual forms an increasingly viable and comprehensive
theory for understanding the self through a process of
continual confirmations and disconfirmations of
anticipated personal experiences.

21
Berzonsky (1987, 1988) views Marcia's identity
statuses as representing three different scientific
styles of processing and assimilating self-relevant
information. In this view, both achieved and moratorium
individuals would share an open style in which they
actively seek, process, and utilize self-relevant
information prior to developing firm personal beliefs or
commitments. Thus, these self-reflective individuals
tend to be more information-oriented and adaptable in
their self-theories. In contrast, the individuals with a
more closed style tend to rely more on the available
prescriptions and standards of significant groups in
order to meet the expectations of others. Like Marcia's
(1966) foreclosed identity status, these more normativelv
oriented individuals function as dogmatic theorists who
tend to defend preexisting self-perceptions rather than
revise their self-theories. Lastly, the diffuse style is
associated with either a lack of an adequate self-theory
or a fragmented self-theory. Individuals who are
diffusely oriented rely on the situational demands to
determine their behavior and beliefs rather than being
directed by an internalized set of commitments and
convictions. Berzonsky (1987, p. 8) describes persons
adopting this style of functioning as "ad hoc theorists,
trying to make do in the short run, but showing limited
concern about long-term implications."

22
Differences in Identity Processing
Recent research examining Berzonsky's theory has
used Kelly's (1955) theory of personal constructs to
provide a means of testing the structural features of an
individual's self-theory. In the view of personal
construct theory (PCT), people are active explorers
striving to understand and gain some measure of control
over their environment. Their primary motivation is to
make sense of their experience. According to the tenets
of PCT, each person has a unique "personal theory," or
world-view, that permits the formulation of "hypotheses,"
or expectations about what will happen. This mental
framework enables people to approach life as a series of
"experiments" through which they can continually test and
refine their "personal theories." The theoretical
parallels between PCT and Berzonsky's theory of different
processing styles based on identity status suggest that
PCT should provide an excellent way to test Berzonsky's
theory.
Several recent studies (Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1988;
Berzonsky, Rice, & Neimeyer, 1990; Neimeyer, Prichard,
Berzonsky, & Metzler, 1991) tested for differences in the
self-schema structure and processing among the various
identity styles. The researchers argued that the more
information-oriented self-theorizers should produce
better-differentiated self-systems since they actively
seek, process, and evaluate self-relevant information.

23
In contrast, more normatively oriented individuals should
develop a self-system that is relatively inflexible,
poorly differentiated, and uses biased processing.
In the first exploratory study, Berzonsky and
Neimeyer (1988) correlated the subjects' identity status
scores with several structural scores. The raw identity
status scores were assessed using the Grotevant and Adams
(1984) measure of identity status. The structural
measures of differentiation and integration for each
subject were derived from an elicited 10x10 self-ratings
grid. The differentiation measure gives an indication of
how many self-schemas are available to the subject, while
the integration measure indicates the degree of
interrelatedness among these self-schemas. The
researchers found that the level of differentiation was
positively correlated with moratorium and diffusion
scores. The overall pattern of structural scores also
showed that diffuse individuals had the lowest
integration scores and the highest differentiation
scores. Berzonsky and Neimeyer concluded that this
pattern of findings lent some support to the theory that
diffuse style self-theorists have a fragmented system of
self-schemas. "This is the type of self-theory
construction one would expect to find if an ad hoc,
situation-specific approach were being used" (p. 201).
However, this study was limited by its correlational

24
nature in that making qualitative distinctions among the
statuses was not possible.
Therefore, a second study was conducted (Berzonsky,
Rice, <& Neimeyer, 1990) that employed a between-subjects
design. The subjects for this study included only those
classified as one of the pure identity status types.
Only about one-third of the subjects tested with the
Grotevant and Adams (1984) measure can be classified as a
pure status type. Results of this study supported the
predicted relationship between self-structure and
identity style. Information-oriented identity styles
were linked to the highest levels of self-system
differentiation, whereas normatively oriented
foreclosures were associated with the lowest levels of
self-schema differentiation. These findings are
consistent with the relatively narrow and rigid
self-definition of the normatively oriented
self-theorist.
In a final study, Neimeyer, Prichard, Berzonsky, and
Metzler (1991) tested whether individuals with different
identity styles might be disposed toward differential
biases in processing occupational information. The
researchers expected to find that biased hypothesis
testing would occur within groups of individuals whose
identity statuses were marked by greater commitment to
occupational identity. "Particularly among the more
foreclosed individuals, whose firm commitments operate in

25
the absence of a permeable, information-oriented search
process, we would expect to see strong confirmatory bias
in relation to relevant occupations, and strong
disconfirmation bias in relation to irrelevant
occupations" (p. 6). Results provided partial support
for their predictions. Although persons in the more
committed status groups did, as predicted, engage in
significantly more confirmatory bias, the lack of
exploration characteristic of foreclosed individuals
failed to produce quite as pronounced a confirmatory bias
as one might have expected among that group.
Results of the disconfirmatory data furnished
additional support for their predictions. Overall, the
more information-oriented styles did show less extreme
disconfirmatory bias than more normatively oriented
(foreclosed status) or diffusely oriented (diffuse
status) individuals. "Strong identity commitments were
related to greater confirmatory bias, whereas higher
levels of identity exploration tended to attenuate
disconfirmatory bias as predicted on the basis of their
greater information-oriention" (p.12). The researchers
concluded that Berzonsky's theory of differential
processing due to identity style was supported by this
study.

26
Impact of Identity Style on Autobiographical Memory
Tracing the impact of such schematic and processing
differences on autobiographical memory, Neimeyer and
Rareshide (1991) argued in their exploratory study that
the identity styles marked by greater differentiation and
active identity exploration should facilitate greater
personal memory recall. In other words, if memory recall
is linked to the self-schemata, then individuals whose
systems are marked by greater schematic differentiation
should show higher levels of personal memory recall.
Particularly since information-oriented self-theorists
not only define themselves along a wider range of
self-schemata, but also actively seek self-relevant
information (Berzonsky, 1990; Berzonsky & Sullivan,
1990), they should also be able to generate the greatest
range of autobiographical recollections. Particularly in
relation to diffuse individuals, who lack a clear
self-structure, or normatively oriented individuals who
place a premium upon the preservation of existing,
limited, self-constructions, the information-oriented
identity style should enable higher levels of
autobiographical memory recall.
Subjects for this experiment were selected using the
Grovtevant and Adams measure of identity status. From
this measure, subjects were catagorized into the three
identity styles. Using a computer-interactive memory
recall procedure designed by Landy (1986/1987), subjects

27
were presented with four highly descriptive positive
characteristics that were either congruent or incongruent
with their self-theory. Subjects were then asked to
recall "specific incidents in your life when you
exemplified or demonstrated that trait" (Landy,
1986/1987, p. 46). From this the total number of
memories were recorded.
Results from this experiment provided some support
for their hypothesis. As in previous literature (e.g.,
Markus & Sentis, 1980) subject's overall recollection was
greater for events that were consistent with their
self-images than for events that were inconsistent. But
this tended to vary as a function of identity
orientation. When recalling positive memories that
supported self-constructions, the highest level of memory
recall was evidenced by the information-oriented
achievers. However, there was no corresponding support
under schema incongruent conditions. Although foreclosed
individuals did produce the highest number of incongruent
memories, this difference did not reach statistical
significance. However, this experiment failed to test
the differential impact of both positive and negative
personality characteristics. Because foreclosed
individuals rely more on the available standards of
significant groups in order to meet others' expectations,
it seems likely that they would defend more against
negative self-perceptions.

28
Purpose
The purpose of the present study is to test the
differential impact of identity style on autobiographical
recollections that either confirm or disconfirm positive
or negative self-perceptions. Identity style is
hypothesized to selectively influence an individual's
process of retrieving memories of life experiences.
Identity orientations marked by an openness to
redefinition and a quest for information should vary in
predictable ways from those marked either by the
defensive preservation of existing self-constructions or
the general absence of such constructions. While
autobiographical recall should generally be facilitated
by more firmly committed identity structures, the
availablity of such recollections should be qualified by
the nature of the memory's self-consistency (consistent
or inconsistent) and valence (positive or negative).
Hypotheses
1. A main effect for identity style is predicted such
that information-oriented and normatively oriented
subjects will produce a greater number of
autobiographical memories than will diffusely oriented
individuals.
2. A main effect for valence of characteristics is
predicted such that subjects who recall positive
characteristics will recall a greater number of

29
memories than will subjects who recall negative
characteristics.
3. A main effect for valence of characteristics is
predicted such that subjects who recall positive
characteristics will recall memories more rapidly than
subjects who recall negative characteristics.
4. A three-way interaction is predicted among identity
style, self-consistency, and valence for the number of
memories recalled. Information-oriented individuals
should produce more balanced numbers of confirming and
disconfirming memories in regard to positive and
negative personality characteristics. Normatively
oriented identity styles should show a
disproportionately large number of self-confirming
memories, especially positive ones. Normatively
oriented individuals should also produce the fewest
number of negative self-disconfirming memories.
Diffusely oriented individuals should produce the
least number of autobiographical memories and these
memories should be equally distributed among the four
conditions, suggesting an absence of any systematic
bias.
5. A three-way interaction is predicted among identity
style, self-consistency, and valence for the latency
of memories recalled. Information-oriented
individuals should produce more equal response times
when confirming and disconfirming memories in regard

30
to positive and negative personality characteristics.
Normatively oriented identity styles should show a
disproportionately longer response time when recalling
self-disconfirming memories, especially negative ones.
Diffusely oriented individuals should produce the
shortest response times in all four conditions.
6. For self-disconfirming memories, a two-way interaction
between identity style and valence of characteristics
is predicted for level of self-change. Diffusely
oriented individuals' self-perceptions should vary
widely with the nature of the condition of memory
recall. Information-oriented individuals are
predicted to change their self-perceptions more
judiciously but still incorporate self-discrepant
information. Normatively oriented individuals are
predicted to be the least responsive to changing
self-perceptions, particularly when confronted with
image-discrepant, negative recollections.

CHAPTER II
METHODS
The present study was designed to explore the
relationship between ego identity development and
autobiographical memory recall. It was expected that an
individual's identity style would carry implications both
for that person's ability to retrieve personal memories
and also for the impact of these recollections upon that
person's self-theory. In order to test these hypotheses,
a three-way factorial design was employed. The first
factor had to do with the subject's style of processing
and assimilating self-relevant information. The three
basic identity styles are an information-seeking
orientation, a normative orientation, and a diffuse
orientation. The next two factors determined the nature
of the cues presented to the subject for recall, and thus
had to do with the type of memories solicited. The first
of these factors, schemata valence, indicated whether the
memories related to the subject's positive
characteristics or negative characteristics. The final
factor, schemata validation, indicated whether the
memories were consistent or inconsistent with the
subject's own self-theory. The number of memories
recalled and the speed of retrieval was assessed. In
31

32
addition, since a subject's mood was known to be capable
of affecting recall, a measure of depression was used as
a check to ensure the equivalency of the groups along
this variable.
Subjects
Prior to testing, potential subjects were given a
pretest in their introductory psychology classes. The
pretest consisted of administering the Extended Objective
Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS, Grotevant &
Adams, 1984). A total of 628 subjects were pretested.
From this, 255 people were identified as potential
subjects on the basis of their scores on this instrument
(106 information-oriented, 56 normatively oriented and 62
diffusely oriented subjects). These subjects were then
contacted by telephone and asked to participate in the
experiment. A total of 205 people completed the final
experiment (132 females and 73 males). The ages of the
subjects ranged from 17 to 24, with a mean age of 19
years. All subjects received one experimental credit for
completing the pretest, and two credits for participating
in the experiment.
Subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental
conditions. The experimental conditions were designated
by a treatment number so that the experimenters were
blind to the condition assigned to each subject. The
subjects were tested individually and their anonymity was

33
assured by the use of subject numbers for identification.
While the experimenter introduced and explained each
experimental task to the subject, no one was present in
the room with the subject during completion of each of
the tasks, assuring the subjects of complete privacy.
The EOM-EIS, developed by Grotevant and Adams
(1984), measures the overall level of identity
development. It is based on the original measure devised
by Adams, Shea, and Fitch (1979), which used Marcia's
(1966) classification of identity status into four
categories. The EOM-EIS contains 64 items: 8 items
pertaining to each of the 4 identity statuses
(achievement, moratorium, diffusion, foreclosure) for
each of 2 domains: ideological (relating to occupation,
religion, politics, and philosophical lifestyle) and
interpersonal (relating to friendship, dating, sex roles,
and recreation). Only the ideological subscale was used
in this study because it is more closely tied to the
purposes of the project. Using a five-point scale,
subjects were asked to rate the degree to which the
opinion expressed in each item reflected their own
thoughts and feelings. For the total scale, internal
consistency ranges from .42 to .84, with test-retest
correlations ranging from .63 to .83 over a four-week
period. Content validity on the 64 items was established
at 96.5% agreement across 10 independent raters (see
Grotevant & Adams, 1984).

34
Subjects' ego identity status was determined during
the pretest by their scores on the 32 items of EOM-EIS
which apply to the ideological domain. Every item is
rated on a scale from 1 to 5. For each of the four
identity statuses (diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium,
and achievement), there are 8 items for which strong
agreement (higher ratings) is characteristic. Summation
of the ratings for each of these groups of items produces
a set of four subscores ranging from 8 to 40. Each of
these subscores for a given subject is compared with the
mean for all subjects on that subscore; a subscore more
than one standard deviation above the mean is considered
a positive indication of the corresponding identity
status. Subjects testing positive for exactly one ego
identity status were assigned to that status group.
Subjects not testing positive for any of the four
statuses and subjects testing positive for more than one
of the identity statuses were excluded from this study.
(See Appendix A.)
Berzonsky (1990) views Marcia's identity statuses as
representing three different styles of processing and
assimilating self-relevant information. Therefore, in
keeping with Berzonsky's theory, the achievement and
moratorium status groups were combined to form the
information-oriented identity style. The forclosed
status group formed the normatively oriented identity

35
style. Finally, the diffusion status group formed the
diffusely oriented identity style.
Procedure
Overview
The experimental procedure for all conditions
involved two main steps: the administration of the Zung
(1965) depression inventory and the computer-moderated
administration of the rating and memory tasks. The
procedures relating to the depression questionnaire will
be described first, followed by the procedures relating
to the tasks performed on the computer.
Administration of the Zung Self-Rating Scale
The subjects were first administered the Zung
Self-Rating Scale (ZSRS) for depression. This is a
twenty-item questionnaire. Each of the items is a brief
statement about how the subject feels or behaves, for
example, "I am more irritable than usual." Subjects were
directed to rate each statement on a four-point scale,
indicating how often the statement applies to them. The
four levels on the scale are: "1 - a little of the
time," "2 - some of the time," "3 - a good part of the
time," and "4 - most of the time." (See Appendix B.)
The ZSRS (Zung, 1965) is intended to provide a
quantitative measure of depression. Each item describes

36
a depressive symptom, indicating on a four-point scale
the self-reported frequency of applicability of the item
to the subject. Increasing ratings indicate greater
agreement with the item. Half of the items are phrased
so that agreement is indicative of depression, while the
other half are phrased so that disagreement is indicative
of depression. The ratings of the latter ten items are
reversed prior to scoring. The final score is then the
sum of the 20 adjusted ratings, giving a scale from 20 to
80. Higher scores indicate greater degrees of
depression. The ZSRS, a brief self-report instrument,
has been shown to correlate strongly (0.80) with the
Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS), a widely recognized
clinician-administered scale (Biggs, Wylie, & Ziegler,
1978). The ZSRS has been shown to be especially
appropriate for use with sub-clinical populations.
Administration of the Computer Tasks
The next part of the procedure was moderated by a
computer program. The experimenter first familiarized
the subject with the computer and outlined the tasks to
be performed. The experimenter then initiated the
computer program, providing it with the subject's
identification number and a code which indicated the
subject's experimental condition. The instructions for
each task were displayed on the computer screen. The
experimenter was present to explain the task and answer

37
any questions the subject might ask. When the
instructions had been completed and the subject was ready
to begin each task, the experimenter left the room. At
the end of each task the program displayed a message on
the screen asking the subject to get the experimenter,
who then prepared the subject for the next task.
There were four tasks: schemata ordination ratings,
schemata self-description ratings, memory retrieval, and
re-rating of the schemata self-descriptions. The
procedure performed for each of these tasks will be
described below, followed by a discussion of the measures
derived from each task. (See Appendix C for an example
of the interaction with the computer.)
Prior to beginning the actual rating tasks, the
program presented to the subject a generalized six-point
practice scale. The endpoints of this scale were
unlabelled, and the scale was not presented in
conjunction with any item to be rated. The purpose of
this scale was to familiarize the subject with the rating
metric and to give the subject the opportunity to
practice the simple mechanics of selecting a rating using
the computer keyboard. One at a time, the program
displayed a mark next to each of the six rating points.
The subject had to enter the corresponding rating (by
pressing the number key matching the marked item) in
order to continue. This practice exercise was used to
develop uniformity in response times (in order to ensure

38
that variations in the measured responses was not due to
differential accessibility of the six rating keys).
Previous work has shown that this practice exercise is
sufficient to provide uniformity of response to within
500 milliseconds (Landy, 1986/1987). After completion of
the practice scale, the first actual rating task was
begun.
Schemata ordination. The first rating task involved
schemata ordination. This task consisted of rating a
construct, presented as a pair of traits, on a six-point
scale representing the personal importance each subject
attached to that construct (see Appendix C). The scale
is "not at all important 123456 very important." A
total of 28 constructs were presented. The pairs of
traits used were identical with those used by Landy
(1986/1987). (See Appendix D for a description of how
words were selected.) The first three constructs,
although not distinguished from the remaining 25, were
presented in the same order for all subjects, and served
merely as practice items to orient the subjects to this
rating task. The remaining 25 constructs were the same
for all experimental subjects, but were presented to each
subject in a randomized order. The program recorded each
response.
Schemata self-description. The next task was
schemata self-description rating. It was similar to the
previous task in that the subject was again asked to rate

39
a series of items on a six-point scale. In this case,
however, the items were individual traits rather than
trait pairs. The scale represented the degree to which
the subjects felt that each trait was self-descriptive.
The scale was given as "not me 1 2 3 4 5 6 me." A total
of 53 traits were presented. As before, the first three
items, unbeknownst to the subjects, were practice items
only. The remaining 50 items, presented in a different
random order to each subject, were the individual traits
making up the same 25 trait pairs used in the schemata
ordination task. As before, the program recorded each
response in order to use the ratings to select items for
the memory retrieval task.
Memory retrieval. The third of the
computer-moderated tasks was the memory retrieval task.
Four traits were presented one at a time. The subjects
were told that they would be allotted one and one-half
minutes to consider each trait. They were instructed to
attempt to recall as many distinct incidents as possible
in which they displayed the given trait. They were told
to press the clearly marked "Enter" key on the computer
keyboard as soon as they recalled each incident, and then
to write down a word or brief phrase which would help
them identify the memory later. (In addition to the
on-screen directions, a printed copy of the instructions
for this task was made available to each subject.) At
the end of the allotted time for each trait, the program

40
issued an audible signal (a "beep") and displayed a
message instructing the subjects to stop. The subjects
were given 15 seconds to relax and re-orient between
traits. After all four traits had been presented, the
subjects were instructed to supply an approximate date
(month and year) when each incident occurred. (See
Appendix E for a description of the operation of the
program and the criteria for selection of cues.)
Re-rating schemata self-description. The fourth and
final computer-moderated task was a repetition of the
schemata self-description task described above. All 53
traits, including the practice traits, were presented
once again in random order. The traits were rated on the
same six-point "not me 1 2 3 4 5 6 me" scale. Completion
of this task finished the computer-moderated portion of
the experiment. All data were recorded in a file on disk
for later processing, and the computer program ended.
Measures derived from the computer tasks. Two
measures of the subject's ability to retrieve memories in
response to the presented cue were derived from this part
of the procedure. The program recorded the number of
responses to each trait (retrieval quantity) and the
delay in responding (retrieval latency). Additionally, a
third measure was derived from the difference in
self-description ratings before and after the memory
retrieval task (self-change index).

41
Retrieval quantity refers to the number of distinct
memories recalled in response to a particular cue (Landy,
1986/1987). As each trait was presented to the subject
on the computer screen during the memory retrieval task,
the subject signalled the remembrance of a particular
incident relating to personal expression of the trait by
pressing the "Enter" key. The program recorded the
keypress signal, providing a count of the number of
memories recalled for each trait. The subject also
recorded the incident, and later supplied an approximate
day and year, ensuring that each incident corresponded to
a specific, distinct event. The counts from the computer
record and the dated list were cross-checked against each
other, to provide verification of the accuracy of this
measure. The counts were then averaged in order to
provide a single score.
Retrieval latency is a measure of the delay between
the presentation of a retrieval cue and an indication
from the subject that a memory has been accessed in
response to that cue (Landy, 1986/1987). The computer
program monitoring the memory retrieval task, using the
same keypress signal described above, recorded the
elapsed time between the display of the trait on the
computer screen and the retrieval of the first memory, as
well as the elapsed time between subsequent memory
retrievals. All timings were recorded to the nearest
tenth of a second. From these, the mean retrieval

42
latency was calculated as the sura of the elapsed times
divided by the number of memories recalled.
The self-change index is a measure of the total
difference in self-description ratings on the four recall
cues from before the recall task to after the recall
task. The ratings corresponding to each cue for time 1
were subtracted from the ratings for time 2, and these
four differences were summed.
Summary of Procedure
The procedure essentially comprised two steps:
first, administration of the Zung questionnaire. Second,
the interactive computer tasks, which consisted of
schemata ordination, self-description rating, memory
retrieval, and a repeat of the self-description rating.
Design and Analysis
Three independent variables were manipulated in a
3x2x2 factorial between subjects design. The first
factor referred to information-oriented, normatively
oriented, and diffusely oriented identity styles, as
determined during pretesting using the EOM-EIS. The
second factor referred to schemata evaluation and
comprised two levels: positive personal characteristics
and negative personal characteristics. The third factor,
schemata validation, comprised two levels:
self-confirmation and self-disconfirmation.

43
The present study investigated three dependent
measures, two of which pertained to memory retrieval, and
one of which dealt with cognitive change. The memory
retrieval measures, Retrieval Quantity and Retrieval
Latency, were recorded by the computer program monitoring
the memory retrieval task. The Self-Change Index was
derived from the ratings also recorded by that program.
A one-way ANOVA with three levels of identity style
was conducted using the dependent measure Retrieval
Quantity to test Hypothesis 1. A series of t-tests were
conducted using the dependent measures of Retrieval
Quantity and Retrieval Latency to test Hypotheses 2 and
3. A series of three-way ANOVAs (3x2x2) were conducted
using the dependent variables Retrieval Quantity and
Retrieval Latency to test Hypotheses 4 and 5. A two-way
ANOVA (3x2) was conducted using the dependent measure
Self-Change Index to test Hypothesis 6.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A series of 3x2x2 ANOVAs were conducted to analyze
the effects of identity style, cue valence, and
validation on the pretest for depression, the total
number of memories recalled, and the latency of recall.
In addition, a 3x2 ANOVA was performed to test the
effects of identity style and cue valence on the
subjects' perceived self-change when they recalled
self-disconfirming personal characteristics. All of the
independent variables were between-subjects factors.
Pretests
Prior to conducting the primary analyses, two
pretests were conducted. First, in order to determine if
identity style might be linked to subjects' memory recall
ability, 15 subjects were asked to complete the EOI-EMS
and the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale Revised (Fantuzzo, Blakey, & Gorsuch,
1989). The Digit Span subtest measures immediate recall
memory. A series of Pearson's correlations were
performed between the three raw identity scale scores
(with the score for the information orientation being the
mean of the achievement and moratorium subscale scores)
44

45
and the total score for the Digit Span test. All three
correlations failed to reach significance (range r = -.16
to r = .11), suggesting that any differences in memory
recall among the identity styles are not due to general
differences in memory ability.
Second, because depression has been shown to
influence memory recall, subjects were asked to complete
the Zung depression scale, and a 3x2x2 ANOVA was
conducted on the depression scores in order to confirm
that subjects in the various cells were not
differentially depressed. Analysis of the Zung scores
confirmed that subjects' level of depression did not
differ significantly across conditions. There were no
significant main effects or interactions, as reflected in
Table 1. Table 2 provides the mean depression scores for
each condition.
Primary Analyses
The data for the first two dependent measures
(Retrieval Quantity and Retrieval Latency) were analyzed
using a 3 (information-oriented, normatively oriented,
and diffusely oriented) x 2 (positive and negative memory
cues) x 2 (self-confirming and self-disconfirming)
between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table 1. Analysis of Variance for Depression Scores
Source Sum
of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
P
Identity Style
80.995
2
40.497
0.91
.4027
Valence
6.282
1
6.282
0.14
.7070
Identity Style x Valence
116.582
2
58.291
1.32
. 2707
Validation
3.099
1
3.099
0.07
.7917
Identity Style x Validation
1.077
2
0.539
0.01
.9879
Valence x Validation
0.233
1
0.233
0.01
.9422
Identity Style x Valence x Validation
213.339
2
106.670
2.41
.0928
Error
8552.281
193
44.312

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Depression Scores
Identity
Style
Valence
Validation
N
Zung
Mean
Score
S. D.
Information
Positive
Confirm
26
33.81
7.50
Information
Positive
Disconfirm
28
35.79
7.41
Information
Negative
Confirm
25
35.64
8.24
Information
Negative
Disconfirm
27
34.04
4.27
Normative
Positive
Confirm
12
36.75
5.83
Normative
Positive
Disconfirm
12
38.33
5.41
Normative
Negative
Confirm
12
35.08
5.74
Normative
Negative
Disconfirm
10
34.50
6.22
Diffuse
Positive
Confirm
10
36.70
4.27
Diffuse
Positive
Disconfirm
14
33.71
5.24
Diffuse
Negative
Confirm
16
35.19
8.27
Diffuse
Negative
Disconfirm
13
38.38
7.10

48
Retrieval Quantity
A three-way ANOVA performed on the total number of
memories recalled revealed two significant main effects,
one significant two-way interaction and one three-way
interaction (See Table 3). Main effects were found for
valence, F(l, 205) = 34.82, p < .0001, and for identity
style, F(2, 205) = 3.84, p < .02, but these were
qualified by a two-way interaction between valence and
validation, F(l, 205) = 5.16, p < .02, and a three-way
interaction among identity style, valence, and
validation, F(2, 205) = 4.38, p < .01.
The two main effects reflected that subjects did
tend to recall more positive memories (M = 18.94) than
negative memories (M = 11.23) and that memory recall
varied as predicted according to identity style. A
Student-Newman-Keuls analysis with p < .05 revealed that
the highest numbers of autobiographical memories were
reported by information-oriented individuals (M = 16.60),
followed by normatively oriented (M = 14.65) and
diffusely oriented (M = 12.35) individuals.
However, these main effects were qualified by two
interactions. Using a Student-Newman-Keuls analysis the
two-way interaction between valence and validation showed
that under conditions of self-confirmation, subjects
tended to recall significantly more memories when
presented with positive self-characteristics (M = 18.08)
than when asked to confirm negative self-characteristics

Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Retrieval Quantity
Source
Sum
of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
P
Identity Style
699.706
2
349.853
4.15
.0171
Valence
2127.172
1
2127.172
25.25
.0001
Identity Style
X
Valence
394.931
2
197.466
2.34
.0987
Validation
25.160
1
25.160
0.30
.5853
Identity Style
X
Validation
126.432
2
63.216
0.75
.4735
Valence x Validation
434.457
1
434.457
5.16
.0243
Identity Style
X
Valence x Validation
,738.475
2
369.237
4.38
.0138
Error
16257.967
193
84.238

50
(M = 11.83; see Figure 1). However, when subjects were
presented with self-disconfirining characteristics, they
recalled significantly more memories when presented with
positive characteristics that were not like themselves (M
= 19.70) than when asked to recall memories of negative
characteristics that were not like themselves (M =
10.60) .
This interaction, however, was qualified by a
three-way interaction among identity style, valence, and
validational conditions. As Table 4 indicates, the three
identity styles reported significantly different patterns
of recollections across the four recall conditions. As
predicted, and illustrated in Figure 2,
information-oriented individuals produced a relatively
balanced number of self-confirming and self-disconfirming
memories for both positive and negative characteristics.
When subjects were asked to recall positive
characteristics, a Student-Newman-Keuls conditional
analysis revealed that they recalled both self-confirming
(M = 22.57) and self-disconfirming memories (M = 19.89)
with the same frequency. Likewise, information-oriented
subjects recalled both self-confirming memories (M =
11.20) and self-disconfirming memories (M = 12.44) with
equal frequency (see Figure 2).
In contrast, as predicted, normatively oriented
individuals tended to recall more positive
self-confirming memories and fewer negative

RETRIEVAL QUANTITY
51
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5 —
0 —
I
Con firmatory
I
Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND: Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
m—mm ■■■ ■■■ bmbb ■
Figure 1. Effects of valence and validation on
total number of memories recalled.

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Memory Retrieval Measures
Identity
Style
Valence
Validation
N
Quantity
Mean S. D.
Latency
Mean S. D.
Information
Positive
Confirm
26
22.58
9.85
14.23
4.59
Information
Positive
Disconfirm
28
19.89
12.69
15.64
8.43
Information
Negative
Confirm
25
11.20
6.48
19.29
7.31
Information
Negative
Disconfirm
27
12.44
6.41
17.94
6.39
Normative
Positive
Confirm
12
15.75
14.12
18.09
9.23
Normative
Positive
Disconfirm
12
21.50
10.37
14.02
4.35
Normative
Negative
Confirm
12
13.00
9.85
20.68
8.99
Normative
Negative
Disconfirm
10
7.10
6.14
23.58
15.05
Diffuse
Positive
Confirm
10
9.20
6.58
23.45
13.15
Diffuse
Positive
Disconfirm
14
17.79
10.02
12.99
4.98
Diffuse
Negative
Confirm
16
11.94
6.42
20.40
5.55
Diffuse
Negative
Disconfirm
13
9.46
5.11
21.31
8.92

RETRIEVAL QUANTITY
53
I I
Confirmatory Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND: Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
Figure 2. Effects of valence and validation on
total number of memories recalled for information-
oriented subjects only.

54
self-disconfirming memories. A Student-Newman-Keuls
conditional analysis demonstrated that subjects in the
self-confirming conditions recalled similar numbers of
positive (M = 15.75) and negative (M = 13.00)
autobiographical memories (see Figure 3). In contrast,
subjects in self-disconfirming conditions differed
significantly in their recall of positive and negative
memories. The number of negative self-disconfirming
memories recalled (M = 7.10) was significantly lower than
the number of positive self-disconfirming memories (M =
21.5; see Figure 3), suggesting the operation of a robust
self-enhancement effect.
Finally, as predicted, diffusely oriented
individuals recalled an equal number of autobiographical
memories among the four recall conditions. A
Student-Newman-Keuls conditional analysis revealed that
differences in the number of memories recalled across
both self-confirming conditions (positive M = 9.20,
negative M = 11.93) and self-disconfirming conditions
(positive M =17.78, negative M = 9.46) proved to be
insignificant (see Figure 4).
Retrieval Latency
Viewed as a second indicator of the accessiblity of
autobiographical memories, data concerning the mean
latency of memory recall was analyzed according to the
3x2x2 factorial design. The three-way ANOVA revealed one

RETRIEVAL QUANTITY
55
25
20
15
10 —
I I
Confirmatory Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND: Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
Figure 3. Effects of valence and validation on
total number of memories recalled for normatively-
oriented subjects only!

RETRIEVAL QUANTITY
56
25 —
20
15
10 —
Confirmatory Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND:
Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
Figure 4. Effects of valence and validation on
total number of memories recalled for diffusely-
oriented subjects only.

57
significant main effect, one significant two-way
interaction and one three-way interaction (see Table 5).
Main effects were found for valence, F(l, 205) = 12.02, 2
< .0006, and a tendency toward a main effect for identity
style, F(2, 205) = 2.66, 2 < .07. However, these were
qualified by a two-way interaction between valence and
validation, F(l, 205) = 4.75, p < .03 and a three-way
interaction among identity style, valence, and
validation, F(2, 205) = 3.89, 2 < .02.
Su2port was found for the hypothesis that memories
related to positive characteristics would be recalled
more quickly than would negatively cued memories. The
main effect for valence reflected the fact that subjects
did tend to recall positive memories more quickly (M =
15.78 seconds) than negative memories (M = 19.94
seconds). The tendency toward a significant difference
among the various identity styles in terms of response
times indicated that the diffusely oriented subjects
produced the longest response times overall (M = 19.2
seconds) compared to the normatively oriented subjects (M
= 18.9 seconds) and the information-oriented subjects (M
= 16.7 seconds).
However these effects were qualified by two
interactions. Using a Student-Newman-Keuls analysis, the
two-way interaction between valence and validation showed
that under conditions of self-confirmation, subjects
tended to recall memories significantly more quickly when

Table 5. Analysis of Variance for Retrieval Latency
Source Sum
of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
P
Identity Style
335.105
2
67.552
2.66
.0725
Valence
757.341
1
757.341
12.02
.0006
Identity Style x Valence
76.060
2
38.030
0.60
.5478
Validation
140.274
1
140.274
2.23
.1372
Identity Style x Validation
208.281
2
104.141
1.65
.1941
Valence x Validation
298.994
1
298.994
4.75
.0306
Identity Style x Valence x Validation
490.279
2
245.139
3.89
.0220
Error
12156.605
193
62.988

59
presented with positive self-characteristics (M = 17.1
seconds) than when asked to confirm negative
self-characteristics (M = 19.9 seconds; see Figure 5).
In a similar way, subjects who were presented with
positive characteristics that were not like themselves
recalled memories significantly more quickly (M = 14.5
seconds) than when asked to recall memories of negative
characteristics that were not like themselves (M = 19.9
seconds).
This interaction, however, was qualified by a
three-way interaction among identity style, valence, and
validational conditions. As Table 6 indicates, the three
identity styles reported significantly different patterns
of response times across the four recall conditions. As
predicted, information-oriented individuals produced
equal response times for self-confirming and
self-disconfirming memories for both positive and
negative characteristics. When subjects were asked to
recall positive characteristics, a Student-Newman-Keuls
conditional analysis revealed that they recalled both
self-confirming memories (M = 14.2 seconds and
self-disconfirming memories (M = 15.6 seconds) with the
same speed of recall. Negative memories were recalled
with similar speed overall with information-oriented
subjects recalling both self-confirming memories (M =
19.3 seconds) and self-disconfirming memories (M = 17.9
seconds) with equal ease (see Figure 6).

RETRIEVAL LATENCY
60
I I
Confirmatory Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND:
Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
Figure 5. Effects of valence and validation on
average time to retrieve memories (in seconds).

Table 6. Analysis of Variance for Self-Change Scores
Source
Identity Style
Valence
Identity Style x Valence
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
P
9.077
2
4.539
1.70
. 1875
29.750
1
29.750
11.16
.0012
5.639
2
2.820
1.06
.3511
307.385
98
2.665
Error

Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Change Scores
Identity
Style
Valence
N
Self
Mean
-Change
S. D.
Information
Positive
28
1.32
0.82
Information
Negative
27
2.22
1.97
Normative
Positive
12
1.42
1.16
Normative
Negative
10
2.10
1.79
Diffuse
Positive
14
1.50
0.94
Diffuse
Negative
13
3.38
2.69
to

RETRIEVAL LATENCY
63
I I
Confirmatory Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND:
Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
Figure 6. Effects of valence and validation on
average time to retrieve memories (in seconds)
for information-oriented subjects only.

64
Partial support was found for the prediction that
normatively oriented individuals would show a
disproportionately longer response time when recalling
self-disconfirming memories, especially for negative
self-characteristics. A Student-Newman-Keuls conditional
analysis demonstrated that under self-disconfirming
conditions, normatively oriented subjects did
significantly differ in their response times. The
latency of recall for negative self-disconfirming
memories (M = 23.6 seconds) was significantly higher than
for positive self-disconfirming memories (M = 14.0
seconds; see Figure 7).
Finally, partial support was found for the
prediction that diffusely oriented individuals would
produce response times with relatively equal latency
among the four recall conditions, the exception being the
rapidity with which they recalled positive, but
self-disconfirming, memories (see Figure 8).
Self-Change
The final analyses addressed the relative degrees of
perceived self-change among the three identity styles
following the recall of autobiographical memories.
Because the two validational conditions
(positive/confirm, negative/confirm) involved subjects
generating memories that were viewed as highly
self-descriptive characteristics (i.e., rated as 5 or 6

RETRIEVAL LATENCY
65
Confirmatory
I
Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND:
Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
Figure 7. Effects of valence and validation on
average time to retrieve memories (in seconds)
for normatively-oriented subjects only.

RETRIEVAL LATENCY
66
>5 “
20
15
10
0 —
Confirmatory
I
Disconfirmatory
VALIDATION
LEGEND: Positive Negative
Characteristics Characteristics
â– â– â– â–  MB BM m
Figure 8. Effects of valence and validation on
average time to retrieve memories (in seconds)
for diffusely-oriented subjects only.

67
on a six-point scale), these conditions were subject to a
ceiling effect. For this reason, these conditions could
not be used in the analysis of perceived change, since
they could change little as a function of validation.
Conditions of invalidation (positive/disconfirm;
negative/disconfirm), however, reflected memory recall
along dimensions that were initially low in
self-descriptiveness (i.e., rated as 1 or 2 on a six
point scale) and for that reason could be subject to
modification if disconfirmed. In other words, these
originally non-self-descriptive characteristics might
become more self-descriptive as a function of reviewing
memories illustrating their applicablity to the self.
Changes under the positive/disconfirm condition
would reflect the individual's willingness to relinquish
negative self-constructions. Likewise, changes under the
negative/disconfirm condition would reflect the
individual's willingness to relinquish positive
self-constructions.
A two-way ANOVA performed on the time two
self-ratings revealed two significant main effects. The
main effect for valence F(l, 104) = 12.01, p < .0008
showed that, overall, subjects regarded the positive cues
as more self-descriptive (M = 20.0) than the negative
cues (M = 7.7). A Student-Newman-Kuels analysis of the
second main effect for identity style revealed that
diffusely oriented subjects had the highest level of

68
self-similarity (M = 15.0) while normatively oriented
individuals reported the lowest amount of perceived
self-similarity (M = 13.3). The level of perceived
self-similarity for information-oriented subjects fell
between the other identity styles (M = 14.0). Although
these findings failed to show the predicted interaction
between identity style and valence, these results lend
partial support for hypothesis six, by suggesting the
relative resistance to disconfirmation associated with
the normatively oriented identity style.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Results of this study provide support for the
relationship between identity development and
autobiographical memory recall. Central to this study
has been the renewed interest in the relationship between
personality and memory in general, as well as in the
specific transformations in recall that may accompany
personal change and reconstruction (Barclay, 1986, 1988a,
1988b; Barclay & Subramaniam, 1987; Brewer, 1988;
Kihlstrom, 1981; Markus, 1977; Markus & Sentis, 1980;
Ross & Conway, 1986). This study has followed from the
recognition of personal identity and personal memory as
interdependent processes. This conceptualization of the
self is broadly consistent with George Kelly's view of
people acting as personal scientists who continuously
strive to evolve and preserve a meaningful sense of self.
Bartlett's (1932) work supported this study's view that
autobiographical recall is more than the literal
reproduction of psychologically embalmed events, but as
he aptly put it, is instead "far more decisively an
affair of reconstruction."
As evidence of the self's role in the
reconstruction, fabrication, and revision of history
69

70
continues to mount, the importance of addressing the
function or purpose of such efforts continues to draw
attention. Consistent with other accounts (e.g.,
Greenwald, 1980), this study regarded the preservation of
a meaningful sense of self-identity as an important
factor in this reconstructive process (see Kelly, 1955),
and predicted that important differences in identity
development could carry implications for autobiographical
recall.
The specific hypotheses for this project have been
derived from Berzonsky's (1987, 1988, 1990)
conceptualization of identity style which emphasizes the
differential processes associated with
information-oriented, normatively oriented, and diffusely
oriented personal scientists. As relatively objective
processors, information-oriented individuals actively
seek self-relevant information and willingly embrace and
assimilate viable reconstructions of the self.
Concerning contemporary self-images, information-oriented
individuals would be "skeptical and tentative about their
self-constructions, responsive to environmental feedback,
and willing to test and revise self-constructs in light
of contradictory evidence" (Berzonsky, 1990, p.177). In
contrast, normatively oriented individuals, who have
arrived at current identity commitments in the absence of
personal exploration or crisis, are primarily geared
toward the preservation of existing self-constructions.

71
Having foreclosed prematurely on readily available,
externally provided self-images, they operate as dogmatic
scientists who rely on assimilative processes such as
rationalization and confirmation-biased searches in
testing images of themselves. And finally, diffusely
oriented individuals are characterized as "ad hoc"
self-theorists who continually engage in ephemeral
accommodative changes in response to the vagaries of
immediate contextual demand (see Berzonsky, 1988, 1990).
These broad-based differences in personal identity
should carry implications for the nature of the
transaction that occurs between self-constructions and
recollections. Accordingly, the number of
autobiographical memories recalled, the latency of that
memory recall, and the impact of that recall on
subsequent self-perceptions, all varied with the style of
identity development that the individual brought to bear
in forging a sense of self.
Implications of the Results
Overall, information-oriented individuals generated
the greatest number of autobiographical recollections
and, as predicted, diffusely oriented individuals
generated the fewest. More importantly, this recall
varied across conditions, with information-oriented
individuals showing the highest recollection among the
three identity styles for memories that supported

72
positive self-perceptions, as well as the greatest
ability to generate memories that threatened those
self-perceptions. This latter effect is particularly
compelling in light of the fact that the number of
negative self-discrepant memories generated by the
information-oriented individuals were almost double that
of the normatively oriented subjects whose predisposition
was toward the preservation of central self-images. This
pattern of findings supports the relatively greater
receptivity of information-oriented individuals to
negative identity-discrepant information. It also
supports other research which found that normatively
oriented individuals tend to employ constriction and
withdrawal under ego-threatening conditions (Waterman &
Waterman, 1974).
Furthermore, looking across the four memory recall
conditions, these data invite some intriguing
speculations that may be worthy of further attention.
For example, contrary to predictions, it does not appear
that normatively oriented individuals engaged in markedly
greater confirmatory memory recall than did
information-oriented individuals. Indeed, there was
remarkedly little discrepancy between levels of
confirmatory and disconfirmatory memory recall for any of
the identity styles. However, if the data are examined
in relation to self-enhancement effects, some potentially
interesting tendencies emerge. Self-enhancement in this

73
study would be defined by the tendency to generate
relatively greater numbers of positive than negative
memories, regardless of their consistency with
self-perceptions. Viewed from this perspective, both the
information- and normatively oriented individuals
appeared to engage in greater self-enhancement than did
diffusely oriented individuals. In this regard the
information-oriented individuals generated significantly
more positive (M = 21.23) than negative (M = 11.82)
memories, as did the normatively oriented subjects
(positive M = 18.63; negative M = 10.05). Only the
diffusely oriented identity style was marked by
relatively greater balance in the number of favorable (M
= 13.49) and unfavorable (M = 10.67) memories recalled.
One possible interpretation of this effect concerns the
endemic function of identity development to preserve a
favorable sense of self. In this regard such biases may
be viewed as "indicating that ego's cognitive biases are
pervasive and characteristic of normal personalities ...
as manifestations of an effectively functioning
organization of knowledge" (Greenwald, 1980, p.603).
This general picture of autobiographical recall as
influenced by differences in personal identity is
strengthened by considering the impact of that memory
recall on subsequent self-perceptions. Consistent with
their accommodative orientation to situational contexts,
diffusely oriented individuals showed the greatest

74
changes in self-perceptions following the recall of
memories that were inconsistent with positive and
negative self-images. As expected, normatively oriented
individuals showed the least change, again underscoring
their preference for assimilation over personal revision
or accommodation. This finding is consistent with the
findings of Berzonsky and Sullivan (1990) who concluded
from their factor analytic study of identity styles that
"normatively oriented individuals may cordon off a core
of the self from potential threats of invalidation" (p.
14). It is also consistent with the broader literature
that documents the role that firm self-commitments play
in how information is processed (Swann, 1985), whether
memory is distorted (Greenwald, 1980), and the extent to
which beliefs persevere in the face of contradictory
evidence (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). According to this
reasoning, highly commited identity styles may be less
amenable to potential disconfirmation of firmly held
self-perceptions, preferring instead to adhere to
previous personal convictions.
In conclusion, the overall results of this study
provide some evidence concerning the relationship between
ego identity style and the recall of autobiographical
memory. The pattern of findings in this study were
largely consistent with past work on the expected
differences in processing self-relevant information among
the three identity styles. However, some caution is

75
warranted in interpreting the results of this study. The
cross-sectional nature of this study limits any
interpretations regarding the developmental progression
of personal memory recall.
Limitations of the Investigation
One limitation of the present investigation concerns
the way in which subjects' self-theories were assessed.
The only measure of the subjects' self-perceptions was
the self-rating of how descriptive of themselves a
particular personal characteristic was. Because most
people initially tend to rate positive characteristics as
rather highly self-descriptive and negative
characteristics as only moderately self-descriptive,
measures of changes in their self-theory were plagued by
ceiling effects. Although the present investigation
extended the level of the assessment of a person's
self-theory compared to the level used in existing
experimental memory research, a more thorough and
specific assessment is needed. By using an assessment
instrument that is less obvious and more personally
meaningful (e.g., personally elicited constructs), subtle
changes in subjects' self-theories could be ascertained.
Also, by using characteristics that were more personally
meaningful, subjects might be more able to explore the
salient negative aspects of their personalities.

76
Recommendations for Future Research
The results of the present investigation justify the
continued exploration of the role of identity style in
the organization and retrieval of personally meaningful
memories. Rather than conforming to the more traditional
use of standardized memory cues found in past memory
research, future investigations could rely more heavily
on eliciting personally relevant memory cues through
various techniques available in personal construct
theory, which might lead to a better assessment of a
person's self-theory. The use of a less obvious measure
in order to derive a person's superordinate self-schemas
could be accomplished using a repertory grid, a laddering
procedure (Hinkle, 1965), or a variety of other ways to
determine superordination (Metzler & Neimeyer, 1988).
Such instruments could also yield some useful information
about the overall positive or negative evaluative nature
of the self-system and about the interrelationships among
the self-schemata and possible changes in the
organization of the self-theory.
The continued use of a computerized assessment to
explore subjects' style of processing and assimilating
self-relevant information could allow for more
comprehensive understanding of the relationship between
self-structure and autobiographical memory. In addition,
analysis of the actual memories retrieved through
computer elicitation could yield valuable data. For

77
example, if the time periods from which the retrieved
memories came were recorded and analyzed, different
identity styles might be found to differ in the average
age of the memories retrieved.

APPENDIX A
IDEOLOGICAL IDENTITY SCALE
Read each item and indicate to what degree it
reflects your own thoughts and feelings. If a statement
has more than one part, please indicate your reaction to
the item as a whole. Mark the number on the attached
answer sheet that best reflects your opinion. Please be
sure to respond to all 32 of the items. Do not write on
this booklet.
1) I strongly disagree
2) I moderately disagree
3) I neither agree nor disagree
1. I haven't chosen the occupation I really want to get
into, and I'm just working at whatever is available
until something better comes along.
2. When it comes to religion, I just haven't found
anything that appeals and I don't really feel the
need to look.
3. There's no single "life style" which appeals to me
more than another.
4) I moderately agree
5) I strongly agree
78

79
4. Politics is something that I never can be too sure
about because things change so fast. But I do think
it's important to know what I can politically stand
for and believe in.
5. I'm still trying to decide how capable I am as a
person and what jobs will be right for me.
6. I don't give religion much thought and it doesn't
bother me one way or the other.
7. I'm looking for an acceptable perspective for my own
"life style" view, but I haven't really found it yet.
8. I haven't really considered politics. It just
doesn't excite me much.
9. I might have thought about a lot of different jobs,
but there's never really any question since my
parents said what they wanted.
10. A person's faith is unique to each individual. I've
considered and reconsidered it myself and I know what
I can believe.
11. After considerable thought I've developed my own
individual viewpoint of what is for me an ideal "life

80
style" and I don't believe anyone will be likely to
change my perspective.
12. I guess I'm pretty much like my folks when it comes
to politics. I follow what they do in terms of
voting and such.
13. I'm really not interested in finding the right job;
any job will do. I just seem to flow with what is
available.
14.I'm not sure what religion means
make up my mind but I'm not done
to me. I'd like to
looking yet.
15.My own views on a desirable life style were taught to
me by my parents and I don't see any need to question
what they taught me.
16.There are so many different political parties and
ideals. I can't decide which to follow until I
figure it all out.
17. It took me a while to figure it out, but now I really
know what I want for a career.
18. Religion is confusing for me right now. I keep
changing my views on what is right and wrong for me.

81
19. In finding an acceptable viewpoint to life itself, I
find myself engaging in a lot of discussions with
others and some self-exploration.
20. I've thought my political beliefs through and realize
I can agree with some and not other aspects of what
my parents believe.
21. My parents decided a long time ago what I should go
into for employment and I'm following through their
plans.
22. I've gone through a period of serious questions about
faith and can now say I understand what I believe in
as an individual.
23. My parents' views on life are good enough for me, I
don't need anything else.
24. I'm not sure about my political beliefs, but I'm
trying to figure out what I can truly believe in.
25. It took me a long time to decide but now I know for
sure what direction to move in for a career.
26. I attend the same church my family has always
attended. I've never really questioned why.

82
27. I guess I just kind of enjoy life in general, and I
don't see myself living by any particular viewpoint
to life.
28. I really have never been involved in politics enough
to have made a firm stand one way or the other.
29. I just can't decide what to do for an occupation.
There are so many that have possibilities.
30. I've never really questioned my religion. If it's
right for my parents it must be right for me.
31. After a lot of self-examination I have established a
very definite view on what my own lifestyle will be.
32. My folks have always had their own political and
moral beliefs about issues like abortion and mercy
killing and I've always gone along accepting what
they have.

APPENDIX B
ZUNG SELF-REPORT SCALE FOR DEPRESSION (ZSRS)
Please read the following statements and indicate
whether they apply to you:
1) a little of the time, 2) some of the time, 3) a
good part of the time,
or 4) most of the time.
1. I feel down-hearted and blue.
2. Morning is when I feel the best.
3. I have crying spells or feel like it.
4. I have trouble sleeping at night.
5. I eat as much as I used to.
6. I still enjoy sex.
7. I notice that I am losing weight.
8. I have trouble with constipation.
9. My heart beats faster than usual.
10. I get tired for no reason.
11. My mind is as clear as it used to be.
12. I find it easy to do the things I used to do.
13. I am restless and can't keep still.
14. I feel hopeful about the future.
15. I am more irritable than usual.
16. I find it easy to make decisions.
83

84
17. I feel that I am useful and needed.
18. My life is pretty full.
19. I feel that others would be better off if I were
dead.
20. I still enjoy the things I used to.

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF INTERACTION IN COMPUTER TASKS
As part of the procedure for the elicitation of
autobiographical memories, the subject was asked to
perform a number of tasks which were monitored by a
computer program. During this portion of the experiment,
subjects interacted directly with the program. The
following description illustrates the procedure used.
The first task was a practice exercise. The prompt
was like the six-point rating scale used in all
subsequent rating tasks. In each step of this task, one
of the numbered items was marked, and the subject was
expected to press the corresponding number key. The
following instructions were displayed at the top left of
the computer screen:
PLEASE PRACTICE SOME KEY PRESSES. PRESS
THE (1-6) MARKED KEY. USE YOUR DOMINANT
HAND.
After a moment, the message PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE was
displayed in the bottom right corner of the screen. When
the subject had read the instructions and felt ready to
continue, pressing any key caused the screen to clear and
85

86
the following display to be presented:
X
****** ...... ******
****** 123456 ******
The message PRESS KEY CORRESPONDING TO "X" appeared in
the bottom right corner of the display. Pressing the "l”
key changed the display to the following:
X
****** ******
****** 123456 ******
The subject continued pressing the indicated key
until all six items had been used. Then the message
PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE appeared at the bottom of the
screen, again indicating that the subject could continue
as soon as he or she was ready. Next, the subjects
received the following message to guarantee them of the
importance to the experimenter of their privacy and
anonymity:
PLEASE ASSURE THAT THE EXPERIMENTER HAS
LEFT THE ROOM WHILE YOU ARE DOING THE
EXPERIMENTAL TASKS. YOUR PRIVACY AND
ANONYMITY ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
As before, after a few moments the message PRESS
SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE appeared, to allow the subject to
proceed at his or her own pace. For the next task, the
subjects rated the importance of 28 bipolar trait pairs.
The directions to this schemata ordination rating task

87
were presented on the screen as follows:
PERSONS FORM IMPRESSIONS OF OTHERS
ACCORDING TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS SUCH AS
(AMBITIOUS-LAZY) OR (POLITE-IMPOLITE).
PERSONS DIFFER AS TO HOW IMPORTANT THEY
BELIEVE ANY PARTICULAR DIMENSION IS IN
FORMING AN IMPRESSION OF ANOTHER. ONE
DIMENSION AT A TIME WILL BE PRESENTED
ON THE SCREEN. PLEASE RATE EACH
DIMENSION ACCORDING TO HOW IMPORTANT
YOU BELIEVE IT IS IN FORMING AN
IMPRESSION OF A PERSON. THE RATING
SCALE IS:
NOT AT ALL VERY
IMPORTANT 123456 IMPORTANT
RATE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN PRIVATE
OPINION. YOU WILL PRESS A KEY FROM 1-6.
Once again, the reminder PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE
appeared after a few moments. The experimenter read over
the directions with the subject and gave examples of
important, unimportant, and neutral dimensions to
familiarize the subject with the task. Particular
attention was paid to making sure the subject felt
completely free to use the entire range represented by
the scale. An example or two was discussed in terms of
the how the experimenter might rate it, and then
additional examples were discussed from the subject's
viewpoint. The examples were taken from the set
AMBITIOUS--LAZY, POLITE--IMPOLITE, WEALTHY--POOR,
FORGIVING--UNFORGIVING, and CONFORMIST--NONCONFORM1ST;
these examples were carefully selected to ensure that no
example could impact the subject's actual ratings. Prior
to beginning the rating task, a final cautionary note was

88
presented by the program as follows:
YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR RATING ONCE MADE
DUE TO THE WORKINGS OF THE COMPUTER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
The experimenter stood by and answered questions for
the first dummy dimension. If the subject was still
having problems understanding the task, the other two
dummy dimensions were used to elicit questions.
Responding to the PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE message led
to the first dimension to be rated (which was a dummy
dimension):
AMBITIOUS--LAZY
not at all very
important 123456 important
As soon as the subject pressed one of the number keys
from 1 to 6, an "X" appeared over the selected rating to
confirm the choice. The message PRESS SPACE BAR TO
CONTINUE appeared as well. When the subject pressed the
space bar, the "X" and the "continue" message
disappeared, and the first dimension was replaced with a
new one, as follows:
FORGIVING--UNFORGIVING
not at all very
important 123456 important

89
This second dimension was also a dummy. The subject
selected a rating as before, and then pressed the space
bar again to continue to the next dimension:
CONFORMIST--NONCONFORM1ST
not at all very
important 123456 important
This third dimension was the last dummy dimension for
this task. The subject then rated the 25 true dimensions
in privacy. Each of the actual dimensions was presented
in exactly the same way as the dummy dimensions. The
true dimensions were presented in a random order. After
the last dimension had been rated, responding to the
PRESS THE SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE prompt caused the screen
to be cleared and the following message to be displayed:
PLEASE GET THE EXPERIMENTER NOW. PLEASE
DON'T PRESS ANY KEY. THE NEXT TASK WILL
SOON APPEAR -- PLEASE WAIT.
After 10 seconds, this message was replaced with the
instructions for the next rating task. For this task,
the subjects rated 53 individual traits. The
instructions were as follows:
NOW, PLEASE RATE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING
TRAITS ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU
PRIVATELY BELIEVE THAT THE TRAIT
DESCRIBES YOU. THE RATING SCALE IS:
NOT ME ME
1 2 3 4 5 6
YOU WILL PRESS A KEY FROM 1-6. YOU
CANNOT CHANGE YOUR RATING ONCE MADE DUE
TO THE WORKINGS OF THE COMPUTER.

90
(Followed, as usual, by a PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE
message.) The experimenter again gave examples of traits
that might be like themselves, not like themselves, and
somewhere in the middle. The examples were discussed to
ensure that the subject was properly oriented to the new
scale and understood what was expected. The examples
used were taken from the set AMBITIOUS, LAZY, POLITE,
IMPOLITE, WEALTHY, POOR, FORGIVING, UNFORGIVING,
CONFORMIST, and NONCONFORMIST. The first of the three
dummy traits then appeared:
LOGICAL
not me me
1 2 3 4 5 6
This new rating scale behaved exactly as the
previous one. When the subject had selected a rating by
pressing a number key, the selected rating was marked and
the user was cued to continue. Pressing the space bar
caused the program to display the next trait:
UNFORGIVING
not me me
1 2 3 4 5 6
As before, each trait was presented in turn. The third
and final dummy trait was:
IMPOLITE
not me ...... me
1 2 3 4 5 6

91
Again, when all questions were answered and the
subject appeared to understand the task, the experimenter
left the room. The 50 real traits were presented and the
subject rated them, until the following message appeared:
DO NOT PRESS ANY KEY AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE GET THE EXPERIMENTER. THANK YOU.
After a pause, the message PRESS SPACE BAR TO
CONTINUE was given. The experimenter pressed the space
bar to bring up the first screenful of instructions for
the next task:
IN THIS PART OF THE EXPERIMENT, A TRAIT
WILL BE PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN. YOUR
TASK IS TO RECALL SPECIFIC INCIDENTS IN
YOUR LIFE WHEN YOU DEMONSTRATED THE
PARTICULAR TRAIT.
(Followed momentarily by a PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE
message.) The experimenter explained that a trait such
as AMBITIOUS would appear on the screen. The subject was
requested to recall times when they demonstrated that
trait. When the subject was ready, pressing the space
bar led to the next part of the instructions:
PLEASE PRESS THE "ENTER" KEY EACH TIME
YOU RECALL A PARTICULAR INCIDENT WHEN
YOU DEMONSTRATED THE TRAIT SHOWN. THEN
QUICKLY JOT DOWN A WORD OR PHRASE TO
HELP YOU REMEMBER THE INCIDENT. WHAT
YOU CHOOSE TO WRITE IS NOT IMPORTANT --
AS LONG AS IT HELPS YOU RECALL THE
INCIDENT.
The experimenter asked the subject to recall an
incident for an example trait, such as AMBITIOUS. When

92
they had recalled a specific memory, the experimenter
pointed to the ENTER key, which was labelled PRESS HERE
FOR EACH MEMORY, and instructed them to press this key
each time they remembered an incident. The subject was
then given 4 pieces of paper and told to write a word or
short phrase for each memory recalled.
The experimenter then asked them to think of another
memory relating to AMBITIOUS, and indicated that they
should continue pressing the ENTER key and jotting down
short phrases for as many memories as they could recall
until the computer told them to stop. The experimenter
cautioned them to only make a short note of the
memory--just enough for them to be able to recall the
incident later. After the subject pressed the space bar
to continue, the program presented some guidelines for
the recall process:
PLEASE NOTE THE
FOLLOWING GUIDELINES:
1. THE INCIDENT MAY HAVE OCCURRED QUITE
RECENTLY OR MANY YEARS AGO.
2. YOU MUST BE ABLE TO RECALL SOMETHING
THAT MAKES THE INCIDENT A DISTINCT
MEMORY. IF THE SAME TYPE OF
INCIDENT HAPPENED MORE THAN ONCE,
PRESS THE KEY FOR EACH INCIDENT ONLY
IF YOU CAN RECALL SOMETHING THAT
MAKES YOU CERTAIN THAT THE OTHER
INCIDENT HAPPENED ON A DIFFERENT
OCCASION.
The experimenter read over these first two
guidelines with the subject. Examples of recent, past,

93
and distant past incidents relating to AMBITION were
given as an example. Because the event could vary in
significance, the experimenter gave examples of
insignificant events (e.g., studying for a test that
morning), and significant events (e.g., applying for
graduate school). When the subject appeared to
understand, pressing the space bar caused the following
additional guidelines to appear:
3. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ANYONE ELSE
WOULD AGREE WITH YOU AS TO WHETHER
THE INCIDENT "COUNTS". YOUR OPINION
IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
4. PRESS THE "ENTER" KEY AS SOON AS YOU
RECALL AN INCIDENT, BUT NOT BEFORE.
5. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU KEEP TRYING
TO RECALL INCIDENTS DURING THE
ALLOTTED TIME. A TOTAL OF FOUR
TRAITS WILL BE PRESENTED. YOU WILL
HAVE ONE AND A HALF MINUTES PER
TRAIT AND A FIFTEEN-SECOND REST
PERIOD BETWEEN TRAITS. YOU WILL
KNOW WHEN THE TIME IS UP FOR EACH
TRAIT, BECAUSE A "STOP" MESSAGE WILL
APPEAR ON THE SCREEN.
Again, the experimenter read over these new
guidelines with the subject and stressed the importance
of trying to continue recalling memories for the full
minute and a half. The computer would let them know when
the time was up. The subject was told to expect a total
of four cue words. The subject was given a printed copy
of the instructions for this task, including the
guidelines for memories (the wording of these
instructions exactly matched what was displayed on the

94
preceding four screens). When the subject was ready, the
experimenter left the room. As soon as the subject
pressed the space bar, the screen cleared and the first
cue was presented. For example:
OUTGOING
The cue remained on-screen for 90 seconds. At the end of
this time, the screen cleared, a beep was sounded, and
the following message appeared:
*** PLEASE STOP NOW ***
After 15 seconds, the screen cleared, and the next
cue was presented. This process continued for all four
cues. The program ended this phase of the experiment
with the message:
PLEASE TELL THE EXPERIMENTER THAT YOU
HAVE COMPLETED THE MEMORY TASKS.
(Followed by a PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE message.) The
experimenter returned and asked the subject to re-examine
the list of phrases that represented incidents recalled.
For each, the subject was asked to supply an approximate
date when the incident occurred. The subject was then
told that the final computer task was to re-rate the
traits that had been rated before. The instructions were
as follows:
NOW, PLEASE RE-RATE EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING TRAITS ACCORDING TO THE
DEGREE THAT YOU PRIVATELY BELIEVE THAT
THE TRAIT DESCRIBES YOU. THE RATING
SCALE IS:

95
NOT ME ME
1 2 3 4 5 6
YOU WILL AGAIN PRESS A KEY FROM 1-6.
REMEMBER, YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR RATING
ONCE MADE DUE TO THE WORKINGS OF THE
COMPUTER.
(Followed by a PRESS SPACE BAR TO CONTINUE message.) The
experimenter asked the subject to re-rate the traits
according to how they felt about it at that moment. They
were advised that they need not try to remember how they
had rated the traits previously, as this was not a test
of their memory. This task proceeded as before, starting
with the same three dummy traits:
LOGICAL
not me me
1 2 3 4 5 6
(The actual traits, however, were not presented in the
same order in which they had originally been seen.)
After repeating all 53 traits, the program displayed the
following message to end the administration of the
computer tasks:
DO NOT PRESS ANY KEY AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE GET THE EXPERIMENTER. THANK YOU.

APPENDIX D
EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS
The fifty traits presented during the rating tasks
were taken from the bipolar trait pairs used as schemata
by Landy (1986/1987). Landy derived the terms in her
list from Anderson's (1968) list of personality trait
adjectives. Anderson established normative ratings of
likeability and meaningfulness for each of the trait
terms, and Landy used these ratings to select pairs of
opposing traits such that the terms in each pair were
both highly meaningful and divided between a strongly
positive and a strongly negative trait.
Anderson (1968) constructed his list for use in
studies of information integration in personality
impression tasks. Beginning with a list of 18,000 traits
compiled by Allport and Odbert (1936), Anderson reduced
the list to 555 trait adjectives. Based on ratings data
from 100 male and female college students, Anderson
established that the terms in the list were free of
gender bias and classified them according to the relative
meaningfulness of each trait as a personality descriptor
and the perceived desireability of possessing that trait.
Later researchers have further elaborated Anderson's
96

97
norms, and his list is widely employed in research in
social and personality psychology.
Landy (1986/1987) used Anderson's ratings to
construct pairs of traits so that both members of each
pair were highly meaningful. (See Table 8.) The
meaningfulness of the traits selected ranged from 3.58 to
3.86 on a scale of 0.00 to 4.00, where higher numbers
indicate greater meaningfulness. Traits whose opposite
rated low in meaningfulness were excluded from
consideration, as were traits whose opposite seemed
indistinct or difficult to characterize in a single word.
Within each trait pair, the trait rated highest on
likeability was regarded as the positive pole of that
schema. A clear separation of the traits was achieved by
this criterion, with the positive traits having
likeability scores ranging from 3.73 to 5.45, while
negative traits ranged from 0.43 to 2.91 (higher scores
represent greater desirability).

98
Table 8. Likeability and Meaningfulness Ratings of
Personal Characteristics
Positive Trait L M Negative Trait L M
TRUTHFUL
RELIABLE
FRIENDLY
COMPETENT
GENTLE
COOPERATIVE
THOUGHTFUL
SKILLED
OUTGOING
INTELLIGENT
PUNCTUAL
TIDY
POPULAR
OBEDIENT
DECISIVE
ATTRACTIVE
GENEROUS
KIND
BROADMINDED
5.45
3.84
5.27
3.74
5.19
3.80
4.47
3.74
5.03
3.68
4.76
3.80
5.29
3.76
4.33
3.62
4.12
3.64
5.37
3.68
4.66
3.82
4.27
3.82
4.97
3.68
3.73
3.80
4.27
3.60
*
*
4.59
3.70
5.20
3.68
5.03
3.64
UNTRUTHFUL
UNRELIABLE
UNFRIENDLY
INCOMPETENT
FORCEFUL
STUBBORN
THOUGHTLESS
UNSKILLED
SHY
UNINTELLIGENT
UNPUNCTUAL
UNTIDY
UNPOPULAR
DISOBEDIENT
INDECISIVE
UNATTRACTIVE
SELFISH
HOSTILE
NARROWMINDED
0.43
3.80
1.04
3.86
0.92
3.86
1.10
3.64
2.63
3.58
1.96
3.80
0.77
3.66
2.24
3.60
2.91
3.76
1.68
3.64
1.92
3.66
1.75
3.86
2.22
3.62
1.28
3.78
2.19
3.76
*
*
0.82
3.84
0.91
3.72
0.80
3.74

99
Table 8--continued.
Positive Trait
L
M
Negative Trait
L
M
INDEPENDENT
4.55
3.74
DEPENDENT
2.54
3.60
COURAGEOUS
4.71
3.66
COWARDLY
1.10
3.74
MODEST
4.28
3.74
BOASTFUL
1.22
3.80
TOLERANT
4.61
3.72
INTOLERANT
0.98
3.62
TRUSTWORTHY
5.39
3.70
UNTRUSTWORTHY
0.65
3.76
THRIFTY
*
*
WASTEFUL
*
*
Note: The column labelled L refers to the likeability
rating of the trait adjective. The higher the
rating, the more favorable or desirable the trait
as a description of a person. The column labelled
M refers to the meaningfulness rating of the trait
adjective. The higher the rating, the more
meaningful the trait in describing a person
(Anderson, 1968). The trait pairs
"ATTRACTIVE/UNATTRACTIVE" and "THRIFTY/WASTEFUL"
were not in Anderson's (1968) list.

APPENDIX E
PROGRAM OPERATION AND
SELECTION OF CUES
A microcomputer program, RATIMER (Reese & Metzler,
1990), was used to monitor the memory retrieval task and
the ancillary rating tasks. Subjects interacted directly
with the program, which controlled the selection of cues
for the recall task and recorded the Retrieval Quantity
and Retrieval Latency of subjects' responses. This
technique was adapted from Landy's (1986/1987) computer
program, which automated a cued-response paradigm
originating with Crovitz and Schiffman (1974).
Summary of Operation
The experimenter initiated each run of the program,
providing it with the subject's identification number and
a code which indicated the subject's experimental
condition. Following this, the program displayed the
first page of instructions for the first task on the
computer's screen, and the interaction with the subject
began. The program proceeded through the rating and
retrieval tasks at the subject's own pace (as described
in Appendix C), displaying appropriate instructions and
messages at each stage. The program randomized the
100

101
presentation order of the constructs and traits and
recorded the subject's ratings on all items. Based on
these ratings and the subject's experimental condition,
the program determined the traits to be presented as
retrieval cues in the memory retrieval task (this process
is described in greater detail below). The program
controlled the timing of this task, assuring that each
cue was presented for 90 seconds and that the interval
between cues was 15 seconds. The program also recorded
the number of responses to each cue (Retrieval Quantity)
and the delay in responding (Retrieval Latency). All
data were recorded in a file on disk for later
processing.
Selection of Retrieval Cues
The selection process within the program was
governed by the subject's experimental condition and
responses to the two rating tasks. In all cases, a
subject received cues from constructs that had been rated
as personally important by that subject. The
experimental condition determined whether the traits to
be presented were to be taken from the positive or
negative poles of these constructs (schemata valence) and
whether they were to have been rated as self-similar or
self-dissimilar (schemata validation).
For example, suppose the experimental condition of
the subject indicated that the subject should be asked to

102
recall memories that validated the positive aspects of
his or her self-theory. In this case, the goal of the
selection process was to locate cue words that were
superordinate (i.e., rated highly on the scale "not at
all important 123456 very important"), positive
(i.e., one of the favorable traits, such as "truthful",
rather than one of the unfavorable traits, such as
"cowardly"), and self-similar (i.e., rated highly on the
scale "not me 1 2 3 4 5 6 me").
For a subject in this experimental condition, the
selection process operated as follows. First, the
construct or set of constructs with the highest rating on
the "not at all important 123456 very important"
scale was examined. (Because there were only six rating
points and 25 constructs to be rated, it was very likely
that several constructs would share this "highest"
ordination rating.) Based on the experimental condition
of this subject, only the positive pole of each of these
constructs was considered. The rating of each positive
trait in this set on the scale "not me 1 2 3 4 5 6 me"
was then checked. Because the goal of the selection
process for this subject was to find self-similar traits,
the highest-rated trait on this scale was selected first.
If there were several traits with the same "highest"
rating on this scale as well, then each had an equal
chance of being selected first. Then the trait within
this set rated next most highly on self-similarity was

103
selected, and so on. Once four cues had been selected,
the selection process stopped. If the set of constructs
rated most highly on ordination contained fewer than four
constructs, the process was repeated with the set of
constructs with the next lower ordination rating, until
four cues had been selected.
The selection process operated in a similar fashion
for the other experimental conditions. For those
conditions where subjects were expected to recall
memories that either validated or invalidated negative
aspects of their self-theories, it was the negative pole
of the superordinate constructs that was used, rather
than the positive pole. Therefore, in these cases, it
was the self-similarity rating of the negative trait
which resolved ties between equally-important constructs.
Likewise, for those conditions where subjects were to
receive cues that invalidated their self-theories, traits
with the lowest self-similarity ratings were selected
first, rather than traits with the highest
self-similarity ratings. In all other respects, the
procedure was identical.
The gist of this process, then, is that four traits
were selected (either all positive or all negative) that
were regarded by the subject as personally important and
that either all confirmed (self-descriptive traits) or
all disconfirmed (non-self-descriptive traits) the
subject's self-perceptions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, G. R., & Fitch, S. (1982). Ego stage and
identity status development: A cross-sequential
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 43, 574-583.
Adams, G. R., Shea, J., & Fitch, S. (1979). Toward the
development of an objective assessment of ego-identity
status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 8, 223-237.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A
psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs. 47(1,
Whole No. 211).
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likeableness ratings of 555
personality trait words. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 9, 272-279.
Bannister, D. (1960). Conceptual structure in
thought-disordered schizophrenics. Journal of Mental
Science. 106. 1230-1249.
Barclay, C. R. (1986). Accuracies and inaccuracies in
autobiographical memories. Journal of Memory and
Language. 25, 93-103.
Barclay, C. R. (1988a). Schematization of
autobiographical memory. In D. Rubin (Ed.),
Autobiographical memory (pp. 82-99). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Barclay, C. R. (1988b). Truth and accuracy in
autobiographical memory. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E.
Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of
memory: Current research and issues: Vol. 1. Memory
in everyday life (pp. 289-294). New York: Wiley.
Barclay, C. R., & Subramaniam, G. (1987).
Autobiograpgical memories and self-schemata. Applied
Cognitive Psychology. 1, 169-182.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in
experimental and social psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
104

105
Berzonsky, M. D. (1987, August). The self as a
theorist: Individual differences in identity
formation. Paper presented to the 7th International
Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Memphis,
TN.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). Self-theorists, identity
status, and social cognition. In D. K. Lapsley & F.
C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative
approaches (pp. 243-262). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the
life span: A process perspective on identity
formation. In G. J. Neimeyer & R. J. Neimeyer (Eds.),
Advances in personal construct psychology (pp.
155-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1988). Identity
status and personal construct systems. Journal of
Adolescence, 11, 195-204. •
Berzonsky, M. D., Rice, K. G., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1990).
Identity status and self-construct systems: Process by
structure interactions. Journal of Adolescence. 13,
251-263.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Sullivan, C. (1990).
Social-cognitive aspects of identity style: Need for
cognition, experiental openess, and introspection.
Unpublished manuscript.
Biggs, J. T., Wylie, L. T., & Ziegler, V. E. (1978).
Validity of the Zung self-rating depression scale.
British Journal of Psychiatry. 132. 381-385.
Brewer, W. F. (1988). What is autobiographical memory?
In D. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp.
25-49). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J. C. (1974). Relationships in adolescence.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Coleman, J. C. (1978). Current contradictions in
adolescent theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
7, 1-11.
Crovitz, H. F., & Quina-Holland, K. (1976). Proportion
of episodic memories from early childhood by years of
age. Bulletin of the Psvchonomic Society. 7, 61-62.
Crovitz, H. F., & Schiffman, H. (1974). Frequency of
episodic memories as a function of their age.
Bulletin of the Psvchonomic Society. 4, 517-518.

106
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle
(Psychological Issues Monograph Series, No. 1). New
York: International Universities Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New
York: Norton.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Blakey, W., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1989).
Wechsler adult intelligence scale, revised. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its
development. London: Macmillan.
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego:
Fabrication and revision of personal history. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 603-618.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1989). The self as a
memory system: Powerful but ordinary. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 57, 41-54.
Hinkle, N. D. (1965). The change of personal constructs
from the viewpoint of a theory of implications.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of
an objective measure to assess ego identity in
adolescence: Validation and replication. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence. 13, 419-438.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal
constructs. New York: Norton.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1981). On personality and memory. In
N. Cantor <& J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality
cognition and social interaction (pp. 123-149).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Kroger, J. (1986). The relative importance of identity
status interview components: Replication and
extension. Journal of Adolescence. 9, 337-354.
Kroger, J. (1988). A longitudinal study of ego identity
status interview domains. Journal of Adolescence. 11.
49-64.
Landy, C. R. (1987). Memory retrieval latency and
quantity as a function of objective self-awareness and
self-schemata (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International.
48, 878A.

107
Linton, M. (1975). Memory for real-world events. In D.
A. Norman & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Exploration in
cognition (pp. 376-404). San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman.
Linton, M. (1978). Real world memory after six years:
An in vivo study of very long term memory. In M. M.
Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),
Practical aspects of memory (pp. 69-76). London:
Academic Press.
Linton, M. (1988). Ways of searching and the contents
of memory. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical memory
(pp. 50-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased
assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of
prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37,
2098-2109.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego
identity status. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 3, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E. (1967). Ego identity status: Relationship
to change in self-esteem, general maladjustment and
authoritarianism. Journal of Personality. 35,
118-133.
Marcia, J. E. (1976). Identity six years after: A
follow-up study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 5,
145-160.
Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity
status in college women. Journal of Personality. 38,
249-263.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing
information about the self. Journal of Personality
and Social Pvschology. 35, 63-78.
Markus, H. (1980). The self in thought and memory. In
D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in
social psychology (pp. 113-147). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Markus, H., & Sentis, K. (1980). The self in social
information processing. In J. Suls (Eds.), Social
psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 41-70).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

108
Metzler, A. E., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1988). Vocational
hierarchies: How do we count the ways? International
Journal of Construct Psychology. 1, 205-217.
Neimeyer, G. J., & Metzler, A. E. (1987). The
development of vocational schemas. Journal of
Vocational Behavior. 30, 16-32.
Neimeyer, G. J., Prichard, S., Berzonsky, M. D., &
Metzler, A. E. (1991). The impact of occupational
identity development on vocational hypothesis testing.
Journal of Vocational Behavior. 38, 318-332.
Neimeyer, G. J., & Rareshide, M. (1991). Personal
memories and personal identity: Impact of ego identity
development on autobiographical memory recall.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60,
562-569.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles
and implications of cognitive psychology. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Neisser, U. (1981). John Dean's memory: A case study.
Cognition. 9, 1-22.
Neisser, U. (1985). The role of theory in the
ecological study of memory: Comment on Bruce. Journal
of Experimental Psychology; General. 114, 272-276.
Neisser, U. (1988a). Nested structure in
autobiographical memory. In D. Rubin (Ed.),
Autobiographical memory (pp. 71-81). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Neisser, U. (1988b). What is ordinary memory of? In U.
Neisser & E. Winograd (Eds.), Remembering
reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to
the study of memory (pp. 356-373). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and
intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Reese, S. D., & Metzler, A. E. (1990). RATIMER: User's
manual and reference. Unpublished manuscript.
Robinson, J. A. (1976). Sampling autobiography.
Cognitive Psychology. 8578-595.

109
Robinson, J. A. (1988). Autobiographical memory: A
historical prologue. In D. Rubin (Ed.),
Autobiographical memory (pp. 19-24). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ross, M., & Conway, M. (1986). Remembering one's own
past: The construction of personal histories. In R.
M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition (pp. 122-144). New York:
Guilford Press.
Ross, M. , & McFarland, C. (1988). Constructing the
past: Biases in personal memories. In D. Bar-Tal & A.
Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge
(pp. 299-314). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schenkel, S. (1975). Relationship among ego identity,
field independence, and traditional femininity.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 4, 73-82.
Schenkel, S., & Marcia, J. E. (1972). Attitudes toward
premarital intercourse in determining ego identity
status in women. Journal of Personality. 40, 472-482.
Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology: Vol. 18 (pp. 247-305). New York: Academic
Press.
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1978). Hypothesis
testing in social interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 36, 1202-1212.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1985). The self as architect of
social reality. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self
and social life (pp. 100-125). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In
E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of
memory (pp. 381-403). New York: Academic Press.
Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from
adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a
review of research. Developmental Psychology. 10.
387-392.
Waterman, A. S., Geary, P. S., & Waterman, C. K. (1974).
Longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status
from the freshman to the senior year at college.
Developmental Psychology. 10, 387-392.
Waterman, A. S., & Goldman, J. A. (1976). A
longitudinal study of ego identity development at a

110
liberal arts college. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence. 5, 361-370.
Waterman, A. S., & Waterman, C. K. (1971). A
longitudinal study of changes in ego identity status
during the freshman year at college. Developmental
Psychology. 5, 167-173.
Waterman, A. S., & Waterman, C. K. (1974). Ego identity
status and decision style. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence. 3, 1-6.
Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale.
Archives of General Psychiatry. 12. 63-70.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
April Elizabeth Metzler was born on April 9, 1959, in
Sumter, South Carolina. In 1977, she graduated from
Northeast Senior High School in St. Petersburg, Florida.
She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology in
1985 from the University of Florida in Gainesville,
Florida. She received her Master of Science degree in
counseling psychology from the University of Florida in
1987.
In August, 1991, she completed her internship at
Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. She
expects to receive her Doctor of Philosophy degree in
December, 1991.
Ill

I certify that I have be^d this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequatfe-^Jrn scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree^oxNDoctor of Philosophy.
Greg J. Neimeyer, Chair
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
f OLMaJL-
Mary Fukuyama Í
Associate Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Mark Alicke
Assistant Professor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in ray
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
Assistant Professor of Counselor
Education
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1991
Dean, Graduate School

„.L!,m!VERSITY of FLORIDA
1262 08556 7187



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 EWXLXBIAI_9T7Z2E INGEST_TIME 2017-07-11T21:45:52Z PACKAGE AA00002103_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES