Citation
The effect of receiver apprehension and source apprehension on listening comprehension

Material Information

Title:
The effect of receiver apprehension and source apprehension on listening comprehension
Creator:
Paschall, Katie Ann, 1954-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 107 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anxiety ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Hearing tests ( jstor )
Listening ( jstor )
Listening comprehension tests ( jstor )
Listening skills ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Rats ( jstor )
Speech ( jstor )
Spoken communication ( jstor )
Comprehension ( lcsh )
Listening ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1984.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 80-87).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Katie Ann Paschall.

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:
021879969 ( ALEPH )
ACN9030 ( NOTIS )
11698126 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text








THE EFFECT OF RECEIVER APPREHENSION AND SOURCE APPREHENSION
ON LISTENING COMPREHENSION





By

KATIE ANN PASCHALL


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


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1984











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many individuals contributed to the research recorded

in this volume. First and foremost, recognition should be

accorded to my parents, Winfred and Doris Paschall. For

almost 30 years they have encouraged me, believed in me,and

supported me in more ways than they know. Their faith in

me inspired my commitment to the completion of this volume.

Dr. Anthony J. Clark, as chairman of my supervisory

committee, spent countless hours reading, editing,and advis-

ing me in the development of this research. As a friend,

Dr. Clark encouraged me and believed in me. I am grateful

to him.

I extend my gratitude to each member of the supervisory

committee: Dr. Thomas B. Abbott, Dr. Donald E. Williams,

Dr. Albert Smith, and Dr. Arthur Sandeen. Their advice, time,

and support are greatly appreciated.

Dr. Sandra Ketrow, supervisor of the basic speech course

at the University of Florida, granted me a place in the class

schedule so that I might complete the experimental phase of

the research. Devorah Lieberman, Sonia Zamanou, Mittie

Nimmocks, Laurie Wieman, John Connell and Anita Raghaven,

the individual speech instructors, collected information and

allowed precious class time for my research. I thank them

all.







For the special friends who encouraged me, cheered me

and loved me, I am especially grateful. To Russell Budd and

Devorah Lieberman, I offer my thanks and my love.

I dedicate this volume to two special teachers, my aunt

Edna Earl Wilson and my friend Ruby Krider, who showed me

the special joy that learning and sharing knowledge can

bring. They inspired and taught me to work hard and to love

and trust God.


iii











TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

LIST OF TABLES .

ABSTRACT .


Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION. .

Review of Relevant Literature.
Listening .
Communication Apprehension.
Source Apprehension .
Receiver Apprehension .
Rationale and Hypotheses .
Definitions .
Research Hypotheses .
Problem Statement .

II. METHODOLOGY .

Research Design. .
Subjects Used in This Study. .
Materials. .


Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA) .
Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT).
Profile of Mood States (POMS) .
Sequential Test of Educational
Progress--Listening (STEP). .
STEP Audio Tape .
Post-Experimental Questionnaire .
Procedure. .
Analysis of Results. .

III. RESULTS .

Self-Report Findings .
Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA) .
Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT).
Profile of Mood States (POMS) .
Post-Experimental Questionnaire .


. ii

. vi


vii


. 35


35
. 37
37

. 38
38
39

40
41
. 41
. 42
. 46


. 47

. 47
. 48
. 48
. 50






Chapter

III. RESULTS (Continued)

STEP Listening Test. .
Hypotheses Test Results. .
Summary. .

IV. DISCUSSION. .

Conclusions. .
Limitations of the Study .
Implications for Future Research


REFERENCES .

APPENDICES .

A. PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION
APPREHENSION (PRCA) .

B. RECEIVER APPREHENSION TEST (RAT). ..

C. PROFILE OF MOOD STATES (POMS) .

D. SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS--
LISTENING TEST (STEP) .

E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT .

F. POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE .

G. STEP LISTENING TEST INSTRUCTIONS FOR
TEST CONDITIONS .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. .


. 80

. 88



. 90

. 93

. 96



. 98

. 100

. 103



. 105

. 107


Page


. 50
. 55
. 65

. 67

. 67
. 75
. 77











LIST OF TABLES


1. Group Means of Communication Apprehension
Variables. .

2. Mean Scores for Mood State Factors .

3. Test Condition Mean Scores for STEP
Listening Test .

4. STEP Means for Test Condition Order. .

5. Correlation of Individual Mood Factors
and Total Mood with Listening
Comprehension. .

6. Analysis of Variance of Listening Compre-
sension Scores with a Covariate of Receiver
Apprehension or Source Apprehension. .

7. Analysis of Variance of the Effect of Speech
Training on Listening Controlling for
Total Mood Score .

8. The Effect of RA, SA, Speech Training, and
Test Condition on Listening Comprehension
Controlling for Total Mood Score .

9. Mean Scores for Speech Trained and Non-
Trained Subjects After Transformation. .


Table


Page


. 49

. 51


. 53

. 54



. 58



. 59



. 61



. 63


. 64











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


THE EFFECT OF RECEIVER APPREHENSION AND SOURCE APPREHENSION
ON LISTENING COMPREHENSION

By

Katie Ann Paschall

April, 1984

Chairman: Anthony J. Clark, Ph.D.
Major Department: Speech

This study investigated the possible effect of receiver

apprehension and source apprehension on an individual's lis-

tening comprehension in an educational environment under

threat or anxiety-producing conditions. Mood state was also

examined as a possible intervening variable in listening

performance.

Levels of receiver apprehension and source apprehension

were obtained for 167 students in eight intact public speak-

ing classes at the University of Florida. The STEP Listening

Test was later administered to the eight classes. The test

was given in two parts in one of eight experimental permuta-

tions. The conditions of the test concerned threat of oral

performance after listening to instructional material and a

non-threat condition which called for only listening perform-

ance. The Profile of Mood States was administered to deter-

mine mood state at the time of testing.

vii







A procedure correlation revealed no significant rela-

tionship between receiver and source apprehension. Neither

receiver apprehension, source apprehension nor mood state

were found to be correlated with listening comprehension.

Using the independent variables of receiver apprehension,

source apprehension and threat condition with mood state as

a covariate, an analysis of variance revealed no difference

on listening comprehension scores for subjects under threat

and non-threat conditions regardless of level of apprehen-

sion.

A post-experimental questionnaire indicated that 47 sub-

jects had prior speech training. In a five factor analysis

of variance with a covariate of mood state, only speech

training proved to be a significant main effect. However,

due to uneven groups, this finding cannot be interpreted as

highly significant.

This research and analysis led to the following conclu-

sions:

1. Receiver apprehension and source apprehension are
separate and distinct dimensions of communication
apprehension.

2. There is no relationship between listening compre-
hension and receiver apprehension or source appre-
hension in an educational environment. Further,
an anxiety-producing condition does not signifi-
cantly affect listening comprehension regardless
of the level of communication apprehension.

3. An individual's speech training may be a signifi-
cant factor in listening comprehension and should
be further investigated.


viii











CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Mankind's first system of education was oral and, of

necessity, continued to be so until the invention of the

printing press. It was not until the latter part of the 19th

century that print overtook the oral medium as the primary

mode of communication in formal education. Since that time

the emphasis of the eye over the ear has resulted in genera-

tions who find it difficult to assimilate knowledge aurally

(Anderson, 1966, p. 204). However, the advent of an increas-

ingly technological age has again produced changes in the

learning environment which take students beyond the confines

of the print medium. The influence of the mass media, both

in and out of the classroom, requires new learning skills

for students (Anderson, 1966; Nichols & Stevens, 1957).

Advances in science and computer technology produce burgeon-

ing quantities of information which shift the emphasis on

skills from passive information storage to active information

seeking and processing. Further, as social structures become

more complex, individuals will become more dependent on our

abilities to process information in a variety of ways includ-

ing the aural as well as the written media (Work, 1978).

While often neglected in traditional educational systems,

listening is an important part of a person's ability to process






information. Nowhere is one's capacity to hear and compre-

hend more critical than in the realm of formal education.

Unfortunately, educators have appeared to assume that listen-

ing ability was an offshoot of other language skills and

little or no effort has been invested to study it as a trait

which is unique as a communication skill. Correspondingly,

there has not been a widespread effort to teach listening as

an important skill in the processing of information. Recent

emphasis on communication competency, however, has sparked a

new interest in the development of listening skills. Commu-

nication competency focuses on the concept of the individual's

ability to manage symbols in all their modes and contexts and,

therefore, includes skill in speaking and listening as well

as in reading and writing (Work, 1978).

Psychologists and educational theorists agree that lis-

tening and learning are significantly related. Listening is

the first skill to be developed and the one used most often.

Infants develop listening behavior from birth; these behav-

iors are observable at 3 to 9 months, while speaking skills

are not observable until 18 to 20 months. Reading skills are

not observable until 4 to 6 years of age (Steil, Barker, &

Watson, 1983).

Listening has been determined to be an important variable

in the acquisition and processing of information vital to the

educational and social development of the person. According

to Barbara (1971), "man's very existence depends upon his

ability to exchange information and to remain in communication




3

with his fellow man. Listening which does not further these

aims can only be disturbing" (p. 38). Research has firmly

established that anything that impairs listening impairs the

individual's ability to function in society (Banville, 1978;

Work, 1978).

However, there are numerous factors which might influence

the development of listening ability. The scope of the study

reported here has been limited to the specific aspect of lis-

tening comprehension, particularly in a classroom environment.

This area of research was chosen primarily because of the

relative lack of information concerning listening in relation

to its acknowledged importance to the educational process.

Even given these specific limitations, however, the number of

variables which might influence listening could comprise a

long list. A survey of listening research pointed to a pos-

sible link between listening performance and the phenomenon

known as communication apprehension. As a result, the factor

of communication apprehension received attention as a central

variable in this study of listening.

Communication apprehension has previously been linked

to academic achievement in courses employing different

instructional strategies (McCroskey & Anderson, 1976), and

to problems affecting student learning (Hurt, Preiss, &

Davis, 1976). Some attention has been paid by communication

scholars to the idea that an individual's fear of communi-

cating may somehow be related with his/her capacity to pro-

cess (encode) information. More recently, research has been




4

focused on the fear of communicating as it relates to the

individual's ability to decode information, a trait tradi-

tionally known as listening (Wheeless, 1975).

Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to

examine the theoretical and empirical relationships between

communication apprehension and listening comprehension. The

dimensions of source apprehension and receiver apprehension

were examined to determine the relationship between them as

well as their effects on listening comprehension. Because

this inquiry was limited to an educational environment, the

research was conducted in a regular classroom under condi-

tions designed to approximate normal communication anxiety

producing conditions: the anticipation of an oral perform-

ance following a period of listening to instructional

material.


Review of Relevant Literature

In order to understand the varied aspects of this study,

research data in the area of listening as well as empirical

findings in apprehension as they relate to both the "source"

and the "receiver" of messages will be reviewed. These areas

will be examined in view of their relationship to information

receiving and processing and resultant communication behavior.

Research relating listening and apprehension to the educa-

tional process will receive particular attention.


Listening

A survey of some of the findings which researchers have

contributed during the past several decades provides a





5

comprehensive view of the area of listening. Research on

listening goes back well over 50 years. Rankin's (1928)

University of Michigan doctoral thesis "The Measurement of

the Ability to Understand Spoken Language" was the first

major treatment of the subject of listening. Further research

remained sporadic and inconclusive until the 1950's and 1960's.

During this period scholars produced the major portion of

extant listening research. The most significant contribution

of the period is the identification of listening as a trait

separate from other verbal abilities (Biggs, 1956; Spearritt,

1962). The 1970's saw little activity in this area and the

1980's concentration has been on the measurement of listening

skills as a part of communication competency (Pearson &

Fielding, 1982).

For many years literacy was defined as one's ability to

read and write. Recently, however, phrases such as "language

literacy" or "communication competency" have been embraced

by educators, and they include the communication competencies

of speaking and listening as well as reading and writing.

Numerous pedagogs and educators have come to recognize the

inherent interdependence of the so-called "language arts" and

the oral/aural communication skills (Rubin, 1982; Work, 1978).

The United States Office of Education added speaking and lis-

tening to the list of basic skills under their Title II pro-

gram (Dickson & Patterson, 1981). The Educational Policy

Board of the Speech Communication Association recommended in

1977 adding minimal speaking and listening competencies for




6

high school graduates (Bassett, Whittington, & Staton-Spicer,

1978). The State of Florida has mandated an assessment and

testing program for use at the end of the sophomore year in

college which will judge if students have acquired basic

speaking and listening skills. While there is difficulty in

developing methods to mass test these skills, all state sup-

ported institutions of higher education in Florida are under

a legal mandate to do so no later than 1985.

Despite the recognition given to speaking and listening

as information processing skills, research indicates that

school systems at all levels emphasize reading and writing

to the detriment of oral and aural processes (Nichols, 1961;

Lundsteen, 1979). Further, speech communication classes, now

widely recommended by educators in all academic areas, cur-

rently concentrate primarily on oral (speaking) skills and

give scant attention to listening (Nichols, 1961; Dixon,

1964; Drake, 1951; Steil, Barker, & Watson, 1983). This is

disconcerting when one learns that listening consumes sig-

nificantly more time than does speaking, reading or writing

in a student's academic life (Disibio, 1982). McCormick

(1981), for example, reported that 57% of class time in

elementary school, 53% in high school and 70% of college

class time was consumed by listening (p. 37).

There is, nonetheless, little disagreement among

teachers and psychologists about the importance of listening

in human communication and learning. Lundsteen (1979)

reported that listening is the first language skill to appear




7

and that "listening is considered the first step in unlocking

progress in any other area related to language--which would

include science, math, history, the whole of education"

(p. xii). Lundsteen (1979) further stated that a "natural

progression of instruction would be to teach thinking skills

in an oral context before expecting thinking skills to serve

children to their best advantage in reading and writing"

(p. 61). Crowell and Hu-Pei Au (1981) supported this view

by asserting that "children should develop a strategy for

organizing and thinking about storing information received

through auditory channels" (p. 131). Therefore, listening is

acknowledged as a skill vital to the total learning process.

Definition of listening. Basic to this discussion is

a definition of listening; however, no simple or generally

accepted definition has emerged from the various research

studies (Devine, 1968, p. 297). The difficulty in defining

listening may lie in the lack of understanding the process

itself (Bakan, 1966), or in the lack of knowledge about the

components of the process (Petrie, 1976). A number of defi-

nitions have been offered; each, however, contains elements

of others or is an extension of previous definitions.

Lundsteen (1979), taking into account the ambiguity of

the term listening, defined it as "the process by which

spoken language is converted to meaning in the mind" (p. 1).

Buttery (1980) also defined listening as the recognition and

interpretation of auditory stimuli and indicated that lis-

tening was an "active, cognitive process which requires




8

conscious attention to sounds in order to gain significant

meaning from them" (p. 181). Hollingsworth (1974) described

listening as an active and alert process requiring the lis-

tener to decode many different meanings from syntactical

arrangement of words, intonations and inflections in the

speaker's voice and included the listener's experience with

words as an important element in the process (p. 1156).

Other definitions, though not disagreeing with the con-

cept of listening as an active and cognitive process, have

focused on the distinction between hearing and listening

(Clevenger & Matthews, 1971; Harwood, 1966). Barbara (1971),

for example, stated that listening involved a "definite and

usually voluntary effort to comprehend acoustically" (p. 160);

hearing on the other hand, involved "mere reception of stimuli

over auditory pathways" (p. 160). Nichols and Lewis (1954)

offered a definition of listening as a total process called

aural assimilation. Hearing, the first phase of the process,

is the perception of sound by the ear only. Listening, the

second phase, is the attachment of meaning to aural symbols

perceived (p. 1).

A number of researchers developed models of listening

which extended the two phases of hearing and listening to

include a third phase called "auding" (Disibio, 1982).

Stammer (1977) described hearing as a non-attentive behavior

and listening as attentive behavior concentrated on process-

ing sounds. Auding was then defined as the "center" of the

process whereby sounds are processed for meaning (pp. 661-663).




9

Berger and Werdmann (1978) defined the phase of auding as

the process of "listening to, recognizing and interpreting

spoken symbols" (p. 37). Buttery (1980) also referred to

auding as the process of organizing and analyzing what was

heard (p. 183). The term auding, however, has not gained

wide acceptance or use and the activities or processes

referred to by auding scholars are usually attributed to

the listening phase (Lundsteen, 1979).

Though most often referred to as a process concerning

aural stimuli, some scholars have posited that a visual fac-

tor may also be a component of listening. Brown (1949)

defined listening as the "aural assimilation of spoken sym-

bols in a face-to-face speaker audience situation" (p. 139).

Henning (1977) also reported the existence of a relationship

between the speaker's body motions and the listener's under-

standing of the message (p. 186). Petrie (1966), however,

argued that visual behavior was a factor when the speaker

was present, but that listening may go on in the absence of

the physical presence of the speaker. Further, Weaver and

Rutherford (1974) reported the development of listening

skills in sighted and visually handicapped people progressed

at the same rate indicating that visual factors had no direct

impact on the development of listening ability. Consequently,

including a visual factor as a "necessary component of lis-

tening seems to unduly restrict the meaning of the term"

(Petrie, 1966, p. 327).




10

Lundsteen (1971) summarized the status of a clear-cut

definition of listening by stating that listening was too

complex an activity to be adequately defined in a sentence

or a paragraph. Consistent with this view, some researchers

have sought a more complete definition by separating the pro-

cess into parts (Brown, 1949; Rankin, 1966). Pearson and

Fielding (1982), for example, asserted that the process could

best be described in terms of a phonological level at which

a listener must be able to distinguish the sound patterns or

phonemes of the language; a syntactical level at which the

listener can recognize paraphrases, ambiguities and inter-

pretations of the words; a semantic level at which the lis-

tener recognizes meanings of the words; and a text structure

level at which the listener organizes messages as they

relate to his/her culture or context. All four levels must

be combined to achieve a satisfactory definition of listening

(pp. 618-619). Tutolo (1977) also stated that the best defi-

nition of listening could be achieved by separating listening

into three parts. The first, acuity, involves the process

of sound waves passing through the ear to the brain. The

second, discrimination, involves the ear and brain determin-

ing differences in the sounds. Comprehension, the third

part, is accomplished when the listener recalls facts and

ideas, determines the relationship that exists between them,

and finally, evaluates what was heard (p. 263).

Listening scholars have also focused on the components

of effective listening. Fessenden (1955) reported seven




11

levels of effective listening which ranged from isolating

sounds and ideas involving no evaluation or analysis to the

level of introspection requiring an analysis of the effect

that having heard has on the individual. Strickland (1966)

listed eight levels of listening developing from the first

level of little conscious listening to a level of true

"meeting of the minds" (pp. 42-43). Nichols and Lewis (1954)

described ten components ranging from previous experience

with material to the reconciliation of thought-speed and

speech-speed (pp. 11-25). Buttery (1980) also reported four

components of attending behavior, hearing acuity, auditory

discrimination, and comprehension or auding, all of which

were considered necessary to the understanding of the listen-

ing process.

A major factor in the definition of listening is the

identification of the different types of listening. Nichols

and Lewis (1954), for example, focused on three types of

listening each of which served a different end. Appreciative

listening was described as the reception of any kind of stim-

uli gratifying to the senses. Critical listening concerned

the reception of persuasive speech for the purpose of evalu-

ating arguments and evidence. Discriminative listening or

comprehension dealt with the reception of informative speech

usually in an instructive situation. This type of listening

was considered to be basic to the other types (pp. 1-2).

Buttery (1980) also listed four types of listening.

Literal recognition or recall focused on recognition or




12

recall of details and main ideas. Inferential or interpre-

tive comprehension concerned what was meant by the speaker

and required extrapolation beyond given information. Criti-

cal or evaluative listening subsumed the other types and

required making reasoned judgements about what was heard.

Appreciative or aesthetic comprehension involved an awareness

of various techniques, forms and styles used by musicians and

orators to stimulate an emotional response in the listener

(p. 186).

Disibio (1982) listed four types of listening similar

to those described by other scholars. Attentive listening

focused on one person or aspect of communication. Apprecia-

tive listening concerned the reception of messages for enjoy-

ment. Analytical listening dealt with listening for the

purpose of responding. Marginal listening centered on the

reception of messages when two or more distractions were

present (p. 218).

McCaleb (1981) similarly described three types of lis-

tening as informative, critical and interpersonal. Informa-

tive listening concerned the clarity of the message to the

receiver and dealt with understanding of main ideas and

retention of information. Critical listening concerned the

reception of persuasive messages and the listener's ability

to make inferences, determine motives and assess evidence and

reasoning. Interpersonal listening dealt with the ability to

interact with others in a manner which clarified and elicited

expressions and provided effective support (p. 162).




13

Tutolo (1977) also reported three cognitive levels or

types of listening. Literal comprehension centered on the

factual recall of what the speaker said. Interpretive compre-

hension involved determining the relationship that exists among

facts or ideas. Critical listening subsumed the other types

and necessitated an evaluation of what was heard (p. 263).

In much the same manner, Lundsteen (1979) described two types

of listening. General listening involved retention of infor-

mation and paraphrasing of a message. Critical listening

involved the evaluation of a message, judging and detecting

bias (pp. 59-61).

As the preceding review indicates, various definitions

of listening contain many of the same elements. Listening may

be defined, therefore, in terms of the commonalities found in

the major definitions. In this study, listening is an active

cognitive process of receiving, analyzing and attaching mean-

ing to aural stimuli. The process includes a physical hearing

stage and may take place in or out of the presence of the

speaker. A number of common levels, components and types of

listening may be identified and measured, all of which are

necessary to the development of a comprehensive definition

of listening.

The purpose of the research to be conducted and the

type of listening test used will indicate the level of type

of listening to be assessed. In most instances, the term

comprehension is applied to the primary area of interest in

listening research.




14

The design and purpose of the study reported here con-

cerned listening comprehension. Nichols and Lewis (1954)

stated that comprehension of instructive speech "is so basic

that it is actually a controlling factor in both of the other

kinds of performance" (pp. 1-2). Barbara (1971) also asserted

that the "most essential factor contributing to the effective-

ness of listening is comprehension, the understanding and

grasp of the idea or meaning of what is heard" (p. 168).

Lundsteen (1979) posited that it was necessary to dis-

tinguish between comprehension and other types of listening

in a testing situation as only knowledge obtained as a result

of listening to an oral test passage actually represents lis-

tening comprehension (p. 4). Assessment of other types such

as critical or appreciative listening, though necessary and

important components in a total listening definition, may be

difficult to assess in a classroom situation. Further, in

the confines of a particular study, inclusion of more than

the comprehension level may be unnecessary and misleading.

Other types of listening may call for integration of previous

personal knowledge and require extrapolation beyond the given

information (Buttery, 1980).

Listening tests. Valid and accurate measurement of

listening is difficult at best. Early listening tests were

developed before clear theoretical or statistical evidence

indicated the specific skills involved in listening; tests

often lacked agreement on what trait or dimension of listen-

ing was being measured (Lundsteen, 1979). Kelly (1965, 1967)




15

contended that listening tests actually measured some other

factors more reliably assessed by established tests not

involving listening. In particular, the tests were criti-

cized for measuring mental ability and reading skill rather

than listening.

The difficulty in developing adequate and practical

measures of listening may rest with the lack of a generally

accepted definition and the need for information concerning

the components of the process unique to listening. Lundsteen

(1979), reporting on the state of the art of listening evalu-

ation, found that assessment measures were relatively scarce,

reasonably reliable but often confused and lacking in imagi-

nation (p. 101). Despite the controversy over the form and

content of assessment, scholars have agreed that listening

can be measured (Backlund, Brown, Gurry, & Jandt, 1982).

Because of the current emphasis on communication compe-

tency and the need for assessment by state agencies and edu-

cational institutions, Backlund et al. (1980) reviewed 71

existing listening instruments. They could not, however,

recommend any single specific instrument for use as a general

assessment measure. A similar review process was undertaken

by the State of Florida State Task Force on College Level

Assessment Skills Program. Of approximately 50 instruments

reviewed, this task force has not recommended to date one

instrument which meets its assessment criteria.

As a result of the review process, Backlund et al. (1982)

recommended certain criteria for listening assessment




16

instruments. First, stimulus material and test questions

should be electronically recorded to control for consistency

of presentation style. Messages should be given in a

"natural" speaking style, not read. Second, the stimulus

material should call for a single, minimal response with

specific questions being the best; test items should be read

to students to minimize mediation by reading ability. Third,

the stimulus materials, both messages and test items should

be short in order to reduce influence of long-term auditory

memory; the authors suggested a range from 30 seconds to

3 minutes. Fourth, it was recommended that the stimulus

material be interesting; and finally, that the vocabulary

be controlled to minimize testing of verbal ability as sepa-

rate from listening comprehension.

Researchers should be aware, however, that no single

instrument currently exists that will give definite certifi-

cation of the level of comprehensive listening ability. The

difficulties in assessing listening are related to disagree-

ment over what dimension of listening is being tested and to

the practicality of wide-scale measurement (Backlund et al.,

1980).

The Communication Competency Assessment Instrument

(CCAI) developed by Rubin (1982), for example, was approved

by the Speech Communication Association after much review and

deliberation. This test, though, is a comprehensive measure

of speaking and listening, and requires a period of 30 minutes

per student in a one-to-one testing situation. The CCAI also




17

deals with levels of listening other than comprehension. For

most research purposes, the test is not practical.

The Brown-Carlsen Listening Test is a widely used

instrument and involves a number of different types of lis-

tening. The test has been criticized for possible dependence

on memory and general mental ability rather than listening

skill.

The STEP Listening Test, developed by the Educational

Testing Service, is also a widely implemented measure. This

test, however, is concerned only with the very basic level

of listening comprehension and is considered by some

researchers to be too limited in its measurement of listen-

ing (Bostrom & Bryant, 1980).

Correlates to listening. The ambiguity of the definition

of listening and the lack of adequate assessment instruments

have, in part, resulted in a number of misunderstandings con-

cerning variables correlated to listening. Nichols and Lewis

(1954) reported that listening ability as a matter of intel-

ligence was a false assumption (p. 18). Devine (1978),

Brown (1949), and Wright (1971) also found no correlation

between listening and intelligence beyond variance accounted

for by inconsistent testing procedures. Differences between

hearing acuity and listening were also substantially con-

firmed by research (Harwood, 1966). Nichols and Stevens

(1957), along with Landry (1961), and Rossiter (1970),

reported that neither practice, maturation nor education

level resulted in improved listening skills.




18

The relation between listening and reading has been

extensively researched. Though early studies purported a

relationship between the two processes (Brown, 1965; Nichols,

1948), that research has been questioned because the listen-

ing test involved may have been based on measures concerned

with factors other than listening skills (Brown, 1966;

Devine, 1978).

Researchers have acknowledged similarities between read-

ing and listening. These similarities stem from a body of

theory that has emphasized the two as receptive communication

processes based on a common language and conceptualizing

functions (Tuman, 1980; Walker, 1977). At the same time,

scholars have consistently indicated differences between

reading and listening. Major differences are attributed to

situational and time contexts (Backlund et al., 1980; Devine,

1978), and to different neurological processes affecting the

manner and rate at which messages are received and processed

(Nichols & Lewis, 1954).

There has also been some discussion of the role of

memory in the listening process. Though both long- and

short-term memory seem to be related to listening, Bostrom

and Bryant (1980) argued for the existence of a distinct

process which operates differently from memory. Researchers

have indicated a difference in the way an individual responds

to repetition of messages, masking, amounts of information

produced, and the time lapse between listening and recall

situations, which distinguishes listening from memory




19

(Backlund et al., 1982; Bostrum & Bryant, 1980; Nichols &

Lewis, 1954).

In summary, listening has been found to be a separate

and distinct communication skill. The variables of intelli-

gence, maturation, hearing acuity, reading ability and

memory do not seem to significantly affect the ability of

an individual to listen efficiently under normal circum-

stances. It is known, however, that individuals do tend to

score differently on measures of listening comprehension.

It is necessary, therefore, to determine what factors might

enhance or hinder listening ability. Communication scholars

have long acknowledged the impact of communication apprehen-

sion on oral communication situations. This variable may

also prove to be a factor in the aural context of communica-

tion and deserves thorough examination.


Communication Apprehension

For over four decades scholars have focused attention

on a person's fear or anxiety about communication and the

impact of the fear on communication behavior (Lomas, 1934;

McCroskey, 1970; Phillips, 1965). Research concerned with

fear and anxiety about oral communication has been conducted

under a number of labels including stage fright (Clevenger,

1959), reticence (Phillips, 1968), shyness (Zimbardo, 1977),

unwillingness to communicate (Burgoon, 1976), and communica-

tion apprehension (McCroskey, 1970). The term communication

apprehension, according to McCroskey (1977), "more broadly

represents the total of the fears and anxieties studied




20

previously" (p. 78) and the theory of communication appre-

hension (CA) integrates research conducted under other

labels (p. 8).

State versus trait. McCroskey (1982), in a reconceptu-

alization of communication apprehension, was concerned with

the distinction between state and trait apprehension. CA

had been considered a trait rather than a state apprehension.

Trait apprehension is characterized by a fear or anxiety with

respect to many different types of oral communication from

single encounters to speaking before a large group, whereas

state apprehension is a fear specific to a given audience

situation. State anxiety is considered a normal response to

a threatening situation and is experienced by most people

at some time. Trait apprehension is not normal, however, for

well-adjusted individuals. Those individuals who report high

levels of CA are believed to be apprehensive about all commu-

nication situations, both threatening (anxiety-producing) and

non-threatening.

McCroskey (1982) posited that the dichotomy of state

versus trait ignores the interaction of the personality

orientation of the individual and the constraints of the

situation. He has now called for a rejection of the state/

trait dichotomy and proposed a view of CA as a continuum

ranging from extreme trait apprehension to extreme state

apprehension. As every individual experiences CA to some

degree in both categories, it is unlikely that pure trait or

state extremes would exist (pp. 146-151).




21

Causes of CA. The causes of CA are not clearly known.

However, early researchers suggested that CA may be developed

during early childhood; many children enter kindergarten with

high levels of CA (Phillips & Butt, 1966; Wheeless, 1971).

Scholars generally believe that CA is learned, conditioned

through reinforcement of a child's communication behaviors.

A child reinforced for being silent or given negative rein-

forcement for attempting to communicate by teachers and par-

ents would be more likely to develop this trait (McCroskey,

1977).

McCroskey (1982) asserted that a fuller understanding

of the causes of CA might be found in the area of expectancy

learning or "learned helplessness." People are believed to

develop expectations with regard to other people, situations

and probable outcomes of specific behaviors such as talking.

If some communication behaviors result in punishment or lack

of reward, individuals reduce these behaviors or avoid those

situations calling for those behaviors (p. 159).

McCroskey (1982) explained that when individuals con-

front situations with no regular expectation of either posi-

tive or negative reinforcement, helplessness occurs. Such a

response may be produced by inconsistency in the environment

or may be produced by the inability of the individual to dis-

cern situational differences which produce differences in

behaviors. For example, a child rewarded for speaking out

in a classroom discussion and punished for talking to another

child in the same classroom may be unable to discriminate




22

between the situations. When helplessness is learned, strong

anxiety feelings will be experienced (p. 159).

Measurement. An important consideration in research of

any dimension of CA is that of measurement. Three main cate-

gories of assessment have been employed: observer rating

scales, devices for measuring physiological change and self-

report techniques. McCroskey (1970) posited that observer

rating scales should be excluded in the measurement of CA

because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable ratings as

these measures are based on observable behaviors and behav-

iors associated with CA are often difficult to detect (p. 270).

McCroskey (1970) also excluded the use of physiological

indices as such measures tend to be expensive and not always

available to the researcher. Such measures are not capable

of measuring the actual withdrawal response of the apprehen-

sive (p. 270).

The self-report or introspective technique has been the

most prevalent measure of CA and is recommended by McCroskey

(1970) for several reasons. A self-report instrument is

inexpensive and easy to administer to a large number of

individuals. It is capable of tapping anxiety across a

variety of communication contexts at one time (p. 270). The

main advantage of the self-report technique, however, lies

in the concept of CA as a fear. According to Wheeless

(1975),

if a person understands that he is appre-
hensive and why he is apprehensive, this his own
report of his fear ought to be the most valid.
To the extent that a person knows why he is




23

apprehensive, his self-report may well be an
index of how he has cognitively integrated his
past physiological and physical behavior under
conditions of fear arousing stimuli. (p. 262)

Therefore, self-report scales have traditionally been the

most frequently employed measure of communication apprehen-

sion.

Dimensions of CA. Initial research in CA focused exclu-

sively on oral or source apprehension, probably as a result

of the emphasis on speaking as a major communication skill

(Wheeless, 1975). Over the past decade, however, the con-

struct of CA has been broadened to encompass other modes of

communication (McCroskey, 1982). As a multidimensional con-

struct, CA varies with the functional role, either source or

receiver, in which an individual's communication behavior

occurs (Wheeless, 1975). In order to better understand the

aspects of the present study it is necessary to survey the

literature concerned specifically with source apprehension

(SA) and receiver apprehension (RA).


Source Apprehension

The majority of apprehension literature is based on the

study of source apprehension (SA). The construct is defined

by McCroskey (1977) as "an individual's level of fear or

anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communi-

cation with another person or persons" (p. 78). Though not

specifically stated in the definition, this conceptualization

of SA is based on anxiety concerning oral communication

(McCroskey, 1982, p. 137).




24

McCroskey (1977) stated that source apprehension was

one of the most pervasive communication problems in the

United States. Unacceptably high levels of SA were found

to exist among student populations. Approximately 20% of

students in major universities may be described as high

level apprehensives (McCroskey, 1970). Similar numbers of

SA have been observed in public schools at all levels, and

among adult populations as well (McCroskey, 1977).

Effects of SA. The effects of SA are firmly established

by research. Those who experience high levels of apprehen-

sion withdraw from and seek to avoid communication whenever

possible (McCroskey, 1977; McCroskey & Leppard, 1975). As a

result of this withdrawal and avoidance, highly source appre-

hensive individuals will be perceived less positively by

others than will those who experience low levels of SA

(McCroskey & Richmond, 1976; McCroskey, Richmond, Daly, &

Cox, 1975).

As a further result of communication avoidance, those

with high level SA will experience less positive achievement

in terms of their economic and social lives (Freimuth, 1976).

In relation to the academic environment, the negative impact

is clearly shown. Students with high SA have been found to

have lower overall college grade point averages (McCroskey &

Anderson, 1976), score lower on achievement on standardized

tests (Bashore, 1971), receiver lower grades in small classes

in junior high (Hurt, Preiss & Davis, 1976) and college

(Scott & Wheeless, 1976). These findings are heightened by





25

the fact that no meaningful relationship between SA and

intelligence has been found (Davis, 1977).


Receiver Apprehension

Wheeless (1975), concerned with the multidimensionality

of CA, stated that

although communication scholars have verbal-
ized concern for receiving and processing informa-
tion (we spend more of our time as receivers than
sources), little concern has been evidenced for
receiver apprehension, which would most directly
affect decoding and response tendencies. (p. 261)

Recognizing the importance of the receiver to communication

encounters and working under the general construct of CA,

Wheeless (1975) developed the theory of receiver apprehen-

sion (RA). RA is conceptualized as the "fear of misinter-

preting, inadequately processing, and/or not being able to

adjust psychologically to messages sent by others" (p. 263).

Subsequent research by Beatty, Behnke and Henderson (1980)

and Wheeless and Scott (1977) demonstrated RA and SA to be

orthogonally distinct constructs.

Based on Wheeless' (1975) assertion that RA deals in

some measure with information processing, researchers have

focused attention on this area of the construct. Beatty

(1981) found that difficulty in information processing pro-

duced a cognitive backlog resulting in anxiety which, in

turn, resulted in avoidance of receiving new messages. As

an extension of this research, Beatty and Payne (1981)

explored the relationship between RA and cognitive complexity

and found them to be significantly positively correlated.




26

The fear of inadequately processing information was confirmed

as a dimension of RA.

Effects of RA. The majority of RA literature is based

on research testing the impact of RA on learning. Wheeless

and Scott (1977) found high level receiver apprehensives

achieved lower academic progress across a number of criterion

referenced indices. Later research on learning in a specific

course revealed similar effects (Scott & Wheeless, 1977).

Scott and Wheeless (1977), in an investigation of student

attitudes and levels of satisfaction with different instruc-

tional strategies discovered that high level receiver appre-

hensives displayed less favorable attitudes toward lecture

courses, oral assignments and in-class discussion.

Listening and RA. Listening research, though not pre-

viously concerned specifically with RA, has focused on ele-

ments of listening behavior which may be related to this

construct. Barbara (1971) reported that listeners are often

bombarded by more messages than can be effectively heard and,

therefore, have difficulty comprehending them. The result

is a faulty or disorganized communication system (p. 27).

An overloading or jamming of the system may result in listen-

ing behavior designed to escape from the input overload

(Taylor, 1964).

Research also indicated that listeners under continual

pressure to digest incoming messages are often tense and ill

at ease (Barbara, 1971, p. 39). Nichols and Stevens (1957)

reported that difficult listening created tension and,




27

therefore, listeners tended to avoid difficult listening

situations (pp. 107-108).

Anxiety or fear stemming from the listening situation

may, in turn, result in inefficient listening. Johnson

(1966) found that poor listeners had to be taught first to

relax before good listening skills could be taught (p. 36).

Barbara (1971) also reported anxiety or fear to impact nega-

tively on efficient listening (p. 91). As individuals with

high levels of RA are characteristically anxious about

receiving messages, RA and effective listening comprehension

would seem to be negatively correlated.

Because of the importance of listening as a unique and

vital communication skill, it is necessary to expand our

knowledge of the process and the factors which may affect

the development. Communication apprehension, specifically

the dimensions of receiver apprehension and source apprehen-

sion, as indicated by the preceding review of literature,

may be related to the individual's listening performance,

particularly in an educational environment.


Rationale and Hypotheses

Listening is considered to be an important variable in

the individual's ability to acquire and process information

and is important, therefore, to the individual's ability to

function in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex

society (Lundsteen, 1979; Work, 1978). Though traditionally

neglected in educational systems and often mistakenly assumed

to be an offshoot of other language arts skills, research has





28

identified listening as a trait separate from other verbal

abilities (Biggs, 1956). Listening is also considered to be

an important variable influencing the way an individual

learns to think or process information (Lundsteen, 1979).

However, research in listening as a communication competency

has been relatively sparse, confined for the most part to

attempts to develop feasible and reliable measures of the

skill (Backlund et al., 1980).

Bakan (1966) suggested that there was not enough known

about the listening process because of the complexity of

inter-relational factors involved in the communication event.

He stated that research in listening should take into account

differences among people due to a variety of variables (p. 458).

Harwood (1966) supported this viewpoint and indicated that

degrees of listenability of a message, long a concern of com-

munication scholars, could only be assigned in terms of a

specific group or person receiving the message (p. 24).

Therefore, those educators and agencies responsible for

assessing the communication competency of individuals,

including their listening ability, must also be sensitive

to individual variables which might affect the processing

of information, and make provisions for exceptional popula-

tions (Rubin et al., 1982).

As noted, one variable already shown to affect one's

ability to learn and process information is that of communi-

cation apprehension (CA). The construct of receiver appre-

hension (RA), in particular, relates to the decoder or





29

listener function of communication. However, no study of

the relationship between RA and listening has been published

to date though both involve information reception and infor-

mation processing as determined by both apprehension and

listening scholars. Research by Beatty (1981) suggested

that RA was a function of unassimilated information due to

processing difficulties. This finding was consistent with

Wheeless' (1975) assertion that RA did deal with the fear of

processing information and adjusting to messages sent by

others (p. 266). Further, Beatty and Payne (1981) asserted

that the information processing ability of an individual as

shown by a cognitive complexity measure was related to the

construct of RA.

Listening scholars have also pointed to an overload or

jamming of the communication system due to the number and

intensity of incoming stimuli which resulted in poor listen-

ing behavior (Fessenden, 1955; Taylor, 1964). The anxiety

or tension concerning communication and the withdrawal from

or avoidance of communication situations characteristic of

apprehensives have also been reported in listening literature

(Nichols & Lewis, 1954; Tutolo, 1977). Barbara (1971), in

particular, discussed the effect of anxiety about receiving

messages on listening behavior and reported a curtailing of

"social contact" (communication encounters) with others to

avoid listening situations (p. 129).

The effect of source apprehension (SA) on listening

behavior has also been ignored by communication scholars.





30

Research has shown the effect of SA on the oral or source

function of communication, and SA has been linked to a number

of achievement measures and possible causes for its relative

importance to learning have been examined (McCroskey, 1977)

but the impact of SA on listening behavior has not been con-

sidered.

Though not as obviously related to the receiver function

of communication, a link between SA and listening behavior

has been reported. Beatty, Behnke and McCallum (1978) found

that subjects anticipating hearing a lecture reported lower

levels of SA than did those anticipating a speech perform-

ance. Johnson (1966) reported that tense or anxious individ-

uals did not listen as well as those who were calm and relaxed.

Any measure which might stimulate anxiety or fear, then, would

appear to impact on listening behavior. Barbara (1971), for

example, in subjective observations indicated that those lis-

teners forced to respond orally rather than be allowed to

receive messages passively became anxious and restless and

exhibited poor listening behavior (pp. 64-65).

Based on extant apprehension literature, researchers

concerned with the effects of apprehension on educational

achievement would report less satisfaction and lower achieve-

ment in lecture type listening environments than in small

group or discussion situations with the inverse true for

source apprehensives (Wheeless, 1975; Daly, 1978b). However,

Scott and Wheeless (1977) indicated that such was not the

case. Rather, they found that attitudes and satisfaction for




31

oral assignments and discussion were low for both oral and

receiver apprehensives. Receiver apprehensives may find it

just as difficult to perform as source apprehensives because

needed information was not adequately received or processed.

(This does not preclude the individual from being both

source and receiver apprehensive.)

Though RA has been shown to be a separate and distinct

trait (Beatty, Behnke & Henderson, 1980), some researchers do

report a relationship between RA and SA in educational

environments. McDowell and McDowell (1978) found highly

significant correlations between RA and SA scores at all

educational levels. Scott and Wheeless (1977) noted a rela-

tionship between achievement measures for the two apprehen-

sive constructs. Individuals highly apprehensive in either

the source or receiver dimension, then, may also report high

apprehension in the other dimension. The interaction of the

two dimensions of apprehension might impact significantly on

learning or achievement.

There would appear to be a potential relationship

between the oral and aural processes of information process-

ing in educational situations considered potentially anxiety-

producing to both receiver and source apprehensives. In

particular, anticipation of oral performance as might be

experienced in most small group or discussion section class-

rooms could be a significant variable in the listening

behavior of both source and receiver apprehensives.

The study reported here was designed to examine the

theoretical and empirical relationship between communication




32

apprehension and listening comprehension. Additionally, the

possible correlation of receiver apprehension and source

apprehension was examined, as well as the interaction of

these two constructs on measures of listening comprehension.

Because of the importance of listening to the education

situation and the reported impact of RA and SA on educational

achievement and satisfaction, the investigation was conducted

in a "normal" classroom environment. Threat and non-threat

conditions in the classroom were controlled by manipulating

the anticipation of oral performance and will be discussed

in the next section.

Literature in the areas of apprehension and listening

indicated that the variables of sex, age, intelligence and

education level have little or no impact on measures of RA,

SA or listening comprehension. Therefore, these factors were

not controlled for in the design of the present study.

The variable of mood state, however, may affect scores

on a listening test. Nichols and Lewis (1954) reported that

an individual's mental set will override other factors in

determining listening behavior. Other scholars have focused

on the difficulty of maintaining attention and concentration

in a listening situation. The difficulty may lie in part

with the mood or emotional state of the individual at a par-

ticular time (Kelly, 1965; Lundsteen, 1979). The mood of

the individual may then be an intervening variable in the

measure of listening ability and was included in the measure-

ment phase of this research study.






Definitions

The following definitions were developed after a review

of literature and a consideration of the design and objec-

tives of the present study.

1. Source Apprehension is operationally defined as an

individual's score on the Personal Report of Communication

Apprehension (PRCA) (see Appendix A).

2. Receiver Apprehension is operationally defined as

an individual's score on the Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT)

(see Appendix B).

3. Mood State is operationally defined as an individ-

ual's score on the Profile of Mood States (POMS) (see

Appendix C).

4. Listening is operationally defined as the individ-

ual's score on the Sequential Test of Educational Progress

(STEP) Listening Test which deals specifically with the com-

prehension level of listening (see Appendix D).

5. Threat is defined as the condition under which an

individual anticipates an oral performance at the completion

of a listening test.

6. Non-threat is defined as the condition under which

an individual has no anticipation of an oral performance at

the completion of a listening test.

7. Message is defined as test passages from the

Sequential Test of Educational Progress recorded on audio

tape.






Research Hypotheses

Based on the review of related literature and the need

indicated for research on communication variables which may

affect listening, the following research hypotheses were set

forth:


Hypothesis 1:



Hypothesis 2:


Hypothesis


Hypothesis 4:



Hypothesis 5:





Hypothesis 6:


Subjects' scores on receiver apprehension
and source apprehension tests will be
positively related.

Subjects' listening comprehension scores
will be negatively related with receiver
apprehension scores.

Subjects' listening comprehension scores
will be negatively related to source
apprehension scores.

Subjects' listening comprehension scores
will be negatively related with mood
scores.

Subjects who have higher degrees of
receiver apprehension will have lower
listening comprehension scores than sub-
jects who have lower degrees of receiver
apprehension in a threat condition.

Subjects who have higher degrees of
source apprehension will have lower
listening comprehension scores than
subjects who have lower degrees of
source apprehension in a threat condi-
tion.


Problem Statement

These hypotheses seek to assess the relationship between

communication apprehension and listening comprehension in an

educational environment taking into account the threat of

anxiety-producing conditions and the mood state of the lis-

tener. The following chapter will discuss the process of

analysis used to test each hypothesis.











CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY


Research Design

This study was conducted to explore the effects of RA

and SA on listening comprehension in a classroom environment.

In order to balance the need for maximum realism in research

with the need for optimal experimenter control (Miller &

Fontes, 1974), the research was carried out as part of regular

classroom instructional procedures in intact college classes.

Students in eight public speaking classes, at the University

of Florida in September 1983, were chosen to participate in

the study. Administration of pretest communication apprehen-

sion report forms was incorporated into a unit dealing with

communication anxiety. Administration of a listening test

was included as a part of the unit concerning listening

behavior.

It was hoped that the use of intact groups would allow

more naturalistic results in an educational setting as well

as yield a better sample of degrees of apprehension. Because

individuals with high levels of CA characteristically tend to

avoid any situation involving communication, an experimental

situation which depended upon voluntary participation of

individual subjects would probably be avoided by high level




36

apprehensives, even if they were promised a reward for their

participation.

A two-part listening test was administered to students

in one of eight experimental permutations. Two sets of tape

recorded messages (A and B), each made up of three discrete

passages, were used as stimuli for the test. Message order

(A/B) and test condition (threat/non-threat) were systemati-

cally varied as follows:


Condition 1:


Condition 2:


Condition 3:


Condition 4:


Condition 5:


Condition 6:


Condition 7:


Condition 8:


Threat Part I
Message A

Threat Part I
Message B

Non-threat Part I
Message A

Non-threat Part I
Message B

Threat Part I
Message A

Threat Part I
Message B

Non-threat -Part I
Message A

Non-threat- Part I
Message B


then Non-threat Part
Message B

then Non-threat Part
Message A

then Threat Part II
Message B

then Threat Part II
Message A

then Threat Part II
Message B

then Threat Part II
Message A

then Non-threat Part
Message B

then Non-threat Part
Message A


This experimental design controls for order effect of


test condition.


Additionally, though messages in the listen-


ing test have been found to be equivalent in its development

by the Educational Testing Service, the design adjusts for

possible variation in consistency or difficulty of messages.

It also allows each subject to serve as his/her own control.




37

Subjects Used in This Study

This study used a pool of 215 college student volunteers

who were enrolled in the public speaking course (SPC 3601) at

the University of Florida during the Fall Semester of 1983.

Subjects received neither monetary reward nor bonus class

credit for their participation. They were, however, encour-

aged by their instructors to take part in the experiment.

Subjects were informed of their right to decline participa-

tion and were allowed to leave at any point during the exper-

iment (see Appendix E).

Twelve subjects were not adequately identified on all

test forms and had to be dropped from the study. Six subjects

considered English to be their second language and were also

removed from the pool. The largest subject loss, however,

was due to the time span between the administration of CA

report forms and the listening experiment. Thirty subjects

failed to complete both the communication apprehension and

the listening portions of the experiment. A total N of 167

was achieved with an average of 21 students in each of the

eight classes.


Materials

Communication apprehension has traditionally been meas-

ured by use of self-report instruments because they are con-

sidered to be the most valid (Wheeless, 1975) and the most

practical (McCroskey, 1970) measures available. For the

purposes of this study two highly regarded self-report meas-

ures of CA were employed.




38

Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA)

The PRCA is a Likert-type self-report instrument first

developed by McCroskey in 1970. The test consists of 20

statements designed to measure source apprehension across a

variety of communication contexts (see Appendix A).

The PRCA is widely accepted as a valid and reliable

measure of SA: internal reliability estimates have ranged

from .92 to .96 while reliability judged through the test-

retest method was .82 (McCroskey, 1978, p. 201). The

validity of the PRCA has been established through compar-

isons to other CA measuring instruments. Daly (1978a) com-

pared eight scales used to measure anxiety and found the

PRCA to be one of the three most reliable instruments among

the eight measures (p. 216). He also found the PRCA to be

the most "encompassing instrument" of the group (p. 216).


Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT)

The RAT is the only prominent self-report measure of

receiver bound anxiety published to date and has been the

assessment instrument used in all RA studies conducted.

Wheeless (1975) developed the RAT as a Likert-type scale

consisting of 20 items which require the individual to

reflect upon how he/she feels when listening. The instrument

relies heavily on the PRCA for content of its items and there-

fore, measures apprehension related to communication (p. 264)

(see Appendix B).

Research by Beatty et al. (1980) documented the relia-

bility and validity of the RAT as a measure of listening




39

anxiety. They reported that the RAT correlated with an

alternative measure of listening anxiety, predicted specific

anxiety responses to listening tasks, and was stable over

time (p. 35). The RAT has also functioned in a manner con-

sistent with theoretical expectations concerning RA (Beatty,

1981; Scott & Wheeless, 1977). Reliability estimates for the

RAT have ranged from .80 to .86 (Beatty & Payne, 1981).


Profile of Mood States (POMS)

The POMS is a rapid, economical method of assessing an

individual's mood state (see Appendix C). The POMS consists

of 65 five-point adjective rating scales which measure six

identifiable moods or affective states: tension-anxiety;

depression-dejection; anger-hostility; vigor-activity;

fatigue-inertia; and confusion-bewilderment. A total mood

score is obtained by summing the scores across all six fac-

tors (weighting vigor negatively). A total mood score

yields a single global estimate of affective state (McNair,

Lorr & Droppleman, 1981).

Internal consistency of the POMS factors were reported

by McNair and Lorr (1964) to be near .90 or above. Test-

retest reliability for the six factors ranged from .61 to .69

(McNair & Lorr, 1964). The six factor analytic replication

in the development of the POMS may be taken as evidence of

factorial validity (McNair et al., 1981). Lorr, Daston and

Smith (1967) also identified eight mood factors, five of

which confirmed POMS factors.






Sequential Test of Educational
Progress--Listening (STEP)

The difficulty in assessing listening comprehension has

been pointed out in the preceding review of related litera-

ture. In order to obtain the best possible measure of listen-

ing comprehension for the purposes of this study, the

researcher examined all the listening assessment material

collected by the Florida State Task Force on College Level

Assessment Skills Program, in Tallahassee on May 18, 1983.

Task Force personnel recommended consideration of the 1957

edition of the STEP Listening Test. A thorough examination

of this instrument, however, indicated that it was not prac-

tical for the allowed time and that the test passages did not

adequately meet the criteria set forth by Backlund et al.

(1982). More important, the 1957 edition dealt with levels

of listening other than comprehension.

A subsequent discussion with the Educational Testing

Service personnel resulted in an examination of the 1979

edition of the STEP Listening Test (see Appendix D). This

test proved to be the instrument most feasible and available

for use in a study of RA and SA in an educational situation.

The 1979 STEP, prepared by the Educational Testing Service

and published by McGraw-Hill, is widely accepted as a reliable

measuring instrument of listening comprehension and has been

used in a number of listening studies (McCaleb, 1981).

In addition, the STEP best met the criteria for listen-

ing assessments proposed by Backlund et al. (1982). The

stimulus material and test questions were recorded in a




41

natural speaking style. The test called for a single minimal

response to a specific question, and all stimulus material

and test items were read to the subjects in order to minimize

the mediation of reading ability. Test passage length aver-

aged 90 seconds, and a wide variety of instruction interests

were covered in the material.


STEP Audio Tape

In keeping with the recommendations of Backlund et al.

(1982), the stimulus material and test items of the STEP were

recorded on audio tape. A trained female speaker delivered

all instructions, stimulus passages, and test items. The

eight forms of the test were recorded on separate tapes.

The tapes were reviewed by three professionals, all

speech instructors with advanced degrees in communication.

They evaluated the tapes for quality and consistency of pre-

sentation. The audio quality of the tapes was judged to be

below professional standards by the reviewers. However, the

tapes were considered to be consistently audible and of ade-

quate quality for use in the experiment. The quality of the

speaker's presentation was determined to be excellent, con-

sistent in both rate and variety for all messages.


Post-Experimental Questionnaire

A brief questionnaire compiled by the researcher sought

to assess the subjects' prior training in speech and communi-

cation apprehension. A section of the questionnaire was

designed to determine if the subjects had any hearing loss




42

or disability. The subjects were also asked to indicate if

English was their first language (see Appendix E).


Procedure

During the first week of 1983 Fall Semester, the director

of the basic speech course randomly chose 8 public speaking

classes from a total of 11 for participation in the study.

All instructors were graduate students in communication

studies at the University of Florida, and were informed of

the purposes and procedures of the experiment during an

instructional session.

In the second week of the 1983 Fall Semester, instructors

distributed the RAT and the PRCA. Students were told they

were being asked to complete a survey designed to discover how

people perceived their personal communication. They were

informed that scores would be kept confidential and would have

no bearing on their grades. They were asked to use their

social security numbers as identification of both measures.

The experimental phase of the study was conducted on two

consecutive days, August 30 and 31 of 1983. The experiment

was carried out during the regular meeting times of each

class. Five different class period times were used, the

first beginning at 8:00 A.M. and the fifth beginning at 12:20

P.M. The experiment was conducted in the regular classrooms

of the eight groups. Of the two buildings and three differ-

ent rooms, none was significantly more comfortable or unique.

Weather conditions remained stable for the two days and no

unusual happening occurred to influence the procedures or to

prejudice the results of the listening assessment.




43

On the date of the experiment, instructors informed the

subjects that in keeping with the importance of listening to

communication, an assessment of listening comprehension would

be done during that class period. Students were again

informed that their scores would be kept confidential and

would have no bearing on class grade. The instructor then

introduced the researcher as a "specialist in listening

assessment" who conducted the assessment from that point.

The researcher first explained the purpose of the experi-

ment to each class. In order to enhance uniformity among

individual groups, the researcher conducted all eight tests.

Each group was given the same information in the same time

frame and presentation style.

Subjects were told that the researcher was collecting

data on listening comprehension. They were informed that

they were under no obligation to participate and could leave

at any time. Students wishing to participate were asked to

read and sign an "informed consent" statement indicating they

understood the purpose of the experiment (see Appendix F).

The only element of the study the students were not initially

informed of concerned the experimental condition of threat or

non-threat as a factor in the research.

Subjects were then given the POMS to complete and asked

to use only a social security number as identification. The

POMS took no more than 10 minutes to complete. The researcher

collected this instrument and the informed consent statements.

The answer booklets for the first part of the STEP Listening




44

Test was distributed. Social security numbers were again

used for identification. A sample form of the test was

passed out and instruction on the proper way to complete the

form was given. Students all had prior practice in standard-

ized test taking and no difficulty understanding the forth-

coming directions.

The researcher then turned on the tape recorder, and a

sample passage was played. The recorder was turned off and

the researcher asked if everyone could hear. No particular

difficulties were indicated by the students beyond raising

the volume of the tape. Students were also given an oppor-

tunity to ask questions at this point. The researcher then

informed the subjects that all information would come from

the tape only and no communication with the researcher was

allowed, barring unforeseen circumstances. The tape was

played through Part One.

Subjects under the Non-threat/Threat condition heard

directions for written responses to test passages only in

Part One of the test. Instructions for Part Two informed

the subjects that, following the written test, some individ-

uals would be called upon to orally answer questions and/or

summarize test passage material in an impromptu speech (see

Appendix G). Test passages and questions were then read.

The researcher turned off the tape and collected answer

sheets. A series of questions were asked of randomly chosen

students. One student was also chosen at random to deliver

the impromptu speech. The oral response session took no more

than 5 minutes.




45

Students in the Threat/Non-threat condition heard

directions for Part One which called for oral responses to

questions and/or a summary of test passages in an impromptu

speech after the completion of the test questions. At the

completion of Part One, the researcher stopped the tape and

collected the answer sheets. Randomly chosen students

answered a series of questions and one was asked to summarize

a test passage in an impromptu speech. The tape was then

turned on and Part Two answer sheets distributed. Directions

informed students that only a written response was required

to test passages. After completion of the test, the tape was

stopped and answer forms collected.

Students in the Threat/Threat condition were informed

that oral responses were required after Part One. After com-

pletion of Part One, the researcher collected answer forms

and administered the series of questions and assigned a sum-

mary speech to a subject. The same procedure was followed

for Part Two.

Students in the Non-threat/Non-threat condition were

only informed of general directions for written responses for

Part One. No mention of an oral response was made. At the

completion of Part One, answer forms were collected and Part

Two began. The same procedures were followed for Part Two.

Immediately following the completion of Part Two for all

eight classes, the subjects were asked to complete the post-

experimental questionnaire. Subjects were then debriefed.

They were again assured that their scores would be kept




46

confidential. They were also told that results of the test

and the research could be obtained by contacting the

researcher at the completion of the study.


Analysis of Results

The research hypotheses were tested by using a number

of procedures from the Statistical Analysis System (SAS,

1982). Independent variables were levels of RA, levels of

SA and test condition; listening comprehension score served

as the dependent variable; mood score was considered as a

covariate. All probability levels were set at .05.

The level of receiver apprehension and/or source appre-

hension may or may not have a significant effect on an indi-

vidual's performance on a listening test. The process of

analysis presented in this chapter was designed to assess the

possible effects of communication apprehension on listening

comprehension while considering and controlling for a threat

or anxiety-producing situation and the subject's mood state

at the time of listening performance. The results of this

analysis are discussed in the following chapter.











CHAPTER III
RESULTS


This chapter presents tabulated results of the PRCA,

the RAT, the POMS, the Post-Experimental Questionnaire and

the STEP Listening Test. Statistical findings in response

to the study's six hypotheses are also discussed.


Self-Report Findings

The PRCA and the RAT were scored by the experimenter

and checked for accuracy. The levels of RA and SA for indi-

vidual subjects were noted. Both RA and SA scores were

divided into the levels of high, medium and low once the

mean and standard deviation for each measure were calculated

(McCroskey, 1983).


Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA)

Each subject completed the PRCA approximately one week

before participating in the experimental phase of the study.

The highest PRCA score obtained from the 167 subjects was 96

(high apprehension) while the lowest score was 27 (low appre-

hension). The mean score for subjects in this study was 54.2,

with 77 subjects scoring above the mean and 90 scoring at or

below the mean with a standard deviation of 15.2. The mean

PRCA score obtained in this study served as the dividing point

between high, medium and low subjects. Twenty-seven subjects

47




48

scoring one standard deviation below the mean were grouped as

low apprehensives. Those 28 subjects scoring one standard

deviation above the mean were grouped as high apprehensives,

and the remaining 112 subjects were classified as medium

apprehensives (see Table 1).


Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT)

Each subject also completed the RAT approximately one

week before participating in the experimental phase of this

study. The highest RAT score obtained from the 167 subjects

was 85 (high apprehensive) with the lowest score being 21

(low apprehensive). The mean score for all subjects was 40.1

with a standard deviation of 12.8. Sixty-two subjects scored

above the mean and 105 scored at or below the mean. Twenty-

seven subjects scoring one standard deviation below the mean

were rated as low apprehensive and those 25 subjects scoring

one standard deviation above the mean were rated as high

apprehensives, while the 115 remaining subjects were rated

as medium apprehensives (see Table 1).


Profile of Mood States (POMS)

The POMS was scored by using hand overlays and instruc-

tions provided by the POMS Manual (McNair et al., 1981).

Individual scores on each of the six factors were calculated

for each subject. The total mood score for each individual

was obtained by adding the six factors (weighting "vigor"

negatively). The total mood score is assumed to be important

in obtaining a single estimate of each individual's affective
















Table 1

Group Means of Communication Apprehension Variables



Test CA Level CA Score n


High 96 28
69

PRCA Medium 68 112
40

Low 39 27
27



High 85 25
53

RAT Medium 52 115
29

Low 28 27
21




50

state. The total score was considered the most important fac-

tor as an individual's mood may impact on his/her listening

comprehension. Mean scores for each factor were also calcu-

lated (see Table 2).


Post-Experimental Questionnaire

The post-experimental questionnaire was administered

immediately following the experiment. Forty-seven subjects

reported prior speech training. Approximately one half of

the subjects with speech training described their prior

instruction to be in an introductory speech course at the

University of Florida, while other subjects indicated

instruction in high school or community college public

speaking courses. No subjects reported previous training

in communication anxiety reduction. Six subjects reported

that English was their second language and consequently were

removed from the research. Two subjects indicated high deci-

bel hearing losses; these subjects failed to complete all

phases of the experiment and were removed from the study

prior to learning of their hearing loss.


STEP Listening Test

The dependent measure examined in this study was the

score on the STEP Listening Test. The scores for Part One

and Part Two of the STEP Listening Test were calculated

separately, and were then combined to create a total listen-

ing comprehension score. Scores for the two parts of the

test were recorded separately with an indication of the test
















Table 2

Mean Scores for Mood State Factors


Mood Factor M SD


Tension 11.796 6.524

Depression 8.989 8.561

Anxiety 8.790 8.391

Vigor 18.359 5.750
(weighted negatively)

Fatigue 10.167 5.862

Confusion 8.101 4.797

Total Mood 29.149 30.328




52

condition and message order for each so that it would be pos-

sible to assess the possible effect that each might have on

the results.

The highest possible total score on the STEP was 20

points, each part of the test being worth 10 points. The over-

all mean score for subjects was 17.9 across all conditions.

The mean score for subjects under the threat condition was

7.99 with the highest possible score being 10 points. The mean

score for subjects under the non-threat condition was 7.826

with the highest possible score being 10 points (see Table 3).

The mean score for subjects under threat as the first

condition was 9.33 compared to a mean score of 8.85 for sub-

jects under non-threat as the first condition. The average

in the control group for threat was 8.55 compared to the

average in the non-threat group of 9 (see Table 4).

The STEP Listening Test was broken into two parts for

this study. Though the test was designed to be given as one

unit, the internal validity of the test was not compromised

by this division (Bailey, 1982). Each of the stimulus pas-

sages and test items were determined to be equivalent and

therefore, order of presentation did not alter the results,

in any way. As expected, the effect of the messages on sub-

jects' mean scores did not vary significantly. The mean

score for Message A was 8.90 while the mean score for Message

B was 8.99.

By examining the mean scores, little difference was

observed among subjects as grouped either according to test

condition or message choice. However, statistical analysis

















Table 3

Test Condition Mean Scores for STEP Listening Test



Condition M N


Across
Condition 17.900 167

Threat 7.799 142

Non-threat 7.826 144

















Table 4

STEP Means for Test Condition Order


Condition Order M N


Threat 1st 9.33 40
2nd 9.17


Non-threat 1st 8.85 40
2nd 9.67


Threat- 1st
Threat 2nd


Non-threat- 1st
Non-threat 2nd




55

of the hypotheses also assessed possible effects and inter-

action of the independent variables of RA, SA, and test con-

dition on the listening comprehension scores while considering

the possible effect of mood. These analyses and interpreta-

tions allowed for an indepth and comprehensive understanding

of the relationship between communication apprehension and

listening comprehension.

Hypotheses Test Results

This study assessed the effects of RA and SA on the lis-

tening comprehension of subjects in a communication anxiety

producing condition in the classroom. The procedures were

designed to explore the possible impact of individual mood

scores on their listening comprehension scores. Six statis-

tical null hypotheses were examined, with the probability

levels set at .05 on each.

The initial hypothesis tested concerned the relationship

between RA and SA:

HI: Subjects'scores on receiver apprehension and source
apprehension tests will not be significantly posi-
tively correlated.

By using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) procedure

correlation (SAS, 1982, p. 503), RA and SA were found not to

be significantly related at the .05 level (p< .6730). RA and

SA seem to be separate and distinct elements; the presence or

absence of one does not affect levels of the other.

The second hypothesis focused on the effect of RA on

listening comprehension scores:

H2: Subjects'listening comprehension scores will not be
significantly negatively correlated with receiver
apprehension scores.




56

A partial correlation using SPSS Language inside SAS (1982)

was used to test the second hypothesis. With the use of the

partial correlation, a covariate of total mood score could

be introduced. The use of the covariate allows adjustment for

group differences and provides a more powerful (sensitive)

statistical analysis than would the analysis of listening

scores without the covariate data (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds,

1974, p. 135).

When using partial correlation procedure with the total

mood score as the covariate, levels of RA were not signifi-

cantly correlated with levels of listening comprehension

(p < .491); therefore, this hypothesis cannot be rejected at

the .05 level.

The third hypothesis tested was concerned with the effect

of SA on listening comprehension scores:

H3: Subjects' listening comprehension scores will not
be significantly negatively correlated to source
apprehension scores.

Following the same procedure as used in Hypothesis Two, a

partial correlation with total mood score as a covariate

(SAS, 1982) was used to test this hypothesis. Levels of SA

were also not significantly correlated with levels of listen-

ing comprehension (p < .170); and consequently, this hypothesis

cannot be rejected at the .05 level.

The fourth hypothesis tested dealt with the effect of

mood score on subjects' listening comprehension scores:

H4: Subjects' listening comprehension scores will not
be significantly negatively correlated with mood
scores.




57

An overall procedure correlation (SAS, 1982) indicated that

neither total mood score nor individual mood scores were sig-

nificantly correlated with listening comprehension scores.

This hypothesis cannot be rejected at the .05 level (see

Table 5).

The fifth hypothesis tested the effect of RA on listen-

ing comprehension in a threat condition:

H5: Listening comprehension scores for subjects who have
higher degrees of receiver apprehension will not be
significantly lower than listening comprehension
scores for subjects who have lower degrees of appre-
hension in a threat condition.

A two-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures with

RA as the covariate (SAS, 1982) was used to test this hypoth-

esis. The analysis of variance with repeated measures was

the more appropriate analysis for this study as the same sub-

jects were measured at different levels of the dependent

variable. The simple analysis of variance would not indicate

the repeated measures (Huck et al., 1974, pp. 102-104). By

using the procedure, the level of RA accounts for a statis-

tically insignificant amount of variance in the dependent

variable of listening comprehension scores (p < .6550).

Therefore, this hypothesis cannot be rejected at the .05

level (see Table 6).

Similarly, the sixth hypothesis tested concerned the

effect of SA on listening comprehension scores:

H6: Listening comprehension scores for subjects who
have higher degrees of source apprehension will
not be significantly lower than listening compre-
hension scores for subjects who have lower degrees
of source apprehension in a threat condition.














Table 5

Correlation of Individual Mood Factors and Total Mood
with Listening Comprehension



Mood Factor Listening Comprehension p value


Tension -0.80790 .2993

Depression 0.08508 .2743

Anxiety -0.05477 .4820

Vigor -0.07658 .3253

Fatigue 0.27400 .7252

Confusion -0.11786 .1293

Total Mood -0.04139 .5953















%D M
in Co
LA 01
C m
o Oai








r- (N
Nn C
0i H
LA 0


-E


a)

0




-,
U)



5-4


0.
O



U)

0



o o





4-4
u-


Cd


4-4
0


0)



C) 5
A


(4 LAO
m m

o 0o










o4 0


,o n

LA 01
on o
r-i Ln
*



CD (N



N C14
0" H
0
in o


CM C'- 0 00 N 0C
.0 r-H '0 00 00 00
'r r IV Ln ) C'N
r- o r"- m O ro0
0 0 0 0 0








C H
,-4 ,--


-H
4-)


0 Cd
U -4

4. C

)-" 0
E-4 U


0)


UM 0

) -4
a <


o 0
rn LAn
T Ln
o CD







* 0

*
o o


Lr ,-- Oo C0 N O
on r-I or o oo o0


o o o o









SH k.0 H M


0
.-4
4-1
.-,'




i-4
U)-- >




60

As in the fifth hypothesis, an analysis of variance with

repeated measures and a covariate of SA (SAS, 1982) was used

to test this hypothesis. The level of SA did not account for

a statistically significant amount of variance on the depend-

ent variable of listening comprehension (p < .8335), and this

hypothesis could not be rejected at the .05 level (see Table 6).

The relatively high number of subjects reporting speech

training on the post-experimental questionnaire was considered

unusual enough to warrant further investigation. In order to

determine whether the speech training had any effect on lis-

tening comprehension scores, a two factor analysis of variance

with repeated measures with total mood score as a covariate

was tested. This analysis indicated that there was a differ-

ence between the scores of speech and non-speech trained sub-

jects when the probability level was set at .05 (p > .0252)

(see Table 7).

The factor of speech training appeared to be significant

initially. Therefore, in order to consider the effect of

speech training on listening comprehension scores, as well

as the interaction with SA and RA under test conditions, a

four factor analysis of variance with total mood score as

the covariate was conducted (SAS, 1982). This analysis indi-

cates the overall difference among the levels of each factor

and additionally indicates the impact of the interaction of

the factors on the dependent variable. The use of the

covariate of total mood score controls for any differences

between the groups.














Table 7

Analysis of Variance of the Effect of Speech Training
on Listening Controlling for Total Mood Score



Source DF MD F P


Speech Training
(A) 1 0.36118 5.10 .0252*

Cov. Mood 1 0.03179 0.45 .5037

Error 164 0.07079

Message (B) 1 0.22452 6.95 .0092*

A.B 1 0.02821 0.87 .3514

Error 165 0.03230


*significant at the .05 level




62

Using this analysis, subjects scoring one standard devi-

ation above the mean on RA and SA measures were classified

as high apprehensive. Those scoring one standard deviation

below the mean were classified as low apprehensive, while the

remaining subjects were considered as medium apprehensive

(McCroskey, 1983). With the probability level of .05, again

neither the level of RA, SA or test condition accounted for

a statistically significant amount of variance on the depend-

ent variable of listening comprehension when adjusting for

the effect of mood score. This analysis further confirmed

that the fifth and sixth hypotheses cannot be rejected at the

.05 level. The subjects' speech training, however, did seem

to affect listening scores (p > .0098) (see Table 8).

For a more thorough analysis of the effect of speech

training on listening scores, a Proc Means procedure was

conducted (SAS, 1982). Because of the uneven numbers of sub-

jects in each group, a transformation on the numbers was

necessary in order to complete the analysis. The final

adjusted mean scores indicated a difference between the two

means with the mean for non-speech training being somewhat

higher. However, because of the nature of the data and uneven

subject numbers, the two means cannot be said to be signifi-

cantly different. Therefore, the subjects with no speech

training cannot be said to be better listeners, nor speech-

trained subjects poor ones (see Table 9). Though prior speech

training initially appeared to be an important factor on lis-

tening comprehension, the statistical analyses of this study

cannot support such a conclusion.









Table 8

The Effect of RA, SA, Speech Training, and Test Condition
on Listening Comprehension Controlling for
Total Mood Score



Group DF F PR>F


MTOT 1 0.77 0.3820

RA 2 1.29 0.2763

SA 2 0.06 0.9409

TR 1 6.76 0.0098*

Group 1 0.55 0.4583

RA-SA 4 0.26 0.9059

RA-TR 2 0.23 0.7913

Group-RA 2 0.19 0.8260

SA.TR 2 2.18 0.1152

Group.SA 2 0.68 0.5070

Group.TR 1 0.28 0.5986

RA.SA.TR 3 0.43 0.7322

Group.RA.SA 3 1.43 0.2323

Group-SA-TR 2 0.68 0.5099

Group.RA.TR 2 0.42 0.6566

Group.RA.SA.TR 2 0.79 0.4553


*significant at the


.05 level

















Table 9

Mean Scores for Speech Trained and Non-Trained
Subjects After Transformation


Group M N


Non-Speech 1.35 240


Speech 1.27 94




65

Summary

A wide range of SA and RA scores were obtained in this

study, indicating a wide sample of levels of apprehension.

Subjects reported lower apprehension as receivers (x= 40.1)

than as sources (x= 54.2). This result is not surprising as

persons may be expected to be less apprehensive concerning

receiving information than about serving as communication

sources (Wheeless, 1975). The POMS also yielded a wide range

of scores on each of the six individual mood factors as well

as total mood scores.

The post-experimental questionnaire revealed that none

of the subjects had any training in communication anxiety

reduction. The few subjects for whom English was a second

language or who experienced a hearing loss were removed from

the study. A number of subjects, however, reported prior

speech training. Initially, the factor of prior speech train-

ing was seen to have some possible negative relationship with

listening scores with non-speech trained subjects scoring

higher on listening tests. However, further analysis on the

means of the two groups merely indicated a slight difference

in the scores and cannot be interpreted as a significant fac-

tor in determining listening scores.

In this experimental situation, RA and SA were shown to

be unrelated to each other and to be separate elements in

communication apprehension. Neither RA or SA were shown to

have any effect on listening comprehension; nor were the

treatment conditions of threat and non-threat significant




66

influences on subjects' listening scores. A follow-up com-

parison dividing RA and SA into high, medium and low levels

did not alter results in any fashion. Neither individual

factor scores nor the total mood score was related to listen-

ing scores and did not significantly account for any differ-

ences in scores in any analysis. Thus, the findings of this

study indicate that the dimensions of RA and SA do not

influence listening comprehension in an educational environ-

ment.










CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION


Conclusions

Communication and educator scholars have long acknowl-

edged that listening is a communication skill vital to the

social and educational development of the individual. For

over 50 years, research has sought to assess various factors

which might enhance or hinder listening ability. In this

study an effort was made to determine if the variable of com-

munication apprehension, particularly the dimensions of

receiver apprehension and source apprehension, would have

any effect on the listening comprehension of subjects in an

education environment under both normal and communication

anxiety provoking situations.

The first conclusion that can be drawn is that the

dimensions of receiver apprehension and source apprehension

are not related. Though McDowell and McDowell (1978)

reported a relationship between the two when assessing the

effect of each on academic progress, this study disclosed

no such relationship. RA and SA are found to be separate

and distinct dimensions of CA; it appears that individuals

may experience high levels of one type of apprehension with-

out experiencing corresponding levels in the other. This

finding does support the conclusions drawn by Wheeless (1975)




68

and McCroskey (1983) that communication apprehension is a

multi-dimensional construct and that it varies with the indi-

vidual communication function performed.

As SA and RA have both been shown to have adverse effects

on the academic progress and satisfaction of students, educa-

tors should be made aware of the importance of the two dimen-

sions. Methods of dealing with SA and RA, however, should

take into account the uni-dimensionality of each. Treatment

for anxiety reduction in one category probably will not

result in anxiety reduction in the other. Likewise, instruc-

tional strategies designed to aid the source apprehensive

individual, such as emphasis on lecture rather than discus-

sion, cannot necessarily be expected to aid the receiver

apprehensive individual. RA and SA are separate and distinct

dimensions of CA and should be assessed and treated as such.

A second research hypothesis in this study was concerned

with the relationship between RA and listening comprehension.

A partial correlation indicated that the two were not related

(p < .491). No other literature published to this date, how-

ever, has assessed the relationship of RA and listening, but

theoretical implications and empirical findings in other

areas strongly suggested such a correlation. Similarly, a

third hypothesis concerned the relationship between SA and

listening comprehension. Following the same procedure, no

correlation between SA and listening was found (p< .170).

This finding confirmed that of Miller and Yerby (1983) who

also found no relationship between the two. They suggested,




69

however, that further studies be conducted because of the

strong implications of a relationship found in communication

research literature.

It is possible that the failure to find significant cor-

relations may be an error in research methodology and/or

instrument reliability and validity. Certainly, currently

available measures of listening skills are imperfect at best.

It is much more likely, however, considering the rigidly con-

trolled design and procedures of the study, that in a normal

classroom environment, neither RA nor SA is related to listen-

ing comprehension. The failure to find correlations may

simply mean that the relationship does not exist in this

particular context.

It should be noted, though, that McCroskey (1983) dis-

cussed the difficulty of assigning corresponding behaviors

to levels of CA. He, in fact, strongly recommended that cau-

tion be exercised when attaching any communication behavior

to a measure of CA. Previous research and conclusions

reached concerning behavior manifested by apprehensives has

been based on aggregate data and has been subject to over-

interpretation. These interpretations do not take into

account the high potential for an individual to deviate from

the norm and to choose from a variety of behaviors designed

to deal with the level of apprehension (p. 15). It cannot be

assumed, therefore, that a highly apprehensive individual

will necessarily exhibit poor listening behavior or score

poorly on a measure of listening comprehension.




70

Further, though research indicates that the majority of

apprehensive individuals tend to avoid or withdraw from com-

munication, some do exhibit an uncommon communication pattern.

These individuals try to overcompensate for their apprehension

and attempt to succeed despite the anxiety (McCroskey, 1983,

p. 17). Some subjects in the present study may have been

motivated to "listen better" precisely because of the discom-

fort experienced in the communication situation. In the

debriefing following the experiment, several subjects did

report a heightening of attention so as to score well on the

listening test. Others indicated increased attention to test

material to avoid any embarrassment should they be called

upon to answer questions orally. In any case, there is no

behavior that is predicted to be a universal product of vary-

ing levels of CA (McCroskey, 1983, p. 16).

The fourth hypothesis dealt with the relationship between

listening comprehension and mood state. A procedure correla-

tion indicated no relationship between six individual mood

factors comprising one's total mood state. Though subjects

reported a wide range of mood scores and total mood affective

states on the POMS, mood did not significantly hinder or aid

in performance on the STEP Listening Test. Though early

literature suggested the importance of mood or mind set on

the individual's predisposition to listen (Brown, 1959;

Nichols & Lewis, 1954), this study did not support those

conclusions.

A thorough examination of the results of a correlation

between mood score and listening comprehension for this




71

particular study (see Table 5, p. 58) reveals that only the

mood factor of "confusion" even began to approach signifi-

cance (p < .1293). If listening is viewed as a form of infor-

mation processing, then confusion could hinder organization

and analysis of aural stimuli. It is possible that the

unexpected experimental situation itself produced the con-

fusion. The subjects, uncertain of what was to occur during

the research, allowed the state to impact on their listening

behavior. The fact the other mood factors did not approach

significance may be a function of the subjects' student

status. In a testing situation, students with years of prac-

tice at test taking may be adept at putting disruptive emo-

tions aside. Whatever the case, mood was in no way a

significant influence on listening comprehension scores in

this study.

The fifth and sixth hypotheses concerned the effect of

levels of RA and SA on measures of listening comprehension

in threatening or communication anxiety producing situations.

A number of statistical procedures, including an analysis of

variance with repeated measures with a covariate, as well as

a four factor analysis of variance with a covariate, indi-

cated that neither level of RA or SA nor the threat condition

significantly influenced measures of listening comprehension.

Though theoretical literature and empirical research

findings suggested otherwise, this study found that listening

comprehension is not affected by either RA or SA regardless

of test condition. Again, a consideration of the behavioral




72

manifestations of CA (McCroskey, 1983) may be helpful. It

is more likely, however, that the situational context of the

experiment may have more meaning for interpretation of the

findings. McCroskey (1983) pointed out that in keeping with

the state properties of RA and SA, students may experience

CA in a certain context at one time and not at others. For

example, subjects may experience high levels of apprehension

when listening to instructional material or answering ques-

tions when they know that an academic grade may depend upon

their response. The same subjects, however, may experience

little or no apprehension about the same situation when no

grade is dependent upon the outcome of the situation.

Subjects in the study discussed here were repeatedly

advised about their right to withdraw from the experiment

and assured that their test results would in no way influence

their course grades. Those few who did withdraw, did so

before the experimental situation began and had no way of

knowing what communication behaviors would be required of

them. Other subjects, even those reporting high levels of

CA, chose to complete all phases of the experiment. Thus,

knowing that test scores would be kept confidential and that

no academic reward or punishment would result from their

participation, subjects' level of apprehension may have been

alleviated to some extent.

In addition, though the time lapse between administra-

tion of the CA self-report forms and the experimental situa-

tion was less than five days, the subjects' levels of




73

apprehension may have been altered by the changing situation.

Methods to overcome the ethical and experimental constraints

upon this type of research have yet to be devised, but may be

necessary in order to more nearly approximately normal situa-

tional levels of CA.

A broader view of the situational aspect of the study

may also shed some light on the findings of the other hypothe-

ses. Brown (1959) stated that the "anticipatory set" of the

listener could directly influence listening ability. Subjects

in this study were college students enrolled in a speech

course. They were told specifically that their listening

comprehension was to be assessed. These subjects then were

prepared or "set" to listen. Scores on the STEP could be a

result of the subjects' preparedness to listen.

As an extension of the preparation or set to listen or

perform on a listening test, a number of scholars have

reported the widespread use of standardized tests in all

levels of education (Anderson, 1981; Marcus, 1981). As sub-

jects in this study were college students, they probably had

years of practice in test taking. Engen, lam and Prediger

(1982), reporting the results of a survey of nation-wide test

usage, stated that nearly all students in grades 7 through 12

took some type of standardized test in every grade (p. 288).

It is possible that years in the educational system had con-

ditioned subjects to overcome mood or anxiety when a testing

situation demanded concentration. The STEP Listening Test,

then, would not be a major cause for anxiety.




74

The phenomenon of "test-wiseness" may also account for

the lack of influence of CA on listening comprehension.

Millman, Bishop and Ebel (1965) defined test wiseness as

the "capacity to utilize the characteristics and formats

of the test and/or test taking situation to receive a high

score" (p. 707). Students may become proficient at test

taking techniques through training and practice independent

of content or context (Callenback, 1973). Thus, CA in a

listening test situation would not necessarily produce any

lessening of performance on the STEP because test-wise sub-

jects would have no difficulty in responding to the situation.

The post-experimental questionnaire yielded another pos-

sible variable in the development of listening ability. Prior

speech training was reported by 47 of the subjects. An analy-

sis of variance with repeated measures and a covariate indi-

cated there was some difference in the listening comprehension

scores of trained versus non-trained subjects. The variable

of speech training was added to the four factor analysis of

variance with a covariate. In this instance, only speech

training affected listening scores (p > .0098). However, a

Proc Means procedure indicated that while speech-trained

subjects scored somewhat lower than did non-trained subjects

there was no significant difference in the means. Neverthe-

less, even a limited finding such as this may be disturbing

if the value of speech training is to be accepted. Yet,

speech education literature explicitly states that listening

is not a regular part of speech instruction (Steil, Barker &




75

Watson, 1983) so subjects should not be expected to exhibit

superior listening skills. Furthermore, subjects were not

asked how they fared in the reported speech courses. Even

if speech training could be expected to better listening

skills, for this particular study, there is no way of knowing

how much a student actually learned in the particular course

mentioned. Thus, the finding in this study can in no way be

interpreted as support either for or against speech training

in the development of listening comprehension skills.


Limitations of the Study

Though the major variables in this study were controlled

as much as possible, there are factors which limit the gen-

eralizability of the results. The first limitation may be in

the subject population itself. Though the study was specifi-

cally conducted in "normal" college classrooms to obtain more

naturalistic setting, only speech courses were actually used.

Speech communication courses at the University of Florida are

required by a number of major fields and usually include a

wide variety of academic areas of study. Because of the

required nature of the course even many individuals who

experience high levels of CA must complete the course before

meeting graduation requirements. Because the subjects were

enrolled in a speech class, however, they had some expectation

of the communication behaviors expected of them. Apprehensive

individuals would also be aware of course obligations and

develop some means of dealing with the anxiety (McCroskey,




76

1983). The oral performance phase of the experiment could

even be seen as a minor speaking assignment.

Further, though no instruction in listening had been

specifically given before the experiment, introductory lec-

tures on the nature of the communication process had been

delivered. The interdependence of speaking and listening

would have been mentioned in the lectures as well as in

beginning text material. A syllabus of the course given to

all students also contained notice of a unit on listening.

Subjects could well have been prepared to make the most of a

listening assessment situation.

Subjects were also informed that the experiment directly

involved an assessment of their listening ability. This

direct instruction may have induced a predisposition to

listen. Receiver apprehensive subjects may have been moti-

vated to concentrate carefully because of the test situation.

In a regular classroom environment it is doubtful that stu-

dents exhibit such close attention to a speaker or lecture

material. The difficulty in assessing listening involves

this trade-off between a controlled, reliable, valid measure

of listening and abnormal listening behavior on the part of

the subjects.

Another limitation of the research may concern the audio

tape of the STEP. Tapes were, of course, preferable to indi-

vidual reading for each test and allowed for a controlled

testing situation. Instructions concerning the threat or

non-threat situation were also recorded. However, the




77

"threat" may have been more effective if it came from a "live"

person such as instructor or test administrator rather than

from a disembodied voice on a tape.

Instructions for delivery of all test material were fol-

lowed faithfully. The STEP Manual called for 30 seconds

between each test answer to allow students time to reflect

on choices. In this instance, however, the time lag may have

been too long. The researcher observed that some subjects

appeared bored and impatient with the rate at which test pas-

sages were read. They were particularly impatient with the

length of time between answer choices. For future research

with college students, the rate of presentation should be

quickened. As an added result, test time could be shortened

considerably.


Implications for Future Research

Areas for future research in listening and communication

are wide and varied. Four specific suggestions for research

will be discussed here. First, research must be done on the

nature of the listening process itself before adequate measures

of assessment can be developed or a thorough consideration of

variables influencing the individual's ability to listen can

be conducted. The lack of current knowledge based on recent

research often leads to reiteration of information which may

or may not be valid in today's changing social and educational

contexts.

Second, the area of RA must also be researched in greater

depth. The few existing studies have dealt primarily with the




78

identification of the trait and the development of adequate

measurement, both necessary and important to the building of

knowledge. Now, however, more research on the effects of RA

on the educational and social development of the individual

is needed. The cause of RA and the variables affecting its

development and impact on the individual must be assessed

before a comprehensive understanding of its relationship to

listening can be achieved.

Third, research should again be aimed at discovering the

influence of RA and SA on listening comprehension. The find-

ings in this study should be viewed as only preliminary

research. Experiments involving larger subject populations

and different testing situations should be considered. Cer-

tainly, groups other than speech classes should be tested and

a number of other listening assessment measures implemented.

Another important area for future research would be the

consideration of levels of listening other than comprehension.

Though comprehension is basic to the other levels and the

easiest to measure at the present time, individuals are not

called upon to listen at this level exclusively. In an edu-

cational system, critical or evaluative listening is often

necessary. Certainly, in interpersonal contexts, evaluative

as well as appreciative listening is appropriate. It may be

that RA and SA affect the varying levels of listening differ-

ently and methods of assessing their effect must be developed.

The complexity of the communication process involves a

countless number of variables as does the typical classroom




79

situation, all of which need to be considered for a thorough

understanding of listening in an educational environment. It

is impossible and impractical to isolate or control for all

such variables. Based on conclusions gleaned from a thorough

review of literature, this experiment tested the effect of

the independent variables of level of RA, level of SA and

test condition on the dependent measure of listening compre-

hension.

The findings of this study show that RA and SA are

separate and distinct dimensions of CA and should be con-

sidered independently when assessing their effect upon com-

munication. However, neither RA nor SA appeared to have any

effect upon an individual's listening comprehension in an

educational environment. Nor does threat condition or mood

state significantly influence performance on a measure of

listening comprehension. An additional variable of speech

training, though initially considered important, was also

determined to be insignificant in this study. These findings

suggest that variables not accounted for in the present study

may have a measurable impact on student listening comprehen-

sion and indicate a need for further research into the broad

and, at present, inconclusive area of communication labeled

listening.











REFERENCES


Andersen, S. B. (1981). Standardized testing has become
education's latest scapegoat. American School Board
Journal, 168, 26-28.

Anderson, H. A. (1966). Needed research in listening.
In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York:
Scarecrow Press.

Backlund, P. M., Brown, K. L., Gurry, J., & Jandt, F. (1982).
Recommendations for assessing speaking and listening
skills. Communication Education, 31, 9-17.

Backlund, P. M., Gurry, P., Brown, K., & Jandt, F. (1980).
Evaluating speaking and listening skill assessment
instruments: Which one is best for you? Language Arts,
57, 621-627.

Bailey, K. D. (1982). Methods of social research. 2nd ed.
New York: The Free Press.

Bakan, P. (1966). Some reflections on listening behavior.
In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York:
Scarecrow Press.

Banville, T. G. (1978). How to listen--How to be heard.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Inc.

Barbara, D. A. (1971). How to make people listen to you.
Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Bashore, D. N. (1971). Relationships among speech anxiety,
I.Q., and high school achievement. Masters Thesis.
Illinois State University.

Bassett, R. E., Whittington, N., & Staton-Spicer, A. (1978).
The basics in speaking and listening for high school
graduates: What should be assessed? Communication
Education, 27, 293-297.

Beatty, M. J. (1981). Receiver apprehension as a function
of cognitive backlog. Western Journal of Speech Com-
munication, 45, 277-281.






Beatty, M. J., Behnke, R. R., & Henderson, L. L. (1980).
An empirical validation of the receiver apprehension
test as a measure of trait listening anxiety. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 132-136.

Beatty, M. J., Behnke, R. R., & McCallum, K. (1978).
Situational determinants of communication apprehension.
Communication Monographs, 45, 187-191.

Beatty, M. J., & Payne, S. K. (1981). Receiver apprehension
and cognitive complexity. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 45, 363-369.

Berger, A., & Werdmann, A. (1978). Listening and auding.
Activities and Research. English Journal, 67, 36-59.

Biggs, B. P. (1956). Construction, validation and evalua-
tion of a diagnostic test of listening effectiveness.
Speech Monographs, 23, 9-13.

Bostrum, R. N., & Bryant, C. L. (1980). Factors in the
retention of information presented orally: The role of
short-term listening. Western Journal of Speech Communi-
cation, 44, 137-145.

Brown, C. T. (1965). Three studies of the listening of
children. Speech Monographs, 32, 129-138.

Brown, J. I. (1949). The construction of a diagnostic test
of listening comprehension. Journal of Experimental
Education, 18, 139-146.

Brown, J. I. (1966). Establishing the validity of a listen-
ing test. In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings.
New York: Scarecrow Press.

Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate
scale: Development and validation. Communication
Monographs, 43, 60-69.

Buttery, T. J. (1980). Listening: A skill analysis.
Education, 101, 181-187.

Callenbach, C. (1973). The effects of instruction and prac-
tice in content-independent test-taking techniques upon
the standardized reading test scores of selected second-
ary grade students. Journal of Educational Measurement,
10, 24-30.

Clevenger, T., Jr. (1959). A synthesis of experimental
research in stage fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
45, 134-145.






Clevenger, T., Jr., & Matthews, J. (1971). The speech
communication process. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman
& Co.

Crowell, D., & Hu-pei Au, K. (1981). Developing children's
comprehension in listening, reading and television
viewing. Elementary School Journal, 82, 129-135.

Daly, J. A. (1978). The assessment of social-communicative
anxiety via self-reports. A comparison of measures.
Communication Monographs, 45, 204-218. (a)

Daly, J. A. (1978). Communication apprehension and behavior:
Applying a multiple act criteria. Human Communication
Research, 4, 208-216. (b)

Davis, G. F. (1977). Communication, intelligence and
achievement among secondary school students. Unpub-
lished Masters Thesis. West Virginia University.

Devine, T. G. (1968). Reading and listening: New research
findings. Elementary English, 45, 346-348.

Dickson, P. W., & Patterson, J. H. (1981). Evaluating
referential communication games for teaching speaking
and listening skills. Communication Education, 30,
11-21.

Disibio, R. A. (1982). Listening The neglected art?
Reading Improvement, 19, 217-218.

Dixon, N. R. (1964). Listening: Most neglected of the
language arts. Elementary English, 41, 285-288.

Drake, F. E. (1961). How do you teach listening? Southern
Speech Journal, 16, 118-124.

Engen, H. B., Lamb, R. R., & Prediger, D. J. (1982). Are
secondary schools still using standardized tests?
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 287-290.

Fessenden, S. A. (1955). Levels of listening--A theory.
Education, 75, 288-291.

Freimuth, V. S. (1976). The effects of communication appre-
hension on communication effectiveness. Human Communi-
cation Research, 2, 289-298.

Harwood, K. A. (1966). A concept of listenability. In S.
Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York: Scarecrow
Press.

Hennings, D. G. (1977). Learning to listen and speak.
Theory into Practice, 16, 183-188.






Hollingsworth, P. M. (1974). Let's improve listening skills.
Elementary English, 51, 1156-1157, 1161.

Huck, S. W., Cormier, W. H., & Bounds, W. G. (1974).
Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper
and Row.

Hurt, T., Preiss, R., & Davis, B. (1976). The effects of
communication apprehension of middle-school children on
sociometric choice, affective and cognitive learning.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, Portland, Ore.

Johnson, W. (1966). Do you know how to listen? In S. Duker
(Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York: Scarecrow Press.

Keller, P. W. (1960). Major findings in listening in the
past ten years. Journal of Communication, 10, 29-38.

Kelly, C. M. (1965). An investigation of the construct
validity of two commercially published listening tests.
Speech Monographs, 32, 139-143.

Kelly, C. M. (1967). Listening: A complex of activities--
and a unitary skill? Speech Monographs, 34, 455-466.

Landry, D. L. (1971). The neglect of listening. Listening
and speaking. New York: Macmillan Co.

Lomas, C. W. (1934). A study of stage fright as measured
by reactions to the speaking situation. Masters Thesis.
Northwestern University.

Lorr, M., Daston, P., & Smith, I. R. (1967). An analysis
of mood state. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 27, 89-96.

Lundsteen, S. W. (1971). Listening: Its impact on reading
and the other language arts. Urbana, Ill.: National
Council of Teachers of English.

Lundsteen, S. W. (1979). Listening: Its impact at all
levels on reading and other language arts. Urbana, Ill.:
National Council of Teachers of English.

Marcus, L. L. (1981). Is it the tests or is it the prepara-
tion of students? Contemporary Education, 53, 31-33.

McCaleb, J. L. (1981). Indirect teaching and listening.
Education, 102, 159-165.

McCormick, K. (1981). Good listening skills help kids learn.
American School Board Journal, 168, 37, 42.






McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound
anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.

McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension:
A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communi-
cation Research, 4, 78-96.

McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index
of oral communication apprehension. Communication
Monographs, 45, 192-203.

McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A
reconceptualization. In J.K. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook VI. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

McCroskey, J. C. (1983). The communication apprehension
perspective. Journal of the Communication Association
of the Pacific, 12, 1-26.

McCroskey, J. C., & Anderson, J. F. (1976). The relationship
between communication apprehension and academic achieve-
ment among college students. Human Communication
Research, 3, 73-81.

McCroskey, J. C., & Leppard, T. (1975). The effects of com-
munication apprehension on nonverbal behavior. Paper
presented to the Eastern Communication Association
Convention, New York.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1976). The effects of
CA on the perception of peers. Western Speech Communi-
cation, 40, 14-21.

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Daly, J. A., & Cox, B. G.
(1975). The effects of CA on interpersonal attraction.
Human Communication Research, 2, 51-65.

McDowell, E. E., & McDowell, C. E. (1978). An investigation
of source and receiver apprehension at the junior high,
senior high and college levels. Central States Speech
Journal, 29, 11-19.

McNair, D. M., & Lorr, M. (1964). An analysis of mood in
neurotics. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
69, 620-627.

McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Dropplemann, L. F. (1981).
Profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and
Industrial Testing Service.

Miller, D. P., & Yerby, J. (1983). Regression analysis of
selected personal characteristics as predictors of small
group leadership. Journal of the Communication Associa-
tion of the Pacific, 12, 141-154.






Miller, G. R., & Fontes, N. E. (1974). Videotape on trial:
A view from the jury box. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Millman, J., Bishop, G. H., & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis
of testwiseness. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 25, 707-726.

Nichols, R. (1948). Factors in listening comprehension.
Speech Monographs, 15, 154-163.

Nichols, R. (1961). Do we know how to listen? Practical
helps in a modern age. Speech Teacher, 10, 118-124.

Nichols, R., & Lewis, T. (1954). Listening and speaking.
Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co.

Nichols, R., & Stevens, L. (1957). Are you listening?
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pearson, D. P., & Fielding, L. (1982). Research update:
Listening comprehension. Language Arts, 59, 617-629.

Petrie, C. R., & Carrell, S. D. (1976). The relationship
of motivation, listening capability, initial information
and verbal organizational ability to lecture comprehen-
sion and retention. Communication Monographs, 43, 187-
194.

Phillips, G. M. (1965). The problem of reticence.
Pennsylvania Speech Annual, 22, 22-38.

Phillips, G. M. (1968). Reticence: Pathology of the normal
speaker. Speech Monographs, 35, 39-49.

Phillips, G. M., & Butt, D. (1966). Reticence re-visited.
Pennsylvania Speech Annual, 23, 110-115.

Rankin, P. T. (1966). Listening ability and its components.
In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York:
Scarecrow Press.

Rankin, P. T. (1928). The importance of listening ability.
English Journal, 17, 623-630.

Rubin, D. L., Daly, J., McCroskey, J. C., & Mead, N. A.
(1982). A review and critique of procedures for assess-
ing speaking and listening skills among pre-school
through grade twelve students. Communication Education,
31, 285-303.

Rubin, R. B. (1982). Assessing speaking and listening com-
petence at the college level: The communication compe-
tency assessment instrument. Communication Education,
31, 19-32.






Rossiter, C. M. (1972). Sex of the speaker, sex of the
listener and listening comprehension. Journal of Com-
munication, 22, 64-69.

SAS User's Guide: Statistics. (1982). Cary, N.C.:
Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc.

Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Communication
apprehension, student attitudes and levels of satis-
faction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41,
188-198.

Spearritt, D. (1962). Listening comprehension: A factorial
analysis. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research.

Stammer, J. D. (1977). Target: The basics of listening.
Language Arts, 54, 661-664.

Steil, I. K., Barker, I. L., & Watson, K. W. (1983).
Effective listening: Key to your success. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Strickland, R. (1966). The language arts in the elementary
school. 2nd ed. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.

Taylor, S. E. (1964). Listening: What research says to
the teacher. Washington: National Education Associa-
tion.

Tuman, M. C. (1980). A comparative review of reading and
listening comprehension. Journal of Reading, 23, 698-
704.

Tutolo, D. J. (1977). A cognitive approach to teaching
listening. Language Arts, 54, 262-265.

Walker, L. (1977). Comprehension of writing and spontaneous
speech. Visible Language, 11, 38-45.

Weaver, S. W., & Rutherford, W. L. (1974). A hierarchy of
listening skills. Elementary English, 51, 1146-1150.

Wheeless, L. R. (1971). Communication apprehension in the
elementary school. Speech Teacher, 20, 297-299.

Wheeless, L. R. (1975). An investigation of receiver
apprehension and social context dimensions of communi-
cation apprehension. Speech Teacher, 24, 261-268.

Wheeless, L. R., & Scott, M. D. (1976). The nature, measure-
ment and potential effects of receiver apprehension.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, Portland, Ore.




87

Wheeless, L. R., & Scott, M. D. (1977). The relationship
of three types of communication apprehension to class-
room achievement. Southern Speech Communication
Journal, 42, 246-255.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1982). Listening.
Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company.

Work, W. (1978). Listen, my children. Communication
Education, 27, 146-152.

Wright, T. H. (1971). Learning to listen: A teacher's or
a student's problem? Phi Delta Kappan, 52, 625-628.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
































APPENDICES





























APPENDIX A


PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (PRCA)
1970







APPENDIX A


PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (PRCA)


This instrument is composed of 20 statements concerning
feelings about communicating with other people. Indicate
the degree to which the statements apply to you by marking
whether you (5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3) are undecided,
(2) disagree, or (1) strongly disagree with each statement.
Work quickly; just record your first impression.

SD D U A SA


1. While participating in a conversation
with a new acquaintance I feel very
nervous.

2. I have no fear of facing an audience.

3. I look forward to an opportunity to
speak in meetings.

4. I look forward to an opportunity to
speak in public.

5. I find the prospect of speaking mildly
pleasant.

6. When communicating, my posture feels
strained and unnatural.

7. I am tense and nervous while partici-
pating in group discussions.

8. Although I talk fluently with friends
I am at a loss for words on the
platform.

9. My hands tremble when I try to handle
objects on the platform.

10. I always avoid speaking in public if
possible.

11. I feel that I am more fluent when
talking to people than most other
people are.

12. I am fearful and tense all the while
I am speaking before a group of people.


1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5






SD D U A SA


13. My thoughts become confused and
jumbled when I speak before an
audience.

14. Although I am nervous just before
getting up, I soon forget my fears
and enjoy the experience.

15. Conversing with people who hold
positions of authority causes me to
be fearful and tense.

16. I dislike to use my body and voice
expressively.

17. I feel relaxed and comfortable
while speaking.

18. I feel self-conscious when I am
called upon to answer a question or
give an opinion in class.

19. I face the prospect of making a
speech with complete confidence.

20. I would enjoy presenting a speech
on a local television show.


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5




























APPENDIX B


RECEIVER APPREHENSION TEST (RAT)
1975




Full Text

THE EFFECT OF RECEIVER APPREHENSION AND SOURCE APPREHENSION
ON LISTENING COMPREHENSION
By
KATIE ANN PASCHALL
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1984

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals contributed to the research recorded
in this volume. First and foremost, recognition should be
accorded to my parents, Winfred and Doris Paschall. For
almost 30 years they have encouraged me, believed in me, and
supported me in more ways than they know. Their faith in
me inspired my commitment to the completion of this volume.
Dr. Anthony J. Clark, as chairman of my supervisory
committee, spent countless hours reading, editing, and advis¬
ing me in the development of this research. As a friend,
Dr. Clark encouraged me and believed in me. I am grateful
to him.
I extend my gratitude to each member of the supervisory
committee: Dr. Thomas B. Abbott, Dr. Donald E. Williams,
Dr. Albert Smith, and Dr. Arthur Sandeen. Their advice, time,
and support are greatly appreciated.
Dr. Sandra Ketrow, supervisor of the basic speech course
at the University of Florida, granted me a place in the class
schedule so that I might complete the experimental phase of
the research. Devorah Lieberman, Sonia Zamanou, Mittie
Nimmocks, Laurie Wieman, John Connell and Anita Raghaven,
the individual speech instructors, collected information and
allowed precious class time for my research. I thank them
all.
ii

For the special friends who encouraged me, cheered me
and loved me, I am especially grateful. To Russell Budd and
Devorah Lieberman, I offer my thanks and my love.
I dedicate this volume to two special teachers, my aunt
Edna Earl Wilson and my friend Ruby Krider, who showed me
the special joy that learning and sharing knowledge can
bring. They inspired and taught me to work hard and to love
and trust God.
in

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
ABSTRACT vii
Chapter
I.INTRODUCTION 1
Review of Relevant Literature 4
Listening 4
Communication Apprehension 19
Source Apprehension 23
Receiver Apprehension 25
Rationale and Hypotheses 27
Definitions 33
Research Hypotheses 34
Problem Statement 34
II.METHODOLOGY 35
Research Design 35
Subjects Used in This Study 37
Materials 37
Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA) 38
Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT) 38
Profile of Mood States (POMS) 39
Sequential Test of Educational
Progress--Listening (STEP) 40
STEP Audio Tape 41
Post-Experimental Questionnaire 41
Procedure 42
Analysis of Results 46
III.RESULTS 4 7
Self-Report Findings 47
Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA) 47
Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT) 48
Profile of Mood States (POMS) 48
Post-Experimental Questionnaire 50
IV

Chapter Page
III. RESULTS (Continued)
STEP Listening Test 50
Hypotheses Test Results 55
Summary 65
IV. DISCUSSION 67
Conclusions 67
Limitations of the Study 7 5
Implications for Future Research 77
REFERENCES 8 0
APPENDICES 88
A. PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION
APPREHENSION (PRCA) 90
B. RECEIVER APPREHENSION TEST (RAT) 93
C. PROFILE OF MOOD STATES (POMS) 96
D. SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS—
LISTENING TEST (STEP) 98
E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT 100
F. POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE 103
G. STEP LISTENING TEST INSTRUCTIONS FOR
TEST CONDITIONS 105
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 107
V

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Group Means of Communication Apprehension
Variables 49
2. Mean Scores for Mood State Factors 51
3. Test Condition Mean Scores for STEP
Listening Test 53
4. STEP Means for Test Condition Order 54
5. Correlation of Individual Mood Factors
and Total Mood with Listening
Comprehension 58
6. Analysis of Variance of Listening Compre-
sension Scores with a Covariate of Receiver
Apprehension or Source Apprehension 59
7. Analysis of Variance of the Effect of Speech
Training on Listening Controlling for
Total Mood Score 61
8. The Effect of RA, SA, Speech Training, and
Test Condition on Listening Comprehension
Controlling for Total Mood Score 63
9. Mean Scores for Speech Trained and Non-
Trained Subjects After Transformation 64
vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE EFFECT OF RECEIVER APPREHENSION AND SOURCE APPREHENSION
ON LISTENING COMPREHENSION
By
Katie Ann Paschall
April, 1984
Chairman: Anthony J. Clark, Ph.D.
Major Department: Speech
This study investigated the possible effect of receiver
apprehension and source apprehension on an individual's lis¬
tening comprehension in an educational environment under
threat or anxiety-producing conditions. Mood state was also
examined as a possible intervening variable in listening
performance.
Levels of receiver apprehension and source apprehension
were obtained for 167 students in eight intact public speak¬
ing classes at the University of Florida. The STEP Listening
Test was later administered to the eight classes. The test
was given in two parts in one of eight experimental permuta¬
tions. The conditions of the test concerned threat of oral
performance after listening to instructional material and a
non-threat condition which called for only listening perform¬
ance. The Profile of Mood States was administered to deter¬
mine mood state at the time of testing.
Vll

A procedure correlation revealed no significant rela¬
tionship between receiver and source apprehension. Neither
receiver apprehension, source apprehension nor mood state
were found to be correlated with listening comprehension.
Using the independent variables of receiver apprehension,
source apprehension and threat condition with mood state as
a covariate, an analysis of variance revealed no difference
on listening comprehension scores for subjects under threat
and non-threat conditions regardless of level of apprehen¬
sion.
A post-experimental questionnaire indicated that 47 sub¬
jects had prior speech training. In a five factor analysis
of variance with a covariate of mood state, only speech
training proved to be a significant main effect. However,
due to uneven groups, this finding cannot be interpreted as
highly significant.
This research and analysis led to the following conclu¬
sions :
1. Receiver apprehension and source apprehension are
separate and distinct dimensions of communication
apprehension.
2. There is no relationship between listening compre¬
hension and receiver apprehension or source appre¬
hension in an educational environment. Further,
an anxiety-producing condition does not signifi¬
cantly affect listening comprehension regardless
of the level of communication apprehension.
An individual's speech training may be a signifi¬
cant factor in listening comprehension and should
be further investigated.
viii
3.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Mankind's first system of education was oral and, of
necessity, continued to be so until the invention of the
printing press. It was not until the latter part of the 19th
century that print overtook the oral medium as the primary
mode of communication in formal education. Since that time
the emphasis of the eye over the ear has resulted in genera¬
tions who find it difficult to assimilate knowledge aurally
(Anderson, 1966, p. 204). However, the advent of an increas¬
ingly technological age has again produced changes in the
learning environment which take students beyond the confines
of the print medium. The influence of the mass media, both
in and out of the classroom, requires new learning skills
for students (Anderson, 1966; Nichols & Stevens, 1957).
Advances in science and computer technology produce burgeon¬
ing quantities of information which shift the emphasis on
skills from passive information storage to active information
seeking and processing. Further, as social structures become
more complex, individuals will become more dependent on our
abilities to process information in a variety of ways includ¬
ing the aural as well as the written media (Work, 1978).
While often neglected in traditional educational systems,
listening is an important part of a person's ability to process
1

2
information. Nowhere is one's capacity to hear and compre¬
hend more critical than in the realm of formal education.
Unfortunately, educators have appeared to assume that listen¬
ing ability was an offshoot of other language skills and
little or no effort has been invested to study it as a trait
which is unique as a communication skill. Correspondingly,
there has not been a widespread effort to teach listening as
an important skill in the processing of information. Recent
emphasis on communication competency, however, has sparked a
new interest in the development of listening skills. Commu¬
nication competency focuses on the concept of the individual's
ability to manage symbols in all their modes and contexts and,
therefore, includes skill in speaking and listening as well
as in reading and writing (Work, 1978).
Psychologists and educational theorists agree that lis¬
tening and learning are significantly related. Listening is
the first skill to be developed and the one used most often.
Infants develop listening behavior from birth; these behav¬
iors are observable at 3 to 9 months, while speaking skills
are not observable until 18 to 20 months. Reading skills are
not observable until 4 to 6 years of age (Steil, Barker, &
Watson, 1983) .
Listening has been determined to be an important variable
in the acquisition and processing of information vital to the
educational and social development of the person. According
to Barbara (1971), "man's very existence depends upon his
ability to exchange information and to remain in communication

3
with his fellow man. Listening which does not further these
aims can only be disturbing" (p. 38). Research has firmly
established that anything that impairs listening impairs the
individual's ability to function in society (Banville, 1978;
Work, 1978) .
However, there are numerous factors which might influence
the development of listening ability. The scope of the study
reported here has been limited to the specific aspect of lis¬
tening comprehension, particularly in a classroom environment.
This area of research was chosen primarily because of the
relative lack of information concerning listening in relation
to its acknowledged importance to the educational process.
Even given these specific limitations, however, the number of
variables which might influence listening could comprise a
long list. A survey of listening research pointed to a pos¬
sible link between listening performance and the phenomenon
known as communication apprehension. As a result, the factor
of communication apprehension received attention as a central
variable in this study of listening.
Communication apprehension has previously been linked
to academic achievement in courses employing different
instructional strategies (McCroskey & Anderson, 1976), and
to problems affecting student learning (Hurt, Preiss, &
Davis, 1976). Some attention has been paid by communication
scholars to the idea that an individual's fear of communi¬
cating may somehow be related with his/her capacity to pro¬
cess (encode) information. More recently, research has been

4
focused on the fear of communicating as it relates to the
individual's ability to decode information, a trait tradi¬
tionally known as listening (Wheeless, 1975).
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to
examine the theoretical and empirical relationships between
communication apprehension and listening comprehension. The
dimensions of source apprehension and receiver apprehension
were examined to determine the relationship between them as
well as their effects on listening comprehension. Because
this inquiry was limited to an educational environment, the
research was conducted in a regular classroom under condi¬
tions designed to approximate normal communication anxiety
producing conditions: the anticipation of an oral perform¬
ance following a period of listening to instructional
material.
Review of Relevant Literature
In order to understand the varied aspects of this study,
research data in the area of listening as well as empirical
findings in apprehension as they relate to both the "source"
and the "receiver" of messages will be reviewed. These areas
will be examined in view of their relationship to information
receiving and processing and resultant communication behavior.
Research relating listening and apprehension to the educa¬
tional process will receive particular attention.
Listening
A survey of some of the findings which researchers have
contributed during the past several decades provides a

5
comprehensive view of the area of listening. Research on
listening goes back well over 50 years. Rankin's (1928)
University of Michigan doctoral thesis "The Measurement of
the Ability to Understand Spoken Language" was the first
major treatment of the subject of listening. Further research
remained sporadic and inconclusive until the 1950's and 1960's.
During this period scholars produced the major portion of
extant listening research. The most significant contribution
of the period is the identification of listening as a trait
separate from other verbal abilities (Biggs, 1956; Spearritt,
1962). The 1970's saw little activity in this area and the
1980's concentration has been on the measurement of listening
skills as a part of communication competency (Pearson &
Fielding, 1982).
For many years literacy was defined as one's ability to
read and write. Recently, however, phrases such as "language
literacy" or "communication competency" have been embraced
by educators, and they include the communication competencies
of speaking and listening as well as reading and writing.
Numerous pedagogs and educators have come to recognize the
inherent interdependence of the so-called "language arts" and
the oral/aural communication skills (Rubin, 1982; Work, 1978).
The United States Office of Education added speaking and lis¬
tening to the list of basic skills under their Title II pro¬
gram (Dickson & Patterson, 1981). The Educational Policy
Board of the Speech Communication Association recommended in
1977 adding minimal speaking and listening competencies for

6
high school graduates (Bassett, Whittington, & Staton-Spicer,
1978). The State of Florida has mandated an assessment and
testing program for use at the end of the sophomore year in
college which will judge if students have acquired basic
speaking and listening skills. While there is difficulty in
developing methods to mass test these skills, all state sup¬
ported institutions of higher education in Florida are under
a legal mandate to do so no later than 1985.
Despite the recognition given to speaking and listening
as information processing skills, research indicates that
school systems at all levels emphasize reading and writing
to the detriment of oral and aural processes (Nichols, 1961;
Lundsteen, 1979). Further, speech communication classes, now
widely recommended by educators in all academic areas, cur¬
rently concentrate primarily on oral (speaking) skills and
give scant attention to listening (Nichols, 1961; Dixon,
1964; Drake, 1951; Steil, Barker, & Watson, 1983). This is
disconcerting when one learns that listening consumes sig¬
nificantly more time than does speaking, reading or writing
in a student's academic life (Disibio, 1982). McCormick
(1981), for example, reported that 57% of class time in
elementary school, 53% in high school and 70% of college
class time was consumed by listening (p. 37).
There is, nonetheless, little disagreement among
teachers and psychologists about the importance of listening
in human communication and learning. Lundsteen (1979)
reported that listening is the first language skill to appear

7
and that "listening is considered the first step in unlocking
progress in any other area related to language—which would
include science, math, history, the whole of education"
(p. xii). Lundsteen (1979) further stated that a "natural
progression of instruction would be to teach thinking skills
in an oral context before expecting thinking skills to serve
children to their best advantage in reading and writing"
(p. 61). Crowell and Hu-Pei Au (1981) supported this view
by asserting that "children should develop a strategy for
organizing and thinking about storing information received
through auditory channels" (p. 131). Therefore, listening is
acknowledged as a skill vital to the total learning process.
Definition of listening. Basic to this discussion is
a definition of listening; however, no simple or generally
accepted definition has emerged from the various research
studies (Devine, 1968, p. 297). The difficulty in defining
listening may lie in the lack of understanding the process
itself (Bakan, 1966), or in the lack of knowledge about the
components of the process (Petrie, 1976). A number of defi¬
nitions have been offered; each, however, contains elements
of others or is an extension of previous definitions.
Lundsteen (1979), taking into account the ambiguity of
the term listening, defined it as "the process by which
spoken language is converted to meaning in the mind" (p. 1).
Buttery (1980) also defined listening as the recognition and
interpretation of auditory stimuli and indicated that lis¬
tening was an "active, cognitive process which requires

8
conscious attention to sounds in order to gain significant
meaning from them" (p. 181). Hollingsworth (1974) described
listening as an active and alert process requiring the lis¬
tener to decode many different meanings from syntactical
arrangement of words, intonations and inflections in the
speaker's voice and included the listener's experience with
words as an important element in the process (p. 1156).
Other definitions, though not disagreeing with the con¬
cept of listening as an active and cognitive process, have
focused on the distinction between hearing and listening
(Clevenger & Matthews, 1971; Harwood, 1966) . Barbara (1971) ,
for example, stated that listening involved a "definite and
usually voluntary effort to comprehend acoustically" (p. 160);
hearing on the other hand, involved "mere reception of stimuli
over auditory pathways" (p. 160). Nichols and Lewis (1954)
offered a definition of listening as a total process called
aural assimilation. Hearing, the first phase of the process,
is the perception of sound by the ear only. Listening, the
second phase, is the attachment of meaning to aural symbols
perceived (p. 1).
A number of researchers developed models of listening
which extended the two phases of hearing and listening to
include a third phase called "auding" (Disibio, 1982).
Stammer (1977) described hearing as a non-attentive behavior
and listening as attentive behavior concentrated on process¬
ing sounds. Auding was then defined as the "center" of the
process whereby sounds are processed for meaning (pp. 661-663).

9
Berger and Werdraann (1978) defined the phase of auding as
the process of "listening to, recognizing and interpreting
spoken symbols" (p. 37). Buttery (1980) also referred to
auding as the process of organizing and analyzing what was
heard (p. 183). The term auding, however, has not gained
wide acceptance or use and the activities or processes
referred to by auding scholars are usually attributed to
the listening phase (Lundsteen, 1979) .
Though most often referred to as a process concerning
aural stimuli, some scholars have posited that a visual fac¬
tor may also be a component of listening. Brown (1949)
defined listening as the "aural assimilation of spoken sym¬
bols in a face-to-face speaker audience situation" (p. 139).
Henning (1977) also reported the existence of a relationship
between the speaker's body motions and the listener's under¬
standing of the message (p. 186). Petrie (1966), however,
argued that visual behavior was a factor when the speaker
was present, but that listening may go on in the absence of
the physical presence of the speaker. Further, Weaver and
Rutherford (1974) reported the development of listening
skills in sighted and visually handicapped people progressed
at the same rate indicating that visual factors had no direct
impact on the development of listening ability. Consequently,
including a visual factor as a "necessary component of lis¬
tening seems to unduly restrict the meaning of the term"
(Petrie, 1966, p. 327).

10
Lundsteen (1971) summarized the status of a clear-cut
definition of listening by stating that listening was too
complex an activity to be adequately defined in a sentence
or a paragraph. Consistent with this view, some researchers
have sought a more complete definition by separating the pro¬
cess into parts (Brown, 1949; Rankin, 1966). Pearson and
Fielding (1982), for example, asserted that the process could
best be described in terms of a phonological level at which
a listener must be able to distinguish the sound patterns or
phonemes of the language; a syntactical level at which the
listener can recognize paraphrases, ambiguities and inter¬
pretations of the words; a semantic level at which the lis¬
tener recognizes meanings of the words; and a text structure
level at which the listener organizes messages as they
relate to his/her culture or context. All four levels must
be combined to achieve a satisfactory definition of listening
(pp. 618-619). Tutolo (1977) also stated that the best defi¬
nition of listening could be achieved by separating listening
into three parts. The first, acuity, involves the process
of sound waves passing through the ear to the brain. The
second, discrimination, involves the ear and brain determin¬
ing differences in the sounds. Comprehension, the third
part, is accomplished when the listener recalls facts and
ideas, determines the relationship that exists between them,
and finally, evaluates what was heard (p. 263).
Listening scholars have also focused on the components
of effective listening. Fessenden (1955) reported seven

11
levels of effective listening which ranged from isolating
sounds and ideas involving no evaluation or analysis to the
level of introspection requiring an analysis of the effect
that having heard has on the individual. Strickland (1966)
listed eight levels of listening developing from the first
level of little conscious listening to a level of true
"meeting of the minds" (pp. 42-43). Nichols and Lewis (1954)
described ten components ranging from previous experience
with material to the reconciliation of thought-speed and
speech-speed (pp. 11-25). Buttery (1980) also reported four
components of attending behavior, hearing acuity, auditory
discrimination, and comprehension or auding, all of which
were considered necessary to the understanding of the listen¬
ing process.
A major factor in the definition of listening is the
identification of the different types of listening. Nichols
and Lewis (1954), for example, focused on three types of
listening each of which served a different end. Appreciative
listening was described as the reception of any kind of stim¬
uli gratifying to the senses. Critical listening concerned
the reception of persuasive speech for the purpose of evalu¬
ating arguments and evidence. Discriminative listening or
comprehension dealt with the reception of informative speech
usually in an instructive situation. This type of listening
was considered to be basic to the other types (pp. 1-2).
Buttery (1980) also listed four types of listening.
Literal recognition or recall focused on recognition or

12
recall of details and main ideas. Inferential or interpre¬
tive comprehension concerned what was meant by the speaker
and required extrapolation beyond given information. Criti¬
cal or evaluative listening subsumed the other types and
required making reasoned judgements about what was heard.
Appreciative or aesthetic comprehension involved an awareness
of various techniques, forms and styles used by musicians and
orators to stimulate an emotional response in the listener
(p. 186).
Disibio (1982) listed four types of listening similar
to those described by other scholars. Attentive listening
focused on one person or aspect of communication. Apprecia¬
tive listening concerned the reception of messages for enjoy¬
ment. Analytical listening dealt with listening for the
purpose of responding. Marginal listening centered on the
reception of messages when two or more distractions were
present (p. 218).
McCaleb (1981) similarly described three types of lis¬
tening as informative, critical and interpersonal. Informa¬
tive listening concerned the clarity of the message to the
receiver and dealt with understanding of main ideas and
retention of information. Critical listening concerned the
reception of persuasive messages and the listener's ability
to make inferences, determine motives and assess evidence and
reasoning. Interpersonal listening dealt with the ability to
interact with others in a manner which clarified and elicited
expressions and provided effective support (p. 162).

13
Tutolo (1977) also reported three cognitive levels or
types of listening. Literal comprehension centered on the
factual recall of what the speaker said. Interpretive compre¬
hension involved determining the relationship that exists among
facts or ideas. Critical listening subsumed the other types
and necessitated an evaluation of what was heard (p. 263).
In much the same manner, Lundsteen (1979) described two types
of listening. General listening involved retention of infor¬
mation and paraphrasing of a message. Critical listening
involved the evaluation of a message, judging and detecting
bias (pp. 59-61).
As the preceding review indicates, various definitions
of listening contain many of the same elements. Listening may
be defined, therefore, in terms of the commonalities found in
the major definitions. In this study, listening is an active
cognitive process of receiving, analyzing and attaching mean¬
ing to aural stimuli. The process includes a physical hearing
stage and may take place in or out of the presence of the
speaker. A number of common levels, components and types of
listening may be identified and measured, all of which are
necessary to the development of a comprehensive definition
of listening.
The purpose of the research to be conducted and the
type of listening test used will indicate the level of type
of listening to be assessed. In most instances, the term
comprehension is applied to the primary area of interest in
listening research.

14
The design and purpose of the study reported here con¬
cerned listening comprehension. Nichols and Lewis (1954)
stated that comprehension of instructive speech "is so basic
that it is actually a controlling factor in both of the other
kinds of performance" (pp. 1-2). Barbara (1971) also asserted
that the "most essential factor contributing to the effective¬
ness of listening is comprehension, the understanding and
grasp of the idea or meaning of what is heard" (p. 168).
Lundsteen (1979) posited that it was necessary to dis¬
tinguish between comprehension and other types of listening
in a testing situation as only knowledge obtained as a result
of listening to an oral test passage actually represents lis¬
tening comprehension (p. 4). Assessment of other types such
as critical or appreciative listening, though necessary and
important components in a total listening definition, may be
difficult to assess in a classroom situation. Further, in
the confines of a particular study, inclusion of more than
the comprehension level may be unnecessary and misleading.
Other types of listening may call for integration of previous
personal knowledge and require extrapolation beyond the given
information (Buttery, 1980).
Listening tests. Valid and accurate measurement of
listening is difficult at best. Early listening tests were
developed before clear theoretical or statistical evidence
indicated the specific skills involved in listening; tests
often lacked agreement on what trait or dimension of listen¬
ing was being measured (Lundsteen, 1979). Kelly (1965, 1967)

15
contended that listening tests actually measured some other
factors more reliably assessed by established tests not
involving listening. In particular, the tests were criti¬
cized for measuring mental ability and reading skill rather
than listening.
The difficulty in developing adequate and practical
measures of listening may rest with the lack of a generally
accepted definition and the need for information concerning
the components of the process unique to listening. Lundsteen
(1979), reporting on the state of the art of listening evalu¬
ation, found that assessment measures were relatively scarce,
reasonably reliable but often confused and lacking in imagi¬
nation (p. 101). Despite the controversy over the form and
content of assessment, scholars have agreed that listening
can be measured (Backlund, Brown, Gurry, & Jandt, 1982).
Because of the current emphasis on communication compe¬
tency and the need for assessment by state agencies and edu¬
cational institutions, Backlund et al. (1980) reviewed 71
existing listening instruments. They could not, however,
recommend any single specific instrument for use as a general
assessment measure. A similar review process was undertaken
by the State of Florida State Task Force on College Level
Assessment Skills Program. Of approximately 50 instruments
reviewed, this task force has not recommended to date one
instrument which meets its assessment criteria.
As a result of the review process, Backlund et al. (1982)
recommended certain criteria for listening assessment

16
instruments. First, stimulus material and test questions
should be electronically recorded to control for consistency
of presentation style. Messages should be given in a
"natural" speaking style, not read. Second, the stimulus
material should call for a single, minimal response with
specific questions being the best; test items should be read
to students to minimize mediation by reading ability. Third,
the stimulus materials, both messages and test items should
be short in order to reduce influence of long-term auditory
memory; the authors suggested a range from 30 seconds to
3 minutes. Fourth, it was recommended that the stimulus
material be interesting; and finally, that the vocabulary
be controlled to minimize testing of verbal ability as sepa¬
rate from listening comprehension.
Researchers should be aware, however, that no single
instrument currently exists that will give definite certifi¬
cation of the level of comprehensive listening ability. The
difficulties in assessing listening are related to disagree¬
ment over what dimension of listening is being tested and to
the practicality of wide-scale measurement (Backlund et al.,
1980) .
The Communication Competency Assessment Instrument
(CCAI) developed by Rubin (1982), for example, was approved
by the Speech Communication Association after much review and
deliberation. This test, though, is a comprehensive measure
of speaking and listening, and requires a period of 30 minutes
per student in a one-to-one testing situation. The CCAI also

17
deals with levels of listening other than comprehension. For
most research purposes, the test is not practical.
The Brown-Carlsen Listening Test is a widely used
instrument and involves a number of different types of lis¬
tening. The test has been criticized for possible dependence
on memory and general mental ability rather than listening
skill.
The STEP Listening Test, developed by the Educational
Testing Service, is also a widely implemented measure. This
test, however, is concerned only with the very basic level
of listening comprehension and is considered by some
researchers to be too limited in its measurement of listen¬
ing (Bostrom & Bryant, 1980) .
Correlates to listening. The ambiguity of the definition
of listening and the lack of adequate assessment instruments
have, in part, resulted in a number of misunderstandings con¬
cerning variables correlated to listening. Nichols and Lewis
(1954) reported that listening ability as a matter of intel¬
ligence was a false assumption (p. 18). Devine (1978),
Brown (1949), and Wright (1971) also found no correlation
between listening and intelligence beyond variance accounted
for by inconsistent testing procedures. Differences between
hearing acuity and listening were also substantially con¬
firmed by research (Harwood, 1966). Nichols and Stevens
(1957), along with Landry (1961), and Rossiter (1970),
reported that neither practice, maturation nor education
level resulted in improved listening skills.

18
The relation between listening and reading has been
extensively researched. Though early studies purported a
relationship between the two processes (Brown, 1965; Nichols,
1948), that research has been questioned because the listen¬
ing test involved may have been based on measures concerned
with factors other than listening skills (Brown, 1966;
Devine, 1978).
Researchers have acknowledged similarities between read¬
ing and listening. These similarities stem from a body of
theory that has emphasized the two as receptive communication
processes based on a common language and conceptualizing
functions (Turnan, 1980; Walker, 1977). At the same time,
scholars have consistently indicated differences between
reading and listening. Major differences are attributed to
situational and time contexts (Backlund et al., 1980; Devine,
1978), and to different neurological processes affecting the
manner and rate at which messages are received and processed
(Nichols & Lewis, 1954).
There has also been some discussion of the role of
memory in the listening process. Though both long- and
short-term memory seem to be related to listening, Bostrom
and Bryant (1980) argued for the existence of a distinct
process which operates differently from memory. Researchers
have indicated a difference in the way an individual responds
to repetition of messages, masking, amounts of information
produced, and the time lapse between listening and recall
situations, which distinguishes listening from memory

19
(Backlund et al., 1982; Bostrum & Bryant, 1980; Nichols &
Lewis, 1954).
In summary, listening has been found to be a separate
and distinct communication skill. The variables of intelli¬
gence, maturation, hearing acuity, reading ability and
memory do not seem to significantly affect the ability of
an individual to listen efficiently under normal circum¬
stances. It is known, however, that individuals do tend to
score differently on measures of listening comprehension.
It is necessary, therefore, to determine what factors might
enhance or hinder listening ability. Communication scholars
have long acknowledged the impact of communication apprehen¬
sion on oral communication situations. This variable may
also prove to be a factor in the aural context of communica¬
tion and deserves thorough examination.
Communication Apprehension
For over four decades scholars have focused attention
on a person's fear or anxiety about communication and the
impact of the fear on communication behavior (Lomas, 1934;
McCroskey, 1970; Phillips, 1965). Research concerned with
fear and anxiety about oral communication has been conducted
under a number of labels including stage fright (Clevenger,
1959), reticence (Phillips, 1968), shyness (Zimbardo, 1977),
unwillingness to communicate (Burgoon, 1976), and communica¬
tion apprehension (McCroskey, 1970). The term communication
apprehension, according to McCroskey (1977), "more broadly
represents the total of the fears and anxieties studied

20
previously" (p. 78) and the theory of communication appre¬
hension (CA) integrates research conducted under other
labels (p. 8).
State versus trait. McCroskey (1982), in a reconceptu¬
alization of communication apprehension, was concerned with
the distinction between state and trait apprehension. CA
had been considered a trait rather than a state apprehension.
Trait apprehension is characterized by a fear or anxiety with
respect to many different types of oral communication from
single encounters to speaking before a large group, whereas
state apprehension is a fear specific to a given audience
situation. State anxiety is considered a normal response to
a threatening situation and is experienced by most people
at some time. Trait apprehension is not normal, however, for
well-adjusted individuals. Those individuals who report high
levels of CA are believed to be apprehensive about all commu¬
nication situations, both threatening (anxiety-producing) and
non-threatening.
McCroskey (1982) posited that the dichotomy of state
versus trait ignores the interaction of the personality
orientation of the individual and the constraints of the
situation. He has now called for a rejection of the state/
trait dichotomy and proposed a view of CA as a continuum
ranging from extreme trait apprehension to extreme state
apprehension. As every individual experiences CA to some
degree in both categories, it is unlikely that pure trait or
state extremes would exist (pp. 146-151).

21
Causes of CA. The causes of CA are not clearly known.
However, early researchers suggested that CA may be developed
during early childhood; many children enter kindergarten with
high levels of CA (Phillips & Butt, 1966; Wheeless, 1971).
Scholars generally believe that CA is learned, conditioned
through reinforcement of a child's communication behaviors.
A child reinforced for being silent or given negative rein¬
forcement for attempting to communicate by teachers and par¬
ents would be more likely to develop this trait (McCroskey,
1977) .
McCroskey (1982) asserted that a fuller understanding
of the causes of CA might be found in the area of expectancy
learning or "learned helplessness." People are believed to
develop expectations with regard to other people, situations
and probable outcomes of specific behaviors such as talking.
If some communication behaviors result in punishment or lack
of reward, individuals reduce these behaviors or avoid those
situations calling for those behaviors (p. 159).
McCroskey (1982) explained that when individuals con¬
front situations with no regular expectation of either posi¬
tive or negative reinforcement, helplessness occurs. Such a
response may be produced by inconsistency in the environment
or may be produced by the inability of the individual to dis¬
cern situational differences which produce differences in
behaviors. For example, a child rewarded for speaking out
in a classroom discussion and punished for talking to another
child in the same classroom may be unable to discriminate

22
between the situations. When helplessness is learned, strong
anxiety feelings will be experienced (p. 159).
Measurement. An important consideration in research of
any dimension of CA is that of measurement. Three main cate¬
gories of assessment have been employed: observer rating
scales, devices for measuring physiological change and self-
report techniques. McCroskey (1970) posited that observer
rating scales should be excluded in the measurement of CA
because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable ratings as
these measures are based on observable behaviors and behav¬
iors associated with CA are often difficult to detect (p. 270).
McCroskey (1970) also excluded the use of physiological
indices as such measures tend to be expensive and not always
available to the researcher. Such measures are not capable
of measuring the actual withdrawal response of the apprehen¬
sive (p. 270).
The self-report or introspective technique has been the
most prevalent measure of CA and is recommended by McCroskey
(1970) for several reasons. A self-report instrument is
inexpensive and easy to administer to a large number of
individuals. It is capable of tapping anxiety across a
variety of communication contexts at one time (p. 270). The
main advantage of the self-report technique, however, lies
in the concept of CA as a fear. According to Wheeless
(1975),
. . . if a person understands that he is appre¬
hensive and why he is apprehensive, this his own
report of his fear ought to be the most valid.
To the extent that a person knows why he is

23
apprehensive, his self-report may well be an
index of how he has cognitively integrated his
past physiological and physical behavior under
conditions of fear arousing stimuli. (p. 262)
Therefore, self-report scales have traditionally been the
most frequently employed measure of communication apprehen¬
sion .
Dimensions of CA. Initial research in CA focused exclu¬
sively on oral or source apprehension, probably as a result
of the emphasis on speaking as a major communication skill
(Wheeless, 1975). Over the past decade, however, the con¬
struct of CA has been broadened to encompass other modes of
communication (McCroskey, 1982). As a multidimensional con¬
struct, CA varies with the functional role, either source or
receiver, in which an individual's communication behavior
occurs (Wheeless, 1975). In order to better understand the
aspects of the present study it is necessary to survey the
literature concerned specifically with source apprehension
(SA) and receiver apprehension (RA).
Source Apprehension
The majority of apprehension literature is based on the
study of source apprehension (SA). The construct is defined
by McCroskey (1977) as "an individual's level of fear or
anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communi¬
cation with another person or persons" (p. 78). Though not
specifically stated in the definition, this conceptualization
of SA is based on anxiety concerning oral communication
(McCroskey, 1982, p. 137).

24
McCroskey (1977) stated that source apprehension was
one of the most pervasive communication problems in the
United States. Unacceptably high levels of SA were found
to exist among student populations. Approximately 20% of
students in major universities may be described as high
level apprehensives (McCroskey, 1970). Similar numbers of
SA have been observed in public schools at all levels, and
among adult populations as well (McCroskey, 1977).
Effects of SA. The effects of SA are firmly established
by research. Those who experience high levels of apprehen¬
sion withdraw from and seek to avoid communication whenever
possible (McCroskey, 1977; McCroskey & Leppard, 1975). As a
result of this withdrawal and avoidance, highly source appre¬
hensive individuals will be perceived less positively by
others than will those who experience low levels of SA
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1976; McCroskey, Richmond, Daly, &
Cox, 1975).
As a further result of communication avoidance, those
with high level SA will experience less positive achievement
in terms of their economic and social lives (Freimuth, 1976).
In relation to the academic environment, the negative impact
is clearly shown. Students with high SA have been found to
have lower overall college grade point averages (McCroskey &
Anderson, 1976), score lower on achievement on standardized
tests (Bashore, 1971), receiver lower grades in small classes
in junior high (Hurt, Preiss & Davis, 1976) and college
(Scott & Wheeless, 1976). These findings are heightened by

25
the fact that no meaningful relationship between SA and
intelligence has been found (Davis, 1977).
Receiver Apprehension
Wheeless (1975), concerned with the multidimensionality
of CA, stated that
. . . although communication scholars have verbal¬
ized concern for receiving and processing informa¬
tion (we spend more of our time as receivers than
sources), little concern has been evidenced for
receiver apprehension, which would most directly
affect decoding and response tendencies. (p. 261)
Recognizing the importance of the receiver to communication
encounters and working under the general construct of CA,
Wheeless (1975) developed the theory of receiver apprehen¬
sion (RA). RA is conceptualized as the "fear of misinter¬
preting, inadequately processing, and/or not being able to
adjust psychologically to messages sent by others" (p. 263).
Subsequent research by Beatty, Behnke and Henderson (1980)
and Wheeless and Scott (1977) demonstrated RA and SA to be
orthogonally distinct constructs.
Based on Wheeless' (1975) assertion that RA deals in
some measure with information processing, researchers have
focused attention on this area of the construct. Beatty
(1981) found that difficulty in information processing pro¬
duced a cognitive backlog resulting in anxiety which, in
turn, resulted in avoidance of receiving new messages. As
an extension of this research, Beatty and Payne (1981)
explored the relationship between RA and cognitive complexity
and found them to be significantly positively correlated.

26
The fear of inadequately processing information was confirmed
as a dimension of RA.
Effects of RA. The majority of RA literature is based
on research testing the impact of RA on learning. Wheeless
and Scott (1977) found high level receiver apprehensives
achieved lower academic progress across a number of criterion
referenced indices. Later research on learning in a specific
course revealed similar effects (Scott & Wheeless, 1977).
Scott and Wheeless (1977), in an investigation of student
attitudes and levels of satisfaction with different instruc¬
tional strategies discovered that high level receiver appre¬
hensives displayed less favorable attitudes toward lecture
courses, oral assignments and in-class discussion.
Listening and RA. Listening research, though not pre¬
viously concerned specifically with RA, has focused on ele¬
ments of listening behavior which may be related to this
construct. Barbara (1971) reported that listeners are often
bombarded by more messages than can be effectively heard and,
therefore, have difficulty comprehending them. The result
is a faulty or disorganized communication system (p. 27).
An overloading or jamming of the system may result in listen¬
ing behavior designed to escape from the input overload
(Taylor, 1964).
Research also indicated that listeners under continual
pressure to digest incoming messages are often tense and ill
at ease (Barbara, 1971, p. 39). Nichols and Stevens (1957)
reported that difficult listening created tension and,

27
therefore, listeners tended to avoid difficult listening
situations (pp. 107-108).
Anxiety or fear stemming from the listening situation
may, in turn, result in inefficient listening. Johnson
(1966) found that poor listeners had to be taught first to
relax before good listening skills could be taught (p. 36).
Barbara (1971) also reported anxiety or fear to impact nega¬
tively on efficient listening (p. 91). As individuals with
high levels of RA are characteristically anxious about
receiving messages, RA and effective listening comprehension
would seem to be negatively correlated.
Because of the importance of listening as a unique and
vital communication skill, it is necessary to expand our
knowledge of the process and the factors which may affect
the development. Communication apprehension, specifically
the dimensions of receiver apprehension and source apprehen¬
sion, as indicated by the preceding review of literature,
may be related to the individual's listening performance,
particularly in an educational environment.
Rationale and Hypotheses
Listening is considered to be an important variable in
the individual's ability to acquire and process information
and is important, therefore, to the individual's ability to
function in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex
society (Lundsteen, 1979; Work, 1978). Though traditionally
neglected in educational systems and often mistakenly assumed
to be an offshoot of other language arts skills, research has

28
identified listening as a trait separate from other verbal
abilities (Biggs, 1956). Listening is also considered to be
an important variable influencing the way an individual
learns to think or process information (Lundsteen, 1979).
However, research in listening as a communication competency
has been relatively sparse, confined for the most part to
attempts to develop feasible and reliable measures of the
skill (Backlund et al., 1980).
Bakan (1966) suggested that there was not enough known
about the listening process because of the complexity of
inter-relational factors involved in the communication event.
He stated that research in listening should take into account
differences among people due to a variety of variables (p. 458).
Harwood (1966) supported this viewpoint and indicated that
degrees of listenability of a message, long a concern of com¬
munication scholars, could only be assigned in terms of a
specific group or person receiving the message (p. 24).
Therefore, those educators and agencies responsible for
assessing the communication competency of individuals,
including their listening ability, must also be sensitive
to individual variables which might affect the processing
of information, and make provisions for exceptional popula¬
tions (Rubin et al., 1982).
As noted, one variable already shown to affect one's
ability to learn and process information is that of communi¬
cation apprehension (CA). The construct of receiver appre¬
hension (RA), in particular, relates to the decoder or

29
listener function of communication. However, no study of
the relationship between RA and listening has been published
to date though both involve information reception and infor¬
mation processing as determined by both apprehension and
listening scholars. Research by Beatty (1981) suggested
that RA was a function of unassimilated information due to
processing difficulties. This finding was consistent with
Wheeless' (1975) assertion that RA did deal with the fear of
processing information and adjusting to messages sent by
others (p. 266). Further, Beatty and Payne (1981) asserted
that the information processing ability of an individual as
shown by a cognitive complexity measure was related to the
construct of RA.
Listening scholars have also pointed to an overload or
jamming of the communication system due to the number and
intensity of incoming stimuli which resulted in poor listen¬
ing behavior (Fessenden, 1955; Taylor, 1964). The anxiety
or tension concerning communication and the withdrawal from
or avoidance of communication situations characteristic of
apprehensives have also been reported in listening literature
(Nichols & Lewis, 1954; Tutolo, 1977). Barbara (1971), in
particular, discussed the effect of anxiety about receiving
messages on listening behavior and reported a curtailing of
"social contact" (communication encounters) with others to
avoid listening situations (p. 129).
The effect of source apprehension (SA) on listening
behavior has also been ignored by communication scholars.

30
Research has shown the effect of SA on the oral or source
function of communication, and SA has been linked to a number
of achievement measures and possible causes for its relative
importance to learning have been examined (McCroskey, 1977)
but the impact of SA on listening behavior has not been con¬
sidered.
Though not as obviously related to the receiver function
of communication, a link between SA and listening behavior
has been reported. Beatty, Behnke and McCallum (1978) found
that subjects anticipating hearing a lecture reported lower
levels of SA than did those anticipating a speech perform¬
ance. Johnson (1966) reported that tense or anxious individ¬
uals did not listen as well as those who were calm and relaxed.
Any measure which might stimulate anxiety or fear, then, would
appear to impact on listening behavior. Barbara (1971), for
example, in subjective observations indicated that those lis¬
teners forced to respond orally rather than be allowed to
receive messages passively became anxious and restless and
exhibited poor listening behavior (pp. 64-65).
Based on extant apprehension literature, researchers
concerned with the effects of apprehension on educational
achievement would report less satisfaction and lower achieve¬
ment in lecture type listening environments than in small
group or discussion situations with the inverse true for
source apprehensives (Wheeless, 1975; Daly, 1978b). However,
Scott and Wheeless (1977) indicated that such was not the
case. Rather, they found that attitudes and satisfaction for

31
oral assignments and discussion were low for both oral and
receiver apprehensives. Receiver apprehensives may find it
just as difficult to perform as source apprehensives because
needed information was not adequately received or processed.
(This does not preclude the individual from being both
source and receiver apprehensive.)
Though RA has been shown to be a separate and distinct
trait (Beatty, Behnke & Henderson, 1980), some researchers do
report a relationship between RA and SA in educational
environments. McDowell and McDowell (1978) found highly
significant correlations between RA and SA scores at all
educational levels. Scott and Wheeless (1977) noted a rela¬
tionship between achievement measures for the two apprehen¬
sive constructs. Individuals highly apprehensive in either
the source or receiver dimension, then, may also report high
apprehension in the other dimension. The interaction of the
two dimensions of apprehension might impact significantly on
learning or achievement.
There would appear to be a potential relationship
between the oral and aural processes of information process¬
ing in educational situations considered potentially anxiety-
producing to both receiver and source apprehensives. In
particular, anticipation of oral performance as might be
experienced in most small group or discussion section class¬
rooms could be a significant variable in the listening
behavior of both source and receiver apprehensives.
The study reported here was designed to examine the
theoretical and empirical relationship between communication

32
apprehension and listening comprehension. Additionally, the
possible correlation of receiver apprehension and source
apprehension was examined, as well as the interaction of
these two constructs on measures of listening comprehension.
Because of the importance of listening to the education
situation and the reported impact of RA and SA on educational
achievement and satisfaction, the investigation was conducted
in a "normal" classroom environment. Threat and non-threat
conditions in the classroom were controlled by manipulating
the anticipation of oral performance and will be discussed
in the next section.
Literature in the areas of apprehension and listening
indicated that the variables of sex, age, intelligence and
education level have little or no impact on measures of RA,
SA or listening comprehension. Therefore, these factors were
not controlled for in the design of the present study.
The variable of mood state, however, may affect scores
on a listening test. Nichols and Lewis (1954) reported that
an individual's mental set will override other factors in
determining listening behavior. Other scholars have focused
on the difficulty of maintaining attention and concentration
in a listening situation. The difficulty may lie in part
with the mood or emotional state of the individual at a par¬
ticular time (Kelly, 1965; Lundsteen, 1979). The mood of
the individual may then be an intervening variable in the
measure of listening ability and was included in the measure¬
ment phase of this research study.

33
Definitions
The following definitions were developed after a review
of literature and a consideration of the design and objec¬
tives of the present study.
1. Source Apprehension is operationally defined as an
individual's score on the Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA) (see Appendix A).
2. Receiver Apprehension is operationally defined as
an individual's score on the Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT)
(see Appendix B).
3. Mood State is operationally defined as an individ¬
ual's score on the Profile of Mood States (POMS) (see
Appendix C) .
4. Listening is operationally defined as the individ¬
ual's score on the Sequential Test of Educational Progress
(STEP) Listening Test which deals specifically with the com¬
prehension level of listening (see Appendix D).
5. Threat is defined as the condition under which an
individual anticipates an oral performance at the completion
of a listening test.
6. Non-threat is defined as the condition under which
an individual has no anticipation of an oral performance at
the completion of a listening test.
7. Message is defined as test passages from the
Sequential Test of Educational Progress recorded on audio
tape.

34
Research Hypotheses
Based on the review of related literature and the need
indicated for research on communication variables which may
affect listening,
the following research hypotheses were set
forth:
Hypothesis 1:
Subjects' scores on receiver apprehension
and source apprehension tests will be
positively related.
Hypothesis 2:
Subjects' listening comprehension scores
will be negatively related with receiver
apprehension scores.
Hypothesis 3:
Subjects' listening comprehension scores
will be negatively related to source
apprehension scores.
Hypothesis 4:
Subjects' listening comprehension scores
will be negatively related with mood
scores.
Hypothesis 5:
Subjects who have higher degrees of
receiver apprehension will have lower
listening comprehension scores than sub¬
jects who have lower degrees of receiver
apprehension in a threat condition.
Hypothesis 6:
Subjects who have higher degrees of
source apprehension will have lower
listening comprehension scores than
subjects who have lower degrees of
source apprehension in a threat condi¬
tion .
Problem Statement
These hypotheses seek to assess the relationship between
communication apprehension and listening comprehension in an
educational environment taking into account the threat of
anxiety-producing conditions and the mood state of the lis¬
tener. The following chapter will discuss the process of
analysis used to test each hypothesis.

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study was conducted to explore the effects of RA
and SA on listening comprehension in a classroom environment.
In order to balance the need for maximum realism in research
with the need for optimal experimenter control (Miller &
Fontes, 1974), the research was carried out as part of regular
classroom instructional procedures in intact college classes.
Students in eight public speaking classes, at the University
of Florida in September 1983, were chosen to participate in
the study. Administration of pretest communication apprehen¬
sion report forms was incorporated into a unit dealing with
communication anxiety. Administration of a listening test
was included as a part of the unit concerning listening
behavior.
It was hoped that the use of intact groups would allow
more naturalistic results in an educational setting as well
as yield a better sample of degrees of apprehension. Because
individuals with high levels of CA characteristically tend to
avoid any situation involving communication, an experimental
situation which depended upon voluntary participation of
individual subjects would probably be avoided by high level
35

36
apprehensives, even if they were promised a reward for their
participation.
A two-part listening test was administered to students
in one of eight experimental permutations. Two sets of tape
recorded messages (A and B), each made up of three discrete
passages, were used as stimuli for the test. Message order
(A/B) and test condition (threat/non-threat) were systemati¬
cally varied as follows:
Condition
1:
Threat - Part I
Message A
then
Non-threat -
Message B
Part
II
Condition
2:
Threat - Part I
Message B
then
Non-threat -
Message A
Part
II
Condition
3:
Non-threat - Part
Message A
I
then
Threat - Part
Message B
II
Condition
4:
Non-threat - Part
Message B
I
then
Threat - Part
Message A
II
Condition
5:
Threat - Part I
Message A
then
Threat - Part
Message B
II
Condition
6:
Threat - Part I
Message B
then
Threat - Part
Message A
II
Condition
7:
Non-threat - Part
Message A
I
then
Non-threat -
Message B
Part
II
Condition
8 :
Non-threat - Part
Message B
I
then
Non-threat -
Message A
Part
II
This experimental design controls for order effect of
test condition. Additionally, though messages in the listen¬
ing test have been found to be equivalent in its development
by the Educational Testing Service, the design adjusts for
possible variation in consistency or difficulty of messages.
It also allows each subject to serve as his/her own control.

37
Subjects Used in This Study
This study used a pool of 215 college student volunteers
who were enrolled in the public speaking course (SPC 3601) at
the University of Florida during the Fall Semester of 1983.
Subjects received neither monetary reward nor bonus class
credit for their participation. They were, however, encour¬
aged by their instructors to take part in the experiment.
Subjects were informed of their right to decline participa¬
tion and were allowed to leave at any point during the exper¬
iment (see Appendix E).
Twelve subjects were not adequately identified on all
test forms and had to be dropped from the study. Six subjects
considered English to be their second language and were also
removed from the pool. The largest subject loss, however,
was due to the time span between the administration of CA
report forms and the listening experiment. Thirty subjects
failed to complete both the communication apprehension and
the listening portions of the experiment. A total N of 167
was achieved with an average of 21 students in each of the
eight classes.
Materials
Communication apprehension has traditionally been meas¬
ured by use of self-report instruments because they are con¬
sidered to be the most valid (Wheeless, 1975) and the most
practical (McCroskey, 1970) measures available. For the
purposes of this study two highly regarded self-report meas¬
ures of CA were employed.

38
Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA)
The PRCA is a Likert-type self-report instrument first
developed by McCroskey in 1970. The test consists of 20
statements designed to measure source apprehension across a
variety of communication contexts (see Appendix A).
The PRCA is widely accepted as a valid and reliable
measure of SA: internal reliability estimates have ranged
from .92 to .96 while reliability judged through the test-
retest method was .82 (McCroskey, 1978, p. 201). The
validity of the PRCA has been established through compar¬
isons to other CA measuring instruments. Daly (1978a) com¬
pared eight scales used to measure anxiety and found the
PRCA to be one of the three most reliable instruments among
the eight measures (p. 216). He also found the PRCA to be
the most "encompassing instrument" of the group (p. 216).
Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT)
The RAT is the only prominent self-report measure of
receiver bound anxiety published to date and has been the
assessment instrument used in all RA studies conducted.
Wheeless (1975) developed the RAT as a Likert-type scale
consisting of 20 items which require the individual to
reflect upon how he/she feels when listening. The instrument
relies heavily on the PRCA for content of its items and there¬
fore, measures apprehension related to communication (p. 264)
(see Appendix B).
Research by Beatty et al. (1980) documented the relia¬
bility and validity of the RAT as a measure of listening

39
anxiety. They reported that the RAT correlated with an
alternative measure of listening anxiety, predicted specific
anxiety responses to listening tasks, and was stable over
time (p. 35). The RAT has also functioned in a manner con¬
sistent with theoretical expectations concerning RA (Beatty,
1981; Scott & Wheeless, 1977). Reliability estimates for the
RAT have ranged from .80 to .86 (Beatty & Payne, 1981).
Profile of Mood States (POMS)
The POMS is a rapid, economical method of assessing an
individual's mood state (see Appendix C). The POMS consists
of 65 five-point adjective rating scales which measure six
identifiable moods or affective states: tension-anxiety;
depression-dejection; anger-hostility; vigor-activity;
fatigue-inertia; and confusion-bewilderment. A total mood
score is obtained by summing the scores across all six fac¬
tors (weighting vigor negatively). A total mood score
yields a single global estimate of affective state (McNair,
Lorr & Droppleman, 1981).
Internal consistency of the POMS factors were reported
by McNair and Lorr (1964) to be near .90 or above. Test-
retest reliability for the six factors ranged from .61 to .69
(McNair & Lorr, 1964). The six factor analytic replication
in the development of the POMS may be taken as evidence of
factorial validity (McNair et al., 1981). Lorr, Daston and
Smith (1967) also identified eight mood factors, five of
which confirmed POMS factors.

40
Sequential Test of Educational
Progress—Listening (STEP)
The difficulty in assessing listening comprehension has
been pointed out in the preceding review of related litera¬
ture. In order to obtain the best possible measure of listen¬
ing comprehension for the purposes of this study, the
researcher examined all the listening assessment material
collected by the Florida State Task Force on College Level
Assessment Skills Program, in Tallahassee on May 18, 1983.
Task Force personnel recommended consideration of the 1957
edition of the STEP Listening Test. A thorough examination
of this instrument, however, indicated that it was not prac¬
tical for the alloted time and that the test passages did not
adequately meet the criteria set forth by Backlund et al.
(1982). More important, the 1957 edition dealt with levels
of listening other than comprehension.
A subsequent discussion with the Educational Testing
Service personnel resulted in an examination of the 1979
edition of the STEP Listening Test (see Appendix D). This
test proved to be the instrument most feasible and available
for use in a study of RA and SA in an educational situation.
The 1979 STEP, prepared by the Educational Testing Service
and published by McGraw-Hill, is widely accepted as a reliable
measuring instrument of listening comprehension and has been
used in a number of listening studies (McCaleb, 1981).
In addition, the STEP best met the criteria for listen¬
ing assessments proposed by Backlund et al. (1982). The
stimulus material and test questions were recorded in a

41
natural speaking style. The test called for a single minimal
response to a specific question, and all stimulus material
and test items were read to the subjects in order to minimize
the mediation of reading ability. Test passage length aver¬
aged 90 seconds, and a wide variety of instruction interests
were covered in the material.
STEP Audio Tape
In keeping with the recommendations of Backlund et al.
(1982), the stimulus material and test items of the STEP were
recorded on audio tape. A trained female speaker delivered
all instructions, stimulus passages, and test items. The
eight forms of the test were recorded on separate tapes.
The tapes were reviewed by three professionals, all
speech instructors with advanced degrees in communication.
They evaluated the tapes for quality and consistency of pre¬
sentation. The audio quality of the tapes was judged to be
below professional standards by the reviewers. However, the
tapes were considered to be consistently audible and of ade¬
quate quality for use in the experiment. The quality of the
speaker's presentation was determined to be excellent, con¬
sistent in both rate and variety for all messages.
Post-Experimental Questionnaire
A brief questionnaire compiled by the researcher sought
to assess the subjects' prior training in speech and communi¬
cation apprehension. A section of the questionnaire was
designed to determine if the subjects had any hearing loss

42
or disability. The subjects were also asked to indicate if
English was their first language (see Appendix E).
Procedure
During the first week of 1983 Fall Semester, the director
of the basic speech course randomly chose 8 public speaking
classes from a total of 11 for participation in the study.
All instructors were graduate students in communication
studies at the University of Florida, and were informed of
the purposes and procedures of the experiment during an
instructional session.
In the second week of the 1983 Fall Semester, instructors
distributed the RAT and the PRCA. Students were told they
were being asked to complete a survey designed to discover how
people perceived their personal communication. They were
informed that scores would be kept confidential and would have
no bearing on their grades. They were asked to use their
social security numbers as identification of both measures.
The experimental phase of the study was conducted on two
consecutive days, August 30 and 31 of 1983. The experiment
was carried out during the regular meeting times of each
class. Five different class period times were used, the
first beginning at 8:00 A.M. and the fifth beginning at 12:20
P.M. The experiment was conducted in the regular classrooms
of the eight groups. Of the two buildings and three differ¬
ent rooms, none was significantly more comfortable or unique.
Weather conditions remained stable for the two days and no
unusual happening occurred to influence the procedures or to
prejudice the results of the listening assessment.

43
On the date of the experiment, instructors informed the
subjects that in keeping with the importance of listening to
communication, an assessment of listening comprehension would
be done during that class period. Students were again
informed that their scores would be kept confidential and
would have no bearing on class grade. The instructor then
introduced the researcher as a "specialist in listening
assessment" who conducted the assessment from that point.
The researcher first explained the purpose of the experi¬
ment to each class. In order to enhance uniformity among
individual groups, the researcher conducted all eight tests.
Each group was given the same information in the same time
frame and presentation style.
Subjects were told that the researcher was collecting
data on listening comprehension. They were informed that
they were under no obligation to participate and could leave
at any time. Students wishing to participate were asked to
read and sign an "informed consent" statement indicating they
understood the purpose of the experiment (see Appendix F).
The only element of the study the students were not initially
informed of concerned the experimental condition of threat or
non-threat as a factor in the research.
Subjects were then given the POMS to complete and asked
to use only a social security number as identification. The
POMS took no more than 10 minutes to complete. The researcher
collected this instrument and the informed consent statements.
The answer booklets for the first part of the STEP Listening

44
Test was distributed. Social security numbers were again
used for identification. A sample form of the test was
passed out and instruction on the proper way to complete the
form was given. Students all had prior practice in standard¬
ized test taking and no difficulty understanding the forth¬
coming directions.
The researcher then turned on the tape recorder, and a
sample passage was played. The recorder was turned off and
the researcher asked if everyone could hear. No particular
difficulties were indicated by the students beyond raising
the volume of the tape. Students were also given an oppor¬
tunity to ask questions at this point. The researcher then
informed the subjects that all information would come from
the tape only and no communication with the researcher was
allowed, barring unforeseen circumstances. The tape was
played through Part One.
Subjects under the Non-threat/Threat condition heard
directions for written responses to test passages only in
Part One of the test. Instructions for Part Two informed
the subjects that, following the written test, some individ¬
uals would be called upon to orally answer questions and/or
summarize test passage material in an impromptu speech (see
Appendix G). Test passages and questions were then read.
The researcher turned off the tape and collected answer
sheets. A series of questions were asked of randomly chosen
students. One student was also chosen at random to deliver
the impromptu speech. The oral response session took no more
than 5 minutes.

45
Students in the Threat/Non-threat condition heard
directions for Part One which called for oral responses to
questions and/or a summary of test passages in an impromptu
speech after the completion of the test questions. At the
completion of Part One, the researcher stopped the tape and
collected the answer sheets. Randomly chosen students
answered a series of questions and one was asked to summarize
a test passage in an impromptu speech. The tape was then
turned on and Part Two answer sheets distributed. Directions
informed students that only a written response was required
to test passages. After completion of the test, the tape was
stopped and answer forms collected.
Students in the Threat/Threat condition were informed
that oral responses were required after Part One. After com¬
pletion of Part One, the researcher collected answer forms
and administered the series of questions and assigned a sum¬
mary speech to a subject. The same procedure was followed
for Part Two.
Students in the Non-threat/Non-threat condition were
only informed of general directions for written responses for
Part One. No mention of an oral response was made. At the
completion of Part One, answer forms were collected and Part
Two began. The same procedures were followed for Part Two.
Immediately following the completion of Part Two for all
eight classes, the subjects were asked to complete the post-
experimental questionnaire. Subjects were then debriefed.
They were again assured that their scores would be kept

46
confidential. They were also told that results of the test
and the research could be obtained by contacting the
researcher at the completion of the study.
Analysis of Results
The research hypotheses were tested by using a number
of procedures from the Statistical Analysis System (SAS,
1982). Independent variables were levels of RA, levels of
SA and test condition; listening comprehension score served
as the dependent variable; mood score was considered as a
covariate. All probability levels were set at .05.
The level of receiver apprehension and/or source appre¬
hension may or may not have a significant effect on an indi¬
vidual's performance on a listening test. The process of
analysis presented in this chapter was designed to assess the
possible effects of communication apprehension on listening
comprehension while considering and controlling for a threat
or anxiety-producing situation and the subject's mood state
at the time of listening performance. The results of this
analysis are discussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS
This chapter presents tabulated results of the PRCA,
the RAT, the POMS, the Post-Experimental Questionnaire and
the STEP Listening Test. Statistical findings in response
to the study's six hypotheses are also discussed.
Self-Report Findings
The PRCA and the RAT were scored by the experimenter
and checked for accuracy. The levels of RA and SA for indi¬
vidual subjects were noted. Both RA and SA scores were
divided into the levels of high, medium and low once the
mean and standard deviation for each measure were calculated
(McCroskey, 1983).
Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA)
Each subject completed the PRCA approximately one week
before participating in the experimental phase of the study.
The highest PRCA score obtained from the 167 subjects was 96
(high apprehension) while the lowest score was 27 (low appre¬
hension) . The mean score for subjects in this study was 54.2,
with 77 subjects scoring above the mean and 90 scoring at or
below the mean with a standard deviation of 15.2. The mean
PRCA score obtained in this study served as the dividing point
between high, medium and low subjects. Twenty-seven subjects
47

48
scoring one standard deviation below the mean were grouped as
low apprehensives. Those 28 subjects scoring one standard
deviation above the mean were grouped as high apprehensives,
and the remaining 112 subjects were classified as medium
apprehensives (see Table 1).
Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT)
Each subject also completed the RAT approximately one
week before participating in the experimental phase of this
study. The highest RAT score obtained from the 167 subjects
was 85 (high apprehensive) with the lowest score being 21
(low apprehensive). The mean score for all subjects was 40.1
with a standard deviation of 12.8. Sixty-two subjects scored
above the mean and 105 scored at or below the mean. Twenty-
seven subjects scoring one standard deviation below the mean
were rated as low apprehensive and those 25 subjects scoring
one standard deviation above the mean were rated as high
apprehensives, while the 115 remaining subjects were rated
as medium apprehensives (see Table 1).
Profile of Mood States (POMS)
The POMS was scored by using hand overlays and instruc¬
tions provided by the POMS Manual (McNair et al., 1981).
Individual scores on each of the six factors were calculated
for each subject. The total mood score for each individual
was obtained by adding the six factors (weighting "vigor"
negatively). The total mood score is assumed to be important
in obtaining a single estimate of each individual's affective

49
Table 1
Group
Means of Communication
Apprehension Variables
Test
CA Level
CA Score
n
High
96
28
69
PRCA
Medium
68
112
40
Low
39
27
27
High
85
25
53
RAT
Medium
52
115
29
Low
28
27
21

50
state. The total score was considered the most important fac¬
tor as an individual's mood may impact on his/her listening
comprehension. Mean scores for each factor were also calcu¬
lated (see Table 2).
Post-Experimental Questionnaire
The post-experimental questionnaire was administered
immediately following the experiment. Forty-seven subjects
reported prior speech training. Approximately one half of
the subjects with speech training described their prior
instruction to be in an introductory speech course at the
University of Florida, while other subjects indicated
instruction in high school or community college public
speaking courses. No subjects reported previous training
in communication anxiety reduction. Six subjects reported
that English was their second language and consequently were
removed from the research. Two subjects indicated high deci¬
bel hearing losses; these subjects failed to complete all
phases of the experiment and were removed from the study
prior to learning of their hearing loss.
STEP Listening Test
The dependent measure examined in this study was the
score on the STEP Listening Test. The scores for Part One
and Part Two of the STEP Listening Test were calculated
separately, and were then combined to create a total listen¬
ing comprehension score. Scores for the two parts of the
test were recorded separately with an indication of the test

51
Table 2
Mean Scores for Mood State Factors
Mood Factor
M
SD
Tension
11.796
6.524
Depression
8.989
8.561
Anxiety
8.790
8.391
Vigor
(weighted negatively)
18.359
5.750
Fatigue
10.167
5.862
Confusion
8.101
4.797
Total Mood
29.149
30.328

52
condition and message order for each so that it would be pos¬
sible to assess the possible effect that each might have on
the results.
The highest possible total score on the STEP was 20
points, each part of the test being worth 10 points. The over¬
all mean score for subjects was 17.9 across all conditions.
The mean score for subjects under the threat condition was
7.99 with the highest possible score being 10 points. The mean
score for subjects under the non-threat condition was 7.826
with the highest possible score being 10 points (see Table 3).
The mean score for subjects under threat as the first
condition was 9.33 compared to a mean score of 8.85 for sub¬
jects under non-threat as the first condition. The average
in the control group for threat was 8.55 compared to the
average in the non-threat group of 9 (see Table 4).
The STEP Listening Test was broken into two parts for
this study. Though the test was designed to be given as one
unit, the internal validity of the test was not compromised
by this division (Bailey, 1982). Each of the stimulus pas¬
sages and test items were determined to be equivalent and
therefore, order of presentation did not alter the results,
in any way. As expected, the effect of the messages on sub¬
jects' mean scores did not vary significantly. The mean
score for Message A was 8.90 while the mean score for Message
B was 8.99.
By examining the mean scores, little difference was
observed among subjects as grouped either according to test
condition or message choice. However, statistical analysis

53
Table 3
Test Condition Mean Scores for STEP Listening Test
Condition
M
N
Across
Condition
17.900
167
Threat
7.799
142
Non-threat
7.826
144

54
Table 4
STEP Means for Test Condition Order
Condition
Order
M
N
Threat
1st
9.33
40
2nd
9.17
Non-threat
1st
8.85
40
2nd
9.67
Threat-
1st
8.55
42
Threat
2nd
Non-threat-
1st
9.00
42
Non-threat
2nd

55
of the hypotheses also assessed possible effects and inter¬
action of the independent variables of RA, SA, and test con¬
dition on the listening comprehension scores while considering
the possible effect of mood. These analyses and interpreta¬
tions allowed for an indepth and comprehensive understanding
of the relationship between communication apprehension and
listening comprehension.
Hypotheses Test Results
This study assessed the effects of RA and SA on the lis¬
tening comprehension of subjects in a communication anxiety
producing condition in the classroom. The procedures were
designed to explore the possible impact of individual mood
scores on their listening comprehension scores. Six statis¬
tical null hypotheses were examined, with the probability
levels set at .05 on each.
The initial hypothesis tested concerned the relationship
between RA and SA:
H.: Subjects' scores on receiver apprehension and source
apprehension tests will not be significantly posi¬
tively correlated.
By using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) procedure
correlation (SAS, 1982, p. 503), RA and SA were found not to
be significantly related at the .05 level (p< .6730). RA and
SA seem to be separate and distinct elements; the presence or
absence of one does not affect levels of the other.
The second hypothesis focused on the effect of RA on
listening comprehension scores:
H~: Subjects' listening comprehension scores will not be
significantly negatively correlated with receiver
apprehension scores.

56
A partial correlation using SPSS Language inside SAS (1982)
was used to test the second hypothesis. With the use of the
partial correlation, a covariate of total mood score could
be introduced. The use of the covariate allows adjustment for
group differences and provides a more powerful (sensitive)
statistical analysis than would the analysis of listening
scores without the covariate data (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds,
1974, p. 135).
When using partial correlation procedure with the total
mood score as the covariate, levels of RA were not signifi¬
cantly correlated with levels of listening comprehension
(p< .491); therefore, this hypothesis cannot be rejected at
the .05 level.
The third hypothesis tested was concerned with the effect
of SA on listening comprehension scores:
H^: Subjects' listening comprehension scores will not
be significantly negatively correlated to source
apprehension scores.
Following the same procedure as used in Hypothesis Two, a
partial correlation with total mood score as a covariate
(SAS, 1982) was used to test this hypothesis. Levels of SA
were also not significantly correlated with levels of listen¬
ing comprehension (p< .170); and consequently, this hypothesis
cannot be rejected at the .05 level.
The fourth hypothesis tested dealt with the effect of
mood score on subjects' listening comprehension scores:
: Subjects' listening comprehension scores will not
be significantly negatively correlated with mood
scores.

57
An overall procedure correlation (SAS, 1982) indicated that
neither total mood score nor individual mood scores were sig¬
nificantly correlated with listening comprehension scores.
This hypothesis cannot be rejected at the .05 level (see
Table 5).
The fifth hypothesis tested the effect of RA on listen¬
ing comprehension in a threat condition:
Hj-: Listening comprehension scores for subjects who have
higher degrees of receiver apprehension will not be
significantly lower than listening comprehension
scores for subjects who have lower degrees of appre¬
hension in a threat condition.
A two-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures with
RA as the covariate (SAS, 1982) was used to test this hypoth¬
esis. The analysis of variance with repeated measures was
the more appropriate analysis for this study as the same sub¬
jects were measured at different levels of the dependent
variable. The simple analysis of variance would not indicate
the repeated measures (Huck et al., 1974, pp. 102-104). By
using the procedure, the level of RA accounts for a statis¬
tically insignificant amount of variance in the dependent
variable of listening comprehension scores (p< .6550).
Therefore, this hypothesis cannot be rejected at the .05
level (see Table 6).
Similarly, the sixth hypothesis tested concerned the
effect of SA on listening comprehension scores:
H,: Listening comprehension scores for subjects who
have higher degrees of source apprehension will
not be significantly lower than listening compre¬
hension scores for subjects who have lower degrees
of source apprehension in a threat condition.

58
Table 5
Correlation of Individual Mood Factors and Total Mood
with Listening Comprehension
Mood Factor
Listening Comprehension
p value
Tension
-0.80790
.2993
Depression
0.08508
.2743
Anxiety
-0.05477
.4820
Vigor
-0.07658
. 3253
Fatigue
0.27400
. 7252
Confusion
-0.11786
.1293
Total Mood
-0.04139
.5953

Table 6
Analysis of Variance
of Listening
Comprehension
Scores with
a
Covariate of
RA or SA
Covariate
Source
DF
MS
F
p value
Test Condition
(A)
3
0.19556
2.78
.0430
Covariate
1
0.01411
0.20
.6550
RA
Error
162
0.07040
Message (B)
1
0.19588
5.97
.0156
A- B
3
0.00382
0.12
.9503
Error
163
0.03280
Test Condition
(A)
3
0.17462
2.48
.0632
Covariate
1
0.00312
0.04
. 8335
SA
Error
162
0.07460
Message (B)
1
0.19588
5.97
.0156
A-B
3
0.00382
0.12
.9503
Error
163
0.03280

60
As in the fifth hypothesis, an analysis of variance with
repeated measures and a covariate of SA (SAS, 1982) was used
to test this hypothesis. The level of SA did not account for
a statistically significant amount of variance on the depend¬
ent variable of listening comprehension (p< .8335), and this
hypothesis could not be rejected at the .05 level (see Table 6).
The relatively high number of subjects reporting speech
training on the post-experimental questionnaire was considered
unusual enough to warrant further investigation. In order to
determine whether the speech training had any effect on lis¬
tening comprehension scores, a two factor analysis of variance
with repeated measures with total mood score as a covariate
was tested. This analysis indicated that there was a differ¬
ence between the scores of speech and non-speech trained sub¬
jects when the probability level was set at .05 (p> .0252)
(see Table 7).
The factor of speech training appeared to be significant
initially. Therefore, in order to consider the effect of
speech training on listening comprehension scores, as well
as the interaction with SA and RA under test conditions, a
four factor analysis of variance with total mood score as
the covariate was conducted (SAS, 1982). This analysis indi¬
cates the overall difference among the levels of each factor
and additionally indicates the impact of the interaction of
the factors on the dependent variable. The use of the
covariate of total mood score controls for any differences
between the groups.

61
Table 7
Analysis of Variance of the Effect of Speech Training
on Listening Controlling for Total Mood Score
Source
DF
MD
F
P
Speech Training
(A)
1
0.36118
5.10
.0252*
Cov. - Mood
1
0.03179
0.45
.5037
Error
164
0.07079
Message (B)
1
0.22452
6.95
.0092*
A* B
1
0.02821
0.87
.3514
Error
165
0.03230
*significant at the
.05
level

62
Using this analysis, subjects scoring one standard devi¬
ation above the mean on RA and SA measures were classified
as high apprehensive. Those scoring one standard deviation
below the mean were classified as low apprehensive, while the
remaining subjects were considered as medium apprehensive
(McCroskey, 1983). With the probability level of .05, again
neither the level of RA, SA or test condition accounted for
a statistically significant amount of variance on the depend¬
ent variable of listening comprehension when adjusting for
the effect of mood score. This analysis further confirmed
that the fifth and sixth hypotheses cannot be rejected at the
.05 level. The subjects' speech training, however, did seem
to affect listening scores (p> .0098) (see Table 8).
For a more thorough analysis of the effect of speech
training on listening scores, a Proc Means procedure was
conducted (SAS, 1982). Because of the uneven numbers of sub¬
jects in each group, a transformation on the numbers was
necessary in order to complete the analysis. The final
adjusted mean scores indicated a difference between the two
means with the mean for non-speech training being somewhat
higher. However, because of the nature of the data and uneven
subject numbers, the two means cannot be said to be signifi¬
cantly different. Therefore, the subjects with no speech
training cannot be said to be better listeners, nor speech-
trained subjects poor ones (see Table 9). Though prior speech
training initially appeared to be an important factor on lis¬
tening comprehension, the statistical analyses of this study
cannot support such a conclusion.

63
Table 8
The Effect of RA, SA, Speech Training, and Test Condition
on Listening Comprehension Controlling for
Total Mood Score
Group
DF
F
PR>F
MTOT
1
0.77
0.3820
RA
2
1.29
0.2763
SA
2
0.06
0.9409
TR
1
6.76
0.0098*
Group
1
0.55
0.4583
RA- SA
4
0.26
0.9059
RA- TR
2
0.23
0.7913
Group-RA
2
0.19
0.8260
SA- TR
2
2.18
0.1152
Group-SA
2
0.68
0.5070
Group-TR
1
0.28
0.5986
RA.SA-TR
3
0.43
0.7322
Group* RA* SA
3
1.43
0.2323
Group-SA-TR
2
0.68
0.5099
Group* RA-TR
2
0.42
0.6566
Group* RA* SA* TR
2
0.79
0.4553
*significant at the .05 level

64
Table 9
Mean
Scores for Speech Trained and Non-Trained
Subjects After Transformation
Group
M
N
Non-Speech
1.35
240
Speech
1.27
94

65
Summary
A wide range of SA and RA scores were obtained in this
study, indicating a wide sample of levels of apprehension.
Subjects reported lower apprehension as receivers (x=40.1)
than as sources (x = 54.2). This result is not surprising as
persons may be expected to be less apprehensive concerning
receiving information than about serving as communication
sources (Wheeless, 1975). The POMS also yielded a wide range
of scores on each of the six individual mood factors as well
as total mood scores.
The post-experimental questionnaire revealed that none
of the subjects had any training in communication anxiety
reduction. The few subjects for whom English was a second
language or who experienced a hearing loss were removed from
the study. A number of subjects, however, reported prior
speech training. Initially, the factor of prior speech train¬
ing was seen to have some possible negative relationship with
listening scores with non-speech trained subjects scoring
higher on listening tests. However, further analysis on the
means of the two groups merely indicated a slight difference
in the scores and cannot be interpreted as a significant fac¬
tor in determining listening scores.
In this experimental situation, RA and SA were shown to
be unrelated to each other and to be separate elements in
communication apprehension. Neither RA or SA were shown to
have any effect on listening comprehension; nor were the
treatment conditions of threat and non-threat significant

66
influences on subjects' listening scores. A follow-up com¬
parison dividing RA and SA into high, medium and low levels
did not alter results in any fashion. Neither individual
factor scores nor the total mood score was related to listen¬
ing scores and did not significantly account for any differ¬
ences in scores in any analysis. Thus, the findings of this
study indicate that the dimensions of RA and SA do not
influence listening comprehension in an educational environ¬
ment .

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Conclusions
Communication and educator scholars have long acknowl¬
edged that listening is a communication skill vital to the
social and educational development of the individual. For
over 50 years, research has sought to assess various factors
which might enhance or hinder listening ability. In this
study an effort was made to determine if the variable of com¬
munication apprehension, particularly the dimensions of
receiver apprehension and source apprehension, would have
any effect on the listening comprehension of subjects in an
education environment under both normal and communication
anxiety provoking situations.
The first conclusion that can be drawn is that the
dimensions of receiver apprehension and source apprehension
are not related. Though McDowell and McDowell (1978)
reported a relationship between the two when assessing the
effect of each on academic progress, this study disclosed
no such relationship. RA and SA are found to be separate
and distinct dimensions of CA; it appears that individuals
may experience high levels of one type of apprehension with¬
out experiencing corresponding levels in the other. This
finding does support the conclusions drawn by Wheeless (1975)
67

68
and McCroskey (1983) that communication apprehension is a
multi-dimensional construct and that it varies with the indi¬
vidual communication function performed.
As SA and RA have both been shown to have adverse effects
on the academic progress and satisfaction of students, educa¬
tors should be made aware of the importance of the two dimen¬
sions. Methods of dealing with SA and RA, however, should
take into account the uni-dimensionality of each. Treatment
for anxiety reduction in one category probably will not
result in anxiety reduction in the other. Likewise, instruc¬
tional strategies designed to aid the source apprehensive
individual, such as emphasis on lecture rather than discus¬
sion, cannot necessarily be expected to aid the receiver
apprehensive individual. RA and SA are separate and distinct
dimensions of CA and should be assessed and treated as such.
A second research hypothesis in this study was concerned
with the relationship between RA and listening comprehension.
A partial correlation indicated that the two were not related
(p< .491). No other literature published to this date, how¬
ever, has assessed the relationship of RA and listening, but
theoretical implications and empirical findings in other
areas strongly suggested such a correlation. Similarly, a
third hypothesis concerned the relationship between SA and
listening comprehension. Following the same procedure, no
correlation between SA and listening was found (p< .170).
This finding confirmed that of Miller and Yerby (1983) who
also found no relationship between the two. They suggested,

69
however, that further studies be conducted because of the
strong implications of a relationship found in communication
research literature.
It is possible that the failure to find significant cor¬
relations may be an error in research methodology and/or
instrument reliability and validity. Certainly, currently
available measures of listening skills are imperfect at best.
It is much more likely, however, considering the rigidly con¬
trolled design and procedures of the study, that in a normal
classroom environment, neither RA nor SA is related to listen¬
ing comprehension. The failure to find correlations may
simply mean that the relationship does not exist in this
particular context.
It should be noted, though, that McCroskey (1983) dis¬
cussed the difficulty of assigning corresponding behaviors
to levels of CA. He, in fact, strongly recommended that cau¬
tion be exercised when attaching any communication behavior
to a measure of CA. Previous research and conclusions
reached concerning behavior manifested by apprehensives has
been based on aggregate data and has been subject to over¬
interpretation. These interpretations do not take into
account the high potential for an individual to deviate from
the norm and to choose from a variety of behaviors designed
to deal with the level of apprehension (p. 15). It cannot be
assumed, therefore, that a highly apprehensive individual
will necessarily exhibit poor listening behavior or score
poorly on a measure of listening comprehension.

70
Further, though research indicates that the majority of
apprehensive individuals tend to avoid or withdraw from com¬
munication, some do exhibit an uncommon communication pattern.
These individuals try to overcompensate for their apprehension
and attempt to succeed despite the anxiety (McCroskey, 1983,
p. 17). Some subjects in the present study may have been
motivated to "listen better" precisely because of the discom¬
fort experienced in the communication situation. In the
debriefing following the experiment, several subjects did
report a heightening of attention so as to score well on the
listening test. Others indicated increased attention to test
material to avoid any embarrassment should they be called
upon to answer questions orally. In any case, there is no
behavior that is predicted to be a universal product of vary¬
ing levels of CA (McCroskey, 1983, p. 16).
The fourth hypothesis dealt with the relationship between
listening comprehension and mood state. A procedure correla¬
tion indicated no relationship between six individual mood
factors comprising one's total mood state. Though subjects
reported a wide range of mood scores and total mood affective
states on the POMS, mood did not significantly hinder or aid
in performance on the STEP Listening Test. Though early
literature suggested the importance of mood or mind set on
the individual's predisposition to listen (Brown, 1959;
Nichols & Lewis, 1954), this study did not support those
conclusions.
A thorough examination of the results of a correlation
between mood score and listening comprehension for this

71
particular study (see Table 5, p. 58) reveals that only the
mood factor of "confusion" even began to approach signifi¬
cance (p< .1293). If listening is viewed as a form of infor¬
mation processing, then confusion could hinder organization
and analysis of aural stimuli. It is possible that the
unexpected experimental situation itself produced the con¬
fusion. The subjects, uncertain of what was to occur during
the research, allowed the state to impact on their listening
behavior. The fact the other mood factors did not approach
significance may be a function of the subjects' student
status. In a testing situation, students with years of prac¬
tice at test taking may be adept at putting disruptive emo¬
tions aside. Whatever the case, mood was in no way a
significant influence on listening comprehension scores in
this study.
The fifth and sixth hypotheses concerned the effect of
levels of RA and SA on measures of listening comprehension
in threatening or communication anxiety producing situations.
A number of statistical procedures, including an analysis of
variance with repeated measures with a covariate, as well as
a four factor analysis of variance with a covariate, indi¬
cated that neither level of RA or SA nor the threat condition
significantly influenced measures of listening comprehension.
Though theoretical literature and empirical research
findings suggested otherwise, this study found that listening
comprehension is not affected by either RA or SA regardless
of test condition. Again, a consideration of the behavioral

72
manifestations of CA (McCroskey, 1983) may be helpful. It
is more likely, however, that the situational context of the
experiment may have more meaning for interpretation of the
findings. McCroskey (1983) pointed out that in keeping with
the state properties of RA and SA, students may experience
CA in a certain context at one time and not at others. For
example, subjects may experience high levels of apprehension
when listening to instructional material or answering ques¬
tions when they know that an academic grade may depend upon
their response. The same subjects, however, may experience
little or no apprehension about the same situation when no
grade is dependent upon the outcome of the situation.
Subjects in the study discussed here were repeatedly
advised about their right to withdraw from the experiment
and assured that their test results would in no way influence
their course grades. Those few who did withdraw, did so
before the experimental situation began and had no way of
knowing what communication behaviors would be required of
them. Other subjects, even those reporting high levels of
CA, chose to complete all phases of the experiment. Thus,
knowing that test scores would be kept confidential and that
no academic reward or punishment would result from their
participation, subjects' level of apprehension may have been
alleviated to some extent.
In addition, though the time lapse between administra¬
tion of the CA self-report forms and the experimental situa¬
tion was less than five days, the subjects' levels of

73
apprehension may have been altered by the changing situation.
Methods to overcome the ethical and experimental constraints
upon this type of research have yet to be devised, but may be
necessary in order to more nearly approximately normal situa¬
tional levels of CA.
A broader view of the situational aspect of the study
may also shed some light on the findings of the other hypothe¬
ses. Brown (1959) stated that the "anticipatory set" of the
listener could directly influence listening ability. Subjects
in this study were college students enrolled in a speech
course. They were told specifically that their listening
comprehension was to be assessed. These subjects then were
prepared or "set" to listen. Scores on the STEP could be a
result of the subjects' preparedness to listen.
As an extension of the preparation or set to listen or
perform on a listening test, a number of scholars have
reported the widespread use of standardized tests in all
levels of education (Anderson, 1981; Marcus, 1981). As sub¬
jects in this study were college students, they probably had
years of practice in test taking. Engen, lam and Prediger
(1982), reporting the results of a survey of nation-wide test
usage, stated that nearly all students in grades 7 through 12
took some type of standardized test in every grade (p. 288).
It is possible that years in the educational system had con¬
ditioned subjects to overcome mood or anxiety when a testing
situation demanded concentration. The STEP Listening Test,
then, would not be a major cause for anxiety.

74
The phenomenon of "test-wiseness" may also account for
the lack of influence of CA on listening comprehension.
Millman, Bishop and Ebel (1965) defined test wiseness as
the "capacity to utilize the characteristics and formats
of the test and/or test taking situation to receive a high
score" (p. 707). Students may become proficient at test
taking techniques through training and practice independent
of content or context (Callenback, 1973). Thus, CA in a
listening test situation would not necessarily produce any
lessening of performance on the STEP because test-wise sub¬
jects would have no difficulty in responding to the situation.
The post-experimental questionnaire yielded another pos¬
sible variable in the development of listening ability. Prior
speech training was reported by 47 of the subjects. An analy¬
sis of variance with repeated measures and a covariate indi¬
cated there was some difference in the listening comprehension
scores of trained versus non-trained subjects. The variable
of speech training was added to the four factor analysis of
variance with a covariate. In this instance, only speech
training affected listening scores (p > .0098). However, a
Proc Means procedure indicated that while speech-trained
subjects scored somewhat lower than did non-trained subjects
there was no significant difference in the means. Neverthe¬
less, even a limited finding such as this may be disturbing
if the value of speech training is to be accepted. Yet,
speech education literature explicitly states that listening
is not a regular part of speech instruction (Steil, Barker &

75
Watson, 1983) so subjects should not be expected to exhibit
superior listening skills. Furthermore, subjects were not
asked how they fared in the reported speech courses. Even
if speech training could be expected to better listening
skills, for this particular study, there is no way of knowing
how much a student actually learned in the particular course
mentioned. Thus, the finding in this study can in no way be
interpreted as support either for or against speech training
in the development of listening comprehension skills.
Limitations of the Study
Though the major variables in this study were controlled
as much as possible, there are factors which limit the gen-
eralizability of the results. The first limitation may be in
the subject population itself. Though the study was specifi¬
cally conducted in "normal" college classrooms to obtain more
naturalistic setting, only speech courses were actually used.
Speech communication courses at the University of Florida are
required by a number of major fields and usually include a
wide variety of academic areas of study. Because of the
required nature of the course even many individuals who
experience high levels of CA must complete the course before
meeting graduation requirements. Because the subjects were
enrolled in a speech class, however, they had some expectation
of the communication behaviors expected of them. Apprehensive
individuals would also be aware of course obligations and
develop some means of dealing with the anxiety (McCroskey,

76
1983). The oral performance phase of the experiment could
even be seen as a minor speaking assignment.
Further, though no instruction in listening had been
specifically given before the experiment, introductory lec¬
tures on the nature of the communication process had been
delivered. The interdependence of speaking and listening
would have been mentioned in the lectures as well as in
beginning text material. A syllabus of the course given to
all students also contained notice of a unit on listening.
Subjects could well have been prepared to make the most of a
listening assessment situation.
Subjects were also informed that the experiment directly
involved an assessment of their listening ability. This
direct instruction may have induced a predisposition to
listen. Receiver apprehensive subjects may have been moti¬
vated to concentrate carefully because of the test situation.
In a regular classroom environment it is doubtful that stu¬
dents exhibit such close attention to a speaker or lecture
material. The difficulty in assessing listening involves
this trade-off between a controlled, reliable, valid measure
of listening and abnormal listening behavior on the part of
the subjects.
Another limitation of the research may concern the audio
tape of the STEP. Tapes were, of course, preferable to indi¬
vidual reading for each test and allowed for a controlled
testing situation. Instructions concerning the threat or
non-threat situation were also recorded. However, the

77
"threat" may have been more effective if it came from a "live"
person such as instructor or test administrator rather than
from a disembodied voice on a tape.
Instructions for delivery of all test material were fol¬
lowed faithfully. The STEP Manual called for 30 seconds
between each test answer to allow students time to reflect
on choices. In this instance, however, the time lag may have
been too long. The researcher observed that some subjects
appeared bored and impatient with the rate at which test pas¬
sages were read. They were particularly impatient with the
length of time between answer choices. For future research
with college students, the rate of presentation should be
quickened. As an added result, test time could be shortened
considerably.
Implications for Future Research
Areas for future research in listening and communication
are wide and varied. Four specific suggestions for research
will be discussed here. First, research must be done on the
nature of the listening process itself before adequate measures
of assessment can be developed or a thorough consideration of
variables influencing the individual's ability to listen can
be conducted. The lack of current knowledge based on recent
research often leads to reiteration of information which may
or may not be valid in today's changing social and educational
contexts.
Second, the area of RA must also be researched in greater
depth. The few existing studies have dealt primarily with the

78
identification of the trait and the development of adequate
measurement, both necessary and important to the building of
knowledge. Now, however, more research on the effects of RA
on the educational and social development of the individual
is needed. The cause of RA and the variables affecting its
development and impact on the individual must be assessed
before a comprehensive understanding of its relationship to
listening can be achieved.
Third, research should again be aimed at discovering the
influence of RA and SA on listening comprehension. The find¬
ings in this study should be viewed as only preliminary
research. Experiments involving larger subject populations
and different testing situations should be considered. Cer¬
tainly, groups other than speech classes should be tested and
a number of other listening assessment measures implemented.
Another important area for future research would be the
consideration of levels of listening other than comprehension
Though comprehension is basic to the other levels and the
easiest to measure at the present time, individuals are not
called upon to listen at this level exclusively. In an edu¬
cational system, critical or evaluative listening is often
necessary. Certainly, in interpersonal contexts, evaluative
as well as appreciative listening is appropriate. It may be
that RA and SA affect the varying levels of listening differ¬
ently and methods of assessing their effect must be developed
The complexity of the communication process involves a
countless number of variables as does the typical classroom

79
situation, all of which need to be considered for a thorough
understanding of listening in an educational environment. It
is impossible and impractical to isolate or control for all
such variables. Based on conclusions gleaned from a thorough
review of literature, this experiment tested the effect of
the independent variables of level of RA, level of SA and
test condition on the dependent measure of listening compre¬
hension.
The findings of this study show that RA and SA are
separate and distinct dimensions of CA and should be con¬
sidered independently when assessing their effect upon com¬
munication. However, neither RA nor SA appeared to have any
effect upon an individual's listening comprehension in an
educational environment. Nor does threat condition or mood
state significantly influence performance on a measure of
listening comprehension. An additional variable of speech
training, though initially considered important, was also
determined to be insignificant in this study. These findings
suggest that variables not accounted for in the present study
may have a measurable impact on student listening comprehen¬
sion and indicate a need for further research into the broad
and, at present, inconclusive area of communication labeled
listening.

REFERENCES
Andersen, S. B. (1981). Standardized testing has become
education's latest scapegoat. American School Board
Journal, 168, 26-28.
Anderson, H. A. (1966). Needed research in listening.
In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York:
Scarecrow Press.
Backlund, P. M., Brown, K. L., Gurry, J., & Jandt, F. (1982).
Recommendations for assessing speaking and listening
skills. Communication Education, 31, 9-17.
Backlund, P. M., Gurry, P., Brown, K., & Jandt, F. (1980).
Evaluating speaking and listening skill assessment
instruments: Which one is best for you? Language Arts,
5_7, 621-627.
Bailey, K. D. (1982). Methods of social research. 2nd ed.
New York: The Free Press.
Bakan, P. (1966). Some reflections on listening behavior.
In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York:
Scarecrow Press.
Banville, T. G. (1978). How to listen--How to be heard.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Inc.
Barbara, D. A. (1971). How to make people listen to you.
Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.
Bashore, D. N. (1971). Relationships among speech anxiety,
I.Q., and high school achievement. Masters Thesis.
Illinois State University.
Bassett, R. E., Whittington, N., & Staton-Spicer, A. (1978).
The basics in speaking and listening for high school
graduates: What should be assessed? Communication
Education, 2 7, 293-297.
Beatty, M. J. (1981). Receiver apprehension as a function
of cognitive backlog. Western Journal of Speech Com¬
munication , 45, 277-281.
80

81
Beatty, M. J. , Behnke, R. R., & Henderson, L. L. (1980).
An empirical validation of the receiver apprehension
test as a measure of trait listening anxiety. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 44 , 132-136 .
Beatty, M. J., Behnke, R. R., & McCallum, K. (1978).
Situational determinants of communication apprehension.
Communication Monographs, 45, 187-191.
Beatty, M. J., & Payne, S. K. (1981). Receiver apprehension
and cognitive complexity. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 4 5, 363-369 .
Berger, A., & Werdmann, A. (1978). Listening and auding.
Activities and Research. English Journal, 67 , 36-59 .
Biggs, B. P. (1956). Construction, validation and evalua¬
tion of a diagnostic test of listening effectiveness.
Speech Monographs, 23, 9-13.
Bostrum, R. N., & Bryant, C. L. (1980). Factors in the
retention of information presented orally: The role of
short-term listening. Western Journal of Speech Communi¬
cation , 44, 137-145.
Brown, C. T. (1965). Three studies of the listening of
children. Speech Monographs, 32, 129-138.
Brown, J. I. (1949). The construction of a diagnostic test
of listening comprehension. Journal of Experimental
Education, 18, 139-146.
Brown, J. I. (1966). Establishing the validity of a listen¬
ing test. In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings.
New York: Scarecrow Press.
Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate
scale: Development and validation. Communication
Monographs, 4 3, 60-69.
Buttery, T. J. (1980). Listening: A skill analysis.
Education, 101, 181-187.
Callenbach, C. (1973). The effects of instruction and prac¬
tice in content-independent test-taking techniques upon
the standardized reading test scores of selected second¬
ary grade students. Journal of Educational Measurement,
10, 24-30.
Clevenger, T., Jr. (1959). A synthesis of experimental
research in stage fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
45, 134-145.

82
Clevenger, T., Jr., & Matthews, J. (1971). The speech
communication process. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman
& Co.
Crowell, D., & Hu-pei Au, K. (1981). Developing children's
comprehension in listening, reading and television
viewing. Elementary School Journal, 82, 129-135.
Daly, J. A. (1978). The assessment of social-communicative
anxiety via self-reports. A comparison of measures.
Communication Monographs, 45, 204-218. (a)
Daly, J. A. (1978). Communication apprehension and behavior
Applying a multiple act criteria. Human Communication
Research, 4_, 208-216. (b)
Davis, G. F. (1977). Communication, intelligence and
achievement among secondary school students. Unpub¬
lished Masters Thesis. West Virginia University.
Devine, T. G. (1968). Reading and listening: New research
findings. Elementary English, 45, 346-348.
Dickson, P. W., & Patterson, J. H. (1981). Evaluating
referential communication games for teaching speaking
and listening skills. Communication Education, 30,
11-21.
Disibio, R. A. (1982). Listening . . . The neglected art?
Reading Improvement, 19, 217-218.
Dixon, N. R. (1964). Listening: Most neglected of the
language arts. Elementary English, 41, 285-288.
Drake, F. E. (1961). How do you teach listening? Southern
Speech Journal, 16, 118-124.
Engen, H. B., Lamb, R. R., & Prediger, D. J. (1982). Are
secondary schools still using standardized tests?
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 287-290.
Fessenden, S. A. (1955). Levels of listening—A theory.
Education, 7_5, 288-291.
Freimuth, V. S. (1976). The effects of communication appre¬
hension on communication effectiveness. Human Communi¬
cation Research, 1_, 289-298.
Harwood, K. A. (1966). A concept of listenability. In S.
Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York: Scarecrow
Press.
Hennings, D. G. (1977). Learning to listen and speak.
Theory into Practice, 16, 183-188.

83
Hollingsworth, P. M. (1974). Let's improve listening skills.
Elementary English, 51, 1156-1157, 1161.
Huck, S. W., Cormier, W. H., & Bounds, W. G. (1974).
Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper
and Row.
Hurt, T., Preiss, R. , & Davis, B. (1976). The effects of
communication apprehension of middle-school children on
sociometric choice, affective and cognitive learning.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, Portland, Ore.
Johnson, W. (1966). Do you know how to listen? In S. Duker
(Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York: Scarecrow Press.
Keller, P. W. (1960). Major findings in listening in the
past ten years. Journal of Communication, 10, 29-38.
Kelly, C. M. (1965). An investigation of the construct
validity of two commercially published listening tests.
Speech Monographs, 32, 139-143.
Kelly, C. M. (1967). Listening: A complex of activities—
and a unitary skill? Speech Monographs, 34, 455-466.
Landry, D. L. (1971). The neglect of listening. Listening
and speaking. New York: Macmillan Co.
Lomas, C. W. (1934). A study of stage fright as measured
by reactions to the speaking situation. Masters Thesis.
Northwestern University.
Lorr, M., Daston, P., & Smith, I. R. (1967). An analysis
of mood state. Educational and Psychological Measure¬
ment , 27, 89-96.
Lundsteen, S. W. (1971). Listening: Its impact on reading
and the other language arts. Urbana, Ill.: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Lundsteen, S. W. (1979). Listening: Its impact at all
levels on reading and other language arts. Urbana, Ill.:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Marcus, L. L. (1981). Is it the tests or is it the prepara¬
tion of students? Contemporary Education, 53, 31-33.
McCaleb, J. L. (1981). Indirect teaching and listening.
Education, 102, 159-165.
McCormick, K. (1981). Good listening skills help kids learn.
American School Board Journal, 168, 37, 42.

84
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound
anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension:
A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communi¬
cation Research, £, 78-96.
McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index
of oral communication apprehension. Communication
Monographs, 45, 192-203.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A
reconceptualization. In J.K. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook VI. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
McCroskey, J. C. (1983). The communication apprehension
perspective. Journal of the Communication Association
of the Pacific, 12, 1-26.
McCroskey, J. C., & Anderson, J. F. (1976). The relationship
between communication apprehension and academic achieve¬
ment among college students. Human Communication
Research, 3_, 73-81.
McCroskey, J. C., & Leppard, T. (1975). The effects of com¬
munication apprehension on nonverbal behavior. Paper
presented to the Eastern Communication Association
Convention, New York.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1976). The effects of
CA on the perception of peers. Western Speech Communi¬
cation , 4 0, 14-21.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Daly, J. A., & Cox, B. G.
(1975). The effects of CA on interpersonal attraction.
Human Communication Research, 2_, 51-65.
McDowell, E. E., & McDowell, C. E. (1978). An investigation
of source and receiver apprehension at the junior high,
senior high and college levels. Central States Speech
Journal, 29, 11-19.
McNair, D. M., & Lorr, M. (1964). An analysis of mood in
neurotics. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
6_9, 620-627.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Dropplemann, L. F. (1981).
Profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and
Industrial Testing Service.
Miller, D. P., & Yerby, J. (1983). Regression analysis of
selected personal characteristics as predictors of small
group leadership. Journal of the Communication Associa-
tion of the Pacific, 12, 141-154.

85
Miller, G. R., & Fontes, N. E. (1974). Videotape on trial:
A view from the jury box. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Miliman, J., Bishop, G. H., & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis
of testwiseness. Educational and Psychological Measure¬
ment, 25, 707-726.
Nichols, R. (1948). Factors in listening comprehension.
Speech Monographs, 15, 154-163.
Nichols, R. (1961). Do we know how to listen? Practical
helps in a modern age. Speech Teacher, 10, 118-124.
Nichols, R., & Lewis, T. (1954). Listening and speaking.
Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co.
Nichols, R., & Stevens, L. (1957). Are you listening?
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pearson, D. P., & Fielding, L. (1982). Research update:
Listening comprehension. Language Arts, 59, 617-629.
Petrie, C. R., & Carrell, S. D. (1976). The relationship
of motivation, listening capability, initial information
and verbal organizational ability to lecture comprehen¬
sion and retention. Communication Monographs, 43, 187-
194.
Phillips, G. M. (1965). The problem of reticence.
Pennsylvania Speech Annual, 22, 22-38.
Phillips, G. M. (1968). Reticence: Pathology of the normal
speaker. Speech Monographs, 35, 39-49.
Phillips, G. M., & Butt, D. (1966). Reticence re-visited.
Pennsylvania Speech Annual, 23, 110-115.
Rankin, P. T. (1966). Listening ability and its components.
In S. Duker (Ed.), Listening: Readings. New York:
Scarecrow Press.
Rankin, P. T. (1928). The importance of listening ability.
English Journal, 17, 623-630.
Rubin, D. L., Daly, J., McCroskey, J. C., & Mead, N. A.
(1982). A review and critique of procedures for assess¬
ing speaking and listening skills among pre-school
through grade twelve students. Communication Education,
31, 285-303.
Rubin, R. B. (1982). Assessing speaking and listening com¬
petence at the college level: The communication compe¬
tency assessment instrument. Communication Education,
31, 19-32.

86
Rossiter, C. M. (1972) . Sex of the speaker, sex of the
listener and listening comprehension. Journal of Com¬
munication, 2_2, 64-69.
SAS User's Guide: Statistics. (1982). Cary, N.C.:
Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc.
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Communication
apprehension, student attitudes and levels of satis¬
faction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41,
188-198.
Spearritt, D. (1962). Listening comprehension: A factorial
analysis. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Stammer, J. D. (1977). Target: The basics of listening.
Language Arts, 54, 661-664.
Steil, I. K., Barker, I. L., & Watson, K. W. (1983).
Effective listening: Key to your success. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Strickland, R. (1966). The language arts in the elementary
school. 2nd ed. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.
Taylor, S. E. (1964). Listening: What research says to
the teacher. Washington: National Education Associa¬
tion.
Turnan, M. C. (1980). A comparative review of reading and
listening comprehension. Journal of Reading, 23, 698-
704.
Tutolo, D. J. (1977). A cognitive approach to teaching
listening. Language Arts, 54, 262-265.
Walker, L. (1977). Comprehension of writing and spontaneous
speech. Visible Language, 11, 38-45.
Weaver, S. W., & Rutherford, W. L. (1974). A hierarchy of
listening skills. Elementary English, 51, 1146-1150.
Wheeless, L. R. (1971). Communication apprehension in the
elementary school. Speech Teacher, 20, 297-299.
Wheeless, L. R. (1975). An investigation of receiver
apprehension and social context dimensions of communi¬
cation apprehension. Speech Teacher, 24, 261-268.
Wheeless, L. R., & Scott, M. D. (1976). The nature, measure¬
ment and potential effects of receiver apprehension.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, Portland, Ore.

87
Wheeless, L. R., & Scott, M. D. (1977). The relationship
of three types of communication apprehension to class¬
room achievement. Southern Speech Communication
Journal, 42, 246-255.
Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1982). Listening.
Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company.
Work, W. (1978). Listen, my children. . . . Communication
Education, 27, 146-152.
Wright, T. H. (1971). Learning to listen: A teacher's or
a student's problem? Phi Delta Kappan, 52, 625-628.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (PRCA)
1970

APPENDIX A
PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION (PRCA)
This instrument is composed of 20 statements concerning
feelings about communicating with other people. Indicate
the degree to which the statements apply to you by marking
whether you (5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3) are undecided,
(2) disagree, or (1) strongly disagree with each statement.
Work quickly; just record your first impression.
1.While participating in a conversation
with a new acquaintance I feel very
nervous.
SD D U A SA
1 2 3 4 5
2. I have no fear of facing an audience.
3. I look forward to an opportunity to
speak in meetings.
4. I look forward to an opportunity to
speak in public.
5. I find the prospect of speaking mildly
pleasant.
6. When communicating, my posture feels
strained and unnatural.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
7. I am tense and nervous while partici¬
pating in group discussions.
8. Although I talk fluently with friends
I am at a loss for words on the
platform.
9. My hands tremble when I try to handle
objects on the platform.
10. I always avoid speaking in public if
possible.
11. I feel that I am more fluent when
talking to people than most other
people are.
12. I am fearful and tense all the while
I am speaking before a group of people.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
90

91
13. My thoughts become confused and
jumbled when I speak before an
audience.
14. Although I am nervous just before
getting up, I soon forget my fears
and enjoy the experience.
15. Conversing with people who hold
positions of authority causes me to
be fearful and tense.
SD D U A SA
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
16. I dislike to use my body and voice
expressively.
17. I feel relaxed and comfortable
while speaking.
18. I feel self-conscious when I am
called upon to answer a question or
give an opinion in class.
19. I face the prospect of making a
speech with complete confidence.
20. I would enjoy presenting a speech
on a local television show.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX B
RECEIVER APPREHENSION TEST (RAT)
1975

APPENDIX B
RECEIVER APPREHENSION TEST (RAT)
The following statements apply to how various people feel
about receiving communication. Indicate if these statements
apply to how you feel by noting whether you (5) strongly
agree, (4) agree, (3) are undecided, (2) disagree, or
(1) strongly disagree.
SD D U A SA
1. I feel comfortable when listening
to others on the phone.
2. It is often difficult for me to
concentrate on what others are saying.
3. When listening to members of the oppo¬
site sex I find it easy to concentrate
on what is being said.
4. I have no fear of being a listener as
a member of an audience.
5. I feel relaxed when listening to new
ideas. 12345
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6. I would rather not have to listen to
other people at all.
7. I am generally overexcited and rattled
when others are speaking to me.
8. I often feel uncomfortable when listen¬
ing to others.
9. My thoughts become confused and jumbled
when reading important information.
10. I often have difficulty concentrating
on what others are saying.
11. Receiving new information makes me
feel restless.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
«
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
12. Watching television makes me nervous. 12345
13. When on a date I find myself tense and
self-conscious when listening to my date. 12345
93

94
SD D U A SA
14. I enjoy being a good listener.
15. I generally find it easy to concen- *
trate on what is being said.
16. I seek out the opportunity to listen
to new ideas.
17. I have difficulty concentrating on
instructions others give me. 12345
18. It is hard to listen or concentrate
on what other people are saying unless
I know them well. 12345
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
19. I feel tense when listening as a member
of a social gathering.
20. Television programs that attempt to
change my mind about something make
me nervous.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX C
PROFILE OF MOOD STATES (POMS)
1964

APPENDIX C
PROFILE OF MOOD STATES (POMS)
The Profile of Mood States, constructed by Douglas
McNair, Maurice Lorr and Leo Droppleman, was published by
the Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego,
California. Due to the copyrighted nature of this test,
it is not reproduced in this volume, but may be obtained
by writing the Educational Test Service.
96

APPENDIX D
SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS¬
LISTENING TEST (STEP)
1979

APPENDIX D
SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS—
LISTENING TEST (STEP)
The Sequential Test of Educational Progress--Listening
Test, developed by the Educational Testing Service, was pub¬
lished by the McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Due to the
copyrighted nature of this test, it is not reproduced in this
volume, but may be obtained by writing the McGraw-Hill Pub¬
lishing Company. The test was used in this research with
express, written permission of McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
98

APPENDIX E
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT

APPENDIX E
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT
Dear Participant:
The purpose of this project is to study the listening
comprehension levels of college undergraduate students under
conditions that might be encountered in a normal college
classroom. This study is being conducted by Katie A. Paschall,
Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida, Speech Depart¬
ment. This study will provide new insights concerning factors
which might influence listening comprehension in a classroom
environment.
Participation in this project will require you to be
involved in a 50 minute listening test situation. The listen¬
ing test consists of material involving a wide range of lecture
topics. Confidentiality will be maintained and each subject
will be identified by number only.
Your participation in this project is totally voluntary.
No monetary compensation will be awarded. You are under no
obligation and may withdraw at ant time during the project.
Any inquiries concerning the research will be respectfully
answered. You may also obtain your test scores from the
investigator and have them explained to you.
If you would like to participate in this project,
please sign your name below.
Sincerely,
Katie A. Paschall
100

101
I have read and understand the procedure described
above. I agree to participate in the procedure and I
understand that my participation is totally voluntary.
Name Date

APPENDIX F
POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX F
POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Student Number
Please answer the following questions. All information
will be kept confidential.
1. Is English your first language? Yes No
2. Have you had any speech training prior
to this course?
When Nature of training?
3. Have you had any Communication
Apprehension training prior to this
course?
When Nature of training?
4. Do you have any hearing problems?
Describe the nature of the problem.
Do you wear an artificial hearing
device?
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
103

APPENDIX G
STEP LISTENING TEST INSTRUCTIONS
FOR TEST CONDITIONS

APPENDIX G
STEP LISTENING TEST INSTRUCTIONS
FOR TEST CONDITIONS
Introduction
This is a test of how well you understand the kinds of
things spoken aloud to you. It will consist of two separate
sections. In both sections you will hear test passages
spoken aloud. Following each test passage you will hear a
series of questions. The answer choices for each question
will also be spoken aloud for you. The answer choices will
appear in the test booklet. Mark all of your answers on the
space provided in the test booklet. Follow all directions
carefully. Wait for instructions before turning to answer
choices. Do not turn the page until instructed to do so.
We will now do the example test question.
Example Test Passage
Christopher Columbus is known as the discoverer of the
new world. He sailed from Spain in 1492 with three ships,
the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. Where did Columbus
sail from? (A) Italy, (B) Spain, (C) The United States,
or (D) Portugal.
Choice B, Spain, is the correct answer. You should
have filled in Space B on the answer sheet. We will do the
rest of the test in this way. Remember that you must listen
to the test passage, the questions and the answer choices.
105

106
The answer choices are in the test booklet. Are there any
questions? We will now begin.
Instructions for the Non-Threat Condition
Listen carefully. At the completions of the test pas¬
sages, questions and answer choices, you will be given time
to mark your test booklet. The booklet will then be collected.
Instructions for the Threat Condition
Listen carefully. At the completion of test passages,
questions and answer choices, you will be given time to mark
your test booklet. The booklet will then be collected. At
this point the test administrator will ask you a series of
questions. You will be required to stand and respond orally
to each of the individual questions. You will also be asked
to summarize the contents of a selected test passage in an
impromptu speech. The speech should last no more than two
minutes.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Katie Ann Paschall was born in Henry County, Tennessee,
in 1954. She graduated from Henry County High School in 1972
with an emphasis in speech. She attended Murray State Uni¬
versity in Murray, Kentucky. She graduated from that insti¬
tution in 1975 with a Bachelor of Arts in speech with a minor
in journalism.
In 1975, Ms. Paschall became the first Jesse Stuart
Fellow and began her graduate work in speech at Murray State
University. She received the Master of Arts in speech in
1976.
Ms. Paschall taught high school speech and English in
Illinois and Tennessee. She also taught speech courses for
Kentucky Weslyan College in Ownesboro, Kentucky, and communi¬
cation courses for the University of Evansville in Evansville,
Indiana.
Ms. Paschall began her doctoral study at the University
of Florida in 1980, and will graduate in 1984 with the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy with an emphasis in speech communica¬
tion from that institution. She currently is an instructor
at the University of South Florida.
107

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.
Anthony J. Clark, Chairman
Associate Professor of Speech
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 0/P“S¡)octor of Philosophy.
Thomas B. Abbott
Professor of Speech
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
â– Donald E. Williams
Professor of Speech
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.
Arthur Sandeen
Professor of Educational
Administration and Supervision
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.
Albert Bl Smith, III
Professor of Instructional
Leadership and Support

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Philosophy in the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
April 1984
Dean for Graduate Studies
and Research

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08553 7321





PAGE 2

7+( ())(&7 2) 5(&(,9(5 $335(+(16,21 $1' 6285&( $335(+(16,21 21 /,67(1,1* &2035(+(16,21 %\ .$7,( $11 3$6&+$// $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,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 3

$&.12:/('*(0(176 0DQ\ LQGLYLGXDOV FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH UHVHDUFK UHFRUGHG LQ WKLV YROXPH )LUVW DQG IRUHPRVW UHFRJQLWLRQ VKRXOG EH DFFRUGHG WR P\ SDUHQWV :LQIUHG DQG 'RULV 3DVFKDOO )RU DOPRVW \HDUV WKH\ KDYH HQFRXUDJHG PH EHOLHYHG LQ PH DQG VXSSRUWHG PH LQ PRUH ZD\V WKDQ WKH\ NQRZ 7KHLU IDLWK LQ PH LQVSLUHG P\ FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKLV YROXPH 'U $QWKRQ\ &ODUN DV FKDLUPDQ RI P\ VXSHUYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH VSHQW FRXQWOHVV KRXUV UHDGLQJ HGLWLQJ DQG DGYLVn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

PAGE 4

)RU WKH VSHFLDO IULHQGV ZKR HQFRXUDJHG PH FKHHUHG PH DQG ORYHG PH DP HVSHFLDOO\ JUDWHIXO 7R 5XVVHOO %XGG DQG 'HYRUDK /LHEHUPDQ RIIHU P\ WKDQNV DQG P\ ORYH GHGLFDWH WKLV YROXPH WR WZR VSHFLDO WHDFKHUV P\ DXQW (GQD (DUO :LOVRQ DQG P\ IULHQG 5XE\ .ULGHU ZKR VKRZHG PH WKH VSHFLDO MR\ WKDW OHDUQLQJ DQG VKDULQJ NQRZOHGJH FDQ EULQJ 7KH\ LQVSLUHG DQG WDXJKW PH WR ZRUN KDUG DQG WR ORYH DQG WUXVW *RG LQ

PAGE 5

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*(0(176 LL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YL $%675$&7 YLL &KDSWHU ,,1752'8&7,21 5HYLHZ RI 5HOHYDQW /LWHUDWXUH /LVWHQLQJ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 6RXUFH $SSUHKHQVLRQ 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ 5DWLRQDOH DQG +\SRWKHVHV 'HILQLWLRQV 5HVHDUFK +\SRWKHVHV 3UREOHP 6WDWHPHQW ,,0(7+2'2/2*< 5HVHDUFK 'HVLJQ 6XEMHFWV 8VHG LQ 7KLV 6WXG\ 0DWHULDOV 3HUVRQDO 5HSRUW RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 35&$f 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ 7HVW 5$7f 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 3206f 6HTXHQWLDO 7HVW RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUHVV/LVWHQLQJ 67(3f 67(3 $XGLR 7DSH 3RVW([SHULPHQWDO 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 3URFHGXUH $QDO\VLV RI 5HVXOWV ,,,5(68/76 6HOI5HSRUW )LQGLQJV 3HUVRQDO 5HSRUW RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 35&$f 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ 7HVW 5$7f 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 3206f 3RVW([SHULPHQWDO 4XHVWLRQQDLUH ,9

PAGE 6

&KDSWHU 3DJH ,,, 5(68/76 &RQWLQXHGf 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW +\SRWKHVHV 7HVW 5HVXOWV 6XPPDU\ ,9 ',6&866,21 &RQFOXVLRQV /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH 6WXG\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK 5()(5(1&(6 $33(1',&(6 $ 3(5621$/ 5(3257 2) &20081,&$7,21 $335(+(16,21 35&$f % 5(&(,9(5 $335(+(16,21 7(67 5$7f & 352),/( 2) 022' 67$7(6 3206f 6(48(17,$/ 7(67 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 352*5(66f§ /,67(1,1* 7(67 67(3f ( $&.12:/('*(0(17 2) ,1)250(' &216(17 ) 3267(;3(5,0(17$/ 48(67,211$,5( 67(3 /,67(1,1* 7(67 ,16758&7,216 )25 7(67 &21',7,216 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 7+( ())(&7 2) 5(&(,9(5 $335(+(16,21 $1' 6285&( $335(+(16,21 21 /,67(1,1* &2035(+(16,21 %\ .DWLH $QQ 3DVFKDOO $SULO &KDLUPDQ $QWKRQ\ &ODUN 3K' 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW 6SHHFK 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFW RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV OLVn WHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW XQGHU WKUHDW RU DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJ FRQGLWLRQV 0RRG VWDWH ZDV DOVR H[DPLQHG DV D SRVVLEOH LQWHUYHQLQJ YDULDEOH LQ OLVWHQLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH /HYHOV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZHUH REWDLQHG IRU VWXGHQWV LQ HLJKW LQWDFW SXEOLF VSHDNn LQJ FODVVHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW ZDV ODWHU DGPLQLVWHUHG WR WKH HLJKW FODVVHV 7KH WHVW ZDV JLYHQ LQ WZR SDUWV LQ RQH RI HLJKW H[SHULPHQWDO SHUPXWDn WLRQV 7KH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH WHVW FRQFHUQHG WKUHDW RI RUDO SHUIRUPDQFH DIWHU OLVWHQLQJ WR LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDWHULDO DQG D QRQWKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ ZKLFK FDOOHG IRU RQO\ OLVWHQLQJ SHUIRUPn DQFH 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG WR GHWHUn PLQH PRRG VWDWH DW WKH WLPH RI WHVWLQJ Y[L

PAGE 9

$ SURFHGXUH FRUUHODWLRQ UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODn WLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ UHFHLYHU DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ 1HLWKHU UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ QRU PRRG VWDWH ZHUH IRXQG WR EH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 8VLQJ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ ZLWK PRRG VWDWH DV D FRYDULDWH DQ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH UHYHDOHG QR GLIIHUHQFH RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV IRU VXEMHFWV XQGHU WKUHDW DQG QRQWKUHDW FRQGLWLRQV UHJDUGOHVV RI OHYHO RI DSSUHKHQn VLRQ $ SRVWH[SHULPHQWDO TXHVWLRQQDLUH LQGLFDWHG WKDW VXEn MHFWV KDG SULRU VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ ,Q D ILYH IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK D FRYDULDWH RI PRRG VWDWH RQO\ VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ SURYHG WR EH D VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW +RZHYHU GXH WR XQHYHQ JURXSV WKLV ILQGLQJ FDQQRW EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV KLJKO\ VLJQLILFDQW 7KLV UHVHDUFK DQG DQDO\VLV OHG WR WKH IROORZLQJ FRQFOXn VLRQV 5HFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ DUH VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW GLPHQVLRQV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ 7KHUH LV QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ DQG UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ RU VRXUFH DSSUHn KHQVLRQ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW )XUWKHU DQ DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJ FRQGLWLRQ GRHV QRW VLJQLILn FDQWO\ DIIHFW OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH OHYHO RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ $Q LQGLYLGXDOnV VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ PD\ EH D VLJQLILn FDQW IDFWRU LQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VKRXOG EH IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWHG YLLL

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 0DQNLQGnV ILUVW V\VWHP RI HGXFDWLRQ ZDV RUDO DQG RI QHFHVVLW\ FRQWLQXHG WR EH VR XQWLO WKH LQYHQWLRQ RI WKH SULQWLQJ SUHVV ,W ZDV QRW XQWLO WKH ODWWHU SDUW RI WKH WK FHQWXU\ WKDW SULQW RYHUWRRN WKH RUDO PHGLXP DV WKH SULPDU\ PRGH RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ IRUPDO HGXFDWLRQ 6LQFH WKDW WLPH WKH HPSKDVLV RI WKH H\H RYHU WKH HDU KDV UHVXOWHG LQ JHQHUDn WLRQV ZKR ILQG LW GLIILFXOW WR DVVLPLODWH NQRZOHGJH DXUDOO\ $QGHUVRQ S f +RZHYHU WKH DGYHQW RI DQ LQFUHDVn LQJO\ WHFKQRORJLFDO DJH KDV DJDLQ SURGXFHG FKDQJHV LQ WKH OHDUQLQJ HQYLURQPHQW ZKLFK WDNH VWXGHQWV EH\RQG WKH FRQILQHV RI WKH SULQW PHGLXP 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI WKH PDVV PHGLD ERWK LQ DQG RXW RI WKH FODVVURRP UHTXLUHV QHZ OHDUQLQJ VNLOOV IRU VWXGHQWV $QGHUVRQ 1LFKROV t 6WHYHQV f $GYDQFHV LQ VFLHQFH DQG FRPSXWHU WHFKQRORJ\ SURGXFH EXUJHRQn LQJ TXDQWLWLHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK VKLIW WKH HPSKDVLV RQ VNLOOV IURP SDVVLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ VWRUDJH WR DFWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ VHHNLQJ DQG SURFHVVLQJ )XUWKHU DV VRFLDO VWUXFWXUHV EHFRPH PRUH FRPSOH[ LQGLYLGXDOV ZLOO EHFRPH PRUH GHSHQGHQW RQ RXU DELOLWLHV WR SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ D YDULHW\ RI ZD\V LQFOXGn LQJ WKH DXUDO DV ZHOO DV WKH ZULWWHQ PHGLD :RUN f :KLOH RIWHQ QHJOHFWHG LQ WUDGLWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHPV OLVWHQLQJ LV DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI D SHUVRQnV DELOLW\ WR SURFHVV

PAGE 11

LQIRUPDWLRQ 1RZKHUH LV RQHnV FDSDFLW\ WR KHDU DQG FRPSUHn KHQG PRUH FULWLFDO WKDQ LQ WKH UHDOP RI IRUPDO HGXFDWLRQ 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ HGXFDWRUV KDYH DSSHDUHG WR DVVXPH WKDW OLVWHQn LQJ DELOLW\ ZDV DQ RIIVKRRW RI RWKHU ODQJXDJH VNLOOV DQG OLWWOH RU QR HIIRUW KDV EHHQ LQYHVWHG WR VWXG\ LW DV D WUDLW ZKLFK LV XQLTXH DV D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOO &RUUHVSRQGLQJO\ WKHUH KDV QRW EHHQ D ZLGHVSUHDG HIIRUW WR WHDFK OLVWHQLQJ DV DQ LPSRUWDQW VNLOO LQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ 5HFHQW HPSKDVLV RQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQF\ KRZHYHU KDV VSDUNHG D QHZ LQWHUHVW LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV &RPPXn QLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQF\ IRFXVHV RQ WKH FRQFHSW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DELOLW\ WR PDQDJH V\PEROV LQ DOO WKHLU PRGHV DQG FRQWH[WV DQG WKHUHIRUH LQFOXGHV VNLOO LQ VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ DV ZHOO DV LQ UHDGLQJ DQG ZULWLQJ :RUN f 3V\FKRORJLVWV DQG HGXFDWLRQDO WKHRULVWV DJUHH WKDW OLVn WHQLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG /LVWHQLQJ LV WKH ILUVW VNLOO WR EH GHYHORSHG DQG WKH RQH XVHG PRVW RIWHQ ,QIDQWV GHYHORS OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU IURP ELUWK WKHVH EHKDYn LRUV DUH REVHUYDEOH DW WR PRQWKV ZKLOH VSHDNLQJ VNLOOV DUH QRW REVHUYDEOH XQWLO WR PRQWKV 5HDGLQJ VNLOOV DUH QRW REVHUYDEOH XQWLO WR \HDUV RI DJH 6WHLO %DUNHU t :DWVRQ f /LVWHQLQJ KDV EHHQ GHWHUPLQHG WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH LQ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ YLWDO WR WKH HGXFDWLRQDO DQG VRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SHUVRQ $FFRUGLQJ WR %DUEDUD f PDQnV YHU\ H[LVWHQFH GHSHQGV XSRQ KLV DELOLW\ WR H[FKDQJH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WR UHPDLQ LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ

PAGE 12

ZLWK KLV IHOORZ PDQ /LVWHQLQJ ZKLFK GRHV QRW IXUWKHU WKHVH DLPV FDQ RQO\ EH GLVWXUELQJ S f 5HVHDUFK KDV ILUPO\ HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW DQ\WKLQJ WKDW LPSDLUV OLVWHQLQJ LPSDLUV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DELOLW\ WR IXQFWLRQ LQ VRFLHW\ %DQYLOOH :RUN f +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH QXPHURXV IDFWRUV ZKLFK PLJKW LQIOXHQFH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ 7KH VFRSH RI WKH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUH KDV EHHQ OLPLWHG WR WKH VSHFLILF DVSHFW RI OLVn WHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ D FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV DUHD RI UHVHDUFK ZDV FKRVHQ SULPDULO\ EHFDXVH RI WKH UHODWLYH ODFN RI LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ OLVWHQLQJ LQ UHODWLRQ WR LWV DFNQRZOHGJHG LPSRUWDQFH WR WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SURFHVV (YHQ JLYHQ WKHVH VSHFLILF OLPLWDWLRQV KRZHYHU WKH QXPEHU RI YDULDEOHV ZKLFK PLJKW LQIOXHQFH OLVWHQLQJ FRXOG FRPSULVH D ORQJ OLVW $ VXUYH\ RI OLVWHQLQJ UHVHDUFK SRLQWHG WR D SRVn VLEOH OLQN EHWZHHQ OLVWHQLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WKH SKHQRPHQRQ NQRZQ DV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ $V D UHVXOW WKH IDFWRU RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ UHFHLYHG DWWHQWLRQ DV D FHQWUDO YDULDEOH LQ WKLV VWXG\ RI OLVWHQLQJ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ KDV SUHYLRXVO\ EHHQ OLQNHG WR DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW LQ FRXUVHV HPSOR\LQJ GLIIHUHQW LQVWUXFWLRQDO VWUDWHJLHV 0F&URVNH\ t $QGHUVRQ f DQG WR SUREOHPV DIIHFWLQJ VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ +XUW 3UHLVV t 'DYLV f 6RPH DWWHQWLRQ KDV EHHQ SDLG E\ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VFKRODUV WR WKH LGHD WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV IHDU RI FRPPXQLn FDWLQJ PD\ VRPHKRZ EH UHODWHG ZLWK KLVKHU FDSDFLW\ WR SURn FHVV HQFRGHf LQIRUPDWLRQ 0RUH UHFHQWO\ UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ

PAGE 13

IRFXVHG RQ WKH IHDU RI FRPPXQLFDWLQJ DV LW UHODWHV WR WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DELOLW\ WR GHFRGH LQIRUPDWLRQ D WUDLW WUDGLn WLRQDOO\ NQRZQ DV OLVWHQLQJ :KHHOHVV f 7KHUHIRUH WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG HPSLULFDO UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 7KH GLPHQVLRQV RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZHUH H[DPLQHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHP DV ZHOO DV WKHLU HIIHFWV RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ %HFDXVH WKLV LQTXLU\ ZDV OLPLWHG WR DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW WKH UHVHDUFK ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ D UHJXODU FODVVURRP XQGHU FRQGLn WLRQV GHVLJQHG WR DSSUR[LPDWH QRUPDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ SURGXFLQJ FRQGLWLRQV WKH DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI DQ RUDO SHUIRUPn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n WLRQDO SURFHVV ZLOO UHFHLYH SDUWLFXODU DWWHQWLRQ /LVWHQLQJ $ VXUYH\ RI VRPH RI WKH ILQGLQJV ZKLFK UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH FRQWULEXWHG GXULQJ WKH SDVW VHYHUDO GHFDGHV SURYLGHV D

PAGE 14

FRPSUHKHQVLYH YLHZ RI WKH DUHD RI OLVWHQLQJ 5HVHDUFK RQ OLVWHQLQJ JRHV EDFN ZHOO RYHU \HDUV 5DQNLQnV f 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 0LFKLJDQ GRFWRUDO WKHVLV 7KH 0HDVXUHPHQW RI WKH $ELOLW\ WR 8QGHUVWDQG 6SRNHQ /DQJXDJH ZDV WKH ILUVW PDMRU WUHDWPHQW RI WKH VXEMHFW RI OLVWHQLQJ )XUWKHU UHVHDUFK UHPDLQHG VSRUDGLF DQG LQFRQFOXVLYH XQWLO WKH nV DQG nV 'XULQJ WKLV SHULRG VFKRODUV SURGXFHG WKH PDMRU SRUWLRQ RI H[WDQW OLVWHQLQJ UHVHDUFK 7KH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WKH SHULRG LV WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ DV D WUDLW VHSDUDWH IURP RWKHU YHUEDO DELOLWLHV %LJJV 6SHDUULWW f 7KH nV VDZ OLWWOH DFWLYLW\ LQ WKLV DUHD DQG WKH nV FRQFHQWUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ RQ WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV DV D SDUW RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQF\ 3HDUVRQ t )LHOGLQJ f )RU PDQ\ \HDUV OLWHUDF\ ZDV GHILQHG DV RQHnV DELOLW\ WR UHDG DQG ZULWH 5HFHQWO\ KRZHYHU SKUDVHV VXFK DV ODQJXDJH OLWHUDF\ RU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQF\ KDYH EHHQ HPEUDFHG E\ HGXFDWRUV DQG WKH\ LQFOXGH WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQFLHV RI VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ DV ZHOO DV UHDGLQJ DQG ZULWLQJ 1XPHURXV SHGDJRJV DQG HGXFDWRUV KDYH FRPH WR UHFRJQL]H WKH LQKHUHQW LQWHUGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH VRFDOOHG ODQJXDJH DUWV DQG WKH RUDODXUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOOV 5XELQ :RUN f 7KH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 2IILFH RI (GXFDWLRQ DGGHG VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVn WHQLQJ WR WKH OLVW RI EDVLF VNLOOV XQGHU WKHLU 7LWOH ,, SURn JUDP 'LFNVRQ t 3DWWHUVRQ f 7KH (GXFDWLRQDO 3ROLF\ %RDUG RI WKH 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ UHFRPPHQGHG LQ DGGLQJ PLQLPDO VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSHWHQFLHV IRU

PAGE 15

KLJK VFKRRO JUDGXDWHV %DVVHWW :KLWWLQJWRQ t 6WDWRQ6SLFHU f 7KH 6WDWH RI )ORULGD KDV PDQGDWHG DQ DVVHVVPHQW DQG WHVWLQJ SURJUDP IRU XVH DW WKH HQG RI WKH VRSKRPRUH \HDU LQ FROOHJH ZKLFK ZLOO MXGJH LI VWXGHQWV KDYH DFTXLUHG EDVLF VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV :KLOH WKHUH LV GLIILFXOW\ LQ GHYHORSLQJ PHWKRGV WR PDVV WHVW WKHVH VNLOOV DOO VWDWH VXSn SRUWHG LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQ )ORULGD DUH XQGHU D OHJDO PDQGDWH WR GR VR QR ODWHU WKDQ 'HVSLWH WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ JLYHQ WR VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ DV LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ VNLOOV UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW VFKRRO V\VWHPV DW DOO OHYHOV HPSKDVL]H UHDGLQJ DQG ZULWLQJ WR WKH GHWULPHQW RI RUDO DQG DXUDO SURFHVVHV 1LFKROV /XQGVWHHQ f )XUWKHU VSHHFK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FODVVHV QRZ ZLGHO\ UHFRPPHQGHG E\ HGXFDWRUV LQ DOO DFDGHPLF DUHDV FXUn UHQWO\ FRQFHQWUDWH SULPDULO\ RQ RUDO VSHDNLQJf VNLOOV DQG JLYH VFDQW DWWHQWLRQ WR OLVWHQLQJ 1LFKROV 'L[RQ 'UDNH 6WHLO %DUNHU t :DWVRQ f 7KLV LV GLVFRQFHUWLQJ ZKHQ RQH OHDUQV WKDW OLVWHQLQJ FRQVXPHV VLJn QLILFDQWO\ PRUH WLPH WKDQ GRHV VSHDNLQJ UHDGLQJ RU ZULWLQJ LQ D VWXGHQWnV DFDGHPLF OLIH 'LVLELR f 0F&RUPLFN f IRU H[DPSOH UHSRUWHG WKDW b RI FODVV WLPH LQ HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO b LQ KLJK VFKRRO DQG b RI FROOHJH FODVV WLPH ZDV FRQVXPHG E\ OLVWHQLQJ S f 7KHUH LV QRQHWKHOHVV OLWWOH GLVDJUHHPHQW DPRQJ WHDFKHUV DQG SV\FKRORJLVWV DERXW WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI OLVWHQLQJ LQ KXPDQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG OHDUQLQJ /XQGVWHHQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ LV WKH ILUVW ODQJXDJH VNLOO WR DSSHDU

PAGE 16

DQG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ LV FRQVLGHUHG WKH ILUVW VWHS LQ XQORFNLQJ SURJUHVV LQ DQ\ RWKHU DUHD UHODWHG WR ODQJXDJHf§ZKLFK ZRXOG LQFOXGH VFLHQFH PDWK KLVWRU\ WKH ZKROH RI HGXFDWLRQ S [LLf /XQGVWHHQ f IXUWKHU VWDWHG WKDW D QDWXUDO SURJUHVVLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQ ZRXOG EH WR WHDFK WKLQNLQJ VNLOOV LQ DQ RUDO FRQWH[W EHIRUH H[SHFWLQJ WKLQNLQJ VNLOOV WR VHUYH FKLOGUHQ WR WKHLU EHVW DGYDQWDJH LQ UHDGLQJ DQG ZULWLQJ S f &URZHOO DQG +X3HL $X f VXSSRUWHG WKLV YLHZ E\ DVVHUWLQJ WKDW FKLOGUHQ VKRXOG GHYHORS D VWUDWHJ\ IRU RUJDQL]LQJ DQG WKLQNLQJ DERXW VWRULQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHFHLYHG WKURXJK DXGLWRU\ FKDQQHOV S f 7KHUHIRUH OLVWHQLQJ LV DFNQRZOHGJHG DV D VNLOO YLWDO WR WKH WRWDO OHDUQLQJ SURFHVV 'HILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ %DVLF WR WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ LV D GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ KRZHYHU QR VLPSOH RU JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG GHILQLWLRQ KDV HPHUJHG IURP WKH YDULRXV UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV 'HYLQH S f 7KH GLIILFXOW\ LQ GHILQLQJ OLVWHQLQJ PD\ OLH LQ WKH ODFN RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH SURFHVV LWVHOI %DNDQ f RU LQ WKH ODFN RI NQRZOHGJH DERXW WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH SURFHVV 3HWULH f $ QXPEHU RI GHILn QLWLRQV KDYH EHHQ RIIHUHG HDFK KRZHYHU FRQWDLQV HOHPHQWV RI RWKHUV RU LV DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI SUHYLRXV GHILQLWLRQV /XQGVWHHQ f WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW WKH DPELJXLW\ RI WKH WHUP OLVWHQLQJ GHILQHG LW DV WKH SURFHVV E\ ZKLFK VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH LV FRQYHUWHG WR PHDQLQJ LQ WKH PLQG S f %XWWHU\ f DOVR GHILQHG OLVWHQLQJ DV WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI DXGLWRU\ VWLPXOL DQG LQGLFDWHG WKDW OLVn WHQLQJ ZDV DQ DFWLYH FRJQLWLYH SURFHVV ZKLFK UHTXLUHV

PAGE 17

FRQVFLRXV DWWHQWLRQ WR VRXQGV LQ RUGHU WR JDLQ VLJQLILFDQW PHDQLQJ IURP WKHP S f +ROOLQJVZRUWK f GHVFULEHG OLVWHQLQJ DV DQ DFWLYH DQG DOHUW SURFHVV UHTXLULQJ WKH OLVn WHQHU WR GHFRGH PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW PHDQLQJV IURP V\QWDFWLFDO DUUDQJHPHQW RI ZRUGV LQWRQDWLRQV DQG LQIOHFWLRQV LQ WKH VSHDNHUnV YRLFH DQG LQFOXGHG WKH OLVWHQHUnV H[SHULHQFH ZLWK ZRUGV DV DQ LPSRUWDQW HOHPHQW LQ WKH SURFHVV S f 2WKHU GHILQLWLRQV WKRXJK QRW GLVDJUHHLQJ ZLWK WKH FRQn FHSW RI OLVWHQLQJ DV DQ DFWLYH DQG FRJQLWLYH SURFHVV KDYH IRFXVHG RQ WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ KHDULQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ &OHYHQJHU t 0DWWKHZV +DUZRRG f %DUEDUD f IRU H[DPSOH VWDWHG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ LQYROYHG D GHILQLWH DQG XVXDOO\ YROXQWDU\ HIIRUW WR FRPSUHKHQG DFRXVWLFDOO\ S f KHDULQJ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG LQYROYHG PHUH UHFHSWLRQ RI VWLPXOL RYHU DXGLWRU\ SDWKZD\V S f 1LFKROV DQG /HZLV f RIIHUHG D GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ DV D WRWDO SURFHVV FDOOHG DXUDO DVVLPLODWLRQ +HDULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI WKH SURFHVV LV WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI VRXQG E\ WKH HDU RQO\ /LVWHQLQJ WKH VHFRQG SKDVH LV WKH DWWDFKPHQW RI PHDQLQJ WR DXUDO V\PEROV SHUFHLYHG S f $ QXPEHU RI UHVHDUFKHUV GHYHORSHG PRGHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ ZKLFK H[WHQGHG WKH WZR SKDVHV RI KHDULQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ WR LQFOXGH D WKLUG SKDVH FDOOHG DXGLQJ 'LVLELR f 6WDPPHU f GHVFULEHG KHDULQJ DV D QRQDWWHQWLYH EHKDYLRU DQG OLVWHQLQJ DV DWWHQWLYH EHKDYLRU FRQFHQWUDWHG RQ SURFHVVn LQJ VRXQGV $XGLQJ ZDV WKHQ GHILQHG DV WKH FHQWHU RI WKH SURFHVV ZKHUHE\ VRXQGV DUH SURFHVVHG IRU PHDQLQJ SS f

PAGE 18

%HUJHU DQG :HUGUDDQQ f GHILQHG WKH SKDVH RI DXGLQJ DV WKH SURFHVV RI OLVWHQLQJ WR UHFRJQL]LQJ DQG LQWHUSUHWLQJ VSRNHQ V\PEROV S f %XWWHU\ f DOVR UHIHUUHG WR DXGLQJ DV WKH SURFHVV RI RUJDQL]LQJ DQG DQDO\]LQJ ZKDW ZDV KHDUG S f 7KH WHUP DXGLQJ KRZHYHU KDV QRW JDLQHG ZLGH DFFHSWDQFH RU XVH DQG WKH DFWLYLWLHV RU SURFHVVHV UHIHUUHG WR E\ DXGLQJ VFKRODUV DUH XVXDOO\ DWWULEXWHG WR WKH OLVWHQLQJ SKDVH /XQGVWHHQ f 7KRXJK PRVW RIWHQ UHIHUUHG WR DV D SURFHVV FRQFHUQLQJ DXUDO VWLPXOL VRPH VFKRODUV KDYH SRVLWHG WKDW D YLVXDO IDFn WRU PD\ DOVR EH D FRPSRQHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ %URZQ f GHILQHG OLVWHQLQJ DV WKH DXUDO DVVLPLODWLRQ RI VSRNHQ V\Pn EROV LQ D IDFHWRIDFH VSHDNHU DXGLHQFH VLWXDWLRQ S f +HQQLQJ f DOVR UHSRUWHG WKH H[LVWHQFH RI D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH VSHDNHUnV ERG\ PRWLRQV DQG WKH OLVWHQHUnV XQGHUn VWDQGLQJ RI WKH PHVVDJH S f 3HWULH f KRZHYHU DUJXHG WKDW YLVXDO EHKDYLRU ZDV D IDFWRU ZKHQ WKH VSHDNHU ZDV SUHVHQW EXW WKDW OLVWHQLQJ PD\ JR RQ LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI WKH SK\VLFDO SUHVHQFH RI WKH VSHDNHU )XUWKHU :HDYHU DQG 5XWKHUIRUG f UHSRUWHG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV LQ VLJKWHG DQG YLVXDOO\ KDQGLFDSSHG SHRSOH SURJUHVVHG DW WKH VDPH UDWH LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW YLVXDO IDFWRUV KDG QR GLUHFW LPSDFW RQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ &RQVHTXHQWO\ LQFOXGLQJ D YLVXDO IDFWRU DV D QHFHVVDU\ FRPSRQHQW RI OLVn WHQLQJ VHHPV WR XQGXO\ UHVWULFW WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH WHUP 3HWULH S f

PAGE 19

/XQGVWHHQ f VXPPDUL]HG WKH VWDWXV RI D FOHDUFXW GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ E\ VWDWLQJ WKDW OLVWHQLQJ ZDV WRR FRPSOH[ DQ DFWLYLW\ WR EH DGHTXDWHO\ GHILQHG LQ D VHQWHQFH RU D SDUDJUDSK &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKLV YLHZ VRPH UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH VRXJKW D PRUH FRPSOHWH GHILQLWLRQ E\ VHSDUDWLQJ WKH SURn FHVV LQWR SDUWV %URZQ 5DQNLQ f 3HDUVRQ DQG )LHOGLQJ f IRU H[DPSOH DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH SURFHVV FRXOG EHVW EH GHVFULEHG LQ WHUPV RI D SKRQRORJLFDO OHYHO DW ZKLFK D OLVWHQHU PXVW EH DEOH WR GLVWLQJXLVK WKH VRXQG SDWWHUQV RU SKRQHPHV RI WKH ODQJXDJH D V\QWDFWLFDO OHYHO DW ZKLFK WKH OLVWHQHU FDQ UHFRJQL]H SDUDSKUDVHV DPELJXLWLHV DQG LQWHUn SUHWDWLRQV RI WKH ZRUGV D VHPDQWLF OHYHO DW ZKLFK WKH OLVn WHQHU UHFRJQL]HV PHDQLQJV RI WKH ZRUGV DQG D WH[W VWUXFWXUH OHYHO DW ZKLFK WKH OLVWHQHU RUJDQL]HV PHVVDJHV DV WKH\ UHODWH WR KLVKHU FXOWXUH RU FRQWH[W $OO IRXU OHYHOV PXVW EH FRPELQHG WR DFKLHYH D VDWLVIDFWRU\ GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ SS f 7XWROR f DOVR VWDWHG WKDW WKH EHVW GHILn QLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ FRXOG EH DFKLHYHG E\ VHSDUDWLQJ OLVWHQLQJ LQWR WKUHH SDUWV 7KH ILUVW DFXLW\ LQYROYHV WKH SURFHVV RI VRXQG ZDYHV SDVVLQJ WKURXJK WKH HDU WR WKH EUDLQ 7KH VHFRQG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ LQYROYHV WKH HDU DQG EUDLQ GHWHUPLQn LQJ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH VRXQGV &RPSUHKHQVLRQ WKH WKLUG SDUW LV DFFRPSOLVKHG ZKHQ WKH OLVWHQHU UHFDOOV IDFWV DQG LGHDV GHWHUPLQHV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW H[LVWV EHWZHHQ WKHP DQG ILQDOO\ HYDOXDWHV ZKDW ZDV KHDUG S f /LVWHQLQJ VFKRODUV KDYH DOVR IRFXVHG RQ WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI HIIHFWLYH OLVWHQLQJ )HVVHQGHQ f UHSRUWHG VHYHQ

PAGE 20

OHYHOV RI HIIHFWLYH OLVWHQLQJ ZKLFK UDQJHG IURP LVRODWLQJ VRXQGV DQG LGHDV LQYROYLQJ QR HYDOXDWLRQ RU DQDO\VLV WR WKH OHYHO RI LQWURVSHFWLRQ UHTXLULQJ DQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH HIIHFW WKDW KDYLQJ KHDUG KDV RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO 6WULFNODQG f OLVWHG HLJKW OHYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ GHYHORSLQJ IURP WKH ILUVW OHYHO RI OLWWOH FRQVFLRXV OLVWHQLQJ WR D OHYHO RI WUXH PHHWLQJ RI WKH PLQGV SS f 1LFKROV DQG /HZLV f GHVFULEHG WHQ FRPSRQHQWV UDQJLQJ IURP SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH ZLWK PDWHULDO WR WKH UHFRQFLOLDWLRQ RI WKRXJKWVSHHG DQG VSHHFKVSHHG SS f %XWWHU\ f DOVR UHSRUWHG IRXU FRPSRQHQWV RI DWWHQGLQJ EHKDYLRU KHDULQJ DFXLW\ DXGLWRU\ GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RU DXGLQJ DOO RI ZKLFK ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG QHFHVVDU\ WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH OLVWHQn LQJ SURFHVV $ PDMRU IDFWRU LQ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ LV WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ 1LFKROV DQG /HZLV f IRU H[DPSOH IRFXVHG RQ WKUHH W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ HDFK RI ZKLFK VHUYHG D GLIIHUHQW HQG $SSUHFLDWLYH OLVWHQLQJ ZDV GHVFULEHG DV WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI DQ\ NLQG RI VWLPn XOL JUDWLI\LQJ WR WKH VHQVHV &ULWLFDO OLVWHQLQJ FRQFHUQHG WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI SHUVXDVLYH VSHHFK IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI HYDOXn DWLQJ DUJXPHQWV DQG HYLGHQFH 'LVFULPLQDWLYH OLVWHQLQJ RU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ GHDOW ZLWK WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLYH VSHHFK XVXDOO\ LQ DQ LQVWUXFWLYH VLWXDWLRQ 7KLV W\SH RI OLVWHQLQJ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH EDVLF WR WKH RWKHU W\SHV SS f %XWWHU\ f DOVR OLVWHG IRXU W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ /LWHUDO UHFRJQLWLRQ RU UHFDOO IRFXVHG RQ UHFRJQLWLRQ RU

PAGE 21

UHFDOO RI GHWDLOV DQG PDLQ LGHDV ,QIHUHQWLDO RU LQWHUSUHn WLYH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ FRQFHUQHG ZKDW ZDV PHDQW E\ WKH VSHDNHU DQG UHTXLUHG H[WUDSRODWLRQ EH\RQG JLYHQ LQIRUPDWLRQ &ULWLn FDO RU HYDOXDWLYH OLVWHQLQJ VXEVXPHG WKH RWKHU W\SHV DQG UHTXLUHG PDNLQJ UHDVRQHG MXGJHPHQWV DERXW ZKDW ZDV KHDUG $SSUHFLDWLYH RU DHVWKHWLF FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQYROYHG DQ DZDUHQHVV RI YDULRXV WHFKQLTXHV IRUPV DQG VW\OHV XVHG E\ PXVLFLDQV DQG RUDWRUV WR VWLPXODWH DQ HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVH LQ WKH OLVWHQHU S f 'LVLELR f OLVWHG IRXU W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ VLPLODU WR WKRVH GHVFULEHG E\ RWKHU VFKRODUV $WWHQWLYH OLVWHQLQJ IRFXVHG RQ RQH SHUVRQ RU DVSHFW RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHFLDn WLYH OLVWHQLQJ FRQFHUQHG WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI PHVVDJHV IRU HQMR\n PHQW $QDO\WLFDO OLVWHQLQJ GHDOW ZLWK OLVWHQLQJ IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI UHVSRQGLQJ 0DUJLQDO OLVWHQLQJ FHQWHUHG RQ WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI PHVVDJHV ZKHQ WZR RU PRUH GLVWUDFWLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQW S f 0F&DOHE f VLPLODUO\ GHVFULEHG WKUHH W\SHV RI OLVn WHQLQJ DV LQIRUPDWLYH FULWLFDO DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO ,QIRUPDn WLYH OLVWHQLQJ FRQFHUQHG WKH FODULW\ RI WKH PHVVDJH WR WKH UHFHLYHU DQG GHDOW ZLWK XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI PDLQ LGHDV DQG UHWHQWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ &ULWLFDO OLVWHQLQJ FRQFHUQHG WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI SHUVXDVLYH PHVVDJHV DQG WKH OLVWHQHUnV DELOLW\ WR PDNH LQIHUHQFHV GHWHUPLQH PRWLYHV DQG DVVHVV HYLGHQFH DQG UHDVRQLQJ ,QWHUSHUVRQDO OLVWHQLQJ GHDOW ZLWK WKH DELOLW\ WR LQWHUDFW ZLWK RWKHUV LQ D PDQQHU ZKLFK FODULILHG DQG HOLFLWHG H[SUHVVLRQV DQG SURYLGHG HIIHFWLYH VXSSRUW S f

PAGE 22

7XWROR f DOVR UHSRUWHG WKUHH FRJQLWLYH OHYHOV RU W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ /LWHUDO FRPSUHKHQVLRQ FHQWHUHG RQ WKH IDFWXDO UHFDOO RI ZKDW WKH VSHDNHU VDLG ,QWHUSUHWLYH FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ LQYROYHG GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW H[LVWV DPRQJ IDFWV RU LGHDV &ULWLFDO OLVWHQLQJ VXEVXPHG WKH RWKHU W\SHV DQG QHFHVVLWDWHG DQ HYDOXDWLRQ RI ZKDW ZDV KHDUG S f ,Q PXFK WKH VDPH PDQQHU /XQGVWHHQ f GHVFULEHG WZR W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ *HQHUDO OLVWHQLQJ LQYROYHG UHWHQWLRQ RI LQIRUn PDWLRQ DQG SDUDSKUDVLQJ RI D PHVVDJH &ULWLFDO OLVWHQLQJ LQYROYHG WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI D PHVVDJH MXGJLQJ DQG GHWHFWLQJ ELDV SS f $V WKH SUHFHGLQJ UHYLHZ LQGLFDWHV YDULRXV GHILQLWLRQV RI OLVWHQLQJ FRQWDLQ PDQ\ RI WKH VDPH HOHPHQWV /LVWHQLQJ PD\ EH GHILQHG WKHUHIRUH LQ WHUPV RI WKH FRPPRQDOLWLHV IRXQG LQ WKH PDMRU GHILQLWLRQV ,Q WKLV VWXG\ OLVWHQLQJ LV DQ DFWLYH FRJQLWLYH SURFHVV RI UHFHLYLQJ DQDO\]LQJ DQG DWWDFKLQJ PHDQn LQJ WR DXUDO VWLPXOL 7KH SURFHVV LQFOXGHV D SK\VLFDO KHDULQJ VWDJH DQG PD\ WDNH SODFH LQ RU RXW RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH VSHDNHU $ QXPEHU RI FRPPRQ OHYHOV FRPSRQHQWV DQG W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ PD\ EH LGHQWLILHG DQG PHDVXUHG DOO RI ZKLFK DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D FRPSUHKHQVLYH GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH UHVHDUFK WR EH FRQGXFWHG DQG WKH W\SH RI OLVWHQLQJ WHVW XVHG ZLOO LQGLFDWH WKH OHYHO RI W\SH RI OLVWHQLQJ WR EH DVVHVVHG ,Q PRVW LQVWDQFHV WKH WHUP FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LV DSSOLHG WR WKH SULPDU\ DUHD RI LQWHUHVW LQ OLVWHQLQJ UHVHDUFK

PAGE 23

7KH GHVLJQ DQG SXUSRVH RI WKH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUH FRQn FHUQHG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 1LFKROV DQG /HZLV f VWDWHG WKDW FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLYH VSHHFK LV VR EDVLF WKDW LW LV DFWXDOO\ D FRQWUROOLQJ IDFWRU LQ ERWK RI WKH RWKHU NLQGV RI SHUIRUPDQFH SS f %DUEDUD f DOVR DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH PRVW HVVHQWLDO IDFWRU FRQWULEXWLQJ WR WKH HIIHFWLYHn QHVV RI OLVWHQLQJ LV FRPSUHKHQVLRQ WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG JUDVS RI WKH LGHD RU PHDQLQJ RI ZKDW LV KHDUG S f /XQGVWHHQ f SRVLWHG WKDW LW ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR GLVn WLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG RWKHU W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ LQ D WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ DV RQO\ NQRZOHGJH REWDLQHG DV D UHVXOW RI OLVWHQLQJ WR DQ RUDO WHVW SDVVDJH DFWXDOO\ UHSUHVHQWV OLVn WHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ S f $VVHVVPHQW RI RWKHU W\SHV VXFK DV FULWLFDO RU DSSUHFLDWLYH OLVWHQLQJ WKRXJK QHFHVVDU\ DQG LPSRUWDQW FRPSRQHQWV LQ D WRWDO OLVWHQLQJ GHILQLWLRQ PD\ EH GLIILFXOW WR DVVHVV LQ D FODVVURRP VLWXDWLRQ )XUWKHU LQ WKH FRQILQHV RI D SDUWLFXODU VWXG\ LQFOXVLRQ RI PRUH WKDQ WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ OHYHO PD\ EH XQQHFHVVDU\ DQG PLVOHDGLQJ 2WKHU W\SHV RI OLVWHQLQJ PD\ FDOO IRU LQWHJUDWLRQ RI SUHYLRXV SHUVRQDO NQRZOHGJH DQG UHTXLUH H[WUDSRODWLRQ EH\RQG WKH JLYHQ LQIRUPDWLRQ %XWWHU\ f /LVWHQLQJ WHVWV 9DOLG DQG DFFXUDWH PHDVXUHPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ LV GLIILFXOW DW EHVW (DUO\ OLVWHQLQJ WHVWV ZHUH GHYHORSHG EHIRUH FOHDU WKHRUHWLFDO RU VWDWLVWLFDO HYLGHQFH LQGLFDWHG WKH VSHFLILF VNLOOV LQYROYHG LQ OLVWHQLQJ WHVWV RIWHQ ODFNHG DJUHHPHQW RQ ZKDW WUDLW RU GLPHQVLRQ RI OLVWHQn LQJ ZDV EHLQJ PHDVXUHG /XQGVWHHQ f .HOO\ f

PAGE 24

FRQWHQGHG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ WHVWV DFWXDOO\ PHDVXUHG VRPH RWKHU IDFWRUV PRUH UHOLDEO\ DVVHVVHG E\ HVWDEOLVKHG WHVWV QRW LQYROYLQJ OLVWHQLQJ ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKH WHVWV ZHUH FULWLn FL]HG IRU PHDVXULQJ PHQWDO DELOLW\ DQG UHDGLQJ VNLOO UDWKHU WKDQ OLVWHQLQJ 7KH GLIILFXOW\ LQ GHYHORSLQJ DGHTXDWH DQG SUDFWLFDO PHDVXUHV RI OLVWHQLQJ PD\ UHVW ZLWK WKH ODFN RI D JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG GHILQLWLRQ DQG WKH QHHG IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH SURFHVV XQLTXH WR OLVWHQLQJ /XQGVWHHQ f UHSRUWLQJ RQ WKH VWDWH RI WKH DUW RI OLVWHQLQJ HYDOXn DWLRQ IRXQG WKDW DVVHVVPHQW PHDVXUHV ZHUH UHODWLYHO\ VFDUFH UHDVRQDEO\ UHOLDEOH EXW RIWHQ FRQIXVHG DQG ODFNLQJ LQ LPDJLn QDWLRQ S f 'HVSLWH WKH FRQWURYHUV\ RYHU WKH IRUP DQG FRQWHQW RI DVVHVVPHQW VFKRODUV KDYH DJUHHG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ FDQ EH PHDVXUHG %DFNOXQG %URZQ *XUU\ t -DQGW f %HFDXVH RI WKH FXUUHQW HPSKDVLV RQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHn WHQF\ DQG WKH QHHG IRU DVVHVVPHQW E\ VWDWH DJHQFLHV DQG HGXn FDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV %DFNOXQG HW DO f UHYLHZHG H[LVWLQJ OLVWHQLQJ LQVWUXPHQWV 7KH\ FRXOG QRW KRZHYHU UHFRPPHQG DQ\ VLQJOH VSHFLILF LQVWUXPHQW IRU XVH DV D JHQHUDO DVVHVVPHQW PHDVXUH $ VLPLODU UHYLHZ SURFHVV ZDV XQGHUWDNHQ E\ WKH 6WDWH RI )ORULGD 6WDWH 7DVN )RUFH RQ &ROOHJH /HYHO $VVHVVPHQW 6NLOOV 3URJUDP 2I DSSUR[LPDWHO\ LQVWUXPHQWV UHYLHZHG WKLV WDVN IRUFH KDV QRW UHFRPPHQGHG WR GDWH RQH LQVWUXPHQW ZKLFK PHHWV LWV DVVHVVPHQW FULWHULD $V D UHVXOW RI WKH UHYLHZ SURFHVV %DFNOXQG HW DO f UHFRPPHQGHG FHUWDLQ FULWHULD IRU OLVWHQLQJ DVVHVVPHQW

PAGE 25

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n UDWH IURP OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 5HVHDUFKHUV VKRXOG EH DZDUH KRZHYHU WKDW QR VLQJOH LQVWUXPHQW FXUUHQWO\ H[LVWV WKDW ZLOO JLYH GHILQLWH FHUWLILn FDWLRQ RI WKH OHYHO RI FRPSUHKHQVLYH OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ 7KH GLIILFXOWLHV LQ DVVHVVLQJ OLVWHQLQJ DUH UHODWHG WR GLVDJUHHn PHQW RYHU ZKDW GLPHQVLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ LV EHLQJ WHVWHG DQG WR WKH SUDFWLFDOLW\ RI ZLGHVFDOH PHDVXUHPHQW %DFNOXQG HW DO f 7KH &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &RPSHWHQF\ $VVHVVPHQW ,QVWUXPHQW &&$,f GHYHORSHG E\ 5XELQ f IRU H[DPSOH ZDV DSSURYHG E\ WKH 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ DIWHU PXFK UHYLHZ DQG GHOLEHUDWLRQ 7KLV WHVW WKRXJK LV D FRPSUHKHQVLYH PHDVXUH RI VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ DQG UHTXLUHV D SHULRG RI PLQXWHV SHU VWXGHQW LQ D RQHWRRQH WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ 7KH &&$, DOVR

PAGE 26

GHDOV ZLWK OHYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ RWKHU WKDQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ )RU PRVW UHVHDUFK SXUSRVHV WKH WHVW LV QRW SUDFWLFDO 7KH %URZQ&DUOVHQ /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW LV D ZLGHO\ XVHG LQVWUXPHQW DQG LQYROYHV D QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI OLVn WHQLQJ 7KH WHVW KDV EHHQ FULWLFL]HG IRU SRVVLEOH GHSHQGHQFH RQ PHPRU\ DQG JHQHUDO PHQWDO DELOLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ OLVWHQLQJ VNLOO 7KH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW GHYHORSHG E\ WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH LV DOVR D ZLGHO\ LPSOHPHQWHG PHDVXUH 7KLV WHVW KRZHYHU LV FRQFHUQHG RQO\ ZLWK WKH YHU\ EDVLF OHYHO RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG LV FRQVLGHUHG E\ VRPH UHVHDUFKHUV WR EH WRR OLPLWHG LQ LWV PHDVXUHPHQW RI OLVWHQn LQJ %RVWURP t %U\DQW f &RUUHODWHV WR OLVWHQLQJ 7KH DPELJXLW\ RI WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI OLVWHQLQJ DQG WKH ODFN RI DGHTXDWH DVVHVVPHQW LQVWUXPHQWV KDYH LQ SDUW UHVXOWHG LQ D QXPEHU RI PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJV FRQn FHUQLQJ YDULDEOHV FRUUHODWHG WR OLVWHQLQJ 1LFKROV DQG /HZLV f UHSRUWHG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ DV D PDWWHU RI LQWHOn OLJHQFH ZDV D IDOVH DVVXPSWLRQ S f 'HYLQH f %URZQ f DQG :ULJKW f DOVR IRXQG QR FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ OLVWHQLQJ DQG LQWHOOLJHQFH EH\RQG YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ LQFRQVLVWHQW WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV 'LIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ KHDULQJ DFXLW\ DQG OLVWHQLQJ ZHUH DOVR VXEVWDQWLDOO\ FRQn ILUPHG E\ UHVHDUFK +DUZRRG f 1LFKROV DQG 6WHYHQV f DORQJ ZLWK /DQGU\ f DQG 5RVVLWHU f UHSRUWHG WKDW QHLWKHU SUDFWLFH PDWXUDWLRQ QRU HGXFDWLRQ OHYHO UHVXOWHG LQ LPSURYHG OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV

PAGE 27

7KH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ OLVWHQLQJ DQG UHDGLQJ KDV EHHQ H[WHQVLYHO\ UHVHDUFKHG 7KRXJK HDUO\ VWXGLHV SXUSRUWHG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SURFHVVHV %URZQ 1LFKROV f WKDW UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ TXHVWLRQHG EHFDXVH WKH OLVWHQn LQJ WHVW LQYROYHG PD\ KDYH EHHQ EDVHG RQ PHDVXUHV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK IDFWRUV RWKHU WKDQ OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV %URZQ 'HYLQH f 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH DFNQRZOHGJHG VLPLODULWLHV EHWZHHQ UHDGn LQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ 7KHVH VLPLODULWLHV VWHP IURP D ERG\ RI WKHRU\ WKDW KDV HPSKDVL]HG WKH WZR DV UHFHSWLYH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ SURFHVVHV EDVHG RQ D FRPPRQ ODQJXDJH DQG FRQFHSWXDOL]LQJ IXQFWLRQV 7XUQDQ :DONHU f $W WKH VDPH WLPH VFKRODUV KDYH FRQVLVWHQWO\ LQGLFDWHG GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ UHDGLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ 0DMRU GLIIHUHQFHV DUH DWWULEXWHG WR VLWXDWLRQDO DQG WLPH FRQWH[WV %DFNOXQG HW DO 'HYLQH f DQG WR GLIIHUHQW QHXURORJLFDO SURFHVVHV DIIHFWLQJ WKH PDQQHU DQG UDWH DW ZKLFK PHVVDJHV DUH UHFHLYHG DQG SURFHVVHG 1LFKROV t /HZLV f 7KHUH KDV DOVR EHHQ VRPH GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UROH RI PHPRU\ LQ WKH OLVWHQLQJ SURFHVV 7KRXJK ERWK ORQJ DQG VKRUWWHUP PHPRU\ VHHP WR EH UHODWHG WR OLVWHQLQJ %RVWURP DQG %U\DQW f DUJXHG IRU WKH H[LVWHQFH RI D GLVWLQFW SURFHVV ZKLFK RSHUDWHV GLIIHUHQWO\ IURP PHPRU\ 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH LQGLFDWHG D GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH ZD\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO UHVSRQGV WR UHSHWLWLRQ RI PHVVDJHV PDVNLQJ DPRXQWV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SURGXFHG DQG WKH WLPH ODSVH EHWZHHQ OLVWHQLQJ DQG UHFDOO VLWXDWLRQV ZKLFK GLVWLQJXLVKHV OLVWHQLQJ IURP PHPRU\

PAGE 28

%DFNOXQG HW DO %RVWUXP t %U\DQW 1LFKROV t /HZLV f ,Q VXPPDU\ OLVWHQLQJ KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR EH D VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOO 7KH YDULDEOHV RI LQWHOOLn JHQFH PDWXUDWLRQ KHDULQJ DFXLW\ UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ DQG PHPRU\ GR QRW VHHP WR VLJQLILFDQWO\ DIIHFW WKH DELOLW\ RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR OLVWHQ HIILFLHQWO\ XQGHU QRUPDO FLUFXPn VWDQFHV ,W LV NQRZQ KRZHYHU WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV GR WHQG WR VFRUH GLIIHUHQWO\ RQ PHDVXUHV RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ,W LV QHFHVVDU\ WKHUHIRUH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW IDFWRUV PLJKW HQKDQFH RU KLQGHU OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ VFKRODUV KDYH ORQJ DFNQRZOHGJHG WKH LPSDFW RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQn VLRQ RQ RUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VLWXDWLRQV 7KLV YDULDEOH PD\ DOVR SURYH WR EH D IDFWRU LQ WKH DXUDO FRQWH[W RI FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ DQG GHVHUYHV WKRURXJK H[DPLQDWLRQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ )RU RYHU IRXU GHFDGHV VFKRODUV KDYH IRFXVHG DWWHQWLRQ RQ D SHUVRQnV IHDU RU DQ[LHW\ DERXW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG WKH LPSDFW RI WKH IHDU RQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRU /RPDV 0F&URVNH\ 3KLOOLSV f 5HVHDUFK FRQFHUQHG ZLWK IHDU DQG DQ[LHW\ DERXW RUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG XQGHU D QXPEHU RI ODEHOV LQFOXGLQJ VWDJH IULJKW &OHYHQJHU f UHWLFHQFH 3KLOOLSV f VK\QHVV =LPEDUGR f XQZLOOLQJQHVV WR FRPPXQLFDWH %XUJRRQ f DQG FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ 0F&URVNH\ f 7KH WHUP FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR 0F&URVNH\ f PRUH EURDGO\ UHSUHVHQWV WKH WRWDO RI WKH IHDUV DQG DQ[LHWLHV VWXGLHG

PAGE 29

SUHYLRXVO\ S f DQG WKH WKHRU\ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHn KHQVLRQ &$f LQWHJUDWHV UHVHDUFK FRQGXFWHG XQGHU RWKHU ODEHOV S f 6WDWH YHUVXV WUDLW 0F&URVNH\ f LQ D UHFRQFHSWXn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n QLFDWLRQ VLWXDWLRQV ERWK WKUHDWHQLQJ DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJf DQG QRQWKUHDWHQLQJ 0F&URVNH\ f SRVLWHG WKDW WKH GLFKRWRP\ RI VWDWH YHUVXV WUDLW LJQRUHV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ RULHQWDWLRQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG WKH FRQVWUDLQWV RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ +H KDV QRZ FDOOHG IRU D UHMHFWLRQ RI WKH VWDWH WUDLW GLFKRWRP\ DQG SURSRVHG D YLHZ RI &$ DV D FRQWLQXXP UDQJLQJ IURP H[WUHPH WUDLW DSSUHKHQVLRQ WR H[WUHPH VWDWH DSSUHKHQVLRQ $V HYHU\ LQGLYLGXDO H[SHULHQFHV &$ WR VRPH GHJUHH LQ ERWK FDWHJRULHV LW LV XQOLNHO\ WKDW SXUH WUDLW RU VWDWH H[WUHPHV ZRXOG H[LVW SS f

PAGE 30

&DXVHV RI &$ 7KH FDXVHV RI &$ DUH QRW FOHDUO\ NQRZQ +RZHYHU HDUO\ UHVHDUFKHUV VXJJHVWHG WKDW &$ PD\ EH GHYHORSHG GXULQJ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG PDQ\ FKLOGUHQ HQWHU NLQGHUJDUWHQ ZLWK KLJK OHYHOV RI &$ 3KLOOLSV t %XWW :KHHOHVV f 6FKRODUV JHQHUDOO\ EHOLHYH WKDW &$ LV OHDUQHG FRQGLWLRQHG WKURXJK UHLQIRUFHPHQW RI D FKLOGnV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRUV $ FKLOG UHLQIRUFHG IRU EHLQJ VLOHQW RU JLYHQ QHJDWLYH UHLQn IRUFHPHQW IRU DWWHPSWLQJ WR FRPPXQLFDWH E\ WHDFKHUV DQG SDUn HQWV ZRXOG EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR GHYHORS WKLV WUDLW 0F&URVNH\ f 0F&URVNH\ f DVVHUWHG WKDW D IXOOHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FDXVHV RI &$ PLJKW EH IRXQG LQ WKH DUHD RI H[SHFWDQF\ OHDUQLQJ RU OHDUQHG KHOSOHVVQHVV 3HRSOH DUH EHOLHYHG WR GHYHORS H[SHFWDWLRQV ZLWK UHJDUG WR RWKHU SHRSOH VLWXDWLRQV DQG SUREDEOH RXWFRPHV RI VSHFLILF EHKDYLRUV VXFK DV WDONLQJ ,I VRPH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRUV UHVXOW LQ SXQLVKPHQW RU ODFN RI UHZDUG LQGLYLGXDOV UHGXFH WKHVH EHKDYLRUV RU DYRLG WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV FDOOLQJ IRU WKRVH EHKDYLRUV S f 0F&URVNH\ f H[SODLQHG WKDW ZKHQ LQGLYLGXDOV FRQn IURQW VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK QR UHJXODU H[SHFWDWLRQ RI HLWKHU SRVLn WLYH RU QHJDWLYH UHLQIRUFHPHQW KHOSOHVVQHVV RFFXUV 6XFK D UHVSRQVH PD\ EH SURGXFHG E\ LQFRQVLVWHQF\ LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW RU PD\ EH SURGXFHG E\ WKH LQDELOLW\ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR GLVn FHUQ VLWXDWLRQDO GLIIHUHQFHV ZKLFK SURGXFH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ EHKDYLRUV )RU H[DPSOH D FKLOG UHZDUGHG IRU VSHDNLQJ RXW LQ D FODVVURRP GLVFXVVLRQ DQG SXQLVKHG IRU WDONLQJ WR DQRWKHU FKLOG LQ WKH VDPH FODVVURRP PD\ EH XQDEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH

PAGE 31

EHWZHHQ WKH VLWXDWLRQV :KHQ KHOSOHVVQHVV LV OHDUQHG VWURQJ DQ[LHW\ IHHOLQJV ZLOO EH H[SHULHQFHG S f 0HDVXUHPHQW $Q LPSRUWDQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ UHVHDUFK RI DQ\ GLPHQVLRQ RI &$ LV WKDW RI PHDVXUHPHQW 7KUHH PDLQ FDWHn JRULHV RI DVVHVVPHQW KDYH EHHQ HPSOR\HG REVHUYHU UDWLQJ VFDOHV GHYLFHV IRU PHDVXULQJ SK\VLRORJLFDO FKDQJH DQG VHOI UHSRUW WHFKQLTXHV 0F&URVNH\ f SRVLWHG WKDW REVHUYHU UDWLQJ VFDOHV VKRXOG EH H[FOXGHG LQ WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI &$ EHFDXVH RI WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI REWDLQLQJ UHOLDEOH UDWLQJV DV WKHVH PHDVXUHV DUH EDVHG RQ REVHUYDEOH EHKDYLRUV DQG EHKDYn LRUV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK &$ DUH RIWHQ GLIILFXOW WR GHWHFW S f 0F&URVNH\ f DOVR H[FOXGHG WKH XVH RI SK\VLRORJLFDO LQGLFHV DV VXFK PHDVXUHV WHQG WR EH H[SHQVLYH DQG QRW DOZD\V DYDLODEOH WR WKH UHVHDUFKHU 6XFK PHDVXUHV DUH QRW FDSDEOH RI PHDVXULQJ WKH DFWXDO ZLWKGUDZDO UHVSRQVH RI WKH DSSUHKHQn VLYH S f 7KH VHOIUHSRUW RU LQWURVSHFWLYH WHFKQLTXH KDV EHHQ WKH PRVW SUHYDOHQW PHDVXUH RI &$ DQG LV UHFRPPHQGHG E\ 0F&URVNH\ f IRU VHYHUDO UHDVRQV $ VHOIUHSRUW LQVWUXPHQW LV LQH[SHQVLYH DQG HDV\ WR DGPLQLVWHU WR D ODUJH QXPEHU RI LQGLYLGXDOV ,W LV FDSDEOH RI WDSSLQJ DQ[LHW\ DFURVV D YDULHW\ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRQWH[WV DW RQH WLPH S f 7KH PDLQ DGYDQWDJH RI WKH VHOIUHSRUW WHFKQLTXH KRZHYHU OLHV LQ WKH FRQFHSW RI &$ DV D IHDU $FFRUGLQJ WR :KHHOHVV f LI D SHUVRQ XQGHUVWDQGV WKDW KH LV DSSUHn KHQVLYH DQG ZK\ KH LV DSSUHKHQVLYH WKLV KLV RZQ UHSRUW RI KLV IHDU RXJKW WR EH WKH PRVW YDOLG 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW D SHUVRQ NQRZV ZK\ KH LV

PAGE 32

DSSUHKHQVLYH KLV VHOIUHSRUW PD\ ZHOO EH DQ LQGH[ RI KRZ KH KDV FRJQLWLYHO\ LQWHJUDWHG KLV SDVW SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG SK\VLFDO EHKDYLRU XQGHU FRQGLWLRQV RI IHDU DURXVLQJ VWLPXOL S f 7KHUHIRUH VHOIUHSRUW VFDOHV KDYH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ EHHQ WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ HPSOR\HG PHDVXUH RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQn VLRQ 'LPHQVLRQV RI &$ ,QLWLDO UHVHDUFK LQ &$ IRFXVHG H[FOXn VLYHO\ RQ RUDO RU VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ SUREDEO\ DV D UHVXOW RI WKH HPSKDVLV RQ VSHDNLQJ DV D PDMRU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOO :KHHOHVV f 2YHU WKH SDVW GHFDGH KRZHYHU WKH FRQn VWUXFW RI &$ KDV EHHQ EURDGHQHG WR HQFRPSDVV RWKHU PRGHV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 0F&URVNH\ f $V D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQn VWUXFW &$ YDULHV ZLWK WKH IXQFWLRQDO UROH HLWKHU VRXUFH RU UHFHLYHU LQ ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRU RFFXUV :KHHOHVV f ,Q RUGHU WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQG WKH DVSHFWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LW LV QHFHVVDU\ WR VXUYH\ WKH OLWHUDWXUH FRQFHUQHG VSHFLILFDOO\ ZLWK VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ 6$f DQG UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ 5$f 6RXUFH $SSUHKHQVLRQ 7KH PDMRULW\ RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ OLWHUDWXUH LV EDVHG RQ WKH VWXG\ RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ 6$f 7KH FRQVWUXFW LV GHILQHG E\ 0F&URVNH\ f DV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV OHYHO RI IHDU RU DQ[LHW\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK HLWKHU UHDO RU DQWLFLSDWHG FRPPXQLn FDWLRQ ZLWK DQRWKHU SHUVRQ RU SHUVRQV S f 7KRXJK QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ VWDWHG LQ WKH GHILQLWLRQ WKLV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI 6$ LV EDVHG RQ DQ[LHW\ FRQFHUQLQJ RUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 0F&URVNH\ S f

PAGE 33

0F&URVNH\ f VWDWHG WKDW VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZDV RQH RI WKH PRVW SHUYDVLYH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ SUREOHPV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 8QDFFHSWDEO\ KLJK OHYHOV RI 6$ ZHUH IRXQG WR H[LVW DPRQJ VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQV $SSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI VWXGHQWV LQ PDMRU XQLYHUVLWLHV PD\ EH GHVFULEHG DV KLJK OHYHO DSSUHKHQVLYHV 0F&URVNH\ f 6LPLODU QXPEHUV RI 6$ KDYH EHHQ REVHUYHG LQ SXEOLF VFKRROV DW DOO OHYHOV DQG DPRQJ DGXOW SRSXODWLRQV DV ZHOO 0F&URVNH\ f (IIHFWV RI 6$ 7KH HIIHFWV RI 6$ DUH ILUPO\ HVWDEOLVKHG E\ UHVHDUFK 7KRVH ZKR H[SHULHQFH KLJK OHYHOV RI DSSUHKHQn VLRQ ZLWKGUDZ IURP DQG VHHN WR DYRLG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZKHQHYHU SRVVLEOH 0F&URVNH\ 0F&URVNH\ t /HSSDUG f $V D UHVXOW RI WKLV ZLWKGUDZDO DQG DYRLGDQFH KLJKO\ VRXUFH DSSUHn KHQVLYH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLOO EH SHUFHLYHG OHVV SRVLWLYHO\ E\ RWKHUV WKDQ ZLOO WKRVH ZKR H[SHULHQFH ORZ OHYHOV RI 6$ 0F&URVNH\ t 5LFKPRQG 0F&URVNH\ 5LFKPRQG 'DO\ t &R[ f $V D IXUWKHU UHVXOW RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DYRLGDQFH WKRVH ZLWK KLJK OHYHO 6$ ZLOO H[SHULHQFH OHVV SRVLWLYH DFKLHYHPHQW LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU HFRQRPLF DQG VRFLDO OLYHV )UHLPXWK f ,Q UHODWLRQ WR WKH DFDGHPLF HQYLURQPHQW WKH QHJDWLYH LPSDFW LV FOHDUO\ VKRZQ 6WXGHQWV ZLWK KLJK 6$ KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR KDYH ORZHU RYHUDOO FROOHJH JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV 0F&URVNH\ t $QGHUVRQ f VFRUH ORZHU RQ DFKLHYHPHQW RQ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV %DVKRUH f UHFHLYHU ORZHU JUDGHV LQ VPDOO FODVVHV LQ MXQLRU KLJK +XUW 3UHLVV t 'DYLV f DQG FROOHJH 6FRWW t :KHHOHVV f 7KHVH ILQGLQJV DUH KHLJKWHQHG E\

PAGE 34

WKH IDFW WKDW QR PHDQLQJIXO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 6$ DQG LQWHOOLJHQFH KDV EHHQ IRXQG 'DYLV f 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ :KHHOHVV f FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDOLW\ RI &$ VWDWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VFKRODUV KDYH YHUEDOn L]HG FRQFHUQ IRU UHFHLYLQJ DQG SURFHVVLQJ LQIRUPDn WLRQ ZH VSHQG PRUH RI RXU WLPH DV UHFHLYHUV WKDQ VRXUFHVf OLWWOH FRQFHUQ KDV EHHQ HYLGHQFHG IRU UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZKLFK ZRXOG PRVW GLUHFWO\ DIIHFW GHFRGLQJ DQG UHVSRQVH WHQGHQFLHV S f 5HFRJQL]LQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH UHFHLYHU WR FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HQFRXQWHUV DQG ZRUNLQJ XQGHU WKH JHQHUDO FRQVWUXFW RI &$ :KHHOHVV f GHYHORSHG WKH WKHRU\ RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQn VLRQ 5$f 5$ LV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG DV WKH IHDU RI PLVLQWHUn SUHWLQJ LQDGHTXDWHO\ SURFHVVLQJ DQGRU QRW EHLQJ DEOH WR DGMXVW SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ WR PHVVDJHV VHQW E\ RWKHUV S f 6XEVHTXHQW UHVHDUFK E\ %HDWW\ %HKQNH DQG +HQGHUVRQ f DQG :KHHOHVV DQG 6FRWW f GHPRQVWUDWHG 5$ DQG 6$ WR EH RUWKRJRQDOO\ GLVWLQFW FRQVWUXFWV %DVHG RQ :KHHOHVVn f DVVHUWLRQ WKDW 5$ GHDOV LQ VRPH PHDVXUH ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH IRFXVHG DWWHQWLRQ RQ WKLV DUHD RI WKH FRQVWUXFW %HDWW\ f IRXQG WKDW GLIILFXOW\ LQ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ SURn GXFHG D FRJQLWLYH EDFNORJ UHVXOWLQJ LQ DQ[LHW\ ZKLFK LQ WXUQ UHVXOWHG LQ DYRLGDQFH RI UHFHLYLQJ QHZ PHVVDJHV $V DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI WKLV UHVHDUFK %HDWW\ DQG 3D\QH f H[SORUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 5$ DQG FRJQLWLYH FRPSOH[LW\ DQG IRXQG WKHP WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG

PAGE 35

7KH IHDU RI LQDGHTXDWHO\ SURFHVVLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV FRQILUPHG DV D GLPHQVLRQ RI 5$ (IIHFWV RI 5$ 7KH PDMRULW\ RI 5$ OLWHUDWXUH LV EDVHG RQ UHVHDUFK WHVWLQJ WKH LPSDFW RI 5$ RQ OHDUQLQJ :KHHOHVV DQG 6FRWW f IRXQG KLJK OHYHO UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLYHV DFKLHYHG ORZHU DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV DFURVV D QXPEHU RI FULWHULRQ UHIHUHQFHG LQGLFHV /DWHU UHVHDUFK RQ OHDUQLQJ LQ D VSHFLILF FRXUVH UHYHDOHG VLPLODU HIIHFWV 6FRWW t :KHHOHVV f 6FRWW DQG :KHHOHVV f LQ DQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW DWWLWXGHV DQG OHYHOV RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LQVWUXFn WLRQDO VWUDWHJLHV GLVFRYHUHG WKDW KLJK OHYHO UHFHLYHU DSSUHn KHQVLYHV GLVSOD\HG OHVV IDYRUDEOH DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG OHFWXUH FRXUVHV RUDO DVVLJQPHQWV DQG LQFODVV GLVFXVVLRQ /LVWHQLQJ DQG 5$ /LVWHQLQJ UHVHDUFK WKRXJK QRW SUHn YLRXVO\ FRQFHUQHG VSHFLILFDOO\ ZLWK 5$ KDV IRFXVHG RQ HOHn PHQWV RI OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU ZKLFK PD\ EH UHODWHG WR WKLV FRQVWUXFW %DUEDUD f UHSRUWHG WKDW OLVWHQHUV DUH RIWHQ ERPEDUGHG E\ PRUH PHVVDJHV WKDQ FDQ EH HIIHFWLYHO\ KHDUG DQG WKHUHIRUH KDYH GLIILFXOW\ FRPSUHKHQGLQJ WKHP 7KH UHVXOW LV D IDXOW\ RU GLVRUJDQL]HG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP S f $Q RYHUORDGLQJ RU MDPPLQJ RI WKH V\VWHP PD\ UHVXOW LQ OLVWHQn LQJ EHKDYLRU GHVLJQHG WR HVFDSH IURP WKH LQSXW RYHUORDG 7D\ORU f 5HVHDUFK DOVR LQGLFDWHG WKDW OLVWHQHUV XQGHU FRQWLQXDO SUHVVXUH WR GLJHVW LQFRPLQJ PHVVDJHV DUH RIWHQ WHQVH DQG LOO DW HDVH %DUEDUD S f 1LFKROV DQG 6WHYHQV f UHSRUWHG WKDW GLIILFXOW OLVWHQLQJ FUHDWHG WHQVLRQ DQG

PAGE 36

WKHUHIRUH OLVWHQHUV WHQGHG WR DYRLG GLIILFXOW OLVWHQLQJ VLWXDWLRQV SS f $Q[LHW\ RU IHDU VWHPPLQJ IURP WKH OLVWHQLQJ VLWXDWLRQ PD\ LQ WXUQ UHVXOW LQ LQHIILFLHQW OLVWHQLQJ -RKQVRQ f IRXQG WKDW SRRU OLVWHQHUV KDG WR EH WDXJKW ILUVW WR UHOD[ EHIRUH JRRG OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV FRXOG EH WDXJKW S f %DUEDUD f DOVR UHSRUWHG DQ[LHW\ RU IHDU WR LPSDFW QHJDn WLYHO\ RQ HIILFLHQW OLVWHQLQJ S f $V LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK KLJK OHYHOV RI 5$ DUH FKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\ DQ[LRXV DERXW UHFHLYLQJ PHVVDJHV 5$ DQG HIIHFWLYH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZRXOG VHHP WR EH QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG %HFDXVH RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI OLVWHQLQJ DV D XQLTXH DQG YLWDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOO LW LV QHFHVVDU\ WR H[SDQG RXU NQRZOHGJH RI WKH SURFHVV DQG WKH IDFWRUV ZKLFK PD\ DIIHFW WKH GHYHORSPHQW &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQn VLRQ DV LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH SUHFHGLQJ UHYLHZ RI OLWHUDWXUH PD\ EH UHODWHG WR WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV OLVWHQLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW 5DWLRQDOH DQG +\SRWKHVHV /LVWHQLQJ LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH LQ WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DELOLW\ WR DFTXLUH DQG SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG LV LPSRUWDQW WKHUHIRUH WR WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DELOLW\ WR IXQFWLRQ LQ D UDSLGO\ FKDQJLQJ DQG LQFUHDVLQJO\ FRPSOH[ VRFLHW\ /XQGVWHHQ :RUN f 7KRXJK WUDGLWLRQDOO\ QHJOHFWHG LQ HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHPV DQG RIWHQ PLVWDNHQO\ DVVXPHG WR EH DQ RIIVKRRW RI RWKHU ODQJXDJH DUWV VNLOOV UHVHDUFK KDV

PAGE 37

LGHQWLILHG OLVWHQLQJ DV D WUDLW VHSDUDWH IURP RWKHU YHUEDO DELOLWLHV %LJJV f /LVWHQLQJ LV DOVR FRQVLGHUHG WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH LQIOXHQFLQJ WKH ZD\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO OHDUQV WR WKLQN RU SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ /XQGVWHHQ f +RZHYHU UHVHDUFK LQ OLVWHQLQJ DV D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQF\ KDV EHHQ UHODWLYHO\ VSDUVH FRQILQHG IRU WKH PRVW SDUW WR DWWHPSWV WR GHYHORS IHDVLEOH DQG UHOLDEOH PHDVXUHV RI WKH VNLOO %DFNOXQG HW DO f %DNDQ f VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QRW HQRXJK NQRZQ DERXW WKH OLVWHQLQJ SURFHVV EHFDXVH RI WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI LQWHUUHODWLRQDO IDFWRUV LQYROYHG LQ WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HYHQW +H VWDWHG WKDW UHVHDUFK LQ OLVWHQLQJ VKRXOG WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ SHRSOH GXH WR D YDULHW\ RI YDULDEOHV S f +DUZRRG f VXSSRUWHG WKLV YLHZSRLQW DQG LQGLFDWHG WKDW GHJUHHV RI OLVWHQDELOLW\ RI D PHVVDJH ORQJ D FRQFHUQ RI FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ VFKRODUV FRXOG RQO\ EH DVVLJQHG LQ WHUPV RI D VSHFLILF JURXS RU SHUVRQ UHFHLYLQJ WKH PHVVDJH S f 7KHUHIRUH WKRVH HGXFDWRUV DQG DJHQFLHV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU DVVHVVLQJ WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQF\ RI LQGLYLGXDOV LQFOXGLQJ WKHLU OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ PXVW DOVR EH VHQVLWLYH WR LQGLYLGXDO YDULDEOHV ZKLFK PLJKW DIIHFW WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG PDNH SURYLVLRQV IRU H[FHSWLRQDO SRSXODn WLRQV 5XELQ HW DO f $V QRWHG RQH YDULDEOH DOUHDG\ VKRZQ WR DIIHFW RQHnV DELOLW\ WR OHDUQ DQG SURFHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WKDW RI FRPPXQLn FDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ &$f 7KH FRQVWUXFW RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHn KHQVLRQ 5$f LQ SDUWLFXODU UHODWHV WR WKH GHFRGHU RU

PAGE 38

OLVWHQHU IXQFWLRQ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ +RZHYHU QR VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 5$ DQG OLVWHQLQJ KDV EHHQ SXEOLVKHG WR GDWH WKRXJK ERWK LQYROYH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHFHSWLRQ DQG LQIRUn PDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ ERWK DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG OLVWHQLQJ VFKRODUV 5HVHDUFK E\ %HDWW\ f VXJJHVWHG WKDW 5$ ZDV D IXQFWLRQ RI XQDVVLPLODWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ GXH WR SURFHVVLQJ GLIILFXOWLHV 7KLV ILQGLQJ ZDV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK :KHHOHVVn f DVVHUWLRQ WKDW 5$ GLG GHDO ZLWK WKH IHDU RI SURFHVVLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG DGMXVWLQJ WR PHVVDJHV VHQW E\ RWKHUV S f )XUWKHU %HDWW\ DQG 3D\QH f DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ DELOLW\ RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO DV VKRZQ E\ D FRJQLWLYH FRPSOH[LW\ PHDVXUH ZDV UHODWHG WR WKH FRQVWUXFW RI 5$ /LVWHQLQJ VFKRODUV KDYH DOVR SRLQWHG WR DQ RYHUORDG RU MDPPLQJ RI WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ V\VWHP GXH WR WKH QXPEHU DQG LQWHQVLW\ RI LQFRPLQJ VWLPXOL ZKLFK UHVXOWHG LQ SRRU OLVWHQn LQJ EHKDYLRU )HVVHQGHQ 7D\ORU f 7KH DQ[LHW\ RU WHQVLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG WKH ZLWKGUDZDO IURP RU DYRLGDQFH RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VLWXDWLRQV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI DSSUHKHQVLYHV KDYH DOVR EHHQ UHSRUWHG LQ OLVWHQLQJ OLWHUDWXUH 1LFKROV t /HZLV 7XWROR f %DUEDUD f LQ SDUWLFXODU GLVFXVVHG WKH HIIHFW RI DQ[LHW\ DERXW UHFHLYLQJ PHVVDJHV RQ OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU DQG UHSRUWHG D FXUWDLOLQJ RI VRFLDO FRQWDFW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HQFRXQWHUVf ZLWK RWKHUV WR DYRLG OLVWHQLQJ VLWXDWLRQV S f 7KH HIIHFW RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ 6$f RQ OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU KDV DOVR EHHQ LJQRUHG E\ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VFKRODUV

PAGE 39

5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKH HIIHFW RI 6$ RQ WKH RUDO RU VRXUFH IXQFWLRQ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG 6$ KDV EHHQ OLQNHG WR D QXPEHU RI DFKLHYHPHQW PHDVXUHV DQG SRVVLEOH FDXVHV IRU LWV UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH WR OHDUQLQJ KDYH EHHQ H[DPLQHG 0F&URVNH\ f EXW WKH LPSDFW RI 6$ RQ OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU KDV QRW EHHQ FRQn VLGHUHG 7KRXJK QRW DV REYLRXVO\ UHODWHG WR WKH UHFHLYHU IXQFWLRQ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ D OLQN EHWZHHQ 6$ DQG OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG %HDWW\ %HKQNH DQG 0F&DOOXP f IRXQG WKDW VXEMHFWV DQWLFLSDWLQJ KHDULQJ D OHFWXUH UHSRUWHG ORZHU OHYHOV RI 6$ WKDQ GLG WKRVH DQWLFLSDWLQJ D VSHHFK SHUIRUPn DQFH -RKQVRQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW WHQVH RU DQ[LRXV LQGLYLGn XDOV GLG QRW OLVWHQ DV ZHOO DV WKRVH ZKR ZHUH FDOP DQG UHOD[HG $Q\ PHDVXUH ZKLFK PLJKW VWLPXODWH DQ[LHW\ RU IHDU WKHQ ZRXOG DSSHDU WR LPSDFW RQ OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU %DUEDUD f IRU H[DPSOH LQ VXEMHFWLYH REVHUYDWLRQV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKRVH OLVn WHQHUV IRUFHG WR UHVSRQG RUDOO\ UDWKHU WKDQ EH DOORZHG WR UHFHLYH PHVVDJHV SDVVLYHO\ EHFDPH DQ[LRXV DQG UHVWOHVV DQG H[KLELWHG SRRU OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU SS f %DVHG RQ H[WDQW DSSUHKHQVLRQ OLWHUDWXUH UHVHDUFKHUV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH HIIHFWV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ RQ HGXFDWLRQDO DFKLHYHPHQW ZRXOG UHSRUW OHVV VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG ORZHU DFKLHYHn PHQW LQ OHFWXUH W\SH OLVWHQLQJ HQYLURQPHQWV WKDQ LQ VPDOO JURXS RU GLVFXVVLRQ VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK WKH LQYHUVH WUXH IRU VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLYHV :KHHOHVV 'DO\ Ef +RZHYHU 6FRWW DQG :KHHOHVV f LQGLFDWHG WKDW VXFK ZDV QRW WKH FDVH 5DWKHU WKH\ IRXQG WKDW DWWLWXGHV DQG VDWLVIDFWLRQ IRU

PAGE 40

RUDO DVVLJQPHQWV DQG GLVFXVVLRQ ZHUH ORZ IRU ERWK RUDO DQG UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLYHV 5HFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLYHV PD\ ILQG LW MXVW DV GLIILFXOW WR SHUIRUP DV VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLYHV EHFDXVH QHHGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV QRW DGHTXDWHO\ UHFHLYHG RU SURFHVVHG 7KLV GRHV QRW SUHFOXGH WKH LQGLYLGXDO IURP EHLQJ ERWK VRXUFH DQG UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLYHf 7KRXJK 5$ KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH D VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW WUDLW %HDWW\ %HKQNH t +HQGHUVRQ f VRPH UHVHDUFKHUV GR UHSRUW D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 5$ DQG 6$ LQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQWV 0F'RZHOO DQG 0F'RZHOO f IRXQG KLJKO\ VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ 5$ DQG 6$ VFRUHV DW DOO HGXFDWLRQDO OHYHOV 6FRWW DQG :KHHOHVV f QRWHG D UHODn WLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DFKLHYHPHQW PHDVXUHV IRU WKH WZR DSSUHKHQn VLYH FRQVWUXFWV ,QGLYLGXDOV KLJKO\ DSSUHKHQVLYH LQ HLWKHU WKH VRXUFH RU UHFHLYHU GLPHQVLRQ WKHQ PD\ DOVR UHSRUW KLJK DSSUHKHQVLRQ LQ WKH RWKHU GLPHQVLRQ 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ PLJKW LPSDFW VLJQLILFDQWO\ RQ OHDUQLQJ RU DFKLHYHPHQW 7KHUH ZRXOG DSSHDU WR EH D SRWHQWLDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH RUDO DQG DXUDO SURFHVVHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVn LQJ LQ HGXFDWLRQDO VLWXDWLRQV FRQVLGHUHG SRWHQWLDOO\ DQ[LHW\ SURGXFLQJ WR ERWK UHFHLYHU DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLYHV ,Q SDUWLFXODU DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI RUDO SHUIRUPDQFH DV PLJKW EH H[SHULHQFHG LQ PRVW VPDOO JURXS RU GLVFXVVLRQ VHFWLRQ FODVVn URRPV FRXOG EH D VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH LQ WKH OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU RI ERWK VRXUFH DQG UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLYHV 7KH VWXG\ UHSRUWHG KHUH ZDV GHVLJQHG WR H[DPLQH WKH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG HPSLULFDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ

PAGE 41

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f UHSRUWHG WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV PHQWDO VHW ZLOO RYHUULGH RWKHU IDFWRUV LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU 2WKHU VFKRODUV KDYH IRFXVHG RQ WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI PDLQWDLQLQJ DWWHQWLRQ DQG FRQFHQWUDWLRQ LQ D OLVWHQLQJ VLWXDWLRQ 7KH GLIILFXOW\ PD\ OLH LQ SDUW ZLWK WKH PRRG RU HPRWLRQDO VWDWH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO DW D SDUn WLFXODU WLPH .HOO\ /XQGVWHHQ f 7KH PRRG RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO PD\ WKHQ EH DQ LQWHUYHQLQJ YDULDEOH LQ WKH PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ DQG ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH PHDVXUHn PHQW SKDVH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\

PAGE 42

'HILQLWLRQV 7KH IROORZLQJ GHILQLWLRQV ZHUH GHYHORSHG DIWHU D UHYLHZ RI OLWHUDWXUH DQG D FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH GHVLJQ DQG REMHFn WLYHV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 6RXUFH $SSUHKHQVLRQ LV RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV VFRUH RQ WKH 3HUVRQDO 5HSRUW RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 35&$f VHH $SSHQGL[ $f 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ LV RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV VFRUH RQ WKH 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ 7HVW 5$7f VHH $SSHQGL[ %f 0RRG 6WDWH LV RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG DV DQ LQGLYLGn XDOnV VFRUH RQ WKH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 3206f VHH $SSHQGL[ &f /LVWHQLQJ LV RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG DV WKH LQGLYLGn XDOnV VFRUH RQ WKH 6HTXHQWLDO 7HVW RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUHVV 67(3f /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW ZKLFK GHDOV VSHFLILFDOO\ ZLWK WKH FRPn SUHKHQVLRQ OHYHO RI OLVWHQLQJ VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f 7KUHDW LV GHILQHG DV WKH FRQGLWLRQ XQGHU ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO DQWLFLSDWHV DQ RUDO SHUIRUPDQFH DW WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI D OLVWHQLQJ WHVW 1RQWKUHDW LV GHILQHG DV WKH FRQGLWLRQ XQGHU ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO KDV QR DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI DQ RUDO SHUIRUPDQFH DW WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI D OLVWHQLQJ WHVW 0HVVDJH LV GHILQHG DV WHVW SDVVDJHV IURP WKH 6HTXHQWLDO 7HVW RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUHVV UHFRUGHG RQ DXGLR WDSH

PAGE 43

5HVHDUFK +\SRWKHVHV %DVHG RQ WKH UHYLHZ RI UHODWHG OLWHUDWXUH DQG WKH QHHG LQGLFDWHG IRU UHVHDUFK RQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ YDULDEOHV ZKLFK PD\ DIIHFW OLVWHQLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH VHW IRUWK +\SRWKHVLV 6XEMHFWVn VFRUHV RQ UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ WHVWV ZLOO EH SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG +\SRWKHVLV 6XEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZLOO EH QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG ZLWK UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV +\SRWKHVLV 6XEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZLOO EH QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV +\SRWKHVLV 6XEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZLOO EH QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG ZLWK PRRG VFRUHV +\SRWKHVLV 6XEMHFWV ZKR KDYH KLJKHU GHJUHHV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZLOO KDYH ORZHU OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV WKDQ VXEn MHFWV ZKR KDYH ORZHU GHJUHHV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ LQ D WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ +\SRWKHVLV 6XEMHFWV ZKR KDYH KLJKHU GHJUHHV RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZLOO KDYH ORZHU OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV WKDQ VXEMHFWV ZKR KDYH ORZHU GHJUHHV RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ LQ D WKUHDW FRQGLn WLRQ 3UREOHP 6WDWHPHQW 7KHVH K\SRWKHVHV VHHN WR DVVHVV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW WKH WKUHDW RI DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKH PRRG VWDWH RI WKH OLVn WHQHU 7KH IROORZLQJ FKDSWHU ZLOO GLVFXVV WKH SURFHVV RI DQDO\VLV XVHG WR WHVW HDFK K\SRWKHVLV

PAGE 44

&+$37(5 ,, 0(7+2'2/2*< 5HVHDUFK 'HVLJQ 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR H[SORUH WKH HIIHFWV RI 5$ DQG 6$ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ D FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW ,Q RUGHU WR EDODQFH WKH QHHG IRU PD[LPXP UHDOLVP LQ UHVHDUFK ZLWK WKH QHHG IRU RSWLPDO H[SHULPHQWHU FRQWURO 0LOOHU t )RQWHV f WKH UHVHDUFK ZDV FDUULHG RXW DV SDUW RI UHJXODU FODVVURRP LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV LQ LQWDFW FROOHJH FODVVHV 6WXGHQWV LQ HLJKW SXEOLF VSHDNLQJ FODVVHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 6HSWHPEHU ZHUH FKRVHQ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH VWXG\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI SUHWHVW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQn VLRQ UHSRUW IRUPV ZDV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR D XQLW GHDOLQJ ZLWK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI D OLVWHQLQJ WHVW ZDV LQFOXGHG DV D SDUW RI WKH XQLW FRQFHUQLQJ OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU ,W ZDV KRSHG WKDW WKH XVH RI LQWDFW JURXSV ZRXOG DOORZ PRUH QDWXUDOLVWLF UHVXOWV LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJ DV ZHOO DV \LHOG D EHWWHU VDPSOH RI GHJUHHV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ %HFDXVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK KLJK OHYHOV RI &$ FKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\ WHQG WR DYRLG DQ\ VLWXDWLRQ LQYROYLQJ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK GHSHQGHG XSRQ YROXQWDU\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO VXEMHFWV ZRXOG SUREDEO\ EH DYRLGHG E\ KLJK OHYHO

PAGE 45

DSSUHKHQVLYHV HYHQ LI WKH\ ZHUH SURPLVHG D UHZDUG IRU WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ $ WZRSDUW OLVWHQLQJ WHVW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG WR VWXGHQWV LQ RQH RI HLJKW H[SHULPHQWDO SHUPXWDWLRQV 7ZR VHWV RI WDSH UHFRUGHG PHVVDJHV $ DQG %f HDFK PDGH XS RI WKUHH GLVFUHWH SDVVDJHV ZHUH XVHG DV VWLPXOL IRU WKH WHVW 0HVVDJH RUGHU $%f DQG WHVW FRQGLWLRQ WKUHDWQRQWKUHDWf ZHUH V\VWHPDWLn FDOO\ YDULHG DV IROORZV &RQGLWLRQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH $ WKHQ 1RQWKUHDW 0HVVDJH % 3DUW ,, &RQGLWLRQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH % WKHQ 1RQWKUHDW 0HVVDJH $ 3DUW ,, &RQGLWLRQ 1RQWKUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH $ WKHQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH % ,, &RQGLWLRQ 1RQWKUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH % WKHQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH $ ,, &RQGLWLRQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH $ WKHQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH % ,, &RQGLWLRQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH % WKHQ 7KUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH $ ,, &RQGLWLRQ 1RQWKUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH $ WKHQ 1RQWKUHDW 0HVVDJH % 3DUW ,, &RQGLWLRQ 1RQWKUHDW 3DUW 0HVVDJH % WKHQ 1RQWKUHDW 0HVVDJH $ 3DUW ,, 7KLV H[SHULPHQWDO GHVLJQ FRQWUROV IRU RUGHU HIIHFW RI WHVW FRQGLWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKRXJK PHVVDJHV LQ WKH OLVWHQn LQJ WHVW KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH HTXLYDOHQW LQ LWV GHYHORSPHQW E\ WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH WKH GHVLJQ DGMXVWV IRU SRVVLEOH YDULDWLRQ LQ FRQVLVWHQF\ RU GLIILFXOW\ RI PHVVDJHV ,W DOVR DOORZV HDFK VXEMHFW WR VHUYH DV KLVKHU RZQ FRQWURO

PAGE 46

6XEMHFWV 8VHG LQ 7KLV 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ XVHG D SRRO RI FROOHJH VWXGHQW YROXQWHHUV ZKR ZHUH HQUROOHG LQ WKH SXEOLF VSHDNLQJ FRXUVH 63& f DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD GXULQJ WKH )DOO 6HPHVWHU RI 6XEMHFWV UHFHLYHG QHLWKHU PRQHWDU\ UHZDUG QRU ERQXV FODVV FUHGLW IRU WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 7KH\ ZHUH KRZHYHU HQFRXUn DJHG E\ WKHLU LQVWUXFWRUV WR WDNH SDUW LQ WKH H[SHULPHQW 6XEMHFWV ZHUH LQIRUPHG RI WKHLU ULJKW WR GHFOLQH SDUWLFLSDn WLRQ DQG ZHUH DOORZHG WR OHDYH DW DQ\ SRLQW GXULQJ WKH H[SHUn LPHQW VHH $SSHQGL[ (f 7ZHOYH VXEMHFWV ZHUH QRW DGHTXDWHO\ LGHQWLILHG RQ DOO WHVW IRUPV DQG KDG WR EH GURSSHG IURP WKH VWXG\ 6L[ VXEMHFWV FRQVLGHUHG (QJOLVK WR EH WKHLU VHFRQG ODQJXDJH DQG ZHUH DOVR UHPRYHG IURP WKH SRRO 7KH ODUJHVW VXEMHFW ORVV KRZHYHU ZDV GXH WR WKH WLPH VSDQ EHWZHHQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI &$ UHSRUW IRUPV DQG WKH OLVWHQLQJ H[SHULPHQW 7KLUW\ VXEMHFWV IDLOHG WR FRPSOHWH ERWK WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG WKH OLVWHQLQJ SRUWLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQW $ WRWDO 1 RI ZDV DFKLHYHG ZLWK DQ DYHUDJH RI VWXGHQWV LQ HDFK RI WKH HLJKW FODVVHV 0DWHULDOV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ KDV WUDGLWLRQDOO\ EHHQ PHDVn XUHG E\ XVH RI VHOIUHSRUW LQVWUXPHQWV EHFDXVH WKH\ DUH FRQn VLGHUHG WR EH WKH PRVW YDOLG :KHHOHVV f DQG WKH PRVW SUDFWLFDO 0F&URVNH\ f PHDVXUHV DYDLODEOH )RU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ WZR KLJKO\ UHJDUGHG VHOIUHSRUW PHDVn XUHV RI &$ ZHUH HPSOR\HG

PAGE 47

3HUVRQDO 5HSRUW RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 35&$f 7KH 35&$ LV D /LNHUWW\SH VHOIUHSRUW LQVWUXPHQW ILUVW GHYHORSHG E\ 0F&URVNH\ LQ 7KH WHVW FRQVLVWV RI VWDWHPHQWV GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ DFURVV D YDULHW\ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRQWH[WV VHH $SSHQGL[ $f 7KH 35&$ LV ZLGHO\ DFFHSWHG DV D YDOLG DQG UHOLDEOH PHDVXUH RI 6$ LQWHUQDO UHOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWHV KDYH UDQJHG IURP WR ZKLOH UHOLDELOLW\ MXGJHG WKURXJK WKH WHVW UHWHVW PHWKRG ZDV 0F&URVNH\ S f 7KH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 35&$ KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKURXJK FRPSDUn LVRQV WR RWKHU &$ PHDVXULQJ LQVWUXPHQWV 'DO\ Df FRPn SDUHG HLJKW VFDOHV XVHG WR PHDVXUH DQ[LHW\ DQG IRXQG WKH 35&$ WR EH RQH RI WKH WKUHH PRVW UHOLDEOH LQVWUXPHQWV DPRQJ WKH HLJKW PHDVXUHV S f +H DOVR IRXQG WKH 35&$ WR EH WKH PRVW HQFRPSDVVLQJ LQVWUXPHQW RI WKH JURXS S f 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ 7HVW 5$7f 7KH 5$7 LV WKH RQO\ SURPLQHQW VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUH RI UHFHLYHU ERXQG DQ[LHW\ SXEOLVKHG WR GDWH DQG KDV EHHQ WKH DVVHVVPHQW LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ DOO 5$ VWXGLHV FRQGXFWHG :KHHOHVV f GHYHORSHG WKH 5$7 DV D /LNHUWW\SH VFDOH FRQVLVWLQJ RI LWHPV ZKLFK UHTXLUH WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR UHIOHFW XSRQ KRZ KHVKH IHHOV ZKHQ OLVWHQLQJ 7KH LQVWUXPHQW UHOLHV KHDYLO\ RQ WKH 35&$ IRU FRQWHQW RI LWV LWHPV DQG WKHUHn IRUH PHDVXUHV DSSUHKHQVLRQ UHODWHG WR FRPPXQLFDWLRQ S f VHH $SSHQGL[ %f 5HVHDUFK E\ %HDWW\ HW DO f GRFXPHQWHG WKH UHOLDn ELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 5$7 DV D PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ

PAGE 48

DQ[LHW\ 7KH\ UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH 5$7 FRUUHODWHG ZLWK DQ DOWHUQDWLYH PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ DQ[LHW\ SUHGLFWHG VSHFLILF DQ[LHW\ UHVSRQVHV WR OLVWHQLQJ WDVNV DQG ZDV VWDEOH RYHU WLPH S f 7KH 5$7 KDV DOVR IXQFWLRQHG LQ D PDQQHU FRQn VLVWHQW ZLWK WKHRUHWLFDO H[SHFWDWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ 5$ %HDWW\ 6FRWW t :KHHOHVV f 5HOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWHV IRU WKH 5$7 KDYH UDQJHG IURP WR %HDWW\ t 3D\QH f 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 3206f 7KH 3206 LV D UDSLG HFRQRPLFDO PHWKRG RI DVVHVVLQJ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV PRRG VWDWH VHH $SSHQGL[ &f 7KH 3206 FRQVLVWV RI ILYHSRLQW DGMHFWLYH UDWLQJ VFDOHV ZKLFK PHDVXUH VL[ LGHQWLILDEOH PRRGV RU DIIHFWLYH VWDWHV WHQVLRQDQ[LHW\ GHSUHVVLRQGHMHFWLRQ DQJHUKRVWLOLW\ YLJRUDFWLYLW\ IDWLJXHLQHUWLD DQG FRQIXVLRQEHZLOGHUPHQW $ WRWDO PRRG VFRUH LV REWDLQHG E\ VXPPLQJ WKH VFRUHV DFURVV DOO VL[ IDFn WRUV ZHLJKWLQJ YLJRU QHJDWLYHO\f $ WRWDO PRRG VFRUH \LHOGV D VLQJOH JOREDO HVWLPDWH RI DIIHFWLYH VWDWH 0F1DLU /RUU t 'URSSOHPDQ f ,QWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH 3206 IDFWRUV ZHUH UHSRUWHG E\ 0F1DLU DQG /RUU f WR EH QHDU RU DERYH 7HVW UHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ IRU WKH VL[ IDFWRUV UDQJHG IURP WR 0F1DLU t /RUU f 7KH VL[ IDFWRU DQDO\WLF UHSOLFDWLRQ LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 3206 PD\ EH WDNHQ DV HYLGHQFH RI IDFWRULDO YDOLGLW\ 0F1DLU HW DO f /RUU 'DVWRQ DQG 6PLWK f DOVR LGHQWLILHG HLJKW PRRG IDFWRUV ILYH RI ZKLFK FRQILUPHG 3206 IDFWRUV

PAGE 49

6HTXHQWLDO 7HVW RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUHVVf§/LVWHQLQJ 67(3f 7KH GLIILFXOW\ LQ DVVHVVLQJ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ KDV EHHQ SRLQWHG RXW LQ WKH SUHFHGLQJ UHYLHZ RI UHODWHG OLWHUDn WXUH ,Q RUGHU WR REWDLQ WKH EHVW SRVVLEOH PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQn LQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU H[DPLQHG DOO WKH OLVWHQLQJ DVVHVVPHQW PDWHULDO FROOHFWHG E\ WKH )ORULGD 6WDWH 7DVN )RUFH RQ &ROOHJH /HYHO $VVHVVPHQW 6NLOOV 3URJUDP LQ 7DOODKDVVHH RQ 0D\ 7DVN )RUFH SHUVRQQHO UHFRPPHQGHG FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH HGLWLRQ RI WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW $ WKRURXJK H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKLV LQVWUXPHQW KRZHYHU LQGLFDWHG WKDW LW ZDV QRW SUDFn WLFDO IRU WKH DOORWHG WLPH DQG WKDW WKH WHVW SDVVDJHV GLG QRW DGHTXDWHO\ PHHW WKH FULWHULD VHW IRUWK E\ %DFNOXQG HW DO f 0RUH LPSRUWDQW WKH HGLWLRQ GHDOW ZLWK OHYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ RWKHU WKDQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ $ VXEVHTXHQW GLVFXVVLRQ ZLWK WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH SHUVRQQHO UHVXOWHG LQ DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH HGLWLRQ RI WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f 7KLV WHVW SURYHG WR EH WKH LQVWUXPHQW PRVW IHDVLEOH DQG DYDLODEOH IRU XVH LQ D VWXG\ RI 5$ DQG 6$ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO VLWXDWLRQ 7KH 67(3 SUHSDUHG E\ WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH DQG SXEOLVKHG E\ 0F*UDZ+LOO LV ZLGHO\ DFFHSWHG DV D UHOLDEOH PHDVXULQJ LQVWUXPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG KDV EHHQ XVHG LQ D QXPEHU RI OLVWHQLQJ VWXGLHV 0F&DOHE f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH 67(3 EHVW PHW WKH FULWHULD IRU OLVWHQn LQJ DVVHVVPHQWV SURSRVHG E\ %DFNOXQG HW DO f 7KH VWLPXOXV PDWHULDO DQG WHVW TXHVWLRQV ZHUH UHFRUGHG LQ D

PAGE 50

QDWXUDO VSHDNLQJ VW\OH 7KH WHVW FDOOHG IRU D VLQJOH PLQLPDO UHVSRQVH WR D VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQ DQG DOO VWLPXOXV PDWHULDO DQG WHVW LWHPV ZHUH UHDG WR WKH VXEMHFWV LQ RUGHU WR PLQLPL]H WKH PHGLDWLRQ RI UHDGLQJ DELOLW\ 7HVW SDVVDJH OHQJWK DYHUn DJHG VHFRQGV DQG D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI LQVWUXFWLRQ LQWHUHVWV ZHUH FRYHUHG LQ WKH PDWHULDO 67(3 $XGLR 7DSH ,Q NHHSLQJ ZLWK WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV RI %DFNOXQG HW DO f WKH VWLPXOXV PDWHULDO DQG WHVW LWHPV RI WKH 67(3 ZHUH UHFRUGHG RQ DXGLR WDSH $ WUDLQHG IHPDOH VSHDNHU GHOLYHUHG DOO LQVWUXFWLRQV VWLPXOXV SDVVDJHV DQG WHVW LWHPV 7KH HLJKW IRUPV RI WKH WHVW ZHUH UHFRUGHG RQ VHSDUDWH WDSHV 7KH WDSHV ZHUH UHYLHZHG E\ WKUHH SURIHVVLRQDOV DOO VSHHFK LQVWUXFWRUV ZLWK DGYDQFHG GHJUHHV LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 7KH\ HYDOXDWHG WKH WDSHV IRU TXDOLW\ DQG FRQVLVWHQF\ RI SUHn VHQWDWLRQ 7KH DXGLR TXDOLW\ RI WKH WDSHV ZDV MXGJHG WR EH EHORZ SURIHVVLRQDO VWDQGDUGV E\ WKH UHYLHZHUV +RZHYHU WKH WDSHV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WR EH FRQVLVWHQWO\ DXGLEOH DQG RI DGHn TXDWH TXDOLW\ IRU XVH LQ WKH H[SHULPHQW 7KH TXDOLW\ RI WKH VSHDNHUnV SUHVHQWDWLRQ ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WR EH H[FHOOHQW FRQn VLVWHQW LQ ERWK UDWH DQG YDULHW\ IRU DOO PHVVDJHV 3RVW([SHULPHQWDO 4XHVWLRQQDLUH $ EULHI TXHVWLRQQDLUH FRPSLOHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU VRXJKW WR DVVHVV WKH VXEMHFWVn SULRU WUDLQLQJ LQ VSHHFK DQG FRPPXQLn FDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ $ VHFWLRQ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV GHVLJQHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH VXEMHFWV KDG DQ\ KHDULQJ ORVV

PAGE 51

RU GLVDELOLW\ 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DOVR DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH LI (QJOLVK ZDV WKHLU ILUVW ODQJXDJH VHH $SSHQGL[ (f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n HQW URRPV QRQH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH FRPIRUWDEOH RU XQLTXH :HDWKHU FRQGLWLRQV UHPDLQHG VWDEOH IRU WKH WZR GD\V DQG QR XQXVXDO KDSSHQLQJ RFFXUUHG WR LQIOXHQFH WKH SURFHGXUHV RU WR SUHMXGLFH WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH OLVWHQLQJ DVVHVVPHQW

PAGE 52

2Q WKH GDWH RI WKH H[SHULPHQW LQVWUXFWRUV LQIRUPHG WKH VXEMHFWV WKDW LQ NHHSLQJ ZLWK WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI OLVWHQLQJ WR FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ DVVHVVPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZRXOG EH GRQH GXULQJ WKDW FODVV SHULRG 6WXGHQWV ZHUH DJDLQ LQIRUPHG WKDW WKHLU VFRUHV ZRXOG EH NHSW FRQILGHQWLDO DQG ZRXOG KDYH QR EHDULQJ RQ FODVV JUDGH 7KH LQVWUXFWRU WKHQ LQWURGXFHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU DV D VSHFLDOLVW LQ OLVWHQLQJ DVVHVVPHQW ZKR FRQGXFWHG WKH DVVHVVPHQW IURP WKDW SRLQW 7KH UHVHDUFKHU ILUVW H[SODLQHG WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH H[SHULn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f 7KH RQO\ HOHPHQW RI WKH VWXG\ WKH VWXGHQWV ZHUH QRW LQLWLDOO\ LQIRUPHG RI FRQFHUQHG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQ RI WKUHDW RU QRQWKUHDW DV D IDFWRU LQ WKH UHVHDUFK 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WKHQ JLYHQ WKH 3206 WR FRPSOHWH DQG DVNHG WR XVH RQO\ D VRFLDO VHFXULW\ QXPEHU DV LGHQWLILFDWLRQ 7KH 3206 WRRN QR PRUH WKDQ PLQXWHV WR FRPSOHWH 7KH UHVHDUFKHU FROOHFWHG WKLV LQVWUXPHQW DQG WKH LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW VWDWHPHQWV 7KH DQVZHU ERRNOHWV IRU WKH ILUVW SDUW RI WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ

PAGE 53

7HVW ZDV GLVWULEXWHG 6RFLDO VHFXULW\ QXPEHUV ZHUH DJDLQ XVHG IRU LGHQWLILFDWLRQ $ VDPSOH IRUP RI WKH WHVW ZDV SDVVHG RXW DQG LQVWUXFWLRQ RQ WKH SURSHU ZD\ WR FRPSOHWH WKH IRUP ZDV JLYHQ 6WXGHQWV DOO KDG SULRU SUDFWLFH LQ VWDQGDUGn L]HG WHVW WDNLQJ DQG QR GLIILFXOW\ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH IRUWKn FRPLQJ GLUHFWLRQV 7KH UHVHDUFKHU WKHQ WXUQHG RQ WKH WDSH UHFRUGHU DQG D VDPSOH SDVVDJH ZDV SOD\HG 7KH UHFRUGHU ZDV WXUQHG RII DQG WKH UHVHDUFKHU DVNHG LI HYHU\RQH FRXOG KHDU 1R SDUWLFXODU GLIILFXOWLHV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG E\ WKH VWXGHQWV EH\RQG UDLVLQJ WKH YROXPH RI WKH WDSH 6WXGHQWV ZHUH DOVR JLYHQ DQ RSSRUn WXQLW\ WR DVN TXHVWLRQV DW WKLV SRLQW 7KH UHVHDUFKHU WKHQ LQIRUPHG WKH VXEMHFWV WKDW DOO LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRXOG FRPH IURP WKH WDSH RQO\ DQG QR FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZLWK WKH UHVHDUFKHU ZDV DOORZHG EDUULQJ XQIRUHVHHQ FLUFXPVWDQFHV 7KH WDSH ZDV SOD\HG WKURXJK 3DUW 2QH 6XEMHFWV XQGHU WKH 1RQWKUHDW7KUHDW FRQGLWLRQ KHDUG GLUHFWLRQV IRU ZULWWHQ UHVSRQVHV WR WHVW SDVVDJHV RQO\ LQ 3DUW 2QH RI WKH WHVW ,QVWUXFWLRQV IRU 3DUW 7ZR LQIRUPHG WKH VXEMHFWV WKDW IROORZLQJ WKH ZULWWHQ WHVW VRPH LQGLYLGn XDOV ZRXOG EH FDOOHG XSRQ WR RUDOO\ DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV DQGRU VXPPDUL]H WHVW SDVVDJH PDWHULDO LQ DQ LPSURPSWX VSHHFK VHH $SSHQGL[ *f 7HVW SDVVDJHV DQG TXHVWLRQV ZHUH WKHQ UHDG 7KH UHVHDUFKHU WXUQHG RII WKH WDSH DQG FROOHFWHG DQVZHU VKHHWV $ VHULHV RI TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG RI UDQGRPO\ FKRVHQ VWXGHQWV 2QH VWXGHQW ZDV DOVR FKRVHQ DW UDQGRP WR GHOLYHU WKH LPSURPSWX VSHHFK 7KH RUDO UHVSRQVH VHVVLRQ WRRN QR PRUH WKDQ PLQXWHV

PAGE 54

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n SOHWLRQ RI 3DUW 2QH WKH UHVHDUFKHU FROOHFWHG DQVZHU IRUPV DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH VHULHV RI TXHVWLRQV DQG DVVLJQHG D VXPn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

PAGE 55

FRQILGHQWLDO 7KH\ ZHUH DOVR WROG WKDW UHVXOWV RI WKH WHVW DQG WKH UHVHDUFK FRXOG EH REWDLQHG E\ FRQWDFWLQJ WKH UHVHDUFKHU DW WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH VWXG\ $QDO\VLV RI 5HVXOWV 7KH UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WHVWHG E\ XVLQJ D QXPEHU RI SURFHGXUHV IURP WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6 f ,QGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH OHYHOV RI 5$ OHYHOV RI 6$ DQG WHVW FRQGLWLRQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUH VHUYHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH PRRG VFRUH ZDV FRQVLGHUHG DV D FRYDULDWH $OO SUREDELOLW\ OHYHOV ZHUH VHW DW 7KH OHYHO RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQGRU VRXUFH DSSUHn KHQVLRQ PD\ RU PD\ QRW KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW RQ DQ LQGLn YLGXDOnV SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D OLVWHQLQJ WHVW 7KH SURFHVV RI DQDO\VLV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU ZDV GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZKLOH FRQVLGHULQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ IRU D WKUHDW RU DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJ VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH VXEMHFWnV PRRG VWDWH DW WKH WLPH RI OLVWHQLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV DQDO\VLV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ FKDSWHU

PAGE 56

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 7KLV FKDSWHU SUHVHQWV WDEXODWHG UHVXOWV RI WKH 35&$ WKH 5$7 WKH 3206 WKH 3RVW([SHULPHQWDO 4XHVWLRQQDLUH DQG WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW 6WDWLVWLFDO ILQGLQJV LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH VWXG\nV VL[ K\SRWKHVHV DUH DOVR GLVFXVVHG 6HOI5HSRUW )LQGLQJV 7KH 35&$ DQG WKH 5$7 ZHUH VFRUHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQG FKHFNHG IRU DFFXUDF\ 7KH OHYHOV RI 5$ DQG 6$ IRU LQGLn YLGXDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH QRWHG %RWK 5$ DQG 6$ VFRUHV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WKH OHYHOV RI KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ RQFH WKH PHDQ DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ IRU HDFK PHDVXUH ZHUH FDOFXODWHG 0F&URVNH\ f 3HUVRQDO 5HSRUW RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 35&$f (DFK VXEMHFW FRPSOHWHG WKH 35&$ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH ZHHN EHIRUH SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO SKDVH RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH KLJKHVW 35&$ VFRUH REWDLQHG IURP WKH VXEMHFWV ZDV KLJK DSSUHKHQVLRQf ZKLOH WKH ORZHVW VFRUH ZDV ORZ DSSUHn KHQVLRQf 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV ZLWK VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ DERYH WKH PHDQ DQG VFRULQJ DW RU EHORZ WKH PHDQ ZLWK D VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI 7KH PHDQ 35&$ VFRUH REWDLQHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ VHUYHG DV WKH GLYLGLQJ SRLQW EHWZHHQ KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ VXEMHFWV 7ZHQW\VHYHQ VXEMHFWV

PAGE 57

VFRULQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ EHORZ WKH PHDQ ZHUH JURXSHG DV ORZ DSSUHKHQVLYHV 7KRVH VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ DERYH WKH PHDQ ZHUH JURXSHG DV KLJK DSSUHKHQVLYHV DQG WKH UHPDLQLQJ VXEMHFWV ZHUH FODVVLILHG DV PHGLXP DSSUHKHQVLYHV VHH 7DEOH f 5HFHLYHU $SSUHKHQVLRQ 7HVW 5$7f (DFK VXEMHFW DOVR FRPSOHWHG WKH 5$7 DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH ZHHN EHIRUH SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO SKDVH RI WKLV VWXG\ 7KH KLJKHVW 5$7 VFRUH REWDLQHG IURP WKH VXEMHFWV ZDV KLJK DSSUHKHQVLYHf ZLWK WKH ORZHVW VFRUH EHLQJ ORZ DSSUHKHQVLYHf 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU DOO VXEMHFWV ZDV ZLWK D VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI 6L[W\WZR VXEMHFWV VFRUHG DERYH WKH PHDQ DQG VFRUHG DW RU EHORZ WKH PHDQ 7ZHQW\ VHYHQ VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ EHORZ WKH PHDQ ZHUH UDWHG DV ORZ DSSUHKHQVLYH DQG WKRVH VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ DERYH WKH PHDQ ZHUH UDWHG DV KLJK DSSUHKHQVLYHV ZKLOH WKH UHPDLQLQJ VXEMHFWV ZHUH UDWHG DV PHGLXP DSSUHKHQVLYHV VHH 7DEOH f 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 3206f 7KH 3206 ZDV VFRUHG E\ XVLQJ KDQG RYHUOD\V DQG LQVWUXFn WLRQV SURYLGHG E\ WKH 3206 0DQXDO 0F1DLU HW DO f ,QGLYLGXDO VFRUHV RQ HDFK RI WKH VL[ IDFWRUV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG IRU HDFK VXEMHFW 7KH WRWDO PRRG VFRUH IRU HDFK LQGLYLGXDO ZDV REWDLQHG E\ DGGLQJ WKH VL[ IDFWRUV ZHLJKWLQJ YLJRU QHJDWLYHO\f 7KH WRWDO PRRG VFRUH LV DVVXPHG WR EH LPSRUWDQW LQ REWDLQLQJ D VLQJOH HVWLPDWH RI HDFK LQGLYLGXDOnV DIIHFWLYH

PAGE 58

7DEOH *URXS 0HDQV RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $SSUHKHQVLRQ 9DULDEOHV 7HVW &$ /HYHO &$ 6FRUH Q +LJK 35&$ 0HGLXP /RZ +LJK 5$7 0HGLXP /RZ

PAGE 59

VWDWH 7KH WRWDO VFRUH ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW IDFn WRU DV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV PRRG PD\ LPSDFW RQ KLVKHU OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 0HDQ VFRUHV IRU HDFK IDFWRU ZHUH DOVR FDOFXn ODWHG VHH 7DEOH f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n EHO KHDULQJ ORVVHV WKHVH VXEMHFWV IDLOHG WR FRPSOHWH DOO SKDVHV RI WKH H[SHULPHQW DQG ZHUH UHPRYHG IURP WKH VWXG\ SULRU WR OHDUQLQJ RI WKHLU KHDULQJ ORVV 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW 7KH GHSHQGHQW PHDVXUH H[DPLQHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH VFRUH RQ WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW 7KH VFRUHV IRU 3DUW 2QH DQG 3DUW 7ZR RI WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW ZHUH FDOFXODWHG VHSDUDWHO\ DQG ZHUH WKHQ FRPELQHG WR FUHDWH D WRWDO OLVWHQn LQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUH 6FRUHV IRU WKH WZR SDUWV RI WKH WHVW ZHUH UHFRUGHG VHSDUDWHO\ ZLWK DQ LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKH WHVW

PAGE 60

7DEOH 0HDQ 6FRUHV IRU 0RRG 6WDWH )DFWRUV 0RRG )DFWRU 0 6' 7HQVLRQ 'HSUHVVLRQ $Q[LHW\ 9LJRU ZHLJKWHG QHJDWLYHO\f )DWLJXH &RQIXVLRQ 7RWDO 0RRG

PAGE 61

FRQGLWLRQ DQG PHVVDJH RUGHU IRU HDFK VR WKDW LW ZRXOG EH SRVn VLEOH WR DVVHVV WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFW WKDW HDFK PLJKW KDYH RQ WKH UHVXOWV 7KH KLJKHVW SRVVLEOH WRWDO VFRUH RQ WKH 67(3 ZDV SRLQWV HDFK SDUW RI WKH WHVW EHLQJ ZRUWK SRLQWV 7KH RYHUn DOO PHDQ VFRUH IRU VXEMHFWV ZDV DFURVV DOO FRQGLWLRQV 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU VXEMHFWV XQGHU WKH WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW SRVVLEOH VFRUH EHLQJ SRLQWV 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU VXEMHFWV XQGHU WKH QRQWKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW SRVVLEOH VFRUH EHLQJ SRLQWV VHH 7DEOH f 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU VXEMHFWV XQGHU WKUHDW DV WKH ILUVW FRQGLWLRQ ZDV FRPSDUHG WR D PHDQ VFRUH RI IRU VXEn MHFWV XQGHU QRQWKUHDW DV WKH ILUVW FRQGLWLRQ 7KH DYHUDJH LQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS IRU WKUHDW ZDV FRPSDUHG WR WKH DYHUDJH LQ WKH QRQWKUHDW JURXS RI VHH 7DEOH f 7KH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW ZDV EURNHQ LQWR WZR SDUWV IRU WKLV VWXG\ 7KRXJK WKH WHVW ZDV GHVLJQHG WR EH JLYHQ DV RQH XQLW WKH LQWHUQDO YDOLGLW\ RI WKH WHVW ZDV QRW FRPSURPLVHG E\ WKLV GLYLVLRQ %DLOH\ f (DFK RI WKH VWLPXOXV SDVn VDJHV DQG WHVW LWHPV ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG WR EH HTXLYDOHQW DQG WKHUHIRUH RUGHU RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ GLG QRW DOWHU WKH UHVXOWV LQ DQ\ ZD\ $V H[SHFWHG WKH HIIHFW RI WKH PHVVDJHV RQ VXEn MHFWVn PHDQ VFRUHV GLG QRW YDU\ VLJQLILFDQWO\ 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU 0HVVDJH $ ZDV ZKLOH WKH PHDQ VFRUH IRU 0HVVDJH % ZDV %\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH PHDQ VFRUHV OLWWOH GLIIHUHQFH ZDV REVHUYHG DPRQJ VXEMHFWV DV JURXSHG HLWKHU DFFRUGLQJ WR WHVW FRQGLWLRQ RU PHVVDJH FKRLFH +RZHYHU VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV

PAGE 62

7DEOH 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ 0HDQ 6FRUHV IRU 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ 0 1 $FURVV &RQGLWLRQ 7KUHDW 1RQWKUHDW

PAGE 63

7DEOH 67(3 0HDQV IRU 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ 2UGHU &RQGLWLRQ 2UGHU 0 1 7KUHDW VW QG 1RQWKUHDW VW QG 7KUHDW VW 7KUHDW QG 1RQWKUHDW VW 1RQWKUHDW QG

PAGE 64

RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV DOVR DVVHVVHG SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV DQG LQWHUn DFWLRQ RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI 5$ 6$ DQG WHVW FRQn GLWLRQ RQ WKH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZKLOH FRQVLGHULQJ WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFW RI PRRG 7KHVH DQDO\VHV DQG LQWHUSUHWDn WLRQV DOORZHG IRU DQ LQGHSWK DQG FRPSUHKHQVLYH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ +\SRWKHVHV 7HVW 5HVXOWV 7KLV VWXG\ DVVHVVHG WKH HIIHFWV RI 5$ DQG 6$ RQ WKH OLVn WHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI VXEMHFWV LQ D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ SURGXFLQJ FRQGLWLRQ LQ WKH FODVVURRP 7KH SURFHGXUHV ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR H[SORUH WKH SRVVLEOH LPSDFW RI LQGLYLGXDO PRRG VFRUHV RQ WKHLU OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV 6L[ VWDWLVn WLFDO QXOO K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH H[DPLQHG ZLWK WKH SUREDELOLW\ OHYHOV VHW DW RQ HDFK 7KH LQLWLDO K\SRWKHVLV WHVWHG FRQFHUQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 5$ DQG 6$ + 6XEMHFWVn VFRUHV RQ UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ WHVWV ZLOO QRW EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ SRVLn WLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG %\ XVLQJ WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f SURFHGXUH FRUUHODWLRQ 6$6 S f 5$ DQG 6$ ZHUH IRXQG QRW WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG DW WKH OHYHO S f 5$ DQG 6$ VHHP WR EH VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW HOHPHQWV WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI RQH GRHV QRW DIIHFW OHYHOV RI WKH RWKHU 7KH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV IRFXVHG RQ WKH HIIHFW RI 5$ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV +a 6XEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZLOO QRW EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV

PAGE 65

$ SDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ XVLQJ 6366 /DQJXDJH LQVLGH 6$6 f ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV :LWK WKH XVH RI WKH SDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ D FRYDULDWH RI WRWDO PRRG VFRUH FRXOG EH LQWURGXFHG 7KH XVH RI WKH FRYDULDWH DOORZV DGMXVWPHQW IRU JURXS GLIIHUHQFHV DQG SURYLGHV D PRUH SRZHUIXO VHQVLWLYHf VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV WKDQ ZRXOG WKH DQDO\VLV RI OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV ZLWKRXW WKH FRYDULDWH GDWD +XFN &RUPLHU t %RXQGV S f :KHQ XVLQJ SDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ SURFHGXUH ZLWK WKH WRWDO PRRG VFRUH DV WKH FRYDULDWH OHYHOV RI 5$ ZHUH QRW VLJQLILn FDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK OHYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ S f WKHUHIRUH WKLV K\SRWKHVLV FDQQRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO 7KH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV WHVWHG ZDV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH HIIHFW RI 6$ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV +A 6XEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZLOO QRW EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG WR VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV )ROORZLQJ WKH VDPH SURFHGXUH DV XVHG LQ +\SRWKHVLV 7ZR D SDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK WRWDO PRRG VFRUH DV D FRYDULDWH 6$6 f ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV /HYHOV RI 6$ ZHUH DOVR QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK OHYHOV RI OLVWHQn LQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ S f DQG FRQVHTXHQWO\ WKLV K\SRWKHVLV FDQQRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO 7KH IRXUWK K\SRWKHVLV WHVWHG GHDOW ZLWK WKH HIIHFW RI PRRG VFRUH RQ VXEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV 6XEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV ZLOO QRW EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK PRRG VFRUHV

PAGE 66

$Q RYHUDOO SURFHGXUH FRUUHODWLRQ 6$6 f LQGLFDWHG WKDW QHLWKHU WRWDO PRRG VFRUH QRU LQGLYLGXDO PRRG VFRUHV ZHUH VLJn QLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV 7KLV K\SRWKHVLV FDQQRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO VHH 7DEOH f 7KH ILIWK K\SRWKHVLV WHVWHG WKH HIIHFW RI 5$ RQ OLVWHQn LQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ D WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ +M /LVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV IRU VXEMHFWV ZKR KDYH KLJKHU GHJUHHV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZLOO QRW EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV IRU VXEMHFWV ZKR KDYH ORZHU GHJUHHV RI DSSUHn KHQVLRQ LQ D WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ $ WZRIDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV ZLWK 5$ DV WKH FRYDULDWH 6$6 f ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKLV K\SRWKn HVLV 7KH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV ZDV WKH PRUH DSSURSULDWH DQDO\VLV IRU WKLV VWXG\ DV WKH VDPH VXEn MHFWV ZHUH PHDVXUHG DW GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV RI WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH VLPSOH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZRXOG QRW LQGLFDWH WKH UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV +XFN HW DO SS f %\ XVLQJ WKH SURFHGXUH WKH OHYHO RI 5$ DFFRXQWV IRU D VWDWLVn WLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW DPRXQW RI YDULDQFH LQ WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV S f 7KHUHIRUH WKLV K\SRWKHVLV FDQQRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO VHH 7DEOH f 6LPLODUO\ WKH VL[WK K\SRWKHVLV WHVWHG FRQFHUQHG WKH HIIHFW RI 6$ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV + /LVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV IRU VXEMHFWV ZKR KDYH KLJKHU GHJUHHV RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZLOO QRW EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ VFRUHV IRU VXEMHFWV ZKR KDYH ORZHU GHJUHHV RI VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ LQ D WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ

PAGE 67

7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQ RI ,QGLYLGXDO 0RRG )DFWRUV DQG 7RWDO 0RRG ZLWK /LVWHQLQJ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ 0RRG )DFWRU /LVWHQLQJ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ S YDOXH 7HQVLRQ 'HSUHVVLRQ $Q[LHW\ 9LJRU )DWLJXH &RQIXVLRQ 7RWDO 0RRG

PAGE 68

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI /LVWHQLQJ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ 6FRUHV ZLWK D &RYDULDWH RI 5$ RU 6$ &RYDULDWH 6RXUFH ') 06 ) S YDOXH 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ $f &RYDULDWH 5$ (UURU 0HVVDJH %f $ % (UURU 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ $f &RYDULDWH 6$ (UURU 0HVVDJH %f $% (UURU

PAGE 69

$V LQ WKH ILIWK K\SRWKHVLV DQ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV DQG D FRYDULDWH RI 6$ 6$6 f ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV 7KH OHYHO RI 6$ GLG QRW DFFRXQW IRU D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQW RI YDULDQFH RQ WKH GHSHQGn HQW YDULDEOH RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ S f DQG WKLV K\SRWKHVLV FRXOG QRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO VHH 7DEOH f 7KH UHODWLYHO\ KLJK QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV UHSRUWLQJ VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ RQ WKH SRVWH[SHULPHQWDO TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV FRQVLGHUHG XQXVXDO HQRXJK WR ZDUUDQW IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ,Q RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ KDG DQ\ HIIHFW RQ OLVn WHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV D WZR IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV ZLWK WRWDO PRRG VFRUH DV D FRYDULDWH ZDV WHVWHG 7KLV DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D GLIIHUn HQFH EHWZHHQ WKH VFRUHV RI VSHHFK DQG QRQVSHHFK WUDLQHG VXEn MHFWV ZKHQ WKH SUREDELOLW\ OHYHO ZDV VHW DW S! f VHH 7DEOH f 7KH IDFWRU RI VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ DSSHDUHG WR EH VLJQLILFDQW LQLWLDOO\ 7KHUHIRUH LQ RUGHU WR FRQVLGHU WKH HIIHFW RI VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV DV ZHOO DV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK 6$ DQG 5$ XQGHU WHVW FRQGLWLRQV D IRXU IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK WRWDO PRRG VFRUH DV WKH FRYDULDWH ZDV FRQGXFWHG 6$6 f 7KLV DQDO\VLV LQGLn FDWHV WKH RYHUDOO GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH OHYHOV RI HDFK IDFWRU DQG DGGLWLRQDOO\ LQGLFDWHV WKH LPSDFW RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH IDFWRUV RQ WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH XVH RI WKH FRYDULDWH RI WRWDO PRRG VFRUH FRQWUROV IRU DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH JURXSV

PAGE 70

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI WKH (IIHFW RI 6SHHFK 7UDLQLQJ RQ /LVWHQLQJ &RQWUROOLQJ IRU 7RWDO 0RRG 6FRUH 6RXUFH ') 0' ) 3 6SHHFK 7UDLQLQJ $f r &RY 0RRG (UURU 0HVVDJH %f r $r % (UURU rVLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 71

8VLQJ WKLV DQDO\VLV VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLn DWLRQ DERYH WKH PHDQ RQ 5$ DQG 6$ PHDVXUHV ZHUH FODVVLILHG DV KLJK DSSUHKHQVLYH 7KRVH VFRULQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ EHORZ WKH PHDQ ZHUH FODVVLILHG DV ORZ DSSUHKHQVLYH ZKLOH WKH UHPDLQLQJ VXEMHFWV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG DV PHGLXP DSSUHKHQVLYH 0F&URVNH\ f :LWK WKH SUREDELOLW\ OHYHO RI DJDLQ QHLWKHU WKH OHYHO RI 5$ 6$ RU WHVW FRQGLWLRQ DFFRXQWHG IRU D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQW RI YDULDQFH RQ WKH GHSHQGn HQW YDULDEOH RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZKHQ DGMXVWLQJ IRU WKH HIIHFW RI PRRG VFRUH 7KLV DQDO\VLV IXUWKHU FRQILUPHG WKDW WKH ILIWK DQG VL[WK K\SRWKHVHV FDQQRW EH UHMHFWHG DW WKH OHYHO 7KH VXEMHFWVn VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ KRZHYHU GLG VHHP WR DIIHFW OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV S! f VHH 7DEOH f )RU D PRUH WKRURXJK DQDO\VLV RI WKH HIIHFW RI VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ RQ OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV D 3URF 0HDQV SURFHGXUH ZDV FRQGXFWHG 6$6 f %HFDXVH RI WKH XQHYHQ QXPEHUV RI VXEn MHFWV LQ HDFK JURXS D WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH QXPEHUV ZDV QHFHVVDU\ LQ RUGHU WR FRPSOHWH WKH DQDO\VLV 7KH ILQDO DGMXVWHG PHDQ VFRUHV LQGLFDWHG D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR PHDQV ZLWK WKH PHDQ IRU QRQVSHHFK WUDLQLQJ EHLQJ VRPHZKDW KLJKHU +RZHYHU EHFDXVH RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH GDWD DQG XQHYHQ VXEMHFW QXPEHUV WKH WZR PHDQV FDQQRW EH VDLG WR EH VLJQLILn FDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW 7KHUHIRUH WKH VXEMHFWV ZLWK QR VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ FDQQRW EH VDLG WR EH EHWWHU OLVWHQHUV QRU VSHHFK WUDLQHG VXEMHFWV SRRU RQHV VHH 7DEOH f 7KRXJK SULRU VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ LQLWLDOO\ DSSHDUHG WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU RQ OLVn WHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ WKH VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV RI WKLV VWXG\ FDQQRW VXSSRUW VXFK D FRQFOXVLRQ

PAGE 72

7DEOH 7KH (IIHFW RI 5$ 6$ 6SHHFK 7UDLQLQJ DQG 7HVW &RQGLWLRQ RQ /LVWHQLQJ &RPSUHKHQVLRQ &RQWUROOLQJ IRU 7RWDO 0RRG 6FRUH *URXS ') ) 35!) 0727 5$ 6$ 75 r *URXS 5$ 6$ 5$ 75 *URXS5$ 6$ 75 *URXS6$ *URXS75 5$6$75 *URXSr 5$r 6$ *URXS6$75 *URXSr 5$75 *URXS5$r 6$r 75 rVLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 73

7DEOH 0HDQ 6FRUHV IRU 6SHHFK 7UDLQHG DQG 1RQ7UDLQHG 6XEMHFWV $IWHU 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ *URXS 0 1 1RQ6SHHFK 6SHHFK

PAGE 74

6XPPDU\ $ ZLGH UDQJH RI 6$ DQG 5$ VFRUHV ZHUH REWDLQHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWLQJ D ZLGH VDPSOH RI OHYHOV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ 6XEMHFWV UHSRUWHG ORZHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DV UHFHLYHUV [ f WKDQ DV VRXUFHV [ f 7KLV UHVXOW LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ DV SHUVRQV PD\ EH H[SHFWHG WR EH OHVV DSSUHKHQVLYH FRQFHUQLQJ UHFHLYLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDQ DERXW VHUYLQJ DV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VRXUFHV :KHHOHVV f 7KH 3206 DOVR \LHOGHG D ZLGH UDQJH RI VFRUHV RQ HDFK RI WKH VL[ LQGLYLGXDO PRRG IDFWRUV DV ZHOO DV WRWDO PRRG VFRUHV 7KH SRVWH[SHULPHQWDO TXHVWLRQQDLUH UHYHDOHG WKDW QRQH RI WKH VXEMHFWV KDG DQ\ WUDLQLQJ LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ UHGXFWLRQ 7KH IHZ VXEMHFWV IRU ZKRP (QJOLVK ZDV D VHFRQG ODQJXDJH RU ZKR H[SHULHQFHG D KHDULQJ ORVV ZHUH UHPRYHG IURP WKH VWXG\ $ QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV KRZHYHU UHSRUWHG SULRU VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ ,QLWLDOO\ WKH IDFWRU RI SULRU VSHHFK WUDLQn LQJ ZDV VHHQ WR KDYH VRPH SRVVLEOH QHJDWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV ZLWK QRQVSHHFK WUDLQHG VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ KLJKHU RQ OLVWHQLQJ WHVWV +RZHYHU IXUWKHU DQDO\VLV RQ WKH PHDQV RI WKH WZR JURXSV PHUHO\ LQGLFDWHG D VOLJKW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH VFRUHV DQG FDQQRW EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV D VLJQLILFDQW IDFn WRU LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV ,Q WKLV H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ 5$ DQG 6$ ZHUH VKRZQ WR EH XQUHODWHG WR HDFK RWKHU DQG WR EH VHSDUDWH HOHPHQWV LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ 1HLWKHU 5$ RU 6$ ZHUH VKRZQ WR KDYH DQ\ HIIHFW RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ QRU ZHUH WKH WUHDWPHQW FRQGLWLRQV RI WKUHDW DQG QRQWKUHDW VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 75

LQIOXHQFHV RQ VXEMHFWVn OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV $ IROORZXS FRPn SDULVRQ GLYLGLQJ 5$ DQG 6$ LQWR KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ OHYHOV GLG QRW DOWHU UHVXOWV LQ DQ\ IDVKLRQ 1HLWKHU LQGLYLGXDO IDFWRU VFRUHV QRU WKH WRWDO PRRG VFRUH ZDV UHODWHG WR OLVWHQn LQJ VFRUHV DQG GLG QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ DFFRXQW IRU DQ\ GLIIHUn HQFHV LQ VFRUHV LQ DQ\ DQDO\VLV 7KXV WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI 5$ DQG 6$ GR QRW LQIOXHQFH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQn PHQW

PAGE 76

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 &RQFOXVLRQV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG HGXFDWRU VFKRODUV KDYH ORQJ DFNQRZOn HGJHG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ LV D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VNLOO YLWDO WR WKH VRFLDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO )RU RYHU \HDUV UHVHDUFK KDV VRXJKW WR DVVHVV YDULRXV IDFWRUV ZKLFK PLJKW HQKDQFH RU KLQGHU OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ ,Q WKLV VWXG\ DQ HIIRUW ZDV PDGH WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH YDULDEOH RI FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZRXOG KDYH DQ\ HIIHFW RQ WKH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI VXEMHFWV LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQ HQYLURQPHQW XQGHU ERWK QRUPDO DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ SURYRNLQJ VLWXDWLRQV 7KH ILUVW FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW FDQ EH GUDZQ LV WKDW WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLRQ DUH QRW UHODWHG 7KRXJK 0F'RZHOO DQG 0F'RZHOO f UHSRUWHG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH WZR ZKHQ DVVHVVLQJ WKH HIIHFW RI HDFK RQ DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV WKLV VWXG\ GLVFORVHG QR VXFK UHODWLRQVKLS 5$ DQG 6$ DUH IRXQG WR EH VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW GLPHQVLRQV RI &$ LW DSSHDUV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV PD\ H[SHULHQFH KLJK OHYHOV RI RQH W\SH RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZLWKn RXW H[SHULHQFLQJ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ OHYHOV LQ WKH RWKHU 7KLV ILQGLQJ GRHV VXSSRUW WKH FRQFOXVLRQV GUDZQ E\ :KHHOHVV f

PAGE 77

DQG 0F&URVNH\ f WKDW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ LV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQVWUXFW DQG WKDW LW YDULHV ZLWK WKH LQGLn YLGXDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ IXQFWLRQ SHUIRUPHG $V 6$ DQG 5$ KDYH ERWK EHHQ VKRZQ WR KDYH DGYHUVH HIIHFWV RQ WKH DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV DQG VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV HGXFDn WRUV VKRXOG EH PDGH DZDUH RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH WZR GLPHQn VLRQV 0HWKRGV RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK 6$ DQG 5$ KRZHYHU VKRXOG WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH XQLGLPHQVLRQDOLW\ RI HDFK 7UHDWPHQW IRU DQ[LHW\ UHGXFWLRQ LQ RQH FDWHJRU\ SUREDEO\ ZLOO QRW UHVXOW LQ DQ[LHW\ UHGXFWLRQ LQ WKH RWKHU /LNHZLVH LQVWUXFn WLRQDO VWUDWHJLHV GHVLJQHG WR DLG WKH VRXUFH DSSUHKHQVLYH LQGLYLGXDO VXFK DV HPSKDVLV RQ OHFWXUH UDWKHU WKDQ GLVFXVn VLRQ FDQQRW QHFHVVDULO\ EH H[SHFWHG WR DLG WKH UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLYH LQGLYLGXDO 5$ DQG 6$ DUH VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW GLPHQVLRQV RI &$ DQG VKRXOG EH DVVHVVHG DQG WUHDWHG DV VXFK $ VHFRQG UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVLV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 5$ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ $ SDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH WZR ZHUH QRW UHODWHG S f 1R RWKHU OLWHUDWXUH SXEOLVKHG WR WKLV GDWH KRZn HYHU KDV DVVHVVHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI 5$ DQG OLVWHQLQJ EXW WKHRUHWLFDO LPSOLFDWLRQV DQG HPSLULFDO ILQGLQJV LQ RWKHU DUHDV VWURQJO\ VXJJHVWHG VXFK D FRUUHODWLRQ 6LPLODUO\ D WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV FRQFHUQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 6$ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ )ROORZLQJ WKH VDPH SURFHGXUH QR FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ 6$ DQG OLVWHQLQJ ZDV IRXQG S f 7KLV ILQGLQJ FRQILUPHG WKDW RI 0LOOHU DQG
PAGE 78

KRZHYHU WKDW IXUWKHU VWXGLHV EH FRQGXFWHG EHFDXVH RI WKH VWURQJ LPSOLFDWLRQV RI D UHODWLRQVKLS IRXQG LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ UHVHDUFK OLWHUDWXUH ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH IDLOXUH WR ILQG VLJQLILFDQW FRUn UHODWLRQV PD\ EH DQ HUURU LQ UHVHDUFK PHWKRGRORJ\ DQGRU LQVWUXPHQW UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ &HUWDLQO\ FXUUHQWO\ DYDLODEOH PHDVXUHV RI OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV DUH LPSHUIHFW DW EHVW ,W LV PXFK PRUH OLNHO\ KRZHYHU FRQVLGHULQJ WKH ULJLGO\ FRQn WUROOHG GHVLJQ DQG SURFHGXUHV RI WKH VWXG\ WKDW LQ D QRUPDO FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW QHLWKHU 5$ QRU 6$ LV UHODWHG WR OLVWHQn LQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 7KH IDLOXUH WR ILQG FRUUHODWLRQV PD\ VLPSO\ PHDQ WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS GRHV QRW H[LVW LQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU FRQWH[W ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKRXJK WKDW 0F&URVNH\ f GLVn FXVVHG WKH GLIILFXOW\ RI DVVLJQLQJ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ EHKDYLRUV WR OHYHOV RI &$ +H LQ IDFW VWURQJO\ UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW FDXn WLRQ EH H[HUFLVHG ZKHQ DWWDFKLQJ DQ\ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRU WR D PHDVXUH RI &$ 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK DQG FRQFOXVLRQV UHDFKHG FRQFHUQLQJ EHKDYLRU PDQLIHVWHG E\ DSSUHKHQVLYHV KDV EHHQ EDVHG RQ DJJUHJDWH GDWD DQG KDV EHHQ VXEMHFW WR RYHUn LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 7KHVH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV GR QRW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH KLJK SRWHQWLDO IRU DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR GHYLDWH IURP WKH QRUP DQG WR FKRRVH IURP D YDULHW\ RI EHKDYLRUV GHVLJQHG WR GHDO ZLWK WKH OHYHO RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ S f ,W FDQQRW EH DVVXPHG WKHUHIRUH WKDW D KLJKO\ DSSUHKHQVLYH LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO QHFHVVDULO\ H[KLELW SRRU OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU RU VFRUH SRRUO\ RQ D PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ

PAGE 79

)XUWKHU WKRXJK UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI DSSUHKHQVLYH LQGLYLGXDOV WHQG WR DYRLG RU ZLWKGUDZ IURP FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ VRPH GR H[KLELW DQ XQFRPPRQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ SDWWHUQ 7KHVH LQGLYLGXDOV WU\ WR RYHUFRPSHQVDWH IRU WKHLU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG DWWHPSW WR VXFFHHG GHVSLWH WKH DQ[LHW\ 0F&URVNH\ S f 6RPH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ PD\ KDYH EHHQ PRWLYDWHG WR OLVWHQ EHWWHU SUHFLVHO\ EHFDXVH RI WKH GLVFRPn IRUW H[SHULHQFHG LQ WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VLWXDWLRQ ,Q WKH GHEULHILQJ IROORZLQJ WKH H[SHULPHQW VHYHUDO VXEMHFWV GLG UHSRUW D KHLJKWHQLQJ RI DWWHQWLRQ VR DV WR VFRUH ZHOO RQ WKH OLVWHQLQJ WHVW 2WKHUV LQGLFDWHG LQFUHDVHG DWWHQWLRQ WR WHVW PDWHULDO WR DYRLG DQ\ HPEDUUDVVPHQW VKRXOG WKH\ EH FDOOHG XSRQ WR DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV RUDOO\ ,Q DQ\ FDVH WKHUH LV QR EHKDYLRU WKDW LV SUHGLFWHG WR EH D XQLYHUVDO SURGXFW RI YDU\n LQJ OHYHOV RI &$ 0F&URVNH\ S f 7KH IRXUWK K\SRWKHVLV GHDOW ZLWK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG PRRG VWDWH $ SURFHGXUH FRUUHODn WLRQ LQGLFDWHG QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VL[ LQGLYLGXDO PRRG IDFWRUV FRPSULVLQJ RQHnV WRWDO PRRG VWDWH 7KRXJK VXEMHFWV UHSRUWHG D ZLGH UDQJH RI PRRG VFRUHV DQG WRWDO PRRG DIIHFWLYH VWDWHV RQ WKH 3206 PRRG GLG QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLQGHU RU DLG LQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW 7KRXJK HDUO\ OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI PRRG RU PLQG VHW RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ WR OLVWHQ %URZQ 1LFKROV t /HZLV f WKLV VWXG\ GLG QRW VXSSRUW WKRVH FRQFOXVLRQV $ WKRURXJK H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV RI D FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ PRRG VFRUH DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ IRU WKLV

PAGE 80

SDUWLFXODU VWXG\ VHH 7DEOH S f UHYHDOV WKDW RQO\ WKH PRRG IDFWRU RI FRQIXVLRQ HYHQ EHJDQ WR DSSURDFK VLJQLILn FDQFH S f ,I OLVWHQLQJ LV YLHZHG DV D IRUP RI LQIRUn PDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ WKHQ FRQIXVLRQ FRXOG KLQGHU RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG DQDO\VLV RI DXUDO VWLPXOL ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH XQH[SHFWHG H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ LWVHOI SURGXFHG WKH FRQn IXVLRQ 7KH VXEMHFWV XQFHUWDLQ RI ZKDW ZDV WR RFFXU GXULQJ WKH UHVHDUFK DOORZHG WKH VWDWH WR LPSDFW RQ WKHLU OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU 7KH IDFW WKH RWKHU PRRG IDFWRUV GLG QRW DSSURDFK VLJQLILFDQFH PD\ EH D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH VXEMHFWVn VWXGHQW VWDWXV ,Q D WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ VWXGHQWV ZLWK \HDUV RI SUDFn WLFH DW WHVW WDNLQJ PD\ EH DGHSW DW SXWWLQJ GLVUXSWLYH HPRn WLRQV DVLGH :KDWHYHU WKH FDVH PRRG ZDV LQ QR ZD\ D VLJQLILFDQW LQIOXHQFH RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH ILIWK DQG VL[WK K\SRWKHVHV FRQFHUQHG WKH HIIHFW RI OHYHOV RI 5$ DQG 6$ RQ PHDVXUHV RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ WKUHDWHQLQJ RU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ SURGXFLQJ VLWXDWLRQV $ QXPEHU RI VWDWLVWLFDO SURFHGXUHV LQFOXGLQJ DQ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV ZLWK D FRYDULDWH DV ZHOO DV D IRXU IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK D FRYDULDWH LQGLn FDWHG WKDW QHLWKHU OHYHO RI 5$ RU 6$ QRU WKH WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIOXHQFHG PHDVXUHV RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 7KRXJK WKHRUHWLFDO OLWHUDWXUH DQG HPSLULFDO UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV VXJJHVWHG RWKHUZLVH WKLV VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LV QRW DIIHFWHG E\ HLWKHU 5$ RU 6$ UHJDUGOHVV RI WHVW FRQGLWLRQ $JDLQ D FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYLRUDO

PAGE 81

PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI &$ 0F&URVNH\ f PD\ EH KHOSIXO ,W LV PRUH OLNHO\ KRZHYHU WKDW WKH VLWXDWLRQDO FRQWH[W RI WKH H[SHULPHQW PD\ KDYH PRUH PHDQLQJ IRU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH ILQGLQJV 0F&URVNH\ f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW LQ NHHSLQJ ZLWK WKH VWDWH SURSHUWLHV RI 5$ DQG 6$ VWXGHQWV PD\ H[SHULHQFH &$ LQ D FHUWDLQ FRQWH[W DW RQH WLPH DQG QRW DW RWKHUV )RU H[DPSOH VXEMHFWV PD\ H[SHULHQFH KLJK OHYHOV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ ZKHQ OLVWHQLQJ WR LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDWHULDO RU DQVZHULQJ TXHVn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n OHYHO RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ PD\ KDYH EHHQ DOOHYLDWHG WR VRPH H[WHQW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKRXJK WKH WLPH ODSVH EHWZHHQ DGPLQLVWUDn WLRQ RI WKH &$ VHOIUHSRUW IRUPV DQG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDn WLRQ ZDV OHVV WKDQ ILYH GD\V WKH VXEMHFWVn OHYHOV RI

PAGE 82

DSSUHKHQVLRQ PD\ KDYH EHHQ DOWHUHG E\ WKH FKDQJLQJ VLWXDWLRQ 0HWKRGV WR RYHUFRPH WKH HWKLFDO DQG H[SHULPHQWDO FRQVWUDLQWV XSRQ WKLV W\SH RI UHVHDUFK KDYH \HW WR EH GHYLVHG EXW PD\ EH QHFHVVDU\ LQ RUGHU WR PRUH QHDUO\ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ QRUPDO VLWXDn WLRQDO OHYHOV RI &$ $ EURDGHU YLHZ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO DVSHFW RI WKH VWXG\ PD\ DOVR VKHG VRPH OLJKW RQ WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH RWKHU K\SRWKHn VHV %URZQ f VWDWHG WKDW WKH DQWLFLSDWRU\ VHW RI WKH OLVWHQHU FRXOG GLUHFWO\ LQIOXHQFH OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ 6XEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH FROOHJH VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ D VSHHFK FRXUVH 7KH\ ZHUH WROG VSHFLILFDOO\ WKDW WKHLU OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZDV WR EH DVVHVVHG 7KHVH VXEMHFWV WKHQ ZHUH SUHSDUHG RU VHW WR OLVWHQ 6FRUHV RQ WKH 67(3 FRXOG EH D UHVXOW RI WKH VXEMHFWVn SUHSDUHGQHVV WR OLVWHQ $V DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RU VHW WR OLVWHQ RU SHUIRUP RQ D OLVWHQLQJ WHVW D QXPEHU RI VFKRODUV KDYH UHSRUWHG WKH ZLGHVSUHDG XVH RI VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV LQ DOO OHYHOV RI HGXFDWLRQ $QGHUVRQ 0DUFXV f $V VXEn MHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH FROOHJH VWXGHQWV WKH\ SUREDEO\ KDG \HDUV RI SUDFWLFH LQ WHVW WDNLQJ (QJHQ ODP DQG 3UHGLJHU f UHSRUWLQJ WKH UHVXOWV RI D VXUYH\ RI QDWLRQZLGH WHVW XVDJH VWDWHG WKDW QHDUO\ DOO VWXGHQWV LQ JUDGHV WKURXJK WRRN VRPH W\SH RI VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW LQ HYHU\ JUDGH S f ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW \HDUV LQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHP KDG FRQn GLWLRQHG VXEMHFWV WR RYHUFRPH PRRG RU DQ[LHW\ ZKHQ D WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ GHPDQGHG FRQFHQWUDWLRQ 7KH 67(3 /LVWHQLQJ 7HVW WKHQ ZRXOG QRW EH D PDMRU FDXVH IRU DQ[LHW\

PAGE 83

7KH SKHQRPHQRQ RI WHVWZLVHQHVV PD\ DOVR DFFRXQW IRU WKH ODFN RI LQIOXHQFH RI &$ RQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 0LOOPDQ %LVKRS DQG (EHO f GHILQHG WHVW ZLVHQHVV DV WKH FDSDFLW\ WR XWLOL]H WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG IRUPDWV RI WKH WHVW DQGRU WHVW WDNLQJ VLWXDWLRQ WR UHFHLYH D KLJK VFRUH S f 6WXGHQWV PD\ EHFRPH SURILFLHQW DW WHVW WDNLQJ WHFKQLTXHV WKURXJK WUDLQLQJ DQG SUDFWLFH LQGHSHQGHQW RI FRQWHQW RU FRQWH[W &DOOHQEDFN f 7KXV &$ LQ D OLVWHQLQJ WHVW VLWXDWLRQ ZRXOG QRW QHFHVVDULO\ SURGXFH DQ\ OHVVHQLQJ RI SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH 67(3 EHFDXVH WHVWZLVH VXEn MHFWV ZRXOG KDYH QR GLIILFXOW\ LQ UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ 7KH SRVWH[SHULPHQWDO TXHVWLRQQDLUH \LHOGHG DQRWKHU SRVn VLEOH YDULDEOH LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI OLVWHQLQJ DELOLW\ 3ULRU VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ ZDV UHSRUWHG E\ RI WKH VXEMHFWV $Q DQDO\n VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV DQG D FRYDULDWH LQGLn FDWHG WKHUH ZDV VRPH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ VFRUHV RI WUDLQHG YHUVXV QRQWUDLQHG VXEMHFWV 7KH YDULDEOH RI VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ ZDV DGGHG WR WKH IRXU IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH ZLWK D FRYDULDWH ,Q WKLV LQVWDQFH RQO\ VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ DIIHFWHG OLVWHQLQJ VFRUHV S f +RZHYHU D 3URF 0HDQV SURFHGXUH LQGLFDWHG WKDW ZKLOH VSHHFKWUDLQHG VXEMHFWV VFRUHG VRPHZKDW ORZHU WKDQ GLG QRQWUDLQHG VXEMHFWV WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH PHDQV 1HYHUWKHn OHVV HYHQ D OLPLWHG ILQGLQJ VXFK DV WKLV PD\ EH GLVWXUELQJ LI WKH YDOXH RI VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ LV WR EH DFFHSWHG
PAGE 84

:DWVRQ f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n FDOO\ FRQGXFWHG LQ QRUPDO FROOHJH FODVVURRPV WR REWDLQ PRUH QDWXUDOLVWLF VHWWLQJ RQO\ VSHHFK FRXUVHV ZHUH DFWXDOO\ XVHG 6SHHFK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRXUVHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DUH UHTXLUHG E\ D QXPEHU RI PDMRU ILHOGV DQG XVXDOO\ LQFOXGH D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI DFDGHPLF DUHDV RI VWXG\ %HFDXVH RI WKH UHTXLUHG QDWXUH RI WKH FRXUVH HYHQ PDQ\ LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR H[SHULHQFH KLJK OHYHOV RI &$ PXVW FRPSOHWH WKH FRXUVH EHIRUH PHHWLQJ JUDGXDWLRQ UHTXLUHPHQWV %HFDXVH WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HQUROOHG LQ D VSHHFK FODVV KRZHYHU WKH\ KDG VRPH H[SHFWDWLRQ RI WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHKDYLRUV H[SHFWHG RI WKHP $SSUHKHQVLYH LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG DOVR EH DZDUH RI FRXUVH REOLJDWLRQV DQG GHYHORS VRPH PHDQV RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH DQ[LHW\ 0F&URVNH\

PAGE 85

f 7KH RUDO SHUIRUPDQFH SKDVH RI WKH H[SHULPHQW FRXOG HYHQ EH VHHQ DV D PLQRU VSHDNLQJ DVVLJQPHQW )XUWKHU WKRXJK QR LQVWUXFWLRQ LQ OLVWHQLQJ KDG EHHQ VSHFLILFDOO\ JLYHQ EHIRUH WKH H[SHULPHQW LQWURGXFWRU\ OHFn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n YDWHG WR FRQFHQWUDWH FDUHIXOO\ EHFDXVH RI WKH WHVW VLWXDWLRQ ,Q D UHJXODU FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW LW LV GRXEWIXO WKDW VWXn GHQWV H[KLELW VXFK FORVH DWWHQWLRQ WR D VSHDNHU RU OHFWXUH PDWHULDO 7KH GLIILFXOW\ LQ DVVHVVLQJ OLVWHQLQJ LQYROYHV WKLV WUDGHRII EHWZHHQ D FRQWUROOHG UHOLDEOH YDOLG PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ DQG DEQRUPDO OLVWHQLQJ EHKDYLRU RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH VXEMHFWV $QRWKHU OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKH UHVHDUFK PD\ FRQFHUQ WKH DXGLR WDSH RI WKH 67(3 7DSHV ZHUH RI FRXUVH SUHIHUDEOH WR LQGLn YLGXDO UHDGLQJ IRU HDFK WHVW DQG DOORZHG IRU D FRQWUROOHG WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ ,QVWUXFWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH WKUHDW RU QRQWKUHDW VLWXDWLRQ ZHUH DOVR UHFRUGHG +RZHYHU WKH

PAGE 86

WKUHDW PD\ KDYH EHHQ PRUH HIIHFWLYH LI LW FDPH IURP D OLYH SHUVRQ VXFK DV LQVWUXFWRU RU WHVW DGPLQLVWUDWRU UDWKHU WKDQ IURP D GLVHPERGLHG YRLFH RQ D WDSH ,QVWUXFWLRQV IRU GHOLYHU\ RI DOO WHVW PDWHULDO ZHUH IROn ORZHG IDLWKIXOO\ 7KH 67(3 0DQXDO FDOOHG IRU VHFRQGV EHWZHHQ HDFK WHVW DQVZHU WR DOORZ VWXGHQWV WLPH WR UHIOHFW RQ FKRLFHV ,Q WKLV LQVWDQFH KRZHYHU WKH WLPH ODJ PD\ KDYH EHHQ WRR ORQJ 7KH UHVHDUFKHU REVHUYHG WKDW VRPH VXEMHFWV DSSHDUHG ERUHG DQG LPSDWLHQW ZLWK WKH UDWH DW ZKLFK WHVW SDVn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nV DELOLW\ WR OLVWHQ FDQ EH FRQGXFWHG 7KH ODFN RI FXUUHQW NQRZOHGJH EDVHG RQ UHFHQW UHVHDUFK RIWHQ OHDGV WR UHLWHUDWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK PD\ RU PD\ QRW EH YDOLG LQ WRGD\nV FKDQJLQJ VRFLDO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO FRQWH[WV 6HFRQG WKH DUHD RI 5$ PXVW DOVR EH UHVHDUFKHG LQ JUHDWHU GHSWK 7KH IHZ H[LVWLQJ VWXGLHV KDYH GHDOW SULPDULO\ ZLWK WKH

PAGE 87

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n LQJV LQ WKLV VWXG\ VKRXOG EH YLHZHG DV RQO\ SUHOLPLQDU\ UHVHDUFK ([SHULPHQWV LQYROYLQJ ODUJHU VXEMHFW SRSXODWLRQV DQG GLIIHUHQW WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQV VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG &HUn WDLQO\ JURXSV RWKHU WKDQ VSHHFK FODVVHV VKRXOG EH WHVWHG DQG D QXPEHU RI RWKHU OLVWHQLQJ DVVHVVPHQW PHDVXUHV LPSOHPHQWHG $QRWKHU LPSRUWDQW DUHD IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK ZRXOG EH WKH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI OHYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ RWKHU WKDQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 7KRXJK FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LV EDVLF WR WKH RWKHU OHYHOV DQG WKH HDVLHVW WR PHDVXUH DW WKH SUHVHQW WLPH LQGLYLGXDOV DUH QRW FDOOHG XSRQ WR OLVWHQ DW WKLV OHYHO H[FOXVLYHO\ ,Q DQ HGXn FDWLRQDO V\VWHP FULWLFDO RU HYDOXDWLYH OLVWHQLQJ LV RIWHQ QHFHVVDU\ &HUWDLQO\ LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO FRQWH[WV HYDOXDWLYH DV ZHOO DV DSSUHFLDWLYH OLVWHQLQJ LV DSSURSULDWH ,W PD\ EH WKDW 5$ DQG 6$ DIIHFW WKH YDU\LQJ OHYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJ GLIIHUn HQWO\ DQG PHWKRGV RI DVVHVVLQJ WKHLU HIIHFW PXVW EH GHYHORSHG 7KH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ SURFHVV LQYROYHV D FRXQWOHVV QXPEHU RI YDULDEOHV DV GRHV WKH W\SLFDO FODVVURRP

PAGE 88

VLWXDWLRQ DOO RI ZKLFK QHHG WR EH FRQVLGHUHG IRU D WKRURXJK XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI OLVWHQLQJ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW ,W LV LPSRVVLEOH DQG LPSUDFWLFDO WR LVRODWH RU FRQWURO IRU DOO VXFK YDULDEOHV %DVHG RQ FRQFOXVLRQV JOHDQHG IURP D WKRURXJK UHYLHZ RI OLWHUDWXUH WKLV H[SHULPHQW WHVWHG WKH HIIHFW RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI OHYHO RI 5$ OHYHO RI 6$ DQG WHVW FRQGLWLRQ RQ WKH GHSHQGHQW PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHn KHQVLRQ 7KH ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ VKRZ WKDW 5$ DQG 6$ DUH VHSDUDWH DQG GLVWLQFW GLPHQVLRQV RI &$ DQG VKRXOG EH FRQn VLGHUHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ ZKHQ DVVHVVLQJ WKHLU HIIHFW XSRQ FRPn PXQLFDWLRQ +RZHYHU QHLWKHU 5$ QRU 6$ DSSHDUHG WR KDYH DQ\ HIIHFW XSRQ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW 1RU GRHV WKUHDW FRQGLWLRQ RU PRRG VWDWH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIOXHQFH SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D PHDVXUH RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ $Q DGGLWLRQDO YDULDEOH RI VSHHFK WUDLQLQJ WKRXJK LQLWLDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG LPSRUWDQW ZDV DOVR GHWHUPLQHG WR EH LQVLJQLILFDQW LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KHVH ILQGLQJV VXJJHVW WKDW YDULDEOHV QRW DFFRXQWHG IRU LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ PD\ KDYH D PHDVXUDEOH LPSDFW RQ VWXGHQW OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQn VLRQ DQG LQGLFDWH D QHHG IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK LQWR WKH EURDG DQG DW SUHVHQW LQFRQFOXVLYH DUHD RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ODEHOHG OLVWHQLQJ

PAGE 89

5()(5(1&(6 $QGHUVHQ 6 % f 6WDQGDUGL]HG WHVWLQJ KDV EHFRPH HGXFDWLRQnV ODWHVW VFDSHJRDW $PHULFDQ 6FKRRO %RDUG -RXUQDO $QGHUVRQ + $ f 1HHGHG UHVHDUFK LQ OLVWHQLQJ ,Q 6 'XNHU (Gf /LVWHQLQJ 5HDGLQJV 1HZ
PAGE 90

%HDWW\ 0 %HKQNH 5 5 t +HQGHUVRQ / / f $Q HPSLULFDO YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKH UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ WHVW DV D PHDVXUH RI WUDLW OLVWHQLQJ DQ[LHW\ :HVWHUQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ %HDWW\ 0 %HKQNH 5 5 t 0F&DOOXP f 6LWXDWLRQDO GHWHUPLQDQWV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 0RQRJUDSKV %HDWW\ 0 t 3D\QH 6 f 5HFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG FRJQLWLYH FRPSOH[LW\ :HVWHUQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ %HUJHU $ t :HUGPDQQ $ f /LVWHQLQJ DQG DXGLQJ $FWLYLWLHV DQG 5HVHDUFK (QJOLVK -RXUQDO %LJJV % 3 f &RQVWUXFWLRQ YDOLGDWLRQ DQG HYDOXDn WLRQ RI D GLDJQRVWLF WHVW RI OLVWHQLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV 6SHHFK 0RQRJUDSKV %RVWUXP 5 1 t %U\DQW & / f )DFWRUV LQ WKH UHWHQWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG RUDOO\ 7KH UROH RI VKRUWWHUP OLVWHQLQJ :HVWHUQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK &RPPXQLn FDWLRQ %URZQ & 7 f 7KUHH VWXGLHV RI WKH OLVWHQLQJ RI FKLOGUHQ 6SHHFK 0RQRJUDSKV %URZQ f 7KH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D GLDJQRVWLF WHVW RI OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO (GXFDWLRQ %URZQ f (VWDEOLVKLQJ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI D OLVWHQn LQJ WHVW ,Q 6 'XNHU (Gf /LVWHQLQJ 5HDGLQJV 1HZ
PAGE 91

&OHYHQJHU 7 -U t 0DWWKHZV f 7KH VSHHFK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ SURFHVV *OHQYLHZ ,OO 6FRWW )RUHVPDQ t &R &URZHOO t +XSHL $X f 'HYHORSLQJ FKLOGUHQnV FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ OLVWHQLQJ UHDGLQJ DQG WHOHYLVLRQ YLHZLQJ (OHPHQWDU\ 6FKRRO -RXUQDO 'DO\ $ f 7KH DVVHVVPHQW RI VRFLDOFRPPXQLFDWLYH DQ[LHW\ YLD VHOIUHSRUWV $ FRPSDULVRQ RI PHDVXUHV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 0RQRJUDSKV Df 'DO\ $ f &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG EHKDYLRU $SSO\LQJ D PXOWLSOH DFW FULWHULD +XPDQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK B Ef 'DYLV ) f &RPPXQLFDWLRQ LQWHOOLJHQFH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW DPRQJ VHFRQGDU\ VFKRRO VWXGHQWV 8QSXEn OLVKHG 0DVWHUV 7KHVLV :HVW 9LUJLQLD 8QLYHUVLW\ 'HYLQH 7 f 5HDGLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ 1HZ UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV (OHPHQWDU\ (QJOLVK 'LFNVRQ 3 : t 3DWWHUVRQ + f (YDOXDWLQJ UHIHUHQWLDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ JDPHV IRU WHDFKLQJ VSHDNLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQ 'LVLELR 5 $ f /LVWHQLQJ 7KH QHJOHFWHG DUW" 5HDGLQJ ,PSURYHPHQW 'L[RQ 1 5 f /LVWHQLQJ 0RVW QHJOHFWHG RI WKH ODQJXDJH DUWV (OHPHQWDU\ (QJOLVK 'UDNH ) ( f +RZ GR \RX WHDFK OLVWHQLQJ" 6RXWKHUQ 6SHHFK -RXUQDO (QJHQ + % /DPE 5 5 t 3UHGLJHU f $UH VHFRQGDU\ VFKRROV VWLOO XVLQJ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV" 3HUVRQQHO DQG *XLGDQFH -RXUQDO )HVVHQGHQ 6 $ f /HYHOV RI OLVWHQLQJf§$ WKHRU\ (GXFDWLRQ )UHLPXWK 9 6 f 7KH HIIHFWV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHn KHQVLRQ RQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HIIHFWLYHQHVV +XPDQ &RPPXQLn FDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK B +DUZRRG $ f $ FRQFHSW RI OLVWHQDELOLW\ ,Q 6 'XNHU (Gf /LVWHQLQJ 5HDGLQJV 1HZ
PAGE 92

+ROOLQJVZRUWK 3 0 f /HWnV LPSURYH OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV (OHPHQWDU\ (QJOLVK +XFN 6 : &RUPLHU : + t %RXQGV : f 5HDGLQJ VWDWLVWLFV DQG UHVHDUFK 1HZ
PAGE 93

0F&URVNH\ & f 0HDVXUHV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQERXQG DQ[LHW\ 6SHHFK 0RQRJUDSKV 0F&URVNH\ & f 2UDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ $ VXPPDU\ RI UHFHQW WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK +XPDQ &RPPXQLn FDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK e 0F&URVNH\ & f 9DOLGLW\ RI WKH 35&$ DV DQ LQGH[ RI RUDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 0RQRJUDSKV 0F&URVNH\ & f 2UDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ $ UHFRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ ,Q -. %XUJRRQ (Gf &RPPXQLFDWLRQ
PAGE 94

0LOOHU 5 t )RQWHV 1 ( f 9LGHRWDSH RQ WULDO $ YLHZ IURP WKH MXU\ ER[ %HYHUO\ +LOOV &DOLI 6DJH 3XEOLFDWLRQV ,QF 0LOLPDQ %LVKRS + t (EHO 5 f $Q DQDO\VLV RI WHVWZLVHQHVV (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHn PHQW 1LFKROV 5 f )DFWRUV LQ OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 6SHHFK 0RQRJUDSKV 1LFKROV 5 f 'R ZH NQRZ KRZ WR OLVWHQ" 3UDFWLFDO KHOSV LQ D PRGHUQ DJH 6SHHFK 7HDFKHU 1LFKROV 5 t /HZLV 7 f /LVWHQLQJ DQG VSHDNLQJ 'XEXTXH ,RZD :P & %URZQ &R 1LFKROV 5 t 6WHYHQV / f $UH \RX OLVWHQLQJ" 1HZ
PAGE 95

5RVVLWHU & 0 f 6H[ RI WKH VSHDNHU VH[ RI WKH OLVWHQHU DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ -RXUQDO RI &RPn PXQLFDWLRQ B 6$6 8VHUnV *XLGH 6WDWLVWLFV f &DU\ 1& 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP ,QVWLWXWH ,QF 6FRWW 0 t :KHHOHVV / 5 f &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ VWXGHQW DWWLWXGHV DQG OHYHOV RI VDWLVn IDFWLRQ :HVWHUQ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6SHDUULWW f /LVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ $ IDFWRULDO DQDO\VLV 0HOERXUQH 9LFWRULD $XVWUDOLDQ &RXQFLO IRU (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 6WDPPHU f 7DUJHW 7KH EDVLFV RI OLVWHQLQJ /DQJXDJH $UWV 6WHLO %DUNHU / t :DWVRQ : f (IIHFWLYH OLVWHQLQJ .H\ WR \RXU VXFFHVV 5HDGLQJ 0DVV $GGLVRQ:HVOH\ 3XEOLVKLQJ &R 6WULFNODQG 5 f 7KH ODQJXDJH DUWV LQ WKH HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO QG HG %RVWRQ & +HDWK t &R 7D\ORU 6 ( f /LVWHQLQJ :KDW UHVHDUFK VD\V WR WKH WHDFKHU :DVKLQJWRQ 1DWLRQDO (GXFDWLRQ $VVRFLDn WLRQ 7XUQDQ 0 & f $ FRPSDUDWLYH UHYLHZ RI UHDGLQJ DQG OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ -RXUQDO RI 5HDGLQJ 7XWROR f $ FRJQLWLYH DSSURDFK WR WHDFKLQJ OLVWHQLQJ /DQJXDJH $UWV :DONHU / f &RPSUHKHQVLRQ RI ZULWLQJ DQG VSRQWDQHRXV VSHHFK 9LVLEOH /DQJXDJH :HDYHU 6 : t 5XWKHUIRUG : / f $ KLHUDUFK\ RI OLVWHQLQJ VNLOOV (OHPHQWDU\ (QJOLVK :KHHOHVV / 5 f &RPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ LQ WKH HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO 6SHHFK 7HDFKHU :KHHOHVV / 5 f $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG VRFLDO FRQWH[W GLPHQVLRQV RI FRPPXQLn FDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ 6SHHFK 7HDFKHU :KHHOHVV / 5 t 6FRWW 0 f 7KH QDWXUH PHDVXUHn PHQW DQG SRWHQWLDO HIIHFWV RI UHFHLYHU DSSUHKHQVLRQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ 3RUWODQG 2UH

PAGE 96

:KHHOHVV / 5 t 6FRWW 0 f 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKUHH W\SHV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ WR FODVVn URRP DFKLHYHPHQW 6RXWKHUQ 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ -RXUQDO :ROYLQ $ t &RDNOH\ & f /LVWHQLQJ 'XEXTXH ,RZD :P & %URZQ &RPSDQ\ :RUN : f /LVWHQ P\ FKLOGUHQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQ :ULJKW 7 + f /HDUQLQJ WR OLVWHQ $ WHDFKHUnV RU D VWXGHQWnV SUREOHP" 3KL 'HOWD .DSSDQ =LPEDUGR 3 f 6K\QHVV 5HDGLQJ 0DVV $GGLVRQ:HVOH\

PAGE 97

$33(1',&(6

PAGE 98

$33(1',; $ 3(5621$/ 5(3257 2) &20081,&$7,21 $335(+(16,21 35&$f

PAGE 99

$33(1',; $ 3(5621$/ 5(3257 2) &20081,&$7,21 $335(+(16,21 35&$f 7KLV LQVWUXPHQW LV FRPSRVHG RI VWDWHPHQWV FRQFHUQLQJ IHHOLQJV DERXW FRPPXQLFDWLQJ ZLWK RWKHU SHRSOH ,QGLFDWH WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH VWDWHPHQWV DSSO\ WR \RX E\ PDUNLQJ ZKHWKHU \RX f VWURQJO\ DJUHH f DJUHH f DUH XQGHFLGHG f GLVDJUHH RU f VWURQJO\ GLVDJUHH ZLWK HDFK VWDWHPHQW :RUN TXLFNO\ MXVW UHFRUG \RXU ILUVW LPSUHVVLRQ :KLOH SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ D FRQYHUVDWLRQ ZLWK D QHZ DFTXDLQWDQFH IHHO YHU\ QHUYRXV 6' 8 $ 6$ KDYH QR IHDU RI IDFLQJ DQ DXGLHQFH ORRN IRUZDUG WR DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR VSHDN LQ PHHWLQJV ORRN IRUZDUG WR DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR VSHDN LQ SXEOLF ILQG WKH SURVSHFW RI VSHDNLQJ PLOGO\ SOHDVDQW :KHQ FRPPXQLFDWLQJ P\ SRVWXUH IHHOV VWUDLQHG DQG XQQDWXUDO DP WHQVH DQG QHUYRXV ZKLOH SDUWLFLn SDWLQJ LQ JURXS GLVFXVVLRQV $OWKRXJK WDON IOXHQWO\ ZLWK IULHQGV DP DW D ORVV IRU ZRUGV RQ WKH SODWIRUP 0\ KDQGV WUHPEOH ZKHQ WU\ WR KDQGOH REMHFWV RQ WKH SODWIRUP DOZD\V DYRLG VSHDNLQJ LQ SXEOLF LI SRVVLEOH IHHO WKDW DP PRUH IOXHQW ZKHQ WDONLQJ WR SHRSOH WKDQ PRVW RWKHU SHRSOH DUH DP IHDUIXO DQG WHQVH DOO WKH ZKLOH DP VSHDNLQJ EHIRUH D JURXS RI SHRSOH

PAGE 100

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

PAGE 101

$33(1',; % 5(&(,9(5 $335(+(16,21 7(67 5$7f

PAGE 102

$33(1',; % 5(&(,9(5 $335(+(16,21 7(67 5$7f 7KH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV DSSO\ WR KRZ YDULRXV SHRSOH IHHO DERXW UHFHLYLQJ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ,QGLFDWH LI WKHVH VWDWHPHQWV DSSO\ WR KRZ \RX IHHO E\ QRWLQJ ZKHWKHU \RX f VWURQJO\ DJUHH f DJUHH f DUH XQGHFLGHG f GLVDJUHH RU f VWURQJO\ GLVDJUHH 6' 8 $ 6$ IHHO FRPIRUWDEOH ZKHQ OLVWHQLQJ WR RWKHUV RQ WKH SKRQH ,W LV RIWHQ GLIILFXOW IRU PH WR FRQFHQWUDWH RQ ZKDW RWKHUV DUH VD\LQJ :KHQ OLVWHQLQJ WR PHPEHUV RI WKH RSSRn VLWH VH[ ILQG LW HDV\ WR FRQFHQWUDWH RQ ZKDW LV EHLQJ VDLG KDYH QR IHDU RI EHLQJ D OLVWHQHU DV D PHPEHU RI DQ DXGLHQFH IHHO UHOD[HG ZKHQ OLVWHQLQJ WR QHZ LGHDV ZRXOG UDWKHU QRW KDYH WR OLVWHQ WR RWKHU SHRSOH DW DOO DP JHQHUDOO\ RYHUH[FLWHG DQG UDWWOHG ZKHQ RWKHUV DUH VSHDNLQJ WR PH RIWHQ IHHO XQFRPIRUWDEOH ZKHQ OLVWHQn LQJ WR RWKHUV 0\ WKRXJKWV EHFRPH FRQIXVHG DQG MXPEOHG ZKHQ UHDGLQJ LPSRUWDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ RIWHQ KDYH GLIILFXOW\ FRQFHQWUDWLQJ RQ ZKDW RWKHUV DUH VD\LQJ 5HFHLYLQJ QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ PDNHV PH IHHO UHVWOHVV m :DWFKLQJ WHOHYLVLRQ PDNHV PH QHUYRXV :KHQ RQ D GDWH ILQG P\VHOI WHQVH DQG VHOIFRQVFLRXV ZKHQ OLVWHQLQJ WR P\ GDWH

PAGE 103

6' 8 $ 6$ HQMR\ EHLQJ D JRRG OLVWHQHU JHQHUDOO\ ILQG LW HDV\ WR FRQFHQ r WUDWH RQ ZKDW LV EHLQJ VDLG VHHN RXW WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR OLVWHQ WR QHZ LGHDV KDYH GLIILFXOW\ FRQFHQWUDWLQJ RQ LQVWUXFWLRQV RWKHUV JLYH PH ,W LV KDUG WR OLVWHQ RU FRQFHQWUDWH RQ ZKDW RWKHU SHRSOH DUH VD\LQJ XQOHVV NQRZ WKHP ZHOO IHHO WHQVH ZKHQ OLVWHQLQJ DV D PHPEHU RI D VRFLDO JDWKHULQJ 7HOHYLVLRQ SURJUDPV WKDW DWWHPSW WR FKDQJH P\ PLQG DERXW VRPHWKLQJ PDNH PH QHUYRXV

PAGE 104

$33(1',; & 352),/( 2) 022' 67$7(6 3206f

PAGE 105

$33(1',; & 352),/( 2) 022' 67$7(6 3206f 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV FRQVWUXFWHG E\ 'RXJODV 0F1DLU 0DXULFH /RUU DQG /HR 'URSSOHPDQ ZDV SXEOLVKHG E\ WKH (GXFDWLRQDO DQG ,QGXVWULDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 6DQ 'LHJR &DOLIRUQLD 'XH WR WKH FRS\ULJKWHG QDWXUH RI WKLV WHVW LW LV QRW UHSURGXFHG LQ WKLV YROXPH EXW PD\ EH REWDLQHG E\ ZULWLQJ WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVW 6HUYLFH

PAGE 106

$33(1',; 6(48(17,$/ 7(67 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 352*5(66n /,67(1,1* 7(67 67(3f

PAGE 107

$33(1',; 6(48(17,$/ 7(67 2) ('8&$7,21$/ 352*5(66f§ /,67(1,1* 7(67 67(3f 7KH 6HTXHQWLDO 7HVW RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3URJUHVV/LVWHQLQJ 7HVW GHYHORSHG E\ WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH ZDV SXEn OLVKHG E\ WKH 0F*UDZ+LOO 3XEOLVKLQJ &RPSDQ\ 'XH WR WKH FRS\ULJKWHG QDWXUH RI WKLV WHVW LW LV QRW UHSURGXFHG LQ WKLV YROXPH EXW PD\ EH REWDLQHG E\ ZULWLQJ WKH 0F*UDZ+LOO 3XEn OLVKLQJ &RPSDQ\ 7KH WHVW ZDV XVHG LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK ZLWK H[SUHVV ZULWWHQ SHUPLVVLRQ RI 0F*UDZ+LOO 3XEOLVKLQJ &RPSDQ\

PAGE 108

$33(1',; ( $&.12:/('*(0(17 2) ,1)250(' &216(17

PAGE 109

$33(1',; ( $&.12:/('*(0(17 2) ,1)250(' &216(17 'HDU 3DUWLFLSDQW 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV SURMHFW LV WR VWXG\ WKH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ OHYHOV RI FROOHJH XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV XQGHU FRQGLWLRQV WKDW PLJKW EH HQFRXQWHUHG LQ D QRUPDO FROOHJH FODVVURRP 7KLV VWXG\ LV EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG E\ .DWLH $ 3DVFKDOO 3K' FDQGLGDWH DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 6SHHFK 'HSDUWn PHQW 7KLV VWXG\ ZLOO SURYLGH QHZ LQVLJKWV FRQFHUQLQJ IDFWRUV ZKLFK PLJKW LQIOXHQFH OLVWHQLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ LQ D FODVVURRP HQYLURQPHQW 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV SURMHFW ZLOO UHTXLUH \RX WR EH LQYROYHG LQ D PLQXWH OLVWHQLQJ WHVW VLWXDWLRQ 7KH OLVWHQn LQJ WHVW FRQVLVWV RI PDWHULDO LQYROYLQJ D ZLGH UDQJH RI OHFWXUH WRSLFV &RQILGHQWLDOLW\ ZLOO EH PDLQWDLQHG DQG HDFK VXEMHFW ZLOO EH LGHQWLILHG E\ QXPEHU RQO\
PAGE 110

, KDYH UHDG DQG XQGHUVWDQG WKH SURFHGXUH GHVFULEHG DERYH DJUHH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH SURFHGXUH DQG XQGHUVWDQG WKDW P\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LV WRWDOO\ YROXQWDU\ 1DPH 'DWH

PAGE 111

$33(1',; ) 3267(;3(5,0(17$/ 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 112

$33(1',; ) 3267(;3(5,0(17$/ 48(67,211$,5( 6WXGHQW 1XPEHU 3OHDVH DQVZHU WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV $OO LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLOO EH NHSW FRQILGHQWLDO ,V (QJOLVK \RXU ILUVW ODQJXDJH"
PAGE 113

$33(1',; 67(3 /,67(1,1* 7(67 ,16758&7,216 )25 7(67 &21',7,216

PAGE 114

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f ,WDO\ %f 6SDLQ &f 7KH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RU 'f 3RUWXJDO &KRLFH % 6SDLQ LV WKH FRUUHFW DQVZHU
PAGE 115

7KH DQVZHU FKRLFHV DUH LQ WKH WHVW ERRNOHW $UH WKHUH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV" :H ZLOO QRZ EHJLQ ,QVWUXFWLRQV IRU WKH 1RQ7KUHDW &RQGLWLRQ /LVWHQ FDUHIXOO\ $W WKH FRPSOHWLRQV RI WKH WHVW SDVn VDJHV TXHVWLRQV DQG DQVZHU FKRLFHV \RX ZLOO EH JLYHQ WLPH WR PDUN \RXU WHVW ERRNOHW 7KH ERRNOHW ZLOO WKHQ EH FROOHFWHG ,QVWUXFWLRQV IRU WKH 7KUHDW &RQGLWLRQ /LVWHQ FDUHIXOO\ $W WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WHVW SDVVDJHV TXHVWLRQV DQG DQVZHU FKRLFHV \RX ZLOO EH JLYHQ WLPH WR PDUN \RXU WHVW ERRNOHW 7KH ERRNOHW ZLOO WKHQ EH FROOHFWHG $W WKLV SRLQW WKH WHVW DGPLQLVWUDWRU ZLOO DVN \RX D VHULHV RI TXHVWLRQV
PAGE 116

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ .DWLH $QQ 3DVFKDOO ZDV ERUQ LQ +HQU\ &RXQW\ 7HQQHVVHH LQ 6KH JUDGXDWHG IURP +HQU\ &RXQW\ +LJK 6FKRRO LQ ZLWK DQ HPSKDVLV LQ VSHHFK 6KH DWWHQGHG 0XUUD\ 6WDWH 8QLn YHUVLW\ LQ 0XUUD\ .HQWXFN\ 6KH JUDGXDWHG IURP WKDW LQVWLn WXWLRQ LQ ZLWK D %DFKHORU RI $UWV LQ VSHHFK ZLWK D PLQRU LQ MRXUQDOLVP ,Q 0V 3DVFKDOO EHFDPH WKH ILUVW -HVVH 6WXDUW )HOORZ DQG EHJDQ KHU JUDGXDWH ZRUN LQ VSHHFK DW 0XUUD\ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 6KH UHFHLYHG WKH 0DVWHU RI $UWV LQ VSHHFK LQ 0V 3DVFKDOO WDXJKW KLJK VFKRRO VSHHFK DQG (QJOLVK LQ ,OOLQRLV DQG 7HQQHVVHH 6KH DOVR WDXJKW VSHHFK FRXUVHV IRU .HQWXFN\ :HVO\DQ &ROOHJH LQ 2ZQHVERUR .HQWXFN\ DQG FRPPXQLn FDWLRQ FRXUVHV IRU WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI (YDQVYLOOH LQ (YDQVYLOOH ,QGLDQD 0V 3DVFKDOO EHJDQ KHU GRFWRUDO VWXG\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ DQG ZLOO JUDGXDWH LQ ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ ZLWK DQ HPSKDVLV LQ VSHHFK FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ IURP WKDW LQVWLWXWLRQ 6KH FXUUHQWO\ LV DQ LQVWUXFWRU DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6RXWK )ORULGD

PAGE 117

, 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\ $QWKRQ\ &ODUN &KDLUPDQ $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI 6SHHFK 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 3f6cfRFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 7KRPDV % $EERWW 3URIHVVRU RI 6SHHFK 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\ A A L O[rn O A ‘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

PAGE 118

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3KLORVRSK\ LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI /LEHUDO $UWV DQG 6FLHQFHV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $SULO 'HDQ IRU *UDGXDWH 6WXGLHV DQG 5HVHDUFK

PAGE 119

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


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 E31ITAKS7_9KRMSN INGEST_TIME 2011-08-24T12:30:49Z PACKAGE AA00003423_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES