Citation
Sociometric correlates of locus of control in early adolescence

Material Information

Title:
Sociometric correlates of locus of control in early adolescence
Creator:
Fagan, Matthew Michael, 1947-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 100 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adolescents ( jstor )
Friendship ( jstor )
Locus of control ( jstor )
Mathematical variables ( jstor )
Multiple regression ( jstor )
Peer relations ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Sociometrics ( jstor )
Unconsciousness ( jstor )
Adolescence ( lcsh )
Control (Psychology) ( lcsh )
Interpersonal relations ( lcsh )
Sociometry ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-99).
General Note:
Typescript.
Statement of Responsibility:
by M. Michael Fagan.

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:
025830330 ( ALEPH )
AAV3076 ( NOTIS )
03375956 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












SOCIOMETRIC CORRELATES OF LOCUS OF CONTROL IN
EARLY ADOLESCENCE









By



M. MICHAEL FAGAN


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


June 1977













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to thank my chairman, Dr. Patricia Ashton. I

needed and appreciated her patient, thorough guidance. She helped

me to be more exact.

I would also like to thank the other members of my committee,

Dr. Mary Budd Rowe, Dr. Robert C. Ziller, and Dr. Walter A. Busby.

Dr. Rowe has helped to sharpen my thinking through her challenging

questions, Dr. Ziller has encouraged my creativity, and Dr. Busby

has expanded my viewpoint, showing me things that I have never been

aware of. I would also like to thank William Purkey for getting me

started on this project.

I am indebted to the students and teachers of Palatka Middle

School for participating in this project. I would also like to thank

my parents, Mathew and Rita, for giving me the confidence needed to

undertake and complete this project.

I would like to give special thanks to my wife, Patricia. She

worked very hard to give me the freedom to complete this study. With-

out her love and support it would have never been possible.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ii

LIST OF TABLES . v

ABSTRACT. . ... ....... vi


CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION. . ... 1

Background and Purpose. ... 1
Significance of the Study . 3
Theoretical significance 3
Educational significance 6
Definition of Terms . 9
Assumptions and Limitations 11

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .... 15

First Hypothesis: Internals Have More Friends than
Externals % . 15
Second Hypothesis: Internals are More Popular on a Task-
Oriented Sociometric Item than on a Purely Social One 29
Third Hypothesis: People Prefer as Friends, Those Who
Are Similar to Them in Locus of Control ... 33

III METHODOLOGY . .. 39

Subjects . ... .. .39
Testing Procedure .... 40
Instrumentation . ... 40
The sociometric test ...... .......... 40
The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for
Children (N-S). . .. 47











TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued


Page

Statistical Analysis . 50
First and second hypothesis .. 50
Third hypothesis . 52
Chapter Summary . .. 53

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .. ....... 55

Results . .. ... 55
Descriptive statistics . .. 55
First hypothesis . 58
Second hypothesis . 60
Third hypothesis . 62
Discussion of the Results . 66
First hypothesis . .. 66
Second hypothesis . 69
Third hypothesis . .. 70

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . .. 73

Summary . 73
Conclusions . .. 76

APPENDICES

A The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children 81

B The Sociometric Questionnaire .. 86

REFERENCES . 89

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . 100













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page


4-1 Sex/race differences in mean locus of control scores 56

4-2 The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict
sociometric status on the best friends item. .. 59

4-3 The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict
sociometric status on the work-project item. .. 61

4-4 The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict
friends' locus of control. ... 63

4-5 Chi square matrix indicating the locus of control of
friends chosen by internals, moderates, and externals. 64

4-6 Simple correlation and unique contribution of LOC in
predicting F-LOC for total sample, internals, and
externals ... .. 65

5-1 Locus of control as a predictor of popularity as a friend
and work partner and friends' locus of control .... 76













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


Sociometric Correlates of Locus of Control in
Early Adolescence


By

M. Michael Fagan

June, 1977

Chairman: Patricia T. Ashton
Major Department: Foundations of Education


This study investigated the relationship between adoles-

cents' locus of control and their peer preferences. Locus of

control was defined as the degree to which an individual expects

that his reinforcement is contingent upon his behavior; indi-

viduals with an internal.locus of control generally believe

that they control what happens to them, whereas those with an

external locus of control believe that their destiny is beyond

their control. and is determined by fate, luck or powerful others.

There has been a great deal of research indicating that in-

ternality is associated with academic success and cognitive super-

iority, but there has been relatively little investigation of

the social correlates of locus of control. This study related











locus of control to popularity as a friend, popularity as a

working partner, and interpersonal attraction. More specifically,

the following hypotheses were tested:


1. Internal adolescents are more popular (have more friends)

than their external peers.

2. Internals are more popular as working partners on an

academic project than they are as friends.

3. Adolescents tend to choose as friends those who are

similar to themselves in locus of control.


To investigate these hypotheses, 200 eighth graders were

administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for

Children and two sociometric items. The first sociometric item

was "Name the students who are your best friends," and the second

item was "If you had to work on a group project in English with

three other students who would you select to work with?"

Multiple regression was used to analyze each hypothesis.

For the first hypothesis, the dependent variable was sociometric

status on the best friends item (SMSbf); that is, the number of

times the subject was chosen as a best friend. The principal

independent variable was the subject's locus of control (LOC);

thus, locus of control was used to predict popularity. Sex and

race were controlled by forcing these two variables into the

multiple regression equation before locus of control. Also,











interaction between locus of control and sex (LOC x sex) and

locus of control and race (LOC x race) and curvilinear locus of

control term (LOC2) were checked for significance. Thus, the

complete multiple regression equation was as follows:


SMSbf = sex + race + LOC + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race) + LOC2


The predictors for the other two hypotheses were the same

as above; the dependent variable for the second hypothesis was

sociometric status on the work-project item; and for the third

hypothesis,it was the subjects' friends' locus of control Thus,

the subjects' locus of control was used to predict their social

popularity, popularity as a working partner, and their friends'

locus of control.

In each of these multiple regression equations, with sex and

race partialed out, locus of control was a statistically signifi-

cant (p <.01) predictor of the dependent variable. However, locus

of control, with sex and race partialed out, accounted for less

than three percent of the variance in social popularity and less

than two percent of the variance in friends' locus of control.

Locus of control accounted for about eight percent of the variance

in sociometric status on the work-project item.

The data indicate that (1) the internal subjects were slightly

more popular, as friends, than the externals; (2) the internals

were considerably more popular as working partners; and (3) the



viii










subjects, especially the internals, had a tendency to choose friends

of a similar locus of control, but most of this tendency was due

to racial and sexual preferences and racial and sexual differences

in locus of control.













CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Background and Purpose


Locus of control is a personality variable that has generated

a great deal of research in the past ten years (Phares, 1976). Rotter

(1966) developed the concept of locus of control and described it as

follows:


When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following
some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon
his action, then,in our culture, it is typically perceived as
the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of
powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great
complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is
interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled
this a belief in external control. If the person perceives
that the event is contingent upon his behavior or his own
relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a
belief in internal control. (p. 1)


Since its conceptualization, locus of control has been related to

academic achievement (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965), informa-

tion seeking (Davis & Phares, 1967), birth control practice (MacDonald,

1970), socioeconomic status (Lefcourt, 1966) and a host of other vari-

ables. As Phares (1976) indicated:










The most basic characteristic of internal individuals
appears to be their greater efforts at coping with or
attaining mastery over their environments. This is
the most elemental deduction that could be made from
the nature of the I-E variable. Fortunately this
deduction has received widespread support from experi-
ments with many different populations in a variety of
situations, (p. 78)


Internals are generally more successful than externals at

achievement-oriented tasks, especially cognitive ones. For example,

as compared to externals, internals obtain better grades (Crandall

et al., 1965), are better problem solvers (DuCette & Wolk, 1973),

and utilize information more effectively (Seeman, 1963; Phares, 1968).

However, relatively little is known about the social correlates of

locus of control. It would be helpful to know the relationship, if

any, between locus of control and peer acceptance. Perhaps internals

are not only successful in school but also well-liked by their peers;

or perhaps their superior achievement is compensation for the lack of

social acceptance. Perhaps internals are more popular as working

partners than they are as friends. It would also be helpful to under-

stand the dynamics of interpersonal attraction with respect to locus

of control. Perhaps internals and externals complement each other and

become friends; or perhaps internals tend to associate with each other,

and externals, with fellow externals.

It was the purpose of this study to investigate the possibilities

mentioned in the preceding paragraph. More specifically the following

questions were asked:










1. Are internal adolescents more popular than their external

peers? (Are they selected more frequently as friends?)

2. Are internals more popular as working partners than they

are as friends? (Do they receive more selections as working partners

on an academic project than as friends?)

3. Do adolescents of a similar locus of control prefer each other

as friends? (Do internals tend to select other internals, and externals,

fellow externals?)


It was hypothesized that all of these questions would be answered

in the affirmative. In the next section the significance of these

hypotheses is discussed.


Significance of the Study


The theoretical and practical significance of this study are

discussed separately in the subsections that follow.


Theoretical significance. The concept of locus of control (Rotter,

1966) emerged from Rotter's (1954) social learning theory. The cor-

nerstone of Rotter's social learning theory is the principle that

behavior is a function of expectancy (Phares, 1976). According to

Rotter, one of the important factors that determines whether or not

a behavior will occur is the expectancy that the behavior will help

to produce a valued goal or outcome; the higher the expectancy the more

likely the occurrence of the behavior. By definition (Rotter, 1966),










internals generally expect that their behavior will produce desired

results, and, by definition, externals have a low expectancy that their

behavior will make a difference. Therefore, internals should behave

more effectively in goal-directed tasks. As previously mentioned, this

postulate has received strong empirical support in situations that

call for cognitive skill and mastery. However, the proposition has

rarely been tested in a social situation.

If Rotter's principle (behavior is a function of expectancy)

can be generalized from cognitive tasks to social ones, internals

should be more effective friend-seekers; and their effective friend-

seeking behavior should result in more friends. Thus, internals should

have higher sociometric status than externals on a sociometric item

that asks for "best friends."

The theoretical rationale for the first hypothesis of this study

is Rotter's principle that behavior is a function of expectancy. In

this case behavior is not measured directly, but rather, the inferred

result of behavior (friends) is measured by sociometric testing. The

expectancy variable is locus of control.

The rationale for the second hypothesis is an expansion of the

rationale of the first hypothesis. Not only should internals be more

effective friend-seekers, but they should also be perceived by their

peers as being more competent at academic tasks. Thus, internals should

receive some support (sociometric selections) on the basis of their

hypothesized social superiority (first hypothesis), plus additional











support for their cognitive superiority. It is expected that the

subjects will recognize the cognitive superiority of internals and

choose them as working partners. Therefore, the second hypothesis

is that internals have higher sociometric status on the task-oriented

sociometric item than on the purely social item ("best friends").

The rationale for the third hypothesis stems from the research

and theory in social psychology on interpersonal attraction. Newcomb

(1956, 1961, 1968) and Byrne (1971) have shown that similarity in

personality or attitude is a significant factor in interpersonal

attraction. Although there are many exceptions, people tend to be

attracted to those who are similar to themselves, especially if their

similarity is reinforcing (Byrne, 1971) and creates interpersonal

balance (Newcomb, 1968). According to Newcomb, a balanced relation-

ship occurs when a person favorably evaluates another person and both

agree in their evaluation of a third object or person. The simi-

larity hypothesis (the proposition that similar people are attracted

to each other) has been supported by a great deal of research (Byrne,

1971; Byrne & Griffitt, 1973).

The application of Newcomb's theory to locus of control suggests

that internals and externals would not have a balanced relationship,

because they would disagree on many important issues (for example,

the existence of luck or fate and the value of planning). Based on

Newcomb's theory, it was hypothesized that there would be a positive

correlation between a person's locus of control and the locus of

control of his friends.










Thus, this study has theoretical significance in that it tests

an extension of a social learning principle (behavior is a function

of expectancy) to a social situation. The study also tests the

similarity hypothesis with respect to locus of control. The studies

that support the theoretical rationale are discussed in the next

chapter, the review of the literature. In the next subsection the

educational significance of this study is discussed.


Educational significance. In the past 10 years educators have become

very interested in locus of control. McGee and Crandall (1968), Brown

and Strickland (1972), and Bartel (1971) found a positive relationship

between internality and academic success. However, the well-known

"Coleman Report" (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfield

& York, 1966) has been the most significant factor in alerting educators

to the significance of the locus of control variable. The authors of

this report concluded that


A pupil attitude factor, which appears to have a stronger
relationship to achievement than do all of the "school"
factors together, is the extent to which an individual has
some control over his destiny. (p. 23)


The evidence that internals tend to out-perform externals in

school, coupled with the evidence that internals are better adjusted--

psychologically--(Phares, 1976), has led many social scientists and

educators to advocate changing externals to internals; for example,

MacDonald (1973) wrote:










All of the research points to the same conclusion:
people are handicapped by an external locus of
control orientation. The prevailing belief is that
it is desirable to change people, especially those
who are not doing well in our society, in the direc-
tion of internality. (p. 170)


With this intention in mind, deCharms (1972), Stephens (1972),

Reimanis and Schaefer (1970), Nowicki and Barnes (1973), Hawes (1971),

and Ashton (1974) conducted experiments that were designed to help

children become more internal. The results of their work indicate

that certain methods help some people to become more internal and

that this change coincides with academic improvement or improvement

in skills related to academic success.

So far, the programs for changing locus of control have been

of an experimental nature. However, a group of educators and social

scientists (National Committee on Locus of Control and Self-Esteem,

1974) have recommended developing national norms for a locus of control

test, so that it can be administered to all public school students.

This standardized test would be used to measure growth in locus of

control (becoming more internal); teachers would be expected to improve

locus of control scores, as they are expected to improve their

students' academic achievement scores. The committee also recommended

several strategies for increasing internality.

Considering the movement toward internality training, an investi-

gation of the social correlates becomes crucial. If educators plan

to help students become more internal, they should know all that entails.

In this respect, this study should help in the following ways:










1. If the results of this study indicate that internals have

very few friends, educators need to systematically and thoroughly

investigate the social adjustment of internals, before initiating

any large-scale attempts to help students become more internal.

Perhaps gains in achievement are not worth possible social maladjust-

ment.

2. If the results of this study do not suggest that internals

are inadequate socially, educators can proceed with a little more

confidence in planning internality change programs.

3. If this study indicates that internality is positively

related to sociometric status and if subsequent experimental studies

indicate a cause-effect relationship between these two variables, pro-

grams designed to increase internality can be used to increase socio-

metric status, and/or programs designed to increase sociometric status

(Northway, 1944; Gronlund, 1959; Drabman & Lahey, 1974) can be used

to increase internality. Or, better yet, intervention programs can be

designed to work on both locus of control and peer acceptance.

4. If the third hypothesis is confirmed, indicating that externals

tend to associate with each other; it is likely that they perpetuate

their own externality through mutual reinforcement (Byrne, 1971) and

modeling. Thus,locus of control intervention programs could help

externals become more internal by structuring experiences where they

would interact with internals. Since externals are more persuadable

(Ritchie & Phares, 1969; Ryckman, Rodda & Sherman, 1972) and more











conforming (Crowne & Liverant, 1963) than internals, it is more

likely that internals would influence externals than the converse.

Thus, the study has practical significance in that it provides

educators with data about the social relationships of internals and

externals. These data are especially important now, because many

educators are thinking about increasing internal control in students.

Before educators begin to enact these plans, they need to know all

that it entails. Assuming that this study and subsequent studies

indicate that internals are not socially inadequate, this study may

suggest grouping techniques for helping externals to become more

internal. Thus, this study has both theoretical and practical signifi-

cance.

There are some limitations to the rationale of this study, and

they are discussed in the concluding section of this chapter. However,

before the assumptions and limitations are discussed, key terms are

defined in the section that follows.


Definition of Terms


The key terms used in this study are defined below. When appro-

priate, operational definitions are stated following the theoretical

definitions.


1. Locus of control is a psychological construct that can be

viewed as a continuum reflecting the degree to which an individual










expects that his reinforcement is contingent upon his behavior.

At one end of the continuum is the expectancy that reinforcement

is contingent entirely upon one's behavior or aptitude internalityy);

at the other end is the expectancy that reinforcement is not at

all contingent upon one's behavior, but rather, reinforcement is

attributed to luck, fate or powerful others externalityy). Rotter's

(1966) definition of locus of control is cited on page 1 of this

report. Operationally, locus of control is defined as the score the

subjects receive on the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale

for Children (N-S).

2. An internal is an individual who generally expects that his

reinforcement is contingent upon his behavior or aptitude. In this

study an internal is any subject who scores in the lowest third of

this sample on the N-S.

3. An external is an individual who generally expects that his

reinforcement is not contingent upon his behavior and aptitude,

attributing it to luck, fate or powerful others. For the purpose

of this study, an external will be operationally defined as a subject

who scores in the top third of this sample on the N-S.

4. A moderate is an individual who is not clearly internal or

external. In this study a moderate is a subject who scores in the

middle third on the N-S.

5. Sociometry is the method of determining social acceptance

by asking subjects to list associates with whom they would like to










participate in a certain activity. This technique, developed by

Moreno (1934), is discussed in more detail in the third chapter.

6. Sociometric status is one's relative position on a sociometric

test; that is, it is the number of selections one receives in compari-

son to his peers.

7. High sociometric status is the state of receiving many selec-

tions on a sociometric test, relative to one's peers. In this study

high sociometric status is considered the upper quartile of all sub-

jects ranked on the basis of the number of selections that they have

received. Researchers have used the term "high sociometric status"

interchangeably with "peer acceptance" (Adinolfi, 1970) and "popularity"

(Horowitz, 1967). This author will also use these terms interchangeably,

especially in the review of the literature.

8. Low sociometric status is the state of receiving few or no

selections from one's peers on a sociometric test. In this study low

sociometric status is operationally defined as the lowest quartile of

subjects ranked according to the numbers of selections they received.


Assumptions and Limitations


Much of the theoretical relevance of this study is based on the

assumption that both internal and external adolescents value friend-

ship. When Rotter (1954) postulated that behavior is a function of

expectancy, he included the value of the reinforcement in his formula.

Thus, in situations where it is expected that behavior will produce










reinforcement and the reinforcement is valued, behavior is likely to

occur. For this study it is assumed that the need for peer accep-

tance in early adolescence is so pervasive in our culture that (1)

internals and externals value friendship equally (although there may

be some externals who do not value friendship highly, there should

be about the same number of internals who do not value friendship

highly), or that (2) if there are differences between internals and

externals in the amount they value friendship, these differences are

not nearly as great as their difference in locus of control.

Also, the theoretical rationale is based on the assumption that

friendships are, in part, a product of behavior. This postulate

has been supported by sociometric research in that individuals of

different sociometric status behave differently toward peers (Gronlund,

1959; Cole & Hall, 1970) and that training an individual in social

skills can increase his sociometric status (Gronlund, 1959).

It is also assumed that a generalized measure of locus of control

(the N-S) includes social relationships and that the total locus of

control score reflects one's sense of control over social relation-

ships. The multidimensionality of locus of control is a concern;

a number of investigators (Mirels, 1970; Abrahamson, Schulderman &

Schulderman, 1973; Gurin, Gurin, Lao & Beattie, 1969), by using factor

analysis, have found that locus of control contains several dimensions.

For example, Mirels (1970) found two factors, personal control (feelings

of personal efficacy) and political control (ability to affect the











political system). According to social learning theory (Phares,

1976), a situation-specific measure of locus of control would be

more effective than a generalized measure in predicting behavior

relevant to that situation. Therefore, for this study the instrument

that measured the subjects' feelings of control about their peer

relationships would be ideal. Unfortunately, no such instrument exists.

There are several items on the N-S that relate to peer acceptance,

for example, item # 25: "Do you believe whether or not people like

you depends on how you act?" (see Appendix A). However, Nowicki (1973)

has factor analyzed the N-S and found no substantial factor that repre-

sents a sense of control over social situations. Therefore, out of

necessity, a global locus of control score is used to predict socio-

metric status, and it is assumed that this global score reflects the

subjects' sense of control over their interpersonal relationships. In

other words, it is assumed that there is a high correlation between

adolescents' global locus of control and their locus of control about

social relationships.

Concerning the practical significance of this study, it is assumed

that at least a minimum of friends is healthy and desirable for eighth

graders, and conversely that the absence of friends is not a desirable

condition for adolescents.

This study is limited, by intention, in that it is an exploratory

investigation of the relationship between two broad and general traits.

This study is not intended to tease out precise relationships between











locus of control, peer interaction and other variables; but rather,

it represents a necessary forerunner to such studies; it is expected

that this study will generate hypotheses about more.precise rela-

tionships between locus of control and adolescent peer interaction.

Considering the broad scope of this study, some of its limitations

are discussed below:


1. Due to the correlational nature of this study, a cause-

effect relationship between locus of control and peer acceptance can-

not be inferred.

2. Sociometric procedures do not indicate the quality of a

friendship. Perhaps internals have more friends, while externals have

fewer, but qualitatively superior, friendships which could be more

intimate, more loyal, or more enjoyable.

3. Both the N-S and sociometric testing are self-report inventories

and are subject to the criticisms inherent in that technique; the

main criticism being that subjects, consciously or unconsciously,

report inaccurately. *


In this chapter the purpose, rationale, and limitations of this

study have been discussed. The next chapter reviews the literature

relevant to the three hypotheses of this study.













CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Locus of control is a relatively new concept; most of the

research on this variable has been conducted in the past 15 years.

On the other hand, sociometric research was popular from about 1935

to 1950; since then, interest in sociometry has waned. As a result,

there have been very few studies (Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Adinolfi,

1970) that have directly related locus of control to a sociometric

variable.

Considering the paucity of evidence that directly relates socio-

metric variables to locus of control, most of the literature reviewed

for this study consists of indirect support of the hypotheses. For

example, locus of control has been related to some variables that

resemble or are related to sociometric status, and sociometric status

has been related to personal variables that are similar to locus of

control or related to it. These studies are discussed in this chapter, to-

gether with the few studies that provide more direct evidence. The

literature is reviewed as it relates to each hypothesis.


First Hypothesis: Internals Have More'Friends than Externals


Internality has been related to several social variables that

suggest internals should be more popular. For example, Midlarsky (1971)











found that internals were more helpful to strangers than were externals.

In Midlarsky's experiment each subject performed a task in the presence

of an accomplice of the experimenter. Each person was assigned a task

and was told that he could help the other person if he finished first.

The experiment was designed so that the true subject always finished

first. The internal subjects helped the accomplice significantly more

than the external subjects did. If internals are also more helpful

in their daily interactions, they should be more popular than externals,

because helpfulness has been associated with high sociometric status

(Reader & English, 1947; Cole & Hall, 1970).

Not only are externals less helpful than internals, but there

is also some evidence that externals desire more social distance than

internals, especially with strangers (Duke, 1973; Duke & Nowicki, 1972;

Duke & Fenhagen, 1975). In the Duke and Nowicki study subjects used

the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale (CID) to indicate the

distance at which hypothetical people should stop when approaching

them; externals required more distance for strangers than did internals.

Duke and Fenhager (1975) administered the N-S and the CID to a group

of adolescent females; they found that externality was associated with

a greater preference for social distance. This suggests that externals

may be uncomfortable in social relationships, especially new ones,

and be less likely to interact with people and, therefore, less likely

to have friends.

Another reason for the hypothesized popularity of internals is

the finding that internality is more socially desirable than externality










(Bernhardson, 1968; Cone, 1971; Hjelle, 1971). Although earlier

studies have found no relationship between social desirability and

locus of control (Strickland, 1965; Tolor, 1967; Tolor & Jalowiec,

1968), the most recent evidence indicates that there is a moderate

relationship between internality and social desirability (Cone,

1971; Hjelle, 1971). The social desirability of a trait or the

instrument that measures the trait has been assessed in two ways.

One method is to have judges rate the social desirability of the

items of an instrument. For example, a judge rating the fourth

item of the N-S (item # 4. "Most of the time do you feel that

getting good grades means a great deal to you?") might conclude

that a "yes" response is more socially desirable than a "no" response.

In other words, it is desirable in this society to care a great

deal about one's grades. Using this method, Hjelle (1971) and

Bernhardson (1968) found that an internal view is more socially

desirable than an external view. Hjelle's finding suggests that,

since the internal point of view is valued more in this culture,

people who have this point of view should be more accepted and

popular than people who have the opposite point of view.

The second, and more frequently used, method of assessing social

desirability has been to use a standardized instrument. The

Edwards Social Desirability Scale (Edwards, 1957) and the Marlow-

Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlow, 1964) are self-

report inventories that consist of items that mention socially










desirable or undesirable traits. Subjects who answer many items

in the socially desirable direction are describing themselves as

an ideal person. Cone (1971) correlated the locus of control scores

on the Edwards Social Desirability Scale; in all five samples inter-

nality was associated with high social desirability. Cone concluded

that internals may behave in a socially acceptable manner so that

they can influence people favorably. This conclusion supports the

rationale of the first hypothesis of this study, in that it suggests

that internals believe they can affect their social environment and

act accordingly. If this is true, internals should be more socially

competent than externals and should be more popular.

There have been two studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971; Nowicki &

Blumberg, 1975) that have related locus of control to interpersonal

attraction. Of course, these are directly related to the third

hypothesis (and are discussed in that context later in this chapter),

but the unexpected results of these two studies lend support to the

first hypothesis.

In the first of these two studies, Phares and Wilson (1971)

asked internal and external college students to evaluate an alleged

stranger based on his responses to Rotter's Internal-External Locus

of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966). Actually there were no strangers,

only two Internal-External scales--one completed in a totally internal

direction and the other in a totally external direction. The internal

subjects favored the internal "stranger," and the externals, as a

group, did not favor either.










As a follow-up to the Phares and Wilson study, Nowicki and

Blumberg (1975) carefully prepared four tapes, two of a male and

female internal discussing their views and two tapes of their external

counterparts. All four tapes were judged by the subjects and independent

raters to express accurately the intended locus of control orientation.

Forty college students were asked to judge the alleged strangers on

three criteria: (1) their general likability, (2) their desirability

as a working partner, and (3) their desirability as a roommate. The

internal "stranger" was significantly more attractive to both the inter-

nal and the external subjects on three criteria, but especially on the

third (desirability as a roommate). The Phares and Wilson study and

the Nowicki and Blumberg study suggested that, since internals are

preferred in an experimental situation, they should also be more popular

in a real-life situation, like a classroom.

Before discussing the two studies that directly relate locus of

control to sociometric status, the indirect evidence is summarized below

in support of the hypothesis that internals are more popular than exter-

nals. This research indicates that


1. Internals are more helpful.

2. Internals require less personal space or social distance.

3. Internality is a more desirable trait in this society.

4. In experiments where subjects were asked to express their pre-

ference for either an internal or an external "stranger" most subjects

preferred the internal.










The fourth point seems to offer the strongest support for the

hypothesis. However, both of these studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971;

Nowicki & Roundtree, 1975) were conducted under simulated conditions

with alleged strangers. The present study is concerned with on-going

relationships. Unfortunately, there is very little investigation

relating locus of control to real, on-going friendships. The extensive

literature review of this author has yielded only two such studies.

In the first of these studies, Nowicki and Roundtree (1971)

administered the N-S and two sociometric questions to a sample of

12th graders (N = 87). The first sociometric item asked the students

to list five classmates that would be good candidates for classroom

president; the second item asked the subjects to list five of their

best friends. Among males there was a significant relationship

between internality and nominations for class president, but there

was no relationship between locus of control and friendship. In

other words, internal males received more selections as class presi-

dent than did external males, but internals of either sex were no

more popular than externals as friends.

In the second of these studies, Adinolfi (1970) administered

a sociometric test to 600 college dormitory residents. From this

subject pool he selected four groups of 30 subjects each (15 males

and 15 females)--a highly accepted group, an unaccepted group, a

rejected group, and a control group. Then these subjects (N = 120)

were administered the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale










and several other personality tests. Among these four groups there

were no differences in locus of control scores.

The results of these two studies are contrary to the first

hypothesis of this study. However, it is expected that this study

will produce results different from those of Nowicki and Roundtree

and Adinolfi for the following reasons:


1. Their subjects were older than the subjects of this study.

According to studies by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) and Brownstone and

Willis (1971), younger adolescents are more influenced by their peers

than are older adolescents. This suggests that peer acceptance is

probably more important for a 13-year-old than for an 18-year-old.

Since peer acceptance is a crucial, ego-involved need for a 13-year-

old, it is likely that peer acceptance is related to his sense of

potency and control.

2. Adinolfi's subjects were volunteers from the original subject

pool; they were not randomly selected from their group. Campbell and

Stanley (1966) cited the use of volunteers as a possible source of

invalidity.

3. The previously mentioned locus of control studies suggest

that internals are more likable.

4. Many sociometric studies have related sociometric status to

personal variables that either resemble locus of control or have been

related to it. Many of these studies have used subjects similar in










age to the subject of this study in the same social environment,

the classroom. These studies constitute the remainder of the review

of the literature for the first hypothesis and are reviewed in the

paragraphs that follow.

A review of sociometric literature reveals two groups of studies

that support the hypothesis that sociometric status is related to

locus of control. Firstly, there are two clinically based studies

(Northway, 1944; Northway & Wigdor, 1947) that produced descriptions

of sociometrically high and low students that, in part, closely resemble

theoretical and empirical descriptions of internals and externals,

respectively. Secondly, sociometric status has been related to many

variables (e.g., self-esteem) that have also been related to locus

of control, such that internals parallel sociometrically high subjects

(e.g., high in self-esteem) and externals parallel the sociometrically

low (e.g., low in self-esteem).

Using the Rorschach test, Northway and Wigdor (1947) studied

eighth graders of high, average, and low sociometric status. The well-

liked subjects were described as having


S. a greater sensitivity to their environment--
almost an active, conscious striving in using the "feeling
tone" and social contacts of a situation to further their
ends. (p. 194)


It is logical to expect that an individual who believes that he

is in control of a situation will be more sensitive to and manipulative











of the environment. There is abundant evidence that internals are

more alert to environmental cues and better able to use these cues

than their external counterparts (Seeman & Evans, 1962; Seeman, 1963,

1966, 1967; Phares, 1968; Lefcourt & Wine, 1969; Williams & Stack,

1972). For example, Seeman (1963) found that internal prison mates

were more knowledgeable about parole policy than external inmates of

similar intelligence. Seeman concluded that internals had more

actively sought and more efficiently processed information that might

help them.

After reviewing the studies mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

Phares (1976) concluded that internalss seem to be eager to seek out

clues and to manipulate the situation so as to be better able to achieve

certain outcomes" (p. 63). Thus, Northway and Wigdor's description of

the well-liked eighth graders suggests that they are social internals;

that is, they actively seek out clues in the social environment and

use these clues rather effectively, as evidenced by their social success.

In the second of the clinically based studies, Northway (1944)

conducted an in-depth study of sociometrically low fifth and sixth

graders. Her results provided a holistic view of the personality

types of students who are not well accepted by their peers; these

personality profiles suggest relationships between low sociometric

status and locus of control. For two years Northway collected data

on 20 unpopular subjects through school records, interviews with

parents, intelligence tests, psychological interviews, classroom and










playground observation, and sociometric tests. Her investigation

yielded three types of unaccepted children. Of these 20 subjects

six were "recessive children" who were described as "listless, lacking

vitality, unhealthy, below normal in intelligence or underachieving,

unkempt, and seemingly uninterested in people, activity, or events of

the outside world."

There were nine "socially uninterested children" who Northway

described in the following manner:


These children superficially appear to be similar to
the truly recessive children. They are not liked by
others nor do they appear to make an effort in either
formal class activities or social affairs of the school.
They are often quiet and retiring. However, on closer
examination it is found that they are much better
developed in their care of person and possessions and
that they have interests. Those interests are personal
rather than social. A child's energy may be directed
towards art, music, science, hobbies, reading or to
affairs of the home. Some of these children are merely
quiet with and uninterested in other children; some
are shy and uncomfortable with them, some are bored
and critical of them, and some are rather objectively
and impersonally interested in observing what other
children do without in any way attempting to participate
with them. (p. 458)


The third group consisted of five "socially ineffective children"

who were described in the following manner:


Children of this group differ completely in their super-
ficial behavior from the former group; they are often
noisy, rebellious, delinquent in classroom affairs,
boastful and arrogant. They are a nuisance to the teacher
and the life of the classroom. They are diametrically
opposed to the recessive children. However, this is not
true, for they have in common the lack of acceptance by










classmates and these manifested forms of behavior seem
to have arisen as rather ineffective, naive attempts
to overcome the basic social insecurity and isolation
from group life that they experience. They have vitality
and are keenly interested in social affairs, but because
of failure in the establishment of social relations, they
make effortful, conspicuous,.and often foolish and futile
attempts to be recognized and accepted by the social group.
(Northway, 1944, p. 458)


Northway supplemented these psychological profiles with two case

studies from each group. The recessive state described by Northway

closely parallels'Seligman's (1976) concept of learned helplessness.

Learned helplessness is a state that in human subjects greatly resembles

reactive depression (Seligman, 1973) and is caused by an individual's

learning that there is no relationship between his behavior and what

happens to him. Seligman (1973) and Miller and Seligman (1973) have

related learned helplessness to locus of control. It seems that learned

helplessness is an extreme case of externality.

Thus,it is likely that the recessive children are inactive and

listless because they have come to believe that they have little or

no control over what happens to them. Recessive subjects should have

a very external generalized locus of control and should score highly

on the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.

Northway's description of the "socially uninterested" subjects

suggests that they have an external locus of control in social matters,

but an internal locus of control in personal matters. That is, they

probably expect that they can control most things that they do alone,










but they doubt their ability to affect other people, especially

their peers. The sample of this study will probably include some

socially uninterested adolescents; it is expected that they will

obtain low to moderate scores on the N-S, because they should answer

the social items internally and the nonsocial items externally.

Seven of the 40 items are clearly concerned with peer involvement.

"Socially ineffective children" seem to have a strong desire

to affect their peers, but lack the skill and self-confidence to

affect them positively. Northway's description and case studies sug-

gest that these subjects have deeply rooted, but disguised, feelings

of inferiority; and their verbal reports and behavior are often attempts

to compensate for their inadequacy. These subjects have a social

and probably generalized external locus of control; but their verbal

reports are likely not to indicate this, so their N-S scores could

vary greatly.

Northway's study suggests that although there is a general trend

for almost all socially unaccepted children to have an external locus

of control in social matters, this trend will be obscured by the non-

social internality of the "socially uninterested" and the defensiveness

of the "socially ineffective." Therefore,only a moderate correlation

should be expected between sociometric status and the N-S scores of

this sample.

There is some less direct, but statistically based, evidence

supporting the hypothesis that socially accepted adolescents tend to











be more internal. This evidence is the list of traits that have

been significantly related to both sociometric status and locus of

control. Of course, just because two variables are related to a third

variable is no indication that they are necessarily related to each

other; but if two psychological variables are related to several vari-

ables, it is likely that these two variables are related to each other.

As previously mentioned, sociometric status has been related to

academic achievement (Bonney, 1943; Grossman & Wrighter, 1948; Brown,

1954; Feinberg, 1953) and socioeconomic status (Brown, 1954; Cook,

1945; Neugarten, 1946; Grossman & Wrighter, 1948). Locus of control

is also related to academic achievement (Coleman et al., 1966; Crandall

et al., 1965) and socioeconomic status (Lefcourt, 1966).

Sociometric status is clearly related to self-concept (Baron, 1951;

Guardo, 1969; Horowitz, 1962; Reese, 1961; Videback, 1960), as is locus

on control (Fitch, 1970; Fish & Karabenick, 1971); and sociometric status

is negatively correlated with anxiety-(Baron, 1951; Mill, 1953), as

is locus of control (Butterfield, 1964; Watson, 1967; Feather, 1967;

Ray & Katahn, 1968). Subjects of low sociometric status have been found

to be depressed (Baron, 1951; Northway, 1944), as have externals

(Abramowitz, 1969; Miller & Seligman, 1973). Low sociometric status

has been associated with schizophrenic tendencies (Northway, 1944;

Northway & Widgor, 1947) and so has externality (Cromwell, Rosenthal,

Shakow & Zahn, 1961; Harrow & Ferante, 1969). With all of these traits

in common it is likely that most adolescents of high sociometric status

are internal, and most adolescents of low sociometric status are

external.











Before presenting the literature relevant to the second hypoth-

esis, this section is summarized below:


1. Internals should be more popular than externals, because

they are more helpful, require less social distance, and possess a

viewpoint that is valued more by this culture.

2. In two experimental studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971; Nowicki

& Blumberg, 1975) subjects preferred an internal "stranger" to an

external "stranger."

3. Two studies (Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Adinolfi, 1970) have

found no relationship between locus of control and sociometric status

for older adolescents.

4. Two studies (Northway, 1944; Northway & Wigdor, 1947) have

produced clinical descriptions of students of high and low sociometric

status; these descriptions resemble internals and externals, respectively.

5. Internals have many traits in common with subjects of high

sociometric status. As compared to externals and unpopular subjects,

internals and popular subjects tend to do better in school, come from

families of higher socioeconomic status, have positive self-concepts,

less anxiety, less depression, and less schizophrenic tendencies.


In the next section the literature relevant to the second hypoth-

esis is reviewed.











Second Hypothesis: Internals are More Popular on a Task-Oriented
Sociometric Item than on a Purely Social One


The second hypothesis compares the sociometric status of internals

on two different items: (1) "Name the students who are your best

friends" and (2) "If you had a group project in English (class) with

three other students, and half of your grade depended on this project,

which three students would you select to work with?" (These two items

are referred to as the "best friends" item and the "work-project" item,

respectively.)

The second hypothesis is that internals have higher sociometric

status on the work-project item than on the best friends item. The

rationale for this hypothesis is based on two well-documented findings:

(1) the nature of the sociometric item affects who is popular and who

is not, and (2) internals are academically superior to externals.

The difference in the nature of the sociometric items, relative to

this hypothesis has been discussed by Jennings (1947). She suggested

that there are two types of sociometric items, those related to an in-

formal, personal situation (like the best friends item) and those related

to more formal situations that usually involve a group project (such as

the work-project item); Jennings suggested that these two types of

items tap two underlying group structures, an informal system and a

formal system, respectively. According to Jennings, choices on items

that tap the formal system are based more on ability and less on social

popularity than are choices on items related to the formal system.











Jennings conclusion has been supported by Gronlund. After reviewing

several studies that compared sociometric status on different type

items, Gronlund (1959) concluded that there is a general social

acceptability factor for all items, but that


Where specific criteria indicate the need for knowledge
or skill, the social acceptability factor is surpressed
somewhat, in the choosing, in factor of success in the
activity. (p. 138)


Thus, in this study it was expected that the academically competent

students would have higher sociometric status on the working-project

item than on the best friends item. Since internals are better

represented among the academically competent, it was expected that

they would have higher sociometric status on the work-project item

than on the best friends item.

The studies which indicated that internals are academically

superior to externals were cited in the first chapter (Crandall

et al., 1965; McGee & Crandall, 1968; Brown & Strickland, 1972;

Bartel, 1971; Coleman et al., 1966). These studies were correlational.

For example, Crandall and her associates studied the relationship

between locus of control and school grades for students from the

third through 12th grades. Internal males averaged 2.54 (on the 4.0

system), and external males averaged 2.26; and internal males averaged

2.95, and external females 2.70. The grades of the internal students

were significantly (p < .01) higher than the externals' grades.











Several experimental studies (deCharms, 1972; Hawes, 1971; Stephens,

1972; Ashton, 1974) have also found a relationship between sense of con-

trol and academic performance. For example, deCharms (1972) investigated

the relationship between academic performance and "personal causation"

which he defined as "the initiation by an individual of behavior intended

to produce a change in his environment." Personal causation is similar

to locus of control in that they are concerned with an individual taking

control of his environment. Theoretically, personal causation is concerned

with intrinsic motivation, and locus of control is concerned with expec-

tancies about external reinforcement; but Phares (1976) and Lefcourt

(1966) have noted that there is a great deal of overlap between these

two concepts. Thus, deCharms' experiment has relevance to locus of con-

trol. In this study,he and his associates randomly assigned half of the

sixth grade teachers (N = 16) in an urban school district to an experi-

mental group; the other half constituted the control group. The experi-

mental group underwent "personal causation training",which was a program

designed to facilitate "origin" behavior among the teachers and the stu-

dents they taught. ("Origin" is a term that is similar to "internal.")

After the training sessions,the teachers conducted similar sessions in

their classrooms for the next two academic years. The results of the

study indicate that the experimental group, as compared to the control

group, had students who (1) rated their classrooms as more conducive to

independent, self-motivated study, (2) scored higher--more origin (inter-

nal)--on deCharm's Origin-Pawn measure, and (3) scored higher on stan-

dardized achievement tests.











Thus, the relationship between internality and high academic

achievement has been clearly established. Although there are excep-

tions, internals generally perform better in school than their

external counterparts.

In this section it has been argued that the best friends socio-

metric item favors students who are academically competent. Since

internals are generally academically superior to externals, they

should have higher sociometric status on the work-project item. Also,

internals should have higher status on the work-project item than on

the best friends item, because of their academic superiority.

This researcher has been able to find only one study that has

related locus of control to two different sociometric items. In this

study, which was mentioned in the previous section, Nowicki and

Roundtree (1971) related the locus of control of 12th graders to

their sociometric status on a best friends item and on an item that

asked for good candidates for class president. Nowicki and Roundtree's

study is comparable to this one, since the first item is identical

to the first item of this study, and the second item is related to

the second item of this study in that they both have to do with

achievement oriented activities. The results of the Nowicki and

Roundtree study supported the second hypothesis of this study in that

internals, at least the internal males, had higher sociometric status

on the class president item than on the best friends item.

Thus,the hypothesis that internals should do better on a task

related item than on a purely social sociometric item has received











partial support. In the next section the literature relevant to

the last hypothesis is discussed


Third Hypothesis: People Prefer, as Friends, Those Who Are Similar
to Them in Locus of Control


Interpersonal attraction is one of the most studied phenomena

in social psychology. Laymen and psychologists alike have been

curious about why people are attracted to some people and not others.

One of the simplest explanations is that people prefer those who are

similar to themselves. There is abundant empirical evidence that this

explanation has some validity (Byrne, 1961; Byrne & Griffitt, 1973;

Newcomb, 1961), but only under certain conditions and only for cer-

tain traits.

The proposition that people are attracted to those who are

similar to themselves in attitude and personality has been called the

"similarity hypothesis." Byrne and Griffitt (1973) have described

three methods that have been used to test the similarity hypothesis,

as follows:


Three basic research designs have been used to study
the influence of personality similarity on attraction.
In one approach, existing attraction pairs such as
friends, or spouses are selected and then assessed
with respect to one or more personality variables;
the scores of the series of pairs are correlated. In
a second approach, the personality measure or measures
are obtained, and then previously unacquainted subjects
are selected on the basis of their test scores and
placed in an interactive situation, followed by an











assessment of their attraction. .. In research
utilizing a third design. the subject's per-
sonality relevant behavior consists of his response
to the instrument used to assess personality char-
acteristics, and he is subsequently exposed to the
responses of the target on the same instrument with
other stimulus and elements controlled experimentally.
With this design it has been shown that attraction
is positively related to similarity. (pp. 320-321)


By using the third design it has been shown that people are

attracted to those who are similar to themselves in self-concept

(Griffitt, 1966, 1969), the need for approval (Goldstein & Rosenfeld,

1969), and dominance-submissiveness (Palmer & Byrne, 1970).

The third design has been used to test the similarity hypothesis

for locus of control in two studies, mentioned previously in this

chapter. In the first of these studies, Phares and Wilson (1971)

tested the hypothesis that internals are attracted to other internals

and that externals are attracted to fellow externals. As previously

mentioned their hypothesis was only partially confirmed; although

the internals subjects did prefer the internal "stranger," or the

externals showed no preference for either the internal or the

external "stranger."

In the second of these studies, Nowicki and Blumberg (1975)

hypothesized that Phares and Wilson did not confirm the similarity

hypothesis, because the technique they used was "less than realistic."

They tested the same hypothesis using audio tapes, instead of com-

pleted Rotter scales. The hypothesis was still not confirmed; both

the internal and the external subjects preferred the internal "stranger."











In these two experiments the failure to confirm the hypothesis

may be due to the highly contrived conditions and the social desir-

ability of locus of control. Under these conditions, the subjects

may simply choose the person that seems more socially desirable

rather than choose the person that would really be a good friend.

Most of the studies that have supported the similarity hypoth-

esis and the studies by Phares and Wilson and Nowicki and Blumberg

belong to the third category described by Byrne and Griffitt

(1973). These studies have two factors in common: (1) their

method of eliciting interpersonal attraction is highly contrived,

and (2) they measure only initial attraction (first impression).

There have been some studies without these shortcomings, the

most noted being Newcomb's (1961) study. Newcomb invited 34 male

students transferring to the University of Michigan to live together

in a house near campus. In exchange for this rent-free opportunity,

the students agreed to participate in a research project which

entailed regular testing and interviewing. As mentioned previously,

Newcomb found that initial attraction was highly related to pro-

pinquity; generally the closer the rooms, the greater the chance of

interpersonal attraction. However, later attraction was more

strongly related to perceived similarity in attitudes. Newcomb's

study suggests that individuals in a group who have had the opportunity

to become acquainted with each other will associate with those group

members whom they perceive as similar to themselves.










Sociometric testing has also been used to test the similarity

hypothesis; this method is the first type described by Byrne

and Griffitt (1973). The results of these studies have been incon-

sistent. For example, Pinter et al., 1937, studied the friendships

of fifth through eighth graders and found that friends were not similar

in ascendance-submission, emotional stability, and extroversion-

introversion; and Thorpe found that classroom friends were.not sim-

ilar in neuroticism. However, Bonney (1945), Austin and Thompson

(1948), and Van Dyne (1940) found that adolescents and young adults

were more similar in personality to their friends than to nonfriends.

In these studies the personality trait that the friends had in com-

mon was a social nature, namely social and emotional adjustment

(Bonney, 1945), similarity of needs (Austin & Thompson, 1948), and

degree of dominance and sociability (Van Dyne, 1940).

The study of interpersonal attraction is further complicated

by the research of Winch (1958) which indicate that men and women

of complementary traits are often attracted to each other and main-

tain good marital relationships. Although married couples tend to

be similar in race, sociometric status, and religion, they often

complement each other on certain personality traits, especially those

related to dominance and submission, that is, people with dominant

needs tend to marry partners with submissive needs.

Hollander (1967) has evaluated the research on interpersonal

attraction and has concluded that











similarity is important for some kinds of relationships
and complementary for others. In most studies where
similarity is found to hold as a factor yielding a mutual
bond, attitudes and values are those elements which are
being measured. Complementary, on the other hand, may
be relevant to need satisfaction in an enduring inter-
action. (p. 193)


The peer relationships of 13-year-olds, although powerful in

an almost impersonal way, are still not so intimate and enduring

(Horrocks, 1976) that complementary need satisfaction would likely

be an overriding factor. It is only with mature, intimate rela-

tionships that complementary traits seem to be significant, as

evidenced by the fact that the complementary hypothesis ("opposites

attract" has been supported with research using married couples

(Winch, 1958; Hollander, 1967). Therefore, similarity in locus of

control, rather than complementarity in locus of control, should be

a significant factor in the peer relationships of young adolescents.

In the present study it is hypothesized that the social pre-

ferences of these subjects are related to perceived attitude similarity

and that the constellation of attitudes significant to these 13-year-

olds is related to their locus of control orientation. Therefore,

it is predicted that there is a moderate, but significant, relation-

ship between locus of control similarity and attraction; that is,

the subjects should choose classmates who are similar to themselves

in locus of control.

In this section there.was a brief review of the literature

investigating the similarity hypothesis. Studies were mentioned











which indicated that people tend to be attracted to those who are

similar to themselves in self-concept, need for approval, and

dominance-submissiveness. Two studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971;

Nowicki & Blumberg, 1975) were discussed which tested and did not

completely support the similarity hypothesis of locus of control.

It was hypothesized that this study would support the similarity

hypothesis for locus of control, because a more realistic method

(sociometric testing) was used to elicit interpersonal attraction.

In the next chapter the methodology of this study is discussed.














CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


Two hundred eighth graders were administered a locus of control

instrument and a sociometric questionnaire. The results were analyzed

by multiple regression to investigate the following hypotheses:


1. With sex and race partialed out,

relationship between locus of control and

best friends item such that internals are

2. With sex and race partialed out,

relationship between locus of control and

work-project item such that internals are

than they are on the best friends item.

3. Also with sex and race partialed


there is a significant

sociometric status on the

more popular than externals.

there is a significant

sociometric status on the

more popular on this item



out, there is a significant


relationship between the subjects' locus of control and the locus of

control of their friends such that the subjects choose friends who

are similar to themselves in locus of control.


Subjects


The subjects were 200 eighth graders from a middle school in a

city in North Central Florida with a population of 10,000. According

to the school administration, most of the school's students (80-85%) were










from families of lower middle and lower socioeconomic status. The

sample included 112 females and 88 males, 161 whites and 39 blacks.

The modal age was 13.


Testing Procedure


The sociometric test and the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control

Scale for Children (N-S) were administered by two English teachers

at the school in December of 1975. The teachers administered the

forms to all of their classes which met during different class periods

throughout the school day. The sociometric questionnaire was administered

first, and the N-S was administered one week later with a battery

of other tests. [The other data collected at this time were used

in a study by Damico and Purkey (1976.)] The students were assured

that their responses would remain confidential.


Instrumentation


The sociometric test. The first sociometric item used for this study

was "Name the students who are your best friends." Three blank spaces

were provided below the items. The subjects were not directed to list

the friends in any specific order, nor were they explicitly told that

three names were expected. The subjects could list fewer or more than

three names, but most did list three and no more than three were

analyzed in this study.

The other item was "If you had to work on a group project in

English with three other students, and half of your grade depended











on this project, which three students would you select to work with?"

Three blank spaces followed this item. There were several other socio-

metric questions on this form (see Appendix B), but they were not be

analyzed in this study.

Although both the items used in this study are referred to as

sociometric, this is not exactly correct. Lindzey and Byrne (1968)

summarized Moreno's (1934) requirements of a sociometric test, as

follows:


1. The limits of the group should be indicated to the subjects.

For example, choices could be limited to members of a specific class-

room.

2. The subjects should be permitted an unlimited number of

choices.

3. The subjects should be asked to indicate the individuals

whom they choose or reject in terms of a specific criterion. Each socio-

metric choice should be made with a meaningful activity in mind, for

example, "name the students you would like to sit next to in class."

4. Results of the sociometric question shou-ld be used to

restructure the group. Subjects should be told that their input will

be used in making such decisions.

5. The subjects should be permitted to make their choices privately.

6. The questions used should be gauged to the level of under-

standing of the sample.











Although the work-project item fulfilled most of these require-

ments, the best friends item violated the second, third, and fourth

requirements. The second requirement, unlimited choices, was violated

on both items, because unlimited choices would be more difficult to

manage in terms of statistical analysis. The third requirement, the

use of a specific activity, was not used for the best friends item;

because the first and third hypothesis of this study were intended to

investigate long-term relationships. It was assumed that when adoles-

cents were asked to list best friends, rather than to name peers

with whom they would like to interact in some activity, their choices

would be more likely to include actual relatively long-term friendships.

Lindzey and Byrne (1968) commented on the above-mentioned require-

ments as follows:


The requirements outlined above identify the sociometric
measure in a more or less pure form, and are generally
in agreement with Moreno's definition. However, rela-
tively few studies in this area meet all the requirements.
For example, the technique as used today seldom involves
the promise of restructuring the group .. One of the
more frequent modifications involves specifying the number
of choices the individual is required to make. (p. 455)


Thus, sociometric studies are not uniform in their methodology.

This poses a problem in assessing the reliability and validity of the

technique. However, since pure applications of sociometric testing

are the exception, rather than the rule, and since the variations of

the pure form seem to yield similar results; they will all be considered










together, and the reliability and validity of sociometric testing

(in its broad sense) will be said to apply to the procedure used in

this study. In fact, most of the studies that have assessed the

reliability and validity of sociometric tests have been variations

of the pure form.

Concerning the reliability of sociometric testing, a point made

by Gronlund (1959) needs to be considered:


perfect consistency from one test to another is neither
expected nor desirable, owing to the dynamic nature of
social relations. Revealing actual changes in social
relations is as important a requirement of the socio-
metric test as providing results that are constant
enough to have predictive value .. Thus, when
applied to sociometric testing, the various coefficients
of reliability refer to the consistency of choice behavior,
rather than to the characteristics of the test
itself. (p. 119)


Thus, the changes in sociometric results do not necessarily

reflect testing error; to a great extent they reflect actual changes

in the social perferences of the subjects. With this point in mind,

the internal consistency and the test-retest reliability of sociometric

tests will be discussed.

Grossman and Wrighter (1948) determined the internal consistency,

of their sociometric testing with four classrooms of sixth graders.

They randomly divided each group in half and then correlated the

sociometric status of each subject, as rated by one half of the class,

with his status in the other half of the class. They reported coef-

ficients of internal consistency from .93 to .97. Bass and White (1950)










and Ricciuti and French (1951), using college students as subjects,

reported internal reliability coefficients of .90. Ausubel, Schiff,

and Gasser (1952) reported coefficients from .54 to .86 for third,

fifth, and seventh graders and coefficients of .89 and .90 for 11th

and 12th graders.

Test-retest reliability has been determined by correlating the

sociometric status of subjects on one sociometric test with their

status on another test at a later date. Witryol and Thompson (1953)

and Thompson and Powell (1951) studied the consistency of sociometric

choices made by sixth graders at intervals of one week, four weeks,

and six weeks. Witryol and Thompson (1953) reported reliability coef-

ficients ranging from .60 to .90, and Thompson and Powell (1951)

reported correlations ranging from .89 to .92. In both studies, the

coefficients tended to decrease over time.

Using longer time intervals, Byrd (1951) found a reliability

coefficient of .89 with fourth graders selecting partners for a play

after a two-month interval, and Gronlund (1955) reported an average

reliability coefficient of .75 for fourth, fifth, and sixth graders

over a four-month interval. Bonney (1943) administered a sociometric

test, an IQ test, and an achievement test to a group of second graders

for four consecutive years. The correlations of the students socio-

metric status from one year to the next ranged from .67 to .84. The

sociometric status of the children in this study was as consistent as

their IQ and scores on the achievement tests.










Using high school students Northway (1947) reported coefficients

of .90 for a one-week interval and .60 for a one-year interval.

Jennings (1950) investigated the sociometric choices of adolescent

girls (12 to 16 years old) over time and found a correlation of .96

after four days and a correlation of .65 after eight months.

Thus,the results of sociometric testing are relatively consistent.

They are almost as reliable as typical intelligence and achievement

tests, as Bonney (1943) has demonstrated, and more reliable than most

attitude/personality measures.

As with reliability, the concept of validity, as it is typically

applied to testing and measurement, needs to be qualified in its

application to sociometric tests. If sociometric tests are supposed

to measure merely social choice, then they are by definition valid

(Pepinsky, 1949). However, if they are supposed to measure actual

social relationships, they will certainly fall short of this expecta-

tion, because, as Gronlund (1959) has mentioned:


An individual's actual associations are influenced by
environmental limitations, personal inhibitions, lack
of reciprocal feelings on the part of the desired
associates, and other related factors, as much as they
are by his preferences. Thus actual associations can
be expected to show some variation from the desired
associations indicated in sociometric choices. (p. 159)


Although sociometric choices do not correspond perfectly with

actual associations, there is a great deal of overlap. This overlap,

sociometric choices that are also actual associations, is considered











evidence of the validity of sociometric testing for this study;

because the first and third hypotheses of this study purport to

study friendships. Studies that have investigated the validity of

sociometric testing have related sociometric status and sociometric

choices with other measures of popularity and friendship choices.

Concerning sociometric status, the observations of teachers

and independent investigators correspond rather closely to the

results of sociometric tests. Bonney and Powell (1953) found that

sociometrically high first and second graders participated more

frequently in cooperative group activities and associated with more

children than did sociometrically low children. Newsletter, Feldstein,

and Newcomb (1938) found a correlation of .76 between the sociometric

status and the camp counselor ratings of popularity for 30 adolescent

boys. Gronlund (1951) had 40 sixth grade teachers rank their students

according to popularity; the average correlation between the teacher's

ranking and sociometric results was .60. Gronlund (1955, 1956) ob-

tained similar results in two other studies.

The individual choices of a subject are more complex and variable

(Gronlund, 1959) than sociometric status. Therefore, it is more diffi-

cult to observe and less likely to correspond closely with sociometric

results. Biehler (1954) compared the first sociometric choice of kinder-

garten children with their observed play companions. About 74 percent

of the chosen companions actually played with the children who chose










them. Gage, Leavitt, and Stone (1955) asked 103 fourth, fifth, and

sixth grade teachers to predict how each of their students would

respond to a sociometric item that asked for the students to list

five children in their room whom they would most prefer as classmates

if the class were divided into two groups. The average correlation

between the teacher's prediction and the sociometric results was .48.

Considering that observations are subject to error and that some

aspects of friendship can not be observed, the above-mentioned evidence

suggests that sociometric results correspond rather closely to actual

friendships.


The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (N-S)


Nowicki and Strickland (1973) developed the N-S (see Appendix A)

as the children's counterpart to Rotter's (1966) Internal-External

Locus of Control Scale; both scales were intended to be measures of

global locus of control. Nowicki and Strickland (1973) describe the

scale in the following manner:


The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale is a
paper-and-pencil measure consisting of 40 questions
that are answered either yes or no by placing a mark
next to the question. This form of the measure
derives from work which began with a large number
of items (N = 120), constructed on the basis of
Rotter's definition of the internal-external control
of reinforcement dimension. The items describe
reinforcement situations across interpersonal and
motivational areas such as affiliation, achievement,
and dependency. School teachers were consulted in
the construction of items. The goal was to make










the items readable at the fifth-grade level, yet
appropriate for older students. These items along
with Rotter's description of the locus of control
dimension were then given to a group of clinical
psychology staff members (N = 9), who were asked
to answer the items in an external direction. Items
on which there was not complete agreement among the
judges were dropped. This left 59 items, which made
up the preliminary form of the test. The 59-item
form of the test was then given to a sample of students
(N = 152) ranging from the third through eleventh
grades .. The results of further analysis as well
as comments from teachers and subjects in the sample
led to the present form of the test consisting of
40 items. (p. 151)


Split-half correlations correlated by the Spearman-Brown Formula

were .63 for third to fifth grades, .68 for sixth to eighth grades,

and .74 for ninth to eleventh grades; the sample size for each of these

three groups was about 300. Test-retest reliabilities with six-week

intervals was .63 for third graders, .66 for seventh graders, and .71

for tenth graders.

Nowicki and Strickland assessed the convergent validity of the

N-S by correlating it with two measures of locus of control--the

Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall et al.,

1965) and the Bialer-Cromwell Scale (Bialer, 1961). With 182 third

grade and 171 seventh grade blacks, the correlations between the Intel-

lectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire and the N-S were .31

and .51, respectively. With a sample of 29 children, ages 9-11, the

correlation between the Bialer-Cromwell Scale and the N-S was .41.










As evidence of the construct validity of the N-S, Nowicki and

Strickland (1973) cited significant correlations between academic

achievement and the N-S at varying age levels. They also demonstrated

that internality, as measured by the N-S, increases with age and offered

this trend as evidence of the validity of the instrument. Nowicki

(1973) has also demonstrated the construct validity of his instrument

by factor analyzing the test results of three different populations--

elementary school children, junior high school children, and high

school children. For the sample most relevant to this study (junior

high school subjects), there were three different factors. There

was one general factor that accounted for 38 percent of the variance

and was labeled "helplessness" (this factor was also present in the

other two samples). The other two factors accounted for 16ss variance,

8-19 percent; the second factor had to do with achievement, especially

through persistence and planning, and the third factor contained items

having to do with luck, persistence, and success in social areas.

Thus, it appears that part of the third factor (success in social

areas) is most relevant in this study. However, since it is only part

of one factor, contains only a few items, and accounts for so little

variance, it has not been used to predict sociometric status in this

study.

Although the N-S is a rather new instrument and lacks the valida-

tion research of a more established instrument, the sparce amount of

evidence that is available suggests that it is about as reliable and










valid as most attitude/personality measures used in research.

MacDonald (1973) has evaluated most of the locus of control instru-

ments and has noted:


This test has been developed carefully by researchers
of solid reputation. Though of recent construction,
it has been used in many studies. Results presently
available indicate the scale to have adequate internal
consistency and temporal consistency. Data relevant
to divergent and convergent validity are encouraging.
In short, it appears to be the best measure of locus
of control as a generalized expectancy presently
available for children. (p. 185)


Statistical Analysis


First and second hypotheses. In both of these hypotheses the dependent

variable was sociometric status (SMS) on the respective sociometric

item. Sociometric status was measured by counting the number of

selections that each subject received. Previous sociometric research

indicates that this distribution should be skewed to the right--fewer

popular children than unpopular ones (Groulund, 1959).

The principal independent variable was locus of control (LOC),

measured by the N-S. It was expected that this distribution would

be close to normal or skewed slightly to the right; there may be more

extreme internals than extreme externals (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).

The variables of sex and race were forced into the equation before

LOC, as covariates, since sex and race may be confounding variables.

Thus the basic multiple regression equation was as follows:


SMS = sex + race + LOC










In addition to these basic variables, locus of control as a

nonlinear variable (LOC2) and interactions between locus of control

and sex and race were also checked for significance; so the complete

equation was as follows:

^ 2
SMS = sex + race + LOC + LOC + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)


All of the independent variables were forced into the equation

in the order indicated above. The rationale for this approach has

been discussed under the rubrics of the "a priori ordering approach"

by Kerlinger & Pedhazur (1973).

Dummy coding (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973) was used to code sex

and race. The data were submitted on cards to the University of

Florida's IBM 360-75 computer, assessing the multiple regression

program of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPPS)

(Nie, Hull, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1973). (In fact, all of the data

analysis of this study used programs from the SPSS library). If

the F-value was significant at the .05 level for the LOC variable,

the hypothesis'was accepted.

One of the assumptions of multiple regression is that the depen-

dent variable should be normal. However, Kerlinger and Pedhazur,

(1973) has noted that this is not always a problem:

It has convincingly been shown that the F and t tests
are "strong" or "robust" statistics, which means that
they resist violation of the assumptions. In general,











it is safe to say that we can ordinarily go ahead
with analysis of variance and multiple regression
analysis without worrying too much about assumptions.
Nevertheless, researchers must be aware that serious
violations of the assumptions, and especially of
combinations of them, can destroy results. We advise
students to examine data, especially by plotting,
and, if the assumptions appear to be violated, to
treat obtained results with even more caution than
usual. The student should also bear in mind the
possibility of transforming recalcitrant data,
using one or more of the transformations that are
available and that may make the data more amendable
to analysis and inference.


If the dependent variables differ markedly from the normal

distributions, they will be transformed, as Kerlinger has advised.


Third hypothesis. Multiple regression was also used in the analysis

of the third hypothesis. For this equation the locus of control of

the friends chosen by the subject (F-LOC) was the dependent variable.

It is expected that the distribution of F-LOC scores should be close

to normal, so none of the assumptions of multiple regression should be

violated in the analysis of the third hypothesis.

With F-LOC scores as the dependent variable, the principal inde-

pendent variable was the subject's own locus of control score. If

there is a significant positive correlation between the two, it would

indicate that these subjects tend to choose friends of a similar locus

of control orientation. A negative correlation would indicate a

tendency to choose friends of the opposite locus of control.










As with the first hypothesis, sex and race were forced into

the equation before the principal independent variable (the subject's

own LOC score). Also, interactions and a nonlinear relationship be-

tween LOC and F-LOC were investigated. Thus, the complete multiple

regression equation was as follows:


F-LOC = sex + race + LOC + LOC2 + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)

Chapter Summary


Two hundred eighth graders answered two sociometric questions:

one that asked the students to list their best friends, and another

that asked the student to name three classmates with whom they would

like to work an an academic project. One week later the subjects

completed the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children

(N-S).

The reliability and validity of sociometric testing and the N-S

were discussed; both testing procedures were as reliable and valid

as most psychological tests used in research. The subject's locus of

control (LOC) was the principal independent variable for all three

hypotheses. LOC and other variables were used in the multiple regres-

sion equations to predict sociometric status on the best friends item

(SMSbf), sociometric status on the work-project item (SMS ), and

the subject's friends locus of control (F-LOC). The complete multiple

regression equations were as follows:







54

1. First hypothesis: SMSbf = sex + race + LOC + LOC2


+ (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
2. Second hypothesis: SMS = sex + race + LOC + LOC2


+ (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
3. Third hypothesis: F-LOC = sex + race + LOC + LOC2

+ (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)

The results of this analysis are discussed in the next chapter.














CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


In this chapter the results of this study are stated and discussed.

The first section presents the results, and in the next section the

significance of these results is discussed.


Results


The results of this study are presented in sub-sections. The

first sub-section is a general presentation of the data which includes

the mean, standard deviation, and other aspects of the variables used

in the study. The remaining three sub-sections present the results

of the analysis of each hypothesis. These three sub-sections focus

on the inferential statistics of each hypothesis, and the first sub-

section focuses on the descriptive statistics of all of the variables.


Descriptive statistics. Two hundred subjects completed the Nowicki-

Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (N-S). Scores on the

N-S can range from 0 to 40--the higher the score, the more external.

The mean score of this sample was 15.99; the standard deviation was

5.54. The scores ranged from 3 to 30. Measures of the skewness and

kurtosis were taken and found to be -.22 and .20, respectively,

indicating that the distribution of N-S scores was close to normal.











The sample included 112 females and 88 males, 161 whites and

39 blacks. The female subjects had a mean N-S score of 15.21, and

the males, 16.96. (The lower the score, the more internal.) The

mean score for whites was 15.32, and for blacks it was 18.72. The

sex/race differences are presented in Table 4-1.



Table 4-1. Sex/race differences in locus of control scores


Subgroup N Mean Standard Deviation


White males 69 16.18 5.47

Black males 19 19.79 4.93

All males 88 16.96 5.31

White females 92 14.67 5.39

Black females 20 17.70 5.15

All females 112 15.21 5.32

All whites 161 15.32 5.42

All blacks 39 18.72 5.04


Sociometric status was measured by counting the number of

selections received. For the first hypothesis sociometric status on

the best friends item (SMSbf) was the dependent variable. The mean

number of selections received was 2.38; the standard deviation was

1.92. The most popular subjects (N = 2) received nine selections;










that is, nine of their classmates chose them as best friends.

Thirty-three subjects received no selections. Thus, SMSbf ranged

from zero to nine. The measures of skewness and kurtosis were

.97 and 1.03, respectively.

For the second hypothesis sociometric status on the work-project

item (SMS ) was the dependent variable. The mean number of selec-

tions received was 2.49; the standard deviation was 2.41. On this

item the most popular subject received 13 selections, and 41 subjects

received no choices. The measures of skewness and kurtosis were

1.53 and 3.14 for this variable. Like SMSbf, SMSwp was not signifi-

cantly related to either sex or race.

The indices of skewness and kurtosis indicated that SMSbf and

SMS p deviated considerably from a normal distribution (Nie et al.,

1975). Therefore, both distributions were transformed to T-scores,

a procedure commonly used to normalize recalcitrant data (Roscoe,

1969). The transformed variables which were used in the multiple

regression equations were labeled SMbf and SMwp. The correlation

between SMbf and SMp was .675.
bf wp
Relevant to the third hypothesis, the 200 subjects of this study

made 413 usable choices on the best friends item (some subjects

chose friends who did not take the N-S, and these choices could not

be used). Of the 413 selections, 386 were friends of the same sex

and race of the chooser; 25 friends of the opposite sex were chosen,

and only two friends of another race were chosen.











The dependent variable in the third hypothesis was the locus

of control of the friends chosen by the subjects (F-LOC). Since

each sociometric choice, not each subject, was the individual unit

of analysis for this hypothesis, a subject's locus of control was

used as many times as he was chosen as a friend. The mean F-LOC

was 15.19 with a standard deviation of 6.08. Friends'locus of con-

trol ranged from 3 to 30.

As previously mentioned, the N-S test results of this study

were factor analyzed in the hope of finding a social factor. How-

ever, the factor analysis indicated that there was no substantial

factor structure.

The descriptive data have been presented above; the next three

sections present the results of the hypothesis testing.


First hypothesis. The first hypothesis postulated a significant

relationship between the subject's locus of control (LOC) and their

sociometric status on the best friends item (SMbf), such that inter-

nals would be more popular than externals. (As mentioned in the pre-

vious section, SMS was transformed to T-scores and labeled SM.) It

was hypothesized that the relationship between LOC and SMbf would be

significant with sex and race partialed out. Also, interactions

between locus of control and sex (LOC x sex) and locus of control

and race (LOC x race) and a curvilinear locus of control term (LOC2)

were checked for significance. The results of the multiple regression

equation used to predict SMbf are presented in Table 4-2.




















4-)

0







Si-
C-
Q.



r


*c,


5>


*r-
c,


00 LO "c
(\IU) M


C) -






C-)



u
0

-J





ai
) 5- cO



0 a

Ci,


0i,









0
ro

4V)

U,












u
C





01
















c
S-
4-



















4--
.-0



C.

0

*--
a-






-o
























E-
0)
a3


























0

c'
(,


















-
Ca






a r


10
rI








r- )











-.0
S-0
-o
I-
=S 4-
4-> i














CI-


U.O N._ N.
'-j N. C'.j


(a C S- 4-) 4-) 4-3
' M -;I- Lo ..



a)
X U



l r O o
a) 'a

X 0 -


o

*r-
40

LI







4^J



So

r- t

C0 *

S.-

0I


C.)
0



-J



















co
f\


- Co
0 0


Q-




r-




O
4-












DO
C:
5- 0
a) r-












4a
0)




0S-




a)0






*r-
'o
4-,
a)















c
0


S- 'a





-o
S a
4-,



S-Q



'a










The zero-order correlation between LOC and SMbf was -.147 which

is in the predicted direction and statistically significant (p <.01).

Sex and race were not significantly related to SMbf. The F-ratio

of LOC, as a predictor of SMbf, with sex and race partialed out was

5.41 (df = 3, 196) which is significant at the .01 level. However,

LOC accounted for less than three percent of the variance in SMbf.

With sex, race, and LOC entered into the multiple regression equation,

none of the other variables [(LOC x sex), (LOC x race), (LOC2)] was

a significant predictor of SMbf.


Second hypothesis. The second hypothesis predicted a significant

relationship between locus of control (LOC) and sociometric status

on the work-project item (SM ), when sex and race were partialed

out. It was also predicted that the relationship between LOC and

SMwp would be greater than the relationship between LOC and SMbf.

As in the first hypothesis, (LOC x sex), (LOC x race), and LOC2

were tested for significance. The results of the multiple regression

are presented in Table 4-3.

The zero-order correlation between LOC and SMwp was -.302 which

is in the predicted direction and significant at the .0001 level.

A formula recommended by Roscoe (1969) was used to determine the

statistical significance, if any, of the difference between this

correlation (r = .-302) and the correlation between LOC and SMbf

(-.147). These two correlations were not significantly












61









vm o

(A 0
4-' .,- 4-)- -t
4-) 3 4-> co CMj Cr Y) LO a)
,o 0 ( C C\J C\j L0 -I C\J




4-
ul (\II C. )\ C\_ C\J


a)
E (a

o a
4-) L) L- C.
"' O r- C) C) C)O

0 ,
O "-)r- ) 0"


S X U
4- 3) m aI S









.0 S- 0 to
o ri ro(0.- c E ( V) s s S-
I > ,, 4-' a)
S- *
CL X X
-- a a) a)


E0

3 (D











*e-
4- a) 0






0 -" .r-
u ) C) m C)
a a o o) o o CD

1o- o- o
o I u

*0- )O


S4- .0 00 N


+-
a) 0L
S- 0 0 I-



0 .-1


-' w-0) (n S- 4-3 4- 4-)
CD M Z O

I 4-3

cx S
.1 a) a) to
(U rc x x
r)- S.-

S x u C-
Sa) ro C C) C)
F- II) -1 J 1J -J _










different from each other at the .05 level, but the probability that

they were not different was less than .10.

Sex and race were the first variables in the multiple regression

equation, but neither produced a significant F-ratio. With sex

and race partialed out, LOC produced a F-ratio of 18.23 (df = 3, 196)

which was significant at the .01 level. LOC, with sex and race con-

trolled for, accounted for about eight percent of the variance in SM .
wp
With sex, race, and locus of control entered into the multiple regres-

sion equation, (LOC x sex), (LOC x race), and LOC2 were not statisti-

cally significant.


Third hypothesis. The third hypothesis postulated a significant rela-

tionship between a subject's locus of control (LOC) and the locus of

control of his friends (F-LOC), even when sex and race were accounted

for. Interactions between sex and locus of control (LOC x sex) and

race and locus of control (LOC x race) and a curvilinear locus of con-

trol term (LOC2) were also'checked for significance. The results of

the multiple regression equation used to predict F-LOC are presented

in Table 4-4.

The zero-order correlation between the subject's locus of control

(LOC) and the locus of control of their friends (F-LOC) was .228 which

was significant (p <.00001). With sex and race partialed out, LOC

produced an F-ratio of 7.15 (df = 3, 409) which was a significant (p <

.01) predictor of F-LOC, but it accounted for less than two percent

of the variance in F-LOC.






















a0 C\M LO 00 I CM.
- ) \j r c) CMi CD
L3- r-- N i
N~h~LO f


4-'



0



ro
a)










-r
4-)





-o



*r
4-


4-1


O-















O4-'
-_
(na




C-


4-
0



0




a)


-0


4-
4-



u















4-









-o
(a
5-c





4-



0


U
c
a3


*4-
C


CA

0

'r




c





C0

r0)-
25-






a)


n-


S 0C
ro -_j
() )D s-
C u
0 'a a)
C S- X U





(U 4
a)
C,








m











Cv') (\j C)









C L O) "-
Ln i- o <^


C L
O O










S r-I-
O0 CO












I I


4-' -o -o _cI c 4-
CA C S.- 4-) 4-J J






X .u

C) S.-

x x

u X 0 0 0 0
S/ __ _j _|
M 0 J0 J


0-

a)







4-




aO



0 (0


NO
S- m-

-a 0
U



rO












0
a)


CO





C O




4->



rD

cr
s-'

-a


-o


Lno
v v
V V











With sex, race, and LOC partialed out, both interactions (LOC

x sex and LOC x race) added small, but statistically significant

(p < .01, p < .05, respectively), contributions to the equation.

An ex post facto analysis indicated that the interactions were such

that LOC was significantly related to F-LOC for females (r = .31,

p <.000001), but not for males (r = .03), and that LOC was signifi-

cantly related to F-LOC for whites (r = .20, p < .00011), but not

for blacks (r = .06).

With sex, race, and LOC partialed out, the curvilinear term

(LOC2) added a small, but statistically significant (p < .05),

contribution to the equation. The chi square matrix illustrated in

Table 4-5 suggests that the nature of the curvilinear relationship

between LOC and F-LOC is such that the similarity hypothesis is

valid for internals, but not for externals. Therefore, the multiple

regression equation was run separately for internals and externals.



Table 4-5.--Chi square matrix indicating the locus of control of
friends chosen by internals, moderates, and externals


Friends' locus of control

Internals Moderates Externals


Choosers Internals
(N = 154) 83 27 44

Moderates
(N = 128) 47 40 41

Externals
(N = 131) 42 42 47


Chi square = 17.33, df = 4, p <.002.










Table 4-6 compares the ability of LOC to predict F-LOC in three

samples--the total sample, internals, and externals. For externals,

neither their sex nor their locus of control was significantly

related to the locus of control of their friends. For internals,

LOC was significantly related to F-LOC (r = .40, p < .00001); but,

with sex and race partialed out while LOC was statistically signifi-

cant (p < .01), it accounted for only 2.2 percent of the variance

in F-LOC.



Table 4-6.--Simple correlation and unique contribution of LOC in
predicting F-LOC for total sample, internals, and
externals


Simple r Unique contribution F-ratio
Sample (LOC/F-LOC) of LOC with sex and race of unique
accounted for contribution

Total
(N = 413) .23 .015 7.47**

Internals
(N = 154) .26 .022 3.89*

Externals
.(N = 131) .05 .000 .032


p < .05.
**p < .01.




Thus,locus of control was a statistically significant predictor

of SMbf, SM p, and F-LOC. The theoretical and practical significance

of these results are presented in the next section.











Discussion of the Results


The theoretical and educational significance of each hypothesis

is discussed in the following section. Also, some recommendations

for future research and theory development are discussed.


First hypothesis. Although the relationship between locus of control

and sociometric status on the best friends item was statistically

significant, even with sex and race controlled, the relationship was

so slight that it lacked practical significance. In fact, for all

practical purposes, this study indicated that internals and externals

are about equal in social popularity; this supports Nowicki and Round-

tree (1971) and Adinolfi (1970) who found no relationship between

locus of control and sociometric status on purely social items.

This researcher expected that locus of control would be a more

potent predictor of sociometric status. Its weakness as a predictor

may be due to any one or a combination of the following explanations:


1. Externals may value friendship more than internals.

According to social learning theory (Rotter, 1954), behavior is a

function of both an individual's expectancy about his behavior

obtaining reinforcement and the value the individual places on the

reinforcement in question. Therefore, a low expectancy could be

balanced out by a highly valued reinforcement. For example, a starving

person might strive desperately for food, even when he has a low

expectancy of obtaining food.










2. There may be a specific sense of control related to social

situations that is not highly correlated with generalized locus of

control.

3. Locus of control may be related to goal-seeking behavior,

but not to the more spontaneous behavior of making and maintaining

friendships.


The first explanation (externals may value friendship more than

internals) may have some merit. Therefore, future studies that in-

vestigate the relationship between locus of control and peer acceptance

should include a measure of the need for affiliation.

The second explanation (there is a specific sense of control

related to social situations) may have some merit. Even though studies

that have factor analyzed locus of control scales have not yielded a

purely social factor, it may be that the items of these scales do not

tap such a dimension.

The third explanation' (locus of control is related only to goal-

seeking behavior) is closely related to the previous explanation. Locus

of control has been more clearly related to goal-directed activities,

like academic work and problem solving. These activities are usually

step-by-step procedures that are aided by planning and directed at

specific, known goals. These activities also rely heavily on cognitive

ability. On the other hand, an adolescent's social world is not a

step-by-step process. Specific goals are usually not formulated; and

if they are formulated and adhered to in a rigid manner, the goal-seeker










is almost guaranteed social failure. Also, cognitive skill is less

important in social situations than it is in school and similar

activities. It seems that locus of control is most clearly associated

with methodical, cognitive effort; and this type of effort may not

be as helpful in formal social situations as it is in formal academic-

like tasks.

The processes of adolescent friendship need further explanation.

It would be helpful to know more about how and why adolescents associate

with each other. It would also be helpful to understand how adolescents

(and others) perceive their relationships with their friends. For

example, do people believe they can control their friends? If they do,

what do they mean by "control?" What effects, if any, do different

notions of control have on social relationships? It seems as though

present locus of control instrumentation is too restrictive for such

an exploration. Psychologists should begin with in-depth interviews,

field observation, and projective testing. Open-ended procedures may

produce data that can be used to formulate a concept of man's percep-

tion of his interaction with his environment that is more sophisticated

and more complex than Rotter's concept of locus of control.

Concerning the educational significance of this hypothesis, it

appears that internality is not clearly associated with popularity

or the lack of popularity. Therefore, educators (probably) need not

be concerned with possible social disadvantages of internality, at

least not on an individual basis. (Increasing internality may have










some disadvantages to the group; for example, is a team integrated

with internals and externals more productive and harmonious than a

team that is exclusively internal or external? In other words, this

study produced no evidence suggesting a child may lose peer acceptance

in becoming more internal. Therefore, educators can proceed with

more confidence in advocating internality change programs.

In summary, future studies that investigate the relationship

between locus of control and peer acceptance should use a measure of

the need for friendship, since social learning theory predicts that

the value of peer acceptance should interact with locus of control

and peer acceptance. Also, as described above, a more complex,

socially sensitive concept of sense of control should be used. Although

there may be no social disadvantages associated with internality on

an individual basis, the effects of locus of control on group harmony

and productivity should be investigated.


Second hypothesis. Locus of control was an effective predictor of

sociometric status on the academic project item. This finding suggests

that the subjects chose peers who did well in school, and those students

tended to be internal. This evidence adds support to the notion that

internality is associated with academic success.

This finding is closely related to the results of the Nowicki and

Roundtree (1971) study; in their study internals were not more popular

than externals on the best friends item, but internal males were more











popular on a sociometric item that asked for nominations for class

president. Thus,internals were given more consideration for tasks

requiring intelligence and responsibility.

Future studies that relate locus of control to popularity on a

task-oriented item should use appitude in that task as a covariate.


Third hypothesis. Like the first hypothesis, this hypothesis was

statistically significant but lacked practical significance due to the

small size of the relationship between the dependent and independent

variables. The data suggest that, given a biracial population of

eighth grade boys and girls, there is a tendency for these students,

especially the internals, to choose friends of a similar locus of

control. However, most of this tendency is due to racial and sexual

divisions within the classroom and racial and sexual differences in

locus of control. In this sample the students chose, almost exclu-

sively, friends of the same race and sex. Since black males, black

females, white males, and white females all differed in locus of con-

trol, there was a substantial correlation between a subject's locus of

control and his friends' locus of control on the basis of sex and race.

When sex and race were partialed out, there was only a slight tendency

for subjects to choose friends of a similar locus of control. This

tendency was especially evident for three overlapping subgroups within

the total sample--internals, females, and whites. The results of this

hypothesis parallel the results obtained by Nowicki and Blumberg (1975)










and Phares and Wilson (1971) in that internals showed a preference

for fellow internals and externals did not prefer other externals.

It appears that in real-life situations similarity in locus of

control is not an overriding factor in interpersonal attraction.

Perhaps a more sophisticated concept of control, one more applicable

to social situations than Rotter's (1966), would be a more significant

factor in interpersonal attraction. However, even a more sophisti-

cated model of sense of control would be limited by the similarity

hypothesis itself. This researcher does not recommend any further

research on similarity in locus of control as a factor in interper-

sonal attraction, because Phares and Wilson (1971), Nowicki and

Blumberg (1975), and-this study all produced the same finding--inter-

nals have a slight tendency to prefer fellow internals, and externals

do not prefer other externals.

There is a serendipitous finding of this study that deserves

mention. Only two of the 200 subjects chose a classmate of another

race as one of their "best friends"; a white girl and a black girl

chose each other. Considering that this study was conducted in a

school that has been desegregated, this finding suggests an important

question. How is desegregation to help black children assimilate

work-oriented attitudes, like an internal locus of control orientation,

if blacks and whites remain socially separate? Of course, this ques-

tion is based on the assumption that internality can be learned through

modeling in informal, social situations; the investigation of this

assumption would be an interesting study in itself.








72

In summary, the data indicated that (1) the internal subjects

were slightly more popular, as friends, than the externals, (2) the

internals were considerably more popular as working partners, and

(3) the subjects, especially the internals, had a tendency to choose

friends of a similar locus of control, but most of this tendency was

due to racial and sexual preferences and racial and sexual differences

in locus of control.

In this chapter the results have been presented and discussed.

In the next chapter the study is summarized and the conclusions are

stated.














CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The final chapter consists of two sections. The first section

is a summary of the purpose, rationale, methodology, and results

of the study. The second section states the conclusions, including

recommendations for future research.


Summary


This study investigated the relationship between adolescents'

locus of control and their peer preferences. Locus of control was

defined as the degree to which an individual expects that his rein-

forcement is contingent upon his behavior; individuals with an

internal locus of control generally believe that they control what

happens to them, whereas those with an external locus of control

believe that their destiny is beyond their control and is determined

by fate, luck, or powerful others.

There has been a great deal of research indicating that inter-

nality is associated with academic success and cognitive superiority,

but there has been relatively little investigation of the social

correlates of locus of control. This study related locus of control

to popularity as a friend, popularity as a working partner, and











interpersonal attraction. More specifically, the following

hypotheses were tested:


1. Internal adolescents are more popular (have more friends)

than their external peers.

2. Internals are more popular as working partners on an

academic project than they are as friends.

3. Adolescents tend to choose as friends those who are

similar to themselves in locus of control.


To investigate these hypotheses, 200 eighth graders were

administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for

Children and two sociometric items. The first sociometric item

was "Name the students who are your best friends"; and the second

item was "If you had to work on a group project in English with

three other students who would you select to work with?"

Multiple regression was used to analyze each hypothesis. For

the first hypothesis the dependent variable was sociometric status on

the best friends item (SMSbf); that is, the number of times the subject

was chosen as a best friend. The principal independent variable was

the subject's locus of control (LOC); thus locus of control was used

to predict popularity. Sex and race were controlled by forcing these

two variables into the multiple regression equation before locus of

control. Also, interactions between locus of control and sex (LOC x

sex) and locus of control and race (LOC x race) and curvilinear locus










of control term (LOC2) were checked for significance. Thus, the

complete multiple regression equation was as follows:


SMSbf = sex + race + LOC + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race) + LOC2


The predictors for the other two hypotheses were the same as

above; the dependent variable for the second hypothesis was socio-

metric status on the work-project item, and for the third hypothesis

it was the subjects' friends' locus of control. Thus,the subjects'

locus of control was used to predict their social popularity,

popularity as a working partner, and their friends' locus of control.

In each of these multiple regression equations, with sex and

race partialed out, locus of control was a statistically significant

(p < .01) predictor of the dependent variable. However, locus of

control, with sex and race partialed out, accounted for less than

three percent of the variance in social popularity and less than

two percent of the variance in friends' locus of control. Locus

of control accounted for about eight percent of the variance in socio-

metric status on the work-project item. The following table sum-

marizes the efficacy of locus of control in predicting sociometric

status on the best friends item (SMSbf), sociometric status on the

academic work-project item (SMS ), friends' locus of control (F-LOC).

The conclusions of this study are stated in the next section.










Table 5-1.--Locus of control as a predictor of popularity as a
friend and work partner and friends' locus of control


With variables partialed out
Dependent Hpo i Zero-order
variable Hypothesis correlation Variance F-ratio
accounted for

SMSbp 1st -.147 2.7% 5.41*

SMSwp 2nd -.302 8.4% 18.23*

F-LOC 3rd .228 1.5% 7.15*


*p < .01



Conclusions


The results of this study indicate the following:


1. Internal adolescents are slightly more popular than exter-

nals as best friends.

2. Internals are more popular as partners on an academic project

than they are as best friends.

3. In a biracial group of eighth grade boys and girls almost

all students choose best friends of the same sex and race.

4. Using the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale to

measure the locus of control of eighth graders, white females are

more internal than white males who are more internal than black

females, and black males are the most external.










5. In a biracial population of eighth grade boys and girls

there is a significant tendency for these adolescents to choose

best friends of a similar locus of control, but most of this tendency

is due to sexual and racial preferences and sexual and racial dif-

ferences in locus of control.

6. The tendency to choose friends of a similar locus of control

was most evident for whites, females, and internals.


Based on the results of this study, the following suggestions

were recommended for future research in the social aspects of locus

of control:


1. Covariates like sex, race, socioeconomic status, and IQ

should be used in locus of control research. Perhaps some of the

variables that have been related to locus of control were overesti-

mated because of a third variable that was related to both locus of

control and the variable being investigated.

2. Interactions between locus of control and variables like

sex, race, socioeconomic status, and IQ should be examined. Perhaps

some significant relationships with locus of control have been over-

looked, because the investigator did not check for interactions.

3. When relating locus of control to peer acceptance, the need

for approval should be considered in that social learning theory

predicts that the need for approval should interact with locus of

control and peer acceptance.











4. Also, curvilinear relationships between locus of control

and relevant variables should be explored. Perhaps, as it was in

this study, the variable has a different relationship to internal

locus of control than to external locus of control.

5. There is a possibility that informal, social segregation

within desegregated schools is preventing blacks from acquiring

desirable middle class attitudes; this possibility needs to be

investigated.

6. The effects of locus of control on group harmony and pro-

ductivity should be investigated. For example, a study could compare

the productivity and harmony of a group integrated with internals and

externals to groups that were exclusively internal or external.

7. The possibility that locus of control has special signifi-

cance for goal-directed behavior (like academic work), rather than

spontaneous behavior (like making friends), deserves investigation

and consideration in theory construction.

8. A theory more sophisticated than Rotter's concept of locus

of control needs to be developed to explain man's perception of his

interaction with his environment (especially his social environment).

This theory development should begin with a series of open-ended

exploratory studies.


These last two recommendations, especially the last one, suggest

major changes in locus of control theory. Although it will be








79

difficult to abandon the standardized instruments, the linear model,

and traditional psychological methodology; it will be necessary if

locus of control is to help psychologists make insightful discoveries

about the nature of man.


































APPENDICES


































APPENDIX A














APPENDIX A
THE NOWICKI-STRICKLAND LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE FOR CHILDREN


INSTRUCTIONS: There are 40 questions to this survey. Please answer
them by checking (/) the YES or NO column for each question. There
are no right or wrong answers--your honest opinion is what matters.


YES NO

1. Do you believe that most problems will solve them-
selves if you just don't fool with them?

2. Do you believe that you can stop yourself from
catching a cold?

3. Are some kids just born lucky?

4. Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades
means a great deal to you?

5. Are you often blamed for things that just aren't your
fault?

6. Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough
he or she can pass any subject?

7. Do you feel that most of the time it doesn't pay to
try hard because things never turn out right anyway?

8. Do you feel that if things start out well in the
morning that it's going to be a good day no matter
what you do?

9. Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to
what their children have to say?










YES


NO


10.


11.


12.


13.


14.


15.


16.


17.


18.


19.


20.


21.


22.


23.


24.


Do you believe that wishing can make good things
happen?

When you get punished does it usually seem it's for
no good reason at all?

Most ,of the time do you find it hard to change a
friend's (mind) opinion?

Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a
team to win?

Do you feel that it's nearly impossible to change
your parent's mind about anything?

Do you believe that your parents should allow you to
make most of your own decisions?

Do you feel that when you do something wrong there's
very little you can do to make it right?

Do you believe that most kids are just born good
at sports?

Are most of the other kids your age stronger than
you are?

Do you feel that one of the best ways to handle most
problems is just not think about them?

Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in deciding
who your friends are?

If you find a four leaf clover, do you believe that
it might bring you good luck?

Do you often feel that whether you do your homework
has much to do with what kind of grades you get?

Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit
you, there's little you can do to stop him or her?

Have you ever had a good luck charm?










YES NO

25. Do you believe that whether or not people like you
depends on how you act?

26. Will your parents usually help you if you ask them
to?

27. Have you felt that when people were mean to you it
was uaually for no reason at all?

28. Most of the time, do you feel that you can change
what might happen tomorrow by what you do today?

29. Do you believe that when bad things are going to
happen they just are going to happen no matter what
you try to do to stop them?

30. Do you think that kids can get their own way if they
just keep trying?

31. Most of the time do you find it useless to try to
get your own way at home?

32. Do you feel that when good things happen they happen
because of hard work?

33. Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be
your enemy there's little you can do to change mat-
ters?

34. Do you feel that it's easy to get friends to do what
you want them to?

35. Do you usually feel that you have little to say about
what you get to eat at home?

36. Do you feel that when someone doesn't like you there's
little you can do about it?

37. Do you usually feel that it's almost useless to try
in school because most other children are just plain
smarter than you are?

38. Are you the kind of person who believes that planning
ahead makes things turn out better?








85


YES NO

39. Most of the time, do you feel that you have little
to say about what your family decides to do?

40. Do you think it's better to be smart than to be
lucky?



































APPENDIX B















APPENDIX B
THE SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONNAIRE*


A. Most classrooms have a few students who joke a lot and who make
others in the room laugh. These are the "Class Clowns." Please
list below the names (first and last) of the students you know
who clown around a lot. Students should be in yourlgrade.

1.

2.

3.


**
B.


Name the students who are your best friends.


3.

C. Name the students who usually come up with the best ideas for
class projects or activities.

1.

2.

3.
**
D. If you had to work on a group project in English with three other
students, and half of your grade depended upon this project, which
three students would you select to work with?







88

E. List the students that you think are liked by most everyone
in the class.
1.
2.
3.

Damico and Purkey, 1976.
Questions used in this study.


L














REFERENCES


Abrahamson, D., Schulderman, S., & Schulderman, E. Replication
of dimensions of locus of control. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 320.

Abramowitz, S. I. Locus of control and self-reported depression
among college students. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25,
149-150.

Adinolfi, A. A. Characteristics of highly accepted, highly rejected,
and relatively unknown university freshmen. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1970, 17, 456-464.

Ashton, P. T. The effect of internal control training on selected
personality and ability factors. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Georgia, 1974.

Austin, M. C., & Thompson, G. G. Children's friendships: a study of
the bases on which children select and reject their best friends.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1948, 37, 101-116.

Ausubel, D. P.s Schiff, H. M. & Gasser, E. B. A preliminary study
of developmental trends in sociempathy: accuracy of perception
of own and other's sociometric status. Child Development, 1952,
23, 111-128.

Baron, D. Personal-social characteristics and classroom social status:
a sociometric study of fifth- and sixth-grade girls. Sociometry,
1951, 14, 32-42.

Bartel, N. R. Locus of control and achievement in middle- and lower-
class children. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1099-1107.

Bass, B. M. & White, 0. L. Validity of leaderless group discussion
observer's descriptive and evaluative ratings for the assessment
of personality and leadership status. American Psychologist,
1950, 5, 311-312.

Bernhardson, C. S. Relationship between individual social desirability
ratings and hand acquiescense and I-E scores. Psychological
Reports, 1968, 22, 773-776.










Bialer, I. Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally
retarded and normal children. Journal of Personality, 1961,
29, 303-320.

Biehler, R. F. Companion choice behavior in the kindergarten.
Child Development, 1954, 25, 45-50.

Bonney, M. E. Personality traits of socially successful and
socially unsuccessful children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1943, 34, 449-472.

Bonney, M. E. A sociometric study of the relationship of some
factors to mutual friendships of the elementary, secondary,
and college levels. Sociometry, 1945, 9, 21-47.

Bonney, M. E., & Powell, J. Difference in social behavior
between sociometrically high and sociometrically low children.
Journal of Educational Research, 1953, 46, 481-495.

Brown, D. Factors affecting social acceptance of high school
students. School Review, 1954, 42, 151-155.

Brown, J. C., & Strickland, B. R. 'Belief in internal-external con-
trol of reinforcement and participation in college activities.
Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 38, 148.

Brownstone, J. E., & Willis, R. H. Conformity in early and late
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 334-337.

Butterfield, E. C. Locus of Control, test anxiety, reaction to
frustration, and achievement attitudes. Journal of Personality,
1964, 32, 298-311.

Byrd, E. A study of validity and constancy of choices in a socio-
metric test. Sociometry, 1951, 14, 175-181.

Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity.
Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 1961, 62, 713-715.

Byrne, D. The attraction paradigm. 1971, New York: Academic.

Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. Similarity versus liking: a clarifica-
tion. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 295-296.

Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review
of Psychology, 1973, 24, 317-376.










Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-experimental
Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

Cole, H., & Hall, I. N. Psychology of Adolescence (7th ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood,
A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. Equality of Educational
Opportunity. Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. FS 5.238:
38001, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1966.

Cone, J. D. Locus of control and social desirability. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 499.

Cook, L. A. An experimental study of a stratified tenth grade
class. American Sociological Review, 1945, 10, 250-261.

Costanzo, P. R., & Shaw, M. E. Conformity as a function of age level.
Child Development, 1966, 37, 967-975.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. Children's beliefs
in their own control of reinforcement in intellectual-academic
situations. Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-109.

Cromwell, R. L., Rosenthal, D., Shakow, D., & Zahn, T. P. Reaction
time, locus of control, choice behavior, and descriptions of
parental behavior in schizophrenic and normal subjects. Journal
of Personality, 1961, 29, 363-379.

Crowne, D. P., & Liverant, S. Conformity under varying conditions
of personal commitment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1963, 66, 547-555.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlow, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley,
1964.

Damico, S., & Purkey, W. W. The class clown phenomenon among middle
school children. A paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
1976.

Davis, W. L., & Phares, E. J. Internal-external control as a deter-
minant of information-seeking in a social influence situation.
Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 547-561.

deCharms, R. Personal causation training in the schools. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 95-113.




Full Text

PAGE 1

62&,20(75,& &255(/$7(6 2) /2&86 2) &21752/ ,1 ($5/< $'2/(6&(1&( %\ 0 0,&+$(/ )$*$1 $ ',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,'$ -XQH

PAGE 2

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n RXW KHU ORYH DQG VXSSRUW LW ZRXOG KDAH QHYHU EHHQ SRVVLEOH

PAGE 3

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f L L L

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176FRQWLQXHG 3DJH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV )LUVW DQG VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV 7KLUG K\SRWKHVLV &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ ,9 5(68/76 $1' ',6&866,21 5HVXOWV 'HVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV )LUVW K\SRWKHVLV 6HFRQG K\SRWKHVLV 7KLUG K\SRWKHVLV 'LVFXVVLRQ RI WKH 5HVXOWV )LUVW K\SRWKHVLV 6HFRQG K\SRWKHVLV 7KLUG K\SRWKHVLV 9 6800$5< $1' &21&/86,216 6XPPDU\ &RQFOXVLRQV $33(1',&(6 $ 7KH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH IRU &KLOGUHQ % 7KH 6RFLRPHWULF 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YL

PAGE 5

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7DEOH 3DJH 6H[UDFH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PHDQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUHV 7KH PDJQLWXGH DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI YDULDEOHV XVHG WR SUHGLFW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 7KH PDJQLWXGH DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI YDULDEOHV XVHG WR SUHGLFW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 7KH PDJQLWXGH DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI YDULDEOHV XVHG WR SUHGLFW IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO &KL VTXDUH PDWUL[ LQGLFDWLQJ WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI IULHQGV FKRVHQ E\ LQWHUQDOV PRGHUDWHV DQG H[WHUQDOV 6LPSOH FRUUHODWLRQ DQG XQLTXH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI /2& LQ SUHGLFWLQJ )/2& IRU WRWDO VDPSOH LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV /RFXV RI FRQWURO DV D SUHGLFWRU RI SRSXODULW\ DV D IULHQG DQG ZRUN SDUWQHU DQG IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO Y

PAGE 6

$EVWUDFW RI 7KHVLV 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH &RXQFLO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 6RFLRPHWULF &RUUHODWHV RI /RFXV RI &RQWURO LQ (DUO\ $GROHVFHQFH %\ 0 0LFKDHO )DJDQ -XQH &KDLUPDQ 3DWULFLD 7 $VKWRQ 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW )RXQGDWLRQV RI (GXFDWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DGROHVn FHQWVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG WKHLU SHHU SUHIHUHQFHV /RFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV GHILQHG DV WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO H[SHFWV WKDW KLV UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV FRQWLQJHQW XSRQ KLV EHKDYLRU LQGLn YLGXDOV ZLWK DQ LQWHUQDOORFXV RI FRQWURO JHQHUDOO\ EHOLHYH WKDW WKH\ FRQWURO ZKDW KDSSHQV WR WKHP ZKHUHDV WKRVH ZLWK DQ H[WHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO EHOLHYH WKDW WKHLU GHVWLQ\ LV EH\RQG WKHLU FRQWURO DQG LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ IDWH OXFN RU SRZHUIXO RWKHUV 7KHUH KDV EHHQ D JUHDW GHDO RI UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW LQn WHUQDO LW\ LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV DQG FRJQLWLYH VXSHU LRULW\ EXW WKHUH KDV EHHQ UHODWLYHO\ OLWWOH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH VRFLDO FRUUHODWHV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KLV VWXG\ UHODWHG YL

PAGE 7

ORFXV RI FRQWURO WR SRSXODULW\ DV D IULHQG SRSXODULW\ DV D ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHU DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH IROORZLQJ K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WHVWHG ,QWHUQDO DGROHVFHQWV DUH PRUH SRSXODU KDYH PRUH IULHQGVf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nV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f WKXV ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV XVHG WR SUHGLFW SRSXODULW\ 6H[ DQG UDFH ZHUH FRQWUROOHG E\ IRUFLQJ WKHVH WZR YDULDEOHV LQWR WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ EHIRUH ORFXV RI FRQWURO $OVR

PAGE 8

LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VH[ /2& [ VH[f DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG UDFH /2& [ UDFHf DQG FXUYLOLQHDU ORFXV RI FRQWURO WHUP /2&Af ZHUH FKHFNHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH 7KXV WKH FRPSOHWH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ZDV DV IROORZV $ 606A VH[ UDFH /2& /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf /2&A 7KH SUHGLFWRUV IRU WKH RWKHU WZR K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WKH VDPH DV DERYH WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH IRU WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV ZDV VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP DQG IRU WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLVLW ZDV WKH VXEMHFWVn IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KXV WKH VXEMHFWVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV XVHG WR SUHGLFW WKHLU VRFLDO SRSXODULW\ SRSXODULW\ DV D ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHU DQG WKHLU IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,Q HDFK RI WKHVH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILn FDQW  f SUHGLFWRU RI WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH +RZHYHU ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW DFFRXQWHG IRU OHVV WKDQ WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ VRFLDO SRSXODULW\ DQG OHVV WKDQ WZR SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO /RFXV RI FRQWURO DFFRXQWHG IRU DERXW HLJKW SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 7KH GDWD LQGLFDWH WKDW f WKH LQWHUQDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH VOLJKWO\ PRUH SRSXODU DV IULHQGV WKDQ WKH H[WHUQDOV f WKH LQWHUQDOV ZHUH FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH SRSXODU DV ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHUV DQG f WKH YL L L

PAGE 9

VXEMHFWV HVSHFLDOO\ WKH LQWHUQDOV KDG D WHQGHQF\ WR FKRRVH IULHQGV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO EXW PRVW RI WKLV WHQGHQF\ ZDV GXH WR UDFLDO DQG VH[XDO SUHIHUHQFHV DQG UDFLDO DQG VH[XDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 %DFNJURXQG DQG 3XUSRVH /RFXV RI FRQWURO LV D SHUVRQDOLW\ YDULDEOH WKDW KDV JHQHUDWHG D JUHDW GHDO RI UHVHDUFK LQ WKH SDVW WHQ \HDUV 3KDUHV f 5RWWHU f GHYHORSHG WKH FRQFHSW RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG GHVFULEHG LW DV IROORZV :KHQ D UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV SHUFHLYHG E\ WKH VXEMHFW DV IROORZLQJ VRPH DFWLRQ RI KLV RZQ EXW QRW EHLQJ HQWLUHO\ FRQWLQJHQW XSRQ KLV DFWLRQ WKHQLQ RXU FXOWXUH LW LV W\SLFDOO\ SHUFHLYHG DV WKH UHVXOW RI OXFN FKDQFH IDWH DV XQGHU WKH FRQWURO RI SRZHUIXO RWKHUV RU DV XQSUHGLFWDEOH EHFDXVH RI WKH JUHDW FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH IRUFHV VXUURXQGLQJ KLP :KHQ WKH HYHQW LV LQWHUSUHWHG LQ WKLV ZD\ E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZH KDYH ODEHOHG WKLV D EHOLHI LQ H[WHUQDO FRQWURO ,I WKH SHUVRQ SHUFHLYHV WKDW WKH HYHQW LV FRQWLQJHQW XSRQ KLV EHKDYLRU RU KLV RZQ UHODWLYHO\ SHUPDQHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZH KDYH WHUPHG WKLV D EHOLHI LQ LQWHUQDO FRQWURO S f 6LQFH LWV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW &UDQGDOO .DWNRYVN\ t &UDQGDOO f LQIRUPDn WLRQ VHHNLQJ 'DYLV t 3KDUHV f ELUWK FRQWURO SUDFWLFH 0DF'RQDOG f VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV /HIFRXUW f DQG D KRVW RI RWKHU YDULn DEOHV $V 3KDUHV f LQGLFDWHG

PAGE 11

7KH PRVW EDVLF FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI LQWHUQDO LQGLYLGXDOV DSSHDUV WR EH WKHLU JUHDWHU HIIRUWV DW FRSLQJ ZLWK RU DWWDLQLQJ PDVWHU\ RYHU WKHLU HQYLURQPHQWV 7KLV LV WKH PRVW HOHPHQWDO GHGXFWLRQ WKDW FRXOG EH PDGH IURP WKH QDWXUH RI WKH ,( YDULDEOH )RUWXQDWHO\ WKLV GHGXFWLRQ KDV UHFHLYHG ZLGHVSUHDG VXSSRUW IURP H[SHULn PHQWV ZLWK PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV LQ D YDULHW\ RI VLWXDWLRQV S f ,QWHUQDOV DUH JHQHUDOO\ PRUH VXFFHVVIXO WKDQ H[WHUQDOV DW DFKLHYHPHQWRULHQWHG WDVNV HVSHFLDOO\ FRJQLWLYH RQHV )RU H[DPSOH DV FRPSDUHG WR H[WHUQDOV LQWHUQDOV REWDLQ EHWWHU JUDGHV &UDQGDOO HW DO f DUH EHWWHU SUREOHP VROYHUV 'X&HWWH t :RON f DQG XWLOL]H LQIRUPDWLRQ PRUH HIIHFWLYHO\ 6HHPDQ 3KDUHV f +RZHYHU UHODWLYHO\ OLWWOH LV NQRZQ DERXW WKH VRFLDO FRUUHODWHV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,W ZRXOG EH KHOSIXO WR NQRZ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LI DQ\ EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG SHHU DFFHSWDQFH 3HUKDSV LQWHUQDOV DUH QRW RQO\ VXFFHVVIXO LQ VFKRRO EXW DOVR ZHOOOLNHG E\ WKHLU SHHUV RU SHUKDSV WKHLU VXSHULRU DFKLHYHPHQW LV FRPSHQVDWLRQ IRU WKH ODFN RI VRFLDO DFFHSWDQFH 3HUKDSV LQWHUQDOV DUH PRUH SRSXODU DV ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHUV WKDQ WKH\ DUH DV IULHQGV ,W ZRXOG DOVR EH KHOSIXO WR XQGHUn VWDQG WKH G\QDPLFV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO 3HUKDSV LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV FRPSOHPHQW HDFK RWKHU DQG EHFRPH IULHQGV RU SHUKDSV LQWHUQDOV WHQG WR DVVRFLDWH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU DQG H[WHUQDOV ZLWK IHOORZ H[WHUQDOV ,W ZDV WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SRVVLELOLWLHV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH SUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSK 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG

PAGE 12

$UH LQWHUQDO DGROHVFHQWV PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ WKHLU H[WHUQDO SHHUV" $UH WKH\ VHOHFWHG PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ DV IULHQGV"f $UH LQWHUQDOV PRUH SRSXODU DV ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHUV WKDQ WKH\ DUH DV IULHQGV" 'R WKH\ UHFHLYH PRUH VHOHFWLRQV DV ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHUV RQ DQ DFDGHPLF SURMHFW WKDQ DV IULHQGV"f 'R DGROHVFHQWV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO SUHIHU HDFK RWKHU DV IULHQGV" 'R LQWHUQDOV WHQG WR VHOHFW RWKHU LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV IHOORZ H[WHUQDOV"f ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW DOO RI WKHVH TXHVWLRQV ZRXOG EH DQVZHUHG LQ WKH DIILUPDWLYH ,Q WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV LV GLVFXVVHG 6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG SUDFWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKLV VWXG\ DUH GLVFXVVHG VHSDUDWHO\ LQ WKH VXEVHFWLRQV WKDW IROORZ 7KHRUHWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH FRQFHSW RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO 5RWWHU f HPHUJHG IURP 5RWWHUnV f VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ 7KH FRUn QHUVWRQH RI 5RWWHUnV VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ LV WKH SULQFLSOH WKDW EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI H[SHFWDQF\ 3KDUHV f $FFRUGLQJ WR 5RWWHU RQH RI WKH LPSRUWDQW IDFWRUV WKDW GHWHUPLQHV ZKHWKHU RU QRW D EHKDYLRU ZLOO RFFXU LV WKH H[SHFWDQF\ WKDW WKH EHKDYLRU ZLOO KHOS WR SURGXFH D YDOXHG JRDO RU RXWFRPH WKH KLJKHU WKH H[SHFWDQF\ WKH PRUH OLNHO\ WKH RFFXUUHQFH RI WKH EHKDYLRU %\ GHILQLWLRQ 5RWWHU f

PAGE 13

LQWHUQDOV JHQHUDOO\ H[SHFW WKDW WKHLU EHKDYLRU ZLOO SURGXFH GHVLUHG UHVXOWV DQG E\ GHILQLWLRQ H[WHUQDOV KDYH D ORZ H[SHFWDQF\ WKDW WKHLU EHKDYLRU ZLOO PDNH D GLIIHUHQFH 7KHUHIRUH LQWHUQDOV VKRXOG EHKDYH PRUH HIIHFWLYHO\ LQ JRDOGLUHFWHG WDVNV $V SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG WKLV SRVWXODWH KDV UHFHLYHG VWURQJ HPSLULFDO VXSSRUW LQ VLWXDWLRQV WKDW FDOO IRU FRJQLWLYH VNLOO DQG PDVWHU\ +RZHYHU WKH SURSRVLWLRQ KDV UDUHO\ EHHQ WHVWHG LQ D VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQ ,I 5RWWHUnV SULQFLSOH EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI H[SHFWDQF\f FDQ EH JHQHUDOL]HG IURP FRJQLWLYH WDVNV WR VRFLDO RQHV LQWHUQDOV VKRXOG EH PRUH HIIHFWLYH IULHQGVHHNHUV DQG WKHLU HIIHFWLYH IULHQGn VHHNLQJ EHKDYLRU VKRXOG UHVXOW LQ PRUH IULHQGV 7KXVLQWHUQDOV VKRXOG KDYH KLJKHU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV WKDQ H[WHUQDOV RQ D VRFLRPHWULF LWHP WKDW DVNV IRU EHVW IULHQGV 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV RI WKLV VWXG\ LV 5RWWHUnV SULQFLSOH WKDW EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI H[SHFWDQF\ ,Q WKLV FDVH EHKDYLRU LV QRW PHDVXUHG GLUHFWO\ EXW UDWKHU WKH LQIHUUHG UHVXOW RI EHKDYLRU IULHQGVf LV PHDVXUHG E\ VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ 7KH H[SHFWDQF\ YDULDEOH LV ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV LV DQ H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH UDWLRQDOH RI WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV 1RW RQO\ VKRXOG LQWHUQDOV EH PRUH HIIHFWLYH IULHQGVHHNHUV EXW WKH\ VKRXOG DOVR EH SHUFHLYHG E\ WKHLU SHHUV DV EHLQJ PRUH FRPSHWHQW DW DFDGHPLF WDVNV 7KXV LQWHUQDOV VKRXOG UHFHLYH VRPH VXSSRUW VRFLRPHWULF VHOHFWLRQVf RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU K\SRWKHVL]HG VRFLDO VXSHULRULW\ ILUVW K\SRWKHVLVf SOXV DGGLWLRQDO

PAGE 14

VXSSRUW IRU WKHLU FRJQLWLYH VXSHULRULW\ ,W LV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV ZLOO UHFRJQL]H WKH FRJQLWLYH VXSHULRULW\ RI LQWHUQDOV DQG FKRRVH WKHP DV ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHUV 7KHUHIRUH WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV LV WKDW LQWHUQDOV KDYH KLJKHU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH WDVNRULHQWHG VRFLRPHWULF LWHP WKDQ RQ WKH SXUHO\ VRFLDO LWHP EHVW IULHQGVf 7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV VWHPV IURP WKH UHVHDUFK DQG WKHRU\ LQ VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ RQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ 1HZFRPE f DQG %\UQH f KDYH VKRZQ WKDW VLPLODULW\ LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ RU DWWLWXGH LV D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ $OWKRXJK WKHUH DUH PDQ\ H[FHSWLRQV SHRSOH WHQG WR EH DWWUDFWHG WR WKRVH ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV HVSHFLDOO\ LI WKHLU VLPLODULW\ LV UHLQIRUFLQJ %\UQH f DQG FUHDWHV LQWHUSHUVRQDO EDODQFH 1HZFRPE f $FFRUGLQJ WR 1HZFRPE D EDODQFHG UHODWLRQn VKLS RFFXUV ZKHQ D SHUVRQ IDYRUDEO\ HYDOXDWHV DQRWKHU SHUVRQ DQG ERWK DJUHH LQ WKHLU HYDOXDWLRQ RI D WKLUG REMHFW RU SHUVRQ 7KH VLPLn ODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV WKH SURSSVLWLRQ WKDW VLPLODU SHRSOH DUH DWWUDFWHG WR HDFK RWKHUf KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG E\ D JUHDW GHDO RI UHVHDUFK %\UQH %\UQH t *ULIILWW f 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1HZFRPEnV WKHRU\ WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO VXJJHVWV WKDW LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV ZRXOG QRW KDYH D EDODQFHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHFDXVH WKH\ ZRXOG GLVDJUHH RQ PDQ\ LPSRUWDQW LVVXHV IRU H[DPSOH WKH H[LVWHQFH RI OXFN RU IDWH DQG WKH YDOXH RI SODQQLQJf %DVHG RQ 1HZFRPEnV WKHRU\ LW ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKHUH ZRXOG EH D SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ D SHUVRQnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI KLV IULHQGV

PAGE 15

8n 7KXV WKLV VWXG\ KDV WKHRUHWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH LQ WKDW LW WHVWV W DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI D VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ SULQFLSOH EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI H[SHFWDQF\f WR D VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQ 7KH VWXG\ DOVR WHVWV WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KH VWXGLHV WKDW VXSSRUW WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UDWLRQDOH DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH QH[W FKDSWHU WKH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH ,Q WKH QH[W VXEVHFWLRQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKLV VWXG\ LV GLVFXVVHG (GXFDWLRQDO VLJQLILFDQFH ,Q WKH SDVW \HDUV HGXFDWRUV KDYH EHFRPH YHU\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO 0F*HH DQG &UDQGDOO f %URZQ DQG 6WULFNODQG f DQG %DUWHO f IRXQG D SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LQWHUQDOLW\ DQG DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV +RZHYHU WKH ZHOONQRZQ &ROHPDQ 5HSRUW &ROHPDQ &DPSEHOO +REVRQ 0F3DUWODQG 0RRG :HLQILHOG t
PAGE 16

$OO RI WKH UHVHDUFK SRLQWV WR WKH VDPH FRQFOXVLRQ SHRSOH DUH KDQGLFDSSHG E\ DQ H[WHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO RULHQWDWLRQ 7KH SUHYDLOLQJ EHOLHI LV WKDW LW LV GHVLUDEOH WR FKDQJH SHRSOH HVSHFLDOO\ WKRVH ZKR DUH QRW GRLQJ ZHOO LQ RXU VRFLHW\ LQ WKH GLUHFn WLRQ RI LQWHUQDOLW\ S f :LWK WKLV LQWHQWLRQ LQ PLQG GH&KDUPV f 6WHSKHQV f 5HLPDQLV DQG 6FKDHIHU f 1RZLFNL DQG %DUQHV f +DZHV f DQG $VKWRQ f FRQGXFWHG H[SHULPHQWV WKDW ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR KHOS FKLOGUHQ EHFRPH PRUH LQWHUQDO 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKHLU ZRUN LQGLFDWH WKDW FHUWDLQ PHWKRGV KHOS VRPH SHRSOH WR EHFRPH PRUH LQWHUQDO DQG WKDW WKLV FKDQJH FRLQFLGHV ZLWK DFDGHPLF LPSURYHPHQW RU LPSURYHPHQW LQ VNLOOV UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV 6R IDU WKH SURJUDPV IRU FKDQJLQJ ORFXV RI FRQWURO KDYH EHHQ RI DQ H[SHULPHQWDO QDWXUH +RZHYHU D JURXS RI HGXFDWRUV DQG VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV 1DWLRQDO &RPPLWWHH RQ /RFXV RI &RQWURO DQG 6HOI(VWHHP f KDYH UHFRPPHQGHG GHYHORSLQJ QDWLRQDO QRUPV IRU D ORFXV RI FRQWURO WHVW VR WKDW LW FDQ EH DGPLQLVWHUHG WR DOO SXEOLF VFKRRO VWXGHQWV 7KLV VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW ZRXOG EH XVHG WR PHDVXUH JURZWK LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO EHFRPLQJ PRUH LQWHUQDOf WHDFKHUV ZRXOG EH H[SHFWHG WR LPSURYH ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUHV DV WKH\ DUH H[SHFWHG WR LPSURYH WKHLU VWXGHQWVn DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW VFRUHV 7KH FRPPLWWHH DOVR UHFRPPHQGHG VHYHUDO VWUDWHJLHV IRU LQFUHDVLQJ LQWHUQDOLW\ &RQVLGHULQJ WKH PRYHPHQW WRZDUG LQWHUQDOLW\ WUDLQLQJ DQ LQYHVWLn JDWLRQ RI WKH VRFLDO FRUUHODWHV EHFRPHV FUXFLDO ,I HGXFDWRUV SODQ WR KHOS VWXGHQWV EHFRPH PRUH LQWHUQDO WKH\ VKRXOG NQRZ DOO WKDW HQWDLOV ,Q WKLV UHVSHFW WKLV VWXG\ VKRXOG KHOS LQ WKH IROORZLQJ ZD\V

PAGE 17

,I WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKDW LQWHUQDOV KDYH YHU\ IHZ IULHQGV HGXFDWRUV QHHG WR V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DQG WKRURXJKO\ LQYHVWLJDWH WKH VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW RI LQWHUQDOV EHIRUH LQLWLDWLQJ DQ\ ODUJHVFDOH DWWHPSWV WR KHOS VWXGHQWV EHFRPH PRUH LQWHUQDO 3HUKDSV JDLQV LQ DFKLHYHPHQW DUH QRW ZRUWK SRVVLEOH VRFLDO PDODGMXVWn PHQW ,I WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ GR QRW VXJJHVW WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH LQDGHTXDWH VRFLDOO\ HGXFDWRUV FDQ SURFHHG ZLWK D OLWWOH PRUH FRQILGHQFH LQ SODQQLQJ LQWHUQDOLW\ FKDQJH SURJUDPV ,I WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWHV WKDW LQWHUQDOLW\ LV SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG LI VXEVHTXHQW H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV LQGLFDWH D FDXVHHIIHFW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR YDULDEOHV SURn JUDPV GHVLJQHG WR LQFUHDVH LQWHUQDOLW\ FDQ EH XVHG WR LQFUHDVH VRFLRn PHWULF VWDWXV DQGRU SURJUDPV GHVLJQHG WR LQFUHDVH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV 1RUWKZD\ *URQOXQG 'UDEPDQ t /DKH\ f FDQ EH XVHG WR LQFUHDVH LQWHUQDOLW\ 2U EHWWHU \HW LQWHUYHQWLRQ SURJUDPV FDQ EH GHVLJQHG WR ZRUN RQ ERWK ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG SHHU DFFHSWDQFH ,I WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV LV FRQILUPHG LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW H[WHUQDOV WHQG WR DVVRFLDWH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW WKH\ SHUSHWXDWH WKHLU RZQ H[WHUQDOLW\ WKURXJK PXWXDO UHLQIRUFHPHQW %\UQH f DQG PRGHOLQJ 7KXV ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQWHUYHQWLRQ SURJUDPV FRXOG KHOS H[WHUQDOV EHFRPH PRUH LQWHUQDO E\ VWUXFWXULQJ H[SHULHQFHV ZKHUH WKH\ ZRXOG LQWHUDFW ZLWK LQWHUQDOV 6LQFH H[WHUQDOV DUH PRUH SHUVXDGDEOH 5LWFKLH t 3KDUHV 5\FNPDQ 5RGGD t 6KHUPDQ f DQG PRUH

PAGE 18

FRQIRUPLQJ &URZQH t /LYHUDQW f WKDQ LQWHUQDOV LW LV PRUH OLNHO\ WKDW LQWHUQDOV ZRXOG LQIOXHQFH H[WHUQDOV WKDQ WKH FRQYHUVH 7KXV WKH VWXG\ KDV SUDFWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH LQ WKDW LW SURYLGHV HGXFDWRUV ZLWK GDWD DERXW WKH VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV RI LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV 7KHVH GDWD DUH HVSHFLDOO\ LPSRUWDQW QRZ EHFDXVH PDQ\ HGXFDWRUV DUH WKLQNLQJ DERXW LQFUHDVLQJ LQWHUQDO FRQWURO LQ VWXGHQWV %HIRUH HGXFDWRUV EHJLQ WR HQDFW WKHVH SODQV WKH\ QHHG WR NQRZ DOO WKDW LW HQWDLOV $VVXPLQJ WKDW WKLV VWXG\ DQG VXEVHTXHQW VWXGLHV LQGLFDWH WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH QRW VRFLDOO\ LQDGHTXDWH WKLV VWXG\ PD\ VXJJHVW JURXSLQJ WHFKQLTXHV IRU KHOSLQJ H[WHUQDOV WR EHFRPH PRUH LQWHUQDO 7KXV WKLV VWXG\ KDV ERWK WKHRUHWLFDO DQG SUDFWLFDO VLJQLIL FDQHH 7KHUH DUH VRPH OLPLWDWLRQV WR WKH UDWLRQDOH RI WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKH\ DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH FRQFOXGLQJ VHFWLRQ RI WKLV FKDSWHU +RZHYHU EHIRUH WKH DVVXPSWLRQV DQG OLPLWDWLRQV DUH GLVFXVVHG NH\ WHUPV DUH GHILQHG LQ WKH VHFWLRQ WKDW IROORZV 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV 7KH NH\ WHUPV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH GHILQHG EHORZ :KHQ DSSURn SULDWH RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQV DUH VWDWHG IROORZLQJ WKH WKHRUHWLFDO GHILQLWLRQV /RFXV RI FRQWURO LV D SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFW WKDW FDQ EH YLHZHG DV D FRQWLQXXP UHIOHFWLQJ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO

PAGE 19

8 H[SHFWV WKDW KLV UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV FRQWLQJHQW XSRQ KLV EHKDYLRU $W RQH HQG RI WKH FRQWLQXXP LV WKH H[SHFWDQF\ WKDW UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV FRQWLQJHQW HQWLUHO\ XSRQ RQHnV EHKDYLRU RU DSWLWXGH LQWHUQDOLW\f DW WKH RWKHU HQG LV WKH H[SHFWDQF\ WKDW UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV QRW DW DOO FRQWLQJHQW XSRQ RQHnV EHKDYLRU EXW UDWKHU UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV DWWULEXWHG WR OXFN IDWH RU SRZHUIXO RWKHUV H[WHUQDOLW\f 5RWWHUnV f GHILQLWLRQ RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV FLWHG RQ SDJH RI WKLV UHSRUW 2SHUDWLRQDOO\ ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV GHILQHG DV WKH VFRUH WKH VXEMHFWV UHFHLYH RQ WKH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH IRU &KLOGUHQ 16f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

PAGE 20

SDUWLFLSDWH LQ D FHUWDLQ DFWLYLW\ 7KLV WHFKQLTXH GHYHORSHG E\ 0RUHQR f LV GLVFXVVHG LQ PRUH GHWDLO LQ WKH WKLUG FKDSWHU 6RFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV RQHnV UHODWLYH SRVLWLRQ RQ D VRFLRPHWULF WHVW WKDW LV LW LV WKH QXPEHU RI VHOHFWLRQV RQH UHFHLYHV LQ FRPSDULn VRQ WR KLV SHHUV +LJK VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV WKH VWDWH RI UHFHLYLQJ PDQ\ VHOHFn WLRQV RQ D VRFLRPHWULF WHVW UHODWLYH WR RQHnV SHHUV ,Q WKLV VWXG\ KLJK VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV FRQVLGHUHG WKH XSSHU TXDUWLOH RI DOO VXEn MHFWV UDQNHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH QXPEHU RI VHOHFWLRQV WKDW WKH\ KDYH UHFHLYHG 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH XVHG WKH WHUP KLJK VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ ZLWK SHHU DFFHSWDQFH $GLQROIL f DQG SRSXODULW\ +RURZLW] f 7KLV DXWKRU ZLOO DOVR XVH WKHVH WHUPV LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH /RZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV WKH VWDWH RI UHFHLYLQJ IHZ RU QR VHOHFWLRQV IURP RQHnV SHHUV RQ D VRFLRPHWULF WHVW ,Q WKLV VWXG\ ORZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG DV WKH ORZHVW TXDUWLOH RI VXEMHFWV UDQNHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH QXPEHUV RI VHOHFWLRQV WKH\ UHFHLYHG $VVXPSWLRQV DQG /LPLWDWLRQV 0XFK RI WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UHOHYDQFH RI WKLV VWXG\ LV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW ERWK LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO DGROHVFHQWV YDOXH IULHQGn VKLS :KHQ 5RWWHU f SRVWXODWHG WKDW EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI H[SHFWDQF\ KH LQFOXGHG WKH YDOXH RI WKH UHLQIRUFHPHQW LQ KLV IRUPXOD 7KXV LQ VLWXDWLRQV ZKHUH LW LV H[SHFWHG WKDW EHKDYLRU ZLOO SURGXFH

PAGE 21

UHLQIRUFHPHQW DQG WKH UHLQIRUFHPHQW LV YDOXHG EHKDYLRU LV OLNHO\ WR RFFXU )RU WKLV VWXG\ LW LV DVVXPHG WKDW WKH QHHG IRU SHHU DFFHSn WDQFH LQ HDUO\ DGROHVFHQFH LV VR SHUYDVLYH LQ RXU FXOWXUH WKDW f LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV YDOXH IULHQGVKLS HTXDOO\ DOWKRXJK WKHUH PD\ EH VRPH H[WHUQDOV ZKR GR QRW YDOXH IULHQGVKLS KLJKO\ WKHUH VKRXOG EH DERXW WKH VDPH QXPEHU RI LQWHUQDOV ZKR GR QRW YDOXH IULHQGVKLS KLJKO\f RU WKDW f LI WKHUH DUH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV LQ WKH DPRXQW WKH\ YDOXH IULHQGVKLS WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV DUH QRW QHDUO\ DV JUHDW DV WKHLU GLIIHUHQFH LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO $OVR WKH WKHRUHWLFDO UDWLRQDOH LV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW IULHQGVKLSV DUH LQ SDUW D SURGXFW RI EHKDYLRU 7KLV SRVWXODWH KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG E\ VRFLRPHWULF UHVHDUFK LQ WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV RI GLIIHUHQW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV EHKDYH GLIIHUHQWO\ WRZDUG SHHUV *URQOXQG &ROH t +DOO f DQG WKDW WUDLQLQJ DQ LQGLYLGXDO LQ VRFLDO VNLOOV FDQ LQFUHDVH KLV VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV *URQOXQG f ,W LV DOVR DVVXPHG WKDW D JHQHUDOL]HG PHDVXUH RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO WKH 16f LQFOXGHV VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKDW WKH WRWDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUH UHIOHFWV RQHnV VHQVH RI FRQWURO RYHU VRFLDO UHODWLRQn VKLSV 7KH PXOWL GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV D FRQFHUQ D QXPEHU RI LQYHVWLJDWRUV 0LULV $EUDKDPVRQ 6FKXOGHUPDQ t 6FKXOGHUPDQ *XULQ *XULQ /DR t %HDWWLH f E\ XVLQJ IDFWRU DQDO\VLV KDYH IRXQG WKDW ORFXV RI FRQWURO FRQWDLQV VHYHUDO GLPHQVLRQV )RU H[DPSOH 0LULV f IRXQG WZR IDFWRUV SHUVRQDO FRQWURO IHHOLQJV RI SHUVRQDO HIILFDF\f DQG SROLWLFDO FRQWURO DELOLW\ WR DIIHFW WKH

PAGE 22

SROLWLFDO V\VWHPf $FFRUGLQJ WR VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ 3KDUHV f D VLWXDWLRQVSHFLILF PHDVXUH RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZRXOG EH PRUH HIIHFWLYH WKDQ D JHQHUDOL]HG PHDVXUH LQ SUHGLFWLQJ EHKDYLRU UHOHYDQW WR WKDW VLWXDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH IRU WKLV VWXG\ WKH LQVWUXPHQW WKDW PHDVXUHG WKH VXEMHFWVn IHHOLQJV RI FRQWURO DERXW WKHLU SHHU UHODWLRQVKLSV ZRXOG EH LGHDO 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ QR VXFK LQVWUXPHQW H[LVWV 7KHUH DUH VHYHUDO LWHPV RQ WKH 16 WKDW UHODWH WR SHHU DFFHSWDQFH IRU H[DPSOH LWHP 'R \RX EHOLHYH ZKHWKHU RU QRW SHRSOH OLNH \RX GHSHQGV RQ KRZ \RX DFW" VHH $SSHQGL[ $f +RZHYHU 1RZLFNL f KDV IDFWRU DQDO\]HG WKH 16 DQG IRXQG QR VXEVWDQWLDO IDFWRU WKDW UHSUHn VHQWV D VHQVH RI FRQWURO RYHU VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQV 7KHUHIRUH RXW RI QHFHVVLW\ D JOREDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUH LV XVHG WR SUHGLFW VRFLRn PHWULF VWDWXV DQG LW LV DVVXPHG WKDW WKLV JOREDO VFRUH UHIOHFWV WKH VXEMHFWVn VHQVH RI FRQWURO RYHU WKHLU LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV LW LV DVVXPHG WKDW WKHUH LV D KLJK FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ DGROHVFHQWVn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

PAGE 23

ORFXV RI FRQWURO SHHU LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG RWKHU YDULDEOHV EXW UDWKHU LW UHSUHVHQWV D QHFHVVDU\ IRUHUXQQHU WR VXFK VWXGLHV LW LV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO JHQHUDWH K\SRWKHVHV DERXW PRUH SUHFLVH UHODn WLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG DGROHVFHQW SHHU LQWHUDFWLRQ &RQVLGHULQJ WKH EURDG VFRSH RI WKLV VWXG\ VRPH RI LWV OLPLWDWLRQV DUH GLVFXVVHG EHORZ 'XH WR WKH FRUUHODWLRQDO QDWXUH RI WKLV VWXG\ D FDXVH HIIHFW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG SHHU DFFHSWDQFH FDQn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

PAGE 24

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( /RFXV RI FRQWURO LV D UHODWLYHO\ QHZ FRQFHSW PRVW RI WKH UHVHDUFK RQ WKLV YDULDEOH KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG LQ WKH SDVW \HDUV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG VRFLRPHWULF UHVHDUFK ZDV SRSXODU IURP DERXW WR VLQFH WKHQ LQWHUHVW LQ VRFLRPHWU\ KDV ZDQHG $V D UHVXOW WKHUH KDYH EHHQ YHU\ IHZ VWXGLHV 1RZLFNL t 5RXQGWUHH $GLQROIL f WKDW KDYH GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG ORFXV RI FRQWURO WR D VRFLRPHWULF YDULDEOH &RQVLGHULQJ WKH SDXFLW\ RI HYLGHQFH WKDW GLUHFWO\ UHODWHV VRFLRn PHWULF YDULDEOHV WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO PRVW RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ FRQVLVWV RI LQGLUHFW VXSSRUW RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV )RU H[DPSOH ORFXV RI FRQWURO KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR VRPH YDULDEOHV WKDW UHVHPEOH RU DUH UHODWHG WR VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR SHUVRQDO YDULDEOHV WKDW DUH VLPLODU WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO RU UHODWHG WR LW 7KHVH VWXGLHV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU WRn JHWKHU ZLWK WKH IHZ VWXGLHV WKDW SURYLGH PRUH GLUHFW HYLGHQFH 7KH OLWHUDWXUH LV UHYLHZHG DV LW UHODWHV WR HDFK K\SRWKHVLV )LUVW +\SRWKHVLV ,QWHUQDOV +DYH 0RUH )ULHQGV WKDQ ([WHUQDOV ,QWHUQDOLW\ KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR VHYHUDO VRFLDO YDULDEOHV WKDW VXJJHVW LQWHUQDOV VKRXOG EH PRUH SRSXODU )RU H[DPSOH 0LGODUVN\ f

PAGE 25

IRXQG WKDW LQWHUQDOV ZHUH PRUH KHOSIXO WR VWUDQJHUV WKDQ ZHUH H[WHUQDOV ,Q 0LGODUVN\n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t (QJOLVK &ROH t +DOO f 1RW RQO\ DUH H[WHUQDOV OHVV KHOSIXO WKDQ LQWHUQDOV EXW WKHUH LV DOVR VRPH HYLGHQFH WKDW H[WHUQDOV GHVLUH PRUH VRFLDO GLVWDQFH WKDQ LQWHUQDOV HVSHFLDOO\ ZLWK VWUDQJHUV 'XNH 'XNH t 1RZLFNL 'XNH t )HQKDJHQ f ,Q WKH 'XNH DQG 1RZLFNL VWXG\ VXEMHFWV XVHG WKH &RPIRUWDEOH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 'LVWDQFH 6FDOH &,'f WR LQGLFDWH WKH GLVWDQFH DW ZKLFK K\SRWKHWLFDO SHRSOH VKRXOG VWRS ZKHQ DSSURDFKLQJ WKHP H[WHUQDOV UHTXLUHG PRUH GLVWDQFH IRU VWUDQJHUV WKDQ GLG LQWHUQDOV 'XNH DQG )HQKDJHU f DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 16 DQG WKH &,' WR D JURXS RI DGROHVFHQW IHPDOHV WKH\ IRXQG WKDW H[WHUQDOLW\ ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU VRFLDO GLVWDQFH 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW H[WHUQDOV PD\ EH XQFRPIRUWDEOH LQ VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV HVSHFLDOO\ QHZ RQHV DQG EH OHVV OLNHO\ WR LQWHUDFW ZLWK SHRSOH DQG WKHUHIRUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR KDYH IULHQGV $QRWKHU UHDVRQ IRU WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG SRSXODULW\ RI LQWHUQDOV LV WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW LQWHUQDOLW\ LV PRUH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH WKDQ H[WHUQDOLW\

PAGE 26

%HUQKDUGVRQ &RQH +MHOOH f $OWKRXJK HDUOLHU VWXGLHV KDYH IRXQG QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO 6WULFNODQG 7RORU 7RORU t -DORZLHF f WKH PRVW UHFHQW HYLGHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKHUH LV D PRGHUDWH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LQWHUQDOLW\ DQG VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ &RQH +MHOOH f 7KH VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ RI D WUDLW RU WKH LQVWUXPHQW WKDW PHDVXUHV WKH WUDLW KDV EHHQ DVVHVVHG LQ WZR ZD\V 2QH PHWKRG LV WR KDYH MXGJHV UDWH WKH VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ RI WKH LWHPV RI DQ LQVWUXPHQW )RU H[DPSOH D MXGJH UDWLQJ WKH IRXUWK LWHP RI WKH 16 LWHP 0RVW RI WKH WLPH GR \RX IHHO WKDW JHWWLQJ JRRG JUDGHV PHDQV D JUHDW GHDO WR \RX"f PLJKW FRQFOXGH WKDW D \HV UHVSRQVH LV PRUH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH WKDQ D QR UHVSRQVH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV LW LV GHVLUDEOH LQ WKLV VRFLHW\ WR FDUH D JUHDW GHDO DERXW RQHnV JUDGHV 8VLQJ WKLV PHWKRG +MHOOH f DQG %HUQKDUGVRQ f IRXQG WKDW DQ LQWHUQDO YLHZ LV PRUH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH WKDQ DQ H[WHUQDO YLHZ +MHOOHnV ILQGLQJ VXJJHVWV WKDW VLQFH WKH LQWHUQDO SRLQW RI YLHZ LV YDOXHG PRUH LQ WKLV FXOWXUH SHRSOH ZKR KDYH WKLV SRLQW RI YLHZ VKRXOG EH PRUH DFFHSWHG DQG SRSXODU WKDQ SHRSOH ZKR KDYH WKH RSSRVLWH SRLQW RI YLHZ 7KH VHFRQG DQG PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ XVHG PHWKRG RI DVVHVVLQJ VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ KDV EHHQ WR XVH D VWDQGDUGL]HG LQVWUXPHQW 7KH (GZDUGV 6RFLDO 'HVLUDELOLW\ 6FDOH (GZDUGV f DQG WKH 0DUORZ &URZQH 6RFLDO 'HVLUDELOLW\ 6FDOH &URZQH t 0DUORZ f DUH VHOI UHSRUW LQYHQWRULHV WKDW FRQVLVW RI LWHPV WKDW PHQWLRQ VRFLDOO\

PAGE 27

GHVLUDEOH RU XQGHVLUDEOH WUDLWV 6XEMHFWV ZKR DQVZHU PDQ\ LWHPV LQ WKH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH GLUHFWLRQ DUH GHVFULELQJ WKHPVHOYHV DV DQ LGHDO SHUVRQ &RQH f FRUUHODWHG WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUHV RQ WKH (GZDUGV 6RFLDO 'HVLUDELOLW\ 6FDOH LQ DOO ILYH VDPSOHV LQWHUn QDO LW\ ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJK VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ &RQH FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQWHUQDOV PD\ EHKDYH LQ D VRFLDOO\ DFFHSWDEOH PDQQHU VR WKDW WKH\ FDQ LQIOXHQFH SHRSOH IDYRUDEO\ 7KLV FRQFOXVLRQ VXSSRUWV WKH UDWLRQDOH RI WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQ WKDW LW VXJJHVWV WKDW LQWHUQDOV EHOLHYH WKH\ FDQ DIIHFW WKHLU VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQW DQG DFW DFFRUGLQJO\ ,I WKLV LV WUXH LQWHUQDOV VKRXOG EH PRUH VRFLDOO\ FRPSHWHQW WKDQ H[WHUQDOV DQG VKRXOG EH PRUH SRSXODU 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ WZR VWXGLHV 3KDUHV t :LOVRQ 1RZLFNL t %OXPEHUJ f WKDW KDYH UHODWHG ORFXV RI FRQWURO WR LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ 2I FRXUVH WKHVH DUH GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV DQG DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKDW FRQWH[W ODWHU LQ WKLV FKDSWHUf EXW WKH XQH[SHFWHG UHVXOWV RI WKHVH WZR VWXGLHV OHQG VXSSRUW WR WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV ,Q WKH ILUVW RI WKHVH WZR VWXGLHV 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ f DVNHG LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO FROOHJH VWXGHQWV WR HYDOXDWH DQ DOOHJHG VWUDQJHU EDVHG RQ KLV UHVSRQVHV WR 5RWWHUnV ,QWHUQDO([WHUQDO /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH 5RWWHU f $FWXDOO\ WKHUH ZHUH QR VWUDQJHUV RQO\ WZR ,QWHUQDO([WHUQDO VFDOHVRQH FRPSOHWHG LQ D WRWDOO\ LQWHUQDO GLUHFWLRQ DQG WKH RWKHU LQ D WRWDOO\ H[WHUQDO GLUHFWLRQ 7KH LQWHUQDO VXEMHFWV IDYRUHG WKH LQWHUQDO VWUDQJHU DQG WKH H[WHUQDOV DV D JURXS GLG QRW IDYRU HLWKHU

PAGE 28

$V D IROORZXS WR WKH 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ VWXG\ 1RZLFNL DQG %OXPEHUJ f FDUHIXOO\ SUHSDUHG IRXU WDSHV WZR RI D PDOH DQG IHPDOH LQWHUQDO GLVFXVVLQJ WKHLU YLHZV DQG WZR WDSHV RI WKHLU H[WHUQDO FRXQWHUSDUWV $OO IRXU WDSHV ZHUH MXGJHG E\ WKH VXEMHFWV DQG LQGHSHQGHQW UDWHUV WR H[SUHVV DFFXUDWHO\ WKH LQWHQGHG ORFXV RI FRQWURO RULHQWDWLRQ )RUW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR MXGJH WKH DOOHJHG VWUDQJHUV RQ WKUHH FULWHULD f WKHLU JHQHUDO OLNDELOLW\ f WKHLU GHVLUDELOLW\ DV D ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHU DQG f WKHLU GHVLUDELOLW\ DV D URRPPDWH 7KH LQWHUQDO VWUDQJHU ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH DWWUDFWLYH WR ERWK WKH LQWHUn QDO DQG WKH H[WHUQDO VXEMHFWV RQ WKUHH FULWHULD EXW HVSHFLDOO\ RQ WKH WKLUG GHVLUDELOLW\ DV D URRPPDWHf 7KH 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ VWXG\ DQG WKH 1RZLFNL DQG %OXPEHUJ VWXG\ VXJJHVWHG WKDW VLQFH LQWHUQDOV DUH SUHIHUUHG LQ DQ H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ WKH\ VKRXOG DOVR EH PRUH SRSXODU LQ D UHDOOLIH VLWXDWLRQ OLNH D FODVVURRP %HIRUH GLVFXVVLQJ WKH WZR VWXGLHV WKDW GLUHFWO\ UHODWH ORFXV RI FRQWURO WR VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV WKH LQGLUHFW HYLGHQFH LV VXPPDUL]HG EHORZ LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ H[WHUn QDOV 7KLV UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW ,QWHUQDOV DUH PRUH KHOSIXO ,QWHUQDOV UHTXLUH OHVV SHUVRQDO VSDFH RU VRFLDO GLVWDQFH ,QWHUQDOLW\ LV D PRUH GHVLUDEOH WUDLW LQ WKLV VRFLHW\ ,Q H[SHULPHQWV ZKHUH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR H[SUHVV WKHLU SUHn IHUHQFH IRU HLWKHU DQ LQWHUQDO RU DQ H[WHUQDO VWUDQJHU PRVW VXEMHFWV SUHIHUUHG WKH LQWHUQDO

PAGE 29

7KH IRXUWK SRLQW VHHPV WR RIIHU WKH VWURQJHVW VXSSRUW IRU WKH K\SRWKHVLV +RZHYHU ERWK RI WKHVH VWXGLHV 3KDUHV t :LOVRQ 1RZLFNL t 5RXQGWUHH f ZHUH FRQGXFWHG XQGHU VLPXODWHG FRQGLWLRQV ZLWK DOOHJHG VWUDQJHUV 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK RQJRLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKHUH LV YHU\ OLWWOH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ UHODWLQJ ORFXV RI FRQWURO WR UHDO RQJRLQJ IULHQGVKLSV 7KH H[WHQVLYH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ RI WKLV DXWKRU KDV \LHOGHG RQO\ WZR VXFK VWXGLHV ,Q WKH ILUVW RI WKHVH VWXGLHV 1RZLFNL DQG 5RXQGWUHH f DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 16 DQG WZR VRFLRPHWULF TXHVWLRQV WR D VDPSOH RI WK JUDGHUV 1B f 7KH ILUVW VRFLRPHWULF LWHP DVNHG WKH VWXGHQWV WR OLVW ILYH FODVVPDWHV WKDW ZRXOG EH JRRG FDQGLGDWHV IRU FODVVURRP SUHVLGHQW WKH VHFRQG LWHP DVNHG WKH VXEMHFWV WR OLVW ILYH RI WKHLU EHVW IULHQGV $PRQJ PDOHV WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LQWHUQDOLW\ DQG QRPLQDWLRQV IRU FODVV SUHVLGHQW EXW WKHUH ZDV QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG IULHQGVKLS ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV LQWHUQDO PDOHV UHFHLYHG PRUH VHOHFWLRQV DV FODVV SUHVLn GHQW WKDQ GLG H[WHUQDO PDOHV EXW LQWHUQDOV RI HLWKHU VH[ ZHUH QR PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ H[WHUQDOV DV IULHQGV ,Q WKH VHFRQG RI WKHVH VWXGLHV $GLQROIL f DGPLQLVWHUHG D VRFLRPHWULF WHVW WR FROOHJH GRUPLWRU\ UHVLGHQWV )URP WKLV VXEMHFW SRRO KH VHOHFWHG IRXU JURXSV RI VXEMHFWV HDFK PDOHV DQG IHPDOHVfD KLJKO\ DFFHSWHG JURXS DQ XQDFFHSWHG JURXS D UHMHFWHG JURXS DQG D FRQWURO JURXS 7KHQ WKHVH VXEMHFWV 1B f ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 5RWWHU ,QWHUQDO([WHUQDO /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH

PAGE 30

DQG VHYHUDO RWKHU SHUVRQDOLW\ WHVWV $PRQJ WKHVH IRXU JURXSV WKHUH ZHUH QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH WZR VWXGLHV DUH FRQWUDU\ WR WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV RI WKLV VWXG\ +RZHYHU LW LV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO SURGXFH UHVXOWV GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH RI 1RZLFNL DQG 5RXQGWUHH DQG $GLQROIL IRU WKH IROORZLQJ UHDVRQV 7KHLU VXEMHFWV ZHUH ROGHU WKDQ WKH VXEMHFWV RI WKLV VWXG\ $FFRUGLQJ WR VWXGLHV E\ &RVWDQ]R DQG 6KDZ f DQG %URZQVWRQH DQG :LOOLV f \RXQJHU DGROHVFHQWV DUH PRUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKHLU SHHUV WKDQ DUH ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW SHHU DFFHSWDQFH LV SUREDEO\ PRUH LPSRUWDQW IRU D \HDUROG WKDQ IRU DQ \HDUROG 6LQFH SHHU DFFHSWDQFH LV D FUXFLDO HJRLQYROYHG QHHG IRU D \HDU ROG LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW SHHU DFFHSWDQFH LV UHODWHG WR KLV VHQVH RI SRWHQF\ DQG FRQWURO $GLQROILnV VXEMHFWV ZHUH YROXQWHHUV IURP WKH RULJLQDO VXEMHFW SRRO WKH\ ZHUH QRW UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG IURP WKHLU JURXS &DPSEHOO DQG 6WDQOH\ f FLWHG WKH XVH RI YROXQWHHUV DV D SRVVLEOH VRXUFH RI LQYDOLGLW\ 7KH SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG ORFXV RI FRQWURO VWXGLHV VXJJHVW WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH PRUH OLNDEOH 0DQ\ VRFLRPHWULF VWXGLHV KDYH UHODWHG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV WR SHUVRQDO YDULDEOHV WKDW HLWKHU UHVHPEOH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RU KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR LW 0DQ\ RI WKHVH VWXGLHV KDYH XVHG VXEMHFWV VLPLODU LQ

PAGE 31

DJH WR WKH VXEMHFW RI WKLV VWXG\ LQ WKH VDPH VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQW WKH FODVVURRP 7KHVH VWXGLHV FRQVWLWXWH WKH UHPDLQGHU RI WKH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH IRU WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV DQG DUH UHYLHZHG LQ WKH SDUDJUDSKV WKDW IROORZ $ UHYLHZ RI VRFLRPHWULF OLWHUDWXUH UHYHDOV WZR JURXSV RI VWXGLHV WKDW VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV UHODWHG WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO )LUVWO\ WKHUH DUH WZR FOLQLFDOO\ EDVHG VWXGLHV 1RUWKZD\ 1RUWKZD\ t :LJGRU f WKDW SURGXFHG GHVFULSWLRQV RI VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ KLJK DQG ORZ VWXGHQWV WKDW LQ SDUW FORVHO\ UHVHPEOH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG HPSLULFDO GHVFULSWLRQV RI LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV UHVSHFWLYHO\ 6HFRQGO\ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR PDQ\ YDULDEOHV HJ VHOIHVWHHPf WKDW KDYH DOVR EHHQ UHODWHG WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO VXFK WKDW LQWHUQDOV SDUDOOHO VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ KLJK VXEMHFWV HJ KLJK LQ VHOIHVWHHPf DQG H[WHUQDOV SDUDOOHO WKH VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ ORZ HJ ORZ LQ VHOIHVWHHPf 8VLQJ WKH 5RUVFKDFK WAVW 1RUWKZD\ DQG :LJGRU f VWXGLHG HLJKWK JUDGHUV RI KLJK DYHUDJH DQG ORZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV 7KH ZHOO OLNHG VXEMHFWV ZHUH GHVFULEHG DV KDYLQJ D JUHDWHU VHQVLWLYLW\ WR WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW DOPRVW DQ DFWLYH FRQVFLRXV VWULYLQJ LQ XVLQJ WKH IHHOLQJ WRQH DQG VRFLDO FRQWDFWV RI D VLWXDWLRQ WR IXUWKHU WKHLU HQGV S f ,W LV ORJLFDO WR H[SHFW WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZKR EHOLHYHV WKDW KH LV LQ FRQWURO RI D VLWXDWLRQ ZLOO EH PRUH VHQVLWLYH WR DQG PDQLSXODWLYH

PAGE 32

RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KHUH LV DEXQGDQW HYLGHQFH WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH PRUH DOHUW WR HQYLURQPHQWDO FXHV DQG EHWWHU DEOH WR XVH WKHVH FXHV WKDQ WKHLU H[WHUQDO FRXQWHUSDUWV 6HHPDQ t (YDQV 6HHPDQ 3KDUHV /HIFRXUW t :LQH :LOOLDPV t 6WDFN f )RU H[DPSOH 6HHPDQ f IRXQG WKDW LQWHUQDO SULVRQ PDWHV ZHUH PRUH NQRZOHGJHDEOH DERXW SDUROH SROLF\ WKDQ H[WHUQDO LQPDWHV RI VLPLODU LQWHOOLJHQFH 6HHPDQ FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQWHUQDOV KDG PRUH DFWLYHO\ VRXJKW DQG PRUH HIILFLHQWO\ SURFHVVHG LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW PLJKW KHOS WKHP $IWHU UHYLHZLQJ WKH VWXGLHV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH SUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSK 3KDUHV f FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQWHUQDOV VHHP WR EH HDJHU WR VHHN RXW FOXHV DQG WR PDQLSXODWH WKH VLWXDWLRQ VR DV WR EH EHWWHU DEOH WR DFKLHYH FHUWDLQ RXWFRPHV S f 7KXV 1RUWKZD\ DQG :LJGRUnV GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH ZHOOOLNHG HLJKWK JUDGHUV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH\ DUH VRFLDO LQWHUQDOV WKDW LV WKH\ DFWLYHO\ VHHN RXW FOXHV LQ WKH VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQW DQG XVH WKHVH FOXHV UDWKHU HIIHFWLYHO\ DV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKHLU VRFLDO VXFFHVV ,Q WKH VHFRQG RI WKH FOLQLFDOO\ EDVHG VWXGLHV 1RUWKZD\ f FRQGXFWHG DQ LQGHSWK VWXG\ RI VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ ORZ ILIWK DQG VL[WK JUDGHUV +HU UHVXOWV SURYLGHG D KROLVWLF YLHZ RI WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ W\SHV RI VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH QRW ZHOO DFFHSWHG E\ WKHLU SHHUV WKHVH SHUVRQDOLW\ SURILOHV VXJJHVW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ ORZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO )RU WZR \HDUV 1RUWKZD\ FROOHFWHG GDWD RQ XQSRSXODU VXEMHFWV WKURXJK VFKRRO UHFRUGV LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK SDUHQWV LQWHOOLJHQFH WHVWV SV\FKRORJLFDO LQWHUYLHZV FODVVURRP DQG

PAGE 33

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nV HQHUJ\ PD\ EH GLUHFWHG WRZDUGV DUW PXVLF VFLHQFH KREELHV UHDGLQJ RU WR DIIDLUV RI WKH KRPH 6RPH RI WKHVH FKLOGUHQ DUH PHUHO\ TXLHW ZLWK DQG XQLQWHUHVWHG LQ RWKHU FKLOGUHQ VRPH DUH VK\ DQG XQFRPIRUWDEOH ZLWK WKHP VRPH DUH ERUHG DQG FULWLFDO RI WKHP DQG VRPH DUH UDWKHU REMHFWLYHO\ DQG LPSHUVRQDOO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ REVHUYLQJ ZKDW RWKHU FKLOGUHQ GR ZLWKRXW LQ DQ\ ZD\ DWWHPSWLQJ WR SDUWLFLSDWH ZLWK WKHP S f 7KH WKLUG JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI ILYH VRFLDOO\ LQHIIHFWLYH FKLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH GHVFULEHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU &KLOGUHQ RI WKLV JURXS GLIIHU FRPSOHWHO\ LQ WKHLU VXSHUn ILFLDO EHKDYLRU IURP WKH IRUPHU JURXS WKH\ DUH RIWHQ QRLV\ UHEHOOLRXV GHOLQTXHQW LQ FODVVURRP DIIDLUV ERDVWIXO DQG DUURJDQW 7KH\ DUH D QXLVDQFH WR WKH WHDFKHU DQG WKH OLIH RI WKH FODVVURRP 7KH\ DUH GLDPHWULFDOO\ RSSRVHG WR WKH UHFHVVLYH FKLOGUHQ +RZHYHU WKLV LV QRW WUXH IRU WKH\ KDYH LQ FRPPRQ WKH ODFN RI DFFHSWDQFH E\

PAGE 34

FODVVPDWHV DQG WKHVH PDQLIHVWHG IRUPV RI EHKDYLRU VHHP WR KDYH DULVHQ DV UDWKHU LQHIIHFWLYH QDLYH DWWHPSWV WR RYHUFRPH WKH EDVLF VRFLDO LQVHFXULW\ DQG LVRODWLRQ IURP JURXS OLIH WKDW WKH\ H[SHULHQFH 7KH\ KDYH YLWDOLW\ DQG DUH NHHQO\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ VRFLDO DIIDLUV EXW EHFDXVH RI IDLOXUH LQ WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI VRFLDO UHODWLRQV WKH\ PDNH HIIRUWIXO FRQVSLFXRXV DQG RIWHQ IRROLVK DQG IXWLOH DWWHPSWV WR EH UHFRJQL]HG DQG DFFHSWHG E\ WKH VRFLDO JURXS 1RUWKZD\ S f 1RUWKZD\ VXSSOHPHQWHG WKHVH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURILOHV ZLWK WZR FDVH VWXGLHV IURP HDFK JURXS 7KH UHFHVVLYH VWDWH GHVFULEHG E\ 1RUWKZD\ FORVHO\ SDUDOOHOVn 6HOLJPDQnV f FRQFHSW RI OHDUQHG KHOSOHVVQHVV /HDUQHG KHOSOHVVQHVV LV D VWDWH WKDW LQ KXPDQ VXEMHFWV JUHDWO\ UHVHPEOHV UHDFWLYH GHSUHVVLRQ 6HOLJPDQ f DQG LV FDXVHG E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV OHDUQLQJ WKDW WKHUH LV QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KLV EHKDYLRU DQG ZKDW KDSSHQV WR KLP 6HOLJPDQ f DQG 0LOOHU DQG 6HOLJPDQ f KDYH UHODWHG OHDUQHG KHOSOHVVQHVV WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,W VHHPV WKDW OHDUQHG KHOSOHVVQHVV LV DQ H[WUHPH FDVH RI H[WHUQDOLW\ 7KXV LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW WKH UHFHVVLYH FKLOGUHQ DUH LQDFWLYH DQG OLVWOHVV EHFDXVH WKH\ KDYH FRPH WR EHOLHYH WKDW WKH\ KDYH OLWWOH RU QR FRQWURO RYHU ZKDW KDSSHQV WR WKHP 5HFHVVLYH VXEMHFWV VKRXOG KDYH D YHU\ H[WHUQDO JHQHUDOL]HG ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VKRXOG VFRUH KLJKO\ RQ WKH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG 6FDOH 1RUWKZD\nV GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH VRFLDOO\ XQLQWHUHVWHG VXEMHFWV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH\ KDYH DQ H[WHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ VRFLDO PDWWHUV EXW DQ LQWHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ SHUVRQDO PDWWHUV 7KDW LV WKH\ SUREDEO\ H[SHFW WKDW WKH\ FDQ FRQWURO PRVW WKLQJV WKDW WKH\ GR DORQH

PAGE 35

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nV GHVFULSWLRQ DQG FDVH VWXGLHV VXJn JHVW WKDW WKHVH VXEMHFWV KDYH GHHSO\ URRWHG EXW GLVJXLVHG IHHOLQJV RI LQIHULRULW\ DQG WKHLU YHUEDO UHSRUWV DQG EHKDYLRU DUH RIWHQ DWWHPSWV WR FRPSHQVDWH IRU WKHLU LQDGHTXDF\ 7KHVH VXEMHFWV KDYH D VRFLDO DQG SUREDEO\ JHQHUDOL]HG H[WHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO EXW WKHLU YHUEDO UHSRUWV DUH OLNHO\ QRW WR LQGLFDWH WKLV VR WKHLU 16 VFRUHV FRXOG YDU\ JUHDWO\ 1RUWKZD\nV VWXG\ VXJJHVWV WKDW DOWKRXJK WKHUH LV D JHQHUDO WUHQG IRU DOPRVW DOO VRFLDOO\ XQDFFHSWHG FKLOGUHQ WR KDYH DQ H[WHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ VRFLDO PDWWHUV WKLV WUHQG ZLOO EH REVFXUHG E\ WKH QRQn VRFLDO LQWHUQDOLW\ RI WKH VRFLDOO\ XQLQWHUHVWHG DQG WKH GHIHQVLYHQHVV RI WKH VRFLDOO\ LQHIIHFWLYH 7KHUHIRUH RQO\ D PRGHUDWH FRUUHODWLRQ VKRXOG EH H[SHFWHG EHWZHHQ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG WKH 16 VFRUHV RI WKLV VDPSOH 7KHUH LV VRPH OHVV GLUHFW EXW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ EDVHG HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW VRFLDOO\ DFFHSWHG DGROHVFHQWV WHQG WR

PAGE 36

EH PRUH LQWHUQDO 7KLV HYLGHQFH LV WKH OLVW RI WUDLWV WKDW KDYH EHHQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR ERWK VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO 2I FRXUVH MXVW EHFDXVH WZR YDULDEOHV DUH UHODWHG WR D WKLUG YDULDEOH LV QR LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKH\ DUH QHFHVVDULO\ UHODWHG WR HDFK RWKHU EXW LI WZR SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV DUH UHODWHG WR VHYHUDO YDULn DEOHV LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW WKHVH WZR YDULDEOHV DUH UHODWHG WR HDFK RWKHU $V SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW %RQQH\ *URVVPDQ t :ULJKWHU %URZQ )HLQEHUJ f DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV %URZQ &RRN 1HXJDUWHQ *URVVPDQ t :ULJKWHU f /RFXV RI FRQWURO LV DOVR UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW &ROHPDQ HW DO &UDQGDOO HW DO f DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV /HIFRXUW f 6RFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV FOHDUO\ UHODWHG WR VHOIFRQFHSW %DURQ *XDUGR +RURZLW] 5HHVH 9LGHEDFN f DV LV ORFXV RQ FRQWURO )LWFK )LVK t .DUDEHQLFN f DQG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LV QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK DQ[LHW\%DURQ 0LOO f DV LV ORFXV RI FRQWURO %XWWHUILHOG :DWVRQ )HDWKHU 5D\ t .DWDKQ f 6XEMHFWV RI ORZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH GHSUHVVHG %DURQ 1RUWKZD\ f DV KDYH H[WHUQDOV $EUDPRZLW] 0LOOHU t 6HOLJPDQ f /RZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV KDV EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VFKL]RSKUHQLF WHQGHQFLHV 1RUWKZD\ 1RUWKZD\ t :LGJRU f DQG VR KDV H[WHUQDOLW\ &URPZHOO 5RVHQWKDO 6KDNRZ t =DKQ +DUURZ t )HUDQWH f :LWK DOO RI WKHVH WUDLWV LQ FRPPRQ LW LV OLNHO\ WKDW PRVW DGROHVFHQWV RI KLJK VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DUH LQWHUQDO DQG PRVW DGROHVFHQWV RI ORZ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DUH H[WHUQDO

PAGE 37

%HIRUH SUHVHQWLQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHOHYDQW WR WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKn HVLV WKLV VHFWLRQ LV VXPPDUL]HG EHORZ ,QWHUQDOV VKRXOG EH PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ H[WHUQDOV EHFDXVH WKH\ DUH PRUH KHOSIXO UHTXLUH OHVV VRFLDO GLVWDQFH DQG SRVVHVV D YLHZSRLQW WKDW LV YDOXHG PRUH E\ WKLV FXOWXUH ,Q WZR H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV 3KDUHV t :LOVRQ 1RZLFNL t %OXPEHUJ f VXEMHFWV SUHIHUUHG DQ LQWHUQDO VWUDQJHU WR DQ H[WHUQDO VWUDQJHU 7ZR VWXGLHV 1RZLFNL t 5RXQGWUHH $GLQROIL f KDYH IRXQG QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV IRU ROGHU DGROHVFHQWV 7ZR VWXGLHV 1RUWKZD\ 1RUWKZD\ t :LJGRU f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n HVLV LV UHYLHZHG

PAGE 38

6HFRQG +\SRWKHVLV ,QWHUQDOV DUH 0RUH 3RSXODU RQ D 7DVN2ULHQWHG 6RFLRPHWULF ,WHP WKDQ RQ D 3XUHO\ 6RFLDO 2QH 7KH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV FRPSDUHV WKH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RI LQWHUQDOV RQ WZR GLIIHUHQW LWHPV f 1DPH WKH VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH \RXU EHVW IULHQGV DQG f ,I \RX KDG D JURXS SURMHFW LQ (QJOLVK FODVVf ZLWK WKUHH RWKHU VWXGHQWV DQG KDOI RI \RXU JUDGH GHSHQGHG RQ WKLV SURMHFW ZKLFK WKUHH VWXGHQWV ZRXOG \RX VHOHFW WR ZRUN ZLWK" 7KHVH WZR LWHPV DUH UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP DQG WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP UHVSHFWLYHO\f 7KH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV LV WKDW LQWHUQDOV KDYH KLJKHU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP WKDQ RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV LV EDVHG RQ WZR ZHOGRFXPHQWHG ILQGLQJV f WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VRFLRPHWULF LWHP DIIHFWV ZKR LV SRSXODU DQG ZKR LV QRW DQG f LQWHUQDOV DUH DFDGHPLFDOO\ VXSHULRU WR H[WHUQDOV 7KH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VRFLRPHWULF LWHPV UHODWLYH WR WKLV K\SRWKHVLV KDV EHHQ GLVFXVVHG E\ -HQQLQJV f 6KH VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHUH DUH WZR W\SHV RI VRFLRPHWULF LWHPV WKRVH UHODWHG WR DQ LQn IRUPDO SHUVRQDO VLWXDWLRQ OLNH WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHPf DQG WKRVH UHODWHG WR PRUH IRUPDO VLWXDWLRQV WKDW XVXDOO\ LQYROYH D JURXS SURMHFW VXFK DV WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHPf -HQQLQJV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHVH WZR W\SHV RI LWHPV WDS WZR XQGHUO\LQJ JURXS VWUXFWXUHV DQ LQIRUPDO V\VWHP DQG D IRUPDO V\VWHP UHVSHFWLYHO\ $FFRUGLQJ WR -HQQLQJV FKRLFHV RQ LWHPV WKDW WDS WKH IRUPDO V\VWHP DUH EDVHG PRUH RQ DELOLW\ DQG OHVV RQ VRFLDO SRSXODULW\ WKDQ DUH FKRLFHV RQ LWHPV UHODWHG WR WKH IRUPDO V\VWHP

PAGE 39

-HQQLQJV FRQFOXVLRQ KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG E\ *URQOXQG $IWHU UHYLHZLQJ VHYHUDO VWXGLHV WKDW FRPSDUHG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ GLIIHUHQW W\SH LWHPV *URQOXQG f FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH LV D JHQHUDO VRFLDO DFFHSWDELOLW\ IDFWRU IRU DOO LWHPV EXW WKDW :KHUH VSHFLILF FULWHULD LQGLFDWH WKH QHHG IRU NQRZOHGJH RU VNLOO WKH VRFLDO DFFHSWDELOLW\ IDFWRU LV VXUSUHVVHG VRPHZKDW LQ WKH FKRRVLQJ LQ IDFWRU RI VXFFHVV LQ WKH DFWLYLW\ S f 7KXV LQ WKLV VWXG\ LW ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH DFDGHPLFDOO\ FRPSHWHQW VWXGHQWV ZRXOG KDYH KLJKHU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNLQJSURMHFW LWHP WKDQ RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 6LQFH LQWHUQDOV DUH EHWWHU UHSUHVHQWHG DPRQJ WKH DFDGHPLFDOO\ FRPSHWHQW LW ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH KLJKHU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP WKDQ RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 7KH VWXGLHV ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH DFDGHPLFDOO\ VXSHULRU WR H[WHUQDOV ZHUH FLWHG LQ WKH ILUVW FKDSWHU &UDQGDOO HW DO 0F*HH t &UDQGDOO %URZQ t 6WULFNODQG %DUWHO &ROHPDQ HW DO f 7KHVH VWXGLHV ZHUH FRUUHODWLRQDO )RU H[DPSOH &UDQGDOO DQG KHU DVVRFLDWHV VWXGLHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VFKRRO JUDGHV IRU VWXGHQWV IURP WKH WKLUG WKURXJK WK JUDGHV ,QWHUQDO PDOHV DYHUDJHG RQ WKH V\VWHPf DQG H[WHUQDO PDOHV DYHUDJHG DQG LQWHUQDO PDOHV DYHUDJHG DQG H[WHUQDO IHPDOHV 7KH JUDGHV RI WKH LQWHUQDO VWXGHQWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ MG f KLJKHU WKDQ WKH H[WHUQDOVn JUDGHV

PAGE 40

6HYHUDO H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV GH&KDUPV +DZHV 6WHSKHQV $VKWRQ f KDYH DOVR IRXQG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VHQVH RI FRQn WURO DQG DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH )RU H[DPSOH GH&KDUPV f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG SHUVRQDO FDXVDWLRQ ZKLFK KH GHILQHG DV WKH LQLWLDWLRQ E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO RI EHKDYLRU LQWHQGHG WR SURGXFH D FKDQJH LQ KLV HQYLURQPHQW 3HUVRQDO FDXVDWLRQ LV VLPLODU WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ WKDW WKH\ DUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK DQ LQGLYLGXDO WDNLQJ FRQWURO RI KLV HQYLURQPHQW 7KHRUHWLFDOO\ SHUVRQDO FDXVDWLRQ LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK LQWULQVLF PRWLYDWLRQ DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK H[SHFn WDQFLHV DERXW H[WHUQDO UHLQIRUFHPHQW EXW 3KDUHV f DQG /HIFRXUW f KDYH QRWHG WKDW WKHUH LV D JUHDW GHDO RI RYHUODS EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR FRQFHSWV 7KXV GH&KDUPVn H[SHULPHQW KDV UHOHYDQFH WR ORFXV RI FRQn WURO ,Q WKLV VWXG\ KH DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG KDOI RI WKH VL[WK JUDGH WHDFKHUV B1 f LQ DQ XUEDQ VFKRRO GLVWULFW WR DQ H[SHULn PHQWDO JURXS WKH RWKHU KDOI FRQVWLWXWHG WKH FRQWURO JURXS 7KH H[SHULn PHQWDO JURXS XQGHUZHQW SHUVRQDO FDXVDWLRQ WUDLQLQJ ZKLFK ZDV D SURJUDP GHVLJQHG WR IDFLOLWDWH RULJLQ EHKDYLRU DPRQJ WKH WHDFKHUV DQG WKH VWXn GHQWV WKH\ WDXJKW 2ULJLQ LV D WHUP WKDW LV VLPLODU WR LQWHUQDOf $IWHU WKH WUDLQLQJ VHVVLRQVWKH WHDFKHUV FRQGXFWHG VLPLODU VHVVLRQV LQ WKHLU FODVVURRPV IRU WKH QH[W WZR DFDGHPLF \HDUV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS DV FRPSDUHG WR WKH FRQWURO JURXS KDG VWXGHQWV ZKR f UDWHG WKHLU FODVVURRPV DV PRUH FRQGXFLYH WR LQGHSHQGHQW VHOIPRWLYDWHG VWXG\ f VFRUHG KLJKHUPRUH RULJLQ LQWHUn QDO fRQ GH&KDUPnV 2ULJLQ3DZQ PHDVXUH DQG f VFRUHG KLJKHU RQ VWDQn GDUGL]HG DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV

PAGE 41

7KXV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LQWHUQDOLW\ DQG KLJK DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW KDV EHHQ FOHDUO\ HVWDEOLVKHG $OWKRXJK WKHUH DUH H[FHSn WLRQV LQWHUQDOV JHQHUDOO\ SHUIRUP EHWWHU LQ VFKRRO WKDQ WKHLU H[WHUQDO FRXQWHUSDUWV ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ LW KDV EHHQ DUJXHG WKDW WKH EHVW IULHQGV VRFLRn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f UHODWHG WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI WK JUDGHUV WR WKHLU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ D EHVW IULHQGV LWHP DQG RQ DQ LWHP WKDW DVNHG IRU JRRG FDQGLGDWHV IRU FODVV SUHVLGHQW 1RZLFNL DQG 5RXQGWUHHn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

PAGE 42

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t *ULIILWW 1HZFRPE f EXW RQO\ XQGHU FHUWDLQ FRQGLWLRQV DQG RQO\ IRU FHUn WDLQ WUDLWV 7KH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW SHRSOH DUH DWWUDFWHG WR WKRVH ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV LQ DWWLWXGH DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ KDV EHHQ FDOOHG WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV %\UQH DQG *ULIILWW f KDYH GHVFULEHG WKUHH PHWKRGV WKDW KDYH EHHQ XVHG WR WHVW WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV DV IROORZV 7KUHH EDVLF UHVHDUFK GHVLJQV KDYH EHHQ XVHG WR VWXG\ WKH LQIOXHQFH RI SHUVRQDOLW\ VLPLODULW\ RQ DWWUDFWLRQ ,Q RQH DSSURDFK H[LVWLQJ DWWUDFWLRQ SDLUV VXFK DV IULHQGV RU VSRXVHV DUH VHOHFWHG DQG WKHQ DVVHVVHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR RQH RU PRUH SHUVRQDOLW\ YDULDEOHV WKH VFRUHV RI WKH VHULHV RI SDLUV DUH FRUUHODWHG ,Q D VHFRQG DSSURDFK WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ PHDVXUH RU PHDVXUHV DUH REWDLQHG DQG WKHQ SUHYLRXVO\ XQDFTXDLQWHG VXEMHFWV DUH VHOHFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU WHVW VFRUHV DQG SODFHG LQ DQ LQWHUDFWLYH VLWXDWLRQ IROORZHG E\ DQ

PAGE 43

DVVHVVPHQW RI WKHLU DWWUDFWLRQ ,Q UHVHDUFK XWLOL]LQJ D WKLUG GHVLJQ WKH VXEMHFWnV SHUn VRQDOLW\ UHOHYDQW EHKDYLRU FRQVLVWV RI KLV UHVSRQVH WR WKH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG WR DVVHVV SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUn DFWHULVWLFV DQG KH LV VXEVHTXHQWO\ H[SRVHG WR WKH UHVSRQVHV RI WKH WDUJHW RQ WKH VDPH LQVWUXPHQW ZLWK RWKHU VWLPXOXV DQG HOHPHQWV FRQWUROOHG H[SHULPHQWDOO\ :LWK WKLV GHVLJQ LW KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW DWWUDFWLRQ LV SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR VLPLODULW\ SS f %\ XVLQJ WKH WKLUG GHVLJQ LW KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW SHRSOH DUH DWWUDFWHG WR WKRVH ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV LQ VHOIFRQFHSW *ULIILWW f WKH QHHG IRU DSSURYDO *ROGVWHLQ t 5RVHQIHOG f DQG GRPLQDQFHVXEPLVVLYHQHVV 3DOPHU t %\UQH f 7KH WKLUG GHVLJQ KDV EHHQ XVHG WR WHVW WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV IRU ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ WZR VWXGLHV PHQWLRQHG SUHYLRXVO\ LQ WKLV FKDSWHU ,Q WKH ILUVW RI WKHVH VWXGLHV 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ f WHVWHG WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW LQWHUQDOV DUH DWWUDFWHG WR RWKHU LQWHUQDOV DQG WKDW H[WHUQDOV DUH DWWUDFWHG WR IHOORZ H[WHUQDOV $V SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG WKHLU K\SRWKHVLV ZDV RQO\ SDUWLDOO\ FRQILUPHG DOWKRXJK WKH LQWHUQDOV VXEMHFWV GLG SUHIHU WKH LQWHUQDO VWUDQJHU RU WKH H[WHUQDOV VKRZHG QR SUHIHUHQFH IRU HLWKHU WKH LQWHUQDO RU WKH H[WHUQDO VWUDQJHU ,Q WKH VHFRQG RI WKHVH VWXGLHV 1RZLFNL DQG %OXPEHUJ f K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ GLG QRW FRQILUP WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV EHFDXVH WKH WHFKQLTXH WKH\ XVHG ZDV OHVV WKDQ UHDOLVWLF 7KH\ WHVWHG WKH VDPH K\SRWKHVLV XVLQJ DXGLR WDSHV LQVWHDG RI FRPn SOHWHG 5RWWHU VFDOHV 7KH K\SRWKHVLV ZDV VWLOO QRW FRQILUPHG ERWK WKH LQWHUQDO DQG WKH H[WHUQDO VXEMHFWV SUHIHUUHG WKH LQWHUQDO VWUDQJHU

PAGE 44

,Q WKHVH WZR H[SHULPHQWV WKH IDLOXUH WR FRQILUP WKH K\SRWKHVLV PD\ EH GXH WR WKH KLJKO\ FRQWULYHG FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKH VRFLDO GHVLUn DELOLW\ RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO 8QGHU WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV WKH VXEMHFWV PD\ VLPSO\ FKRRVH WKH SHUVRQ WKDW VHHPV PRUH VRFLDOO\ GHVLUDEOH UDWKHU WKDQ FKRRVH WKH SHUVRQ WKDW ZRXOG UHDOO\ EH D JRRG IULHQG 0RVW RI WKH VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH VXSSRUWHG WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKn HVLV DQG WKH VWXGLHV E\ 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ DQG 1RZLFNL DQG %OXPEHUJ EHORQJ WR WKH WKLUG FDWHJRU\ GHVFULEHG E\ %\UQH DQG *ULIILWW f 7KHVH VWXGLHV KDYH WZR IDFWRUV LQ FRPPRQ f WKHLU PHWKRG RI HOLFLWLQJ LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ LV KLJKO\ FRQWULYHG DQG f WKH\ PHDVXUH RQO\ LQLWLDO DWWUDFWLRQ ILUVW LPSUHVVLRQf 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ VRPH VWXGLHV ZLWKRXW WKHVH VKRUWFRPLQJV WKH PRVW QRWHG EHLQJ 1HZFRPEnV f VWXG\ 1HZFRPE LQYLWHG PDOH VWXGHQWV WUDQVIHUULQJ WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 0LFKLJDQ WR OLYH WRJHWKHU LQ D KRXVH QHDU FDPSXV ,Q H[FKDQJH IRU WKLV UHQWIUHH RSSRUWXQLW\ WKH VWXGHQWV DJUHHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ D UHVHDUFK SURMHFW ZKLFK HQWDLOHG UHJXODU WHVWLQJ DQG LQWHUYLHZLQJ $V PHQWLRQHG SUHYLRXVO\ 1HZFRPE IRXQG WKDW LQLWLDO DWWUDFWLRQ ZDV KLJKO\ UHODWHG WR SURn SLQTXLW\ JHQHUDOO\ WKH FORVHU WKH URRPV WKH JUHDWHU WKH FKDQFH RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ +RZHYHU ODWHU DWWUDFWLRQ ZDV PRUH VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG VLPLODULW\ LQ DWWLWXGHV 1HZFRPEnV VWXG\ VXJJHVWV WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV LQ D JURXS ZKR KDYH KDG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR EHFRPH DFTXDLQWHG ZLWK HDFK RWKHU ZLOO DVVRFLDWH ZLWK WKRVH JURXS PHPEHUV ZKRP WKH\ SHUFHLYH DV VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV

PAGE 45

6RFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ KDV DOVR EHHQ XVHG WR WHVW WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV WKLV PHWKRG LV WKH ILUVW W\SH GHVFULEHG E\ %\UQH DQG *ULIILWW f 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ LQFRQn VLVWHQW )RU H[DPSOH 3LQWHU HW DO VWXGLHG WKH IULHQGVKLSV RI ILIWK WKURXJK HLJKWK JUDGHUV DQG IRXQG WKDW IULHQGV ZHUH QRW VLPLODU LQ DVFHQGDQFHVXEPLVVLRQ HPRWLRQDO VWDELOLW\ DQG H[WURYHUVLRQ LQWURYHUVLRQ DQG 7KRUSH IRXQG WKDW FODVVURRP IULHQGV ZHUH QRW VLPn LODU LQ QHXURWLFLVP +RZHYHU %RQQH\ f $XVWLQ DQG 7KRPSVRQ f DQG 9DQ '\QH f IRXQG WKDW DGROHVFHQWV DQG \RXQJ DGXOWV ZHUH PRUH VLPLODU LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ WR WKHLU IULHQGV WKDQ WR QRQIULHQGV ,Q WKHVH VWXGLHV WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLW WKDW WKH IULHQGV KDG LQ FRPn PRQ ZDV D VRFLDO QDWXUH QDPHO\ VRFLDO DQG HPRWLRQDO DGMXVWPHQW %RQQH\ f VLPLODULW\ RI QHHGV $XVWLQ t 7KRPSVRQ f DQG GHJUHH RI GRPLQDQFH DQG VRFLDELOLW\ 9DQ '\QH f 7KH VWXG\ RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ LV IXUWKHU FRPSOLFDWHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFK RI :LQFK f ZKLFK LQGLFDWH WKDW PHQ DQG ZRPHQ RI FRPSOHPHQWDU\ WUDLWV DUH RIWHQ DWWUDFWHG WR HDFK RWKHU DQG PDLQn WDLQ JRRG PDULWDO UHODWLRQVKLSV $OWKRXJK PDUULHG FRXSOHV WHQG WR EH VLPLODU LQ UDFH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG UHOLJLRQ WKH\ RIWHQ FRPSOHPHQW HDFK RWKHU RQ FHUWDLQ SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV HVSHFLDOO\ WKRVH UHODWHG WR GRPLQDQFH DQG VXEPLVVLRQ WKDW LV SHRSOH ZLWK GRPLQDQW QHHGV WHQG WR PDUU\ SDUWQHUV ZLWK VXEPLVVLYH QHHGV +ROODQGHU f KDV HYDOXDWHG WKH UHVHDUFK RQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ DQG KDV FRQFOXGHG WKDW

PAGE 46

VLPLODULW\ LV LPSRUWDQW IRU VRPH NLQGV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG FRPSOHPHQWDU\ IRU RWKHUV ,Q PRVW VWXGLHV ZKHUH VLPLODULW\ LV IRXQG WR KROG DV D IDFWRU \LHOGLQJ D PXWXDO ERQG DWWLWXGHV DQG YDOXHV DUH WKRVH HOHPHQWV ZKLFK DUH EHLQJ PHDVXUHG &RPSOHPHQWDU\ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG PD\ EH UHOHYDQW WR QHHG VDWLVIDFWLRQ LQ DQ HQGXULQJ LQWHUn DFWLRQ S f 7KH SHHU UHODWLRQVKLSV RI \HDUROGV DOWKRXJK SRZHUIXO LQ DQ DOPRVW LPSHUVRQDO ZD\ DUH VWLOO QRW VR LQWLPDWH DQG HQGXULQJ +RUURFNV f WKDW FRPSOHPHQWDU\ QHHG VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZRXOG OLNHO\ EH DQ RYHUULGLQJ IDFWRU ,W LV RQO\ ZLWK PDWXUH LQWLPDWH UHODn WLRQVKLSV WKDW FRPSOHPHQWDU\ WUDLWV VHHP WR EH VLJQLILFDQW DV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH IDFW WKDW WKH FRPSOHPHQWDU\ K\SRWKHVLV RSSRVLWHV DWWUDFW KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG ZLWK UHVHDUFK XVLQJ PDUULHG FRXSOHV :LQFK +ROODQGHU f 7KHUHIRUH VLPLODULW\ LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO UDWKHU WKDQ FRPSOHPHQWDULW\ LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO VKRXOG EH D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ WKH SHHU UHODWLRQVKLSV RI \RXQJ DGROHVFHQWV ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LW LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH VRFLDO SUHn IHUHQFHV RI WKHVH VXEMHFWV DUH UHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG DWWLWXGH VLPLODULW\ DQG WKDW WKH FRQVWHOODWLRQ RI DWWLWXGHV VLJQLILFDQW WR WKHVH \HDU ROGV LV UHODWHG WR WKHLU ORFXV RI FRQWURO RULHQWDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH LW LV SUHGLFWHG WKDW WKHUH LV D PRGHUDWH EXW VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQn VKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO VLPLODULW\ DQG DWWUDFWLRQ WKDW LV WKH VXEMHFWV VKRXOG FKRRVH FODVVPDWHV ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ WKHUH ZDV D EULHI UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV 6WXGLHV ZHUH PHQWLRQHG

PAGE 47

ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG WKDW SHRSOH WHQG WR EH DWWUDFWHG WR WKRVH ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV LQ VHOIFRQFHSW QHHG IRU DSSURYDO DQG GRPLQDQFHVXEPLVVLYHQHVV 7ZR VWXGLHV 3KDUHV t :LOVRQ 1RZLFNL t %OXPEHUJ f ZHUH GLVFXVVHG ZKLFK WHVWHG DQG GLG QRW FRPSOHWHO\ VXSSRUW WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG VXSSRUW WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV IRU ORFXV RI FRQWURO EHFDXVH D PRUH UHDOLVWLF PHWKRG VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJf ZDV XVHG WR HOLFLW LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ ,Q WKH QH[W FKDSWHU WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ RI WKLV VWXG\ LV GLVFXVVHG

PAGE 48

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n ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI WKHLU IULHQGV VXFK WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FKRRVH IULHQGV ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR WKHPVHOYHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO 6XEMHFWV 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HLJKWK JUDGHUV IURP D PLGGOH VFKRRO LQ D FLW\ LQ 1RUWK &HQWUDO )ORULGD ZLWK D SRSXODWLRQ RI $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH VFKRRO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ PRVW RI WKH VFKRROnV VWXGHQWV bf ZHUH

PAGE 49

IURP IDPLOLHV RI ORZHU PLGGOH DQG ORZHU VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV 7KH VDPSOH LQFOXGHG IHPDOHV DQG PDOHV ZKLWHV DQG EODFNV 7KH PRGDO DJH ZDV 7HVWLQJ 3URFHGXUH 7KH VRFLRPHWULF WHVW DQG WKH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH IRU &KLOGUHQ 16f ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG E\ WZR (QJOLVK WHDFKHUV DW WKH VFKRRO LQ 'HFHPEHU RI 7KH WHDFKHUV DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH IRUPV WR DOO RI WKHLU FODVVHV ZKLFK PHW GXULQJ GLIIHUHQW FODVV SHULRGV WKURXJKRXW WKH VFKRRO GD\ 7KH VRFLRPHWULF TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG ILUVW DQG WKH 16 ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG RQH ZHHN ODWHU ZLWK D EDWWHU\ RI RWKHU WHVWV >7KH RWKHU GDWD FROOHFWHG DW WKLV WLPH ZHUH XVHG LQ D VWXG\ E\ 'DPLFR DQG 3XUNH\ f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

PAGE 50

RQ WKLV SURMHFW ZKLFK WKUHH VWXGHQWV ZRXOG \RX VHOHFW WR ZRUN ZLWK" 7KUHH EODQN VSDFHV IROORZHG WKLV LWHP 7KHUH ZHUH VHYHUDO RWKHU VRFLRn PHWULF TXHVWLRQV RQ WKLV IRUP VHH $SSHQGL[ %f EXW WKH\ ZHUH QRW EH DQDO\]HG LQ WKLV VWXG\ $OWKRXJK ERWK WKH LWHPV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DUH UHIHUUHG WR DV VRFLRPHWULF WKLV LV QRW H[DFWO\ FRUUHFW /LQG]H\ DQG %\UQH f VXPPDUL]HG 0RUHQRnV f UHTXLUHPHQWV RI D VRFLRPHWULF WHVW DV IROORZV 7KH OLPLWV RI WKH JURXS VKRXOG EH LQGLFDWHG WR WKH VXEMHFWV )RU H[DPSOH FKRLFHV FRXOG EH OLPLWHG WR PHPEHUV RI D VSHFLILF FODVVn URRP 7KH VXEMHFWV VKRXOG EH SHUPLWWHG DQ XQOLPLWHG QXPEHU RI FKRLFHV 7KH VXEMHFWV VKRXOG EH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH WKH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKRP WKH\ FKRRVH RU UHMHFW LQ WHUPV RI D VSHFLILF FULWHULRQ (DFK VRFLRn PHWULF FKRLFH VKRXOG EH PDGH ZLWK D PHDQLQJIXO DFWLYLW\ LQ PLQG IRU H[DPSOH QDPH WKH VWXGHQWV \RX ZRXOG OLNH WR VLW QH[W WR LQ FODVV 5HVXOWV RI WKH VRFLRPHWULF TXHVWLRQ VKRXOG EH XVHG WR UHVWUXFWXUH WKH JURXS 6XEMHFWV VKRXOG EH WROG WKDW WKHLU LQSXW ZLOO EH XVHG LQ PDNLQJ VXFK GHFLVLRQV 7KH VXEMHFWV VKRXOG EH SHUPLWWHG WR PDNH WKHLU FKRLFHV SULYDWHO\ 7KH TXVWLRQV XVHG VKRXOG EH JDXJHG WR WKH OHYHO RI XQGHUn VWDQGLQJ RI WKH VDPSOH

PAGE 51

$OWKRXJK WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP IXOILOOHG PRVW RI WKHVH UHTXLUHn PHQWV WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP YLRODWHG WKH VHFRQG WKLUG DQG IRXUWK UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH VHFRQG UHTXLUHPHQW XQOLPLWHG FKRLFHV ZDV YLRODWHG RQ ERWK LWHPV EHFDXVH XQOLPLWHG FKRLFHV ZRXOG EH PRUH GLIILFXOW WR PDQDJH LQ WHUPV RI VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV 7KH WKLUG UHTXLUHPHQW WKH XVH RI D VSHFLILF DFWLYLW\ ZDV QRW XVHG IRU WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP EHFDXVH WKH ILUVW DQG WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH LQWHQGHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH ORQJWHUP UHODWLRQVKLSV ,W ZDV DVVXPHG WKDW ZKHQ DGROHVn FHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR OLVW EHVW IULHQGV UDWKHU WKDQ WR QDPH SHHUV ZLWK ZKRP WKH\ ZRXOG OLNH WR LQWHUDFW LQ VRPH DFWLYLW\ WKHLU FKRLFHV ZRXOG EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR LQFOXGH DFWXDO UHODWLYHO\ ORQJWHUP IULHQGVKLSV /LQG]H\ DQG %\UQH f FRPPHQWHG RQ WKH DERYHPHQWLRQHG UHTXLUHn PHQWV DV IROORZV 7KH UHTXLUHPHQWV RXWOLQHG DERYH LGHQWLI\ WKH VRFLRPHWULF PHDVXUH LQ D PRUH RU OHVV SXUH IRUP DQG DUH JHQHUDOO\ LQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK 0RUHQRnV GHILQLWLRQ +RZHYHU UHODn WLYHO\ IHZ VWXGLHV LQ WKLV DUHD PHHW DOO WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV )RU H[DPSOH WKH WHFKQLTXH DV XVHG WRGD\ VHOGRP LQYROYHV WKH SURPLVH RI UHVWUXFWXULQJ WKH JURXS 2QH RI WKH PRUH IUHTXHQW PRGLILFDWLRQV LQYROYHV VSHFLI\LQJ WKH QXPEHU RI FKRLFHV WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV UHTXLUHG WR PDNH S f 7KXV VRFLRPHWULF VWXGLHV DUH QRW XQLIRUP LQ WKHLU PHWKRGRORJ\ 7KLV SRVHV D SUREOHP LQ DVVHVVLQJ WKH UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI WKH WHFKQLTXH +RZHYHU VLQFH SXUH DSSOLFDWLRQV RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ DUH WKH H[FHSWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH UXOH DQG VLQFH WKH YDULDWLRQV RI WKH SXUH IRUP VHHP WR \LHOG VLPLODU UHVXOWV WKH\ ZLOO DOO EH FRQVLGHUHG

PAGE 52

WRJHWKHU DQG WKH UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ LQ LWV EURDG VHQVHf ZLOO EH VDLG WR DSSO\ WR WKH SURFHGXUH XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ,Q IDFW PRVW RI WKH VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH DVVHVVHG WKH UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWV KDYH EHHQ YDULDWLRQV RI WKH SXUH IRUP &RQFHUQLQJ WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ D SRLQW PDGH E\ *URQOXQG f QHHGV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG SHUIHFW FRQVLVWHQF\ IURP RQH WHVW WR DQRWKHU LV QHLWKHU H[SHFWHG QRU GHVLUDEOH RZLQJ WR WKH G\QDPLF QDWXUH RI VRFLDO UHODWLRQV 5HYHDOLQJ DFWXDO FKDQJHV LQ VRFLDO UHODWLRQV LV DV LPSRUWDQW D UHTXLUHPHQW RI WKH VRFLRn PHWULF WHVW DV SURYLGLQJ UHVXOWV WKDW DUH FRQVWDQW HQRXJK WR KDYH SUHGLFWLYH YDOXH 7KXV ZKHQ DSSOLHG WR VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ WKH YDULRXV FRHIILFLHQWV RI UHOLDELOLW\ UHIHU WR WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI FKRLFH EHKDYLRU UDWKHU WKDQ WR WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH WHVW LWVHOI S f 7KXV WKH FKDQJHV LQ VRFLRPHWULF UHVXOWV GR QRW QHFHVVDULO\ UHIOHFW WHVWLQJ HUURU WR D JUHDW H[WHQW WKH\ UHIOHFW DFWXDO FKDQJHV LQ WKH VRFLDO SHUIHUHQFHV RI WKH VXEMHFWV :LWK WKLV SRLQW LQ PLQG WKH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ DQG WKH WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG *URVVPDQ DQG :ULJKWHU f GHWHUPLQHG WKH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\r RI WKHLU VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ ZLWK IRXU FODVVURRPV RI VL[WK JUDGHUV 7KH\ UDQGRPO\ GLYLGHG HDFK JURXS LQ KDOI DQG WKHQ FRUUHODWHG WKH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RI HDFK VXEMHFW DV UDWHG E\ RQH KDOI RI WKH FODVV ZLWK KLV VWDWXV LQ WKH RWKHU KDOI RI WKH FODVV 7KH\ UHSRUWHG FRHIn ILFLHQWV RI LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ IURP WR %DVV DQG :KLWH f

PAGE 53

DQG 5LFFLXWL DQG )UHQFK f XVLQJ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DV VXEMHFWV UHSRUWHG LQWHUQDO UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV RI $XVXEHO 6FKLII DQG *DVVHU f UHSRUWHG FRHIILFLHQWV IURP WR IRU WKLUG ILIWK DQG VHYHQWK JUDGHUV DQG FRHIILFLHQWV RI DQG IRU WK DQG WK JUDGHUV 7HVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ KDV EHHQ GHWHUPLQHG E\ FRUUHODWLQJ WKH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RI VXEMHFWV RQ RQH VRFLRPHWULF WHVW ZLWK WKHLU VWDWXV RQ DQRWKHU WHVW DW D ODWHU GDWH :LWU\RO DQG 7KRPSVRQ f DQG 7KRPSVRQ DQG 3RZHOO f VWXGLHG WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV PDGH E\ VL[WK JUDGHUV DW LQWHUYDOV RI RQH ZHHN IRXU ZHHNV DQG VL[ ZHHNV :LWU\RO DQG 7KRPSVRQ f UHSRUWHG UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIn ILFLHQWV UDQJLQJ IURP WR DQG 7KRPSVRQ DQG 3RZHOO f UHSRUWHG FRUUHODWLRQV UDQJLQJ IURP WR ,Q ERWK VWXGLHV WKH FRHIILFLHQWV WHQGHG WR GHFUHDVH RYHU WLPH 8VLQJ ORQJHU WLPH LQWHUYDOV %\UG f IRXQG D UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI ZLWK IRXUWK JUDGHUV VHOHFWLQJ SDUWQHUV IRU D SOD\ DIWHU D WZRPRQWK LQWHUYDO DQG *URQOXQG f UHSRUWHG DQ DYHUDJH UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQW RI IRU IRXUWK ILIWK DQG VL[WK JUDGHUV RYHU D IRXUPRQWK LQWHUYDO %RQQH\ f DGPLQLVWHUHG D VRFLRPHWULF WHVW DQ ,4 WHVW DQG DQ DFKLHYHPHQW WHVW WR D JURXS RI VHFRQG JUDGHUV IRU IRXU FRQVHFXWLYH \HDUV 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV RI WKH VWXGHQWV VRFLRn PHWULF VWDWXV IURP RQH \HDU WR WKH QH[W UDQJHG IURP WR 7KH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RI WKH FKLOGUHQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV DV FRQVLVWHQW DV WKHLU ,4 DQG VFRUHV RQ WKH DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV

PAGE 54

8VLQJ KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV 1RUWKZD\ f UHSRUWHG FRHIILFLHQWV RI IRU D RQHZHHN LQWHUYDO DQG IRU D RQH\HDU LQWHUYDO -HQQLQJV f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV RI DGROHVFHQW JLUOV WR \HDUV ROGf RYHU WLPH DQG IRXQG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI DIWHU IRXU GD\V DQG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI DIWHU HLJKW PRQWKV 7KXV WKH UHVXOWV RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ DUH UHODWLYHO\ FRQVLVWHQW 7KH\ DUH DOPRVW DV UHOLDEOH DV W\SLFDO LQWHOOLJHQFH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV DV %RQQH\ f KDV GHPRQVWUDWHG DQG PRUH UHOLDEOH WKDQ PRVW DWWLWXGHSHUVRQDOLW\ PHDVXUHV $V ZLWK UHOLDELOLW\ WKH FRQFHSW RI YDOLGLW\ DV LW LV W\SLFDOO\ DSSOLHG WR WHVWLQJ DQG PHDVXUHPHQW QHHGV WR EH TXDOLILHG LQ LWV DSSOLFDWLRQ WR VRFLRPHWULF WHVWV ,I VRFLRPHWULF WHVWV DUH VXSSRVHG WR PHDVXUH PHUHO\ VRFLDO FKRLFH WKHQ WKH\ DUH E\ GHILQLWLRQ YDOLG 3HSLQVN\ f +RZHYHU LI WKH\ DUH VXSSRVHG WR PHDVXUH DFWXDO VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH\ ZLOO FHUWDLQO\ IDOO VKRUW RI WKLV H[SHFWDn WLRQ EHFDXVH DV *URQOXQG f KDV PHQWLRQHG $Q LQGLYLGXDOnV DFWXDO DVVRFLDWLRQV DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ HQYLURQPHQWDO OLPLWDWLRQV SHUVRQDO LQKLELWLRQV ODFN RI UHFLSURFDO IHHOLQJV RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH GHVLUHG DVVRFLDWHV DQG RWKHU UHODWHG IDFWRUV DV PXFK DV WKH\ DUH E\ KLV SUHIHUHQFHV 7KXV DFWXDO DVVRFLDWLRQV FDQ EH H[SHFWHG WR VKRZ VRPH YDULDWLRQ IURP WKH GHVLUHG DVVRFLDWLRQV LQGLFDWHG LQ VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV S f $OWKRXJK VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV GR QRW FRUUHVSRQG SHUIHFWO\ ZLWK DFWXDO DVVRFLDWLRQV WKHUH LV D JUHDW GHDO RI RYHUODS 7KLV RYHUODS VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV WKDW DUH DOVR DFWXDO DVVRFLDWLRQV LV FRQVLGHUHG

PAGE 55

HYLGHQFH RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ IRU WKLV VWXG\ EHFDXVH WKH ILUVW DQG WKLUG K\SRWKHVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ SXUSRUW WR VWXG\ IULHQGVKLSV 6WXGLHV WKDW KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH YDOLGLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ KDYH UHODWHG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV ZLWK RWKHU PHDVXUHV RI SRSXODULW\ DQG IULHQGVKLS FKRLFHV &RQFHUQLQJ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV WKH REVHUYDWLRQV RI WHDFKHUV DQG LQGHSHQGHQW LQYHVWLJDWRUV FRUUHVSRQG UDWKHU FORVHO\ WR WKH UHVXOWV RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWV %RQQH\ DQG 3RZHOO f IRXQG WKDW VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ KLJK ILUVW DQG VHFRQG JUDGHUV SDUWLFLSDWHG PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ LQ FRRSHUDWLYH JURXS DFWLYLWLHV DQG DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PRUH FKLOGUHQ WKDQ GLG VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ ORZ FKLOGUHQ 1HZVOHWWHU )HOGVWHLQ DQG 1HZFRPE f IRXQG D FRUUHODWLRQ RI EHWZHHQ WKH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV DQG WKH FDPS FRXQVHORU UDWLQJV RI SRSXODULW\ IRU DGROHVFHQW ER\V *URQOXQG f KDG VL[WK JUDGH WHDFKHUV UDQN WKHLU VWXGHQWV DFFRUGLQJ WR SRSXODULW\ WKH DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WHDFKHUnV UDQNLQJ DQG VRFLRPHWULF UHVXOWV ZDV *URQOXQG f REn WDLQHG VLPLODU UHVXOWV LQ WZR RWKHU VWXGLHV 7KH LQGLYLGXDO FKRLFHV RI D VXEMHFW DUH PRUH FRPSOH[ DQG YDULDEOH *URQOXQG f WKDQ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV 7KHUHIRUH LW LV PRUH GLIILn FXOW WR REVHUYH DQG OHVV OLNHO\ WR FRUUHVSRQG FORVHO\ ZLWK VRFLRPHWULF UHVXOWV %LHKOHU f FRPSDUHG WKH ILUVW VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFH RI NLQGHUn JDUWHQ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK WKHLU REVHUYHG SOD\ FRPSDQLRQV $ERXW SHUFHQW RI WKH FKRVHQ FRPSDQLRQV DFWXDOO\ SOD\HG ZLWK WKH FKLOGUHQ ZKR FKRVH

PAGE 56

WKHP *DJH /HDYLWW DQG 6WRQH f DVNHG IRXUWK ILIWK DQG VL[WK JUDGH WHDFKHUV WR SUHGLFW KRZ HDFK RI WKHLU VWXGHQWV ZRXOG UHVSRQG WR D VRFLRPHWULF LWHP WKDW DVNHG IRU WKH VWXGHQWV WR OLVW ILYH FKLOGUHQ LQ WKHLU URRP ZKRP WKH\ ZRXOG PRVW SUHIHU DV FODVVPDWHV LI WKH FODVV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSV 7KH DYHUDJH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WHDFKHUnV SUHGLFWLRQ DQG WKH VRFLRPHWULF UHVXOWV ZDV &RQVLGHULQJ WKDW REVHUYDWLRQV DUH VXEMHFW WR HUURU DQG WKDW VRPH DVSHFWV RI IULHQGVKLS FDQ QRW EH REVHUYHG WKH DERYHPHQWLRQHG HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKDW VRFLRPHWULF UHVXOWV FRUUHVSRQG UDWKHU FORVHO\ WR DFWXDO IULHQGVKLSV 7KH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH IRU &KLOGUHQ 16f 1RZLFNL DQG 6WULFNODQG f GHYHORSHG WKH 16 VHH $SSHQGL[ $f DV WKH FKLOGUHQnV FRXQWHUSDUW WR 5RWWHUnV f ,QWHUQDO([WHUQDO /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH ERWK VFDOHV ZHUH LQWHQGHG WR EH PHDVXUHV RI JOREDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO 1RZLFNL DQG 6WULFNODQG f GHVFULEH WKH VFDOH LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU 7KH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO VFDOH LV D SDSHUDQGSHQFL PHDVXUH FRQVLVWLQJ RI TXHVWLRQV WKDW DUH DQVZHUHG HLWKHU \HV RU QR E\ SODFLQJ D PDUN QH[W WR WKH TXHVWLRQ 7KLV IRUP RI WKH PHDVXUH GHULYHV IURP ZRUN ZKLFK EHJDQ ZLWK D ODUJH QXPEHU RI LWHPV 1 f FRQVWUXFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI 5RWWHUnV GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQWURO RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ 7KH LWHPV GHVFULEH UHLQIRUFHPHQW VLWXDWLRQV DFURVV LQWHUSHUVRQDO DQG PRWLYDWLRQDO DUHDV VXFK DV DIILOLDWLRQ DFKLHYHPHQW DQG GHSHQGHQF\ 6FKRRO WHDFKHUV ZHUH FRQVXOWHG LQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI LWHPV 7KH JRDO ZDV WR PDNH

PAGE 57

WKH LWHPV UHDGDEOH DW WKH ILIWKJUDGH OHYHO \HW DSSURSULDWH IRU ROGHU VWXGHQWV 7KHVH LWHPV DORQJ ZLWK 5RWWHUnV GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO GLPHQVLRQ ZHUH WKHQ JLYHQ WR D JURXS RI FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ VWDII PHPEHUV 1 f ZKR ZHUH DVNHG WR DQVZHU WKH LWHPV LQ DQ H[WHUQDO GLUHFWLRQ ,WHPV RQ ZKLFK WKHUH ZDV QRW FRPSOHWH DJUHHPHQW DPRQJ WKH MXGJHV ZHUH GURSSHG 7KLV OHIW LWHPV ZKLFK PDGH XS WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ IRUP RI WKH WHVW 7KH LWHP IRUP RI WKH WHVW ZDV WKHQ JLYHQ WR D VDPSOH RI VWXGHQWV 1 f UDQJLQJ IURP WKH WKLUG WKURXJK HOHYHQWK JUDGHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI IXUWKHU DQDO\VLV DV ZHOO DV FRPPHQWV IURP WHDFKHUV DQG VXEMHFWV LQ WKH VDPSOH OHG WR WKH SUHVHQW IRUP RI WKH WHVW FRQVLVWLQJ RI LWHUQV S f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f DQG WKH %LDOHU&URPZHO 6FDOH %LDOHU f :LWK WKLUG JUDGH DQG VHYHQWK JUDGH EODFNV WKH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH ,QWHOn OHFWXDO $FKLHYHPHQW 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH DQG WKH 16 ZHUH DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ :LWK D VDPSOH RI FKLOGUHQ DJHV WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH %LDOHU&URPZHO 6FDOH DQG WKH 16 ZDV

PAGE 58

$V HYLGHQFH RI WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 16 1RZLFNL DQG 6WULFNODQG f FLWHG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW DQG WKH 16 DW YDU\LQJ DJH OHYHOV 7KH\ DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW LQWHUQDOLW\ DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH 16 LQFUHDVHV ZLWK DJH DQG RIIHUHG WKLV WUHQG DV HYLGHQFH RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW 1RZLFNL f KDV DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHG WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI KLV LQVWUXPHQW E\ IDFWRU DQDO\]LQJ WKH WHVW UHVXOWV RI WKUHH GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV f§ HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ MXQLRU KLJK VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ DQG KLJK VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ )RU WKH VDPSOH PRVW UHOHYDQW WR WKLV VWXG\ MXQLRU KLJK VFKRRO VXEMHFWVf WKHUH ZHUH WKUHH GLIIHUHQW IDFWRUV 7KHUH ZDV RQH JHQHUDO IDFWRU WKDW DFFRXQWHG IRU SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH DQG ZDV ODEHOHG KHOSOHVVQHVV WKLV IDFWRU ZDV DOVR SUHVHQW LQ WKH RWKHU WZR VDPSOHVf 7KH RWKHU WZR IDFWRUV DFFRXQWHG IRU OVV YDULDQFH SHUFHQW WKH VHFRQG IDFWRU KDG WR GR ZLWK DFKLHYHPHQW HVSHFLDOO\ WKURXJK SHUVLVWHQFH DQG SODQQLQJ DQG WKH WKLUG IDFWRU FRQWDLQHG LWHPV KDYLQJ WR GR ZLWK OXFN SHUVLVWHQFH DQG VXFFHVV LQ VRFLDO DUHDV 7KXV LW DSSHDUV WKDW SDUW RI WKH WKLUG IDFWRU VXFFHVV LQ VRFLDO DUHDVf LV PRVW UHOHYDQW LQ WKLV VWXG\ +RZHYHU VLQFH LW LV RQO\ SDUW RI RQH IDFWRU FRQWDLQV RQO\ D IHZ LWHPV DQG DFFRXQWV IRU VR OLWWOH YDULDQFH LW KDV QRW EHHQ XVHG WR SUHGLFW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV LQ WKLV VWXG\ $OWKRXJK WKH 16 LV D UDWKHU QHZ LQVWUXPHQW DQG ODFNV WKH YDOLGDn WLRQ UHVHDUFK RI D PRUH HVWDEOLVKHG LQVWUXPHQW WKH VSDUFH DPRXQW RI HYLGHQFH WKDW LV DYDLODEOH VXJJHVWV WKDW LW LV DERXW DV UHOLDEOH DQG

PAGE 59

YDOLG DV PRVW DWWLWXGHSHUVRQDOLW\ PHDVXUHV XVHG LQ UHVHDUFK 0DF'RQDOG f KDV HYDOXDWHG PRVW RI WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQVWUXn PHQWV DQG KDV QRWHG 7KLV WHVW KDV EHHQ GHYHORSHG FDUHIXOO\ E\ UHVHDUFKHUV RI VROLG UHSXWDWLRQ 7KRXJK RI UHFHQW FRQVWUXFWLRQ LW KDV EHHQ XVHG LQ PDQ\ VWXGLHV 5HVXOWV SUHVHQWO\ DYDLODEOH LQGLFDWH WKH VFDOH WR KDYH DGHTXDWH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ DQG WHPSRUDO FRQVLVWHQF\ 'DWD UHOHYDQW WR GLYHUJHQW DQG FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ DUH HQFRXUDJLQJ ,Q VKRUW LW DSSHDUV WR EH WKH EHVW PHDVXUH RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO DV D JHQHUDOL]HG H[SHFWDQF\ SUHVHQWO\ DYDLODEOH IRU FKLOGUHQ S f 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV )LUVW DQG VHFRQG K\SRWKHVHV ,Q ERWK RI WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH ZDV VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV 606f RQ WKH UHVSHFWLYH VRFLRPHWULF LWHP 6RFLRPHWULF VWDWXV ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ FRXQWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI VHOHFWLRQV WKDW HDFK VXEMHFW UHFHLYHG 3UHYLRXV VRFLRPHWULF UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKLV GLVWULEXWLRQ VKRXOG EH VNHZHG WR WKH ULJKWIHZHU SRSXODU FKLOGUHQ WKDQ XQSRSXODU RQHV *URXOXQG f 7KH SULQFLSDO LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH ZDV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f PHDVXUHG E\ WKH 16 ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKLV GLVWULEXWLRQ ZRXOG EH FORVH WR QRUPDO RU VNHZHG VOLJKWO\ WR WKH ULJKW WKHUH PD\ EH PRUH H[WUHPH LQWHUQDOV WKDQ H[WUHPH H[WHUQDOV 1RZLFNL t 6WULFNODQG f 7KH YDULDEOHV RI VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH IRUFHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ EHIRUH /2& DV FRYDULDWHV VLQFH VH[ DQG UDFH PD\ EH FRQIRXQGLQJ YDULDEOHV 7KXV WKH EDVLF PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ZDV DV IROORZV $ 606 VH[ UDFH /2&

PAGE 60

,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKHVH EDVLF YDULDEOHV ORFXV RI FRQWURO DV D QRQOLQHDU YDULDEOH /2& f DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH DOVR FKHFNHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH VR WKH FRPSOHWH HTXDWLRQ ZDV DV IROORZV 606 VH[ UDFH /2& /2&A /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf $OO RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH IRUFHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ LQ WKH RUGHU LQGLFDWHG DERYH 7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKLV DSSURDFK KDV EHHQ GLVFXVVHG XQGHU WKH UXEULFV RI WKH D SULRUL RUGHULQJ DSSURDFK E\ .HUOLQJHU t 3HGKD]XU f 'XPP\ FRGLQJ .HUOLQJHU t 3HGKD]XU f ZDV XVHG WR FRGH VH[ DQG UDFH 7KH GDWD ZHUH VXEPLWWHG RQ FDUGV WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGDnV ,%0 FRPSXWHU DVVHVVLQJ WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ SURJUDP RI WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO 3DFNDJH IRU WKH 6RFLDO 6FLHQFHV 6336f 1LH +XOO 6WHLQEUHQQHU t %HQW f ,Q IDFW DOO RI WKH GDWD DQDO\VLV RI WKLV VWXG\ XAHG SURJUDPV IURP WKH 6366 OLEUDU\f ,I WKH )YDOXH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO IRU WKH /2& YDULDEOH WKH K\SRWKHVLV ZDV DFFHSWHG 2QH RI WKH DVVXPSWLRQV RI PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ LV WKDW WKH GHSHQn GHQW YDULDEOH VKRXOG EH QRUPDO +RZHYHU .HUOLQJHU DQG 3HGKD]XU f KDV QRWHG WKDW WKLV LV QRW DOZD\V D SUREOHP ,W KDV FRQYLQFLQJO\ EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW WKH ) DQG W WHVWV DUH VWURQJ RU UREXVW VWDWLVWLFV ZKLFK PHDQV WKDW WKH\ UHVLVW YLRODWLRQ RI WKH DVVXPSWLRQV ,Q JHQHUDO

PAGE 61

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f ZDV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH ,W LV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI )/2& VFRUHV VKRXOG EH FORVH WR QRUPDO VR QRQH RI WKH DVVXPSWLRQV RI PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ VKRXOG EH YLRODWHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV :LWK )/2& VFRUHV DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH WKH SULQFLSDO LQGHn SHQGHQW YDULDEOH ZDV WKH VXEMHFWnV RZQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUH ,I WKHUH LV D VLJQLILFDQW SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR LW ZRXOG LQGLFDWH WKDW WKHVH VXEMHFWV WHQG WR FKRRVH IULHQGV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO RULHQWDWLRQ $ QHJDWLYH FRUUHODWLRQ ZRXOG LQGLFDWH D WHQGHQF\ WR FKRRVH IULHQGV RI WKH RSSRVLWH ORFXV RI FRQWURO

PAGE 62

$V ZLWK WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH IRUFHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ EHIRUH WKH SULQFLSDO LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH WKH VXEMHFWnV RZQ /2& VFRUHf $OVR LQWHUDFWLRQV DQG D QRQOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS EHn WZHHQ /2& DQG )/2& ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG 7KXV WKH FRPSOHWH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ZDV DV IROORZV ? )/2& VH[ UDFH /2& /2&A /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ 7ZR KXQGUHG HLJKWK JUDGHUV DQVZHUHG WZR VRFLRPHWULF TXHVWLRQV RQH WKDW DVNHG WKH VWXGHQWV WR OLVW WKHLU EHVW IULHQGV DQG DQRWKHU WKDW DVNHG WKH VWXGHQW WR QDPH WKUHH FODVVPDWHV ZLWK ZKRP WKH\ ZRXOG OLNH WR ZRUN DQ DQ DFDGHPLF SURMHFW 2QH ZHHN ODWHU WKH VXEMHFWV FRPSOHWHG WKH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH IRU &KLOGUHQ 16f 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI VRFLRPHWULF WHVWLQJ DQG WKH 16 ZHUH GLVFXVVHG ERWK WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV ZHUH DV UHOLDEOH DQG YDOLG DV PRVW SV\FKRORJLFDO WHVWV XVHG LQ UHVHDUFK 7KH VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f ZDV WKH SULQFLSDO LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH IRU DOO WKUHH K\SRWKHVHV /2& DQG RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVn VLRQ HTXDWLRQV WR SUHGLFW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 606Af VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 606Af DQG WKH VXEMHFWnV IULHQGV ORFXV RI FRQWURO )/2&f 7KH FRPSOHWH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH DV IROORZV

PAGE 63

)LUVW K\SRWKHVLV 6HFRQG K\SRWKHVLV 7KLUG K\SRWKHVLV 606A VH[ UDFH /2& /2&A /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf 606 VH[ UDFH /2& /2&A ZS /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf $ )/2& VH[ UDFH /2& /2&A /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV DQDO\VLV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH QH[W FKDSWHU

PAGE 64

&+$37(5 ,9 5(68/76 $1' ',6&866,21 ,Q WKLV FKDSWHU WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ DUH VWDWHG DQG GLVFXVVHG 7KH ILUVW VHFWLRQ SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV DQG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKHVH UHVXOWV LV GLVFXVVHG 5HVXOWV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ VXEVHFWLRQV 7KH ILUVW VXEVHFWLRQ LV D JHQHUDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH GDWD ZKLFK LQFOXGHV WKH PHDQ VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ DQG RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKH YDULDEOHV XVHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KH UHPDLQLQJ WKUHH VXEVHFWLRQV SUHVHQW WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VLV RI HDFK K\SRWKHVLV 7KHVH WKUHH VXEVHFWLRQV IRFXV RQ WKH LQIHUHQWLDO VWDWLVWLFV RI HDFK K\SRWKHVLV DQG WKH ILUVW VXEn VHFWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ WKH GHVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV RI DOO RI WKH YDULDEOHV 'HVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV 7ZR KXQGUHG VXEMHFWV FRPSOHWHG WKH 1RZLFNL 6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH IRU &KLOGUHQ 16f 6FRUHV RQ WKH 16 FDQ UDQJH IURP WR WKH KLJKHU WKH VFRUH WKH PRUH H[WHUQDO 7KH PHDQ VFRUH RI WKLV VDPSOH ZDV WKH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ ZDV 7KH VFRUHV UDQJHG IURP WR 0HDVXUHV RI WKH VNHZQHVV DQG NXUWRVLV ZHUH WDNHQ DQG IRXQG WR EH DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI 16 VFRUHV ZDV FORVH WR QRUPDO

PAGE 65

7KH VDPSOH LQFOXGHG IHPDOHV DQG PDOHV ZKLWHV DQG EODFNV 7KH IHPDOH VXEMHFWV KDG D PHDQ 16 VFRUH RI DQG WKH PDOHV 7KH ORZHU WKH VFRUH WKH PRUH LQWHUQDOf 7KH PHDQ VFRUH IRU ZKLWHV ZDV DQG IRU EODFNV LW ZDV 7KH VH[UDFH GLIIHUHQFHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH 6H[UDFH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFRUHV 6XEJURXS 1 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ :KLWH PDOHV %ODFN PDOHV $OO PDOHV :KLWH IHPDOHV %ODFN IHPDOHV $OO IHPDOHV $OO ZKLWHV $OO EODFNV 6RFLRPHWULF VWDWXV ZDV PHDVXUHG E\ FRXQWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI VHOHFWLRQV UHFHLYHG )RU WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 606Af ZDV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH PHDQ QXPEHU RI VHOHFWLRQV UHFHLYHG ZDV L WKH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ ZDV 7KH PRVW SRSXODU VXEMHFWV 1 f UHFHLYHG QLQH VHOHFWLRQV

PAGE 66

WKDW LV QLQH RI WKHLU FODVVPDWHV FKRVH WKHP DV EHVW IULHQGV 7KLUW\WKUHH VXEMHFWV UHFHLYHG QR VHOHFWLRQV 7KXV 606AA UDQJHG IURP ]HUR WR QLQH 7KH PHDVXUHV RI VNHZQHVV DQG NXUWRVLV ZHUH DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ )RU WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 606 f ZDV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH PHDK QXPEHU RI VHOHFn WLRQV UHFHLYHG ZDV WKH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ ZDV 2Q WKLV LWHP WKH PRVW SRSXODU VXEMHFW UHFHLYHG VHOHFWLRQV DQG VXEMHFWV UHFHLYHG QR FKRLFHV 7KH PHDVXUHV RI VNHZQHVV DQG NXUWRVLV ZHUH DQG IRU WKLV YDULDEOH /LNH 606 606 ZDV QRW VLJQLIL EIf ZS D FDQWO\ UHODWHG WR HLWKHU VH[ RU UDFH 7KH LQGLFHV RI VNHZQHVV DQG NXUWRVLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW 606A DQG 606:S GHYLDWHG FRQVLGHUDEO\ IURP D QRUPDO GLVWULEXWLRQ 1LH HW DO f 7KHUHIRUH ERWK GLVWULEXWLRQV ZHUH WUDQVIRPHG WR 7VFRUHV D SURFHGXUH FRPPRQO\ XVHG WR QRUPDOL]H UHFDOFLWUDQW GDWD 5RVFRH f 7KH WUDQVIRUPHG YDULDEOHV ZKLFK ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZHUH ODEHOHG 60A DQG 61A 7KH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ 60.L DQG 60 ZDV rW ZS 5HOHYDQW WR WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV WKH VXEMHFWV RI WKLV VWXG\ PDGH XVDEOH FKRLFHV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP VRPH VXEMHFWV FKRVH IULHQGV ZKR GLG QRW WDNH WKH 16 DQG WKHVH FKRLFHV FRXOG QRW EH XVHGf 2I WKH VHOHFWLRQV ZHUH IULHQGV RI WKH VDPH VH[ DQG UDFH RI WKH FKRRVHU IULHQGV RI WKH RSSRVLWH VH[ ZHUH FKRVHQ DQG RQO\ WZR IULHQGV RI DQRWKHU UDFH ZHUH FKRVHQ

PAGE 67

7KH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV ZDV WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI WKH IULHQGV FKRVHQ E\ WKH VXEMHFWV )/2&f 6LQFH HDFK VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFH QRW HDFK VXEMHFW ZDV WKH LQGLYLGXDO XQLW RI DQDO\VLV IRU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV D VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV XVHG DV PDQ\ WLPHV DV KH ZDV FKRVHQ DV D IULHQG 7KH PHDQ )/2& ZDV ZLWK D VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI )ULHQGVnORFXV RI FRQn WURO UDQJHG IURP WR $V SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG WKH 16 WHVW UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH IDFWRU DQDO\]HG LQ WKH KRSH RI ILQGLQJ D VRFLDO IDFWRU +RZn HYHU WKH IDFWRU DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VXEVWDQWLDO IDFWRU VWUXFWXUH 7KH GHVFULSWLYH GDWD KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQWHG DERYH WKH QH[W WKUHH VHFWLRQV SUHVHQW WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH K\SRWKHVLV WHVWLQJ )LUVW K\SRWKHVLV 7KH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV SRVWXODWHG D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f DQG WKHLU VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 60EIf VXFK WKDW LQWHUn QDOV ZRXOG EH PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ H[WHUQDOV $V PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH SUHn YLRXV VHFWLRQ 606 ZDV WUDQVIRUPHG WR 7VFRUHV DQG ODEHOHG 60f ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ /2& DQG 60AA ZRXOG EH VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW $OVR LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VH[ /2& [ VH[f DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG UDFH /2& [ UDFHf DQG D FXUYLOLQHDU ORFXV RI FRQWURO WHUP /2&Af ZHUH FKHFNHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ XVHG WR SUHGLFW 60A DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 68

7DEOH 7KH PDJQLWXGH DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI YDULDEOHV XVHG WR SUHGLFW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP :LWK YDULDEOHV SDUWLDOHG RXW 9DULDEOH 2UGHU LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ %HWD =HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ 0XOWLSOH 5 9DULDEOHV SDUWLDOHG RXW )UDWLR 6H[ VW QRQH 5DFH QG VH[ /2& UG VH[ UDFH r /2& [ VH[ WK VH[ UDFH /2& FBQ YG /2& [ UDFH WK VH[ UDFH /2& /2& WK VH[ UDFH /2& r

PAGE 69

7KH ]HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ /2& DQG 60A ZDV ZKLFK LV LQ WKH SUHGLFWHG GLUHFWLRQ DQG VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW e f 6H[ DQG UDFH ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR 60A 7KH )UDWLR RI /2& DV D SUHGLFWRU RI 60A ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW ZDV GI f ZKLFK LV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO +RZHYHU /2& DFFRXQWHG IRU OHVV WKDQ WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 60A :LWK VH[ UDFH DQG /2& HQWHUHG LQWR WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ QRQH RI WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV >/2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf /2&Af@ ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI 60A 6HFRQG K\SRWKHVLV 7KH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV SUHGLFWHG D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWYHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f DQG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 60 f ZKHQ VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH SDUWLDOHG RXW ,W ZDV DOVR SUHGLFWHG WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ /2& DQG 6AZS ZRXAG EH JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ /2& DQG 60EI $V LQ WKH ILUVW K\SRWKHVLV /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf DQG /2&A ZHUH WHVWHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH ]HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ /2& DQG 6OA ZDV ZKLFK LV LQ WKH SUHGLFWHG GLUHFWLRQ DQG VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO $ IRUPXOD UHFRPPHQGHG E\ 5RVFRH f ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH LI DQ\ RI WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKLV FRUUHODWLRQ U f DQG WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ /2& DQG 60 B a EW f 7KHVH WZR FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\

PAGE 70

7DEOH 7KH PDJQLWXGH DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI YDULDEOHV XVHG WR SUHGLFW VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW WHDP 9DULDEOH 2UGHU LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ %HWD =HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ 0XOWLSOH 5 :LWK YDULDEOHV SDUWLDOHG RXW 9DULDEOHV )UDWLR SDUWLDOHG RXW 6H[ VW QRQH 5DFH QG VH[ /2& UG r &2 &?n VH[ UDFH r /2& [ VH[ WK VH[ UDFH /2& /2& [ UDFH WK VH[ UDFH /2& /2& WK /2 R VH[ UDFH /2& rS

PAGE 71

GLIIHUHQW IURP HDFK RWKHU DW WKH OHYHO EXW WKH SUREDELOLW\ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH QRW GLIIHUHQW ZDV OHVV WKDQ 6H[ DQG UDFH ZHUH WKH ILUVW YDULDEOHV LQ WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ EXW QHLWKHU SURGXFHG D VLJQLILFDQW )UDWLR :LWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW /2& SURGXFHG D )UDWLR RI GI f ZKLFK ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO /2& ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH FRQn WUROOHG IRU DFFRXQWHG IRU DERXW HLJKW SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ 60 ZS :LWK VH[ UDFH DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO HQWHUHG LQWR WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVn VLRQ HTXDWLRQ /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf DQG /2&A ZHUH QRW VWDWLVWLn FDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW 7KLUG K\SRWKHVLV 7KH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV SRVWXODWHG D VLJQLILFDQW UHODn WLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ D VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f DQG WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI KLV IULHQGV )/2&f HYHQ ZKHQ VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH DFFRXQWHG IRU ,QWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ VH[ DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2& [ VH[f DQG UDFH DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2& [ UDFHf DQG D FXUYLOLQHDU ORFXV RI FRQ WURO WHUP /2& f ZHUH DOVRfFKHFNHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ XVHG WR SUHGLFW )/2& DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH ]HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f DQG WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI WKHLU IULHQGV )/2&f ZDV ZKLFK ZDV VLJQLILFDQW  f :LWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW /2& SURGXFHG DQ )UDWLR RI GI f ZKLFK ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW  f SUHGLFWRU RI )/2& EXW LW DFFRXQWHG IRU OHVV WKDQ WZR SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ )/2&

PAGE 72

DEOH 7KH PDJQLWXGH FRQWURO DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI YDULDEOHV XVHG WR SUHGLFW IULHQGVn ORFXV RI :LWK YDULDEOHV SDUWLDOHG RXW 9DUL DEOH 2UGHU LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ %HWD =HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ 0XOWLSOH 5 9DULDEOHV SDUWLDOHG RXW )UDWLR 5DFH VW QRQH rr 6H[ QG UDFH rr /2& UG VH[ UDFH rr /2& [ VH[ WK VH[ UDFH /2& rr /2& WK VH[ UDFH /2& r /2& [ UDFH KW VH[ UDFH /2& r r rrS

PAGE 73

:LWK VH[ UDFH DQG /2& SDUWLDOHG RXW ERWK LQWHUDFWLRQV /2& [ VH[ DQG /2& [ UDFHf DGGHG VPDOO EXW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW e e UHVSHFWLYHO\f FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WKH HTXDWLRQ $Q H[ SRVW IDFWR DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH VXFK WKDW /2& ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR )/2& IRU IHPDOHV U e f EXW QRW IRU PDOHV U f DQG WKDW /2& ZDV VLJQLILn FDQWO\ UHODWHG WR )/2& IRU ZKLWHV U e f EXW QRW IRU EODFNV UB f :LWK VH[ UDFH DQG /2& SDUWLDOHG RXW WKH FXUYLOLQHDU WHUP S /2& f DGGHG D VPDOO EXW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW e f FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH HTXDWLRQ 7KH FKL VTXDUH PDWUL[ LOOXVWUDWHG LQ 7DEOH VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FXUYLOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ /2& DQG )/2& LV VXFK WKDW WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV LV YDOLG IRU LQWHUQDOV EXW QRW IRU H[WHUQDOV 7KHUHIRUH WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ZDV UXQ VHSDUDWHO\ IRU LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV 7DEOH &KL VTXDUH PDWUL[ LQGLFDWLQJ WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI IULHQGV FKRVHQ E\ LQWHUQDOV PRGHUDWHV DQG H[WHUQDOV )ULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,QWHUQDOV 0RGHUDWHV ([WHUQDOV &KRRVHUV ,QWHUQDOV 1 f 0RGHUDWHV 1 f ([WHUQDOV 1 f &KL VTXDUH GI e

PAGE 74

7DEOH FRPSDUHV WKH DELOLW\ RI /2& WR SUHGLFW )/2& LQ WKUHH VDPSOHVWKH WRWDO VDPSOH LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV )RU H[WHUQDOV QHLWKHU WKHLU VH[ QRU WKHLU ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI WKHLU IULHQGV )RU LQWHUQDOV /2& ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR )/2& U MG f EXW ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW ZKLOH /2& ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILn FDQW @' f LW DFFRXQWHG IRU RQO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ )/2& 7DEOH 6LPSOH FRUUHODWLRQ DQG XQLTXH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI /2& LQ SUHGLFWLQJ )/2& IRU WRWDO VDPSOH LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV 6DPSOH 6LPSOH U /2&)/2&f 8QLTXH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI /2& ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH DFFRXQWHG IRU )UDWLR RI XQLTXH FRQWULEXWL RQ 7RWDO 1 f rr ,QWHUQDOV 1 f r ([WHUQDOV 1 f r S rrS 7KXV ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI 60EI 60A DQG )/2& 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG SUDFWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKHVH UHVXOWV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ

PAGE 75

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f DQG $GLQROIL f ZKR IRXQG QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ SXUHO\ VRFLDO LWHPV 7KLV UHVHDUFKHU H[SHFWHG WKDW ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZRXOG EH D PRUH SRWHQW SUHGLFWRU RI VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV ,WV ZHDNQHVV DV D SUHGLFWRU PD\ EH GXH WR DQ\ RQH RU D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH IROORZLQJ H[SODQDWLRQV ([WHUQDOV PD\ YDOXH IULHQGVKLS PRUH WKDQ LQWHUQDOV $FFRUGLQJ WR VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ 5RWWHU f EHKDYLRU LV D IXQFWLRQ RI ERWK DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV H[SHFWDQF\ DERXW KLV EHKDYLRU REWDLQLQJ UHLQIRUFHPHQW DQG WKH YDOXH WKH LQGLYLGXDO SODFHV RQ WKH UHLQIRUFHPHQW LQ TXHVWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH D ORZ H[SHFWDQF\ FRXOG EH EDODQFHG RXW E\ D KLJKO\ YDOXHG UHLQIRUFHPHQW )RU H[DPSOH D VWDUYLQJ SHUVRQ PLJKW VWULYH GHVSHUDWHO\ IRU IRRG HYHQ ZKHQ KH KDV D ORZ H[SHFWDQF\ RI REWDLQLQJ IRRG

PAGE 76

7KHUH PD\ EH D VSHFLILF VHQVH RI FRQWURO UHODWHG WR VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQV WKDW LV QRW KLJKO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK JHQHUDOL]HG ORFXV RI FRQWURO /RFXV RI FRQWURO PD\ EH UHODWHG WR JRDOVHHNLQJ EHKDYLRU EXW QRW WR WKH PRUH VSRQWDQHRXV EHKDYLRU RI PDNLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ IULHQGVKLSV 7KH ILUVW H[SODQDWLRQ H[WHUQDOV PD\ YDOXH IULHQGVKLS PRUH WKDQ LQWHUQDOVf PD\ KDYH VRPH PHULW 7KHUHIRUH IXWXUH VWXGLHV WKDW LQn YHVWLJDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG SHHU DFFHSWDQFH VKRXOG LQFOXGH D PHDVXUH RI WKH QHHG IRU DIILOLDWLRQ 7KH VHFRQG H[SODQDWLRQ WKHUH LV D VSHFLILF VHQVH RI FRQWURO UHODWHG WR VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQVf PD\ KDYH VRPH PHULW (YHQ WKRXJK VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH IDFWRU DQDO\]HG ORFXV RI FRQWURO VFDOHV KDYH QRW \LHOGHG D SXUHO\ VRFLDO IDFWRU LW PD\ EH WKDW WKH LWHPV RI WKHVH VFDOHV GR QRW WDS VXFK D GLPHQVLRQ 7KH WKLUG H[SODQDWLRQn ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV UHODWHG RQO\ WR JRDOn VHHNLQJ EHKDYLRUf LV FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR WKH SUHYLRXV H[SODQDWLRQ /RFXV RI FRQWURO KDV EHHQ PRUH FOHDUO\ UHODWHG WR JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLYLWLHV OLNH DFDGHPLF ZRUN DQG SUREOHP VROYLQJ 7KHVH DFWLYLWLHV DUH XVXDOO\ VWHSE\VWHS SURFHGXUHV WKDW DUH DLGHG E\ SODQQLQJ DQG GLUHFWHG DW VSHFLILF NQRZQ JRDOV 7KHVH DFWLYLWLHV DOVR UHO\ KHDYLO\ RQ FRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG DQ DGROHVFHQWnV VRFLDO ZRUOG LV QRW D VWHSE\VWHS SURFHVV 6SHFLILF JRDOV DUH XVXDOO\ QRW IRUPXODWHG DQG LI WKH\ DUH IRUPXODWHG DQG DGKHUHG WR LQ D ULJLG PDQQHU WKH JRDOVHHNHU

PAGE 77

LV DOPRVW JXDUDQWHHG VRFLDO IDLOXUH $OVR FRJQLWLYH VNLOO LV OHVV LPSRUWDQW LQ VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQV WKDQ LW LV LQ VFKRRO DQG VLPLODU DFWLYLWLHV ,W VHHPV WKDW ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV PRVW FOHDUO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PHWKRGLFDO FRJQLWLYH HIIRUW DQG WKLV W\SH RI HIIRUW PD\ QRW EH DV KHOSIXO LQ IRUPDO VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQV DV LW LV LQ IRUPDO DFDGHPLFn OLNH WDVNV 7KH SURFHVVHV RI DGROHVFHQW IULHQGVKLS QHHG IXUWKHU H[SODQDWLRQ ,W ZRXOG EH KHOSIXO WR NQRZ PRUH DERXW KRZ DQG ZK\ DGROHVFHQWV DVVRFLDWH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU ,W ZRXOG DOVR EH KHOSIXO WR XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DGROHVFHQWV DQG RWKHUVf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nV SHUFHSn WLRQ RI KLV LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK KLV HQYLURQPHQW WKDW LV PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG DQG PRUH FRPSOH[ WKDQ 5RWWHUnV FRQFHSW RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO &RQFHUQLQJ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKLV K\SRWKHVLV LW DSSHDUV WKDW LQWHUQDOLW\ LV QRW FOHDUO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SRSXODULW\ RU WKH ODFN RI SRSXODULW\ 7KHUHIRUH HGXFDWRUV SUREDEO\f QHHG QRW EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK SRVVLEOH VRFLDO GLVDGYDQWDJHV RI LQWHUQDOLW\ DW OHDVW QRW RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO EDVLV ,QFUHDVLQJ LQWHUQDOLW\ PD\ KDYH

PAGE 78

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f VWXG\ LQ WKHLU VWXG\ LQWHUQDOV ZHUH QRW PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ H[WHUQDOV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP EXW LQWHUQDO PDOHV ZHUH PRUH

PAGE 79

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n VLYHO\ IULHQGV RI WKH VDPH UDFH DQG VH[ 6LQFH EODFN PDOHV EODFN IHPDOHV ZKLWH PDOHV DQG ZKLWH IHPDOHV DOO GLIIHUHG LQ ORFXV RI FRQn WURO WKHUH ZDV D VXEVWDQWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ D VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG KLV IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO RQ WKH EDVLV RI VH[ DQG UDFH :KHQ VH[ DQG UDFH ZHUH SDUWLDOHG RXW WKHUH ZDV RQO\ D VOLJKW WHQGHQF\ IRU VXEMHFWV WR FKRRVH IULHQGV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KLV WHQGHQF\ ZDV HVSHFLDOO\ HYLGHQW IRU WKUHH RYHUODSSLQJ VXEJURXSV ZLWKLQ WKH WRWDO VDPSOHLQWHUQDOV IHPDOHV DQG ZKLWHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV K\SRWKHVLV SDUDOOHO WKH UHVXOWV REWDLQHG E\ 1RZLFNL DQG %OXPEHUJ f

PAGE 80

DQG 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ f LQ WKDW LQWHUQDOV VKRZHG D SUHIHUHQFH IRU IHOORZ LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV GLG QRW SUHIHU RWKHU H[WHUQDOV ,W DSSHDUV WKDW LQ UHDOOLIH VLWXDWLRQV VLPLODULW\ LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV QRW DQ RYHUULGLQJ IDFWRU LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ 3HUKDSV D PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG FRQFHSW RI FRQWURO RQH PRUH DSSOLFDEOH WR VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQV WKDQ 5RWWHUnV f ZRXOG EH D PRUH VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ +RZHYHU HYHQ D PRUH VRSKLVWLn FDWHG PRGHO RI VHQVH RI FRQWURO ZRXOG EH OLPLWHG E\ WKH VLPLODULW\ K\SRWKHVLV LWVHOI 7KLV UHVHDUFKHU GRHV QRW UHFRPPHQG DQ\ IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK RQ VLPLODULW\ LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DV D IDFWRU LQ LQWHUSHUn VRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ EHFDXVH 3KDUHV DQG :LOVRQ f 1RZLFNL DQG %OXPEHUJ f DQGWKLV VWXG\ DOO SURGXFHG WKH VDPH ILQGLQJLQWHU QDOV KDYH D VOLJKW WHQGHQF\ WR SUHIHU IHOORZ LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV GR QRW SUHIHU RWKHU H[WHUQDOV 7KHUH LV D VHUHQGLSLWRXV ILQGLQJ RI WKLV VWXG\ WKDW GHVHUYHV PHQWLRQ 2QO\ WZR RI WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH D FODVVPDWH RI DQRWKHU UDFH DV RQH RI WKHLU EHVW IULHQGV D ZKLWH JLUO DQG D EODFN JLUO FKRVH HDFK RWKHU &RQVLGHULQJ WKDW WKLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ D VFKRRO WKDW KDV EHHQ GHVHJUHJDWHG WKLV ILQGLQJ VXJJHVWV DQ LPSRUWDQW TXHVWLRQ +RZ LV GHVHJUHJDWLRQ WR KHOS EODFN FKLOGUHQ DVVLPLODWH ZRUNRULHQWHG DWWLWXGHV OLNH DQ LQWHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO RULHQWDWLRQ LI EODFNV DQG ZKLWHV UHPDLQ VRFLDOO\ VHSDUDWH" 2I FRXUVH WKLV TXHVn WLRQ LV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW LQWHUQDOLW\ FDQ EH OHDUQHG WKURXJK PRGHOLQJ LQ LQIRUPDO VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQV WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKLV DVVXPSWLRQ ZRXOG EH DQ LQWHUHVWLQJ VWXG\ LQ LWVHOI

PAGE 81

,Q VXPPDU\ WKH GDWD LQGLFDWHG WKDW f WKH LQWHUQDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH VOLJKWO\ PRUH SRSXODU DV IULHQGV WKDQ WKH H[WHUQDOV f WKH LQWHUQDOV ZHUH FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH SRSXODU DV ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHUV DQG f WKH VXEMHFWV HVSHFLDOO\ WKH LQWHUQDOV KDG D WHQGHQF\ WR FKRRVH IULHQGV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO EXW PRVW RI WKLV WHQGHQF\ ZDV GXH WR UDFLDO DQG VH[XDO SUHIHUHQFHV DQG UDFLDO DQG VH[XDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,Q WKLV FKDSWHU WKH UHVXOWV KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQWHG DQG GLVFXVVHG ,Q WKH QH[W FKDSWHU WKH VWXG\ LV VXPPDUL]HG DQG WKH FRQFOXVLRQV DUH VWDWHG

PAGE 82

&+$37(5 9 6800$5< $1' &21&/86,216 7KH ILQDO FKDSWHU FRQVLVWV RI WZR VHFWLRQV 7KH ILUVW VHFWLRQ LV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH SXUSRVH UDWLRQDOH PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ VWDWHV WKH FRQFOXVLRQV LQFOXGLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK 6XPPDU\ 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DGROHVFHQWVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG WKHLU SHHU SUHIHUHQFHV /RFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV GHILQHG DV WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO H[SHFWV WKDW KLV UHLQn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

PAGE 83

LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH IROORZLQJ K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WHVWHG ,QWHUQDO DGROHVFHQWV DUH PRUH SRSXODU KDYH PRUH IULHQGVf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f WKDW LV WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKH VXEMHFW ZDV FKRVHQ DV D EHVW IULHQG 7KH SULQFLSDO LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH ZDV WKH VXEMHFWnV ORFXV RI FRQWURO /2&f WKXV ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV XVHG WR SUHGLFW SRSXODULW\ 6H[ DQG UDFH ZHUH FRQWUROOHG E\ IRUFLQJ WKHVH WZR YDULDEOHV LQWR WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ EHIRUH ORFXV RI FRQWURO $OVR LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VH[ /2& [ VH[f DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG UDFH /2& [ UDFHf DQG FXUYLOLQHDU ORFXV

PAGE 84

W RI FRQWURO WHUP /2&Af ZHUH FKHFNHG IRU VLJQLILFDQFH 7KXV WKH FRPSOHWH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ ZDV DV IROORZV $ 606A VH[ UDFH /2& /2& [ VH[f /2& [ UDFHf /2&A 7KH SUHGLFWRUV IRU WKH RWKHU WZR K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WKH VDPH DV DERYH WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH IRU WKH VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV ZDV VRFLRn PHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP DQG IRU WKH WKLUG K\SRWKHVLV LW ZDV WKH VXEMHFWVn IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KXVWKH VXEMHFWVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV XVHG WR SUHGLFW WKHLU VRFLDO SRSXODULW\ SRSXODULW\ DV D ZRUNLQJ SDUWQHU DQG WKHLU IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,Q HDFK RI WKHVH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQV ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW S f SUHGLFWRU RI WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH +RZHYHU ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZLWK VH[ DQG UDFH SDUWLDOHG RXW DFFRXQWHG IRU OHVV WKDQ WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ VRFLDO SRSXODULW\ DQG OHVV WKDQ WZR SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO /RFXV RI FRQWURO DFFRXQWHG IRU DERXW HLJKW SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ VRFLR PHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 7KH IROORZLQJ WDEOH VXPn PDUL]HV WKH HIILFDF\ RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ SUHGLFWLQJ VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EHVW IULHQGV LWHP 606f VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RQ WKH EI DFDGHPLF ZRUNSURMHFW LWHP 606 f IULHQGVn ORFXV RI FRQWURO )/2&f 7KH FRQFOXVLRQV RI WKLV VWXG\ DUH VWDWHG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ

PAGE 85

7DEOH /RFXV RI FRQWURO DV D SUHGLFWRU RI SRSXODULW\ IULHQG DQG ZRUN SDUWQHU DQG IULHQGVn ORFXV RI DV D FRQWURO 'HSHQGHQW YDULDEOH +\SRWKHVLV =HURRUGHU FRUUHODWLRQ :LWK YDULDEOHV SDUWLDOHG RXW 9DULDQFH )UDWLR DFFRXQWHG IRU 606ES VW b r 6+6:3 QG b r )/2& UG b r rS &RQHXV LRQV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKH IROORZLQJ ,QWHUQDO DGROHVFHQWV DUH VOLJKWO\ PRUH SRSXODU WKDQ H[WHUn QDOV DV EHVW IULHQGV ,QWHUQDOV DUH PRUH SRSXODU DV SDUWQHUV RQ DQ DFDGHPLF SURMHFW WKDQ WKH\ DUH DV EHVW IULHQGV ,Q D ELUDFLDO JURXS RI HLJKWK JUDGH ER\V DQG JLUOV DOPRVW DOO VWXGHQWV FKRRVH EHVW IULHQGV RI WKH VDPH VH[ DQG UDFH 8VLQJ WKH 1RZLFNL6WULFNODQG /RFXV RI &RQWURO 6FDOH WR PHDVXUH WKH ORFXV RI FRQWURO RI HLJKWK JUDGHUV ZKLWH IHPDOHV DUH PRUH LQWHUQDO WKDQ ZKLWH PDOHV ZKR DUH PRUH LQWHUQDO WKDQ EODFN IHPDOHV DQG EODFN PDOHV DUH WKH PRVW H[WHUQDO

PAGE 86

,Q D ELUDFLDO SRSXODWLRQ RI HLJKWK JUDGH ER\V DQG JLUOV WKHUH LV D VLJQLILFDQW WHQGHQF\ IRU WKHVH DGROHVFHQWV WR FKRRVH EHVW IULHQGV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO EXW PRVW RI WKLV WHQGHQF\ LV GXH WR VH[XDO DQG UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFHV DQG VH[XDO DQG UDFLDO GLIn IHUHQFHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KH WHQGHQF\ WR FKRRVH IULHQGV RI D VLPLODU ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZDV PRVW HYLGHQW IRU ZKLWHV IHPDOHV DQG LQWHUQDOV %DVHG RQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH IROORZLQJ VXJJHVWLRQV ZHUH UHFRPPHQGHG IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK LQ WKH VRFLDO DVSHFWV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO &RYDULDWHV OLNH VH[ UDFH VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DQG ,4 VKRXOG EH XVHG LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO UHVHDUFK 3HUKDSV VRPH RI WKH YDULDEOHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO ZHUH RYHUHVWLn PDWHG EHFDXVH RI D WKLUG YDULDEOH WKDW ZDV UHODWHG WR ERWK ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG WKH YDULDEOH EHLQJ LQYHVWLJDWHG ,QWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG YDULDEOHV OLNH VH[ UDFH VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DQG ,4 VKRXOG EH H[DPLQHG 3HUKDSV VRPH VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK ORFXV RI FRQWURO KDYH EHHQ RYHUn ORRNHG EHFDXVH WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU GLG QRW FKHFN IRU LQWHUDFWLRQV :KHQ UHODWLQJ ORFXV RI FRQWURO WR SHHU DFFHSWDQFH WKH QHHG IRU DSSURYDO VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKDW VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ SUHGLFWV WKDW WKH QHHG IRU DSSURYDO VKRXOG LQWHUDFW ZLWK ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG SHHU DFFHSWDQFH

PAGE 87

$OVR FXUYLOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG UHOHYDQW YDULDEOHV VKRXOG EH H[SORUHG 3HUKDSV DV LW ZDV LQ WKLV VWXG\ WKH YDULDEOH KDV D GLIIHUHQW UHODWLRQVKLS WR LQWHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO WKDQ WR H[WHUQDO ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KHUH LV D SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW LQIRUPDO VRFLDO VHJUHJDWLRQ ZLWKLQ GHVHJUHJDWHG VFKRROV LV SUHYHQWLQJ EODFNV IURP DFTXLULQJ GHVLUDEOH PLGGOH FODVV DWWLWXGHV WKLV SRVVLELOLW\ QHHGV WR EH LQYHVWLJDWHG 7KH HIIHFWV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO RQ JURXS KDUPRQ\ DQG SURn GXFWLYLW\ VKRXOG EH LQYHVWLJDWHG )RU H[DPSOH D VWXG\ FRXOG FRPSDUH WKH SURGXFWLYLW\ DQG KDUPRQ\ RI D JURXS LQWHJUDWHG ZLWK LQWHUQDOV DQG H[WHUQDOV WR JURXSV WKDW ZHUH H[FOXVLYHO\ LQWHUQDO RU H[WHUQDO 7KH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW ORFXV RI FRQWURO KDV VSHFLDO VLJQLILn FDQFH IRU JRDOGLUHFWHG EHKDYLRU OLNH DFDGHPLF ZRUNf UDWKHU WKDQ VSRQWDQHRXV EHKDYLRU OLNH PDNLQJ IULHQGVf GHVHUYHV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DQG FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ WKHRU\ FRQVWUXFWLRQ $ WKHRU\ PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG WKDQ 5RWWHUnV FRQFHSW RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO QHHGV WR EH GHYHORSHG WR H[SODLQ PDQnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI KLV LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK KLV HQYLURQPHQW HVSHFLDOO\ KLV VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQWf 7KLV WKHRU\ GHYHORSPHQW VKRXOG EHJLQ ZLWK D VHULHV RI RSHQHQGHG H[SORUDWRU\ VWXGLHV 7KHVH ODVW WZR UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV HVSHFLDOO\ WKH ODVW RQH VXJJHVW PDMRU FKDQJHV LQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO WKHRU\ $OWKRXJK LW ZLOO EH

PAGE 88

GLIILFXOW WR DEDQGRQ WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG LQVWUXPHQWV DQG WUDGLWLRQDO SV\FKRORJLFDO PHWKRGRORJ\ LW ZLOO ORFXV RI FRQWURO LV WR KHOS SV\FKRORJLVWV PDNH LQVL DERXW WKH QDWXUH RI PDQ WKH LQHDU PRGHO EH QHFHVVDU\ LI JKWIXO GLVFRYHULHV

PAGE 89

$33(1',&(6

PAGE 90

$33(1',; $

PAGE 91

$33(1',; $ 7+( 12:,&.,675,&./$1' /2&86 2) &21752/ 6&$/( )25 &+,/'5(1 ,16758&7,216 7KHUH DUH TXHVWLRQV WR WKLV VXUYH\ 3OHDVH DQVZHU WKHP E\ FKHFNLQJ f WKH <(6 RU 12 FROXPQ IRU HDFK TXHVWLRQ 7KHUH DUH QR ULJKW RU ZURQJ DQVZHUV\RXU KRQHVW RSLQLRQ LV ZKDW PDWWHUV <(6 12 'R \RX EHOLHYH WKDW PRVW SUREOHPV ZLOO VROYH WKHPn VHOYHV LI \RX MXVW GRQnW IRRO ZLWK WKHP" 'R \RX EHOLHYH WKDW \RX FDQ VWRS \RXUVHOI IURP FDWFKLQJ D FROG" BBB $UH VRPH NLGV MXVW ERUQ OXFN\" 0RVW RI WKH WLPH GR \RX IHHO WKDW JHWWLQJ JRRG JUDGHV PHDQV D JUHDW GHDO WR \RX" $UH \RX RIWHQ EODPHG IRU WKLQJV WKDW MXVW DUHQnW \RXU IDXOW" 'R \RX EHOLHYH WKDW LI VRPHERG\ VWXGLHV KDUG HQRXJK KH RU VKH FDQ SDVV DQ\ VXEMHFW" 'R \RX IHH WKDW PRVW RI WKH WLPH LW GRHVQnW SD\ WR WU\ KDUG EHFDXVH WKLQJV QHYHU WXUQ RXW ULJKW DQ\ZD\" 'R \RX IHHO WKDW LI WKLQJV VWDUW RXW ZHOO LQ WKH PRUQLQJ WKDW LWnV JRLQJ WR EH D JRRG GD\ QR PDWWHU ZKDW \RX GR" 'R \RX IHHO WKDW PRVW RI WKH WLPH SDUHQWV OLVWHQ WR ZKDW WKHLU FKLOGUHQ KDYH WR VD\"

PAGE 92

9(6 12 'R \RX EHOLHYH WKDW ZLVKLQJ FDQ PDNH JRRG WKLQJV KDSSHQ" :KHQ \RX JHW SXQLVKHG GRHV LW XVXDOO\ VHHP LWnV IRU QR JRRG UHDVRQ DW DOO" 0RVW RI WKH WLPH GR \RX ILQG LW KDUG WR FKDQJH D IULHQGnV PLQGf RSLQLRQ" 'R \RX WKLQN WKDW FKHHULQJ PRUH WKDQ OXFN KHOSV D WHDP WR ZLQ" 'R \RX IHHO WKDW LWnV QHDUO\ LPSRVVLEOH WR FKDQJH \RXU SDUHQWnV PLQG DERXW DQ\WKLQJ" BB 'R \RX EHOLHYH WKDW \RXU SDUHQWV VKRXOG DOORZ \RX WR PDNH PRVW RI \RXU RZQ GHFLVLRQV" BB 'R \RX IHHO WKDW ZKHQ \RX GR VRPHWKLQJ ZURQJ WKHUHn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nV OLWWOH \RX FDQ GR WR VWRS KLP RU KHU" +DYH \RX HYHU KDG D JRRG OXFN FKDUP"

PAGE 93

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nV OLWWOH \RX FDQ GR WR FKDQJH PDWn WHUV" 'R \RX IHHO WKDW LWnV HDV\ WR JHW IULHQGV WR GR ZKDW \RX ZDQW WKHP WR" 'R \RX XVXDOO\ IHHO WKDW \RX KDYH OLWWOH WR VD\ DERXW ZKDW \RX JHW WR HDW DW KRPH" 'R \RX IHHO WKDW ZKHQ VRPHRQH GRHVQnW OLNH \RX WKHUHnV OLWWOH \RX FDQ GR DERXW LW" BB 'R \RX XVXDOO\ IHHO WKDW LWnV DOPRVW XVHOHVV WR WU\ LQ VFKRRO EHFDXVH PRVW RWKHU FKLOGUHQ DUH MXVW SODLQ VPDUWHU WKDQ \RX DUH" $UH \RX WKH NLQG RI SHUVRQ ZKR EHOLHYHV WKDW SODQQLQJ DKHDG PDNHV WKLQJV WXUQ RXW EHWWHU"

PAGE 94

<(6 12 0RVW RI WKH WLPH GR \RX IHHO WKDW \RX KDYH OLWWOH WR VD\ DERXW ZKDW \RXU IDPLO\ GHFLGHV WR GR" 'R \RX WKLQN LWnV EHWWHU WR EH VPDUW WKDQ WR EH XFN\"

PAGE 95

$33(1',; %

PAGE 96

$33(1',; % 7+( 62&,20(75,& 48(67,211$,5(r $0RVW FODVVURRPV KDYH D IHZ VWXGHQWV ZKR MRNH D ORW DQG ZKR PDNH RWKHUV LQ WKH URRP ODXJK 7KHVH DUH WKH &ODVV &ORZQV 3OHDVH OLVW EHORZ WKH QDPHV ILUVW DQG ODVWf RI WKH VWXGHQWV \RX NQRZ ZKR FORZQ DURXQG D ORW 6WXGHQWV VKRXOG EH LQ \RXUAJUDGH r r %1DPH WKH VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH \RXU EHVW IULHQGV & 1DPH WKH VWXGHQWV ZKR XVXDOO\ FRPH XS ZLWK WKH EHVW LGHDV IRU FODVV SURMHFWV RU DFWLYLWLHV ,I \RX KDG WR ZRUN RQ D JURXS SURMHFW LQ (QJOLVK ZLWK WKUHH RWKHU VWXGHQWV DQG KDOI RI \RXU JUDGH GHSHQGHG XSRQ WKLV SURMHFW ZKLFK WKUHH VWXGHQWV ZRXOG \RX VHOHFW WR ZRUN ZLWK"

PAGE 97

( /LVW WKH VWXGHQWV WKDW \RX WKLQN DUH OLNHG E\ PRVW HYHU\RQH LQ WKH FODVV N 'DPLFR DQG 3XUNH\ rr 4XHVWLRQV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 98

5()(5(1&(6 $EUDKDPVRQ 6FKXOGHUPDQ 6 t 6FKXOGHUPDQ ( 5HSOLFDWLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $EUDPRZLW] 6 /RFXV RI FRQWURO DQG VHOIUHSRUWHG GHSUHVVLRQ DPRQJ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV $GLQROIL $ $ &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI KLJKO\ DFFHSWHG KLJKO\ UHMHFWHG DQG UHODWLYHO\ XQNQRZQ XQLYHUVLW\ IUHVKPHQ -RXUQDO RI &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJ\ BB $VKWRQ 3 7 7KH HIIHFW RI LQWHUQDO FRQWURO WUDLQLQJ RQ VHOHFWHG SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG DELOLW\ IDFWRUV 8QSXEOLVKHG GRFWRUDO GLVVHUn WDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI *HRUJLD $XVWLQ 0 & t 7KRPSVRQ * &KLOGUHQnV IULHQGVKLSV D VWXG\ RI WKH EDVHV RQ ZKLFK FKLOGUHQ VHOHFW DQG UHMHFW WKHLU EHVW IULHQGV -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ $XVXEHO 3Y 6FKLII + 0 t *DVVHU ( % $ SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ RI GHYHORSPHQWDO WUHQGV LQ VRFLHPSDWK\ DFFXUDF\ RI SHUFHSWLRQ RI RZQ DQG RWKHUnV VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW %DURQ 3HUVRQDOVRFLDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FODVVURRP VRFLDO VWDWXV D VRFLRPHWULF VWXG\ RI ILIWK DQG VL[WKJUDGH JLUOV 6RFLRPHWU\ %DUWHO 1 5 /RFXV RI FRQWURO DQG DFKLHYPHQW LQ PLGGOH DQG ORZHU FODVV FKLOGUHQ &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW %DVV % 0 t :KLWH / 9DOLGLW\ RI OHDGHUOHVV JURXS GLVFXVVLRQ REVHUYHUnV GHVFULSWLYH DQG HYDOXDWLYH UDWLQJV IRU WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG OHDGHUVKLS VWDWXV $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLVW %HUQKDUGVRQ & 6 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ UDWLQJV DQG KDQG DFTXLHVFHQVH DQG ,( VFRUHV 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV

PAGE 99

%LDOHU &RQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI VXFFHVV DQG IDLOXUH LQ PHQWDOO\ UHWDUGHG DQG QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ %LHKOHU 5 ) &RPSDQLRQ FKRLFH EHKDYLRU LQ WKH NLQGHUJDUWHQ &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW A %RQQH\ 0 ( 3HUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV RI VRFLDOO\ VXFFHVVIXO DQG VRFLDOO\ XQVXFFHVVIXO FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ %RQQH\ 0 ( $ VRFLRPHWULF VWXG\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI VRPH IDFWRUV WR PXWXDO IULHQGVKLSV RI WKH HOHPHQWDU\ VHFRQGDU\ DQG FROOHJH OHYHOV 6RFLRPHWU\ B %RQQH\ 0 ( t 3RZHOO 'LIIHUHQFH LQ VRFLDO EHKDYLRU EHWZHHQ VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ KLJK DQG VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ ORZ FKLOGUHQ -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK B %URZQ )DFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ VRFLDO DFFHSWDQFH RI KLJK VFKRRO VWXGHQWV 6FKRRO 5HYLHZ %URZQ & t 6WULFNODQG % 5 %HOLHI LQ LQWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQn WURO RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ FROOHJH DFWLYLWLHV -RXUQDO RI &RXQVHOLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ %URZQVWRQH ( t :LOOLV 5 + &RQIRUPLW\ LQ HDUO\ DQG ODWH DGROHVFHQFH 'HYHORSPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ %XWWHUILHOG ( & /RFXV RI &RQWURO WHVW DQ[LHW\ UHDFWLRQ WR IUXVWUDWLRQ DQG DFKLHYHPHQW DWWLWXGHV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ f %\UG ( $ VWXG\ RI YDOLGLW\ DQG FRQVWDQF\ RI FKRLFHV LQ D VRFLRn PHWULF WHVW 6RFL RPHWU\ B %\UQH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ DQG DWWLWXGH VLPLODULW\ -RXUQDO RI DEQRUPDO DQG VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ %\UQH 7KH DWWUDFWLRQ SDUDGLJP 1HZ
PAGE 100

&DPSEHOO 7 t 6WDQOH\ & ([SHULPHQWDO DQG 4XDVLH[SHULPHQWDO 'HVLJQV IRU 5HVHDUFK &KLFDJR 5DQG 0F1DOO\ &ROH + t +DOO 1 3V\FKRORJ\ RI $GROHVFHQFH WK HGf 1HZ
PAGE 101

'UDEPDQ 5 6 t /DKH\ % % )HHGEDFN LQ FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU PRGLILFDWLRQV HIIHFWV RQ WKH WDUJHW DQG KHU FODVVPDWHV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG %HKDYLRUDO $QDO\VLV B 'X&HWWH t :RON 6 &RJQLWLYH DQG PRWLYDWLRQDO FRUUHODWHV RI JHQHUDOL]HG H[SHFWDQFLHV IRU FRQWURO -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ B 'XNH 0 /RFXV RI FRQWURO DV D PHGLDWLQJ YDULDEOH LQ VRFLDO GLVWDQFH $ SDSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ 0RQWUHDO &DQDGD 'XNH 0 t )HQKDJHQ ( 6HOISDUHQWDO DOLHQDWLRQ DQG ORFXV RI FRQWURO LQ GHOLQTXHQW JLUOV 7KH -RXUQDO RI *HQHWLF 3V\n FKRORJ\ 'XNH 0 t 1RZLFNL 6 $ QHZ PHDVXUH DQG VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ PRGHO IRU LQWHUSHUVRQDO GLVWDQFH -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO 5HVHDUFK LQ 3HUVRQDOLW\ (GZDUGV $ / 7KH VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ YDULDEOH LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ DVVHVVPHQW DQG UHVHDUFK 1HZ
PAGE 102

*ULIILWW : ,QWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI VHOIFRQFHSW DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ VLPLODULW\GLVVLPLODULW\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDn OLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ IW *ULIILWW : 3HUVRQDOLW\ VLPLODULW\ DQG VHOIFRQFHSW DV GHWHUPLQDQWV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORT\ *URQODQG 1 ( 7KH DFFXUDF\ RI WHDFKHUVn MXGJHPHQW FRQFHUQLQJ WKH VRFLRPHWULF VWDWXV RI VL[WKJUDGH SXSLOV 6RFLRPHWU\ 0RQRJUDSKV 1R 1HZ
PAGE 103

+ROODQGHU ( 3 3ULQFLSOHV DQG PHWKRGV RI VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ 1HZ
PAGE 104

0F*KHH 3 ( t &UDQGDOO 9 & %HOLHIV LQ LQWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQWURO RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW DQG DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH &KL ,G 'HYHORSPHQW 0LGODUVN\ ( $LGLQJ XQGHU VWUHVV WKH HIIHFWV RI FRPSHWHQFH GHSHQGHQF\ YLVLELOLW\ DQG IDWDOLVP -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQ DOLW\ 0LOO & 5 3HUVRQDOLW\ SDWWHUQV RI VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ VHOHFWHG DQG VRFLRPHWULFDOO\ UHMHFWHG PDOH FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 6RFLRPHWU\ 0LOOHU : t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n --B 1HZFRPE 7 0 7KH $FTXDLQWDQFH 3URFHVV 1HZ
PAGE 105

1LH 1 + +XOO & + 6WHLQEUHQQHU t %HQW + 6WDWLVWLFDO SDFNDJH IRU WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV QG HGf 1HZ
PAGE 106

3KDUHV ( /RFXV RI FRQWURO LQ SHUVRQDOLW\ 0RUULVWRZQ 1HZ -HUVH\ *HQHUDO /HDUQLQJ 3UHVV 3KDUHV ( t :LOVRQ ,QWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQWURO LQWHUn SHUVRQDO DWWUDFWLRQ DQG HPSDWK\ 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV 3LQWHU 5 )RUODQR t )UHHPDQ + 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG DWWLWXGH VLPLODULWLHV DPRQJ FODVVURRP IULHQGV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\ @B 5D\ : t .DWDKQ 0 5HODWLRQ RI DQ[LHW\ WR ORFXV RI FRQWURO 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV = 5HDGHU 1 t (QJOLVK + % 3HUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRUV LQ DGROHVFHQW IULHQGVKLSV -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HHVH + : 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VHOIDFFHSWDQFH DQG VRFLRPHWULF FKRLFHV -RXUQDO RI $EQRUPDO DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HLPDQLV t 6FKDHIHU 0 (IIHFWV RI FRXQVHOLQJ DQG DFKLHYHPHQW PRWLYDWLRQ WUDLQLQJ RQ ORFXV RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW FRQWURO 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH (DVWHUQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ $WODQWLF &LW\ $SULO 5LFFLXWL + 1 t )UHQFK : $QDO\VLV RI UDWLQJV RI OHDGHUVKLS SRWHQWLDO DW WKH 8 6 1DYDO $FDGHP\ $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLVW 5LWFKLH ( )KDUHV ( $WWLWXGH FKDQJH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI LQWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQWURO DQG FRPPXQLFDWRU VWDWXV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ ? 5RJHUV & 5 2Q EHFRPLQJ D SHUVRQ %RVWRQ +RXJKWRQ 0LIIOLQ &RPSDQ\ 5RVFRH 7 )XQGDPHQWDO UHVHDUFK VWDWLVWLFV IRU WKH EHKDYLRUDO VFLHQFHV 1HZ
PAGE 107

5\FNPDQ 5 0 5RGGD : & t 6KHUPDQ 0 ) /RFXV RI FRQWURO DQG H[SHUWLVH UHOHYDQFH DV GHWHUPLQDQWV RI FKDQJHV LQ RSLQLRQ DERXW VWXGHQW DFWLYLVP -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 6HHPDQ 0 $OLHQDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ LQ D UHIRUPDWRU\ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 6RFLRORJ\ 6HHPDQ 0 $OLHQDWLRQ PHPEHUVKLS DQG SROLWLFDO NQRZOHGJH D FRPSDUDWLYH VWXG\ 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6HHPDQ 0 3RZHUOHVVQHVV DQG NQRZOHGJH D FRPSDUDWLYH VWXG\ RI DOLHQDWLRQ DQG OHDUQLQJ 6RFLRPHWU\ 6HHPDQ 0 t (YDQV : $OLHQDWLRQ DQG OHDUQLQJ LQ D KRVSLWDO VHWWLQJ $PHULFDQ 6RFLRORJLFDO 5HYLHZ -B 6HOLJPDQ 0 ( 3 )DOO LQWR KHOSOHVVQHVV 3V\FKRORJ\ 7RGD\ -XQH 6HOLJPDQ 0 ( 3 /HDUQHG KHOSOHVVQHVV WKHRU\ DQG HYLGHQFH -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ *HQHUDO 6WHSKHQV 0 : 'LPHQVLRQV RI ORFXV RI FRQWURO LPSDFW RI HDUO\ HGXFDWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV 3URFHHGLQJV WK $QQXDO &RQYHQWLRQ $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ B 3DUW f 6WULFNODQG % 5 7KH SUHGLFWLRQ RI VRFLDO DFWLRQ IURP D GLPHQVLRQ RI LQWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQWURO -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ n 7KRPSVRQ * t 3RZHOO 0 $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH UDWLQJVFDOH DSSURDFK WR WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI VRFLDO VWDWXV (GXFDWLRQDO DQG 3V\FKRORJLFDO 0HDVXUHPHQWV B7B 7RORU $ $Q HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH 0DU\ODQG SDUHQW DWWLWXGH VXUYH\ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 7RORU $ t -DORZLHF 5 %RG\ ERXQGDU\ SDUHQWDO DWWLWXGHV DQG LQWHUQDOH[WHUQDO H[SHFWDQF\ -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 9DQ '\QH ( 9 3HUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV DQG IULHQGVKLS IRUPDWLRQ DPRQJ DGROHVFHQW JLUOV -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 108

9L GHEHFN 5 6HOIFRQFHSWLRQ DQG WKH UHDFWLRQ RI RWKHUV 6RFLRPHWU\ :DWVRQ 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG DQ[LHW\ -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ B :LOOLDPV t 6WDFN ,QWHUQDOH[WHUQDO FRQWURO DV D VLWXDWLRQDO YDULDEOH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ VHHNLQJ E\ QHJUR VWXGHQWV -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ :LQFK 5 ) 0DWHVHOHFWLRQ D VWXG\ RI FRPSOHPHQWDU\ QHHGV 1HZ
PAGE 109

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 0LNH )DJDQ LV WKH VRQ RI 0DWKHZ DQG 5LWD +H ZDV ERUQ LQ
PAGE 110

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t 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

PAGE 111

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ -XQH 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI (GXFDURQ 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 112

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25OQr ,,, ,,, 0LOO QU/5,'$ f} L RUR QR L nL mf ,,


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 EXIAYCQVO_16EWN7 INGEST_TIME 2012-03-08T22:42:53Z PACKAGE AA00003918_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


SOCIOMETRIC CORRELATES OF LOCUS OF CONTROL IN
EARLY ADOLESCENCE
By
M. MICHAEL FAGAN
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
June 1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my chairman, Dr. Patricia Ashton. I
needed and appreciated her patient, thorough guidance. She helped
me to be more exact.
I would also like to thank the other members of my committee,
Dr. Mary Budd Rowe, Dr. Robert C. Ziller, and Dr. Walter A. Busby.
Dr. Rowe has helped to sharpen my thinking through her challenging
questions, Dr. Ziller has encouraged my creativity, and Dr. Busby
has expanded my viewpoint, showing me things that I have never been
aware of. I would also like to thank William Purkey for getting me
started on this project.
I am indebted to the students and teachers of Palatka Middle
School for participating in this project. I would also like to thank
my parents, Mathew and Rita, for giving me the confidence needed to
undertake and complete this project.
I would like to give special thanks to my wife, Patricia. She
worked very hard to give me the freedom to complete this study. With¬
out her love and support it would ha^e never been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Purpose 1
Significance of the Study 3
Theoretical significance 3
Educational significance 6
Definition of Terms 9
Assumptions and Limitations 11
II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 15
First Hypothesis: Internals Have More Friends than
Externals . . . . % 15
Second Hypothesis: Internals are More Popular on a Task-
Oriented Sociometric Item than on a Purely Social One . 29
Third Hypothesis: People Prefer as Friends, Those Who
Are Similar to Them in Locus of Control 33
III METHODOLOGY 39
Subjects 39
Testing Procedure 40
Instrumentation 40
The sociometric test 40
The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for
Children (N-S) 47
i i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued
Page
Statistical Analysis 50
First and second hypothesis 50
Third hypothesis 52
Chapter Summary 53
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 55
Results 55
Descriptive statistics 55
First hypothesis 58
Second hypothesis 60
Third hypothesis 62
Discussion of the Results 66
First hypothesis 66
Second hypothesis 69
Third hypothesis 70
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 73
Summary 73
Conclusions 76
APPENDICES
A The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children . 81
B The Sociometric Questionnaire 86
REFERENCES 89
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 100
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1 Sex/race differences in mean locus of control scores ... 56
4-2 The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict
sociometric status on the best friends item 59
4-3 The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict
sociometric status on the work-project item 61
4-4 The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict
friends' locus of control 63
4-5 Chi square matrix indicating the locus of control of
friends chosen by internals, moderates, and externals. . 64
4-6 Simple correlation and unique contribution of LOC in
predicting F-LOC for total sample, internals, and
externals 65
5-1 Locus of control as a predictor of popularity as a friend
and work partner and friends' locus of control 76
v

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Sociometric Correlates of Locus of Control in
Early Adolescence
By
M. Michael Fagan
June, 1977
Chairman: Patricia T. Ashton
Major Department: Foundations of Education
This study investigated the relationship between adoles¬
cents' locus of control and their peer preferences. Locus of
control was defined as the degree to which an individual expects
that his reinforcement is contingent upon his behavior; indi¬
viduals with an internal.locus of control generally believe
that they control what happens to them, whereas those with an
external locus of control believe that their destiny is beyond
their control and is determined by fate, luck or powerful others
There has been a great deal of research indicating that in¬
ternal ity is associated with academic success and cognitive super
iority, but there has been relatively little investigation of
the social correlates of locus of control. This study related
vi

locus of control to popularity as a friend, popularity as a
working partner, and interpersonal attraction. More specifically,
the following hypotheses were tested:
1. Internal adolescents are more popular (have more friends)
than their external peers.
2. Internals are more popular as working partners on an
academic project than they are as friends.
3. Adolescents tend to choose as friends those who are
similar to themselves in locus of control.
To investigate these hypotheses, 200 eighth graders were
administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for
Children and two sociometric items. The first sociometric item
was "Name the students who are your best friends," and the second
item was "If you had to work on a group project in English with
three other students who would you select to work with?"
Multiple regression was used to analyze each hypothesis.
For the first hypothesis, the dependent variable was sociometric
status on the best friends item (SMS^h that is, the number of
times the subject was chosen as a best friend. The principal
independent variable was the subject's locus of control (LOC);
thus, locus of control was used to predict popularity. Sex and
race were controlled by forcing these two variables into the
multiple regression equation before locus of control. Also,

interaction between locus of control and sex (LOC x sex) and
locus of control and race (LOC x race) and curvilinear locus of
control term (LOC^) were checked for significance. Thus, the
complete multiple regression equation was as follows:
A
SMS^ = sex + race + LOC + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race) + LOC^
The predictors for the other two hypotheses were the same
as above; the dependent variable for the second hypothesis was
sociometric status on the work-project item; and for the third
hypothesis,it was the subjects' friends' locus of control Thus,
the subjects' locus of control was used to predict their social
popularity, popularity as a working partner, and their friends'
locus of control.
In each of these multiple regression equations, with sex and
race partialed out, locus of control was a statistically signifi¬
cant (¿ <.01) predictor of the dependent variable. However, locus
of control, with sex and race partialed out, accounted for less
than three percent of the variance in social popularity and less
than two percent of the variance in friends' locus of control.
Locus of control accounted for about eight percent of the variance
in sociometric status on the work-project item.
The data indicate that (1) the internal subjects were slightly
more popular, as friends, than the externals; (2) the internals
were considerably more popular as working partners; and (3) the
vi i i

subjects, especially the internals, had a tendency to choose friends
of a similar locus of control, but most of this tendency was due
to racial and sexual preferences and racial and sexual differences
in locus of control.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose
Locus of control is a personality variable that has generated
a great deal of research in the past ten years (Phares, 1976). Rotter
(1966) developed the concept of locus of control and described it as
follows:
When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following
some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon
his action, then,in our culture, it is typically perceived as
the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of
powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great
complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is
interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled
this a belief in external control. If the person perceives
that the event is contingent upon his behavior or his own
relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a
belief in internal control, (p. 1)
Since its conceptualization, locus of control has been related to
academic achievement (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965), informa¬
tion seeking (Davis & Phares, 1967), birth control practice (MacDonald,
1970), socioeconomic status (Lefcourt, 1966) and a host of other vari¬
ables. As Phares (1976) indicated:
1

The most basic characteristic of internal individuals
appears to be their greater efforts at coping with or
attaining mastery over their environments. This is
the most elemental deduction that could be made from
the nature of the I-E variable. Fortunately this
deduction has received widespread support from experi¬
ments with many different populations in a variety of
situations. (p. 78)
Internals are generally more successful than externals at
achievement-oriented tasks, especially cognitive ones. For example,
as compared to externals, internals obtain better grades (Crandall
et al., 1965), are better problem solvers (DuCette & Wolk, 1973),
and utilize information more effectively (Seeman, 1963; Phares, 1968).
However, relatively little is known about the social correlates of
locus of control. It would be helpful to know the relationship, if
any, between locus of control and peer acceptance. Perhaps internals
are not only successful in school but also well-liked by their peers;
or perhaps their superior achievement is compensation for the lack of
social acceptance. Perhaps internals are more popular as working
partners than they are as friends. It would also be helpful to under¬
stand the dynamics of interpersonal attraction with respect to locus
of control. Perhaps internals and externals complement each other and
become friends; or perhaps internals tend to associate with each other,
and externals, with fellow externals.
It was the purpose of this study to investigate the possibilities
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. More specifically the following
questions were asked:

3
1. Are internal adolescents more popular than their external
peers? (Are they selected more frequently as friends?)
2. Are internals more popular as working partners than they
are as friends? (Do they receive more selections as working partners
on an academic project than as friends?)
3. Do adolescents of a similar locus of control prefer each other
as friends? (Do internals tend to select other internals, and externals,
fellow externals?)
It was hypothesized that all of these questions would be answered
in the affirmative. In the next section the significance of these
hypotheses is discussed.
Significance of the Study
The theoretical and practical significance of this study are
discussed separately in the subsections that follow.
Theoretical significance. The concept of locus of control (Rotter,
1966) emerged from Rotter's (1954) social learning theory. The cor¬
nerstone of Rotter's social learning theory is the principle that
behavior is a function of expectancy (Phares, 1976). According to
Rotter, one of the important factors that determines whether or not
a behavior will occur is the expectancy that the behavior will help
to produce a valued goal or outcome; the higher the expectancy the more
likely the occurrence of the behavior. By definition (Rotter, 1966),

4
internals generally expect that their behavior will produce desired
results, and, by definition, externals have a low expectancy that their
behavior will make a difference. Therefore, internals should behave
more effectively in goal-directed tasks. As previously mentioned, this
postulate has received strong empirical support in situations that
call for cognitive skill and mastery. However, the proposition has
rarely been tested in a social situation.
If Rotter's principle (behavior is a function of expectancy)
can be generalized from cognitive tasks to social ones, internals
should be more effective friend-seekers; and their effective friend¬
seeking behavior should result in more friends. Thus,internals should
have higher sociometric status than externals on a sociometric item
that asks for "best friends."
The theoretical rationale for the first hypothesis of this study
is Rotter's principle that behavior is a function of expectancy. In
this case behavior is not measured directly, but rather, the inferred
result of behavior (friends) is measured by sociometric testing. The
expectancy variable is locus of control.
The rationale for the second hypothesis is an expansion of the
rationale of the first hypothesis. Not only should internals be more
effective friend-seekers, but they should also be perceived by their
peers as being more competent at academic tasks. Thus, internals should
receive some support (sociometric selections) on the basis of their
hypothesized social superiority (first hypothesis), plus additional

5
support for their cognitive superiority. It is expected that the
subjects will recognize the cognitive superiority of internals and
choose them as working partners. Therefore, the second hypothesis
is that internals have higher sociometric status on the task-oriented
sociometric item than on the purely social item ("best friends").
The rationale for the third hypothesis stems from the research
and theory in social psychology on interpersonal attraction. Newcomb
(1956, 1961, 1968) and Byrne (1971) have shown that similarity in
personality or attitude is a significant factor in interpersonal
attraction. Although there are many exceptions, people tend to be
attracted to those who are similar to themselves, especially if their
similarity is reinforcing (Byrne, 1971) and creates interpersonal
balance (Newcomb, 1968). According to Newcomb, a balanced relation¬
ship occurs when a person favorably evaluates another person and both
agree in their evaluation of a third object or person. The simi¬
larity hypothesis (the proppsition that similar people are attracted
to each other) has been supported by a great deal of research (Byrne,
1971; Byrne & Griffitt, 1973).
The application of Newcomb's theory to locus of control suggests
that internals and externals would not have a balanced relationship,
because they would disagree on many important issues (for example,
the existence of luck or fate and the value of planning). Based on
Newcomb's theory, it was hypothesized that there would be a positive
correlation between a person's locus of control and the locus of
control of his friends.

6
1 U'
Thus, this study has theoretical significance in that it tests
t
an extension of a social learning principle (behavior is a function
of expectancy) to a social situation. The study also tests the
similarity hypothesis with respect to locus of control. The studies
that support the theoretical rationale are discussed in the next
chapter, the review of the literature. In the next subsection the
educational significance of this study is discussed.
Educational significance. In the past 10 years educators have become
very interested in locus of control. McGee and Crandall (1968), Brown
and Strickland (1972), and Bartel (1971) found a positive relationship
between internality and academic success. However, the well-known
"Coleman Report" (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfield
& York, 1966) has been the most significant factor in alerting educators
to the significance of the locus of control variable. The authors of
this report concluded that
A pupil attitude factor, which appears to have a stronger
relationship to achievement than do all of the "school"
factors together, is the extent to which an individual has
some control over his destiny, (p. 23)
The evidence that internals tend to out-perform externals in
school, coupled with the evidence that internals are better adjusted-
psychological ly--(Phares, 1976), has led many social scientists and
educators to advocate changing externals to internals; for example,
MacDonald (1973) wrote:

7
All of the research points to the same conclusion:
people are handicapped by an external locus of
control orientation. The prevailing belief is that
it is desirable to change people, especially those
who are not doing well in our society, in the direc¬
tion of internality. (p. 170)
With this intention in mind, deCharms (1972), Stephens (1972),
Reimanis and Schaefer (1970), Nowicki and Barnes (1973), Hawes (1971),
and Ashton (1974) conducted experiments that were designed to help
children become more internal. The results of their work indicate
that certain methods help some people to become more internal and
that this change coincides with academic improvement or improvement
in skills related to academic success.
So far, the programs for changing locus of control have been
of an experimental nature. However, a group of educators and social
scientists (National Committee on Locus of Control and Self-Esteem,
1974) have recommended developing national norms for a locus of control
test, so that it can be administered to all public school students.
This standardized test would be used to measure growth in locus of
control (becoming more internal); teachers would be expected to improve
locus of control scores, as they are expected to improve their
students' academic achievement scores. The committee also recommended
several strategies for increasing internality.
Considering the movement toward internality training, an investi¬
gation of the social correlates becomes crucial. If educators plan
to help students become more internal, they should know all that entails.
In this respect, this study should help in the following ways:

8
1. If the results of this study indicate that internals have
very few friends, educators need to systematically and thoroughly
investigate the social adjustment of internals, before initiating
any large-scale attempts to help students become more internal.
Perhaps gains in achievement are not worth possible social maladjust¬
ment.
2. If the results of this study do not suggest that internals
are inadequate socially, educators can proceed with a little more
confidence in planning internality change programs.
3. If this study indicates that internality is positively
related to sociometric status and if subsequent experimental studies
indicate a cause-effect relationship between these two variables, pro¬
grams designed to increase internality can be used to increase socio¬
metric status, and/or programs designed to increase sociometric status
(Northway, 1944; Gronlund, 1959; Drabman & Lahey, 1974) can be used
to increase internality. Or, better yet, intervention programs can be
designed to work on both locus of control and peer acceptance.
4. If the third hypothesis is confirmed, indicating that externals
tend to associate with each other; it is likely that they perpetuate
their own externality through mutual reinforcement (Byrne, 1971) and
modeling. Thus, locus of control intervention programs could help
externals become more internal by structuring experiences where they
would interact with internals. Since externals are more persuadable
(Ritchie & Phares, 1969; Ryckman, Rodda & Sherman, 1972) and more

conforming (Crowne & Liverant, 1963) than internals, it is more
likely that internals would influence externals than the converse.
Thus, the study has practical significance in that it provides
educators with data about the social relationships of internals and
externals. These data are especially important now, because many
educators are thinking about increasing internal control in students.
Before educators begin to enact these plans, they need to know all
that it entails. Assuming that this study and subsequent studies
indicate that internals are not socially inadequate, this study may
suggest grouping techniques for helping externals to become more
internal. Thus, this study has both theoretical and practical signifi
canee.
There are some limitations to the rationale of this study, and
they are discussed in the concluding section of this chapter. However
before the assumptions and limitations are discussed, key terms are
defined in the section that follows.
Definition of Terms
The key terms used in this study are defined below. When appro¬
priate, operational definitions are stated following the theoretical
definitions.
1. Locus of control is a psychological construct that can be
viewed as a continuum reflecting the degree to which an individual

10
U"
expects that his reinforcement is contingent upon his behavior.
At one end of the continuum is the expectancy that reinforcement
is contingent entirely upon one's behavior or aptitude (internality);
at the other end is the expectancy that reinforcement is not at
all contingent upon one's behavior, but rather, reinforcement is
attributed to luck, fate or powerful others (externality). Rotter's
(1966) definition of locus of control is cited on page 1 of this
report. Operationally, locus of control is defined as the score the
subjects receive on the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale
for Children (N-S).
2. An internal is an individual who generally expects that his
reinforcement is contingent upon his behavior or aptitude. In this
study an internal is any subject who scores in the lowest third of
this sample on the N-S.
3. An external is an individual who generally expects that his
reinforcement is not contingent upon his behavior and aptitude,
attributing it to luck, fate or powerful others. For the purpose
of this study, an external will be operationally defined as a subject
who scores in the top third of this sample on the N-S.
4. A moderate is an individual who is not clearly internal or
external. In this study a moderate is a subject who scores in the
middle third on the N-S.
5. Sociometry is the method of determining social acceptance
by asking subjects to list associates with whom they would like to

11
participate in a certain activity. This technique, developed by
Moreno (1934), is discussed in more detail in the third chapter.
6. Sociometric status is one's relative position on a sociometric
test; that is, it is the number of selections one receives in compari¬
son to his peers.
7. High sociometric status is the state of receiving many selec¬
tions on a sociometric test, relative to one's peers. In this study
high sociometric status is considered the upper quartile of all sub¬
jects ranked on the basis of the number of selections that they have
received. Researchers have used the term "high sociometric status"
interchangeably with "peer acceptance" (Adinolfi, 1970) and "popularity"
(Horowitz, 1967). This author will also use these terms interchangeably,
especially in the review of the literature.
8. Low sociometric status is the state of receiving few or no
selections from one's peers on a sociometric test. In this study low
sociometric status is operationally defined as the lowest quartile of
subjects ranked according to the numbers of selections they received.
Assumptions and Limitations
Much of the theoretical relevance of this study is based on the
assumption that both internal and external adolescents value friend¬
ship. When Rotter (1954) postulated that behavior is a function of
expectancy, he included the value of the reinforcement in his formula.
Thus, in situations where it is expected that behavior will produce

12
reinforcement and the reinforcement is valued, behavior is likely to
occur. For this study it is assumed that the need for peer accep¬
tance in early adolescence is so pervasive in our culture that (1)
internals and externals value friendship equally (although there may
be some externals who do not value friendship highly, there should
be about the same number of internals who do not value friendship
highly), or that (2) if there are differences between internals and
externals in the amount they value friendship, these differences are
not nearly as great as their difference in locus of control.
Also, the theoretical rationale is based on the assumption that
friendships are, in part, a product of behavior. This postulate
has been supported by sociometric research in that individuals of
different sociometric status behave differently toward peers (Gronlund,
1959; Cole & Hall, 1970) and that training an individual in social
skills can increase his sociometric status (Gronlund, 1959).
It is also assumed that a generalized measure of locus of control
(the N-S) includes social relationships and that the total locus of
control score reflects one's sense of control over social relation¬
ships. The multi dimensionality of locus of control is a concern;
a number of investigators (Miréis, 1970; Abrahamson, Schulderman &
Schulderman, 1973; Gurin, Gurin, Lao & Beattie, 1969), by using factor
analysis, have found that locus of control contains several dimensions.
For example, Miréis (1970) found two factors, personal control (feelings
of personal efficacy) and political control (ability to affect the

13
political system). According to social learning theory (Phares,
1976), a situation-specific measure of locus of control would be
more effective than a generalized measure in predicting behavior
relevant to that situation. Therefore, for this study the instrument
that measured the subjects' feelings of control about their peer
relationships would be ideal. Unfortunately, no such instrument exists.
There are several items on the N-S that relate to peer acceptance,
for example, item # 25: "Do you believe whether or not people like
you depends on how you act?" (see Appendix A). However, Nowicki (1973)
has factor analyzed the N-S and found no substantial factor that repre¬
sents a sense of control over social situations. Therefore, out of
necessity, a global locus of control score is used to predict socio¬
metric status, and it is assumed that this global score reflects the
subjects' sense of control over their interpersonal relationships. In
other words, it is assumed that there is a high correlation between
adolescents' global locus of control and their locus of control about
social relationships.
Concerning the practical significance of this study, it is assumed
that at least a minimum of friends is healthy and desirable for eighth
graders, and conversely that the absence of friends is not a desirable
condition for adolescents.
This study is limited, by intention, in that it is an exploratory
investigation of the relationship between two broad and general traits.
This study is not intended to tease out precise relationships between

14
locus of control, peer interaction and other variables; but rather,
it represents a necessary forerunner to such studies; it is expected
that this study will generate hypotheses about more precise rela¬
tionships between locus of control and adolescent peer interaction.
Considering the broad scope of this study, some of its limitations
are discussed below:
1. Due to the correlational nature of this study, a cause-
effect relationship between locus of control and peer acceptance can¬
not be inferred.
2. Sociometric procedures do not indicate the quality of a
friendship. Perhaps internals have more friends, while externals have
fewer, but qualitatively superior, friendships which could be more
intimate, more loyal, or more enjoyable.
3. Both the N-S and sociometric testing are self-report inventories
and are subject to the criticisms inherent in that technique; the
main criticism being that subjects, consciously or unconsciously,
report inaccurately. 0
In this chapter the purpose, rationale, and limitations of this
study have been discussed. The next chapter reviews the literature
relevant to the three hypotheses of this study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Locus of control is a relatively new concept; most of the
research on this variable has been conducted in the past 15 years.
On the other hand, sociometric research was popular from about 1935
to 1950; since then, interest in sociometry has waned. As a result,
there have been very few studies (Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Adinolfi,
1970) that have directly related locus of control to a sociometric
variable.
Considering the paucity of evidence that directly relates socio¬
metric variables to locus of control, most of the literature reviewed
for this study consists of indirect support of the hypotheses. For
example, locus of control has been related to some variables that
resemble or are related to sociometric status, and sociometric status
has been related to personal variables that are similar to locus of
control or related to it. These studies are discussed in this chapter, to¬
gether with the few studies that provide more direct evidence. The
literature is reviewed as it relates to each hypothesis.
First Hypothesis: Internals Have More Friends than Externals
Internality has been related to several social variables that
suggest internals should be more popular. For example, Midlarsky (1971)
15

16
found that internals were more helpful to strangers than were externals.
In Midlarsky's experiment each subject performed a task in the presence
of an accomplice of the experimenter. Each person was assigned a task
and was told that he could help the other person if he finished first.
The experiment was designed so that the true subject always finished
first. The internal subjects helped the accomplice significantly more
than the external subjects did. If internals are also more helpful
in their daily interactions, they should be more popular than externals,
because helpfulness has been associated with high sociometric status
(Reader & English, 1947; Cole & Hall, 1970).
Not only are externals less helpful than internals, but there
is also some evidence that externals desire more social distance than
internals, especially with strangers (Duke, 1973; Duke & Nowicki, 1972;
Duke & Fenhagen, 1975). In the Duke and Nowicki study subjects used
the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale (CID) to indicate the
distance at which hypothetical people should stop when approaching
them; externals required more distance for strangers than did internals.
Duke and Fenhager (1975) administered the N-S and the CID to a group
of adolescent females; they found that externality was associated with
a greater preference for social distance. This suggests that externals
may be uncomfortable in social relationships, especially new ones,
and be less likely to interact with people and, therefore, less likely
to have friends.
Another reason for the hypothesized popularity of internals is
the finding that internality is more socially desirable than externality

17
(Bernhardson, 1968; Cone, 1971; Hjelle, 1971). Although earlier
studies have found no relationship between social desirability and
locus of control (Strickland, 1965; Tolor, 1967; Tolor & Jalowiec,
1968), the most recent evidence indicates that there is a moderate
relationship between internality and social desirability (Cone,
1971; Hjelle, 1971). The social desirability of a trait or the
instrument that measures the trait has been assessed in two ways.
One method is to have judges rate the social desirability of the
items of an instrument. For example, a judge rating the fourth
item of the N-S (item # 4. "Most of the time do you feel that
getting good grades means a great deal to you?") might conclude
that a "yes" response is more socially desirable than a "no" response.
In other words, it is desirable in this society to care a great
deal about one's grades. Using this method, Hjelle (1971) and
Bernhardson (1968) found that an internal view is more socially
desirable than an external view. Hjelle's finding suggests that,
since the internal point of view is valued more in this culture,
people who have this point of view should be more accepted and
popular than people who have the opposite point of view.
The second, and more frequently used, method of assessing social
desirability has been to use a standardized instrument. The
Edwards Social Desirability Scale (Edwards, 1957) and the Marlow-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlow, 1964) are self-
report inventories that consist of items that mention socially

18
desirable or undesirable traits. Subjects who answer many items
in the socially desirable direction are describing themselves as
an ideal person. Cone (1971) correlated the locus of control scores
on the Edwards Social Desirability Scale; in all five samples inter¬
nal ity was associated with high social desirability. Cone concluded
that internals may behave in a socially acceptable manner so that
they can influence people favorably. This conclusion supports the
rationale of the first hypothesis of this study, in that it suggests
that internals believe they can affect their social environment and
act accordingly. If this is true, internals should be more socially
competent than externals and should be more popular.
There have been two studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971; Nowicki &
Blumberg, 1975) that have related locus of control to interpersonal
attraction. Of course, these are directly related to the third
hypothesis (and are discussed in that context later in this chapter),
but the unexpected results of these two studies lend support to the
first hypothesis.
In the first of these two studies, Phares and Wilson (1971)
asked internal and external college students to evaluate an alleged
stranger based on his responses to Rotter's Internal-External Locus
of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966). Actually there were no strangers,
only two Internal-External scales--one completed in a totally internal
direction and the other in a totally external direction. The internal
subjects favored the internal "stranger," and the externals, as a
group, did not favor either.

19
As a follow-up to the Phares and Wilson study, Nowicki and
Blumberg (1975) carefully prepared four tapes, two of a male and
female internal discussing their views and two tapes of their external
counterparts. All four tapes were judged by the subjects and independent
raters to express accurately the intended locus of control orientation.
Forty college students were asked to judge the alleged strangers on
three criteria: (1) their general likability, (2) their desirability
as a working partner, and (3) their desirability as a roommate. The
internal "stranger" was significantly more attractive to both the inter¬
nal and the external subjects on three criteria, but especially on the
third (desirability as a roommate). The Phares and Wilson study and
the Nowicki and Blumberg study suggested that, since internals are
preferred in an experimental situation, they should also be more popular
in a real-life situation, like a classroom.
Before discussing the two studies that directly relate locus of
control to sociometric status, the indirect evidence is summarized below
in support of the hypothesis that internals are more popular than exter¬
nals. This research indicates that
1. Internals are more helpful.
2. Internals require less personal space or social distance.
3. Internality is a more desirable trait in this society.
4. In experiments where subjects were asked to express their pre¬
ference for either an internal or an external "stranger" most subjects
preferred the internal.

20
The fourth point seems to offer the strongest support for the
hypothesis. However, both of these studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971;
Nowicki & Roundtree, 1975) were conducted under simulated conditions
with alleged strangers. The present study is concerned with on-going
relationships. Unfortunately, there is very little investigation
relating locus of control to real, on-going friendships. The extensive
literature review of this author has yielded only two such studies.
In the first of these studies, Nowicki and Roundtree (1971)
administered the N-S and two sociometric questions to a sample of
12th graders (N_ = 87). The first sociometric item asked the students
to list five classmates that would be good candidates for classroom
president; the second item asked the subjects to list five of their
best friends. Among males there was a significant relationship
between internality and nominations for class president, but there
was no relationship between locus of control and friendship. In
other words, internal males received more selections as class presi¬
dent than did external males, but internals of either sex were no
more popular than externals as friends.
In the second of these studies, Adinolfi (1970) administered
a sociometric test to 600 college dormitory residents. From this
subject pool he selected four groups of 30 subjects each (15 males
and 15 females)--a highly accepted group, an unaccepted group, a
rejected group, and a control group. Then these subjects (N_ = 120)
were administered the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale

21
and several other personality tests. Among these four groups there
were no differences in locus of control scores.
The results of these two studies are contrary to the first
hypothesis of this study. However, it is expected that this study
will produce results different from those of Nowicki and Roundtree
and Adinolfi for the following reasons:
1. Their subjects were older than the subjects of this study.
According to studies by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) and Brownstone and
Willis (1971), younger adolescents are more influenced by their peers
than are older adolescents. This suggests that peer acceptance is
probably more important for a 13-year-old than for an 18-year-old.
Since peer acceptance is a crucial, ego-involved need for a 13-year-
old, it is likely that peer acceptance is related to his sense of
potency and control.
2. Adinolfi's subjects were volunteers from the original subject
pool; they were not randomly selected from their group. Campbell and
Stanley (1966) cited the use of volunteers as a possible source of
invalidity.
3. The previously mentioned locus of control studies suggest
that internals are more likable.
4. Many sociometric studies have related sociometric status to
personal variables that either resemble locus of control or have been
related to it. Many of these studies have used subjects similar in

22
age to the subject of this study in the same social environment,
the classroom. These studies constitute the remainder of the review
of the literature for the first hypothesis and are reviewed in the
paragraphs that follow.
A review of sociometric literature reveals two groups of studies
that support the hypothesis that sociometric status is related to
locus of control. Firstly, there are two clinically based studies
(Northway, 1944; Northway & Wigdor, 1947) that produced descriptions
of sociometrically high and low students that, in part, closely resemble
theoretical and empirical descriptions of internals and externals,
respectively. Secondly, sociometric status has been related to many
variables (e.g., self-esteem) that have also been related to locus
of control, such that internals parallel sociometrically high subjects
(e.g., high in self-esteem) and externals parallel the sociometrically
low (e.g., low in self-esteem).
Using the Rorschach t^st, Northway and Wigdor (1947) studied
eighth graders of high, average, and low sociometric status. The well-
liked subjects were described as having
... a greater sensitivity ... to their environment--
almost an active, conscious striving in using the "feeling
tone" and social contacts of a situation to further their
ends. (p. 194)
It is logical to expect that an individual who believes that he
is in control of a situation will be more sensitive to and manipulative

23
of the environment. There is abundant evidence that internals are
more alert to environmental cues and better able to use these cues
than their external counterparts (Seeman & Evans, 1962; Seeman, 1963,
1966, 1967; Phares, 1968; Lefcourt & Wine, 1969; Williams & Stack,
1972). For example, Seeman (1963) found that internal prison mates
were more knowledgeable about parole policy than external inmates of
similar intelligence. Seeman concluded that internals had more
actively sought and more efficiently processed information that might
help them.
After reviewing the studies mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
Phares (1976) concluded that "internals seem to be eager to seek out
clues and to manipulate the situation so as to be better able to achieve
certain outcomes" (p. 63). Thus, Northway and Wigdor's description of
the well-liked eighth graders suggests that they are social internals;
that is, they actively seek out clues in the social environment and
use these clues rather effectively, as evidenced by their social success.
In the second of the clinically based studies, Northway (1944)
conducted an in-depth study of sociometrically low fifth and sixth
graders. Her results provided a holistic view of the personality
types of students who are not well accepted by their peers; these
personality profiles suggest relationships between low sociometric
status and locus of control. For two years Northway collected data
on 20 unpopular subjects through school records, interviews with
parents, intelligence tests, psychological interviews, classroom and

24
playground observation, and sociometric tests. Her investigation
yielded three types of unaccepted children. Of these 20 subjects
six were "recessive children" who were described as "listless, lacking
vitality, unhealthy, below normal in intelligence or underachieving,
unkempt, and seemingly uninterested in people, activity, or events of
the outside world."
There were nine "socially uninterested children" who Northway
described in the following manner:
These children superficially appear to be similar to
the truly recessive children. They are not liked by
others nor do they appear to make an effort in either
formal class activities or social affairs of the school.
They are often quiet and retiring. However, on closer
examination it is found that they are much better
developed in their care of person and possessions and
that they have interests. Those interests are personal
rather than social. A child's energy may be directed
towards art, music, science, hobbies, reading or to
affairs of the home. Some of these children are merely
quiet with and uninterested in other children; some
are shy and uncomfortable with them, some are bored
and critical of them, and some are rather objectively
and impersonally interested in observing what other
children do without in any way attempting to participate
with them. (p. 458)
The third group consisted of five "socially ineffective children"
who were described in the following manner:
Children of this group differ completely in their super¬
ficial behavior from the former group; they are often
noisy, rebellious, delinquent in classroom affairs,
boastful and arrogant. They are a nuisance to the teacher
and the life of the classroom. They are diametrically
opposed to the recessive children. However, this is not
true, for they have in common the lack of acceptance by

25
classmates and these manifested forms of behavior seem
to have arisen as rather ineffective, naive attempts
to overcome the basic social insecurity and isolation
from group life that they experience. They have vitality
and are keenly interested in social affairs, but because
of failure in the establishment of social relations, they
make effortful, conspicuous, and often foolish and futile
attempts to be recognized and accepted by the social group.
(Northway, 1944, p. 458)
Northway supplemented these psychological profiles with two case
studies from each group. The recessive state described by Northway
closely parallels' Seligman's (1976) concept of learned helplessness.
Learned helplessness is a state that in human subjects greatly resembles
reactive depression (Seligman, 1973) and is caused by an individual's
learning that there is no relationship between his behavior and what
happens to him. Seligman (1973) and Miller and Seligman (1973) have
related learned helplessness to locus of control. It seems that learned
helplessness is an extreme case of externality.
Thus, it is likely that the recessive children are inactive and
listless because they have come to believe that they have little or
no control over what happens to them. Recessive subjects should have
a very external generalized locus of control and should score highly
on the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.
Northway's description of the "socially uninterested" subjects
suggests that they have an external locus of control in social matters,
but an internal locus of control in personal matters. That is, they
probably expect that they can control most things that they do alone,

26
but they doubt their ability to affect other people, especially
their peers. The sample of this study will probably include some
socially uninterested adolescents; it is expected that they will
obtain low to moderate scores on the N-S, because they should answer
the social items internally and the nonsocial items externally.
Seven of the 40 items are clearly concerned with peer involvement.
"Socially ineffective children" seem to have a strong desire
to affect their peers, but lack the skill and self-confidence to
affect them positively. Northway's description and case studies sug¬
gest that these subjects have deeply rooted, but disguised, feelings
of inferiority; and their verbal reports and behavior are often attempts
to compensate for their inadequacy. These subjects have a social
and probably generalized external locus of control; but their verbal
reports are likely not to indicate this, so their N-S scores could
vary greatly.
Northway's study suggests that although there is a general trend
for almost all socially unaccepted children to have an external locus
of control in social matters, this trend will be obscured by the non¬
social internality of the "socially uninterested" and the defensiveness
of the "socially ineffective." Therefore, only a moderate correlation
should be expected between sociometric status and the N-S scores of
this sample.
There is some less direct, but statistically based, evidence
supporting the hypothesis that socially accepted adolescents tend to

27
be more internal. This evidence is the list of traits that have
been significantly related to both sociometric status and locus of
control. Of course, just because two variables are related to a third
variable is no indication that they are necessarily related to each
other; but if two psychological variables are related to several vari¬
ables, it is likely that these two variables are related to each other.
As previously mentioned, sociometric status has been related to
academic achievement (Bonney, 1943; Grossman & Wrighter, 1948; Brown,
1954; Feinberg, 1953) and socioeconomic status (Brown, 1954; Cook,
1945; Neugarten, 1946; Grossman & Wrighter, 1948). Locus of control
is also related to academic achievement (Coleman et al., 1966; Crandall
et al., 1965) and socioeconomic status (Lefcourt, 1966).
Sociometric status is clearly related to self-concept (Baron, 1951;
Guardo, 1969; Horowitz, 1962; Reese, 1961; Videback, 1960), as is locus
on control (Fitch, 1970; Fish & Karabenick, 1971); and sociometric status
is negatively correlated with anxiety-(Baron, 1951; Mill, 1953), as
is locus of control (Butterfield, 1964; Watson, 1967; Feather, 1967;
Ray & Katahn, 1968). Subjects of low sociometric status have been found
to be depressed (Baron, 1951; Northway, 1944), as have externals
(Abramowitz, 1969; Miller & Seligman, 1973). Low sociometric status
has been associated with schizophrenic tendencies (Northway, 1944;
Northway & Widgor, 1947) and so has externality (Cromwell, Rosenthal,
Shakow & Zahn, 1961; Harrow & Ferante, 1969). With all of these traits
in common it is likely that most adolescents of high sociometric status
are internal, and most adolescents of low sociometric status are
external.

28
Before presenting the literature relevant to the second hypoth¬
esis, this section is summarized below:
1. Internals should be more popular than externals, because
they are more helpful, require less social distance, and possess a
viewpoint that is valued more by this culture.
2. In two experimental studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971; Nowicki
& Blumberg, 1975) subjects preferred an internal "stranger" to an
external "stranger."
3. Two studies (Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Adinolfi, 1970) have
found no relationship between locus of control and sociometric status
for older adolescents.
4. Two studies (Northway, 1944; Northway & Wigdor, 1947) have
produced clinical descriptions of students of high and low sociometric
status; these descriptions resemble internals and externals, respectively.
5. Internals have many traits in common with subjects of high
sociometric status. As compared to externals and unpopular subjects,
internals and popular subjects tend to do better in school, come from
families of higher socioeconomic status, have positive self-concepts,
less anxiety, less depression, and less schizophrenic tendencies.
In the next section the literature relevant to the second hypoth¬
esis is reviewed.

29
Second Hypothesis: Internals are More Popular on a Task-Oriented
Sociometric Item than on a Purely Social One
The second hypothesis compares the sociometric status of internals
on two different items: (1) "Name the students who are your best
friends" and (2) "If you had a group project in English (class) with
three other students, and half of your grade depended on this project,
which three students would you select to work with?" (These two items
are referred to as the "best friends" item and the "work-project" item,
respectively.)
The second hypothesis is that internals have higher sociometric
status on the work-project item than on the best friends item. The
rationale for this hypothesis is based on two wel1-documented findings:
(1) the nature of the sociometric item affects who is popular and who
is not, and (2) internals are academically superior to externals.
The difference in the nature of the sociometric items, relative to
this hypothesis has been discussed by Jennings (1947). She suggested
that there are two types of sociometric items, those related to an in¬
formal, personal situation (like the best friends item) and those related
to more formal situations that usually involve a group project (such as
the work-project item); Jennings suggested that these two types of
items tap two underlying group structures, an informal system and a
formal system, respectively. According to Jennings, choices on items
that tap the formal system are based more on ability and less on social
popularity than are choices on items related to the formal system.

30
Jennings conclusion has been supported by Gronlund. After reviewing
several studies that compared sociometric status on different type
items, Gronlund (1959) concluded that there is a general social
acceptability factor for all items, but that
Where specific criteria indicate the need for knowledge
or skill, the social acceptability factor is surpressed
somewhat, in the choosing, in factor of success in the
activity, (p. 138)
Thus, in this study it was expected that the academically competent
students would have higher sociometric status on the working-project
item than on the best friends item. Since internals are better
represented among the academically competent, it was expected that
they would have higher sociometric status on the work-project item
than on the best friends item.
The studies which indicated that internals are academically
superior to externals were cited in the first chapter (Crandall
et al., 1965; McGee & Crandall, 1968; Brown & Strickland, 1972;
Bartel, 1971; Coleman et al., 1966). These studies were correlational.
For example, Crandall and her associates studied the relationship
between locus of control and school grades for students from the
third through 12th grades. Internal males averaged 2.54 (on the 4.0
system), and external males averaged 2.26; and internal males averaged
2.95, and external females 2.70. The grades of the internal students
were significantly (jd < .01) higher than the externals' grades.

31
Several experimental studies (deCharms, 1972; Hawes, 1971; Stephens,
1972; Ashton, 1974) have also found a relationship between sense of con¬
trol and academic performance. For example, deCharms (1972) investigated
the relationship between academic performance and "personal causation"
which he defined as "the initiation by an individual of behavior intended
to produce a change in his environment." Personal causation is similar
to locus of control in that they are concerned with an individual taking
control of his environment. Theoretically, personal causation is concerned
with intrinsic motivation, and locus of control is concerned with expec¬
tancies about external reinforcement; but Phares (1976) and Lefcourt
(1966) have noted that there is a great deal of overlap between these
two concepts. Thus, deCharms' experiment has relevance to locus of con¬
trol. In this study, he and his associates randomly assigned half of the
sixth grade teachers (_N = 16) in an urban school district to an experi¬
mental group; the other half constituted the control group. The experi¬
mental group underwent "personal causation training", which was a program
designed to facilitate "origin" behavior among the teachers and the stu¬
dents they taught. ("Origin" is a term that is similar to "internal.")
After the training sessions,the teachers conducted similar sessions in
their classrooms for the next two academic years. The results of the
study indicate that the experimental group, as compared to the control
group, had students who (1) rated their classrooms as more conducive to
independent, self-motivated study, (2) scored higher--more origin (inter¬
nal )--on deCharm's Origin-Pawn measure, and (3) scored higher on stan¬
dardized achievement tests.

32
Thus, the relationship between internality and high academic
achievement has been clearly established. Although there are excep¬
tions, internals generally perform better in school than their
external counterparts.
In this section it has been argued that the best friends socio¬
metric item favors students who are academically competent. Since
internals are generally academically superior to externals, they
should have higher sociometric status on the work-project item. Also,
internals should have higher status on the work-project item than on
the best friends item, because of their academic superiority.
This researcher has been able to find only one study that has
related locus of control to two different sociometric items. In this
study, which was mentioned in the previous section, Nowicki and
Roundtree (1971) related the locus of control of 12th graders to
their sociometric status on a best friends item and on an item that
asked for good candidates for class president. Nowicki and Roundtree's
study is comparable to this one, since the first item is identical
to the first item of this study, and the second item is related to
the second item of this study in that they both have to do with
achievement oriented activities. The results of the Nowicki and
Roundtree study supported the second hypothesis of this study in that
internals, at least the internal males, had higher sociometric status
on the class president item than on the best friends item.
Thus, the hypothesis that internals should do better on a task
related item than on a purely social sociometric item has received

33
partial support. In the next section the literature relevant to
the last hypothesis is discussed
Third Hypothesis: People Prefer, as Friends, Those Who Are Similar
to Them in Locus of Control
Interpersonal attraction is one of the most studied phenomena
in social psychology. Laymen and psychologists alike have been
curious about why people are attracted to some people and not others.
One of the simplest explanations is that people prefer those who are
similar to themselves. There is abundant empirical evidence that this
explanation has some validity (Byrne, 1961; Byrne & Griffitt, 1973;
Newcomb, 1961), but only under certain conditions and only for cer¬
tain traits.
The proposition that people are attracted to those who are
similar to themselves in attitude and personality has been called the
"similarity hypothesis." Byrne and Griffitt (1973) have described
three methods that have been used to test the similarity hypothesis,
as follows:
Three basic research designs have been used to study
the influence of personality similarity on attraction.
In one approach, existing attraction pairs such as
friends, or spouses are selected and then assessed
with respect to one or more personality variables;
the scores of the series of pairs are correlated. In
a second approach, the personality measure or measures
are obtained, and then previously unacquainted subjects
are selected on the basis of their test scores and
placed in an interactive situation, followed by an

34
assessment of their attraction. ... In research
utilizing a third design. . . the subject's per¬
sonality relevant behavior consists of his response
to the instrument used to assess personality char¬
acteristics, and he is subsequently exposed to the
responses of the target on the same instrument with
other stimulus and elements controlled experimentally.
With this design it has been shown that attraction
is positively related to similarity, (pp. 320-321)
By using the third design it has been shown that people are
attracted to those who are similar to themselves in self-concept
(Griffitt, 1966, 1969), the need for approval (Goldstein & Rosenfeld,
1969), and dominance-submissiveness (Palmer & Byrne, 1970).
The third design has been used to test the similarity hypothesis
for locus of control in two studies, mentioned previously in this
chapter. In the first of these studies, Phares and Wilson (1971)
tested the hypothesis that internals are attracted to other internals
and that externals are attracted to fellow externals. As previously
mentioned their hypothesis was only partially confirmed; although
the internals subjects did prefer the internal "stranger," or the
externals showed no preference for either the internal or the
external "stranger."
In the second of these studies, Nowicki and Blumberg (1975)
hypothesized that Phares and Wilson did not confirm the similarity
hypothesis, because the technique they used was "less than realistic."
They tested the same hypothesis using audio tapes, instead of com¬
pleted Rotter scales. The hypothesis was still not confirmed; both
the internal and the external subjects preferred the internal "stranger."

35
In these two experiments the failure to confirm the hypothesis
may be due to the highly contrived conditions and the social desir¬
ability of locus of control. Under these conditions, the subjects
may simply choose the person that seems more socially desirable
rather than choose the person that would really be a good friend.
Most of the studies that have supported the similarity hypoth¬
esis and the studies by Phares and Wilson and Nowicki and Blumberg
belong to the third category described by Byrne and Griffitt
(1973). These studies have two factors in common: (1) their
method of eliciting interpersonal attraction is highly contrived,
and (2) they measure only initial attraction (first impression).
There have been some studies without these shortcomings, the
most noted being Newcomb's (1961) study. Newcomb invited 34 male
students transferring to the University of Michigan to live together
in a house near campus. In exchange for this rent-free opportunity,
the students agreed to participate in a research project which
entailed regular testing and interviewing. As mentioned previously,
Newcomb found that initial attraction was highly related to pro¬
pinquity; generally the closer the rooms, the greater the chance of
interpersonal attraction. However, later attraction was more
strongly related to perceived similarity in attitudes. Newcomb's
study suggests that individuals in a group who have had the opportunity
to become acquainted with each other will associate with those group
members whom they perceive as similar to themselves.

36
Sociometric testing has also been used to test the similarity
hypothesis; this method is the first type described by Byrne
and Griffitt (1973). The results of these studies have been incon¬
sistent. For example, Pinter et al., 1937, studied the friendships
of fifth through eighth graders and found that friends were not similar
in ascendance-submission, emotional stability, and extroversion-
introversion; and Thorpe found that classroom friends were not sim¬
ilar in neuroticism. However, Bonney (1945), Austin and Thompson
(1948), and Van Dyne (1940) found that adolescents and young adults
were more similar in personality to their friends than to nonfriends.
In these studies the personality trait that the friends had in com¬
mon was a social nature, namely social and emotional adjustment
(Bonney, 1945), similarity of needs (Austin & Thompson, 1948), and
degree of dominance and sociability (Van Dyne, 1940).
The study of interpersonal attraction is further complicated
by the research of Winch (1958) which indicate that men and women
of complementary traits are often attracted to each other and main¬
tain good marital relationships. Although married couples tend to
be similar in race, sociometric status, and religion, they often
complement each other on certain personality traits, especially those
related to dominance and submission, that is, people with dominant
needs tend to marry partners with submissive needs.
Hollander (1967) has evaluated the research on interpersonal
attraction and has concluded that

37
similarity is important for some kinds of relationships
and complementary for others. In most studies where
similarity is found to hold as a factor yielding a mutual
bond, attitudes and values are those elements which are
being measured. Complementary, on the other hand, may
be relevant to need satisfaction in an enduring inter¬
action. (p. 193)
The peer relationships of 13-year-olds, although powerful in
an almost impersonal way, are still not so intimate and enduring
(Horrocks, 1976) that complementary need satisfaction would likely
be an overriding factor. It is only with mature, intimate rela¬
tionships that complementary traits seem to be significant, as
evidenced by the fact that the complementary hypothesis ("opposites
attract" has been supported with research using married couples
(Winch, 1958; Hollander, 1967). Therefore, similarity in locus of
control, rather than complementarity in locus of control, should be
a significant factor in the peer relationships of young adolescents.
In the present study it is hypothesized that the social pre¬
ferences of these subjects are related to perceived attitude similarity
and that the constellation of attitudes significant to these 13-year-
olds is related to their locus of control orientation. Therefore,
it is predicted that there is a moderate, but significant, relation¬
ship between locus of control similarity and attraction; that is,
the subjects should choose classmates who are similar to themselves
in locus of control.
In this section there was a brief review of the literature
investigating the similarity hypothesis. Studies were mentioned

38
which indicated that people tend to be attracted to those who are
similar to themselves in self-concept, need for approval, and
dominance-submissiveness. Two studies (Phares & Wilson, 1971;
Nowicki & Blumberg, 1975) were discussed which tested and did not
completely support the similarity hypothesis of locus of control.
It was hypothesized that this study would support the similarity
hypothesis for locus of control, because a more realistic method
(sociometric testing) was used to elicit interpersonal attraction.
In the next chapter the methodology of this study is discussed.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Two hundred eighth graders were administered a locus of control
instrument and a sociometric questionnaire. The results were analyzed
by multiple regression to investigate the following hypotheses:
1. With sex and race partialed out, there is a significant
relationship between locus of control and sociometric status on the
best friends item such that internals are more popular than externals.
2. With sex and race partialed out, there is a significant
relationship between locus of control and sociometric status on the
work-project item such that internals are more popular on this item
than they are on the best friends item.
3. Also with sex and race partialed out, there is a significant
relationship between the subjects' locus of control and the locus of
control of their friends such that the subjects choose friends who
are similar to themselves in locus of control.
Subjects
The subjects were 200 eighth graders from a middle school in a
city in North Central Florida with a population of 10,000. According
to the school administration, most of the school's students (80-85%) were
39

40
from families of lower middle and lower socioeconomic status. The
sample included 112 females and 88 males, 161 whites and 39 blacks.
The modal age was 13.
Testing Procedure
The sociometric test and the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control
Scale for Children (N-S) were administered by two English teachers
at the school in December of 1975. The teachers administered the
forms to all of their classes which met during different class periods
throughout the school day. The sociometric questionnaire was administered
first, and the N-S was administered one week later with a battery
of other tests. [The other data collected at this time were used
in a study by Damico and Purkey (1976.)] The students were assured
that their responses would remain confidential.
Instrumental on
The sociometric test. The first sociometric item used for this study
was "Name the students who are your best friends." Three blank spaces
were provided below the items. The subjects were not directed to list
the friends in any specific order, nor were they explicitly told that
three names were expected. The subjects could list fewer or more than
three names, but most did list three and no more than three were
analyzed in this study.
The other item was "If you had to work on a group project in
English with three other students, and half of your grade depended

41
on this project, which three students would you select to work with?"
Three blank spaces followed this item. There were several other socio¬
metric questions on this form (see Appendix B), but they were not be
analyzed in this study.
Although both the items used in this study are referred to as
sociometric, this is not exactly correct. Lindzey and Byrne (1968)
summarized Moreno's (1934) requirements of a sociometric test, as
follows:
1. The limits of the group should be indicated to the subjects.
For example, choices could be limited to members of a specific class¬
room.
2. The subjects should be permitted an unlimited number of
choices.
3. The subjects should be asked to indicate the individuals
whom they choose or reject in terms of a specific criterion. Each socio¬
metric choice should be made with a meaningful activity in mind, for
example, "name the students you would like to sit next to in class."
4. Results of the sociometric question should be used to
restructure the group. Subjects should be told that their input will
be used in making such decisions.
5. The subjects should be permitted to make their choices privately.
6. The quéstions used should be gauged to the level of under¬
standing of the sample.

42
Although the work-project item fulfilled most of these require¬
ments, the best friends item violated the second, third, and fourth
requirements. The second requirement, unlimited choices, was violated
on both items, because unlimited choices would be more difficult to
manage in terms of statistical analysis. The third requirement, the
use of a specific activity, was not used for the best friends item;
because the first and third hypothesis of this study were intended to
investigate long-term relationships. It was assumed that when adoles¬
cents were asked to list best friends, rather than to name peers
with whom they would like to interact in some activity, their choices
would be more likely to include actual relatively long-term friendships.
Lindzey and Byrne (1968) commented on the above-mentioned require¬
ments as follows:
The requirements outlined above identify the sociometric
measure in a more or less pure form, and are generally
in agreement with Moreno's definition. However, rela¬
tively few studies in this area meet all the requirements.
For example, the technique as used today seldom involves
the promise of restructuring the group .... One of the
more frequent modifications involves specifying the number
of choices the individual is required to make. (p. 455)
Thus, sociometric studies are not uniform in their methodology.
This poses a problem in assessing the reliability and validity of the
technique. However, since pure applications of sociometric testing
are the exception, rather than the rule, and since the variations of
the pure form seem to yield similar results; they will all be considered

43
together, and the reliability and validity of sociometric testing
(in its broad sense) will be said to apply to the procedure used in
this study. In fact, most of the studies that have assessed the
reliability and validity of sociometric tests have been variations
of the pure form.
Concerning the reliability of sociometric testing, a point made
by Gronlund (1959) needs to be considered:
perfect consistency from one test to another is neither
expected nor desirable, owing to the dynamic nature of
social relations. Revealing actual changes in social
relations is as important a requirement of the socio¬
metric test as providing results that are constant
enough to have predictive value .... Thus, when
applied to sociometric testing, the various coefficients
of reliability refer to the consistency of choice behavior,
. . . rather than to the characteristics of the test
itself, (p. 119)
Thus, the changes in sociometric results do not necessarily
reflect testing error; to a great extent they reflect actual changes
in the social perferences of the subjects. With this point in mind,
the internal consistency and the test-retest reliability of sociometric
tests will be discussed.
Grossman and Wrighter (1948) determined the internal consistency*
of their sociometric testing with four classrooms of sixth graders.
They randomly divided each group in half and then correlated the
sociometric status of each subject, as rated by one half of the class,
with his status in the other half of the class. They reported coef¬
ficients of internal consistency from .93 to .97. Bass and White (1950)

44
and Ricciuti and French (1951), using college students as subjects,
reported internal reliability coefficients of .90. Ausubel, Schiff,
and Gasser (1952) reported coefficients from .54 to .86 for third,
fifth, and seventh graders and coefficients of .89 and .90 for 11th
and 12th graders.
Test-retest reliability has been determined by correlating the
sociometric status of subjects on one sociometric test with their
status on another test at a later date. Witryol and Thompson (1953)
and Thompson and Powell (1951) studied the consistency of sociometric
choices made by sixth graders at intervals of one week, four weeks,
and six weeks. Witryol and Thompson (1953) reported reliability coef¬
ficients ranging from .60 to .90, and Thompson and Powell (1951)
reported correlations ranging from .89 to .92. In both studies, the
coefficients tended to decrease over time.
Using longer time intervals, Byrd (1951) found a reliability
coefficient of .89 with fourth graders selecting partners for a play
after a two-month interval, and Gronlund (1955) reported an average
reliability coefficient of .75 for fourth, fifth, and sixth graders
over a four-month interval. Bonney (1943) administered a sociometric
test, an IQ test, and an achievement test to a group of second graders
for four consecutive years. The correlations of the students socio¬
metric status from one year to the next ranged from .67 to .84. The
sociometric status of the children in this study was as consistent as
their IQ and scores on the achievement tests.

45
Using high school students Northway (1947) reported coefficients
of .90 for a one-week interval and .60 for a one-year interval.
Jennings (1950) investigated the sociometric choices of adolescent
girls (12 to 16 years old) over time and found a correlation of .96
after four days and a correlation of .65 after eight months.
Thus, the results of sociometric testing are relatively consistent.
They are almost as reliable as typical intelligence and achievement
tests, as Bonney (1943) has demonstrated, and more reliable than most
attitude/personality measures.
As with reliability, the concept of validity, as it is typically
applied to testing and measurement, needs to be qualified in its
application to sociometric tests. If sociometric tests are supposed
to measure merely social choice, then they are by definition valid
(Pepinsky, 1949). However, if they are supposed to measure actual
social relationships, they will certainly fall short of this expecta¬
tion, because, as Gronlund (1959) has mentioned:
An individual's actual associations are influenced by
environmental limitations, personal inhibitions, lack
of reciprocal feelings on the part of the desired
associates, and other related factors, as much as they
are by his preferences. Thus actual associations can
be expected to show some variation from the desired
associations indicated in sociometric choices, (p. 159)
Although sociometric choices do not correspond perfectly with
actual associations, there is a great deal of overlap. This overlap,
sociometric choices that are also actual associations, is considered

46
evidence of the validity of sociometric testing for this study;
because the first and third hypotheses of this study purport to
study friendships. Studies that have investigated the validity of
sociometric testing have related sociometric status and sociometric
choices with other measures of popularity and friendship choices.
Concerning sociometric status, the observations of teachers
and independent investigators correspond rather closely to the
results of sociometric tests. Bonney and Powell (1953) found that
sociometrically high first and second graders participated more
frequently in cooperative group activities and associated with more
children than did sociometrically low children. Newsletter, Feldstein,
and Newcomb (1938) found a correlation of .76 between the sociometric
status and the camp counselor ratings of popularity for 30 adolescent
boys. Gronlund (1951) had 40 sixth grade teachers rank their students
according to popularity; the average correlation between the teacher's
ranking and sociometric results was .60. Gronlund (1955, 1956) ob¬
tained similar results in two other studies.
The individual choices of a subject are more complex and variable
(Gronlund, 1959) than sociometric status. Therefore, it is more diffi¬
cult to observe and less likely to correspond closely with sociometric
results. Biehler (1954) compared the first sociometric choice of kinder¬
garten children with their observed play companions. About 74 percent
of the chosen companions actually played with the children who chose

47
them. Gage, Leavitt, and Stone (1955) asked 103 fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade teachers to predict how each of their students would
respond to a sociometric item that asked for the students to list
five children in their room whom they would most prefer as classmates
if the class were divided into two groups. The average correlation
between the teacher's prediction and the sociometric results was .48.
Considering that observations are subject to error and that some
aspects of friendship can not be observed, the above-mentioned evidence
suggests that sociometric results correspond rather closely to actual
friendships.
The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (N-S)
Nowicki and Strickland (1973) developed the N-S (see Appendix A)
as the children's counterpart to Rotter's (1966) Internal-External
Locus of Control Scale; both scales were intended to be measures of
global locus of control. Nowicki and Strickland (1973) describe the
scale in the following manner:
The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale is a
paper-and-penci1 measure consisting of 40 questions
that are answered either yes or no by placing a mark
next to the question. This form of the measure
derives from work which began with a large number
of items (N. = 120), constructed on the basis of
Rotter's definition of the internal-external control
of reinforcement dimension. The items describe
reinforcement situations across interpersonal and
motivational areas such as affiliation, achievement,
and dependency. School teachers were consulted in
the construction of items. The goal was to make

48
the items readable at the fifth-grade level, yet
appropriate for older students. These items along
with Rotter's description of the locus of control
dimension were then given to a group of clinical
psychology staff members (N = 9), who were asked
to answer the items in an external direction. Items
on which there was not complete agreement among the
judges were dropped. This left 59 items, which made
up the preliminary form of the test. The 59-item
form of the test was then given to a sample of students
(N = 152) ranging from the third through eleventh
grades .... The results of further analysis as well
as comments from teachers and subjects in the sample
led to the present form of the test consisting of
40 iterns. (p. 151)
Split-half correlations correlated by the Spearman-Brown Formula
were .63 for third to fifth grades, .68 for sixth to eighth grades,
and .74 for ninth to eleventh grades; the sample size for each of these
three groups was about 300. Test-retest reliabilities with six-week
intervals was .63 for third graders, .66 for seventh graders, and .71
for tenth graders.
Nowicki and Strickland assessed the convergent validity of the
N-S by correlating it with two measures of locus of control--the
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall et al.,
1965) and the Bialer-Cromwel1 Scale (Bialer, 1961). With 182 third
grade and 171 seventh grade blacks, the correlations between the Intel¬
lectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire and the N-S were .31
and .51, respectively. With a sample of 29 children, ages 9-11, the
correlation between the Bialer-Cromwel1 Scale and the N-S was .41.

49
As evidence of the construct validity of the N-S, Nowicki and
Strickland (1973) cited significant correlations between academic
achievement and the N-S at varying age levels. They also demonstrated
that internality, as measured by the N-S, increases with age and offered
this trend as evidence of the validity of the instrument. Nowicki
(1973) has also demonstrated the construct validity of his instrument
by factor analyzing the test results of three different populations —
elementary school children, junior high school children, and high
school children. For the sample most relevant to this study (junior
high school subjects), there were three different factors. There
was one general factor that accounted for 38 percent of the variance
and was labeled "helplessness" (this factor was also present in the
other two samples). The other two factors accounted for léss variance,
8-19 percent; the second factor had to do with achievement, especially
through persistence and planning, and the third factor contained items
having to do with luck, persistence, and success in social areas.
Thus, it appears that part of the third factor (success in social
areas) is most relevant in this study. However, since it is only part
of one factor, contains only a few items, and accounts for so little
variance, it has not been used to predict sociometric status in this
study.
Although the N-S is a rather new instrument and lacks the valida¬
tion research of a more established instrument, the sparce amount of
evidence that is available suggests that it is about as reliable and

50
valid as most attitude/personality measures used in research.
MacDonald (1973) has evaluated most of the locus of control instru¬
ments and has noted:
This test has been developed carefully by researchers
of solid reputation. Though of recent construction,
it has been used in many studies. Results presently
available indicate the scale to have adequate internal
consistency and temporal consistency. Data relevant
to divergent and convergent validity are encouraging.
In short, it appears to be the best measure of locus
of control as a generalized expectancy presently
available for children, (p. 185)
Statistical Analysis
First and second hypotheses. In both of these hypotheses the dependent
variable was sociometric status (SMS) on the respective sociometric
item. Sociometric status was measured by counting the number of
selections that each subject received. Previous sociometric research
indicates that this distribution should be skewed to the right--fewer
popular children than unpopular ones (Groulund, 1959).
The principal independent variable was locus of control (LOC),
measured by the N-S. It was expected that this distribution would
be close to normal or skewed slightly to the right; there may be more
extreme internals than extreme externals (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).
The variables of sex and race were forced into the equation before
LOC, as covariates, since sex and race may be confounding variables.
Thus the basic multiple regression equation was as follows:
A
SMS = sex + race + LOC

51
In addition to these basic variables, locus of control as a
2
nonlinear variable (LOC ) and interactions between locus of control
and sex and race were also checked for significance; so the complete
equation was as follows:
SMS = sex + race + LOC + LOC^ + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
All of the independent variables were forced into the equation
in the order indicated above. The rationale for this approach has
been discussed under the rubrics of the "a priori ordering approach"
by Kerlinger & Pedhazur (1973).
Dummy coding (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973) was used to code sex
and race. The data were submitted on cards to the University of
Florida's IBM 360-75 computer, assessing the multiple regression
program of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPPS)
(Nie, Hull, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1973). (In fact, all of the data
analysis of this study u^ed programs from the SPSS library). If
the F-value was significant at the .05 level for the LOC variable,
the hypothesis was accepted.
One of the assumptions of multiple regression is that the depen¬
dent variable should be normal. However, Kerlinger and Pedhazur,
(1973) has noted that this is not always a problem:
It has convincingly been shown that the F and t tests
are "strong" or "robust" statistics, which means that
they resist violation of the assumptions. In general,

52
it is safe to say that we can ordinarily go ahead
with analysis of variance and multiple regression
analysis without worrying too much about assumptions.
Nevertheless, researchers must be aware that serious
violations of the assumptions, and especially of
combinations of them, can destroy results. We advise
students to examine data, especially by plotting,
and, if the assumptions appear to be violated, to
treat obtained results with even more caution than
usual. The student should also bear in mind the
possibility of transforming recalcitrant data,
using one or more of the transformations that are
available and that may make the data more amendable
to analysis and inference.
If the dependent variables differ markedly from the normal
distributions, they will be transformed, as Kerlinger has advised.
Third hypothesis. Multiple regression was also used in the analysis
of the third hypothesis. For this equation the locus of control of
the friends chosen by the subject (F-LOC) was the dependent variable.
It is expected that the distribution of F-LOC scores should be close
to normal, so none of the assumptions of multiple regression should be
violated in the analysis of the third hypothesis.
With F-LOC scores as the dependent variable, the principal inde¬
pendent variable was the subject's own locus of control score. If
there is a significant positive correlation between the two, it would
indicate that these subjects tend to choose friends of a similar locus
of control orientation. A negative correlation would indicate a
tendency to choose friends of the opposite locus of control.

53
As with the first hypothesis, sex and race were forced into
the equation before the principal independent variable (the subject's
own LOC score). Also, interactions and a nonlinear relationship be¬
tween LOC and F-LOC were investigated. Thus, the complete multiple
regression equation was as follows:
/\
F-LOC = sex + race + LOC + LOC^ + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
Chapter Summary
Two hundred eighth graders answered two sociometric questions:
one that asked the students to list their best friends, and another
that asked the student to name three classmates with whom they would
like to work an an academic project. One week later the subjects
completed the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children
(N-S).
The reliability and validity of sociometric testing and the N-S
were discussed; both testing procedures were as reliable and valid
as most psychological tests used in research. The subject's locus of
control (LOC) was the principal independent variable for all three
hypotheses. LOC and other variables were used in the multiple regres¬
sion equations to predict sociometric status on the best friends item
(SMS^), sociometric status on the work-project item (SMS^), and
the subject's friends locus of control (F-LOC). The complete multiple
regression equations were as follows:

54
1. First hypothesis:
2. Second hypothesis:
3. Third hypothesis:
SMS^ = sex + race + LOC + LOC^
+ (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
SMS = sex + race + LOC + LOC^
wp
+ (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
A
F-LOC = sex + race + LOC + LOC^
+ (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race)
The results of this analysis are discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter the results of this study are stated and discussed.
The first section presents the results, and in the next section the
significance of these results is discussed.
Results
The results of this study are presented in sub-sections. The
first sub-section is a general presentation of the data which includes
the mean, standard deviation, and other aspects of the variables used
in the study. The remaining three sub-sections present the results
of the analysis of each hypothesis. These three sub-sections focus
on the inferential statistics of each hypothesis, and the first sub¬
section focuses on the descriptive statistics of all of the variables.
Descriptive statistics. Two hundred subjects completed the Nowicki-
Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (N-S). Scores on the
N-S can range from 0 to 40--the higher the score, the more external.
The mean score of this sample was 15.99; the standard deviation was
5.54. The scores ranged from 3 to 30. Measures of the skewness and
kurtosis were taken and found to be -.22 and .20, respectively,
indicating that the distribution of N-S scores was close to normal.
55

56
The sample included 112 females and 88 males, 161 whites and
39 blacks. The female subjects had a mean N-S score of 15.21, and
the males, 16.96. (The lower the score, the more internal.) The
mean score for whites was 15.32, and for blacks it was 18.72. The
sex/race differences are presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Sex/race differences in locus of control scores
Subgroup
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
White males
69
16.18
5.47
Black males
19
19.79
4.93
All males
88
16.96
5.31
White females
92
14.67
5.39
Black females
20
17.70
5.15
All females
112
15.21
5.32
All whites
161
15.32
5.42
All blacks
39
18.72
5.04
Sociometric status was measured by counting the number of
selections received. For the first hypothesis sociometric status on
the best friends item (SMS^) was the dependent variable. The mean
number of selections received was 2.38i the standard deviation was
1.92. The most popular subjects (N = 2) received nine selections;

57
that is, nine of their classmates chose them as best friends.
Thirty-three subjects received no selections. Thus, SMSb^ ranged
from zero to nine. The measures of skewness and kurtosis were
.97 and 1.03, respectively.
For the second hypothesis sociometric status on the work-project
item (SMS^) was the dependent variable. The meah number of selec¬
tions received was 2.49; the standard deviation was 2.41. On this
item the most popular subject received 13 selections, and 41 subjects
received no choices. The measures of skewness and kurtosis were
1.53 and 3.14 for this variable. Like SMS,., SMS was not signifi-
bf wp a
cantly related to either sex or race.
The indices of skewness and kurtosis indicated that SMS^ and
SMSWp deviated considerably from a normal distribution (Nie et al.,
1975). Therefore, both distributions were transfomed to T-scores,
a procedure commonly used to normalize recalcitrant data (Roscoe,
1969). The transformed variables which were used in the multiple
regression equations were labeled SMbf and . The correlation
between SMKf and SM was .675.
°t wp
Relevant to the third hypothesis, the 200 subjects of this study
made 413 usable choices on the best friends item (some subjects
chose friends who did not take the N-S, and these choices could not
be used). Of the 413 selections, 386 were friends of the same sex
and race of the chooser; 25 friends of the opposite sex were chosen,
and only two friends of another race were chosen.

58
The dependent variable in the third hypothesis was the locus
of control of the friends chosen by the subjects (F-LOC). Since
each sociometric choice, not each subject, was the individual unit
of analysis for this hypothesis, a subject's locus of control was
used as many times as he was chosen as a friend. The mean F-LOC
was 15.19 with a standard deviation of 6.08. Friends'locus of con¬
trol ranged from 3 to 30.
As previously mentioned, the N-S test results of this study
were factor analyzed in the hope of finding a social factor. How¬
ever, the factor analysis indicated that there was no substantial
factor structure.
The descriptive data have been presented above; the next three
sections present the results of the hypothesis testing.
First hypothesis. The first hypothesis postulated a significant
relationship between the subject's locus of control (LOC) and their
sociometric status on the best friends item (SM^f), such that inter¬
nals would be more popular than externals. (As mentioned in the pre¬
vious section, SMS was transformed to T-scores and labeled SM.) It
was hypothesized that the relationship between LOC and SM^f would be
significant with sex and race partialed out. Also, interactions
between locus of control and sex (LOC x sex) and locus of control
and race (LOC x race) and a curvilinear locus of control term (LOC^)
were checked for significance. The results of the multiple regression
equation used to predict SM^ are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4.2.--The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict sociometric status
on the best friends item
With variables partialed out
Variable
Order in
the equation
Beta
Zero-order
correlation
Multiple R
Variables
partialed out
F-ratio
Sex
1st
.170
-.012
.012
none
.028
Race
2nd
-.188
.033
.034
sex
.205
LOC
3rd
-.347
-.147
.167
sex, race
5.41*
LOC x sex
4th
-.215
-.094
.191
sex, race, LOC
1.73
c_n
vd
LOC x race
5th
.277
.039
.214
sex, race, LOC
2.15
LOC2
6th
.227
-.117
.218
sex, race, LOC
2.67
*J3 <.01.

60
The zero-order correlation between LOC and SM^ was -.147 which
is in the predicted direction and statistically significant (£ <.01).
Sex and race were not significantly related to SM^. The F-ratio
of LOC, as a predictor of SM^, with sex and race part-ialed out was
5.41 (df = 3, 196) which is significant at the .01 level. However,
LOC accounted for less than three percent of the variance in SM^.
With sex, race, and LOC entered into the multiple regression equation,
none of the other variables [(LOC x sex), (LOC x race), (LOC^)] was
a significant predictor of SM^.
Second hypothesis. The second hypothesis predicted a significant
relationship betv/een locus of control (LOC) and sociometric status
on the work-project item (SM ), when sex and race were partialed
out. It was also predicted that the relationship between LOC and
S^wp wou^d be greater than the relationship between LOC and SMbf.
As in the first hypothesis, (LOC x sex), (LOC x race), and LOC^
were tested for significance. The results of the multiple regression
are presented in Table 4-3.
The zero-order correlation between LOC and SM^ was -.302 which
is in the predicted direction and significant at the .0001 level.
A formula recommended by Roscoe (1969) was used to determine the
statistical significance, if any, of the difference between this
correlation (r = .-302) and the correlation between LOC and SM, _
~ bf
(-.147). These two correlations were not significantly

Table 4-3.—The magnitude and significance of variables used to predict sociometric status
on the work-project team
Variable
Order in
the equation
Beta
Zero-order
correlation
Multiple R
With variables partialed out
Variables F-ratio
partialed out
Sex
1st
.363
.108
.108
none
2.33
Race
2nd
-.315
-.038
.113
sex
.224
LOC
3rd
*3“
CO
C\J
1
' -.302
.311
sex, race
18.23*
LOC x sex
4 th
-.317
-.042
.330
sex, race, LOC
2.54
LOC x race
5th
.377
-.044
.346
sex, race, LOC
2.45
LOC2
6th
LO
o
-.272
.346
sex, race, LOC
2.29
*p <.01.

62
different from each other at the .05 level, but the probability that
they were not different was less than .10.
Sex and race were the first variables in the multiple regression
equation, but neither produced a significant F-ratio. With sex
and race partialed out, LOC produced a F-ratio of 18.23 (df = 3, 196)
which was significant at the .01 level. LOC, with sex and race con¬
trolled for, accounted for about eight percent of the variance in SM .
wp
With sex, race, and locus of control entered into the multiple regres¬
sion equation, (LOC x sex), (LOC x race), and LOC^ were not statisti¬
cally significant.
Third hypothesis. The third hypothesis postulated a significant rela¬
tionship between a subject's locus of control (LOC) and the locus of
control of his friends (F-LOC), even when sex and race were accounted
for. Interactions between sex and locus of control (LOC x sex) and
race and locus of control (LOC x race) and a curvilinear locus of con-
trol term (LOC ) were also’checked for significance. The results of
the multiple regression equation used to predict F-LOC are presented
in Table 4-4.
The zero-order correlation between the subject's locus of control
(LOC) and the locus of control of their friends (F-LOC) was .228 which
was significant (¿<.00001 ). With sex and race partialed out, LOC
produced an F-ratio of 7.15 (df = 3, 409) which was a significant (¿ <
.01) predictor of F-LOC, but it accounted for less than two percent
of the variance in F-LOC.

able 4-4.-
-The magnitude
control
and significance of
variables used
to predict friends'
locus of
With variables
partialed out
Vari able
Order in
the equation
Beta
Zero-order
correlation
Multiple R
Variables
partialed out
F-ratio
Race
1st
.525
.306
.306
none
42.58**
Sex
2nd
-.544
-.191
.347
race
12.22**
LOC
3rd
.041
.228
.368
sex, race
7.15**
LOC x sex
4th
.425
-.050
.398
sex, race, LOC
11.08**
LOC2
5th
-.042
.199
.400
sex, race, LOC
5.27*
LOC x race
6ht
-.281
.287
.405
sex, race, LOC
4.32*
*2 <-05.
**p < .01.

64
With sex, race, and LOC partialed out, both interactions (LOC
x sex and LOC x race) added small, but statistically significant
(£ < .01, £< .05, respectively), contributions to the equation.
An ex post facto analysis indicated that the interactions were such
that LOC was significantly related to F-LOC for females (r = .31,
£ < .000001), but not for males (r = .03), and that LOC was signifi¬
cantly related to F-LOC for whites (r = .20, £< .00011 ), but not
for blacks (_r = .06).
With sex, race, and LOC partialed out, the curvilinear term
p
(LOC ) added a small, but statistically significant (£ < .05),
contribution to the equation. The chi square matrix illustrated in
Table 4-5 suggests that the nature of the curvilinear relationship
between LOC and F-LOC is such that the similarity hypothesis is
valid for internals, but not for externals. Therefore, the multiple
regression equation was run separately for internals and externals.
Table 4-5.--Chi square matrix indicating the locus of control of
friends chosen by internals, moderates, and externals
Friends' locus of
control
Internals
Moderates
Externals
Choosers
Internals
(N = 154)
83
27
44
Moderates
(N = 128)
47
40
41
Externals
(N = 131)
42
42
47
Chi
square = 17.33,
df - 4, £
<.002.

65
Table 4-6 compares the ability of LOC to predict F-LOC in three
samples--the total sample, internals, and externals. For externals,
neither their sex nor their locus of control was significantly
related to the locus of control of their friends. For internals,
LOC was significantly related to F-LOC (r = .40, jd < .00001 ); but,
with sex and race partialed out while LOC was statistically signifi¬
cant (]D < .01), it accounted for only 2.2 percent of the variance
in F-LOC.
Table 4-6.--Simple correlation and unique contribution of LOC in
predicting F-LOC for total sample, internals, and
externals
Sample
Simple r
(LOC/F-LOC)
Unique contribution
of LOC with sex and race
accounted for
F-ratio
of unique
contributi on
Total
(N = 413)
.23
.015
7.47**
Internals
(N = 154)
.26
.022
3.89*
Externals
(N = 131)
.05
.000
.032
* p < .05.
**p < .01.
Thus, locus of control was a statistically significant predictor
of SMbf, SM^, and F-LOC. The theoretical and practical significance
of these results are presented in the next section.

66
Discussion of the Results
The theoretical and educational significance of each hypothesis
is discussed in the following section. Also, some recommendations
for future research and theory development are discussed.
First hypothesis. Although the relationship between locus of control
and sociometric status on the best friends item was statistically
significant, even with sex and race controlled, the relationship was
so slight that it lacked practical significance. In fact, for all
practical purposes, this study indicated that internals and externals
are about equal in social popularity; this supports Nowicki and Round-
tree (1971) and Adinolfi (1970) who found no relationship between
locus of control and sociometric status on purely social items.
This researcher expected that locus of control would be a more
potent predictor of sociometric status. Its weakness as a predictor
may be due to any one or a combination of the following explanations:
1. Externals may value friendship more than internals.
According to social learning theory (Rotter, 1954), behavior is a
function of both an individual's expectancy about his behavior
obtaining reinforcement and the value the individual places on the
reinforcement in question. Therefore, a low expectancy could be
balanced out by a highly valued reinforcement. For example, a starving
person might strive desperately for food, even when he has a low
expectancy of obtaining food.

67
2. There may be a specific sense of control related to social
situations that is not highly correlated with generalized locus of
control.
3. Locus of control may be related to goal-seeking behavior,
but not to the more spontaneous behavior of making and maintaining
friendships.
The first explanation (externals may value friendship more than
internals) may have some merit. Therefore, future studies that in¬
vestigate the relationship between locus of control and peer acceptance
should include a measure of the need for affiliation.
The second explanation (there is a specific sense of control
related to social situations) may have some merit. Even though studies
that have factor analyzed locus of control scales have not yielded a
purely social factor, it may be that the items of these scales do not
tap such a dimension.
The third explanation' (locus of control is related only to goal¬
seeking behavior) is closely related to the previous explanation. Locus
of control has been more clearly related to goal-directed activities,
like academic work and problem solving. These activities are usually
step-by-step procedures that are aided by planning and directed at
specific, known goals. These activities also rely heavily on cognitive
ability. On the other hand, an adolescent's social world is not a
step-by-step process. Specific goals are usually not formulated; and
if they are formulated and adhered to in a rigid manner, the goal-seeker

68
is almost guaranteed social failure. Also, cognitive skill is less
important in social situations than it is in school and similar
activities. It seems that locus of control is most clearly associated
with methodical, cognitive effort; and this type of effort may not
be as helpful in formal social situations as it is in formal academic¬
like tasks.
The processes of adolescent friendship need further explanation.
It would be helpful to know more about how and why adolescents associate
with each other. It would also be helpful to understand how adolescents
(and others) perceive their relationships with their friends. For
example, do people believe they can control their friends? If they do,
what do they mean by "control?" What effects, if any, do different
notions of control have on social relationships? It seems as though
present locus of control instrumentation is too restrictive for such
an exploration. Psychologists should begin with in-depth interviews,
field observation, and projective testing. Open-ended procedures may
produce data that can be used to formulate a concept of man's percep¬
tion of his interaction with his environment that is more sophisticated
and more complex than Rotter's concept of locus of control.
Concerning the educational significance of this hypothesis, it
appears that internality is not clearly associated with popularity
or the lack of popularity. Therefore, educators (probably) need not
be concerned with possible social disadvantages of internality, at
least not on an individual basis. (Increasing internality may have

69
some disadvantages to the group; for example, is a team integrated
with internals and externals more productive and harmonious than a
team that is exclusively internal or external? In other words, this
study produced no evidence suggesting a child may lose peer acceptance
in becoming more internal. Therefore, educators can proceed with
more confidence in advocating internality change programs.
In summary, future studies that investigate the relationship
between locus of control and peer acceptance should use a measure of
the need for friendship, since social learning theory predicts that
the value of peer acceptance should interact with locus of control
and peer acceptance. Also, as described above, a more complex,
socially sensitive concept of sense of control should be used. Although
there may be no social disadvantages associated with internality on
an individual basis, the effects of locus of control on group harmony
and productivity should be investigated.
Second hypothesis. Locus of control was an effective predictor of
sociometric status on the academic project item. This finding suggests
that the subjects chose peers who did well in school, and those students
tended to be internal. This evidence adds support to the notion that
internality is associated with academic success.
This finding is closely related to the results of the Nowicki and
Roundtree (1971) study; in their study internals were not more popular
than externals on the best friends item, but internal males were more

70
popular on a sociometric item that asked for nominations for class
president. Thus, internals were given more consideration for tasks
requiring intelligence and responsibility.
Future studies that relate locus of control to popularity on a
task-oriented item should use appitude in that task as a covariate.
Third hypothesis. Like the first hypothesis, this hypothesis was
statistically significant but lacked practical significance due to the
small size of the relationship between the dependent and independent
variables. The data suggest that, given a biracial population of
eighth grade boys and girls, there is a tendency for these students,
especially the internals, to choose friends of a similar locus of
control. However, most of this tendency is due to racial and sexual
divisions within the classroom and racial and sexual differences in
locus of control. In this sample the students chose, almost exclu¬
sively, friends of the same race and sex. Since black males, black
females, white males, and white females all differed in locus of con¬
trol, there was a substantial correlation between a subject's locus of
control and his friends' locus of control on the basis of sex and race.
When sex and race were partialed out, there was only a slight tendency
for subjects to choose friends of a similar locus of control. This
tendency was especially evident for three overlapping subgroups within
the total sample--internals, females, and whites. The results of this
hypothesis parallel the results obtained by Nowicki and Blumberg (1975)

71
and Phares and Wilson (1971) in that internals showed a preference
for fellow internals and externals did not prefer other externals.
It appears that in real-life situations similarity in locus of
control is not an overriding factor in interpersonal attraction.
Perhaps a more sophisticated concept of control, one more applicable
to social situations than Rotter's (1966), would be a more significant
factor in interpersonal attraction. However, even a more sophisti¬
cated model of sense of control would be limited by the similarity
hypothesis itself. This researcher does not recommend any further
research on similarity in locus of control as a factor in interper¬
sonal attraction, because Phares and Wilson (1971), Nowicki and
Blumberg (1975), andthis study all produced the same finding--inter-
nals have a slight tendency to prefer fellow internals, and externals
do not prefer other externals.
There is a serendipitous finding of this study that deserves
mention. Only two of the 200 subjects chose a classmate of another
race as one of their "best friends"; a white girl and a black girl
chose each other. Considering that this study was conducted in a
school that has been desegregated, this finding suggests an important
question. How is desegregation to help black children assimilate
work-oriented attitudes, like an internal locus of control orientation,
if blacks and whites remain socially separate? Of course, this ques¬
tion is based on the assumption that internality can be learned through
modeling in informal, social situations; the investigation of this
assumption would be an interesting study in itself.

72
In summary, the data indicated that (1) the internal subjects
were slightly more popular, as friends, than the externals, (2) the
internals were considerably more popular as working partners, and
(3) the subjects, especially the internals, had a tendency to choose
friends of a similar locus of control, but most of this tendency was
due to racial and sexual preferences and racial and sexual differences
in locus of control.
In this chapter the results have been presented and discussed.
In the next chapter the study is summarized and the conclusions are
stated.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The final chapter consists of two sections. The first section
is a summary of the purpose, rationale, methodology, and results
of the study. The second section states the conclusions, including
recommendations for future research.
Summary
This study investigated the relationship between adolescents'
locus of control and their peer preferences. Locus of control was
defined as the degree to which an individual expects that his rein¬
forcement is contingent upon his behavior; individuals with an
internal locus of control generally believe that they control what
happens to them, whereas those with an external locus of control
believe that their destiny is beyond their control and is determined
by fate, luck, or powerful others.
There has been a great deal of research indicating that inter-
nality is associated with academic success and cognitive superiority,
but there has been relatively little investigation of the social
correlates of locus of control. This study related locus of control
to popularity as a friend, popularity as a working partner, and
73

74
interpersonal attraction. More specifically, the following
hypotheses were tested:
1. Internal adolescents are more popular (have more friends)
than their external peers.
2. Internals are more popular as working partners on an
academic project than they are as friends.
3. Adolescents tend to choose as friends those who are
similar to themselves in locus of control.
To investigate these hypotheses, 200 eighth graders were
administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for
Children and two sociometric items. The first sociometric item
was "Name the students who are your best friends"; and the second
item was "If you had to work on a group project in English with
three other students who would you select to work with?"
Multiple regression was used to analyze each hypothesis. For
the first hypothesis the dependent variable was sociometric status on
the best friends item (SMS^); that is, the number of times the subject
was chosen as a best friend. The principal independent variable was
the subject's locus of control (LOC); thus locus of control was used
to predict popularity. Sex and race were controlled by forcing these
two variables into the multiple regression equation before locus of
control. Also, interactions between locus of control and sex (LOC x
sex) and locus of control and race (LOC x race) and curvilinear locus

t
75
of control term (LOC^) were checked for significance. Thus, the
complete multiple regression equation was as follows:
A
SMS^ = sex + race + LOC + (LOC x sex) + (LOC x race) + LOC^
The predictors for the other two hypotheses were the same as
above; the dependent variable for the second hypothesis was socio¬
metric status on the work-project item, and for the third hypothesis
it was the subjects' friends' locus of control. Thus,the subjects'
locus of control was used to predict their social popularity,
popularity as a working partner, and their friends' locus of control.
In each of these multiple regression equations, with sex and
race partialed out, locus of control was a statistically significant
(p < .01) predictor of the dependent variable. However, locus of
control, with sex and race partialed out, accounted for less than
three percent of the variance in social popularity and less than
two percent of the variance in friends' locus of control. Locus
of control accounted for about eight percent of the variance in socio
metric status on the work-project item. The following table sum¬
marizes the efficacy of locus of control in predicting sociometric
status on the best friends item (SMS), sociometric status on the
bf
academic work-project item (SMS ), friends' locus of control (F-LOC)
The conclusions of this study are stated in the next section.

76
Table 5-1.
--Locus of control as a predictor of popularity
friend and work partner and friends' locus of
as a
control
Dependent
variable
Hypothesis
Zero-order
correlation
With variables partialed out
Variance F-ratio
accounted for
SMSbp
1st
-.147
2.7%
5.41*
SHSWP
2nd
-.302
8.4%
18.23*
F-LOC
3rd
.228
1.5%
7.15*
*p < .01.
Conclus ions
The results of this study indicate the following:
1. Internal adolescents are slightly more popular than exter¬
nals as best friends.
2. Internals are more popular as partners on an academic project
than they are as best friends.
3. In a biracial group of eighth grade boys and girls almost
all students choose best friends of the same sex and race.
4. Using the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale to
measure the locus of control of eighth graders, white females are
more internal than white males who are more internal than black
females, and black males are the most external.

77
5. In a biracial population of eighth grade boys and girls
there is a significant tendency for these adolescents to choose
best friends of a similar locus of control, but most of this tendency
is due to sexual and racial preferences and sexual and racial dif¬
ferences in locus of control.
6. The tendency to choose friends of a similar locus of control
was most evident for whites, females, and internals.
Based on the results of this study, the following suggestions
were recommended for future research in the social aspects of locus
of control:
1. Covariates like sex, race, socioeconomic status, and IQ
should be used in locus of control research. Perhaps some of the
variables that have been related to locus of control were overesti¬
mated because of a third variable that was related to both locus of
control and the variable being investigated.
2. Interactions between locus of control and variables like
sex, race, socioeconomic status, and IQ should be examined. Perhaps
some significant relationships with locus of control have been over¬
looked, because the investigator did not check for interactions.
3. When relating locus of control to peer acceptance, the need
for approval should be considered in that social learning theory
predicts that the need for approval should interact with locus of
control and peer acceptance.

78
4. Also, curvilinear relationships between locus of control
and relevant variables should be explored. Perhaps, as it was in
this study, the variable has a different relationship to internal
locus of control than to external locus of control.
5. There is a possibility that informal, social segregation
within desegregated schools is preventing blacks from acquiring
desirable middle class attitudes; this possibility needs to be
investigated.
6. The effects of locus of control on group harmony and pro¬
ductivity should be investigated. For example, a study could compare
the productivity and harmony of a group integrated with internals and
externals to groups that were exclusively internal or external.
7. The possibility that locus of control has special signifi¬
cance for goal-directed behavior (like academic work), rather than
spontaneous behavior (like making friends), deserves investigation
and consideration in theory construction.
8. A theory more sophisticated than Rotter's concept of locus
of control needs to be developed to explain man's perception of his
interaction with his environment (especially his social environment).
This theory development should begin with a series of open-ended
exploratory studies.
These last two recommendations, especially the last one, suggest
major changes in locus of control theory. Although it will be

79
difficult to abandon the standardized instruments,
and traditional psychological methodology; it will
locus of control is to help psychologists make insi
about the nature of man.
the 1inear model,
be necessary if
ghtful discoveries

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
THE NOWICKI-STRICKLAND LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE FOR CHILDREN
INSTRUCTIONS: There are 40 questions to this survey. Please answer
them by checking (/) the YES or NO column for each question. There
are no right or wrong answers--your honest opinion is what matters.
YES NO
1. Do you believe that most problems will solve them¬
selves if you just don't fool with them?
2. Do you believe that you can stop yourself from
catching a cold?
___ 3. Are some kids just born lucky?
4. Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades
means a great deal to you?
5. Are you often blamed for things that just aren't your
fault?
6. Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough
he or she can pass any subject?
7. Do you feeí that most of the time it doesn't pay to
try hard because things never turn out right anyway?
8. Do you feel that if things start out well in the
morning that it's going to be a good day no matter
what you do?
9. Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to
what their children have to say?
82

83
VES NO
10. Do you believe that wishing can make good things
happen?
11. When you get punished does it usually seem it's for
no good reason at all?
12. Most ,of the time do you find it hard to change a
friend's (mind) opinion?
13. Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a
team to win?
14. Do you feel that it's nearly impossible to change
your parent's mind about anything?
__ 15. Do you believe that your parents should allow you to
make most of your own decisions?
__ 16. Do you feel that when you do something wrong there's
very little you can do to make it right?
17. Do you believe that most kids are just born good
at sports?
18. Are most of the other kids your age stronger than
you are?
19. Do you feel that one of the best ways to handle most
problems is just not think about them?
__ 20. Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in deciding
who your friends are?
21. If you find a four leaf clover, do you believe that
it might bring you good luck?
___ 22. Do you often feel that whether you do your homework
has much to do with what kind of grades you get?
23. Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit
you, there's little you can do to stop him or her?
24. Have you ever had a good luck charm?

84
YES NO
25. Do you believe that whether or not people like you
depends on how you act?
26. Will your parents usually help you if you ask them
to?
27. Have you felt that when people were mean to you it
was uaually for no reason at all?
28. Most of the time, do you feel that you can change
what might happen tomorrow by what you do today?
__ 29. Do you believe that when bad things are going to
happen they just are going to happen no matter what
you try to do to stop them?
30. Do you think that kids can get their own way if they
just keep trying?
31. Most of the time do you find it useless to try to
get your own way at home?
32. Do you feel that when good things happen they happen
because of hard work?
33. Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be
your enemy there's little you can do to change mat¬
ters?
34. Do you feel that it's easy to get friends to do what
you want them to?
35. Do you usually feel that you have little to say about
what you get to eat at home?
36. Do you feel that when someone doesn't like you there's
little you can do about it?
__ 37. Do you usually feel that it's almost useless to try
in school because most other children are just plain
smarter than you are?
38. Are you the kind of person who believes that planning
ahead makes things turn out better?

85
YES NO
39. Most of the time, do you feel that you have little
to say about what your family decides to do?
40. Do you think it's better to be smart than to be
1 ucky?

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B
THE SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONNAIRE*
A.Most classrooms have a few students who joke a lot and who make
others in the room laugh. These are the "Class Clowns." Please
list below the names (first and last) of the students you know
who clown around a lot. Students should be in your^grade.
1.
2.
3.
* *
B.Name the students who are your best friends.
1.
2.
3.
C. Name the students who usually come up with the best ideas for
class projects or activities.
1.
2.
3.
D. If you had to work on a group project in English with three other
students, and half of your grade depended upon this project, which
three students would you select to work with?
1.
2.
3.
87

88
E. List the students that you think are liked by most everyone
in the class.
1.
2.
3.
k
Damico and Purkey, 1976.
**
Questions used in this study.

REFERENCES
Abrahamson, D., Schulderman, S., & Schulderman, E. Replication
of dimensions of locus of control. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 4J, 320.
Abramowitz, S. I. Locus of control and self-reported depression
among college students. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25,
149-150.
Adinolfi, A. A. Characteristics of highly accepted, highly rejected,
and relatively unknown university freshmen. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1970, _U, 456-464.
Ashton, P. T. The effect of internal control training on selected
personality and ability factors. Unpublished doctoral disser¬
tation, University of Georgia, 1974.
Austin, M. C., & Thompson, G. G. Children's friendships: a study of
the bases on which children select and reject their best friends.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1948, 37, 101-116.
Ausubel, D. P.v Schiff, H. M. & Gasser, E. B. A preliminary study
of developmental trends in sociempathy: accuracy of perception
of own and other's sociometric status. Child Development, 1952,
23, 111-128.
Baron, D. Personal-social characteristics and classroom social status:
a sociometric study of fifth- and sixth-grade girls. Sociometry,
1951, 14, 32-42.
Bartel, N. R. Locus of control and achievment in middle- and lower-
class children. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1099-1107.
Bass, B. M. & White, 0. L. Validity of leaderless group discussion
observer's descriptive and evaluative ratings for the assessment
of personality and leadership status. American Psychologist,
1950, 5, 311-312.
Bernhardson, C. S. Relationship between individual social desirability
ratings and hand acquiescense and I-E scores. Psychological
Reports, 1968, 22, 773-776.
89

90
Bialer, I. Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally
retarded and normal children. Journal of Personality, 1961,
29, 303-320.
Biehler, R. F. Companion choice behavior in the kindergarten.
Child Development, 1954, 25^, 45-50.
Bonney, M. E. Personality traits of socially successful and
socially unsuccessful children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1943, 34, 449-472.
Bonney, M. E. A sociometric study of the relationship of some
factors to mutual friendships of the elementary, secondary,
and college levels. Sociometry, 1945, 9, 21-47.
Bonney, M. E., & Powell, J. Difference in social behavior
between sociometrically high and sociometrically low children.
Journal of Educational Research, 1953, 46_, 481-495.
Brown, D. Factors affecting social acceptance of high school
students. School Review, 1954, 42, 151-155.
Brown, J. C., & Strickland, B. R. Belief in internal-external con¬
trol of reinforcement and participation in college activities.
Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 38, 148.
Brownstone, J. E., & Willis, R. H. Conformity in early and late
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 334-337.
Butterfield, E. C. Locus of Control, test anxiety, reaction to
frustration, and achievement attitudes. Journal of Personality,
1964, 32, 298-311. *
Byrd, E. A study of validity and constancy of choices in a socio¬
metric test. Soci ometry, 1951, 1_4, 175-181.
Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity.
Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 1961, 62, 713-715.
Byrne, D. The attraction paradigm. 1971, New York: Academic.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. Similarity versus liking: a clarifica¬
tion. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 295-296.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. Interpersonal attraction.
of Psychology, 1973, 24, 317-376.
Annual Review

91
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-experimental
Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
Cole, H., & Hall, I. N. Psychology of Adolescence (7th ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood,
A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. Equality of Educational
Opportunity. Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. FS 5.238:
38001, II. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1966.
Cone, J. D. Locus of control and social desirability. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 3j5, 499.
Cook, L. A. An experimental study of a stratified tenth grade
class. American Sociological Review, 1945, 1_0, 250-261.
Costanzo, P. R., & Shaw, M. E. Conformity as a function of age level.
Child Development, 1966, 37_, 967-975.
Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. Children's beliefs
in their own control of reinforcement in intel1ectual-academic
situations. Child Development, 1965, .36, 91-109.
Cromwell, R. L., Rosenthal, D., Shakow, D., & Zahn, T. P. Reaction
time, locus of control, choice behavior, and descriptions of
parental behavior in schizophrenic and normal subjects. Journal
of Personality, 1961 , 29_, 363-379.
Crowne, D. P., & Liverant, S. Conformity under varying conditions
of personal commitment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol¬
ogy, 1963, 66, 547-555.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlow, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley,
1964.
Damico, S., & Purkey, W. W. The class clown phenomenon among middle
school children. A paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
1976.
Davis, W. L., & Phares, E. J. Internal-external control as a deter¬
minant of information-seeking in a social influence situation.
Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 547-561.
deCharms, R. Personal causation training in the schools. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 95-113.

92
Drabman, R. S., & Lahey, B. B. Feedback in classroom behavior
modifications: effects on the target and her classmates.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1 974, 7_, 591-596.
DuCette, J., & Wolk, S. Cognitive and motivational correlates
of generalized expectancies for control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26_, 420-426.
Duke, M. Locus of control as a mediating variable in social
distance. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, 1973.
Duke, M., & Fenhagen, E. Self-parental alienation and locus of
control in delinquent girls. The Journal of Genetic Psy¬
chology, 1975, 127, 103-107.
Duke, M., & Nowicki, S. A new measure and social learning model
for interpersonal distance. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 1972, 6, 119-132.
Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality
assessment and research. New York: Dryden, 1957.
Feather, N. T. Some personality correlates of external control.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 1967, 1_9, 253-260.
Feinberg, M. R. Relation of background experience to social
acceptance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953,
48, 206-214.
Fish, B., & Karabenick, S. A. Relationship between self-esteem
and locus of control”. Psychological Reports, 1971 , 29., 784.
Fitch, G. Effects of self-esteem, perceived performance, and
choice on causal attributions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1970, _16_, 311-315.
Gage, N. L., Leavitt, G. L., & Stone, G. C. Teachers' understanding
of their pupils and pupils' ratings of their teachers. Psycho¬
logical Monographs, No. 21, American Psychological Association,
Washington, D. C., 1955.
Goldstein, J. W., & Rosenfeld, H. M. Insecurity in preference for
persons similar to oneself. Journal of Personality, 1969, 37,
253-268.

93
Griffitt, W. Interpersonal attraction as a function of self-concept
and personality similarity-dissimilarity. Journal of Persona¬
lity and Social Psychology, 4, SB 1 -584.
Griffitt, W. Personality similarity and self-concept as determinants
of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psycholoqy,
1969, 78, 137-146.
Gronland, N. E. The accuracy of teachers' judgement concerning
the sociometric status of sixth-grade pupils. Sociometry
Monographs, No. 25, New York, Beacon House, 1951.
Gronlund, N. E. The relative ability of homeroom teachers to judge
the social acceptability of pre-adolescent pupils. Journal
of Educational Research, 1955, 48, 381-391.
Gronlund, N. E. The general ability to judge sociometric status:
elementary student teachers' sociometric perceptions of class¬
mates and pupils. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1956,
47, 147-157.
Gronlund, N. E. Sociometry in the classroom. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1959.
Grossman, B., & Wrighter, J. The relationship between selection-
rejection and intelligence, social status, and personality
amongst sixth grade children. Sociometry, 1948, JJ_, 346-355.
Guardo, C. J. Sociometric status and self-concept in sixth-graders.
Journal of Educational Research, 1969, 62, 320-322.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., & Beattie, M. Internal-external
control in the motivational dynamics of Negro youth. Journal
of Social Issues, 1969, 2j>, 29-53.
Harrow, M., & Ferrante, A. Locus of control in psychiatric patients.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 582-
589.
Hawes, R. M. Reality therapy in the classroom (Doctoral disserta¬
tion, University of the Pacific, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1971, 32, 2483A.
Hjelle, L. A. Social desirability as a variable in the Locus of
Control Scale. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 807-816.

94
Hollander, E. P. Principles and methods of social psychology.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Horowitz, F. D. The relationship of anxiety, self-concept, and
sociometric status among fourth, fifth and sixth grade
children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,
65, 215-220.
Horowitz, H. Prediction of adolescent popularity and rejection
from achievement and interest tests. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1967, 58, 170-174.
Horrocks, J. E. The Psychology of Adolescence (4th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Miffin, 1976.
Jennings, H. H. Leadership and sociometric choice. Sociometry,
1947, 10, 32-49.
Jennings, H. H. Leadership and isolation. New York: Longmans,
Green and Company, 1950.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in
behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1973.
Lefcourt, H. M. Internal versus external control of reinforcement:
a review. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 65, 206-220.
Lefcourt, H. M., & Wine, J. Internal versus external control of
reinforcement and the deployment of attention in experimental
situations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1969,
I, 167-181. '
Lindzey, G., & Byrne, D. Measurement of social choice and inter¬
personal attractiveness. In Handbook of social psychology,
ed. G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, 2: 452-525. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1968.
MacDonald, A. P., Jr. Internal-external locus of control and the
practice of birth control. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27,
206.
MacDonald, A. P. Internal-external locus of control. In Robinson,
J. P. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). Measures of psychological
attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center,
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973.

95
McGhee, P. E., & Crandall, V. C. Beliefs in internal-external
control of reinforcement and academic performance. Chi Id
Development, 1968, 3!9, 91-102.
Midlarsky, E. Aiding under stress: the effects of competence,
dependency, visibility, and fatalism. Journal of Person-
ality, 1971, 39, 132-149.
Mill, C. R. Personality patterns of sociometrically selected and
sociometrically rejected male college students. Sociometry,
1953, 16, 151-167.
Miller, W., & Seligman, M. E. P. Repression and the perception
of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82,
62-73.
Miréis, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34,
226-228.
Moreno, J. L. Who Shall Survive? Washington, D. C., Nervous and
Mental Disease Publishing Company, 1934.
National Committee on Locus of Control and Self-Esteem. A statement
on a research agenda on locus of control and self-esteem. An
unpublished paper, 1973.
Neugarten, B. L. Social class and friendship among school children.
American Journal of Sociology, 1946, 51_, 305-313.
Newcomb, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American
Psychologist, 1956,’1J_, 575-586.
Newcomb, T. M. The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1961.
Newcomb, T. M. Interpersonal balance. In Abelson, R. P. et al.,
Eds. Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago
Rand McNally, 1968, 28-51.
Newsletter, W. I., Feldstein, M. J., & Newcomb, T. M. Group adjust¬
ment: A study in experimental sociology. Cleveland: Western
Reserve University, 1938.

96
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. Statistical
package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hi11 Book Co., 1975.
Northway, M. L. Outsiders: a study of the personality patterns of
children least acceptable to their age mates. Sociometry, 1944,
7, 10-25.
Northway, M. L., Frankel, E. B., & Potashin, R. Personality and socio¬
metric status. Sociometry Monographs, No. 11, New York: Beacon
House, 1947.
Northway, M. L., & Wigdor, B. T. Rorschach patterns related to the
sociometric status of school children. Sociometry, 1947, 10,
186-189.
Nowicki, S. Factor structure of locus of control in children. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Montreal, September, 1973.
Nowicki, S., & Barnes, J. Effects of a structured camp experience
on locus of control orientation. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1973, 122, 247-252.
Nowicki, S., & Blumberg, N. The role of locus of control of reinforce¬
ment in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Research in Person¬
ality, 1975, 9, 48-56.
Nowicki, S., & Roundtree, J. Correlates of locus of control in
secondary school age students. Developmental Psychology, 1971,
4, 477-478.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale for children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 148-154.
Palmer, J., & Byrne, P. Attraction toward dominant and submissive
strangers: Similarity versus complementarity. Journal of
Experimental Research in Personality, 1970, 4, 108-115.
Pepinsky, P. N. The meaning of validity and reliability as applied
to sociometric tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
1949, 9, 39-49.
Phares, E. J. Differential utilization of information as a function
of internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36,
649-662.

97
Phares, E. J. Locus of control in personality. Morristown, New
Jersey: General Learning Press, 1976.
Phares, E. J., & Wilson, K. G. Internal-external control, inter¬
personal attraction, and empathy. Psychological Reports, 1971,
28, 543-549.
Pinter, R. G., Forlano, G., & Freeman, H. Personality and attitude
similarities among classroom friends. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1937, 2]_, 48-65.
Ray, W. J., & Katahn, M. Relation of anxiety to locus of control
Psychological Reports, 1968, Z3, 1196.
Reader, N., & English, H. B. Personality factors in adolescent
friendships. Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology,
1947, 11, 212-220.
Reese, H. W. Relationships between self-acceptance and sociometric
choices. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62,
472-474.
Reimanis, G., & Schaefer, M. Effects of counseling and achievement
motivation training on locus of reinforcement control. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association, Atlantic City, April, 1970.
Ricciuti, H. N., & French, J. W. Analysis of ratings of leadership
potential at the U. S. Naval Academy. American Psychologist,
1951, 6, 392.
Ritchie, E., 8 Fhares, E. J. Attitude change as a function of
internal-external control and communicator status. Journal
of Personality, 1969, 87, 429-443.
Rogers, C. R. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1961.
Roscoe, J. T. Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral
sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1969.
Rotter, J. B. Social learning and clincial psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80,
(1, Whole No. 609).

98
Ryckman, R. M., Rodda, W. C., & Sherman, M. F. Locus of control
and expertise relevance as determinants of changes in opinion
about student activism. Journal of Social Psychology, 1972,
88, 107-114.
Seeman, M. Alienation and social learning in a reformatory.
American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69, 270-284.
Seeman, M. Alienation, membership and political knowledge: a
comparative study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966, 30,
359-367.
Seeman, M. Powerlessness and knowledge: a comparative study of
alienation and learning. Sociometry, 1967, 30_, 105-123.
Seeman, M., & Evans, J. W. Alienation and learning in a hospital
setting. American Sociological Review, 1962, 27_, 772-783.
Seligman, M. E. P. Fall into helplessness. Psychology Today, June
1973, 43-48.
Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness: theory and evidence.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 3-46.
Stephens, M. W. Dimensions of locus of control: impact of early
educational experiences. Proceedings, 80th Annual Convention,
American Psychological Association, 1972, ~T, (Part 1), 137-138
Strickland, B. R. The prediction of social action from a dimension
of internal-external control. Journal of Social Psychology,
1965, 66, 353-358. '
Thompson, G. G., & Powell, M. An investigation of the rating-scale
approach to the measurement of social status. Educational
and Psychological Measurements, 1951, JJ_, 440-455.
Tolor, A. An evaluation of the Maryland parent attitude survey.
Journal of Psychology, 1967, 67, 69-74.
Tolor, A., & Jalowiec, J. R. Body boundary, parental attitudes,
and internal-external expectancy. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 206-209.
Van Dyne, E. V. Personality traits and friendship formation among
adolescent girls. Journal of Social Psychology, 1940, 12,
291-305.

99
Vi debeck, R. Self-conception and the reaction of others. Sociometry,
1960, 23, 351-359.
Watson, D. Relationship between locus of control and anxiety.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6_, 91-92.
Williams, J. G., & Stack, J. J. Internal-external control as a
situational variable in determining information seeking by
negro students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1972, 39, 187-193.
Winch, R. F. Mate-selection: a study of complementary needs. New
York: Harper and Row, 1958.
Witryol, S. L., & Thompson, G. G. A critical review of the stability
of social acceptability scores obtained with the partial-rank-
order and paired-comparison scales. Genetic Psychology Mono-
graphs, 1953, 48, 221-260.
J

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mike Fagan is the son of Mathew and Rita. He was born in
Youngstown, Ohio, on June 3, 1947. He received his Bachelor of
Arts degree from Marquette University in 1969. After graduating
from Marquette, Mike taught Junior High School in Cleveland, Ohio.
Then he worked as a counselor for the Cleveland Job Corps; during
this time he earned a Master of Arts degree in educational psychol¬
ogy from John Carroll University.
Since 1974 he has been a doctoral student in foundations of
education at the University of Florida. Since moving to Gaines¬
ville, he has met and married Patricia Dunn Fagan. Mike has ac¬
cepted a position at Kentucky Wesleyan College in Owensboro,
Kentucky.
100

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.
Patricia T. Ashton, Chairman
Professor of Foundations of Education
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.
(tqa p\ (ciJUod {¿y*
Walter A. Busty
Professor of Foundations of Education
Â¥
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
Doctor of Philosophy.
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
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.
Robert C. Ziller
Professor of Psychology

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College
of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
June 1977
Dean, College of Educaron
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORina
I III III mu mu i. ..L.YR1DA
J 1262 08553 5663